‘la 1 l - fiv. . 3 Han. I - q . n 3 . - . .. - . It"... .9 3.9:- . . 3.. MW.-.‘ in... n. - n: “ .. .‘.|..v"Qu ‘03 ‘ lhlfl‘ {1%.}fiivf . « a n ‘p ‘Ivflvnullllt If IV Oldcl 1!. a 1‘7 . . D ‘ {1.94 013nm I J 3.-- 4 KI. f-- t p ,: AINIX-n.l¢. ’fti'fljtul} ‘1 .u . z) . 3.1.41... 3131., "it-§fl.lv - VIA . V V. “unul.“ “HE .l .\'\ “ n .1 v .3 u... I?» P.mm.-.h~vfllflbznl‘x .: { .I I... p r J. ,- 1 . . um ‘l‘ ‘0 f 'l I J n !' fl c . n. Elfin I 1.1:- . xtfiunlfllililnll)‘: 1|: ll ‘ .1 rl"- 8 .f:|.v - suo . .ls -. 0L. PI! rll‘. o. r .‘J. ‘JA. I : a... . 3.! . III“!!! I h”! II: "I“! h ‘IM . '1 ' "'41,.” ”Q1.“ ramms llllll’lllllilllflll 'lllllllullllllll'lllll ... v“ “1» r 3 1293 10634 5790 Mkfislgafi Eta“ University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled FAMILY MEMBERS' PERCEPTIONS OF HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION IN RELATIONSHIP TO QUALITY OF LIFE presented by Margaret Prather Ezell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Family Ecology degree in Major professor Due June 16L 1982 MS U is an Affirmative Action/ Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 RETURNING MATERIALS: IVIESI_J Place in book drop to LlBRARlES remove this checkout from n your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. FAMILY MEMBERS' PERCEPTIONS OF HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION IN RELATIONSHIP TO QUALITY OF LIFE BY Margaret Prather Ezell A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1982 ABSTRACT FAMILY MEMBERS' PERCEPTIONS OF HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION IN RELATIONSHIP TO QUALITY OF LIFE By Margaret Prather Ezell The major purpose of the study was to examine the family pr0perties of family members' perceptions regarding responsibility for household production and quality of life. A comparison of three models for determining family properties from self reports of 107 randomly selected family constellations of husband, wife and oldest child between six and twelve was made. The three models for computing family properties were: 1) Additive model- addition of family members' scores across items; 2) Dispersive model- sum of discrepancy between family members' scores across items as a family pr0perty; 3) Discrete model- individual reports as discrete, unique, and independently valid family properties. The major conclusion was that all three models for measuring family preperties indicated that there was a relationship between perceptions of household production responsibilities and perceptions of quality of life. Husband's and wife's perceptions of wife's and child's household production responsibilities were congruent. Husband's and wife's perceptions of husband's responsibilities were not congruent. Husband's and child's and wife's and child's perceptions of child's household production were not congruent. Husband's, wife's and child's triadic perceptions of child's household production responsibilties were congruent. Husband's and wife's perceptions of quality of whole life and quality of family life were congruent. Husband's and child's and wife's and child's perceptions of quality of whole life and quality of family life were not congruent. Husband's, wife's and child's triadic perceptions of quality of family life were congruent but perceptions of quality of whole life were not. Family income and number of family members were the only contextual variables which were systematically related to both individual and triadic family properties of household production and quality of life. DEDICATED To MSE and BP ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A large support network has made my goal of completing the doctoral program a reality. It is impossible to name each and everyone who has contributed but I wish them all to know they are remembered and to thank them. I am grateful for the assistance of my major professor, dissertation director, director of the Household Production Research Project, and mentor, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci. Her influence pervades this entire work. As a model scholar, she has gone the "second mile" in assisting me in every way. Most of the concepts developed in this research have had their origin during formal and informal course work and during research project meetings. Her guidance and unquenchable thirst for knowledge have greatly contributed to my professional development. Dr. Margaret Bubloz, always encouraging and willing to contribute ideas and time, easily stepped in to co-direct my guidance committee and dissertation when help was needed. My profOund graditude is expressed for her contributions. Irene Hathaway, a member of my committee and one of the principal investigators on the larger research project, provided invaluable support especially during my comprehen- sive examination. She provided Opportunities for learning and insightful suggestions which were always much appreciated iii Dr. Mary Andrews, a principal investigator on the larger research project provided valuable assistance during the research process. Statistical procedures and analyses were initiated as a result of her guidance. Dr. Jane Oyer and Dr. Harold Riley served as supportive committee members. Dr. Oyer helped me to eXplore alternative avenues of thought that subsequently led me into a new field of study. Dr. Harold Riley questioned and challenged my knowledge of economics. His searching inquiry brought me to a new and greater understanding of economics. I have had valuable encouragement from Dr. Trudy Nygren, Dr. Marilyn Nagy, and Dr. Eileen Earhart. I am grateful to Dr. Gladys Hildreth, Louisiana State University, for initiat- ing my interest in family economics and management and for suggesting I attend Michigan State University. My friends and colleagues, Dr. Kathryn Rettig, Judy Lazzaro, Donna Ching, Tricia Ormsby, Kelly POplawski, Debi Hogle, and Catherine Waters, were an invaluable source of support and encouragement. They were always willing to give of their time and energy when help was needed. A special contribution was made by The Pennsylvania State University in providing an extension to the starting date of my work and for granting time to complete the finish- ing touches on the dissertation. My co-workers made many adjustments to enable me to finish the dissertation before becoming involved within the department. iv The College of Human Ecology and Department of Family and Child Ecology, the benefactors of assistantships, research funds, and fellowships, along with the Michigan Home Economics Association, the grantor of the Marie Dye Scholarship, enabled me to complete the doctoral program. All their support is greatly appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, Mrs. Mildred S Ezell for her emotional and financial SUpport without which this doctoral program would never have been undertaken or completed. I am also grateful for the inner strength the Lord has given me to look beyond the closed door. ”When one door closes, another opens: but we often look so long and regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has Opened for us." Alexander Graham Bell TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Specific Research Objectives. Hypotheses . . . . . . Definitions Theoretical Definitions Operational Definitions Assumptions Sc0pe II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Conceptual Problems Unit of Analysis. Family PrOperties Congruence Perceptual Accuracy Methodological Problems Explaing Discrepancy. Structural Measures of Congruence Substantive Studies on Congruence Unit of Analysis . . . . . . Household Production. Quality of Life Summary . . . . IV. METHODOLOGY . Research Design . . . Sampling Procedures . . . Data Collection . . . Description of the Study Sample . V1 Page ix xii mwommbuwm H NH l—‘O b-DMMMLNNNNNNNN mM-h-bhOGDVV-bbl—‘H A 0" (I‘m-bk ANN“ Chapter Page IV. METHODOLOGY (cont.) Instrument DeveIOpment Procedures . . . . . . 70 Examination of Literature . . . . . . . . . 71 Pretesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Description of Variables . . . . . . . . . . 73 Scoring . . . . . . . . 74 Perceived Household Production Responsibilites . . . . . . . . . . . 74 - Perceived Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . 76 Congruence of Perceptions . . . . . . . . . 77 Measures of Family PrOperties . . . . . . . 77 Statistical Methods and Assumptions . . . . . 82 Descriptive Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . 82 Paired T- Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Oneway ANOVA. . . . . . . 83 Repeated Measures Design Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . . 83 Type I and Type II Errors . . . . . . . . . 85‘ Pearson Correlation . . . . . . . . 86 Summary of Statistical Procedures . . . . . 37 Data Analysis Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . 89 V. RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSES. . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Descriptive Data for Major Variables. . . . . 90 Perceived Household Production Responsibilites . . . . . . . . 90 Perceived Quality of Whole Life . . . . . . 93 Perceived Quality of Family Life. . . . . . 94 Hypotheses Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Congruence of Perceptions . . . 96 Responsibilites for Household Production. 97 Quality of Life . . . . . . 103 Testing the Family PrOperties Model . . . . 105 Family Pr0perties and Contextual Variables. 112 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 VI. LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS. . . 126 Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Major Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Discussion of Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 135 Implications of the Study. . . . . . . . . . 136 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Practical Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 vii Chapter Page APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 A. Interview Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 B. Sampling Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 C. Portions of Household Production Questionnaire Used in This Study . . . . . . 147 D. Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 E. Reliability Analysis for Quality of Life Questions . . . . . . . . . 175 176 F. Supplementary Findings BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 viii Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF TABLES Summary of Substantive Research on Congruence by Unit of Analysis Summary of Substantive Research on Congruence by Major Topic. Summary of Substantive Research by Contextual Variables Residency of Families Race of Husbands and Wives. Age Distribution of Adults in the Sample. Number of Years Married as Reported by Wives. Highest Level of Education for Adults Family Employment Status. Number of Persons in Household. Reported Family Income Distribution Per Capita Income Distribution. Number of Children Per Family as Reported by h’ives. . . . . . . . . . . . . Age Distribution of Oldest Child by Sex . Frequency Distribution of Age of Oldest Child by Age of Youngest Child in Household . Occupation of Husbands and Wives in Sample. Creation of Children's Variables. Methods Used for Analyses of Data ix Page 35 37 40 SS 55 57 58 6O 61 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 75 88 Table 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Descriptive Statistics for Household Production Responsibilites Variables. Descriptive Statistics for Triadic Family Pr0perties. Descriptive Statistics for Quality of Life Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paired T-Tests for Perceived Household Production Responsibilities Repeated Measures Analysis for Determining the Congruence of Perceptions within a Triad Paired T-Tests for Perceived Quality of Life. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Triadic Family PrOperties--Perceptions of Household Production Responsibilities and Perceptions of Quality of Life. Summary of Findings for Hypotheses 10-13 with Significance Level or Correlation Coefficient Summary of Findings-~Hypotheses l-8 with Significance Level or Alpha Level Demographic Characteristics of Areas in Which Sampling Occured. Classification of Attempted Placement of Questionnaire by Location Classification of Attempted Placement of Questionnaire by Time of Day. Classification of Attempted Placement of Questionnarie by Initial Contact with Family Member. Classification of Attempted Placement of Questionnarie by Eligibility of Family. Page 91 92 95 99 100 101 106 113 122 143 144 144 145 146 Table D-l. Descriptive Statistics for Husband's Self Perception of Responsibilites for Household Production. Descriptive Statistics for Husband's Perceptions of Wife's Responsibilites for Household Production. Descriptive Statistics for Wife's Self Perception of Responsibilties for Household Production. Descriptive Statistics for Wife's Perceptions of Husband's Responsibilties for Household Production. Descriptive Statistics for Husband's Perceptions of Child's Responsibilities for Household Production. Descriptive Statistics for Wife's Perceptions of Child's Responsibilties for Household Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . Descriptive Statistics for Child's Perceptions of Child's Responsibilites for Household Production. . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability of Quality of Life Questions. Oneway ANOVA Tests for Differences in Triadic Perceptions by Child's Age. Oneway ANOVA Tests for Differences in Individual Perceptions of Child's Household Production Responsibilties by Child's Age Oneway ANOVA Tests for Differences in Child's Perceptions of Quality of Life by Child's Age xi Page 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 179 180 180 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Model of Variables for Research Study. . . . . . 43 2. Matrix for Comparing Models of Family PrOperties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As the economy continues to fluctuate, families are assaulted by inflation and recession. The cost of the goods and services that families use is reflected in this upward spiral. It is believed families can maintain or raise their level and standard of living by using their own resources, especially their own labor to produce goods and services. Hence, household production becomes more important. Household production is that production carried out by the family members that produces goods and services that are utilized primarily but not exclusively by family members. Generally it is viewed as non-paid productive activity with use value, although it may have exchange value in the market place. Because it is carried out in large part in the privacy of the household it tends to be invisible and may be given little economic value in the larger economic and social system. Household production activities tend to be complex and interdependent rather than product oriented but they may have considerable value, both economic and personal, within the family system raising both level of living and levels of competence, hence standard of living (Deacon and Firebaugh, 1981; Paolucci and Ching, 1982; Walker and Woods, 1976). Producing goods and services for use of family members is on going and essential to family life. Managing family resources including the activities of family members so that household production can occur in an efficient and effective manner may be essential to the family's achieving its desired level of living and satisfaction with quality of life. Household production of goods and services may be done by all family members, with each family member having a specific responsibility. Household production is a basic family activity and can be viewed as a family property, since more than one family member is involved. As families attempt to seek ways of coping with the rising cost of living their quality of life may be affected by their perceptions of the responsibilities they and other members of the family have for household production. Congruence of these perceptions may be important to family members' quality of life as the family seeks to maintain or raise their level of living through household production activities because it reflects shared meaning or a commonality of goals and a willingness to work toward these goals. Some researchers have related congruence of perceptions of family members to martial satisfaction and quality of life (Chadwick 33 al., 1976; Smith 2; 31., 1982). Most of these studies have examined the husband and wife dyad. Only a few studies have examined the perceptions of parent and child. There is a lack of research that examines perceptions of family members on household production in relation to quality of life. There is a need to examine the relationship between household production and quality of life from a family property perspective. STATEMENT .O_F_' THE PROBLEM This research examines the family constellation, husband, wife and oldest child between age six and twelve, involved in household production. PURPOSE pg THE STUDY The major purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of family members' perceptions of responsibility for household production and quality of life. Specific Research Objectives 1. Determine if there is congruence of family members' perceptions about responsibilities for household production. 2. Determine if there is congruence of family members' perceptions about quality of life. 3. Investigate the relationship between the family properties of household production responsibilities and perceived quality of life. 4. Describe the the relationship of individual family member's reports of household production responsibilities and perceived quality of life to contextual variables. 5. Describe the relationship of family members' reports of household production responsibilities and perceived quality of life to contextual variables. Hypotheses Hypotheses for Research Objective 1 are: There is congruence between husband's report and wife's report of husband's household production responsiblities. There is congruence between wife's report and husband's report of wife's household production responsibilities. There is congruence between husband's and wife's' reports of child's household production responsibilities. There is congruence between husband's and child's or wife's and child's report of child's household production responsibilities; There is congruence between husband's, wife's and child's reports of child's household production responsibilities. Hypotheses for Research Objective 2 are: 6. 7. There is congruence between husband's and wife's reports of perceived quality of life. There is congruence between husband's and child's or wife's and child's report of perceived quality of life. There is congruence between husband's, wife's and child's reports of perceived quality of life. Hypothesis for Research Objective 3 is: 9. a) There is a relationship between the family properties of total household production responsibilities and perceptions of quality of life. b) There is a relationship between the family properties of child's household production responsibilites and perceptions of quality of life. Hypotheses for Research Objective 4 and 5 are: 10. ll. 12. 13. This Individual family member's reports of household production will differ by contextual variables. Individual family member's reports of perceived quality of life will differ by contextual variables. Family properties of household production responsibilities will differ by contextual variables. Family properties of perceived quality of life will differ by contextual variables. DEFINITIONS section includes theoretical and operational definitions of concepts that are relevant to this study. Theoretical Definitions Household Production. Involvement in the production of goods and services. "Non-paid productive activities occurring primarily in the home or performed for direct use in the home....that enable a family or unit to function and provide for the well-being of individuals in the unit" (Deacon and Firebaugh, 1981, p. 142; Walker and Woods, 1976, p. xx ). Quality of Life. Rettig (1980) referring to the works of Dalkey and Rourke, and Mitchell gt gl., defined quality of life as "A person's sense of well being, satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life, or unhappiness or happiness.... An individual's overall perceived satisfaction of needs over a period of time...." (p. 17). Quality of Family Life. "A person's overall perceived satisfaction/happiness or dissatisfaction/unhappiness with family life over a period of time.... A person's evaluation of the conditions offered in family life compared to the conditions desired" (Rettig, 1980, p. 17). ' Responsibility. The performance of domestic chores and economic tasks that contribute to the family's welfare (Whiting and Whiting, 1975). Congruence. The quality or state of according or coinciding family members share on the following: role expectations for family members, definitions of the situation, goals and criteria for evaluating problems and problem solving performance. Family Property. A measure or family score which reflects input from one or more family members. While people have norms or rules, relationships between people have properties (Englund, 1981; Klein, 1982; Olson, 1981; Thompson and Walker, 1981 . Operational Definitions Household Production. Evaluation of respondents perceived household production responsibilities in response to questions 26.1 to 26.19, 27.1 to 27.19, and 28.1 to 28.16 in the adult's questionnaire and questions 25 to 47 in the child's questionnaire. Quality of life. Evaluation by respondent to delighted-terrible or faces scale in questions 1.1, 1.8, 29.1 and 29.2 in the adult's questionnaire and questions 8 and 9 in the child's questionnaire. Congruence. Degree of agreement of family members 10. The on perceptions of self and other on household production responsibilities and quality of life. Family Properties. Scores of family members' perceptions of responsibilities for household production and quality of life determined in this study by three methods: a) Additive- sum or average of individual family member's reports. b) Dispersive- discrepancy between individual family member's reports. c)Discrete- each individual's report is a unique and valid measurement. Family Income. Husband's and wife's responses to question 42.7b on individual income. Employment Status. Number of adult wage earners within the household (dual earner, single earner, both unemployed). Age of Parent. Husband's or wife's age on his/her last birthday. Age of Oldest Child. Age of oldest child on his/her last birthday according to categories (6 to 8 years, 9 to 10 years, 11 to 12 years). Highest Level of Education. Highest level of education attained by adult family members (Adult questionnaire item 42.5). Number of Family Members. Total number of parents, children, other relatives, and non-relatives living within the household. ASSUMPTIONS assumptions underlying this research are: Respondents can accurately evaluate and report their responsibilities for household production. Respondents can accurately evaluate and report their feelings about quality of life. 3. Husbands, wives and children respond independently to questions about household production responsibilities. 4. Husbands, wives and children respond independently to questions about quality of life. 5. The delighted-terrible scale and the faces scale for quality of life yields numerical responses that can be treated as interval data. 6. Quality of life can be assessed directly by asking people about their family activities. 7. Responsibilities for household production can be assessed directly by asking people about their life and family. 8. The respondent's evaluations of other family members are important in understanding congruence on household production responsibilities and quality of life. 9. Individuals can accurately report their cognition and feeling states. 10. Perceptions reflect the reality of the situation for the respondent. 11. Family properties can be determined from self reports of individual family members. .S£_<>P_E. The present study is limited to the examination of family properties on perceptions of 1) household production responsibilities and 2) quality of life as measured by subjective indicators. Perceptions of household production responsibilities, the central area of interest, are probably influenced by the respondents expectations of self and others. Conformity to these expectations though not researched here may also affect perceptions of household production responsibilities and quality of life. Data are limited to responses to survey questions. CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The conceptual framework of this study is based upon participative management theory that posits that responsibilty and involvement of members in group activities results in increased productivity and greater satisfaction. Likert (1967), McGregor (1960), Maslow (1965), Dale (1968) and Ouchi (1981) are among those who developed the theory of participative management. The major postulates of participative management hold that the participation of group members in significant management activities leads to: 1) positive achievement of group goals, and 2) achievement of high level ego and self-actualization needs of participating members. McGregor (1960) put forth two theories of management, Theory x and Theory Y. Theory x is based on a traditional view of management and rests upon assumptions about the human nature of the average individual. Those assumptions are: l. The average individual dislikes work and will avoid it if he can. 2. The average individual is reluctant to put forth adequate effort toward achieving organizational objectives. 10 11 3. The average individual prefers to be directed, to avoid responsibility and desires security (1960, pp.33-34). In essence, Theory X contends the average individual is lazy, does not care about the group and wants an overseer. The basic principle of Theory X is the "scalar principle" which stresses direction and control through the exercise of authority (p.49). Theory Y's assumptions are different from those of Theory x. Theory Y asserts that: l. The average individual enjoys the physical and mental efforts in work. 2. The average individual will exercise self-direction and self control in an effort to meet the objectives to which he is committed. 3. The average individual's commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement. 4. The average individual will not only accept but seek responsibility. 5. The average individual has the capacity to use imagination, ingenuity and creativity to solve organizational problems (pp. 47-48). Theory Y implies that human growth and development are likely within a context of participative management. The central principal of Theory Y is integration, "the creation of conditions such that the members of the organization can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts 12 toward the success of the enterprise" whereas the "scalar principle" demands only that the group goals be achieved (McGregor, 1960, p.49). The integration principle demands that both individual and the organizational needs/goals be recognized (p.51). According to Theory Y, if integration is not achieved the organization or group will suffer. Theory Y organizations prefer to distribute responsibilities widely among individuals. Theory Y organizations want the individual to be consciously involved in the relations between what the individual does and what others are doing as they relate to group goals (Thierauf, pp 31., 1977). Recently, Theory 2 has been proposed by Ouchi (1981). Theory 2 concurs with the assumptions of Theory Y but adds an additional assumption which contends that the responsibilities sought by the individual and over which they are capable of self-control are "culture-related". Because of changing societal needs and goals, productivity and economic rewards are no longer the only goals of the individual. Campbell (1981) notes there are a growing number of people for whom values other than those of an economic nature are important. According to Chruden and Sherman (1980) "productivity plus individual and aggregate quality of life more nearly describes today's and tomorrow's goals" (p. 285). Yankelovich (1981) states "there has been a significant change in American's attitudes toward work and 13 success.... What has changed ... is not our willingness to work, but what we want to get out of a job or career. Many workers, both young and old, seem to be seeking a wholly new set of psychological satisfactions from their jobs" (p. 76). Yankelovich further noted that workers seeking self-fulfillment are determined to prove that life is more than a "grim _economic chore." They are demanding intangibles for self-fulfillment. Some of the intangibles they demand are creativity, leisure, autonomy, pleasure, and participation. "To the efficiency of a technological society they wish to add joy of living" (p. 39). Workers are no longer automatically accepting authority. "They want to participate in decisions that affect their work. They prefer variety to routine, informality to formalism. They want their work to be interesting as well as pay well" (p. 78). Individuals wish to be involved, to participate in management of their activities in all areas of living - family, paid work, community affairs. Their goals are to increase productivity, increase rewards, and increase their quality of life. In organizations using a Theory 2 mode, the decision-making process is typically a consensual, participative one. Schein (1969) defines the consensual process as one in which members of the group may be asked to accept responsibility for a decision that they do not l4 prefer, but that the group, in an open and complete discussion has settled upon. Ouchi (1981) notes that a central feature of all organizations using a Theory 2 management mode is a strong egalitarian atmosphere, i.e., equality of influence and of power. All group members are involved. The business management theories X, Y, and 2 have similarities and differences relative to family management. Theory X posits a hierarchical or vertical pattern of relationships between the worker and management. Theories Y and z posit a more horizontal focus on patterns of relationships between organization members. Family management, which represents management in an informal organization, posits a horizontal pattern of relationships between family members. As family management theorists have borrowed concepts from business management, so to have business management theorist made analogies to families and borrowed concepts from family management (Miller and Swanson, 1958; Ouchi, 1981). In a study of management in families, Dale (1968) found the degree of participation by all family members in family work was related to the perceptions or beliefs held by family members especially the home manager. Dale suggests that the home manager who has positive feelings about the worth of others, and who could accept different standards of 15 work from other family members, could expect more participation of family members in household tasks. This association supports the idea that shared perceptions of family members result in more participation, increased self-actualization and hence greater potential for accomplishing the work of the family. The essence of participative management within the family is to trust family members, to grant them the power to motivate and control themselves, to believe in family member' capacity to integrate their own values within the goals of the groups. In a study of family management based on Herbst's structures of management, Onorato (1968) found that family management is dominated by husband and wife. Teenage children have little involvement in management. Onorato categorized family management into four areas: household tasks, family care activities, economic activities and social activities. Onorato found: 1) household tasks are managed autonomously by wives; 2) wife autonomous and syncratic structures are used for management of family care; 3) husband autonomous and wife autonomous structures are used for economic activities; and 4) social activities are managed by husband autocratic, wife autocratic and syncratic structures. Weick (1971) has advanced a model for studying family processes and problem solving in which he notes how group 16 members with diverse and common goals may work together for the betterment of both the individual and the group. From Weick's model it is clear that some behaviors of group members are oriented toward a common goal while others are not. The model assumes that all groups including families form around people who are pursuing their own goals. The model moves family processes through an orderly sequence of steps beginning with (1) diverse ends, leading to (2) common means, (3) common ends, and (4) diverse means and returning back to step (1). An example of a common end shared by the family is the goal that the group should be "preserved, and perpetuated" (p. 26). Within the model, family members converge at two points-common means and common ends. It is typical, asserts Weick (1971), to find that "groups implement a division of labor (diverse means) to aid in task performance" (p. 27). Through division of labor, the family is better able to exploit the unique resources that are available among members to meet their individual and family goals. When family members participate together as a group, 'younger family members can learn about work. One purpose of parenthood is teaching children to work, to work together with others. While participating in the group process, children learn responsibility; they learn to become responsible individuals. Hill (1981) defines responsible persons as "those who are self confident, self accepting, I7 and self directing. They participate in their social setting in individual and unique ways, but with caring concern for the well-being of others" (p. l). Matteson (1975) notes that there is a need for children to work along with adults, with the adults encouraging them to accept responsibility for tasks and for making decisions. Bronfenbrenner (1979) has stated that human development is facilitated when the developing person can experience interactions which become progressively more complex. These interactions with significant others encourage a gradual shift of power toward the developing person. Stephens (1979) found that most responsible teenagers started as family helpers. They had been placed in responsible adult-like roles. Bronfenbrenner, (1979): Matteson, (1975); Stephens, (1979); and Whiting and Whiting (1975) note that a child is stimulated to become a responsible person when the contributions the child makes are needed, when the child is given the opportunity to participate in group decision making or to make individual decisions, and when the child can be with, imitate and help responsible adults. Sherif E; El, (1961) working with normal young children reported on producing two contrasting patterns of group behavior (hostility-harmony) within a period of a few weeks during. an experiment. Sherif found that integration of the group and group harmony were brought about by participation 18 in a joint effort when working toward a superordinate goal that Scherif described as "real and compelling for all concerned." Slaugh (1981) states that "working together for the maintenance and well-being of the family can be just such a goal....when all feel the responsibility towards the common goal, the result can be an integrated, harmonious family. The fact that housework is humble work, that doing it requires some sacrifice on the part of each family member, adds to, rather than detracts from, this unifying potential....It should be stressed that in order for participation in housework to have this integrative effect, family members need to share the goal of being part of and contributing to the well-being of the family. This is not to say that participation in housework must be voluntary or your first choice of things to do. The fact that it requires some sacrifice on the part of each individual contributes to the integrative possibilities" (pp. 21-22). Juster _£.al., (1980) suggest that researchers have failed to note one of the major benefits of household production. Many researchers have studied time use within the family (Walker and Woods, 1976; Robinson, 1977; McCullough, 1980) and in some cases have tried to place a dollar value on time spent in household production (Gage, 1975). According to Juster 33 gl., these researchers have failed to note the "process benefits" of household 19 production. Juster EE al., state a single activity may have more than one outcome, the first, a tangible outcome such as produce gathered from a garden, dishes washed or meals cooked; and the second, an intangible, a process benefit such as teaching a child responsibility for the soil, opportunities to communicate, joy in working together toward a common goal of clean dishes or a well cooked meal. These subjective satisfactions with work are not _measured by number of tangible goods produced or placing a dollar value on time spent in work. They may in fact only be quantifible indirectly through measures of satisfaction with life - quality of whole .life and family life. Participation of family members together in household work may be a major process benefit. Family members sharing common goals and participating together in task performance leads to common commitment which may be expressed in subjective measures such as congruence of perception of satisfaction. Participatory management theory posits that when goals are shared, more gets done, individuals feel involved and therefore more satisfied. The goal of the family, states Slaugh, "is to become an integrated whole, with each individual as concerned for the growth and well-being of the other family members as they are for themselves" (p. 22). In this research, perceptions of household production are viewed as beliefs of ' family members about their 20 responsibility for participation in household production. Family member's perceptions of household production are assumed to reflect the degree of participation or involvement that member's assume in carrying out work in the family. The hypotheses are designed to test the degree of congruence (shared beliefs) among family members about household production responsibilities and the relationship of these perceived responsibilities to quality of life. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of literature is organized into five sections. The first section deals with conceptual problems, the second with methodological problems. The third, fourth and fifth sections present previous substantive research on congruence, household production responsibility and quality of life, respectively. Conceptual Problems Conceptual problems can be classified into three areas. The areas are: unit of analysis, congruence, and perceptual accuracy. Unit _f Analysis One of the major conceptual problems in family research is the misuse of the "family" as the unit of analysis when the actual unit of analysis is the individual, usually the wife; or the dyad, usually the husband and wife. Children are systematically excluded from the "family". Traditionally, as Safilios-Rothschild (1969) has pointed 21 22 out, the wife has been the sole reporter (Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Fox, 1973; Richmond, 1976; Szinovacz, 1979). Safilios-Rothschild has challenged other family researchers to conceptualize the unit of analysis as being made up of the perspectives of all family members. The use of wife as sole respondent is favored for essentially three reasons: 1) accessibility, 2) reduced costs to interview one person, and 3) assumption of basic agreement among family members. To generalize from sole respondent to the group, it must be assumed that the lone reporter can accurately and impartially describe the group. In the case of the husband and wife dyad, it is assumed that the wife's responses are equivalent to the responses the husband would give if asked. Asking the wife only to act as respondent would be acceptable if husband and wife responses, in fact, are congruent. The probability of incongruent reSponses increases as the researcher moves beyond the dyad to include more family members. As more researchers pointed out the fallacy of one respondent representing the' family, three methods emerged for reporting on the family (more commonly the husband and wife dyad). This turn of events led researchers to asking both husband and wife for individual responses (White and Brinkerhoff, 1977, 1978). Some researchers at this point did not mold the two individual responses into a family or 23 dyad responses, instead, they reported both individual responses in their findings (Chadwick gg gl., 1976). The second method of reporting the couples responses, an aggregate method of reporting differences between all husbands and all wives was accepted by many researchers (Center 23 al., 1971). As researchers moved into the study of the family, earlier reported incongruence between members of individual dyads (still predominantly husband and wife) emerged as a pattern (Davis, 1971; Ferber, 1955; Granbois and Willett, 1970; Olson and Rabunsky, 1972; Safilios-Rothschild, 1969; Scanzoni, 1965; Turk and Bell, 1972; and Van E5 and Shingi, 1972). Because of the incongruence between individual members of the family, more and more researchers using the aggregate method moved to reporting both aggregate and individual couple incongruence. Increasingly, research that used only aggregate data has been critized (Olson and Rabunsky, 1972). The move beyond the husband and wife dyad has been slow. A few researchers have gathered self-report data from several members of the family (Niemi, 1968; Larson, 1974). The move from reporting on dyads: husband and wife, wife and child, or husband and child to the triad and beyond has been undertaken by relatively few researchers (Acock and Bengtson, 1980; and Larson, 1974). 24 ‘Family Properties With the move to examine congruence beyond the dyad, there has emerged a new interest in creating measures of family properties,that is, family scores or interactive measures (Englund, 1981; Klein, 1982; Olsen, 1981). Family properties reflect input from one or more family members according to Klein (1982). Families are multimembered and multifaceted groups. While people have norms, rules and power, note Thompson and Walker (1981), relationships between people have properties. Family properties, they contend, must reflect the patterning between individuals. Moen (1980) has called for an extension of the focus on measurement of social well-being, family indicators of well-being or what this author calls the family property of quality of life. Families, as Klein has noted, have many properties including that of congruence and dispersion of perceptions among family members. To be comparable, state Lazarsfeld and Menzel (1969), individual members and collectives (families) must be described by distinct properties. Congruence There is a difference between consensus and congruence as defined in Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1964). Consensus is 25 defined: "general agreement; collective Opinion; the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned" (p. 479). Congruence is defined as "the quality or state of according or coinciding" (p. 482).' While the term consensus has been used consistently within the literature, this author has chofisen to use congruence to describe the property found within families. Consensus implies agreement (which may have been mediated between the parties) at a conscious level. The magnitude of reports Of incongruence within families has led to the belief that there are many forms of incongruence. The solidarity in belief and sentiment defined as consensus may not always exist in families, but rather families may have attained ‘a quality or state of accordance (congruence). Consensus by definition seems to denote a unidimenisional concept while congruence as a quality or state conveys the idea of multidimensionality. Booth and Welch (1978) argue that the lack Of unidimensionality goes far in explaining why researchers have obtained mixed findings in past research. The majority of studies on 'congruence' have considered only two dimensions of congruence: l) agreement on interpretation of shared events and 2) attitudinal agreement. A question which may be asked is whether there are other dimensions that have not been defined. 26 While most family theory appears to be based on some form of balance - equilibrium (Heider, 1958) some authors perceive the family process as one of continuous confrontation between family members with conflicting interests (Sprey, 1979; Larson, 1974). Larson (1974) states that focusing on equilibrium models only leads researchers "to ignore perceptual disparities and behavioral incOngruities in marriage and family systems" (p. 125). He also notes that some well known studies in family interaction do not deal with differences in perception Of family members but rather with the process by which families resolve differences such as in decision making (Kenkel, 1957; Strodtbeck, 1954). Congruence and noncongruence within the family are explained in the literature in two forms- structural and cohesion (Booth and Welch, 1978). Structural explanations for congruence are based on homogeneity (the state of being alike in kind or nature). Accordingly, persons of similar or homogenous age, background, family size, ethnicity, education, and religion would be more congruent while heterogenous or dissimilar persons would have incongruent perceptions. The cohesion explanation of congruence acts in many studies as an independent variable for predicitng marital adjustment or cohesion (Smith 23 31., 1982). 27 Perceptual Accuracy Ferreira (1964) defines interpersonal perceptivity as "the ability to guess...accurately the mood, attitude and behavior of another individual/or group" (p. 64). Perceptual accuracy has been found to be related to several factors: 1. the similarity of the perceiving event to preceding perceiving events, 2. breath Of experience, intelligence, cognitive complexity, self insight, social skills and adjustment, detachment, aesthetic attitude, and intraceptiveness, 3. the age and gender Of the perceiver (Larson, 1974). Ferreira (1963, 1964) found that children are more perceptive than adults, parents more perceptive of same gender child, and husbands and wives equally perceptive. There are also many levels of perception within a family or a single individual (Larson, 1974). "Family reality" then is "the way it is as seen through the eyes and experience of all family participants" (Larson, 1974, p. 124). Methodological Problems Methodological problems within the study of congruence can be classified into two areas: explanations of discrepancy and structural measures of families. 28 Explaining Discrepancy Five methods for explaining discrepancy between family members' perceptions pervade the literature. They are: 1) measurement error, 2) conventionality or social desirability, 3) hard versus soft data, 4) ignoring the issue, and 5) treatment of the discrepancy as an aspect Of family reality. Because discrepancy has been found among 10 to 15 percent of all couples depending on the questions asked, several researchers have concluded that discrepancy is a function of random measurement error and hence have questioned reliability (Davis, 1970; Granbois and Willet, 1970; Quarm, 1981). This measurement error is associated with using responses of two observers to the same phenomenon. Measurement error may arise as a result of question ambiguity, in identification of who is responsible for an action, difficulty in recall, or from differences in awareness (Douglas and Wind, 1978). A suggested method of increasing reliability is through creating multi-item indices (Quarm, 1981). The second method of explaining discrepancy between family members is based on the notion of "conventionality" or social desirability. Items with socially desirable response options will generate high levels of congruence. "Conventionality" or social desirability includes the idea 29 of stereotypic gender roles. Several researchers have drawn attention to this explanation (Berk and Shih, 1980; Chesser 2; El ., 1979; Larson, 1974; Olson and Rabunsky, 1972; Turk and Bell, 1972; Vans Es and Shingi, 1972). Other biases have been noted besides gender stereotyping: modesty (Ferber, 1955; Turk and Bell, 1972); vanity (Jessop, 1981; Olson, 1969); or both (Granbois and Willett, 1970; Larson, 1974). As Booth and Welch (1978) have stated "almost any question has elements of desirability in it, especially items dealing with sensitive subjects such as family life" (p. 28). Other researchers have drawn attention to a third explanation for discrepancies among family members concerning the types of questions asked. The hypothesis they put forth is, higher congruence will be found on "hard" (behavioral, objective) data rather than on "soft" (evaluative, judgmental) data (Ballweg, 1969; White and Brinkerhoff, 1978). Soft data questions are exemplified by the question 'Who makes most Of the decisions?‘; hard data questions by 'Who takes out the garbage?'. In this same vein another explanation for discrepancy based on the type of question is the hypothesis that agreement is higher on specific questions rather than general questions (Safilios-Rothschild, 1969). The fourth method of dealing with discrepancy is to simply ignore the differences in 30 perceptions (Herr, 1962; Wilkening and Morrison,‘ 1963; Scanzoni, 1965). The final method of dealing with discrepancy between family members is to treat it as an aspect of family reality. "There is no necessary reason for assuming that differential perception is not an aspect of family reality" states Larson (1974, p. 124). Thompson and Walker (1981) have reminded family researchers that "it is theoretically and statistically inconsistent to consider the gap in individual reports as both error and true discrepancy" (p. 12). Since it is impossible to determine the percentage of error and the percentage of true discrepancy in the total discrepancy, researchers must choose one alternative and automatically exclude the other. Structural Measures 9f Families To arrive at structural measures of families, individual reports (first order data) must be combined somehow to derive or infer properties of the dyad, triad, or entire family relationship (second order data). Safilios-Rothschild (1969) has challenged researchers to conceptualize the unit of analysis as being made up of many perspectives. The dilemma lies in how a family property is derived. Using only one person's perspective may deny the complexity of the relationship. On this point Klein (1981) 31 states "the relationship is greater than and different from the sum of the parts" (p. 2). There has been an increased impetus to study more than one member of a relationship. Some of the impetus for moving beyond the individual to the .relationship, note Thompson and Walker (1981) has come from studies in which partners say one thing and behave quite differently (Larson, 1974), one member's perspective is systematically biased (Olson and Rabunsky, 1972), and where studying one partner only does not provide information about complex relationships (Safilios-Rothschild, 1969). Streuch (1969) compares individuals to atoms and families to molecules. To make a molecule, he states, one cannot simply add atoms together, rather one needs to understand the bonds between atoms. The bonds or relationships are such family properties as congruence of perceptions, complementarity, reciprocity, and interdependence. Klein (1982) suggests several methodological models or techniques to arrive at what may be called family properties, relationships or bonds. The five models or techniques are: l. Compromise or Additive model- sum or average of individual reports; 2. Dispersion or Discrepancy model- discrepancy between individual reports; 3. Discrete or Disjunctive model- each individual report is a discrete unique, and valid measurement; 32 4. Discriminative or Weighted model- weights reports according to a criteria of adequacy; 5. Structural or Conjunctive model- combines reports based on their convergence (factor analysis, correlations, cluster analysis). Klein suggests that all five models or as many models as appropriate to the data be used on family data so the models may be pitted one against the other. Other researchers have called for the use of only One or two methods of combining individual reports into family measures. Englund (1981) suggests two reasons for the use of both sum and difference scores in the same research: 1. Sum and difference scores are metric values, potentially expanding the types of statistical tests that can be employed. 2. Sum and difference scores generate a continuum of level and magnitude of discrepancy present that permit comparisonS‘ between couples on dynamics of each particular relationship. Englund reminds the reader that sum and difference scores are not independent, for example, husbands and wives having high life satisfaction (additive score) should have a low discrepancy score. Using the Locke-Wallace Short Form Marital Adjustment Scale, Englund found that sum and difference scores effectively differentiated between couples in a manner that was consistent with their global reports of marital happiness (including tensions and harmony) while 33 non-dyadic individual measures obscured relative harmony and tensions within the couple. Booth and Welch (1978) note that the use of sum and difference scores do not preclude the possibility of a combined estimate of each couple's relationship through the use of other procedures such as canonical correlations. When scoring procedures are varied on the same data, Szinovacz (1978) and Hesselbart (1979) have shown that differing results are obtained. White and Brinkerhoff's (1978) data do not provide a basis for depending on either spouse when a valid description of structrual properties is desired. They found that combining husband-wife reports of marital adjustment seemed to have the most promise for an overall measure Of dyadic adjustment. White and Brinkerhoff recommend simply adding husband and wife scores as a first step in the measurement of dyadic properties. In a limited test, White and Brinkerhoff note that the simple adding of scores works "as well as more complex weighting procedures and shows moderate criterion validity" (1978, p. 227). The methods they examined were: (l)individua1 scores, (2) sum scores, (3) the sum of individual member's scores which had been squared, (4) giving double weight to the least happy individual, and (5) giving double weight to the wife's responses. 34 Substantive Studies 93 Congruence Studies of congruence are summarized into two clasifications, unit of analysis and major topics. Unit _f Analysis Within this section selected substantive research on congruence by the unit of analysis is reviewed. Four units of analysis are considered: 1) husband and wife aggregate; 2) husband and wife paired; 3) parent and child paired; and 4) the triad or larger family group. Principal findings of the selected studies are noted in Table 1. Husband and wife aggregate data report the responses of all husbands compared to all wives. Husband and wife paired data report the responses of husband compared to wife, within the couple. Parent and child paired data report comparisons within the dyad. The triad or larger family group as reported here, make comparisons within the family unit. Household Production Studies in which congruence on household production activities have been measured are reported. They are also summarized in Table 2 along with other studies on congruence according to major topic. Selected studies in which household production activities have been related to contextual variables are noted in Table 3. 3S .pcoEoopmm ummOH pmxp com paw omaz flucoeoowwm pmos pmzp wwwz cam pcmnmsz .mwouomm OfiEOcouO -OHOOm :o u:oEooumm :mfi: .Oocoswmcoocw uwmmm .Oocoshmcoucfi Oflmmm .oocozwmcoocw memm .Oucoshmcoocfi Ofimmm .oucoshmcouafi uwmwm .Oocoahwcoucfi Ofimmm .Oucoswm:OO:H OHmmm .mxmmu pfiocomson :O pcosoopwm $55 .oocoswmcoocfi Oflmmm .Oocoswmcoocfi Ofimmm .oocoshwcoocfi uammm .oocoshmcoocfl OHmmm .mufimou NH co “cosmowwm mo :Houpmm “coumwmcoo Oz .mo>fl3 paw mpcmnmsn coozuon muco3hmcoocfi Oflmmm .mo>fi3 paw mpcmpmsn :oozuon ucosooumm Oflmmm AaAaHV acmwaq ”Naafiv sate w emaoo Amamfiv Ameflam w mm ea> flNaaHV Hfiom w Muse Amomflv Sacaeaum Amoafiv efiuaumeoom-m0AHAmam Amamflv Axmasaam w acmfio floaafiv saaeom-euwta Aoamflv nacho w Haoz Hammad aomwaq flonmfiv OOOHHHz w mfionaawo Ammafiv panama Awnmfiv pa“: w mmfimsoa ficaafiv mfl>aa Awnafiv gnaw: w auoom ANwaHV meom w eateeou Amnmfiv .Hm po whoucou Aefinau cam Hemtaav emtaaa 1...: an. acmamaac saunas Amos: can eemnmszv oumwoumw< mwnflpcflm Hmmfiocflum zpnum mamafiae< mo one: .mfimzam:< mo was: kn mucospmcou :O cowmomom o>flpcmumnsm mo Ahmaesm--.a manmh 36 .pafizo onu mo own use xom kn >wm> xufifimow >HHEmm wo mcoflumoowom .ZOH pan acmufl -WMcme pHOQOH m.pHH£O paw .mucopmm coozuon coaumfioomm< .m.pogumw saga Omcommow m.pHfi:O mo o>fip0fipowm Oon Omcommop m.Ho:qu .oum xogu cozy oxfiam oon on Op mucopwm po>fiouhom cop -eafleu .xmm an ouemwmmmfie on was udoEoopmw Househwm poumpommmxo cowpawnu .paflao paw ow“: coozuon swap Mozoa Saucwfifim omaz cam panama: coozpon u:oEOOHm< .moaop Hmcoflpmmsooo :0 now can ow“: coozuon ucoaoowmm who ”VASES comps; flowmfiv :oommamm w xuou< ANAQHU Hfimm w Ayah flHAmHU compouan AQSOAM womhma ho pawnu eem OLA: .eaaamsmv pwfiwh nefiaau one bawtaav eoaflaa mwcflpcfim Hmmfiucfihm xosum mflmsfiae< we owe: .eosenuaoo--.fl manna 37 .mcflaooxomzo: moop 0:3 paw pfisocm on: no uchoowmmep omflz paw panama: OHmmm .mowpoazocxom wocuwma coca xuflfiflnfimcommow OHoE mfiom o>fim OMMz paw panama: .m:prmuoomxo OHOA wopzom Hmcofiufipmhp mzofifiom noan mo :OHmfi>fip omfiz paw panama: .mxmmu paonomson can: afiaa m.eaaamse mo mGOfiumouwom omfiz paw pcmnmsn oumwouwwm :oozuon :Ofluocsnmflp unmufiwflcwfim .coflumefiumo -wopcs mo mHo>OH pommOH ho powwoww Op OHQSOO :Hflsa: to :amsa: mxmmu :fimuwou .:OHusafipu:OO momOOQm mo :oflumsflumo -popcs Op Ono u:oEOOhmmmfip owflz paw pcmamsn powflmm .mMme :0 udoEoowwm owflz paw panama: mummowwm< floaafiv oxz Awaafiv amsaamtflm w eoomau>og flakmflv cemtmg flNmeV opom w :mwpcou flomaflv cflcm w 996m GOHHUDUOHQ UHOSGm—AOI mmcflpaflm Hmmflucflwm Aesum OHQOH AOHOZ .Oflmoe Acnmz kn OOaOSchou :O :upmomom m>flucmumnsm mo >meE:m--.~ OHQOH 38 .m:04umouhom HanomuomnOpcfl H0 Hmmzommnouafl wow pOphommsm RHHmwocOw you cofiuuwmmflumm Hmufiwme paw mcofiumoopom m0 mucospwcoo m0 OMEmGOHOHHOm .mo>43 How :04uommmfiumm Hauflwwe @040404 mzmcomcoo Hamsomm .6044 AHHEAW Op OOHHHOH >40>flummoc mOHSmmoe O>4400n40 :0 pamphwcoocfl OM43 paw pcmnmsz .p005009mm mumpopoe Op 304 .4005000mm mumpopos OH 304 .4005009wm oumuopoe OH 304 .u:oEoopwm oumwopoe 04 304 .ucoeoopmm oumwopoe 00 304 .OM44 04043 04 pouOHOH >40>Hummoc mOHSmmoe o>4400m40 :0 pcoshmcoucfl 0w43 paw pcmnmsz AOBQHV comwcom-mhopqmm AOAQHV Looawoxewwm Amwafiv .4« am EOAEm AmSQHV 45342 mooafiv HHOAAAO w :noe nmom40 .4a 86 Hoeeax 44wm40 aommow 4m0040 Ametoe w mam: AmeHV .40 no cuHEm :OAOOOMmHumm Hmuwwmz 6044 AHAEam mo 3044aso omw4 040:: m0 3444050 mmcflpcfim Hmmflucflhm kp3um 04009 Acne: .emseflueou--.m mfiaae 39 .omsomm Op H0300 0905 wousnwwuum ow43 paw panama: .Ho300 :0 0mH3 paw panama; :003404 ooconwmqoocfi OHmOm .400500wwm omH3 can panama: $4» .u:oEOOhwm OM43 paw pcmnmsz woo nNASHV 446m w Ease 4NAQHL xxmesaam w :om40 4mmm4v wanton 4momfiv mo244am wo30m 050004 kHMEmm mmcwpcflm HHQHOCMHE kp34m 04909 AOWOZ .eoseuuaou--.~ ofiaaa 40 .oucoshmcoo :0 mcflhmon 0: mm: :Owummsuoo .msuwwm HOCOMummsooo swag Op OOHOHOH mucoswmcou .40404 mo :04m4>4p po>400h00 on“ muoommw 0m43 040 m0 maumum 4pc: .Oucoswmcoo 4443 mflngOAOHHOH o: >440wocou .Ooaoswmcou :04: augm:648a4®w oz .efifleu mo 6mm An wommfle AO44mm. ASSEmw m0 mcofiumoowom m.p44:o .SHAEO do own an AOOMAa RHHHOHumEOumxm Ho3om RHMEHM mo mphomow m.copp4440 .mxmmu paonomsoc 4443 0404 m.p:mnm:4 m0 mcowu -QOOHOQ :4 po>wom40 mooco -wowm4p poowmm no: moop 0m< 4~Aa4v Amcflcm w mm em> ANAmHV mmoaxutmx AmwQHV opom w :mhpcoo 4maa4v etaamam w ouaw ANAQHV Amcflem w mm ea> maamfiv comwaq AmOQHV Ametoa w mmo: mmmeU opom w :mhpcou msumum Hmcowummsouo \cofiummsouo woumpm 4:05304msm 500044500 moanmflum> 044mmwmoeop 4mu0>omv xuwaomoeoz Oficdmpmoeom c04um030m ow< mmcflpcflm Hmmfiucfipm xpzum m044mflwm> Hazaxoucou .m044mfluw> Hanuxowcou >4 nonwomom O>4pcmum45m mo kmeESm--.m 044mb 41 .00:0:0m:00 0:0 0000000 04E0:00004000 :003004 0440:0400400 oz .00:0:0m:00 0:0 0000004 0450:00004000 :003004 0440:0400400 02 .04000 040400004 :04: 0404 0.0000000 40 0:040000000 :4 00>0004o 000:0004440 000440 00: 0000 000000 0450:0000400m .000 04 000> 0044000 044800 40 0:040000000 0.04440 .04440 40 000 00 404440 04400400500000 00300 044504 40 0000000 0.:000444u .00:0000 4043 :0004440 40 00:0:0m:00 004 000:0004440 x00 02 4N4040 400440 0 00 00> 400040 0440000000-00444400 440040 0000 w 00404o0 444040 000404 400040 0oc0o0 w 000: mowo4v :000m:0m w 4000< 0000000 0450:0000400m 00m 00:40:40 40040:400 00:0m 00440400> 4000x00:ou .00::40:oo --.m 04000 42 Berk and Shih (1980) compared the reports on contributions to household labor of 748 intact couples drawn from a national probability sample. Using a card sorting technique they found which activities took place in the home and who did the task. They hypothesized that if discrepancies in the accounts of couples occurred, it might be dependent upon which contributor was being assessed, the tasks assessed or the particular characteristics of the household. Their findings indicate that in the aggregate, husbands and wives agree on contributions. Agreement levels were found to be greater on those tasks that have been characterized as sex-stereotyped. When disagreements occurred, the spouse assessing partner's contribution underestimated the report of that partner. Certain tasks seemed to "push" or "pull" couples to greater or lesser levels of underestimation. Child care was underestimated by both partners. Nye (1976) in a research study on family roles collected data on housekeeping from 210 couples in 1970. Husbands and wives answered separate but nearly identical questionnaires. All of the couples lived in Yakima County, Washington and had a child in the third grade. In the questionnaire two questions were asked about housekeeping: "Who do you think should do the housekeeping?" and "Who 43 does the housekeeping?" Closed-ended responses for the questions ranged from "husband entirely" to "wife entirely." Nye found that husband and wife perceptions were not the same. Fifty-four percent of the wives said husbands should share household tasks, while only 39% said their husbands actually do share. The largest percentage of husbands (70%) said they should share the household tasks, while 56% said they actually do share the tasks. Lovingood (Lovingood & Firebaugh, 1978) studied household task performance roles of husbands and wives who had just had their first child. Husbands and wives were asked about who makes and who implements certain household decisions. Using closed-ended responses that ranged from "husband always" to "wife always", Lovingood found that wives saw themselves as having more responsibilities than husbands acknowledged and vice versa. Quality pf 2133 Studies in which congruence on quality of life have been measured are noted in this section. They are also .included in Table 2 with other studies according to major topic. Selected studies in which quality of life has been related to contextual variables are reported in Table 3. Smith 3; al., (1982) in a study of the difference between researcher calculated consensus and perceived 44 consensus found: 1) that an individual's perceived consensus is positively related to quality of whole life and quality Of family life, and 2) that the difference in the husband's and wife's calculated objective scores was negatively related to quality Of whole life and quality of family life. Smith pg 31., suggest that the higher the individual's .perceived consensus with spouse the greater the quality of life and the greater the difference in objective consensus, the less satisfied the individual is with their quality of whole life and quality of family life. Smith _3 _l.,suggest that perceived marital consensus may be a more accurate indicator of perceived quality of whole life and quality of family life than actual consensus or the lack of it. Other researchers have found low to moderate agreement on family life (Jessop, 1981; Hess and Torney, 1965; Kohn and Carroll, 1960; Kandel g5 91., 1968; Niemi, 1968). Andrews and Withey (1976) found that the contextual variables, age, race, sex, income, and education did little to explain the variation in why some people were satisfied with their lives and others were not. 45 Summary This review of literature suggests that the major unit of analysis has been an individual or dyad. It strongly suggests the need to include data from all family members. Theoreticians and researchers strongly suggest the development of family properties among family members. In a limited manner, both quality of life and household production have been examined in relationship to contextual variables: age, education, demographic homogenity, employment status, occupation, sex, socioeconomic factors. There appears to be no research on the relationship between responsibility for household production and quality Of life. CHAPTER I V METHODOLOGY This study was undertaken to determine relationships between family members' perceptions of responsibilities for household production, quality ' of life and selected contextual ‘ variables. Data used in this study were collected in Ingham County, Michigan during May-June 1980.1 The present study was a part of a larger descriptive study aimed at identifying involvement in household production of rural, small town, and urban families in Mid-Michigan. The unit of analysis was family, defined as male and female living in the same household with the oldest child between the ages of six and twelve. This researcher was part of the research team from the inception of the project and participated in all phases of the project, including decisions on sampling procedure, instrument design, data 1'This study was part of the "Contributions of ~Household Production to Family Income" , a larger study, sponsored by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (AES 1363H), the Department of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University and the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, Irene Hathaway, and Dr. Mary Andrews, Directors. - 46 47 collection, coding and data reduction and analysis. A survey questionnaire based on recall was administered to three members of the family constellation- adult male, adult female, and oldest child between the ages of six and twelve. Discussion in this chapter will focus on describing: (1) research design; (2) sampling, data collection and data analysis procedures; (3) the study sample; (4) instrument development and pretesting procedures; and (5) the variables including Operational definitions. Research Design The purpose of this exploratory research was to examine the relationship of family members' perceptions regarding responsibility for household production and quality of life. The research method chosen for this study was survey questionnaire. The unit of analysis investigated was the young family: husband, wife, and oldest child between the ages of six and twelve. Theoretical definitions of the variables studied lare noted in Chapter I (p. 5). Figure 1 depicts the hypothesized relationship. Sampling Procedure The interview population selected for the larger project was Ingham County, a portion of the Lansing Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Ingham County HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES

No 6N< NHao NmmeHo No 6N< .pNogomzo: :N NHHNU HmmNasoN No 6N< NH NHHNU HNNNHo No 6N< No :OHpanNNNNa NuaoscoNN--.NN NHNNN 68 Table 16.--Occupation of Husbands and Wives in Sample. OCCUpation Husbands Wives N % N % Professional- 30 28.8 11 10.3 Technical Managerial- 14 13.1 3 2.8 Administrative Sales 3 2.8 2 1.9 Clerical ' 7 6.5 20 18.7 Craftsman 23 21.5 0 0 Operative 0 0 l .9 Transport 8 7.5 2 1.9 Laborer 13 12.1 0 0 Service 5 4.7 7 6.5 Private Household 0 0 4 3.7 Workers Farmer 2 1.9 1 .9 Housespouse 2 1.9 56 52.3 Student Total 107 100.0 107 100.0 69 Occupational COdes. Because of their diverse nature occupations were combined under larger headings for reporting purposes. Twenty-eight percent of the husbands and 10.3 % of the wives were professional-technical workers. More husbands than wives were managerial-administrative workers (13.1% of the husbands and 2.8% of the wives). A few family members were engaged in sales activities (2.8% of the husbands and 1.9% of the wives). Of the wives employed at the time of the study the largest percentage were clerical workers (18.7%). Six and one-half percent of the husbands were engaged in clerical work. The largest number of employed husbands at the time of the study were engaged in jobs categorized as blue collar work such as craftsman, transport worker, operative and laborer (41.1%). Comparatively, 2.8% of the wives were engaged in these activities. Husbands and wives who worked as service and private household workers comprised 4.7% and 10.2%, respectively, of the employed workers. Farmers made up 1.9% of the employed husbands and .9% of the wives. The majority of the wives classified themselves as housespouses or students (52.3%) while 1.9% of the husbands reported themselves as being in this category. In summary, these families represented a wide range of income levels ($6,500 to over $50,000) and many occupations. Some were professionals, some were craftsmen, some worked in 70 stores and factories and some were clerical workers. At the time of the survey 85% of the men were employed and 12% were laid off. Forty-seven percent of the wives worked outside the home. The average household consisted of husband, wife, and two children. Instrument Development Procedures A comprehensive questionnaire was developed to investigate household production. Some questions were developed by the Household Production Project members while others were procured from other researchers. All questions included in the questionnaire were designed to answer two basic research questions: 1. Are there different levels of- involvement in household production activities that produce real income among rural, small town, and urban young families? 2. Are there different levels of intensity in household production activities between family types i.e., two parent single-wage earner and dual-wage earner. Household production questionnaire items were developed or adapted by the project staff. The following steps were taken in developing the questionnaire: 1. Review of relevant literature including professional journals and books, research reports, theoretical papers, magazine, and newspapers. 2. Asking experts to review and add to a list of 71 household production activities. 3. Synthesizing the information gathered and developing a preliminary questionnaire. 4. Obtaining initial approval from the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects for pretesting the questionnaire. 5. Pretesting the questionnaire on a selected group of families. 6. Altering the questionnaire to include recommended changes in the final questionnaire. 7. Obtaining 'final approval from the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects before beginning interviews in the sample areas. Examination 9f Literature The literature examined for questionnaire development fell into four major categories: household production, quality of life, human capital development, and family demographics. Sources used to develop questions. on household production were: Berk & Shih, 1980; Buetler & Owen, 1979 ; Leonard-Barton & Rogers, 1980; Morgan gt 21,, 1966; Walker, 1973; Walker and Woods, 1976. The questions on quality of life were adapted from the work of Andrews and Withey (1976). Their terrible-delighted scale was used to assess overall perceived quality of life and quality of family life (Appendix C). In this study, responses to Andrews and Withey's (1976) seven-point terrible-delighted scale were treated as interval data. 72 Responses to the faces scale, used in the children's questionnaire, were also treated as interval data. Andrews and Withey state that "...there is a reasonably close correspondence between the seven categories on D-T (Delighted -Terrib1e) Scale and the Faces scale." (p. 227). Andrews and Withey note that their scale is similar to two other scales which have been used as interval measures. Most of the categories on the delighted-terrible scale seem to be separated by one-step intervals. The most positive categories of the scale may be separated by less than one. step. Questions on human capital development were generated by the research team. Demographic questions were taken from the Quality of Life Research Project sponsored by the Departments of Human Environment and Design, and Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University and the Department of Clothing and Textiles, University of Minnesota.3 The initial questionnaire was constructed from questions derived from the literature review, project 3Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Project Numbers: 1249 "Clothing Use and Quality of Life in Rural and Urban Communities." Dr. Ann Slocum, Director; 3151 "Families in Evolving Rural Communities." Dr. Margaret Bubolz, Director; Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Project Number: 53-086 "Clothing Use and Quality of Life in Rural and Urban Communities." Dr. Joanne B. Eicher and Dr. Gloria Williams, Directors. 73 conferences, and responses of those asked to review an inital list of household production tasks. Attempts were made to state all questions as simply and as clearly as possible. Project members responded informally to the questionnaire. This resulted in some modifications of the questions. Pretesting Pretesting of the questionnaire was conducted by members of the Household Production Project staff. Rural, small town, and urban families, not included in the sample areas, participated in the pretest. Minor modifications to the questionnaire resulted. Nine families were included in the pretest. Description 9; Variables For this study only parts of the questionnaires were used. Those sections of the questionnaire used in this study include: (1) the quality of life questions in both the adult's .and children's questionnaire (pp. 2-3, 21, and 1, respectively)); (2) the responsibility questions from the adult's questionnaire (pp. 18-20); (3) children's work from the child's questionnaire (p. 4): and (4) the demographic questions from the adult's questionnaire (pp. 28-38). These sections are included in Appendix C. 74 5292129 Perceived Household Production Responsibilities Household production responsibility scores were derived by using adult's questionnaire items 26.01 to 26.19, 27.01 to 27.19 and 28.01 to 28.16 (Appendix c, pp. 151-153). and child's questionnaire items 25 to 47 (Appendix C, p. 167). Adult questionnaire items were scored on a yes - no basis; Yes, I take responsibility; Yes, spouse takes responsibility; Yes, child takes responsibility; and No, I don't take responsibility; No, spouse doesn't take responsibility; No, child doesn't take responsibility. Child's questionnaire items were scored on a yes - no basis, Yes, I take responsibility and No, I do not - take responsibility. Because some of responsibilities listed in the children's questionnaire were more specific than the adult questionnaire it became necessary to create a new set of variables for children's responsibilities for both adults and child's responses. The new variable was formed to equate adult and child responses. For example, children were asked four times about different aspects of laundry. If the child answered yes to any of these questions the new variable on laundry was scored as yes (Table 17). The 75 Table 17. --Creation of Children's Variables. a Variable Equivalent Variable Child's Adult's Questionnaire Questionnaire _RCRESl-Care other children 27 28.1 _RCRESZ-Yard work 30 28.2 and 28.12 _RCRBS3-Help with meals 39 28.3 _RCRES4-Help with meal 40 and 41 28.4 clean-up _RCRESS-Water plants 42 28.5 _RCRES6—Clean house 34, 35, 36, 28.6 37, and 46 _RCRES7-Put away groceries 38 28.7 _RCRESS-Care for pets 29 28.8 _RCRESQ-Sweep sidewalks 32 28.9 _RCRESlO-Help with shOpping 25 28.10 _RCRESll-Shovel snow 33 28.11 _RCRESlZ-Take out garbage 31 28.13 _RCRESl3-Earn extra money 28 28.16 _RCRESl4-Help with laundry 43, 44, 45, 28.14 and 47 a. -These variables are individually labeled for male (M), — female (F), and child (C). R-Recoded variable. C-Child RES-Responsibility 76 highest score that any individual family member could attain on responsibility for household production was one, indicating that the person perceived him/herself as taking responsibility for all household production items in the questionnaires. Perceived QUality pf 91:; Quality of whole life scores were derived by using adult questionnaire, items 1.01 and 29 .02 (Appendix C, p. 148, 150). Child's quality of whole life score was derived by using child's questionnaire item number 7 (Appendix C, p. 166). Quality of family life scores were derived by using adults questionnaire items 1.08 and 29.01 (Appendix C, pp. 149, 150). Adult's quality of family life is the average of the two responses. Child's quality of family life score was derived by using child's questionnaire item 8 ( See Appendix C, p. 166). Andrews and Withey (1976) found that asking quality of life questions twice resulted in a more reliable and valid indicator than asking the question a single time. Adult respondents in this study were asked to respond twice to the quality of life questions, quality of whole life and quality of family life. The average of the two scores was the measure used in this study. The highest possible score any individual family member could attain on quality of life 77 questions was seven, indicating that the person perceived him/herself as delighted with his/her quality of life. Congruence pf Perceptions A primary variable investigated in this study was congruence. Congruence is a measure of degree of agreement. In hypotheses 1-5 the degree of congruence of perceptions of household production responsibilities was investigated. In hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 congruence of perceptions of quality of life are measured. Measures pf Family Properties Klein (1982) lists five models for measuring family properties by manipulating data from self-reports of individuals. The models are: . Compromise or Additive Model. . Dispersion or Discrepancy Score Model. Discrete or Disjunctive Model. “=- w M |—' O . Discriminative or Weighted Model. 01 0 Structural or Conjunctive Model. For the purposes of this study three of the above models are used for measuring the family properties of household production responsibilities and quality of life. The three models will be discussed in turn. 78 Klein suggests pitting the models against each other in an effort to build theory using a matrix format as in Figure 2. That portion of the matrix explored in this study is contained in Cells 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13. Compromise pg Additive Model To achieve a measure of congruence this model either sums or averages the reports. If the number of reports per family is consistent, a simple sum of the individual reports is all that is necessary. If the number of reports per family varies, averaging the reports is required before comparisons can be made. This model assumes that the central tendency of the reports of perceptions is the reality. The model also assumes that extreme reports have equal and offsetting biases or errors (Klein, 1982). 79 . SULGOUXVH mN;H :N cocsmocfi ohm m~-- .NNNH .chHN EoNN paaawe< 3:5 x-c .N-H NHHou .mowuhodoud xfiwswd mo mNopoz mcmumueou Now xwhumz--.~ opswwm mN «N mN NN Hm NanoQONd NHHENN m>wuucsmcou om ma ma 5H OH xuuoaoud NHHENN wouszoz ma ea ma NH Ha AuNoQONd NHHENN ououumwo ca xuuodoud NHNENN o>NmdemNa xuuomoud NHNENN o>wuwpp< xuuoaoud NHHENN o>Nuuczncou Auuodoud NNHENN pmHNNHmz xuNoQONd NHHENN ouohumma NuHoQONd NHHENN o>NmHommNo comuospoud pNozmmso: NON ANNNNnchommom mo xuhoqoud NHHENN o>wuwpp< mcofluaoouod mud: mo NHHHeso No mcoNudmuNod 80 The equation for the model is: (X1 + X2 + X3 + ..... Xn) 11 FP = In this study the equation is: FP = (X1 + X2 + X3) n where FP = Family Property x, = Husband's report x; = Wife's report; x3 = Child's report; n = number of questions to which all members of the triad responded. Dispersion 95 Discrepancy Score Model This model treats the discrepancy between individual reports as the family property. This approach assumes that the reality of a family property lies in the distribution of reports. The second assumption of the model assumes that family types differ depending upon the degree of consensus or integration of perspectives about the family. The equation for the model can take one of three forms: FP ll Q >< p. P H 81 The equation used for this research is: FP= 2X1 ' E1 n(n-l)/2 where xi and xj are different individual family member's reports and n is the number of questions to which all members of the triad responded. In the case of the triad, scores for eaCh dyad within the triad were computed by the above formula. The three dyad scores were then summed to determine the triad's discrepancy score. Discrete 95 Disjunctive Model The discrete or disjunctive model treats individual self-reports as discrete, unique and independently valid measures of family properties. This approach assumes that there are multiple realities within the family, each dependent on how the individual respondent defines the situation. The equations for this model are: 82 The equations used in this research are: ._ = FP = X where x1 = Husband's report, x2 = Wife's report, x3 = Child's report. Statistical Methods and Assumptions Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample. Mean, median, mode , standard deviation, symmetry and kurtosis were calculated where applicable. Paired T-Test The paired t-test allows the researcher to discover and evaluate differences between two sample means. The t-test assumes that the samples are normally distributed, have homogeneous variances, and are randomly drawn from the population. A difference score is calculated for each pair of cases. The statistic used to test the differences is: 83 where D is the observed difference, SD is the standard deviation of the difference of a pair of observations and S is the mean of D (Hull and Nie, 1982). Oneway ANOVA ANOVA is an inferential statistical method used to measure group differences. The SPSS program Oneway ANOVA can be used with one independent variable and any number of dependent variables. The basic assumption of oneway ANOVA is that observations are independently selected from normal populations with homogeneous variance. ANOVA assesses the effects of one categorical independent variable, measured at any level upon a continuous dependent variable (Nie, 33 gl., 1975). ANOVA tests for the statistically significant differences between means of independent variable categories. The statistical significance of an F-test is used to determine whether a significant difference exists between the means of categories. Repeated Measures Desigp Analysis pf Variance The SPSS subprogram Reliability can perform a repeated measures design analysis of variance for internal, consistency. "The computations performed by the subprogram are designed to be used in those situations where the goal is to assess how reliable a sum or weighed sum across 84 variables is as an estimate of a case's true score" (Hull & Nie, 1981, p. 248). The repeated measures design is a special case of a completely randomized block design of ANOVA where each unit is matched with itself and is the multivariate extension of the paired or correlated t-test (Hull & Nie, 1981, p. 251). Reliability is often thought of as the degree to which two measures of the same thing are consistent. In most cases it is calculated by correlating the scores on two independent administrations of the same test, survey, or questionnaire. In some cases though it is inconvenient, if not impossible to repeat the administration of a measure. To overcome this problem, methods were developed to obtain reliability estimates from a single set of data. These methods are referred to as measures of internal consistency. Internal consistency estimates are indices of the degree to which items in a test, survey, or questionnaire correlate with the overall outcome. Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha is one such measure commonly employed (Cronbach, 1951). Developed as a derivative of the split-half and Kuder-Richardson models, Coefficient Alpha enables a researcher to determine a reliability estimate from data which has not been dichotomously scored. The formula for determining the internal consistency estimate of reliability (using Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha) is: 85 n sum S 2 Coefficient Alpha = 1 ' 1 n - 1 2 Sx n = Number of items in the test, survey, or questionnaire; Si2 = Variance of a single item; 5x2 = Variance of the total test, survey, or questionnaire. Exp; 1 gpgtzypg _1 Errors A necessary consideration in the analysis of data is the probability of error. A balance must be obtained between the chance of a Type I error (rejecting a null hypothesis when it is true) and a Type II error (failing to reject a null hypothesis when it is false).- Before statistical analysis is done, an acceptable level of error must be established. It should be based upon sound scientific methodology as well as the nature of the research. In the present study the data were analyzed and reported at both the .05 and .10 probability of error levels. Because the research was exploratory in nature, the .10 level was employed to increase the probability of finding differences that may go undetected at smaller levels. This would greatly increase chances for making a Type I error, so a second analysis was conducted. Analysis 86 at the .05 level improved scientific credibility and provided balance between the probability of Type I and Type I I errors 0 Pearson Correlation The Pearson correlation coefficient r measures the strength of relationship between two continuous variables. In a basic sense, it reflects how well one can estimate the value of a variable through knowledge of the value of a second variable. The strength of the relationship between the two variables indicates "goodness of fit" of a linear regression line to the data. The correlation coefficient r, provides the strength and direction of the linear relationship. If the value of r is: 1. zero or close to zero, little or no linear relationship between the variables is assumed. 2. +1 or -1 or approaches either, then it may be assumed there is a strong linear relationship (Nie, 33 gl., 1975; Babbie, 1979). If r is squared, the strength of the relationship also indicates the proportion of variance in one variable explained by the other. Variance is a measure of variability. The mathematical formula for computing r through an SPSS program is: 87 r = ——- ZZ'XJ' _(ZQ‘ZILXZLHVN {[2:1X3 —(ZI/:1Xi)2/N][Z:l Y1} __ (2:1 Yi)2/N]} 1/2 Xi = i observation of variable X; Yj = j observation of variable Y; and N = number of observations. Assumptions required when using the Pearson correlation are: linearity, random sampling, bivariate normal distributions and interval level data (Nie, pg 21., 1975, p. 280). Summary 9f Statistical Procedures Table 18 notes the hypotheses tested, congruence model employed, the data used for the test, and the statistic and computer program used. Listwise and pairwise deletion of missing data were used for all statistical procedures where appropriate. This procedure assures that all computations were carried out on the same data set. Nie _£.§l., recommend the use of listwise or pairwise deletion whenever there is the possibility of a large amount of missing data. Serious problems can result in the interpertation of results if listwise or pairwise deletion is not used (Nie, g; 91., 1975, p. 353, 312, 273, 429). 88 .o.m - o.N m:0Nmno> .moucofiom NmNoom map Now owmxomd HmuNumNumum .mucoNUwaooo :oNumNoNNou pcoEoz pompoum comhmom .o.m - o.N mcofimho> .moucofium Hwfioom map NON 6NNN0NN HNUHNNNHNNN .<>oz< mohsmmoz poummmom .o.m - o.N mconNo> .moucowom Hmfluom may Now owmxumm HmUNpmNpmum .umoe-e panama .moNnmNNm> Hazaxoucou New aNHN No NNHHmse .moNuNHNachOQmou :oNuuswopd paogomzo: :0 «amp pmfipp paw Hmzpw>flch .oNHN No NNHHmse paw mouNHNnchodmoN :ofiuuspONd paoaomzo: :o dump adapfl>fich .omaa mo xufiamnq paw mouNHHnchommoN :oNuuspONd pNonomso: :o dump Hmzwfi>fich ouohomfim o>wmhommflo 6>HNNNN< NH .NN .HH .oH .N momozuomzz mo amok N .N memosuomzm mo pmoh N .N .N .N .N .H mmmoAHOQN: mo umoh Emumoum NoNSQEou paw ufiumfiumum mflmxamc< :a wow: damn xuuoHONm NNHENN mcwcfispouom we vogue: mflmxfimc< mo omodN3d .mumo mo momxflma< Now pom: mpoauoz--.wN macaw 89 Data Analysis Procedures The Control Data Corporation Model 750 computer at Michigan State University was used to perform all the analyses. The programs used to develop the variables and compute the statistics are a part of version 7.0 and 9.0 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, 31 31., 1975; Hull and Nie, 1981). All the computations were implemented at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. CHAPTER V RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSES The results of data analyses are reported in three sections under the following headings: 1) descriptive data for major variables, 2) hypotheses testing, and 3) summary of results. Descriptive Data for Major Variables Perceived Household Production Responsibilities Mean total scores for individual family member's perceptions of household production responsibilities were found by summing the total number of "yes" or "no" responses and dividing by the total number of responses. Husband's perceived themselves and their spouses as responsible for 90% of the household production. On the other hand, wives perceived themselves as responsible for 94% of the household production, while they perceived their husbands as responsible for 86%. Husbands and wives perceived children responsible for 72% and 73% of the household production, 90 91 .ooo.H mamzoo oNOUN oNNcNmmOQ amo:MN: .c NHNNNcchommom :ONuuscONd cHonomso: HmNOH - Hmmm cNHco No coHHomoHON o omsomm mo coNHQQUNod - m :oNHQoONom wHom No :30 - o cfifinu - u onEom - o mam: - z .m wNN. wNo. - «No. omH. NNo. «cc. mmc. Hmmmuu cvm.- cow. - NNo. NNN. omo. NNN. mmN. Hmmmum Ncc. «mm. - oNo. ooH. ovo. owN. oNN. Hmmmuz emv.- ccc. - NNo. oNH. cHo. mow. mcw. Hmmmmm mvc.m ch.N- Noo. cNo. coo. moo. coo. Hmmmom Noc.H mov.N- Noo. HNo. moo. woo. omo. Hmmmmz Nwo.w Noo.~- «Ho. NNN. omo.. omo. moo. Hmmmoz mNmougsx mmoczoxm mm am > cmficoz ammo: zuuoeexm NuNHNnmNHm> Nucoccoh Hwhucou moanmfihm> NNHNNHNNNW-NNNNNHNNNNN .moNcmNNm> moNHNHNcNmCOQNom :oNHosc0Hd pNonomso: Now mufiumfipmum o>wudfihomom--.oa canny 92 .NNN.HN NHNNNN NNHH No NNNHNNo CNN ocoum NHNHNNoN NNNNNH: .ooo.m mamzvo :oNNuspONd Ufiosomzo: Now oNoum oHLNmmon umocwmz .n NNHH NNNENN - N NNNH No NNHHNNO -o NNNNNNNN NNNENN - NN owfig oNonz - H :ofluuscONQ oNozomso: .: Napomoua o>NmumdmNm - a HNNoN - N NHHNU -u NHNNNoNN N>HHNNN< - < .N NHH.N NHN.H NNH. HNN.H NNN.N NNN.N HNN.N NNONNN NNN.N HNN.H- NHN. NNH.N NNN.N NNN.NH NHN.NH NNoNN< NNNH NHHENN No NNHHmso NNN.H NNN. - HNH. NNN.H NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N HNoNNN NNN. NNN. - NNH. NHN.H NNN.N NNN.NN HNN.NH NNoNN< NNHN NHNNN No NNHHNNo NNN. NNN. - NNN. NNH. NHN. NNH. NNH. woman NNN. NNN. - NNN. NNN. NNN. NHN.N NNN.N N=NN< :oNuoscon paozomso: Now xuwHNme:OQmom HmNOH NNN. HNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. Nzummo NNN.H NNN. - HNN. NNN. HNH. NNN.N NHH.N NzoNN< :oNuoscONd pfiogmmso: how xuwfiwafimcoamom m.wawcu mNmouhsx mmocsoxm mm om > :mwcoz name: xuuoEENw Nwwmmnmfihm> .chopcoh Nmpucou moNcmNNm> NNHNNHNNNW-NNHNNNNNNNN .mowuquONd NNNEmm uNcmNNH Now mowumfiumum o>NudNNumon--.oN oHnmh 93 respectively. Children perceived themselves as responsible for 65% of the household production. The highest possible score was 1 or 100%, indicating the person perceived him/herself as taking responsibility for all household production items in the questionnaire. The descriptive statistics for individual and triadic household production responsibility variables are reported in Table 19 and 20. Perceived Quality 21 Whole Life On the whole, respondents within the study evaluated their quality of life as a whole positively. The mean scores for men is 5.3 (MDQFLl); 5.4 for women (FDQLFl). ' These findings are consistent with the results of Andrews and Withey, 1976; Campbell 91 g1., 1976; and Rettig, 1980. Reliability of the variable quality of life is evaluated by generating a Pearson correlation coefficient between the two variables that were averaged to arrive at the new variable. The coefficient for males is .77; .65 for females. Andrews and Withey (1976) found similar results in four national surveys, with a reliability range of .61 to .71. The mean score for child's quality of whole life is 6.3. Means and Pearson correlation coefficients for reliability are reported in Appendix F. Other descriptive 94 statistics for quality of whole life are reported in Table 21. Perceived Quality 91 Fami1y Life The mean score for men and women on quality of family life is 5.8 (MDQFLZ, FDQFLZ). These scores fall between the scores reported on national surveys by Andrews and Withey (1976) and Campbell 31 _1., (1976), and an area survey by Rettig (1980). Andrews and Withey reported a mean of 5.7 for both men and women while Campbell 31 g1., reported a mean of 5.9. Rettig reported a mean of 5.6 for women and 5.8 for men. The reliability of the variable was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient relating the two scores used to generate the variable. Correlation results indicated .85 for males and .70 for females. Rettig (1980) found correlations of .81 for women and .70 for men. Pearson correlation coefficients for quality of family life are reported in Appendix F. The child's mean quality of family life score was 6.49. Other descriptive statistics for quality of family life are reported in Table 21. 95 .ooo.N mamsco choom macwmmod Hmonwfiz .c NNHH NHHENN No NNHHNNO - N NNNH mHocz No NNHHmso - H NNHH No NNHHNNO - NNo oofizp coxmm meNumosc omflq mo zufiflmso mo :moz - a pHNNu - N onEom - m can: - 2 .m NNN.NH NNN.N- NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN.N NNN.N NNoN NNN. NNN. - NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN.N NNN.N NHNONN NHN.H NNH.N- NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN.N NNN.N NHNooz NNHN NNHENN No NNHNNNN NNN.N NNN.H- NNN. NNN.H NNH H NNN.N NNN.N HHoo NNN. NNN. - NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN.N NHN.N HHNoNN NNN.H NNN. - NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN.N NNN.N HNNooz NNHH mHon No NNNNNNO mNmOHNSM mmoczoxm mm am > cmwcmz pump: proEENm NMNHNQNNNN> Nococaow Hwhpcou moNcmHNm> NNNNNHNNNN-NNNNNHNNNNN .moHnmNNm> omflq mo xuflHmzo Now moaumfiumum o>NuQNNumoQ--.NN canoe 96 Hypotheses Testing Congruence 91 Perceptions Hypotheses l - 4, 6, and 7 are tested using paired t-tests to determine if there are differences between perceptions of dyads of family members, i.e., husband and wife, husband and child, and wife and child. Significance in the case of a t-test means "indication of" or "signifying" a true difference between groups. The significance level, set at .05, determines the probability that the null hypothesis will by accepted as reasonable or that errors made in the descision are due to chance (Nie, 31 g1., 1975). Hypotheses 5 and 8 are tested using repeated measures reliability analysis of variance to determine if there is congruence of family members' perceptions. This method of analysis allows one to test three variables at the same time, such as the perceptions of the triad, i.e., husband, wife, and child. The higher Cronbach's alpha level, the ‘ greater the agreement or congruence between the family members. The decision rule made for this research for repeated measures analyses is alpha must be equal to or greater than .66 for the hypothesis to be supported. Pearson correlation coefficients are used to test hypotheses 9 thru 13. In Appendix F (p. 176) are the results of 97 one-way ANOVAs in which congruence of perception for child measures are related to age of the child. No tests were conducted to include the effects of both age and sex since age and sex were found to be related in a chi-square test ( x2: .14). Responsibilities for Household Production The individual's perceptions of his/her own and other's responsibilities for household production were used as variables in t-tests and repeated measures analysis of variance. The first four hypotheses used t-tests to determine congruence of perceptions between individual members of the family. Ho 1: There is congruence between husband's report and wife's report of husband's household production responsibilities. The magnitude of the t-statistic suggests that there is a difference between husband's and wife's perceptions of husband's household production responsibilities. Wives perceive their husbands as less responsible than husbands perceive themselves , therefore the hypothesis is rejected (Table 22). Ho 2: There is congruence between wife's report and husband's report of wife's household production responsibilities. 98 There is no statistically significant difference between wife's perceptions and husband's perceptions of wife's responsibilities for household production. The hypothesis is supported (Table 22). Ho 3: There is congruence between husband's and wife's reports of child's household production responsibilities. Hypothesis 3 is supported. There is no statistical difference between husband's report and wife's reports as measured by a t-test (Table 22). Ho 4: There is congruence between a husband's and child's or wife's and child's report of child's household production responsibilities. The hypothesis is not supported by either dyad, husband and child or wife and child. There is a significant difference between the means of husband and child reports as noted in Table 22, at the .001 level. The means for wife's and child's reports of child's responsibilities for household production are significantly different and are reported in the same table. Ho 5: There is congruence between husband's, wife's and child's reports of child's household production responsibilities. Repeated measures analysis of variance using the SPSS subprogram Reliability is used to test hypothesis 5. 99 .mo. v d "Ho>oN HcaoNchmNm «« NHHNU No :oHNNNUNNN - NHNNN - u NHNNHcchodmom omsoow mo :oNuaouNod - ommsom - m :oHHozcogd cNogomso: HNHOH -swmm coNHLQONoa wNom No :30 - onz - z .m omN. mmmc. hwmmuu «xooc. nw.v NNN. mmmN. emmmuu omN. mmmc. Hmmmuu «eNoo. oe.m ooH. moNN. Hmmmuz mwmosuodx: NNN. mmmN. hmmmum own. No. ooN. moNN. Hmmmuz mNmozuoqxz HNo. coco. emmmmz com. mm. cNo. Hcvo. Hmmmom mNmocu0d»: NNN. cho. emmmmm «xvoo. mm.N NNN. mmoo. Hmmmoz mNmoguodxz NNHNNNNNNNN :oNHNH>oo NNmu-ozb osHm> e cpmccmum :moz moanmfium> .moNuNNNnchoomom :oNuuzcon cHozomso: mo mcofiudouuod Now mumohub pohfimd--.mm oacmk 100 Table 23.--Repeated Measures ANOVA for Determining the Congruence of Perceptions Within a Triad (Husband, Wife, and Child). Variablea Squared Multiple Alpha Correlation Hypothesis 5 Household Production MCREST .32846 FCREST .37204 .71718** CCREST .22925 Hypothesis 8 Quality of Whole Life MDQFLl .14683 FDQFLl .15316 .37064 CQLl .01376 Quality of Family Life MDQFLZ .35588 FDQFLZ .39549 .68314** CQL8 .14550 a. M - Male F - Female C - Child CREST - Perception of Child's Household Production Responsibility D - Mean of Quality of Life questions asked twice QFL - Quality of Life QL - Quality of Life 1 - Quality of Whole Life 2,8 - Quality of Family Life ** Significant according to decision rule at any level above .66. 101 .mo. v a Nao>ofi ac: NNNN NHHENN No NNHNmr. NNHH 6Nonz No NNNHmso - NNHH No NNNHNNO - HNo ouwzu cmxmm mcofiummsc oMNH mo NHNHHSO mo :moz - Q NHHHU - 0 caused - m OHM: s E .m NNN.H NNNN.N NHoo «NNNN. NN.N NNN. NNHN.N HNNUNN NNN.H NNNN.N HHou «NNNN. NN.N NNN. HNNN.N HHNooz N mNmonuodxm NNN. NNHN.N HHNONN NNN. NN.H NNN. HNNN.N HNNooz c mfimonuomzm NNNH oHoNz No NNHHNNO NNNNHNNNNNN aoHNNHsoo HNmu-ozh 63Hm> H chmccmpm :moz mofinmfihw> .owNH wo Nuwamso mo mcofludouuom How mwmoH-H cohfimm--.vm canoe 102 .NN. v N HH6>6H NNNUHNNNNHN *4 NNHH NNHENN No NNHNNNO - N NNHN mHonz No NNHNNNQ - H NNHH No NNHHNNo - NNo ooflzp coxmm m:0Numo:w omNH mo Nwwamso mo coo: - o NNNHN - 0 caused - m mam: - z .m NNN. NNNN.N NHou «NNNN. NN.N NNN. NNNN.N NNNONN NNN. NNNN.N NHou «*000. ow.m NNN. NNNN.N NHNooz N mNmmcu0dN: NNN. NNNN.N NHNQNN NNN. NN. NNN. NNNN.N NHNooz c mNmogp0QN: NNHH NHHENN No NNHNNNU NNHNHchoHN :oHHNHsmo meu-oze ozam> H chmccmum cmoz moHnmNNm> .NNNNHHNNN--.NN NHNNN 103 Cronbach's alpha is reported at the .71718 level for congruence between family member's reports of child's household production responsibilities. The closer alpha is to equaling one the more congruent are the perceptions of family members. Hypothesis 5 is supported (Table 23). Quality _1 Life Ho 6: There is congruence between husband's and wife's reports of perceived quality of life. A paired t-test is the method used for testing this hypothesis. Two t-tests were computed: a) Quality of Whole Life. There is no statistically significant difference between husbands and wives on quality of whole life. The hypothesis is supported (Table 24). b) Quality of Family Life. The paired t-test results show there is no statistically significant difference between the means. The hypothesis is supported. Husband and wife paired reports of quality of family life are congruent (Table 24). Ho 7: There is congruence between a husband's and child's or wife's and child's report of perceived quality of life. Two paired t-tests were computed for each part of this hypothesis. 104 a) Quality of Whole Life. There is a statistical difference between husband's and child's and wife's and child's reports of quality of whole life. The two-tail probability in both instances equals .000. The hypothesis is not supported for either dyad: husband and child or wife and child (Table 24). b) Quality of Family Life. There is a statistically significant difference between the means for husband‘s and child's and wife's and child's dyadic perceptions of quality of family life (Table 24). The hypothesis is rejected. Ho 8: There is congruence between husband's, wife's and child's reports of perceived quality of life. a) Quality of Whole Life. Crombach's alpha' in a repeated measures design is used to measure the likeness of reports. An alpha of 1 would mean high congruence. The Crombach's alpha for quality of whole life is .37. This is a low measure of congruence. The decision rule made for this research for repeated measures is alpha must be equal to or greater than .66 for the hypothesis to be supported. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected for congruence of perceptions on quality of whole life for the triad (Table 23). b) Quality of Family Life. The Crombach's alpha for triadic congruence on quality of family life is greater than 105 the congruence of perceptions on quality of whole life. Congruence is not perfect but it does surpass .66 of the decision rule (Table 23). Alpha equals .68. The hypothesis is supported. Testing the Fami1y Properties Model Family properties, responsibility for household production and quality of life, are tested in hypothesis 9. Ho 9: a) There is a relationship between the family properties of total household production responsibilities and perceptions of quality of life. b) There is a relationship between the family properties of child's household production responsibilities and perceptions of quality of life. The relationship between the triadic family properties perceptions of household production responsibilities and quality of life are noted in Table 25. The additive, dispersive and discrete models used in determing family properties are contained in the matrix. The models are pitted one against the other as suggested by Klein (1982). Significant relationships between the family properties are noted: total household production responsibility with perceptions of quality of life, and child's household production responsibilities with perceptions of quality of life. 106 .oN.v a ”Ne>oN ucwofiuflcuNm c .mo.v a "Ho>vN «cwumcmcumw «« NNN. .N NNN. .a NNN. .a NNN. .N NNN. .N NNN. .N NNN. .N NNN. .N NNN. .N NNNN.-.N NNHN. .N NNNN. .N HNNN. up NNNN. .N HNNN.-.N NNNN.-.N NHNH. .N NNNN. .N NNoN NNN. .N ..NNN. .N NNN. .N ..NNN. .N ..NNN. .N ..NNN. .a NNN. .N .NNN. .N NNN. .N NNNN.-.» NNNH.-.L NNNN.-.N HNNN. .N NNNH. .N HNNN. .N NHNN.-.N NNNH. .N NNHH.-.N NNNNNN NHN. .N NNN. .N NNN. .N ..NNN. .N ..NNN. .N ..NNN. .N NNN. .N NNH. .N NNN. .N NNHN. up NNNN. .N NNNN. .N HNNN. .N NNNH. .N HNNN. .N NHNN. .N NNNH. .N NNNN. .N NHaozz oNHH NHNENN .NNN. .6 NNN. .N NNN. .N .NNH. .N NNN. .N NNN. .N .NNN. up NNN. .N NNN. .a NNNH.-.N NNNN.-.N NNNN.-.» NNNH.-.N NNNN.-.N NNHN. .N HNNH. .N NNNN.-.N NNNN.-.N HNou NNN. .N NNN. .N NHN. .N ..HNN. .N NNN. .N NNN. .N ..NNN. .N .NNN. .N NHN. .a NNNN. up .HNN. up NNNN. .u NNNH. .N HNNN. .N NNHN. u» NNNH-.N NNNH. .N NNNN. .N HNNONN ..NNN. .N ..NNN. .N NNN. .N .NNN. .N ..NNN. .N ..NNN. .N .NNN. .N ..HNN. .a ..NNN. .N NNNH. .N NHNH. up NNHN. up HNNN. .N NNNN.-.N NNNH. .N NNNN.-.N NNNH. up HNNH. .N HNNoNz oNHN «Hog: ouuuummo NNN. .a NNN. .a NNN. .N ..NNN. .N HHH. .N .NNN. .N NNN. .N NNN. .a NNN. .N NNNH.-.N NNHH. .N NNNN. up NNNN.-.N NNHH.-.N NNNH.-.N NHNN. .N HNNN.-.N NNNN.-.N NNNNNN NNHH NHHENN ..HHN. .N ..NNN. .a NNN. .a ..NNN. .N ..NNN. .N ..NNN. .a HHN. .N .NNN. .N NNN. .N NHNN.-.N NNNH.-.N HNNN. up NNNH.-.N NNNH.-.N NHNH.-.N NNNN. .N NNNH.-.» NHNN.-.N HNNNNN NNNN oHogz u>fimuvdmmo NNN. .N NNN. .a NNN. .a ..NNN. .N ..NNN. .N .NNN. .N NNN. .a .NNN. .N NNN. .N NNHN. up NHNN.-.N NNHN.-.N NNNH. .N NHNH. .N NNNN. .N NNNN. .N NN.H. .» HNNN.-.N NNoNN< oNHN NNNENN H... .N NNN. .N NNN. .N NNN. .N .NNN. .N NNN. .N ..NNN. up NNN. .N NNN. .N NNHN. .N NHNN. .N NNNN. .N NNNN. .N NN.H. .N NHNH. .N NNNH.-.N NNHH. u» NNNN. .N HNoNN< NNHN uHozz NNNNHNN< NNNNNN NNNNN: NNmNuu Nmmaom NNmNoz Nzama Nzuama N=NN< N=UNN< NNHN-NN-NNNHNNo econommo o>Nmuomm~n o>Nquv< mm-wwwmmmwwmwm mmwmmmmmmwmmowwm-wmwwwmwomm-wmmmmwmmm-mm-mmmmwmmmmmm --thodopo NHNENN .no manonuoaNzc oufia mo Nuanaao mo macaunouuom can muNuNNNAchonmom coNuuscoum vuosomao: mo muofiunouuoa -- nouuuoaoum Amman; uNcaNuk 0;» Now nucoNuNuuuou coNuaHouuou camuaom--.m~ oHnaN 107 a) Total Household Production Responsibility and Perceivied Quality of Life. Additive Model The additive family property total responsibility for household production (AFPHT) is significantly related to one of the two additive triadic properties for quality of life, quality of family life (AFPQTZ). The additive triadic property total household production responsibility is significantly related to only one dispersive property of quality of life, quality of whole life (DFPQTl). The additive triadic property total household production responsibility (AFPHT) is related to three of the six discrete properties, husband's quality of whole life (MDQFLl), wife's quality of whole life (FDQFLl), and wife's quality of family life (FDQFLZ). Dispersive Model The dispersive triadic family property total household production responsibility (DFPHT) is significantly related to one of the two additive properties for quality of life, quality of family life (AFPQTZ). The dispersive triadic property total household production responsibility (DFPHT)- is negatively related to both dispersive triadic properties for quality of life, quality of whole life (DFPQTl) and quality of family life (DFPQTZ). The dispersive triadic property total household production responsibility is significantly related to three of the six 108 discrete properties: husband's quality of whole life (MDQFLl), husband's quality of family life (MDQFLZ), and wife's quality of family life (FDQFLZ). Discrete Mggg1 The discrete model made up of individual's perceptions of their own total household production responsibilities is significantly related to the additive triadic property of quality of life. Husband's, total household production responsibility (MOREST) is significantly related to the additive properties quality of whole life (AFPQTl) and quality of family life (AFPQTZ). Wife's total household production responsibility is significantly related to the additive property quality of family life (AFPQTZ) but not quality of whole life (AFPQTl). Child's individual total household production responsibility (CCREST) is not related to the additive family properties quality of life. The discrete model made up of individual's total household production is significantly related to the dispersive model of quality of life. Husband's total responsibility for household production (MOREST) is significantly related to the dispersive triadic property quality of whole life (DFPQTl). Wife's total responsibility for household production is significantly related to both dispersive triadic quality of life properties, quality of whole life (DFPQTl) and quality of family life (DFPQTZ). 109 Child's total responsibility for household production is not related to the dispersive properties for quality of life. The discrete model for total household production is significantly related to the discrete model for quality of life. Husband's total household production responsibility (MOREST) is significantly related to husband's quality of whole life (MDQFLl), husband's quality of family life (MDQFLZ), and wife's quality of family life (FDQFLZ). Wife's total household production (FOREST) is significantly related to husband's, (MDQFLl), wife's (FDQFLl), and child's (CQLl) quality of whole life. Wife's total household production (FOREST) is also significantly related to husband's (MDQFLZ) and wife's (FDQFLZ) quality of family life, but not the child's. Child's total household production responsibility (CCREST) is not significantly related to any of the discrete properties of quality of life. b) Child's Household Production Responsibilities and Perceived Quality of Life. Additive Model The additive triadic family property child's responsibility for household production (AFPCHT) is not significantly related to the additive or dispersive family properties of quality of life. The additive triadic family property of child's household production responsibilities (AFPCHT) is significantly related to only 110 one discrete property, husband's quality of whole life (MDQFLl). Dispersive Model The dispersive triadic family property of child's household production responsibilities (DFPCHT) is significantly related to one of the two additive triadic properties of quality of life, quality of family life (AFPQTZ). The dispersive triadic family property of child's responsibility for household production (DFPCHT) is significantly related to both dispersive triadic properties for quality of life, quality of whole life (DFPQTl) and quality of family life (DFPQTZ). The dispersive triadic family property of child's household production (DFPCHT) is significanlty related to two of the discrete family properties for quality of life, wife's quality of whole life (FDQFLl) and child's quality of whole life (CQLl). Discrete Model The discrete model made up of individual perceptions of child's responsibilities for household production is significantly related to few properties of quality of life. Husband's perceptions of child's household production responsibilities (MCREST) is not significanlty related to the additive triadic properties for quality of life. Husband's perception of child's responsibilities (MCREST) is significantly related to the dispersive triadic property quality of whole life (DFPQTl) but not quality of family life. Husband's perception of child's responsibility 111 for household production is significantly related to only one discrete property for quality of life, husband's quality of whole life (MDQFLl). Wife's perceptions of child's household production responsibilities (FOREST) is not significantly related to the additive triadic properties of quality of life but is significantly related to the dispersive triadic property of whole life (DFPQTl). Wife's perception of child's household production responsibilities (FCREST) is significantly related to two discrete properties, husband's quality of whole life (MDQFLl) and child's quality of whole life (CQLl). Child's perception of child's household production responsibilities (CCREST) is not related to the additive, dispersive, or discrete models. Hypothesis 9 is supported. There is a relationship between the family properties of total household production responsibilities and perceptions of quality of life. There is a relationship between the family properties of child's responsibility for household production and perceptions of quality of life. Family Properties and Contextual Variables In the following section, the family properties of household production responsibilities and quality of life are dependent variables with contextual variables serving as the independent variables. The contextual variables will be 112 considered in the same order for all hypotheses. Hypotheses 10 - 13 are included in this section. The contextual variables are: employment status of husband and wife, educational level of husband and wife, family income, total number of persons in the family, and the ages of husband, wife and child. Hypotheses 10 - 13 are dealt with as a group. Hypotheses 10 and 11 related to individual reports of family properties are considered first. Hypotheses 12 and 13, relate triadic reports of family properties to the contextual variables. These are reported in Table 26. Ho 10: Individual family member's reports of household production responsibilities will differ by contextual variables. Ho 11: Individual family member's reports of perceived quality of life will differ by contextual variables. Employment Status Hypotheses 10 and 11, individual reports of family properties have few relationships to the employment status of husbands and wives. Employment status has a positive relationship with the wife's perception of the child's household production responsibilities (FCREST). Increasing employment of parents is related to the wife's perception of the child having increasing responsibility. Employment status is negatively related to the' wife's individual quality of whole life (FDQFLl). The greater the 113 NH. v a "No>oH NeauHNNcNHN . NN. v a ”No>uN acauHNchNm .. cuuuoqmsm acofiumuuoou :oNucqouuou acosoz uuzcoum cemuaom ~o>o~ ouzcuNumszm UDU NN. NN. NN.-NN. NN. NN. HN.-N.. .. NN.-HN. NN.-NN. NN.-NN. NH. NN. NNoNNN NN.-NN. NN. NN. NH.-NH. NN. NN. .. NN. HN. NN. NN. NN.-NN. HN. NN. NNoNN< NNHN NHHsNu No NNHHNNo .. NN.-HN. NN.-NN. NN. NN. NN.-N.. .. NH.-NN. NN. NN. NN.-NN. NN. NN. NNoaNN .. NH.-NN. NN.-NN. . NN.-NN. .. NN. HN. . NH. NN. NN. NN. NN.-N.. NN.-NN. HNNNN< NNHN oHo;z No NNNHNNo NH NHNNNNNNN= cc.-~n. cc NN.-no. NN. cu. cc ou.-co. c mu. mo. cc.-Nv. No.-wn. no. m~. . hzmm: Ne. oN. ac. mm. Ho.-nv. cc vN. oo. oo. Nv. c nu. mo. cu. vN. No. nN. hzau< no.-cm. no.-Nn. no.-NN. cm.-vm. no.-mn. wo.-w—. mo.-om. cc ad. No. #:0dga cc mm. co. cc NN. No. On. mm. cc QN. oo. No.-mN. c nu. we. cc. mN. we. mN. H:un;< momuwuNaNn:0dmo¢ :omuuzcon cNozomzo: NH NHNNNNNNNz mowuuoqoum uwccwuh NH.-NH. NN. NH. HN. NN. NH. NH. . NH. NN. NN. NN. HN.-NN. NN. NN. NNNN HH.-NH. NN.-HN. .. NH.-NN. NN. NN. .. NH. NN. NN. NN. NN.-.N. NN.-.N. NNNNNN HN.-NN. NN. NN. NN.-NH. NN. NN. .. NN. NN. NN.-NN. NN.-NN. NN. HN. NNNoNz oNHN NHHENN No NNHHNNN .. NN.-NN. . NH.-NN. NN.-NN. .. NH. NN. NN.-NN. NN.-NN. HN. NN. NN. NN. HNoo NN.-NN. NN.-NN. .. NN.-NN. HN. HH. . NH. NN. NN. NN. NN.-NN. . .H.-NN. HNNNNN . NH. NN. NN. NN. NN.-NN. NN. NH. .. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NNNoNz oNHN oHozz No NNNHNNN NH nNmosu0dN: No. NN. cc NN. No. no. wN. cc cN. co. c NN.-mo. co. mN. mo. aN. oo.-mc. hwmmuu cc mN. co. cc nu. no. No. nN. on. ma. co.-mv. cu. vnq oe. cc. cc mu. No. hwmmou cc Ne. co. cc NH. no. NN. ea. c vN. cc. mo.-wN. c n—. no. we. mN. No. ov. Nmmzuz Na.-~v. vo.-Nn. c9.-o~. co. cv. co. cw. . on. em. Nc. «N. cu. nu. hmmamm No. NN. no. mm. no. em. c mu. cc. NN. on. cc an. No. cc am. No. oo.-mv. . NmmmOu no. mm. No. on. ac.-NN. c NN. ac. c NH..c~. No.-°c. no. mm. cc. nN. HWmmmz "O. we. me.-cN. o~.-n~. co. fin. No. NN. mo. NN. do. me. NN. NN. hmwmcz nu«u«~«p~m:0dmox acmuuzcoum vNozomso: on mmmosuozxz mowuuudoum Nazcm>wccm m u a n u a n u a n a a n u a m a a n u a on N no .IIIIINPIIII: nuoaaoz hufiacm mo mum< NNNEuu uociaz oEoucu NHNEca ~o>oa Nazcauauacm acoENoNdsm use No maoou w m A a < n a < > a < a P x m h z o u .ucufiuauuoou cofiucNohuou can ~o>oa oucuuwuwcumm nu“: nN-o~ monosuonNz New mucmccmm mo Nucasam--.cN uNANN 114 husband's and wife's paid employment the less satisfied the wife is with her quality of whole life. Employment status is not shown to be significantly related to individual's quality of family life. Educational Level Highest level of educational attainment is found to be related to three individual family properties for perceived household production responsibilities but is not related to quality of life. Educational level of husband and wife are both positively related to wife's household production responsibilities (FOREST). This suggests the greater the husband's and wife's educational attainment, the greater the responsibilities they individually perceive the wife takes for household production. Wife's educational level is also positively related to the husband's perceptions of the child's household production responsibilities (MCREST), suggesting the greater the wife's level of educational attainment, the greater the husband's perceptions of the child's responsibilities for household production. Fami1y Income Total family income before taxes is negatively correlated with husband's perception of wife's household production responsibilities (FSREST) and child's self perception (CCREST) of household production responsibilities. The greater the total family income, the 115 less responsibilities for household production the husband perceives his wife taking. It also suggests the greater the income, the less responsibilities the child perceives he/she has. Total family income is related to all reporting family member's quality of whole life and family life except the child's quality of whole life. Total family income is positively related to husband's and wife's quality of whole life (MDQFLl, FDQFLl) and quality of family life (MDQFLZ, FDQFL2). Total 'family income is positively related to the child's quality of family life. The suggested general relationship is the greater the total family income, the greater the individual family member's satisfaction with quality of life.- Total Number 21 Family Members The total number of persons living in the household includes all family members, relatives and non-relatives living in the household. There are no relatives and only one non-relative living within one household in the total sample. The single case is included in the analysis of data. The total number of family members is positively related to all individual perceptions of household production responsibilities and quality of life. The statistically significant relationships for household production responsibilities are: husband's perceptions of 116 wife (MSREST); wife's self perception (FOREST); husband's perception of child (MCREST); and child's self perception (CCREST). In general, the suggested relationship for the specified responsibilility variables is the greater the number of total family members, the greater the .responsibilities husband, wife and child perceive. The only significant relationship between total number of family members and individual's quality of life is child's perception of quality of whole life (CQLl). 999 91 Fami1y Members The individual family member's perceptions of household production responsibilities positively related to wife's age are husband's and wife's perceptions of child's and child's self perception of household production. responsibilities (MCREST, FCREST, and CCREST). Wife's age is negatively related to the child's quality of life as a whole (CQLl). These findings suggest the older the wife the more responsibilities reporting family members perceive the child takes and the older the wife, the less satisfied the child's quality of whole life. Husband's age is negatively related to wife's quality of whole life (FDQFLl) and quality of family life (FDQFLZ). The relationship suggested by these findings is the older the husband, the more dissatisfied the wife is with her quality of whole life and family life. There are no other ll7 significant relationships for husband's age. The child's age is positively related to the husband's (MCREST) and wife's (FCREST) perceptions of child's household production responsibilities. This relationship suggests, the older the child, the more responsibility for household production the parents perceive he/she has. The child's age is positively related to husband's quality of life as a whole (MDQFLI). Child's age is negatively related to the child's quality of whole life (CQLl). These relationships suggest, the older the child, the more satisfied the father is with quality of whole life and the less satisfied the child is with his/her own quality of whole life. Ho 12: Family properties of household production responsibilities will differ by contextual variables. Ho 13: Family properties of perceived quality of life will differ by contextual variables. Employment Status The additive (AFPCHT) and dispersive (DFPCHT) triadic properties total responsibility for household production are not significantly related to employment status of the husband and wife. The‘ additive triadic family property child's household production responsibility is not significantly related to the employment status of the husband and wife (AFPCHT), whereas 118 the dispersive triadic property child's responsibilities for household production is positively related (DFPCHT). The additive and dispersive triadic properties quality of whole life and quality of family life are not significantly related to the employment status of husband and wife. Educational Level The additive triadic property total household production responsibility (AFPHT) is significantly related to wife's educational level but ,not husband's: Husband's and wife's educational levels are not related to the dispersive triadic property total responsibility for household production (DFPHT). Wife's educational level is positively related to only one triadic property, the additive triadic property child's responsibility for household production (AFPCHT).. Husband's educational level is significantly related to none of the additive or dispersive triadic properties. Family Income Family income is significantly related to the dispersive triadic property total household production responsibilities (DFPHT). Family income is not significantly related to the additive triadic property total household production responsibilities (AFPHT). Family income is not related to either additive or dispersive triadic property for child's responsibility for household production. Family income is positively related to the 119 additive triadic properties quality of whole life (AFPQTI) and quality of family life (AFPQTZ). Family income is negatively related to the dispersive family properties quality of whole life (DFPQTl) and quality of family life (DFPQTZ). Total Number 91 Fam11y Members Total number of family members is significantly related to the additive (AFPHT) and dispersive (DFPHT) triadic properties of total household production responsibilities. Total number of family members is positively related to the additive triadic properties child's responsibility for household production (AFPCHT) and quality of whole life (AFPQTl), but not quality of family life. The total number of family members is not significantly related to any of the dispersive triadic properties. 599 91 Fami1y Members Child's age is negatively related to two triadic properties, the additive and dispersive triadic properties quality of whole life (AFPQTl, DFPQTl). Child's age is positively related to the additive triadic property child's responsibilities for household production (AFPCHT) but is not significantly related to the dispersive triadic property. Husband's age is negatively related to only the additive triadic property quality of whole life (AFPQTl). 120 Wife's age is significantly related to only two triadic properties. It is positively related to the additive triadic property child's responsibilities for household production (AFPCHT). Wife's age is negatively related to the dispersive triadic property total household production responsibilities (DFPHT). Hypotheses 12 and 13 are supported. The contextual variables of family income and number of family members are related to half of the triadic properties. Family income is related to all four of the triadic quality of life properties plus one household production property. Total number of family members is significantly related to three of the four household production properties and one quality of life property. Age of family members, educational level of husband and wife, and employment status are not systematically related to any of the triadic properties. Summary The results of the analyses are summarized in order according to research objectives. Research Objective 1: Determine if there is congruence of family member's perceptions about responsibility for household production. Results of the analyses for research question one are summarized in Table 27. Hypotheses 1 through 5 are included 121 under this research question. Husband's and wife's perceptions of husband's household production responsibilities are not congruent. Their perceptions of wife's and child's household production responsibilities are congruent. There is no congruence between husband's and child's and wife's and child's perceptions of child's household production responsibilities. There is congruence between the husband, wife and child on child's household production responsibilities when measured as a triad. The child's report of household production responsibilities differs the most from the other members of the triad. Hypotheses 6 through 8 are included under research question two. Results of research objective two are summarized in Table 27, p. 122. Research Objective 2: Determine if there is congruence of family member's perceptions about quality of life. There is congruence between husband's and wife's perceptions of quality of whole life and quality of family life. There is no congruence between the dyads- husband and child and wife and child, for perceptions of quality of whole life and quality of family life. When measured as a triad, there is congruence between husband's, wife's and 122 .dium mNnu Now moNsp conNuoc ecu cu wcfichouom coupoadzm .o .<>oz< mohzmmoz coumomom Now No>oH mzdfi< .2 .HmoN-N oohfimm now No>oN oucmuwmwcmwm .m x NNN. N NHou-NHNoNN-NHNoNz NNN. N NHou-NHNoNN NNN. N NHoo-NHNooz x NNN. N NHNoNN-NHNoNz . NNNN NHHENN No NNNHmao NNN. . N HHou-HHNoNN-NNNoNz NNN. . N HNoo-HHN0NN NNN. . N HNoo-HNNoNz x NNN. N NNHNNN-HHNNN2 NNHN NNoNz No NNHHNao x NHN. .N Nmmmoo-NNmNuN-NmmNoz NNN. N NNNNNN-NNNNNN NNN. N Nmmzuo-NmmNuz x NNN. N NmmNoN-NmmNuz x NNN. N NNmNN:-NNmNON NNN. H NNmNmN-NNmNoz moNuNNNnchodmom cowuoscoum pHocomso: "mo oocozumcou ocopN0ddzm cmsz< NNHNNNcmcouo mNmocuodN: mwmogu09N= mo mzuom .Ho>oN msz< No oucmuwmficwflm zufiz w-N momonuoaxz -- mmcwccwm mo NNdEEgm--.NN oNnmN 123 child's perceptions of quality of family life. There is no congruence between the triad's perceptions of whole life. Research Objective 3: Investigate the relationship between the family properties of household production responsibilities and perceived quality of life. Hypothesis 9 is included under research question three. There is a relationship between the family properties of total household production responsibilities and .quality of life. Each cell within that portion of the matrix investigated contains at least one significant relationship between the properties. There is a relationship between child's household production and quality of life. Hypothesis 9 is supported. Research objectives 4 and 5 examine family properties of household production responsibilites and quality of life in relation to contextual variables. Results of research objectives 4 and 5 are reported in Table 26, p. 113. Research Objective 4: Describe the relationship of individual family member's reports of household production responsibilities and perceived quality of life to contextual variables. Research Objective 5: Describe the relationship of family members' reports of household production responsibilities and perceived quality of life to contextual variables. 124 Employment Status Employment status is not consistently related to individual or triadic additive or dispersive measures of responsibility for household production or quality of life. Educational Level Educational level is not consistently related to individual or triadic additive or dispersive measures of responsibility for household production or quality of life. Family Income Family income is not consistently related to individual or triadic additive or dispersive measures of responsibility for household production. Family income is consistently related to the individual and triadic additive and dispersive measures of quality of life. Total Number 91 Family Members Total number of family members is significantly related to seven of the eleven individual and additive and dispersive triadic measure of responsibility for household production. Total number of family members is not consistently related to the quality of life measures. 125 9999 _1 Family Members Individuals' perceptions of child's responsibility for household production are consistently related to wife's and child's age but not husband's. Child's age is related to husband's, wife's and child's individual measures of quality of whole life and the triadic additive and dispersive measures of quality of whole life. Husband's age is related to wife's individual quality of whole life and family life. Wife's and husband's age are not consistently related to individual or triadic measures of quality of life. CHAPTER VI LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter includes: overview of the study, discussion of findings, major conclusions, limitations and implications. Findings are discussed, limitations are stated and conclusions are drawn in relationship to related studies and theory. Implications for research and practical use are identified. Overview 91 199 §199y Perception of participation in household production has been viewed in the literature as a desirable participative family management behavior for it is beleived to contribute to greater involvement and hence greater satisfaction. The major purpose of the study was to examine the family properties of family members' perceptions regarding responsibility for household production and quality of life. A comparison of three models for determining family 126 127 properties from self reports of family members, husband, wife, and oldest child between six and twelve, was made. Contextual variables were studied with respect to family properties. Data collected for the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Project 1363H, "Contributions of Household Production to Family Income", were used to study family members perceptions of household production in relation to quality of life. The total sample of 107 families from the larger project were used in this research. Klein's (1982) model was used to develop family properties or family scores for use in data analyses. The family property was computed by three methods: 1) Additive model- addition of family members scores ‘across items as a family .property; 2) Dispersive Model- sum of discrepancy between family members scores across items as a family property; and 3) Discrete Model- individual reports as discrete, unique, and independently valid family properties. Congruence of family members on household production responsibilities and quality of life was investigated to determine if there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the comparison of three models in Klein's matrix. After determining the congruence of family members' perceptions, Klein's family property matrix was used to determine the relationship between the family properties: perceptions of 128 responsibility for household production and perceptions of quality of life. Family properties were also related to selected contextual variables. The contextual variables included employment status, educational level, family income, total number of family members, and ages of family members. Reliability was established for quality of life measures. The coefficients ranged from .65 to .77 for quality of whole life and .70 to .85 for quality of family life. Reliability has not been established for household production measures. Major Conclusions The major conclusions of this study are: l. Husband's and wife's perceptions of wife's and child's household production responsibilities are congruent. 2. Husband's and wife's perceptions of husband's household production responsibilities are not found to be congruent. 3. Husband's and child's and wife's and child's dyadic perceptions of child's household production responsibilities are not congruent. 4. Parents' and child's triadic perceptions of child's household production are congruent. 5. Husband's and wife's perceptions of quality of whole life and quality of family life are congruent. 6. Husband's and child's and wife's and child's dyadic 129 perceptions of quality of whole life and quality of family life are not congruent. 7. Husband's, wife's and child's triadic perceptions of quality of family life are congruent. 8. Husband's, wife's and child's triadic perceptions of quality of whole life are not congruent. 9. There is a relationship between perceptions of total household production responsibilities and perceptions of quality of life as measured by the additive, dispersive, and discrete models for determining family properties. 10. There is a relationship between perceptions of child's household production responsibilities and perceptions of quality of life as measured by the additive, dispersive, and discrete models for determining family properties. 11. Family income, number of family members and child's age are each related to five or more of the thirteen individual properties of perceptions on household production and quality of life. 12. Family income and number of family members are each related to four or more of the eight triadic properties of perceptions on household production responsibilities and quality of life. Discussion 91 Findings Discussion of the results of data analysis is organized around five research objectives. Research Objective 1: Determine if there is congruence of family members' perceptions about responsibilities for household production. The results of the analyses indicated that there is congruence of perceptions among husband and wife dyads for wife's and child's household production responsibilities but 130 not for husband's. There is no congruence between husband and child or wife and child dyads on child's household production. There is congruence of perception within the husband, wife and child triad on child's household production responsibilities but the child's perception is clearly different from that of the parents. An analysis of child's household production responsibilities found that children in different age groupings do not perceive taking responsibility for the same mean number of responsibilities. The basic incongruence between parent's and child's perceptions of household production responsibilities may be in part due to the child's age level. This view is supported by Larson (1974). It may be as children grow older and are part of the same family system their perceptions become more congruent. Children's questions regarding responsibility were not exactly the same as those posed to parents. The modification to make the responsibility questions equivalent may have distorted the findings. An understanding of the lack of congruence between husband and 'wife on husband's household production responsibilities may be due in part to the wording of the questions. Husband's might view the question in the following manner: "Do I take responsibility for x? "Yes, I have done so." Where as wife would think "I do this 99.5 percent of the time. My husband takes no 131 responsibility." Another possible explanation for the discrepancy could be "conventionality". This explanation is posited by many researchers (Berk and Shih, 1980; Larson, 1974; Turk and Bell, 1972). The husband and wife would, according to this explanation of discrepancy, think the husband took on female stereotypic responsibilities but the image reported would be strictly male. Research Objective 2: Determine if there is congruence of family members' perceptions about quality of life. There is congruence between husband's and wife's dyadic perceptions of quality of whole life and quality of family life but congruence was not found between husband's and child's and wife's and child's dyadic perceptions of quality of life. The child's age may have an effect on his/her perceptions of quality of life. The child perceptions are closer to those of his/her parents on measures of quality of family life than quality of whole life when the triad is measured.. The child between 6 and 12 years of age, may not yet comprehend whole life as well as he/she does family life. Whole life may constitute an obtuse concept to the child whereas family life may be a specific known entity. This could be the reason that the triad's perceptions of quality of family life are congruent while perceptions of whole life are not. If this author were to rank the data in 132 terms of hardest to softest, responsibilities for household production would rank hardest, quality of whole life softest, and quality of family life in the middle. If in fact the ranking is correct, the works of Ballweg (1969), Safilios-Rothschild (1969) and White and Brinkerhoff (1978) would add support to these findings. Research Objective 3: Investigate the relationship between the family properties of household production responsibility and perceived quality of life. Each of the nine cells in the matrix investigated in this research contains at least one significant relationship between the family properties of total household production responsiblity and quality of life. These relationships suggest: 1) the greater the level of total responsibility, the greater the level of quality of family life and the less dispersion among family member's perceptions on family life, 2) the greater the dispersion among family members on total household production responsibilities the less dispersion there is between family members' perceived quality of life, and 3) for the most part, the greater the individual's level of responsibility, the greater the individual's perceived quality of life. There is only one significant relationship between the triadic properties of child's responsibilities for household production and the triadic properties of quality of life. 133 The additive triadic property child's responsibility for household production is negatively related to the dispersive triadic property quality of whole life. This relationship suggests the greater the family's perceptions of child's responsibility for household production the smaller the discrepancy between family reports of quality of whole life. This relationship may in part be due to the child's age. Child's age is significantly related to both the dispersive triadic family property quality of whole life and the additive family property child's responsibility for household production. As in other studies that have included children, reports have differed by child's age (Hess and Torney, 1965; Larson, 1974). Another possible explanation for the lack of significant relationships between triadic measures of household production and quality of life is the unknown reliability of the household production questions. The quality of life questions have a reliability coefficient consistent with that of other studies (Andrews and Withey, 1976; campbell 91 91., 1976; Rettig, 1980). Questions on household production responsibilities have never been used before. Research Objective 4: Describe the relationship of individual family member's reports of household production responsibilities and perceived quality of life to contextual variable. 134 Research Objective 5: Describe the relationship of family members' reports of household production responsibilities and perceived quality of life to contextual variables. Most of the contextual variables are not systematically related to individual or triadic perceptions of household production or quality of life. Family income, total number of family members, and child's age were found to be significantly related to individual and triadic perceptions of household production and quality of life. When compared to the findings of other researchers these findings were to be expected. Andrews and Withey (1976) found that little variation in why people were satisfied with their lives was explained by age, sex, race, income, or education. Studies of congruence have also found little relationship between congruence and socioeconomic factors (Jaco and Shepard, 1975; Safilios-Rothschild, 1969; Van E5 and Shingi, 1972). On the whole, it was found that husband and wife perceptions are more congruent than parent and child perceptions. Children's perceptions differ by age. There was no systematic relationship between individual or triadic, additive or dispersive measures of household production and quality of life with the contextual variables, employment status, educational level of husband and wife, or age of husband. Family income is 135 systematically related to more than half of all the individual and triadic additive and dispersive family properties of household production responsibilities and quality of life. Child's age was systematically related to the individual and triadic properties of quality of whole life. Number of family members was related to individual and additive triadic properties. There was support for the relationship between family properties perceptions on household production responsibilities and quality of life. Use of Klein's (1982) matrix, pitting models for determining family properties against each other, provides support for the hypothesized relationship between family properties, perceptions of household production responsibilities and quality of) life. Three of the five models for determining family properties, additive, dispersive, and discrete, were used in this research. Limitations 91 the Stugy Limitations of the study are: 1. The sample used in this study is not representative of other family forms, i.e., single parent families, older families,families with no children. Therefore, generalizations pertaining to families other than families like those in the sample are not proper. 136 2. Respondents' evaluations of self or other persons in the family may have little to do with the actual carrying out of household production responsibilities. 3. Reliability of the questions on responsibility for household production are unknown. 4. Data for child's perceptions of adult household production responsibilities was not gathered. Implications 91 the Study Implications of the study for practical use and further research are discussed in this section. Research Further development of measures of family properties would assist researchers and theorists in building a more comprehensive model of the many perceptions or realities which exist within the family. The exploration of the remainder of Klein's model is called for when data from two or more family members is available. There is still a need to move beyond the dyad and triad to include all family members' perceptions as opposed to researchers discussing families from only one or two perspectives, as they have in the past. The matrix is useful in determining which model is most productive for various kinds of data. Further research into individual items of household production responsibilities should be investigated using 137 each of Klein's models to determine if there are "push" - "pull" effects with stereotypic division of responsibilities. Further research into congruence among siblings on household production and quality of life is needed. There is a scarcity of such information at the present time. The information would extend the knowledge base beyond the individual into a true family measure. Further research into perceptions of congruence and actual measurement of congruence are called for by Booth and Welch (1978). This research would add multidimensionality to the study of congruence of family members' perceptions. The effect of congruence on perceptions of household production responsibilities and quality of life need further study in terms of behavioral outcomes within the family. How are families with incongruent perceptions different from and like families with congruent perceptions? A larger sample including different family sizes and types, having all family members participate would be helpful in expanding the knowledge base. In all further research there is a need to clearly identify and define the methods for developing family properties. The unit of analysis should be made clear so that studies can be compared or repeated. Researchers need to incorporate procedures for obtaining more than one measure of family properties so that methods can be pitted 138 one against the other to increase knowledge of their outcomes. Further research studies need to take note of all of the methods used to describe and explain discrepancy and error. Families are not just individuals and marital dyads as we so often describe them. As Sprey (1979) states they "are characterized by a distinct asymmetry in member resources and authority" (p. 153). This is especially true of the children whom we so often forget are included in the family. Participation with other family members in family activities helps to build human capital. How much are children actually participating in household production activities? Are children participating in household production activities as much as they say they are? Are children learning participatory management skills from their parents that will be useful in facets of their lives? The family process as seen by Sprey (1979) is a continuous confrontation between family members with conflicting interests. If, as Larson (1974) alleges, we assume equilibrium or congruence on family reality we will miss much of the discrepancy in perceptions and behavior that is found in the family and continue with our one dimensional view. Continued research on family properties will lead to a multidimensional view of the family. 139 Practical Use There is some evidence of a relationship between equitable dispersion of responsibility or involvement of all family members in household production with quality of life. Within the literature participative management is viewed as leading to satisfaction with life. Conventional wisdom posits that participative management leads to satisfaction with life. The research indicates there is considerable evidence of perception of involvement in household production but limited evidence of actual practice, hence the need to question conventional wisdom. The implications of this study suggest that formal and non-formal educational programs that focus on developing skills in household production may be lappropriate. All family members perceive themselves as taking some responsibility for household production. Education programs for skill development need to be directed to both males and females, children and adults. Programs for children, since children take some responsibility and responsibility differs by age, should be a part of formal and non-formal programs. With increased competence, perceptions of responsibility may be carried out into actual practice and lead to increased satisfaction with life. APPENDICES APPENDIX A INTERVIEW INSTRUCTIONS Training Meeting 1 May 1980 1. Introduction (hand out plastic I.D.'s) 2. Explanation of study (use proposal); police have been notified 3. Locating families: a. b. C. blocks have been randomly selected (apt. building was considered a block) starting points in each area (K. Rettig) use skip pattern 4. Initial contact, screening: a. b. C. d. e. f. g. h. i. knock on door introduce self: who you are working for--MSU-- College of Human Ecology doing study of 2 spouse families with elementary age children about stretching dollars to help beat inflation. Do you and your spouse have a child between 6 - 12 years of age. fill in household composition form. if household meets criteria explain study, indicate there will be a small token of appreciation (35) if all 3 questionnaires are filled out. are you willing to participate? if yes - ask open end question. Give them envelope; go over format of 2 types of questions (interviewers fill in; time). leave enveloPes; arrange for pickup--have them sign form--explain they can help kids; point out phone no. tell family they will be mailed check after insert form and questionnaires have been checked for completeness. 140 141 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF IIL‘MAN ECOLOGY ' DEPARTMENT O!" FAHILY ECOLOGY EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 4352-! Spring I980 This is to introduce our interviewer from This interviewer is asking your participation in a study of household production by Michigan families. The research project and questionnaire have been developed by the Department of Family Ecology and the Family Living Education, COOperative Extension Service, College of Human Ecology at Michigan State University. The project has been funded by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. The cooperation of your family in granting a short interview and in completing the self-administered questionnaires will be sincerely appreciated. Your names will in no way be linked to your responses. Sincerely, .NZELNJZZZLNq22222£12,;; 15::Zaazjfy‘éZTTQ‘222z”° .—E§;1ccn.\Qhart1xccuuxN:7 Beatrice Paolucci, Mary Andrews, Irene Hathaway, Professor Evaluation Specialist Instructor Family Ecology Family Living Education Family Ecology and Resource Management Specialist MSU is n AI/imaliw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 142 .‘iIC'd IGAN STATE UN IVERS ITY College of Human Ecology East Lansing, Michigan May, 1980 CONSENT FORM We, the undersigned, freely consent to participate in a scientific and educational study conducted by the College of Human Ecology and The Cooperative Extension Service of Michigan State University under the supervision of Beatrice Paolucci, Irene Hathaway, and Mary Andrews. The purposes of the project have been explained to us and we under- stand the explanation that has been given as well as what our participation will involve. We understand that we are free to discontinue participation in the study at any time without penalty, or that we may withdraw the participa- tion of our child. We understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that we will renain anonymous. Final results of the study will be made available to us at our request. We understand that we may have an opportunity to participate in an educational program to increase our income-producing skills if we so desire. It is hoped that participation in these educational activities will be beneficial to us; however, we understand there is no guarantee of beneficial results. We desire to participate in this research and consent and agree. We, as legal parents/guardians of the below named child, give our permission for the child to participate in the study to the degree to which the child desires. Please sign your first and last names. Adult Female Signature Date Adult Male Signature Date Child's Signature Date Address . City, Town, State Zip Telephone APPENDIX B SAMPLING PROCEDURES Table B-l.--Demographic Characteristics of Areas in Which Sampling Occured. Demographics 9!??? ......... §mall-lgwa Bare! ..... Lansing Mason Wheatfield (Census Tract) 36.01 36.02 63 57 Total Populationa 4695 4344 6678 4279 Race8 White 2992 3032 6446 4200 Black 1436 1041 104 21 Amer-Indian 28 39 22 5 Asian 40 16 57 33 Other 197 216 49 20 Persons of Spanish origin included above 312 307 99 19 Number of Families8 1214 1123 1529 400 Number of Childrena (within specific age range) 6 87 8 98 24 7 - 9 312 284 291 90 10 - 13 437 346 394 120 Incomeb Median Income 19,400 14,800 18,400 17,900 Percent UnemploymentC 12.5% 12.6% 12.6% a. 1980 U. S. Census Data, Ingham County Michigan. b. 1980 Estimated Median Household Income. Tri-County Planning Commission, October, 1981. ' c. Michigan Employment Security Commission, May 1980, revisei. 143 144 Table B-2.--C1assification of Attempted Placement of Questionnaire by Location. Location Number % Urban Area 309 44.1 Small Town 192 27.4 Rural Area 200 28.5 Total 701 100.0 Table B-3.--C1assification of Attempted Placement of Questionnaires by Time of Day. Time Number % 9 AM - 1 PM 147 21.0 1 PM - 5 PM 487 69.5 5 PM - 10 PM 43 6.1 Missing data 24 3.4 Total 701 100.0 145 Table B-S.--C1assification of Attempted Placement of Questionnaires by Initial Contact with Family Member. Family Member Number % Male 92 13.1 Female 321 45.8 Child 17 2.4 Not Apply 189 27.0 Missing data 82 11.7 Total 701 100.0 146 Table B-4.--Classification of Attempted Placement of Questionnaires by Eligibility of Family. Eligibility Number % Eligible G Placement 139 19.8 Eligible 6 Refused 18 2.6 Not Eligible 268 38.2 Single Parent 22 3.1 Refused before eligibility determined 5 .7 Other 22 3.1 No Answer 198 28.2 Missing data 29 4.1 Total 701 100.0 APPENDIX C PORTIONS OF HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION QUESTIONNARIE USED IN THIS STUDY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY ' DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY ECOLOGY EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 I May l980 Dear Friend, In all discussions connected with inflation and energy shortages, there have been few opportunities for families to share what they are doing to ease the situation. We, at Michigan State University thought you would be willing to tell us what your family is doing to stretch dollars, that is, what you are doing yourself rather than purchasing, how you are getting the most out of the things you have. This information will help us plan educational programs that will be helpful to other families - and to our economy. All information given will be kept confidential. Your family will not be identified in any reports or publications. The information will be given a number and names will not be released at any time. We would like for you, your spouse and your oldest child to answer the questions in these booklets. Your child may need some help from you. Please feel free to help him or her. We appreciate your willingness to help us to learn how families are managing these days. If you have any questions about the study, please call 353-0668 or 355-7732. Sincerely, 5i:;:z::‘7flfi7l£ . -.gpyadff,¢1;;g¢gg¢2ye EQUZhJL \AHSSlwauue::) Beatrice Paolucci, Mary Andrews, Irene Hathaway, Professor Evaluation Specialist instructor Family Ecology Family Living Education Family Ecology and Resource Management Specialist firm1 Rett i 9 Ma rgaret Ezel I Research Associate Graduate Assistant HSUis-WAWW-dty Institutio- 14 7 148 GENERAL DIRECTIONS Please read the directions at the beginning of each section before answering the questions. It is very important that you answer each question as carefully and as accurately as you can. Be sure to respond to all the questions on both front and back of each page. You, your spouse and your oldest child are asked to complete separate questionnaires. Please do not discuss your anSwers before all of you have finished the entire questionnaire. When you have completed the Questionnaire, return it to the manila envelope provided. YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT LIFE CONCERNS In this section of the questionnaire, we want to find out how you feel about various parts of your life. Please include the feelings you have now--taking into acCOunt what has happened in the last year and what you expect in the near future. All of the items can be answered by simply writing on the line to the left of each question one of the following numbers to indicate how you feel. For example write in "I" for terrible, "4" if you have mixed feelings about some question (that is, you are about equally satisfied and dissatisfied with some part of your life), and so forth on to "7" if you feel delighted about it. I feel: —-—l: I-——.— I— .—.———I—— E .— Terrible Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) l.| How do you feel about your life as a whole? l.2 How do you feel about the way you spend your spare time, your non-working activities? l.3 How do you feel about changes in your family's lifestyle that you have made or may need to make in order to conserve energy? _m_, 149 7'3". 3 .11 5 a Terrible Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) How do you feel about how secure you are financially? How do you feel about the extent to which your physical needs (for example, food, sleep, shelter and clothing) are met? How do you feel about your total family income, the way it enables you and your family to live as comfortably as you would like? How do you feel about the opportunities that are available in your community to learn new things or be exposed to new ideas? How do you feel about your own family life--your husband or wife, your marriage and your children? How do you feel about your standard of Iiving--the things you have like housing, car, furniture, recreation, and the like? I.I0 How do you feel about your primary job (paid or unpaid)? Any comments? 150 2l 29. Now that you have done some thinking about the things you do, your family life and your life in general, we would like to ask you how you feel about them. Please write on the line to the left of each question one of the following numbers to indicate how you feel. For example, if you feel terrible about it write in "I", if you have mixed feelings about it (that is, you are about equally satisfied and dissatisfied) write in "4", and if you feel delighted about it write in "7". I feel: -—I II B Terrible 29.| 29.2 Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) How do you feel about your own family life--your husband or wife, your marriage, and your children? How do you feel about your life as a whole? 18 151 TAKING RESPONSIBILITY IN THE FAMILY There are many jobs to be done as part of family life. who takes responsibility in your family. 26. Between you and your spouse to what extent does your spouse take responsibility for: We are interested in knowing ’5} ) 48 o Sbb <9 ’9 Z6.| 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 26.8 26.9 26.IO 26.Il 26.I2 26.I3 26.I4 26.I5 26.I6 26.I7 26.I8 26.I9 26.20 Caring for children's physical needs? Caring for children's social and educational needs? Disciplining children? Cleaning the house? Maintenance and repair of the house? Preparing meals? Shopping? Seeking information for purchases? Gardening? Laundry? Yard work? Care of car(s)? Paying bills? Keeping records, doing taxes, etc.? Attending school meetings? Supervising children's activities? Communicating with relatives and friends (letters, cards, phone calls)? Transporting children? Planning leisure activities including vacations? Other, please list 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 1552 ,. ’6 4b [P 9 45x 66 2b x 6 x / 93 Qt / )t }‘ G G 80% fl;9 27° Between YOU and your spouse to what 425 2% extent do ygy take responsibility for: Ox 27.l Caring for children's physical needs? 1 2 27.2 Care for children's social and educational needs? | 2 27.3 Disciplining children? | 2 27.4 Cleaning the house? | 2 27.5 Maintenance and repair of the house? | 2 27.6 Preparing the meals? | 2 27.7 Shopping? | 2 27.8 Seeking information for purchases? | 2 27.9 Gardening? | 2 27.lO Laundry? | 27.ll Yard work? | 27.l2 Care of car(s)? | 27.l3 Paying bills? I 27.l4 Keeping records, doing taxes, etc.? | 27.l5 Attending school meetings? | 27.l6 Supervising children's activities? | 27.l7 Communicating with relatives and friends (letters, cards, phone calls)? I 27.l8 Transporting children? | 27.l9 Planning leisure activities including vacations? | 27.20 Other, please list | 153 20 28. To what extent does your oldest child __i do the followinq: 28.l Care for other children? | 2 3 4 5 28.2 Yard work (mow grass, weed, rake leaves)? | 2 3 4 5’ 28.3 Help with meals? I 2 3 4 5 28.4 Help with meal clean-up (clearing the table, washing and drying dishes)? | 2 3 4 5 28.5 Water plants? | 2 3 4 5 28.6 Clean house or room? I 2 3 4 5 28.7 Put away groceries? | 2 3 4 5 28.8 Care for pets and animals? I 2 3 4 5 28.9 Sweep sidewalks? l 2 3 4 5 28.lO Help with shopping or going to the store for extras? I 2 3 4 5 28.ll Shovel snow? I 2 3 4 5 28.l2 Help with gardening? | 2 3 4 5 28.l3 Take out garbage? | 2 3 4 5 28.l4 Help with laundry? | 2 3 4 5 28.l5 Suggest fun activities? | 2 3 4 5 28.l6 Earn extra money (newspaper route, babysitting)? I 2 3 4 5 28.l7 Other, please list | 2 3 4 5 28 154 YOUR FAMILY SITUATION This study is about how family members can increase their income. We are interested in knowing some things about you and your family. FOR EACH QUESTION, PLACE A CHECK MARK IN THE BRACKETS ( THE LINE PROVIDED. 42.l What is your sex? ( ) Male ( ) Female 42.2a How old were you on your last birthday? Age at last birthday ) OR WRITE THE ANSWER ON _ 42.2b What is the month, day, and year of your birth? Month Day 42.3 What is your religion, it any? ( ) Protestant: Year of Birth Please specify Catholic Jewish None Other: Please specify 42.4 What is your race? White Black/Negro/Afro-American Spanish origin Other AAAA Vvvv Please specify 155 29 42.5 What is the hiohest level of formal schooling that you have completed? Check one: AAAAAAA vvvvvvv Less than 8 grades of elementary school B grades of elementary school I-3 years of high school Completed 4 years of high school or passed high school equivalency exam Less than 4 years of college 4 years of college 5 or more years of college 42.5a Have you been enrolled in any type of educational program other than high school or college such as vocational training? ( ) YES—fiTzab If YES, please specify your field of training ( ) NO (such as business, office work, practical nursing, beautician, mechanic, electrician). Field of training 42.5c Did you complete the training program? ( ) YES ( ) NO ( ) DOES NOT APPLY 42.5d Have you been enrolled in any type of educational program other than high school or college in the last year, such as craft classes, religion classes, cooperative extension classes, adult education? ( ) YES"'i ( ) NO 42.5e If YES, what type of educational program is it? Field of training or type of program 30 42.6a 1556 Are you presently employed, unemployed, retired, or what? CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY TO YOU. ( ) Housewife or househusband < > Student (30 TO QUESTION 4l.7a ON PAGE 32 unless you also check one of the categories below in which case go to 42.6b below. ( ) Permanently disabled ( ) Retired ( ) Unemployed (that is, previously employed for pay and/OR presently looking for a job) - ( ) Temporarily laid off 42.6b 42.6c 42.6d OR on strike GO TO QUESTION 42.6b OR on sick leave ( ) Working now If you are working now OR are temporarily laid off OR on strike OR on sick leave, what kind of work do you do? What is your main occupation called? (If you have two jobs, your main occupation is the job on which you spend the most time. If you spend an equal amount of time on two Jobs, it is the one which provides the most income.) Main occupation What do you actually do in that job? What are some of your main duties? Duties What kind of business, industry or organization is your job in? What do they do or make at the place where you work? Kind of business, industry or organization What do they make or do 157 3| 42.6e About how many hours a week do you do this work? CHECK ONE. ( ( ( ( ) Less than 20 hours per week ) 2l-39 hours per week ) 40 hours per week ) More than 40 hours per week 42.6f Are you an hourly wage worker, salaried, on commission, self-employed, or what? CHECK ONE. ( ( ( ( ( ) Hourly wage worker ) Salaried ) Work on commission, tips ) Self-employed in own business, professional practice, or farm ) Work without pay in family business or farm 42.6g Are you currently employed in a second job? ( ( ) YES---fil 42.6h If YES, about how many hours a week do you do this work? ) NO ( ) Less than 29 hours per week ( ) 2l-39 hours per week ( ) 40 hours per week 1558 32 42-73 What 90 YOU estimate your total family income before taxes was in I979? Please include income from all sources before taxes, including income from wages, property, stocks, interest, welfare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, child support from a previous marriage, and any other money income received by you and all family members who live with you. ESTIMATED TOTAL FAMILY YEARLY INCOMEng979 ( ) Under $3,000 ( ) $l2,000 - $l4,999 ( ) $3,000 - $3,999 ( ) $I5,000 - $l9,999 ( ) $4,000 - $4,999 ( ) $20,000 - $24,999 ( ) $5,000 - $5,999 ( ) $25,000 - $29,999 ( ) $6,000 - $6,999 ( ) $30,000 - $34,999 ( ) $7,000 - $7,999 ( ) $35,000 - $49,000 ( ) $8,000 - $9,999 ( ) $50,000 and over ) A $I0,000 -$I|,999 42.7b About how much of this total in I979? family yearly income before taxes did you earn ESTIMATED PORTION OF TOTAL FAMILY INCOME, I979. EARNED BY YOURSELF A ) Does not apply, not employed in |979 ( ) Under $3,000 ( ) $l2,000 - $l4,999 ( ) $3,000 - $3,999 ( ) $l5,000 - $l9,999 ( ) $4,000 - $4,999 ( ) $20,000 - $24,999 ( ) $5,000 - $5,999 ( ) $25,000 - $29,000 ( ) $6,000 - $6,999 ( ) $30,000 and over ( ) $7,000 - $7,999 ( ) $8,000 - $9,999 ( )$l0,000 -$ll,999 159 42.7c What are the SOurces of your family income? CHECK as many categories as you need to describe your own situation. 42.7d INCOME SOURCE ( ) Wages Salary Child support Aid to Dependent Children Alimony Caring for children in your home (day care, foster care) Interest Commissions Dividends Bonuses Overtime Social Security Unemployment compensation Trust funds Royalties Inheritance Rent Help from relatives Roomers or boarders Selling farm produce or crafts Other, please list In the coming year, would you say your financial situation will get worse, stay about the same, or get better? CHECK ONE. ( ( ( ) ) Get worse Stay about the same ) Get better 34 43.I 43.2 43.3 43.4 160 Do you (or does a member of your family who lives with you) own your home, do you rent? ( ) Own or buying ( ) Renting ( ) Other Please specify How long have you lived in this house or apartment? ( ) Less than I year ( ) 2 - 3 years ( ) 4 - 6 years ( ) 7 - 9 years ( )l0 -I2 years ( )l3 -l5 years ( )l6 -l8 years ( )l9 -2l years ( )22 -24 years ( )25 years or more How many rooms do you have in your dwelling, not counting bathrooms? 43.3a 43.3b Numoer of rooms Number of bathrooms How much does housing cost for your family? Please indicate the amount you pay each month for rent or mortgage, including property taxes and insurance. Less than $l00 per month $I0l - $l50 per month $l5l - $200 per month $20l - $250 per month $25| - $300 per month $3OI - $350 per month $35I - $400 per month $40l - $450 per month $45l - $500 per month $50l - $550 per month $55l - $600 per month $60l - $650 per month More than $650 per month Please specify 161 We are interested in knowing which of the following types of equipment you own. 44. Do 44. 44. 44. 44. 44. 44, 44. 44. 44. 44. 44. 44. 44, 44, 44, 44, 44, 44, 44. 44. 44. 44. 44 44. you own: 2 20 2| 22 .23 24 Washer? Dryer? Refrigerator/with freezer? Freezer? Food processor or blender? Food dryer? Microwave oven? Pressure canner? Hot water bath canner? Sewing machine? Steam iron/iron? Rug shampooer? Floor polisher? Power drill? Power saw? Router? Electric sander? Lawn mower? Rototiller? Farm or garden tractor? Snow blower? Painting equipment (brushes, roller, trays, edgers, etc. Wallpapering equipment? Other, please list YES NO DON'T KNOW 3 35 36 45.|a Is this your first marriage? ) YES ——H ( ( 162 What was the date and year of your marriage? ) NO----€i 45.lb In what year and month did your present marriage begin? 45.|o How did your last marriage end what ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) year? Death Divorce Annulment Separation Year of Year of Year of Year of and in death divorce annulment separation 45.|d Please specify the beginning and ending dates of any marriages existing prior to the one described in 44.Ic. 163 37 45.Ie We would like to know something about the people who live in your family. Please list in the chart below your children and other household members- their birth date, age at last birthday, sex, and indicate by using a check mark if you are financially responsible for the support of the person. Date of Age at Sex Financial birth. last (circle Support no./day/yr. birthday M or F) SPOuSE '- " M F CHILDREN BORN TO THIS I. M F MARRIAGE 2. M F Please list in order 3' M F from oldest to youngest 4. M F 5. M F 6. M F 7. M F 8 I M F 9. M F CHILDREN BORN TO WIFE PRIOR I. M F TO THIS MARRIAUE 2. M F Please list in order, 3' M F from oldest to youngest 4. M F 5. M F FCHILDREN BORN TO HUSBAND l. M F PRIOR TO THIS MARRIAGE ' - 2. M F Please list in order 3' M F from oldest to youngest 4. M F 5. M F ADOPTED CHILDREN NOT BORN I. M F TO EITHER SPOUSE 2. M F Please list in order 3' M F from oldest to youngest 4. M F 5. M F ICONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE. NOTE: If there are not enough spaces, please finish the list on the last page. 164 Date of Age at Marital Relation Financial birth last Sex status to you Support mo./day/yr. birthday OTHER RELATIVES I. M F LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD 2' M F i (such as niece, 3. M F nephew, grandchild, 4 M F Tr— parent, sister, ' uncle, brother, 5. M F brotherTIn-Iaw, 6. M F mother-In-law, husband's uncle) 7. M F 8. M F OTHER PERSONS I. M F LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD 2' M F (such as foster 3. M F child, friend, household help, 4' M F boarders) 5. M F 6. M F T 7. M F 1 NOTE: If there are not enough spaces, please finish the list on the last page. 46. Counting yourself, how many people now live in your household? People 5. 6. 165 How old are you today? When is your birthday? month day Are you a girl or a boy? - What are the things you like to do for fun? What kinds of things does your family do to save money? What could you do to help your family save money? What are the things you like best about living in your family? 166 HERE ARE SOME FACES SHOWING FEELINGS. Under each face Is a letter. A B C D E F G 8. Which face shows how you feel about your life (your whole life)? (Write the letter on the line.) 9. Which face shows how you feel about your own family? 10. Which face shows the way you feel about yourself? 11. Which face shows the way you feel about the amount of work you do at home for the family? 12. Which face shows the way you feel about the amount of money your family has? I3. Which face shows the way you feel about the chances you have to learn new things? 14. How do you feel about the way you spend your free time at home? 15. Which face shows the way you feel about the house you have, the food you eat, and the clothes you wear? I6. Which face shows the way you feel about the thinos your family has - your car, furniture, toys, games, and playthings. l7. Which face shows the way you feel about the ghggggegour family may need To make To save eneEQY like keeping the house cooler, fewer trips in the car, and using less electrical energy? HERE IS A LIST OF JOBS children often do at home for the family. 167 mark beside each job that you do. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. What other jobs do you do? Do some shopping or go to the store for extras. Write a letter. Take care of other children in the family. Earn money. Make a check Take care of pets or animals (feed them, get fresh water, take them outside). Do yard work (mow the grass, weed the garden, rake Take out garbage or trash. Sweep sidewalks, porches or patio, floors. Shovel snow. Dust furniture. Vacuum rugs, carpets, floors. Clean sinks, bathtubs, toilets. Wash floors. Put away groceries. Prepare and cook meals. Set and clear the table, wash the table. Wash and dry dishes. Water the plants. Collect dirty clothes for the laundry. Wash and dry the clothes. Put away the clean clothes. Put away toys, clean my room. leaves). Take sheets off the bed or put clean sheets on the bed. APPENDIX D DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 168 ooo.mom aem.om- moo. mmo. moo. mmm. mmm. memom>meu< emammem memeeamm mm mmmo: mom.o om~.m - oNo. eom. omo. oom. mNm. eeuommmo meoouoomeauo ms mmmo: omm.m oeo.m - mmo. mam. moo. emm. omm. me>msamam mom: memoeumeaeeoo Hm ammo: mom.mm mmm.e - oNo. Nam. moo. mmm. mmm. memom>muu< m.emmoo memmm>eem=m om mmmo: oo~.H mmm.m - omo. omm. Hem. mmm. Nam. awesome: seemum memoeeou< mm mmmo: Nos.o- mmm.~ - mNo. NmN. omo. mom. mom. moeouam memoeem em ammo: meo.m omo.~ - omo. oom. omo. Nam. omo. mmomm memmem ms mmmo: mNm.om moN.m - moo. omm. moo. omm. mom. eueo oao NH mmmo: mm~.~m ooo.m - omo. oom. mNo. omm. Nam. moo: one» as ammo: omm.m- mom. - moo. mme. mam. moo. mom. mtoeaam om ommo: Noo.m omm.s - moo. mmm. mom. Nam. omm. memeeouao m ammo: mom.m om~.m - oNo. eoo. omo. oom. mom. emamuuam pom eemoeemooem m mmmo: ooo. mNo.H - mmo. Nmm. mom. moo. mam. memooomm m momo: ooo. moo.m - moo. Nmm. mmm. mmm. mam. meme: eeaoetm o mmmo: mom.om mo~.m - moo. one. moo. omm. mmm. ease: emamam o emeoeme: m ammo: mmm.~ moN.~ - moo. oem. one. eNm. mom. ease: mameeamo a ammo: o o o o oo.s oo.m eeuemmmo mememmmmummo m ammo: ooo.mom aem.oa- moo. mmo. moo. mmm. mmm. meme: memuem m.:eeomm:o N mmmo: ooo.mom eem.om- moo. Hmo. moo. mmm. mmm. moeez Haummmmm m.eetommmo H mmmo: momouwsx mmoczoxm mm am > compo: new: NuuoEENm moofiwnmowe> Nozoocoh Homecob oHnmmHm> wwmwwmmmmw-mmwwmmmwwoo .nooouopoom maocomso: mow moflomaonmmcommom we :oouoouoom mfiom m.o:mnm:: How mooumwuoum o>wumfiuomoa--.fi-o ofinoh 169 o o o o o oo.m oo.m memom>mou< anamoem memeeemm mm mmmm: omm.mm amm.m- NNo. omm. mmo. omm. eem. eeuommmo memuueomeauo mm mmmm: o o o o o oo.m oo.m me>momaem mom: mammaUmeaeeoo Hm mmmm: o o o o o oo.m oo.mmemum>oou< m.ommmo memmm>uam=m om mmmm: mm~.~m oom.m- oso. oom. oNo. omm. Nam. mmemoee: moomum memoeeoo< mm momm: mom. omm.”- mmo. omm. mam. Nmm. mom. maneuem memoeem as mmmm: Nam.o mmo.~- mNo. Nmm. omo. mom. mom. mammm mammam mm mmmm: mmm.m- Nam. - moo. eoe. mam. omm. Nmo. ammo uao NH mmmm: mam.om mom.m- emo. mam. moo. mom. mmm. moo: one» Hm momm: mNm.om mo~.m- moo. omo. moo. omm. mom. muoeaem om mmmm: omm.m omm.~- Nmo. omm. mom. mmm. mmm. memeeouao m mmmm: o o o o o oo.m oo.m mememueao tom composuemeo m momm: o o o o o oo.m oo.m memmmomm m mmmm: o o o o o oo.: oo.m meme: eteoeem o mmmm: o o o o o oo.m oo.m ease: emamem-eueaeeoema: m momm: o o o o o oo.m oo.a emao: memeaeso a mmmm: o o o o o oo.m oo.m eaeommmo memmmmummo m mmmm: o o o o o oo.m oo.m moeoz Hamuom m.eeueommo N mmmm: o o o o o oo.m oo.s moaez maummmam m.eeuemmmo a momm: mmeHHq—M mm®c30xw mm am > :wHUUZ cam: NMMMEHNW xuwfinomoo> Nucoocob Homoeou ofinooeo> wmwmwwmmmw-m>mwmmmwwmm momuomwowmcoomom m.owwz mo mnemumoueom m.o:enm:: .:omuu:wowm vHocomso: wow wow muflumwumum o>wuowwumoo--.~-c omnmh 170 mmmmmmmmmm-mmmmmmmmmmo mmN.Nm oom.m- omo. ooN. mNo. omm. Nmm. memom>mou< museum: memeeamm ms momom Noa.mm omm.e- NNo. mNN. moo. mmm. mmm. eeuommao memouemmeauo mm mmmom o o o o -o oo.N oo.m me>moamem mom: memoeumeseeoo AN mmmom ooo.mom eam.om- moo. mmo. moo. mmm. Nmm. mamum>meu< m.ommmo memam>eeaam oN mmmom mom.NN Nem.a- moo. ems. omo. mom. mom. mmemoee: Neeeum memoeeso< mm mmmom Ham. NNH.N- mmo. omm. Nam. Nmo. NNm. monouem memoeem as mmmom mNN.e mma.N- Nmo. omm. Nos. omm. mom. mmmmm memmem ms mmmom NNN. - NHN.N- moo. mNo. Noe. mam. oom. etao Leo NN mmmom mNm.m omN.m- oNo. eoN. omo. oom. mNm. moo: eta» NN momom ooo.NoN aam.om- moo. mmo. moo. mmm. omm. mtoeaam om mmmom Nmo.N amm.N- mmo. omm. mNN. Nam. omm. memeeeeeo m mmmom mNm.om moN.m- NNo. omm. moo. omm. omm. mememueam tam composeomem m mmmom o o o o o oo.N oo.N mamooomm m momom o o o o o oo.N oo.m mama: eueaeum o mmmom omm.m omm.N- Nmo. on. mom. omm. mam. ease: emaoem-eueeeeueme: m mmmom o o o o o oo.o oo.m . ease: memeeemo a mmmom o o o o o oo.N oo.m eeeommmo meommmummo m mmmom o o o o o oo.N oo.N meme: Nemuem m.:eeomomo N mmmom o o o o o oo.N oo.m moeez Naommmmm m.eeeommeo N mmmom momeouam mmeezemm mm om > cameo: one: NHMMEHNW xumawnmwom> Nucoocok Homoeou mfinmmum> .comuosmowm oaosomso: wow momumfiwnwmcoomom mo mcomuooouom «New m.owwz How mowumwumom o>wuofiwumoo--.m-a omnmh 171 wwwmmmwmww-mmwwmmmwwmm mmm.o NoN.m - oNo. moN. omo. mmm. mNm. memom>mou< euammem memeeamm mm mommm mam.N moN.N - moo. oem. omm. eNm. mom. eeeommmo memuteomaaeo mm mmmmm mom.N mNN.N - mmo. mmm. mmm. mNm. mom. me>moamem some memoeuNeaeeeo mm mmmmm omm.m ooo.m - mNo. mmN. mmo. omm. omm. memom>mou< m.emm:o mammmsmeoam om mmmmm mmm. mmN.N - Neo. mNe. omm. mam. oom. awesome: measum memeeauo< mm mmmmm mom. mmm.m - mmo. ooe. ooN. omm. Nom. momouem mammeem em mommm moo. emo.m - moo. mmm. mmm. omm. Nam. mammm mammam mm mmmmm ooo.moN aom.om- moo. mmo. moo. mmm. Nmm. ammo mao NN mmmmm mom.mN mmm.e - oNo. NNN. moo. mmm. mmm. moo: owe» NH mmmmm mNo.N - mmo. moo. Nom. NmN. mme. mme. mmoeaem om momma ooN.N mmm.N - omo. omm. Nam. mmm. Nmm. memeeomao m mmmmm mmN.e mme.N - Nmo. mom. mom. mmm. mmm. memamumam tom compassemeo o mmmmm on. moo.N - moo. mma. mmm. omm. mNm. mammoemm m mommm moo. ome.m - mmo. ooe. mom. omm. omm. meme: emaoemm o mmmmm mNN.Nm oom.m - oNo. oom. oNo. omm. Nmm. emao: mmaoam-eueeeauama: m momma mmo.m mmm.m - omo. mom. mmN. oom. Hem. ease: memeaemo a mmmmm o o o o o oo.N oo.N cememmmo Nemmmmummo m mmmmm mNa.om emN.m - moo. mom. moo. omm. Nmm. moeez Nemuom m.aemommmo N mmmmm ooo.mom eem.om- moo. mmo. moo. mmm. mmm. meme: Naommmmm m.eemommmo N mmmmm mamOuuox mmoczoxm mm am > :mmvoz coo: NMMMHENW momamnmmmm> Nocoocoh Homoeou oaommmm> . .COM uUflUOHQ UHOr—OWSOI mom momumamommcommom m.ocmnm:: mo mnemumoomom m.omN2 mom mowommumom o>muowmomoa--.v-n money 172 mmo.N- mmo. moo. Nom. NmN. mmo. omo. mmoeaam mom: moo: om mmmo: mmm.N- mNm. moo. omo. omN. mmN. omm. moeo: amoxm ammo mm mmmo: omo.m- omm. - ooo. mmo. omm. mNm. moo. omaoueo moo omao NH mmmo: mmo. - mmm.m - Noo. mmo. omm. omm. mom. 3oam No>oom NN mmmo: omm.m- mmN. - moo. mmo. moN. mmo. omm. memoooom mum: mmo: om mmmo: omm.m- omo. - moo. mmo. NoN. Nmo. ooo. moo: oamm moozm m mmmo: mmN.N- omm. - moo. moo. mNN. omm. mmo. moom mo ammo m mmmo: mom. Nmm.m - mmo. omm. mom. Nmm. NNm. mommoooeo moz< mam m momo: mNm.om moN.m - mmo. omm. mmo. omm. omm. omao: aeomo o mmmo: mmm.m - mNm. - moo. mmo. omm. mom. oNo. moeemm Home: m mmmo: NoN.o mmm.N mNo. NmN. mmo. mom. mom. oa-eaomo moo: mum: moo: o mmmo: mom. NNm.N mmo. omm. mom. Nmm. NNm. ammo: mom: moo: m mmmo: o o o o o oo.N oo.m moo: one» N mmmo: ooo. mNo.m mmo. Nmm. mmm. mmm. mom. eouommmo momoo mo ammo m mmmo: mHmOuHSK mmmcmsmv—m mm mm > tawwmz Cmvz xmmmman auoamnmmmm> mucoocoe Homecou oanmmwm> wwwmwwwmmw-mwmmmwmwwwm .comuusoomm vaocomoo: How momummmnmmcoomom m.omm;u mo m=0oumooeom m.p:oom:: mow mowummomum o>muomwumon--.m-o manna 173 wmwmwwmmmw-mmmwmwmwwom omm.m- omo. - moo. mmo. NoN. Nmo. ooo. mmoeaeo mom: moo: om momom mmm.m- Nmo. mmo. mNN. NoN. moo. mom. .moeo: emoxm ammo mm mmmom HNN.N- omm. - ooo. ooo. NNN. mmm. mom. omaomoo eao ammo NN mmmom mmo. - moo.m- ooo. mmo. omm. mom. mmm. aoem No>omm mm mmmom Nom.m- omm. - moo. omo. ooN. mmo. mmm. memoooom mom: mmom om mmmom omm.N- omm. - moo. mmo. moN. mmo. omm. ammo: oomm ooozm m mmmom Nmm. - Nmo.m- moo. ooo. mmo. mom. omm. moom mom ammo m mmmom ooo.N Nom.N- omo. mom. NNN. mam. oom. mommooouo maz< mam m mmmom o o o o oo.m oo.m ooze: eeomo o mmmom omm.m- moN. - moo. mmo. moN. moo. mom. moeemm memo: m mmmom mmN.o mmo.N- mmo. mam. mom. mmm. mmm. ma-eeomo Nae: mom: moo: o mmmom NNo.N omm.m- mmo. mmm. mNN. Nam. omm. ammo: mum: moo: m mmmom o o o o oo.N oo.m moo: one» N mmmom mmo. - moo.N- ooo. mmo. omm. mom. mmm. eouemmmo tempo mo oeeo m mmmom mwmouhsv— mmmflIOv—m mm mm > :mwfivz £6.02 AHMNHENW xummmnomoo>lxvcovcoh Hemucou omnmmmm> .momooopomm mmo:Om=o: mow moumamnmmcoomom m.wam;u we mcomumoumom m.omfiz mom muwummuoum o>oummmumoo--.o-o ofiomh 174 o o o o o oo.: oo.N muoaaom mom: mmo: om mmmoo omm.m- mmo. - moo. mmo. mmN. mmo. . moo. moeo: omoxm comm mm momoo omm.m- omN. - moo. oom. omN. mmm. omm. omaomoo oao omeo No mmmoo omm.m- omm. - moo. moo. mmN. mom. Nmm. :oem No>oam mm mmmoo omm.o- mmo. moo. mmo. mmm. mmm. mmm. mammoomm mum: moo: oo mmmoo mNo.N- mmo. - moo. Nom. NmN. mmo. mmo. ammo: oemm ooozm m mmmoo omo.m- ooo. - ooo. mmo. mmN. mNm. moo. moom mom oteo m mmmoo omm.N- omm. - moo. moo. mmN. mom. Nmo. . mommooomo mo3< mam m mmmoo o o o o o oo.: oo.m ooze: eoomo o mmmoo mmm.o- mmo. ooo. mmo. mNN. ooN. oom. moeomm homo: m mmmoo o o o o o oo.m oo.m ma-eoomo moo: mom: moo: o mmmoo mmm.m- Nom. moo. ooo. mmN. mNN. mom. ammo: mom: moo: m mmmoo mom. Nmm.m- mmo. omm. mom. Nmm. NNm. moo: eta: N mmmoo omo.o- ooo. - ooo. mmo. omN. mNm. moo. eoeoomoo moooo mo omoo o mmmoo mmmouhsx mmomzoxm mm am > compo: one: xMMMHENW AMMHmnomHo> Aocoocoh Homoeou monomoo> wwmwwmmmmw-wwmmmmmwwwm .:0ouu:oomm wflonomso: mow momomomommeommom m.oom:o mo meomomoomom m.ommmo mom memommoeom o>moamuomoo--.m-o omooo APPENDIX E RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR QUALITY OF LIFE QUESTIONS Table E-1.--Reliabi1ity of Quality of Life Questions. Variable r p Quality of Whole Life MDQFLl .7708 .001 FDQFLl .6530 .001 Quality of Family Life MDQFLZ .8523 .001 FDQFLZ .7074 .001 175 APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTARY FI NDI NGS Child's Age Selected one-way analysis of variance tests are reported for individual and triadic properties to test for suspected differences in child's self-report and parent's reports of child due to child's age. One-way ANOVA is used for testing the assumption that several population means are equal. The effect of a single factor is tested by calculating an F-statistic from within and between group means. If the probability of the F-statistic is small, the assumption that all population means are equal is rejected. (Norusis, 1982). Each of the individaual dyadic and triadic properties on child's household production responsibilities are entered separately in a one-way analysis of variance with child's age group. Children are grouped into three categories: 1) 6 to 8 years; 2) 9 to 10 years; and 3) 11 to 12 years. Groupings are based on an expert's opinion (Earhart,l981). Individual reports of child's household production responsibilities are entered separately as factors in a 176 177 one-way ANOVA. Husband's and wife's perceptions of child's total responsibility (MRCREST; FRCREST) are significant at the .000 and .006 levels, respectively. Thus it appears unlikely that the children within each age grouping are responsible for the same mean number of household production responsibilities. The propability of the F-statistic is large enough in the case of child's self-report of household production responsibilities to fail to reject the assumption that the age group means are equal (CRCREST; p = .574). For the additive triadic property (AFPHTT; p = .000) it appears unlikely that the children in each age grouping have the same mean number of household production responsibilities. _ The probability of the F-Statistic is large enough in the case of dispersive triadic measures of child's household production responsibilities (DFPHTT; p = .888) to fail to reject the assumption that the age group means are equal. The probability of the F-statistic is small enough in the case of the child's individual perception of quality of whole life to reject the assumption that age group means are equal. There is a difference in the perceptions of children on quality of whole life by age grouping. In the case of quality of family life the assumption cannot be rejected because of the magnitude of the F-statistic . Children within the three age groupings may have similar mean 178 perceptions of quality of family life. As noted in Table , there is no clear consistent pattern of significant F-statisitics for additive and dispersive triadic perceptions of quality of whole life. The triadic property quality of whole life is significant at the .037 level. There are no significant F-statistics for the additive and dispersive, triadic properties- perceptions of quality of family life thus we fail to reject the assumption that the age group population means are equal. 179 Table F-1.--Oneway ANOVA Tests for Differences in Triadic Perceptions by Child's Age. Oneway ANOVA Testsa Between Group Within Group F-Statistic Mean Squares Mean Squares (Probability) Perceptions Household Production AFPCHT 1.4312 .1574 9.093(.000)** DFPCHT 1.9865 16.7539 .119(.888) Quality of Whole Life AFPQTl 5.5479 3.2536 1.705(.186) DFPQTl 11.4652 3.3676 3.405(.037)** Quality of Family Life AFPQTZ 2.6352 4.7431 .556(.575) DFPQTZ .0088 3.0775 .003(.997) a. 2 and 104 df ** Significant level: p < .05 180 Table F-2.--Oneway ANOVA Tests for Differences in Individual Perceptions of Child's Household Production Responsibilities by Child's Age. Perceptions of ' Oneway ANOVA Testa Child's Household Production Between Group Within GrOUp F-Statistic Responsibilites Mean Squares Mean Squares (Probability) MCREST .4789 .0311 15.389(.000)** FCREST .1444 .0273 S.295(.006)** CCREST .0126 .0226 .557(.S74) a. 2 and 104 df ** Significant level: p .05. Table F-3.--Oneway ANOVA Tests for Differences in Child's Perception of Quality of Life by Child's Age. Child's Perception Oneway ANOVA Testa 0f Quality Of Life Between Group Within Group F-Statistic Mean Squares Mean Squares (Probability) Quality of Whole Life CQLl 8.8684 1.0297 8.613(.000)** Quality of Family Life CQL8 .5381 .8238 .653(.522)** a. 2 and 104 df ** Significant level: p <.05. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, F.M., & Withey, 5.3. Developing measures of perceived life quality: Results from several national surveys. Social Indicators Research, 1974, 1, 1-26. Andrews, F.M., & Withey, 5.8. Social indicators _3 well- being. New York: Plenum Press, 1976. Acock, A.C., & Bengston, V.L. Socialization and Attribution processes: Actual versus perceived similarity among parents and youth. Journal 2; Marriage and the Family., 1980, 33(3), 501-515. Babbie, E.R. The practice 9; social researgh. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1979. Ballweg, J.A. Husband-wife response similarities on evaluative and non-evalative survey questions. Public Qpinion Quarterly, 1969, 3; (Summer), 249-254. Berk, S.F., & Shih, A. Contributions to household labor: Comparing wives' and husbands' reports. In S.F. Berk (Ed.), Women and household labor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980, 191-227. Blood, R., & Wolfe, D.M. Husbands and wives, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960. Booth, A., & Welch, S. Spousal consensus and its correlates: A reassessment. Journal 9; Marriage and the Family., 1978, 39, 23-32. Brinkerhoff, , D.B. The marginally employed family: A study of marital integration and marital cohesion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1976. Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology 2; human gevelgpment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Bubolz, M.M., & Rettig, K.D. Perceptual indicators of family well-being, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station; project numbers: 1249 Clothing use and quality .181 182 of life in rural and urban communities, and 3151 families in evolving rural communities. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station project number: 53-086; Clothing use and quality of life in rural and urban communities, East Lansing, MI, 1981. Buetler, I.F., & Owen, A.J. New Perspectives on Production in the home--A conceptual view., Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station and the Department of Family Economics and Management, College of Home Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 1979. Campbell, A. The sense pf well-being i3 America: Recent patterns and trends. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1981. Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., & Rogers, W.L. The quality 9; American life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976. Centers, R., Raven, B., & Rodrigues, A. Conjugal power structure: A re-examination. American Sociological Review, April 1971, 36,.264-278. Chadwick, B., Albrecht, S.L., & Kunz, P. Marital and family role satisfaction. Journal 9: Marriage and the Family., 1976, 38, 431-440. Chesser, B.J., Parkhurst, A.M., & Schaffer, D.L. Marital Adjustment: Controlling the tendency to .distort evaluation. Home Economics Research Journal, 1979, 8(1), 27-36. ' Chruden, H.J., & Sherman, A.W. Personnel management: The utilization pf human resources (6th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co., 1980. Cohen, R.S., & Orum, A.M. Parent-child consensus on socioeconomic data obtained from sample surveys. Public Qpinion Quarterly, 1972, 36(1), 95-98. Condran, J.G. & Bode, J.G. Rashomon, working wives, and family division of labor: Middletown,l980. Journal pf Marriage pad the Family, 1982, 44(2), 421-426. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297-334. Dale, V.M. Ag exploration 9: the relationship pf home managgrs' self-actualiéation £9 participation 21 family members 13 home activities. Unpublished doctoral 183 dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Davis, H.L. Dimensions of marital roles in consumer decision- making. Journal 9: Marketipg Research, 1970, 1, 168-177. Davis, Measurement of husband-wife influence in consumer decision-making. Journal 93 Marketing Research., 1971, 3, 305-312. Deacon, R.E., & Firebaugh, F.M. Family resource management: Principles and applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981. Douglas, S.P. & Wind, Y. Examining family role and authority patterns: Two methodological issues. Journal 93 Marriagg and the Family, 1978, 33, 35-47. Earhart, E. Personal conversation. 1981. Englund, C.L. Importance of children to life satisfaction durin retirement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1981. Englund, C. L. Unveiligg Marital Satisfaction: Methodological concerns, 1981, Unpublished paper. Ferber, R. On the reliability of responses secured in sample surveys. Journal 93 the American Statistical Association, September, 1955, 3_, 788-810. Ferreira, A.J. Decision making in normal and pathological families. Archieves 23 General Psychiatry, 1963, 3, 68-73. Ferreira, A.J. Interpersonal perceptivity among family members. American Journal 93 Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 1 32, 64-70. Fox, G.L. Another look at the comparitive resource model: Assessing the balance of power in Turkish families. Journal 23 Marriage and the Family, November 1973, 33, 718-7300 Gage, G. Economic roles of wives and family economic development. Journal 23 Marriage and the Family, 1975, 31, 121-128. Granbois, D.B., & Willett, R.P. Equivalence of family role measures based on husband and wife data. Journal 9: 184 Marriage and the Family, 1974, 33, 123-138. Heider, F. The psychology 93 interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley, 1958. Heer, D. Husbands and wife perceptions of family power structures. Marriage and Family Living, 1962, 33, 65-67. Hess, R.D., & Torney, J.V. Religion, age and sex in children's perceptions of family authority. Child Development, 1971, 33, 781-789. Hesselbart, S. Does charity begin at home? Attitudes toward women: household tasks, and household decision-making. Paper presented at the Annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, New York, 1976. _Hill, R.W. Responsibility 93 fifth graders authoritarian/authoritative parents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981. Hull, C.H., & Nie, N.H. (Eds.). SPSS update 7-9: New procedures and facilities for releases 7-9. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1981. Jaco, D.B., & Shepard, J.M. Demographic homogeneity and spousal consensus: A methodological perspective. Journal 93 Marriage and the Family, 1975, 31, 161-169. Jacobsen, R.B. An exploration of parental encouragement as an intervening variable in occupational-educational learning of children. Journal 93 Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 174-182. Jessop, D.J. Family relationships as viewed by parents and .adolescents: A specification. Journal 23 Marriage and the Family, 1981, 33(1), 95-107. . Juster, F.T., Courant, P.N., & Dow, G.K. The theory and measurement of well-being: A suggested framework for accounting -§nd analysis? Working Paper Series, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1980. Kandel, D.B., Kessler, R., & Margulies, R. Antecedants of adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. In Denise B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal research 33 drug use: Empirical findings 185 and methodological issues, Washington, DC: Hemisphere-Wiley, 1978, 73-99. Kandel, D.B., & Lesser, G. Marital? decision-making in American and Danish urban families: A research note. Journal g3 Marriage and the Family, February 1972, 33, 134-138. Kenkel, W.F.‘ Influence differentiation in familiy decision- making. Sociology and Social Research, 33, 18-25. Kerckhoff, A.C. Statis related value patterns among married couples. Journal g3 Marriage and the Family, 1972, 33, 105-110. Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations g3 behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Klein, B. Reaction to papers on couple data and family research. NCFR Pre-conference workshop on theory construction and methodology. Milwaukee, WI, October 13-14, 1981. Klein, D. The probelm of multiple perceptions in families. Paper in progress, 1982. Kohn, M.L., & Carroll, E.E. Social class and the allocation of parental responsibilities. Sociometry, 1960, 33, 372- 392. Larson, L.E. System and subsystem perception of family roles. Journal 23 Marriage and the Family, 1974, 33, 123-138. ‘ Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Menzel, H. On the relation between individual and collective properties. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), 3 sociological reader gg complex organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Leonard-Burton, D., & Rogers, E.M. Voluntary simplicity lg California: Precursor 9; 333? Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Fransisco, CA: January, 7, 1980. Likert, R. The human ogganization: Its management and value, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967. Lovingood, R.P., & Firebaugh, F.M. Household task performance roles of husbands and wives. Home 186 Economics Research Journal, 1978, 1, 20-23. Maslow, A.H. Eupsychian management, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1965. Matteson, D.R. Adolescence today, Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1975. McCullough, J.L. Contribution pg household tasks 3y Utah husbands and wives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980. McGregor, D. The human side 93 enterprise, New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1960. Miller, D.R. & Swanson, G.E. The Changing American Parent. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Moen, P. Developing family indicators: Financial hardship a case in point. Journal lg; Family Issues, 1980, l, 5-30. Morgan, J.M.; Sirageldin, I.N.; and Baerwaldt, N. Productive Americans. Monograph No. 43. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, 1966. Neal, A.G., & Groat, H.T. Consnsus in the marital dyad: Couples' perceptions of contraception, communication and family life. Sociological Focus, 1976, 3(4), 317-329. Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, R., & Bent, D.H. Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Niemi, R.G. A methodological study of political socialization in the family (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1968, 28,5120A. TUniversity Microfilms NO. 68-7683) Niemi, R.G. How family members perceive each other, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974. Norusis, M.J. SPSS introductory guide. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1982. Nye, F.I. Role structure and the analysis g3 the family. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1976. 187 Olson, D.H. Creating couple and family scores: Bridging family theory and family methods. Paper in Progress 1981 reported in Englund, C.L. Unveiling Marital Satisfaction: Methodological Concerns, 1981, Unpublished paper. Olson, D.H. The measurement of family power by self-report and behavioral methods. Journal 93 Marriage and the Family, 1969, 33, 545-550. Olson, D.H., & Rabunsky, C. Validity of four measures of family power. Journal _3 Marriage and the Family, 1972, 33, 224-235. Onorato, L. Structures 93 family management 39 two socio- economic classes. Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. Ouchi, W.G. Theory 3. Reading, Mass: Addison- Wesley Publishing, 1981. Paolucci,B. & Ching, D. Myths and realities of work and family: Implications for Home Economics Educators. Paper presented for Illinois Teacher Silver Jubilee Conference on Work and Family. University of Illinois, April 21, 1982. Price-Bonham, S. A comparison of’ weighted and unweighted decision- making scores. Journal 93 Marriage and the Family., 1976, 33, 629-640. Quarm, D. Random measurement error as a source of discrepancies between the reports of wives and husbands concerning marital power and task allocation. Journal 93 Marriage and the Family, 1981, 33(3), 521-535. Randers-Pehrson, 8.3. The congruence 93 spousal perceptions , and marital satisfaction: 39 extrapolation 93 Leary's theory 93 interpersonal diagnosis 93 parsonality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1976. Rettig, K. Interpersonal resource exchanges 99 predictors 93 uaiit 93 marriage and family life. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980. Richmond, M. Beyond resource theory: Another look at factors enabling women to affect family interaction. Journal 93 Marriage the Family, 1976, 33, 257-266. 188 Robinson, J.P. Changes 39 Americans' use 93 time: 1965- 1975. Communications Research Center, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, 1977. Safilos-Rothschild, C. Family sociology or wives' sociology: A cross cultural examination of decision-making. Journal 93 Marriage and the Family., 1969, 33, 290-301. Scanzoni, J. A note on the sufficiency of wife responses in family research. Pacific Sociological Review, 1965, 3, 109-115. Schein, E. Process consultation. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1969. Scheff, T.J. Toward a sociological model of consensus. American Sociological Review, 1967, 33(1), 32-46. Sherif, M. O.J. Harvey, B.J. White, W.R. Hood, & C.W. Sherif. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave egperiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange, 1961. Slaugh, K. More than clean windows: 3 new look 93 399 family and housework. Paper Presented at Brigham Young University Flea Market of Ideas, Provo, UT: February, 11, 1982. Smith, D., Vredevoogd, J., & Bubolz, M.M. The contribution of perceived marital consensus and spousal difference to quality of life. Unpublished Paper. Department of Family and Child Ecology) College of Human Ecology, Michigan State University, 1982. Spitze, G., & Huber, J. Accuracy of wife's perceptions of husband's attitude toward her employment. Journal 93 Marriage and the Family., 1982, 33(2), 477-481. Sprey, J. Conflict theory and the study of marriage and the family. In W.R. Burr, R. Hill, F.I. Nye, & I.L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2). New York: The Free Press, 1979. Stephens, W.N. Our children should 99 working, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers, 1979. Streuch, E.K. Social context and individual behavior. In Dogan & Rokkan (Eds.). Quantitative ecological analysis 39 the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 189 1969, 133-155. Strodbeck, F.L. The family as a three person group. American Sociological Review, 1954, 39, 23-29. Szinovacz, M. Women employed: Effects on Spouses' division of household work. Journal 93 Home Economics, 1979, Thierauf, R.J., Klekamp, R.G., & Greeding, D.W. Management principles and practices, Santa Barbara, CA: John Wiley and Sons, 1977. Thompson, L., & Walker, A. 399 dyad and the unit 93 analysis: Theoretical 999 'methodological issues. A Working Paper Presented at the National Council on Family Relations Pre-Conference Workshop on Theory Construction and Research Methodology. Milwaukee, WI, October, 1981. Turk, J.L., & Bell, N.W. Measuring power in families. Journal 93 Marriage and the Family, 1972, 33, 215-222. Van Es, J.C., & Shingi, P.M. Response consistency of husband and wife for selected attitudinal items. Journal 93 Marriage and the Family, 1972, 33, 741-749. Walker, K.E. Household work time: Its implication for family decisions. Journal 93 Home Economics, 1973, 93 X , 7-11. ' Walker, R.B., & Woods, M.E. Time use: 9 measure 93 household production 93 family goods and serVices. Washington , DC: the Family of American Home Economics Association, 1976. Webster's third international dictionary of the English language unabFidged. P.B. Grove (Ed.ii Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1964. Weik, K.E. Group processes, family processes, and problem solving. In J. Aldous, T. Condon, R. Hill, M. Straus, & I. Tallman (Eds.), Family problem solving: 9 symposium 99 theoretical, methodolggical 999 substantive concerns, Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1971, 3-54. ' White, L.K., & Brinkerhoff, D.B. Measurement problems in family research: A critical note on. unit analysis. International Journal 93 Sociology 93 the Family, 1977, 190 1, 171-179. White, L.K., & Brinkerhoff, D.B. Measuring dyadic properties: An exploratory analysis. International Journal 93 Sociology 93 the Family, 1978, 3, 219-229. Whiting, B.B., & Whiting, J.W.M. Children 93 six cultures, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Wilkening, E.A., & Morrison, D.E. A comparison of husband and wife responses concerning who makes farm and home decisions. Marriage and Family Living, 1963, 33, 349-351. Yankelovich, D. New rules in American life: Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside down. Psychology Today, April 1981, 35-91. MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES (HI ”MI ”1 ("WW WNWNII‘IHWIWI 31293106345790