INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this docum ent, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality o f the m aterial submitted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.T he sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent
photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an
indication o f either blurred copy because o f movem ent during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials th at should n o t have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed,
a definite m ethod o f “ sectioning” the material has been followed. It is
custom ary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.
4. F or illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Departm ent.
5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.

University
Microfilms
international
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI4B106

8315491

Ormsby, Patricia Marie

PERCEPTIONS OF SELECTED HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION BY MICHIGAN
HUSBANDS AND WIVES: ACTIVITIES, CHOICES. AND VALUE

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

Ph.D. 1983

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Aibor, MI 48106

PERCEPTIONS OF SELECTED HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION BY MICHIGAN
HUSBANDS AND WIVES: ACTIVITIES, CHOICES, AND VALUE

by
P a t r i c i a Marie Ormsby

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
In p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e requirements
f o r th e degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology
1983

ABSTRACT
PERCEPTIONS OF SELECTED HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION BY MICHIGAN
HUSBANDS AND WIVES: ACTIVITIES, CHOICES, AND VALUE
By
P a t r i c i a Marie Ormsby
Fam ili es can ma in ta in o r r a i s e t h e i r l e v e l o f l i v i n g by using t h e i r
own human r e s o u rc e s t o produce goods and s e r v i c e s .

Household produ ct ion

uses human re s o u r c e s as non-paid l a b o r with value because of i t s
w it h in t h e fa m il y .

use

This study i d e n t i f i e d s e l e c t e d household pro duction

a c t i v i t i e s as a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o r e a l

income.

Using d e s c r i p t i v e metho­

d o l o g i e s , t h e study examined household prod uc tio n by urban, small town,
and r u r a l f a m i l i e s in mid-Michigan.
wives

whose

oldest

child

was

A random sample o f 107 husbands and

between

th e

ages

of

six

and

twelve

responded t o an i n t e r v i e w and s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Household prod uc tio n

activities

include d

178 p o s s i b l e

activities

both i n s i d e t h e home (w ith in t h e famil y) and o u t s i d e th e home ( i n t e r ­
a c t i n g with o t h e r f a m i l i e s and t h e community).

The s e l e c t e d household

pro du ction a c t i v i t i e s included th o s e which need a degree of s k i l l , and
can

be

substituted

p r o d u c ti o n ,
valu e

of

with

market

fr equency of d e c i s i o n
household

husbands'

and wives'

variables

such

as

pr od uc tio n
responses
location

of

activities.
cho ice s

Amount

and th e

were

examined.

and

differences

residence,

of

household

pe rceived monetary
D if f e re n c e s

associated

family

between
with

income,

th e

family

P a t r i c i a Marie Ormsby
employment, and household s i z e were analyzed by t - t e s t and a n a l y s i s of
variance.
On th e

average,

fam ilies

production a c t i v i t i e s
done

inside

the

participated

in t h e sur ve y.

home

than

in

h a l f of th e

household

More pro duction a c t i v i t i e s were

outside.

In

addition,

more

production

a c t i v i t i e s were done by husband and wife working t o g e t h e r than by e i t h e r
of

them

working

differences

alone.

Husbands

and

wives

d is p la y e d

significant

in type and amount of household prod uc tio n p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

Given p ro duc tio n
activities,

ch oi ce s

on a s m a l l e r group of household production

respon den ts

indicated

the

fam ily

chose

to

a c t i v i t i e s , h i r e d o r bought l e s s , and om itt ed few a c t i v i t i e s .
and wives'

perceptions

of

pr od uc tio n

ch oic e s

differed

do

most

Husbands'

significantly.

Husbands and wives pe rce ive d the value of t h e i r combined average annual
pro duction c o n t r i b u t i o n to be $2,736 pe r f a m il y .
showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
activities,

yet

variables

and

activities

of

no

overall

household
husbands

patterns prevail.

Demographic v a r i a b l e s

between groups f o r s e l e c t e d production

significance
pr od u c ti o n .

and wives

suggest

associated
Significant
that

with

demographic

differences

traditional

sex

in
role

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This

dissertation

was

possible

encouragement from many s o u r c e s .

only

through

su p p o rt

and

I would l i k e to e xp re ss my h e a r t - f e l t

a p p r e c i a t i o n t o th e many people who guided me in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and
especially

acknowledge

a

few

individuals

who

were

particularly

s i g n i f i c a n t t o me in t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n p r o c e s s .
I would l i k e t o thank a l l t h e members of th e Household Production
Research

team

for

their

feelings

support.

Dr. B e a t r i c e P a o l u c c i ,

of

c oo per ati on*

friendship,

and

I r e n e Hathaway, and Dr. Mary Andrews

o f f e r e d guidance and new i n s i g h t s t o a l l on t h e team.

For th o s e o f us

l e s s e xp er ien ce d in r e s e a r c h , we were t u t o r e d by t h e y e a r s o f e xp er ie nc e
each o f t h e s e s c h o l a r s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e group.
one e l s e

I know, was a c o n s t a n t

s t i m u l a t i o n in t h i s

source o f

Dr. P a o l u c c i , as no

su p po rt

and i n t e l l e c t u a l

r e s e a r c h and th rou gh out my d o c to r a l

was p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l

program.

She

in guiding me t o f i n d d i r e c t i o n f o r my ide as

and in making me aware of new p e r s p e c t i v e s .

I a p p r e c i a t e Margaret Ezell

f o r b l a z i n g t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n t r a i l f o r t h e r e s t o f us t o f o l l o w , and f o r
Judy Lazarro f o r always being w i l l i n g t o h e l p .

I want to p a r t i c u l a r l y

thank Donna Ching f o r being a g r e a t f r i e n d , r e v i e w e r , and sounding board
and a l s o f o r ta k in g c ar e o f numerous d i s s e r t a t i o n d e t a i l s once I l e f t
Michigan.
I s i n c e r e l y a p p r e c i a t e d Dr. Linda Nelson as my committee chairman.
She w i l l i n g l y gave o f h e r time t o review my d r a f t s in c lu d in g when she
was o v e r s e a s .

I knew I could count on thorough and metic ulou s comments

which were extremely

h e lp fu l

to

me in

o rg a n i z i n g

and c l a r i f y i n g

my

writing.

I a l s o g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d the comments from th e o t h e r members

of my committee:
Axinn.

Dr. P a o l u c c i ,

Dr. Larry

Schiamberg,

apd Dr. George

I am g r a t e f u l t o o t h e r f r i e n d s and c o ll e a g u e s who reviewed and

insightfully

commented

on my work

i n c lu d in g

Kathleen

Slaugh,

Ivan

B e u t l e r , and Kelly Poplawski.
In

addition,

my fa mi ly

and

friends

continually

showed

genuine

i n t e r e s t and concern in my d i s s e r t a t i o n work even though they were not
d i r e c t l y inv olv ed .
meant

I cannot a d e q u a te ly t e l l them how much t h i s i n t e r e s t

t o me in terms

o f encouragement and moral

d uri ng t h e d i s c o u r a g in g moments.

s u p p o r t —e s p e c i a l l y

I g r a t e f u l l y d e s i r e t o c ont inu e in t h e

s p i r i t o f help and su p p o rt I e xp eri enc ed by ex tending t h e same t o o t h e r s
in th e f u t u r e .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................

vi

LIST OF F I G U R E S .............................................................................................................v i i i
Chapter
1.

...........................................................................................

1

Purpose ....................................................................................................

3

Conceptual Framework

.....................................................................

5

Family Ecological Approach ....................................................
Home Management..............................................................................
Household Production .................................................................

5
7
9

D e f i n i t i o n s ...........................................................................................

19

..........................................................................

21

H y p o t h e s e s ...........................................................................................

22

REVIEW OF LITERATURE..........................................................................

24

Background of Household Production Theory ..........................

24

Economic P e r s p e c t i v e .................................................................
M arxist P e r s p e c t i v e .....................................................................
Motivation f o r Household Production .....................................

24
29
30

INTRODUCTION

Research Questions

2.

Research on Household Production

.......................................... .

35

Fa c to rs In f lu e n c in g Household Production ......................
Family Composition .................................................................
E m p l o y m e n t ..................................................................................
Family Income ..............................................................................
Location o f Residence .............................................................
Demographic F ac tor s .................................................................
Additional A c t i v i t i e s as Household Production . . . .

42
44
46
49
49
49
50

Choices in Household Production ................................................

52

iii

3.

Value of Household P r o d u c t i o n ....................................................

54

Monetary Value ..............................................................................
Non-monetary Value ......................................................................

54
59

Summary....................................................................................................

61

ME IH0D0L0GY...............................................................................................
Research Design

..................................................................................

64

Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures .............................................................

67

D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e Study Sample

................................................

69

Ins trument Development .....................................................................

75

Rel ated L i t e r a t u r e ..........................................................................
D e s c r i p t i o n of V a r ia b le s .............................................................

76
77

S c o r i n g ....................................................................................................

77

Perceived Household Production A c t i v i t i e s
..................
Pe rce ive d Household Production Choices ...............................
Pe rceived Monetary Value of Household Production . . .

78
81
81

.....................................................................

82

S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis ..........................................................................

82

L i m i t a t i o n s ...........................................................................................

84

FINDINGS........................................................................................................

85

Pe rceived Household Production A c t i v i t i e s ..........................
Perceived Household Production Choices ...................................
Pe rceived Monetary Value of Household Production . . . .

85
94
105

Demographic V a r ia b le s

4.

63

S u m m a r y .........................................................................................................109
5.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................

113

Overview o f t h e Study .....................................................................
D iscussi on o f Findings .....................................................................

113
116

Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research .......................................

123

iv

I m p l i c a t i o n s ...........................................................................................

130

C o n c l u s i o n .................................................................................................... 131
APPENDICES
Appendix A
A - l.

D e t a i l s of J u s t e r e t a l . ' s Household Output Account

.

134

A-2.

Hours and Value of Housework in 1976 ..................................

135

A-3.

Average Value o f a Woman's Household Work in 1976 by
Various C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ..................

136

Appendix B
B-l.

Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Areas in Which Sampling
O c c u r r e d .................................................................................................... 139

B-2.

T r a in i n g Meeting .............................................................................

140

B-3.

Introduction L e tte r

.....................................................................

141

B-4.

Consent F o r m ...........................................................................................142

B-5.

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Attempted Placement o f Q ue st io nn a ire
by L o c a t i o n ............................................................................................143

B-6.

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Attempted Placement o f Q uest io nn ai re
by E l i g i b i l i t y o f F a m i l y ..................................................................143

B-7.

P a r t o f Q ue st io n n a ir e Used in t h e Study

B-8.

Example of S c o r i n g ..............................................................................157

. . . . . . .

144

Appendix C
C-l.
C-2.

P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Household Production by Husbands and
W i v e s .........................................................................................................159
Household Production Choices by Husbands and Wives . .

165

C-3.

Perceived Value of Household Production by Husbands and
W i v e s .........................................................................................................168

C-4.

Pe rceived Value of Household Production by Demographic
V a r i a b l e s ................................................................................................ 169

BIBLIOGRAPHY

................................................................................................................
v

170

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1.

Page

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Young Michigan Fam ili es in t h e Household
Production Sample Reported by Husbands and Wives ..................... .

71

2.

Household Production A c t i v i t i e s C at eg ori es

....................................

80

3.

Mean Household Produ ction P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scores f o r In-Home,
Out-Home, and Total-Home A c t i v i t i e s ....................................................

88

Comparison o f Husbands' and Wives' P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Household
Production A c t i v i t i e s ..................................................................................

89

Husbands' and Wives' Household Production A c t i v i t i e s Analyzed
by L o c a t i o n ........................................................................................................

90

Husbands' and Wives' Household Production A c t i v i t i e s Analyzed
by Family I n c o m e ...........................................................................................

91

Husbands' and Wives' Household Production A c t i v i t i e s Analyzed
by Employment....................................................................................................

92

Husbands' and Wives' Household Production A c t i v i t i e s Analyzed
by Household S i z e ...........................................................................................

93

Report o f Husbands' and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Production
A c t i v i t i e s D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Location ................................................

95

Report o f Husbands' and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Production
A c t i v i t i e s D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Family Income ...................................

95

Report o f Husbands' and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Production
A c t i v i t i e s D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Employment ............................................

96

Report of Husbands' and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Production
A c t i v i t i e s D i f f e r e n t i a t e d - b y - Household S i z e ...................................

96

Comparison of Husbands' and Wives' Household Production
C h o i c e s .................................................................................................................

99

Household Produ ction Choices o f Husbands and Wives by
L o c a t i o n ............................................................................................................

100

Household Produ ction Choices of Husbands and Wives by
Family Income ....................................................................................................

101

Household Produ ction Choices of Husbands and Wives by
E m p l o y m e n t ........................................................................................................

102

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

vi

17.
18.
19.

20.
21.

22.

Household Production Choices of Husbands and Wives by
Household S i z e .............................................................................................
Report of Husbands’ and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Responses to
Household Production Choices D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Location . . .
Report of Husbands' and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Responses to
Household Production Choices D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Family
I n c o m e ...............................................................................................................
Report of Husbands' and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Responses t o
Household Production Choices D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Employment . .

103
104

105
106

Report of Husbands' and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Responses to
Household Production Choices D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Household
S i z e ...................................................................................................................

106

Comparison o f Perceived Value of Household Production by
Husbands and W i v e s .....................................................................................

108

v ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1.

Page

D e f i n i t i o n s and D e s c r i p t i o n s of Household Production
A c t i v i t i e s ............................................................................................................

11

2.

A Home Production A c t i v i t y Model ..............................................................

17

3.

Socio-economic V a r ia b le s Considered in Household Production
Studi e s .................................................................................................................

45

viii

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

P r i o r t o i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , th e household was th e primary l o c a t i o n
f o r p ro d u c t i o n .
services

The major purpose o f p ro du c tio n was to supply goods and

t o meet t h e needs o f household members and t o mainta in th e

household.
(Sokoloff,

Men and women r a r e l y worked o u t s i d e th e home environment
1977).

With i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n ,

from t h e home to th e f a c t o r y .

income-producing work moved

As b u s in e s s re p la c e d many o f th e income-

producing a c t i v i t i e s

which were an i n t e g r a l

life,

importance o f t h e

the

pe rceiv ed

p a rt of daily

household

remaining household pro duction

a c t i v i t i e s , which had only use value f o r t h e f a m i l y , diminished ( B e u t l e r
and Owen, 1980).

Household p ro du c tio n

tended t o

be done w i t h i n

the

pri v a c y o f th e household and t h e r e f o r e did not r e c e i v e economic value or
s t a t u s (Re id, 1934).
Kuznets
household
monetary

(1941)

pro duct ion
income

has

has

noted

and

the

been

a

relationship

state

scarce,

of
as

the
d ur in g

between t h e

economy.
p e ri o d s

amount

of

In

times

when

of

depression,

i n f l a t i o n , o r unemployment, pro d u c ti o n a c t i v i t i e s of th e household have
i n c r e a s e d (Kuznets, 1941).

A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n appears in th e depressed

economy o f th e e a r l y 19 80 's .
During the 1970-1980 decade, th e American economy was plagued by
i n f l a t i o n and unemployment.

C ap lo vi tz (1981) r e p o rt e d t h a t th e m a jo r it y

1

o f American f a m i l i e s were a d v e r s e ly a f f e c t e d by th e c u r r e n t i n f l a t i o n
and r e c e s s i o n .

He r e p o r t e d t h a t th e most common response among f a m i l i e s

f o r ad ap ti ng to a slumping economy was lowered consumption o f purchased
goods

and

services.

Other

mechanisms

for

ad ap ti n g

include d

ta kin g

second j o b s , working ove rt im e , g r e a t e r s e l f - r e l i a n c e , ba rg a in h u n ti n g ,
and s h a r in g with o t h e r s .
A parallel
t h e i r le ve l
produced

in

tr e n d among f a m i l i e s has been to ma in ta in o r improve

of l i v i n g by i n c r e a s i n g t h e amount o f goods and s e r v i c e s
the

increasing real

home

environment.

These

efforts

are

aimed

toward

income and a r e b e li e v e d t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t o f a

f a m i l y ' s t o t a l income.

I t has been e s ti m a te d t h a t household p ro d u c ti o n ,

i f c o n s i d e r e d , would be valued a t 44 p e r c e n t o f America's Gross National
Product ( P e s k in , 1982).
Escalating

costs

of

fossil

fuels

may d r i v e

up c o s t s

o f market

p ro ce sses and products causing even more f a m i l i e s to t u r n to household
prod uc tio n o f goods and s e r v i c e s .

Modern f a m i l i e s a re c on fro nt e d with

t h e d e c i s i o n as t o whether a c e r t a i n good o r s e r v i c e t h a t is needed w ill
be produced a t home, bought in th e marke tplac e o r w i l l

not be used.

This ch oice i s an economic d e c i s i o n as i t weighs go al s and valu es and
considers the d i s t r ib u tio n of resources.
Household produ ction

is

c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a c t i v i t i e s

performed by

household members p r i m a r i l y f o r th e b e n e f i t o f household members.
non-paid

labor

However,

it

with

may a l s o

va lu e

because

of

its

have economic value

prod uction can be b e n e f i c i a l

use
in

th e

within
market.

th e

I t is
family.

Household

in meeting b a s i c needs o f fam ily members,

and a l s o in b u i l d i n g human c a p i t a l of family members as they p a r t i c i p a t e
in v a ri o u s

activities

(Becker,

1981).

Human c a p i t a l

in th e form of

skills,

ti m e ,

instead

of

and

knowledge

is

used

usi ng monetary c a p i t a l

s e r v i c e s in the m a rk et pla ce.

to

to

produce

purchase

goods

and

equivalent

services
goods

Human c a p i t a l may be u t i l i z e d

and

in market

a c t i v i t y o r paid work as well as household p ro du c tio n .
In t h i s way, household pro duction i s not simply product o r i e n t e d ,
as in b u s i n e s s , but i s complex and i n te rd e p e n d e n t in th e l i v e s o f family
members (Deacon and Firebaugh, 1981; Paolucci and Ching, 1982; Walker
and Woods, 1976).

Among o t h e r f u n c t i o n s , household prod uc tio n a id s in

the growth and development o f fami ly members in such a re a s as developing
va lu es and language, t e ac hi ng b a s i c l i f e r o u t i n e s and developing methods
of problem s o lv in g ( P a o l u c c i , 1980).
material

capital,

it

can a l s o

In a d d i t i o n to b u i l d i n g human and

increase

satisfaction

with a f a m i l y ' s

p e r c e p ti o n o f th e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r l i f e ( E z e l l , 1982).
Purpose
In

the

past,

declining

economic o p p o r t u n i t i e s

in c r e a s e d household pro duction a c t i v i t i e s

have

resulted

w it h in f a m i l i e s .

in

Since the

e a r l y 1 9 70 's such economic c o n d i t i o n s have e x i s t e d in th e United S t a t e s .
I t would be b e n e f i c i a l in f u t u r e planning f o r government, academia, and
b u s in e s s

to

reco gni ze

fam ilies'

efforts

to

ad apt

to

th e

changing

economic s i t u a t i o n .
F a m il ie s ' e f f o r t s t o adapt economically through non-paid l a b o r f o r
use value w it h in the household have i m p l i c a t i o n s in th e c a l c u l a t i o n o f
th e

Gross

programs

National
designed

Educationally,
efforts

to

th e

provide

Product
to

and

aid

development
for

in t h e

families

development
in

of humanc a p i t a l

themselves and

their

o f governmental

financial
through
needs

is

difficulty.
fam ilies'
impor tant

to

consider.
to

keep

Businesses ad ap ti n g to changing a c t i v i t i e s o f households need
current

with

consumer demands.

Currently,

there

is

little

re s ea rc h a v a i l a b l e on f a m i l i e s ' e f f o r t s in household p ro d u c ti o n .
The purpose o f t h i s

descriptive

stu dy i s

to

Identify a c tiv itie s

which a r e being done w i t h i n households to b e n e f i t household members and
increase

real

income.

This

study

is

designed

beh aviors o f husbands and wives s p e c i f i c a l l y

to

e x p lo re

current

in household pr o d u c ti o n .

Location o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n , which could be w i t h i n t h e p r i v a t e c onfi ne s
of th e f a m ily o r in v olv in g o t h e r f a m i l i e s and t h e community, w i l l

be

examined.

be

The

identified.

Other

socio-economic
residing

prod uc tio n

activities

re s e a r c h

variables

in d i f f e r e n t

questions

relate

also

be

to

geo gra phica l

l e v e l s o f household p r o d u c t i o n .
could

significant

of

in c lu d e

household

and wives w i l l

inquiries

as

p ro d u c ti o n .

to

how

Families

l o c a t i o n s may have d i f f e r e n c e s

Spousal
in

husbands

in

employment and fami ly income

predicting

p ro du c tio n

activities.

Household s i z e could be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r in household pr od u c ti o n .
Another

purpose

of

th e

stud y

is

to

d e c i s i o n s about household p ro d u c ti o n .

examine

the

pro ce ss

of

making

I t i s impor tan t t o c o n s i d e r what

do people choose t o do f o r th e m s e lv e s , what do they choose t o h i r e o r
buy, and what do they c o n s c io u s ly le av e undone.

F i n a l l y , t h i s r e s e a rc h

w il l examine husbands' and wives' p e r c e p t i o n s of th e value of th e work
the y c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e household through t h e i r pro du ction e f f o r t s .

The

o v e r a ll purpose of t h i s study i s to add e mp iri ca l r e s e a r c h t o th e th e or y
and small amount o f r e s e a r c h t h a t has been done on household pro d u c ti o n .

5

Conceptual Framework
Family Ecological Approach
Viewing s p e c i f i c

household management and production w ith in

the

broade r framework o f family ecology provides th e s t r u c t u r e to org an iz e
and understand

th e

family e c o lo g i c a l
analysis.

activities

of

th e

home environment.

Within

th e

approach, th e family s er ve s as the primary u n i t of

Each family has needs t h a t must be met t o s u s t a i n l i f e .

The

production process may be considered th e primary method by which needs
a r e met ( B e u t l e r and Owen, 1981).

The process uses human and m a te ri a l

r e s o u rc e s .
In the family e c o lo g i c a l

approach,

i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s

are

viewed in th e c o n te x t of th e environment which s u p p l i e s many a l t e r n a t i v e
ways t o meet t h e i r needs.

The re s ourc e s ne ces sar y t o meet f a m i l i e s '

ba si c needs a r e found w it h in themselves and t h e i r environment and a r e
made a v a i l a b l e through i n t e r a c t i o n s

and t r a n s a c t i o n s .

A family i s a

system which i s de fin ed as "a s e t of p a r t s c o o rd in a te d to accomplish a
set

of

go al s"

(Deacon and

Firebaugh,

1981,

p. 7 ) .

So c ie ty

expects

f a m i l i e s to provide m a te ri a l resou rce s f o r th e physical maintenance of
i n d i v i d u a l s , t o maintain o r i n c r e a s e family s i z e through rep ro du c tio n o r
adoption o f c h i l d r e n , s o c i a l i z e c h i l d r e n f o r a d u l t r o l e s , maintain or d e r
w it h in f a m i l i e s and between f a m i l i e s and o u t s i d e r s , to maintain family
morale and "produce goods and s e r v i c e s n ece ssa ry to maintain th e family
u n i t " ( H i l l , 1971, p. 16).

The concept of a family in cl ude s the idea of

people hel pin g and shar ing re so urces with o t h e r s in th e household.
The family e c ol og ic a l approach recognizes the b a s i c interdependence
of human systems with one a noth er and with th e environment

(Andrews

e t a ! . , 1980, p. 4 3 ) .
a complex mixture
components

The environments a family i n t e r a c t s with in c lu d e

of natural,

(Bubolz e t a l . ,

human-constructed

1979). The n a t u r a l

and human-behavioral

environment

formed by

n a t u r e i s composed o f p h y s i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l and spac e-tim e components and
pr ov ide s many o f t h e r e s o u rc e s to s u s t a i n l i f e .

The human-constructed

environment c o n s i s t s o f t h e p h y s i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l , and c u l t u r a l m o d if ic a ­
tions of the natural

environment made by humans in c lu d in g b u i l d i n g s ,

te c h n o l o g y , and s c i e n t i f i c
ments

are

other

humans

discoveries.

and

systems such as r e l a t i v e s ,

their

The human-behavioral e n v i r o n ­

behaviors.

These

f r i e n d s and n e ig hb or s .

i n c lu d e

social

Both t h e immediate

s e t t i n g o f t h e fami ly with i t s phys ical and s o c i a l su rroundings and t h e
l a r g e r s o c i e t a l systems wit h i n f o r m a t i o n , goods and v a r i e d s e r v i c e s a r e
environments f o r th e fa mi ly and provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n
and in te rde pen de nc y.
The i n t e r a c t i o n s

and int erd ep end en ce o f fa mi ly and environmental

systems can be a m o ti v a ti n g f o r c e f o r change when d i s e q u i l i b r i u m between
systems produces s t r e s s o r t e n s i o n .

Relate d to t h i s s t u d y ' s t o p i c , f o r

example, i s t h e s t r e s s t h a t i n f l a t i o n and unemployment can cause on a
fa mi ly system as t h e i r buying power i s reduced.

Family i n t e r n a l

roles

may be ad apted i f t h e mother e n t e r s t h e paid work f o r c e as a r e s u l t .
Fam ili es may choose t o ad apt by moderating t h e i r l i f e s t y l e o r producing
more f o r th em sel ve s.

Feedback from t h e family t o t h e environment can

a l s o cause changes in the formal sup port systems such as schools which
in c lu d e

adult

s up p o rt

systems

informal

curriculum,

su p p o rt

(Andrews e t a l . ,

such

h e a l t h and

other

as

work

and

systems

such

as networks

1980).

These

agencies;

community
of

groups
friends

in te r d e p e n d e n c ie s

and nonformal
or

s tr e n g th e n e d
and neighbors

illustrate

th e

fact

t h a t family systems a r e dynamic and as a r e s u l t o f feedback and response
a r e c o n s t a n t l y changing and ad ap ti ng (Andrews e t a l . , 1980).
Home Management
The fami ly e c o l o g i c a l approach can be a p p l i e d t o home management.
Management

in

the

ecological

perspective

is

a

set

of

particular

resp onses and a d a p t a t i o n s t o a c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n o r environment (Deacon
and Fir eba ugh, 1981).

The proc ess o f changing and ad ap ti n g w it h in the

household can be viewed as t h e management o f environmental
resources.
inputs,

The fam ily ad ap ts t o t h e environment through a proc ess using

transformations,

and

changing t h e environment.
energy

and human

as

matter

and

outputs.

The

f a m ily

also

ad ap ts

by

In any system, t h e i n p u t u s u a l l y c o n s i s t s of
inf orm at io n

(P aolucci e t .

al.,

1977).

For

f a m i l i e s , t h e in p u t s a r e demands from t h e i r g o a l s , v a lu es o r e v en ts t h a t
require

action

as well

re s o u r c e s

i n c lu d e t h e

qualities

within

as

both human and nonhuman r e s o u r c e s .

cognitive,

p e o p le ,

and

affective,
nonhuman

Human

o r psychomotor t r a i t s

r e s o u rc e s

includ e

or

temporal

re s o u r c e s which a re time and methods o f usi ng t i m e , economic re s ou rce s
of

money

and

property

phys ical and s o d a !

and

environmental

resources

(Nickel 1, Rice, and Tucker, 1976).

which

are

both-

Tr ansformations

a r e th e p ro c e ss e s o f pla nning and implementing t h a t change in p u t i n t o
output.

Outputs a r e met demands and used re s o u r c e s t h a t r e s u l t from th e

process o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .

Info rmatio n from t h e environment about th e

ou tp u t r e t u r n s t o th e fam ily system as feedback (Deacon and Firebaugh,
1981).
A pro c e ss o f be h av io ra l i n t e r a c t i o n s a l l o c a t e s r e s o u rc e s t o a t t a i n
goals.

The

proc ess

in c lu d e s

identifying

and u t i l i z i n g

th e

family's

values and g o a l s , re so urce s and decision-making c a p a b i l i t i e s .
in c lu d e s

identifying

techniques,
1976).

roles,

division

of

and communicating with o t h e r s

The

availability

and

pro c e sse s (Melson, 1980).

use

of

labor,

I t also

problem-solving

( N i c k e l l , Ric e, and Tucker,

r e s o u rc e s

can

affect

family

The family b ri n g s t o t h e management process

i t s own human r e s o u rc e s i n c lu d in g "varying l e v e l s of s t a b i l i t y , openness
to

information,

cohesiveness,

(Melson, 1980, pg. 167).

flexibility,

The use of time as a re s o u r c e 1s Important in

th e a d a p t a t i o n t o th e environment.
present,

past,

priorities

and proneness t o c o n f l i c t "

and f u t u r e

time

Through use o f t i m e , f a m i l i e s show

orientations.

Family members

and sequence be hav io r of a c t i v i t i e s

example, p a r t i c i p a t i o n

a s s ig n

based on v a l u e s .

in work o u t s i d e th e home a f f e c t s time l e f t

For
to

perform t a s k s r e l a t e d to th e family (Melson, 1980).
An i n t e g r a l

part

o f management

is

the

de cision-m aking

process.

Economic d e c i s i o n making, r e l e v a n t to t h e household p ro duc tio n d e c i s i o n ing

process,

has

been

de sc ri b e d

by

Diesing

(1962).

Two pro ce sse s

impor tant in economic decision-making a r e exchange and a l l o c a t i o n
resources.

Exchange i s a t r a n s f e r o f r e s o u rc e s between u n i t s whereas

allocation
unit.

i s a t r a n s f e r o f r e s o u rc e s

Not a l l

r e s o u rc e s

of

or

go al s
means

to a l t e r n a t i v e ends w it h in the

o r ends can be achieved due t o the s c a r c i t y of
and

the

resulting

co mp et iti on

(D ie s in g ,

1962).

A l l o c a t i o n i s based on economizing which i s "an e v a l u a t i o n and s e l e c t i o n
o f en ds, and i t occurs when two o r more ends a r e in com pet iti on with
each o th e r"
ends.

(D ie s in g ,

Economizing i s

1962,

pg. 4 3). The given goal i s

t o maximize

n e ces sar y when a problem e x i s t s and i s p o s s i b l e

only as a l t e r n a t i v e ends a re comparable in some method o f measurement.
The values o f a c u l t u r e can determine which ends can be a l t e r n a t i v e and

what method o f v a l u a t i o n can be used.
widespread.

U tility,

alternatives,

Money measurement has become very

de fin e d as the u s e f u l n e s s

or s a tis fa c tio n

with

can be measured and compared depending on whether th e

means and ends have a market p r i c e .

The vaguest measures o f u t i l i t y

oc cur in t h e economic a c t i v i t i e s f u r t h e s t from th e m a rk e tp la ce , such as
th e household, because measurement o f emotional o r psych olo gi cal r e t u r n s
is d i f f i c u l t
traditional
m a rr ia g e ,

(D ie s in g , 1962).

Becker (1981), however, has gone beyond

economic a n a l y s i s t o in c lu de nonmaterial
births,

divorce,

economic frameworks.

and

division

of

labor

be hav io r such as
in

households

in

Exchange, in c o n t r a s t t o a l l o c a t i o n , i s a t r a n s f e r

of valu es between economic u n i t s and i s based on b a r g a in in g which i s a
social

procedure

inv ol vi n g

two

socially

related

economic

units.

Exchange i s common both w it h in and between f a m i l i e s and o t h e r groups.
In summary,
Goals and

d e c i s i o n making i s

r e s o u rc e s

family needs.

crucial

t o household pro d u c ti o n .

must be weighed and a l l o c a t e d

in o r d e r t o meet

A family may deci de t h a t p u t t i n g most o f i t s

re so urces

i n t o market l a b o r i s to i t s b e s t advantage o r i t may decide t h a t using
its

human re s o u rc e s

meeting

the

in household pro duct io n i s

fam ily's

needs.

Ecological

the optimal

conditions

such

method of
as

family

l o c a t i o n , income, employment, o r s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s can in f l u e n c e family
economic d e c i s i o n s by p la c i n g c o n s t r a i n t s upon o r allowing more reso ur ce
utilization.
Household Production
A major methodological problem in r e s e a rc h on household production
is a d e f i n i t i o n o f th e a c t i v i t i e s which c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y pro duction and

10

consumption

(Hefferan,

1982a).

A specific

concern

of

the

current

r e s e a r c h i s th e d i s t i n c t i o n between housework and household p r o d u c t i o n ,
a d i s t i n c t i o n which i s not c l e a r in home management l i t e r a t u r e .

Some

c o n s i d e r t h e s e two terms synonymous while o t h e r s view them as d i f f e r e n t
c o n c e p ts .

Reid (193 4) , a p i o n e e r in t h e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f household

p ro d u c t i o n , d e s c r i b e d household p ro du c tio n as "unpaid a c t i v i t i e s which
a r e c a r r i e d on, by and f o r t h e members" (p. 11) which could be s u b s t i ­
t u t e d with market p r o d u c t i o n .
goods

for

fam ilial

the

household,

interaction

In a d d i t i o n t o pro vi di ng t h e m a t e r i a l

Reid emphasized

the

and development through

human c o n t r i b u t i o n
the

pro du ct io n

of

process.

Since R e i d 's work have come many d e f i n i t i o n s o f a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n th e
home.

Terms

such

as

obligations

have a l l

definitions

and

housework,

household

production,

and

household

been used t o d e s c r i b e s i m i l a r phenomena.

descriptions

of

household

work

and

pro duct io n

Major
a re

compiled in Figure 1.
Major t h e o r e t i c a l

work on household pro d u c ti o n has been done by

B e u t l e r and Owen who developed a t h e o r e t i c a l model o f household produc­
tion

using a family e c o l o g i c a l

1981; Owen and B e u t l e r ,

1981).

perspective

(Beutler

and Owen,

1980,

The b a s i c assumption of t h e model i s

t h a t t h e family i s a decision-making u n i t ; t h i s d e f i n i t i o n corresponds
t o t h e family e c o l o g i c a l

view.

As a d e c i s i o n making u n i t ,

the basic

t a s k o f t h e family i s " to choose among competing ends in o r d e r to maxi­
mize s a t i s f a c t i o n s
re s o u r c e s "

(or u t i l i t y )

(Owen and B e u t l e r ,

s u b j e c t to th e

lim itations

o f s c a rc e

1981, p. 158) which c l e a r l y follows the

economic decision-making process d e s c r i b e d by Diesing (1962) as p a r t of
economic r a t i o n a l i t y .

B e u t l e r and Owen d e s c r i b e t h r e e major components

of th e home pr od uc tio n model:

u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n , home p ro du c tio n

Figure 1 . —D e f i n i t i o n s and D e s c r i p t i o n s o f Household Pr odu cti on A c t i v i t i e s
Author*
Term Used__________________ ___________________D e f i n i t i o n _______________________________________ D e s c r i p t i o n
1. Reid, 1934
Household Produ ction

2. Kyrk, 1953
Consumer Production

3. Becker, 1965
New Home Economics
4. Morgan e t . a l . , 1966
Home Produ ction

"Unpaid a c t i v i t i e s which a r e c a r r i e d on,
. by and f o r t h e members, which a c t i v i t i e s
i might be r e p l a c e d by market goods, o r
’ p a id s e r v i c e s , i f c ir c u m st a n c e s such as
income, market c o n d i t i o n s , and pe rsonal
i n c l i n a t i o n s p e rm it t h e s e r v i c e s t o be
d e l e g a t e d to someone o u t s i d e t h e
household groups" (p . 11).
P r o d u c t i o n , f o r t h e use o f t h e pr oduc er
or his family, i s the c re a tio n of
u t i l i t i e s as s e r v i c e s o r economic goods.
I t i s u n s p e c i a l i z e d , small s c a l e , and
d e c e n t r a l i z e d p ro d u c ti o n (pp. 244-247).
I t " i s more a p ro c e ss o f c r e a t i n g t i m e ,
p l a c e , and p o s s e s s i o n u t i l i t i e s and l e s s
one o f c r e a t i n g form u t i l i t i e s than
h e r e t o f o r e " (p . 250) .

P r o v i s i o n o f m a t e r i a l and n o n -m a te ri a l
goods such as household c r a f t s
r e q u i r i n g manual l a b o r , household
s e r v i c e s , f a m ily r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,
a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h e home, management
i n c l u d i n g choice -ma king , sh opping,
c h i l d c a r e and t r a i n i n g , s p e c i a l c a r e
o f fa m il y members.
Follows R e i d ' s d e f i n i t i o n and in c lu d e s
only a c t i v i t i e s which can be d e l e g a t e d
t o t h o s e o u t s i d e t h e fa m il y t o d i f f e r e n ­
t i a t e p ro d u c ti o n from l e i s u r e and
consumption.

Household "combines c a p i t a l goods, raw
m a t e r i a l s and la b o u r t o c l e a n , f e e d ,
p r o c r e a t e , and o t h e r w i s e produce u s ef u l
commodities" (p . 496) .
"Unpaid p r o d u c t i v e a c t i v i t y o t h e r than
r e g u l a r housework" (p . 125) t h a t " i s
l a r g e l y a s u b s t i t u t e f o r m a rke tab le goods
and s e r v i c e s " (p . 130).

*Authors l i s t e d in c h r o n o lo g ic a l o r d e r o f work c i t e d

R e p a i r s , major house c l e a n i n g ,
p a i n t i n g , sewing, growing fo od, canning
o r f r e e z i n g fo od , and o t h e r t h i n g s t h a t
could save money.

Figure 1 ( c o n t ' d . )

Author*
Term Used
5.

Definition

S t e i d l and B r a t t o n , 1968
Work o f Homemakers

6.

Robinson e t . a l . , 1972

Non -ro ut ine p r o d u c t i v e household
activities

Household Care

7.

Fitzsimmons and
W il lia m s , 1974

N i c k e l l , Ric e, and
Tucker, 1976
Home-related work

9.

Walker and Woods, 1976
Household work o r
Household Produ ction

10. B e u t l e r and Owen, 1980
Home Pr odu cti on

Meal and o t h e r food p r e p a r a t i o n , d i s h ­
w ashing, r e g u l a r and s p e c i a l c a r e o f th e
hous e, wa shing, i r o n i n g , and o t h e r c a r e
o f c l o t h e s , c a r e o f fa m il y members,
m a r k e ti n g , and r e c o r d s .
Gardening, animal c a r e , shopping f o r
goods o t h e r than fo o d , home r e p a i r s , work
i n m a i n t a i n i n g h e a t and w a t e r , paying
household b i l l s , c a r e o f e l d e r l y o r i l l
fa m il y members.

C r e a ti o n o f u t i l i t y in t h e home f o ll o w i n g
Reid's d e f in itio n

Both p h y s ic a l and mental a c t i v i t y , such
as h o u s e d e a n i n g , y a r d and c a r c a r e ,
sewing, managerial d e c i s i o n s , shopping,
paying b i l l s , p r o v id i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n .

A c t i v i t i e s t h a t keep “a house f u n c t i o n i n g
w hi le meeting a c e r t a i n s t a n d a r d o f c l e a n ­
l i n e s s and s a f e t y in d a i l y l i v i n g "
(p . 241)

Meal p r e p a r a t i o n and a f t e r - m e a l c l e a n - u p ,
p h y s i c a l c a r e o f f a m ily members, c a r e o f
a l i v i n g u n i t , la und ry and o t h e r c a r e of
c l o t h i n g , sh opp ing , and re c o rd keeping.

“ Purposeful a c t i v i t i e s performed in
i n d i v i d u a l households t o c r e a t e t h e goods
and s e r v i c e s t h a t make i t p o s s i b l e f o r a
f a m il y t o f u n c t i o n as a fam ily " (p . xx)

Meal p r e p a r a t i o n , r e g u l a r house c a r e and
maintenance o f y a r d , c a r and p e t s , p h y s i ­
ca l c a r e o f fa m il y members, non-p hy s ic al
c a r e o f fa m il y members, c a r e and c o n s t r u c ­
t i o n o f c l o t h i n g , sh opping, and manage­
ment.

Household p ro d u c ti o n
8.

Description

" Pr oduc tio n by and f o r household members
w it h t h e o u t p u t having use value r a t h e r
tha n exchange val ue" (p . 17)

Sewing, food p r e p a r a t i o n , g a r d e n in g ,
p r e p a r i n g food from s c r a t c h , re - d o in g
f u r n i t u r e , home r e p a i r , automobile c a r e ,
c a r p e n t r y work around t h e home, and
management through fo r m a li z e d p la nn in g.

Figure 1 ( c o n t ' d . )

Author*
Term Used
11.

Definition

Investments o f e d u c a t i o n , c h i l d c a r e ,
medical c a r e , home improvement, s o c i a l ,
o r g a n i z a t i o n and i n t e r p e r s o n a l communi­
c a t i o n i n t o home ma in te nan c e , perso nal
c a r e , sh op pin g, cooking and market work
r e s u l t i n g in t a n g i b l e and i n t a n g i b l e
outputs.

J u s t e r e t . a l . , 1980
Household Pr oduct io n

12.

Deacon and F ir eb a ugh ,
1981
Household work

Description

"n on -pa id p ro d u c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s o c c u r r i n g
p r i m a r i l y in t h e home o r performed f o r
d i r e c t use in t h e home" ( p . 142)

Meal p r e p a r a t i o n and c l e a n - u p , la u n ­
d e r i n g , s t r a i g h t e n i n g up and c l e a n i n g th e
house, running e r r a n d s , m a rk e ti n g , c h i l d
c a r e , c a r e o f a d u l t s , g a r d e n i n g , animal
c a r e , and t r a v e l n e c e s s a r y t o accomplish
these ta sk s .

14

activities,

and

decisions

on what

to

produce.

A summary of

th e se

components fo ll o w s .
1.
needs

The u t i l i t y
that

they s t r i v e

activities.
le ads

to

to

Families have many d i v e r s e wants and

realize

through t h e i r economic and s o c i a l

In t r a d i t i o n a l economic t h e o r y , optimum re s ou rc e a l l o c a t i o n

the

utility.

function.

greatest

satisfaction

which

is

referred

A b s t r a c t goods c a l l e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

basic preference.

as maximum

i n c lu d in g f e e l i n g s of

w e l l - b e i n g and s u c c e s s , d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e u t i l i t y .
be ordered acc ording to p r e f e r e n c e s .

to

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can

However, meeting human needs i s a

The b a s i c needs in c lu de s a f e t y , belonging and lo v e ,

esteem and u l t i m a t e l y ,

self-actualization

(Maslow, 1954).

U tility

is

not de riv e d d i r e c t l y from consumption, as t h e o r i z e d in economics, but
comes

from

the

characteristics

produced

through

home

production

activities.
2.
major

Production
categories:

activities.
market

Production can be di v id e d

pr od uc tio n

exchange

and

transactions

home

p r o d u c ti o n .

using

money

or

i n t o two
Market

pro du ction

invol ve s

in - k i n d

exchanges.

"Home pr od uc tio n i s by and f o r household members with the

ou tp u t having use val ue r a t h e r than exchange value" ( B e u t l e r and Owen,
1980, pg. 17).

Home pro du ct io n i s f u r t h e r broken down i n t o s e p a ra b le

and i n s e p a r a b l e p ro d u c ti o n .

Sepa rable produ ct ion i s composed of t a s k s

t h a t someone o u t s i d e o f th e family could perform such as home o r c a r
repair.

Other

delegate

to

ty p e s

of

home produ ct ion

a paid worker due to

the

which

"unique

are

not

possible

human a t t r i b u t i o n

to
and

r e l a t i o n s h i p s involved in th e a c t i v i t y " ( B e u t l e r and Owen, 1980, pg. 18)
are

called

inseparable

home

prod uc tio n

and

are

of

three

ty pe s:

i n tr a h o u s e h o l d p r o d u c t i o n , in te r h o u s e h o l d g r a n t s , and community s e r v i c e .

15

In tr aho us eh old

prod uc tio n

involves

p ro du c tio n w it h in

such as a p a r e n t i n t e r a c t i n g with a c h i l d .

th e

family

unit

Both i n te rh o u s e h o l d g r a n ts

and community s e r v i c e "in vo lv e one-way t r a n s f e r s o f goods and s e r v i c e s
from one household to a n o t h e r o r t o t h e community a t l a r g e " ( B e u t l e r and
Owen,

1980,

pg. 128).

In s e p a r a b le

home

pro duction

fo ll ow s

many

p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e g r a n t s economy (Boulding, 1973; Bivens, 1976).
B e u t l e r and Owen's d e f i n i t i o n d i v i d e s household prod uc tio n i n t o two
types.

The c u r r e n t

research,

in

light

of

its

purpose

to

identify

household pro duction t o augment th e re a l income ob ta in e d through market
p ro d u c ti o n ,

followed t h e d e f i n i t i o n

B e u t l e r and Owen.

o f household prod uc tio n given by

However, th e p r e s e n t

r e s e a r c h did not d i s t i n g u i s h

s e p a ra b le and i n s e p a r a b l e c a t e g o r i e s as t h e da ta used f e l l
categories

and

division

into

categories

would

not

i n t o both

facilitate

the

o b j e c t i v e s o f the r e s e a r c h .
Home prod uc tio n i s a pro ce ss inv ol vi ng i n p u t s , t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , and
outputs.

For household p ro d u c t i o n , o u tp u ts o f t h e produ ct ion in cl ude

both

extrinsic

the

characteristics

goods and s e r v i c e s .
pro duction

which

a re

and

intrinsic

Extrinsic c h arac te ristic s
"external

and

characteristics

of

a r e t h e measure o f the

independent

of

an

individual's

p e r c e p t i o n s ' o r t a s t e s " ( B e u t l e r and Owen, 1980, pg. 19) and which could
be d e sc ri be d as o b j e c t i v e
in c lu d e s i z e ,

color,

and u n i v e r s a l

smell,

important

in decision-making

intrinsic

characteristics

(Lancaster,

1971).

Examples

c a p a c i t y to perform and o t h e r p r o p e r t i e s

are

(Owen and B e u t l e r ,
based

on

1981).

p e r c e p ti o n

In c o n t r a s t ,

inherent

to

the

in d iv id u a l and in c lu de such th i n g s as t h e meaning conveyed to a person
due to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e producer and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ( B e u t l e r
and Owen, 1980).

16

3.

Decision of what to produce in th e hous eho ld.

As mentioned as

p a r t o f th e u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n , two b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of de cis ion-making
a r e l i m i t e d r e s o u rc e s and f a m ily p r e f e r e n c e s .

A family works toward an

optimal

combination

maximum u t i l i t y .

becomes

a

of

s ta n d a rd

of

characteristics
living

to

be

achieved

(Davis, 1945; B e u t l e r and Owen, 1980).
what i t
needs.

and

or a t

least

This

atte mp ted

By c o n s id e r in g what i t has and

ne e d s , the household can maximize u t i l i t y and meet i t s

human

Figure 2 shows B e u t l e r and Owen's e n t i r e home pro duct ion model

(1980, pg. 24) which i n c o r p o r a t e s th e t h r e e components summarized above.
Household work and pr od uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s
much stu dy ( e . g .
Warren,

1940;

Reid,

Vanek,

have been t h e o b j e c t o f

1934; Robinson, 1977; Walker and Woods, 1976;
1974).

Most

studies

have

concentrated

on

th e

t r a d i t i o n a l maintenance t a s k s t h a t have been performed by women such as
housework, meal p r e p a r a t i o n and c l e a n - u p , laundry and phys ical
fami ly members.

c ar e o f

This household work has been d e s c r i b e d as t h e a c t i v i ­

t i e s t h a t keep "a house f u n c t i o n i n g while meeting a c e r t a i n s ta n d a r d o f
cleanliness

and s a f e t y

1976, pg. 241).

in d a i l y

living"

(Nickel 1,

Ric e,

and Tucker,

The emphasis on r o u t i n e maintenance i s u n d e rs ta n d a b le

as i t accounts f o r almost f o u r - f i f t h s o f household work time (Walker and
Woods, 1976).
family

Routine t a s k s a r e u s u a l l y done 1n t h e c o n te x t of o t h e r

activities

and

are

common,

discontinuous,

generalized,

and

im por tant t o

th e

d o v e t a i l e d with o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s and with one a n o t h e r .
A clear
present

definition

s tu d y .

Some

o f household produ ct ion

researchers

produ ct ion to in c lu de a l l

use

th e

terms

is

home

or

household

th e non-market pro duction a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d

on w i t h i n the household r e g a r d l e s s o f th e n a tu re o r frequency o f t h e
tasks.

Others d i v i d e household work i n t o c a t e g o r i e s due to t h e n a tu re

Figure 2. — A Home Production A c t i v i t y Model

PREFERENCES

STANDARD
OF LIVING

- f UTILITY

\
ACTUALIZATION 1
ESTEEM
LOVE
SAFETY
PHYSIOLOGICAL

HOME PRODUCTION
NON-MARKET

LEVEL OF
LIVING

CHARACTERISTICS
OUTPUT:
INTRINSIC
EXTRINSIC

MKT. GOODS &
SERVICES

RESOURCES
HUMAN CAPITAL
MATERIAL CAPITAL

MARKET
PARTICIPATION

CHARACTERISTICS
OUTPUT:
INTRINSIC
EXTRINSIC
(MONEY)

(Used w it h pe rmissio n o f t h e a u th o r)
From: B e u t l e r , I . F . and Owen, A .J. A home p ro duc tio n a c t i v i t y
model. Home Economics Research J o u r n a l , 1980, 9, 16-26.

17

18

of th e work.

For example, B e u t l e r and Owen (1980) use th e c a t e g o r i e s of

s e p a r a b l e and i n s e p a r a b l e produ ct ion based on whether o r not t h e t a s k
could be d e l e g a t e d t o a person o u t s i d e t h e f a m i l y .

Researchers st udy ing

time use o f t e n d i v i d e household work i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s based on the
frequency

of

the

performance

of

the

task

(Morgan

Robinson e t . a l . , 1972; Walker and Woods, 1976).

et.

a l.,

The f i r s t c a te g o ry was

g e n e r a l l y d e s c r i b e d as general housework with d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s
food p r e p a r a t i o n and c l e a n - u p , h o u s e c le a n in g , and la un dr y.
c a te g o ry has been c a l l e d by s e v e r a l

titles

such as s p e c i a l

c a r e , sewing, and food p r e s e r v a t i o n .

such as

The second

in c l u d i n g household c a r e ,

o t h e r unpaid pr o d u c ti v e a c t i v i t i e s and l e s s r e g u l a r t a s k s .
div erse, non-routine a c t i v i t i e s

1966;

They in cl ude

house, y a r d ,

and c a r

Some s t u d i e s have focused only on

the second group o f a c t i v i t i e s

(Church o f J e s u s C h r i s t o f L a t t e r - d a y

Saints,

1981).

1980, Owen and B e u t l e r ,

examined

in

greater

detail

in

All t h e above s t u d i e s w i l l

Chapter 2,

bu t

are

mentioned

here

be
as

r a t i o n a l e f o r th e d e f i n i t i o n chosen f o r t h e p r e s e n t s tu dy .
Often in response t o environmental

c o n d i t i o n s , people w i l l

choose

s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s o f re s o u rc e management t h a t the y f e e l w i l l b e s t meet
t h e i r needs.

They w i l l use t h e i r own e f f o r t s in c e r t a i n household t a s k s

t o conserve a s c a r c e re s o u rc e such as monetary Income.

Of t h e two major

c a t e g o r i e s o f household work ( r o u t i n e and n o n - r o u t i n e t a s k s ) , t h e second
c a te g o ry would be more l i k e l y t o be a s i t u a t i o n where a f a m i l y ' s human
r e s o u rc e s would be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r market s e r v i c e s due to th e i n f r e q u e n t
na t u r e o f t h e t a s k s and th e amount t h a t could be saved from t h e monetary
income.
resources.

Routine t a s k s

probably

are

already

done usin g

family

human

19

The p r e s e n t

study focuses

on the household pro duction

in c lu d in g

e f f o r t s both w i t h i n t h e family and with o t h e r f a m i l i e s and th e community
where human r e s o u rc e s a r e s u b s t i t u t e d

f o r market goods and s e r v i c e s .

Production such as d a i l y food p r e p a r a t i o n and c l e a n - u p , house c l e a n i n g ,
and laundry were not
delineated

in

th e

inc lud ed

in t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

operational

definitions,

the

researcher

a v a i l a b l e da ta on household p ro du c tio n a c t i v i t i e s .
dat a were on n o n - r o u t i n e produ ct ion a c t i v i t i e s .

Given th e
used

data
all

The m a j o r i t y o f the

However, r o u t i n e c h i l d

c a r e as a p a r t o f s p e c i a l family c ar e was included s p e c i f i c a l l y as i t i s
a d i r e c t involvement in human c a p i t a l development and in t h a t l i g h t is
an inve stment r a t h e r than maintenance.
Definitions
This

re s e a r c h

uses

both

theoretical

and o p e r a t i o n a l

definitions

which a r e pre s e n te d ne xt .
Theoretical D efinitions
Family. —"A bonded u n i t o f i n t e r a c t i n g and in t e r d e p e n d e n t persons
who have some common go a ls and r e s o u r c e s , and f o r p a r t o f t h e i r l i f e
cycle, a t l e a s t ,

s har e l i v i n g space"

(Andrews, e t a l . ,

1980, pg. 32).

In t h i s s tu d y , fam ily and household a r e used synonymously.
Household

or

home

p r o d u c t i o n . —Nonpaid

pro duct io n

activities

performed by and f o r household members p r i m a r i l y f o r use in the home
that f a c ilita te

t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f th e household and provide f o r the

w e ll - b e in g o f household members (Deacon and Firebaugh, 1981; Walker and
Woods,

1976).

These

activities

can

be

substituted

with

goods

s e r v i c e s in th e marketplace and ta k e a measured degree o f s k i l l .

and
They

20

may

use

family

r e s o u rc e s

or

r e s o u rc e s

of

other

families

and

th e

community.
Level o f l i v i n g . —Actual

bundle o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t t a i n e d by a

household ( B e u t l e r and Owen, 1980).
Standard o f l i v i n g . —Household i n v e n t o r y , assemblage o f goods f o r
use and val ues r e f l e c t e d in l i f e s t y l e .

I t i s not only s p e c i f i c goods

and s e r v i c e s , bu t a measure o f fundamental va lu es sought (Kyrk, 1953).
Real

income. —The goods

pe rio d of time.

and

services

available

for

use

at

any

In a d d i t i o n t o money income, i t inc lu d e s s e r v i c e from

owned p r o p e r ty and p o s s e s s i o n s , f r i n g e b e n e f i t s from work o r a s s o c i a ­
t i o n s , and o t h e r use o f human and economic r e s o u rc e s ( Nickel 1, Rice, and
Tucker, 1976).
Operational D e f i n i t i o n s
Family. —C o n si s ts o f a husband and wife l i v i n g t o g e t h e r with th e
o l d e s t c h i l d between t h e ages o f 6 and 12.
Household p r o d u c t i o n . — Includes t h e s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s
c ar e and r e p a i r ,
other

c a r c ar e and r e p a i r ,

outd oo r work,

sewing,

in c lu d in g

ga rd e nin g,

care

bartering

services,

s h a r in g

recreation,
using

less

of

community medical
expensive ways o f

ho b b ie s,

personal
and

resources,
services,

care, yard,

crafts,

family members,
using
usi ng

o f:

food

savings

shopping and r e c y c l i n g .

lawn and

preservation

and i n v e s t i n g ,

cooperatives,
free

home

community

in f o r m a t io n ,
Laundry,

p r e p a r a t i o n and c l e a n - u p , and d a i l y housework were not includ ed .

and
meal

21

Research Questions
In an e f f o r t to c o n t r i b u t e to th e stud y o f household produ ct ion th e
fo ll o w i n g

categories

were s t u d i e d :

household

prod uc tio n d e c i s i o n

household

p ro d u c ti o n .

household

choices,

For t h e s e

and

pro duction

th e

c a te g o r ie s .,

activities,

perc eive d

the

value

fol lo wi ng

of

q u e s ti o n s

were posed:
1.

To

what

extent

produ ctio n?
a.

are

families

participating

in

household

home

(basically

Are t h e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s in :

Production

activities

done

inside

th e

with fa mi ly members) and o u t s i d e t h e home (with o t h e r
f a m i l i e s and community o r g a n i z a t i o n s ) ?
b.

Husbands'

and wives'

participation

in household produc­

tion?
c.

Amount of involvement
dence,

acc ording t o :

family income,

location of r e s i ­

fa mi ly employment

status,

or

household s i z e ?
2.

To what e x t e n t a r e f a m i l i e s producing goods and s e r v i c e s f o r
themselves t h a t a r e commonly

produced in th e marketplace?

what e x t e n t a r e they buying o r h i r i n g

th e goods and s e r v i c e s ?

To what e x t e n t a r e they l e t t i n g th e a c t i v i t y go undone?
activities

do not apply to t h e i r

To

situation?

Which

Are t h e r e any

d i f f e r e n c e s in:
a.

Husbands'

and

wives'

participation

in

each

of

these

location

of

resi­

choices?
b.

The d e c i s i o n
dence,

choices

acc ord ing

family income,

household si z e ?

to:

family employment

status,

or

22

3.

What

do f a m i l i e s

pe rc e iv e

as

the

monetary

household prod uc tio n c o n t r i b u t i o n ?

valu e

of

their

Are t h e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s

in :
a.

Husbands' and wives' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s ?

b.

The monetary valu e acc ord ing t o :
fami ly

income,

family

l o c a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e ,

employment

status,

or

household

si z e ?
Hypotheses
Several hypotheses were formed t o c o n t r i b u t e to th e stu dy o f th e s e
re s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s .
1.

These hypotheses were:

There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the amount o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
household pro duction i n s i d e t h e home compared t o o u t s i d e the
home.

2.

There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the amount o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n of
husbands and wives in household p ro du c tio n.

3.

There

are

household

no

differences

produ ct ion

in

acc or din g

th e

amount o f

to:

involvement

location

of

in

residence,

family income, family employment s t a t u s , or household s i z e .
4.

There

i s no d i f f e r e n c e between husbands'

and w iv e s'

perc ep­

t i o n s of t h e f a m i l i e s ' household produ ct ion d e c i s i o n a l t e r n a ­
tives.
5.

There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between husbands' and wives' p e r c e p ti o n
o f th e

fam ilies'

acco rding t o :

household pro duction

location of residence,

employment s t a t u s , o r household s i z e .

decision

alternatives

family income,

family

23

6.

There i s no d i f f e r e n c e in husbands' and wives' p e r c e p ti o n s of
th e

monetary value

of t h e i r

household pr od uc tio n

contribu­

tions.
7.

There i s no d i f f e r e n c e in husbands' and wives' p e r c e p t i o n s of
th e monetary va lu e o f t h e i r household produ ct ion c o n t r i b u t i o n s
acc ord ing t o :

location of residence,

employment s t a t u s , o r household s i z e .

family income, family

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The purpose o f t h i s

review o f l i t e r a t u r e

i s t o examine what has

been t h e o r i z e d and s t u d i e d r e ga rd in g household p r o d u c ti o n .

This c h a p te r

w i l l f i r s t focus on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l fo u n d a ti o n s of household p ro du c tio n.
The background o f t h e the or y on household p r o d u c t i o n , p e r s p e c t i v e s of
the

production,

Empirical

and

research

other

on

relevant

household

theories

pr od u c ti o n

will

will

be

then

discussed.

be

p re s en te d

in c l u d i n g s t u d i e s on household pro duction a c t i v i t i e s , d e c i s i o n c h o i c e s ,
and v a lu e .
Background o f Household Production Theory
Economic P e r s p e c t i v e
Traditional

economics has been concerned with measuring ma te ria l

w e l l - b e i n g and developing a p p r o p r i a t e accou nting systems.

The household

has been c o n s id e re d t h e u l t i m a t e consumer o f th e economic system, as
l a n d , l a b o r , and c a p i t a l were a l l
and

services

for

households.

used in th e market to provid e goods

Economics

has

c e n te r e d

upon

flows

of

m a t e r i a l goods and s e r v i c e s with t h e view t h a t " i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t a l
w e l l - b e i n g depends on th e combination of a v a i l a b l e goods plus a v a i l a b l e
leisure"

(Juster et a l . ,

1980,

pg. 2 ) .

This

is

further

seen

in the

microeconomic time a l l o c a t i o n model where th e household ch o ice s were

24

25

l i m i t e d t o employment or l e i s u r e

(Henderson and Quandt,

1971).

Time

working i s co n sid er ed "bad" and l e i s u r e time i s "good" with an absence
of c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f time spen t working a t home ( J u s t e r e t a l . , 1980).
Measurement o f

the

national

material

w e ll - b e in g

started

in

the

e a r l y 1 9 0 0 ' s , as King devised th e f i r s t q u a n t i t a t i v e e s t i m a t e s o f th e
National Product (King, 1930).

He was followed by Kuznets, G i l b e r t and

Jaszi

1940's

during

the

1 930's

and

who

more

clearly

bounda ries and r e f i n e d th e e s t i m a t e s ( J u s t e r e t a l . ,

d e fi n e d

1980).

th e

Following

economic t h e o r y , t h e boundaries developed i n d i c a t e d t h a t prod uc tio n of
goods and s e r v i c e s took p lace only in t h e market pro duction p r o c e s s , but
ignored any value added w it h in t h e household such as food p r e p a r a t i o n o r
clothing construction.
in th e l a t e 1950's .
th e

future

C r i t i q u e s o f t h i s system o f accounting s t a r t e d

Is su e s inc lud ed :

investment compared t o

environmental b e n e f i t s and c o s t s ,
current

consumption

in

health

and

e d u c a t i o n , and the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of nonmarket products from th e house­
hold ( J u s t e r e t a l . , 1980).
Ideas

from v a r i o u s economists helped t o encourage change in the

economic accounting system.
the

u s ef u l

deliberate

skills

and

Sc hultz (1961) d e s c r ib e d human c a p i t a l

knowledge

in ve st me nt.

He

a cq uir ed

stated

that

by people
much o f

as

what

is

consumption i s a c t u a l l y an investment in human c a p i t a l .
ed uca tio n
employment,
which

of

youth

and

eventually

and

adults,

improvement o f
accounts

for

health

services,

skills

and knowledge

a

in

rise

a worker's

a

result

as
of

c onsid ere d

This inc lu de s
relocation
in

leisure

re a l

for
time

earnings.

C o l l e c t i v e l y , t h i s can cause an i n c r e a s e in economic growth.
Following S c h u l t z ,
household

prod uc tio n

Becker (1965)

through

a th e o ry

developed a new p e r s p e c t i v e on
of allo c atio n

of

time.

This

approach i s c a l l e d th e "new home economics."

Bec ke r' s b a s ic premise i s

t h a t "a household 1s t r u l y a 'small f a c t o r y ' ; i t combines c a p i t a l goods,
raw m a t e r i a l s ,

and

la b o u r

to

clean,

feed,

produce use fu l commodities" (1965, p. 496).

procreate,

and

othe rw is e

The t r a d i t i o n a l s e p a r a t i o n

between pro duction and consumption, Becker rea so ne d, was due to t h e f a c t
t h a t fir ms c o n t r o l l e d th e working time exchanged f o r market goods w hile
households had " d i s c r e t i o n a r y " c o n tr o l over market goods and consumption
as they c r e a t e d u t i l i t y f o r th emselves.

Becker at tempted t o answer th e

problem o f what mixtu re o f household commodities should be produced to
y i e l d maximum u t i l i t y (Berk, 1980).

Time in Be c k e r' s th e o r y i s impor­

t a n t as a s c a r c e i n p u t which must be a l l o c a t e d between v a r io u s produc­
tive a c t i v it ie s .

Time use only i n f l u e n c e s w e l l - b e i n g through pro duction

and consumption o f m a t e r i a l

commodities.

Becker did not c o n s i d e r th e

enjoyment o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s themselves.
Becker (1981) continued to expand h i s ide as in applying economic
a n a l y s i s t o a l l a s p e c t s o f family l i f e .

For example, optimal pro duction

d e c i s i o n s in f a m i l i e s need t o c o n s i d e r th e s k i l l s o f d i f f e r e n t household
members and p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t s in t h e i r i n c e n t i v e s .

The assumption is

made t h a t everyone i s i n i t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l and v a r i a t i o n s in s k i l l r e s u l t
from d i f f e r e n t e xp e r ie n c e s and investments in human c a p i t a l .

Therefore,

e f f i c i e n t households have a d e f i n i t e d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r as measured by
time use and s p e c i a l i z e d c a p i t a l .

Becker t h e o r i z e s t h a t s p e c i a l i z a t i o n

i s the p a t t e r n of e f f i c i e n t households.
L a n c as te r (1966) added a new dimension t o t h e approach by proposing
t h a t u t i l i t y was a r e s u l t o f m u l t i p l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f goods r a t h e r
than from j u s t th e good i t s e l f .
th e

characteristics

of

For example, people d e r i v e u t i l i t y from

washing

equipment

such

as

convenience,

27

r e l i a b i l i t y and q u a l i t y o f washing r a t h e r than from a c e r t a i n brand and
model o f washer and d r y e r .
Poll ack

and

Wachter

(1975)

e x p la i n e d

th e

joint

dependence

of

u t i l i t y as i t included both t h e end r e s u l t s o f t h e produ ct ion a c t i v i t i e s
such as a meal served a t home and th e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r e f e r e n c e s f o r the
activities.

U t i l i t i e s a r e dependent not only on th e o b j e c t i v e s of th e

activities,

but a l s o on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e time used which could be

termed

a

p re f e r e n c e s

pro ce ss

benefit.

increases

Recognition

th e d i f f i c u l t y

of

pro ce ss

benefits

and

o f usi ng economic measures with

household produ ct ion th e o ry and measures o f household m a t e r i a l .
J u s t e r e t a l . (1980) attempted t o l i n k in p u ts o f o b j e c t i v e economic
measures of w e l l - b e i n g with s u b j e c t i v e ass essments o f s o c i a l i n d i c a t o r s
and q u a l i t y o f l i f e t o " e f f e c t t h e f i n a l
proc esses"

(p. 9 ) .

They

atte mp ted

to

outcomes o f complex s o c i e t a l
measure

proc ess

benefits

by

c o n s i d e r i n g both use o f time and t a n g i b l e goods as components of the
household

utility

function.

T h e ir

u tility

function

inc luded

time

devoted t o a c t i v i t i e s , l e v e l s o f s t o c k s , q u a n t i t i e s , and p r i c e s o f goods
purchased in th e market, and commodities produced w it h in the home with
time

and t e c h n o l o g i c a l

constraints.

The system

o u tp uts of household pro duction p r o c e s s ,

in c lu d e s

"a

set

of

t y p i f i e d by t h e q u a n t i t y and

q u a l i t y o f c h i l d r e n , me als, and o r d e r l y l i v i n g q u a r t e r s " (p. 34).
Household produ ct ion

in J u s t e r e t a l . ' s

social

a cco unt ing system

combined household a c t i v i t i e s with GNP-type goods used by th e household
in producing t a n g i b l e and i n t a n g i b l e o u t p u t s .
of two t y p e s :

The t a n g i b l e o u tp u ts were

t h e in t e r m e d i a t e product which was used up w it h in the

household in proce ss o f pro duction and t h e ne t investment which changes

28

the household c a p i t a l

s to c k .

The i n t a n g i b l e o u tp u ts a r e th e process

b e n e f i t s o r t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n s from doing t h e a c t i v i t y i t s e l f .
Household
in v e st m en t,
activities.

pr od uc tio n

intermediate,

was

classified

consumption,

into

and

four

categories:

biological

maintenance

The inve stment and i n t e r m e d i a t e a c t i v i t i e s in c lu d e elements

t h a t have been in cl uded 1n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f household produ ct ion in
t h i s s tu d y .
The

The o u tp u ts o f t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s a r e l i s t e d in Appendix A-l .

intermediate

produ ct

output

produce more household s t o c k s .

sums

to

zero w hil e

investments

can

Process b e n e f i t s a r e a l s o ne t ga ins in

u t i l i t y o r ps ych olo gi cal s a t i s f a c t i o n .
Gronau (1977) noted t h a t by th e time o f h i s w r i t i n g , th e household
prod uc tio n f u n c t i o n o f Becker, L a n c a s t e r , and o t h e r s was an e s t a b l i s h e d
p a r t o f economic th e o r y and was used in " a n a l y s i s o f f e r t i l i t y , h e a l t h ,
consumption, l a b o r s u p p ly , and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n demand" (p. 1100).
added

to

this

theoretical

literature

l e i s u r e , home p ro d u c t i o n , and work.

in

developing

the

Gronau

concepts

of

Mincer (1962) d i s t i n g u i s h e d between

work a t home and l e i s u r e , but t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n was omitte d from Bec ke r' s
theory.

The assumptions

for

considering

leisure

and

work

at

home

t o g e t h e r a r e t h a t t h e two uses o f time r e a c t s i m i l a r l y to changes in
socioeconomic

conditions

constant r e l a t i v e p ric e .

and

they

act

as

a composite

input

with

a

However, r e c e n t time s t u d i e s have found t h a t

l e i s u r e and work a t home a r e a f f e c t e d d i f f e r e n t l y by changes in s o c i o ­
economic

variables.

Through

economic

analysis

and

studies,

Gronau

sought t o provide evidence t h a t a d i s t i n c t i o n between l e i s u r e and home
work needs t o be made in the time a l l o c a t i o n t h e o r i e s .
i s t h a t work a t home i s

an a c t i v i t y

His d i s t i n c t i o n

t h a t a person would r a t h e r have

29

someone

e l s e do f o r

him /her,

while

leisure

would be

impossible

to

d e l e g a t e to someone e l s e (Gronau, 1977.
In

the t h e o r i e s o f household p ro d u c ti o n , commodities a r e de fined

several

ways.

Reid (1934) c a l l e d

t h e r e a r e market e q u i v a l e n t s .

them goods and s e r v i c e s

f o r which

Becker (1976) s t a t e d t h a t a commodity was

anything produced by nonwage l a b o r t h a t provides u t i l i t y .

Gronau (1977)

combined the two t o say t h a t household commodities may o r may not have
market

equivalents.

These

definitions

s har e

a

common

belief

that

commodities y i e l d u t i l i t y and have psychic b e n e f i t s when consumed.
this

light,

In

households exchange l a b o r and market in p u ts as they wish

under income c o n s t r a i n t s to maximize u t i l i t y .
Marxist P e rs p e c ti v e
It

must

activities

of

be

recognized

t h a t not

th e

home can be

all

analyzed

scholars

believe

economically.

that

Brown

th e

(1982)

s t a t e s t h a t th e "new home economics" has not aided our study of th e home
"because

its

positivist

methodological

approach

provides

a

logical

r a t i o n a l i s t i c framework f o r a post hoc measurement o f family response to
economic v a r i a b l e s " (p. 155).

A major problem occurs with t h e p r i n c i p l e

of s u b s t i t u t i o n o f market goods and s e r v i c e s f o r / b y those provided by a
homemaker

such

as

flexibility

in

services,

personalized

care,

and

a t t e n t i o n being a v a i l a b l e tw e n ty -fo ur hours a day which a re not s u b s t i ­
tutable.

Likewise,

th e

idea of o pt io ns

and pre fe re n c e s

in a family

s i t u a t i o n are considered o p t i m i s t i c a l l y .
The Marxist l i t e r a t u r e on household work views household la b o r as
not j u s t an in pu t r e s u l t i n g in commodities, bu t as a t o p i c of concern.
Household la bo r i s p r i v a t e production r e s u l t i n g in d i r e c t s a t i s f a c t i o n

30

(w ithout t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ) o f th e needs of th e family (Berk, 1980).
also

private

in

that

housewives work in

household members and a l l

isolation

perform s i m i l a r t a s k s .

un le ss

I t is

helped by

Household l a b o r does

not produce commodities, i t produces us e- val ue s (Himmelweit and Mohum,
1977).

The g r e a t e s t outp u t o f household l a b o r i s

l a b o r power which
system

(Della

is

crucial

to

Costa and James,

Lerguia and Dumoulin, 1972).

th e

continuation

1972;

th e production of
of the

Ferneyhugh,

1974;

capitalist

Inman,

1973;

Producing l a b o r power include s b i o l o g i c a l

r e p r o d u c t i o n , ed ucation and nu rtu ra nc e o f c h i l d r e n , th e s i c k , and the
elderly,

and s e r v i c e s

Dumoulin, 1972).

and d a i l y c are t o

family workers

(Lerguia and

Housewives a r e seen as th e i n v i s i b l e base of a c l a s s

s o c i e t y which allows men to be th e v i s i b l e

producers of commodities

(Fee, 1976).
Understandably, th e value o f household commodities v a r i e s
economic and Marxist p e r s p e c t i v e s .

in the

In economic te rm s, c o s t i s the sum

o f t h e market values o f l a b o r and o t h e r in p u ts in cl udi ng time based on
marginal

u tility

(Becker,

1965).

However,

this

is

based

on

an

impersonal market system and does not c o n s id e r th e personal na tur e of
so c i a l

r e l a t i o n s w it h in

th e household.

u s e- val ue

w it h in

the

household

situated

meaning

of

activities

The Marxist model

in c lu di ng

th e

(Berk, 1980).

symbolic
Symbolic

emphasizes
content

and

production

a c t i v i t i e s can be considered p a r t of the one-way t r a n s f e r s ( o r g r a n t s )
t h a t p a r t i c u l a r l y ta ke p lace in f a m i l i e s (Boulding, 1973).
Motivation f o r Household Production
A major i s s u e

in household production l i t e r a t u r e

concerns whose

e f f o r t s and human c a p i t a l a r e being u t i l i z e d as in pu t in the production

31

p ro c e s s .

The c u r r e n t concern about l i b e r a t i n g women from t h e drudgery

o f housework has made housework a c t i v i t i e s
s t u d i e s (Robinson, 1977a).

o f g r e a t i n t e r e s t in time

Much in for ma ti on on t h i s i s s u e has come from

household time a l l o c a t i o n t h e o r i e s and s t u d i e s .
H ill and J u s t e r (1980) t h e o r i z e d t h a t time a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s in
m u l t i - a d u l t households were determined by t h r e e f a c t o r s .

The f i r s t is

c o n s t r a i n t s from time and re s o u rc e l i m i t a t i o n s and s h o r t and long-run
commitments.
children,
val ues

Situation

constraints

o r buying a home i n f l u e n c e

as

to

what

is

important

are

such

as

marriage,

time a l l o c a t i o n .
also

a

presence

of

Psychological

constraint.

Within

a

m u l t i - a d u l t household i t i s reasoned t h a t t h e r e i s a measure o f freedom
o f ch oice as to who w i l l do a p a r t i c u l a r t a s k .
p r o d u c t i v i t y as measured by l e v e l s o f s k i l l
For example, in economic l i t e r a t u r e , s k i l l

The second f a c t o r is

in d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s .

in t h e market i s determined

by a b i l i t y , formal t r a i n i n g , and e x p e r i e n c e .

However, t h e r e i s l i t t l e

th e o ry and no e mp iri ca l work on t h e r o l e o f a b i l i t y and formal t r a i n i n g
in

household

factor.

p ro duc tio n.

P r e f e re n c e s

for

activities

are

the

third

People w i l l g e n e r a l l y have p o s i t i v e p r e f e r e n c e s f o r a c t i v i t i e s

which they do w e l l .

In m u l t i - p e r s o n

househ old s,

people can develop

p r e f e r e n c e s which d i f f e r g r e a t l y .
H ill and J u s t e r t e s t e d t h e i r th e ory with in fo rm at io n from a time
use study o f 800 respondents from m u l t i - a d u l t households.
infor mat ion on time a l l o c a t i o n , demographic and f i n a n c i a l

They obta ine d
i n fo r m a t io n ,

preference fo r a c t i v i t i e s ,

p e r c e p ti o n of sex r o l e s , a t t i t u d e s

towards

c h i l d r e n and o t h e r item s.

The r e s u l t s showed t h a t sex r o l e i d e n t i f i ­

c a t i o n with th e a c t i v i t y was by f a r th e s t r o n g e s t p r e d i c t o r o f time use
in non-market pr od u c ti o n .

For employment, th e h ig h e r th e wage r a t e of

32

th e

spouse,

th e more time was

p ro d u c ti o n .
activities

Also,
was th e

spent

by t h e respondent in

t h e most im por tan t
amount o f time

p r e d i c t o r f o r time

sp en t

by

the

household
in

spouse in

leisure
the

same

activity.
In h i s a n a l y s i s o f m a rr ia g e , Becker (1974) expanded upon t h e idea
of r e l a t i v e market p r o d u c t i v i t y o f th e sp ouses.

He t h e o r i z e d t h a t i f

market wages a r e un eq ual , t h e spouse with th e h i g h e s t wage should spend
th e

most

time

variables.

in

work

In r e a l i t y ,

f a i r l y equivalent
Berk and Berk,

regardless
when both

of

sex

spouses

roles,

norms,

and

a r e employed f u l l

time

wages, women do most o f t h e housework (Berk,

1978;

Robinson,

other
at

1980;

1977; Walker and Woods, 1976.)

This

corresponds with h is l a t e r w r i t i n g s on t h e sexual d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r in
fam ilies

(Becker,

commitment

to

th e

1981).

B iologically,

production,

women

feeding,

have

a

much

and n u r tu r a n c e o f

greater
children.

Women a r e w i l l i n g

t o spend a g r e a t deal o f time and energy c a r i n g

children

this

children,

due

to

have

sp en t

inv estment. Men,
their

energies

p r o t e c t i o n , and market a c t i v i t i e s .

less
on

committed

pr o c u ri n g

to

food ,

for

care

of

clothing,

Given t h i s s i t u a t i o n , "women have a

comparative advantage over men in t h e household s e c t o r when they make
th e same investments in human c a p i t a l , an e f f i c i e n t household with both
sexes would a l l o c a t e t h e time o f women mainly t o t h e household s e c t o r
and th e time o f men mainly t o t h e market s e c t o r " (Becker, 1981, p. 22).
Women s p e c i a l i z e in th e household by an investment in human c a p i t a l
raising

children.

By time measurement,

r a i s e s market e f f i c i e n c y .
perfect substitutes
many

of

the

men i n v e s t

in

capital

in

that

Becker sees t h e time o f men and women not as

f o r each o t h e r but as complementary in producing

commodities

produced

in

the

household.

B iol ogic al

33

d i f f e r e n c e s a r e r e i n f o r c e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r investments and t h e i r
a r e a s o f comparative advantage.

In a d d i t i o n , s p e c i a l i z a t i o n o f family

t a s k s " im p li e s a dependence on o t h e r s f o r c e r t a i n ta s k s " (Becker, 1981,
p. 27) t h u s , t h e importance o f marriage as a s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n .
S a t i s f a c t i o n with a c e r t a i n a c t i v i t y o f t e n determines whether or
not a person w i l l

do i t when t h e r e i s a degree o f c h o ic e .

Robinson

(1977a) r e s ea rc h ed t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f persons with everyday a c t i v i t i e s .
Respondents r a t e d he lp in g o t h e r s and being with f r i e n d s as some o f th e
most s a t i s f y i n g

activities.

Women r a t e d

pr e p a ri n g food and shopping

near t h e top h a l f o f t h e i r s a t i s f y i n g a c t i v i t i e s and men r a t e d th e s e
activities

lo w e st .

There

was

a

significant

positive

relationship

between t h e degree o f s a t i s f a c t i o n and amount o f time s p en t shopping,
doing housework, p re p a r in g food, and making and f i x i n g th i n g s s upp ort ing
th e idea t h a t a t t i t u d e s and b e hav ior s a re s t r o n g l y in t e r d e p e n d e n t .
Robinson (1977a) used t h i s reasoning t o e x p la i n p a r t i a l l y a d e c l i n e
in women's housework between 1965 and 1975.

P a r t of t h e change was due

t o demographic changes as t h e r e was more employment f o r women and they
had fewer c h i l d r e n .

However, in a d d i t i o n t o t h a t f a c t o r , time sp ent in

houseclean ing a c t i v i t i e s went down and cooking time went up follo wing
th e e s t a b l i s h e d p r e f e r e n c e s .
Another f a c t o r t h a t mo tiv at es people t o perform household produc­
t i o n t a s k s i s th e d e s i r e t o be s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t .

One method o f de a li n g

with unemployment o r low income i s to depend upon family re s ou rce s to
become

self-sufficient

in

supplying

needs

such

as

food,

clothing,

r e c r e a t i o n , and f u r n i s h i n g s a t needed l e v e l s f o r family members.
are c o n s tr a in ts

to

self-sufficiency

such as t h e

There

investment needed in

land and equipment (Fitzsimmons and W illiams, 1974).

In s p i t e of t h i s ,

34

the " r e t u r n to n a tu r e " movement o f t h e p a s t two decades has prompted
many

people

to

Particularly

learn

noticeable

skills

to

this

effort

in

become
is

more

the

self-sufficient.

resu rgenc e

of

garden

growing, e s p e c i a l l y in urban a r e a s (Newsweek, J u l y 26, 1982).
Another f a c t o r r e l a t e d t o household p ro duc tio n i s t h e d e s i r e f o r
voluntary
in c lu d e s

sim plicity.
the

(Wilhelm,

Voluntary

"substitution

1981,

p. 35).

p ra c ticin g material

of

sim plicity

human energy

Elgin

is
for

and M it c he ll

a

l i f e s t y l e which

fossil

(1977)

s i m p l i c i t y as s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d

fu e l

energy"

d e s c r i b e d th os e

i n d i v i d u a l s who may

t r y t o s a t i s f y t h e i r needs by producing goods f o r consumption.

Leonard-

Barton and Rogers (1980) i d e n t i f i e d v o l u n t a r y s i m p l i c i t y be h av io r s as
biking,

self-sufficiency

in

services

and making goods,

r e s o u rc e s

and du ra b le goods, andc lo s e n e s s with n a t u r e .

voluntary

sim plicity,

lated

w hil e

income

th e y found e d u c a ti o n to

was

n ot.

There

was

a

recycling

of

In a study of

be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e ­
significant

relationship

between v o lu n ta ry s i m p l i c i t y and mechanical a b i l i t y which i s de fin ed as
th e b a s i c s k i l l s r e q u i r e d t o produce a good o r t o r e p a i r an item.
The m ot iv a tio n f o r s e l f s u f f i c i e n c y can r e s u l t from economic need.
Reactions t o lo s s o f income during th e d e p r e s s io n o f th e 1930's included
reducing e x p e n d it u r e s and g e n e r a ti n g a l t e r n a t i v e o r supplemental forms
of

income

includ ed

(Elder,

1974).

m oti v a ti o n

and

M otiv at ion al
gence.

le v el

is

Successful
familial

and

adaptation

to

environmental

lo s s
s u p p o rt

of

income
systems.

in fl u en c ed by socioeconomic s t a t u s and i n t e l l i ­

El der ma int ai ns t h a t s t a t u s i n f l u e n c e s were:

more f a m i l i a r i t y

with economic problems and middle c l a s s f a m i l i e s '

s e l f image, sense of

competence,

though

families

and

were

problem-solving

more

fam iliar

skills.

with

Even

economic

problems,

lower

class

middle

class

35

families

had

capabilities.

a

greater

range

Motivation

of

alternatives

w ith out

th e

and

neces sar y

problem-solving

capabilities

and

r e s o u rc e s led to f r u s t r a t i o n .
Research on Household Production
T h e o r e ti c a l work f a r outweighs th e em pirical work in t h e economic
models o f household production ( H i l l
infor mat ion

about

household

and J u s t e r ,

production

1980).

activities

Most of the

has

resulted

from

s t u d i e s on d a i l y time u s e, household work, o r family d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r .
Several

of

household
routine
manner.

these

studies,

pro duction
household

is

after

indeed

maintenance

Most s t u d i e s ,

data
a

analysis,

different

tasks

and

however, d i f f e r

have

set

of

report

concluded

that

activities

than

their

d a ta

in th e a c t i v i t i e s

in

that

included as

household production which makes comparison o f s t u d i e s d i f f i c u l t .
In a n a l y s i s of time data f i n d i n g s , household a c t i v i t i e s have been
c a t e g o r i z e d according to the frequency o f performance o f th e t a s k s .
nature

of

activities

r e p o rt e d

in

a multi-nation

study

with

The

30,000

respondents ( S z a l a i , 1972) persuaded the r e s e a r c h e r s to d i v i d e household
obligations

into

three

groups.

Although

this

dissertation

is

not

i n t e r n a t i o n a l in n a t u r e , t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study with i t s broad scope was
included

f o r comparison purposes.

The main group o f a c t i v i t i e s

was

u s u a l l y done d a i l y and included food p r e p a r a t i o n and shopping, housec l e a n i n g , washing d i s h e s ,
labeled

"household

ga rd e ni ng ,

animal

care"
care,

and laundry.
and

The secondary a c t i v i t i e s were

included

shopping

for

diverse
goods

activities

other

than

such

food,

as
home

r e p a i r s , work in mainta ini ng heat and w a te r , paying household b i l l s and
c a r e of e l d e r l y o r i l l family members.

The t h i r d group were a c t i v i t i e s

36

related

to

from th e

child

care

study were

(Robinson,
household

et a l.,

1972,

in fo rm at io n

p. 123-124).

gathering

Omitted

activities,

and

c o n t r i b u t i o n s from t r a d i t i o n a l l y women's a c t i v i t i e s such as sewing and
canning (Robinson, 1977a).
Morgan e t a l . ,

(1966)

in

their

stu dy o f 2,214 f a m i l i e s

div id e d

unpaid work i n t o r e g u l a r housework in c l u d i n g meal p r e p a r a t i o n , r e g u l a r
cleaning,
around

child

the

care,

house.

produc tio n

d e fi n e d

s t r a i g h t e n i n g up, and o t h e r time s p en t working

Other unpaid
as

p r o d u c ti v e

specialized

work

activities
such

as

inc lud ed

sewing,

home

cann ing ,

gardening and r e p a i r i n g ; v o l u n t e e r work and g e t t i n g more e d u c a t i o n .
Walker and Woods (1976)
1,296 f a m i l i e s
regularly,

also

time

(p. 247).

in t h e i r

d is c o v e re d

consuming,

stu dy on household work among

household

tasks

and had a " c l e a r l y

that

were

de fi n e d work c onte nt"

These a c t i v i t i e s ( d e f i n e d as being performed ove r one h a l f of

t h e surveyed days f o r one o r more hours pe r day) were:
preparation,
fami ly

performed

regular

members

time-consuming

and
tasks

house

care,

after-meal
were:

phy s ica l

cl ea nu p.
special

and
The

house

r e g u l a r meal

non-ph ys ical
less

care,

regular

c ar e
and

ironing,

of
less

special

c l o t h i n g c a r e , ya rd and c a r c a r e , management and s p e c i a l food p r e p a r a ­
t i o n (p. 247-248).
S i m i l a r to th e second c at e go ry of t h e above s t u d i e s i s a study done
to

measure

the

self-sufficiency

and

home

pro duct io n

of

f a m i l i e s (Church of J e s u s C h r i s t o f L a t t e r - d a y S a i n t s , 1980).

800

Mormon

The ta sk s

in th e survey inc lu de d gar d e n in g , sewing, making household it e m s , home
cann ing ,

f r e e z i n g and d ry in g foods and s t o r a g e of a supply o f food,

c l o t h i n g , and f u e l .

Owen and B e u t l e r (1981) had a s i m i l a r p e r s p e c t i v e

and developed a household p ro duc tio n index with c a t e g o r i e s of sewing,

37

food

preservation,

gar d e n in g ,

p re p a r in g

food

from

scratch,

redoing

f u r n i t u r e , home r e p a i r , automobile c a r e , c a r p e n t r y work around th e home,
and management through for maliz ed planning (p. 164).
In th e time a l l o c a t i o n and housework s t u d i e s conducted,
virtually

is

a

undisputed f i n d i n g t h a t in m u l t i - a d u l t households women, i f

p r e s e n t , have th e major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r household work.
is

it

obvious

in

both

Morgan e t . a l . ,

national

and m u l t i - n a t i o n a l

1966; Walker and Woods, 1976).

This f i n d i n g

d a ta ( S z a l a i , 1972;
In t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l

study ( S z a l a i , 1972), men c o n t r i b u t e d an average o f o n e - h a l f hour per
day

to

the

routine

work.

Employed

men c o n t r i b u t e d

an

average

of

t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f an hour pe r day t o e x t r a household c a r e which was the
same amount women gave t o t h i s

category.

However,

r o u t i n e housework

consumes t h r e e times t h e time of t h e o cca si on al house c a r e .
Child c ar e was c o n si d e re d a c at e go ry verging on l e i s u r e
1972).

(Szalai,

The d a i l y average f o r c h i l d c a r e , f o r persons with c h i l d r e n , was

128 minutes f o r housewives, 72 minutes f o r employed women and 30 minutes
f o r employed men.
days

off,

Employed men and women p a r t i c i p a t e d in c h i l d c a r e on

especially

on Sunday when housewives'

decr eased by one h a l f .

time in

child

car e

Age o f th e c h i l d was an imp or tan t f a c t o r in time

sp ent as younger c h i l d r e n needed more time in c a r e .
Patterns
international
90 p e r c e n t )

in sexual
da ta

d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r became

(Szalai,

1972).

obvious through

the

Men were g e n e r a l l y employed (over

and were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 68 p e r c e n t o f t h e time spen t in

formal work, but only 22 p e r c e n t o f th e household work.
employed women and housewives were a l s o

clear.

The p a t t e r n s of

Employment of women

ranged from 30 p e r c e n t t o 92 p e rc e n t i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y , with th e U.S. a t
49 p e r c e n t .

In a l l

c o u n t r i e s , married employed women sp en t l e s s time

38

p e r day a t work than men due to th e p rev al en ce o f p a r t - t i m e employment.
Employed women sp en t
activities.
dual

one-half

th e

I t was a u n i v e r s a l

time

of

housewives

in

homemaking

p a t t e r n t h a t employed women with the

r o l e o f worker and housewife s p en t l e s s time in both a c t i v i t i e s

compared to men and o t h e r women.
The American

portion

of

the

m ulti-national

stud y

done

by

the

U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan Survey Research Center has a l s o been r e p o rt e d
s e p a r a t e l y (Robinson, 1977a; Robinson, 1977b).
2,000 American a d u l t s

between t h e

ages

of

The sample c o n s i s t e d of

18-65 who were urban

and

employed and kept a time d i a r y f o r one day in l a t e 1965 o r e a r l y 1966.
In t h e sample, 1,244 were from th e n a t i o n a l
J ac ks on, Michigan.

sample and 788 were from

There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

responses from t h e two sample a r e a s .

between the

These d a ta was a l s o used f o r o t h e r

r e p o r t s ( J u s t e r e t a l . , 1980; Vanek, 1974).

A matching study was done

in 1975-1976 (H il l and J u s t e r , 1980; J u s t e r e t a l . , 1980; P e s kin , 1982;
Robinson,

1980,

1982).

The

findings

for

both

studies

were

that

housewives did more housework than employed women who did t h r e e times
the housework o f employed men.

S p e c i f i c a l l y , housewives did 34.2 hours

of b a s i c housework and 6 .9 hours o f household produ ct ion f o r a t o t a l of
41.1 hours pe r week.

Employed women spend 18.1 hours in b a s i c house­

work, f i v e hours in household produ ction f o r a t o t a l
weekly t o t a l

o f 23 .1 .

Men's

of 7.7 hours was spen t with 3.5 hours in b a s i c housework

and 4.2 in household p ro d u c ti o n .

Men's housework ha rd ly i n c re as e d on

weekends when they had more time to h e lp .

For example, on Sa tu rd a y, men

sp ent two more minutes in c h i l d c a r e and si x more minutes in housework
compared to weekdays (Robinson, 1977a).

In c h i l d c a r e , housewives spent

seven times as much time as men, and employed women sp en t twice as much

39

time as employed men.

Men's and women's time in c h i l d c a r e was most

comparable in play a c t i v i t i e s .

Men a l s o did almost 40 p e r c e n t of th e

gro ce ry shopping, most shopping on weekends and shopping f o r d u r a b l e s .
Another study on husband's p a r t i c i p a t i o n

in household pro duction

confirmed th e t r e n d s found by Robinson (Eghan and Lawrence, 1982).

They

found husbands s p en t an average o f two hours a day in household work,
mostly in non-ph ysic al

c ar e

o f household members which include d

time

with th e c h i l d r e n and maintenance of home, c a r , y a r d , and p e t s .

The

i n c r e a s i n g age o f t h e youngest c h i l d was r e l a t e d t o de c r e a se s in t h e
time th e husband s p en t in c a r i n g f o r them u n t i l th e y reached adolescence
when time s p en t i n c r e a s e d .

Husband's p a r t i c i p a t i o n

in household work

was u n a f f e c t e d by w i f e ' s employment o r ed ucation l e v e l , occupation o r
age o f husband, fa mi ly income o r season o f t h e y e a r .
Family d i v i s i o n of l a b o r has been found t o be s t r o n g l y li nk e d to
sex r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s .

Lovingood and Firebaugh

(1978) r e p o r t e d

husbands and wives s p e c i a l i z e d with d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r o l e s .
to do more household a c t i v i t i e s .

that

Wives tended

Of t h e s i x c a t e g o r i e s s i m i l a r t o t h i s

s t u d y , in r e p o r t s by both husbands and wives, wives did th e most home
decoration,
child.

gr oc er y

shopping,

contacting

doctor,

and c a r i n g

for

th e

The husband did more household r e p a i r s , and both kept t r a c k of

money and b i l l s .

Larson (1974) found t h e m a j o r i t y o f husbands and wives

in t h e stu dy per cei ved housework (74 p e r c e n t ) , meals (62 p e r c e n t ) , and
child

care

(63 p e r c e n t )
(51 p e r c e n t )

(62 p e r c e n t )
to
to

be
be

to

the

husbands'

father

also

be t h e

found

and

wives'

activities

activities

and

son a c t i v i t i e s .

a preferred

division

and

outside

Albrecht,
of

odd

labor

job s
chores

Bahr,

and

Chadwick

(1979)

between

spouses.

For th e p r o v i d e r r o l e , t h e r e was g r e a t e r acceptance o f female

40

p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e r o l e among young people (though o l d e r respondents
were most l i k e l y t o s har e t h e r o l e ) .
l a b o r in c h i l d c a r e ,
tional.

kinship,

P r e f e re n c e s f o r d i v i s i o n o f family

and housekeeping r o l e s

In c h i l d c a r e , t h e r e i s a t r e n d f o r g r e a t e r involvement o f th e

husband even though wives do most o f t h e work.
studied

spousal

labor task s.

consensus p a t t e r n s

Berk and Shih (1980)

in th e a l l o c a t i o n

o f 45 household

In t h e f i n d i n g s f o r most t a s k s t h e r e was g r e a t e r agreement

with w i v e s ’ r a t h e r than husbands' c o n t r i b u t i o n s .
on t h e

remained t r a d i ­

sex-role

stereotyped

tasks.

Agreement was hi gh e r

Disagreement between spouses was

u s u a l l y due to u n d e re st im a ti o n of p a r t n e r ' s work in c h i l d c a r e .

In a

study o f 1,200 c o u p l e s , E r i c k s e n , Yancey, and Ericksen (1979) re p o rt e d
on s h a r in g r o l e s .
related

to

s har ed

shared r o l e s .

R e s u lt s showed t h a t the husband's income n e g a t i v e l y
roles

and w i f e ' s

e duca tio n

positively

related

to

Black couples were more l i k e l y t o share household t a s k s

than w hit e c o u p le s .

Even with t h e small

amount of work done by men

around th e house, l e s s than o n e - q u a r t e r of th e wives re p o r t e d t h a t they
wanted more help (Robinson, 1977a).

Those t h a t s a i d th e y wanted help

were t h e younger, employed and bla ck wives.
women f e e l

benefits

Robinson su ggested t h a t

and rewards with household work and f e e l i n g s

competence and s e l f - e s t e e m from c l e a r l y d e fi n e d r o l e s .

of

Men may fee l

i g n o ra n t in th e women's domain and she in h i s , and thus i t i s s a f e r f o r
both t o remain in t h e i r a r e a s o f competence.
L ittle

r e s e a r c h has been done t o examine household produ ction in

which both husband and wife p a r t i c i p a t e t o g e t h e r and where more than one
activity

is occurring.

Time use s t u d i e s , th e most common r e s e a rc h in

household a c t i v i t i e s , have done l i t t l e t o examine shared a c t i v i t i e s
the household.

in

Snow (1950) and Thorpe (1956) expanded th e bre ad th of

41

t h e a c t i v i t i e s and f a m i l i e s '

use of time.

Snow (1950) inc luded doing

household a c t i v i t i e s , going on e r r a n d s , going to community a f f a i r s , and
ta k i n g

care

of

personal

needs

in

fa m il y

activities.

Thorpe

(1956)

in cluded house c a r e , personal c a r e , c h i l d c a r e , and sewing under shared
family a c t i v i t i e s .

Davey and Paolucci

family

interaction

ep is o d e s

eating,

household

tasks

by

such

(1980) examined t h e number of

activity

as

c at e g o ry

special

house c a r e ,

m a rk e tin g, c a r e of fa m il y members, and management.
75 p e r c e n t

of

activities.

the

f a m ily

interaction

in c lu d in g

time was

yar d

social,

care,

and

They found t h a t over
in

social

and e a t i n g

Less than te n p e r c e n t o f t h e time sp ent t o g e t h e r was used

f o r working in household t a s k s and l e s s than f o u r p e r c e n t o f t h i s was in
household pro du ct io n t a s k s .

The most common p a t t e r n o f family i n t e r ­

a c t i o n was t h e mother and t h e c h i l d r e n t o g e t h e r followed by t h e whole
family t o g e t h e r .

Steeves

et al.

(Hefferan,

378 employed women examined pr o d u c ti v e
more than

one

person

indicated

that

they

o r with
worked

p ro d u c ti v e time a l o n e ,

more

more

1982a) with

activities

than

than

one

a sample

si m u lt a n eo u s ly with

activity.

one-half

of

of

Respondents

their

household

o n e - t h i r d with a n o t h e r family member, and the

r e s t of t h e time with someone o t h e r than a fam ily member.

Concerning

t h e t a s k s being done, shopping was most l i k e l y to be done al on e as a
s e p a r a t e t a s k (54 p e r c e n t ) w hile t r a v e l was l e a s t l i k e l y (14 p e r c e n t ) .
Other a c t i v i t i e s were done as a s e p a r a t e t a s k between o n e - q u a r t e r to
o n e - t h i r d o f t h e tim e.

The most common combination of a c t i v i t i e s was

any o f th e seven p r o d u c ti v e c a t e g o r i e s done with i n t e r a c t i v e family car e
and

personal

related

to

activities.

interactions.
total
Those

household
categories

Demographic
time
that

than

characteristics
to

showed

simultaneous
increase

in

were

more

prod uc tio n
simultaneous

42

a c t i v i t i e s were married s t a t u s , hig h e r number o f c h i l d r e n , and g r e a t e r
number o f hours worked per week.
Fa ctors In f l u e n c i n g Household Production
R e i d ' s d e f i n i t i o n of household produ ct ion i s based on " t h e o r i e s of
allocation

of scarce

resources,

i n c lu d in g t im e ,

in l i g h t o f expected

b e n e f i t s and c o s t o f uses foregone" (Re id, 1980, p. 47 ).
prod uc tio n d e f i n i t i o n c r e a t e s
r e l a t e d t o time a l l o c a t i o n s .

a us ef ul

The household

framework f o r viewing beh avi or

I t i s a t h e o r e t i c a l be ha vio ra l p e r s p e c t i v e

t h a t fo c use s a t t e n t i o n on m ot iv a ti o n r a t h e r than on r e s u l t .
pated

result

is

satisfaction

The a n t i c i ­

o f a want o r need which a r i s e s

from a

p h y s i o l o g i c a l need o r c u l t u r a l l y determined p re f e r e n c e (R ei d, 1980).
F a c to rs

that

affect

r e c e iv e d much s tu d y .

the m o ti v a ti o n t o

produce a t

home have not

C e r t a i n l y , as Reid e x p l a i n e d , t h e primary motiva­

t i o n i s t o s a t i s f y wants and needs.

Robinson (1966) s t u d i e d 23 p o s s i b l e

motives and i n c e n t i v e s f o r household p ro d u c ti o n .

He concluded t h a t home

owners wit h a high achievement o r i e n t a t i o n do t h e most household produc­
tion.

The o t h e r v a r i a b l e s made l i t t l e

difference.

I s s u e s t h a t have

been s t u d i e d s l i g h t l y in r e l a t i o n t o t h e m o tiv a tio n to produce a t home
a r e l i m i t a t i o n s o f r e s o u r c e s , personal p r e f e r e n c e s , and th e d e s i r e f o r
self-sufficiency.
Knowledge and r e s o u r c e c o n s t r a i n t s could h i n d e r household produc­
tion.

One study asked respondents why they did not perform a t a s k i f

they r e p o r t e d not doing i t (Church o f J es u s C h r i s t o f L a t t e r - d a y S a i n t s ,
1980).

Respondents

household items
not

have

enough

indicated

(22 p e r c e n t )
time

to

the y

did

not

have

knowledge

o r p r e s e r v e food (12 p e r c e n t ) .

sew

(16 p e r c e n t )

or

make

to

make

They did

household

items

43

(32 p e r c e n t ) .

They

also

did

not

have

enough

money

to

store

food

(37 p e r c e n t ) o r c l o t h i n g (22 p e r c e n t ) .
Another f a c t o r in why a household t a s k i s o r i s not performed i s
personal

p r e f e r e n c e o f th e household member.

done on household t a s k p r e f e r e n c e .

Many s t u d i e s

have been

The most l i k e d t a s k s in t h e s t u d i e s

were cooking and meal p r e p a r a t i o n and looking a f t e r c h i l d r e n .

The l e a s t

l i k e d t a s k s were c l e a n i n g , i r o n i n g , dishwashing, and c ar e o f t h e house
(Steidl

and B r a t t o n ,

1968; N l c k e l l ,

Rice, and Tucker, 1967).

f o r l i k i n g a household t a s k were found to be:

Reasons

t h e t a s k was c r e a t i v e and

c h a l l e n g i n g , s a t i s f y i n g , showed r e s u l t s , ple as e d th e husband and f a m il y ,
was

relaxing

m aterials.
to nous ,

and

th e

person

enjoyed

th e

time

spent,

supplies,

and

Reasons f o r d i s l i k i n g a t a s k were t h a t i t i s b o r i n g , mono­

repetitious,

results

were

not

satisfying,

it

was

physically

s tr e nuo us and time consuming, had s h o r t - t e r m r e s u l t s , and a n o t h e r a d u l t
was u s u a l l y not p r e s e n t (Wyskiel, 1960; Maloch, 1963).
It

has

been

hypo the si zed

that

household pro d u c ti o n a c t i v i t i e s .

many d i f f e r e n t

Among t h e s e a r e :

factors

influence

family composition

( s i z e and complexity o f ho us eh old ), family employment, fam ily income,
type and l o c a t i o n o f r e s i d e n c e ,

and o t h e r family demographic f a c t o r s .

S p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s and t h e s t u d i e s usi ng them a r e l i s t e d in Figure 3.
Figure 3 was designed t o p r e s e n t t h e major v a r i a b l e s analyzed in
household

pro d u c ti o n

studies.

However,

pro duct ion me th od ol og ie s, s t a t i s t i c a l
greatly

in

the

studies

so

that

the

definition

analysis,

they

are

not

General f i n d i n g s o b s er v ab le from Figure 3 a r e :

of

household

and r e p o r t i n g d i f f e r e d
directly

comparable.

family c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s by th e m a j o r i t y o f the r e s e a r c h e r s ,
employment of w i f e , where i t

was s t u d i e d was h ig h ly

significant

and

44

fami ly income and demographics

were not o f t e n found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t .

Employment o f wife was n o t . s t u d i e d

by t h e s e r e s e a r c h e r s p r i o r t o 1976

indicating

a r e c e n t concern and focus

categories

of

variables

on t h e v a r i a b l e .

w i l l be examined

in

greater

The general

detail

in

the

fo ll o w i n g s u b s e c t i o n s .
Family Composition.

As family s i z e i n c r e a s e s , i t s ta nd s t o reason

t h a t th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e fami ly h ead (s ) would a l s o i n c r e a s e with
more i n d i v i d u a l s
children

t o n u r t u r e and d i r e c t .

During t h e i r younger y e a r s ,

a r e a l s o more dependent upon p a r e n t s

f o r su p po rt and c a r e .

These f a c t o r s a l l have be ar in g on household work.
Robinson

(1966)

found t h a t

ma rried

couples

with

large

families

(7-8 people) and no c h i l d r e n under two y e a r s old a t home, devote much
time

to

household

p r o d u c ti o n .

Owen

and B e u t l e r

(1981)

stated

that

household s i z e and s t a g e in fa mi ly l i f e c y c le were s t r o n g l y c o r r e l a t e d
t o the amount o f prod uc tio n done in th e household.

Household pro duction

i s a means by which young f a m i l i e s can t r y t o achiev e t h e i r expected
s ta n d a rd o f l i v i n g .
between fam ily
workers

for

Walker and Woods (1976)

characteristics

household

s ta t is tic a l relationship.

work.

and t h e
Number

amount

found high c o r r e l a t i o n s
of

of children

total
had

time o f
the

all

strongest

The c l o s e s t c o r r e l a t i o n f o r t h e c a t e g o r i e s of

phys ical c a r e o f family members and a l l family c a r e was th e age o f the
youngest c h i l d .

The amount o f time sp en t with a c h i l d decreased from

t h r e e hours a day with an i n f a n t t o s ix minutes p e r day with a te e n a g e r .
The most complex f a m i l i e s were
age f o r

t h e youngest c h i l d .

those with th e most c h i l d r e n and a low
Family type was c l o s e l y c o r r e l a t e d with

non-phys ical c ar e of family members.

Figure 3 . — Socioeconomic V a ria b le s Considered in Household Production Studies

V a r ia b le s

Reid,
1934

Family Composition
Number o f c h i l d r e n
Age o f youngest c h i l d
Age o f o l d e s t c h i l d
Size o f household
Family type (complexity)
Stage in fa m ily c y c le
Age o f head

Morgan, Walker &
1966
Woods, 1976
**
*

Robinson, Robinson,
1977_______ 1980

Beutler & O ritz , e t .
Owen, 1981
a l . , 1981

*

★

*

H
H

★
*

★

*
★

*

Employment
up l oyi
Empl
Employment o f wife
Employment o f husband

**

Education
Education o f wife
Education o f husband

*
*

Residence
Home ownership
House type
Loca tion o f home
Income
Family Income
Demographics
Technology owned
Race
R el ig io n
H=hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p
—s t u d i e d and no t s i g n i f i c a n t
Note:

*
*

*

*

*

h
I

*
*

* = s tu d ie d and s i g n i f i c a n t
**=s tud ied and hi g h ly s i g n i f i c a n t

These s t u d i e s a re not d i r e c t l y comparable as t h e i r methodologies and d e f i n i t i o n s o f household
p ro d u c ti o n d i f f e r e d g r e a t l y . This t a b l e i s p r e s e n t e d as a summary o f v a r i a b l e s t h a t have been
s t u d i e d f r e q u e n t l y in c onnec tio n with household p r o d u c t i o n .

Sa ni k,
1981

46

Robinson (1977) found s i m i l a r c o r r e l a t i o n s
household produ ct ion in a 1965 time s tu dy .

Family composition was th e

major deter min ing f a c t o r in t h e household work.
in c r e a s e in time f o r each a d d i t i o n a l

in h i s examination o f

There was a 10 p e r c e n t

c h i l d in f a m i l i e s w ith preschool

c h i l d r e n and a 5 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e f o r each a d d i t i o n a l
a r e over f o u r y e a r s o f age.

c h i l d once they

Men had no s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e in time

sp en t in housework with a d d i t i o n a l c h i l d r e n in t h e f a m ily .

In t h e c h i l d

c ar e c a t e g o r y , t h e major de te r m in a n t o f time s p e n t was t h e age o f th e
child.

The major p o r t i o n of t h e c o r r e l a t i o n was with t h e c u s t o d i a l c ar e

such as fe e din g and d r e s s i n g r a t h e r than with t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l

time.

Another family c h a r a c t e r i s t i c found to have an e f f e c t on housework was
th e age o f th e husband and w i f e .
time

in

household work.

As th e y grew o l d e r , they s p en t more

There was

no d i r e c t

explanation

for

this

e s p e c i a l l y with c h i l d r e n l e a v i n g home e x c e p t t h a t they may become more
particular
Robinson
impo rtan t

in housework s ta n d a rd s
(1980)

found

predictor of

p re sen ce

o r have more time on t h e i r hands.
of

time s p e n t

children
in

to

be

the

second

household p ro d u c ti o n .

household, however, had no e f f e c t on household p ro d u c ti o n .

most

Size o f

Sanik (1981)

a l s o found a major n e g a t i v e e f f e c t o f t h e age o f th e youngest c h i l d on
th e w i f e ' s use o f tim e.
Employment.
f if ty years.

Married women's r o l e s have g r e a t l y changed in t h e l a s t

F i f t y y e a r s ago, only one married woman in e i g h t was in

th e paid l a b o r market.

Now ove r o n e - h a l f a r e employed and an i n c r e a s i n g

number have c h i l d r e n under age 18.

This has caused a change in house­

hold work p a t t e r n s ( H e f f e r a n , 1982b).

Between 1929 and 1966, time s p en t

by married women in household t a s k s

ranged between 52 and 56 hours a

week (U. S. Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , 1944; Vanek, 1974).

During t h i s

47

period,

time use in

t h e household s h i f t e d

from food p r e p a r a t i o n

cleanup and h ous ecl ean ing t o more time in managerial
activities.
cantly

and

and family c are

The 1970's was t h e f i r s t time household work time s i g n i f i ­

de c r e a se d .

In

1975,

the

average

time

was

44 hours

for

non-employed ma rried women and approxim atel y h a l f t h a t time f o r employed
married women ( H i l l , f o r th c o m i n g ).
the

employment o f women.

It

has

fami ly c o m po si tio n, work p a t t e r n s
nology, and personal

s ta n d a r d s

Most o f t h e downward t r e n d i s due to
also

been su ggest ed

o f f a m ily members,

that

changing

household t e c h ­

i n f l u e n c e t h e amount o f time s p e n t in

household work ( H e f f e r a n , 1982b).
Walker and Woods (1976) found employment o f wife t o be s i g n i f i ­
c a n t l y and n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o t o t a l

time used by a l l

family workers

with t h e e x c e p ti o n

o f some o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s o f

ma rk etin g,

yard and c a r c a r e ,

s p e c i a l c l o t h i n g c a r e , and s p e c i a l food p r e p a r a t i o n .

The e f f e c t s o f t h e employment o f wives tended t o be i n t e r r e l a t e d with
t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e number o f c h i l d r e n .
Robinson (1977a)

r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e e f f e c t of

employment on women's housework was g r e a t ; however, i t was a l s o a f f e c t e d
by o t h e r f a c t o r s such as employed women being l e s s l i k e l y t o be married
or have c h i l d r e n .

Robinson

(1980)

employment was th e g r e a t e s t

re p o r t e d

predicting

in t h e l a t e r

factor

stu dy t h a t

in family c a r e .

Sanik

(1981) a l s o found t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t p r e d i c t o r o f w i f e ' s time sp en t in
housework

was

the

number

of

hours

employed.

The

contribution

of

husbands and c h i l d r e n to housework time was unchanged f o r t h e most p a r t
by

the

hours

the

wife

was

employed

e xce pt

for

a small

effect

hus band's food p r e p a r a t i o n and dishwashing time (S a n ik ,

1981).

e ta l.,

that

(1981)

in

a

study

o f meal

patterns

reported

on

O rt iz

employed

48

homemakers sp ent l e s s time in food p r e p a r a t i o n and t h e i r f a m i l i e s a t e
more meals away from home.

The number in th e family and l o c a t i o n of

re s id en c e were not important f a c t o r s in food p r e p a r a t i o n .
S tr o b e r and Weinberg (1974) have s t u d i e d the s t r a t e g i e s
employed women t o cope with
They found no d i f f e r e n c e s

life

o f work and

in e xp en di tu re s

used by

home r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

between employed and non­

employed wives in purchase o f time and l a b o r saving equipment.
family

income

Strober

and

and a s s e t s
Weinberg

were

(1980)

significant
found

only

1n

purchasing

slight

Only

equipment.

differences

between

employed and non-employed wives in s t r a t e g i e s t o r e l i e v e time p r e s s u r e s
in c lu d in g :

s u b s t i t u t e c a p i t a l equipment f o r nonmarket l a b o r , s u b s t i t u t e

l a b o r o f o t h e r s , reduce q u a l i t y o r q u a n t i t y of household p r o d u c ti o n , or
de creas e time t o v o l u n t e e r and community work, l e i s u r e o r s l e e p .
income and l i f e - c y c l e

s ta ge held c o n s t a n t , w i f e ' s

With

employment was not

s i g n i f i c a n t in owning l a b o r - s a v i n g d e v i c e s , method of meal p r e p a r a t i o n ,
o r shopping be hav io rs .
Education
educated women

o f women

is

r e l a t e d t o t h e i r employment.

a r e more a p t to be employed due

d e s i r e t o remain in th e work f o r c e .
t h e e f f e c t o f wives'
slight.

t o t h e i r t r a i n i n g and

Owen and B e u t l e r (1981) re p o rt e d

educa tio n on amount o f household production was

Walker and Woods (1976) found a r e l a t i o n s h i p between w i f e ' s

' e d u c a t i o n and time sp en t on a l l household work.
(1977a)

More high ly

In c o n t r a s t , Robinson

re p o rt e d t h a t hi g h e r education f o r women was a s s o c i a t e d with

l e s s housework, p a r t i c u l a r l y in meal p r e p a r a t i o n .

Sanik (1981) re p o rt e d

wives with hig he r e du ca tio na l l e v e l s had more family members t o g e t h e r to
share meals.

Robinson (1966) re p o rt e d more household production among

f a m i l i e s when the head had a t l e a s t some high school e d uc a tio n.

49

Family Income.

Robinson (1966) found high-income f a m i l i e s r e p o rt e d

more household p ro du c tio n than low-inbome f a m i l i e s .

Walker and Woods

(1976) found t h a t socioeconomic le v el had l i t t l e e f f e c t on time used in
housework.

Robinson (1977a) l i k e w i s e found t h a t income was not c o r r e ­

l a t e d with time in housework.

This was s u r p r i s i n g as th o s e with h ig h e r

incomes could a f f o r d to h i r e help and a l s o had a h ig h e r economic value
on t h e i r time.

O r t i z e t a l . (1981) found t h a t t h e number o f meals eaten

away from home ro s e as fam ily income i n c r e a s e d .

Family income a l s o rose

as wives took paid employment.
Location o f Reside nce .
household

p ro du c tio n

found

They hypothesized t h a t
participate

in

Owen and B e u t l e r (1981) in t h e i r stu dy of

more

community

families
household

size

from r u r a l
prod uc tio n

did

relate

to

pro d u c ti o n .

o r s e m i -r u ra l

a r e a s would

because

of

th e

greater

a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f a c t o r s o f p ro d u c t i o n , l i f e s t y l e , and time inconvenience
t o go shopping.

Robinson (1966) r e p o r t e d t h a t f a m i l i e s from r u r a l ar e as

produced more w i t h i n t h e household.

Location o f r e s id e n c e and type of

house were only s l i g h t p r e d i c t o r s o f housework time r e p o r t e d by Walker
and Woods
suburban

(1976).
compared

Slightly
to

urban

more time was
areas.

s p en t

Location

of

on

family

re s id e n c e

care
was

in
not

s i g n i f i c a n t in p r e d i c t i n g t h e e f f e c t of homemakers' employment on meal
p r e p a r a t i o n ( O r t i z e t a l . , 1981).
Demographic
ownership,

race,

Factors.

Ad dition al

religion,

and household technology.
in

factors

studied

single-family

included

home

Robinson (1966)

found t h a t white f a m i l i e s

living

structure

produced

more than o t h e r f a m i l i e s .

In a l a t e r s t u d y , Robinson (1980) found no

r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e demographic f a c t o r s and housework time.
though

he was

specifically

s tu dyin g

household

tech nolo gy,

there

Even
was

50

little

evidence

that

recent

machinery in th e home.

declines

in

housework time were due t o

With race as a f a c t o r ,

Robinson (1977a) found

t h a t bla ck women r e p o r t e d time e x p e n d it u re s f a r below th e average f o r
garden and pe t c a r e , e r r a n d s , and m is cel la ne ou s c hore s.
Ad ditional A c t i v i t i e s as Household Production
Some o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s
inc lud ed

in

household

inc lud ed

p ro duc tio n

in th e

studies

present

are

savings

study not o ft e n
and

s t r a t e g i e s and i n t r a - f a m i l y t r a n s f e r s o f goods and s e r v i c e s .

investment
Due to the

u n c e r t a i n t y o f t h e r a pi d i n f l a t i o n o f t h e 19 70' s , by 1979, th e m a jo r it y
o f Americans c on sid ered

saving a d e s i r a b l e

l i q u i d a s s e t s (Katona, 1980),
du ra b le
prices

up.

Saving

and

g e t what they wanted be fo re

investing

b e h a v io r

personal circ ums ta nc es (L a z a r r o , 1982).
the personal

and wanted more

However, in p r a c t i c e , they purchased many

goods o r made down payments t o
went

practice

is

closely

to

Evans (1981) r e p o r t e d most of

saving in th e United S t a t e s

i s done by people with over

$25,000 a y e a r income who have a t l e a s t a c o l l e g e e d u c a ti o n .
(1977)

tied

S tr o b e r

found f a m i l i e s with working wives saved l e s s than f a m i l i e s where

th e husband was t h e s i n g l e e a r n e r .

These f a m i l i e s consumed more with an

in c r e a s e d need f o r work r e l a t e d goods and s e r v i c e s .

Also , f a m i l i e s with

young c h i l d r e n had fewer savings and couples with long marriages had
in c re a s e d savings (Smith and Ward, 1979).
Research on i n t r a - f a m i l y t r a n s f e r s began as mutual a id w ith in the
kin

network

interfam ily

and expanded
transfers

in

with

the
both

late
kin

1 96 0' s
and

and 1970's
nonkin

to

inclu de

(Danes,

1978).

I n t r a f a m i l y t r a n s f e r s a r e th e r e s o u rc e s r e a l l o c a t e d w i t h i n f a m i l i e s from
t h o s e p o s se ss in g more than they consume t o o t h e r s who consume more than

51

th e y pos sess

(Baerwaldt and Morgan,

1973).

Sussman

s t u d i e d interde pen de nc e in middle c l a s s f a m i l i e s .

(1953 and

1954)

Paren ts gave t h e i r

married c h i l d r e n m a t e r i a l goods such as f u r n i t u r e , household equipment,
a i d in o b t a i n i n g a house, and loans o f money in a d d i t i o n to s e r v i c e s
such as gardening and l a n d s c a p in g , home c o n s t r u c t i o n and r e p a i r , c ar e o f
grandchildren,

and a r r a n g i n g f o r ine xp ens ive v a c a t i o n s .

C h i ld re n ,

in

r e t u r n , gave t h e i r p a r e n t s co ntinued a f f e c t i o n and s e r v i c e s s i m i l a r t o
th o s e

given

the

nuclear fam ilies
They found
outside

with

ou t

of

ten

n u c l e a r household,
Babysitting

housework were

re c ei ve d

Mutual

more

relationships

aid

relationships

among

related

in D e t r o i t was s t u d i e d by Sharp and Axelrod (1956).

seven

the

relatives.

children.

help
among

couples

than

most
other

fam ilies

help with

relatives

but most help occu rr ed between c l o s e

help during

the

exchanged

illness,

frequent

forms

wives.
in

financial
of

Sussman

Cleveland

aid,

h e lp .
(1959)

found

and help

Young wives
st ud yin g

few

kin

significant

d i f f e r e n c e s in help p a t t e r n s between middle- and w o rk in g - c la s s f a m i l i e s .
However, f a m i l i e s in t h e s e two c l a s s e s re c e iv e d more help than f a m i l i e s
from th e o t h e r s o c i a l c l a s s e s according to Sussman and Burchinal (1962).
Parents,

children,

siblings,

and

more

distant

s e r v i c e s , g i f t s , a d v i c e , and f i n a n c i a l h e l p .

income, employment, and an urban r e s i d e n c e .

exchanged

Fin an ci al help was u s u a l l y

from p a r e n t s dur ing e a r l y y e a r s o f m a rr ia g e .
help p a t t e r n s and family c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

relatives

Emerson (1978)

studied

Help was a s s o c i a t e d with high
Baerwaldt and Morgan (1973)

re p o r t e d t h e most help was rec ei ve d by young f a m i l i e s and th os e with an
aged head.

They a l s o re p o r t e d t h a t dona tio ns o f time i n s t e a d o f money

did not i n c r e a s e from th e norm in low income f a m i l i e s .

52

Morgan (1978) st ud y in g i n t r a f a m i l y t r a n s f e r s de fi n e d family income
as paid market l a b o r , value o f time s p e n t on housework and c h i l d c a r e ,
subsidy value o f food stamps and r e t u r n on n e t e q u i t y in an owned house.
The housework o f both heads o f households and spouses was c a l c u l a t e d .
Each

individual's

contribution

to

fam ily

income

s u b t r a c t i n g t h e i r ne t consumption from t h e
bution.

was

calculated

individual's

total

by

contri­

Anal ysi s o f i n t r a f a m i l y t r a n s f e r s showed t h a t heads, s pouse s,

and o t h e r s aged 25 t o 64 were t h e n e t c o n t r i b u t o r s and th os e o l d e r and
younger were g e n e r a l l y t h e r e c i p i e n t s o f t h e s e t r a n s f e r s .

C al c u la te d

f o r th e n a t i o n , i n t r a f a m i l y t r a n s f e r s e q u a l l e d o n e - t h i r d o f t h e GNP.
Choices in Household Production
One o f
whether

to

the

major

produce

cho ice s

what

is

involved
needed

in

household

a t home

or

seek

prod uc tio n
outside

is

h e lp .

Robinson (1966) was one o f th e few r e s e a r c h e r s t o stu dy t h e q u e s t i o n .
Outside help was d e fi n e d as f r e e and paid h e l p , and include d a s s i s t a n c e
" f o r r e g u l a r housework, l a u n d r y , c h i l d c a r e , p a i n t i n g and r e p a i r s around
th e house,
pr e p a ri n g
averaged

lawn c a r e ,
meals

five

at

hours

and t h e

home"

time saved by e a t i n g ou t r a t h e r

(p. 163).

Robinson

a week o f o u t s i d e h e lp .

found

that

Families

a

with

than

family
s p e c ia l

ne eds, such as with working wives o r young c h i l d r e n averaged 19 hours of
he lp pe r week.

Robinson suggested t h r e e ty pe s o f f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e

the amount o f o u t s i d e he lp:

(1) economic f a c t o r s such as

th e

(2) c o n s t r a i n t s

cost of outside

outside

help;

and

help;

(3) i n d i v i d u a l ' s

motives

such as
and

lack

desires.

wage r a t e and
of available
Meaningful

f a c t o r s in t h e amount o f o u t s i d e help include d income and amount o f paid
work.

Family heads with high hourly wages who worked more than f u l l ­

53

time got more o u t s i d e
particularly
outside

he lp .

by e a t i n g

help

employment.

a ls o

Single men a l s o got more o u t s i d e

out

and

in c re as e d

Working wives

as

over

having
wives

their

laundry

worked

35 rec eive d

more

less

younger women e s p e c i a l l y th o s e with c h i l d r e n .

done.

Use of

hours

outside

help

in

paid

help

than

This a n a l y s i s was not an

a d d i t i v e model as some f a c t o r s a f f e c t e d one group and o t h e r s a f f e c t e d
d i f f e r e n t groups.

When th e r e s u l t s were analyzed through a m u l t i p l e

regression

the

model,

impor tant

factors

in

order

were

husband's

e a r n i n g s , age o f youngest c h i l d under 18 l i v i n g a t home, d i f f i c u l t y of
h i r i n g o u t s i d e work around the house, hourly e ar nin gs of w i f e , and s i z e
o f house.
The fami ly i s faced with a myriad of d e c i s i o n s in prov idin g f o r i t s
needs and wants.

Employment f o r husband and wife in c lu d in g what kind of

work, where, wages, and how long a re a l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

Families f o r

the most p a r t a re under some c o n s t r a i n t s and l i m i t a t i o n s

to work f o r

money.

However, a family has

cont rol

over c e r t a i n means to

provide

goods and s e r v i c e s .

E i t h e r l e i s u r e time o r money i s exchanged f o r th e

goods and s e r v i c e s .

Robinson (1966) attempted to measure the flow of

s u b s t i t u t e s through a comparison of hours o f help re ceived vers us hours
o f household

pro d u c ti o n .

The r e s u l t s

o f th e

study were t h a t

those

re c e i v i n g more help compared t o production were s i n g l e men, f a m i l i e s
where th e head made $7.50 an hour or more and p a r t i c u l a r l y i f th e head
worked more than 2,000 hours a y e a r , f a m i l i e s where th e wife worked more
than h a l f - t i m e p a r t i c u l a r l y i f th e wife had young c h i l d r e n under 18, and
f a m i l i e s t h a t l i v e d in a c i t y o f 10,000 or more.

Those t h a t produced

more than they bought were f a m i l i e s where th e husband made l e s s than
$7.50

an

hour ,

or

th e

wife

worked

1,000 hours

or

less

for

money

54

p a r t i c u l a r l y in a s m a l l e r c i t y o r r u r a l a r e a .

Robinson concluded t h a t

f a m i l i e s with h ig h e r incomes could a f f o r d t o h i r e o t h e r s and did not
need added re a l

income from household p r o d u c t i o n .

Living in a l a r g e

c i t y f a c i l i t a t e d h i r i n g s e r v i c e s and young c h i l d r e n in c r e a s e d the need
for services.
L ittle

r e s e a r c h has been done on t h e ch oic es a family makes in

pr ov idi ng f o r i t s needs through household p r o d u c t i o n .
only r e s e a r c h e r found who s t u d i e d t h e s e c h o i c e s .

Robinson was th e

No s t u d i e s were found

which analyzed work l e f t undone which i s a concept to be included in th e
p r e s e n t work.
Value of Household Production
A discussion

o f t h e va lu e o f household pr od uc tio n

in t h e broad

p e r s p e c t i v e in c lu d e s economic th e o r y which a t one time gave no value to
non-market work.

Economists, f e e l i n g a di s c r e p a n c y in t h i s a r e a , a re

now s h a r in g id e as on t h e va lu e o f t im e , human s e r v i c e s , and w e l l - b e i n g .
Mostly s i n c e t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s , a t t e n t i o n has been tur ne d t o g iv in g household
pr od uc tio n a monetary va lu e in t h e GNP.

Likewise, a h o u s e w if e ' s work

has been valued as well as o t h e r p r o d u c ti v e work w i t h i n th e home.
Monetary Value
Measurement o f t h e monetary va lu e o f household pr od uc tio n
difficult
definite

t a s k due to th e number o f a c t i v i t i e s

involved and la ck o f
States

Department o f Commerce in 1978, in o r d e r t o provide s t a t i s t i c s

t o the

such as
consumer

for

a

United

users of

monetary value

is

t h e GNP, s t a r t e d
household

these a c t i v i t i e s .

a p r o j e c t t o measure nonmarket a c t i v i t i e s ,

work and t h e

durables (Peskin,

The

services

1982).

that

Housework

are
in

made a v a i l a b l e

by

the

of

Department

55

Commerce study included a c t i v i t i e s t h a t produced a good or s e r v i c e t h a t
could be pur ch ase d, a c t i v i t i e s

t h a t could be accomplished by a t h i r d

person

utility

w it ho ut

reducing

th e

to

the

household

a c t i v i t i e s i n c lu d in g hobbies and v o l u n t e e r work.

and

other

The monetary valu e o f

th e work was c a l c u l a t e d by t h e s p e c i a l i s t c o s t te chn iq ue which a s s ig n s
d o l l a r valu es t o hours o f household work based on t h e wage r a t e s o f paid
workers who would perform a s i m i l a r t a s k .
t h e type o f a c t i v i t y performed.
to v a r i a t i o n

The wage r a t e depends upon

This va lu in g te ch niq ue i s u n c e r t a i n due

in e f f i c i e n c y between t h e household worker and t h e paid

worker, and the o u tp u t o f household work not being t r u l y s t a t e d by th e
market c o s t o f t h e pro duc t.
tive

valuation

te ch niq ue s

Because o f t h i s u n c e r t a i n t y , two a l t e r n a ­
were

also

used.

The

housekeeper

cost

techni que valued a l l hours by t h e wage o f a p r i v a t e household worker and
o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t te chn iq ue valued th e hours by th e wage th e person could
have earned in t h e market ( H e f f e r a n , 1982).
Using t h e
total

specialist

cost

te ch n i q u e o f v a l u a t i o n ,

the

value o f

household work in 1976 t o t a l l e d $752.4 b i l l i o n o r 44 p e r c e n t of

t h e GNP.

(The v a l u a t i o n based on th e housekeeper c o s t was 28 p e r c e n t

l e s s and t h e v a l u a t i o n based on gro s s compensation o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t y
c o s t was
1976,

35 p e r c e n t h ig h e r than

women

as

the

the s p e c i a l i s t

p r i n c i p a l household

cost valuation.)

w ork e rs ,

accounted

68.4 p e r c e n t o f th e t o t a l household work worth $6,694 pe r y e a r .
in only 15.1 hours o f household
33.8 hours.

skill.

th e type

Men put

The value o f each

of a c t i v i t y

As men and women tended to s p e c i a l i z e

t h e i r household work value v a r i e d .

for

work a week compared to t h e women's

The value o f t h e men's work was $3,475.

hour of housework depended upon

In

in c e r t a i n

and degree of
activities,

For example, men did 77.7 p e r c e n t o f

56

t h e home r e p a i r s and hobbies which was t h e c a te g o ry ass ign ed the h ig h e s t
wage

rate.

Women did

more

than

i n s t r u c t i o n which r e c ei v e d th e

80 p e r c e n t

of

th e

lowest wage r a t e .

child

c ar e

and

I f we assume t h a t

household work time use has not changed g r e a t l y s i n c e 1976, e s t i m a t e s of
val ue f o r 1981 a r e $10,000 a y e a r f o r women and $5,000 a y e a r f o r men.
The value o f household work f o r women i s approximately two times t h e i r
income from paid wages.

The annual average f o r a f u l l - t i m e homemaker is

$12,500.
Household work can be g e n e r a l l y c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o r o u t i n e mainte­
nance

household

work

and

household

f i n d i n g s a r e re p o rt e d in Appendix A-2.

prod uc tio n

activities.

These

Women c o n t r i b u t e d 12.9 hours to

household prod uc tio n which was valued a t $2,719 per y e a r .

Men c o n t r i ­

buted 9.4 hours which counted as a $2,356 per y e a r c o n t r i b u t i o n .
For women, th e value o f t h e i r household work v a r i e d according to
s e v e r a l f a c t o r s which a f f e c t e d t h e number o f hours they c o n t r i b u t e d to
household work.

For example, employment s t a t u s ,

number o f e a r n e r s

t h e f a m il y , presence of c h i l d r e n , age and own e a r n in g s a l l
value o f household work t o va ry.
factors

is

found on Appendix A-3.

in

caused the

A summary o f t h e e f f e c t o f th e s e
These a r e

only e s t i m a t e s

as the

sample was small and t h e r e was no c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f c o r r e l a t i o n s among
variables.

Employment f o r women caused a d e c l i n e in

household work with
work d e c li n e d from
employed

part

employed

women,

substituted

for

hours s p en t in a l l

c h i l d c ar e d e c l i n i n g t h e most.

The value o f the

$8,405 f o r non-employed women to $6,243 f o r those

time and
market

$4,040

for

th o s e

employed

purchased

goods

and

household work

in

the

case

services
of

paid

full

time. For

appear
child

to

car e

be
and

perhaps in meals e at e n out o f th e home (H of f er th and Moore, 1979; O r ti z

57

e t a l . , 1981; S t r o b e r and Weinberg, 1980).

The value o f household work

a l s o dropped as th e w i f e ' s ea r n in g r o s e .

Other d i f f e r e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d

with

i n c re a s e d as

variables

inc lud ed ;

household work

the

number of

c h i l d r e n in c re a s e d and de creased a f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n were age f o u r ; th e
age of t h e women a f f e c t e d

t h e i r household work value in t h a t be fo re

age 29 i t ros e s h a r p ly and then l e v e l e d o f f w hil e c le a n in g and gardening
ro se s h a r p ly a f t e r age 65.
Other r e s e a r c h e r s
household

have a l s o given c o n s i d e r a t i o n to t h e value of

l a b o r in t h e GNP and th e value o f household work.

Murphy

(1978) e s ti m a te d t h e value o f unpaid p ro d u c ti v e work t o be 35 p e r c e n t of
the GNP.

Morgan e t a l . , (1966) e s ti m a te d i t t o be 38 p e r c e n t and Gauger

(1973) f i g u r e d household work would add $204 b i l l i o n to t h e GNP in 1967.
Walker and Gauger (1973) a l s o c a l c u l a t e d th e val ue o f household work by
th e s p e c i a l i s t c o s t techni qu e f o r husbands, wives, and teenag e c h i l d r e n .
They included t h e v a r i a b l e s o f wife employment, age o f w i f e , number of
children

and

age

of

youngest

child.

For

a

non-employed

wife,

aged 25-39, t h e household work val ue was $4,500 and h e r hus ban d's was
$900 per y e a r .
1981)

Updated f o r 1981 d o l l a r valu es (Deacon and Firebaugh,

t h e values would be $6,750 f o r wives and $1,350 f o r husbands.

This e s t i m a t e i s l e s s than t h a t re p o r t e d by Peskin (1982).

Vanek (1974)

d i s a g r e e s with th e concept o f monetary v a l u a t i o n o f homemaker's work and
stated

that

"homemaking r e p r e s e n t s

an o c cu pa tio n a l

role

that

is

not

r e d u c i b l e to the d o l l a r c o s t s o f i t s c o n s t i t u e n t t a s k s " (p. 190).
Another much l e s s common way to put a monetary value on household
work i s t o value t h e product o f t h e l a b o r .

Morgan e t a l . ,

(1962) in a

study o f home prod uc tio n as a so urc e o f income surveyed f o r two ty pe s of
p ro duc tio n:

home-grown food and home a d d i t i o n s

and r e p a i r s

done by

58

fam ilies.

About f i f t y p e r c e n t o f t h e respondents re p o rt e d t h a t they

saved through t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s

an average of $370 in 1959.

e n t i r e sample, t h i s averaged ou t t o $182 saved pe r f a m ily .

For th e

Those people

who saved t h e most were home owners, f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n and th os e
living

in

small

towns and r u r a l

areas.

Fam ilies with

heads

with a

h i g h e r wage r a t e produced more than th os e with a lower wage r a t e who
presumably would need to supplement t h e i r income.

There was a tendency

f o r people who worked long hours a l s o t o work more in home p ro duc tio n.
A l a r g e p o r t i o n o f t h e people who worked long hours were farmers who
could

have

Education

used

part

of

was

re la te d to

produced t h e l e a s t and

their

jo b

skills

pro du ct io n as

in

household

those

wit h

p ro d u c ti o n .

college

degrees

th os e who went beyond high school bu t

f i n i s h c o l l e g e produced t h e most.

There a r e v a r i a t i o n s

di d not

in pro duction

acc ording t o geographic area as th o s e in the South and North Central
re gio ns produced l e s s than o t h e r a r e a s .
just

retired

were

th e

groups

Young f a m i l i e s and th o s e who

producing

th e

most.

Measures

of

achievement m ot iv a ti o n and o f t h e p e r c e p ti o n t h a t hard work pays had no
s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with home p ro d u c ti o n .

They could have r e s u l t e d

in more e f f o r t a t t h e main jo b o r t a k i n g a second j o b r a t h e r than more
home pro d u c ti o n .

Also lower income f a m i l i e s

tended to

save a small

amount by growing food while h ig h e r income f a m i l i e s saved much more by
doing t h e i r

own home maintenance

and ‘r e p a i r

homeowners and they had more money t o i n v e s t ) .

(as

more o f

them were

This study i s o f s p e c ia l

i n t e r e s t in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n study as i t d i r e c t l y d e a l t with th e amount
of money saved through home pro duction e f f o r t s .

59

Non-monetary Value
The above s t u d i e s have a l l used a monetary measurement o f t h e value
of household work and home pro d u c ti o n .
the

p ro duc tio n

p ro c e ss

that

example, f a t i g u e , s t r e s s ,

cannot

There a r e a l s o o t h e r o u tp u ts of
be

valued

in

this

manner.

For

and time sp en t could be c onsi de re d n e g a ti v e

o u t p u t s in terms o f used human r e s o u rc e s (Deacon and Firebau gh , 1981).
Also ,

energy s p e n t ,

1n terms o f human and non-human re s o u r c e s

im po rt an t way o f v a lu in g household pro duct io n
Satisfaction

and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n

considerations.

Several

studies

with

the

(Odum and Odum,

ou tp u t

are

also

is

an

1976).

imp or tan t

have been done on s a t i s f a c t i o n with

housework and women's employment.

Campbell e t a l . ,

(1976) r e p o r t e d on

women who f e l t completely s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r housework.

Thirty-four

p e r c e n t o f th e employed women f e l t s a t i s f i e d , compared t o 45 p e r c e n t of
th e p a r t - t i m e employed women and 52 p e r c e n t o f th e f u l l - t i m e housewives.
Women

who

c o ns id e re d

their

employment were more s a t i s f i e d
jo b .

household

work

as

im port an t

their

than t h o s e t h a t emphasized t h e i r paid

Other measures o f s a t i s f a c t i o n with household work were re p o r t e d

by Robinson (1982).
Cent er

asked

p ro du c t.

the

The 1975 time use study from t h e Survey Research
res po nde nts

about

the

quality

of

their

housework

Examples o f th e q u a l i t y were t h e c l e a n l i n e s s o f th e house and

la u n d r y , t h e goodness and adequacy o f food and how well
were

as

being

raised.

characteristics

such

Subjective
as

age,

ratings

income,

of

the

and m a r i t a l

th e c h i l d r e n

resp onden ts
status

(with

controlled)

showed no d i f f e r e n c e between employed and unemployed homemakers ex cep t
f u l l - t i m e homemakers r a t e d q u a l i t y o f th e main meal h i g h e r .
Valuation o f household pro duction by using both s o c i a l and monetary
means was t h e r e s u l t o f an am bitious at te m p t o f J u s t e r e t a l . (1980) t o

60

develop a s o c i a l accounting system to measure w e l l - b e i n g .

Ouster e t a l .

(1980) a pplie d t h e i r s o c i a l accounting system to th e empirical time data
from the Survey Research Center f o r 1965 and 1975.
da ta

to

ge t

measures

of

th e

time

sp en t

They aggregated the

nationally

on

household

prod uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s , and t h e monetary values o f th e s e r v i c e s (housing
and non-h ous ing) , non-durables ( i n c l u d i n g d e p r e c i a t i o n ) and government
purchase s.

The two s e t s of time da ta were measured I n d i v i d u a l l y and

a l s o compared.

The comparison showed a change in time use over the

decade from pro duction in both t h e market and home to th e consumption
c at e g o ry .

I t a l s o showed l e s s time in market work and in th e household

t a s k s o f home maintenance, shopping, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and cooking.
g r e a t e s t in c r e a s e was in p a ss iv e l e i s u r e due to
viewing.

The

in creas ed t e l e v i s i o n

Time in e d u c a t i o n , medical c ar e and home improvement expanded,

while c h i l d c ar e diminished.
dropped

with

(perhaps

due

i n c re a s e d
to

more

[The use o f m a te ri a l goods o f medical care

child
long

care

and

distance

interpersonal

telephoning).]

communication
The

intangible

o u tp u ts o f process b e n e f i t s were measured by p re f e r e n c e s f o r a c t i v i t i e s .
In th e 1975 time s tu d y , respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e on a 0-10
s c a l e (with 0 being th e l e a s t enjoyab le and 10 being th e most enjoy abl e)
how much they enjoyed doing a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y
results

of

the

activity.

On t h i s

scale,

the

regardless

household

of the

production

a c t i v i t i e s r a t e d as most e njo yab le were c h i l d care ( 8 . 7 6 ) , followed by
crafts

(6.53),

cooking

(6.16),

repairs

shopping ( 4 . 6 1 ) , and c le a ni ng ( 4 . 3 6 ) .

(5.19),

organizations

(4.83),

Additional f a c t o r s analyzed with

the s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e d i s t i n g u i s h e d high from low l e v e l s o f s a t i s f a c ­
tion.

Women r e p o rt e d lower process w e ll -b e in g than men, married people

r e p o rt e d

lower

than

single

peo ple ,

older

people

lower

than younger

61

p e o p le , th o s e with c h i l d r e n lower than th os e w i t h o u t , and th os e in the
l a b o r f o r c e h i g h e r than th o s e not in t h e l a b o r f o r c e .
was o f no s i g n i f i c a n c e .
tackle

the

difficult

Juster et a l . 's

Level o f income

study i s one o f th e few t h a t

problem o f measurement o f

intangible

prod uc tio n o u t p u t through t h e concept o f proc ess b e n e f i t s .

household

Satisfaction

with a p ro duc tio n a c t i v i t y could be th e very reason why people p a r t i c i ­
p a te in one a c t i v i t y over a n o t h e r and more study needs t o be done in
th is area.
Summary
Most t h e o r e t i c a l work on household prod uc tio n has r e s u l t e d from th e
e f f o r t s o f economists who view th e home as a f a c t o r y producing people
and commodities ( S c h u l t z , 1962; Becker,
Owen,

1980,

1981).

Part

of the

maintenance o f t h e household.
Household

pro du ctio n

is

a

1976; Reid, 1934; B e u t l e r and

proc ess

o f producing people

is

the

This is time consuming and r o u t i n e work.
separate

set

c on si de re d

investments

in

people

and

resources.

The prod uc tio n

itself

is

of
uses

activities,
human

that

skills

can

and

be

other

a process whereby a person can

receive b e n efit or u t i l i t y .
Most in fo rm at io n on household pro du ct io n has been a r e s u l t of time
use s t u d i e s , housework s t u d i e s o r r e s e a r c h on d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r w it h in
th e f a m ily .

These s t u d i e s have i d e n t i f i e d th e amount of time sp ent in

household pr od uc tio n and who p a r t i c i p a t e s
husband o r w i f e ) .

Motivation to

in t h e a c t i v i t i e s

participate

(usually

in household prod uc tio n

could be due to high achievement o r i e n t a t i o n (Robinson, 1966), reso ur ce
lim itation

or

personal

preferences.

Of p a r t i c u l a r

a n a l y s i s done on r e l e v a n t family s i t u a t i o n a l

factors.

interest

was

the

Robinson (1966)

62

found married couples with l a r g e f a m i l i e s (7-8 people) with no c h i l d r e n
under age two with high incomes from r u r a l a r e a s l i v i n g in s i n g l e family
s t r u c t u r e s produced more than o t h e r f a m i l i e s .
found a r e l a t i o n s h i p
household

size,

between th e

stage

in

Owen and B e u t l e r (1981)

amount o f household pro duct ion and

family

cycle,

and

community

size.

Other

r e s e a r c h e r s found employment of w ife and age of youngest c h i l d to be
h ig h ly

significant.

There

is

also

a

clear

agreement

among

many

r e s e a r c h e r s t h a t household t a s k s a r e g e n e r a l l y performed according to
sex r o l e p r e f e r e n c e s .
r e c e iv e d l i t t l e

The s ha r in g o f household pro duct io n t a s k s

attention

in r e s e a r c h .

has

Choices o f whether to buy or

produce a p a r t i c u l a r good o r s e r v i c e were s t u d i e d by Robinson (1966).
Among th e i d e n t i f y i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th o s e t h a t h i r e s e r v i c e s are
fam ilies

with

high

incomes,

working

wiv es,

families

with

children,

s i n g l e men, th os e with acc e ss t o h i r e d s e r v i c e s , and th o s e with l a r g e r
homes.
Valuation o f household produ ct ion as a p a r t o f t h e GNP has been a
concern f o r approximately ten y e a r s .

Va luations o f household production

range from 44 to 35 p e r c e n t o f the GNP ( P e s k in ,

1982; Murphy, 1978).

One study done e a r l i e r (Morgan e t a l . , 1962) valued th e product o f two
household

pro du ction

activities:

home grown food and home car e and

repairs.

Fam ilies t h a t produced t h e most were home owners, f a m i l i e s

with c h i l d r e n , th o s e l i v i n g in small towns and r u r a l a r e a s , and those
with hig h e r incomes.

Other r e s e a r c h e r s have a l s o consi de re d the value

o f household pro duct ion

in terms o f used r e s o u r c e s ,

satisfaction

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with o u t p u t and t h e q u a l i t y o f th e pro d uc t.
al.

and

Juster et.

(1980) developed a model t o val ue household pro duction using both

s o c i a l and monetary means.

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

The p r e s e n t stu dy i s p a r t o f a l a r g e r study whose purpose was to
i d e n t i f y involvement in household produ ction among young ur ba n, small
town, and r u r a l

families

in mid-Michigan.

The l a r g e r s t u d y , " C o n t r i ­

bu tio ns o f Household Production to Family Income," was sponsored by th e
Department o f Family and Child Ecology o f Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and
t h e Michigan Cooperative Extension S e rv ic e and th e Michigan A g r i c u l t u r a l
Experiment S t a t i o n ( P r o j e c t 1363H).
The d a ta f o r t h e study were c o l l e c t e d in Ingham County, Michigan
du ring t h e months o f May and June 1980.
analysis

f o r the

larger

The family was th e u n i t of

study and was de fin e d as a male and female

l i v i n g in t h e same household with th e o l d e s t c h i l d between the ages of
s i x and twelve.

Each o f t h e s e t h r e e family members was given a survey

questionnaire.
This study was designed t o i n v e s t i g a t e household produ ct ion done
among young Michigan f a m i l i e s by st udy ing husbands' and wives' r e s p o n s i ­
b ilities

in

household

pro duct io n

decisions

of

buying,

producing

or

ignor in g a p o s s i b l e pro duction a c t i v i t y , and the perc eive d c o n t r i b u t i o n
o f household produ ct ion t o family

income.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p s

between

t h e s e a s p e c t s o f household pro duction and s e l e c t e d demographic v a r i a b l e s
were a l s o s t u d i e d .

63

64

The

c o nt en t

(1) r e s e a rc h

of

de sign

(3) ins tru me nt

this
of

chapter

the

Inclu de s

st u d y ;

development;

descriptions

(2) d e s c r i p t i o n

(4) s c o r in g

of

p ro c e d u re s ;

of

th e

th e :

sample;

(5) v a r i a b l e s ;

(6) s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s ; and (7) l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e s tu d y.
Research Design
The purpose o f t h i s e x p l o r a t o r y stu dy was t o examine v a r io u s f a c e t s
of

household

pro duction

produ ct ion

decisions,

participation

that

could

i n c lu d in g

provid e

activities

survey

questionnaire

activities.

done,

into

husband

household
and

wife

in pro duction and pe rc eiv ed monetary value o f household

pro duction c o n t r i b u t i n g to fami ly Income.
a

insight

The

based

on

theoretical

and

The r e s e a r c h method used was

recall

of

operational

household

production

definitions

of

the

v a r i a b l e s a r e found in Chapter 1.
The p o p u la tio n

selected

for

interview

in

this

stu dy was

Ingham

County, Michigan which i s inc lu de d in th e Lansing Standard Met ro pol ita n
S t a t i s t i c a l Area (SMSA).

Within th e county i s t h e s t a t e c a p i t a l and the

a s s o c i a t e d government a g e n c i e s ,

a diverse a g ric u ltu ra l

i n d u s t r y , many

bus in es s and manufacturing fir ms r e l a t e d t o t h e automobile i n d u s t r y , and
i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r e duca tio n in c lu d in g Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , a
large

state

university.

The

county

also

contains

po pu la tio n o f urb an , small town, and r u r a l households.

a

heterogeneous
The sample was

designed to r e f l e c t th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a c t i v i t i e s o f young f a m i l i e s
r e s i d i n g in t h e s e t h r e e l o c a t i o n s .
all

Families p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study

lived

in p r i v a t e households w i t h i n one o f t h e s e t h r e e geographic

locations.

A minimum o f t h i r t y f a m i l i e s from each a re a was co nsidered

a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a sample.

65

The

sample

selection

pro ce ss

was

designed

to

be

as

random as

p o s s i b l e given t h e s t u d y ' s d e f i n i t i o n a l and geographic c o n s t r a i n t s .
each o f t h e t h r e e geographic l o c a t i o n s ,
point

was

chosen.

Within

the

a randomly s e l e c t e d

residential

blocks

randomly s e l e c t e d and c o n t a c t e d using a sk ip p a t t e r n .

In

starting

households

were

The procedure f o r

th e sk ip p a t t e r n was s t a r t e d when a f a m ily was q u a l i f i e d and agreed t o
participate

in th e s tu d y .

When t h i s

o c c u r r e d , t h e nex t house on the

block o r road was skipped and not c o n t a c t e d .

The fo ll ow in g house was

then c o n t a c t e d .
The

urban

sample was

from Lans ing,

l a r g e s t p o p u la ti o n c e n t e r w i t h i n
l o c a t e d in mid-Michigan.
transportation

the

state

Ingham County.

capital

and

the

Lansing 1s c e n t r a l l y

The major employers a r e i n d u s t r y ( p r i n c i p a l l y

equipment,

fabricated

metals,

and

non-electrical

ma ch in ery ), s t a t e government, and t h e u n i v e r s i t y .
In o r d e r t o i d e n t i f y a sample from Lans ing, a school

census was

obta in e d from t h e Tri-County Planning Commission t o l o c a t e a r e a s w it h in
th e c i t y with t h e h i g h e s t pe rc en ta ge o f s ch oo l- ag e c h i l d r e n between the
ages o f s ix and twelve.

An a r e a in t h e s ou thern p a r t o f Lansing was

i d e n t i f i e d as having t h e l a r g e s t number o f young c h i l d r e n .

The second

h i g h e s t p e rc en ta g e o f young c h i l d r e n was in no rth Lansing.

A v i s i t by

th e r e s e a r c h e r s t o t h e s e a re a s r e v e a l e d s ev e ra l

in d icators of children

such as swing s e t s and homes with si gns in t h e windows i d e n t i f y i n g them
as

shelters

for

s ch oo l- ag e

children.

A census

tract

a re a

Lansing was chosen as t h e f i r s t neighborhood to be sampled.

in

south

An a d j a c e n t

t r a c t was i d e n t i f i e d as t h e second area to be sampled in Lansing in the
ev ent t h a t a d d i t i o n a l f a m i l i e s were needed.
city

blocks

within

th e

census

tract

were

To choose a random sample,
numbered.

All

apartment

66

b u i l d i n g s were i n d i v i d u a l l y numbered and t r e a t e d as i f they were c i t y
b lo c k s .

Block numbers were randomly s e l e c t e d as s t a r t i n g p o i n t s be fo re

the interviewers s t a r t e d contacting fa m ilie s.

All o f t h e bloc ks in both

census t r a c t s were sampled in o r d e r t o o b t a i n the r e q u i r e d number of
fam ilies.
Mason, t h e county s e a t o f Ingham County, was chosen as t h e s i t e f o r
t h e small town sample.
small

industries

and

I t has no major I n d u s t r y , b u t does have severa l
service

agencies.

The town

commuting d i s t a n c e o f Lansing and J a c k s o n , Michigan.

is

located

w it h in

As a r e s u l t , about

85 p e r c e n t o f th e employed persons l i v i n g w i t h i n t h e c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s
work o u t s i d e o f Mason.

Those l i v i n g and working in Mason a r e mainly

f a c t o r y w or ke rs , and s t a t e employees.

There a r e a l s o r e t i r e d f a r m e r s ,

s t a f f and f a c u l t y from Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
l i m i t s were t h e boundaries f o r th e sample.

The town's c o r p o r a t e

I n i t i a l l y , t h e Ingham County

Extension Home Economist i d e n t i f i e d t h e a r e a s with t h e l a r g e s t number of
school

children.

I n te rv ie w in g began with t h e s e a r e a s , bu t e v e n t u a l l y

included t h e e n t i r e town due t o t h e small
city

blocks

were

randomly

selected

as

population.
starting

As in Lansing,

points

b e fo re

th e

i n t e r v i e w e r s c o n ta c te d any f a m i l i e s .
W heatfield Township, s e l e c t e d f o r th e r u r a l sample, i s t h e c l o s e s t
r u r a l area t o Lansing and i s w i t h i n commuting d i s t a n c e .

The p o p u la tio n

i s s c a t t e r e d and houses a r e l o c a t e d ap proxim ately every q u a r t e r mile on
each o f t h e township ro a ds .

To s e l e c t a sample, e a s t - w e s t , and n o r t h -

south roads w it h in th e township were numbered and randomly s e l e c t e d as
starting

points.

In

contrast

to

Lansing

and Mason where

the

s kip

p a t t e r n was used , every house w it h in t h e township was v i s i t e d due to the
sparse

p o p u la ti o n

and

distance

between

houses.

There

were

not

67

s u f f i c i e n t q u a l i f i e d f a m i l i e s from Wheatfield Township, so f a m i l i e s were
int e rv ie w ed from a r u r a l are a a d j a c e n t t o Wheatfield t o th e west.

LeRoy

Township was inc lud ed in t h e sample usi ng th e same procedure.
Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures
The d a ta were c o l l e c t e d by a market re s e a r c h f ir m c o n t r a c t e d by th e
research p ro ject d ir e c to r s .

Six t r a i n e d i n t e r v i e w e r s h i r e d by t h e fi rm

c o l l e c t e d d a ta during th e months o f May and June 1980.

Members o f the

Household Production Research P r o j e c t , team held t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s with
t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s p r i o r to the d a ta c o l l e c t i o n .

An o u t l i n e o f a t r a i n i n g

s e s s i o n as developed by t h e r e s e a r c h team appears in Appendix B-2.

The

in t e r v i e w e r s

of

the

households

for

were

instructed

in

how

to

conduct

each

step

in t e r v i e w p ro c e s s .
Interviewers
eligibility.

were

A fter

responsible
eligibility

for
was

s cr ee nin g

the

established,

th e

interviewer

e x p la i n e d t h e study and asked t h e family to p a r t i c i p a t e in th e study.
Fam ilies were t o l d t h a t t h e i r responses would remain anonymous by th e
i n t e r v i e w e r s in a l e t t e r from th e p r o j e c t d i r e c t i o n s (Appendix B-3).
th e

fam ily agreed t o be p a r t of th e s t u d y ,

th e

If

i n t e r v i e w e r obtained

w r i t t e n c ons en t to p a r t i c i p a t e from one o r both spouses as r e q u i r e d by
th e U n i v e r s i t y Committee on Research Involving Human S u b j e c t s .

I f only

one p a r e n t was a t home, h i s / h e r w r i t t e n conse nt was obt ained a t t h e time
of t h e

initial

c o n t a c t and t h e

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d .

spouse was asked to

sign b e f o r e

the

Pa re nts gave consent f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n

(Appendix B-4).
Among t h e

participating

fam ilies,

th e

adult

fami ly

member who

answered the door was asked an open-ended q u e s ti o n about th e f a m i l y ' s

68

method

of

stretching

income.

Then,

the

interviewer

e xpla in ed

the

procedures f o r completing t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and gave the family t h r e e
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ; one each f o r t h e husband, w i f e , and c h i l d .
re q ue st e d

to

complete

their

questionnaires

in d e pe nd e nt ly .

p a r e n t s could help t h e i r c h i l d with t h e c h i l d ' s
ch ild 's

rea din g

le vel

was

no t adequate

to

Spouses were
However,

q u e s t i o n n a i r e i f th e

complete

it

alone.

Each

q u e s t i o n n a i r e bo o k le t was d i s t r i b u t e d i n s i d e an envelope t o help family
members ma in ta in

confidentiality

and

independence o f

re s p o n s e s .

The

i n t e r v i e w e r s l e f t the q u e s t i o n n a i r e with th e family f o r s e v e ra l days.
The

interviewers

then

called

the

urban

and

a rr a n g e f o r c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .
mail

in t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

houses

were

reminder.

scattered.

The

due t o
rural

small

town

families

to

Rural f a m i l i e s were to

th e expense of c o l l e c t i o n where
fam ilies

were

also

called

as

a

The f a m i l i e s who r e t u r n e d completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s as agreed

from t h e t h r e e family members re c e iv e d $5.00 and l a t e r a summary of the
findings.
A total
sample.

of 701 households were c on ta c te d in o r d e r to o b ta in the

Information

on

Appendix B-5 and B-6.

contacting

the

701 households

is

found

in

One hundred t h i r t y - n i n e households appeared t o be

e l i g i b l e and were given q u e s t i o n n a i r e s which they r e t u r n e d .

Of the 139

households, 32 were d i s q u a l i f i e d from t h e study f o r v a ri o u s r e a s o n s .

In

19 f a m i l i e s , th e o l d e s t c h i l d was ov er 12 y e a r s and 12 months old and in
five fam ilies,

one

or

both

spouses

had

children

over

12 y e a r s

and

12 months not l i v i n g w it h in th e household.

Examination o f t h e q u e s t i o n ­

naire

co llu d e d

b o o k le ts

questions.

indicated

eight families

on

answering

the

C oll us ion was determined by i d e n t i c a l handw rit ing o r answers

69

on spo uses'

questionnaires.

In p a r t i c u l a r ,

q u e s t i o n s 19 and 42 were

checked as they r e q u ir e d han dw rit ten answers.
D e s c r i p t i o n o f th e Study Sample
The sample f o r t h e l a r g e r Household Production P r o j e c t c o n s i s t e d o f
107 f a m i l i e s (husband, w i f e , and o l d e s t c h i l d between t h e ages of s i x
and t w e l v e ) .

This study used only t h e husband and wif e d a ta from th e

107 f a m i l i e s .

Th ir ty -t w o f a m i l i e s were from t h e urban a r e a , 38 were

from t h e

small

i nfo rm ation

town and 37 were

from

the

Tri-County

from the

rural

area.

Planning

Commission

Demographic
provided

th e

fo ll ow in g da ta f o r th e sampled a r e a s .
Urban Sample. —The urban sample a re a includ ed census t r a c t s 36.01
and 36 .02.

The 1980 median household Income in t h e s e a re a s was $19,400

and $14,800, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

The a r e a s were 63.7 p e r c e n t and 69.7 p e rc e n t

Caucasian and 30.5 p e r c e n t and 24.0 p e r c e n t Black, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Small Town Sample. —The small town sample a re a inc lud ed th e e n t i r e
town o f Mason.

The 1980 median household income was $18,400.

The area

was 96.5 p e rc e n t Caucasian and 0.01 p e r c e n t Black.
Rural Sample. —The r u r a l

sample area included Wheatfield Township

plus th e western p a r t o f LeRoy Township bor der in g W heatfield Township.
The 1980 median household income was $17,900.

The a re a was 98.7 p e rc e n t

Caucasian and 0 .5 p e r c e n t Black.
The r a c i a l balance o f th e e n t i r e sample i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t of th e
1980 census.
were

Caucasian

origin.

Over 87 p e rc e n t o f t h e a d u l t respondents
and

fewer

than

12 p e rc e n t

were

Black

in th e sample
or

of

Spanish

Most of th e Black and Mexican-American respon den ts were from

th e urban sample.

Adults in th e sample ranged in age from 22 to 50.

70

The w i f e ' s average age was almost 32 while th e husbands averaged almost
34 y e a r s

of

age

11.66 y e a r s .
15 y e a r s .

(Table 1) .

The

average

l e n g th

of

marriage

was

The m a j o r i t y o f couples (70.9 p e r c e n t ) were married 10 to
Included

in

the

sample

were

couples

f a m i l i e s who d id not r e p o r t th e y were ma rri ed .

living

together

as

They were l a b e l e d as

husband and w ife in t h e d a t a .
The

households

were composed o f

the

husbands

and w iv es,

total

number o f c h i l d r e n , t o t a l number o f o t h e r r e l a t i v e s and t o t a l number of
o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s l i v i n g in t h e household.
household ranged from t h r e e to seven.
husband,

w ife,

and

relative

living

two

children.

in t h e household.

The number o f persons in th e

Most households had f o u r members:
Only one

fam ily

reported

a

non-

No o t h e r r e l a t i v e s were i n d i c a t e d

l i v i n g in t h e households.
The average number of c h i l d r e n pe r household Was 2 . 4 .
of

children

children

per

per

household

household

in

ranged
the

from one to

sample

varied

five.

The number

The number of

from t h e

Lansing

SMSA

average as t h e sample s p e c i f i e d f a m i l i e s with a t l e a s t one c h i l d and
therefore,

childless

couples were not in c lu d e d .

sample were evenly d i s t r i b u t e d by age.

The c h i l d r e n

in th e

The l a r g e s t number o f c h i l d r e n

were 11 y e a r s old (20.5 p e r c e n t ) .
Educational
percent

of

the

l e v e l s v a r i e d between husbands and wives.
wives

completing high s c h o o l.
of

the

wives

and

and

6 .4 p e r c e n t

of

th e

husbands

Over nine

r e p o rt e d

not

The h i g h e s t level o f e duca tio n f o r 35 p e rc en t

32 p e r c e n t

of

the

husbands

was

th e

12th

grade.

O n e -t h ir d o f th e wives and o n e - f o u r t h o f th e husbands s t a r t e d c o l l e g e ,
but completed l e s s than f o u r y e a r s .

Over o n e - f i f t h of t h e wives

71

Table 1 . —C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Young Michigan Fam ilies in th e Household
Production Sample as Reported by Husbands and Wives
(Summer 1980, Michigan Houshold Production Study)
Frequency
(n=107)

Percentaqe
(lOd.0)

Mean

Median

Age in Years
Husbands
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-40

-2
22
52
24
3
4

1.8
20.6
48.5
22.4
2.7
3.7

33.79

33.46

Wives
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50

3
32
52
18
2
0

2.8
29.8
48.5
16.8
1.8
0

31.89

31.85

Years Married
0-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
16-18
19-21

6
6
9
34
42
8
2

5.6
5.6
8.4
31.7
39.2
7.5
1.8

11.66

12.39

Number o f Persons in
Household*
3
4
5
6
7

11
52
34
9
1

10.3
48.6
31.8
8 .4
0.9

4.41

4.79

Number o f Children*
1
2
—
3
4
5

11
52
35
8
1

10.3
48.6
32.7
7.5
0.9

2.40

2.32

Age o f O ldest Child*
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

14
12
16
16
14
22
13

13.1
11.2
15.0
15.0
13.1
20.6
12.1

9.14

9.13

C haracteristics

♦Reported by the wife

72

Table 1. ( c o n t ' d )
Characteristics

Frequency
(n-1 07)

Education Level
Husbands
1-3 y e a r s o f high school
Completed high school
(high school diploma)
Less than 4 year s
of college
4 y e ar s o f c o l l e g e
5 o r more y e ar s of
college

Percentaqe
(100.0)

6

5.6

35

32.7

27
18

25.2
16.8

20

18.7

Wives
1-3 y e ar s o f high school 9
Completed high school
38
(high school diploma)
Less than 4 y e ar s
of college
36
7
4 years of college
5 o r more ye ars of
college
16

Mean

Median

$26,752

$25,519

8 .4
35.5
33.6
6.5
15.0

Employment S ta tu s
Single-earner
Dual-ear ne r
Both employed

56
48
3

52.8
44.9
2.8

Midpoint o f Family Income
Category (Annual)**
$7,500
$9,000
$11,000
$13,500
$17,500
$22,500
$27,500
$32,500
$42,500
$50,000-over
Missing Data

1
1
0
4
16
23
20
26
13
4
1

0.9
0.9
0
3.7
15.0
21.5
18.6
24.3
12.1
3.7
0.9

**1979 t o t a l income be fo re t a x e s . Husband's and w i f e ' s personal income
was added t o g e t h e r f o r Family Income.

73

Table 1. ( c o n t ' d )
C haracteristics

Frequency

Pe rcentaqe

Mean

Median

------------------- w m f----- rroor---------------Occupation
Husbands
P r o f e s s io n a l- T e c h n ic a l
ManagerialA d m in is tr a ti v e
Sales
Clerical
Craftsman, o p e r a t i v e ,
tra n s p o rt, laborer
S e rv ic e
P r i v a t e household
workers
Farmer
Housespouse/Student
Wives
P r o f e s s io n a l- T e c h n ic a l
ManagerialA d m in is tr a ti v e
Sales
C lerical
Craftsman, o p e r a t i v e ,
tra n s p o rt, laborer
S e rv ic e
P r i v a t e household
workers
Farmer
Housespouse/Student

30

28.8

14
3
7

13.1
2.8
6.5

44
5

41.1
4.7

0
2
2

0
1.9
1.9

11

10.3

3
2
20

2 .8
1.9
18.7

3
7

2.8
6.5

4
1
56

3.7
0 .9
52.3

a a f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c at e g o ry
(21.5 p e rc e n t) f i n i s h e d f o u r o r more y e a r s c o n t r a s t e d with more than a
t h i r d (34.5 p e rc e n t) o f th e husbands who f i n i s h e d f o u r o r more y e a r s .
Employment was a n o th e r f a c t o r t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e d th e f a m i l i e s
the

sample.

F i f ty - tw o

p e rc e n t

of

the

couples

were

in

single-earner

f a m i l i e s and 44.9 p e r c e n t had both husband and w ife employed.

At th e

time o f t h e sample, both a d u l t s were unemployed in 2 .8 p e r c e n t o f the
fam ilies.

This was l e s s than th e o v e r a l l p o p u la tio n where 12.6 p e rc e n t

o f th e workers in th e Lansing SMSA were r e p o r t e d as unemployed f o r May

74

o f 1980.

S p e c i f i c a l l y , 12.5 p e r c e n t were unemployed w ith in th e c i t y o f

Lansing.
The median f a m i l i y income f o r t h e sample was $25,519.

This was

h i g h e r than t h e 1980 census e s ti m a te d median incomes f o r the f o u r census
t r a c t s where t h e urban median income was $19,400 and $14,000 ( t r a c t s
36.01 and 36 .0 2,
$17,000.

respectively),

The per c a p i t a

small

town was $18,400 and r u r a l

was

income was c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g th e t o t a l

fam ily income by t h e number o f persons in t h e household dependent upon
th e income.

The p e r c a p i t a average income was $5,622.

The occu pa tio ns o f husbands and wives were c l a s s i f i e d according to
th e 1970 United S t a t e s Census Occupational

Codes.

For r e p o r t i n g , th e

occup at ion s were combined under l a r g e r c a t e g o r i e s .
of

the

husbands

technical

and

workers.

10.3 p e rc en t
More

of

husbands

the
than

Twenty-eight p e r c e n t

wives

were

wives

professional-

were

m a na ger ia l-

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e workers (13.1 p e r c e n t of the husbands and 2 .8 p e rc e n t of
th e

w iv e s ) .

A

few

families

were

working

in

sales

( 2 . 8 p e r c e n t o f t h e husbands and 1.9 p e r c e n t of t h e w iv e s ) .
employed wives were c l e r i c a l

workers (18. 7 p e r c e n t ) .

o f th e husbands were in c l e r i c a l work.

activities
Most o f the

Only 6.5 p e rc e n t

Most o f t h e employed husbands

were in blu e c o l l a r jo b s such as c r a f t s m e n , t r a n s p o r t wo rke rs , o pe ra ­
tives,

and l a b o r e r s

(41.1 p e r c e n t ) .

In c o n t r a s t ,

th e wives had th o s e types o f employment.

only 2 .8 p e r c e n t o f

Husbands and wives working as

s e r v i c e and p r i v a t e household workers were 4 .7 p e r c e n t and 10.2 p e rc en t
o f th e employed pe rs on s.

Only 2 .9 p e r c e n t of t h e employed husbands and

0 .9 p e r c e n t of the wives were farme rs.

The g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e between

the spouses was t h a t wives were c l a s s i f i e d as house spouses or s t u d e n t s

75

(52.3 p e r c e n t) while only 1.9 p e r c e n t o f t h e husbands r e p o rt e d being in
t h i s c at e g o ry .
In summary, t h e f a m i l i e s in t h e sample were a d i v e r s e group r e p r e ­
s e n t i n g many Income l e v e l s , ed u ca ti o n a l

l e v e l s , and oc c u p a ti o n s .

Some

respondents were p r o f e s s i o n a l s , some c l e r i c a l worke rs , and o t h e r s were
craftsmen o r worked in s t o r e s o r f a c t o r i e s .

E i g h t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f th e

men were employed a t t h e time of th e s u rv e y , and 12 p e r c e n t were l a i d
off.

Forty-s eve n p e r c e n t o f t h e wives were employed o u t s i d e th e home.
Instrum en t Development
A comprehensive q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed s p e c i f i c a l l y

o v e r a l l p r o j e c t to i n v e s t i g a t e household p r o d u c ti o n .

f o r th e

The q u e s t i o n s were

developed by t h e Household Production P r o j e c t members o r adapted from
questions

developed

by o t h e r

researchers.

The p r o j e c t

team members

c o n s i s t e d of t h r e e f a c u l t y members from Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and
gr a d u a te s t u d e n t s .
and p r e p a r in g

it

This r e s e a r c h e r p a r t i c i p a t e d
for analysis,

s e s s i o n s , deter min ing s t a t i s t i c a l

creating

in c le a n in g th e data

variables,

analysis

decision

p r o c e d u re s , examining f o r c o l l u s i o n ,

and development o f pro duction s c o r i n g .
The

questionnaire

was

developed

acc ord ing

to

the

follo wing

procedure ( E z e l l , 1981, p. 71):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Reviewing o f r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e i n c lu d in g p r o f e s s i o n a l
j o u r n a l s and books, re s e a r c h r e p o r t s , t h e o r e t i c a l p a p e r s ,
magazine, and newspapers.
Asking e x p e r t s t o review and add t o a l i s t o f household
produ ct ion a c t i v i t i e s .
S y n th e s iz in g t h e in for ma ti on ga th er ed and developing a
preliminary questionnaire.
Obtaining i n i t a l approval from th e U n i v e r s i t y Committee
on Research Involving Human Su b je c ts f o r p r e t e s t i n g the
questionnaire.
P r e t e s t i n g th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e on a s e l e c t e d group of
fam ilies.

76

6.

A l t e r i n g th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o in c lu d e recommended changes
in t h e f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Obtaining f i n a l approval from t h e U n i v e r s i t y Committee on
Research Involving Human S u b j e c t s
b e fo re beginning
in t e r v i e w s in th e sample.

7.

Related L i t e r a t u r e
Four major c a t e g o r i e s were s t u d i e d
ment:

household p ro d u c t i o n , q u a l i t y o f l i f e , human c a p i t a l development,

and f a m ily demographics.

Sources used t o re s e a r c h and develop q u e s t i o n s

o f household pro du ct io n were:
1979;

in t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e develop­

Leonard-Barton

Berk and Shih , 1980; B e u t l e r and Owen,

and Rogers,

1973; Walker and Woods, 1976.

1980;

Morgan e t a l . ,

1974;

Walker,

The q u e s t i o n s on q u a l i t y o f l i f e were

ad apted from t h e work o f Andrews and Withey (1976).

The re s e a r c h team

developed t h e i r own q u e s t i o n s on human c a p i t a l development.

Demographic

q u e s t i o n s were from t h e Q u a li ty o f L i fe Research P r o j e c t done by the
Departments

of

Human

Environment

and

Design,

and

Family

and

Child

Ecology a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and t h e Department o f Clothing and
T extiles,

University

of

Minnesota.

(The

Experiment S t a t i o n P r o j e c t Numbers were:
of Life
Rural

in Rural

P r o j e c t number was:

The

Minnesota

Agricultural

1249 "C lothing Use and Q ua lit y

and Urban Communities,"

Communities."

Michigan

3151 "F a m ili e s

Agricultural

in Evolving

Experiment

Station

53-086 " C lot hin g Use and Q ua li ty of L i fe in Rural

and Urban Communities.")
Using t h e l i t e r a t u r e review, p r o j e c t c o n f e r e n c e s , and responses of
persons

asked

to

review a p r e l i m i n a r y

list

of

household

a c t i v i t i e s , t h e i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed.

production

S p e c i f i c a tte mp ts

were made by t h e p r o j e c t members t o s t a t e a l l q u e s t i o n s as simply and as

77

c l e a r l y as p o s s i b l e .

Informal

review by p r o j e c t members caused some

m o d if ic a ti o n s o f the q u e s t i o n s .
The

questionnaire

was

pretested

by

members

of

the

Household

Production P r o j e c t s t a f f .

Urban, small town, and r u r a l f a m i l i e s (nine

total)

sample a re a s

not

living

in

the

participated

in

the

pretest.

T h e ir responses r e s u l t e d in minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s to th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
D e s c ri p ti o n o f th e Va ria bles
Only p a r t o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e da ta was used in t h i s a n a l y s i s .
sections

of

th e

questionnaire

used

in

this

study

The

included:

(1) a c t i v i t i e s a t home (pp. 4 - 9 , 11); (2) saving and i n v e s t i n g (p. 12);
(3) a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e t h e home (pp. 23-2 6) ; (4) value o f home a c t i v i ­
ties

(p. 27); and (5) family s i t u a t i o n

sections

a re

included

in

(pp. 28-32, 34, 36-37).

Appendix B.

Only

husbands'

and

These
wives'

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were used as th e c h i l d r e n s ' data were not comparable.
Scoring
Several

s cor es were developed in o r d e r t o b e t t e r understand the

c o l l e c t e d da ta and answer c e r t a i n re s ea rc h q u e s t i o n s .

One s cor e focused

on th e number of production a c t i v i t i e s done on both th e i n d iv id u a l and
family l e v e l s .

Computations were a l s o made t o develop a measure f o r

household production d e c i s i o n s
compared t o o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s
letting

it

go undone.

and th e amount o f pro duction a c t i v i t y
in c lu din g

buying

it,

om it ti n g

it,

or

Likewise, computations were made to develop a

perceived value of household pro du c tio n.

78

Perceived Household Production A c t i v i t i e s
Household production a c t i v i t y sc or es were computed by summing the
p o s i t i v e responses t o a d u l t q u e s t i o n n a i r e items 2-10, 12-13, 32, 34-40.
Most o f th e items were scored on a yes-no b a s i s :

a yes response i n d i ­

c ate d t h e in d iv id u a l d id t h e a c t i v i t y h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f and a no response
i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e respondent did no t do i t .

Six o f th e que st i o n s (2 - 6 ,

9) had more d e t a i l e d a l t e r n a t i v e s t o choose from:

u s u a l l y h i r e i t done

o r buy i t ,

t o g e t h e r with o t h e r

u s u a l l y do i t

my sel f,

u s u a l l y do i t

family members, u s u a l l y done by a n o th er family member or f r i e n d , l e t i t
go or d o e s n ' t apply.

In o r d e r t o examine household production as a

c a t e g o r y , i t became ne ces sar y t o ag gr eg ate th e re sp on ses .
two ways:

This was done

as i n d i v i d u a l s and as family u n i t s .

1.

I n d iv id ua l

Score.

The

in div id u a l

i d e n t i f y who did t h e work w i t h i n th e f a m ily .

s co r e

was

designed

For each a c t i v i t y , every

family was scored as t o whether th e husband did th e a c t i v i t y by himself
o r the wife did i t by h e r s e l f .

I f e i t h e r husband o r wife i n d i c a t e d t h a t

they did i t with a n o th e r family member, then they were given c r e d i t t h a t
i t was done by e i t h e r husband a n d /o r wife with a noth er family member.
However, i f both husband and wife marked t h a t they did i t by themselves,
th e family was scored as c o n f l i c t i n g because both husband and wife could
not be s o l e l y

responsible

for

th e

task.

Only those qu e st i o n s with

d e t a i l e d a l t e r n a t i v e s ( 2 - 6 , 9) had inf ormation on o t h e r family members
doing the a c t i v i t y .

For t h e yes-no q u e s t i o n s , th e husband only and wife

only s c o r in g was th e same as d e sc ri be d above.
marked y e s ,

I f both husband and wife

then the score was both did th e a c t i v i t y

names given to the scor es were:

together.

The

to

79

Husbands onl y:

Total of th e p o s i t i v e responses marked by husbands

only
Wives only:
Together:

Total o f th e p o s i t i v e respon ses marked by wives only
Total number o f r e s po ns e s:

q u e s t i o n s 2 - 6 , 9 marked by

e i t h e r husband o r w if e t h a t they d id i t with a n o th e r family
member, o r on t h e remainder o f t h e q u e s t i o n s (yes-no) marked
by both husband and w if e t h a t they did i t .
C onflicting:

Total number o f responses marked by both husband and

wife t h a t they did t h e a c t i v i t y by themselves ( q u e s t i o n s 2-6 ,
9).
2.

Family C o l l e c t i v e Score.

The family c o l l e c t i v e s co r e was made

by t o t a l i n g a l l t h e p o s i t i v e responses to a t o t a l
t i o n a c t i v i t i e s by t h e f a m il y .
the

The family s co r e c a l l e d a Total Score i s

sum o f t h e Husbands o n l y , Wives o n ly ,

scores.

p o s s i b l e 178 produc­

T o g e th e r,

and C o n f l i c t i n g

An example o f t h e s c o r in g procedure i s in Appendix B-7.

For t h e pe rc eived household p ro duc tio n a c t i v i t y s c o r e , t h e produc­
tion

activities

were

di v id e d

into

two

groups

of

activities

done

b a s i c a l l y w i t h i n t h e household and a c t i v i t i e s done with o t h e r f a m i l i e s
o r with t h e community (Table 2 ) .

The e i g h t a c t i v i t i e s done w i t h i n th e

home, c a l l e d f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s in-home pro du ct io n a c t i v i t i e s , inc lud ed :
home c ar e and r e p a i r ( q u e s t i o n s 2, 7 . 5 , 7 . 6 , 7 . 8 , 7 . 9 , 7 . 1 3 ) ; c a r c ar e
and r e p a i r ( q u e s t i o n 3 ) ; y a r d , lawn and outdoor c a r e ( q u e s t i o n s 5, 7 . 7 ) ;
pe rsonal

care

(q u e s ti o n 4 ) ;

sewing, c r a f t s , and hobbies

( q u e s t i o n s 6,

7 . 1 , 7 . 2 , 7 . 3 , 7 . 1 1 , 7 . 1 2 ) ; food p r e s e r v a t i o n ( q u e s t i o n s 8 , 7 . 1 0 , 7 . 1 4 ) ;
c a r e o f family members ( q u e s t i o n s 9, 10); and r e c y c l i n g w it h in th e home
( q u e s t i o n s 12 .1 , 1 2 .1 0 - 1 2 . 1 2 ) .
tion a c t i v i ti e s .

There were a t o t a l o f 84 in-home produc­

The nine a c t i v i t i e s done with o t h e r f a m i l i e s or in the

80

community,

called

for

saving and i n v e s t i n g

this

analysis

(question 13),

out-home

bartering

activities,
services

inclu ded :

(q u e s ti o n 32);

using c o o p e r a ti v e s (q u e s ti o n 3 4) ; s h a r in g r e s o u rc e s ( q u e s t i o n 3 5 ) ; using
community r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ( q u e s t i o n 36 ); usi ng community medical
Table 2 . —Household Production A c t i v i t i e s C at ego ri es
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Total P o s s i b l e A c t i v i t i e s
in Each Category (N)

C at eg or i es
In-home
Car c a r e and r e p a i r
Care o f family members
Food p r e s e r v a t i o n
Home car e and r e p a i r
Personal c are
Recycle ( i n home)
Sewing, ho bbi es, and c r a f t s
Yard, lawn, and outdoor c a r e
Total

9
6
13
26
4
4
14
8
ST

Out-home
B a r t e r i n g Se rv ic e s
Community medical s e r v i c e s
Community r e c r e a t i o n
Cooperatives
Free in for ma ti on
Recycle ( ou t o f home)
Savings and Investments
Sharing Resources
Shopping a l t e r n a t i v e s
Total

7
7
9
6
14
10
24
7
10
W

Total
17 c a t e g o r i e s
services

(q u e s ti o n 3 7);

shopping

alternatives

(questions
activities.

12.2-12.9,

178
using

"free"

( q u e s t i o n 39);
1 2 .1 3 ).

There

in fo rm at io n
and

( q u e s t i o n 38);

recycling

were

a

total

outside
of

the

using
home

94 out-home

81

Perceived Household Production Choices
For s ix o f th e items in t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( 2 - 6 , 9 ) , t h e r e were si x
possible

respo nse s

fo r the

respondent

to

choose

(s e e

p. 77) .

These

p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n d i c a t e d th e r e s u l t s o f a decision-making proc ess by th e
i n d iv id u a l o r t h e fa mi ly u n i t as a whole.

The q u e s t i o n o f i n t e r e s t was

whether anyone in th e household did t h e a c t i v i t y ,
hired

out,

omitte d

or

it

Therefore,

the

respo nse s

pro d uc tio n

( u s u a l l y do i t

did
to

not
any

apply
of

m ys el f,

the

to

o r whether i t was

the

fam ily's

categories

u s u a l l y do i t

which

situation.
indicated

t o g e t h e r with o t h e r

fam ily members and u s u a l l y done by a n o t h e r family member o r f r i e n d ) were
counted as

a positive

response f o r

family

p ro d u c ti o n .

Fr iends were

in cl ude d as they o f t e n have human r e s o u rc e s n e ce s sa ry f o r a c e r t a i n t a s k
t h a t a r e a v a i l a b l e t o a family a t no monetary c o s t .
t h e f o u r p o s s i b l e d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s were:
omit i t , o r d o e s n ' t ap pl y.

The responses f o r

do i t , h i r e i t o r buy i t ,

These c a t e g o r i e s were summed s e p a r a t e l y and

amounts in each c at e g o ry were compared.
Perceived Monetary Value o f Household Production
The a d u l t q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s perc eiv ed monetary
val ue o f t h e i r annual

c o n t r i b u t i o n t o th e f a m i l y ' s

s p e c i f i c pro du ct io n a c t i v i t i e s

(q u e s ti o n 4 0 ) .

one o f fo u r ranges f o r each a c t i v i t y :
and more than $450.

income through 12

They answered i n d i c a t i n g

l e s s than $50, $51-100, $100-450,

For th e a n a l y s i s , th e mid-value o f each range was

used ($25, $75, $275) with t h e e xc e ptio n o f t h e l a s t range where the
lower l i m i t o f $450 was used.

The va lu es of th e 12 items were summed

f o r each i n d i v i d u a l t o o b t a i n a t o t a l pe rc ei ve d c o n t r i b u t i o n .

82

Demographic V a ri a b le s
The responses o f husbands and wives in each o f t h e t h r e e s co r in g
categories

(p e rc ei v ed

activity,

pe rce iv ed

pro du ct io n

choices,

and

pe rceiv ed valu e o f p r od uc tio n) were analyzed by comparison o f husbands'
and wives' responses and were f u r t h e r analyzed by demographic v a r i a b l e s .
The independent demographic v a r i a b l e s inc lud ed :

l o c a t i o n o f re s id e n c e

(u r b an , small town, and r u r a l ) ; employment o f husband and wif e ( s i n g l e ­
earner

and

dual-earner

fam ilies);

fam ily

income

(under

$20,000;

$20,000-24,999; $25,000-29,999; and over $30 ,000); and s i z e o f household
( " 3 " , " 4" , " 5" , o r "6 o r more" p e r s o n s ) .
S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis
D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s were used t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e sample.
median,

and s ta n d a r d

d e s c r i b e t h e sample.
of

variance

tests

d e v i a t i o n were c a l c u l a t e d

Mean,

where a p p r o p r i a t e

to

In t h i s s t u d y , p a ir e d t - t e s t s and one-way a n a l y s i s
were

also

done t o

determine

significance

of

th e

The p a i r e d t - t e s t was used p a r t i c u l a r l y t o compare husbands'

and

d i f f e r e n c e s found.

wive s'
evaluate

re s p o n s e s .

A t-test

differences

between

en ab le s
two

the

sample

researcher
means.

to

identify

Assumptions

of

and
th e

t - t e s t s a r e t h a t t h e samples a r e normally d i s t r i b u t e d , have homogeneous
v a r i a n c e s , and a r e randomly s e l e c t e d from t h e p o p u l a t i o n .

A difference

s cor e i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r each p a i r o f c a s e s .
Analysis o f v a r ia n c e (AN0VA) was used t o compare d i f f e r e n t groups
such as f a m i l i e s with varying income l e v e l s o r employment s t a t u s .
i s an i n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c used t o measure group d i f f e r e n c e s .
program (Nie, e t a l . ,

AN0VA

The SPSS

1975) AN0VA uses one dependent v a r i a b l e with any

83

number o f independent v a r i a b l e s .
tions

are

geneous

in de pe nd e nt ly

variance.

The oneway ANOVA assumes t h a t o bs er va ­

selected

from normal

ANOVA measures

independent v a r i a b l e a p p ar en t a t
variable.
the

the

means

of

independent

effects

any le ve l

The r e s u l t i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y

p o p u la ti o n s
of

one

with

homo­

categorical

on a continuous dependent

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between

variable

categories.

The

statistical

s i g n i f i c a n c e i s determined by an F - t e s t .
The p r o b a b i l i t y o f e r r o r i s a major c o n s i d e r a t i o n in any s t a t i s ­
tical
is

testing.

true

E r r o r r e s u l t s from r e j e c t i n g a n u ll h y po th e si s when i t

and from f a i l i n g

to

reject

a h yp ot he si s when

it

is

false.

Acceptable l e v e l s o f e r r o r must be e s t a b l i s h e d a c c o rd in g t o t h e c r e d i b l e
research p ra c tic e s
analysis,
levels.
that

and th e s p e c i f i c

nature of the research.

t h e d a ta were r e p o r t e d up t o th e
The reason f o r t h i s

the

research

was

.10 p r o b a b i l i t y o f e r r o r

r e l a t i v e l y high l e v e l

exploratory.

The

In t h i s

o f a cce pta nc e was

.10 l e v e l

could

d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t would not be a p p a r e n t a t lower l e v e l s .

identify

I t needs to be

c o n s i d e r e d , however, t h a t t h e .10 le v e l allows more chance f o r e r r o r and
the

lower

levels

( .0 5

or

.01)

are

more

reliable

indicators

of

significance.
The d a ta a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s study was performed on t h e Control Data
Corpor at ion

Model 750

computer

at

Michigan

State

University.

The

s t a t i s t i c a l programs used were a l l from th e S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r th e
Social Sciences (N ie , e t a l . , 1975), v e r s io n 7 . 0 .

84

L i m it a ti o n s
The

present

analysis

is

generalizable

c h i l d r e n l i v i n g in t h e United S t a t e s .

to

young

fam ilies

with

The st u dy i s l i m i t e d in a p p l i c a ­

t i o n by t h e sample, but n e v e r t h e l e s s has use fu l f i n d i n g s .

A lim itation

o f t h e p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s i s t h a t i t used only t h e respon ses o f husbands
and wives and not a l l fam ily members.
a spouse reponse s c o r e .

T e c h n i c a l l y , t h e fa m ily s co re is

Another l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e study i s t h a t the

a c t i v i t i e s t h a t were surveyed were t h e ch oice o f th e r e s e a r c h e r s .

This

i s not a s e r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n , however, due t o t h e l a r g e number o f a c t i v i ­
t i e s in c lu d e d .
and few d id

Also, respon den ts could w r i t e in a d d i t i o n a l
so.

Amount o f

household

pr od u c ti o n

activities

was measured by a

p o s i t i v e response to t h e a c t i v i t y and did not c o n s i d e r frequency o f th e
a c t i v i t y nor amount o f time s p e n t .

For t h e s t u d y , a l i m i t a t i o n i s t h a t

th e d e c i s i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s and pe rceiv ed valu e q u e s t i o n s were only asked
on

a

selected

out-home

number

c at e go ry

of

which

out-home a c t i v i t i e s .

activities.
limited

the

None o f
comparison

these

were

between

from the

in-home

and

The respon ses a r e based on r e c a l l and s e l f - r e p o r t

which can r e s u l t in i n a c c u r a c i e s as t h e r e was no o b s e r v a t i o n as t o who
actually

performed

the

pro duct ion a c t i v i t i e s .

have t i r e d due t o t h e le n g t h o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Also,

re sp ond ent s may

Chapter 4

FINDINGS

This

chapter

contains

the

results

of

the

d a ta

analysis.

The

r e s u l t s a r e co nt ained in t h r e e s e c t i o n s under t h e fo ll ow in g headings:
(1) pe rc eived household pro d u c ti o n a c t i v i t i e s ;
pro du c tio n

choices;

production.

and

(3) p e rc ei v e d

(2) pe rc ei ve d household

monetary

v a lu e

of

household

Each s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s r e s e a rc h q u e s t i o n s and hypotheses.
Perceived Household Production A c t i v i t i e s

The f i r s t r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n on general household pro du ct io n was:
1.

To

what

extent

prod uc tio n?
a.

are

fam ilies

participating

in

household

home

(basically

Are t h e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s i n :

Produ ction

activities

w it h fam ily members)

done

inside

and o u t s i d e

the
the

home (with o t h e r

f a m i l i e s and community o r g a n i z a t i o n s ) ?
b.

Husband and wi fe p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household production?

c.

Amount

of

residence,

involvement
fa m ily

accord ing

income,

to:

location

family employment s t a t u s ,

of
or

household s i z e ?
Household

pr od uc tio n

questions

wives on t h e survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

were

asked

of

both

husbands

The survey inc lu de d 178 p o s s i b l e

85

and

86

prod uc tio n

activities

in which t h e

might decide t o p a r t i c i p a t e .

respondents,

A l i s t of a ll

singly

or

together,

178 pro duction a c t i v i t i e s

and the pe rc ent ag e o f husbands and wives responding t h a t they do the
a c t i v i t i e s i s in Appendix C -l .

I t i s impor tan t t o note t h a t throughout

t h i s r e s e a r c h , amount o f household p ro duc tio n i s measured by number of
positive

responses

to

v a r io u s

activities

and does

not c o n s i d e r

sp en t o r frequency o f doing one s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y .
done a c t i v i t i e s

time

The most f r e q u e n t l y

(done by over 50 p e r c e n t o f th e re sp on den ts )

included

home c ar e and r e p a i r , c a r c a r e and r e p a i r , y a r d , lawn and o t h e r outdoor
c a r e , some ty pes o f r e c y c l i n g , use o f community r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s
and shopping.

The a c t i v i t i e s done by th e fewest respondents ( l e s s than

25 p e r c e n t ) were c ar e o f family members,
recycling,

bartering

services,

savings and i n v e s t i n g ,

using c o o p e r a t i v e s ,

s h a r in g

some

resources,

usi ng community medical s e r v i c e s , and usi ng f r e e in fo rm at io n.
Ho

1.

There

is

no

participation

significant

difference

between

the

in household pr od uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s

amount

of

i n s i d e the

home compared t o o u t s i d e th e home.
The average fam ily p a r t i c i p a t e d in over 50 p e r c e n t o f t h e produc­
t i o n a c t i v i t i e s mentioned in th e survey.
ties

per

fami ly .

Fam ili es

reported

The average was 90.2 a c t i v i ­

participating

in

approximately

63 p e rc e n t o f t h e p o s s i b l e pro duct ion a c t i v i t i e s in th e in-home c at eg ory
(53.39) and only 38 p e r c e n t of th e p o s s i b l e prod uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s in th e
out-home
t-test,

c at e go ry
this

(35.66)

difference

(Table 3 ) .

Analyzed

through

proved to be s i g n i f i c a n t

at

th e

a

two-tailed
.001

level.

Based on t h e s e r e s u l t s , th e hy poth e si s was r e j e c t e d .
More a c t i v i t i e s were done by husbands and wives working t o g e t h e r on
activities

compared t o e i t h e r husbands

o r wives

doing a c t i v i t i e s

by

87

themselves.
almost

For th e in-home a c t i v i t i e s , husbands and wives t o g e t h e r did

26 p e r c e n t

23 p e rc e n t

for

of

The

possible

activities

together

compared

husbands alone and 14 p e r c e n t f o r wives a l o n e .

compared by s c o r e s ,
activities

the

to
When

husbands and wives t o g e t h e r did over t h r e e more

than husbands alone and almost ten more than wives a lo n e.

same general

trend

was

true

together

did

almost

20 p e r c e n t

compared

to

almost

seven

11 p e r c e n t f o r wives a lo ne .

for

of

percent

the

the
for

out-home c a t e g o r y .

possible
husbands

activities
alo ne

Wives
together

and

almost

Together they did more than 12 a c t i v i t i e s

more than husbands only and more than nine more compared t o wives a lo ne .
Summing i n - and out-home a c t i v i t i e s , husbands and wives on th e average
did almost 23 p e r c e n t o f t h e p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s p a r t i c i p a t i n g t o g e t h e r
compared to almost 14 p e rc e n t f o r husbands alone and almost 12 p e rc en t
f o r wives a lo n e .
Ho

2.

There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between th e amount o f husband and wife
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household pr od u c ti o n .

The responses o f husbands and wives i n d i c a t i n g they p a r t i c i p a t e d in
a produ ct ion a c t i v i t y were analyzed t o t e s t f o r any d i f f e r e n c e in the
amount o r type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household prod uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s .

The

produc tio n p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f husbands and wives v a r i e d g r e a t l y w it h in the
in-home and out-home c a t e g o r i e s .

Husbands did almost nine p e r c e n t more

a c t i v i t i e s than wives in th e intra-home c a t e g o r y , which i s s i g n i f i c a n t
a t th e .001 l e v e l .

Wives did almost f o u r p e r c e n t more a c t i v i t i e s in the

out-home c at e gory than did t h e i r husbands which i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the
.001 le v el

(Table 3 ) .

In th e in-home group, husbands p a r t i c i p a t e d more

than wives in home c ar e and r e p a i r , c a r c a r e and r e p a i r , and y a r d , lawn,
and o t h e r outdoor work.

Wives p a r t i c i p a t e d more than husbands in

88

Table 3 . —Mean Household Production P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scores f o r In-Home,
Out-Home, and Total-Home A c t i v i t i e s
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)

Scores

In­ Home
in
II

oo

Out--Home
(n:=94)

mean

.(«)

Husbands

19.06

(22.69)

Wives

11.81

Together
Conflicting^
Family Total

mean

T o t a l ­•Home
i n g 178)

(%)

mean

(%)

6.68

(7. 11 )

25.56

(14.36)

(14.06)

10.22

(10.87)

22.03

(12.38)

21.70

(25.83)

18.77

(19.97)

40.47

(22.74)

2.66

(3 .1 7)

★

*

2.66

(1.49)

90.20

(50.67)

53.39****(62.37)

35.66****(37.94)

a f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
. s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c ate gory
no t c o l l e c t e d f o r out-home a c t i v i t i e s
****comp a ri s o n o f in-home and out-home f a m ily t o t a l by t - t e s t i s s i g n i f ­
i c a n t a t t h e .001 le v el
personal

care,

sewing, h o b b ie s ,

and c r a f t s

and in food p r e s e r v a t i o n .

The d i f f e r e n c e s in p a r t i c i p a t i o n (measured by a m u l t i p l e t - t e s t method)
by

husbands

and

wives

was

significant

at

the

.001 le v el

category e xce pt f o r r e c y c l i n g which was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e
(Table 4 ) .

In t h e

out-home p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,

the

in

every

.01 le vel

husband/wife

activity

d i f f e r e n c e was not as d i s t i n c t as in t h e in-home s c o r e s .

Nevertheless,

there

in

were

significant

differences

in

participation

bartering

s e r v i c e s , community r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , community medical s e r v i c e s ,
shopping, and r e c y c l i n g .

On t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s , Ho 2 was

rejected.
Ho

3.

There a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s in amount o f involvement in household
production

according

to:

location

of

residence,

income, family employment s t a t u s , o r household s i z e .

family

89

Table 4 . —Comparison o f Husbands' and Wives' P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Household
Production A c t i v i t i e s
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Category

Husbands' Mean

Wives' Mean

T Value

In-home

18.88

11.81

6.11

.001****

3.39
.10
.93
10.42
.10
.10
1.63
1.85

.32
1.05
4.00
.65
.32
1.22
3.81
■ .47

14.57
-8 .4 5
- 8 .9 0
14.57
-2 .6 2
-10.75
-7 .1 9
6.87

.001****
.001****
.001****
.001****
.010***
.001****
.001****
.001****

6.68

10.22

-4 .6 5

.001****

.94
.48
.91
.17
1.00
.69
1.15
.54
.80

1.71
.77
1.22
.19
1.23
1.05
1.10
1.03
1.91

-3.21
-2 .3 7
- 1 .5 4
-. 3 1
-1.01
-2 .3 9
.28
-3 .1 6
-4.81

.002***
.020**
.127
.759
.314
.019**
.781
.002***
.001****

Car c a r e and r e p a i r
Care o f fa mi ly members
Food p r e s e r v a t i o n
Home c a r e and r e p a i r
Recycle ( i n home)
Personal c ar e
Sewing, h o b b ie s , c r a f t s
Yard and outdoor c ar e
Out-home
Bartering services
Community medical s e r v .
Community r e c r e a t i o n
Cooperatives
Free in for ma ti on
Recycle ( o u t o f home)
Savings and investments
Sharing r e s o u rc e s
Shopping a l t e r n a t i v e s

Sign.

f i g u r e s re p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t th e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each catego ry
**Sign. a t .05 le vel
***Sign. a t .01 le vel
****Sign. a t .001 le v el
The pro du ct io n c a t e g o r i e s o f i n - and out-home a c t i v i t i e s and t o t a l
family a c t i v i t i e s were f u r t h e r analyzed by l o c a t i o n o f re s id e n c e (urb an,
small

town,

rural),

fa m ily

income

(under

$20,000;

$20,000-24,999;

$25,000-29,999; $30,000 and o v e r ) , family employment s t a t u s ( s i n g l e - o r
dual-earner

fam ilies)

and

household

size

( " 3 11,

"4",

"5",

or

"6

or

more” ).

Location was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e f o r s ev e ra l

scores.

In in-home a c t i v i t i e s , th e wive s' group mean score was s i g n i f i ­

c a n t l y h ig h e r f o r t h e small
group.

town and r u r a l

groups than f o r the urban

The c o n f l i c t i n g group mean s cor e was h i g h e r f o r th e urban group

90

Table 5 . —Husbands' and Wives' Household Production A c t i v i t i e s Analyzed
by Location
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Produ ction Study)
Location
Cateogry

Mean

Urban

Small Town
(ni=351

Rural

F Value Siqn.
f^TTj---------------------

In-home
Husbands
Wives
Together
i Conflicting

106
107
107
86

19.06
11.81
21.70
2.66

18.58
9.28
22.56
3.67

18.24
13.13
20.95
1.96

20.30
12.65
21.73
2.42

.50
.51
.20
4.02

.6046
.0078***
.8171
.0214**

Total

107

52.39

49.80

52.30

54.70

1.86

.1608

Husbands
Wives
Together
Conflicting

107
107
107

7.25
8.47
17.19

6.81
10.38
18.43
-

.4873
.0821*
.2265

-

6.08
11.53
20.42
-

.72
2.56
1.51

-

6.68
10.22
18.77
-

Total

107

35.66

32.90

38.00

35.60

2.97

Husbands
Wives
Together
Conflicting

107
107
107
86

25.56
22.03
40.47
2.66

25.25
17.75
39.75
3.67

24.32
24.66
41.37
1.97

27.11
23.03
40.16
2.42

.62
5.83
.12
- 4.02

Total

107

90.20

85.80

91.80

92.30

1.99

Out-Home

-

-

.0555*

Total
.5386
.0040***
.8877
.0215**
.1423

f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respon den ts f o r each c at e g o ry
*Sign. a t .10
**Sign. a t .05
***Sign. a t .01
compared to

th e o t h e r groups.

Those from small

towns were a l s o the

h i g h e s t f o r t h e wives only mean s co r e and t h e t o t a l
s co r e in out-home a c t i v i t i e s

(Table 5 ) .

c o l l e c t i v e mean

Family income was s i g n i f i c a n t

in t h e out-home husbands' mean s co r e where t h e $30,000 and over income
group

participated

in

more

activities

than t h e

o t h e r income groups

91

Table 6 . —Husbands' and Wives' Household Production A c t i v i t i e s Analyzed
by Family Income
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
_________ Family Income________
Under $20,000-$25,000- Over
F
Category
N Mean $20,000 24,999 29,999 30,000
Value Sign.
------------------------------- (n-24) (n -27) (n -27) (n-28)--------------------In-home
105
Husbands
106
Wives
Together
106
C o n f l i c t i n g 86

18.94
11.86
21.73
2.66

19.57
12.58
23.00
3.70

18.22
11.59
21.44
2.05

20.22
12.44
21.22
2.68

17.89
10.93
21.39
3.36

.37
.50
.15
1.95

.7762
.6826
.9300
.1278

106

52.35

54.30

51.30

53.90

50.20

.96

.4147

Husbands
106
106
Wives
Together
106
Conflicting

6.70
10.27
18.77

5.83
9.96
17.67

6.89
10.48
18.44

- -

- -

- -

5.70
10.55
20.70
—

8.21
10.07
18.18
—

2.21
.07
.74
--

106

35.75

33.50

35.80

37.00

36.50

.75

.5247

106
Husbands
106
Wives
Together
106
C o n f l i c t i n g 86

25.46
22.13
40.50
2.66

24.58
22.54
40.67
3.70

25.11
22.07
39.89
2.05

25.93
23.00
41.93
2.68

26.10
21.00
39.57
3.36

.11
.24
.14
1.95

.9563
.8694
.9369
.1278

90.25

90.90

88.70

92.70

88.80

.44

.7282

Total
Out-home

Total

.0912*
.9771
.5286
—

Total

Total

106

f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c ate go ry
*Sign. a t .10
**Sign. a t .05
***Sign. a t .01
(Table 6 ) .
the

Family employment as a v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r wives in

in-home a c t i v i t i e s

score

than

the

as

the

s i n g l e - e a r n e r group had a h i g h e r mean

d u a l - e a r n e r group

(Table 7 ) .

Household

size

was not

e s t i m a t e d t o be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r any s cor es ex cept f o r th e c o n f l i c t i n g
c a te g o ry (Table 8 ) .

92

Table 7 . --Husbands' and Wives' Household Production A c t i v i t i e s Analyzed
by Employment
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Employment S t a t u s
N

Mean

Single-Earner
(n=56)

Dual-Earner
(n=48)

103
104
104
83

19.15
11.81
21.90
2.66

19.53
12.66
21.50
2.58

104

52.64

104
104
104
—

Category
In-Home
Husband
Wi ves
Together
Conflict
Total
Out-Home
Husbands
Wi ves
Together
Conf1i c t
Total
Total
Husbands
Wives
Together
Conf1i c t
Total

Value

Sign.

18.65
10.81
22.38
2.75

.22
2.83
.18
.10

.6377
.0955*
.6742
.7518

53.30

51.80

.56

.4561

6.74
10.28
18.96
—

6.82
9.63
18.79

6.65
11.04
19.17
--

.05
1.56
.06
--

.8301
.2139
.8084
—

104

35.98

35.20

36.90

.87

.3533

104
104
104
--

25.67
22.09
40.89
—

26.00
22.29
40.29
—

25.29
21.85
41.54
—

.11
.06
.19
.10

.7463
.8128
.6601
—

104

90.75

90.60

91.00

.02

.8831

f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c a t e g o r y .
*Sign. a t .10 level
The group mean s co r es f o r husbands o n ly , wives o n ly , and t o g e t h e r
were broken

down i n t o

th e

17 s e p a r a t e

prod uc tio n

activities.

a c t i v i t i e s were analyzed by each o f th e f o u r v a r i a b l e s .
variable
factors.

showed

more

Location

was

significant
not

a c t i v i t i e s f o r husbands only.

a

differences

significant

These

Location as a

than

th e

other

variable

for

any

three
of

the

Wives from small town and r u r a l a re as did

p a r t i c i p a t e in s i g n i f i c a n t l y more food p r e s e r v a t i o n than th o s e in urban
areas.

Small town wives a l s o

used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more community medical

93

Table 8 . —Husbands' and Wives' Household Production A c t i v i t i e s Analyzed by
Household Size
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
_________ Household Size
3
ln = ll)

4
(n=50)

5
(n=32)

6 or
more
(n=10)

F
Value

Sign.

19.05
11.91
21.81
1.96

19.72
10.45
19.18
3.39

19.08
11.70
22.58
1.92

19.63
12.22
21.56
1.72

16.30
13.60
21.60
1.40

.34
.59
.34
2.84

.7965
.6249
.7954
.0419**

103

52.77

49.36

53.36

53.41

51.50

.61

.6099

Out-Home
Husbands
Wi ves
Together
C o n flic t

103
103
103

6.65
10.34
18.79

7.27
8.27
20.18

6.56
11.08
17.94

6.63
9.97
19.90

6.50
10.10
17.90

.09
.79
.57

.9630
.5020
.6394

Total

103

35.78

35.72

35.58

36.50

34.50

.15

.9328

Total-Home
Husbands
Wi ves
Together
C o n flic t

103
103
103
103

25.70
22.25
40.59
1.96

27.00
18.72
39.36
3.36

25.64
22.78
40.52
1.92

26.25
22.19
41.47
1.72

22.80
23.70
39.50
1.40

.31
.68
.09
2.84

90.50

88.45

90.86

91.63

87.40

.31

Cateqory

In-Home
Husbands
Wi ves
Together
Conf1i c t
Total

N

Mean

103
103
103
103

■■ a *

Total

f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t th e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c at e go ry
**Sign. a t .05 level
c ar e compared t o wives from o t h e r l o c a t i o n s .

Husbands and wives from

urban l o c a t i o n s did more c a r c a r e and r e p a i r t o g e t h e r than th os e from
other areas.

Rural

husbands

and wives

did

significantly

more y a r d ,

lawn, and o t h e r outdoor work than did th o s e from th e o t h e r l o c a t i o n s .
Small town husbands and wives used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more community medical
car e than th o s e from o t h e r a r e a s (Table 9 ) .
Family

income was

r e c y c l e out-of-home

significant

c at eg ory

where

for

husbands

only

th e

$25,000-$30,000

s cor e

in

the

income group

.8193
.5654
.9665
.0419**
.8201

94

re p o rt e d r e c y c l i n g more than o t h e r income groups (Table 10).
th e $20,000-24,999 income le vel
and r e p a i r

as compared t o

$25,000-29,999 group used

group did s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c a r car e

t h e o t h e r wive s'

gro ups.

Wives from the

s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c o o p e r a t i v e s

from th e o t h e r income l e v e l s .

Wives from

than wives

There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in

th e t o g e t h e r s cor e by family income.
When analyzed by fa mi ly employment s t a t u s , husbands from s i n g l e ­
e a r n e r f a m i l i e s did more c h i l d c a r e and r e p o r t e d s h a r in g more r e s o u rc e s
than o t h e r husbands (Table 11).

Wives from d u a l - e a r n e r f a m i l i e s p a r t i ­

c i p a t e d more in saving and i n v e s t i n g and r e c y c l i n g out-of-home compared
to

single-earner

fam ilies.

Tog ether,

husbands

and wives

from dual

e a r n e r f a m i l i e s used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e e community in fo rm at io n than
single-earner fam ilies.
When household s i z e was used as a v a r i a b l e , husbands from house­
holds

with

husbands

s ix

from

significant

or

greater

lesser

differences

together scores.

sized

reported

doing

households

acc ord ing

to

more

personal

(Table 12).
household

size

care

than

There

were

no

for

wives

or

Due to t h e d i f f e r e n c e s d i s c o v e r e d , Ho 3 was r e j e c t e d .
Perceived Household Production Choices

Some o f the household prod uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s q u e s ti o n s included si x
d e c i s i o n ch oic es as t h e re s p o n se s.

This infor mat ion was used to examine

th e second re s ea rc h q u e s t i o n :
2.

To what e x t e n t a r e f a m i l i e s producing goods and s e r v i c e s f o r
themselves t h a t a r e commonly produced in t h e marketplace?

To

what e x t e n t a r e they buying or h i r i n g th e goods or s e r v i c e s ?
To what e x t e n t a r e they l e t t i n g i t go?
not apply t o t h e i r s i t u a t i o n ?

Which a c t i v i t i e s do

Are t h e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s in :

95

Table 9 . —Report o f Husbands' and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Production
A c t i v i t i e s D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Location
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Location
Category

N

Mean

Urban Small Town Rural
(h=32) ( n=38)
(n=37)

Value Sign.

Wife
In-home
Food p r e s e r v a t i o n
Out-home
Community medical

95

4.52

3.62

4.89

4.82

2.41 .0959*

57

1.44

1.15

1.62

1.43

2.57 .0863*

1.75

2.38

1.74

1.22

.0232**

4.36

3.41

4.63

4.92

.0120**

4. 84

4.33

5.41

4.68

Together
In-home
Car c a r e and r e p a i r 107
Yard, lawn, and
outdoor c a r e
107
Out-home
Community r e c r e a t i o n 101

2.81 .0654*

a f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respo nden ts f o r each c at e gory
♦Sign, a t .10 le vel
**Sign. a t .05 le vel
Table 1 0 . -- R e p o r t o f S i g n i f i c a n t Mean Production A c t i v i t i e s D i f f e r e n t i a t e !
by Family Income
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Family Income
F
Under TZOTOTHT- $25,000- Over
Category
N Mean $20,000 24,999
29,999 30,000 Value Sign.
..... .. .............. " " " ......... ....
(n=24) (n=27)" (n=z7) (n=28)
Husband
Out-home
Recycle ( o u t
1.46
1.00
2.45 .0736*
o f home)
55 1.33
1.38 1.38
Wife
In-home
Car c a r e and
repair
Out-home
Cooperatives

20

1.70

1.83

2.20

1.29

1.50

3.95 .0277**

17

1.18

1.00

1.00

1.50

1.00

2.80 .0814*

a f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respon den ts f o r each c at e go ry
*Sign. a t .10 level
**Sign. a t .05 level

96

Table 1 1 . -- R e p o r t o f Husbands' and Wives' S i g n f i c a n t Mean Production
A c t i v i t i e s D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Family Income
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)

Category_______________________ N
Husband
In-home
Care o f fam ily members
Out-home
Sharing r e s o u rc e s

Employment S t a t u s
SingleDualF
Mean e a r n e r
e a r n e r Value
(n=56)
™" (n=48)

9

1.22

1.50

1.00

3.89

.0892*

38

1.53

1.73

1.25

3.25

.0797*

Wife
In-home
Care o f family members
Out-home
Recycle (o u t o f home)
Savings and investments

59

1.81

1.92

1.60

2.83

.0957*

62
65

1.74
1.82

1.56
1.61

2.04
2.03

4.29
3.37

.0427**
.0710*

Together
Out-home
Free Information

47

2.09

1.77

2.48

3.12

.0843*

f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by res pondent s f o r each c at e gory
*Sign. a t .10 le ve l
**Sign. a t .05 le vel
Table 1 2 .—Report o f Husbands' and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Mean Production
A c t i v i t i e s D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Household Size
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Household Size
Cateqory
Husband
In-home
Personal
Together
In-home
Recycle

N

care

103

Mean

6 or
F
3
4
5
more
Value Siqn.
(n = ll ){n=50)(n=32)(n=10)-------------------------------

.31

.11

.09

.06

103 2.17

1.64

2.18

2.44

.50

1.90

7.01

3.24

.0003****

.0254**

f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t th e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respon den ts f o r each c at e gory
**S1gn. a t .05 le vel
****Sign. a t .001 le vel

97

a.

Husband and wife p a r t i c i p a t i o n in each o f t h e s e c hoi ces ?

b.

Household produ ct ion ch oic e s acc o rd in g t o :

l o c a t i o n of

r e s i d e n c e , family income, fami ly employment s t a t u s , and
household s i z e .
Six o f th e c a t e g o r i e s o f pr od uc tio n included a ch oic e of responses
in d icatin g a decision

proce ss

choi ces o f response were:

involved

in household p r o d u c ti o n .

The

u s u a l l y h i r e i t done o r buy i t , u s u a l l y do i t

my s el f, u s u a l l y do i t t o g e t h e r with o t h e r family members, u s u a l l y done
by a n o t h e r family member o r f r i e n d , l e t i t go, and d o e s n ' t app ly.
analysis,

th e t h r e e responses " u s u a l l y do i t m y s e l f " ,

For

" u s u a l l y do i t

t o g e t h e r with o t h e r family members" and " u s u a l l y done by a n o t h e r family
member o r f r i e n d " were co n si d e re d as one re sponse i n d i c a t i n g t h e family
decided t o produce t h e good o r s e r v i c e f o r themselves by some means.
Families e i t h e r used t h e i r own e f f o r t s and s k i l l s
friends.

The s i x c a t e g o r i e s o f p ro d u c t i o n , with a t o t a l

were home c a r e
repair

o r th o s e o f f e r e d by

and r e p a i r

(Question 2)

(Question 3) with nine

ite m s;

with

personal

21 it e m s ;
care

o f 54 i te m s ,
car

care

and

(Question 4) with

fo u r items; y a r d , lawn, and o t h e r out doo r work (Question 5) with seven
ite m s;

sewing, h o b b ie s , and c r a f t s

(Question 6} with ni ne

item s;

and

c a r e o f fam ily members (Question 9) with f o u r item s.
Ho

4.

There i s

no d i f f e r e n c e between husbands'

and wive s'

pe rc ep ­

t i o n s o f th e f a m i l y ' s household pro d uc tio n c h o i c e s .
Both husbands and wives r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f th e 54 items
were done by the f a m ily .

Husbands r e p o r t e d 40 items (74 p e r c e n t) were

done by t h e family and wives re p o r t e d 41 items (76 p e r c e n t ) .

Husbands'

r e p o r t s gen er ate d a mean of f i v e items (9 p e r c e n t ) as h i r e d o r bought

98

while wives' r e p o r t s a mean o f e i g h t items (15 p e r c e n t ) .

Those a c t i v i ­

t i e s h i r e d o r bought Include r e p a i r i n g major a p p l i a n c e s , r e p a i r i n g the
c a r and c a r body, shoe and handbag r e p a i r , r e u p h o l s t e r i n g f u r n i t u r e , and
o cca si on al

car e f o r c h i l d r e n .

In a d d i t i o n ,

husbands

reported

hiring

more h a i r c u ts compared t o having t h e family do i t and wives r e p o rt e d
buying

draperies

and s l i p c o v e r s more than doing

it

p ro duc tio n a c t i v i t i e s were d e l i b e r a t e l y not done.

them sel ve s.

Few

Fourteen p e r c e n t o f

t h e husbands and over 11 p e r c e n t o f t h e wives responded th e y omitted
insulating
o mi tte d

hot w a te r pipes which was t h e

category.

11 a c t i v i t i e s
activities
husbands

In

the

doesn't

(20 p e r c e n t)

(7 p e r c e n t )
and wives

di d

that

responded

c o l o r i n g h a i r did not app ly.

pe rc ent ag e

apply c a t e g o r y ,

not

did

highest

apply

not

that

and

app ly.

husbands

wives
The

refinishing

in

r e p o rt e d

re p o r t e d

majority

hardwood

the

of

floors,

four
both
and

The m a j o r i t y of husbands a l s o mentioned

home permanents, c u t t i n g wood, and making s l i p c o v e r s , r e u p h o l s t e r y , and
making

quilts

as

not

applicable.

Most

of

the

differences

between

husbands and wives occu rr ed in th e sewing, ho b b ie s, and c r a f t s c a te g o ry .
A summary o f husbands' and wives'
found in Appendix C-2.

respo nse s in a l l

four categories is

Husbands and wives d i f f e r e d in t h e i r p e r c e p ti o n s

o f and responses to family household produ ct ion d e c i s i o n s .
t-test
three

showed s i g n i f i c a n t
of

th e

four

differences

categories

between

(Table 13),

husbands

therefore,

A dependent
and wives

in

Ho 4 cannot be

a c c e pte d.
Ho

5.

There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between husbands'
t i o n s of th e f a m i l y ' s
to:

household

and wives'

perc ep­

produ ct ion ch oi ce s according

l o c a t i o n o f r e s i d e n c e , fam ily income, family employment

s t a t u s , and household s i z e .

99

Table 1 3 .— Comparison o f Husbands' and Wives' Household Production
Choices
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)

Category

T
Value

Mean

Median

Pe rc e nt

Range

S.D.

Sign.

Family does i t
Husbands
Wives

33.81
35.30

33.88
35.36

62.81
65.37

12-54
10-51

7.73
7.56

-2 .4 7 .015**

Hire o r buy i t
Husbands
Wives

9.28
11.17

9.06
10.86

17.19
20.69

0-31
0-26

6.20
5.67

- 3 . 3 4 .001****

Omit i t
Husbands
Wives

1.05
0.80

0.30
0.25

1.94
1.48

0-16
0-6

2.42
1.48

Does not apply
Husbands
Wives

9.74
6.56

9.57
5.61

18.03
12.15

0-34
0-28

5.75
5.32

.95 .345

5.30 .001****

f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c at e go ry
**Sign. a t .05 le v el
****Sign. a t .001 le v el
Using t h e same pro ce ss as f o r Ho 4 , t h e f o u r d e c i s i o n cho ice s were
analyzed

by l o c a t i o n

of

residence,

s t a t u s , and household s i z e .

fami ly

income,

family

employment

When l o c a t i o n was c o n s id e r e d , r u r a l

wives

responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n t h a t fam ily does i t compared t o the
urban o r small

town wives (Table 14).

c a n t l y more than o t h e r wives t h a t t h e
apply to them.

Urban wives responded s i g n i f i ­
pro duction a c t i v i t i e s

did not

When family income was used as a v a r i a b l e , s i g n i f i c a n t l y

more husbands and wives from t h e h i g h e s t income group ($30,000 and over)
responded t h a t they h i r e d o r

bought a good o r s e r v i c e compared t o o t h e r

income

When employment

groups

(Table 15).

status

was

used

v a r i a b l e , s i g n i f i c a n t l y more wives in d u a l - e a r n e r f a m i l i e s h ir e d o r

as

a

100

Table 1 4 . —Household Production Choices o f Husbands' and Wives' by
Location
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Location
Cateqor.yb

Mean

Urban
(n=32)

owa i i
Town
(n=38)

Rural
ln=37 )

Value

Family does i t
Husbands
Wives

33.81
35.30

33.53
33.28

32.87
34.97

35.03
37.38

.75
2.65

.4710
.0752*

Hire o r buy i t
Husbands
Wives

9.28
11.17

9.13
10.73

10.61
12.42

8.65
10.22

1.67
1.54

.2024
.2199

Omit i t
Husbands
Wives

1.05
0.80

1.44
0.66

0.63
1.13

1.14
0.59

.10
1.47

.3722
.2349

Does not apply
Husbands
Wi ves

9.74
6.56

9.69
9.09

9.87
5.32

9.65
5.65

.02
5.67

.9849
.0046**

Sign.

af i g u r e s re p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
. s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c at e gory
n=107
♦Sign, a t .10 le vel
**Sign. a t .05 le vel
bought goods and s e r v i c e s compared to s i n g l e - e a r n e r f a m i l i e s (Table 16).
There

were

no

significant

differences

between

th e

categories

when

analyzed with household s i z e as a v a r i a b l e (Table 17).
The f o u r household prod uc tio n ch oic es (fam ily does i t , h i r e o r buy
it,

omit

it,

and does

not

apply)

were analyzed

by t h e

v a r i a b l e s and type o f household pro duction a c t i v i t y .
re s i d e n c e
c ate go ry

variable

will

family does

it,

be

c onsid ere d

first

demographic

The l o c a t i o n of

(Table 18).

Linder the

r u r a l husbands responded t h a t t h e family did

s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c a r c ar e and r e p a i r than was r e p o r t e d by husbands
from o t h e r l o c a t i o n s .

Rural husbands' and wives' reponses suggested

101

Table 1 5 . —Household Production Choices o f Husbands and Wives by Family
Income
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Family Income
Category*3

N

Mean

Under $20,000-$25,000- Over
$20,000 24,999 29,999 30,000
(n=24) (n=27) (n®27) (n=28)

F Value

Sign.

Family does i t
Husbands
Wives

33.76
35.30

35.04
36.88

32.41
34.93

35.26
37.00

32.54
32.68

1.07
1.98

.3672
.1215

Hire o r buy i t
Husbands
Wives

9.31
11.20

6.63
8.25

9.30

11.00

9.59
11.37

11.36
13.75

2.64
4.44

.0537*
.0057***

Omit i t
Husbands
Wi ves

1.06
0.81

1.08
0.67

1.22
1.33

1.37
0.85

0.57
0.39

0.55
1.99

.6451
.1210

Does not apply
Husbands
Wives

9.75
6.52

11.25
8.04

10.93
6.63

7.78
4.63

9.29
6.93

2.11
1.89

.1039
.1358

a f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number of a c t i v i t i e s
. s e l f - r e p o r t e d by resopndents f o r each c ate gor y
n=106
*Sign. a t .10 le vel
***Sign. a t .01 le vel
that

the

rural

fami ly does s i g n i f i c a n t l y more y a r d ,

outdoor work than urban o r small town f a m i l i e s .
with th e e a r l i e r f i n d i n g t h a t r u r a l

lawn,

and o t h e r

This f a c t i s c o n s i s t e n t

f a m i l i e s do more y a r d ,

lawn, and

outdoor work than f a m i l i e s from o t h e r l o c a t i o n s (s e e page 92).

Urban

husbands r e p o r t e d th e y omitted sewing, ho bb ie s, and c r a f t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y
more than husbands from o t h e r l o c a t i o n s .

Location as a v a r i a b l e showed

more s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e c at e g o ry d o e s n ' t apply when compared
to

the

other

demographic

variables.

Urban wives responded t h a t home

c a r e and r e p a i r , sewing, ho bb ie s, and c r a f t s did not apply s i g n i f i c a n t l y
more than women from o t h e r l o c a t i o n s .

Small town husbands re p o rt e d

102

Table 1 6 . —Household Production Choices o f Husbands and Wives by
Employment
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Employment
Category*5

N

Mean

Simj l e - E a r n e r
fn=S6)

Dual-Earner

Family does i t
Husband
Wives

33.83
35.37

34.34
36.45

33.23
34.10

8.10
2.62

.4736
.1086

Hire o r buy i t
Husbands
Wives

9.48
11.31

8.61
10.07

10.50
12.75

2.47
6.02

.1191
.0159**

Omit i t
Husbands
Wives

0.90
0.83

1.02
0.95

0.77
0.69

0.38
0.77

.5371
.3819

Does not apply
Husbands
Wives

9.66
6.33

10.02
6.41

9.25
6.23

0.47
0.03

.4952
.8533

F Value

Sign.

00
<3II
C

f i g u r e s in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s s e l f - r e p o r t e d
.b y respon den ts f o r each c at e g o ry
n=104
**S1gn. a t .05 le v el
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t h a t fam ily c a r e does no t apply compared t o r e p o r t s
of

husbands

from

other

indicated th a t yard,

locations.

Urban

husbands

and

wives

both

lawn, and o t h e r outdoor work does not apply more

than t h o s e from o t h e r l o c a t i o n s .
When the f o u r demographic v a r i a b l e s were analyzed by fa mi ly income
o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s emerged (Table 19).

Wives from t h e lowest

income group r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e family did s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c a r c are
and r e p a i r compared to th e r e p o r t s of wives from o t h e r income l e v e l s .
S i g n i f i c a n t l y more

wives

from t h e h i g h e s t income l e v e l re p o r t e d buying

o r h i r i n g home c ar e and r e p a i r and c a r c a r e and r e p a i r .
more

husbands

from t h e

Significantly

h i g h e s t income le v el r e p o r t e d buying or h i r i n g

103

Table 1 7 . —Household Production Choices o f Husbands and Wives Analyzed by
Household Size
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Siz e)
Household Size
6 or
4
5
more
=10)
:ll)
(n
=
5
0
)(
n
=
3
Z
)(
n
(n=

F
Value

Sign.

35.84
36.38

35.00
35.40

1.12
0.45

.3462
.7184

9.20
11.12

9.06
10.97

10.30
10.40

0.10
0.13

.9580
.9430

0.64
0.82

1.48
0.70

0.75
0.84

0.40
1.00

1.01
0.14

.3932
.9348

10.64
7.27

10.32
6.48

8.25
5.75

8.20
7.00

1.21
0.32

.3091
.8105

Category*3

Mean

3

Family does i t
Husbands
Wives

34.05
35.57

33.09
33.45

32.92
35.56

Hire o r buy i t
Husbands
Wives

9.26
11.09

9.18
11.91

Omit i t
Husbands
Wives

1.06
0.7 9

Does no t apply
Husbands
Wives

9.50
6.39

a f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
. s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respon den ts f o r each c at e go ry
n=103
sewing, hobbies and c r a f t s , and family c a r e .
from t h e

second

income

le vel

S i g n i f i c a n t l y more wives

($20,000-24,999)

income l e v e l r e p o r t e d h i r i n g personal c a r e .

and

from th e

highest

There was no d i f f e r e n c e in

t h e omit i t c a te g o ry due t o fami ly income.

Husbands from th e second

income l e v e l r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than o t h e r s t h a t fa m ily car e is
not a p p l i c a b l e t o them.
Family

employment

status

showed

some

significant

differences

between s i n g l e and d u a l - e a r n e r f a m i l i e s in th e c a t e g o r i e s of household
prod uct io n d e c i s i o n cho ice s (Table 20).
family c a r e .

These were a l l

in t h e a re a o f

S i g n i f i c a n t l y more wives with a fa mi ly s i z e o f fo u r bought

o r h i r e d personal c a r e compared to wives from o t h e r s i z e s of households
(Table 21).

S i g n i f i c a n t l y more wives from a household o f t h r e e members

104

Table 1 8 .— Report o f Husbands' and Wives' S ig n ific a n t Responses to
Household Production Choices D iffe r e n tia te d by Location
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)

Location
F
Small
Urban Town Rural Value
(n=32) (n=38)( j ^ 3 7 7 "

Category**

Mean

Family does i t
Husband
Care c a r e and r e p a i r
Yard, lawn, outdoor car e
Wife
Yard, lawn, outdoor car e

6.30
5.88

6.62
5.34

5.66
5.82

6.70
6.40

2.93 .0576*
8.01 .0005****

5.95

5.34

6.03

6.38

7.55 .0009****

Buy o r h i r e i t
Husband
Care c a r e and r e p a i r
Yard, lawn, outd oor car e
Wife
Yard, lawn, outdoor car e

2.47
0.31

2.19
0.47

3.16
0.29

2.00
0.19

3.29 .0412**
2.40 .0953*

0.35

0.66

0.18

0.24

3.42 .0362**

0.32

0.69

0.18

0.14

2.70 .0717*

0.20
0.73

0.06
1.03

0.45
0.89

0.05
0.30

4.94 .0090***
5.12 .0076***

2.93
1.76
0.68

4.16
2.72
0.94

2.37
1.16
0.79

2.43
1.54
0.35

3.01 .0536*
5.84 .0040***
4.04 .0204**

Omit i t
Husband
Sewing, h o b b ie s , c r a f t s
Does not apply
Husband
Child and o t h e r care
Yard, lawn, outd oor care
Wife
Home c a r e and r e p a i r
Sewing, h o bbie s, c r a f t s
Yard, lawn, ou tdoor care

Sign.

a f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t t h e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
. s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c at eg ory
n=107
*Sign. a t .10 le vel
**Sign. a t .05 le vel
***Sign. a t .01 le vel
****Sign. a t .001 le vel
responded t h a t they bought y a r d , lawn, and o t h e r outdoor work.
were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in th e omit i t c a te g o r y .

There

Significantly

more husbands in households with fo ur members, marked does not a p p ly , in
r e f e r e n c e to personal c a r e .

In summary, t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t

105

Table 1 9 .--R ep o rt o f Husbands' and Wives S ig n ific a n t Responses to
Household Production Choices D iffe r e n tia te d by Family Income3
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)

Family Income
Category*5

N

Family does i t
Wife
Care c a r e and
repair

Mean

Under $20,000-$25,000- Over
$20,000 24,999 29,999 30,000
(n-Z4) (n-27) ln-Z7) (n=28)

Sign.

F Value

6.04

6.67

6.37

5.96

5.25

2.21

.0916*

0.61

0.63

0.33

0.70

0.79

2.25

.0872*

1.66

1.04

1.30

1.52

2.68

2.85

.0412**

Buy or h i r e i t
Husband
Child and o t h e r
c ar e
Sewing, h ob b ie s,
crafts
Wife
Car c a r e and
repair
Home c a r e and
repair
Personal c ar e

2.75

2.08

2.33

2.96

3.50

2.61

.0558*

3.68
0.65

2.29
0.38

3.67
0.81

3.89
0.59

4.68
0.79

2.46
2.28

.0674*
.0834*

Does not apply
Husband
Child and o t h e r
car e

0.20

0.08

0.56

0.11

0.04

4.20

.0076***

af i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t th e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
. s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c ateg ory
n=106
♦Sign, a t .10 le vel
**Sign. a t .05 le vel
***Sign. a t .01 level
differences

in

the

four

decision

ch oic es

when analyzed

by th e

four

v a r i a b l e s ; t h e r e f o r e Ho 5 was r e j e c t e d .

Perceived Monetary Value of Household Production
The t h i r d re s ea rc h qu e st i o n was:
3. What do f a m i l i e s p e rc e iv e as the monetary value o f t h e i r house­
hold p ro duc tio n c o n t r i b u t i o n ?

Are t h e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s in:

106

Table 2 0 .— Report o f Husbands' and Wives' S ig n ific a n t Responses to
Household Production Choices D iffe r e n tia te d by Employment
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)

Category

Mean

SingleEarner
(n=56)

DualEarner
(n=48)

F Value

Sign.

Family does i t
Husband
Care o f Family Members
Wife
Care o f family members

3.13

3.30

2.92

4.41

.0382**

3.04

3.34

2.69

10.48

.0016***

0.61

0.46

0.77

5.12

.0258**

0.82

0.55

1.33

10.12

.0019***

Buy o r Hire i t
Husband
Care o f family members
Wife
Care o f family members

f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t th e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
. s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c ate gor y
n=104
**Sign. a t .05 le vel
***Sign. a t .01 le vel

Table 2 1 . —Report o f Husbands and Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t Responses to
Household Production Choices D i f f e r e n t i a t e d by Household S iz e '
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Household Size
Category

Mean

Buy o r h i r e i t
Wife
Personal care
i, lawn, outdoor c ar e

0.65
0.28

Does not apply
Husband
Personal care

1.87

6 or
F
more Value Sign.
("h®n')T(n=5D7rn=32) (n-1'0)
0.55
0.73

1.82

0.84
0.24

2.06

0.47 0.40 2.71 .0490**
0.22 0.20 3.34 .0225**

1.78

1.30 3.03 .0328**

a f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t th e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
. s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respondents f o r each c ate gory
n=103
**Sign. a t .05 level

107

a.

Husband and wif e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s ?

b.

The

monetary

val ue

acc ord ing

to:

location

of

residence,

f a m ily income, fami ly employment s t a t u s , o r household s i z e .
Husbands

and

wives

were

asked

what

they

p e rc ei v e d

to

be

th e

monetary value o f t h e i r annual i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o fa mi ly income
f o r each o f twelve a c t i v i t i e s with f o u r s p e c i f i c p ro duc tio n a c t i v i t i e s .
They answered by i n d i c a t i n g one o f f o u r i n t e r v a l s f o r each a c t i v i t y :
l e s s than $50, $51-100, $100-450, and more than $450.

For th e a n a l y s i s ,

th e mid-value o f each range was used with t h e e x c e p ti o n o f t h e l a s t
range where $450 was used.
Ho

6.

There i s no d i f f e r e n c e in husbands' and w iv e s' p e r c e p t i o n s o f
t h e monetary value o f t h e i r household p ro duc tio n c o n t r i b u t i o n .

The pe rceiv ed val ue o f t h e twelve p ro du c tio n a c t i v i t i e s was summed
f o r each husband and wife (Table 22).

The r e s u l t i n g average e s t i m a t e

f o r husbands was $1,390 and f o r wives was $1,346.
the

difference

husbands

and

between
wives

the

av erages

contributions

was

would

not
equal

Analyzed by a t - t e s t ,
significant.
an

av erage

Combined
of

$2,736

c o n t r i b u t e d a n n u a ll y t o family income through household p ro d u c ti o n .
C o n s i s t e n t with th e f i n d i n g s t h a t husbands and wives did d i f f e r e n t
types o f a c t i v i t i e s ,

t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e value the y c o n t r i b u t e d

v a r i e d by c at e g o ry and by amount.

The husbands pe rc ei ve d they c o n t r i ­

buted over $200 per y e a r t o each o f th e a c t i v i t i e s :

home c a r e and

r e p a i r , c a r c a r e and r e p a i r , and d o - i t - y o u r s e l f p r o j e c t s .

Only in th e

area of home c a r e and r e p a i r did th e wives p e r c e iv e they c o n t r i b u t e d
over $200 pe r y e a r .

Husbands had two c a t e g o r i e s :

y a r d , lawn, and o t h e r

outdoor work and gardening in th e $100-200 pe r y e a r range.
had seven a c t i v i t i e s in t h i s group.

The wives

The lowest amount o f c o n t r i b u t i o n

108

Table 2 2 . —Comparison of Perce ived Value o f Household Production by
Husbands and Wives
(Summer 1980, Michigan Household Production Study)
Value ( in D o l l a r s ) ______
Husbands

Wives

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

T
Value

Care c a r e and r e p a i r

218.93

268.61

102.10

30.06

6.89

.001****

Car p o o l i n g , walking

74.53

14.58

48.13

17.28

2.04

.044**

Care f o r c h i l d r e n

87.15

21.30

178.51

69.44

-4.0 7

2.34

1.01

4.43

0.88

-.73

.467

268.48

117.06

23.68

5.76

.001****

76.63

13.33

167.05

82.14

-5.41

.001****

Gardening

118.46

64.29

116.35

69.44

.16

Home c a r e and r e p a i r

309.35

283.88

231.08

270.16

4.19

.001****

Hunting and f i s h i n g

46.26

12.27

27.57

6.08

1.89

.062*

Personal car e

33.88

20.17

89.95

36.59

-5.0 5

.001****

Sewing, h o b b ie s , c r a f t s

25.95

5.33

128.50

68.30

-7.25

.001****

175.70

85.55

134.81

71.35

2.53

.013**

.51

.613

Activity

Care f o r f a m ily members b

D o - i t - y o u r s e l f p r o j e c t s 220.79
Food p r e s e r v a t i o n

Yard, lawn, outdoor
car e
Total

1 ,389.95

1 ,345.56

Sign.

.001****

.872

f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t a b l e r e p r e s e n t th e mean number o f a c t i v i t i e s
. s e l f - r e p o r t e d by respon den ts f o r each c ate gory
n f o r t h i s item was smal l: 8 f o r husbands and 7 f o r wives
*Sign. a t .10 le vel
**Sign. a t .05 le vel
****Sign. a t .001 level
was in t h e c a te g o ry o f c a r i n g f o r o t h e r fam ily members, where l e s s than
7.5 p e r c e n t o f th e husbands and wives
this

pr od uc tio n

activity.

indicated

A more d e t a i l e d

they p a r t i c i p a t e d

report

of the

in

prod uc tio n

109

a c t i v i t i e s and t h e p e rceiv ed monetary val ues i s in Appendix C-3.

This

evidence does not su pport Ho 6 and t h e hy poth e si s was r e j e c t e d .
Ho

7.

There i s no d i f f e r e n c e in husbands' and wives' p e r c e p ti o n s of
th e monetary value o f t h e i r household pro duct io n c o n t r i b u t i o n
a c c ord in g t o :

location of residence,

family income, family

employment s t a t u s , and household s i z e .
There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in th e p e rc ei v e d value o f the
household

pro du ction

when

location of residence.

considering

The r u r a l

the

husbands'

respon ses

by

group e s t i m a t e d t h e amount of money

c o n t r i b u t e d through household p ro du c tio n t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than
t h e o t h e r gro up s , a t t h e .05 l e v e l .

The o t h e r v a r i a b l e s , family income,

fami ly employment s t a t u s , and household s i z e did not make any s i g n i f i ­
cant

difference

activities

in

the

p e r c e p ti o n

of

the

value

of

by e i t h e r husbands o r wives (Appendix C-4).

the

produ ction

There was one

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e r e f o r e Ho 7 was r e j e c t e d .
Summary
The

three

activities,

categories

for

analysis

were:

household

produ ction

household production d e c i s i o n c h o i c e s , and pe rc eiv ed value

o f household p ro d u c ti o n .

A general f i n d i n g a c r o s s a l l t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s

was t h a t husbands and wives d i f f e r g r e a t l y

in t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n

in

household p r o d u c t i o n ; s p e c i f i c a l l y in types o f a c t i v i t i e s , in perc eived
household pro du ctio n d e c i s i o n c h o i c e s , and pe rce ive d value of t h e i r own
household p ro duc tio n c o n t r i b u t i o n .
wives'

For t h i s re a s o n , the husbands' and

responses were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y

in

this

r e s e a r c h with th e

e x c e p ti o n o f th e family s co r e which was designed t o measure th e t o t a l
amount o f household pro duction pe r family.

no
Under perc eive d household pro duction a c t i v i t i e s , i t was found t h a t
th e husbands and wives in t h i s study p a r t i c i p a t e d more in th e w i t h i n th e
home and family a c t i v i t i e s
munity a c t i v i t i e s .
activities

compared t o th e o u t s i d e th e home and com­

Husbands did s i g n i f i c a n t l y more household pro duction

than wives.

I t must be remembered t h a t t h i s stu dy did not

examine family involvement in ma intenance-type household a c t i v i t i e s such
as c l e a n i n g ,
active.

cooking,

and laundry where wives a r e

likely

t o be more

Despite t h e f i n d i n g t h a t husbands p a r t i c i p a t e more in produc­

t i o n , both husbands and wives were a c t i v e in household pro duction and
did more than 50 p e r c e n t o f th e a c t i v i t i e s
activities.

of 178 p o s s i b l e

These 178 p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s inc lud ed o p ti o n s f o r f a m i l i e s

with varying s k i l l s
them a l l .

in a t o t a l

and i n t e r e s t s .

Fam ilies were not expected t o do

Husbands and wives followed t r a d i t i o n a l sex r o l e p a t t e r n s in

t h e i r ch oice o f p ro duc tio n a c t i v i t i e s .
Various
household

demographic

pr od u c ti o n .

factors
The

had

significant

factors

c on si de re d

relationships
were:

location

with
of

r e s i d e n c e , family income, family employment s t a t u s , and household s i z e .
I t was found t h a t r u r a l f a m i l i e s were t h e most a c t i v e in in-home produc­
tion,

but

activities.
highest

th e

small

town

fam ilies

were

more

involved

in

out-home

Compared to o t h e r w iv es, wives from small towns were th e

producers

in

both

in-

and out-home a c t i v i t i e s .

Considering

family income, th e most in-home pr od uc tio n was done by t h e lowest income
group who were a l s o

the

lowest in

the

out-home c a te g o r y .

The next

h i g h e s t in-home pro duction group was t h e $25,000-29,999 income group who
were a l s o th e h i g h e s t out-home group.

J u xt ap os in g th e lowest income

group with th e hig h e r income group, r e s u l t s o f t h i s study rev e ale d t h a t
th e lowest income group a c t i v e l y works i n s i d e th e home, bu t i s much l e s s

Ill

involved with prod uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e th e home, w hile th e g r e a t e r
income group was hi g h ly involved in both home and community.

Concerning

family employment, t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in production
between s i n g l e - and d u a l - e a r n e r f a m i l i e s with t h e excepti on o f wives'
in-home a c t i v i t i e s .

Household s i z e a s s o c i a t e d with prod uc tio n had few

sig n ific a n t differences.
In th e stu dy o f perc eiv ed household produ ct ion c h o i c e s , husbands
and wives responded t h a t t h e family did most of t h e a c t i v i t i e s

(63-65

p e r c e n t ) , they h i r e d or bought l e s s (17-21 p e r c e n t ) , they omitted very
l i t t l e (1-2 p e r c e n t ) , and some a c t i v i t i e s did not apply to t h e i r s i t u a ­
t i o n (12-18 p e r c e n t ) .
perceptions.

D if f e re n c e s again emerged in husbands' and wives'

Wives thoug ht f a m i l i e s did more, and h i r e d and bought more

than did t h e husbands.
did not ap ply .
responded t h a t

Husbands thought more a c t i v i t i e s were omitte d or

When analyzed by t h e demographic f a c t o r s , r u r a l wives
their

families

did more than wives from o t h e r a r e a s .

Urban wives responded t h a t fewer household produ ction a c t i v i t i e s a p p li e d
t o them in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n compared t o o t h e r wives.

Those husbands and

wives with t h e h i g h e s t income a l s o bought o r h i r e d th e most goods and
services.

D u a l- e a rn e r wives

also

indicated

that

they

bought

more.

Additional a n a l y s i s pin p o in te d t h i s d i f f e r e n c e as being paid c h i l d c a r e .
Household s i z e again made no d i f f e r e n c e .
In th e stu dy of perc eiv ed value o f household p ro d u c ti o n , husbands
perc eiv ed t h a t they c o n t r i b u t e d s l i g h t l y more t o family income than the
wives with t h e i r produ ct ion work.
fa mi ly

income

annually.

This

Together they added over $2,700 t o

estimate

household produ ct ion as only 12 s p e c i f i c

may be

low f o r

their

total

items were counted and $450

value was used in c a l c u l a t i n g the "over $450" c a te g o r y .

This value may

112

be l e s s than th e respondents assumed.

The only d i f f e r e n c e according to

th e demographic v a r i a b l e s i s t h a t r u r a l husbands valued t h e i r c o n t r i b u ­
t i o n h ig h e r than husbands from o t h e r l o c a t i o n s .

Chapter 5

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This summary c h a p t e r i n c lu d e s an overview of th e study with major
c on c lu s io n s and an i n t e g r a t i o n o f th e f i n d i n g s with r e l a t e d

studies.

Also in cl ude d a r e i m p l i c a t i o n s and s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .
Overview of t h e Study
Household p ro duc tio n i s one method by which f a m i l i e s can meet t h e i r
needs e s p e c i a l l y in time of economic d i f f i c u l t y .

The major purpose of

this

household

st udy

was

to

examine

v a r io u s

facets

of

pro duction

i n c l u d i n g t h e kinds o f household pro duct ion done, p ro duc tio n d e c i s i o n
c h o i c e s , and t h e p e rc ei v e d val ue o f household p ro d u c ti o n .
taken
Family

from a l a r g e r
Income"

fami ly was

the

stu dy

(Michigan
unit

of

"Contributions
A gricultural

analysis.

The d a ta were

o f Household Production

Station

P r o j e c t 1363H).

The sample was

107 f a m i l i e s

urb an , small town, and r u r a l l o c a t i o n s in mid-Michigan.

to
The

from

Each husband,

w i f e , and o l d e s t c h i l d (between th e ages of s i x and twelve) were given a
self-adm inistered
were

used

for

questionnaire.
this

analysis

comparable in a l l c a t e g o r i e s .
in husbands'

and wives'

th e v a r i a b l e s o f:

Only husbands'
because

data

and w i v e s ’ responses

from

children

were

not

Data were analyzed t o examine d i f f e r e n c e s

responses and t o examine th e r e l a t i o n s h i p with

l o c a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e , family income, family

113

114

employment

status,

and household s i z e .

Statistical

tests

used were

a n a l y s i s of v a r ia n c e and p a i r e d t - t e s t .
The major c on c lu s io n s o f t h e study were:
1.

Husbands and wives p a r t i c i p a t e
th e

average,

families

in household p r o d u c t i o n .

did over 50 p e r c e n t of t h e

On

178 t o t a l

p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s in t h i s s tu d y .
2.

Husbands and wives p a r t i c i p a t e d more in p ro du c tio n a c t i v i t i e s
in v ol vi n g t h e i r own fa m ily than in pro du ct io n i nv ol v in g o t h e r
f a m i l i e s and t h e community.

3.

Husbands

and

activities
activities

in

wives

differ

which

they

significantly
participate.

in

the

Husbands

ty pe s
did

of
more

inv ol vi ng t h e fa m ily (in-home) and wives did more

with o t h e r f a m i l i e s and t h e community (out-home).
did more home and c a r c a r e and r e p a i r ,

and y a r d ,

Husbands
lawn, and

outdoor work w hil e wives c o n t r i b u t e d more t o sewing, h o b b ie s ,
and

crafts,

food

preservation,

personal

and

child

b a r t e r i n g s e r v i c e s , usin g community r e c r e a t i o n a l

care,

and medical

s e r v i c e s , shopping and r e c y c l i n g .
4.

More pr od u c ti o n a c t i v i t i e s

were done by husbands

and wives

working t o g e t h e r a n d / o r wi th a n o th e r fami ly member or f r i e n d
than by e i t h e r of them working a l o n e .
5.

Generally,
services
one-fifth.
ties

did

fam ilies
utilized

produced
in

the

three-fifths

hou sehold,

of

and

th e

bought

goods and
or

hired

They i n d i c a t e d l e s s than o n e - f i f t h of th e a c t i v i ­
not apply to

them and c o n s c io u s ly

small number o f a c t i v i t i e s .

omitte d only a

115

6.

Husbands and wives each pe rceiv ed t h e i r household production
in s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s c o n t r i b u t e d on an average ove r $1,300 a
y e a r to t h e family income, i . e . , a t o t a l e s ti m a te d average of
over $2,700 pe r y e a r .

7.

None

of

the

demographic

variables

(location

of

residence,

fam ily income, fa m ily employment s t a t u s o r household s i z e ) had
a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e t o t a l
production,
However,

p erc eiv ed

there

were

alternatives,

amount of household

or

some s i g n i f i c a n t

pe rc eiv e d

va lue .

relationships

between

s p e c i f i c c a t e g o r i e s of pro duct io n done by husbands and wives
s e p a r a t e l y o r t o g e t h e r and v a r i a b l e s mentioned above.
8.

Wives'

respo nse s had more s i g n i f i c a n t

demographic

variables

than

c o r r e l a t i o n s with the

husbands'

re s p o n s e s .

Wives

had

28 s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s compared to 19 f o r t h e husbands.
The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s inc lu de d (1) wives from small town
and r u r a l a r e a s produced more than urban wives; (2) wives from
single-earner
earner

fam ilies

fam ilies

on

in-home

prod uc tio n a l t e r n a t i v e s ,
did

more

indicated

produced more than wives
activities;

rural

than

wives

from

fewer

activities

(3) when

from d u a l ­
examining

wives r e p o r t e d t h e i r f a m i l i e s
other

applied

areas;
to

(4) urban

them;

and

wives

(5) d u a l ­

e a r n e r wives i n d i c a t e d they h i r e d more c h i l d c a r e than o t h e r
wives.
9.

Both husbands and wives from th e h i g h e s t income le v e l r e p o rt e d
buying more goods and s e r v i c e s than husbands and wives from
o t h e r income l e v e l s .

116

10. Husbands
out-home

in

th e h i g h e s t

activities

income

compared

le v e l
to

reported

other

doing

more

husbands.

Rural

husbands r e p o r t e d a h i g h e r pe rce ive d value of t h e i r household
pro d uc tio n c o n t r i b u t i o n compared to o t h e r husbands.
Discus sio n o f Findings
A d i s c u s s i o n of t h e f i n d i n g s in c lu de s t h e re s e a r c h q u e s ti o n s posed
f o r t h i s s t u d y , t h e study f i n d i n g s and a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n ­
sh ip s with o t h e r r e s e a r c h . The f i r s t r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was:
1. To

what

ex ten t are

pro du ction ?
a.

fam ilies

participating

in

household

Are t h e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s i n :

Produ ction

activities

with f a m ily members)

done

inside

and o u t s i d e

th e

home

(basically

t h e home (with

other

f a m i l i e s and community o r g a n i z a t i o n s ) ?
b.

Husband and wife p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household production?

c.

Amount

of

residence,

involvement
fami ly

according

income,

to:

location

fa m ily employment s t a t u s ,

of
or

household s i z e ?
This

study

found

prod uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s .

that

fam ilies

did

participate

in

household

They g e n e r a l l y did t h e m a j o r i t y of work t h a t

they could h i r e someone e l s e t o do.

A unique a s p e c t of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s

t h a t i t inc lud ed a c t i v i t i e s done with o t h e r f a m i l i e s and th e community
as household p ro d u c ti o n .
The measure o f household production

used in t h i s

study was the

number o f household produ ct ion a c t i v i t i e s performed.

This i s a s i m i l a r

approach to t h a t taken by Owen and B e u t l e r (1981)

and the Church of

J esu s

Christ

of

Latter-day

Saints

(1980).

These

studies,

however,

117

sampled only a small number of p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s in comparison to th e
178 p o s s i b l e items in t h i s st udy.

Measurement o f household production

by t h e number of household produ ction a c t i v i t i e s
time

utilized

which

is

the

most

common

a l s o c o n t r a s t s with

measurement

of

household

activities.
The amount o f time s p en t in a t a s k has been th e major method of
measurement o f household p r o d u c ti o n .

I n t e r n a t i o n a l l y , Robinson e t a l . ,

(1972) re p o r t e d men and women sp en t equal time in household pro duction
ex cept f o r c h i l d c a r e where women sp en t more time.

The American data

(Robinson, 1977a) showed women spen t about 6 .9 hours a week in household
produ ct ion compared to men's A.2 ho ur s.

American women a l s o sp en t more

time in c h i l d c a r e than employed men.
This a n a l y s i s confirmed t h e f i n d i n g s of o t h e r s t u d i e s t h a t husbands
and wives a re involved in household p ro d u c ti o n .

Men were more involved

with a c t i v i t i e s inv ol vi ng th e immediate family (in-home) and women were
involved

more

with o t h e r

families

and

th e

community (out-home).

Comparing men and women, t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
perceptions

of

t h e i r own household

pro duction involvement.

in t h e i r

This

is

s i m i l a r to f i n d i n g s o f o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s t h a t husbands' and wives' r o l e s
a r e s p e c i a l i z e d and a re c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to sex r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s (Hill
and

Juster,

1980;

Lovinggood

and

Firebaugh,

1978;

Larson,

1974;

A l b r e c h t , Bahr, and Chadwick, 1979).
I t was a l s o found in the study t h a t husbands and wives p a r t i c i p a t e
more in household prod uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s t o g e t h e r or with a n o th er family
member than they do a l o n e .

This did not agree with da ta from Robinson

(1966) who found few j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s .
employed women

sp en t h a l f

of th e ir

Hefferan (1982a) re p o rt e d t h a t

household

pro duc tiv e time

alone,

118

o n e - t h i r d with a n o th er fam ily member and t h e r e s t with someone o t h e r
than a family member.

More stu dy needs t o be conducted on t h i s t o p i c to

determine i f a c t i v i t i e s are done by two o r more family members p a r t i c i ­
p a ti n g a t t h e same time in an a c t i v i t y , o r a t d i f f e r e n t times in the
same a c t i v i t y and t h e e f f e c t s of t h i s kind o f f a m i l i a l i n t e r a c t i o n .
The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f some demographic v a r i a b l e s t o household produc­
t i o n was examined.

This study found no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f geographic

l o c a t i o n , fam ily income, fami ly employment s t a t u s , o r household s i z e on
t h e amount o f household pro duct ion a t the .10 l e v e l .
with l o c a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e was meaningful

The r e l a t i o n s h i p

( a t t h e .14 l e v e l ) , however,

and more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s re v e a le d some s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s with
s p e c i f i c prod uc tio n a c t i v i t i e s .

Other r e s e a r c h on th e e f f e c t of the

v a ri o u s socio-economic v a r i a b l e s has been i n c o n s i s t e n t in th e r e s u l t s .
Owen and B e u t l e r (1981) found household s i z e , s t a g e in fam ily l i f e , and
size

of

community t o

production.

Robinson

be s t r o n g l y
(1966)

correlated

found

marital

to

amount of

status,

ty pe

household
of

house,

household s i z e , ed u ca ti o n of household head, l o c a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e , and
age

of

children

ex p la i n ed

household p ro d u c ti o n .
be i n s i g n i f i c a n t .

11 p e rc e n t

of

th e

v a r ia n c e

in

amount

of

L a t e r , Robinson (197/a) found household s i z e to

He a l s o found (1980) employment o f wife and presence

of c h i l d r e n and age of husband and wi fe to be impor tant f a c t o r s in time
s p en t

in

household

p ro d u c ti o n .

Walker and Woods

(1976)

found

that

employment of th e wife r e s u l t s in l e s s time in household work e xce pt f o r
th e household produ ction a c t i v i t i e s .

Others have r e p o r t e d th e d e c l i n e

in time s p en t in household work by employed women (San ik, 1981; O r ti z
et a l.,
found to

1981).

Education

have only

slight

of women,
effect

associated

on household

with

employment,

pro duction

was

(Owen and

119

Beutler,
1977a).

1981)

and

a

n e g a ti v e

effect

on

household

work

(Robinson,

Family income was found t o have no e f f e c t (Walker and Woods,

1976);

Robinson,

participation

1977a).

in

Eghan and Lawrence

household

work

unaffected

(1982)

found husbands'

by w i f e ' s

employment

or

e d u c a t i o n , occup ation o r age o f husband, fa m ily income o r season o f the
year.

The i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s from v a r io u s

researchers

su g g es t t h a t

methodologies of th e r e s e a r c h need to be examined t o determine i f they
a r e comparable.

Another source of d i s c r e p a n c i e s may be t h a t d e f i n i t i o n s

of household produ ct ion d i f f e r e d , and v a r io u s a c t i v i t i e s were inc luded
in th e s t u d i e s ,

and measurement te ch ni ques were not s ta n d a r d as some

used time s t u d i e s and o t h e r s used su rv ey s.
The second r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was:
2.

To what e x t e n t a r e f a m i l i e s producing goods, and s e r v i c e s f o r
themselves t h a t a r e commonly produced in t h e ma rketplace?

To

what e x t e n t a r e they buying o r h i r i n g t h e goods and s e r v i c e s ?
To what e x t e n t a r e th e y l e t t i n g t h e a c t i v i t y go undone?
activities

do not apply to

their

situation?

Which

Are t h e r e any

d ifferen ces in:
a.

Husband and wif e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in each of t h e s e choices?

b.

The

decision

residence,

cho ice s

f a m ily

income,

acc ording

to:

location

fa m ily employment s t a t u s ,

of
or

household s i z e ?
In

considering

household

pr od uc tio n

ch oi ce s

for

six

activity

c a t e g o r i e s , t h i s study found husbands and wives g e n e r a l l y responded t h a t
th e family did 63-65 p e r c e n t o f th e a c t i v i t i e s .

This i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t

f a m i l i e s do c o n s i d e r household prod uc tio n as a v i a b l e way to meet t h e i r
needs using t h e i r own human r e s o u r c e s .

They r e p o r t e d h i r i n g or buying

120

only o n e - t h i r d as much as they produced (17-21 p e r c e n t ) .

Slightly less

r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e a c t i v i t i e s did not apply to them in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n
(12-28 p e r c e n t ) .
omitting

Only a few husbands and wives

activities

(1-2 p e r c e n t ) .

An alysis

r e p o r t e d c o n sc io us ly

according

t o demographic

f a c t o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t r u r a l wives p e rc ei v e d g r e a t e r prod uc tio n w it h in
t h e i r f a m i l i e s compared t o o t h e r wives.
wives

reported th a t

significantly

Compared t o o t h e r wive s, urban

fewer a c t i v i t i e s

applied

to

them.

This could be due t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e urban s e t t i n g such as
c l o s e prox im ity t o s t o r e s and s u p p l i e r s o f goods and s e r v i c e s and a la c k
of

a

tr a d itio n of

p ro d u c ti o n .

Husbands and wives

income l e v e l bought t h e most goods and s e r v i c e s .
they would presumably
groups.

have more d i s p o s a b l e

D u a l- e a r n e r wives

indicated

s e r v i c e s more than o t h e r wives.

with

highest

This seems l o g i c a l as

income than o t h e r

they bought o r

Addition al

th e

analysis

hired

income

goods and

showed t h e only

d i f f e r e n c e between wives in s i n g l e and d u a l - e a r n e r f a m i l i e s

in h i r i n g

s e r v i c e s t o be in t h e c a t e g o r y o f paid c h i l d c a r e .
Robinson (1966) d id some major r e s e a r c h on th e t o p i c of household
pro d uc tio n ch oic e s as he examined f a m i l i e s '
and use of o u t s i d e h e l p .

ch oice o f work o r l e i s u r e

He found t h e use of o u t s i d e h e l p , both paid

and f r e e h e l p , was i n f l u e n c e d by t h e income of t h e fam ily head; gender
and m a r i t a l s t a t u s of r e s po nden t; w i f e ' s employment, e d u c a t i o n , and age,
hours worked by fam ily head; and age of youngest c h i l d under 18.

When

hours of h i r e d he lp were compared a g a i n s t hours o f household p ro d u c ti o n ,
the

fo ll o wi n g v a r i a b l e s

influenced

th e

findings:

gender and m a ri ta l

s t a t u s o f head o f - f a m i l y ; w i f e ' s age and amount o f employment; income of
head,

size

of community,

and

age

of youngest

child

under

18.

Con siderin g t h e demographic v a r i a b l e s , S t r o b e r and Weinberg (1980) found

121

little

difference

between

s e r v i c e s of o t h e r s .

employed

and

nonemployed

wives

in

hiring

T he ir f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with t h e f i n d i n g s of

t h i s a n a l y s i s with t h e ex cep tio n o f c h i l d c a r e .
Other r e s e a r c h
that

named

household
1980).

lack

on household pr od uc tio n ch oic e s

of

knowledge,

pro d u c ti o n

(Church

Implied from t h i s

time

of

and

J es u s

finding

is

money

Christ
that

the

i n c lu d e s

a study

factors

lim iting

Latter-day

Saints,

as

of

presence o f ne ce s sa ry

re s o u r c e s would f a c i l i t a t e household p ro du c tio n and la ck o f r e s o u rc e s
such as s k i l l s , t i m e , knowledge, o r ph ys ic a l m a t e r i a l s may cause persons
t o buy t h e good o r s e r v i c e or fo re go i t .

Following t h e th e o ry t h a t

people do t a s k s the y p r e f e r (H il l and J u s t e r , 1980) s ev e ra l p u b l i c a t i o n s
have

named

(Steidl

characteristics

and B r a t t o n ,

1968;

1967; and Maloch, 1963).

of

preferred

N ickel!,

R ic e,

and

least

preferred

and Tucker,

1967;

tasks
Wysiel,

In l i g h t of th e t h e o r y , f a m i l i e s may p r e f e r

household p ro du c tio n ove r h i r i n g perhaps due t o t h e i n h e r e n t c h a r a c t e r ­
i s t i c s of p r o d u c t i o n , i . e . , c h a l l e n g i n g , rew ard ing , and n o n ro u ti n e .
This stu dy found t h a t husbands and wives percei ve d t h e i r annual
c o n t r i b u t i o n s of household pro du ction t o t h e f a m ily income t o be over
$1,300 f o r each spouse.

Husbands and wives d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y in

th e amounts th e y pe rc eiv e d they c o n t r i b u t e d in each c a te g o ry o f house­
hold

p r o d u c ti o n .

question 1
household

that

This
there

p ro du c tio n

corresponds
were

to

significant

involvement

by men

th e

findings

differences
and

women.

in

re s e a r c h

in

pe rc eiv ed

Rural

husbands

pe rc ei v e d they c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than husbands from urban
locations.
The most comparable study (Morgan e t a l . ,

1962) a l s o r e p o r t e d on

th e monetary value of th e pro duc ts o f household p r o d u c t i o n .

Value was

122

ob ta in e d

on only

compared.

two a c t i v i t i e s ,

Morgan e t a l . ,

however,

so t o t a l

value

cannot

be

(1962) found th o s e t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d the most

thorough household pr od uc tio n were young o r newly r e t i r e d f a m i l i e s , home
owners, f a m i l i e s with young c h i l d r e n , and th o s e l i v i n g in small or r u r a l
towns.

Fam ilies with heads with a h i g h e r income le ve l

than o t h e r f a m i l i e s .

produced more

Many of th e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f f a m i l i e s with a

high val ue f o r pr od uc tio n d e s c r i b e the f a m i l i e s used in the sample f o r
t h e p r e s e n t s tu dy.

This i n d i c a t e s t h a t th e sample f o r t h i s study i s a

more hi g h ly pr o d u c ti v e group than t h e normal range o f t h e po pu la tio n and
t h e r e f o r e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of the value o f t h e i r produ ction might be
h i g h e r than t h e av er ag e .
In a d d i t i o n t o v al u in g household prod uc tio n as a monetary b e n e f i t
f o r f a m i l i e s , o t h e r s t u d i e s have been concerned with va luing household
work f o r t h e GNP ( P e s k i n ,
1978).

1982; Gauger and Walker,

1973; and Murphy,

Using t h e s p e c i a l i s t c o s t te c h n i q u e , women's household produc­

t i o n a n n u a ll y i s valued a t $2,719 and men's i s $2,356 (P es ki n, 1982).
They found t h a t employment s t a t u s ,

number of e a r n e r s

in t h e fa m i l y ,

presence o f c h i l d r e n , a g e , and own e a r n in g s a l l caused value of house­
hold work t o vary f o r women.

I t would be d i f f i c u l t t o compare t h e value

of p ro du c tio n computed f o r th e GNP and t h e value found from th e p r e s e n t
study as t h e p r e s e n t stu dy used twelve s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s and th e GNP
s t u d i e s used time d i a r i e s which would cov er more a c t i v i t i e s as th e b a s i s
fo r valuation.

I t i s n o t a b l e t h a t in one study t h e men's prod uc tio n was

valued h i g h e r and in the o t h e r women's had th e h i g h e r v a lu e .

Employment

was not found t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e in deter min ing the perceived
val ue o f household p ro du c tio n in the p r e s e n t stud y as i t was in the GNP
studies.

123

The c o n s i d e r a t i o n of th e monetary value of household pr od uc tio n is
not meant t o imply t h a t i t s only worth i s i t s d o l l a r v a lu e .

Monetary

value was one focus of th e p r e s e n t study and was a c onven ie nt comparison
t o use f o r wo rth.

However, th e value of household produ ct ion in human

c a p i t a l development o r in f a m i l i a l i n t e r a c t i o n time could be e q u a l l y or
more v a lu ab le t o th e people inv olved.
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research
This study i d e n t i f i e d and d e s c r ib e d many dimensions o f household
pro d u c ti o n .

It

i d e n t i f i e d what a c t i v i t i e s

doing them from among husbands and wives.

a r e being done and who i s

Out o f f o u r p o s s i b l e d e c i s i o n

c h o i c e s , th e study r e s u l t s showed th e most f r e q u e n t d e c i s i o n was to have
someone in th e fam ily do i t , followed by buying or h i r i n g t h e t a s k done.
Husbands and wives a l s o p e rc ei ve d t h e i r household prod uc tio n work as
being a c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e f a m i l y ' s

re a l

income.

Research needs to

co n ti n u e t o gain a c l e a r und ers tan din g of th e many f a c e t s of household
pro d u c ti o n .
household

If

this

production,

study were
this

re p e a te d

researcher

to

would

increase
recommend

knowledge
that

on

sev e ra l

changes be made.
1.

The sample would draw from a wider v a r i e t y of f a m i l i e s than
were surveyed in t h i s stu dy.

I t could in c lu d e t h e range from

c h i l d l e s s young couples to r e t i r e d o l d e r c o up les .
a llow much more d i v e r s i t y

in th e v a r i a b l e ,

This would

household s i z e .

One reason why household s i z e did not prove to be a s i g n i f i ­
cant variable

(as

in B e u t l e r and Owen,

1981) may have been

t h a t the f a m i l i e s in t h i s study were too homogeneous in n a t u r e
due to the c o n s t r a i n t in s e l e c t i o n based on th e age of the

124

oldest

child.

illustrating

A study

of

life

c y c le

th e

a

greater
could

also

variety

of

families

shed

light

on the

development o f some pro duction s k i l l s and perhaps a de cr ea se
in o t h e r s .
i n c lu de d.

S in gl e a d u l t and s i n g l e p a r e n t f a m i l i e s should be
Children over 12 y e a r s o ld could a l s o be surveyed

as a v a r i e t y o f f a m i l i e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d .
changes in income and how t h i s

affects

Also t h e e f f e c t of
household produ ct ion

ch oi ce s could be s t u d i e d with a v a r i e t y o f f a m i l i e s .
2.

Questions on d e c i s i o n ch oices would be asked f o r a g r e a t e r
number of household prod uc tio n

activities,

especially

a c t i v i t i e s done by fewer number o f r e s p o n d e n ts .
in c lu de

community

activities

yes-no re s p o n s e s .
activities

where

There i s

only

These would
data

a re

th e

no in for ma ti on as t o why t h e s e

were n o t performed

perhaps bought o r h i r e d ) .

the

th o s e

(i.e .,

c o n s c io u s ly om itt ed or

More a c t i v i t i e s ( e s p e c i a l l y in th e

out-home c at e g o ry ) would in c lu d e a q u e st i o n on t h e perc eiv ed
value.

Perhaps one reason why people a r e not p a r t i c i p a t i n g in

out-home a c t i v i t i e s is because they p e r c e iv e t h e i r e f f o r t s in
t h i s a re a as having l i t t l e v a l u e .
3.

Additional
p ro d u c ti o n .
few
Other

questions

need

to

be

in cl ude d

The f o u r demographic v a r i a b l e s

significant
questions

relationships
reg a rd in g

the

with

about

household

studied offered

household

psych olo gi cal

pro d u c ti o n .
m o ti v a ti o n a l

f a c t o r s f o r household prod uc tio n need t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d such
as:

p re f e r e n c e f o r pro duction a c t i v i t i e s , personal s a t i s f a c ­

t i o n from p ro d u c ti o n , p e r c e p t i o n s of what a c t i v i t i e s a person
does w e l l ,

and th e

process

benefits

of

production.

These

125

f i n d i n g s could be a p p l i e d t o t h e t h e o r i e s of H ill and J u s t e r
(1980) and J u s t e r e t a l . ,

(1980).

The p r e s e n t study o f f e r e d

l i t t l e d a ta t h a t could be a p p l i e d t o t h e s e t h e o r i e s .
Research
study

to

can be expanded from t h e

investigate

e c o lo g i c a l

research,

the

descriptive

f a m ily e c o l o g i c a l

in s tr u m e n ts

model.

findings

of t h i s

To c o n t r i b u t e

to

need t o be developed t o a ddre ss th e

i s s u e of household pro duct io n s p e c i f i c a l l y .

As e c o l o g i c a l

re s e a r c h is

s t i l l de v e lo p i n g , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r would l i k e t o s u g g e s t two p e r s p e c t i v e s
as p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .

One p e r s p e c t i v e would examine the

flow o f re s o u r c e s in t h e p ro du c tio n p r o c e s s , and t h e second would be t o
study t h e e f f e c t o f v a ri ous environments on household p ro d u c ti o n .
The o b j e c t i v e of th e f i r s t p e r s p e c t i v e would be th e d e te r m in a ti o n
o f t h e i n p u t s , t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s and o u tp u ts of the p ro du c tio n p ro c e s s ,
inp u ts

would

in c lu d e

pe rc eive d pr od uc tio n
Educational le v e l
in th e su rv e y.

both

human and m a t e r i a l

skills

r e s o u rc e s

of household members as

th e

human r e s o u r c e s .

Also th e p e rc ei v e d a v a i l a b i l i t y of m a t e r i a l

im por tan t as i n p u t s .

resources,

(f am il y and f r i e n d s )

would be

This could be compared t o t h e a c t u a l a v a i l a b i l i t y

o f m a t e r i a l s and inf or m at io n r e s o u r c e s in t h e community.

this

as

i s not t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f s k i l l s , but may be included

i n f o r m a t i o n , and o t h e r human r e s o u rc e s

in t h i s

such

For example,

s t u d y , f r e e sou rces of in fo rm at io n were not widely used , but

could

be

due

to

respondents'

a v a i l a b i l i t y in th e community.

lack

of

awareness

of

their

Tr ans for m ations in c lu d e the proce ss and

t e c h n i c a l d e c i s i o n s using t h e i n p u t s .

Questions on proce ss b e n e f i t s and

competence could i d e n t i f y th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a v a i l a b l e in p u ts
and

outputs.

The

present

stu dy

basically

described

the

o u tp u ts

or

produc ts o f household pr od uc tio n and the number o f a c t i v i t i e s inv olved.

126

Also included as o u tp u ts a re th e s a t i s f a c t i o n s with the good or s e r v i c e
produced.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p of th e output o f household production and

th e in pu t and t r a n s fo rm a ti o n process needs to be s t u d i e d .

The re sea rc h

of Owen and B e u t l e r (1981) used a household production index (composed
o f seven production items) which were analyzed in a path a n a l y s i s model
measuring d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between f a c t o r s .

This i s an

e c o l o g i c a l l y o r i e n t e d study and i t s concepts could be g r e a t l y expanded.
The second p e r s p e c t i v e in th e e co lo g i c a l study of household a c t i v i ­
t i e s would be to i n v e s t i g a t e e f f e c t s of variou s environments on produc­
tion.

The model f o r re s ea rc h would in c lu de both immediate environments

and thos e t h a t

a r e more d i s t a n t from the fa mi ly . The immediate e n v ir o n ­

ments

personal

include

production

skills,

traditions

of

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

attitudes,

pro duction

and
w it h in

family members

preferences.

Of

th e family

in c lu d in g :

concern

may

be

as i n t e r - g e n e r a t i o n a l

t r a n s f e r s may a f f e c t s k i l l s , a t t i t u d e s , and p r e f e r e n c e s .

Other c h a r a c ­

t e r i s t i c s of t h e immediate environment includ e access to r e s o u rc e s such
as money,

ti m e ,

and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n .

The second environmental

le vel

would includ e th e s i z e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e community, number, and
a c c e s s i b i l i t y of f r i e n d s
production

process,

and r e l a t i v e s who may be a res our ce in the

accessibility

to

re s ou rce s

a t t i t u d e s towards pro duction in t h e community.

and

traditions

and

The t h i r d environmental

le ve l would in cl ude the c l i m a t e , g e o g r a p h i c a l , and economic c h a r a c t e r i s ­
t i c s of the general re g io n .

I f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l comparison o f household

production a c t i v i t i e s were d e s i r e d , t h i s le vel may include the e n t i r e
country

or

region

n e c e s s a r i l y be

of

the

world.

Analysis

both w it h in and between l e v e l s .

of

th e s e

d a ta

A statistical

would
method

such as m u l t i - l e v e l a n a l y s i s which has only been used on classroom and

127

school

e du c a ti o n a l

situations

up

to

this

point

may

be

a

useful

analytical tool.
The proposed r e s e a r c h would ask a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s t o more f u l l y
u nde rs tand t h e de cis ion-making pro ce ss w i t h i n t h e e c o lo g i c a l
related

to

household p r o d u c t i o n .

For example,

are

there

framework
any s o c ia l

environmental c o n s t r a i n t s such as a stigma a g a i n s t homemade o b j e c t s or
d o -it-y o u rself projects?

Are t h e r e phys ical c o n s t r a i n t s , i . e . , type of

home o r t o o l s o r geog raph ical l o c a t i o n w i t h i n th e United S t a t e s ?
Geographical l o c a t i o n may be a s i g n i f i c a n t e c o lo g i c a l v a r i a b l e to
consider.
re gi on

There i s

with

production,

little

va ryi ng

in f o r m at io n on the e f f e c t o f geographical

climates

Morgan e t a l . ,

and

(1962)

economic

conditions

found region

to

on

household

be a s i g n i f i c a n t

f a c t o r in th e monetary val ue o f household produ ct ion as th e N ort he ast
regio n
Central

produced more by value
re gio ns which

in

comparison t o

produced t h e

least.

the

South and North

They s p e c u l a t e d

that

the

N o rt h e a s t produced more because t h e r e i s no l a r g e supply of inexpensive
l a b o r t o do household work, t h e r e a re high p r i c e s f o r produce because of
m e t r o p o l i t a n m a r k e ts , t h e t r a d i t i o n
jo b s a v a i l a b l e .
food p r i c e s .

of s e l f - r e l i a n c e and fewer second

The South, in c o n t r a s t , has inexpen siv e l a b o r and lower

However, a d d i t i o n a l

study needs t o be done on t h i s t o p i c

e s p e c i a l l y with th e h i g h e r inc id e nc e of household produ ct ion in r u r a l
and small town a r e a s .
Spec ial stu dy needs to be done on t h e i n f l u e n c e of th e environment
upon wives and how t h i s a f f e c t s household p ro d u c ti o n .

Overall

in the

p r e s e n t s t u d y , wives' household pro du ct io n was a s s o c i a t e d o n e - t h i r d more
with t h e demographic v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d compared t o t h e i r husbands.
could

indicate

t h a t women's p a r t i c i p a t i o n

This

in household pro duction

is

128

more s e n s i t i v e

to

environmental

men's p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

and s i t u a t i o n a l

Perhaps t h i s

r e s e a r c h has shown, t o housework.

constraints

than

is

i s due to t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

as

As shown in t h i s s tu d y , women appear

t o be u t i l i z i n g a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of environmental r e s o u rc e s than men to
meet

the

needs

of

the

networks and l i n k a g e s

household.

They

have

most

likely

b u i l t up

in the community t o accomplish t h e i r purposes.

D i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s appear to o f f e r d i f f e r e n t r e s o u rc e s f o r t h e wives.
Those from small towns were h i g h e r in food p r e s e r v a t i o n and community
medical car e than o t h e r wives whereas r u r a l wives were h ig h e r in y a r d ,
lawn, and outdoor c a r e .

Urban wives appear t o have decided t h a t they

were l i m i t e d in t h e i r production p o s s i b i l i t i e s as they responded t h a t
home c ar e and r e p a i r , sewing, hob b ie s, and c r a f t s and y a r d , lawn, and
outdoor work did not ap ply .

This p e rc e p ti o n de ser ve s more study as most

f a m i l i e s in t h e study were buying t h e i r own home and would have s i m i l a r
pro duct ion p o s s i b i l i t i e s
Also,

rural

compared

w it h in th e home even i f yards were l i m i t e d .

women pe rceiv ed g r e a t e r prod uc tio n w it h in

to

other

wives.

Could

rural

wives

be

t h e i r fam ilies

more

conscious

of

pro duction p o s s i b i l i t i e s due t o a s o c i a l o r p r e f e r e n c e value they p la ce
on i t ?

Could urban wives be undervalu ing t h e i r pro duction due t o t h e i r

d i s t a n c e from a former a g r a r i a n e x i s t e n c e ?

These a re q u e s ti o n s

that

remain t o be r e s e a r c h e d .
Study on household prod uc tio n in i n t e r n a t i o n a l

s e t t i n g s should be

c o ntin ue d.

Sz a la i (1972) r e p o rt e d on time use and household pro duction

in

countries.

twelve

industrialized

European

Most

of

the

countries.

study

sites

Some

of

the

in

th e
major

study

were

e c o lo g i c a l

v a r i a b l e s t o c o n s i d e r in i n t e r n a t i o n a l household pro duct io n s t u d i e s a r e :
(1) physica l

environment

in c lu d in g

the a v a i l a b i l i t y

of

r e s o u rc e s

and

129

geographical

characteristics;

(2) human-constructed

in c lu d in g

type

of

the

and

(3) human-behavioral

nature

environment

home

and

in c l u d i n g

th e

power

environment
s o u rc e s ;

social

and

environment

( n a t u r e o f th e c l a s s system and e x p e c t a t i o n s , general locus of c o n t r o l ,
na t u r e of th e fa m ily s t r u c t u r e , and a v a i l a b i l i t y and a c c e s s i b i l i t y of
in fo rm at io n) and th e economic environment (degree o f mo de rnization and
industrialization

of

the

c o u n tr y ,

fam ily

a v a i l a b i l i t y of paid o r h i r e d s e r v i c e s ) .
countries

may be a way f o r

people

to

income

levels

and

th e

Household prod uc tio n in some
raise

their

le v el

of

living

e s p e c i a l l y in th e extended family s i t u a t i o n where human r e s o u rc e s are
present.

In o t h e r

countries,

household

prod uc tio n

may be

the

only

a l t e r n a t i v e as t h e r e a r e no paid s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e t o s u b s t i t u t e f o r
family l a b o r o r where fami ly incomes a r e too low t o a f f o r d bought goods
and s e r v i c e s .

An i n t e r n a t i o n a l

study on household pr od uc tio n may be

able to assess the c ro ss-c u ltu ral
th e p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s .

g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of t h e f i n d i n g s of

I t could a l s o a i d th o s e involved in i n t e r n a t i o n a l

development programs in t h e i r e f f o r t s t o he lp f a m i l i e s and economies in
l e s s e r developed a r e a s .
I m p l ic a ti o n s
The f i n d i n g s

of t h i s

study can be a p p l i e d by family e d u c a t o r s ,

community l e a d e r s , and thos e in b u s i n e s s .

Family e du ca to rs could use

the f i n d i n g s f o r infor mat ion about f a m ily economic p r a c t i c e s and family
members'

roles.

contribution

Economically,

income through household pr o d u c ti o n .

Home

car e and r e p a i r i s th e major c o n t r i b u t i n g c at e g o ry of a c t i v i t i e s .

Many

activities

to t h e i r re a l

i t was found t h a t f a m i l i e s can make a

that

could

contribute

to

real

income were

not

utilized,

130

especially

inv ol vi ng o t h e r f a m i l i e s

and t h e

community.

savi ngs and i n v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s were t r a d i t i o n a l
facilities

were

not

widely

used.

Fami lie s

For example,

and community medical

could

be

encouraged

to

i d e n t i f y and p a r t i c i p a t e in community a c t i v i t i e s t h a t would c o n t r i b u t e
t o t h e i r re a l income.
current

division

In family r o l e s , t h i s study c l e a r l y d e s c r i b e d the

of

household

pr od uc tio n

labor

within

fam ilies.

However, th e most household prod uc tio n work was done with husbands and
wives

working

t o g e t h e r with

other

fa m il y

members.

Fa m ili e s

may be

encouraged to i n c r e a s e i n t e r a c t i o n a l time through household p ro d u c ti o n .
Community

leaders

may want

to

encourage

a v a i l a b l e t o them in t h e geographical a r e a .
mass media o r o t h e r in for mati on s o u r c e s .

fam ilies

to

use

r e s o u rc e s

This could be done through
B u s in e s s e s ,

r e c og ni zi ng the

widespread p r a c t i c e s o f household p ro d u c t i o n , may encourage t h i s t r e n d
by o f f e r i n g

resources,

tools,

and i n s t r u c t i o n s

for

th os e wishing

to

produce th e good or s e r v i c e th emselves.
Conclusion
This study o f f e r s
re s e a r c h in t h a t i t
daily

housework.

activities.

a unique c o n t r i b u t i o n

t o household pro duction

s p e c i f i c a l l y s t u d i e d household prod uc tio n and not

It

surveyed a l a r g e

number of p o s s i b l e

pro duction

A c t i v i t i e s using f a m i l i e s ' human r e s o u rc e s o u t s i d e the home

in c o n ju nc ti on with o t h e r f a m i l i e s and t h e community added bre a dt h to
t h e l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s .
household

p ro d u c ti o n .

Research q u e s t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d
The

indicated

a relationship

Household

prod uc tio n

was

null

hypotheses

between v a r i a b l e s
found

to

be

husbands and wives with young f a m i l i e s ,

a

which

some t r e n d s in
were

and household
widespread

rejected,
pr od u c ti o n .

practice

e s p e c i a l l y in a c t i v i t i e s

among
done

131

b a s i c a l l y w i t h i n t h e home.

As a t r e n d , household prod uc tio n i s l i k e l y

to i n c r e a s e as economic environmental c o n d i t i o n s worsen throug hou t th e
c ountry because i t i s a way not only to c o n t r i b u t e to a f a m i l y ' s rea l
income,

but

resources.

also

to

aid

in

the

development

of

skills

and

human

Household p ro du c tio n i s a t o p i c t h a t has not rec eive d much

s tu d y , bu t i s becoming a more im por tan t and worthy re s e a r c h t o p i c as
fam ilies
needs.

participate

in

household

p ro du c tio n

to

meet

their

fam ily's

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

A - l . —D e t a i l s of J u s t e r e t a l . ' s Household Output Account

GNP Goods (Con st an t D o l l a r s )

A ctivities
(H ours /y e ar )
Investment
Education
Child c a r e
Medical c a r e
Home improvement
Social
O rg a n iz a ti o n a l
Interpersonal
Communication
Intermediate
Home maintenance
Personal c a r e
Shopping/Admin
Cooking
Market work

P r i v a t e S e r v ic e s
NonHousing Housing

NonDurables

Deprec. Gov.
of Dur. Pur. Total

Tangible Household Output
(natural u n its)
I n te r m e d ia te
Intangible
Product Investment
Household
Prod Use Gross Deprec.
Output Process
(+) ( - ) (+)
(-)
Net B e n e f i t s ( U t i l i t y )
Skills
Child Development
Health
Soc ial Networks
S oc ia l Networks
Soc ial Networks

Orde rly home
Personal appearance
Good and s e r v i c e s
Meals
Income

*Taken from J u s t e r e t a l . The Theory and Measurement of Wel l- bei ng: A sug ges ted framework f o r a c c ou ntin g and
a n a l y s i s . I n s t i t u t e f o r Soc ia l Research, U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, 1980, pT 39.

A - 2 .— Hours and Value

2

o f Household Work in 1976

Total f o r a l l a d u l t s
Annual Hours

Women:
All work ............................................ .
3
Maintenance work ........................... .
4
Household Pr odu cti on .................. .
Home r e p a i r and hobbies
Child c a r e and i n s t r u c t i o n
Shopping and o t h e r
Men:
All work ............................................ .
3
Maintenance work .......................... .
4
Household Prod ucti on .................. .
Home r e p a i r and hobbies
Child c a r e and i n s t r u c t i o n
Shopping and o t h e r

Average pe r Adult
Annual
Hours

Annual
Value

P e rc e n t

B illion
D o ll a r s

P e rc e n t

188.8

100.0

752.4

100.0

25.0

1,300

5,180

135.1

100.0

515.0

100.0

33.8

1,756

6,694

83.3

61.8

305.8

59.4

20 .9

1,084

3,975

51.8

38.4

209.2

40.6

12.9

673

2,719

2 .8
16.3
32.7

2 .1
12.1
24.2

17.5
4 0.8
150.9

3.4
7 .9
29.3

0 .7
4 .1
8 .1

37
211
425

227
531
1,961

53.7

100.0

237.4

100.0

15.1

786

3,475

20.4

37.9

76.5

32.2

5.8

299

1,120

33.3

62 .0

160.8

67.7

9. 4

488

2,356

9.9
3 .9
19.5

18.4
7.3
36.3

60 .6
10.0
90.2

25.5
4.2
38 .0

2.8
1.1
5.5

145
58
285

888
146
1,322

B illions
Adults:
All work ............................................ .

Annual Value

Weekly
Hours

D o ll a r s

*Taken from P e s k in , J a n i c e . Measuring Household Pr odu cti on f o r t h e GNP. In Family Economics Review,
1982( 3) , p. 20.
-Valued by s p e c i a l i s t c o s t
. I n c l u d e s meal p r e p a r a t i o n , meal c le a n u p , c l e a n i n g , g a r d e n i n g , and laundry
In cl ude s home r e p a i r and h o b b ie s , c h i l d c a r e and i n s t r u c t i o n , shopping and o t h e r

A-3 .—Average val ue o f woman's household work in 1976 by v a r io u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

Number
in
Sample

C haracteristic

Weekly
Hours o f
Household
Work

Annual Value o f Household Work in D o lla rs

Total

Maintenance Household ] lome R e p a i r / Child c a r e / Shopping
Tasks
Producti on
Hobbies I n s t r u c t i o n
Other

All women ...................... . . . .

793

33.8

6694

3975

2719

227

531

1961

Employment s t a t u s :
Not employed . . . . . . .
Employed p a r t - t i m e . . . .
Employed f u l l - t i m e . . . .

367
245
181

42.6
31.4
20.1

8405
6243
4040

5139
3537
2338

3266
2706
1702

282
234
113

695
520
235

2289
1952
1354

Number o f e a r n e r s :
N o n e .......................... . . . .
O n e ............................... . . . .
T w o ............................... . . . .

42
250
284

40 .0
46 .9
30.7

8010
9157
6036

5434
5441
3602

2576
3716
2434

307
308
158

276
904
507

1993
2504
1769

Number o f c h i l d r e n :
N o n e .............................. .
O n e ....................................
T w o ...................................,
Three o r more . . . .

401
134
120
138

29.5
33.2
41 .4
43.7

6078
6423
7748
8354

3703
3578
4745
4746

2376
2844
3003
3608

274
182
140
176

155
748
1194
1113

1947
1904
1669
2319

je of younge st c h i l d :
No c h i l d r e n ...................... . . 400
1-4 y e a r s .......................... . . . 161
5-12 y e a r s ...................... . . 170
13-17 y e a r s ...................... . . 62

29.5
43.5
36.8
35.2

6079
7969
7209
6981

3710
4307
4205
4584

2370
3663
3005
2901

270
134
253
560

155
1598
720
375

1945
1931
2032
1966

24.7
37.1
36.5
34.4
35.1
33.6
35.4

4897
7043
7030
6845
7121
6825
7280

2514
3837
4009
4203
4381
4297
4791

2383
3206
3020
2641
2739
2528
2488

246
171
183
165
295
232
294

526
1097
886
434
341
230
89

1611
1938
1951
2042
2103
2066
2105

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

JG •

18-24 y e a r s
25-29 y e a r s
30-39 y e a r s
40-49 y e a r s
50-59 y e a r s
60-64 y e a r s
65 y e a r s +

......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

110
116
181
112
110
49
114

A -3 .— Continued

C haracteristic
Own e a r n i n g s :
None, n e g a t i v e ......................
$1-4,999
$5, 000-9,999
$ 1 0 , 0 0 0 + ...................................

Weekly
Number
Hours of
in
Household
Samp! e______ Work________ Total
36
33
66
46

18.7
21 .0
21.1
19.2

3697
4255
4244
3912

Annual Value o f Household Work in D o l l a r s
S p e c i f i c Household Produ ction
Maintenance Household Home R e p a ir / Child Care/ Shopping
Tasks
Pro duct io n Hobbies I n s t r u c t i o n
Other
2486
2274
2349
2237

1212
1981
1897
1674

47
68
137
165

181
246
298
191

984
1667
1462
1318

pTaken from P e s k in , J a n i c e . Measuring Household P r od uc ti on f o r t h e GNP, In Family Economics Review, 1982(3), p. 22.
^Valued a t s p e c i a l i s t c o s t
^ I n c l u d e s meal p r e p a r a t i o n , meal c l e a n u p , c l e a n i n g , g a r d e n i n g , and laundry
^ I n c l u d e s home r e p a i r and h o b b i e s , c h i l d c a r e and i n s t r u c t i o n , shopping and o t h e r
Data a r e only f o r women employed f u l l time

APPENDIX B

B - l . —Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Areas in Which Sampling Occurred.

Total P o p u la ti o n 9
Race9
White
Black
American Indian
Asian
Other
Persons of Spanish
o r i g i n inc luded above
Number o f F a m il ie s 9
Number o f C hi ld re n9
(w ith in s p e c i f i c age range)
6
7-9
10-13
Income*1
Median Income
Percen t Unemployment0

4,695

4,344

6,678

4,279

2,992
1,436
28
40
197

3,032
1,041
39
16
216

6,446
104
22
57
49

4,200
21
5
33
20

312

307

99

19

1,214

1,123

1,529

400

87
312
437

8
284
346

98
291
394

24
90
120

19,400

14,800

18,400

17,900

12.6%

12.6%

12.5%

?1980 U.S. Census Data, Ingham County, Michigan.
1980 Estimated Median Household Income. Tri-County Planning Commission,
October 1981
Michigan Employment S e c u r i t y Commission, May 1980, r e v i s e d .

139

B -2 .—Tr ai ni ng Meeting
1 May 1980

1.

I n t r o d u c t i o n (hand out p l a s t i c I . D . ' s )

2.

Explanation of study (use p r o p o s a l ) ; p o l i c e have been n o t i f i e d

3.

Locating f a m i l i e s :

4.

a.

blocks have been randomly s e l e c t e d ( a p t . b u i ld in g was
c o n si d e re d a block)

b.

s t a r t i n g p o i n t s in each area

c.

use sk ip p a t t e r n

I n i t i a l c o n t a c t , s c r e e n in g :
a.

knock on door.

b.

in tr o d u c e s e l f :
Human Ecology.

c.

doing study o f 2 spouse f a m i l i e s with elementary age c h i l d r e n
about s t r e t c h i n g d o l l a r s to help b e a t i n f l a t i o n . Do you and
your spouse have a c h i l d between 6-12 y e a r s o f age.

d.

f i l l in .h ous eh o ld composition form.

e.

i f household meets c r i t e r i a e x p la i n s t u d y , i n d i c a t e t h e r e w i l l
be a small token o f a p p r e c i a t i o n ($5) i f a l l 3 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
a r e f i l l e d o ut .

f.

a r e you w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e ?

g.

i f y e s —ask open end q u e s t i o n .
Give them envelope; go over format o f 2 type s of q u e s t i o n s
(interviewers f i l l in; time).

h.

leave en vel ope s; a rr a n g e f o r pickup—have them si gn form—
e x p la i n they can help k i d s ; p o i n t out phone number.

g.

t e l l family they w i l l be mailed check a f t e r i n s e r t form and
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s have been checked f o r completeness.

who you a r e working f o r —MSU—College of

140

M I C H I G A N S TA T E U N I V E R S I T Y
ID IIH .I

.»

I l l M AN l l l l l ' l ' . t

I.A ll LA M IN G ’ MICHIGAN ■ **».'•

■ 1)11‘A U T M t.V I ()» I \M II.V H .O L U g Y

S p r i ng 19 3 0

This

is to

i n t r o d u c o o u r i n t e r v i e w e r f r om

This

in te rv ie w e r is asking your p a r t i c i p a t i o n

p r o d u c t i o n by Mi ch ig an f a m i l i e s .

in a study o f household

The r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t a n d q u e s t i o n n a i r e

h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f F a mi l y E c o l o g y a n d t h e F a m i l y
L i v i n g E d u c a t i o n , C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e , C o l l e g e o f Human E c o l o g y
a t Michigan S fa f e U n i v e r s i t y .
A gricultural

Tan p r o j e c t n a s b e e n f u n d e d by t h e M i c h i g a n

Experiment S f a t i c n .

T.'.o c o o p e r a t i o n o r y o u r f a m i l y

in g r a n t i n g a s h o r t

m e s e t f - a c m i n i s t o r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s wi l l
n ames w i l l

i n t e r v i e w an d i n c o m p l e t i n g

ce s i n c e r e l y a p p r e c i a t e d .

Your

-

i n no way b e Ii n xe d t o y o u r r e s p o n s e s .

S incerely,

B uatr icc PaoIucc i ,
Professor
Family Ecology

Mary A n d r e w s ,
i .vo I u a t i o n S p e c i a I i s t
I-'ami ly L i v i n g E d u c a t i o n

I r e n e Hathaway,
Instructor
F amily Ecology and
R e s o u r c e Management
S pecialist

B-4. --Consent Form
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
College of Human Ecology
May, 1980

East Lansing, Michigan
CONSENT FORM

We, t h e un d e rs ig n ed , f r e e l y conse nt to p a r t i c i p a t e in a s c i e n t i f i c
and e du ca ti on a l study conducted by th e College o f Human Ecology and The
Cooperative Extension Se rv ic e o f Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s it y under the
s u p e r v i s i o n of B e a t r i c e P a o l u c c i , Irene Hathaway, and Mary Andrews.
The purposes o f th e p r o j e c t have been ex p la i n ed to us and we
unde rstand th e e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t has been given as well as what our
p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l in vo lv e .
We understand t h a t we a r e f r e e to d i s c o n t i n u e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e
study a t any time w it h ou t p e n a l t y , o r t h a t we may withdraw the
p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f our c h i l d .
We understand t h a t th e r e s u l t s of th e study w i l l be t r e a t e d in
s t r i c t confidence and t h a t we w i l l remain anonymous. Final r e s u l t s o f
th e study w i l l be made a v a i l a b l e to us a t our r e q u e s t .
We unde rstand t h a t we may have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e in an
ed u ca ti o n a l program to i n c r e a s e our income-producing s k i l l s i f we so
d e s i r e . I t i s hoped t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e s e ed u ca ti o n a l a c t i v i t i e s
w i l l be b e n e f i c i a l t o us; however, we un de rs tan d t h e r e i s no guara ntee
of beneficial re s u lts.
We d e s i r e to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s r e s e a r c h and consent and a gr e e.
We, as le gal p a r e n t s / g u a r d i a n s of t h e below named c h i l d , giv e our
permission f o r th e c h i l d t o p a r t i c i p a t e in th e study to th e degree t o
which t h e c h i l d d e s i r e s .
Please sign yo ur f i r s t and l a s t names.
Adult Female S ig n a tu r e

Date

Adult Male S ig n a tu r e

Date

C h i l d ' s Si g n a tu r e

Date

Address

C it y , Town, S t a t e

Telephone
142

ZTp

B - 5 . ~ C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Attempted Placement o f Q ue sti on na ire by Location

Location

Number

Percent

Urban Town

309

44.1

Small Town

192

27.4

Rural Area

200

28.5

Total

701

100.0

B -6. —C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Attempted Placement o f Q ue st io nn a ir e s by
E l i g i b i l i t y o f Family.

E ligibility
E l i g i b l e and Placement
E l i g i b l e and Refused
Not E l i g i b l e
Singl e Parent

Number
139

19.8

18

2.6

268

38.2

22

3.1

5

0.7

22

3.1

198

28.2

29

4.1

701

100.0

Refused be fo re e l i g i b i l i t y
determined
Other
No answer
Missing data
Total

Percent

143

B - 7 . - -Questionnaire
ACTIVITIES AT HOME
This section contains a l i s t of many a c tiv itie s th a t YOU may do around your home fo r
yourself and your fam ily.
CIRCLE THE NUMBER corresponding to the category which most accurately estimates how the
following a c tiv itie s get done. For example, c ir c le "1M I f you usually h ire th is job
done, and c ir c le ”6” I f th is a c tiv ity has never needed to be done or because you rent
you c a n 't make changes.
We are interested In the
home care, re p air and re­
decorat Ing th a t YOU do fo r
yourself and the persons
liv in g In your household.

2 . 1 Painting of the Inside?

2

3

5

6

2

3

5

6

2 .2

Painting or staining of the outside?

2 .3

Repairing of major appliances
(r e fr ig e ra to r , TV, washer, dryer)?

2.4

Repairing small appliances (iro n ,
to a s te r, lamp)?

2

3

5

6

2.5

Plumbing repairs?

2

3

5

6

2 .6

E le c tric a l repairs?

2

3

5

6

2.7

Repairs to the heating and/or a ir
conditioning system?

2.8

Putting up of paneling, drywall
or c e iIIn g t ile ?

2

3

5

6

Laying of carpet or flooring?

2

3

5

6

2.10 Refinishlng hardwood floors?

2

3

5

6

2 . 11 Carpentry repairs?

2

3

5

6

2.12 Roofing repairs or reroofing?

2

3

5

6

2.13 Gutter and downspout repairs?

2

3

5

6

2.14 Shampooing of carpets or rugs?

2

3

5

6

2.15 Repairing screens?

2

3

5

6

2 .9

144

»,

2.16 Replacing of broken window glass?

<C'2Si>*

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

2.18 Insulating the a t t i c , basement or crawl
space?

1

2

3

4

5

6

2.19 Insulating the hot water heater, hot
water pipes?

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

6
6

2.17 Wea+herstripplng storm doors and
windows?

2.20 Caulking cracks and jo in ts inside and
outside?
2.21 Repairing of sidewalks or driveways?
2.22 Other, please l i s t
We are interested in knowing how you care
fo r the c a r(s) in your household.
How do you do:
3.1

Washing the car?

3.2

Cleaning the inside of the car(s)?

1
1

3.3

Putting in gas?

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.4

Changing the o il and lu bricating the
car(s)?

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

3.5

Changing or ro ta tin g the tire s ?

3.6

W interizing the car (changing the
a n tifre e z e , e tc .)?

3.7

Tuning the engine?

3.8

Major re p air work such as brake work,
transmission re p a ir, etc?

3.9

Repairs to the c a r's body?

3 .|0 Other, please l i s t

145

5

6

We are interested in knowing the
personal care a c tiv itie s th a t YOU do
fo r yourself and the persons livin g
your household.

%
h — uo you:
4.1

Cut or trim hair?

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.2

Shampoo and s e t, blow dry or s ty le hair?

1

2

3

4

5

6

4 .3

Color hair?

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.4

Give home permanents, straightening or
cornrowing?

1

2

3

4

5

6

Other, please l i s t

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.5

We are interested in knowing the a c tiv itie s YOU do
fo r lawn, vard or other outdoor work.
5.

Do you:
5.1

Cut the grass?

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.2

Weed the flowerbeds, lawns, etc.?

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.3

Trim and care fo r trees and shrubs?

1

2

3

4

5

6

5,4

Remove snow from sidewalks and driveways?

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.5

Haul trash?

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.6

Do a seasonal clean up of the yard?

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.7

Cut or s p lit wood fo r your fire p la c e or
wood burning stove?

1

2

3

4

5

6

Other, please l i s t

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.8

We are Interested in knowing about the kinds of
sewinq and c r a ft work YOU do fo r yourself and the
persons liv in g in your household.
6.

Do you:
6.1

Make clothing fo r adults?

1

2

3

4

5

6

6.2

Make clothing fo r children?.

1

2

3

4

5

6

6 .3

Make clothing repairs or alterations?

1

2

3

4

5

6

146

6.4

Make shoe, handbag or g o lf bag repairs?

1

2

3

4

5

6

6.5

Make draperies or curtains?

1

2

3

4

5

6

6.6

Make s lip covers fo r furniture?

1

2

3

4

5

6

6 .7

Reupholster furniture?

1

2

3

4

5

6

6 .8

Make q u ilts , comforters?

1

2

3

4

5

6

6.9

Make Christmas decorations?

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

6.10 Other, d lease l i s t

We are interested in knowing about the kinds of d o -it-y o u rs e if projects which YOU
have done. C irc le " I ” fo r yes and "2" fo r no fo r each a c t iv it y .
7.

Have you ever:
7.1

Constructed ele c tro n ic equipment (rad io , TV, computer,
d ig ita l clock)?

7.2

Done woodworking (clocks, cabinets, fu rn itu re )?

7 .3

Refinished or antiqued furniture?

7.4

Constructed a home, summer cottage or other building?

7.5

Added on or remodeled your home?

7.6

Finished a basement or a ttic ?

7.7

Landscaped (seeding, sodding, planting shrubs)?

7 .8

In stalled a wood burning stove?

7 .9

In sta lle d lig h t fixtures?

7.10 Hunted or fished to provide food fo r your family?
7.11 Constructed play equipment (swing, s lid e , sandbox,
playhouse)?
7.12 Made or repaired toys (d o lls , wagons, blocks)?
7.13 Done outdoor construction (in s ta llin g a fence, building
a patio or barbecue)?
147

YES

8

7.14 Do you have a garden?
Check one.
<

)

YES-

(

)

NO

7.15 What
(

is I t ' s size?

) a.

container

(

) c . medium (2 5 'x 4 0 ')

) d. large (50'x80' or
larger)
7.16 How often do YOU work in i t during the season?
(

) b.

small ( 11*xl6 *)

(

(

) a. Once a day

(

) b. About 3 to 4 times a week

(

) c. About once a week

How much of your fam ily's f r u i t and/or vegetable
requirements do you raise?
7.17

F ru it

VegetabIe

7.18

(

) a. Less than 25#

(

) a. Less than 25$

(

) b. Between 25-49$

(

) b. Between 25-49$

(

) c. Between 51-99$

(

) c. Between 51-99$

(

) d. A ll

(

) d. All

We are Interested In knowing I f YOU bake, can, free ze , dry, pickle or preserve food
products fo r your fa m ily 's use? Please c irc le " I" fo r yes and "2” fo r no.
you:
YES

NO

8.1

Can f r u it s , vegetables or meats?

1

2

8.2

Freeze f r u it s , vegetables or meats?

1

2

8.3

Dry f r u it s , vegetables or meats?

1

2

8.4

Pickle f r u it s , vegetables or meats?

1

2

8.5

Make jams and je llie s ?

1

2

8.6

Bake bread or ro lls regularly?

1

2

8.7

Bake pastries, cookies, or cakes
regularly?

1

2

Regularly make up extra servings
of main dishes to be frozen fo r
la te r use?

1

2

8.9 , Regularly prepare meatless meals?

1

2

8.10 Buy food to store when I t ' s on sale?

1

2

8.11 Keep a stock of food fo r emergencies?

1

2

8.12 Other, please l i s t

1

2

8.8

148

9

We are Interested In knowing
fo r vour child?
7ete nuw uu yisu uu •

'v

9.1

Routine d a lly care?

1

2

3

4

5

6

9.2

Occasional care when parents are out?

1

2

3

4

5

6

9 .3

Evenings and weekends?

1

2

3

4

5

6

9.4

A fte r school care?

1

2

3

4

5

6

We are Interested In knowing of any special care YOU currently provide for members
of your household.
10.

Do you provide care a t home rather than in a hospital
(or other f a c i l i t y ) fo r:
YES

NO

10.1

A chronically I I I family Member?

1

2

DOESN’ T
APPLY
3

10.2

An e ld e rly family member?

1

2

3

10.3

A handicapped family member?

1

2

3

10.4

Other, please l i s t

1

2

3

We are Interested in knowing about your fam ily's tran sportation.
II.

How many motor vehicles does your family own, lease, or have a v a ila b le on a
regular basis? Put number on lin e before each item.
Car(s)
_Motorhome

Truck/Van
Moped

Motorcvcle(s)
Motorboat

T ra il blke(s)
____ Snowmoblle(s)

Other, please l i s t
11.1 For the c a r(s) or truck(s) you drive most o fte n , how many miles per gallon
of gas do you get?
Car/truck #1 ____________ miles per gallon
C ar/truck # 2 ____________ miles

gallon

11

11.11 How fa r is i t to the grocery store (round t r ip ) ?

____________ miles

11.12 How often do you go to the grocery store?
D ally

Weekly

TwIce a week

Every

Monthly
other week

We are interested In knowing I f you recycle such things as cloth in g , recreation
equipment, fu rn itu re , appliances, e tc . and how you accomplish t h is .
______
YES

Do you:

NO

12.1

Have garage sales?

1

2

12.2

Take items to be sold a t someone elses garage sale?

1

2

12.3

Take items to be sold a t a resale shop?

1

2

12.4

Take items to a swap shop or meet?

1

2

12.5

Sell items a t a fle a market?

1

2

12.6

Place an ad In the newspaper or on a b u lle tin board
to s e ll an Item?

1

2

Give Items to a church or other ch aritab le organization
fo r them to s e ll or donate?

1

2

12.8

Take b o ttle s , cans or papers to a community recycling center?

1

2

12.9

Take crankcase o il to a community recycling center?

1

2

12.10 Pass on items of clo th in g , toys or equipment from an older
to a younger c h ild w ithin your family?

1

2

12.11 Pass on items of clo th in g , toys or equipment from older to
younger children among your friends or relatives?

1

2

12.12 Make rag rugs?

1

2

12.13 Ask fo r a "doggy bag” fo r le fto v e r food when eating out?

1

2

12.7

12.14 Please indicate the ways you recycle d iffe r e n t items w ithin your own
household. For example, do you make newspaper logs or use ty p ic a lly
throw-away Items fo r a rts and c ra fts pro jects, etc.?
Please specify: ____________________________________________________

150

12

SAVING AND INVESTING
Most fam ilies save or Invest some of t h e ir Income to provide fo r things they want
In the fu tu re . We are Interested In how your fam ily Is saving.

Is your fam ily presently saving through:

YES

NO

DON'T
KNOW

13.1

Savings account/share account?

1

2

3

13.2

Christmas Club?

1

2

3

13.3

U.S. Savings Bonds?

1

2

3

13.4

C e rtific a te s of Deposit (CDs)?

1

2

3

13.5

Money Market C e rtific a te s ? (6 , 30 or 48 month)

1

2

3

13.6

Money Market funds?

1

2

3

13.7

Treasury notes or bonds?

1

2

3

13.8

Corporate bonds?

1

2

3

13.9

Municipal bonds?

1

2

3

13.10 Common stock?

1

2

3

13.1 1 Mutual funds?

1

2

3

13.12 Cash value l i f e insurance?

1

2

3

13.13 Endowment or annuity l i f e Insurance?

1

2

3

13.14 Single premium annuities?

1

2

3

13.15 Commodities (wheat, soybean futures)?

1

2

3

13.16 Vacant or farm land?

1

2

3

13.17 Buildings fo r lease or rent (residential/com m ercial)

1

2

3

13.18 Gold, s ilv e r or diamonds?

1

2

3

13.19 A rt or antiques?

1

2

3

13.20 Collections such as coins or stamps?

1

2

3

13.21 Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or Keogh Plan?

1

2

3

13.22 P r o fit sharing plan through your employer?

1

2

3

13.23 Tax deferred pension plan through your employer?

1

2

3

13.24 Stock option plan through your employer?

1

2

3

13.25 Other, please l i s t
151

%

People sometimes b a rte r or swap with others outside
th e ir famlIv to get goods and services In exchange.
32.

To what extent dlo YOU barter any of the
follow ing services In exchange with others?
32.1

Babysit, take care of children a fte r school?

1

2

3

4

32.2

Do p ain ting , carpentry, plumbing, e le c tric a l
repairs?

1

2

3

4

32.3

Do care and re p air o f c a r(s) or other vehicles?

1

2

3

4

32.4

Do personal care such as permanents?

1

2

3

4

32.5

Do sewing (re p a ir, a lte ra tio n s , draperies, upholstery)?

1

2

3

4

32.6

Provide transportation?

1

2

3

4

32.7

Food such as garden produce?

1

2

3

4

32.8

Other, please l i s t

1

2

3
4

We are Interested in knowing about the volunteer a c tiv itie s In which YOU p a rtic ip a te .
YES

NO

Do you presently:
33.1

Work fo r a church group?

1

2

33.2

Work fo r a c h a rita b le organization such as
United Way, March of Dimes, Heart Fund,
Red Cross, etc.?

1

2

33.3

Work fo r a p o litic a l organization?

1

2

33.4

Work fo r a community action group such as
school board, community boards, NAACP,
Urban League?

1

2

Work fo r a youth organization such as 4-H,
Boy Scouts, G irl Scouts, Big S is te rs,
Big Brothers?

1

2

Work fo r a senior c itiz e n organization such
as Meals on Wheels?

1

2

Work fo r a service organization such as Elks,
Masons, Lions, hospital a u x ilia r ie s , Jaycees?

1

2

33.8

Work fo r the school such as room parent, PTA?

1

2

33.9

Other, please l i s t

1

2

33.5

33.6
33.7

152

24

Cooperatives are businesses organized by people fo r th e ir own use.
In knowing i f your family belongs to a cooperative.
34.

We are Interested

Do you belong to any of the following cooperatives?
NO

YES
1

2

Childcare, nursery school?

1

2

34.3

C redit Union?

1

2

34.4

Bicycle sales and services?

1

2

34.5

Auto re p a ir services?

1

2

34.6

Optical services?

1

2

34.6

Other. Please l i s t

1

2

34.1

Food?

34.2

We are Interested In knowing how your household shares resources with others Including
fam ily, friends and neighbors.
Does your family share resources by:
YES

NO

Sharing ownership of recreation equipment such as
campers, snowmobile, tents?

1

2

35.2

Sharing ownership of vacation cottage or home?

1

2

35.3

Sharing ownership of equipment such as farm tra c to r,
r o t o t il le r , kitchen equipment, chain saws, etc.?

1

2

Sharing entertaining costs through pot lucks, bring
your own 1Iquor?

1

2

Renting equipment such as flo o r sander, r o t o t il le r ,
rug'shampooer, gardening equipment, motor home or
sports equipment?

1

2

35.6

Using the laundromat or s e lf-s e rv ic e dry cleaning?

1

2

35.7

Sharing books, magazines or newspapers?

1

2

35.8

Other, please lis t

1

2

35.1

35.4
35.5

153

COMMUNITY SERVICES
We are Interested In knowing about the kinds of community recreation a c tiv itie s th at
you use th a t are a v aila b le to you without cost or with very minimal cost.
36.

YES

Did you (w ithin the past year):

NO

36.1

Use the public library?

1

2

36.2

Go to c it y , county or sta te parks?

1

2

36.3

Go to a community fe s tiv a l or parade?

1

2

35.4

A tten d /p articip ate In community ball games?

1

2

36.5

Go to a museum, planetarium, a r t g a lle ry , zoo?

1

2

36.6

Use publicly supported bike t r a i l s , nature walks
or cross-country tr a ils ?

1

2

Use f a c ili t i e s of the public schools such as
swimming pools, tennis courts, ball diamonds?

1

2

Attend free concerts or performances In parks
or shopping malIs?

1

2

Attend church sponsored recreational a c tiv itie s
such as Ice cream socials, musical performances,
camps, dinners?

1

2

1

2

38.7
36.8
36.9

36.10 Other, please l i s t

There are some community medical services availab le without cost or a minimal cost.
Have you used these services w ithin the past year?

YES

NO

37.1

Blood pressure checks?

1

2

37.2

Immunizations fo r yourself or any members
of your family?

1

2

Eyes or hearing tested fo r yourself or any
members of your family?

1

2

37.4

Expectant parents classes?

1

2

37.5

Special health c lin ic s such as pregnancy te s tin g ,
venera1 disease te s tin g , substance abuse?

1

2

Telephone services such as d ia lin g a hospital fo r
medical tip s , poison control center?

1

2

Community counseling services such as Listening Ear,
Community Mental Health Centers, Family and Child
Services?

1

2

Other, please l i s t

1

2

37.3

37.6
37.7

37.8

1K/I

26

There are many sources of free Information throughout the community.

Within the past year have you used:

YES

NO

38.1

Cooperative Extension Service, MSU?

1

2

38.2

Michigan Consumers Council?

1

2

38.3

"Help" column In the.newspaper?

1

2

38.4

Internal Revenue Service?

1

2

38.5

Legal Aid?

1

2

38.6

C redit Counsel Ing Centers?

1

2

38.7

Social Security Office?

1

2

38.8

Planned Parenthood?

1

2

38.9

Pamphlets or catalogs from businesses?

1

2

38.10 PIRGIM (Public Information Research
Group In Michigan)?

1

2

38.11 Michigan Congressman or Senator?

1

2

38.12 U.S. Congressman or Senator?

1

2

38.13 Michigan Attorney General's Office?

1

2

38.14 A bureau or department of c it y , county
or sta te government?

1

2

38.15 Other, please l i s t

1

2

There are ways to shop In a community th a t are less expensive.
YES
39.

NO

Do you use:
39.1

Resale clothing or fu rn itu re shops
such as the Cedar Chest, Saint Vincent
de Paul, church rummage sales, Salvation
Army?

1

2

39.2

Flea markets, garage sales?

1

2

39.3

Pick your own fr u its or vegetables?

1

2

39.4

Farmer's markets, road side stands?

1

2

39.5

Cooperatives fo r food, fu rn itu re ,
clo th in g , recreational equipment?

1

2

39.6

Auctions?

1

2

39.7

Factory outlets?

1

2

39.8

Sample o u tle ts fo r shoes or clothing?

1

2

39.9

Special sales such as white sales,
appllance sales?

1

2

39.10 Coupons or refund offers?

1

2

39.11 Other, please l i s t _________________

1

2

155

27

VALUE OF HOME ACTIVITIES
Many of the a c tiv itie s th a t we have asked you about have a money gain to vour family
e ith e r In actual dollars or money saved. C irc le the number th a t best estimates how
much these a c tiv itie s add to your Income annually. C irc le " I ” I f I t adds less than
$50, c ir c le "3" I f I t adds between $100 and $450, and c ir c le "5" I f you don't do th is
a c tiv ity .

40.

41.

How much did the following a c tiv itie s
th a t YOU did contribute to your fam ily'
annual Income last year by substituting
your time and s k ills rather than buying
In marketplace?
40.1

Home care, re p a ir, redecoration?

1

2

3

4

5

40.2

Car Care?

1

2

3

4

5

40.3

Personal h a ir care?

2

3

4

5

40.4

Yard care?

1

2

3

4

5

40.5

Sewing, c r a ft projects?

1

2

3

4

5

40.6

D o -it-yo u rself projects (b u ild in g , remodeling)?

1

2

3

4

5

40.7

Gardening?

2

3

4

5

40.8

Hunting, fishing?

2

3

4

5

40.9

Canning, freezing, pickling, baking?

2

3

4

5

1

40.10 Caring fo r children?

1

2

3

4

5

40.11 Caring fo r family members such as chronically
I I I , e ld e rly , handicapped In your home?

1

2

3

4

5

40.12 Car/van pooling, walking or riding a bicycle?

1

2

3

4

5

Savings accounts, CD;s, U.S. Savings Bonds,
Money Market C e rtific a te s , etc.?

1

2

3

4

5

41.2

Stocks, bonds, mutual funds?

1

2

3

4

5

41.3

Leasing or renting land or buildings?

1

2

3

4

5

41.4

P r o fit sharing plan through your employer?

1

2

3

4

How much additional money Income did your family
receive th is year by saving and Investing some of
your income in:
41.1

156

JL-„

B-8. —Example o f Scoring
Individual Score
1.

2.

Example on a "yes" o r "no" response q ue st io n ( 7 - 8 , 12-13, 32,
34-39): Question 8 . 1 , Do you can f r u i t s , v e g et a b le s o r meats?
a.

Wife responds "yes" and the husband responds "no."
i s recorded as Wife o n l y .

b.

Wife and husband both respond " y e s ."
Together.

c.

No c o n f l i c t i n g sco res f o r "yes" o r "no" q u e s t i o n s .

Response

Response i s recorded as

Example on a qu est io n with m u l t i p l e responses ( 2 - 7 , 9):
Question 2 . 1 , P a in tin g of th e i n s i d e (of th e house)?
Usually do i t myself = yes
Usually do i t t o g e t h e r with o t h e r family members = t o g e t h e r
Usually done by a n o th er family member o r f r i e n d =t o g e t h e r
Usually h i r e i t done o r buy i t = no
Let i t go - no
D oesn't apply = no
a.

Husband responds "do i t myself" and wife responds " l e t i t go."
Response i s marked Husband o n l y .

b.

Husband responds "do i t t o g e t h e r with o t h e r family members"
and wife responds "do i t my s el f." Response i s marked
To ge th e r.

c.

Husband and wife both mark "do i t rnyself."
Conflicting.

Response i s marked

Family Score
Family scor e i s a t o t a l of a l l th e a c t i v i t i e s done by a family.
Example:

Husband only
15
Wife only
12
Together
25
C o n f l i c t i n g __________ 1
Fami ly s cor e

53

157

APPENDIX C

C - l . —P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Household Production by Husbands and Wives
Husbands

Groups.b
(number)

_ i" = m
(*)

(number)

Wi ves
(n=107)
(%)

In-home A c t i v i t i e s
*Car Care and Repair
Changing o i l , l u b r i c a t i n g
Changing or r o t a t i n g t i r e s
Cleaning i n s i d e of th e c a r
Major r e p a i r work
P u tt in g in gas
Repair t o c a r body
Tuning engine
Washing c a r
Winterizing c a r

74
70
87
34
48
31
52
80
87

69.2
65.4
81.3
31.7
91.6
28.9
48.6
84.1
81.3

11
7
90
3
77
4
5
74
10

10.2
6.5
84.1
2.8
72.0
3.7
4.7
69.1
9.3

*Care of Family Members
Care f o r c h r o n i c a l l y i l l
Care f o r t h e e l d e r l y
Care f o r th e handicapped
Child a f t e r school care
Child c ar e evenings and weekends
Daily c h i l d care
Occasional c h i l d care

1
0
0
49
65
53
12

0.9
0. 0
0.0
45.7
60.7
49.3
11.2

1
0
2
80
78
93
4

0.9
0.0
1.9
74.7
72.9
86.9
2.8

Food P r es e rv at io n
Bake bread
Bake p a s t r i e s , cookies
Buy food on s a l e
Can f r u i t s and ve get a bl e s
Dry f r u i t s and ve getables
Emergency food stock
Extra se r v in g s t o fr e e z e
Freeze f r u i t s and v eg eta bl es
Garden
Hunting o r f i s h i n g f o r food
Make jams and j e l l i e s
Pickle f r u i t s and v eg eta bl es
Prepare me atless meals

15
32
67
34
8
50
21
55
76
49
30
23
20

14.0
29.9
62.6
31.8
7.5
46.7
19.6
51.4
71.0
45.8
28.0
21.5
18.7

31
91
100
77
8
83
49
95
77
24
78
63
34

29.0
85.0
93.5
72.0
7.5
77.6
45.8
88.8
72.0
22.4
72.9
58.9
31.8

P a r t i c i p a t i o n measured by a "yes , I do i t " response to a production
. a c t i v i t y except where noted
groups and items a re l i s t e d a l p h a b e t i c a l l y
* groups with respondents marking "did i t myself" o r "did i t with a family
member"

159

C - l . — Cont'd

Husbands

Wives
(n=107)

Groups
(number)
♦Home Care and Repair
Added on o r remodeled home
70
Carpentry r e p a i r s
84
Caulking cracks and j o i n t s
85
Electrical repairs
70
Finished a t t i c o r basement
52
70
G u t t e r , downspout r e p a i r s
I n s u l a t i n g hot water h e a t e r , p i p e s 46
In sta llin g insulation
65
Installing light fixtures
89
I n s t a l l i n g wood burning s tov e
34
Laying of c a r p e t or f l o o r i n g
53
Outdoor c o n s t r u c t i o n
45
P a in tin g i n s i d e
84
P a in tin g o r s t a i n i n g o u t s i d e
84
Plumbing r e p a i r s
73
P utt in g up p a n e li n g , drywall or
ceiling
85
Ref inish ing hardwood f l o o r s
30
Repairing he ati ng or a i r
c onditi on in g
35
Repairing major a pp lia nce s
36
Repairing small a pplia nc es
70
Repairing scree ns
65
Repairing sidewalk or driveway
58
Replacing broken window g l a s s
70
Roofing r e p a i r s or re r o o f i n g
65
Shampooing c a r p e t s and rugs
74
W eat herstripping doors and window 92

(f)

(number)

(!)

65.4
78.5
79.4
65.4
48.6
65.4
43.0
60.8
83.2
31.8
49.5
42.1
78.5
78.5
68.2

37
23
23
6
18
14
8
17
27
12
26
9
85
60
14

34.6
21.5
21.5
5.6
16.8
13.1
7 .4
15.9
25.2
11.2
24.3
8 .4
79.5
56.1
13.1

79.5
28.0

36
19

33.6
17.8

32.7
33.6
65.4
60.8
54.2
65.4
60.8
69.2
86.0

8
6
14
22
11
19
11
94
30

7.4
5.6
13.1
20.5
10.2
17.8
10.3
87.9
28.1

2
14

1.8
13.1

36
42

33.7
39.2

♦Personal Care
Color h a i r
Cut o r tr i m h a i r
Give home permanents,
straightening
Shampoo, s e t , blow dry or s t y l e
hair

2

1.9

31

29.0

67

62.6

101

94.4

Recycle (in home)
Have garage s a l e s
Make rag rugs
Pass on c lo th in g to family
Pass on c lo th in g to f r i e n d s

49
3
92
99

45.8
2 .8
86.0
92.5

62
8
95
101

57.9
7.5
88.8
94.4

160

C - l . — Cont'd
Groups

b

Husbands
Wives
_____________(n=107)______________ (n=107)
(number)
{%)
(number)
(I)

♦Sewing, Hobbies, and C ra fts
C onstructing e l e c t r o n i c equipment
C onstructing play equipment
Make Christmas d e c o r a ti o n s
Make c l o t h i n g f o r a d u l t s
Make c l o t h i n g f o r c h i l d r e n
Make c l o t h i n g r e p a i r s ,
alterations
Make d r a p e r i e s o r c u r t a i n s
Make o r r e p a i r toys
Make q u i l t s or comforters
Make s l i p covers f o r f u r n i t u r e
Repair sh oe s, handbags o r g o l f
bags
Reupholster f u r n i t u r e
Woodworking
♦Yard, Lawn, and Outdoor Care
Cut gra ss
Cut or s p l i t wood f o r
fireplace/stove
Haul t r a s h
Landscaping
Remove snow
Seasonal cleanup
Trim t r e e s , shrubs
Weed flowerbe ds, lawns

18
85
26
0
1

17.0
79.4
24.3
0 .0
0 .9

2
40
78
42
50

1.9
37.4
72.9
39.3
46.7

10
0
92
2
0

9.3
0.0
86.0
1.9
63.2

101
41
81
40
16

94.4
38.3
75.7
37.4
65.4

14
8
60

13.0
7.5
56.1

19
16
25

17.7
14.9
23.6

98

91.5

55

51.4

48
71
91
97
98
94
81

44.8
66.3
85.0
90.6
91.6
87.8
75.7

11
37
83
60
91
73
93

10.3
34.6
77.6
56.1
85.1
68.3
86.9

Out-home A c t i v i t i e s
B ar te r in g S erv ic es
Babysit
Care of v e h ic l e
Food such as garden produce
P a i n t i n g , c a r p e n t r y , plumbing,
etc.
Personal c a r e such as permanents
Provide t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
Sewing

40
41
35

37.4
38.6
31.9

74
14
60

70.1
13.2
56.1

42
7
47
5

39.3
6.5
43.9
4 .6

28
26
72
24

26.1
24.3
67.3
22.4

Community Medical Servi ce s
Blood p r e s s u r e check
Counseling s e r v i c e s
Expectant p a re n t c l a s s e s
Eyes or hearing t e s t e d
Immunizations
Special h e a l t h c l i n i c s
Telephone s e r v i c e s

19
8
3
41
41
4
13

17.8
7.5
32.8
38.3
38.3
3.7
13.1

12
10
7
49
47
2
34

11.2
9.3
45.8
45.8
43.9
1.9
32.1

161

C - l . — Cont'd

Husbands
(n-107)
(%)

(number)

Wives
(n-107)
(%)

57
48
36
79
90
100
48
54
74

53.3
44.9
33.6
73.8
84.1
93.5
44.9
50.5
69.2

57
58
31
90
82
102
44
81
75

53.3
54.2
29.0
84.1
76.6
95.3
41.1
75.7
70.1

1
1
10
58
7
7

0 .9
0 .9
9.3
54.2
6.5
6.5

1
0
14
58
5
8

0.9
0.0
13.1
54.2
4.7
7.5

38
27
1
11
29
3
11
14
4

35.8
25.2
0 .9
10.3
27.1
2 .8
10.3
13.1
3.7

31
36
3
16
26
7
11
18
4

29.0
34.6
2.8
15.0
24.3
6.5
10.3
16.8
3.7

43
9
10
2
3

40.2
8.4
9.3
1.9
2.8

46
12
11
5
4

43.0
11.2
10.3
4.7
3.7

70
2

65.4
1.9

83
3

77.6
2.8

76
3
13
71
6

71.0
2 .8
12.1
66.4
5.6

80
1
21
64
5

74.8
0 .9
19.6
59.8
4.7

Groups*5
(number)
Community Recreation
Ball games
Church r e c r e a t i o n
Free c o n c e rt s or performances
Museums
Parades
Parks
Public bike t r a i l s
Public l i b r a r y
School f a c i l i t i e s
Cooperatives
Auto r e p a i r
Bike
Child car e
C re d it union
Food
Optical s e r v i c e s
Free Information
Bureau of department of c i t y ,
co unty, or s t a t e
Cooperative Extension Service
C r e d i t Counseling Centers
Help column from newspaper
I n t e r n a l Revenue Service
Legal Aid
Michigan Attorney General
Michigan Congressman-Senator
Michigan Consumers Council
Pamphlets or c a t a l o g s from
bus iness
Social S e c u ri ty
United S t a t e s Congressman-Senator
Planned Parenthood
Pirgim
Recycle ( o u t s i d e t h e home)
Ask f o r a doggy bag in
restaurants
Flea market
Give to a church, c h a r i t y f o r
resale
Recycle o i l
Resale shop
Sell items through newspaper ads
Swap shop

162

C - l . — Cont'd

.
G r o u p s _________________________________
(number)
Take items to community re c y c le
center
sales

Husbands
(n=107)
{%)
(number)

Wives
(n=107)

50
51

46.7
47.7

63
60

58.9
56.1

14
5
52
11
26
19
3
18
1

13.1
4.7
48.6
10.3
24.3
17.8
2.8
16.8
0.9

17
4
54
9
24
24
2
17
0

15.9
3.7
50.5
8 .4
22.4
22.4
1.9
15.9
0.0

Savings and Investments
Art o r a n ti q u e s
Buildings f o r l e a s e or r e n t
Cash value l i f e insurance
C e r t i f i c a t e of d e p o s i t
Christmas club
C o l l e c t i o n s : c o i n s , stamps , e t c .
Commodities
Common st ock
Corporate bonds
Endowment o r an nu ity l i f e
insurance
Gold, s i l v e r , diamonds
I r a o r Keogh
Money market c e r t i f i c a t e s
Money market funds
Municipal bonds
Mutual funds
P r o f i t s har in g plan through I
employer
Single premium a n n u i t i e s
Stock opti on plan
Tax d e f e r r e d pension plan
Treasury no te s or bonds
U.S. savings bonds
Vacant or farm land
Savings account

25
12
12
11
1
1
5

23.4
11.2
11.2
10.3
0.9
0.9
4.7

21
17
8
12
1
2
7

19.6
15.9
7.5

10
3
10
30
2
31
10
96

9.3
2.8
9.3
28.0
1.9
29.0
9.3
89.7

8
4
5
18
4
33
13
99

7.5
3.7
4.7
16.8
3.7
30.8
12. 1
92.5

Sharing re s ou rc e s
Cottage
Entertainment c o s t s
Laundromat
Ownership of equipment
Rec re ation al v e h i c l e s
Rent equipment
Share books

10
63
10
25
16
47
67

9.3
58.9
9.3
23.4
15.0
43.9
62.6

11
78
23
28
15
52
83

10.3
72.9
21.5
26.2
14.0
48.6
77.6

Shopping A l t e r n a t i v e s
Auctions
Cooperatives
Coupons-refund o f f e r s
Farmer's market
Factory o u t l e t s
Flea mark ets, garage s a l e s

33 11
89
81
43
67

30.8
10.3
78.5
75.7
40.2
62.6

30
12
102
92
48
81

28.0

163

1 1 .2
0 .9
0. 0
6.5

11.2

95.3
86.0
45.3
75.7

C - l . ~ Cont'd

.
G r o u p s __________________________

Husbands
(n=107)

[%)

(number)

71

66.4

81

75.7

31
27
65

29.0
25.2
60.7

53
45
88

49.5
42.1
82.2

(number)
Pick your own f r u i t s and
ve ge ta ble s
Resale c l o t h i n g or f u r n i t u r e
shops
Sample o u t l e t s
Special s a l e s

Wives
^n s l ?7 ^

164

(%)

C-2.—Household Production Choices as Reported by Husbands and Wives
Husbands
Do s e l f / Hire
family
Buy
*
*

Car Care and Repair
Changing o i l . l u b r i c a t i n g 76
(71.1)
72
Changing o r r o t a t i n g
(67.3)
t i res
102
Cleaning i n s i d e o f c a r
(95.3)
38
Major r e p a i r work
(35.4)
102
Pu tt in g in gas
(95.3)
Repair to c a r body
36
(33.6)
59
Tuning engine
(55,1)
101
Washing c a r
(94.4)
89
Winterizing c a r
(83.2)
Child and Other Care
Child a f t e r school car e

97
(90.6)
Child care evenings and
82
weekends
(85.9)
47
Occasional c h i l d care
(43.9)
Routine d a i l y c h i l d c ar e 99
(92.6)

Home Care and Repair
Carpentry r e p a i r s

87
(81.3)
Caulking c r a c k s , j o i n t s
88
(82.2
84
Electrical repairs
(78.5)
G u t t e r , downspout r e p a i r s 74
(69.1)
49
I n s u l a t e hot water
(45.8)
Installing insulation
67
(62.7)
Laying c a r p e t o r f l o o r i n g 64
(50.4)

37
(29.0)
32
(29.9)
2
( 1 .9 )
69
(64.5)
5
( 4 .7 )
57
(53.3)
48
(44.9)
4
(3 .7 )
16
(15.0)
2
(1 .9 )
12
(11.2)
47
(43.9)
4
(3 .7 )
9
(8 .4 )
3
(2 .8 )
18
(16.8)
13
(12.1)
9
(8 .4 )
15
(14.0)
41
(38.3)

Omit
(%)
—
—

3
(2 . 8 )
3
(2 .8 )
—
—
—
—

8
(7. 5 )
—
—

2
(1 .9 )
2
(1.9)
1
0.9)
- —

1
(0.9)
- - -

2
(1 .9 )
6
(5 .6 )
- -

1
(0 .9 )
15
(14.0)
2
(1 .9 )
1
(0 .9 )
165

Wives
Not Do s e l f / H i r e ,
Omit
Apply
family
Buy
(%(
%)
U)
(%)
(%)
79
(73.8
—
65
—
(60.7
—
107
—
(100.0
—
30
—
(28.0
—
96
—
(89.8
31
6
(5 .6 ) (28.9
—
50
—
(46.8
- 102
—
(95.3
- 87
- (81.3
—

—

27
(25.2)
40
(37.4)

Not
Apply

1
(0 .9 )
2
(1 .9 )

—

- -

- -

- -

—

—

—

—
—

2
(1.9)

—

—

—

—

10
(9 .3 )

5
(4.7)

- -

- -

—

—

75
(70.1)
11
(10.3)
61
(57.0)
57
(53.3)
5
( 4 .7 )
16
(15.0)

4
(3 .7 )
3
(2 .8 )
11
(10.3)
3
(2 .8 )

90
(84.0
92
(86.0
47
(43.9
97
(90.6

10
( 9 .3 )
13
(12.0)
57
(53.3)
7
(6 .5 )

9
(7 ,5 )
10
(9 .3 )
5
(4 .7 )
19
(17.8)
34
(31.8)
23
(21.5)
11
(10.3)

85
(79.4
88
(82.2
74
(69.2
70
(65.4
48
(44.8
66
(61.7
61
(47.7

10
(9 .3 )
4
(3. 7 )
25
(23.4)
13
(12.1)
9
(8 .4 )
13
(12.1)
43
(40.2)

—
- —

—
—

—

2
(1 .9 )

2
(1.9)

- -

6
(5.6)
2
(1.9)
2
(1.9)
2
(1.9)-

—
—
—
—
—
—
—

2
( 1 .9 )
5
(4 .7 )

10
(9.3)
10
(9.3)
—
8
—
(7.5)
—
24
—
(21.5)
12
38
11.2) (34.6)
6
22
(5 .6 ) (20.6)
—
13
—
(11.2)

C - 2 . ~ Cont'd

Husbands
Do s e l f / Hire
family
Buy
tx)
(X)
Pa in ti n g i n s i d e
Pa in ti n g or s t a i n i n g
ou ts id e
Plumbing r e p a i r s

98
(91.6)

86

(80.4)
79
(76.6)
Pu tt in g up p a n e li n g , dry 87
(81.4)
wall o r c e i l i n g
R ef in is h hardwood f l o o r s 32
(29.9)
Repair h e a t / a i r c on dit ion 41
(38.3)
45
Repairing major
(42.0)
ap pliances
76
Repairing small
ap pliances
(71.0)
71
Repairing screens
(66.4)
Repair sidewalk or
59
d ri veway
(55.1)
Replace broken window
73
gla ss
(68.2)
69
Roofing r e p a i r s or
re ro o fi n g
(64.5)
Shampooing c a r p e t s and
98
rugs
(91.6)
Weatherstripping doors
98
and windows
(88.8)
Personal Care
Color h a i r

2
(1 .9 )
3
( 2 .8 )
19
(17.8)
6
(5 .6 )
10
(9 .3 )
56
(52. 3)
58
(54.2)
26
(24.3)
25
(23.4)
11
(10.3)
24
(22.4)
19
(17.8)
4
(3 .7 )
2
(1 .9 )

7
(6 .5 )
44
(41.4)
13
(12.2)
78
(72.9)

2
( 1 .9 )
62
(57.9)
8
( 7 .5 )
10
(9.3)

Sewing, Hobbies, and C ra fts
63
Make Christmas
de c o r a ti o n s
(58.9)

9
(8 .4 )

Cut o r tr i m h a i r
Give home permanents,
straightening
Shampoo, s e t , blow-dry,
or s t y l e h a i r

Omit
(X)

Wives
Not Dc s e l f / H i r e ,
Buy
Omit
family
Apply
(X)
(X)
(X)
(%(
U)
6
(5. 6 )
18
(16.8)
6
(5 .6 )
14
(13.1)
62
(57.0)
10
(9 .3 )
3
(2.8)
2
(1 .9 )
10
(9 .3 )
31
(28.0)
10
( 9 .3 )
19
(17.8)
2
(1 .9 )
8
(6. 5 )

103
(96.3)
90
(84.1)
74
(69.2)
85
(79.4)
36
(33.7)
40
(37.3)
47
(43.9)
84
(78.5)
73
(68.2)
52
(48.5)
67
(62.7)
50
(56.1)
100
(93.5)
90
(84.2)

1
(0 .9 )
2
( 1 .9 )
27
(25.2)
7
(6 .5 )
7
(6 .5 )
55
(51.4)
57
(53.3)
19
(17.8)
26
(24.3)
15
(14.0)
32
(29.9)
23
(21.5)
2
(1 .9 )
4
(3.7)

1
( 0 .9 )
1
(0 .9 )

1
(89.7)
1
(0.9)
85
(79.4)
18
(16.8)

37
(34.6)
58
(54.2)
45
(42.1)
104
(97.2)

4
(3.7)
49
(45.8)
16
(15.0)
1
(0. 9 )

3
(2 .8 )

32
(29.9)

83
(77.6)

13
(12.1)

1
( 0 .9 )
- —
- —
—
—

2
(1. 9 )
- —

1
(0 .9 )
3
(2 .8 )
1
(0 .9 )
6
(5 .6 )
- —
- —

3
(2. 8 )
2
(1 .9 )
—
—
—
- -

----

1
(0 .9 )
—
—

1
(0. 9 )
2
(1 .9 )
1
(0 .9 )
—
—

Not
Apply
3
(2 .8 )
14
(13.1)
6
(4.7)
14
(13.1)
62
(57.9)
11
(10.3)
3
(2 .8 )

—
4
(3 .7 ) —
7
1
(0 .9 ) (5 .6 )
32
8
(8.5) (29.0)
7
1
(0.9) (6 .5 )
—
24
—
(22.4)
—
5
—
(4 .5 )
9
4
(3 .7 ) (8.4)

63
2
(1 .9 ) (58.9)
—

- -

—

—

2
43
(1 .9 ) (40.2)
- 1
—
(0.9)

—
—

11
(10.3)

C - 2 . ~ Cont'd

Husbands
Do s e l f / Hire
f ami l y
Buy
it)
(*)

Omit

Wives
Not Do s e l f / H i r e ,
Apply
fami l y
Buy

it)

W

(%)

Omit
(%)
(%(

Not
Apply

33
(30.8)
38
(35.5)

22
(20.6)
19
(17.8)

2
(1.9)
3
(2 .8 )

50
(46.7)
47
(43.9)

46
(43.0)
55
(38.3)

47
(43.9)
41
(51 .4)

2
12
(1 .9 ) (11.2)
1
10
(0 .9 ) (9.3)

62
(57.9)
34
Make d r a p e r i e s or
(31 .8 )
curtains
Make q u i l t s or comforters 32
(29.9)
Make s l i p c o v e r s f o r
22
(20.6)
furniture
Repair sho es, handbags,
19
(17.7)
or g o l f bags
Reupholster f u r n i t u r e
19
(17.7)

5
(4 .7 )
25
(23.4)
14
(13.1)
17
(15.9)
37
(34.6)
28
(26.2)

1
(0 .9 )
4
(3 .7 )
3
(2 .8 )
5
(4 .7 )
7
(6 .5 )
6
(5 .6 )

103
39
(36.4) (96.3)
44
42
(41.1) (39.2)
58
46
(5 4. 2(4 3.0 )
63
18
(58.9) (16.9)
44
24
(41.1) (22.4)
23
53
(49.5) (21.4)

2
( 1 .9 )
55
(51.4)
24
(22.4)
40
(37.4)
54
(50.5)
39
(36.4)

1
(0 .9 )
2
(1 .9 )
1
(0 .9 )
3
(2 .8 )
4
(3 .7 )
4
(3 .7 )

- -

- -

—

—

3
(2 .8 )
53
(49.5)
9
( 8 .4 )
2
(1 .9 )
3
(2 .8 )
5
(4 .7 )
3
(2 .8 )

103
(96.3)
48
(44.9)
70
(65.4)
103
(96.3)
105
(98.2)
104
(97.3)
104
(97.2)

1
(0 .9 )
7
( 6 .5 )
23
(21.5)
2
( 1 .9 )
1
(0 .9 )
1
(0 .9 )
2
(1 .9 )

2
—
(1.9)
1
51
(0 .9 ) (47.7)
—
14
—
(13.1)
—
2
—
(1.9)
—
1
—
(0.9)
- 2
—
(1.9)
—
1
—
(0.9)

Make c l o t h i n g f o r a d u l t s
Make c l o t h i n g f o r
c h il d r e n
Make c l o t h i n g r e p a i r s ,
alterations

»rd, Lawn, and Outdoor Care
Cut gras s
104
(97.1)
Cut or s p l i t wood f o r
48
fireplace/stove
(45.7)
Haul t r a s h
84
(69.1)
Remove snow
101
(94.3)
Seasonal cleanup
101
(94.4)
Trim t r e e s , shrubs
100
(93.4)
Weed flowerbeds, lawns
101
(94.4)

5
(4 .7 )
24
(22.4)
3
( 2 .8 )
- —
—

1
(0 .9 )

1
(0 .9 )
- -

1
(0 .9 )
2
(1 .9 )
2
(1 .9 )
2
(1 .9 )

167

—

1
(0.9)
8
(7.5)
35
(32.7)
46
(43.0)
25
(23.0)
40
(37.4)

C -3 .--P e rc e iv e d Values o f Household Production by Husbands and Wives

Value Ranges

Activity

Less than
$50

$51$100

$101450

More than Does not
$450
apply

Missinq

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m----- rtf— (%)---- m--- — onr^
Husbands' Values (n=107)
Car c a r e and r e p a i r
Car p o o l, walking
Care f o r c h i l d r e n
Care f o r family members
Do-it-yourself projects
Food p re s e r v a t i o n
Gardening
Home c ar e and r e p a i r
Hunting and f i s h i n g
Personal care
Sewing, hobbies, c r a f t s
Yard, lawn, outdoor care

Wives' Values (n=107)
Car c ar e and r e p a i r
Car p o o l , walking
Care f o r c h i l d r e n
Care f o r family members
Do-it-yourself projects
Food p r e s e r v a t i o n
Home c ar e and r e p a i r
Hunting and f i s h i n g
Personal care
Sewing, hobbie s, c r a f t s
Yard, lawn, outdoor care

21
(19.6)
5
(4 .7 )
10
(9 .3 )

17
(15.9)
30
(28.0)
27
(25.2)
7
(6.5)
11
(10.3)
15
(14.0)
28
(26.2)
6
(5.6)
27
(25.2)
44
(41.1)
20
(18.7)
18
(16.8)

23
(21.5)
4
(3 .7 )
15
(14.0)
1
(0 .9 )
11
(10.3)
18
(16.8)
21
(19.6)
12
(11-2)
17
(15.9)
19
(17.8)
6
(5 .6 )
32
(29.9)

23
(21.5)
17
(15.9)
28
(26.2)
38
(35.5)
6
(5 .6 )
4
( 3 .7 )
5
( 4 .7 )
40
(37.4)

36
(33.6)
4
(3.7)
6
(5.6)
48
(44.9)
3
(2.8)

42
(39.3)
34
(31.8)
24
(22.4)
5
(4. 7 )
19
(17.8)
13
(12.1)
12
(11.2)
25
(23.4)
41
(38.3)
30
(28.0)
31
(29.0)

14
(13.1)
16
(15.0)
9
(8.4)
1
(0.9)
12
(11.2)
35
(32.7)
20
(18.7)
3
(2.8)
32
(29.9)
28
(26.2)
24
(22.4)

19
(17.8)
8
(7 .5 )
19
(17.8)
1
(0 .9 )
16
(15.0)
33
(30.8)
31
(29.0)
6
(5. 6 )
16
(15.0)
20
(18.7)
30
(28.0)

8
(7.5)
2
(1. 9 )
28
(26.2)

168

43
(40.2)
17
(15.9)
11
(10.3)
_ _
- -

- - -

1
(0.9)
11
(10.5)

- -

15
(14.0)
13
(12.1)
32
(29.9)
1
(0 .9 )
4
(3 .7 )
12
(11.2)
8
(7.5)

3
(2 .8 )
35
(32.7)
44
(41.1)
99
(92.5)
23
(21.5)
51
(47.7)
24
(22.4)
3
(2 .8 )
53
(49.5)
39
(36.4)
72
(67.3)
6
( 5 .6 )
23
(21.5)
39
(36.4)
25
(23.4)
98
(91.6)
43
(40.2)
12
(11.2)
11
(10.3)
69
(64.5)
12
(11.2)
16
(15.0)
11
(10.3)

—

16
(15.0)
- —

—

3
(2 .8 )
2
(1. 9 )
- -

- -

1
(0 .9 )
1
( 0 .9 )
3
( 2 .8 )

1
( 0 .9 )
8
(7 .5 )
2
(1 .9 )
2
(1 .9 )
2
(1 .9 )
1
(0 .9 )
1
(0 .9 )
3
(2 .8 )
2
(1 .9 )
1
(0 .9 )
3
(2 .8 )

C -4 .~ P e rc e iv e d Value o f Household Production by Demographic Variables

Mean D o ll a r Values
V ariable_________________________ Husbands'_________ Hives'______ Family Total
Total

1390

1346

2736

1350
1207
1613
.0426*

1188
1367
1460
.3730

2538
2574
3073
.1159

1599
1172
1423
1384
.2035

1292
1226
1609
1276
.2917

2891
2393
3032
2660
.2539

Employment
Single-earner
D ua l-e ar ne r
S ig n i f ic a n c e

1429
1350
.6130

1368
1351
.9169

2797
2709
.7164

Household Size
Three persons
Four persons
Five persons
Six or more persons
S ig n i f i c a n c e

1268
1324
1558
1352
.4789

1018
1434
1384
1305
.4952

2286
2757
2942
2658
.4992

Location
Urban
Small Town
Rural
S ig n i f i c a n c e
Income
Under $20,000
$20,000-24,999
$25,000-29,999
$30,000 and over
S ig n i f i c a n c e

'

*Sign. a t .05 level

169

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A lb re c h t, S. L . , Bahr, H. W. & Chadwick, B. A.
r o l e s : an assessment o f age d i f f e r e n c e s .
th e Family, 1979, 41 ( 1 ) , 41-50.
Andrews, F. M. & Withey, S. B.
York: Plenum P r e s s , 1976.

Social

Changing family and sex
Journal o f Marriage and

In d i c a t o r s o f Well-Being.

New

Andrews, M. P . , Bubolz, M. M. & P a ol uc ci , B. An e co lo g i c a l approach to
study the family . Marriage and Family Review, 1980,
29-49.
Baerwaldt, N. & Morgan, J .
Trends in i n t r a - f a m i l y t r a n s f e r s .
Mandell, L. e t a l . (E ds.) Surveys of Consumers 1971-1972.
Arbor: I n s t i t u t e of Social Research, 1973.

In
Ann

Becker, G. S. A the ory of m arr ia ge . In Sc hultz , T. W. ( E d . ) , Economics
o f the Family. Chicago: U niv e rs it y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1974.
Becker, G. S.
A the or y of the a l l o c a t i o n
J o u r n a l. 1965, LXXV, 299, 493-517.
Becker, G. S.
A T r e a t i s e on the Family.
Harvard U ni v e rs it y P r e s s ,
1981.

of

time.

The

Economic

Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Berk,

R. A. The new home economics:
an agenda f o r s o c i o l o g i c a l
re s e a r c h .
In Berk, S. F. ( E d . ) ,
Women and Household Labor.
Beverly H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1980.

Berk,

R. A. & Berk, S. F. A simultaneous equati on model f o r t h e
d i v i s i o n of household l a b o r .
Soc iological Methods and Research,
1978, 6, 431-468.

Berk,

R. A. & Berk, S. F. Labor and
Leisure a t Home Content and
O rganization o f t h e
Household Day.
Beverly
Hills:
Sage
P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1979.

Berk, S. F. & Shih, A.
Co ntri b ut io ns to household la bor:
Comparing
wives' and husbands' r e p o r t s .
In Berk, S. F. ( E d . ) , Women and
Household Labor. Beverly H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1980.
B e u t l e r , I. F. & Owen, A. J .
A home production a c t i v i t y model.
Economics Research J o u r n a l , 1980, 9, 16-26.

171

Home

172

B e u t l e r , I . F. & Owen, A. J .
New p e r s p e c ti v e s on production in the
home--A conceptual view.
Missouri A g ri c u lt u ra l Experiment S t a t i o n
and th e Department of Home Economics,
U ni ve rs ity o f Missouri,
Columbia, Mo, 1979.
B e u t l e r , I . F. & Owen, A. J . Th e or e tic al a sp e c ts of th e boundary i s s u e
in household pro du c tio n. Qu art erly Report t o Family Economics
Research Group SEA-AR. March 1981.
Bivens, G.
The g r a n t s economy and study of t h e American family:
A
possible
framework
for
t r a n s d i s c i p l i n a r y approaches.
Home
Economics Research J o u r n a l , 1976, j5, 70-78.
Boulding, K. E.
1973.

The Economy o f Love and Fear.

Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth,

Brown,
C. V.
Home production
f o r use in a market economy.
Thorne, B. & Yalom, M. ( E d s . ) , Rethinking th e Family:
Feminist Q ue sti ons . New York: Longman, 1982.
Bubolz, M. M., E i c h e r, J . B. & Sontag, M. S. The human ecosystem:
model. Journal o f Home Economics. 1979, Tl ( 2 ) , 28-31.

In
Some
A

Campbell, A ., Converse, P. E. & Rodgers, W. L. The Quality of American
L i f e . New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976.
C ap l o v it z, D. Making ends meet: How fa m i l i e s cope with i n f l a t i o n and
r e c e s s i o n . Annuals o f the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and Social
Sc ie n ce . Ju ly 1981, 456:88-98.
Church o f Jesus C h r i s t o f L a t t e r - d a y S a i n t s , The. Personal and Family
Preparedness Study, Vol. V I I I . S a l t Lake City! Welfare Services
Department, 1980.
Dalla Costa, M. & James, S. The Power of Women and the Subversion of
the Community. England: F a l l i n g Wall P r e s s , 1911.
Danes, S. M. R e l a ti o n s h ip o f non-market t r a n s f e r s and q u a l i t y of l i f e
f o r non-migrant Michigan Mexican Americans (M a ste r' s t h e s i s ,
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978).
Davey, A. J . & Pa o lu c ci , B. Family i n t e r a c t i o n : A study of shared time
and a c t i v i t i e s . Family R e l a t i o n s , 1980, 28, 43-49.
Davis, J . Standards and c o n te n t of l i v i n g .
March 1945, 35, 1-5.

American Economics Review,

Deacon, R. E. & Firebaugh, F. M. Family Resource Management P r i n c i p l e s
and A p p l i c a t i o n s . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, I n c . , 1981.
D ie si n g, P. Reason in Society Five types of d e c is io n s and t h e i r s o c ia l
c o n d i t i o n s , Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood P r e s s , 1962.

173

Eghan, F. R & Lawrence, F. C.
Husbands' p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household
production. Louisiana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , School o f Home Economics,
1982. ( a b s t r a c t )
E l d e r, G. H. Children of the Great Depression: Social Change in Life
Experiences! Chicago: t h e U niv e rs it y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1974.
E l g in , D. S. & M i t c h e l l , A. Voluntary s i m p l i c i t y :
f u t u r e ? The F u t u r i s t , 1977, 11 (4 ) .

L i f e - s t y l e of the

Emerson, M. R.
R el at io n s h ip s of fami ly economic help p a t t e r n s t o
s p e c i f i c family c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1970).
Er ickse n , J . A., Yancey, W. L. & Eri cks en , E. P. The d i v i s i o n of family
r o l e s . Journal o f Marriage and th e Family, 1979, £1 ( 2 ) , 301-313.
Evans, M. K. The source o f personal saving in the U.S.
J o u r n a l , March 23, 1981, p. 19.

The Wall S t r e e t

E z e l l , M. P.
Family members' p e rc e p ti o n s of household production in
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o q u a l i t y of l i f e (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1982.)
Fee, T. Domestic l a b o u r; an a n a l y s i s of housework and i t s r e l a t i o n t o
the production p ro c e ss . Review of Radical P o l i t i c a l Economy, 1976,

8 ( 1), 1- 8.
Ferneyhough, B. On confinement of women to housework as an ex clu si on
from s o c ia l pro d uc tio n. P o l i t i c a l A f f a i r s , 1974, L I I I ( 3 ) , 50-55.
Fitzsimmons, C. & Williams, F.
The
Management of Resources. Ann Arbor:

Family Economy, Nature and
Edwards B ro th e rs , I n c . , 1974.

Gauger, W. Household work: Can we add i t to the GNP?
Economics, 1973, 65 ( 7 ) , 12-15.

Journal of Home

Gronau, R.
L e is u r e , home p ro d u c ti o n , and work—the theory of t h e
a l l o c a t i o n of time r e v i s i t e d . Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy, 1977,
85 ( 6 ) , 1099-1123.
He fferan , C.
New methods f o r studying household production.
Economic Review, 1982a ( 3 ) , 30-33.
He rreran , C. Workload of married women.
( 3 ) , 10-15.
Henderson, J . M. & Quandt,
McGraw-Hill, 1958.

R. E.

Family

Family Economic Review, 1982b

Microeconomic

Theory.

New York:

H i l l , M. S. P a t t e r n s of time use.
In J u s t e r , F. T. & S t a f f o r d , F. P.
( E d s . ) . Time Use in American Households. Ann Arbor: U ni ve rs ity
o f Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research, forthcoming.

174

H i l l , M. S. & Oust er , F. T. C o n st r ai n ts and Complementarities in Time
Use.
Ann Arbor:
U ni ve rs ity of Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r Social
Research, July 1980.
H ill,

R. Modern systems theory and the family:
Social Science Inf orm at ion , 1971, .10, 7-26.

A c o n fr o n ta ti o n .

Himmelweit, S. & Mohn, S.
Domestic labour and c a p i t a l .
Journal of Economics, 1977, 1., 15-31.

Cambridge

H o ff e rt h , S. L. & Moore, K. A. Women's employment and marriage.
In
Smith, R. E. ( E d . ) , The Subtle Revolution:
Women a t Work,
Washington, D.C.: The Urban I n s t i t u t e , 1979.
Inman, M. Maternity as a s o c i a l f u n c ti o n .
LII ( 1 ) , 56-60.
The Joy of Gardening.

P o litical Affaris.

1973,

Newsweek, J uly 26, 1982, pp. 50-53.

J u s t e r , F. T . , Courant, P. N. & Dow, G. K. The Theory and Measurement
of Wen-being: A Suggested Framework f o r Accounting and A nal ysis .
Ann Arbor: Unive rs ity of Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research,
April 1980.
Katona, G.
Essays on Behavior Economics. Ann Arbor:
Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research, 1980.

Univer si ty of

King, W. I .
The National Income and I t s Purchasing Power.
National 8ureau of Economic Research, 1930.
Kuznets, S. S.
New York:

New York:

National Income and I t s Composition, 1919-1938.
National bureau of Economic Research, 1941.

Kyrk, H. The Family in the American Economy.
Chicago P r e s s , 1953.

Chicago:

L a n c as te r, K. A new approach to consumer the ory .
Economy, 1966 (A p r i l) .

2 Vols.

Unive rs ity of

Journal of P o l i t i c a l

Larson, L. E. System and subsystem percep tio n of family r o l e s .
of Marriage and the Family. 1974, 36 ( 1 ) , 123-137.

Journal

Lazarro, J . A.
The saving and i n v e s t in g p r a c t i c e s of urban, small town,
and r u r a l f a m i l i e s in mid-Michigan (M aster's t h e s i s , Michigan St a te
U n i v e r s i t y , 1982).
Leonard-Barton, D. & Rogers, E. M. Voluntary s i m p l i c i t y in C a l i f o r n i a :
Precursors or fad? Paper presented a t the American Association of
Science, San Franc is co, 1980.
Lerguia, I . & Dumoulin, J . Toward a Science o f Women's L i b e ra ti o n .
P o l i t i c a l A f f a i r s , 1972, LI ( 6 ) , 40-52; ( 8 ) , 39-51.

175

Lovinggood, R. P. & Firebaugh, F. M. Household t a s k performance r o l e s
o f husbands and wives.
Home Economics Research J o u r n a l , 1978, 7
( 1 ) , 20-33.
Maloch, F. P r o p e r t i e s , q u a l i t i e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f most and l e a s t
l i k e d household t a s k s (Cornell U n iv e rs it y A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment
S t a t i o n Memoir 384, I t h a c a , New York).
M artin, M. The value of nonmarket household pr od uc tio n:
c o s t versus market c o s t e s t i m a t e s .
The Review of
Wealth, 1978, 24, 249.
Maslow, A. H.
1954.

Motivation and P e r s o n a l i t y .

Mel son, G. F.
Family and
M inn eapolis, Minnesota:

New York:

Opportunity
Income and

Harper and Row,

Environment:
An Ecosystem P e r s p e c t i v e .
Burgess Publi shin g Co., 1980.

Mineer, J . Labor fo r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f married women, in Lewis, H. G.
( E d . ) , Aspects of Labor Economics, U n i v e r s i t i e s - N a t i o n a l Bureau
Conference S e r i e s , No. 14, P r i n c e t o n , N . J . :
Pr inc et on U ni v e rs it y
P r e s s , 1962.
Morgan, J . N.
Intra-fam ily tra n s fe rs re v is ite d :
th e support of
dependents i n s i d e th e fa mi ly .
In Duncan, G. J . & Morgan, J . N.,
Five Thousand American Fa m il ie s —P a t t e r n s o f Economic Pr o g re ss ,
Vol. VI. Ann Arbor: U niv e rs it y o f Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r Social
Research, 1978.
Morgan, J . N., David, M., Cohen, W. & B ra ze r, H. Income and Welfare in
the United S t a t e s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1 9 3 ^
Morgan, J . N., S i r a g e l d i n , I . A. & Baerwaldt, N. Productive Americans:
A Study o f How Americans C ont rib ute to Economic P r o g r e s s . Ann
Arbor: U n iv e rs it y of Michigan P r e s s , 1966.
N i c k e l l , P . , Rice, A. S. & Tucker, S. P. Management in Family L iv ing .
New York: John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , 1976.
Nie, N. H., H ull , C. H., J e n k i n s , J . G . , S t e i n b r e n n e r , K. & Bent, D. H.,
S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Social Sc ie nc e s . New York: McGraw-.
H ill Book Company, 1975.
Odum, H. T. & Odum, E. C. Energy Basis For Man and Nature.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1976.

New York:

O r t i z , B., MacDonald, M., Ackerman, N. & Goebel, K. The e f f e c t s of
homemakers' employment on meal p r e p a r a t i o n ti m e , meals a t home, and
meals away from home.
Home Economics Research J o u r n a l , 1981, 9
( 3 ) , 200-206.

176

Owen, A. J . & B e u t l e r , I. F. Home production as an a l t e r n a t i v e in an
energy
deficient-inflationary
economy.
Paper
sponsored
by
U niv e rs ity o f Missouri A g r ic u lt u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , 1981.
Owen,

A. J .
& Beutler,
I . F.
Household production
employment:
dual avenues o f consumer be havior.
Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 1981, jj, 157-174.

and market
Journal of

P a o lu c c i , B. & Ching, D.
Myths and r e a l i t i e s o f work and family:
Im pl ica tio ns f o r home economics e d u c a to r s .
Paper presented f o r
I l l i n o i s Teacher S i l v e r J u b i l e e Conference on Work and Family.
U ni ve rs ity o f I l l i n o i s , April 21, 1982.
P a o lu c ci , B . , H a l l , 0. & Axinn, N.
Family Decision
Ecosystem Approach. New York: John Wiley, 1§11.

Making:

An

P a o lu c c i , B. & o t h e r s .
Im pli ca tio n o f measuring household production:
A panel d i s c u s s i o n .
In Hefferan, C. (Ed.) The Household as
Producer--A Look Beyond th e Market.
Proceedings o f Workshop of
Family Economics-Home Management Section of AHEA, 1980.
Pes kin , J .
Measuring household production
Economics Review, 1982 ( 3 ) , 16-25.

for

the

GNP.

InFamily

P o l l a c k , R. A. & Wachter, M. L.
The rele van ce of th e household
production f u n c ti o n and i t s im p li c a ti o n s f o r th e a l l o c a t i o n of
time. Journal of P o l i t i c a l Economy, 1974, 83 ( 2 ) , 255-278.
Reid, M. G.Economics of Household Production.
Sons, I n c . , 1934.
Reid,

New York:

John Wiley

&

M. G.
Comments:
The household as producer.
In Hefferan, C.
(Ed.) The Household as Producer--A Look Beyond th e Market.
Proceedings of Workshop o f Family Economics-Home Management Section
of AHEA, 1980.

Robinson, J . P.
Housework technology and household work.
In Berk,
S. F. ( E d . ) , Women and Household Labor.
Beverly H i l l s :
Sage
P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1980.
Robinson, J .
Analysis
1977a.

P.
of

How Americans Use
Everyday Behavior.

Time:
A So c ia l-P syc hol ogi cal
New York:
Praqer P u b l i s h e r s ,

Robinson, J . P.
How Americans Used Time in 1965.
Ann Arbor:
U ni v e rs it y of Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research, 1977b.
Robinson, J . P.
Of ti m e , dual c a r e e r s and household p r o d u c t i v i t y .
Family Economics Review, 1982 ( 3 ) , 26-30.
Robinson, J . P . , Converse, P. E. & S z a l a i , A. Everyday l i f e in twelve
c o u n t r i e s . In S z a l a i , A. ( E d . ) , The Use of Time: Daily A c t i v i t i e s
o f Urban and Surburban Populations in Twelve Countrie s . The Hague:
Mouton, l9!72.

177

Ronald, P. Y .» S in g e r , M. E. & Firebaugh, F. M.
Rating s c a le f o r
household t a s k s , Journal o f Home Economics, 1971, 63 ( 3 ) , 178-179.
Sanik, M. M. Division of household work: A decade comparison—19671977. Home Economics Research J o u r n a l , 1981, _10 ( 2 ) , 175-180.
Scanzoni, J .
Changing sex r o l e s and emerging d i r e c t i o n s in family
de ci s io n makinq. The Journal o f Consumer Research.
1977 4 ( 3 ) ,
185-188.
S c h u l t z , T. N.
Investment in human c a p i t a l .
Review, 1961, LI ( 1 ) , 1-17.

The American Economic

Sharp, H. & Axelrod, M.
Mutual a i d among r e l a t i v e s in an urban
po p u la ti o n .
In Freedman, R. & Assoc iates (E ds .)
Principles of
Sociol ogy, New York: Rine hart and Winston, I n c . , 1956.
Smith, J . D & Ward, M. P. Asset accumulation and family s i z e .
Monica, C a l i f o r n i a : The Rand Corporation, September 1979.

Santa

Snow, D. A study in th e development of a technique f o r determining the
amount of time and type of a c t i v i t i e s which family members s har e
(M a ste r' s t h e s i s , U ni v e rs it y of Georgia, 1950).
Sokol o f f , N. J .
The economic p o s i t i o n of women in th e family.
In
S t e i n , P. J . , Richman, J . & Hannon, N. (Eds.)
The Family
Fun ct ion s,
Conflicts
and
Symbols,
Reading,
Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1977.
S t e i d l , R. E. A f f e c t i v e dimension of homemaking t a s k s .
Research J o u r n a l , 1975, 4 ( 2 ) , 136.
S t e i d l , R. E. & B r a tt o n , E. C.
& Sons, 1968.

Work in th e Home.

Home Economics

New York:

John Wiley

Strober,
M. H. Wives l a b o r fo r c e behavior and fmaily consumption
p a t t e r n s . American Economic Review, 1977, 67 ( 1 ) , 411-419.
Strober,
M. H. & Weinberg, C. B. S t r a t e g i e s used by working and
nonworking wives t o reduce time p r e s s u r e s .
Journal of Consumer
Research, 1980, 6 ( 9 ) , 338-348.
Strober,
M. H. & Weinberg, C. B. Working wives and major family
e x p e n d it u re s . Journal o f Consumer Research. 1977, 4^ ( 3 ) , 141-147.
Sussman,
M. B.Family c o n t i n u i t y :
S e l e c t i v e f a c t o r s which a f f e c t
r e l a t i o n s h i p s between f a m i l i e s a t ge n er at io n a l l e v e l s .
Marriage
and Family L i v i n g , 1954, JU5 ( 2 ) , 112-120.
Sussman, M. B. The help p a t t e r n in the middle c l a s s fa mily.
So ci olo gic al Review, 1953, 18 ( 1 ) , 22-28.

American

178

Sussman, M. B. The i s o l a t e d family:
1959, 6 ( 4 ) , 333-340.

Fact or f i c t i o n .

Social Problems,

Sussman, M. B. & B u rc hin al , L.
Kin Family Network:
Unheralded
s t r u c t u r e in c u r r e n t c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s o f family f u nc ti on in g.
Marriage and Family L i v i n g , 1962, 24 ( 3 ) , 231-240.
S z a l a i , A. (Ed.)
The Use o f Time:
Daily A c t i v i t i e s o f Urban and
Suburban Populations in Twelve Coun tri es .
The Hague:
Mounton,

157T.

Thorpe, A. C. P a t t e r n s o f family i n t e r a c t i o n w ith in th e home (Doctoral
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1956).
s

U.S.

Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e ,
Bureau of Human N u t r i t i o n and Home
Economics.
The time c o s t s of homemaking—A study o f 1,500 r u r a l
and urban homemakers, 1944. (mimeo) 10 pp.

Vanek, J .
Keeping busy:
Time
spent in housework, United S t a t e s ,
1920-1970 (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U niv e rs it y of Michigan, 1973).
Vickery, C. Women's economic c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e fa mi ly .
In Smith,
R. E. (Ed.) The Subtle Revolution:
Women a t Work. Washington,
D.C.: The Urban I n s t i t u t e , 1979.
Walker, K. E. Household Work time: Im pl ic a tio ns f o r family d e c i s i o n s .
Journal of Home Economics, 1973, 65 ( 7 ) , 7-11.
Walker, K. E. & Gauger, W. H. The d o l l a r value of household work.
Information B u l l e t i n 60. New York S t a t e College of Human Ecology,
Cornell U n i v e r s i t y , I t h a c a , New York, 1973.
Walker, K. E. & Woods, M. E.
Time Use:
A Measure o f Household
Production o f Family Goods and Services"
Washington, D.C.:
American Home Economics A s s o c ia ti o n , 1976.
Warren, J . Use of time in i t s r e l a t i o n to home management. B u l l e t i n
734, Cornell U niv e rs it y "Agricultural Experiment S t a t i o n , It h a c a ,
New York, 1970.
Wilhelm, M. D ir e c t and i n d i r e c t c o nse rva tio n of f o s s i l fuel energy:
The in f l u e n c e o f f i n a n c i a l and p h ilo s op hi c al motivators and
a v a i l a b l e human resou rce s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1981).
Wyskiel, E. W.
Time and money management of
( M a st e r' s t h e s i s , Cornell U n i v e r s i t y , 1960).

married

students.