INFORMATION TO U SERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a m anuscript sent to u s for publication
and microfilming. While the m ost advanced technology h as been used to p h o ­
tograph and reproduce this m anuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily
dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any m anuscript
may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which
may appear on this reproduction.
1. M anuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain
missing pages, a note appears to indicate this.
2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the m anuscript, a note ap­
pears to indicate this.
3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec­
tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand com er and continu­
ing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize
page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for a n additional
charge, as a standard 35mm slide or in black and white paper format.*
4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro­
fiche b u t lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For
a r additional charge, all photographs are available in black and w hite
standard 35mm slide format. *
*For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions,
please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

M

’IJmMBrsity
Micronhns
. International

8613277

Ching, Donna Rae

CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY WORK

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Ph.D.

1986

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V

1.

Glossy photographs or pages_____

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print_______

3.

Photographs with dark backgrou nd_____

4.

Illustrations are poor copy_______

5.

Pages with black marks, not original copy

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e_______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8.

Print exceeds margin requirements______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

_____

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______

11.

Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

Page(s)

13.

Two pages numbered

14.

Curling and wrinkled pages

15.
16.

.

seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
. Text follows.

Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received
Other

University
Microfilms
International

CHILDREN'S PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY WORK

by
Donna Rae Ching

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan S ta te University
in p a rtial fulfillm ent of the requirem ents
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1985

ABSTRACT

CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY WORK
By
Donna Rae Ching

This descriptive study examined the perceived contributions to
household work of children (of se lec te d ages and both sexes) and their
perceived quality of life. The data w ere taken from a larger study whose
random sample of 107 fam ilies represented urban, small town and rural
locations in mid-Michigan. Each husband, w ife and oldest child (between
the ages of 6 and 12) w ere given a se lf-a d m in iste red questionnaire.
This sm aller study focused its analysis on the responses of the
children from three sectio n s of th eir questionnaire.

These data were

analyzed to examine the child's perceived contribution to household
work, the quantity and kinds of ta s k s performed by tne child and the
child's perceived quality of life. S ta tis tic a l t e s t s used were analyis of
variance, chi-square, z - t e s t and correlation.
The boys and g irls in th is study did not d iffer significantly in their
perceived contribution to the household work of the family.

They did

d iffer significantly in the number of ta s k s reported being performed.
Boys w ere

overrepresented

in the group of

low

perform ers

and

underrepresented in the group of high performers. The reverse w as true
for the sample of girls. The boys and g irls also differed significantly in
the kinds of task s performed.

Girls did more in-the-home work while

boys worked more outside.
Age groups differed significantly in perceived contributions to the
household work of the family.

Children's perceptions were highest at

ages 6 and 7, peaking a t age 7. Their perceptions of th eir contributions
decline from age 7 and increase again around ages 11 and 12. Older girls
appeared to perform more task s than younger girls. The age of the boy
did not appear to influence the number of ta s k s performed.
Boys and g irls did not differ significantly in perceived quality of
life, but age groups did.

Younger children scored higher than older

children on perceived quality of whole life scores.

DEDICATED

To Dr. Beatrice Paolucci
As a role model, she is unsurpassed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This d isse rta tio n w as only completed because of the support given
by my family and friends.

I think it only appropriate to acknowledge

them here because of the important role they played in making th is work
possible.
The person who w as c lo se st to th is work and nurtured it during
every stag e of i t s development was my m ajor professor and dissertatio n
director, Dr. Margaret Bubolz.

Her professionalism , love of knowledge

and sincere concern for people have influence me tremendously. She was
alw ays available to me when 1 needed help during the course of
completing my doctoral program.
All the members of my comm ittee, Mary Andrews, Irene Hathaway,
Dennis Keefe and Michael Moore, also have my deepest gratitude.

Each

has provided invaluable support and contributed to my development as a
professional.
My friends and colleagues, Esther Fergus, Sandy Tsuneyoshi, Amy and
Lynette lezzoni, w ere always a source of encouragement and, in many
instances, they w ere willing to give of th eir tim e and energy wnen help
was needed. In particular, Esther Fergus gave me the critical impetus I
needed to complete the la s t chapters of th is dissertation.
Of m ajor importance in the completion of th is endeavor were my
baby sitters, Lou Ann Wilcox and Shun Lee Kam.

They provided my son

Harrison w ith a loving and nurturing environment and th is freed me to
work on my d issertation.

Finally, I would like to thank the members of my family who have
nurtured me through th is en tire process. My parents have always been a
source of emotional support and suffered w ith me during each and every
ste p toward the completion of th is degree.
The two m ost important people in my life, my husband Skip and son
Harrison, have had to bear the brunt of my fru stra tio n when the work was
not progressing as I desired.
late dinners

or

They have put up w ith endless nights of

dinners which were delivered. Harrison, who was used to

having mommy on a regular basis, had to a d ju st to going to the b abysitter
(during the last push to complete th is d isse rta tio n he went five days a
week). Through all of this, they have both been loving and supportive,
providing me w ith the kind of home environment which gave me the
energy and desire to complete my work.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

'

X

Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION

1

S tatem ent of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Hypotheses
Definitions
Theoretical Definitions
Operational Definitions
Assumptions

1
5
5
6
7
7
7
8

2. THE DEVELOPMENTAL!ST APPROACH: A CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
Developmental i s t s
Piaget
Erikson
Havighurst
Super
Role-Modeling from a Developmentalist Perspective
Household Work Participation of School-Age Children
from a Developmental ist Perspective
Summary
3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

9
10
11
11
12
13
15
17
20
21

Research on Household Work
Studies w ith Children as a Seconday Focus
Studies and Publications w ith Children as a Primary
Focus
v

22
22
26

Chapter

Page

3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE (cont'd.)
Rationale for Assigning Children Household Tasks
Factors Affecting Children's Involvement in
Household Work
Summary
Children and Work
A Brief Historical Perspective on Work and Its Impact/
Influence on Children
Work Participation of Children in Other Societies: The
Importance of Early Training
Summary
The Firstborn Child
Birth Order Research Focusing on the Firstborn
Summary
The E ffects of Sex, Sex Roles and Age on Children's
Household Work Contributions
Hypotheses Formulated
Research on Quality of Life
Quality of Life: Basic Concepts
Studies on Children's Quality of Life
Studies of Quality of School Life
National Studies
Hypotheses Formulated
Summary
4. METHODOLOGY

26
30
35
35
35
37
39
39
39
42
42
50
51
51
52
53
54
55
55
57

Research Design
Description of the Study Sample
Summary
Instrum ent Development
Related L iterature
Description of Variables
Instrum entation and Scoring
Perceived Quality of Life
Perceived Contributions to Family Work
Number of Tasks Performed
vi

58
61
67
67
68
70
70
70
71
72

Page

Chapter

4. METHODOLOGY (cont’d.)
S ta tis tic a l Analysis
Lim itations
Limitations of Instrum ent
5. FINDINGS

72
74
75
76

Child's Perceived Contribution to Household Work
Quantity and Kinds of Tasks Performed by the Child
Child's Perceived Quality of Life

77
79
82

6. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

85

Overview of the Study
Major Conclusions
Discussion of Findings
Implications of the Study
Recommendations for Further Research

85
86
87
94
97

APPENDICES
Appendix A
A-1.

Training Meeting

100

A-2.

Introduction L etter

101

A-3.

Consent Form

102

Appendix B
B - 1.
B-2.

Demographic C h a rac te ristic s of Areas in Which
Sampling Occurred
103
C lassification of A ttem pted Placement of Questionnaire
by Location and Eligibility of Family
104

v ii

Page

Chapter

APPENDICES (cont'd.)
Appendix C
C - 1. Part of Parents' Questionnaire Used in the Study
C-2.

105

Part of the Children's Questionnaire Used in the Study 115

Appendix D
D -1. Descriptive S t a ti s t i c s for Perceived Contributions
to Family Work
D-2.

119

Descriptive S t a ti s t i c s for Number of Tasks

120

Performed

121

BIBLIOGRAPHY

v iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table

1.

Page

Summary of Household Work Studies w ith Children as a
Seconday Focus

23

2.

C h a rac te ristic s of Families in the Sample

63

3.

Summary of Sample by Age and Sex

74

4.

Number of Tasks Performed by Boys and Girls

80

5.

Percentage of Boys and Girls Performing Specific Household
Tasks

81

D -1.

D-2.

Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s for Perceived Contributions to
Family Work

119

Descriptive S t a ti s t i c s for Number of Tasks Performed

120

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

1.

Faces Scale

69

2.

Child’s Perceived Contribution by Age

78

3.

Child's Perceived Quality of Whole Life by Age

84

4.

Child's Perceived Quality of Self Domain by Age

84

x

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION
S tatem en t of Problem

With today’s changing economic and social environment there is
renewed concern w ith

the fam ily’s productive capabilities.

New

emphasis is placed on th e importance of the family in the development
and u tilization of human capital.

The fam ily's productive capabilities

have increased impact during tim e s when p articipation in the m arket is
constrained or term inated.
poten tiality

of

children

Questions a re being raised about the
being

identified

as

important

economic

resources because of the work they do inside and outside the home.

In

e arlie r tim es, and s t i ll today in many p a rts of the world, children are and
have been im portant economic assets.

In contemporary American

society, however, work done by children in th e home has more often been
seen as an opportunity to practice sk ills and learn values which will be
useful to them in the paid work force. But, children's work is more than
that.
The chores perform ed by children contribute to th e ir repertoire of
household ta s k s which they can tap for la te r roles in th e ir own families.
Not only are the child’s work experiences important, the meaning of th at
activity for the child and family is also important. Parents give several
common reasons

fo r assigning children chores (White and Brinkerhoff,

1981):
1

2

1.

Doing household task s will build c h arac ter while developing
responsibility and competence.

2.

Children have a duty to do household ta s k s to help the
family because working together is p a rt of being a family.

3.

Having household
parents need help.

4.

In the long run, children need to know how to do these tasks.

5.

Chores give the child an opportunity to earn an allowance or do
something to keep occupied.

respo n sib ilities is necessary

because

When a child is old enough to contribute to the fam ily's w ell-being
by participating in household work, th a t child learns and becomes a
functioning part of the group. This is especially true when the learning
occurs w ith people the child loves and admires. Performing work 1 the
home which is challenging and reinforced by parents who care enables a
child to develop both ability and identity. Children acquire new in te re s ts
and skills, and learn the meaning of competence, cooperation and
responsibility.

These are all necessary components if children are to

assum e productive and supportive ro les w ithin the family and in the paid
work force.

When parents and older siblings allo cate th e ir tim e and

s k ills in building the human resources of younger family members, th is
is viewed as an investm ent in human capital and the role of the family
and i ts members as one of production.
Changes in society demand an increase in children's participation in
family work w ith a resulting in te re s t in studying the e ffe c t of th ese
changes. The m ost obvious change is the dram atic movement of women
into the labor force. Equally significant is the increase of single parent
fam ilies.

Both of these changes re s u lt in the phenomenon

oi

3

"latch key children” i.e. children who have access to th eir homes w ithout
a supervising parent present. Not only are these children responsible for
them selves and, som etim es, younger s i s t e r s and brothers while th e ir
parents are working, in many instances, they provide the vital serv ices
th a t are necessary to m aintain a household. They may be responsible for
the bulk of the cooking and cleaning as well as having access to the
fam ily's economic resources so th a t they are making important consumer
decisions in the marketplace. Participation of children in family work is
also important because the s ta tu s of children has changed over time.
Prior to the industrial revolution when the m ajority of the
population in the U. S. lived in rural areas, there w as no question th a t
every individual w as a worker in the family.

Families c o n stituted

economic units and all members played important productive roles
w ithin the household (Keniston, 1977). Most boys worked alongside th e ir
fa th e rs in the field and g irls contributed by a ssistin g th eir m others in
household work.

Working for and w ith th e ir fam ilies, children w ere

viewed as economic a s s e t s who were being socialized for future adult
roles.

Men, women and children developed and maintained feelings of

competence through th e ir contributions to family work.
Changes began occurring in the nineteenth century. On the farm, the
production of cash crops provided a higher standard of living and
replaced s e lf-s u ffic ie n t agriculture. In c itie s, the industrial revolution
created a situ atio n where w orkers (especially fathers) had to leave th e ir
homes to work in factories. Changes occurred gradually and were uneven.
At the turn of the century, many children as young as 7 or 8 were
s till found working in the family business (i.e. family sto re or farm) as
well as in the home. In m ost cases though, the economic "value" of

4

children to th e ir fam ilie s had changed. With industrialization, a more
skilled and educated labor force w as needed, thus increasing the years of
formal schooling.

Childhood w as prolonged; th is increased both the

number of years a child remained dependent on parents and a financial
drain on the family. Instead of being viewed as an a sse t, children had
become an enormous economic liability (Keniston, 1977).
This

increased

dependence

and

an

increase

in

the

family's

dependence on goods and se rv ic e s obtained outside the family system
have created a situ a tio n where some children have no specific role in the
family. Their dependence on the family has increased while a t the same
tim e th e ir contributions to family functioning have decreased.

These

feelings of lack of competence have been used as a p artial explanation of
the alienation, irrespon sibility and conflict w ith parents seen in some of
today's adolescents.
It is th is concern w ith the mental health of children which has
resulted in quality of life stu d ies on children.

These studies are

important and useful because they measure childrens' perceptions of
well-being.

These perceptions are valuable tools when developing

baseline m easures which can be compared to subsequent m easures and
trends of change so th a t society has some indication of the well-being of
its children.

It is also valuable to a ttem p t to understand how children

evaluate and feel about th e ir lives. At the present time, those indicators
utilized to m easure adults' perceptions of w ell-being are being adapted
and used for children.

5

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of th is descriptive study is to identify perceived
contributions to household work of children of se lec te d ages and both
sexes.

Specifically, the number and kinds of ta s k s performed will be

identified. Do the children in the sam ple adhere to traditional sex roles
when choosing ta s k s ? Does age play a sig nifican t role in the number and
kinds of ta s k s children perform ? One fu rth e r ste p is taken by asking the
child to e stim a te th a t percentage of all household work for which they
are responsible.
In addition, the study will examine the child's perceived quality of
life. A global measure of quality of life w ill be compared to the quality
of different life domains. Will sco res of boys d iffe r significantly from
the scores of g irls? Is age a fac to r in determining the child's perceived
quality of life?
This study will also a ttem p t to determ ine if a relationship e x is ts
between the child's perceived contribution to household work and
perceived quality of life. If a relationship e x ists, do age and sex have an
a ffe c t on it?
Research Questions
This study focused on three a re as of interest: the child's perceived
contribution to household work, the quantity and kinds of tasks
performed by the child and the child's perceived quality of life. For these
three areas, the following questions w ere posed:
1. What is the child's perceived contribution to the household work of
the fam ily? Are there any differences:
a. In perceptions of boys and g irls ?
b. Between age groups?

6

2.

How many ta s k s are being performed by each child? Are th ere any
differences betw een the number of ta s k s boys and g irls perform ?
Are traditional sex role stereo ty pes adhered to when ta s k s are
se le c te d ? Are older chi’dren performing more ta s k s than younger
children?

3. What is the child’s perceived quality of life ?
differences:
a.

Are there any

In the sco res of boys and g irls?

b. Between the age groups?
4. Is there a relationship between:
a.

The child's perceived contribution to household work and the
number of ta s k s performed? Are there differences between boys
and g irls ?

b. The child’s perceived contribution to household work and per­
ceived quality of life?
c. The number of ta s k s performed and perceived quality of life ?
Hypotheses
The conceptual framework (discussed in chapter 2) used in th is
study w as based on a developmental i s t approach.

Hypotheses w ere

formed on the f i r s t three research questions using th is conceptual
framework and the review of literature.

Because of the paucity of

research on children’s quality of life, it w as not possible to develop
hypotheses for question four.
1. Boys and g irls will d iffer in perceived contribution to the
household work of the family.
The perceived contribution of
g irls will be higher than th a t of boys.
2. Age groups will
differ in perceived contribution to the
household work of the family. The perceived contribution will
increase w ith age.

7

3.

Boys and g irls will d iffer in the number of ta s k s performed.
Girls w ill perform mor e ta s k s than boys.

4.

Boys and g irls will d iffer in the kinds of ta s k s performed. Girls
will do more in-the-hom e work while boys will work more
outside.

5.

Age groups w ill d iffer in the number of ta s k s performed. Older
children w ill perform more ta s k s than younger children.

6.

Boys and g irls will not d iffer in perceived quality of life.

7.

Age groups will not differ in perceived quality of life.

Definitions
This section includes theoretical and operational definitions of
concepts th a t are relevant to th is study.
Theoretical Definitions
Family.—"A bonded unit of interacting and interdependent persons
who have some common goals and resources, and for part of th e ir life
cycle, a t least, share living space" (Andrews, e t al., 1980, pg. 32).
Family and household in th is study are used synonymously.
Household work.—These are nonpaid a c tiv itie s performed by and for
household members for use in the home th a t fa c ilita te the functioning of
the household and provide for the w ell-being of household members.
Household work is p a rt of household production (Deacon and Firebaugh,
1981; Walker and Woods, 1976).
Quality of life.—Rettig (1980), using the works of Dalkey and
Rourke and Mitchell e t al., defines quality of life as "A person's sense of
well being, s a tis fa c tio n or d issa tis fa c tio n w ith life, or unhappiness
or happiness....An individual's overall perceived sa tis fa c tio n of needs
over a period of time...." (pg. 17).

8

Operational Definitions
Fam ily.--Consists of a husband and w ife living together w ith at
lea st one child between the ages of 6 and 12.
Household work.—Evaluation of child’s perceived household
respo n sib ilities in response to questions 25 to 47 of the questionnaire.
Household work includes the specific a c tiv itie s of: personal and animal
care; yard, lawn and other outdoor work; child care; food preparation and
afte r-m e al cleanup; house care; clothing care and marketing.
Quality of Life.—Evaluation by child of th e ir whole life, th eir
family, them selves and the amount of work they do (questions 8 to 11 in
the questionnaire).

Assumptions
The assum ptions underlying th is research are:
1. Children can accurately
evaluate
resp o nsibilities for household work.
2. Children can accurately
about quality of life.

and

report

evaluate and report th e ir

th eir

feelings

3. The fac es scale for quality of life yields numerical responses
th a t can be tre a te d as interval data.
4. Quality of life can be a sse ssed directly by asking children about
th e ir family activities.
5. R esponsibilities for household work can be a sse ssed d irectly by
asking children about th e ir life and family.
6. Children can accurately report th e ir cognition and feeling
sta te s.
7.

Perceptions re fle c t the rea lity of the situ atio n for the child.

Chapter 2

THE DEVELOPMENTAL!ST APPROACH: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual

framework of

th is study

is based

upon the

developm entalist approach. The developm entalists seek to estab lish the
existence of basic ag e-rela te d patterns.

They s t r e s s the regular and

cumulative a sp e c ts of the growth process which is marked by sequential
sta g es of increasing competence.

When th e ir approach is applied to

household work participation, it helps to explain the contributions of
children to household work a t differen t ages. As a resu lt, it is utilized
generally to form the foundation upon which this study is based and
specifically in the development of hypotheses 2 and 5.
This discussion of the conceptual framework is divided into three
sections.

The f i r s t covers the work of four th e o ris ts who have

contributed significantly to the understanding of the developmental i s t
approach.

The

second section

d iscusses role-modeling

(or w hat

Goldstein and Oldham called "role learning") from a developmental i s t
perspective.

The focus is on th is aspect of the socialization process

because it is particularly important as

children learn to work.

And

finally, section three u tiliz e s the developmental i s t perspective to
examine the household work participation of school-age children. In th is
section, several p a tte rn s of growth are identified which have the
potential to influence a child's participation in household work.

9

10

Developmentalists
The f i r s t section of th is chapter will a ttem p t to summarize
Goldstein and Oldham's (1979) discussion of the developmental ist
approach because, like them, th is research er finds it appropriate as a
conceptual framework.
Socialization is broadly defined in Leichter's (1977) book as the
"process

by which

individuals acquire

the

knowledge, skills,

and

dispositions th at enable them to participate as more or less effective
members of groups and so ciety ” (p.6). Goldstein and Oldham believe that
the process has at le a st four c h aracteristics:
1.

2.
3.

4.

It is in teractiv e, i.e., it involves the actions, reactions, and
reinforcem ents of persons other than the one being
socialized.
It is d irected a t the conferring of an identity of some sort.
It involves role learning, the imparting of a range of mutual
expectations a ssociated w ith performance of one or more
social roles.
It is in trinsically connected w ith social control, since it
provides the b a sis for predictability w ithin the group and
is the vehicle through which both positive and negative
sanctions are made meaningful to group members, (p. 15)

For th e ir

purposes,

developmental ism

refers

to

a particular

approach to socializatio n which emphasizes, in the words of Donald
Super,
the progressive increase and modification of the individual’s
behavioral rep erto ire through growth and learning...marked by
sequential sta g e s of increasing competence, (p. 36)
The regular and cumulative a sp ec ts of the growth process are stre sse d
by th e o ris ts in th is group. Like th is researcher, they seek to estab lish
the existence of basic ag e-related patterns. The normative approach is
utilized by these th e o ris ts who are concerned w ith ascertaining what the
growth norms are and the conditions under which variations occur.

11

Several of the better-know n developm entalists whose works are
deemed relevant to th is study will be examined.
Piaget
Jean Piaget (1959) w as a S w iss psychologist who devoted his
c areer to the study of child development.

He viewed all intellectual

development in term s of adaptation to one's environment.
consisted

of two processes:

Adaptation

assim ilatio n and accommodation.

He

s tr e s s e d the importance of play and im itation to the child's assim ilation
and accommodation e ffo rts.

The developmental process involved the

constant search for equilibrium between w hat the child understands and
the remainder of th eir experiences w ith the environment.
Piaget also contributed a theory of stages. Development from birth
to adulthood w as divided into four generic periods. The chronological age
a t which the child passed through each stag e w as not the important thing
for the pace may vary but the sequence rem ains constant.
The

period

of

concrete

operations

w as the

third

in

his

developmental schema and it covers roughly years 7 through 11 (the
sample in th is study fa lls into th is range).

During th is period, Piaget

suggested th a t language sk ills develop and the child's fac ility for mental
operations become increasingly sophisticated.
Erikson
Erik
Piaget's.

Erikson's (1963) bent w as much more psychoanalytic than
Erikson developed a se ries of psychosocial sta g e s

through

which the developing child passed.

Like Piaget's work, sequence was

emphasized instead of chronology.

Each sta g e represented a critical

encounter between child and environment.

12

Of his eight psychosocial stages, the third and fourth typically
encompass roughly the years five through preadolescence (the age of th is
sample of children).

The third or locomotorgenital period is the time

when the child develops initiative, "the quality of undertaking, planning,
and 'attacking' a task for the sake of being active and on the move....'' The
child
can gradually develop a sense of moral responsibility...gain
insights into the institutions, functions, and roles which
perm it
his
responsible
participation...find
pleasurable
accomplishment in wielding tools and weapons, in manipulating
toys, and in caring for younger children, (pp. 2 55-2 56)
The latency stage follow s th is period and the child "must begin to be
a worker and potential provider." By the age of 10, the child will ideally
overcome feelings of inferiority while developing a "sense of industry.”
He has the potential to become an eager and absorbed unit of a productive
situation. The child of th is age comes to appreciate work completion and
diligence, internalizing the work principle.

Fam iliarity w ith tools and

u te n sils helps the child develop a "sense of division of labor and of
differential oppportunity" (pp.258-260).
Havighurst
Unlike Piaget and Erikson, Robert Havighurst (1964) has been
in te reste d in the developmental process specifically as it re la te s to
work.

He conceives of vocational development as a life long process

divisible into six stages. The f i r s t tw o are relevant to th is study since
they include children from 5 to 15 years of age.
Havighurst's f i r s t stage includes children from 5 to 10 years of age
and it is th a t of identification w ith a worker. The child's identification
w ith p aren ts and other significant persons ordinarily assu res th at "the
concept of working becomes an e ssential p art of of the ego ideal" (p.

13

216). The developmental ta s k s of children of th is age group are:
1.

the development of fundamental sk ills in reading, writing,
and calculating;
2. learning the physical s k ills necessary fo r games;
3. learning to get along w ith age-m ates;
4. learning appropriate sex roles;
5. developing the concepts necessary for daily life;
6. developing conscience, a sense of morality, and values; and
7. achieving personal independence, (pp. 2 2 1 -2 2 2 )
The focus sh if ts for the child in the 10 to 15 y ear old bracket to
acquiring the basic h abits of industry.

The child m ust learn to do

school work and chores and effectively allocate tim e and energy. During
th is stage, the child learns the conditions under which it is appropriate
to put work before play.
Super
The work of Donald Super (1957) in te g rate s the work of Ginzberg
and others in his theory of vocational development.
heavily

upon

Havighurst's

notion

of

developmental

He also re lie s
tasks.

Like

Havighurst, he se e s the process as life-long and tr a c e s it through five
sta g e s to a period called decline which encom passes retirem ent.
Only the f i r s t or growth sta g e (birth to age 14) is relevant for th is
study. Super w r ite s of th is period,
Self concept develops through identification w ith key figures
in family and in school; needs and fantasy are dormant early in
th is stage; in te re s t and capacity becomes more important in
th is stage w 4th increasing social
participation and
re a lity - te s tin g (p.40)
Utilizing Ginzberg's theory, the growth stage is subdivided in three
sub-stages: fantasy, in te re s t and capacity. The ages 4 through 10 cover
the fantasy period during which role playing is very important.

It is

la te r (ages 11 to 12), during brief periods of in te re s ts , th at the child's

14

"likes" and "dislikes" come to the forefront and serve as m ajor
determ inants of aspirations and activities.

At about 13 years of age

children en ter the capacity stage where they begin to take th e ir a b ilitie s
into account and to weigh job requirem ents in thinking of future career
directions.
Super's theory is alm ost entirely couched in term s of vocational
m aturity (development is measured largely in term s of how "mature" the
behavior is in relation to age peers) and its
two-dimensional
chronological

standard.

age

norms

application u tiliz e s a

This standard takes into account both
and

the

individual's

performance

of

developmental tasks, regardless of w hether they are confronted at the
appropriate age.
To a s s e s s m aturity, Super has liste d "vocational developmental
tasks" which he considers are appropriate a t d ifferent life stages. For
example, according to Super th is sample of elem entary school children
m ust m a s te r the abilities: (1) to undertake cooperative enterprises; (2)
to choose a c tiv itie s which su it individual abilities; (3) to assume
responsibility for th eir actions; and (4) to perform household chores.
The works of these developm entalists are used by th is research er
for the conceptual framework for the present study. The key m essage of
the developmental ist traditio n is th a t behavioral changes which occur
over tim e in the maturing individual are best understood in the context
of regular and meaningful p a ttern s of growth. In th is study, the works of
these

developm entalists

serve

as

valuable

guideposts

in

the

interpretation of the findings. They are also utilized in the formulation
of hypothesis 2 which p redicts an increase in perceived contributions as
the children get older and in the formulation of hypothesis 5 to predict

15

an increase in the number of task s performed as the children get older.

Role-Modeling from a Developmental is t Perspective
Stephens (1963) makes a strong case for learning to work through
ro le- modeling.

The children in his c ro ss-c u ltu ral study go through a

natural sequence learning to work. He says they s t a r t as sp e c ta to rs and
then begin im itating adults' work in th e ir play (playing dolls, house,
cook, farm er, herdsman and hunter). Then they are allowed to join in and
help.

Between the ages of 3 and 6 years, the work-apprenticeship

usually begins. By puberty, children's work is usually sim ila r to adults'.
The early

apprenticeship tak e s

advantage of young children's

eagerness to be in on what the grown-ups are doing and to im itate what
the grown-ups do. F irst they w atch and play a t it; then, bit by bit, they
are allowed to do real work. Stephens (1979) fee ls th a t th is is the ideal
arrangement for role-model ing—im itating a model's behavior, and as a
resu lt, acquiring behavior dispositions th a t tend to stay w ith the person
as they grow up.
His

central

idea

about

role-modeling

is

th a t

the

two

p ro ce sses—modeling and learning to work in the home—come together,
and each one f a c ilita te s the other.
work-apprenticeship

is

made

This is true when the traditional

possible

in

the

home.

If

the

learning-to-w ork pro cess can begin during the child's period of readiness
(sta rtin g at about the age of 3), and it is not too badly mismanaged by
the parent, then it all flow s together.
The child learns home-connected work, graduates to more
mature respon sibilities, is positively m otivated in th is area,
and models a fte r the parent, (p.63)

16

One of the possible e ff e c ts of role-modeling is the tra c e s of the
parent, the lasting influences, th a t grown-up children carry w ith them.
Another is the continuing emulation of the parent, a carry-over of the
early desire to im itate and be like the role model. In addition, there is
continuing m otivation to do the work.

He believes th a t if the combined

processes of role-modeling and leam ing-to-w ork are successful, then
the outcome should be:
* An older child, teenager, young adult, who is a willing worker
in the home, who re ta in s his w illingness to p a rticip a te in the
work and help;
* Who s till w ants to work alongside the parent;
* And who continues to want to do the so rt of work around the
home th a t w as learned in childhood.
Stephens recognizes th at role-modeling and w ork-apprenticeships
are not easy to provide in modern homes.

With both parents in the

m ajority of fam ilies working away from home, the problem is often the
lack of an adult in the house for the child to model. Few homes provide
children w ith a se rie s of ta s k s appropriate to th e ir age and s t a r t them on
th is line of development.
He does believe th a t the early role-modeling in the home for some
g irls has been less interfered w ith (as a resu lt of modern conditions)
than has boys'. In his sample, a number of g irls tell s to r ie s like this:
a stra ig h t-lin e development from early-childhood in te re sts,
wanting to be like mother and wanting to p a rtic ip a te in her
work, to mother's helper, child-care duties, b ab y -sittin g jobs,
an ambition to be a mother herself, or a nurse or teacher, and
finally a realization of th a t goal. (p. 55 )
For fa th e rs and sons there is less opportunity fo r this.

The line of

development is different, it is not a s tra ig h t-lin e development into a
lifework and an occupational self.

17

Developmentalists believe th a t in the maturing individual behavioral
changes which occur over tim e are b est understood in the context of
regular and meaningful p a tte rn s of growth. In his cross-cu ltu ral study,
Stephens has actually identified some of these p a tte rn s of growth as
they re la te to children learning to work through role-modeling.

He

recognizes that role-modeling and w ork-apprenticeships are not easy to
provide in modern homes and th a t girls appear to have a b e tte r
opportunity for role-modeling than boys.

If th is is the case, then the

g irls in the present study may differ from the boys in the level of
participation in household work.

Household Work Participation.af. School-Age Children from_a
D e v e l o p m e n t a l Perspective
When assigning work to children, parents are often told it is
im portant to choose ta s k s th a t are appropriate to the child’s age. How
does a parent know w hat the child should be able to do and what is too
much to expect? The preceding discussion on the developm entalists does
shed some light on task selectio n as it re la te s to parental expectations.
Developmentalists believe th a t behavioral changes occur over tim e in the
maturing child and are b est understood in the context of regular and
meaningful p a tte rn s of growth. A brief review of the lite ra tu re on
school-age children should help to identify some of the p a ttern s of
growth which could influence a child's participation in household work.
Although in some instances ages will be suggested, they are merely used
as guideposts.
Gesell, Arnold, tig and Ames' (1977) book on The Child from Five to
l e a is a standard te x t which has been revised several times.

In it they

18

discuss the school-age child's relationship w ith th e ir home and family.
A p a ttern clearly develops which may have an impact on the child's
participation in household work:
During the sixth y ear he gives many evidences of forging to a
higher level of relationships, even through a t tim e s he seem s
self-cen tered , re s is ta n t, or overly m other-centered. He takes
a new kind of in te r e s t in family outings,...Seven in his l ittle
serious way has a deepened sense of the family as an
institution; he is proud of his home and fam ily possessions;
even his negative behavior betrays an emotional strengthening
of the family ties. Eight is som ewhat less subjective; he is
in terested in the fam ily as a going concern,...Nine likes to be on
his own, likes to be w ith his friends and away from his family.
It gives him a growing sense of self-sufficiency....The steady
processes of growth have wrought extraordinary changes in his
family relationships since the innocence of five. During the
teen s there will
be another s e rie s of significant
transform ations; but the basic o rien tatio ns are well-nigh
complete by the age of ten. (p. 322)
The contributions of children to household work a t several d ifferent
ages are also discussed in th e ir book and it becomes apparent th at
participation is influenced by the child's relationship to their family.
They describe the 7 year old as beginning to be thoughtful, to be
considerate and anxious to please. The child w ants to find their place in
the

family

group and

responsibilities.

is

ready

to

take

some

of

the

household

Many like to help and often take on certain routine

chores such as emptying w a steb a sk e ts, cutting the lawn, making th e ir
beds, helping w ith the dishes, picking up th e ir room and running errands.
Sometimes th is help is sp otty because the child will tir e of one chore
and w ishes to s h ift to another. Eight year olds p refer to do jobs they
think of themselves. New and more responsible jobs are attacked w ith
real in te re s t while old jobs (such as washing dishes) are disliked. Nine

19

and ten year olds are

even le ss involved w ith routine chores a s the

identification w ith the juvenile group promotes the complex process of
detachment from the dom estic family group.
Turnure

(1975)

is

in te reste d

in

cognitive

development *and

role-taking ability in boys and g irls from 7 to 12 y ears of age.
findings

indicate

th a t

the

child's

ability

to

"decenter"

or

Her
sh ift

perspectives is an important asp ect of cognitive development and it
increases w ith age regardless of whether the child is involved w ith a
"social" or a "physical"

task.

The ability to decenter, to sh ift

perspectives, may be an important f i r s t step preceding a child's active
involvement in the work of the home.
As a child m atures, their relationship to th e ir family changes over
tim e and can be understood in the context of regular and meaningful
p a ttern s of growth.

Some of th ese p a ttern s are introduced in th is

section and th e ir impact on the participation of children in household
work is discussed.

In the present study, these p a tte rn s will probably

influence the kinds and number of task s undertaken by children in
different age groups.
Summary
The

conceptual

developmental is t

framework

approach.

of
The

this

study

basic

is

based

assum ption

on
of

the
the

developmental is t trad ition is th a t behavioral changes which occur over
tim e in the maturing individual are best understood in the context of
regular and meaningful p a ttern s of growth. In the f i r s t section, p a ttern s
were identified as they rela te to children learning to work through
role-modeling. In the final section of the chapter, another growth p attern
w as

identified

which describes the changes which occur in the

20

relationship of the child to the fam ily as the child matures.

These

p a tte rn s impact upon the participation of children in th e ir household
work contributions.

Chapter 3

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter is divided into five d istin c t sections. The f i r s t three
sections are devoted to lite ra tu re related to the study of children’s
participation in family work. Sections four and five contain a review of
the lite ra tu re which resulted specifically in hypothesis development.
The f i r s t section of th is chapter contains household work stu d ies or
stud ies in which household work is discussed as one aspect of the
research.

In the f i r s t part of th is section, the primary focus is on the

homemaker and children are included secondarily in a category along
w ith other workers. Children and th e ir contributions to household work
are the primary focus of p art two. These stud ies and publications provide
broad categories of information against which some comparisons may be
made.
The second section of th is chapter provides a general discussion of
children and work and is also divided into tw o parts. A brief historical
perspective on work and i ts impact and influence on children is provided
in part one of th is section.

In the second part, work participation of

children in other so c ie tie s is explored focusing on the importance of
early training.
Because the sample utilized in th is study is made up of firstborn
children, section three of the f i r s t chapter contains a very short
discussion on the birth order research focusing on the firstborn.
21

22

The fourth section of th is chapter focuses on the e ff e c ts of sex, sex
roles and age on children's household work contributions. A review of
th is lite ra tu re a s s is te d in the formulation of hypotheses 1 through 5.
Quality of life stu d ie s are included in the fifth section of th is
chapter. The small number of th ese studies which focus on children are
highlighted and the development of hypotheses 6 and 7 discussed.

Research on Household Work
Studies w ith Children a s a Secondary Focus
"Household work is indispensable to the functioning of the family
and society" (Walker and Gauger, 1973). Walker and Gauger recognize the
importance of household work but they also realize that, because it
occurs outside the context of the business world, tim e spent in th is
endeavor is not normally given a dollar value.

Gauger (1973) believes

th a t the failure to recognize the dollar value of household work in a
sense denigrates the work of one half of the population who are m arried
and bear the m ajor share of household work. Many studies have been done
to discover who does the work in the home and what variables a ffe c t
work participation (i.e. number of children, employment of homemaker,
age of children, etc.).
The Federal Bureau of Home Economics of the United S ta te s
Department of Agriculture from as early as the late 1920's sponsored a
number of stu d ies on household work tim e of women.

Many stu d ies

have been done since then and some of them reported on the tim e spent
by children in household work. Most of th ese studies have been included
in extensive
Lynch (1975).

review s of lite ra tu re by Steidl and Bratton (1968) and
Relevant stu d ies from those review s as well as more

23

current research have been summarized in Table 1. When possible, the
age of the children being studied w a s included.

Table 1.— Summary of Household Work Studies with Children as a Secondary Focus

Study*

Tasks

Helpers and Help Received

Wilson
(1 9 2 9 )

Dishwashing, care of fires,
food purchasing

Contributions of grade school-age children:
Town 3.3 hours/week
Farm 3.3 hours/week
Contributions of high school-age children:
Town 4.1 hours/week
Farm 5.0 hours/week

Arnquist
and Roberts
(1 9 2 9 )

Food preparation, aftermeal clean up, washing and
ironing, care of family

Farm children under 6 years:
Girls 1.3 hours/week
Boys 1.0 hour /w eek
Farm children 1 5 -2 0 years old:
Girls 13.8 hours/week
Boys 1.7 hours/week

Muse
(1 9 4 6 )

Girls helped prim arily with
care of house, dishwashing,
food preparation, child care
and care of their own
clothing
Boys most often carried
water, built fires and filled
lamps and stove tanks

6658 of farm girls from 8 to 17 years
spent between 10 and 35 hours/week

8858 of farm boys from 8 to 17 years
spent 5 hours/week

Wiegand
(1 9 5 4 )

Dishwashing was task in
which most helpers parti­
cipated

Employed homemaker: .6 hours/week
from all helpers in household
Unemployed homemakers: .3 hours/week
from all helpers in household

Roberts
(1 9 5 6 )

Cleaning living room

3058 of homemakers had helpers for last
general cleaning; helpers averaged 1 hour
for in-between cleaning

Knoll
(1 9 5 7 )

Chores, gardening, dish5058 of city children contribute
washing, care of house,
clothing and family members,

♦researchers listed in chronological order

24

Table 1. (cont'd.)

Study

Tasks

Helpers and Help Received

driving, food preparation
McCandless
(1 9 5 9 )

Day-to-day care of house

Averaged. 1 hour on day before interview;
5 0 $ employed, 2 0 $ nonemployed home­
makers received help; help given in 3 3 $
of households with children under 6 years,
6 6 $ with teenagers

Dickens
(1 9 6 1 )

Food preparation or dishwashing

5 0 $ to 7 5 $ of homemakers received
help; averaged 39 to 52 minutes

Hook
(1 9 6 3 )

Regular care of house

6 0 $ of families with children received
help averaging 2 hours/week; 5 0 $ of
rural and urban families had helpers;
2 5 $ of total time for care of house r u r a l,
2 0 $ for urban

de Fonseca
(1 9 6 4 )

Dishwashing

Averaged 2 hours/week, about 3 0 $ of
total dishwashing time; help on 7 0 $ of
days, with or without dishwasher;
related to number and age of children

Carlson
(1 9 6 5 )

Washing

15$ of homemakers shared responsibility

Purcell
(1 9 6 5 )

Washing

2 0 $ of 444 weekly records showed help;
averaged 43 minutes/week; helpers' time
4 $ of total time for washing

Walker and
Nordenstedt
(1 9 6 6 )

All tasks

8 3 $ of 6 to 11 year old girls spent 45
minutes/day in household work
8 8 $ of 6 to 11 year old boys spent 45
minutes/day in household work
9 6 $ of 12 to 17 year old girls spent 1.5
hours/day in household work
6 9 $ of 12 to 17 year old boys spent 35
minutes/day in household work

Gitobu
(1 9 7 2 )

All tasks

Very little difference between amount of
time contributed by 6 to 11 year olds in
families with employed and nonemployed
homemakers

25

Table 1. (cont'd.)

Study

Tasks

Helpers and Help Received

Food preparation

12 to 17 year olds:
families w / employed homemaker.8 hour/day
families w / nonemployed homemaker.4 hour/day
contributed an average of .2 hour/day
more if mothers employed
contributed an average of .4 hour/day
less if mothers employed

Housecare
Marketing and management
tasks
Walker and Woods Regular meal preparation,
(1 9 7 6 )
after-meal clean up,
regular house care

6 to 11 year olds contributed an average of
1 hour/day to housework:
families w/employed homemaker1.0 hour/day
families w/nonemployed homemaker1.1 hour/day
Teenagers contributed an average of
2 hours/day to housework:
families w/employed homemaker2.2 hours/day
families w/nonemployed homemaker2.0 hours/day

It is apparent when reviewing the studies in Table 1 th a t women,
w hether employed or unemployed, s till do the lion’s share of the work in
the household.

A tendency toward the traditional division of labor in

household task s, w ith w ives doing m ost of the in-the-hom e work and
husbands doing the yard work, home maintenance and recording-keeping,
also s till e x is ts (Blood and Wolfe, I960; Walker, 1970b).

When a

reallocation of task s is apparent, often w ith husbands taking over a
larger sh are of w hat normally is regarded as "women’s work," th is may
actually be counter-productive.

Oakley (1972) su ggests th a t the

widespread p a tte rn of men helping out a bit, particularly m iddle-class

26

husbands, may actually indicate th a t w ives are le ft w ith a less enjoyable
mixture of dom estic a c tiv itie s (those which tend to be universally
disliked—especially cleaning).

This research er wonders if those task s

which are le a st liked are being delegated more often to today's children.
If th is

is the case, does

it

influence th eir perception of th e ir

contribution to household work and th e ir perceived quality of life?

Studies and Publications w ith Children as a Primary Focus
Rationale for A ssig ning Children Household Tasks. At the turn of the

century when children s till made a significant contribution to the work
of the home, the reasons for th e ir working w ere relatively clear.
McKeever (1913) said th a t children work:

(I) for the sake of th eir

physical growth, (2) for th eir moral character, and (3) for th e ir general
discipline.

He suggested th at poor adjustm ent r e s u lts when a child is

not required to work in the home. He also acknowledged th a t it w as the
responsibility of the school, as well as the parents, to
...teach and explain and exalt common work. Pupils are now to
be taught early in life, for example, how to do plain housework,
ordinary home chores, and how to lay hold upon the heavier
industrial pursuits, as the s t a tu s of th e ir years and streng th
may warrant, (p. 138)
A 1949 publication on children from 6 to 12 by the U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare has much broader reasons for children
working. The publication s tr e s s e d th a t it w as each child's obligation to
contribute to the life of th e ir home because they had to learn to be
givers as well as takers. With these work experiences, the child learned
cooperation and w as b e tte r prepared for th e ir future family role as well
as th e ir role in the larger community. At th a t time, it w as also believed

27

th a t giving children the happiness of feeling th a t they are useful
members of society, through contributions to the family community, was
one of the m ost powerful preventives of juvenile delinquency.
Harris and Clark (1954) w ere in terested in "The Relationship of
Children's Home Duties to an A ttitude of Responsibility." In a review of
the lite ra tu re, they discovered th a t parents give children ta s k s around
the house in training fo r independence, dependability or responsibility.
Their research indicated th at l it t le evidence e x is ts to prove th a t routine
ta s k s are asso ciated w ith an a ttitu d e of responsibility.
A pamphlet w ritte n in 1955 by Osborne attem pted to aid parents in
teaching th e ir children about work. He f e lt work w as important because:
1. Work experience can bring a feeling of personal significance
2.
3.

4.

and a sense of achievement th a t comes in no other way.
Work alongside grown-ups can add m aterially to the feeling
of friendliness toward them and acceptance of them.
Only through actual participation in real work activity can
the young person come to appreciate what work means in
the lives of human beings.
A varied work experience may lay the foundation for a more
intelligent choice of vocation, (p. 6)

For Osborne, work w as held to have a certain kind of moral value. He fe lt
that,
If we believe in the dignity and w orth of labor and expect our
children to believe in the democratic ideal, we m ust provide
the experiences th a t will perm it future generations to develop
a constructive a ttitu d e tow ards work. (p. 28)
In a la te r pamphlet, Neisser (1957) recognized th at household jobs
may not

in them selves develop responsibility, but she f e lt

that

contributing to the life of the family added to a child's s e lf-r e s p e c t and
dem onstrated th a t everybody b enefits when everybody does th e ir share.
She f e lt it w as important to assign jobs which were clearly essential,

28

th a t would make sense to the child and th a t challenged th e ir skill and
inventiveness, as well as th e ir ste ad fa stn ess. Jobs w ith these kinds of
qualities would supplement the atm osphere of responsibility in which
the child lives and would be a fu rth er aid to the cultivation of reliability.
These pamphlets gave

paren ts

an

indication of

the positive

outcomes of assigning children household tasks. Dr. Spock (1962), on the
other hand, took a som ew hat d ifferen t perspective. He said th a t if you
don’t train children to be helpers, you w ere apt to produce children:
who are se lf-c en te red , demanding...adults who in th e ir jobs and
in th e ir m arriages expect to be pleased and favored. They have
little aw areness of w hat needs doing, w hether on a picnic or in
the office....Every teach er in nursery school and elementary
school has learned th a t children will develop an increasing
sense of responsibility from helping her and the class; and they
won’t if they don't, (pp. 4 6 -4 7 )
Dr. Spock f e lt th a t if children do not learn to help, they do not develop
into helpful, considerate, unselfish and responsible people.

Stephens

(1979) noted th a t th is hypothesis based on Spock’s observations w as
obviously oversimplified,

but he found support for it

in the Whitings’

(1975) research as well as his own case studies.
The U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare updated th eir
publication on children from 6 to 12 in 1966. Listed in the chapter on
"Family Work and Money’’ w ere several reasons why children should work.
By working in the home children: (1) learn necessary skills, (2) release
parents from some of the burdens of household work and (3) get the
feeling of doing th e ir share as they develop a ttitu d e s of responsibility
and self-discipline. The view w as expressed th a t if a child learned to be
a ’’responsible employee" early in life, th a t child would be more likely to
develop into a valued fu ll-tim e employee when older.

29

Sm art and Sm art (1977) in th eir book, Children, echoed some of the
previous authors in th e ir lis t of reasons why children should work. They
f e lt th a t significant work experiences enhanced a child's sense of
adequacy and enabled the child to make progress in the development of a
sense of

industry.

"Real

work"

also

would contribute

to

th eir

understanding of adults, th e ir family and society.
Based on his own case studies, Stephens (1979) developed a l i s t of
reasons why children should be trained in childhood to be helpers.

He

found th a t helpful children grow into helpful and responsible teenages
who "go on to become ad ults who help out and are good sp o rts in th eir
own homes" (p. 92). His children learned appreciation for the work done
by oth ers in the household when they actually did some of the work
themselves.

His case stu d ies suggested th a t early helping provided a

foundation which could be built upon in a number of ways. Children who
learned useful sk ills (such as cooking, other housework sk ills, child care
and how do certain mechanical repairs) w ere getting off to a good s t a r t
and th is instilled them w ith positive motivation.
White and Brinkerhoff (1981) questioned parents and children
regarding "the meaning fam ilies a ttac h to children's work, i. e. th eir
ratio n ales and interpretations." Five primary reasons why parents assign
work respo n sib ilities to th e ir children w ere given:
Developmental: Doing chores builds ch aracter,

develops re ­

sponsibility, helps children learn.
Reciprocal obligation: It is th e ir duty to help the family;
working together is p art of being a family;
occasionally, more bluntly, 'they live here,
don't th ey ?’
Extrinsic:
P arents need help.
Task learning: Children need to learn how to do th ese tasks.
Residual:
All other reasons, m ost often th a t child has to

30

earn an allowance or needs something to do in
order to keep busy. (p. 793)
In a recen t a rticle , Sander (1985) suggests several reasons why
parents should assign work resp o n sib ilities to th e ir children and many of
them w ere the same as those discovered by White and Brinkerhoff. She
fe e ls th a t encouraging children to pa rticip a te in th e ir homes is essential
to th e ir development.

Doing things for them selves and others help

children develop a strong sense of s e lf-e s te e m and confidence while
showing them th a t they are important and capable members of th eir
fam ilies. Sander believes th a t children, like adults, have psychological
needs for responsibility. If parents consistently fail to ask children for
help, they "soon get the impression th a t childhood is for play and
adulthood for work” (p. 69). They also gain "neither a sense of family
participation nor the aw areness of th e ir own ever-growing capabilities"
(p. 69).

Factors Affecting Children's Involvement in Household Work.

In a

1957 study, Phillips investigated the contribution to the work of the
home of children from 4 to 12 years of age. She found th a t the number of
children doing jobs in a p articular area of homemaking increased as the
ages of the children increased and th at g irls did more ta s k s than boys.
She also discovered th a t more ta s k s w ere performed by children in larger
households and by children whose m other did not have outside help w ith
the housework.
Roy (1961) designed a study to m an ifest the e ff e c ts of employment
of the m other and of residence on c ertain ro les played by teenage sons
and daughters.

He found th a t in fam ilies where the m others w ere

employed children (especially the girls) end up doing a l ittle more

31

housework than in fam ilie s w ith unemployed m others. Sons of employed
mothers worked le ss outside for pay but the opposite w as tru e for girls
(he believed th a t the m other w as s e ttin g the example). The difference
between the rural and town sam ples was r o t s t a ti s t i c a ll y significant.
The slight differences seemed to suggest that town boys did a little
more housework than rural boys. He concluded that girls are different
from boys in term s of the e ffe c t of m other's employment.
Straus (1962) w a s also interested in the e ff e c ts of residence (he
studied farm, fringe and town boys) on work roles and financial
responsibility of his eleventh and tw e lf th grade sample. His data showed
alm ost universal assignm ent of household ta s k s to boys in th is age
group, beginning on the average at 8 years of age. Five hours a week on
the average w as spent on regular household jo b s by the boys in his
sample. Farm boys w ere assigned work roles e arlie r than nonfarm boys
and spent more tim e in such tasks.

His findings indicated widespread

concern by parents w ith providing meaningful

work role learning

experiences for th e ir sons w ith emphasis (especially in farm fam ilies)
on work as an im portant part of the socialization process.
Another study on

adolescents was conducted by Elder (1962)

utilizing longitudinal data from the Institute of Human Development. He
w as in terested in the influence of the child's involvement in household
chores

or

in work

development.

outside

the home" on th e child's

personality

He discovered th a t adolescents who were significantly

involved in household task performance while in junior or senior high
school
rated

(during the 1930's) w ere more likely than th e ir peers to be
both

responsible and compliant

by research

psychologists who

regularly observed them. Boys who worked outside the home but did not

32

perform significant household chores w ere more peer-oriented, a sse rtiv e
and high in drives for recognition and control. Those boys who neither
helped a t home nor held outside jobs w ere low est in peer-orientation,
leadership s t a tu s and a sse rtiv e autonomy. The group w as studied roughly
20 years la te r when they were nearing age 40 and members of the la st
group were characterized (using personality t e s ts ) as less responsible
and le ss self-co n tro lled than m ales who had e ith e r performed significant
household chores or had held outside jobs.

This group w as also

characterized as more sociable and self-con fid en t than the other two
groups. The picture fo r the g irls w as more complicated, partly because
th e ir

involvement

in

household

ta s k s

and

th e ir

general

social

participation w ere markedly influenced by the amount of deprivation
th e ir fam ilies experienced in the depression.
Under the direction of Walker (1973; Walker and Woods, 1976), an
extensive household tim e -u se study w as undertaken in 1967-68. In th is
study, the e ffe c t of m other's employment on children's participation in
household work w as also studied.

She found th a t the children's tim e

contribution w as generally not closely related to the m other's hours of
employment. The tim e of teenagers in fam ilies averaged 2.2 hours per
day if m others

w ere

employed

and 2.0 hours if m others were not

employed. For children 6 to 11 years of age, the corresponding tim es
w ere 1.0 and 1.1 hour,

respectively. Although total tim e of the older

children in fam ilies accounted for 20 percent of to tal work tim e when
the homemaker w as not employed and 30 percent when she was, th is
increased percentage re f le c ts a reduction in homemaker's tim e rath e r
than an increase in children's time. For the younger children, she also
suggested th a t the tim e difference may be explained by the tim e it takes

33

to teach these young children the sk ills they need to perform the tasks.
She w rote (1970a):
One wonders if supervision of children a t th is age is critical
for help to be received, and if m others have adequate tim e and
patience to teach children to work when th e ir total work days
are long? (p. 14)
O'NeiH’s (1979) research w as an update of the sim ilar but more
extensive Walker study of 1967-68.

One of her objectives w as to

determine the relationship of children’s household work to parents'
employment. By correlating children's household work tim e w ith parents'
hours

of

employment,

it

w as

evident

th a t

a

child's

household

contributions decreased in response to the longer employment hours of
m others and fathers. She felt:
This su gg ests th a t children accomplish more household work if
at le a st one parent is home to supervise them or, perhaps, it
suggests th a t le ss household work is attem pted in
m ultiiw orker households, (p. 21)
The White and Brinkerhoff (1981) study has already been mentioned
in an e a rlie r section of th is review where th e ir findings, of five primary
reasons why p aren ts assign work resp o n sib ilities to th eir children, were
reported. They found th a t over 70 percent of parental responses w ere in
the developmental category which suggested th a t the frequency of
response w as indicative of "a normative or socially desirable response”
(p. 794).

In fam ilies where children's work w as assigned only a

developmental meaning, children worked the fe w e st hours (4.40 mean
hours/week), while in fam ilies where work w as given an extrinsic
interpretation, children w ere likely to work the longest hours (4.86 mean
hours/week) and w ere also m ost likely to get paid for th e ir work.

34

The findings of Cogle and Tasker (1982) w ere co n sisten t w ith the
previous reseach reported in th is review. They did a study on housework
w ith children from 6 to 17 y ears of age. They divided household task s
into six m ajor c ateg o ries and discovered w hat percentage of boys and
g irls p articipated in each task. The fa c to rs which significantly affected
the amount of tim e a child spent on housework w ere th e ir age (the
m ajority of older children spent more tim e in housework than younger
children), th e ir sex (g irls and boys followed traditional sex roles) and
w hether or not th e ir m other w as employed (children of fu ll-tim e
employed m others worked the most).
Cogle and Tasker's Louisiana sample of children came from a larger
data s e t collected in eleven sta te s.

The larger sample w as studied by

Sanik and Stafford (1985) in th e ir a tte m p ts to develop a model to predict
the contribution of adolescent m ales and fem ales to household work,
based upon family c h a ra c te ris tic s , human capital of the adolescent,
geographic location and societal expectations. They discovered th a t the
only variable which explained variance in each of th e ir four prediction
equations w as school day (between 32 and 8 4 m inutes less w ere spent in
household work on a school day). Regardless of birth order, adolescent
fem ales worked longer than adolescent males.

Time use for household

work w as for the m ost p a rt unaffected by family c h arac teristics.
Another recent study on adolescents w as conducted by Hansen and
Darling (1985).
a ttitu d e s

Their investigation a ttem pted to examine adolescents'

toward

household

ta s k s

based

on gender and maternal

employment. Their data suggested that:
the m ajority of adolescents they studied held somewhat tr a d i­
tional a ttitu d e s tow ard the se x -ro le division of household
tasks, while a sm a lle r number had an egalitarian or

35

nontraditional orientation tow ard division of labor in the home.
(p. 65)
Although some v a riation s in sex role performance of ta s k s were evident
between m ales and fem ales (fem ales w ere more inclined toward
egalitarianism ) and stu d e n ts w ith employed and unemployed m others
(students w ith employed m others showed a g rea ter inclination toward
egalitarianism ), th ese differences were not significant.
Summary.
P arents give many reasons for assigning children household work.
The

m ost common reasons are th a t doing chores helps to develop

responsibility and ch arac ter and helps children learn s k ills they need to
know.

Whatever the rationale, homemakers s till do the lion's share of

the work in the household w ith some help from children.
In stu d ies where children w ere the primary focus,
fa c to rs

affecting

discussed.
employment,

children’s

Factors

involvement

identified

residence,

human

included
capital

some of the

in household work
size

of

the

of

family,

child

were

parents'

and societal

expectations.

Children and Work
A Brief Historical Perspective on Work and Its Im pact/Influence on
Children
H ig h e r (1977) saw the nineteenth century as the Golden Age for the
idea of work. He said th a t
The dignity of labor is not based on i ts re su lts, alw ays vain and
temporal, but on the fa c t th at it perm its the soul never to
pause, alw ays to ascend, and to find its peace in the very
movement by which it flings its e lf forward, ever higher and
further, (p. 140)

36

The kind of work described by Tilgher w as primarily performed by
a rtis a n s who worked in handicraft production.
According to Aronowitz (1973), in the older a rtisa n mode of
production the worker owned his own tools and saw the relationship
betw een his skill and the resulting product.

The a rtisa n w as like an

a r t i s t who "experienced real enjoyment in work since the product could
be perceived both as th e outcome of his s k ills and as his possession" (p.
122). This concept of work as intrinsically sa tisfy ing w as transform ed,
w ith the introduction of m ass production, to the acceptance of work as a
necessary evil. The new concept of labor viewed work as instrum ental to
personal ends.

It w as historically rooted in the religious belief that

work w as a ctiv ity th at makes a place for you in heaven.

Under

capitalism , workers could only be allowed to live th e ir own life a fte r
labor had been performed. With industrialization, children had to
learn to take pleasure in deprivation and reserve their leisure
for prescribed periods th a t are viewed by adults as providing a
'release' from the necessary routines of daily life and labor, (p.
82)
In the

long run, indu strialization

prolongation of childhood.

created the conditions for the

This resu lte d in the release of the younger

generation from the world of work.
Individual

commitment

to

the

social

in stitu tio n

of work

is

necessary for a society to su stain its e lf and to thrive. Stephens (1979)
believes th a t th is kind of commitment is much more diffic u lt for modern
children to develop because they are kept away from the adult world of
work and they help out less w ith household work.

He says th at, if

children are given the opportunity to help in the home, they will develop
an increasing sense of responsibility.

Unfortunately, living in a

37

modernized, nonfarm home often c re a te s a situ atio n where the child's
help is not particularly needed (Minturn and Lambert, 1964). A rtificial
make-work does not s u b s titu te for the life-giving work provided by farm
children and children in more traditional societies.

At the present,

taking care of other children a t any age appears to offer the modern child
the best chance to develop "responsible" and "helpful" t r a i t s which are
needed for them to function effectively as adults.
Several re se a rc h e rs are concerned th a t society does not provide the
experiences

th a t

will

perm it

future

generations

to

develop

constructive a ttitu d e tow ards work (Rapoport and Rapoport,
Slaugh,

1982).

Rapoport and Rapoport suggest th a t

a

1977;

parents are

attem pting to c re a te an ideal clim ate for development which promotes
the child's "needs" a t the expense of values "of a humanistic, cooperation
kind." P arents exempt children from p articipation in household work and
s till expect them to believe in the dignity and worth of labor.
places u n realistic or conflicting demands on children.

This

Awareness of

such issu es is increased through research, even if the research its e lf
cannot contribute directly to the resolution of value dilemmas.

Work Participation of Children in Other Societies:

The. Importance of

Early Training
In his book The Human Economy, Ginzberg (1976) describes the
traditional

agricultural

society

where

the

manpower development

system is coexisten t w ith the extended family.

The elders teach the

child or young person what they need to know to to assume th e ir
re sp o n sib ilitie s as a worker and member of the community.
cases, the family is the in stru cto r and eventual employer.

In many

38

When a young person reaches an age when he can make a
contribution to the running of the farm or the household, he
joins the work group and receives increasingly important
assignm ents geared to his age, skill, and competence, (p. 33)
Boulding (1979) supports Ginzberg's view.

She says th a t in the

w orld's rural a re as children s t a r t working a t 5 y ears of age and by 10 or
12 they are working fulltim e.

Boys often s t a r t in the fields and girls

help w ith the young children.

In Soviet extended-day schools, children

are routinely taught to take substantial responsibility for each other and
younger children.

They also contribute to the physical maintenance of

the community and the growing of its food.
Their rew ards and sa tis fa c tio n s are in te rm s of how well they
have a ss is te d the group in its functioning, how well they have
helped i ts weaker members, and how effective th eir
partnership w ith the adults in the school has been in
community tasks, (p. 34)
Village stu d ies by Whiting and Whiting (1975) take the discussion of
children working one ste p further. In the villages they studied, children
are pressed into service a f an early age. In the African case, by age 4,
half of the children are working (i.e. carrying wood and w a te r and helping
w ith food preparation, gardening, housecleaning and animal care).

The

average age is closer to 6 in the Mexican and Philippine villages. In the
Okinawan and Indian villages, the children are older still. Because adults
are also involved in th ese a c tiv itie s, and m others are busy and need help,
chores do not appear a rb itrary and unnecessary. They find th a t th is early
work for children r e s u lts in helpfulness, responsibility and nurturant,
parental qualities.

Through helping out, children learn to be helpful.

When given responsibility, they become responsible.

39

Summary
The process of socialization r e fe rs to the means by which a society
brings i t s new m em bers into social groups and enables them to function
effectively w ithin tho se groups.

In the case of socialization to a work

ethic, m ost fam ilies in traditional agricultural so c ie tie s and in e arlie r
tim es tra in children by pressing them into service a t an early age. When
a child is given the opportunity to carry out jobs which are clearly
essen tial and challenge th e ir skill and inventiveness, as well as th eir
ste ad fa stn ess, th is enhances the atmosphere of responsibility in which
the child lives and helps to c u ltiv ate reliability.
This is often not the case for children living in modernized, nonfarm
homes where th e ir help is not particularly needed. As a result, several
researchers are concerned th a t th is society is not providing those
experiences

which

w ill

perm it

future

generations

to

develop

a

constructive a ttitu d e tow ard s work.

The Firstborn Child
The sam ple being analyzed in th is study c o n sists of

firstborn

children betw een the ages of 6 to 12 years of age. This brief overview of
studies of firstb o rn is included in th is review because they have often
been found to be d ifferen t from th e ir siblings.

Several researchers

suggest th a t birth order does have an impact on the development of the
firstborn child.

Birth Order Research Focusing on the Firstborn
Bossard and Boll (1956) conclude th a t the eld est children tend to be
"altruistic" to a fault:

40

F irst, they tend to be put under pressure from an early age.
From being put under pressure by others, they proceed to put
them selves under pressure. Thus h abits are formed which
c ry s ta lliz e into p a tte rn s of responsibility, (p. 162)....The oldest
or an older one of the children in a large family develops
marked habits of accountability, aiding the parents in th eir
duties, sharing responsibilities, and taking over much of the
rearing of the younger siblings....Patterns of s a c rific e and
service also m anifest them selves early in life. Being the
o ldest means doing for others, (p. 266)
The picture th a t em erges from th is description is of prem aturely
grown-up, ra th e r m artyrish eld est children, the product of excessive
responsibility-pressure.

The suggestion, th a t to produce a responsible

child means giving them an opportunity to be responsible, can obviously
be overdone.
In his review of the lite ra tu re on birth order, Warren (1966) found
in stu d ies w ith men only, w ith women only, w ith the sexes mixed and
from the early school years through college th a t firstb o rn are more
responsive to social pressure. They are also more dependent than la te r
born.
Although Clausen (1966) believes th a t the e f f e c ts of b irth order are,
for the m ost part,

indirect, he

does

report on c ertain reg u la rities

which have emerged to indicate th a t position w ithin the family does
make for a number of predictab1e--if m odest—differences.

He notes

th a t no other child is likely to receive the amount of atten tio n (time,
energy, concern) as is the firstb orn prior to th e ir dethronement (by the
birth of the second child). The firstb orn child has no "child model” as
younger sib s do.

They may be the caretaker, teacher, p a c e s e tte r or

confidante of younger children. They can be helpful models for learning
sex-appropriate behavior. He indicates th a t one of the m ost c o n sistent

41

findings relating to b irth order Is th a t firstb o rn children achieve
eminence in higher proportion than do th e ir siblings.

Although his

findings about su sce p tib ility to influence are c o nsisten t w ith Warren's
when discussing m ales, he su ggests th a t a number of stu dies find the
firstb o rn

fem ale

le s s

susceptible

to

influence,

relatively

more

responsible, aggressive and com petitive than la te r born females.
Adams

and

Phillips

(1972),

like

Clausen,

find

th at

an

overrepresentation of firstb o rn in college populations and among men of
great accom plishm ents are probably the two m ost sta b le and replicated
birth order findings. They suggest th at part of the reason the firstborn
child has a higher level of motivation (when m otivation is defined as
long-term e ffo rt directed toward a goal) than the la te r born child is th at
parents have higher expectations for and expect more achievement from
the firstb o rn child. A number of other stu d ies (which they cite) present
supporting empirical evidence indicating th a t parental pressure is indeed
often placed on the firsborn child to be responsible and to achieve
accomplishm ents not expected from la te r born siblings. Their sample of
firstb o rn s appear to be living up to th is expectation by scoring
significantly higher than la te r born children on four different m easures
on intellectual and academic performance and on one measure of school
motivation.
Schooler's (1972) a rticle , “Birth Order Effects: Not Here, Not Now!"
re fu te s many of the previous findings. Her review of the lite ra tu re in
birth order stu d ie s indicates th a t the repeated findings of a surplus of
f i r s t borns among eminent scholars appears to have nothing to do w ith
any d irec t relationship of birth order to eminence.

It is simply a

reflectio n of the f a c t th a t scholars, eminent or not, derive from a

42

college population in which firstb o rn s are in marked surplus. It can also
be explained in te rm s of differences among social c la s s trends in family
size. She also rep o rts th a t if th ere w ere any substantial differences in
American p a re n ts’ approaches to children of differen t birth ranks in the
early 1950s, these differences disappeared by the m id-1960s.
Summary

Although several findings from the preceding stu d ies on firstb orn
are conflicting, there appears to be some evidence th a t being born f i r s t
does have an impact on the child’s development.

A very obvious

difference from la te r siblings is the amount of a tten tio n from p sre n ts
the child is likely to receive. This reseacher wonders if the combination
of parents'

higher expectations for firstb orn and

th e ir higher

responsiveness to social pressure, will re s u lt in g re a te r participation of
th is sample (who are all firstborn) in household work.
Some other fa c to rs which have an influence on firstborn, but w ere
not discussed in th is section are: family size (density), the age of the
parents, sex and spacing of siblings.

Ihe_£ffects of Sex. Sex Roles and Age on Children's Household Work
Contributions
Osborne's pamphlet published in 1955 gave some very specific
suggestions about the work children should be doing a t d ifferent ages.
He f e lt th a t children younger than 5 and 6 should p a rticip a te in "prework
activities."

From the ages of 6 through 12 years, they should have

increasing opportunities to take on responsible fam ily-centered jobs.
These jobs would allow both growth in ability and taking responsibility
in the family and outside.

He suggested th a t the parent should make

43

some of th e s e jobs c re ativ e and interesting so th a t children would be
less likely to find the hum-drum ones disturbing.
In the 1950's, Gesell, llg and Ames (1956) conducted a longitudinal
study of children which combined an interview of parents and th e ir
children ages 5 through 16 w ith psychological testin g techniques. The
purpose of the study w as to look a t the influence of age on the
organization of behavior in the context of contemporary American
culture.

For each year of m aturity in a child's growth process,

c h a ra c te ris tic t r a i t s and trends w ere discovered.

Work, primarily

household work, w as one of the categories investigated for the 10 to 16
year olds. They w ere more concerned about general im pressions of the
work habits and a ttitu d e s toward participation of the children than they
w ere w ith getting quantifiable data. In general, they found th a t m ost 10
year olds w ere not good about helping a t home and would delay and
dawdle whenever possible. Boys did b e tte r w ith outdoor ta s k s such as
mowing the lawn, shoveling the snow and gardening than indoor task s
such as se ttin g the table, making th e ir beds, sweeping and dusting. By
the tim e a child reaches 12, they no longer have an autom atic re s ista n c e
to household work and have developed a more positive a ttitu d e toward
it. Although the children were not volunteering for work and s t i ll needed
to be reminded, they w ere often good about helping and even showed a
lit t le w illingness now and then.
work.

They even attem pted more d iffic u lt

By the tim e they were 15 years old, ta s k s were becoming

increasing complex and responsible. The children seemed to take their
contributions for granted, though m ost of them w ere probably not
en th u siastic workers.

44

Johannis (1958) also conducted a study in the 1950's where he
investigated the "Participation by Fathers, Mothers and Teenage Sons and
Daughters in Selected Household Tasks.” In his review of the literatu re,
he introduced a h isto rical overview of the existence of traditional
p a tte rn s of household work participation.

In his own study, he

discovered th a t f a th e rs participated in traditional ta s k s more than
m others and sons more than daughters.

Because children tended to

p a rticip a te in the sim pler and le ss in teresting types of task s (which are
easy

for parents

to

teach), Johannis

wondered

if children were

su b stitu tin g "for a servant in the family."
Teenagers w ere also the focus of tw o stu d ies done in the 1960's. In
a study by Tengel (1964), junior high and high school age children were
surveyed to obtain information on th e ir work experiences both a t home
and in the community.

Girls, she found, contributed considerably more

tim e to household d u ties than boys did. For instance, m ost of the girls
and only two th ird s of the boys performed kitchen and housecleaning
tasks.

Jobs where a higher percentage of boys participated than girls

tended to be those which m ales traditionally do. About 80 percent of the
boys said they cleaned the basement, took out the trash and did yard
work while g irls did th is work only half as much. Three percent of the
sample did no work a t home.

It w as interesting to note th a t younger

brothers and s i s t e r s cared for toddlers in the family more than the older
teens.
In Hoppen's (1966) study of teens, she focused only on their
contribution to the work of the home. Because she realized th at the sex
of the teen would be an important influence on th e ir contribution, she
hypothesized th a t g irls would contribute more tim e to household work

45

than boys and th a t the nature of household ta s k s done and the frequency
w ith which they w ere done related to the sex of the teenager.

She

discovered that,w hile boys did c ertain kinds of ta s k s and g irls did
certain kinds of task s, g irls on the average contributed alm ost three
tim e s as much tim e as boys.

Inside a c tiv itie s w ere reported more by

g irls and outside a c tiv itie s by boys. Girls tended to do work on a daily
basis while boy's work w as more seasonal. Three of the 28 teen s studied
did not report some tim e spent in household work fo r the day preceding
the interview.
The Walker (Walker and Woods, 1976) household tim e -u se study w as
discussed e a rlie r in th is review. Although the main unit of analysis w as
the household and not individual children, th is study w as included in th is
section because she did an extensive analysis of the tim e used by
children for doing work related to the production of goods and services
w ithin the household. This analysis w as based on the contribution of all
children in various age groups. The data indicated th a t all 6 to 11 year
olds contributed an average of about one hour per day to household work.
For fam ilies w ith teenagers (12 to 17 year olds), the average w as two
hours per day.

Walker noted th a t these tim e contributions w ere

substantial and they did play a significant role in the operations of the
household.

In 88 percent of the record days, one or more teenagers in

those fam ilies w ith teenagers did some work. For fam ilies w ith 6 to 11
year olds, 69 percent worked. In over one half of the fam ilies reporting,
children worked in one to three activ itie s.

One fourth of the fam ilies

reported work by teens in four to six activ ites. Children participated in
a c tiv itie s
households:

they

have

traditionally

been

expected

to

perform

in

regular meal preparation, a fte r-m e a l cleanup and regular

46

house care.

Because the tim e spent in ta s k performance w as only

recorded on specified days, it would be difficult to determine from th is
data the actual number of ta s k s a child perform s and impossible to
evaluate the quality of the work.
Data, from a National Health Survey done in 1963-65 w ith parental
rating s of behavioral p a tte rn s of 25 million children, w ere analyzed by
Roberts and Baird (1971). Six to 11 year olds w ere studied focusing on
age and sex differences.

In the section measuring the extent of

responsibility, the proportion of children performing regular family
ta s k s increased c o n sistently as each of the age groups w ere examined.
While 78.3 percent had one or more tasks, the proportion doing three or
more ta s k s regularly more than doubled over th is age range increasing
from 19.8 percent among 6 year olds to 46.9 percent among 11 year olds.
The p a tte rn w as sim ila r for boys and girls. The research ers f e lt that:
This steady increase undoubtedly re f le c ts both the learning of
responsible behavior and the development of sk ills w ith age.
(p. 9)
One of th e ir tab les illu stra te d the percent distribution of children by
tim e spent per day working (on chores, etc.) according to age and sex.
The findings from th is table indicated th a t girls spent only slightly more
tim e a t work than boys.

Walker's findings on boys and g irls between 6

to 11 y ears of age w ere very sim ilar to these findings.
Lynch (1975a) also utilized Walker's data, but she focused on the
"Participation in Household Tasks by Children from Six to Seventeen
Years of Age."

The objective in th is study w as to determine what

children of both sexes and different ages in fam ilies w ith one, tw o and
three children contribute to the work of the home. She f e lt th is w as one
step in the process of clarifying relationships and p a ttern s of children's

47

task participation. To achieve her objective, she utilized information of
mean tim e (frequency) spent in various a c tiv itie s a s well as the percent
of children who p articip ated in various household tasks. She found th a t
g irls betw een 9 to 17 years of age did a g rea ter number of a c tiv itie s
than boys of the sam e age and spent a g re a te r amount of tim e a t
household work. By age 12, on the average, g irls spent tw ice as much
tim e as boys in household work. The ta s k s primarily performed by boys
and g irls had not changed very much from the traditional pattern.
Females p articip ated in meal preparation, meal cleanup and regular house
care.

Outside a c tiv itie s , the care of the yard and car, w ere primarily

male tasks. Meal preparation and regular house care were the ta s k s m ost
frequently

p articip ated

in by both m ales and females,

contributed more tim e in the a c tiv itie s than boys.

but g irls

Girls usually spent

the m ost tim e in a c tiv itie s they p articipated in m ost often. On the other
hand, boys a t m ost ages spent the g re a te s t amount of tim e per day on the
irregular a ctiv ity of care of yard and car, even though they participated
in house care and food preparation ta s k s more frequently.
The

adherence

to

traditional

participation w as also apparent

p a tte rn s

in a national

in

household

task

survey of children

conducted by Temple University In stitu te for Survey Research (1976) on
children aged 7 to 11 y ears of age.

Interview s of more than 2,200

children and more than 1,700 of th e ir parents w ere analyzed. Interview s
were stru c tu re d to determ ine the general environment in which children
live.

One section of the interview asked children to pick one of five

sentences to tell how they f e lt about various work and play activities.
Girls expressed significantly g re a te r liking for traditional "female"
a c t iv i t ie s such as cooking, sewing and dancing. Boys expressed g rea ter

48

liking for a c tiv itie s such as "making things out of wood or m etal.”
Parents' response showed strong sex differences, also.

At the same

tim e, there w as evidence of change. Less than 5 percent of the g irls said
they did not w ant a job when they grew up but only wanted to be a
housewife or mother.
Thrall (1978) w as also in terested in role stereotypy as it related to
children's work and the continuity between generations in the household
division of labor.

Thrall defined role stereotypy as the normative

expectation th a t one person w as supposed to do a task and th a t another
w as then expected not to do it. He included questions about children's
work in his in terview s w ith 99 husbands and wives adapting the Blood
and Wolfe (1960) m easures of division of labor. His findings suggested
th a t the b e st single predictor of a fam ily's division of labor may be the
previous generation.

Most fam ilies in the study tended to be quite

traditional in th e ir pattern, w ith strong emphasis on division of labor by
sex for both parents and children.

Thrall also reported th a t older

children took p art in more of the ta s k s than did younger children.
Parents s till retained primary responsibility for the work performed by
children.

Making th e ir beds or picking up th e ir rooms were chores

prim arily assigned to children. These w ere ta s k s which w ere specific to
the child and not part of the family task performance record.
As mentioned earlier, O’Neill (1979) did the ten year follow up to
Walker's work. The data of time given to household work by school-age
children provided a basis for a ten -y ear comparison of children's
household work according to th e ir age and sex. As w ith the Walker study,
data w ere collected on tim e-record c h a rts th a t homemakers filled out
for the day previous to th e ir interview and the day following. In the 9 to

49

11 and 12 to 14 age b rack ets differences in task s performed by g irls and
boys w ere especially apparent. Girls' participation r a te s in all but the
car and y ard-care ta s k s increased much f a s te r than boys'.

The sex

differences of ten years ago continued to ex ist which meant th a t the
designation of ta s k s w ithin households appeared not to have changed very
much. O'Neill did discover, though, th a t the gap in the percentage of boys
and g irls contributing tim e to specific ta s k s has generally narrowed.
In th e ir book, Children and Work. Goldstein and Oldham (1979)
discussed th e ir sam ple's experience w ith work first-h an d through the
performance of chores and so-called "childwork."

Although they were

unable to determ ine the impact of children's work experiences upon th eir
w o rk -related cognition s ta te s , th e ir findings suggested th a t children's
work and earning experiences:

very

1.

typically s t a r t in early childhood on a

small scale;

2.
3.

are extrem ely widespread; and
apparently are subjected to age-related increments,
169)

(p.

They found th a t the seventh grade, rath e r than the fifth, represented a
turning point. They suggested th a t th is w as probably the case because of
stru c tu ra l

and

physical

considerations

rath e r

than

because

of

appreciable change in children's readiness or willingness to work a t th a t
age. When they asked children about th eir feelings regarding th e ir own
work, w hether chi Id-work or merely the performance of household
chores, nearly four in five at each grade level said they liked working.
Zill and Peterson (1982) w ere

convinced th a t children do a

considerable amount of work in the home and th at the amount and nature
of th is work w as intim ately tied to the practical sk ills they develop.
* Using a national sam ple of elementary school children, they developed a

50

practical s k ills index which w as made up of 14 practical tasks.

They

discovered th a t the b e st predictor of the child's development of practical
sk ills w as sex of the child. For alm ost all the individual item s, d istin c t
differences existed in the percentage of sons and daughters who were
reported (by th e ir parents) to have accomplished the task s without help.
All the d ifferen ces w ere in the direction expected from sex-role
stereotypes. Because th is w as a developmental measure, the proportion
of children ever having accomplished each task rose w ith age as
expected.

This w as true for boys and girls, although the ra te of

improvement w ith age varied by the sex of the child within some tasks.

Hypotheses-Formulated
Research indicates th a t the fa c to rs which m ost influence children's
involvement in household work are sex, sex roles and age.

In the

m ajority of studies, girls' contributions are significantly g rea ter than
boys' to household work. Hypotheses 1 and 3 r e fle c t these differences.
In hypothesis 1, the perceived contributions of the g irls is hypothesized
to be

higher than the boys.

performed by the

In hypothesis 3, the number of task s

g irls is hypothesized to be higher than the number

performed by the boys.
The stu d ies in th is section also show a continued adherence to
traditional p a tte rn s in household task participation w ith girls doing
m ost of the in-the-hom e work and boys working outside. This resulted in
the form ulation of hypothesis 4 which s t a t e s th a t g irls will do more
in-the-hom e work while boys will work more outside.
The age of the child a f f e c ts the number and kinds of task s children
accomplish w ith older children performing more task s and those which
require g re a te r skill. This relationship is reflected in hypotheses 2 and

51

5 though the conceptual fram ework w as the basts for th e ir development.

Research on Quality of Life
Several books e x is t on developing m easures of and rep o rts of
research on perceived quality of life (Campbell, e t al.. 1976; Andrews
and Withey, 1976; Campbell, 1981). In the questionnaire utilized in th is
study, the section on quality of life owes much of i t s development to the
conceptual framework developed by Andrews and Withey (1974, 1976).
The discussion which follow s sum m arizes several a sp ec ts of th eir
framework which are relevant to th is research.

Quality of Life: Basic Concepts
Andrews and Withey (1976) believe that:
The quality of life is not j u s t a m a tte r of the conditions of
one's physical, interpersonal and social se ttin g but also a
m a tte r of how th e s e are judged and evaluated by oneself and
others. The values th a t one brings to bear on life are in
them selves d eterm inan ts of one's a sse ssed quality of life. (p.
12)

They c ite several reasons for the importance and usefulness of
measuring people's perceptions of well-being.
particularly relevant to th is study.

Two of the reasons are

First, they feel it is valuable to

gather baseline m easures which can be compared to subsequent m easures
and trends of change so th a t society knows where it stands. They also
feel there is value in getting to understand how people evaluate and feel
about th e ir lives if the judgm ents are made about "domains " of life such
as th eir fam ilies, th e ir homes, th e ir jobs, etc.
They conceive of w ell-being indicators as occurring a t several
levels of specificity.

Indicators which re fe r to life as a whole are the

52

m ost global and they are not specific to any one p articu lar aspect of life.
General evaluations of w hat they call life "concerns" are at a somewhat
more specific level.

Concerns are divided into tw o types:

"domains"

(places, things, a c tiv itie s, people and roles) and "criteria" (values,
standards, aspirations, goals, and—in general—ways of judging or
evaluating how one f e lt about the various domains of life). Both global
indicators and life concerns will be studied in th is research.
Andrews and Withey hypothesize th a t a person's assessm en t of life
quality involves both a cognitive evaluation and some degree of positive
or negative feelings, i.e., "affect."

A fter experimenting w ith numerous

w ays of measuring a ffectiv e evaluations, the Delighted-Terrible Scale
w as found to be the m ost e ffectiv e and is used m ost extensively. A form
of th is scale is used in th is study, and is described in the methodology
section.

Studies of Children's Quality of Life
Although Bourque (1982) w as not specifically in terested in quality
of life studies, she did a careful

examination of evaluation

studies

funded by the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1974
and 1975. She found th a t children w ere rarely formally interviewed, and
on the few occasions when they have been, th eir opinions frequently
contradicted those given by parents and teach ers on th eir behalf.

She

hypothesized th a t the reluctance to interview children or otherw ise
obtain data directly from them might indicate th a t research ers do not
consider children capable of acting as research subjects. She also
recognized tw o more potential problems:

(1) re s tric tio n s imposed by

human su b je c ts legislation and (2) the necessity of obtaining perm ission

53

from paren ts or guardians to study minors.
Quality of life research can overcome the bias of viewing children
a s incapable of acting as research su b je c ts by elicitin g the child's
su b jectiv e perceptions which could understandably be in conflict w ith a
p arent’s or teacher's

assessm ent.

When children are the

focus, one

common area of study is the quality of school life.
Studies on Quality of School Life.

Epstein and McPartland (1976)

studied the concept and m easurement of the quality of school life. They
developed different dimensions of the concept of quality of school life
and call these subscales (what Andrews and Withey re fe r to as domains).
Subscales help to determ ine the global measure. They suggest th a t
The trend for quality of school life scores to decrease as grade
level increases may mean th a t the objective quality of school
goes down each year and/or th at w ith m aturity, stu d e n ts more
c ritic a lly evaluate th e ir environments....It may be argued th at
w ith age, stud ents' a b ilitie s become more varied. Schools may
be less able to m eet the more diverse academic in te re s ts and
needs of older stu d e n ts although they are able to m aintain the
general and social quality of school life for m ost students, (p.
26)
In Wolf and Chandler’s (1981) study, perceptions of quality of school
life included sa tis fa c tio n w ith school, commitment to th e ir classw ork
and a ttitu d e s toward teachers.

The perceptions of a sample of fourth

graders w ere a sse ss e d a t the beginning and end of the school year.
Results provided te n ta tiv e support for the view th a t perceptions of these
asp e c ts of quality of school life temporally preceded perceptions of
academic responsibility. They suggested th a t the more favorably these
classroom fa c to rs are perceived, the more likely stu d e n ts are to accept
responsibility for th e ir school su c ce sses and failures.

54

National Studies.

The Temple University In stitu te for Survey

Research (1976) conducted a

National Survey of Children during

Septem ber through December of 1976.

It consisted of interview s of

more than 2,200 children aged 7 to 11 y ears of age and more than 1,700
of th e ir parents.

Interview s w ere stru ctu red to determ ine the general

environment in which children live. One section of the interview asked
children to pick one of five sentences to tell how they feel about various
work and play a ctiv itie s.

They w ere also given a s e t of five faces

ranging from very happy to very sad and asked, "Which face shows how
you feel about: yourself?

your school work?

your family?...." On the

whole, th ese children f e lt good about themselves. Eighty percent of them
picked a happy face to show how they f e lt about them selves and about
how things w ere going in th e ir lives. Over 75% thought they w ere lucky
and 90% said they liked being the way they were.

Ninety percent felt

good about th e ir fam ilies while 80% also worried about th e ir families.
Zill (1978) also analyzed p a rts of the data collected from the
National Survey of Children.

He w as in terested in the relationship

betw een the mental health of children and divorce and m arital happiness.
In a paper he prepared on th is subject, he gave several reasons why the
National Survey w as designed and sponsored by the Foundation for Child
Development. Three of the purposes he suggested w ere relevant to the
present study.
Like Zill, th is resea rch e r w as in terested in collecting quality of life
data on children to determine the fea sib ility and value of child
questionnaires (he used interview s) as a source of social indicator data
on children.

Zill also wanted to analyze the relationships between the

conditions of children's lives and m easures of child development and

55

well-being.

This resea rch e r lim ited the focus to the conditions

surrounding the child’s family work and the relationship between family
work and m easures of well-being. And finally, Zill wanted to replicate
item s from previous national studies for tim e -tre n d analysis. Several of
the quality of life ite m s in th is study w ere very sim ila r to those utilized
on the National Survey. As a resu lt, the analysis of th is data may give
some insight into how th is sample of children compares to the national
sample which w as polled four y ears earlier.
Hypotheses Formulated
In th is section, several reasons have been cited for the importance
and usefulness of measuring people’s perceptions of well-being.
resu lt of

gathering

previous m easures,
where it stands.

As a

m easures of w ell-being and comparing them to
tren d s can be established so th a t society knows
This research er is in terested in measuring the

well-being of th is sam ple of children so th a t it can be compared to
previous m easures which have been collected.

There is also value in

getting to understand how people evaluate and feel about th e ir lives if
the judgments are made about "domains" of life. In th is study, the focus
is on the domain of family work and its relationship to the child’s
perceived quality of life.
Because of the paucity of research in th is area, hypotheses 6 and 7
are exploratory in nature and do not predict any differences between
boys and g irls or age groups.

Summary.
Industrialization c re a te s the conditions for the prolongation of
childhood and r e s u lts in the release of m ost children from the world of

56

work.

Living in a modernized, nonfarm home often c re a te s a situation

where the child's help is not particularly needed.

Research indicates

th a t responsibility is developed when the child's work contributions are
needed, when they have the opportunity to make and help make important
decisions and when th ere is enough tim e for the jchild to work alongside,
im itate and help a responsible adult.

As a family helper, the child

contributes to the life of the family; th is adds to s e lf-re s p e c t and
dem onstrates the b e n efits to the family when everyone does th e ir share.
The responsibility and s k ills learned through work experience carry over
into adult lives and influence the roles of future generations.
Many fa c to rs influence children's involvement in household work.
Research indicates th a t the e f f e c ts of sex, sex roles and age on
children's household work contributions are particularly pronounced.

In

th is review of the lite ra tu re , all the studies focusing on sex roles
indicate a continued adherence to traditional p a tte rn s in household task
participation. In m ost cases, the g irls in these stu d ie s often contributed
more of th eir tim e to household work than the boys.
significantly

influences

the

number and kinds

of

ta s k s

Age also
children

accomplish w ith older children taking part in more work and work which
requires the development of more skills.
Several recent stu d ie s on children's quality of life provide valuable
baseline m easures which can be compared to subsequent m easures to
determine trends of change. Measures of quality of life as a whole are
established by these stu d ie s a s well as some general evaluations on
specific domains.

Chapter 4

METHODOLOGY

This study w as p a rt of a larger study, "Contributions of Household
Production to Family Income," which w as sponsored by the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station (AES 1363H), the Department of Family
and Child Ecology a t Michigan S ta te
Cooperative Extension Service.

University and the Michigan

The larger study w as undertaken to

identify the involvement in household production among young urban,
small town and rural fam ilies in mid-Michigan.
Data used in th is study w ere collected during the months of May and
June 1980 in Ingham County, Michigan. For the larger study, the unit of
analysis w as the family which w as defined as a male and female living
in the same household w ith the oldest child between the ages of 6 and
12.

A survey questionnaire w as given to each of these three family

members.
This researcher did not become p a rt of the research team until a fte r
all the data were collected and being coded. As a resu lt, th is researcher
did not p articip ate

in decisions relating

to sampling procedures,

instrum ent design or data collection.
This study w as

designed to

investigate

the

household work

participation of the children in th is sam ple and th eir perceived quality of
life. As a resu lt, the m ajor portion of the children's questionnaire will
be analyzed

as

well

as the demographic data
57

from

the

parents'

58

questionnaire.
Discussion in th is chapter focuses on:

(1) research design of the

study; (2) description of the sample; (3) instrum ent development; (4)
variables; (5) s t a ti s t i c a l analysis; and (6) lim itatio ns of the study.

Research Design
The purpose of th is descriptive study w as to identify the perceived
contributions to household work of children between the ages of 6 and 12
years of age. Specifically, the number and kinds of ta s k s they perform
were identified.

An a tte m p t w as also made to identify the child's

perceived quality of life and to determine if a relationship existed
between

the

perceived

contribution to

perceived quality of life.

household work

and th e ir

The research method used w as a survey

questionnaire based on recall. Demographic data w ere determined from
the

questionnaires

of

the

parents.

Theoretical

and

operational

definitions of the variables were noted in Chapter 1.
The sample w as selected from Ingham County, Michigan which is
included in the Lansing Standard Metropolitan S ta tis tic a l Area (SMSA).
The county contains the s t a te
agencies,

capital

and associated

many business and manufacturing

firm s

government

related

to

the

automobile industry, a diversified agricultural industry and a large land
grant university (Michigan S tate University). The county is made up of a
heterogeneous population of urban, small town and rural households. The
sample w as designed to re fle c t the c h a ra c te ris tic s and a c tiv itie s of
young fam ilies, living in private households, from the three d istin c t
locations.

A minimum of thirty fam ilies from each of the three a re as

was considered appropriate to represent the larger population.

59

Given the study's definitional and geographic con strain ts, the
sample selectio n p rocess w as designed to be as random as possible. The
urban sample came from Lansing, the s t a te capital, which has the larg est
population c en ter in Ingham County.
mid-Michigan.
tran sp o rtatio n

The

m ajor

equipment,

employers
fabricated

It is centrally

located in

are

industry

m etals

and

(principally

non-electrical

machinery), s t a t e government and the university.
The team a ttem p ted to locate areas w ithin the city w ith the highest
percentage of school-age children between the ages of 6 and 12 years. A
school census w as obtained from the Tri-County Planning Commission
and an area of south Lansing was identified as having the largest number
of young children. An area in north Lansing w as also considered. V isits
to both a re a s revealed several indicators of children such as swing s e t s
and signs in windows identifying them as sh e lte rs for school-age
children.

The f i r s t neighborhood chosen to be sampled w as a census

t r a c t area in south Lansing.

In the event th a t additional fam ilies w ere

needed, an adjacent t r a c t w as identified as the second area to be
sampled.

City blocks w ithin the census tr a c t w ere numbered and all

apartm ent buildings w ere individually numbered and tre a te d as if they
w ere city blocks. Before the in terview ers s ta r te d contacting fam ilies,
block numbers w ere randomly selected as s ta rtin g points.

In order to

obtain the required number of fam ilies, all of the blocks in both census
t r a c t s had to be sampled.

Households w ere contacted utilizing a skip

pattern once residential blocks w ere randomly selected. Once a family
qualified and agreed to p a rticip a te in the study then the skip p a ttern
became operative and the next house on the block or road w as skipped.
The following house w as then contacted.

60

The sm all town sample came from Mason, the county s e a t of Ingham
County.

Mason has no m ajor industry, but it does have several small

indu stries and service agencies.

Because the town is located within

commuting distance of Lansing and Jackson, Michigan, about 85 percent
of the employed persons living w ithin the corporate lim its (boundaries
for the sample) work outside of Mason.

The remaining 15 percent are

mainly factory w orkers and s t a te employees. A significant segment of
the population is made up of re tire d farm ers, s t a f f and faculty from
Michigan S ta te University. The areas w ith the largest number of school
children w ere initially identified by the Ingham County Extension Home
Economist.

Interviewing began in the areas identified but had to be

expanded to encompass the e n tire town due to the small population. As
in Lansing, city blocks were randomly selected as sta rtin g points before
the in terview ers contacted any families.
The c lo s e s t rural area to Lansing w as Wheatfield Township and it
w as selected for the rural sample. It w as within commuting distance of
Lansing w ith houses located approximately every q u arter mile on each of
the township roads.

E a s t-w e st and north-south roads w ithin the

township w ere numbered and randomly selected as sta rtin g points. Every
house w ithin the township w as v isite d (the skip pattern w as not
utilized) because of the sparse population and distance between the
houses. Utilizing th is procedure, the Wheatfield Township s till did not
produce enough qualified families. A rural area adjacent and to the w e st
of Wheatfield (LeRoy Township) had to be included in the sample using
the same procedure.

61

Description of the Study Sample
The data in th is section come from an analysis of the questions on
demographics in the husband's and w ive's questionnaires.

It is included

because the children's sample can be b e tte r understood given the
demographics of th eir parents.
The sample for the larger Household Production P roject consisted of
107 fam ilies (husband, w ife and oldest child between the ages of 6 and
12 years). This study analyzed the m ajor portion of the children's data
from the 107 families. The urban sample consisted of 32 fam ilies, 38
were from the small

town and 37 were from

the rural sample.

Demographic information from the Tri-County Planning Commission
provided the following demographic c h a r a c te ris tic s for the sample areas.
Urban Sample.—The urban sample consisted of census t r a c t s 36.01
and 36.02.

For these areas, the 1980 median household incomes were

$19,400 and $14,800, respectively.

The areas w ere 63.7 percent and

69.7 percent Caucasian and 30.5 percent and 24.0 percent Black,
respectively.
Small Town Sample.—The sm all town sample consisted of all of
Mason. The area had a median household income of $18,400 and was
96.5 percent Caucasian and 0.01 percent Black.
Rural Sample. The rural sample included all of Wheatfield Township
and the w estern edge of LeRoy Township where it borders Wheatfield
Township. The area had a 1980 median income of $17,900 and w as 98.7
percent Caucasian and 0.5 percent Black.
The racial balance of the sample w as sim ila r to the 1980 census. In
the sample, over 87 percent of the adult respondents w ere Caucasian
w ith few er than 12 percent of Black or Spanish origin. The m ajority of

62

the Black and Chicano-American respondents w ere from the urban
sample. The adults in the sample ranged in age from 22 to 50 years and
the average age for the w ife w as alm ost 32 while the husbands' averaged
alm ost 34 years of age (Table 2).
length of 11.66 years.
m arried 10 to 15 years.

The

Couples w ere m arried an average

m ajority of couples (70.9 percent) were

Not all couples living together reported they

w ere married, but they w ere considered a s husband and wife.
Husbands and wives, total number of children, other re la tiv e s and
other individuals living in the residence w ere considered p a rt of the
household. The number of persons in the household ranged from three to
seven w ith the m ost frequent household size four members:
w ife and two children.

husband,

Only one fam ily in the sample reported a

non-relative living in the household and none of the fam ilies indicated
any other rel?itives in residence.
The number of children in the household ranged from one to five
w ith an average of 2.4 children. Because fam ilies had to have at least
one child to qualify for the sample, c h ildless couples were not included.
As a resu lt, the

average household size of the sample varied from the

Lansing SMSA household average. The children in the sample w ere evenly
distribu ted by age w ith the larg est number of children falling in the 11
y ears old category (20.5 percent).
Husbands' and wives' educational levels differed somewhat. Over 9
percent of the w ives and 6.4 percent of the husbands did not complete
high school. The 12th grade w as the highest level of education for 35
percent of the wives and 32 percent of the husbands. One-third of the
w ives and one-fourth of the husbands reported th a t they s ta rte d college,
but completed less than four years.

Over o n e -fifth of the w ives (21.5

63

percent) finished four or more years of college. For the husbands, more
than a third (34.5 percent) finished four years or more.
Over half of the couples (52 percent) w ere single-earner fam ilies
and 44.9 percent had both husband and w ife employed.

At the tim e

fam ilies filled out the questionnaires, both adults w ere unemployed in
2.8 percent of the fam ilies. In the overall population of workers in the
Lansing SMSA, 12.6 percent w ere reported as unemployed for May 1980.
More specifically, 12.5 percent w ere unemployed within the city of
Lansing.

Table 2.—Characteristics of Families in the Sample

Characteristics

Frequency
(n=107)

Percentage
( 100 .0 )

Mean

Median

Age in Years

Husbands
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
Wives
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
45-50
Years Married*
0-3
4-6
7-9
10-12

13-15
16-18
19-21

2
22
52
24
3
4

1.8
20.6
48.5
22.4
2.7
3.7

33.79

33.46

3
32
52
18

2.8

31.89

31.85

29.8
48.5
16.8

11.66

12.39

2
0
6
6
9
34
42
8
2

1.8
0

5.6
5.6
8.4
31.7
39.2
7.5

1.8

64
Table 2. (cont'd.)

Characteristics

Frequency
(n=107)

Percentage
(100.0)

Mean

Median

Number of 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 of Children11
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 of Oldest Child
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Education Level
Husbands
1-3 years of high school
Completed high school
(high school diploma)
Less than 4 years of college
4 years of college
5 or more years of college '
Wives
1-3 years of high school
Completed high school
(high school diploma)
Less than 4 years of college
4 years of college
5 or more years of college

Boys
4
8
13
9
8
13
9

Girls
10
4
3
7
6
9
4

6

5.6

35
27
18
20

32.7
25.2
16.8
18.7

9

8.4

38
36
7
16

35.5
33.6
6.5
15.0

Boys
6.2
12.5
20.3
14.1
12.5
20.3
14.1

Girls
23.2
9.3
7.0
16.3
14.0
20.9
9.3

65
Table 2. (cont'd.)

Characteristics

Employment Status
Single-earner
Dual-earner
Both unemployed
Midpoint of 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
Occupation
Husbands
Professional-Technical
Managerial-Administrative
Sales
Clerical
Craftsman, operative,
transport, laborer
Service
Private household workers
Farmer
Housespouse/Student
Wives
Professional-Technical
Managerial-Administrative
Sales
Clerical
Craftsman, operative,
transport, laborer
Service
Private household workers
Farmer
Housespouse/Student

Frequency
(n=107)

Percentage
(100.0)

56
48
3

52.8
44.9

1

0.9
0.9

1
0
4
16
23

20
26
13
4

1

$26,752

$25,519

0
3.7
15.0
21.5
18.6
24.3
12.1

3.7
0.9

28.8
13.1

44
5

41.1
4.7

2.8
6.5

0

0

2
2

1.9
1.9

11

10.3

3

2.8

2
20

1.9
18.7

3
7
4

2.8

1

Median

2.8

30
14
3
7

56

Mean

6.5
3.7
0.9
52.3

* As reported by wives
""A combined report - Husband's and wive's personal income added together for family income

66

The median family income for the sample w as $25,519. The 1980
census e stim a te d median household income for the four census t r a c ts
included in the th ree sample a reas as $ 19,400 and $ 1 4 ,8 0 0 (tracts 36.01 and
36.02, respectively) for the urban area, $18,400 for the small town and
$17,900 for the rural area.

The sample w as well above the median

household income for each of the areas.

The per capita income was

determ ined by dividing the total family income by the number of persons
in the household dependent upon the income.

The average per capita

income for the sam ple w as $5,622.
The occupations

of the

husbands and wives were classified

according to the 1970 United S ta te s Census Occupational Codes. Since
the Codes include many diverse occupations, they were combined into
more

general

traditionally

categ ories
fem ale

for

reporting

occupations,

purposes.

husbands

In all

but

outnumbered

the

wives.

T w enty-eight percent of the husbands and 10.3 percent of the wives
w ere professional-technical workers.

In the m anagerial-adm inistrative

w orkers category, the difference w as even more pronounced (13.1
percent of the husbands and 2.8 percent of the wives).

Only a small

portion of the sample w as employed in sa le s (2.8 percent of the husbands
and 1.9 percent of the wives). Most of the employed wives were clerical
w orkers (18.7 percent in c o n tra st to 6.5 percent of the husbands). Most
of the employed husbands w ere in blue collar jobs such as craftsm en,
tran sp o rt

workers,

operatives

and

laborers

(41.1

percent).

By

comparison, only 2.8 percent of the w ives w ere employed in th is kind of
work.

Wives (10.2 percent) outnumbered the husbands (4.7 percent) in

the combined categories of service and private household workers. Only
a small percent of the husbands (2.9 percent) and wives (0.9 percent)

67

were farmers. The g re a te s t difference w as found in the category which
included house spouses and students. Only 1.9 percent of the husbands
reported being in th is category while it included more than half of the
sample of wives (52.3 percent).
Summary
The fam ilies in the sam ple w ere a diverse group well represen tative
of the larger population from which they w ere taken.

They covered a

wide range of income levels ($6,500 to over $50,000) and many
occupations.

Respondents w ere professionals, clerical workers and

others worked in blue collar jobs. At the tim e of the survey, 85 percent
of the men w ere employed and 12 percent w ere laid off. Slightly over
half of the wives w ere not employed (52.3 percent).

The average

household in the sample consisted of a husband, w ife and two children.

Instrum ent Development
This researcher w as not p a rt of the p ro jec t team when the
instrum ent w as developed.

The following section is based on a report

from a member of the p ro jec t (Ezell, 1981). The p ro ject team consisted
of three faculty members from Michigan S ta te University and graduate
students. The purpose of the p ro jec t w as to study household production;
a

comprehensive

questionnaire

w as

developed

tow ard

th a t

end.

Household Production P ro ject members developed some of the questions
and others w ere adapted from questions developed by other researchers.
This researcher joined the p ro jec t when the data w ere being cleaned and
prepared for analysis.

All previous rep o rts on the analysis of the data

have focused mainly on the adult respondents. This research er w as the
only one to focus entirely (except for the demographic data) on the

68

children's questionnaire.
The questionnaires for the children and adults w ere developed
according to the following procedure (Ezell, 1981):
1.

[Reviewing] of relevant

lite ra tu re

including professional

journals and books, research reports, theoretical papers,
magazine, and newspapers.
2. Asking experts to review and add to a lis t of household
production activities.
3. Synthesizing the information gathered and developing pre­
liminary questionnaire.
4. Obtaining initial approval from the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects for p rete stin g the
questionnaire.
5. P retesting the
questionnaire on a selected group of
families.
6. Altering
the
questionnaire to include recommended
changes in the final questionnaire.
7. Obtaining final approval from the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects before beginning
interview s in the sample areas, (pp. 7 0 -71)
Related Literature
For the development, particularly of the adult's questionnaire, four
m ajor categories of lite ra tu re w ere examined:

household production,

quality of life, human capital development and family demographics. For
th is study, two of these categories will be discussed in depth.
The work of Andrews and Withey (1976) w as adapted for the
questions on quality of life. Their faces scale (Figure 1) w as used in the
children's questionnaire to a s s e s s overall perceived quality of life as
well as the children's perceptions of several domains (Appendix C, p.
116). The scale is a graphic device which uses a s e rie s of seven stylized
faces in which the shape of the mouth varies gradually from a big sm ile
to a big frown. Sim ilar scales w ith a se rie s of five stylized faces have

69

been utilized by others studying the quality of life of children, but they
don't appear to be as discriminating.

A fter evaluating the faces scale

w ith several other scales, Andrews and Withey find th at it yields
m easures w ith relatively high v a lid ities and is also advantageous
because it has explicitly labeled categories.

Although th is scale

produces skewed distrib u tio n s tow ard the positive end, it is more
desirable than a purely verbal method because of the age of th is sample
of children (between 6 to 12 years). In th is study, the seven categories
on the faces scale are tre a te d as interval data.

Andrews and Withey

acknowledge th at th eir scale is sim ila r to two other scales which have
been used as interval measures.

Most of the categories on the faces

scale seem to be sep arated by o ne-step intervals, though the m ost
positive categories may be separated by less than one step.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Figure 1.— Faces Scale

The

questions

on demographics

in the

husbands'

and wives'

questionnaires w ere taken from the Quality of Life Research Project
sponsored by the Departments of Human Environment and Design

and

Family

the

and Child

Ecology

at

Michigan S ta te

University

and

Department of Clothing and Textiles, University of Minnesota.

(The

Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Project Numbers were:

1,249

"Clothing Use and Quality of Life in Rural and Urban Communities," 3,151

70

"Families in Evolving Rural Communities."

The Minnesota Agricultural

Experiment Station P roject number was:

5 3 -0 8 6 "Clothing Use and

Quality of Life in Rural and Urban Communities.")
The initial questionnaires w ere developed utilizing the lite ra tu re
review, p ro ject conferences and responses of persons asked to review a
preliminary lis t of household production a ctiv itie s. The team attem pted
to s t a te all the questions as simply and clearly as possible.

Some

m odifications of the questions resulted from the informal review by
p ro ject members.
Members of the Household Production P ro ject s t a f f p re te ste d the
questionnaire. Nine urban, small town and rural fam ilies not living in the
sample a reas participated in the p retest.

Minor m odifications to the

questionnaire resulted from th e ir responses.

Description of Variables
For th is study only p a rts of the questionnaires w ere used.

Those

sectio ns of the questionnaires used in th is study include: (1) the quality
of life questions in the children's questionnaire (p. 2); (2) the children's
perceived contribution to family work (p. 3); (3) the number and kinds of
ta s k s performed by each child (p. 4); and (4) the demographic questions in
both

the

adult's

(pp.

28 -32,

34,

3 6 -3 8 )

and

children's

(p. 1)

questionnaires. These sections have been included in Appendix C.

Instrum entation and Scoring
Perceived Quality of Life
The child's quality of whole life score w as derived by using the
child's questionnaire item number 8 (Faces Scale, Appendix C, p. 116).

71

Each face w as

le tte re d from A to G.

In coding, the le tte r s were

converted to numbers w ith the higher the number, the higher perceived
quality of life. Several scores on specific domains were also analyzed:
th e ir family (item number 9), them selves (item number 10) and the
amount of work they do a t home for the family (item number 11).
Perceived Contributions to Family Work
A score w as derived for the child's perceived contribution to family
work

using

item

18

(Appendix

C,

p.

117)

from

the

children's

questionnaire. In th is section, the children w ere given a circle and told
to pretend th a t the c irc le represented all of the work th a t needs doing in
the home for the family. Then, they w ere told to draw and label a piece
of pie in the circ le to show how much of the family work they did.
Additional pieces w ere drawn for:

(1) dad, (2) mom, (3) brothers and

s is te r s , (4) work for which the family paid and (5) work th a t needs doing
but is not done.
By connecting the tw o lines for each of the pieces of the pie,
isosceles triang les w ere formed, the bases w ere summed and the
percentage each base w as of the to ta l represented each family member's
contribution to fam ily work as perceived by the oldest child.

In th is

study, only the percentage representing the perceived contribution of the
oldest child w as analyzed.
A fter initial p rin tou ts of the data w ere perused, categories were
developed to f a c ilita te fu rth er analysis.

Children who said they

contributed le ss than ten percent of all the family work were considered
low perceivers.

Medium perceivers contributed between ten to tw enty

percent and high perceivers contributed more than tw enty percent of all
the family work.

72

Number of Tasks Performed
To determ ine the number of ta s k s each child performed, item s 25 to
47 (Appendix C, p. 118) from the children's questionnaire w ere scored.
These item s w ere scored on a yes-no basis, Yes, I take responsibility and
No, I do not take responsibility. Although only 23 ta s k s were listed, the
highest score could have exceeded th is number because an open-ended
question at the end of th is lis t of item s asked the children to w rite other
jobs they do.
Categories w ere also developed in th is section to fa c ilita te fu rth er
data analysis.
appeared

to

Initial printo uts of the data indicated th a t the scores
c lu s te r

into

three

groups.

Low

perform ers

took

responsibility for th ree to eleven task s, medium perform ers for tw elve
to fifte e n and high perform ers for sixteen to tw en ty -fo u r tasks.

S ta tis tic a l Analysis
Descriptive s t a t i s t i c s w ere used to characterize the sample. Mean,
median, mode and standard deviation w ere calculated where appropriate
to describe the sample.

In th is study, oneway analysis of variance,

chi-square, z - t e s t s and correlatio ns w ere also utilized to determine
significance of the differences found.
Oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) w as used in th is study to
compare children of varying ages and differen t sexes.

This sample

conformed to the assum ptions specified when using oneway ANOVA.
Observations were independently selected from normal populations w ith
homeogeneous variance.

ANOVA was utilized to analyze the scores

derived for the child's perceived contribution to family work. The scores
w ere analyzed f i r s t by sex, then by age. A twoway ANOVA by age and sex

73

could not be performed because the c ells w ere not orthogonal.

The

child’s quality of whole life score and sco res on differen t domains were
also analyzed using a oneway ANOVA, f i r s t by sex, then by age.
Chi-square w as used to t e s t for the existence of a significant
difference between boys and g irls on number of ta s k s performed.
Categories w ere developed for low, medium and high perform ers and the
boys

and

g irls

w ere

segregated

according

to

these

categories.

Chi-square w as then performed to determ ine if any discrepancies existed
betw een the expected and observed frequencies.
The tw o sample z - t e s t w as utilized to

determ ine if a significant

difference existed between the proportion of boys and g irls who took
responsibility for a task. Each task w as analyzed individually.
The Pearson correlation coefficient, r, m easures the strength of the
relationship between tw o continuous variables. Basically, it re fle c ts the
ease w ith which one can e s tim a te the value of a variable through
knowledge of the value of a second variable. In th is study, correlation is
utilized to determ ine if a relationship e x is ts between age and number of
task s performed. This sample conforms to the assum ptions made when
using the Pearson correlation:

linearity, random sampling, bivariate

normal d istribu tions and interval level data (Nie, e t al.. 1975).
In any s t a ti s t i c a l testing, the probability of error is a m ajor
consideration. Error r e s u lts from reje ctin g the null hypothesis when it
is tru e (Type I error) and from failing to r e je c t a hypothesis when it is
false (Type II error).

Acceptable levels of e rro r m ust be established

according to credible research p rac tic es and the specific nature of the
research.

Because th is research is exploratory in nature, the .10

probability of error level is employed in order to avoid overlooking

74

differences and relatio nsh ip s which may be of potential importance. The
.10 level greatly increases chances for making a Type I error, so
whenever possible, the .05 level is also reported.

This improves

sc ie n tific credibility and provides a balance between the probability of
Type I and Type II errors.

Lim itations
The present study is lim ited to the examination of children's
perceptions of 1) th e ir contribution to household work and 2) their
quality of life as measured by subjective indicators.

The child's

perception of th e ir contribution to household work, though it may not
coincide w ith the perceptions of th e ir parents, is important because it
helps to define a domain which is one part of the child's evaluation of
quality of life as a whole.
The sample used in th is study is not rep resentative of other family
forms, i.e., single parent fam ilies, older fam ilies, fam ilies w ith no
children. Therefore, the present analysis is not generalizable to these
other types of fam ilies, but it sheds some light on young fam ilies in the
United States.

Because only young fam ilies w ere studied, the vast

m ajority of them are composed of only four members: mother, fath e r and
th eir two children. The study is lim ited in application by the sample, but
nevertheless has useful findings.
The employment of the m others w as not taken into consideration in
the analysis of the data because the review of lite ra tu re indicated that
m other's employment does not appear to have an e ffe c t on children's
participation in household work if the children are under 12 years of age
(as all the children in th is sample were).

75

Data analyses w ere also lim ited by the small number (107) of
children participating in the study.

Twoway analysis by age and sex

could not be performed because the c e lls w ere not orthogonal and
because some of c ells w ere too small. The eight year olds, for example,
had the larg e st number of boys (13) in any age group and the sm a llest
number of g irls (3).
Limitations of Instrument
The children's perceptions of th e ir contributions may have lit t le to
do w ith the actual carrying out of household production responsibilities,
particularly w ith the youngest children. However, th e ir perceptions are
important because they re fle c t rea lity as perceived by th a t individual.
The

reliab ility

and

contributions are unknown.

validity

of

the

question

on

perceived

This resea rch e r wonders w hether children

can understand the a b stra c t concept of proportion when they are asked to
divide the pie into p a rts representing each family member's share of the
work in the home. The child's (especially the 6 and 7 year olds) motor
coordination is also questionable. Do they have the m otor coordination to
depict the radial lines which accurately rep resen t the p a rt of the circle
which describes th e ir contributions?
children’s responses would be desirable.

T est r e - t e s t reliability on the

Chapter 5

FINDINGS

This chapter contains the r e s u lts of the data analyses. The re s u lts
are divided into th ree sectio n s under the following headings: (I) child's
perceived contribution to household work; (2) quantity and kinds of ta s k s
performed by the child; and (3) child's perceived quality of life.

Each

section contains research questions and hypotheses form ulated from
them.
Table 3 gives a summary of the sample of children by age and sex.

Table 3.—Summary of Sample by Age and Sex
Age of Child

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total

Frequency
Boys Girls
4
8
13
9
8
13
9
64

10
4
3
7
6
9
4
43

Percentage
Boys
Girls
6.2
12.5
20.3
14.1
12.5
20.3
14.1
100.0

76

23.2
9.3
7.0
16.3
14.0
20.9
9.3
100.0

Percentage
Total
13.1
11.2
15
15
13.1
20.5
12.1
100.0

77

Child's Perceived Contribution to Household Work
The research questions on the child's perceived contribution to
household work were:
1. What is the child's perceived contribution to the household work
of the fam ily? Are there any differences:
a. In perceptions of boys and g irls ?
b. Between groups?
The f i r s t hypothesis form ulated using the review of lite ra tu re was:
HO 1. Boys and g irls will d iffer in perceived contribution to the
household work of the family. The perceived contribution of
g irls will be higher than th at of boys.
A percent score w as derived for the child's perceived contribution
to the household work of the family using the piece of the pie designated
by the child. The mean percentage for the boys' scores was 13.84, the
median w as 13.80 and the standard deviation w as 5.02. The boys' scores
ranged from a low of 5.7% to a high of 25.1%. The mean percentage for
the girls' sco res w as 15.63, the median w as 14.40 and the standard
deviation w as 6.98. The girls' sco res ranged from a low of 3.5% to a high
of 38.1%. A more detailed presentation of these descriptive s t a t i s t i c s
can be found on Table D-1 in the Appendix.
The sco res w ere also analyzed using a oneway ANOVA by sex.
Although the F-value (3.574, df = 1, 104) w as not significant at the .05
level, it w as significant a t the .10 level. This analysis does not support
Ho 1 at the .05 level of significance and the hypothesis is rejected.
However, the difference found betw een the boys and g irls is significant
at the . 10 level; future study is suggested.
Ho 2.

Age groups will d iffe r in perceived contributions to the
household work of the family.
will increase w ith age.

The perceived contribution

78

Using the sam e percent score, a oneway ANOVA by age w as
performed.

Age groups differed

significantly

in th eir perceived

contributions to the household work of the family (F=2.289, df=6, 99,
p<.05).

When the scores w ere broken down by different age groups,

Figure 2, a trend emerged. Children's perceptions of th e ir contributions
were highest a t ages 6 and 7, peaking at age 7.

Their perceptions of

th e ir contributions declined from age 7 and increased again around ages
11 and 12.

Hypothesis 2 w as only partially supported because, though

the age groups differed in th e ir perceived contributions, they did not
differ in the p a ttern suggested.

18

17 ■

n

•
j
Perceived
Contribution
(Percentage)

15"

14
Io
12

-

6

7

8

9

Age (Years)

Figure 2. - - Child's Perceived Contribution by Age

10

12

79

Quantity and Kinds of Tasks Performed by the Child
Several resea rch questions w ere developed concerning the quantity
and kinds of ta s k s performed by the children:
2. How many ta s k s are being performed by each child? Are
any d ifferen ces between the number of task s boys and
perform ? Are traditional sex role stereo ty pes adhered to
task s are se le c te d ? Are older children performing more
than younger children?

there
girls
when
tasks

The review of the lite ra tu re resu lted in the development of the third
hypothesis:
Ho 3.

Boys and g irls will d iffer in the number of task s performed.
Girls will perform more ta s k s than boys.

The mean for the to ta l number of ta s k s performed by the boys was
12.46, the median w as 11.89 and the standard deviation w as 3.86. The
to tal number of ta s k s performed by the boys ranged from a low of 3 to a
high of 23.

The mean for the total number of task s performed by the

g irls w as 13.86, the median w as 13.19 and the standard deviation was
3.72. The to tal number of task s performed by the g irls ranged from a low
of 6 to a high of 24 (one of the g irls said she did all of the task s and she
w ro te an additional one in on the space provided).

A more detailed

p resen tation of these descriptive s t a t i s t i c s can be found on Table D-2 in
the Appendix.
A chi-square t e s t (A '2 =5.50, df=2, p<.075) for significance of
difference betw een boys and g irls on number of task s performed resulted
in a marginally significant difference. The re s u lts from th is t e s t were
summarized on Table 4.

It revealed th a t boys were overrepresented in

the group of low perform ers (three to eleven tasks) and underrepresented
in the group of high perform ers (sixteen to tw enty-fou r tasks). Table 3

80

also indicated th a t the reverse w as tru e for the sample of girls. This
analysis w as in support of hypothesis 3.

Table 4.—Number of Tasks Performed by Boys and Girls

Number of Tasks

Boys

Girls
Observed Expected $ Deviation

Low
3-11
Medium
12-15
High
16-24

X

Observed Expected % Deviation

10

15.67

-36.18

29

23.33

24.30

21

16.88

24.41

21

25.12

-16.40

12

10.45

14.83

14

15.55

-9.97

2=5.50, p<.075

Ho 4.

Boys and g irls will d iffer in the kinds of ta s k s performed.
Girls will do more in-the-hom e work while boys will work
more outside.

A z - t e s t w as performed on each task to see if a significant
difference existed between the proportion of boys and g irls who took
responsibility for the task.

The r e s u lts

from these t e s t s were

summarized on Table 5. Hypothesis 4 w as supported because the task s
girls performed significantly more than boys were all in-the-hom e task s
while the two task s boys performed significantly more than g irls were
both outside tasks.

81

Table 5 - - P e r c e n ta g e of Boys and Girls Performing Specific Household
Tasks

Task

Percent
Boys Girls

Z

Tasks Without Significant Male-Female Differences
Do yard work
Do some shopping
Earn money
Collect d irty clothes for laundry
Vacuum rugs, carpets, floors
Take care of p ets or animals
Put away groceries
Take s h e e ts off the bed or put sh e ets on
Put away toys, clean my room
Wash and dry the clothes
Wash and dry dishes
Take care of other children
Sweep sidew alks, porches or patio, floors
Wash floors

86
42
63
56
69
64
67
50
95
8
45
59
41
9

77
33
60
53
70
65
70
56
98
16
58
72
58
21

Tasks Boys Perform Significantly More Than Girls
Take out garbage or trash
Shovel snow

69
80

35
51

3.47***

Tasks Girls Perform Significantly More Than Boys
Dust fu rniture
Set and c le a r table, wash table
Put away the clean clothes
Clean sinks, bathtubs, to ile ts
Write a l e t t e r
Water the plants
Prepare and cook m eals

38
73
48
30
41
27
23

81
95
74
53
63
47
42

-4.39* **
-2.89* *
-2 .68 **
-2.39**
-2.2 3*
-2.13*
-2.09*

* Significant at .05 level.
** Significant at .01 level.
* * * Significant at .005 level

1.20
.94
.31
.31
-.11
-.11
-.33
-.61
-.80
-1.29
-1.32
-1.38
-1.73
-1.76

3.16**

82

Ho 5.

Age groups w ill differ in the number of task s performed.
Older children w ill
children.

perform

more ta s k s than younger

Pearson correlation w as utilized to t e s t if significant differences
existed betw een the d ifferen t age groups on the mean number of task s
they performed.

When the boys and g irls w ere combined and the

correlatio ns w ere performed, no significant difference (r=.1093, df = 106,
p<. 15) existed.

Then, the boys and g irls were separated and the

correlatio ns performed. The correlation coefficient for the boys was not
significant (r=.0263, df=63, p<.57). However, a significant relationship
w as found between age and ta s k s for the g irls (r= 275, df=42, p<.04).
When extrem e cases (the two g irls performing the le a st number of tasks)
w ere removed, the relationship w as even more significant (r=.402,
df=41, p<.005). Older g irls appear to perform more tasks. Hypothesis 5
would have to be re je c te d when boy's and girl's scores were combined,
but when g irls were analyzed separately, the hypothesis was supported.

Child's Perceived Quality of Life
The research questions on the child’s perceived quality of life were:
4.

What is the child's perceived quality of life?

Are there any

differences:
a. In the sco res of boys and g irls ?
b. Between the age groups?
Because of the paucity of research on children's quality of life, the
hypotheses developed in th is section w ere broad and exploratory in
nature:
Ho 6.

Boys and g irls will not differ in perceived quality of life.

83

The child's quality of whole life score w as analyzed using a oneway
ANOVA by sex.

The resulting F-value (2.569, df=1, 105) w as not even

significant at the .10 level which indicated th a t hypothesis 6 should be
accepted. Gender does not appear to be a significant facto r influencing
perceived quality of life. Scores on specific domains (i.e. th e ir family,
them selves and the amount of work they do a t home for the family) were
also analyzed using oneway ANOVA and none of the F-values reached the
.10 level of significance.
Ho 7.

Age groups will not d iffe r in perceived quality of life.

When a oneway ANOVA by age w as performed, the resulting F-value
(3.143, df=6, 100) w as significant a t the .007 level which indicated th at
hypothesis 7 should be rejected. When the scores w ere broken down into
different age groups (Figure 3), the p a ttern which emerged indicated th a t
younger children scored higher on perceived quality of life than older
children.

The scores on th e ir family and work participation domains

were not significant. The se lf domain w as significant at the .077 level,
but when the scores w ere broken down into d ifferent age groups (Figure
4), a definite p a ttern did not emerge.

84

7.50
7.25
7.00
Mean
Quality
of
Whole Life

6.75
6.50
6.25

6.00
5.75
5.50
5.25
5.00

8

9

10

II

12

Age (Years)

Figure 3. - - Child's Perceived Quality of Whole Life by Age

Mean
Quality

of
Self
Domain

7.50
7.25
7.00
6.75
6.50
6.25

6.00
5.75
5.50
5.25
5.00
6

7

8

9

10

Age (Years)

Figure 4. ~ Child's Perceived Quality of Self Domain by Age

12

Chapter 6

CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This summary chapter includes an overview of the study w ith m ajor
conclusions and a discussion of the findings.

Also included are the

implications of the study as well as recommendations for future
research.

Overview of the Study
This research examined the participation of children in household
work and th e ir perceived quality of life.

The m ajor purpose of th is

descriptive study w as to identify perceived contributions to household
work of children of se lec te d ages and both sexes. The data w ere taken
from a larger study "Contributions of Household Production to Family
Income" (Michigan Agricultural S tation Project 1363H).

In the larger

study, the family w as the unit of analysis. The sample w as 107 fam ilies
from urban, small town and rural locations in mid-Michigan.

Each

husband, w ife and oldest child (between the ages of six and twelve) were
given a se lf-a d m in iste red questionnaire.

In th is study, the only section

utilized from the husbands’ and wives' questionnaires w as the section on
demographics.

These demographics w ere used to describe the sample.

The m ajority of the analysis focused on the responses of the children
from three sectio n s of th e ir questionnaire. These data w ere analyzed to
examine the child’s

perceived

contribution to household work, the
* 85

86

quantity and kinds of ta s k s
child's

perceived

quality

performed
of

by

life.

the

child

and

the

S ta tis tic a l t e s t s used were

analysis of variance, chi-square, z - t e s t and correlation.

Major Conclusions
The m ajor conclusions of the study were:
1. Boys and girls do not d iffer significantly in th eir perceived
contribution to the household work of the family.
2. Age groups d iffer significantly in perceived contributions to the
household work of the family. Children's perceptions are highest
at ages 6 and 7, peaking at age 7.

Their perceptions of their

contributions decline from age 7 and increase again around ages
11 and 12.
3. Boys and g irls d iffer significantly in the number of task s
reported being performed. Boys are overrepresented in the group
of low perform ers (three to eleven task s) and underrepresented
in the group of high perform ers (sixteen to tw enty -four tasks).
The reverse is tru e for the sample of girls.
4.

Boys and g irls d iffer significantly in the kinds of task s
performed.

Girls do more in-the-hom e work while boys work

more outside.
5. Age groups d iffer significantly in the number of ta s k s performed
when the girls' data are analyzed. Older g irls appear to perform
more ta s k s than younger girls.

The age of the boy does not

appear to influence the number of ta s k s performed.
6. Boys and girls do not differ significantly in perceived quality of
life.

87

7. Age groups d iffer significantly in perceived quality of life.
Younger children score higher on perceived quality of whole life
sco res than older children.

Discussion of Findings
Discussion of the r e s u lts of the data analysis is organized around
the four research questions.
1. What is the child's perceived contribution to the household work
of the fam ily? Are there any differences:
a. In perceptions of boys and girls?
b. Between age groups?
When reviewing the lite ra tu re in th is area, it w as obvious th a t many
stu d ies had been done to quantify children's contributions to the
household work of the family.

In some studies, parents (particularly

m others) w ere asked to measure the extent of th e ir child's responsibility
to household work (Walker,
1975a).
tim e

1973; Walker and Woods, 1976; Lynch,

In other studies, children were asked to give e stim a te s of the

they spent generally in household work or in specific household

ta s k s (Tengel, 1964;Hoppen, 1966). S till o th ers combined the reports of
parents and children (Temple University In stitu te for Survey Research,
1976).

None of the stu d ies reviewed by this researcher asked the

children to view th e ir contributions to the household work of the family
in relation to all the work done in the home. As a result, the use of the
pie w as unique in th a t it attem p ted to discover the child's perception of
th eir contribution in relation to other family members.
The re s u lts of th is study suggest that fem ales and m ales do not
d iffer significantly in th eir rela tiv e perceived contribution to the

88

household work of the family.

Because of these re su lts, the f i r s t

hypothesis had to be re je c te d a t the .05 level of significance. Although
th is hypothesis had to be rejected , when the sco res w ere broken down by
d ifferent age groups, a trend emerged indicating th a t girls' perceptions
of th e ir contributions w ere g re a te r than boys’ in all age groups except
two (in th ese two c e lls the ra tio of boys to g irls significantly favored
the boys). What w as significant about th is analysis w as the sim ila rity
between the the boys' and girls' perceptions of th e ir contributions.
Although no tim e data w ere collected on the task s children said they
performed, on all but six (out of 23) tasks, the proportion of girls
performing the task is g rea ter than th a t of boys. Of significance is the
fa c t

that,

although

the

g irls

in

th is

sample

w ere

contributing

signficantly more than the boys, th e ir peceptions of th eir contributions
w ere not significantly (at the .05 level) different.
In these "liberated" tim es, these re s u lts are alarming.
discrepancy

between

perceived

contributions and ta s k s

This

performed

su ggests th at fem ales underestim ate th e ir actual contributions of work
to the household.

In light of the inequity (in task performance) which

e x is ts in th is sample of children, it appears th a t the g irls may be
developing higher expectations of th e ir participation, thus reporting a
lower contribution to the household work.

The ram ifications of these

differences in boys' and girls' expectations will be fu rth er discussed in
the final section of th is chapter.
The developm entalist approach w as utilized as the conceptual
framework underlying th is study and w as reflected in the hypotheses.
Developmentalists s t r e s s the regular and cumulative a sp ec ts of the
growth process.

Because of th is view of the growth process, it w as

89

hypothesized

th a t

age

groups

would

d iffer

in

th e ir

perceived

contributions to the household work of the family w ith contributions
increasing w ith age. Erikson (1963) suggested th a t the child from five
through preadolescence gains "insights into the in stitu tio n s, functions,
and

roles

which

perm it

his

responsible

participation"

finding

"pleasurable accomplishment in wielding tools...and in caring for younger
children." Because these children tended to p a rticip a te more actively in
the household work of the family as they moved through th is period, it
w as

hypothesized

th a t

they

would

perceive

th e ir

contributions

increasing in relation to the contributions of other family members.
This trend does emerge when the scores from the eight (mean=
11.1%) through tw elve (mean=16.4%) year olds w ere analyzed.

The

hypothesis does not explain the high scores of the six (mean=16.2%) and
seven (mean= 17.4%) year olds.
A review of the lite ra tu re (Gesell, Arnold, llg and Ames, 1977)
indicates th a t the six year old is often seen as se lf-c e n te re d and th is
perspective may d is to rt the child's perception of th eir contribution in
relation to other members of the family.

Because they cannot observe

and may not comprehend all of th e ir m other's and fa th e r's contributions,
th is resea rch e r is not surprised th a t one six year old girl said th a t her
contribution represented 36% of all the work done in the home.
The seven year old is described as beginning to be thoughtful, to be
considerate and anxious to please. The child w ants to find th e ir place in
the

family

group and

is

ready

to

take

some

of

the

household

responsibilities. Many like to help and th is may explain the high sco res
of the seven year olds in th is sample.

90

2.

How many ta s k s are being performed by each child? Are there
any differences between the number of ta s k s boys and girls
perform ? Are traditional sex role ste reo ty p es adhered to when
task s are s e le c te d ? Are older children performing more task s
than younger children?

The research mentioned e a rlie r focusing on the fa c to rs which m ost
influence children’s involvement in household work highlighted the
importance of sex and sex roles. A review of th is lite ra tu re resulted in
the hypothesis th at boys and g irls would d iffer in the number of task s
performed w ith g irls performing more tasks. The analysis of the number
of ta s k s boys and g irls said they performed resulted in the acceptance of
th is hypothesis. The boys in the sample w ere overrepresented by 24% in
the group of low perform ers (3-11 tasks). The g irls in th is group were
underrepresented by 36%. In the group of high perform ers (1 6 -2 4 tasks),
the

boys

w ere

underrepresented

by

10%

and

the

g irls

were

overrepresented by 15%.
When the proportion of boys and g irls performing each task was
analyzed, the re s u lts supported the hypothesis th a t boys and g irls would
d iffer in the kinds of ta s k s they performed. As the lite ra tu re suggested,
the g irls in th is sam ple performed more in-the-hom e work while the
boys performed more work outside. The two ta s k s which boys performed
significantly more than the g irls w ere taking out the garbage and
shoveling the snow (th is task w as seasonal). The g irls performed seven
ta s k s significantly more than the boys, and of the remaining fourteen
tasks, the proportion favored the g irls in ten of them.

Although this

study did not collect d ata on the amount of tim e which w as spent on each
task, it w as obvious th a t the performance of boys and g irls was
significantly different.

91

It can be argued th a t the higher proportion of g irls in household task
performance is related to less interference w ith early role-modeling
(Stephens, 1963). Development occurs from early childhood in te re s ts of
wanting to be like m other and participate in her work to being m other's
helper.

Even in these "liberated" tim es, the ta s k s liste d are s till

performed significantly more by women than they are by men.

If such

behavior continues, traditional role designation may prevail for women
through adulthood. In an era of increasing participation of women in the
workforce, th ese traditional sex role expectations may have deleterious
e ff e c ts on women.

This research er wonders if society is creating a

situation where women m ust be "superwomen" to survive—doing the
lion’s share of the work in the home while participating equally in the
workforce.
When task performance was analyzed using the d ifferent age groups,
an even more alarming trend emerged.

Utilizing the conceptual

framework, it w as hypothesized th at the age groups would d iffer in the
number of ta s k s performed w ith older children performing more task s
than younger children.

Although no signficant difference existed

between the age groups, when boys and g irls were analyzed separately, a
significant relationship w as found between age and ta s k s for the girls.
Older g irls appeared to perform more ta s k s than younger girls.
This re s u lt suggests that, as the number of ta s k s increases w ith
age, the child is becoming an eager and absorbed unit of a productive
situation (Erikson, 1963). By age ten, the child comes to appreciate work
completion and diligence, internalizing the work principle. The re s u lts
from th is analysis lead th is research er to ask how th is process is
affected if responsibility for household work does not appear to increase

92

(as w ith the boys in th is sam ple)?

Do boys learn to become responsible

and productive in work situ a tio n s outside the home?
3.

What is the child's perceived quality of life?

Are there any

differences:
a. In the sco res of boys and g irls ?
b. Between age groups?
The lite ra tu re maintained th at gender w as not a significant facto r
influencing perceived quality of life so th is researcher hypothesized th at
no difference would be found between the sco res of boys and girls. The
analysis of the child's quality of whole life score as well as quality of
several domains (i.e. th e ir family, them selves and the amount of work
they do at home for the family) supported th is hypothesis.
Because of the paucity of research on children's quality of life, it
w as also hypothesized th a t age groups would not differ in perceived
quality of whole life.

A highly significant (.007 level) difference w as

apparent when the sco res w ere analyzed by age. When the scores were
broken down into d ifferen t age groups, the pattern which emerged
indicated th a t younger children scored higher on perceived quality of
whole life than older children.
This trend w as also perceived when quality of school life w as
studied by Epstein and McPartland (1976). They suggested th at th is trend
(for quality of school life sco res to decrease as grade level increases)
e x is ts because "the objective quality of school goes down each year
and/or

th a t w ith m aturity, studen ts more c ritic a lly evaluate th eir

environments."

They argued that, w ith age, students' a b ilities become

more varied and schools "may be le ss able to m eet the more diverse
academic in te r e s ts and needs of older students".

93

This may also be the case w ith the home environment. As a resu lt
of the maturing process, the older children in the sample may more
c ritic a lly evaluate th e ir home environment. The older children also have
more interaction w ith the outside environment and th is may c re a te a
situ atio n where it is more d iffic u lt for the family to m eet the more
diverse in te r e s ts and needs of th is older child. As a result, quality of
whole life sco res decrease w ith age.
4. Is there a relationship between:
a. The child’s perceived contribution to household work and the
number of ta s k s perform ed? Are there differences between
boys and g irls ?
b. The child’s perceived contribution to household work and
perceived quality of life ?
c. The number of task s performed and perceived quality of life ?
This research question w as exploratory in nature because a review
of the lite ra tu re gave lit t le a ssista n c e in the development of hypotheses.
A chi-square analysis of the relationship between the child’s
perceived contribution to household work and the number of task s
performed indicated th a t none existed.

When the boys and girls were

analyzed separately, the level of significance decreased.
Correlation of the relationship between the child’s perceived
contribution to household work and perceived quality of life also w as not
significant.

When number of ta s k s and perceived quality of life were

analyzed, no relationship w as apparent. Because the quality of life data
were so skewed toward the positive end (w ith m ost children marking the
tw o happiest faces in the scale of seven faces), there was too l ittle
variance to conduct any meaningful test.

94

Implications of the Study
Although data on the amount of tim e each child spent on a task were
not collected, it w as ODvious th a t th is sample of girls performed
signficantly more ta s k s (from the lis t of 23) than the boys in the sample.
The difference in the proportion of g irls and boys performing ta s k s w as
not refle cted in the childrens’ perceptions of th e ir contributions to
family work.

The g irls and boys did not differ (at the .05 level of

significance) in th e ir perceived contributions to the work of the
household.
The older g irls in th is sample, as hypothesized, performed more
task s than the younger girls. This was an indication of the acquisition of
responsibility and the basic habits of industry (Havighurst, 1964). For
the boys in th is sample, th is trend w as not observed which may indicate
a difference in the so cialization process for boys and girls.
Many women’s movement advocates are in te reste d in the sex role
socialization

of

children

because

they

see

the

seed

for

future

perpetuation of role inequities planted at a very early age. The re s u lts
from th is study will alarm these advocates because they provide strong
evidence th a t th is sam ple of children continues to adhere to traditional
p a tte rn s in household task participation. Boys continue to do the work
outside the home (much of which is seasonal) while girls participate
more frequently in inside a c tiv itie s (the m ajority of which need to be
performed on a regular basis).
Like Thrall (1978), th is researcher is in terested in role stereotypy
or the normative expectation th a t one person is supposed to do a task and
th at another is then expected not to do it. Thrall's findings suggest th a t
the b e st single predictor of a fam ily's division of labor may be the

<M

95

previous generation.

The adherence to traditional p a tte rn s by the

children in th is sam ple indicates a sim ila r division of labor by th eir
parents.

It also gives strong evidence for a perpetuation of th is

traditional p a ttern w ith th e ir own children.
In a society which preaches equality, it is d istressin g to find such
strong evidence of the perpetuation by sex of traditional p a ttern s in the
home. As long as th ese p a tte rn s are perpetuated in the home, they will
continue to impact on an individual's participation in other system s. One
area of concern is the im pact of th ese p a tte rn s on women's participation
in the world of work.

Is it possible th a t women continue to seek low

paying, traditionally fem ale-orien ted jobs because of the socialization
they are receiving in the home?

Will men ever view women as th eir

equals if the work in the home is not shared or valued equitably?
Exchange

is

a

basic

economic

principle

which

re s u lts

in

participating p a rtie s being b e tte r off if each is producing th a t in which
they are m ost efficient.

If children learn to do se x -relate d jobs, th is

perpetuates a sexual division of labor throughout life because they will
continue doing those jobs a t which they are m ost efficient.

Lynch

(1975a) suggests that:
If tradition is stro n g e r

than

efficiency or equity,

it may

perpetuate i t s own efficiency via the exchange principle to
ensure i ts survival, (p. 89)
She believes, as does th is researcher, th a t the answ er is to change
societal p a tte rn s so th a t division of labor is based on equity rath e r than
tradition. Other re s e a rc h e rs (Lu, 1952; Naffzingers, 1974) support the
desirability of th is notion.

Their research on husband-wife m arital

adjustm ent indicates th a t an equalitarian relationship or democratic
partnership is correlated w ith good m arital adjustm ent and lessened

96

h o stilitie s.

It is also important for children to be exposed to parents

working as equals.
With living, breathing models of m ales and fem ales participating in
egalitarian roles, the child never has to be confined to the rigid
stru c tu re s of "men's or women's work".

Working alongside these role

models re s u lts in the development of new societal patterns.

This is

particularly important w ith early role-modeling for boys because there
has been less opportunity for fath er and son role-modeling in the past.
Household work equity is important for another reason.

One of the

issues raised in the review of lite ra tu re deals w ith the ta s k s being
delegated

to

children.

Johannis (1958) wonders

su b stitu tin g "for a servant in the family?"

if

children are

Are those ta s k s which are

lea st liked being delegated more often to today's children?

These are

often the ta s k s which are e a sie st to teach (such as cleaning), and once
learned, they require l it t le or no supervision. While it is important for
children to learn th is kind of work because it is vital to basic
maintenance, they also need work which challenges th e ir sk ills and
inventiveness.

Neisser (1957) believes th at jobs w ith those kinds of

qu alities supplement the atmosphere of responsibility in which the child
lives and would be a further aid to the cultivation of reliability.
Finally, society has to give value to or "revalue" family work. This
is not to say th at household work is the sum total of all the family does,
but some level of maintenance is required if higher level needs are to be
satisfied.

National politicians and others in th is country are finally

beginning to realize th at many of the c ritic a l problems th is nation faces
today have come to pass because society has taken the fam ily—and the
role it plays—for granted. One of the ways to re e sta b lish the value of

97

fam ilies to society is to give value to family work. If children can learn
th is when they are young, if they can see th a t th e ir contributions
enhance and help to m aintain those they love, then they will develop the
kind of commitment th is nation needs to develop responsible and
productive citize n s of the world.

Recommendations for Further Research
The m ajor purpose of th is descriptive study w as to identify
perceived contributions to household work of children of selected ages
and

both

sexes.

Utilizing

the

responses

of

the

child

to

a

se lf-a d m in iste red questionnaire, th is research er attem pted to examine
the child's perceived contribution to household work, the quantity and
kinds of ta s k s performed by the child and the child's perceived quality of
life. Although quality of life questions and l is ts of household ta s k s have
been adm inistered to children before, none of the stud ies reviewed by
th is researcher asked children to view th e ir contributions to the
household work of the fam ily in relation to all the work done in the home.
As a resu lt, the use of the pie w as unique in th a t it a ttem p ted to
discover the child's perception of th e ir contribution in relation to other
family members.
Although the pie has i ts lim itations, especially when used w ith
young children, it does a ttem p t to give an added dimension to the
research on household work participation of children. In future research,
one recommendation would be to use the pie in conjuntion w ith a lis t of
household ta s k s and tim e-record c h a rts to get a fuller picture of the
participation of children in the work of the home. Tim e-record charts
can be kept by children and th eir parents to get an even c le are r picture of

98

the child's participation, thus allowing to t e s t for convergent validity of
the measure.
This researcher fe e ls it is im portant to periodically re a s s e s s the
progress children are making toward a more egalitarian division of work
in the home as well as measuring th e ir quality of life.

This research

only begins to explore th ese issu es and is lim ited by the small size of
the sample (107 children between the ages of 6 and 12 years). In future
research endeavors, a much larger sample (spanning ages 6 through 17) is
needed to perm it the more complex kinds of analyses which would
answ er questions such as:
1. What

is

the

influence

of

m other's

employment

on

the

participation of children in household work?
2. What is the influence of number of siblings on the participation
of children in household work?
3. What are children actually doing at home and w ith whom?
been

assumed

th at

interaction

tim e

is

It has

necessary

for

socialization and nurturance, but is th is actually the c ase ?

A.

What m otivations, values and stru ctu ral supports and c o n strain ts
account for v ariations in work roles assigned to children?

5. What

is

the

relationship

between

the

development

of

responsibility and participation in household work?
6. What is the function of work in the socialization p ro cess? What
human resources are being developed when children work in the
home? What are the interrelationships between household work
contributions of boys and g irls of d ifferent ages and other
developmental ta s k s ? How are children's work roles rela te d to
th e ir psychological and social development?

99

Answers to these questions can give a stronger theoretical basis for
understanding children's participation in household work and the function
of th is work in the socialization process. These questions also look at
household work from a larger perspective.

In some cases, household

work will be view as the independent variable ra th e r than the dependent
variable and the resea rch e r will study its influence on other variables
(i.e the development of responsibility). Answering these questions may
require the use of observational data to really understand what is going
on in the home.

Answers to these questions can also help to bring to

light stru c tu ra l, educational and policy changes which need to be made to
move our society toward i t s valued ideals of equity and ju s tic e for all
members.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

100

Training Meeting
1 May 1980

1. Introduction ( hand out plastic I.D.'s)
2. Explanation of study (use proposal); police have been notified
3. Locating families:
a.

blocks have been randomly selected (apt. building was considered a block)

b.

starting points in each area ( K. Rettig)

c. use skip pattern
4.

Initial contact, screening:
a. knock on door
b. introduce self: who you are working for— MSU—College of Human

Ecology

c. doing study of 2 spouse families with elementary age children about stretching dollars
to help beat inflation. Do you and your spouse have a child between 6 - 1 2 years of
age.
d. fill in household composition form.
e.

if household meets criteria explain study, indicate there will be a small token of
appreciation ($ 5 ) if all 3 questionnaires are filled out.

f. are you willing to participate?
g. if yes - ask open end question.
Give them envelope; go over format of 2 types of questions (interview ers fill in;
time).
h.

leave envelopes; arrange for pickup--have them sign form --explain they can help
kids;
point out phone no.

i.

tell family they will be mailed check after insert form and questionnaires have been
checked for completeness.

101

M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y
comer

o f m l m an i.lo lo o f

S p rin g

• d fp a k y m ln t o f

fa m ily

I9S0

T h is

is t o

T h is

in te rv ie w e r

p ro d u c tio n

in tro d u c e o u r

in te rv ie w e r

is a s k in g

by M i c h i g a n

from

y o u r p a r t i c i p a t io n

fa m ilie s .

E d u c a tio n ,

C o o p e ra tiv e

a t M ic h ig a n S ta te U n i v e r s i t y .
A g ric u ltu ra l

h o u s e h o ld

E x te n s io n

F a m i l y E c o l o g y and t h e
S e rv ic e ,

C o lle g e o f

F a m ily

Human E c o l o g y

Trie p r o j e c t has be en fu n d e d by t h e M i c h i g a n

E x p e rim e n t S tu T ic n .

7 ho c o o p e r a t i o n o r

your fa m ily

The s e I f - a c m i n i s t o r e d
names w i l l

in a s tu d y o f

The r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and q u e s t i o n n a i r e

have been 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
L iv in g

I.AS I L A N SIN G ' M IC H IG A N • ASSJ4

f .c o lo g y

in g ra n .T in g a s h o r t

q u e s tio n n a ire s

in no way be

lin k e d

tc

w ill

in te rv ie w

be s i n c e r e l y

an d i n c o m p l e t i n g

a p p re c ia te d .

Your

y o u r resp on ses.

S in c e re ly ,

B e a t r i c e P a o lu c c i
P ro fe s s o r
F a m ily E colog y

M a ry A n d re w s ,
E v a lu a tio n S p e c ia lis t
F a m ily L i v i n g E d u c a tio n

M S I 'i t o n A f f i ’-m a tn * A c tio n /E q u a l O p p o r tu n ity I m ti t u l in n

I r e n e H a th a w a y ,
In s tru c to r
F a m i I y E c o lo g y and
R e s o u rc e Management
S p e c ia Iis t

102

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
College of Human Ecology
May, 1980

East Lansing, Michigan

Consent Form
We, the undersigned, freely consent to participate in a scientific and educational study
conducted by the College of Human Ecology and The Cooperative Extension Service of Michigan
State University under the supervision of Beatrice P 80lucci, Irene Hathaway, and Mary
Andrews.
The purposes of the project have been explained to us and we understand the explanation
that has been given as well as what our participation will involve.
We understand that we are free to discontinue participation in the study at any time
without penalty, or that we may withdraw the participation of our child.
We understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that we
will remain anonymous. Final results of the study will be made available to us at our request.
We understand that we may have an opportunity to participate in an educational program
to increase our income-producing skills if we so desire. It is hoped that participation in these
educational activities will be beneficial to us; however, we understand there is no guarantee of
beneficial results.
We desire to participate in this research and consent and agree. We, as legal
parents/guardians of the below named child, give our permission for the child to participate
in the study to the degree to which the child desires.
Please sign your first and last names.

Adult Female Signature

Date

Adult Male Signature

Date

Child’s Signature

Date

Address

Telephone

City, Town, State

Zip

APPENDIX B

103

Table B - 1 D e m o g r a p h i c C h a rac te ristic s of Areas in Which Sampling
Occurred.

Urban
Lansing

Demographics

Total Population3

36.01

36.02

4,695

4,34 4

6,678

4,279

3,032
1,041
39
16
216

6,446
104
22
57
49

4,200
21
5
33
20

307

99

19

1,214

1,123

1,529

400

87
312
437

8
28 4
346

98
291
394

24
90
120

19,400

14,800

18,400

17,900

Race3
White
2,992
Black
1,436
American Indian
28
Asian
40
Other
197
Persons of Spanish origin
Included above
312
Number of Fam ilies3
Number of Children3
(within specific age range)
6
7 -9
10-13
Income13
Median Income
Percent Unemployment0

Small Town
Rural
Mason Wheatfield
63
57

12.5%

12.6%

12.6%

a. 1980 U.S. Census Data, Ingham County Michigan.
b. 1980 Estim ated Median Household Income. Tri-County Planning
Commission, October, 1981
c. Michigan Employment Security Commission, May 1980, revised.

104

Table B-2.—C lassificatio n of Attem pted Placement of Questionnaire by
Location.

Location

Number

Percent

Urban Town

309

44.1

Small Town

192

27.4

Rural Area

200

28.5

Total

701

100.0

—

C lassification of Attem pted Placement of Questionnaires by
Eligibility of Family.

Eligibility
Eligible and Placement
Eligible and Refused
Not Eligible
Single Parent
Refused before elig ib ility
Determined
Other
No answer
Missing data
Total

Number

Percent

139

19.8

18

2.6

268

3S.2

22

3.1

5

0.7

22

3.1

198

28.2

29

4.1

701

100.0

APPENDIX C

105

M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E RS I T Y
COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY • DEPARTM ENT OF FAMILY ECOLOGY

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN ■ 4M14

I May 1980

Dear F r ie n d ,
In a l l d i s c u s s io n s connecte d w i t h i n f l a t i o n and energy s h o r t a g e s , t h e r e have
been few o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f a m i l i e s t o share what t h e y a r e d o in g t o ease t h e
s itu a tio n .
We, a t M ich iga n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y t h o u g h t you would be w i l l i n g t o
t e l l us what your f a m i l y is doin g t o s t r e t c h d o l l a r s , t h a t i s , what you a re
d o in g y o u r s e l f r a t h e r tha n p u r c h a s in g , how you a r e g e t t i n g t h e most o u t o f
t h e t h i n g s you have.
T h is in f o r m a t io n w i l l he lp us p la n e d u c a t i o n a l programs
t h a t w i l l be h e l p f u l t o o t h e r f a m i l i e s - and t o o u r economy.
A l l i n f o r m a t i o n g iv e n w i l l be kep t c o n f i d e n t i a l .
Your f a m i l y w i l l n o t be
I d e n t i f i e d in any r e p o r t s o r p u b l i c a t i o n s .
The in f o r m a t i o n w i l l be g iv e n
a number and names w i l l n o t be re le a se d a t any t im e .
We would l i k e f o r you, y ou r spouse and y o u r o l d e s t c h i l d t o answer t h e q u e s t io n s
in th e s e b o o k l e t s .
Your c h i l d may need some h e lp from you.
P le as e f e e l f r e e
t o h e lp him o r h e r.
We a p p r e c i a t e y o u r w i l l i n g n e s s t o h e lp us t o le a rn how f a m i l i e s a r e managing
th e s e da ys.
I f you have any q u e s t io n s ab out t h e s t u d y , p le a s e c a l l 353-0668
o r 355-7732.
S in c e r e ly

^ x e u jL WocVIkujj
B e a t r i c e P ao lu cci
P rofessor
F am iIy Ecology

Mary Andrews,
E v a l u a ti o n S p e c i a l i s t
F am ily L i v i n g E ducatio n

Research A s s o c ia te

M a rg a re t Ezel I
Graduate A s s i s t a n t

M SU M m A ffir m o tw t Acttom /EqusJ O pportunity h u titu tio n

I re n e Hathaway,
In s tru c to r
F a m ily Ecology and
Resource Management
S p e c ia l 1st

106

28
YOUR FAMILY SITUATION

T h is stud y is about how f a m i l y members can in c re a s e t h e i r income.
in knowing some t h i n g s about you and y o u r f a m i l y .

FOR EACH QUESTION, PLACE A CHECK MARK IN THE BRACKETS (
THE LINE PROVIDED.

42.1

We a re i n t e r e s t e d

) OR WRITE THE ANSWER ON

What is y o u r sex?
(

) MaIe

(

) Female

42.2a How o l d were you on you r l a s t b ir t h d a y ?
_____________ Age a t l a s t b i r t h d a y

42.2b What is t h e month, day, and yea r o f y o u r b i r t h ?

Month

4 2 .3

What is y o u r r e l i g i o n ,
(
(
(
(
(

42.4

Day

) P r o t e s t a n t : ______________________
Please speci f y
) C a th o lic
) Jewish
) None
) O th e r : ___________________________
Please s p e c i f y

What is y o u r
(
(
(
(

i f any?

race?

) W hite
) B la c k /N e g r o / A fr o - A m e r ic a n
) Spanish o r i g i n
) O th e r ________________________ _ _
Please s p e c i f y

Year o f B i r t h

107

29

4 2 .5

What is t h e h i g h e s t le v e l o f form al s c h o o l in g t h a t you have completed?
Check one:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

) Less than 8 grades o f e le m e n ta ry school
) 8 grades o f e le m e n ta ry school
) 1-3 years o f h ig h school
) Completed 4 ye a rs o f h ig h school o r passed high school e q u iv a le n c y exam
) Less than 4 ye a rs o f c o l l e g e
) 4 years o f col lege
) 5 o r more years o f c o l l e g e

42 .5a Have you been e n r o l l e d in any t y p e o f e d u c a ti o n a l program o t h e r tha n
h ig h school o r c o l l e g e such as v o c a t io n a l t r a i n i n g ?
(
(

) YES----- ? 42.5b I f YES, ple a s e s p e c i f y y o u r f i e l d o f t r a i n i n g
(such as b u s in e s s , o f f i c e w o rk, p r a c t i c a l
) NO
n u r s i n g , b e a u t i c i a n , m echanic, e l e c t r i c i a n ) .
F i e l d o f t r a i n i n g _____________________________

4 2.5c Did you com p le te t h e t r a i n i n g program?
(
(
(

) YES
) NO
) DOES

NOT APPLY_________ ___________

4 2 . 5d Have you been e n r o l l e d in any t y p e o f e d u c a ti o n a l program o t h e r than
h ig h school o r c o l l e g e in t h e l a s t y e a r , such as c r a f t c l a s s e s , r e l i g i o n
c la s s e s , c o o p e r a t iv e e x t e n s io n c la s s e s , a d u l t e d u c a tio n ?
(
(

) YES) NO

4 2 . 5e I f YES, what t y p e o f e d u c a tio n a l program i s

it?

F i e l d o f t r a i n i n g o r t y p e o f program ___________

108

30
42.6a Are you p r e s e n t l y employed, unemployed, r e t i r e d , o r what?
CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY TO YOU.
(

) Housewife o r househusband,

(

) Student

(

) Perm anently d i s a b le d

(

) R e tired

(

) Unemployed ( t h a t i s ,
p r e v i o u s l y employed f o r
pay and/OR p r e s e n t l y
lo o k in g f o r a jo b )

(

) T e m p o r a r ily l a i d o f f .
OR on s t r i ke
OR on s i c k leave

(

GO TO QUESTION 41 .7a ON PAGE 32
un le ss you a l s o check one o f
t h e c a t e g o r i e s below in which
case go t o 42.6b below.

,G0 TO QUESTION 42.6b

) Working now •

42 .6b I f you a r e w o rk in g now OR a r e t e m p o r a r i l y l a i d o f f OR on s t r i k e OR on
s i c k le ave , wlhat k in d o f work do you do? What is y o u r main o c c u p a tio n
c a l le d ?
( I f you have two j o b s , y o u r main o c c u p a tio n i s t h e j o b on which
you spend t h e most t im e .
I f you spend an equal amount o f t im e on two
j o b s , i t is t h e one which p r o v id e s t h e most income.)
Main o c c u p a tio n ________________________________________ ____________________
42 .6 c What do you a c t u a l l y do in t h a t jo b ?

What are some o f y ou r main d u t ie s ?

Dut i es

4 2 . 6d What k in d o f b u s in e s s , i n d u s t r y o r o r g a n i z a t i o n
th e y do o r make a t t h e p la c e where you work?
Kind o f b u s in e s s ,

is y ou r jo b

in?

What do

i n d u s t r y o r o r g a n i z a t i o n ________________________________

What do th e y make o r do

109

31

4 2 . 6e About how many hours a week do you do t h i s work?
(

) Less than 20 hours pe r week

(

) 21-39 ho urs p e r week

(

) 40 ho urs p e r week

(

) More than 40 hours pe r week

CHECK ONE.

4 2 . 6 f Are you an h o u r l y wage w o r k e r , s a l a r i e d , on com mission, s e l f - e m p lo y e d ,
o r what? CHECK ONE.
(

) H o u r ly wage worker

(

) S a l a r ie d

(

) Work on com mission, t i p s

(

) S e lf- e m p lo y e d in own b u s in e s s , p r o f e s s i o n a l

(

) Work w i t h o u t pay in f a m i l y b u sin es s o r

p r a c t i c e , o r farm
farm

4 2 . 6g Are you c u r r e n t l y employed in a second jo b?
YES— -----1
NO

4 2 . 6h I f YES, ab ou t how many hours a
week do you do t h i s work?
(
) Less tha n 20 hours pe r week
(

) 21-39 hours pe r week

(

) 40 hours pe r week

1 10

32
42 .7a What do you e s t im a t e y ou r t o t a l f a m i l y income b e f o r e ta x e s was In 1979?
P le ase in c lu d e income from a l l s ou rces b e f o r e t a x e s , I n c lu d i n g incorpn from
wages, p r o p e r t y , s t o c k s , i n t e r e s t , w e l f a r e ,
A id t o F a m il ie s w i t h Dependent
C h i l d r e n , c h i l d s u p p o r t from a p r e v io u s m a r r ia g e , and any o t h e r money income
re c e iv e d by you and a l l f a m i l y members who l i v e w i t h you.

NCOME. 1979

ESTIMATED TOTAL FAMILY YEARLY
) Under $3,000

(

) $12,000 - $14,999

) $3,000 - $3,999

(

) $15,000 - $19,999

) $4,000 - $4,999

(

> $20,000 - $24,999

) $5,000 - $5,999

(

) $25,000 - $29,999

) $6,000 - $6,999

(

) $30,000 - $34,999

) $7,000 - $7,999

(

) $35,000 - $49,000

) $8,000 - $9,999

(

) $50,000 and o v e r

>$10,000 - $ | 1,999

42 .7b About how much o f t h i s t o t a l
in 1979?

f a m i l y y e a r l y income b e f o r e ta x e s d i d you ea rn

ESTIMATED PORTION OF TOTAL FAMILY INCOME. 1979. EARNED BY YOURSELF
(

) Does n o t a p p l y , n o t employed in 1979

(

) Under $3,000

(

(

) $3,000 - $3,999

(

) $4,000 - $4,999

(

) $12,000 -

$14,999

(

) $15,000 -

$19,999

(

) $20,000 -

$24,999

) $5,000 - $5,999

(

) $25,000 -

$29,000

(

) $6,000 - $6,999

(

) $30,000 and o v e r

(

) $7,000 - $7,999

(

) $8,000 - $9,999

(

>$10,000 - $ l I ,999

Ill

43.1

Do you ( o r does a member o f y ou r f a m i l y who l i v e s w i t h you) own your home,
do you r e n t?
(
(
(

43 .2

How long have you l i v e d
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

4 3 .3

) Own o r bu yin g
) R e ntin g
) O th er____________________________________
Please s p e d f y

n. t ■.

i

i-t.

o r apartment?

) Less than I year
) 2 3 yea rs
) 4 - 6 y ea rs
) 7 9 yea rs
)10 - 12 yea rs
)13 -1 5 years
) 16 - 18 yea rs
)19 -21 yea rs
)22 -24 years
)25 ye a rs o r more

How many rooms do you have in y o u r d w e l l i n g , not c o u n t in g bathrooms?
4 3 . 3 a ________________ 43 .3b ________________________________ '
Number o f rooms
Number o f bathrooms

43.4

How much does housing c o s t f o r y o u r f a m i l y ? Ple ase i n d i c a t e t h e amount you
pay each month f o r r e n t o r mortgage, in c l u d i n g p r o p e r t y ta x e s and in sura nc e.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Less tha n $100 p e r month
$101 $150 per month
$151 $200 pe r month
$201 $250 pe r month
$251 $300 pe r month
$301 $350 p e r month
$351 $400 p e r month
$401 $450 p e r month
$451 $500 p e r month
$501 $550 p e r month
$551 $600 pe r month
$601 $650 p e r month
More th a n $650 pe r month

________________________ __
P le ase s p e c i f y

112

36

4 5 -la

Is t h i s y o u r f i r s t m arriage ?
(

) YES-

(

) NO-

45, lb

In what y e a r and month d i d your p r e s e n t
m a rria g e begin? _________________________

45.1c How d i d y ou r l a s t m a rria g e end and in
what year?

45.

) Death

Year o f death

) D ivo rc e

Year o f d i v o r c e

) Annulment

Year o f annulment

) S eparation_

Year o f s e p a r a tio n _

Id Please s p e c i f y t h e b e g in n in g and e n ding dates
o f any m a rria g e s e x i s t i n g p r i o r t o t h e one
d e s c r ib e d in 4 4 .1 c .

4 5 . le We would l i k e t o know som ethin g ab ou t t h e pe o p le who l i v e In y o u r f a m i l y .
Please l i s t in t h e c h a r t below y o u r c h i l d r e n and o t h e r household memberst h e i r b i r t h d a te , age a t l a s t b i r t h d a y , sex, and i n d i c a t e by u sing a check
mark i f you a re f i n a n c i a l l y r e s p o n s ib l e f o r th e s u p p o r t o f t h e p e r s o n .

Date o f
bi r t h
n o ./d a y /y r.
SPOUSE
CHILDREN BORN TO THIS
MARRIAGE
Please 1i s t in o r d e r
from o l d e s t t o youngest

CHILDREN BORN TO WIFE PRIOR
TO THIS MARRIAGE
Please 1i s t in o r d e r
from o l d e s t t o youngest

CHILDREN BORN TO HUSBAND
PRIOR TO THIS MARRIAGE
Please 1i s t in o r d e r
from o l d e s t t o youngest

ADOPTED CHILDREN NOT BORN
TO EITHER SPOUSE
Please 1i s t in o r d e r
from o l d e s t t o youngest

Age a t
la s t
b irth d a y

Sex
F ln a n c ia 1
Support
( c 1r c 1e
M o r F)
M

F

1.

M

F

2.

M

F

3.

M

F

4.

M

F

5.

M

F

6.

M

F

7.

M

F

8.

M

F

9.

M

F

1.

M

F

2.

M

F

3.

M

F

4.

M

F

5.

M

F

1.

M

F

M

F
F

2.

-

3.

M

4.

M

F

5.

M

F
F

1.

M

2.

M

F

3.

M

F

4.

M

F

5.

M

F

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.
NOTE:

I f t h e r e a re n o t enough spaces, p le a s e f i n i s h th e

l i s t on t h e l a s t page.

38

Date o f
b i rth
m o ./d a y/yr.
OTHER RELATIVES
LIVING IN THIS
HOUSEHOLD
(such as n ie c e ,
nephew, g r a n d c h i l d ,
p a re n t, s i s t e r ,
u n c le , b r o t h e r ,
b r o t h e r - i n - 1aw,
m o t h e r- i n - 1aw,
husband's u n c le )

OTHER PERSONS
LIVING IN THIS
HOUSEHOLD
(such as f o s t e r
ch i Id, f r i e n d ,
household h e lp ,
b o a rd e rs )

NOTE:

46.

Age a t
la s t
b i r th d a y

M a rita l
status

Sex

1.

M

F

2.

M

F

3.

M

F

4.

M

F

5.

M

F

6.

M

F

7.

M

F

8.

M

F

1.

M

F

2.

M

F

3.

M

F

4.

M

F

5.

M

F

6.

M

F

7.

M

F

R e la t io n
t o you

I f t h e r e are not enough spa ces, ple a s e f i n i s h t h e l i s t on t h e l a s t page.

Co un ting y o u r s e l f ,
People

how many people now l i v e

in you r household?

Fi nanci a 1
Support

115

1.

How o l d a r e you today?

2.

When is y o u r b i r t h d a y ?
month

day

3.

Are vou a q i r l o r a boy?

4.

What are t h e t h i n g s you l i k e t o do f o r f u n ?

5.

What k in d s o f t h i n g s does y o u r f a m i l y do t o save money?

6.

What c o u ld you do t o h e lp y o u r f a m i l y save money?

7.

What a re t h e t h i n g s you l i k e b e s t abou t l i v i n g

in you r f a m il y ?

116

2

HERE ARE SOME FACES SHOWING FEELINGS.

8.

Under each face is a l e t t e r .

Which fa c e shows how you f e e l

about y o u r 11fe ( y o u r w hole l i f e ) ?

( W r i t e t h e l e t t e r on t h e l i n e . )

9.

_Which face shows how you f e e l about y ou r own f a m iIy ?

10.

_Which fa c e shows t h e way you f e e l about y o u r s e I f ?

11

_Which face shows t h e way you f e e l about th e amount o f work you do
a t home f o r t h e f a m il y ?

12.

Which fa c e shows t h e way you f e e l about th e amount o f money y o u r
f a m i l y has?

13. _________Which fa c e shows t h e way you f e e l about th e chances you have t o
le a rn new t h i n g s ?

14. _________How do you f e e l ab ou t t h e way you spend

your f r e e tim e a t home?

15. _________Which face shows t h e way you f e e l about
food you e a t , and t h e c lo t h e s you wear?

t h e house you have, t h e

16. _________Which f a c e shows t h e way you f e e l about t h e t h i n g s y ou r f a m i l y has y o u r c a r , f u r n i t u r e , t o y s , games, and p l a y t h i n g s .

17-

Which face shows t h e way you f e e l about t h e changes y o u r f a m i l y
may need t o make t o save energy l i k e keeping th e house c o o l e r ,
fewer t r i p s in t h e c a r , and u s ing less e l e c t r i c a l energy?

117

3

HERE IS A CIRCLE.
f o r th e f a m i 1y .

Pre te nd t h e c i r c l e

is a l l o f t h e work t h a t needs d o in g a t home

( T h is would be work l i k e housework, y ard w o rk, f i x i n g t h i n g s , bu yin g

t h i n g s and h e l p i n g p e o p le . )

Each person does some work in t h e f a m i l y .
Sometimes f a m i l i e s pay o t h e r pe o p le t o do
some work f o r them.
Sometimes t h e work is n o t done a t a l l .
18.

Draw a p ie c e o f p i e in t h e c i r c l e t o show how much o f t h e f a m i I y work
W r it e ME in t h a t space.

you

do.

19.

Draw a
do es.

p ie c e o f p i e in t h e c i r c l e t o show
W r it e DAD in t h a t space.

how much work

in t h e f a m i l y y ou r dad

20.

Draw a
do es.

p ie c e o f p i e in t h e c i r c l e t o show
W r i t e MOM in t h a t space.

how much work

in t h e f a m i l y y o u r mom

21 .

Draw a p ie c e o f p i e in t h e c i r c l e t o show how much work a l l o f y o u r b r o t h e r s
s i s t e r s d o . W r it e BAS in t h a t space.
I f you do n o t have a b r o t h e r o r s i s t e r w r i t e a check mark he re_______ .

22.

Draw a p ie c e o f p i e in t h e c i r c l e t o show how much work in t h e f a m i l y you pay
o t h e r p e op le t o do - l i k e f i x t h i n g s o r c le a n t h i n g s .
W r it e PAY in t h a t space.

23.

Draw a
fa m ily

24.

p ie c e o f p i e
is n o t done.

in t h e c i r c l e t o show how much work
W r it e EMPTY in t h a t space.

and

t h a t needs d o in g in t h e

Every f a m i l y has work t h a t needs d o in g b u t does n o t g e t done.
work does n o t g e t done a t home In y o u r f a m il y ?

What k in d

of

HERE IS A LIST OF JOBS c h i l d r e n o f t e n do a t home f o r t h e f a m i l y .
mark b e s id e each j o b t h a t you do.

25. _________ Do some shopping o r go t o t h e s t o r e f o r

Make a check

e x tra s .

26. _________W r it e a l e t t e r .
27. ________ Take c a re o f o t h e r c h i l d r e n

In the f a m i l y .

28. _________ Earn money.
29. _________ Take c are o f p e ts o r an im a ls (feed them, g e t f r e s h w a t e r , t a k e
them o u t s i d e ) .
30. _________ Do y a rd work (mow th e g r a s s , weed t h e ga rd e n , rake le a v e s ) .
31 . _________Take o u t garbage

o r tra sh .

32. _________ Sweep s id e w a lk s , porches o r p a t i o ,

flo o rs .

33. _________ Shovel snow.
34. _________ Dust f u r n i t u r e .
35. _________ Vacuum r u g s , c a r p e t s , f l o o r s .
36. _________Clean s i n k s ,

b a thtubs, t o i l e t s .

37. ________ Wash f l o o r s .
38. _________P ut away g r o c e r i e s .
39. ________

Prepare and cook meals.

40. _________ Set and c l e a r t h e t a b l e , wash t h e t a b l e .
41. _________ Wash and d r y d i s h e s .
42. _________Water th e p l a n t s .
43. _________C o l l e c t d i r t y c lo t h e s f o r t h e la u n d ry .
44. _________ Wash and d r y t h e c l o t h e s .
45. _________ P ut away t h e c le a n c l o t h e s .
46. _________ Put away t o y s , c le a n my room.
47. _________ Take sheets o f f t h e bed o r p u t c le a n she ets on t h e bed.
48. What o t h e r j o b s do you do? __________________________________________________

APPENDIX D

119
Table D -1.— Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Contributions to Family Work
Descriptive Statistics
Median Standard
Minimum Maximum Range
Deviation

Variable

Mean

No. of
Cases

6 year olds
Beys
Girls

13.53
17.04

15.4
14.9

5.54
9.13

7.3
3.5

17.9
36

10.6
32.5

3
10

7 year olds
Boys
Girls

21.55
21.55

15.05
19.65

4.79
12.23

8.4
8.8

22.6
38.1

14.2
29.3

8
4

8 year olds
Boys
Girls

12.28
12.07

11.35
12.5

4.04
1.99

7
9.9

22.7
13.8

15.7
3.9

12
3

9 year olds
Boys
Girls

11.93
15.21

9.8
14.4

4.75
4.91

5.9
8.9

20
22.1

14.1
13.2

9
7

10 year olds
Boys
11.58
Girls
11.63

10.05
11.95

3.66
4.16

7.2
4.6

18.2
16.6

11
12

11 year olds
Boys
15.03
Girls
15.92

14.45
15.6

4.60
5.43

5.7
10.5

20.8
27.8

15.1
17.3

12
9

12 year olds
Boys
17.06
Girls
14.93

15.9
15.65

6.82
5.0

6.5
8.2

25.1
20.2

18.6
12

9
4

8
6

Missing
Cases

120
Table D -2.— Descriptive Statistics for Number of Tasks Performed
Descriptive Statistics
Median Standard
Minimum Maximum Range
Deviation

Variable

Mean

6 year' olds
Boys
Girls

8.25
11.9

8
11.5

6.24
2.08

7
9

7 year olds
Boys
Girls

13
15.75

11
16.5

5.13
2.87

6
12

21
18

3
10

18
14

15
4

13
3

8 year olds
Boys
12.85
Girls
12
9 year olds
Boys
Girls

13
12

4.34
2

14
15

No. of
Cases

7
6

4
10

15
6

8
4

13.56
13.71

13
13.25

3.09
2.36

9
10

18
16

9
6

9
7

11.88
14.83

10.5
15

3.6
4.45

8
7

19
20

11
13

8
6

11.92
14.11

11
13

4.03
4.73

8
6

23
22

15
16

13
9

3.52
5.80

8
11

20
24

12
13

9
4

10 year olds
Boys
Girls

11 year olds
Boys
Girls

12 year olds
Boys
Girls

12.11
16.5

11.75
14

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, R. L. and Phillips, B. N. Motivational and achievement differences
among children of various ordinal birth positions.
Child
Development, 1972,41(1), 155-164.
Andrews, F. M. and Withey, 5. B. Developing m easures of perceived life
quality: R esults from several national surveys. Social Indicators
Research. 1 9 7 4 ,1 , 1-26.
Andrews, F. M. and Withey, S. B. Social indicators of w ell-being. New
York: Plenum Press, 1976.
Andrews, M. P., Bubolz, M. M. and Paolucci, B. An ecological approach to
study the family. Marriage and Family Review, 1 9 8 0 ,1 ,2 9 - 4 9 .
Aries, P. Centuries of childhood: A social history of family life . New
York: Vintage Books, 1962.
Aronowitz, S. Fa1s<=> pro m ises. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1973.
Blood, R. 0. and Wolfe, D. M.
Press, 1960.

Husbands and w ives. Glencoe, 111.: Free

Book, S. A. S t a t i s t i c s . McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977.
Bossard, J. H. S. and Boll, E. S. The large Family System.
University of Philadelphia Press, 1956.

Philadelphia:

Boulding, E. Children's rights and the wheel of life. New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Transaction Books, 1979.
Bourque, L. B. Applied research in the 1970s: Can anything be learned
about children? American Academy of Political and Social Science,
The Annals. 1 9 8 2 ,4 6 1 , 32-42.
Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development.
Harvard University Press, T979.
Campbell, A. The s ense, of. w ell-being in America:.
tren d s. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1981.

Cambridge:

Re.ceaLp.atterQS_and

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E. and Rogers, W. L. The quality of American
life . New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976.
Clausen, J. A. Family stru ctu re, socialization, and personality. In L. W.
Hoffman and M. L. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development
research (Vol. 2), New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966.
121

122

Cogle, F. L. and Tasker, 6. E. Children and housework. Family Relations,
1982,11(3), 395-409.
Cogle, F. L., Tasker, G. E. and Morton, D. G. Adolescent tim e use in
household work. Adolescence. 1982, J_Z(66), 452-455.
Davey, A. J. Relationship of fam ily interaction to family environment.
Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n , Michigan S ta te University, 1971.
Deacon, R. E. and Firebaugh, F. M. Family resource management principles
and applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981.
Elder, G. H. Family structu re: the e ffe c ts of size of family, sex
composition and ordinal position on academic motivation.
In
Adolescent achievement and m obility asp iratio n s. Chapel Hill, N. C.:
In stitu te for Research in Social Science, 1962.
Engel, M., Marsden, G. and Woodaman, S. Children who work and the
concept of work sty le, Psychiatry. 1 9 6 7 ,IQ(4), 392-404.
Engel, M., Marsden, G. and Woodaman, S. Orientation to work in children,
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1968, lfi( 1), 137-143.
Epstein, J. L. and McPartland, J. M. The concept and measurement of the
quality of school life. American Educational Research Journal.
197 6,1 1(1), 15-30.
Erikson, E. H. Childhood and so c ie ty . New York: W. W. Norton and Co.,
1963.
Ezell, M. P. Family members1 perceptions of household production in
relationship to quality of life . Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan S ta te University, 1982.
Foote, N. N. and C ottrell, L. S. Identity. and interpersonal competence: A
new direction in fam ily research. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1955.
Gauger, W. H. The potential contribution to the GNP of valuing household
work. Paper presented at the 6 4 th Annual Meeting of the American
Home Economics Association. A tlantic City, June 26, 1973.

123

Gesell, A., Ilg, F. L. and Ames, L. B. Youth, the y ears from ten to six te e n .
New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1956.
Gesell, A., Ilg, F. L. and Ames, L. B. The child from five to ten (Revised
ed.). New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1977.
Ginzberg, E. The human economy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1976.
Goldstein, B. and Oldham, J. Children and work. New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Transaction Books, 1979.
Hansen, 5. L. and Darling, C. A. A ttitud es of adolescents toward division
of labor in the home. Adolescence, 1985, XX(77), 61-72.
Harris, D. B., Clark, K. E., Rose, A. M. and Valasek, F. The relationship of
children's home duties to an a ttitu d e of responsibility.
Child
Dg-Y.eJ.Qpm.eat, 1 9 5 4 ,25( 1), 29-33.
Havighurst, R. J. Youth in exploration and man emergent. In Henry Borow
(Ed.), Man in a world at work. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964.
Hill, R. W. Responsibility of fifth graders related to a u tho ritarian/
auth oritativ e p a re n ts. Unpublished doctoral d isse rtatio n , Michigan
S ta te University, 1981.
Hoppen, K. K. Teenage contribution to the work of the home in 28
fam ilies. Baldwin, New York. Unpublished m a ste r's thesis, Cornell
University, 1966.
Johannis, T. B. P articipation by fath ers, m others and teenage sons and
daughters in se lec te d household tasks. The Coordinator, 1958,
Yi(4), 61-62.
Keniston, K. and The Carnegie Council on Children. All our children. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.
Leichter, H. J. (Ed.). The family as educator (2nd ed.).
Teachers College Press, 1977.
Lu, Y.

Marital roles and m arital adjustm ent.

New York:

Sociology and Social

124

Research, 1952,36(6), 364-368.
Lynch, M. C. P articipation in household ta s k s by children from six to
seven teen years of age.
Unpublished m aste r's th esis, Cornell
University, 1975a.
Lynch, M. Sex role stereotypes: Household work of children.
Ecology Forum. 1975b, 5(3), 22-26.

Human

Marjoribanks, K. and Walberg, H. J. Ordinal position, family environment,
and mental abilities. Journal of Social Psychology. 1975, 2 S (firs t
half), 77-84.
McKeever, W. A. The new child labor movement.
EC.QDQmi£S, 1913, $L(2), 137-139.

Journal of Home

Mintum, L. and Lambert W. W. Mothers of six cultures: Antecedents of
child rearing. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Moed, L. Liberating children by a new approach to household economics.
Social Casework. 1974, 55(6), 384-387.
Naffzinger, C. C. and Naffzinger, K. Development of sex role stereotypes.
The Family Coordinator, 1974,22(3), 251 -258.
Neisser, E. G. Your child's sense of responsibility.
Pamphlet. 1957, No. 254, 1-28.

Public A ffairs

Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. and Bent, D. H.
S ta tis tic a l package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.
Oakley, A. Sex, gender and so c iety . London: Maurice Temple Smith, 1972.
O'Neill, B. M. Children sharing household work.
1979, M l ) , 18-21.

Human Ecology Forum.

Osborne, E. How to teach your children about work.
Pamphlet. 1955, No. 216, 1-28.

Public A ffairs

Piaget, J. The child's conception of the world. New York: Harcourt and

125

Brace, 1959.
Phillips, S. S. Participation in household ta s k s by children from four to
tw elve year of age. Unpublished m a s te r's th esis, Cornell University,
1957.
Rapoport, R. and Rapoport, R. N. Fathers, m others and society. New York:
Basic Books Inc., 1977.
Rettig, K. Interpersonal resource exchanges as predictors of Quality of
m arriage and fam ily life.
Unpublished doctoral d isse rtatio n ,
Michigan S ta te University, 1980.
Roberts, J. and Baird, J. T. Parent ratings of behavioral p a tte rn s of
children Vital and Health S ta tis tic s . Data from the National Health
Survey. Series 11. No. 108. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971.
Roy, P.
Maternal employment and adolescent roles:
Rural-urban
differentials. Marriage and Family Living. 1961,22(4), 340-349.
Runyan, W. M.
Perceived determ inants of highs and low s in life
satisfaction . Developmental Psychology. 1979,15(3), 331 -333.
Sander, J. H. A child's role in the family. Parents, 198 5,6 0(5), 67-70.
Sanik, M. M. and Stafford, K. Adolescents' contribution to household
production:
Male and fem ale differences.
Adolescence, 1985,
M 7 7 ) , 207-215.
Schooler, C. Birth order effects: Not here, not now!
Bul.lfi.tjH, 19 72,20(3 ), 161-175.

Psychological

Slaugh, K. Family interaction and human resource development in the
housework context. Unpublished doctoral d isse rtatio n , Michigan
S ta te University, 1982.
Smart, M. S. and Sm art, R. C. School-age children: Development and
relationships. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1973.
Social Science Research Council.

Basic background ite m s for U. S.

126
household surveys.
1975.

New York:

Social Science Research Council,

Spock, B. Problems of p a re n ts. New York: Faw cett World Library, 1962.
Steidl, R. E. and Bratton, E. C. Work in the home. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1968.
Stephens, W. N. The family in cross-cu ltu ral perspectives.
Holt, 1963.

New York:

Stephens, W. N. Our children should be working. Springfield, 111.: Charles
C. Thomas Publishers, 1979.
Straus, M. A. Work roles and financial responsibility in the socialization
of farm, fringe, and town boys. Rural Sociology. 1962, 2 1 0 ) ,
257-274.
Super, D., Crites, J., Hummel, R., Moser, H., O verstreet, P. and Warnath, C.
Vocational development:__ A framework for research . New York:
Columbia University Press, 1957.
Tanner, J. M. Education and physical growth (2nd ed.).
International Universities Press, Inc., 1978.

New York:

Temple University In stitu te for Survey Research. National survey of
children. Summary of preliminary results. New York: Foundation
for Child Development, 1976.
Tengel, P. M. Teenage.pmduction—income, earnings, and work experience
in South Euclid-Lyndhurst. Ohio. Unpublished m aste r's th esis,
Cornell University, 1964.
Thrall, C. A. Who does what: Role stereotypy, children's work, and
continuity betw een generations in the household division of labor.
Human R elations, 1978,31(3), 249-265.
Tilgher, A. Work: What, it ,has,meant t o. men t hr ough t he .ages. T ranslated
by D. C. Fisher. New York: Arno Press, 1977.
Turnure, C.

Cognitive development and role-taking ability in boys and

127
g irls from 7 to
202-209.

12, Developmental

Psychology.

1975, 11(2),

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Your child from 6 to
12. Children's Bureau Publication Number 324. Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing, 1949.
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Your child from 6 to
12. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966.
Vliet, S. L. Feelings regarding having children again and perceived
sa tis fa c tio n w ith life. Unpublished m aste r's th esis, Michigan S ta te
University, 1979.
Walker, K. E. Household work time: Its implication for family decisions.
Journal of Home Economics. 1973, £5( 10), 7-11.
Walker, K. E. How much help for working m others? The children's role.
Human Ecology Forum. 1970a, 1(2), 13-15.
Walker, K. E.
Q uantitative m easurement of productive household
activ itie s.
Paper prepared for Round Table on "Economy and
Sociology of the Family: The Non-market Production Functions in
American and French Families," sponsored by National Center of
S cientific Research (France) and National Science Foundation
(United States). Oise, France, January 1977.
Walker, K. E. Time used by husbands for household work. Family
Fconomics Review, United S ta te s Department of Agriculture, 1970b,
ARS 6 2-5, 8-10.
Walker, K. E. and Gauger, W. H. The dollar value of household work.
Information Bulletin 6 0 . New York S ta te College of Human Ecology,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1973.
Walker, K. E. and Woods, M. E. Time use: A m easure of household
production of fam ily goods and se rv ic e s. Washington, D. C.: The
Family of American Home Economics Association, 1976.
Warren, J. R. Birth order and social behavior.
196 6,6 5(1), 38-49.

Psychological Bulletin.

128
White, L. K. and Brinkerhoff, D. B. Children's work In the family: Its
significance and meaning. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1981,
42(4), 7 8 9 -7 9 8
Whiting, B. and Whiting, J. Children of six c u ltu res. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1975.
Williams, F. Reasoning w ith s t a t i s t i c s (2nd ed.).
Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

New York:

Holt,

Wolf, F. M. and Chandler, T. A. A cross-lagged panel analysis of quality of
school life and achievement responsibility. Journal of Educational
Research, 1 9 8 1 ,2 4 (5 ), 363-368.
Zill, N. Divorce, m arital happiness and the mental health of children:
Findings from the foundation for child development national survey
of children. Paper prepared for National In stitu te of Mental Health
workshop on Divorce and Children. Bethesda, Md., February 7-8,
1978.
Zill, N. and Peterson, J. L. Learning to do things w ithout help. In L. M.
Laosa and I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Eamllies as learning env ironments l o r
children. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1982.