SOME INDICATIONS OF LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND OPINIONS OF MICHIGAN HOMEMAKERS ABOUT FOOD BUYING Thesis for the Dear“ 6f M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Mary StrickIancI HoImes 1958 Megan 086 " SOME [ND [CAT IONS ‘OF LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND OPINIONS OF MICHIGAN HOMBRE; ABDUT FOOD BUYING By Mary Strickland Holmes A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of.Agriculture and.Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of’ MASTER OF SC IFNCE Department of.Agricultural Economics 1958 /»/¢= , 5? Er 7:533 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author would like to express her appreciation to all those who aided her in the completion of this study. Special gratitude is extended to Dr. James D. Shaffer,.Associate Professor, Department of.Agricu1tural Economics at Michigan State University under whose direction this study was done. His ready assistance and guidance were particularly appreciated. ‘Dr. Irma H. Gross, Professor, Department of Home Management and Child Development and Dr. Paul J. Deutschmann, Director, Communications Research Center at Michigan State University are also extended special recognition for their helpful planning and suggestions regarding the study. ' The author is grateful for the cooperation and assistance in planning and setting up the questionnaire and consumer survey by: Dr. Dale-E. Butz, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, Dr. Robert C. Kramer, Coordinator Extension Marketing Program, Michigan State University, Dr. Henry E. Larzelere, Associate Professor, Department of ‘ ‘Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, Robert E. Rust, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Husbandry, Michigan State University, Mrs. Miriam J. Kelley, Assistant State Home Demonstration Leader, Marketing Information Program, Michigan State University, and Many of the Consumer Marketing Information Agents. \le \/\I uyvvyyyvuu 'I\‘IC.I\-n.r\ n‘nfi I\ A IC-A‘IC-A— ii SOME INDICATIONS OF LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND OPINIONS ' OF MICHIGAN HOMEMAKERS ABOUT FOOD BUYING By Mary Strickland Holmes AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and.Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics Year 1958 Approved ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to establish some indications of the level of consumers? knowledge about certain areas in food buying. These estimations are designed to serve as a bench mark against which changes in these areas of knowledge can.1ater be checked to help evaluate the effectiveness of the Marketing Information for Consumers prognmm; ,A further purpose of the study was to relate certain socio- economic factors and homemakers? familiarity with the Consumer Market- ing Information program to the level of know1edge and to determine some of the homemakers' opinions about food buying and food buying infor— mation. ' .A mail questionnaire was sent to a sample of 1,000 homemakers in each of four Michigan cities. These were Flint, Kalamazoo, Muskegon and Grand Rapids. .Approximately 50 percent of the homemakers returned the questionnaires. The questionnaire contained h0-statements to*which the homemakers were asked to check "agree," disagree," or "no opinion." In addition, a personal interview survey was.made of three-fourths of the nonerespandents in Kalamazoo in.order to check the extent of the nan-response bias to the mail survey. The séé subject areas that were analyzed from the questionnaire dealtwith eggs, meat buying, grades of beef and mbling in beef, reconstituted nonefat dry milk, apples and food costs. "3 The level cf knowledge in general was found to be fairly low in all areas of information. If the statements in.each area are considered iv comparable, the homemakersI knowledge was most complete on the subject of eggs. The areas next in order were meat buying, meat grades and marbling in beef. Of these three areas of information, homemakers knew the least about marbling in beef. Twenty-one percent of the homemakers did not answer any statements correctly about marbling in beef and another 25 percent answered only one correctly. 0f the six areas, homemakers knew the least about apple grading and the economic aspects of food costs. More than 83 percent of the homemakers failed to answer more than one question correctly about either apples or food costs. Inra few cases, homemakers possessed misinformation concerning fbod buying. aFood costs represented the area of greatest misinfor- mation. More homemakers have false conceptions of the relative cost of food,éfid%industrial wages and the cost of marketing and processing of foods than have the true facts. HOmemakers were also misinformed on the meaning of the terms "fresh" eggs and U. S. Inspected and Passed. Statements concerning terms referring to cuts of meat were under- stood by few homemakers. Only five percent of the homemakers were estimated to understand the terms Butt Portion and Butt Half. Homemakers who said they were familiar with the M I C AgentsI articles or programs answered more questions correctly in all the areas of information except food costs. Conversely, whether or not the homemakers had had home economics education was not significantly related to the number of correct answers in any of the areas of information. The more years of formal education the homemakers had 5 ‘2 a. c-J a- "CJ‘ noovU—A [H U DA . I . a. I I .I- a. y mi. . a 4k . .. ... v . a c . . . a . rx 0 :w r. ..«. a. . r. .k no » 4.“ r . Sm .a. .. c i a. .r.. ul 3‘ ”J. Q. .I » . .vn .Fu W“ I. s G. .a. u. a L" Cu nus _ . o-» a» 8 FL .w. . L. o . F .. ~ A r, A ..r u “a 1?.“ V E 5» Cu rt . s n .rn +L D. :1. a . as. Mn . . n 1...... .. u. 9. 4L 3 Q .. '4 I ol I. v uh 1 db Pa. :1“ wI~ - y ml Nu L m Mm. nMu. the more statements she answered correctly in.the areas of egg buying, grades of beef, and marbling in beef. Those homemakers who were between the ages of 31 to 60 answered more questions correctly than those who were under 30 or over 60 years of age. .Also, there was a significant increase in the number of questions answered correctly associated with an increase in yearly income and the amount of money Spent per week for food. There was little difference among the cities in.the number of correct responses in any of the six areas of information. Twenty-nine percent of the homemakers said they were familiar with the Consumer Marketing Information Program. Thirtyhnine percent of the homemakers said they felt a food marketing program for cone sumers would be helpful in their food buying. Fifty-six percent of the homemakers agreed that a food marketing program is a proper activity of a tax supported institution and only eight percent disagreed. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I INTRODUCTION. ..... ..... ..... ............................. l The'Marketing Information for Consumers Program. ...... The M I C Evaluation Project................... ...... . MethOd Of StudyCIU'COOOOODOOO'IIOOOIOOO'O ooooooooooooo Evaluation of Sample.............. .......... . ....... .. \n}? .'\> I—-‘ [I REVIEW.OF RELATED STUDIES ...... ‘............... .......... , 1 Eggs......................... ...... ... ...... . ........ . 13 Meat Buying ......... 1' Seasonal Price Changes. ................... .......... 18 United States Department of Agriculture Grades of Beef 18 Marbling and Fat in Beef.............................. 22 Food Costs....;.................................. ..... 23 Summary.......................,...... ..... ............ 25 K» [II KNOWLEDGE AND OPINIONS OF‘MICHIGAN HOMEMAKERS ON GIVEN SMTM‘TS|OOO-oooooouoa.cocoa-oo'ocoooooo0090.09.90... 2] Eggs...............................,.... ......... . ..... 30 Meat Buying .................. 3L; Grades of Beef and Marbling in Beef................... 38 A. Grades of Beef.................................. 38 B. Marbling in Beef....... ...... ...... ........ ..... h2 Reconstituted NoneFat Dry Milk........... ............ . hh ,Apples................................ ........... ..... h? Food Costs...... .......... . .............. . ...... ....... SO Summaryu.............................................. 53 IV SOCTO-ECONOMIC FACTORS.AND CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE AS RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF CORRECT STATEMENTS................... 5? Size of F‘amily........................................ 58 Yearly Income. ....... ......... .... ..... . ...... . ...... 60 .Amount of Mbney Spent Per'Week .for Food............... 63 .Age of Homemaker................................ ..... . 66 Education of the Homemaker.. ........ ...”. ..... ........ 70 Home Economics Training....... ........ . ..... .......... 73 Cities................................................ (h Familiarity with the M I C Program... ................. {9 Summary................................ .......... ..... 82 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Continued CHAPTER Page v OPINIONS OF HOMEMMERS m MICHIGAN ABOUT A. FOOD MARKETING PROGRAM mR CONSWS'0.00........OD;.O..'0.000000000. 85 How many homemakers were familiar with the Marketing Information Program?............... ...... . ....... 85 '_Do homemakers in the four Michigan cities feel a Marketing Program is helpful?...................... 89 What'were the sodio-economic factors of those who were familiar with the Marketing Program7............... 91 'What type of information do homemakers feel would be the most useful?................................... 93 Do homemakers feel a Marketing Program should be tax supported? ............................ ..... ........ 97 What are some of the socio-economic characteristics of consumers who believe a Food Marketing Program a proper activity of a tax supported institution?.. . .99 Summary.... ..... ................. ....... ......... ..... 102 VI SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS.AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ...... . ........ 10h Indications of Level of Knowledge..................... 10h Socio-Economic Characteristics........................ 109 Opinions of Homemakers Concerning a Food Marketing Program....................... ...... ............... ll? viii LIST OF'TABLES TABLE 1. 10. ll. 12. 13. 1h. Comparison of Percent of Correct Responses mus Percent of Incorrect Responses Betwee . Mail Survey and Personal Inter- View in.szOOOOOOOOO0.0000......OOOOOOOOOOOOO'I0.0.0.0.. Comparison of ReSponses to the Amount Of Education of the Homemakers Between Mail Survey and Personal Interview in KaMZOOOOOCOQOOO‘OIOOO'OOOQOO......OO.CCOOOOOOOOOOI...... Comparison of ReSponses to Whether or Not the Homemakers had Some Home Economics Training Between the Mail Survey ‘ and the Personal Interview in Kalmnazoo.................... Comparison of Responses to Income Between Mail Survey and Personal InterviewinKalamazoo..................... ...... . Comparison of Responses to the Age of' the Homemakers Between Mail Survey and Personal Interview in Kalamazoo. . . . Comparison of Years: of Education of Michigan Homemakers Between the Four-City Mail Survey and 1950 Michigan Census. Consumer‘s Opinions on Amount of Time Needed for Cooking MCCOOOOOOO’OOOOCOOOOO......tOOOO...’OO0.0,00.0.0000.0.... Replies to the Question: "What does the term, U. S. Choice beef mean to y0u7“00000000001OOQOOOOOOIOOBOOO;O0000......0‘ . Replies to the Question: "What does the term marbling in beef mean toyou7"' OOOOOO .....OO'OOOI.OOaOOOIOOOOOOOO'OOOOO' Replies to the Question: " In your opinion why is it that choice round steak now costs about 89 cents per pound when the farmer is getting about 25 cents per pound for choice cattle?"000009......OOIOOOQOOI.0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOI. Responses to Statements on Egg Buying Number of. Correct Reaponses about Egg Buying. . . ............ Responses to Statements on Meat Buying. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . Number of Correct Responses about Meat Buying. . . . . . . . . ..... Page ".0 12 17 2] 23 2b, 32 36 28 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 . 2o. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 270 28. 29. 30- 31. 32. Responses to Statements on Grades of Beef...... ............ Number of Correct Responses About Grades of Beef. ........ .. Responses to Statements on Marbling in Beef....... ......... Number of Correct Responses about Marbling in Beef......... Responses to Statements on NoneFat Dry Skim Milk........... Number of Correct Responses about NoneFat Dry Skim.Milk.... Responses to Statements on,Apples.......................... Number of Correct Reaponses about.App1es....;.. ..... ....... Responses to Statement on Food Costs.;.... ......... . ....... Number of Correct Responses About Food Costs............... Number of Correct Responses of Homemakers in all.Areas of InfomtionOOOOOOOOOOOOO0,0......OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO0.00.00a. Relationship of Number of Correct.Answers on Egg Buying and Size Of me FanilVo 0.?000000000000000300.000.000.00 ...... 0 Relationship of Number of Correct Responses on Meat Buying md Size 0f the myOOOOCOQ....“...OOOObOQOQOOOOOOOOOOOOO Relationship of Number of Correct.Respon3es on Grades of Beefm-dSize of the mly.......’......’.'.q.'........... Relationship of Number of Correct Answers on Egnguying and ”Gunt- Of yearn, mcomeOOOOOQODOO'OOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOI00...... Relationship of Number of Correct.Answers on Meat Buying and.AmCunt 0f Yearly Income-......o.....aoooa.............. Relationship of Number of Correct Responses on Marbling in Beefand Yearly mcomeOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0...0.00.0000... Relationship of Number of Correct Responses about.Apples arid YarlyIncomGQOCD'C'OOOOOCOCOOOOOOOO’DO ..... 0.0.0.000... 52 53 I 51. S8 59 S9 61 61 62 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 33. 3h. 35. 36. 37- 38. 39.} NO. hl. h2. h3. nu. h5. h6. h7. Relationship of the Correct Reaponses About Non-Fat Dry mJ-k arid Yeax‘ly IncomeOOOOO‘DOOOOOOOOOOIDOI‘OOOOOCOOOOO0.0.00O Relationship of Number of Correct Responses of Food Costs md Yarly Income.......OIOOOOOO'OOOIOOOOOOO'OHOOOOOOOOIO... Relationship of Number of Correct Responses on Egg Buying and the Amount of Money Spent Per Week for Food. . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Number of Correct Responses on Meat Buying and Amount Spent per Week for Food.......................... Relationship of Number of Correct Responses on Grades of Beef and Amount of Money Spent per Week for Food. . . . . . . . . . . .' Relationship of NUmber of Correct Responses on Marbling of Beef and Amount of Money Spent per Week for Food. . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Number of Correct Responses on Apples and the Amount of Money Spent per Week for Food.‘... . Relationship of Number of Correct Responses about Food Costs and Money Spent per Week for Food Relationship of Number of Correct Responses about Non-Fat. Dry Milk and the Age of the Homenaker....................... Relationship of Number of Correct.Answers about Grades of beefarldAge Of HommerOOO!OOOOOOOQOO'OQ-O'OOOOOOO.00.0.60. Relationship of Number of Correct Answers about Marbling in BeefmldAge 0f.lflomemerii.0034......OOO‘OOOOO.OOOOOOOIOOCOCO Relationship of the Number of Correct Responses about Apples and the Age of the Homemker....'..”............................ Relationship of the Number of Correct Responses about Grades of Beef and the Education of the Homenakers... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of the Number of Correct Responses about Apples and the Education of the Homemaker.......................... Relationship of the Number of Correct Answers on'Egg Buying and Education of Homemakers................................. xi Page 6? 63 6).: 61; 65 65 66 67 68 68 69 70 71 71 72 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page N8 . Relationship of the Number of Correct Responses about Food Costs and Education of the Homemker.-.... . ...... . 73 119 . Responses of Homemakers in the Four Cities to Statement 21, "me fat around the edge of beef is known as marbling." . . . . 75 50 . Reaponses of Homemakers in the“ Four Cities to Statement 29, " The higher the grade of beef the “less “fat 'it will have."...I.QlO......‘IOOO.......O""O.OC,OO'.O..C00......0'. 76 51 . ReSponses of Homemakers in the Four Cities to Statement 33 , "You can usually expect. more. mrbling in a higher grade of b.e'ef0"‘....bi'0.0.0.009.........‘OD0.000....OOOOOOOOOOQO-OOC 76 52 . Responses of Homemakers in tht Four Cities to Statement 36, ”According to Michigan law all Michigan , apples must be identified by grade Whai 391C103. .9“: o 0 o pppp.» on o D o 'IPtrJ'IP-OI on 77 S3 . Responses of Homemakers in the Four Cities to Statement 25, "It has only about half the number of calOries per glass as flUidWhOle”15.1.kcuooooooo0000.0‘019000000.900.000.00 ....... 78 SA . Relationship of the Number of. Correct Responses on Egg Buying and Familiarity with Marketing Information Program. . 79 55. Relationship of the Number of, “Correct Responses on Meat Buying and Familiarity with Marketing Information Program. . 80 56. Relationship of Number of Correct Reaponse‘s'About Non-Fat Dry Milk and Familiarity with Marketing Information Pro gram 80 S? . Relationship of Number of Correct Responses about Grades ‘ of Beef and Familiarity with Marketing Information Program. 81 58 . Relationship of Number of Correct ReSponses About Marbling in Beef and Familiarity with Mrketing Information Program. 81 S9 . Areas of Information Related to Socio-Econondc Factors . . . . . 83 60 . Percent of Homemakers in Each City Familiar with M I C PrOWOCOOO......C~.OQ........ODOODOCOCCOOOOOODOICOO ...... 86 61. Homemakers! Reaponses to Statement 1111, “The food buying tips given by Alice Boyts over your local radio station are helpful in planning weekly food purchases ," in Four Michigan Cities...‘.....OOOOO............OOOOOOOOD’OQOUOOIOOOOOOOOOI xii 88. LIST OF‘TABLES - Continued TABLE 62. Reaponses to Statement M, "The food buying tips given by 63 . 611,. 65. 66. 67. 68. 70. 71. 72. 73. Alice Boyts over your local radio station are helpful in planning weekly food purchases," by Those Homemakers who stated they were familiar with the programs or articles of the MI C Agents.... Homemakers' Responses to Statement 15, "Would information supplied by M I C Program be helpful?"..................... Responses to Statement h3, "The food buying tips given by Alice '.Boyts over your local radio station are helpful in planning weekly food p.1rchases," by Homemakers Who Stated Information Supplied by M I C Agents was Helpful. . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of‘Size of the Family and Familiarity with Wketing PrograInOOOOOO'OOO0.000000000000000.DDCOOOOOO0.0.90 Relationship of Yearly Income and Familiarity with M I C Progmm000-OOOOOOOOOOCO'OOO.~00QOOCOOOOUOOOOO-OOOOO .......... Relationship of Education of the Homemaker and Familiarity With lt"1'4‘-e M 1C ngx‘amOOOOOCOOO0.00000.00.0'OOOOOOCOOOOO00'... Relationship of Home Economics Education and Familiarity With theMICProgImnOI‘OOOOOCOOOOOOI00.000.00.000... ..... Comparison of Total Responses of Homemkers in the Four. Michign Cities as to the Useflflness of Food Cost Compari- sons and Reports about Future Supplies and Prices of Foods. Relationship of Homemakers? Responses to Usefulness of Cost Comparisons and Number of Correct Answers on that Type of ImomtiontOD.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000.00.000O'OOOOOOOOOOOO' Relationship of Homemakerst Responses to Usefulness of Reports on Future Supplies and Prices and Number of Correct Answers on that Type of Information........................ Comparison of Responses of Homemakers on Usefulness of Kinds of Inforniation and Familiarity with the M I C Program Homemakers' Responses to Statement h3, "A food buying pro- gram is a proper activity of a tax supported institution. . . xiii Page 89 9O 92 92. 93 9h .95 96 97 9'7 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE . Page 7b.. 75. 76. 77- Comparison Between Familiarity with the M I C Program and Homemakers'- Opinions about a Food Marketing Program A Pmper Activity of a Tax Supported Educational Institution. 98 Relationship of Education of Homemakers and Responses Con- cerning a Food Marketing Program A Proper Activity of a Tax Supported Institution........... ... 100 Relationship of Income of Homemakers and Responses Concern- ing a Food Marketing Program as a Proper Activity of a Tax S‘lpmrt'ed Instimtiont'OOOOOOI...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO'0.00....... 101 Relationship of the Amount of Money Homemakers Spent Per Week for Food and ReSponses Concerning Food Marketing Pro- gram as a Proper Activity of a Tax Supported, Institution. . . lOl xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to establish some indications of the level of knowledge of Michigan homemakers about certain areas of food buying. Findings from this study will also: 1) Point out what relationships exist between the socio-economic characteristics of the families and the homemakers knowledge in certain areas of food marketing. 2) Determine if the homemakers are interested in the information supplied by the Marketing Information for Consumers Program and if so, which consumers want and need this type of information. 3) Determine some areas of food buying information homemakers understand relatively better than others. h) Point out homemakers opinions on types of information they desire. 5) Serve as a bench mark for further study in determining the effectiveness of the Marketing Information for Consumers Program. ~ 1 The Marketingggnformationfifor‘Consumers Program The M I C Program has established projects in ten Michigan cities Siaice 195h. The program is an activity of the Cooperative Extension k w 1Henceforth to be referred to as the M I C Program. 1 Service and is supported Jointly by Federal, State and County funds. It was established in l9h8 and expanded in 1.951; as a result of special appropriations from the State. The program can best be described by stating its objectives:3 A. To aid in the orderly marketing of agricultural commodities by: 1. Helping to move normal and abnormal supplies. 2. Encouraging the acceptance of new and improved marketing practices. 3. Reporting consumers! wants and needs to producers and handlers. B. To assist in the more effective use of agricultural products by: l. Encouraging consumption of foods in season and in abundant supply. ' 2. Informing consumers cf availability, relative costs, selection, care, value, and use of agricultural products. 3. Informing consumers about new products. C. To help consumers get maximum satfisfaction from their purchases of agricultural products by provi ing them with timely market- ing information and economic principles as a basis for decision making in Selection, purchase, care and use of agricultural products with regard to consumer needs and resources. D. To help consumers develop a better understanding of the market- ing system, functions, and problems by providing them with information on such subjects as production situation, economic trends, marketing services, marketing costs, marketing margins, and changes in the marketing system. B. To motivate people to adopt improved buying practices. The M I g Evaluation Proiiect In order to improve the services and judge the effectiveness of the M 1: c Program, an evaluation study was organized in 1956 by the Department Of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University and the Extension 5* 2Armual Report, 1957 AMA Project, Michigan 1525-6 Marketing Infor- mation for Consumers, Cooperative Ebctension Service, Mich. State Univ. East Lansing, Mich. P. h. .1“ QM 3 Service. This study is one of four projects under the direction of Dr. J. D. Shaffer in an overall evaluation of the M I C Program. One study dealt with the consumer use of mass media for food information:3 and the other two emphasized the evaluation of written ' information sent out by the M I C Program. One was concerned with information sent to restaurants, hospitals and schools4 and the other with releases prepared for consumers.5 This study is the first of a two part project designed to determine the effectiveness of the total infomation being supplied to consumers in Michigan. The general plan is to determine some indications of the homemakers’ level of knowledge about food buying through analysis or responses to a mail questionnaire. The next step will be for the M I C Program to incorporate the information covered by this study in their regular articles and programs. The final phase will be to again send out the questionnaires to another sampling in these cities (neighbors of the homemakers in the first survey) and observe any change in the indications of level of knowledge. 3R. E. Borton, "Consumer Use of Mass Media for Food Information," (unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University 1957) . - 4M. D. Boyts, "An Evaluation of Marketing Information for Restaurants, Hospitals and Schools," (unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1957) . 5M. M. Gillespie, "An Evaluation of Selected Releases of Market-ing Information for Consumers Prepared by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service," (unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1958). Methpg or Study A questionnaire6 was sent in October and November, 1957 to 1,000 homemakers in each of four cities in Michigan. The cities were Muskegon, Flint, Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo. A random sample was drawn from the address section of the City Directory of each city. or the h,ooo questionnaires sent out , 18811 were answered. Another 187 were returned by the post'office indicating that the house was vacant. Thus the rate of return was about 50 percent. The number of reSponses obtained from each city were: Grand. Rapids -- 519 Flint -- hlh Muskegon -- M3 Kalamazoo -- 5'08 In addition to this, 332 of the 167 non-respondents in Kalamazoo were interviewed in person in order to get some estimate of the nature of any non-response bias which might' exist. The questionnaire was divided into. six subject areas. Each question was in the form of a statement for which the respondent was asked to Check whether they agreed, disagreed or had no opinion. Most of the Statements have definite answers which oculd then be checked as right, Wrong, or no opinion, (do not know.) In phrasing these statements in the questionnaire, care was taken to avoid long, complicated, or ambiguous sentences. It was also desired to avoid the appearance of a "test" which would inhibit a genuine response. 6See questionnaire and cover letter in appendix. '. t «I U} . c! J ‘ ‘ .35 Age; -‘\ -‘~"K- 3r '0 I'M n." -v".. a.“ ?'a ray. -. ‘... anvc- . 1L Yr.rwv~— r .M a. | respese :1 Mite, " 8w I mh 3:113”: The survey data were placed on punch cards and machine tabulation was used to summarize the data. Related studies in areas of consumer knowledge covered in the Four-City Survey were reviewed and are reported in the next chapter. Evaluation of Sample ‘ A comparison of the responses to the mail survey in Kalamazoo was nude with the responses to the personal interview of the non-reapondents in Kalamazoo in order to obtain some estimate of the nature of the non- response bias. Of those questions indicating level of knowledge of food buying, it was found that homemakers answered 16 out of the 30 statements significantly different between the mail survey and the personal inter- view. (See Table 1.) Generally, a larger percentage of homemakers answered the questions correctly in the mail alrvey than in the personal interview:7 An analysis using the percent of homemakers who answered each statement correctly minus “the percent of homemakers who answered incorrectly was used to estimate the percent of homemakers who knew the right answer. The rights minus wrong formula allows for those who guessed and the percentage gives some significance to those who expressed "no opinion." This Index of Knowledge will be discussed further in Chapter III. _ The Index of Knowledge, or the percent of homemakers who "knew" the answers was greater for the mail survey than the personal interview in “ 7To determine if a relationship existed between the number of reaponses made by the homemakers to each statement and whether they were Contacted by mail or interview, the Chi square test of independence was anibplied‘att the 5 percent level of significance. TABLE 1 V COMPARTSON OF PERCENT OF CORRECT RESPONSES MINUS PERCENT OF INCORRECT ' RESPONSES Em MAIL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW IN KAIAMAZOO _ . Mail Survey PersonaLInterview Number 03‘.“ Index of Knowledge Index of Knowledge Statement Percent Right-Percent Wrong Percent Right— Percent Wrong *11 70 , _ L04 {-12 ~39 -6h 13 31 4 22 *1h Sh ' 32 15 . S9 S7 {-16 6h . 19 17 58 61 18 16 22 *19 9 O 20 21 2h —x«2l 36 8 *22 17 38 23 56 S9 *25 39 ’46 26 60 56 27 2).; A 15 *28 69 no *29 I49 27 30 u. 39 *31 Id 17 *32 ‘ -§2 "73 33 11,6 LG. *3), 71; 31 35 50 a 55 {36 25 ML *3? ~37 ~11; *38 --m.— . -36 39 - ~25 -31 no - ,2 - 5 ‘__—f __‘ —( waw fi—v "— 7 fl *Indicates statements that were proved significantly different alibi-Square test of independence at the 5 percent level of signifi- e. 11 out of the 16 questions-where the responses were found to be signifi- cantly different. This would suggest that the mail survey overestimates to some degree the overall level of knowledge. In regard to those statements dealing with the homemakers opinions regarding a food marketing program and the M I C program in particular, there was very little difference in the pattern of reaponses between the mail survey and the personal interview study in Kalamazoo. A comparison of the reSponses' to the statements regarding the home- maker's socio-economic characteristics was also made between the mail survey and the personal interviews conduCted in Kalamazoo. There was no significant difference found when a chi-square test was taken on the amount of education, whether or not they had had home economics training, the nmnber of peoplein ..nthe family or the amount of money spent per week for food.8 "The percent of responses in each category were very Close in regard to the number of people in the family and the amount of money spa-Lt per week for food. 8 ,Fewer homemakers who had 8 years or under of education answered the mail questionnaires than those who were personally interviewed. (See Tale 2.) Only 36 percent of those who had taken home economics aflattered the personal interview comrar'ed to Ltl percent who answered the mail questiomlaire. This would indicate (See Table 3) that those Who had some home economics training might be more willing to answer the mail survey. ¥ 8The Chi~square test of independence was applied at the 5 percent level of significance. TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO THE AMOUNT OF EDUCATION OF THE HOMEMAKERS BETWEEN MAIL SURVEY AND PERSONAL. INTERVIEW IN KAIAMA ZOO __‘__ _ ha]... — V—v—w vv—i Years of\,_ laiLSjirvey Personal Interview Education" Numb er Percent Number Percent 8 and under 63 ' 12 711 22 9 to 11 76 15 68 21 12 to 13 190 37 11h 3h 111 or more 150 30 68 21 No answer 29 6 8 2 Total number . » 508 100 332 100 V—v W H w fi W - 1V‘Responses not significantly different at 5 percent level of sig— nificance based upon"‘Chi—-square test. "No Answer" responses were not included.- TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO WHETHER OR NOT THE HOMEMAKERS HAD SOME HOME ECONOMICS TRAINING BETWEEN THE MAIL SURVEY AND THE ‘ PERSONAL INTERVIEW IN KALAMAZOO w W ._‘7 fifiw—v W Whether Had Home Economics Mail Survey. Personal Interview Training" Number Percent Numb er Percent Yes 210 hl 119 36 No 269 53 213 on No answer 29 6 .. .. Total number 508 100 332 100 fi r ‘ ———— v—v—v *Responses not significantly different at 5 percent level of sig- nificance based upon Chi-square test. A significant difference was found in regrd to income and age of the homemakers. A somewhat larger percentage. of the homemkers in the mail survey said their income was over $31,000 than those who were inter- viewed personally. A larger percent of those personally interviewed did not give their incomes. (See Table )4.) TABLEh COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO INCOME BETWEEN MAIL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW IN KAIAMAZOO ‘4 A LA *4 7' 7—.— V—vv—v v— Vfi—v fi *w w..__ — fl— ..h‘ A _‘ _. ; vw vq v v—v—v “w W V v—W __ Yearly wMail Survey Personal Interview Family Income* Number Percent Number Percent Less than “1,000 105 21 82 25 ““000 to $6,000 202 to ' 118 35 $6,001 and over 125 2).; S9 18 Prefer not to say 52 10 73 22 No answer ' 2h 5 - - Total number 508 , 100 w 332 100 n w fi fi h ——w v _ w V {Responses were significantly different at the 5 percent level of Significance based upon the chi-square test . "No answer," and "prefer not to say" responses were not included. Those homemakers who were under 30 years of age were less likely to answer the questionnaire by mail. Tyrenty percent of those under 30 answered the mail questionnaire and 26 percent of those under 30 answered the personal interview and a greater percentage of homemakers between the ages of 11,6 and 60 answered the mail questionnaire than the Personal interviews. (See Table 9.): ‘F‘f -H the- ‘ ~ .1". hr :4 C U u; --.,“ J ' u-l u ., “T”; n‘au', v I .1. ‘v “N ‘ V‘ VI A.‘ \\ ‘D p, 8 :v VJ A. ;‘.«_ U‘ H“: .'\ ' P; "1 "~- -1 y'- ‘5 5:. ‘N lO TABLES COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO THE AGE OF THE HOI‘IEIVIAKERS BETWEEN MAIL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW IN KALAMAYOO W Years of Mail Survey Personal Interview Age* . NumEer Terc eat . Num'bwerfi Percent 30 or less 10).; 2O 88 26 31 to 115 183 36 115 35 N6 to 60 136 27 61 18 Over 60 7h 15 S9 18 No answer 11 2 9 3 ___‘ _. V—w WW vw— fl —'—— — *Responses were significantly different at the 5 percent level of significance based upon Chi-square test. ."No answer" responses were not included. In many cases the socio-economic characteristics of those who answered the mail questionnaire were not significantly different from those who were interviewed personally, therefore it can be assumed that the type of responses from the mail questionnaire are somewhat indicative of the popilation of the four cities. The exceptions were the age of the homemakers and the income of the family. There was a tendency for more homemkers who were 30 years of age and above to answer the mail questionnaire. This could indicate that those with more experience and possibly more knowledge than is representative of the total popu- lation of each city answered the mail questionnaire. A higher proportion Of those with a higher income and those who preferred not to give their inC><>Ilr1e answered the mail questionnaire. As there is some correlation betWeen income, education and level of knowledge, the non-response . u ‘ ‘ “'C"‘ 1A e , >3 ‘ “5.395 .I. . ...: -1 " 4 a .-‘ 35133-9“ r .. . .-VI. v. . ‘ ' \ . WTSICT. W1": 4 ""3 ‘: '5 :.. NL-‘G “a .....-‘u "\ wk. (5-. 5 V...“ Y“ . “M" .d‘ H“ F 6". \ ll biases in respect to income and education may be the cause of the oven- estimation of the level of knowledge by the mail survey. A smmry of socio—econonfic characteristics'of those homemakers who were more likely to answer a mail questionnaire as indicated by a com- parison with the responses to a personal interview of the non-reSpondent-s would include those homemakers whose yearly income was over $14,000, who were 30 years of age or more and had at least eight years of education. The survey data was compared with the 1950 census figures for luchigan female residents over twenty years of age. The mlmber of years of education homemakers had completed were grouped and the percent of homemakers in each group of years were compared. There was a signifi- cant difference between the mail survey and the census figures‘i‘n the mimber of years of education homemakers had completed. Thirteen percent of the homemakers fell in the 0-8 years of education group in the survey but 39 percent fell in this category in the Michigan census. (See Table 6.) The percent of homemakers in each age group were also com- Ila-red . These were found to be approximately the same. 12 TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF YEARS OF EDUCATION OF MICHIGAN HOMEMAKERS BETWEEN THE FOUR-CITY MAIL SURVEY AND 1950 MICHIGAN CENSUS =3====222=:==33=====================3==I—aé33E———Zi=====================3 Years of* Four-City Mail Survey 1250 Michigan Census EHMcation Number Percent Number - Percent 0‘- 8 2h? p 13 709,2h0 39 9 —- 11 380 20_ 389,015 22 ll - 13 73b 39 V 503,105 29 1h and more hSh 23 - 162,115 10 No answer 69 h ‘ - - .Total number 1,881; ‘ 100 - . 1,763.1175 loo Lai—4 w W ff —.__v ——.v vv—v W _ *mnnber of years of education were significantly different based Iipon.0hi-square test at the 5 percent level of significance. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES Consumer studies have been done in many of the areas of consumer mledge to be touched upon ingthis" analysis. This information is not only useful as a basis for hypothesizing what homemakers already know about food buying information, and what they need to know but also serves as a comparison for the level of knowledge of Michigan homemakers. This chapter 'smmmrizes sOme of the studies directly related to infor- mation covered in the Michign Four—City Survey. Mamr of these studies were done with the main emphasis placed upon consumer preference or behavior with consumer knowledge a minor factor. The studies reviewed are orgnized into the major areas stated in the questionnaire. E" A study concerning consumer preference for shell color was con- ducted by Michigan State University in Detroit, Michigan.1 Panel members were asked to rank five samples of eggs for reactions to various shell ' colors. Sixty percent ranked the samples with all the eggs with white Shells first. Forty percent ranked the samples with all brown shelled * ' #— 1H. E. Larzelere, L. E. Dawson, "Do Consumers Understand Egg and Poultry Grades?" Poultry Processing and Marketing, Specializing in Eggs, Chickens and Turkeys, October 1956, p. 32- 13 eggs second; less than 30 percent ranked these brown shelled eggs as their first preference. The samples of three brown and three white shelled eggs and those with six tinted shells were most often ranked third or fourth. Prices were not attached and. the panel members were instructed to assume identical prices. In another study concerning consumers: preference of shell color in eggs, some 631 consumers in six of Maine‘s largest cities were asked the question, "Do you have a preference for shell color in eggs?" Sixty-hm percent of the housewives interviewed said they preferred brown eggs. About seven percent preferred white eggs. A relatively high proportion (31 percent) had no preference for either color of shell. When consumer performance was tested, the percentage did not run so high in favor of the brown eggs. When'put to the test, 32 percent of the store ales were white eggs and less than 30 percent selected brown 2 eggs. The United States Demrtment of Agriculture summarized existing. Studies to 1953. It was stated that, Preference with regard to shell color varied widely between. different areas, with indications that there is seldom a majority preference for any particular color. Studies showed that where preferences were expressed it was for brown eggs in such New England cities as Providence, Bridge- port, }hrtford, New Haven and Waterbury and for white eggs in New York City, Minneapolis and the negro section of Columbus, Ohio .3 2Richard Saunders, "What Homemakers and Retailers Think About Egg Shell Color," Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, rono, mine Bulletin Shh, January 1956. du 3U. 3.0. A., "Some Highlights from Consumer Egg Studies," Pro- ction and Marketing Adnflnistration, Information Bulletin No, 110, Washington, D. c., June 1953. for :CI‘.*“"°‘ 3c not - 7- at: ' stars 5.5.. ,_ _ i n nfi-r O" +‘,- .vfi-NI C1 \04 ‘ ‘ gases rave He'- iv“ 15 amen C'g'f‘. 0. ngES as ~‘°a_’ -ucb rte AFN»; \D 'n. \A H 15 . Minden in her thesis, " The Consumption Decision and Implications for Consumer Education Programs," reviewed five. studies regarding con- sumers knowledge of egg grades. In her sumary statement she says: "Marxy of the studies concerned with consumer knowledge of egg grades have dealt with the recognition of a high quality egg after it is broken open‘ or with questionspertaining to the qualities of high quality eggs. It was difficult to determine from the data the knowledge of grades as such and their use in buying eggs. The literature surveyed left no doubt however, that the consumer wants a high quality egg which is usually defined in terms of "fresrmessgfland is willing to go to some lmgth. to get these eggs. However, there seemed to be little association ' between Federal egg grades and practices which the consumer followed to locate the desired egg quality." In five cities. consumers were asked to choose the "best“ egg from eggs that were broken open for judging but were not labeled for grade. Seventy to 90 percent selected the AA or A egg. Thus, many consumers do recognize high quality eggs. There was also some indication that as graded eggs were used by consumers there was increased recognition of the higher quality by those consumers. However, there is misunderstand- ing regarding the true meaning of graded eggs—involving size, storage, and. other characteristics not included in the grade. It is apparent She does want and will go to some length to find "fresh" eggs which is her term for a high quality egg. She does not seem to be familiar with 4 lids such as grades which are available to help her in selection of eggs. 4M. B. Minden, "The Consumption Decision and Implications for Con- gumsr Education Programs," (unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Purdue niversity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1957)- I . . r. .1. e o . r 93 e was“ ... a. . 0' w-" .1 up... we. 3 . w“ 3C | . r a s e e l a. n u q a. mm .% e . r“ “ .n.u Du F. n e s . vm. ..Q .r.» be . . M. at 0 F6 In. on m E“ 16 In a Purdue study conducted in 1953, less than half of the con- sumers were aware of the grading terminology. Many who had a correct- idea of high quality according to the standards did not associate this with the Grade A terminologr. The term "fresh egg," apparently had a greater quality appeal than the designation Grade A.5 These facts involving the conalmer' 3 mental picture regarding grade and freshness were substantiated in a, personal interview study conducted in Muskegon in September 1956. When asked, "What does this term 'Grade A Eggs' mean to you?“— ‘ 7 percent said they didn't know,. 16 percent mentioned just size, and 55 percent mentioned they must be "best, fresh, and large." Questions were also asked the consumer in the Muskegon Interview Study to determine if she knew about the trend in supply and prices of small eggs. One question that was asked of those homemakers who had indicated they had bought small eggs was "Can you tell me why you bought 31ml]. eggs?" Of those answering: ' 20 percent didn't think small eggs were ever a. good buy. 50 percent didn‘t know one am or the other, and only 3 percent knew that they were a. good buy per pound or knew that they were a better buy in season.6 ¥ 5"Quality Recognition and Purchasing Habits of Egg Consumers." Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 592, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, July 1953 . EM. Boy-ts, M. Gillespie, and M. Strickland, "Attitudes and Behavior. of Muskegon Homemakers as Related to Consumer Food-Buying Information," (a progress report, from a consumer information evaluation study, Departe- meilt» of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michzingan, March 1957). (Mimeographed) pp. 3, 5. ‘ 17 Meat fixing Selecting Hams: Unpublished data from a consumer panel carried on in Detroit shows definite confusion 'on the part of the homemakers con- cerning the meaning of labels applied. to hams. In April 1957, they were asked to designate how long they would cook the hams they .had chosen. Those hams presented were labeled cooked ham, ready—to-eat, boiled ham and fully cooked. Seventeen percent of those who chose the cooked ham said it needed no extra cooking and 39 percent of those who chose the ready-to-eat ham said it needed no extra cooking. According to the. amount of time and method these meats have already been cooked it would call for just the reverse of these percentages. Again in June, the panel was asked how long they would cook all their choices. More con- sumers thought "ready-to-eat" ham would need no extra cooking than consumers who thought "baked ham" would need no extra cooking. (See '13able 7.) Fully cooked ham was considered by most consumers to need no extra cooking. TABLE 7 . scum OPINIONS 0N AMOUNT OF TmE NEEDED 1m COOKING HAMS* __ A A - v—v v __‘_V WW f fl .1 fi fi fi fi : w Time Neede—dfi v w Specifications No Extra 275O h25o' 3250' ~ No 1:11 11-inch Slices Cooking . 20 Min. 15 Min. ho Min. Choice Baked 71. no ' 20 7 h Fully cooked 101 22 16 h S Smoked boneless - ' 2O h8 29 . no 5 Ready to eat 88 _ 31., 1.9 u 3 flaked ' - 10 50 22 63 3 *Unpublished data from study conducted by Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, H. E. Larzelere. June 3, 1957. 18 The diversity of opinion on all labels indicates a need for clarifi- cation of the meaning of terms on ham labels. Seasonal frgcegcnanges Minden found in her analysis of existing consumer studies that about three fifths of the consumers associated lower prices with a period when a food is "plentiful," and that slightly more believe that there is a seasonal variation in the price of beef. One study states that price is a dominant consideration in the seasonal plrchase pattern of a few foods and. that family size may be a factor in this difference. The references made to consumer knowledge of seasonal price changes for single food items were sketch . In those few studies listed, the per- centages of consumers who reported such awareness ranged from two to twenty-eight percent. It is very possible that in those instances W’here the lowest percentages were reported there is. little or no variety in retail stores which may be termed seasonal. More information is needed to determine the relationship between the actual seasonal price variations in retail stores and the relative awareness of these vari- '7 ations by consumers . United States Department” of Agriculturg Grades of Beef Consumer knowledge manifested in the purchasing of beef is being Studied throughout the country at different universities. The approach ‘kl _ 7M. B. Minden, "The Consumption Decision and Implications for Consumer Education Programs ," (unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1957). ' 19 has been somewhat different in each case. Surveys have employed both direct questions and actual tests in which consumers selected samples of unlabeled meat. In these, the consumer made his or her choice on visual inspection alone. In one particular test, conducted at the University of Missouri, fifty people from a representative group were allowed on four different occasions to make a selection of either steaks or roasts or both. These meats were packaged in cellophane and placed in open sales displays. Each steak and roast was cut to approximately the same size and weight. The four grades, U. S. Prime, U. S. Choice, U. S. Good and U. S. Com- mercial were displayed. After they made their selections, the consumers were asked wh;r they chose the particular cut- and what grade they thought they were buying. It was found in this study that cooperators selected. a large pro- portion of the lower grades of steak even though price was constant. Of the total of 65 steaks selected, )41.1 per cent were U. S. Commercial and 27.? U. S. Goodcompared to 7.7 percent and 21.5 percent for U. S. PI‘ime and U. S. Choice reSpectively.8. I The cooperators were next given a card showing the U. S. Grades of beef by nsme‘ and their relative placing. With the exception of U. 3. Choice grade the number'who correctly related the proper grade term to the meat selected was less than one-fourth of the total. The higher Percentage (13 percent) of those who said they had purchased Choice may __ v s_L__ a"Consumer Preference for. Beef in Relation to Finish," University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 580, March 1955, 4p. 10. 20 have. been due to their acquaintance with the grade as a general term indicating merit. Only two of the eighteen consumers'who had purchased U. S. Good identified it as Good on the card, while all those who had purchased U. 3. Commercial suggested that it) was a higher grade and 51; percent thought it to be equivalent to U. 3. Choice. 1 ‘ This leads to the conclusion that consumers, at the very least, do not agree with the quality standards of the United States Department of Agriculture. Possibly they want different quality characteristics but more likely they lack the knowledge of what to look for in good quality meats. In a survey in Phoenix. Arizona, in 1955, people were asked in a personal interview to name as mny of the United States Department of Agriculture grades as possible. h Only 17 percent of those people interviewed were able to name as many as three of these grades. Sixteen and a half percent could name two, and 16 percent could name one. The remaining 51 percent of the consumers were unacquainted with the U.S.D.A. Federal Beef Grades.9 ' Approximately the same results were obtained in the Houston, Texas study. Eighty-two percent were unable to name one of the U. S. grades. Only one person in twenty could designate the three middle grades normally handled by retail markets. Ignorance of the meat grades was Significantly greater in Houston than in Denver or Phoenix. 9"Consumer Preferences for Beef," Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, Bulletin 26?, October 1955, p. 150 { 21 The mere fact that )4? percent of the Houston residents felt a need for advice in buying meat indicates the extensive con- sumer ignorance of factors helpful in beef selection.10 In the Muskegon personal interview study, the question was asked consumers, "What does the term 'U. 3. Choice' beef. mean to you?" Only three percent of the homemakers knew that "U. S. Choice" grade meat was second to the highest grade of government graded meat . Only six percent had some knowledge about the relative quality of "U. 3. Choice" grade meat.” (See Table 8.) TABLE 8 [REPLIES TO THE QUESTION: "WHAT DOES THE 'I'EPM, U. S. CHOICE BEEFJIEAN TO YOU?" WW . ~ Percentage of Replies Homemakers Responding ‘ v—vfi “— V Y _V W Didn‘t know . _ 16. The "Best” meat ' h? Stamped-- Government Grade or i A "Better Meat.“ - ‘ . 28 More tender meat or the "Best" meat ' ' to be found in stores. 6 Government graded meat which was second to the highest grade. 3 Total _ lOO 1°"The Consumer Market for Beef, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas, Bulletin 856, April 1957, p.11. 11M. Boyts, M. Gillespie, and M. Strickland "Attitudes and Behavior of Muskegon Homemakers as Related to Consumer Food-Buying Infornati on," (a progress report from a consumer information evaluation si‘lsudy, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, March 1957). (Mimeographed) p h 22 marbling £19.. Fat in Bgef One of the criteria for establishing a grade by the United States Demtment of Agriculture is the amount of the narbling present in the mat . Studies have been nade within the last few years on "Consumer Preferences and Ideas Concerning Beef Quality," as in the. Arizona study in. 1955. One point has been presented very clearly, homemakers are not interested in a great amount of marbling. In the Arizona study, photographs showing varying amounts of narbl- ing were shown to the cooperators. "Fifty-nine percent of the people interviewed picked the cut with the least marbling as the one which they would prefer for their family. Eighteen percent selected the cut showing a moderate amount of marbling and 23 percent picked the highly marbled 12 cut .H There appeared to be the same relationship in the Houston, Texas Study, - Houstonians had even less tolerance for marbling than for fat. Only 1 out of 7 families preferred a large amount of marbling, ”cm a medium amount and the remaining )4 of 7 a very small amount, if any at all.13 When actually stating what they looked for when buying meat, one honiemaker in seven Trade selections primarily on the basis of leanness and Just half as many looked. mostly for a medium amount of fat. Only one percent searched for a large amount of fat. Very few shoppers gave any consideration- to marbling in making their selections. \ U 1"“"Consu.mer Preferences for Beef," Agricultural Experiment Station _ ILiversity of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, Bulletin 26?, October 1955, p. 11. 13"The Consumer Market for Beef," _p 33;», P- 15. 23 As consumer mrketing agents have employed the term "marbling" as a. criteria for selecting meats, the tem was included in the Muskegon Personal Interview Survey. Only 2).;- percent of the people interviewed knew marbling was fat distributed through the lean and only two percent knew the fat contributed to the tenderness and grade of beef.“ (See Table 9.) TABLE9 REPLIESTO THE QUESTION, "WHAT DOES THE TERM MARBLING IN MEAT MEAN TO YOU?" . w—t W “— fiv— w_v__ ‘— Percentage of Responses Homemakers Responding Marbling is gristle ~. 1 Don! t know ‘ ' 71 Very vague answer 2 Correct definition 2h Knew value of marbling 2 Total ' ‘ 100 —~ ‘_‘__A__ A LA Food Cost3" In themskegon Personal Interviewfiurvey, questions were asked in an. attempt to determine what consumers knew about food and marketing c“Mists. The term "marketing costs" was included in the lists of terms homemakers were asked to define. .Forty-pfive percent said they "didn't know," and )43 percent said they thought it was the amount it costs for ‘ 14Boyts, Gillespie, and Strickland, pp. cit., p. 3. 2h food shopping or the price of particular foods. Only six percent said they thought it was the cost of getting food from the farmer to the consumer. i The question was also asked, "In your opinion, why is it that Choice round steak now costs about 89 cents per pound when the farmer is getting about 25 cents per pound for Choicecattle?" Fifty-three pex‘cent mentioned handling charges, or only middlemen; ten percent mentioned middlemen and the idea of waste or lower priced cuts included with higher priced cuts. (See Table .10.) TABLE 10 REPLIES TO THE QUESTION, "IN YOUR OPINION WHY IS ..IT THAT CHOICE RWND STEAK NOW COSTS ABOUT 89 CENTS PER POUND WHEN THE FARMER IS GETTING ABOUT 25 CENTS PER POUND FOR CHOICE CATTLE?"* —_ L A__ ‘_‘_n — ‘—V' —‘ W m w ‘- A_‘ A _ Percentage of V? w F7 Reaponses Homemakers Responding Didn't know ' 19 Handling charges or udddlemen 53 A percentage loss in butchering-and 7 all of the animal isn't steak. 8 Mentioned added services, butchering retailing costs, etc. 10 Mentioned middlemen and the idea of waste or lower priced cuts included with higher priced cuts. . . lo ‘ Total ‘ c ’ 100 *M. Boyts, M. Gillespie, and M. Strickland, "Attitudes and Behavior D‘ “Muskegon Homemakers as Related to Consumer Food-Buying Information." epartment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East ing, Michigan, March 1957, (Mimeographed) p. h. Another question asked, "Do you have any idea how much of the average dollar you spend for food gets back to the farmer?" Of thoSe answering, 62 percent said they had no idea. Twenty-three percent thought they had an idea but guessed wrong. (They had the idea that the farmer gets very little .) Fifteen percent answered that the farmer gets between 30 and 50 percent. M It. has been found through consumer preference studies that most homemakers have fairly complete knowledge concerning eggs to correctly select top quality eggs when brokenfrom the shell. _ But they do not have as complete a blowledge'regarding grading terminology and incor- rectly associate factors such as size, storage and color of the shell in the requirauents for .top graded eggs. She also incorrectly connects high quality with the term "fresh." Preference studies for egg shell Color point out that homemakers preference for shell color varies with 13118 geographic area. The most pronounced preference was for brown Shelled eggs in the New England cities and white eggs in the Detroit Panel. Study. It was found that consumers preference was slight as indicated by the fact that with a small raise in price consumers plrchased other eggs than the stated preference. Descriptive labels on partially cooked hams are not understood by “any homemakers. There is a wide variety of opinions on how long each should be cooked and a possible tendency to misinterpret some labels as "readyhto-eat hams." 26 At present, data is not available which determines very completely the relative knowledge or awareness of consumers to seasonal price variation. Some studies do estimate, according to Minden, that three- fifg‘ths of the consumers associate lower price with a period when food is "plentiful" and a few more believe'thereis a seasonal, price vari- ation in the price of beef. It was pointed out in the Muskegon Inter- view Study that only three percent of the homemkers knew about the seasonal price variation of small eggs . Homemakers in general do not understand specifically the meaning of U. 5. Beef grades. Fifty-one percent in the Phoenix study were aiLtogether unacQJainted with the names and even fewer consumers knew abcut the relative quality of the grades, (three to six percent). Only 21; percent of Muskegon homemakers could give a clear definition 0f "marbling." Consumers preferred a very snall amount of marbling, if any at all, in the preference studiesconcerning beef. It is hypothe- sized, as in the Muskegon Study, consumers do not have a clear idea of its function. Fifty-three percent of Muskegon homemkers have some‘knowledge of Ineurketing charges in regard to middlemen. The term "marketing costs," however, does not'bring to mind costs from producer to retailer as much as the idea of the cost of food at‘the market. ., CHAPTER III KNOWLEDGE AND OPINIONS OF mcnrcsn Homms ON GIVEN STATEMENTS The statements presented in the Four-City Conmnngrjumey. give acme ‘ 3". ”Mafia W I: indication of the general level of knowledge of Michiganyhomenakers on these particular subjects: Eggs ' Meat buying . __ Grades of beef and When Reconstituted non-fat dry milk Applermd . Feed—costs. Each statement will be presented with a short explanatory dis- cussion. 'An analysis of the data obtained follows each group of state- ments which are orgnized by general area of information. 5 . The homemaker wa/s given achoice ofm with the statement, m f» lac/9")» . disagreeing or checking "no opinion." The correctresponse to each question accompanies the discussion, plus the code number of each Statanent. In the analysis of the individual question, the numbers “filed for coding will be referred to rather than repeating each individual Statemen . The attempt is made to determine in which areas of information consumers have the higher level of knowledge. This will be determined by the relative number of statements homemakers answered correctly in each area. 27 28 One of the purposes of this study was to determine the number or percent of homemakers who knew the correct answers to particular questions. If all homemakers knew the answer there is little point in emphasizing the area of information represented by the question. I A. problem in measurement is introduced by the fact that some of the home- makers may guess the correctnnswer and thus simply using the percent of homemakers checking the correct responses would give misleading results. For example, if allhomemakers simply guessed at the answer to a particu- lar question and in fact none of them knew the answer it would be expected that about 50 percent would check the right answer and SO per- cent the wrong answer . The simple subtraction of the percent answering incorrectly from the percent answering correctly would provide the correct estimate that none knew the answer . However, this study used a questionnaire calling for one of three responses, agree, disagree and no opinion. It is necessary tomake several assumptions in order to interpret the results. The assumptions made were that some of the homemakers guessed at the answer and that the chances were 504-50 that the ones who guessed would guess the correct answer which would be either the agree or disagree response. It was further assumed that none of those who guessed , checked "no opinion." In other words, all of those who checkedflno opinion" or said they did not know the answer, actually did not. know.- It was? determined from these asslmptions that the best estimate of the number who guessed would be twice that of the number who checked the wrong answer, or the per- cent wrong Subtracted from the percent right responses. The formula was 29 named the Index of. Knowledge. An ample of some estimations using the index would be, if 50 percent checked the right answer and 15 percent checked the wrong answer? 35 percent of the homemakers are estimated as "knowing" the correct response. And. if 65 percent checked the right answer and 30 percent checked the wrong answer, 35' percent are again estimated as “mowing" the correct answer. The Index of Knowledge then, includes and weights the. fact that homemakers hchecked "no opinion" when in doubt, rather than guessing. The possible range of percentages using this Index is from 100 to ~100. If 100 percent of the homemkers answered correctly and 0 percent answered incorrectly, ("no opinion" would automtically be 0) there is a. possible answer of 100 percent of the homemakers knowing the correct answer, or perfect knowledge. Conversely, if 100 percent of the home- makers answered incorrectly and 0 percent reaponded to the correct answer, the Index would read -lOO percent. This situation would be an extreme example where homemakers probably possessed misinformation on that mrticular subject . A middle Index reading of 0 knowledge is I‘68.:zhed when the same percent of homemakers answer incorrectly as the Percent that answer correctly. With the assumption that as many people who checked the wrong rasponse or " guessed" wrong also guessed right, the Index of Knowledge might underestimate the percent of homemakers who "knew" the right answer. The homemakers may have thought they knew the right answer and. r'gfilessed" right which is very close to "knowing" the right answer. 30 Eggs Following is theueodegnumber, statement, correct answe3,and dis- vcussion on.each egg buyinglquestioni ll "White eggs are better quality than.brown eggs." Disagree ‘White eggs are not a better quality than.brown. The color of the shell has no effect on the inside quality of eggs. Shell color is due to the breed of the chicken. Brown shelled eggs may be somewhat more difficult to candle-properly, but U. S. Egg Grade Specifications are based on.inside egg quality rather than shell color. 12 "Eggs labeled 'Fresh' must be-graded and meet Grade A Standards." Disagree 'Eggs labeled "Fresh” may or may not have been graded to \ meet Grade.A standards. There are some restrictions and according to the "Egg Law and Regulations," by the Bureau of Marketing and Enforcement,"eggs labeled fresh cannot be used in connection with eggs which have been subject to artificial refrigeration for.a period of exceeding hS days," but they do not have to be Grade.A.1 13 "Small eggs are usually less expensive per pound than large eggs during September." Agree This is true because Spring chickens that are raised over the summer have just begun to lay small pullet eggs. There is an abundance of these eggs and the price is usually very favorable. This is figured from the minimum ‘weight requirements of 18 oz. for small eggs and 2h oz. for large eggs. For example, if small eggs are selling for 31 cents a dozen they'cost.l.7 cents an 02. and if large eggs are selling at Sh cents a dozen they cost 2.3 cents.an oz. (Prices obtained from recent year. Prices k iBureau of\Marketing and Enforcement, (Division of Foods and standards), "Egg Law and Regulations," Act No. 115, Public Acts, State of Michigan, Department -of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan, 1939. 31 for large and small eggs for the last four years in September were as follows:2 Large Eggs Small Eggs 19Sh t .52 t .22 1955 .61 .31; . 1956 . .514 . . .25 1957 .514 .31 114. "To meet-the standards for Grade A eggs, they must be large and all white." ‘ . Disagree The standards for Grade. A eggs do not involve either the color of the shell or the size. The standardized weights for large, medium and small sized eggs all can be Grade A. 15 "Grade B eggs are suitable for cooking." Agree Grade B eggs may have somewhat larger air cells for example, or a blood spot which can easily be taken out if desired. The quality of the egg remains suitable for baking and cook- ing, other than poaching and frying. The responses to these statements from the nail survey are summ- ized in Table 11. Statement 11, "White eggs are a better quality than brown eggs," was one of the three that most of the homemkers answered correctly. This statement tested the hypothesis that homeamkers in Michigan believe White eggs to be a better quality than brown eggs. This was not sub- Stantiated as 77 percent of the homemakers in the Four-City Mail Survey ¢0rrectly disagreed with the statement. As few homemakers answered this question incorrectly, the Index of Knowledge was 66 percent. (See Table 1],.) x w v 20. s. D. A., Agricultural Marketing Service, Annual Smmrary of Market Statistics, collected and compiled by Dairy and Poultry Market 9313 Office, Statistical Bulletin No. 277, Washington, D. C. 32 TABLE 11 maspousss 'ro STATEMENTS ON EGG BUYING?“ LAA 4* ¥ V W — ——v—va w— fi fi—VF—i *— . A . w 7—W—7 wiv— Stat eigent Response '11 " l2 ' 13" ' Q: ‘E4 13 I; No. § No. i No. No. No. Agree 207' 11 1202 6A L328 A6. 329 18 1256 _6_]_ Disagree 1&5 11 Q33 2; 303 1.6 12 o _§_6_ 229 12 No opinion“ 232 12 250 13 723 38 306 16 399 21 —v.fi_ v7 fl v—r—vw—f fi—i—v—f 7v —— v —_ Total 188h 100 1881; 100 1881. 100 1881; 100 1881. 100 Index of knowledge 66 ~hl 30 11,8 55 w—V—v—V gUnderlined numbers are the correct answers. ‘Blanks are included with no opinions. Statement 12, concerning whether or not homemakers considered the term "fresh" an indication the eggs had been graded and met Grade A Standards was incorrectly answered by 6).; percent of the homemakers. They agreed that "fresh" eggs must be graded and were Grade A eggs. This plus the fact that 13 percent of the homemakers had no knowledge gave an Index of Knowledge of -hl, indicating that 61; percent of the homemakers possibly had misinformation. Thirty-eight percent of the homemakers stated no opinion regarding the seasonal supply and price of small eggs, (Statement 13). Only 15.6 percent answered this question correctly as shown in Table 11. The per- <3eIltage of homemakers who answered the statement with "no opinion" indicates either consumers do not understand the "per pound" idea or have no conception of seasonal prices. Either answer offers a sub ject ‘f 01‘ consumer education. 33 About 66 percent of the homemakers correctly answered statements 11; and 15. \ Statement 11;, "To meet the standard for Grade A eggs, they must be large and all white," includes two incorrect suggestions- . Homemakers may have disagreed for either reason. As .18 percent of the homemakers answered the statements incorrectly, the Index of Knowledge was 118, providing an estimate of the percent who knew the‘ correct answer. As few answered statement 15 incorrectly, (Grade B eggs are suit- able for cooking"), and more answered that they had "no opinion," 55 percent are estimated to have some idea of the use for different quality eggs. (See Table 11.) - Statements 11, 12, lb, and 15 were included in the tabulation of. the number of correct answers each homemaker answered correctly. These statements were considered the most alike in subject 'matter. Statement 13 was included with those questions tabulated under the subject of seasonal supply and price of foods. ' _ . The largest percentage of homemkers, 35 pércent, answered three out of these four questions correctly, only 111 percent answered all four correctly. Table 12 indicates that most homemakers answered at least two or three questions correctly. TABLE 12 NUMBER OF cosm'r RESPONSES ABOUT EGG BUYING 1:“ _ WEI; EflEQEGSE 119319011399; _ _ . O l 2 3 it Total Nmnber of homemakers 1119 281 522 670 262 1881. Percent of homemakers 8 15 28 35 11. 100 \ ll _ ' . TVv—v fl ‘— fiv— W Following is the code number, statement, correct answer and dis— cussion on. each question regarding meat buying. 16 "The lower grades of beef do not have quite as much nutritional value as do the higher grades." Disagree Nutritional value, defined as' that amount of food energy, vitamins, minerals and protein contained in food3 is figured on the amount of fat, bone and lean present in the meat.4 When this is held. constant, nutritional value is constant and not necessarily dependent on grade. ' 17 "The larger the percentage of the center section of a whole pork loin that is included in a pork roast, the more desirable it will be." , Agree The center section contains a whole solid muscle and provides a larger proportion of lean wt to bones and fat than the ends. The more of this Section that is included, the better roast it will mks. This center section is often sliced for pork chops. . 18 "A fresh Boston.Butt at he; a pound will give you more lean pork per dollar than a fresh Picnic Shoulder at 3915 a pound." Agree A Boston Butt is composed of a percentage of lean meat to the bone and fat that allows three to four servings per pound. Fresh Picnic Shoulder whm cooked yields about two servings per pound. The Boston Butt, thm, only costs 11; cents a serving and Fresh Picnic Shoulder costs 18 cents a serving. This gives you more servings from the Boston Butt or more lean meat per dollar spent. ‘ ' A 3"Ten Lessons on Meat for Use in Schools," National.Livestock and lienzt Board, Chicago, Illinois, 1950. - 4Comrprg§ition of Foods, Handbook No. 8, U. S. D. A. Washington, D.c” ewo. - 35 19 "The amount of edible meat per pound is usually greater for ’ a Butt Portion than for the Butt Half of hem of. equal quality." Disagree When hams are labeled "Butt portion," they usually refer to the aitchbone piece with the ham steaks sliced off. This takes a big portion of the lean meat off the Butt half, leaving a smaller proportion of lean meat per pound on the Butt portion. 20 "Most people would find that ham labeled "Ready-to—eat" is cooked enough to eat without further cooking." Disagree Although this. question can only: be ansmred by data determining exactly what most people would say, it has an answer in that Ready~to-eat hams require more cooking to make them the most palatable. If homemakers thoroughly understood the terminology they would probably find more cooking desirable. ' 22 "There is usually more difference in price between chuck roast and steak in the summer than in the fall and winter months ." Agree Because of consumer demand-in the summer for quick cooking cuts and the supply of U. S. Good and U. S. Choice beef, there is usually a larger difference between chuck roast and steak in the summer months . The price of steaks rises; somewhat and the price of chuck roast stays about the same.5 The responses to these six statements from the mail survey are Wicca in Table ‘13-. Statement 16, "The lower grades of beef do. not have quite as much nutritional value as. do the higher grades," servesas an "opener" to this section on meat buying facts. It gives some indication of whether 01‘ not grade makes a difference in the nutritional value of meats. _ Seventy-five percent of the consumers thought it did not. -k _ v—7 v— v—‘v ~ 511. F. BreimVer and Charlotte A. Kanse, U. s. D. A. Agricultural Handbook No. 83, Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D.- c. p. 35. 36 TABLE 13 RESPONSES To STATEMENTS ON 1mm BUYING* A w A—4 F: W Mw— v—v j—f v w m—f‘v‘fi -—v fi . I . m ‘ fi vi v—fi Statement 1 .1 Response ‘ ll 12 2O . 22 No. 63 No. No. 8; No. No. 3 N . 3 Agree 286 15 1212 .69 18;; .19. 37b 20 66b 35 21539 Disagree 3386 35 21711 370 20 . £6125 108658 289 15 No opinion‘ 212 11 395 21 63b 39 loh3 55 1314 7 839 as ~— Total - 1881; 100 188).; loo 1881; 100 lash 100 1881; 100 188).; 100 Index of . Knowledge 59 57 : 21 5 23 25 vv—vfif v—~ v—v—v v v fi 7‘ ——_—’ 7_v *Underlined munbers are the correct responses. ”Blanks are included with no opinions. A majority of the homemakers (68 percent) also agreed to the fact that "The larger the percentage of the center section of a whole pork loin in a roast the more desirable it will bet" . A Smaller majority knew and. understood this fact as indicated by the Index~ of Knowledge (57 percent). When the amount per pound was used in statement 18, plus the terms Boston Butt and Picnic Shoulder, onl;r 111 percent answered the statement corI‘ectl . Thirty-five percent said they had "no opinion." This determined the Index ofKnowledge .of 21 percent of the homemakers who actually knew the~ Correct answer. ‘ When edible meet per pound was considered in statement 19, only 25 Pereent of the homemakers correctly'disagreed with the statement. 37 Fifty-five percent said they had "no opinion." The unfamiliarity with the terms "Butt Portion," and "Butt Half" when the actual product could. not be seen could be apossible cause for the higher percentage of no opinions. The Index of Knowledge'indicates that only five percent of the hOmenakers knew the correct answer . , As the study by Larzalere has implied, consumers might not have 'a clear understanding of the labels on hams in the market. Statement 20 tests this hypothesis. . Only 57 percent of the homemakers correctly disagreed with the statement that, "Most ‘ people would find that ham labeled 'Ready-to—eat' is cooked enough without further cooking." Thirty-five percent of the homemakers agreed that most people would ‘c-arisider "Readyhtro-eat" hams need not be cooked. . A knowledge of seasonal prices and meat cuts was necessary to cor- rectly answer statement .22, "There is usually more difference in. price between chuck roast and steak, in the summer than in the fall and winter months." Forty percent of the hOmemakers correctly agreed with the statemeit, but with 38 percent stating "no opinion," the Index of ' Knowledge indicates that only 25 percent of the-homemakers have the Correct knowledge about the relative priCes of meats in these seasons. Statements 17, 18, 19 and 22 were. included in the tabulation of the number of" correct responses about meat buying. These statements "are considered to be the most alike in this meat buying area, of I"3:l )42 B. .Marbling in Beef Following is the code number, statement, correct answer and dis- cussion on. each question regarding marbling in beef. 21 .29 33 "The fat around the edge of beef is known as the marbling." ' 'Disagree Marbling is the small amount of fat interspersed throughout the lean, not the fat that is around the edge. "The higher the grade of beef the less fat it will have.". Disagree The fat, if anything, will increase somewhat with the higher grades of beef. "You can usually expect more marbling in a higher grade of beef ." ' Agree You can expect more marbling. This is a sign of a better finish to the cattle, more tender, tastier meat and therefore a higher grade. Homemakers responses to these three statements from the mail survey are Samaria-ed in Table 17. TABLE 17 RESPONSES To STATEMENTS ON MARBLING IN BEEF% . . . -, Statements ' . _ ' g_ 21 - ' , 2 * 32 m Beams” m. .. _ No. -- No. 2 Agree 35).; 19 381 20 10 23 5.1L Disagree .628. 113 1216 pg , 282 15 No opinion%* - 712 38 227 '12 '579 31 Total 1881.1 100 18811 100 ' 18811 100 1 Index of Knowledge‘ ‘. 2h « DB -39 *:The underlined numbers are the correct responses. Blanks are included with the ”no opinions." 113 Various methods and vocabulary have been employed by those engaged in consumer education. Among the words that have been used when teach- ing homemakers how to judge beef quality, is the term "marbling." From the previous studies in Arizona and Texas, it has been found that con- sumers do not know what the term means, and do not even connect it with the quality of beef. In the Muskegon personal interviewlsurvey, 71 per- cent of the homemakers simply said they "didn' t know" what marbling was . Statement 21, in the Four-City Survey, "The fat around the edge of beef is known as the marbling," again tested to some degree the homemakers! knowledge of the term. As in the Muskegon survey, a relatively low percentage. of homemakers answered the question correctly, (113 percent) and 39 percent stated they had "no Opinion." According to the Index of Knowledge only 211 percent of the homemakers knew what the term meant. Statement 29, "The higher the grade of beef, the less fat it will have," was inserted as a check question to determine the homemakers8 chception of the relationship between fat and grades of beef. Sixtyr eight percent answered the question correctly, with an estimation of about 1.18 percalt of the homemakers who understood the relationship betwem grades of beef and the amount of fat. 8 Only 39 percent of the homemakers were estimated to know the c’OI'IlPect reaponse to, "1011 can usually expect more marbling in a higher grade of beef." A Statements 21, 29 and 33 were the three statements relative to maJI‘bling in beef included in the tabulation of the correct responses of each homemaker. - Only 3l_percent of the homemakers answered all three of these statements corre tly and 21 percent of the homemakers did not answer any of them correctly as shown in Table 18. TABLE 18 1 NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES.ABOUT MARBLING IN BEEF ¥N_u_mber of gonect Responses O - 1 2 3 Total Number of homemakers 391 11,614 13).; S95 1881; Percent of homemakers 21 25 23 ’, 31 100 __.a A L m w V—f—w v—V—v mm fifi m Reconstitutedgygn-Eat Dry Milk Following is the code number, statement, correct answer and dis- cussion oneach question regarding reconstituted non-fat dry milk. 21; "It does not taste as good as fresh skim milk." No answer [The answer to this statement depends upon the taste of the reader. The statement was included to Hake the questiomxaire appear less like a test. I 0 25 "It has only about half the number of calories per glass as fluid whole milk." Agree As cream is extracted from whole milk to make this non-fat dry skim milk it contains only about half the calories of whole _ milk. 6 II‘ .——e—‘~‘ fl v—VVfi—v 6"Instant Nonfat Dry Milk, Its Role in Nutriti on," Research Division of Pet Milk Co., St Louis, Missouri, 1955, p. S. 1:5 [\ 26 "It costs about 1/3 as much as fluid whole milk." Agree Present prices indicate this to be true. J :1, 27 "It has all the vitamins and minerals that are in fluid whole ‘ milk except Vitamin A. Agree Since non-fat dry milk solid is plre milk with only water and fat removed, the water soluble vitamins remain as a component of the, milk solids. As stated by the Cornell Extension Bulletin, "Good Cooking with Dry Milk," "It has all the protein, milk- sugar, and minerals in the same relative proportions as in fluid milk, and a large amount of the riboflavin (one of the B vitamins). Only a small amount of the fat and Vitamin A of the whole milk are in the non-fat solids.“ ' Homemakers! reaponses to these fourstatements from the mail survey are summarized in Table 19. TABLE 19 RESPONSES TO surname ON NON-FAT DRY SKIM M1116": 9—4 A 4 vw—Vfiv—w—v w v w w v—v—vw—w W vw—wr v 'fv WVVT W v—w Fffi v—vfi“ Statemmts Reaponse 0.?)i_ lfiWfi 0.2? 26fi — -2 224 A0. k i No. fl Agree 1032 55 gig 5Q 1213 gt, Q; fill Disagree 351 19 272 11; 89 5 272 1).; No opinion“- 501 26 S93 36 500 31 971 52 Total- f 1881; loofi 18814 100 last 100 1881. 100 Index of Knowledge - 36 S9 20 v m —7 fifi‘fifi __v m EThe underlined numbers are the correct responses. , Blanks are included with the "no opinions." w r— 7"Good Cooking. with Dry Milk," Cornell Extension Bulletin, Bulletin 8011,, May 1952, p. 2. - he The first statement, "It does not taste as good as fresh skim.mi1k," is analyzed only as the opinion of the homemakers. 'What-gg_people ' think of nonrfat dry skim milk? Nineteen percent of the homemakers disagreed that "It does not taste as good as fresh skim milk."' As it is generally thought that it is easier to agree with a statement than to disagree, these opinions could be regarded as fairly positive. The tendency for homemakers when answering the next three questions concerning nonefat dry milk was to either answer them all or to express "no opinion" about all three. Homemakers had a much better idea of the cost of'nonefat dry milk than it's calorie or vitamin content. Sixty- five percent of the homemakers answered statement 26 correctly, or - relativeto the Index of Knowledge about 60 percent knew the correct answer. 'The Indexes of Knowledge for statements 25 and 27 were only 36 and 20 respectively. Thirty-six percent knew how many calories it con— tained and 20 percent knew the vitamin.and mineral content. .A compariSon of these responses.brings forth the large percentage of homemakers who had no opinion about.the fact that Vitamin A is the only vitamin or mineral missing from non-fat dry skim milk. This might indicate homemakers feel they know very little about this aspect of dryh skim milk. Statement 2b was the only one not included in the tabulation of correct responses about nonefat dry milk. This statement did not have a correct answer other than the opinion of the homemaker and could obviously'not be tabulated as a "correct" response. Statements 25, 26 and 27 were counted. 1:? Forty-seven percent of the homemakers were able to answer only one or none of the three questions correctly. (See Table 20.) This would indicate that generally homemkers do not know the facts about non-fat dry milk. ' TABLE 20. NUMBER OF CORREBT. RESPONSES ABOUT NON-FAT DRY 3m MILK WWW Number of Correct Responses O l ' 2 ' ' ' ‘ 3 1 ‘ Total Number of homemakers 515 - 378 ' 561 h30 1881f Percmt‘ of homemkers 27 20 I 30 I 23 100 ABE les Following is the code number, statement, correct answer and dis- cussion on each question regarding apples. 3).; "The Delicious variety of apples makes better pies than the Macintosh variety." Disagree The Maclntosh variety of apple is known by food experts as the better variety for Mg pies. The flavor, water content and texture of Delicious apples make them preferable for salads and eating out of hand. 35 Ifmchiganls grading laws giveyou reliable guides to the quality of fruits and vegetables." No anmrer The question mst be interpreted by each reader and therefore is based upon his opinion. He may or may not find them reliable guides. - 1:8 ' 36 "According to Michigan law, all. Michigan apples must be identified by grade when sold." Agree ' . a Apples must be identified by grade when sold in Michigan. 37 "The only difference between 'U. s. 1' and 'U. s. chy' is the color of apple." , Agree The only difference when commring specifications for grades U. S. l and U. S. Fancy9 in Michigan Inspection Law are the requirements for color.9 Homemakers responses to these four statements from the mail survey are summarized in Table 21. TABLE 21 RESPONSES To STATEMENTS ON APPLES"? r—v‘ .— v—v W—v h V ‘_. ~— _‘ ‘4‘ #1 fi‘ v fifi fi— fi v— f—f rfi Statements A Response _03E1\;0.3E 0036;31 Agree 13; ‘7' 1136 60 852 AS 218 12 Disagree 1199. 89 190 .10 262 111 811 113 No optuon‘” 219-13 558 30 760 in 855. us Total W 18811 100 fi 1881300 18814 100 fl 1881; 100 Index of Knowledge 73 . SO . 31 -31 fiV—v fifi W “Wm *:The underlined numbers are the correct reaponses. Blanks are included with no opinions. A -_4 A v v—vw fi 3"Michigan Apple Marketing Law Standard Grades for Apples," Michigan Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Marketing and Enforcement, Lansing 13, Michigan, August 1953, p. 3. 9"Standard Grades for Fruits and Vegetables," Michigan Department of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan, p. 3. 1;? As shown in Table 21, most homemakers disagreed with the statement that "The Delicious variety of apple makesbetter pies than the MacIntosh variety. Another indication homemakers had a pretty fair knowledge how apples can best be used was the Index of Knowledge of 73.. This percent of the homemakers men that MacIntosh apples are generally recognized as the better apple for pies. Sixty percent of the homemers agreed that Michigan's grading laws give them reliable guides to the quality of fruits and vegetables. Ten percent said that they did not. (See Table 21 .) The last We statements in this‘area (36 and 37) were both correct, but only 115 percent. of the homermkers correctly agreed that, "According to Mchigan law all apples mst be identified by grade when sold." The Index of Knowledge indicates that only 31 percent of the homemakers knew that this statement was true. On the last statement involving the Specifications for grading apples, 1.15 percent of the homemakers indi- cated that they had "no opinion," and'h3 percent incorrectly disagreed, and only 12 percent answered correctly. This opposite opinion is expressed by the Index of Knowledge oral; an indication homsmkers had a. definite thought that there must be some other specification between U. S. l and U. S. .Fancy than color of the apple. Almost one-half of the homemkers did not answer any of the ques- tions correctly in this area and ‘39. percent answered only one.‘ (See fliable 22 .) Less than one percent Of the homemakers correctly answered the four questions. The questions the homemakers most frequently answered correctly were the ones concerning the apple varieties and Michigan SO grades providing a guide to quality. When definite knowledge was re—~ quired, concerning- grades’and their specifications, very few homexrakers answered the questions correctly. . Only statements 3 5, 36 and 37 were included in the tabulation of correct responses about apples .. These three all concerned apple grades while statement 31; was about the variety and use of apples. TABLE 22 NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT APPLES fig ’HNumber officvorrectfiljesggonses O . _ l 2 " 3 . Total Number of homemakers 926 735 . 199 211 1881. Percent of homemkers .119 39 . ll 1 100' Food.Cost§ Following is the code number, statement, correct answer and dis- cus‘Sion on each question regrding food costs. ' 38 "The Average American worker is Spending about the same percentage of his income for food today as he did in l9hO." Agree The percent of disposable income the Average Anerican worker 'spent for food has not fluctuated more than 2 percent above or below 25 percent since the 1935'39 average .- The 1935-39 average was 23 percent, 25 percent in 19116 and is again 25 percent in 1957.10 \ fifi ' ' 10U. s. D. 11., The Marketing and Transportation Situation, Agri- culture Marketing Service, Washington, D. 0., April 1958, p. 13. 51 39 "It costs twice as much today to process and market food as the farmer gets for growing it." Disagee The farmers share of the total money spent for food is about 110 percent. Marketing and processing costs then are not twice as nmch but about 1.3 to 1.5 again as much as the farm value. The exact relationship as stated. by the U. S. D. A. Marketing and Transportation Situation in 1957 is 620 for the *Farm to Retail Price Spread! to 1129 for the 'Farm Value.“11 ho "It would take the average Anerican worker more time today ' then it did in 191:0 to earn the money needed to buy the same food he bought .in 19110.- Disagree If the average American worker were to buy the exact foods he bought in 1910, it would take him less time to earn the money to buy the food. Or another way to put it, if he were to be content with the foods he ate just before World War II it would take 5 percent less of his income today to eat as he did in 19110.12 The average hourly earnings in 1939 were $1.28 and in 1957 were 82.10.13 The food prices have not gone up propor- tionately. Homemakers responses to these three statements from the mail survey are suImrarized in Table 23. The, Index of Knowledge indicates that consumers have nLisinfomtion on all three statements . As 611 percent of the homemakers incorrectly disagreed. with state- melt 38 "The average Anerican worker is Spending about the same percent- age of his income for food today as he. did in 19110," they must feel he is Spending a larger or smaller percentage of his income than he did v' _—V——v 11‘l.'b:1.d., p. 6. 1“"Ii‘amily Food Facts, Agricultural and Home Economics Extension Service, Pennsylvania State University, November 26, 1957. 13H. S. D. A., The Marketing and Transportation Situation, _q__o. cit., p. l, and M. E. Cravens, "Market Basket Higher Priced but Costs Fewer Hours Work," Pflchigan Farm Economics, September 1951, p. 1. S2 '1‘ABI..E23 RESPONSES TO STATEMENT 0N FOOD cons" l 1 ' Statements 3 Responses m 38W W 32 i W 50W . _ No. - . No. No. . Agree . 2.55 2-2 , 81.1 1.5 71.5 110' Disagree - 12111 611 33g 33 192 38 . No opinion“ -. 215 17 803 132 1.30 - 22 Total , 1881:100— 1881ffi100 1881. 108* Index of Knowledge . -15 -32 -02 Q __ ‘ ‘_A_ A_. ___‘ LA; ww— ———- j—v— fi T w v—v W—w iThe underlined number are the correct responses Blanks are included with the "no opinions." ' in 19110. The Index of Knowledge 'of -SL, percent supports the thought that over 50 percent of the homemakers have incorrect opinions regarding the relative percentages of income that is spent for food. - Only 1.3 percent correctly disagreed with the thought that it costs twice as hmch to process and market food today as the farmer gets for growing it. The element of whether or not it costs quite that much was not considered. Homemkers have been impressed with the fact that marketing services are expensive so this thought was probably the most- prominent in their minds. The Index of Knowledge of -32 supportsthe analysis that homemakers have misinformation concerning marketing costs . The Index of Knowledge of ~02 ~ percent indicates that very few con- sumers thought out statement to, at least correctly. An analysis would suggest that almost as many homemakers guessed correctly as incorrectly. 53 In the total area of food costs, 50 percent of the homemakers did not answer any of the questions correctly and another 33 percent only answered one correctly. This would indicate homemakers have little information in regard to this particular area of infomtion. Only two percent answered the‘three questions correctly. (See Table 21;.) TABLEZL'. mm OF CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT FOOD COSTS .v—W W V—r " 7—‘7 W w _ -a..- A._ -.____- A L 4__. mv—v w v—v—w W v—V __f —f Nut er of Correct Responsesg 0 “li— “2 _ 3 W ‘ Total Number of homemakers . 9L6 612 289 38 . 188).; Percent of homemakers. . 50 33 ‘ 15 2 ‘ 100 Summr'lc The level of knowledge in general can be described as fairly low on these mticular areas of infonmtion. With the exception of eggs, not more than one-third of the homemakers had adequate knowledge to correctly respond to three or four of the statements in any area. If the statements in each area are considered comparable, the home- ' makersf' knowledge was most complete onthe subject of "eggs." The most homemakers (25 percent) answered three questions correctly in this area, while 114 percent more anSNered four correctly. (See Table 25. ) Mo st , Michigan homemakers do not consider white eggs a better quality than brown eggs. They do believe though, that if'they are labeled "fresh," they must have been graded and meet Trade A- standards. Homenakers do not have a clear understanding of the qualities needed for a grade A egg,- Sh although 66 percent of the homemkers correctly disagreed with the .3th that grade A eggs must. be large and an white. TABLEZS NUMBER OF CORREET RESPONSES OF Hows IN ALL AREAS OF INFORMATION Al‘eas of w . . Number of pqrrect Responges Information 6 l 2 No. I g No. i No. 3 No. No. Eggs 1R9 ~ 8 '281 15 522 28 670 25 262 1h Meat buying 296 16 517 ‘27- 555 30 hlé 22 100 5 Meat grades 25h 111 M9 2h .552 29 528 28 103 S Marbling in beef 391 21 11,61; 25 11311 23 595 31 -- -- Non-fat dry mm 515 27 378 20 561. 30 1130 23 .... .. Apples 926 119 735 39 ' 199 11 2h 1 -- -- Food costs - 9115. 50 612 33 289. 15 38 2 .. .. A L A w—‘r v —— V?— f fl Meat buying, meat: grades and marbling in beef were the areas next most familiar to the homemkers. Of this group, consumers knew the least about marbling in beef. Twentywne percent of the homemakers did not answer any statements correctly and another 25 percent answered only one correctly. The term "marbling," as indicated in previous studies is not clear to most homemakers. From the Index of Knowledge, only )43 per- cait knew that it was not the fat arbund the edge of beef. Homemakers possessed more knowledge on. buying meats for certain uses and cooking methods than the relative quality lof meats by grade. Seventy percent of the homemakers correctly agreed that a higher grade is more important when choosing steak than when choosing chuck roast, 55 but on the questions concerning the actual grade name and their relative quality only 52 and 53 percent of the homemakers answered correctly. Consumers knew the least about apple grading and the economic aspects of food costs. Only one and two percent of the homemakers answered all three questions correctly in these two areas. A very low percentage of homemakers possessed knowledge on the sub- ject of seasonal prices. Only 30 percent of the homemakers knew that- small eggs are usually cheaper per pound in September, according to the Index of Knowledge, and 25 percent of the homemakers knew the price spread between steak and chuck roast is usually more in summer months than the winter months. In a few cases, homemakers possess misinformation concerning food buying. The most prominent is in the area of food costs. More homemakers have false conceptions of the relationship between the cost of food and in- dustrial wages and the cost of marketing and processing of foods than have the “true facts. As indicated previously, 14.1 percent of the homemakers falsely believe that when eggs are labeled "fresh," they met be graded and meet Grade A standards. And last, as suspected from the free response answers in the Muskegon Survey, homemakers have the incorrect idea that the United States Inspection Stamp and the United States Grade Stamp is PI‘Obably the same thing. Sixty-five percent incorrectly agreed that beef that has been inspected and mssed has also been graded by the United States Government. When names of specific cuts of meat were included in a statement, in all cases few homemakers understood them and were able to answer them 56 correctly. As in Statement 18 involving the terms Boston Butt and Picmic Shoulder, only 21 percent of the homemakers knew the answer (Index of Knowledge), and only 5 percent knew the answer to statement 19 concerning the relative meat per pound of the Butt Port-ion and Butt Hall—fofham. CHAPTER IV soc IO-ECQNOMIC FACTORS AND ‘ CONSUMER IQIOWLEDGE AS mum are THE man OF CORRECT smrmmws - Each area of information was correlated to each socio—economic factor asked of the homemaker in the Michigan Four-City Consumer Survey. The following factors were related to the number of correct responses in each area: Size of family, Yearly income ,‘ ' Amount Spent per week for food, Age of homemaker, Education of homemaker, Home Economics Training, City, and ' . Whether or not they were familiar with the M I C agents. A Chi-square test of independence was made on each distribution.1 The purpose of this amly‘Sis was to determine what socio-economic factors were associated with the level of consumer knowledge on each 3113.3 ect presented. Another objective was to determine whiCh consumers . are familiar with the M II C Pr0gram'and whether they know more or less about food buying than those who are not‘f'amiliar- with the. program. ltThe. Chi-square test of independence wasapplied at the five per cent level of. significance. ’5? 58 Size of Fem Egg buying, meat buying and grades of beef were the areas related to the size of the family. In all cases, as the size of the family increased so didthe number of homemakers who gave correct responses. (See Tables 26, 27 and 28.) T An exception to the increase in percentage of correct reSponses with an increase in size offamily, is in the meat buying area. Fewer of the largest families had them all correct (LL percent) compared to those with three and four in the household (7 percent) as shown in Table 27. TABLE 26 RELATIONSHIP or NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS ON EGG BUYING AND SIZE OF THE FAMILY- Number in , WNumoer ofiorrggt Responses __ Total Family 0 IL 2 3 "l i No. _ la 41 in} lei :1 _ In. One 9 23 28 33 7 - 100 ’ 116 Two 8 '17 3o 32 13 100 508 Three and four 7 1h 27 37 15 100 7511, Five or more )4 13 28 .39 . 16 100 11,71; Total sample .8_ ' 15 28 36 11;. Total number. 119 281 522 670 2.62., i v—VWVW f wV—T—v—v— W—w fi fi There was no significant relationship between the size of the family and the remaining areas of information; mrbling in meat, apples, food costs and non-fat dry milk. The author would have hypothesized, 59 TABLE 2? RELATIONSHIP OF'NUMBER or CORRECT RESPONSES 0N MEAT me an) SIZE OF THE FAMJLY W Number in lumber of Comet Respgnseshg Total Family 0 1 2 . 3 17 z z p z z z a: No. One 26 30 22 - ' 18 h 100 116 Two 16 28 31 20 S 100 508 Three and four 11; 28 28 - 23 7 100 75).; Five or more - 11 27 " 33 ' 25 )4 100 1471; Total sample 16 2? 30 22 5 100 Total number 296 517 555 " 1416 100 TABLE 28 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ON GRADES OF BEEF AND SIZE OF THE FAMILY Number in ' . Number of Correct Reapongei __ . _:fi'Total Family 0 l— 12 fl 3 '74 % % Z % -% x No. one ' 21' 28 28 20 3 100 116 Tm . ' 1h 25 28 28 5 100 508 Three and four ‘ 11 ' - 25 _ 31 . ' ‘28 5 100 75).; Five or more 11 21 30 31 7 100 1:71; Total sample . 1).; 2h 29' 28 5 100 —~ Total number ' 25h M9 552, _ 526 103 _ fl “— fi—w“ “—vv—fi w j—v—vv—w too, that those homemakers with larger families might have used non-fat dry milk more often than those with smaller families and know somewhat ' more about it. But, as has been noted, the data did not substantiate this assumption . Year Income. All the areas of information were significantly related to the yearly incomes of the families. This relationship was direct, or as the yearly incomesincreased‘more consmhers answered three or four questiOns correctly in egg buying, meat buying, grades of beef and marbling in beef areas. See Tables 29, 30 and 31. TABLE 29 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT mm ON EGG sumo AND AMOUNT OF my INCOME w—ffi v—w ‘ __‘ . er of Correct Res nses ' Total Yearly Income ' l ‘ 2 3 E i No . O A A % % Z % % Less than H.000. 8 18 31 33 ' 10 100 382 “”000 to $6,000 5 1h 28 39 11; 100 772 Over $6,000 , 5 l2 ' 27 36 20 100 167 Prefer not to say in. 18 27 31 lo 100 269 Tbvtalvaevrcentfi W 8 . 15 W ‘28 _ 3s mutt Total number 11;? A 281 .522 .670 262 _.1_ A 9;. h.- fiwfi—w‘ ——v—r W“ V V—v—v—~v —_ —fi The area of infermation related to apples was somewhat inversely related to income, those homemakers with a higher income answered fewer questions correctly as shown in Table 32. The relationship between the homemakert s yearly income and non-fat dry milk and food cost areas was mainly the factor that a si gnificant 6l TABLE 30 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSIIERS ON MEAT BUYING AND AMOUNT OF YEARLY INCOME w w— ‘— r—f v _—7 v w.— —— —' — v —v ———— w' 4; —__A A w TT w vw Wm— —-—v—v Yearly Income WNImber officrrept Responses _ Total . T 1“ W 2 7 - 3 If x No. 7: % - % 1% % - Less than 8h,ooo 2O 28 26 21 S 100 386 “1,000 to 86,000 12 29 31 22 6 100 772 Over 8 6,000 ll 28 _ 30 , 2h 7 100 1:57 Prefer not to say 18 2h 29 2h 5 100 269 Total .sample percent 16 27 _ 30 . 22 5 100 Total number ' 296 517 * 555 ' . 1116 100 TABLE 31 RELATIONSHIP 01“ NUMBER OP CORRECT FISPONSFS ON MARBLJZNG IN HERE AND YEARLY 1NOOME W ' Number of Correct Resmnses Total Yearly Income ‘ O 1 ' 2 ‘ 3 i i No . i % % z ' Less than 3 11,000 27 28 . 25 20 100 386 311,000 to $6,000 18 27 2h 31 100 772 Over $6,000 . ~ 12 19 21 178 100 1457 Prefer not to say 23 I . 23 25. ' ' 29 100 269 Total sample percent 21 25 . 23 31 fi fi Total ml‘mber 391 14611 - 113,4 595 __——_4 A—-‘ Al v—fi ._.,r_‘ —— ‘7 — r—V —.—v v mmbehof wOmen, who did not state their income, also did not answer any questions correctly as shown in Tables _33_ and 3h. TABLE32. RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT APPLES AND YEARLY INCOME W Number of Correct, Responses Total Yearly Income ' O 1 '0 2 "T 2 No. - % z A % 75 Less than $11,000 . A2 AA 13 1 100 386 817,000 to $6,000 ' so 38 _ lo 2 100 772 Over $6,000 56 36 8 O 100 1457 Prefer not to say ’43 )10 15 2 100 269 TZtal sampl efi—pe—r'c ent 74—9— 39 11 1 Total number 926 735 ~ 199 21; TABLE V 33 RELATIONSHIP OF THE-CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT ' NON-FAT DRY MILK AND YEARLY INCOME __._‘ —( fiW :.__ v...— w —‘—‘—V ——~—~v— ‘7——— w —_ .... v—v —— Ff ..___— Number gig-erred: Responses Total Yearly Income 0 1 2 . 3 N0 . ~ A z a: . 3 Less than $11,000 , 26 . . ‘ 22 I 29 23 100 386 $11,000 to $6,000 25 2O - 32 33 100 772 $6,000 and over 211 . 21 31 2A 100 LL57. Prefer nOt to say .. ' ‘31 19 27 23 100 269 Total sample percent 27 ' 2O . 30 23 Total number ‘ ‘ 515 378 . ~ 561 1139 m* w TABLE 3h RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES OF FOOD COSTS AND YEARLY INCOME . W e :===== Number of Correct Responses Total Yearly income 0 1 2 3 No. % % '% 1 Less than $11,000 19 3 3h . . ‘ lb. 3 100 96 $17,000 to $6,000 52 32 _ 1A 2 100 532 8 6,000 and over 113 31; , 2O 3 100 765 Prefer not to say 511 . 3h 12 .5 .100 319 Total sample percent 50 33 15 2 Total munber , 915 612 289 38 Amount of Money fipent Per; Week for Fo_o§_ . The amount. homemakers. spent for food per week was significantly related to the number of questions answered correctly in all the areas of information tested. In most cases, the more money that was spent for food, the. more questions homemakers answered correctly. See Tables 35, 3o, 37. and 3.8. Consumer knowledge of "apples" was inversely related, as shown in Table 39. The less homemakers spent for food, the more questions these ' homemakers. would answer correctly. 1 Another exceptionwas in the area of information concerning non- fat dry milk. Even though the Chi-square test showed a significant difference, there was no clear pattern of relationship. The amount of TABLE 35 RELATIONSHIP OF'NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ON EGG BUYING AND THE.AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT PER WEEK FOR FOOD w—fi ——V—-—__'— — —_ ——v .— .., v—w v——— w fi—v W oh Number of Correct Responses ,___ Total Anmmnt Spent O l 2 3 II 27’ No. per‘Week . . % % . i % % $10.00 or-less 18 18 27 29 - 8 100_ 96 $10.01 to 3 20.00 6 17 '29 BL; 13' 100 532 320.01 130830.00 6 ' 13 27 39 15 100 765 Over $30.00 5 12 ' 27 to 16 100 319 Total sample percent 8 15 28 35 11. Total number 1179. 281 522 670 262 '— w —_————v TABLE 36 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ON MEAT BUYING .' ANT>AMDUNT SPENT PER WEEK FOR FOOD i —v W ‘— —~——v w v W ' . -‘ Number of Correct "Responses - Total Amount Spent - O ' T 2— 3' _ I; i No. " Per Week 5% 75 % Z _ % $10.00 or less ' 28 33 2A 111 1 100 96 $10.01 to $20.00 18 27 28 21 6 100 532 $20.01 to 3 30.00 11 29 31 2A . 5 100 765 Over :30 .OO 10 26 . 3O - 28 6 100 319 Total salnple percent. 16 27 30 22 5 Total number ' _ 296 517 555 111.6 100 65 TABLE ‘3? RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ON GRADES OF BEEF AND AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT PER WEEK- FOR. FOOD umber of Co rec Res Ses ' ‘ Tetal Amount Spent O 1 2 3 I: f No. % per Week a: z _ z A $10.00 or less 3h .28 ' 18 18 2 100- 96 $10.01 to $20.00 lb, 27 31' 25 3 100 532 $20.01 to $30 .00 8 22 31 32 7 100 765 Over $30.00 9. ~ 21 31 30 9 100 319. Total sample percent 1);; -_ 2h 29 28 I 5 Total number 1 25h hh9 552 526 103 TABLE 38 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ON MARBLING OF BEEF AND AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT PER WEEK FOR FOOD 4‘ vi —— fl V —— —v‘ —‘r __ fl w 1’! *4 ‘_A ———v ——-—.'f WV— v.7 “ . ’ _1\1114mbe1r-w of Correct .ReSponses ‘ ' Total Amount Spent O l 7 ' W2 ~' ' 1‘3 5 No. Per Week . _ 7%, 1 75 ~ Z 1 810.00 or Tese 35- ' 29 .23 . 13 100 96 $10.01 to $20.00 23 . 26 26 25 100 '532 $20.01 to $30.00 16 2h ' 23 37 100 765 Over $30 .00 15, 2h . 23 . 38 100 319 Total sample percent 19 39 . 11 1 Total number 926 . 735 ' 199 2A v rvvfi w ——-— f—v TABLE 39 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES, ON APPLES ANT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT PER WEEK FOR FOOD Number of Corrrefct fiesmnses Total Amount Spent , O l 2 3 f , No. per Week % % ‘ ' % % $10.00 or less ' )16 . 11h _ 8 2 100 96 3 10.01 to N 20.00 115 113 11 1 100 32 8 20.01 to $30.00 88 111 10. 1 100 765 Over 3 30.00 5h 38 12 ,0 100 319 ,Total sample percent 11- _ ’39 11 1 Total mmber 926 735 199 2).; A ——~v — __v fi— v_ w — ‘— money spent per Week was significantly related to the area of infor- mationabout food costs mainly due to the fact that those homemakers who didn't know or didn't answer the questions also got very few correct answers. (See Table 170.5 Age of Homemaker The homemakers between the ages of '31 and 60 gave the most correct- responses. Those homemakers under 30 years of age and over 60 years seemed to know less about the areas of information and stated many more "no opinions." V I . The age of the homemaker was related to the number of correct answers abOut egg buying and non-fat dry milk, only to the extent that fewer homemakers over 60 answered three and four. statements correctly. 67 TABLE 140 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT FOOD COSTS AND MONEY SPENT PER WEEK FOR FOOD ; ———w— v V f v—v W 'w —_‘ v—v W mV— V... ng‘ A AA+ - w __A m w—— W V—fi“ wv—r — w v—v '— ——~ ‘ Number of Correct Responses ’ , Total Amount Spent 0 ' V T“ 2 w ' 3 f No. Per Week 75 ‘ ' % % ' % $10.00 or less 59 . 26 513 2 100 96 $10.01 to a 20.00 In . 35 16 2 ' 100 532 3 20.01 to $ 30.00 _ L9 ‘ 33 17 '1 100 765 Over 3 30.00 ' 118 3).; 13 S 1.00 319 Don't know , 6h ‘ 25 10' 2 100 172 Total sample percent 50 33 15 2 Total number 915 . 612 . I 289 - 38 "VV—v .— W V There was verylittle difference in the number of. correct answers of those homemakers between the ages. of 31 to h5_and.h6 to 60. For example, 57 percent of both the '30 to 16 year old group and the 116 to 60 year old group answered two or three questions correctly‘ about non-fat dry milk. Of those homemakers over 60 years of age, 30 percent did not answer any of the questions correctly. (See Table bl.) I In the areas of grades 0f beef and marbling in beef there was also very little difference in the number of correct answers between the age groups of 3’]. to 13,5 “and 116 to 60, but the difference-between these home- makers and those who were under 30 or over 60 years of age was quite pronounced in these previous areas of information. As shown in Table 142, 18 percent of the homemakers who were 30' years of age and under did not answer any questions on grades of beef correctly, while only 9 68 TABLE hl ’ REIAT IONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES AmUT NON-FAT DRX MEK AND THE AGE OF THE. HOW A;‘_--_‘.!_.‘ g -—— m .__. w—v "—rV—‘v JLA --- iv v v v—w— w fl Vv—TV—v _ Number oquorrect Responses Tetal Years of O W l — ' T 3 7 N0 . .Age ‘% z % z 30 or less. 2h 26 3h 16 100 359 31 to us 2h 20 32 2b 100 723 A6 to_60 , 26 17 ' ' 3O 27 100 h95 Over 60 38 19 ‘ 21 22 100 .271 Total sample _ . percent 27 20 ' 30 23 Total number 515 378 561 h30 100 188h TABLE A2 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT ANNE-RS ABOUT GRADES 0F BEEF AND AGE OF HOW I A 4‘— ' _ _ _ .‘ W v—w v—f W — Vfi—r v—v—— V—w —— w A. y A - _ m v—V—v V__ v w w W v — v v v—v— ‘ _ W Number 0;” Correct Responses Total Years of 0 l T ' 2 w” “3 74 No. Age ' Z % 3‘ Z % 30 or less 18 26 - 3O 22 b, 100 359 31 to A5 9 21 - ' 31 31 8 100 ' 723 A6 to 60 9 .23 30_ 3h h 100 A95 Over 60 20 3o . . 27 . 19 h 100,. 271 Total sample} ' . percent 11; 2h 29 28 5 Total number - 230 hhh Sh9 522 103 fi—v v fi—vw— w—v w — percent 0f the homemakers between the ages of 31 to 60 did not answer any questions correctly. On the marbling in beef areas, 31 percent of those homemkers who were 30 years old or under, compared with 1).; and 18 percent who were 31-to .60, did not ansiver any statements correctly- (See Table 14.3.) 8 TABLE MB RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS ARDUT MARBLING IN BEEF. AND AGE OF HOMEMAKER VV—fi F—v ——v v v—v—v ‘1 —fi w FY fiw—fi —..— A WV vV v v W w _v—' W _ _ wwmp‘er' pf Correct Responses » Total Years of _ ~w5 W1 2. $73 0? Nof Age 2 , z _ 75 z A 30 or less 8 . ~ 31 ' 25 I ' ' 20 2).; 100 359 31 to ’45 1h .26 23 37 100 723 146 to 60 18 21 . 26 35 100 1295 Over 60 2h 29 ' . 217' 23 100 271 Total sample 7 ' percent 21 .25 - 23 31 Total number 366 1162 ‘ - 1128 . ‘ 592 In the case of apples the homemakers knowledge is directly related to the age of the homemaker. The older homemakers answered more ques- tions correctly. (See Table 1717,.) Fifteen percent of the homemakers in both the age groups over LIE years of age answered two or three questions correctly compared to 9 percent of those homemakers under 30 years Of age. ' Knowledge of homemakers about food costs. was not significantly related to the age of the homemakers. _ TABLE 6M3, REEATIONSHIP OF THE NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT - .APPLES.AND THE.AGE OF THE RONENAKER ‘ W Number of Correct Rwes ' Total Years of O 1 ... 2 v w 3 7; W0. #Afi-AA % ‘ %‘ __% % 30 or less 57 3h 9 O I 100 359 31 to N5 50 39 10 1 100 723 N6 to 60 AN N1 ' .' 13 2 100 N95 Over 60 N3 N2 13 2 100 271 Total sample . ‘ . percent 11.9 39 ll 1 Total number 926 735 199 2N W W— w—v V v—fi v‘ ~— '_ ‘w—v ____ v w? Education fif i116; Homemlggr The education of the homemakers was directly related to lmowledge about grades of beef, marbling in beef. and food costs. As indicated. in Table 1:5 concerning grades of beef; those homemakers with more years of education answered more questiOns correctly. Education was inversely related to the correct responses on the statements concerning apples. AS shown in Table )46 in this area. those homemakers with less education wavered more questions correctly. . The major differences in homemaker's responses about egg buying occurred between those who haddattended 0 to 8 years of school. and those ‘ who had 9 years and over of school. Thirty-nine percent of the home- nakers who had 0 to 8 years of school got three or four. statements 71 TABLE ’45 RELATIONSHIP OF THE NUMBER OF CORREZT RESPONSES ABOUT GRADES OF BEEF AND THE EDUCATION OF THE HOMFMAKERS Inmber of Correct Responses fl Total Years of O '3 l 2 3 1L EWfi No. Education . % % Z 7» 75 0 to 8 19 33 29 16 3 100 2A7 9 to 11 13 28 27 26 6 100 380 12 to 13 10 23 32 3O 5 100 73h 114 and over , 10 ‘ 15 31, ' ‘ 37 _ 7 100 143).; Total sample , Percent In 2h 29 38 _ 5 Total mmber 25h , M19 552 ' 5'26 103 TABLE N6 - RELATIONSHIP OF THE NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT ' APPLES AND THE EDUCATION OF THE HONEIANRR . . ._ :5;fi_— W VTTTrW p g Number_0f Correct Responses Total Years of 0 1 2 T Z W No . Education 5: z . Z % o to 8‘ 35 N9 13 3 100 2L7 9 to 11 39 AB 16 2 100 380 12 to 13 50 NO 9 1 100 73A 111 or more 61 30 '8 1 100 113).; Total sample percent 19 39 ll .1 926 735 199 2A correct, while fifty percent of the 9 to 11 group got three or four correct (See Table NY). I TABLE h? RELATIONSHIP OF THE NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS ON EGG BUYING AND EDUCATION OF HOWAKERS F‘. - A LA r 'fi W _ m —f v—v v—f . w Y V A A ‘ .4 .4 vv v—v V —. f v v—w'v—fivV—w w—w—f — v—r—v Years of ’ Number of Correct Respgnses . ‘_'Togal_ Education. 0 1 . 2 , 3 %_3 No. O to 8 '10 18 33 . 3O 9 100. 2N7 9 to 11 ‘r10 17 _ 2h 38 11 100 380 - 12 to 13 ~ .5 IN 29. '37‘ 15 ' 100 738 1h or more 3' ll 28 . 39 19 100 7 NBA Total sample percent 8 _ 15 '.I 28 35 _ 1N Total number 1N9 281 ' 522 ~ 670 262 The most definite relationship between the homemakers? education and her knowledge of fOOd costs wathhat more homemakers with.1h or more years of education.got two and three questions correct. Twenty-one percent of those homemakers with 1A or more years of education got two out of three correct and only-l3 percent of thOse with O to 8 years of education.got two out of three correct. (See Table NB.) The author would have hypothesized that those homemakers with more years of education.wou1d have answered more questions correctly in.all of the-areas of information. This did not hold true with the areas of meat buying or nonrfat dry milk. 73 TABLE A8 RELATIONSHIP OF THE NUMBER. OF CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT FOOD COSTS AND EDUCATION OF THE HOMEMAK ER W w -sgl v we; 7* ll __ Number of Egrrect Responses Total Years of O l 2 3 f No. Education % % % % O to 8 52 32 13 3 100 2117 9 to 11 50 33 1A 3 100 380 12 to 13 119 314 15 2 100 731; 111 or more 16 33 21 1 100 1135 Total sample percent 50 33 15 2 Total number 9A5 612 289 38 w _—_— v m — fl Home Ec ononfipswg Whether or not homemakers had any home economics education was not siglificantly related to any area of information. In other words, those homemakers with home economics training did not indicate any higher level of knowledge on these areas of informtion than those with no training. Several alternative explanations for this are possible. One explanation is that these particular areas of information are not covered in the home economics curricula. Another possibility is that the homemakers who did not take home economics are as aware of this type of information as those who did. 7A Cities w Very little difference was found between the cities in the amount of education or the income of the popllations. In the 1950 Michigan Census, the median school years completed by females 25 years of age and over‘was 10.5 in Grand Rapids and.10.7 in Flint and Kalamazoo. Muskegon was a little lower with a median.of 9.? years of schoochompleted. The median incomes varied front 3,660 in'Grand Rapids to $17,002 in Flint. Muskegon was again-somewhat lower with a median income of $3,320. The reSponses from.the Michigan.Four-City Survey followed the same pattern. Homenakers in Flint reported the most. incomes of 3 6,000 and over. 3 (Thirty percent were in this categOry compared to 26 percent in.Grand Rapids, 25 percent in Kalamazoo, and 17 percent in Muskegon.) Only 5h percent of the homemakers.in.MuSkegon.reported having completed 12 or more years of schoOl, compared to 6A percent in.Flint and 67 percent in Kalamazoo. .Any relationship, then, between the amount of inbome or education and the number of correct responses was not direct. Flint was found to be low in moSt cases of any differences in the number of correct responses while it's income level and the amount of education was relatively high. The relationship is somewhat more direct with KalamazOo. It is reported as having the highest level of education and the most homemakers answered the statements correctly. All three statements in the marbling in beef area were found to be significantly different. Many more homemakers correctly disagreed with Statement 21, "The fat around the edge of beef is known as marbling," in.Kalamazoo than the other cities. Fifty-one percent of the homemakers in Kalamazoo answered this correctly. Flint was the lowest city with 37. percent answering Correctly. (See Table 19‘.) REPONSES'OF HOMEMAKERS m THE FOUR CITIES TOISTATEMENT 21, "THE FAT AROUND THE EDGE OF BEEEIS KNOWN AS MARBLING." ‘A ‘4 _ - ' # L‘ A.._4_u ‘——V "v.7.— v w ‘____". W w—v—fi vvfi ‘ — ‘— _—L——— ' ‘ ALB A . —~—¢ ——A—— — M 'A ‘ —~v rfi 1— Vv—v '— v V 7* __ £3111]; g g Total ResponSes* 'Kalmizdo' ' Muskegon Flint Grand Rapids , . ' NO- % No. $.11?» '% N99 % .No. % Agree _ . 77 15 ' 87 2O 85 21 105‘ 20 351. 19 meme .222. 21. 2.22.22. .122 22. 2.1.7. 2.2. 818 us No Opinion 119 29 11.5 32 1nd '35 169 32 609 32 Blank 23. S 22 3 28 1 ,3'0 6 .103 6 Total 508 100 M3 100 Illh 100 519 100 188L. 100 A ~_‘ vw—iv—vw r—w wfi—r —— v—v— —— W *Underlined numbers are the correct answers. This night mean that in Kalamazoo more emphasis has been placed on this particular phase of teaching the qualities of beef than in the other three cities. 0n Statement 29, flThe higher the Grade of Beef the less fat'it will have," Flint wasagain found to be comparatively low with 61 percent correctly agreeing with the statement and Grand Rapids comparatively high with 72 percent answering correctly. . (See Table 50.) The last statement in this area substantiates. the findings found in the first two. Statement .33, "ion can usually expect mOre marbling in a higher grade of beef," inforces the, other two statements as it includes both the word "marbling" and its relationship to grade of beef. (See Table 51.) Kalamazoowas the city with the most correct answers, with TABLE 50 RESPONSES 0F HOMEMAKERS IN THE FOUR CITIES T0 STATEMENT 29, "THE HIGHER THE GRADE OE BEEF THE LESS FAT IT WILL_HAVE." * ‘ fi__ City g ‘ V Total Responses ' KaWoo fiuskegon flint Grand Rapids No. .2. N0. Z .No.._ i No. Z . ,~ No. '% Agree I ..398 ‘19 26 22 99 211' 68 l? 381 20 Disagree 3.933. .68 291.62. 25a .61 2E 12. 1276 68 No opinion )45 10 - 30 ' 7 118 12 36 7 159 8 Blank _. 1‘7 3 316 2 1h -3 21 h 68 h Total - w 508 100 Me 100 hlh 100 .519 100 1881. 100 H - . M f w—fi fi w w *Underlined numbers are the correct answers. TABLE 51 RESPONSES 0F HOMEMAKERS IN THE FOUR CITIES T0 STATEMENT 33,‘ "YOU CAN. USUALLY. H‘PECT MEE MARELING IN A HIGHER GRADE 01“ BEEF.'_' . —* l . ' . ‘_:__l A A—A- __ .1— _. I . mw—Vfifi fl “~— vr fiifi— wfi— WV .‘ A4 _J_ _ M ‘ v— —. fifi ' m V * w . CitL W ' Total? Responses ‘ . Kalamazoo Muskegon Flint Grand“ Rapids No. 5 No. %- No. 5 No. %‘ No. %, Agree 7.29.52 .29. 22.8. ELL .121. as 2.5.3.5. 22 '1023 51" ‘Disagree , 71 1h 58 13 86 21 67 13 g 282 15 No opinion 1114 22 126 28 ‘ 121 29 1113 27 5014‘ 27 Blank ' 17 h 21 . 5 16 h 21 h 75 1. Total . 508 100 11.3 100 1.11. 100 519 100' 1881. 100 ——k AAL .A m “—v w *fiv fi *Underl'ined numbers are the correct answers. 77 60 percmt of, the homemakers answering correctly. In Flint, only ’46 percent of the homemkers answered this statement correctly. There was a significant difference found between the 'cities in regard to homemakers responses to questions about apple grades. The pattern was eSpecially predominant in Statement 36, "According to Mobign'Law, all Michigan apples must be’ identified by grade when sold." More (53 percent) Grand Rapids homemakers answered this question cor- rectly than any other city. Flint had the lowest percent of correct answers, ( 39 percent). (See Table 52.) This trend could be attributed not only to the work 80f the M I C Agentand other sources, but to the fact that more Grand Rapids residents have some direct connection with orchards and the sale of apples. TABLE 52. RESPONSES 0F IIOHEMAKERS IN THE EDUR CITIES T0 STATEMENT 36, "ACCORDING TO HECHIGAN LAW ALL MICHIGAN APPLES MUST BE IDENTIFIED Er GRADE WHEN SOLD." ‘___._. A—A—- A-‘_‘ AAA . A- - A ————-‘r——f fi—fi f—vv—wv—v r a_‘ Beeponses Kalamazoo Muskegon Flint Grand Rapids No. % No. % No... % No. ‘% No. Z Agreew- munchieaelessws Disagree 8t 17 58 13 67 ‘ 16 53 10 . 262 lb No opinion 195 38 157 .- 35 ‘ 172 _ b,2 171 33 659 37 Blank 19 h 22 '5" '13 3 21 h .75 E Total 508 100 1043 100 All. 100 519 100 1881. 100 L‘ ___. v.1 fi vr v *— _ V: w rw v v—V—v *Undeflined numbers are the correct ansimrs. 78 The difference in the percentage of responses is less pronounced than the other 8 areas for the one significantly different statement in the non-fat dry milk area, statement 25, "It (non-fat dry milk) has only about half the number of calories per glass as whole milk." The number of correct answers ranged from )16 percent in Grand Rapids to 51 percent in Kalamazoo. (See Table 53.) w . TABLE 53 RESPONSES 0F HOMEIAHERS IN THE FOUR CITIES T0 STATEEIENT 25, "IT HAS ONLY AHlUT HALF THE NUMBER OF CALORIES PER GLASS AS FLUID WHOLE MILK." m are“ W h ' w * ’4 A, : pity A W Total Rasponses Kalalrazo’a Muskegon , Flintm Grand Mpids , - No. S No. % No. % No. % No. % Agree 2Q. 2. 2.1.1 92 .229. 5.3. .222 LL52 936. 50 Disagree' '63 12 [I8 11 66 16 95 18 272 111 No opinion 162 32 151 3b 115 28 165 32 S93 32 Blank .23 ' 5‘ 27 6 13 3 20 II 83 A Total 508 100 ms 100 1:19 100 519 100 1‘88h 100 *_ _‘ h A g L if v—v v w W W fl —— '— w-w *Underlined numbers are the correct answers. Except for these particular statements, there was very little dif- ference found betweenthe cities. Where there was a difference noted, there“ was a definite pattern of a higher level of knowledge in Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids, a medium level in makegon and a lower level of kmMledge in Flint. Familiarity with the M f1“ 0 Erogram A direct relationship was found bettreen whether the homemakers were familiar with the program or articles of the Consumer Marketing Infor- mtion Agents and the number of. correct answers .inp.§._1_l_.- the areas Of information except "food costs ." Those homemakers who were familiar with the M I C Program-also possessed greater knowledge on these . particular topics. Tables 51;, 55 and 56 concerning egg‘buying, meat ‘ buying and non-fat dry milk illustrate this relationship. This fact alone shows similar interests whether the actual knowledge was gotten from the agent or other sources. . TABLE "Sb. REIATIONSHIP OF THE NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSESON EGG Fume AND . FAMILIARITY'WITH mmTErmG INFORMATION PROGRAM ‘ t ' l J- L. ’ LE1: —# 1* A A—A . Eunbeieegorrect Responses . .22t..a1.. Familiarity With 0 a 1 ‘2 3.. . “h ' Agents Response % _. . i . x ' fl % % No. Yes 3 13 26 ‘ . 1:3 15 100 522 No . 8 16 . 29 - 3h 13 100 . 1211; __No opinion 35 ' 11; 22. 19 . 10 100 118 Total samwe ' . percent 8 15 ' ‘ 28 35’ 111 Total number 1129 281 522 . 670 262 \ ' ._. ‘ ___.. —.__v , _. The least difference was found between those who were familiar with the marketing agent, and these who-were not, in the areas of Ema-<'1es Of'beef, marbling in beef and apples. . There was only about 80 TABLE 55 . RELATIONSHIP OF THE NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ON MEAT BUYING AND FAMILIARITY WITH MARKETING INFORMATTON PROGRAM 1 WW _ __ I - _ _ . ' . wLNumber quCorre t Responses Total Familiarity With 0 l‘ 2 ' 3‘ II .Agents Response % z . % ‘ % % % NO. Yes 8' g . 26 . 30 29_ 7 . . 100 552 No ' 17 28 3O - 2O 5 . 100 1211; no opiniOn, ' 39 26 2h 8 h V 100 '118 Total sample _ . .2 percent 16 27 3O . 22 . 5 Total number 296 . 517 555 216' 100. TABLE 56 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER.OF CORRECT RESPONSES.ABOUT NON-EAT DRY MILK.AND ELHILIARITY'WTTH MARKETING INFORMATION PROGRAM A. ' A w. —' i iv”: ——.r I—w v :r ‘— — W w A_‘ “— M ‘1 v—v ‘_— h i.— — w ‘— 1‘ ‘ ' 1_. wiv v—w - 'Number of Correct Responses Total ___ Familiarity With O 1 2 3 f *7 .Agents Response % % z % Z No. Yes 18 . 17 3h 31 100 552 No 30 22 28 20 100 1211; No opinion 50 1h ' . - 22 13 . 100 118 Total sample ' percent 27 20 3O 23 Total number 515 378 561 D30 *— W W w w _— — v — __.fi ‘——_—v — 6 to 7 percent difference in the number of homemakers who answered 3 or h questions correctly. (See Tables 57 and 58.)' 81 'TABLE 57 RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT GRADES OF BEEF AND FAMEIAR’ITY WITH MARKETING INFORMATION PROGRAM 7 WWW '——.— ——.‘— ‘__ —.—— _ ‘ A .AAh‘flA —v~.—-— w—rv— v—fi “—7 fl _—~ w—rfi —f v—v ‘ . *Number offiCorrect Responses Total Familiarity With .0 l .2 3 l4 . Agents Response Z i z % % % No . yes - '7 19 31 35 8 100 552 No . 1h 27 29 f25 5 100 ' 121h. Did not answer to 11; 2h 19 . 3 100 118 Total sample A p . percent 1h 2h 29 28 5 Total number 207 N32 52h 50h 100 TABLE 58 ' RELATIONSHIP OF NUMBEROF CORRECT RESPONSES ABOUT MARBLENG IN BEEF AND FAMILLARITY WITH MARKETING INFOIMATION PROGRAM _.‘ _H L; .L. A __.. ' _‘ __. L ¥ fl . fl —— __..—' WVV m fi 7 w—v wwrf e———' v v.— w W fifi— w V —— — _ Number of Correct Responses WTOLQLV Familiarity With 0 l 2 3 Agents Reaponse % - % % % % No. Yes . 114 22 23 I41 100 552 No 22 _' 26 ' 2h 28 100 121).; Did not answer tn 7 18 19 l9- 100 118 Total Sample . percent. ‘ 21 ' - 25 23 31 Total number 391 Ltéh - 12312 595 — "7" ____ w 82 The fact that the homemakers familiarity with the program or arti- cles of the M I c Program was not significantly-related to food costs was in definite contrast to the other areas of information. 'Those interested or familiar with the M I CeProgram are not necessarily, then, more interested in "food costs," or their knowledge does not cover these particular statements. A further assumption might be that the M I C Program.has not put sufficient emphaSis On this area to influence the level Of knowledge of homemakers. EEEEEEZ 'Whether or not the homemaker was familiar with the M I C.Agents' programs or articles was directly.re1ated to all the areas of information except food costs. (See Table 59.) A significant percentage of those homemakers who were familiar with the program answered more statements correctly-in each area. This would at least be an indication of similar interests.. I . Conversely, none of the areas of information were significantly related to whether or not the homemaker had any home economics education. Either these particular subjects are not discussed in home economics or the homemakers who did not have home economics are just as interested in this-information as those who did. (See Table 59.) But the general education of the homemakers was directly related to egg buying, grades of beef and marbling in beef. The more education the homemaker had, the more statements they answered correctLy in these areas. This information, then, is related to the amount of training of the homemakers. 83 TABLE 59 AREAS OF INFORMATION REIATED TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS AA _‘ ‘ A_- L ——v — W V V — ——— ‘ iv W g _‘.._ —4 A ——f WW ———~ fiv—f—VW fi Ff rv—v _( Boole-economic Meat Grades Marbling Non-Fat Food Factors Eggs Buying of Beef in Beef Dry Milk Apples Costs Size of family' a . a n ' O O ‘ O 0 Income _, it. n -x -x~ -x— -:<— -x- Amount Spent per week -:<- . -x- 22 -x 2. x— Age '39 V 'X" 7(- -;"- 1%.. 0 Education x o v. e:- 0 x Home economic , education 0 O O O ‘ O O O Familiar with . ~ pro gram ‘ -x -x— as -x -x -::- 0 City 0 O ' .O n e ‘ e" O __n. w—v—vw “w W v .wfi—w 'V w —_v—_——r—t V—v *Significantly related ONot significantly related As previously stated, not. even these areas were related to home economics education. ' Education was also inversely related to homemakers knowledge of apples. The more education the homemakers had in this area, the fewer Statements were answered correctly. The relationship in the area of food costs was not so clearly differentiated. The main factor was that those homemakers with 1).; years of education or over answered more questions correctly. 8b. The yearly income of the family and the amount the homemaker Spends per week for food are the socio-economic factors, next most directly related to all the areas of information. With an increase in income and the amount spent per week, there was an increase in the percentage of homemakers who answered the statements correctly. The area ”of information concerning "apples" was inversely related to these socio- economics factors. The responses to food costs were significantly different due mainly to the fact that a large proportion of those who did not give their yearly income or the amount spent per week, also did not answer any of the questions correctly. As shown in Table 59, the age of the homemaker was significantly related to the number of correct answers in all the areas except food costs. 'Those‘homemakers between the ages of 31 to 60 had the higher level of knowledge in most areas. A In the meat buying, grades of beef and marbling in beef areas, the homemakers between the ages of 31 to )45 answered more statements correctly. . - ‘ Knowledge of egg buy-ing, meat buying and grades or beef were related to the size of the family. In all cases, as the size of the family increased so did the number of homemakers who gave correct answers. In the area of meat buying information, the increase in percent- age, stopped at "three and four" in the family. There was littlejdifferenoe, in general, in the level. of knowledge of homemakers among the cities. . Marbling in beef and food costs were the only areas where the relationships were found to be significantly different. 'More homemakers in Kalamazoo answered these statements cor- rectly and the least number of homemakers in Flint answered them correctly. CHARTER V OPINIONS 0F Hommhs 1N MICHIGAN ABOUT A FOOD mammo PROGRAM FOR CONSUMERS This chapter will attempt to answer these questions about the opinions of homemakers in four Michigan cities on a food marketing program. How many of the homemkers were familiar with the Consumer Market- ing Information Program? Did homemakers in Michigan feel a food narketing program is helpful? What are the socio-econondc characteristics of those who are familiar with the Marketing Program? Which areas .of information do these consumers feel are the most important, and how does this coincide with what they already know? Do homemakers feel a marketing program should be tax supported, and how is this attitude related to familiarity with the program? How 183132 homemakers were familiar withgthefiMarketing InfomnatiOn Pregam? The question was asked the homemakers in the four cities, "Are you familiar with the programs or articles of any of these agents, (which had just previously been named)?" Twenty-nine per cent of the home— makers said they were familiar with the program. Thirty-nine per cent of those in the followup personal interview survey in Kalamazoo said they were familiar with the agents! articles or programs. In the 85‘ 86 Four-City Survey, the percent of homemakers who were familiar with the M I G program varied between the cities from 26 per cent in Grand Rapids to 31;, per cent in Muskegon (See Table 60). TABLE 60 PERCENT OF HOW IN EACH CITY FAMILIAR WITH M I C PROGRAM ._. .4 #4; ww' v. f v ‘— v—w—v fi V fi 7 w—v City 5 Four-City Survey Borton's Data* ~ Percent Percent Kalamazoo ‘ 31 ‘ ' 69 Muskegon ‘ 3h ’ 62 Flint . ‘ 26 h9 Grand Rapids- - ' ’ 27 " 26 Total percentage 29 - 51 L W W fivwfirh— v—v—v - *Percentages of homemakers who said they had contact with a M I C Agent through at least one medium at some time. Table 69 also shows a comparison of_ the percent of homemakers who stated they. were familiar with the M I c Program with data collected by Horton1 in his telephone surveys. In all cases, except Grand Rapids there is a large difference in the percent of homemakers tabulated as stating they] were familiar with the Marketing Information Program. Horton's data shows higher percentages .- There are several methodological reasons for these differences in percentages. There was a very low 1R. E. Borton, "Consumer Use of Mass Media for Food Information," (unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State Universi+ y, 195?). ‘ 87 level Of identification in the Four~City Survey. Homemakers were given no clue or aid to recall, such as when the homemaker may have seen or heard the agent or possible subject matter of any of the programs or articles. The homemakers had to remember simply by recalling the M I C agent's name attached to the article or program. Borton‘s surveys applied time and place of articles, as the "Wednesday, Detroit News,“ and in some cases program titles. .Also, as indicated by the greater reSponse from the personal interview, homemakers seem to agree more often when asked directly.2 In order to estimate to what extent homemakers who, under the power of suggestion, or the desire to give a "good" answer, simply agreed ‘with the statement that they were familiar with the M I'C Program, a check question was included in the Four—City Survey. The fictitious name, "Alice Boyts," was used and the homemakers were asked the question whether "The food buying tips given by Alice Boyts over her local radio station was helpful in planning weekly food purchases." It is evident from the data that many of the homemakers simply agreed. They may well have interpreted the question as "such information would be helpful." Twenty-five percent of the homemakers agreed to this statement, and 6h percent stated they had "no opinion." (See Table 61.) It should be noted that the 25 percent of the homemakers who agreed that the food buying tips given by Alice Boyts Over her local radio station were helpful, cannot be directly compared with the percentage of —— 2It should not be inferred that this survey would cover all the activities of the M [ C Program. In practice, for example, the agents prepare materials to be used by other persons in the field of food marketing information. 88 TABLE 61 HOMEMAKERS‘ RESPONSES TO STATEMENT uh, * "THE FOOD BUYING TIPS GIVEN BY ALICE BOYTS OVER YOUR LOCAL RADIO STATION ARE HELPFUL IN PLANNING wEETILY FOOD PURCHASES," 1N FOUR MICHIGAN CITIES __‘ A__ '- ' City, A -. Total Responses * Kalamazao' MhSkegon Flint ‘Grafid Rapids . No. % No. % No. '% No. % No. % Agree ‘ 120 2h 102 . 23- 119 29 120 23 tel 2.5 Disagree 31 o 2h 5 22 , 5 719 h 96 S No opinion 318 63 279 63 252 61 3h9 67 1198_ Oh Blank . 89 7. 38 9 21 5 ' 31 6 129‘ '6 Total ' '508 100 his 10:) Lab. 1.00 5‘19 100 . “1881; 100 __J_ AA.‘ homemak ers who said they were familiar with the programs or articles of the consumer agents. The statements are different in nature. Question h6, concerning familiarity with the prOgrams or articles, is much more direct. It asks, "Areyou familiar with the programs or articles of any of these concumer agents?" and the homemakers are given a choice of answering just "yes,“ or "no,":while in statement hh, the question of helpfulness is included which makes it possible to interpret it somewhat ' differently, and a choiCe was given of "agreeing," "disagreeing," or stating "no opinion." 'With this in mind, some relationShips can be made between those homemakers who said they were familiar:with the agents' programs or articles and those who agreed the radio program by Alice Boyts was helpful in planning weekly food purchases. Forty-six percent of those 89 homemakers who stated they were familiar with the marketing program also agreed that the food-buying tips given by Alice Boyts over her local radio station are helpful ifi-plzmning weekly food purchases. (See Table 62.) TABLE 62 RESPONSES TO STATEMENT Mi, "THE FOOD BUYENG TIPS GIVEN BY ALICE BOYTS OVER YOUR LOCAL RADIO STAT [ON ARE HELPFUL IN PLANNING WEEKLY HJOD PURCHASES, " BY THOSE PDPEMAKERS WHO STATED THEY WERE r‘AMEL LAR WITH THE PROGREES GR ARTICLES CF TIE M I C AGEIMI‘S AA A; L l . I .‘LJ—‘ini Ana ‘ .._ '- ' ' ' H— ———r WV V— . v 7* —. Lit-”.mr- '0 mm... “-..—o“ x" ‘ ~ . ' g City . p ' _ Total . ‘ Reaponses Kala—{co Muskegon Flint- ' Grand Impids ' L, No. x No. S . No. i No. .%. No. .% Agree . 72 h6. ‘ 65 113 71 66 66 . 118 27h 50 . Disagree 9' 6 ' 8 ' S 7 7' 6. LL 30 5 2 No opinion , 7h' he 79 52 29 27 66 he 2h8 us Total ‘ 155 100 152 100 107 100 138 100 fiv—v v—v— _—v_ ‘r—v ——. Do hOmemakers _i_n_ the. four Michigan cities feel a Marketing Prowl h’elpilil l? . Thirty-nine percent of the homemakers agreed with‘the statement "The information supplied by local cdnS'Imer marketing information agents such as Harriet. Lundberg, Mary Ann Meldnim',‘ Virginia Helt, or Catherine Love through the radio and m. programs and newspaper articles is helpful in planning food buying." ”Fifty percent of the homemakers stated they did not have an opinion. (See Table 63.) The‘varjations ranged between the cities from 35 percent in Grand Rapids to I43 percent of the home- makers, in- Muskegon who agreed that such information would be helpful. HOMEMAKERS‘ RESPONSES TO STATEm-‘NT 11.5, TABLE 63 I. "WOULD INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY M I 0 PROGRAM BE HELPFUL?" ‘ fi —V' v——v A 'Qitx;g Responses IKElaEazoo_mEESkegon, Flint % NC)" % Grand Rapids 729 - 76 938 lhl No. .Agree 200 Disagree' 23 No opinion 2h0 Blanks hS Total . 508 h3 157 38 5 ll 3 hh 220 53 8 26 me hit 100 v—fi lash V—fi in order to determine to some extent whether the homemakers were answering on general knowledge of the M I C Program or simply agreeing that they would consider such information helpful, the number of home- makers who agreed that the information. supplied by theM I c Program 'would be helpful was compared to how they answered the statement cone cerning the helpfulness of the fictitious program presented by Alice Boyts. Fifty-four percent Of the homemakers who said the information supplied by then I 0 Agents was helpful also said that the radio pro- —— gram by Alice Boyts was helpful in planning weekly food purchases. (See Table 6h.) ; of .9 “7.“. Elim‘v ”mil”: I . . 91 TABLE oh RESPONSES To STATEMENT h3, "THE FOOD BUYING TIPS GIVEN BY ALICE BOYTS OVER YOUR LOCAL RADIO STATION ARE HELPFUL IN PLANNING WEEKLY FOOD PURCHASES," BY HOMEMAKERS WHO STATED INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY M I c AGENTS wAS HELPFUL . Hi L w—' w—v - # Gil Tom: :5»: Responses Kalamazoo Muskegon Flint Grand Rapids 5 No. % No. % No. % No. .% No. Z E Agree 98 119 9h 19 101; 66 100 SE 396 Sh S Disagree 7 3 h 2 7 h o o 18 3 g No opinion 95 h8 93 h9 h6 30 81 LS 315 h3 j i m fl _ __ , L Total 200 100 191 100 157 100 181 100 v—f +7 fl What were the socio:_economic factors of thgse who were familiar with the Marketing Program? As the size of the family increased, the number of homemakers who stated they were familiar with the marketing program increased from 21 percent to 32 percent of those families with five or more in the house- hold. (See Table 65.) Families with incomes of over $h,000 were found to be more familiar with the M I C Agents than those with incomes of less than $h,000. Twenty-two percent of those with incomes of less than $11,; 000 were familiar with the M I C Program compared with 33 percent of those with a yearly income of over $14,030. (See Table 66.) There was very little relationship between the amount homemakers spent per week for food or their age and whether or not they were familiar with the M [ C Program. 92 TABLE 65 RELATIONSHIP OF SIZE OF THE EAMILT AND FAMILIARITY .WITH MARKETING PPOGRAM __IA h‘ H fiv—w *7 WW ——_— ‘w w— w w * $.— '7 A _ -l _ I- 4 _._._ 7* w— ~_— v—v v___T __‘l ...-W ___ hung with M I c Progggn Total Number of People Y.” , "0 Blank — in Household N0. % ' No. 1 No. % _ N0. ' % One ‘ ' . 2h 21 75 65 16- 11; 116 100 Two ' lhB 29 ’ 321 63 39. 8 508 100 Three and four 230 31 192 65 ‘32 h 75h lOO Five and up 119 , , 32 - 317 67 8 1 Mb 100 TABLE 66 RELATIONSHIP OF YEARLY. INCOME AND FAMEIARITY WITH M I C PROGRAM ___~ A w _‘ ‘__ ‘ h“ _A_—_ _ H r: '1 —_ —- .———.—.— w vaw W m‘w—w— —...- — A‘A 4 Ag __~k v—v—v w —— ~ 0 I. FandllarwlthMIcPro’ Total Income ' , Yes No < 3% _ No. % 'No. %- .No.. 3% No. % Less than $11,000 81; 22 27h 71 28 7 386 100 811.001 to $6.000 256 - 33 . u89 63 _ 27 , h 772 100, Over $6,000 ‘ _ 155" 3h 286 63 ' l6 3 115? 100 Preferred not to Say 116 23 1110 70 15 7 201 100 w; #A- ' ¥ * Lh- fiv' vw v: ——V v—V v—V —— ‘_f Those homemakers with nine years of education and over and especially if they had ”some training in home economics were the most familiar with the program. (See Tables 6'? and 68.) 93 TABLE- 6? RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATION OF THE HOMER AND 'FAMILIARITY WITH THE M I C PROGRAM ‘——7 v—W—rfi g 4__4 .4 fi_ Familiar with M_I Cgfirogrami; ‘3 Total}_ Yearscf . ~ Yes “ No f *Blank _ , Education. No. ' % No. ,% . No. % N0. % O to 8 50 '20 183 7t 1t 6 2b? 100 9 to 11 106 " 28 257 68 ~ 17 h 380 100 .12 to 13 233 32 h71 6h 30 h 73h 100 In and up . 152 35 269 62 13 0 h3h 100 TABLE 68 - RELATIONSHIP OF HOME ECONOMICS EDUCATION.AND RAMILIARITT'WITH THE M I 0 PROGRAM — _-_ A —‘_A ‘Ag *_ 4 4 .— W V v~— w ——.—r — f w—fw w m v—Vfi u _A“ LA - ‘_A_.L F'fi w. w WW w — _—V —r —7. _ Familiar with M I C Progrgp , Total Had Some ' Yes No . . - Home Economics No. % N0.’ % N0. mz . N0. % Yes 286 36 h80 '_61 26 3 792 100 No 25h 25 692', 69 St 6 1000 100 AA 0.4 __4__. _‘__ ‘_._‘ A___‘ w—w' Ff— Wt type of_informati0n do homemakers feel would be _the'mmst useful? Homemakers were asked to state their opinions on the usefulness of two areas of information. ‘One was "food cost comparisons" such as the relative cost per serving of fresh, canned and frozen foods, and the other was about reports on "expected.future supplies and prices of food." Seventy—percent said that "food cost comparisons would be useful and 9h 75 percent of the homemakers said reports about "future supplies and prices of food" would be useful. (See Table 69.) I TABLE 69 COMPARISON OF TOTAL RESPONSES OF) HOWEERS INTI-IEFOUR MICHIGAN CITIES AS TO THE USEFULNESS OF FOOD COST COMPARISONS AND REPORTS ABOUT FUTURE SUPPLIES AND PRICES OF FOODS * I A " ‘ ' A "V __1 fig AW __. v v ._. a ‘1 ‘ ._. r . ‘ .. A 8' Statements Responses (bl) ~Fo'0d Cost Comparisons (1Q) Future Supplies and Prices . No. -%‘ NQ- % Agree 13211 70 - 1 ' 11420 ‘ 75 Disagree . . '151 8 ' lhl 8 No opinion 323 I 17 2147 13 Blank , 86 S . I 76 h Total 1881; 100 ‘ . 18811 100 v—f—t v—v—v Vfi Sixty-tthree percent of the homemakers felt that both types of information would be useful. The ammmt of information homemakers already had about each area was compared to their reSponses on the usefulness of each type of information- The munber of correct answers on the questions that were relevant were related to the homemakersI responses on the usefulness of that subject. There was no significant relationship3 fouzld between the munber of correct answers and whether they agreed or disagreed that "food cost comparisons" were useful information. However, there was a Significant relationship between the number of homemakers who voiced ~— rv—W 3The Chi-square test of independence was applied at the 5 percent level of significance. 95 "no opinion" and the number who got none of the questions correct. Forty-seven percent of those who voiced "no opinion" also did not answer any of the questions correctly. (See Table 70.) 'I‘ABLE 70- RELATIONSHIP OF HOMEJAKERS' RESPONSES TO USEFUINFSS OF COST COMPARISONS AND NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS ON THAT TYPE OF INFOIMATION 1' #41 . A4 '3' — ‘—V t——‘ j—v .——( I —— —_—f __v wm __.___ :- Number of COrrect Answers Total Responses 0 ' l _ '2 ."U 3 I * % 1 . % g % .. % No. % Agree _ 26 36 29 .. 9 132A 100 Disagree ' 28 . ' .37 2s _ 10 151 100 No opinion 14? 32 18 - . 3 1109 100 Total number 579 ' 658 1.91; 153 1881; Total -per0ent 31 ' ‘35 26‘ 8 100 wr—Fr fi There was a significant relationship between the number of ques- tions that homemakers answered Correctly on "future supplies and prices" and the percent that agreed this type of information would be useful. Twenty-four percent of those who said this type of information would be useful got both of the relevant questions correct while only 15 percent of those who: said this type of information would not be useful got both of the questions correct. (See Table 71.) The next question was concerned with whether or not familiarity with the M I C Program was related to the ‘homenmkers' responses to the usefulness of these two types of information. It was found that about 83 percent of the homemakers who said they were familiar with the 96 TABLE, 73. meRerp OF HOMEMAKERS? RESPONSES lo USEFU'LNFSS 0F REPORTS ON FUTURE SUPPLIES AND PRICES AND NUMBER OF CORRECT Answers ON . THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION ' vv w "iv r f—v v v v—W ——v w—fi W fVfiv—wv—w—Vf v 'fi WW iv fi V W W m ,- Number of Corregtt Mar To_ta_l Responses ‘ . o T ,2 ~% % Z ' NO- 1 Agree ' ' ' 3L ‘ J42 - A 2).; '. 11420 100 Disagree ‘ . . L6 ' ho ' 15 1111 100 No opinion . t9 ' 3h ' ‘ 17‘ 323 100 Total anzg; ' fi 298 w 758 *hza . lash Total percent' 36 ' hl ‘ - , 23 ~ '~ 100 V W v—v v—w fl W V m w—v 14.]: c Prograneleo felt thatthis type of information would be ueeml. Only about 71 percent of those” homemakers who. said they were 1131; . familiar with the M I c Program thought that these kinds of information would be useful. There was little difference between the two types of information and whether 'those homemakers who were familiar with the m'keting Program thought that they would be useful guides to their food buying. (See Table 72.) Eighty-two percent thought that "Cost Compari- sons" would be useiul and 86 percent thought reports about "Future Supplies and Prices" would be useful. . Seventy percent of those homemkers who said they were familiar with the Marketing Program thought both types of infcnnation would be useful, but only 60 percent of those who were not familiar with the Marketing Pr0gram thought both would be useful. 97 TABLE 72 C(MPARISON OF RrsPONSEs OF HOW ON USEFULNESS OF KINDS OF INFORMATION AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE. M I 0 PROGRAM .4__ A A _A__ "—f fifi w—' w v ‘ ?_r a _‘ F- A fi w vv—v—v—v fi— - Opinion pn Usefulness 3f “Typesgvgf Information Familiarh __ Helpful w __ Not Helpful No Opinion ity With Cost Com- F‘uture Cost Com- Future Cost Com- Future Total Program risons Su lies ri ons Su lies risons Su lies No. 'No. i No.‘ 31o,- 3 No. i No. i No. 3 Yes hsl 82 ' L76 86 to 7‘, 3o 6 61 11 to 8 552 No 828 86 88? 73‘ 107. 9 109 9 279 23 218 18 1211; __4 w —f —_———— Doghomeygakvevgrs feel a Marketing Prowfishvould Vbe tax_su_pported? Over 50 percent of the homemakers agreed to the statement indicating that they believed a food marketing program is a proper activity of a tax supported institution, and only 8 percent disagreed. There was no dif- ference among the four cities in attitude as shown in Table 73. TABLE 73 HOWERS RESPONSES TO STATMT 1:3, "A FOOD BUYING PROGRAM IS A PROPER ACTIVITY OF A . m SUPPORTED INSTITUTION." WW1 . Fr m City A _ , Total Responses Kalamazoo MuskegOn Flint Grand Rapids No. % No. % No. % No. ' % No. % Agree 286 S6 2h8 S6 227 SS 290 ”S6 1051 56 Disagree h9 10 3h 8 27 6 h8 9 158 8 No opinion- 11;? 29 13h 30. lhh- 35 156 30 581 31 {Blanks"26527 6161;. 255 9h5 m V Total '_508 100 ' 8&3 100 hlh 100 -519 100 ‘ 188h 100 —v—.—— w 98 Does familiarity with the M I 0 ngram have any effect on home- makers' opinions of a food marketing information program as a proper activity of a tax supported institution?_ In order to determine the relationship between homemak ers who said they were familiar with the M I C Program and their opinions of a food marketing program as an activity of a tax supported institution, their responses to statement he were related to the reSponses to statement 113. Of those homemakers who said they were familiar with the M I 0 Agents' programs and articles, 71 percent thought a program to give consumers information about food buying a proper activity of. a tax supported institution. Only 51 per- cent of those who said they were 9.9.1.3. familiar with the marketing program stated they thought a food marketing program ought to be tax supported .. A larger percentage of those who said they were not. familiar with the marketing program stated, they had "no opinion" regarding whether or. nOt a food marketing program should be tax, supported than those who were familiar with the M I C Program. (See Table 711.) TABLE 7).; COMPARISON BETWEEN FAMEIARITY WITH THE M I C PROGRAM AND HOMEMAKERS' OPINIONS AEUT A FOOD MARKETING PROGRAM A PROPER ACTIVITY OF A TAX SUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ShoulB a FoFd Marketing Information PrOgram be Familiarity . g_ Tax“? Supported? . with M I C Yes w No No Opiniofiw Total Program ‘ No. No. . No. i ' No. Yes ‘ 393: 71, 39 '7 120 22 52 No .621 51 lit 9 h79 b0 121h Blank 37 31 ‘ S h 76 65 __v_.( —f __v Total - p 1051 158 .675 v—V—v fi 99 Of those homemakers who thought a. food marketing information pro- gram should be tax supported, .37 percent said they were familiar with the M I C Agents and 59 percent said they were not. . I There was also a relationship between those homemakers who con- sidered "food cost comparisons and reports about future supplies and prices useful guides ’00 fOOd buying" and thOse who thoughts food market- "" ing program is a proper activity of a. tax supported institution. Of those .I homemakers who thought both.kinds of information.would be useful, 70 percent thought the food marketing program a proper activity of a. tax A supported institution, 6 percent said it was not, and 2h percent said ,ng they had no opinion. Seventy-nine percent of those who thought a marketing information program should be tax supported also thought both kindsof information would be useful, Only hit percent of those who said a food marketing program is go}. a proper activity of a tax supported institution thought that both types of information would be useful. What are sOmepf the socio-econsmic qhmacteristics of consumers who believe a Food Marketing ProgramTavigrgper: antivity of a tax supported insititutign ASmight be hypothesized, education, income and amount of money spent per week for food are the factors related to consumers' opinions rearding support of a marketing information program. I As the education of the homemakers increased, a larger percentage of homemakers felt a food marketing program was-a proper activity of a tax supported institution. (See Table 75.) ' As incomes increased a larger percent of the homemakers felt that a food marketing programwas a proper activity of a tax supported 100 TABLE 75 RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATION OF HOWERS AND RESPONSES CONCERNING A FOOD MARKETING PROGRAM A PROPER ACTIVITY OF A TAX SUPPORTED INSTITUTION - _‘___ -4 L..— v ~——— A A; ._4 ‘ w W —_._ w“ Opinions ona Food Marketing Program Years of * Should be lax Supported ' Education Yes? fl No ' No Opinion fl Total F“? No. 2 No. 3 No. 4— f . Number o to 8 96 39 32 13 ‘ 119 he ‘ 2147 7, 9 to 11 185 to 30 8 165 1:3 380 [j 12 to 13 but 61 hi 6 219 33 73h g; , 11; or more 306 71 uh 10 . 8h 19 - 151; L j institution. Fifty percent of those homemakers with incomes of. less than s ‘4',OOO stated that the program should be tax supported and 67 per- cent of those with incomes of over$6,000 stated that a food marketing program is a preper activity of a tax supported institution. (See Table 76.)' ‘ ,. ‘ The relationship of an increase in the percent of homemakers who agreed a food marketing program is a proper activity of a tax supported institution held true for the amount of money the homemakers spent per week forfood. . The more money the'homemakers spent per week, the larger the percent of homemakers who agreed to the statement. (‘See Table 77.) 101 TABLE 76 RRIMIONSRIP OF mCOME- OF HOMEMAKERS AND" RESPONSES CONCERNING A FOOD MARKETING PROGRAM AS A PROPER ACTIVITY OF A TAX . SUPPORTED INSTITUTION _H *‘ ———W ~———v v—v—v —' 7‘ v—f "—7 I A.“ A 'u M~A —. w—v v—v —— v—v—v fl .__V ‘—-—v Yearly ' Shouldga Program be Tax Supported? # Income . Yesw 8 NO W 7 No Opinion Total ' No. 2 ‘ ' 'No. a ‘ . ”No. f ' Number re . * . W" E ' fl ' ' Less than $h,000 191 -SO in 10 158 to 386 $11,000 to $6,000 1153 S9 60 8 259 33 772 3 Over$6,-OOO ‘ 30h ' 6? 38‘ 8 115 25 1157 Prefer not to say _ 88 U4 l6 8 97 11.8 201 ,1. m~ee eewee—ee 1 1 a TABLE 7? RELATIONSHIP OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY HOW 313m PER WEEK FOR moo AND RESPONSES CONCERNING FOOD mam PROGRAM AS A PROPER ACTIVITY 01“ n w: SUPPORTED INSTITUTION -_._A M A ‘ ' l . v—' vav +— W W ..w—ffi _Tf w ——v—————Y ——V v—v Amount Spent jfgguld g Wtfigfimn Total Per Week ' m . W No. 3 Number $510.00 or less ' MI 116 8 8*. 1411 56 96 $10.01 to t 20 .00 287 St h? 9 198 37 532 at 20 .01 to t 30 .00 he; 61 61. .8 21:0 31 765 Over at 30.00 ' 19S 61 28 9 96 30 319 ——-— __v _ w ..v ‘— 102 m Twenty-nine percent. of the homemakers in the four. Michigan cities said they were familiar with the M I c Program. When asked if the M I 0 ngram was helpful in planning food buying, '39 percent agreed that it was, and 50 percent said they had "no opinion." It must be assumed that some homemakers were considering the program helpful in a general sense, as 25 percent of the homemakers also agreed to the helpfulness of a radio program presented by a fictitious person. Those homemakers who were the most familiar with the M I C Program have families consistingof three or four Or more. They have yearly incomes of at least $11,000 and have had nine years of education or more. A larger percentage of those who had some home economics training were familiar with the marketing program than those who did not. There was little difference in preference expressed for food market- ing information giving "food cost comparisons" as compared with "reports on expected future supplies and prices" of foods. A majority (63 per- cent) of the homemakers thought that they would both be useful guides. to food buying. An even greater percentage (70 percent) of those home- makers who were familiar with the M I c ‘ Program thought that they both would be useful . h .. Those homemakers who had some knowledge of "expected future supplies and prices" were more likely to agree that this type of information would be useful than those with little 0r no knowledge. This relationship was not true ofinformation about food cost comparisons. "s—aa '3... 103 Over 50 percent of the homemakers agreed that a program to give consumers information about food buying is a prOper activity of a tax supported institution and only eight percent disagreed. If the home- maker was familiar with the M I C Program, she was more likely to agree that such a program should be tax supported. ' As the income, the amount of moneylspent per week, and the edu- cation of the homemakers increased, a larger percentage agreed that a food marketing program was a prOper activity of a tax supported institution . ...... ._,___.. H-__—_—_—_-__ ‘ . . ‘. A ,O k . _,_ . E CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOWDATIONS The Four-City Consumer Questionnaire was sent to 1,000 homemakers a_. in each of four cities in Michigan, Flint, Kalamazoo, Muskegon and ‘ Grand Rapids. .Approximately 50 percent of the homemakers returned the questionnaires. This was followed with a personal interview of the nonprespondents in Kalamazoo. 1 1,4 The purpose of this study was to establish some indications”of '4' consumers level of knowledge about certain areas in food buying. . These indications on particular subjects can.later be checked for any Change in.knowledge.‘ This is one part of an overall evaluation of the Consumer ‘Marketing Information Program. Other factors analyzed from the survey 'were: i i ’ the socio-eoonomic factors related to consumers3 knowledge, the relationships between familiarity with the Consumer Marketing information Program and consumers' knowledge, and flame of the homemakers' opinions about food buying and food buy- ing information. Indications of Level pi: Knowledgg The general level of knowledge of Michigan homemakers was low in all the areas of information presented in the Four-City Mail Survey. As the subjects were chosen as possible areas-of interest to the 19h 105 homemakers and have been incorporated in the M I C Program, this level of knowledge indicates that all areas should be continued to be taught by the Marketing agents with special emphasis on those areas about which consumers knew the least. A food marketing program could begin with the first group of subjects. These are the areas where there is the most confusion and least knowledge on the part of the homemakers. rm ‘ The homemakers possessed misinformatiOn on six topics of infor- [ nation. 'Uhen this is described with the Index of Knowledge the percent L of homemakers who knew the answers becomes a negative percent.1 ! . The first three subjects aboutwhich consumers possessed mis- ,é'} information are terms related to grading: The term "fresh" in relation to the grading of eggs, the terms U. S. Inspected and Passed, and U. S. Grades in relation to U. 3. beef grading and the terms U. S. 1, and. U. s. Fancy about grading apples. ' -hl% were misinformed concerning the term "fresh" eggs, ~52% were misinformed concerning the termst. 3. Inspected and' Passed as opposed to a U. S. Grade, and -31% were misinformed concerning the terms U. S. l and U. S. FanCy. ‘ ' In this category of misinformation also falls all three statements involving the economic aspects of food costs. The negative percentages “were as follows: -h5% of the homemakers had misinformation concerning the percent . of income spent for food, 1The Index of Knowledge—is the percent of homemakers who answered ‘each statement correctly minus the percent of homemakers who answered the statement incorrectly. _‘This formula includes those that "guessed" and those that expressed "no opinion" to give an estimate of the per- cent of homemakers who knew the correct answers. 106 -32% of the homemakers were misinformed concerning the costs of processing and marketing foods, and ~2% were mi.sinformed concerning the cost of food in relationship to wages per hour of the average.American worker. The remaining topics of information in the Four—City Survey are arranged into levels of know1edge that homemakers possess, beginning with the subjects about which they know theleast and continuing to those subjects that more homemakers understood. The second group of subjects include those that under 20 percent of the homemakers knew the correct answers. .An estimated: 5% understood the terms Butt Portion and Butt Half and their relationship of meat per bone, 19% knew that non-fat dry milk retained all its vitamins and minerals from.the fluid milk except Vitamin.A. The next group of.subjects include those that only about 20 to 30 percent of the homemakers knew the correct answers. 'The Index of Knowledge gives an estimation of: . 21.1% who knew what the term "marbling" meant, 22% who understood the labels on hams such as VReady-to-eat." 29% knew that small eggs are usually less expensive per pound than large eggs during September, and 25% understood the other question relating to seasonal price, that there is usually more difference in price between chuck roast and steak in the summer than in the fall and winter months. ‘When these last two statements were.correlated as to how many consumers got both correct, only 23 percent answered them both correctly. 107 The last group are those subjects that between 30 to 50 percent of the homemakers knew the correct answers. The analysis of these statements served to reinforce the fact that homemakers did not generally understand grades and labels and the term "marbling." The Index of Knowledge gave an estimation of: V 37% knew the relative quality standards of the beef grades, Choice and Prime, - 1.114% knew the relative quality standards of the beef grades, Good and Commercial, . . hag knew what the standards might be for grading eggs, 148% knew the'relationship of fat to grades of beef, . 39% understood the term "marbling"and its relationship to grades of beef, and only 35% knew approximately the relative amount of calories in non-fat dry milk compared to fluid whole milk. Some indications of consumers relative level of knowledge about eggs, meats, non-fat dry milk, applesand food costs are expressed in the percent of homemakers who answered one to four questions correctly in each area. More homemakers answered the (questions correctly about egg buying than any other area. Homemakers seem to understand the grading of eggs to a certain degree as evidenced by the Index of Knowledge which indicates that ha percent knew that Grade A eggs were not necessarily large or all white. There is still confusion as to the exact meaning of the term "fresh," especially when it is advertis- ing storage eggs. The difference between the terms U. s. inspected and Passed and U. S. Grades is also conmsed'in the homemaker's mind. 108 Meat buying, marbling in meat and the grading of beef were the next few subject areas to be answered correctly by the consumers. Twenty-seven percent, 33 percent and 31 percent of the homemakers answered three or four questions correctly in these three areas. The use of meat is fairly well understood and the homemakers have some positive means of selecting meat by grade fer a certain.use, but the Index of Knowledge indicates onlyabout hO-percent have very complete knowledge in.regard to the various grades and their respective duality. Marbling as a descriptive term for meat is not underStood and therefore must be more thoroughly explained. ,The Index of Knowledge indicated only 2h percent associated it with the fat distributed through the lean_part of the beef. - Homemakers generally do not understand terms used for Specific cuts of meat, or their relationship of lean meat per pound. A low percentage of homemakers answered these questions correctly. Mbst homemakers also do not understand the seasonal prices of beef and eggs. Only 23 percent of the homemakers answered both the questions pertain- ing to these subjects Correctly. ' ' Nonrfat dry milk has been impressed upon the consuming public as an economical means to get milk nutrients, but homemakers do not understand very well its caloric or nutritional value. Homemakers knew the least about apple grades and food costs. Just about 5 percent of the homemakers answered all three questions correctly in each area. 109 Some specific recommendations arising from these facts would include: I a) As.consumer knowledge of the marketing system and marketing costs is integrated in the objectives of the M I c program, that SpeCial emphasis'be placed on this area of information. Homemakers have misinformation,on this subject which could be clarified by the releasing of the correct information by Consumer Marketing.Agents. ' b) If apple grades are to be instituted or used to any avail, . they must be more thoroughly explained to the consumers. c) Specific explanations of terms used must be continued-even terms such as particular cuts of meat-o .a grade. Socio-Ecopemdc Chergcteristics‘ Very little difference in.consumer knowledge or the related socio- economic characteristics was found among the cities. Although consumer knowledge of marbling in beef was comparatively_high in Kalamazoo and low in.Flint and the identification of apple grades was known by more . consumers in Grand Rapids, no major differences were feund. If in general this is true, materials and suggestions for teaching these areas of information could be sent from a central source such as the state office to Consumer Marketing Information Agents in the cities. The socio-economic factors, incOme, education and amount of money spent per week for food are all directly related to consumer's knowledge of food buying in most of the areas.of information. The more income 110 or education the homemaker had, the more questions the homemakers answered correctly.“ The notable exceptions are apples and food costs. Consumers? knowledge in regard to apple grades is inversely related to the amount of education. 'The reason these socio-economic factors were significantly related to consumers! knowledge of food costs was due mainly to the fact that those homemakers who did not answer the ques- tions regarding their socio-economic factors also did not answer any questions correctly about food coSts. The fact that none of the socio- economic characteristics were directly related to apple grades or the economics of food costs, would suggest that the level of knowledge of these subjects is equal and is probably not taught to any degree in any of the four cities in Michigan. 'Whether or not the homemakers had some home economic training was not significantly related to the homemakers' knowledge in any area of information. It is suggested that this marketing information is not stressed in the home economic classes or that those who did not take home economictraining have learned just as much about this field or food marketing as those who did. Conversely, familiarity with the M I C Program was directly related in all the areas of information. These homemakers.who were familiar with the M I C Program also answered more questions correctly in all areas. This could be due to the fact that the subjects selected for the survey were geared to the information taught by the marketing program and could also be due to the fact that those who are familiar with the M 1 c Program have similar interests and have generally assimilated these particular areas of information. 111 The size of the family was directly related to indications of level of information about egg buying, meat buying, and grades of beef. The larger the family, the more homemakers answered the questions correctly pertaining to these particular areas. In regard to age of the homemakers, those who were between the ages of 31 to 60 answered more questions correctly than those who were under 30 or over 60 years of age. In a few areas of information those homemakers between the ages of 31 to hS answered more questions correctly than those between ho to 60 years of age. Some Specific recommendations relating to the socio—economic factors of the homemakers would be: a) To prepare materials for the use of the Consumer Marketing Information Agents to be sent from the central office. b) To stress those aspects of the subjects that would apply to those homemakers with lower incomes abh,OOO or less). c) To write material that could be more easily under- stood by those homemakers with O to 9 years of education. d) As at the present time those with the larger families and those who are between the ages of 31 to 60 have the most complete know1edge on these areas of information, continue to appeal to these homemakers but add aspects to the information that could be used more directly by those with smaller families and are under 30 or over 60 years of age. 112 Opinions of) Homemakens (3an egrn'ing — w—v——v a Food Phrketing Program Those homemakers who were familiar with the Consumer Marketing Information .Program had a positive attitude toward food marketing programs. These homemakers were more likely. to agree that such a program was helpful and the kinds of information supplied, such as y F“‘ food cost comparisons and reports about future supplies and. prices, a were useful in their food buying. If they were familiar with the program, they were also more likely to agree such a program should be K ! - tax supportedn ' Threnty-nine percent of the homemakers. said they were familiar with the M I 'C Program. Thirty-nine percent said they felt a food marketing program for consumers would be helpful in their food buying and another 50' percent said they had "no opinion} When homemakers were asked their opinion regarding the usefulness of information such as food, cost comparisons and reports on future supplies and'prices, there was very little difference between the per- cent of. homemakers who said each would be useful. Seventy-percent said they thought cost comparisons would be useful and .75 percent said future supplies and prices would be usefhl.‘ Over 50 percent of the homemakers agreed that a food marketing program is a proper activity of a tax supported institution and only 8 percent disagreed. Those homemakers who were most familiar with the M I C Program had the larger households, had incomes of $4,000 or over and had at least nine years of education. ‘ 113 Taking into consideration.not Only the socio-economic factors of the homemakers who said they were familiar with the marketing program, but also the socio-economic factors of those who had a higher level of knowledge on.most of the areas of information, it would seem that special effort is needed to reach these types of families; those, a) with small families, b) in.the lower income group, c) under 30 years of age or over 60, and d) have had 0 to 9 years of education. However, the low level of knowledge, in general, indicates a need for food marketing information for all groups. _"*’-‘ .o-‘un—uu oaum -2“ a ‘1: . l I a BIBL IOGRAPHY Books Parten, M. "Surveys, Pools and Samples: Practical Procedures." New York: Harper &-Bros., 1950. . ‘ Bulletins and Pamphlets ) Breimyer, H. F., and Charlotte.A. Kause, U. S. D. A. Agricultural ‘ ; Handbook No. 83, Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D. C. i Bureau of’Marketing and Enforcement, (Division of Foods and Standards), 9 j ”Egg‘Law and Regulations," Act No. 115, Public.Acts, State of LJQ Michigan, Department of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan, 1939. "Consumer Preferences for Beef,".Agricu1turalExperiment Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, Bulletin 267, October 1955. “Consumer Preference for Beef in Relation to Finish, " University of Missouri, College of.Agriculture,.Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 580, March 1955. Composition of Foods, Handbook Mo, 8, U. S. D. A.,'Washington, D. 0., June 1950. . Cravens, M. E., "Market Basket Higher Priced But Costs.Fewer Hours Work," Michigan Farm Economics, September 1951. . Family Food facts, Agricultural and Heme Boonomics Extension SerVice, Pennsylvania State University, November 26,1957. "Good Cooking with Dry Milk, " Cornell Extension Bulletin, 80h, May 1952. Larzelere, H. 3., and L. E. Dawson, "Do Consumers Understand Egg and Ppultry Gnades?" Poultry Processing and_Marketing, Specializing in Eggs, Chickens and Turkeys, October'l956. - "Instant Nonfat Dry Milk. Its Role in nutrition," Research Division of Pet Milk Co., St. Louis, MisSouri, 1955. 11h 115 "Michigan Apple Marketing Law Stardard Grades for Apples," Michigan Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Marketing and Enforcement, Lansing 13, Michigan, August, 1953. "Quality Recognition and Purchasing Habits of Egg Consumers," Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 592, Purdue Unive sity, Lafayette, Indiana, July 1953 Saunders, Richard, "What Homemakers and Retailers Think About Egg Shell » Color," Maine Agricultural Ebcperilmnt Station, University of Maine, Orono, Maine Bulletin Shh, January 1956. "Standard Grades for Fruits and Vegetables," Michigan Department of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan. " Ten Lessons on Meat for Use in Schools," National Livestock and Meat Board, Chicago, Illinois, 1950. u r.) l-n n:'-‘.—_“\u m4. m-—a 1 .. A n J. "The Consumer Market for Beef, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas, bulletin 856, April 1957. U. s. D. A., Agricultural Marketing Service, Annual Sumnary of Market Statistics, Collected and Compiled by Dairy and Poultry Market News Office, Statistical Bulletin No. 277, Washington, D. C. U. S. D. A.,' "Some Highlights from Consumer Egg Studies," Production and Marketing Administration, Information Bulletin No. 1210, Washington,D ..C June 1.953 ~ U. S. D. A., The Marketing and Transportation Situation, Agriculture Marketing Service, Washington, D. C. , April 1958. Unpublished Material Annual Report, 1957 AMA Project, Michigan uses-6 Marketing Information for Consumers, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Borton, R. E. "Consumer Use of Mass Media for Food Information," (unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1952). Boyts, M. .D- "An Evaluation of Marketing Information for Restaurants, Hospitals and Schools," (unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1957) . 116 Boyts, M. , M. Gillespie and M. Strickland, "Attitudes and Behavior of Muskegon Homemakers as Related to Consumer Food-Buying Infomtion," (a. progress report from a consumer information evaluation study, Demrtment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, March 1957). ’ (Mimeographed). Gillespie, M. M. "An Evaluation of Selected Releases of Mrketing Information for Consumers Prepared by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service," (unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1958). Minden, M. B. "The Consumption Decision and Implications for Consumer Education Pregrams," (unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Purdue 'University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1957)., _ --._,___._.__...___,__1 J .‘.__.‘ rm. q u ... if I). o.‘..\ O ...utulo