o-c cocouofloou-Q-v- nngwzimmlfima I‘: .‘e-L‘Q*3‘l‘ . ‘;;.:, RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FORMAL EDUCATION; FORMAL TRAlNiNG RELATED TO FOOD AND FOOD SHOPPING AND THE AMOUNTS OF MANAGEMENT USED {N FOOD SHOPPING Thesis for H10 Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNEVERSITY Judith Life Ikenberry 1959 WWW!WWIWWITIWIIWWN . _ 3 129399991 3124* . LIBRARY Michigan State University fin 8.x RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FORMAL EDUCATION, FORMAL TRAINING RELATED TO FOOD AND FOOD SHOPPING AND THE AMOUNTS or Mam USED IN FOOD SHOPPING By Judith Life Ikenberry AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Home Eoononiee Michigan Btete Univereity of Agriculture end Applied Science in pertiel fulfillment of the requirenente for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Deputunt of Home Menegenent end Child DeveloPIent 1959 Judith Ikenberry Thesis Abstract This research was a study of relationships between amounts of management homemakers practiced in food shopping and factors in home- makers' educational backgrounds. Need for research in food shopping was indicated because about 50 percent of the average annual expenditure of the American family is spent for food and related products. Because a basic objective of education is preparation of youth for future life activity of which food shopping is a practical example, the educational level of homemakers was chosen for study. Formal training in foods or food shopping was selected for study because it is an area in the educational curriculum.where students might receive specific training in food shopping. This thesis was a part of a broader research project in the area of food shopping management, for which 150 women were chosen from.check- out lines in three Lansing, Michigan, supermarkets. Interviewers ad- ministered a questionnaire dealing with food shopping management to these women. Data on the questionnaires were scored on a food shopping manage- ment scoring device. The scoring device determined scores for each woman for the amounts of total management, planning, controlling of the plan, evaluating, and awareness of motivations used in food shopping. In this thesis statistical procedures were applied to determine whether relationships existed between these management scores and the level of education of the homemakers, the presence or absence of training in foods or food shopping, and the grade level where this training occurred. Judith Ikenberry Statistical analyses indicated that relationships did exist be- tween level of education of the homemakers and amounts of total manage- ment, evaluation, and arareness of motivations used in food shopping. It was found that as educational level of the homemakers increased or decreased the amounts of total management, evaluating, and awareness of motivations also tended to increase or decrease in the same direction. No relationships were found to exist between the level of education of the homemakers and the amounts of planning, and controlling of the plan. No relationships were found to exist between the amounts of management and presence or absence of training in foods or food shopping nor between amounts of management and grade level where the training occurred. From the relationships which existed it was apparent that the higher the homemaker's educational level the more likely she is to practice more food shopping management. Further research is needed to determine whether educational level is the only factor operating to produce this result. Findings of no relationships between amounts of management and training in foods or food shopping and also between amounts of manage- ment and grade level of the training seemed to indicate that food shop- ping management was either not being taught in these courses or that training which these students had received was not being carried over into scorable management of food shopping when the students became homemakers. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FORMAL EDUCATION, FORMAL TRAINING RELATED TO FOOD AND FOOD SHOPPING AND THE AMOUNTS OF MANAGEMENT USED IN FOOD SHOPPING By Judith Life Ikenberry A THESIS Submitted to the College of Home Economics Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Home Management and Child Development 1959 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express her appreciation to Mrs. Carol B. O'Brien for her guidance and help in the preparation of this thesis, to Dr. Alice Thorpe for her many helpful suggestions, and to Dr. Willard Warrington for his counsel regarding the statistical analyses. The writer also wishes to thank the Department of Home Management and Child Development of Michigan State University, for support of this study. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Statement of the Problem Purpose and Importance of the Study Definitions of Terms Discussion of the Subproblems Null Hypotheses Which Were Tested Limitations of the Study Assumptions of the Study II. SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Literature Relating Education to Home Management Studies of Practices Homemakers Used in Food Shopping and in Dealing With Food Research Concerning Consumers' Knowledge About Food Buying Education and Consumer Behavior Summary I I I O METHODOLOGY 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Selection of the Sample Description of Sample Instruments Iv. FINDINGS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction Relationships of Management Scores and Educational ' Levels Relationships of Management Scores and Presence or Absence of Training in Foods or Food Shopping Relationships of Management Scores to Grade Level Where Training Occurred ’ iii Page ii iii 14 51 42 V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . Summary L Acceptance or Rejection of Implications of This Study Appendixes A. ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRE . . . B. SCORING DEVICE . . . . . . . C. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . D. STATISTICAL PROCEDURES . . . Hypotheses iv 67 71+ 86 9O 95 Table 1. 2. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 15. 1A. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Occupation of Breadwinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age of Shopper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Level of Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . Home Economics Training Related to Food or Food Shopping. Respondents Having Training Related to Food or Food Shopping Who Were Used in Analysis . . . . . . . . Grade Level Where Training in Foods or Food Shopping Occurred e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Grade Level of Respondents Having Training in Foods or Food Shopping Who Were Used in the Analysis . . . . . . Frequencies of Total Management Scores According to Educational LOVOI e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Frequencies of Planning Scores According to Level Of Education. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Frequencies of Controlling Scores According to Educational Laval e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Frequencies of Evaluating Scores According to Educational Level e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Frequencies of Awareness of Motivation Scores Accord- ing to Level Of Education e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Frequencies of Total Management Scores According to Presence or Absence of Foods or Food Shopping Training. Frequencies of Planning Scores According to Presence or Absence of Foods or Food Shopping Training . . . . . Frequencies of Controlling Scores According to Presence or Absence of Foods or Food Shopping Training . . . . . Frequencies of Evaluating Scores According to Presence or Absence of Foods or Food Shopping Training . . . . . Frequencies of Awareness of Motivation Scores According to Presence or Absence of Training in Foods or Food Shopping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 55 54 55 56 56 57 45 45 48 51 53 55 57 18. 19. 21. 22. Means of Management Scores Achieved by Groups With Training in Junior High and High School . . . . . Means of Management Scores Achieved by Groups With Training in Junior High and College . . . . . . . Means of Management Scores Achieved by Groups With Training in College and High School . . . . . . . Means of Management Scores Achieved by Groups With Training in College and High School Plus Junior High SChOOI Training. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Means of Management Scores Achieved by Groups of College Educated Homemakers With Training in College and High SChOOl s e e e e e e e e e e e e 61 65 65 Chapter I Introduction Statement of the Problem This study was an analysis of the relationships between the three characteristics: (1) educational level of the homemaker, (2) the presence or absence of formal home economics training in foods or food shopping, (5) the grade level where this training occurred; and the following five factors: (1) the amount of planning of food shop- ping that homemakers practiced, (2) the amount of controlling of the plan of food shopping that homemakers practiced, (3) the amount of evaluating of food shopping that homemakers practiced, (A) the level of awareness of motivations homemakers had of the motivations which they used as determinants in making decisions relative to food shopping, and (5) the total amount of management of food shopping that homemakers prac- t1°0de Purpose and Importance of the Study Introductions—During recent years there have been tremendous in- creases in both consumer buying power and the number of’products avail- able for consumers to buy. These increases have made it imperative that consumers make more decisions concerned with the spending of money. It has been feund that the largest single category of expenditure for the 1 American family is that of food and related products. Thus, it can be said that consumers make a great many decisions concerned with buying food products. Home management has been defined as a series of decisions making up the process of using family resources to achieve family goals.1 The large number of decisions concerned with food buying has given rise to the need for study of the management practiced in food shopping. Following are several references from.current literature which demonstrate this need. Increase in income.-During the past thirty years there has been a tremendous increase in the average income of the American family. that the 1929 average family income after taxes and converted to the value of 1957 dollars was 85910. In 1947, the average family income was 8A61O after taxes and converted to 1957 dollars. In 1957 the aver- age family income after taxes was 85480.2 This is a gain of 40.2 percent in twenty-eight years and a gain of 18.2 percent within the ten year period of 19A7 to 1957. Increase in available products.-During the period from,19h7 to 1957, in which the average income of the American family had this 18.2 percent increase, there was a tremendous increase in the number of products available on the market. Changing Times reported in October, 1Irma H. Gross and Elizabeth H. Crandall, Management for Modern Families (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc., 195A), p. 4. 2Statistical‘Abstract of the United States: 122g (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 195 , p. 515. 1956, that one-third of the products being sold at that time in super- markets were not in existence ten years previously.) A study sponsored by the E. I. Dupont de Nemours Company reported in 195A that an aver- age supermarket stock was 5500 or more different items.4 Further evi- dence of the increasing number of items which can be purchased can be found in a comment made by Paul Willis, President of Grocery Manufactures of America, who stated that, ”In today's markets we find all the way from 4,000 to 7,000 items to put into our market basket. There is as much difference between the market basket today and the 1959 grocery basket as there is between the 1959 automobile and the 1956 automobile."5 Expenditure for foods.-A recent study done for Life magazine on consumer expenditures showed that the average annual expenditure of the American family was $4110. Of this total amount spent the largest single category was that of food, beverages, and tobacco. The average family spent 81205 on this category. This equaled 29.2 percent of the total annual expenditure.6 Another source reported that thirtyesix million homemakers spent thirty-seven billion dollars in food stores in 1957.7 D"Super-Supermarkets of Tomorrow,” Changing Times, X (October, 1956), p. 15. “Latest Facts About Today' s Purchases in Supermarkets (Wilmington, Delaware: E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company, Impulse Buying Study Number 5, Series 1, 1954), p. 2. 5Ruth Dawson, Be Informed When Buyingjoode (Fargo: North Dakota Agri- cultural Extension Service Circular A254, 1956), p. 2. 6Life Study of Consumer Expenditures (New York: Time Inc., 1957), p. 17. 7Better Food for Your Dollar (Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute Extension Service Circular 666, 1958), p. 2. This large consumer expenditure on food items points out the need for research on the managerial practices used by homemakers in food shop- ;png. Are homemakers spending the thirty-seven billion dollars through buying according to impulse or chance, that which may appeal to them at the moment or are they applying the managerial process to achieve goals? {Graham.pointed out the need homemakers have to use management in food shopping. She said that the goal of all food shopping must be to provide nourishing, attractive, and economical meals for the family three times a day. She added, ”To shop for the family larder with the idea that some how meals will come out of the array of foods purchased is to court higher cost and less nourishing meals.'8 ‘ Research in food shopping management.-Research to study this problem.was initiated in 1956, at Michigan State University in the De- partment of Home Management and Child Development. The work reported in this thesis is a part of that research. This portion of that study deals with the analysis of the relationships of formal education and of home economics training related to foods and food shopping, to the amount of management hememakers use in food shopping. Objectives of formal education.-One of the basic objectives of formal education at all levels is the preparation for future activity or life. As food shopping is a practical example of a life activity, it is logical that the relationship between food shopping management and level of education be examined. 8.1 ewel Graham, “How to Get More For Your Money," Iowa Farm Science, VIII (June, 1954), p. 19. This basic aim of education has been stated in educational ob- jectives for many years. As early as 1892, a committee representing the National Education Association stated that the main purpose of secondary education was the preparation of students for the duties of life.9 More recently the program.of general education has been designed with the approach of helping the student meet the problems which are basic to all human life. Klausmeir said, I'Through educational experiences in the general education program each student is to learn many understandings and skills which he uses in daily life activities regardless of which career he may choose."10 fIn one of the most recent statements of the aims of education the Educational Policies Commission of the National Education.Associap tion stated the following, "Learning and living are interrelated. Edu- cation is both a means of individual development and of social progress.. ..In the American value system the cultural heritage is not an escape from the vicissitudes and practicalities of life, but a means of wrestling with themeil} In listing the imperative needs of youth in the secondary schools the National Association of Secondary School Principals translated this broad educational objective of ”preparing youth to meet life's problems” 93erbert Klausmeir, Principles and Practices_gf Secondary School Teachers (New‘York: Harper and Brothers, 1955), p. 21. ‘OIhid., 25. 11Educational Pelicies Commission, Higher Education in a Decadefigf Decision (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1957), p. 10. into an objective relating more specifically to consumer activity. They stated that, “All youth need to know how to purchase and use goods and services intelligently, understanding both the values received by the consumer and the economic consequences of their acts."12 Objectives of home economics.-As a part of the broad curriculum of the school, the home economics program may serve to increase the capability of youth to deal with problems related to the home, and the study of foods and food shopping is an area in which the homemaker might gain training dealing specifically with the problem of manage- ment of food shopping. .A review of recent literature indicates that current writers in home economics have recognized the need for training in food shopping. Paolucci has stated, ”Homemaking education which meets present day needs of homes stresses an understanding of nutri- tional problems and spending for foods as well as skills in food preparation."15 Scully also emphasized the importance of including training in food buying in the home economics curriculum. She stated, 'A broad program of home economics will include food for the family with its various aspects of planning, buying, preparation, serving, conserva- s14 tion, and storage. 12Nelson Bossing, Teaching_in the Secondapy Schools (5rd ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952), p. 25. 15Beatrice Paolucci, "A Look At Today's Homemaking Programs,’ National Association_gf Secondapy_8chool Principals Bulletin, XXXVII ‘(October,1955), pp. 1-1E. 1“Eva Scully, "Present Day Emphasis in Home Economics Education," National Association of Secondagy School Principals Bulletin, XXXVII (October,1955), p. 26: The need was more explicitly stated by Jones in the Journal 22 £223 Economics in 1958. "Today's shopper is being turned loose in the most fabulous wonderland of foods in history. With the typical super- market's several thousand square feet of floor space jammed with more than 6,000 products, this girl needs help!- There is convenience in self-service, but there is also confusion for the uneducated.“15 This study was an attempt to determine the relationship of formal education and of training in foods or food shopping to the amounts of food shopping management homemakers practiced. Definitions of Terms In this study the definition used for management is that of Gross and Crandall. \ "Home management consists of a series of decisions making up the process of using family resources to achieve family goals. The process consists of three more or less consecutive steps: planning; controlling the various elements of the plan while carrying it through, whether it is executed by oneself or by others: and evaluating results preparatory to future planning." “(3 Also included in the analysis of management is an area called awareness of motivation. It was not meant to imply that awareness of motivation is a separate step of management, but rather that it is an inherent pro- cess in the other three steps of management. Awareness of motivation 15Lila Jones, “Are Your Foods Classes Keeping Up With the Times?", Journal of Home Economics, L (May, 1958), p. 540. 16Gross and Crandall, loc. cit. \ 8 was included in the analysis to add further information about the process of management in food shopping. Throughout the study these four areas of management are referred to as phases of management. i: various times in the study the term ”amount of management” or the terms "amounts of - planning, controlling,evaluating, and awareness of motivations" are used. These terms mean the amount of management or the amount of the phase of management which the hgfigfiifiz:scored on the scoring device used in the study.17 (Food shopping refers to the purchase of food and related items in the market?! Homemaker designates the female who bore the major responsibility of managing the food shopping. This includes both women who make home- making their full time occupation and women who work outside the home and also bear the major responsibility of performance and management of the household duties. Formal education as used in this study means education in the classroom situation, under the guidance of an instructor, and as a part of an educational curriculum. Although there are a multitude of ex- periences which have educational values for the individual which do not have these prerequisites, such other experiences are not included in this study. Training in foods or food shopping means training specifically in these areas through the formal educational situation described 17For description of scoring device, see page 58. previously. At various times in this thesis this term.has been shortened to the word l'training." Also the phrase "training in foods or food shopping“ has sometimes been combined with the grade level where the training occurred. An example of this is, 'Homemakers with college training in foods or food shopping.‘I This phrase has at times been shortened to "college training," "college trained,“ and I'women with college training.“ These terms are changed appropriately to fit other grade levels. In all cases these terms refer to ”training in foods or food shopping." The terms "related to" and "relationship“ are defined in this study to mean a connection between two variables or the mode in which one thing stands to another. The terms "statistically significant" and "significant“ are used in this study to show that the relationship was indicated by the re- sults of the method of analysis, and that these results could only have occurred due to chance a specified number of times in one hundred trials. In this study no relationship was considered significant unless it could have occurred by chance five or less times in one hundred trials. The term ".05 level of significance“ indicates that five times out of one hundred trials these results might have occurred due to chance. The decimal numbers have been changed appropriately for changes in the level of significance. Relationships which were found to be significant at the .025 level of significance or the .005 level of significance are considered to be “very significant" in this study. 10 Discussion of the Subproblems To study the relationships of education and foods and food shop- ping training to the amount of management homemakers practiced in food shopping the problem was divided into several subproblems. /¥;e amount of management which the homemakers practiced was studied through the use of a scoring device which analyzed four specific phases of food shopping management. They were: (1) the amount of plan- ning, (2) the amount of controlling, (5) the amount of evaluating and (4) the awareness of respondents of the motivations used as determinants in food shopping decisions. The total amount of management which home- makers practiced was also studied. These total management scores were obtained through addition of the scores achieved by each homemaker in the four phases of food shopping management listed abovgy/ The study of education was carried out by an analysis of the level of formal education of the respondents. Home economics training in foods and food shopping was studied in two separate aspects: first, the presence or absence of formal train- ing dealing with foods or food shopping; and secondly, in the cases where training was present, the grade at which this training occurred. 11 Null Hypotheses Which Were Tested Relationship of Management Scores Achieved by Homemakers to Level of Education of Homemakers 1. 2. 5. There is no relationship between the amount of formal education and the amount of management of food shopping done. There is no relationship between the amount of formal education and the amount of planning of food shopping done. There is no relationship between the amount of formal education and the amount of controlling of the plan of food shopping done. There is no relationship between the amount of formal education and the amount of evaluating of food shopping done. There is no relationship between the amount of formal education and the awareness of motivations, which were used as determinants in making decisions relative to food shopping. Relationship of Management Scores Achieved by Homemakers to Presence or ‘Absence of Foods or Food Shopping Training of Homemakers 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. There is no relationship between the presence or absence of training in foods or food shopping and the amount of management of food shopping done. There is no relationship between the presence or absence of training in feeds or food shopping and the amount of planning of food shopping done. There is no relationship between the presence or absence of training in foods or food shopping and the amount of controlling of the plan of food shopping done. There is no relationship between the presence or absence of training in foods er food shopping and the amount of evaluating of food shopping done. There is no relationship between the presence or absence of training in foods or food shopping and the awareness of motivations, which were used as determinants in making decisions relative to food shopping. 12 Relationship of Management Scores Achieved by Homemakers to the Grade Level Where Foods or Food Shopping Training Was Obtained 11. There is no relationship between the grade level at which training was received in foods or food shopping and the amount of management of food shopping done. 12. There is no relationship between the grade level at which training was received in foods or food shopping and the amount of planning of food shopping done. 15. There is no relationship between the grade level at which training was received in foods or food shopping and the amount of controlling of the plan of food shopping done. 14. There is no relationship between the grade level at which training was received and the amount of evaluating of food shopping done. 15. There is no relationship between the grade level at which training was received in foods or food shopping and the awareness of motiva- tions, which were used as determinants in making decisions relative to food shopping. Limitations of the Study For the analysis of formal education and of home economics train- ing dealing with food or food shopping, the variables were limited to education and training which occurred as a part of the formal educational curriculum.of the elementary school, secondary school, college or university. The analysis of food shopping management practices was limited to the amounts of management which were measured on the scoring device. No attempt was made to judge the quality of the management which was used. The study was limited to white women living in the urban area of Lansing, Michigan. 15 The study was limited to managerial practices connected with shop- ping only in supermarkets. The writer accepts the limitations which arise from.working with a particular sample drawn from a vast population. Assumptions of the Study It was assumed in this study that homemakers would practice varyb ing amounts of management of food shopping. It was also assumed that the management scoring device used was sufficiently valid and reliable for indicating amounts of the four phases of management and of the total amount of management of food shopping which the homemakers practiced.18 18Developed by Mrs. Carol B. O'Brien, Department of Home Management and Child Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, unpubl 1.3th , 1958e Chapter II Survey of Related Literature Introduction There were several areas of literature related to this study which were surveyed. These areas are presented in the following manner - (1) management studies which analyzed the variables of educational level and training in home economics of the homemaker, (2) studies of practices which seemed to be indicative of management in food shopping and in dealing with foods, (5) studies concerning the knowledge consumers have about buying food, and (fi) studies which analyzed the variables of edu- cational level of the homemaker and the consumption of specific com- modities. Literature Relating Education to Home Management Very few studies have been made which have included attempts to relate home management to the educational experiences of the homemaker. The first such study under the direction of Gross was an attempt to measure the management used by Michigan homemakers through the use of a home management scoring device developed for the study. The device included six factors: (1) use of time and energy; (2) use of money; (5) household production: (A) conservation of goods; (5) looking to the future; (6) incentives for home management. 14 15 One analysis using this rating device was a comparison of the level of education of a sample of rural Michigan homemakers and the scores they achieved. The total scores of the homemakers progressed irregularly but steadily higher as years of formal education of the homemakers increased. When the subscores of the various parts of the rating device were tabulated, all scores except that of household pro- duction increased as the total number of years of education increased. From these figures it was concluded that the level of education is a very important factor in the amount of management which homemakers used. When further analysis was made to determine the effectiveness of home economics training in relation to total management scores as indicated by the device it was found that women with home economics training of all kinds had a mean total score of 156.0 out of a possible 500 points and women without home economics training had a mean total score of 158.4. The type of home economics training most related to the total management score was also studied. It was found that home economics training at any grade level below college was not related to an increase in management scores. The few women in the study who had received col- lege training in home economics had the highest scores of all. It was also found that the group of homemakers who had extension training had statistically significant higher scores than homemakers who did not have this experience.1 Another study relating home management to home economics training was that of Thorpe on home management practices used by married college 1Irma H. Gross, Measuring Home Management (East Lansing: Michigan State Agricultural Experiment Station Circular Bulletin 211, 1948), pp. 25-26. 16 students. This study involved two approaches which are of particular interest. The first is an analysis of several areas of home management in relation to the place where the homemaker received home economics training. '(In financial management, Thorpe found that whether or not the homemakers had had home economics training made little difference in the possession of financial plans, in the joint making of plans by husband and wife, in the form.and completeness of the plans, and in their successful use. There seemed to be a relationship between formal home economics training and the use of written plans. In the keeping of records there was a significant difference between the group of homemakers with college training in home economics and the group of homemakers with no training. There was also a highly significant dif- ference in the types of records kept.2 In managmment of time there seemed to be a tendency for the use of time plans to increase as formal home economics training increased, but for use of complete plans to decrease.5 In the study of energy management the college home economics trained homemakers showed significant differences when compared with the other/groups. College home economics trained homemakers reported more regular tirednesslf/ aAlice‘Outler Thorpe, 'A Study of Home Management Practices in Homes of Married Students at Michigan State College” (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1949), p. 45. 51bid., 58. thid., 62. 17 For the second type of analysis Thorpe developed a scoring device and applied this to the management practices the homemakers used. When mean scores were computed for the groups there was a highly significant difference between the group with college training and the group with no training. In general, relationships indicated by using this device agree quite closely with those found in the Gross study mentioned pre- viously. Thorpe, making reference to the Gross study in relation to her work, said, "Both studies seemed to indicate that home economics train- ing which is received through colleges or through special interest groups such as 4-H clubs, extension classes or night school work tends to im- prove management in general whereas home economics training received formally through the secondary schools does not seem to influence the management practices of the homemaker."5 KThe relationship of four managerial practices to specific family characteristics of two groups of home demonstration club members was studied by Lee. The two groups studied were distinct in the fact that one group had had only extension training and the second group had had both extension and home economics training. The four home managerial practices which were investigated were budgeting, record keeping, meal planning, and meal preparation. Of these, only meal gianning and record keeping seemed to be related to ‘the type of home economics training the homemakers had received;/ One of the family characteristics analyzed was that of educational level of the homemaker. Lee made no generalizations concerning the 51bid., 9o. 18 influence of educational level upon the managerial activities studied. However, her findings indicated a trend toward a larger percentage of families budgeting, and a larger percentage of families keeping records as educational level rose, while the percentage of homemakers who planned meals less than one day in advance decreased as educational level rose.6 These trends were not statistically significant. Lee concluded, “It would seem that if these practices be desir- able families might benefit from.more emphasis being placed on family budgeting, advance planning of meals, and to some extent on keeping records of family expenses. Families in low income and low educational classes apparently need the most assistance."7 fFrom.an analysis of data concerning homemaking practices and time use, Clark reported that 80 percent of the homemakers who had previously lived in a home management house on a college or university campus kept records in their own homes. This percentage was compared to 55 percent home record keepers who had not lived in home management houses but had had some college education. Clark concluded, ”The data seem to indicate that the experience in a home management house is partly responsible for the practice of keeping records.'fL) pg. 6Joyce Ann Lee, ”A Study of the Relation Between Certain Home Management Practices and Specified Family Characteristics of Tennessee Home Demon- stration Club Members" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1957), pp. 19-25. 71bid., 40. aAlma Beth Clark, ”An Analysis of the Time Spent in Certain Homemaking Activities by the University of Tennessee Home Management House Students and Selected Tennessee Homemakers, 1945 and 1946" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1947), p. 57. 19 A study of the meals served in the homes of 565 vermont farm families was made by Johnson. Nutritional quality ratings of good, fair, and poor were given to the meals served. These ratings were analyzed according to the presence of home economics training in the homemakers' background. Included in the analysis was home economics training received in grade school, high school, college, or 4-H. Johnson found that of the homemakers serving good meals, 45 percent had had home economics training. Of those serving fair meals, 55 per- cent had had training: while only 20 percent of those serving poor meals had had such training. No statistical test of any relationship existing between these figures was reported.9 Studies of Practices Homemakers Used in Food Shopping and In Dealing With Food Several studies have examined specific practices used in food shopping and in dealing with foods. No study was found concerned with the total picture of management homemakers practice in food shopping nor with foods. In a study of twenty-five farm families on a government loan project in Texas, Moore collected data on specific managerial practices used in food purchasing.) Her findings include the following items. 1. Eighty-two percent purchased food by brand or label. 2. Eighty-eight percent used a shopping list. 9Ruth Johnson, 'Food Management in 565 Vermont Farm.Homes' (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Vermont, 1950), pp. 77-78. 20 5. Eighty-eight percent bought the bulk of.the family food in one shopping trip each week. 4. Seventy-two percent purchased "specials." When asked why they followed these practices the respondents indicated that they purchased by brand or label because of family preferences, because they had found it was a dependable brand, and because of habit. The reasons given for doing the bulk of the shopping weekly were that it saved time and was more convenient.10 Moore made no attempt to analyze or give reasons for these high percentages. However, she did conclude that even though the women who were studied did a large percentage of the family buying it was evident from.the reasons given for selection that all of them were not aware of their responsibilities as consumers. She also concluded that "specials'' and ”sales" had not appreciably affected the buying practices of the group for the income was too limited to cover the cash requirements of 11 This last conclusion must have been based most specials and sales. on data for items other than food, for the findings indicated that a large percentage of the sample indicated they purchased 'specials.' Moore did not indicate which of the items studied led her to this general conclusion. In 1944, Muse published a report of a study of practices home- makers used during food shopping. The practices studied dealt primarily 1OM'aryAllison Moore, ”A Study of the Factors Influencing the Buying Practices of a Selected Group of Farm.Women' (unpublished Master's. thesis, Texas State College for Women, 1949), p. 50. 11Ibid., 81. 21 Iwith saving money. Her findings seemed to show relatively small pro- portions of homemakers engaging in the activities which were analyzed. Half of the homemakers in three of the five geographical areas studied said they habitually watched the scales when their purchases were weighed. Very few homemakers checked weights on a home scale. Less than a fourth of the buyers habitually checked before leaving the store to make cer- tain they had all items for which they had paid.12 f1 families studied did a minimum of advance planning for food shopping. study by Muse reported that the majority of the This minimum of advance planning seemed to be defined by Muse as keep- ing a running list of staples. All but a few families keptcsuch a list. When the homemakers shopped, most of the decisions they made took place in the store. When persons other than homemakers shopped, they generally had been given some type of list by the homemaker. Muse concluded that only a few women based their food shopping on meals they had already planned, for only twenty-nine out of the three hundred sixty-five women studied planned meals for more than a day in advance. Most of the women felt they bought foods economically: however, Muse found that there was very little planning for buying on the basis of comparative costs, and many women were found not to know how much they spent for food in a week.1f/)- 12Marianne Muse, Food Buying for Vermont Farm.Homes (Burlington: Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 514, 1944), p. 50. 15Marianne Muse, Food Management in SomeLVermont Farm.Homes (Burlington: Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 601, £95}), pp. 25-28. r7103“ 22 Findings seemed to indicate that the women studied by Muse practiced very little management of food shopping. Another study of food shopping practices was made by McDonald. Her study was devoted to differences in practices of homemakers mm- ployed outside the home and full time homemakers. McDonald's findings showed that 90 percent of the homemakers who were working outside the home made only one major shopping trip a week, while 75 percent of those not in the labor force shopped once a week. Also of interest was her analysis of the amount of prepared or partially prepared food which these two groups purchased. Women in the labor force bought a smaller amount of these foods.14 (A resent-article in the magazine Progressive 9522:: reported a Nesbitt.Associates study of three hundred nine homemakers. These home- makers said they usually entered the store with some sort of precon- ceived idea of a meal menu. However, they said that their final deci- sions were frequently influenced by what they saw in the store, and on many occasions they radically changed their meal plans because of cer- tain displays which suggested great appetite or economy appeal.1?/) McFadden studied different methods of food shopping to find the most economical method. Her findings indicated that buying items in various markets where particular foods were cheapest was the method by 1l‘Helen Christena McDonald, I'Food Purchasing and Preparation Practices of Homemakers in the Labor Force and Homemakers Not in the Labor Force' (unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1957), p. 44. 15"Consumers Plan Meals While Shopping,‘l Progressive Grocer, XXXVII (February, 1958), p. 10. 25 which the smallest food expenditures could be made. However, McFadden said, "The price advantage would not offset much transportation or time and energy used in between-store shopping." Also included in this re- search was a study of why consumers chose particular food markets. Forty percent of the homemakers studied chose the store they patronized because it was convenient, an additional 20 percent said their choice was due to the fact that the store was near home, which McFadden said also might be considered "convenient." 0f the total sample 55 percent gave price as their reason for selecting the store. McFadden summarized the study by saying, "Today's customer food buyers are good managers. They look for stores that save them time as well as money."16 A study by Shaffer at Michigan State University dealt with meat shopping practices. Forty percent of the families studied purchased meat from more than one source in a week and about 55 percent of the families switched their expenditures for meat to different stores from one week to the next. From the study Shaffer concluded that most families do not have strong store loyalities when buying meat.17 {A comprehensive review of the literature concerning the consumer decision to buy has been made by Minden. In this review she has at- tempted to integrate the findings of many studies and to draw some general conclusions. 0no area studied was that of the relative importance 16Joan Robertson McFadden, "Consumer Food Buyers Today Are Good Managers,“ Journal of Home Economics, L (February, I958), p. III. 17James Shaffer, ”Consumers Do Shop Around for Meat," Quarterly Bulle- tin.of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, XXXXI (August, 1958): PP0 170-180- 24 .. \ of price, quality, and convenience to the consumer. Her conclusions about the relationship were, “It would appear that of the three pur- chase considerations, that quality was the consideration of greatest importance under most of the food buying situations studied. Price was of second importance, and convenience was of third importance. Convenience, when it was of greater than third importance, was in a first position, indicating that under certain buying situations the convenience consideration was strong.I These positions of relative importance were derived from the percentages of various populations that reported the specific component as a reason for purchase choice.tg> The relationship between education and price, quality, and con- venience was reported in only one study which Minden reviewed. Meat was the only food product analyzed. Minden reported from that study that as education increased price became more important. Consumers with a high school education seemed to feel that quality was of the least importance, while both the grade school group and college educated group felt that it was of greater importance. Convenience was found to be of equal importance to all educational groups in this study.19 In a report to the Seventh.Annual Food Forum, Fish told of a survey of management used by young married women. She reported that 18Mary Beth Minden, “The Consumption Decision and Implications for Con- sumer Education Programs” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1957), Fe 1090 191bid., 114, quoting J. L. Matthews and Gale Ueland, Food Buying Habits of Families in Louisville (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agricultural Extension Service Circular 501, 1955), p. 4. 25 these young married women felt guilty that they did so little meal planning, but at the same time they gave no indication of being ready to do more planning. Planning for this group of homemakers involved a choice of a main dish and ”scouting“ to see what went with it. For dinner these women seldom.planned more than a few hours ahead and week- end preparations differed little. Fish also said that the young married women had two desires connected with food preparation. They wanted shortcuts to save time and energy, and they also wanted to create and add their own originality to the food.20 From analysis of the results of a study of one hundred ninety- nine families living in small communities and in farm areas, Tamplin reported that 45 percent of the homemakers said they planned their meals one day ahead. When considered by place of residence it was found that the tendency to plan meals for a longer period ahead was more typical of rural than of urban homemakers. No differences were found in this pattern when it was compared to the age and education of the homemaker and when it was compared to membership in a home demonstration club or a nutrition class in school.21 A study conducted in Everett, Washington, of the meal planning done by homemakers found that writing meal plans was a procedure few homemakers practiced. Breakfasts were not planned because the family 20.1. w. Fish, 'How Important Can It Be?" Food Marketgpics, v (April, 1958): P0 5- 21Barbara Tamplin, Food Habits in.Alabany CountyLWyoming (Laramie: Wyoming.Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 72, 1956), p. 9. 26 generally ate a fixed menu for this meal. The main meal was planned in most households. One out of three respondents planned the meals around the meat. About one in ten mentioned using a special diet or a balanced diet as the basis for planning. For the other meal one- third of the respondents reported following a general pattern and over half reported using left-overs or "whatever was on hand' for this third meal.22 Research Concerning Consumers' Knowledge About Food Buying [Several studies have been made of the knowledge.homemakers have about food shopping. The‘studies~havemeoveredreeveral~differentnareaS' -o£—knewledge. /4From.a study of the knowledge homemakers have about certain areas of food buying, including factors in meat and produce buying and food costs, Holmes concluded that home economics training was not signifi- cantly related to anyerea of information about food buying included in the study. She offers two possible explanations for this. One is that these areas of information were not covered in the home economics curriculum. .Another possibility is that the homemakers who did not have this traininggwere as aware of this type of information as those who did.25/) rar- 22Calla Van Sy6fie, IFood Management Practices in an Industrial City," Journal of Home Economics, XLVII (February, 1955), p. 119. 23Mary Strickland Holmes, "Some Indications of Knowledge and Opinions of Michigan Homemakers About Food Buying" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1958), p. 75. 27 A study done in Montana dealt with knowledge consumers had concerning the buying and using of meats. It was found that respondents both with home economics training and without it had similar knowledge concerning the inspection to determine safety for human consumption given meats. However, it was found that those homemakers with home economics training were more familiar with beef grading than those without the training. From a question concerning cutting off the area where the purple grading stamps are found on meat, it was found that twice as many homemakers without home economics training as with it did this because they thought the coloring was harmful. Clow summarized the study by saying, "In general it might be said that Montana home economics trained homemakers have better knowledge and practices in regard to meats as compared with those without classroom home economics training.'24 A study by Van Sydfie in Everett, Washington, to determine what knowledge homemakers had concerning federal meat grading found that 52 percent of the homemakers surveyed had no knowledge about the grades of meat they bought. Only 15 percent knew what grades they bought and understood what it meant in terms of relative quality and price. From this study Van Sydfie concluded that if the system of federal beef grades is to serve a useful purpose to consumers, a consumer education progme:;/ is needed.25 2L’Bertha Clow, IMeat Knowledge and Practices of Montana Homemakers," Journal of Home Economics, L (May, 1958), pp. 559-564. 25Calla van Sydue, ”A Note on Meat Buying in Everett, Washington,‘ Jggzngl g: 5323 Economics, IIIL (October, 1955), pp. 559-564. 28 The Minden study, partially discussed previously, included an analysis of the information homemakers had about food costs. Minden found that a high percentage of homemakers were able to report their food costs for a recent period of time and that they generally used this amount as a reference when buying, rather than considering the food prices of individual food items. Minden also found that knowledge about prices of individual food items was limited. ”The little evi- dence available indicated that scant and inaccurate price knowledge was usual, with less knowledge reported by those with higher incomes."26 Education and Consumer Behavior Many studies have been made relating consumption of certain commodities to the educational level of the homemaker. No single generalization of a relationship was indicated from.the studies surveyed. A study by Dean, Davis, and Laity on use of dairy products showed that there was a trend for the consumption of fresh fluid milk and milk equivalents to increase as educational level of the husband and that of the homemaker increased.27 Another study on milk by Drake and Roach confirmed these findings. They reported that, in general, milk consumption increased as educational 26Minden, op. cit., 217. 27Willamay Dean, Blanche Davis, and Ruth Laity, Marketing and Family Use of Dairy Products, (Blacksburg: Virginia.Agxicultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 126, 1956), p. 15. 29 level of the homemaker rose. They concluded, however, that this increase was determined more by the improved economic status of the families than by the higher educational level.28 In a study of meat consumption Shaffer, Quackenbush, and Moss reported that education of homemakers in and of itself seemed to have little effect on meat consumption.29 Likewise, in a study of consumption of butter they found no rela- tionship between the amount consumed or spent for the commodity and the educational level of the homemaker.50 In a study comparing the consumption of apples, however, they found that families in which the homemaker had had less formal education tended to buy smaller quantities of apples.51 28Phyllis Drake and Florence Roach, Use of Milk by Urban and Rural Families in South Carolina (Clemson: South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 457, 1956), p. 15. 29J. D. Shaffer, G. G. Quackenbush, and T. N. Moss, The Cons tion of Meat and Related Products in Lansing, Michigan,_§p£ing,_1950 (East Lansing: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 2599 1954): P’ 20° 50J. D. Shaffer and G. G. Quackenbush, Consumer Purchases of Butter and Cleomargarine (East Lansing: Michigan.Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 248, 1955), p. 22. 51J. D. Shaffer and G. G. Quackenbush, Consumer Purchases of Apples (East Lansing: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Special Bulletin 405, 1955), p. 16. 50 Summary From the studies reviewed it appears that a positive relationp ship between educational level of the homemaker and management practices exists. There was some disagreement between the studies relating home economics training to management practices. It appears, in general, that the findings show a significant relationship only between training in home economics at the college level and management practices. How- ever, no attempt to eliminate the effect of the level of education was made in most of the studies reporting this result. From the review of the literature dealing with studies of food shopping and use of food the work which has been done has dealt pri- marily with isolated shopping practices which the authors have judged to be desirable. The studies do not adequately give a description of the complete managerial process homemakers use. This lack indicated the need for further research in this area. The studies dealing with knowledge consumers have about buying food did not agree about the relationship of training in home economics and knowledge about food shopping. It may be concluded from the studies reviewed that homemakers generally possess a small amount of knowledge about food buying. Studies of the consumption of various items and the level of education of the homemaker did not agree upon the presence of a rela- tionship between product consumption and the homomaker's educational level. Chapter III Methodology Selection of the Sample Following are discussions of the selection and description of the sample and of the scoring device which were developed for the original study of which this thesis is a part. The sample consisted of 150 white, urban women. Every third woman in particular checkout lines of three supermarkets in Lansing, Michigan, was asked to cooperate with the study. During this first contact the homemakers answered a few questions and some granted per- mission for another interview to take place in their own homes a few days later and set a time for the second interview. During this initial contact 250 women were contacted. 0f the 100 not used in the sample, 52 did not want to talk to the interviewer, 49 did not wish to give a home interview and 19 scheduled home inter- views but then, for various reasons, the home interviews were not completed. This first contact with homemakers was made during busy periods in the store so that the women might be interviewed while standing in line. It was thought that interviewing at this time would cause the respondents less inconvenience as they would not be delayed by the interview. 51 52 The three supermarkets selected varied in size and in type of management. One was an independent grocery market, one was a local chain market, and one was a fairly large regional chain market. They were located in different sections of the community. The selection of the markets was made from.information concerning market types provided by the staff of the local Marketing Information for Consumers Program. Description of Sample Data describing the homemakers and their families were tabulated giving a description of certain biographical characteristics of the total sample. Occupation of the Breadwinner Table 1 gives percentages of family breadwinners falling into certain occupational groups. Also included in this table are percentages of the total number of males employed in the United States in the same groupings.1 Of note is the fact that zero percentages are listed for 'students" and ”retired” breadwinners in the national listings. This is due to the basic definition of employed males used in the national statistics. The discrepancy between the percentages for the category 'other' for the sample and for the national percentage is due to the inclusion of 1Statistical Abstract of-the United States: 1958, op. cit., 218. 55 TABLE 1 OCCUPATION 0F BREADWINNER Occupational Group Sample National Percentages Percentages Manager, professional, tOChnical, OffiCial e e e e 28.7 25s? Craftsman, foreman. e e e e e 26e6 19s 5 Clerical, sales . . . . . . . 16.7 12.8 Operative s e e e e e e e e s 11.2 18e9 Student s s e e e e e e e e e 6.7 0.0 sorfica workers e e e e e e e he? 6el1' Retired e e e e e e e e e e e 4.0 0.0 Laborer e 'e e e e e e e e e e 2e? 8e0 Other 0 e e e e e e e e e e e 2e? 10e6 Total........... 100e0 100.0 farm workers as "other" in the national percentage. Because the sample is from.an urban population no farm.workers were included in the sample. Age of Shopper The age of the homemaker was judged by the interviewer. Table 2 shows the numbers in each age group and the percent of the total sample falling in each age group. The sample is made up primarily of young and middle-aged homemakers. Educational Level Data given by the respondents specifying the highest level of formal education which they had achieved were divided into five cate- gories. The number of respondents reporting each of the various levels of education is shown in Table 5 with the percentage of the total sample 54 TABLE 2 AGE OF SHOPPER Age Group Number Percentages of Sample Young e e e e e e e e 77 51s} Middle-aged e e e e e 65 h2e0 01d e e s e e e e e e 10 6.7 Tatal e e e e e e e 150 100.0 which they represent. Also included in this table are percentages of the 1957 national educational level of the total female population eighteen years old or older.2 EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS TABLE 5 Educational Level Number Sample National Percentage Percentages Grade school or some high IChOOI e e,e e 54 22e7 51.4 High school degree. . 60 40.0 51.8 Some college. e e e e 52 21s} 7e9 College degree or more 24 16.0 5.4 Other........ 0 0.0 5e5 T0133]. e e e e e e e 1% 100.0 100e0 Of note in Table 5 is the high educational level of the sample when compared to the national percentages. fact that there is a large university in the community. This may be related to the 2Ibid., 110. 55 Home Economics Training Data were gathered indicating the presence or absence of home economics training related to food or food shopping in the homemaker's background. Table 4 gives the numbers and percentages of the total sample reporting training of this type. TABLE 4 HOME ECONOMICS TRAINING RELATED TO FOOD OR FOOD SHOPPING Training Experience Number Sample Reporting Percentages NO training e e e e e e e e 71 47e 5 Had training. e e e e e e e 79 52s 7 TOt‘l O O O O O O O O O O 1 m 100 O 0 It was found that two women included in the ”No training“ group had had extension training dealing with foods and food shopping. After examination of Gross's findings of the effect of extension training upon management scores5 these two cases were dropped from the analysis because of a possible bias which might result from their inclusion. The figures used in the statistical analysis of the presence or absence of training related to foods or food shopping are shown in Table 5. The grade level at which homemakers reported that training in foods or food shopping was received is reported in Table 6. 5Gross, loc. cit. 56 TABLE 5 RESPONDENTS HAVING TRAINING RELATED TO FOOD OR FOOD SHOPPING WHO WERE USED IN ANALYSIS Training Experience Number Percentages . Reporting (H.148) NO tr‘ining e e e e e e e e 69 11'6e6 H‘d tnininge e e e e e e e 79 55s“ Tau]. e e e e e e e e e e 1A8 ; 100e0 TABLE 6 GRADE LEVEL WHERE TRAINING IN FOODS OR FOOD SHOPPING OCCURRED W Grade Level Number Percentages Reporting (N-82) In junior high 3011001 e e e 8 9e8 In high .ChOOIe e e e e e e 57 69o.)- In college. e e e e e e e e 17 20e7 TOt‘l e e e e e e e s e e 82 100e0 It was found that seventy-nine women reported eighty-two train- ing experiences: three women had reported training in two of the three grade levels. These three women were dropped from the sample in the analysis of the grade level at which training occurred, thus, eliminat- ing six training experiences. Table 7 gives the numbers and percentages of the respondents which were used in the statistical analysis. 57 TABLE 7 GRADE LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS HAVING TRAINING IN FOODS OR FOOD SHOPPING WHO WERE USED IN THE ANALYSIS Grade Level Number Percentages Reporting (N-76) In junior high school . . . 7 In high IChOOIe e e e e e e 54 7101 In college. e e e e e e e e 15 Total.......... 76 100e0 Instruments Questionnaire The home interview took place three to five days after the initial contact in the supermarket. During the home interview the interviewer administered a pro-coded questionnaire dealing with the managerial practices used during the shopping trip in which the initial contact ' took place and with specific biographical data necessary for the analysis. The questions asked were of two types: stimulus recall and rating scales. A copy of the complete questionnaire is included in Appendix A. A problem was encountered in the administration of the question- naire. It wasdifficult for the homemaker to separate the characteris- tics of the particular shopping trip being studied from her usual food shopping practices, and when a second trip had been made subsequent to 58 the particular shopping trip being studied the homemaker often had difficulty in discriminating among the trips. Scoring Device To summarize the various activities of food shopping surveyed in the questionnaire, a scoring device based on food shopping management practices was constructed by Mrs. Carol B. O'Brien of the Department of Home Management and Child Development at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, with consultation of a group of home economists in the Department of Home Management and Child Development. The scor- ing device was designed as a measure of the amount of management which homemakers practiced in food shopping. It was not designed to measure the quality of management, nor the emphasis the homemaker placed upon saving money. It divided the activities of food shopping into four phases: planning, controlling, evaluating, and awareness of motivation. The items in the scoring device were composed of the questions in the origi- nal questionnaire which dealt with these four areas. The phases of planning, controlling, and evaluating were weighted equally with 150 points each. Awareness of motivation was given a value of 50 points. Different point values were assigned to the individual items in order that the total for each phase equal 150. The total possible management score on the device was 500 points. Sixteen of the twenty-five items were worth 20 points each; the others ranged from 5 to 40 points. In some items of the scoring device a range of scores was possible. If the homemaker carried through the activity to the fullest extent, she 59 received more points than if she only partially carried through the activity. The device was experimentally used by scoring a randomly selected sample of fifteen respondents. The scoring device was applied to the data on each interview schedule, providing scores in each of the four phases of food shopping management for each case included in the sample. The scores for each case were totaled and their sum formed the total management score for the case. A copy of the scoring device is given in Appendix B. The questions which were used in the scoring device are indicated on the original questionnaire in.Appendix A. For the statistical analysis the scores the homemakers achieved were grouped into three groups of high, medium, and low scores for each of the management phases. This division was made by dividing the range I of points all the homemakers achieved on each phase into thirds as closely as the length of the range would allow. The range of the points achieved by the homemaker was used in order that the frequencies of the high and low groups of each of the phases would be sufficiently large to allow the application of statistical procedures. The number of cases which fell into each third provided the frequencies for the high, medium, and low groups of each phase of management. Cropping 22 32351 management £22522.- The total food shopping management scores had a range of from 120 through 455 points. When this range of 515 points was divided, the three groups were compriped of the following scores: low, 120-225; medium, 226-550: and high, 551-455. Grouping 22 planning 222523.- The planning scores ranged from.O through 150. When this range was divided, the three groups were 4O comprised of the following scores: low, 0-50; medium, 51-100; and high, 101-150. Grouping g; controlligg.ggg£gg.- The controlling phase scores had a range of from 0 through 150 points. When this range was divided, the three groups were comprised of the following scores: low, 0-403 middle, 41-80; and high 81-150. Grouping 22 evaluating 222523.- The scores on the evaluating phase had a total range from.15 through 150. When this range of 155 points was divided, the three groups were comprised of the following scores: low, 15—60; middle, 61-105: and high, 106-150. Grouping g: awareness 22 motivation gggggg.- The range on the awareness of motivation phase was from 20 through 50. When this range was divided, the three groups were comprised of the following scores: low, all scores below 50; middle, scores between 50 and 59: and high, scores 40 and above. These high, medium and low groups for each management phase were separated both according to the grade level of formal education which the homemaker had achieved, and according to presence or absence of home economics training dealing with food or food shopping in the homemakers' backgrounds. The frequencies which resulted are known as the “observed“ frequencies. The chi-square statistical test was applied to analyze the relationships between the phases of management and the level of education of the homemakers; and between the phases of management and the presence or absence of training in foods or food shopping. The chi- square test compared the observed frequencies to the "theoretical" fre- quencies which were expected to occur if there was no relationship 41 between the variables. For the analysis of the relationship between the amount of manage- ment which homemakers practiced the E’statistical test was applied. The t-test involved a comparison of differences in mean scores. The mean scores of various phases of food shopping management of women with col- lege training in foods or food shopping were compared to the mean scores achieved by the group of women with high school training of this type and also to the means achieved by women reporting such junior high school training. The means of the group of women reporting high school train- ing in foods or food shopping were also compared to the mean scores of the women reporting having this type of training in junior high school. Another E-test was done by grouping the scores achieved by women re- porting high school training of this type with the women reporting junior high training, and the means of these scores were compared to the means of the group reporting college training of this type. hDr. Willard Warrington,.Assistant Director, Office of Evaluation Ser- vices, Michigan State University, served as consultant on the statistical procedure used in this study. Chapter IV Findings Introduction The findings of this research are divided into three sections in the following presentation. These sections are as follows: (1) rela- tionships of management scores to the educational level of the home- makers, (2) relationships of management scores to the presence or ab- sence in the homemakers' backgrounds of training in foods or food shopping, and (5) relationships of management scores to the grade level where training in foods or food shopping occurred. Relationships of Management Scores and Educational Levels Total Management Scores The observed and theoretical frequencies of the grouped total management scores divided according to the educational levels of the homemakers are shown in Table 8. Application of the chi-square test to these frequencies indicated that a significant relationship existed through the .025 level of significance. This fact indicated that a very significant relationship existed between the total management scores achieved by homemakers and the level of education which the hamp- makers had attained. Thus, the findings of this study indicated that. as the level of education of the homemakers increased or decreased the . 42 45 one mm mm m: . . . . . . . Hence :m m:.: m em.ma . ma m®.m m . . . . .0908 no spewed owoaaoo mm and S 8.8 2 Ed m . . . . .omofioo esom om 8.: m 0.9% mm 8.5 we . .ooemoe Hooeon swam em mmo : 3.: me mad 3 . .Hooeon emE 2:8 no Hoomcm edema Hoowpohoona do>hmwoo decapoaoona dobhomoo Hmofipohoone .do>homno Heboa Hmcofipmosem Hence seam Ego: sou AH5MH H¢ZOHB¢UDDM OE wZHQmOoo< mmmcom Hzmzmwhomoo Hmofipohoone dobhomoo Heboq HmeWpsoSdm Hopes emam s38: sou ZOHB¢UDQW ho HmSHH OB UZHQmOoo< mmmoom 62sz0.m 0H OH.0H HA :w.® ma .Hoomom swam 080m no Hoonom edema Hmofiomhoone uo>hompo amofipohoona dobhompo Hmofipohoone do>hompo Hobofl HmcoHpmozdm Hopes emfim s38: sou Am5mu AMompo Ho>og Homofipmosdfi Hence swam e382 eon HHSHH HdZOHHH ho mmHozmbdmmh HA mum¢e 49 1‘4 one 8m 88 we . . . . . . Hence em m>.m me 8n.oe m mm.» m . . . . . ones no common owoaaoo mm mm.a an mo.ea an em.oe ca . . . .omoeeoe oeom om oe.:e a oe.8m Hm om.mH mm .oonwoe Hooeoo swam em 8H.m m mm.ee me mm.oe ea .Hooeoo omen oaom no Hoonom cuppa HmOfipoaoosa oo>homoo Hmofipohoona debhomoo Hecapohooma dobhomoo debug HomoHpoosdm ease eflm 852% RJ_ ZOHH.m8 a8 p».om mm me.8m mm . . . . .mcficfiesp oz op mm.m8 m8 mm.mm em mm.:m mm . . . . wcficfiwnp gem H8398 one @250me Hwofipoao one @953 no aoofipoho one dozens m5 cage i n Hence nmfim agave: son .UZHmmomm 98% mo 809m 2H 055% he “mozmwma. mo mozfimmmm OB 6595004 mmmoom ZOHB<>HHOZ ho mmmzmmsé ho maozgdmfim NH age 58 following discussion the discussion of all the phases of management will be grouped together for each level of education. Differences in Management Scores of Homemakers with Training in Foods or Food Shopping in Junior High School and in High School Listed in Table 18 are the means of all the management scores, of the group of homemakers with training in foods or food shopping in high school and the group of homemakers who had had this type of trainp ing in junior high school, tabulated according to the various phases of the managerial process as well as by the total score. From the statis- tical analysis, using the trtest, no significant differences were found to exist between any of the means for the various management phases or the total management scores. Differences in Management Scores of Homemakers with Training in Foods or Food Shopping in Junior High School and College Table 19 gives the means of all the management scores of the group which had college training in foods or food shopping and the group which had junior high training of this type. From application of the trtest it was found that no statistical differences existed between the means of the scores of the various phases of management or the total management scores. Differences in Management Scores of Homemakers with Training in Foods or Food Shopping in College and High School Given in Table 20 are the means of the management scores of the group which had college training and the group which had high school mm.mm AH.Hm . . . . . . . . .moaoom omega cofipmbfipos mo mnemohmsd oo.mm mo.ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mohoom omega wcfipmsHs>m 00.0w ma.®m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .mohoom omega mafiaaoapcoo oo.o> mH.o> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . monoom enema mdficmdam hm.w>m n:.nmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . momoom pcoSowdcma Hmpoa macaw domfimhe Hoonom macaw docfimhe It swam AOfiCSh mo memo: Hoonom swam mo memo: paefiowmcmz mo mommnm Hoomom mUHm 5?. mem mow—”75.... zH GZHEE mBHz mmbomw Mm nm>mHmo< mmmcom azmzmum 8. i. S. :m mm.:0m mw.mm 8. mm 00.0w O0.0> Pm.wwm .mohoom omega eofipm>fipoa mo mmocoam3< . mohoom omega wmfipmmam>m .moaoom omega wcHHHOApcoo . . momOom among wcfimnmam . mohoom pcoaowdcma Hmpoe mucho domfimhe omoaaoo no news: macaw docfioaa Hoomom swam aoficsh mo memo: pcoaowmcnz mo mommnm mwmgqoo nz< mUHm mCHth 2H GZHZHoa H0. nmsoanp oochHmficmHm mepmoHUCH** aoboa mo. smsoanp commofimwcmam mopmofideH* Ha.am No.0m ma.®m ma.o> m:.mmm Pm.mm oo.wm 00.0w >m.am mm.:0m . .**monoom omega cofiuobfipoa mo mmocohm3< . . . . . . . . mohoom omega wcfiposambm . . . . . . . . .mohoom omega mcfiHHthnoo . . . . . . . . .*momoom manna wcficcmam . . . . . . . . **momoom pcofiommcma Hence macaw docfiohe Hooeom swam no memo: @5090 confinaa omoaaoo mo memo: pcoaomdmdz Mo mommnm Hoomom mon nz< mwauuco 2H GZHZHde MBHB mmbomo Mm QHSHHMQ<_mHm00m BkHEHddZdE m0 mzm Hm.mw ma.o> Ha.wmm .oocodfimcoo g. 8 00.50 oo.:e em.:m mm.:om M0 Hoboa H0. 030 ammonmp oocmofimficmfim mopmofidCH** ill .**mepoom enema cofipm>flpoa mo mmomehme< . . . . . . . . moaoom omega mchmSHe>m . . . . . . . .moaoom omega wcflaaoppcoo e e o e e e o e two-Noon omgm wcficcdnflm . . . . . . . **moa00m pcoaemmcms Hepoe @5030 docfimae swam howcsb can Hoosom swam Mo meme: macaw docfisaa emoaaoo we made: peoaowmcmz mo memosm UZHZHde Hoomom mUHm mCHZDh mDHm Abomom mem Qz< mwaunco 2H 0ZHZHmHmo<_mmmoom Hzmzmu¢z8.mm >H.@0 >0.0m mm.mem omega cofipmbfipos %o mnemonm3< . . . .. . . omega weapesam>m . . . . . . omega mcHHHOMpcoo . . . . . . . .ommsm mcficcmam . . mehoom pcoaomdcma Hopes macaw docfimae owoaaoo @5030 domfioha Hoonom nwflm pceEowmcmz no mommnm Hoomom mUHm 92¢ MUHHHOU 2H UZHZHde mBH3.mmHMdzm20m QHB**~meeO-'ous- h. Children in junior and/or senior high school 75 -2- 10. What is (the breadwinner's, your husband's) occupation? (1 Laborer Service worker .__l..._ 2 ........_............ £13; Operative, etc. 5 7 8 Craftsman, foreman Clerical, sales, etc. Manager, official, or proprietor ) Professional, technical, etc. ) Other 11. Is anyone besides (your husband, the breadwinner) employed outside the home? ”_.(1) No a_______§2; Adult other than reapondent 3 Respondent a._._.,. 4 Children 12. (If homemaker works) Approximately how many hours were you employed last week? (1) less than ten 2 Ten to nineteen 3 TWenty to twenty-nine h Thirty to thirty-nine 5 Forty or more (6) Doesn't work 13. What is the last year of school you have completed? ______l.(l) Grade school .____.l_ 2) Some high school -l...m_.. 3 High school Some college College degree ..._,m.__ h ..a._._. 5 1h. Have(y3u had any home economics training related to food or food shopping? 1 No (2 In elementary school ..______(3 In high school h In college 5 Extension 6 Other, specify: 15. How many times did you or a member of your family shop for food in the past‘ week? 1 Once 2 Two or three times 3 Four or five times (h) Daily (5) More than once a day 16. HCw did you get to the market on the day we first talked? §1) Automobile 2) Bus $3 Walked Other, specify: 76 l7. 18. 19. 20. 21. "22. .___..__.(3 #* 23. ** 2n. ...____.(5) Other, specify: . 3 - Is.your refrigerator large enough for your food storage needs? (1) Yes (2) No How large is it? 1) less than four feet 2) Four to six feet 3) Seven to nine feet (h) Ten feet and over (5) Don't know What type or types of freezing storage do you have? (1) None (2) Ice cube compartment (3) Freezing section (h Freezer (5 Locker Is your freezer storage adequate? £1) Yes 2) No Do you have adequate food storage space other than refrigerated Space? El) Not adequate 2) Adequate (3) More than adequate Do you have any way of reminding yourself of the staple items you need to buy when you go to the store? If yes when did you (make a list, think of what you needed, etc.)? (1) No particular planning recalled (2; While in store On.way to store Eh) Before leaving home 5) Other, specify: When you went shopping did you know what you were going to serve for the evening meal that day? If yes, when had you decided? 51) Did not know 2) While in store (3) On way to store (h) Before leaving home If respondent had written list in supermarket, ask the following three questions, Number 2h, 25, 26. In what order did you put the items on your list? (1) In the order that I thought of them 3) By food groups ._l____l.§2) In the order that I will pick them up in the market h Other, specify: (5 us list **Indicate| question. used on the scoring device. 77 - h - '** 25. Did you list quantities for some items? For which items? (1 None _ 2 When other shop .______“_. 3) Meats h) Fresh produce 5 Frozen (6 Canned goods (7) Other, specify: (8) no list -**~26. HOw did you decide on the items (on your list or that you would buy?) That is, where didyou get suggestions for what you bought? ...a..i.,(1) No source recalled .__l_*___é2) What appeals while in market 3 NewSpapers, radio, mass media h Friends, neighbors 5) Family wishes (6) Other specify: a: 27. Last \ (name day of week when store interview had taken place) did you buy any item because you had (seen it on television, heard about it on the radio, etc.; name whatever source woman.mentions in question 26.) {1) Yes 2) No (3) Don't know NOT CODED 27a. What was the item? _ .w i_. 28. What did you (read about, see on television, hear about, etc) that made you buy the particular item? (1) Response (2) No response 29. Did you prepare this item in the same way that you (read about it, saw it, etc.?) 1 Yes g2) No 3 Partially .(h) No reSponse 30. Was it necessary to change anything that you had intended to get at the market? If so, what items were involved? (1) ane (2) Meats: (3) Fresh produce: u...._.__(h) Frozen: i..m.__..(5) Canned goods: (6) Other: 78 -5- xii-31. Did you have any difficulty in purchasing the quantity you wanted for each item? What item was involved? 1 No problems 2 Meats: 3) Fresh Produce: ._...__._ h) Frozen: ._._.___ 5 Canned goods: (6) Other: :wt32. Did you have any difficulty in purchasing the quality that you wanted for each item? (1) No problems 2) Meats: $3) Fresh Produce: h) Frozen: E5) Canned Goods:._. 6) Other, specify: wt33. Could you purchase the type or variety that you wanted.for each item? (1) No problems ’___________,__(2 Meats : ._a_..__.£3 Fresh produce: .._a____ Frozen: ES) Canned goods: 6) Other, specify: **3h. Did you see any item that you wanted to buy but that seemed too eXpensive? If so, what item was involved? 1) None 2) Meats: 3 Fresh produce: h Frozen: 5 Canned goods: (6 Other, specify: Can you remember how you did your food shopping five years ago? mt35. Over the past five years, have you changed.your marketing practices? If so, what changes have you made? ._.__.a_. 1 No change recalled g2 Changed amount of planning: ' Increased;.l...Decreased inm..a.a.3 Changed number of shopping trips per‘week:._.a"Increased;._,.Decreased h Changed use of shopping list:._.__Use more;_.__.USe less 5; Changed amount of time spent shopping:._"_ Increased;.l._.Decreased, .. (6 Different family members now do shopping .aa...._l.7 Change time of day or time of week (8 Other, Specify: 36. If any change is mentioned, ask: - What was the reason for the change? (Ask question: allow respondent to answer freely. If she has no response, suggest the following reasons and record response.) (1) Change in household routine (2) Change in stores used .__.__a.(3) Change in members of family .__.._._Eh) Change in who does the shopping .iwl___. 5) Dissatisfaction in shopping routine (6) Other, specify: '7‘ NA vacrnnnaa _‘ 37- ~__~s~_.s 5 an 38, an: 39. ho. ** kl. - 6 - What products do you buy now that you didn't buy five years ago? 1) None recalled 2; Partially prepared foods, not frozen or mixes: 3 Frozen foods, specify: ' 1+; Mixes Others, specify: After you finished your food shopping last week, did you have any way of checking whether you bought everything you had planned to buy? (If yes, ) How did you check? (1) No checking recalled (2) With market list (3) Other, specify how: After you had prepared or eaten the food you purchased, did you think back on what you had purchased to decide what was a good purchase and what was not; or what you particularly enjoyed or what didn't turn out as satisfactorily? (If yes,) How did you check? (1) No checking back recalled 2) Did some checking back, but cannot tell how (3) Method or item concerned described With the many Jobs that a homemaker does, there are naturally some she likes better than others. HCw would you rate your feelings toward food shopping according to this scale? (1) (2) (3) (h) (5) Dislike most of Dislike part Don't mind Enjoy part of Enjoy most of the time of the time the time the time Can you suggest any reason for your (liking, disliking) food shopping? 1) None mentioned 2 Yes, specify: .. 1:2. *t #3. hh. .a....__§2) No Are there any foods that you particularly like or dislike to purchase? If so, what foods do you particularly like or dislike to purchase? 1) None 2) Meats, specify: (3) Fresh produce, specify: gh) Frozen, specify: 5; Canned goods, specify: Other, specify: Why do you like or dislike to purchase these? (1) No reason mentioned 52 Yes, reason mentioned: 3 No response On the day when we first talked, had any member of your family offered to help or go along with you when you went shopping? (1) Yes 3) ane were able to-onot home, working, engaged in other activities, etc. h) Other replies: 9 7 - .hS. Did your family have any reaction when you returned from food shopping? l Husband or adult male member of household 2 Adult woman 3 Children h No h6. flew did they act when you came in? (1) No one home 2) No reaction from family 3 Positive reaction , (h Negative reaction .m__m_l._.(5) Other replies; specify: **h7} Was there any food or meal prepared from the food bought on this shOpping trip that your family especially liked or disliked? If so, what was the food or meal? (1) No food or meal recalled (2) Specific food or meal recalled: Record homemaker's comments: #8. Last week, were there items--either food or non-food--that you bought at the supemmarket with the particular thought that thevaould please the family? 1 None recalled - 2 Specific item recalled: Record homemaker's comments: h9. Would you rate your feeling of how well spent your time was on the whole shopping trip from the time you left home until you returned? (1 (2) (3) (it) (5) Time very well Time well spent Time spent was Wasted some Wasted.much spent necessary time time 50. Thinking of just the time you spent in the market, could you rate your feelings about Just that time on the same scale? (1) (2) (3) (h) (5) Time very well Time well spent Time spent was Wasted some Wasted.much spent necessary time time ' 51. On the day when we first talked,'what did you do the hour before you started Elf-:3 W( your food shopping? (1 Employment (2 Recreation, visiting, entertaining 3 Reuse work, house cleaning h Child care 5; Meal preparation Rest 6 7) Other, Specify: (8) Other shOpping 81 52. What did you do the hour after? 1) Employment 2) Recreation, visiting, entertaining .______.. E Heusework, house cleaning __. Child care 5 Meal preparation 6 Rest 7 Put food away . 8; Other, Specify: Other shopping 53. If storage is not mentioned, asknwhen did you store the food you bought? $1) Within half hour 2) Within one hour .ia..l_l_. 3 'Within two hours Eh) More than two hours after shopping ,.___,__. 5 Some put away immediately; other put away later -..___ala(6) Other responses, specify: 5h. On the day we first talked, how tired or alert did you feel when you‘had finished shopping? Could you rate it on this scale? (1) 2 (3) (it) (5) Felt tOps Felt pretty Not tired Moderately tired Exhausted good 55. What do you believe is the reason that you felt the way you did? (1) Attributed solely to food shOpping experience 2 Attributed.partly to food shopping experience _,__,-__ 3 Net attributed to food shopping experience _a__..._..h Other responses, record comments: ml *w56. It is sometimes difficult to know Just how much food to buy. Perhaps the family will be very hungry or perhaps they won't be: or perhaps someone won't be home to dinner; or perhaps an extra person will drop in. Thinking of the foods that could spoil if not used in time which you bought last week, how completely have you been able to use these foods? 1) Completely ..__.____ 2) One to three items incompletely ._...._.. 3 Three or more incompletely h) No recollection of any not used completely (5) Other replies, recorded homemaker's comments: 57. Did you have to serve one food mere times than you wanted to serve it in order to use it completely? (1) no food recalled (2) Yes, specify food and circumstances: 82 - 9 - *“*S8. What reasons can you remember for having to discard food this past week? (Allow free response. If no response comes forth, suggest the following and record comments.) 1) Too small a serving left to bother keeping 2 Food became unappetizing'when not eaten quickly . 3) Food spoiled or became unpalatable ml__.____(h) Family disliked food .l_.l....(5) Other, record homemaker' 3 comments: (6) None 59. When you last cleaned out your refrigerator, freezer, or storage shelves, can you remember having to discard any foods? What was the reason for your having to discard these foods? g1) No recollection of having to throw foods away ‘m 2) Too small a serving left to bother keeping 3) Food spoiled or became unpalatable (h) Family disliked food (5) Other comments, specify: ** 60. The reasons why we do the things we do are always interesting. What do you think prompts you in your food shopping? Why did you buy (name meat, fruit. or vegetable, and something fully or partially prepared from shopping list)? 1 variety (2 Family preferences 3 Appetizing, attractiveness (h) nutrition §:) Other, record homemaker' 8 comments: 6) Time saving ) Economy tw=6l. Each person probably has certain foods which she buys for a definite reason. If I mention some reasons that may prompt you to have bought certain foods, could you tell me what products you buy for these reasons? For example, what foods might you have bought because they are Appetizing or attractive? Economical? A‘way to vary the routine meals? Of a quality that suits needs? Family favorites? For guests or parties? For family get-to-gethers? Foods you enjoy buying or serving? (1) No responses . (2) Two or three responses .l.___.__(3) Four to six reSponses h) Seven to eight responses 5 Nine to ten reaponses .laaa_l._ 6 Eleven to twelve responses “a...aa..7 Thirteen responses and over 85 .10- **‘62. As a final question about food shOpping, could you tell me what in the market or in your own marketing routine particularly bothers you? (1) None recalled . (2) Annoyance of market mentioned .alaa.m._é3) Two or more annoyances of market mentioned h) Annoyance of own routine mentioned (5) Two or more annoyances of own routine mentioned 6) Annoyances of both own routine and of market mentioned Record homemaker's specific annoyances: **=63. Do you see how to change your routine or how the store could change its system so that marketing would be easier for you? Record homemaker’s specific comments: (1) No suggestions .a.______(2) Suggestion related to market mentioned ._.a___.. 3 TwO or more suggestions related to market mentioned h Suggestion related to own routine mentioned 5) Two or more suggestions related to own routine mentioned (6) Suggestion related to both own routine and market mentioned MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF HOME MANAGEMENT AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT The_Use of the Managerial Process in Food Buying - Form D **6#. When you came into this store, had you figured out what you wanted to buy? (1) Yes (2) No **65. Did you have a written list? .(1) Yes . (2) No **66. Did you purchase all of the items you had in mind? (1) Yes . (2) No 57. What items did you not purchase? (1) No item.mentioned . 2) Meats, specify: (5) Fresh produce, specify: Frozen, specify: Canned goods, specify: ) ) ) Other, specify: t items did you get that you had not planned to get? (1) No item mentioned Meats, specify: Fresh produce, specify: Canned goods, specify: ) ) Frozen, specify: ) ) Other, specify: 69. The shopper was accompanied by the following: (1) Nobody (2) Man (5) Woman (4) One or more children N O. The age of the shopper as judged by the interviewer was (1) Young (2) Middle-aged (5) Older u“ 1. The shopper bought the following amount: (1) Up to 85.00 (2) $5.01 to 310.00 (5) $10.01 to $15.00 (5) 320.01 to $50.00 (6) $50.01 and over 85 APPENDIX B 87 Appendix B Scoring Device Characteristic Score Answer Question Code Answer I. Planning Phase -- 150 points 1. Planning for staple-item 20 yes 22 5,4,5* purchases before entering 0 no 22 1,2,5* the supermarket 2. Planning for main meal 20 yes 25 5,4,5* following food shopping 0 no 2} 1,2,5* trip 5. Having a list made in a 20 yes 24 2,5,4* particular order 0 no 24 1,5,4* 4. Listing quantities 20 yes 25 2,3,4,5,6,7 0 no 25 1,8 5. Using a source for ideas 20 yes 26 5,4,6* or information about 0 no 26 1,2,5,6* what to buy 6. Figuring out what to buy 50 yes 64 1 before entering the 0 no 64 2 supermarket 7. Having a written list 20 yes 65 1 0 no 65 2 II. Controlling Phase - 150 points 8. Received information and 20 yes 27 1 bought item, 0 no 27 2,5 *The asterisk indicates that any answer given to the coded answer immediately preceding the asterisk will receive the indicated number of points if the answer is appropriate. 88 Characteristic Score Answer Question Code Answer (continuation of controlling phase) 9. Presence of adjusting 40 two or 51,52 decision while in more 55,54 2,5,4,5,6 supermarket 20 one 51,52 55. 54 1 0 none 51,52 35. 54 10. Change in marketing 20 yes 55 2,5,4,5,6,7,8* practices in the past 0 no 55 1,8* five years 11. Checking completeness 20 yes 58 2,5* of purchases 0 no 58 1,5* 12. Getting everything on 20 yes 66 1 list, or that homemaker 0 no 66 2 intended to buy 15. Not getting extras 20 yes 68 1 0 no 68 2 14. Bonus: An extra ten points is given if the homemaker did both the activities listed in 11 and 12. III. Evaluation Phase -- 150 points 15. Evaluation of food after 20 yes and 59 5 preparing or eating it description 10 yes 59 2 0 no 59 1 16. Awareness of reason for 15 yes 41 2 liking or disliking 0 no 41 1 food shopping 17. Awareness of foods home— 15 yes 42 2,5,4,5,6* maker likes or dislikes 0 no 42 1,6* to purchase 18..Awareness of reason for 15 yes 45 2 liking or disliking to 0 no 45 1,5 purchase -oertain foods 89 Characteristics Score Answer Question Code Answer (continuation of evaluating phase) 19. Recollection of family 20 yes and 47 2 evaluation of food description 10 yes 47 2 0 no 47 1 20. Evaluation of complete- 15 yes 56 1,2,5,5* ness of food waste 0 no 56 4,5* 21. Having suggestions for 20 yes 65 2,5,4,5,6 improving marketing 0 no 65 1 routine 22. Recognizing annoyances 15 yes 62 2,5,4,5,6 with shopping trip 0 no 62 1 25. Evaluation of reasons 15 yes 58 1,2,5,4,5* for food waste 0 no 58 6,5* IV. Awareness of Motivation Phase -- 50 points 24. Awareness of motiva- 50 three or 60 tion for buying more several foods 15 one or 60 two 0 none 60 25. Association of 20 20-41 replies 61 particular products 15 16-19 replies 61 with particular goals 10 15-15 replies 61 5 6-12 replies 61 APPENDIX C 91 Appendix C Bibliogpaphy Books Bossing, Nelson. Teaching in Sgpondary Schools. 5rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1952. Dixon, Wilfrid J., and Massey, Frank J., Jr. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. Educational Policies Commission. Higher Education in a Decade of Decision. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1957. Gross, Irma H., and Crandall, Elizabeth W. Management for Modern Families. New York: Appletoanentury Crofts, Inc., 1955. /?§3 Klausmeir, Herbert. Principles and Practices of Secondary School gggéxzfl/ Teachers. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. , gfk_£&gEQfggéggl xfsg’ Life Studonf Consumer Expenditures. New York: Time, Inc., 1957. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1958. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1958. Periodicals and Articles Clow, Bertha. "Meat Knowledge and Practices of Montana Homemakers," Journal of Home Economics, L (May, 1958), 559. "Consumers Plan Meals While Shopping," Progressive Grocer, XXXVII (February, 1958), 10. Fish, J. W. "How Important Can It Be?" Food Marketopics, V (April 4, 1958). 5- Graham, Jewel. "How To Get More For Your Money,” Iowa Farm Science, 92 McFadden, Joan Robertson. l'Consumer Food Buyers Today Are Good Food Managers,“ Journal of Home Economics, L (February, 1958), 117. Jones, Lila. ”Are Your Foods Classes Keeping Up With the Times?” Journal of Home Economics, L (May, 1958), 540. Paolucci, Beatrice. ”A Look At Today' s Homemaking Programs," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, XXXVII (October, 1955), 1. Sully, Eva. I'Present Day Emphasis in Home Economics Education," National Association of Secondapy School Principals Bulletin, XXXVII (October, 1955), 26. Shaffer, James. “Consumers Do Shop Around for Meat,‘I Quarterl Bulle- tin of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, XXXXI (August, 19535, 170. "Super-Supermarkets of Tommerrow," Changing Times, X (October, 1956), 15. Van Syéie, Calla. ”Food Management Practices in an Industrial City," Journal of Home Economics, XLVII (February, 1955), 119. . 'A Note on Meat Buying in Everett, Washington,“ Journal of Home Economics, XLVII (October, 1955), 559. Pamphlets Better Food For Your Dollar. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute Extension Service Circular 666, 1958. Dawson, Ruth. Be Informed When Buying Foods. Fargo: North Dakota Agricultural Extension Service Circular A 25#, 1956. Dean, Willamay, Davis, Blanch, and Laity, Ruth. Marketing and Family Use of Dairy Products. Blacksburg: Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 126, 1956. Drake, Phyllis, and Reach, Florence. Use of Milk by Urban and Rural Families in South Carolina. Clemson: South Carolina Agricul- tural Experiment Station Bulletin 457, 1956. . Gross, Irma H. Measuring Home Management. East Lansing: Michigan State Agricultural Experiment Station Circular Bulletin 211, 1948. 95 Latest Facts About TodayLs Purchases in Supermarkets. Wilmington, Delaware: E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company Impulse Buying Study Number 5, Series 1, 1959. Muse, Marriane. Food Buying for Vermont Farm.Homes. Burlington: Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 51h, 19h4. . Food Management in Some Vermont Farm Homes. Burlington: Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 601, 1957. Shaffer, J. D., and Quackenbush, G. G. Consumer Purchases of Apples. East Lansing: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Special Bulletin 405, 1955. . Consumer Purchases of Butter and Oleomargarine. East Lansing: Michigan.Agricultura1 Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 248, 1954. , and Moss, T. N. The Consumppion of Meat and Related Pro- ducts in Lansing, Michigan,_$p§ing, 1950. East Lansing: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 259, 1954- Tamplin, Barbara. Food Habits in Alabany Countyl Wyoming. Laramie: Wyoming.Agricultural Experiment Station Mimeograph Circular 72, 1956. Unpublished Material Clark, Alma Beth. "An Analysis of the Time Spent in Certain Homemaking Activities Both by University of Tennessee Home Management House Students and Selected Tennessee Homemakers, 19A5 and 1946." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 19#7. Holmes, iary Strickland. "Some Indications of Knowledge and Opinions of Michigan Homemakers About Food Buying.” Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1958. Johnson, Ruth. "Food Management in 265 Vermont Farm Homes. Un- published Master's thesis, University of Vermont, 1950. Lee, Joyce Ann. "A Study of the Relation Between Certain Home Manage- ment Practices and Specified Family Characteristice of Tennessee Home Demonstration Club Members." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1957. 94 McDonald, Helen Christena. "Food Purchasing and Preparation Practices of Homemakers in the Labor Force and Homemakers Not in the Labor Force.“ Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1957. Minden, Mary Beth. "The Consumption Decision and Implications for Con- sumer Education Programs." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1957. Moore, Mary Allison. “A Study of the Factors Influencing the Buying Practices of a Selected Group of Farm Women." Unpublished Master's thesis, Texas State College for Women, 1949. Thorpe, Alice Cutler. "A Study of Home Management Practices in Homes of Married Students at Michigan State College." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1949. APPENDIX D 96 Appendix D Statistical Procedures Two methods of statistical analysis were used in this thesis. The first of these was the chi-square test which was used for the analysis of both possible relationships between educational level of the homemakers and the amounts of management of food shopping the home- makers practiced, and possible relationships between presence or absence of training in the homemakers' backgrounds dealing with foods or food shopping and amounts of management homemakers practiced in food shopping. The chi-square statistical analysis was done by dividing the sam- ple in such a way that each case falls into one and only one category for which an expected frequency has been established. The observed fre- quencies which were found to fall in each category are then compared to the expected frequency for each group by use of the following formula where f1 is the observed frequency and F1 is the theoretical frequency.1 . 2': 93.52“ X' p: 1-1 The resulting sum was then compared to chi-square tables with the ap- prepriate degrees of freedom to determine significance. The 3 statistic tests the hypothesis that the means of the two populations are equal, that is X, - X2 - 0. This hypothesis was 1Wilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Jr., Introduction to Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19575, p. 222. 97 rejected if the difference is significantly far from zero. Prior to the application of the statistical test, a level of significance was selected which served as a criterion for acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. The statistical formula to be used in a test of differences in means of two populations of unequal numbers is as follows:2 fl t=5; (”A/4+ No The formula for Sp is the pooled mean-square estimate of the variance of the populations and is given by the following formula. f N: + Na '- 2. 1. 2X11 is the sum of the squares in the first sample 2thfis the sum of the squares in the second sample 22:)‘IL is the sum.of observations in the first sample 2x31: is the sum of observations in the second sample 21bid., 121. ll.|l41¢1l|l.(\. -il. ‘l I Dwarf: W p . I MAFWHS? a El H“) 13 | n..- HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES | m Ill ||1ll||| I 312930099 3124