SOME COWUJES OF EGALHAREANESM {N FAMILY MISEONaMAMNGa A WM’ 05 WOW EN 6051'!» RICA Thais €09 flu Dunc 05 M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Cody R. Serra-Capdevila 1.967 ABSTRACT SOME CORRELATES OF EGALITARIANISM IN FAMILY DECISION- MAKING: A STUDY OF WOMEN IN COSTA RICA by Cody R. Serra-Capdevila The assumption that there are common characteristics which together make a configuration of modernity has underlined this study. The data employed for-this analysis was collected by Waisanen and Durlak for a study of attitudes related to Costa Rican population dynamics. The original questionnaires were completed by a national sample which consisted of 1500 subjects, of which 55% were females and 45% males. For this secondary analysis the pOpulation was separated into females and males, because the main interest was to know what factors were related to modern attitudes among females. As a measure of modernity we chose "egalitarianism", here defined as "an expression favoring an equal or shared participation by husband and wife in different aspects of family decision-making". It was hypothesized that among women, the urban, the young, the single, those with smaller families, those with more education, the more mobile, those with greater exposure to mass—media and those working outside the home, are expected to have more egalitarian attitudes than their counterparts. US SC I ,.$Bu....m33~; n .34. 3.33154 Cody R. Serra-Capdevila We assumed that men would give different responses. Therefore, as a supplementary analysis, this general assumption was tested. Contingency and partial correlation analyses were used to test the hyptheses. The findings showed that some of the factors selected were more significantly related to egalitarianism among women. The more signifi- cant correlates were Place of Residence and Education; the others were less uniformly related to our indicators of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism - the dependent variable - was Operationalized with four indicators and they were related separately to each independent variable. This kind of analysis allowed us to discriminate their differential value as indicators of egalitarianism. The strongest appeared to be the one we called "Consumer-Decision", followed by "Husband's-Role" and "Wife Free-Time“. A parallel analysis was done for males. The data supported our general assumption of different attitudes between sexes in relation to the same issues. The findings suggested that this secondary analysis does not suffice to make generalizations, even for this population. The hypotheses were in general partially supported. Further research is highly recommended. Jami Rudy‘JHde; .— 111IJ .3 _. . .. . A; .N.:.. M. SOME CORRELATES OF EGALITARIANISM IN FAMILY DECISION- MAKING: A STUDY OF WOMEN IN COSTA RICA BY Cody R. Serra-Capdevila A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS College of Social Science 1967 gu Ad t" g 3.... 2%....pwfixsafiuaqqnqz .fi. _ , . .. . C... v '3» 9' “£3 \ *2 ' ".\ c..— 9*; ‘.l i: ‘6... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Frederick Waisanen, my advisor, for his constant patience and his guidance during the preparation of this thesis. Additionally, he, together with Jerome Durlak, provided the data with which I worked, another reason for my gratitude to both. I feel deeply indebted, and I warmly thank all my friends that have encouraged me in moments of need and whose names would make a long list. I hOpe they will accept this humble and anonymous mention. However, I would like to especially thank my dear friends Mrs. Nelly Galuzzi, without whose help in the computer programing, this analysis would have been very difficult, and to Miss Virginia Lattes for her invaluable help in moments of despair. I also am grateful to the Agency for International Development and the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (Argentina) for having provided me the means and the Opportunity for studying at Michigan State University. To all those that directly or indirectly make this experience possible, thank you. A . a...” A: 3~3£nfl~43fl>fldfl.§ no. 4 Sociologists have, on the whole, been remarkably uninterested in feminism, and it is rare, even in books about social movements, generally, to find the subject dealt with in any detail. Yet, changes in the status of women have occurred in all countries where there are sociologists, and feminist organiza- tions have been, and often still continue to be, associated with the movements towards emancipation which those changes in status are usually held to connote. J. A. and Olive Banks I. II. III. IV. VI. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . Dependent Variable-Modernity . . . Independent Variables. . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . Dependent Variable-Egalitarianism. Independent Variables—Structural . Independent Variables—Instrumental Data Collection and Sample . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contingency Analysis . . . . . . . Partial Correlation. . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 16 l6 l8 19 21 21 22 22 24 34 38 4O 45 10 ll 12 13 TABLE 10 ll 12 13 LIST OF TABLES Partial Correlations — Female Respondents Only: Attitudes Toward Egalitarianism, Controlling for Structural Variables . . . Partial Correlations. Female Respondents Only: Instrumental Variables to Atttitudes Toward Egalitarianism Controlled by Marital Status, Age, Place of Residence and Family Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Female Respondents: Place of Residence and Period of Time They Have Worked Outside the Home. . . . . . . . . . Place of Residence and Attitude Toward Egalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family Size and Attitudes Toward Egalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age and Attitudes Toward Egalitarianism. . Marital Status and Attitudes Toward Egalitarianism (Female subjects.only). . . Education and Attitudes Toward Consumer Decision and Rights of Wife . . . . . . . Newspaper Reading and Attitude Toward Egalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place of Residence and Attitude Toward Egalitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age and Attitude Toward Egalitarianism . . Marital Status and Attitude Toward Egalitarianism (Male subjects only). . . . Education and Attitude Toward Consumer Decision and Discipline Decision (Male subjects only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 27 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 58 59 6O 61 Table 14 15 16 17 Table 14 15 16 17 Residential Mobility and Attitude Toward Wife Free-time (Male subjects only). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newspaper Reading and Attitude Toward Egalitarianism (Male subjects only). Partial Correlations - Male Respondents Only: Attitudes Toward Egalitarianism . Partial Correlations — Male Respondents Only: Instrumental Variables to Attitudes Toward Egalitarianism Controlled by Marital Status, Place of Residence, Family Size and Age . 62 63 64 65 in' .1..m4.!u.fl§.fiflsfl€.. ”mammal; i I93. but tom an 01".! re I . INTRODUCTION Doubtless, the role of women has undergone changes in this century. Higher levels of education, laws to protect their rights, employment outside the home in a variety of activities and positions, participation in political and economic life, these are some of the more remarkable changes that have occurred all over the world, but eSpecially in developing countries. These changes touch the structure and functions of family life, and assuming that the family still fulfills, among others, an important function in the socialization of children, one may expect that changes in the pattern of family relationships will produce changes in the personalities of the generation being socialized. We know that: "The formation of personality is not completed in infancy and early childhood. It proceeds through life. Every event until death has some impact on personality. However, the events of later life never cause the process of persoanlity formation to begin anew, as though childhood had never occurred; rather, they reinforce or conflict 1 6m 33v iirri'vwifizfilfiué .1'.‘ i at; 'U D) rf 31011 W Off; in and with, and build upon, the personality traits inculcated in childhood." (6) The status of women within the family makes a great difference in the process of socialization and personality formation of their children. The more "modern" woman will, we assume, be more likely to establish a basis for individuals who are more Open-minded and who have greater interest in self-enchancement. In a traditional structure, where the male authority pattern rules the family, man's influence is powerful. A more modern structure of power within the family gives woman new possibilities of participation in the larger society. A shared pattern of decision—making in different aspects of family life might be one pre—requisite for the bith of a modern generation. Based upon these considerations, we think it is particularly important for those who are involved in any kind of social action to do research on the occurrence and consequences of family change. We assume that the change of family structure is due, in part, to the change of the status of women in society, and therefore, in the family. If this is true, we have to recognize that little or no research attention has been paid to the transformation of a passive, but potential human resource (the "traditional" woman), to an active one (the "modern" woman) ready to be included in plans of change and development. ,WT Such lack of knowledge has encouraged us to under- take this study. We attempted to provide some preliminary knowledge about characteristics and attitudes of Costa Rican women in relation to some aspects of modernity, and thus, suggest hypotheses for future research in Costa Rica or other develOpment countries.* Research on issues of this nature can provide useful knowledge for those agencies or professionals working in social change. It is the author's contention that attitudinal and related factors have been generalized for both sexes without enough research about possible differences, creating a uniformity in programs directed either to men or women, and possibly hindering the success of those addressed to women, if the findings confirm the assumption of differences by sex. *We will be using data already collected in Costa Rica by F. B. Waisanen and Jerome Durlak. See their Survey of Attitudes Related to Costa Rican P0pulation Dynamics, (San Jose, Costa Rica, American International Association, 1966). For further information about the characteristics of the sample, see page 18 of this paper. LE!&¢£L3‘)L i ‘ in ’43:.) i‘fliiurfifi to th men". that ' measu moder The r ("mod viva-17 S indiv Socic Indiv test, COlle the 5 males male II . THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK There is in the sociological literature much reference to the "modern world", the "modern country", the "modern men". This pervasive concern underlines the assumption that there are common characteristics, differentiated and measurable, which together represent a configuration of modernity. The issue is many-faceted and theoretically complex. The research focus can, for example, be put upon state ("modernity") or on process ("modernization"). Emphasizing process, Lerner is concerned with ..."a secular trend, unilateral in direction, from traditional to participant lifeways." (15) Emphasizing state, Inkeles is interested in the man who accepts new ideas and possesses a readiness for new experiences and new ways of thinking and acting. Inkeles' emphasis is on individual modernity, with soci0*psychological rather than sociological focus.* *Smith and Inkeles devised a "Minimum Scale of Individual Modernity", as a result of a cross-national test. The fact that ours is a secondary analysis of data collected for different purposes did not allow us to test the scale with our population, which includes females and males. (The Inkeles scale was devised on the basis of male respondents only). The Dependent Variable: Modernity The indicator of the dependent variable, modernity, will be measured in this study by what we call egalitarianism, particularly in regard to decision-making in family settings. We are concerned here with power of making different types of decisions within the family, dealing necessarily with attitudes of the reSpondents. By egalitarianism we mean the expressed attitude that favors an equal or shared participation by husband and wife in different aspects of family decision-making.* The literature provides support for the assumptions that egalitarian patterns within the family are the product of modern times. Blood and Wolfe, for example, see a long-term, world—wide develOpment away from patriarchy which started to change after the Victorian era. Employment of women increased dramatically after World War I, and continued into the 1920's. *We are not assuming a perfect equation between attitude and behavior. We agree with Newcomb et al. (Social Psychology: New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965, p. 67) who states: "(1) behavior is a product not only of attitudes, but of the immediate situation as well; and (2) attitudes relevant to a situation are often multiple." While the attitude is not the absolute and determining factor, it is (given the opportunity to act), a pre-requisite to action in most cases. Newcomb (0p. cit., p. 69) asserts: "Once the situation is given, behavior is a resultant of the total configuration of relevant attitudes.‘ brou; Where fUI 1 some' Acco: part sougj wife as a Othe; his 1 who 1 Cons: prime attit 0r t5) Blood and Wolfe (3) contend that no change in the dynamics of family life is mentioned more often in the literature, than the shift from a male-authority pattern to egalitarianism. The change of the role of women within society has brought about changes in her role within the family. Where change has occurred, she has become a more resource- ful element, contributing new knowledge, skills and sometimes material goods to the maintenance of the family. According to "resource theory", power within the family is distributed prOportionally to the resources each partner brings to the family, and these .... "must be sought in the comparative resources that the husband and wife bring to the marriage.... A resource may be defined as anything that one partner may make available to the other, helping the latter to satisfy his needs or attain his goals. The balance of power will be on the side of who contributes the greater resources to the marriage." (3) Hurvitz sees types that are either "authoritarian, conservative and traditional, with authority lodged primarily in the husband and father, and with concomitant attitudes of male superordination and female subordination; or they may be democratic, liberal and companionship, with 9113“». I Q' J 9.. 46131} .' $ A, Iélnuw-IL I {aim}? soci civ: and tio: aSS‘ CEH‘ Var, the to] this Sign Baud Prev from are 3 authority shared by both the husband and wife, and concomitant attitudes of equalitarian responsibility." (10) We assume, then, that the status of women in modern societies is a consequence of a general trend in western civilization which places high value on participation and egalitarianism. While the egalitarianism — participa- tion dynamic may be only one facet of modernization, we assume that it is close to the center, if not at the center, of the process. The Independent Variables a) Place of Residence: our concern with this variable is based on the assumption that the more urbanized the place of residence, the greater will be the opportunity to receive (and to perceive) modern styles of life. There are contradictory research findings in this regard. In America several studies report no significant differences (Blood and Wolfe; Burchinal and Bauder; Wilkening and Morrison). But we assume, based on previous research, that different findings may be obtained from less developed countries where rural-urban differences are still great. an. an: b) Family Size: Most of the studies that have dealt with the traditional-modern continuun have come to the conclusion that among the characteristics of traditional social systems, the size of the family appears to be a common pattern. The traditional family is generally a large family, either by the number of children or by extension (relatives living in the same household). The size factor is consistent with familism, an orientation in which goals of the family as a whole come before those of its individual members. Modern society, in contrast, emphasizes individualism, an orientation in which personal goals are more important. This opens a new perspective to the family. Number is emphasized less, and quality of education and individual success is emphasized more. Consequently, the modern family tends to be nuclear and smaller in number. However, there is no conclusive evidence that the family size "per se" is a factor negatively related to egalitarianism. 0) Age: We may assume that the attachment to norms and traditions of a social system is related to the time and energy input a person has invested in it. (25) If this helc‘ Mb 0 . one 4..., . a.43153...$4.54.... sta I101 be li' Va. 3'10: Va: holds true, the younger persons will be less bound to past orientations and patterns of life, than the older ones, and more prone to accept modernity patterns. However, among the families studied in Detroit, it was shown that not the youngest but the middle-aged wife, seemed to hold the greater decision-making power among women (which in this study is an indicator of modernity). d) Marital Status: Going further with our theory of investment, we may think that the more deeply a person is involved in a social system by his/her marital status, the more will be "locked" psychologically to the norms and patterns of it. (25) Then, married women will be more traditional than single ones, specially if they live in a traditional society. We have looked at the previous Independent Variables as the structural aspect of the "state" of modernity. We are going to look now for the instrumental variables which may affect the strength of the others. e) Education: Inkeles thinks that among the many factors that produce a modern man education appears to be a powerful one, regardless of race, culture, or religion. nmL ot ae t'" nA\. u 5J.Hfl«uufl.~.l.-J..‘Ifla.q.,fl AS14342... _. i . 10 For Lerner, literacy - in general a result of formal education - is both an index and an agent in the process of modernization. "Literacy is a basic personal skill that underlies the whole modernizing process."(15) Blood and Wolfe concluded that in their study "The more one partner's education exceeds that of the other, the larger his share in marital decision—making."(3) According to resource theory, the better education of the Spouse brings in more resources and abilities to the decision arena. In other words, education increases the likelihood of perceiving and being attracted by new behaviors; that is, modern ideas are perceived to be attractive and relevant, thus stimulating the process of socio—psychological mobility and helping create in women an attitude of self-esteem and perceived capacity to assume responsibility in the broadest aspects of family life.(25) f) Physical Mobility: Greater number of social contacts outside the social system should increase the likelihood of change toward a more adaptive personality, characterized by innovative attitudes.(25) Physical mobility, facilitated by education and supported by mass 1t...fi..~ «5.34....finflmuifimihd ; . . . p a a , ... I . _ 4. , 11 media use may help provide an "instrumental base" for inter-systemic contact and concomitant weakening of traditional behavioral modes. g) Mass Media Use: Newspapers, magazines and other mass media represent means of which the individuals enlarge their view of the world, thus favoring an Open- minded and modern attitude in general and a more egalitarian approach to family affairs, in particular. h) Employment Outside the Home: This indicator may be looked at from two different perspectives: (i) mobility, providing more contacts with the working community, both within or out of the community, or (ii) the consequences of holding a job, that is, the sense of power and privilege of a person may feel if she is contributing visibly to the maintenance of the social system -- in this case, the family. Several studies have dealt with employment from the second point of View. In the Detroit Study, it was found that whichever partner works more, gains power thereby. Working wives have substantially more power on the average at all status levels than non-working wives. (3) -“. Ew-31- v-‘anleq “1;. " raid“. 148 that: are eiJ to res: employi these to te 16Vel 12 Hoffman, as a result of her study, indicates that: ..."power relationships, unlike division of labor, are either too deeply intertwined with psychological needs to respond readily to an outside stimulus or that mother's employment is too weak a stimulus." (9) Analyzing the long-range effects of the employment of women, Blood states that the old asymmetry of male- dominated, female-serviced family life is being replaced by a new symmetry, both between husband and wife and between brothers and sisters. To this emerging symmetry, the dual employment of mothers as well as fathers is a major contributor. (2) But here again, there seems to be a contradiction in research findings. Russel and Partney's (21) comparison of families with working wives points a tendency for non-working wives to be more dominant in decision-making than working wives. Perhaps the content of decisions they are referring to may differ. In Latin America we lack information relative to these issues. It seems interesting and possibly worthwhile to test Blood and Wolfe's "resource theory" at the attitudinal level with the data available to us, from Costa Rica. ET“: . 13 i) Employment Time: Here we consider another dimension of the previous indicator: the period of time the woman has been working. We believe this dimension may give a more accurate picture of the influence of this variable in relation to egalitarianism. Hypotheses The several general hypotheses and their accompanying empirical hypotheses are ennumerated as follows: H l: Urbanization is Directly Related to Egalitarianism H 2: Family Size is Inversely Related to Egalitarianism H 3: Age is Inversely Related to Egalitarianism H 4: Marital status is Related to Egalitarianism: That is, single females will be more egalitarian than married females. Holding constant the independent variables: (a) Place of Residence; (b) Family Size; (c) Age; and (d) Marital Status and relating to the "instrumental" variables; (e) Education; (f) Physical Mobility; (g) Mass-Media Use; (h) Employment Outside the Home;, and (i) Employment time, we hypothesize: 1.3.x!“ ..uflafifififidwiwij . n 5.. H 5: 14 Education is directly Related to Egalitarianism Holding each of the independent variables constant we will test hypotheses 5 controlling for (a); (b); (c); (d) above. The more educated women will have more egalitarian attitudes than the less educated ones . Mobility is Directly Related to Egalitarianism Holding each of the independent variables constant we will test hypotheses 6 controlling for (a); (b); (c); (d) above. The more mobile women will have more egalitarian attitudes than those who score lower mobility. Mass—Media Use is Directly Related to Egalitarianism Holding each of the independent variables constant we will test hypotheses 7 controlling for (a); (b); (c); (d) above. Women who score higher in Mass-Media use will have more egalitarian attitudes than those who score lower in mass-media use. H8: 14.. ..mqron...ii.... 15H, .Hfififlqfli: .u ,L ,. ,. . H 8: 15 Employment Outside the Home is Directly Related to Egalitarianism Holding each of the independent variables constant we will test hypotheses 8 controlling for (a); (b); (c); (d) above. Working women will be more egalitarian than non—working women. ';¢2‘..- aim In? 5 .. 2 a sum. , . . . I ~. mm in this 1965. the gul hvootn ‘ O (I) expens t0 an: from ' C011a based a tra third_ attiu III . METHODOLOGY The operationalizations of the different variables in this study were established by Waisanen and Durlak in 1965. On the basis of the theoretical framework which guided this study and from the data available, we chose the questions which seemed to be adequate to test our hypotheses. Dependent Variable - Egalitarianism Four questions were used in the Operationalization of this variable. The specific questions were: a) “Who should make important decisions, like buying expensive things or choosing a house?" The respondent was to answer: "the husband", "the wife", or "both". Because the purpose of this study was different from that for which the original data were coded, we collapsed the two first("husband" or "Wife") into one, based on the assumption that either answer would reflect a traditional pattern (patriarchy or matriarchy). The third category, "both", was considered as the modern attitudinal response. 16 p. . . - - I . v . ' ,4 . I g I 1'11- 1311mm! 5:821:21 gm ‘lll’l l I". L'- (uhu foll done the cla her eve que "Ye We def 17 b) "In bringing up children, who should generally make the decisions in matters of education and discipline?" Again, in this question the original three categories ("husband", "wife", or "both") were collapsed into two, following the argument advanced above. c) "Do you think a husband should help his wife with domestic choses?" The respondent was to answer: "Yes, regularly"; "Yes, occasionally"; "No, never"; "Don't know"; "No information". The two positive answers were considered the modern attitudinal responses, while the others were classified "traditional". d) "Do you think a wife should have free time from her household chores in order to follow her own interest, even if it takes her away from the family?" For this question the possible answers were: "Yes, definitely"; "Yes"; "Don't know"; "no"; "Definitely, no". In this case we assume the modern response to be positive,("Yes, definitely" or "yes"). The four indicators selected to measure the dependent variable "egalitarianism" refer, in greater or lesser degree, to decision-making and participation in aspects of family may ha: we dec. the nu to 11 answe‘ to 59 18 family life. Because we felt that these four indicators may have different value as indicators of egalitarianism, we decided to relate each of them separately to the independent variables. This procedure, though longer, allows identification of the best indicators, and may contribute to future efforts to construct an index of egalitarianism. Independent Variables - Structural a) Place 9; Resident: In the Waisanen-Durlak study, three categories of residence were considered; metrOpolitan; urban and rural. For our present purposes, the same categories are used. b) Family Size: The indicator for this variable was the number of members in the family. In the original analysis, nine categories were obtained ranging from 1—2 to 11 or more members. We used them all. c) Age: The indicator was age at last birthday. The answers were grouped in eight categories ranging from 16 to 59 years old. d) Marital Status: The respondent was to answer to the following question: Are you married, single, divorced, widowed or separated? In the Waisanen—Durlak study, these differ: and ma "separ theref These G U) (D Q P Indepe or yea analys origin from "; 6 year high 5. more, Showe d SOUICE this _ USE t:- daily.~ by th. rangi 19 different categories were collapsed into two: single and married. The number of "divorced"; "widowed" or "separated" were not quantitatively'important and were, therefore, included under the category of "married". These two final categories, "single" and "married", are used in the present study. Independent Variables - Instrumental e) Education: The observation was for last grade or year you completed in school. For this secondary analysis of the data, we used the categories of the original study. There were eight code categories ranging from "none", to 17 or more years of education. The first 6 years represent the elementary school; from 6 to 11 the high school; from 12 to 16, the University, and 17 or more, specialization or post—graduate studies. f) Mass Media Use: Findings from the original study showed that newspapers were the most powerful mass-media source among the individuals of this population. Taking this into account, we used as our indicator of mass-media use the following questions: "Which newspapers do you read daily or frequently?" The categories used were provided by the original analysis. These were seven in number, ranging from "none" to "6". we. ..u...a.....s.u.._3 ”fins...“ PL . ‘ 20 g) Physical Mobility: The item used in the primary analysis was: "How long have you lived in this town or city?" The respondent was to answer in number of years and number of months. For the present analysis, we used the same categories. They were ten, ranging from "less than one year" to "thirty or more". h) Employment Outside the Home: The item used was: "Are you working at present" (If respondent was a housewife, she was asked: Are you presently working in a regular job outside the home?") "Yes" or "No" responses were kept for this study. However, we thought that if this factor is important to explain egalitarianism, its influence might be changed by a time dimension. Consequently, we added another indicator. i) Employment time: "In all your life, for how long a period have you worked at a regular job outside the home?" In the original analysis the responses were collapsed into eight categories, ranging from not applicable" to "more than five years". We used the same code for the present analysis. A summary of the distributions for these variables is contained in Appendices l and 2. 4.... .. ...1 ”away... .. a... 1.... ..r.....a.§ .... 1 . . .« ..... 3 . v _ ..,.-,a...1& ..r. _ ...v I\\ 21 Data Collection and Sample The larger study from which these secondary analysis are reported utilized a national probability sample of 1500 Costa Rican adults, of which 55% were females and 45% males. For the purpose of our study, we are certainly interested in the data provided by the 821 female respon- dents; however, male responses were submitted to a ’ comparative analysis. Details regarding the sample and the gathering of data may be found in Chapter II of A Survey of Attitudes Related to Costa Rican Population Dynamics. (24) Analysis The predominant analytical techniques are Chi—squared and partial correlation. All analyses were programmed for and done by the CDC 3600 computer of Michigan State University. .m...»..§.....:...._..+....13: .1. an... .1. .. a... .1 IV. RESULTS Contingency Analysis The results of tests of association between each independent variable and the four dependent variables used as indicators of egalitarianism are presented in Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Appendix 1). Table 4 shows significant relationships between Place of Residence and Consumer-Decision, Discipline— Decision and Wife-Free-Time. Except for Husband's-Role, where the relationship is not significant. the hypothesis that "metropolitan and urban women will be more egali- tarian than rural ones" is supported, especially for two of the indicators of egalitarianism, viz, Consumer Decision and Wife Free—Time. Table 5 does not show any significant relation between family size and our indicators of egalitarianism. The second hypothesis is not supported by the data. Family Size appears to be unrelated, at least in this population, to traditional or modern attitudes among females. 22 4w4.uwfl.wudl3.w..fiz.m:unya mike-.119." V 23 A similar lack of relationship appears in Table 6 where age was tested for association with our indicators of egalitarianism. The third hypothesis is not supported by the data. Marital status, when related to the indicators of egalitarianism (Table 7) appears to be significantly related to the attitude toward the husband's role, but it is not a predictor for the other indicators. The fourth hypothesis is supported only partially (for only one indicator of egalitarianism). The contingency analysis of the other independent variables to the several indicators of egalitarianism gave us the following results: - Education is significantly related only to Consumer Decision and Wife Free-Time (Table 8, Appendix 1). - Residential mobility is not significantly related to any indicator. — Newspaper—reading is significantly related to Consumer-Decision, Discipline-Decision and Husband's-Role (Table 9, Appendix 1). - Employment outside the home is not significantly related to any of the indicators of egalitarianism. .3 ..u..... .23....fi......n.... 34.24.33” 24 These results suggest that Education and Newspaper- Reading are the factors most closely related to our indicators of egalitarianism. Partial Correlation* The next analytical task was to determine the degree of relationship, if any, between the dependent and independent variables, controlling always for the effect of other independent variables. This task was accomplished by means of partial correlation. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Partial Correlations - Female Respondents Only: Attitudes Toward Egalitarianism, Controlling for Structural Variables Egalitarianism Place of Family Marital Residence Size Status Age Consumer Decision -.15 n.s. n.s. .06 Discipline Decision n.s.** n.s. n.s. n.s. Husband's Role n.s. n.s. .ll -.07 Wife Free-Time .ll n.s. n.s. n.s. *Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the "signs" of the partial correlations. The true direction of any correlation (i.e., whether it is "positive" or "negative") can be determined only by an examination of the direction of the code for each item. This information is given for each question in Appendix 3. ** Not significant at the .05 level. fr... 4.34.1.1 . n .3... £5.33. n. .,. . .l 2...... . 1.1.4..r..¥\ 25 (: ‘_ C. We cannthat even in the cases in which there is a statistically significant correlation, the values are low, suggesting clearly that there are other factors which may account for a more complete explanation of the relationship. Summary statements about these data follows: (1) Place ef Residence is significantly related to two indicators of egalitarianism: Consumer-Decision and Wife Free-Time. It is negatively related to Consumer- Decision, that is, for this indicator, the metropolitan and urban women are more egalitarian than the rural ones, as was hypothesized. However, it positively related to Wife Free-Time, which means that metropolitan and urban women are more traditional than rural ones, (contrary to our expectation). The first hypothesis is partially supported. (2) Family Size is not significantly correlated to any of the indicators of egalitarianism. (The same pattern appeared in the simple correlations). The second hypothesis continues to lack support. (3) Age is significantly related to two indicators of egalitarianism: Consumer-Decision and Husband's-Role. «aw-EALAfiKMI ”.43.... ...Idfialv. w. h”. . .. r ,4 .. . .... . H 26 It is positively related to Consumer—Decision, which means that the younger women are more traditional than the older ones (contrary to eXpectation). Age is negatively related to Husband's Role, that is, younger women are more egalitarian than older women in this time. The third hypothesis is supported only in small part. (The contingency analysis did not show any significant relationship between age and these indicators). (4) Marital Status is positively related to egalitarianism. The relationship is significant only for Husband's-Role, in which case single women are mege traditional than the married ones, contrary to the hypothesis. The other indicators of egalitarianism are not predictable from marital status. The hypothesis is not supported. The instrumental value of Education, Residential Mobility, Mass-Media Use (Newspaper-Reading in our case) and Employment outside the home in relation to the dependent variable were analyzed by partial correlation, taking into account for each the structural variables (Place of Residence, Family Size, Age and Marital Status). The findings are shown in Table 2, and a summary follows. 27 Table 2. Partial Correlations. Female ReSpondents Only: Instrumental Variables to Attitudes Toward Egalitarianism Controlled by Marital Status, Age, Place of Residence and Family Size Egalitarianism Education Residential Newspapers Employment Mobility Reading Outside Home Consumer Decision .14 .09 .09 .07 Discipline DeCision .09 n.s. n.s. n.s. Husband's Role n.s. n.s. .12 n.s. Wife Free- Time -.14 n.s. n.s. n.s. ”firm...1.-§«\4. " 3.... wild? 18.2... 28 (5) Education is positively related to egalitarianism. That is, the more educated women are the more egalitarian. This holds true in relation to three indicators of egalitarianism: Consumer-Decision; Discipline—Decision and Husbands'-Role. Curiously, education is negatively correlated with Wife Free-Time, suggesting that the more educated women are the more traditional (or less egalitarian). The fifth hypothesis is supported substantively, and education retains the predictive value suggested by the simple tests of association. (6) Residential Mobility is positively related to egalitarianism. This means that the more mobile women are more egalitarian, as hypothesized. However, this statement holds true only for one indicator of Egalitarianism - Consumer—Decision. (7) Newspaper-Reading is positively related to Egalitarianism; that is, those women who read more news- papers have more egalitarian attfidues than those who score lower in newspaper-reading. But this result holds only for two indicators of Egalitarianism: Consumer-Decision and Husbands'-Role. The others showed no significant relationship. The seventh hypothesis is partially supported. 29 (8) Employment Outside the Home is positively related to Egalitarianism; i.e., working women are more egalitarian than non-working women. However, the support for this hypothesis is weak, there being a significant relationship for only one indicator of egalitarianism: Consumer-Decision. Finally, we will attempt to briefly summarize the similarities and differences obtained from our comparative analysis with male subjects. For males, the contingency analysis showed similar relationships between: (1) Place of Residence and the four indicators of egalitarianism. That is, metropolitan and urban men are more egalitarian than rural ones. (Table 10, Appendix 2). (2) Family Size and the four indicators of egalitarianism. This variable gppears to be unrelated to traditional or modern attitudes, either for females or males.* The relations were somewhat different by sex in the following cases: For males: *For this reason, the corresponding table has been omitted. are". .34. 4 I. . ~n . 4p; I .r . .14. ..W . ....I..un...§.av:,_ 3O (1) Age is significantly related to Wife Free-Time. That is, the older men are more egalitarian than the younger ones. This finding does not support our eXpectations. (Table 11, Appendix 2). (2) Marital Status is significantly related to two indicators that were not significantly related in the female pOpulation, viz, Consumer Decision and Discipline Decision. The rela- tionships appear in different direction of what was hypothesized. That is, single men are more traditional than married ones. (3) Education is significantly related to Consumer Decision (as is the case for women), and also in relation to Discipline-Decision. As hypothesized, the more educated men are more egalitarian than the less educated, though the difference is very small in relation to Discipline Decision. (Table 13, Appendix 2). (4) Residential Mobility: For women this variable was not significantly related to any of the indicators of egalitarianism; for males, it appears to be related to Wife Free-Time. The i4“ . ~ 1.. _. «43.4.3.3»... 8.3a-.. . . or. ._. . .4 Wu 31 relationship is in the expected direction, but without great differences. This means that the more mobile men are more egalitarian than the less mobile ones. (Table 14, Appendix 2). (5) Newspaper-Reading: While this variable appeared significantly related to three indicators of egalitarianism among women, for men there was a significant relationship for the one indicator that was not significant for women, that is, Wife Free—Time. As expected those men, who read more newspapers are more egalitarian than those who read less. (Table 15, Appendix 2). Table 16 and 17 in Appendix 2 show the results of the partial correlation analysis done with the male subjects of the original study. In summary: (a) For males, Marital Status is positively related to two items that did not relate among women, viz, Consumer-Decision and Discipline-Decision. That is, single men are less egalitarian than married ones, contrary to the hypothesis. 32 (b) Place of Residence relates to three of the four indicators of egalitarianism, viz, Consumer Decision, Discipline-Decision and Wife Free-Time. The relationship is negative to Consumer Decision and Discipline-Decision, that is, the metropolitan and urban men are more egalitarian than the rural ones for these indicators. However, the relationship is positive to Wife Free-Time, which means that metropolitan and urban men are, for this item, more traditional than rural ones, contrary to our expectations. (c) Family-Size is negatively related to Husband's- Role, that is, those men who have larger families are more traditional than those who have smaller families. This finding supports our hypothesis, though for only this indicator of egalitarianism. (d) Age is negatively related to Husband's Role and Wife Free-Time. That is, the younger men are more egalitarian than the older ones, as it was hypothesized. thLHsuf v. _ . . u. 1.334;; 33.1. .4le 3:5. 33 Table 17 shows a similar pattern of relationship for Education, except for one indicator: Wife Free-Time. The relation is positive to all the relationships; that is, the more educated men are more egalitarian. Here the findings support our expectations. Residential Mobility shows no predictive power for men. Newspaper-Reading presents an interesting negative relation with Wife Free-Time; that is, men who read more newspapers are less modern (or egalitarian). ,..fir........r.$fi 3.3.. q was! .iuwflh‘i. ,. . l. ...«..u V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION The findings allow us to state that, for this population, there are some variables with predictive power as regards modern or traditional attitudes. Among the structural variables, Place of Residence was the best indicator in relation to our dependent variable. This finding responded to our expectation for Costa Rica, where the rural-urban differences are still great. We expected that Age could tell us more than it did; but even though it was not as good an indicator as expected, we still hold that it may be part of a more complex constellation of variables which together con— tribute a full configuration of modernity. Except for one indicator of modernity (the right of women to have their husbands' help in domestic chores), Marital Status did not show any particular relationship with egalitarianism. Finally, the family size variable was not related to egalitarianism. Among the instrumental variables, the most powerful seems to be Education, which was related significantly to almost all our indicators of modernity. This finding 34 35 confirms all previous research about modernity, either as a "process" or as a "state". However, the one exception in our data is interesting, viz., the negative correlation found between Education and women's perception of their right to have free-time to follow their own interests. This paradox might possibly be a manifestation of a steroetypic reflection of the cultural expectations about the role of women within the family. This was the only question in which to be modern meant to accept that it is right for the woman to occasionally leave the home and the family for her own benefit. All the other indicators of modernity used in the present study did not require separation from the family. This suggests that our four indicators have different values as measurements of egalitarianism. Residential Mobility did not modify the attitudinal response in any substantial way, even when the hypothesis was supported very weakly. But it is necessary to recognize that the operationalization of this variable gave only one dimension of mobility; that of the period of time the women have lived in the same town, probably not the most useful indicator for the purpose of the present study. 36 In regard to NeWSpaper-Reading, similar Operational problems may be involved. Only one dimension of mass- media use was measured. Even when the primary analysis of the data indicated that this was the best source, we cannot be sure that it was the best mass media indicator in relation to the dependent variable with which we are dealing: egalitarianism. Additionally, it would be interesting to know not only "how many" newspapers are read, but "which ones", with reference content and ideologies. (The question asked for names of newspapers, but only the number of neWSpapers was reported in the primary analysis). Although the "resource theory" we attempted to test in this study was not supported, the data do not permit confident rejection of the hypothesis. Given that most of the women did not work outside the home made this variable a difficult one to handle analytically. Further studies, including questions about categories or status — levels of employment and income might be done in developing countries. The fact that category of the job and income was not considered prevents us from drawing any conclusions about the contribution the wives are making to the family relative to that made by husbands. ...fi..t§w& ...u . i .3», 1.3.5.8.}. 37 We proposed, as a secondary objective of this study, to test the assumption that male and female attitudes toward egalitarianism may be influenced by different factors. Consequently, a comparison of the results of the analysis of both sex—groups was done separately. The hypothesis that differences do exist was confirmed. However, we will not attempt to discuss these differences. Further research on the subject must be done in order that a confidence—inspiring base for interpretation be available. .fifinnfi; i 5...... assays. . . r . , 2 . . § . dru.u(’ ‘r .. ..H I. I . . . m :3 hi? VI . CONCLUSIONS Among the many ways this study is limited are the following: (1) The findings apply to only the population of the study. That is, we cannot assert that the findings hold for other nations in Latin America, to say nothing about the rest of "the developing world? (2) The theoretical relationship between "modernity" and "egalitarianism" (as it was defined and measured here) remains unclear. (3) The fact that secondary analyses was made of data already collected, necessarily prevented a more complete and adequate choice of variables to test the hypotheses proposed. (4) The method of analysis used allowed us to say something about the differential value of our indicators of egalitarianism. Clearly, Discipline—Decisions, as it was operationalized here, is not an adequate indicator. It is 38 .flfEfi. Ema. 4*. m .3“... Jam»! alga .... ..l .1 r. -5... w. 39 likely that other indicators for this dependent variable have to be used, and once their discriminatory power is found, further research can provide findings that are more theoretically comprehensive and empirically satisfying. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Blood, Robert 0. "Long Range Causes and Consequences of the Employment of Married Women", Journal of Marriage and Family Living, XXVII (February 1965), pp. 43-47. 2. Blood, Robert 0., and Robert Hamblin. "The Effects of the Wife's Employment on the Family Power Structure", Bell and Vogel, eds., A Modern Introduction to the Family, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963, pp. 137.' 3. Blood, Robert 0., and Donald M. Wolfe, Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living, Glencoe, The Free Press, 1960, p. 293. 4. Burchinal, Lee G. and Ward W. Bauder. "Decision-Making and Role Patterns Among Iowa Farm and Non-Farm Families", Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXVII, (November 1965), pp. 424-430. 5. Fliegel, F. C. "Literacy and Exposure to Information Among Farmers in Brazil", Rural Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 1, (March 1966), pp. 15-28. 6. Hagen, Everett E. "On the Theory of Social Change", Illinois, The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1962. 40 .fifiimwf +1 ._ w. ad»; 43.... nah}...— L . f , ,I. 2 . w 10. ll. 12. 41 Harris, Ruth. "Certain Socio—Economic Factors and Value-Orientations as Related to the Adoption of Home Practices". M.A. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1956. Hoffer, Charles and Dale Stangland, "Farmers Reactions to New Practices", East Lansing, Agricultural Experimental Station, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, M.S.U. Bul. 264, Feb. 1958. Hoffman, Lois V. "Effects of the Employment of Mothers and Parental Power Relations and the Division of Household Tasks", Marriage and Family Living, XXII, (February 1960), pp. 27-35. Hurvitz, Nathan. "Control Roles, Marital Strain, Role Deviation and Marital Adjustment", Journal of Marriage and the Family, XIX, (February 1965); pp. 29—31. Banks, J. A. and Olive. "Feminism and Social Change. A Case Study of a Social Movement", Zoolzchan and Hirsch, eds. Explorations in Social Change, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1964, p. 547. Kenkel, William F. The Family in Perspective, New York, Appleton Century-Crofts, 1966. . :33. ,5................_....... i... _. . .. 4......J.r.,......,.. r sis...» l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 42 Kimball, William J. "The Relationship Between Personal Values and the AdOption of Recommended Farm and Home Practices", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago, Illinois, December 1960. Kluckhohn, Clyde and Strodtbeck. Variations in Value Orientations, Evanston, 111., Row, Peterson and Company, 1961. Lerner, Daniel. "The Planning of Traditional Society" New York, The Free Press, 3rd printing, 1966- Newcomb, Theodore M., et al., Social Psychology New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965, p. 591. Niehoff, Arthur, ed. "A Case Book of Social Change", Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, 1966. Nye, Ivan F., "Values, Family and a Changing Society", Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXIX, No. 2, May, 1965, pp. 241-248. Rogers, Everett, Social Change in Rural Society, New York, Appleton Century Crofts, Inc., 1960. Rogers, Everett and Floyd Shoemaker. Diffusion of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural and Communication Approach. New York, Free Press of Glencoe, 1967. .13.... . 5... 3.1.1... _ .. -ghw‘ 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 43 Middleton, Russell and Suell Partney. "Dominance in Decisions in the Family": Race and Class Difference", Marriage and Family Living, (November 1960), pp. 378-380. Smith, David and Alex Inkles. "The OM Scale: A Comparative Socio-Psychological Measure of Individual Modernity: Sociometry. Vol. 29, No. 4. December 1966, pp. 353-377. Strauss, Murray A., "Family Role Differentiation and Technological Change in Farming", Rural Sociology Vol. No. 2, June 1960. Waisanen, F. B., and J. Durlak. A Survey of Attitudes Related to Costa Rican POpulation Dynamics, Costa Rica, Programa Interamericano de Informacion Popular, 1966, p. 189. Waisanen, F. B. "Control Variables or Indicators: Some Preliminary Comments". Working paper, Mimeo., M.S.U., 1966. Wilkening, Eugene. "Change in Farm Technology as Related to Familism, Family Decision-Making and Family Integration" American Sociologigal Review, Vol. 19, No. 1 (February 1954) pp. 29—37. 27. 44 Wilkening, Eugene and Denton Morrison. "A Comparison of Husbands and Wives Responses Concerning Who Makes Farm and Home Decisions", Marriage and Family Living, XXV (August 1963), pp. 349-351. 31......343280 _. #5». .3132 his. ._ . _. 3.. .” .,..fl... ~ ...w ...-.. ..t . ...— . .. 55......» APPENDIX 1 DESCRIPTIVE DATA AND TABLES: THE FEMALE POPULATION 46 Distributions and percentages for each of the following variables. (Females only) Place of Residence Number of Subjects: Percentage: Metropolitan 232 28 Urban 115 13 Rural 474 59 ‘g_ Total 821 100 Age: Number of subjects: Percentage: 16-23 112 14 24-28 136 17 29-32 85 10 33—37 114 14 38-44 136 17 45-48 53 6 49-57 99 12 58-59 86 10 Total 821 100 Marital Status: Number of subjects: Percentage: Single 110 16 Married 711 84 Total 821 100 4.13515...” .1. ”gain. .2 c . . .. v 3 . . .... rlgknfwv 47 Family size: Number of subjects: Pgrcentage: 1-2 81 10 3 96 12 4 119 14 5 107 13 6 101 12 7 82 10 8 72 9 9-10 100 12 11 or more 63 8 Total 821 100 Education: Number of subjects: Percentage: none 68 8. 1-3 323 39.3 4—6 322 39.2 7-9 47 6. 10-11 25 3. 12-13 31 4. 14-16 4 .5 17 or more 1 .0 Total 821 100.0 ._mam...flfi..3. .. 5.... flashing a. . . v . 1.. ..’ ...c. r .3. ,¢L.V. 48 mo. m ma.sm "mumsam-flgo vNH mm mm mm av mm on mom Adeoe Hm Ha om Ha om Hm mm mam Houdm ma m m N m m w an swan: as m NH ma m CH m HMH cmunaomounmz muoE Mo whom» m mummw v whom» m whom» m How» H mcpcoE o UmxHOB mocwpflmmm mummm m cmcu mmmq cmcu mmmq can» mmmq coca mmmq cosy mqu cmcu mmmq no: m>mm mo woman mEHB ucmENonEm mEom may mpflmpso Umxuoz m>mm wmce mEHB mo poflumm cam mocmpflmmm mo momam "mucmpcommmm mHmEmm mo soflusnfluumflo .m canoe 44.9%-... z...“ ._. w ...J. v . .1... 1 . ..r €31.13: m. . .. ... .5? .. an J. ...,.w 49 cnmpoe I E Hmcoflpflpmnu I B mO.vO HO.Vm HO.VO mm.s .m.c O0.0H OO.OH . Ox .mHm. .OOOO .OOOO HOOHO HOOOO HOOOO Hmmm. HOOOO OOOOOQOO O0 .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Hmuos mm OO Om om mm mm OO mO Hausa OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH Oman: Hm ON ON Om mm mm Om Om OOHHHomoupmz O O O.. O O O O O z B E B z B 2 a mocmpHmmm mo mosam mEHuammHm mwflz mHOMLUcmnmsm EmflcmHHMDHHmmm UHMBOB mpsufluum new mocmcflmmm mo momHm .omo mcHHmHomHo .omo HmESmcou Hmaco muomnnsm mHmEmmv .O mHnOe OmOH-H Omog OmOH-H Omoc Nx 50 .OHOO HOOOO .OOOO HOOHO HOOOO HOOOO HOOOO HOOOO OomOQOO O0 .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH HOuoO O OH O O O O O O Once Ho HH OH OH HH OH OH HH OH HH OH - O OH O O O O O O OH O O HH OH HH OH OH O HH O OH OH OH O OH OH OH OH O OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH O OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH O OH HH HH OH OH OH OH HH O HH O OH O HH O HH OH O - H O O O O O O O O z a 2 O z e z a ONHO mEHulmmHm wwwz maom ccmnmsm .omm mcflammwmfla .owa HwESchU waflfimm Awaco muomeSm mHmEmmv Emflcmfinmuflammm UHOBOB mopsufluufi paw wuwm maflamm .m magma . g h I u 4.. . bald...” :33... gymflwmw OBI-arm}? .1 .w.C .m.C .m.C .m.C NM 51 HOHOO HOOOO HOOOO HOOHO HOOOO HOOOO HOOOO HOOOO muomnnsm mo .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH HOOoe HH OH HH OH OH HH OH O O0-00 OH OH OH O HH OH OH OH O0-00 O O O O O O O O OOuOO OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH O0-00 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH O0-00 OH HH HH O HH O HH OH OOuOO OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH O0-00 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH O0-0H O O O O O O O O z a z a z a 2 9 OOO mEHulwmum OMOS Odom mpcwnmsm .omo wcflamflomflo .oma HOEDmQOO Amaze muomflnsm mamfimmv Emflcmflumuflammm UHOBOB mopsufiug< paw mom .O OHQOB . 3a..n...1i4~ . . :15... ..H. . 13.1.3“... .3 52 .m.G NO..vm OO.O .m.c .m.c Ox .OHOO .OOOO .OOOO .OOHOAOOOO .OOO. ANONO .OOOO mpomOnsm mo .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Hmuoa OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OmHHumz OH OH OH O OH OH OH OH mHmch O O O O O O O O msumpm z a 2 a 2 a z a HmuHumz mElemmum mmwz maom wamnwsm .omo mafiamflomfio .Umo Hmfismcou Awaao muomeSm mHmEmmv EmflcmOHmuOHmmm UHMBOB mmwsufluufi can msuMpm Hmuflumz .n magma 53 HOQO OO.O~ HO..Vm OO.OO Ox .OHOO .OOOO .OOOO .OOOO mpommnsm mo .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH Hmpoe o o o O GHOE .HO NH H O .H O OHuOH O O O O OHIOH O H O O HHIOH O O O O OIO OO OO OO OO OuO OO OO OO HO 0-0 O O O O O O O O O S .H. z B mfiflulmmum mmaz coamflomo Hmfismnou coflumoswm Amaze mpoanSm mamfimmv mMOB mo musmflm cam coOmOomo HmESmcoo wumzoe mmcsufluum 6cm coflumoswm .m magma 54 HO.V m OOOH NO.VO OOHH OO.VO OOHH Ox .OONO .OOOO .OOOO .OOHO .OOOO .OOOO mpomflnsm mo .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Hmuoe H o o o o O m H O H m. H O O O H N m. m H m OH OH OH OH NH OH N om OO mO Om mO mO H om mm mm mm mm mm mcoz w w w w w w 2 B 2 a z a mcmemm .omo HmEDmcou mHom wamnmsm .owa mcHHmHomHQ HammmmBmz Atho muoanSm mHmEmmO EmHCMHHmuHHmmm Unw3oe mvsuHuum cam mcmemm memmmBmz .a mHQmB APPENDIX 2 DESCRIPTIVE DATA AND TABLES: THE MALE POPULATION 56 Distributions and percentages for each of the following variables. (Males Only) Place of Residence Number of subjects Percentage Metropolitan 188 28 Urban 65 10 Rural 426 62 Total 679 100 Age Number of subjects Percentage 16—23 58 9 24-28 81 12 29-32 '70 10 33-37 105 15 38-44 111 16 45-48 58 9 49-57 90 13 58-59 106 16 Total 679 100 Marital Status Number of subjects Percentage Single 105 15 Married 574 85 Total 679 100 . I... ..A .. ‘. . .0. man ...1..:3...zn.. 3&9... 57 Family Size Number of subjects Percentage 1-2 74 ll 3 78 ll 4 91 13 5 80 12 6 87 13 7 65 10 8 56 8 9-10 92 14 11 or more 56 8 Total 679 100 Education Number of subjects Percentage None 65 10 1-3 268 40 4—6 (elementary) 246 36 7-9 39 6 10-11 (high school) 30 4 12-13 14 2 14—16 9 1 17 or more 8 1 Total 679 100 58 HO.VQ HO.Vm HO.Vm OO.OH OO.OH OO.OO Ox HONOO .OOOO .OOOO .OOO .HHOO .OOOO .HOOO .OOOO OuomOgsm mo .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Hmuoe OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO Hmusm HH O O OH HH O OH O OOQHO OO OH Om HO HO mm HO HO OOOHHomouumz O O O O O O O O z a z a z a z a moquHmmm mEHulmmHm omwz mHom Ucmnmsm .owo mcHHmHomHQ .omo HmEDchU m0 mUMHm Acho muomeSm EmHGmHHmuHHmmm cumzoe mmUSpHuu¢ bum mocmchmm mo mHmEv GUMHm .OH mHQMB . 1:13.... . ,ufi.3......13 :3”... _ .. . ... ...-l. 3 . 1-2:. ...... 59 NO. Vm Hm.®._.. .m.C .m.G .m.G NN .OOOO .OOOO .OOOO .OOO .HOO .OOOO .HONO .OOOO muomwnsm mo .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Hmuoa OH OH OH O OH OH OH OH OO-OO OH OH OH HH OH OH OH OH OO-OO OH O O OH O. O HH O OO-OO OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OO-OO OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OO-OO O OH OH O OH OH O HH OO-OO HH OH HH OH OH HH OH OH OO-OO O HH O OH O HH O OH OO-OH O O O O O O O O O. .H. 2 .H. 2 .H. 2 .H. mmm mEHulmmHm mMHB mHom mUQMbmsm .oma mcHHmHomHo .omo HmEschU Acho muomOQSm mHmzv EOOcOOuOOHHOOm Oumgoe musuOOOO Ono mOm .HH mHnOe NH. Hflunwfivfiqu-wvu; ...“. “5.141.. :34 «...: 6O HO. V m NO.Vm .m.a .m.c OO.O OO.O Ox .OOOO .OOOO .OOOO .OOO .HHOO .OOOO .HOOO .OOOO mOomOnsO O0 .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Hmuoe OO NO OO HO OO OO OO NO OOOHOOO OH OH OH OH OH HO HH OH OHOOHO O O O O O O O O OOOOOO E .H. 2 .H. 2 .H. 2 .H. HMUHHmE mEHulmmHm meB mHom mccmnmsm .oma mcHHmHomHo .omo umESmcou Acho muomflbdm mHmzv EchmHHmuHHmmm UHOBOB mUSuHuum can msuwpm HmuHumz .NH meme rfififliaa . .. .... r, . ,. . «V3.1...3 .... U...“... Ho.Vm Ho.u.m 61 conHomo ocHHmHomHo conHomo Hmfidmcou ON.mH om.NN Nx .HHOO .OONO .HOOO .OOOO OpumOOsm mo .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH Hmuoe H H m m. mHOE Ho OH N O m m. OHIOH N N N N mHINH O O O O HHIOH O O O m min HO om mm mm OIO Om mO mm MO mIH O NH O OH O w w w w E B 2 B COHpMUSUm mcHHmHomHo cam AwHGO muoanSm mHmzv conHomo conHomQ Hmfismcou ©Hm309 mUDuHuu¢ bcw coHumoswm .MH mHQMB ' 335...... 3.. 333.. O. .. n. ......va . 62 Table 14. Residental Mobility and Attitude Toward Wife Free-time (Male subjects only) Residential Wife Free-Time Mobility T M % % less than 1 year 6 4 from 1 to 5 years 10 13 from 5 to less than 10 years 7 11 from 10 to leys than 15 years 11 10 from 15 to less than 20 years 5 9 from 20 to less than 25 years 14 9 from 25 to less than 30 years 10 8 from 30 or more 37 36 Total 100 100 No. of subjects (254) (425) X2 . l.knq!‘.v . Os ... .. . 1...... 3.3.3.... ...... 63 Table 15. Newspaper Reading and Attitude Toward Egalitarianism (Male subjects only) Newspaper Wife Free-time Reading T M % % None 38 26 1 43 48 2 16 20 3 3 5 4 O 1 5 0 0 Total 100 100 No. of subjects (254) (425) x2 11.54 p<:.05 ... ,- L 2.. 64 Hm>mH OO. map um ucOUHOOcOHO uoz. .m.c OO.: .m.c OH. wEHulmmnm mMHz «.m.c OH.| OO.: .m.c mHom .mUGMQmsm NH. .m.: .m.: NH.I conHomQ mcHHmHomHo OO. .m.c .m.c mN.r conHomQ HmESmcou msumum mNHm moconmmm HmuHumz mmfi OHHEmm mo mUMHm EchmHHmbHHmmm EmHGMHHMUHHmmm UHMBOB mo¢5uHuu¢ "OHGO mucmpcommmm mHmz mcoHHMHmHHOU HMHuumm .OH memB ......a.......,... .23 . H 65 OH.I .m.c OO. oElemmHm OMHZ OO. .m.c OO. mHom .mOCMQmsm .m.c .m.c OO. conHomU maHHmHomHo .m.: .m.c mo. conHomc HmESOcoo OOOOOOO OOOHOOoz ucmEOOHmEm mummmmm3mz HMHuchHmmm coHum05©m EchmHHmpHHmmm mmOSUHupm on mmemHHm> HmucmasuumcH 0mm cam mNHm OHHEmm .mocmmemm mo mOMHm .msumum HmuHHmz Ob UwHHOHusOU EchmHHmuHHmmm ©HO3OB “OHco mucmpcommmm mHmS mcoHumHmHuou HMHuHmm .OH mema ......EOR... .43.... ...... .... . . . .a .- . .. (Lb. . . ; ‘ _ APPENDIX 3 CODE 67 .cumoofi u H OmcoHUvauu n O OmHmUOmcoo m3 AEmHCMHHmuHHmmmV memHHm> zucmwcmmmp= ms» mo muoumoHUcO O mcu HOMO mm» OOHHEOM OHmnOGHmmU .mmw n H may Eoum Om3m no: mmxmu pH on OHmuHcmeU MO cm>m .mumoumucO :30 no: 0: BoHHom ou mEHqumHm m>m£ Bocx u.:oo n O pHsonm mMHz m xchu 50% on wEHuuwoum OOHB OHHmconmooo .mmm mmmuono OHummEOU OHHMHsmmH .mmm n H squ mMOz mHz mHma UHsonm 02 n O Usabmss m xcHsu Do» on mHon .mpcmbmsm mmCHHmHomHU cam coOumospm mo mumuuma CH mcoflmHomU anon I H mmxmfi OHHmumnmm 0:3 mMHB Ho panama: n O .cmHUHHso as OQHmcHHQ QH coOmHomQ ocHHmHomHo mmmsoc m mchooao Ho mmcHsu m>Hmcmmxm anon . H OcHOsn OOHH .OcoOOOomO OOHz Ho OGMQODQ H O pcmuuomEH mme UHdozm 0:3 conHomQ HmEDmcou Oucmpcmmma mpoo coHummso mHQmHHm> may m0 mEmz . ......Ofiafilaazfie...... . .-afith... . meHHmE n mHmch H OH ll chcwwLnuaOcn mmlmm OmImO mOImO OOImm OMImm NmImN ONION MNIOH mGOOHmm mHoE Ho HH mGOOHmm OHIO mc0mumm chmHmm mnemgmm OGOOHmm mc0mumm mGOmuwm mcomumm NIH u 68 u ¢nO© .mHmch .UmHHHmE 50> mud OOOOOOOOO umOH “50% co mmm “50> mm3 umcz AUHocmmsoc mEmm may OH OOO>OHO OHOEOO may mo mHmQEmE mo Hmnfisz msumum HmuHHmz mod mNHm OHHEmm Hmusu n N swan: n H cmuHHomouumfi n O mochHmmH mo mome pampcmmmbcH mcoo coHpmmso memHHm> mnu mo mEmz ......u... ...... 1. .3...” O . .. -..... .... 69 CoHumEHowCH 0C n m BOCx u.Cov u m muos Ho om Eonm n O mummm om Cmnu mmmH op mN Eoum n O mummw ON.CmCu mmmH op ON Eoum n m mumwm ON Cmnu mmmH on OH Eoum n O mumm» mH Cmcu mmmH op OH Scum u m mummw OH Cmnu mmmH on m Eoum u N mummm m op H Eoum u H NOuHU uo Csou mHCu CH ummm H Cmnu mmmH n O ©o>HH COO m>m£ mCoH 30m mpHHHQOE HmquUHmmm mHOE .HO NH " N. .OOHOHO>HOOO OHIOH n O mHINH u m .Hoonom SOHO. HHIOH n O mIO n m HmumquEmHmv OIO u N NHOOCOm MIH u H CH OmumHmEoo Com Ham» QCOC n O uo mpmum pmmH mCu mmz umcz CoHumoCUm mUOU COHummCO GHQMHHM> may mo mEmz ... FIN-m5... ”I‘JE.§fl.H—ujdtflzu.fim mm OO.O... 70 mummm m COCH whoa H O mummm m ou stvm HO mmmH n O mummm O CO Hmsvm Ho mmmH u m mummm m ou Hmswm MO mmmH n O mummm N on Hmswm no mmmH u m Ham» H mmEOC on» mUHmuCo 0p Hmswm no mmmH u N non HMHCmmH m pm pmxuoz meCOE O Cmnu mmmH u H COO m>mn UOHHmm m mCOH memoHHmmm uOC n O 303 How mMHH H50» HHm CH mEHu UCmEOonEm 0C u H mqummHm mEOC mCu mm» H O um mCHxHo3 COO mum mOHmuCo quEOoHQEm O n O m u O O n O m u m N u N H n H OOHpCmswmum Ho OHHmp bmmu mCOC n O CO» Ob mummmmmBmC CoHCB mCHUmmH memmm3mz mUOU CoHummCO memHHm> onu mo mfimz 3:11.... q “.335.“ .433." OO.: ..r ... .....ufi...‘ Irv... .. .lfihabrV. m r" :- Ju . mp; . v ....v. .avflW 5,13... m; . . .. .. .. . . .. .l '-.7 "1‘ W ‘ 7 ISIS" 11“”!th l! W! film)! 3 1293 01744 9566