III II I I [I I II III IIIIIIII I I 100 221 TH _ METHODS OF HANDLING FAMILY FINANCE- IN HOMES OF MEN COLLEGE STUDENTS Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Am: McIntyre Aikin E938 . g..- . - 0". Q n..- ‘ .l . METHODS OF HANDLING FAMILY FINANCE IN HOMES OF MEN COLLEGE STUDENTS A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Lester of Arts Department of home Ranagement and Child DeveloPment Division of Home Economics \ by finn ficlntvre Ai?in 0.1 fl 1 9-338 1-H Q‘Ic. Ch"- I s AC KN O WLEDGI‘JIIL‘N T The author wishes to scknowledge her indeotedness and Express her gratitude to all those who nsve assisted in tne prepsretion of this study, esyecielly to Dr. Irme H. Gross for her unfailing interest, pstience end encouragement in the supervision of the research; to Dr. Marie Dye for her suggestions; to Dr. willinm D. fisten for his help with Maia ’sticel enel s s; and to the \ L! (.4. h): (D ’1) Cr. 1) ct F men college students for their co-oyer- atixx1 irxgtivirut the (hate. 1.‘ 3 7711f“ 1.1.1.13 {3Q COLT II‘BE‘J rape Chester 1 117. Item uet ion 1 1r1osc of LWIMIT 1. C111C11I117rrnst i paiLiIJIl nCviev 01 Li cratere 11n0317qs in fieflerd to l t7 01 fisnxli m; Family r1"7e 1;er1 0711C Ii11sr701 ocs l 03 Finance ‘heir Tamilics eI “FLUOU ixf17C7"‘;1CNl1LClIL dgencinq Lh1~eisrisjfin1 m1 1 . 11:11113 lstiouhgig of Lisu7ns“ Io ,nown Verisnts [gtt i:t1 u17 es 130' (1:130 IIccord of Col_-e;‘-‘e 1.,:.on rlsnnin3 end 11o<111113 (unsotxn? III (hmgso _ slfOn. With 1% 701n?“ of 64 Previous MIJJHLIquJOflo ' oeI hi"fr“ene,s Famimy 1 Home ;ncn1e L111<7rr11eCH1 gunnery snd UoncIusio1s 151131.113531Ts771117 Aooendix A 11. 1:11. 111. VI. VII. V Ill 0 CIIC . :‘CI. XII. XIII. XIV. EV. -ZV-I o XVII. vVIT . - ‘1’..." 11.2“. o :ZCII. ICCIII. LZUVK VTVI. :CTTII. IXVIII. - ..._ ,.. .’ 7' . .14.). -7.-. ,. .1'.’. a. Q -2... - Jq'- ,- -3... .. ..>>.l“\.; ;. J- 1—...IJ I 1r'vr'r' .1‘.-.’._.A‘._I.._T. W‘.’I - ‘.‘.. “1:1:1 I O 1*(7‘7' ..'.]V o ‘1‘"'Y“'r—YJ. A'J-'\. ~2-r~ JJJNI. JVCA- mf‘fII. "fir-\v-fi -1'~4L4L.‘f ---:I. '1 "1‘37- 7‘ 11.17.11. 1 o -/Uiscunsion of /jfl€fb1IOC1S b H C? 1‘1“: ’C 1 N M L". V - I ,—J. Ky 2.1. 7'... L.) L 1U I.) @11110 OC+1I lflJCuU} 3 of ”rcVi 701 1 1030 Exncnzos m11qCu Iositenco f Families -A the None ‘1‘).17101" "‘f' -. 10111111 01‘ r- 0:; I". :7?) -l HJJO D O 1") N I’ ‘fiC ] .4 :.Jo A: .J L.‘ I a l r~"- k l J \ LJ r—J Uu1c+o .s. .1 —-.- 1.) Uo—ogerators I)”; ASKE- Con‘t IEUEIOQQ to 1nmily Income Goobvct117s Amount of '7n7l” Income Ifinily Inowlcdfic of Income EI7Cnditn7cs ion oi bAllCrC 11 Discussion L‘insncial Liscugsion Einenditurcs ludfiotinq in Bienning to Uomyon Fund Plannin: the Allowance ans COIlC?C Len Receive EILcnt of Un3n191ViCcd 1737C 'biLC: ; 3:1 213? “I‘icIvn.-n~'.u1t0” 911d A117I1e. Pirticip1cion in “1N“11.:c1a.cs ” of EtaendiunCe gucords r7‘1.“r7aininr; Received 0y ~ 121:7 011510. FCmiIV ACMUGTE in EIICnt of qunninc Ikrl ont {1n11 Innily from Fund Spenfling '.Jo T411771 Tl r.~ COD 1 , ' I ---. c '7“ .14-". U {’11. U college Ken 013331ficd 3000317 in; Occupation, n- J- “ca I'ucction gation of Jhi ldrcn in Discussion ‘ ntnC..l Icc75 ions L (CA::L.]1 )) 'lllj " ‘W L) A! _. J (“2- ...'o I I .- J 1:1 :1q \' a 1‘» C11 :3 Of Oc+dc3 C) L_.'. 1 t. .04 3C “ Exoen01u Plannin3 Persons Buyin3 Food, 1u1n1un1 as, 1-4] 1(1'11 ano buggliés Burcnnscs 4“ “1‘ -y '. u.‘ ‘ . LO sanily Cun18 Pnrchnflifi" Auto UCI p 1111: CIO Chin 1; 8:353 .“n ‘. -‘i.’ ,‘. A J _ 7 C." C? .OFJHMDC r‘! .'_ . <1 .. . - .31 m7 _‘ K . 3.31 . I \-‘ 0CDqH macaronm >H candy 0 m a pm macawm ooaqnm o m 3.9m Hoaagh emanmmmoh onucH mo a pm spoons mono m>om anaconda 3am uqaaoawo oz no b as ammonuoos mnaoo cmmno noanHpmobaH -11.. for school supplies, ice-cream, candy, penny bank, and Sun- day School. hitn increasing are and responsibility came larger allowances and more items to be cared for, until usually at adolescence, and in nearly every case upon enter- ing college, the allowance was covering clothes and personal eXpenditures and in many cases all expenditures. "The families who did not worry despite their difficulties in making the income cover their needs were those who planned, those where husband and wile co—Op- erated most fully in carrying out the plan, those who could ll see where they were going." 1? Ruth Lindquist reported a few facts con- cerning the spending patterns of 355 femilies, selected on the basis of the uothers' education, 80 percent of them having college degrees. Sixty-eight percent of the hus- bands also had been graduated from college. In regard to planning: 55 percent used a budget, $5 percent more had only a partial plan, as percent stated that they had no plan, and 9 percent did not answer.’ Of the rural families included in the study, be percent had no plan for their family expenditures. From the total nunber of families studied three-fifths or 00 percent of them considered their Spending in family councils. One-third of the families gave allowances to their children, the majority beginning 11. Chase Going Woodhouse, op.cit, p.8 1?. Ruth Lindquist, ”A Study of Home hanage- ; ment in its relation to Child Development", The Candle Dec. '99 -12- at 6 years of age. Twenty percent made a careful record of all eXpenditures; a few others found a periodic examination and classification of bank stubs satisfactory. 13 A study was made by Josephine Fuller in 1934 at Michigan State College. One hundred seventy—six women students answered a questionnaire concerning the meth- ods used in administering family incomes, and the training received in the use of money. fhe sample was divided be- tween home economics and non-home economics students in the four classes. Over three-fifths of their homes were in cities, and less than one-tenth lived on farms. About one- fourth of their parents were high-school graduates, another fourth had attended colleqe, while nearly a sixth of them had only finished the first eight grades. The majority of the fathers were business or professional men. Miss Puller found that joint control was the most pepular method for administering the incomes; that a joint account between husband and wife was used in almost half the cases; that budgets were used in only one-fourth of the families, and were usually planned by the father and mother. In the ma- jority of homes, both parents participated in doing the buying, but rarely did all members share in this activity. Two—thirds of the girls stated that they had partial know- ledge of the amount of the family income, but only two- 13. Methods of handlins Finance in homes_of .._.-. . iomen College Students unpublished n.s. thesis, michigan —‘<—. -- — o - h a. State College, lQLS 80 numbered leaves -15- fifths of them helped decide on the way it should be spent. half of the students received allowances while in college, three-fifths of this group also being given money on re- quest. These facts were correlated with education and occupation of parents, the place of residence and the size of family. It was found that more money was given by re- quest rather than as an allowance to children of less edu- cated parents. More of the older children participated in making plans for family expenditures in business men's and farmers' families, and in small cities or on farms. The number of girls receiving allowances decreased directly with the density of the population in their place of resi- dence. It was discovered that in the majority of cases, both parents were the important buying agents in the large City, while the mother took the major role in medium—sized city and village, and that all members of farm families 14 were participating in making the family purchases. rhe following year at Michigan State College Eunice Pardee studied methods of handling money used among 15 300 Michigan families contacted through women who were members of home economics extension classes. nearly 70 percent of these families lived on farms and only 10 per— cent lived in cities. Over four-fifths of the parents had attended high school. A majority of the husbands were 14. Josephine Fuller, opigit, pp. 82—84 15. methods of handling money in Fed hichigan Farm homes unpublished m.A. thesis, michigan State College, less 67 numbered leaves -14- farmers and only one-tenth were business or professional people. Jets taken from the women‘s ”Layers Lo a ques— ionnnire hcved that the most common method use. in con- ,sidering financial matters was that of husband and wife talking together. >ixty—four percent of the entire number used an unwritten or mental plan, and less than one—fifth made any sort of written budget. M POXiPIP stely 40 percent kept some records of eXpenditures, but less than ona-fourth recorded all expenditures. Ahout one— liali the families had a joint bank account. Twenty-six percent of the women had household allowances, and ?5 percent of the chi ldre en had personal allowanc~s. As to responsibilities Ior certain erpenditure s, 41 percent said that it was not definitely assumed by certain members oI the family. high correlation was shown between incre easing amounts of formal eduCation of the parents and the keeping of records as well as the {Viv- ing of allowancrs tb children. There was also a direct relationship discovered between size of family and (1) plans for spermiinf; (9) joint bank accounts; and (7)family discussion; and an inverse rela tions11i; was found between size of family and the receiving of allowances by the lo children. Tl e most rece ent study available was made in f . A a 17 M , , r the fall of 1930 by Reva Cree Tweedy at the UniverSity oI 10. {1.11110 ce Ia rdee 041;) it pp, 441 4(9 17.Lv1dence_s of head or censurer-deFrmfflz ucat_ion_ in the ldano tflWll fichoolo un nblisnca n.A.thesis, University oI Idaho, 1937 lot? numbered leaves c_ _f -15- Idaho. Mrs. Treedy collected data from 175 women, 10? of them home economics students end 73 of them from the School of business. As a pert of her study she sought to discover fscts concerning their fenilies' hsbits of handling money, the sources of the students' income, and the experience end trsining received by the girls in the use of money. In re- gard to hsbits of heLdling fsmily income, 17.3 percent of ‘ the fsmilies for whicn this cuestion was answered used a budget system, While 82.7 percent said they hsd no recog- nized budget; there were 53.7 percent or the fsmilies who had joint bsnk accounts between husband snd wife, 17.7 per- cent in which the wife received money on request, 1? percent where the wife had an sllownnce, end another 1? percent of the families in which the tile eerned her mm money, vhile 4.5 percent of the wives received s separate income from inheritsnce or savings. forty—four percent of the students received their college income as an allowance, 48 percent asked for money from hone, others eerning their own money. Of the 78 who received sllowsnces, 9% percent had never been given an allowance until they came to college, 40 percent had started using allowances in grade scnool, and 31 percent had begun in high school. 5 Concerning these methOds of handling family - - d - u-- . - - funds, Mrs. Tweedy said, Msny girls stste thst their pres- ent dny practice, such ss lack of bsnk accounts, lsck of money allowsnces for the children, end lacs oi budgets are _l'0... emergency measures and not the ususl standard in their 18 home s . " One hundred fifty—two girls (97 percent) gave their parents credit for training them in the use of money through letting them help buy for the family or msnrge their own ban: accounts or do their own personal purchasing. As to school courses which had helped in their trsining, 28 spoxe oi home economics, ll of comwercisl work, end 5 of economics courses. Sixty—nine percent of those who men- tioned home economics were freshmen. A summary of the findings of these invcsti- gstions is given in Table V. 18. Revs Cree Tweedy, 0242;}, p.7,9 -17- 3 E. mm mm. 433' mt Ha mm Haaenwm em nopvanna m defiant ¢H 5H mm opOHano monspwvnognu mnfisswam mm. 33.8.” mm on mqwcnomm Ham hem . nlmcfimomu uncoom em on mnmnaoa Add an scammsumwn nonvaano 0% Amcao was cascade mm 3 mm .3203 323% Saga em mafia»: mafiuaomn ma 0..” w." an.» 2 pm .835 . wastage ewe. 8 mm m3 “3 ma 3 320?: 8358 m Heaven HH nonvo: Itauuomnmm uaonamsom mm NH nuooquoadq mm ampn3000u mpmpdgom pmmsvmm no mpcmudm mu ma hawhonaau omhdm;noaaoo 5v mm «m . .hwwMOwul panacea pawoh umcnsa . hHstm op mmoood mo undo: unmouom pqmohom ammonom pnoonom L 8» m3 2; an» E. , $88 agenda mownwm amaasm nfimmna pmHsuuaaq oononvoo: ”nopwmaumm>nH ommaaoo opwpm samenoas p4 omoHHoo madam numanoaa_aahu hat 4 . oosdaah hdaaah mafiacnwm mo accuse: Ho mnowpmmapmoan escaponm mo mwnfinnah mo hndaium b oanaa -18- Chapter II Findings In regard to Methods of Handling Family finance In the present study, the replies of 105 men students at Michigan State College in 1958 to a questionnaire concerning methods of handling family finance wire analyzed. first, for general information concerning the men and their families; second, for facts about family financial methods of apportionment, spending, supervision and training; and third, for co-variation of these facts with place of resi— dence, occupation and education of parents, size of family, and the co-Operators' college interests. Findings from these analyses are presented. The final section of the chapter deals with student attitudes toward planning and record-keeping. Ehe Men and The men who answered these questionnaires -pc— ~-~.—-—.—_~-‘ Their Families were, largely, persons who were earning at least a part of their own college exganses. In the majority of cases, their homes were in cities. The parents of these students were chiefly of hritish or German stock, with at least one parent having had college education. There were usually two, three, or four other children in the family. Seventy-six percent of the fathers were occupied in indus- try (which includes wade—earning and clerical work), in -19- business or in the professions, with a median annual salary of 1 9503.33. Table VI shows that the majority of the stu- dents who answered the questionnaires were earning some por- tion of their own way through college, 61 percent earning part of their espenses and IR percent more earning all of their eXpenses. The most marked difference among the classi- fications was between fraternity members and independents, the former group having only 9 percent of its members earn- ing all their own way contrasted with 95 percent of the in- dependents. -90— OOH um OOH ms OOH an we we oe moa 00H mm 00H «ma fleece . m 9 ma m ma ma «m ma ma ea mm pa Hm em oaoz S 8 om mm mm . me em. 8 we 2. mm . mm 3 ma page e e 2 n . mm mm - a s 3 3 3 3 3 am 38098. a . R 002 m 002 m 03 R 08 fi .3 sea oaoaonaom uoannh seesaw headaooayh .hawnhoaanh Huoaunooa fluoqsnooa mouse Haves Inmmhh , . . Inca Idem unoperQOIoo my nonndu mmunomum oonHoo mo 9565q H> OHJQB Table VII gives the places of residence of these students, classified according to the place in which the greater portion of the student's life had been spent. Those students who had lived in more than three places of different size were listed under ”varied." Sixty-two per- cent of the co-operators lived in cities, seven percent in villages, twenty-eight percent on farms, and three percent had lived in places of varied size. Table VII Place of Residence of Co-Operators __‘ Total cases Sen— Jun- Sopho— Fresh- - Iunber APercent ior ior more man City ' Large 29 18 10 8 5 o Iaediunl 3 19 5 12 8 0 Small 40 25 8 10 l? 10 Village 11 7 4 4 9 1 Farm 4b .98 12’. 15 15 8 Varied b 5 l l 4 0 Total 165 100 40 48 44 81 Ag to size of families, the central ten- dency is toward small families with two, three, or four children. See Table VIII. Sixty percent of the fami- lies fall in this class, and PS percent more have only the one son. Twenty-eight families, or 17 percent, have five or more children. more of the non-technical students came from large families than did the technical co-operators, and more of the independents than of the C "I I fraternity men. fable VIII families Classified According to Size Total Senior Junior Sepno- Fresh- number Percent more man One child 57 25 7 lo 7 7 Small (2-4 as 00 as so :5 ' 18 children) Large (5 or 28 . l7 8 1? P o more) Total 105 100 40 48 44 51 Table IX shows that 87 percent of the cases came from homes where ooth parents were living, and that of the remaining number 9 percent came from homes in which the mothers were still living. Table IX Parents in the home Total Senior Junior SOpho~ fresh- Number Percent more man both parents 141 87 55 45 50 29 living One parent only Mother 15 9 3 5 5 ? Father 7 4 4 O F 0 Total 1e5 100 40 48 44 31 The number of native-born parents is far greater (89 percent) than the number born in other countries (11 percent); and whether foreign-born or native, 41 percent were of British or German stock, 9? percent were descendants of other north Europeans, and only 5 percent of these Stu- dents had ancestors who had come from Central or South Eu- rope. (hefer to Tables X and XI.) Table X Place of birth or farents l rather mother Iotal number Percent Number fercen humber fercent v——' Foreign born 21 8.9 15 9.2 86 11 Native born 14? 87.1 l48 90.8 ?90 89 Total 103 100. .103 100. 390 100. Table XI hational eackground of Co-Operators Father mother Total Lumber Percent British 40 55 95 29 German 20 19 59 1? Other North nurOpeans 41 So 77 ?3 Central & South Europe 9 8 l7 5 no answer 53 45 98 31 Total 183 103 390 100 fhe parents' education is classified in Table XII according to the highest grade finished. Of the 156 men who made any statement in regard to parents' educa- tion, 55 percent said that either one or both of their par- ents had attended business or normal adiool or college, 98 percent stated that one or both of their parents had et- tended high school, and 19 percent that their parents had gone no further than the eighth grade. Table XII extent of farents' Education C assified according to highest School attended father Mother fetal Parents Total 80th One Number Percent 8 grades or less 51 39 90 50 - SO 19 8-10 grades 19 11 SJ lO—lZgrades 99 44 73 18 Po 44 ‘8 dusiness 7 7 14 school kernel or ?5 34 59 college Graduate of 24 18 32 39 SO 8? 53 college Total 155 156 308 81 75 150 100 '1 In 8? percent of the 100 families, the fa- thers contributed all or more than half 0; the money income, but only in 20 percent did the mothers contribute anything to the money income. See Table XIII. The fathers in these families were, almost without exception, the chief bread- winners. -25- fable XIII Portion of honey Income Contributed by Family Members Father Mother Children hinber Percent Number Percent Number Percent All 112 o9 1 2 l more than half 91 15 1 1 half 19 1? 15 C o 4 More than one- 8 1 11 7 ~ 8 5 fourth One fourth or - - Q 5 r5 15 less hone, no answer, 9 5 128 78 185 75 irrelevant Total 105 100 165 100 105 100 According to Table XIV, over one-third (35 percent) were employed in industry, nearly a fourth in pri- vate busines., another fourth in farming, with the remainder (18 percent) in professional service. Table XIV Ocmlp a t ion of dreadwinner Total-m Q Senior Junior Sepho- fires - number Percent more man dusiness 35 at" 11 13 a 4 Professional 28 18 8 8 9 4 Industrial 59 55 10 17 l4 l7 farming 41 24 11 10 15 6 Total 105 100 ,O 48 44 51 -90- The incomes, stated in 154 cases, range in the medium level. Of these families, 55 percent had annual incomes between elOdO and 55000. See Table XV. The median income is 99500 annually. eleven families (7 percent) had incomes of less than eIOJO, thirteen families (8 percent) between w4000 and WSOOU, and 25 of the amilies (17 percent) were r,ported with incomes above VSOJO. Table XV ’0 >ize of Family Income , Total . . JOpho- fresh- Annually Lumber Percent Senior Junior more man Under leOO 11 7 5 5 4 l glOOO-IQQQ 45 29 12 14 ll 8 eaooo-saae 42 27 IO 8 15 ll 95000-5999 18 12 5 4 5 4 d4000-4999 7 8 5 5 l P oSOOd-over 25 17 5 10 5 5 Total 154 100 40 44 39 51 In line with the large proportion of the fa- thers whose earnings are sole sources of family income is the 100 percent knowledge of the fathers in regard to the amount of income. Although only 20 percent of the mothers contributed directly to family income, 88 percent of them had complete knowledge of its amount. The older children knew much more about income than younger children, and the -27- older boys appeared to have complete knowledge in more cases than did the girls (5? percent compared with 41 percent as shown in Table XVI). Table XVI Extent of Family Members' Knowledge of Income Over 14 Under 14 Father Mother Girls Boys. Girls boys ho. w No. 5 ho. M No. N No. no. Complete 151 100 158 88 2o 41 59 52 4 2 Psrtisl 0 — lo 10 29 4b 49 4c 8 5 None 0 - S 2 8 13 o 5 4 c Total 151 lOO l57 100 OS 100 114 100 lb ll -28... Financial In 11 of the families, the whole group a1- ———.....- m e tho d s ways entered into financial discussions; in 97 all usually took part; in 49 the family only occasional- ly shared. Of the 95 parents reported upon, 45 always entered into financial discussions, 4O apportionment usually did, and 8 only occasionally tooK part, wnile 2 were reported as never having family dis- P cussions of finances. See Table XVII. Table XVII Extent of Discussion of Expenditures whole family Parents and Parents older children Number Bercent humoer Percent L fiber Percent Always 11 7 4 ' s 45 98 Usually ?7 17 14 b 40 95 Occasionally 49 50 50 18 8 5 Raver 90 l? 9 5 P 1 No answer 50 54 100 be 08 41 Total le 100 105 103 103 100 when each family was studied to find to 1 what extent children participated in discussion, it was found (see Table XVIII) pated in 9 percent of the families, that they never tion part in dis- cussions in ?5 es, but that in two-thirds, or 06 percent of the families studied, the child ren somet ime s finances. that the children alvays partici- Table XVIII Participation of Children in the Discussion oi EXpenditures Families Number rercent 4, Always l4 9 Sometimes 10l ob hever 58 25 Total 155* 100 * 10 did not respond to this part of the questionnaire. shared in discussions of family 1. Overlapping answers under "parents", “parents and older children", and ”whole family" were eliminated. Usually and occasionally were counted under sometimes. It was inferred that children never partici- pated if no answers were checked for them and their par- ents were reported as always taking part. -50- Table XIX is in agreement with Table XVII, for of the 112 parents reported upon, So percent always shared in making financial decisions, 49 percent usually did, and 15 percent only occasionally took part. Again, the children shared in decision-making only occasionally, 47 out of the 75 reported instances, (05 percent) just as they shared in discussions occasionally in most of the homes. Table XIX Participation in Decision- Making Children with Father Mother Parents Parents Num- Per- Nvi- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent Always 4 15 5 ?5 40 5b 9 12 Usually 16 51 9 45 55 49 lo 21 Occasion- 7 25 5 15 17 15 47 05 ally Never 4 15 4 19 O — 3 4 Total 51 100 21 100 112 100 75 100 Three-fourths of the 87 students who re- Sponded to the question concerning planning eXpenditures over a year ahead said that their families did not plan for that length of time, and less than a fourth (22 percent) reported that their families did plan for a yearly period; the two other students who reported said that they did not know. Yet three-fourths of the co-Operators answered that their families had some plan, and only 2? percent reported no plan. See Table XX. Table XX Extent of Planning Future Expenditures A iear's Plan Any Plan Number Percent . Number Percent Yes PD 22 119 75 ho . 65 75 55 2? Doubtful - P 5 5 5 .Total 87 100 159 100 When asked whether plans vere written, 20 percent of those reporting (51 of the 117) said that plans were written wholly or in part, no percent that plans were unwritten, and the remaining 7 percent that their plans were partly written and partly unwritten; see Table XXI. Table XXI Extent and Type of Budgeting Number Percent Written plan 51 26.4 All . 8 Part 25 Unwritten plan 77 050a All 45 Part 54 Partly written & partly unwritten 8 7.8 Total 117 * 100 * No answer 45 Of the 79 persons who told which family mem— bers consulted in making plans for future expenditures, 40 reported that all were consulted, and 59 that all were not included. (Table XXII) Table XXII Family Assistance in Planning All members consulted 40 All members not consulted 59 All children Small children Children not at home Father No answer as» OJNCAFJO §pending_th§ The most prevalent method of providing for Emily. 3.1.1.1131. parents' access to family funds was use of a common purse. The checking account ranked next highest in frequency of use for the fathers, and the checking account combined with personal allowance for the mothers. The most popular method for providing money for the children, older or younger, was to give money on request. Seven of 48 young children received personal allowances, and o of them were said to have access to the common purse. (Table XXIII) Twenty of the 155 men reSponding to this question (14.8 percent) stated that older boys received al~ lowances in their homes, 14 others that they had access to a common purse. Of the 49 girls reported upon, 15 (50.b percent) had access to a common purse and only 4 (8.2 percent) .moHHHsmm o. saga 0903 hi com=.m:OHpmanaoo oz *** .mHQomm m cusp whoa ha wows :OHumaHnsoo oz **_ .uoms_hHm>Hn5HoNo muonpoa no compoa among wouuHH ammo zoom * ‘ bmH we mmH aw mmH 00H . Hangs ***mm m **m 0 **NH H mnOHpuanaoo nonuo . m a «H H o o #853 so one con-DOHHG Huaomnmm um H HH N H o ammswon no and wanna nosaoo m o o o H o ooamIOHHd Hanomnmm and wood wnaxumnu H o o o v o conga noaaoo and oonm=OHHm cHonmonom 5H 0 o . o H o pmosvou no one need muonmno ¢ 0 o o w o ooaquHHm wHonomdon new wood wonomno uaHoh o o o o w w manna uoaaoo and need muonono paHOH .vom: muonpoa QOananaoo HH Hm on em m H pmodvon no N 5 ON ¢ m o oonw=0HHu quoahmm 5H m ¢H mH me on omudm noaaoo w o o o «m o oondIOHHd cHonomaom m o o 0 mm mm wood mnHuvono puHoh N o m o a «a 38 338a. opgnom caus.von¢ol.mHno IIHHHauwl gate whom SHE .850: uofimm oannm mason nonHo houHo *_o:uh nosaoo ca mmoooq mchHpoanMo «woman: HHHNN OHJuH -34- had allowances. The last column in Table XXIII is indica- tive of the wide combinations of methods used. For exam- ple, only 17 families used the common purse as the sole means of access, and only 11 had the custom of giving money on request of a family member, but 97 used the combination of common purse and receiving on request. Over half (55 percent) of the men who had received allowances beforecoming to college said that they had planned the Spending of their money by themselves. Thirty-eight percent had planned with the aid of some one else how to spend their allowances. See Table XXIV. Table XXIV Planning the Allowance Number Percent Planned without aid 25 55 Planned with aid 15 58 Spent without plan 5 7 Total 4? 100 Entertainment headed the list of items for which allowances were spent; clothes, school eXpenses, sav- ings, charity, extras and cars were the other items men- tioned. Two-thirds of the men said that they were some- times required to tell how their allowances were used; 11 percent stated that they always reported their expenditures; -35- the remaining 25 percent said they never were required to tell for what their allowances had been Spent. The median age at which the group had begun receiving allowances was 10.5 years. Fifty-eight men answered the question about the increasing of their allowances; fifty of them responded affirmatively. The ages at which the allowances had been increased ranged from 9 to 19. Half these men said their allowances had been increased when they entered high school Five reported that increases had correSponded to needs; three had received an increase each year, two every other year, and three gradually. Because the responses were scattered, this information is not given in table form. Since only a small proportion of the men had received allowances, it was possible for the median age at which the entire group began handling money to be greater than the age at which allowances were given. The median age at which 155 men reported that they began to handle money was 10.7 years, compared with 10.5 years at which allowances were begun. The first control of money was not given until three years later, at the median age of 15.7 years. Table XXV indicates the ways in which the co-operators reported that they received money from the family fund while in college. Asking, combined with their own earnings from work, loans, allowances, and checking accounts, was given as the most common method -35- (64 percent). Allowances were checked es the only means in 22 cases (lo percent). The checking account as sole method wes used in only 0 cases. Table XXV ways by wnich College Ken Received from bnmily Fund Number fercent Allowance 22 lo Common furse 3 2 Checking account o 4 Wrges for work 8 0 Loan 9 o Agking 36 27 Combinations Aqking and work ?2 lo Asking and ellowenaal? 9 ASking and other lo 12 Loan and work 9nd. (5 2 other Total 134 100 Table XXVI shows thet these college men Spent largely without supervision, 40 percent of them (64 cases) always making all eXpenditures without help. Of the indi— vidual expenses for which there is the most unsupervised Spending, haircuts and shows, candies end sodas, and enter— tainment rank highest. When the inapplicable? cases are ?. Inapplicsble responses were from those who did not Spend money for these items. -37- in omen no 39500.“ 0mm * mm H w am we NH nonpOHo nu mm o o a . ma noseaq Hm m mH «H mm on mnOpromp cm a m 0H mm on mam .qOprnnoamnaha Hm H H NH pm on mmHnommmoo¢ mm mH H H m mm ooomnoa mu m e OH on on hufinmno and nausea mu m mH m mH mm Boon can wuwon Ob w o m mm ow mmnHummma and mxoom 55 ea a m «H we amen hawngmpmum .nsao . mm H H 5 mm ww mpMHc om 0H 0 m mH m¢ pamamHsvo oHpmHspH AHUQSmH mm w m 5 pH mm .quameo .mnHmmonm 5m H o w mm ow pnmaszpnwpnm mm v o N wH we macaw .hnawo mm N H m m mm mm>mnm . upso HHdm Hod o o ma we we mmugpfloamaxo HH< proa *anmoHHddwnH nm>mz hHHMQOHmmooo hHstmb «haqu mchcmmm cmmeummsmna mo pampxm HRH! 0Hnwa -58- taken into consideration, the expenditure most frequently supervised is for vacations. The persons who made different kinds of pur- chases for the home are listed in Table XXVII. The mother alone or the parents together did 87 percent of the family purchasing. In only 5 percent of the cases (22 out of 43b) were purchases made without her aid. The largest percentage of purchasing by mothers alone was for food (09 percent), the leest for furnishings Umspercent). The mothers alone purchased household equipment in as great a percentage (41 percent) as did the parents together. The highest percent- age of purchases by parents was for furnishings (55 percent) and the lesst for food (20 percent). Table XXVII Members Euying for the Family food Furnishings household Equipment Total Average No. 5 No. E No. E Number Percent Mother 92 09 50 U4 05 41 205 47 Father 7 5 4 5 9 o 20 5 Parents 97 20 82 55 03 41 172 40 mother & 4 5 0 - O - 4 . daughter Daughter 1 . O — O — 1 . Son , l . O - O - l . whole 1 . 15 8 19 12 35 8 C’ The masculine respon- Table XXVIII sibility for auto pur- ramily Members Purchasing Autos and 3111.)}; 1 i e S chases holds in the LUHDQP fercent majority of these cas- t .L‘nt;_cr 93 08 es, the father alone mother 1 - farents o 4 buying the auto and its Father and son P7 20 Son 7 5 supplies in 08 percent Whole fmnily 4 5 of the families, fath- Total 158 100 er and son in 20 per- cent more, and he son alone in 5 percent of the families. The parents or the whole family shared in making auto pur- chases in the renaining c '1) sea. hote the sigilarity between percentages of purchases by mother alone for food (e9 percent) mid by th father alone for auto and supplies (o8 percent). Supervision Table XXIX refers to the amount of help fam- ily members received in making purchases of personal clothing. ls‘nthers were helped in a greater number of cases (30 percent) than were mothers (12 percent), and 10 percent of tha fathers did not even participate in pur- chasing their clothes. Older dauqhters received slightly more help (33 percen ) in selection of their d.othing than did older sons (27 percent), and both received help in a considerably greater number of families than the mothers. Uf the younger children reported upon, 00 out of 09 did not participate at all in purchasing their clothing. -40.. me mm 00H emH 00H «m 00H me OOH OmH mHmpoe mchmm mm 8 N. 0H 3 m . H 0H 3 :33qu p02 can 0 we we mm mm aw mmH mm mm eomHma p02 emH m em em mm mH «H mH on we eoQHmm Hmpoa homage pnmoaom Hohazz peooaom nonadz unmoamm amnedz pqmohmm Hmnadz coawHHno son ameo Hmpnwswo ameHo Hmnpofi amsvwh wadow MCHsvoHo sec pHmnp mo mememoasm eH mpmnEms hHstm mo :OHpmmHOHpawm NHNN mHan -41- Table XXX shows the extent Table XXX to which expenditures were Extent of prenditure Records recorded in the families Number Percent studied. Eighty-two per- Complete 2? 16 cent made some record, al— Partial 1Q§ be though only lo percent none 29 18 _made a complete record. Total 157 100 eighteen percent reported that they kept no record of expenditures at all. Training_in The co—operators were asked to tell in handling money what ways they had received training in handling money, at home, at school, as well as elsewhere. TableXXXI shows their answers. Of the 147 who told of home trainino 57 (39 percent) gave credit to their par- C), ents' advice and teaching. Fifteen percent said they had learned most from being given Opportunity to do their own purchasing, and 8 percent more learned thniugh supervised experiences. Ten percent referred to expense accounts, budgets and allowances. Others learned through self-disci- pline because of need, through observation and example. bigit reported that they had received no training. Only 109 reported on training received in other places than their homes. Thirty-four percent (37 persons) dwelt on the value of their own experience. Twenty-one percent gave some credit to school courses, extra-curricular activ- or school savings banks. Ten percent said they had ities, received advice from teachers and other adults. Two gave credit to scouting. Others stated various combinations of these methods of training. Seventeen percent (18 pers ns) said they had received no training outside the home. Table XXXI Training Received by College Men in the handling of Money Number Percent At home Parents' advice and teaching 57 39 maxing own purchases 22 15 Supervision of spending 2 8 mxpense accts, budgets, 15 10 allowances Observation and example 28 19 Self—discipline because of need 5 3 Lo training 8 6 Total 147 100 At school and elsewhere Own experience 37 3 School courses, extra-curricular activities, school savings banks 23 9 Advice from teachers and other 11 10 adults Scouting 2 1 Combination of methods 18 17 ho training 18 17 Total 109 100 -45- EElEEEQQfibiP On the basis of the general information about of Findings to Known the families and their methods of handling Variants finances, the cases were reclassified accord- ing to the four factors-- place of residence, size of fami- ly, education of parents, and occupation of parents—- to determine whether these factors were related to financial practices in the families investigated. .fhe small number of those who had lived in places of various size was omitted from the study of significant differences among data classi- fied by residence. For a summary of significant differences found among the groups studied, see Table XLIV, p. 82. The findings considered were extent of fami— ly discussion, persons making decisions, extent of expendi- ture planning, kind of planning, persons making purchases, amount of help received in purchasing, and extent of record Keeping. hach of these phases of the financial pattern will be treated in relation to the four factors. when the participation of children in any family discussion was considered, it was found (See Table XXXII) to be related both to occupation and education, but not to place of residence or size of family. A significantly greater number of industrial workers' families had family discussions than had families 3. “Significant" is applied to any difference greater than 2.0, obtained by application of fornula for stand— ard error of difference between prOportions. See ArKin & 001- ton, An Outline of_Statistica1~fiathods new York; harnes a —--- -— _-—__— .-- ~ —.—. hoble, 1934 p.201 -gé- whose fathers were in private business. rrofessional and farming families were similar in the percentage of cases in which children participated, but were not Sanllqu’tJy different from the other occupational groups. .L Table XXXII Particip Mt ion oi C‘hilcren in linaz1cial Discvssions l, Always Sometimes Lever Tozal 4p lies idence 'CTt tyT‘TT large 1 90 5 25 medium 5 17 10 SO small 5 ?5 8 $8 Village 1 o 4 ll bann :7 ?> 11 44 education of ‘0“6rtq both more than 4 19 o ?9 n3 One more than 5 “O 12 47 BS both with MS 0 13 5 10 Only one with ‘ 113 l 19 (J K b Neither KS A 17 9 70 O c c uflitjpp LfllSifH?SS l 2]. ll "1 Professional 4 l4 7 Q5 Industrial 0 40 9 55 farming 5 Po ll 40 S ze o_f familv One chi ld o P? o {'24 2-4 children 5 o4 25 92 5 or more 5 15 9 27 “hen the Cases were classified on the basis of the highest school attended by the parents, the group in which both parents had gone to high school had a signifi- -45- cantly greater number of families in which children took part in financial discussions than had the group in which neither parent had gone further than eighth grade. All of the other educational divisions had a higher percentage of families entering into discussion than the group where nei- ther parent had gone to high school, but there was not a significantly greater number. In the residence clas ifica ti ion the large- city fomili -s had the hi3hest percex‘.ta3e of family discus- sions, the small—city families the next highest, then came those from cities of medium size; village and farm families ad the least discussion. Fowever, there were no statis- tically si3 mif:icant differences between groups. The participation of children in discussion varied inversely with the size of family, but there were not significant differences. Financial decisions are made by the parents in a larger percentage of village families than in those with other res sidence. More parents en3a3ed in priVate business, and fewer of the parents whose occuprtion v.as farming, made money decisions for the family than those in other occupations. ‘wven classified e no cationally, the hi3hest percenta3e of parents making decisions were those with the least schooling. hare parents in families with one child made decisions than prrents in lar3er families. however, there were no slanificant differences among any k.’ -40- of the other classifications in regard to persons making financial decisions. Since the proportion of parents mak- ing the financial decisions ranged from .5 to .o in every group, it is evident that none of the factsrs studied vas influential. See Table XXXIII. Table XXXIII Persons Making Financial Decisions in the Family Father Mother Parents Family Total 4§§§§9§999 City-Large 5 1 11 14 29 Ledium 2 1 12 15 50 Small 1 5 18 15 57 Village 0 O 8 5 11 Farm 4 1 10 21 42 Education of Earsais__-_._ moth more than ES 1 P 14 14 3 One more than ES 5 4 18 .2 48 both with hS l l 7 10 19 Only one as 2 l 10 11 24 neither HS 1 l 16 12 30 Occurstiaa Efiélness 4 z 14 15 34 Professional ? 2 ll 11 26 Ipdustrial 3 4 25 27 59 harming l 0 15 20 Sb Size oquamily die eni1d‘ ’ 1 2 17 14 54 2-4 children 6 b 37 45 94 5 or more children 5 1 ll 1? 27 The extent to wnich families planned eXpendi- tures proved to be related to size of family in that the small families had a significantly greater number planning -47- than had one-child families. The large families had a larger percentage than one-child families, but the differ- ence was not significant. The extent of eXpenditure plan- ning was not related to educational differences, occupa- tional variations, nor to place of resinence. See Table XXXIV. Table XXXIV extent of EXpenditure Planning in the Family Any Planning No Planning; Doubtful Total HZSidence ———.___.___. 57ft}; Large ‘ 94 5 1 28 medium 90 4 l 31 Small 95 12 3 40 Village 9 9 O 11 Farm 54 10 C 40 Education of Parents Both" Fla-11117161" e ’27 5 O .7312 than ES One more than 113 37 1?. l 50 doth with nS 15 5 O 18 Only one HS PO 0 O 20 Neither HS 21 5 4 50 9291.19 9 13-4-0.9 business 25 P 8 55 Professional 20 l 7 28 Industrial 47 5 9 59 farming 51 l 8 40 21.129- 9.1“ _.._;l*'.9111-.1;z One child '25 15 l 37 2-4 children 79 15 5 97 5 or more children 91 4 5 98 so significant differences appeared between the number making written plans and the number making un- written plans in any of the classifications. Among those ~48- investigated, however, the largest percentage writing their plans were among farm families, among the industrial group, among those having large families, and among the two lowest educational groups, contrasted with the other groups in each classification. See Table XXKV. Table XXXV Kind of Expenditure Planning hritten Unwritten Part written Total Part Unwritten n ty L9 race 4 18 ‘2 2‘»? 4 Medium 5 lo 1 2? Small 4 lo 4 24 Village 2 5 O 7 Farm 11 ?l O 72 Education of Barents m-__ both more than fig 5 17 3 25 One more than HS 0 94 3 55 doth with H5 4 10 0 14 Only one HS 9 lo 0 18 neither RS 7 l? l ?O 9.9 0 use 13.31.02 Quainess 4 lb 2 24 Professional 2 ll 9 16 Industrial lb 28 2 4o Farming 9 2? O 3 £1.29 9;“- .1194 1111 One child 7 15 O 2? 2-4 children 15 5? 7 74 5 or more children 9 10 0 l9 Although there were few significant differ- ences among groups in relation to the persons doing the pur- chasing of food, there were sone interesting similarities -49- and variations among the groups in each classification. fhe mother purchased more of the food for the family as the siZe of the place of residence increased, except in the village residence group where the prOportion of mothers doing the Table XXVI Persons buying Food, furnishings and household nquipment for the family Mother ' 'Earents Family F EL; He I" Fa He F Pg He 99944621522 7 City Large 8 7 10 2 18 15 4 2 1 Medium 18 14 15 5 14 15 4 4 1 Small 22 17 21 8 15 11 o 4 5 Village 5 1 2 l 9 9 l O 0 Farm 20 IO 19 8 25 15 14 10 11 education of 24199313-”... Both more than 16 12 15 9 15 11 5 4 5 LS One more than n5 50 15 92 7 28 95 12 7 5 Both with H8 9 9 10 8 5 o 5 5 2 Only one HS 15 9 12 5 11 E 5 o b heither 58 14 10 5 9 15 11 5 4 5 9.092999399. business P5 15 19 4 15 12 o 5 2 frofessional 15 12 15 o 15 IO 4 9 5 Industrial 55 18 21 12 59 8: 10 o 4 ' harming l7 8 lb 8 19 14 15 ll 5 Size of family One child "' 22 1:5 19 o 18 15 9 5 5 2-4 children 54 29 58 18 5O 41 19 15 15 5 or more chil- l4 9 l? o 11 8 7 O o dren F-- Food purchases Fg-- Furnishings he—- Household equipment -50.. purchasing alone was too high to conform to the population trend. Refer to Table XXXVI. There was almost no variation in percentage relationships among the educational classi- fications, and none among families of different size. The farmers had the lowest percentage of families where the mother only purchased the food, while the business gnaup had the highest percentage. This difference was signifi- cant. A larger percentage of mothers in village homes purchased furnishings alone than in any other place, and there was a significant difference between the village and the small city. The farmers' wives made fewer pur— chases of furniture without family aid than the women of any other occupational group. The percentage of mothers who were sole purchasers of furnishings fluctuated among. the educational groups, with no observable trend. The small fmnilies in this study did not help their mothers in furniture purchasing as much as either the one—child or the large families. The families deriving income from work in industry shared in purchasing household equipment in a sig- nificantly greater number of cases than the families who had private business as source of income. A high percent— age of farm families participated in buying household equip- ment, but there was not a significant difference between -51- the numoer in this group and the others. The persons purchasing autos and supplies varied with three of the classifications-- size of family, place of residence, and occupation. The small families participated less (See Table KKKVII) than the large fami- lies in this type of purchase. Jhere was a significant '1 0 difference. Also a lower percentage of the one-child Table XXXVII Participation of Family Members in Purchases of Auto and Supplies Father Father- Parents ‘ Family Total fifsidehge’ Son, City Large 19 2 l l ?3 Medium ?1 5 O 3 29 Small 24 5 l 4 54 Village 9 1 1 O 11 Farm 2 10 5 5 41 education of £3- ..ran.t§.- --_ both more than iiS 137 4 ? o 599 One more than 34 b 5 ? 45 MS Both with EB 11 B 2 2 17 Only one n8 lb 5 1 l 23 Neither :8 15 4 P o 27 Occupation jusiness P4 2 l 3 30 Professional 17 4 1 3 9 Industrial 59 8 l 4 5? Farming: 19 9 o 3 57 £122-93; 1:92.213; One chi 1d 25 8 l 2 34 2-4 children be 11 5 87 épor more 10 4 5 5 2o -53- families participated than of large families, but the dif- ference did not prove sirnificant. in regard to place of residence, the large and medium sized cities' families had less participation in auto purchases than the farm group; small city fahilies helped less than those who lind in vil- lages. All of these diff rent s vere significant. Ad to I occupational variation, fewer business and industrial 12mi- lies participated in auto purchases than farm families. There was also less participation in professional men's fam- ilies than in farmers' families, but this last difference was not significant. The prOporticn of participating and non-participating families fluctuates among the educational groups; however, there was a significantly greater number of participating "amilies among those vno had the least education over those where one parent had more than high sdhool training. In regard to clothing purchases, the size of the family did not affect the amount of help received by family members enough to make any significant differences; yet, in every case except the older sons', the percentage of those helped increased with the sire of the family; in the case of the older sons, the percentage receiving help in selection 01 clothing was greater in the la*fe fmnilies than.i11‘the one—crdjxiifiunilies, inflsruat greater*tnmui in the small families. See Table XXXVIII. -52- meHeen sH cgamHoHpnam non eHnuamz umdaon won as: ttmz newshound nH vmdamn we: stbH>HvsH IIm ea m H mH w m m b 0 Ha m N vH m @903 no m an e m em eN s eN «H H om NH HH «m ¢N amneHHno wuN H. o N ON H. H H o H N» N n «N a 329.80 Hmwmmwummnmmmm mH o m NH mH m s OH o on N e mH mH quanse mN m o 8 HH m m m N we H. N. be HH 12383 n N N 5H e H N. H o S o m ”H N 333323 mH H H «N m 0 HH e 0 on m N 3 m 3833 nowpdflgoo NH m N mH e m. m N H mN w H. 3 N. mm 3332 HH H N 0H N. N e H. o HN m N 3 N. we 28 eHno m o H nH H o H. a. o S H H NH 9 mm fie. £8 3 N w H» m n NH m o 3 .v m H» 3 mm 54+ 88 one a e N NH m N m e H mN m m «H S we 53 0.83 £8 938th MO GOHPwosbm NN s m mH S N. m mH o 5 m w HN 5H 98m m o o u H o m o o u m o m N ommHHH> HH N o wN N H m e H em N w mN m HHaam m N m HN H. O OH H o 8 N n ON 0 SHE: «H o N NH H. H e H H mN n m «H N. owes spHo oosouwmoml .5 m .2 mz m .2 E m .2 E m .5 E m 8836 now taxman uofio: .Hofium munch I... $288 as .323 message 3. 235: eHHfie .3 858mm eHom «o 9505 HHEQHN.JBBH -54- There was no definite trend of increasing or decreasing help in makinr clothing purchases among the educational groupings. The lowest percentages of help given to family members were consistently in the group in which both parents had attended high school. There was a significantly greater number of older sons receiving help in the families where only one parent had attended college than in those in which both parents had gone to high scnool The place of residence made no significant differences in amount of help given on clothing purchases, although the farm had the highest percentage of family mem— bers who received aid. The farmers themselves received help in clothing purchases in a significantly greater number of cases than the industrial workers. The farmer's wife and older daughter received help in a significantly greater number of cases than the professional man's wife and dauph- ter. In every case, the farmer and his wife and older chil- dren received help in a larger percentage than the families of any other occupational group. The professional man's young children participated in making their clothing pur- chases in a slightly larger percentage of cases than did the farmer's children. ahere both the parents had attended high school and where only one parent had attended high school, the number of families givine help to older daughters in L) ‘ ‘fi. -55- their clothing purcnases was significantly greater than the number giving help in families where neither parent had attended high school. Yet the number oi families in which either or both parents had gone to college did not differ significantly from the high school graduates'group, nor from the elenentary scnool group. As to methods of access to family funds, the educational groups fluctuate in percentage relationship -‘ rithout any significant difference. The older 0038, older girls and young children ir the higl‘iest educational [:roug, however, all received Personal allowances in a larger per- centage of families tnmi in any group of families where the parents had less education. Also the largest percentage ofolder sons who asked for money as need arose were in 4 the homes where the parents had had least education. There were no significant differences be- tween methods of access of fmnily members to funds, when the cases are classified according to size of family. The largest families had the lowest percentage of children with allowances, and of parents with checking accounts. In regard to place of residence, the farm was consistently high in the number of families using the common purse, or the method of giving unon request. The fathers in farm 4-. This d_Ln.;licates Fuller's finding among; girls. See Fuller, 9p:cit, Table XXIV, p. ob :' -L.)O- homes used the common purse in a significantly greater num- ber of csses than fathers living in medium-sized cities. The mothers used money from a common purse rather than from a checsing account or household allowance in a significant- ly greater number of fann homes than in medium-sized city or large city homes. Among the occupational groupings, the farmers again used the common purse more than did profession- al or industrial men, and so did the farme s' wives. The farmers' older daughters received money on request, also business men's daughters asked for money in s significantly greater number of cases than he daughters of professional men and men employed in industry. See Taole XXXIX. pmmsvoh no atmo ooqwkoaam waonomson In N H H HH NH N N N .. N u NH N NH .. .. NH NH HHNaN N N .. NH N N N N .. N H N N NH .. N N NH 5N3... N H - NH N u N H .. N .. N S N .. N N N. «33 .33 ooumNNNNm limo N No ~8in .8 No N No No N No SN No No N No No 8.63% gm NNNNNNNN umfioa .afiNN muse» N55 NHENN ofi NHNNN op NNN004 mo convex oHNNa -58- The number who kept records did not vary significantly among any of the classifications. Ihe high- est percentage of record keeping was in the village and on the farm, in the business men's and farmers' families, in the small family, and in the group where only one parent had attended high school. See Table XL. Table XL thent of Record Keeping on Finances of the family Complete Partial None Total Baileys 5: City Large 5 18 b ? Medium 4 21 5 3 Small 9 B5 7 59 Village 1 8 2 ll Farml 5 55 8 42 Education of smwsii doth more than as 7 so 5 7? One more than ES e 5. l? 51 Both with H3 2 3 5 18 Only one HS 5 - 17 4 Po Neither KS 4 18 8 50 Osaspation- Business . 5 P5 5 75 krofessional 5 15 8 90 Industrial 10 37 l? 59 farming 4 29 b 41 £1.16- 9.11. Fa 1:11.137 One child 8 18 10 30 2-4 children 15 08 15 90 5 or more children 5 18 o 97 The number of college men who Spent with- out supervision did not vary significantly witn any of the four factors studied. The highest percentage of those whose spending was alwa ays unsupervi ed came fro .n villa; e and farm homes, from the families of business men and farm- ers, from the group in which the parents had least educa- tion, and fro om the largse families. (Refer to Table XLI). Table XLI Uns upe rvised Spending by Colleg e Men Always Sometimes Never Total §§sidence City Large ' 7 ' ?O 2 --88 medium 10 P l 3 Small lo 24 O 40 Village 0 5 0 ll harm 82 PS 1 4o education of Barents_ Both more ”than HS 9 22 l 5? One more than as 10 3. O 51 doth with RS 10 8 l 19 Only one with HS 15 18 l 20 Neither HQ 14 1o O 30 Occupation business 17 18 O 35 frofessional 8 19 l 98 Industrial 91 3' 9 59 rarming l8 8? l 41 Size of f_ami1y One child lo 21 O 3 2-4 children 30 05 5 98 5 or more 18 9 l 2 Only two I acts specifically related to the college students and their families' nethods of handling finance were directly asked for on the questionnaire, the participation of college men in family discussions, and -00- their methods of receiving from the family fund while in school. These facts were classified according to the four college classes, the technical and non-technical courses, and membership in social clubs. From Table XLll, it is found that a larger percentage of technical and non-frater— nity men took part in family financial discussions than of the non-technical and fraternity men, but the differences were not significant, nor were the differences between class divisions. "Ul" OOH mm OOH ms OOH H5 OOH mm H...» x wfl Ofi OOH mmd H6909 :33 mm mm mm. mm fin flm mm... mm m m mH wd Hm 0m IdQHOHpoHdQ 02 Nb mm so On mm bfi Nu mm mm mm on mm mm m: GOHPdQHOHHHdm 1’1 i N 5N .N .3 N .e N .a hpfigovwhm Hmowcflowfi vgohmm hang—dz .IQOZ hfifiamfldofih IIHHOz gogma qmfimma ”OHOEOHHQOW “Hog.” “Noam H308 3.333093 knack Ho soamosoma a.“ no: NNN.—Hon mo soapaaaofihum «o 9:03 HHAN 0.30.“. The study of methods of receiving from fam- C!) ily funds (Table XLIII) shows that a ignificantly larger percentage of fraternity men tiar of non-fraternity men received allowances while in college and had checsin; ac- counts. rhere was also a larger percentage of non-tech— nical than technical students receiving allowances and havizg checking accounts, but the difference was not sig- nificant. A smaller percentage of seniors than of any other class received allowances and had cnecxing accounts, 1‘4' but there were no significant diiierences between classes. ~65- Nm 2. He Nm H» E. 3 8 8H 8H H38. NH m m N N m H. m 0H 5H $.58 0: N H N H H H o H N n 282 m m m m o H. H H e m 38.3.. 3&0 mnaxnc fiHu 3033 NH m m 0H v m m. H. OH «H .2380 .330 00nd e N N m n n m o N. NH ASHHa .332 m ”H m pH 0 m H. N mH NN H8: .333 henna H N . N H o H H H N n £3: :83 N H o m o N o H N a 8.3m fiasco m H m e H m N n o m 33 ago: i. w m H N N o N w m N n8 has 2 m. n N e H N N H e m poem 3388 8 3 NH NH m N HH HH NN mm wag: m eH HH HH m m NH 0 ”Hi NN oofiuoHHF hnanpmpmnm Hwoquome unmonmm 303353 Inoz hufinhmpmnm Inez Hwofinsome smaamonm mmposozmom whoansfi macaqom dupes uvmmumpnfl ommaaoo op quunooou cmHMHmomHo cash hHHamh scum homo: mbaooon sm:_owmflaoo mofisb my avenge: HHHAH manna -04- Attitude§_t9ward The last section of the questionnaire alanine; .. are. - Hecogfi_}peping;__ attempted to discover whether these men approved of planning expenditures and of wives keeping the family records. The co-Operators checked their agreement or disagreement with quotations from arti- cles in current periodicals. Qometimes they added comments their attitudes. From the statements they checked clarifyin 3 it was possible to determine that 94 percent of the total group a~proved of planning expenditures and only o percent did not approve. (See Table XLIV). Three grades of ap- proval were recognized; by their comments they indicated hearty approval, doubtful approval, or strong disapproval. Over two-fifths of those who approved of planning stated that they did not consider strict budgets wise. A typical comment was one from a Junior Liberal Arts student, ”dudgets are a good thing, it seems to give a person an ides of ) where his money goes and wnat proportion goes where. out to draw up a budget and to attempt to stick to it is ridic— ulous, for the situation facing a person is never the same. Thus any budget should be a flexible thing, but should be kept balanced.” Another 15.5 percent stated that they were heartily in favor of budgeting. The remaining 4?.2 percent of those approving made no comment. Of those who disagreed vith the making of plans, two-thirds strongly disapproved. One said, ”I don't like the budget system. it deprives you of many of the better things in life." mm me 0» mm 3 3. we ow ooa we." H.309 H. N N w m H o m m maw>ohqmwmflc hawnonpm m m e m m H N m m a manaaHe oz . mega so. mm mm mm ma nu ma 3” mm aofiapm no gason 5H s HH nH m OH e m eN nopam aH sHHpuumm Nm Ne mm mm mN me me an «N «mH quqaaHg su< snow his Hood” H33 nae 0.3.- »nooamm .Hmnadz commmvsH Leeann InomaInoz snows Inmmnh Ionmom 90.33.. .Hoaqmm H309 .>HHN oHnua «waspHeqoaxm sHHawm manquHm qH «mHHon m.no: omoHHoo no unopxm _bb_ ln rensrd to the wife keeping the records, only 17 percent approved, 2% parse t yore doubtful, and 44 percent did not think it wise. (Refer to fable ALV). hone of those who approved made comments. Of those who checked that they were doubtful, the following statement is typical: Depends on conditions in family and who is most Cinble of it." Those who checked ”so” gave the rea- son that both husband and wife should keep the records or. . , +. . , w r! .. that 'Ehe man Ol tee house should Keep records, as a dun- ior borestry student put it. when these attitudes were classified accord- Cf) ficant Ha ing to class, course, and clue membership, no ign differences were found. nevertheless, the percentage of H fresnnen approving of the w re Keeping the req>rds for the household was snaller than that 0: any of the other classes and a smaller percentage of the technical students than of the non-tecnniesl students approved the idea. -07- OOH mm OOH ms OOH Os OOH mm H» we we O¢ OOH mmH Hence v m m m e n O m n O H e m m Helena oz em mm mm mm ON ON em mm O mH OH mH em mm Hampnson menooma meow me em we mm we mm me an pH Hm Nu NH we we so: 6H503m mmH: monooon mama 5H wH_ OH mH om vH mH wH m m O O 5H ON cHdosa oMHB ammo pen name non psoo non sumo amp ammo has them 3852 lama I852 Inmm tsdz lumm Issz sea mace 90H HOH them tsdz psmcsmaevsH thQhepmnh Hwofisnuoalsoz HwOHsnoma tamonh Ionmom lash Idem Hdaoa menspHeqomxm hHHawh mo neuooom wanooM nm>HB cannon so: omoHHoo mo mousuHapH >AH oHnt Chapter III Comparisons with Findings of rrevious Investigations Two inwivious igrvestiywttions o: xm'thods oi‘ ‘amily finance have been made at Michigan State College; these were carried on by ¢osephine ruller in 1984, and by hunice Pardee in 1935, as nontioned in the review of literature in Chapter I. Tone of the comparable data will be presented in this chapter. Sex Koren college students furnished the mater- 1-3! 3 ‘ ' fix a: l allie,thCS ial for Miss Fuller's earlier study on this tepie. The data which she found relating to the women and their families are to so compared with facts given by the men who co-Qpereted in the present study. According to Table XLVI, the men received allcwxnices sit a Lwnhiger {Q33 thai1 {pivewx for*xxosmn1. strhngms this: is (hie ins tin) tide; PPJM e oi years (2- 90) given by the men. Lies Fuller eid not state the range for the women. Ansin, the men hsd complete con- ‘3 (D c—f— } 1' ‘ o (-15- (7’) :52 0 H ._J A p.) g 1 . D O O *1 I trol of money at 9n earlier 1. See pt. lO-ld pared with 15). From these two studies be drawn that non begin to handle money Table KLVI Comparison of Ages 2t which hen Start Handling honey Homer '3' the conclusion may earlier than women. an d u'orslen .‘. ',' U u merl "“7" Mean Age Mean Age Median Age Igirst allowances l? 10 10.5 First money in own charge 11 19.8 10.7 First money in own complete 15 15.5 15.7 control % bhller, “Lnfiéi’ pp. 09, 47—44. The methods by which the men and women stu- dents received money from the femily fund are compared in Table XLVII. Only 134 men (ea percent) reported receiving money from the family fund. Of that number, 52 percent received their money through asking. F the women students received their money greater variation occurs in the number reporting allowences-- only 15 percent with 41 percent of the women. here men through other means, checming accounts, for work (?2 percent) than women (7 per ifty-two percent of through. asking. A of men and women of the men compared received money loans, and wages cent) . -70- Table XLVII Comparison of men and Women College Students' methods of Receipt from Family bund Wom en 66 ten -:;- '35 Kumber Percent Number Percent Asxing 9? 52 83 52 Allowance 7? 41 2? 15 Other 1? 7 29 92 Total 170 100 154 100 * Fuller, -:;--:;- See Is b1 That the percentage of men who Spend inde- pendently is larEer than of women is indicated by compari- son of the percentages in Table KLVIII, the women unsuper— vised in 57 percent of their clothing purchases compared to men unsupervised in 95 percent. The last column shows, however, that not nearly he total number of men always Spent without supervision; for BXRmJlC though 9? percent reported some unsupervised spending for clothes, only 14 percent of the men stated that their purchases of clothing were always unsupervised. ;Xpenditures for entertainment (men 100 per- cent, women 97 percent), candy and soda (men 100 percent, women 97 percent), were least supervised for either men or women. The low percentages in each column occurred under board and room (men 81 percent, women 31 percent), and under vacation (men 9? percent, women 51 percent) althouEh -71- sn.m .Hsaa manna mom ** m¢.e .pao.mo .umaagm * mu om em on an an maoapwoap we on mm we as as mam .aoapwpgommcwne em mm am mm an em soon use enmom we we cos we em 05H mueom.senao we we mm we we flea nose peso os om ooa am am 05H pumanampnopcm mm on mm as we mes mmanoauooou measuoao «a «H mm me an OOH wasnpoao Alpnooumm umnadz pqoonom nonadz vaoonom honasz cmmfiahmdsmnatadq vmma>hmmnmns_oeo m **nm: those: msnmespm mwmaaoo case: use am: macaw mnavnomm demabnmdnmnb mo pnopnm Mo nomanemsoo Hfigfiwnzflflu ~72~ fewer men than women were supervised in spendir: for these item U) . The sex differences shown by comparison 01' thszziatrs.1ro:1 the sflmidicms oi‘rnen rnid vrxserl arm? thai;;nen begin to handle money at an earlier age, that fewer men re- ceive aljjnnntces in COlJfiKfl? than wonen, rnui that more oI' the men do some unsupervised spending. hifferenpes in, hrs. rordae's investigaticn, as well bi; aru3i91-1u6tfviis as miss Fuller’s provides data compar- 9 able to the findings of tre present study in respect to some family financial procedures. in the comparison one should Keep in mind that farm women furnished the material for hrs. fnrdee'o study, and college students, largely from city homes, the data for the other two. Table ALI/i shows the variations in findings of tue three studies CUNCETDlHC division of re- snxmlsibiljfirw for“(lecisicnrfinaxing;:nnon1‘nnnsoers (XL the lins— ily. all three studies found the largest percentage of {families using a ystem of joint control. hiss buller found a larger percentage where either the mother or is- ther had sole authority than hrs. fordee, 24.4 percent corxpared with 4.1 percent, and somewhat larger than the 11.7 percent found in the author's investigation. Table XLIX Division of Mesponsioility in Finnncisl Decisions bul ler 1’s roe e ' Ai 2.; in Number rercent NumOer Percent Number Percent One person 43 Ve.4 15 4.1 19 11.7 he Vin, nutnori ty mother 19 4 P fstrer 24 11 1o joint Control no system exist- 7 4. ins System not recog- o 7.4 O l.$ 8 5'9 nizad Totnls 17o 10). Too 10:. lofi 100. The gercentsge of frmilies using any written plan is small, Dccording to tne findings o: 011 tnree inves- tigstions. (See Tsole L.) Fuller's totsl we: 97. percent, fordee'c ?U.o percent, sod the sutnor's 19.4 percent. miss Tsole L ixtcnt and Tyre of Judgeting buller rsrdee AiKin Lumber Percent Lumber forcent hunter forcent kritten All ' 14 7.8 El 7.8 8 Psrt 9O 1s.o S? 8. $3 Unwritten Vfil 58. 77 47. Psrt written a psrt unwritten 10 5.0 19 4.3 7 4.4 No plan US 17.? Mo ststed plan 133 75. lo 4.1 4s $9.4 [—1 bf‘ i0idffl -u ’_‘. Total 170 loo. £99 loo. 1o? lOJ. -74— j) fuller did not inquire concerning unwritten plane, but the other two investitstors esch found a large percentsge uno planned in this wsy, 53 and 47.2 percent respectively. Those who used written plans were asked to tell what headings were usei. Tue nugoersresoonding both to miss buller's snd to the sutnor‘s study are coopered in prle LI. Tne headings which hrs. Psrdee found most fre— quentlv used sre stsrred. rho clessiiicstionL-— 1’) ,C . 00 H) 3 clothing, sod sevings-— were found in 911 three studies to oe used often in family budget maxing. in miss buller's list end in the m_1t:';or's, shelter end education {appear Table Ll dudset headings bhller lardee Aixin Number host frequent Number Food ?1 * 19 Clothing 10 * 14 Shelter 91 Pl household Operstion l4 * - household help 15 bducstion 13 15 Savings, insurance 16 6% PS fersonnl 8 - Tvsvel, luxury, 9 5 pleasure . Cnsrity, cruumfli 4 4 medical 1 1’ inbEflflsst lel_peyuhnit " or debt Ger 4 0 Care 01 grandparents l furnishings * Incidentsls 5 Other general headinés a J- frequently. Inst household Ope stion was net listed es a budget heading by any of the men in the present study prob- ably indicstes leek of swsreness on their port of tnis ex- pense. There vss 9 wide variety of other hesdings mentioned oy different co-opcrators. Ihe combsrisons of errsngements mode for access to femily funds (refer to Table L11) ere only entrox- imstely comparable, since hiss Fuller clsssified each femi- 1y under only one heading, while mrs. fnrdee end the author classified encn femily under ss msny different methods of access to femily funds es were used. kiss Fuller found Table LIl flrrsngenents for Access to Family funds Fuller fsrdee Aikin * Number Percent Number Percent Humber Percent Common purse 99 18.5 980 79.4 08 4o.? Allowances 54 ?fl.? 54 no.7 1‘s ther 3O . mo t her 4 l Chilikren 74 (fit—'33 O -<1#=»+¥> '\ ’\ _, le 40.7 40 51.5 Cheching~ accounts 231 59.4. household allowance 95 20.4 47 51.9 (0 r 3 C‘ \‘1 O G On request * 147 persons resyonded to this question. -‘7’U- checking sccounts used in nesrly three—fifths of the fami- lies investigsted (59.4 percent); Mrs. Psrdee found check- ing sccounts used in not quite hslf of her grouy, end the euthor found them used in less then 0 third of her co-Oper- ln‘l sting femilics. ihe most frequently used method, sccording H to hrs. Psriee's study, wss the conson Furse,~rr is the practice made use of in more fsmilies tnnn sny other, sc— cording to the findings of the oresent investigation among college hen, wss receiving on request. The common purse use the noyt most frequent method reported in tnis study. Allomsnces were used, homever, in s somewhat 1srger nonber Of these fsmi1ies (5o.7 percent) tnsn in the families stu-. died by the other investigators. The highest perconts;e given bv hrs. krrdee is for the children who received al- J r) lowsnces in “5.7 p rcent of the hOu%R she studied. hiss Fhller found nllowsnces used in 92.7 percent of the cases she reviewed. The comparison of findings in regsrd to extent of discussion of money mstters is presented in stle Llll. Miss buller found 55 percent of the families having the children participste, hrs Pprdee found s larger percentsge (58 percent), and the present study, in which even occasion- H s1 discuss on was included, found 75 percent. because of probsbha variation in the extent of psrticiostion included .L in the investigators' figures, it would be unwise to draw -77- any conclusion. Table LIII Extent of Children's Discussion of Money Matters fuller Pardeo Aixin Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Participating Cl 75 159 58 115 75 hot participating 115 05 110 42 38 25 Total 170 ldd. 975 10». 153 100. From the comparison of the findings of the three studies, the outstanding similarities are in regard to use of a system of joint control, the slight use of written plans for expenditures, and the relative infrequency D oi the eivinfi of allowances. The author found fewer relationships than the other investigators between the data and the variable factors studied. Though there were differences between a higher educational group and a lower in the amount of help given in purchasing clothes and in the participation in family discussion, not every higher educational group was superior to a lower or even to the lowest. Therefore the present study would not corroborate the finfings of Mrs. Pardee concerning a positive relationship between educa- tion and the keeping of records, use of joint bank accounts and a system of joint control. he tendencies were found to compare with Fuller's concerning more one-child families -78- in which the child particinsted in decision—making. however, similarity was discovered in that more farm families parti- cipated in purchasing, more often had access to a common purse, and gave money to children on their request more than other groups. Summsry and One hundred sixty three men students at in.l£._1}l_S-i_QE'-_S_ hichigan State College in the winter term of lgqb answered questionnaire es concerning Inethods sed in handling family funds, the training eceived in the use of money, and the attitudes of the men toward planning and record Keeping. Die purpose of the investi- gation was (1) to obtain further data on methods of money management, and their relationship to certain Known var- iants; (2) to find attitudes Oi men toward some phases of money ma egement, and (3) to compare the conclusions with those of previous studies made at hichigan State College among women students. method 01 The sample was selected at random from -4- UDLRlan”.LPtH the registration lists 01 th: agricul- tural and engineering divisions, and from those students enrolled in certain non-technical curricula of the liberal arts division. This sample was divided as evenly as pos- sible between technical and non-technical students, frater- nity members and independents, and among the four classes. Lhe hen_ and Seventy-nine percent of the returns Tieir b._llle“ were from persons who were earning at least a part 01' th ir own collrge expenses. Of their fan- ilies, b2 percent lived in cities. There were two, three, or four children in o0 percent of these homes. Seventy- -80.. six percent of 'he breadwinners were in industry, business or the professions, and the median annual salary for the entire group was 5,2501). hethods of Apnortionment of the family income was based _.-- ———— “— .hernllirnv ignphpe§_~ul on discussion in 75 percent or the cases; the children aluags or sometines partici— ‘. pated. Thirty-six percent of tne tarents aiwa a decided togetger no? money should be "1 ent, and 4-9 percent usually did. Lniy 23 percent or the families planned their exten— nitures for a year in advance, yet 75 percent planned for some future time. written plans were made i: only 20 per— cent of the families who reported any planning. In half the families reported ugon, all members assisted in making the glans. Sixty-six percent oi the iamilies, when classifiei as units, had angers to the money incene through f‘ th: common purse or uton reenest or throuyn a combination of these methods. Collars men received their money 0; asking in o4 percent of the cases, only le percent had rn allowance. Eighty-five percent of the older daughters had access to tne comnon purse or were given money on revuest. The students resorted th~t 40 percent or all their gun- crwwfiing was rdnun)ervisei4 lunvehasigngw us Here rfihmsst en- tirely by the mother alone, or the parents together, ex- cept in the case of purchases or autos and suyylies, for \flllCfl the 1%?tner 211nm; was the ymnmflwiser in.tfl7}mrrcent oi' the families. The whole family shared in purchasing in very few cases. Eighty—two percent of the families kept at least a Hrrtisl recerd of ex enditures. fine traininv which the college sen credited F' to their homes was largely (5% percent) parental advice .1. z and example. fwedtgone percent stated that Usey ffid been definitely helped at school through courses, extra-curri— cular actiVities and savinns bangs. is_s_s'o.c_i_a_tion of ”when the findings were classified on the hats with Certgin Varggnts basis of education of parents, size of families, place of residence and occupa- tion, some differences were found between groups. The sig- nificant differences are summarized in Table LIV. Where there were si nificant differences between educational groups, in the amount of family dis- cussion, in the extent of help given to children in clo- thing purchases, and in the purchase of autos and supplies by the father alone, the difference was always in favor of those homes where the parents had had more of fermal education. Size of family was related to amount of ex- penditure planning, the one-child family participating the least, and to auto purchases, he large families partici- pating more than small families. Some elements of a farm pattern of hand— ling money appeared in the study of data relating to \' D ,~,\ ,. ofessio I“ (“ -.._- 4 l l «a ,1 ~| '1". r" J. 1 Te ' \ (Jf K3 lOTl WO i C R .0 >l ~ ~ w)"- L Li ‘A ’) " L .1. "A! .L (J KIT ‘. '\ -\ )' Al IML I k l) o -LIlC r. I I Q L) 1 L :‘I 1’3 J ~ 1231 OV ( ‘7‘ L1 ission E;- *rof in over 'LkL CI "11 0 VC 1‘ ‘ Q (—4 2 TX 13 -85- place of residence and occupation. There was more family participation in farm homes in purchasing food, autos and supplies, and in buying personal clothing for the father, mother, older daughters, older sons, and younger children. There was more use of the common purse than of the checking account or the household allowance by the father and mother, and more giving of money on request than through allowances to the older daughters, older sons and young children in farm families. The homes where fathers were employed in industry had more family discussion of expenditures, and more family participation in buying household equipment, and more allowances for daughters than other occupational groups, especially more than those families where the fa- thers were engaged in business. Only two facts-- participation of college men in family discussion of finances, and their methods of receiving from the family fund while in school-- were clas- sified according to the four college classes, the technical and non—technical courses, and membership in social clubs. A larger percentage of technical and non-fraternity men and fewer seniors received allowances and had checking ac- counts than in the other classifications, the technical, non-fraternity, freshman, sophomore, and junior classes. attitudes The attitudes of the college men were found to be in favor of planning in 94 percent of "84:" 1 the wnole group investigated, but over t o—fifths of these did not approve of a strict budgeting system. in reward to the wife's tHKil‘lffi responsibility for keepiin: the records of eygmuniitures, 4&1 pelmnaxt difllrgt trjin: it u1x%3:u1d is p PCCHt were doubtful. Only 17 percent approved. SeV' Froniiflue compardjxxi of tijjz study vflfini --._ ._ _ -—-. ~- -- UiffCPGuCGR the investigation of Josoghine Fuller in 1994 among the women students of Richigan State College, certain sex differences were found. men began to handle money at rn earlier age than women. A larger percentage of the men spent money independently. be ewer men than u mer received allowances in college. bgmhpr] n _ When these two studies were compared with with P“FVlOUn lnv:e ti‘gt_ons the investigation of Eunice Pardee(l§35) among 1vLichigan famn women, the author did not find a significantly greater number of one—child families and of better educated parents giving allowances, as the other two had found, nor of the l rgcr families making spe dih,: plans as Pardee had. No tendencies were found to compare with Fuller's con cerrind only chilcren participating in decision-mail g, or with Pardee's con- cerning association of more Ior1al education with record- Keeping, joint control, joint bans accounts, and spending plans. buller found allowances given to the daughters in more cases than did the author. however, similarity was -85- discovered in regard to the use of a system of joint con- trol of family finances, the filight use of written plfins for expenditures, end the relative infrequency with which lies were allowances were given to children; farm fami found by rll three to corticifate more in purchasee, to .L hrve access in more cases to a common purse, and to ”ive more or their children monev on reouest than other rou s J i ‘96 .. BIdLIOGRAPHY l. Arkin, nerbert, ens Colton, R.L. An Outline of St“ is ical gptnogg Lew York:fiornes h noble; 19’4. ?28 PB- 2. oigelow, howard F. rLull _blnnnces Pflladvlpl a :Ligpin- cott;193o. 519 Lp. 3. ournhnm, h.A., Jones, E.F., end Reflford, H.D. The dog and His mglill ngjnp ‘hiledel niu.LLLLincott lSLb. 3o3 pp. 4. Fisher, Motier H. ”Are Allowances Really Prncticnl?" Perents' Merez_ine vol.xii,AL.l937, pp.??-Bo 5. buller, Josephine h. method of ;>in§fili n: fi'vrl] r}nnnpe in low? oI women Lollese_utwnent° trovolisheu m.3. thesis, .-Cfll9“n Stete Collc‘ e, lSLb. 8o numoered le enves 0. Justin, m.L., and Rust, L.O. fiomemgiyinq Philadelphiez Lippincott;l935. 3'3 pp. 7. Lindquist, Ruth. "A Study of Home Management in its dela- tion to Child Development,” T___}_____1e Cfni l__e Dec. 1922,14). 10-0 -L/O 8. methews, Mary L. 9199h13f3wp9,3- tip _fipd_§ere doston: Little, dro n; SWO. 407 pp. 9. Pardee, Eunice A. netho s of_ Eandlin1 ”PFII_JP9PW?HEE.ZUO >elccted b _ Lliies_in_micu1~0n Unpuolished M.A. thesis, Michigan State Co llefm e, 1036. o7 numbered lerves lO. Tweedy, Reva Cree. Lvi -de ces of feed for consumer—jtjer ”flucutioq in the leeno Plolic \croo] Ikunlolis lied m. A. tnes is U. 01‘ Iinno , l937.108 numbered leave.) ll. white, Lillian L.% "Levelo Ml)» honey Sense," Parent§l_hng- 93:2? vol xii, Feb. 1637, p. “4 1?. Woodhouse, Chase Going. i.Lon9 ;:iqq tkc money in 3100 SSl ul Families" Joy 1331: l oTFAQ ,,,(;_,.Luu;i_.i::j. $3911.1JL‘1, 2:0:1'5‘5 ---- Appendix - [k— Questionnaire A S‘l‘UDI IL. I.-L‘l‘:in)"§ b“ HAL‘HDLIL~.L_} FRI-ally 1"IL'QAI‘ICE Instructions: Leave paper unsigned. Please fill in blanns. Draw a line through any question whi I. apply to you and your family. General Information A. About yourself: 1. Course ‘. .is---,__--h_- . Year in collefie, fl. 1' e Pf] w -‘—~--—-— -- v - --—- .n .__,.__.-.- ---_.r all does not _. » u. __... ——.—- -~— ~———.-——~...u—- -‘__..___--,__ 4. Fraternity affiliation 01 o entirely 6. About the place of your home: Date of . Large city (100,000 or over) _- -c—LE Are you earning your way—through college?— pertislly . not at all residence . Me ium—sized city (25,000 to lou,oao)_~___ 3. Small city (2,500 to 25,000)___ 4. Village 5. bPI“1_llu_-__luc-_ how far from s city;:f::‘“”“"” How lrrge is it _ -Country C. About your Inmily: Netionelity'of birth' Age ' Father% ' ' ' luO the r94“ ' ' ' Sex ' ' ' ' Child 1 ' ' ' Q I I I 5 I I I 4 I I I 5 I I I Father highest Grsde Iinished' Occupation Mother ' Sex ' Child 1 ' 2 I 3 ' 4 I 5 I *If not living, enclose name in parentheses (rather) . €18 Cf) 9. "' (J D. About money income: I. Nno contributes to the fsmily income? Proportion of total income key of eslrdjng'All'One-nnli”(Wuhafijurtn'Less f . EkltEMDI‘ ' ' ' ’ mother I ' ' ' Child I ' ' ' ' f) I I I I :5 I I I I 4 I I I I 5 I I I I 2. what is the size of the money income for the family? ‘ Under ClOOU__ uBUdO-vgfiggl filOOO-elETW10M uéOOJ-e4999mflh mtoJU-gfiggfi Q5000 and over b——-—. 3. now much does each member of the fnnily Know snout tne amount of family income? Check if not Complete Psrtisl No living at home Anowledge' nnowlefige‘ Lnowled e h h Esther ' ' __ _ mother I I _‘_w¢w__~.__ Child 1 I I ' Q I I ~" "”"”~ 2 I I u—-—-—. —— o.-—-.-.--— —-——--—- LI 4 I I _l__-.w--_,l_ ' ' 5 II. Apportionment of fsmily income: A A. Discussion of money matters: Always'Usually'Occnsionelly'hever Whole family I I I meets together I I I Father and mother I I I and children over I I I yesrs I I I I I I Father 9nd mother I I I U. Decisions concerning use of family funds: Always'Ususlly'Occasionally'Never I One person desig— I I nstes amount to I I I be Spent (name I I I . ' ' person) I '7 a-LI AlwaysIUsuslly'Occasionallthever Parents decide I I I together I I I I I I 'nildren help decide I I I upon amounts to be I I I scent I I I (At whet 8€8“__; if there are differences in amount of resyonsibility assumed, plense exylsin) C. Plnnninf in ndvsncc: Dont Yes'to‘hnow Ire nrwmxr expendiinrres plflquWi in "fhfluice? I I If planned: I I Is all the income spent sccording to I I 9 written plnn msde in ndvsncc? I I an unwritten glsn? I I $- I I Is just port of the income Fijenb according to 9 written plsn? I I an u written glen? I I whet headings ere used in mrhing the plan? Is the plan made for a vhole yenr in advance? _. -—._ - . - .. . - _- ,7 .. _ V .- .._- -. — - ._ .. -.— . - _.._. .—--..- _ __ — Is the whole family interested in making plan? What memoers are not interested? --——.-— —.—— ——‘— - — Ehst part do you hove in mnking the plan when Pt home? III. Spending the family nut-d: A. Who does the buying for the family? Older Young bether'hother'boyt GirlsICnildren P'Ood I I I I Clothinq I I I I for Tether I I I I " mother I I I I ” younger chilaren I I I I II I I I I older boys who does the buying for the fa mily(cont'd)? a-4 the family lund? l. Heve you ever received money as sn 0 Yps 10 If yes: a. how old VEIemyou \hen firs t riven b. Did you receive it in return 10 w ‘Jies____ l§____O as e reward for {good be} lavior? Yes Both? Les Lo ' OLAIC e115 ‘”m __‘n _ c. were you-reruired ”to tell how you used I?110MMHIC€. __Occ Lever Always__ 'Usually_ Older Young FathermotherIJoys Girls Ic‘hildren burnis Mil s I I I I householi equipnert I I I I :ults arul suptljJIs I I I I Otrlpr I I I I I I I I ”-“I' ...~-'.—..—-“ I I I I u. how do family members receive money from family fund? batherImotherI above 14 below 14 I IGiIfl: IooysICELrlsIfioys Cheching 80 0111 It I I I I I bet een pare nts I I I I I I I I I I household allowance I I I I I I I I I I Common purse I I I I I I I I I I Personal allowance I I I I I I I I I I On request I I I I I I I I I I Other I I I I I C. If the children at home receive an allouanec, how if,iI§rP3IOHdEEBT9 Ilanned w” -__3_“.“ ”M“, Flannel.“ ith aid Seent with— rla nner by self' oi others I out plan Child I I I 2?, I I 3 I I 4 I I 5 I I Items for which allowance is spent:__-M _ D. How do you receive money, 9nd how have you, from allowance? i t ‘.’__‘_ or — 4....- I"? 1).. ‘ MD M.- as; onnlly I ve you ever received an allowance?§cont'a) d. Has the amount of the allowance increased ns you grew older? Yes to When? now much? __.. ”*M' _M~ .1 P.hov do you receive money now? 3-7 HJCDQJ 0U . As an allowance? . Dy asxing? . by taking what you ne~d from the coumon pure when you make a trip home? From a checking account? Am a loan? I53; 0 the r me an s ? 5. Amount of superVision of your exoenditures; 1. Do you stend all your money Vithout supervision? Always_h Usually occasionally never , if not do vou Seend without sunervis‘on for _ ’ d g L r any of the IOIlOWing? (Cross out those which you do not buy nor have bought for you.) Always'USually'Occasionally'Never' I I Clothes ' Clothing ' ' . ' accessories Movies, dances, ' ' ' entertainment ' ' ' Cluo dues ' ' ' Athletic ' ' ' ‘efflllpflfifilt ' ' ' Candy,sodas,etc. ' ' ' Haircut,shave ' ' ' Pressing, ' ' ‘ clean iI’Igf, ' ' ' la Imdry ' ' ' ooaiwlf¥ room ' ' ' Transbortatifli, ' ' ' gas, etc. ' ' ' Vacations ' ' ' Church, cha ri ty ' ' ' Gifts ' ' ' books, maga— ' ' ' zines Tobacco ' ' ' Liquor ' ' ' Other ' ' ' How old were you when first given charge of any money? ___'_ _ “m 3 __ 3 - __ ____3 ___7__ how old were you when you iiigtwhbd complete control in Spending money? -“"—--~‘—-“ -_ __ - , -— n. now have you received training in mise Spending? [it 1101119 - __ - - -- - . .——_. -_ —- .—. ‘__ - - . _. .. _ —. . -. _ - _ _._ _-- ~—. - -—* At sch iool end other places -a—i..4 ' -v—n —- G. Does the smily keeo a record of its espen itur es? Completen_hhfl_Pnrtifl None ’ IV. no you egree Titl1 the following quotations? Yes ' lie '.L)oubt1"u1 s. MD)vn x:ith oud ets. They won't ' ' vxornil ' ' o. ”sven a plan that runs jerkily ' ' is better the: none at all.” ' ' c. “Iou have to have some Kind of ' ' plan behind your Spending if ‘ ' you don't wan to lund in jail ' ' or in debt." ' ' d. ”A budget breeds friction in ' ' tile lmonxe ." ' ' e. ”Spend your money, beg? nd borrow; ' ' b,d will senn some more tomorrow- ' ' fhat's what we learned in college!" ' ' f. ”All in all, it's wise to buIMet ' ' one way or enother.' ‘ ' 8. "Your testes end your own life sn ' ' should be the basis of your ‘ ' ucfi;et." h. ”Lot the wife keep the records.” ' ' i. ”A femily which plans its eXPen- ' ' ditures gets the most for its ' ' income.’ Have you answered every section? filled in every blsnx? Please answer: Yesfl_fl__Nom_fi__I don' t know___ * guotations were taken from the rollowinp: .w’oodhouse, Chase Going. ”Plsnning; and. necording Family expenditures” USDA Fanners' bulletin no. 1553. (o and i) l‘ios lor_Lsz ingfiwnos (hi d ,h) Hillis, Mor.orie. Orchids on your ourset Indi— - -— D‘1 usehold binance Corp'n b—rJ 91lyOliS§bODJS'LPPPill§1E5 7 pp. l/l (c,I) Pooula r song,“1hat'g what I learned in collegez (e) H II I “I .I o- . I: i! I. .|u.ll.|lu|lto flfll .1 I Ilia-.ia'lll .I ll.ll.lli|‘jlliq t . I‘ , .. . I Sill. I .l I‘ll I. .I. indi— I t O I . I i II, I o v I I a u .0 . . I. I I I I ‘ C . u .I.. 'l I U I O O I 0’ I III I“ II .4 0 O C ’“II _ I I. t I I I, I - I 6 _ I a a I. I - 1.. k In . W‘t~&¢,’..ln.. a ho . I .vvo . ”at. II‘W. .. OOoHv..hllr g , .w p . am a .....m..wfimeu.ax ., . (we . , - 1 . anviuw a g L ; .:_» . - I ’ $‘o . O 5' U‘vl . Or. I'd... , In”; h.c— .. r.~ Q. \sl 3 ‘ . v“. 0‘ .\r 9b” . I, Owl .non OD . 'qu .1P 1y I . - . w . r. -. \x .5... . .- . . . , . ,. .I t]. c. I . Q‘ .‘Q o ‘ .I Qt .l‘ a . . «331“. p . . . a. .0 ‘ .aa '0’ . r . .. .I I . I... u f. o . - fl.” a o ... » v I d0.t." .oo‘c . . . (WE, -‘4... 0‘ M\ - I t‘. a! KL. . w”)? fifllfi ~ .3. . I 3.“ x .. ‘1 u . .7 .‘ Lj‘Un. 3 3. to. I .9 A. I o ' 0'. I K “\I O L\)¥.'.V§‘.II.I». ‘0. J I -. 3A 0 I ’ ohfi’w O» I 7 I . o ‘ O . J I... .. .9 fly I. ,.a|.0 ‘- I . u If ‘1'»...5‘ v .. o . ' .‘: P... J 9’. In -JI 0 "IV. 1" 0 ( i “ I g - J Vu‘fl'lb ' .r , £13.434 .I. . ‘.fl/ - 3‘. . , . . 1K .0“ " . I . .H. JO 1"... h 8...) ...§ . , Afla .. V . . PK. 1 ”0) . I“. .4 I _. _.1 6/ . 1.37m ... IL I _ y I) a n. I I. a ' . 1|. 0 . I: ..c . a. 4. . 0. 0‘0" o Pu” ‘. ’v.. I \ a ’ , L LIBRARY 800K BINDERS ~43 Iv ‘53 15“” X. '6 b“ 41' 3 of A . ‘ {1“ ..;}~§4.. HIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRAR III I999II999I IIIIII