University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Tennessee, Knoxville

TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative

Exchange Exchange

Bulletins AgResearch

10-1976

Rural Family Functioning Rural Family Functioning

University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station

Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin

Part of the Agriculture Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, "Rural Family Functioning" (1976). Bulletins. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin/357

The publications in this collection represent the historical publishing record of the UT Agricultural Experiment Station and do not necessarily reflect current scientific knowledge or recommendations. Current information about UT Ag Research can be found at the UT Ag Research website. This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the AgResearch at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact trace@utk.edu.

October 1976 Bulletin 562

Rural Family FunctioningHelen M. Reed

Judith L. Kuipers

The tJni~~rsity of Ten~!, ••Agricultural Experiment t •

D. M. Gossett, DeanKnoxville

SUMMARY

This study speaks to the ways Tennessee rural families are function-ing in our rapidly changing society. Through examination of familyfunctioning characteristics of 250 families living in rural areas of EastTennessee, a clearer definition of kinship patterns, economic characteris-tics, housing conditions, community resources, and family interactionpatterns is drawn.

The mean ages of the husbands and wives included in the study were49 and 46 years, respectively. One-third of the families were two-memberhouseholds and the average family size was 3.3 persons. The main gradecompleted for husbands was 8.9 and for wives 9.2. Two-thirds of thefamilies had children in the homes; about one-half had incomes below$6,000. The majority of the husbands were in skilled or semi-skilledoccupations. However, approximately one-fourth of the husbands wereunemployed, retired, or disabled.

Ninety percent of the families had kin living in their community andthey averaged 12 and 17 visits per month to and from kin in the com-munity. Visits to and from kin outside the community were not as ex-tensive. Parents or grandparents tended to live nearest to the familiesalthough brothers and sisters visited the families most often. Help from kinsuch as cooking, shopping, gifts of money, food and clothing, transporta-tion, and looking after the elderly, was not reported by most families.Approximately one-third of the families said they would go to a relativefor help on a family problem. Over one-half had one or more familyreunions during the past year.

In general, the families did many activities together. Visiting kin,shopping together, and discussing cost of living were the group activitiesparticipated in by most families the past month before the interview.Ninety-four percent of the families reported all family members usuallyhad at least one meal together during the day.

The families were questioned on 16 aspects of decision-making. Thetrend for the majority of the families was for both husband and wife tomake decisions together. Children were not important decision-makersexcept for which television programs to watch.

Information was obtained on 15 task performances on the basis ofshared or independent and sex-age characteristics of the family members.More families reported that they performed tasks independently ratherthan shared. Grocery shopping was the task most frequently shared.Traditional female tasks-such as cleaning house and preparing meal~were mostly performed by females, while traditional male tasks-such asmowing yard and washing car--were carried out by males. Fewer taskswere performed by children than adults. This was more noticeable formales than females.

Seventy-five percent of the families had television, radio, telephone,

2

and car or truck. Slightly over one-half of them took a daily newspaper.These were the communication items studied.

Data obtained on home environment were rather extensive. Electricitywas the main source of heat in the home. Air-conditioning was not common.A large proportion, 86%, had a washing machine but slightly less thanone-half had a clothes dryer. All of the families had a range, usuallyelectric. All except one had a refrigerator. Over one-half had a freezer butonly 7% had an automatic dishwasher. Running water was available in thekitchen in about 90% of the homes. One-half of the families' water suppliescame from a public source. Space facilities were generaly adequate with5 rooms being the average and 78% having more than 1 room per person.The families were mostly home owners. Their residences had been con-structed on the average of 24 years earlier and the majority had lived intheir current residence less than 10 years.

Wages and salaries accounted for the main source of income for thefamilies. Forty-five percent of the families had one income wage earnerwhich was most often the husband. One-fifth had no wage earners. Thecar or truck was by far the predominant means of transportation to work.The majority traveled less than 10 miles to work. Approximately one-fifthhad wives working away from home. However, one-half of the families hadwiveswho had never worked outside the home. When a mother with youngchildren worked, she was most likely to have someone in the home carefor them, either a relative or a baby sitter. Most families had life, health,car, and house insurance. The house was the outstanding asset. When pur-chasing big items for the home, shopping around was most frequentlyused before a decision was made and over one-half indicated that they paidfor the item in installments. Credit cards were not used to any great extent.

On the average, the families had used 10 community resources.Health services, churches, and banks were the three most frequentlymentioned.

Measures of anomia and self-esteem were obtained from the femaleheads and in a few instances, the male heads. The majority was prone tobe anomic-a hopeless, apathetic and powerless condition. However, self-esteem or sense of worth rated relatively high. Only 7% of the familiesexpressed dissatisfaction with their standard of living and only 1% ex-pressed that the neighborhood where they lived was a poor place to live.

Chi-square analysis revealed that family income, education ofhusband, and age of husband were associated with many of the familyfunctioning variables.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

SUMMARy 2INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5SAMPLING AND PROCEDURE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE FAMILIES .... . . . . . . . . . . .. 8SELECTED ASPECTS OF FAMILY FUNCTIONING 11

Kinship Network 11Family Cohesion 17Task Perfonnance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Decision-making 22Communication Dimensions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25Home Environment 28Economic Activities 36Community Resources 42Attitudes and Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 43

RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALySIS 45

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSA SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT is extended to Arthur E. Gravatt

who was director of the project for the first year and a half. Acknowledg-ments are also gratefully extended to interviewers, respondents, and ex-tension agents in the counties where the survey was conducted. Credit isespecially due to Charles Cleland, Marion Mariner, Brent Miller, and LoisSouthworth for their review of the manuscript and helpful suggestions,and to the statisticians, Zoe E. Albert and William L. Sanders.

COVER DESIGN by Nan Scott, a Ph.D. student in Child and Family Studies,University of Tennessee. The design is a patchwork quilt symbolic of rural America;various families are shown as quilt components.

4

Rural Family Functioningby

Helen M. Reed and Judith L. Kuipersl

INTRODUCTIONThe study of family life is particularly important today when many

social and technological changes are influencing the family. In FutureShock Alvin Toffler argues that individuals are being overwhelmed bychange as he discusses the ways in which we adapt, or fail to adapt, tothe future. Toffler concludes that man's only hope is to undertake thecontrol of change.2

Paul Glick, a demographer with the Census Bureau, has recentlyreported some adaptive changes in the American family. 3 These includedelay in marriage, an increased divorce rate, more single-parent families,fewer children per family, and a wider variety in living arrangements.Family life specialists describe family change in this way:

. . . changes that take place and will take place arenot necessarily pleasing or regretful, good or bad, orconstructive or destructive per se. Family changes arelikely to be welcomed or rejected depending largelyon one's own frame of reference, the groups withwhich one identifies, and the value orientation towhich one adheres.4

The family in our society plays a primary role in relating individualsto social change and providing them with ways of coping with thesechanges. This adaptive function of the family, however, has largely beenignored. If this is true for families in general, it is particularly true for ruralfamily functioning which is less often studied. Family functioning is de-fined as behavior of the family as a unit or individuals composing thefamily in roles or activities related to the well-being of the family group.

How are rural families functioning in a changing society? Do theyhave a strong kinship network? What are their economic characteristicssuch as source of income, home ownership, and insurance coverage? Whatkind of housing environments do they have? Do they use communityresources?

1Assistant Professor, Professor and Head, respectively, Department of Child andFamily Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

2Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. Bantam Books, New York, 1970.3G1ick, Paul C. Some Recent Changes in American Families, Current Population

Reports, Special Studies, Series P-23, No. 52, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureauof the Census, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

4Eshleman, J. Ross. The Family: An Introduction. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston,1974.

5

To shed light on these questions as well as others, a study was con-ducted at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in the Summer of 1972.Research information of this type is needed in order to better understandrural families and their needs in order to direct change to improve thequality of life in rural areas. The specific objectives of the study were:

1) To determine the level of functioning of a sample of ruralTennessee families in the categories of family interaction and cohesion,housing environment, economic activities, and community resources.

2) To ascertain factors related to their functioning which haveimplications for intervention programs.

SAMPLING AND PROCEDUREThe sample was drawn from counties in East Tennessee which, accord-

ing to the 1970 United States Census of Population, were more than 50%rural and were not in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas.5 The follow-ing criteria were considered in dividing the eligible counties into twostrata:6

1) Rural population-75% or more2) Change in population since 196<>--decrease3) Median value of owned home-under $7,5004) Median value of contract rent on home-under $40 .5) Plumbing facilities-not available in 30% or more households6) Cash income-under $3,000 for 30% or more of families7) Employment in agriculture-30% or more of families in agricul-

ture8) Newspaper circulation-less than 50 newspapers per 100 house-

holdsStratum 1 consisted of eligible counties with 5 or more of the above

characteristics. Stratum 2 included counties with fewer than 5 of thecharacteristics. The distribution of counties and number of families ineach county are given below.Strata CountyStratum 1 Bledsoe

CampbellClaiborneGrainger

Number of Familiel1,8896,8405,1363,785

5U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population.Tennessee Advance Report, PC (VI) 44, Table 1.

6Criteria items 1 through 5 came from the following source: The University ofTennessee, Center for Business and Economic Research, Tennessee Population andHousing 1950·70 Part I: Summary Indicators, Knoxville, Tennessee, 1971, Tables 1.3. Criteria items 6 through 8 came from the following source: The University ofTennessee Center for Business and Economic Research, Tennessee Statistical Abstract1971 (2nd edition), Knoxville, Tennessee, 1971, Tables 3.4,11.19, 12.13. The sourceswere reports from the 1970 United States Bureau of the Census.

6

1,7683,1911,3963,3223,1193,7012,357

Total 36,50411,6216,6265,375

12,7559,1106,5776,7605,3299,6316,1224,5807,8084,219

18,927Total 115,400

Grand Total 151,944Scott County from stratum 1 and Hawkins County from Stratum 2

were randomly selected for the sample (Figure 1). The sampling designspecified that the number of completed schedules for each sample countyshould be proportional to the total number of families in all eligiblecounties. On this basis 60 schedules were obtained from stratum 1 and190 from stratum 2. Two hundred and fifty schedules were consideredenough for the total sample.

The most recent county highway maps with identifiable houses,churches, roads, and other features were used to divide the sample countiesinto clusters of 20 occupied dwelling units. The clusters were numberedconsecutively, starting in the Northeast corner of the county and continu-ing in a serpentine manner from east to west and reverse. Clusters includedin the study were randomly chosen. Allowing for ineligibility and nonre-sponse, 7 eligible families per cluster were used in estimating the numberof clusters in each sample county. Alternate clusters were drawn to beused if needed. Interviewing started with the first cluster drawn and con-tinued until the desired number of schedules had been obtained.

The occupied dwelling units in each sample cluster were delineatedand numbered on a sketch map and a listing sheet. The first family inter-viewed in each cluster was a random number between 1 and the "numberof occupied dwelling units listed in the cluster. Starting with this number

HancockJohnsonMeigsMorganPolkScottUnion

Stratum 2 CarterCockeCumberlandGreeneHawkinsJeffersonLoudonMarionMcMinnMonroeRheaSevierUnicoiWashington

7

Figure 1. Tennessee sample counties included in the study.

every other dwelling unit in the cluster was contacted. Any dwelling unitmissed during the initial listing was added to the end of the list. Theaddition of vacant and new dwelling units since the maps were preparedcaused the cluster or sampling unit to vary in size. However, the averagefor all areas surveyed was 7 which was the average expected number. Atotal of 360 occupied dwelling units were contacted before obtaining thealloted 250 completed schedules. Reasons given for not obtaining schedulesfrom 110 of the families are: -

Ineligible 47Refusal 26Not at home after 3 calls 29Unable to give interview (illness, etc.) . . . . . . .. 8

The study was restricted to family households, with 2 or more per-sons related by blood or marriage. Households with heads living alone orwith non-relatives only were excluded.

The data were collected by personal interview, primarily with home-makers, in the Spring and Summer of 1972. The interviews were con·ducted by persons who had been given special training and instructions bythe project leaders. A schedule of questions was developed and used forthe study. In some instances questions from previous surveys were usedor modified for use. All the questions were pretested and appropriatechanges made before use with the sample families. Home Economics leadersof the Agricultural Extension Service acted as consultants on the question-naire development.

Percentage distribution and the chi-square test were used in analysisof the data.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE FAMILIESTable 1 summarizes the characteristics of the families studied. These

characteristics serve as background information for understanding theoverall study and many of the characteristics are used as variables inanalyzing family functioning.

8

Family composition - No husband was present in 7%of the families.For those families with a husband and/or wife, the mean age of thehusband was 49 years and of the wife 46 years. Fifty-three percent ofthe families had husbands 45 years of age or older and 49% had wives inthis same age group.

One-third of the families were 2-member households; about one-fifth had 5 or more members. About one-half were concentrated in 3-4

Table 1. Distribution of families according to selected characteristics

Characteristics Number Percentl'

Total Sample 250 100Age of husband (years)

Under 35 50 2035-44 50 2045-54 52 2155-64 36 1465 and over 44 18No husband 18 7(mean age)b (49)

Age of wife (years)Under 35 71 2835-44 53 2145-54 50 2055-64 38 1565 and over 34 14No wife 4 2(mean age)b (46)

Size of household2 persons 83 333-4 persons 113 455 and over persons 54 22(mean size)b (3.3)

Education of husbandUnder 8 grades 67 278-11 grades 85 3412 and over grades 75 30Unknown 5 2No husband 18 7(mean grade)b (8.9)

Education of wifeUnder 8 grades 53 218-11 grades 116 4612 and over grades 75 30Unknown 2 1No wife 4 2(mean gradelb (9.2)

9

Table 1. Distribution of families according to selected characteristics (continued)

PercentaCharecteristics Number

ReligionProtestantOtherNone

Family life cycleAll children under 6 yearsOldest child 6-12 yearsOldest child 13·20 yearsOldest chi Id 21 years and overNo children, husband and wife or heads

under 65No children, husband and wife or heads

65 and over

Family income past calendar yearUnder $3,000$3,000-$5,999$6,000-$8,999$9,000 and overUnknown

Main occupation of husbandMajor professionals, proprietors of large

concerns, executives, etc.Lesser professionals, proprietors of medium-

sized businesses, business managers, etc.Minor professionals, adm inistrative personnel,

small independent business, etc.Clerical and salesworkers, technicians,

owner of small business, etc.Skilled manual employeesSemi-skilled manual employees and machine

operatorsUnskilled employeesNo occupation (unemployed, retired, disabled,

welfare)No husband

227122

26427524

43

40

67597048

7

o

4

14

2956

5713

5918

91c9

10173010

17

16

272428182

o

2

6

1222

235

247

apercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

bMean based on number of positive responsescLess than 0.5%

person households with the average taImly size being 3.3 persons. Thesurvey did not include one-person households.

Educational level - In general, the educational level of husbands andwives in the sample was relatively low. Approximately three-fifths of thehusbands and two-thirds of the wives had less than a high school education.The mean grade completed was 8.9 for husbands and 9.2 for wives.

10

Religious background - Most families were of a Protestant religiousbackground with 91% currently affiliated with an active church organiza-tion. Affiliations other than Protestant accounted for less than 1% of thefamilies while 9% reported no religious affiliation. The Baptist dominatedin memberships but other denominations were also represented.

Family life cycle - The family life cycle stages were defined accord-ing to the presence or absence of children in the household and the age ofspouses. The six stages are given in Table 1. Two-thirds of the families hadchildren. Almost one-third of the families had children in which the oldestchild was between the ages of 13 and 20. This category accounted for thelargest group of families with children. Only 10% of the families reportedtheir oldest child under 6 years of age.

Family income - When the families were asked to give information onfamily income during the past calendar year, only 2% did not respond. Ingeneral, the families had limited financial resources. Twenty-seven percenthad incomes below $3,000. About one-half had incomes below $6,000.Only 18% reported an income of $9,000 or above. According to the 1970census data, 51% of husband-wife families in the United States hadannual incomes of $10,000 or more in 1969.7 Although the figures arenot exactly comparable, it does show that the sample families were oflower income level than the nation as a whole.

Occupations - The main occupation of the husband was categorizedaccording to the Hollingshead classification of occupational roles.8 Alarge proportion of the families had husbands employed primarily in skilledor semi-skilled occupations. Eight percent of the husbands were engagedin high-status occupational roles of professionals or managers of businesses.Five percent were in occupations considered to be unskilled. The majorityof the husbands were located in the lower middle range of the statuscontinuum.

SELECTED ASPECTS OF FAMILY FUNCTIONINGKinship Network

Kinship network refers to the connection of related individuals orfamilies with one another. Focusing on kinship in this context, severalquestions were asked of the families with respect to kinship availability,proximity, extent of contact, and aid or advice.

The kinship availability data were obtained by asking the familiesthe number of relatives or kinfolks living in the community within fivemiles of their home. Absolute numbers were not requested. Seven cate-gories with numbers ranging from 0 to 25 or over were included in themeasure. Table 2 gives the data reported.

7U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Popula-tion, PC (2 )-8A.

8Hollingshead, August B. Two Factor Index of Social Position, (copyright 1957),privately printed, 1965. Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut.

11

Table 2. Kinship availability in the community

Number of kin in communityNumber and percent

of families

N "Ztl IV

52 21

50 20

34 14

20 8

15 6

52 21

1 a

None

1-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25 and over

Unknown

aLess than 0.5%A kinship network was generally accessible to the rural families in

this study. Very few families had no kin living in the community. Overone-fifth had 25 or more relatives nearby.

The extent to which this network of kin came in contact with eachother was also explored. The families were asked to give the number ofvisits to and from relatives in the community the month preceding theinterview (Table 3). Seventy-six percent of the families visited relatives in

Table 3. Number of visits to and from kin in the community the past month

To kin From kin

Number of visits Number and percent of families8

NoneN %33 13

76 30

28 11

27 11

12 5

9 4

26 10

12 5

26 10

b

N %21 8

59 24

32 13

31 12

9 4

12 5

37 15

23 9

26 10

0 0

17

1-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30 and over

No kin

Unknown

Mean number of visits for families reporting visits 12

apercentages may not add to 100 due to roundingbLess than 0.5%

12

the community the past month while 82 percent had visits from relatives.The average monthly number of visits to kin and from kin for thosefamilies visiting was 12 and 17, respectively. This could mean that on theaverage a family either visited or was visited by kin almost every day.However, no information was obtained on the number of visits per day.Visits were identified as formal or informal contacts face-to-face with afamily or individuals in a family. The extent of a visit was not ascertained.The visit might have varied from a few minutes to an all-day encounter.

The sample included a considerable number of older families so thelarger number of visits from relatives than to relatives may be attributedto this group. Older persons might have been limited in their activitiesand transportation facilities and could not go visiting as easily as youngerpersons.

The families were also questioned about the number of visits to andfrom kin living outside the community. No effort was made to determinethe number of relatives outside the community as was done for those liv-ing in the community. Sixty-one percent of the families visited kin outsidethe community with an average number of 5 visits during the past month(Table 4). Seventy-six percent of the families had visits from kin outsidethe community with an average number of 8 visits. As expected, the visi-tation pattern showed lowered frequencies for those outside the com-munity than for those inside the community. Proximity is obviously afactor influencing frequency of visitation.

Table 4. Number of visits to and from kin outside the community the past month

To kin From kin

Number of visits Number and percent of familiesB

% N %

38 56 2245 116 46

10 41 16

6 35 14

b 1 b

b b

5 8

None

N

96113

2514

1

1-4

5-9

10 and over

No kin

Unknown

Mean number of visits for families reporting visits

apercentages may not add to 100 due to roundingbLess than 0.5%

Family contacts with friends in the community were considered in thesame manner as that for relatives (Table 5). On the average 10 visits permonth were made to friends while there were 15 visits from friends. Thevisitation pattern with friends in the community tended to be less ex-tensive than with relatives.

13

30 and over

Unknown

N

68

74

44

29

9

12

8

5

To friends From friends

Number and percent of familiesa

% N %

27 43 17

30 78 31

18 26 10

12 37 15

4 6 2

5 18 7

3 21 8

2 20 8

b 1 b

10 15

Table 5. Number of visits to and from friends in the community the past month

Number of visits

None

Under 5

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

Mean number of visits for families reporting visits

apercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

bLess than 0.5%

The number of visits to and from kin in the community in relation-ship to the number of kin in the community was analyzed (Table 6). Thepattern was as expected with density influencing frequency of interaction,that is, as the number of kin in the community increased, the number ofvisits to and from kin also increased.

Table 7 shows the kin living nearest to the families. The largest pro-portion of families had parents or grandparents living nearest, followed bybrothers or sisters, children and aunts, uncles, or cousins. There was atendency for more of the female heads' kin than the male heads' kin tolive closer to the families. This was more pronounced for brothers orsisters than for the other kin groups.

Mean number of visitsB

Table 6. Mean number of visits to and from kin in the community the past monthin relation to number of kin

Number of kin To kin From kin

1-9 (102 families)

10-19 (54 families)

20 and over (67 families)

N

8

11

15

%

11

15

22

aMean number of visits based on number of families having kin in the community.The mean number of visits here differs from that reported in Table 3 due to differ-ence in base figures used.

14

Table 7. Kin living nearest and kin visiting most often

Kin living Kin visitingn_rest most often

Kin Number and percent of familiesa

N % N %

None b 2

Parents'or grandparentsMale heads 38 15 23 9Female heads 43 17 35 14

Total (81) (32) (58) (23)

Brothers or sistersMale heads 28 11 38 15Female heads 45 18 55 22

Total (73) (29) (93) (37)

Aunts, uncles, cousins and othersMale heads 18 7 6 2Female heads 28 11 21 8

Total (46) (18) (27) (11)

Children 49 20 7 28

apercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.bLess than 0.5%

The pattern changed somewhat for kin visiting most often. Brothersand sisters ranked first, followed by children, parents or grandparents,and then aunts, uncles, or cousins (Table 7). However, the same trendexisted regarding the female heads' kin in that for all the groups, thefemale heads' kin rather than male heads' kin were more likely to visitmost often. Perhaps this should be expected since a larger proportion ofthe females' kin than males' kin lived nearby. Other factors may be thatthe female head is more likely to be home during the day to accept callsfrom visitors and she may have become more dependent on her relatives.

Cooking, shopping, gifts of money, gifts of food or clothing, trans-portation, and looking after the sick and elderly were the types of kin helpinvestigated. Table 8 shows the type and extent of help received byfamilies having relatives living in the communities. Most families reportedno help from kin. The largest proportion, about 40%, perceived that theyhad help in gifts of food or clothing, transportation, and looking after thesick and elderly. Any type of help was more likely to be on a "sometimes"rather than an "often" basis.

Although these rural families did have an extensive visitation patternfrom kin, this did not seem to extend to help or aid from them. Evidentlythe majority of the contacts with the kin was of a social nature. Ruralfamilies are known to be independent and not to seek help from outsidesources. This independent pride may also be a factor which prevents themfrom accepting help from relatives.

15

Table 8. Type and extent of help received from kin

Extent of helpa

Often Sometimes Never

Type of help Number and percent of familiesb

N % N % N %

Cooking 18 8 39 17 167 75Shopping 16 7 40 18 168 75Gifts of money 7 3 55 25 162 72Gifts of food or clothing 8 4 82 37 134 60Transportation 22 10 68 30 134 60Looking after sick or elderly 23 10 64 29 137 61

aBased on families having kinbpercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

Of all the different sources that families could go to for help withfamily problems, the kin source was the one most frequently mentioned(Table 9). Approximately one-third would seek help from kin comparedto one-fourth from a minister and one-fifth from a friend,the next twosources most frequently mentioned. Very few would not ask advice fromanyone. Nevertheless, when all nonkinship sources were combined, theyoutranked a kin source as a means of help in times of trouble. It may bethat the families can talk or discuss their problems on a more objectivebasis with someone outside the family or it may be a matter of individualfamily privacy.

Table 9. Source of help with problems

Number and percentSource of families8

None

Kin

NonkinMinister

N

5

80

%

2

32

624735

9

12

2519144

5

Friend

Doctor, psychologist, etc.

Other

Unknown

apercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

16

The family reunion has been a traditional event for rural families.It is an occasion in which the kin of a particular family· get together. Inmost cases it is an all-day affair. In many instances it is held in a localchurch. Other times it is held in a relative's home. The family memberswho participate usually provide food for a shared meal. It is thought thatoccasions of this nature make the kin more aware of each other and bindthe family network more closely together. As indicated in Table 10, justover one-half of the families attended one or more family reunions thepast year with a mean number of 2.4.

Table 10. Number of family reunions attended past year

Number of reunionsNumber and percent

of families

N %

116 4659 2428 1124 1023 9

2.4

None

One

Two

Three

Four or more

Mean number of reunions for families reporting reunions

Family CohesionFamily cohesion was determined by a series of questions about the

performance of certain activities of the family as a group. Table 11 chartsthe positive responses to questions concerning family activities participatedin the previous month. The most frequent and consistent activity was thefamily visiting kin as a group. Two-thirds of the families visited relativesthe past month.

Discussion on the cost of living was the next activity participated injointly by the families followed closely by family shopping. At the timethe families were interviewed in the Summer of 1972, the cost of livingwas a major topic in the media. Families were increasingly aware of thesharp increase in prices at the grocery store.

A sizable proportion, 39%, of the families had gone out together toeat the past month-. Eating and shopping were often combined. It may bethat some of these rural families were making "going to town;' a familyevent.

Slightly over a third of the families stated that they jointly attendedchurch. Job obligations, illness, and other reasons may have prevented allthe family members from attending together. Ninety percent reportedprotestant affiliation as noted earlier.

17

Table 11. Family cohesion

Yes responses

Variable Number and percent of familiesB

Family visited kin past month

Family visited friend past month

Family went to church past month

Family went on a picnic past month

Family went shopping past month

Family went out to eat past month

Family talked about cost of living past month

Family discussed elections past month

N %

167 67114 4688 3548 19152 6198 39154 62107 43

aBased on all families in the study

When asked if the family had discussed political elections, about two-fifths of the families gave positive replies. In a few instances the wife vol-unteered that she and her husband never discussed politics. He had hisopinions and she had hers and to prevent disagreements they avoided thesubject. More male than female heads of households voted in the lastelection, 62% of the males compared to 46% of the females.

Picnicking together, an expected group activity, was reported by onlyone-fifth of the families. The families were also queried on whether theyhad spent a night away from home the past year and whether they usuallyplayed games together. Fifty-six percent indicated they had spent a nightaway from home while 57% played games together either often or some-times.

One of the traditional cohesive acti•••.ities of families has been thefamily meal. These rural families for the most part had at least one mealtogether during the day. Only 6% did not have any meals together. Table12 shows the eating pattern of the sample families. Supper was the mealwhich most of the families ate together. Approximately one-fourth of thefamilies usually had 3 meals together each day. Lunch was the one mealwhich the families were least likely to eat together. This seems logicalsince families with working husbands and wives, and children in schoolwould most likely have one or more members miss the noon meal at home.

Replies to questions about how family members get along togetherand the extent of talking over their problems are given in Table 13. Almostall of the families responded positively. However, the interviewers expresseddoubt that this was the true situation. Respondents probably were sensi-tive to culturally "expected" responses in reference to this dependentvariable.

18

Table 12. Meals usually eaten together

Number and type of mealNumber and percent

of families

N %114 46

9 41 a

104 4261 24

3 147 1911 4

60 2415 6

One mealBreakfastLunchSupper

Two mealsBreakfast, lunchBreakfast, supperLunch, supper

Three meals

None

aLess than 0.5%

Table 13. How families get along and talk over problems

Extent of response

Very well Fairly well Not well at all

Variable Number and percen~ of families

N % N %

How family members get along together 197 79 52 21How well family members talk over

problems 184 74 60 24

aLess than 0.5%

N %

6 2

Husband and Wife CohesionActivities of the husband and wife with or without other family

members were also examined. Figures for comparison of these activitiesare given in Table 14. Expectations were that some of the activities wouldlend themselves more to husband and wife participation than participa-tion with the entire family. This was found to be particularly true in re-lation to discussions of the cost of living and political elections. All of theactivities except going on a picnic were participated in by a larger propor-tion of husbands and wives than families.Task Performance

The performance of household tasks is necessary to meet the physicalneeds and wants of a family. The tasks may be carried out by any familymember, group of members, or persons outside the family. Table 15 pre-

19

a

20

Table 14. Comparison of family and husband and wife cohesive activities

Y.JS responses

Family Husband & wife

Variable Number and percent of familiesB

N % N %

Visited kin past month 154 68 178 78Visited friends past month 106 47 127 56Went to church past month 83 36 86 38Went on a picnic past month 46 20 46 20Went shopping past month 139 61 163 72Went out to eat past month 91 40 106 47Talked about cost of living past month 135 59 200 88Discussed elections past month 91 42 149 65

aBased on husband and wife families only.

sents 15 tasks performed by family members and outside help on a sharedand independent basis. An independent task refers to one performed alonewith no other person participating. A shared task means involvement ofmore than one person. No task pertains to families in which the task didnot apply or families who never did the task. For example, over one-halfof the families reported no task for care of children. This meant thatthere were no children in the household or the children looked afterthemselves.

A larger proportion of families indicated that tasks were performedindependently than shared. This was true for all tasks under study.Grocery shopping was the most frequently shared task. Perhaps this en-tailed a trip to town which was more conducive to sharing. Tasks rankingnext in importance as being shared were cleaning house and making bedswhich were equally mentioned by the families. The most extensive use ofoutside help was for mowing the yard.

Table 16 gives another picture of the tasks performed in the home.It gives the percentage of family members in each sex-age group who per-formed specific tasks during the past week previous to the interview or thelast time performed. In general the tasks were carried out by a largerproportion of adults than children. Cleaning house, washing dishes, makingbeds, and preparing meals were primarily female tasks although males didparticipate to some extent. Laundering clothes, ironing, and making clotheswere also mostly female tasks. Although a larger percentage of femalesthan males bought groceries, 42% of the males carried out this task. Mow-ing yard and washing car were more male tasks than female for all agegroups. Trash removal was also male-dominated except for adults in which

Table 15. Way household tasks were performed the week preceding the interviewor the last time performed

Familymembers Outside

Inde- Inde- No.Task Shared pendent Shared pendent Task Alia

- - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - -

Cleaned house 22 72 4 3 a 100Washed dishes 17 81 a 2 a 100Made beds 22 77 1 1 a 100Prepared meals 16 83 1 b a 100Laundered clothes 8 88 1 3 a 100Ironed 10 84 a 4 2 100Bought groceries 28 70 1 1 a 100Made Clothes 4 56 b a 39 100Mowed yard 18 66 a 15 1 100Washed car 12 62 a 8 18 100Washed windows 15 78 a 5 2 100Removed trash 16 82 a 2 a 100Cared for children 11 36 1 b 52 100Took children places 12 34 b 3 51 100Paid electric bill 1 98 a a 1 100

apercentages may not add to 100 due to roundingbLess than 0.5%

females outranked males. Washing windows was more extensively per-formed by females than males. Caring for children was more a female thana male task performance. However, taking children places was more male-than female-oriented for the children groups although for the adults itstill was female-oriented.

On the average the male and female adults performed about thesame number of tasks, 9 and 10, respectively. Also, male and femalechildren in the age group 6-12 did not vary much in the average number oftasks. However, there was considerable difference between males and fe-males in the 13-20 age group. Males had an average of 1.9 tasks comparedto 8.0 for females. All family members on the average carried out 5.6 tasks.

21

Table 16. Task performance of family members by sex-age group

Sex-age group

Males Females

Children Children Children ChildrenTask Adult 13-20 6-12 Adult 13-20 6·11 Alia

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cleaned house 7 7 7 85 58 26 39Washed dishes 6 7 5 85 51 25 38Made beds 5 11 13 89 62 41 42Prepared meals 6 2 2 91 42 5 37

Lau ndered cI othes 4 0 1 86 27 3 33Ironed 2 1 1 83 42 13 33Bought groceries 42 7 0 75 7 0 41Made clothes b 0 0 51 36 2 20

Mowed yard 60 59 22 17 13 11 34Washed car 43 59 14 14 31 7 28Washed windows 15 7 1 76 27 10 35Removed trash 30 57 38 51 31 13 40

Cared for children 7 4 0 43 9 3 19Took children places 15 13 7 35 6 0 18Paid electric bill 60 1 0 34 2 0 31Average number tasks 9 1.9 0.8 10 8.4 1.4 5.6

apercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

bLess than 0.5%

Decision-makingRespondents reported their perception of who usually made decisions

on 16 aspects of family life. Responses included wife, husband, children,other family members such as parents, aunts, and uncles, and a combina-tion of these. The decisions were categorized into 3 types: social inter-action, economic, and child-oriented. Also, families were dichotomizedaccording to whether there were children in the household or not. Childrenincluded any offspring who lived with the family. Due to the nature of thedata, only two-parent families (91% of the total sample) were consideredin this analysis.

Social interaction - Respondents were asked who usually made thedecisions in their family with respect to the following matters: whichrelatives to visit, which friends to visit, where to go for fun or an eveningout, what television programs to watch, who does the work around thehouse, and where to go to church. The responses are shown in Table 17.

22

The majority of the families reported that both the wife and husbandusually made the decisions. Two exceptions were that'families with child-ren mentioned children as the main decision-makers in what televisionprograms to watch and the wife as the major decision-maker on who doesthe work around the house. It is interesting to note that about one-thirdof the families with children indicated that children usually decided whichtelevision programs to watch and another one-fourth indicated that boththe children and parents made the decision. This was by far the most im-portant decision in which children were involved.

For those families who gave wife alone or husband alone as usualdecision-makers, the pattern was somewhat different for the two groupsof families. In families with children, husbands tended to be named morefrequently than wives as making the decisions except for who does the

Table 17. Social interaction decision-making patterns

Families with childrena Families without childrena

Decision W· H· WH· C· WHC· W· H· WH· O· WHO·

-------------- P.~~--------------Which relatives to visit 9 10 73 7 14 13 81 1Which friends to visit 9 12 71 7 10 3 86 0Where to go for fun or an

evening out 6 12 66 7 9 15 8 77 0 0What television programs

to watch 8 25 10 31 26 15 30 51 0 4Who does work around

the house 59 3 29 8 44 5 50 0Where to go to church 26 8 54 4 7 17 81 0

aExcludes 22 one-parent families; includes only families responding positively to adecision. For example, families without a television do not have a decision to makeon what television programs to watch. The number of families for each decisionranged from 128 to 149 for families with children and 62 to 79 for families withoutchildren.

*W=wife; H=husband; WH=wife and husband; C=children; WHC=wife, husband,children; O=other; WHO=wife, husband, other.

work around the house and where to go to church. In contrast, in familieswithout children, the wives more often than the husbands were thedominant decision-makers except for what television programs to watch.Other family members played a minor part as usual decision-makers, andthis was only in families without children.

Economic - The families were questioned about 5 economic decisions.These were: how money is spent, how much money is spent on big itemsstich as furniture or a car, how much money is spent on everyday items

23

such as food and household supplies, whether the wife should go to workor quit work, and whether to live here or move. Table 18 gives the econom-ic decision-making patterns.

Only in families with no children did the wife tend to outrank thecombination of wife and husband in whether the wife should go to workor quit work. When economic decisions were not shared, it was morelikely to be by husband for how money is spent, how much money is spenton big items, and whether to live here or move. How much money is spenton everyday items and whether wife should go to work or quit work wasmore often made by the wife than the husband.

Children had little influence on economic decisions. Their participa-tion was greatest concerning whether to live here or move and this wasshared with parents. Economic decisions by other family members wereinfrequent.

Table 18. Economic decision-making patterns

Families with chiidrenB Families without childrena

Decision W· H· WH· C· WHC· W· H· WH· O· WHO·

-------------- Percent-- -- - -- - --- ---How money is spent 7 21 71 0 6 14 79 0 0How much money is spent

on big items 7 35 56 9 29 62 0 0How much money is spent

on everyday items 34 16 49 35 6 59 0 0Whether wife should go to

work or quit work 33 30 36 0 0 40 22 36 2 0Whether to live here or

move 9 23 62 0 6 6 24 67

aExcludes 22 one-parent families; includes on1y families responding positively to adecision. The number of families for each decision ranged from 138 to 148 forfamilies with children and 50 to 81 for families without children.*W=wife; H=husband; WH=wife and husband; C=children; WHC=wife, husband,children; O=other; WHO=wife, husband, other.

Child-oriented - Respondents were asked who usually made decisionson 5 different dimensions related to children. These included number ofchildren wanted, level of birth control, how to handle children, whenchildren go to a doctor or dentist, and when children can entertain in thehome. Only the first 2 items were asked of families without children.

Table 19 shows the child-oriented decisions of the families. As wastrue for social interaction and economic decisions, the decisions wereusually made by both the wife and husband. However, the wife alonerather than wife and husband together was slightly more important as a

24

decision-maker for when the children go to a doctor or dentist and justas important for when children entertain in the home. Husbands aloneand children played minor roles in these two decisions although childrenmaking the decisions when they can entertain ranked next in importanceto what television to watch. In families without children, the husband alonewas much more prevalent than wife alone in making decisions about thenumber of children wanted and birth control.

Table 19. Child-oriented decision-making patterns

Families with childrena Families without childrena

Decision W* H* WH* C* WHC* W* H* WH* 0* WHO*

-------------- Percent -------------Number of children

wanted 11 6 85 b b 8 24 68 b b

Level of birth control 12 5 83 b b 0 17 83 b b

How to handle children 17 9 74 b b b b b b b

When children go to adoctor or dentist 46 3 43 6 2 b b b b b

When children can enter-tain in the home 38 3 38 19 3 b b b b b

aExcludes 22 one-parent families; includes only families responding positively to adecision. The number of families for each decision ranged from 107 to 127 forfamilies with children and 24 to 25 for families without children.

*W=wife; H=husband; WH=wife and husband; C=children; WHC=wife, husband,children; O=other, WHO=wife, husband, other.bOoes not apply.

Communication DimensionsA number of questions related to the use of communication tools

were studied; Le., television, radio, telephone, newspaper, and car or truck.Since transportation provides communication, car and truck ownershipwas assessed.

, Table 20 shows the proportion of families with a television, with acolor television, frequency of watching, frequency of watching duringmeals, and meals where it was watched most. Over 90% of the familieshad access to a television set. Approximately two-thirds indicated theyhad watched it often. About one-half of the families watched it duringmeals, most often at supper.

The radio was found in about the same number of families as thetelevision but was not used as often as the television (Table 21).

25

Three-fourths of the families had a telephone. The extent of usevaried but about one-third used it 20 or more tim~s a week (Table 22).The living room was the place where most of the phQries were located.

The families had less access to a d~ily news aper than television,radio, or telephone. Fifty-seven percent indicated they took a daily news-paper (Table 23).

The majority of the families, 87%, owned a car or truck (Table 23).About 40% owned more than one.

Very few of these families were' ist lated frdm the outside world.Less than 5% indicated they had no tele lsion, rad 0, telephone, or dailynewspaper.Table 20. Useof television by families

VariableNumber and percent

of familiesa

N %

17- 7172 6949 2012 5

175 7073 292 1

159 6471 283 117 7

103 4117 747 1921 845 1817 7

:3 116 691;1- 39i b5 24 23 1

120 48

Number of televisions in homeNoneOneTwoThree or more

Number of color televisions in homeNoneOneTwo

Frequency of watching televisionOftenSometimesNeverNo television

Frequency of watching television with mealsNeverLessthan 1 time a week1-3 times a week4-6 times a week7 or more times aweekNo television

Meals where television watched mostBreakfastLunchSupperBreakfast and lunchBreakfast and supperLunch and supperAll three mealsNo television and never watch when eating

apercentages may not add to 100 due to roundingbLess than 0.5%

26

Table 21. Use of radio by families

Number and percentVariable of families

N "Number of radios in homeNoneOneTwoThreeFour or more

14103704221

Frequency of using radioOftenSometimesNeverNo radio

97132

615

64128178

3953

26

Table 22. Useof telephone by families

Number and percentVariable of familiesa

N "Telephone ownershipNoYes

Frequency of using telephoneNo telephofJeUnder 5 times a week5-9 times a week10-14 times a week15-19 times a week20 or more times a weekDo not know

59191

591431541774

1

Where .telephone locatedNo telephoneLiving roomKitchenHallBedroomOther rooms or combination of rooms

5910132131233

2476

2461222

730b

24401355

13

apercentages may not add to 100 due to roundingbLess than 0.5%

27

28

Table 23. Families taking daily newspapers and owning cars or trucks

NumberandpercentVariable of families

N %Takes daily newspaper

No 107 43Yes 143 57

Owns a car or truckNone 32 13One 119 48Two 79 32Three 16 6Four 3 1

Home EnvironmentThe home environment is defined as the setting in which family

members live and react to each other as a group or as individuals. Thesurvey dealt with several aspects of the home environment. These includedheating, cooling, lighting, plumbing, laundry facilities, food facilities,entertainment, space, and repairs. Data on tenure, age of house construct-ion, and years lived at residence were also obtained.

Heating - Table 24 gives the type of heat in the homes, the families'perception of adequacy of heat in winter and the extent of heating allrooms. Electricity was the main source of heat with 39% of the familieshaving this type. Wood or coal ranked next in importance. About one-fifthof the families had more than one source of heat. In most instances thiswas a small electric heater in a bathroom as a supplement to the mainheating system.

The majoritY of the families perceived that they had plenty of heatin winter. Only 9% indicated a lack of heat. A small proportion, 4%, hadnot lived in the home long enough to determine the heating adequacy.

Table 24. Heating in the home

H88ting variableNumber and percent

of families

N "97 3927 1167 2729 123 13 18 313 52 11 a

218 8723 99 4

172 6968 2710 4

Type of heatElectricGasWooo or coalFuel oil or keroseneElectric and gasGas and woOOor coalElectric and oilElectric and wooo or coalOil and wood or coalHeating system not installed

Adequate heat in winterYesNoNo response

Rooms heated in winterAllSomeNo response

aLess than 0.5%

Sixty-nine percent of the respondents reported that all rooms in theirhome were heated in winter. In most cases those reporting all rooms notheated included large homes in which unused or seldom used rooms wereshut-off during the winter months.

Cooling - Seventy-eight percent of the occupied dwellings had no airconditioning (Table 25). Complete cooling systems were more often inrecently constructed homes. The location of many dwellings in openspaces with shade trees, in addition to the expense, may account for thelow incidence of cooling systems.

Table 25. Cooling in the home

Number and percentCooling variable of familiel

N "Extent of air conditioning

All rooms cooled

Some rooms cooled

No rooms cooled

15

7

78

3817

195

29

Lighting - Lighting offers a pleasant atmosphere and is important incarrying out activities in the home such as reading, sewing, and cooking.Although 92% of the families indicated they had enough light for theirneeds, it is doubtful that this proportion had adequate lighting (Table 26).When questioned about the number of lamps (not ceiling lights) in thehome, 6% reported none and 9% only one. The average number of lampsper family was 4.

Laundry facilities - The proportion of families with specific laundryfacilities is given in Table 27. Although a large proportion of the familieshad a washing machine of some type, 14% took their laundry to a laundro-mat or elsewhere. About one-half of the families had an automatic clothesdryer which was slightly less than those with an automatic washer. Aboutone-fifth of the families did their washing of clothes in a laundry or utilityroom. Other places-particularly the kitchen and porch-were also used.The kitchen was the main place for ironing.

Food facilities - All families had a range of some type, mostly elec-tric, and only one did not have a refrigerator (Table 28). Only 7% of thefamilies reported ownership of automatic dishwashers. However, over one-half owned a freezer. A home garden was also common for the majorityof families.

Plumbing - Eighty-nine percent of the families had running water inthe kitchen (Table 29). However, slightly fewer (83%) had a bathroom.About one-half of the families received their water supply from a publicsource. The other one-half used a well or spring as the source.

Space - Space facilities are important for activities and privacy offamily members. On the average, the families had 5 rooms in their homeand 78% had more than one room per person. More than one room perperson is usually considered adequate space for a housing unit. The livingroom and kitchen were the most frequently used rooms. A bedroom wasthe one least often used. Bedrooms were also mentioned as the room most

30

Table 26. Lighting in home

Lighting variableNumber and percent

of familiesa

N %

14 623 945 1846 1841 1628 1115 68 310 46 214 6

(4)

229 9221 8

158 6338 1551 203 1

206 8228 1113 53 1

Number of lampsNoneOneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSevenEightNineTen and overAvenge number

Adequate light for needsYesNo

Ceiling lights have shadesAllSomeNoneNo Ceiling lights

Ceiling lights have switchesAllSomeNoneNo ceiling lights

apercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

often used for privacy. When questioned on space needs, 70% replied thatthey had enough space for their needs. Table 30 gives the proportions offamilies with specific space facilities.

Entertainment - Record players and musical instruments are oftenconsidered as prestige or status items as well as items of entertainment fora family. Fifty-nine percent of the sample families had a record player andabout one-third had some kind of musical instrument (Table 31).

Repairs past year - Table 32 gives the percentage of families who hadspecific repair work in the home the past year and the persons in thefamily who perform home repairs. The predominant repair work was ofappliances. The husband or male head was the family member most oftenmentioned as doing repair work.

Tenure-The majority of families owned their own homes (Table 33).This was not surprising since home ownership has been typical amongrural residents.

31

32

Table 27. Laundry facilities in home

Laundry facilities variableNumber and percent

of families

N %

138 5573 295 234 14

55 2247 1915 653 2130 1214 636 14

246 982 12 1

93 3745 1820 845 188 37 33 123 95 22 1

119 48131 52

Type of washing machineAutomaticNon automatic (wringer)Automatic and nonautomaticNone

Room used for laundryLaundry or utility roomPorchBathroomKitchenBasementOther rooms or combination of roomsLaundromat or elsewhere

Type of ironElectricNon electric (flat)None

Room used for ironingKitchenBedroomLaundry or utility roomLiving room or denDining roomPorchBasementOther rooms or combination of roomsHired outside of homeNo ironing

Owns clothes dryerYesNo

Years house constructed - One-third of the families lived in a housewhich had been constructed 25 years or longer (Table 34). However, closeto a third were living in houses which had been built less than 10 years.The average number of years a house had been constructed excludingunknowns was 24 years.

Years lived at residence - Nearly three-fifths of the families hadlived in their current residence less than 10 years ('rable 35). About one-fifth had lived there 20 years or over.

Table 28. Food facilities in the home

Food facilities variableNumber and percent

of families

N "225 9010 48 37 3

246 984 2

249 1001 a

134 54116 46

17 7233 93

163 6587 35

Type of rangeElectricGasCoalElectric and coal

Range has ovenYesNo

Owns refrigeratorYesNo

Owns FreezerYesNo

Owns automatic dishwasherYesNo

Had home gardenYesNo

aLess than 0.5%

Table 29. Plumbing in the home

Number and percentPlumbing variable of familiesa

N "Running water in kitchen

YesNo

22828

8911

BathroomYesNo

Source of water supplyPublicWellSpringCisternRelatives' well or cisternRelatives' public water system

20743

8317

12010124

131

484010b1b

apercentages may not add to 100 due to roundingbLess than 0.5%

33

Number of roomsFour or lessFiveSixSeven or moreAverage

Number of rooms per person1 room or lessMore than 1 room

Room used mostLivingKitchenDen or family roomKitchen and dining combinationBedroomLiving and kitchen the sameOther rooms or combination of roomsDon't know

Room not usedBedroomOtherNo room not used

Room used for privacyBedr90mLiving roomKitchenLiving and bedroom the sameDining roomPorchOther rooms or combination of roomsGo outside for privacyNo response

Adequate space needsYesNo

Number and percentof families8

N %

74 30100 4050 2026 10

(5)

56 22194 78

114 4677 3115 611 410 49 413 51 b

54 2214 6182 73

148 5943 177 35 24 29 424 105 23 1

175 7075 30

Table 30. Space facilities in home

Space facilities variable

apercentages may not add to 100 due to roundingbLess than 0.5%

34

Table 31. Entertainment facilities in home

Number and percentEnter1ainmentvariable of families

N %Ownership of record player

YesNo

147103

5941

Frequency of use of record playersOftenSometimesNeverNo record player

Ownership of musical instrumentYesNo

2710218103

1141

741

82168

3367

Table 32. Repairs in home past year

RepairvariableNumber and percent

of familiesa

N %

113 45136 541 b

29 12221 88

39 16211 84

79 32171 68

159 645 28 36 25 23 115 6

AppliancesYesNoNo response

Electric wiringYesNo

PlumbingYesNo

House (other than those mentioned above)YesNo

Family member usually doing home repairsHusband or male headWife or female headSon or son-in-lawHusband and sonsHusband and wifeOther members in homeRelatives outside home

apercentages may not add to 100 due to roundingbLess than 0.5%

35

Table 33. House tenure of families

Number and percentType of 18nure of families

N "Owners

Nonowners

213

37

85

15

Table 34. Years house constructed

VearsNumber and percent

of families8

N "42 17

31 12

25 10

22 9

33 13

16 6

16 6

16 6

36 14

13 5

(24)

. Less than 5

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-29

40-49

50 and over

Unknown

Average

apercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

Table 35. Years lived at residence by families

Number and percentVears of families

N "Under 5 90

56

52

52

36

22

21

21

5-9

10-19

20 and over

Economic ActivitiesPart of a family's well-being depends on the financial resources of

the family. Several aspects of economic activities were examined in thestudy. These included amount and source of income, number of incomeearners, means of transportation to work, distance traveled to work, reasonsfor not being employed, child-care arrangements for working wives withchildren, insurance, assets, and buying patterns.

36

Income level - Each respondent was asked to estimate the totalincome from all sources received by the family the calendar year before theinterview. This was checked in an income category of $1,000 intervalsranging from under $1,000 to $10,000 and over. Income reported wasbefore income taxes but after expenses for operating a business or farmfor all family members who were considered as part of the family on moneymatters. For purposes of this study the incomes were grouped into 4 levelsas follows: 1) under $3,000; 2) $3,000-$5,999; 3) $6,000-$8,999; and4) $9,000 and over. These levels have been discussed in a previous section.

Income sources - Table 36 shows the sources of income reported bythe families. The most common source was from wages and salaries. Socialsecurity, interest, and dividends and self-employment in the order men-tioned were the next important sources. Approximately one-fourth of thefamilies mentioned these sources. Several of the families had a number ofmembers 65 years or older which accounted for the relatively large per-centage receiving social security payments. Other sources ranged from 1to 11%.

Family earners - The families were queried on tlle main occupationof husbands or male heads. Those occupations have been discussed in anearlier section. Each respondent was also asked to give the total numberworking for wages in the family. Table 37 shows the distribution of earners.The highest proportion had only one earner which was usually the husband.

Table 36. Income sources

SourceNumber and percent

of families

N ex.

175 7060 2411 423 9

5 262 25268 2727 1110 424 103 16 220 823 9

37

Wagesand salaries

Self-employment

Rcomers and boarders

Rent

Sale of items in home

Interest and d iv idends

Trust funds, royalties, etc.

Social security

Job related benefits

Armed forces

Welfare

Child support, alimony

Gifts, inheritances

Other pensions, annuities

Price supports, farm rent, etc.

However, close to one-third had two earners which included wife, children,or other relative living with the family. Very few families had more than2 earners. Approximately one-fifth had no earners. These were mostlyretired persons.Table 37. Number of earners

Number and percentNumber of earners of families8

N %

None

One

Two

Three

Four

53113

7310

21

45

29

4

b

apercentages may not add to 100 due to roundingbLess than 0.5%

Transportation patterns - The families were questioned on the trans-portation to work for the main occupation of husband or male head.The availability of transportation to and from work is important in obtain-ing and keeping a job. As expected, the majority of husbands and maleheads used their own cars or trucks (Table 38). Other means of transporta-tion were minor in comparison. This means that the car is an importantasset to these rural families.

Distance traveled to work - Table 39 gives the distance husbands ormale heads traveled to their main jobs. One-fourth traveled less than 5miles while about one-fifth traveled 5 to 9 miles. Therefore, the majorityof working husbands or male heads traveled less than 10 miles to workTable 38. Meansof transportation to work

MeansNumber and percent

of familiesa

Own car or truck

With family member

With boss or friend

Company car or truck

Walks or works in home

Car pool

Public transportation

No work, no male head

N

128

6

7

6

19

6

o78

%

51

2

3

2

8

2

o31

apercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

38

Table 39. Distance traveled to work

Number and percentMiles of families8

N

2736

44

18

13

18

6

10

78

%

11

14

18

7

5

7

2

4

31

Less than 1

1-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-49

50 and over

Varies

No job. no husband or male head

apercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

which is not a long distance for a rural area. However, 7% traveled 20 to49 miles and 2% over 50 miles. For those families, a considerable amountof time and money was spent in getting to and from work.

Reasons for husbands and wives not working away from home -As expected, the reasons given for husbands not working away from homewas quite different than for the wives (Table 40). Approximately 50% ofthe wives reported never having experienced working away from home.One-fifth of the wives said their families preferred that they not work atall outside the home. Approximately one-fifth of the families had wivesworking away from home.

Child care - Eleven percent of the families had children 14 years ofage or younger to be cared for while the mother worked. Table 41 showsthe care arrangements. The predominant arrangement was for someone inthe home to care for them-either a relative or a baby-sitter. Very fewtook their children to relatives or baby-sitters outside the home. A daycare center was used by only one family but this may be that day carecenters were not available in these rural areas. All of the families exceptone indicated they were satisfied with the child care arrangements. Theexception was when children looked after themselves.

Insurance - Insurance provides financial portection to the family intimes of trouble. The families were questioned about five types of insur-ance protection. Table 42 gives the proportions of families covered byeach type. Except for burial insurance, the majority of families had cov-erage of each type. Health, house, and car protection ranked above lifeand burial.

39

Assets - Another means of protecting a family against financialinsecurity is to have assets in property, investments, and savings. Table 43presents the proportion of families with particular types of assets and theproportion which had been inherited or obtained from a family member.Previous conceptions were that rural families may inherit or obtainproperty through family designation. This proved to be true for the 15%

*Table 40. Reasons husbands and wives gave for not working away from home

Retired

Husband Wife

Number and percent of families

N % N %

41 16 3

19 8 7 3

0 0 23 9

0 0 28 11

2 11 4

13 5 0 0

0 0 122 49

18 7 4 2

2 0 0

Reason

Di~bled

Family preferred them not to work

Obligation to family, home

Unable to find work, laid off

Self -employed, farms

Never worked

No husband, no wife

No response

*Percentages based on total families in sample; 62% of husbands and 21% of wives

were working away from home

Table 41. Child care arrangements

Baby sitter outside home

Other relative outside home

Day care center

Care for themselves, taken with parents on job, olderchildren care for younger

Number and percentof families

N %

3 11

7 25

6 21

4 14

1 4

4

4

5 18

28 100

Arrangement

Mother or mother-in-law in home

Other relative or husband in home

Baby sitter in home

Mother or mother-in-law outside home

Total

40

Table 42. Insurance protection

Number and percentType of families

N

195188182163107

%

7875746543

Health

Car or truck

House

Life

Burial

of the families who owned a fann. About the same proportion indicatedfamily ownership of a home.

The home was by far the outstanding asset of the family. Otherproperty ranked second with fann third. Twelve percent of the familiessaid they had no assets of any type under question.

Table 43. Family assets

Asset

Inherited orOwned kept in family

Number and percent of families.

N % N %

213 85 36 1480 32 37 1520 8 334 14 0 0116 46 13 5

Home

Farm

Business

Savings. stocks, bonds, etc.

Other property

Spending patterns - The respondents were asked to recall the last bigitem purchased by the family, the decision-making process in purchasingand the way of payment (Table 44). It was thought that this would givesome idea of the spending patterns of the families.

Although various items were mentioned, the largest percentagementioned household appliances or equipment. The majority of'familiesshopped around for the items and paid for them by installment payments.

Credit cards - Approximately one-fourth of the families used creditcards. The cards were mostly for gasoline stations or department stores.

41

Table 44. Family spending patterns

Variable

Last big item purchasedNoneSuite of furniturePiece of furnitureHousehold appliances. equipmentCar, truck, trailer, boat, motorcycleCarpets, rugs, draperies, dishes, cookwareEquipment outside homeHouse or mobile homeNo response

Decision-making process in purchasingShopped aroundReceived information from friends or relativesReceived information from tv, radio, newspapersBought from place where we always buyDid not plan ahead to buyNo response

Way paid for itemsCashwhen purchasedCheck when pu rchasedCharge and pay at end of monthInstallmentMoney orderCredit unionBorrowed from relatives, banks, etc.OtherNo response

Number and percentof families

N %

5 224 1011 4112 4579 323 18 35 23 1

137 5524 103 127 1145 1814 6

41 1651 205 2

131 521 a1 a8 33 19 4

aLess than 0.5%

Community ResourcesThe families were asked to check a list of 50 community resources

which they had used or were currently using. The respondents could addadditional ones not included on the list. Although all the resources maynot have been available to the families, a checklist gave some assessmentof their activities in the community.

Table 45 presents a list of the resources used by 10% or more of thefamilies. Health services, churches, and banks were the resources mostfrequently mentioned. Coin laundries and dry cleaners were also men-tioned by more than one-half of the families. Agricultural Extension

42

Service-including 4H Clubs and Home Demonstration Clubs, PTA, FannBureau, and civic clubs in the order mentioned-were the communityorganizations in which the families had been involved. About one-thirdof the families had used recreational facilities and one-fifth, libraries. Onthe average, each family had used 10 community resources.

Table 45. Use of community resources

ResourceNumber and percent

of families

N %

244 98219 88218 87215 86191 76175 70143 57117 4785 3482 3364 2653 2151 2050 2043 1736 1434 14

29 1228 1127 11

Doctor

Church

Hospital

Dentist

Bank

Hospital emergencY,room

Coin laundry and dry cleaner

Agricultural Extension Service

Recreational facilities

Free health clinic

Social Security Administration

Farmers coop

PTA

Library

Rabies Clinic

Food stamp program

Farm Bureau

Employment agency

Civic clubs

Welfare Bureau

Attitudes and oplDlonsSeveral questions were posed to the respondents to obtain information

on anomia and self-esteem. They were also asked to give opinions regard-ing their standard of living and the community where they lived. The find-ings are briefly discussed in this section.

43

Anomia - Anomia has been described as a hopeless, apathetic, orpowerless condition. Five items developed by Leo Scrole were used indetermining anomia.9 These were:

1) Nowadays a person has to live pretty much for today and lettomorrow take care of itself.

2) In spite of what some people say, the life of the average personis getting worse, not better.

3) It is hardly fair to bring children into the world with the waythings look for the future.

4) These days a person doesn't really know whom he can count on.5) There is little use in writing to public officials because they often

aren't interested in the problems of the average person.Responses were dichotomous, Le., agree or disagree with the state-

ments. A score of 1 was given to all agree answers and 0 to all disagreeanswers. Therefore, the scores ranged from 0 to 5 with the higher rangeindicating a greater degree of the anomie conditions. The distribution ofthe scores is given below.

(High)

Scoreo12345

Percent of families71414181829

(Low)

9Scrole, Lee. "Anomia Scale" in John P. Robinson and Philip R. Shaver, Eds.,Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Survey Research Center, Institute forSocial Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969, pp. 172-175.

10Rosenberg, M. "Self-esteem Scale" in John P. Robinson and Philip R. ShaverEds., Measure of Social Psychological Attitudes. Survey Research Center Institute fo;Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969, pp. 98-101. '

44

According to the responses given, the families were more prone tobe anomie. Almost half of them had scores in the higher range.

Self-esteem - Self-esteem refers to how a person feels about himself.This was determined by a measurement developed by M. Rosenberg.l0The respondents were asked to reply to a series of statements on the basisof four possible answers: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disa-gree. However, for scoring, the extreme responses of strongly agree andstrongly disagree were combined with agree and disagree and scored ac-cording to Rosenberg. The scores could range from 1 to 6. The items onthe scale were:

1) I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane withothers. .

2) I feel that I have a number of good qualities.3) All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.4) I am able to do all things as well as most other people.5) I feel I do not have much to be proud of.

6) I take a positive attitude toward myself.7) On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.8) I wish I could have more respect for myself.9) I certainly feel useless at times.

10) At times I am no good at all.The higher the score the more self-esteem the family showed. In

general, the majority of the respondents showed a relatively high score asindicated below.

Score123456

Percent of familiesa2

10263329

(Low)

(High)aLess than 0.5%.This may seem contradictory to the findings on anomia. However, this

may be typical' of rural families. Although they feel hopeless in their condi-tion, they do have high regard for themselves as persons suggesting a posi-tive adaptation and acceptance of their own reality.

Standard of living - The respondents were asked how they felt abouttheir family's standard of living - the kind of house, clothing, car,opportunities for the children, etc. Forty-five percent were very satisfied;48%, fairly satisfied; and 7% dissatisfied. Even though they evidenced afatalistic attitude toward life, they reported satisfaction with their standardof living.

Neighborhood - The respondents were also asked if the neighborhoodwhere they lived was a good place for their family to live, about average,or a poor place. Sixty-nine percent responded that it was good; 30%average; and 1% poor.

RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSISChi-square tests were computed to show associations between specific

family functioning variables and three socioeconomic variables. Thesocioeconomic variables were categorized as follows:

Family income past calendar yearUnder $3,000$3,000-$5,999$6,000-$8,999$9,000 and over

45

Education of husbandUnder 8 grades8-11 grades12 and over grades

Age of husbandUnder 35 years35-44 years45-54 years55-64 years65 and over years

All data were not appropriate for the chi-square test and in someinstances the categories were collapsed to allow for a larger number in acell. Table 46 gives a tabular summary of the associations between familyfunctioning variables and the lower and upper sectors of the socioeconomicvariables.

As indicated in this study, a contrast is evident between upper income,higher educated rural families and the lower income, less educated ruralfamilies. It appears that the lower income family operates in what has beenviewed as the more traditional "kinship" family pattern. Their childrenlive near them, they visit often, kin assist in family activities, and the wifetakes the role of primary decision maker in managing their minimal re-sources (i.e., small homes, no car or truck, burial insurance, no creditcard access).

The family just described is in contrast to the upper income ruralfamily who seems to fit a more affluent egalitarian pattern of familyfunctioning. Probably, by virtue of access to a broader variety of resources,these families participated in many more activities outside the home set-ing (i.e., church, picnics, visiting friends and relatives, restaurants).Upper income families owned a vehicle of transportation, had larger,better equipped homes, and access to credit that lower income families didnot have. In addition, their children were more apt to live at a distancewhich may reflect the fact that these families had resources to provideeducational and vocational opportunities that offered a broader range ofgeographic location. There was greater joint decision-making activity re-ported on critical problems in upper income families. This finding mightsimply reflect higher levels of education and experience in decision-makingprocesses on the part of the husband and wife. Chi-square analysis of thehusband's educational level in relation to family functioning variablesfollowed a similar pattern.

Findings on the variable of age of the husband as related to familyfunctioning were what one might expect. Families with husbands under35 years old reported participation in a broader variety of activities withthe emphasis on "active." They were more apt to be in the upper income

46

Table 46. Family functioning variables associated with lower and upper sectors ofthe socioecon9mic variables *

Education ofIncome husband Age of husband

12and 8SandUnder $9,000 Under 8 over Under over

Family functioning v_iabieB $3,000 and over Wades Wades 3Syears years

Children living nearer X X XHusband's and wife's parents

living nearer X X XChildren visiting more often X X XHusband's and wife's parents

visiting more often X XAttended church together

past month XPicnicked together past month X XWent out together to eat

past month X X X

Visited kin together past month XVisited friends together past

month XDiscussed cost of living together

past month XDiscussedelections together

past month XHusband & wife together visited

kin past month X XHusband & wife together discussed

election past month X XHusband & wife together visited

friends past month X

Husband & wife together went outto eat past month X X X

Husband & wife together went ona picnic past month X

Help from kin in shopping X XNo help from kin in shopping XHelp from kin in looking after

sick and elderly XNo help from kin in looking after

sick and elderly XWife decides how money is spent X X

Wife decides how money is spent onbig items X X

Wife decides whether to move XHusband & wife together decide

on how money is spent X XHusband & wife together decide on

whether to move X

47

IncomeEducation of

husband

Table 46. Family functioning variable; asso~iated with lower and upper sectors ofthe socioeconomic variables (continued)

Age of husband

Family functioning variablesaUnder

$3,000

xHusband decides which kin and

friends to visitHusband & wife together decide

where to go for an evening outHusband decides whether wife should

go to work or quit work

Ownership of car or truckNo ownership of car or truck XWood or coal heat in home XElectric heat in homeRunning water in kitchenA musical instrument in home XSubscribing to a daily newspaperNot subscribing to a daily

newspaperWatched television oftenUsing telephone 20 or more times

a weekUsing telephone under 9 times a

weekHome with 1-4 rooms XHome with 6 or more roomsHouse constructed over 30 years XHouse constructed 9 years or under

Husband or someone elsedoeshome repairs

No one in family does home repairsHad burial insurance XHad life insuranceHad health insuranceHad car insuranceHad house insuranceHad savingsUsed credit cardsOwned homeOwned farmFamily income $9,000 or overFamily income lessthan $3,000Lived in house 2 years or lessLived in home 21 years or over

12 and 85 andover

years$9,000and over

Under 8grades

overgrades

Under35 years

X

x

xX

XXXX

X

XX

XX

x

XX X

X XX X

X X X

XX

X XX X

X X

X

XxX

XXXX

XXXXXX

X

XXX

XX X

XX

*Detailed tables on the significant variables by family income, education, and ageof husband may be obtained from the researchers.

aEqual to or below .01 or .05 probability level.

48

bracket as compared to older families. Two interesting contrasts were thatthe younger families reported "no help from kin" in shopping and in sick-ness, and that the husband was perceived as the primary decision-maker.Older families reported needing help and joint decision-making activity. Thedifference may reflect different stages in the family life cycle. The youngfamily is in the expansion stage with focus on independence, self suffic-iency, and role clarification; the older family is in the con traction stage withfocus on shrinking resources, greater dependency, and role integration.

These comparisons provide some insight into the functioning patternsof the families. Other similarities and differences may be found by study-ing the tables.

Patterns of family functioning, then, are directly related to or evenperhaps determined by age and access to educational opportunity andeconomic resources. Greater effort should be allocated toward developingand improving programs that deal with differences in terms of age, educa-tion, and income in rural areas. Practitioners too often neglect meeting thereal needs of many rural residents by approaches directed toward homog-enous expectations for individuals. An approach directed toward the needsof one group may fall short of the needs of other groups.

49

09

51

THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEEAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

KNOXVI LLE. TENNESSEE 37901

Agricultural CommitteeBoard of Trustees

Edward J. Boling, President of the University;Clyde M. York, Chairman; Ben Douglass, Vice Chairman;

Wayne Fisher; Harry W. Laughlin; Don O. Shadow;Edward S. Porter, Commissioner of Agriculture;

Webster Pendergrass, Vice President for Agriculture

STATION OFFICERSAdministration

Edward J. Boling, PresidentWebster Pendergrass, Vice President for Agriculture

E. J. Chapman, Assistant Vice President

D. M. Gossett, DeanT. J. Whatley, Associate Dean

O. Clinton Shelby, Director of Busin,ess AffairsG. W. F. Cavender, Director, Office of Communications

Department HeadsC. J. Southards, Agricultural Biology Food Science, Nutrition, and FoodJ. A. Martin, Agricultural Economics Systems Administration

and Rural Soci~logy J. T. Miles, Food Technolo'gy andD. H. Luttrell, Agricultural Science

Engineering.. J. W. Barrett, ForestryR. R. Johnson, AnImal SCience D. B. Williams, Ornamental Horticul-Judith L. Kuipers, Child ture and Landscape Design

and Family Studies L. F. Seatz, Plant and Soil ScienceAnna J. Treece, Textiles and Clothing

AgriculturalResearch Units

Main Station, Knoxville, John Hodges III, Superintendent of FarmsUniversity of Tennessee Comparative. Animal Research Laboratory, Oak Ridge,

H. E. Walburg, Laboratory DirectorThe University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, Harold J. Smith, Dean, School

of Agricul ture.

Branch StationsDairy Experiment Station, Lewisburg, J. R. Owen, SuperintendentHighland Rim Experiment Station, Springfield, L. M. Safley, SuperintendentMiddle Tennessee Experiment Station, Spring Hill, J. W. High, Jr., SuperintendentPlateau Experiment Station, Crossville, R. D. Freeland, SuperintendentTobacco Experiment Station, Greeneville, Donald D. Howard, SuperintendentWest Tennessee Experiment Station, Jackson, H. W. Luck, Superintendent

Field StationsAmes Plantation, Grand Junction, James M. Bryan, SuperintendentForestry Field Stations at Tullahoma, Wartburg, and Oak Ridge, Richard M.

Evans, SuperintendentMilan Field Station, Milan, T. C. McCutchen, Superirltendent

(1.8M-2-77)

52