J o d o f Consumer Studies and Home Economics (1989) 13,359-368.

Family choices in household production TRICIA ORMSBY Department of Home Economics, Brigham Young University, Utah

Families can maintain or raise their stwuiard of living by using their own human resources to produce goods and services for their families’ we. Using descriptive methodologies, this study ucunincr horrrehold production petformed by a random sample of 107 husbands and wives in mid-Michigan, whose oldat child urn between the ages of 6 and 12, and who responded to a selfdminbtered qutshnnaire. Given production choices on 54 household production activities, respondents indicated the family chose to perform many activities, purchased Icrs, and ornitrcd few a c t i v k . Husbondr ’ and wivu’ perception of production choices diflered signifcantly. The choices analysed by location of raidtnce, family income, famiry employment and houwhoid size aLso showed signifiant differences.

Introduction In the daily life of families the question frequently arises as to whether a required product or service is to be bought in the market-place or produced by the household. In most historical contexts the possibility of market procurement as an option to meet household needs was nonexistent. Household and family tasks such as food preparation and preservation, clothhg consuudon, fuel gathering, childcare, and care of the elderly were all performed by household members for the benefit of the household.’ In the post-industrial times the household increasingly turned to the market for more products and services. Child care centres, fast food restaurants, television dinners, mail catalogues, and utility companies are all examples of market-supplied goods and services.

The contemporary household is constantly faced with production or procure- ment decisions. What are the advantages or disadvantages in choosing to purchase or produce a particular item? In order to consider the choices families have either to use market-supplied goods and services or to produce them at home, it is necessary to study the nature of the home production decision and examine data collected on this issue.

Beutler and Owen2 developed a theoretical model of home production which begins by examining the family as a decision-making unit. They maintain that a major dilemma of home production is to ‘choose among competing (home production) ends in order to maximize satisfaction, subject to the limitations of scarce resources required to meet those (home production) ends’ which is an

Correspondena: Dr Trida Ormsby. Department of Home Economics Education, Brigham Young University, 2234 SFLC. Rovo. Utah 84602, U.S.A.

359

Family choices in househdd production

economic deci~ion.~ Optimum allocation of scarce resources results in maximum satisfaction through the production of benefits. Differing types of benefits can be ordered according to preference. Examples of production benefits could include increased skills of family members,' increased self-esteem resulting from participation in the production process, and family relationships and communica- tion skills strengthened by interaction during home

The pivotal part of the home production model considers the question of what services or products to produce given household preferences and available resources. The ideal collection of benefits becomes the household's desired standard of living, and in striving to achieve this standard, the household engages in a continuous evaluation and feedback p r o c e ~ . ~ . ' ~

Revkw of literature

Morgan and colleagues" were some of the few researchers to study the question of whether the household ought to produce what is needed at home, or seek outside help. Help, both paid and free, includes assistance 'for regular housework, laundry, child care, painting and repairs around the house, lawn care, and the time saved by eating out rather than preparing meals at home'. Morgan and colleagues found that families in the sample averaged 5 h of outside help per week. Families with special needs, such as those with working wives or those with young children averaged 19 h of outside help per week.

Morgan and colleagues proposed three factors that innuence the amount of outside help sought by families: (i) economic factors such as the cost of outside help; (ii) constraints such as the lack of available outside help; and (iii) individual motives and desires. Meaningful factors in the amount of outside help included available family income and amount of paid work. Use of outside help also increased as wives worked more hours in paid employment and was greatest for women under 35 years old. The most important factors in order of significance were: husband's earnings, age of youngest child under 18 living at home, difficulty of hiring workers for household activities, wives' earnings, and house size.

Morgan and colleagues attempted to measure the flow of substitutes through a comparison of hours of paid help versus hours of household production. Those receiving more help compared to production were single men, high income families, families where the wife worked more than half-time (particularly with children under 18) and families that lived in a city of 10,ooO or more. The study implied that urban living facilitated hiring and that high-income families could more easily bear hiring costs. In addition, households with children have increased need for hired services.

Other researched2 found that employed home-makers spent less time than unemployed home-makers in food preparation and their families ate more meals outside the home. Home-maker's education, family income and age of the youngest child were more influential than location of residence on the findings.

360

T. -by

However, othersI3 found that it was not the home-maker’s employment but size of family income and assets, lifecycle stage (having young children) and whether the family moved recently that influenced the purchase of time-saving durable goods for the home.

Many studies have found the family division of labour to be strongly linked to sex role expectations.’c16 Wives reported doing more housework, food prepar- ation and child care, and husbands did more household repair and outside activities. In a study of spousal consensus patterns on 4he allocation of household tasks, agreement was higher on sex-role stereotyped tasks.” Little research was found on how decisions were made by spouses to perform these tasks.

Methodology

Data from the study ‘Contributions of Household Production to Family Income’ (Michigan Agricultural Station Project 1363H) were used to examine various facets of howhold production including decision cboices of what to produce and what not to produce. Data were collected during June and July of 1980 with the family as the unit of analysis. The sample comprised 107 families with the oldest child between 6 and 12 years, from urban, small town and rural locations in mid-Michigan. Each husband and wife was given a self-administered question- naire. Data were analysed to examine differences in husbands’ and wives’ responses and to examine the relationship of the responses with the variables of: residence location, family income, family employment status and household size. Statistical tests employed were analysis of variance and paired r-test.

In each of the six categories of selected activities there were six possible responses available (see Table 1). Each response was designed to reveal a

Table 1. Household production categories and possible responses

categories Total number of production activities

Home care and repair Car care and repair Yard, outdoor care Sewing, bobbies and crafts Personal care Child and other cam Possible responses Usually do it myself. Usually do it together with other family member(s). U d y done by another family member or friend. Hired out. Omitted. Does not apply.

21 9 7 9 4 4

361

Family choices in household production

decision made process by both the individual respondent and the family as a whole. The question of interest was whether the activity sampled was performed by someone in the household, was performed by someone outside the family as a hired service, was omitted, or did not apply to the families’ situation. Therefore, the responses to any of the categories that indicated production either by the respondent or another person in the household were counted as a positive response for family production. Friends were included as they often have human resources necessary for a certain task, which are available to the respondent at no monetary cost. The responses in each production category were summed separately.

hdinps Both husbands and wives reported that the majority of the 54 production activities were done by the family. They responded that the family performed most of the activities (6345%), they hired or bought less (17-21%), they omitted very little (1-2%). and various activities did not apply to their situation (12-18%). As examples of production activities, over 90% of the families responded that they painted the inside of their homes, shampooed their own carpets, cut their 06 grass, trimmed trees, weeded the yard, shovelled snow, cleaned the inside and outside of their cars, pumped their own petrol and provided major care for their children daily. The activities hired or bought included major appli- ance repair, car and car body repair, shoe and handbag repair, furniture re- upholstering, and occasional care of children. In addition, husbands reported buying hair cuts and wives reported buying curtains and s l ipvers rather than making them themselves. Few production activities were deliberately avoided. About 12% of husbands and wives responded respectively that they omitted insulating hot water pipes, which was the highest percentage in the omitted category. In the ‘does not apply’ category, the majority of both husbands and wives responded that refinishing hardwood floors and colouring hair was not applicable. The majority of husbands also mentioned home hair permanents, cutting wood and making slipcovers, re-upholstery, and making quilts as not applicable. Most of the differences between husbands and wives occurred in the sewing, hobbies and crafts category. When analysed by a r-test, significant differenccs emerged in husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of their household production choices (see Table 2). Wives thought families did more, hired more often and bought more than the husbands did. Husbands thought more activities were omitted or did not apply than the wives did.

The differences in perceptions of husbands and wives continued to be apparent as the four decision choices were further analysed by four demographic variables: location of residence. family income, family employment status, and household size. When location was considered, rural wives significantly more often than urban or small town wives reported that their famiiy performed production

362

T. Ormsby

Tabk 2. Comparison of husbands' and wives' household produdon chokest

I

Category Mean Median % Range s.d. value S i p

Production activity performed Husbands 33.81 33.88 wives 35.30 35-33

Production activity purchased Husbands 9-28 9-06 Wives 11-17 10.86

Production activity omitted Husbmds 1.05 0.30 Wives 0-80 0-25

Production activity not applicable H u b m b 9-74 9-57 wives 6.56 5.61

62.81 65-37

17.19 20.69

1-94 1-48

18-03 12-15

12-54 7.73 -247 0.015" 10-51 7.56

0-31 6-20 -3.34 0*001*'* 0-26 5-67

0-16 2-42 0.95 0.345 od 1-48

0-34 5.75 5.30 0*000'** 0-28 5-32

"Significant at P < 0.05 level. ***Signilkant at P si 0.001 level. tEgures reported in table reprerent the mean number of activities self-reported by respondents for each category.

activities (P S 0.10). Urban wives responded significantly more often than other wives that the production activities did not apply to them (P Q 0.01). Wben family income was considered, significantly more husbands and wives from the highest income group ($30,000 and over) responded that they hired or bought a good or service compared to other income group (P S 0.10 and 0.01, respectively). When employment status was considered, significantly more wives in dual-income families hired or bought goods and services compared to wives from single- income families (P C 0-05). There were no significant differences between the categories when analysed by household size as a variable.

The data were further examined with the Six categories of household production as the focus. The categories were considered together with the family production choices and demographic variables. When location of residence was used as a variable, rural husbands reported that the family did significantly more car care, and rural husbands and wives reported they did more yard, lawn and outdoor work than families from other locations (see Table 3). Urban husbands said they omitted sewing, hobbies and crafts significantly more than other husbands. Location of residence showed more differences in the 'does not apply' response compared to the other demographic variables. Compared to their counterparts in other locations, urban wives responded more often that home care and repair, sewing, hobbies and crafts did not apply. Small town husbands

363

F d y choices in housebold production

Tabk 3. Report of husbands' and wives' significant responses to household production choices differentiated by locationt

F categorys Mean Urban Small town Rural value Sign

Production activity performed HUSbrnds

Wives Yard, outdoor are 5.88

Yard. outdoor care 5-95

Production activity purchased Husbands

Wiva Cu care and repair 2-47

Yard, outdoor care 0.35

Production activity not applicable Husbands

Child and other care 0.20 Yard, outdoor M 0.73

Searing, bobbia, crpfts 1-76 Wives

Yard, outdoor care 0.68

5-34

5-34

2.19

0.66

0.06 1 a 0 3

2.72 0.94

5.82

6-03

3.16

0.18

0.45 0.89

1-16 0.79

6.40

6.38

2-00

0.24

0.05 0.30

1-54 0.35

8-01 O~ooO5""

7.55 O-o009****

3.29 0*0412"

3.42 0.0362'*

4.94 0*0090*** 5-12 0.0076**'

" S i g d k m t at P G 0.05 kvel. ***Signi6cant at P 0-01 kvel. ****Significant at P < 0-001 level. tFigurcs reported in table represent the mcan number of activities self-reported by respondents in each category. * - 107.

reported that family care did not apply, and urban husbands and wives reported that yard, lawn and other outdoor care did not apply.

Family income level appeared to influence family production choices. Com- pared to other income levels, wives from the lowest groups reported the family did more car care and repair, wives from the highest group reported buying more home and car care and repair, and husbands from the highest group reported buying more sewing, hobbies and crafts and family care (see Table 4). Significantly more wives from the second and highest income levels reported hiring personal care. Husbands from the second income level reported signifi- cantly more than others that family care is not applicable to them.

Family employment status showed significant differences between single and dual-income families €or all family production decision choices in the category of 364

Tab

le 4

. Rep

ort o

f hu

sban

ds' a

nd w

ives

' sig

nific

ant r

apon

scs

to h

ouse

hold

pro

duct

ion

choi

ctc

diff

eren

tiate

d by

fam

ily in

com

et

Fam

ily in

com

e

Und

er

$20,

000-

52

5.K

O-

Ove

r F

Mea

n 52

0,00

0 24

.499

29

.999

93

0,00

0 va

lue

Sign

Prod

uctio

n ac

tivity

per

form

ed

Wiv

es

Car

car

e. r

epai

r 6.

04

6-67

6-

37

5.%

5-

25

2.21

04

916*

Prod

uctio

n ac

tivity

pur

chas

ed

Hus

band

s C

hild

and

oth

er c

are

0.61

0.

63

0.33

0.

70

0.79

2.

25

0.08

72.

Sew

ing,

cra

fts

1 *66

1 -04

1.

30

1.52

2.

68

2.85

0.

0412

**

Wiv

es

Car

car

e, r

epai

r 2-

75

2.08

2.

33

2.96

3.

50

2.61

0*

0558

* H

ome

care

, re

pair

3-68

2.

29

3-67

3-

89

4433

2-

46

0.06

74'

Pers

onal

car

e 0.

65

0.38

0.81

0.

59

0.79

2.

28

0*0834*

Prod

uctio

n ac

tivity

not

app

licab

le

Hus

band

s C

hild

and

oth

er c

are

0.20

0.

08

0.56

0.

11

0.04

4.

20

0*00

76**

*

*Sig

nific

ant a

t P

d 0

.10

leve

l. **

Sign

ifica

nt a

t P

S 0

.05

leve

l. '*

*Sig

nific

ant

at P

c 0

.01

leve

l. tF

igur

cs r

epor

ted

in t

able

rep

rese

nt t

he m

ean

num

ber

of ac

tiviti

es s

elf-

repo

rted

by r

espo

nden

ts i

n ea

ch c

ateg

ory.

$n

=

106.

Fpmily chokes in househid production

family care (see Table 5). Household size as a variable also showed some differences. Compared to their counterparts, more wives from a household of three responded they purchased yard, lawn and other outdoor work; more husbands from families of four indicated personal care does not apply.

Summary and Implications

Husbands and wives responded that the family participated in 6345% of the 54 production activities presented, illustrating that families do consider household production as a viable way to meet their needs. Most reported hiring or buying one-third less than they produced (17-21%). Slightly less reported that the activities did not apply to them in their family situation (12-289'0), and only a few husbands and wives reported consciously omitting activities (1-29'0). Husbands' and wives' responses to the questions on the number and type of production choices differed significantly, suggesting that there is generally reduced communi- cation and understanding by the couples as to who is doing what in the household. The decisions on task performance may possibly also be assumed by one spouse or the other (perhaps through traditional sex roles) and little discussion or negotiation on the issues exists.

Tab& 5. Report of husbands' and wives' significant responses to howhold production choices differentiated by employmentt

Family employment status

categorys Mean Smglecarner Dualcarner F value Sign

(n = 56) ( n = 48) Production activity performed

Husbands

Wives Care of family members 3-13 3.30 2.92 4.41 0.0382"

Carc of family members 3.04 3.34 2-69 10.48 0-0016"'

Production activity purchased Husbands

Wives Care of f d y members 0.61 0.46 0.77 5.12 0.0258''

Gue of family members 0.82 0.55 1.33 10.12 0.0019"'

"Sigaificant at P d 0.05 level. '**Sigaificant at P s 0.01 level. tFigures reported in table represent the mean number of activities self-reported by respondents in each category. #n - 104.

366

T. Ormsby

Analysis according to demographic factors indicates that, compared to other wives, rural wives perceived greater production within their families and urban wives reported that significantly fewer activities applied to them. This could be due to the characteristics of the geographical setting in that urban areas are closer to stores and suppliers of goods and sewices. In addition, urban areas lack the tradition of production found in rural areas. Husbands and wives with high income levels bought the most goods and services. Presumably they would have more disposable income than other income groups and opportunity cost would favour wage-earning over production. Wives in dud-income households indicated they hired more paid child care than other wives. These findings corresponded with those of Morgan and colleagues (1966) who found that households hiring the most sentices were urban households in high-income categories with children.

Households reported that they chose to perform many production activities rather than purchase goods and seMss. These findings can have application in education, in extension work and in the business community. Professionals providing assistance to producing families may elect to include resgurces and educational services designed to augment household production. Study implica- tions of communication breakdowns between spouses may assist family financial counsellors and resource managers in streamlining household consumption patterns. Also, retailers and others in business may find production distribution and frequency indications useful in marketing strategy.

Continuing research is necessary to identify how production patterns change in other areas and in other cultures. In addition, more inquiry can be made into the nature of the production decision itself to determine other variables which impact household production. Other intriguing questions persist regarding the perceived non-economic benefits of production, and how they are experienced by household members.

As these and other questions are addressed, insight will be obtained into the role and meaning of home production and into the complex efforts of households as they strive to successfully manage within their environments.

References

1 . Reid, M.G. (1934) Economics of Houehold Producrion. John Wiley & SON, New York. 2. Beutler, I.F. & Owen. A.J. (1980) A home production activity model. Home Economicr

Research l o u d , 9 , 1626. 3. Diesing, P. (1%2) Reason in Sociery. Five rypa of decisiom and heir sociaf conditionr.

Greenwood Press. Watpon, Connecticut. 4. Schultz, T.N. (1961) Investment in human capital. The Anuricm €rommic Rmicw, LI, 1,

5. Deacon, R.E. & Firebaugh, F.M. (1981) Family Resource Managenuru. Principles and Applicarionr. N y n and Bacon, Inc, Boston.

367

1-17.

Family chokxs in household production

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Paolucci. B. & others. (1980) Implication of measuring household production: A panel discussion. In Thc Household as a Producer - A Look Beyond rhe Marker (Ed. C. Hefferan). pp. 21S226. Proceedings of Workshop of Family Ecowmia-Home Manage- ment Section of M A . Paolucci, B. & Ching, D. (1982) Myths and realities of work and family: Implications of borne economics educators. Paper presented for lllinois Teacher Silver Jubilee Conference on Work and Family. University of Illinois. April 21. Walker, K.E. & Woods, M.E. (1976) Time Use: A Measure of Household Production of Fomily Goo& Md Servica. American Home Economics Association, Washington. D.C. Andrean, M.P., Bubolz, M.M. & Paolucci, B. (1980) An ecological approach to study the family. Mamiage ond Fomily Review, 3, 29-49. Nickell, P.. Rice, A S . & Tucker, S.P. (1976) Munugemenf in F d y Living. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Morgan, J.N., Suageldin. LA. & Baerwaldt, N. (1966) Prodccctivc Amricm: A s d y of how Am- contribute to economicprogress. University of Michigan Press, p. 163. Ann Arbor, U.S.A. Ortir, B., MacDonald, M., Ackerman, N. & Goebel, K. (1981) The effects of homemaken’ employment on meal preparation time, meals at home, and meals away from home. Home Economicr RcscMh Journal, 9, 2W%. Strobcr, M.H. 8. Weinbcrg. C.B. (1980) Strategies wd by working and nonworkhg wives to reducc time pnssurrs. J o d of Conrwnrr Racorch. 6, 338-348. Albrecht, S.L., Bahr, H.W. & Chadwick. B.A. (1929) Changing sex roles: an assess- ment of age differences. J o d of Marriage and the F d y , 41. 41-50. Larson, L.E. (1974) System and subsystem perception of family roles. J o d of M A g e and the Fomily, 36. 123-137. Lovingood, R.P. & Fuebrugh, F.M. (1978) Household task performance roles of husbands and wives. Home Economics Research J o d . 7, S 3 3 . Berk, S.F. & Shih. A. (1980) Contribution to household labor: Comparing wives’ and husbands’ reports. In Womm Md Household Lobor (Ed. S. F. Berk), pp. 191-222. Sage Publications. Beverly Hills.

368