xt7dfn10qh6j https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7dfn10qh6j/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1961 journals 106 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.106 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.106 1961 2014 true xt7dfn10qh6j section xt7dfn10qh6j COI'TIp8I'|SOI‘I ol
Working and Nonworknng Wives
A II"I
Food Shopping and Preparation
ooooiog     igoi   oooo %~¢~·-»=—¤¤ s4—·; ,;,¤- ooiiigoo   oooo
  ,ooo;; I   \€§i'·§§é'@5?eE$¤l   ooo   oo   
  .o._.. I ,._.4._4_._o__ \B!4§§`EB$m`” ,.4.,.,......._..;o: ;,i.....:,:A:.;.;,:.:.:.:.:.,._ . o._:.._._. I _.,,_,_._._,_oA.  
  ===··     .... ._   z%= 1;; ZEE   :._  
     ·.  ‘%i      
`’ :i§;            § Z  I
  § ;o§oioo§;§§o     oio   iio    i:  I ;:E§ §§;     @' @ » I   io;    ;  li ` ;Z o i§ 2io;§§§ oo ; i:§ §o;i%o  
:’;;‘;’ 5   ‘’;‘; é G ’“ Q     ‘:;:f‘=‘‘ I ‘’‘’‘‘’‘ I
»·i7:i;§;f; i- · "" “_Vv`r _ ·-'*
I By Mildred R.Wightman cmd John B. Roberts
Progress Report IO6 (Filing cme: 7-2)
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
AGmcu1.TunAI. Exrsmmzm sTAT1oN
School of Home Economics
and
Department of Agricultural Economics
LEXINGTON

 
 COMPARISON OF WORKING AND NONWORKING WIVES
IN FOOD SHOPPING AND PREPARATION
ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES l/
By Mildred R. Wightman and John B. Roberts g/
Employment figures for 1957-58 show that women make—up 33 percent of the labor
force in the United States and that 53 percent of them are married, have families, and
maintain homes. Since 1940 the number of married women entering the labor force has
doubled. Indications are that these figures will continue to increase. §/
This question often has been raised: Do the food buying and preparation practices
of working wives differ from those of wives who are not employed outside the home? If
so, marketing agencies should be alert to implications of these differences for changing
and expanding markets.
United States Department of Agriculture home economists made a nation-wide study
which was reported in 1960. é/ They found that the family diets of the two groups were
generally alike in nutritional value, but families with a working wife spent approximately
56 cents more per person on weekly food supplies than families of similar incomes in
which wives were not employed. They had more meat, poultry, fish, bakery products,
fats, and oils than those in which the homemaker was not employed. They tended to
select more of the expensive types and cuts of meat. Although they used more of certain
prepared foods, they were not the leading buyers of all "convenience" foods. Flour mixes,
for example, were used more often by wives who did not work outside the home.
1/ Department of Agricultural Economics and School of Home Economics, cooperating. Participants included
Dr. Abby L. Marlatt, Director of the School of Home Economics; Dr. A. ]. Brown, head, Department of
Agricultural Economics; and Mrs. Mary M. Zinn, former research assistant in Home Economics. This
I report is a contribution to Southern Regional Research Project SM—l3R, "Why Consumers Select Specified
Foods. "
&/ Ass‘t. Professor of Home Economics and Professor of Agricultural Economics, respectively.
l 3_/ 1958 Handbook on Women Workers, United States Department of Labor Women's Bureau Bulletin 266, pp. 4,
. 31, 37.
j/ Household Food Consumption Survey — 1955, U, S,D, A, Report No, 15, p. 1.
-3-

 In 1958 a consumer's study of 572 Louisville families was conducted. Ninety families
with working wives were analyzed and compared with 482 families where the wife was not
employed outside the home. In addition to studying consumption and cost figures, a study
was made of attitudes and practices involving certain food shopping and preparation ac- `
tivities of both groups of homemakers. Findings of the study are given in this report.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES §/
Although the Louisville sample was small, it compared favorably with the nation’s
group of working wives in age distribution, education, and type of work performed. The
greatest percentage ofthe employed women in the study was between the ages of 40 to 49.
TABLE 1. - DISTRIBUTION OF WORKING WIVES BY AGE
Years of Age Percent
20 - 29 16
30 — 39 21
40 - 49 29
50 - 59 22
60 - over I0
No information 2 _
The working wife was better educated than her stay-at-home sister; 73 percent had
been through part or all of high school compared with 67 percent of the nonworking wives
About 25 percent of the working and 20 percent of the nonworking wives had been through
part or all of college.
A little over one—third of the women (36 percent) worked as maids, cooks, or laun-
dresses in private homes or hotels, as beauticians, waitresses, elevator operators, or
hospital attendants. Almost one-fourth (24 percent) were in the professional category
which included teachers, social workers, nurses, and managers and owners of private
businesses. One—fifth (20 percent) were classed as craftsmen or operatives, indicating
that they operated machines usually in textile, shoe, or furniture factories. Nearly one-
fifth (19 percent) were in clerical or sales jobs such as bookkeepers, stenographers,
salesladies in stores, real estate or insurance offices. The proportion in this group in (
Louisville was small compared with the same group for the nation as a whole, but the
private household and service workers group in Louisville was larger than that for the
nation. _
TABLE 2. - DISTRIBUTION OF WORKING WIVES BY OCCUPATION
Percent
Private household and service workers 36
Professional and managerial 24
Craftsmen, foremen, operatives 20
Clerical and sales workers 19
No information 1
2/ The sample was drawn randomly from census tracts and weighed by income groups. Sampling rates among
Negro families was 20 percent higher than for whites. No separation was made by race for working and
nomvorking wives. The working wife group included 52 white and 38 Negro families.
-4-

 Family size (approximately 3. 5 persons) was the same for both groups, though there
were fewer large families in the working wife group. Thirty—six percent of them were two-
person families and 43 percent were all adults. In the nonworking group 27 percent were
two—person families and 35 percent all adult families.
· Over one-fifth of the working wives were the principal wage earners for their families.
Forty—seven percent of the working wives had some or all of their children 12 years of age
A or under. Another 10 percent had all teenagers. These figures were similar to those for
the nation: 58 percent of the women who worked outside the home had children under 18
years of age.§
Fifty percent of the families with working wives had per capita incomes of $1, 200 to
· $2, 399 comparedwith 37 percent of the families with nonworking wives.
Twelve percent more of the families in which the wife was not employed had incomes
of less than $1, 200 per person, and about 20 percent of both groups had per capita incomes
of $2, 400 and over.
TABLE 3. - DISTRIBUTION OF WORKING AND NONWORKING WIFE FAMILIES
` BY PER CAPITA INCOME
 
Per Capita Income All Families Working Wife Nonworking Wife
Families Families
No. Q, No. E No. YL
5 Under $1, 200 235 41 28 31 207 43
$1, 200 — $2, 399 221 39 45 50 176 37
$2, 400 — over 116 20 17 19 99 20
Total 572 100 90 100 482 100
MONEY SPENT FOR FOOD
No special study was made of the number of meals eaten away from home, though
data showed that 2 percent more families with nonworking wives sometimes ate out (50
percent compared with 48 percent for families with working wives). These figures for
Louisville vary from those reported in the U. S. D. A. study for urban areas of the South
which showed that 57 percent employed and 49 percent nonemployed wife families some-
times ate meals away from home. Z Buying meals away from home was not recorded
for any of the families, and accordingly no attempt was made to evaluate total food costs.
' Rather, the focus was on the cost of food used at home on a price per person meal basis.
l The amount of money spent for food (the average grocery bill) was about 10 percent
less where the wives worked outside the home than where they did not. The average cost
per person meal was also less for all income groups, the difference being greatest in the
highest income group($2, 400—over per capita) where it was 4 cents less per person meal
or 84 cents per person per week.
 
§/ 1958 Handbook on Women Workers, United States Department of Labor.Women's Bureau Bulletin 266, p. 41-
2./ Household Food Consumption Survey — 1955, U.,S,D,A, Report No. 15, p. 89.
-5-

 TABLE 4. - COST PER PERSON MEAL IN WORKING AND NONWORKING
WIFE FAMILIES RV PER CAPITA INCOME
Working Wives Nonwoiglggg Wiv_e_s
Under $1. 200 23 cents 25 cents
$1, 200—$2. 399 34 " 35 "
$2, 400—over 44 " 48 "
No special evaluation was made of the adequacy of the diets in Louisville. though other
studies have shown that there was little difference in the foods used by the families in the two
groups. 9/ Where differences were noted they did not prove to be statistically significant.
However, the figures failed to support the idea that the working wife uses mor e of the expen-
sive. ready—prepared and "convenience" foods than does the nonworking wife The belief
that the working wife did not have time for elabc-rate preparations and that she was a target
for fancy or expensive luxury foods was not borne out in this analysis. On the cont rary, she
ma.y have been more "money conscious" and managed her food budget to better advantage
than her nonemployed counterpart.
TIME FOR MEAL PREPARATION
A little over half of both working and noneworking wives thought they had adequate time
l`o r meal preparation. and they would not spend more time on their family's meals if they `
could. About oneethird of the working and one—fourth of the nonworking wives would like more
time. The main changes they would make would be to 41; cook mo re foods they had never
cooked before, (2) fix more desserts. and (3) bake more. Working wi rS were more ad-
venturous when it came to trying a new recipe and experimenting with new foods
A rushed atmosphere was noticed at breakfast more than at e ny other time Speaking
generally. more working than nonwo rking wi es felt this pressure. There was less feeling
of hurry in the evening though at this time more nonworking than working wives were rushed
Very few in either group had any time problem at noon
ATTITUDES TOWARD VARIOUS SHOPPING SERVICES
There was no significant difference between the attitudes of working and nonworking
wives toward the various timeesaving and convenience services; however. some of the
variations between groups are interesting. More nonworking wives wan‘-d the butcher to
be at the meat counter and charge and delivery services, while more working Wives pre-
ferred the sell`—service meat counter and cut—up poultry service. (Table Bl
'l`.i\Bl.lZ 5. - A COMPARISON OF THF DESIRES OF WORKING AND NONWORKING i
WIVES IN RELATION TO SELECTED SHOPPING SERVICES .
% Wanting Service
Workin; Wives Nonworkinct Wives
Butcher at meat counter 47 58
Sell’—seri·i<·e meat counter H1 55
Cut—np poultty G6 64
_tm»—i··e and delivery 10 __ 21
5/ Dorothy Dickens. "Food Use and Gaintnl Employment of the Wife. " Missiseippi Agn-ieiiltiirnl Experiment Srgticn
léulletin 558. pp 1-16, 1958 and Food. _ThejferarbgkgofltgriCulture. U.S. D. AM 1959. p 619.
_6-

 Attitudes Toward Meat Services
Significantly, both working and nonworking wives wanted a combination of meat services.
The self—service counter was acceptable for certain types of purchases, but on some occasions
they wanted the help and advice of the butcher. The reason working wives gave for preferring
the self—service meat counter was not to save time, but because they "like to pick and choose. "
"Time saving" ranked second by both working and nonworking groups. It "takes too much time"
was the first ranking reason given by both groups for not wanting the butcher's services.
4 Approximately one-fourth of the working and one—fifth of the nonworking wives were
indifferent about their meat shopping services and did not care one way or another. On the
other hand, many homemakers gave more than one reason for wanting or not wanting a service.
Therefore, percentages in the following tables do not total 100.
TABLE 6. - REASONS FOR ATTITUDES TOWARD SELF-SERVICE MEAT COUNTER
 
Positive Working Wives Nonworking Wives
% %
Like to pick and choose 56 45
Saves time 25 31
Want to know cost 2 5
Negative
Want to see it (couldn't see defects) 28 29
Meat not fresh 29 18
Don't like packaged meat (just prefer butcher) 65 54
Cannot get correct amounts 18 11
TABLE 7. ~ REASONS FOR ATTITUDES TOWARD BUTOHER AT MEAT COUNTER
 
Positive Working Wives Nonworking Wives
% %
Can get special amount and cuts 62 79
Like personal attention of butcher 31 32
Meat is fresher 7 8
r Negative
Indifferent and don't care 24 19
Takes too much time 32 29
Like self—service counter better 16 24
Feel obligated to take what butcher cuts 16 7
While modern merchandising has successfully trained the customer to be primarily
self—servicing, the homemaker still clings to the idea that a butcher who is available to
serve special needs on a personal basis adds to consumer satisfaction.
..7..

 ln confirmation of this statement a surprisingly large number of women e47 percent
working, 58 percent nonworking) still preferred to have the butcher available. Their main `
reason was that they could get special cuts and amounts. Almost one—third of both groups
indicated that they valued the personal attention of the butcher.
Attitudes Toward Cut—Up Poultry
About two—thirds of both groups wanted the cut—up poultry service. "Sa ves time" was
the first ranking reason for wanting it. This was more important for the working wives: 41
percent of them gave this reason compared with 26 percent of the nonworking group. About
the same proportion of the nonworking group said they preferred to cut up their own poultry
(22 and 24 percent, respectively). Attitudes on this question and other considerations are
summarized in Table 8.
TABLE 8. - REASONS FOR ATTITUDES TOWARD CUT~UP POULTRY
Working Wives Nonworking Wives
% %
Saves time 41 26 .
Likes to cut her own 22 24
Do not like to cut it up 17 19
Less expensive to buy whole and out up 6 8
Like to buy certain pieces 3 7
Miscellaneous or no answer 11 16
A further exploration of attitudes as applied specifically to broilers showed that about
three—fourths of the homemakers surveyed preferred to have them cut up at the store. Among
the reasons given were that it (1) saved time, (2) was more convenient, (3) there was a lack
of know—how, (4) the knives at home were not satisfactory, and (5) the job was distasteful. The
most favorable attitude toward cut—up poultry was found among the younger age groups and
among the higher income families. These same groups looked favorably on buying only the
special pieces they liked. Among the homemakers who preferred whole chicken were Negroes,
low income families, and a considerable number of older housewives.
Charge and Delivery Services
Charge and delivery services were not popular with either group. Only one—tenth of
the working and one—fifth of the nonworking wives wanted them. The first ranking reason {
with both groups was that they simply did not like the idea.
Other reasons were that these services increased the cost of groceries and that they
liked to go to the store and select things. Only 14 percent of the working and 20 percent of
the nonworking wives liked them because of their convenience.
-8..

 TABLE 9. - REASONS FOR ATTITUDES TOWARD CHARGE AND DELIVERY SERVICE
 
Working Wives Nonworking Wives
% %
Don't like the idea 43 50
Like convenience · 14 20
Like to go to store and select 9 13
Increases cost of groceries 10 6
Don't know or no answer 24 11
I DAIRY PRODUCTS USE
In addition to studying general attitudes, special emphasis was given to the place of
milk and dairy products in the food marketing picture and to desserts with special emphasis
on ice cream and ready-mix preparations.
Desserts ,
Results showed that pie, ice cream, and cake, in that order, were first choice desserts
of both groups. Percentages were higher for the working than for the nonworking wives in all
cases.
’ TABLE 10. - BAKINC PRACTICES AND FIRST CHOICE DESSERTS OF WORKING AND NONWORKING WIVES
 
Doing Any Using First Choice Desserts
Wives Baking For Any‘ Ice
Family Mixes Pie Cream Cake Fruit Cookies Other
Percent
Working 89 7 8 34 30 21 8 6 1
Nonworking 92 80 33 28 16 13 7 3
Approximately 91 percent of all wives indicated that they did some baking for their families.
A few more nonworking wives (3 percent) baked at home. Eighty percent of them reported
using mixes compared with 78 percent of the working wives. Thus, if the working wife
served the favorite family dessert, as indicated, sometimes she may have bought it ready-
made. These are not really significant differences. However, for the nonworking wives
there is some evidence that fruits may be substituted for cake among select groups. The
· demand for ice cream was about the same in both groups.
` Nonworking wives looked more kindly on ice cream as an appropriate company dessert
than did working wives (54 percent compared with 50 percent). Only 12 percent in each group
said they would serve plain ice cream to guests. Another 28 percent of the working wives and
24 percent of the nonworking wives would serve it in combination with fruit, sauce, pie, or
cake.
Pie was the favorite company dessert of both groups, and 4 percent more working than
nonworking wives would serve it (33 compared with 29 percent).
..9..

 Beverage Choice with Lunches Away from Home
The women who sometimes ate meals away from home were asked what they would choose ,
to drink with four selected lunch menus. 9./ The nonworking wives more often chose milk than .
did the working wives. However. coffee, tea, and soft drinks were much more popular than
milk. Among the nonworking wives milk was most popular with the sandwich type menu; 17
percent chose it in both warm and cold weather. Working wives chose milk to go with the plate
lunch more often than with any other type lunch, though the percentages were only 7 for warm
and 9 for cold weather.
For all women, soft drinks were first choice with the hamburger and sandwich lunch in
warm weather. Tea was first choice with the plate lunch and seafood plate, though coffee ran
a very close second with the seafood.
ln cold weather coffee was first choice with the seafood plate and plate lunch for all women.
Nonworking women also preferred coffee with the sandwich and hamburger, but the working wife
chose soft drinks with these two
Tea was more popular with working than nonworking wives with all lunches in both seasons.
A reason for this may be that working women were accustomed to the popular "coffee break"
during the morning and wanted a change of beverage for lunch.
Milk Eguivalent Used
Working and nonworking wife families used approximately the same amounts of milk
equivalent per person - 4. 6 and 4. 7 quarts per week, respectively. In comparing specific
products, all variations in per person consumption were small. Both groups used the same
amounts of whole milk. Families with working wives used more dry milk and buttermilk and
the same amounts of evaporated milk, cottage cheese, and frozen desserts a.s did families with
nonworking wives. Families with nonworking wives used more fresh skim milk and yellow cheese.
Although both groups used the same amount of evaporated milk, 16 percent more working
than nonworking wives used it. This, along with the working wives' use of more dry milk may
have been due to the shelf storage convenience of these products. Both could be kept on hand
and ready for use, whereas whipping cream and extra fresh milk would have to be planned for
and ordered ahead of time. Also. cost may have been a factor, as the working wife showed a
tendency to be more economical in her food management. Data indicated that many of the non-
working wives used evaporated milk for infant formulas. ,
Highest per capita consumption of skim milk was in the high income group ($2, 400—over, i
per capita) of nonworking wives. This might be attributed to their being weight conscious and l
using it for dieting purposes.
2/ These menus were (1) plate lunch with pork chop, french fries, peas, lettuce and tomato, (2) hamburger on bun
with lettuce, tomato, pickle, onion rings. and potato chips, V3i meat sandwich with lettuce, tomato, pickle.
onion rings, and potato chips, (4) fish plate with french fries, pickle slices. and cole slaw
-10-

 TABLE 11. - WEEKLY PER PERSON CONSUMPTION OF MILK EOUIVALENT OF SELECTED
DAIRY PRODUCTS BY WORKING AND NONWORKING WIFE FAMILIES
 
Working Wives Nonworking Wives
Quarts Quarts
Whole milk 2. 9 2. 9
Skim milk —* . 2
Buttermilk i . 2 . 1
Chocolate milk — -
Half-half — —
Dry milk . 3 . 2
A Evaporated . 2 . 2
Whipping cream - -
Coffee cream - -
Sour cream - —
Dried cream - —
Cottage cheese . 1 . 1
All other cheese .7 . 8
Frozen dessert _12 42
4. 6 quarts 4. 7 quarts
* Amounts used were less than O. 05 quart per person.
Dairy Dishes Prepared
Comparison of the various kinds of milk and other dairy dishes which working and non-
working wives prepared for their families showed no significant differences, however, more
working wives used custards and whipped evaporated milk in salads and desserts and as a
dessert topping. Custards may have been used more because they are easy to prepare, can
be prepared in advance and they use both milk and eggs, two highly nutritious foods which the
busy wife may have neglected in the other meals of the day.
Macaroni and cheese was a favorite dish — over 90 percent of both groups used it. More
working than nonworking wives had served it during the past month. Other dishes which more
than 40 percent of both groups had served during the past month were creamed vegetables made
with milk, creamed soups, cheeseburgers or sandwiches, cream pies, puddings, and milk
drinks. All of these except creamed soups and cheeseburgers or cheese sandwiches were
· served by more working than nonworking wives. The most common reasons for not having
Z served a particular dish were "never tried" and "don't like. "
-11-

 TABLE 12. - A COMPARISON OF WORKING AND NONWORKING WIVES
AS TO DAIRY DISI-[ES PREPARED AND SERVED DURING TI-Hi PAST MONTH
Percent Serving
Dish Working Wives Nonworking Wives
Macaroni and cheese 69 5-9
Crea med vegetables made with milk 64 53
Puddings 51 42
Cheeseburgers or sandwiches 48 57
Cream pies 47 41
Creamed soups 42 47
Milk drinks 41 40
Custards 40 33
Creamed meats or casseroles 30 33
Meat loaf made with milk 27 29
Milk shakes 27 24
Whipped cream as a topping 24 15
Commercial whipped topping 24 17 f
Cheese sauce over vegetables or meat 23 21
Whipped cream in salads or desserts 16 12
Commercial sour cream 7 9
Whipped evaporated as a topping or in
salads or desserts 7 3
Cheese puddings, souffles or fondues 3 5
Whipped dry milk in salads or desserts 2 2
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Conclusions drawn from this study were that there are more similarities than differences
in the food buying and use practices of working and nonworking wives and that minor differences
noted may be attributed to factors other than the wife's employment.
The working wife in Louisville did not spend more money for food and did not use signifi-
cantly more short—cuts in shopping and preparation, which she might well have used to advantage.
With increased numbers of married women entering the working world and with maid service
at a premium, marketing promotional agencies would do well to direct special attention to the needs
of this group. They could promote the advantage of "built—in maid service" in the many time-
saving products and services already available on the market, as well as in new ones as they are ,
introduced. _·
3M-~l1-61