Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Predictors of the wife's involvement in farm decision making Sawer, Barbara Jean 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A2 S38.pdf [ 6.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101434.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101434-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101434-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101434-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101434-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101434-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101434-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101434-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101434.ris

Full Text

PREDICTORS OF THE WIFE»S INVOLVEMENT IN FARM DECISION-MAKING by BARBARA JEAN SAWER B.S., Kansas State University M.S., Montana State University A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in the Faculty of Education (Adult Education) We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APRIL, 1972 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of X)rtufcfr g W i i ^ ^ l O m The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date fyujatf, 1 9 7 3 , ABSTRACT This study investigates the farm wife's role in deci-sion-making related directly to the farm business. Speci-f i c a l l y examined are predictor variables hypothesized to be associated with the extent of the wife's involvement in de-cisions concerning the general management of the farm enter-prise and decisions leading to the adoption of agricultural innovations• The respondents were sixty-seven wives of commercial strawberry growers li v i n g in British Columbia's Fraser Valley. Data were collected in personal interviews and analyzed using Pearson product-moment correlation, one-way analyses of v a r i -ance followed by Duncan's New Multiple Range Tests, and factor analysis by the principal component method. Focusing on directional hypotheses derived from the literature, the analysis yielded the following findings with parallel patterns of relationships emerging for involvement in both types of decisions studied! 1. Wives who seek information about farm matters are also l i k e l y to participate in decisions about those mat-ters, although contact with the Agricultural Extension Ser-vice, considered as a specific type of information-seeking activity, does not appear to be associated with decision-making involvement. 2. Wives who participate in farm tasks also tend to participate in farm decisions. i i i 3. Income and farm si z e are negatively associated with the wife's involvement i n farm decisions, although other indi c a t o r s of socioeconomic status such as age, education, and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n do not appear to a f f e c t her p a r t i c i -pation. k. The number of c h i l d r e n i n the family i s negatively r e l a t e d to the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm decision-making. 5. The husband's acceptance of a g r i c u l t u r a l innova-tions i s not associated with h i s wife's involvement i n d e c i -sions about those innovations or about farm matters i n general. Three independent f a c t o r s — l a b e l e d Wife's Business  Partner Role. Age, and Socioeconomic Status—were r e f l e c t e d i n the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among a l l v a r i a b l e s . Defining the Wife'B Business Partner Role were p o s i t i v e l y i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g to the wife's involvement i n general farm decision-making, adoption decision-making, information-seeking, and farm tasks. Interpretation of the findings focuses on behaviors associated with the extent of the wife's decision-making ac-t i v i t y , and how resources such as money, time, energy, and s k i l l s may a f f e c t her emphasis on a business partner r o l e . Implications f o r educational program planning are discussed by considering e x i s t i n g family decision-making patterns as frameworks f o r the d i f f u s i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l information. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY k THE SETTING 5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 5 PLAN OF THE STUDY 7 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 8 THE DECISION PROCESS 8 Phases i n Decision-Making 8 R a t i o n a l i t y i n Decision-Making, . . . . . . 11 PATTERNS OF DECISION-MAKING Ik The Wife's Supporting Role . 15 The Wife's Decision-Making Role . . . . . . 16 I I I . PROCEDURE 22 HYPOTHESES. . 22 MEASURES OF DECISION-MAKING 27 MEASURES OF PREDICTOR VARIABLES 29 THE SAMPLE 31 DATA COLLECTION . 32 DATA ANALYSIS 32 i v V Chapter Page IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS . INFORMATION-SEEKING ACTIVITY Jk EXTENSION CONTACT 38 TASK INVOLVEMENT kl INCOME, SIZE OF FARM 44 AGE, EDUCATION, SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 46 NUMBER OF CHILDREN . . . . . 47 HUSBAND'S ADOPTION SCORE 47 V. THE WIFE'S FARM DEC IS ION-MAKING ROLE 49 INVOLVEMENT IN FARM DECISIONS 49 General Farm Decisions . 50 Adoption Decisions . . . . . . . . 53 PREDICTORS OF DECISION-MAKING INVOLVEMENT. . . 57 Information-Seeking, Extension Contact • • * 62 Task Involvement • • • • • • • • • 63 Income, Size of Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Age, Education, S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . . . . 65 Number of Children 65 Husband's Adoption Score • , 66 I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s Among Variables • • . • • 66 VI. CONCLUSIONS. . 71 REFERENCES 82 APPENDICES 88 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Information Sources i n Decision-MakingJ C l a s s i -f i e d by Origi n and by Wives' Use and Non-Use . . 35 2. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Wives by Responses to Information Transmittal Items . . . . . . . . 37 3 . Information-Seeking Indext I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Items. . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4 . Extension Contacts! C l a s s i f i e d by Type and by Use and Non-Use 40 5. Task Involvement i Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Wives by Extent of Involvement i n Each Farm Task 42 6. Task Involvement Index» In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Items* 43 7. Means and Standard Deviations f o r A l l Predictor Variables and f o r A l l Respondents 45 8. General Decision-Making i Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Wives by Extent of Involvement i n Each Decision . . . . . . . . . . . 51 9. General Decision-Making Index» Inte r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Items . 52 10. Adoption Decision-Making i Percentage D i s -t r i b u t i o n of Wives by Extent of Involvement at Each Adoption Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 11. Adoption Decision-Making Indext I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Item Subtotals . . . . . 56 12. Predictors of Decision-Making Involvement i Summary of An a l y s i s . • • • • • . . 64 13. I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among A l l Va r i a b l e s . . . . . . 67 14. Rotated Factor Matrix f o r A l l Va r i a b l e s . . . . . 69 15. Predictors of the Wife's Involvement i n Farm Decision-Making1 Findings from Four Studies • • 79 v i v i i Table Page APPENDIX A 16. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Wives by Total Information-Seeking Scores. 89 17. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Wives by Number of Extension Contacts • • • . 89 18. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Wives by Tot a l Task Involvement Scores 90 19. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Families by Gross A g r i c u l t u r a l Income 90 20. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Families by Size of Farm. 91 21. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Husbands and Wives by Age. 91 2 2 . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Husbands and Wives by Education. 92 2 3 . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Wives by S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scores • 92 2k, Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Families by Number of Children 93 25. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Husbands by Adoption Scores 93 APPENDIX B 26. Low, Middle, and High General Decision-Making Groups* Means and Standard Deviations f o r A l l Variables 95 2 7 . Low, Middle, and High Adoption Decision-Making Groupsi Means and Standard Deviations f o r A l l Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 APPENDIX C 28. General Decision-Making Groups« Variance Sources f o r One-Way Analyses of Variance . . • 98 2 9 . Adoption Decision-Making Groups» Variance Sources f o r One-Way Analyses of Variance. • • . e . • • . 100 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. General Decision-Making* D i s t r i b u t i o n of Raw Scores • • • • • 60 2. Adoption Decision-Making t D i s t r i b u t i o n of Raw Scores • • • . 61 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of people have generously contributed towards the completion of t h i s research project. Deserving p a r t i c u l a r mention are Dr. Coolie Verner, f o r h i s advice and counsel i n the planning and designing of the study, and Dr. John B. C o l l i n s , f o r his time and patience throughout the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . Most h e l p f u l i n t h e i r c r i t i c a l reading of i n i t i a l d r a f t s of the d i s s e r t a t i o n were Drs. G.M. Chronister, W.G. Davenport, and J.G. Dickinson. June Nakamoto and Pirkko J u s s i l a w i l l i n g l y assisted with the interviews, and j o i n me i n thanking the respondents f o r t h e i r cooperation and h o s p i t a l i t y . ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Farm families continually make decisions to main-tain and improve the functioning of the farm enterprise. Some decisions relate to routine matters, while others i n -volve large commitments of resources or changes in the struc-ture of entire operations. Considering the interdependence of the farm business and household units, traditional realms of husband and wife, some interesting speculations are suggested where participa-tion in such decisions is concerned. Although each spouse's major interests and a b i l i t i e s presumably l i e within his or her traditionally determined territory, neither husband nor wife can ignore the fact that as family resources are a l l o -cated between production and consumption, cooperation may be necessary for survival. Since the husband is usually assumed to have the option of extending his influence to decisions relating to the household, the not-so-usual circumstances contributing to p o s s i b i l i t i e s for the wife to participate in decision-making related directly to her husband's business are partic-ularly intriguing. The farm wife's potentialities as a business partner is not a new idea. One needs scarcely strain the imagination 2 to r e c a l l the prototype farmer as a bib-overalled battler for the nation's bread, with his wife ever beside him, stalwart and supportive. Aspects of her partnership role have led the farm wife to be praised in the pages of a small town news-paper in a tribute as sentimental as i t s author's name (Val-entine, 1 9 6 3 ) 1 and singled out among women in the controver-s i a l comment of a nation-wide report (Royal Commission on the Status of Women, 1 9 7 0 ) . It may even be that the farm wife would find i t d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, to ignore her business partner role i f she wanted to. Today's wives can s t i l l identify with the observation of a farm wife f i f t y years ago (Sawtelle, 1 9 2 4 , p. 5 1 0 ) i Nowhere does a woman have a better chance to be her husband's partner in every sense of the word. The business i t s e l f is spread out in front of her door. Its details come into her kitchen. She sees the plans for the work going on about her. She hears the talk of the business at her table. Whether the wife exercises the prerogative that would seemingly be hers is s t i l l somewhat a matter of conjecture. When the farm wife's decision-making role has been consid-ered at a l l , i t has usually been a feature of analyses of the interrelating occupational and family roles of farm hus-bands and wives, focusing on the relative involvement of each spouse in farm and home areas, with emphasis on household a c t i v i t i e s . Surprisingly few studies have examined the wife's involvement in farm decision-making even though* 3 1. The economic interdependence of the farm and household units has been recognized by both economists and s o c i o l o g i s t s (Heady, Black, and Peterson, 1953; Longmore and Taylor, 1951* Thomas, 1955) . 2 . A p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p appears to e x i s t be-tween the farm wife's r o l e and the occupational performance of her husband (Wilcox and Lloyd, 19321 Wilcox, Boss, and Pond, 1932 j Straus, 1958, I960). 3 . Patterns of democratic decision-making seem to be widely d i f f u s e d among farm f a m i l i e s (Blood and Wolfe, I96O1 Burchinal and Bauder, 1965) . Data would seem to be c a l l e d f o r to t i e d e c i s i o n -making studies into r o l e analyses related to the i n s t i t u t i o n s of farm and family. Such information could be p r a c t i c a l l y applied i n f i e l d s such as adult education, where a s p e c i f i c knowledge of the target audience i s considered as desirable, i f not e s s e n t i a l , i n s u c c e s s f u l l y planning, implementing, and evaluating educational programs. Understanding who i n the family i s l i k e l y to be i n -volved i n farm decision-making, and what factors are l i k e l y to be associated with the extent of involvement, can be seen as p a r t i c u l a r l y useful i n providing a framework f o r develop-ing the farm family's decision-making s k i l l s and f a c i l i t a t i n g the d i f f u s i o n of decision-making information. This study helps to i d e n t i f y such a framework by examining that part of the farm wife's decision-making r o l e overlapping her husband's occupational r o l e . The respondents 4 were sixty-seven wives of commercial strawberry growers i n the Lower Fraser Va l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The survey method was used, with data c o l l e c t e d i n personal interviews. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The general purpose of the study was to investigate the wife's r o l e i n farm decision-making. S p e c i f i c a l l y examined were variables predicted to be associated with the extent of her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions r e l a t i n g to farm matters i n general and the adoption of a g r i -c u l t u r a l innovations i n p a r t i c u l a r . The analysis focuses on the following questions i 1. Do wives who a c t i v e l y seek information about farm matters also p a r t i c i p a t e i n decisions about those mat-ters? More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i s the wife's contact with the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service associated with her involve-ment i n farm decision-making? 2. Do wives who p a r t i c i p a t e i n farm tasks also par-t i c i p a t e i n farm decision-making? 3. Are socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as i n -come, size of farm, age, education, and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , associated with the wife's involvement i n farm decisions? 4. Is the number of chi l d r e n i n the family a s s o c i -ated with the wife's involvement i n decisions pertaining to the farm business? 5. Is the husband's acceptance of technological change, as indicated by his adoption of a g r i c u l t u r a l 5 innovations, related to his wife's involvement i n decisions about those innovations and her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions about farm matters i n general? THE SETTING The Fraser Valley, home of the respondents, i s a part of the Lower Coast Area i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Some 20 miles wide, the Va l l e y extends eastward about 100 miles from the S t r a i t of Georgia. I t i s bound on the north by the Coast Range, on the east by the Cascade Mountains, and on the south by the International Boundary. The Valley's f o r t u i t o u s combination of f e r t i l e s o i l , a l e v e l t e r r a i n , and a moderate marine climate has led to a high degree of a g r i c u l t u r a l development (Province, of B r i t -i s h Columbia, 1962). The growing of vegetables and small f r u i t s i s the p r i n c i p a l a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y of V a l l e y farmers, although major production i s also concentrated i n dairy, poultry, and beef c a t t l e . The function of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service i n the Fraser V a l l e y i s performed by l o c a l D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l -t u r i s t s , who are concerned with general farming, and by l o c a l D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t s , who s p e c i a l i z e i n crops such as strawberries and other small f r u i t s . LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Several l i m i t a t i o n s must be considered i n i n t e r p r e t -ing the findings from t h i s study. 6 The f i r s t consideration involves both the scope and focus of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The study i s generally approached through a framework of decision-making, rather than couched i n the terminology of r o l e a n a l y s i s . The wife's r o l e i s con-sidered only as i t r e l a t e s to the extent of her self-reported involvement i n a c t i v i t i e s d i r e c t l y concerning the farm b u s i -ness. A related consideration concerns the g e n e r a l i t y of the f i n d i n g s . A sample of f a m i l i e s involved i n a s p e c i f i c aspect of a g r i c u l t u r a l production (strawberry growing) was selected so that items r e l a t i n g to decision-making, i n f o r -mation-seeking, and task involvement might be considered as relevant to a l l the respondents studied. Although a l l the va r i a b l e s examined, with some modification, are relevant to farm f a m i l i e s i n general, the s e l e c t i o n of such a s p e c i a l -ized sample nece s s a r i l y r e s t r i c t s g e n e r a l i t y . At one extreme, the respondents are quite l i k e l y representative of other small f r u i t producers i n the Lower Fraser Valley, while at the other extreme, the essence of the study possibly p a r a l l e l s analyses of occupations other than farming, such as business or the ministry, where wives have been found to play supporting r o l e s (Turner, 1970). In any case, ge n e r a l i z a t i o n of the findings to other populations should be done c a r e f u l l y . A f i n a l l i m i t a t i o n i s posed by the construction of indices operationally d e f i n i n g the wife's o v e r a l l p a r t i c i p a -t i o n i n farm decision-making, information-seeking, and tasks. 7 The ad hoc nature of these indices did not seem to warrant the development of refined instruments. Although they appeared to serve the purposes f o r which they were designed, the i n -dices remain s p e c i f i c to the sample examined. PLAN OF THE STUDY The l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to analyses of farm family decision-making, with emphasis on the decision-making process and patterns of decision-making behavior, i s surveyed i n the following chapter. The hypotheses derived from the l i t e r a t u r e , the oper-a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s u t i l i z e d , and procedures i n sampling, data c o l l e c t i o n , and data analysis, are discussed i n Chapter I I I . A d e s c r i p t i o n of the respondents, with p a r t i c u l a r reference to the predictor v a r i a b l e s , i s reported i n Chapter IV to e s t a b l i s h a background f o r further i n v e s t i g a t i o n and in t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data. Findings r e l a t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y to the wife's farm de-cision-making r o l e are presented i n Chapter V, which examines the wife's involvement i n decisions r e l a t i n g to general farm matters and decisions concerning the adoption of a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations. The focus of the analysis i s on the variables predicted to be associated with the extent of her o v e r a l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n such decisions. Highlights of the study are reviewed and discussed i n Chapter VI. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Analyses of farm family decision-making have con-cerned both the decision process and decision-making patterns. Phases in the decision process and definitions of rationality implied in decision-making behavior have been major issues directly reflecting theoretical background, while research relating s p e c i f i c a l l y to the wife's participation in farm decision-making has focused on her a b i l i t y to play a support-ing role and her involvement in decision-making relative to that of her husband, THE DECISION PROCESS A broad theoretical framework of the decision-making process has emerged in recent years, encompassing concepts and principles taken from sociology, psychology, economics, and related disciplines. Although most formulations of the process vary in terminology and emphasis, there seems to be agreement that decision-making usually involves a series of rational behaviors occurring from the time an issue i s recog-nized to where a course of action is selected and implemented. Phases in Decision-Making Dewey's (1910) conceptualization of the decision-making process is probably best known. Phases in what Dewey 8 9 c a l l e d " r e f l e c t i v e thought" can be summarized asi (a) iden-t i f i c a t i o n of the problem! (b) observation of conditionsi (c) formulation and consideration of a suggested conclusion! and (d) t e s t i n g of the conclusion by overt or imaginative a c t i o n . S i m i l a r i t i e s between Dewey's outline of sequences and three representative models of the decision process used i n analyses of farm decision-making are e a s i l y recognized, although some modification of the phases i s necessary as one model a f t e r another i s examined. Individual and group decision-making i n farm f a m i l i e s has been studied by Dix (1957)» who combined theories from the f i e l d s of management and s t a t i s t i c s and developed a se-quence of three phases* (a) consideration of a l t e r n a t i v e s ! (b) thinking through the consequences of the a l t e r n a t i v e s ; and (c) making the f i n a l choice. The model provided a frame-work f o r i d e n t i f y i n g phases consciously used by f a m i l i e s i n making decisions about the farm and home. A normative decision-making model applying s p e c i f i -c a l l y to farm operators has been formulated by Rieck and Pulver (1962), who consider the dec i s i o n process i n terms of four phasesi (a) or i e n t a t i o n ! (b) observation! (c) analysis and evaluation; and (d) implementation. Empirical measures of the model have been designed to evaluate decision-making procedures used, rather than to follow through the chrono-l o g i c a l steps of the process. 1 0 A major framework within which r u r a l s o c i o l o g i s t s , have studied decision-making concerns the adoption or accept-ance of innovations, ideas an i n d i v i d u a l perceives as new. The adoption process i s considered as a s p e c i f i c type of de-cision-making involving a sequence of phases or stages that an i n d i v i d u a l passes through from f i r s t learning about an innovation to f i n a l adoption. A five-stage model of the adoption process has been developed (Lionberger, 1 9 6 0 t Rogers, 1 9 6 2 ) , and includes stages r e l a t i n g t o i (a) awareness, where the i n d i v i d u a l i s introduced to the innovation, but lacks complete information about i t ; (b) i n t e r e s t , where information i s gathered} (c) evaluation, where the innovation i s mentally applied 1 (d) t r i a l , where the innovation i s observed i n use 1 and (e) ad-option, where a dec i s i o n i s made to continue f u l l use of the innovation. Since the de c i s i o n to adopt involves e i t h e r the acceptance or r e j e c t i o n of a single course of action, the adoption process does not include a phase r e l a t i n g to the production of a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s . While there i s l i t t l e evidence as to exactly how many stages are i n the adoption process, there are indicat i o n s that the concept of stages has some v a l i d i t y — i n d i v i d u a l s have been able to d i s t i n g u i s h one stage from another (Beal, Rogers, and Bohlen, 1 9 5 7 ) and to i d e n t i f y the points i n time when they went through each stage (Copp, S i l l , and Brown, 1 9 5 8 ) . 11 A modified version of the adoption process has r e -cently been proposed by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), who r e f e r to the "innovation-decision" process, which includes the option of r e j e c t i n g the innovation as w e l l as l a t e r con-firmation of the adoption or r e j e c t i o n d e c i s i o n . Although the model has not yet been made operational f o r research pur-poses, four main functions have been conceptualized i (a) knowledge; (b) persuasion, including a t t i t u d e formation and change; (d) decision to adopt or r e j e c t ; and (e) confirmation. None of the models described assumes that every de-c i s i o n involves a l l phases of the deci s i o n process. Some sit u a t i o n s may require new information while others may not; a l t e r n a t i v e s may be given or they may need to be determined. I n t e l l i g e n c e , introspection, incubation, i n s p i r a t i o n , and i n -sight may a f f e c t the flow of the entire process. R a t i o n a l i t y i n Decision-Making Since methodical conduct i s implied i n the de c i s i o n process, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that most students of d e c i s i o n -making have conveniently ignored Merton's (I936) contention that the success or f a i l u r e of an act i o n i s often due to un-anticipated consequences r e s u l t i n g from chance, luck, ignor-ance, or other factors over which man has no c o n t r o l . Concerns i n decision-making have instead focused on considerations of r a t i o n a l i t y — g o o d thinking opposed to bad, s a t i s f a c t o r y solutions opposed to unsatisfactory, and so on. 12 The major problem i n considering r a t i o n a l i t y i s i t s d e f i n i t i o n . I t cannot be defined as the s e l e c t i o n of the most appropriate s o l u t i o n without f i r s t determining how appro priateness i s to be assessed. Numerous d e f i n i t i o n s of r a t i o n a l i t y have been offered, and tend to be of two types—those r e l a t i n g to the d e c i s i o n process and those r e l a t i n g to d e c i s -ion outcomes (Brim and others, 1 9 6 2 ) . E f f o r t s to define r a t i o n a l i t y according to the d e c i s -ion process include the p r a c t i c a l "how-to" books, such as Malone and Malone's (1958) advice on improving farm family decision-making s k i l l s by working through a developmental process emphasizing the consideration of goals and the search ing f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s . Another example i s Rieck and Pulver's (1962) d e f i n i -t i o n of r a t i o n a l i t y as an optimizing process i n which the farm operator attempts to make decisions to a t t a i n maximum family s a t i s f a c t i o n s . The r e s u l t s of the decisions are not considered. Instead, values are assigned to responses given by the operators i n answer to questions concerning t h e i r be-havior at each of four steps i n the d e c i s i o n process. Re-sponses—categorized as r a t i o n a l , intermediate, or i r r a t i o n a l serve as the basis f o r " r a t i o n a l i t y r a t i n g s " used to compare each operator's decision-making a b i l i t y with the normative standard• The contrasting idea of using outcomes of decisions as evidence of r a t i o n a l i t y i s based on the assumption that one can i n f e r from the outcome whether or not the d e c i s i o n process was r a t i o n a l , without a c t u a l l y considering what i n the process i t s e l f was good or bad (Brim and others, 1962). Using outcome,criteria operationally d e f i n i n g r a t i o n a l i t y , i n d i v i d u a l s can be ordered according to the degree of r a t i o n -a l i t y supposedly occurring during decision-making. Compatible with t h i s consideration of r a t i o n a l i t y i s the five-stage adoption model, which represents a p o s i t i v e sequence of responses involving the assumption that r a t i o n a l behavior leads only to acceptance of innovations. D i s t r i -butions of adoption scores, based on farm operators* s e l f -reported progress towards the adoption of a number of innova-t i o n s , are customarily used to determine fac t o r s associated with adoption behavior (Lionberger, I 9 6 O 1 Rogers, 1 9 6 2 ) . There are indic a t i o n s that such scores are reasonably v a l i d , r e l i a b l e , and i n t e r n a l l y consistent, although convincing e v i -dence of unidimensionality has not been apparent (Rogers and Rogers, I 9 6 I ) . Since the t r a d i t i o n a l adoption model does not allow f o r non-rational decisions, i t s adequacy has been questioned by Campbell ( 1 9 6 6 ) , who proposes two d i c h o t o m i e s — r a t i o n a l or non-rational decisions and innovation or problem-oriented decisions. The combination of these two dimensions produces four ideal-type processes, with d e c i s i o n phases hypothesized f o r each process. The concept of "innovation response states'" has been introduced by Verner and Gubbels ( I967), The f i v e response states—unawareness, continuation, r e j e c t i o n , adoption, and 1^ discontinuance—are not intended to replace the five adoption stages, but to allow for an identification of an individual's relationship to an innovation without the assumption that only a positive response i s rational. Also representing a departure from the traditional model i s Rogers and Shoemaker's (1971) recent redefinition of adoption as a decision to make f u l l use of a new idea as "the best course of action available," suggesting that rational behavior may well lead to rejection of an innovation. Any consideration of rationality in decision-making inevitably leads to the historic question of whether or not man i s a rational creature. One is tempted to compromise and accept what Simon (1957) says is "approximate rationality," where man i s seen as having limited knowledge and a b i l i t y to apply in decision-making. Until the debate is resolved, def-initions of rational decision-making can probably best be considered as more useful for prescribing, than for describ-ing, man's behavior in actual decision situations. PATTERNS OF DECISION-MAKING When decision-making occurs in families, patterns of interaction between the husband and wife tend to emerge. While couples may vary considerably in terms of each spouse's involvement in particular types of decisions, there have come to be what Kenkel (1966) call s "preferred" patterns of demo-cratic decision-making. 15 Such patterns, which seem to he widely diffused among farm families (Blood and Wolfe, I 9 6 0 ; Burchinal and Bauder, I 9 6 5 ) , imply that husbands and wives jointly share responsi-b i l i t y for decisions, entering into various phases of the de-cision process according to their interests and a b i l i t i e s . The Wife's Supporting Role Some occupations appear to be structured in a way that permits the wife to build a supporting role anchored to her husband's occupational role. The wife who is able to play such a supporting role effectively not only receives credit for her husband's success, but strengthens her claim to play a significant part in decision-making relative to her hus-band's occupation (Turner, 1970) . The existence of a particular relationship between the farm operator's occupational role and his wife's a b i l i t y to play a supporting role has been recognized in several studies spanning a thirty-year period. Investigating the "human factor" in farm management, Wilcox and Lloyd (1932) found that farmers with high scores on "wife's cooperation" also tended to have high incomes. In a somewhat similar study, income was found to be positively associated with measures of wife's cooperation when the rea-sons for farmers' economic success were considered (Wilcox, Boss, and Pond, 1932) . When asked to l i s t factors they thought responsible for their success, the farmers ranked wife's cooperation second only to farming experience. 16 Wives* contributions to economic success in the set-tlement of Washington's Columbia Basin Project were consid-ered by Straus (1958)# who found that wives of "high-success" operators were more l i k e l y to prefer husband-dominant decision-making patterns than were wives of "low-success" operators. Wives in the two groups appeared to have different values, attitudes, and personality characteristics, although there were no appreciable differences in background characteristics or direct economic contributions to the family. Straus sug-gested that the factors differentiating the two groups were those which enabled the wife to play "a personally supportive and complementary role in helping her husband to meet the many decisions, d i f f i c u l t i e s , and frustrations which arise in developing a new farm." Later Straus (i960) tested the hypothesis that the husband's technological competence is associated with an integrative-supportive wife role. Scores on a "wife role sup-portiveness index" were found to partly explain the variance in husband's adoption scores. However, there was no indica-tion of whether the wife's a b i l i t y to play a supporting role f a c i l i t a t e d her husband's increasing competence, or whether his increasing competence encouraged her emphasis on a sup-porting role. The Wife's Decision-Making Role Since the farm business is traditionally the realm of the husband, i t can hardly be expected that the w i f e — i n 17 spi t e of ei t h e r democratic decision-making norms or her a b i l -i t y to play a supporting r o l e — w i l l assume the major respon-s i b i l i t y f o r decisions r e l a t i n g to the farm business. Some insights into the nature and extent of her influence, however, can be teased out of several studies. Perhaps the most extensive investigations i n terms of t h e i r relevance to the wife's decision-making r o l e are Wilken-ing and Bharadwaj's (1967t 1968) studies of the dimensions of farm and family decision-making. Drawing on findings from an e a r l i e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of role consensus i n decision-making (Wilkening and Morrison, 1963)i wives were asked how eighteen farm and family decisions were " a c t u a l l y made" while husbands were asked how the decisions "ought to be made." The hus-bands' responses were thought to r e f l e c t the norms of the family and perhaps of the community, while the wives* r e -sponses indicated how the decisions were made i n p r a c t i c e . Factor analysis of the de c i s i o n items (based on the wives' responses) yielded two rather well-defined factors i n the farm area. "Farm resource" decisions r e l a t e d to buy-ing or renting land, borrowing money f o r the farm, and buy-ing farm equipment; "farm operations" decisions concerned how much f e r t i l i z e r to buy, whether to t r y a new crop, and what make of machinery to buy. Intercorrelations of husband and wife measures, taken separately, indicated that wives who were expected to be, and a c t u a l l y were, involved i n farm resource decisions also tended to be involved i n farm operations decisions. The wife's 18 o v e r a l l involvement i n farm decision-making appeared to be r e l a t i v e l y independent of her involvement i n household and family decision-making. Other studies (Abell, 1961; Ross and Bostian, 1965; Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural L i f e , 1956; and Slocum and Brough, 1962) have also examined husband-wife de-cision-making r o l e s . A l l but one (Ross and Bostian, who i n -cluded only farm decisions) have focused on involvement i n both farm and family decisions, with emphasis on the family area. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , when the findings f o r farm d e c i s i o n -making are sorted out, i t seems that the husband tends to assume the major r o l e although considerable evidence of j o i n t decision-making i s apparent. Decisions involving major changes or commitments of money seem to be made j o i n t l y i n most fam-i l i e s , or by the husband a f t e r discussion with the wife, while minor decisions appear to be made mostly by the husband alone. In one of the most extensive instances of j o i n t i n -volvement reported, 62 per cent of the wives i n Abell*s (1961) sample reported being consulted when farm f i n a n c i a l plans were made. In contrast, only 35 per cent of the wives were involved i n decisions concerning the purchase of farm equip-ment and machinery. Observing that husband-dominant decision-making pat-terns appear consistently i n some f a m i l i e s , and j o i n t de-cision-making patterns i n others, several investigators have 19 considered factors possibly associated with the extent of the wife's involvement in farm decision-making. In what now can be considered practically a histor-i c a l study, Beers (1937) found that the tendency for husbands to be solely responsible for farm decisions was more marked in families l i v i n g on large farms. He speculated that "as standards of competitive business efficiency enter farming, the s p l i t t i n g of executive responsibility into home and farm divisions may become more pronounced." Some twenty years later, Wilkening (1958) found support for the same hypothesis when he considered the husband and wife's overall involvement in both home and farm decisions. Income and education were found to be negatively asso-ciated with the wife's participation in farm decision-making in Wilkening and Bharadwaj's (1968) study. Work roles and aspirations (goal-striving) were also explored. A positive relationship was noted between the wife's involvement in farm tasks and her involvement in farm decision-making. Aspira-tions for home improvements were also positively associated with involvement in farm decisions, although other aspirations (for farm improvements, community participation, and child development) appeared to have l i t t l e effect on decision-making patterns. The po s s i b i l i t y that there is a relationship between the wife's perception of information sources and her partic-ipation in farm business operations has been suggested by Ross and Bostian (1965) in their investigation of the farm wife's 20 o r i e n t a t i o n towards media*, Although one aspect of t h e i r study concerned the wife's involvement i n farm decisions, the auth-ors regrettably did not follow through with t h e i r promise to consider the association between media behavior and d e c i s i o n -making patterns (Bostian, 1970) 0 P r i m a r i l y interested i n explaining variance i n hus-bands' adoption scores, Straus (i960) found l i t t l e evidence of j o i n t farm decision-making patterns i n eithe r high- or low-adopter groups. Observing that other wife-related v a r i -ables did d i f f e r e n t i a t e the two extreme groups, however, he concluded that further studies of the wife's r o l e w i l l l i k e l y r e s u l t i n a more complete understanding of adoption behavior than i s possible when analysis i s r e s t r i c t e d to the custom-ary socioeconomic and farm operator v a r i a b l e s . Neither Straus nor other investigators appear to have considered the wife's involvement i n decisions to adopt s p e c i f i c p r a c t i c e s , although findings from at l e a s t two st u -dies suggest that she may have some influence i n such matters. Investigating adoption patterns as re l a t e d to family f a c t o r s , Wilkening (1953) found some i n d i c a t i o n that wives affected the acceptance of various technological changes— about 40 per cent of the 165 farm operators interviewed r e -ported that t h e i r wives had encouraged such changes. Farm wives included i n Wilkening and Guerrero's (1968) study of aspirations and adoption were thought to i n -fluence the adoption of c e r t a i n practices more than t h e i r hus-bands, apparently due to the wives' involvement i n keeping 21 farm records and handling farm business a f f a i r s . There was some evidence that husbands and wives had d i f f e r e n t ideas about what constituted farm improvements. Husbands tended to be p r i m a r i l y concerned with management aspects of land and l i v e s t o c k , while wives were more interested i n practices a f -f e c t i n g immediate cash outlay and return. In summary, analyses of the wife's farm decision-making r o l e have tended to be a feature of investigations focusing on the r e l a t i v e involvement of husbands and wives i n decisions pertaining to both farm and home a c t i v i t i e s . Although there i s considerable evidence of j o i n t decision-making i n farm matters, few studies have examined factors possibly associated with the extent of the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n such d e c i s i o n s . Those studies which have been reported have r e s t r i c t e d analysis to predictors of the wife's involvement i n decisions which can be considered as r e l a t i n g to the farm enterprise i n general. Her.particular involvement i n decisions leading to the adoption of a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations does not appear to have been examined d i r e c t l y , even though the adoption process continues to provide a major t h e o r e t i c a l framework fo r the study of farm decision-making. CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURE The research strategy evolved from the formulation of directional hypotheses predicting variables expected to be associated with the extent of the wife's participation in farm decisions. The survey method was ut i l i z e d , with data relating to the wife's farm decision-making role collected in per-sonal interviews with sixty-seven farm wives l i v i n g in the Lower Fraser Valley of Brit i s h Columbia. The following sections present the hypotheses, the rationale for their directional predictions, and the oper-ational definitions of the variables examined. Procedures used in sampling, data collection, and data analysis are then described. HYPOTHESES Directional hypotheses, advanced at the outset of the study and corresponding to the questions underlying i t s purpose, predicted thati 1. The wife's seeking of information about farm matters in general, and her contact with the Agricultural Extension Service in particular, i s positively associated with her involvement in farm decision-making. 22 2. The wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm tasks i s p o s i -t i v e l y associated with her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm decisions. 3. Indicators of socioeconomic s t a t u s — s u c h as income, size of farm, education, and the wife's s o c i a l par-t i c i p a t i o n — a r e negatively associated with the wife's i n -volvement i n farm decision-making, while age i s p o s i t i v e l y associated. 4. The number of childr e n i n the family i s nega-t i v e l y associated with the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions pertaining to farm matters. 5. The husband's adoption of a g r i c u l t u r a l innova-tions i s negatively associated with his wife's involvement i n decisions about those innovations and about farm matters i n general. Clues s i f t e d from the l i t e r a t u r e provided the r a t i o n ale f o r the p r e d i c t i o n s . Since decision-making patterns appear to evolve as husbands and wives p a r t i c i p a t e according to t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s (Kenkel, 1966), i t would seem to follow that wives who become knowledgeable about farm matters probably increase t h e i r chances of making a useful contribution i n farm decision-making. Such knowledge might accumulate as the wife's perception of information sources i s influenced by her involvement i n the business operations of the farm (Ross and Bostian, 1965)1 or as r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n d e c i s i o n -making i s accompanied by r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r gathering i n f o r -mation about the content of the decisions. Since psycho-24 l o g i c a l involvement increases as information-seeking behavior becomes purposive (Rogers, 1962), active information-seeking would seem to imply a degree of personal commitment which might carry over into decision-making s i t u a t i o n s where the information i s relevant. I t might be supposed then that the wife's seeking of information about farm matters i n general, and her contact with the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s p o s i t i v e l y associated with her involvement i n farm decisions, A d i s t i n c t i v e feature of farm l i v i n g i s that the place of work i s usually adjacent to the place of residence. Tasks tend to be close at hand, and farm work l i k e woman's work i s never done. The a c c e s s i b i l i t y of such tasks and t h e . a v a i l a b i l -i t y of a wife to do them may r e s u l t i n the wife's assuming an active farm work r o l e . Wives who do so seem l i k e l y to be i n -terested i n the outcomes of decisions d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g t h e i r work r o l e s , and may f i n d that t h e i r experience provides them with claims i n decision-making. Involvement i n d e c i s i o n -making might even lead to involvement i n tasks i n the f i r s t place, as r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r decisions overlaps into work role s as the decisions are implemented. Since doing and deciding appear to be r e l a t e d , with patterns of family task a l l o c a t i o n s i m i l a r to those of d e c i s -ion-making (Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1967, 1968), a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n might be expected between the wife's p a r t i c i p a -t i o n i n farm tasks and her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm d e c i s i o n -making. 25 As socioeconomic levels increase, there is some i n -dication that family decision-making roles become more spe-cialized, with husbands tending to become less involved in household decisions and wives less involved in farm decisions (Beers, 1937? Wilkening, 1958? Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1968)* Decisions pertaining directly to the farm are perhaps of less concern to the wife when the allocation of resources between farm and home units i s not particularly c r i t i c a l . As income and farm size increase, her opportunities to participate in the management of the farm business may be restricted by her limited knowledge and experience. Since funds are l i k e l y available to hire outside help, there may be l i t t l e or no need for her to be involved in farm matters and she may find herself occupied instead with nonfarm a c t i v i t i e s . Indicators of socioeconomic status such as income, size of farm, education, and the wife's social participation might therefore be expected to be negatively associated with the wife's involvement in farm decision-making, while age might be expected to be positively associated. Variations in role as well as status are reflected i n another socioeconomic variable, family size. Although family size does not appear to have been examined in studies of farm decision-making patterns, researchers not confined to rural populations have provided evidence that the larger the fam-i l y , the more l i k e l y i t is to be characterized by husband-dominant decision-making, even with social class held con-stant (Campbell, 1971» Nye, Carlson, and Garrett, 1971). 26 A wife with a large family may find that demands made on her in the household area leave l i t t l e time for her to be involved in other a c t i v i t i e s , such as those relating to the farm busi-ness. Perhaps the fact that she has a large family in the f i r s t place is a manifestation of a particular orientation towards the mother role (or her husband's particular orien-tation towards the husband role). In any case, i t seems tenable that the number of c h i l -dren in the family is negatively associated with the wife's participation in decisions pertaining to farm matters. While the wife's farm decision-making role has been the subject of relatively few studies, an abundance of data has been accumulated regarding her husband's decision-making activity, particularly where the adoption of agricultural innovations i s concerned (Lionberger, I960: Rogers and Shoe-maker, 1971)* Even though such data indicate that adoption behavior is associated with personal and social character-i s t i c s of the farm operator himself, his wife has received l i t t l e attention, and her involvement in specific adoption decisions does not seem to have been examined at a l l . There is some indication, however, that the husband's acceptance of technological changes i s associated with his wife's empha-sis on a supporting role defined in terms of her a c t i v i t i e s as homemaker and mother, and that l i t t l e joint decision-making in general farm matters appears to occur in high-adopter fam-i l i e s (Straus, I960). 2? Since the acceptance of a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations tends to be linked with socioeconomic status (Rogers and Shoe-maker, 1971)* i t might be suspected that early-adopter fami-l i e s e x h i b i t the " s p l i t " decision-making patterns found to be associated with increasing socioeconomic l e v e l s (Beers, 19371 Wilkening, 1958: Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1968). Not only might the scope of the farm business a f f e c t the wife's oppor-tu n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n farm decision-making i n general, but the complexity often ch a r a c t e r i z i n g adoption decision-making may require s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge and s k i l l s she does not possess. In keeping with t h i s r a t i o n a l e , the husband's adop-t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations might be expected to be negatively associated with his wife's involvement i n d e c i -sions about those innovations and about farm matters i n general. MEASURES OF DECISION-MAKING The wife's involvement i n farm decision-making was operationalized by constructing two ad hoc indices, one d e a l -ing generally with o v e r a l l management aspects of the farm enterprise (general farm decision-making), the other r e l a t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y to the adoption of a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations (adoption decision-making). A l l of the decisions studied were thought to be rep-resentative of those normally encountered by farm f a m i l i e s , and l i k e l y to have been considered within recent memory. 28 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n general farm decisions was determined by responses to items designed to r e f l e c t the r e l a t i v e involve-ment of husband and wife i n twelve decisions concerning farm operations and resources. Some of the decisions related to routine matters, while others concerned major changes i n the farm enterprise or large commitments of f i n a n c i a l resources. Response categories f o r each decision item were "husband only, "husband more than wife," "husband and wife about equally," "wife more than husband," and "wife only." A l t e r -natives were weighted from 2 to 6 i n the order given, and a t o t a l score was computed f o r each respondent by summing the weights recorded. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n adoption decision-making was meas-ured by assessing the r e l a t i v e involvement of husband and wife i n decisions leading to the adoption of s i x a g r i c u l t u r a l inno-vations. Involvement was considered at each of the f i v e tra-: d i t i o n a l stages i n the adoption process—awareness, i n t e r e s t , evaluation, t r i a l , and adoption—plus a s i x t h stage, discon-tinuance. Response categories—"husband only," "husband more than wife," "husband and wife about equally," "wife more than husband," and "wife only"—were assigned weights of 0 , 10, 2 0 , 3 0 , and 40. So that wives whose husbands had made more progress towards adoption would not accumulate spuriously high scores, a mean score f o r each innovation was calculated f o r each r e -spondent by summing the weights recorded and d i v i d i n g by the number of stages at which decisions were made. The subtotals f o r each innovation were then combined into a t o t a l score. 29 Individual d e c i s i o n items and a discussion of the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the decision-making indices are presented i n Chapter V. MEASURES OF PREDICTOR VARIABLES Operationally d e f i n i n g the predictor variables f o r r e -search purposes involved the construction of ad hoc indices measuring information-seeking and task involvement, and the consideration of other terms having varying connotations. The wife's seeking of farm information was operation-a l l y defined by constructing an index combiningi (a) the number of information sources used i n decision-makingi (b) the number of a g r i c u l t u r a l meetings, f i e l d days, and short courses attended during the past two years t and (c) weights recorded f o r four items concerning the wife's transmitting of a g r i c u l -t u r a l information to her husband and he to her, with the r e -sponses "never," "seldom," "occasionally," "frequently," and "very frequently" assigned values from 0 to 4 . Extension contact, considered as a s p e c i f i c type of information-seeking a c t i v i t y , was defined as the t o t a l num-ber of the wife's contacts with agents of the -Agricultural Extension Service during the past year. Data were c o l l e c t e d i n categories of personal and impersonal contacts suggested by Rogers and Capener ( i 9 6 0 ) . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm tasks was measured by an i n -dex assessing the wife's involvement r e l a t i v e to that of her husband i n twelve tasks d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the farm enter-p r i s e . 30 A t o t a l score was computed by summing weights from 2 to 6 f o r the responses "husband only," "husband more than wife," "hus-band and wife about equally," "wife more than husband,*? and "wife only," Individual items and i n d i c a t i o n s of the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the task involvement and information-seeking indices are reported i n Chapter IV, In other d e f i n i t i o n s , income was considered as the gross value of sales from a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l operations and si z e of farm as the t o t a l number of acres farmed. Educa-t i o n a l l e v e l s of both husband and wife were defined as the number of years completed i n school, while ages were expressed i n nearest whole number of years. For number of c h i l d r e n , a l l c h i l d r e n i n the family were counted regardless of t h e i r age or residence. The wife's s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was measured by the Chapin S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale (Chapin, 1955)» with a t o t a l score formed by combining values from 1 to 5 f o r organ-i z a t i o n membership, attendance, f i n a n c i a l contributions, com-mittee membership, and holding o f f i c e . The scale does not i n -clude church membership, although p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n church-r e l a t e d organizations i s considered. The husband's acceptance of a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations was defined i n terms of an o v e r a l l score i n d i c a t i n g h i s pro-gress towards the adoption of the same s i x innovations used i n determining the wife's involvement i n adoption d e c i s i o n s . For each innovation, values from 1 to 5 were assigned to the 3 1 . stages of awareness, i n t e r e s t , evaluation, t r i a l , and adop-t i o n (Alleyne and Verner, 1 9 6 9 a ) • THE SAMPLE Providing the data f o r the study were sixty-seven farm couples l i v i n g i n the Lower Fraser Valley, a highly d i -v e r s i f i e d a g r i c u l t u r a l area of B r i t i s h Columbia. The husbands were a part of Alleyne and Verner*s (1969a, 1 9 6 9 b ) sample of 1 0 0 commercial strawberry growers, randomly selected from a population of 194, and c l a s s i f i e d f o r t h i s study by ma r i t a l status and current residence. The r e s u l t i n g subsample, con s i s t i n g of seventy-six couples s t i l l l i v i n g i n the Valley, eventually shrank to sixty-seven—seven wives refused to p a r t i c i p a t e , one was on a six-month holiday, and another was omitted because of i l l n e s s . The f a c t that the respondents had not been randomly selected f o r t h i s study was not viewed as p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s -turbing. The o r i g i n a l sample offered the advantage of hav-ing already proved u s e f u l f o r the precise examination of ad-option behavior, with the data c o l l e c t e d by Alleyne and Ver-ner ( 1 9 6 9 a , 1 9 6 9 b ) conveniently providing a major v a r i a b l e , the husband's adoption score. Other a v a i l a b l e data suggested possible items f o r the indices r e l a t i n g to the wife's par-t i c i p a t i o n i n decision-making, information-seeking, and farm tasks. DATA COLLECTION 32 Data were c o l l e c t e d i n personal interviews during the f a l l of 1 9 7 0 . Wives self-reported t h e i r involvement i n decision-making, and were the source of a l l other data ex-cept income, size of farm, and husbands* adoption scores, which were taken from the husbands' responses recorded by Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 a , 1 9 6 9 b ) • The interview schedule (Appendix D) was pretested on f i v e farm wives not included i n the sample and f i v e Uni-v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia student-wives with farm back-grounds. The relevancy of the decision-making, information-seeking, and task involvement items was discussed with l o c a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service personnel. S i x t y wives were interviewed by the inve s t i g a t o r , while two University of B r i t i s h Columbia women graduate s t u -dents interviewed the seven wives who spoke l i t t l e or no E n g l i s h . Interview sessions averaged about f o r t y - f i v e min-utes. Husbands were not present. Responses to open-ended questions were recorded on face sheets i d e n t i f y i n g each respondent, while other r e -sponses were recorded d i r e c t l y on computer coding forms and l a t e r keypunched on cards f o r processing at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre. DATA ANALYSIS S t a t i s t i c a l techniques used were Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n ( r ) , one-way analysis of variance f o r 33 unequal numbers of subjects followed by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (Winer, 1 9 6 2 ) , and factor analysis by the prin-cipal component method with reference axes rotated orthog-onally (Harman, 1 9 6 7 ) • Tests of significance were made at the . 0 5 and . 0 1 levels for correlation coefficients and F values, while the . 0 1 level only was adopted for Duncan's New Multiple Range Tests. Factors were interpreted by u t i l i z i n g variables which had factor loadings of at least . 4 5 . CHAPTER IV CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS A background f o r the analysis and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data r e l a t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y to the wife's decision-making r o l e i s established by a de t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the respon-dents, with p a r t i c u l a r reference to the predictor v a r i a b l e s . INFORMATION-SEEKING ACTIVITY Three aspects of the wife's o v e r a l l farm information-seeking a c t i v i t y were i n v e s t i g a t e d — h e r attendance at a g r i -c u l t u r a l meetings, f i e l d days, and short courses i her use of information sources i n farm decision-making, and the trans-m i t t i n g of a g r i c u l t u r a l information within the family. Wives* attendance at meetings, f i e l d days, and short courses was low, with only seven wives (10.4 per cent) i n d i -cating that they had attended a t o t a l of f i f t e e n such events during the past two years. Three wives (4.5 per cent) had been to meetings of the Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improve-ment Association, and three had attended the Association's annual two-day Growers' Short Course. Strawberry F i e l d Day, sponsored annually by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service, had been attended by s i x of the respondents (9 per cent). The wife's use of information sources i n farm d e c i -sion-making was not p a r t i c u l a r l y widespread, although about one-third of the wives (34.4 per cent) reported drawing upon 34 3 5 such sources when confronted with decisions relating directly to farm operations and resources. The mean number of sources named by these respondents was 2 . 0 . Information-seeking re-lated specifically to decisions concerning the six agricul-tural innovations investigated was not as extensive. Only fourteen wives ( 2 0 . 9 per cent) reported such activity, and indicated consulting an average of 1 . 5 information sources per innovation. For both general farm and adoption decision-making, wives tended to rely mostly on sources of a personal nature, such as friends, neighbors, relatives, or their own experi-ence. (Table 1 ) The use of personal sources in making deci-sions about general farm matters was reported by 3 4 . 3 per cent of the respondents, while 1 6 . 4 per cent used such sources i n decisions relating to adoption. Information originating from government sources, namely the Agricultural Extension Service, TABLE 1 INFORMATION SOURCES IN DECISION-MAKINGt CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN AND BY WIVES* USE AND NON-USE Origin* General Use decisions Non-use % Adoption decisions Use Non-use Government 2 0 . 9 7 9 . 1 1 3 . 4 8 6 . 6 Commercial 1 0 . 4 8 9 . 6 1 . 5 9 8 . 5 Farm organizations 3 . 0 9 7 . 0 3 . 0 9 7 . 0 Personal 3 4 . 3 6 5 . 7 1 6 . 4 8 3 . 6 Categories according to Verner and Gubbels ( 1 9 6 7 ) . 36 was used "by 20.9 per cent of the wives i n general farm d e c i -sion-making and by 13.4 per cent i n adoption decision-making. R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e use was reported of information from com-mercial sources or from farm organizations. The transmitting of a g r i c u l t u r a l information within the family was explored generally i n four items, with the r e -sponses "never," "seldom," "occasionally," "frequently,? and "very frequently" assigned weights from 0 to 4. The highest mean weight (1.6) was recorded f o r the wife's o v e r a l l communication of a g r i c u l t u r a l information to her husband ("Do you ever t e l l your husband something you have read or heard about a g r i c u l t u r a l matters?"). (Table 2) Con-siderably lower weights were recorded f o r the other three itemst "Does your husband ever bring home a g r i c u l t u r a l pub-l i c a t i o n s f o r you to read?" (.5)i "°o you ever bring home a g r i c u l t u r a l publications f o r him to read?" (.7)» and "When your husband i s considering a new farm practice do you your-s e l f t r y and f i n d out about i t ? " (.8). The index providing an o v e r a l l measure of the wife's information-seeking a c t i v i t y combined a l l aspects of informa-tion-seeking investigated! the number of meetings, f i e l d days, and short courses attended; the number of sources of i n -formation used i n farm decision-makingj and the weights r e -corded f o r the information transmittal items. Although none of the behaviors had been p a r t i c u l a r l y widespread when examined i n d i v i d u a l l y , t o t a l scores on the information-seeking index, ranging from 0 to 31t r e f l e c t e d TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WIVES BY RESPONSES TO INFORMATION TRANSMITTAL ITEMS Occas- Fre- Very fre-Never Seldom ionally quently quently Item (xO) (xl) (x2) (x3) (x4) Meana Husband brings home publications on agricul-tural matters for wife to read 71.7 4.5 13.4 7.5 3.0 .7 Wife brings home publications on agricul-tural matters for husband to read 76.1 4.5 11,9 4.5 3.0 .5 Wife t e l l s husband what she has read or heard about agricultural matters . . 29.9 14.9 34.3 10.5 10.5 1.6 Wife tries to find out about new practice husband i s considering 64.2 9.0 13.4 9.0 4.5 .8 a The mean for each row was calculated on the basis of the weights shown—"never" = 0, "seldom" = 1, and so on. 3 8 considerable v a r i a t i o n among respondents. The mean score was 7.87, skewed p o s i t i v e l y , with 2 2 . 4 per cent of the wives reporting no information-seeking a c t i v i t y at a l l . Item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the information-seeking index indicate that a l l aspects of a c t i v i t y studied (with the exception of meetings attended) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the t o t a l score (Table 3 ) « The o r i g i n a l communality f o r the t o t a l score ( . 9 9 ) suggests high r e l i a b i l i t y . Assuming that each i n d i v i d u a l item i s a face v a l i d measure of i n f o r -mation-seeking a c t i v i t y , the inter-item c o r r e l a t i o n s indicate that the index has considerable v a l i d i t y . Information-seeking scores were p o s i t i v e l y associated at the . 0 1 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e with the wife's Extension con-tac t (r = . 3 6 ) and her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm tasks (r = . 3 2 ) . EXTENSION CONTACT Wives* contacts with the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Ser-v i c e , considered as a separate type of information-seeking a c t i v i t y , tended to be r e l a t i v e l y low. Although a mean of 3 . 8 5 was recorded f o r the number of contacts during the pre-vious year, 5 3 »7 per cent of the wives reported no contact whatsoever. A l l of the contacts were with l o c a l D i s t r i c t H o r t i -c u l t u r i s t s , who s p e c i a l i z e i n crops such as strawberries and other small f r u i t s . None of the respondents reported con-tacts with the l o c a l D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t s , who are con-cerned with general farming. TABLE 3 . INFORMATION-SEEKING INDEX« INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG 3TEMSa 8 Item 1. Husband brings home publications on agricul-tural matters for wife to read . . . . . . . .22 2. Wife brings home publications on agricul-.37 . 0 5 level = .24 3. Wife t e l l s husband what she has read or .44 .47 .01 level = . 3 1 4. Wife tries to find out about new practice .34 .63 .76 5. Number of agricultural meetings, f i e l d days, and short courses attended * . - . 0 5 -.01 . 0 9 .00 . 0 3 6. Number of sources of information used in .44 .57 .85 .00 .78 7. Number of sources of information used in .37 .47 .62 .10 .68 .49 8. .63 .73 .81 .15 .84 .86 a Original communalities are reported in the principal diagonal. These are included as estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y . 40 TABLE 4 EXTENSION CONTACTS t CLASSIFIED BY TYPE AND BY USE AND NON-USE Wives Husbands Use Non-use Use Non-use Type of contact # % $> % Meetings, f i e l d days spon-9 2 . 5 V i s i t s to the farm by 9 7 . 0 6 4 . 2 35.8 V i s i t to the agent's 9 4 . 0 44.8 55.2 Telephone c a l l s to the 2 0 . 9 79.1 71.6 28.4 Radio or t e l e v i s i o n pro-grams given by agent. • • 2 0 . 9 79.1 7 0 . 2 2 9 . 8 Newspaper a r t i c l e s written 2 2 . 4 77.6 82.1 17.9 C i r c u l a r l e t t e r s or b u l l e -3 2 . 8 6 7 . 2 85.1 14.9 Categories according to Rogers and Capener ( i 9 6 0 ) . Data provided by Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 b ) , who d i d not include a category r e l a t i n g to meetings or f i e l d days. The wives tended to r e l y on impersonal types of con-ta c t , with the heaviest use reported f o r c i r c u l a r l e t t e r s or b u l l e t i n s ( 3 2 . 8 per cent), newspaper a r t i c l e s ( 2 2 . 4 per cent), and radio or t e l e v i s i o n programs ( 2 0 . 9 per cent). (Table 4 ) The extent of personal contact was considerably lower, although 2 0 . 9 per cent of the wives had made telephone c a l l s to the agent's o f f i c e . The pattern noted was s i m i l a r to that exhibited by the respondents* husbands—although the husbands reported 41 more extensive use of a l l types of contact, they too drew mostly on impersonal sources. The wife's Extension contact was p o s i t i v e l y associated with her o v e r a l l information-seeking a c t i v i t y (r = .36), her involvement i n farm tasks (r = .27), her s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n (r * .30)» and her husband's adoption score (r = .3*0• («05 l e v e l = .24t .01 l e v e l = .31) TASK INVOLVEMENT The twelve farm tasks studied r e l a t e d to the farm business i n general and strawberry production i n p a r t i c u l a r . The mean weights f o r each task item, r e f l e c t i n g the extent of the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e l a t i v e to her husband's, ranged from 2.4 to 4.4, where a weight of 2 equals "husband only" and 4 represents "husband and wife about equally." (Table 5) Tasks s p e c i f i c to strawberry production had the high-est mean weightst hand weeding (4.4), removing blossoms (4,2), s e t t i n g runners (4,1), supervising pickers (4.1) f r e -c r u i t i n g pickers (3»8), and planting b e r r i e s (3«8). Somewhat lower weights were recorded f o r the f i v e items concerning the handling of finances, such as wr i t i n g checks (3»6), paying pickers (3*6), paying b i l l s (3.5)» com-p l e t i n g income tax forms (3»5)» and keeping farm accounts (3«^)« Working with farm machinery was the sole r e s p o n s i b i l -i t y of the husbands i n a sub s t a n t i a l majority of the f a m i l i e s , r e s u l t i n g i n the lowest mean weight (2.4) f o r that item. TABLE 5 TASK INVOLVEMENTi PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WIVES BY EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN EACH FARM TASK Task Neither spouse Husband only (x2) Husband more (x3) About equally (x4) Wife more <x5) Wife only (x6) Meana Recruits pickers 13.4 19.4 6.0 41.8 7.5 12.0 3.8 Keeps farm accounts 9.0 46.3 10.5 7.5 1.5 25.4 3.4 Pays b i l l s 3.0 44.8 7.5 17.9 7.5 19.4 3.5 Works with farm machinery 6.0 67.2 16.4 7.5 1.5 1.5 2.4 Completes income tax forms 55.2 25.4 3.0 1.5 — 14.9 3.5 Pays pickers 6.0 44.8 — 20.9 4.5 23.9 3.6 Plants berries 20.9 16.4 43.3 6.0 9 .0 3.8 Does hand weeding 17.9 11.9 1.5 32.8 11.9 23.9 4.^ Sets runners between rows 22.4 17.9 1.5 31.3 10.5 16.4 4.1 Removes blossoms 35.8 11.9 1.5 29.9 4.5 16.4 4.2 Writes checks 4.5 32.8 9.0 34.3 7.5 11.9 3.6 Supervises pickers 19.4 22.4 6.0 19.4 7.5 25.4 4.1 a The mean for each row was calculated on the basis of the weights shown—"husband only" = 2, "hus-band more" = 3i and so on. TABLE 6 TASK INVOLVEMENT INDEX: INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG ITEMSa Task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Recruits pickers .46 2. Keeps farm accounts .24 .76 .05 level = .24 3. Pays b i l l s .25 .83 .84 .01 level = .31 4. Works with farm machinery .23 .03 .13 .21 5. Completes income tax forms .19 .59 .56 .15 .52 6. Pays pickers .45 .64 .72 .22 .40 .63 7. Plants berries .12 .08 .10 .28 .25 .02 .40 8. Does hand weeding .13 .06 .05 .20 .27 .08 .54 .67 9. Sets runners between rows .12 .12 .02 .18 .24 .04 .39 .74 .69 10. Removes blossoms .27 .18 .10 .21 .39 .23 .63 .71 .63 11. Writes checks .33 .59 .76 .21 .50 .58 .07 .01 .03 .15 .65 12. Supervises pickers .57 .13 .17 .31 .32 .30 .19 .30 .36 .40 .35 .51 13. Total .53 .60 .60 .39 .68 .60 .48 .62 .62 .68 .58 .62 .99 a Original comraunalities are reported i n the principal diagonal. These are included as estimates of r e l i a -b i l i t y . 44 Each of the task items was p o s i t i v e l y correlated at the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e with t o t a l scores on the task involvement index, and the o r i g i n a l communality f o r the t o t a l score ( . 9 9 ) indicates a high estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y . (Table 6) Assuming that each item i s a face v a l i d measure of task involvement, the inter-item c o r r e l a t i o n s suggest considerable evidence of the index's v a l i d i t y . The wife's o v e r a l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm tasks was p o s i t i v e l y associated with her information-seeking a c t i v i t y (r = .32) and her Extension contact (r = . 2 7 ) , and negatively associated with income (r = - . 4 3 ) , s i z e of farm (r = -.42), and the number o f . c h i l d r e n i n the family (r = -.24). ( .05 l e v e l = ,24| . 0 1 l e v e l = .31) INCOME, SIZE OF FARM Although small f r u i t production was the major enter-pr i s e of 85 per cent of the f a m i l i e s , most had other a g r i c u l -t u r a l operations as we l l , including vegetables ( 2 2 . 4 per cent), l i v e s t o c k (13 «4 per cent), d a i r y ( 1 1 . 9 per cent), and poul-t r y ( 4 . 5 per cent). Gross a g r i c u l t u r a l income from a l l operations aver-aged $ 3 3 i 4 9 4 , and the mean size of farm was 6 3 . 6 6 acres. (Table 7) D i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r both variables were d e f i n i t e l y and p o s i t i v e l y skewed, however. More than h a l f of the r e -spondents (55«2 per cent) reported incomes of l e s s than $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , and more than h a l f (53«7 per cent) had holdings of fewer than 15 a c r e s 0 4 5 TABLE 7 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL PREDICTOR VARIABLES AND FOR ALL RESPONDENTS81 Variable Mean S.D. Inf ormation-seeking 7.87 8.72 Extension contact 3.85 6.27 Task involvement 36.27 13.31 Income 33iW.OO 60,892.70 Size of farm 63.66 133.05 Age--husband 53.52 11.03 Age—wife 48.78 9 .63 Education--husband 8.43 3.14 Education—wife 8.84 3.42 S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n 9.69 11.54 Number of c h i l d r e n 3.91 2.22 Husband's adoption score 26.15 3.17 a Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r a l l predictor variables are reported i n Appendix A. As might be expected, income and farm size were highly correlated (r = . 9 1 ) * with p a r a l l e l patterns of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with other v a r i a b l e s . Each was p o s i t i v e l y associated with the husband's adoption score (r = . 2 9 f o r income and .24 f o r farm size) and the educational l e v e l s of both husband (r = . 3 0 and , 3 6 ) and wife (r = .46 and . 3 9 ) . Negatively re l a t e d to both income (r = - . 4 3 ) and farm size (r = -.42) was the wife's i n -volvement i n farm tasks. ( . 0 5 l e v e l = .241 . 0 1 l e v e l * . 3 1 ) 46 AGE, EDUCATION, AND SOCIAL PARTICIPATION The couples tended to be middle-aged or older—none of the husbands or wives were under 2 5 years of age, while more than one-third were 5 5 or more. Mean ages were 5 3 * 5 2 f o r husbands and 4 8 , 7 8 f o r wives. Both husbands and wives had completed an average of about eight years i n school. Eight wives ( 1 1 . 9 per cent) and nine husbands ( 1 3*4 per cent) were f u n c t i o n a l l y i l l i t e r a t e , having le s s than f i v e years of schooling. At the other ex-treme, more wives (26 . 9 per cent) than husbands ( 1 2 per cent) had completed grade twelve. Although none had received a de-gree, f i v e husbands and f i v e wives had attended u n i v e r s i t y . The wife's l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as measured by the Chapin Index (Chapin, 1 9 5 5 ) » was r e l a t i v e l y low. Scores of l e s s than 1 5 were recorded f o r 7 9 . 1 per cent of the r e -spondents, and 22.4 per cent reported no s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n at a l l . The wives* mean score of 9 . 6 9 was considerably lower than the mean of 13.64 recorded f o r t h e i r husbands by Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 a ) • Husbands* and wives* educational l e v e l s were p o s i -t i v e l y correlated with income (r = . 3 0 f o r husbands and .46 f o r wives) and farm si z e (r = . 3 6 f o r husbands and . 3 9 f o r wives). The wife's s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was p o s i t i v e l y asso-ciated with her Extension contact (r = . 3 0 ) and negatively associated with her age (r = - . 3 7 ) . Age was also negatively related to the husbands' adoption scores (r = - . 4 5 f o r hus-bands and - . 4 4 f o r wives). ( . 0 5 l e v e l = ,24: . 0 1 l e v e l = . 3 1 ) . NUMBER OF CHILDREN 47 The mean number of c h i l d r e n per family was 3«91« Only three couples were c h i l d l e s s . Family size was negatively associated with the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm tasks at the . 0 5 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (r = -.24), but was not r e l a t e d to any of the socioeconomic v a r i a b l e s , such as income, size of farm, age, education, and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . HUSBAND'S ADOPTION SCORE The husbands' acceptance of technological change, indicated by t h e i r self-reported progress towards the adoption of s i x a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations i n strawberry production (Alleyne and Verner, 1969a), was r e l a t i v e l y high. The innovations investigated werei (a) v i r u s - f r e e c e r t i f i e d plants; (b) picking c a r t s i (c) chemical weed con-t r o l ; (d) s o i l analysis f o r nematode c o n t r o l ; (e) Captan f o r f r u i t - r o t c o n t r o l ; and (f) the use of matted rows instead of h i l l s as an i n - f i e l d layout system. Maximum adoption scores of 3 0 , i n d i c a t i n g acceptance of a l l s i x p r a c t i c e s , were recorded f o r 2 0 . 9 per cent of the operators. The mean score f o r a l l 6 7 respondents was 2 6 . 1 5 * Husbands adopting a l l s i x innovations had been c l a s s i -f i e d as "innovators/early adopters" by Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 a ) , who subdivided t h e i r sample of 1 0 0 growers into four adopter categories. Forty per cent of the husbands had been included i n Alleyne and Verner's "early majority" category, 48 while 31«3 per cent were described as "lat e majority" and 7.5 per cent as "laggards." Adoption scores were p o s i t i v e l y associated at the . 0 5 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e with farm si z e (r = .24) and income (r = . 2 9 ) , consistent with Rogers and Shoemaker's (1971) gen-e r a l i z a t i o n s that e a r l i e r adopters have larger farms and a more favorable f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n than do l a t e r adopters. The wife's Extension contact was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the husband's adoption score at the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f -icance (r = .34) , while age was negatively r e l a t e d (r = -•45 f o r husbands and - .44 f o r wives). CHAPTER V THE WIFE'S FARM DEC IS I ON -MAKING ROLE The exploration of the data r e l a t i n g to the wife's farm decision-making r o l e i s twofold. The wife's involvement i n decision-making r e l a t i v e to that of her husband i s f i r s t examined, with attention to the nature and content of the i n -d i v i d u a l decision items. The analysis then focuses on the predictor variables hypothesized to be associated with the ex-tent of the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions concerning gen-e r a l farm matters and decisions leading to the adoption of s p e c i f i c a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations. INVOLVEMENT IN FARM DECISIONS The farm decisions studied were selected to r e f l e c t a v a r i e t y of dec i s i o n areas, although they were thought to be representative of decisions l i k e l y to be encountered by farm fa m i l i e s and l i k e l y to have been considered r e c e n t l y . While the general farm de c i s i o n items provide an i n -d i c a t i o n of the wife's r e l a t i v e involvement i n o v e r a l l manage-ment aspects of the farm enterprise, the adoption de c i s i o n items permit a close look at her involvement i n a p a r t i c u l a r type of decision, as well as i n various stages of the adoption process. 4 9 50 General Farm Decisions The twelve decisions dealing with general farm oper-ations and resources represent ongoing concerns. Some d e c i -sions r e l a t e to routine matters, while others involve major changes i n the farm enterprise or large outlays of f i n a n c i a l resources. None of the items s p e c i f i c a l l y concerns straw-berry production since issues thought to be relevant to farm f a m i l i e s i n general are examined instead. The husband, not s u r p r i s i n g l y , appeared as the domi-nant partner i n a l l of the decisions studied (Table 8 ) . The mean weights f o r each decision item, r e f l e c t i n g the extent of the wife's involvement, ranged from 2.2 to 3*7t where a weight of 2 i s equivalent to "husband only" and 4 represents "hus-band and wife about equally." Considerable evidence of j o i n t decision-making i s apparent, however, fo r those decisions which can be seen as r e l a t i v e l y important. Borrowing money fo r the farm, buying or renting more land, and switching to a new crop were equal concerns of the husband and wife i n about 70 per cent of the f a m i l i e s , with the highest mean weights (3.6 and 3*7) recorded f o r these decisions. Issues r e l a t i n g generally to the accept-ance of technological changes (whether to try a new farm prac-t i c e ) were considered equally by both partners i n more than h a l f of the f a m i l i e s (mean weight = 3 . 4 ) . The l e a s t j o i n t involvement occurred i n decisions of a more or le s s minor or s p e c i f i c nature, such as what make of ma-chinery to buy, what kind of f e r t i l i z e r to use, and whether to attend an a g r i c u l t u r a l meeting (mean weights = 2.2 and 2 . 4 ) . TABLE 8 GENERAL DECISlON-MAKINGj PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION 0*' WIVES BY EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN EACH DECISION Never Husband Husband About Wife Wife consid- only more equal1y more only Decision ered (x2) (x3) (x4) (x5) (x6) Mean' Whether to try a new _ 22.4 26.9 46.3 4.5 — 3.3 Whether to buy or rent 11.9 14.9 70.2 1.5 — 3.6 Whether to borrow money 10.5 16.4 68.7 1.5 — 3.6 Whether to buy major 28.4 35.8 31.3 1.5 -- 3.0 What specific make of 86.6 9.0 3.0 — — 2.2 What kind of fertilizer 76.1 10.5 10.5 1.5 1.5 2.4 Whether to attend an agri-6 .0 79.1 1.5 7.5 1.5 2.4 Whether to subscribe to 70.2 10.5 6.0 7.5 1.5 2.5 How many farm workers 26.9 16.4 41.8 9.0 4.5 3.5 Whether to try a new 22.4 17.9 53.7 6.0 3.4 Whether to increase or de-13.4 20.9 61.2 4.5 — 3.5 Whether to switch to a 10.5 16.4 68.7 4.5 — 3.7 a The mean for each row was calculated on the basis of the weights shown--"husband only" = 2, "hus-band more" = 3, and so on. TABLE 9 GENERAL DECISION-MAKING INDEXt INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG ITEMSa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .65 ,54 .77 .05 level = .24 ,48 .77 .67 .01 level = .31 .29 .50 .47 .43 ,11 .12 .12 .35 .31 ,40 .26 .26 .14 .40 .49 ,40 .25 .25 .27 .23 .51 .86 ,37 .20 .21 .22 .22 .45 .91 .86 ,43 .40 .35 .22 .29 .51 .44 .48 .51 ,71 .58 .51 .41 .19 .44 .44 .41 .61 .78 •57 .72 .49 .47 .16 .43 .39 .34 .53 .78 .84 67 .72 .59 .43 .13 .39 .37 .38 .46 .63 .79 ,71 .72 .67 .59 .36 .61 .71 .68 .71 .81 .79 Decision        12 13 1. Whether to try a new crop variety 2. Whether to buy or rent more land • 3. Whether to borrow money for the farm 4. Whether to buy major farm equipment 5. What specific make of equipment to buy . . . . 6. What kind of, f e r t i l i z e r to use 7. Whether to attend an ag-ric u l t u r a l meeting . . . 8. Whether to subscribe to a farm publication • • • 9. How many farm workers to hire 10. Whether to try a new farm practice 11. Whether to increase or de-crease crop acreage. • • 12. Whether to switch to a .77 .77 .99 a Original communalities are reported i n the principal diagonal. These are included as estimates of r e l i -a b i l i t y . 53 Similar patterns have been noted by other investiga-tors, who have found that decisions involving major changes or commitments of financial resources seem to be made jointly in most families, while minor or routine decisions appear to be made mostly by the husband alone (Abell, 1961j Ross and Bostian, 1965? Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural Li f e , 1 9 5 6 : Slocum and Brough, 1 9 6 2 ) . The couples had encountered nearly a l l of the deci-sions investigated. At most, only about 5 per cent of the wives indicated that an individual decision item had never been considered in their families. Correlations between the individual items and total scores on the general decision-making index (Table 9) indicate internal consistency, while the original communality for the total score ( . 9 9 ) suggests high r e l i a b i l i t y . Assuming that each separate item is a face valid measure of decision-making, the inter-item correlations indicate that the general decision-making index has considerable v a l i d i t y . Adoption Decisions The adoption decisions studied concern six agricultural innovations in strawberry production. The wife's participation was considered at each of the five traditional stages in the adoption process--av/areness, interest, evaluation, t r i a l , and adoption—plus a sixth stage, discontinuance'. As noted for general farm decisions, the husband ob-viously assumes the major role in decisions leading to adoption. 54 Mean weights, indicating the extent of the wife's involvement at each stage, ranged from 1.8 to 8.8, where "husband only" equals 0, and "husband more than wife" equals 10. (Table 10) The husband's influence i s particularly noticeable at the awareness and interest stages (weights of 1.8 to 3*9) • Although there is no marked tendency for wives to be involved with one innovation more than another, their participation be-comes more apparent at the evaluation stage and increases through t r i a l and adoption (weights 6.4 to 8.8). These findings perhaps parallel those for general farm decisions, where joint decision-making was most evident for major concerns. The f i n a l decision to adopt may involve a large commitment of financial resources or changes in the structure of the farm business. As the adoption decision-making process progresses and the f i n a l decision nears, the extent of the wife's interest in the outcome may increase. In the early stages of the process, however, her husband is l i k e l y in a better position to become aware of the innovation in the f i r s t place and to collect information about i t s appli-cation to his particular farm situation. Since adoption takes place over time, i t was not ex-pected that every family would have made decisions corre-sponding to a l l stages for each innovation. While the use of virus-free ce r t i f i e d plants was widespread, with only 3 per cent of the wives reporting non-adoption, more than half ind i -cated that decisions to adopt picking carts had not been en-countered. There were no instances reported where innovations, once adopted, were subsequently discontinued. 55 TABLE 10 ADOPTION DECISION-MAKMGi PERCENTAGE DISTRIBlTflON OF WIVES BI EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT AT EACH ADOPTION STAGE Adoption stage Never consid-ered Husband Don't only know (x 0) Husband more (xlO) About equally (x20) Wife more (x30) Wife only (x40) Mean* Soil analysis for nematode control Awareness 3.0 89.6 -- 1 . 5 -- 6.0 2.8 Interest 4 . 5 77.6 7 . 5 1 . 5 9.0 — 3.9 Evaluation 9.0 41.8 3 7 . 3 7 . 5 4 . 5 — 7.2 Tr i a l 3 2 . 8 29.9 3 2 . 8 3.0 1 . 5 — 6.4 Adoption 28.4 26.9 3 1 . 3 9.0 4 . 5 — 8.8 Spraying with Captan for fruit-rot control Awareness 1 . 5 94.0 — « — 4 . 5 1.8 Interest 1 . 5 79.1 11.9 1 . 5 6.0 3.2 Evaluation 1 . 5 4 3 . 3 46 .3 4 . 5 4 . 5 — •7.0 Tri a l 7 . 5 1 . 5 40 . 3 41 .8 9.0 1 . 5 — 7.0 Adoption 7 . 5 1 . 5 38.8 Using "matted rows" 41.8 instead of 9.0 " h i l l s " 3.0 — 7.4 Awareness — 1 . 5 9 2 . 5 — 1 . 5 — 4 . 5 2.1 Interest — 1 . 5 77.6 13.4 1 . 5 6.0 — 3 . 5 Evaluation 1 . 5 41.8 47 .8 6.0 3.0 — 7.0 Tr i a l 10.4 3 5 . 8 44.8 9.0 — — 7.0 Adoption 13 .4 3 2 . 8 40 .3 9.0 4 . 5 — 8 . 3 Chemical weed control Awareness — 1 . 5 94.0 — — 4 . 5 1.8 Interest 1 . 5 1 . 5 77.6 10.4 3.0 6.0 — 3 . 5 Evaluation 6.0 3 8 . 8 46 .3 4 . 5 4 . 5 — 7 .3 T r i a l 16.if 3 4 . 3 40 .3 6.0 3.0 — 7 . 3 Adoption 16.4 3 4 . 3 3 8 . 8 10.4 — — 7.1 Using picking carts Awareness ~ 3.0 82.1 7 . 5 1 . 5 6.0 3.0 3.1 Interest 7 . 5 7 6 . 1 10 .5 1 . 5 4 . 5 — 2.9 Evaluation 10 .5 3 8 . 8 3 8 . 8 6.0 6.0 — . 7.7 Tr i a l 46 . 3 22.4 2 0 , 9 9.0 1 . 5 8.0 Adoption 55.2 17.9 Using virus-free 17.9 certified 7 .5 plants 1 . 5 — 8 . 3 Awareness — 1 . 5 94.0 ~ -- — 4 . 5 1.8 Interest — — 82 .1 10 .5 1 . 5 6.0 -- 3.1 Evaluation — 46 .3 44.8 6.0 3.0 6.6 T r i a l 3.0 4 3 . 3 44.8 7 .5 1 . 5 — 6.6 Adoption 3.0 38.8 46 .3 9.0 3.0 — 7 . 5 The mean for each row was calculated on the basis of the weights shown—"husband only" = 0, "husband more" = 10, and so on. TABLE 11 ADOPTION DECISION-MAKING INDEXi INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG ITEM SUBTOTALS* Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Soil analysis for nematode control .82 2. Spraying with Captan for fruit-rot control .84 .98 .05 level = .24 3. Using "matted rows" instead of "hills" .87 .93 .93 .01 level = . 3 1 4. Chemical weed control .85 .97 .89 .96 5. Using picking carts .86 .87 .91 .86 .85 6. Using virus-free certified plants .83 .99 .93 .97 .87 .98 7. Total .92 .98 .96 .97 .94 .97 a Original oommunalities are reported in the principal diagonal. These are included as es-timates of reliability. 57 The correlations between the subtotals for each inno-vation (calculated by averaging each wife's accumulated weights over the number of stages at which decisions had been made) and the total scores for the adoption decision-making index indicate evidence of internal consistency. (Table 11) High estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y are expressed by the original commu-na l i t i e s , ranging from .82 to .99* Assuming that each i n d i -vidual item is a face valid measure of decision-making, the high inter-item correlations suggest that the entire index is also v a l i d . Although variations in methodology do not permit a direct comparison of the wife's involvement in general farm decisions with her participation in adoption decisions, the husband appears to be the dominant partner in both types of dec is ion-making. PREDICTORS OF DECISION-MAKING INVOLVEMENT Analyses of family decision-making patterns can be approached from two perspectives—by considering variations within families or variations between families. Since hus-bands might be expected to have the major responsibility for farm decision-making within the family (an expectation sup-ported by responses to the individual decision items), the an-alysis for this study was designed to focus on the presumably more interesting aspects of between-family variations. Between-family variations occur because in some fam-i l i e s the husband and wife consistently decide together and 58 in other families the husband consistently decides alone. These variations are reflected when the responses to the i n d i -vidual decision items are combined into total scores for the general and adoption decision-making indices. The emphasis then shifts from each wife's involvement in decision-making relative to her husband (within-family) to her involvement relative to that of other wives (between-families). Such a shi f t invites an examination of the v a r i -ables hypothesized to be associated with the extent of the wife's participation in farm decisions. The hypotheses, advanced at the beginning of the study and restated here, predicted directional relationships* 1. The wife's seeking of information about farm mat-ters in general, and her contact with the Agricultural Exten-sion Service in particular, is positively associated with her involvement in farm decision-making. 2. The wife's participation in farm tasks i s posi-tively associated with her participation in farm decisions. 3. Indicators of socioeconomic status—such as i n -come, size of farm, education, and the wife's social p a r t i c i -pation—are negatively associated with the wife's involvement in farm decision-making, while age is positively associated. 4. The number of children in the family is negatively associated with the wife's participation in decisions pertain-ing to farm matters. 5. The husband's adoption of agricultural innovations is negatively associated with his wife's involvement in deci-sions about those.innovations and about farm matters in general. 59 The hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s were explored i n two ways: (a) t o t a l scores on the general and adoption d e c i s i o n -making indices were each correlated with each predictor v a r i -able to provide indications of the strength and d i r e c t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and (b) one-way analyses of variance of low, middle, and high general and adoption decision-making groups, followed by Duncan's New Multiple Range Tests, were conducted f o r each predictor variable to check f o r s i g n i f i c a n t nonlinear associations. For the one-way analyses of variance, the wives were sorted into low, middle, and high groups according to natural groupings i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of raw scores f o r each index (Figures 1 and 2). Wives did not nece s s a r i l y sort into the same groups on each measure, although the c o r r e l a t i o n between the two indices (r = .74) was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . For general decision-making twenty-six wives were assigned to the low group, twenty-eight to the middle group, and t h i r t e e n to the high group. For adoption decision-making there were twenty-three lows, thirty-two middles, and twelve highs. The low general group included f i v e wives who r e -ported no involvement i n general farm decisions (a score of 24 i s equivalent to 0 since "husband only" responses had a weight of 2), while a l l twenty-three wives i n the low adop-t i o n decision-making group reported no involvement i n any of the adoption decisions. Figure 1 General Decision-Making» Distribution of Raw Scores 8 -w 7 -d o c as w O •> 1 . Scores, jj £ ® g ft ^ Low (n = 26) Mean S.D. vO 00 o Middle (n = 28) 36.66 7.10 n n High (n = 13) ON o 2 3 - _ 22. 21. 20. 19. 18. 17. 16 15 14 13 12 w 11 c • 10 3 w © <H O U <D 9. 8. 7 6. 5. 4 34 2 1. LJ/y Scores:° Low (n = 23) oo Figure 2 Adoption Decision-Making: Distribution of Raw Scores Mean 31.16 S.D. 40.55 n mn n n 3 vO 00 H H H O CM CM vO 00 O CM -ft CM CM CM CM C\ C"\ CM Middle (n = 32) VO CO o +^ vo 00 o uS VTi ir\ vo High (n = 12) o CO 1—I ON 62 Tests were made at the . 0 5 and 001 levels of signif-icance for correlation coefficients and F values, while the .01 level only was ut i l i z e d for Duncan's New Multiple Range Tests. Information-Seeking, Extension Contact The positive relationship predicted between the wife's overall farm information-seeking activity and her participa-tion in farm decisions was supported for both general (r = . 5 5 ) and adoption (r = .77) decision-making. (Table 12) Reinforc-ing the findings were highly significant F values (p = <.001) revealed in analyses of variance of the low, middle, and high decision-making groups. For both decision-making measures, the high groups were significantly differentiated from the low and middle groups. However, the wife's contact with the Agricultural Ex-tension Service—considered as a specific type of information-seeking activity—was not significantly associated with her involvement in either general farm decisions (r = ,16) or decisions leading to adoption (r = ,22), The corresponding F values were also low (p = .410 for general decisions and p = .097 for adoption decisions). Wives who are involved in seeking information about farm business matters therefore appear l i k e l y to participate in decisions about those matters, although information-seeking activity related particularly to the Agricultural Extension Service does not seem to be associated with the extent of her participation. 63 Task Involvement Wives who were active in farm work roles were also active in farm decision-making roles. Scores for task i n -volvement correlated positively with those for participation in both general (r = .49) and adoption (r = .42) decisions, and the relationships were in the direction hypothesized. Supporting the findings were significant F values (p = .005 for general decisions and p = .001 for adoption decisions), with high and low groups differentiated on each measure• Income, Size of Farm Two indicators of socioeconomic level—income and size of farm—were associated with the wife's participation in decision-making. Gross agricultural income correlated negatively with involvement in both general (r = -.48) and adoption (r = -.28) decisions. F values for both decision-making measures were significant (p = .002) , with low decision-making groups d i f -ferentiated from both the high and middle groups. A similar pattern emerged when size of farm was con-sidered. Total acreage was negatively associated with pa r t i -cipation in both general (r = - .45) and adoption (r = - .26) decision-making, and the corresponding F values were also significant (p = .003 and .007) . High and low decision-making groups were differentiated for each measure. TABLE 12 PREDICTORS OF DECISION-MAKING INVOLVEMENTi SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Variable General decision-making Fprob DNMRT Adoption decision-making prob DNMRT Information-seeking .55 12.53 <.001 Task involvement .49 5*79 .005 Income -.48 6.91 .002 Size of farm -.45 6.66 .003 Number of childrend -.32 2.86 .063 Social participation -.08 .22 .804 Extension contact .16 .91 .410 Education—husband .05 .00 .996 Education—wife -.14 1.03 .364 Age—husband ,11 .61 .552 Age—wife .10 .36 .704 Husband's adoption score -.14 .25 .782 M H M H H M_ L H M L .77 .42 -.28 -.26 -.28 -.03 .22 .22 .00 .13 .09 .07 48.54 8.88 7.03 5.45 2.21 3.02 2.40 1.35 2.57 .02 .03 1.89 < .001 .001 .002 .007 .116 .055 .097 .266 .083 .968 .959 .157 M M H L M_ H H M_ L H M L H a .05 level = .24} .01 level = .31} two-tailed, b Variance source tables are presented in Appendix C. c For Duncan's New Multiple Range Tests, L, M, and H represent groups arranged in ascending order according to their means. mon line differ significantly (p<.01). d t = -2.67, df = 33, p = .011 for general decision-making; t = -2.13, df = 30, p = .039 for adoption decision-making} (high-low group comparison). low, middle, and high decision-making Means of groups not underscored by a com-65 The negative direction of the relationships was con-sistent with the hypothesis, indicating that wives who tend to be involved in farm decision-making tend to live on r e l a -tively small farms with small incomes. Age, Education. Social Participation Not significantly associated with the wife's parti-cipation in either general farm decisions or specific adop-tion decisions were the husband's and wife's education and age, and the wife's social participation. While the correlations and F values tended to be quite low, two exceptions should be noted. The F value for the wife's social participation and adoption decision-making re-vealed a nearly significant (p = .055) nonlinear relationship, and the husband's education moderately correlated with adop-tion decision-making scores (r = .22). Hypothesized relationships for these variables were considered as not supported since they failed to reach the .05 level of significance. Number of Children The number of children in the family, as predicted, was negatively associated with the wife's involvement in both general (r = -.32) and adoption (r = -.28) decisions. A l -though the corresponding F values were not high, t-tests re-stricted to high-low group comparisons yielded significant values for both decision-making measures (p = .011 for gen-eral decisions and p = .039 for adoption decisions). 66 Husband's Adoption Score The husband's adoption of agricultural innovations was not associated with either his wife's involvement in decis-ions about those innovations or her participation in decisions about farm matters in general. Husbands' adoption scores, based on progress towards the adoption of six practices, yielded essentially no corre-lation (r = .07) with their wives' reported involvement in decisions concerning the adoption of those practices. Simi-l a r l y , wives' participation in general farm decisions was not associated with the husbands' adoption behavior (r = -.14). Interrelationships Among Variables Parallel relationships obviously emerged for p a r t i c i -pation in general farm decisions and participation in adoption decisions—predictor variables significantly associated with one decision-making measure were similarly associated with the other. A l l of the relationships were in the directions hypothesized: 1. The wife's farm information-seeking activity and her involvement in farm tasks were positively associated with her participation in both general farm decisions and de-cisions leading to adoption. 2. Income, size of farm, and the number of children in the family were negatively associated with her involvement in both types of decisions. TABLE 13 DJTERCORRELATIONS AMONG ALL VARIABLES* Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12 13 1. General decision-Making .67 2. Adoption decision-making .74 .78 .05 level = .24 3. Information-seeking .55 .77 .68 .01 level = .31 4. Task involvement .49 .42 .32 .45 5. Income -.48 -.28 -.10 -.43 .88 6. Size of farm -.45 -.26 -.13 -.42 .91 .87 7. Number of children -.32 -.28 -.13 -.24 .09 .06 .29 8. Social participation -.08 -.03 .11 .18 .20 .13 -.06 .35 9. Extension contact .16 .22 .36 .27 .01 .06 -.01 .30 .32 10. Education—husband .05 .22 .20 .05 .30 .36 -.21 .31 .20 .46 11. Education—wife -.14 .00 .17 .00 .46 .39 -.10 .21 .13 .51 .50 12. Age—husband .11 .13 .02 .02 -.17 -.20 .20 -.32 -.23 -.22 -.18 .84 13. Age—wife .10 .09 -.03 -.02 -.19 -.18 .20 -.37 -.23 -.25 -.31 .90 .84 14. Husband's adoption score -.14 .07 .16 .08 .29 .24 .12 .19 .34 .22 .22 -.45 -.44 Original communalities are reported in the principal diagonal. These are included as estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y . 68 Interesting patterns of relationships were revealed when the intercorrelations among the decision-making scores and the variables significantly associated with them were examined (variables 1 - 7 in Table 1 3 ) • The four variables relating to the wife's farm activ-i t i e s — h e r participation in decision-making, information-seeking, and tasks--were positively intercorrelated at the . 0 1 level of significance. Each was negatively associated with income, size of farm, and the number of children in the family, although the relationships did not reach the . 0 5 level for information-seeking. Family size was not related to i n -come, size of farm, or any of the other socioeconomic v a r i -ables. To further examine interrelationships and determine possible common sources of variance, a l l fourteen variables in the correlation matrix were factor-analyzed by the prin-cipal component method. Three factors were extracted, accounting for 54.0 per cent of the total variance. When a stringent lower limit of .45 is enforced for rotated factor loadings, a l l variables but three (Extension contact, number of children, and social participation) are represented in the factor structure (Table 14). When the lower limit is extended downward to . 3 0 , a l l variables but number of children (with a borderline loading of . 2 9 ) are included. The wife's farm-related a c t i v i t i e s , clustered to-gether in the correlation matrix, f e l l within Factor I, which 6 9 TABLE 14 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES Factor name and definer variables Rotated factor loadings 2 Factor I Factor II Factor I I I h Factor I—Wife's Business Partner Role Adoption decision-making - . 9 1 - . 1 1 - . 0 3 .84 General decision-making - . 7 8 - . 0 9 . 2 7 . 6 9 Information-seeking - . 7 7 . 0 2 - . 1 6 . 6 2 Task involvement - . 5 5 . 1 2 . 2 5 . 3 8 Extension contact - . 3 4 . 3 0 -.14 . 2 3 Number of chi l d r e n - . 1 7 - . 0 3 . 1 2 Factor II—Age Age—wife - . 0 2 - . 9 4 .10 . 8 9 Age—husband - . 0 7 - . 9 1 .06 .84 Husband's adoption score - . 0 7 -.28 .28 S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n - . 1 0 . 3 9 - . 2 0 . 2 1 Factor III—Socioeconomic ! Status Inc ome . 3 4 . 1 0 - . 8 9 . 9 2 Size of farm . 3 2 . 1 0 -.84 .82 Education—wife -.09 .24 - . 5 4 . 3 5 Education—husband -.26 . 2 6 - . 4 9 . 3 7 Percentage of common facto r variance 3 7 . 7 3 1 . 3 3 1 . 0 £ h 2 = 5 4 . 0 Values have been r e f l e c t e d to f a c i l i t a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 7 0 accounted for 37*7 per cent of the common factor variance. Definer variables for Factor I, called Wife's Business Part-ner Role (non-involvement), concerned her participation in adoption decisions ( - . 9 1 ) t general farm decisions ( - . 7 8 ) 1 information-seeking ( - . 7 7 ) i and farm tasks ( - . 5 5 ) * Also i n -cluded were Extension contact and number of children, although the loadings for these variables were relatively low. Factor I I , responsible for 31»3 per cent of the common factor variance, had heavy loadings on Age for both husbands (- .91) and wives ( - . 9 * 0 . Husbands' adoption scores and social participation were not expressly part of any factor, but were most clearly associated with Age. Factor III identified i t s e l f as Socioeconomic Status with high loadings on income ( - . 8 9 ) , size of farm (-.84), and educational levels of both the husband ( - . 5 4 ) and wife ( - . 4 9 ) . Socioeconomic Status accounted for 31*0 per cent of the com-mon factor variance. The three factors presumably underlie a l l the inter-relationships among the fourteen variables in the correlation matrix, with the largest proportion of common factor variance accounted for by the Wife's Business Partner Role. The find-ings highlight the fact that Age, Socioeconomic Status, and Wife's Business Partner Role are relatively independent con-cepts, and that three concept areas suffice for a larger num-ber of farm-relevant variables. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS The general purpose of the study was to investigate the farm wife's role in decision-making related directly to the farm business. Specifically examined were predictor v a r i -ables hypothesized to be associated with the extent of the wife's involvement in decisions concerning general farm mat-ters and decisions leading to the adoption of agricultural innovations. The respondents were sixty-seven wives of commercial strawberry growers l i v i n g in British Columbia's Lower Fraser Valley, Data were collected in personal interviews, and ana-lyzed using Pearson product-moment correlation, one-way analy ses of variance followed by Duncan's New Multiple Range Tests and factor analysis by the principal component method. Focusing on hypotheses developing from the five ques-tions underlying the purpose of the study, the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis yielded the following findings: 1, Wives who seek information about farm matters are also l i k e l y to participate in decisions about those matters, although contact with the Agricultural Extension Service, considered as a specific type of information-seeking activity does not appear to be associated with involvement in decision making, 71 72 2. Wives who p a r t i c i p a t e i n farm tasks also tend to p a r t i c i p a t e i n farm decision-making. 3. Income and size of farm are negatively associated with the wife's involvement i n farm decisions, while other indicators of socioeconomic status such as age, education, and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n do not appear to a f f e c t the extent of her involvement. 4. The number of childre n i n the family i s nega-t i v e l y related to the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions per-t a i n i n g to the farm business. 5. The husband's acceptance of a g r i c u l t u r a l innova-tions i s not associated with his wife's involvement i n d e c i s -ions about those innovations or with her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions about farm matters i n general. Three independent f a c t o r s — l a b e l e d Wife's Business  Partner Role. Age, and Socioeconomic Status—were r e f l e c t e d i n the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among a l l v a r i a b l e s . Defining the Wife's Business Partner Role were p o s i t i v e l y i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d variables r e l a t i n g to the wife's involvement i n farm d e c i s i o n -making, information-seeking, and tasks. Interpretation of the findings i s f a c i l i t a t e d by the f a c t that p a r a l l e l patterns of s i g n i f i c a n t associations, con-s i s t e n t with the r a t i o n a l e developed f o r the hypotheses, emerged f o r the wife's involvement i n general farm decisions and her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions leading to the adoption of a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations. 73 The clustering of variables concerning the wife's farm a c t i v i t i e s — h e r participation in decision-making, tasks, and information-seeking—suggests a number of behaviors which may be part of a package associated with her role as farm busi-ness partner. Perhaps wives who participate actively in farm tasks or information-seeking generally strengthen their bargaining position in decision-making because they can draw upon know-ledge and experiences relevant to the content of the deci-sions. Or, wives who are involved in decision-making might find that their involvement s p i l l s over into other areas— participation in decisions may be accompanied by responsibil-ity for gathering information to be used in decision-making or for seeing that the resulting decisions are put into action. In keeping with this interpretation of the data are Wilkening and Bharadwaj's (1967) observation that patterns of task allocation within the family tend to be similar to patterns of decision-making, and Bostian and Ross' (I965) claim that the farm wife's orientation to information sources is influenced by her participation in the business operations of the farm. Whether involvement generates interest, or interest leads to involvement, is subject to speculation. Some wives may prefer the business partner role to the homemaker role and intentionally follow their interests accordingly. Or, keen interest might be kindled in particularly ambitious wives or wives with indecisive husbands. It might even be 74 that wives p a r t i c i p a t e i n farm decision-making about as much as they care to, with the extent of t h e i r involvement depend-ing p a r t l y on the circumstances i n which they f i n d themselves. Although no " i n t e r e s t index" was included which can be brought forward f o r opportune examination, some circum-s t a n t i a l evidence i s avai l a b l e when the negative associations between decision-making involvement and income, size of farm, and number of childre n are considered. Negative r e l a t i o n s h i p s between income and size of farm variables and the'wife's involvement i n farm d e c i s i o n -making have also been documented by Wilkening and Bharadwaj (1968) and Beers (1937). Their speculation that the d i v i s i o n of decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s into farm and home areas becomes more pronounced as the size of the farm business i n -creases also seems appropriate here. The scope and complexity of the technology involved i n managing a large farm enterprise may demand s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge and s k i l l s beyond the wife's experiences. Since resources are l i k e l y a vailable f o r h i r i n g help to deal with various operational aspects of the farm business or to handle s p e c i f i c production problems, there may be l i t t l e need or op-portunity for her to p a r t i c i p a t e . The negative association between the wife's involve-ment i n decision-making and the number of childre n i n the fam-i l y possibly r e f l e c t s another facet of the farm wife's r o l e . The larger the family, the more i t might be supposed that the wife's time and energy resources w i l l be directed to the 75 homemaker-mother role, with her role in the family business as a more or less marginal member. Although family size might also be linked with socioeconomic level and associated decis-ion-making norms, no significant relationships were noted between the number of children in the family and any of the socioeconomic variables. Of course the wife alone does not determine her de-cision-making r o l e — t h e income and size of farm are indica-tive of her husband's occupational success, and he presum-ably has something to do with the number of children. Other investigators have found that wives of highly successful oper-ators tend to prefer male-dominant authority patterns in farm matters (Straus, 1958), and that as the number of children increases, the family power structure becomes more authori-tarian and husbands more dominant (Campbell, 1970; Nye, Carl-son, and Garrett, 1970). The only variable included which relates directly to the husband's behavior is his adoption score, which was not associated with the wife's involvement in either general or adoption decisions, her participation in farm tasks, or her information-seeking a c t i v i t y . Straus (i960) similarly found that high adopters were not significantly different from low adopters when the wife's participation in farm decisions was considered, although the two groups were differentiated by variables directly relating to the wife's homemaker role. It seems possible that wives of high adopters, as the wives of the "highly successful" operators in Straus* earlier 76 i n v e s t i g a t i o n ( 1 9 5 8 ) , tend to perceive t h e i r r o l e s i n Straus' "integrative-supportive" terms, and at the same time neither emphasize nor ignore t h e i r business partner r o l e . Since Extension contact was the only w i f e - s p e c i f i c variable (other than age) r e l a t i n g to the husband's adoption score, i t might be suspected that such contact i s more a func-t i o n of his information-seeking behavior than of hers. A wife, for example, may make telephone c a l l s to agents on her hus-band's behalf, or f i n d h e r s e l f l i s t e n i n g to the agents' radio reports simply because her husband i s i n c o n t r o l of the d i a l . Supporting t h i s speculation i s the f i n d i n g that the wife's information-seeking behavior i n general, but not her Extension contact i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s associated with her par-t i c i p a t i o n i n farm decisions, and Lionberger's (i960) gener-a l i z a t i o n that e a r l i e r adopters tend to draw upon more auth-o r i t a t i v e information sources than do l a t e r adopters. The o v e r a l l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the major findings from t h i s study focuses on behaviors associated with the ex-tent of the wife's farm decision-making a c t i v i t y , and how r e -sources such as money, time, energy, and s k i l l s may a f f e c t her emphasis on a business partner r o l e . In t h i s connection i t should be pointed out that among those variables not a s s o c i -ated with the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decision-making were education, age, and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Perhaps, as W i l -kening and Lupri ( 1 9 6 5 ) once hypothesized, involvement i n farm family decision-making i s more a function of roles within the farm or family system than of status i n the larger s o c i e t y . 77 Data from the study suggest several considerations for designing educational programs for farm families by help-ing to identify a framework of existing family decision-making patterns useful in f a c i l i t a t i n g the diffusion of agricultural information. The particularly strong relationship noted between the wife's involvement in farm decisions and her information-seeking activity suggests that wives who are influential in decision-making also have predispositions to seek information relevant to the content of the decisions. While such wives presently seem to rely on information sources of a personal nature, they would seem to be potential candidates for receiv-ing, evaluating, and transmitting agricultural information originating from other sources, such as the Agricultural Ex-tension Service. Since joint decision-making patterns appear l i k e l y to occur in families with relatively small farm operations, perhaps agents working with such families might do well to structure their approach to include both husband and wife. Information relating s p e c i f i c a l l y to farm work roles might also be directed to both partners, as wives who are involved in farm decision-making also appear to be active participants in farm tasks. The advisability of encouraging the wife's involve-ment in farm decisions seems questionable, even though edu-cational programs such as Extension Farm and Home Develop-ment (Dorner, 1955J Slocum and Brough, 1962) have promoted 78 j o i n t decision-making i n farm and home matters as a means of developing family decision-making s k i l l s . Since the focus of a g r i c u l t u r a l programs i s t r a d i t i o n -a l l y production-oriented, with emphasis on increasing f i n a n -c i a l s t a b i l i t y and encouraging the acceptance of technolog-i c a l changes, there would seem to be no p a r t i c u l a r advantage to changing the e x i s t i n g decision-making patterns. J o i n t decision-making already appears extant i n f a m i l i e s on small, less f i n a n c i a l l y successful farms where the d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources i s probably most c r u c i a l . And the presence or ab-sence of j o i n t decision-making i n farm matters does not seem to a f f e c t the husband's acceptance of a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations. Working within already e x i s t i n g decision-making pat-terns i s surely more e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e , as introducing new methods of decision-making along with technological change i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same as introducing two new ideas at the same time. E x i s t i n g family decision-making patterns not only o f f e r convenient frameworks f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g the d i f f u s i o n of decision-making information, but indicate d i r e c t i o n s f o r designing learning experiences making the most b e n e f i c i a l use of resources and personnel. F i n a l l y reviewing the r e s u l t s of t h i s study along with findings from the three other investigations which i t best complements (Table 15)t i t i s heartening to note the consensus which occurs despite v a r i a t i o n s i n focus and meth-odology: 79 TABLE 15 PREDICTORS OF THE WIFE'S INVOLVEMENT IN FARM DECISION-MAKINGi FINDINGS FROM FOUR STUDIES21 Beers (1937) Straus (1958) Wilkening, Bharadwaj (1968) Sawer (1972) Information-seeking p o s i t i v e Task involvement .positive p o s i t i v e Income negative negative Size of farm negative negative Number of ch i l d r e n negative S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n - n.s. Extension contact n.s. Education. h U S ^ negative negative n.s. n.s. . . husband A S e ' wife n . S o n.s. Husband•s adoption score n,s. (possibly-nonlinear] n.s. n.s. = not s i g n i f i c a n t 80 1. A positive relationship between the wife's i n -volvement in farm tasks and her involvement in farm decision-making has also been confirmed by Wilkening and Bharadwaj (1968). 2. Negative associations between income and size of farm and the wife's participation in farm decision-making have also been observed by Wilkening and Bharadwaj (1968) and Beers (1937). 3. The failure to find a significant association between the husband's adoption score and the wife's involve-ment in farm decision-making -has also been reported by Straus ( i 9 6 0 ) . (However, the nonlinear relationship that Straus suspected, but did not test for, did not materialize.) While generality is restricted, the findings from this study appear to corroborate findings from previous re-search. Discrepancies occur only with the education variables. Negative relationships between educational levels of the hus-band and wife and the wife's participation in farm decision-making were claimed by Wilkening and Bharadwaj (1968), while the data here (Sawer, 1972) yielded no significant associ-ations. Characteristics of the respondents possibly i n f l u -ence the results—both husbands and wives in this study had completed an average of eight years in school, while in Wil-kening and Bharadwaj*s sample husbands had completed eight years and wives twelve years. 81 This i n v e s t i g a t i o n d i f f e r s from the other three c i t e d i n considering variables r e l a t i n g to the wife's o v e r a l l seek-ing of farm information, her contact with the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service, her s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and the si z e of her family. I t also includes an examination of the wife's involvement i n s p e c i f i c adoption decisions, rather than r e -s t r i c t i n g analysis to her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions r e l a t i n g to farm matters i n general. Major findings from the study, considered c o l l e c t i v e l y , suggest the following general conclusions i 1. There appears to be a c l u s t e r of behaviors which may be part of a package associated with the wife's farm b u s i -ness partner r o l e , with the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm de-cision-making strongly related to her involvement i n farm tasks and her seeking of a g r i c u l t u r a l information. 2. S i t u a t i o n a l variables, such as income, farm s i z e , and family s i z e , seem l i k e l y to r e s t r i c t or encourage the wife's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n farm decisions as family resources such as money, time, energy, and s k i l l s are allocated between farm and home u n i t s . REFERENCES 82 REFERENCES Abe11, H.C. Decision-making on the farm. The Economic Anna-l i s t . 1 9 6 1 , 31. 7 - 9 . Alleyne, E.P., and Verner, C. The adoption and r e j e c t i o n of  innovations bv strawberry growers i n the Lower Fraser  V a l l e y . Vancouver: Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Eco-nomics, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 9 a . Alleyne, E.P., and Verner, C. Personal contacts and the ad-option of innovations. Vancouver: Department of Ag-r i c u l t u r a l Economics, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 9 b . Beal, G.M., Rogers, E.M., and Bohlen, J.M. V a l i d i t y of the concept of stages i n the adoption process. Rural  Sociology. 1 9 5 7 , 2 2 , 166-168. Beers, H.W. A p o r t r a i t of the farm family i n Central New York State, American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 1937» 2 , 5 9 1 - 6 0 0 . Blood, R.O., J r . , and Wolfe, D.M. Husbands and wives* The  dynamics of married l i v i n g . New York: Free Press, I 9 6 0 . Bostian, L.R. Personal communication to author. December 2 2 , 1 9 7 0 . Bostian, L.R., and Ross, J.E. Functions and meaning of mass media f o r Wisconsin farm women. Journalism Quarterly. 1 9 6 5 . 42, 6 9 - 7 6 . Brim, O.G., J r . , Glass, D.C., Lavin, D.E., and Goodman, N. Personality and decision processes. Stanford: Stan-ford University Press, 1 9 6 2 . Burchinal, L.G., and Bauder, W.W. Decision-making and r o l e patterns among Iowa farm and nonfarm f a m i l i e s . Jour-n a l of Marriage and the Family. I 9 6 5 , 2 7 , 5 2 5 - 5 3 0 . Campbell, F.L. Family growth and v a r i a t i o n i n family r o l e structure. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1 9 7 0 , 3 2 , 4 5 - 5 3 . Campbell, R.R. A suggested paradigm of the i n d i v i d u a l ad-option process. Rural Sociology. 1 9 6 6 , 3 1 , 458-466. 8 3 84 Chapin, F.S. S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n scale, I952 e d i t i o n . In Experimental designs i n s o c i o l o g i c a l research* New Yorki Harper and Brothers, 1955* Copp, J.H,, S i l l , M.L., and Brown, E.J. The function of i n -formation sources i n the farm practice adoption pro-cess. Rural Sociology. 1958, 2 3 , 146-157. Dewey, J . How we think. New Yorki D.C. Heath, 1910. Dorner, P. An Extension philosophy f o r farm and home devel-opment work, Journal of Farm Economics, 19551 37 , 4 9 3 - 5 0 5 . Dix, L.C. Decision-making i n the farm family. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , C o r n e l l University, 1957. Goard, D.S., and Dickinson, G. Attitude toward change s c a l e . In The influence of education and age on p a r t i c i p a -t i o n i n r u r a l adult education. Vancouver1 Faculty of Ecucation, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968. Harman, H.H. Modem f a c t o r . a n a l y s i s . Chicago 1 U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1967. Heady, E.O., Black, W.B., and Peterson, G.A. Interdepend-ence between the farm business and the farm house-hold with implications on economic e f f i c i e n c y . Ag-r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n Research B u l l e t i n 3 9 8 , Ames 1 Iowa State College, 1953* Kenkel, W.F. The family i n perspective. New York* Apple-ton-Century-Crofts, 1966. Lionberger, H.F, Adoption of new ideas and p r a c t i c e s . Amesi Iowa State University Press, I960. Longmore, T.W., and Taylor, C.C. E l a s t i c i t i e s of expendi-tures f o r family l i v i n g , farm production, and sav-ings, Journal of Farm Economics. 1 9 5 1t 33» 1 - 9 . Malone, C.C., and Malone, L.H. Decision making and manage-ment f o r farm and home. Amesi Iowa State College Press, 1958. Merton, R.K. The unanticipated consequences of purposive s o c i a l a c t i o n . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 1936, 1, 8 9 4 - 9 0 4 , Nye, F.I., Carlson, J . , and Garrett, G. Family s i z e , i n t e r -action, a f f e c t , and s t r e s s . Journal of Marriage and  the Family. 1970, 32, 216-226, 8 5 Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, The Lower Coast B u l l e t i n Area. B u l l e t i n Area No, 3, V i c t o r i a : Lands Service, De-partment of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, 1962, Rieck, R.E., and Pulver, G.C, An empirical measure of d e c i s -ion making i n evaluating Farm and Home Development i n  Wisconsin, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station Research B u l l e t i n 2 3 8 , Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1 9 6 2 . Rogers, E.H. D i f f u s i o n of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1 9 6 2 . Rogers, E.H., and Capener, H.R. The county extension agent and h i s constituents. A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n B u l l e t i n 8 5 8 . Wooster: Ohio State University, i 9 6 0 . Rogers, E.H., and Rogers, L.E. A methodological analysis of adoption s c a l e s . Rural Sociology. 1 9 6 1 , 26, 3 2 5 - 3 3 6 . Rogers, E.H., and Shoemaker, F.F. Communication of innova-ti o n s : A c r o s s - c u l t u r a l approach. New York* Free Press, 1 9 7 1 . Ross, J.E., and Bostian, L.R, Functional o r i e n t a t i o n of Wis-consin farm women towards mass media. Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Journalism B u l l e t i n 3 3 t Madison: Uni-v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1 9 6 5 * Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural L i f e . The home and family l i f e i n r u r a l Saskatchewan. Province of Sas-katchewan Report No. 1 0 . Regina: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1 9 5 6 . Royal Commission on the Status of Women i n Canada, Report  of the . • . Ottawa: Information Canada, 1 9 7 0 . Sawtelle, E.H. The advantages of farm l i f e . Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Ag r i c u l t u r e , Bureau of Economics, 1 9 2 4 . Cited by N.L. Sims, Elements of  Rural sociology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1 9 4 0 . Sewell, W.H. A short form of the farm family socio-economic status scale. Rural Sociology. 1 9 4 3 , 8 , 1 6 1 - 1 7 0 . Simon, H.A. A behavioral model of r a t i o n a l choice. In Models  of man: S o c i a l and r a t i o n a l . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1 9 5 7 . Slocum, W.L., and Brough, O.L., J r . Family and farm changes  associated with Farm and Home Planning i n Washington. A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment St a t i o n B u l l e t i n 6 3 3 , P u l l -man: Washington State University, 1 9 6 2 , 86 Straus, M.A. The r o l e of the wife i n the settlement of the Columbia Basin Project. Marriage and Family L i v i n g . 1958, 20, 5 9 - 6 4 . Straus, M.A, Family r o l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and technological change i n farming. Rural Sociology. I 9 6 0 , 2 5 , 219-228. Thomas, D.W. S o c i o l o g i c a l aspects of the decision-making process. Journal of Farm Economics, 1955» 37» 1 1 1 5 -1118. Turner, R.H. Family i n t e r a c t i o n . New Yorki John Wiley and Sons, 1970. Valentine, D. What i s a farmer's wife? The Sidney (Montana) Herald. January 9t 1963• 1. Verner, C , and Gubbels, P.M. The adoption or r e j e c t i o n of innovations by dairy farm operators i n the Lower F r a -ser V a l l e y . Ottawai A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics Research Council of Canada, 1967. Wilcox, W,W.t and Lloyd, O.G. The human fa c t o r i n the manage-ment of Indiana farms. A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Sta-t i o n B u l l e t i n 3 6 9 * Layfayette, Ind.t Purdue Univer-s i t y . 1932. Wilcox, W.W., Boss, A,, and Pond, G. Relation of v a r i a t i o n s  i n the human f a c t o r to f i n a n c i a l returns i n farming. A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n B u l l e t i n 288. Minne-a p o l i s ! University of Minnesota, 1932. Wilkening, E.A. Adoption of improved farm practices as r e -lated to family f a c t o r s . Wisconsin A g r i c u l t u r a l Ex-periment Station B u l l e t i n 183-RS. Madisoni Univer-s i t y of Wisconsin, 1953* Wilkening, E.A. J o i n t decision-making i n farm f a m i l i e s as a function of status and r o l e . American S o c i o l o g i -c a l Review. 1958, 2 3 , 187 -192 . Wilkening, E.A., and Bharadwaj, L,K, Dimensions of a s p i r a -t i o n s , work r o l e s , and decision-making among farm husbands and wives i n Wisconsin. Journal of Marriage  and the Family. 1967t 2 9 , 7 0 3 - 7 1 1 . Wilkening, E.A., and Bharadwaj, L.K. Aspirations and task i n -volvement as re l a t e d to decision-making among farm husbands and wives. Rural Sociology. 1 9 6 8 , 33, 3 0 - 4 5 . Wilkening, E.A., and Guerrero, S. Consensus i n aspirations for farm improvement and adoption of farm p r a c t i c e s . Rural Sociology. 1968, 34, 182-196. 8 ? Wilkening, E.A,, and Lu p r i , E. Decision-making i n German and American farm f a m i l i e s i A c r o s s - c u l t u r a l comparison. So c i o l o g i a R u r a l i s . 1 9 6 5 . 5 , 3 6 6 - 3 8 5 . Wilkening, E.A., and Morrison, D.E. A comparison of husband and wife responses concerning who makes farm and home decisions. Marriage and Family L i v i n g . 1 9 6 3 # 2 5 , 3 4 9 - 3 5 1 . Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n experimental design. New Yorki McGraw-Hill, 1962. APPENDIX A PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ALL PREDICTOR VARIABLES 88 TABLE 16 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WIVES BY TOTAL INFORMATION-SEEKING SCORES Score a n # 0 1 5 22.4 1-4 18 26.9 5-14 2 3 34 .3 1 5 or more 11 16.4 Tota l j 67 100.0 a Categories determined by natural breaks or groupings i n the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of raw scores. TABLE 17 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WIVES BY NUMBER OF EXTENSION CONTACTS Number of contacts* n 0 36 53.7 1-2 4 6.0 3-4 8 11.9 5-8 7 10.4 9-10 6 9.0 More than 10 6 9.0 Total t 67 100.0 a Categories determined by natural breaks or groupings i n the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of raw scores. TABLE 18 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OP WIVES BY TOTAL TASK INVOLVEMENT SCORES Score n * 24 11 1 6 . 4 2 5 - 3 4 2 0 2 9 . 9 35-44 2 3 3 4 . 3 4 5 or more 1 3 1 9 . 4 Total1 6 7 1 0 0 . 0 a Categories determined by natural breaks or groupings i n the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of raw scores. TABLE 19 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OP FAMILIES BY GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME8, Income13 n % Under 3,000 14 2 0 . 9 3 , 0 0 0 - 5 , 0 0 0 9 1 3 . 4 5 , 0 0 1 - 1 0 , 0 0 0 14 2 0 . 9 1 0 , 0 0 1 - 1 5 , 0 0 0 9 1 3 . 4 1 5 , 0 0 1 - 2 5 , 0 0 0 4 6.0 25,001-40,000 4 6.0 4 0 , 0 0 1 - 5 5 . 0 0 0 1 1.5 55.ooi-75.ooo 2 3.0 More than 75,000 9 - 1 3 . 4 Total1 6 6 9 8 . 5 f" No data f o r one respondent. Categories according to Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 b ) , TABLE 20 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY SIZE OF FARM Tota l acreage 3 - n % Less then 3 acres 5 7 . 5 3 to l e s s than 5 8 11 . 9 5 to les s than 1 5 2 3 34 . 3 1 5 to les s than 3 0 12 17 . 9 3 0 to les s than 5 0 3 4 . 5 5 0 to less than 80 5 7 . 5 80 to les s than 120 1 1 . 5 120 to less than 180 2 3.0 180 or more 8 11 . 9 Totalt 67 100.0 a Categories according to Alleyne and Verner (1969b). TABLE 21 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HUSBANDS , AND WIVES BY AGE Age a Wives n % Husbands n % 2 5-34 6 9.0 2 3.0 35-44 17 2 5.4 1 5 2 2 . 4 45-54 21 3 1 . 3 1 9 28 . 3 55-64 21 3 1 . 3 20 2 9 . 9 6 5 or more 2 3.0 11 16.4 T o t a l ! 67 10C.0 67 100.0 a Categories according to Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 b ) . 9 2 TABLE 2 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES BY EDUCATION Years of school completed n Wives % Husbands n # Less than 5 8 1 1 . 9 9 13.4 5 - 8 2 1 3 1 . 3 26 3 8 . 8 9 - 1 1 2 0 2 9 . 9 24 3 5 . 8 1 2 (h.s.. diploma) 1 3 19.4 3 Some u n i v e r s i t y 5 7 . 5 5 7 . 5 U n i v e r s i t y degree 0 — 0 — T o t a l t 67 1 0 0 . 0 67 1 0 0 . 0 a Categories according to Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 b ) . TABLE 2 3 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WIVES BY SOCIAL PARTICIPATION SCORES Sc o r e a n % 0 1 5 2 2 . 4 1 - 4 5 7 . 5 5-J -4 3 3 4 9 . 2 15-24 1 1 1 6 . 4 2 5 - 4 9 1 1 . 5 5 0 or more 2 3 . 0 Total» 6 7 1 0 0 . 0 Categories according to Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 b ) . TABLE 24 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN Number of c h i l d r e n 8 n None 3 4 . 5 1-2 1 5 22.4 3-4 3 1 46.2 5 or more 18 26.9 T o t a l i 67 1 0 0 . 0 Categories according to Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 b ) . TABLE 2 5 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HUSBANDS BY ADOPTION SCORES Adoption s c o r e 8 n # 18-21 (Laggards) 5 7 . 5 2 2 - 2 5 (Late majority) 2 1 3 1 . 3 26-29 (Early majority) 2 7 40.3 3 0 (Innovators/early adopters) 14 2 0 . 9 Total1 6 7 1 0 0 . 0 8 Adopter categories determined by Alleyne and Verner ( 1 9 6 9 b ) . APPENDIX B LOW, MIDDLE, AND HIGH DECISION-MAKING GROUPSi MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES 9 4 TABLE 26 LOW, MIDDLE, AND HIGH GENERAL DECISION-MAKING GROUPSt MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES Low group (n » 26) Middle group (n = 28) High group (n = 13) Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. General decision-making 29.96 3.70 38.14 1.35 46.85 5.48 Adoption decision-making 6.42 11.56 31.07 19.81 80.85 62.31 Information-s eeking 3.23 3.52 8.43 7.98 15.92 11.45 Task involvement 31.46 13.50 36.29 11.66 45.85 11.82 Income 65,638.50 85,111.90 16,185.70 26,140.80 6,48^ .62 6,024.10 Size of farm 132.15 193.09 25.14 35.37 9.62 8.8*+ Number of children 4.58 2.37 3.79 2.17 2.85 1.63 Social participation 10.77 13.27 9.36 11.32 8.23 8.52 Extension contact 2.69 5.33 4.18 6.18 5.46 8.07 Education—husband 8.42 3.56 8.43 2.57 8.46 3.60 Education—wife 9.58 3.53 8.46 3.29 8.15 3.44 Age—husband 53.77 11.98 52.07 9.40 56.15 12.60 Age—wife 48.62 10.32 48.00 8.94 50.77 10.13 Husband's adoption score 26.50 3.25 25.96 2.82 25.85 3.87 TABLE 2? LOW, MIDDLE, AND HIGH ADOPTION DECISION-MAKING GROUPS: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES Low group (n =23) Middle group (n = 32) High group (n = 12) Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. General decision-making 30.78 5.10 37.56 3.67 45.50 7.27 Adoption decision-making 0.00 0.00 28.25 8.74 98.67 51.23 Information-seeking 2.74 2.86 6.31 6.27 21.83 7.36 Task involvement 32.04 14.79 34.44 7.79 49.25 14.96 Income 68,969.60 89,219.20 18,106.20 27,778.50 6,533.33 6,288.42 Size of farm 132.39 198,80 34.03* 64.08 10.92 11.45 Number of children 4.35 2.57 4.03 1.99 2.75 1.82 Social participation 11.87 13.78 6.28 5.70 14.58 16.07 Extension contact 1.95 3.13 4.16 6.98 6.67 7.91 Educ ation— husband 8.70 3.31 7.84 2.74 9.50 3.71 Education—wife 9.83 3.73 7.88 3.43 9.50 1.98 Age—husband 53.87 11.60 53.31 10.20 53.42 12.93 Age—wife 48.74 9.58 49.00 9.82 48.25 10.01 Husband's adoption score 26.78 2.24 25.38 3.44 27.00 3.69 APPENDIX C LOW, MIDDLE, AND HIGH DECISION-MAKING GROUPS: SOURCES OF VARIANCE FOR ONE-WAY ANALYSES OF VARIANCE 97 9 8 TABLE 28 GENERAL DECISION-MAKING GROUPS t VARIANCE SOURCES FOR ONE-WAY ANALYSES OF VARIANCE Source SS df MS Between groups Within groups Total ' Information-seeking 1411,39 2 3604.40 5015.79 64 66 705.70 56.32 12.53 <.001 Between groups Within groups Total Task involvement 1793.28 9899.89 11693.17 2 64 66 896.64 154.68 5.79 .005 Between groups Within groups T o t a l Income 4386949.72 2 19971473.27 63 24358422.99 65 2193474.86 317007.51 6.91 .002 Between groups Within groups Tot a l Size of farm 201487.21 2 966841,90 64 1168329.11 66 100743,60 15106,90 6,66 .003 Between groups Within groups Tot a l Number of c h i l d r e n 26.70 298.77 325.47 2 64 66 13.35 4.66 2.86 .063 (continued) a No data f o r one respondent. 9 9 TABLE 28(continued) Source SS df MS Between groups Within groups Total S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n 61.06 2 30.53 8729.36 64 136.39 8790.42 66 . 2 2 .804 Between groups Within groups Total Extension contact 71.63 2 5 2 2.87 2 5 9 4 . 5 0 2 64 66 35.82 3 9 . ^ 2 .91 .410 Between groups Within groups Tot a l Education—husband 0 . 0 0 6 5 0 . 4 5 6 5 0 . 4 5 2 64 66 0.00 10.16 . 0 0 . 9 9 6 Between groups Within groups Tot a l Education--wife 24.18 747.02 771.20 2 64 66 1 2 . 0 9 1 1 . 6 7 1 . 0 3 . 3 6 4 Between groups Within groups Total Age—husband 1 5 0 . 5 4 2 7 8 8 0.18 64 8 0 3 0 . 7 2 66 7 5 . 2 7 1 2 3 . 1 2 . 6 1 . 5 5 2 Between groups Within groups Total Age—wife 69.18 2 6 0 5 0.47 64 6119.65 66 3 4 . 5 9 9 4 . 5 3 . 3 6 . 7 0 4 Between groups Within groups Total Husband's adoption score 5.34 2 2.67 659.17 64 10 . 2 9 664 . 51 66 . 2 5 .781 100 TABLE 2 9 ADOPTION DECISION-MAKING GROUPSt VARIANCE SOURCES FOR ONE-WAY ANALYSES OF VARIANCE Source SS df MS Between groups Within groups Total .Information-seeking 3 0 2 2.82 1992.98 5 0 1 5.80 2 64 66 1 5 1 1.41 31.14 48.54 <.001 Between groups Within groups Tot a l Task involvement 2540.08 9153.08 11693.16 2 64 66 1270.04 143.02 8.88 .001 Between groups Within groups Total Income Ji4i44500.74 2 19913922 .25 63 24358422.99 6 5 2 2 2 2 2 5 0 . 3 7 3 1 6 0 9 4 . 0 0 7 . 0 3 . 0 0 2 Between groups Within groups Total Size of farm 170125.74 2 85062.87 998203.37 64 15596.93 1168328.11 66 5 . 4 5 .007 Between groups Within groups Total Number of c h i l d r e n 2 1 . 0 3 3 0 4 . 4 4 3 2 5 . 4 7 2 64 66 1 0 . 5 1 4 . 7 6 2.21 .116 (continued) a No data f o r one respondent. 1 0 1 TABLE 2 9 (continued) Source SS df MS Between groups Within groups Total S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n 768.42 2 384.21 8021.99 64 125.34 8790.41 66 3 . 0 2 . 0 5 5 Between groups Within groups Total Extension contact 180.67 2 2 4 1 3.84 2 5 9 4 . 5 1 64 66 9 0 . 3 3 3 7 . 7 2 2.40 .097 Between groups Within groups Total Education—husband 2 6 . 3 6 624 . 0 9 6 5 0 . 4 5 2 64 66 13.18 9.75 1 . 3 5 . 2 6 6 Between groups Within groups Tot a l Education—wife 57.39 713.81 771.20 2 64 66 28 . 7 0 1 1 . 1 5 2 . 5 7 . 0 8 3 Between groups Within groups Tot a l Age—husband 4 . 3 2 2 38 0 2 6!40 8 0 3 0 . 7 2 64 66 2 . 1 6 1 2 5.41 . 0 2 . 9 6 8 Between groups Within groups Tot a l Age—wife 4.96 2 6114.69 64 6119.65 66 2.48 95.54 . 0 3 . 9 5 9 Between groups Within groups Total Husband's adoption score 3 7 . 0 9 2 18 . 5 5 627.41 664 . 50 64 66 9 . 8 0 1 . 8 9 . 1 5 7 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 102 Sawer/UBC/70 103 PREDICTORS OF THE WIFE'S INVOLVEMENT IN FARM DECISION-MAKING Respondent's Name Address Telephone Number Code Number Date of Interview Comments« 104 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE* PREDICTORS OF THE WIFE'S INVOLVEMENT IN FARM DECISION-MAKING 1 , 2 . (Respondent's number) 3 . (Data card number—1 ) 4 , 5 . How long have you and your husband been farming? 6 , What i s your major a g r i c u l t u r a l operation? 0 . No response 1 . Don't know 2 . Strawberries 3 . Other small f r u i t s 4 . Dairy 5 . Cattle (excluding d a i r y ) , hogs, sheep 6 . Poultry 7 . Vegetables 8. Tree f r u i t s 9 . Greenhouses, cut flowers, nursery 7 . (Husband's response to above) 8. What i s your secondary a g r i c u l t u r a l operation? 9 . (Husband's response to above) 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2 , How many acres do you farm? 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 5 . (Husband's response to above) a Numbers along the l e f t margin r e f e r to columns on the data cards—responses were recorded d i r e c t l y on com-puter coding forms during the interviews. General comments and answers to open-ended questions were r e -corded on face sheets i d e n t i f y i n g each respondent. Items i n (s) r e f e r to cal c u l a t i o n s or to husbands' responses taken from Alleyne and Verner's (1969a) data. 1 0 5 16,17,18. How many acres do you have i n strawberries? 19,20,21. (Husband's response to above) 2 2 , 2 3 , 2 4 . (Number of acres devoted to a g r i c u l t u r a l operations other than s t r a w b e r r i e s — w i f e ' s response) 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 7 , (Number of acres devoted to a g r i c u l t u r a l operations other than strawberries—husband's response) 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 0 , 3 1 . What was the gross value of sales from a l l your a g r i c u l t u r a l operations l a s t year? (Do not record l a s t two d i g i t s on income items) 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 3 5 . (Husband's response to above) 36,37,38,39, What was the gross value of strawberries you sold l a s t year? 40,41,42,43, (Husband's response to above) 44,45,46,47, (Gross value of sales from a g r i c u l t u r a l oper-ations other than s t r a w b e r r i e s — w i f e * s r e -sponse) 48,49 , 5 0 , 5 1 * (Gross value of sales from a g r i c u l t u r a l oper-ations other than strawberries—husband's re-sponse) (START DATA CARD #2) 106 1 , 2 . (Respondent's number) 3 . (Data card number—2 ) Have you or your husband attended any meetings of the Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Associ -a t i o n t h i s year? How many were attended b y — 4. Husband only 5. Husband and wife together 6. Wife only Did you or your husband attend any meetings of the Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association l a s t year? How many were attended b y — 7« Husband only 8. Husband and wife together 9. Wife only 1 0 • Did you or your husband attend the Strawberry F i e l d Day t h i s year? 0 , No response 1 . Don't know 2 , Neither husband nor wife 3 . Husband only k. Husband and wife together 5. Wife only 1 1 . Last year? 1 2 . This year's Growers' Short Course sponsored by the Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association? 1 3 . Last year's Grower's Short Course? 107 Have you or your husband attended any other growers* short courses t h i s year? How many were attended b y — 14, Husband only 1 5 , Husband and wife together 16, Wife only Last year? How many were attended b y — 17• Husband only 18, Husband and wife together 1 9 , Wife only Have you or your husband attended any other a g r i c u l -t u r a l meetings, short courses, or f i e l d days t h i s  year? How many were attended b y — 20, Husband only 21, Husband and wife together 22, Wife only Last year? How many were attended b y — 2 3 , Husband only 24, Husband and wife together 2 5 , Wife only 26, Who i s your D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t ? 0. 1. 2, 3 . No response Don*t know Incorrect Correct 2 7 , Who i s your D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t ? (START DATA CARD # 3 ) 1 0 8 1 , 2 , (Respondent's number) 3 . (Data card number—3) In the past year how many times have you yourselfi 4 , 5 , Attended agricultural meetings or f i e l d days sponsored by the D i s t r i c t Horticulturist? (D.H.) 6 , 7 . By other agricultural agents? 8,9. Had farm v i s i t s by the D.H,? 1 0 , 1 1 , By other agricultural agents? 1 2 , 1 3 , Visited the office of the D.H,? 14 , 1 5 , Of other agricultural agents? 16,17. Had telephone conversations with the D.H,? 18,19, With other agricultural agents? 2 0 , 2 1 , Listened to radio or television programs given by the D.H.? 2 2 , 2 3 , By other agricultural agents? 2 4 , 2 5 . Read newspaper articles written by the D.H,? 2 6 , 2 7 , By other agricultural agents? 2 8 , 2 9 , Read circular letters or bulletins from the D,H,? 3 0 , 3 1 . From other agricultural agents? 3 2 , 3 3 . (Number of contacts with the D.H,) 3 ^ , 3 5 . (Number of contacts with other agents) 3 6 , 3 7 , 3 8 , (Total number of Extension contacts) Who i n your family i (Task involvement index) 39. Recruits the pickers 0. No response 1. Neither husband nor wife 2 . Husband only (2) 3. Husband more than wife (3) 4 . Husband and wife about equally (4) 5 . Wife more than husband ( 5 ) 6. Wife only (6) 40. Keeps the farm accounts 41 . Pays the b i l l s 42. Works with the farm machinery 43. Completes the income tax forms 44. Pays the pickers 4 5 . Plants the b e r r i e s 46. Does the hand weeding 4 7 . Sets the runners between the rows 48. Removes the blossoms 49. Writes the checks 5 0 . Supervises the pickers 5 1 , 5 2 , (Total score, task involvement index) Who i n your family decidest (General d e c i s i making index) 5 3 * Whether to t r y a new crop v a r i e t y 0 . No response 1 . Decision has not been considered 2 . Husband only ( 2 ) 3 . Husband more than wife ( 3 ) 4 . Husband and wife about equally ( 4 ) 5 . Wife more than husband ( 5 ) 6 . Wife only ( 6 ) 5 4 . Whether to buy or rent more land 5 5 • Whether to borrow money f o r the farm 5 6 . Whether to buy major farm equipment 5 7 • What s p e c i f i c make of farm equipment to buy 5 8 . What kind of f e r t i l i z e r to use 5 9 • Whether to attend an a g r i c u l t u r a l meeting 6 0 . Whether to subscribe to a farm p u b l i c a t i o n 6 1 . How many farm workers to hir e 6 2 . Whether to t r y a new farm practice 6 3 . Whether to increase or decrease crop acreage 64. Whether to switch to a new crop 6 5 , 6 6 . (Total score, general decision-making index) I l l Where do you get information to help you make these kinds of decisions? (open-ended) 6 7 , How do you f e e l about the decision-making part of farming? 0 . No response 1. Strongly d i s l i k e having to make decisions 2 . Somewhat d i s l i k e having to make decisions 3. Have no p a r t i c u l a r f e e l i n g e i t h e r way 4. Somewhat enjoy making decisions 5. Greatly enjoy making decisions 6 8 , How d i f f i c u l t would you say i t i s f o r you to make up your mind and come to a decision? 0 . No response 1. Very d i f f i c u l t 2 . Considerably d i f f i c u l t 3. Moderately d i f f i c u l t 4. S l i g h t l y d i f f i c u l t 5. Not at a l l d i f f i c u l t 6 9 . Does your husband ever bring home a g r i c u l t u r a l pub-l i c a t i o n s f o r you to read? 0 * No response 1• Never 2 , Seldom 3, Occasionally 4, Frequently 5« Very frequently 7 0 , Do you ever bring home a g r i c u l t u r a l publications f o r him to read? 71. Do you ever t e l l your husband something you have read or heard about a g r i c u l t u r a l matters? 7 2 , When your husband i s considering a new farm practice do you yourself t r y and f i n d out about i t ? (START DATA CARD #4) 1 1 2 1,2. (Respondent's number) 3. (Data card number—4) (Ask i n sequence indicated by column numbers f o r each innovation separately) 4 ,13 ,22,31,40,49. Are you f a m i l i a r with the pr a c t i c e oft a. S o i l analysis f o r nematode con t r o l b. Spraying with Captan f o r f r u i t - r o t c o n t r o l c. Using "matted rows" instead of " h i l l s " d. Chemical weed co n t r o l e. Using picking c a r t s f . Using v i r u s - f r e e c e r t i f i e d plants 0. No response 1 . Don't know 2 . No 3. Yes : 5 , 1 4 , 2 3 , 3 2 , 4 1 , 5 0 , Are you using t h i s p r a c t i c e on your farm? 6 , 1 5 , 2 4 , 3 3 , 4 2 , 5 1 . Who introduced the subject of the practice? 0, No response 1, Never considered 2, Don't know 3 , Husband only 4, Husband more than wife 5 * Husband and wife about equally 6 , Wife more than husband 7. Wife only :7,16 ,25,34,43 ,52 . Who found out information about the practice? 8,17,26,35,44,53. Who decided i f the practice were appro-pri a t e f o r your farm? 1 1 3 9 , 1 8 , 2 7 , 3 6 , 4 5 , 5 4 . W h o decided whether to t r y the prac-t i c e ? 10,19,28,37,46,55. Who decided whether to adopt the prac-t i c e ? 1 1 , 2 0 , 2 9 , 3 8 , 4 7 , 5 6 , Who decided to discontinue the prac t i c e ? 1 2 , 2 1 , 3 0 , 3 9 , 4 8 , 5 7 , Have you yourself ever t r i e d to f i n d out anything about t h i s practice? 0, 1. 2. No response No Yes (If yes) What sources of information did you use to f i n d out about t h i s practice? (open-ended) (START DATA CARD #5) 114 1,2. (Respondent's number) 3. (Data card number—5) (Adoption decision-making index) a. Husband only (0) b. Husband more than wife (10) c. Husband and wife about equally (20) d. Wife more than husband (30) e. Wife only (40) 4,5. (Score f o r s o i l a n a l y s i s — f r o m columns 6-11, data card #4) 6,7» (Score f o r Captan—from columns 15-20, data card #4) 8,9. (Score f o r matted rows—from columns 24-29, data card #4) 10,11, (Score f o r chemical weed c o n t r o l — f r o m columns 33-38, data card #4) 12,13. (Score f o r picking c a r t s — f r o m columns 42-47, data card #4) 1 4 , 1 5 . (Score f o r v i r u s - f r e e c e r t i f i e d p l a n t s — f r o m columns 5 1-56, data card #4) 16,17,18, (Total score, adoption decision-making index) (Index of husband's adoption of a g r i c u l t u r a l innovations) 19. ( S o i l analysis) 20. (Captan) 21. (Matted rows) 1 1 5 2 2 . (Chemical weed control) 2 3 . (Picking carts) 24. (Virus-free c e r t i f i e d plants) 2 5,26. (Total score, husband*s adoption of agricultural innovations) (Information-seeking index) 2 7 . (Number of agricultural meetings, f i e l d days, and short courses attended—from columns 4 - 2 5 , data card #3) 28. (Husband brings home agricultural publications for wife to read—from column 6 9 , data card #3) a. Never ( 0 ) b. Seldom ( 1 ) c. Occasionally ( 2 ) d. Frequently (3) e. Very frequently ( 4 ) 2 9 . (Wife brings home agricultural publications for husband to read—from column 7 0 , data card #3) 3 0 . (Wife t e l l s husband what she has read or heard about agricultural matters—from column 7 1 » data card #3) 31 • (Wife tries to find out about new practice husband is considering—from column 7 2 , data card #3) 3 2 . (Number of sources of information used in general decision-making—from open-ended item, data card #3) 116 33#34. (Number of sources of information used i n adoption decision-making—from open-ended item, data card #4) 35,36. (Total score, information-seeking index) (START DATA CARD #6) 11? 1,2. 3 . 4. 5.6. 7,8. 9.10. 11,12. 13,14. 15,16. 17. 18. 19.20. 21. (Respondent's number) (Data card number—6) Where were you born? 0. No response 1. Brit i s h Isles 2. Germany, Austria 3 . The Netherlands 4. Denmark, Norway, Sweden 5 . Ukraine, Russia 6. Japan 7. India 8, East Europe 9. USA A. Canada (If other than Canada) When did you migrate to Canadat What is your age? What is your husband's age? (Difference in ages) How many years have you been married? How many children do you have? How many are not yet of school age? How many are in school? How many are not l i v i n g at home? Did you work off the farm last year? 0. 1. 2. No : No Yes response 118 22, How much time did you spend working o f f the farm? 0 , No response 1, No off-farm work 2, Less than l/4-time off-farm work 3, 1/4 to les s than l/2-time off-farm work 4, 1/2 to less than 3A-time off-farm work 5 « 3A to l e s s t h a n f u l l - t i m e off-farm work 6, Full-time work 2 3 . What was your job? 0 , No response 1 , No off-farm work 2 , A g r i c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d job 3 , Other job What organizations did you belong to during the past year? (Chapin S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale, 1 9 5 5 ) a. Name ( 1 ) b. Attendance (2) c. F i n a n c i a l contribution ( 3 ) d. Committee member (4) e. O f f i c e s held ( 5 ) 24, (Number of organizations named) 2 5,26, (Total score, Chapin Scale) 2 7,28, How many years i n school d i d you complete? 2 9 , 3 0 , How many years i n school d i d your husband complete? (Sewell Scale, Short Form, 1 9 4 3 — R e c o r d responses i n f i r s t column, weights i n second column) 3 1 , 4 5 , Construction of house1 1 , Unpainted frame or other ( 3 ) 2 , Brick, stucco, or painted frame ( 5 ) 1 1 9 32,46. Room-person r a t i o (number of rooms divided by num-ber of persons) i 0. No response 1 . Below 1 . 0 0 ( 3 ) 2 . 1 . 0 0 - 1 . 9 9 ( 5 ) 3 . 2 . 0 0 and up ( 7 ) 3 3 , 4 7 . L i g h t i n g f a c i l i t i e s * 1 . O i l lamps, other, or none ( 3 ) 2 . Gas, mantle, or pressure ( 6 ) 3 . E l e c t r i c ( 8 ) 34,48. Water piped into house* 0 . No response 1 . No (4) 2 . Yes (8) 3 5 , 4 9 . Power washer* 0 . No response 1 . No ( 3 ) 2 . Yes ( 6 ) 3 6 , 5 0 . Refrigeration* 0 . No response 1 . Other or none ( 3 ) 2 . Ice ( 6 ) 3 . Mechanical ( 8 ) 3 7 , 5 1 . Radio* 0 . No response 1 . No ( 3 ) 2 . Yes ( 6 ) 3 8 , 5 2 . Telephone* 0 . No response 1 . No ( 3 ) 2 . Yes ( 6 ) 1 2 0 3 9 , 5 3 . C a n (or pickup truck) 0 . No response 1 . No ( 2 ) 2 . Yes ( 5 ) 40.54. Family takes d a i l y or weekly newspaper! 0 . No response 1. No ( 3 ) 2. Yes ( 6 ) 4 1 . 5 5 . (Wife's education—years completed) 0 . No response 1. 0 to 7 (2) 2. 8 (4) 3 . 9-11 ( 6 ) 4. 12 ( 7 ) 5 . 1 3 and up ( 8 ) 4 2 . 5 6 . (Husband's education—years completed) 0 . No response 1. 0 to 7 (3) 2. 8 ( 5 ) 3. 9-11 ( 6 ) 4. 12 ( 7 ) 5 . 13 and up ( 8 ) 4 3 . 5 7 . Husband attends church or Sunday School at l e a s t once a month1 0 . No response 1. No (2) 2. Yes ( 5 ) 4 4 . 5 8 . Wife attends church or Sunday School at l e a s t once a montht 0 . No response 1. No (2) 2. Yes ( 5 ) 5 9 , 6 0 . (Total score, Sewell Scale) (START DATA CARD # 7 ) 1 2 1 1 , 2 , (Respondent's number) 3 . (Data card number—7 ) Do you agree or disagree* (Goard and Dickinson Attitude Toward Change Scale, 1 9 6 8 ) 4 , I would not mind leaving here i n order to make a sub s t a n t i a l advance i n my occupation, 0 . No response 1 , Disagree 2 . Undecided 3 , Agree 5 « I do not want any new job which involves more r e -s p o n s i b i l i t y . 6 . I would not leave t h i s area under any circumstances. 7 . Learning a new routine would be very d i f f i c u l t f o r me. 8 . I would f i n d i t very d i f f i c u l t to go to school to lea r n new s k i l l s . 9 . I have no desire to learn a new trade. 1 0 . (Total score, Goard and Dickinson Scale) a. Disagree (score 0 f o r item 4 » l f o r items 5 - 9 ) b. Undecided (score 0 f o r items 4 and 9 1 1 f o r items 5 - 8 ) c. Agree (score 1 f o r item 4 j 0 f o r items 5 - 9 ) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101434/manifest

Comment

Related Items