SEPTEMBER I965 tttnnker Orientation ted t0 Marketing TEXAS ASM UNIVERSITY Texas Agricultural Experiment Station R. E. Patterson, Director, College Station, Texas OO-QQWCHCJO 1O 11 11 11 We; ,3; Contents Summary Introduction Orientation of the Homem Homemaker Knowledge Socio-characteristics of the Chi Square Analysis Conclusions Response to Mass Media Orientation of the Homem A Homemakefs Response to =,_ j r Summary Two sets of data consisting of 400 schedules each were collected in Houston in 1963. One set was gathered before any educational program had been used in the study. The second set was gathered after the experimental educational programs. The purpose of the study was to determine how homemakers respond to educational media. In preparing for the study, it was assumed that each consumer has basic be- havioral characteristics which relate to her marketing behavior. For convenience these behavior characteristics have been termed “orientation of the homemaker.” Three major types may be expected. They are 1) the homemaker who buys from habit, 2) the homemaker who rationalizes and 3) the one who buys on impulse. In order to group the homemakers in the study, questions were designed that would reflect basic behavior. In each set of data 14 percent of the homemakers were classed as impulsive. For the other two orientation classifica- tions, 18 percent of sample II and 23 percent of sample I were habitual while 67 percent of sample II and 63 percent of sam- ple I had rational characteristics. Also, in determining the homemaker’s marketing behavior, it was assumed that previous marketing knowledge and nutri- tional knowledge (knowledge held before seeing the experi- mental programs) would influence her decisions. The home- makers were scored on each area of knowledge to determine their relative knowledge in each area. Certain socio-characteristics were also used in evaluating the marketing behavior of the homemakers. These were age and education, number in the family, age of family members, sources of family income, total income and per capita income. Three types of mass education media were used in the experimental part of the study. They were television, radio 3 and newspaper. Programs were given 0n television and each week for 6 weeks and stories ran in one local paper sill taneously. Gathering of data was completed in approxim_' 4 weeks following the experimental period. i Orientation of the homemaker was shown to be si cantly related to age, education, income, race and nutrit knowledge. However, orientation was not significantly re to marketing knowledge. 1 Marketing knowledge and nutritional knowledge werel significantly related to education; therefore, it would see y education is the more important factor in determining f, cant relationships. Marketing facts are not taught in e1 public schools or through advertising or other mass me, the same extent as nutrition facts. This indicates that the a, maker’s marketing knowledge may be more limited tha nutritional knowledge or that additional work needs to be on methods of determining the extent of her marketing edge. This also gives some indication of the reason f, significant relationship between orientation and mars knowledge. Also, additional work needs to be done on of determining homemaker orientation. No conclusive result can be reported on the respo Q the homemakers to the mass media educational programs. 1 number who saw or heard these programs was small. H0 18-27 percent of the respondents read the newspaper w,’ and significant results were obtained for this media. Thei ber who saw the television program or heard the radio pr regularly was small. However, percentage calculations" cated a high percentage of those who regularly listened i TV and radio programs remembered the experimental? grams. Therefore, it would seem that a study limited to?‘ actually participating in a given type of mass media (r listeners or viewers of a specific program) would give 1 from which some significant relationships could be deter I aher Orientation ~ ta Marketing \~.~ . b i: .' 9 ata were collected in Houston in 1963 to determine how the homemaker consumer reacts to mass educational media. Two sets of data were gathered. The first set, entitled “The Before Data,” was taken before any educational program had been used in the study. The second set of data was gathered after the experimental educational programs. In each case 400 homemakers were interviewed. The homemakers were ran- domly drawn from the Houston city directory. The samples were drawn simultaneously. This was accomplished by assign- ing alternate names to each of the samples. The first 400 homemakers were interviewed in May and June of 1963. The educational program was conducted in September and October, and the second set of homemakers were interviewed in Novem- ber and December of 1963. It had been previously decided that the period elapsing between the two sets of interviews should not be more than 6 months. Orientation of the Homemaker In preparing for this research, it was assumed that each consumer has basic behavioral characteristics which would re- late to her marketing behavior. For convenience these behavior characteristics have been termed “orientation of the home- maker.” Three major types may be expected. They are 1) the homemaker who buys from habit, 2) the homemaker who rationalizes and 3) the one who buys on impulse. It was further assumed that the rational homemaker would be some- where between the habitual and the impulsive buyer. It is recognized that these are arbitrary divisions of consumer be- havior. To rank the homemaker in these categories, questions were designed that would reflect her basic behavior patterns. For example, the homemaker who would always serve the eve- ning meal at the same time of day each day would be habitually oriented. In contrast, the impulsive homemaker would change the time of service with little notice. Five groups of questions were prepared from which each homemaker could be scored according to her answers. The questions used were developed with the aid of a social psy- *Acting head and associate professor, Department of Home Economics. 5 TABLE I. ORIENTATION OF THE HOMEMAKER FOR 800 FAMILIES IN HOUSTON, TEXAS Number of homemakers Orientation Sample I Sample II Number Percent Number Percent Habitual 91 23 74 I 8 Rational 253 63 269 67 Impulsive 56 I4 57 I4 chologist. Scoring of the answers was develope-d with the aid of a statistician. Test analysis of data from sample I indicated two-thirds of all homemakers would fall in the rational group and one-third in each of the extreme groups. It was recognized that there would be a gradual fading in at both ends from the extremes and not a definite break between the groups. Results have been useful in the analysis of homemaker marketing behavior. Scoring of data from sample I placed 91 home- makers in the habitual group, 253 in the rational group and 54 in the impulsive group». Sample II results were very similar to sample I (Table 1). In both cases 14- percent of the homemakers fell in the impulsive group. However, in sample II 71L, or 18 percent, of the home- makers were in the habitual group and 269, or 67 per- cent, were in the rational group. This differed from sample I in that 23 percent were in the habitual group and 63 percent were in the rational group. Homemaker Knowledge It was assumed that the homemakefs previous marketing knowledge and nutritional knowledge would influence her food buying practices. To classify the homemaker in these areas, questions were prepared that TABLE 2. MARKETING KNOWLEDGE SCORE AND NUTRITIONAL KNOWLEDGE SCORE OF THE HOMEMAKER FOR 800 FAMILIES IN HOUSTON, TEXAS Marketing Number of homemakers knowledge Sample I (400) Sample II (400) score Number Percent Number Percent O I9 5 I 2 3 I 54 I3 , 39 IO 2 66 I6 7I I8 3 7O I8 85 2i 4 66 I7 68 I7 5 69 I7 68 I7 6 28 7 37 9 7 2i 5 I2 3 8 7 2 6 2 9 O O 2 O Nutritional knowledge score I 22 6 28 7 2 I03 26 97 25 3 82 20 99 25 4 I I5 29 IOI 25 5 78 2O 75 I9 would identify the extent of her knowledge. scoring procedure was determined and the homem, were scored. In the marketing knowledge category homemaker could receive a score of 0 to 9. In nutritional knowledge category she could receive a I» mum score of 36 and a minimum score of O. tional knowledge scores were ranked from 1 to 5.1- both sets of data the majority‘ of homemakers ~- marketing knowledge scores from 2 to 5. Approx 17 percent of the homemakers made each of these :g (2, 3, 4~ and 5) for a total of approximately 68 r.‘ of the homemakers in each sample (Table 2). In.’ ple I, 18 percent made a score of less than 2, an percent made a score of more than 5. In sample I percent scored less than 2, and 14- percent scored than 5. In ranking the nutritional scores in sample i‘ percent fell in rank 1 and 2O percent in rank 5.. sample II, 7 percent fell in rank 1 and 19 percel rank 5. In sample II, 25 percent fell in each of the three ranks. In sample I, 26 percent were in rank percent in rank 3 and 29 percent in rank 4». I The homemaker’s orientation is related to her keting knowledge scores in the following manner ( (A 3). No homemakers in sample I who were impu oriented had scores below 2, while 27 percent of who were habitually oriented had scores below 2. I 19 percent of the homemakers classified as ra scored below 2. On the other hand, 16 percent homemakers classified as impulsive scored 7' or 9 marketing knowledge, and only 1 percent of the h a ly oriented homemakers scored as high as 7. N’ made a score of 9. Seven percent of the home; classified as rational scored 7 or 8. The same W progressive difference in the homemakers’ scores in the nutritional knowledge scores. Thirty-nine n! of the habitually oriented homemakers were in or 2, while 66 percent of the impulsively oriented f makers ranked 4~ or 5 in nutritional knowledge. * rational homemakers tended to be in the higher 5f however, the majority of these homemakers were w: more widely through ranks 2 to 5. Twenty-five v-j were in rank 2, 2O percent in rank 3, 28 percent in 4- and 21 percent in rank 5. I The same differences were observed in sam but they were not as specific. For example, no Q, homemakers made the O score for marketing kno.’ while 3 percent of the impulsive homemakers ma score. On the other hand, 54 percent of the I homemakers made scores of 3 or less, while g percent of the impulsive homemakers made sco Q or less. In this sample, the rational homemake grouped in scores 3, 4~ and 5 with 57 percent homemakers making these scores. A much low‘ l3. ORIENTATION OF THE HOMEMAKER VERSUS MARKETING KNOWLEDGE AND NUTRITIONAL KNOWLEDGE FOR 800 FAMILIES IN HOUSTON, TEXAS Orientation of the homemaker : ,ng 9e Sample I Sample II ' Habitual Rational Impulsive Habitual Rational Impulsive Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent IO I I 9 4 O O O O IO 4 2 3 I5 I6 39 I5 O O 9 I2 23 8 7 I 2 l9 21 41 I 6 6 I I I 5 2O 49 I8 7 I 2 21 23 37 I5 I2 21 I6 22 6O 22 9 I6 9 IO 48 I 9 9 II I I I5 45 I7 I2 21 I4 I5 '41 I6 I4 25 I2 I6 47 I8 9 I6 2 2 2O 8 6 I I 7 IO 23 9 7 I 2 I I I4 6 6 I I I I 9 3 2 3 O O 4 I 3 5 2 3 3 I I 2 O O O O O O I I O O ‘ I 2 91 99 253 IOO 56 IOO 74 IOO 269 IOO 57 99 5 5 I3 5 4 7 I 2 I 6 I3 5 3 5 31 34 64 25 8 I4 I5 2O 73 27 9 I6 24 26 51 2O 7 I3 I 8 24 72 27 9 I 6 22 24 72 28 21 37 I9 26 65 24 I7 3O 9 IO 53 21 I6 29 IO I3 46 I7 I9 33 91 99 253 99 56 IOO 74 99 269 IOO 57 IOO e of the homemakers in sample II made the very (scores for marketing knowledge. Only 9 percent I scores of 8 or 9. In nutritional knowledge, the g ive homemakers in sample II had the high scores i those in sample I. Sixty-three percent of the live homemakers were in ranks 4 and 5. Only 39 I t of the habitual homemakers were in ranks 4 and 1| 78 percent of the rationally oriented homemakers in ranks 2, 3 and 4 (Table 3). l-charucteristics of the Homemaker er characteristics of the homemaker considered ation t0 her orientation and her marketing prac- (‘were age and education, number in the family and (f family members. Also considered were sources mily income (who in the family provided the ye), total family income and per capita income. Sample I had 6 percent more homemakers under 35 llsample II, while sample II had 7 percent more 5,. akers in the 45-59 age group (Tables 41-5). In Ir e I, I percent of the families had no homemaker p sample II had no familieslwith no homemaker. (.1 percent of the homemakers in sample I had less I an eighth grade education while 2O percent in Ie II had less than an eighth grade education. (st 12 percent of the homemakers in both samples a college education ;.or more. A total of 53 percent l» families in sampler I and 49 percent in sample II a high school education or some additional training. 2' Average size of the families was about the same for vi samples. Sample I averaged 4.0 and sample II persons per family. Distribution of the homemakers age groups also was similar for the two samples (Table 4-). A slightly higher percentage of the families in sample I had children. Also, a higher percentage of families in sample I had more than two adults 2O years of age or older living in the family group. Some of these adults were older children of the family heads. Others were parents, brothers and sisters and other rela- tions. Few homemakers, 3 percent in sample I and 2 per- cent in sample II, had the total responsibility for the family income. However, 1O percent and 18 percent, respectively, cooperated with the male head of the house- hold in providing family income. The male head pro- vided the only source of family income for 75 percent AGE AND EDUCATION OF HOMEMAKER FOR 800 FAMI- LIES IN HOUSTON, TEXAS TABLE 4. Number of persons in family Age of homemaker Sample I (400) Sample Il (400) Number Percent Number Percent Under 25 35 9 31 8 25-34 101 25 82 20 35-44 126 31 125 31 45-49 89 22 I I8 29 6O or more 43 11 43 11 No homemaker 5 1 O O Education of homemaker Less than 5 grades 9 2 13 3 5 to 8 grades 5O 13 66 17 9-11 grades (not graduating) 71 18 68 17 High school graduate 141 35 125 31 Some college, business or professional school 7O 18 73 18 Bachelor's degree 39 1O 38 1O More than a bachelor's degree 6 2 9 2 No homemaker 5 1 I O No information 9 2 7 2 TABLE 5. NUMBER OF PERSONS IN THE FAMILY FOR 800 FAMILIES IN HOUSTON, TEXAS Number of families Numb“ °I Pam“ Sample | (400) Sample n (400) in family Number Percent Number Percent 2 persons 96 24 II5 29 3 persons 63 I6 74 I8 4 persons 96 24 8I 2O 5 persons 65 I6 7I I8 6 persons 39 IO 29 7 7 persons 23 6 I2 3 8 persons 6 I 8 2 9 persons I2 3 I0 3 Children Ages of children Under I year 43 II 24 6 I-6 years I66 4I I45 36 7-I2 years I70 42 I49 37 I3-I9 years I28 32 II5 29 No children 96 24 II5 29 Adults Number of adults 2O years or older o 3 1 1 ‘ I I3 3 8 2 2 329 82 346 86 3 or more 54 I4 45 II Average number in household 4.0 3.9 lLess than one percent. of the families in sample I and 69 percent in sample II. All other families had incomes from a combination of‘ family members which might include the homemaker with the head and children, or it might be the children alone or the male head and children or other combina- tions. Total family income for both samples generally was higher than for the nation. Only 5 percent of the fami- lies in sample I and 7 percent in sample II had incomes under $3,000, while 12 percent in sample I and 10 per- cent in sample II had incomes of $15,000 or more (Table 6). In each sample, 4-0 percent or more of the families had incomes of $8,000 or more. In sample I, 36 percent of the families and in sample II, 38 percent of the families had incomes under $6,000. The median for both samples fell in the 17 percent of families that had incomes between $6,000 and $8,000. F ifty-one percent of sample I and 53 percent of sample II had per capita incomes of $1,800 or more. In fact, 19 percent of sample I and 23 percent of sample II had per capita incomes of $3,200 or more. In this connection, it may be noted that 39 percent of the male heads in both sam- ples had some education beyond high school. However, not all of the high income families were those with a higher level of education. Homemakers Response to Mass Media The three types of mass education media used in this study were television, radio and newspaper. Ar- rangements were made with the local agricultural exten- 8 . tional program. sion marketing specialist to present six cons, programs during the time she normally had a marketing report on television and radio. The pro on which she regularly appeared were very early i ing farm hour programs. The number of regular ’_ ers was correspondingly small. She also had a 7 column in one of the local newspapers that was’; for the experimental program‘. i’: All of the educi programs were run weekly for the 6 weeks imm preceding the gathering of the data from the hom If in sample II. Gathering of the data was compl: approximately 4- weeks following the experimental Ninety-eight percent of the families in sample i 95 percent in sample II had televisions. Some cent of all the families had radios. At least 63 ~§ read one daily newspaper regularly and an ad’ 25 percent in each sample read as many as three‘; newspapers. I Only 12 percent of the families in sample I or sometimes saw the television program that =r._ for this educational material. In sample II, 7 ‘ of the families usually or sometimes saw this pr’ In sample II, 4| percent of the families said they ‘y program that was given for educational purposes, meant that 65 percent of the families who were‘ "I watchers of this program saw the experimental Fourteen percent of the homemakers in =00 usually or sometimes heard the radio progr_ TABLE 6. FAMILY INCOME, PER CAPITA INCOME AND I OF INCOME OF 800 FAMILIES IN HOUSTON, TEXAS j Number of families Sample I (400) Sample II Family income Number Percent Number Under $2,000 IO 2.5 I4 $2,000-2,9OO IO 2.5 I6 $3,000-3,900 35 9 46 $4,000-4,9OO 39 IO 39 $5,000-5,9OO 5I I3 39 $6,000-7,9OO 67 I7 67 $8,000-8,900 48 I2 59 $I0,000-I4,90O 64 I6 77 $I5,000 or more 5O I2 39 No information 26 6 4, Per capita income Under $300 2 1 2 $300599 'I4 3 20 $600-899 38 I0 36 $900-I,I99 47 I2 40 $I,200-I,799 68 I7 84 $I,800-2,499 62 I5 63 $2,500-3,I99 67 I7 57 $3,200 or more 75 I9 94 No information 26 I6 4 Sources of income Homemaker only I3 3 9 Head of household I 30I 75 277 Homemaker and head 40 I0 73 Other combination 43 II 40 ‘Less than one percent. .00v 10 3A0803 A08: :0 03:29» 30083030: .:>>o:3 30: 3:0 3380033: AA< 33:00.3 3233033: 3f 0:A0A08 33088380: 06 3333033: A0:.0.F :0 03:20; 3:0 330083039 3m F FR 30 F 33 NRw 00 F :3 3 F 30 0w NvF 33 3v RF 3R 0w 3w F 0v A0:0.A vv 33 Fv Fm Rm 0w R 3 v 3 0F vF v 3 v 3 0 3 m mF 0F mF mF 03 Rm 3 0 0 0 mF RF 0F 0F FF FF 0F 0F v 0F 0F 0F 0F vw 0w 3 3 0 0 F F 0 0 3 R R m F F F 3 0 0 R R 0F 0F F F 3 3 mF , mF F F v v 1 0F 0F w v F 0 0 0F v v F F F 3 3 F 0 0 v F 0 w F 1:30:30 30822 1:30:30 30822 1:30:30 30822 1:30:30 30822 1:30.30 30822 1:30:30 30822 183030 30822 1:30:30 30822 1:30:30 :3...A822 0A:0m :82Ao0 000 >A:0A203: 80:00:0 33823803 3383803 80:00:0 3383803 33813803 _0838A30x3 30A333 m-F 003m A0838A30x3 :0 :0 A0838A30x3 :0 :0 003m :82Ao0 0:03: >AA0233 >AA0:3D 30w >AA0233 >AA023D 003m 3:003 A001 AA 3A080w A00vA A 3A080m A00vA AA 30:53 A001 A 3A080w A001 AA 3A080w A001 A 3A080m 3003A>>05A :3000333: :A :82Ao0 0:00: :0 80:00:0 >0. :0 80:00:0 A0852. 8:00 A0:0A:~A:F22 3.80020 .0 003: o_.A>> 39:22 3.:3:330m .0 0:031 382.0800 .0 0310,63 30083030 0:0 >0:320.3:+ 33088380; 1o 308,22 33m: 29320: 2A 3322,23 00w mOHA 333003 300322620: .A<20_FAmFD2 wmwvA<< 0E3 >0._<3.A.0< 322300 33n_<.:3>>3z 02< 33$: >000.A<3F0< w<<>9A3 :0: 3:0 333:o033: AA< 33.603 3203033: 38. 0:308 33038380: 1o 333:o033: A20: :0 0330A» 3:0 330083030. 30F l\ F 3o F 33 “Rw 00 F "m 0 F 30 0w NvF 33 3v RF 3R 0w 3w F 0v A030. 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 w 33 w 0w w RF F 0 0 0 0 RF F 0 0 0 0 0 3 F RF w wm F F mw m RF w 3 F 3 F 3 F 0w 3 R Fv mF 33 vF vF v o 0 3 F 0F 3 3 F 3 3 R w 0 0w 0w 0w 0F 33 mw R 3 3 w vF 0F v 3 v 3 0F R 3 0F F F 0F R 0w RF m w 0 v mw mF v 3 0 v m w v F F 0 o 3 ow 0F 0 3 0 R 0F R v 0 R 0 0F 0F 0 mF F F 0F 0 0m 0w F F 0 3 RF F F v 3 R 3 mF 0F w 3 F w F RF 0 3 w 0 3 F F 3 3 w 3 3 F F 0 F 3 F 3 F 0F 3 0 0 3 F 3 F 0 0 3 F 0F 0 0 1:30:30 30822 01:30:30 30802 1:30:30 30822 1:30:30 30822 1:30:30 30822 30:30:30 30822 1:30:30 30822 1:30:30 33822 1:30:30 ._.W3.:3A8:2 :82Ao0 000 >A:0A203: 80:00:0 3383803 3383803 80:00:0 33813803 33823803 A0838A30x3 30A33>> m-F 003m 8838:3003 :o :0 A0838A30x3 :0 :0 003m :82Ao0 0:03: >AA0233 >AA0233 30m >AA0233 >AA0233 3:003 003m 3003A>>o:0A A001 __ 30:63 A001 _ 30:63 A001 __ 30:83 601 _ 3:383 A001 __ 30:53 A001 _ 30:63 35:30:02 :3000333: :A :82Ao0 3.t0>AU .0 003: 0:3 39:22 0:00: :0 80:00:0 3.:3:33om .0 0:03I 3003:3030 0:0 >uC3JF03¢ .3:30A0E3E01 1o 39:32 >.A. :0 80:00:0 A0::2oA. 8:00 3820800 .0 03.A0:0>> éé,s=lr.ewsafiacvillm, x , T 9 sample II, 6 percent usually heard this program. Five percent in sample II reported they heard the program the day the experimental program was given. This meant that 73 percent of those who usually or sometimes heard this radio program heard the special program prepared for this study. Distribution of the small num- ber of homemakers who had seen the television program or heard the radio program over nine scores for market- ing knowledge and over five ranks for nutritional knowl- edge makes it difficult to evaluate the relationship of knowledge t0 the ones who heard or saw these- programs (Tables 7a and 7b). It has been pointed out that a high percentage of those who usually heard the radio program or saw the television program remembered seeing or hearing the experimental program. Chi square analysis, to be discussed later, showed that there was some significance in marketing and nutritional knowledge to the homemakers’ socio-economic characteristics. The cells were too small, however, to show a significant rela- tionship to the specific experimental programs. In sample I, 27 percent of the families said they were accustomed to reading the column written by the marketing specialist. In sample ll, 16 percent said that they had read this column sometime during the past 5 weeks. In sample II, 18 percent said they had read the column on the day the experimental material was used. This meant that a higher percentage remembered having read the test column than those who remembered read- ing the regular columns written by the marketing spe- cialist. The recall period of 4» to 5 weeks covered most of the time during which the educational material was being presented. The newspaper column used for this educational program usually appeared in the women’s section of the paper. The homemakers were asked if they read the food section of the paper. Sixty-four percent in sample I and 54~ percent in sample Il reported that they usually read the food section. The replies could be grouped in four general classifications. These included economy or best buys, menu planning, nutritional information and food preparation methods. This fourth classification was the most popular of the single classifications, with 16 percent in sample II looking for this type of information. How- ever, 46 percent of the homemakers said that they found information from all four groups useful. The remaining 7 percent indicated a preference for one of the other three classifications, the highest number preferring the best buys (Table 8). The same question was asked of homemakers in sample I, and the percentage distribution of answers was similar, but a larger percentage of home- makers responded that they found this information use- ful. Forty-nine percent found all types of information useful, 11 percent were looking for food preparation methods, 9 percent were looking for best buys or how 10 to buy, 3 percent for nutritional knowledge, and l cent for meal planning information. ‘ Homemakers were asked about their frequ' using recipes given on television programs, and 1 cent in sample I and 11 percent in sample II -- they had used recipes from television programs y the last 3 months. A similar; question asked abo“ use of recipes from radio programs gave only 2 cent from each sample that had used such recipes H, the last 3 months. I Chi Square Analysis In both samples, education of homemaker, f income, per capita income and race were signifi related at the 1 percent level to marketing and nutritional knowledge of the homemaker. In II age of the homemaker was not significantly I to marketing knowledge but it was significantly at the 5 percent level to nutritional knowledg sample II the number who read the test column =_ last time the column was read was significantly to both nutritional knowledge and to marketing edge. In addition. number of newspapers frequency of reading the food section of the new 5' were significantly related to nutritional knowledg latter was significant only at the 5 percent level. i Orientation of the homemaker was signif related to education, family income, per capita ' and race in sample l. None of these showed si relationships to orientation of the homemaker in i, II. However, in sample II, orientation of the. maker was significantly related to frequency of the food section of the newspaper. Number of newspapers read and the numb ing the experimental column was significantly _ to education of the homemaker in both sampl addition, frequency of trying recipes given over: TABLE 8. HOMEMAKERS' RESPONSES TO USE OF FOOD It: NEWSPAPER FOR 800 FAMILIES IN HOUSTON, T Number of homemakers p Hggfiltgviad Sample I Samplei used Number Percent Number How to buy 8 2 How to plan meals 3 l Nutritional information l4 3 Best buys 29 7 l Food preparation method 46 ll All of these 195 49 183 DNA* 4O lO Multiple answer 42 ll No answer, none, don't know, not interested 23 6 Total 4OO lOO 4OO *Does not apply. l?‘ CHI SQUARES IN SAMPLE I SIGNIFICANT AT THE 5 PER- 5 CENT AND I PERCENT LEVELS Percentile values Degrees Cclcw of X2 distribution of lated X2 X2 ariables* freedom X2 .95 .99 of homemaker versus: I of daily newspapers larly read 4 28.3 9.5 13.2 '1 read Gwendolyn J 's column 3 9.7 7.8 ** knowledge versus: h 12 29.6 21.0 26.2 _'on 12 44.9 21.0 26.2 1 income 16 55.8 26.3 32.0 _- itd income 20 46.8 31.4 37.6 7 28.7 14.1 18.5 knowledge versus: g 12 24.0 21.0 ** on 12 83.5 21.0 26.2 y. income 15 80.3 25.0 30.6 Lita income 15 56.9 25.0 30.6 2 4 15.1 9.5 13.2 '0n of homemaker versus: |on 8 20.4 15.5 20.0 I income 10 27.7 18.3 23.2 lpita income 10 25.6 18.3 23.2 2 2 6.2 6.0 ** tests gave chi square-s less than X2 .95. uare larger than calculated X2. rograms and number of households with radios ignificantly related t0 education of the homemaker I o other variables tested by chi square analysis a significant relationship. Conclusions e following conclusions were derived concerning rientation of the homemakers involved and their p»: to the various media used in the study. ution of the Homemaker e homemaker’s response to various situations in I experience was used to identify general behavior i: s. This identification has been termed “orienta- l” lt has been shown to be significantly related to _21 socio-economic characteristics—-age, education, 11 and race——and to nutritional knowledge of the Htpaker. Orientation, however, was not significantly ' .. to marketing knowledge held by the homemaker. . It is known that education and income are directly ' an to age. The interdependence of all these factors I d suggest their association in determining the sig- ant relationships observed in orientation, nutritional wledge and marketing knowledge. Since marketing knowledge and nutritional knowl- - are significantly related to education, it would seem v education is the more important factor in determin- l significant relationships. Marketing facts are not taught in either public schools or through advertising or other mass media to the same extent as nutritional facts. It was therefore difficult to prepare questions that would measure the homemaker’s marketing knowledge. On the other hand, preparation of questions to measure nutritional knowledge was not as difficult. More specific information was available. This suggests that additional work needs to be done on methods of determining mar- keting knowledge of the homemaker. Also, there may be need for more refinement of the method for deter- mining orientation of the homemaker. In turn, signifi- cant relationships may be more directly observed. We might still assume that orientation of the homemaker is related to her marketing behavior. This has only been shown to the extent her nutritional knowledge is used in marketing. Assuming that marketing information would be more useful to her if she had more exact information we also can assume that it would then he significantly related to her orientation. Response to Muss Media Since the number of homemakers who saw or heard the programs and materials used in the mass media test TABLE 10. CHI SQUARES IN SAMPLE II SIGNIFICANT AT 5 PERCENT- AND 1 PERCENT LEVELS Percentile values Degrees Colcw of X2 distribution of Iated X2 X2 Variables* freedom X2 .95 .99 Nutritional knowledge and Number newspapers read regularly 8 21.0 15.5 20.1 Frequency food section read 8 17.9 15.5 ** Number who read column by marketing specialist 4 51.6 9.5 13.3 Last time column by specialist was read 6 58.8 12.6 16.8 Age of the homemaker 16 29.1 26.3 ** Education of the homemaker 16 117.5 26.3 32.0 Number in the household 16 34.7 26.3 32.0 Family income 16 112.9 26.3 32.0 Per capita income 15 99.8 25.0 30.6 Marketing knowledge and Number who read test column 6 26.2 12.6 16.8 Last time column by specialist was read 4 20.7 9.5 13.3 Race 5 18.4 11.1 15.1 Education of homemaker 12 59.4 21.0 26.2 Family income 16 51.3 26.3 32.0 Per capita income 20 39.0 31.4 37.6 Orientation of homemaker and frequency of g reading food section 4 24.3 9.4 13.3 Education of homemaker and frequency recipes from TV were tried 4 10.4 9.4 ** Number of newspapers read by homemaker 4 35.8 9.4 13.3 Number who read test column 3 41.3 7.8 11.3 Number of households with radio 3 16.2 7.8 11.3 *Other tests gave chi squares less than X2 .95. **Chi squares larger than calculated X2. ll was small, no conclusive results can be reported. This suggests the need for a study that would be limited t0 those actually participating in the media programs. The success of such a study has been demonstrated by the significant relationships found with those who read the marketing column used in the experimental programs. Eighteen to 27 percent of the respondents read the col- umn. Consequently, significant results were obtained in the number who remembered seeing the expef column. Smaller percentages heard the radio plf and saw the TV program, and significant result not obtained with the chi square analysis. H0 percentage calculations indicated a high percen If listeners to the programs remembered the specific a mental programs. With a larger participating - significant relationships might ‘be expected. l '1'exas 118M University Texas Agricultural Experiment Station College Station. Texas 77841 Xififlw? Director Publication-Annual Report or Bulletin or Report of Progress Permit 1105 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty for priv payment oi