Using a computer simulation game to teach family ...

Using a Computer Simulation Game to Teach Family Time Use Concepts Sherman Hanna

Ohio State University S h a r o n DeVaney

Purdue University Allen M a r t i n

Mississippi State University

ABSTRACt. A computer simulation game designed to give students insights into family time use concepts has been used in an introductory family resource management class at Ohio State University and other universities. The game allows for planning for time use changes over the f, mily life cycle. The game can give students insights into economic and sociological models of time use. It is possible that future versions of the game could be used in f,m~ly counseling.

KEY WORDS: computer sottware, family time use, overload, simulation, work/family roles.

Sherman Hanna is Professor, Consumer and Textile Sciences Department, The Ohio Stats University, 1787 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210-1295. His research intsrests include derivation of optimal decision-making rules for families and fRmily financial management. Sharon DeVaney is Assistant Professor, Consumer Sciences and Retailing Department, Purdue University, 1262 Mathews, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1262. Her research intsrests include financial management over the life course including financial ratios, baby boomers, and retirement. She received her Ph.D. in 1993 from The Ohio Stats University in Family Resource M~agement. Allen Martin is Visiting Associate Professor in Human Development Family Studies, Home Economics Department, Mississippi Stats University, Box 9745, Starkville, MS 39762. His research intsrests include the time trade-offs made between couples, financial planning over the life cycle, and the'intsraction of time and money between families and their home-based businesses. He received his Ph.D. in 1993 from The Ohio Stats University in Family Resource Management. J o u r n a l of F , m i l y a n d Economic Issaes, Vol. 17(3/4), Winter 1996 @ 1996 Human Sciences Press, lna

297

298

J o u r n a l of Family and Economic Issues

Introduction

Increasing attention has been devoted recently to the limited amount of leisure time available to Americans (Schor, 1991). For many young dual-career couples, having children adds one more demand to work time and may result in very limited leisure or sleep time. This article discusses a computer simulation game for family time use and suggests its value in giving students insights into the decisions f~milies must make about household time use. Understanding the trade-offs that can be made between time and money and the changes resulting from changing employment and family situations over the life cycle can help students gain more insight into their own future situations and into applications in the helping professions. The primary focus of the simulation game is on the time allocation between husband and wife at various stages in the life cycle. The simulation game may help students become better prepared to analyze labor force participation, time allocation between husband and wife, and the amount of leisure time available to a couple after paid employment and unpaid household work time. The program relies on previous surveys to provide estimates of average time use in categories such as food preparation and cleanup, contingent on family composition and the housing arrangement. Further development of the game, including new analyses of time use data, may lead to a computer simulation game appropriate for actual families to help t h e m plan for changes in employment and family composition.

Review of Literature A brief description of competing theories on time use is presented: a generic sociological model, the household production model developed by Becket (1965) and others. Then selected literature on simulation and games is summarized.

A Sociological Approach: Household Norms According to sociological norm theory, a norm is a culturally defined way of behaving, with rewards for conformity and punishments for deviation. Norm theory has been used to study a variety of phenomena, such as housing (e.g., Morris & Winter, 1978) and mate se-

Shermnn Hanna, Sharon DeVaney, and Allen Martin

299

lection (e.g., Burr, 1973). Norms for family time use have not been explored in any detail in a rigorous m~nner. Two important family time use norms are gender stereotyping and performance standards. Based on patterns from the 1950s, if a husband did all the cooking, a gender norm would be violated and informal social sanctions (e.g., ridicule) might result. Similarly, if dust were visible on furniture, a performance norm would be violated and social sanctions (e.g., a lecture from a mother-in-law) might result. External sanctions do not have to be applied for norms to be obeyedDthe socialization process may effectively internalize sanctions so a person may experience stress at the thought of a visitor seeing a dirty kitchen. Sociological norm theory does not provide a direct explanation of why norms change, but Schor's (1991, pp. 88-98) account of the upgrading of standards suggests that the introduction of "labor-saving" devices simply led to higher standards of cleanliness. Women, who no longer had farm work but were inhibited from entering the labor force, bore the burden. Empirical time use studies have found that many married couples still practice a degree of gender stereotyping in household tasks but that it seems to be decreasing over time (Blair & Lichter, 1991). Norms related to some performance standards seem to be changing. A 1993 survey of 500 adults found that "84 percent of women and 80 percent of men can tolerate a certain amount of dust in their homes" (Varkonyl, 1993). The power and rigor of sociological models seem limited. Even some sociologists analyzing household time use data have relied primarily on economic models (e.g., Berk & Berk, 1979). The economic model introduced by Becker (1965) seems dominant. The Household Production Model

The household production model is based on the idea that households produce intermediate goods by combining the time of household members with market goods. Following Bryant's (1990) notation, assume that the household would like to maximize utility, U, which is a function of a vector of market goods, C, a vector of goods and services produced and consumed by the household, G, and a vector of the leisure time of household members, L. U = u(C,G,L)

(1)

Journal of FRmily and Economic Issues

300

Household members can produce the home goods, G, by combining market goods used as inputs, denoted by the vector X, with time inputs, H. G = g(H;X)

(2)

Each household member faces a time constraint because the total of leisure time, L, market work time, M, and household production time, H, must equal the total time available. Leisure time in this context includes sleep and other personal maintenance time, as well as other time uses not ordinarilythought of as leisure.Bryant's (1990, p. 119) simple formulation is static because it does not consider time spent investing in education. The time constraint faced by each individual for one day is shown by 24 = M + H + L

(3)

Money income, Y, is derived from employment income, E, and nonlabor income, V. Y = E + V

(4)

In the case of a couple, each member of which could have one job with variable hours (MI and M2) and fixed wage rates (wl and w2), the employment income can be described by Equation 5. E = wiM1 + w12M2

(5)

The households total employment time is as shown in Equation 6. M = M1 + M2

(6)

The family has the usual budget constraint, as shown in Equation 7. pC = E + V

(7)

If the simplifying assumptions are added that utility is derived only from goods consumed (C + G) and leisure time, and if the utility function and production functions are well behaved, then various

Sherman HA~.a: Sharon DeVaney, and Allen Martin

301

marginal conditions can be derived (Bryant, 1990). At equilibrium, for each individual, the marginal rate of substitution of leisure for goods equals the real wage rate, which also equals the marginal productivity in household production (Bryant, 1990, p. 133). If wl > w2, it might be efficient for individual 1 to specialize in market work, especially if individual 2 is more productive in household work. Over time, it is possible that specialization will result in one adult having a higher market wage rate than would be possible without specialization and the other to have a higher productivity level in household production t h a n would be otherwise possible. Even if the two individuals have equal wage rates, specialization in categories of household production might lead to higher levels of productivity. (In the real world, the danger of such specialization is that in the event of death or divorce, the surviving spouse may have difficulty with the other tasks.) Addition of a child to the household will change the marginal productivity in household production, which will change the equilibrium allocation of time in all activities. Other changes, such as changes in real wage rates, may also change the optimal time allocation. Various intuitive implications may be drawn from this model, some originally stated by Becker (1965). For instance, specialization may increase the total utility of the fami|y. According to Lloyd (1975): Differences in the efficiency of men and women in various household activities are dependent on differences in natural abilities and differences in acquired training. Because of early conditioning as well as school and market training, men tend to specialize within the family in household repairs and family finances, whereas women are more likely to do cooking and cleaning. (p. 11) Because of the importance of childbearing in the past, the household could achieve greater utility if the wife specialized in household production and the husband specialized in market production. Some specialization in the general category of household production may also be worthwhile, independent of traditional gender stereotypes. Adam Smith (1967) pointed out that without specialization, a worker might produce one pin per day, lint with specialization, pin production could roach 4,800 per day. Pratten (1980) updated Smith's estimates, showing that per worker pin production had reached 800,000. Clearly that magnitude of increase is not possible within the home, although it is relevant to the issue of certain types of household pro-

302

J o u r n a l of F . m ; l y a n d E c o n o m i c I s s u e s

duction versus market purchases. Nevertheless, some improved productivity may result from specialization. Blair and Lichter (1991) analyzed data from the 1988 National Survey of F , milles and Households on time use of couples in family labor and found a large amount of role specialization, even among couples who spent roughly equal amounts of time in family labor. Although Blair and Lichter were working from a sociological perspective, the results of their analysis of male hours of family labor were consistent with a household production model. They also found that, all other things equal, there seems to be an age or possibly generational difference in males' contribution to family labor. If transitions are occurring in social norms relating to household work, couples may need extra help in planning for changes over the life cycle. The social changes in the past 30 years, especially the substantial increase in the labor force participation of wives, may make the old socialization patterns of task specialization inefficient. Utility-maximizing patterns could also change over the life cycle. Even when there is a traditional division of roles, a reallocation of tasks might be efficient when the husband retires, if psychological barriers are ignored. In the full household production model consumers face a daunting optimization problem. To optimize, a consumer would have to evaluate not only the utility level from different patterns of consumption but also the production resulting from different patterns of household time use. Traditional social norms and roles may be used as a device for avoiding the cognitive burden of evaluating a large number of possible allocations of goods and time. Any device to help consumers evaluate alternatives, such as a computer simulation, may help families obtain greater utility from their resources. Simulation and Games Gaming is an old pastime with roots in chess, checkers, and eighteenth-century military games. Business training exercises appeared after World War II. During the 1960s there were two streams of gaming/simulations: computers for predicting outcomes and the analysis of social changes by sociologists, urban planners, educators, and political scientists. Law and medicine began to use the computer as a bookkeeping tool. The 1990s promise a new wave of gaming/simulations driven by the increasing availability and complexity of informa-

S h e r m a n lqanna; S h a r o n DeVaney, and Allen M a r t i n

303

tion and the urgent need to establish communication in complex environments (Duke & Kemeny, 1989). A simulation game can incorporate characteristics of both games and simulations. Games are competitive encounters involving both luck and skill, whereas simulations are models designed to provide the essence of real-world phenomena without all of their complexity (Wysocki & Null, 1978). Gaming has been used for many different purposes, but the advent of the computer made the mechanics of running a game of any complexity much easier. Developing a game is much more difficult than playing a game, but each affords the user as well as the author an opportunity to imagine a wide range of situations and strategies. Exposure to the concepts in a game may stimulate the user to make better-informed decisions and challenge the assumptions the game presents. Thatcher (1990) believes that active experience is fundamental to all learning. The learner has to be active and involved with the material or skill to be learned. The process may be a cyclical one in which experience or experimentation is followed by a series of other activities that make sense of the experience. Kolb (1984) described experiential learning as a cycle with four related parts: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Interaction with the computer in a simulation game can involve the student in such a cycle if the program is well designed. In most simulations, the experience is a dynamic one, and a series of problems are presented for resolution or decisions. Some simulations involve three different types of learning: (a) facts, concepts, and generalizations, (b) processes simulated by the game, and (c) relative costs and benefits or risks and potential rewards (Abt, 1968). Debriefing following the use of a game or simulation involves several stages: (a) identifying the impact of the experience on the individual, (b) considering the processes used in the simulation, (c) clarifying facts, concepts, or principles of the simulation, (d) identifying emotional involvement, and (e) identifying different views of the participants. The debriefing can be structured as a discussion, a questionnaire, or a written report or commentary (Thatcher & Robinson, 1984). The teacher serves as a facilitator during the simulation but should take a more active role during the debriefing to ascertain that students have realized the maximum usefulness of the simulation game. Obviously, the teacher must be an experienced user of the simulation game to guide the debriefing in a meaningful manner.

304

Journal of Family and Economic Issues

D e s c r i p t i o n of the F a m i l y Time Use S i m u l a t i o n GAme The Family Time Use Simulation Game (FTUSG) is intended to help students understand the allocation of a couple's time to various household production activities. Users are prompted to enter their household composition (number and presence of children in three age ranges and number of adults), size of the yard, number of automobiles, employment and commuting time, education time, and the use of hired help, day care, and occasional sitters. Households with children are the primary focus of the simulation game. Output to both screen and printer allows the user to analyze time allocated by husband and wife to each of six categories of household production tasks as well as leisure time available to each partner. The six categories of household production time are food activities, care of house, care of clothing, care of family, marketing and management, and care of yard and car. The basic outline of the simulation game is as follows: 1. User input of fsmi]y situation: ages of children and numbers of adults, number of automobiles, type of yard, if any. 2. Computer estimation of the amount of time ~needed~ to meet U.S. standards of output, assuming no purchase of market substitutes. Total time needed ffi Y~hi, where hi -- f (number of adults and children of various ages, type of yard, number of cars, standard levels of care for each category) for household production category i. Initially, the standard is assumed to be ~average. ~ It is assumed that the time needed for household production does not depend on the labor force activities of the family members. 3. User input of amount of services hired to replace household production, including day care, household worker for cleaning, care of clothing, food preparation, and care of yard. 4. Computer output of the amount of time required to reach average standards for each of the six household production categories, after market substitutes are hired. 5. User input of division of time use for each production category among husband, wife, teenagers, and other adults. 6. User input of paid employment and commuting time, plus any education time, of husband and wife. 7. Computer output of time use in major categories for husband and wife: leisure, personal maintenance time, paid employment, and household production time. 8. User input of changes, including possibility of changing output standards for each household production category. 9. Computer output of total time allocation of husband and of wife, including comparison of leisure time (same as Step 7). 10. Consider changing all inputs, including labor force; hired services, division of time among husband, wife, and others. Step 2 above is a ~black box~ for estimating time needed for each of six household production categories. It is based on a survey of time use literature. The basic assumption is that all individuals are equally productive in house-

Sherm#ln HannR; Sharon DeVaney, and Allen Martin

306

hold work and that all ~milies with identical compositions (e.g.,ages and numbers of children) would need identical amounts of time to reach an a v e r age standard of output. These assumptions are obviously unrealistic,but they allow users to focus on the interesting question of time allocation between husbands and wives. The assumptions made on time use standards were based on a selected review of time use studies.I The simulation game assumes that deductions for hired help, day care, and occasional sitterswould be made from the household production hours before divisions between the husband and the wife were made. The simulation game has one additional feature that allows the user to choose low, average, or high standards for each household production task. It was arbitrarily assumed that a low standard of care meant that the time needed for each category would be 55% of the average level.A high standard is assumed to be 130% of the average time needed for that category. To reduce the complexity of the program for the user, the firsttime through the program, the user is not given the option of changing the standards. After the firsttime through, users have the option of meeting the demands of employment, education, and household production by lowering standards. Some users choose to use higher standards for some time use categories.

R e s u l t s o f U s i n g t h e Game The FTUSG includes allocations for the household production categories and has numerous user-friendly features. The allocation of time to the six care categories was based on empirical time use studies. Users may enter their names, which facilitates all subsequent entries and analysis. Output is given in hours and percentages per week for each care category and for leisure and employment. Pie charts are displayed to show graphically the division of each time use category a m o n g husband, wife, other adults, and teenagers. Pie charts are also displayed to show the husband's and the wife's allocation a m o n g leisure, personal maintenance time, paid employment, education, and household production. Care categories are explained, and standards for low, average, and high care are described on the screen. The computer produces suggestions of ways to increase leisure time, based on the household characteristics. The primary objective of the F T U S G has been to teach resource allocation in a variety of educational settings, Although the primary use of the computer program v~as in an undergraduate family resource m a n a g e m e n t laboratory, the program has also been used in graduate courses and in demonstrations for adult learners and high school students. At the undergraduate level, a specific lesson and assignments were developed to accompany the F T U S G , but it can be

306

J o u r n a l of F a m i l y and Economic Issues

used as a stand-alone program and is readily adaptable to other settings. Use in a Classroom Setting The simulation game has been used in a management laboratory course in the Family Resource Management Department at the Ohio State University since the autumn quarter of 1991. More than 300 students have used the game. Family Time Use is part of a module on resource allocation using computer programs. The module begins with an exercise in which students develop case studies for two families. Students had access to a computer lab, and the programs were accessible through a menu. The program is introduced through a case study exercise in which students describe the occupation, income levels, and goals of a family. Before doing this assignment, the students had completed exercises in which they identified values and goals for themselves. They were then asked to select a partner and share ideas to develop the case study couple. Students were encouraged to choose a partner of the opposite sex so that future decisions relative to household production and resource allocation would be as realistic as possible. Fortunately, the enrollment was such that this feature of the assignment, although it was optional, could be observed. Working through the assignment alone was discouraged, but students who were unable to arrange their work and class schedules to allow working together in the computer laboratory were permitted to complete the assignment without a partner. Students were required to develop case studies for a middle-income couple and a low-income couple. They also had to cite a source for the income level of the occupation for each spouse. Although income level was not required for the F T U S G , when the students worked with the families of different income levels, they tended to use different leatares of the F T U S G such as the option to hire help for house care and yard and car care. Before running the program, the students prepared a work sheet in which they allocated the couple's time to (a) six household production categories, (b) personal maintenance, (c) employment, and (d) education. The household production categories were food care, clothing care, family care, house care, yard and car care, and marketing and management. In each run of the program, the computer provides output that shows in tabular and graph format the hours and percent-

Sherman Hn,,=a, Sharon DeVaney, and Allen Martin

3o/

ages of time spent per week for each area of household production and for the other categories. For the first run of the program, students were asked to assume that they had no children and that one or both spouses worked. For the second run, students were asked to assume that the couple had at least one small child that would require day care if both spouses were employed at the same time. Following each run of the program, students were asked to comment on the equity of the time allocation and the amount of leisure the computer indicated was available to each spouse. They were asked to make changes if the division of labor and the amount of leisure available were unsatisfactory. Students were also encouraged to discuss issues of varying amounts of leisure time over the life cycle (see Ghez & Becker, 1975).

Outcomes In the first run of the program, almost all students made the assumption that both spouses would work full-time. If they were analyzing a middle-income family, many of them assumed at least one spouse was enrolled in education beyond college. If they were analyzing a low-income family, many indicated that one spouse was enrolled in an educational setting such as a vocational program. For the second run of the program, only a few indicated that the mother would work part-time. The majority elected to use paid child care and have both spouses continue to work full-time. One feature of the program was the capability of hiring help for housework. The computer simulation assumes that deductions for hired help are made from the household production hours before the division of labor is made between the husband and wife. When analyzing the middle-income couple, many students chose part-time help for housework to provide the working spouses with more leisure. They stated, "The couple has two professional incomes so they can afford help. ~ In Almost every instance, the husband had considerably more leisure than the wife. In one memorable instance, the couple had decided that the wife would attend law school and also be employed so the husband was performing almost all of the household production. Many students realized that the wife's personal maintenance time would be decreased following the arrival of a child. Most of the students increased the husband's participation in household production

308

J o u r n a l of Fs.mny and Economic Issues

following the arrival of the child,yet the husband stillhad considerably more leisure than the wife.

Limitations Limitations to the use of the program include the wide range of household compositions that would be found among users of the program. The studies on which the family time estimates were based used a variety of family compositions, although two-parent, two-child f~milies were the most common. Further research needs to be done to determine whether the current allocation of time to the various categories is generalizable to most f~ml]ies with children. Additional study could focus on the allocation of time for designated family compositions such as single parents with and without children, retirees, and families with additional adults. The presence of another adult is considered to add to the number of persons performing household care tasks. If the additional adult(s) was elderly or disabled a n d needed more care, such factors would llmit the utility of the program. It may be possible to include some of these factors in future versions. Statistical analysis of family time use data should be performed to derive prediction equations for each of the six household production categories. It may be possible to derive standards from the prediction equations based on confidence intervals for each prediction. A fundamental limitation of the simulation game is the assumption that the empirical estimates for each household type reflect the time needed to reach average standards. If there is substantial variance in productivity levels for household tasks, the estimates may not be meaningful. More empirical research on this topic is needed. It was also ass~lmed that children below the age of 13 could not provide substantial contributions to household production. This assumption could be easily changed. The program needs to be tested and evaluated to determine whether it provides a useful simulation for family time allocation. It may provide insight to students in family resource management classes. An improved version may be useful to family counselors and in adult education, such as in working with clients of the Cooperative Extension Service.~ Instruments to determine its usefulness need to developed. Both formal and informal feedback should be collected and studied.

Sherman Hnnna: Sharon DeVaney, and Allen Martin

309

Conclusions

A computer simulation g a m e designed to give students insights into family time use concepts has been used with students in an introductory family resource m a n a g e m e n t class offered in six different quarters over a period of three years. The g a m e allows for planning for time use changes over the family life span. The g a m e can give students insights into concepts of the economic model of household production. After further statistical analyses are incorporated into the computer program, it is possible that the g a m e m a y be usable by actual couples. Becuase of the difficulty of the optimization problem faced by couples in allocating their time to household production, leisure, and paid employment and in purchasing goods and services in the marketplace, a future version of this simulation g a m e m a y be useful in helping families obtain greater utility from their resources. By describing the assumptions used in the F T U S G , and by demonstrating it, feedback will be obtained for improving future versions of the program. Observations of people playing the g a m e m a y also lead to better insights into the ways people think about household production and time use.

Notes

I. Most time use literature focuses on issues such as wives' time use, labor force participation, and contribution of household production to gross national product, rather than analysis of factors related to time use in narrow household production categories. Therefore, it was difficultto derive predictions of time use from the literature.Based on an interpretation of the emipirical time use literature, the variable that best predicted all household work was the number of children in the household; in particular age of the youngest child was an important predictor for family care and marketing (Walker & Woods, 1976, pp. 260-261). "Time spent increased about 3 hours per day for families with one child over those with no children, followed by an increase of around i hour per additional child from that point on ~ (Walker & Woods, 1976, p. 249). The breakdown of time use for specific home production categories can be seen in Walker and Woods (1976, pp. 50-51). The simulation game uses a default value of 10 hours per day of personal maintenance time for each adult, although users can change this value. Personal maintenance time included sleeping, grooming, and a minimal amount of time for eating. Juster and Stafford (1991, p. 475) reported that in 1981, women in the United States spent 71.6 hours per

310

Journal of Family and Econonfic Issues

week and men spent 68.2 hours per week on personal maintenance activities such as sleep and grooming. To estimate percentages allocated to the six care categories of household production time, a review of literature was conducted to learn from more recent empirical research how families allocate their time (Martin & DeVaney, 1991). Selected articles and dissertations were then divided into two groups: reports based on regional research project NE-113 (Dismukes & Abdel-Ghany, 1988; Goebel & Hennon, 1983; Johnson, 1981; Sanik, 1981), which was conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service, and more recent reports (Dolan & Scanne11, 1987; McCullough & Zick, 1989; Zalenski, 1987). An average was calculated for each time use category for both the NE-1 13 studies and the post-NE-113 studies; percentage of total time was calculated for each category. The basic equation for total time use was: Total household production time in hours per year = f (family size, ages of children) + 50 x (number of cars) + f (type of yard)

.

Percentages developed from these previous empirical time use studies were incorporated into the computer program. The improved version of the program is based on a combination of ad hoc prediction equations for each home production category. For information about this program, contact Sherman H a n n a or see the web site address: http'Y/www.hec.ohio-state.edu/bradshaw/index.htm.

References

Abt, C. C. (1968). Games for learning. In S. S. Brobeck & E. O. Schilds (Eds.), Simulation games in learning (pp. 65-84). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of t~ne. Economic Journal, 75, 493-517. Berk, R. A., & Berk, S. F. (1979). Labor and leisure at home: Content and organization of the household day. Beverly Hills, C ~ Sage. Blair, S. L., & Lichter, D. T. (1991). Measuring the division of household labor: Gender segregation among American couples. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 91-113. Bryant, W. If. (1990). The economic organization of the household. New York: Cambridge University Press. Burr, W. R. (1973). Theory construction and the sociology of the family. New York: Wiley. Dismukes, D., & Abdel-Ghany, M. (1988). Homemakers' household work time in singleparent and two-parent families. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 12, 247-256. Dolan, E. M., & Scannell, E. (1987). Husbands' and wives' household work: Moving toward egalitarianism. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 11, 387-400. Duke, R. D., & Kemeny, N. I~ (1989). Keeping score one score later:. Two decades of the Simulation & Games journal. Simulation & Games, 20, 165-183. Ghez, G. R., & Becker, G. S. (1975). The allocation of time andgoods over the life cycle. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. Goebel, If. P., & Hennon, C. B. (1983). Mother's time on meal preparation, expenditures

Sherman ~rs.nnA, S h a r o n DeVaney, and Allen

311

for meals away from home, and shared meals: Effects of mother's employment and age of younger child. Home Economics Research Journal, 12, 169-188. Johnson, A. M. B. (1981). Analysis of time-use data with implications for home economics curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Te=TosTech University, Lubbock, TX. Dissertation Abrstracts International, 42, 04B. Juster, F. T., & Stafford, F. P. (1991). The allocation of time: Empirical findings, behavioral models, and problems of measurement. Journal of Economic Literature, 29, 471-522. Kolb, B. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience us the source of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lloyd, C. B. (1975). The division of labor between the sexes: A review. In C. B. Lloyd (Ed.), Sex, discrimination, and the division of labor (pp. 1-24). New York: Columbia University Press. McCullough, J., & Zick, C. D. (1989). A comparison of time use in Utah families: 1977-78-1987-88. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. Martin, A. D., & DeVaney, S. A. (1991). A computer program for family time use (Working paper, 1991-1). Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University, Department of Family Resource Management, Columbus. Morris, E. W., & Winter, M, (1978). Housing, family, and society, New Yor~ Wdey. Pratten, C. F. (1980). The manufacture of pins. Journal of Economic Literature, 18, 9396. Sanlk~ M. M. (1981). Division of household work: A decade comparisen--1967-1977. Home Economics Research Journal, 10, 175-180. Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure, New York, NY: Basic Books. Smith, A. (1967). The wealth of nations. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery. (Original work published 1776) Thatcher, D. C. (1990). Promoting learning through games and simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 21, 262-273. Thatcher, D. C., & Robinson, M. J. (1984). An introduction to games and simulations in education. Hants, England: Solent Simulations. Varkonyl, C. (1993, December 12). Housekeeping doesn't have to be a dirty job. Columbus Dispatch, pp. D1-D2. Walker, K. E., & Woods, M. E. (1976). T/me use:A measure of household productior~ of family goods and services. Washington, DC: American Home Economics Association, Center for the Family. Wysocki, J. L., & Null, R. S. (1978). Simulation games--give them a try. Housing and Soc~ty, 5(2), 52-55. Zalenski, P. A. (1987). A cross-time study of family time use in Virginia (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracte International, 48, 07B.