Expenditures For Household TextilesAnd Textile Home Furnishings:

An Engel Curve AnalysisAnnual family expenditures for household textiles and textile home furnishingswere analyzed using Tobit regression techniques. This research was based on asubsample of expenditure data from 3,007 households, representing 33 percentof the households interviewed during the 1973 Consumer Expenditure Survey.The results demonstrate that expenditures for both household textiles and textilehome furnishings are influenced by total consumption expenditures, family type,and moving expenses. In addition, expenditures for household textiles are re-lated to race of the household head, region of residence, and city size, whileexpenditures for textile home furnishings are affected by housing tenure. Theresults of this study lend support to existing consumption theory and contributenew information concerning the effects of socioeconomic and demographic vari-ables on expenditures for household textiles and textile home furnishings.

Janet WagnerHome furnishings represent one of the

three major end uses for textile fibers in theUnited States. More than one-third of allfibers used in domestic manufacturing areused in producing household textiles, suchas sheets, blankets, and towels, as well astextile home furnishings, such as curtains,drapes, carpets, and rugs (&dquo;U.S. End Use,&dquo;1983). Expenditures for household textiles

and textile home furnishings represent asmall percentage of total expenditures for theaverage family. However, expenditures forthose items are likely to be large when newfamilies are formed or when a family movesfrom one residence to another (&dquo;Textiles,&dquo;1984; Winakor, 1975). The purpose of this re-search was to analyze the effects of selectedfamily characteristics on expenditures for tex-tiles used in the home, including both house-hold textiles and textile home furnishings.Data were from the 1972-73 Bureau of

Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer ExpenditureSurvey (CES). As of July 1984 when this re-

search was conducted, this was the most re-cent and comprehensive source of data avail-able on public-use tapes, giving informationon consumer expenditures classified by so-cioeconomic and demographic character-istics of households. The information ob-tained from this research should be of in-

terest to family economists who areconcerned with the effects of householdcharacteristics on expenditures for textile

Author’s Address: Department of Textiles andConsumer Economics, 2100 Marie Mount Hall,University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

Support for this project was provided through aGeneral Research Board summer award by theGraduate School at the University of Maryland.Funds for computer time were provided by theComputer Science Center at the University ofMaryland. The author wishes to thank Fred Derrickfor advice on the statistical analysis, and RachelDardis, Sherman Hanna, and Helen Jensen fortheir advice on preliminary drafts of thismanuscript. The constructive comments of thereviewers are also gratefully acknowledged.

22

products. This information should also be ofuse to manufacturers and retailers of house-hold textiles and home furnishings who usesocioeconomic and demographic variables insegmenting their markets.Winakor’s (1969) model of the process of

clothing consumption was applied to theconsumption of household textiles and tex-tile home furnishings. According to thatmodel, the consumption process has threemajor components-acquisition, inventory,and discard. While clothing is consumed pri-marily by individuals, household textiles andtextile home furnishings are usually con-sumed by family units (Winakor, 1975). Thisstudy focused on one aspect of the acquisi-tion of household textiles and textile home

furnishings-expenditures for those

products by the family unit. Household tex-tiles were defined as domestic items such as

sheets, pillowcases, bedspreads, blankets,towels, washcloths, table linens, bathmats,and shower curtains. Textile home fur-

nishings included curtains, drapes, carpets,rugs, slipcovers, materials used in the homeconstruction of textile furnishings, and thetextile component of upholstered furniture.’

ENGEL CURVE ANALYSIS

In classical consumption theory, house-hold preferences are assumed to be ordered(Green, 1978). An optimum assortment ofgoods and services is consumed, accordingto the household preference function, withinthe limits of the household budget constraint(Prais and Houthakker, 1971).The relationship between the quantity of a

good consumed and household income is

called an Engel curve, and is studied usingcross-section data such as those provided bythe CES. Price is assumed to be constant

(Deaton and Muellbauer, 1980), so the re-

suiting Engel curve represents the relation-

ship between household income and expen-ditures (Phlips, 1983). This relationship is

based on the assumption that the noneco-nomic determinants of expenditures areequal for all households (Phlips, 1983; Prais

and Houthakker, 1971). It is then necessary tocontrol the effects of social and demographicfactors on expenditures by including them inthe estimating function (Phlips, 1983).

In Engel curve analysis, the choice of afunctional form is based on both economicand statistical considerations (Prais and

Houthakker, 1971). The simplest of these is

linear. Theoretically, this is a plausible rela-

tionship because in a complete system of de-mand equations linearity satisfies the adding-up criterion (Phlips, 1983) that the sum of themarginal budget shares should be equal toone at all income levels (Phlips, 1983; Prais

and Houthakker, 1971). In statistical analysis,the fit of linear Engel curves has been foundto be poor (Phlips, 1983), leading economiststo use other functional forms. For example,Prais and Houthakker (1955) experimentedwith double-logarithmic, semilogarithmic,and log-reciprocal functional forms in ana-

lyzing a range of expenditure categories. Thedouble-logarithmic functional form yieldedthe best statistical fit for all of the major ex-penditure categories, with the exception offood (Prais and Houthakker, 1955). From atheoretical point of view, this functional formis not desirable because it violates the

adding-up criterion (Deaton and Muellbauer,1980). However, the tradition of household

budget analysis has been to choose func-tional forms on the basis of statistical fit

(Deaton and Muellbauer, 1980). The double-

logarithmic form is useful in expenditurestudies because the income elasticity of ex-penditures for the good in question can beread directly from the income coefficient. Es-timation of this functional form is appropriatefor broadly defined expenditure categorieslike clothing (e.g. Dardis, Derrick and Leh-feld, 1981; Wagner and Hanna, 1983), in

which all or most households report expendi-tures during the survey period. This func-tional form is less appropriate in the analysis

1 According to personal communications in August1984 with Marty Redden, statistician for the National As-sociation of Furniture Manufacturers, expenditures forthe textile component of furniture represent approxi-mately 10 percent of the retail value.

23

of expenditure categories like household tex-tiles and textile home furnishings, wherelarge numbers of households report zero ex-penditures, because logarithmic transforma-tion of zero expenditure values may lead tobias in estimation of the income parameter(Prais and Houthakker, 1971). Previous re-

search by Winakor (1975) and preliminaryanalysis of the CES data indicated that largenumbers of zero expenditures are character-istic of household textiles and textile home

furnishings data. In this situation, an appro-priate method of analysis is Tobit regression(Tobin, 1958).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ONHOUSEHOLD TEXTILE EXPENDITURES

Much of the research on the determinantsof expenditures for household textiles andtextile home furnishings has been based onthe Consumer Expenditure Survey series con-ducted by the BLS. Typically, multivariateanalyses of these data have focused on homefurnishings and equipment. This expenditurecategory includes not only textile productsbut also furniture and appliances. Conse-quently, information on textile expendituresis obscured. For example, data from the 1950Survey of Consumer Expenditures were usedby Lippitt (1960) to analyze expenditures forhome furnishings and equipment. The mostimportant variables affecting those expendi-tures were income, family type, family size,age of the household head, and hometenure. Using the same data, Peters (1960)studied expenditures for household textilesand floor coverings, focusing on the effects oflocational variables. Although expendituresfor those products were found to vary by city,region had no impact once the effects of in-come were controlled. Mack (1960) criticizedPeters’ research for its exclusion of poten-tially important variables, particularly homeownership and family size.

Differences in consumption patterns byrace have been acknowledged. Friend andKravis (1957) used the 1950 BLS data to showthat expenditures by urban blacks for home

furnishings and equipment were approxi-mately 70 percent of expenditures by whiteswhen the effects of income were ignored.However, the effect of race on the consump-tion of household textiles has not beenstudied using multivariate analysis.Winakor (1975) reviewed the data on

household textile expenditures from theConsumer Expenditure Surveys conductedbetween the mid-1930s and 1961, and notedthat once the effect of income was controlledneither family size nor rural versus urban lo-cation had a large effect on expenditures. It

was reported that household textiles repre-sented approximately one percent of total an-nual expenditures for the average family, andthat in a given year more than 15 percent ofall families reported zero expenditures forthose products. In the same article, Winakorreported Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) re-

gression results from a 1971 survey of house-hold textile expenditures by 1,140 Mid-western families. Expenditures for carpetsand rugs were not included. Income, familysize, home tenure, and whether or not thefamily had moved during the survey yearwere found to be important determinants ofexpenditures for household textiles. Lehfeld(1980) analyzed expenditures for home fur-nishings and equipment using the data fromthe 1972-73 CES. In an OLS regression anal-ysis, using a double-logarithmic functionalform, total consumption expenditures, age ofthe household head, marital status, age of theyoungest child, and rural location were foundto influence expenditures for home fur-nishings and equipment.The research described in this article fo-

cused on the textile component of expendi-tures for home furnishings and equipment,as reported in the 1973 CES. This study is

unique in three ways. First, expenditures forhousehold textiles and expenditures for tex-tile home furnishings were analyzed sepa-rately. Second, this is the first multivariate

analysis of expenditures for household tex-tiles based on a national probability sample.Finally, an extensive review of the consump-tion literature indicated that this is the first

study of household textiles and textile home

24

furnishings expenditures to use Tobit regres-sion techniques.

METHOD

The sample used in this study was takenfrom a public use tape file of expendituredata collected as part of the 1973 quarterly in-terview component of the 1972-73 Consumer

Expenditure Survey. On the basis of previouswork indicating that patterns of householdtextile expenditures remain fairly stable overtime (Winakor, 1975), it was assumed that the

relationships reflected in this analysis wouldcontinue to be typical of families. The unit ofanalysis was the consuming unit. Accordingto the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a consumingunit is defined as: (1) a family of two or morepersons who pool their income and drawfrom a common fund for major expenditureitems, or (2) a single consumer, financially in-dependent of any family group. In husband/wife families, the head of the consuming unitwas defined as the husband. In other fami-

lies, the head was defined as that individualdesignated as such by other members(Carlson, 1974). A random sample of 33 per-cent of the consuming units from the 1973CES was taken.2 In order to avoid the effectsof outliers, consuming units were eliminatedif respondents reported (1) household size

greater than nine, or (2) total consumptionexpenditures greater than $50,000. Con-suming units in which the household headfailed to report occupation or housing tenurewere also eliminated. As a result, there were3,007 consuming units used in the analysis.

The Independent VariablesIndependent variables were selected on

the bases of theory, the results of previousresearch, and the availability of data. Thosevariables included total consumption expen-ditures, family type variables, the race andoccupation of the household head, locationalvariables, housing tenure, and a variable rep-

resenting whether or not the family had in-

curred moving expenses during the surveyyear.

Consistent with economic theory and theresults of research (Lehfeld, 1980; Lippitt,1960; Winakor, 1975), income was hypothe-sized to be positively related to expendituresfor both household textiles and textile home

furnishings. Since it was assumed that pricesare constant, income was expected to be theprimary determinant of expenditures forgoods and services. Two definitions of in-

come-disposable income and total con-sumption expenditures-have been used in

Engel curve analysis. There is debate as towhich is the more appropriate (Phlips, 1983;Prais and Houthakker, 1971; Houthakker andTaylor, 1970). The permanent income hy-pothesis suggests that total consumption ex-penditures are the better measure because,in the short run, families have more controlover their expenditures than their incomes(Houthakker and Taylor, 1970; Prais and

Houthakker, 1955). In statistical analysis, totalconsumption expenditures have been shownto give a better fit than income in models de-signed to predict expenditures for a numberof consumption categories, including homefurnishings and equipment (Prais and Hou-thakker, 1955). On the other hand, there maybe bias resulting from use of total consump-tion expenditures because it includes the de-pendent variable. However, bias is likely tobe minimized when the proportion of totalconsumption expenditures represented bythe dependent variable is small (Prais and

Houthakker, 1971). Consequently, total con-sumption expenditures were used as a proxyfor income.

In order to control for the effects of socio-economic and demographic variables on ex-penditures for household textiles and textilehome furnishings, variables representingfamily type, characteristics of the householdhead, home tenure, location, and whether ornot the consuming unit had moved duringthe survey year were included in the esti-

mating equations.Next to income, family composition is con-

sidered to be the most important variable in-

2 This was necessary because of the large amount ofcomputer memory required to run the Tobit regressionanalysis.

25

fluencing expenditures for goods and ser-vices (Prais and Houthakker, 1971). A recentanalysis of household clothing expenditures(Wagner and Hanna, 1983) demonstrated thatthis is the case, at least for clothing. Giventhat expenditure research often focuses onthe effects of income, family size is some-times substituted for family composition-e.g. David (1962), Houthakker and Taylor(1970). Winakor (1975) tested family composi-tion and family size in alternate OLS regres-sion equations. Of the family compositionvariables, only the number of adult women ina family affected expenditures for householdtextiles. Once the effect of income was con-

trolled, the effect of family size on expendi-tures for those products was small. Winakor(1975) pointed out that it was difficult to antic-ipate the impact of family size on expendi-tures for household textiles. While one mightexpect this to be a positive relationship, thereare likely to be economies of scale in theconsumption of some household textile

products. For example, large families may usemore towels than small families, but are un-likely to use carpets and drapes in the sameproportions. It was hypothesized that familysize would be positively related to expendi-tures for household textiles, and that familysize would have no effect on expenditures fortextile home furnishings.Based on the conceptual framework for

this study (Winakor, 1969) and the results ofresearch on home furnishings reported byLippitt (1960) and Lehfeld (1980), three addi-tional family type variables were included inthe study. According to Winakor (1975),household textiles are consumed by thefamily unit. This suggests that characteristicsof the family which are sometimes used todefine family life cycle may influence expen-ditures for household textiles and textilehome furnishings. These characteristics in-clude age of the household head, maritalstatus of the household head, and the pres-ence of a child less than six years of age. Ageof the household head was hypothesized tobe negatively related to expenditures forboth household textiles and textile home fur-

nishings. Dummy variables were created to

represent both the marital status of thehousehold head and the presence of a childless than six years of age. Expenditures forboth household textiles and textile home fur-

nishings were expected to be higher in

households headed by a married individualthan in households headed by an unmarriedindividual, which was the base category. Fam-ilies with a child less than six years of agewere expected to spend more on householdtextiles than those in the base category,which were other families. It was hypothe-sized that the presence of a child less than six

years of age would have no effect on expen-ditures for textile home furnishings.Dummy variables were created to repre-

sent the race and occupation of the house-hold head. It was hypothesized that once theeffects of income were controlled, therewould be no difference in expenditures foreither household textiles or textile home fur-

nishings between black and nonblack fami-lies. A dummy variable was used to representhouseholds headed by blacks. The base cate-gory was households headed by nonblacks.The families of white collar workers, bothprofessionals/managers and clerical/salesworkers were expected to spend more onhousehold textiles and textile home fur-

nishings than families in which the head wasnot working because of either unemploy-ment or retirement.3

Housing tenure was coded as a set of twodummy variables: one represented home-owners with no mortgages, the other repre-sented homeowners with mortgages. Thebase category was families which rentedduring the survey year. It was expected thatthere would be no difference in expendituresfor either household textiles or textile home

furnishings between homeowners with mort-gages and renters. Homeowners without

mortgages were hypothesized to spend morethan renters on both types of goods. Both re-gion and city size were coded as dummy vari-ables. The variables used to represent region

3 A preliminary analysis of the data indicated that theexpenditures of households headed by either retiredpersons or individuals who were not working were sim-ilar when the effects of other variables were controlled.

26

were based on Bureau of the Census defini-tions (See U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980).Because of climatic differences, it was ex-

pected that families in both the Northeastand the North Central states would spendmore on both household textiles and textilehome furnishings than families in the South,which was the base category. It was hypoth-esized that there would be no difference in

expenditures between families in the Westand families in the South. Dummy variableswere created to represent urban and rural lo-cations with suburban location the base cate-

gory. Urban location was defined as resi-dence in either a central city within an SMSAor a city of under 50,000 people outside anSMSA. Suburban location was defined as resi-dence in a noncentral city within an SMSA.Rural was defined as residence in a nonurbanlocation with a population under 50,000. Bothhousehold textiles and textile home fur-

nishings expenditures were hypothesized tobe smaller among urban and rural familiesthan among suburban families.

Moving expenses were used as a proxy forwhether or not a family had moved duringthe survey year. If a family had incurredmoving expenses, the dummy variable wascoded 1; otherwise it was coded 0. It was hy-pothesized that families that had movedduring the survey year would spend more onboth household textiles and textile home fur-

nishings than other families.

The Dependent VariablesThis study focused on one aspect of the ac-

quisition of household textiles and textilehome furnishings-expenditures for thosegoods by consuming units. This analysis didnot include expenditures for gifts of house-hold textiles and textile home furnishings foruse outside the consuming unit. The resultsof studies reviewed here suggest that the ef-fects of the independent variables may differfor household textiles and textile home fur-

nishings expenditures. Consequently, thetwo dependent variables were tested in sepa-rate equations.

The ModelThe model used in the Tobit analyses of ex-

penditures for household textiles and textilehome furnishings was:

where Ci = expenditures for either house-hold textiles or textile home furnishings byhousehold i; Y;=total consumption expendi-tures of household i; X~; = jth characteristic ofhousehold i, and e; = error term. In this

model, the dependent and independent vari-ables were linearly related. This type of singleequation model is descriptive in nature, and,in the strictest sense, may violate the adding-up criterion of a complete demand system.However, in examining the detailed form ofthe Engel curve for a particular commodity,the importance of the adding-up criterion canbe overestimated (Prais and Houthakker,1971, p. 84), particularly in analyzing expendi-ture categories which represent small frac-tions of the total budget (Deaton and Muell-bauer, 1980). In this study, investigation ofother functional forms was limited by thelarge number of zero expenditures reportedfor both household textiles (18%) and textilehome furnishings (30%). Consequently, Tobitregression techniques were used to yieldmaximum likelihood estimates of (3 and Q2 aspresented by Tobin (1958).

For each dependent variable the signifi-cance of the models was tested using the fol-lowing statistic: X2 = 21LLu - LL~~, where:LLU= the log likelihood function of the un-constrained model, which included expendi-tures for either household textiles or textilehome furnishings regressed on all the inde-

pendent variables, and LL~= the log likeli-hood function of the constrained model,which was the dependent variable regressedon only a constant. The same test was used toevaluate the significance of the sets of familytype, occupational, locational, and tenurevariables. In each analysis, the constrainedmodel was the full model minus the group ofvariables being tested.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the Tobit regression analysisof expenditures for household textiles and

27

textile home furnishings are presented in

Tables 1 and 2.A test of the null hypothesis that all coeffi-

cients in each equation were zero demon-strated that the model was signficant for bothhousehold textiles, X2 (20, N = 3,007) =606.89, p < 0.01, and textile home fur-nishings, X2 (20, N = 3,007) =575.31, p <

0.01. However, the R2 values were low. The R2for the household textile equation was 0.17.The value of the R2 for textile home fur-

nishings was 0.12. The low R2 value for house-hold textile expenditures was comparable tovalues reported by Winakor (1975). It is more

difficult to assess the R2 value for textile

home furnishings expenditures, given thatother studies analyzed that consumption cat-egory in conjuction with expenditures forhome furnishings and equipment. The R2 2values for both dependent variables indicatethat despite the significance of the model, alarge amount of the variance in expendituresfor both household textiles and textile home

furnishings remains unexplained. Some ofthis unexplained variance may reflect the ef-fects of household tastes, preferences, andinventories. The low R2 values obtained in the

analysis are consistent with the poor statis-tical fit which often characterizes linearmodels (Phlips, 1983).

a Tobit analysis of expenditures for sheets, pillowcases, bedspreads, blankets, towels, washcloths, table linens,bathmats, and shower curtains.

b Normalized coefficients permit comparison of the relative effect of the independent variables on expenditures.C Elasticities were calculated at the mean, based on the regression coefficient.

* p < 0.10**

p < 0.05

*** p < 0.01

28

As hypothesized, total consumption ex-penditures were positively related to expen-ditures for both household textiles and textilehome furnishings. This finding is consistentwith both economic theory and the results ofprevious studies of household textiles (Win-akor, 1975) and home furnishings expendi-tures (Lehfeld, 1980; Lippitt, 1960). However,comparisons with other studies must bemade with caution, given differences in defi-nitions of the variables and in methods of

analysis. Elasticities for both household tex-tiles and textile home furnishings expendi-tures, with respect to total consumption ex-penditures, proved to be less than 1.0. This

demonstrates that as total consumption ex-penditures increase, expenditures for thoseproducts increase, but less rapidly than totalconsumption expenditures. The elasticity oftextile home furnishings expenditures wasslightly higher (0.80) than that of expendi-tures for household textiles (0.72). This sug-gests that as total consumption expendituresincrease, expenditures for textile home fur-nishings may increase more rapidly than ex-penditures for household textiles.Of the family type variables, only marital

status of the household head affected expen-ditures for both consumption categories. Forboth household textiles expenditures and ex-

29

penditures for textile home furnishings,households headed by married individualsspent more than households headed by un-married individuals. The effect of maritalstatus on household textile expenditures hasnot been reported previously. The findingthat marital status is positively related to ex-penditures for textile home furnishings isconsistent with the results of research onhome furnishings and appliances reported byLehfeld (1980). Family size was positively re-lated to expenditures for household textiles,as in Winakor’s study (1975). The elasticity ofhousehold textile expenditures, with respectto family size, was low (0.11). This demon-strates that as family size increases, expendi-tures for household textiles increase but the

percentage increase is small. There was no

relationship between family size and expen-ditures for textile home furnishings. Thisfinding confirms speculation that there arelikely to be greater economies of scale in theconsumption of textile home furnishings thanin the consumption of household textiles(Winakor, 1975). Both age of the householdhead and the presence of a child less than six

years of age were related to expenditures fortextile home furnishings. As the age of thehousehold head increased, expenditures forthose goods decreased. On the other hand,families with a child under six years of agespent more on textile home furnishings thandid families with no children under six. As a

group, the family type variables were foundto influence expenditures for both householdtextiles, x2 (4, N = 3,007) = 16.74, p < 0.01,and textile home furnishings, X2 (4, N = 3,007)= 30.99, p < 0.01. This suggests that familytype, as defined by family size, age of thehousehold head, marital status of the house-hold head, and age of the youngest child af-fects expenditures for both types of goods.The race of the household head affected

expenditures for household textiles, but notexpenditures for textile home furnishings.Households headed by blacks spent morethan households headed by nonblacks onhousehold textiles. This finding that race hadno effect on expenditures for textile homefurnishings was surprising, given the results

of the analysis reported by Friend and Kravis(1957). Apparently, much of the difference inexpenditures which they observed repre-sented the confounding effects of income.The effects of occupation on expenditures

for the two sets of goods varied. Expendituresfor household textiles were larger amonghouseholds headed by an individual whoseoccupation was reported as self-employed,professional/manager, or clerical/salesworker, than among households in which thehead was not working. For textile home fur-nishings, only the presence of a householdhead who was a clerical/sales worker was re-lated to expenditures. Consuming units inthat category spent more than householdsheaded by a nonworking individual. As agroup of variables, occupation had no effecton expenditures for either household textilesor textile home furnishings. This suggeststhat expenditures for household textiles andtextile home furnishings are not greatly af-fected by the occupation of the householdhead.

Housing tenure of the family was related toexpenditures for household textiles onlyamong homeowners with no mortgage.Those families spent more on household tex-tiles than did families who rented during thesurvey year. There was no difference in ex-

penditures between homeowners with a

mortgage and families who rented. Bothhomeowners with mortgages and home-owners without mortgages spent more ontextile home furnishings than renters. As agroup of variables, housing tenure was re-lated to expenditures for textile home fur-nishings X2 (2, N = 3,007) = 14.61, p < 0.01,but not household textiles. These findingsare consistent with results from Lippitt’s(1960) work on household furnishings andequipment and Winakor’s (1975) work onhousehold textiles.

Region was found to be significant, x2 (3, N= 3,007) = 8.42, p < 0.05, in explaining thevariance in household textile expenditures.Families in the Northeast, North Central andWest all spent more on household textilesthan did families in the South. Peters (1960)found region to have no effect on expendi-

30

tures for household textiles. However, hisdefinition of household textiles includedfloor coverings. In this study, floor coveringswere included in textile home furnishings. Ofthe regional variables, only residence in aNorth Central state was related to expendi-tures for textile home furnishings. Familiesliving in that region spent more for textilehome furnishings than did families in theSouth. This finding is consistent with resultsreported by Lippitt (1960) and Lehfeld (1980)in their studies of home furnishings andequipment.

In reviewing data on household textile ex-penditures, Winakor (1975) reported thatonce the effects of income and moving werecontrolled, there was no difference in expen-ditures between urban and rural households.In this study, the household textile expendi-tures of urban and rural households were

compared to those of suburban households.Both urban and rural families spent less onhousehold textiles than did suburban fami-lies. The negative relationship between urbanresidence and expenditures for householdtextiles may reflect the effect of dwelling size,which was not included in this study. Of thetwo location variables, only urban residenceaffected expenditures for textile home fur-nishings. Urban families spent less on textilehome furnishings than did suburban families,even when the effects of housing tenurewere controlled. As in the case of householdtextiles expenditures, this may reflect the ef-fect of dwelling size. As a group, the set oflocation variables was related to expendituresfor household textiles, X2 (2, N = 3,007) =6.60, p < 0.05, but not to expenditures fortextile home furnishings.

For households incurring moving expensesduring the survey year, expenditures for bothhousehold textiles and textile home fur-

nishings were higher than those of familieswith no moving expenses. This finding is con-sistent with the results reported by Winakor(1975), who found that whether or not afamily had moved during the survey year wasan important influence on household textilesexpenditures in her sample of Midwesternfamilies. None of the studies of household

furnishings and equipment which were re-viewed included moving expenses as a vari-able.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Although expenditures for household tex-tiles and textile home furnishings represent asmall percentage of total expenditures formany families in a given year, expendituresfor those goods may be large when newhouseholds are formed or when familiesmove from one residence to another. Arandom sample of 33 percent of householdtextiles and textile home furnishings expen-diture data was obtained from the 1973 Con-sumer Expenditure Survey. Because of thelarge number of zero expenditures reportedin both consumption categories, Tobit re-

gression techniques were used to test the re-lationships between the socioeconomic anddemographic characteristics of householdsand expenditures for both household textilesand textile home furnishings. As a result ofthis study, conclusions have been reachedconcerning the effect of socioeconomic anddemographic variables on expenditures forthose goods.The results of this research have implica-

tions for the development of consumptiontheory and suggest directions for further re-search on the determinants of expendituresfor household textiles and textile home fur-

nishings. Consistent with economic theory,the findings of this study confirm the effect oftotal consumption expenditures, a proxy forincome, on expenditures for household tex-tiles and establish its relationship to expendi-tures for textile home furnishings. The resultsof this study also lend empirical support tothe application of the conceptual frameworkproposed by Winakor (1969) to the consump-tion of household textiles and textile home

furnishings.Winakor (1975) suggested that socioeco-

nomic and demographic variables are justone set of variables which are important indetermining expenditures for household tex-tiles and textile home furnishings. While the

31

CES is an excellent source of data on the so-cioeconomic and demographic character-istics of households, the interview compo-nent does not provide information on othervariables which may influence expenditures.Further research should be directed toward

determining the effects of inventory levels onexpenditures for both household textiles andtextile home furnishings. Smaller studiesmight be directed toward identifying the ef-fects of goals and values on expenditures forthese products. Such research would con-tribute additional information useful to edu-

cators, family economists, and marketers ofhousehold textiles and textile home fur-

nishings.

REFERENCES

Carlson, M. D. (1974). The 1972-73 Consumer Ex-penditure Survey. Monthly Labor Review, 97,16-23.

Dardis, R., Derrick, F., and Lehfeld, A. (1981).Clothing demand in the United States: A cross-sectional analysis. Home Economics ResearchJournal, 10, 212-222.

David, M. H. (1962). Family Composition and Con-sumption, Amsterdam: North Holland.

Deaton, A., and Muellbauer, J. (1980). Economicsand Consumer Behavior. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Friend, I., and Kravis, I. B. (1957). New light on theconsumer market. Harvard Business Review, 35,105-116.

Green, H. A. J. (1978). Consumer Theory. NewYork: Academic Press.

Houthakker, H. S., and Taylor, L. D. (1970). Con-sumer Demand in the United States: Analysesand Projections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Lehfeld, A. (1980). Cross-Section Studies of theDemand for Selected Goods and Services in theU.S. Unpublished master’s thesis, University ofMaryland, College Park, MD.

Lippitt, V. (1960). Determinants of consumer de-mand for house furnishings and equipment. In I.Friend and R. Jones (Eds.), Proceedings of theConference on Consumption and Savings (Vol.I, pp. 225-246). Wharton School of Finance andCommerce, University of Pennsylvania.

Mack, R. P. (1960). Comments. In I. Friend and R.Jones (Eds.) Proceedings of the Conference onConsumption and Savings (Vol. I. pp. 267-276).Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania.

Peters, W. S. (1960). A covariance analysis of loca-tional relationships in furniture-home fur-

nishings expenditures. In I. Friend and R. Jones(Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Con-sumption and Savings (Vol. I, pp. 247-266).Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania.

Phlips, L. (1983). Applied Consumption Analysis(rev. ed.). New York: North Holland.

Prais, S. J., and Houthakker, H. S. (1955). TheAnalysis of Family Budgets. Cambridge, MA: TheUniversity Press.

Prais, S. J., and Houthakker, H. S. (1971). TheAnalysis of Family Budgets (2nd ed.). Cam-bridge, MA: The University Press.

Textiles, Apparel and Home Furnishings, Standard& Poor’s Industry Surveys, (1984). 2, p. T79.

Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for lim-ited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26,24-36.

U.S. End Use survey. (1983). Textile Organon, 54,p. 140.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1980). Statistical Ab-stract of the United States. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wagner, J., and Hanna, S. (1983). The effectivenessof family life cycle variables in consumer expen-diture research. Journal of Consumer Research,10, 281-291.

Winakor, G. (1969). The process of clothing con-sumption. Journal of Home Economics, 61,629-634.

Winakor, G. (1975). Household textiles consump-tion by farm and city families: Assortmentowned, annual expenditures, and sources.Home Economics Research Journal, 4, 2-26.

Received October 24, 1984; accepted July 15, 1986.