RESEARCH REPORTMichigan State UniversityAgricultural Experiment StationEast Lansing

Final Report

Michigan FarmFamiliesCoping With Stress

1986-1991

December 1992 Research Report 527

FINAL REPORT

Michigan Farm FamiliesCoping with Stress1986-1991

Study conducted by:Anne K. Soderman, ProfessorDepartment of Family and Child EcologyandHuman Development Specialist, Cooperative Extension ServiceMichigan State University

With assistance from:Shi-ruei Sherry Fang, Research Assistant

Study supported by:Agricultural Experiment StationMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan

December, 1992

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Need to Study Farm Family Coping 1

Objectives of the Study 4

Methodology 4Sample Selection and Description 4Measures and Procedures 5Analysis 6

Farm and Family Demands 6

Coping with Stress 7Health Status of Sampled Farm Families 7

Blood Pressure 10Cholesterol 12Weight 13

Behavioral Response Pattern 15Familial and Extra-Familial Support Sources 17Off-Farm Employment 22Farm Household and Childcare Task Participation 23Marital Satisfaction of the Couples 23

Summary and Conclusions 25

List of Tables

Table 1. Farm Acres Owned, Rented, Farmed, 1986 and 1991 5

Table 2. Debt/Asset Levels, 1986 and 1991 5

Table 3. Farm and Family Demands: Percentage Experiencing Moderate to Extreme Stress Levels, 1986 and 1991 8

Table 4.Stress Perceptions and Debt/Asset Rations: Percentage ExperiencingModerate to Extreme Stress Levels, 1986 and 1991 9

Table 5.Health Risk, Three Health Factors, 1986 and 1991 11

Table 6.Response Pattern to Stressful Events by Gender 16

Table 7.Response Patterns and Percentage ExperiencingModerate to High Risk on Three Health Factors, 1986 and 1991 16

Table 8.Response Patterns and Perception of Events asModerately to Extremely Stressful, 1986 and 1991 18

Table 9A Coping with Stressful Events: Perceptions of Familial andExtra-familial Support as Moderately to Extremely Helpful 20

Table 9B. Coping with Stressful Events: Perceptions of Familial andExtra-Familial Support as Moderately to Extremely Helpful (cont.) 21

Table 10. Off-Farm Employment by Gender, 1986 and 1991 22

Table 11. Wife's Off-Farm Employment and Husband's /Wife'sSatisfaction with Marriage 24

List of Figures and References

Figure 1. Participating Extension staff and community healthy facilities 2

Figure 2. Model of the pathogenesis of essential hypertension inreaction to environmental stress and coping 10

Figure 3. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company desirable weightsfor men and women (non-age specific) 13

Figure 4.Canadian Body Mass Index 14

References 27

Introduction

The economic crisis experienced by the national farmcommunity in the 1980s was severe and long-lasting.Mounting surpluses, low commodity prices, highinterest rates, and import quotas were taking a heavytoll on American farmers.

Michigan farmers were not exempt. Harddecisions about impending bankruptcy, findinganother occupation, selling off a family farm that hadlong been a "generational trust," and plummeting landvalues resulted in extraordinarily high levels of stressfor farmers. Because farming is an occupation thatclosely meshes work and family life, farm families alsoshared the strain.

By 1985, Michigan's Cooperative Extension Servicestaff were being inundated with requests to supplytechnological and financialcounseling to help farm families deal with the anydifficult decisions they needed to make. Heavydemands were also being put on state and field staffto help families deal with the increased emotionalupset that individuals and families were experiencing.

In summer of 1986, a proposal to Michigan StateUniversity's Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) tostudy the short- and longterm effects of stress on thestate's farm families was approved. Anne Soderman,an Extension specialist in human development fromthe Department of Family and Child Ecology,identified 12 regionally representative areas of thestate (see Figure 1) for a five-year study of farmfamilies. Extension offices in those regions werecontacted for a listing of farm families, including notonly those who were experiencing difficulty but alsothose who were dealing well with the increasinguncertainty.

One hundred and eighty-five families agreed toparticipate in a five-year study, which wasto include periodic completion of questionnaires byeach spouse and also completion of a health-riskappraisal at a local hospital at the beginning and endof the study. Contacts with hospitals or health clinicsin the 12 areas were established by the local

Extension home economists. Health providers in 12separate Michigan counties agreed to oversee healthscreenings of cholesterol levels, blood pressure, andweight management at little or no cost to theparticipating farm families in their communities.

Findings of the five-year study are reported here. Thesuccess of the project is due to sustained support andeffort of Cooperative Extension staff in theparticipating counties, funding by AES, and healthcare administrators who provided the testing in the 12regions.

On-campus staff from the MSU medical schoolswere consulted periodically and provided informationrelated to the health risk assessment and evaluation.Over time, Judy Pfaff, a statistical consultant, andseveral graduate research assistants contributedconsiderable time and competence to the project.

Most important, of course, were the 125 farmfamilies who faithfully filled out and returned thesurveys mailed to them, also taking time to completethe health appraisals at their local health facilities.They did this at a time when, for most of them,maintaining the family farm was not only a challenge -it was an overwhelming struggle.

Need to Study Farm Family Coping

Even in the best of times, farming has been rankednear the top of stressful occupations. Contributing tothat are heavy financial investments, long work daysand infrequent

vacations, weather uncertainty, equipmentbreakdown livestock and crop disease, and safetythreats. Pressure to keep up with growingtechnology, to remain competitive with worldmarkets, and to develop more polished businessstrategies have also added to the strain that farmfamilies experience.

Though most of the country's farms are still familyowned and operated, there has been a significantdecline in the number of middle sized family farmsthat produce 40 percent of the nation's food supply -those with annual sales of $40,000 to $200,000.Many of these farms have been faced for almost adecade now with very little profit, or evenbankruptcy, as American agriculture continues tostruggle with the loss of foreign markets and internaleconomic transitions. The current controversy withother countries such as Australia about continuingfarm subsidies is only one example of the ambiguitycontributing to a stressful economic climate infarming. In Michigan, where & agriculture is thestate's second largest industry, the number of farmshas declined from 77,946 in 1969 to currentMichigan Department of Agriculture estimates of51,172, a loss of more than 26,000 operations.

The reasons for leaving farming today are not whollyrelated to lower profit margins. Many farm familieshave simply chosen to give up their continuousstruggle to deal with dramatic supply and demandshifts in an increasingly complex world market.

Researchers who have closely studied distressedindividuals and families maintain that under prolongedor intense pressure, human response becomes fairlypredictable: increased physical complaints anddisease, psychological upset that makes decisionmaking more difficult, and a rise in addictivebehaviors and fractured relationships both inside andoutside the family.

As financial problems during the 1980s became moreserious and the situation more hopeless, mental healthworkers were documenting such casualties as higheralcoholism, family abuse, and divorce in farm families.Suicide and a significant increase in suspicious"accidents" were forming an "out" for some farmers

and farm wives, with farmers in Missouri leading thatstate in suicides (Newsweek, February 18,1985).

In Michigan, a variety of resources to help farmerscope were set in place. Extension ManagementAssistance Teams (EMAT) were set up to providetechnical assistance and counseling. A hot line wasestablished from the State Department of Agriculture,and specialists were lined up to respond to calls forhelp. Clergy and mental health workers were trainedby state staff at Michigan State University to betterunderstand the problems and respond to clienteleneeds. Job retraining centers were set up in the state,and Cooperative Extension Service personnelscheduled hundreds of information sessions incommunity centers and churches, which were wellattended. Farm families were reminded often that thestress they were experiencing was not withoutlong-term consequences and that it was important tofind some healthy outlets to discharge it. It would dolittle good to save the farm at the expense of theirown health or lasting family relationships.

While thousands of farm families did access the helpprovided, many others chose to suffer in silence, notwilling to discuss their problems with their bankers oreven their own families. Clergy noted a dramaticwithdrawal of farm families from congregationsbecause they were reluctant to face neighbors whowere also their creditors. Mental health workersexpressed frustration that farm families were hard toreach, despite additional resources being allocated torelieve the distress they were feeling.

Robert Eliot, Chair of the University of NebraskaDepartment of Preventive and Stress Medicine inOmaha, maintained during that dark period that "theworld of agriculture has changed, and farmers needpostgraduate skills in coping. Farmers are quick toseek information on the latest herbicide, but whatkind of education do they have in self-help for theirpersonal lives? What the farm crisis of the 1980staught us is that we need to be much moreknowledgeable about how farm families cope withsevere personal crises and the kinds of informationthey need for more effective self-help."

Given the continued uncertainties related to global

agriculture, future crises in American farming arepredictable. In order to find out more about how farmfamilies cope with crisis, the Michigan Farm FamilyStress Project was implemented in 1986.

Objectives of the StudyObjectives were to:

• Document farm and family demands experienced byMichigan farm families.

• Gain information about the health status of farm menand women as they coped with varied levels ofstress.

• Identify the relationship between behavioralresponse patterns and coping abilities.

• Identify support resources used by farm familiesand levels of satisfaction with them.

As the study evolved and it became apparent thatincreasing numbers of farm wives were seekingoff-farm employment to supplement farm-earnedincome, an additional objective was added, i. e.,

• Gain information about the impact on the family offarm wives' involvement in off farm employment.

MethodologySample Selection and Description.

Originally, 185 intact Michigan farm families in 12participating counties were selected for study fromlists of families supplied by the Cooperative Extensionoffices. A purposive sample was obtained to makesure that some balance was maintained betweenfamilies experiencing financial difficulty and those whoseemed to be coping well financially, in order to findout more about each group.

Families were informed that the study was a five-yeareffort that involved filling out individual questionnairesat three different points in the study and completinghealth risk appraisals at a local health facility in Years

1 and 5 of the study. One hundred and twenty-fivefamilies followed through on these requirements overthe five-year period and constituted the final samplefor analysis. Of these, ages ranged from 23 to 73years (median age for women was 42 years; medianage for men was 45 years). Educational attainmentranged from 7 to 21 years, with an average of 13.6years.

Dairying was the most predominant type of operation(23.4%) in the families sampled, with cash cropfollowing (19.5%), and a combination of the twocommodities the third most frequently identified(10.9%). The remainder indicated primary investmentin livestock, fruit and vegetable growing, or a varietyof other combinations.

Mean number of acres owned in 1986 was 442.59,with another 286.88 acres rented, and a total of688.17 acres farmed, on average (see Table 1).

Of the final sample, debt/asset ratios at the beginningof the study were 48.5 percent under .40 and 51.5percent at .40 or over (see Table 2). In 1991,families were in better shape financially at 55.6percent and 44.4 percent respectively.

Table 1. Farm Acres Owned, Rented, Farmed, 1986 and 1991

Land 1986 1991 %Increase orDecrease

Acres owned 442.59 456.95 +3.10 %Acres rented 286.88 322.95 +11.17 %Acres farmed 688.17 756.57 +9.04 %

Table 2. Debt/Asset Levels, 1986 and 1991

Year < 40 % > 40 %

1986 48.50 51.501991 55.60 44.40

Measures and Procedures.

A questionnaire was developed for years 1 and 5 toelicit the following:

1) demographic information;

2) information related to the farming operation(number of years in the business; acres owned,rented, farmed; organization and type of operation;number of years in the family);

3) outside employment;

4) income (debts and assets);

5) health information (use of nicotine, alcohol, drugs;family and personal history of disease; exercise andnutrition; number of days ill per year);

6) personal style of coping with stressful events;

7) family qualities;

8) perception of stress related to family and farmingdemands; and

9) use of and satisfaction with available resources forcoping.

Individual copies of the questionnaires were mailed toeach spouse, with directions to complete them

independently and return individual responses in anenclosed envelope to Michigan State University. Thefirst set of data was collected in Spring, 1986, andthe last in Spring, 1991.

A form for recording assessment of cholesterol,blood pressure, and height and weight wasdeveloped for community health personnel to recordinformation gained in the health risk appraisalsperformed in Years I and 5 of the study

In Winter, 1988, a six-page, self-report questionnairewas prepared to measure satisfaction and roles inthose families more heavily involved in off-farmemployment. It included measures of Farm TaskParticipation (FTP), Household Task Participation(HTP), Child Task Participation (CTP) and DyadicAdjustment. The FTP, HTP, and CTP measureswere adapted from two separate scales constructedby Fassinger and Schwarzweller (1984) to measurebreadth and depth of spousal involvement in farm andhousehold work. Scores for Farm Task Participation(FTP) and Household Task Participation (HTP) werederived from participants' weighted responses about28 tasks specific to the farming operation and another28 related to the running of the household and also tochildcare.

To assess the current quality of each couple'smarriage, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier,1976) was utilized. The 32-item scale yields anoverall score with a theoretical range of 0-151, aswell as four empirically verified components of dyadicadjustment that were used as subscales:

1) Dyadic Satisfaction (overall satisfaction with themarriage itself);

2) Dyadic Consensus (degree to which thecouple agrees about family matters);

3) Dyadic Cohesion (couples' feelings of closeness orconnectedness); and

4) Affectional Expression (expressed love, affection,sexual interest).

Internal consistency reliability for the four subscales(using Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha) is .94,.86,.90,and .73 respectively, with a reliability estimate of .96for the complete scale.

Analysis.

Independent and dependent T Tests were used whencontrasting means between two groups, and analysisof variance (ANOVA)

was conducted when more than two groups werebeing compared. Alpha was set at .05, and significantdifferences between groups are reported by *(significant at the .05 level), ** (significant at.01),*** (significant at.001), and **** (significantat.0001).

Farm and Family Demands

There is little doubt that the 1980s were an extremelytough time for Michigan farm families. The boomyears of the 1970s when there was high worlddemand for U.S. agricultural products were followedby sharply falling incomes and land values in the1980s. In 1982, the average farm income was equalto what farmers had been earning in 1974, and by1984 indebtedness had tripled. By 1985, more than42 percent of Michigan farmers were reportinglosses, and 25 percent of farms were in seriousfinancial trouble, with many farmers facingbankruptcy (Herrick, 1986).

The financial difficulties being experienced turned totrue crisis proportion for farm families in Michigan'slower peninsula when farmers experienced floodconditions and significant crop loss in 30 counties ofthe state. Michigan farm men and women interviewedduring this period indicated significant increases in theattitudes and behaviors that often contribute topsychological upset, physical disease, and troubledinterpersonal relationships.

Men reported increased muscle aches, feelings offatigue, feelings of hopelessness and anxiety,depression, moodiness, sleep disturbances, confusionand a loss of motivation. Many reported significantincreases in thoughts of leaving farming, feelings ofdissatisfaction about farming, and a loss in optimismabout the future of agriculture and their desire to havetheir children remain in farming. Wives reportedsimilar responses that, in many cases, were moreintensely felt.

Women cited increases in muscular aches, feelings offatigue, a tendency to overeat, sleep disturbances,and feelings of hopelessness. They also indicatedsignificant increases in moodiness, feelings of anxietyand anger, confusion and depression. Women, moreoften than their husbands, reported significantdisruption in the family, citing increases in the numberof arguments between parents and children as well asincreases in conflict with their spouse, amount ofexpressed anger, overall bickering in the family, andarguments over money (Soderman and Brown,1988).

The difficulty farm families have in separating thebusiness from the family was expressed well byRoger Betz, Eaton County agricultural agent at thetime of the study, who said, "The perception is thatwhen the farm goes, everything goes. It is not treatedas a business, which it is. The feeling is that your farmis your home and your life and your kids and youreverything" (Lansing State Journal, February 3, 1985;Herrick, 1986). A 37-year-old farm wife describedthe complex spin-off effect of one event: "Because ofthe flood, we had to buy feed for the cows that wasof poorer quality That affected the milk productionand then milk prices went down. Our machinery isolder and breaks down more. We would like torepair it but can't. We haven't had a vacation in threeyears, and we don't go many places or have as muchtime off. We're more irritable with each other, andchurch activity has decreased because we havechores every Sunday and there's never a letup!"

The number of farm families in the current study whoreported experiencing moderate to-extreme stresslevels related to seven variables can be seen in Table3. Though there was a significant decrease innumbers viewing maintenance of the farmingoperation as stressful by 1991, almost 63 percent stillsaw it that way, with men and women in agreement.Also highly significant

in contrasting differences between 1986 and 1991was the apparent relief that families were feelingrelated to financial problems. In 1986, more than halfthe families sampled were experiencing financialpressures; however, 43 percent reported seriousfinancial stress in 1991.

While not statistically significant, it is interesting tonote that women were experiencing considerablymore stress with the parent-child and extended-familyrelationships when farm and financial stress wasgreater. Increased concern related to health problemswas expressed in 1991 by both men and women.

The significant amounts of stress related to thefarming situation and financial problems can be betterunderstood in this population when viewing Table 4.It is clear that those families with debt/ asset ratios of40 percent or greater were more highly stressed in1986 and continued to be so in 1991. Between 1986and 1991, mean perceptions of stress decreased forfamilies with lower debt load in every area but health.For families with debt load over 40 percent, stressdecreased or remained the same in every area butlegal problems. What is noteworthy, however, is thatin 1991, the perceived level of stress for families withgreater debt had increased in every area but health,particularly with respect to maintaining the farmingoperation, the husband-wife relationship, financialproblems, relationship with extended family, and legalproblems.

Coping with StressHealth Status of Sampled Farm Families.

It is well documented that good health tends toincrease our ability to withstand stress by improvingour capacity to respond to demand. Also, whenstress becomes excessive

over long periods of time, it can be deleterious to thebody When the brain perceives demand or threat, itmobilizes the body's defensive systems, causingchanges in life-sustaining functions. When threatcontinues for a long time (either imagined or real),maintained resistance eventually wears the bodysystems down (Selye, 1956; Pelletier, 1981). Bodiesthat are in poor shape to begin with may be morevulnerable to the effects of stress in response tothreatening life events.

It is also well documented that many Americans"engage in a wide variety of unhealthy behaviors,including smoking, overeating, improper diet, lack ofexercise, and excess use of drugs," (Ross, 1987:341)rendering us more vulnerable when life's pressuresincrease. While the farm families in this samplereported nicotine, alcohol, and drug use atbelow-national averages, they did not fare as wellwith respect to other health factors. Many reporteddiets high in salt, sugar, and fat. This was coupledwith

indications of infrequent physical exercise andsedentary life styles. The result in the families sampledwas that too many were at moderate- to high-risk forhealth problems related to high blood pressure, highcholesterol and obesity.

Blood Pressure.

As can be seen in Table 5, almost a third of the malesand more than 15 percent of the females were inmedium- and high-risk categories for high bloodpressure by the end of the study. Moreover, moremales than females had moved into at-risk status overthe five-year period of the study

Blood pressure is a complex, reciprocal systemregulating blood pumped by the heart and resistanceof blood vessels to that pumping. Prolonged orintense stress can upset this control system, asillustrated in Figure 2. The force of the blood as itpushes against artery walls is measured with both asystolic reading (maximum amount of

Blood pressure risk Males1986 1991

Females1986 1991

Low 76.9 68.8 88.4 84.6

Medium 21.5 28.1 9.9 14.3

High 1.7 3.1 1.7 1.1

Cholesterol risk Males***1986 1991

Females**1986 1991

Low 42.5 26.8 62.4 45.1

Medium 35.8 38.1 24.0 35.2

High 21.7 35.1 10.0 19.8

Weight risk Males ****1986 1991

Females **1986 1991

Low 34.7 21.1 49.2 42.2

Medium 21.6 22.1 21.0 16.7

High 43.5 56.8 29.6 41.1

Table 5. Health Risk, Three Health Factors, 1986 and 1991

Increase in total risk between 1986 and 1991 significant at .001 (***) for men and .0001 (****) for woman

Increase in total risk between 1986 and 1991 significant at .0001 (****) for men and .010 (**) for woman.

pressure exerted in the arteries as the heart beats)and diastolic (minimum pressure on the arteries as theheart rests). The harder it is for blood to flow throughthe arteries, the higher both numbers will be - and thegreater the stress will be on the heart, according tothe American Heart Association.

Uncontrolled high blood pressure is eventuallydamaging to the body because it significantlyincreases the workload of the heart and arteries.Uncontrolled pressure also damages the kidneys andleads to incidences of heart attack and stroke. All families involved in the study were given informationrelated to the dangers of uncontrolled hypertensionand advised to seek the help of a physician if theirtested levels exceeded 120/80 (systolic/ diastolicnumbers). In terms of this study, levels at or above140/90 constituted moderate risk, and high riskcategories were constituted by systolic pressures of160 or greater and diastolic levels of 120 or higher.

Cholesterol.

Too much cholesterol in the bloodstream has beencited by the American Heart Association as thegreatest risk factor in heart disease. While the bodyneeds the substance for insulating nerve fibers andproduction of certain essential hormones, excesslevels can build up on blood vessel walls, eventuallycutting off circulation and producing heart attack orstroke. Cholesterol, a blood fat, finds its way into thebloodstream through consumption of animal products- meats, eggs, poultry, fish and dairy products - or byway of production in the liver.

Two main kinds of cholesterol are found in the body:High Density Lipoproteins (HDL), which are found inpolyunsaturated fats consumed (corn, safflower,soybean, and sesame oils), and Low DensityLipoproteins (LDL) composed mainly of saturatedfats which are generally solid at room

temperature (butter, bacon fat, fats that marble beef)and saturated fats made by the liver. It is believedthat LDL embeds itself in the arterial walls, narrowingand hardening the arteries. HDL, on the other hand,keeps arteries clean and elastic by carrying LDLaway from the tissues and back to the liver forreprocessing and excretion.

Daily exercise, refraining from smoking, and keepingweight at an ideal level all contribute to controllingcholesterol levels which are determined by the unitsof HDL and LDL found in the bloodstream. Anational cholesterol education expert panel hasestablished desirable levels for total cholesterol as<200 mg/dl, borderline-high levels as 200-239 mg/dland high CHD (Coronary Heart Disease) risk levelsas >240 mg/dl. Ratios of total cholesterol and HDLare perhaps the single best predictor in determiningrisk (Castelli, 1985). For example, a total cholesterolof 200 and an HDL level of 45 would result in a ratioof 4.5 (200/45 = 4.5). A ratio of 4.5 or less isdesirable. As ratios increase, there is a concurrentincrease in risk for heart disease. In analyzingcholesterol risk for this study, moderate risk wasassigned to total cholesterols of 201-239 and/orratios between 5.0 and 5.6. High risk wasconservatively assigned to total values of 240 andgreater and/or ratios higher than 5.6.

As can be seen in Table 5, a great number of thesefamilies sampled need to be concerned about theircholesterol levels. At the beginning of the study, morethan half of all the males evaluated were at moderateor high risk. Five years later, almost three-fourths ofthe same group were at risk. A third of the womenassessed were at risk at the beginning of the study;five years later, this number had very significantlygrown to more than onehalf. These findings must beviewed with caution since the presence of high-riskand moderate-risk blood cholesterol values can be

confirmed only by repeated analysis and alsoconsidered in relation to an individual's gender andage. However, participants with total cholesterollevels over 200 or ratios higher than 5 were advisedto seek the advice of a physician and, if deemednecessary, to follow through with blood fat reduction.

Weight.

Maintenance of ideal weight is important in controllingboth hypertension and cholesterol levels. People whoare overweight (less than 20 percent over their idealbody weight) or obese (20 percent or more abovetheir ideal body weight) are also more at risk for suchdiseases as cancer and osteoarthritis of the hips,knees and other joints, and more accident-pronebecause of increased awkwardness, according to Dr.Charles Lucas, obesity researcher at Wayne StateUniversity

The Metropolitan weight tables currentlyrecommended by the Harvard School of PublicHealth were used for weight analysis in this study (seeFigure 3). Significant increase in weight risk for bothmen and women over the five-year period can benoted (Table 5). Though both the majority of malesand femdles sampled were overweight or obese,males were in more trouble by the end of the study,with 78.9 percent of the sample in either a moderate-or high-risk category. Over half of all females werealso at risk. All families in the study were sent a copyof the Canadian Body Mass Index (see Figure 4) tocalculate individual healthy weight ranges. They werealso provided with information about the importanceof staying within a healthy range.

Research examining linkages between illness andstressful life events remains somewhat inconclusiveand is largely based on studies following the onset ofdisease. Evidence is

MEN'S WEIGHT WOMEN’S WEIGHTHeight Ideal Height Ideal5-1 111-122 4-9 94-1065-2 114-126 4-10 97-1095-3 117-129 4-11 100-1125-4 120-132 5-0 103-1155-5 123-136 5-1 106-1185-6 127-140 5-2 109-1225-7 131-145 5-3 112-1265-8 135-149 5-4 116-1315-9 139-153 5-5 120-1355-10 143-158 5-6 124-1395-11 147-163 5-7 128-1436-0 151-168 5-8 132-1476-1 155-173 5-9 136-1516-2 160-178 5-10 140-1556-3 165-182 5-11 plus not available

Figure 3. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. Desirable weight for men and women,non-age specific (Source: Detroit Free Press, 1/23/87: 3B).

Source: Expert Group on Weight Standards, Health andWelfare Canada

Figure 4. Canadian Body Mass Index

HOW TO FIND YOURBMI--IT'S EASY

1. Mark an X at your height on fine A.

2. Mark an X at your weight on fine B.

3. Take a ruler and join the two X's.

4. To find your BMI, extend the line to line C.

FOR EXAMPLE:

- If Michael is 5'11 " (1.80 m) and weighs188 lbs (85 kg), his BMI is about 26.

- If Irene is 5'4" (1.60 rn) and weighs 132lbs (60 kg), her BMI is about 23.

Under 20: A BMI under 20 may beassociated with health problems for someindividuals. It may be a good idea to consulta dietitian and physician for advice.

20-25: This zone is associated with thelowest risk of illness for most people. This isthe range you want to stay in.

25-27: A BMI over 25 may be associatedwith health problems for some people.Caution is suggested if your BMI is in thiszone.

Over 27: A BMI over 27 is associated withincreased risk of health problems such asheart disease, high blood pressure anddiabetes. It may be a good idea to consult adietician and physician for advice.

growing, however, that problematic life changes aremore highly associated with heart and lung disease,diabetes, cell disease, accidents and otherhealth-related conditions.

The most serious result of long-term stress is thecompromising of the immunological system, whichleaves us open to invading diseases. Because humanability to withstand pressure is not infinite, the organsor systems involved eventually wear out or breakdown and stress-related disease, or "diseases ofadaptation," appear. According to Kenneth Pelletier(1981), author of Mind as Healer, Mind as Slayer,such disorders cannot be attributed to stress alonebut to the fact that the body's attempt to adapt tostress may create conditions that lead towardpathology When a machine is overworked, theweakest part breaks down first. It is the same withthe human body. "Such factors as heredity,environment, general health habits, behavioralvariables and past illnesses may all play a role indetermining whether illness will occur as the result ofprolonged stress," (p. 76), and the kind of illness thatis experienced may well depend on ingrainedpersonal response patterns in any particularindividual.

Said one farm wife who was interviewed during thisperiod, 'We were within two weeks of foreclosurewhen FHA came through so we could restructureour finances. I know we had definite emotional andphysical effects because of all this. My husband hashigh blood pressure now and the start of it coincidedwith all the stress" (Soderman and Brown, 1988).

Behavioral Response Pattern.

When under pressure, people behave verydifferently. Some generally overreact whenever theyperceive control is slipping away Termed "Type A"personalities, they are likely to become somewhatmore agitated and aggressive. Quite different aretheir

"Type B" counterparts who react more calmly, "rollingwith the punches" and seeing a stressful event ornecessary life change as perhaps troublesome, but alsoas one of the many challenges that can be expected aswe round the curves of life. Paul Pearsall (1987),author of Superimmunity, calls the Type A a "hotreactor" and suggests that the competitiveness, hostilityand continuous aggravation and overreactivenesscharacteristic of such individuals predict particulardiseases of adaptation for this population: ulcers,irritable bowel syndrome, hypertension, and heartdisease.

Behavior patterns such as these are believed tooriginate from early coping strategies that individualsemploy to defend themselves in stressful situations.Those that work best are probably reinforced andbecome the ingrained patterns that are more or lesscharacteristic in adulthood.

On the basis of their responses to 48 different personalstatements and subsequent factor analysis,respondents in this study were termed either Type Aor B. Respondents termed Type A characteristicallyscored high on such statements as: I often feel anxiousand impatient, often have more than one thing going atonce, am competitive, always in a hurry, often tend tofeel angry or hostile, and tend to overreact toproblems. These traits have been cited in stressresearch (Friedman and Rosenman, 1974; Newlin andLevenson, 1982; Meichenbaum and Jaremko, 1983)as characteristic of the Type A personality. Type Bs,on the other hand, scored consistently higher on suchstatements as tending to be easygoing, finding it easyto relax, being cheerful everyday, not being moody orimpatient, and not overreacting to problems.

As can be seen in Table 6, a majority of therespondents (and more women than men) in the study(65.2%) reported behaviors that characterized themas Type Bs. The number

Type A Type B

Men 39.8 60.2

Women 29.7 70.3

Total 34.8 65.2

1986 1991

Cholesterol Type A Type B

59.248.8

71.472.1

Blood pressure Type A Type B

20.014.9

32.019.5

Weight Type A Type B

59.559.3

67.369.7

Table 6. Response Pattern to Stressful Events by Gender

Table 7. Response Patterns and Percentage ExperiencingModerate to High Risk on Three Health Factors, 1986 and 1991

of reported Type As (34.8%) is significantly less thanfound in the general population. Two things mightaccount for this: either the respondents'self-perceptions and self-reports were somewhaterroneous or there is a higher incidence of Type Bpersonalities that naturally migrate toward farming asan occupation.

In looking at response patterns and health risk (Table7), there did not appear to be notable differencesbetween these two groups

with respect to increased risk in cholesterol levels andweight. However, much greater differences wereapparent with respect to blood pressure risk over thefive-year period, with far more of the Type Apersonalities in, the moderate- to high-risk categoriesin 1991 than Type Bs (32%, versus 19.5%). Thoughcaution must be assigned to these findings because ofthe numbers of persons constituting the Type Acategory, the finding is consistent with findings in theliterature

about the long-term effects of biological andbehavioral overresponses to stress.

Examining the specific stressors experienced (Table8), Type As were significantly more stressed thantheir Type B counterparts in three areas. In 1986,maintaining the farming operation was highly stressfulfor both A and B personality types. However, almostall of the type As (90%) reported high stress in 1986,versus only 70 percent of the Bs. In the post-crisisperiod in 1991, both personality types reporteddecreased stress levels; however, the drop in thestress level of the Type As in 1991 was moresignificant than that of the Type Bs. Yet the perceivedstress level for Type As in 1991 was still reported tobe as high as that experienced by the Bs in the midstof the crisis.

Highly related here was the perceived stress feltabout financial problems. Again, while this decreasedsignificantly in both groups, the Type As were ashighly stressed in thepost crisis period as the Bs were in the height of thecrisis. Stress over legal problems rose slightly forboth groups in 1986, with Type As more highlystressed, and then dropped to slightly over 11percent for both groups in 1991.

Interpersonal stress inside the family is reportedlyhigher for Type As than for Type Bs, withhusband-wife stress twice as high for the Type As atboth points in the study. Stress perceived in theparent-child relationship was much greater for theType As while in the midst of the crisis, but veryparallel to that of the Bs in 1991 when financial andfarming demands had normalized. In relationshipswith the extended family, Type A respondentsreported a great deal more stress at both points in thestudy. Almost a third of them were reporting thesame levels of stress in 1991 as were experienced bythe Type Bs in 1986.

A wife who was interviewed explained the kind ofsqueeze that was being felt in the

midst of the financial crisis by several generations in afamily: 'We are less easygoing with the children. Myhusband's parents are retired and are always on ourcase about financial matters, including how we spendour money. We've borrowed money from myparents, and they seem to be worried about whetheror not they'll get it back. They keep a very close tabon how much we pay for things. We find it harder tolive up to what we want to be for our children.Everyone in the family is shorter and less patient witheach other" (Soderman and Brown, 1988).

Findings related to perceived stress and healthproblems over the five-year period were difficult tointerpret. Although almost three times as many of theType As were reporting health-related stress in 1986,the groups were more parallel in 1991 when a higherpercentage of Type As continued to report stress.However, there had also been an increase, ratherthan decrease, in the number of Type Bs seeinghealth problems as a stressor over the five-yearperiod. It is probable that, over time, concernincreased naturally in both groups as theyexperienced natural age-related health concerns. Thelarge differences indicated between the groups in themidst of the crisis in 1986 may be related to certaindocumented tendencies of Type As. (Rice 1987:97)suggests they "...experience no more stressful eventsthan (others). However, they appear to translate theiremotional upsets into bodily symptoms morefrequently As a result they seem to suffer more fromdigestion and sleep disturbances..."

Familial and Extra-Familial Support Sources.

Whether or not a crisis is being experienced, it isobvious that these farm families find their greatestsupport inside the family. When asked who they mostoften turn to for support or advice when they aredealing with difficulties, both men and women in this

study indicated that the immediate family was animportant source of support in both 1986 and 1991(see Tables 9A and 9B). While the crisis broughtmany families closer together, that additionalcloseness was sometimes accompanied by less thanpositive feelings.

According to one farm wife: "We started ourpartnership with our sons about four years ago. Withthe way things are going now, I wonder if we shouldhave done that." Her husband agreed. "I feel guiltythat I was part of involving them. We don't seem tohave the closeness as a family that we did before.We've lost a lot. We don't have dinners together, forexample. We're all too busy. It shows in ourconversations, too. We don't have the same talk andjoking that we used to have. Before we could talkand talk. Now .. we watch TV or read a bookinstead of talk."

Overall, the numbers of men and women were fairlyeven in their reported attempts to seek help outsidethe family in 1986. However, there were markeddifferences in the perceptions of men and womenrelated to how helpful they found those sources.

Men were far more likely than women to find otherfarm families with the same problem to be helpful,both in 1986 and 1991. Men were also more likelythan women to report the church and clergy to behelpful in 1986. When the crisis had lessened in1991, many more women were finding religiousresources to be helpful. As can be seen in Table 9A,far more men than women reported the church andclergy to be a source of support at the height of thecrisis.

The numbers of men and women who reportedreaching out to a counselor were notably low.Personal interviews with the families, more than thereturned surveys, revealed both the positive andnegative feelings families had about support outsidehe family A farm husband said: "Friends shied awayfrom us when we were at the peak of our troubles(but) have gotten closer for the most part becausethey now realize our difficulties can happen toanyone."

Another person reported: "When we filed forChapter 11, we felt like rejects and outcasts. We feltpeople were looking; it's a small, narrow community,where everyone thinks they know everything abouteveryone. I think some in the community like to seepeople fail." A wife said, "That (going to the foodbank) was the hardest thing I ever did, to go downthere and sign my name and get a box of food. I sawmen that stood there like bashful little boys looking attheir shoes, not wanting to look at other people'sfaces. They would look away and out the windowand take their boxes and get out." Another farmersummed up the pervasiveness of worrying aboutdebt: "One thing I've always enjoyed when the sungoes down, there's nobody that's going to bother me.The guys at the bank - they don't work at night.That's the only safe time." (Soderman and Brown,1988.)

When the farm financial crisis was at its peak, of 12accessible support systems (Tables 9A and 9B), thefive that the men found to be most helpful were:(Note: Parenthetical figures indicate percentagesidentifying the resource as helpful.)

1) clergy members (65.5%);

2) the church (63.2%);

3) the immediate family (63.1 %);

4) other farm families with the same problem (50.5%); and

5) the Cooperative Extension Service (37.3%).

For women at this same time, relief was found mostoften in:

1) the immediate family (63%);

2) friends (31.9%);

3) relatives (31.3%);

4) the Cooperative Extension Service in their county (28.1 %), and

5) other farm families with the same problem (26.3%).

When farm and financial stress had lessened in 1991,men were most likely to look for support from:

1) the immediate family (68.3%);

2) other farm families with the same problems (65.8%);

3) friends (52.9%);

4) relatives (52.1 %); and

5) health professionals (43.7%). Women in 1991 still found the most helpful sources to be:

1) the immediate family (65.8%);

2) health professionals and clergy (38.9%);

3) the Cooperative Extension Service (38.5%);

4) friends (38.3%); and

5) the legal system (36.6%).

Off-Farm Employment.

One of the most obvious coping strategies for farmfamilies dealing with mounting expenses and severelyrestricted cash flow during the 1980s was to findemployment elsewhere. However, when maintainingthe farm remained a priority, adding off-farm

employment to the farm work load seemed to be amore viable alternative than selling off and getting outof farming altogether. The tremendous shift to full-and part-time work off the farm by the familiessampled in this study is illustrated in Table 10. In1986, only 10.3 percent of males were working offthe farm full-time and another 12.9 percent wereworking part-time, for a total of 23.2 percent. By1991, this had changed dramatically. Seventy-fivepercent of the men in the sample were now involvedin off-farm employment, with 47.5 percent workingpart-time and 27.5 percent fully employed off thefarm.

Midway through the proposed study, there wereincreased reports of wives seeking off farmemployment to supplement income and providehealth insurance that could no longer be paid for withdwindling farm income. Though data presented inTable 10 do not indicate as many farm women asmen moving to off-farm employment (38.8%, femalesemployed part- and full-time in 1986 IL and 53.7%in 1991), the change is significant. Moreover, itseemed to be causing a fair amount of disruption forsome of the families. Farm families attending CESworkshops and obtaining assistance from ExtensionManagement Assistance Teams often talked abouthow different family life had become. A farmer noted,"My day's all

Table 10. Off Employment by Gender, 1986 and 1991

broken up. I have to be back at the house forThe kids when they get off the school bus becauseshe's gone to work!"

Two brothers who were in dairying together andbarely making a profit reported they saw their wives'jobs as embarrassing and a public indication that theirfarm operation "was not in the best shape." Said theoldest, "There was a time when our wives didn't haveto work. I get really tired of coming in and no dinnerwaiting. That was something my dad would neverhave put up with." Ironically, one of the wives whosehusband had expressed embarrassment over hiswife's "having to work" commented privately that shewould never let her husband know it but she "loves"her job as a rural mail carrier and wouldn't want toquit, even if they could afford it.

In order to better understand how wives' off farmemployment was affecting roles and relationshipsinside the family, the subjects participating in theongoing farm family stress project were sent anadditional questionnaire to fill out in the winter of1988. This centered on farm, household, andchildcare task participation by both spouses andmarital adjustment between the couple. Informalinterviews with a subsample of 15 of the families alsoyielded important information about farm and familyparticipation of the wives and also about theperceived quality of the couples' marriages. Familiesin which wives were employed 21 or more hours perweek were compared with those whose wives wereemployed less than 21 hours per week or not at all.

Farm Household and Childcare TaskParticipation.One place that women differed significantly whenthey were working 21 or more hours off the farm wasin their contribution to the overall farming operation.This finding supports that of Jones and Rosenfeld(1981) who found that decreased farm taskparticipation parallelled women's off-farmemployment.

Division of farm, household, and childcare taskparticipation based on gender seemed morepronounced for these farm men than for the women,

at least in the sample studied here. That is, womenseemed to participate more fully in all three than didmen, who continued to view household chores andcare of children primarily the wife'sresponsibility-whether she worked outside the homeor not. It was only when they were employed 21 ormore hours off the farm that the women indicatedsignificantly decreased participation in the farmingoperation.

Marital Satisfaction of the Couples.

Are farm couples happier or less happy when wivesare working off the farm? In this study, the farmhusbands who had wives working 21 or more hours aweek viewed their marriages, on average, as lesssatisfying and also perceived a diminished"togetherness" (Table 11). They were significantlymore likely to indicate frequent quarreling -"getting onone another's nerves"-and consideration of divorce.In general, these husbands were also more unhappythan other husbands with sexual aspects of theirmarriages. One husband who was also working offthe farm in a construction company talked about thedeterioration in his relationship with his wife: 'Wehave no prime time together. We haven't had avacation in the past year. We have coffee together inthe morning and at dinner time. The amount of timewe spend together is about zero. I am too tired. Wedo get in the same bed at night but if I stop and takethe time to shower, she is asleep when I come tobed." His wife added, "I am almost 60, and the timecomes when you want to slow down. We've puteverything back into the farm, and we don't haveanything. We're in limbo, and I don't see any light atthe end of the tunnel."

Most problematic from the working wives' point ofview were disagreements with their husbands overaffectional expression, including demonstrations ofaffection and sex relations, and consensus ordisagreements about how to handle money anddecision making in general. There is evidence thatsome farm wives employed off the farm werebeginning to be somewhat resentful of pouringhard-earned resources into farms that were makinglittle profit and wanted more power in making thedecision about whether or not to continue farming.This was painfully obvious in one of the couplesinterviewed. In response to her husband's commentthat they just had to wait out the farm financial crisis,his wife burst forward emotionally, "I drive 45 mileseach way (to her job). It's my paycheck that buys thegroceries, fills the oil tank (used for home heating),and buys the kids' tennis shoes. We have healthinsurance only because it's attached to my job. If not,we couldn't afford it. I want him (gesturing towardher husband) to give it up (farming). We haven'tmade a dime on this farm for over five years, and I'msick and tired of everything I earn going down a rathole just to support this farm!"

Changes in the American agricultural scene predictthat farm men and women will continue moving intothe off-farm labor market to support the small- andmiddle sized farming operations. These changesobviously have the potential to induce stress in couplerelationships as a consequence role overload andmarital dissatisfaction in both husbands and wives.Moreover, as spouses invest more of their time andenergy away from the farm, they may become lessenthusiastic about keeping the family farm afloatunless it promises to be more profitable.

While the findings in this study may not be applicableto farm families in general, the results suggest thatlong-held traditional values about what "good"husbands or "good" wives do within the family willeventually be challenged in the farm family, just asthey have been in non-farm families. The continuedhigh rate of divorce in the United States and in othersocieties where dual employment is high is, in part, areflection of couples' inability to effectively meshoccupational and family task loads. Perceived andreal inequities often get in the way of satisfied feelingsabout what each spouse is contributing to the other'swell-being.

Summary and Conclusions

Fortunately, over the five-year period of this study,the high levels of stress experienced by manyMichigan farm families in the 1980s had diminishedconsiderably by 1991. Only two groups of individualscontinued to experience significantly high demandwith respect to the farming operation: those who areoperating with debt/ asset ratios of 40 percent andabove, and those who tend to have overreactive, orType A, personalities.

In analyzing the coping abilities of the 125 familieswho remained in the study over the five years, thestrengths of the families under study were clearlyapparent: Michigan farm families are close to oneanother. They are accustomed to and willing to workextremely hard with very little financial or personalreward, and many more of them have found itnecessary to take off-farm jobs in order to supportlow-profit farming operations. Asurprisingly high number of them appear to havepersonalities that buffer them against pressures thatother populations would find overwhelming.

Other findings in this study indicate that farm familiesin Michigan may want to increase their attention tohealth and fitness. The human body is a marvelousmachine that appears to stand up under a great dealof neglect and abuse - but it can do this for only solong before it breaks down, showing signs ofexcessive wear and responding poorly whensubjected to more extreme tests such as thoseexperienced in the 1980s. Modern technology hasdramatically altered the physical demands of farming.In addition, many farmers go from relatively inactiveperiods in the winter to overly active ones in thespring, summer and fall that overtax physical andmental stamina. When crises such as drought, floodsor severe economic problems are added, bodies andminds maintained in top condition have better long-range ability to withstand the pressure.

The role of personality in stress management is alsoimportant. In this study, easygoing attitudes andeffective behavioral responses to very demandingcircumstances were found in over half the sample.However, more than a third of the sample describedless positive patterns of responding. Finding out moreabout ourselves and the way we react as individualsto demand and pressure can be advantageous instaying healthier and being more productive.Overreacting to stressful situations or withdrawingand failing to deal assertively enough with a stressorare behaviors that invite an additional set of problemsand, in the long run, illness and/or troubledrelationships.

Findings here also suggest that marital satisfaction infarm families with wives employed off the farm isgenerally lower than that of families where bothspouses are concentrating more of their efforts solelyon farm/family participation. Obviously, moreinformation needs to be obtained about relationshipsin the family related specifically to husbands' off-farmemployment, since changes documented there areeven more dramatic and may well have similar effectson family life. Since the off-farm labor of husbandsand wives is increasingly needed for family incomemaintenance to insure survival of family farms, itseems clear that more attention must be paid to thisaspect of family life.

Family life educators frequently deal with issuesrelated to role strain, role conflict, and communicationbetween couples. Less often talked about andaddressed are issues revolving around couples'affectional and sexual relationships with one anotherfor, though there were other areas of dissatisfaction,this was a common one found operating in both farmmen and farm women. Whether or not spouses talkopenly with one another about a relative balance intask participation and decision making in themarriage, perceived inequities can lead to

resentment. This, in turn, can operate negatively onaffectional behavior between the couple.

The opportunity to study this sample of farm familiesover a five-year period at both the height of thefinancial crisis in agriculture and after the pressure hadnormalized was greatly appreciated. Making sense ofwhat most influenced the demands families werefeeling, and also to these families' ability to cope withpressure over time could not have been accomplishedwith a one-shot survey in either 1986 or 1991.Clearly, there is still work to be done in identifyingand describing the coping abilities of Michigan's farmfamilies. The contributions made by the families whoparticipated in this study hopefully will serve toexpand the awareness and skills of policy makers,clergy members, family life educators, Michigan StateUniversity Extension staff, health and mental healthprofessionals, agency personnel, and Michigan farmfamilies themselves as they continue to cope withchallenging futures in agriculture.

More information about wellness and fitness and theemotional aspects of dealing with stress, change, andconflict is available in both videotape and bulletin form inStress and Change, a video and Bulletin E-2201, and PositiveConfrontation, a videotape with Bulletin E-2205. Farmfamilies and helping professionals can obtain theseresources through their local county Cooperative ExtensionService offices.

MSU is an Affirmative-Action Equal-OpportunityInstitution. Cooperative Extension Service programsand materials are open to all without regard to race,color, national origin, sex, handicap, age or religion.

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension workin agriculture and home economics, acts of May 8, andJune 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S.Department of Agriculture. Gail Imig, Director,Cooperative Extension Service. Michigan StateUniversity, E. Lansing, MI 48824.

This information is for educational purposes only.Reference to commercial products or trade namesdoes not imply endorsement by the CooperativeExtension Service or bias against those not mentioned.This bulletin becomes public property upon publicationand may be reprinted verbatim with credit to MSU.Reprinting cannot be used to endorse or advertise acommercial product or company.

1:93 - SDL - 2M - SP.

Printed on recycled paper with vegetable-based ink.

Reference

Castelli, W P. (Jan/Feb, 1985). Categorical issues intherapy for coronary heart disease. CardiologyPractice, 267-273.

Fassinger, P. A. and Schwarzweller, H. K. (1982).Work Patterns of Farm Wives in MidMichigan,Research Report 425. East Lansing, Mich.,Agricultural Experiment Station.

Fassinger, R A. and Schwarzweller, H. K. (1984).The work of farm women: A midwestern studyResearch in Rural Sociology and Development. 1,37-60.

Friedman, M. and Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type ABehavior and Your Heart, New York: Knopf.

Herrick, J. M. (1986). Farmers revolt!Contemporary farmers' protests in historicalperspective: Implications for social work practice,Human Services in the Rural Environment, 10:1,6-11.

Wnes, C. and Rosenfeld, R. A. (1981).

American Farm Women: Findings from a NationalSurvey. Chicago: National Opinion Research CenterReport No. 130.

Kaplan, N. M. (1979). The Goldblatt MemorialLecture Part II: The role of the kidney inhypertension. Hypertension, 1, 456-61.

Michenbaum, D. and Jaremko, M. E. (1983). StressReduction and Prevention. New York: Plenum Press.

Newlin, D. B. and Levenson, R. W (1982).Cardiovascular responses of individuals with Type Abehavior pattern and parental coronary heart disease.Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 26,393-402.

Pearsall, P, (1987). Superimmunity, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Pelletier, K. R. (1981). Mind as Healer, Mind asSlayer. New York: Dell.

Report of National Cholesterol Education Program(1988). Archives of Internal Medicine, 148:36-69.

Rice, P. L. (1987). Stress and Health - Principlesand Practice for Coping and Wellness. Monterey,CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Selye, H. (1956). The Stress of Life. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Soderman, A. (1989). Stress and Change. MSUCES Bulletin E-2201 and video cassette.

Soderman, A. (1989). Positive Confrontation. MSUCES Bulletin E-2205 and video cassette.

Soderman, A. K. and Brown, J. E. (1988). Farmfamily stress. Report to the Michigan Legislature: TheImpact of the Farm Financial Crisis and the 1986Flooding on Michigan Agriculture and RuralCounties. East Lansing, Michigan: MSU AgriculturalExperiment Station.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment:New scales for assessing the quality of marriage andsimilar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family,2:15-28.