Section 2. For What Commodities did Housewives Queue.
Figures are quoted for those commodities for which the proportions queueing had positive significance. The first column gives the proportion of the whole sample and the second column the proportion of those queueing for the particular commodity.
Commodity
% of Sample
% of those queueing
Fish
5.5 (≠0.9)
26.8 (≠3.8)
Cakes, Confectionery
4.8 (≠0.8)
23.2
Meat
4.6 (≠0.7)
22.5
Biscuits
3.7 (≠0.65)
18.2
Groceries (unspecified)
3.1 (≠0.2)
15.0 (≠2.9)
Groceries (Rations)
2.6 (≠0.2)
12.4
Chocolates, Sweets
1.4 (≠0.14)
5.1 (≠1.8)
Cooked Meat, Pies
1.5 (≠0.14)
7.4 (≠2.2)
Sausages
1.5 (≠0.14)
7.5
Samples
2,776
572
It will be seen that grouping Groceries (unspecified) and Groceries (rations) would make this group the most considerable. The bulk of queueing seems then to be for five commodities, Fish, Cake and Confectionery, Meat, Biscuits and Groceries.
It must be borne in mind that interviewing was carried out before the new points rationing scheme was in full operation. This scheme will probably have some effect of the ‘Groceries’ figure. Only 4 housewives in the sample had queued for tinned goods however.
47
-31-
Regional Differences
Some differences in the proportions of the sample in different regions, which queued for various commodities are noted where these are significant.
Commodity
Total
Scorland
S. Wales
N. Midland
N. West
N. & N.E.
Midland
S.E. & London
S’th
S.W.
Fish
5.5
6.0
16.3
5.2
12.2
4.3
6.6
4.1
Cakes, Confect.
4.8
9.3
5.7
9.4
11.0
Meat
4.6
18.0
4.3
Biscuits
3.7
8.1
6.9
5.6
5.3
7.7
Groceries (Unspec.)
3.1
14.1
Groceries (Rationed)
2.6
6.3
Proportion queueing
206
36.8
23.3
17.8
12.4
20.8
30.9
17.3
21.2
17.1
Sample
172
174
388
433
246
491
118
222
200
Social Groups
A similar analysis based on the whole sample for the four Social Groups revealed no significant differences. An analysis based on the housewives in the different Social Groups who queued showed the following differences.
Commodity
Social Group
A. & B.
C. & D.
Fish
35.2 (≠ 8.7)
24.8 (≠4.1)
Cakes, Confectionery
29.4 (≠ 8)
19.1 (≠3.7)
Biscuits
10.1 (≠ 5.5)
20.2 (≠3.8)
Groceries (Rationed)
6.7 (≠ 4.5)
14.0 (≠3.2)
Sample Queueing
119
450
These differences are however, in the sample employed, just barely significant if probable error is rigidly applied.
