Housing Adjustment TheoryEarl W. Morris & Mary Winter(Morris, b. 1922) (Winter, b. 1940)Source:www.threegfarms.com;www.las.iastate.eduSummary:The theory of housing adjustment behavior is a framework for understanding the process by which households seek to maintain equilibrium, the causes of disequilibrium, and the consequences of existing in a state of disequilibrium. In this sense, equilibrium refers to a state in which the households current housing is in accordance with the norms of both society and the household itself, and it fits the needs of the household. Housing norms include space, tenure and structure type, quality, expenditure and neighborhood. When one or more of these norms is not met by the households current housing, the household experiences a housing deficit.

A deficit is a condition or set of conditions that is subjectively defined as undesirable in comparison with a norm (Morris & Winter, 1996, p. 22). For example, a typical space norm is the expectation that the dwelling will have enough rooms that opposite sex children will not have to share a bedroom once they reach a certain age. However, if a dwelling does not have enough rooms for this norm to be upheld, the household will experience a deficit. Deficits lead to feelings of dissatisfaction with ones current housing, and chronic dissatisfaction may cause the household to engage in change behavior in the form of adjustment, adaptation, or regeneration. However, the households preferred change behavior is predicated on overcoming any constraints that impose on the households ability to remedy the situation. A household may experience constraint in one or more of the following areas: resources, predispositions, discrimination, market, or household organization. On the other hand, a deficit in one area, such as the bedroom example above may be offset by a positive deficit in another area, for example a really large backyard. Thus, the household will have to determine which deficit is more dissatisfactory to them and make their changes based on that decision.

The theory of housing adjustment has been well-validated through studies conducted over two decades. However, an important criticism to consider when discussing the use of theory is the risk of decelerating or narrowing the development of any field of research by adhering to one principal theory. As Elaine Pedersen (2007) has succinctly stated, theory is everywhere, yet not every theory used will be as prevalent or well-validated as Morris and Winters theory of housing adjustment. In fact, there will be times when an initial theoretical context is important to a particular question or when the discovery of a new theoretical perspective is desired. When a new theoretical perspective is desired, the scholar will not define the research process by using a preexisting theory (Pedersen, 2007, p.120). Thus, although the use of preexisting theories is undeniably important to the development of knowledge within a given field, so is the use of as-yet-unnamed theories.Level of Analysis:Primarily meso/household.Methods:Quantitative; may be used to inform qualitative studies.Theoretical Model for the Housing Adjustment TheoryMorris & Winter (1996), p. 71.

Application:The theory of housing adjustment has been used extensively to study housing satisfaction, housing preferences, residential mobility, and housing decisions. For example, Keller, Farr, Kirby, and Rusco (1997) referred to the Morris and Winter theory (1978) in their discussion regarding the role of housing norms, values, and cultural background in shaping housing satisfaction and housing preferences. Krofta, Morris, and Franklin (1994) used this theory to study housing decisions among older age cohorts, whereas Bruin & Cook (1997) looked at constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income, single-parent families.References:Bruin, M. & Cook, C. (1997). Understanding constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income single-parent families. Environment and Behavior, 29, 532-553.Earl W. Morris & Mary Winter [Photograph]. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from Welcome to 3G Farms,Keller, T.C., Farr, C.A., Kirby, S.D., & Risco, J. (1997). Housing and its influence on life and job satisfaction among clergy. Housing and Society, 24, 15-34.Krofta,, J., Morris, E.W., & Franklin, E. (1994). Housing, health and the needs for help in older households: Differences among age cohorts. Housing and Society, 21, 76-89.Morris, E.W. & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of family housing adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 79-88.Morris, E.W. & Winter, M. (1978). Housing, family, and society. New York: Wiley.Morris, E.W. & Winter, M. (1994). Housing, family, and society (Rev. Ed.). Ames, IA: Morris & Winter.Morris, E.W. & Winter, M. (1996). Housing, family, and society (Rev. Ed.). Ames, IA: Morris & Winter.Pedersen, E. (2007). Theory is everywhere: A discourse on theory. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25(1),106-128.Steggell, C.D., Binder, S.K., Davidson, L.A., Vega, P.R., Hutton, E.D., & Rodecap, A.R. (2001). Exploring theories of human behavior in housing research. Housing and Society, 28(1/2), 3-32.http://blog.lib.umn.edu/housingstudies/hsg8467theory/2013/07/housing-adjustment-theory.html

THEORY OF HOUSING ADJUSTMENT the theory of housing adjustment states that households judge their housing in accordance with culturally derived norms. First posited in 1975, Earl W. Morris and Mary Winters theory of housing adjustment became the crux of the text Housing, Family, and Society have employed the Morris and Winter theoretical framework to explain households norms and preferences for housing.

Figure 1 illustrates the important role of constraints impeding the availability of normative housing, such as predispositions, household organization, market, resources, and discrimination.According to the theory, decisions about where to live are made at the household level. Household members use societal rules and standards, or norms, to evaluate their current residential circumstances regarding tenure and structure type, space, expenditure, quality, and neighborhood. Norms also are established at the household level and may sometimes differ from societal norms. Generally, normative housing in the United States is by owner-occupancy, preferably a single-family dwelling that includes a prescribed number of bedrooms based on the age and sex of household members. Deficits Theoretically, the adequacy of ones residential environment is judge on cultural housing norms. it is however, households that either subscribe to or reject housing norms in making decisions about where and how to live; that is, household norms may be different from cultural norms.Housing adjustments- are behaviors that are undertaken to meet demands for more and/or better housing, or to overcome normative housing deficits. Morris and Winter (1978, 1975) view individuals and families as evaluating their housing in terms of both cultural and family norms. When the housing situation does not meet the norms, a normative deficit exists. this normative deficit creates dissatisfaction.According to Morris and Winter (1978), Americans (regardless of race or class) hold housing norms for space, tenure, structure type, quality, expenditures and neighborhood. They specify that U.S. housing norms are widely held and fairly constant, despite the considerable diversity in actual housing conditions in this country. They are quite specific in noting that the houses people live in may vary markedly from the houses people want to live in and, "the fact that many families do not conform to a given cultural norm may not be used scientifically as evidence that the norm does not apply to them" (Morris and Winter 1975:s 1).Space norms - cover family and dwelling size. While only one kitchen and one living room are "necessary," regardless of family size, the number of bedrooms varies depending on the age and sex of household members (Morris and Winter 1975).Tenure norms - favor homeownership over renting. While it is permissible for low income, young, or single-parent families to rent, when a family has school-age children, homeownership is expected. Similarly, structure type norms prescribe that a family shall live in a single family detached dwelling. In rural areas, detached dwellings are particularly expected.Expenditure norms include all dwelling-related costs such as insurance, taxes, rent or mortgage payment and utilities.Quality and neighborhood norms are more ambiguous, but should be consistent with the socioeconomic status of the family (Morris and Winter 1975).Satisfaction with Housing In some research, housing satisfaction is an end in itself, used as a criterion of quality of life rather than a predictor of residential mobility. Housing dissatisfaction, however, is the direct result of salient and perceived housing deficits. Housing that does not meet household norms is expected to result in dissatisfaction that motivates households to pursue some form of housing adjustment.Outcomes:- Adjustment- AdaptationThe concept of constraints is essential to Morris and Winter's (1978) theory. There are three 'types of constraints. Intrafamilial constraints - include the level of problem solving skills and the ability to achieve consensus. Satisfaction constraints - relate to attractive features of the current dwelling that family members are unwilling to forego. Extra-familial constraints - include race, sex of the householder, social class, income, supply of housing and access to credit factors that limit housing adjustment.GOAL:The goal of households in the housing-adjustment process is to maintain housing conditions within 1imits defined by the norm's of the society and of the household. The household's norms and preferences as well as its ability to attain those norms are affected by the household's resources. Many households are unable to do anything about their housing deficits because of constraining factors. Methods: Quantitative; may be used to inform qualitative studies. Theoretical Model for the Housing Adjustment TheoryMorris & Winter (1996), p. 71.Application: The theory of housing adjustment has been used extensively to study housing satisfaction, housing preferences, residential mobility, and housing decisions. For example, Keller, Farr, Kirby, and Rusco (1997) referred to the Morris and Winter theory (1978) in their discussion regarding the role of housing norms, values, and cultural background in shaping housing satisfaction and housing preferences. Krofta, Morris, and Franklin (1994) used this theory to study housing decisions among older age cohorts, whereas Bruin & Cook (1997) looked at constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income, single-parent families.THE HOUSING ADJUSTMENT MODEL The theory used in this paper is an approach that has developed since the 1940s when Riemer (1943; 1945; 1947) published a series of papers on "maladjustment to the family home." It was from those papers that the idea was derived that a dysfunction or maladjustment between a household and its housing is an appropriate topic for theoretical sociological work.Conclusion - The theory of housing adjustment continues to be employed in research examining families and households housing decisions, though it has received considerably less attention in the 2000s. Nevertheless, housing adjustment decisions have widespread impacts on the overall economy, public policy, and individual neighborhoods and communities.