the mobility experience and neighborhood attachment

THE MOBILITY EXPERIENCE AND NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT*

MARC BOLAN

In this study, I consider variables associated with an indi-vidual s most recent move into his or her current residence as pre-dictors of neighborhood attachment. Using the I978-I979 SeattleCommunity Attachment Survey, I find that elements of the mobilityexperience such as an individuals past history of migration, themotivations for moving, the amount of time involved in the move,and the distance traveled during the move have an effect on short-and long-term neighborhood attachment patterns independent ofresidential stability and investment predictors. The findings implythat psychosocial factors such as familiarity with the environment,increased premove exposure to the new environment, and perceivedcontrol during instances of transition have some impact on indi-viduals' postmove attitudes and behaviors, and suggest that re-searchers should look beyond traditional "types ofpeople" expla-nations ofurban neighborhood attachment.

TraditionallY there have been two approaches to the studyof the microlevel determinants of community attachment.The "community of limited liability" approach suggests thatattachment is a function of residents' economic and socialinvestments in a community. Past research has demon-strated that factors such as home ownership and raisingchildren influence individuals' feelings about and social in-volvements in a community (Gerson, Stueve, and Fischer1977; Greer 1962; Ringel and Finkelstein 1991; Stinner et.al. 1990; Woolever 1992). The "Chicago School" perspec-tive highlights how residential stability affects attachment:Studies (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Sampson 1988; To-meh 1969) have shown that longer-term residents reportgreater community sentiment and involvement, and suggestthat the process of becoming emotionally and cognitively"attached" to a place evolves over an individual's residencyin the community.

Social investment and residential stability, in conjunc-tion with demographic variables such as age and education,constitute a set of "types of people" predictors that clearlyinfluence attachment (Gerson et al. 1977). It is evident, how-ever, that such predictors explain only part of the variationin attachment. Some additional variation may be explainedby considering more macrolevel "types of places" predictorssuch as population density, population heterogeneity, and

'Marc Bolan, Department of Sociology, Box 353340, University ofWashington, Seattle, WA 98195; e-mail: [email protected]. I amindebted to Avery M. Guest, Howard S. Becker, Judith Howard, and RonaldJepperson for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. Thedata collection and subsequent research for this project were supported bya grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-ment.

Demography, Volume 34-Number 2, May 1997: 225-237

physical features of the landscape (Gerson et. al. 1977; Guestand Lee 1983a; Sampson 1988; Woolever 1992).

Contemporary research has ignored a valuable class ofmicrolevel predictors. In this study I explore how the moti-vations and attitudes shaping an individual's entry into a newneighborhood affect subsequent feelings about and behaviorwithin this environment. The "mobility experience" reflectsan individual's past and recent experience with the selectionof a new residence as measured by four elements: history ofmigration, the motivation for the move, the time involved inthe move, and the spatial distance traveled during the move.To date, few studies have considered the influence of thesefactors on postmove attitudes and behaviors.

In exploring the role of the mobility experience in ex-planations of neighborhood attachment, we must considertwo issues. First, we should think about the cognitive andmotivational elements of the event that influence attitudinaland behavioral attachment. Factors such as the reasons formoving or distance traveled serve to describe the character-istics of the move into the new environment, and form thebasis for the initial impressions that shape a new resident'sopinions of the neighborhood and willingness to engage inlocal activities.

Second, we should consider the temporal impact of thisexperience. We expect that elements of the move will remainsalient during a resident's first few years in the neighbor-hood because the thoughts and emotions associated with thisexperience are more accessible. Evidence suggests that theaverage time to settle and to establish roots is roughly 6-18months after the move (Carlisle-Frank 1992). Thus the ini-tial years of residency are a critical time in the developmentof lasting attachments to the new environment. An importantquestion is whether the short-term impact persists as the resi-dent becomes more settled.

This analysis is based on data from the 1978-1979 Com-munity Attachment Survey of residents in 20 Seattle andKing County local areas. This sample is preferable to others,such as the American Housing Survey, because it offers adiverse set of move-related measures and attachment indica-tors and more in-depth responses to mobility experience vari-ables, such as the "push" and "pull" reasons for the moveand the time devoted to the move. Moreover, the Commu-nity Attachment Survey contains information on attachment,which reflects a resident's attitudes about and behaviors in aspecific neighborhood. As such we can assess whether theeffects of predictors vary from studies of attachment to lesssymbolically defined urban areas (Kasarda and Janowitz1974; Sampson 1988).

225

226

NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT

Individuals' communal attachments provide insight into thenature of social life in urban areas. Prior research has shownthat individuals' attachments shape local activities, such asthe willingness to defend neighborhood interests (Crenshawand St. John 1989; Firey 1945) or to take actions to resolveneighborhood problems (Guest and Lee 1983a), as well asattitudes about perceived safety (Baba and Austin 1989) andfuture migration (Guest and Lee 1983a; Kirschenbaum 1983).

Past studies (Sampson 1988; Stinner et al. 1990; Wool-ever 1992) have placed measures of neighborhood attach-ment into two categories: attitudes about the neighborhood(i.e., attitudinal attachment) and behaviors within the neigh-borhood (i.e., behavioral attachment). Studies frequently in-corporate both categories and treat one class as a mediator ofthe other, but the link between residential attitudes and be-haviors is not considered in the present study.

The two dimensions of attitudinal attachment in thisstudy are evaluation and sentiment. Evaluation reflects anindividual's satisfaction with the residential environment,whereas sentiment refers to an individual's emotional attach-ment to a community. Though these measures are similar,Guest and Lee (1983b) illustrated substantive differences be-tween them, and concluded that different aspects of neigh-borhood life and social characteristics are related to each.

Behavioral attachment is also comprised of two dimen-sions. Interaction, or informal participation, refers to arespondent's ties to other individuals in the neighborhood.Previous studies have relied on local friendship ties orneighboring patterns as indicators of interaction. A seconddimension, involvement, refers to an individual's formalparticipation in the "community field" (Stinner et al. 1990).Typically, involvement is based on an individual's participa-tion in the activities associated with community life, such asmembership in local organizations or use of neighborhoodservices.

The rationale for including four distinct dimensions isthreefold. First, the micro level determinants of the measuresoften vary (Guest and Lee 1983b). Second, prior researchsuggests that the different dimensions could have unique ef-fects on other behavioral processes such as the decision tomove. Last, preliminary analyses indicate weak to moderateintercorre1ation between the five dependent variables usedin the study.

THE MOBILITY EXPERIENCEFew studies of the migration decision-making process ex-pand their models to examine the postmove consequences(Dejong and Gardner 1981; Landale and Guest 1985; Speare1974). Research on the long-term effects of moves on healthand well-being indicates that even though moving is a short-term event, it can create enduring changes in an individual'slife situation (Brett 1982; Stoko1s and Shumaker 1982). Yet,these studies focus more on an individual's psychologicaladjustment to a new situation, and less on assessments of thenew residence.

DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 34-NUMBER 2, MAY 1997

Fielding (1995) found that, compared to households thatwere forced to move, households that engaged in housing"adjustment" moves were more likely to report improvedhousing satisfaction with the new environment than house-holds who were forced to move. This study contributes tothe sparse literature on new residences, yet is restricted tothe relationship between one facet of the transition and onedimension of attachment.

Some studies of environmental psychology illustratehow factors such as perceived choice and prior expectationsmight influence postmove attitudes. Shumaker and Taylor(1983) propose that an individual's belief in whether he orshe had a choice in the move could have a long-term impacton residential evaluations. Feldman (1990) further suggeststhat prior expectations mediate the impact of mobility on ad-justment, and that individuals refer to past experiences of at-tachment formation as a set of cues that augment attempts toadjust to new surroundings.History of MigrationThere is a common presumption, drawn from employeetransfer studies, that mobile individuals are less likely to be"attached" because of the difficulties of continuously adjust-ing to new locations (Brett 1982; Carlisle-Frank 1992). Con-versely, there is also evidence to suggest that there are fewadverse consequences of greater mobility. Whyte (1957)showed that the mobile upper-middle class managers in LakeForest, Illinois were able to adjust and to integrate easily be-cause of a corporate culture that served to support a newmanager's movement into the community. Additional stud-ies (e.g., Miller 1977) reaffirm the notion that certain classesof mobile individuals possess the means to adjust more eas-ily to new situations.

Stokols and Shumaker's (1982) study of residential mo-bility and health found that the negative health consequencesexperienced by mobile individuals were reduced amongthose who were more predisposed to explore new places.Shumaker and Stokols (1982: 11) also proposed that "peoplewho have moved once, and coped successfully with the stressassociated with that move would have a lower threshold forfuture relocation."

Studies of job relocations consistently have shown thatmobile workers have an easier time adjusting to the new en-vironment than less frequent migrants, and suggest that indi-viduals learn to "cope with moving by moving" (Fisher andShaw 1994). This process also should apply to a mobile popu-lation that demonstrates more control over the transition.

In an age of diminished financial, social, and psycho-logical costs of migration when migrants can continue tomaintain previously formed outside attachments, we shouldno longer view chronic mobility as a deterrent to the forma-tion of attachments. Feldman's work implies that individualsdo not engage in complex, stressful readjustments during amove, but rather use the experience of past moves to dealwith the current move. Consequently, I hypothesize that anindividual's history ofmigration will have little influence onattachment.

THE MOBILITY EXPERIENCE AND NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT

Amount of Time Devoted to the Move

The amount of time devoted to a move is an important ele-ment of the mobility experience in two respects. First, thosewho spent a longer time looking for a home could have de-veloped a greater familiarity with the neighborhood beforeactually moving there. Second, those who engaged in longersearches may have had more opportunities to evaluate hous-ing alternatives and to assess the costs and benefits of mov-ing to the new neighborhood.

It follows that increased time may result in greaterpremove exposure, which can lead to more opportunities toestablish early attachments and to the formation of a greatersense of perceived control over the moving experience.Homesickness studies, for example, (Fisher 1990; Fisher,Murray, and Frazier 1985) have shown that the perception ofgreater control alleviates the stress associated with difficultsituations such as moves, and that "premove exposure to thenew environment increases levels of control and allows theindividual to better assess its psychosocial factors" (Fisher1990:58). Studies of well-being also have shown higherpostmove health impairment rates among individuals withlittle choice in the move to a new residence (Stokols andShumaker 1982).

If the time involved in the moving process is a reflec-tion of an individual's perceived control over a changingsituation, then individuals who make a quick transition coulddevelop negative evaluations about the new residence. Con-sequently, I hypothesize that the amount oftime devoted to amove should have a positive effect on neighborhood attach-ment.

Motivations for the MoveAn important element of the mobility experience is the ratio-nale for moving from one area to another. The motivationsfor a move are a synthesis of two considerations: the reasonsfor moving to a new residence and from an old residence.The "push" and "pull" factors that characterize a move indi-cate whether an individual views the change as a positive ornegative experience and possesses control over the event.

Let's first consider the consequences of family moves.In one respect, a family move represents a decision to movecloser to, or farther from family. Tilly and Brown (1967)stated that individuals migrating under the "auspices of kin-ship" have a more difficult time becoming assimilated andattached to the formal and informal structures present in thenew residence. A family move is also often a consequence ofa change in the family structure (e.g., marriage, divorce, orbirth of a child), an "auspice" not previously considered. Inthe postmove period, individuals who migrated due to achanging family structure are probably more concerned withtheir family situation than with their residential surroundingsand, as such, are less likely to develop community-wide at-tachments. Both perspectives suggest that family migrantsshould demonstrate less attachment.

Rossi (1955) and Michelson (1977) treated residentialmobility as a consequence of the changing needs of house-

227

holds, yet failed to address whether individuals who move tofulfill such needs develop stronger postmove attachments.Individuals motivated by housing needs (i.e., desires for dif-ferent size or style of housing) reasons seemingly have foundan alternative location that better suits their needs. As Field-ing (1995) suggested, those who meet a household need bymoving should develop a more favorable view of the newenvironment.

Moreover, Stokols and Shumaker (1982) argued that forindividuals to become attached subjectively to a residentialenvironment, they must believe that their goals are being ac-commodated by the existing environmental conditions. If aneighborhood provides the features and amenities necessaryto satisfy the needs of a resident, then he or she will havehigher levels of attachment. Those who move because ofhousing needs may foster the expectation that the new resi-dence will adequately satisfy their changing needs, and coulddevelop premove community attachments. Likewise, beforemoving, "neighborhood" migrants are conceivably attractedto features of the neighborhood that will satisfy their needsbefore moving.

Moreover "neighborhood" and "housing needs" mi-grants should demonstrate more control over the moving ex-perience. They are more familiar with the new environmentand are often undertaking a move to improve their housingsituation. In contrast, those who move based on economicissues ("housing other" migrants) may possess less control.Such individuals are often displaced from prior residencesbecause of economic considerations. As a result, they mustfind new housing that accommodates their economic con-straints, which in turn might impair their opportunities tochoose among alternatives. The negative connotation offorced moves among these migrants is likely to affect ad-versely their reported attachment (Fielding 1995).Distance of the MoveIn this study I can estimate the distance traveled in the lastmove and whether the individual is a new migrant to the Se-attle area. Short-distance migrants are more familiar with theamenities and features present in the new neighborhood, andhave perhaps established neighborhood ties despite livingoutside its boundaries. Hence, they have greater premoveexposure to the new environment, and should experience lessmove-related stress.

The literature on the impact of geographic distance hasbeen limited to homesickness studies. Fisher et al. (1985)demonstrated a positive relationship between distance andhomesickness among first-year college students and arguedthat the homesickness among long-distance migrants isbrought on by increased culture shock and feelings of de-tachment. Yet, these studies focus only on those who are re-moved from their home residence for only part of the year. Ifa similar pattern of adjustment occurs among individualswho undertake permanent transitions, then those who travelfarther could feel a greater loss of ties to the old environ-ment, which in turn could hinder attempts to form new at-tachments. Yet, long-distance migrants may compensate by

228

establishing new ties through more involvement and interac-tion.

I hypothesize that the distance ofa move has a negativeeffect on attitudinal attachment among intra-Seattle migrants(i.e., those who remained in the Seattle metropolitan area).Individuals who have moved a farther distance are probablyless familiar with the neighborhood and lack the samepremove opportunities to develop community ties. Althoughit is likely that residents staying in the same neighborhoodare involved in community affairs, new residents who areless acquainted with the neighborhood may be equally likelyto join organizations or to attend meetings as a strategy fororienting themselves to the new surroundings.

Whereas new migrants to Seattle have traveled some dis-tance and are detached from their past homes and prior af-fective attachments, it is plausible that the perceived distancebetween the old and new.environments has decreased overtime. As such, individuals now can acquire knowledge aboutnew surroundings before the transition that could alleviatesome of the uncertainty involved in moving into an unfamil-iar place. In addition, advances in travel and communicationprovide individuals with a greater ability to sustain prior at-tachments. This reduction in perceived distance shouldlessen the difficulties of long-distance moves.

Feldman (1990) also suggested that mobile individualscarry a model for the transition into unfamiliar surroundings.New migrants to Seattle could possess an understanding ofthe experiences they may encounter during the initial transi-tion, and thus may develop strategies (e.g., join local organi-zations) that allow them to deal more easily with the moveinto the new environment. If this is a valid argument, thenwe should observe higher behavioral attachment for new mi-grants.

DATA AND METHODSThe data for this study are taken from the 1978-1979 Se-

attle Community Attachment Survey of 1,642 residents in 20geographic areas of Seattle and surrounding suburban KingCounty. In each community a stratified random sample of80-90 residents responded to questions about their neighbor-hood and local area (as demarcated by the use of communitymaps). The response rate among those potential respondentscontacted varied over the 20 areas from 89.2% to 57.2%. The20 areas were chosen because they had characteristics, suchas the existence of integrating institutions, local sources ofnews, and schools, that help define a known community.

The specifications for constructing the five dependentmeasures of attachment are outlined in Appendix Table AI.

The study includes five mobility experience measures.History of migration is measured by the number of moves anindividual has made since age 18. The four levels of HistoryofMigration are S; 3 moves (reference category), 4-6 moves,7-9 moves, and 10 or more moves. An individual's percep-tion of the amount of time involved in the move is summa-rized in the Number ofMonths to Find Home measure. Thisvariable has four levels: 0-1 months, 2-5 months, 6+ months(reference category), and unreported.


Two variables assess the "push" and "pull" factors asso-ciated with the move. Survey respondents were asked open-ended questions about the reasons for moving to a new homeand away from a previous home. The variable Migration Torepresents the first response (up to three were coded) to "Whatwere the major things about this home that made you decideto take it?" The variable Migration From is the first responseto "What were the major things that made you decide to moveaway from your last home?" For each variable, I reclassifiedthe 21 original response categories (see Appendix Table 2A)into six categories: family (reference category), housingneeds, housing other, job, neighborhood, and other.

The Distance ofMove variable is based on the distancebetween an individual's last and current addresses, in com-bination with the amount of time the individual has lived inthe Seattle area. The five categories of this variable arestayed within same census tract (reference category), moved1-5 miles within the Seattle area, moved 6 or more mileswithin the Seattle area, moved from outside Seattle and livedin Seattle previously (i.e., return migrant), and moved fromoutside Seattle and never lived in Seattle previously (i.e.,new migrant). Survey limitations precluded attempts tospecify the actual distance traveled by those in the last twocategories. Thus we do not know whether return or new mi-grants engaged in inter- or intrastate moves.

The control variables in this study are consistent withthe set of residential stability, social investment, and socialposition variables used in prior attachment studies (Goudy1990; Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Sampson 1988; Stinner etal. 1990; Woolever 1992). They are defined below.

Length ofResidence. This is a continuous measure of thetime between the respondent's move into his or her presenthome and the interview date.

Home Ownership. There are three categories based onhousing tenure and reported home value: rent (reference cat-egory), own with a value less than $80,000, and own with avalue of $80,000 or more.

Child 6-17 Present at Home. This is a dichotomous vari-able indicating whether at least one child aged 6-17 ispresent in the household.

Age. There are four categories based on a respondent'sreported age: 18-29,30-39,40-49, and 50+ (reference cat-egory).

Education. There are three categories based on the high-est grade completed: high school degree or less (grades 0-12; reference category), college experience (grades 13-16),and greater than college degree (grades 17 and higher)

Marital Status. There are four categories based on mari-tal status: never married, married (reference category), di-vorced or separated, and widowed. .

Income. There are four categories based on reported totalhousehold income: unreported, less than $15,OQO, $15,000-$29,900, and $30,000 or more (reference category).

I structured the data analysis to assess the short- andlong-term effects of the mobility experience on attachment. Iconstructed separate dummy variable OLS regression mod-els for each of the five attachment measures for those in the

THE MOBILITY EXPERIENCE AND NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT 229

TABLE 1. SHORT-TERM SAMPLE OLS ATTACHMENT MODELS, GROSS EFFECTS

Attitudinal Attachment Behavioral Attachment

Evaluation Sentiment Organizations Interaction Neighbors Known

b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE

SOCIAL POSITIONHome Ownership

Own, value < $80,000 .090 .072 .056 .104 .359* .103 .003 .079 .324* .116Own, value $80,000+ .382* .104 .385* .153 .524* .150 .233* .115 .974* .160

Child Aged 6-17 Present .071 .073 .125 .106 .633* .102 -.066 .080 .212 .120Age

18-29 -.243* .117 .141 .167 -.029 .168 -.109 .129 -.111 .19830-39 -.030 .120 .365* .172 .332 .173 -.001 .132 .381 .20240-49 -.141 .149 .109 .214 .196 .215 -.227 .164 .195 .254

EducationCollege experience .143 .075 .284* .108 .124 .110 .227* .082 .119 .127Greater than college .234* .098 .387* .142 .103 .143 .198 .107 .362* .161

Marital StatusNever married -.181* .080 -.069 .117 -.421* .116 -.026 .089 -.389* .134Divorced/separated .126 .094 .129 .135 -.294* .135 .032 .103 -.148 .158Widowed -.028 .178 -.028 .259 -.285 .258 .174 .202 .077 .312

IncomeUnreported -.059 .198 -.029 .309 -.037 .291 -.205 .227 .060 .340< $15,000 -.252* .094 -.070 .138 -.141 .138 -.063 .104 -.427* .153$15,000-$29,900 -.349* .095 -.097 .140 .170 .139 .017 .105 -.134 .155

MOBILITY EXPERIENCEHistory of Migration

4-6 moves .286* .099 -.016 .144 .174 .146 .155 .110 .105 .1697-9 moves .298* .106 .118 .155 -.077 .156 -.049 .117 .055 .17910+ moves .316* .097 -.097 .142 .001 .143 .071 .107 .210 .162

.

(continued on the next page)

full sample (i.e., long-term sample) and those with a lengthof residence less than two years (i.e., short-term sample). Theunivariate and multivariate effects of the social position andmobility experience predictors-with the exception ofLength ofResidence-in the short-term sample are presentedin tabular form. Only the multivariate effects in the long-termsample are summarized in the tables.

SUMMARY OF RESULTSShort-Term Effects of the Mobility TransitionTable I shows the univariate effects of the social positionand mobility experience variables across each of the five at-tachment measures in the short-term sample. Table 2 indi-cates the net effects of this set of predictors in multivariateOLS models.

Before assessing the effects of the individual mobilityexperience variables, we should consider whether this set of

new predictors contributes to our ability to explain neigh-borhood attachment among short-term residents. Table 2shows the R2 value for each full model (i.e., with social posi-tion and mobility experience predictors included) in compari-son with a restricted model consisting only of the social po-sition variables. In each instance there is a substantial in-crease in the percentage of explained variance upon includ-ing the mobility experience variables into the predictivemodel. In fact, in the case of Sentiment, the overall R2 is overthree times higher than the R2 in the restricted model. Theinclusion of mobility experience factors allows for greaterexplanation of attachment patterns.

History of migration. The results of the short-terrranalysis generally support the hypothesis that history of migration has little influence on attachment. The summary 0;univariate effects (see Table 1) indicates that there are somesignificant differences in evaluation between those in themore mobile segments (i.e., 4-6, 7-9, and 10 or more moves:

230 DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 34-NUMBER 2, MAY 1997

(Table l continued from the previous page)Attitudinal Attachment Behavioral Attachment



No. Months to Find a Home0-1 -.044 .110 -.312 .160 -.282 .159 -.093 .119 -.497* .1782-5 -.053 .121 -.294 .174 -.143 .175 .004 .131 -.553* .193Unreported .008 .165 .005 .238 .065 .239 -.399* .183 -.598* .262

Migration toHousing needs .344* .139 .419* .200 -.063 .205 .477* .158 .538- .241Neighborhood .371- .146 .621- .210 .056 .215 .468- .166 .659- .253Housing other .195 .145 .103 .209 -.183 .215 .419- .165 .400 .253Job -.100 .206 .144 .155 -.273- .305 .480- .235 .684 .348Other -.100 .200 .200 .288 -.562 .296 .417 .225 .625 .343

Migration fromHousing needs -.056 .105 .176 .149 .289 .151 .054 .115 -.158 .177Neighborhood .086 .108 .144 .155 .339* .156 .167 .119 .206 .182Housing other .031 .105 -.094 .150 -.044 .151 -.040 .115 -.145 .175Job -.039 .109 .053 .156 .251 .157 -.017 .120 -.109 .181Other .152 .238 -.771- .341 -.154 .345 .037 .261 -.044 .389

Distance of Move1-5 miles -.186 .121 -.197 .172 -.011 .178 -.144 .133 -.287 .1976+ miles -.278- .129 -.615* .183 -.097 .189 -290- .142 -.161 .210Return to Seattle -.281- .141 -.608- .199 -.052 .206 -.181 .154 -.448- .227New to Seattle -.042 .137 -.196 .195 -.012 .202 -.267 .151 -.356 .223

Notes: Reference categories are as follows: for Home Ownership, renters; forAge, 50+; for Education, High School or Less; for Marital Status,married; for Income, $30,000 or more;for History of Migration, :53 moves; for Number of Months to FindHome, 6+ months; for Migration to andMigration from, family; for Distance of Move, same census tract.

"p < .05

and those in the reference category (s 3 moves), thoughwhen we control for the other social position and mobilityexperience predictors (see Table 2) the only significant con-trast is between the S 3 and 4-6 move categories. In general,though, it appears that more mobile residents report greatersatisfaction with the neighborhood, a finding inconsistentwith Brett's (1982) job transfer study. As suggested above,there are no significant effects ofHistory ofMigration in theremaining four short-term models.

Amount of time devoted to the move. The impact ofthe amount of time devoted to the move is not as importantas hypothesized. The univariate analysis shows that respon-dents who devoted a shorter time to the move (i.e., less than6 months) or who did not report the length of time indicatedfewer neighbors known than those in the 6 or more monthscategory; yet, these differences dissipate in the multivariatemodel. Hence, there is some suggestion of a positive rela-tionship between time and behavioral attachment, though thestrength of this effect is attenuated when we control for otherrelevant predictors.

Although not significant, there are some moderate differ-ences in sentiment across categories. As expected, sentimentis lower for those who devoted less time to the move. Thisfinding parallels the conclusion of Stokols and Shumaker'sstudies, and suggests that the increased familiarity with thenew surroundings resulting from a longer search period maybring on an increased desire to form emotional attachments.

Motivations for the move (migration to). The reasonan individual moved to the present neighborhood has inde-pendent effects on attitudinal and behavioral attachment. Inboth attitudinal attachment models it is evident that "neigh-borhood" and "housing needs" migrants express significantlyhigher evaluation and sentiment than those who 'moved forfamily reasons.

Moreover, we observe important differences lin two be-havioral attachment models: interaction and NeighborsKnown. The large number of significant differences in theInteraction model (i.e., all categories except "other" are sig-nificantly different from "family") is particularly interestingand suggests that levels of communication with local neigh-


TABLE 2. SHORT-TERM SAMPLE OLS ATIACHMENT MODELS, NET EFFECTS




SOCIAL POSITIONHome Ownership

Own, value < $80,000 .048 .086 .055 .123 .278* .123 -.027 .096 .301* .145Own, valule $80,000+ .254 .130 .153 .188 .104 .187 .173 .148 .846* .209

Child Aged 6-17 Present -.034 .088 .025 .128 .562* .127 -.053 .100 -.103 .146Age

18-29 -.244 .134 .144 .191 -.037 .192 -.107 .150 .221 .23030-39 -.168 .135 .270 .193 .140 .194 -.027 .152 .452 .23140-49 -.338* .160 -.023 .229 -.031 .230 -.301 .180 .173 .275

EducationCollege experience .144 .078 .323* .112 .128 .112 .290* .088 .095 .132Greater than college .156 .107 .364* .155 .118 .154 .173 .121 .141 .177

Marital StatusNever married -.073 .095 -.092 .136 -.145 .136 -.042 .107 -.189 .161Divorced/separated .157 .102 .254 .144 -.128 .145 .117 .113 -.014 .169Widowed -.077 .196 .165 .281 -.062 .282 .284 .225 .614 .342

IncomeUnreported .213 .202 .188 .307 .030 .292 -.190 .234 .255 .346< $15,000 -.081 .107 .084 .154 .170 .155 -.037 .121 -.004 .176$15,000-$29,900 -.242* .099 -.004 .143 .285* .143 .061 .112 .145 .162

MOBILITY EXPERIENCEHistory of Migration

4-6 moves .230* .101 -.083 .145 .039 .145 .045 .114 -.024 .1697-9 moves .210 .112 -.050 .161 -.278 .161 -.173 .126 -.110 .18710+ moves .208 .107 -.190 .154 -.248 .154 -.041 .121 .039 .177

No. Months to Find a Home0-1 .026 .117 -.323 .171 -.161 .169 -.103 .132 -.155 .1952-5 -.032 .121 -.260 .175 -.046 .174 .035 .136 -.285 .195Unreported .177 .169 .250 .244 .249 .243 -.239 .193 -.161 .275

Migration toHousing needs .325* .149 .433* .212 -.018 .214 .433* .170 .438 .254Neighborhood .326* .158 .595* .225 .136 .227 .412* .180 .574* .268Housing other .224 .153 .205 .219 -.005 .220 .484* .174 .490 .259Job -.041 .215 .247 .310 -.001 .310 .488* .245 .657 .355Other -.125 .205 .294 .294 -.413 .296 .480* .233 .806* .345

Migration fromHousing needs -.145 .107 .005 .154 .082 .155 -.056 .121 -.469* .184Neighborhood -.035 .110 .149 .158 .233 .159 .159 .124 -.029 .184Housing other -.048 .108 -.229 .155 -.200 .155 -.150 .121 -.469* .179Job -.137 .123 .162 .175 .205 .176 .068 .138 -.045 .202Other .015 .235 -.853* .337 -.343 .339 -.086 .265 -.542 .381

Distance of Move1-5 miles -.238 .123 -.277 .176 -.047 .177 -.187 .138 -.458* .1986+ miles -.336* .131 -.739* .188 -.255 .189 -.401* .148 -.354 .213


232

(Table 2 continued from the previous page)Attitudinal Attachment

Evaluation Sentiment

b SE b SE

Return to Seattle -.242 .159 -.635* .227New to Seattle -.043 .157 -.472* .226

R2.159 .169 .178 .111

R2 (Social Position Only) .089 .049


Behavioral Attachment

Organizations Interaction Neighbors Known

b SE b SE b SE-.196 .227 -.226 .178 -.708* .255-.313 .227 -.430* .178 -.756* .255

.184

.117 .042 .116

Notes: Reference categories are as follows: for Home Ownership, renters; for Age, 50+; for Education, High School or Less; for Marital Status,married; for Income, $30,000; for History of Migration, s 3 moves; for Number of Months to Find Home, 6+ months; for Migration to and Migrationfrom, family; for Distance of Move, same census tract.

*p < .05

bors are especially low for "family" migrants. A similar pat-tern appears in the Neighbors Known model, though the onlysignificant differences are between "family" migrants andthose in the "neighborhood" and "other" segments. Thislower attachment for "family" migrants to offers empiricalevidence of the constraining impact of kinship-related tran-sitions on the formation of neighborhood sentiments and in-volvements (Tilly and Brown 1967).

In general, with the exception of the Organizationsmodel, attachment is higher for "neighborhood" and "hous-ing needs" migrants. We do not observe the anticipated nega-tive effects among "housing other" migrants. In fact, in oneinstance Interaction is significantly higher for "housingother" migrants than for "family" migrants.

Motivations for the move (migration from). The dif-ferences in attachment across types of migration "push" rea-sons are not as apparent as those in the prior analysis of"pull" reasons. Initially, it is important to note that the mixof positive and negative regression coefficients for the fivedummy variables in each of the multivariate models indicatesthat "family" migrants do not consistently express the low-est levels of attachment. This is most evident in the Neigh-bors Known model, where behavioral attachment among"family" migrants is significantly higher than among thosewho moved away because of housing needs and other hous-ing reasons. Lower attachment among those who moved be-cause of other housing considerations supports the view thatthe financial circumstances of an individual's prior residen-tial situation might adversely affect present neighborhoodinvolvement (Fielding 1995), though we did not also observereduced postmove satisfaction or sentiment.

In contrast to the prior analysis of "pull" reasons, thereis little evidence of positive effects for "neighborhood" and"housing needs" migrants. The moderately strong univariateeffects on Organizations in these two segments decreaseupon controlling for the full set of predictors. These findingssuggest that the factors that shape individuals' familiaritywith and exposure to the new residential environment may

be more influential in drawing them to the neighborhood thanin pushing them from the old environment.

Distance of Move. The model results support the hy-pothesized negative relationship between the distance of themove and attitudinal attachment among intra-Seattle mi-grants. In the Evaluation and Sentiment models, respondentsin the 6 or more miles segment reported significantly lessattachment than those who remained in the same census tract.Moreover, in the Sentiment model, we observe reduced at-tachment among those individuals who moved from outsidethe metropolitan area (i.e., return and new migrants), sug-gesting that an individual's emotional ties to a neighborhoodare influenced by his or her prior spatial proximity to andpast experience residing in the neighborhood.

The impact of Distance on behavioral attachment is notas clear. The significant negative effects observed in the In-teraction and Neighbors Known models indicate that patternsof localized communication and interaction are enhanced forthose remaining in the neighborhood and are decreased forlong-distance migrants, particularly those new to Seattle. Yet,whereas interaction is lower for these groups, there are nodifferences in organizational participation. Respondents whotraveled a greater distance during the move are just as likelyas short-distance migrants to be involved in local organiza-tions, perhaps indicating that migrants use participation as ameans of situating themselves in the new residential envi-ronment.

Not surprisingly, attachment is highest for those whostayed in the same census tract. Depending on the specificmodel, attachment is lower among those who traveled far-ther, who are new to the area, or who have returned back tothe Seattle area. At the outset we questioned whether newmigrants, given their presumed detachment from distant tiesand unfamiliarity with the new environment] would reportless attachment. Although it is evident that such individualsare less emotionally attached and less inclined to interactwith local residents, the nonsignificant differences in Evalu-ation and Organizations show that those new to an urban


TABLE 3. LONG-TERM SAMPLE OLSATTACHMENT MODELS, NET EFFECTS



b SE b SE b SE b SE b SELength of Residence .004 .002 .010* .003 .019* .005 .004 .003 .021* .004Home Ownership

Own, value < $80,000 .071 .054 .107 .079 .143 .096 .077 .055 .263* .092Own, value $80,000+ .237* .067 .229* .099 .187 .122 .146* .068 .659* .112

Child Aged 6-17 Present .028 .045 .059 .066 .686* .081 -.021 .045 .175* .074Age

18-29 -.043 .068 .011 .100 -.155 .123 -.117 .069 -.116 .11430-39 .004 .060 .062 .088 .040 .108 -.086 .061 .040 .09940-49 .025 .060 .039 .088 -.011 .107 -.129* .061 .030 .099

EducationCollege experience .083* .041 .099 .060 .174* .074 .101* .042 .100 .069Greater than college .123* .055 .104 .081 .137 .100 .090 .056 .079 .091

Marital StatusNever married -.006 .063 -.038 .093 -.179 .115 -.083 .065 -.141 .108Divorced/separated .109 .062 .198* .090 -.217 .112 -.033 .062 -.186 .105Widowed .114 .077 .216 .113 -.082 .139 .113 .078 -.004 .127

IncomeUnreported -.051 .084 .197 .125 .022 .153 .025 .086 .041 .140< $15,000 .002 .058 .189* .085 -.007 .105 .036 .059 -.120 .096$15,000-$29,900 -.046 .048 .078 .071 .069 .088 .049 .049 -.040 .079

History of Migration4-6 moves .061 .053 .030 .078 .030 .096 .006 .054 .049 .0897-9 moves .025 .059 -.060 .087 -.110 .108 -.057 .060 -.041 .09910+ moves .106 .058 -.095 .086 -.124 .106 -.028 .059 .025 .097

No. Months to Find a Home0-1 -.063 .053 -.083 .079 -.242* .097 -.011 .054 -.182* .0882-5 -.048 .054 -.063 .081 -.195 .100 -.031 .056 -.211* .090Unreported .087 .081 .063 .120 -.207 .148 -.077 .083 -.206 .135


area can become quite satisfied with and involved in a com-munity in a short period of time.

Long-Term Effects of the Mobility TransitionThe results of the long-term sample analysis shown in Table3 suggest that mobility experience variables have a moder-ate to weak impact on long-term attachment. In general thereare slight increases in the overall R2 when mobility experi-ence predictors are added to the restricted social positionmodel. The largest improvement occurs in Sentiment, wherethe percentage of variance explained is almost twice as great.Although the overall improvement is small, there are somesignificant multivariate effects worth noting.

First, consistent with the original hypothesis, there aredifferences in behavioral attachment across categories of the

Number ofMonths to Find Home that were not present in theshort-term analysis. Individuals who found a home in 0-1months report significantly lower organizations and neigh-bors known than those who devoted 6 or more months to theinitial move. Moreover, the number of neighbors known arealso significantly lower in the 2-5 month category.

Second, the significantly higher attitudinal attachmentamong those who moved to the area because of neighbor-hood and housing needs reasons mirrors the short-termanalysis and offers additional evidence that increased famil-iarity and exposure results in the development of strongeremotional ties to the community over time. Once again, evenamong long-term residents, family operates as a constrainton the formation of attitudinal attachments to the residentialneighborhood.

234 DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 34-NUMBER 2, MAY 1997

(Table 3 continued from the previous page)Attitudinal Attachment Behavioral Attachment



Migration toHousing needs .186" .086 .153 .128 -.112 .157 .132 .088 .203 .147Neighborhood .221" .089 .276" .132 -.109 .162 .128 .091 .241 .151Housing other .120 .090 .054 .134 -.146 .164 .107 .093 .303" .154Job -.022 .135 .147 .200 .300 .245 .137 .139 .288 .229Other -.008 .128 .098 .189 -.251 .233 .076 .131 .150 .219

Migration fromHousing needs -.057 .061 .061 .091 .059 .112 -.047 .063 -.086 .104Neighborhood .024 .068 .114 .100 .117 .123 -.014 .069 -.029 .115Housing other -.145 .061 -.044 .090 -.065 .112 -.027 .063 -.022 .103Job -.014 .070 .111 .104 .269" .127 .013 .071 .076 .117Other -.088 .115 .023 .170 .088 .210 -.145 .118 -.238 .194

Distance of Move1-5 miles -.065 .061 -.076 .089 -.116 .111 -.057 .062 -.109 .1016+ miles -.130 .066 -.307* .098 -.219 .121 -.124 .068 -.111 .110Return to Seattle -.137 .090 -.426" .133 -.255 .164 -.048 .092 -.304" .151New to Seattle -.024 .088 -.177 .131 -.211 .161 -.133 .090 -.105 .148

R2 .067 .064 .047 .040 .145R2 (Social Position Only) .048 .033 .131 .032 .133

Notes: Referencecategories are as follows: for Home Ownership, renters; for Age, 50+; for Education, High School or Less; for Marital Status,married; for Income, $30,000; for History of Migration, :53 moves; for Numberof Months to Find Home, 6+ months; for Migration to and Migrationfrom, family; for Distanceof Move, same census tract.

"p < .05

Third, there are highly significant differences in Senti-ment between long-distance migrants (i.e., those moving 6or more miles and return migrants) and those remaining inthe same census tract. This negative distance effect is impor-tant in two respects. First, it suggests that the attitudes andfeelings associated with the distance traveled during themove can continue to shape emotional attachments well af-ter the event. Second, because distance is an objective ele-ment of the mobility experience (i.e., calculated based onaddresses rather than on retrospective responses), it does notfall prey to the problems of recall error that may occuramong residents 10-20 years after the event.

CONCLUSIONThe findings of this study supplement the literature on urbancommunity life and highlight the role of mobility experiencedeterminants on patterns of short- and long-term neighbor-hood attachment. The significant influence of variables suchas the motivations for moving and distance illustrate the im-portance of increased familiarity with and exposure to newresidential environments in shaping individuals' subsequentattitudes about and behaviors in the new neighborhood.

Moreover, the strong effects of the number of months takento find a home in long-term behavioral attachment modelssuggests that the time devoted to such an instance of changecan continue to influence resident's interaction and involve-ment long after the transition.

The results also show that, for the most part, two tradi-tionally disaffected population segments, new migrants andchronic movers, are as just as willing as other residents to es-tablish cognitive ties and formal attachments to the new envi-ronment. The strong positive effects of the history of migra-tion on short-term evaluation directly challenge that notionthat one's attachments will suffer at the expense of frequentmigration and suggest that chronic movers can learn to adaptto new residences rather quickly. In addition, while sentimentand interaction are lower for new migrants, the .comparablenumbers of organizations to which this segment belongs sug-gest that these individuals may enact a model ontransitionaladjustment through means of increased formal involvementafter moves into new environments (Feldman 1990).

The generally smaller effects of the mobility experienceon long-term attachment indicate that the impact of the ex-perience on present attitudes and behaviors weakens as we

THE MOBILITY EXPERIENCE AND NEIGHBORHOOD ATIACHMENT 235

BEHAVIORAL ATIACHMENT

(Appendix Table Al continued from the previous column)"If you had to move, how much would you miss this area (marked

on map)?"1: not at all2: only a little3: some4: very much

4. Interaction with Neighbors (3-Point Scale)"On average how often do you and any of your neighbors in this

immediate locality talk or chat?"1: several times a year or less2: 2-3 times a month or less3: once a week or more

5. Neighbors Known (4-Point Scale)"How many of the adults in the nearby homes do you know by

name?"

Short-termSample

13 (2.8%)25 (5.5%)

206 (45.1%)213 (46.6%)

3.350.71

fraternal lodgesocial groupartistic groupPTAservice organizationcommunity club

FullSample

33 (2.2%)72 (4.8%)

587 (39.5%)793 (53.4%)

3.440.69

182 (12.3%) 70 (15.4%)224 (15.2%) 82 (18.1%)508 (34.4%) 167 (36.8%)564 (38.2%) 135 (29.7%)

2.98 2.80

1: just a few2: half3: nearly all4: all of them

EvaluationNot at all satisfiedSlightly satisfiedModerately satisfiedExtremely SatisfiedAverageStandard deviation

SentimentMiss not at allMiss only a littleMiss someMiss very muchAverage

Involvement3. Organizations (count from 0-13)

Summary of participation in the following types of formal organiza-tions or associations:

Churchyouth grouprecreational grouplabor unionveterans groupbusiness associationpolitical organization

Interaction

APPENDIX TABLE A1. NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENTVARIABLES

ATIITUDINAL ATIACHMENT1. Evaluation (4-Point Scale)

"How satisfied are you with living in (larger area marked on map)?"1: not at all satisfied2: slightly satisfied3: moderately satisfied4: extremely satisfied

2. Sentiment (4-Point Scale)

move further in time from the actual event. Furthermore, wemust consider that the effects of the subjective characteris-tics of the experience (i.e., motivations for moving andamount of search time) could be biased by the shortcomingsof retrospective recall or selective reconstruction that canaccompany survey responses. If, for example, more attachedresidents reconstruct reasons for moving at the time of theevent to reflect the reasons why they are presently stronglyattached to the neighborhood, then the relationship betweenthis element and attachment could be overstated. Fortunately,as noted earlier, the strong effects of the objective distanceof move element should not be adversely affected by thisphenomenon, and thus should offer valid insight on the for-mation of emotional ties to urban neighborhoods.

This study should be viewed as an initial attempt to lookbeyond traditional "types of people" predictors of attachmentand to examine the role of the characteristics associated withan individual's move into his or her present residential neigh-borhood. The outcomes of this analysis will allow for moreinvestigation of how factors that influence decisions beforea move also can influence the consequences associated withsuch a decision. Considerations about "push" and "pull" rea-sons or distance operate as both inputs into decision-makingmodels of the moving process and as factors that shapepostmove attitudes and behaviors. A logical next step wouldinvolve expanding some of the traditional residential mobil-ity models to incorporate this connection between premoveconsiderations and postmove consequences.

Further analysis of the mobility experience should in-clude some consideration of neighborhood contextual factorswith the speculation that the persistent influence of the tran-sition might vary depending on the specific physical and so-cial characteristics of the neighborhood in question (seeDeane 1990; Lee, Oropesa, and Kanan 1994 for examples ofstudies examining the role of contextual effects on mobilitydecisions). Moreover, any follow-up study should also takeinto account some of the shortcomings of using retrospec-tive survey data to evaluate the effects of a past occurrenceof change. A better approach would be to collect informationabout the mobility experience shortly after entry into the newenvironment and then to conduct a longitudinal study of atti-tudes and behaviors.

(continued in the next column) (continued on the next page)

236

(Appendix Table AJ continued from the previous page)Full Sample Short-term

Sample

SentimentStandard deviation 1.01 1.03

Organizations0 656 (43.8%) 262 (57.0%)1 407 (27.2%) 120 (26.1%)2 235 (15.7%) 46 (10.0%)3+ 199 (13.3%) 32 (6.9%)Average 1.09 0.71Standard deviation 1.32 1.04

Interaction with NeighborsSeveral times a year 175 (11.7%) 85 (18.6%)2-3 times a month 322 (21.6%) 107 (23.4%)Once a week or more 995 (66.7%) 265 (58.0%)Average 2.55 2.40

Standard deviation 0.70 0.78

Neighbors Known by NameJust a few 447 (31.6%) 214 (54.2%)Half 223 (15.8%) 63 (15.9%)Nearly all 395 (27.9%) 67 (17.0%)All of them 350 (24.7%) 51{12.9%)Average 2.46 1.89Standard deviation 1.17 1.10

REFERENCESBaba, Y. and M.D. Austin. 1989. "Neighborhood Environmental

Satisfaction, Victimization, and Social Participation as Deter-minants of Perceived Neighborhood Safety." Environment andBehavior 21:763-80.

Brett, lM. 1982. "Job Transfer and Well-Being." Journal ofAp-plied Psychology 67:450-63.

Carlisle-Frank, P.L. 1992. "The Relocation Experience: Analysisof Factors Thought to Influence Adjustment to Transition." Psy-chological Reports 70:835-38.

Crenshaw, E. and C. St. John. 1989. "The Organizationally Depen-dent Community: A Comparative Study of Neighborhood At-tachment." Urban Affairs Quarterly 24:412-34.

Deane, G.D. 1990. "Mobility and Adjustments: Paths to the Reso-lution of Residential Stress." Demography 27:65-79.

Dejong, G.F. and R.W Gardner. 1981. Migration Decision Mak-ing: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies in De-veloped and Developing Countries. New York: Pergamon Press.

Feldman, R.M. 1990. "Settlement-Identity: Psychological Bondswith Home Places in a Mobile Society." Environment and Be-havior 22: 183-229.

Fielding, E.L. 1995. "Are Households Happier with Their Housing


APPENDIX TABLE A2. MIGRATION REASONS

1. Marriage"2. Divorce, break-up, death of spouse"3. Proximity to family, friends (to be near, away from)"4. Decision to have a child"5. Other personal or family-related factors"6. Displacement (e.g., eviction, destruction of housing, expiration of

lease)"7. Home too small; need larger horne-8. Home too large; need larger horne"9. Quality of housing (e.g., style, design, room size or arrangement,

lot slze)"10. Costs too high; costs unreasonable-11. Problems with landlord; better landlord-12. Decision to buy, build, or selic13. Neighborhood-related factors (e.g., safety, services, attachment to

area, physical environment)"14. Job transfer, proximity towork"15. Other job-related factors"16. Other locational or accessibility factors"17. Transitional or chance factors (e.g., temporary, only place

available)'18. Investment, income property, prior ownership'19. Schools: quality and/or proximity"20. Preference for, aversion to entire community, city, or region"21. General comments about size of horne>

"FamilybHousing NeedscHousing OtherdJob"Neighborhood/Community'Other

After They Move?" Presented at the annual meetings of thePopulation Association of America, San Francisco.

Firey, W 1945. "Sentiment and Symbolism as Ecological Vari-ables." American Sociological Review 10:140-48.

Fisher, S. 1990. "Environmental Change, Control, and Vulnerabil-ity." Pp. 53-65 in On the Move: The Psychology ofChange andTransition, edited by S. Fisher and CiL, Cooper. Chichester:John Wiley & Sons.

Fisher, S., K. Murray, and N.A. Frazier. 1985. "Homesickness,Health and Efficiency in First Year Students." Journal of Envi-ronmental Psychology 5:181-95.

Fisher, C.D. and J.B. Shaw. 1994. "Relocation Attitudes and Ad-justment: A Longitudinal Study." Journal ofOrganizational Be-havior 15:209-24.

Gerson, K., C.A. Stueve, and C.S. Fischer. 1977. "Attachment toPlace." Pp. 139-61 in Networks and Places, edited by C.S.Fischer, R.M. Jackson, C.A. Stueve, K. Gerson, L.M. Jones, andM. Baldassare. New York: Free Press.

Goudy, WJ. 1990. "Community Attachment in a Rural Region."Rural Sociology 55:178-98.

Greer, S. 1962. The Emerging City: Myth and Reality. New York:

THE MOBILITY EXPERIENCE AND NEIGHBORHOOD ATTACHMENT

Free Press.Guest, A.M. and B.A. Lee. 1983a. "The Social Organization of Lo-

cal Areas." Urban Affairs Quarterly 19:217-40.--. 1983b. "Sentiment and Evaluation as Ecological Variables."

Sociological Perspectives 26: 159-84.Kasarda, J.D. and M. Janowitz. 1974. "Community Attachment in

Mass Society." American Sociological Review 39:328-39.Kirschenbaum, A. 1983. "Sources of Neighborhood Residential

Change: A Micro-Level Analysis." Social Indicators Research12:183-98.

Landale, N. and A.M. Guest. 1985. "Constraints, Satisfaction, andResidential Mobility: Speare's Model Reconsidered." Demo-graphy 22: 199-222.

Lee, B.A., R.S. Oropesa, and J.W. Kanan. 1994. "NeighborhoodContext and Residential Mobility." Demography 31:249-65.

Michelson, W. 1977. Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, andResidential Satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, A.R. 1977. "Interstate Migrants in the U.S.: Some Social-Eco-nomic Differences by Type ofMove." Demography 14:1-17.

Ringel, N. B. and J. C. Finkelstein. 1991. "Differentiating Neigh-borhood Satisfaction and Neighborhood Attachment Among Ur-ban Residents." Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12:177-93.

Rossi, P.H. 1955. Why Families Move: A Study in the Social Psy-chology of Urban Residential Mobility. New York: The FreePress.

Sampson, R.J. 1988. "Local Friendship Ties and Community At-

237

tachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model."American Sociological Review 53:766-79.

Shumaker, S.A. and D. Stokols. 1982. "Residential Mobility as aSocial Issue and Research Topic." Journal of Social Issues38:1-19.

Shumaker, S.A. and R.B. Taylor. 1983. "Toward a Clarification ofPeople-Place Relationships: A Model of Attachment to Place."Pp. 219-51 in Environmental Psychology: Directions and Per-spectives, edited by N.R. Feiner and B.S. Geller. New York:Praeger.

Speare, A., Jr. 1974. "Residential Satisfaction as an InterveningVariable in Residential Mobility." Demography II: 173-88.

Stinner, W.F., M. Van Loon, S-W. Chang, and Y. Byun. 1990."Community Size, Individual Social Position and CommunityAttachment." Rural Sociology 55:494-521.

Stokols, D. and S.A. Shumaker. 1982. "The Psychological Contextof Residential Mobility and Well-Being." Journal of Social Is-sues 38:149-71.

Tilly, C. and C.H. Brown. 1967. "On Uprooting, Kinship, and theAuspices of Migration." International Journal of ComparativeSociology 8:139-64.

Tomeh, A.K. 1969. "Empirical Considerations on the Problem ofSocial Integration." Sociological Inquiry 39:65-76.

Whyte, W.H. 1957. The Organization Man. Garden City, NY:Doubleday Anchor Books.

Woolever, C. 1992. "A Contextual Approach to Neighborhood At-tachment." Urban Studies 29:99-116.

the mobility experience and neighborhood attachment

Documents