Always on the Move: How Residential Mobility Impacts Our Well-Being

written by Jenny C. Su, Chien-Han Kao & Hsiao-Tien Tsai
edited by Laysee Ong

Socio-Ecological Psychology

An increasing number of studies taking the perspective of socio-ecological psychology are showing that communities and their inhabitants exert a mutual influence on one another (for a review, see Oishi, 2014). Socio-ecological psychology is an approach that examines how natural and social habitats influence human mind and behavior, and how these individual-level effects, in turn, transform natural and social habitats (Oishi & Graham, 2010). For example, it has been documented that ecologically harsh environments (e.g., sparsely populated regions) tend to foster an independent ethos (Kitayama, Conway, Pietromonaco, Park, & Plaut, 2010). Because psychological orientations toward independence are adaptive for survival in these environments, they are likely to be passed down through generations, shaping and reshaping the local landscape and culture into one that promotes individualism (Kitayama et al., 2010; Oishi et al., 2012).

Conclusion

At no other time in history is the opportunity for humans to traverse the world so great. With advances in modern technology and communication, our ability to move geographically is expected to continue into the future. Therefore, it is vital to understand how individuals are impacted by residential mobility. Armed with this knowledge, researchers can hopefully identify ways to help all of us stay happy and well in this increasingly mobile world.

References

Brown, B. B., Perkins, D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 259–71. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00117-2

Butler, E. W., McAllister, R. J., & Kaiser, E. J. (1973). The effects of voluntary and involuntary residential mobility on females and males. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35, 219-227.

Ihrke, D. K., & Faber, C. S. (2012, December). Geographical mobility: 2005-2010. Retrieved December 19, 2014, from the US Census Bureau Web site: http://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/demo/p20-567.html

Kang, N., & Kwak, N. (2003). A multilevel approach to civic participation: Individual length of residence, neighborhood residential stability, and their interactive effects with media use. Communication Research, 30, 80–106. doi: 10.1177/0093650202239028

Kasarda, J. D. & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328–39. doi:10.2307/2094293

Kitayama, S., Conway, L. G., III, Pietromonaco, P. R., Park, H., & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Ethos of independence across regions in the United States: The production-adoption model of cultural change. American Psychologist, 65, 559-574. doi: 10.1037/a0020277

Lun, J., Oishi, S., & Tenney, E. R. (2012). Residential mobility moderates preference for egalitarian versus loyal helpers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 291–297. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.002

Magdol, L. (2002). Is moving gendered? The effects of residential mobility on the psychological well-being of men and women. Sex Roles, 47, 553-560. doi: 10.1023/A:1022025905755

Odgers, C. L., Moffitt, T. E., Tach, L. M., Sampson, R. J., Taylor, A., Matthews, C. L., & Caspi, A. (2009). The protective effects of neighborhood collective efficacy on British children growing up in deprivation: A developmental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 45, 942–957. doi: 10.1037/a0016162