Attachment‐to‐Home: A Contributing Factor to Models of Residential Mobility Intentions

Abstract

Traditional models of residential mobility use sociodemographic characteristics, housing characteristics, and residential satisfaction to explain the desire to move. This study compared the traditional mobility model with one that incorporated psychological attachment‐to‐home as an additional variable. Data were analyzed for 198 subjects who responded to a mail questionnaire and in‐depth telephone interview. Correlation analysis revealed that two attachment‐to‐home factors, as well as the respondent's age and dwelling satisfaction, were significantly related to mobility intentions. Stepwise multiple regression was used to develop two models and indicated that the model incorporating attachment‐to‐homefactors explains more than twice as much of the variation in mobility intentions as the model using traditional variables alone.

The Roles of Instability and Housing in Low-Income Families’ Residential Mobility

“…One explanation for this link may be parents' concerns about their children's exposure to environmental and safety hazards, such as exposed wires and peeling paint, which have negative implications for child development (Evans 2006) and, consequently, may motivate families to find a new residence. The observed link between housing problems and residential mobility extends prior literature that has focused broadly on subjective dissatisfaction with a unit without quantifying specific issues with the unit (Earhart and Weber 1996). Also in line with hypotheses were the findings that families who moved into private market rentals experienced increased rates of mobility in comparison to families who moved into government housing assistance or homeownership.…”

Intention to move in renovated historical blocks in China

“…His model was confirmed by Landale and Guest (1985) and showed that satisfaction is a strong predictor of into of moving and the intention of moving will influence the real move. Earhart and Weber (1996) and Oh (2003) argued that residential satisfaction influences the intention to move house by working together with other variable like feeling of home attachment and social bonding. Diaz-Serrano and Stoyanova (2010) used panel data collected from 12 countries to find that residential satisfaction also triggers real moves.…”

“…The aim of this paper therefore is to analyse how social-demographic variables and residential satisfaction jointly influence residential moving intentions allowing for identifying both the observed and unobserved heterogeneity between residents. Consistent with the mainstream residential mobility studies that concentrated 1 3 on the propensity to move (e.g., Earhart and Weber 1996;Kestens 2004;Liao 2004;Wu 2006;Kwon and Beamish 2013), our analysis will only consider the first stage of residential mobility, namely the mobility intention rather than real moves.…”

Housing Quality and Psychological Well-Being Among the Elderly Population

“…We examined the role of housing quality and place attachment in elderly citizens' psychological well-being. Housing quality is related to elderly community residents' sense of community and place attachment (Eshelman & Evans, 1998;Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley, 1998), intentions to relocate (Earhart & Weber, 1996;O'Bryant & Murray, 1986;Rowles, 1983), and residential satisfaction (Christensen, Carp, Cranz, & Wiley, 1992;Lawton, 1980;Windley & Scheidt, 1983). Notably absent are assessments of mental health.…”