Changes in Family Life Experienced by English Workers Moving from Slums to Housing Estates

The effects of involuntary residential relocation: A review

“…The relocated people scored consistently lower in adjustment and higher in dissatisfaction on most of the subscales of the Activities and Attitutde Inventory (Burgess, Cavan, Havighurst, & Goldhamer, 1949). Residents of a new housing estate in England had fewer contacts with relatives and fewer friendships in the neighborhood than did those who had remained in the city (Mogey, 1955). On the other hand, the relocated residents had closer knit families.…”

“…The few urban relocation studies which used an experimental-control design compared the social adjustment of rehoused residents with the social adjustment of those who were still on waiting lists or who had remained in the old neighborhoods (Brand & Smith, 1974;Chapin, 1940;Kasteler, Gray, & Carruth, 1968, Mogey, 1955. In the Brand and Smith (1974) study the relocated group had higher scores of maladjustment, as measured by the Life Satisfaction Index (Neugarten, Havighurst, & Tobin, 1961) and less contact with family members and friends than did the control group.…”

“…For example, in the Kasteler et al (1968) study, relocated elderly people were compared with a random sample of elderly people in the community who were most likely of a higher socioeconomic level than the relocated people. Only a handful of relocation studies used random assignment procedures (Barrington et al, 1962;Mogey, 1955).…”

Architecture: Effect of Territory, Boundary, and Orientation on Family Functioning

“…In a number of English studies, the effects of proximity on friendship patterns were investigated. Mogey's (50) study of workers living in slums showed that the close proximity of neighbors and relatives fostered frequent contacts, a deep involvement in one another's family life, and considerable closeness to the larger community of people. Studies of the formation of large and small groups on new estates in Liverpool and Sheffield (52) showed that while large‐group formation depended on the existence of “issues,” such as rent problems, the formation of small groups was promoted by physical proximity.…”