magazine issue 6 2015 / Issue 26

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

But, what do these findings exactly mean? First, for people who are frequently on the move or who are living in highly mobile communities, having a broader social circle might be more psychologically advantageous than having a few close friends. Given that leaving close relationships can take a serious toll on us emotionally, it makes sense to “spread one’s time and resources among many friends instead of putting all one’s eggs in one basket” (Oishi & Kesebir, 2012, p. 1542).However, if you live in stable communities where few friends are likely to move away, the psychological benefit of having a broader and shallower, as opposed to a narrower and deeper, social network depends on the socioeconomic condition. Research suggests that when the economy is unfavorable, having a few close friends may be more psychologically beneficial in stable communities (Oishi & Kesebir, 2012). After all, the kinds of help required in economically difficult times may feel more burdensome, so only close friends are likely to offer help. In other words, when the economy is down, those of us living in residentially stable communities would be better off having a few close friends than a broad circle of distant friends.

Based on these findings, if you are moving to a residentially mobile town or city, it may be a good idea to actively participate in social events and make as many friends as possible. By contrast, if you are moving to a residentially stable mobile town or city, be selective in the people you befriend and make efforts to invest in a few deep relationships. Spend a lot of time with a small group of close friends and provide help when they need it.

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