85

Psychological Home and Well Beingby Elvira Cicognani*

In the scientific literature it has been emphasised the importance of the quality of the relationship with residential environments and community contexts in enhancing several health and well being outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between “Psychological Home”, Residential Attachment, Sense of Community and the impact of these variables on individuals’ subjective well being. The sample included 251 Italian adults. Results indicate that “Psychological Home” is higher among women, in participants who own their house and who live in single houses. “Psychological Home” is positively correlated with Sense of Community and both variables positively predict Life Satisfaction. Key words: psychological home, sense of community, life satisfaction.

1Introduction

Within the scientific literature examining the relationship between individuals and residential environments, the role and meaning of places such as “Home” have received considerable attention, in Psychology as well as in other disciplines (e.g., geography, sociology, anthropology), in view of its central role in the life of people and communities (cf. Moore, 2000). The attention of researchers focused especially on the subjective, phenomenological experience of home, beyond physical and material aspects of residential environments, and research studies have focused initially on the multiple meanings and representations of the concept of “Home”, located in the interplay between physical, social and historical-cultural dimensions. The transactional perspective (Bonnes, Secchiaroli, 1992) clarified that the experience of places where we live and their meanings are the product of a complex interaction between material and social aspects of the environment and individual and subjective factors. From the perspective of the Theory of Place Attachment (e.g., Altman, Low, 1992), of the Theory of Place Identity (e.g., Proshansky, Fabian, Kaminoff, 1983) and the Theory of Places (Canter, 1977), empirical studies have explored the affective, identity, and behavioural dimensions of the relationships between individuals and home.

* Alma Mater Studiorum – Università degli Studi di Bologna.

86

An important result emerging from this literature and from empirical research conducted with different populations and contexts, is that the subjective experience of home has a fundamental role in people’s everyday life and well being. The attention focused therefore on the processes through which individuals come to give meanings to their environments and construct an affective bond with them. For example, van der Klis and Karsten (2009) focused on the role of material aspects, activities and social factors. On the one hand, the building and the objects in it may have a practical value or may be charged with meanings and emotional value; such objects can help individuals to transform the house into a familiar place. Activities have an important role in the process of transforming the building into one’s home: they enhance the construction of a sense of personal identity anchored to the surrounding environment. Everyday experiences contribute to the construction of a “sense of place”, with reference to both everyday environments and the wider residential and territorial context (Proshansky, Fabian, Kaminoff, 1983). The social dimension includes the interactions that occur inside the building, with family members and others (e.g., friends, acquaintances) and it is considered the most important condition for the construction of the bonding relationship with the home.

A specific construct that has been introduced to capture the motivational dimension of the relationship between the individual and the home and its implications for identity and well being is “Psychological Home” (Sigmon, Whitcomb, Snyder, 2002). According to the authors, it refers to a dynamic process by which an individual modifies, structures and maintains an environment so as to reflect and communicate his/her sense of self. It is defined as «an underlying motive that is driven by an individual’s need to identify a sense of self with a physical locale» (ibid., p. 33). Psychological Home includes cognitive (attributions about our selves in relation to the environment), affective (emotions and feelings associated with the establishment and maintenance of psychological home, e.g. security, warmth, attachment) and behavioural components (actions taken to make a physical location more home-like). According to Sigmon et al. (2002, p. 34), «Creating a psychological home offers a psychological refuge that provides security, safety, protection and assurance. An individual’s home can come to represent a haven from the stresses of the external world. Such a home can reduce anxiety and help us cope with change». Research studies confirmed the positive effect of Psychological Home: individuals scoring higher spend more time and effort to make their house building “homelike”, and show a better psychological functioning.

One possible question concerns the relationship between home and the residential environment as well as the wider geographical community. In the literature this issue seems to be dealt with especially with reference to the boundaries to which the concept of “home” is applicable. Some interpretations extend the concept of “home” beyond the building where the individual lives including the surrounding area and residential context. For example, Despres (1991) proposed

87

an interpretation of home as a «dialogue between self and community» (e.g., individuals can modify the external aspect of the building where they live so as to reflect their identification with their residential community). The need to take into account the multiple levels of belonging (from the building to the local community up to the nation) in order to understand sense of home has been emphasised also by other authors (e.g., Cuba, Hammon, 1993). For example, in a recent qualitative study involving a group of elderly, Cloutier-Fisher and Harvey (2009) proposed the concept of home beyond the house to describe the way the elderly constructed their sense of home, sense of community and place belonging, through the identification of a boundary area between the house and the community which resulted central for their identity and sense of well being in a period of their life characterized by significant losses. To understand the perceived quality of individuals’ relationship with their residential context, several constructs have been proposed, such as Neighbourhood Attachment and Sense of Community. By the latter we mean a basic need to belong to a superordinate entity (a group, a community), which may be based – even though not inevitably – on a geographic locality (Fisher, Sonn, Bishop, 2002). Sense of Community includes several dimensions (e.g., sense of belonging, shared emotional connection, satisfaction of needs, influence, cf. McMillan, Chavis, 1986); it increases with age and length of residence, and has been found positively correlated with subjective well being among adults and adolescents (Prezza et al., 2001; Pretty et al., 1996).

According to Sigmon et al. (2002, p. 31) the concept of “Psychological Home” corresponds to «an individual’s need to develop an identity independent from the social community, as well as to establish a safe refuge from the group or to lay claim to a portion of the geographic location», and in such sense, it seems to capture the need of uniqueness and differentiation from the social group to whom the individual belongs. Despite their specificities, the two constructs may be related. For example, a positive relationship with the residential community may be reinforced by the community capacity to safeguard members’ needs of individuality, specificity and separateness. From this perspective, offering individuals opportunities to act on their residential environment so as to express their own identity and personality might accrue their attachment to the community and Sense of Community. As regards the relationship with well being, both dimensions of the relationship with the residential environment are central, even though it is not clear their relative importance.

Considering ph as an individual-level construct leads to the expectation that it should be relatively independent from the physical structure of the house building. On this issue, and more generally, on the relationship between subjective experiences of home and physical characteristics of the house buildings (type of house) we do not have much information. However, to the extent that characteristics of the building can satisfy some of the motivational needs implicit in the ph construct (e.g., the need for individuality and separateness, which

88

could be satisfied more by detached houses than by apartment houses, where people live closer, or by terraced houses, which are exteriorly similar), we may expect differences according to the type of house where people live. Moreover, the need to project ones’ identity and personality over the house, implicit in the ph construct, may be expected to vary depending on housing tenure (home ownership vs. renting): owners do not experience external limitations to their wish to transform their living environment, contrary to individuals on rent.

Information on the possible differences in Psychological Home according to socio-demographic characteristics of house owners are limited. Sigmon et al. (2002) found higher scores of ph among females. Age is generally related to the amount of time spent at home (which usually increases in the elderly and in the retired) and to residential mobility (generally higher in young adulthood and declining with age); time at home and residential stability might favour individuals’ attachment and investment on their house. Moreover, with age, there is a reduction in levels of personal autonomy and an increase in dependence on the environment, which makes the home a more significant place for personal well being and adaptation. Dependence on the environment – and bonding relationships with home – increase also among individuals with less economic and cultural resources; this leads to the expectation that Psychological Home should be higher among individuals with less cultural and economic resources.

2The study

The aim of this study was to assess Psychological Home (ph) in a sample of Ita-lian individuals and to examine how it is associated with indicators of the rela-tionship with the community and with Life Satisfaction. More specifically, the aims were the following:a) to assess the differences in scores of ph according to participants’ age and gender, type of house, and housing tenure;b) to assess the relationships between ph and indicators of the quality of the relation with the residential community. Specifically, we considered Sense of Community (soc) and Neighbourhood Attachment (na). The latter refers to the emotional relationship with the residential environment, whereas Sense of Com-munity describes feelings of connection to the local community (e.g., town) both in its territorial and relational aspects;c) to assess the role of Psychological Home and of the quality of the relationship with the residential community (Neighbourhood Attachment and Sense of Com-munity) in influencing Life Satisfaction.

We expected higher scores of ph in female participants vs. males (cf. Sigmon et al., 2002). We also expected that ph would be higher among house owners and

89

among participants who live in detached houses (vs. apartment house or terraced house), allowing a greater privacy.

No previous research has explored the relationship between ph and Sense of Community (soc) and Neighbourhood Attachment (na). Theoretical perspectives on these constructs lead us to expect a positive correlations with both constructs even though not high.

Finally, we expected that Psychological Home would positively affect Life Satisfaction (cf. ibid.).

3Method

3.1. Participants

The sample included 251 individuals between the ages of 20 and 85 years (M = 43 years; d.s. = 13,83 years). 115 were male and 136 females. 12% lived in a small apartment (< 60 square metres), 53,6% in a medium-large apartment (> 60 squa-re metres), 10,4% in a terraced house, and 24% in a detached house or in a resi-dence. 65,7% were house owners, 21,9% lived with their parents, who owned the house, and 12,4% were on rent. Socioeconomic level of the sample was overall medium-low. 26,7% of participants attained compulsory schooling, 55% had a high school degree and 18,3% a university degree. As regards occupation, four categories were distinguished: students, housewives and retired (21,1%), manual workers and craftsmen (26,7%), employees (27,1%), professionals, managers (25,1%). Chi square tests indicated the presence of significant differences betwe-en education and occupation (Chi2 (6) = 41,23, p < 0,001): participants with a high school degree had more qualified occupations. Home owners prevailed amongst participants with compulsory schooling, whereas more participants with a high school and university degree lived with their parents or were on rent (Chi2 (4) = 12,29, p < 0,05). As regards occupation, home owners were more widespread amongst managers, professionals, compared with other categories (Chi2 (6) = 11,98, p = 0,06).

3.2. Instrument

A questionnaire was submitted, including the following sections:a) Sociodemographic characteristics. Information was collected on age, gender, education, occupation, type of house, housing tenure;b) The subjective experience of the home was measured using the translated version of the Psychological Home scale devised by Sigmon et al. (2002), inclu-ding 8 items, with response alternatives on a Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disa-gree” , 7 = “strongly agree”) (tab. 1);

90

c) Residential Attachment. In order to measure participants’ bonding relation-ships with the residential context we used the 9-item Italian version of the Neigh-borhood Attachment Scale developed and validated by Bonaiuto, Fornara, Aiel-lo and Bonnes (1999). Response alternatives ranged from from 0 (= “completely disagree”) to 6 (= “completely agree”). Cronbach Alpha was 0,86;d) Sense of Community. To measure feelings of belongings to the residential com-munity, the Italian Sense of Community Scale by Prezza, Costantini, Chiarolanza and Di Marco (1999) was used. The scale includes 18 items measuring individuals’ Sense of Community with reference to the town, with response alternatives ranging from 1 = “strongly agree” to 4 = “strongly disagree”. Validation studies on Italian samples confirmed the validity and reliability of the scale. Cronbach Alpha was 0,86. An overall score of Sense of Community was calculated by reversing the nega-tively worded items, so that higher scores corresponded to higher levels of soc;e) Life Satisfaction. The swls Scale by Diener, Emmons, Larsen and Griffin (1985) was used, including 5 items with a response scale ranging from 1 = “com-pletely disagree” to 7 = “completely agree”. Cronbach Alpha was 0,89.

4Results

We will firstly describe the results of the analyses conducted to assess differen-ces, in all the constructs investigated, according to sociodemographic variables. Then we will examine the relationships between variables and predictors of Life Satisfaction.

4.1. Psychological Home

tab. 1 reports descriptive statistics for the Psychological Home scale. Factor analy-sis confirmed the unidimensionality of the scale (Explained variance 58,05%). Item-total correlations were all above 0,30. Cronbach Alpha was 0,80. Mean score of ph was calculated by averaging across the eight items (M = 5,53, d.s. = 0,85).

Age positively correlated with scores in ph (r = 0,14, p = 0,05): Psychological Home increased with age, even though the coefficient was low.

Differences in the total score of ph according to socio-demographic variables and characteristics of the house were tested by T-test and anova. A significant difference according to gender was found (t (229) = 5,06, p = 0,001): female participants scored higher (M = 5,76; d.s. = 0,76) than males (M = 5,23; d.s. = 0,87). Concerning education, Psychological Home was lower among participants with a university degree (M = 5,19, d.s. = 0,86) compared with those with a high school degree (M = 5,57, d.s. = 0,87) and compulsory schooling (M = 5,65, d.s. = 0,77) (F (2,250) = 4,49, p < 0,05). No significant differences were found according to occupation.

91

tabella 1 The Psychological Home Scale: Descriptive statistics

Items M d.s.

I have grown attached to many of the places I have lived 5,14 1,36

I put a lot of time and effort into making a place my own 4,94 1,73

I feel more relaxed when I’m at home 5,77 1,24

I surround myself with things that highlight my personality 5,37 1,32

I get a sense of security from having a place of my own 6,07 1,17I add personal touches to the place where I live 5,76 1,13I take pride in the place where I live 5,74 1,27

I work at making a place my own 5,43 1,32

As regards type of house building, anova showed that participants living in a detached house or residence obtained the highest scores (M = 5,75; d.s. = 0,87), followed by those who lived in a medium-large apartment (M = 5,58, d.s. = 0,76) (F (3,249) = 5,466, p = 0,001); the lowest scores were obtained by participants living in a small apartment (M = 5,22, d.s. = 0,85) e in a row house (M = 5,07, d.s. = 1,04); the latter means did not significantly differ.

Finally, differences in ph were tested according to housing tenure. anova confirmed that scores of ph consistently decreased from home owners (M = 5,63, d.s. = 0,61), to participants living with parents who owned the house (M = 5,38, d.s. = 0,91) to individuals on rent (M = 5,18, d.s. = 0,88) (F (2,250) = 4,634, p = 0,05).

4.2. Neighborhood Attachment

Correlation analysis confirmed the increase in Neighbourhood Attachment ac-cording to participants’ age (r = 0,22, p < 0,001).

Attachment was higher among female participants (M = 4,95, d.s. = 1,05) compared to males (M = 4,52, d.s. = 1,08) (t (249) = ‒3,16, p < 0,005), and among participants with compulsory schooling (M = 5,17, d.s. = 1,20) compared to those with high school (M = 4,61, d.s. = 1,05) and university degree (M = 4,57, d.s. = 0,82) (F (2,250) = 7,13, p < 0,001). Significant differences were found also according to occupation: attachment was higher among housewives and retired (M = 5,37, d.s. = 0,86) vs. other groups (F (3,246) = 7,78, p < 0,001). Residential Attachment did not differ according to type of house building and home ownership.

4.3. Sense of Community

Sense of Community increased with age (r = 0,13, p < 0,05). No significant differ-ences emerged according to the other variables.

92

4.4. Life Satisfaction

Life Satisfaction increased with age (r = 0,19, p < 0,01). Participants who owned their house were more satisfied (M = 4,88, d.s. = 1,08) than those on rent (M = 4,06, d.s. = 1,18) (F (2,245) = 8,27, p < 0,001).

4.5. Correlations between variables

Psychological Home positively correlated with all the other variables (tab. 2). Correlations with Residential Attachment and Sense of Community were signi-ficant, even though the coefficient was not high. Moreover, Psychological Home positively contributed to Life Satisfaction.

tabella 2 Correlations between variables

1 2 3 4

1. Psychological Home – 0,25** 0,23** 0,33**

2. Neighborhood Attachment – 0,53** 0,29**

3. Sense of Community – 0,42**

4. Life Satisfaction –

* p < 0,05; ** p < 0,001.

4.6. Predictors of Life Satisfaction

To assess the specific contribution of the different variables representing le-vels of bonding relationships with the residential environment, in predicting Life Satisfaction, a Hierarchical Regression Analysis was conducted (Stepwise Method). Variables included in the first step were age and gender, and in the second step Psychological Home, Neighbourhood Attachment and Sense of Community.

Results confirmed the predictive role of age (Beta = 0,19, p < 0,01); however, age resulted no more significant when the other variables were entered into the regression equation. Life Satisfaction was positively en-hanced by Sense of Community and, to a lower extent, by Psychological Home (tab. 3).

93

tabella 3 Predictors of Life Satisfaction: Regression analysis

Model 1 Model 2

Age 0,19** 0,08

Gender 0,01 0,05

Psychological Home 0,26***

Neighborhood Attachment 0,05

Sense of Community 0,32***

R2 0,04 0,26

d.f. 2,248 3,245

F (change) 4,60* 24,19***

* p < 0,05; ** p < 0,01; *** p < 0,001.

5Discussion

This study aimed to investigate Psychological Home in a sample of Italian adults and its relationships with Residential Attachment, Sense of Community and its impact on Life Satisfaction. Psychological Home was assessed using the Italian translation of the Psychological Home scale developed by Sigmon et al. (2002), which proved to be a valid instrument even in a different context.

Results add to the existing research literature on this concept supporting previous findings by Sigmon et al. (ibid.) for what concerns gender differences, according to which women develop a stronger attachment and identification with the home than men. Moreover, they showed a positive, though weak, correlation with age, indicating that the bonding relationship with the home increases as individuals grow older. These findings can be explained considering the degree of investment in the house, which is typically higher among women (who are traditionally in charge of domestic responsibilities) and among the elderly (more dependent on the living environment, in consideration of their reduced level of autonomy and spatial competence). Results concerning housing tenure were consistent with expectations: Psychological Home was higher among house owners, who do not experience limitations to the possibility of acting on their house.

As expected, Psychological Home was higher among participants living in detached houses, suggesting that the need to “making a space home” is affected by structural characteristics of the house building. It is not possible to establish

94

the direction of the relationship between the two aspects: living in a particular type of building might influence residents’ experience and behaviours; at the same time, individuals with a strong motivation to act on their living environment might prefer certain typologies of houses. A further element influencing the choice of the house is obviously socioeconomic status; however, in the sample of this study, mostly including medium-low ses participants, this does not seem to be relevant.

Support was found for the positive relation of Psychological Home with Residential Attachment and Sense of Community. The correlations coefficients, quite similar, suggest a possible overlap between the two aspects and can be explained considering that boundaries between the residential area and the wider territorial community might be difficult to establish, when assessed from a subjective perspective. Finally, results confirm the positive association with Life Satisfaction, consistently with results obtained by Sigmon et al. (ibid.) using other indicators of well being and positive psychological functioning.

Results of Regression Analysis indicated that a good level of Life Satisfaction was influenced by the perceived quality of the relationship with the home, the most private place and expression of individuals’ unique and distinct self, and with the territorial community, where self meets the multiple levels of belonging to social groups.

This study is an attempt to investigate a construct that seems to capture a dimension of the relationship between the individual and his/her life contexts which is relevant for the experience of safety and well being. It attempts to identify indicators of personal well being capable to capture individuals’ relationship with their living contexts, considered both in their physical and social dimension. Limitations of the study refer mainly to its exploratory nature and the small sample. Further research is needed, on wider samples, to explore the differences in Psychological Home according to other variables, as well as to disentangle the relationships with constructs referring to other aspects of the relation with the residential and community context, and the mechanisms and processes by which such factors influence individual well being.

References

Altman I., Low S. M. (1992), Place attachment. Plenum Press, New York.Bonaiuto M., Fornara F., Aiello A., Bonnes M. (2002), La qualità urbana percepita. In M.

Prezza, M. Santinello (eds.), Conoscere la comunità. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 133-60.Bonnes M., Secchiaroli G. (1992), Psicologia ambientale. Carocci, Roma.Canter D. (1977), The psychology of place. Architectural Press, London.Cloutier-Fisher D., Harvey J. (2009), Home beyond the house: Experiences of place

in an evolving retirement community. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, pp. 246-55.

95

Cuba L., Hammon D. M. (1993), Constructing a sense of home: Pplace affiliation and migration across the life cycle. Sociological Forum, 8, pp. 547-72.

Despres C. (1991), The meaning of home: Literature review and directions for future research and theoretical development. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 8, pp. 96-115.

Diener E., Emmons R. A., Larsen R. J., Griffin S. (1985), The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Psychological Assessment, 4, pp. 1-5.

Fisher A. T., Sonn C. C., Bishop B. D. (eds.) (2002), Psychological sense of community: Research applications, and implications. Plenum Press, New York.

Hayward D. G. (1975), Home as an environmental and psychological concept. Landscape, 20, pp. 2-9.

McMillan W. D., Chavis M. D. (1986), Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, pp. 6-22.

Moore J. (2000), Placing home in context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, pp. 207-317.

Pretty G. M. H., Conroy C., Dugay J., Fowler K., Williams D. (1996), Sense of community and its relevance to adolescents of all ages. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24, 4, pp. 365-79.

Prezza M., Amici M., Roberti T., Tedeschi G. (2001), Sense of community referred to the whole town: Its relations with the neighbouring, loneliness, life satisfaction, ad area of residence. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, pp. 29-52.

Prezza M., Costantini S., Chiarolanza V., Di Marco S. (1999), La scala italiana del senso di comunità. Psicologia della Salute, 3-4, pp. 135-58.

Proshansky H. M., Fabian A. K., Kaminoff R. (1983), Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, pp. 57-83.

Sigmon S. T, Whitcomb R. S., Snyder C. R. (2002), Psychological home. In A. T. Fisher, C. C. Sonn, B. D. Bishop (eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research applications, and implications. Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 161-79.

Van der Klis M., Karsten L. (2009), Commuting partners, dual residences and the meaning of home. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, pp. 235-45.

96

Riassunto

In letteratura si sottolinea da tempo l’importanza della qualità del legame degli individui con gli ambienti residenziali e con i contesti della comunità di appartenenza nel favorire una varietà di esiti di salute e benessere personali. La presente ricerca si proponeva di indagare la relazione fra l’esperienza soggettiva della casa o “Senso psicologico della casa” (Psychological Home), il rapporto con la comunità di residenza e l’influenza di tali fattori sul benessere soggettivo di un campione di 251 adulti. I risultati indicano che il “Senso psicologico della casa” è più alto nelle donne, in coloro che vivono in un’abitazione di proprietà e in abitazioni singole; è inoltre positivamente correlato al “Senso di comunità” ed entrambe le variabili predicono significativamente la “Soddisfazione per la vita”. Parole chiave: esperienza soggettiva della casa, senso di comunità, soddisfazione per la vita.

Articolo ricevuto nell’ottobre 2009, revisione del settembre 2010.Le richieste di estratti vanno indirizzate a Elvira Cicognani, Alma Mater Studiorum – Università degli Studi di Bologna, Facoltà di Psicologia, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Educazione “G. M. Ber-tin”, via Filippo Re 6, 40126 Bologna; e-mail: elvira.cicognani@unibo.it.