John had just received a job offer from a company located in a big city. He was very excited about it and couldn’t wait to move there. He had been hearing a lot of vivid descriptions about the interesting life experiences he could have in the new city from his future colleagues, who have lived there for a couple of years. They told John that people in this big city are friendly, especially to the newcomers. Even more exciting, their social circles were so broad that John would likely meet various kinds of people such as entrepreneurs, pilots, sommeliers, and artists, just to name a few. Additionally, John did not have to worry about whether he could adjust to living in a new environment, because big cities offer a vast array of stores where he could get almost everything he needs. However, John’s wife, Sally, was not so positive about moving to a big city. She liked the small town where they currently lived, for the residents are very active in community affairs. She had heard that people from big cities are hypocritical and indifferent to helping others, and worried about whether or not they would be able to fit in and make friends there. Also, from a recent news report, she learned that people living in big cities are prone to chronic stress and poor mental health.

Does the above scenario sound familiar? Perhaps you have heard similar stories before. You might have even faced such a dilemma yourself, deciding where to move and evaluating the possible benefits and risks that come with moving. The United States is a highly mobile society. Between 2005 and 2010, approximately 35.4% of Americans changed residence in search of better housing, employment, and economic conditions (Ihrke & Faber, 2012). But is frequent moving good or bad for our well-being?

Residential mobility is a noteworthy topic that has been well studied by sociologists and other social scientists for decades. For example, higher residential mobility has been associated with higher crime rates in neighborhoods (see Sampson, 2012, for review). More recently, psychologists have begun to examine the psychological experience of moving and its likely impact on the well-being of individuals. They have been asking questions such as: How do people feel right after they move to a new place? Do frequent moves make life more interesting or more stressful? What are the long-term consequences of moving repeatedly? These questions are potentially important, because the answers can help us better understand the effects of moving and find ways to cope with potential challenges we might face when deciding to move to a new place. 

How Do People Typically Feel and React After Moving?

Have you moved recently or plan to live somewhere different in the near future? For many people, moving to a brand new environment may be one way to spice up their lives. It is natural to feel excited about moving (Oishi, Miao, Koo, Kisling, & Ratliff, 2012). However, moving to a new place can also be highly stressful. In addition to the logistics of moving, you may feel anxious and possibly lonely. This is precisely what Shigehiro Oishi and his research team found. People who participated in their research generated more words related to anxiety and loneliness when asked to imagine having a highly mobile lifestyle (Oishi et al., 2012; 2013).

What is more interesting is the far-reaching effects of such anxiety and loneliness. For example, people on the move tend to show the familiarity-liking effect – that is, a preference for familiar over unfamiliar objects – because of the anxious feelings they have about moving (Oishi et al., 2012). This common psychological reaction may provide one explanation for the success of strip malls and national chain stores in places where a high percentage of the population frequently moves (Oishi et al., 2012). Although big-box retail chains like Target and Home Depot provide housing-related products that movers need to settle into their new home, these stores are not specially catered to newcomers. Researchers believe that a more plausible explanation for why big chains thrive in highly mobile towns and cities lies in the psychological experience of moving: Starting life in a new place can bring forth anxiety, which in turn motivates people to seek what is familiar. To most Americans on the move, national chain stores are likely to be more familiar than the small mom and pop stores in their new neighborhood. So the next time you are planning a big move, know that feeling anxious is perfectly normal and do not be surprised to find yourself visiting chain stores more frequently than you have done prior to the move.

Besides feeling anxious, anticipation of loneliness is also common among people who are thinking about moving. After all, moving can affect our relationships with family and friends in many ways, and may even lead to the loss of close, highly cherished relationships. In laboratory experiments, people who thought about a mobile lifestyle expressed greater concerns about having fewer friends in the future and were more motivated to expand their social network compared to those who expected to stay put (Oishi et al., 2013). Even though frequent movers do end up having many friends, the relationships they form tend to be less deep. Indeed, American adults who move frequently tend to report having fewer quality social relationships than those who move infrequently (Oishi & Schimmack, 2010).

To Move or Not to Move: Which Makes Us Happier?

Feeling anxious and lonely is a perfectly normal reaction shortly after a move, but how does moving repeatedly affect our well-being over the long haul? Is frequent moving good or bad for us? There is no simple, straightforward answer. How well people adapt to moving depends on a variety of factors. If moving is your destiny due to job or other major concerns, here are several things that you might consider before choosing a new place to call home.

Characteristics of the Individual

The effect of moving on well-being depends in part on individual-level factors (Oishi, 2010). For instance, Stokols, Shumaker, and Martinez (1983) proposed that the reason for relocation, personal life circumstances, and a host of other individual differences need to be taken into consideration when making predictions about the psychological consequences of moving. Think about how differently it might feel if you are moving to start a dream job, as opposed to moving because of divorce. Or, what if you have to move alone and leave the rest of your family behind in your old town or city? How differently might it feel from taking your family with you on the move?

A limited number of studies also indicate possible gender differences in the negative psychological effects of moving. A national longitudinal survey revealed that moving exacts a greater toll on the mental health of women than men (Butler, McAllister, & Kaiser, 1973). In general, female movers are more likely than male movers to report symptoms of mental disorder. This pattern held whether the relocation was voluntary or involuntary. Using more recent national survey data, Magdol (2002) found moving to be predictive of depression for women but not for men. More research is needed to examine when, why, and how women and men may be differentially impacted by relocation.

Personality traits also have been found to make a difference in the effects of moving on individual well-being. For example, people who moved frequently as children tended to become less happy adults if they were introverts than if they were extroverts (Oishi & Schimmack, 2010). This difference may be related to a challenge inherent in frequent moving: The ability to establish and maintain close relationships. Compared to extroverts, introverts tend to have a harder time making new friends and thus are less likely to have quality social relationships. Moreover, neurotic individuals, who are predisposed to react more negatively to stressful life events, tend to fare less well in the long run.  Oishi and Schimmack (2010) found that frequent moves tend to make neurotic individuals less happy overall compared to people who are not neurotic. With these findings in mind, parents with children who are shy and/or neurotic should think twice about making frequent moves. If moving is necessary, it is important to pay attention to how the children are adjusting to their new environment and to take proactive steps in helping them become more socially integrated when necessary.

Characteristics of the Community 

Another factor that plays an important role in determining the outcome of moving is the community to which one is relocating. Some communities have low crime rates, whereas others have high crime rates. Even within the same city, some communities are affluent, whereas others are impoverished. Given that communities can differ from each other in a variety of ways, it is easy to imagine the well-being of people residing in one community would be likely to vary from that of people residing in another community.

Is the community made up of frequent movers? Living in residentially stable neighborhoods has shown to be beneficial for a host of reasons. Residentially stable neighborhoods do not only have lower crime rates, but their inhabitants also tend to be more engaged in community affairs (Kang & Kwak, 2003) and to display a higher level of devotion and commitment to pro-community action, such as purchasing specialty license plates to help preserve their state’s natural habitat (Oishi, Rothman, et al., 2007). Because people from residentially stable communities have been found to be more willing to offer assistance than those in residentially mobile communities, settling in the former may be especially beneficial in times of need. Moving to stable communities may also be a good idea if you are someone who values the caring and protecting of others, because you are more likely to be surrounded by people who are pro-social and accustomed to helping others.

Why are the inhabitants of residentially stable communities more likely to engage in actions that benefit their community and less likely to engage in actions that hurt their community? So far, the research points to a few possibilities. One potential explanation is that people who live in the same community for a long time are likely to develop psychological attachment to their community (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974). Such an attachment has been linked to community participation and revitalization (Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003). Moreover, frequent social interactions and problem-solving efforts among residents in stable communities can create a sense of collective efficacy, which has been linked to lower levels of crime (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997) and antisocial behavior (Odgers et al., 2009). Finally, residential stability helps strengthen people’s identity as a member of their community (Oishi, Rothman, et al., 2007). Greater level of identification to one’s community in turn leads to more pro-community behavior.

In spite of the many advantages associated with living in residentially stable communities, it may not be a naturally good fit for everyone. For example, research by Lun and colleagues (2012) found that residential mobility influences friendship preferences. People who move frequently prefer to make friends with egalitarian helpers (i.e., individuals who are more willing to help others outside of their friendship circles), whereas people who do not move frequently prefer to make friends with loyal helpers (i.e., individuals who tend to favor friends over strangers). So, if you are moving to a residentially mobile town or city, one strategy that may help you adjust to the new environment is to be open-minded and egalitarian. Lend a hand to both strangers and friends in need. If you are moving to a residentially stable town or city, it might be in your best interest to be loyal to your friends and lend them a hand whenever they need help.

Is the community high in relational mobility? Not only do communities differ in the extent to which their residents move, they also have particular social systems characterized by the way their residents establish and maintain relationships. In some communities, residents’ relationships tend to be entrenched within rigid social circles. Psychologists would call these communities low in relational mobility. In other communities, residents’ relationships are more easily formed and terminated. Psychologists would call these communities high in relational mobility. Research by Joanna Schug and her colleagues has shown that relational mobility affects the approach people take in strengthening relationships (Schug, Yuki, & Maddux, 2010). When relationships are perceived as more stable and difficult to terminate, people tend to put less effort in maintaining their relationships. However, when relationships are perceived as more fragile and shifting, people tend to invest more in relationships by sharing their personal thoughts and feelings.

This is not to say that people moving to communities low in relational mobility do not need to worry about maintaining relationships. They do, just in a different way. Because old relationships are less replaceable in communities with a low level of relational mobility, people must keep their existing relationships harmonious. That is why people living in places with low relational mobility have been shown to be more cautious about disclosing intimate details with others, including close friends, compared to people living in places with high relational mobility (Schug et al., 2010). So if you are living or planning to move to a place with low relational mobility, think twice before divulging your deepest secrets. It may be in your best interest to be selective in what you tell others, including your closest confidants.

Characteristics of One’s Social Network

Are you someone who prefers having a few close friends or a large social circle that is less deep? People who prefer having a few close relationships tend to form social networks that are narrow and deep, whereas those who prefer a larger social circle tend to form social networks that are broad and shallow. According to research conducted by Oishi and Kesebir (2012), the type of social network people have can put them at an advantage or disadvantage psychologically depending on how residentially mobile their community is and its socioeconomic condition. Specifically, one of their studies found that, among American respondents living in residentially stable and economically disadvantaged communities, those with narrow and deep social networks reported greater subjective well-being than those with broad and shallow social networks. In residentially stable but wealthy communities and in residentially mobile communities more generally, it was respondents with broad and shallow networks who reported greater subjective well-being.

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

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

Oishi, S. (2010). The psychology of residential mobility: Implications for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 5-21. doi: 10.1177/1745691609356781

Oishi, S. (2014). Socioecological psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 581-609. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-030413-152156

Oishi, S., & Kesebir, S. (2012). Optimal social-networking strategy is a function of socioeconomic conditions. Psychological Science, 23, 1542-1548. doi: 10.1177/0956797612446708

Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., Miao, F. F., Talhelm, T., Endo, Y., Uchida, Y., . . . Norasakkunkit, V. (2013). Residential mobility increases motivation to expand social network: But why? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 217-223. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.008

Oishi, S., Miao, F. F., Koo, M., Kisling, J., & Ratliff, K. A. (2012). Residential mobility breeds familiarity-seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 149-162. doi: 10.1037/a0024949

Oishi, S., Rothman, A. J., Snyder, M., Su, J., Zehm, K., Hertel, A. W., . . . Sherman, G. D. (2007). The socioecological model of procommunity action: the benefits of residential stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 831-844. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.831

Oishi, S., & Schimmack, U. (2010). Residential mobility, well-being, and mortality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 980-994. doi: 10.1037/a0019389

Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5328.918

Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21, 1471-1478. doi: 10.1177/0956797610382786

Stokols, D., Shumaker, S. A., & Martinez, J. (1983). Residential mobility and personal well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 5-19. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80018-8