UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effect of spatial layout and social similarity on urban neighbouring Treasurywala, Mary-Rose 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 T74.pdf [ 4.81MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099991.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099991-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099991-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099991-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099991-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099991-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099991-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099991-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099991.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECT OF SPATIAL LAYOUT AND SOCIAL SIMILARITY ON URBAN NEIGHBOURING  by MARY-ROSE TREASURYWALA B.A. Honours, University of Toronto, 1970  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1973  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the  L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e  and  study.  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  be granted by  Anthropology and  Sociology  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada  Date  December 11,  1973  publication  s h a l l not be allowed without  permission.  Department o f  Department or  I t i s understood t h a t copying or  of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n written  the Head of my  my  i  ABSTRACT  This thesis presents a detailed study of the effect of functional distance and social similarity on the greetings and v i s i t s between contiguous neighbours.  Functional distance is predicted to have  an inverse relation with greetings while social similarity is predicted to have a direct relation with visiting between contiguous neighbours. In accordance with previous researchers, functional distance is predicted to have an inverse relation with visiting only for socially similar, but not for socially dissimilar, neighbours. Women, whose single family houses are located throughout metropolitan Vancouver, were interviewed in the summer months.  Similarity in  six characteristics, which were employed separately, in specific combinations, and a l l together, was determined for each respondent-contiguous neighbour pair.  This pair was the unit of analysis. Somers' d was used  to test the direction and strength of the relationships.  A calculation  of Goodman and Kruskal's gamma substantiated the deductions which were based on Somers' d values. It was found that these contiguous neighbours tend not to have any form of contact with each other.  The functional distance be-  tween neighbour pairs was found, as predicted, to be consistently negatively related to greetings while their similarity was consistently positively related to v i s i t i n g .  Functional distance was negatively, and more  strongly, related to casual visiting for similar rather than dissimilar  pairs, but the strength of i t s association with planned visiting was the same regardless of similarity. Some limitations of this research are outlined with sugges tions for improvements in future endeavours in this area.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  List of Tables List of Figures Chapter 1: Introduction Statement of the Problem Theoretical Framework Neighbours and Neighbouring Distance Between Dwelling Units Spatial Layout and Social Contact Greeting and Visiting Spatial Layout and Greeting Spatial Layout and Visiting Spatial Layout and Social Similarity Social Similarity Spatial Effects on Visiting Between Socially Similar Neighbours Summary References Chapter 2: Methodology The Sample The Sampling Frame The Present Sample The Interview Unit of Analysis  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)  Page Measurement of the Variables  36  Greeting  36  Visiting  37  Functional Distance  41  Social Similarity  44  Sex  45  Age  45  Stage i n L i f e Cycle  46  Country of B i r t h  47  Education  47  Employment  48  Combination  of C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  48  Total Number of C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Similar  Chapter 3:  50  Analysis of the Data  50  Summary  54  References  56  Data Analysis  58  Functional Distance  58  Social S i m i l a r i t y  60  Knowing the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Neighbours  61  Social S i m i l a r i t y  68  V  TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)  Page Social Similarity and Functional Distance  74  Summary  86  Chapter 4: The Conclusion  88  Conclusions of the Study  88  Limitations of the Study  93  References  97  Appendices: A.  The Percentage Distribution of the Characteristics of the Sample  B.  Examples of Contiguous Dwelling Units  101  C.  The Interview  102  D. The Percentage Distribution of the Characteristics of the Contiguous Neighbours  98  105  E.  Bivariate Table of Casual Visiting and Similarity of Sex Status  108  F.  Table of Casual Visiting and Functional Distance Controlling Similarity of Sex Status  109  Tables with Gamma Values for a l l Relationships in Study  110  vi  LIST OF TABLES Page  TABLE  42  I  Functional Distance Between Contiguous Dwelling Units  II  Respondent-Contiguous Neighbour Pairs Greeting Each Other and Functional Distance  60  The E f f e c t of Contact on the Respondent's Knowledge of Characteristics of Contiguous Neighbour (Somers' dxy)  63  The E f f e c t of the Respondent's Knowledge of Characteristics of Contiguous Neighbour on Contact (Somers' dyx)  64  Percentage of Pairs i n Which Respondent Knows Social C h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Contiguous Neighbour  66  . Percentage of Pairs i n Which Respondent Knows Number of Social C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Contiguous Neighbour  67  Percentage of Pairs Similar f o r Each Social C h a r a c t e r i s t i c and P a r t i c u l a r Combinations of Characteristics  69  Percentage of Pairs with Number of Social C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Similar  70  V i s i t i n g and S i m i l a r i t y f o r Each Social C h a r a c t e r i s t i c (Somers' d)  71  V i s i t i n g and S i m i l a r i t y for P a r t i c u l a r Combinations of Social Characteristics (Somers' d)  72  V i s i t i n g and Number of Similar Characteristics  73  III  IV  V VI  VII  VIII IX X  XI  XII XIII  Social  Contact Types and Functional Distance f o r Total Sample and Selected Sample (Somers' d)  77  Contact Types and Functional Distance C o n t r o l l i n g S i m i l a r i t y for Each C h a r a c t e r i s t i c (Somers' d)  80  vii  LIST OF TABLES (continued)  TABLE XIV  P a  e  Contact Types and Functional Distance Controlling Similarity for Particular Combinations of Social Characteristics (Somers d)  83  Contact Types and Functional Distance Controlling Number of Similar Social Characteristics (Somers* d)  85  1  XV  g  LIST OF FIGURES  FIGURE 1  Frequency of Greetings of Neighbours  2  Frequency of Casual Visits of Neighbours  3  Frequency of Planned Visits of Neighbours  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I wish to express my thanks to the members of my Thesis Committee and a l l my colleagues for the help they have given me throughout this research.  I wish to thank Dr. G.A. Gray for permission to use  data from his 'Vancouver Urban Studies Project' in the analysis for this thesis. I am very grateful to my husband for his support, understanding and encouragement throughout the entire study.  1  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION  Urban dwellers interact on an informal level with four main categories of people.  These are their co-workers; their friends; their  relatives and their neighbours.  In studying the patterns of l i f e of  people in c i t i e s , many sociologists have, in the past, concentrated one or  more of the above categories.  be divided into two main approaches.  Their efforts may,  on  in general,  By employing s t a t i s t i c a l methods,  they have studied the gross interaction patterns of urban dwellers.  At  the other extreme, they have investigated a relatively small group of people intensively. The f i r s t one of these approaches suffers from an obvious shortcoming.  By»attempting to analyze the gross living patterns  of so diverse and complex a group of people as city dwellers, a large proportion of the important details are masked by the rather arbitrary systematization of data.  The latter approach suffers from an equally  obvious drawback. The study of a relatively small group of people, though intrinsically interesting and perhaps informative, cannot adequately serve as the basis required for broader generalizations.  It is  not surprising then, that neither of these methods has resulted in any significant progress towards an understanding of, or an explanation for, the informal social relations of the urban resident. If i t were possible to combine the advantages of both these methods of analysis by selecting a sample set which was large and d i verse enough to be truly representative of the city, and analyze i t in  2  detail, then a truly significant advancement in this field would surely result.  The d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in obtaining such a sample set, in  questioning the people, in coding the data, and i n analyzing a l l the four categories of relationships mentioned above, are clear and need no further elaboration here.  One strategy for reducing these problems  would be to concentrate primarily on one of these relationships i n i tially.  This study would provide a useful and significant basis for  generalized statements and would simultaneously provide a basis for a similar study of the remaining three at a later stage. Accordingly, this study has concentrated upon the relationship of the urban dweller with his neighbour network.  This network i s  unique i n that i t includes not only a definition of a social relationship between people but also embodies the concept of spatial residential contiguity.  Consequently, an investigation of the interaction between  neighbours involves both spatial and social components.  These two fac-  tors may operate either separately or i n particular combinations to affect the interactions of the neighbours.  Furthermore, each factor  may influence some types of contact but not others. The statement of the specific problem with which this research i s concerned follows. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM i  This study addresses i t s e l f to three questions arising from statements made or omitted in the pertinent neighbour literature.  First,  is proximity of residence a sufficient reason or impetus for neighbours to have social contact with each other?  The city has been charged with  3  being an impersonal place in which to live.  A social relationship  be-  tween neighbours would be one mechanism by which this social isolation could be eased.  On the other hand, i t may be that neighbours prefer to  remain socially isolated from those who are physically  close.  Secondly, are the spatial and social components selective as to the type of contact they affect?  The spatial factors may be impor-  tant i n determining the occurrence of certain contact forms but not others.  The same may apply to social factors.  Contact has been sep-  arated into greeting and visiting in order to examine this possible selective effect.  Prior researchers do not report this division and  thus cannot detail the specificity, i f any, of the effects of social and spatial factors on the contact between neighbours. Thirdly, do the spatial components influence the direction of visiting and friendship similar?  only between those neighbours who are socially  Previous research has indicated  that the significant aspect  of the social factors associated with contact of neighbours i s the social similarity between the neighbours.  Investigations demonstrating that the  spatial components affect visiting have also been conducted among neighbours who were socially similar.  By u t i l i z i n g both socially similar  and socially dissimilar neighbours, this claim of prior researchers could be put to a more complete test. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Neighbours and Neighbouring Fruitful research endeavours in every field of science necessarily rely on clear, conceptual distinctions between seemingly similar  4  terms.  Throughout the literature the terms 'neighbour' and 'neighbour-  ing' appear to have been used ambiguously, or with no clear and constant definitions.  For example, researchers have included varying numbers  of people under the term 'neighbour' ranging from those people residing in a specific, tightly delimited geographical locale (Caplow and Forman, 1950; Kuper, 1953) to those people who are defined as neighbours by the respondent i n the study (Lee, 1968). have been referred to as 'neighbouring' — formal v i s i t i n g .  Also, various modes of contact from a casual greeting, to  This situation has not been conducive to the accumula-  tion of facts and the consequent advancement of knowledge in the f i e l d . Recently, Suzanne Keller (1968) has attempted to alleviate some of the confusion by distinguishing between 'neighbour' and the 'activity of neighbours'. for each.  She has proposed specific points of reference  Regarding the former, Keller (1968: 12) has written:  There i s , f i r s t , the neighbor as a special role implying a particular kind of social attitude toward others to be distinguished from the role of friend and of relative with which i t may at times merge, as when relatives may be living next door or when neighbors become friends. This definition of 'neighbour' as an unique role relationship between people i s s t i l l vague and could lead to varying interpretations and operationalizations.  The definition which w i l l be utilized here deviates  from Keller's by incorporating the ordinary, everyday, lay usage of the term.  Neighbours are defined by means of a geographical, instead of a  social, relationship to each other. Definition:  Neighbours are people living in dwelling units which are geographically contiguous to each other.  5  This r e s t r i c t s the focus to the micro-environment of immediately  adjacent  dwelling units while at the same time consistently and r e a d i l y defining 'neighbour'.  Most researchers agree with this d e f i n i t i o n of 'neighbour'  although many include other people as w e l l .  There i s no doubt that  two  people r e s i d i n g i n contiguous dwellings are neighbours. Whether or not there i s a s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the people i s not implied i n the d e f i n i t i o n of 'neighbour'.  two  However, Kuper  (1953) has found that active neighbour r e l a t i o n s h i p s were limited to those i n the immediate proximity — on the same side of the s t r e e t .  side neighbours and other neighbours  Gans (1967: 281)  concluded that, "the  s o c i a l l y most s i g n i f i c a n t unit i s the subblock, the sector of houses facing each other on the s t r e e t , where most neighbor and mutual help takes place."  adjacent visiting  Caplow, Stryker and Wallace (1964) have  pointed out that s o c i o l o g i c a l studies suggest that the greatest i n t e n s i t y of neighbouring  r e l a t i o n s h i p s occurs amongst people who  are l i v i n g  i n the closest dwelling units and that t h i s i n t e n s i t y declines with an increase i n distance between the houses.  Previous research shows v i a b l e  neighbour r e l a t i o n s h i p s to e x i s t between people who  q u a l i f y as neigh-  bours by the above d e f i n i t i o n . Regarding the i n t e r a c t i o n of neighbours, K e l l e r (1968: 12) has claimed that various diverse a c t i v i t i e s are associated with the r o l e of neighbour, ranging from "...highly formalized and regular neighborly r i t u a l s to sporadic, informal, and casual contacts."  In keeping with  K e l l e r ' s point of reference, s o c i a l contact w i l l be considered from a casual greeting to an informal or formal v i s i t .  to range  A concern for  6  two aspects is indicated —  the occurrence or non-occurrence of a con-  tact and the type of contact between people who are defined as neighbours . Together the definition of 'neighbour' and the delineation of social contact provide conceptual clarity and a precise focus from which to proceed.  The former locates the people who are the subjects of this  research while the latter helps to establish i f there i s a social relationship between them. Distance Between Dwelling Units A l l social interactions involve people operating i n , and separated by, physical spaces.  The extent of separation of contiguous  dwelling units, and hence neighbours, from each other i s highly v a r i able (Michelson, 1970) .  Two dwelling units may be situated visually  and/or physically close to, or far from, each other.  Since neighbours  are spatially contiguous, the concept and role of space i s central to any analysis of their interaction. Michelson (1970) has delimited three dimensions of the distance which could separate dwelling units. is 'physical distance' —  The traditional usage of distance  the separation between two points according  to a standard linear measure.  The 'physical distance' between two dwell-  ing units can vary from a few feet to several miles.  However, two iden-  t i c a l physical distances may represent different barriers due to the time required to overcome them. Transportation i s a factor here. i t i e s available to both the general public and the individual are  Facil-  7  significant.  A second relevant type of distance therefore, i s 'accessi-  b i l i t y ' which may be measured continuously in terms of elapsed time. The effect of distance can also be created by certain manipulations of the environment which create the illusion of distance.  This, he has  termed 'manipulated distance' and may be achieved by the planting of trees, the erection of fences or the positioning of footpaths.  The  latter has been labelled 'functional distance' by Festinger, Sehachter and Back (1950). Since this research focuses on the micro-environmental level of contiguous dwelling units, two of Michelson's dimensions of distance physical and accessible -- are obviated.  These distances become opera-  tive only i n larger geographical spaces.  The 'physical distance' w i l l  —  not significantly vary at the micro-level, and neither w i l l transportation f a c i l i t i e s be a major concern. ever, vary greatly at this level. Definition:  'Functional distance' could, howIt is defined as follows.  The functional distance between neighbours i s created by the relationship of their dwelling units, determined by the pattern of streets and other vehicle- and foot-passages in the immediate external environment of the dwelling units.  The functional distance between two neighbours remains relatively stable over time.  However, among several pairs of neighbours i t may vary. Spatial Layout and Social Contact In a l l probability, the spatial relation between dwelling units  does not have the same impact on every form of contact between neighbours.  8  It has been claimed that spatial features are instrumental in the i n i tiation of brief contacts between neighbours but that something more is required to maintain a social relationship.  To elaborate this state-  ment, the effect of functional distance on various types of contact has been explored. Greeting and Visiting Social contact ranges from brief greetings to lengthy v i s i t s . Keller (1968) has referred to this dimension as the intensity of the relationship between neighbours and has described this intensity as the degree of intimacy between neighbours ranging from a knowledge of neighbours' names to intimate personal relations.  The different forms of  contact represent relationships of varying intensity.  Several researchers  have utilized scales to measure the intensity of the contact (Wallin, 1953; Caplow et a l . , 1964).  Such scales have not been developed in  this research but intensity has been gauged by whether the neighbours greet or v i s i t each other.  The latter indicates a more intense rela-  tion between any two neighbours than the former.  A v i s i t involves  talking at length, or eating, or drinking together while a greeting is a quick encounter.  Neighbours choose to v i s i t each other but a con-  scious choice may not be involved in the occurrence of a greeting. Spatial Layout and Greeting In a l l likelihood, people do not greet a l l their neighbours equally.  The occasion for these less intense contacts w i l l arise between  9  certain neighbours more than between others.  Several researchers have  claimed that the f i r s t contacts between neighbours are greetings and that spatial propinquity plays an important role in controlling the d i rection of these i n i t i a l brief contacts. For Levittown, Gans (1967: 281) has argued that "...propinquity i s a factor while people get to know each other, after which compatability  becomes the major criterion...."  He observed that the  propinquity of neighbours, due to the spatial layout of their houses, influenced the i n i t i a l encounters between them. However, propinquity acted  alone only in the f i r s t , greeting stages of contact.  During  the f i r s t three months of occupancy of eight English private housing estates, Carey and Mapes (1972: 52) concluded that "since many of the v i s i t s were initiated through casual contacts, they tended to involve people who lived close to each other."  For their sample, the geogra-  phical propinquity of houses permitted the women to inadvertently meet each other during the course of their daily activities.  These unplanned  brief contacts provided the neighbours with the opportunity to invite each other to their homes for a v i s i t .  The greetings occurred within  small geographical areas and laid the foundation for more intense v i s i t ing.  The i n i t i a l casual greetings between the neighbours were directed  or influenced by the spatial configurations of the housing estates. Earlier, Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) had postulated and found a similar pattern.  According to them, as neighbours do not  actively seek out each other; i n i t i a l , brief, passive contacts are neces-  10  sary before they interact more intensely. These greetings simply happen. The individuals do not go out of their way to make the contact nor do they exert positive efforts in that direction.  These passive contacts  are determined by the required paths followed in entering or leaving one's home for any purpose.  These specific required paths are deter-  mined by the physical structure of the area.  Thus, the spatial relation  between dwelling units, in particular propinquity, has been shown by a l l of these researchers to exert an influence on which neighbours have a greeting during the f i r s t few months of occupancy of their houses. Previous investigators have not examined the occurrence of greetings between neighbours after they have settled into their dwelling units.  However, greetings probably occur between neighbours who have  resided in their dwelling units for some length of time.  These greet-  ings should occur since the spatial opportunities for them w i l l be relatively unchanged through time. w i l l s t i l l have the same effect.  The functional distance between the units Those neighbours who greet each other  live in dwelling units in which the functional distance between the units places them in a specific spatial relation. In order for two people to greet each other, they must have the opportunity to come together in the same space.  This is necessary  to provide them with the chance to speak to each other even i f i t is only for a few minutes.  The spatial relation between the dwelling units of  the neighbours either allows or prevents their entry into the same space.  For a greeting, there must also be a mutual underlying consensus  11  or understanding between the neighbours that they should say something to each other when they come together spatially. The f i r s t hypothesis refers to greetings between neighbours who are settled in their dwelling units with the provision that the following assumption is true.  This hypothesis is concerned with whether  or not the functional distance alone has any effect on greetings. Assumption:  There is a mutual consensus between neighbours to speak to each other when they meet.  Hypothesis (1): As the functional distance between neighbours decreases, the proportion of neighbours who greet each other i n creases . The functional distance between any two neighbours either provides or does not provide them with the opportunity to greet each other.  The siting features of dwelling units are such that the movements  of the occupants are pre-set by the position of roadways, sidewalks, and other such thoroughfares. be envisioned. tance.  Various different types of barriers may  Each one of these is a unique part of functional dis-  For example, railways and busy highways between dwelling units  may block greeting encounters between the residents to a certain extent because of the latent dangers involved i n crossing them. By their mere presence these so-called passive barriers exert an influence upon greetings.  In contrast, i f the same physical distance between two dwelling  units was spanned, instead, by a lawn, the danger involved i n crossing  12  this 'barrier' would be minimal and greeting encounters may be expected. This conclusion would of course immediately be somewhat modified i f the lawn was the territory of a vicious guard dog! These spatial features, by virtue of their mere existence, affect the general flow or circulation of the neighbours around the immediate external environs of their dwelling units. This, in turn, affects whether or not they have the opportunity for inadvertent contact.  For a greeting between neighbours,  a mutual encounter, influenced by the relative position of their dwelling units, is necessary.  If the functional distance i s such as to permit  these encounters, greetings are likely to occur. Spatial Layout and Visiting The spatial relation of dwelling units also has an effect on more intense contacts than greetings:  namely v i s i t i n g .  This case how-  ever, i s more complex. While studying the processes of group formation, communication and the operation of group standards, Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) discovered that the spatial relation of the houses of their subjects influenced contacts.  They examined the formation of friend-  ships among wives of veteran engineering students at M.I.T. These women lived in single and detached houses (Westgate) or in two storey apartment buildings (Westgate West).  They were asked to name the three people in  either housing project with whom they had the greatest amount of social contact.  These researchers (1950: 161) concluded that:  13  The closer together a number of people l i v e , and the greater the extent to which f u n c t i o n a l proximity factors cause contacts among these people, the greater the p r o b a b i l i t y of friendships forming.... In the two housing projects, the 'functional proximity f a c t o r s ' were the p o s i t i o n of the footpaths and stairways i n Westgate and Westgate West respectively.  These features determined whether the residents encoun-  tered one another or not as they entered and l e f t t h e i r dwelling u n i t s . Independently, Caplow and Forman (1950) examined the family interactions of f i f t y married veteran students with children at Univers i t y V i l l a g e i n Minnesota. project of semi-detached  These veterans l i v e d i n a self-contained  houses.  With the aid of t h e i r  'neighborhood  i n t e r a c t i o n scale', Caplow and Forman (1950: 366) found i n t e r a c t i o n "...organizes i t s e l f with almost molecular s i m p l i c i t y i n terms of the s p a t i a l pattern of the community." operative.  Again, functional factors were  The p o s i t i o n of front doors and the consequent  use of p a r t i -  cular sidewalks were important here. These two studies alerted other researchers to the possible e f f e c t of the s p a t i a l configuration of dwelling units on neighbouring. Merton (1951: 205) concluded that "...sheer propinquity played a major part i n determining the patterns of personal a s s o c i a t i o n " f o r the r e s i dents of public housing i n Craftown, New front doors was s i g n i f i c a n t once more.  Jersey.  The o r i e n t a t i o n of  Whyte (1956) found that mobile  middle class executives of Park Forest were influenced i n neighbour r e l a t i o n s by the functional r e l a t i o n between their single family homes. The same friendship patterns were observed at several times despite the  14  changeover in residents.  Friendships  formed across and along the street  as well as between those with adjacent driveways.  Busy streets acted  as barriers to child interaction and this was transferred to adults. In Australia, Timms' (1971) middle class housewife sample made friends with neighbours whose houses were physically close.  Those women who  were physically isolated tended also to be socially isolated. Twothirds of a l l the friendships i n the housing estate were between women residing on the same street.  In England, Carey and Mapes (1972: 89)  have expressed a similar finding for their housewives:  "As well as i n -  fluencing relationship formation, proximity also affects the frequency of the visiting with those relationships."  The proximity referred to  was the distance along the conventional route joining the relevant dwellings.  It influenced not only who made friends with whom but also the  number of times these friends visited.  The less the distance, the  greater the frequency of visiting between friends.  Recently, Athanasiou  and Yoshioka (1973) reported that the percentage of a l l neighbours who are high-intensity friends (those who meet almost every day and enjoy being with each other) varies inversely with the distance between houses. Their sample was young wives with children living in a middle class housing development near Ann Arbor, Michigan.  Neighbours who are best  friends live closer to each other than those who have a less intense friendship. These results suggest that the spatial relation of dwelling units, in particular the functional relation, does affect the pattern of  15  visiting for the residents.  However, this conclusion requires q u a l i f i -  cation due to the social characteristics of the populations used in these studies.  Kuper (1953: 27) has written:  The siting factors, with their planned and unplanned consequences, only provide a potential base for neighbour relations. There i s no simple mechanical determination by the physical environment. The extent to which the awareness of neighbours w i l l develop into active social relationships depends on the characteristics of the residents,...and . their general compatibility. The spatial layout alone i s not sufficient to influence v i s i t i n g , but rather facilitates or limits the effects of social factors.  Visiting  requires something more than a particular spatial relation between neighbours . Spatial Layout and Social Similarity Several authors have argued that the spatial relation of neighbours' dwelling units influences which neighbours v i s i t each other only i f the  neighbours are socially similar.  Each study which demonstrated  space to have an influence on visiting was conducted among people of similar social characteristics.  This applies to the students of Festinger  and Caplow, Whyte's executives and Timms' housewives.  Festinger, Schachter  and Back (1950: 163) cautioned about undue emphasis on the effect of propinquity: ...where the community i s heterogeneous, one would expect the ecological factors to have considerably less weight than they do in communities where there is a high degree of homogeneity and common interests among the residents. The spatial factors contribute less to visiting between dissimilar neighbours than to visiting between neighbours who are socially similar.  16  Having reviewed the literature, Michelson (1970: 188) has made the f o l lowing provision: Two conditions thus have been isolated throughout the l i t e r ature under which proximity becomes a factor in friendship: the f i r s t is homogeneity (or at least perceived homogeneity) and the second is the need for mutual aid. Suzanne Keller (1968: 84) has also addressed herself to this question and concluded: Thus physical design as such — in the sense of arranging dwellings and f a c i l i t i e s so as to encourage personal encounters followed by more enduring personal ties — does not seem to play an independent role in neighbouring. It i s significant primarily where social and personal compatibility has prepared the ground for i t . For these two reviewers, space becomes a factor in visiting only after the social groundwork, i n the form of compatibility, has been laid. Carey and Mapes (1972) examined socially heterogeneous private housing developments only to find high rates of visiting between socially similar housewives who were fortuitously propinquitous.  Proximity of  dwellings was not enough to sustain visiting between socially dissimilar women. However, proximity did reinforce similarity as an instigator and sustainer of social activity.  Similarity was the crucial factor  while proximity served to f a c i l i t a t e the v i s i t i n g . These writers have indicated that the spatial arrangement of dwelling units between socially dissimilar neighbours does not have as strong an effect on visiting as i t does for socially similar ones. In the latter case,  there is no need for a selection of visiting partners  on the basis of social characteristics but merely visiting with those similar others who are spatially available.  17  Throughout this discussion, i t i s assumed that social similarity affords the underlying compatibility which i s necessary for v i s i t i n g . First, social similarity i s required and only then are spatial features effective for v i s i t i n g . 1.  Thus, three problems have been presented.  Does social similarity between neighbours furnish the com-  patibility necessary for them to v i s i t ? 2.  What are the social characteristics that must be similar  between neighbours for them to v i s i t ? 3.  Does the spatial relation between neighbours influence v i s f-  iting between those who are not socially similar as much as those who are socially similar? The following sections provide the guidelines for answering these questions.  Hypotheses form the basis of empirical tests of previous con-  clusions i n the literature regarding both the social similarity, and the spatial relation between neighbours; and their v i s i t i n g . Social Similarity Gans (1961) has claimed that the need for homogeneity and compatibility was greatest for immediately adjacent neighbours.  These  people are forced to live together i n a relatively small geographical space and different points of view could lead to unpleasant conflict and tension between the residents. of factors  Morris and Mogey (1965: 124) i n a review  influencing neighbouring also concluded that "...homogeneity  is likely to be most important in the immediate neighbourhood where relationships are unavoidable, face-to-face, and formally equal." These  18  adjacent or contiguous people are the neighbours for this research. That they must be socially similar before they v i s i t each other i s testable. Hypothesis (2):  Similar neighbours are more likely to v i s i t each other than dissimilar neighbours.  Gans (1961: 137) has stated that " l i t t l e i s known about what characteristics must be shared before people feel themselves to be compatible with others."  It may be the case that the two neighbours must  be similar i n one specific characteristic or i n a particular combination of characteristics.  This has yet to be investigated i n samples  which provide the opportunity to empirically examine several characteristics, each with a wide range of values. Most previous researchers have not manipulated,experimentally or s t a t i s t i c a l l y , the social characteristics of their subjects to determine the effect of similarity of characteristics; such as age, education, sex, l i f e cycle, employment or origin; on v i s i t i n g .  It was simply  stated that the populations of each study were 'homogeneous' on several characteristics.  Generally, there was not a detailed comparison of the  characteristics of the neighbours who visited and those who did not v i s i t . As a rule, each of the samples lived in planned housing areas and were (  'homogeneous' with respect to marital status, age, life-cycle stage, education and class.  However, Carey and Mapes (1972) did examine the  similarity of the residents of their eight housing estates systematically.  19  After comparing each housewife to every other housewife on the estate for several background characteristics they found that there was a strong tendency for visiting relationships to be found between housewives who were of a similar age or who had children in the same age group.  In an analogous pair-comparison analysis, Athanasiou and Yoshioka  (1973) found friendships between women to be based on similarities in l i f e cycle (age, marital status, number and age of children) regardless of distance between dwelling units but status (occupation,education, i n come) and racial similarities to be significant for non-adjacent rather than adjacent friendship formations. These two groups of investigators have examined the similarity of the characteristics between the people who are actually engaged in the v i s i t i n g . Similarities in sex, age, stage i n l i f e cycle, country of birth, education and employment, are conditions of common interests, experiences; and modes of understanding. compatibility.  They are conducive, i t i s argued here, to  These six characteristics are utilized to determine sim-  i l a r i t y for this research. Social similarity has not been consistently defined nor operationalized.  The social characteristics examined may be employed either  individually or i n groups i n order to establish whether the people are similar or not similar.  Carey and Mapes (1972), using the background  information of their housewives, compared two characteristics together as well as one trait for each pair while Athanasiou and Yoshioka (1973) used one trait alone.  The procedure for this research i s to begin by  20  comparing one characteristic at a time for each neighbour pair and to proceed subsequently with particular combinations of characteristics. The number of similar characteristics is also reported. If two neighbours are similar in more than one characteristic, they are probably more compatible than i f they are similar in only one characteristic. Thus, similarity between neighbours is determined according to the six social characteristics listed above, individually and in various combinations . Spatial Effects on Visiting Between Socially Similar Neighbours Researchers and reviewers have both postulated a sequence of events for the roles that space and similarity play in v i s i t i n g . social similarity between neighbours produces the compatibility  Once neces-  sary for v i s i t i n g , the spatial layout can then influence which socially similar neighbours v i s i t .  The third hypothesis rests upon the precedent  of previous research. Hypothesis (3): If the neighbours are similar; as the functional distance between neighbours decreases, the proportion of neighbours who v i s i t each other increases. If the neighbours are not similar; they probably do not v i s i t each other and functional distance makes little  difference.  Among those neighbours who are similar the functional distance places some of them in contact with each other more often than with others.  21  Indeed, some similar neighbours may never meet due to the spatial relation between their dwelling units.  However, from the contacts between  similar neighbours, arising from the functional relation of the units, visiting is likely to emerge. Functional proximity between dwelling units allows similar neighbours to know the characteristics  of each  other, to discover that they are compatible because they are similar, and to invite each other for a v i s i t .  In this manner, the functional  distance affects which similar neighbours v i s i t . For the third hypothesis, both the social  characteristics  used for neighbour similarity and the method of combination of these characteristics are the same as for hypothesis (2). Hypotheses (2) and (3) test i n detail the relative roles of social similarity and distance between neighbours for their v i s i t i n g .  functional  The empirical results  of this research w i l l either corroborate or help to refute conclusions based on previous work i n the f i e l d . SUMMARY Neighbours are restricted to people living in contiguous dwelling units.  Any two adults are socially either similar or not similar,  and are separated from each other by the functional distance between their dwelling units. enced by their  Whether they greet or v i s i t each other i s i n f l u -  social and spatial relationship  to each other.  The  three hypotheses, represented below, state the manner in which these independent variables are expected to affect social contact between neighbours.  22  Functional Distance  ;> Greeting  Social Similarity  > Visiting  ^ i ^. Functional Distance  i f socially :—r; similar  . .. > Visiting  K TI  These predictions are examined u t i l i z i n g the methods described in Chapter 2.  23 REFERENCES  Athanasiou, Robert, and Gary A. Yoshioka 1973 "The Spatial Character of Friendship Formation". and Behaviour, March: 43-65.  Environment  Caplow, Theodore, and Robert Forman 1950 "Neighborhood Interaction i n a Homogeneous Community". ican S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 15: 357-366.  Amer-  Caplow, Theodore, Sheldon Stryker, and Samuel E. Wallace 1964 The Urban Ambience. New Jersey: The Bedminster Press. Carey, Lynnette, and Roy Mapes 1972 The Sociology of Planning: A Study of Social A c t i v i t y on New Housing Estates. London: B.T. Batsford. Festinger, Leon, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back 1950 Social Pressures i n Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors i n Housing. New York: Harper and Brothers. Gans, Herbert J . 1961 "Planning and S o c i a l L i f e : Friendship and Neighbor Relations i n Suburban Communities". Journal of American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, 27: 134-140. Gans, Herbert J . 1967 The Levittowners: Ways of L i f e and P o l i t i c s i n a New Suburban Community. New York: Pantheon Books. Keller, 1968  Suzanne The Urban Neighborhood: York: Random House.  A S o c i o l o g i c a l Perspective.  New  Kuper, Leo 1953 "Blueprint f o r L i v i n g Together". In Leo Kuper (ed.), L i v i n g i n Towns. London: The Cresset Press: 3-202. Lee, Terrance 1968 "Urban Neighbourhood as a Socio-Spatial Schema". tions, 21: 241-267.  Human Rela-  Merton, Robert K. 1951 "The S o c i a l Psychology of Housing". In Wayne Dennis (ed.), Current Trends i n S o c i a l Psychology. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press: 163-217.  24  Michelson, William 1970 Man and His Urban Environment: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Approach. Don M i l l s , Ontario: Addison-Wesley. Morris, R.N., and John Mogey 1965 The Sociology of Housing: Routledge and Kegan Paul.  Studies at B e r i n s f i e l d .  London:  Timms, Duncan 1971 The Urban Mosaic: Towards a Theory of R e s i d e n t i a l D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Wallin, Paul 1953 "A Guttman Scale f o r Measuring Women's Neighborliness". ican Journal of Sociology, 59: 243-246. Whyte, William H.,Jr. 1956 The Organization Man.  New York:  Simon and Schuster.  Amer-  25  CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY  In any study of this nature the decision-making processes involved in the choice of a sample set and the s t a t i s t i c a l methods by which i t i s evaluated and analyzed are of central importance.  Indeed,  in some cases false and erroneous conclusions may arise out of a f r i volous choice in any of these areas.  In this chapter these areas are  described i n order to facilitate a proper evaluation of the data which follow.  In order that the theoretical concepts which have been delin-  eated i n the hypotheses may be examined i t is necessary to operationalize them.  In summary then, this chapter details the choice of the respon-  dents i n this study as well as the questions which they were asked. The operationalization of the concepts i n the hypotheses i s also described and the s t a t i s t i c a l methods employed i n the analysis are outlined . THE SAMPLE The Sampling Frame The hypotheses are tested by means of information collected as p a r t ^ f a broader study with slightly different purposes.  A brief des-  cription of the sampling techniques of this larger survey research i s necessary in order to clarify the method by which the present sample was chosen.  The larger study was designed to investigate the nature of the  26  contextual effects that urban socio-ecological environments have upon the behaviour of their residents. For this reason, the composition of these environments were systematically controlled.  The sample of respondents  was selected using a multi-stage, purposively stratified random sampling design (Kish, 1965). cribed below.  The three stages used in this selection are des-  The population base was metropolitan Vancouver, Canada.  The f i r s t stage involved the choice of eight areas varying in both socio-economic ted  status and l i f e cycle stage.  These were designa-  as appropriate geographical spaces to represent the social diversity  required.  The 'Occupational Class Scale' of B.R. Blishen (1968) was  used as the basis for assigning high, medium, or low socio-economic tus  to each area.  assigned —  sta-  Three categories of family l i f e cycle were also  young, middle age, and mature.  If a l l combinations of the  two variables are represented, nine sampling areas must result. However, no area i n Vancouver with both high socio-economic status and young family l i f e cycle could be found.  The eight areas were obtained  by the methods outlined by Gray (1971: 6-9) and detailed by Meis and Scheu (1972).  They are physically separated from each other and are  distributed throughout the metropolitan region. During the second stage, a l l the streets and households within each area were enumerated from the 1970 City Directory of Metropolitan Vancouver. then selected randomly from each of the eight areas.  Households were  Finally, only  those households consisting of at least one married couple with the husband and/or wife currently employed full-time were eligible for the  27  sample.  The name of the head of the household as well as the household  employment s i t u a t i o n were ascertained from the C i t y Directory. husband and wife were interviewed.  Both the  The sample i s not representative  of the population of metropolitan Vancouver as a whole because only marr i e d couples and employed persons residing i n only eight s p e c i f i c geographical areas were selected. The Present Sample From this larger sampling frame, a subsample was selected cons i s t i n g of 217 married women l i v i n g i n s i n g l e family dwelling u n i t s . These formed the basis of the present  study.  Women were chosen because  they are l a r g e l y responsible f o r s o c i a l i z i n g with others who l i v e close to the dwelling u n i t .  I f a woman i s a housewife, she i s more confined  to her home and i s more dependent upon t h i s space f o r s o c i a l companionship.  Gans (1961: 137) has stated that "women generally f i n d their  female friends nearby, e s p e c i a l l y i f they are mothers and are r e s t r i c t e d i n their movements".  Women have been chosen as the respondents i n most  previous studies about neighbours. pare the present  As a r e s u l t , i t i s possible to com-  findings with former ones and analyze the techniques  used c l a s s i f y i n g them as s i m i l a r to, or divergent from, the ones used here.  A l l the women of the sample l i v e i n single family houses.  Gans  (1961) has also written that most neighbour contacts occur between occupants of such dwelling u n i t s .  Great v a r i a t i o n s i n s p a t i a l separators be-  tween single family units are possible ranging fence or a busy highway.  from a lawn to a high  This d i v e r s i t y affords an opportunity  for a  28  more complete test of the hypotheses.  Also, single family houses are a  common mode of shelter in both the urban and suburban context. The women were interviewed in July and August of 1971. the behavioural information applies to the summer months only.  Thus, Inter-  action, especially casual contacts, probably follows different patterns in warm and cold weather.  In the rain and cold of winter people are  not likely to spend much time outside in their gardens or entering and leaving their houses.  But the summer warmth i s conducive to being out-  side and inadvertent contacts are more probable in these circumstances. Michelson (1971: 1081) has documented this with a longitudinal study in Toronto:  "...warmer weather does put neighbors together more frequently  in absolute terms".  However, by collecting a l l of the data for this  study within a two month period the possible effect of varying seasonal conditions on the contact between neighbours has been eliminated. Summer months were chosen with the expectation that they would exhibit a larger magnitude of social contact than would be observed by an analogous study in the winter. Several authors have indicated that the contacts between neighbours as they settle into their houses are more frequent and less selective than subsequent contacts (Gans, 1967; Keller, 1968; Schorr, 1970). The i n i t i a l contacts are not representative of later interaction.  After  a six month residency, a l l of the i n i t i a l contacts have probably occurred. Women in the i n i t i a l stages of contact are not included in the sample. A l l the women in the sample had lived in their houses at least six months.  29 Thus, the interaction which was investigated is a relatively stable one. The sample then, i s 217 married women who were interviewed i n the summer and who had been living in their single houses for six months or more. The social characteristics of these women vary to a certain extent.  A detailed breakdown of their characteristics appears i n  Appendix A. The women live in seven of the eight geographically separated areas of the larger study.  The group of respondents belonging to the  eighth geographical area did not meet a l l of the requirements for selecting the subsample.  The sample is not randomly drawn from metropolitan  Vancouver but from specific delimited areas within the city.  The women  are not considered to be associated with the geographical area but are representative of women with their particular social characteristics. The mean age of the women i s 45 years with a range from 25 to 75 years. Most of the sample has at least one child (82 percent) with the largest percentage of the women (32 percent) with their youngest child between the ages of 6 and 12 years.  Few are young with no child (2 percent)  while slightly more are older women with no child at home (17 percent). The majority (75 percent) were born in North America  and attended high  school (53 percent) as the last type of full-time schooling. University was attended by 20 percent of the sample.  Most of the women are house-  wives (71 percent). The paid occupation with the greatest number of respondents i s the c l e r i c a l , sales and technical category (16 percent). Most of the husbands of the women are white-collar workers with 52 percent  30  in middle professional occupations.  The women do not plan to move from  their houses (72 percent) and 39 percent have lived in their present houses for 11 years or more. A comparable 32 percent has lived in their house from one to five years.  In summary, the women are high school  educated, North American, middle-aged mothers with no paid employment whose husbands have white-collar jobs. THE INTERVIEW Each eligible respondent received by mail an introductory l e t ter stating the purposes of the study.  Following this, a trained inter-  viewer made an appointment for the interview at a future date.  The women  respondents were interviewed by women. Many of the topics encompassed by the large structured interview schedule have no bearing on this research.  The following discussion therefore, highlights the pertinent  sections of the total interview. Each woman was requested to provide information on the social characteristics of herself and her contiguous neighbours.  In order to  avoid any ambiguity on the part of the respondent as to whom her contiguous neighbours were,the contiguous dwelling units were located and numbered on a land use map of her locale by the interviewer.  Neigh-  bours were limited to adults living in dwelling units beside, in front of, and behind the unit of the respondent. around the respondent's house.  Three  These houses form a 'circle'  examples of different street  layouts, and the choice of which dwelling units are contiguous to a  31  specific unit, are illustrated in Appendix B.  Most previous studies have  chosen one housing area and therefore one street plan.  But because the  people in this sample reside in seven different geographical areas of Vancouver, the street patterns are variable. As the maps demonstrate, the number of contiguous dwelling units, and the place where social contact with neighbours occurs, i s unique for each respondent but is consistently defined for a l l respondents. Each respondent related the following characteristics about herself and, where possible, her adult neighbours:  age, age of children  at home, place of origin, education, occupation, and length of residence. She indicated whether or not she knew the names of her neighbours and whether she had contact with each of them in the past week. The details (type and frequency) of the contact, i f any, were requested. The occupation of her husband was also obtained.  A copy of the actual  questions used to e l i c i t the information about the contiguous neighbours and the format of the page used to record that information is in Appendix C. To ascertain the spatial relation of the respondent's house and each contiguous unit, the interviewer completed a check l i s t of the physical features between the dwelling units of the respondent and her contiguous neighbours.  An example of this check l i s t is found in Appendix  C as well. After the interview, the data were prepared for input into an IBM 360/67 computer for routine cleaning and analysis. Each contiguous  32  neighbour of each respondent was assigned an unique identification number.  In this manner, a contiguous nighbour was unambiguously identified  with the appropriate respondent.  The social characteristics of each  neighbour were coded separately according to detailed coding instructions.  An error check of ten percent of the questionnaires revealed a  coding error rate of approximately  0.24 percent.  Having put the data  onto computer magnetic tape, they were subjected to an extensive cleaning process including a detailed wild code and consistency check. If errors were located, the interview was consulted and the appropriate change made.  In this way, most data errors were eliminated.  The social characteristics of each respondent were coded i n several different sections of the larger study.  The information re-  quired for this research was merged from these sections to the appropriate contiguous neighbour information with the aid of a computer programme in the OSIRIS II s t a t i s t i c a l package.  Thus, each respondent's charac-  teristics were attached to each of her contiguous neighbour's information. Following a thorough check, the data concerning the spatial relation of the dwelling units were also merged with the neighbour i n formation.  It was important to account for a l l of the contiguous dwelling  units and to label only the residents of those which were contiguous as neighbours.  A l l the maps were scrutinized to ensure that this was rigidly  adhered to.  Dwelling units contiguous to the house of a respondent but  vacant at the time of the interview were not included as contiguous units because no one, with whom the respondent could possibly have a contact, resided in them.  33  Again, the type and frequency of contact between the respondent and each of her neighbours were merged with the other data of each neighbour.  As a result of the computer merging, the social characteristics  of the neighbour, the corresponding social information of the respondent, the details of the spatial relation of the two dwelling units and a record of the type and frequency of contact were assembled for each contiguous neighbour. UNIT OF ANALYSIS Research in this area has, in the past, been conducted largely in the following way.  The researcher administers a questionnaire, de-  signed to examine interaction, to a number of people.  The data are col-  lected, codified, and analyzed with very l i t t l e or no consideration to the person or persons with whcm the subject has interacted.  For example,  interaction may be correlated with social class by considering the social class of the respondent alone without giving any thought to that of the person with whom the respondent has interacted.  It would appear that an  analysis which centres on a comparison of such social characteristics between the respondent and the person with whom interaction has occurred would result in a better understanding of the phenomenon. Conclusions from isuch an analysis would for example state that a similarity between two people with respect to a certain characteristic facilitates interaction; rather than stating that people with a 'high level' of the characteristic interact.  This research does not concentrate on. the woman  V  34  respondent and the effect which her characteristics alone have on the interaction.  In order to get a better understanding of the factors i n -  fluencing the interaction between a woman and her neighbour, both of these parties have been compared with regard to social characteristics. Since the spatial layout resulting from the position of the respondent's dwelling unit in relation to that of her neighbour i s no less important, a p r i o r i , i t has also been considered. In summary, the unit of analysis i s the pair, consisting of the respondent and each of her contiguous neighbours.  This unit of  analysis has been termed 'relational' by Lazarsfeld and Menzel (1961), It is the social and/or spatial attributes of both adults which i s considered to influence the occurrence of greetings and v i s i t s between them. The 217 married women who comprise the sample have a total of 2,511 contiguous neighbours.  The mean number of contiguous neighbours  per respondent i s 12 with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 18. In the analysis, 2,511 pair comparisons are executed to determine the social similarity between each woman and each of her neighbours.  To be able  to make these social comparisons, the same characteristics obtained for the sample were recorded for every contiguous neighbour. At the time when, the respondents were interviewed, each of the 2,511 contiguous neighbours had been living in their houses for at least six months. This again eliminates the possibility that any of the interactions used i n the analysis were i n i t i a l contacts between  35  neighbours.  The percentage of contiguous neighbours in any of the eight  geographical sampling areas corresponds to the percentage of the respondents from that geographical area.  The details of the social charac-  teristics of the contiguous neighbours are presented in Appendix D. Forty-five percent of the respondents' neighbours are women; 43 percent are men; and there was no information on the neighbours' sex in 12 percent of the neighbour pairs.  For each characteristic, there  is a category labelled 'respondent does not know'. The percentage of contiguous neighbours appearing in this category is often quite high and results from the manner in which this information was collecte'd. Each respondent was required to provide the characteristics of her neighbours but she did not always know them. The social characteristics which the respondents did not know, i n descending order, are education (69 percent) , country of birth (43 percent), employment and occupation (28 percent), age (26 percent), length of residence (22 percent), number of children and stage i n the l i f e cycle (16 percent). Education and country of birth are not highly visible attributes but the number, and age of children are.  These latter characteristics are probably more significant  to the women respondents who are primarily mothers and housewives. A large percentage (37 percent) of the contiguous neighbours are between the age of 30 and 49 years. child.  Only 23 percent do not have a  Two percent of these are adults under 40 years old while the  other 21 percent are older and have no children at home. Among neighbours with children, the largest percentage (20 percent) have a child  36  who i s between 6 and 12 years old. Thirty-five percent of the neighbours are from North America and 11 percent have reached university.  Thirty-  six percent of the neighbours, both male and female, are employed, with a fairly even distribution of occupational types, ranging from high executives to semi- and un-skilled manual workers.  Among male neighbours,  clerical and unskilled manual workers are slightly under-represented. However, the largest portion of a l l the female neighbours are housewives (48 percent).  Thirty percent of the neighbours have resided i n their  dwellings for five years or less while a comparable 25 percent have lived there for some length of time (11 years or more).  In general,  the contiguous neighbours are middle aged with their youngest child in elementary school. MEASUREMENT OF THE VARIABLES In order that they may be measured i n some quantitative way, both the independent and dependent variables must be operationalized. This i s accomplished by forming a correspondence between the concepts in the hypotheses and the information collected from the sample of women by the interviewer.  The concepts requiring operationalization are:  greeting, v i s i t i n g , functional distance, and social similarity.  i Greeting "Greeting" i s a short, unplanned encounter of less than six minutes between contiguous neighbours.  In the week prior to the inter-  view, seven percent of the 2,511 neighbour pairs had "greeting" encounters,  37  and very few greeted each other more than once (Figure 1). variable was,  therefore, collapsed into two categories —  The greeting no greeting,  and greeting. Visiting "Visiting" is a longer, more intense type of contact.  It was  divided into two categories. (a)  A casual v i s i t is a conversation between neighbours which  is longer than five minutes. coffee, or a snack.  It may also include a drink, or a cup of  No prior planning is involved.  Of the 2,511 pairs,  13 percent had at least one casual v i s i t (Figure 2). (b)  A planned v i s i t is a pre-arranged social event such as a  dinner, a party, a picnic, or a tea.  One of the neighbours invites the  other neighbour to participate in the event.  A telephone conversation  between the two neighbours is included here as well.  Again, the caller  invites the other person to engage in a telephone conversation. type of contact i s scarce.  Of the 2,511  This  pairs, one percent had a tele-  phone conversation while three percent had a v i s i t , making the total of planned v i s i t s four percent (Figure 3). Because the number of pairs visiting each other more than once is very low, the two variables are reduced to two categories each. ual v i s i t s were divided into no casual v i s i t , and casual v i s i t .  Cas-  Planned  v i s i t s were likewise divided into no planned v i s i t , and planned v i s i t .  38  Number of Greetings in One Week Figure 1.  Frequency of Greetings of Neighbours  39  Number of Casual Visits in One Week Figure 2.  Frequency of Casual Visits of Neighbours  40  Number of Planned Visits in One Week Figure 3.  Frequency of Planned Visits of Neighbours  41  Functional Distance By definition, the functional distance between neighbours is created by the relationship of the dwelling units of the two neighbours. The street layout between the two houses determines this distance. Since each respondent lives in a single family dwelling her house may  be  positioned in one of four ways relative to that of her contiguous neighbour:  on the same side of the same street; on different sides of the  same street; on different streets with a laneway between them;or on different streets without a laneway between them. These four categories are mutually exclusive.  In other words, the street pattern places any  two houses in only one of the four possible relative positions. In Table I, the features between the dwelling units of the pairs as recorded in the interview schedule, the frequency distribution of each feature for the total sample, and the relative position of the two houses indicated by these factors have been tabulated. Those features which represent the same relative positions have been joined together —  3 and 4; 5, 6, and 7.  distance is operationalized.  In this manner functional  Two dwelling units which had any one of  features 1 to 5 inclusive, and possessed, as well, one of the features 6 or 7, were classified according to the former feature.  For example,  i f two dwelling units had their backyards adjacent with no lane dividing them (feature 1) but had in addition a fence or flower garden between them (feature 6), they were classified as belonging to feature 1 only. No pair of dwelling units appear more than once in the table.  If two  42  TABLE I Functional Distance Between Contiguous Dwelling Units „ a Frequency  Feature  Position Indicated  1. Backyard adjacent no laneb  362  Different streetno laneway  2. Backyards adjacent lane  384  Different streetlaneway  3. Paved street  928  Different side of same street  4. Busy paved street or railway  23  Different side of same street  5. Lane - sideyards adj acent^  98  Same side of same street  b  6. Fence or flower garden  637  Same side of same street  25  Same side of same street  0  7. Yard or lawn  a.  There are 54 respondent-contiguous tion.  neighbour pairs with no informa-  b.  These three features were created from two variables - backyards adjacent and lane - by computer manipulation. They are mutually exclusive.  c.  Due to interviewer d i f f i c u l t i e s , two categories of the questionnaire were joined to form this feature. These categories are physical or symbolic barriers, low shrubs, flower garden; and sight impeding fence, wall, or hedge.  43  dwelling units possessed both features 6 and 7 they were classified as belonging to feature 6. Those 25 pairs of dwelling units which have been classified as belonging to feature 7, were thus divided by a yard or lawn and nothing else. The functional distance helps to direct the possible movements of the neighbours in the micro-environment of their dwelling units.  It may act as a blocking mechanism by preventing two particular  adults from ever meeting or i t may be such as to facilitate frequent encounters between them. The siting features create varying degrees of functional distance.  The feature with the least distance probably  presents l i t t l e resistence to contact while the feature with the greatest distance probably makes inadvertent meeting very d i f f i c u l t .  The func-  tional distances between pairs of dwelling units have been categorized, in descending order, by the four street positions as follows: Different street - no laneway Different street - laneway Different side of same street Same side of same street There are two basic divisions in this ordering.  First, the  dwelling units are on different streets or the same street and secondly, there are specific situations within each of these street locations. The probability that two people w i l l use the same sidewalks and roadways i s greater i f their dwelling units are on the same street than i f they are on different streets. Adults living on different streets do not u t i l i z e  44  the same f a c i l i t i e s to move about their houses or to enter and leave their properties.  The functional distance between neighbours is less  when their dwelling units are on the same street than when they are on different streets.  However, within the latter cases, the functional  distance is decreased i f a path or lane separates the dwelling units as this has the potential to allow the adults to enter the same geographical spot.  There i s the possibility that the neighbours both make use  of this feature as they enact their daily routines. anism for pedestrian as well as vehicular t r a f f i c .  The lane i s a mechFor dwelling units on  the same street; being located on the same side of that street means sharing more sidewalks and property lines while a location on different sides of that street means having a paved road between the dwelling units which conducts t r a f f i c away from, and through the area.  The paved road  is probably more of a deterrent to contact i f i t i s present than i f i t does not exist.  Thus, for the hypotheses, pairs of neighbours who are  on the same side of the street are separated by the smallest functional distance while neighbours whose houses are on different streets without a laneway between them are separated by the greatest amount of functional distance. Social Similarity '  Social similarity refers to a particular relation between the  social characteristics of the respondent and her contiguous neighbour. Two adults may be similar or dissimilar in one or more social characteristics.  For this research, each contiguous neighbour pair is compared  45  on six characteristics to ascertain whether the two adults are similar or not for each characteristic. a l l the traits individually.  The pair comparisons are performed for  No gradation of similarity has been made  but each pair is either similar or dissimilar with respect to each characteristic.  It was necessary to determine what would constitute  lar' or 'not similar' for each of the characteristics.  'simi-  The following  discussion details the cutting points for each of the six characteristics. These characteristics are utilized separately, in particular combinations, and a l l together in the operationalization  of social similarity.  Sex The woman respondent is either of the same sex as her contiguous neighbour or of the opposite sex from her neighbour. ting points for this trait then are male-female.  The similarity cut-  If the respondent-  contiguous neighbour pair has the same value for this characteristic based upon the cutting points, the two adults are considered to be similar for this trait.  Otherwise, they are not similar.  This method of assign-  ment of similar-not similar sex applies to a l l the other five variables as well.  A woman shares more interests, experiences and situations with  other women than with men. Age The pair is similar in age i f their ages are within five years of each other. are compared.  The actual ages of the respondent and contiguous neighbour If the neighbour is not more than five years younger or older  46  than the respondent, the pair is classified as 'similar in age'.  Adults  whose ages are within five years of one another are more likely to have had corresponding past experiences and to be in similar present situations than adults with larger discrepancies i n age. Stage in Life Cycle In a given family, the age of the youngest child is taken to indicate the life-cycle stage for that family. This child, being the most dependent, dictates the amount of freedom that the parents have.  A pre-  school child ties i t s mother to the home more than a child in school. The cutting points for similarity correspond to the age of the child as i t proceeds through the school system.  They are:  No child - parent 40 years old and under Youngest child under 6 years old Youngest child 6 to 12 years old Youngest child 13 to 19 years old Youngest child 20 to 26 years old No child - parent over 40 years old Pairs whose stage in the l i f e cycle places both adults i n the same category are similar.  Adults similar in life-cycle stage are likely to be  performing similar activities based on the demands made by their children. Two young adults with no children have more in common than either of them has with another adult who has a four year old child.  Likewise, two adults  with a 16 year old child have more in common than either of them has with  47  the adult who has the four year old. The different stages in l i f e cycle make varying demands on, and give varying freedom to, the adults.  Two  adults in the same stage have similar demands and freedoms. Country of Birth The country of birth of the respondent and the country from which her contiguous neighbour comes are compared to ascertain whether the pair i s similar.  If both adults are from the same country they are simi-  lar but i f they come from different countries they are not similar.  Two  adults from the same country have incorporated similar value-systems and are socially relaxed with each other.  The subtleties of social situa-  tions are understood and delicate issues are circumvented. Education Each respondent and each of her contiguous neighbours are similar in education i f they may both be classified under the same one of the four following categories: Elementary School High School Technical/Vocational University There must be a one-to-one correspondence in this respect between the two adults for similarity. similar.  Otherwise, the pair i s considered to be not  Adults who have been exposed to the same level of education have  had some past experiences — both intellectual and social —  in common.  48  This exposure to similar thoughts and worlds creates a common social ground between the two adults. Employment A person i s either employed or not employed.  A pair i s similar  in employment i f both the respondent and her contiguous neighbour are employed or both of them are not employed.  However, i f one adult of the  pair i s employed and the other person is not employed, the pair is not similar.  Pairs considered similar for this variable, whether they are  both employed or both not employed, have more common interests and experiences than those who are not similar in employment.  Two adults who  are similar probably have the same focus of interest and spend the same amount of time i n the area close to their houses. Since a large portion of the respondents and the female contiguous neighbours are housewives, the similar employment category was refined to create another dimension —• housewife.  If both of the adults  in a pair are housewives, they are similar for this variable.  House-  wives share more (type and place of work, demands, freedom) with each other than with employed persons or with those non-employed who are not housewives. Combination of Characteristics Adults similar i n two or more of the six characteristics have more in common than those who are similar in one characteristic alone. The similarity between the former i s derived from more common experiences  49  or situations.  If a woman is similar to her neighbour in several charac-  teristics, each trait contributes a particular type of likeness between the two adults resulting i n a broader similarity.  The following specific  combinations of the characteristics are considered using the same cutting points as above to determine similarity in each of the characteristics. If a pair i s similar i n every characteristic of a combination of characteristics, the adults are considered similar in that combination. wise, the pair is not similar.  Other-  The combinations are:  (a)  Sex, employment.  (b)  Housewife, life-cycle stage.  (c)  Sex, education, age.  (d)  Education, age.  (e)  Sex, employment, life-cycle stage, country.  These combinations have been selected using sex similarity as the basis. Two women are likely to have more in common than are a man and a woman. An attempt was also made to include a l l the characteristics.  Combina-  tion (a) gives two adults a general similarity whereas (b) i s a refinement of (a) as housewives are similarly women and not employed. Housewives with their youngest children i n the same age range have very similar demands and interests made by those children.  The effect of similarity i n  bothieducation and age is also explored with; and without; similarity in sex (c and d respectively).  It may be the case that education and age  similarity are not qualified by a sexual similarity.  Women who are simi-  lar in employment and life-cycle stage as well as country of birth (e)  50  have many experiences and common understandings with one similarity reinforcing the other. housewives, mothers —  The characteristics of the sample —  married women,  have been considered in the selection of these  particular five combinations. Total Number of Characteristics  Similar  Not only specific combinations but also the number of similar characteristics measures similarity between two adults.  The amount that  a given pair has in common with each other may be directly related to the number of similar characteristics which they possess.  This variable is  created by counting the number of characteristics which are similar for each respondent-contiguous neighbour pair. similar ranges from zero to six.  The possible number which are  Thus, neighbours may  be similar in one  specific characteristic, in particular combinations of characteristics, or in several characteristics. By means of the preceeding methods, the four concepts — ing, visiting, functional distance, and social similarity — tionalized.  greet-  are opera-  The hypotheses are tested employing these variables in  conjunction with the s t a t i s t i c a l techniques outlined in the next section. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The strength of the relationship between variables w i l l be assessed by a measure of association  chosen according to the form of  the hypotheses and the level of measurement of the variables. theses in this research have an asymetrical form.  The hypo-  The measure of associa-  tion should take this asymetrical relation into account.  51  Both the dependent and independent variables are ordered. Neighbours do or do not have a greeting, casual v i s i t , or planned v i s i t . The functional distance has four ordered categories from low to high. These are:  same side of same street, different side of same street,  different street with a laneway, and different street without a laneway. The variables which have been used to measure similarity are also ordered. Somers' d (1962) was selected as the most appropriate measure of association for the following reasons: 1.  It is an asymetrical measure of association designed to  gauge the degree of like ordering between pairs for ordinal level data. Wilson (1970) has claimed that for the form of the hypotheses i n this research i t i s the best ordinal measure.  Somers' dyx has a value of +1  when a l l the ordered pairs f i t the positive form (as x increases, y i n creases) , and -1 when a l l the ordered pairs f i t the negative form of the hypothesis (as x increases, y decreases).  If an equal number of pairs  f i t the positive and negative form of the hypothesis, the value of dyx i s 0 indicating that no association between the variables exists.  Since  Somers' d is asymetrical, either x or y can be considered as the independent variable.  The practice has been to use dyx when x is the independent  variable and y i s the dependent variable and dxy when the roles of x and y are reversed. 2.  In the calculation of dyx the number of pairs tied on the  dependent variable, but not the independent variable are accounted for. These cases show a lack of association between the two variables as the  52  independent v a r i a b l e , but not the dependent v a r i a b l e , changes.  This  feature makes dyx a s t r i c t test of the association. 3. tables.  I t i s a single index which i s not r e s t r i c t e d to 2 x 2  In the 2 x 2 table, i t i s equivalent 4.  I t s s i z e i s r e l a t i v e l y unaffected  to the percentage difference. by the number of c e l l s  in the table and i s rather i n s e n s i t i v e to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the marginals. Both the d i r e c t i o n and magnitude of Somers  1  d have been con-  sidered during the analysis. For the three dependent variables — and planned v i s i t —  the majority  pairs did not have a contact.  greeting, casual  visit,  of the respondent-contiguous neighbours  This may r e s u l t from having r e s t r i c t e d  the data f o r this study to a period of one week.  The large number of  pairs without contact may be an a r t i f a c t of the data c o l l e c t i o n .  Since  Somers' d includes these p a i r s , t i e d on the dependent but not the independent v a r i a b l e , i n i t s c a l c u l a t i o n , the magnitude of d may be unduly suppressed.  To compensate f o r t h i s , the values of Goodman and Kruskal's  gamma have been presented i n Appendix G f o r a l l the relationships examined i n the analysis.  Gamma i s equivalent  to Somers' d except that  gamma does not take into account those pairs which are t i e d on the dependent but not the independent v a r i a b l e .  Gamma, l i k e d, also measures the  degree of l i k e ordering of pairs f o r ordinal l e v e l data and varies i n value from -1 to +1.  As w i l l be noticed, the magnitude of gamma i s often  more than twice the magnitude of d. However, Somers' d has been used as the basis f o r the analysis.  53  The third hypothesis predicts a relationship between three variables.  Thus, the effect of a third, control variable upon the basic  relation between the independent and dependent variables has been systematically examined.  Anderson and Zelditch (1968) have detailed a  method which helps to establish the effect of the third variable.  They  have used the nominal measure of association 0 but the logic i s the same as for Somers' d. Basically, the value of Somers' d in the partial tables is compared to the value of d i n the original table.  The partial tables  contain the relation between the independent (X) and the dependent (Y) variables when the third variable (Z) i s held constant.  The original  tables, on the other hand, show the X-Y relation when the third variable (Z) is not controlled for.  The d's of the partial tables have been f i r s t  compared with each other and then with the d in the original table. Three types of effects are possible. 1. The control variable Z does not affect the X-Y relation. This i s reflected by the fact that the relation between X and Y is the same regardless of the value of Z.  The value of d i n the original table  is equal (or nearly equal) to the value of d i n a l l the partial tables. This may be represented by: dyx = dyx.z^ = dyx.Z£ 2. The control variable Z affects both X and Y but there is no direct relation between X and Y.  The relationship between X and Y appears  only i f Z varies but i t disappears i f Z is held constant.  In this case,  the value of d found i n the original table i s not equal to 0 but the value  54  of d in a l l the partial tables does equal (or nearly equals) 0. This is represented by: dyx  ±  0  dyx.z^ = dyx.Z2 = 0 3. Y.  The control variable Z affects the relation between X and  There is a relation between X and Y as long as Z has a certain value.  Here, the value of d is not equal to 0 in the original table and is not constant in the partial tables. This is known as the, interaction of X and Z on Y and may be represented by: dyx 4 0 dyx.z^  dyx.z^  In the analysis with the three variables, the X-Y relations in the partial tables are f i r s t examined for interaction between X and Z on Y.  If this i s not operating, then the relations in the partial  tables are compared to the original table to determine i f Z has any effect on the X-Y relation (case 1) or i f Z shows the X-Y relation to be spurious (case 2).  This is accomplished on the basis of the magnitudes  of Somers d. 1  SUMMARY Married women who were living in single family houses located throughout metropolitan Vancouver composed the sample for this research. These 217 women had lived in their homes for at least six months and were interviewed during the summer.  They provided information about their own  55  social characteristics as well as those of each of their contiguous neighbours.  The spatial features separating their houses from the dwel-  ling units of each of their neighbours were also ascertained.  The unit  of analysis i s the respondent-contiguous neighbour pair and the variables describe relations between the members of the pair.  The operationaliza-  tion of greeting, visiting, functional distance and social similarity has been detailed. which is appropriate  Somers' d i s employed as the measure of association for the asymetrical hypotheses and ordinal data.  The subsequent analysis shows whether or not the predicted relationships between the variables were attained for this sample.  56  REFERENCES  Anderson, T.R., and M. Z e l d i t c h , J r . 1968 A Basic Course i n S t a t i s t i c s : With S o c i o l o g i c a l Applications. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Blishen, Bernard R. 1968 "The Construction and Use of an Occupational Class Scale". In B.R. Blishen, F.E. Jones, K.D. Naegele, and J . Porter (eds.), Canadian Society: S o c i o l o g i c a l Perspectives. Toronto: Macmillan: 449-458. B.C. D i r e c t o r i e s 1970  Vancouver:  B.C. D i r e c t o r i e s .  Vancouver City Directory.  Friendship and Neighbor Relations Gans, Herbert J . Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e 1961 "Planning and S o c i a l L i f e : i n Suburban Communities", of Planners, 27: 134-140. Gans, Herbert J . 1967 The Levittowners: Ways of L i f e and P o l i t i c s i n a New Suburban Community. New York: Pantheon Books. Gray, George A. 1971 The Socio-Ecological Environment and Urban A c t i v i t y Systems. Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia. (Mimeographed.) K e l l e r , Suzanne 1968 The Urban Neighborhood: York: Random House.  A S o c i o l o g i c a l Perspective.  New  Kish, L e s l i e 1965  Survey Sampling.  New York:  J . Wiley.  Lazarsfeld, P.F., and H. Menzel 1961 "On the Relation Between Individual and C o l l e c t i v e Properties" In A. E t z i o n i (ed.), Complex Organizations. New York: Holt, i Rinehart and Winston: 422-440. Meis, S.M., and W.J. Scheu 1972 An Isometric Mapping of the S p a t i a l Configuration of SocioEconomic Status i n the Residential Population of Metropolitan Vancouver. A paper presented to the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association, Montreal.  57  Michelson, William 1971 "Some Like It Hot: Social Participation and Environmental Use as Functions of the Season". American Journal of Sociology, 76: 1072-1083. 1971  OSIRIS II. Inter University Consortium for P o l i t i c a l Research. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, July.  Schorr, Alvin L. 1970 "Housing and Its Effects". In Robert Gutman, and David Popenoe (eds.), Neighborhood, City and Metropolis. New York: Random House: 709-729. Somers, Robert H. 1962 "A New Asymmetric Measure of Association for Ordinal Variables". American Sociological Review, 27: 799-811. Wilson, Thomas P. 1970 Measures of Association for Bivariate Ordinal Hypotheses. Santa Barbara: University of California. (Mimeographed.)  58  CHAPTER 3 DATA ANALYSIS  In Chapter 1 the general hypotheses pertaining to the study have been outlined.  The characteristics of the sample of people who  were used as respondents have been described in the second chapter, together with a method for the operationalization of the concepts of the above hypotheses.  An argument in favour of the use of a particular sta-  t i s t i c a l method has also been presented.  This chapter represents an  attempt to examine the data collected in the light of the theoretical framework which has been developed.  By so doing, the data may be ex-  pected to either support or refute the hypotheses. FUNCTIONAL DISTANCE Hypothesis (1) predicts that the functional distance between a pair of contiguous neighbours influences the greetings between the two adults.  The less the distance between the dwelling units of a pair  the more likely i t is that they w i l l inadvertently meet each other. This provides them with an opportunity to greet each other. Hypothesis (1); As the functional distance between neighbours decreases, the proportion of neighbours who greet each other i n creases .  59  On the basis of hypothesis (1), a strong negative association between functional distance and greeting is expected.  The percentage  of pairs who greeted each other, together, with Somers' d i s presented in Table II. The highest percentage of pairs of neighbours who greeted each other consists of those adults whose dwelling units are on the same side of the same street while the lowest percentage consists of those whose dwelling units are on different streets without a laneway. In the cases' of neighbours who live on different sides of the same street, or on different streets with a laneway between their dwelling units, the same percentage greeted each other in both cases,  whether  the vehicle route i s at the back or front of the two houses makes no difference.  The percentage of pairs who greet each other decreases as  the functional distance increases. The sign of Somers' d also indicates this negative relationship.  As the functional distance decreases, the  number of pairs of neighbours who greet each other tends to increase. Although the trend i n the percentages in Table II, and the sign of d, are i n accordance with hypothesis (1), the magnitude of d shows this to be a weak association. the  The sample does not provide strong support for  f i r s t hypothesis since the association between functional distance  and greeting, though negative as predicted, i s weak.  60  TABLE II Respondent-Contiguous Neighbour Pairs Greeting Each Other and Functional Distance  Percent of Pairs  Number of Pairs  14%  678  Different Side  5  881  Laneway  5  343  No Laneway  3  317  7  2119  -.06  2119  Functional Distance Same Street  Different Street  Total  Same Side  3  Somers' d a.  Total number of pairs i s not 2511 dueto missing information.  SOCIAL SIMILARITY Hypothesis (2) predicts that the social similarity between neighbours affects the casual and planned v i s i t s between the two adults. If the neighbours are similar to each other they are more likely to have .the underlying compatibility postulated to be necessary for a casual or planned v i s i t . Hypothesis (2): Similar neighbours are more likely to v i s i t each other than dissimilar neighbours.  61  To examine this hypothesis, i t was necessary to determine whether each respondent-contiguous neighbour pair was either similar or not similar by the methods detailed in Chapter 2.  However, this  assignment of similarity could not be made for a l l the pairs due to the manner in which the social characteristics of the contiguous neighbours were collected.  Each respondent was requested to give the charac-  teristics of each of her contiguous neighbours, but several respondents knew only one or two of the characteristics required.  This measurement  problem influences the testing of the second hypothesis. Knowing the Characteristics of Neighbours The respondent was asked the age, the age of children at home, the place of origin, the education, and the occupation of each contiguous neighbour.  She either knew or did not know each of these characteristics  for each neighbour.  However, similarity could be ascertained only for  those pairs for which the respondent knew the t r a i t .  A knowledge of  each of the characteristics could have been acquired by the respondent either directly from the neighbour or indirectly through a third person. The former channel of communication i s probably more frequently utilized by contiguous neighbours.  By visiting her contiguous neighbour, the  respondent learns the particular traits of the neighbour.  This knowledge  i  puts the respondent in the situation where she can decide whether to invite the neighbour for another v i s i t .  Thus, there may be a continuous  process of visiting, discovering characteristics, visiting, etc. An examination of this relationship follows.  62  Visiting i s expected to be strongly and positively associated with the knowledge which a respondent possesses regarding any given characteristic of her neighbour.  As a result of each v i s i t , knowledge  about other characteristics may be gained.  The amount of visiting with-  in this respondent-contiguous neighbour pair i s also expected to be strongly and positively associated with the number of characteristics which a respondent knows about her neighbour.  Since a greeting encounter  does not provide enough time for these, characteristics to be learnt, a weak association between greeting and knowledge of characteristics i s expected.  In Table III the necessary evidence i s provided by employing  the type of contact as the independent variable. If a pair greeted or visited each other the respondent i s more likely to know each of the characteristics of the neighbour as well as to know more of the characteristics than i f the pair did not have any contact during the week. For every t r a i t , except life-cycle stage, and education, having had a v i s i t i s more strongly related to knowledge than having had a greeting.  On the basis of the magnitudes of dxy, i t can be  observed that knowledge of the country of birth, as well as knowledge of several characteristics, i s strongly dependent upon v i s i t i n g .  The res-  pondents tend to learn the characteristics of their neighbours through direct speaking contacts with those neighbours. Returning to the process which may be operating, one would expect that the respondent's knowledge of each characteristic and the number of characteristics known is positively associated with visiting. It  63  TABLE I I I The E f f e c t of Contact on the Respondent's Knowledge of C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Contiguous Neighbour (Somers' dxy)  Greeting  Type of Contact Casual Visit  Planned Visit  Age  .11  .24  .19  2164  L i f e - C y c l e Stage  .15  .16  .15  2204  Country of B i r t h  .21  .40  .41  2119  Education  .15  .27  .12  2136  Employment  .22  .30  .26  2130  Number of Characteristics Known  .29  .48  .42  2240  Characteristic  Number of Pairs b  a.  Each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c has two categories:  Don't Know, Know.  b.  T o t a l number of pairs i s not 2511 due to missing information f o r both v a r i a b l e s .  c.  I f the respondent knows the employment status, she also knows whether a neighbour i s a housewife or not.  'may also be the case that knowledge of each or several c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s more strongly related to v i s i t i n g than to greeting.  The l e s s intense,  b r i e f , greetings probably do not require a knowledge of the t r a i t s of the contiguous neighbours.  On the contrary, the choice of whom one  v i s i t s would require an evaluation of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of that person and thus knowledge of those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s more intimately involved i n this case.  64  Table IV shows that the respondent's knowledge of each or several characteristics of a given neighbour i s positively related with the two neighbours having a greeting, a casual v i s i t , or a planned v i s i t . However, the associations are not strong. Each characteristic i s more strongly correlated with casual v i s i t s than with greetings, indicating that knowledge of the characteristic is more necessary for casual v i s i t s than for quick greetings in accordance with the above predictions. The relative magnitudes of dyx for greeting and planned v i s i t however, are not as expected.  The respondents have tended to have contacts with those  neighbours whose characteristics are known. TABLE IV The Effect of the Respondent's Knowledge of Characteristics of Contiguous Neighbour on Contact (Somers' dyx)  Type of Contact  Age  LifeCycle Stage  C harac ter ist ic Country of EducaBirth tion  Employment  Number of Characteristics Known  0  Greeting  .04  .08  .06  .05  .07  .05  Casual V i s i t  .16  .16  .19  .17  .18  .15  Planned V i s i t  .04  .05  .06  .02  .05  .04  2164  2204  2119  2136  2130  2240  Number of Pairs a.  Each characteristic has two categories:  Don't Know, Know.  b.  If the respondent knows the employment status, she also knows whether a neighbour is a housewife or not.  c.  Total number of pairs is not 2511 due to missing information for • both variables.  65 Within the repetitive cycle of knowing characteristics, v i s i t ing,  knowing characteristics, etc., i t is of interest to see whether  knowledge of characteristics affects visiting or vice versa. A comparison of the magnitudes of d in Table III (dxy) and Table IV (dyx) demonstrates that visiting i s more strongly related to knowing the characteristics  of one's neighbour than knowing the characteristics i s related  to v i s i t i n g .  This indicates that, for the women respondents, contact  is more important for the acquisition of knowledge than knowledge i s for having contact. Furthermore, some social characteristics were known by more respondents than others. The stage i n the l i f e cycle of their neighbours was known by most of the women respondents (Table V).  This character-  i s t i c i s probably highly salient for the majority of respondents who are married housewives with children.  On the other hand, most of the women  do not know the education of their neighbours.  Most of the respondents  and contiguous neighbours had completed school several years ago and education i s not part of the present l i f e experience of both the women and their contiguous neighbours. Since, for a given characteristic, a similarity variable can be developed only for those pairs in which the respondent knows the characteristic of the neighbour, a different number and set of pairs would contribute data to the test of the second hypothesis for each characteristic.  However, i t is desirable to u t i l i z e the same group of  pairs for the test of the effect of similarity of each of the characteri s t i c s on v i s i t i n g .  To obtain the same respondent-contiguous neighbour  66  TABLE V Percentage of Pairs in Which Respondent Knows Social Characteristic of Contiguous Neighbour  Percent of Pairs  Characteristic Known by Respondent Age  68%  Life-Cycle Stage  80  Country of Birth  49  Education  24  Employment  65 2511  Number of Pairs  pairs for each characteristic, those pairs in which the respondent knew a l l five of the social characteristics were selected.  For these pairs,  every characteristic can be designated as similar or not similar and those factors which cause the respondent to know the characteristics of her neighbour are held constant. Of the 217 respondents, 128, or 59 percent, knew a l l five of the characteristics of at least one of their contiguous neighbours. For these 128 respondents the average number of neighbours per respondent about whom a l l five characteristics were known was 3, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 12 neighbours.  By selecting only those pairs i n  which the respondent knew a l l five of the characteristics, a majority of the pairs were eliminated.  Table VI shows that, of the 2511 respondent-  67  TABLE VI Percentage of Pairs in Which Respondent Knows Number of Social Characteristics of Contiguous Neighbour  Number of Characteristics Known by Respondent None One Two Three Four Five  Percent of Pairs 17% 5 14 21 26 17  Number of Pairs  2511  neighbour pairs, the respondents knew a l l five of the characteristics in 17 percent of the pairs with a corresponding 17 percent of the neighbours about whom the respondents knew none of the characteristics. Thus, of the 2511 pairs, the respondents knew a l l the characteristics of the contiguous neighbour in only 433 cases.  Hypothesis (2) i s examined with  these 433 pairs in which the respondent knew a l l five of the characteris1 tics of her contiguous neighbour. 1.  Though sex has also been used as a similarity variable i t was not involved i n the choice of the pairs. Those 433 contiguous neighbours for whom the respondents knew a l l the five characteristics also have information as to their sex. The respondent was not asked directly to provide the sex of the neighbour but i t was obtained from the 'Mr. , or 'Mrs.', or 'Miss', or the f i r s t name of the neighbour which was recorded in the interview schedule. The coded categories for sex are: no information, male, female. "Know-don't know sex" does not have the same meaning as "know-don't know age, life-cycle stage, country of birth, education, or employment". The respondent probably has to have some form of speaking contact with her neighbour in order to acquire knowledge of the latter characteri s t i c s but a mere visual encounter w i l l provide the respondent with the sex of her neighbour. 1  68  Social Similarity When these 433 pairs were analyzed on the basis of their simi l a r i t y in each of the social characteristics i t was found that these pairs were predominantly dissimilar with regard to most of these characteristics or with regard to particular combinations of them (Table VII).  In contrast, a majority (64 percent) of the respondents were born  in the same country as their neighbours.  In many of these instances  this country was Canada. Also, 48 percent of the respondents•and their neighbours were similar i n sex and were both women. Except for similarity in 'sex and employment', these neighbours were rarely similar in the combinations of characteristics.  Only a few pairs (2 percent)  have a l l six of the social characteristics similar while the largest numbers of pairs have two (25 percent) and three (28 percent) characteristics similar (Table VIII).  It i s interesting to note that neigh-  bours are not similar for a large number of characteristics.  Hypo-  thesis (2) i s examined with these similarity distributions. The general hypothesis i s restated to incorporate each operationalization of 'similar' as follows: Hypothesis (2a): Neighbours who are similar i n sex, or age, or age of youngest child, or country of birth, or education, or employment are more likely to v i s i t each other than neighbours who are dissimilar in sex, or age, or age of youngest child, or country of birth, or education, or employment respectively.  69  TABLE VII Percentage of Pairs Similar For Each Social Characteristic and Particular Combinations of Characteristics  Social Characteristic  Percent Similar  Country of Birth  64%  Sex  48  Employment  45  Education  39  Age  34  Age of youngest child  28  Housewife  24  Sex, employment  30  Education, age  13  Housewife, age of youngest child  6  Sex, education, age  7  Sex, employment, age of youngest child, country  6  i cl  Number of pairs a.  433  Only those pairs are included for which the respondent knows a l l 6 social characteristics.  70  TABLE VIII Percentage of Pairs with Number of Social Characteristics Similar  Number of Characteristics Similar  Percent of Pairs  None One Two Three Four Five Six  3% 18 25 28 18 6 2  Number of Pairs  433  Hypothesis (2b): Neighbours who are similar in a particular combination of social characteristics are more likely to v i s i t each other than neighbours who are dissimilar i n that particular combination of social characteristics, Hypothesis (2c) : As the number of characteristics in which a pair i s similar increases, the likelihood that they w i l l v i s i t each other also increases. In hypothesis (2a), a strong positive association between the similarity of each characteristic, and casual or planned v i s i t s , i s predicted.  Similarity i s expected to be necessary for v i s i t i n g .  Table IX  presents the pertinent Somers' d values which are required in order to test the above prediction.  An example of the table set-up, to calculate  71  d for each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , appears i n Appendix E.  S i m i l a r i t y i n each  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s p o s i t i v e l y associated with casual v i s i t s . associations  are found f o r those pairs of neighbours who  in sex or who  are both housewives,  with each other more than with men  The highest  are s i m i l a r  i n d i c a t i n g that women tend to 'chat' and that sexual s i m i l a r i t y i s more  important for casual v i s i t s than the other s i m i l a r i t i e s are.  Also,  s i m i l a r i t y i n every c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , except country of b i r t h i s p o s i t i v e l y related to planned v i s i t s . planned v i s i t s indicates  The sign of d between country of b i r t h and  that neighbours who were born i n the same country  tend not to v i s i t each other. tionship  i s negligible.  However, the magnitude of d for this r e l a -  Although the d i r e c t i o n of a l l the  associations,  except one, supports the hypotheses, the magnitudes of d are small and suggest a weak p o s i t i v e association and casual and planned v i s i t s . by this sample of neighbours.  between each s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  Hypothesis (2a) i s not strongly  supported  S i m i l a r i t y i n each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s pos-  i t i v e l y but only weakly related to v i s i t i n g between the pairs. TABLE IX V i s i t i n g and S i m i l a r i t y f o r Each S o c i a l Characteristic (Somers' d) Social Characteris t i c  Type of V i s i t Casual  Planned  Sex Age Age of Youngest Child Country of B i r t h Education Employment Housewife  .17 .10 .01 .07 .09 .08 .12  .04 .01 .03 -.02 .05 .02 .08  Number of Pairs  410  410  a.  Total number of pairs i s not 433 due to missing cases in dependent variable.  72  Hypothesis (2b) predicts that i f a pair of neighbours is similar i n two or more particular characteristics; then this similarity i s positively and strongly related to v i s i t i n g .  If a pair of neighbours  is similar in more than one characteristic they have a broader common ground than i f they are similar in just one of the characteristics. Table X contains the results which are applicable to hypothesis (2b). Somers' d was calculated from tables similar to that shown in Appendix E.  Similarity in each combination is positively associated with casual  and planned v i s i t s . —  The highest association is between the combination  'sex, education, age' — a n d casual v i s i t indicating that pairs who  are similar for these three social characteristics tend to speak to each other more than pairs who are similar for the other combinations of the characteristics.  However, the pattern of d for the women of the sample  does not strongly support hypothesis (2b) . Similarity between two adults in the five combinations of social characteristics is positively, but weakly, associated with their v i s i t i n g . TABLE X Visiting and Similarity for Particular Combinations of Social Characteristics (Somers' d) Combination of Characteristics  Casual  Type of Visit  Planned  Sex, employment Housewife, age youngest child Sex, education, age Education, age Sex, employment, age youngest child, country  .08 .11 .24 .11  .04 .11 .09 .06  .10  .10  Number of Pairs  410  410  a.  Total number of pairs is not 433 due to missing information for dependent variables.  73  Hypothesis (2c) deals with the number of characteristics in which the two persons in the pair are similar.  A strong positive asso-  ciation between the number of similar characteristics and visiting is predicted.  Also, for visiting, the association is probably larger in  magnitude for planned v i s i t s than for casual v i s i t s as the more intense formal situation would require a broader similarity base than the informal casual v i s i t .  For planned v i s i t s , the participants select each  other more carefully on the basis of compatibility and thus they are likely to be similar in more characteristics.  Table XI demonstrates  that the direction of the hypothesis is supported for both casual and planned v i s i t s — a s  the number of similar characteristics  the likelihood of a casual or planned v i s i t increases. the magnitudes of d are low.  increases,  Again, however,  The value of the association i s greater  for casual than for planned v i s i t s .  This i s not as expected and indicates  that similarity on several characteristics i s more important for casual than for planned v i s i t s .  For those pairs i n which the women respondents  know a l l the social characteristics of their neighbours, the number of those characteristics which are similar between the neighbours i s not strongly related to their v i s i t i n g . TABLE XI 1  Visiting and Number of Similar Social Characteristics  Type of V i s i t  Somers' d  Casual Planned  .13 .04  Number of Pairs  410  a.  Total pairs i s not 433 due to missing cases in dependent variables  74  For a l l the operationalizations of similarity stated in hypotheses (2a) , (2b), and (2c), a positive but weak association between the similarity of the contiguous neighbours and their visiting i s demonstrated. For those pairs of the total sample for which the women respondents knew a l l the six social characteristics of their neighbours, similarity in one characteristic, i n specific combinations, or in a l l the characteristics, i s related, although not strongly, to v i s i t i n g . SOCIAL SIMILARITY AND FUNCTIONAL DISTANCE Hypothesis (3) predicts that the functional distance  influences  the visiting between neighbours only when the neighbours are similar. The functional distance does not affect visiting between dissimilar neighbours.  Furthermore, the functional distance operates i n the same  way for visiting between similar neighbours as i t does for greetings between the neighbours — the smaller the distance, the greater the number of neighbours who v i s i t .  Similarity provides the compatibility re-  quired for visiting while the functional distance between similar neighbours facilitates, or interferes with their contact. Hypothesis (3): If the neighbours are similar; as the functional distance between neighbours decreases, the proportion of neighbours who v i s i t each other increases. If the neighbours are not similar; they probably do not v i s i t each other and functional distance makes l i t t l e difference.  75  As a result of the operationalization of the term 'similar' mentioned above; hypothesis (3), like hypothesis (2), may be divided into three hypotheses as shown below. Hypothesis (3a):  If the neighbours are similar i n sex, or age, or age of youngest child, or country of birth, or education, or employment; as the functional distance between neighbours decreases, the proportion of neighbours who v i s i t each other increases. If the neighbours are not similar in sex, or age, or age of youngest child, or country of birth, or education, or employment; they probably do not v i s i t each other and functional distance makes l i t t l e difference.  Hypothesis (3b):  If the neighbours are similar in a particular combination of social characteristics; as the functional distance between neighbours decreases, the proportion of neighbours who v i s i t each other increases. If the neighbours are not similar in any particular combination of social characteristics; they probably do not v i s i t each other and functional distance makes  1  l i t t l e difference.  Hypothesis (3c): If the neighbours are similar in one or more characteristics; as the functional distance between neighbours decreases, the proportion of neighbours who v i s i t each other increases.  76  If the neighbours are not similar i n any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ; they probably do not v i s i t each other and funct i o n a l distance makes l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e .  These hypotheses  are examined with those 433 pairs of neigh-  bours f o r whom the respondents knew a l l the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of their contiguous neighbours.  Before any meaningful r e s u l t s could be  obtained regarding the v a l i d i t y of hypotheses  (3a) , (3b), and (3c) i t  was necessary to be sure that this subset of the sample was not an anomalous one regarding the r e l a t i o n s h i p between functional distance and the*three types of contact.  Since this analysis of the 433 pairs  requires the Somers' d values between distance and each of the three types of contact, they have been calculated and presented i n Table XII.  In  order to show that no anomalies existed i n this subsample, the corresponding values f o r the t o t a l sample have also been presented i n Table XII. A comparison of the magnitude of d f o r each type of contact i n the t o t a l and selected samples shows them to be nearly equal, with the largest v a r i a t i o n of .04 f o r casual v i s i t s .  The associations f o r greetings,  casual v i s i t s , and planned v i s i t s are a l l weak and negative.  The r e l a -  t i o n between functional distance and a l l types of contact c o n t r o l l i n g for s i m i l a r i t y f o r these 433 p a i r s i s investigated i n hypothesis (3) . Hypothesis characteristic  (3a) requires that the s i m i l a r i t y of each s o c i a l  be c o n t r o l l e d .  A strong negative association between  functional distance and casual or planned v i s i t i s predicted when each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s similar and a weak association between functional  77  TABLE XII Contact Types and Functional Distance for Total Sample and Selected Sample (Somers' d)  Sample Type of Contact  Total  Selected  Greeting Casual Visit Planned V i s i t  -.06 -.10 -.02  -.07 -.06 -.02  a 407 2119 Number cf Pairs a. Total number of pairs i s not 2511 in total sample or 433 i n selected sample due to missing information i n both variables,  distance and visiting i s expected when that characteristic i s not similar.  Thus, a s t a t i s t i c a l interaction effect between similarity and  functional distance on visiting i s anticipated.  If this i s the case,  the magnitudes of d between distance and v i s i t i n g , for similar and not similar, must vary.  If this interaction between the independent v a r i -  ables does not occur, the results have been investigated further to see i f any effect of similarity i s present.  As well, the functional  distance i s expected to be strongly and negatively related to greetings regardless of whether the pairs are similar or not i n each characteristic Similarity i s not required for the less intense, brief, greetings between the neighbours. Furthermore, among those pairs of neighbours who are similar, the functional distance i s expected to be more strongly related to  78  casual rather than to planned, v i s i t s .  The casual v i s i t is an unar-  ranged v i s i t and arises from two similar adults inadvertently meeting each other and one adult inviting the other for a drink, or something to eat,  or just to 'chat'.  The planned v i s i t between similar neighbours  is organized before i t takes place and does not arise as spontaneously as a casual v i s i t .  The functional distance affects which of the similar  neighbours come together in the same space and thus have a chance to meet and to speak to each other for a short time or to extend invitations for a short v i s i t .  Although a planned v i s i t occurs primarily be-  tween similar neighbours whose functional distance allows them to come into frequent contact with each other i t is not as intimately involved with these inadvertent contacts as a causal v i s i t i s . Table XIII presents the Somers' d between each social charact e r i s t i c and the three types of contact. An example of the type of table which has been used to obtain d between functional distance and contact, for each characteristic, has been presented in Appendix F. For casual v i s i t s , the data confirm the predicted interaction for a l l seven of the social characteristics except employment. effect i s strongest for age of the youngest  The interaction  child, and education. A l -  though the difference in the magnitude of d between similar and not similar i n each characteristic i s not large, the data reveal a slight tendency for functional distance to have more of an effect on casual v i s i t s for pairs who are similar than for those who are not similar in: sex, age, age of youngest child, country of birth, education, and housewife.  79  Again, the relation between functional distance and casual v i s i t , in each instance, i s weak and negative. For planned v i s i t s , the functional distance has a greater effect for pairs who are similar rather than for those who are not similar i n education or employment.  However, these interactions are weak.  For country of birth, there i s a stronger negative relation between distance and planned v i s i t for dissimilar, rather than similar, pairs. This i s not as predicted but the difference (.03) i s again small. For planned v i s i t s , the magnitudes of d, whether positive or negative, are a l l very low. Functional distance and greetings, as expected,are negatively associated regardless of whether the pairs are similar or not similar in each social characteristic.  The relationships, however, are weak.  Small interaction effects are evident with stronger correlations; for similar pairs, i n age, education, employment, and housewife, and; for dissimilar pairs, in sex, age of youngest child, and country of birth. This pattern reveals that the relation between functional distance and greeting i s not significantly, or consistently, affected by similarity. Hypothesis (3a) i s supported, to a small extent, for casual v i s i t s but not for planned v i s i t s . For those neighbours who are similar on each characteristic the functional distance i s more strongly, and negatively, related to casual v i s i t s than to planned v i s i t s .  An exception i s the case of simi-  lar employment, where the magnitudes are equal for casual and planned visits.  Thus, although the associations are weak, functional distance,  TABLE XIII Contact Types and Functional Distance C o n t r o l l i n g S i m i l a r i t y for Each Characteristic (Somers' d)  Social Characteristic  Greeting Similar Not Similar  Type of Contact Casual V i s i t Similar Not Similar  Planned V i s i t Similar Not Similar  Sex  .06 (200)  -.08' (207)  -.06  -.05  .00  -.04  Age  -.11 (132)  .05 (275)  -.09  -.04  .00  -.03  Age of Youngest Child  -.06 (114)  .07 (293)  -.11  -.04  .02  -.04  Country of B i r t h  .03 (258)  .12 (149)  -.07  -.06  -.01  -.04  Education  .12 (159)  .03 (248)  -.10  -.03  -.06  .00  Employment  .08 (183)  .06 (224)  -.03  -.09  -.03  -.02  Housewife  ,10 ( 97)  .06 (310)  -.08  -.06  .01  -.03  81  as expected, has more influence on a casual rather than on a planned v i s i t between neighbours who  are similar for each characteristic indi-  vidually. Similarity in particular combinations of characteristics  has  been controlled in order to test hypothesis (3b) . Again, a strong negative association between functional distance and visiting is predicted when the neighbours are similar in a particular combination of characteristics and a weak association when they are not similar in that particular combination of characteristics.  A strong negative rela-  tionship between greetings and distance is expected for neighbours who are either similar or not similar in a particular combination of characteristics. • Functional distance is also expected to be more strongly related to casual than to planned v i s i t s for neighbours who in the particular combinations.  are similar  Tables comparable to that in Appendix  F have been used to obtain Somers' d.  These values have been presented  in Table X I V . The predicted interaction between functional distance and similarity appear to hold for casual v i s i t s in four of the five combinations of characteristics.  The exception is 'sex, employment'. There  are f a i r l y large differences between similar and not similar for 'housewife, age of youngest child' (.22), and  'sex, employment, age of young-  est child, country' (.29). The size of the interactions should be i n terpreted with caution since the number of pairs, who any of these combinations, is small. two pairs can have a disproportionately  are similar in  Under such circumstances one or large influence on the magnitude  82  of d.  A l l of the associations between functional distance and casual  v i s i t s were  found to be negative regardless of whether the respondent-  contiguous neighbour pairs were similar or not in these combinations of characteristics. For planned v i s i t s , the predicted interaction occurs only for the combination of 'education, age' and even here this interaction is weak. The majority of Somers' d values for planned v i s i t s , regardless of similarity, are negative in sign and low in magnitude. Also, for greetings, a weak negative association between greetings and functional distance predominates regardless of whether the pairs are similar or not similar in the particular combinations of characteristics.  There is a  f a i r l y strong interaction between 'education, age', and functional distance indicating that functional distance has a greater effect on greetings for pairs who are similar, rather than those who are not similar, in education and age.  The sample does not provide strong support  for hypothesis (3b) because the predicted strong interactions do not occur for both casual and planned v i s i t s . (3a),  However, as with hypothesis  the evidence for casual v i s i t s marginally supports  hypothesis  (3b). Among neighbours who are similar in the particular combinations of social characteristics, the functional distance is more strongly related to casual, than to planned v i s i t s in four of the five combinations.  The relationships again indicate that, for neighbours who are  similar in two or more specific characteristics, functional distance  TABLE XIV Contact Types and Functional Distance Controlling Similarity for Particular Combinations of Social Characteristics (Somers' d)  Combination of  Similar  Greeting Not Similar  Characteristics Sex, employment Housewife, age youngest child Sex, education, age Education, age Sex, employment, age youngest child, country  Type of Contact Casual Visit Similar Not Similar  Planned Visit Similar Not Similar  -.06 (282)  -.06  -.07  -.01  -.03  .03 ( 24)  .07 (383)  -.27  -.05  .18  -.03  .06 ( 26)  .07 (381)  -.13  -.06  -.01  -.02  .22 ( 52)  .04 (355)  -.07  -.06  -.07  .01  .09 ( 25)  -.08 (382)  ,34  -.05  .11  ,03  .09 (125)  84  affects their casual visits more than their planned v i s i t s . However, the magnitudes of d are not large. The number of similar characteristics between the pairs are controlled in order to examine hypothesis (3c).  If the pairs are simi-  lar in one or more characteristics a strong negative relation between functional distance and visiting is expected.  However, i f they are not  similar i n any characteristic a weak association should be found. Regardless of the number of similar characteristics, functional distance and greetings are expected to be negatively and strongly related since brief greetings do not necessarily require any similarity between the neighbours.  Functional distance should also be more strongly related to  casual visits than to planned visits for pairs of neighbours who are similar i n one or more of the six characteristics. hypothesis (3c) appears in Table XV.  The evidence for  The values of Somers' d indicate  that, when the pairs do not have any similar characteristics, the functional distance has a weak positive association with both casual and planned v i s i t s .  Both of these statistics may not be  reliable since,  of the eleven pairs, only two pairs and one pair, respectively, had had contact.  In the case of neighbours who are similar i n one or more of the  six characteristics, functional distance i s negatively, but weakly, related to both casual and planned v i s i t s .  Within the category of neigh-  bours who have at least one characteristic in common; the functional distance appears to be inversely related to visiting.  The association  between greeting and functional distance is weak, but negative, for a l l  85  of the neighbours in this sample except those who are similar in a l l six characteristics.  The sample does not strongly support the predictions  of hypothesis (3c).  Although distance and visiting are negatively re-  lated, the extent of this relation i s small for pairs having one or more similar characteristics. However, with the exception of neighbours who have two similar characteristics, the functional distance i n a l l of the above cases i s more strongly related to casual than to planned v i s i t s . In other words, the functional distance influences the casual v i s i t s between these neighbours more than i t affects their planned v i s i t s . TABLE XV Contact Types and Functional Distance • Controlling Number of Similar Social Characteristics (Somers' d) Number of Characteristics Similar  Greeting  Type of Contact Planned Casual Visit Visit  Number of Pairs  None  -.12  .18  .09  11  One  -.06  -.04  -.01  74  Two  -.06  -.03  -.05  102  Three  -.09  -.09  -.01  119  Four  -.02  -.07  -.02  74  Five  -.22  -.28  -.02  20  -.13  -.06  7  Six  Total number of pairs i s not 433 due to missing information for the dependent variables.  86  For hypotheses (3a), (3b), and (3c) a strong negative relationship between functional distance and visiting is predicted in the case of similar neighbours and a weak association between distance and v i s i t ing i s predicted i n the case of dissimilar neighbours.  Regardless of  similarity, the data generally show weak negative relations between functional distance and visiting as well as between functional distance and greeting.  However, for several individual characteristics and com-  binations of characteristics, there i s a slightly stronger relationship between functional distance and casual visits for similar neighbours rather than for dissimilar neighbours.  Also, from those pairs of neigh-  bours in which the women respondents knew a l l six characteristics, those pairs who are similar i n the characteristics were analyzed.  In these  groups, i t was found that the functional distance i s more strongly related to casual than to planned v i s i t s . SUMMARY  The data do not provide strong support for any of the three hypotheses.  For the total sample, the functional distance i s negatively,  but weakly, associated with greeting.  Thus, the direction, but not the  magnitude of the relationship i s as predicted by hypothesis (1).  Since  the women respondents were asked the social characteristics of their contiguous neighbours and they were not always able to provide that i n formation, hypotheses (2) and (3) are examined only for the 433 pairs for which the respondents knew a l l six of the characteristics of their  87  neighbours.  For these neighbours, similarity in each characteristic,  in particular combinations of the six characteristics, and in several characteristics i s positively, but weakly, related to visiting.  The  functional distance i s also weakly, but negatively, associated with both visiting and greeting regardless of whether the pairs of neighbours are similar or not similar in each, in specific combinations, or in a number of, the characteristics.  However, within these weak relationships  the functional distance i s more strongly related to casual v i s i t s among those who are similar rather than dissimilar in age, or age of youngest child, or education, or 'housewife, age of youngest child', or 'sex, education, age', or 'sex, employment, age of youngest child, country'. Also, for neighbours who are similar i n each characteristic, i n particular combinations of characteristics, and in several characteristics, the functional distance is more strongly related to casual v i s i t s than to planned v i s i t s . The statement of the problem with which the research has conconcerned i t s e l f has appeared in the f i r s t chapter. Equipped with the results obtained i n this chapter, one may now proceed to answer some of the questions which were raised.  88  CHAPTER 4 THE CONCLUSION  CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY Three questions were posed at the beginning of this research which serve as guidelines for the entire study.  Briefly, they are:  1.  Do neighbours interact with each other?  2.  Does functional distance and social similarity influence  different types of contact? 3.  Does functional distance affect visiting only for socially  similar neighbours? This section attempts to answer each of these problems based upon the findings of this research. The conclusions of previous investigators i n the f i e l d are not totally substantiated. The married women who are living in single family houses tend not to interact with their contiguous neighbours during the summer months. Most of the pairs of neighbours have neither a greeting nor a casual v i s i t nor a planned v i s i t .  Proximity is not a sufficient reason for the  high school educated, middle-aged, North American mothers to interact with their immediately adjacent neighbours.  The social characteristics  of the women and their neighbours indicates that they are relatively selfsufficient and thus probably do not need to rely on each other for everyday household aid. If two neighbours had an intense interaction with each other i t would probably be for social reasons and not for mutual  89  help.  Although previous researchers claim that the situation of the  women — married, single family houses, summer months — leads to greater contact with neighbours, this study has found that contact with neighbours does not seem to be desirable for women living throughout metropolitan Vancouver.  Instead, they tend to remain socially isolated  from those who are physically close.  Contact between contiguous neigh-  bours is not widely used as a mechanism to alleviate the impersonality of the urban setting.  However, other social networks are more active  for these women. The women of the sample had contact with more of their friends, relatives, and other neighbours in the period of a week than with their, contiguous neighbours.  They are not as isolated from these other social  networks as they are from their contiguous neighbours.  For example, as  part of the larger study mentioned, i t was found that, in the one week analyzed, they had some form of contact with only 24 percent of their contiguous neighbours but with 54 percent of their relatives, 50 percent of their friends, and 42 percent of their non-adjacent  neighbours.  Thus, these urban women were interacting with other people in the city but not with those adults residing in immediate proximity to them. Even though the absolute amount of contact between adults l i v ing i n contiguous dwelling units is not large, the spatial and social components of this network influence the contact between neighbours. This contact i s divided into greeting and visiting.  As the functional  distance between neighbours decreases, the proportion of neighbours who  90  greet or v i s i t each other increases.  The functional distance i s not  s p e c i f i c i n i t s effect on greetings.  In the test of hypotheses (1) and  (3),  functional distance displays a negative association with greeting  and v i s i t i n g i n 84 out of 95 c o r r e l a t i o n s . The p o s i t i o n i n g of c o n t i guous dwelling units a f f e c t s the r e l a t i v e proportion of contiguous neighbours who greet or v i s i t each other. order:  These are, i n descending  same side of the same s t r e e t , d i f f e r e n t sides of the same s t r e e t ,  d i f f e r e n t streets with a laneway, and d i f f e r e n t streets without way.  a lane-  In other words, the highest proportion of neighbours who greet  each other consists of those whose dwelling units are on the same side of the same s t r e e t .  The functional distance has a small but consistent  influence on contact between the women and t h e i r contiguous  neighbours.  Previous researchers have assumed that s o c i a l s i m i l a r i t y i s necessary  for a v i s i t between neighbours to occur.  This s i m i l a r i t y pro-  vides the compatibility required between the two adults. search, two contiguous  For this r e -  neighbours have been c l a s s i f i e d as 'similar' or  'not s i m i l a r ' based on t h e i r :  sex, age, l i f e - c y c l e stage, country of  b i r t h , education, and employment.  These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are u t i l i z e d  i n d i v i d u a l l y , i n p a r t i c u l a r combinations, and a l l together i n order to determine whether or not s o c i a l s i m i l a r i t y i s associated with v i s i t i n g . I t was found that i f two neighbours are s i m i l a r with respect to any of these c r i t e r i a , they tend to v i s i t each other i n higher proportions than i f they are not s i m i l a r .  This support of the conclusions of p r i o r i n -  vestigators may only be accepted with caution since a l l the associations  91  are consistently weak. No single characteristic has a significantly stronger relationship with visiting than do the other characteristics. Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950); Keller (1968); and Michelson (1970) have written that the functional distance probably affects the visiting between neighbours only i f the neighbours are similar.  The visiting between the married women of the sample and the  contiguous neighbours does not totally support this claim.  Regardless  of whether the neighbours are similar or not similar in each of the six characteristics individually, in particular combinations or a l l together, as the functional distance decreases, the proportion of neighbours who have a planned v i s i t increases.  However, the functional distance  has a slightly higher relationship with casual visits when the neighbours are similar rather than when they are not similar in certain characteri s t i c s or combinations of characteristics.  Although the amount of inter-  action i s small, these cases tend to support the claims of previous investigators.  Functional distance has also been found to be more highly  related to casual visits than planned v i s i t s for neighbours who are similar in each of the characteristics, and i n particular combinations of them.  Amongst those neighbours who are similar, regardless of the number  of characteristics which they are similar i n , the functional distance i s more highly related to casual visits than to planned v i s i t s . In summary, not many married women living in single family houses tend to interact with their contiguous neighbours during the summer.  They are not socially isolated, however, as they have contact  92  with their relatives, friends, and other neighbours.  The functional  distance between the dwelling units of two contiguous neighbours has a slight influence on their greetings, as well as v i s i t s .  If neighbours  are socially similar, they v i s i t each other in slightly higher proportions than i f they are not similar.  Finally, the question of whether functional  distance affects visiting only amongst socially similar neighbours is not completely answered in the affirmative because functional distance and planned visiting are similarly associated for both socially similar and dissimilar contiguous neighbours.  Functional distance, however,  tends to be more highly associated with casual visiting for socially similar rather than socially dissimilar contiguous neighbours. These conclusions are based upon the values of Somers' d for the relationships investigated.  Since the magnitude of these associa-  tions may have been unrealistically suppressed by the method of data collection, the values of gamma have also been obtained.  In general,  this less stringent measure leads to the same conclusions as have been reached by using Somers' d. The f i r s t and second hypotheses receive stronger support while the third hypothesis i s again qualified on the basis of the type of visiting.  The functional distance has a stronger,  but s t i l l negative, association with greetings, casual v i s i t s , and planned visits.  The sign of these relationships, as well as those for the third  hypothesis, help to confirm that as the functional distance decreases, the proportion of neighbours who have a contact increases.  whether  each of the six social characteristics i s examined individually, i n particular combinations, or together; similarity i s again associated with  93  whether the neighbours have a casual or planned v i s i t .  The magnitudes  of gamma are larger than those of d in each case and again indicate that similar, rather than not similar, contiguous neighbours v i s i t each other. When the relation between functional distance and visiting i s examined while controlling for similarity, the values of gamma are a l l larger than the values of d and do not reveal the predicted interaction for planned visits but do show a tendency for functional distance to be more strongly related to casual v i s i t s when the neighbours are similar.  Thus,  by employing gamma instead of Somers' d the conclusions of this study may be stated i n a stronger manner but the patterns of the relationships are the same. The effect of the functional distance i s not specific to greetings, and social similarity between neighbours i s related to their v i s i t ing.  The functional distance does not have a stronger influence on  planned visiting for those contiguous neighbours who are similar rather than not similar but does have a stronger influence on casual visiting between neighbours who are similar rather than not similar. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Neighbours have been limited to people living in contiguous dwelling units for this detailed study.  This small geographical area may  have been too limited to adequately represent a l l the forms of functional distance.  By extending the definition of neighbours to include other  people residing in non-adjacent proximity, functional distance would have more variation and a more thorough examination of i t s effect could be undertaken.  94  By utilizing data which were collected for slightly different purposes in the analysis for this thesis, two further limitations are present.  These are related to the interview and are as follows: 1.  The women respondents were requested to provide the social  characteristics of their contiguous neighbours.  As has been stated, they  did not know a l l of the characteristics of each neighbour and thus the number of pairs used in the test of hypotheses (2) and (3) was reduced to less than a quarter of the total pairs.  If both the respondent and  her contiguous neighbours had been interviewed, this problem would not have arisen.  This latter method would have also served as a check on  the r e l i a b i l i t y of the behavioural data supplied by the respondent and would have helped to assure the accuracy of the characteristics of the neighbour. 2.  The contact between neighbours, which was used as the  dependent variable throughout the thesis, i s restricted to a period of one week. This may have contributed to the skewed distributions for greeting and visiting. unduly suppressed.  With these data, the values of Somers' d may be  Although gamma i s a symmetrical measure of associa-  tion, i t was also used in the analysis to counteract this possible unrealistic skewness.  To avoid this situation, the data on contact be-  tween neighbours could be collected for a longer period of time such as one month. Although the skewness may s t i l l be present in the data, this would probably be more representative of the total pattern of the contact between neighbours.  95  In this research, social similarity was operationalized in several ways. However, due to pressures of time, only five combinations of characteristics were utilized.  Some characteristic  or some parti-  cular combination of them may be the c r i t i c a l one in determining whether frequent contacts occur or not.  Although none of the particular combin-  ations which have been investigated has proved to be extremely s i g n i f i cant, more combinations could be investigated i n an attempt to evaluate whether such c r i t i c a l combinations exist.  An extension of the manner in  which social similarity was determined could also be implemented for further research. One could examine the similarity of neighbours with regard to the specific value of the characteristic and not just the characteristic i t s e l f , as has been done in the present study.  For ex-  ample, this modification could result in the discovery that two given neighbours were not only similar in education but had also both reached a university level of education. In the present study this pair would be indistinguishable from a pair who had both reached only a high school level of education. The deeper analysis proposed would allow such a distinction to be made and may result i n a more incisive understanding of the situation.  These exploratory suggestions may lead to a particular  set of characteristics which, when similar, are strongly related to contact. Finally, the unit of analysis for this research has been the pair — the  the respondent and each of her contiguous neighbours.  Although  characteristics of the people who are concerned undoubtedly enters  96  into the question of whether they do or do not interact, i t may be the case that the characteristics of their families also enters into this question.  It would perhaps be more appropriate in the future, to com-  pare the characteristics of the families to determine i f they are similar or not, and to examine the effect of this similarity on their interaction.  Though conceptually attractive, the operationalization  a method of analysis would pose formidable problems.  of such  For example, the  problems associated with arriving at some conclusion for a particular social characteristic such as age, or country of birth for a family unit are obvious.  If an attempt was made to surmount these problems, the  additional insight gained may amply justify such efforts.  97  REFERENCES Festinger, Leon, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt Back 1950 Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. New York: Harper and Brothers. Keller, Suzanne 1968 The Urban Neighborhood: Random House.  A Sociological Perspective.  New York:  Michelson, William 1970 Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociological Approach. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley.  98  APPENDIX A THE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE Table A.l The Sampling Areas Area  Percent  Table A.2 The Age of the Women Percent  Age  6%  Under 30 years  One  14%  Two  0  30-39 years  26  Three  12  40-49 years  35  Four  12  50-59 years  28  Five  7  Six  24  Seven  22  Eight  9  Total  Percent  None  18%  One  18  Two  33  Three or more  31  Total  5 100 (N=217)  Total  100 (N=217)  Table A.3 The Number of Children Number at home  60 or more years  100 (N=217)  Table A.4 The Stage in L i f e Cycle 3  Stage No child-adult 40 years or under Youngest child under 6 years Youngest child 6-12 years Youngest child 1319 years Youngest child 2026 years No child-adult over 40 years Total a.  Percent 2% 19 32 23 7 17 100 (N=217)  Based upon the age of the youngest child of the respondent .  99  Table A.5 The Country of Birth of the Women Area of Birth  Last Type Fulltime School  Percent  7 2 2 100 (N=217)  Total  Percent 6% 53  Elementary High School Technical/Vocational University No information  75% 14  North America British Isles W. Europe & Scandinavia E. Europe Other  Table A. 6 The Education of the Women  20 20 1 100 (N-217)  Total  Table A.7 The Employment of the Women Employment  Percent  Employed (part- or full-time) Not employed  29% 71  Total  100 (N=217)  Table A.8 The Occupation of the Women and Their Husbands 3  Occupation Higher executives, major prof. Business managers, lesser prof. Admin, personnel, owner small business Clerical, sales, technical Skilled manual work Semi and unskilled manual work Housewife Retired i Total  Percent in Each Occupation Women Husbands 0% 6 4 16 1 2 71 0 100  15% 26 26 8 15 9 0 1 100 (N= 217)  Based upon Hollingshead's index of social position. Hollingshead, A.B. 1957, Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven: Yale Station.  100  Table A.9 The Length of residence of the Women  Table A. 10 The Women's Intention to Move  Length of Residence  Percent  Plan to Move  1-5 years 6-10 years 11 years or more  32% 29 39  Yes No (Maybe) No information  Total  100 (N= 217)  Total  Percent 25% 72 3 100 (N=217)  101  APPENDIX B EXAMPLES OF CONTIGUOUS DWELLING UNITS  102  APPENDIX C THE INTERVIEW  Questions to Obtain Characteristics of Every Contiguous Neighbour for Each Respondent. (Give the respondent the map) Can you t e l l me who lives in the f i r s t residence I have numbered? ond, etc.)  (Sec-  How long have they lived there? How old are they? What are the ages of their children living at home? Where are they from? Dwelling 1 no.  Name  How long have they lived there  Age  Ages of children at home  Where are they from  1. This number corresponds to the number of the contiguous dwelling unit on the map for each respondent.  103  Questions to Obtain Characteristics of Every Contiguous Neighbour for Each Respondent. What education have they had? What i s their job? Have you visited or talked with them in the last 7 days? ( i f necessary specify, that i s , since a week ago today)  Highest level Education  Occupation  Contact last 7 days No Yes  104  Check List to Obtain Spatial Relation Between Each Contiguous Dwelling Unit and the Unit of the Respondent. Check off the combination of barriers separating each contiguous dwelling unit.-'-  Yard or - Lawn  No.  2  Physical or symbolic barriers, low shrubs, flower garden  Sight impeding fence, wall, or hedge  Path, lane or unpaved street  Paved street  Busy paved street or railway  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.  Following the interview, the maps were consulted to determine i f the backyards of the respondent's and contiguous neighbour's dwelling units were adjacent.  2.  This number corresponds to the number of the contiguous dwelling unit on the map for each respondent.  i  105  APPENDIX D THE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONTIGUOUS NEIGHBOURS  Table D.l The Sampling Areas Area One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Total  Percent 13% 0 12 12 8 24 22 9 100 (N=2511)  Table D.3 The Number of Children Number at home  Percent  23% None 16 One 24 Two 18 Three or more Respondent does not 16 know 3 No information Total  100 (N=2511)  Table D.2 The Age of the Contiguous Neighbours Percent  Age Under 30 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60 or more years Respondent does not know No information Total  4% 14 23 17 10 26 6 100 (N=2511).  Table D.4 The Stage in Life Cycle Stage No child-adult 40 years or under Youngest child under 6 years Youngest child 6-12 years Youngest child 1319 years Youngest child 2026 years No child-adult over 40 years Respondent does not know No information Total a.  a  Percent 2% 14 20 17 6 21 16 4 100 (N-2511)  Based upon the age of the youngest child of the contiguous neighbour.  106  Table D.5 The Country of Birth of the Contiguous Neighbours  Table D.6 The Education of the Contiguous Neighbours  Where From  Highest level of Education  Percent  35% North America 8 British Isles W. Euroge and Scan5 dinavia 1 E. Europe 1 Other Respondent does not 43 know 7 No information Total  Percent 1% 10 2 11  Elementary High School Technical/Vocational University Respondent does not know No information  69 7 100 (N=2511)  Total  100 (N=2511)  Table D.7 The Employment of the Contiguous Neighbours Employment Employed Not Employed Respondent does not know No information Total  Percent 36% 29 28 7 100 (N=2511)  107  Table D.8 The Occupation  of the Contiguous Neighbours Percent in Each Occupation  Occupation  Male  Female  13% 10 18  1% 5 2 8 0 3 48  Higher executive, major prof. Business manager, lesser prof. Admin, personnel, owner small business Clerical, Sales, technical Skilled manual work Semi and unskilled manual work Housewife Retired, student, unemployed Respondent does not know No information Total  6  12 5 0 10 24 2  Total 6%  7 8 6  5 4 22 7 28 7  6  19 8  100 100 100 (N=1071) (N=1131) (N=2511) b  Based upon Hollingshead's index of social position. Hollingshead, A.B., 1957, Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven: Yale Station. b.  Male and female number of neighbours does not equal total number due to no information on sex of 309 contiguous neighbours.  Table D.9 The Length of Residence of the Contiguous Neighbours Length of Residence 1-5 years 6-10 years 11 years or more Respondent does not know No information Total  Percent 30% 19 25 22 4 100 (N=2511)  Table D.10 The Sex of the Contiguous Neighbours  Sex Male Female No information Total  Percent 43% 45 12 100 (N=2511)  108  APPENDIX E BIVARIATE TABLE OF CASUAL VISITING AND SIMILARITY OF SEX STATUS  Table E . l  Casual V i s i t and Similar-Not Similar Sex Sex  Casual V i s i t Yes No  Similar  Total'  162  121  238  48  79  127  200  410  210  Total a.  Not Similar  Total number of pairs i s not 433 due to missing information for casual v i s i t .  i  109  APPENDIX F TABLE OF CASUAL VISITING AND FUNCTIONAL DISTANCE CONTROLLING SIMILARITY OF SEX STATUS  rH  cfl  X  0) CO  4J  o  H  rH  O  u  cfl rH •H  e  d  CU  CO  o  4-1  d > CO cfl  <r  o CN  < f CN  00  <r  m  CO  00  CN CN  ON  m  00  cn  rH  O  CD <u 0)  i-i  4-1  cfl  u  4H  r)  OH  4J  1  •H CO  CU  cfl P  d > CO CO rJ S  rH  •H •rl CO  60  C  •H  CN  1 4-1  •H  o I u  O  6 •H  rH  CN  CO 4-1  o  m  4-1  0) O)  cu  TJ •H *H  14H  u  P  co  rH  vO  l-»  4-1  O rl 4-1  CO  cu  0J CU  CJ  CO  cfl -H CO CO  d o  a cfl  e t>  rH  cu CJ  rH  CO  4-1  O  CQ  H  •H P  d o  d  cu 0) a)  4H 14H  •rt I-I  Sim ila  CQ  4-1  u  d  4-1  p  u  4-1  CO  CD  cu Cfl  H  CN  cfl  S  m  cn  <r  cn  -3-  CO CN  ON CN  m  CO 00  vr> CO  vi-  o oo  rH  1  cu  d >• cO cfl  4-1  H  rH  0) 1 3  •H -H P CO  4J  rH  d cfl  i-l  U-l  4-1  r<  F*4  o  rJ  cu CQ CO CJ  o  cu  4-1  CJ  •rl  rH  1  cfl  s  CN  CO  cu cu  a) g  0  cd CO  CO -iH CO CO  r—  CO w  CQ  cO u  rH  4-1  •rl  CQ  •H  >  CO  a) >>  cfl  4-1  o  Ho  110  APPENDIX G TABLES WITH GAMMA VALUES FOR ALL RELATIONSHIPS IN STUDY Table G.l  Contact Types and Functional Distance  Type of Contact  Gamma  Greeting Casual Visit Planned V i s i t Number of Pairs  -.42 -.40 -.33 2119  a.  Total number of pairs i s not 2511 due to missing information for both variables.  Table G.2 Contact Types and Respondent's Knowledge of Characteristics of Contiguous Neighbour (Gamma) Characteristic Number of L i f e - Country Characteristics Stage of Cycle Birth Education Employment Known 3  Type of Contact Greeting Casual V i s i t Planned Visit  Age .32 .79 .65 2164  0  .93 .88 1.00 2204  .43 .78 .85  .33 .54 .28  .66 .91 .84  2119  2136  2130  Each characteristic has 2 categories:  .36 .60 .55 2240  Don't Know, Know.  If the respondent knows the employment status, she also knows whether a neighbour is a housewife or not. Total number of pairs is not 2511 due to missing information for both variables.  Table G.3 Visiting and Similarity for Each Social Characteristic (Gamma) Social Characteristic  Type of Visit Casual Planned  Sex Age Age of youngest child Country of Birth Education Employment Housewife  .38 .22 .02 .17 .19 .17 .26  .30 .11 .22 -.17 .34 .14 .47  Number of Pairs  410  410  a.  Total number of pairs i s not 433 due to missing cases for dependent variables.  Table G.4 Visiting and Similarity for Particular Combinations of Social Characteristics (Gamma) Combination of Characteristics  Type of Visit Casual Planned  Sex, employment Housewife, age youngest child Sex, education, age Education, age Sex, employment, age youngest child, country  .19  .31  .24 .47 .23  .52 .48 .35  .21  .50  Number of Pairs  410  410  a.  Total number of pairs i s not 433 due to missing cases for dependent variable.  Table G.5  Visiting and Number of Similar Social Characteristics  Type of Visit  Gamma  Casual Planned  .30 .29  Number of Pairs  410  a.  Total number of pairs is not 433 due to missing cases for dependent variable.  Table G.6  Contact Types and Functional Distance Controlling S i m i l a r i t y f o r Each t e r i s t i c (Gamma)  l Characteristic S  o  c  i  a  Greeting Similar Not Similar  Type of Contact Casual V i s i t Similar Not Similar  Planned V i s i t Similar Not Similar  Sex  .33 (200)  -.36 (207)  -.13  -.14  -.02  -.41  Age  .46 (132)  -.26 (275)  -.20  -.11  -.01  -.29  -.27 (114)  -.37 (293)  -.26  -.09  .09  -.35  .16 (258)  -.63 (149)  -.15  -.15  -.06  -.31  -.55 (159)  -.17 (248)  -.22  -.08  -.39  .05  Employment  ..44 (183)  -.26 (224)  -.07  -.22  -.21  -.17  Housewife  -.43 ( 97)  -.31 (310)  -.16  -.14  .03  -.34  Age of youngest c h i l d  Country of b i r t h Education  Table G.7  Contact Types and Functional Distance.Controlling Combinations of Social Characteristics (Gamma)  Combination of  Greeting - - " » Q Similar Not Similar T  V  *-  Characteristics S ex,employmen t Housewife, age youngest c h i l d  Sex, education, age  Education, age  Sex, employment, age youngest c h i l d , country  Similarity for Particular  Type of Contact Casual V. i s i t Similar Not Similar  Planned Visit — Similar Not Similar  -.29 (282)  .12  .16  -.03  -.31  -.37 .16 (383) ( 24)  -.53  -.11  .58  -.31  -.35 ,28 (381) ( 26)  -.26  -.13  -.05  -.21  -.24 .76 (355) ( 52)  -.14  -.14  -.33  -.13  1.00 -.37 ( 25) (382)  -.65  •.11  .42  -.29  .46 (125)  115  Table G.8  Contact Types and Functional Distance Controlling Number of Similar Social Characteristics (Gamma)  Number of Characteristics Similar  Greeting  Type of Contact Casual Visit  Planned Visit  Number of Pairs 3  None  -.40  .60  .60  11  One  -.33  -.14  -.13  74  Two  -.29  -.07  -1.00  102  Three  -.40  -.20  -.09  119  Four  -.09  -.13  -.12  74  Five  -1.00  -.52  -.09  20  Six  -.25  -.20  7  .  Number of pairs i s not 433 due to missing information for the dependent variables.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099991/manifest

Comment

Related Items