"Applied Science, Faculty of"@en . "Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Pape, Siegfried Willy"@en . "2012-01-06T06:21:36Z"@en . "1959"@en . "Master of Arts in Planning - MA (Plan)"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "The problem of creating stable and healthy urban communities and efficient land use planning is related to the problem of reducing residential mobility. Residential mobility has been defined as \"the mechanism by which a family's housing is brought into adjustment to its housing needs\". However, it must also be seen as a method of coping with a variety of social, physical and economic problems which, furthermore, create additional problems.\r\nResidential mobility is a reflection of the instability prevailing in our urban society and, at the same time, a contribution to it. There is some evidence that residential mobility promotes mental ill-health, undesirable social conditions, and appears to be the cause of certain urban planning problems.\r\nThe purpose of this Thesis is to analyse some of the motivational factors in residential mobility and to investigate the possibility of reducing mobility and instability by providing housing which may satisfy a family's changing housing needs and by creating neighborhoods which assist in the formation of integrated communities.\r\nThe contention of this Thesis is that apart from a family's desire to adjust housing to its functional needs, it also has to adjust residence to changing status and prestige needs. It is assumed for certain groups in society that their vertical occupational mobility is the cause of their social mobility, and that members of these groups periodically adjust their residences primarily in order to satisfy their status and prestige needs. These persons become dissatisfied because of their changing socio-economic status, and although their need for segregation may be anticipated, the features which serve to satisfy their changing needs cannot be incorporated in one dwelling and one neighborhood; therefore, these persons have to move periodically.\r\nThe investigation of the relationship between changing status needs and residential adjustment was confined to thirty-nine Middle Management persons employed by a local utility corporation. Attitudes, descriptions, reasons and factual data were obtained by means of an interview schedule. Attitudes and factual data were correlated in order to establish the individual's perception of the relationship between occupational, social and residential mobility. On the basis of ratings provided by the respondents, a \"Status Hierarchy of Residential Areas\" was developed which served to measure each respondent's \"status increase\". Subsequently, each person's reasons for moving from a residence and selecting a new residence were analysed, with special focus on the individual's concern with status and prestige. Finally, the results of each separate investigation were correlated and the number of persons were identified who moved for reasons of status and prestige.\r\nThe results of the investigation indicate that a majority of the Middle Management group moved into their present or previous residences in order to adjust residences to their status and prestige needs. Furthermore, a greater number of persons were concerned with the qualities of the residential district rather than the house, as a symbol of their social status. \r\nIn the final analysis, the author concludes residential mobility which is generated by social mobility of certain occupational groups cannot be reduced unless the value structure of this society is altered."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/39913?expand=metadata"@en . "STATUS AND PRESTIGE: MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS IN RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY by SIEGFRIED WILLY PAPE REPORT ON A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN LIEU OF A THESIS IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We ac c e p t t h i s r e p o r t as conforming to the standard r e q u i r e d from candidates f o r the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Members of the Department of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1959 ABSTRACT The problem of c r e a t i n g s t a b l e and h e a l t h y urban communities and e f f i c i e n t l a n d use p l a n n i n g i s r e l a t e d t o the problem of re d u c i n g r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . R e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y has been d e f i n e d as \"the mechanism by which a f a m i l y ' s housing i s brought i n t o adjustment to i t s housing needs\". However, i t must a l s o be seen as a method of coping w i t h a v a r i e t y of s o c i a l , p h y s i c a l and economic problems which, furthermore, c r e a t e a d d i t i o n a l problems. R e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i s a r e f l e c t i o n o f the i n s t a b i l i t y p r e v a i l i n g i n our urban s o c i e t y and, a t the same time, a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o i t . There i s some evidence t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y promotes mental i l l - h e a l t h , u n d e s i r a b l e s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s , and appears to be the cause of c e r t a i n urban p l a n n i n g problems. The purpose of t h i s T h e s i s i s to ana l y s e some of the m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s i n r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and to i n v e s t i g a t e the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e d u c i n g m o b i l i t y and i n s t a b i l i t y by p r o v i d i n g housing which may s a t i s f y a f a m i l y ' s changing housing needs and by c r e a t i n g neighborhoods which a s s i s t i n the f o r m a t i o n of i n t e g r a t e d communities. The c o n t e n t i o n o f t h i s T h e s i s i s t h a t a p a r t from a f a m i l y ' s d e s i r e to a d j u s t housing to i t s f u n c t i o n a l needs, i t a l s o has to a d j u s t r e s i d e n c e to changing s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. I t i s assumed f o r c e r t a i n groups i n s o c i e t y t h a t t h e i r v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y i s the cause of t h e i r s o c i a l m o b i l i t y , and t h a t members of these groups p e r i o d i c a l l y a d j u s t t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s p r i m a r i l y i n order to s a t i s f y t h e i r s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. These persons become d i s s a t i s f i e d because of t h e i r changing socio-economic s t a t u s , and a l t h o u g h t h e i r need f o r s e g r e g a t i o n may be a n t i c i p a t e d , the f e a t u r e s which serve to s a t i s f y t h e i r changing needs cannot be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n one d w e l l i n g and one neighborhood; t h e r e f o r e , these persons have to move p e r i o d i c a l l y . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between changing s t a t u s needs and r e s i d e n t i a l adjustment was c o n f i n e d to t h i r t y -n i n e Middle Management persons employed by a l o c a l u t i l i t y c o r p o r a t i o n . A t t i t u d e s , d e s c r i p t i o n s , reasons and f a c t u a l data were obtained by means of an i n t e r v i e w schedule. A t t i t u d e s and f a c t u a l data were c o r r e l a t e d i n order to e s t a b l i s h the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l , s o c i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . On the b a s i s of r a t i n g s p r o v i d e d by the respondents, a \"Status H i e r a r c h y of R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\" was developed which served to measure each respondent's \" s t a t u s i n c r e a s e \" . Subsequently, each person's reasons f o r moving from a r e s i d e n c e and s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e were analysed, w i t h s p e c i a l f o cus on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s concern w i t h s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s of each separate i n v e s t i g a t i o n were c o r r e l a t e d and the number of persons were i d e n t i f i e d who moved f o r reasons of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . The r e s u l t s of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e t h a t a m a j o r i t y of the Middle Management group moved i n t o t h e i r p r e s e n t or i i i p r e v i o u s r e s i d e n c e s i n order to a d j u s t r e s i d e n c e s to t h e i r s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. Furthermore, a g r e a t e r number of persons were concerned w i t h the q u a l i t i e s of the r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t r a t h e r than the house, as a symbol o f t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s . r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y which i s generated by s o c i a l m o b i l i t y of c e r t a i n o c c u p a t i o n a l groups cannot be reduced unless the va l u e s t r u c t u r e of t h i s s o c i e t y i s a l t e r e d . I n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , the author concludes t h a t 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 o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 permission f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n 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 s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Community and Regional Planning. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver \u00C2\u00A3, Canada. Date May 15th, 1959. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A b s t r a c t i i P r e f a c e x i PART I BACKGROUND FOR THIS STUDY Chapter I The Problem of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y . . . . 1 The Magnitude of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y 1 The E f f e c t s of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y 3 The Planned Neighborhood U n i t 6 Compelling Reasons f o r R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y 12 I I S t a t u s and P r e s t i g e i n R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y . 1 7 The Hypothesis 1 7 The Meaning of St a t u s Symbols 1 9 Houses and R e s i d e n t i a l Areas as Status Symbols 23 D i s c u s s i o n of S t u d i e s r e l a t e d to t h i s I n v e s t i g a t i o n 26 PART I I DESIGN OF THE INVESTIGATION I S e l e c t i o n of the Group 38 I I Design and Method of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n . . . 43 The O r i g i n a l D e s ign of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n 43 The Adopted Design of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n 46 PART III METHODS OF ANALYSIS I Methods of Analysing Attitudes 51 Occupational Status and Social Status 51 Social Status and Residence as Status Symbol 53 II Methods for Analysing Factual Information . . 57 Moving to a Larger and More Elaborate Dwelling 57 Moving to a larger dwelling 57 Moving to a more elaborate dwelling 60 Moving to a Better Residential Area 62 Methods based on the \"Status Hierarchy\" 63 The \"better residential areas\" 68 Efforts of improving residential status 69 Occupational and residential mobility 70 Methods based on reasons for moving and selecting 72 Reasons for moving 73 Reasons for selecting 74 PART IV RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION I General Characteristics of the Group . . . 79 II Relationship between Occupational and Social Mobility 86 III Relationship between Social Status and Residence as Status Symbol 95 IV Moving to a Larger and More Elaborate Dwelling 102 V Moving to a Better Residential Area . . . . 114 Analysis based on the \"Status Hierarchy\" 114 Moving to a \"better residential area\" 115 Efforts of improving residential status 121 O c c u p a t i o n a l and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y 133 G e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s 133 Promotion to s u p e r v i s o r and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y 136 Rate of promotion and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y 144 A n a l y s i s based on reasons f o r moving and s e l e c t i n g 148 Reasons f o r moving from a r e s i d e n c e 148 Reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e 159 PART V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I The P r o p o r t i o n of Persons i n Middle Management Concerned w i t h S t a t u s and P r e s t i g e of Residence 176 I I The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man and Conformity to Standards of Residence 183 The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man i n Middle Management 183 Conformity to Group Standards 187 I I I The I m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s Study f o r Community Pl a n n i n g 194 Appendix I The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 207 I I Methods f o r Determining a S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y of R e s i d e n t i a l Areas 208 I I I S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y of R e s i d e n t i a l Areas i n the Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n Area 209 IV Moves to P r e s e n t Residence i n Four D i f f e r e n t Groups of Status Areas 210 B i b l i o g r a p h y 211 v i i CONTENTS OF TABLES Tabl e Page I Summary of Types of Moves 32 I I Middle Management Group by Number of Persons a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each D i v i s i o n and by Annual S a l a r y 42 I I I Means and D e v i a t i o n s f o r B a s i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Middle Management Group 81 IV Respondents 1 P e r c e p t i o n of the R e l a t i o n s h i p between Incre a s e i n O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s and Increase i n S o c i a l S t a t u s 86 V Respondents 1 P e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r Change i n S o c i a l Status 92 VI Respondents' A c t u a l R e c o g n i t i o n and E x p e r i e n c e of Change i n S o c i a l S t a t u s 93 V I I Respondents 1 P e r c e p t i o n of the A t t i t u d e s of c e r t a i n Groups r e g a r d i n g the Use of Residence as a Status Symbol 95 V I I I Assessment of A t t i t u d e s and Behavior r e g a r d i n g the R e l a t i o n s h i p between S o c i a l S tatus P o s i t i o n and House 98 IX Assessment of A t t i t u d e s and Behavior r e g a r d i n g the R e l a t i o n s h i p between S o c i a l S t a t u s P o s i t i o n and S e l e c t i o n of the R e s i d e n t i a l Area 100 X T o t a l Number of Moves a f t e r the f i r s t Residence upon being married to a Larger, Same-sized, or Smaller D w e l l i n g 103 XI S i z e of p r e s e n t D w e l l i n g as compared to s i z e of f i r s t D w e l l i n g 103 X I I Change from Apartment/Suite Accommodation to Duplex/House Accommodation 105 X I I I Number of Moves from the f i r s t S i n g l e - d e t a c h e d House r e n t e d or owned to the House owned a t p r e s e n t i n terms of Moves to L a r g e r , Same-sized, or Smaller D w e l l i n g s 106 XIV S i z e of f i r s t r e n t e d or owned S i n g l e - d e t a c h e d D w e l l i n g as compared to s i z e of p r e s e n t S i n g l e -detached D w e l l i n g 107 XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Summary of Reasons f o r Moving f o r a l l Moves to Larger Dwellings Summary of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y A c c o r d i n g to Status Values Summary of R e s i d e n t i a l S t a t u s Improvements by Groups of Middle Management Persons R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Length of Employment to R e s i d e n t i a l S t a t u s Increase 111 116 122 146 XXVIII R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Length o f Employment be f o r e becoming S u p e r v i s o r to R e s i d e n t i a l S tatus I n c r e a s e 146 R e l a t i o n s h i p of S i z e of Annual S a l a r y to R e s i d e n t i a l S tatus I n c r e a s e 149 Summary of Reasons f o r Moving 154 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r Moving a c c o r d i n g to Stages i n R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y 155 Combinations of C a t e g o r i e s of Reasons f o r Moving 157 Summary of Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g Dwellings and R e s i d e n t i a l Neighborhoods 160 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g D w e l l i n g s and R e s i d e n t i a l Neighborhoods a c c o r d i n g to Stages i n R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y 166 Combinations of C a t e g o r i e s of Reasons f o r S e l e c t i o n of D w e l l i n g s and R e s i d e n t i a l Neighborhoods 169 Reasons f o r S e l e c t i o n of Dwellings i n R e s i d e n t i a l Areas which i n d i c a t e the Respondents 1 Concern w i t h the App r o p r i a t e n e s s of the Neighborhood to s a t i s f y t h e i r S t a t u s and P r e s t i g e Needs 172 Reasonf r o r S e l e c t i o n of Dwellings i n R e s i d e n t i a l Areas which I n d i c a t e Concern w i t h the Approp-r i a t e n e s s of the House and the Neighborhood to s a t i s f y the Respondents* S t a t u s and P r e s t i g e Needs 175 XXIX R e l a t i v e Number of Persons Concerned w i t h the App r o p r i a t e n e s s of the House and R e s i d e n t i a l Neighborhood 180 LIST OF MAPS Appendix I I 1 STATUS OF AREAS on the b a s i s of I n s p e c t i o n of Housing C o n d i t i o n ; Sources G r i f f i t h T a y l o r , Urban Geography. London: Methuen and Company L t d . , 1949 2 STATUS OF AREAS on the b a s i s of Foot Frontage Assessment Values 1957-1958; Source: Assessment Department, C i t y of Vancouver. 3 STATUS OF AREAS on the b a s i s of Demographic and Housing C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; Source: Canada Census 1951. Appendix I I I 4 STATUS HIERARCHY of R e s i d e n t i a l Areas based upon Opinion Survey. Appendix IV 5 MOVES TO PRESENT RESIDENCE IN STATUS AREAS 1 - 17. 6 MOVES TO PRESENT RESIDENCE IN STATUS AREAS 18 - 27. 7 MOVES TO PRESENT RESIDENCE IN STATUS AREAS 18 - 27. 8 MOVES TO PRESENT RESIDENCE IN STATUS AREAS 28 - 44. 9 MOVES TO PRESENT RESIDENCE IN STATUS AREAS 45 - 74. X PREFACE The purpose of t h i s study i s to i n v e s t i g a t e the extent to which the d e s i r e f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs motivates people t o a d j u s t t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s p e r i o d i c a l l y i n accordance w i t h i n c r e a s e s i n t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n . P a r t One of t h i s study c o n s i s t s of a d i s c u s s i o n of the problems crea t e d by r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i n promoting \" s t a b l e and h e a l t h y urban communities\". The value of the \"planned neighborhood\" as a means to produce s t a b i l i t y are b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d , and the reasons f o r m o b i l i t y a re summarized from the f i n d i n g s of s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s . The f u n c t i o n of r e s i d -ences as s t a t u s symbols and as c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f a system of s o c i a l values are d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l , and the q u e s t i o n i s posed whether r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y f o r reasons of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e can be reduced a t a l l . T h i s P a r t concludes w i t h the d i s c u s s i o n of three s t u d i e s which i n f l u e n c e d the approach and methods used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . These a r e a study made by Pet e r H. R o s s i , Why F a m i l i e s Move, which assesses i n minute d e t a i l reasons f o r r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y ; a study by V. H. Whitney and Ch. M. G r i g g , M o b i l i t y among Students' F a m i l i e s , which i s p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned w i t h r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y f o r reasons of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e , and W. H. Whyte J r . , The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, which \" i s the f i r s t complete study o f a way of l i f e t h a t many Americans are now l e a d i n g , and that many more are l i k e l y to l e a d \" . The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man i s con s i d e r e d of importance f o r t h i s study because i t analyses the behavior of a group of persons among whom t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c a r r i e d out. P a r t Two d e s c r i b e s the d e s i g n o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Some of the b a s i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a re d i s c u s s e d which l e d to the s e l e c t i o n of a group of t h i r t y - n i n e persons from among the Middle Management ranks of the B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Company, L t d . , a p r i v a t e u t i l i t y company l o c a t e d i n Vancouver, B. C. The d e s i g n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and i t s use are d e s c r i b e d , w h i l e a t the same time the g e n e r a l o u t l i n e of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n and the methods of a n a l y s i s a re i n d i c a t e d . P a r t Three d e s c r i b e s i n d e t a i l the methods used i n a n a l y s i n g a t t i t u d e and o p i n i o n answers and f a c t u a l data r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l , s o c i a l , and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . A p a r t from the d e s c r i p t i o n of s t a t i s t i c a l methods used to c o r r e l a t e v a r i o u s i n f o r m a t i o n about these r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the development and use of the \"Status H i e r a r c h y of R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\" are d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l . I n order to eva l u a t e and i n t e r -p r e t the reasons g i v e n by the respondents f o r moving from a r e s i d e n c e and f o r s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e , c e r t a i n assumptions are made and e x p l a i n e d which serve the a n a l y s i s of the apparent motives f o r r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . P a r t Four of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n s i s t s of the a c t u a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the methods t o the a v a i l a b l e d ata. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l m o b i l i t y , and between s o c i a l s t a t u s and the importance of r e s i d e n c e as s t a t u s symbol i s analysed on the b a s i s o f a t t i t u d e s r e v e a l e d by the respondents. Subsequently, s e v e r a l aspects of o c c u p a t i o n a l , s o c i a l , and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y are i n v e s t i g a t e d , and the moves to l a r g e r and more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g s , and to b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas are analysed i n order to e s t a b l i s h the number of moves which were made f o r reasons of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . The a c t u a l p r o p o r t i o n of members of the Middle Management group concerned w i t h s a t i s f y i n g t h e i r s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs are e s t a b l i s h e d s e p a r a t e l y on the b a s i s of a n a l y s i s of a t t i t u d e s , f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n , reasons f o r moving and s e l e c t i n g , and by e v a l u a t i n g each person's r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i n terms of the \"Sta t u s H i e r a r c h y \" . P a r t F i v e p r e s e n t s the c o n c l u s i o n s of the study. Chapter I c o n s i s t s e n t i r e l y of a c o r r e l a t i o n s of r e s u l t s of the independent a n a l y s e s . On the b a s i s of s i x c r i t e r i a the number of persons of the Middle Management group who have moved f o r reasons of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e i s i d e n t i f i e d . Chapter I I d i s -cusses the s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The behavior of Middle Management persons r e g a r d i n g concern w i t h s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e , and conformity to group standards i s i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the l i g h t of W. H. Whyte's study of The Organ- i z a t i o n Man. C e r t a i n c o n c l u s i o n s are made about the values he l d by t h i s group and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l i n f l u e n c e upon the f u t u r e development of r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . I n Chapter I I I the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s study f o r Community Planning a r e d i s c u s s e d . The questions r a i s e d a t the beginning of the study and throughout the x i i i i n v e s t i g a t i o n are d i s c u s s e d i n view of the f i n d i n g s , and new q u e s t i o n s are posed. In p a r t i c u l a r , the v a l u e of the \"neighborhood concept\" In a s o c i a l l y and s p a t i a l l y mobile s o c i e t y i s s c r u t i n i z e d , and a d i f f e r e n t concept of \"urban s t a b i l i t y \" i s o u t l i n e d . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e g r e g a t i o n of socio-economic groups and c r e a t i o n of \"communities\" i s d i s c u s s e d , and i t i s h i n t e d t h a t c e r t a i n b a s i c v a l u e s c h e r i s h e d by our s o c i e t y would have to be a l t e r e d f i r s t b e f o r e a m a n i p u l a t i o n of p h y s i c a l environments, e.g. p l a n n i n g r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods, may e f f e c t i v e l y inaugurate \"communities\" and \"community s p i r i t \" . The study concludes with a few b a s i c q u e s t i o n s about the l e g i t i m a t e r o l e of the Planner as a \" s o c i a l engineer\". The study was c a r r i e d out under the guidance of P r o f . I r a M. Robinson, of the Graduate Course i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , whose c r i t i c a l comments and u n f a i l i n g a s s i s t a n c e beyond the c a l l of duty were found e s s e n t i a l f o r the completion of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n p a r t i c u l a r , I wish to thank P r o f . Robinson f o r the f r u i t f u l working r e l a t i o n s h i p he was a b l e to m a i n t a i n i n h i s r o l e as a d v i s o r throughout the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . S p e c i a l indebtedness must a l s o be acknowledged to Dr. R. H. A. Robson, Department of Anthropology, S o c i o l o g y and C r iminology, who made a v a l i a n t e f f o r t a t teaching s o c i o l o g i c a l methods of i n v e s t i g a t i o n and a n a l y s i s i n the s h o r t time a v a i l a b l e ; to Mr. Robert W i l l i a m s , L e c t u r e r i n the Graduate Course i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , whose c r i t i c a l a p p r e c i a t i o n of some of the f o r c e s which shape our c i t i e s and s o c i e t y i n s p i r e d t h i s study, and to Dr. H. Pe t e r Oberlander, Head of the Graduate Course i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , who encouraged t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the s o c i a l aspects of Community P l a n n i n g . The help of the p e r s o n n e l department of the B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Company which p r o v i d e d the addresses of Middle Management pe r s o n n e l , and e s p e c i a l l y the r e a d i n e s s of each s u p e r v i s o r who rendered l i b e r a l time f o r d i s c u s s i o n are g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. Vancouver, B. C. May, 1959 S. W. P. P A R T I BACKGROUND FOR THIS INVESTIGATION CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM OF RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY The Magnitude of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y R e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i s a phenomena which i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to i n c r e a s i n g u r b a n i z a t i o n . I t has i n c r e a s e d i n magni-tude p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g and a f t e r the l a s t war. There seems to be no need f o r s p e c u l a t i n g on the' p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s which the war may have had upon the \"rootedness\" of people, o b v i o u s l y , the economic r e c o v e r y d u r i n g , and p a r t i c u l a r l y a f t e r the war, has produced t h i s m i l l i n g about of l a r g e masses of p o p u l a t i o n . New i n d u s t r i e s have sprung up oyer the e n t i r e country a t t r a c t i n g more and more people i n t o urban ce n t e r s w h i l e a t the same time the i n d i v i d u a l was p l a c e d f i n a n c i a l l y i n the p o s i t i o n t o be a b l e to a f f o r d a house, and b u i l d a new house i f he so d e s i r e d . The tremendous backlog i n housing development which was c r e a t e d d u r i n g the economic d e p r e s s i o n i n the pre-war years suddenly began to be reduced and people moved from congested urban areas, from s m a l l towns and r u r a l areas i n t o the v a s t , newly opened r e s i -d e n t i a l suburbs. Based on i t s monthly p o p u l a t i o n sample survey, the U. S. Bureau of C e n s u s 1 estimated t h a t between A p r i l 1956 and A p r i l Bureau of Census, U. S. A., M o b i l i t y of the p o p u l a t i o n of the U. S.. A p r i l 1 9 5 6-April 1957, C u r r e n t P o p u l a t i o n Reports, S e r i e s P - 2 0 , No. 61, Oct. 1957, p. 8. 2 1957, 10,268,000 persons one year and o l d e r , or a l t o g e t h e r 6.2$ of the e n t i r e U. S. p o p u l a t i o n changed county of r e s i d e n c e , and t h a t 21,566,000 persons or 13.1$ of the p o p u l a t i o n moved to a d i f f e r e n t d w e l l i n g w i t h i n the same county dur i n g t h i s p e r i o d . During the p e r i o d 194-0-47, 21$ of the e n t i r e U. S. p o p u l a t i o n changed county l i n e s . T h i s l a s t f i g u r e does not i n c l u d e l o c a l , i n t r a - and i n t e r c i t y moves w i t h i n the county. A survey conducted by P r o f . M. C. Branch i n c i t i e s of v a r y i n g s i z e s , which i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y behaviour of some 9,000 respondents over a p a s t p e r i o d of f i v e years showed t h a t 53$ of the respondents had moved a t l e a s t once d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . 2 Of these 53$, 36$ of the persons had moved o n l y w i t h i n t h e i r c i t y or l o c a l e , 11$ had made l o c a l and i n t e r c i t y moves, w h i l e 6$ had o n l y made i n t e r c i t y moves. T h i s survey was conducted i n 1942 and assesses the m o b i l i t y p r i o r to the war, n e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i n d i c a t e s the l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of people who p e r i o d i c a l l y moved w i t h i n the urban environment. I n order to g i v e an example of the extent to which a s m a l l - s c a l e , modern community i s a f f e c t e d by t h i s i n c e s s a n t turn-over, one may c i t e W i l l i a m H. Whyte !s o b s e r v a t i o n of 3 r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i n Park F o r e s t , Chicago. M. C. Branch, Urban P l a n n i n g and P u b l i c Opinion, N a t i o n a l Survey Research I n v e s t i g a t i o n , P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y , The P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Sept. 1944, p. 20. 3 w. H. Whyte J r . , The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, Garden C i t y , New York, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1956, p. 335. 3 I n 1954- out of 3,000 r e n t a l apartments t h e r e were 1,059 move-outs, i n 1955, 1100. During 1954-55, 18$ of Park F o r e s t e r s had moved to other communities. Park F o r e s t i s a s p e c i a l type of community which has become p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e to people who are t r a n s i e n t on account of t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n or t h e i r a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h n a t i o n a l - w i d e organ-i z a t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g to Whyte 4 I n 1953, 44$ of the move-outs were c o r p o r a t i o n couples being t r a n s f e r r e d away from the Chicago a r e a ; 12.5$ were Army and Navy couples a s s i g n e d to new s t a t i o n s . T h i s type o f r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y , perhaps, i s not a l l -t y p i c a l but as a l a t e r d i s c u s s i o n of Whyte's The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man w i l l show, i t i s on the way to almost becoming an i n s t i t u t i o n o f North American s o c i e t y . From these examples one may conclude w i t h P e t e r H. R o s s i ' America's c i t y d w e l l e r s change t h e i r housing i t seems almost as o f t e n as t h e i r c a r s . The E f f e c t s of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y \"The i n c e s s a n t movement from one p l a c e to another,\" w r i t e s C a t h e r i n e Bauer, \"are both cause and r e s u l t of our most s e r i o u s p l a n n i n g problems.\"^ These problems are u s u a l l y seen i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s o c i a l w e l f a r e of the i n d i v i d u a l i n urban s o c i e t y . I t i s assumed as A. Wallace s t a t e s t h a t \"the problem 4 Whyte, The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, p. 335. 5 p. H. R o s s i , Why F a m i l i e s Move, A study i n the s o c i a l psychology of urban r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y , Glencoe, 111., The F r e e P r e s s , 1955, P\u00C2\u00BB !\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ^ C. Bauer, \" S o c i a l Questions i n Housing and Community P l a n n i n g \" , J o u r n a l of S o c i a l I s s u e s , 1946. 4 of c r e a t i n g s t a b l e and h e a l t h y urban s o c i e t i e s cannot be s o l v e d without a r e c r e a t i o n of the community as a h e a l t h y s o c i a l u n i t . \" ? However, \"the d e s i r e d r e s i d e n t i a l s t a b i l i t y i s s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d g by m o b i l i t y . \" There seems to be d e f i n i t e evidence t h a t r e s i -d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and s t a t e o f mental h e a l t h are i n t i m a t e l y r e l a t e d as may be gathered from the r e s u l t s o f a study which t e s t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between \" P e r s o n a l i t y D i s o r d e r and S p a t i a l 9 M o b i l i t y . \" I t was found t h a t the r a t e s of p s y c h o t i e s , a d u l t n e u r o t i c s , p s y c h o p a t h i c p e r s o n a l i t i e s , and c h i l d r e n w i t h behavior problems per 1,000 p o p u l a t i o n i n the groups w i t h the s h o r t e s t r e s i d e n c e i n the house are always higher than i n the group l i v i n g i n the same house f o r ten years or more. The authors of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n conclude t h a t the p o p u l a t i o n i n the more mobile households f u r n i s h more than i t s share of p s y c h o t i e s , n e u r o t i c s , p s y c h o p a t h i c p e r s o n a l i t i e s , and other types of p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r among a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n . T h i s observed f a c t may be i n t e r p r e t e d i n two ways. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the mobile f a m i l i e s a re on the move f o r reasons not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e i r mental make-up and t h a t adjustment d i f f i c u l t i e s and p e r -s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r s o f every k i n d are the r e s u l t s of moving around. On the other hand, f a m i l i e s w i t h a tendency to mental d e v i a t i o n may not a d j u s t w e l l wherever they f i n d themselves and t h e r e f o r e change t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s o f t e n e r than do more s t a b l e people. The t r u t h , probably, l i e s somewhere in-between. ' A. F. C. Wallace, Housing and S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , a p r e l i m i n a r y survey w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o m u l t i - s t o r y , low-rent p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s ; r e p r o d . by the P h i l a d e l p h i a Housing A u t h o r i t y , 1952, p. 15\u00C2\u00AB o R o s s i , Why F a m i l i e s Move, p. 3\u00C2\u00AB 9 Chr. T i e t z e , P. Lemkau, and M. Cooper, \" P e r s o n a l i t y D i s o r d e r and S p a t i a l M o b i l i t y \" , American J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y . V o l . XLVIII, J u l y 1942, pp. 35 -39 . 5 There i s no doubt t h a t e x c e s s i v e r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i n v o l v e s a g r e a t d e a l of s o c i a l c o s t s , a p a r t from the economic co s t s a r i s i n g from the s a l e of l o t s , houses and f u r n i t u r e , the l o s s of wage hours, and the expenditures f o r packing and t r a n s -p o r t a t i o n , which a l l , c r e a t e work but do not c o n t r i b u t e to the net income of n a t i o n a l economy. S o c i a l c o s t s a r i s e from the d i s r u p t i o n o f neighbourhood t i e s , work and business r e l a t i o n -s h i p s ; a t the same time t h i s must be balanced a g a i n s t the f a c t t h a t new t i e s and perhaps more v a l u a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a re c r e a t e d elsewhere by r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . Although the move of the i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y may not account f o r a g r e a t d e a l o f s o c i a l c o s t s , the sum of turnovers undoubtedly w i l l . F or example, a hi g h turnover of p u p i l s n e c e s s a r i l y hampers te a c h i n g as w e l l as the e d u c a t i o n a l progress of the t r a n s i e n t c h i l d and the c l a s s group which he e n t e r s . T h e r e f o r e , the p u b l i c funds spent on ed u c a t i o n which are ad m i n i s t e r e d by an i n s t i t u t i o n e x p e r i e n c i n g a h i g h turn-over o f p u p i l s and teachers w i l l net lower educ-a t i o n a l standards among i t s p u p i l s than they could produce among a s t a b l e p o p u l a t i o n . These are but some of the type of s o c i a l c o s t s which a r e Incu r r e d by r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . The problems a r i s i n g from r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y to community p l a n n i n g a r e m a n i f o l d . The p r o v e r b i a l \" f l i g h t to the suburbs\" i t s e l f produces d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n which are g e n e r a l l y w e l l known and need not be d e s c r i b e d here. More i n t r i c a t e and d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the exodus to the suburbs, are the problems a r i s i n g from p o p u l a t i o n s h i f t s among e s t a b l i s h e d r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Areas which are s e r v i c e s w i t h the f a c i l i t i e s r e q u i r e d by one p o p u l a t i o n of a c e r t a i n composition i n terms of household s i z e , age of house-hold members, purchasing power, ed u c a t i o n , r e c r e a t i o n a l h a b i t s , and o t h e r s , are g r a d u a l l y invaded by other types of p o p u l a t i o n s which r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t s e r v i c e s or a g r e a t e r or l e s s e r v a r i e t y and amount of the a v a i l a b l e f a c i l i t i e s . P l a nners are suddenly fa c e d w i t h problems of overcrowded or i n e f f i c i e n t l y used s c h o o l s , misplaced parks and playgrounds, b l i g h t e d commercial s e c t i o n s or p r e s s u r e s f o r more shopping f a c i l i t i e s , unused churches or inadequate l i b r a r i e s , overcrowded s t r e e t s , l a c k of b r i d g e s , empty subway t r a i n s , and g r e a t d e f i c i t s a r i s i n g i n areas which are f u l l y s e r v i c e d but s p a r s e l y p o p u l a t e d . E f f o r t s have been made to reduce the occurrence of these problems. The Planned Neighborhood U n i t - an answer to r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y ? One of the s o l u t i o n s to the problems a r i s i n g from the assumed \"anonymity of urban l i f e \" and the \" i n c e s s a n t movement from p l a c e to p l a c e \" was thought to be the \"planned r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhood u n i t \" . The planned neighborhood u n i t , i t was hoped, would r e i n t r o d u c e the neighborhood c o n t r o l s and \"rootedness\" i n the community which c h a r a c t e r i s e the r u r a l community and would help to prevent the f a m i l y d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n , mental i l l - h e a l t h , and s o c i a l problems g e n e r a l l y which are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a h i g h l y mobile urban l i f e . The i d e a of r e c o n s t r u c t i n g c i t y neighborhoods i s not new. J . F. S t e i n e r i n \"An A p p r a i s a l of the Community 7 M o v e m e n t \" w r o t e as long ago as 1928 t h a t : Many years b e f o r e Cooley p o i n t e d out the important r o l e of neighborhood groups i n the process of s o c i a l i z a t i o n , the s o c i a l s e t t l e -ments had s e t f o r themselves the task of r e c o n s t r u c t i n g c i t y neighborhoods as the best means of approach to s o c i a l problems. On the b a s i s of s i m i l a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and i n order to overcome such s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l p l a n n i n g problems as were i n d i c a t e d b e f o r e , p l a n n e r s l i k e C l a r e n c e P e r r y developed the p r i n c i p l e of the \"neighborhood u n i t \" . However, i n r e c e n t years v a r i o u s persons p o i n t e d out that because of i t s d i s c o n c e r n f o r s o c i o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s the concept of the planned neighborhood u n i t has produced i t s own s o c i a l problems. Two b a s i c questions may be r a i s e d w i t h regard to the b e n e f i t s of the \"planned neighborhood u n i t \" . F i r s t , does t h i s neighborhood u n i t a c t u a l l y s o l v e worse problems than i t may c r e a t e , and second, does i t and can i t reduce r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y ? I f i t i s t r u e t h a t u n s t a b l e communities c o n t r i b u t e to a g e n e r a l f e e l i n g of i n s e c u r i t y which promotes mental i l l - h e a l t h J . F. S t e i n e r , \"An A p p r a i s a l of the Community Move-ment\", American S o c i o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y P u b l i c a t i o n s , V o l . XXIII, 1928, pTTo\ 1 1 C. A. P e r r y , Housing f o r the Machine Age. New York, R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1939. 1 2 Cf., f o r example, R. Dewey, \"The Neighborhood, Urban Ecology and C i t y P l a n n e r s \" , i n P. K. H a t t and A. J . R e i s s , (ed.) C i t i e s and S o c i e t i e s . Glencoe, 111., The Free P r e s s , 1951. 8 and g i v e s r i s e to a v a r i e t y of behavior c o n s i d e r e d s e l f - d e s t r u c t i v e and d e t r i m e n t a l to the w e l f a r e of the s o c i e t y , than s t a b l e com-munities must produce e m o t i o n a l l y a d j u s t e d p e r s o n a l i t i e s . How-ever, s t a b l e communities are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a h i g h degree of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and w h i l e such r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be r e a s s u r i n g they may a l s o c o n t r i b u t e to mental s t r a i n . For example, i n our s o c i e t y economic i n s t a b i l i t y i s one of the p r i n -c i p a l sources of a n x i e t y . However, the neighborhood community i s not o n l y unable to r e a s s u r e the i n d i v i d u a l but i n c r e a s e s h i s a n x i e t y because economic f a i l u r e i s considered a p e r s o n a l f a i l u r e . The neighborhood community with i t s c l o s e l y k n i t i n t e r - p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l o f t e n times c r e a t e a n x i e t i e s i n the i n d i v i d u a l because i t c o n t r o l s and s u p e r v i s e s the i n d i v i d u a l and c o n s t a n t l y f o r c e s him to judge h i s behavior i n terms of the group's s t a n -dards. S i n c e the group i s s m a l l , i t s member's a t t i t u d e s , ex-p e r i e n c e s and values r e p r e s e n t o n l y an a r b i t r a r y f r a c t i o n of the sum-total norms of the s o c i e t y . T h e r e f o r e , the i n d i v i d u a l has to r e l a t e h i s behavior to a f r a c t i o n of the e n t i r e v a r i a t i o n of behaviors a c c e p t a b l e i n s o c i e t y . H i s chance of c o n s i d e r i n g h i s own behavior as d e v i a t i n g from the r e s t r i c t e d number of behaviors permissable i n the s m a l l neighborhood u n i t i s much g r e a t e r than i f he were merely an anonymous member of the l a r g e s o c i e t y . The s m a l l neighborhood community can o f f e r the i n d i v i d u a l \"assured belonging\" i f he accepts i t s norms, otherwise he has to move and 3 F o r a d i s c u s s i o n of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s see: M. Mead, And Keep Your Powder Dry, New York, W i l l i a m Mowrer and Co., 1943; G. Gorer, The American People: A study i n n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r , London, The C r e s s e t P r e s s , 1948; R. M. W i l l i a m s J r . , American S o c i e t y , A s o c i o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , New York, A. A. Knopf, 1954, pp. 390-396. 9 f i n d a community which has segregated p e r s o n a l i t y and behavior types s i m i l a r to h i s own. A g a i n one may quote J . F. S t e i n e r ^ \" 4 who wrote i n 1928: The back-to-the neighborhood p h i l o s o p h y no longer can be g i v e n s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a l t h o u g h many of the e a r l i e r group of the community l e a d e r s a re s t i l l c l i n g i n g to t h i s i l l u s i v e hope....We are not w i l l i n g to o b t a i n the o l d neighborhood v a l u e s a t the p r i c e of i s o l a t i o n . From the modern p o i n t o f view, the most s a t i s f a c t o r y neighborhood i s the one t h a t has many i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the o u t s i d e world. The n a t u r a l areas, i n so f a r as they can be a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e d and g i v e n g e n e r a l r e c o g -n i t i o n , seem t o give promise of g r e a t e r u s e f u l n e s s than l o c a l neighborhoods.... I n e f f e c t , the s o - c a l l e d \"anonymous\", \" u n s t a b l e \" urban s o c i a l environment i n c o n t r a s t to the p r o t o - t y p e neighborhood community \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the s t a b l e and narrow r u r a l community \u00E2\u0080\u0094 permits the i n d i v i d u a l a choice o f c o n g e n i a l communities i n which the r e s i d e n t s do not have to l i v e i n f a c e - t o - f a c e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I n the urban environment the I n d i v i d u a l i s a b l e to s e l e c t a com-munity of other i n d i v i d u a l s who share h i s a t t i t u d e s , v a l u e s and expe r i e n c e s , and who are l e a s t a p t to produce o p p r e s s i v e s i t u a t i o n s because they cannot escape each o t h e r . One example of a r e s i d e n t i a l community where t h i s i n t e -g r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s i n t o one community has been achieved, perhaps, i s Park F o r e s t . ^ Park F o r e s t , as has been i n d i c a t e d above, i s a p a r t i c u l a r 1 4 S t e i n e r , American S o c i o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y P u b l i c a t i o n s . XXIII, 1928, p. 23. 1 ^ Whyte, The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, pp. 368-385. 10 k i n d of community because i t c a t e r s to a t r a n s i e n t and s o c i a l l y v e r y mobile group of s o c i e t y . But t h i s f a c t r e a l l y serves t o r e i n f o r c e the argument a g a i n s t the s o c i a l values of t h i s type of neighborhood community. I n s p i t e of the l i m i t e d time p e r i o d a v a i l a b l e to the tenant to impress h i s behavior upon the community, the c o l l e c t i v e behavior of these t r a n s i e n t s and members of l a r g e - s c a l e o r g a n i z a t i o n s p e r s i s t s and becomes the i n h e r e n t norm of the community. In s p i t e of the h i g h t u r n -over of r e s i d e n t s , a c e r t a i n type of behavior i s c o n s t a n t l y r e i n f o r c e d , becomes s t e r o t y p e d and i s t r a n s m i t t e d to the new-comer by the r e s i d u a l group of tenants l i v i n g i n c e r t a i n \" c o u r t s \" . The p h y s i c a l arrangement of homes around c o u r t s predetermines the s i z e of groups and t h e i r f o c u s , the newcomer has l i t t l e c h oice between groups and no c h o i c e , other than by a c c e p t i n g the group norms and behavior, to become p a r t of the group. He has to conform and i s c o n d i t i o n e d to conform f u r t h e r d u r i n g h i s s t a y i n the \" c o u r t community\". Non-conformists or people slow i n a d j u s t i n g are o s t r a c i z e d or l e a v e v o l u n t a r y . The q u e s t i o n may be r a i s e d whether i t i s t h i s type of segregated primary community which i s supposed to c r e a t e the \" s t a b l e and h e a l t h y urban s o c i e t y \" and which i s to prevent n e u r o t i c r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y by g i v i n g i n d i v i d u a l s a f e e l i n g of \"belonging\"? Or i s i t t h i s type of community which w i l l 16 generate n e u r o t i c behavior? A c c o r d i n g to Whyte Whyte, The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, p. 385 11 Planners can argue t h a t i f they can f i n d what i t i s t h a t c r e a t e s cohesiveness i t would f o l l o w t h a t by d e l i b e r a t e l y b u i l d i n g these f e a t u r e s i n t o the new housing they could a t once e l i m i n a t e the l o n e l i n e s s of modern l i f e . I n view of the planner's n o t i o n \" t o see i n the t i g h t -k n i t group of suburbia a development of g r e a t promise\", Whyte counters, \"on such developments as the i n t e g r a t e d group i t i s necessary to ask not only how i t can be planned but i f ? \" And he adds the p e r t i n e n t q u e s t i o n : How good i s 'happiness'? The s o c i a l l y cohesive b l o c k has i t s advantages, but there i s a s t i f f p r i c e t o be p a i d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , f o r the advocates of \" i n t e g r a t e d community l i f e \" t h i s type of neighborhood, probably, i s a very s t a b l e community i n s p i t e of the t e r r i f i c r a t e of tenant turn-over t a k i n g p l a c e i n Park F o r e s t . Because of the p h y s i c a l arrange-ment of houses, tenant groups are formed which m a i n t a i n the \" s p i r i t \" of the community and a l l newcomers are made to f e e l a t home. However, i f one c o n s i d e r s other neighborhood u n i t s which by t h e i r p h y s i c a l d e s i g n do not c r e a t e the same degree of cohesion as found i n Park F o r e s t and where i t depends upon each i n d i v i d u a l t o f i n d c o n g e n i a l groups and a s s o c i a t i o n s i n the community, r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y may d i s r u p t communal r e l a t i o n -s h i p s and cause h a r d s h i p s . I n t h i s r e s p e c t , H. P. R o s s i concluded the f o l l o w i n g from h i s study Why F a m i l i e s Move: Some w r i t e r s have made the c l a i m t h a t m o b i l i t y i s l e s s e n e d when households w i t h i n an area have developed s t r o n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l t i e s . The data of t h i s study does not l e n d any support to t h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . ...households do not c l i n g to a neighborhood because t h e i r f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s l i v e t h e r e . F r i e n d s h i p s and t h e i r l o c a t i o n s a re independent of m o b i l i t y i n c l i n a t i o n s . But they are r e l a t e d to the m o b i l i t y Of an area i n the sense t h a t the more s t a b l e the area the more l i k e l y a household i s to e s t a b l i s h t i e s i n a neighborhood, but the absence o f such t i e s does not a f f e c t a households d e s i r e to remain or move. I n other words, r e g a r d l e s s o f whether people have e s t a -b l i s h e d strong t i e s i n the neighborhood, they move when they have to or want t o . Although they may r e a l i z e and d e p l o r e the f a c t t h a t they are d i s r u p t i n g t h e i r own and t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h a t they cause a c e r t a i n amount of hardship to t h e i r former neighbors, that they help to break up a s s o c i a t i o n s v alued i n the neighborhood, and t h a t they themselves w i l l have d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a s s i m i l a t i n g to a new s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environment, they n e v e r t h e l e s s move. What f o r c e s , one may ask, compels these people to move and what k i n d of i n c e n t i v e s a t t r a c t s them to other r e s i d e n t i a l areas? Compelling Reasons f o r R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y From the s t u d i e s o f reasons f o r r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y which have been i n v e s t i g a t e d , f i v e p r i n c i p a l reasons f o r moving I? R o s s i , Why F a m i l i e s Move, p. 90. 13 may be i s o l a t e d . These w i l l be summarized below, alth o u g h not i n order of importance. F i r s t , \" f o r c e d \" moves accounted f o r 39$ of moves made by 444 respondents i n R o s s i ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . ^ F o r c e d moves i n c l u d e e v i c t i o n s , d w e l l i n g d e s t r u c t i o n , severe income l o s s , temporary o c c u p a t i o n of a d w e l l i n g , marriage and d i v o r c e , and other forms of d i s s o l u t i o n of households. Second, \"economic\" moves accounted f o r 90$ of 443 i n t e r c i t y moves i n a study con-ducted by V. H. Whitney and Ch. M. Grigg. 1*? As has been i n d i -cated above, Whyte's study of The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man supports the c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t a m a j o r i t y of i n t e r c i t y moves are economic moves i n the sense t h a t people move to b e t t e r job o p p o r t u n i t i e s or are t r a n s f e r r e d to other branches and s t a t i o n s by l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Economic moves of t h i s nature produce l i t t l e m o b i l i t y w i t h i n a c i t y . T h i s was found by Whitney and Grigg who noted o n l y 3$ of 604 l o c a l moves as economic moves, u by Branch who concluded that about 80$ of the people he i n v e s t i g a t e d were \"not bothered by time and money i n v o l v e d i n g e t t i n g to work\", 2! and by R o s s i , who found t h a t \"the journey to work was c o n s i d e r e d 22 l a r g e l y i r r e l e v a n t f o r moving\". 1 8 R o s s i , Why F a m i l i e s Move, p. 135. 1 9 V. H. Whitney and Ch. M. G r i g g , \" M o b i l i t y among Students' F a m i l i e s \" , American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, XXIII (Dec. 1958), No. 6, t h i s study, as w e l l as R o s s i ' s study Why F a m i l i e s Move, and Whyte's i n v e s t i g a t i o n of The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y l a t e r on. 2 0 Loc. c i t . 2 1 Branch, Urban Pl a n n i n g and P u b l i c Opinion, p. 17. 22 R o s s i , The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, p. 90. 14 T h i r d , moves made on account of the changing r e q u i r e -ments of the growing f a m i l y w i t h regard to the s i z e of d w e l l i n g s , f a c i l i t i e s i n the d w e l l i n g s , and d e s i g n of d w e l l i n g s . These moves probably account f o r the g r e a t e s t percentage of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y d u r i n g the e a r l y p a r t of each couple's married l i f e . 2 ^ F o u r t h , moves made on account of the changing requirements of the f a m i l y w i t h regard to the f a c i l i t i e s i n the neighborhood, e.g. playgrounds, s c h o o l s , shops, other r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , e t c . which are demanded as f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n go through d i f f e r e n t stages.of the l i f e c y c l e . F i f t h , s t a t u s moves which are made on account of d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the s o c i a l environment and the need f o r a d j u s t i n g r e s i d e n c e to changing s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. In the l i g h t of these reasons f o r moving one may b r i e f l y d i s c u s s what the planner can do to e l i m i n a t e or reduce r e s i -d e n t r a l m o b i l i t y , i f t h a t i s d e s i r a b l e . Planners can do l i t t l e to e l i m i n a t e those c o n d i t i o n s which f o r c e people to move f o r reasons of e v i c t i o n , d i s s o l u t i o n of households, or o c c u p a t i o n . I f i t ' should be p o s s i b l e to r e s o l v e the economic problem which besets young couples when they become married and have c h i l d r e n , and which f o r c e s them to a d j u s t t h e i r d w e l l i n g s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r needs and t h e i r f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y , then i t might be p o s s i b l e to have them e s t a b l i s h themselves i n d w e l l i n g s and neighborhoods J C o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s and the remaining \" p r i n c i p a l reasons f o r moving\" w i l l be summarized l a t e r on on the b a s i s of s t u d i e s made by H. P. R o s s i , and V. H. Whitney and Ch. M. G r i g g . 15 which w i l l s u i t t h e i r needs r e g a r d l e s s o f change i n s i z e and f a m i l i e s and age s t r u c t u r e . These problems may be p a r t l y r e s o l v e d by p l a n n i n g neighborhoods w i t h d i f f e r e n t types of accommodations which permit f a m i l i e s to r o t a t e w i t h i n the n e i g h -borhood from s m a l l to l a r g e and back to s m a l l d w e l l i n g s as they go through the d i f f e r e n t l i f e s tages. The problem of being a b l e to a f f o r d a l a r g e d w e l l i n g when a l l other expenses a r e h i g h and income s t i l l low remains unresolved, unless payments f o r the house are made i n p r o p o r t i o n to the income and become higher w i t h l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e u n t i l the i n i t i a l debt i s o b l i t e r a t e d . Another p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n may be seen i n mass-manufactured houses which can be enlarged or r e a d j u s t e d as the need a r i s e s . S i m i l a r l y , problems a r i s i n g from i r r e g u l a r d w e l l i n g changes stemming from a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e sign, l o t s i z e s , b u i l d i n g and zoning r e g u l a t i o n s , or a r i s i n g from too uniform d w e l l i n g changes w i t h r e s p e c t to c a p a c i t y or u t i l i t i e s , u t i l i z a t i o n of s c h o o l s , shops, parks, and other s e r v i c e s should not be too d i f f i c u l t t o s o l v e . However, r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y generated by the d e s i r e to s a t i s f y s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs poses e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t questions and problems. From the p o i n t of view of the person seeking p r e s t i g e , r e s i d e n c e s and r e s i d e n t i a l areas become symbols of s t a t u s over and above t h e i r f u n c t i o n s as d w e l l i n g s and as pl a c e s t o l i v e , y e t they have to s a t i s f y the needs both f o r p r e s t i g e and f o r f u n c t i o n a l l i v i n g q u a r t e r s . I n order to dec i d e whether community pla n n e r s i n p l a n n i n g 16 r e s i d e n t i a l areas and urban environment can or should a p p l y t h e i r methods and i n f l u e n c e to produce p h y s i c a l environments which a p a r t from s a t i s f y i n g f u n c t i o n a l housing needs a l s o s a t i s f y needs of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e , the community planner has to i n v e s t i g a t e (a) the importance of r e s i d e n c e and r e s i d e n t i a l areas as a s t a t u s symbol, (b) the q u a l i t i e s and f e a t u r e s of such r e s i d e n c e s and areas which a t t r a c t persons seeking p r e s t i g e , (c) which s e c t i o n s of the p o p u l a t i o n are p a r t i c u l a r l y prone to seek r e s i d e n c e i n r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s areas and what causes them to become p r e s t i g e conscious, (d) which a r e the r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s areas i n an urban a r e a , (e) what i s the p r o p o r t i o n of people moving f o r reasons of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e , and ( f ) i f i t i s p o s s i b l e or necessary from a pl a n n i n g p o i n t of view, t h a t i s from the p o i n t of view of s o c i a l w e l f a r e , to a d j u s t f u t u r e r e s i d e n t i a l developments to s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e requirements. CHAPTER I I STATUS AND PRESTIGE IN RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY The Hypothesis The s p e c i f i c hypothesis to be t e s t e d i n t h i s i n v e s t i -t i o n was d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : A s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s motivates persons to move i n t o l a r g e r and more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g s and to b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n order to b r i n g t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s i n adjustment w i t h t h e i r newly a c q u i r e d s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n and o b t a i n the p r e s t i g e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a . The concepts i n c l u d e d i n t h i s hypothesis are d e f i n e d f o l l o w s : a. \" S i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s \" means a promotion to a more r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n and/or a c o n s i d e r a b l e r a i s e i n s a l a r y . \u00E2\u0080\u009E b. \"Larger and more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g \" means a d w e l l i n g c o n t a i n i n g a c e r t a i n number of rooms which i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the number of household members are not a l l e s s e n t i a l to the normal f u n c t i o n i n g of the household. Furthermore, such a d w e l l i n g c o n t a i n s f e a t u r e s which are a l s o not e s s e n t i a l to the normal f u n c t i o n i n g of the household, and which are p r i m a r i l y meant to impress o t h e r s . c. \" B e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r eas\" means a d i s t r i c t which the i n d i v i d u a l or the o c c u p a t i o n a l group to which he belongs c o n s i d e r s more d e s i r a b l e from the p o i n t of view of s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environment 18 and which has more p r e s t i g e i n the eyes of the s t a t u s g r o u p . 1 d. \" S o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n \" means \"the s o c i a l p r e s t i g e or honor att a c h e d to a p o s i t i o n \" of a person w i t h i n h i s c l a s s and h i s p a r t i c u l a r s t a t u s g r o u p . 2 The assumption i s made th a t each person i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the cause of t h i s study has a r e c o r d of o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y , and d e r i v e s h i s s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n from h i s o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s or rank p o s i t i o n i n the rank h i e r a r c h y of the organ-i z a t i o n by which he i s employed, and from h i s l e v e l o f income. Both assumptions are t e s t e d i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n as f a r as t h i s i s p o s s i b l e , but w i l l continue to be upheld r e g a r d l e s s of the r e s u l t s of these a d d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . A c t u a l l y i t was a l s o hypothesized t h a t persons move to l a r g e r and more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g s and to b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas because they are expected to conform to the standards s e t by the o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h which they are employed and by t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s group. Although these aspects of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y f o r reasons of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e were i n v e s t i g a t e d , l a c k of time prevented the a n a l y s i s of the obtained d a t a . I n f i n a l a n a l y s i s , these r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l be b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d , K. B. Mayer, C l a s s and S o c i e t y , New York, Random House, 1953, P\u00C2\u00AB 54; s t a t e s that ' P r e s t i g e r e f e r s to a s o c i a l - p s y c h o -l o g i c a l system of a t t i t u d e s i n which s u p e r i o r i t y and i n f e r i o r i t y are r e c i p r o c a l l y a s c r i b e d , while s t a t u s groups are f u n c t i o n i n g c o l l e c t i v e s of persons of s i m i l a r p r e s t i g e i n one another's eyes who i n t e r a c t w i t h one another i n i n t i m a t e s o c i a l a s s o c -i a t i o n s '. K. H a t t and A. J . R e i s s , ( e d . ) , C i t i e s and S o c i e t y , Glencoe, 111., The Free P r e s s , 1951, p. 393. 19 although t h i s d i s c u s s i o n cannot be s u b s t a n t i a t e d by q u a n t i t -a t i v e evidence. I n t h i s p a r t of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n the \"Meaning of Sta t u s Symbols\" and \"Houses and R e s i d e n t i a l Areas as S t a t u s Symbols\" w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f i r s t i n order to e x p l a i n the s i g n i f i c a n c e which houses and r e s i d e n t i a l areas have as symbols a p a r t from t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l importance. Subsequently, those s t u d i e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d which are con s i d e r e d p e r t i n e n t to the s u b j e c t matter of t h i s study and the methods used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The Meaning of Status Symbol I n the process of a d j u s t i n g to v a r i o u s p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n -ments, humans are not content to accept a minimum standard of l i v i n g which would s u f f i c e to m a i n t a i n t h e i r p h y s i c a l e x i s t e n c e . \"Man i s a c u l t u r a l animal and i s a b l e , t h e r e f o r e , to modify h i s n a t u r a l environment and to c r e a t e , w i t h i n l i m i t a t i o n s , h i s own h a b i t a t . \" 3 H i s a b i l i t y and, p r i m a r i l y , h i s d e s i r e e n t i c e him to improve h i s h a b i t a t . Unequal o p p o r t u n i t y and v a r i o u s degrees of a mbition to e x p l o i t h i s a b i l i t y as w e l l as d i f f e r e n c e i n a b i l i t y and v a r i o u s c u l t u r a l goals determine the exte n t to which Man improves h i s environment. W i t h i n each s o c i e t y these f o r c e s have grouped people i n t o broad c l a s s e s . Depending upon the type of s o c i e t y , these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s tend to r e i n f o r c e the n o t i o n t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l l y unequal o p p o r t u n i t y i m p l i e s unequal a b i l i t i e s 0 McKenzie, \"Human Ecology\", E n c y c l o p e d i a of the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , p. 314. 20 and ambitions. I n a s o c i e t y which p r o f e s s e s e q u a l i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l b e f o r e the law and as a p o l i t i c a l being, e q u a l a b i l i t y and equal o p p o r t u n i t y on the p a r t of a l l members i s accepted as a norm. To i n s i n u a t e t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s may e x i s t i s considered blasphemy and a l l a c t i o n s which serve to emphasize d i f f e r e n c e s produce g u i l t f e e l i n g s and have to be r a t i o n a l i z e d . S i n c e no community or s o c i e t y can p e r s i s t without l e a d e r s h i p or can do without c r i t e r i a f o r determining l e a d e r s h i p \u00E2\u0080\u0094 be i t conspicuous s e l f - a s s u r a n c e or conspicuous modesty \u00E2\u0080\u0094 e q u a l i t y of members may be a p h i l o s o p h i c a l b a s i s which governs the f o r m a l i n t e r a c t i o n s of members, but the d e s i r e to e x p l o i t the p h i l o s o p h y of equal o p p o r t u n i t y i n order to r i s e above the norm cannot be denied and i s n e c e s s a r y . Perhaps, one can say t h a t the e f f o r t a p p l i e d to overcome e q u a l i t y stands i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s t r e n g t h of the p r e v a i l i n g a t t i t u d e . A s o c i e t y which p l a c e s l i t t l e emphasis upon b i r t h , i n h e r i t e d wealth, t i t l e and i n t e l l e c -t u a l a b i l i t y which i s not a p p l i e d to achieve some p r a c t i c a l purpose, i n order to determine a person's s t a t u s p o s i t i o n , p e r -mits i t s members to a c h i e v e d i s t i n c t i o n v i a the avenue of equal o p p o r t u n i t y and on the b a s i s of economic success. Because economic success i s obtained by e x p l o i t i n g v a r i o u s a b i l i t i e s , the a b i l i t y of e x p l o i t i n g ones own and o t h e r s ' c a p a c i t i e s , r a t h e r than having a s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y per se becomes important and a c c e p t a b l e . T h e r e f o r e , b i r t h , t i t l e , i n h e r i t e d wealth, a r t i s t i c a b i l i t y and s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are p e r m i t t e d through the backdoor to serve as e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a c h i e v i n g economic success and s t a t u s . Therefore, the emphasis upon economic success 21 g e n e r a l l y r a t h e r upon any i n h e r e n t a b i l i t y or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f i t s w e l l i n t o the e n t i r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l b a s i s of t h i s s o c i e t y . While i t i s not immoral to become an economic success, to conclude from t h i s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s may have d i f f e r e n t worths, a b i l i t i e s and r i g h t s i s immoral. T h e r e f o r e , persons w i t h ambitions and a s p i r a t i o n s f e e l compelled to r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r behavior, p r e f e r a b l y i n economic terms, and to r e a s s u r e them-s e l v e s and o t h e r s , t h a t t h e i r n a t u r a l d e s i r e f o r economic improvement does not make them d i f f e r e n t persons, untrue f r i e n d s or s o c i a l c l i m b e r s , g e n e r a l l y . The a b i l i t y t o make an economic success of o n e s e l f t h e o r e t i c a l l y i s not r e s t r i c t e d to any member of any c l a s s , although c l a s s a l r e a d y i m p l i e s \"the type o f chance and power one has i n a market s i t u a t i o n \" . 4 However, the way i n which money i s spent and should be spent i n order to a f f o r d the i n d i v i d u a l a maximum of r e c o g n i t i o n and s t a t u s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n h i s c l a s s v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y . I f one can determine the s t a t u s symbols each c l a s s has adopted, one can determine each i n d i v i d u a l ' s c l a s s and group a f f i l i a t i o n , h i s s o c i a l p rogress and a s p i r a t i o n . Status symbols are determined by s e v e r a l f a c t o r s which var y w i t h each s o c i e t y and w i t h each group w i t h i n s o c i e t y . I n t h i s s o c i e t y , g e n e r a l l y speaking, s t a t u s symbols are d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to one's f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y and conf i d e n c e i n one's p o t e n t i a l f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y . However, based upon the H a t t and R e i s s , C i t i e s and S o c i e t y , p. 393 22 p r e v a i l i n g p h i l o s o p h y of equal o p p o r t u n i t y and equal human worth f o r a l l , f o r any \" u n i t v a l u e \" to become a s t a t u s symbol, be i t a commodity, an e d u c a t i o n or c l u b membership, i t has to have three b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F i r s t , i t has to belong to a broad category of symbols which v a r y i n v a l u e . The value a t each l e v e l determines the p o s i t i o n of the c l a s s which can a f f o r d t h i s v a l u e . Houses are such a broad category \u00E2\u0080\u0094 or have been. The v a l u e of houses determines who can a f f o r d them; t h i s i n t u r n determines the c l a s s a f i l i a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l . W i t h i n each c l a s s the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s t a t u s p o s i t i o n may be d e t e r -mined a c c o r d i n g to the degree by which the value of h i s house, i t s s t y l e or other f e a t u r e s approaches the \"median symbol\" of the next higher c l a s s . Second, the v a l u e of each symbol w i t h i n i t s category must be e a s i l y understood by the m a j o r i t y of people i n order to serve i t s purpose as a symbol of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . A symbol which has a complicated value cannot be a p p r e c i a t e d by the e n t i r e s o c i e t y but operates to a f f o r d d i s t i n c t i o n to members of e x c l u s i v e ingroups. W i t h i n the symbol category \"house\", i n t e r i o r d e s ign, q u a l i t y of m a t e r i a l s or name of a r c h i t e c t a f f o r d s t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n of s t a t u s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n one group which can a p p r e c i a t e these d e v i c e s . T h i r d , each more v a l u a b l e symbol must be a t t a i n a b l e by other members of the s o c i e t y i n c l u d i n g the s u c c e s s i v e l y lower c l a s s e s i f they are w i l l i n g to make the e f f o r t and s a c r i f i c e . An e x c l u s i v e or u n a t t a i n a b l e c l a s s symbol or group symbol has 23 l i t t l e meaning i n a s o c i e t y which encourages and permits s o c i a l m o b i l i t y v i a economic success i n s p i t e of i t s d i s a p p r o v a l of people who change t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards o t h e r s . T h e r e f o r e , m a t e r i a l values such as c a r s , houses, boats, a p p l i a n c e s and l o t s become s i g n i f i c a n t c l a s s s t a t u s symbols because there a re wide and r a r e l y questioned avenues f o r a t t a i n i n g them as long as one has made s u f f i c i e n t money. Ed u c a t i o n , knowledge, i n t e r e s t s , behavior, manners and speech are much l e s s pronounced s t a t u s symbols because they a r e l e s s \"democratic 1 1 as the D o l l a r . Houses and R e s i d e n t i a l Areas as Status Symbols I n a s o c i e t y where the p o s s e s s i o n of economic wealth means the p o s s e s s i o n of the g r e a t e s t power, money and whatever can be obtained through money has a symbolic meaning. Because r e s i d e n c e stands i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p to what a person can a f f o r d , r e s i d e n c e becomes a symbol of a person's p o s i t i o n i n the s o c i o -economic power s t r u c t u r e . Although houses show t h e i r v a l u e , they are d i f f i c u l t to d e s c r i b e and tend to disappear among .other houses; d i s t r i c t s , however, a c q u i r e meaning and are e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d . P a r t l y f o r t h i s reason, p a r t l y i n order to p r o t e c t t h e i r investment people of s i m i l a r income tend to segregate themselves and c r e a t e r e s i d e n t i a l areas which have f a i r l y uniform land and improvement v a l u e s . F u r t h e r s e g r e g a t i o n takes p l a c e i n terms of o c c u p a t i o n a l groups.^ I t has been found t h a t 5 Mayer, C l a s s and S o c i e t y , p. 46. \"Outstanding among the h i g h l y v i s i b l e s t a t u s symbols i s r e s i d e n c e . Most American towns have a r i g h t or wrong 'side of the t r a c k 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 t h e i r 'best', 24 \" s e g r e g a t i o n i s g r e a t e r f o r those o c c u p a t i o n a l groups wi t h c l e a r l y d e f i n e d s t a t u s than f o r those groups whose s t a t u s i s ambiguous\". However, s e g r e g a t i o n does not stop there but f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e s r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n o c c u p a t i o n by r a c i a l and e t h n i c groups, age groups, and groups w i t h s i m i l a r f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e , r e l i g i o u s groups and p r o f e s s i o n a l groups. Other groups congregate around c e r t a i n i n s t i t u t i o n s , c l u b s , p a r t i c u l a r l y renown s c h o o l s , downtown s e c t i o n s and i n d u s t r i e s . I n each case group a f f i l i a t i o n of people of s i m i l a r p r e s t i g e ? tends to impart the group s t a t u s upon the r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t i o n they occupy. T h i s s t a t u s , i n t u r n , i d e n t i f i e s them as a group i n the eyes of the community and a t t r a c t s them to the a r e a . Consequently, the r e c i p r o c a c y of s t a t u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e i n f o r c e s the i n d i v i d u a l ' s consciousness of h i s s t a t u s w h i l e h i s r e s i d e n c e i n a p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n r e i n -f o r c e s the g e n e r a l n o t i o n t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n has an e x c l u s i v e s t a t u s . T h i s type of r e c i p r o c a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s d i s c e r n a b l e to a l l members of the community i n terms of broad socio-economic groups but l e s s so i n terms of p a r t i c u l a r i n g r o u p s . S e g r e g a t i o n 'good' and 'poor' r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t i o n s . T h i s g e o g r a p h i c a l d i v i s i o n i s l a r g e l y the product of the f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n and o c c u p a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y of the v a r i o u s segments of the p o p u l a t i o n , to be sure, but the area of r e s i d e n c e and the type of d w e l l i n g a l s o r e f l e c t s the tendency of higher s t a t u s groups to t r a n s l a t e s o c i a l d i s t a n c e i n t o p h y s i c a l distance....Moving i n t o a b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l s e c t i o n i s an important way of e x p r e s s i n g s t a t u s a s p i r a t i o n s , not o n l y because i t r e p r e s e n t s an outward s i g n of success but a l s o because r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n helps to determine In f o r m a l a s s o c i a t i o n s . \" ^ 0. D. Duncan and B. Duncan, \" R e s i d e n t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n and O c c u p a t i o n a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n \" , P. K. H a t t and A. J . R e i s s ( e d . ) , C i t i e s and S o c i e t i e s , p . 288. Mayer, C l a s s and S o c i e t y , p. 54 o f the l a t t e r u s u a l l y i s known o n l y t o o t h e r i n g r o u p s w i t h i n the same s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c l a s s , and i t i s p r o b a b l y found l e s s o f t e n i n the lower economic c l a s s e s t h a n i n the upper c l a s s e s . T h e r e f o r e , the lo w e r and m i d d l e economic c l a s s e s a r e l e s s d i s -c r i m i n a t i n g i n s e l e c t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s a p a r t from the g r e a t e r v a r i e t y o f a r e a s w h i c h i s a t t h e i r d i s p o s a l . These groups a r e l e s s o r i e n t e d as a whole a l t h o u g h t h o s e members w i t h c l e a r l y d e f i n e d s o c i o - o c c u p a t i o n a l g o a l s a r e much more c o n s c i o u s o f the s t a t u s s t r u c t u r e o f r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s and more d e f i n i t e i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e i r c h o i c e o f a p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e r e s i d e n c e . I t i s g e n e r a l l y u n d e r s t o o d t h a t \"each r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a , Q t h e n , has a s t a t u s v a l u e i n the eyes o f the community\", B u t H. A. G i b b a r d argues f u r t h e r t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s cannot be ranked on a continuum from h i g h e s t t o l o w e s t because such f a c t o r s as r e n t l e v e l , e t h n i c and r a c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t r a d i t i o n , and prominen t f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n an a r e a a f f e c t the s t a t u s v a l u e o f Q each a r e a d i f f e r e n t l y . I n o t h e r words, j u d g i n g a r e a s on the b a s i s o f t h e i r l a n d and improvement v a l u e s would produce a d i f -f e r e n t s c a l e t h a n r a n k i n g them a c c o r d i n g t o the p r o p o r t i o n o f n a t i v e t o f o r e i g n groups found i n each d i s t r i c t . I t i s q u e s t i o n a b l e whether p e o p l e use w i d e l y d i f f e r i n g c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i n g the s t a t u s o f a r e a s , a l t h o u g h t h i s c r i t e r i a may v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y f o r members o f d i f f e r e n t s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c l a s s e s , H. A. G i b b a r d , \"The S t a t u s F a c t o r i n R e s i d e n t i a l S u c c e s s i o n \" , A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y . V o l . 46, No. 6, May, 1941, p. 836. 9 I b i d . , p. 837. 26 and p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r members of v a r i o u s i n - and m i n o r i t y g r o u p s . 1 0 For the purpose of t h i s study i t was assumed t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e to rank areas i n a continuum based upon the o p i n i o n of 11 one s o c i o - o c c u p a t i o n a l group. D i s c u s s i o n of R e l a t e d S t u d i e s Of the v a r i e t y of s t u d i e s i n r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y which were i n v e s t i g a t e d o n l y a few were found to have some r e f e r e n c e to t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The more s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n t s of these s t u d i e s w i l l be b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs: 1. P e t e r H. R o s s i ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the reasons Why F a m i l i e s Move i s a \"study i n the s o c i a l psychology of urban 12 r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y \" . The study was conducted i n P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1 H. W. Form, and G. P. Stone, \"Urbanism, Anonymity and Status Symbols\", American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y . V o l . 62, 1957\u00C2\u00BB pp. 504-514. The authors i n v e s t i g a t e d 125 a d u l t s r e s i d i n g i n three w i d e l y d i f f e r e n t socio-economic areas of Lansing, Mich., (Pop. 100,000). E q u i v a l e n t groups of a d u l t s i n each area were asked to s t a t e i n terms of which f a c t o r s they a p p r a i s e the s t a t u s of a person. With r e s p e c t to 'Type of House' and 'Type of Neighborhood' the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were obtained: Table 7. Status Indexes Judged Unimportant or I r r e l e v a n t f o r the A p p r a i s a l of S t a t u s Socio-economic s t r a t a of respondents Upper Middle Lower T o t a l % of 32 p e r s . % of 51 p e r s . % of 42 p e r s . % of 125 pers, House 81.2 74.5 78.6 77.6 Neighb. 53.1 43.1 57.1 50.4 \" L 1 For a d i s c u s s i o n of methods of determining a s t a t u s h i e r a r c h y of r e s i d e n t i a l areas see Appendix I I . The \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" a c t u a l l y adopted i s d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t I I I , Chapter I I , S e c t i o n B, l a of t h i s study. 1 2 R o s s i , Why F a m i l i e s Move. 27 i n v o l v i n g 924 households s e l e c t e d a t random from f o u r d i f f e r e n t r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Almost e q u a l - s i z e d groups of households were i n t e r v i e w e d i n two areas w i t h h i g h socio-economic s t a t u s and c h a r a c t e r i z e d by hig h and low m o b i l i t y r e s p e c t i v e l y and i n two areas w i t h low socio-economic s t a t u s and the same d i f f e r e n c e i n amount of m o b i l i t y . R o s s i i n v e s t i g a t e d three aspects of r e s i -d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y , namely, Area M o b i l i t y , Household M o b i l i t y , and The D e c i s i o n to Move. The r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n may be b r i e f l y summarized as f o l l o w s i 1 ^ M o b i l i t y i s the mechanism by which a f a m i l y ' s housing i s brought i n t o adjustment to i t s housing needs. These needs are determined by the composition of the household. During the e a r l y p a r t of a f a m i l y ' s l i f e c y c l e the f a m i l y i s most l i k e l y to be out of a d j u s t -ment w i t h i t s requirements. Moving duri n g t h i s e a r l y stage takes f a m i l i e s from mobile, f a m i l y -l e s s areas to areas where f a m i l y l i v i n g i s the t y p i c a l p a t t e r n of household e x i s t e n c e . T h i s l i f e c y c l e stage i s f o l l o w e d by a p e r i o d of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a b i l i t y . Although f a m i l i e s may s h r i n k c o n s i d e r a b l y d u r i n g l a t e r stages of the l i f e c y c l e , m o b i l i t y i s l e s s o f t e n r e s o r t e d to as i t i s e a s i e r to a d j u s t to a s u r p l u s r a t h e r than a shortage of space. P a r a l l e l w i t h t h i s f u n c t i o n a l adjustment to changing f a m i l y s i z e , another c y c l e must be seen i n the changing need f o r a d j u s t i n g the environment to such requirements of the p r e -s c h o o l c h i l d , the p u p i l and the a d o l e s c e n t i n terms of playgrounds, s c h o o l s and f a m i l i e s \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 s e r v i n g the r e c r e a t i o n a l needs of the o l d e r c h i l d r e n . Furthermore, r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y p l a y s a p a r t i n v e r t i c a l s o c i a l m o b i l i t y . F a m i l i e s moving up . the o c c u p a t i o n a l l a d d e r use r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y to b r i n g t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s i n t o l i n e w i t h t h e i r p r e s t i g e needs^ (my i t a l i c s ) R o s s i , Why F a m i l i e s Move, pp. 5-10, 177-181. 28 G e n e r a l l y i t was found t h a t space contained by a d w e l l i n g i s probably the most important d w e l l i n g q u a l i t y . S m a l l u n i t s are c o n g e n i a l o n l y to the e a r l i e s t and f i n a l stages i n the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e . A p a r t from d e s i g n - space, l a y o u t o f rooms and u t i l i t i e s are other important aspects o f the d w e l l i n g . I f a f a m i l y has c o n t r o l over I t s d w e l l i n g and can a d j u s t i t to i t s needs, m o b i l i t y i s reduced. F a m i l i e s owning l a r g e houses are l e a s t mobile, w h i l e l a r g e f a m i l i e s r e n t i n g r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l d w e l l i n g u n i t s are the most mobile households. R o s s i ' s c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i f e c y c l e and changing housing and neighborhood needs of the f a m i l y have been v e r i f i e d by V. H. Whitney and Ch. M. G r i g g i n t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of \" M o b i l i t y among Students' F a m i l i e s \" . ! 4 ' R o s s i ' s statement r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between upward o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and the d e s i r e to a d j u s t housing to the changing s t a t u s needs u n f o r t u n a t e l y i s not based upon s t a t i s t i c a l evidence but upon o b s e r v a t i o n . However, because t h i s hypo-t h e s i z e d r e l a t i o n s h i p i s the r e s u l t o f a v e r y thorough and p e n e t r a t i n g a n a l y s i s o f motives i n r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y , i t has s i g n i f i c a n c e . R o s s i does not suggest which method should be a p p l i e d to t e s t t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . 2. V. H. Whitney and Ch. M. Grigg's j o i n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n of \" M o b i l i t y among Students' F a m i l i e s \" i s of c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t f o r the purpose of t h i s study because of (a) the method which has been used to o b t a i n reasons f o r moving, (b) the manner i n which these reasons were i n t e r p r e t e d and c l a s s i f i e d , and 1 4 Whitney and G r i g g , American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. XXIII, No. 6, Dec. 1958. 2 9 (c) the r e s u l t s of the study. a) One of the i n t e n t i o n s of t h i s study was to determine whether i t i s p o s s i b l e to study the behavior of a group over a long p e r i o d by a s s e s s i n g s p e c i f i c a spects of each i n d i v i d u a l ' s behavior d u r i n g the p a s t r a t h e r than t r y i n g to m a i n t a i n c o n t a c t w i t h each member of a group over an e q u a l l y long f u t u r e p e r i o d . As such the authors prepared a q u e s t i o n n a i r e which was intended to e l i c i t reasons f o r moving f o r each change of address d u r i n g the p a s t 20 y e a r s . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was e x p l a i n e d to 500 freshmen who i n t u r n e x p l a i n e d i t to t h e i r f a m i l i e s . 492 a c c e p t a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d . The authors f e l t t h a t people were remarkably sure and s p e c i f i c i n s t a t i n g reasons f o r past moves and t h a t the method was considered adequate f o r t h e i r purpose. b) The reasons g i v e n f o r a t o t a l of 1,047 moves were grouped i n t o the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s : Economic, S t a t u s , Non-s t a t u s and D i s l i k e . The f i r s t two c a t e g o r i e s were c o n s i d e r e d \" p o s i t i v e \" and the l a s t two \"negative i n c e n t i v e s to change p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e \" . Examples of answers f i t t i n g i n t o the category Economic were \" b e t t e r paying job\" and \" j o b t r a n s f e r \" . Answers which i n d i c a t e d awareness t h a t the subsequent moves i n v o l v e s s t a t u s improvements, such as \"neighborhood w i t h n i c e r people\", \" b e s t p a r t of town\" or \"house we would be proud to e n t e r t a i n f r i e n d s i n \" , were p l a c e d i n t o the category S t a t u s . 30 I n an attempt to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between s t a t u s and non-s t a t u s moves, a l l answers i n d i c a t i n g a compelling f o r c e or a concrete d i s l i k e of some aspects of a s p e c i f i c house or ne i g h -borhood were p l a c e d i n t o the r e s p e c t i v e c a t e g o r i e s . For example such answers as \"moved f o r reasons of poor h e a l t h \" , \" t o j o i n r e l a t i v e s or f r i e n d s \" or \"because p r o p e r t y was condemned\" were grouped as Non-status moves. Under the category D i s l i k e the f o l l o w i n g type of answers were i n c l u d e d : \" n o i s y neighbors\", \" l e a k y plumbing\", \"outgrown house\", \" e x c e s s i v e taxes\" and \"poor s c h o o l s \" . Two c r i t i c i s m s may be l e v e l l e d a g a i n s t the method used f o r a n a l y s i n g and c a t e g o r i z i n g answers. F i r s t , the q u e s t i o n may be r a i s e d as to what extent Non-status and D i s l i k e answers serve as r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s and can be d i s p r o v e d as such. For example, \" j o i n i n g r e l a t i v e s or f r i e n d s \" may mean that these people l i v e d i n a b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l area and induced t h e i r f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s to j o i n them there or otherwise both p a r t i e s ' p r e s t i g e and r e l a t i o n s h i p s would s u f f e r . \"Noisy n e i g h -bors\" may mean \"people w i t h whom we d i d n ' t want to be a s s o c i a t e d \" , w h i l e \" e x c e s s i v e taxes\" can mean admission o f a p r e v i o u s p r e s t i g e move i n t o an area which cannot be a f f o r d e d , or the person may be sayin g : \"I d i s l i k e the people or the n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d uses t h a t invade the neighborhood, they r a i s e the assessment and make the area u n d e s i r a b l e from the p o i n t o f view of my s t a t u s \" . \"Poor s c h o o l s \" u s u a l l y r e f e r s to the q u a l i t y of e d u c a t i o n a l standards which i n t u r n are a r e f l e c t i o n of what the p a r t i c u l a r neighborhood 31 can a f f o r d . Presumably, an unpleasant area with unpleasant s c h o o l b u i l d i n g s w i l l a t t r a c t fewer h i g h c l a s s teachers than a p l e a s a n t a r e a . Furthermore, a poor area produces l e s s revenue and probably has l e s s power on the Sc h o o l Board to demand b e t t e r b u i l d i n g s and teaching p e r s o n n e l . Moving f o r reason of \"Poor Sch o o l \" probably always means l e a v i n g an u n d e s i r a b l e neighborhood f o r reasons of a f f o r d i n g one's c h i l d r e n an ed u c a t i o n which one f e e l s they should have. P o s s i b l y , t h e r e f o r e a s p i r a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the c h i l d r e n ' s f u t u r e s t a t u s are the motives f o r these moves. The second c r i t i c i s m may be d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the grouping of answers i n t o ' p o s i t i v e ' and 'negative* i n c e n t i v e s f o r moving. For example, a \" b e t t e r paying job\" i s an i n c e n t i v e to move and i s c l a s s i f i e d i n the category Economic. When i t comes t o s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e , the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l a c t u a l l y i n d i c a t e whether h i s move was merely an Economic move or a Status-Economic move because he can s e l e c t a r e s i d e n c e which i s worse, equal or b e t t e r than h i s p a s t r e s i d e n c e . I f he moved to a b e t t e r r e s i d e n c e i n terms of \" n i c e r neighborhood\" or \"more r e s p e c t a b l e house\", the move should be c l a s s i f i e d as a Status move. This study a l s o f a i l s to d i s t i n g u i s h between the reasons f o r moving and the reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g . The former may be e n t i r e l y u n r e l a t e d to s t a t u s or p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ; the second may always be made i n terms of what i s co n s i d e r e d approp-r i a t e , i n terms of a s p i r a t i o n s , and i n terms of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s about the s t a t u s aspects of the pr e v i o u s r e s i d e n c e . 32 c) The s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s of the study a re summarized i n Table I . TABLE I SUMMARY OF TYPES OF MOVES Type of Moves L o c a l D i s t a n c e Number Percentage Number Percentage Reason f o r Moving Economic 3 S t a t u s 545 Non-Status 19 D i s s a t i s f i e d 37 A l l types 604 0.1 - 1.0 90.0 3.0 6.0 399 14 15 15 99.9 443 90.0 3 . 0 3.5 3.5 100.0 The strong emphasis upon Economic and Sta t u s moves seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t the authors were very c a r e f u l i n a n a l y s i n g Non-Status and D i s l i k e reasons. Furthermore, the authors s t a t e t h a t most of the D i s t a n c e moves (of which 90$ were Economic moves) were f o l l o w e d by one or two l o c a l moves, of which a t l e a s t one was a Sta t u s move. T h i s phenomena might be e x p l a i n e d by the f a c t t h a t n o n - r e s i d e n t s l a c k e d knowledge of the s t a t u s of v a r i o u s r e s i d e n t i a l areas and s e l e c t e d t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e i n terms of other needs. Once they had become f a m i l i a r w i t h the r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s s t r u c t u r e , they a d j u s t e d t h e i r r e s i d e n c e i n terms of t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r own s t a t u s . 33 I n t h e i r summary, Whitney and Grig g s t a t e t h a t i n the Middle c l a s s group, i n terms of average American f a m i l y income and job s t a t u s , almost a l l f a m i l i e s were upwardly mobile, and that t h i s group c o u l d be expected to do a maximum of s t a t u s moves. D e c i s i o n to move was not motivated by the d e s i r e to o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l income g a i n but on the p r i o r e x i s t e n c e of such g a i n s . 3. The t h i r d study which i s considered s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h i s p a r t of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man by W i l l i a m H. Whyte J r . 1 ^ Whyte's a n a l y s i s of \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\" has s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h i s d i s c u s s i o n because h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of motives i n r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y was c a r r i e d out among members of a l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n . Although no attempt has been made to analyse t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group i n the l i g h t of Whyte's c o n c l u s i o n s about \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\", c e r t a i n aspects of t h i s p e r s o n a l i t y type as they r e l a t e to the hypothesis of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n should be d i s c u s s e d . A c c o r d i n g to Whyte \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\", g e n e r a l l y , i s a member of the young business g e n e r a t i o n and u s u a l l y a post-war c o l l e g e graduate who has been sucked up by the r a p i d l y expanding post-war economy and f i r s t becomes a t r a i n e e , then a member of the Middle Management group and, p o s s i b l y , a t l a s t a member o f 1 the Advanced Management group of a l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n . Once a member of the \" O r g a n i z a t i o n \" , \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\" i s t r a i n e d Whyte, The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, p. 7 34 a c c o r d i n g to the p r i n c i p l e s of the new \" S o c i a l E t h i c s \" of business l i f e . \"By s o c i a l e t h i c \" , Whyte e x p l a i n s , 1 ^ I mean t h a t contemporary body of thought which makes m o r a l l y l e g i t i m a t e the p r e s s u r e s of s o c i e t y a g a i n s t the i n d i v i d u a l . I t s major p r o p o s i t i o n s a re th r e e : a b e l i e f i n the group as the source of c r e a t i v i t y ; a b e l i e f i n 'belongingness' as the u l t i m a t e need of the i n d i v i d u a l ; and a b e l i e f i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of s c i e n c e to achieve the belongingness. \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man's\" p e r s o n a l i t y i s molded by these b e l i e f s . He i s t r a i n e d to a d j u s t e a s i l y to v a r i o u s groups and s i t u a t i o n s ; he i s encouraged to appear as a well-rounded person who has no I n t r o v e r t e d i n c l i n a t i o n s and j u s t enough a m b i t i o n to r e a s s u r e h i s s u p e r i o r s of h i s l o y a l t y to the o r g a n i z a t i o n system without becoming suspect by h i s group; he b e l i e v e s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s good w i l l and s c i e n t i f i c s k i l l to p l a c e him i n t o a p o s i t i o n t h a t w i l l s u i t h i s c a p a c i t i e s . Although he may f e e l d i s t u r b e d i f h i s progress i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s not com-mensurate w i t h that of others i n h i s group, h i s i d e a l of a good l i f e l i m i t s h i s amb i t i o n to r a i s e h i m s e l f to more than, p o s s i b l y , a top p o s i t i o n i n the Middle Management group. Above t h a t , the \"good l i f e \" i s eaten away by overwork, f r u s t r a t i o n , a m b i t i o n and a f e e l i n g of i n s e c u r i t y . I n order to a t t a i n t h i s rank, however, he conforms f u r t h e r to the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s system and c r i t e r i a f o r promotion. I n order t o have the ne c e s s a r y broad knowledge of a l l the f a c e t s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , he su r p r e s s e s Whyte, The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, p. ?\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 35 a l l s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s and s p e c i a l i s t t r a i n i n g he may have had, and accepts a long p e r i o d of i n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l and i n t e r c i t y t r a n s i e n c y . To him i t becomes more important to be a b l e to l e a d a group and mold i t i n t o a f u n c t i o n a l instrument than to a s s e r t h i s i n d i v i d u a l i t y and become noted f o r independent d e c i s i o n s . Outside the o r g a n i z a t i o n , \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\" remains t r u e to h i s p r i n c i p l e s of smooth c o - o p e r a t i o n and b e n e f i c i e n t conformity. He takes h i s cues as to where and how he should l i v e from the group and because he i s not o v e r l y ambitious to appear conspicuous among h i s own group, he advances as a group i n the. community as he advances i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , namely, s t e a d i l y upwards. However, once \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\" has been s e l e c t e d f o r the Advanced Management group, h i s a t t i t u d e s and behavior change d r a s t i c a l l y . Although he remains \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\", he has to conform to the standards of a d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r y of t h i s p e r s o n a l i t y type. I f i t i s not he h i m s e l f who d e l i b e r a t e l y changes h i s s t y l e of l i f e , i t i s h i s former group which reminds him of h i s new p o s i t i o n and f o r c e s him i n a benevolent way to assume the standards of t h a t \" h i g h e r \" group. The success i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n p l a c e s new s o c i a l demands upon the i n d i v i d u a l which almost a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e q u i r e of him to assume the s t a t u s symbols of h i s new group. With r e s p e c t to r e s i d e n c e , Whyte notes the f o l l o w i n g : ^ Whyte, The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, p. 175 36 . . . t o i n t e r p o l a t e from Fortune's c i r c u l a t i o n r e c o r d s , promotion f o r the man and change of address f o r h i s f a m i l y c o r r e l a t e r a t h e r h i g h l y -and r a t h e r q u i c k l y . I n the case of the wives I i n t e r v i e w e d f o r the a r t i c l e s I have gone back from time to time i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h f o l l o w up s t u d i e s and have found t h a t some of the most i n s i s t e n t about s t a y i n g put and happy have been the f i r s t to move out to B r i n t o n H i l l s and i t s e q u i v a l e n t s . Chrestmere H e i g h t s , i t now appears, was j u s t a phase. And not the l a s t one e i t h e r , by a long shot. I t appears from Whyte's a n a l y s i s t h a t \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\" i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h two d i s t i n c t i v e groups, namely, the broad Middle Management group, and the much more e x c l u s i v e Advanced or Top Management group. Of these groups, the l a t t e r i s the more conspicous i n the community; the former i s r e s p e c t a b l e M i d d l e C l a s s . I n the Middle Management group conspicuous con-sumption and conspicuous behavior i s frowned upon, although, as a group, they are the Joneses of the community. To be above or below the group standards i s a show of a m b i t i o n or d i s c o n c e r n which annoys the group. However, because \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\" has been t r a i n e d to conform, such i n d i v i d u a l i s m r a r e l y r e a r s i t s e l f . For the Advanced Management group s i m i l a r standards e x i s t . I n terms of consumption and s o c i a l b ehavior, these standards are d e f i n i t e l y above those of the Middle Management group. Change of address, change of a s s o c i a t i o n s and d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n d i c a t e most c l e a r l y when the break has o c c u r r e d . Whyte's a n a l y s i s r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s which cannot be d i s -cussed here a t g r e a t l e n g t h . F i r s t of a l l , i s \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n 37 Man\" as uniform i n h i s p e r s o n a l i t y as Whyte d e s c r i b e s him or has Whyte a b s t r a c t e d numerous i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s and formed a p e r s o n a l i t y type, a c a r i c a t u r e , which i s r a r e l y found as com-p l e t e as i s g i v e n to understand? Second, does \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\" pervade a l l l a r g e - s c a l e o r g a n i z a t i o n s or i s he more t y p i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h n a t i o n a l - w i d e o r g a n i z a t i o n s r a t h e r than w i t h l o c a l companies? T h i r d , i s \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\" the product of an i n s t i t u t i o n per se and t h e r e f o r e can be found i n a l l s o c i e t i e s or i s he p r i m a r i l y the product of the American way of l i f e ? And f o u r t h , a re those persons who have ten and twenty years of s e r v i c e i n the lowest ranks of the o r g a n i z a t i o n b e f o r e they advance i n t o the Middle Management group a l s o \" O r g a n i z a t i o n Men\" i n Whyte fs sense, and how would they r e a c t to t h e i r change of S t a t u s ? And f i n a l l y , when are we j u s t i f i e d i n s e p a r a t i n g the idea s and behavior of a person from h i s past experiences and c o n s t r u c t a type p e r s o n a l i t y ? I s Whyte h i m s e l f not g u i l t y to some, extent of p l a c i n g a l a r g e group of persons on one p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t card? These questions a s i d e , one must admit t h a t Whyte's study p r o v i d e s c o n s i d e r a b l e i n s i g h t r e g a r d i n g the behavior of one group of s o c i e t y which seems to become l a r g e r r a t h e r than s m a l l e r . Furthermore, Whyte's a n a l y s i s permits other i n v e s t i g a t o r s to a p p l y h i s p e r s o n a l i t y a b s t r a c t and f i n d the d e v i a t i o n s from the type. T h i s has been done i n the p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to some asp e c t s of \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\". P A R T I I DESIGN OF THE INVESTIGATION 38 CHAPTER I I SELECTION OF THE GROUP TO BE STUDIED In order to t e s t the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a group of persons had to be s e l e c t e d which were s i m i l a r i n some important aspects and of which i t could be assumed t h a t c o n f o r m i t y and p r e s t i g e i f a t a l l had a l i k e i n f l u e n c e upon t h e i r b e h a v i o r . I n view of Whyte's a n a l y s i s of \"The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man\" i t was f e l t t h a t the Middle Management group of a business o r g a n i z a t i o n would be s u i t e d f o r the purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t was decided to study one such group a s s o c i a t e d w i t h one o r g a n i z a t i o n r a t h e r than s e l e c t people from s e v e r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T h i s r e s t r i c t i o n would f u r t h e r permit a b e t t e r c o n t r o l o f the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : a) The p o l i c i e s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n would a p p l y to a l l members of the group, e.g. r e g a r d i n g promotion, i n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l and i n t e r - p e r s o n n e l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , s u p e r i o r - s u b o r d i n a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and r e g a r d i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s conduct as a f u n c t i o n of the o r g a n i z a t i o n s ' s p u b l i c r e l a t i o n p o l i c y . 1 I t i s understood that p o l i c i e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n vary over a p e r i o d of time and i n d i v i s i o n s of an o r g a n i z a t i o n depending upon l e a d i n g p e r s o n a l i t i e s , the economic s i t u a t i o n and \" s c i e n t i f i c \" r e v e l a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the p o t e n t i a l c a p a c i t i e s of p e r s o n a l i t i e s and i n t e r - p e r s o n n e l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Seasoned employees may be d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t i e s than r e c e n t employees; t h i s was one of the f i n d i n g s of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 3 9 b) The s a l a r y s t r u c t u r e and ranking system would be c o n s i s t e n t and permit the i n v e s t i g a t o r t o judge a person's rank i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . c) The method of t r a i n i n g and the p o l i c y o f i n s t r u c t i n g others would be c o n s i s t e n t . d) A g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t y of a t t i t u d e s , values and behaviors among members of the group might be expected because: 1) These persons were s e l e c t e d as s u p e r v i s o r s a c c o r d i n g to one o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s p e r s o n n e l p o l i c y and w i t h the a s s i s t a n c e of a s t a n d a r d i z e d P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment Card System. 2) They may be expected to have s i m i l a r experiences i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to c o n f o r m i t y and p r e s t i g e which might i n f l u e n c e t h e i r a t t i t u d e s , v a l u e s and behaviors s i m i l a r i l y . 3 ) The e n t i r e group gathers p e r i o d i c a l l y a t f o r m a l meetings and presumably, members of the group meet f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g business hours. F r i e n d s h i p groups w i l l be formed w i t h i n the company. The r e s u l t i n g exchange of ideas and experiences w i l l c o n t r i b u t e to a g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t y i n terms of a t t i t u d e s , v a l u e s , and behaviors among the members of the group. 40 I n the l i g h t of the above i t was decided to study the behavior of a group of people employed as members of the Middle Management group w i t h the B r i t i s h Columbia Power C o r p o r a t i o n L t d . (which i s p o p u l a r l y r e f e r r e d to as the B. C. E l e c t r i c ) . I n the Middle Management group were i n c l u d e d a l l T e c h n i c a l S p e c i a l i s t s and J u n i o r L i n e S u p e r v i s o r s as d e f i n e d by W. E. Moore.3 I n terms of the B. C. E l e c t r i c rank s t r u c t u r e the The B r i t i s h Columbia Power C o r p o r a t i o n L t d . i s the h o l d i n g company of the B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Company L t d . , B. C. E n g i n e e r i n g Company L t d . , B r i t i s h Columbia E l e c t r i c Railway Company L t d . , and Western Development and Power L t d . Of these companies the B. C. E l e c t r i c Co. L t d . employs the m a j o r i t y of the 5,000 employees of the C o r p o r a t i o n . The B. C. E n g i n e e r i n g Co. L t d . employs about 300 s p e c i a l i s t s depending, however, upon s e a s o n a l e n g i n e e r i n g and c o n s u l t i n g p r o j e c t s . The Western Development and Power L t d . employs a v e r y s m a l l s t a f f of p e o p l e . The B. C. E l e c t r i c Co. L t d . i s a p r i v a t e u t i l i t y company which serves the southern p o r t i o n of the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia w i t h e l e c t r i c i t y , gas, and t r o l l e y coach and motor bus s e r v i c e . B. C. E l e c t r i c Railway Co. L t d . has a l i m i t e d r a i l w a y o p e r a t i o n . For a l l purposes, and e x c l u d i n g B. C. E n g i n e e r i n g Co. L t d . , the C o r p o r a t i o n i s a p r o v i n c i a l organ-i z a t i o n , a l t h o u g h one which has c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e upon the development of Western Canada. Because most of the C o r p o r a t i o n ' s s t a f f and employees are concentrated i n Vancouver, i t s Middle Management group c o n s i s t i n g of 400 s u p e r v i s o r s (approx.) probably i s one of the l a r g e s t i n t h i s c i t y . 3 W. E. Moore, c i t i n g F. H. R o e t h l i s b e r g e r , Management and Moral. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1941, pp. 35-36, d i s t i n g u i s h e s s i x c a t e g o r i e s of o c c u p a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s i n a c o r p o r a t i o n or c o r p o r a t i o n - t y p e o r g a n i z a t i o n . These a r e : (a) E x e c u t i v e s , (b) T e c h n i c a l S p e c i a l i s t s , (c) J u n i o r L i n e S u p e r v i s o r s , (d) S e c r e t a r i a l or C l e r i c a l Workers, (e) F i r s t L i n e S u p e r v i s o r s (foremen), and ( f ) Shop and Bench Workers \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i n t h a t o r d e r . The T e c h n i c a l S p e c i a l i s t s have the f o l l o w i n g f u n c t i o n s : 1. The primary group ( l a r g e s t ) concerned w i t h e f f e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n ( i n t e r n a l ) : 41 Middle Management group i n c l u d e d T r a f f i c S u p e r v i s o r s and Department Heads who had p r o f e s s i o n a l backgrounds t h a t v a r i e d from bus o p e r a t i o n to post-graduate t r a i n i n g i n e n g i n e e r i n g . The s a l a r i e s of t h i s group range from $5>500 to $11 ,000 per annum, depending upon p o s i t i o n , t r a i n i n g , experience and performance. Lack of time prevented an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a l l persons i n t h i s group hence a sample was s e l e c t e d . Lack of time a l s o prevented the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of the sample. However, an attempt was made to s e l e c t from about 400 s u p e r v i s o r s a number of persons from each D i v i s i o n p r o p o r t i o n a l to the number of s u p e r v i s o r s and p r o p o r t i o n a l to the number of s u p e r v i s o r income groups. The s e l e c t i o n of. the group had to be l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of a) arrangement and maintenance of p r o d u c t i o n , e.g. e n g i n e e r s . b) s t a t i s t i c a l and f i n a n c i a l a s p e c t s , e.g. s t a t i s t i c a n , accountant, e t c . c) maintenance of p e r s o n n e l , h e a l t h , r e c r e a t i o n , e t c . 2. The secondary group concerned w i t h the e x t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s : a) market a n a l y s i s , d e s i g n and wrapping of product, e t c . b) s o l i c i t i n g , p u b l i c r e l a t i o n , e t c . 3 . The t e r t i a r y group concerned w i t h r e s e a r c h . Each of these T e c h n i c a l S p e c i a l i s t s has (a) the p o s i t i o n and a u t h o r i t y as s u p e r v i s o r , (b) a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of t r a i n i n g of a h i g h t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y , and (c) a b a s i c t r a i n i n g which was not a c q u i r e d \"on the job\" but o u t s i d e the o r g a n i z a t i o n a t an i n s t i t u t i o n , and u s u a l l y S p e c i a l i s t s were h i r e d from these i n s t i t u t i o n s or some other o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r a s p e c i f i c purpose. The J u n i o r L i n e S u p e r v i s o r has the f o l l o w i n g f u n c t i o n : 1. He i s a manager i n the d i r e c t l i n e of a u t h o r i t y and an important p a r t i n the channel of communication between top manage-ment and the lower echelons of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . 2. He makes orders more e x p l i c i t and sees to i t t h a t they are c a r r i e d out. W. E. Moore, I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s and the S o c i a l Order. Rev i s e d E d i t i o n , New York, The Macmillan Co., 1946, pp. 10b-135. 42 the P e r s o n n e l Department. Separated I n terms of D i v i s i o n and Annual S a l a r y , the group appears i n Table I I : TABLE I I SAMPLE OF B.C. ELECTRIC MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GROUP BY NUMBER OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH DIVISION OR DEPARTMENT AND ON THE BASIS OF ANNUAL SALARIES D i v i s i o n / D e p t . Number of Persons Annual S a l a r y Number of Persons P e r s o n n e l Dept. 1 P r e s i d e n t D i r e c t o r y 1 L e g a l D i v i s i o n 1 Railway D i v i s i o n 2 Gas D i v i s i o n 2 I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Dept. 3 E l e c t r i c i t y D i v i s i o n 4 S a l e s D i v i s i o n 5 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D i v . 7 F i n a n c i a l D i v i s i o n 13 $4500-5499 5500-6499 6500-7499 7500-8499 8500-9499 9500-10499 10500-11499 1 8 9 9 5 5 2 T o t a l s 39 39 A f t e r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was concluded i t was l e a r n e d t h a t the P e r s o n n a l Department a c t u a l l y s e l e c t e d the respondents i n terms of \"who was l i k e l y to be most c o o p e r a t i v e i n g r a n t i n g an i n t e r v i e w \" . However, i t was f e l t , t h a t the sample was s t i l l q u i t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n p r o p o r t i o n to the a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . 43 CHAPTER I I DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE INVESTIGATION The O r i g i n a l Design of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n I n order to t e s t the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , improving r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s and an i n c r e a s i n g tendency of the i n d i v i d u a l to f o l l o w the r e s i d e n t i a l p a t t e r n of h i s o c c u p a t i o n a l group, the o r i g i n a l d e s i g n of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was as f o l l o w s . 1. The r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y p a t t e r n of the Advanced Management group was to be e s t a b l i s h e d f i r s t . T h i s p a t t e r n was to be e s t a b l i s h e d over a p e r i o d of 15 years i n order to f i n d \" r e s i d e n t i a l p l a t e a u s \" f o r c e r t a i n rank l e v e l s , the movement from one to the next \" p l a t e a u \" as the person's rank i n c r e a s e d and areas changed, and the pr e s e n t \"focus p l a t e a u s \" f o r c e r t a i n ranks and D i v i s i o n s which may be the go a l s f o r c e r t a i n Middle Management groups w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . ^ T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has been c a r r i e d out. A l i s t of 104 Advanced Management persons i n c l u d i n g the P r e s i d e n t and Top Middle Management persons was obtained from the \"1957 - B r i t i s h Columbia Power C o r p o r a t i o n , L t d . , ANNUAL REPORT\". T h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y p a t t e r n has been e s t a b l i s h e d based on the C i t y D i r e c t o r y r e t u r n i n g to 1943 i n f i v e - y e a r i n t e r v a l s . In-between moves and l a c k o f income and rank data prevented the est a b l i s h m e n t of \" r e s i d e n t i a l p l a t e a u s \" , although t h i s l i m i t a t i o n c ould have been overcome i n s p i t e of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s r e f u s a l to r e v e a l any data about t h i s group, r e f e r r e d to by the company as \"Group 16\". \" R e s i d e n t i a l p l a t e a u s \" are meant to be r e s i d e n t i a l areas to which company o f f i c i a l s move a f t e r they have a c q u i r e d a 44 2. Next the r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y p a t t e r n of 200 Midd l e Management persons was to be e s t a b l i s h e d beginning w i t h the l a s t r e s i d e n c e b e f o r e they had been appointed s u p e r v i s o r . 3. The o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y p a t t e r n i n terms of income and rank was intended to be e s t a b l i s h e d next f o r the Middle Management persons a l s o beginning w i t h t h e i r l a s t job-grouping before becoming s u p e r v i s o r . 4. L a s t l y the \" f a m i l y i n c r e a s e \" p a t t e r n was to be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r each member of the group, i . e . date of marriage, dates of b i r t h of c h i l d r e n and when they l e f t the household, dates about other members of the household not bel o n g i n g to the f a m i l y . Once these p a t t e r n s were e s t a b l i s h e d , the f o l l o w i n g c e r t a i n rank p o s i t i o n and can a f f o r d to l i v e i n c e r t a i n a r e a s . P r o v i d i n g that the c h a r a c t e r of areas does not change r a p i d l y over time, a l l o f f i c i a l s may a t one time r e s i d e i n these areas as they move up i n the rank h i e r a r c h y of the company. I t may be assumed t h a t c e r t a i n areas f i g u r e p rominently i n t h i s o c c u p a t i o n a l - r e s i d e n t i a l upward m o b i l i t y because o f f i c i a l s may o b t a i n t h e i r cues f o r \" a p p r o p r i a t e r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s \" from other, o f f i c i a l s i n the company. Furthermore, persons f o l l o w i n g a c e r t a i n p a t t e r n of m o b i l i t y from \" p l a t e a u \" to \" p l a t e a u \" may be expected to r e s i d e f i n a l l y i n d e f i n i t e \"focus p l a t e a u s \" . These are determined by c e r t a i n groups o f the Top Management group. I t may be assumed t h a t persons i n t e n d i n g to r e s i d e f i n a l l y i n a \" t r a d i t i o n a l h i g h - c l a s s a r e a \" r a t h e r than i n a \"modern h i g h - c l a s s a r e a \" , w i l l f o l l o w a. d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of \" p l a t e a u s \" . While g r a d u a l l y moving c l o s e r to a c e r t a i n \" h i g h -c l a s s a r e a \" these persons a re a b l e to observe the behavior of the \" h i g h - c l a s s socio-economic groups\" and become accustomed to the p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n of l i v i n g p r e v a i l i n g i n these \" h i g h -c l a s s a r e a s \" . I t becomes \" n a t u r a l \" f o r them to move i n t o these areas i f they are f i n a n c i a l l y a b l e to do so, r a t h e r than to move to a d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environment w i t h which they are not f a m i l i a r . 4-5 i n v e s t i g a t i o n and c o r r e l a t i o n s were intended to t e s t the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s : 1. F i r s t a p a t t e r n of \" r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s p l a t e a u s \" was to be e s t a b l i s h e d based on the movements of the m a j o r i t y of Middle Management persons as they advance through the o r g a n i z a t i o n s rank h i e r a r c h y . These p a t t e r n s would i n d i c a t e a) t h a t c e r t a i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas are a t t r a c t i v e t o a c e r t a i n rank-income group of one o r g a n i z a t i o n . b) t h a t persons of each rank-income group e i t h e r have to conform or do conform v o l u n t a r y to a p a t t e r n i n order to m a i n t a i n t h e i r p r e s t i g e w i t h the group or to express t h e i r s t a t u s p o s i t i o n by means of r e s i d e n c e . I f i n the m a j o r i t y of cases these tendencies c o u l d have been proven, t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s about o c c u p a t i o n a l group co n f o r m i t y and i n d i v i d u a l p r e s t i g e needs c o u l d have been drawn. 2. Comparison of o c c u p a t i o n a l and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y data would have shown the degree of c o r r e l a t i o n between promotion and m o b i l i t y . I f a high c o r r e l a t i o n was found and i f a t r e n d towards the next \" o c c u p a t i o n a l - r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s p l a t e a u \" i n terms of \"focus p l a t e a u s \" , average v a l u e of houses and l o t s , and socio-economic grouping c o u l d have been proven, then W. H. Whyte's o b s e r v a t i o n that i n c r e a s e i n rank and change of address c o r r e l a t e q u i c k l y could be v e r i f i e d to some, d e g r e e . 2 Whyte, The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man, p. 175. 46 3. I n order to e l i m i n a t e those moves which might have been r e l a t e d to a change i n the s i z e of the household, m o b i l i t y dates and f a m i l y i n c r e a s e dates were t o be compared from t h i s p o i n t of view. Once these c o r r e l a t i o n s were made, approximately 40 s u p e r v i s o r s r e p r e s e n t i n g p r o p o r t i o n a l l y as many d i f f e r e n t type cases as may have been found i n the p r e l i m i n a r y I n v e s t i g a t i o n of 200 s u p e r v i s o r s , would have been s e l e c t e d f o r i n t e r v i e w s . These i n t e r v i e w s would have been designed to i n v e s t i g a t e (a) reasons f o r moving, (b) reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g the new r e s i d e n c e , (c) importance of p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n moving and s e l e c t i n g , and (d) degree of conformity. I f a h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between a t t i t u d e s and motives of respondents r e p r e s e n t i n g each type case c o u l d have been found, t e n t a t i v e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about these groups w i t h i n the Middle Management group c o u l d have been p r e s e n t e d . T h i s o r i g i n a l d e s i g n of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n had to be d i s c a r d e d l a r g e l y because the P e r s o n n e l Department of the B. C. E l e c t r i c c o n s i d e r e d i t i m p o s s i b l e to e x t r a c t t h i s mass of data w i t h i n a s h o r t time. The Adopted Design of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n The new d e s i g n had to r e l y upon the i n t e r v i e w schedule i t s e l f f o r o b t a i n i n g both f a c t u a l arid a t t i t u d e i n f o r m a t i o n . Furthermore, the sample had to be r e s t r i c t e d to a t o t a l of 47 40 s u p e r v i s o r s . The i n t e r v i e w schedule (see Appendix I) was designed w i t h the f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n mind: 1. I n order to keep the respondent as long as p o s s i b l e i n the dark about the s p e c i f i c purpose o f the i n t e r v i e w e.g. r e v e a l the hypothesis o f the study too soon thereby i n f l u e n c i n g the r e s u l t s , i n f o r m a t i o n about the person, h i s f a m i l y , h i s employment and s a l a r y , and about the sequence and c h a r a c t e r of h i s r e s i d e n c e s , h i s reasons f o r moving and s e l e c t i n g , and h i s i n t e n t i o n to move from h i s p r e s e n t r e s i d e n c e was obtained d u r i n g the beginning of the i n t e r v i e w . (Questions 1 - 26) The i n v e s t i g a t o r avoided \"reminding\" the respondent of p o s s i b l e motives f o r moving or s e l e c t i o n , a l s o respondents were not asked t o e v a l u a t e such motives i n terms of t h e i r own behavior. While a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of motives might have been l o s t i n t h i s f a s h i o n , the danger of suggesting motives and o b t a i n i n g s t e r e o t y p e d responses c o u l d thereby be avoided. 4\" I f the reasons presented by the respondent 3 Of the 40 persons s e l e c t e d f o r i n t e r v i e w i n g , 39 persons were v i s i t e d . One person worked i n New Westminster, approximately 12 m i l e s from the center of Vancouver and the area i n which the remaining 39 persons worked. S i n c e t h i s person was not Vancouver-o r i e n t e d and l i v e d near New Westminster he was c o n s i d e r e d a s p e c i a l case and hence excluded from the sample. 4 P e t e r E . R o s s i i n h i s study Why F a m i l i e s Move among other methods, presented a l i s t of aspects \"commonly thought to be sources of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n \" i n order t h a t the respondent might i n d i c a t e which of these items had much or no s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t r i g g e r i n g a subsequent move. Op. c i t . , p. 81. 48 i n d i c a t e d concern w i t h s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e , f u r t h e r probing questions were posed and assessed a c c o r d i n g l y . 2. Questions r e g a r d i n g s o c i a l s t a t u s , p r e s t i g e , group p r e s s u r e and use of r e s i d e n c e as a s t a t u s symbol were asked next. (Questions 27 - 53) The questions were arranged i n such a f a s h i o n t h a t the respondent c o u l d s t a t e h i s o p i n i o n about the g e n e r a l p u b l i c , the people i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n and the Middle Management group f i r s t b e f o r e he had to r e v e a l h i s own p o s i t i o n . I t was hoped t h a t people would be l e s s r e l u c t a n t to answer f r e e l y f o r themselves i f g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y to i d e n t i f y themselves w i t h l a r g e r groups. Although t h i s approach helped c o n s i d e r a b l y i n i n t r o d u c i n g the s u b j e c t i n a n e u t r a l way, most respondents jumped t o c o n c l u s i o n s about t h e i r own behavior a f t e r the f i r s t or second q u e s t i o n . Some quest i o n s and p a r t i c u l a r l y such concepts as \"hig h e r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n \" , \" s u b s t a n t i a l r a i s e i n s a l a r y \" , and \" a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house and neighborhood i n view of ones s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n \" , c r e a t e d c o n f u s i o n o f meanings and u s u a l l y p r e c i p i t a t e d a l e n g t h y d i s c u s s i o n . These ques t i o n s and concepts were g i v e n uniform meaning by r e l a t i n g s t e r e o t y p e d examples, which, however, may not have assure d s i m i l a r understanding. Throughout the d i s c u s s i o n of quest i o n s i n t h i s g e n e r a l category, the i n v e s t i g a t o r made r e f e r e n c e to the respondent's a c t u a l m o b i l i t y i n order to c l e a r up apparent i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and s u s p i c i o n s h e l d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r r e g a r d i n g the 4 9 respondent's o b j e c t i v i t y . However, the l a t t e r were r a r e l y c l e a r e d up to both p a r t y s ' s a t i s f a c t i o n . 3. The rankin g of r e s i d e n t i a l areas by each respondent (Que s t i o n 54) was i n t r o d u c e d by e x p l a i n i n g t h a t an attempt was made to e s t a b l i s h a s t a t u s h i e r a r c h y of r e s i d e n t i a l areas on the b a s i s of demographic d a t a . ^ The h i e r a r c h y obtained by t h i s method was to be compared w i t h the h i e r a r c h y p e r c e i v e d by the respondents. The respondent was not asked to determine the s t a t u s of areas i n terms of a s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a but i n terms o f the c r i t e r i a which he would o r d i n a r i l y a p p l y . I t should be noted t h a t most respondents determined s t a t u s of r e s i d e n t i a l areas p r i m a r i l y i n terms of appearance, c o n d i t i o n , s i z e , and value of houses and l o t s , socio-economic groupings, r e s i d e n c e of top management p e r s o n n e l , and r e s i d e n c e of people well-known i n the community. Most people were c a r e f u l i n making t h e i r s e l e c t i o n s and j u s t i f i e d t h e i r c hoice i n terms of s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s w i t h which they were f a m i l i a r ; however, people who had never l i v e d E a s t of Main S t . o f t e n e x h i b i t e d p r e j u d i c e s about these a r e a s . 4. The g e n e r a l questions about neighborhood r e l a t i o n s (Questions 55 - 63) were i n t r o d u c e d a f t e r emphasizing the f a c t t h at they had no r e l a t i o n s h i p to the r e s t of the i n t e r v i e w but were meant to t e s t an assumption which had been made i n 7 T h i s h i e r a r c h y of r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n terms of s t a t u s was based upon demographic data contained i n Canada Census, P o p u l a t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver by Census T r a c t s . B u l l e t i n CT-11. p u b l i s h e d by the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Ottawa. For a d i s c u s s i o n of methods of e s t a b l i s h i n g s t a t u s h i e r a r c h i e s of r e s i d e n t i a l areas r e f e r to Appendix I I . 50 another study. The nature of t h i s assumption was r e v e a l e d o n l y a f t e r the questions were asked. 5. The summary questions about reasons i n the pas t and the f u t u r e f o r s e l e c t i n g a r e s i d e n c e was read by each respondent. I n cases where people could not h o n e s t l y arrange a l l f i v e items i n t o a sequence of importance i t was agreed t h a t these items should remain open. Of the 39 s u p e r v i s o r s i n t e r v i e w e d , 13 were v i s i t e d a t home w h i l e 26 were met i n t h e i r o f f i c e . Although the home i n t e r v i e w s on the average l a s t e d l onger than the o f f i c e i n t e r v i e w s (2 - 2-1/2 hours as compared to 2-1/2 - 3 hours), i t i s f e l t t h a t the business atmosphere and i n t e r r u p t i o n s d i d not i n f l u e n c e the course of the i n t e r v i e w and the response of the i n d i v i d u a l to any n o t i c e a b l e degree. Robert Williams,. \"The S o c i a l E f f e c t s of S u b d i v i s i o n Design: A Study i n Micro-Ecology\", unpublished Master's t h e s i s , graduate course i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, May 1958. Mr. W i l l i a m s made the assumption t h a t members of the lower socio-economic groups are much more dependent upon neighborhood f r i e n d s h i p r e l a t i o n s than, by i n f e r e n c e , members of the middle socio-economic groups. P A R T I I I METHODS OF ANALYSIS A n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n c r e a s e i n o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and moving to a l a r g e r and more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g and to a b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l area In order t o b r i n g r e s i d e n c e i n adjustment w i t h the a c q u i r e d s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n and i n order to o b t a i n the p r e s t i g e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a . T h i s hypothesis was separated f o r the purpose of a n a l y s i s i n t o i t s f o u r component p a r t s which were grouped i n t o A n a l y s i s of A t t i t u d e s and A n a l y s i s of F a c t u a l I n f o r m a t i o n . A n a l y s i s of A t t i t u d e s 1. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n c r e a s e i n o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and i n c r e a s e i n s o c i a l s t a t u s . 2. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l p o s i t i o n and r e s i d e n c e as an e x p r e s s i o n of s o c i a l p o s i t i o n . A n a l y s i s of F a c t u a l I n f o r m a t i o n 1. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between moving to a l a r g e r and more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g and s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . 2. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between moving to a b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l area and s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The methods a p p l i e d to t e s t each r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be o u t l i n e d under the r e s p e c t i v e headings. 51 CHAPTER I METHODS FOR ANALYSING ATTITUDES Methods used to t e s t the R e l a t i o n s h i p between Increase i n O c c u p a t i o n a l Status and Increase i n S o c i a l S t atus The assumption was made t h a t each respondent has a r e c o r d of v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y . T h i s assumption was based upon the understanding t h a t persons (a) r a r e l y o b t a i n a Middle Management p o s i t i o n without having been employed w i t h the O r g a n i z a t i o n as rank and f i l e employees or as t r a i n e e s f o r some time, and (b) do not remain i n the same rank p o s i t i o n or job-g r o u p i n g l once they have entered the Middle Management range but advance f u r t h e r . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n a c t u a l l y showed t h a t 36 of 39 respondents were \" f i r s t - l i n e s u p e r v i s o r s \" , \"rank and f i l e employees\", or \" t r a i n e e s \" f o r a t l e a s t t hree years p r i o r to t h e i r appointment as S u p e r v i s o r s or \" J u n i o r E x e c u t i v e s \" . Three respondents were h i r e d as S u p e r v i s o r s but have s i n c e i n c r e a s e d t h e i r rank and job-grouping. Most of the 36 respondents had a l s o i n c r e a s e d t h e i r rank or job-grouping, a l t h o u g h a few had not, or to a v e r y l i m i t e d degree, progressed i n Middle Management. These persons, however, had made the s i g n i f i c a n t step i n t o Middle Management and, presumably, w i t h the expansion Job-grouping determines s a l a r y , not rank p o s i t i o n . 52 of the o r g a n i z a t i o n had a l s o experienced an expansion of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a u t h o r i t y . The assumption t h a t each respondent has a r e c o r d of v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y may be accepted as proven. For the purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o n l y a l i m i t e d amount of data i n d i c a t i n g v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y could be obtained. T h i s m a t e r i a l i s c o n f i n e d to (a) beginning of employment w i t h the O r g a n i z a t i o n , (b) year of appointment to a s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n , and (c) p r e s e n t annual s a l a r y . Except i n the case of being appointed S u p e r v i s o r there i s no other way of r e l a t i n g v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y d i r e c t l y to both s o c i a l m o b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . T h e r e f o r e , a g r a d u a l v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y i s assumed f o r each respondent, and beginning w i t h the date of employment w i t h the O r g a n i z a t i o n . The assumption was made t h a t people d e r i v e t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n from t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n ( p o s i t i o n i n the rank h i e r a r c h y of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ) . I t was assumed t h a t s o c i a l m o b i l i t y would p a r a l l e l v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y . T h i s assumption i s being upheld. However, i n order to t e s t i t on members of the Middle Management group, Questions 27, 28, and 30 were designed. Each respondent was asked to answer w i t h r e g a r d to the behavior of (a) the g e n e r a l p u b l i c , (b) B. C. E l e c t r i c employees, and (c) h i m s e l f , the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : Do you t h i n k , t h a t when people a c h i e v e a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y and a more r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n , t h a t they f e e l t h a t they have achieved a higher s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? 53 The r e s u l t s of these answers are compared w i t h the r e s u l t s obtained from answers to Questions 29, 29a and 31. Question 29a i n v e s t i g a t e s whether B. C. E l e c t r i c employees t h i n k t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and s o c i a l m o b i l i t y depends upon the pr e v i o u s p o s i t i o n or income a person had, w h i l e Question 31 i n v e s t i g a t e s when the respondent f e l t a change i n h i s s o c i a l s t a t u s had occurred, i f a t a l l . Upon the c o n c l u s i o n of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t was f e l t t h a t the d e s i g n of t h i s p a r t of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was inadequate to y i e l d v e r y d e f i n i t e r e s u l t s . However, a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of d i s c u s s i o n w i t h each respondent was generated around t h i s t o p i c of s o c i a l and o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y . These d i s c u s s i o n s may not have helped the respondent t o c l a r i f y the Issue but c e r t a i n l y gave the i n v e s t i g a t o r a b e t t e r understanding of the respondent's a t t i t u d e s and of the complexity of the e n t i r e r e l a t i o n s h i p . I n a d d i t i o n to the f o r m a l responses, the i n f o r m a l knowledge gained dur i n g these d i s c u s s i o n s are u t i l i z e d l a t e r t o e x p l a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l m o b i l i t y as i t i s p e r c e i v e d by members of the Middle Management group. T h i s knowledge i s used to make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about the behavior of t h i s group. Method used to Te s t the R e l a t i o n s h i p between S o c i a l P o s i t i o n and Residence as an E x p r e s s i o n of S o c i a l P o s i t i o n T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p a c t u a l l y c o n s t i t u t e s the core of the e n t i r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and i s intended t o be t e s t e d on the b a s i s 54 of \"de f a c t o \" c o n d i t i o n s as o u t l i n e d under R e l a t i o n s h i p s 1 and 2 which f o l l o w . However, an attempt was made to o b t a i n the respondents' a t t i t u d e s to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s i d e n c e and s o c i a l p o s i t i o n independently of h i s behavior which was assessed p r i o r to these a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n s . The behavior i t s e l f , of course, i s o n l y p a r t l y an o b j e c t i v e i n d i c a t i o n of a respondent's a t t i t u d e s because the i n v e s t i g a t o r i n t e r p r e t s the behavior on the b a s i s of c e r t a i n assumptions. I n order to t e s t the respondent's a t t i t u d e s , Questions 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, and 42 were designed. Each respondent was asked to answer w i t h r e g a r d to the behavior of (a) the g e n e r a l p u b l i c , (b) B. C. E l e c t r i c employees, (c) members of the Middle Management group, g e n e r a l l y , (d) B. C. E l e c t r i c Middle Management people, and (e) h i m s e l f , the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : Do you t h i n k , t h a t when people s e l e c t houses one of the f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e s t h e i r c h o i ce i s the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house ^ and the neighborhood f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? T h i s g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n c o n t a i n s c e r t a i n a m b i g u i t i e s which should be p o i n t e d out. F i r s t , the word \"house\" was mentioned twice and l e a v e s the respondent w i t h the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t house r a t h e r than house and neighborhood was emphasized i n the q u e s t i o n . The i n v e s t i g a t o r cannot a s c e r t a i n whether a l l respondents addressed themselves to the e n t i r e q u e s t i o n or to the \"house p a r t \" o n l y . The q u e s t i o n a s s e s s i n g the respondent's p e r c e p t i o n of h i s own behavior was separated i n t o a \"house\" and \"neighborhood\"' \"Neighbourhood\" was always meant to be \" r e s i d e n t i a l area or d i s t r i c t \" and understood as such, and not as the concept \"Neighborhood\" i s used i n Community P l a n n i n g . 55 q u e s t i o n , and i s c l e a r i n t h i s r e s p e c t . Second, the word \" p o s i t i o n \" was used throughout the i n t e r v i e w schedule as \" o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n \" (meaning rank i n the O r g a n i z a t i o n ' s rank h i e r a r c h y ) and as \" s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n \" (meaning rank i n the s t a t u s h i e r a r c h y of s o c i e t y ) hut was most c l e a r l y understood as \" o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n \" depending upon the s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of the respondent r e g a r d i n g these concepts. Although \" p o s i t i o n \" was never used by i t s e l f , i t s f r e q u e n t i n t e r -changeable use may have produced some c o n f u s i o n , and those people who r e j e c t e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l m o b i l i t y may have a l s o r e j e c t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n and c h o i c e of r e s i d e n c e . Those persons who do not d e r i v e t h e i r s t a t u s from t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l rank or who do not r e a l i z e or admit t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , n e v e r t h e l e s s , are conscious of c e r t a i n s o c i a l s t a n d a r d s . T h i r d , Questions 41 and 42 were worded i n such a way t h a t the respondent may not be e n t i r e l y c e r t a i n whether he was supposed to answer i n terms of h i s p a s t behavior, or h i s p a s t and f u t u r e b e h a v i o r . Although the q u e s t i o n was intended to assess p a s t behavior, the i n v e s t i g a t o r d i d not always remember the ambiguity of the q u e s t i o n s . An added d i f f i c u l t y was, of course, t h a t a few of the respondents' p a s t moves were \" p r a c t i c a l \" and one or two were \" s t a t u s \" moves. Not a l l of them g e n e r a l i z e d i n favour of the l a t t e r types of moves, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f they d i d not r e c o g n i z e those moves f o r t h e i r p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . In many cases the i n v e s t i g a t o r d i s c u s s e d the answers w i t h r e g a r d to c e r t a i n 56 moves which the respondent had made i n the past , and t h e r e f o r e , obtained more a f f i r m a t i v e answers than some respondents were w i l l i n g to g i v e . I n order to c l e a r some of the a m b i g u i t i e s contained i n Questions 41 and 42 which are the important a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n s , the answers to these q u e s t i o n s a r e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h (a) the answer which the i n v e s t i g a t o r f e e l s should have been g i v e n on the b a s i s of the d i s c u s s i o n w i t h each respondent a t t h i s p o i n t , (b) the reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e which each respondent gave p r i o r to the a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n s , and (c) wit h regard to the \"neighborhood\" q u e s t i o n w i t h the respondent's a b s o l u t e improve-ment on the \"Sta t u s h i e r a r c h y \" s c a l e . Although these c o r r e l a t i o n s are no s u b s t i t u t e f o r the o r i g i n a l a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n , they help to c l a r i f y whether the m a j o r i t y of respondents r e c o g n i z e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n and t h e i r c h o i ce of r e s i d e n c e . 57 CHAPTER I I METHODS FOR ANALYSING FACTUAL INFORMATION Methods used to t e s t the R e l a t i o n s h i p between Moving to a Larger and More E l a b o r a t e D w e l l i n g and P r e s t i g e C o n s i d e r a t i o n s I n order to s i m p l i f y a n a l y s i s , the above r e l a t i o n s h i p i s separated i n t o (1) moving to a l a r g e r d w e l l i n g , and (2) moving to a more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g f o r reasons of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . Moving to a l a r g e r d w e l l i n g The method used to t e s t t h i s p a r t of the r e l a t i o n s h i p f i r s t u t i l i z e s o b j e c t i v e or f a c t u a l data, and second, the respondents' reasons f o r moving from a r e s i d e n c e and s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e . The g e n e r a l hypothesis t h a t Middle Management persons move to l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s can e a s i l y be t e s t e d by (a) the number of moves which were made to l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s , and (b) a comparison of the s i z e of the f i r s t d w e l l i n g occupied w i t h the s i z e of the d w e l l i n g occupied a t p r e s e n t . By d e f i n i t i o n the \" f i r s t d w e l l i n g occupied\" i s that d w e l l i n g i n t o which the respondent moved upon becoming married, r e g a r d l e s s of whether he had been employed w i t h the B. C. E l e c t r i c or whether he married i n the Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a . A \"move\" 58 i s a move from a r e s i d e n c e , and \"reasons f o r moving\" are i n c e n t i v e s f o r moving \"from a r e s i d e n c e \" . The \" s i z e of a d w e l l i n g \" i s determined on the b a s i s of the number of rooms, not the s i z e of rooms, i t c o n t a i n s . The number of rooms i n c l u d e a l l rooms except bathrooms and those rooms which have a f u n c t i o n u s u a l l y f u l f i l l e d by the basement, i . e . u t i l i t y room and furnace room. Once i t i s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a m a j o r i t y of moves are made to l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s , i t i s t e s t e d whether the respondents continue to move to l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s a f t e r they have passed the stage when most young couples r e s i d e i n apartments or s u i t e s . I t may be assumed t h a t s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d houses are s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of the a c t u a l and a n t i c i p a t e d s i z e of the household. I n order to t e s t t h i s assumption d e n s i t y , i n terms of Persons per Room, i s compared f o r maximum occupance of f i r s t r e s i d e n c e w i t h maximum occupance of f i r s t s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d house ( r e n t e d or owned). I f i t i s found t h a t the d e n s i t y has not decreased or i s high, i t must a l s o be assumed t h a t subsequent moves to l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s a r e made i n order to a d j u s t r e s i d e n c e to space needs. Once t h i s \"adjustment move\" has been made, and a f t e r no a d d i t i o n to the s i z e of the household has occurred, the Person per Room d e n s i t y can be expected to be low. The r e s u l t a n t average d e n s i t y index i s compared w i t h Person per Room i n d i c e s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n census t r a c t s on the b a s i s of the 1951 Canada Census. The assumption i s made th a t the 1951 d e n s i t y i n d i c e s r e p r e s e n t a f a i r average f o r determining 59 whether a d w e l l i n g i s comparatively l a r g e , medium or s m a l l i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s i z e of the household, and, p o s s i b l y , whether a d w e l l i n g can be considered high, middle or low c l a s s . Subsequently, i t i s e s t a b l i s h e d whether respondents continue to move to l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s without being f o r c e d to by an a d d i t i o n i n number of household members. The r e s u l t a n t average Person per Room d e n s i t y f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group i s compared w i t h the d e n s i t y index of the h i g h - c l a s s areas of the Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a . I f on the b a s i s of \"reasons f o r moving\" i t i s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t these respondents move to a l a r g e r house f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e , and i f the Person per Room d e n s i t y index f o r these d w e l l i n g s i s lower than the i n d i c e s f o r 1951 h i g h - c l a s s areas, these moves would i n d i c a t e the persons' concern w i t h p r e s t i g e and the r e s u l t i n g d e n s i t y i s used to check those d w e l l i n g s of other respondents who have not made \" a d d i t i o n a l moves\". I t must be assumed t h a t persons move to l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s because they experienced or expect an a d d i t i o n to t h e i r household, but they may s e l e c t d w e l l i n g s which are c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r than would a c t u a l l y be r e q u i r e d by the s i z e of the household. Upon the c o n c l u s i o n of the a n a l y s i s of f a c t u a l data, the p r i n c i p a l reason f o r a move which r e s u l t e d i n a move to a l a r g e r d w e l l i n g i s i n v e s t i g a t e d . A l l those moves to a l a r g e r d w e l l i n g are d e f i n e d as \" p r e s t i g e moves\", where respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r p r e v i o u s r e s i d e n c e l a c k s i n \" r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s p e c t s \" , e.g. l a c k s room f o r entertainment, guest rooms or l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t a u x i l i a r y or bathroom f a c i l i t i e s . Furthermore, i f the Person per 60 Room d e n s i t y i s found to be below the d e n s i t y which has p r e v i o u s l y been d e f i n e d as the d i v i d i n g l i n e between d w e l l i n g s i z e s based on f u n c t i o n as a g a i n s t d w e l l i n g s i z e s based on s t a t u s then such move to a l a r g e r d w e l l i n g i s c o n s i d e r e d to be a \" p r e s t i g e move\". Subsequently, reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a new d w e l l i n g are analysed and those cases where \" l a r g e r house\" i s mentioned as a reason f o r d e c i d i n g upon a p a r t i c u l a r d w e l l i n g a r e s c r u t i n i z e d i n the same manner as o u t l i n e d above. The \" s t a t u s cases\" found on the b a s i s of the a n a l y s i s of f a c t u a l data are compared wit h those cases found on the b a s i s of the a n a l y s i s of reasons i n order to a s c e r t a i n i n how many cases a \" r e l a t i o n s h i p between moving to a l a r g e r d w e l l i n g and p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s \" can be found. Moving to a more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g For the purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a \"more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g \" i s d e f i n e d as a d w e l l i n g which contains f e a t u r e s not a v a i l a b l e to the m a j o r i t y of persons, not e s s e n t i a l to the normal f u n c t i o n i n g of a household, and which are p r i m a r i l y meant to impress o t h e r s . O r i g i n a l l y i t was intended to p r e s e n t a l i s t of such items as driveway, c a r p o r t , swimming p o o l , p i c t u r e window, sun porch, l i b r a r y , r e c r e a t i o n room, den, types of f i r e p l a c e s , stone w a l l s , e t c . , to each respondent and have him check f o r each d w e l l i n g whether any of these f e a t u r e s were a v a i l a b l e . I n order to reduce the l e n g t h of the i n t e r v i e w , t h i s l i s t was e l i m i n a t e d . To e s t a b l i s h whether a respondent p u r p o s e l y moved 61 to a \"more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g \" the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a i s used. a. I t i s assumed that \" e l a b o r a t e n e s s \" occurs together w i t h d w e l l i n g s i z e s which are above the f u n c t i o n a l requirements. Based upon the pre v i o u s a n a l y s i s of Person per Room d e n s i t i e s , the d e n s i t y index i n d i c a t i n g concern w i t h p r e s t i g e i n s e l e c t i n g a c e r t a i n - s i z e d house i s used as one c r i t e r i o n of \" e l a b o r a t e n e s s \" . b. Any mention of the reason \" l a r g e l i v i n g or r e c r e a t i o n room f o r entertainment\" f o r s e l e c t i n g a house i s used as c r i t e r i o n f o r \" e l a b o r a t e n e s s \" . Any s p e c i a l mention t h a t a house or d e s i g n was a t t r a c t i v e because i t had a l a r g e l i v i n g or r e c r e a t i o n room u s u a l l y was f o l l o w e d up by the e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t f o r the purpose o f entertainment these f a c i l i t i e s are c o n s i d e r e d \" r e p r e s e n t a t i v e \" . I n such case a concern w i t h p r e s t i g e can be assumed w i t h c e r t a i n t y . c. Any s p e c i a l mention of housing s t y l e s , which are f a s h i o n a b l e , e.g. Post and Beam, S p l i t - l e v e l , or Ranch home w i t h c a r p o r t and breezeway, or which have t r a d i t i o n a l p r e s t i g e , e.g. C o l o n i a l or Cape Cod mansion, i n d i c a t e the respondent's concern w i t h the p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e of having a f a s h i o n a b l e or s t a t e l y home. These persons seem to be p a r t i c u l a r l y impressed by house s t y l e s and expect to impress others w i t h what they o f t e n d e s c r i b e as \" i n d i v i d u a l i t y \" . These reasons a l s o are i n c l u d e d as a c r i t e r i o n f o r \" e l a b o r a t e n e s s \" . d. I f , i n s e l e c t i n g the r e s i d e n c e , \"view\" i s e s p e c i a l l y mentioned, i t i s assumed t h a t t h i s f a c t o r has p r e s t i g e a p p e a l to these 62 people. Although a l a r g e v a r i e t y of views may he had from s e v e r a l l a r g e r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n the Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n area, c e r t a i n views and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , c e r t a i n ways of \"seeing the view\", are r e s t r i c t e d to h i g h - c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Reference to \"view\" u s u a l l y i m p l i e s t h a t the l o c a t i o n of the house a f f o r d s i t s r e s i d e n t s a \" h i g h - c l a s s view\" p o s s i b l y i n a \" h i g h - c l a s s f a s h i o n \" . These fo u r items are compared f o r each r e s i d e n c e occupied by each respondent. I f two or more items a p p l y to a r e s i d e n c e , t h i s r e s i d e n c e i s considered as being s e l e c t e d f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e . Those cases which are i d e n t i f i e d as \" p r e s t i g e moves to l a r g e r houses\" and those cases c o n s i d e r e d \" p r e s t i g e moves to more e l a b o r a t e houses\" are compared f o r drawing f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n s . Methods used to t e s t the R e l a t i o n s h i p between Moving to a B e t t e r R e s i d e n t i a l Area and S t a t u s and P r e s t i g e C o n s i d e r a t i o n s Two.methods were used to t e s t t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . 1. The r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y of each respondent and groups of respondents was measured on the b a s i s of \" r e s i d e n t i a l area s t a t u s v a l u e s \" which were as s i g n e d to each area i n accordance w i t h the \"Status H i e r a r c h y of R e s i d e n t i a l Areas i n the M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver Area\". 2. The meanings of reasons which each respondent presented as e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r (a) moving from a r e s i d e n c e , and 63 (b) s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e were analysed i n terms of t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t e s t i n g the above r e l a t i o n s h i p . Method of A n a l y s i s based upon the \"Status H i e r a r c h y o f R e s i d e n t i a l Areas i n the M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver Area\" I n order to be a b l e t o measure whether the respondents c o n s i s t e n t l y moved to r e s i d e n t i a l areas of i n c r e a s i n g r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i n terms of t h e i r own and the community's p e r c e p t i o n , s e v e r a l attempts were made to develop a method f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a h i e r a r c h y o f r e s i d e n t i a l areas based upon the s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e of each a r e a . Three methods were d i s c a r d e d because c e r t a i n b a s i c l i m i t a t i o n s could not be overcome. The \" i n s p e c t i o n method\", the \"assessment v a l u e method\", and the method which u t i l i z e d data from the 1951 Canada Census r e g a r d i n g demographic and housing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r census t r a c t s were a l l based upon l i m i t e d , s u b j e c t i v e l y s e l e c t e d c r i t e r i a . Although i t was not expected to develop a method which could be used to rank r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n such a manner t h a t a l l groups and c l a s s e s w i t h i n the l o c a l s o c i e t y could agree w i t h i t , i t was n e v e r t h e l e s s hoped to e s t a b l i s h a r a n k i n g which would be c o n s i s t e n t i n the p e r c e p t i o n of one group, namely the Middle Management group i n v e s t i g a t e d here. I t was, t h e r e f o r e , decided to l e a v e i t to the respondents themselves to i n d i c a t e such a h i e r a r c h y of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s areas, by ask i n g each respondent 1 These methods are d i s c u s s e d i n Appendix I I \"Methods f o r d e r i v i n g a St a t u s H i e r a r c h y of R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\", based upon a term paper f o r Geography 304, \"Geography of Human Settlement\", March, 1959. 64 to s e l e c t f i v e h i g h - c l a s s , f i v e m i d d l e - c l a s s , and f i v e l o w - c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l areas on the b a s i s of each i n d i v i d u a l ' s own c r i t e r i a . The s e l e c t i o n was made from a map o u t l i n i n g the 1951 census t r a c t s of the M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver a r e a . Some of these t r a c t s were f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d ; t h e r e f o r e , a t o t a l of s e v e n t y - f o u r areas were a v a i l a b l e f o r making f i f t e e n c h o i c e s . T h i s method had the f o l l o w i n g advantages: (a) The s t a t u s of each area was not determined on the b a s i s of an a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d c r i t e r i a but on the b a s i s of the p e r c e p t i o n of t h i r t y - n i n e respondents, whose m o b i l i t y subsequently was to be judged a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r g roup-opinion. (b) Some of the respondents had e i t h e r l i v e d I n each area or were more i n t i m a t e l y f a m i l i a r w i t h c e r t a i n a r e a s , t h e r e f o r e , a more or l e s s c o n s i d e r e d judg-ment was obtained f o r a l l a r e a s . (c) The respondents a l s o r e f l e c t e d a c e r t a i n amount of p r e j u d i c e s r e g a r d i n g the s t a t u s of c e r t a i n areas which would not come out on the b a s i s of an o b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s of demographic data, but which a c t u a l l y continues to determine the s t a t u s of areas r e g a r d l e s s of the change i n socio-economic grouping. T h i s method a l s o c o n t a i n s c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s : 65 (a) The group i n t e r v i e w e d was found not to be too homogeneous i n terms of l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e i n Vancouver, l e n g t h of employment, r a t e of o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and p r e s e n t s a l a r y , u p b ringing and educat i o n , and a t t i t u d e s , e xperiences, and f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the p o t e n t i a l upward m o b i l i t y , i . e . number and age of c h i l d r e n , o c c u p a t i o n a l background, l e n g t h of p e r i o d b e f o r e becoming Middle Management, e t c . A l t o g e t h e r , 25 of 74 r e s i d e n t i a l areas were con s i d e r e d h i g h and middle c l a s s a r e a s , or middle and low c l a s s a r e a s , consequently these areas have no s i n g u l a r s t a t u s i n the o p i n i o n of the e n t i r e group. However, f i v e areas were unanimously i d e n t i f i e d as having h i g h - c l a s s s t a t u s , 17 areas were unanimously i d e n t i f i e d as having m i d d l e - c l a s s s t a t u s , and 17 areas were unanimously i d e n t i f i e d as having l o w - c l a s s s t a t u s . No area was i d e n t i f i e d a t the same time as having high, middle, and low c l a s s s t a t u s or h i g h and low c l a s s s t a t u s . T h e r e f o r e , 39 areas were c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d i n terms of one unanimously s e l e c t e d s t a t u s , w h i l e the s t a t u s of 25 a d d i t i o n a l areas could be determined on the b a s i s of a m a j o r i t y of s e l e c t i o n s f o r hi g h , middle or low s t a t u s choices r e s p e c t i v e l y . 66 (b) The s t a t u s of a few areas was s o l e l y determined by one or two persons who had l i v e d i n these areas or were f a m i l i a r w i t h them. (c) C e r t a i n areas were too l a r g e i n s i z e to permit d i s t i n c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . People e i t h e r a b s t a i n e d from c l a s s i f y i n g such areas or c l a s s i f i e d them a c c o r d i n g t o the predominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or the p e r c e i v e d f u t u r e development of such an a r e a . Area 14 ( K i t s i l a n o Beach), i n p a r t i c u l a r caused problems i n the a n a l y s i s because i t co n t a i n s modern apartment d w e l l i n g s s i t u a t e d next to one of the worst s i n g l e - f a m i l y develop-ments i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a . I n s p i t e of these l i m i t a t i o n s , the r e s u l t i n g \"Status p H i e r a r c h y \" was found v a l u a b l e i n the a n a l y s i s of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and was accepted as the c r i t e r i o n f o r measuring the improvements i n r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s a c h i e v e d by each respondent i n the course of h i s r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . The rank of each r e s i d e n t i a l area and the t o t a l \" S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y \" was determined i n the f o l l o w i n g manner: The number of h i g h - , middle-, and l o w - c l a s s c h o i c e s g i v e n to each area were m u l t i p l i e d by 3, 2 , and 1, r e s p e c t i v e l y , and the sum was d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number of cho i c e s each area had r e c e i v e d . 2 The Map showing the \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" of each area i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix I I I . 67 For example: Area A was s e l e c t e d 10 times as a h i g h - c l a s s area (10x3)= 30 2 times as a m i d d l e - c l a s s \" ( 2x2)= 4 12 34 The sum of 34 i s d i v i d e d by 12 = 2.83 The t o t a l range of rank i n d i c e s reached from 3.00 (top h i g h - c l a s s area) to 1.00 (bottom l o w - c l a s s a r e a ) . A l l areas were arranged i n terms of t h e i r rank index from 3.00 down to 1.00. Because 39 areas were g i v e n o n l y one type of s t a t u s and consequently had even i n d i c e s of 3.00, 2.00 and 1.00, these were a l s o ranked i n terms of the number of choices each area had r e c e i v e d . For the h i g h - and m i d d l e - c l a s s a r e a s , the areas w i t h the g r e a t e r number of c h o i c e s were ranked above the area w i t h the l e s s e r number of c h o i c e s and the same index. However, f o r the l o w - c l a s s a r e a s , t h i s method was r e v e r s e d , because those areas which r e c e i v e d the most l o w - c l a s s choices must be c o n s i d e r e d the more conspicuous l o w - c l a s s a r e a s . Areas which were not s e l e c t e d a t a l l , were ranked a c c o r d i n g to the rank i n d i c e s of the surrounding areas i f these c o r r e l a t e d c l o s e l y w i t h the ranks determined on the b a s i s of demographic and housing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Once a l l areas were ranked, the \" r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s v a l u e \" of each area was determined by the rank p o s i t i o n of the a r e a i n the h i e r a r c h y . The top area being one, the bottom area being 74. For purpose of d e s c r i p t i o n the e n t i r e \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" was d i v i d e d i n t o ten r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s c l a s s e s r a n k i n g from 68 Upper Upper to Lower Lower r e s i d e n t i a l c l a s s e s . These c l a s s i n t e r v a l s were determined on the b a s i s of 0.20 rank index d i f f e r e n c e s , number of choices per area, and i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the \" S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y \" determined on the b a s i s of demographic and housing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The r e s u l t i n g \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" has no r e s i d e n t i a l areas of equal values which, perhaps, i s an a r b i t r a r y arrange-ment, as a l l moves o u t s i d e one area are e i t h e r i n c r e a s e s or decreases i n r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . However, i t was not c o n s i d e r e d l e s s a r b i t r a r y to e s t a b l i s h \" p l a t e a u s of r e s i d e n t i a l areas of equal v a l u e \" than to arrange them on a continuum of s t a t u s v a l u e s . The a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between moving to a b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l area and s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r e d on the b a s i s of the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" i s d i v i d e d i n t o three p a r t s . Method of A n a l y s i n g Moves to,. \" B e t t e r R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\" F i r s t , i t i s i n v e s t i g a t e d whether the group and members of the group moved and are now r e s i d i n g i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s \" . \" B e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r eas\" a r e d e f i n e d as areas which have a \" r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s v a l u e \" between 1 - 27 (Upper Upper r e s i d e n t i a l c l a s s to upper Middle Middle r e s i d e n t i a l c l a s s ) . These areas a r e above the midpoint of the d e s c r i p t i v e c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n s . The average s t a t u s value of the group f o r the f i r s t and 69 p r e s e n t r e s i d e n c e i s determined by adding the r e s p e c t i v e \" s t a t u s v a l u e s \" of each area i n which a respondent r e s i d e d and \" d i v i d i n g the sum by the t o t a l number of respondents. The group's average and each respondent's \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" may be compared w i t h the \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" of each s u c c e s s i v e r e s i d e n c e i n c l u d i n g the present one. On the b a s i s of these \" v a l u e s \" i t i s determined whether the group as a whole improved i t s r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s , whether i t i s a t p r e s e n t r e s i d i n g i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s \" , and how many respondents r e s i d e d and are now r e s i d i n g i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s \" . T h i s a n a l y s i s a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d the circum-stances which caused the r e s p e c t i v e respondents t o move to \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s \" . For t h i s purpose other i n f o r m a t i o n about the respondent i s u t i l i z e d . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s p a r t l y contained i n the m a t e r i a l gathered during the i n t e r v i e w s e s s i o n and a v a i l a b l e i n the form of answers t o a t t i t u d e and background qu e s t i o n s , w h i l e some of i t i s gathered d u r i n g i n f o r m a l d i s -c u s s i o n s . However, the p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e of t h i s a n a l y s i s i s to e s t a b l i s h t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the group a c t u a l l y moved to b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Method of A n a l y s i n g E f f o r t s of Improving R e s i d e n t i a l S t a t u s by Moving Second, the e f f o r t s of i n c r e a s i n g r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s made by the respondents and groups of respondents are i n v e s t i g a t e d on the b a s i s of the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" . The e n t i r e group i s su b d i v i d e d i n t o groups which 'Showed s i m i l a r \"moving behavior\" on the b a s i s of the \"S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y \" . 70 The r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s improvement of each of these groups i s i n v e s t i g a t e d . Subsequently, the r e l a t i v e r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s improvement of each group member i s analysed and ev a l u a t e d i n view of a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n obtained from each respondent du r i n g the i n t e r v i e w s e s s i o n . Although t h i s meant i n t r o d u c i n g a c e r t a i n amount of s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n , i t i s f e l t t h a t the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s produced by the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" should not be accepted without s c r u t i n i z i n g the p a r t i c u l a r circumstances and c o n d i t i o n s a f f e c t i n g the \"moving behavior\" of each respondent w i t h i n each group. I n order to c o n t r o l the i n f l u e n c e of sub-j e c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , the \"moving behavior\" e s t a b l i s h e d on the b a s i s of the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" remains the b a s i c c r i t e r i o n w h i l e judging whether respondents moved and improved t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i n order t o s a t i s f y s o c i a l s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. Methods of A n a l y s i n g the R e l a t i o n s h i p between O c c u p a t i o n a l and R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y T h i r d , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g i n improvements of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i s i n v e s t i g a t e d on the b a s i s o f the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" . I n order to i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i t i s necessary t o f i n d when the group made i t s major improvement of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s , and which f a c t o r s and circumstances other than o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y determines t h i s major improvement move. Once these f a c t o r s are e s t a b l i s h e d and, as f a r as p o s s i b l e , 71 kept constant, the p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g i n improved r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i s i n v e s t i g a t e d . Subsequently, the d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between promotion to s u p e r v i s o r and improved r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i s i n v e s t i g a t e d i n terms of groups of respondents whose r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y r e l a t i v e to t h e i r promotion shows a s i m i l a r b e h a v i o r . A g a i n the p a r t i c u l a r circumstances a f f e c t i n g these time r e l a t i o n s h i p s are e v a l u a t e d on the b a s i s of a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n order to e s t a b l i s h whether a respondent Improved h i s r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s because of the promotion, i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the promotion, or whether the o v e r t r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a c c i d e n t a l . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t e of o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and improvement of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i s i n v e s t i g a t e d i n three ways. F i r s t , r e l a t i v e improvement i s measured a g a i n s t l e n g t h of p e r i o d employed w i t h the O r g a n i z a t i o n . Second, l e n g t h of p e r i o d b e f o r e promotion to s u p e r v i s o r beginning w i t h year of employment i s measured a g a i n s t r e l a t i v e improvement of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . T h i r d , r e l a t i v e improvement of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i s measured a g a i n s t p r e s e n t annual s a l a r y . Although i n each case the r e s p e c t i v e l e n g t h of p e r i o d of married l i f e , of employment, and of the time be f o r e becoming s u p e r v i s o r i s averaged and compared f o r the r e s p e c t i v e groups, these averages are h i g h l y a r b i t r a r y . S i n c e a l l a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s which d e f i n i t e l y have i n f l u e n c e d the behavior of each respondent, c o u l d not be a s s e s s e d or c o n t r o l l e d , the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t e 72 of o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and improvement of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s p r o b a b l y i s not too v a l u a b l e . Method of A n a l y s i s based upon the Reasons f o r Moving from a Residence and f o r S e l e c t i n g a New Residence For each change of r e s i d e n c e the reasons f o r moving and the reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g the new r e s i d e n c e were o b t a i n e d and i n v e s t i g a t e d . I t was assumed t h a t f o r each change of r e s i d e n c e p o s i t i v e and ne g a t i v e i n c e n t i v e s e x i s t e d . In order to i n v e s t i g a t e whether people move i n order to a d j u s t t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l and s o c i a l s t a t u s and i n order to o b t a i n the p r e s t i g e of the areas to which they intended to move, both types of reasons had to be obtained. I n the f i r s t p l a c e people are r e l u c t a n t to admit t h a t they moved from a neighborhood i n order to o b t a i n the p r e s t i g e of another area or because they became d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the s t a t u s of t h e i r l a s t neighborhood. A l s o , i t i s e n t i r e l y p o s s i b l e t h a t people move f o r p r a c t i c a l reasons, e.g. i n c r e a s e i n number of household members, without being p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the s t a t u s of the neighborhood, but i n making t h e i r s e l e c t i o n of a f u t u r e home co n s i d e r t h e i r s t a t u s p o s i t i o n and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n p o s i t i o n and s e l e c t a r e s i d e n c e from these p o i n t s of view as w e l l . Although a mentioning of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s among reasons f o r moving must be considered more important as an i n d i c a t i o n of a person's concern w i t h h i s s t a t u s , i t w i l l occur l e s s f r e q u e n t l y because i t i s f e l t t o be a more obvious admission of p r e s t i g e concern. I n mentioning these same items among reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g people 73 merely f e e l t h a t they confess to a standard of r e s i d e n c e s and neighborhoods which they may c l a i m because of t h e i r f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y , o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n , t r a i n i n g and education, and up b r i n g i n g . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n of these two types of reasons i s c a r r i e d out s e p a r a t e l y . Method of A n a l y s i s based on Reasons f o r Moving from a Residence Reasons f o r Moving are summarized i n e i g h t e e n c a t e g o r i e s and a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r \" f a c e v a l u e s \" , i n other words, no attempt i s made to ana l y s e the motives behind each s i n g l e r e a son presented by a respondent and group a l l reasons a c c o r d i n g to s i m i l a r motives. Although t h i s k i n d of i n v e s t i g a t i o n would be c o n s i d e r a b l y more v a l u a b l e , a gre a t d e a l more i n f o r m a t i o n about the i n d i v i d u a l would be r e q u i r e d . Furthermore, a study of t h i s k i n d would have to r e s t r i c t i t s e l f to p a r t i c u l a r reasons whose m o t i v a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e could be thoroughly i n v e s t i g a t e d . Because t h i s study i s concerned w i t h s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e as m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s f o r changing r e s i d e n c e , c e r t a i n c a t e g o r i e s of reasons which are being i n t e r p r e t e d as r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e motives are grouped t o g e t h e r . These c a t e g o r i e s are d i s c u s s e d d u r i n g the a n a l y s i s . On the b a s i s of these reason c a t e g o r i e s , the number of respondents are found who improved t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i n order to s a t i s f y t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. Each of the moves f o r which s t a t u s reasons are mentioned i s analysed on the b a s i s of the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" i n order to a s c e r t a i n whether such moves a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e d the respondents' r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . 74 Method of A n a l y s i s based on Reason f o r S e l e c t i n g a new Residence Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g are summarized i n f i f t y c a t e g o r i e s and where p o s s i b l e reasons are grouped a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r r e l e v a n c e f o r the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p . I n other ?/ords, those reasons which i n d i c a t e d a concern w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the neighborhood f o r the respondent's s o c i a l s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e are grouped i n d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . The f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s of reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e are i n t e r -p r e t e d as an i n d i c a t i o n of a respondent's concern w i t h the sta t u s and p r e s t i g e of h i s r e s i d e n c e . The c a t e g o r i e s are numbered as they appear i n the \"Summary of Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g \" . 1. S o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e neighborhood Respondents who mention the d e s i r a b i l i t y of a neighborhood r e g a r d i n g i t s socio-economic composition or who p r e f e r t o be among a c e r t a i n \" k i n d of people\" w i t h s i m i l a r b ehavior, a t t i t u d e s and values as they have themselves, are aware of the i m p l i c a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r own s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . 2. Good investment I t i s assumed t h a t concern w i t h the \"value of house\" i n a c e r t a i n neighborhood f o r the purpose of investment i n d i c a t e s a concern f o r a s t a b l e , a t t r a c t i v e area which i n the respondent's view w i l l not d e p r e c i a t e but r e t a i n and p o s s i b l y i n c r e a s e i t s value over and above the trend towards higher p r o p e r t y and house v a l u e s . Because d e p r e c i a t i o n , s t a b i l i t y and improvement of values are a l s o a f u n c t i o n of the 75 i n h a b i t a n t s ' a t t i t u d e s to the maintenance of houses and the neighborhood, of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s i d e n t i a l and n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l uses, and of the s t a t u s h e l d by the s o c i o -economic group i n the neighborhood, the respondents' estimate of a r e s i d e n t i a l area's \"investment q u a l i t i e s \" i s n e c e s s a r i l y a l s o an estimate of the q u a l i t y of the i n h a b i t a n t s . An area which has the p r e s t i g e of a good \"investment a r e a \" a l s o has the p r e s t i g e of being a \" d e s i r a b l e s o c i a l e n v i r o n -ment\" f o r people who are concerned w i t h p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r investment. Areas which are invaded by n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l uses or b y - m u l t i p l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s experience a c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l a t i o n of l a n d v a l u e s , and, t h e r e f o r e , are good \"specu-l a t i o n a r e a s \" ; however, i n order to reap such b e n e f i t s , the owner-resident has to endure a long p e r i o d of \" r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s d e g r a d a t i o n \" . Persons who are i n t e r e s t e d i n p r o -t e c t i n g t h e i r investment r a t h e r than i n s p e c u l a t i n g w i t h i t are not i n t e r e s t e d i n these a r e a s . Consequently, the v e r y mentioning of \"good investment\" seems to i n d i c a t e a person's concern w i t h h i s s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . 15. Returned to or moved w i t h i n s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e neighborhood 18. Good s c h o o l s , d e s i r a b l e f o r r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n I t i s assumed t h a t \"good s c h o o l s \" means (a) b e t t e r e d u c a t i o n a l standards which e v e n t u a l l y may a f f o r d the c h i l d c e r t a i n advantages on the s o c i o - o c c u p a t i o n a l market, and (b) a type of s o c i a l environment which f u r t h e r s r a t h e r than depresses 76 the n o t i o n i n the c h i l d t h a t a higher e d u c a t i o n i s d e s i r a b l e per se and f o r the above advantages. When \"good s c h o o l s \" was presented as a reason f o r s e l e c t i n g r e s i d e n c e i n a c e r t a i n area, these assumptions were d i s c u s s e d w i t h the respondent and agreed upon by him i n a l l cases. Furthermore, i t may be assumed t h a t people forward these reasons i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n f o r the c h i l d ' s f u t u r e i n order to r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r own d e s i r e f o r a b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . I t i s f e l t t h a t c h i l d r e n l o o k p r i m a r i l y to t h e i r parents f o r l e a d e r s h i p r e g a r d i n g e d u c a t i o n a l goals and o c c u p a t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s , and that the pa r e n t s , i f they so d e s i r e d , can e x e r t t h e i r p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e i n order to make e d u c a t i o n a worthwhile g o a l f o r the c h i l d r e n r e g a r d l e s s of the average a s p i r a t i o n s of c h i l d r e n and parents i n the neighborhood. T h e r e f o r e , moving c l o s e r to \"good s c h o o l s \" and to the U n i v e r s i t y must be co n s i d e r e d r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s of the respondent's p e r s o n a l p r e s t i g e motives. Moving c l o s e r to the U n i v e r s i t y , as a category of reasons, has not been i n c l u d e d i n t h i s group f o r reasons b e t t e r e x p l a i n e d i n the a n a l y s i s . 29. Same economic group I t i s assumed that these reasons express the respondents concern f o r being a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the \" r i g h t k i n d of peop l e \" . The d i s l i k e which has u s u a l l y been expressed f o r \"being b e t t e r o f f than the neighbor\" and t h e r e f o r e making him f e e l embarrassed or making ones own c h i l d r e n appear as the Joneses 77 of the neighborhood, probably means t h a t the respondent f e e l s under censure to suppress h i s ambitions, and t h a t he may express them i n a l e s s conspicuous manner among h i s own economic group. The number of persons mentioning these reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e are summarized. These persons are considered as being concerned w i t h the ap p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the neighborhood and w i t h i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i n order to s a t i s f y t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. Subsequently, the persons and moves appearing i n the above reason c a t e g o r i e s are compared w i t h the persons and moves appearing i n the reason c a t e g o r i e s summarized below. 9 . Lowest r e n t i n good d i s t r i c t 12. B u i l t i n hi g h l o t c o s t area 3 8 . Low down-payment i n good d i s t r i c t 41. Lowest r e n t i n best d i s t r i c t 17. F r i e n d s , c o l l e a g u e s and r e l a t i v e s a t t r a c t e d me to the area 32. P r e s t i g e 42. Back to town I t i s assumed t h a t those respondents who mentioned the reasons i n d i c a t e d above, are l a r g e l y the same persons who mentioned t h e i r concern w i t h \" d e s i r a b l e s o c i a l environment\", \"good i n v e s t -ment\", \"good s c h o o l s \" and \"same economic group\". I f t h i s i s found to apply, the argument t h a t they improved t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s 78 because they were concerned w i t h s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e i s strengthened. F i n a l l y , those reasons which i n d i c a t e a concern w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the d w e l l i n g i t s e l f ( l a r g e r and more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g ) are computed wi t h the above c a t e g o r i e s , i n order to f i n d whether the same group of persons i s concerned w i t h both the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house and the r e s i d e n t i a l area f o r t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n . P A R T I V RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 79 CHAPTER I GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GROUP OF MIDDLE MANAGEMENT PEOPLE The analysis of behavior aspects exhibited by thi s group of Middle Management people regarding the relationships between occupational, s o c i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l mobility should be preceded by a discussion of those factors which o v e r t l y make them a Group. I t i s believed here that the concept \"group 1 1 refers to an abstraction of behavior t r a i t s exhibited by a group of ind i v i d u a l s rather than to a \"group of Individuals\" who happen to have c e r t a i n factors i n common, e.g., income, p o s i t i o n and organization a f f i l i a t i o n . Furthermore, i t i s believed here that a \"group\" of similar behavior t r a i t s does not presuppose s i m i l a r behavior patterns nor i d e n t i c a l or even si m i l a r p e r s o n a l i t i e s . I t i s e n t i r e l y possible on the basis of cer t a i n i d e n t i c a l t r a i t s to i d e n t i f y a groups of ind i v i d u a l s as a \"group,\" although they themselves do not recognize the i d e n t i t y or, i n view of a host of other d i s s i m i l a r t r a i t s , would not consider themselves as a \"group.\" Each i n d i v i d u a l can consider himself a member of many groups according to aspects of his personality, behavior, values and att i t u d e s . A l l members of one \"group\" may consider themselves extreme opposites regarding those factors which do not give the group i t s Identity. 80 These observations are commonplace, yet, when one refers to groups, e.g., the Middle Management group, one tends to assume that each member of the group is very similar to each other member, and that the purpose of the group and i t s place i n the structure of society has led to the selection of similar personalities and, furthermore, that the process of selection has subjected these personalities to a variety of similar conditions which have tended to emphasize certain characteristics and to reinforce the notion of a \"group.\" This may be true to some extent, but unless one accepts the point of view that similar mental and physical environments condition similar behavior and permit the individual l i t t l e i n the way of independent comprehension, evaluation, choice and decision, one has to assume that often a labeled group is nothing more than an accidental agglomeration of individuals. The Middle Management group investigated here Is perhaps not as loose an agglomeration of individuals as might have been implied i n the remarks above\u00E2\u0080\u0094they are members of one organization, they are supervisors, they have similar responsibilities, rights and duties, and so forth. In other words, they have been segregated upon satisfying certain conditions which the Organization has set for certain jobs and ranks. However, the members of this group are also individuals with widely differing personalities and behaviors. For the purpose of this Investigation they are not considered a \"group\" unless their behavior i n terms of the aspects 81 Investigated proves them to be a group. Where the term Middle Management group is used i t means \"the group of people investigated,\" and nothing else. In order to show the potential variety of personalities, behaviors, values and attitudes which may be expected i n this Middle Management group, certain basic patterns w i l l be compared and certain basic influences w i l l be illuminated which may produce a variety of behavior patterns. Table III gives the Arithmetic Mean and Range of Deviation for the number of years of married l i f e , of a f f i l i a t i o n with the Organization, and the number of years prior to becoming supervisor and a member of the Middle Management group. TABLE III MEANS AND DEVIATIONS FOR BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GROUP Basic Arithmetic Range of Number of Persons^ Characteristic Mean (x) Deviation Above X Below X Number of years: Married 17A if - 35 20 19 Employed with B.C.E. 20.2 3 - 37 17 22 Before app. supervisor 9.2 0 - 28* lk 25 * Persons which were appointed supervisor upon being employed by the Company appear as zero i n the deviation. 82 In each case, and particularly with regard to employment, the deviation is considerable. As a \"group\" they bear l i t t l e resemblance to Whyte's post-war, college-trained \"Organization Man\" In his early Thirties with one child and another one on the way. The \"least\" deviation i s found for \"years of employment before becoming Supervisor.\" The majority of the group became a member of the Middle Management group i n less than ten years. This, however, does not mean that these twenty-five persons advanced rapidly through the Middle Management ranks and are now drawing high salaries. Although, on the average, they are now employed with the Organization for 16.8 years, their average annual income is $7,260 which i s not inconsiderably below the average income of $7,620 for the entire Middle Management group investigated. Furthermore, this group includes five of the six persons earning more than $10,000 a year as well as six of the nine persons earning less than $6,500 a year. The pattern spreads very broad, indeed. Looking at those six persons who are earning more than $10,000 a year, one finds that they are now with the Organization for 30, 22, 19, 18, 13 and 12 years, and became supervisors after 9, 11, 6, 5, 0, and 3 years respectively. The eleven persons who are now employed with the Organization for less than thirteen years (post-war) earn salaries ranging from $6,000 to $10,000, the average being $8,2*40. Among these eleven persons are nine university graduates who make an average income of $8,*+60 per year, 83 which i s already considerably above the average f o r the entire group. These people seem to approximate Whyte's description of \"The Organization Man\" more c l o s e l y \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i n terms of overt c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . On the average, these nine persons with, perhaps, the exception of one advanced most quickly to above-average incomes and, probably, have the best prospects f o r further advancement. However, one should recognize that s i m i l a r rank positions are d i f f e r e n t l y paid, that advancement i n one D i v i s i o n may be quicker than i n another, and that s p e c i a l i z a t i o n prevents c e r t a i n persons from stepping on to a faster-moving promotion b e l t . On the basis of s t a t i s t i c s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y c e r t a i n groups which are made up of in d i v i d u a l s who are s i m i l a r i n most respects, f o r example, have s i m i l a r lengths of employment, were promoted at equal rate, earn s i m i l a r s a l a r i e s and are married f o r a s i m i l a r length of time. A group of 39 people i s too small a sample to permit such segregation. Therefore, i t Is d i f f i c u l t to assume s i m i l a r behavior pattern for groups of people which do not display a considerable s i m i l a r i t y i n most of the basic factors of t h e i r career. To these basic vari a t i o n s must be added other influences which have meaning i n forming the behaviors of persons. Such basic influences are the Depression i n the 1930's, the Second World War, and the Post-War economic expansion. Each of these periods had an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t 84 c h a r a c t e r , and i t must be assumed t h a t those persons who t r i e d t o get s t a r t e d i n t h e i r c a r e e r and f a m i l y l i f e d u r i n g the d e p r e s s i o n times have a d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n o f l i f e , v a lues and the f u t u r e , than those persons who made t h e i r s t a r t d u r i n g the post-war years and were c a r r i e d a l o n g on the boom wave. To become s u p e r v i s o r d u r i n g the d e p r e s s i o n years probably meant more than i t d i d d u r i n g the post-war y e a r s , and the e f f e c t on the person i n the former case probably has been more modest than the e f f e c t c r e a t e d a f t e r the war. One may expect t h a t the behavior of these two groups i s d i f f e r e n t , f o r example, i n terms o f r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . A s t i l l a d d i t i o n a l b a s i c f a c t o r should be i n t r o d u c e d , namely, socio-economic a f f i l i a t i o n . F i r s t o f a l l , people come from d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . For some, the Middle Management p o s i t i o n and a c e r t a i n r e s i d e n t i a l area i s the n o r m \u00E2\u0080\u0094 t h e y were r a i s e d i n t h i s environment and f e e l c omfortable i n i t . Others come from the lower ranks and t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n i s Middle Management, no more. S t i l l o t h e r s come from a s i m i l a r l e v e l and a s p i r e t o be higher than Middle Management but they f e e l they lac k the k i n d of s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e which would enable them t o f e e l comfortable i n the t r a d i t i o n a l w e l l - t o - d o a r e a s . And a few come from higher socio-economic groups and t h e i r s t y l e o f l i v i n g expresses t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n . Second, some o f the pre-war employees probably d i d not experience the D e p r e s s i o n as s e v e r e l y as some o f the post-war 85 employees, simply because they have lived i n different environments. Consequently, i n light of the above one can conclude that attitudes, values and behaviors cannot be expected to be very similar for the entire group, but i f they are i n some respects, as this investigation intends to show, then one may tentatively conclude that Middle Management attracts and forms personalities with certain similar t r a i t s . CHAPTER II 86 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCREASE IN OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND INCREASE IN SOCIAL STATUS In answer to the question: Do you think that when people achieve a substantial increase i n salary and a more responsible position i n their profession, that they f e e l they have achieved a higher social status position? the following summary was obtained from 38 persons, each one answering with regard to (a) a l l people, generally, (b) B. C* Electric employees, generally, and (c) for themselves. TABLE IV RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCREASE IN OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND INCREASE IN SOCIAL STATUS Respondents Yes, but Some/ + answering for: Yes other* depends No Totals People i n general 32 h 2 38 B.C.E. employees 21 6 11 38 Themselves 17 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2+ 17 38 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Other, includes one person who related the change i n status to becoming officer i n the Armed Forces, while three persons related i t to graduation from University. + One of 39 persons interviewed declined to answer the questions. 87 Of the seventeen persons who f e l t t h a t they experienced an i n c r e a s e i n t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n , t h i r t e e n i n d i c a t e d that becoming S u p e r v i s o r made them f e e l t h a t they had achieved a higher s o c i a l s t a t u s , w h i l e of the remaining f o u r persons two experienced the r e g r o u p i n g o f t h e i r job as g i v i n g them higher s t a t u s , one a f t e r becoming A s s i s t a n t Superintendent and one a f t e r becoming Department Head. These t h r e e occasions a l s o were mentioned by others as subsequent causes f o r s t a t u s change. P r e v i o u s t o the above q u e s t i o n s , these seventeen persons i n d i c a t e d that, \" i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y and p o s i t i o n \" (seven p e r s o n s ) , \"Increase i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y \" ( s i x persons) and \" i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y \" ( f o u r persons) are the f a c t o r s upon which i t depends whether B. C. E l e c t r i c employees f e e l , i f at a l l , t h a t they have achieved a higher s o c i a l s t a t u s . The r e s u l t of t h i s p a r t of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o b v i o u s l y does not bear out the assumptions t h a t (a) persons d e r i v e t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s from t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l rank, or (b) t h a t they g e n e r a l l y f e e l t h a t a change i n o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s produces a change i n s o c i a l s t a t u s . However, before one completely accepts these c o n c l u s i o n s , c e r t a i n matters should be i l l u m i n a t e d . These were brought out d u r i n g the d i s c u s s i o n s which accompanied t h i s p a r t i c u l a r part o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 88 No matter i n what manner the above q u e s t i o n s were answered, two b a s i c a t t i t u d e s appeared which were shared by most of the respondents. F i r s t , i t was f e l t by most respondents t h a t g r e a t e r f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y permits people t o a f f o r d more i n terms of goods, s e r v i c e s , and a m e n i t i e s . S i n c e an i n c r e a s e i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s u s u a l l y accompanied by an i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y , o c c u p a t i o n a l upwards m o b i l i t y p l a c e s persons not a u t o m a t i c a l l y but c e r t a i n l y g r a d u a l l y i n t o a d i f f e r e n t c l a s s of \"spenders.\" I n other words, i t was g e n e r a l l y f e l t t h a t s u c c e s s i v e promotions tend t o p l a c e persons i n t o s u c c e s s i v e l y higher economic c l a s s e s , a l l o w i n g f o r i n d i v i d u a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , e.g., number of c h i l d r e n , other dependents, and h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n . Second, most o f the respondents f e l t t h a t t h e i r i n c r e a s e d f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y , t h e i r g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h e i r b e t t e r knowledge of company a f f a i r s and of t h e i r s p e c i f i c f i e l d s , t h e i r p o s i t i o n g e n e r a l l y or the f a c t t h a t they became \"White C o l l a r \" workers and had t o d i s a s s o c i a t e themselves from Unions, and t h e i r d i f f e r e n t i n t e r e s t s , p l a c e s them on a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l . However, the m a j o r i t y o f the respondents denied t h a t \"the g e n e r a l p u b l i c , \" or \"B. C. E l e c t r i c employees\" or they themselves would purposely d i s a s s o c i a t e themselves from f r i e n d s who had not changed t h e i r s t a t u s and hence take a s nobbish a t t i t u d e . Although 8 9 some people f e l t that they f i n d i t embarrasing to be able to afford more than th e i r former associates or to have \"a better all-round knowledge\" than former colleagues and therefore tend to see them less often, other people stated outright or implied, that the \"average Canadian\" i s not a s o c i a l climber and that B. C. E l e c t r i c i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s \"democratic from the top down\" and much less social-conscious than some other corporations. However, thirty-two and twenty-one people, respectively, stated that \"the general public\" and \"B. C. E l e c t r i c employees\" f e e l they have achieved a higher s o c i a l status a f t e r a s i g n i f i c a n t promotion. E i t h e r , there exists a confusion of terms coupled with reluctance to admit status change, or a career i n Middle Management i s not considered important enough to give supervisors a concrete f e e l i n g of s o c i a l mobility. The confusion which exists i s not so much a confusion i n terminology and concepts as a confusion of fac t s and values. People admit unhesitatingly t h e i r aspirations f o r a s t e a d i l y improved economic position, and they usually r e a l i z e that t h e i r economic position within the \"White C o l l a r \" class places them also on a higher s o c i a l l e v e l , but they hesitate to admit that t h i s r e s u l t s a t i s f i e s part of t h e i r aspirations. They admit that they want to be \"better o f f , \" but they do not wish to be suspected of wanting to be \"better.\" Therefore, they point out that they tend 90 ( o r make the e f f o r t ) t o r e t a i n o l d f r i e n d s I n s p i t e of c e r t a i n changes which makes i t more d i f f i c u l t f o r them t o m a i n t a i n these f r i e n d s h i p s . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e , i f the d i s t a n c e i n terms of f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y , l e v e l o f work, and between o l d and new a s s o c i a t e s , becomes too great t o be e a s i l y o v e r l o o k e d . The p o i n t i s t h a t people f e e l caught between two c o n t r a d i c t o r y n o t i o n s , namely, t h a t \" t o b e t t e r o n e s e l f e c o n o m i c a l l y i s good\" and t h a t \" t o b e t t e r o n e s e l f s o c i a l l y i s bad\" because the l a t t e r seems t o imply t h a t \"one t h i n k s more h i g h l y of o n e s e l f and worse o f those one once belonged t o . \" Apart from the n o t i o n t h a t a person should t h i n k more h i g h l y o f h i m s e l f i f he has proven h i s a b i l i t y , f o r t h i s r e a s o n alone he may have never \"belonged t o . \" Furthermore, 1 p e r s o n a l i t y changes. Acco r d i n g t o Stagner: \"The i n d i v i d u a l human p e r s o n a l i t y i s the product o f a l e a r n i n g sequence.\" People who have moved from one s u b - c u l t u r e t o the next experience a change of p e r s o n a l i t y which g r a d u a l l y makes them a l i e n to the s u b - c u l t u r e or s o c i a l c l a s s they have come from, and there are u s u a l l y not enough non-conformists around who are a b l e to c r e a t e t h e i r own sub-culture.which,\u00E2\u0084\u00A2 s t r a d d l e s the l e s s e r extremes. However, i n the North American s o c i e t y r e c o g n i t i o n of \" c l a s s e s \" i s u n d e s i r a b l e ; t h e r e f o r e , such common sense Ross Stagner, Psychology o f P e r s o n a l i t y , New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co. L t d . , 19^ 8, p. 435. 91 developments as change of associations are not acceptable and recognized for what they are, namely, changes of personality, but become moral issues and create guilt complexes because each person suspects the other of wanting to be \"unequal.\" The concept of \"equal rights\" has become utterly confused with equality of personality, of a b i l i t y , honesty, goodness and what have you. An uneducated person's integrity does not improve his chances of becoming a member of the Academy of Science, while the Academy's refusal to accept him is not a reflection upon the person's integrity nor should i t lead to the conclusion that the Academy thinks l i t t l e of him as a member of society. However, this i s exactly what is implied i f people state i n one breath that they do not terminate former associations and thereby express a snobbish attitude. They do not have to and s t i l l w i l l be in a different socio-economic strata of society i f they make and spend their money as is customary i n that strata. A considerable number of respondents displayed prejudices and \"snobbish attitudes\" regarding people living i n certain areas but to measure the magnitude of their \" s o c i a l climb\" based on changing associations seems hardly possible. One person stated that he did not want to move \"too far West\" because his friends may suspect him of becoming a snob, yet, he admitted that he moved from the eastern residential area for reasons of prestige. It seems, then, that those persons who do not admit having experienced 92 a change i n s o c i a l s t a t u s by p o i n t i n g out t h a t they have maintained t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n s , n e v e r t h e l e s s may i n f a c t be conscious o f t h e i r \" s o c i a l change\" and may c r e a t e t h a t type o f s o c i a l pressure which makes ot h e r s unhappy and uneasy about r e s i d i n g i n c e r t a i n areas and, p o s s i b l y , f o r c e s them t o move and break e s t a b l i s h e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . S c r u t i n i z i n g the comments and answers g i v e n i n t h i s part o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n more c a r e f u l l y on the b a s i s o f a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n obtained i n response t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and during the d i s c u s s i o n s , the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t i s o b t a i n e d : TABLE 7 RESPONDENTS1 PERCEPTION OF THEIR CHANGE IN SOCIAL STATUS H o always T h e i r answer on Yes, but had present S t a t u s the b a s i s of: Yes o t h e r * s t a t u s No Decreased Total** Q u e s t i o n 30 17 *+ 17 38 D i s c u s s i o n and other i n f o r m a t i o n 2h h h 5 1 38 * Other, i n c l u d e s one person who r e l a t e d the change i n s t a t u s t o becoming o f f i c e r i n the Armed F o r c e s , w h i l e three persons r e l a t e d i t t o g r a d u a t i o n from U n i v e r s i t y . + One of 39 persons i n t e r v i e w e d d e c l i n e d t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n . The other p o s s i b i l i t y , namely, t h a t m o b i l i t y i n Middle Management ranks i s not con s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t t o 93 give persons a sense of changed social status position was checked i n the following manner: Question 29a: Do you think that i t depends upon the previous level of income and position whether a promotion w i l l make B. C. Electri c people f e e l that they have achieved a higher social status position? was answered i n the following way: Does depend: 21 respondents May depend: k 11 Does not depend: 13 \" The twenty-one persons who related change in social position to occupational mobility, considered the following types of promotions significant for a change i n social status position (based on answers to Question 29a): Promotion from ranks to Supervisor: 11 persons Promotion between supervisor and including promotion to Department Head: 2 persons Promotion from Department Head up: 7 persons However, i f one combines the above answer with the statement each individual made regarding his reaction to a promotion (Question 3 D , the following results are obtained: TABLE VI RESPONDENTS' ACTUAL RECOGNITION AND EXPERIENCE OF CHANGE IN SOCIAL STATUS Status increase depends on promotion Number Persons of Type of Number of Promotion persons Does depend May depend Does not depend 29 2 7 Rank to supervisor lk Bet. S.V. & Dept. Hd. 8 From Dept. Head up 7 Totals 38+ 29 '+ One of 39 persons interviewed declined to answer these questions. 94 Thus, the tendency appears t o be t h a t 29 respondents of 3 8 ( 7 6 . 3 per cent) r e c o g n i z e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l m o b i l i t y , w h i l e p o s s i b l y as many as 24 respondents ( 6 3 . 2 per cent) have experienced a change i n t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s on account o f a promotion. 95 CHAPTER I I I ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL POSITION AND RESIDENCE AS AN EXPRESSION OF SOCIAL POSITION T h i s part o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as was pointed out i n the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the method, s u f f e r e d from c e r t a i n a m b i g u i t i e s which may make the r e s u l t s l e s s meaningful. I n answer t o the q u e s t i o n : Do you t h i n k t h a t when people s e l e c t houses one o f the f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e t h e i r c h o i c e i s the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house and neighborhood f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d : TABLE VII RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTION OF THE ATTITUDES OF CERTAIN GROUPS REGARDING THE USE OF RESIDENCE AS A STATUS SYMBOL Respondents answering f o r : Yes Some/ Depends No T o t a l s The G e n e r a l P u b l i c 33 3 2 38 B. C. E. Employees 28 1 9 38 M i d d l e Management, g e n e r a l l y 17 18 3 38 B. C. E . Middle Management 12 18 8 38 * One of 39 persons i n t e r v i e w e d d e c l i n e d t o answer these q u e s t i o n s . 96 With r e g a r d t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l m o b i l i t y one may a g a i n observe from the data i n T a b l e VII that people are more l i k e l y t o a t t r i b u t e a c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r t o a l a r g e group, i . e . , the G e n e r a l p u b l i c , and t h a t they are more c a u t i o u s about making g e n e r a l statements r e g a r d i n g s u c c e s s i v e l y s m a l l e r and b e t t e r known groups. I n c r e a s i n g f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the values and b e h a v i o r s of members of these groups and, p o s s i b l y , an i n c r e a s i n g awareness of the f a c t t h a t the person g e n e r a l i z e s about h i s own b e h a v i o r makes him more o b j e c t i v e and c a r e f u l . However, something e l s e seems t o happen when people r e t r e a t from making \" o f f the c u f f \" g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l s t a t u s and r e s i d e n c e . I n judging the behavior of the \" G e n e r a l P u b l i c \" they r e a l i z e or assume t h a t the m a j o r i t y of people segregate themselves a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h socio-economic groups. T h i s type of s e g r e g a t i o n appears n a t u r a l and a c c e p t a b l e t o them. I f asked about the behavior o f B. C. E l e c t r i c employees, however, the B. C. E l e c t r i c i t s e l f becomes an in-group o f which they themselves are members. The i n v e s t i g a t o r who was an i n s i d e r w i t h r e g a r d t o the f i r s t q u e s t i o n now becomes an o u t s i d e r , and in-group l o y a l t y undoubtedly begins t o c o l o u r the answers. Socio-economic s e g r e g a t i o n cannot be admitted f u r t h e r because i t begins t o reek of snobbishness. When asked about the behavior o f 97 Middle Management i t s e l f , the respondents b e g i n t o t h i n k o f cases where people have o s t e n t a t i o u s r e s i d e n c e s and then use these examples t o measure the behavior o f the m a j o r i t y o f group members. Furthermore, they u s u a l l y know persons . who r e c e n t l y have moved i n t o a \" b e t t e r \" neighborhood, and knowing these persons more or l e s s i n t i m a t e l y convinces them t h a t s t a t u s a s p i r a t i o n s had no part i n the d e c i s i o n s of these i n d i v i d u a l s . T h i s bending o f the measuring s t i c k i s , perhaps, understandable, but i t does not produce o b j e c t i v e answers. Consequently, the answers t o the above que s t i o n s r e f l e c t the p e r c e p t i o n o f the respondents but not the a t t i t u d e s o f the v a r i o u s groups t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l s t a t u s and r e s i d e n c e . Q u e s t i o n hi: I n your case, f o r example, when you are s e l e c t i n g a new place t o l i v e do you c o n s i d e r at a l l how a p p r o p r i a t e the house i s f o r a person i n your s o c i a l p o s i t i o n ? was answered i n such a f a s h i o n t h a t 28 of 39 persons s a i d Yes and f o u r t e e n s a i d No. Q u i t e a few of the respondents who answered i n the a f f i r m a t i v e meant the r e - s a l e v a l u e o f the house or some f e a t u r e s o f the house, t h e r e f o r e , t h i s summary of r e s u l t s i s not e n t i r e l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . I f one c o r r e l a t e s (a) the answers t o Q u e s t i o n hi (b) the answers which the i n v e s t i g a t o r obtained from the d i s c u s s i o n w i t h 98 (c) the \"status reasons\" each respondent gave with regard to any one selection of a house during the past, the patterns are obtained which are summarized i n Table VIII. TABLE VIII ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL STATUS POSITION AND HOUSE Answers given to Question hi Answers obtained from the discussion Behavior found on the basis of \"STATUS REASONS FOR SELECTION\" Number of Respondents Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No 17 3 h i 8 20 19 On the basis of this correlation shown in Table VIII i t was found that seventeen respondents recognize the relationship between social status position and choice of house as applicable for themselves, and that this self-appraisal can be confirmed. In the case of three persons this relationship is not admitted but strongly suspected on the basis of the other c r i t e r i a . For the remaining nineteen respondents, the relationship is neither 2 \"Status reasons\" for selection of neighborhoods are those summarized and explained i n the outline given i n Part III, Chapter II, Section A, 2 . . 99 convincingly admitted nor confirmed. Question 42: What about the neighborhood\u00E2\u0080\u0094do you consider whether i t i s appropriate for a person in your social position? showed that twenty-eight respondents admitted the relationship and eleven respondents denied i t . For reasons outlined i n the description of the Method of Analysis, these answers cannot be entirely accepted. Consequently, similar correlations as in the case of Question *+l are made with regard to Question 42. These are summarized i n Table IX. The answer provided to Question 42 (a) was compared with (b) the answer which the investigator obtained from the 2 discussion, with (c) the \"status reasons\" each respondent gave with regard to any one selection of a neighborhood during the past, and with (d) the absolute improvement each respondent experienced while moving from the f i r s t to the present residence as measured on the \"Status hierarchy of residential areas.\" On the basis of these correlations i t was found that a maximum of twenty-six persons recognized the relationship between social status position and their choice of neighborhood. Thirteen respondents either did not admit this relationship or sufficient evidence was lacking to 2 \"Status reasons\" for selection of neighborhoods are those summarized and explained i n the outline given i n Part III, Chapter I I , Section B, 2b. 100 TABLE IX ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL STATUS POSITION AND SELECTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA Answer g i v e n t o Qu e s t i o n h2 Answer obtained from the d i s c u s s i o n B e havior R e s i d e n t i a l e s t a b l i s h e d Improvement on the basis According t o of \"STATUS \"STATUS * Number of REASONS\" HIERARCHY\" Respondents Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No 17 k 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 26 13 * Respondents who stayed i n the same or r e t u r n e d t o the o r i g i n a l r e s i d e n t i a l area d i d not improve t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s a c c o r d i n g t o the \"STATUS HIERARCHY.\" 101 confirm or suspect recognition of this relationship. The result of this investigation shows that more than half of this Middle Management group recognizes the relationship between \"the appropriateness of the house and neighborhood\" and a person's social status position. Furthermore, more people consider the \"neighborhood\" of greater importance than the \"house\" as a means of expressing status and obtaining prestige. 102 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOVING TO A LARGER AND MORE ELABORATE DWELLING AND PRESTIGE CONSIDERATIONS Moving t o a Larger Dwelling The a n a l y s i s i s concerned f i r s t w i t h the o b j e c t i v e or f a c t u a l data, and then w i t h the reasons f o r moving and reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a new d w e l l i n g . A n a l y s i s o f the o b j e c t i v e data r e g a r d i n g i n c r e a s e of d w e l l i n g s i z e c l e a r l y shows t h a t the m a j o r i t y of moves made a f t e r the respondents occupied t h e i r f i r s t d w e l l i n g upon becoming married was t o l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s . I n t o t a l 100 moves were made by 3*+ respondents a f t e r they had occupied t h e i r f i r s t d w e l l i n g \u00E2\u0080\u0094 f i v e respondents have not moved at a l l s i n c e becoming married. E x c l u d i n g those r e s i d e n c e s where the r e s p e c t i v e respondent shared the d w e l l i n g w i t h f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s or where other circumstances makes proper assessment of rooms used e x c l u s i v e l y by the respondent's f a m i l y d i f f i c u l t , a t o t a l of 92 moves i n v o l v i n g 33 respondents are c o n s i d e r e d . T a b l e X shows t h a t the g r e a t e r number of moves were made to l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s . Comparing the number o f rooms contained i n the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e which each respondent s e l e c t e d upon becoming married w i t h the number of rooms contained i n t h e i r present 103 TABLE X TOTAL NUMBER OF MOVES AFTER THE FIRST RESIDENCE UPON BEING MARRIED TO A LARGER, SAME SIZED, OR SMALLER DWELLING Type of Move Number of Moves o f^MbSSS Move to a larger dwelling 61 66.3 Move to a same-sized dwelling 11 11.9 Move to a smaller dwelling 20 21.8 92 100.0 TABLE XI SIZE OF PRESENT DWELLING AS COMPARED TO SIZE OF FIRST DWELLING Percentage of Type of Move Number of persons Group of 39 Moved to a larger dwelling 31 79.5 Moved to a same-sized dwelling 2 5.1 Stayed i n the f i r s t dwelling 6 15.5 Moved to a smaller dwelling 39 100.1 d w e l l i n g , the r e s u l t s shown i n Table XI are o b t a i n e d . Almost 80 per cent o f the 39 respondents moved t o a l a r g e r r e s i d e n c e s i n c e they occupied t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e upon becoming married. The respondents who remained i n t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e on the average had s i x rooms per d w e l l i n g . C o n s i d e r i n g the e n t i r e group, i t was found t h a t the average number of rooms i n the f i r s t d w e l l i n g occupied by each respondent upon becoming married was 3.8 Rooms per D w e l l i n g . At the present time, each respondent occupies a d w e l l i n g which on the average c o n t a i n s 7.0 Rooms per D w e l l i n g , an average Increase of 3.2 Rooms per D w e l l i n g . Consequently, the m a j o r i t y o f the group has moved on the average t o a c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s i n c e they f i r s t became mar r i e d . However, i t must be assumed t h a t most young married couples seek at f i r s t \"a s u i t a b l e accommodation ac c o r d i n g t o f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y , \" where f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y d i c t a t e s the spaciousness of the f i r s t one or two r e s i d e n c e s . I n f a c t , on the b a s i s o f \"Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g a c e r t a i n Residence i n a p a r t i c u l a r Neighborhood\" 1 31 respondents gave these reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a t o t a l o f 73 of 132 (55.3 per cent) r e s i d e n c e s which i n c l u d e s the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e . I n the m a j o r i t y , the f i r s t and second r e s i d e n c e was chosen from t h i s p o i n t o f view, and u s u a l l y was a x A complete summary o f reasons w i l l be found i n P a r t IV, Chapter V, S e c t i o n B, 1. 105 suite or apartment (Table XII). TABLE XII CHANGE FROM APARTMENT/SUITE ACCOMMODATION TO DUPLEX/HOUSE ACCOMMODATION Type of Accommo- Fir s t Second Third Fourth F i f t h Sixth Seventh dation House owned 11 28 3-+ 35 36 37 37 House rented 3 10 2 1 1 Duplex rented 3 1 Apt. rented 13 3 2 2 2 2 Suite rented 9 1 Totals 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 The density i n the f i r s t residence was high, namely, 0.70 Persons per Room at maximum household size, which according to the definition of the Dominion Bureau of 2 Statistics is near-crowding. One may assume that the f i r s t single-detached house rented or ovmed by each respondent was chosen i n order to relieve the space need created by the i n i t i a l accommodation and i n order to accommodate anticipated additions to the household, e.g., children, parents and relatives. Subsequent moves to considerably 2 According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Canada Census 1951, Population and Housing Characteristics, a density of above 0.8 persons per room i s considered \"crowding.\" 106 l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s , one may suspect, may i n d i c a t e p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . I n Tabl e X I I I , a l l moves are summarized which took p l a c e a f t e r the respondent r e n t e d or owned h i s f i r s t s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d d w e l l i n g . Of the 39 respondents, two are now l i v i n g i n apartments and were excluded from t h i s summary. TABLE X I I I NUMBER OF MOVES FROM THE FIRST SINGLE-DETACHED HOUSE RENTED OR OWNED TO THE HOUSE OWNED AT -. PRESENT IN TERMS OF MOVES TO LARGER, SAME-SIZED, OR SMALLER DWELLINGS Type o f Move Number of Moves Percentage o f k8 Moves Move t o a l a r g e r d w e l l i n g 30 ^2.6 Move t o a same-sized d w e l l i n g 7 14.6 Move t o a s m a l l e r d w e l l i n g 11 2 2 . 8 T o t a l s kQ 1 0 0 . 0 The m a j o r i t y ( 6 2 . 6 per cent) o f moves from the f i r s t house owned or r e n t e d were made t o s t i l l l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s . Comparing the s i z e of the f i r s t r e nted or owned s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d d w e l l i n g w i t h the s i z e o f the present s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d d w e l l i n g occupied by 37 respondents, the 107 following differences are noted (Table XIV). TABLE XIV SIZE OF FIRST RENTED OR OWNED SINGLE-DETACHED DWELLING RELATIVE TO SIZE OF PRESENT SINGLE-DETACHED DWELLING Type of Move Number of Moves P e r \u00C2\u00B0 G ? o u p e * 0 f Moved to a larger dwelling 20 54.1 Moved to a same-sized dwelling 2 5.4 Moved to a smaller dwelling 3 8.1 Stayed i n the f i r s t dwelling 12 32.4 Totals 37 100.0 * Two persons now residing i n apartments were excluded from this summary. More than half of the group has continued to move to larger dwellings after the apartment/suite accommodation stage was passed, and presumably, the i n i t i a l need for larger dwellings was satisfied. However, i t must be assumed, that further additions to the number of household members enforced additional moves. In order to find the maximum density each household reached, and either continued to tolerate or reduced by moving to a larger dwelling, number of rooms were compared with number of household members. Those density indices were selected which were not changed again on account of 108 an increase i n household size and represented the maximum density for each household. It was found that the maximum density tolerated on the average by each of the 39 households was 0.72 persons per room which gave each dwelling on the average 5.7 rooms per dwelling. Consequently, population density actually increased slightly above the density created by maximum household size during the f i r s t residence which were largely suites and apartments. Although the majority of the respondents were living i n single-detached houses, increasing household sizes on the average did not reduce but increased density and space need. Subsequently sixteen households moved Into a larger dwelling i n order to reduce population density. These sixteen moves reduced overall density to 0.63 persons per room and increased the average number of rooms per dwelling to 6.7 rooms per dwelling. According to the figures summarized In the Dominion Bureau of Statistics* Bulletin \"Population and Housing Characteristics, Vancouver Metropolitan Area by Census Tracts 1 the following Census Tracts had indices of 0.6 - 0.7 persons per room i n 1951s 2, 3, \u00E2\u0080\u00A2+, 7, 8, 14, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 44, *+7, 48, *+9, 40, 4 l , 42, 43, North Vancouver City, and North Vancouver D i s t r i c t . Although an index of 0.63 persons per room i s closer to the indices found for areas West of Granville Street and i n West Vancouver, this density is s t i l l an average one and cannot be taken as 3 Dominion Bureau of Stat i s t i c s , Canada Census 1951, see also Map 3 i n Appendix I I . 109 / v x evidence f o r proving/>'ihat the m a j o r i t y of respondents chose J . l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s than r e q u i r e d by them. / However, a f t e r a l l respondents a d j u s t e d the s i z e of d w e l l i n g t o the maximum s i z e of t h e i r household, f i v e respondents c o n t i n u e d t o move i n t o a s t i l l l a r g e r d w e l l i n g without being compelled by an i n c r e a s e i n household s i z e . I n f o u r of these cases, the respondents i n d i c a t e d t hat they r e q u i r e d a l a r g e d w e l l i n g p r i m a r i l y f o r the purpose of having g u e s t s , entertainment and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s . I n these f o u r cases moving t o a l a r g e r house can d e f i n i t e l y be a t t r i b u t e d t o p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . I n these f o u r cases the d e n s i t y i n d i c e s v a r y between 0.33 - 0.50 persons per room. Acco r d i n g t o the 1951 Census, only Census T r a c t 22, Shaughnessey west of G r a n v i l l e S t r e e t , had a person-per-room d e n s i t y o f 0.5 or l e s s . I t appears then t h a t a d e n s i t y o f 0.5 persons per room or l e s s i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l a r g e d w e l l i n g i s p e r c e i v e d as a s t a t u s symbol. A n a l y s i n g the person-per-room r a t i o s o f the d w e l l i n g s occupied at present by the members o f t h i s Middle Management group, one f i n d s t h a t a t o t a l o f f i f t e e n respondents have 0.5 and b e t t e r i n d i c e s . E x c l u d i n g those cases where the s i z e of the household was reduced on account o f death o f members, 10 respondents l i v e i n d w e l l i n g s which a f f o r d each household member the use of at l e a s t two rooms on the average. These respondents furthermore r e s i d e i n r e s i d e n t i a l 110 areas which on the b a s i s of the \" S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y \" have a v a l u e of 20.6 on the average. I n other words, they own houses i n the Upper Middle c l a s s areas and i n areas where land and improvement valu e s are c o m p a r a t i v e l y h i g h . These respondents, on the average, have an annual income of $7,*+80. The mean annual income of the e n t i r e group i s $7,620, and the mean va l u e of s t a t u s areas f o r the e n t i r e group i s 31.7.) On the b a s i s o f f a c t u a l data i t can be concluded t h a t 10 of 39 respondents (25\u00C2\u00BB6 per cent o f the group) moved i n t o a l a r g e r d w e l l i n g , presumably i n order t o o b t a i n the p r e s t i g e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l a r g e d w e l l i n g , t h a t i s , t o be a b l e t o show t h a t they can a f f o r d more space than would f u n c t i o n a l l y be r e q u i r e d . The subsequent a n a l y s i s o f p r i n c i p a l reasons g i v e n f o r moving from each r e s i d e n c e i s based upon the e n t i r e 100 moves made by 3*+ respondents. C e r t a i n assumptions were made about the r e l a t i v e s i z e o f those d w e l l i n g s which were shared w i t h others and f o r which numbers o f rooms used e x c l u s i v e l y by the respondents were not a v a i l a b l e . A n a l y s i s o f these 100 moves shows t h a t 66 moves were made t o l a r g e r d w e l l i n g s 13 moves were made t o same-sized d w e l l i n g s 21 moves were made to s m a l l e r d w e l l i n g s I l l The principal reasons offered for each move away from a residence for the 66 moves made to larger dwellings are given i n Table XV. TABLE XV SUMMARY OF 1 REASONS FOR MOVING* FOR ALL MOVES TO LARGER DWELLINGS More space required Number Percentage of Total because: of Moves to a larger Dwelling Child expected 19 28.8 Relative expected 1 1 .5 Needs of family changed 12 18.2 Forced move, or temporary 16 2h.3 Arrangement expired 3 h.5 Area became undesirable 11 16.6 House not representative h 6.1 Totals 66 100.0 Except for the four respondents who indicated that their dwellings were not desirable from the point of view of entertainment and representation, among other reasons, no further indication can be found that a small dwelling i s considered to have less prestige than a larger one. To interpret certain reasons and moves does not appear sensible because one would have to resort to the same method used beforehand, namely, densities. 112 Among the \"reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a new r e s i d e n c e \" the item \" l a r g e house\" was mentioned f o u r t e e n times by twelve respondents as one of the f a c t o r s which determined the c h o i c e of a p a r t i c u l a r r e s i d e n c e . I n seven cases t h i s f a c t o r a f f e c t e d present r e s i d e n c e s , however, i n f o u r cases the s i z e o f the f a m i l y i t s e l f demanded a \" l a r g e house\" al t h o u g h i n one case the d e n s i t y was b e t t e r than 0 . 5 persons per room. T h i s case and the remaining t h r e e which mentioned r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s p e c t s were a l r e a d y i n c l u d e d i n the t e n cases which were s i n g l e d out on the b a s i s o f the previous method. Consequently, no a d d i t i o n a l cases were found I n which a r e l a t i o n s h i p between \" l a r g e house\" and p r e s t i g e was admitted or confirmed through a n a l y s i s . I n view o f the t e n cases which were i d e n t i f i e d , one may say t h a t s i z e o f the house i t s e l f seems t o have l i m i t e d v a l u e as s t a t u s symbol f o r the Middle Management group. However, b e f o r e any f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn, the \" e l a b o r a t e n e s s o f the house\" as an i n d i c a t i o n o f concern w i t h p r e s t i g e has t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d . Moving t o a More E l a b o r a t e D w e l l i n g The e l a b o r a t e n e s s o f a d w e l l i n g was judged on the b a s i s o f f o u r c r i t e r i a : ( 1 ) Person per Room d e n s i t y index o f 0 . 5 and l e s s . ( 2 ) Mention of the r e a s o n \" l a r g e l i v i n g or r e c r e a t i o n room f o r entertainment\" f o r the s e l e c t i o n o f a d w e l l i n g . / (3) Mention o f the r e a s o n \" a t t r a c t i v e s t y l e o f house\" f o r the s e l e c t i o n o f a d w e l l i n g . 113 Mention of the r e a s o n \"view\" f o r the s e l e c t i o n o f a d w e l l i n g . Three r e s i d e n c e s o f a t o t a l o f 132 r e s i d e n c e s were i d e n t i f i e d as \"more e l a b o r a t e \" because t h r e e o f the above c r i t e r i a a p p l i e d t o these r e s i d e n c e s . 411 t h r e e r e s i d e n c e s were d w e l l i n g s occupied at present by respondents. An a d d i t i o n a l twelve r e s i d e n c e s were i d e n t i f i e d f o r which two items each c l a s s i f i e d them as \"more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g s . \" However, o n l y s i x o f these d w e l l i n g s were present r e s i d e n c e s . The other s i x d w e l l i n g s were occupied d u r i n g e a r l i e r stages of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . One o f the persons who once moved t o a \"more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g \" f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e now occupies a \" l a r g e r d w e l l i n g \" f o r s i m i l a r reasons. Comparison of the t e n present r e s i d e n c e s which were i d e n t i f i e d as \" l a r g e d w e l l i n g s s e l e c t e d f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e \" w i t h the n i n e present r e s i d e n c e s which were i d e n t i f i e d as \"more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g s chosen f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e \" y i e l d s f i v e i d e n t i c a l r e s i d e n c e s . Consequently, on the b a s i s o f these two i n v e s t i g a t i o n s I t may be concluded t h a t lh respondents of a group of 3 9 are at present r e s i d i n g i n \" l a r g e r or more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g s \" i n order t o o b t a i n the p r e s t i g e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these d w e l l i n g s . I t may a l s o be concluded t h a t houses are not c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t u s symbols by the members of t h i s Middle Management group. 114 CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOVING TO A BETTER RESIDENTIAL AREA AND STATUS AND PRESTIGE CONSIDERATIONS T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was analysed on the b a s i s o f moves from the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e to the present r e s i d e n c e i n terms of \" s t a t u s values' 1 computed from the \" S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y o f R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\" as d e s c r i b e d i n the method o f a n a l y s i s . Subsequently, the r e l a t i o n s h i p was analysed on the b a s i s of the reasons g i v e n by the respondents f o r moving from r e s i d e n c e s and f o r s e l e c t i n g new r e s i d e n c e s . A n a l y s i s of the R e l a t i o n s h i p on the B a s i s of the \" S t a t u s Hierarchy' 1 o f R e s i d e n t i a l Areas The r e l a t i o n s h i p as was pointed out i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the method has two c o n n o t a t i o n s . F i r s t i t w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d whether t h i s Middle Management group moved t o a \" b e t t e r \" r e s i d e n t i a l area i n terms o f an a r e a s 1 p o s i t i o n i n the \" S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y . \" Next i t w i l l be I n v e s t i g a t e d whether and t o what degree the respondents \" b e t t e r e d \" t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s a c c o r d i n g t o the \"Status H i e r a r c h y . \" Whether the respondents \" b e t t e r e d \" themselves a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r own p e r c e p t i o n w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d l a t e r on and on the b a s i s o f reasons f o r moving 115 and s e l e c t i n g . I n t h i s part of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t w i l l a l s o be attempted t o analyse the p o t e n t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n between v e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i n terms o f \" s t a t u s v a l u e s . \" Moving to \" B e t t e r R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\" \" B e t t e r \" r e s i d e n t i a l areas were d e f i n e d as those areas which have a \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" of 1 - 27 on the \" S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y . 1 1 These areas are Upper Upper ( 1 - 8 ) , Middle Upper (9 - 1*+), Lower Upper (15 - 17), Upper Middle (18 - 21), and upper Middle Middle r e s i d e n t i a l areas (19 - 27). I n T a b l e XVI f o l l o w i n g , \"Summary of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y a c c o r d i n g t o S t a t u s V a l u e s , \" the average \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" obtained by the e n t i r e group i s shown f o r the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e upon becoming married, f o r each s u c c e s s i v e r e s i d e n c e , and f o r the present r e s i d e n c e . Because one respondent moved seven times, e i g h t r e s i d e n c e s are l i s t e d . A l l r e s i d e n c e s except \"temporary\" and \"out-of-town\" r e s i d e n c e s are i n c l u d e d i n t h i s summary. F o r each \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" the \"percentage p o i n t \" v a l u e has been computed where the lowest \" s t a t u s value 1 1 (7^) equals 100 per cent of p o i n t s . The number of persons who r e s i d e d i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\" at each stage of the group's r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y 1 See Appendix I I I 116 a r e enumerated i n the lowest row of t h i s summary. TABLE XVI SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY ACCORDING TO STATUS VALUES Residence 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th. Group Average S t a t u s Value 45.5 34.4 34.6 31.6 3 2 . 6 31.3 32.3 31.7 Percentage P o i n t s 61.5 46.5 46.7 42.7 44 .1 42.3 43.7 42.8 Residents i n \" b e t t e r areas\" 8 18 18 22 20 21 20 21 A c c o r d i n g to the above \"summary,\" the group on the average i s r e s i d i n g i n an area w i t h a \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" o f 31.7 and t h e r e f o r e i s not r e s i d i n g i n areas which have been d e f i n e d as \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\" ( S t a t u s Value 2 7 . 0 - 1 . 0 ) . However, twenty-one respondents of the group ( 5 3 . 8 per cent) are at present r e s i d i n g i n such a r e a s . Of these twenty-one respondents, seven have maintained t h e i r r e s i d e n c e i n these \" b e t t e r a r e a s \" s i n c e t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e ; one respondent r e t i r e d from such an area because he d i d not f e e l \" a t ease\" t h e r e , w h i l e f o u r t e e n persons moved i n t o these areas a f t e r a p e r i o d of r e s i d e n c e i n \"lower r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . \" These f o u r t e e n respondents came on the average from a r e s i d e n t i a l area w i t h the' \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" o f 5 0 . 9 . They 117 i n c r e a s e d t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s on the average by a \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" o f 3*+. 1 (46 . 1 percentage p o i n t s ) , and are now r e s i d i n g i n an area w i t h the e q u i v a l e n t s t a t u s v a l u e of 16.8. I n other words, these f o u r t e e n respondents on the average have made c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t s t o r a i s e t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s from a v e r y low p o s i t i o n i n the Upper Lower r e s i d e n t i a l c l a s s t o a p o s i t i o n i n the Lower Upper r e s i d e n t i a l c l a s s . The seven respondents who maintained t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n the \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s \" i n c r e a s e d t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s on the average by a v a l u e o f o n l y 2.5 ( 3 . ^ percentage p o i n t s ) . On the average these persons f i r s t r e s i d e d i n an area w i t h the e q u i v a l e n t v a l u e of 19.6 and at present are r e s i d i n g i n an area w i t h the e q u i v a l e n t s t a t u s v a l u e o f 17.1. I n other words, on the average, these respondents have remained i n the Upper Middle r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . B o t h groups r e s i d e on the average i n a r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s area w i t h a . \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" e q u i v a l e n t t o the r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s v a l u e averaged f o r 92 members o f the O r g a n i z a t i o n ' s Advanced Management group which i n c l u d e s the p r e s i d e n t and prominent top Middle Management p e r s o n n e l . The average \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" of t h i s group's r e s i d e n c e s was c a l c u l a t e d at 17.5 (Upper Middle r e s i d e n t i a l c l a s s ) . However, 53 persons o f t h i s group (57.6 per cent) r e s i d e i n Middle Upper r e s i d e n t i a l areas w i t h an e q u i v a l e n t \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" o f 8 . 6 . Seven persons of t h i s group resj.de i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas w i t h the 118 e q u i v a l e n t \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" o f 49.1 (Upper Lower r e s i d e n t i a l c l a s s ) and t h e r e f o r e tend t o depress the average f o r the e n t i r e Advanced Management group. The f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s may be drawn from the above a n a l y s i s . F i r s t , t h i s Middle Management group c o n t a i n s a core of seven respondents (17.9 per cent) who were accustomed t o l i v e i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\" at l e a s t s i n c e they 2 became married or j o i n e d B. C. E l e c t r i c . Subsequent o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y a c t u a l l y d i d not a f f e c t t h e i r o r i g i n a l standard v e r y much, although one person i n d i c a t e d t h a t he i n t e n d s t o move to an Upper Upper r e s i d e n t i a l area w i t h i n the next few y e a r s . The other f o u r t e e n respondents having f i r s t r e s i d e d i n lower c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l areas made c o n s i d e r a b l e s t r i d e s t o improve t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . Undoubtedly these persons have moved i n accordance w i t h t h e i r Improving o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , and probably f o r reasons o f p r e s t i g e and s t a t u s . I n order t o e x p l a i n the circumstances and the \" d r i v e \" which enabled these twenty-one persons to achieve p o s i t i o n s i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\" b e t t e r knowledge of t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t i e s would have t o be gained than t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n 2 F i v e persons were accustomed to l i v i n g i n \" b e t t e r \" areas by v i r t u e of t h e i r f a m i l y background or p r e v i o u s s t a t u s i n c r e a s e s ; two persons s t a t e d that they moved i n t o \" b e t t e r a r e a s \" f o r s o c i a l r e a s o n s . 119 c o u l d p r o v i d e . Although the i n v e s t i g a t o r b e l i e v e s -he has\" obtained some i n s i g h t and a grasp of the i n d i v i d u a l s ' p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and circumstances which provide hunches about each person's motives, these cannot be s u b s t a n t i a t e d . Furthermore, the circumstances and t r a i t s producing such motives cannot be g e n e r a l i z e d . For example, one person s t a t e d t h a t he moved i n t o a \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a \" i n order to f o r c e h i m s e l f to earn t h i s r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s by i n c r e a s i n g h i s o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . Another person married i n t o a w e l l - t o - d o f a m i l y and subsequently achieved h i s s t a t u s i n the Armed F o r c e s , b o t h reasons o b l i g e d and encouraged him t o seek r e s i d e n c e i n an \" a p p r o p r i a t e \" r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a . A t h i r d respondent maintained t h a t each s o c i e t y has i t s \" s o c i a l c l a s s e s \" and t h a t he h i m s e l f by v i r t u e of h i s e f f o r t and a b i l i t y had worked h i s way out of the \"lower c l a s s e s \" and not o n l y may l a y c l a i m upon a r e s i d e n c e i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e as\" but f o r h i s t a s t e and h i s c h i l d r e n ' s f u t u r e f e e l s o b l i g e d t o do so. And a f o u r t h person c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f a \" c u l t u r e d , i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c \" person who p r e f e r s t o l i v e i n an environment where people are \"house-conscious\" but otherwise l e s s m a t e r i a l i s t i c a l l y i n c l i n e d . A l s o , among t h i s group i s one who l o s t h i s \"economic s t a t u s \" b e f o r e he j o i n e d the O r g a n i z a t i o n d u r i n g the d e p r e s s i o n but who was compelled t o uphold h i s \" s o c i a l s t a t u s \" because o f h i s r e l a t i v e s ' s t a t u s , and one person who was an immigrant b e l i e v e s t h a t \"the average Canadian i s not a s o c i a l c l i m b e r . \" 12.0 Perhaps, i t i s p o s s i b l e to t e n t a t i v e l y g e n e r a l i z e one o b s e r v a t i o n , namely, t h a t these f o u r t e e n persons who moved from lower i n t o \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r eas\" had the d r i v e t o improve themselves as members of s o c i e t y , i n t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n and as r e s i d e n t s , b e f o r e they even became Middle Management pers o n n e l , and t h a t Middle Management became t h e i r avenue f o r improvement and provided them w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y and the f i n a n c i a l means t o express o v e r t l y t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s t a t u s p o s i t i o n . These persons probably would have found d i f f e r e n t avenues and d i f f e r e n t O r g a n i z a t i o n s t o enable them to improve t h e i r s t a t u s and s a t i s f y t h e i r a mbitions. I t i s not that t h e y are Middle Management and l e a s t o f a l l that they are B. C. E l e c t r i c Middle Management which g i v e s them s t a t u s , but r a t h e r i t i s because of t h e i r p e r s o n a l achievement i n t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n , i n the Army or because by v i r t u e o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y or achievements they were able to marry i n t o \"well-to-do' 1 f a m i l i e s . Middle Management p o s i t i o n s merely c l a s s i f y t h e i r p e r s o n a l achievements. However, i n order t o express t h e i r p e r s o n a l achievement and i n order t o s a t i s f y t h e i r o r i g i n a l d e s i r e f o r g a i n i n g or r e - g a i n i n g a c e r t a i n s o c i a l s t a t u s , these persons moved i n t o \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . \" On the b a s i s o f the \"S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y \" f o u r t e e n respondents have s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s w h i l e they were employed w i t h the O r g a n i z a t i o n , and 121 seven maintained the same l e v e l of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s o f whom two d e f i n i t e l y came from lower c l a s s a r e a s . A l l twenty-one persons i t may be assumed were conscious of the p a r t i c u l a r p r e s t i g e and s t a t u s they would o b t a i n from being i n these \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas.\" R e l a t i v e E f f o r t s Made by the Respondents t o Improve T h e i r R e s p e c t i v e R e s i d e n t i a l S t a t u s The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e , \"Summary o f R e s i d e n t i a l S t a t u s Improvements by Groups o f Middle Management Persons\" (Table X V I I ) , shows the e f f o r t s made by i n d i v i d u a l s t o improve t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . As above, \" s t a t u s v a l u e s \" are based upon the \" S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y \" and computed by adding the r e s p e c t i v e area s t a t u s v a l u e s together and d i v i d i n g the sum by the number o f persons t h a t are at a c e r t a i n r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y s t a g e . I n t h i s t a b l e o n l y the f i r s t and present stage o f r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y are c o n s i d e r e d and compared. I n the r i g h t - h a n d columns \"Decrease/Increase\" o f \"Status V a l u e s \" and the number of persons who r e s i d e d I n \" B e t t e r R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\" d u r i n g the f i r s t and present stage of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y are compared. Group A T h i s group o f f i v e persons has not moved at a l l s i n c e they s e t t l e d upon being married ( t h r e e respondents) or came or r e t u r n e d t o Vancouver (two r e s p o n d e n t s ) . T h e i r r e s i d e n c e i n b e l o w - a v e r a g e - r e s i d e n t i a l areas seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t these respondents are not concerned w i t h t h e i r r e s i d e n c e TABLE XVII SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL STATUS IMPROVEMENTS BY GROUPS OF MIDDLE -MANAGEMENT PERSONS F i r s t Residence Present Residence I n c r e a s e Status Values Status Values or Decrease B e t t e r Group Behavior Number of Persons T o t a l Average Percent age P o i n t s T o t a l Average Percent-age P o i n t s S t a t u s Values P e r c e n t age P o i n t s - R e s i d . No. o f F i r s t , Area Persons Present A No more 5 244 H8.8 65.9 U8.8 65.9 B No I n c . 4 128 32.0 ^3.2 128 32.0 43.2 1 1 C Decrease 6 191 31.8 ^2.9 247 41 .1 55.6 - 9.3 -12.9 3 2 D B i g I n c . 9 5^5 60.6 81.9 M 17.6 23.7 +^3.0 +58.2 9 E Med. I n c . 6 3>+3 57.2 77.3 209 3^.8 47.0 +22.4 +30.3 2 F Low I n c . 9 315 35.0 ^7.3 260 28.9 38.9 + 6.1 + 8.4 4 7 TOTALS 39 1,766 ^5.5 61.5 1,236 31.7 42.8 +13.8 +18.7 8 21 ro 123 as a means of e x p r e s s i n g s t a t u s or o b t a i n i n g p r e s t i g e . However, a n a l y s i s o f the i n d i v i d u a l cases i n d i c a t e s the f o l l o w i n g . Three respondents moved or stayed i n houses which t h e i r parents occupied before or b u i l t f o r them. Two o f these expect t o move \" t o the West\" soon because they are becoming d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r present s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environment. Although they are of w i d e l y d i f f e r e n t f i n a n c i a l means, both persons h e s i t a t e t o burden themselves w i t h mortgages but f e e l they should move\u00E2\u0080\u0094for. the sake o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n s 1 u p b r i n g i n g , because the areas are d e p r e c i a t i n g and because of t h e i r p o s i t i o n ( a t l e a s t one case mentioned t h i s r e a s o n ) . The t h i r d person f e l t t h a t the neighborhood which b u i l t up around h i s home n e i t h e r caused h i s p r o p e r t y t o d e p r e c i a t e nor a f f e c t e d h i s p r e s t i g e . He intends t o s t a y u n t i l r e t i r e m e n t . The f o u r t h person r e t i r e d and s e l e c t e d a r e a s o n a b l y p r i c e d p l a c e b e f o r e he j o i n e d the B. C. E l e c t r i c . He does not c o n s i d e r h i m s e l f a \" s o c i a l l i o n \" and r e a l i z e s t h a t h i s r e s i d e n c e i s perhaps not \" a p p r o p r i a t e \" but he i s s a t i s f i e d and intends t o s t a y . The f i f t h person came t o Vancouver a f t e r the war and d u r i n g the p e r i o d of housing shortage. The place he s e l e c t e d was adjacent t o an area which subsequently was rezoned f o r i n d u s t r i a l u s e s . Although he would l i k e t o move \"West\" he cou l d do so o n l y a f t e r s e l l i n g h i s p r o p e r t y at a l o s s . 124 O b v i o u s l y , none o f these persons chose h i s r e s i d e n c e f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e or i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the l a t e r promotion t o a s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n . A l l o f them are aware of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l and s o c i a l s t a t u s but o n l y t h r e e are i n t e n d i n g t o a d j u s t t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s t o the s o c i a l s t a t u s which they have a c q u i r e d on the b a s i s o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n and t h e i r f i n a n c i a l , a b i l i t y . Group B T h i s group o f respondents moved once or twice w i t h i n the same g e n e r a l neighborhood or r e t u r n e d t o i t a f t e r one or two in-between moves t o o t h e r a r e a s . S i n c e these f o u r respondents are r e s i d i n g on the average i n a lower Middle Middle r e s i d e n t i a l area one may suspect that they were accustomed t o l i v e i n t h i s type of environment and are not o v e r l y concerned w i t h improving t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s , or they may be at the verge of t h e i r next move. Two respondents were a c t u a l l y r a i s e d i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e neighborhoods. One person once moved t o a \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l area\" but r e t u r n e d t o h i s f a t h e r ' s home because i t s u i t e d him r e g a r d i n g to s i z e and payments, furthermore the area promised to be rezoned f o r m u l t i p l e d w e l l i n g use. T h i s person expects t o r e t i r e soon. He and the other person who was c o n s i d e r a b l y handicapped by i l l n e s s i n the f a m i l y almost c e r t a i n l y d i d not s e l e c t t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s f o r reasons o f p r e s t i g e . The l a t t e r person, 125\" however, i s about t o move t o a f a s h i o n a b l e s u b - d i v i s i o n o u t s i d e Vancouver. P r e s t i g e may be a motive, p a r t i c u l a r l y as t h i s person intends t o move w i t h a group o f company f r i e n d s and expressed resentments about the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r and p h y s i c a l d e p r e c i a t i o n o f h i s present neighborhood. Both o f the other two persons were accustomed t o l i v i n g i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas;\" one i s r e s i d i n g i n such an ar e a , the other has r e a l i z e d h i s \" p o t e n t i a l f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y on account o f r a p i d promotion\" and intends t o move \"up the h i l l 1 1 i n the near f u t u r e . Both persons, probably, d i d not crave f o r p r e s t i g e , but both are conscious of t h e i r s t a t u s i n s o c i e t y and have d e f i n i t e standards of r e s i d e n c e . Of these f o u r persons, two were concerned w i t h m a i n t a i n i n g a r e s i d e n t i a l standard a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e i r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n , one of them and a t h i r d person are about to make \" s t a t u s moves.\" Group C The s i x persons i n t h i s group a c t u a l l y lowered t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s and appear to r e s i d e i n the e q u i v a l e n t of a lower Middle Middle r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a . No concern w i t h p r e s t i g e and s t a t u s may be expected among members of t h i s group. However, o n l y one person reduced h i s r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s c o n s i d e r a b l y a f t e r he r e s i d e d t e m p o r a r i l y i n a \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l area\" and d i d not f e e l \"at ease\" t h e r e . T h i s person, presumably, would be concerned w i t h p r e s t i g e 126 were i t not f o r the f a c t t h a t p r e s t i g e environments tend to censure a person's way o f l i v i n g . Two persons r e t a i n e d t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n a \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a ; \" one i s concerned w i t h h i s p r e s t i g e as a \" c u l t u r a l minded, home conscious\" person, and the other i s concerned w i t h \"a good type of people who maintain t h e i r p r o p e r t y , \" and moved t h r i c e because they had not done so. Of the remaining t h r e e persons, one, a c c o r d i n g to and presumably because of h i s w i f e , has moved f o r reasons o f p r e s t i g e w i t h other top Middle Management o f f i c i a l s , and two have moved i n one o f the l e a s t p r e t e n t i o u s r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . However, one of these persons i s r e c o v e r i n g from a previous \" s t a t u s move\" and expects to move i n t o an Upper r e s i d e n t i a l area w i t h i n the next y e a r - -and to be c l o s e r to h i s f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s . Among t h i s group t h e r e are a c t u a l l y f i v e persons who made \" s t a t u s moves\" i n the past of which one may be d i s c o u n t e d . Only one person expects to make a \" s t a t u s move\" w i t h i n the f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , the others are s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r present house and neighborhood. Group D T h i s group of nine persons on the average came from the Middle Lower r e s i d e n t i a l areas and now r e s i d e s i n the top Upper Middle r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . T h i s group has i n c r e a s e d i t s r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s almost by twice as much as the Medium Increase group. A l l of these persons are now r e s i d i n g i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\" and w i t h the 127 e x c e p t i o n of one, a l l came from Middle Lower and Lower Lower r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Consequently, as a group these persons must be v e r y concerned w i t h s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . As a group they are a l s o v e r y unequal w i t h r e g a r d t o aspects o f t h e i r background. Pour of these persons j o i n e d B. C. E l e c t r i c as s t r e e t c a r o p e r a t o r s or mechanics, t h r e e were c l e r k s o f whom two achieved s t a t u s i n the Armed F o r c e s , and two are u n i v e r s i t y graduates. These l a s t f o u r persons are e a r n i n g more than $10,000 a year each, w h i l e the other f i v e earn between $ 6 , 0 0 0 t o $7 ,500 a year each. One person married i n t o a w e l l - t o - d o f a m i l y , one has an independent income, one has a w i f e who d i s c u s s e s \" F r u i t \" ( F r e u d ) , and a f o u r t h i s a \" C h r i s t i a n , not c l a s s - c o n s c i o u s but proud of h i s home.\" Two persons admitted t h a t they moved f o r p r e s t i g e i n t o t h e i r present neighborhood, and both i n t e n d t o move higher a l t h o u g h one has qualms about moving \"too f a r West\" i n view of h i s o l d c o l l e a g u e s . For one person s e l e c t i o n of a r e s i d e n c e i n a \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l area\" i n d i c a t e d h i s a s p i r a t i o n c e i l i n g ; t h r e e persons moved i n order t o a f f o r d t h e i r c h i l d r e n the r i g h t k i n d o f s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t \u00E2\u0080\u0094 n e a r the u n i v e r s i t y and up to \"Canada's b e s t r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a , \" and one moved t o please h i s w i f e , her r e l a t i v e s and h i m s e l f . The remaining two respondents moved t o the r u r a l atmosphere o f West Vancouver. Of these nine persons, two hope t o s e t t l e on w a t e r f r o n t l o t s i n West 128 Vancouver, one i n the U n i v e r s i t y a r e a , one intends t o move deeper i n t o Shaughnessey, and one c l o s e r t o i t . One person would l i k e t o be \" f u r t h e r West,\" one \"higher North,\" one expects t o r e t i r e and convert h i s p l a c e i n t o a m u l t i p l e d w e l l i n g , and one respondent j u s t moved to a $32,000 home. I n view of the f a c t t h a t a l l of these nine respondents are r e s i d i n g i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\" and came from lower a r e a s , t h a t seven are p l a n n i n g s t a t u s moves and most o f them e i t h e r admitted or i n d i c a t e d t h e i r concern w i t h t h e i r s t a t u s and the p r e s t i g e of the house and neighborhood, one can conclude t h a t a t l e a s t e i g h t respondents o f t h i s group were aware of the p r e s t i g e they would o b t a i n by moving i n t o b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Group E T h i s group of s i x respondents came on the average a l s o from Middle and Lower Lower r e s i d e n t i a l areas but i n c r e a s e d i t s average r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s o n l y by 22.4 s t a t u s v a l u e s , kt present these persons are r e s i d i n g i n areas t h a t have an average s t a t u s v a l u e s l i g h t l y below the average v a l u e of the e n t i r e group of 39 respondents. I n c o n t r a s t t o the former group, t h i s group made much l e s s e f f o r t t o improve i t s r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s and p o s s i b l y i s not as p r e s t i g e conscious as the previous group i n v e s t i g a t e d . Three persons of t h i s group earn more than $9,000 a year each. Two of them b u i l t houses i n o u t l y i n g areas where 129 l o t s are r e l a t i v e l y cheap, and one home was r e f e r r e d t o \"by the owner as a \" p r e s t i g e home.\" Both r e a l i z e t h at t h e i r neighborhoods have l i t t l e p r e s t i g e t o impart, and one respondent wonders whether he should move i n view of what i s expected from a person i n h i s p o s i t i o n i n the O r g a n i z a t i o n , and the other respondent i s going t o move because o f the f u n c t i o n s he has t o f u l f i l l as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the O r g a n i z a t i o n . The t h i r d person i n t h i s income group has r e s i d e d t w ice i n top r e s i d e n t i a l areas but always r e t r e a t e d t o r e c o v e r i n the \" o u t l y i n g a r e a s . \" I n h i s case h i s w i f e \"motions him back t o town\" and, presumably, i n t o \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\" where she i s \" l e s s s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d . \" One person s t a t e d t h a t he always wanted t o l i v e i n \"East Vancouver,\" and he does. Another one at one time f o l l o w e d h i s f r i e n d s \" t o the West\" and i n owning a house w i t h a \" r i c h look,\" but now l i v e s i n a l e s s p r e t e n t i o u s home and neighborhood. The l a s t respondent o f t h i s group who a l s o l i v e s i n a \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a \" has \" l i t t l e i n common w i t h l a b o r e r s \" and must prove i t . Of these s i x persons f o u r i n d i c a t e d t hat t h e y at one time were concerned w i t h the p r e s t i g e o f a neighborhood, al t h o u g h f o r o n l y two of them t h i s concern i s c o n v i n c i n g l y e s t a b l i s h e d . Two a p p a r e n t l y were not concerned. Two are now d e f i n i t e l y concerned w i t h the ap p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e i r neighborhood, one may become concerned w h i l e t h r e e i n t e n d to s t a y i n d e f i n i t e l y . 130 Group F T h i s Last group came on the average from Middle c l a s s a r e a s , and on the average has almost achieved r e s i d e n c e i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e as\" w i t h the l e a s t change i n r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . E i g h t persons of t h i s group of nine are now r e s i d i n g i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas.\" Four of them had ever s i n c e they became married. T h i s group of people appears t o be accustomed t o r e s i d i n g i n b e t t e r areas; they may have d e f i n i t e standards but are not o v e r l y concerned w i t h improving t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s c o n t i n u o u s l y . A c t u a l l y , the average o f the group was depressed by two respondents who came from low r e s i d e n t i a l areas and d i d not improve t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s t o any n o t i c e a b l e degree. I n one case, a person l i v e s i n a r e s p e c t a b l e area next t o one of the worst r e s i d e n t i a l areas which however, determined the p l a c e of the e n t i r e area i n the \" S t a t u s ; H i e r a r c h y . \" T h i s person a c t u a l l y moved t o t h i s a r e a i n order t o escape a \" s o c i a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e environment\" elsewhere, and made a \" s t a t u s move\" b e f o r e . The other person l i v e s i n a post-war NHA development \" E a s t of Main,\" and having been t o l d t h i s , he expects t o move \"West\" where a l l s u p e r v i s o r s move t o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a c c o r d i n g t o s e v e r a l respondents. The remainder of the group, a l l t o l d seven persons, s e l e c t e d t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e on the average i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , \" and a l l o f them a f t e r a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e 131 are at present r e s i d i n g i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . \" Three s e l e c t e d t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e w i t h the expressed i n t e n t i o n t o overcome t h e i r f o r m a t i v e past i n the \" E a s t , \" and they continued s e l e c t i n g \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s \" i n order t o a s s u r e t h e i r c h i l d r e n the a p p r o p r i a t e s o c i a l environments and \" b e t t e r s c h o o l s . \" Two o f them expect t o improve t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s f u r t h e r , one makes i t dependent upon a s u b s t a n t i a l promotion. One person married i n t o a w e l l - t o - d o f a m i l y and had d i f f i c u l t i e s m a i n t a i n i n g the \"appropriateness o f the house and neighborhood\" i n d i r e c t view of the r e l a t i v e s . Three respondents f o l l o w e d the r i s i n g t r e n d of p r o p e r t y p r i c e s up the N o r t h Shore mountains. One i n t e n d s t o stay,and \"enjoy other t h i n g s i n l i f e \" w h i l e the other t h i n k s he r a t h e r needs a b i g g e r l o t f u r t h e r West. The t h i r d person d i d not commit h i m s e l f . Of the seven persons who are now r e s i d i n g - i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas,\" f o u r admitted concern w i t h p r e s t i g e , two probably had p r e s t i g e i n mind when they moved, and one c o u l d not be e v a l u a t e d p r o p e r l y . One of the remaining persons moved i n the past f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e , and one i n t e n d s t o . Four persons i n t e n d t o improve t h e i r s t a t u s , t h r e e may, and two i n t e n d t o remain i n t h e i r present r e s i d e n c e s . On the b a s i s o f the r e l a t i v e improvement o f each respondent's r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s compared w i t h the circumstances which determined and r e s u l t e d from each major \"Improvement 132 move,\" i t may be concluded t h a t twenty-one respondents d e f i n i t e l y Improved t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s w i t h the i n t e n t i o n t o s a t i s f y t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. An a d d i t i o n a l f i v e respondents may be s t r o n g l y suspected o f having made \" s t a t u s moves\" i n the past, w h i l e t h i r t e e n respondents e i t h e r have not Improved t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s at a l l o r o n l y t o a s l i g h t degree, and s u f f i c i e n t evidence i s l a c k i n g t h a t they s e l e c t e d t h e i r past or present r e s i d e n c e f o r reasons o f s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . However, seven o f these t h i r t e e n respondents are now d e f i n i t e l y i n t e n d i n g t o make \" s t a t u s moves\" w i t h i n the near f u t u r e . T h e r e f o r e , at present, a t o t a l o f t h i r t y - t h r e e respondents e i t h e r were, or w i l l be i n the f u t u r e concerned w i t h the app r o p r i a t e n e s s o f the neighborhood i n order t o s a t i s f y t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. 133 The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between V e r t i c a l O c c u p a t i o n a l M o b i l i t y and Improving R e s i d e n t i a l S t a t u s G e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s . The Middle Management respondents made t h e i r most s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s on the average w i t h t h e i r f i r s t move. T h i s may lead one t o i n f e r t h a t the s e l e c t i o n of the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e upon being married has l i t t l e meaning f o r measuring subsequent s t a t u s i n c r e a s e s , or t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f the group makes i t s r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s adjustment i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f a subsequent promotion or i r r e g a r d l e s s o f any promotion or o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y , at a l l . S e l e c t i o n of the f i r s t r e s i d e n c d may have no meaning as a b a s i s f o r i n f e r r i n g subsequent s t a t u s i n c r e a s e s because young couples w i l l s e l e c t r e s i d e n c e s i n those areas which o f f e r cheap accommodation and are g e n e r a l l y accepted as \" h i g h m o b i l i t y areas.\" I n other words, young couples may have been r a i s e d i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\" but i n order to be a b l e t o r e s i d e e v e n t u a l l y i n these a r e a s , they have t o accept a s h o r t r e s i d e n c e i n one of these t r a n s i e n t a r e a s . One may argue t h a t t h i s behavior o f young couples would i n d i c a t e the concern persons have f o r r e g a i n i n g a s t a t u s which t h e i r f a m i l i e s bestowed upon them. In order t o achieve t h i s s t a t u s they may have t o d r i v e harder i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n to be a b l e t o a f f o r d r e s i d e n c e i n a \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l area!' 134 V e r t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y may provide them w i t h the f i n a n c i a l means but may not r a i s e t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s which encourages them to l i v e i n c e r t a i n a r e a s . Although these aspects were not i n v e s t i g a t e d i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t no more then f o u r t e e n persons were r a i s e d i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , \" and l i k e l y l e s s than t h a t . A n a l y s i s of the p r i n c i p a l reasons g i v e n f o r the s e l e c t i o n of the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e i n each case y i e l d s the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s : S u i t a b l e accommodation at ) anywhere reasonable c o s t ) Low down payment ) : 19 Respondents Low l o t p r i c e ) S u i t a b l e accommodation at re a s o n a b l e cost i n s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e neighborhood Raised i n t h i s neighborhood Others 10 Respondents 7 \" 3 39 Respondents Nineteen respondents a p p a r e n t l y were not concerned w i t h the \" s t a t u s \" o f t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e , t e n o b v i o u s l y were, and seven stayed i n the neighborhood i n which they were r a i s e d , a l l of which were lower r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Consequently, seventeen respondents d e f i n e d i n terms of l i k e s and d i s l i k e s where they wanted to make t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e . The m a j o r i t y of respondents i n the f i r s t c ategory came from middle t o low r e s i d e n t i a l areas and i t can be assumed t h a t they d i d not \"degrade\" themselves 135 c o n s i d e r a b l y by moving i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l areas w i t h an e q u i v a l e n t s t a t u s v a l u e of *+5.5 (61.5 percentage p o i n t s ) f o r t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e . T h i r t y - f o u r respondents who made more than one move a f t e r t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e on the average stayed i n t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e f o r 2.9 y e a r s , w h i l e twenty-four respondents who made more than two moves on the average stayed 3.8 years i n t h e i r second r e s i d e n c e . The m a j o r i t y of respondents, i t seems, must have stayed long enough i n t h e i r f i r s t and t h e i r second r e s i d e n c e t o become i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e i r neighborhood, and long enough t o make them r e a l i z e t h e i r p o s i t i o n and a s p i r a t i o n a g a i n s t the background o f t h e i r s o c i a l environments. These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , probably, aroused i n most of them the d e s i r e t o seek r e s i d e n c e i n a b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a , a l t h o u g h the \" c h o i c e adjustment\" i n terms of p r e s t i g e and s t a t u s probably i s made l e s s o f t e n w i t h the f i r s t and second but w i t h the t h i r d and f o u r t h move. A c o n s i d e r a b l e number o f respondents are not s e t t l e d yet and w i l l not be u n t i l they have reached the c e i l i n g o f t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y . For the purpose o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , the s e l e c t i o n o f the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e i s not meaningless but very r e v e a l i n g . Because the f i r s t s i g n i f i c a n t adjustment o f r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i s made a f t e r the respondents on the average r e s i d e d f o r 2.9 years i n t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e , i t must be assumed t h a t f a m i l y i n c r e a s e r a t h e r than o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y 136 e n f o r c e s t h i s adjustment. I n other words, because c h i l d r e n a r r i v e the young couple has t o move from the area where apartment l i v i n g , t r a n s i e n c y and f a m i l i e s without c h i l d r e n are the r e s i d e n t i a l p a t t e r n t o areas where f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n l i v i n g i n s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d homes i s the t y p i c a l r e s i d e n t i a l p a t t e r n . I n f a c t the g r e a t e s t i n t e n s i t y of moving occurs on the average between the f i r s t and f i f t h y e a r a f t e r marriage. On the average each respondent makes 2.3 moves d u r i n g the p e r i o d of g r e a t e s t moving i n t e n s i t y . The e n t i r e group, however, made 2.8 moves on the average d u r i n g the e n t i r e p e r i o d i n v e s t i g a t e d here ( e x c l u d i n g those f i v e persons who d i d not move at a l l ) . T h e r e f o r e , each respondent, t h e o r e t i c a l l y makes only 0.5 moves a f t e r the f i r s t f i v e years of marriage; t h e o r e t i c a l l y , however, 3*+ respondents on the average d i d not become s u p e r v i s o r b e f o r e 7.7 years of marriage, and f i v e became s u p e r v i s o r on the average f i v e y e a rs before marriage. Consequently, on the b a s i s o f these s t a t i s t i c s l i t t l e c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between o c c u p a t i o n a l and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y , b e c a u s e on the average the group made t h e i r g r e a t e s t s t a t u s i n c r e a s e w i t h the f i r s t move. T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d below. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between promotion to s u p e r v i s o r arid moving to b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . The o n l y data about o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y which c o u l d c o n s i s t e n t l y be obtained from a l l respondents was the date o f promotion t o s u p e r v i s o r 137 which i s assumed here t o be synonymous w i t h j o i n i n g Middle Management. As was shown p r e v i o u s l y o n l y f o u r t e e n respondents c o n s i d e r e d a promotion from ranks t o s u p e r v i s o r as being of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r a person's s o c i a l s t a t u s . Of the 39 s u p e r v i s o r s questioned, f i v e achieved t h e i r promotion b e f o r e becoming mar r i e d . These f i v e respondents s e l e c t e d t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e i n an area w i t h the average s t a t u s v a l u e of 33.*+, and are r e s i d i n g at present i n an area w i t h the average v a l u e o f 3 ^ . 2 . One person has remained i n a \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l area,\" two moved t o such a r e a s , one person l e f t and one never approached \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas.\" None o f these persons admitted a r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s e i n o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and s o c i a l s t a t u s . Three persons admitted s e l e c t i n g neighborhoods i n terms of the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s f o r t h e i r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n and a l l t h r e e / a r e r e s i d i n g now i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r eas\" but o n l y one person l i v e d t h e r e upon being married, and he was h i r e d e l e v e n years b e f o r e as s u p e r v i s o r . The other two persons a d j u s t e d t h e i r r e s i d e n c e w i t h i n 3 t o 5 years a f t e r marriage and became s u p e r v i s o r 1 t o 2 years b e f o r e marriage. One a n t i c i p a t e d i t , the other r e l a t e s h i s s t a t u s t o h i s Army c a r e e r . I n these two cases marriage may.have stood i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o becoming s u p e r v i s o r , r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s :,. adjustment came a f t e r the u s u a l p e r i o d o f , presumably, s a v i n g ( i the downpayment. Then, however, they moved at once Int o \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas.\" 138 Twelve persons d i d not move at a l l a f t e r becoming s u p e r v i s o r , and i t may be suspected t h a t they a d j u s t e d t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the promotion. F i v e persons stayed i n the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e which they s e l e c t e d upon becoming married or s e t t l e d i n Vancouver. T h i s Group A has been d e s c r i b e d b e f o r e ; they r e s i d e i n a s t a t u s area w i t h the average v a l u e of *+8.8, and d i d not s e l e c t r e s i d e n c e s f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e , a l t h o u g h t h r e e i n t e n d t o move now. Seven persons moved once or twice b e f o r e becoming s u p e r v i s o r . On the average they moved from an area w i t h a s t a t u s v a l u e o f 42.*+ t o an area w i t h a s t a t u s value o f 31.1. One l i v e d i n a \"'better r e s i d e n t i a l area,\" three more moved i n t o these a r e a s . However, one o f these moved seventeen years b e f o r e he became s u p e r v i s o r and two moved s i x years each b e f o r e the promotion. A l l t h r e e r e c o g n i z e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n c r e a s e i n o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s a f f e c t i n g i n c r e a s e i n s o c i a l s t a t u s . They admit s e l e c t i n g the neighborhood i n accordance w i t h t h e i r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n , and, furthermore, admit t h a t they experienced an i n c r e a s e I n s o c i a l p o s i t i o n upon becoming s u p e r v i s o r . However, the d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between becoming s u p e r v i s o r and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y , even i n a n t i c i p a t i o n , i s m i s s i n g . Two o f the other persons moved e i g h t and nine y e a r s b e f o r e becoming s u p e r v i s o r w i t h i n the same g e n e r a l neighborhood. The l a s t person o f t h i s group improved h i s r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s s l i g h t l y w i t h i n the lower areas and seven 139 years b e f o r e he became s u p e r v i s o r . No c o n v i n c i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between promotion and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y as such can be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r these twelve persons u n l e s s more f a c t o r s are known, and p a r t i c u l a r l y , u n t i l b e t t e r understanding i s gained about the p o t e n t i a l range of a n t i c i p a t i n g a change of c o n d i t i o n s which may then predetermine a person's b e h a v i o r . Ten persons moved p r i o r t o and a f t e r t h e i r promotion. E i g h t of these respondents l i v e d i n t h e i r second r e s i d e n c e when being promoted and i n c r e a s e d t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s from an average of 49.0 t o 26,0 w i t h t h e i r l a s t move bef o r e the promotion. As a group, these e i g h t respondents on the average l i v e d i n \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\" p r i o r t o t h e i r promotion. T h e i r move a f t e r promotion Increased t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s on the average by 3.5 v a l u e s . T h e r e f o r e , on the average i t appears t h a t they made t h e i r \" s t a t u s moves\" i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f the promotion. I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the i n d i v i -d u a l cases shows t h a t f i v e persons made t h e i r \" s t a t u s move\" b e f o r e the promotion although one may suspect i n o n l y t h r e e cases that the persons moved i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f the promotion. The other f i v e respondents made t h e i r \" s t a t u s moves\" a f t e r the promotion, f o u r o f these moves may be suspected of being r e l a t e d t o the promotion. Twelve persons a c t u a l l y moved during the same ye a r i n which they were promoted t o a s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n . On the average they came from r e s i d e n t i a l areas w i t h a s t a t u s 1U0 v a l u e o f 51.5 and upon becoming s u p e r v i s o r moved t o an area w i t h a s t a t u s v a l u e o f 32.2. On the average t h e r e f o r e , each person i n c r e a s e d h i s s t a t u s c o n s i d e r a b l y . However, one person stayed i n the same ar e a , one decreased i n s t a t u s v a l u e , one made a s m a l l i n c r e a s e and another person made a move w i t h i n the lower r e s i d e n t i a l areas. On i n v e s t i g a t i n g each i n d i v i d u a l case, three r e s i d e n t i a l moves may be e l i m i n a t e d as having no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the promotion. I n one case the person was o f f e r e d t o take over h i s parents p l a c e , i n another the person t e m p o r a r i l y moved i n t o a duplex c l o s e r t o h i s f a m i l y because h i s w i f e expected a c h i l d (he made h i s s t a t u s move a f t e r w a r d s ) , and one person r e t u r n e d a f t e r the war and was made s u p e r v i s o r , but had t o take an \" u n s a t i s f a c t o r y \" d w e l l i n g i n an u n p r e t e n t i o u s neighborhood where he s t i l l r e s i d e s . I n f i v e cases the r e l a t i o n s h i p between promotion and move was admitted, and i n fou r cases the r e l a t i o n s h i p may be suspected. I n summary i t was found t h a t f i v e respondents admitted the r e l a t i o n s h i p between promotion and moving, and i n e l e v e n cases t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p may be suspected. Of these .eleven, persons t h r e e persons moved i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f the promotion t o s u p e r v i s o r ; f o u r d u r i n g the same y e a r , and f o u r a f t e r the promotion. Those persons who admitted the r e l a t i o n s h i p , e i t h e r admitted i t d i r e c t l y by s a y i n g they moved f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e or they i n s i n u a t e d t h a t the 141 promotion promised them a f u t u r e s t a t u s , economic as w e l l as s o c i a l , o f which they may take advantage at once. Of these s i x t e e n persons e i g h t r e c o g n i z e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n c r e a s e i n o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and s o c i a l s t a t u s , and a l l o f these co n s i d e r e d the step from the ranks t o s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n the most important one. Two persons r e l a t e d t h e i r i n c r e a s e i n s o c i a l s t a t u s t o U n i v e r s i t y g r a d u a t i o n and a car e e r i n the army, while s i x persons saw no r e l a t i o n s h i p between a promotion and a r i s e i n s o c i a l s t a t u s f o r themselves. These s i x persons, however, made the f o l l o w i n g p e r t i n e n t remarks. One thought t h a t becoming a P r o f e s s i o n a l Engineer may have g i v e n him a higher s t a t u s ; one f e l t t h a t a promotion t o s u p e r v i s o r f o r c e s a c e r t a i n behavior on persons; one a n t i c i p a t e d the promotion; one took out l i f e p o l i c i e s guaranteeing h i s c h i l d r e n s * U n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n (and moved towards the U n i v e r s i t y three y e a r s a f t e r the promotion); one had a f e e l i n g o f achievement; and one always had a c e r t a i n s o c i a l standard and t h e r e f o r e , was not a f f e c t e d by a change i n s o c i a l s t a t u s . I n c o n c l u s i o n , t h e r e f o r e , i t may be s a i d t h a t t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y proven or d l s p r o v e n whether t h e r e i s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between promotion and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . Although a few people d e f i n i t e l y s t a t e d t h a t a person should move upon becoming s u p e r v i s o r i f he l i v e d Ih2 i n low-type d w e l l i n g s and neighborhoods, and a l t h o u g h a g r e a t e r number of persons f e l t t h a t becoming s u p e r v i s o r changes a person's s o c i a l s t a t u s , v a r i o u s s p e c i a l circumstances i n f l u e n c e and determine whether people w i l l change t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . F i r s t , i t depends on the c o n d i t i o n and l o c a t i o n o f t h e i r d w e l l i n g at the time o f t h e i r promotion. U s u a l l y , they are promoted a f t e r a c e r t a i n l e n g t h o f employment d u r i n g which they have been a b l e t o move t o environments which do not g i v e them the f e e l i n g o f being \"out of p l a c e \" once they have become promoted. A c e r t a i n amount of attachment t o the neighborhood i t s e l f has t o be worn down f i r s t b e f o r e they may move because t h e i r s t a t u s has changed. Second, a promotion t o a s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n u s u a l l y i s not accompanied by a v a s t i n c r e a s e i n pay. A bus o p e r a t o r , f o r example, can make more money because he i s paid overtime; upon being promoted t o s u p e r v i s o r , the i n c r e a s e i n pay may not balance the l o s s o f overtime pay. Apart from t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y , the person s t i l l has t o b u i l d up h i s f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y b e f o r e he can move i n t o a b e t t e r d w e l l i n g and r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a , u n l e s s he i s not concerned w i t h going deeply i n t o debt. I t appeared t h a t not too many respondents p l a c e d themselves i n t o a d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n by o v e r - r e a c h i n g themselves, a l t h o u g h few people w i l l admit t h i s f a c t ; t h i s important f a c t o r was not analysed i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 143 T h i r d , most people seemed t o agree t h a t the most rank p o s i t i o n s i n Middle Management are not conspicuous or important enough from t h e i r own and the O r g a n i z a t i o n ' s p o i n t of view to warrant a p a r t i c u l a r emphasis upon the d w e l l i n g and the l o c a t i o n o f the d w e l l i n g . I t was f e l t t h a t from the top ranks on i n Middle Management, r e s i d e n c e does assume Importance and some of the persons i n t h i s p o s i t i o n v e r i f i e d t h i s assumption by t h e i r behavior and t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n s . I t must be assumed then t h a t the promotion i t s e l f doe's not p r e c i p i t a t e a great number of s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t u s moves but t h a t most persons, a f t e r the promotion, move l e s s randomly and are more concerned w i t h moving to the \" r i g h t p l a c e s \" and i n the \" r i g h t d i r e c t i o n s . \" . F u r t h e r , these moves may not show up i n the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" because a l l the areas West o f Cambie S t r e e t and on the North Shore o f f e r \"conspicuous\" r e s i d e n c e s and r e s i d e n t i a l areas on a smaller s c a l e w i t h i n some of the Middle C l a s s a r e a s . Furthermore, one must c o n s i d e r t h a t f o r t y - s e v e n r e s i d e n t i a l areas are below the midpoint of the d e s c r i p t i v e VStatus H i e r a r c h y , \" and twenty-seven areas above the midpoint. These p r o p o r t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t the higher the s t a t u s of an area becomes, the fewer of these areas are a v a i l a b l e and the more d i f f i c u l t i t becomes t o o b t a i n and a f f o r d r e s i d e n c e i n these a r e a s . On the b a s i s of the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" a person may have made a l a r g e jump from a low-class area i n t o one of the m i d d l e - c l a s s areas without too much d i f f i c u l t y , however, i n order t o move i n t o b e t t e r areas from now on becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y more d i f f i c u l t . These moves w i l l only appear as s l i g h t i n c r e a s e s on the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" but they are the s i g n i f i c a n t ones as reg a r d s s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . I n order t o eva l u a t e them p r o p e r l y , the a n a l y s i s and i n v e s t i g a t i o n would have t o be c a r r i e d out i n much g r e a t e r d e t a i l and be based on d i f f e r e n t methods. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t e o f o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and improvement of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . The pre v i o u s i n v e s t i g a t i o n f a i l e d t o prove t h a t a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l m o b i l i t y e x i s t s In a l l cases, however, a r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t e o f o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l l t y and improvement of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s may e x i s t . A person who r a i s e s h i s o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s q u i c k l y may have a d i f f e r e n t sense of change i n s o c i a l s t a t u s than a person who advances s l o w l y . Although the l a t t e r person may have, more time t o accumulate resources which permit him t o make a s i g n i f i c a n t \" s t a t u s move,\" the r a p i d l y advancing person not o n l y i s ab l e t o accumulate r e s o u r c e s quicker but may have more conf i d e n c e i n h i s p o t e n t i a l f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y . T h e r e f o r e , i t may be hypothesized t h a t r a p i d o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y causes a r e l a t i v e l y more r a p i d and more s i g n i f i c a n t change o f r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . ' 145 The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n i s based upon the attempt t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p (Table X V I I ) . The group of 39 respondents was d i v i d e d i n t o three groups on the b a s i s o f l e n g t h of employment w i t h the O r g a n i z a t i o n . These three groups correspond to t h r e e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of people on the d i s t r i b u t i o n curve o f l e n g t h of employment. Fo r each group the average i n c r e a s e o f r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s v a l u e between f i r s t and present r e s i d e n c e was e s t i m a t e d . The r a t e of i n c r e a s e was estimated by d i v i d i n g average i n c r e a s e of s t a t u s value by l e n g t h o f p e r i o d between f i r s t and present r e s i d e n c e . The f a c t t h a t the respondents married a t d i f f e r e n t i n t e r v a l s b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e i r year of being employed w i t h the B. C. E l e c t r i c probably has a c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e upon the r e s u l t s and cannot be c o n t r o l l e d . The group which on the average j o i n e d B. C. E l e c t r i c before and d u r i n g the D e p r e s s i o n i n c r e a s e d i t s r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s the l e a s t and a t the lowest r a t e . The f a s t e s t r a t e o f i n c r e a s e was achieved.by the group which j o i n e d the B. C. E l e c t r i c d u r i n g the post-war y e a r s . T h i s group a l s o became s u p e r v i s o r w i t h i n the s h o r t e s t p e r i o d of employment. Tabl e XIX i s based upon average l e n g t h of time each i n d i v i d u a l was employed be f o r e he became s u p e r v i s o r . The same method was a p p l i e d as above. The data i n T a b l e XIX are of l i m i t e d s i g n i f i c a n c e , because some persons were h i r e d as s u p e r v i s o r s or became TABLE XVIII RELATIONSHIP OF LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT TO RESIDENTIAL STATUS Average Number of Years S t a t u s Value Before Rate of Employed s i n c e Number o f Employ- ... Becoming F i r s t Present Increase per Persons ment Marriage S u p e r v i s o r R e s i d . R e s i d . Increase Year of Marriage 1922-32 1933-l+5 19^-59 12 16 11 31.3 19.1 11.0 23.8 18.2 11.5 14.6 9.0 4.8 ^3.2 ^5.6 U-2.3 33.1 31.9 29.5 10.1 13.7 12.8 0.42 0.75 1.11 TABLE XIX RELATIONSHIP OF LENGTH OF. EMPLOYMENT BEFORE BECOMING SUPERVISOR TO RESIDENTIAL STATUS INCREASE P e r i o d b e f o r e becoming Sup. ( i n years) Average Number of Years S t a t u s Value Before Number of Employ- Becoming F i r s t Present-Persons ment Marriage S u p e r v i s o r R e s i d . R e s i d . Increase Rate o f Increas e per Year of Marriage 14-28 12-7 6-0 8 15 16 30.0 20.3 15.0 51.6 16.3 17.1 20.0 9.7 3.5 51.6 36.9 48.8 32.6 33.8 30.9 19.0 3.1 17.9 0.82 0.19 1.05 s u p e r v i s o r s immediately a f t e r t h e i r f i r s t employment but were not promoted v e r y r a p i d l y a f t e r w a r d s . The f a c t t h a t those people who took the longest time t o become s u p e r v i s o r s have a r a t e of i n c r e a s e more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o those who became s u p e r v i s o r s a f t e r the s h o r t e s t p e r i o d o f employment than t o the medium group may lead one t o conclude t h a t they have the g r e a t e s t need f o r e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r s t a t u s p o s i t i o n , presumably, because t h e y were f r u s t r a t e d f o r a long p e r i o d of time. The middle group which came from the r e l a t i v e l y best areas has n e i t h e r been f r u s t r a t e d nor are they v e r y ambitious nor do t h e y need t o be o v e r l y concerned w i t h Improving t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s . However, on i n v e s t i g a t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l cases one r e a l i z e s t h a t e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h v a r y i n g backgrounds were grouped t o g e t h e r a c c i d e n t a l l y . I f one attempts t o i s o l a t e those who have the s h o r t e s t employment, the s h o r t e s t p e r i o d b e f o r e becoming s u p e r v i s o r , married s h o r t l y before becoming employed or s u p e r v i s o r , have the highest income, e t c . and c o n t i n u e s grouping them u n t i l one reaches the group w i t h the longest employment, the longest p e r i o d b e f o r e becoming s u p e r v i s o r , and the lowest income, one ends up w i t h a great v a r i e t y of v e r y s m a l l groups which may have a s i m i l a r b e h a v i o r , but most l i k e l y have not. The c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t t h i s sample i s t o o s m a l l , t h a t not enough q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e data i s a v a i l a b l e to make meaningful c o r r e l a t i o n s , and t h a t one needs an IBM punch-card system t o be able t o c o n t r o l a l l i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r s . 148 L a s t l y , the e n t i r e group was separated a c c o r d i n g t o groups of s i m i l a r annual s a l a r i e s , and i n c r e a s e s and r a t e s of i n c r e a s e were computed i n the same manner as above. The d ata i n T a b l e XX do show t h a t the group w i t h the most r a p i d o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y has the most s i g n i f i c a n t r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i n c r e a s e . However, a l l the other data lead one t o hypothesize a great number of r e l a t i o n s h i p s which cannot be v e r i f i e d , and which makes one doubt the v a l i d i t y o f the above c a s u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Consequently, on the b a s i s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n one may suspect but not prove r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t e o f o c c u p a t i o n a l and r a t e of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s m o b i l i t y . A n a l y s i s o f the R e l a t i o n s h i p between Moving t o a B e t t e r R e s i d e n t i a l Area and S t a t u s and P r e s t i g e C o n s i d e r a t i o n on the B a s i s o f Reasons f o r Moving and S e l e c t i n g The r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be t e s t e d f i r s t on the b a s i s of \"Reasons f o r Moving,\" then on the b a s i s o f \"Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g . \" The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r n c e was e x p l a i n e d i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the method of a n a l y s i s . Reasons f o r Moving Two o b j e c t i v e s promoted the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f reasons f o r moving. F i r s t , i t was d e s i r a b l e t o enumerate a l l p r i n c i p a l reasons which persons may have f o r l e a v i n g a TABLE XX RELATIONSHIP OF SIZE OF ANNUAL SALARY TO RESIDENTIAL STATUS INCREASE Average Number of Years nj_ ^ \u00E2\u0080\u009E , \u00C2\u00AB ~ Status Value \u00E2\u0080\u009E ^ Before Rate of Number of Employ- Becoming F i r s t Present Increase per S a l a r y Range Persons ment Marriage S u p e r v i s o r R e s i d . R e s i d . Increase Year of Marriage $4,500-5,1+99 1 16 17 9 53.0 53.0 5,500-6,499 8 20.4 17.8 11.6 49.8 33.6 16.2 0.91 6,500-7,499 9 23.7 24.8 12.4 51.7 31.2 20.? 0.83 7,500-8,499 9 17.0 14.3 9.0 36.0 33.6 2.4 0.17 8,500-9,499 5 24.0 30.3 12.4 30.3 2^.0 5.3 0.14 9,500-16,499 5 16.6 14.8 5.2 45.8 14.0 31.8 2.15 10,500-11,599 2 24.0 16.5 7.0 46.0 51.0 5.0 150 p a r t i c u l a r r e s i d e n c e . The enumeration would provide a d i s t r i b u t i o n of reasons which might or might not be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the motives f o r moving. Furthermore, i t would be p o s s i b l e t o c l a s s i f y moves i n t o popular r e a s o n c a t e g o r i e s . Second, i t was intended t o probe c e r t a i n reasons and t o f i n d the motives which may l i e behind them. T h i s was not p o s s i b l e i n many cases f o r the simple reason t h a t i t was d i f f i c u l t t o develop schemes of re a s o n i n g which might approximate the motive s t r u c t u r e behind a p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n but which might a l s o not embarrass the respondent. S i n c e i t was nec e s s a r y t o r e t a i n the respondent's good w i l l and not g i v e the purpose of the i n t e r v i e w away too e a r l y , the probing had t o be r e s t r i c t e d t o c e r t a i n reasons and c e r t a i n respondents. T a b l e XXI \"Summary of Reasons f o r Moving\" presents e i g h t e e n c a t e g o r i e s o f reasons i n t o which 163 reasons advanced by 3^ respondents f o r a t o t a l o f 100 moves were c l a s s i f i e d . Most of these reasons, probably, are t r u e reasons; whether they are a l l important reasons or a l l t o u c h on the motives a person may have had f o r moving, i s d o u b t f u l . F o r example, \"Increase i n f a m i l y \" a c t u a l l y i s not a motive f o r l e a v i n g an apartment or s u i t e , nor are the a u x i l l i a r y reasons which u s u a l l y serve t o e x p l a i n an \" i n c r e a s e - i n - f a m i l y \" move, such a s , l a c k o f space, l a c k o f 151 f a c i l i t i e s , annoyance t o the n e i g h b o r s , or s i m i l a r ones. Granted, the l a n d l o r d ' s r u l e a g a i n s t p e r m i t t i n g c h i l d r e n i s a motive f o r moving and one does not have t o s e a r c h f a r f o r other motives, but where t h i s r u l e does not e x i s t other motives operate. One such motive Is the t r a d i t i o n a l l y accepted norm t h a t one does not r a i s e c h i l d r e n I n apartments or s u i t e s . There are reasons f o r t h i s norm, but these reasons are not l a c k of space, playgrounds, p r i v a c y or s u p e r v i s i o n because a l l persons who presented these reasons s t i l l would not c o n s i d e r r a i s i n g t h e i r f a m i l y i n apartments even i f apartment houses had indoor and outdoor p l a y i n g f a c i l i t i e s , i f a l l apartments were soundproof and of d i s t i n c t i v e d e s i g n , and had most of the p h y s i c a l advantages o f f e r e d by a s i n g l e - f a m i l y home and l o t . I t i s \"not the proper way of r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n . \" No doubt t h i s h a b i t u a l l y adopted norm has become a m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r i n a s o c i e t y which i n i t s v a r i o u s s t r a t a has s c a r c e experience w i t h l i v i n g under c o n f i n i n g c o n d i t i o n s . People who were r a i s e d and taught t o t h i n k I n one way f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o behave otherwise or encourage others t o behave d i f f e r e n t l y . P o s s i b l y the i n h e r e n t c o n n o t a t i o n i s that a person admits low economic s t a t u s i f he r a i s e s a f a m i l y i n an apartment or simply has a wrong sense o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . However, the more obvious e x p l a n a t i o n must be t h a t t h i s c u l t u r a l h a b i t of r a i s i n g f a m i l i e s I n s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d homes is' part of the s o c i e t y ' s value system t o which everybody, c o n s c i o u s l y or u n c o n s c i o u s l y , v o l u n t a r i l y (or a f t e r having 152 seen too many r a i s e d eyebrows) conforms. The f a c t t h a t i n other s o c i e t i e s c h i l d r e n grow up normally i n apartments seems t o prove t h a t values r a t h e r than reasons motivate people t o exchange apartments f o r p r i v a t e homes as soon as a c h i l d has a r r i v e d . The \" d e s i r e t o own\" i s another example of a reason which serves to e x p l a i n a motive most people cannot even s a t i s f a c t o r i l y r a t i o n a l i z e without a d m i t t i n g c o n f o r m i t y t o a s o c i a l l y c h e r i s h e d norm of b e h a v i o r . People u s u a l l y mention the independence ownership o f f e r s them, yet at the same time, and perhaps, without r e a l i z i n g i t , they are extremely dependent upon the neighbors and t h e i r manner o f m a i n t a i n i n g property. Ownership a f f o r d s them a k i n d o f independence but t o decide when t o move i n order t o escape d e p r e c i a t i o n of p r o p e r t y \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a n d t h i s seems t o be the overwhelming concern o f the persons i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y \u00E2\u0080\u0094 h a r d l y g l o r i f i e s independent ownership. Most o f these persons appear t o be s l a v e s of t h e i r p r o p e r t y because they have made t h e i r s e c u r i t y dependent upon i t . Because most of them move when they f e a r d e p r e c i a t i o n , and then tend t o move t o areas which they c o n s i d e r s t a b l e because they are \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas w i t h the r i g h t k i n d o f people,\" t h e y are r e a l l y concerned w i t h two t M n g s , namely p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y . P h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y comes w i t h i n v e s t i n g money i n p r o p e r t y which i s b e l i e v e d t o r i s e and f a l l w i t h the 153 g e n e r a l economy; t h i s b e l i e f plus \"owning\" a l s o g i v e s them p s y c h o l o g i c a l s e c u r i t y . People seem t o t h i n k t h a t owning p r o p e r t y i s \"the r i g h t t h i n g t o do\" not merely because i t i s good economic horse sense, but as. a s o c i a l norm. The m i n o r i t y which does not own p r o p e r t y and does not i n t e n d t o i n d i c a t e s by t h e i r v e r y d i s c o n c e r n doubts about the v a l u e of ownership and scorns a way of l i f e which i s v a l u e d . T h i s i s a d i s t u r b i n g thought t o the others who then may u n c o n s c i o u s l y r e s e n t those who do not a p p r e c i a t e t h e i r way o f l i f e and t h e i r v a l u e s . Resentments and f e e l i n g s of i n s e c u r i t y u s u a l l y breed an a t t i t u d e of make-believe s u p e r i o r i t y which i s r e i n f o r c e d and r a t i o n a l i z e d by :the n o t i o n t h a t p r o p e r t y owners can a f f o r d owning p r o p e r t y , and others who may value d i f f e r e n t ways o f spending t h e i r money, cannot; they are t h e r e f o r e , a l s o i n f e r i o r i n the economic sense. Thus the s t a t u s of the p r o p e r t y owner i s e s t a b l i s h e d as the s t a t u s of the s o l i d Middle c l a s s which u s u a l l y c a r r i e s on the values o f s o c i e t y , and the more p r o p e r t y one owns i n c e r t a i n areas the more s s t a t u s one has. Table XXI, then summarizes the k i n d of reasons people present f o r moving. I n T a b l e XXII \" D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reasons f o r Moving a c c o r d i n g t o Stages i n R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y \" the number o f reasons g i v e n f o r the f i r s t and each s u c c e s s i v e move are summarized. \"Increase i n Family\" caused f i f t e e n moves from the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e , w h i l e w i t h the next move a TABLE XXI SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR MOVING (34 PERSONS, 100 MOVES, 163 REASONS) Percentage Number of Percentage Reason C a t e g o r i e s Reasons o f 163 Persons of 34 Moves 1 U n d e s i r a b l e neighborhood 24 2 I n c r e a s e i n f a m i l y s i z e 23 3 Temporary arrangements 20 4 U n d e s i r a b l e c o n d i t i o n o f house 20 5 Lack o f i n t e r i o r space 10 6 D e s i r e t o own 9 7 P r e s t i g e 8 8 Forced t o move because o f expenses 8 9 B e t t e r housing b a r g a i n 8 10 Owner r e t u r n e d or s o l d house 7 11 Lack o f p r i v a c y \u00E2\u0080\u0094 n o t because o f c h i l d r e n 6 12 F a c i l i t i e s l a c k i n g i n neighborhood 4 13 Garden wanted 4 14 Too much gardening 3 1\"? Unsafe neighborhood 3 16 Too f a r from work 3 17 Lack o f c l o s e t space, l o t too s m a l l 2 18 R u r a l glamour wore o f f 1 14.7 15 44.1 21 14.1 21 61.8 23 12.3 13 38.2 20 12.3 12 35.6 18 6.1 9 26.5 10 9 26.5 9 4.9 7 20.6 8 4.9 8 23.5 8 4.9 7 20.6 8 4.3 6 17.6 7 3.6 6 17.6 6 2.5 4 11.8 4 2.5 4 11.8 4 1.8 3 8.8 3 1.8 3 8.8 3 1.8 3 8.8 3 1.2 2 6.0 2 0.6 1 3.0 1 AT TABLE XXII DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR MOVING ACCORDING TO STAGES IN RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y Stages Reason C a t e g o r i e s F i r s t Second T h i r d F o u r t h F i f t h S i x t h Seventh T o t a l s 1 U n d e s i r a b l e Neighborhood 6 4 6 4 3 1 24 2 I n c r e a s e i n f a m i l y s i z e 15 2 5 1 23 3 Temporary arrangements 7 9 - 1 2 1 20 4 Undes. c o n d i t i o n o f house 3 5 6 3 3 20 5 Lack of i n t e r i o r space 3 5 1 1 10 6 D e s i r e t o own 4 2 2 1 9 7 P r e s t i g e \u00E2\u0080\u0094 -2- \u00E2\u0080\u00942 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094;1 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094-\u00E2\u0080\u00941 \" 8 8 Forced out because of expenses 2 2 1 2 1 8 9 B e t t e r housing b a r g a i n 2 2 2 2 8 10 Owner r e t u r n e d or s o l d house 3 3 1 7 11 Lack of p r i v a c y 4 1 1 6 12 F a c i l i t i e s l a c k i n g i n Neighborhood 3 1 4 13 Garden wanted 3 1 ^ 14 Too much gardening 1 1 1 3 15 Unsafe neighborhood 1 1 1 3 16 Too f a r from work 1 1 1 3 17 No c l o s e t space, s m a l l l o t 1 1 2 18 R u r a l glamour wore o f f 1 1 T o t a l Number o f Reasons 56 35 36 17 l 1 * 5 1 163 Number of People Moving 3^ 26 18 14 5 2 1 156 great number of \"temporary arrangements\" came t o an end and people moved i n t o t h e i r own homes. I n T a b l e XXIII \"Combinations o f Reasons f o r Moving\" these combinations are s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y . The items summarized under \" p r e s t i g e c o n s i d e r a t i o n \" deserve some c l a r i f i c a t i o n . \" U n d e s i r a b l e neighborhood\" u s u a l l y r e f e r s t o the d e p r e c i a t i o n an area experienced upon being invaded by an u n d e s i r a b l e type o f people which can a f f o r d buying houses which the p r e v i o u s u n d e s i r a b l e type o f people has not p r o p e r l y maintained. I n the case of apartment d w e l l e r s , the other t r a n s i e n t s are the u n d e s i r a b l e type of person. The respondents u s u a l l y r a t i o n a l i z e d t h a t the environment had a bad e f f e c t upon the behavior o f t h e i r own c h i l d r e n and the c h i l d r e n were l e s s l i k e l y t o f o l l o w the parents' a s p i r a t i o n f o r t h e i r u p b r i n g i n g and e d u c a t i o n . The parents' concern w i t h t h e i r own p r e s t i g e and s t a t u s i s obvious. \" D e s i r e t o own\" as has been e x p l a i n e d seems to i n d i c a t e concern w i t h s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . \" P r e s t i g e \" reasons were I n d i c a t e d when persons moved from areas and houses i n order t o m a i n t a i n t h e i r p r e s t i g e w i t h f r i e n d s , c o l l e a g u e s and r e l a t i v e s . Sometimes, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between o c c u p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y and moving shows up, and sometimes people do not want t o be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h a group of other people f o r which they have contempt. TABLE XXIII COMBINATIONS OF CATEGORIES OF REASONS FOR MOVING (3M- PERSONS, 100 MOVES, 163 REASONS) Group Reason Category-Number of Reasons P e ^ e ^ g e Persons Percentage M o v e g A. Family-Needs B. P r e s t i g e and S t a t u s C. Forced Moves D. F i n a n c i a l Reasons E. L o c a t i o n o f Dwell. F. Other Reasons 2 Increase i n f a m i l y s i z e h Undes. c o n d i t i o n o f house 5 Lack of i n t e r i o r space 17 Lack of c l o s e t space 55 33.7 1 U n d e s i r a b l e neighborhood 6 D e s i r e to own 7 P r e s t i g e hi 25.2 3 Temporary arrangements 27 16.6 8 Forced out because of exp. 9 B e t t e r housing b a r g a i n 16 9.8 12 F a c i l i t i e s l a c k i n g i n Neigh. 15 Unsafe neighborhood 16 Too f a r from work 10 6.1 11 Lack of p r i v a c y 13 Garden d e s i r e d 14 Too much gardening 18 R u r a l glamour wore o f f lk 8.6 29 20 17 13 8 13 85.3 58.8 50.0 38.2 23.5 38.2 k$ 3k 2k 16 8 lk 158 Twenty respondents of a group of t h i r t y - n i n e c o n s i d e r e d w i t h regard t o t h i r t y - f o u r moves the e f f e c t which r e s i d e n c e and neighborhood has upon t h e i r s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r own p e r c e p t i o n , these twenty respondents improved t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s i n order t o s a t i s f y t h e i r s t a t u s needs. On the b a s i s o f the \" S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y , \" twenty-three of these t h i r t y - f o u r moves i n c r e a s e d the r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s o f the twenty respondents by an average s t a t u s v a l u e of 2 3 . 1 , w h i l e two moves were changes o f houses w i t h i n the same g e n e r a l a r e a , and nine moves lowered the r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s o f the concerned persons by an average of 1 7 . 1 . T h i s decrease was l a r g e l y due t o one person who moved from an \" u n d e s i r a b l e neighborhood\" i n t o an apartment a r e a , and two other respondents who l e f t t h e i r p r evious r e s i d e n c e f o r s o c i a l reasons and moved i n t o o u t l y i n g a r e a s . I n both cases \" u n d e s i r a b l e s o c i a l environment\" meant r e a l l y t h a t they had made a \" s t a t u s move\" b e f o r e but found t h a t they c o u l d not \"keep up w i t h the Joneses.\" However, these t h r e e respondents and the other s i x respondents who were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r v e r y minor decreases a l s o made p o s i t i v e s t a t u s moves; t h e r e f o r e , the t o t a l o f twenty respondents who moved f o r reasons o f s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e remains unchanged. 159 Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g a New Residence The emphasis i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was upon \"Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g \" r a t h e r than \"Reasons f o r Moving,\" because i t was f e l t t h a t people would f i n d i t e a s i e r t o admit moving t o a d e s i r a b l e environment r a t h e r than admit moving from an u n d e s i r a b l e environment. Furthermore, they may have moved f o r \" p r a c t i c a l \" reasons, e.g. i n c r e a s e i n f a m i l y s i z e , f a c i l i t i e s l a c k i n g i n the d w e l l i n g and the neighborhood and o t h e r s , but s e l e c t e d an environment a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. L a s t l y i t was e a s i e r t o c o n f r o n t them w i t h p o t e n t i a l c h o i c e s o f r e s i d e n t i a l areas and i n f e r from the reasons which they presented r e g a r d i n g the u n s u i t a b i l i t y or s u i t a b i l i t y of these areas which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r e s i d e n t i a l areas a t t r a c t e d or r e p e l l e d them. Ta b l e XXIV \"Summary of Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g Dwellings i n R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\" c l a s s i f i e s a t o t a l o f 427 reasons i n t o 50 c a t e g o r i e s . Most o f these reasons are not motives, and w i t h i n each category o f reasons s e v e r a l motives may be d e t e c t e d or assumed. For example, \"Moving C l o s e r t o U n i v e r s i t y \" c o n t a i n s t h r e e i d e n t i f i a b l e motives. One person moved c l o s e r t o the U n i v e r s i t y because he attended c l a s s e s t h e r e , had no c a r , but wanted t o be at a reasonable time d i s t a n c e from i t . I n h i s case comfort and e f f i c i e n c y were h i s motives. TABLE XXIV SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR SELECTING DWELLINGS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS (39 PERSONS, 132 RESIDENCES, 427 REASONS) Category o f Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g Number o f Reasons Persons 1. S o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e neighborhood 36 24 2. House appeared as good investment 33 23 ?\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 S u i t a b l e accommodation at lowest r e n t I n any d i s t r i c t 30 18 4. Close t o work 21 16 5. View l o t 17 6. Large l o t 16 14 7. Large house 14 12 8. Residence i n o u t l y i n g area ( r u r a l atmosphere) 13 11 9. S u i t a b l e accommodation at lowest r e n t i n good d i s t r i c t 12 12 10. A t t r a c t i v e , d i s t i n c t i v e s t y l e o f house 12 11 11. Close t o r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s 12 11 12. Wanted t o b u i l d house i n h i g h l o t c o s t d i s t r i c t 12 9 13. Close t o p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 10 10 14. Advantageous buying terms 10 10 15. Returned to/moved w i t h i n s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e neighborhood 10 9 16. Raised i n the neighborhood 10 9 17. F r i e n d s , c o l l e a g u e s or r e l a t i v e s a t t r a c t e d me t o neighborhood 9 8 18. Good s c h o o l s , d e s i r a b l e f o r r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n 9 7 19. Stayed t e m p o r a r i l y w i t h f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s 8 8 20. Close t o downtown 8 8 21. Wanted to b u i l d house I n low l o t c o s t area 8 8 22; Close t o u n i v e r s i t y 8 7 A t t r a c t i v e , c l e a n house or apartment 8 7 24. Close t o s c h o o l 7 6 ON o TABLE XXIV (Continued) Number of Category of Reasons for Selecting Reasons Persons 25. Close to friends or relatives (assistance) 7 6 26. Large lot and garden 7 6 27. Large living or recreation room for entertainment 6 6 28. Close to shops 6 5 29. Same economic group i n the neighborhood 5 5 30. Low down-payment i n any area 5 ** 31. Returned/moved within the neighborhood 5 * 32. Moved into area for reasons of prestige 5 3 33. Place required minimum of attention 5 2 3h. Selected place or built to have maximum privacy 4 4 35. Healthy location k 4 36. House had attractive floor plan h 4 37. Rented house/apartment temporarily to recover financially 4 3 38. Low down-payment for house i n good d i s t r i c t 3 3 39. Option to buy 3 3 UO. Safe and quiet neighborhood 3 3 41. Suitable accommodation at lowest rent i n best d i s t r i c t 3 2 42. Back to town (socially isolated) 3 2 43. Always liked Hastings Towns i t e 3 1 44. Inherited house 2 2 45. Low density development\u00E2\u0080\u0094not outlying 2 2 k6. Well-built house 1 1 47. House respectable i n the eyes of relatives 1 1 48. Area with reasonable housing prices 1 1 49. House wanted without garden 1 1 50. Small house wanted temporarily 1 1 162 Another person moved c l o s e r t o the U n i v e r s i t y because he wanted to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the \" c u l t u r a l environment\" surrounding the U n i v e r s i t y . I n h i s case, p e r c e p t i o n of h i m s e l f as a \" c u l t u r e d , n o n - m a t e r i a l i s t i c \" i n d i v i d u a l , the d e s i r e t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h k i n d r e d persons, and a need f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h these types of p e r s o n a l i t i e s and the U n i v e r s i t y environment were h i s motive. Other persons moved c l o s e r t o the U n i v e r s i t y because they p e r c e i v e d a higher standard of e d u c a t i o n i n the surrounding schools and a b e t t e r s o c i a l environment I n the g e n e r a l area which t h e y c o n s i d e r e d conducive t o r a i s i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n such a way, t h a t they \" n a t u r a l l y \" would a s p i r e t o a higher standard of e d u c a t i o n and s o c i a l s t a t u s . I n these cases, s t a t u s a s p i r a t i o n f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n and themselves were the u n d e r l y i n g motives. Although the i n v e s t i g a t o r c o u l d analyse the m a j o r i t y o f reasons summarized i n the t a b l e and i n d i c a t e motives which may l i e behind these reasons, i t does not seem j u s t i f i a b l e t o r e - c l a s s i f y a l l reasons i n t o c a t e g o r i e s of motives without being able at the same time t o s u b s t a n t i a t e these hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s by f a c t u a l d a t a . Consequently, the m a j o r i t y o f reasons were accepted on t h e i r f a c e v a l u e , w h i l e some were grouped i n t o c a t e g o r i e s which have d i f f e r e n t meanings. For example, \" S u i t a b l e accommodation at lowest r e n t \" c o n s i s t s of t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s . Category (3) summarizes a l l 163 reasons which s t a t e d t h a t people looked everywhere i n order t o f i n d a low-rent s u i t e and apartment. Most of the times they s e l e c t e d one i n lower r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Catebory (9) i n c l u d e s a l l reasons which were s t a t e d i n combination w i t h such remarks as \"looked o n l y West o f Main S t r e e t , and south o f Broadway,\" or \"never c o n s i d e r e d E a s t Vancouver,\" or \"o n l y i n decent neighborhood,\" and where i t co u l d be assumed t h a t these persons were concerned w i t h the type of s o c i a l environment i n which they intended to take r e s i d e n c e even on a temporary b a s i s . Category (H-l) summarized the few reasons which i n d i c a t e d t h a t the persons had f i n a n c i a l ^ d i f f i c u l t i e s but f o r reasons o f p r e s t i g e / p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e l a t i v e s , had t o move i n t o h i g h - c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . S i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s were made w i t h r e g a r d t o : down-payments and house c o n s t r u c t i o n i n low and h i g h l o t cost d i s t r i c t s . Reasons summarized under \" S o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e neighborhood\" i n c l u d e those when people a c t u a l l y s t a t e d t h a t they wanted a c e r t a i n type o f s o c i a l environment or when i t could be i n f e r r e d that they wanted t o l i v e among a c e r t a i n socio-economic c l a s s 1 , e.g. not i n the l a b o r i n g c l a s s d i s t r i c t s , West of Main, among White C o l l a r workers, young e x e c u t i v e t y p e s , people which were not car but house c o n s c i o u s , people who would m a i n t a i n t h e i r p r o p e r t y , people o f k i n d r e d 164 b e h a v i o r , a t t i t u d e s and values e t c . Subsequently, these c a t e g o r i e s of reasons are grouped together i n terms of f a c e v a l u e s and, where p o s s i b l e , i n terms o f concern w i t h p r e s t i g e and s t a t u s ; f i n a l l y a l l groups are drawn t o g e t h e r f o r which a concern w i t h p r e s t i g e and s t a t u s might be suspected as the u n d e r l y i n g motive. T a b l e XXV \" D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g Dwellings and R e s i d e n t i a l Neighborhood a c c o r d i n g t o Stages i n R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y \" shows t h a t f o r s e l e c t i n g the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e a m a j o r i t y o f respondents were concerned w i t h o b t a i n i n g a s u i t a b l e accommodation at the lowest r e n t (25 r e a s o n s ) ; or which was l o c a t e d c l o s e t o work, c l o s e t o r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , c l o s e t o p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , c l o s e t o downtown, and c l o s e t o shops (26 r e a s o n s ) . Although a concern w i t h the c h a r a c t e r of the neighborhood, as a s o c i a l u n i t and f o r investment i s obvious (Items 1, 2 , 9 , 12, 16, 17, 32, 41, and 47 = 32 r e a s o n s ) , t h i s concern became much more important when s e l e c t i n g the second and t h i r d r e s i d e n c e . With regard to the second residence1 Into which 34 respondents moved, a t o t a l o f 38 reasons are mentioned which i n d i c a t e a concern w i t h the s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l q u a l i t i e s o f the neighborhood, w h i l e 39 such reasons are mentioned by 26 respondents s e l e c t i n g t h e i r t h i r d r e s i d e n c e . 165 From these g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s one may conclude t h a t people i n t h i s Middle Management group s e l e c t e d t h e i r f i r s t r e s i d e n c e (i.e.. upon becoming married and b e f o r e most of them became s u p e r v i s o r ) p r i m a r i l y i n terms of t h e i r r e s t r i c t e d f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y and i n order to be c l o s e t o c e r t a i n f a c i l i t i e s . However, a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of them were concerned w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the neighborhood as a s o c i a l u n i t . However, t h i s concern and the concern w i t h the investment became p r o p o r t i o n a l l y much g r e a t e r when people s e l e c t e d t h e i r second and t h i r d r e s i d e n c e s . T h i s i n c r e a s i n g concern f o r the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the d i s t r i c t appears to be r e l a t e d t o t h e i r concern w i t h the proper u p - b r i n g i n g of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , w i t h p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r investment, and w i t h t h e i r i n c r e a s i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s which arouses t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s needs while at the same time p l a c i n g them f i n a n c i a l l y i n the p o s i t i o n that they can s a t i s f y these s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. Furthermore, i t may be assumed t h a t t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s promote t h e i r concern w i t h t h e i r c h l l d r e n s 1 u p b r i n g i n g and w i t h t h e i r investment. The l a t t e r must be ssen as the milestone of t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l and s o c i a l success because i n c r e a s i n g investment i n t h e i r p r o p e r t y enables them to move up the r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s h i e r a r c h y thereby expressing t h e i r s o c i a l and o c c u p a t i o n a l achievement. T h e i r property i s the f o u n d a t i o n of t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n the s t a t u s h i e r a r c h y of s o c i e t y and t h e r e f o r e they have t o p r o t e c t i t c a r e f u l l y . TABLE XXV DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR SELECTING DFffiLLING AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ACCORDING TO STAGES IN RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY (39 PERSONS, 132 RESIDENCES, 427 SELECTION REASONS) Stages i n R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y Category of Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g F i r s t Second T h i r d F o u r t h F i f t h S i x t h Seventh E i g h t h 1. S o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e neighborhood 6 9 11 6 3 1 2. Good investment 3 8 8 6 7 3. Lowest re n t i n any d i s t r i c t 16 8 5 1 4. Close t o work 11 4 1 2 3 5. View l o t 2 4 4 5 1 1 6. Large l o t 2 3 5 4 1 1 7. Large house 1 6 3 3 1 8. O u t l y i n g area 2 5 1 3 1 9. Lowest r e n t i n good d i s t r i c t 9 1 1 10. A t t r a c t i v e s t y l e of house 3 4 3 1 1 11. Close t o r e c r e a t i o n 4 3 1 1 3 12. B u i l t i n h i g h l o t cost area ,1 4 2 2 2 1 13. Close to p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 4 1 2 2 1 14. Advantageous buying terms 1 3 1 4 1 \u00E2\u0080\u00A215. Returned t o soc. d e s i r . neighborhood 2 2 3 2 1 16. Raised i n neighborhood 7 2 1 17. F r i e n d s , c o l l . & r e l a t . a t t r a c t . 2 1 4 1 1 18. Good s c h o o l s , d e s i r . f o r r a i s . ch. 2 3 3 1 19. Stayed t e m p o r a r i l y w i t h f r d s / r e l . 4 2 2 20. Close t o downtown 4 2 1 1 21. B u i l t i n low l o t c o s t area 1 5 2 22. Close t o u n i v e r s i t y 2 2 1 2 23. A t t r a c t i v e , c l e a n house/apt. 3 1 2 1 1 24. Close t o schools 1 2 2 2 TABLE XXV (Continued) Category of Reasons f o r S e l e c t i n g Stages i n R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y F i r s t Second T h i r d F o u r t h F i f t h S i x t h Seventh E i g h t h 25. C l o s e t o f r i e n d s & r e l . ( a s s i s t . ) 26. Large l o t and garden 1 27. Large l i v i n g & r e c r e a t . room 28. C l o s e t o shops 3 29. Same economic group 30. Low down-payment i n any area 1 31 . Moved i n same neighborhood 32. P r e s t i g e reasons 2 33. House r e q u i r i n g min. a t t e n t i o n 1 3 ^ . House a f f o r d i n g max. p r i v a c y 35. Healthy l o c a t i o n 1 36. House w i t h a t t r a c t i v e f l o o r p l a n 37. Recover f i n a n c i a l l y i n o u t l y i n g area 38. Low down-payment i n good d i s t r i c t 39. O p t i o n t o buy 1 40. Safe and q u i e t neighborhood 41. Lowest r e n t i n best d i s t r i c t 42. Back t o town 43. H a s t i n g s Townsite 44. I n h e r i t e d house 2 45. Low d e n s i t y development 1 H6. W e l l - b u i l t house 47. Respectable house 1 48. Reasonable house p r i c e s 1 49. No garden 50. S m a l l house 3 3 3 2 4 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T o t a l Number o f Reasons 101 114 89 63 HO 12 4 4 Number o f Persons who Moved 39 3^ 26 18 14 5 2 1 168 I n T a b l e XXVI c a t e g o r i e s of reasons are grouped together i n terms of t h e i r f a c e v a l u e ; however, groups ( A ) , ( E ) , and (K) a l r e a d y separate those c a t e g o r i e s which i n d i c a t e a concern w i t h the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f the neighborhood and the need f o r s a t i s f y i n g s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e a s p i r a t i o n s . The l a r g e s t group pf reasons was found t o be the one which i n d i c a t e s the respondents' concern w i t h the ap p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the neighborhood i n terms of i t s s o c i a l composition and i t s p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . The l a t t e r being c o n s i d e r e d a c r i t e r i a f o r good investment i n v a r i a b l y depends upon the \" k i n d of people\" l i v i n g In the neighborhood, which i n the terminology o f t h i s Middle Management group means people of s i m i l a r socio-economic s t a n d i n g , w i t h s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s . Twenty-nine respondents mentioned these reasons w i t h r e s p e c t to the s e l e c t i o n of f i f t y - t h r e e r e s i d e n c e s . I t may be concluded, t h e r e f o r e , on the b a s i s o f t h i s p a r t o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t these twenty-nine respondents a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r own p e r c e p t i o n have moved to b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , and t h a t these respondents are concerned w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f the neighborhood r e g a r d i n g t h e i r TABLE XXVI COMBINATIONS OP CATEGORIES OF REASONS FOR SELECTION OF DWELLINGS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS (39 PERSONS, 132 RESIDENCES, 427 REASONS) Group C a t e g o r i e s Percent Percent Percent Reasons of 427 Persons of 39 R e s i d s . o f 132 A. S o c i a l l y & p h y s i c , a t t r a c t i v e Neighbh. B. P h y s i c a l amenities C. D w e l l i n g f e a t u r e s D. Cheap accommodation i n any d i s t r i c t E. Cheap accommodation i n b e t t e r d i s t r i c t (D & E) Cheap Accommodation C D , ( 2 ) , ( 1 5 ) (18 ) ,(29). ( 5 ) , ( 6 ) , ( 8 ) (265,(35) (7), (10) ,(21) (27), (32) ,(46) (47),(50) (3) ,(21), (30) ( ^ ( 1 2 ) , ( 3 8 ) F. C l o s e d i s t a n c e from: (4 ) , ( 1 3 ) , ( 2 0 ) 93 57 46 43 30 73 39 21.8 13.4 10.8 10.1 7.0 17.1 9.2 29 28 24 23 19 31 25 74.4 71.8 61.5 58.9 48.5 79.5 64 .1 53 35 38 43 30 73 31 40.2 26.5 28.8 32.6 22.7 55.3 23.5 TABLE XXVI (Continued) ^ Percent Percent Percent Group C a t e g o r i e s . Reasons of 427 Persons o f 39 R e s i d s . o f 132 G. Close distance from: (11) , (22) , (24);(28) 33 7.8 22 56.4 27 20.5 (F & G) Close distance from f a c i l i t i e s 72 16.9 31 79.5 4 7 35.6 H. Family & Friendship r e l a t i o n s (16),(17),(19) (23),(31),W 41 9.6 64 . 1 37 28.0 I . F i n a n c i a l considerations ( 1 ^ , ( 3 7 ) , ( 3 9 ) (H8) 18 . K2 14 35.9 17 12.9 J . Undisturbed residen. (3*) ,(^0) ,(^5) 9 2.1 7 17.9 7 5.3 K. Prestige (32) 5 1.2 3 7.7 5 3.8 L. Other (33),(^2),(43) 12 2.8 4 10.2 4 3.0 * See Table XXIV. 171 s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. However, the a n a l y s i s o f \"reasons f o r s e l e c t i o n \" may be expanded t o i n c l u d e those other c a t e g o r i e s which i n d i c a t e the respondents' concern w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f the neighborhood as a means of s a t i s f y i n g the respondents' needs f o r s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . I n T a b l e XXVII, the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s have been added t o Group A \" S o c i a l l y and p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e neighborhood\": Group E: \"Cheap accommodation i n b e t t e r d i s t r i c t s , \" summarizes reasons which i n d i c a t e t h a t c e r t a i n respondents were concerned w i t h m a i n t a i n i n g a standard of accommodation and neighborhood, and made e f f o r t s t o secure r e s i d e n c e s i n good r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s a l t h o u g h t h e i r f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y was l i m i t e d . These persons, almost c e r t a i n l y , were concerned w i t h t h e i r s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e w h i l e s e l e c t i n g r e s i d e n c e s i n a p p r o p r i a t e J Except f o r the move t o the f i r s t r e s i d e n c e , the \" s t a t u s I n c r e a s e \" r e s u l t i n g from moves to a l l subsequent r e s i d e n c e s was c a l c u l a t e d on the b a s i s of the \" S t a t u s H i e r a r c h y . \" I t was found t h a t the m a j o r i t y of s e l e c t i o n s o f new r e s i d e n c e s a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e d the \" r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s \" o f the r e s p e c t i v e persons by a \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" of between 100 - 150. Nine of 35> s e l e c t i o n s were made w i t h i n the same g e n e r a l d i s t r i c t or l e d t o a s l i g h t decrease i n \" s t a t u s v a l u e \" which does not weaken the argument that these moves were not moves made to preserve a person's p r e s t i g e by a v o i d i n g a s o c i a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e environment or i n c r e a s i n g i t by moving i n t o b e t t e r s e c t i o n of a d i s t r i c t . TABLE XXVII REASONS FOR SELECTION OF DWELLINGS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHICH INDICATE THE RESPONDENTS' CONCERN WITH THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE NEIGHBOR TO SATISFY THEIR STATUS AND PRESTIGE NEEDS (39 PERSONS, 132 RESIDENCES, 427 REASONS) Group C a t e g o r i e s Reasons Percent of 427 Persons Percent of 39 R e s i d s . Percent o f 132 A. S o c i a l l y and phys. a t t r a c t . Neighborh. (1 ) . (2) ,(15) (18) ,(29) 93 21.8 29 74.4 53 40.2 E . Cheap accommodation i n b e t t e r d i s t r i c t (9). (12) , (38) (41) 30 7.0 19 43.5 30 22.7 H. F a m i l y & f r i e n d s h i p r e l a t i o n s (17) 9 8 8 K. P r e s t i g e (32) 5 1.2 3 7.7 5 3.8 N. Other (42) 3 2 3 T o t a l s 140 32.8 30 76.9 69 52 .3 ro 173 y environments. Category 17: \" F r i e n d s , c o l l e a g u e s , and r e l a t i v e s a t t r a c t e d me t o a r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a , \" summarizes reasons which i n d i c a t e d t h a t r e l a t i v e s exerted pressure upon the respondent t o move to a c e r t a i n r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t , or h i s w i f e d e s i r e d t o be near r e l a t i v e s r e s i d i n g i n h i g h - c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , or f r i e n d s and c o l l e a g u e s set the example by moving i n t o c e r t a i n areas or types of areas which c h a l l e n g e d the respondent t o do l i k e w i s e . Group K: \" P r e s t i g e , \" examples o f c l e a r l y s t a t e d p r e s t i g e reasons were c i t e d b e f o r e . Category h2x \"Back t o town,\" summarizes reasons which i n d i c a t e d t h a t respondents or t h e i r f a m i l i e s f e l t s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d and out of p l a c e i n urban areas and they moved back t o town ( u s u a l l y \" b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas\") i n order t o be a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e b e t t e r i n s o c i a l a f f a i r s . I t must a l s o be suspected that t h e i r p r e s t i g e s u f f e r e d while r e s i d i n g . i n o u t l y i n g a r e a s . A l t o g e t h e r twelve a d d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n c e s were s e l e c t e d f o r reasons of concerns w i t h the neighborhood, however, o n l y one more person was found i n a d d i t i o n t o the number of respondents i n c l u d e d i n Reason Group A. T h e r e f o r e , a t o t a l o f t h i r t y persons of the group, t h i r t y - n i n e respondents was found t o be concerned w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the neighborhood i n view of t h e i r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n and t h e i r s t a t u s needs. 174 L a s t l y , i f one combines those reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a d w e l l i n g which i n d i c a t e a concern w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house ( l a r g e r and more e l a b o r a t e d w e l l i n g ) w i t h the reasons which i n d i c a t e concern w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f the neighborhood, the summary g i v e n i n Tab l e XXVIII i s ob t a i n e d . Prom t h i s f i n a l a n a l y s i s i t may be seen that a masimum of t w e n t y - f i v e of the respondents who are concerned w i t h the app r o p r i a t e n e s s of the neighborhood were a l s o concerned w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house i n order t o s a t i s f y t h e i r s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. Furthermore, o n l y f i v e a d d i t i o n a l d w e l l i n g s were found which were s e l e c t e d o n l y on the b a s i s of \"the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house.\" On the b a s i s of the a n a l y s i s o f \"Reasons f o r S e l e c t i o n of Dwellings i n R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\" i t may be concluded t h a t a maximum of t h i r t y - o n e o f t h i r t y - n i n e respondents were concerned at any one stage o f t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l m o b l l i t y w i t h e i t h e r the appropriateness of the house or the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the neighborhood i n order to s a t i s f y t h e i r s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e needs. TABLE XXVIII REASONS FOR SELECTION OF DWELLINGS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHICH INDICATE CONCERN WITH THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE HOUSE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SATISFY THE RESPONDENTS' STATUS AND PRESTIGE NEEDS (39 PERSONS, 132 RESIDENCES, 427 REASONS) Group C a t e g o r i e s Reasons Percent of 427 Persons Percent of 39 R e s i d s . Percent of 132 I . Appropriateness of the neighborhood ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , ( 1 5 ) (18) , (29) , (? ) (12) , (38) , (41) (17),(32 ) , (H2) 32 . 8 30 76.9 69 52 .3 I I . Appropriateness o f the house ( 5 ) , ( 1 0 ) , ( 2 7 ) 38 9.0 25 6 4 . 1 31 2 3 . 5 T o t a l s 178 H i . 7 31 79.5 7k 56.1 P A R T V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER I THE PROPORTION OF PERSONS IN MIDDLE MANAGE-MENT CONCERNED WITH STATUS AND PRESTIGE OF RESIDENCE The Hypothesis The following hypothesis was tested in this inves-tigation: A significant increase i n occupational status motivates members of Middle Management group to move to larger and more elaborate dwellings and to better residential areas, because they intend to bring their residences i n adjustment with their newly acquired social status position (or anticipated status position) and obtain the pres-tige associated with each residential area. Two basic assumptions were made: 1. A l l members of the Middle Management group investigated here increased their occupational status since they became married and moved into their f i r s t residence. The investigation con-cerns i t s e l f with the relationship; between socio-occupational mobility beginning with the f i r s t residence into which each respondent moved upon being married. 2. A significant increase i n occupational status produces a change i n the social status position of members of the Middle Management group. Pro-motion to a supervisory position and subsequent changes i n rank position were considered s i g n i f i -cant increases i n occupational status. In the course of the investigation the validit y of these assumptions was tested. Assumption (1) was tested on the basis of available data indicating occupational mobility, e.g. length of period of employment, length of period before and after promotion to supervisor, and present annual salary 177 i n relationship to each salary earned by other members of this group. It was found that except for one person a l l members of this group increased their occupational status after their promotion to a supervisory position. The one exception, how-ever, was nevertheless promoted to supervisor. The degree of increase i n occupational status varied with each person. Assumption (2) was tested as part of the investigation, a l -though i t was intended to uphold the assumption regardless of the results of the investigation. Assumption (2) The relationship between increase i n occupational status and increase i n social status position was recognized by twenty-nine of thirty-eight respon-dents, while possibly as many as twenty-four respon-dents actually experienced a change i n their social status position on account of a promotion. Subsequently, the relationship between social status position and the house and residential neighborhood as a symbol of social status was tested. 1. The relationship between increase i n social status position and selection of a house which i s appro-priate for the person's social position was ad-mitted by seventeen respondents and strongly sus-pected i n the case of three other respondents. 2. The relationship between increase i n social posi-tion and selection of a neighborhood which i s ap-propriate for the person's social status position was admitted by twenty-six respondents. Correlations of the results obtained i n testing Assump-tion (2), and relationships (1) and (2) yielded the following results: Of the twenty respondents who were concerned with the appropriateness of the house, fifteen respon-178 dents were also concerned with the appropriate-ness of the neighborhood, and sixteen respondents actually experienced a change of their social position on account of a promotion. Of the twenty-six respondents who were concerned with the appropriateness of the neighborhood, fifteen respondents were also concerned with the appropriateness of the house, and eighteen res-pondents actually experienced a change of their social position on account of a promotion. Altogether thirty of thirty-nine respondents were concerned with the appropriateness of the house and/or the neighborhood i n view of each respon-dent's social status position. Of these thirty respondents, twenty-one respondents actually ex-perienced a change of their social position on account of a promotion. After the investigation of the \"attitude, opinion, and self-appraisal answers\" was completed and the above results ob-tained, six basic c r i t e r i a were adopted i n order to test on the basis of actual moving behavior and reasons for moving and selec-tion whether and how many respondents \"move to larger and more elaborate dwellings and to better residential areas\" i n order to satisfy their social status and prestige needs. The follow-ing results were obtained; a) The analysis showed that fourteen respondents are at present residing i n \"larger and more elaborate dwellings\" than are functionally required, and that they moved into these dwellings for reasons of status and prestige. b) The analysis showed that twenty-one respondents are at present residing i n \"better residential areas\" and that sixteen moved into these areas for reasons of status and prestige while the same reasons may be strongly suspected i n case of the other five respondents. 179 c) The analysis showed that twenty-six respondents made considerable efforts i n order to improve their residential status for reasons of social status and prestige. d) The analysis showed that sixteen respondents moved i n anticipation, upon or shortly after their promotion to supervisor, and that i n five cases prestige considerations as reasons for moving were admitted while on the basis of other information i t may be strongly sus-pected i n case of eleven respondents, that they moved for reasons of status and pres-tige i n relationship to their promotion. e) The analysis showed that twenty respondents moved from residential areas for reasons of social status and prestige. f) The analysis showed that thirty respondents moved to residential areas for reasons of status and prestige. In Table XXIX, the results of the'attitude, opinion, and self-appraisal answers\" are correlated with the results obtained on the basis of the analysis of each criterion. On the basis of the six c r i t e r i a , twenty-five of the thirty respondents concerned with both the appropriateness of the house and/or neighborhood were mentioned i n the re-sults of at least five c r i t e r i a , while twenty-eight of the thirty respondents were mentioned i n the results of at least three c r i t e r i a . Excluding these five respondents for which on the basis of less than five c r i t e r i a no definite proof can be established that these persons moved to \"larger and more elaborate and/or better residential areas\" for reasons of status and prestige, a total of twenty-five respondents remains for whom exists sufficient evidence that they have TABLE XXIX R e l a t i v e Number of Persons concerned w i t h the Appropriateness of the House and R e s i d e n t i a l Neighborhood Concern Number of Persons concerned w i t h the House and neighborhood who are i n c l u d e d i n the groups e s t a b l i s h e d upon the a n a l y s i s of: Number of Persons Assump-t i o n (2) (Note i ) A t t i t u d e t o House (Note i i ) A t t i t u d e t o Neighborhood (Note i i i ) (a) C r i t e r i a (b) (c) (d) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ( f ) A ppropriateness of 16 1 8 8 16 the house 20 15 12 13 1 9 Appropriateness o f 26 1 8 the neighborhood 15 lk 20 22 15 16 25 Appropriateness of house and/or neighborhood 30 21 20 26 lk 21 25 16 20 29 A c t u a l number of per-sons found on the b a s i s of each a n a l y s i s 2k 20 26 lk 21 26 16 20 30 Notes: i : Number of persons who experienced a change of s o c i a l s t a t u s on account of a promotion. i i : Number of persons who c o n s i d e r the ap p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house i n view of t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n i i i : Number of persons who c o n s i d e r the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the neighborhood i n view of t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n \u00E2\u0080\u00A2iiAUbti x x i x (continued) * Criteria (a) s Number of persons who reside i n \"larger and more elaborate dwellings\". (b) : Number of persons who reside i n \"better residential areas\". (c) t Number of persons who made considerable efforts to improve their residential status. (d) : Number of persons improving their residential status i n relationship to their promotion to supervisor. (e) : Number of persons moving from residential areas for reasons of status. (f) : Number of persons who moved to residential areas for reasons of status. The data on the table should be read as follows: Thirty persons are concerned with the appropriateness of the house and neighborhood. Of these, twenty-one experienced a change of their social status upon a promotion, twenty and twenty-six persons are concerned with the appropriateness of the house and the neighborhood, respectively. Of these thirty persons, fourteen are residing i n \"larger and more elaborate dwellings\", twenty-one persons are residing In \"better residential areas\"; twenty-five made considerable efforts to improve their residential status, and so forth. The last row actually gives the number of persons for whom the particular relationship analyzed was found to apply. For example, twenty-six persons were found to have made considerable efforts to improve their residential status, however, one person of this group apparently was neither con-cerned with the appropriateness of the house or neighborhood. 182 moved f o r reasons of s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e . Among these t w e n t y - f i v e persons are twenty-one persons who have ex-p e r i e n c e d a change i n s o c i a l p o s i t i o n on account of a pro-motion, w h i l e of the remaining f o u r persons, t h r e e have ex-pe r i e n c e d a change of s o c i a l p o s i t i o n f o r other reasons than promotion, while one person a p p a r e n t l y always had a c e r t a i n s o c i a l s t a t u s . Consequently, i n the case of twenty-one respondents, the hypothesis i n c l u d i n g Assumption (2) has been proven. I n the case of f o u r respondents the hypothesis based upon Assump-t i o n s (1) and (2) has been proven. I t may be concluded t h a t t w e n t y - f i v e of t h i r t y - n i n e members of the Middle Management group (61.5$) have moved t o l a r g e r and more e l a b o r a t e dwel-l i n g s and /nr b e t t e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n order t o h r i n g t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s i n adjustment w i t h t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i -t i o n and o b t a i n the p r e s t i g e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the p a r t i c u l a r r e s i d e n t i a l areas they moved t o . 183 CHAPTER II THE ORGANIZATION MAN AND CONFORMITY TO STANDARDS OF RESIDENCE The Organization Man In Middle Management The questions raised i n an earlier chapter about the value of Whyte's description of the \"Organization Man\" for a comparative basis for evaluating the behavior of this group of supervisors were kept i n mind during the investigation. Although the investigation does not lend i t s e l f to making definite statements about potentially uniform value and belief systems which these persons may have, i t i s nevertheless poss-ible to Indicate certain similarities between Whyte's \"The Organization Man\" and the members of this Middle Management group. It w i l l be recalled that i n the description of the \"General Characteristics of the Group\" i t was indicated to what extent these individuals differed i n terms of certain basic factors which were considered to have a profound i n -fluence upon the mentality and outlook of these people. Judging on the basis of such variables as length of employment, education, training, background, and rate of promotion, a considerable number of persons of this Middle Management group are not typical examples of the \"Organization Man*. In particular those persons who became employed with the B.C. Electric before 19^5 and, according to Whyte's description of 184 other Organizations, were s t i l l trained i n terms of the \"pro-testant ethics\" of business, may not be \"Organization Men\" at a l l . Furthermore, the B.C. Electric Company was not an orga-nization before the war in the sense i t i s to-day. This aside, i t i s the group of persons employed after the war which is being trained in the s p i r i t of \"social ethics\", that i s \"group conformity\" according to Whyte's use of the concept. This investigation was concerned with a group of Middle Management persons of whom twenty-eight persons became employed with the Organization before 1945, and eleven after 19^5; how-ever, only nine persons became supervisor before 19*+5, while thirty persons became supervisor during the post-war period. Of the eleven persons who became employed with the Organiza-tion after the war, nine persons are university graduates. Of these nine persons at least eight were subjected to the type of training which Whyte describes as the socializing period of the \"Organization Novice\". Seven of these persons are already i n the top ranks of Middle Management and most of them are confident that their career i s s t i l l ahead of them. Only these seven persons have the typical prerequisites of the \"Organization Man\" but whether they think i n similar veins cannot be ascertained. Three of the seven persons are already residing i n Upper Class Residential areas, while two openly stated that they w i l l have to adjust their residences soon i n order to be able to f u l f i l the functions which their position has thrust upon them. These seven persons, perhaps, 185 are the Advanced Management type of \"The Organization Man\". Apart from this group, the members of two other groups resemble \"The Organization Man\" i n certain aspects. One group consists largely of office people who became em-ployed as clerks and received training i n accounting or office management outside the Organization. These five persons were with the Organization for a considerable period (1939-1942) and took a much longer time before becoming supervisor than the graduate group. Excepting two persons, their salaries are relatively modest and their confidence i n further promo-tion Is slight. This small group of supervisors seems to re-semble the type of \"Organization Man\" who i s content with being a member of the Organization, who wants to belong to a group and to conform to standards which assure smooth coopera-tion and \"the good l i f e \" . Some of these persons liv e together i n a very modern residential development which has also been described as \"the young executive's area\"and their attitudes about social class differences are very smug and ready-made. Perhaps, they are indeed the more typical \"Organization Man\", the one who conforms to the demands of the Organization and relies upon the Organization for guidance in his occupational career. The third group consists of five persons who came from the \"working man's\" ranks rather than the \"white collar\" ranks. These persons are most conscious of their change of social status and most anxious to acquire the outward symbols of res-pectable Middle Class. They are not the typical \"Organiza-tion Man\"because they struggled for their present positions i n Middle Management rather than stepped \"into the same boat\". While some of them have acquired a suave self-assured be-havior and denounce their form associations, most of them have retained attitudes and values which are more akin to those of their former associates than to those expressed by the majority of this Middle Management group. This gives them a certain individuality, yet their mutual desire seems to be to assimi-late as far as possible to the residential and behavior stan-dards of the Middle Management group. This obvious desire to conform to the standards of the Middle Management group i s per-haps their most striking characteristic. According to one ob-server \"these persons make i t a point of appearing regularly on every supervisory meeting, presumably because they wish to re-assert each time their a f f i l i a t i o n with Middle Management\". Altogether then seventeen persons i n this Middle Management group seem to resemble \"The Organization Man\" i n certain aspects but not very many of these persons may be likened to Whyte1s \"model man\" of the modern subdivision. How-ever, residential development i n the Vancouver area i s s t i l l relatively young and large d i s t r i c t s of respectable housing close to the center of the Metropolitan Area absorb a great proportion of the Middle Class exodus to the outskirt suburbs which i s experienced by older c i t i e s . Furthermore, the B.C. Electric i s , perhaps, not the typical Organization which pro-187 duces \"The Organization Man\" because i t i s a local u t i l i t y corporation which has a monopoly i n i t s f i e l d . Its Organi-zation therefore i s restricted and, possibly, not developed to the degree which i s necessary to meet rigorous competition faced by other Organizations. Nevertheless, one may assume that while the proportion of persons i n this Metropolitan Area which resemble the \"Organization Man\" i s not large, i t w i l l become larger rather than smaller, and eventually con-stitute a force i n residential mobility and residential de-velopment which should not be under-estimated. Conformity to Group Standards The matter of conformity on the part of the individual with regard to standards of residence set by the Organization and socio-occupational groups was investigated but not analyzed in s t a t i s t i c a l terms. Although no quantitative evidence may be presented for the following discussion, i t i s nevertheless based upon answers obtained to the \"conformity questions\" con-tained i n the questionnaire. Furthermore, i n the course of the interviews certain aspects were discussed which were not covered by the questionnaire and which l e f t the investigator with certain impressions regarding the conformity of this group i n matters of selecting houses and residential areas. There i s no evidence that the Organization has a formal policy which requires of a l l i t s employees to follow certain standards of residence attached to various rank levels. However, 188 certain positions i n the Company entail functions which oblige the individual to adopt a certain standard of residence i n the interest of the Organization. Individuals who have to entertain on behalf of the Organization purposely follow a pattern of residential standards set by the Advanced Manage-ment Group, and occasionally they may be \"coached\" to adopt these standards. One may suspect that the position of people who do not conform may be endangered unless, as one person stated \"one i s very b r i l l i a n t and can afford to behave i n an unorthodox fashion\". One may also suspect that a number of per-sons use their position and the concommitant functions (repre-sentation, entertainment) to rationalize their own desire to be identified with a certain socio-occupational group i n a parti-cular residential d i s t r i c t . Middle Management, generally, i s not required to act o f f i c i a l l y or unofficially on behalf of the Organization ac-cording to most respondents' opinion. However, within the Middle Management group exists a vertical and horizontal grouping of supervisors who voluntarily or involuntarily are more concerned with adopting certain residence standards and following the pattern set by the Advanced Management group. The horizontal group consists of Department Heads. Once Middle Management persons have reached this rank level they begin to \"wonder\" whether they should move into certain r e s i -dential d i s t r i c t s , while some of them did without provocation or pressure, accepting i t as \"the right thing to do\". To them i t i s not a question of being able to afford a more ela-borate house i n high-class d i s t r i c t but a question of whether they should - i n view of their position and their career -adopt the standards outlined by the Advanced Management group The vertical group consists of members of certain Divisions and Departments. Although the prestige aspects of residence are stressed more by the upper ranks than by the lower ranks of Middle Management within these vertical groups members of both groups are assumed to place greater emphasis upon residence relative to members of both other divisions and Departments. A majority of respondents f e l t that the Sales Division and the Department of Public Relations tend to place greater stress upon the prestige aspects of houses and d i s t r i c t s . Possibly, the E l e c t r i c i t y and Gas Division belongs to the same group, although i n these Divisions i t may only be the \"professional engineer\" who i s concerned with conspicuous residence. Furthermore, vertical groups are in -fluenced by their respective Division or Department Head. It seemed quite obvious that a number of respondents looked for cues regarding choice of residence to their superiors while others considered themselves examples to their subordinates. A few persons stated outright that their subordinates should adopt certain standards of residence when they become super-visor i n order that they may set themselves off from the labouring class and i n order to acquire a \"social behavior\" which they considered essential for further promotion. How-190 ever,, the m a j o r i t y of respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they had not n o t i c e d t h a t promotions were a f f e c t e d by a person's r e s i d e n c e , a l t h o u g h some of them \"hoped\" th e r e was no r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t may be c o i n c i d e n t a l t h a t those persons who are r e s i d i n g i n un-p r e t e n t i o u s r e e i d e n c e s and d i s t r i c t s are a l s o among those who made the r e l a t i v e l y slowest progress i n the O r g a n i z a t i o n . These persons forego s a t i s f a c t i o n o f p r e s t i g e needs because they h e s i t a t e to burden themselves w i t h mortgages. I t must be assumed - and a few persons admitted i t - t h a t they are l e s s s e l f - a s s e r t i v e i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e i r slow progress and t h e i r d i s c o n c e r n w i t h s t a t u s stems from the same p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r , namely a l a c k of s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e i r a b i l i t y . I n f a c t , most respondents regarded those persons who l i v e d i n accommodations which were beneath the standards they might a f f o r d , as \"misers\" or \" t i m i d \" . These s u b t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s and i n f e r e n c e s made about the person on the b a s i s of h i s r e s i d e n c e are p r o b a b l y the most e f f e c t i v e p r e s s u r e s i n f o r c i n g him t o conform. The standard which r e q u i r e s of persons t o be \" j u s t above the mark\" from what he r e a l l y can a f f o r d , however, i s i n keeping w i t h the b a s i s of western economy and seemingly makes i t a \"perpetum m o b i l i \" . T h i s \"mortgaging of the f u t u r e \" a l s o d r a i n s a d i s p r o -p o r t i o n a l l y l a r g e share of p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l energy i n t o the consumer good market l e a v i n g l i t t l e f o r n o n - m a t e r i a l v a l u e s . Although t h i s group has no p r e c i s e standards which members of the M i d d l e Management group are expected t o f o l l o w 191 i n selecting residences, they seem to have very broad values which govern their residential mobility behavior. Above a l l they value the home and home l i f e . For most of the time the house i s the most important factor which they value more than cars, boats, travelling or other material or immaterial values, although there are exceptions. They have three reasons for emphasizing the home. Fi r s t , they are concerned with the well-being of their family; second, they want i t to be an asset to their immediate neighborhood, and third they value i t as an investment and a traditional type of security. They strongly believe that a person should improve himself i n his occupation, as a member of society (social position), and i n terms of his residence. The house should afford increasingly more comfort and should increase i n i n -vestment value. They believe that persons naturally move to better residential areas and that they continue investing a fixed proportion of their income i n the house. They believe that a person should mortgage part of his future income i n order to afford a good home i n a good neighborhood, but they are c r i t i c a l of people who over-reach themselves or value ostentatious residences. They are less c r i t i c a l of people who do not appreciate their values although they may wonder about his judgment, his sense of responsibility for his family, and his self-confidence and a b i l i t y . The home is considered less important for their reputa-tion than the neighborhood or residential d i s t r i c t . The dis-t r i c t i s important because of the \"kind of people l i v i n g there\" 192 which determines with whom they and their children associate and become identified, whether the area w i l l depreciate or whether their property w i l l be protected i n order to assure an increase of their equity. The higher their equity i n the house, the larger a cash-payment can be obtained when they decide to s e l l the house and move into a better area where correspondingly larger down-payments are required. This group's concern for neighborhood f a c i l i t i e s con-fines i t s e l f primarily to their effects upon the value of a person's property. The more they are concerned with prestige the further they want to segregate their residences from schools, churches and shopping f a c i l i t i e s , not to mention industry of any type. This concern with separating residences and f a c i l i t i e s may actually be explained i n several ways. Fi r s t , persons who feel that they can afford moving into ex-clusive d i s t r i c t s assume that they are a two-car family con-sequently distances matter less. Second, \"exclusiveness\" i t -self increases property values. Third, there are no examples i n the Metropolitan Area of prestige areas where residences and f a c i l i t i e s are functionally integrated, consequently, the stereotype becomes the symbol of prestige, and distance from f a c i l i t i e s almost measures the socio-economic status of a resident. These are the principal standards which the group values and to which they conform. Whether these standards make this socio-occupational group distinct from other groups 1 9 3 or whether they are merely a part of Middle Class standards cannot be decided on the basis of this investigation; i t would be necessary to analyze the residential mobility of other socio-occupational groups with similar range of income. How-ever, i f i t can be assumed that these values are held by a majority of middle-income families, then the following impli-cations of this investigation for planning increases i n im-portance. CHAPTER III THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING On the basis of these values held by the majority of this Middle Management group, and possibly by other groups, one may question whether residential mobility generated by social mobility may be eliminated or reduced, and whether Community Planners can influence this type of residential mo-b i l i t y . Upward social mobility must be understood as a pro-cess of segregation. In order to express increasingly higher social status, more exclusive status symbols are selected. Those groups of persons who recognize residences and residen-t i a l areas, particularly, as status symbols w i l l continue to segregate themselves i n accordance with their increasing financial a b i l i t y and their increasing socio-economic status. Because i t is impossible to provide them with housing at an early stage of their social mobility which w i l l continue to satisfy their future status needs, i t seems almost impossible to eliminate this type of residential mobility unless res i -dences and residential areas cease to have symbolic meaning. However, both are only symbolic values for the segregation of socio-economic classes, and probably not, as one may as-sume, an aping of the behavior of the top socio-economic class Therefore, i t i s not enough just to eliminate the symbols, 1 9 5 they are mere symptoms of underlying motives; namely, the desire to express and emphasize inequality between in d i v i -duals, groups and classes. It may be possible to plan neighborhood units, which permit segregation on the basis of potential financial abi-l i t y and anticipated social status; however, such neighbor-hoods as well as planned mixed socio-economic communities can merely satisfy the status needs of one or a limited range of socio-economic groups. The status of this group w i l l be re-flected i n the rental or purchase value of the dwelling units which i n turn identifies the position of the neighborhood and i t s inhabitants i n the eyes of the Community. Once the income and the status of families has increased above this level, they are bound to move because they feel that they are entitled to a better residence, that they can afford i t , that they have to express their increased status and financial a b i l i t y by moving into a more expensive residence, and that they can and should remove themselves further from relatively lower socio-economic groups. Even i f i t were possible to en-courage these persons to raise the prestige of their neighbor-hood by remaining there and by impressing upon others that they cherish different values than showing financial a b i l i t y by moving into more expensive residences, and material values generally, the basic problem s t i l l remains. This basic prob-lem must be understood as the desire of persons to emphasize social distance between groups and classes. 196 People generally do not admit this motive, yet they imply i t by their action which engenders a vicious cycle that constantly reinforces the notion of inherent differences be-tween groups and classes and repudiates the idea of the pro-cess of learning and the influence of the environment. Social and physical environment, after a l l , can be manipulated. These persons argue that they move from residential areas because they think, are being told, or have observed that the social environment i n these areas has an undesirable influence upon the behavior, outlook, and educational and occupational goals of their children. They do not feel responsible or capable of exerting their influence upon the \"community\" i n their residen-t i a l d i s t r i c t i n order to change or \"improve\" this community's attitudes, values, and behavior. They do not go to their neigh-bor asking him whether they may assist him i n maintaining his property i n order that their own may not depreciate and they may feel secure while remaining i n their residence. Maintaining pro-perty i s considered \"everybody's own business\". The only means these people think they have for controlling their own and their children's destiny i s avoiding \"undesirable social envir-onments\", otherwise they feel they are penalizing their c h i l -dren for ideals which they themselves do not hold wholeheart-edly. As soon as they are financially able to do so they leave this residential area. This results i n the loss of a family whose influence may have contributed to forming a \"community\" i n the real sense of that word where people help each other and mutually raise their standards. Once removed, they look back 197 upon an \"undesirable social environment\" where people do not care for property value or education - had they stayed, the situation might have been different. These people by their very action reinforce the difference between social groups and between \"good\" and \"bad\" residential areas. If there i s such a value as \"community s p i r i t \" or responsibility for one's fellow-man and, i f this value represents the true basis for \"stable and healthy urban communities\", then these families certainly do not consider and ponder i t . Judging on the basis of the results of this investiga-tion one must assume that families who move for reasons of sta-tus and prestige are not interested i n forming \"neighborhood communities\" even i f they would understand the meaning and value of such communities. These families move to \"residential dis-t r i c t s \" - housing areas which are defined according to the socio-economic status of their resident population and indicate the family's position i n the status hierachy of society. They do not move to a particular area because they feel that they may have more i n common with the people there (other than a similar socio-economic status) or because they want to become members of a \"community\" consisting of kindred families,but i n order to adjust their residential and socio-economic status. It i s the status of the d i s t r i c t and the reputation of i t s residents i n which they are interested,and not the people residing i n the d i s t r i c t . These people rarely form close relationships i n their di s t r i c t s or maintain intimate neighborhood relationships! their friends reside widely scattered over the Metropolitan area. Usually they made their friends through the Company 198 i n Company clubs or i n other types of associations, but rarely i n neighborhoods. Excepting a few eases, the majority of members of this Middle Management group has never deferred their decision to leave a residential area for fear of des-troying neighborhood relationships including their children's ties with playmates, schoolmates, and schools. One may think that these families who never lived i n real\"neighborhood com-munities\" but always i n the usual, unneighborly residential areas would act differently, i f they could develop strong ties. However, i f these families desire to form \"communities\" they would do so provided they have a common, overriding interest. This common interest cannot be aroused by pro viding a community focus such as a community center; indeed, community activ i t i e s generated by such \"centers\" may create superficial \"communities\" - - the human interest i n the problems and well-being of other members may be entirely lacking. Only on the basis of these particular common interests may we create \"communities\". How-ever, the persons studied i n the course of this investigation have shown that they are not willing to forego their satisfac-tion of status and prestige needs for the ideal of a \"true com-munity'.' Furthermore, these people appeared to be l i t t l e con-cerned with the av a i l a b i l i t y of such neighborhood f a c i l i t i e s as shops, schools, playfields, churches, or community centers; to the contrary, some of them resented having these f a c i l i t i e s i n the immediate neighborhood because they f e l t that these 199 f a c i l i t i e s depreciate the prestige of their residential area. If they are concerned with schools at a l l i t i s primarily for reasons of the reputation of the school and the children atten-ding the school have i n the eyes of the community. Their interest i n \"community centers\" can be assumed to be small because most of these people belong to Company or private clubs, and are not even interested i n \"meeting the right people\" other than from their \"organization\". Therefore, the provision of these community f a c i l i t i e s would hardly pro-vide a stimulus for community action, fi&t to speak of the possibility of developing strong bonds among families or to the neighborhood. Even i f i t were possible to generate com-munity action and produce cohesion among resident families, i t i s doubted that these ties to the neighborhood w i l l be stronger than those forces which compel these families to adjust residence periodically to their changing status and prestige needs. Therefore, i t i s also doubted that \"planned neighborhood units\" are attractive to these families, that they w i l l produce \"communities\" i n the true meaning of this word, and that they w i l l contribute to the s t a b i l i t y of urban communities both i n terms of reducing spatial mobility or i n terms of giving families a sense of belonging, a sense of pride i n the \"neighborhood community\", and a feeling of security. These must be considered the basic factors for creating \"stable and healthy urban communities\". 200 Perhaps i t i s necessary to re-examine the function of the \"neighborhood\" i n the modern urban environment, and to re-evaluate the necessity for producing spatial s t a b i l i t y i n order to reduce mental i n s t a b i l i t y and insecurity, gener-a l l y . Actually, we are not really capable-of evaluating the good and bad effects of spatial mobility. Although we may assess some of the costs which are born by the individual ard the community and are the results of spatial mobility, we are not able to evaluate these costs i n the light of the beneficial contributions which arise from the same spatial mobility. Spatially, mobile families do not vanish but merely change their locale and their a f f i l i a t i o n with one community for that of another. Although these families may not always consider their moves to be improvements of their circumstances and opportunities, i n most cases they are motivated by the desire or opportunity to improve them-selves. We are li v i n g i n a society which becomes increasingly more complex and more involved, and which ceases to consist of small nucleated communities. There i s a tendency to re-duce local peculiarities and to enable families to disregard physical distances. As interests and relationships become more and more metropolitan and international i n scope, the possibilities for personal adjustment become much greater. People of to-day have a greater choice of finding suitable occupation, a suitable place to work, an agreeable climate, or an attractive social and physical environment than they 201 had before i n rural and small urban communities. No doubt this freedom of choice accounts for a great deal of psycholo-gical i n s t a b i l i t y but so does lack of choice and the compul-sion to accept conditions which are disliked. For good or worse, we have to accept the fact that families w i l l become Increasingly more mobile for various reasons; among them, as this investigation tried to show, an increasing concern with status and prestige. Indeed, this concern may affect larger proportions of urban populations. It i s not implied here that planners should lose i n -terest i n creating residential neighborhoods; to the contrary, they should attempt to provide the physical matrix of poten-t i a l neighborhood communities for a variety of different socio-economic groups. Furthermore, they should accept the fact that these neighborhoods most certainly w i l l not reduce spatial mo-b i l i t y and become village-type enclaves i n metropolitan soci-eties. If planners feel that they should not use their i n -fluence to reduce, for example, the need for physical segrega-tion of social groups, as this may be considered undesirable, then they should plan neighborhoods which may satisfy the pres-tige needs of families concerned with the satisfaction of such needs. Undoubtedly, spatially mobile families find i t d i f f i -cult to assimilate everywhere and often suffer anguish and anxieties. This i s particularly true for families who move from one city to another. Whyte, discussing \"The Organization 202 Man\", describes these problems i n great detail. These families obviously are desirous of moving into \"functioning communities\" i f these communities consist of equally mobile families. In other words, the mobile family i s not interested i n \"stable communities\" bat thrives i n \"transient communities\". They purposely select neighborhoods which really have limited potentials for reducing spatial mobility, yet the community created by these neighborhoods give these mobile families a sense of st a b i l i t y . Their sense of st a b i l i t y i s fostered by the great amount of family interaction which takes place i n a neighborhood community as i s Park Forest. However, i t i s the association of kindred families which really gives them a feeling of belonging. In other words, the segregation of families with similar objectives, similar experiences, and similar values produces st a b i l i t y and not the fact that the neighborhood has a community center, Is l a i d out i n a certain fashion, and provides certain f a c i l i t i e s . In the case of these transient families, segregation i n planned neighborhoods contributes to a different type of s t a b i l i t y than i s usually implied. However, these families which move within one urban environment for reasons of prestige do not consider themselves transients i n the sense i n which other families moving from city to city experience transientness and their role as strangers. Consequently, they do not have the same experience of being \" a l l i n one boat\" which i s actually the bond between inter-city movers. Their only bond with the residents of the areas to which they move i s their socio-economic status which, 203 i n f a c t , i m p l i e s c o m p e t i t i o n r a t h e r than harmony because they are determined t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r s t a t u s f u r t h e r and f u r t h e r . One may conclude, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t even s e g r e g a t i o n of s o c i a l groups i n r e s i d e n t i a l , n e i g h b o r h o o d s w i l l not produce \"communities\" un l e s s t h i s s e g r e g a t i o n i s a l s o the r e s u l t o f common experiences which people have and which makes them d i s t i n c t from the m a j o r i t y of the r e s i d e n t p o p u l a t i o n . T r a i n i n g and a c a r e e r i n Middle Management of l a r g e Organiza-t i o n s may be such a common experience. T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t the fo r m a t i o n of \"communities\" i s dependent upon s e g r e g a t i o n o f ingroups b e l o n g i n g t o one l a r g e r socio-economic group. In other words, an agglomeration of Middle Management persons of c e r t a i n l e v e l s of income may produce a \"community\", whether they are a t a l l i n t e r e s t e d i n s e g r e g a t i n g themselves i n these terms i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . However, promoters of s u b - d i v i s i o n s a re a l r e a d y c a t e r i n g t o these o c c u p a t i o n a l in-groups and may, as a by-product of t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s , a c t u a l l y c r e a t e \"communities\". These neighborhoods are e n t i r e l y - d i f f e r e n t from those e n v i s i o n e d by Community Planners - they do not mix v a r i o u s groups but separate them out. F i n a l l y , two p e r t i n e n t q u e s t i o n s a r i s i n g from t h i s study should be posed. F i r s t , assuming t h a t \"neighborhoods\" may be planned which f a c i l i t a t e the type of s e g r e g a t i o n t h a t a p p a r e n t l y i s r e q u i r e d t o produce f u n c t i o n i n g \"communities\", are the concomitant problems of group conformity, s o c i a l p r e s s u r e , and maladjustment of i n d i v i d u a l s worthwhile the e f -204 f o r t of a c h i e v i n g \" b e l o n g i n g \" and \" s t a b i l i t y \" f o r the r e s i -dents of these \"neighborhood communities\"? I f we can make a c h o i c e between a f f o r d i n g people a sense of s t a b i l i t y f o r which they w i l l have t o pay by s u b j e c t i n g themselves to group norms, of which some may be h i g h l y u n d e s i r a b l e , or m a i n t a i n i n g the p r e s e n t s t a t e of s o - c a l l e d \"urban anonymity\" which l e a v e s people e n t i r e l y f r e e t o choose and c r e a t e t h e i r own \"communities\" t h a t w i l l not be c o n f i n e d t o l i m i t e d r e s i -d e n t i a l neighborhoods, how should we decide? I n pursuing the present tendency of b u i l d i n g s u b - d i v i s i o n and planned n e i g h -borhoods, are we not c r e a t i n g problems and p r e s s u r e s whose e f f e c t s upon the i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t y cannot yet be measured or f u l l y understood? I f planners t h i n k t h a t t h e r e i s a need f o r m a n i p u l a t i n g the p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l environments of pre-sent and f u t u r e urban communities, and t h a t i t i s t h e i r task t o improve these environments, should they not f i r s t i n q u i r e i n t o the e f f e c t s t h e i r p l a n n i n g may have b e f o r e they assume t h a t whatever Community Pl a n n i n g r e c t i f i e s i n our urban areas can o n l y be an improvement of p r e v a i l i n g c o n d i t i o n s ? Second, should planners f a c i l i t a t e s e g r e g a t i o n of socio-economic groups and o c c u p a t i o n a l in-groups? In other words, should they always \" p l a n w i t h the people\" and p r o v i d e r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods which f a c i l i t a t e s e g r e g a t i o n or should they attempt t o reduce s e g r e g a t i o n I n order t o remove some of the t e n s i o n s and i l l s r e s u l t i n g from v i s u a l s o c i a l 205 c l a s s d i f f e r e n c e s ? Apart from the f a c t t h a t experience has shown t h a t socio-economic groups w i l l continue t o segregate themselves, t h i s does not remove the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y from the Planner t o d e c i d e how he i n t e n d s t o manipulate some of the b a s i c v a l u e s of s o c i e t y i f he has a l r e a d y d e c i d e d t h a t he w i l l manipulate the p h y s i c a l environment, and, conse-q u e n t l y , the s o c i a l environment. Should he be content w i t h making urban l i f e more e f f i c i e n t and more p l e a s a n t or should he be content w i t h a d j u s t i n g some of the more obvious i l l -e f f e c t s of our Western economic system and Western s o c i e t y ? For example, should the Planner accept the f a c t t h a t the \" r u l e s \" of f r e e c o m p e t i t i o n continue determining whether low-income f a m i l i e s have t o l i v e i n l e a s t d e s i r a b l e housing and areas or should he i n t e r f e r e w i t h the f u n c t i o n of the r e a l - e s t a t e market, and, indeed, some of the b a s i c v a l u e s of our s o c i e t y ? Should planners p r e s s f o r a minimum standard of housing f o r a l l members of s o c i e t y , and i f i t i s u n d e s i r -able t o p r o v i d e p u b l i c housing, suggest other ways by which low-income f a m i l i e s may be p l a c e d i n the p o s i t i o n where they can a f f o r d decent housing i n p l e a s a n t areas? I f plan n e r s c o n s i d e r i t t h e i r t a s k t o improve the c o n d i t i o n s under which communities are formed should they not a l s o , a t l e a s t i n t h e i r own minds, d e c i d e what k i n d o f communities they want t o c r e a t e and what type of s o c i a l system and s o c i a l v a l u e s they p l a n t o a l t e r or r e i n f o r c e ? These que s t i o n s cannot be answered without making f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of housing and s o c i a l v a l u e s and, as t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has attempted t o show, these r e l a t i o n s h i p s are important. Housing and r e s i -d e n t i a l areas are not simply means which s a t i s f y f u n c t i o n a l needs but c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f s o c i a l systems and v a l u e s h e l d by a s o c i e t y . While m a n i p u l a t i n g these \" c o n f i g u r a t i o n s \" Planners should bear i n mind t h a t an e f f e c t i v e m a n i p u l a t i o n r e q u i r e s an understanding of the s o c i a l f o r c e s which are a t work and t h a t these f o r c e s and s o c i a l v a l u e s w i l l have t o be a d j u s t e d f i r s t b e f o r e , f o r example, r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y f o r reasons of p r e s t i g e and s t a t u s may be reduced or e l i m i -nated. A P P E N D I X I The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g T h e s i s P r o j e c t I n t e r v i e w schedule ( ) 1. M a r r i e d 2. Year 3 . C h i l d r e n 4. Age(s) 5. When d i d you j o i n BCE? 6. P e r i o d away from Van. (Serv.) 7. When d i d you achieve your f i r s t s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n ? 8. Has your o f f i c e always been a t ? P e r i o d Other P e r i o d ' 9 . Do you mind d i s c l o s i n g your annual s a l a r y ? How much i s your annual s a l a r y ? 10. Beginning w i t h year of marriage c o u l d you g i v e me the addresses of your p a s t r e s i d e n c e s ? 11. During which p e r i o d s d i d you s t a y a t each p l a c e ( g i v e y e a r s ) ? 12. What type of d w e l l i n g were your p r e v i o u s r e s i d e n c e s and what type of d w e l l i n g i s your p r e s e n t r e s i d e n c e ? (room, s u i t e , apt., s i n g l e - d e t . , duplex; 13. How many rooms d i d each d w e l l i n g have i n c l u d i n g your p r e s e n t one? 14. What were the l o t s i z e s i n each case - i n c l u d i n g your p r e s e n t d w e l l i n g ? ( t o be g i v e n o n l y f o r s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d homes -r e n t e d and owned) 15. Did you own or r e n t i n each case - i n c l u d i n g your pres e n t d w e l l i n g ? 16. Given i n round f i g u r e s , how much was the r e n t , b u i l d i n g or purchasing p r i c e f o r each p l a c e - i n c l u d i n g your present one? 10 Address 11 P e r i o d 12 Dw.To. 13 Rs 14 L o t 15 0/R 16 P r i c e 17. What reasons prompted you to move away from ? ( b e g i n -ning w i t h address 1 e t c . ) 18. As you were l o o k i n g f o r a new p l a c e , d i d you i n s p e c t s e v e r a l houses or d i d you take the f i r s t you found because i t s u i t e d you? 19. Where were the p l a c e s l o c a t e d which you i n s p e c t e d - i n one g e n e r a l neighborhood or more or l e s s s c a t t e r e d a l l over town? 20. Why were you p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g a p l a c e i n t h i s (or these) r e s i d e n t i a l areas? 21. What reasons d i d you have f o r s e l e c t i n g the p a r t i c u l a r house? 17 Reasons/Moving 18 i ? 20 S e l e c t . N.hood! 21 Select.House 1 2 3 4 5 6 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 22. Do you i n t e n d to remain a t t h i s p l a c e f o r the next 10-15 years? 23. Which p a r t i c u l a r circumstances may induce you to move to another r e s i d e n c e ? 24. Would you be l o o k i n g f o r a l a r g e r p l a c e ? \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Why? 25. In which p a r t i c u l a r r e s i d e n t i a l area would you make your f u t u r e home? 26. In why ways, do you f e e l , would i t s a t i s f y you to make your f u t u r e home i n t h i s (these) r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods? 27. Do you t h i n k , i n g e n e r a l , t h a t when people a c h i e v e a sub-s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y and a more r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n , t h a t they a) f e e l they have achieved a higher s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? 28. Do people a t BCE i n g e n e r a l f e e l t h a t a person has achieved a higher s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n i f he has achieved a sub-s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e e i t h e r i n s a l a r y and a more r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n ? a) both b) s a l a r y i n c r e a s e c) more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 29. Do you t h i n k t h a t t h i s depends upon a) the p r e v i o u s l e v e l of income and p o s i t i o n ? b) the D i v i s i o n or p r o f e s s i o n a l group person belongs to? 30. I n your case, f o r example, when you achieved,a s u b s t a n t i a l r a i s e i n s a l a r y and/or a more r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n , d i d you f e e l a t any time t h a t you had achieved a higher s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? 31. A f t e r which o c c a s i o n d i d you f e e l t h a t way? 31a. Which year was t h i s ? 32. What about the f u t u r e - do you t h i n k t h a t there i s a pos-s i b i l i t y t h a t you may experience another s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? _ i _ i 33. ( i f NO to 30-32) What p a r t i c u l a r change of circumstance would g i v e you a sense of accomplishment and the f e e l i n g t h a t you have achieved a higher s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? 34. Do you t h i n k , i n g e n e r a l , t h a t when people s e l e c t houses one of the f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e s t h e i r c h o i c e i s the app r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house and the neighborhood f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? 35. D o y\u00C2\u00B0u t h i n k , i n g e n e r a l , people i n BCE co n s i d e r the app r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? _ 36. Would you say th a t more emphasis i s p l a c e d upon the house and neighborhood as a means of ex p r e s s i n g s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n and f o r o b t a i n i n g p r e s t i g e by persons i n c e r t a i n a) D i v i s i o n s b) p r o f e s s i o n a l groups c) income groups 37. For people i n your o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n , g e n e r a l l y , do you t h i n k , that the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house and neighborhood i n view of a person's s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n i s taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n ? .- 38. For people of your o c c u p a t i o n a l group i n BCE, do you f e e l , t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p has some meaning? 39. How important, would you say, i s t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i n i n f l u e n c i n g the c h o i c e of houses and r e s i d e n t i a l areas? 40. Why, do you th i n k , i s i t important (or not important)? 41. I n your case, f o r example, when you are s e l e c t i n g a new p l a c e to l i v e , do you co n s i d e r a t a l l how a p p r o p r i a t e the house i s f o r a person i n your s o c i a l p o s i t i o n ? 42. What about the neighborhood - do you c o n s i d e r whether i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e ? 43. I n what ways, would you say, do these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a f f e c t your c h o i c e of a) the house b) the neighborhood 44. ( i f NO to 38-43) What p a r t i c u l a r f e a t u r e s about a house and a r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhood, would you t h i n k , are c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a person i n your s o c i a l p o s i t i o n ? a) house b) neighborhood 45. Do you t h i n k , t h a t the type of house and type of neighbor-hood r e f l e c t s anything about the person h i m s e l f ? 46. I n what ways? a) house b) neighborhood 47. Do you t h i n k , t h a t people i n BCE tend to use type of r e s i d e n c e and neighborhood as a f a c t o r f o r e v a l u a t i n g a person? . 48. I f somebody buys an expensive home which c o n s i d e r i n g a l l the p o s s i b l e circumstances he r e a l l y could not a f f o r d a c c o r d i n g to h i s income, what would you f e e l about him, and what motives, do you t h i n k , might he have? 49. Now, i f somebody l i v e s i n an environment which i s below the standard which he could a f f o r d a c c o r d i n g to h i s income and p o s i t i o n what would you t h i n k of him, and what motives might he have? : _____ 50. I f you would l i v e i n what you co n s i d e r a poor r e s i d e n t i a l a rea, do you t h i n k , i t might a f f e c t your progress i n BCE a t a l l ? \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 51. I n what ways, do you t h i n k , might i t a f f e c t your progress and your r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h others i n the company? 52. Would you sav t h a t your p a s t c h o i c e s of r e s i d e n c e s (or some of them; were i n f l u e n c e d by some of these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t a choice may have upon your promotion and r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the company? 53. How about f u t u r e c h oices? 54. Now, would you p l e a s e s e l e c t from among the areas shown on this,map f i v e areas each which you co n s i d e r a) h i g h s t a t u s r e s i d e n t i a l areas b) middle 11 \" \" c) low \" \" \u00C2\u00AB 55. Now, c o n s i d e r i n g a l l persons w i t h whom you a s s o c i a t e f r e q u e n t l y i n your and t h e i r home, where would you say have (1) you and (2) your w i f e made the most f r i e n d s ? (1) Husband (2) Wife a) i n the neighborhood b) through the Company c) i n c l u b s , a s c . e t c . d) otherwise ( u n i v e r s i t y e t c . ) 56. Are some of your c l u b , a s s o c i a t i o n , company or 'other' f r i e n d s a l s o neighbors? ; 57. Are most of your and your w i f e ' s f r i e n d s l i v i n g i n your g e n e r a l neighborhood of between 4 - 6 b l o c k s d i s t a n c e i n each d i r e c t i o n ? 58. Have yourever d e f e r r e d your d e c i s i o n to move away from a neighborhood because you d i d not wish d i s r u p t i n g your or your f a m i l y ' s neighborhood t i e s ( f r i e n d s , s c h o o l , church, a s s o c i a t i o n s , e t c . ) ? ; 59. Would you now co n s i d e r neighborhood f r i e n d s h i p s important enough to s t a y i n the same r e s i d e n c e or w i t h i n the n e i g h -borhood? ; 60. Do you g e n e r a l l y m a i n t a i n your former neighborhood f r i e n d -s h i p s a f t e r you have moved i n t o another area? ' 61. What reasons, do you t h i n k , may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r (a) d i s c o n t i n u i n g or (b) m a i n t a i n i n g former neighborhood f r i e n d s h i p s ? a) b) __ 62. Have you ever moved or do you co n s i d e r moving i n t o an area because your f r i e n d s , c o l l e a g u e s , or r e l a t i v e s a r e l i v i n g there? 63. Are you anxious to make new f r i e n d s i n your neighborhood, or do you r e l y mainly upon your o l d f r i e n d s ? 64. R e c o n s i d e r i n g a l l your p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s i n s e l e c t i n g a c e r t a i n d w e l l i n g i n a p a r t i c u l a r neighborhood which of the f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s had the most i n f l u e n c e upon your d e c i s i o n ? C o n s i d e r i n g your moving i n t e n t i o n s which of these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s would be i n f l u e n t i a l i n making a d e c i s i o n i n the f u t u r e ? - P l e a s e , s e l e c t i n order of importance by p l a c i n g (1) ,(2) e t c . behind the r e s p e c t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . In the past I n the f u t u r e a) l o c a t i o n of d w e l l i n g w i t h r e s p e c t to work and/or downtown g e n e r a l l y ? b) l o c a t i o n of d w e l l i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o nearness to f r i e n d s , c o l l e a g u e s and/or r e l a t i v e s ? c) s u i t a b i l i t y of house and neighbor-hood to s a t i s f y the f u n c t i o n a l needs of the f a m i l y ? d) m a i n t a i n i n g reasonable balance between housing c o s t s and expenses f o r household, education, c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s , t r a v e l l i n g and other valued a c t i v i t i e s ? e) a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the house and neighborhood i n view of ones s o c i a l s t a t u s p o s i t i o n ? f ) s p e c i f y other A P P E N D I X I I Methods f o r Determining a Status H i e r a r c h y of R e s i d e n t i a l Areas METHODS FOR DETERMINING A STATUS HIERARCHY OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS S e v e r a l methods were I n v e s t i g a t e d which could be employed f o r the purpose of ra n k i n g r e s i d e n t i a l areas a c c o r d i n g to s t a t u s and p r e s t i g e which these areas may have i n the eyes of the com-munity and which they may impart upon and d e r i v e from t h e i r i n h a b i t a n t s . The I n s p e c t i o n Method 1 The i n s p e c t i o n method i n v o l v e s the est a b l i s h m e n t of a c r i t e r i a of o v e r t housing and neighborhood c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s c r i t e r i a by a c t u a l i n s p e c t i o n of a r e a s . The c r i t e r i a adopted c o n s i s t e d of the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i o n - i t e m s each of which was judged on a p o i n t - s c a l e . a) Age of b u i l d i n g . b) S i z e of b u i l d i n g . c) S t y l e of b u i l d i n g . d) S p e c i a l f e a t u r e s of the b u i l d i n g , i e . p i c t u r e window, porch m a t e r i a l s . e) S i z e of l o t . f ) E x t e n t and c h a r a c t e r of l a n d s c a p i n g . \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 g) S p e c i a l l o t f e a t u r e s , i e . driveway, p o o l , t r e e s , lawns, stone w a l l s e t c . h) L o c a t i o n of the l o t and house wi t h r e s p e c t to other l o t s , houses and s t r e e t . Map 1 drawn a f t e r a sketch prepared by P r o f e s s o r G r i f f i t h T a y l o r i s i n c l u d e d as an example of what i s assumed to be a use of a type of \" I n s p e c t i o n Method\". G. T a y l o r , Urban Geography. London, Methuen and Co. L t d . , 194-9. i ) G eneral appearance and c o n d i t i o n of the neighborhood. j ) D i s t a n c e to s c h o o l s , shops, i n s t i t u t i o n s , i n d u s t r i e s , parks, main roads and t r a n s i t system, k) D i s t a n c e to known p r e s t i g e a r e a s . These c r i t e r i a were to be a p p l i e d to the r e s i d e n c e of each respondent. The i d e a was t h a t one person can m a i n t a i n a c e r t a i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n making s u b j e c t i v e judgements and produce a s c a l e of s t a t u s areas whose v a l i d i t y c ould be questioned on the b a s i s of the a p p l i e d c r i t e r i a but which would be c o n s i s t e n t as a rank system. The s c a l e a c t u a l l y was a p p l i e d to s e v e r a l r e s i d e n c e s but found i m p r a c t i c a l f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: 1. The e n t i r e s c a l e was based upon s u b j e c t i v e judgement. S u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n makes sense i f the i n v e s t i g a t o r i s s u f -f i c i e n t l y f a m i l i a r w i t h the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e of the community, i s aware of the v a r i o u s f e a t u r e s which are used by d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups as s t a t u s symbols and has adequate knowledge of the h i s t o r i c a l development of r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . 2. The c r i t e r i a i t s e l f were not adequate to b r i n g out c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s i f t h e i r combination w i t h other f e a t u r e s v a r i e d i n c o n s i s t e n t l y . For example, the age of a b u i l d i n g may be an a s s e t r a t h e r than a d e t e r r e n t i f i t occurs i n combination w i t h c e r t a i n other f e a t u r e s . However, i n order to assure o b j e c t i v i t y , each item had to be judged on i t s own m e r i t s , consequently, v a r i o u s combinations of f e a t u r e s tended to produce s i m i l a r t o t a l v a l u e s . However i t was f e l t , t h a t some houses and areas should have a l e s s e r p r e s t i g e value or would have a t t r a c t i o n o n l y f o r a p a r t i c u l a r group of s o c i e t y . Consequently, t h i s comparative method which r e q u i r e d t h a t a l l f e a t u r e s had to be taken out of t h e i r context, made the method i m p r a c t i c a l . The Assessment Value Method 2 I n order to f i n d a method which would e l i m i n a t e sub-j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n and would r e f l e c t the presen t a t t i t u d e of the community to the v a r i o u s r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , an attempt was made to use assessment values as a b a s i s f o r r a n k i n g r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Although lan d assessment i s based upon 60% of the a c t u a l market v a l u e of l o t s i n the C i t y of Vancouver, a c e r t a i n u n i -f o r m i t y of values a t t h i s l e v e l would permit comparison of r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . While land improvement val u e s v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y w i t h each improvement, i t was f e l t t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o f improvements to land values would be f a i r l y constant i n the v a r i o u s r e s i d e n t i a l areas which were not i n f l u e n c e d by changing lan d uses. Furthermore, i t was assumed t h a t the f a i r market p r i c e upon which lan d assessment i s based would be a good r e f l e c t i o n of the va l u e which a p a r t i c u l a r community p l a c e s upon a l l r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . The assessment v a l u e s , t h e r e f o r e , would r e f l e c t a l l the p o s s i b l e combinations of f e a t u r e s which determine the value of an area as a neighborhood and which i t was d i f f i c u l t to determine by i n s p e c t i o n . The a v a i l a b l e assessment data i s i n the form of f o o t -See Map 2 f r o n t a g e v a l u e s . The assessment of a l l l o t s i n one b l o c k f a c i n g one s t r e e t i s determined on the b a s i s of a uniform f o o t - f r o n t a g e v a l u e f o r t h a t p o r t i o n of the b l o c k . I f the f o o t - f r o n t a g e v a l u e f o r one s i d e of the b l o c k i s s e t a t $ 3 0 . - and each l o t has a 40' f r o n t a g e and a uniform depth of 120', each l o t i s a s s e s s e d a t a value of 30 x 40 = $1,200.0. Adjustments are made i f the l o t s a re of i r r e g u l a r shape, a r e not served by a back lane or i f a d j a c e n t l a n d uses i n f l u e n c e the p o s s i b l e v a l u e of a l o t . The average f o o t - f r o n t a g e values are determined on the b a s i s of a l l the l o t s a l e s which have taken p l a c e i n the area during the p r e v i o u s two y e a r s . An average market value i s determined which i s assessed a t 60$ and d i v i d e d by the average l o t f r o n t a g e of l o t s found i n each h a l f of a b l o c k . Assessment values are a d j u s t e d on the average every two years and i f s u f f i c i e n t s a l e s r e c o r d s are a v a i l a b l e to assure a f a i r r e - a s s e s s -ment. I f no or o n l y a few s a l e s have taken p l a c e i n an area and i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r the a s s e s s o r to e s t a b l i s h the f a i r market p r i c e of l o t s i n a p a r t i c u l a r area, the assessment may remain constant f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d . T h e r e f o r e , the assessment values of these areas u s u a l l y l a g c o n s i d e r a b l y behind the f a i r average f o r a l l a r e a s . F o r the purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g a h i e r a r c h y of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u s areas, the Assessment Method presented the f o l l o w i n g l i m i t a t i o n s . 1. Assessment procedure was based upon f o o t f r o n t a g e values per i n d i v i d u a l b l o c k . T h i s means, t h a t values have to be averaged f o r l a r g e r areas i n order to permit meaningful comparison. 2. Foot f r o n t a g e values i n d i c a t e the demand which e x i s t s f o r c e r t a i n l o t s i z e s i n c e r t a i n a r e a s , but not a b s o l u t e and comparative l a n d v a l u e s . For example, a c o n s i d e r a b l e demand may a r i s e f o r 28' l o t s because an i n d u s t r y has a t t r a c t e d a l a r g e number of low-income f a m i l i e s . The sudden demand w i l l r a i s e the average p r i c e of 28' l o t s above t h e i r u s u a l value and t h e r e f o r e , f o o t f r o n t a g e assessment values w i l l be e q u a l l y i n f l a t e d and appear c o n s i d e r a b l y higher than v a l u e s i n other areas f o r l a r g e r l o t s . The p r i c e of the l o t may be h i g h f o r the low-income group; however, compared w i t h the p r i c e f o r l a r g e r l o t s i n other a r e a s , i t may be very s m a l l . I n order to make f o o t - f r o n t a g e v a l u e s meaningful f o r comparing a r e a s , they would have t o be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a c t u a l l o t v a l u e s , because socio-economic groups d i f f e r i n terms of the s i z e and va l u e of a l o t which they can a f f o r d i n a c e r t a i n a r e a . Two e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t income groups may be a b l e to a f f o r d the same s i z e of l o t s i f these l o t s a re s i t u a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t a r e a s . 3. Assessment val u e s are not r e a d j u s t e d each year nor a t the same time i n each area of a c i t y . U s u a l l y , one area l a g s one to two years behind another a r e a . S i n c e assessment values may r i s e on an average by $5.- per f o o t f r o n t a g e v a l u e , the time l a g may i n t r o d u c e a c o n s i d e r a b l e b i a s to the e n t i r e comparative method. 4. Foot f r o n t a g e values are r e a d j u s t e d i f s u f f i c i e n t number of s a l e s r e c o r d s are a v a i l a b l e f o r the p r e v i o u s two y e a r s . I f i t i s not p o s s i b l e to determine the f a i r market p r i c e f o r l o t s i n an area, re-assessment may l a g c o n s i d e r a b l y behind the p o s s i b l e market v a l u e . T h e r e f o r e , v e r y s t a b l e areas enjoy comparatively low assessment. 5. Assessment of mixed r e s i d e n t i a l - c o m m e r c i a l areas i s p a r t i c u l a r l y h i g h thereby c o n t r i b u t i n g to the g e n e r a l c o n f u s i o n . 6. An attempt was made to f i n d average l o t s i z e s f o r v a r i o u s areas and to determine the a c t u a l values of l o t s i n the v a r i o u s a r e a s . However, i n s p i t e of the g r i d s t r e e t p a t t e r n , l o t s i z e s d i f f e r c o n s i d e r a b l y and the method was found i m p r a c t i c a l . The Census Data Method^ A f t e r i n s p e c t i o n of o v e r t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and use of assessment val u e s had f a i l e d to y i e l d an o b j e c t i v e comparative method by which r e s i d e n t i a l areas c o u l d be ranked i n terms of a s t a t u s h i e r a r c h y , Canada Census data was i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r the purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g a s u i t a b l e c r i t e r i a . Because the 1956 census d i d not enumerate a g r e a t v a r i e t y of p o p u l a t i o n and housing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by census t r a c t s , the 1951 census had to be r e s o r t e d t o . Of the a v a i l a b l e data the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s were s e l e c t e d to e s t a b l i s h a c r i t e r i a : See Map 3. 1. Median Income of the F a m i l y Head Wage Earner . Although median income f o r male and female wage earner are a v a i l a b l e , i t was f e l t t h a t the f a m i l y head's income i s the important one i n determining the socio-economic s t a t u s of the f a m i l y . Furthermore, type of housing and neighborhood i s s e l e c t e d i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the f a m i l y head's income r a t h e r than i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the combined income of a l l f a m i l y wage e a r n e r s . The income of other f a m i l y members may not be s t a b l e f o r v a r i o u s reasons and t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n u s u a l l y i s o n l y a v a i l a b l e f o r a l i m i t e d p e r i o d . However, a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of married women , may be wage earners i n the lower economic groups, t h i s p o s s i b l e b i a s had to be accepted. 2. Number of Males and Females earning more than $4,000 per Year. An area w i t h a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of persons earning more than the m a j o r i t y of the wage earning p o p u l a t i o n u s u a l l y has p a r t i c u l a r a t t r a c t i o n s which can be a f f o r d e d by t h i s group. However, a p a r t from the g e n e r a l socio-economic d i f f e r e n c e s these persons may have s t a t u t e i n the d i f f e r e n t groups of t h e i r c l a s s and t h e r e f o r e a t t r a c t c e r t a i n groups i n t o d i f f e r e n t a r e a s . The a p p r e c i a t i o n of an area may be determined by the k i n d of people of a c e r t a i n economic group l i v i n g t h e r e r a t h e r than\"1 by t h e i r number. Although these d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d not be assessed, to i n c l u d e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i a a t l e a s t would emphasize s e l e c t e d group i n f l u e n c e over average f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y of the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n i n an a r e a . 3. Number of Male P r o f e s s i o n a l s . T h i s c r i t e r i o n was s e l e c t e d to emphasize q u a l i t y of i n h a b i t a n t s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to average income. Average income may be h i g h f o r an area w i t h a very homogeneous socio-economic group while i n another area d e v i a t i o n of wage earnings may be c o n s i d e r a b l e although independent income and q u a l i t y of a s m a l l high income group a c t u a l l y imparts s t a t u s to the e n t i r e a r e a . I n an area w i t h a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of wage earning s e r v a n t s , the average income f i g u r e may be determined by the\u00E2\u0080\u00A2servants r a t h e r than by the p r o p r i e t o r s who may have independent means. However, i t was not p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n f i g u r e s on independent income, number of self-employed and number of other h i g h - q u a l i t y groups other than managers which may i n c l u d e managers of apartment houses. 4. Number of Persons of B r i t i s h O r i g i n . Because the Census does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between Canadians and immigrants, persons of B r i t i s h o r i g i n as compared to persons of n o n - B r i t i s h o r i g i n had to be used as c r i t e r i a . T his c r i t e r i a i s considered v a l u a b l e because i t separates areas i n h a b i t e d by lower economic groups from areas i n h a b i t e d by lower economic f o r e i g n groups. The l a t t e r u s u a l l y have a lower s t a t u s because r a c i a l and e t h n i c o r i g i n , e d u c a t i o n and a b i l i t y to speak the language, d i f f e r e n t customs and a t t i t u d e s , type of employment f o l l o w e d and standards of l i v i n g , c l e a n l i n e s s and morals are p e r c e i v e d as d i f f e r e n t and more d i s t a n t than those of the n a t i v e lower economic group. T h e r e f o r e , a hi g h concen-t r a t i o n of f o r e i g n e r s i n an area i n d i c a t e s cheap housing and g e n e r a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e l o c a t i o n . I n case of the U n i v e r s i t y area t h i s c r i t e r i o n b a c k f i r e s , because here the f o r e i g n element may be an a t t r a c t i o n r a t h e r than a detriment. 5. Number of Divorcees and compared to Number of M a r r i e d People. T h i s c r i t e r i o n d i s t i n g u i s h e s between those areas which are predominantly occupied by f a m i l i e s and those w i t h a high p r o p o r t i o n o f unattached and d i v o r c e d persons. S i n c e unattached and d i v o r c e d persons a r e u s u a l l y a t t r a c t e d to areas which have a high p r o p o r t i o n of boarding and apartment houses, are s i t u a t e d c l o s e to downtown, i n d u s t r i a l areas and l a r g e i n s t i t u t i o n s , these areas u s u a l l y have l e s s s t a t u s i n the eyes of the community \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i f the m a j o r i t y of the p o p u l a t i o n r e s i d e s i n s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l areas as i s the case i n Vancouver. 6. Number of Rooms per D w e l l i n g . Number of rooms per d w e l l i n g d i s t i n g u i s h e s between s i n g l e - f a m i l y d i s t r i c t s and apartment and converted s i n g l e - f a m i l y house d i s t r i c t s . Furthermore,- i t d i s t i n g u i s h e s between high, middle and low c l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l areas i f the assumption i s c o r r e c t t hat income r a t h e r than f a m i l y s i z e determines the s i z e of house. Although t h i s assumption i s proven by t h i s i n v e s t i -g a t i o n , two f a c t o r s d i s t o r t i t s v a l i d i t y . F i r s t , middle and high income f a m i l i e s tend t o have g r e a t e r f a m i l i e s than used t o be the case, consequently, l a r g e houses may serve a f u n c t i o n a l need r a t h e r than a s t a t u s need. Second, although b u i l d i n g c o s t s are s i m i l a r i n a m e t r o p o l i t a n area, l o t p r i c e s and taxes a r e cheaper i n the o u t l y i n g d i s t r i c t s , t h e r e f o r e , low income groups may a f f o r d to b u i l d l a r g e r houses i n these d i s t r i c t s than they could i n c e n t r a l a r e a s . 7. Number of Persons per Room. Th i s c r i t e r i o n has the same va l u e and l i m i t a t i o n as the above; however, i t emphasizes d i f f e r e n t housing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For example, t h i s c r i t e r i o n tends to b r i n g out s i n g l e - f a m i l y areas which are i n h a b i t e d by a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of o l d people and c h i l d l e s s couples. G e n e r a l l y speaking, these are q u i e t neighborhoods w i t h a good r e p u t a t i o n . The data f o r each c r i t e r i o n was arranged i n t o t e n c a t e g o r i e s . I n each case the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e was a p p l i e d to determine the ranking of r e s i d e n t i a l areas from Upper Upper to Lower Lower statuss 1. Median Income of the F a m i l y Head Wage Earner . Upper upper - $ 3,899 - $ 3,700 Value: 10 Lower lower. - $ 2,099 - I 1,900 Value: 1 Each value was g i v e n a weight of 2, t h a t i s m u l t i p l i e d by 2, as the value s of a l l c r i t e r i a were added to determine the f i n a l v a l u e of a census t r a c t i n terms of s t a t u s . 2. Number of Males and Females earning more than I 4,000 per Year. Upper upper - 9 9 - 9 0 persons per 1,000 pop. Value: 10 Lower lower - 9 - 0 persons per 1,000 pop. Value: 1 Each v a l u e was g i v e n a weight of 3\u00C2\u00BB 3. Number.of Male P r o f e s s i o n a l s . Upper upper - 259 - 234 persons per 1,000 pop. Value: 10 Lower lower - 25 - 0 persons per 1,000 pop. Value: 1 Each value was g i v e n a weight of 1. 4. Number of Persons of B r i t i s h O r i g i n . Upper upper - 91$ - 84$ of p o p u l a t i o n i n the census t r a c t Value: 10 Lower lower - 27$ - 21$ of p o p u l a t i o n i n the census t r a c t Value: 1 Each value was g i v e n a weight of 1. 5. Number of Divorcees as compared to Number of M a r r i e d People. Upper upper - 310 - 280 married people f o r one d i v o r c e e . Value: 10 Lower lower - 2 9 - 0 married people f o r one d i v o r c e e . Value: 1 Each value was g i v e n a weight of 1. 6. Number of Rooms per D w e l l i n g . Upper upper - 6 . 5 - 6 . 3 rooms per d w e l l i n g . Value: 10 Lower lower - 3\u00C2\u00BB8 - 3-6 rooms per d w e l l i n g . Value: 1 Each value was g i v e n a weight of 3-7. Number of Persons per Room. Upper upper - 0.9 persons per Room. Value: 9 Lower lower - 0.5 persons per Room. Value: 1 Each value was g i v e n a weight of 2. On the unweighted s c a l e Census T r a c t 38 ( U n i v e r s i t y ) obtained the h i g h e s t score w i t h 50 p o i n t s , w h i l e Census T r a c t 6 (China-town) obtained the lowest score of 6 p o i n t s . On the weighted s c a l e Census T r a c t s 38 ( U n i v e r s i t y ) and 31 (West.portion of S. W. Marine D r i v e ) achieved the h i g h e s t score of 96 p o i n t s each, w h i l e Census T r a c t 6 (Chinatown) obtained the lowest score of 12 p o i n t s . Although the e n t i r e method t e c h n i c a l l y i s crude and prob a b l y i n a c c u r a t e from a s t a t i s t i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l p o i n t of view, i t s added l i m i t a t i o n s are the f o l l o w i n g : S e l e c t i o n and weighting of c r i t e r i a was e n t i r e l y s u b j e c t i v e and not based upon s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s or p r e v i o u s methods of t h i s k i n d . The data was r e s t r i c t e d to p o p u l a t i o n and housing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as they e x i s t e d i n 1951. S i n c e then c o n s i d e r a b l e development has taken p l a c e i n o u t l y i n g areas w h i l e c e n t r a l areas have changed t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t s on account of a l a r g e i n f l u x of immigrant p o p u l a t i o n , expansion of i n d u s t r i a l and commercial establishments and the changing wage, p r i c e and f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e s . I n many cases the census t r a c t s are too l a r g e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e a c c u r a t e l y between hi g h and low c l a s s a r e a s . On the other hand i t was found t h a t popular o p i n i o n does not change i t s a t t i t u d e to areas as q u i c k l y as these areas may change t h e i r c h a r a c t e r and t h e r e f o r e a f a i r l y h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between t h i s h i e r a r c h y and the one e s t a b l i s h e d on the b a s i s of popular o p i n i o n could be e s t a b l i s h e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the very good and ve r y bad a r e a s . IrVOSX MRP OF RE Si p E NT IR L BRERS METP.0POLITRN RRER OF YA tVC ouytR eez/iui macTt , CHA/AOD census '9t/ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00C2\u00A3wa 3,vistov of census T^HCT* STATUS OF AREAS on thz 6031s of Foot F>os>tag* Assessment Vbfttas /957^ /9S3 Source : Assessment Dept. City of foncouver $40\u00E2\u0080\u0094$35 First O ass $34 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 $29 Second Class $28 \u00E2\u0080\u0094$23 Third Cfoss $22\u00E2\u0080\u0094$17 Fourth Class $16 \u00E2\u0080\u0094$11 Fifth Class 1NDSX MRP OF RESIDENTIAL RREftS M9TR0POLITR N RRBft OF VANCOUVER census TRACT* , <:4#\u00C2\u00A3># Cg.VSUS S9S/ 3, V! iiO/V a* C\u00E2\u0082\u00AC/^iUS STATUS OF AREAS on the \u00C2\u00A3>trs/s of &\u00C2\u00A3rr?ogr/-cr/ohsc ctrya/ /-/ocss/ncy ChararcTkr-rsf/cs, Source; Ca>s?ara/a Cstss /S5f% A P P E N D I X I I I St a t u s H i e r a r c h y of R e s i d e n t i a l Areas i n the Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n Area STATUS HIERARCHY OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THE VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA (based upon a survey of o p i n i o n among 39 persons i n Middle Management p o s i t i o n s ) The method of determining t h i s \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" i s d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i n P a r t Three, Chapter I I , S e c t i o n \"Methods based on the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" . However, f o r a b e t t e r under-standing of the accompanying map, the f o l l o w i n g should be noted. The breakdown of the M e t r o p o l i t a n Area i n t o \" r e s i d e n t i a l a r e as\" i s based upon Canada Census 1951, Census T r a c t s . Because c e r t a i n a r e a s , e.g. West Vancouver, North Vancouver D i s t r i c t , were too l a r g e f o r meaningful d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between r e s i d e n t i a l areas, and because some areas, e.g. 22, 23, 32, 34, 4-7, i n c l u d e d one or two r e s i d e n t i a l areas w i t h d i f f e r e n t socio-economic p o p u l a t i o n s or w i t h d i f f e r e n t types and ages of houses, these areas were f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d . Areas separated by a broken l i n e r e p r e s e n t such s u b d i v i s i o n s . The b l a c k d i g i t s g i v e the number of the Census T r a c t or i t s s u b d i v i s i o n . Small t r a c t s are sub-d i v i d e d i n t o A, B, and C d i v i s i o n s . As was e x p l a i n e d i n P a r t Three, Chapter I I , the \"Status H i e r a r c h y \" was broken down i n t o Upper, Middle, and Lower C l a s s r e s i d e n t i a l areas f o r d e s c r i p t i v e purposes and on the b a s i s of \" s t a t u s V a l u e s \" . The red and blue areas are a l s o the \" B e t t e r R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\" w i t h \" s t a t u s v a l u e s \" ranging from 1 - 27. These \" s t a t u s v a l u e s \" are p l a c e d i n green d i g i t s below the Census T r a c t number. The \" s t a t u s v a l u e s \" of a l l other areas (28 - 74) are p l a c e d i n r e d d i g i t s below the Census T r a c t number. 5y 52. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2/// 5\"-?/ 5bf, 53/ 121 6o/, j 6/4/ 62/ 57 ( '33 61a, INDEX MRP o<= RESIPEHTIRL fi RE RS M \u00C2\u00A3 TRO POLI TR N RRBR OF VRf/COUytR B STATUS H/ER.AR.CHY ef rfestdantiaf Areas based upor? Ojo/nton S Ifi/- BETWEE/V F/ RS T XffDEX MRP Rest PENTIRL RRERS MSTP.OPOLITR /V RRER OF YfitVCOUyeR ce/mj> THHCTI . cnn//>on ce,vsus <9s/ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 f j | JtViS/OV Ce/ViUS 719ACT1 MOVE5 To PRESENT RESIDENCE IrV STRTUS HREPlS 18-21 STRTUS RRFP5 1 I ~ I 18-27 1 28-44 45- 74 R E5 I DatVCE. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 PRESENT O LRST BEFORE PRBS. \u00C2\u00A7 IN-BETWEEN O FIRST 51 5Z INDEX Mflf> a? RESIPENTIRL ffRERS METROPOLITR N RRER OF YfitfCOuy\u00C2\u00A3R CeMSU* TRACT* , ClAtXOA C\u00C2\u00A3,U3(JS ''9 5/ S w a J,- vi now <*e C\u00C2\u00A3/ysu s T&QCT* MOV\u00C2\u00A35 TO PRESENT RESIDENCE IN \u00C2\u00A3>TR TU5 RRERS 18-21 pa** RESIDE A/CE PRESENT LRST BEFORE PRES. LN-BE TWEEM FIRST 51 5-Z 53 55 6t\u00C2\u00BB 61a 62 { f ) 63 INDEX MRP o* RESl pENTIRL BRERS METROPOLITR N RRER OF VR/VCOl/yER cevsu* TRHCTi , ClArAQH C\u00C2\u00A3.V5US- '95/ MOVE5 TO PRESENT RESIDENCE IN STP TU5APERS 18-44 5TQTU$ Fl PER5 \ 1 - 11 0 9 18 -2.7 o 1 28 & 1 45 -74 PES I D\u00C2\u00A3 A/C\u00C2\u00A3 P0E.5E/VT itfr seroffa P?ES. TA/- BETWEEN FIRST 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bendix, Reinhard, and M. L. Seymour. C l a s s , S t a t u s and Pov/er. Glencoe, 111.: The Free P r e s s , 195T. Boucheau, F. G., and C. V. K i s e r . Postwar Problems of M i g r a t i o n . New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1947. Centers, R. The Psychology of S o c i a l C l a s s e s . P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1949. Dewey, R. \"The Neighborhood, Urban Ecology and C i t y P l a n n e r s \" . P. K. H a t t and A. J . R e i s s , (ed.) C i t i e s and Society.. Glencoe, 111.: The Free P r e s s , 19%T, Duncan, 0. D., and B. Duncan. \" R e s i d e n t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n and O c c u p a t i o n a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n \" . P. K. H a t t and A. J . R e i s s , ( e d . ) , C i t i e s and S o c i e t i e s . Glencoe, 111.: The Free P r e s s , 1951. F i r e y , Walter. Land Use i n C e n t r a l Boston. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1947. Gorer, G e o f f r y . The American People. London: The C r e s s e t P r e s s , 1948. Hatt, P a u l K., and A. J . R e i s s . (ed.) C i t i e s and S o c i e t y . Glencoe, 111.: The Free P r e s s , 195TI McKenzie, R. D. The Neighborhood: A Study of L o c a l L i f e i n the C i t y of Columbus, Ohio. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1923. Mayer, Kurt B. C l a s s and S o c i e t y , New York: Random House, 1953* Mead, Margaret. And Keep Your Powder Dry. New York: W i l l i a m Mowrer and Co., 1943. Moore, W. E. I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s and the S o c i a l Order. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1946. N i l e s , M. Cushing. Middle Management, The Job of the J u n i o r E x e c u t i v e s , New York: Harper and Bros. L t d . , 1941. Orlans, H. U t o p i a , L t d . New Haven: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1953. Park, R. E., E. W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie. The C i t y . Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1953. P e r r y , Clarence A. Housing f o r the Machine Age. New York: R u s s e l Sage Foundation, 1939. 212 Pe r r y , Clarence A. \"The L o c a l Community as a U n i t i n the Pl a n n i n g of Urban R e s i d e n t i a l Areas\", E. W. Burgess (ed.) The Urban Community. Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1925. Quinn, J . Q. (ed.) Human Ecolo g y . Summary of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y S t u d i e s . New York: P r e n t i c e H a l l , Inc., 1950. R o s s i , Peter H. Why F a m i l i e s Move. A study i n the s o c i a l psychology of urban r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . Glencoe, 111.: The Free P r e s s , 1955. S h e r r i f , M. The Psychology of the S o c i a l Norm. New York: Harper and B r o t h e r s , L t d . Stagner,.;Ross. Psychology of P e r s o n a l i t y . Second e d i t i o n . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1948. W i l l i a m s J r . , R. M. American S o c i e t y . New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1954. White J r . , W i l l i a m H. The O r g a n i z a t i o n Man. Doubleday Anchor Books. Garden C i t y , N. Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc. P e r i o d i c a l s A l b i g , W. \"The M o b i l i t y of Urban P o p u l a t i o n , \" S o c i a l F o r c e s . V o l . 11, 1933. Bauer, C a t h e r i n e . \" S o c i a l Questions i n Housing and Community P l a n n i n g , \" S o c i a l F o r c e s . V o l . 24, 1946. B e l l , W. and Boat, M. D. \"Urban Neighborhoods and I n f o r m a l S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s , \" American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y . V o l . 62, (1956-57), P. 391. Caplow, Th. \"Incidence and D i r e c t i o n of R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y i n a M i n n e a p o l i s Sample,\" S o c i a l F o r c e s , V o l . 27, (May 1949), No. 4. Form, H. \u00C2\u00A5/., and G. P. Stone. \"Urbanism, Anonymity and St a t u s Symbols,\" American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , V o l . 62, (1956-57), pp. 504-14. Gibbard, H. A. \"The Status F a c t o r i n R e s i d e n t i a l S u c c e s s i o n , \" American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , V o l . 46, (May 1941), No. 6. G o l d s t e i n , S. G. \"Repeated M i g r a t i o n as a F a c t o r i n High M o b i l i t y Rates,\" American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 19, (Oct. 1954), pp. 536-541. ; 213 K i l b o u r n , Ch., and M. L a n t i s , \"Elements of Tennant I n s t a b i l i t y i n a War Housing P r o j e c t , \" American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. V o l . 11, (Feb. 194-6), No. 1. Lambert, R. D. \"Methods of Measuring Intra-Urban P o p u l a t i o n Movements,\" S o c i a l F o r c e s . V o l . 27, (March 1949). L i v e l y , C. E. \" S p a t i a l and O c c u p a t i o n a l Changes of P a r t i c u l a r S i g n i f i c a n c e to the Student of P o p u l a t i o n M o b i l i t y , \" S o c i a l F o r c e s . V o l . 17, (March 1937), No. 15. McClenahan, B. A. \" S o c i a l Causes of D e c l i n e of Neighborhoods,\" S o c i a l F o r c e s . V o l . 20, (May 1942). Nelson, N. Foote, \" S o c i a l M o b i l i t y and Economic Advancement,\" The American Economic Review, (May 1953)\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Schroeder, C l . W. \"Mental D i s o r d e r i n C i t i e s . \" American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , V o l . 48, ( J u l y 1942), No. 1. T i e t z e , Chr., P. Lemkau, and M. Cooper. \" P e r s o n a l i t y D i s o r d e r and S p a t i a l M o b i l i t y , \" American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , V o l . 48, ( J u l y 1942). Whitney, V. H., and Ch. M. G r i g g . \" M o b i l i t y among Students' F a m i l i e s , \" American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 23, (Dec. 1958) No. 6. Other p u b l i c a t i o n s Branch, M. C. \"Urban P l a n n i n g and P u b l i c Opinion,\" N a t i o n a l Survey Research I n v e s t i g a t i o n . The Bureau of Urban Research, P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y : The P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Sept. 1942. Bureau of Census, U.S.A. M o b i l i t y of the P o p u l a t i o n of the United S t a t e s , A p r i l 56 - A p r i l 51s Current P o p u l a t i o n Reports. S e r i e s P-20, No. 61, October 1957. Dean, J . P. Housing Design and S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s . Research Conference of the S o c i a l S c i e n c e Research C o u n c i l . Com-mit t e e on Housing Research. Ann Arbor, Mich., May 24 - 26, 1951. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Canadian F a c t s , L t d . TIME Ma g a z i n e A d v e r t i s i n g P u b l i c a t i o n . Time I n t e r n a t i o n a l of Canada, L t d . (March 195^,). McKenzie. \"Human Ecology,\" E n c y c l o p e d i a of the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , p. 314. Mowrer, E. R. \"Family D i s o r g a n i z a t i o n and M o b i l i t y , \" American S o c i o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y P u b l i c a t i o n s . V o l . 22, 1929. No. 23. 214 S t e i n e r , J . F. \"An A p p r a i s a l of the Community Movement,\" American S o c i o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y P u b l i c a t i o n s . V o l . 23, 1928. Wallace, Anthony. Housing and S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e . A p r e l i m i n a r y survey w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e to m u l t i - s t o r y , low-rent p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s . Reproduced by the P h i l a d e l p h i a Housing A u t h o r i t y , 1952. W i l l i a m s , Robert. \"The S o c i a l E f f e c t s of S u b d i v i s i o n Design: A Study i n Micro-Ecology,\" unpublished Master*s t h e s i s , graduate course i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, May 1958. "@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "10.14288/1.0106040"@en . "eng"@en . "Planning"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "Status and prestige : motivational factors in residential mobility."@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/39913"@en .