A R T I C L E

NEIGHBORHOODS AND
NEIGHBORS: DO THEY
CONTRIBUTE TO PERSONAL
WELL-BEING?
Susan J. Farrell, Tim Aubry, and Daniel Coulombe
University of Ottawa
䡲

The present study examined the relationship between characteristics of

neighborhoods (with set physical boundaries and relatively homogeneous
populations) and personal well-being as mediated by sense of community
and neighboring behavior. A randomly selected representative sample of
345 residents living in non-apartment dwellings in Winnipeg, Canada,
completed a mail survey that included created measures of neighboring
and sense of community and the General Health Questionnaire. Results
demonstrated that sense of community mediates the relationship between
neighborhood stability (as defined by the marital status and mobility) and
residents’ well-being. The frequency of engaging in neighboring behavior
was not directly predictive of residents’ sense of personal well-being, but
was predictive of increased sense of community. Consistent with previous
research, findings highlight the importance of building a sense of
community among residents in a neighborhood. Implications of findings
for neighborhood planning are discussed. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

“Sense of Community” and “neighboring” are two important concepts that have received
research attention in community psychology ~MacMillan & Chavis, 1986; Sarason,
1974; Skjaeveland, Garling, & Maeland, 1996; Unger & Wandersman, 1985!. Sarason’s
~1974! seminal work on sense of community defined the concept as “the sense that

The research was supported by a grant from the Manitoba Mental Health Research Foundation. The first
author was a holder of a Social Science Humanities Research Council Graduate Scholarship during the
write-up of the paper. The second author was a holder of a Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation
Graduate Scholarship during the conducting of the study.
Correspondence to: Susan J. Farrell, Ph.D., Royal Ottawa Hospital, 1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada K1Z 7K4. E-mail: sfarrell@rohcg.on.ca

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 32, No. 1, 9–25 (2004) © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jcop.10082
10 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004

one was part of a readily supportive network of relationships upon which one could
depend” ~p.1!. Individuals can experience sense of community in geographical terms
such as with neighbors or in relational terms such as with other sharing similar
interests ~e.g., professions, political organizations! ~Gusfield, 1975!. Neighboring has
been defined as the exchange of social support between persons living in close prox-
imity ~Kahn & Antonucci, 1980; Weiss, 1982!.
Although sense of community and neighboring have been shown to be related
closely ~Skjaeveland et al. 1996; Unger & Wandersman, 1985!, researchers usually have
differentiated them as two different aspects of an individual’s relationship to his0her
neighborhood and neighbors. Sense of community is a psychological variable refer-
ring to beliefs and attitudes about neighbors and the neighborhood ~McMillan &
Chavis, 1986!. In contrast, neighboring is a behavioral variable involving social inter-
action and the exchange of support between neighbors ~Unger & Wandersman, 1985!.
The intention of the present study was to examine sense of community and neigh-
boring as mediators of the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and the
psychological well-being of community residents.

SENSE OF COMMUNITY
MacMillan and Chavis ~1986! proposed four elements as being central to sense of
community: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared
emotional connection. Based on this make-up, Glynn ~1986! found “that the neighbor-
hood remains a significant contributor to the development and maintenance of sense
of community” ~p.350!. Therefore it becomes important to consider elements of the
neighborhood that contribute to the development and maintenance of sense of
community.
Research to date has identified only a few neighborhood-level variables that are
associated with sense of community in residents. Weenig, Schmidt, and Midden ~1990!
found that residents of “high-rise” neighborhoods ~i.e., preponderance of apartments
of four or more stories! had a lower sense of community than residents in “low-rise”
neighborhoods. A plausible explanation for this finding is that living in high-rise
buildings fosters greater privacy, anonymity, and fewer opportunities for social inter-
actions with neighbors than single-family dwellings.
Wilson and Baldassare ~1996! examined sense of community for residents of a
suburban region and found that privacy in the home is an important factor contrib-
uting to the personal well-being of residents. They observed an overwhelming pref-
erence for single-family detached homes that offered residents the ability to regulate
privacy and unwanted interactions while creating opportunities for residents to engage
in local interactions with less stress. They further suggested that “larger, denser, and
more socially diverse urban communities are supposed to create more personal stress
and social conflict, which result in personal unhappiness and a decline in commu-
nity” ~p.30!.
Although the dimensions of privacy ~as provided by type of housing! and density
of housing have been considered, there has been no examination of how other
neighborhood-level characteristics such as the composition of the neighborhood con-
tributes to sense of community. Instead, most research has investigated the relation-
ship between sense of community and different types of neighborhood participation.
Participation in a variety of community organizations ~e.g., church groups, PTA,
civic groups and local political activities! has been shown to be related to sense of
 Neighborhood and Neighbors • 11

community ~Davidson & Cotter, 1989; Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Wandersman &
Giamartino, 1980!. Chavis and Wandersman ~1990! examined the role of sense of
community in promoting local action. They demonstrated that greater sense of com-
munity was related to more participation in block associations, increased neighbor-
hood satisfaction, more positive social relations with neighbors, and increasing perceived
control over one’s immediate environment. They interpreted their findings as indic-
ative of the importance of sense of community in the promotion of neighborhood
development efforts.
Glynn ~1981! found several characteristics of individuals that held positive rela-
tionships with sense of community. These included the number of years married,
number of children living at home, stability ~e.g., number of years! in the community,
number of neighbors one is able to identify, and satisfaction with the community.
Additionally, Buckner ~1988! found that the number of years lived in the neighbor-
hood and level of education were significant predictors of sense of community. Rob-
inson and Wilkinson ~1995! also found that neighborhood cohesion was related positively
to number of years in neighborhood and home ownership, whereas it was related
negatively to income and education.
Some empirical findings have shown that psychological benefits may accrue from
experiencing a higher sense of community. Riger and Lavrakas ~1981! indicated that
sense of community can be an explanatory tool for individual well-being. In studying
the town of Seaside, Florida ~a town designed to examine the impact of town design
and philosophy!, feelings of membership, need fulfillment, and shared emotional
connections with neighbors were shown to be associated with individual health. A link
between sense of community and sense of well-being makes intuitive sense, yet few
studies have addressed such a relationship.
Bachrach and Zautra ~1985! demonstrated the psychological benefits of having a
strong sense of community in the investigation of the coping responses of residents in
a rural community in the context of a proposed hazardous-waste facility. Findings
revealed that a stronger sense of community led to increased problem-focused coping,
which in turn contributed significantly to the degree of individuals’ community involve-
ment. Davidson and Cotter ~1991! demonstrated a link between sense of community
and general happiness.
Prezza and Constantini ~1998! examined sense of community, self-esteem, life
satisfaction, and perceived social support of residents living in three Italian localities:
a small town in Viterbo, Italy ~1693 inhabitants!, a small seaside city in Aquila, Italy
~21,101 inhabitants! and in a larger city, Naples ~52,434 inhabitants!. They found that
sense of community and life satisfaction were higher for residents of the small town
than in the small or large cities, and that sense of community was related only to life
satisfaction for residents of the small town and the small city. A later study comparing
a large town, a small town, and a city found sense of community related to life
satisfaction and loneliness in all three locales ~Prezza, Amicci, Roberti, & Tedeschi,
2001!.
Review of the relatively few empirical studies to date shows that sense of commu-
nity is an important variable for consideration in investigations focusing on neighbor-
hood issues. Hill ~1996! concluded that “psychological sense of community is an
aggregate variable, and is most useful when studied at the community level of mea-
surement” ~p.433!. It is also a positive resource for individuals and neighborhoods,
stimulating community development efforts and positive relations between neighbors
and promoting personal well-being.
12 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004

NEIGHBORING

The exchange of social support between neighbors that is commonly referred to as

“neighboring” can involve offering personal0emotional, functional0instrumental, or
informational forms of support ~Kahn & Antonucci, 1980; Weiss, 1982!. This support
can involve such things as borrowing or lending tools, informal visiting, asking for
help in an emergency, etc.
Royal and Rossi ~1996! noted that there are negative consequences of increasing
urbanization on the quality of neighborhood community life, including neighboring
behavior. Research has found that neighboring varies across different types of neigh-
borhoods. Homogeneous neighborhoods with regard to socio-economic status have
shown higher levels of neighboring than heterogeneous neighborhoods ~Unger &
Wandersman, 1982!. In contrast, level of socio-economic status has not been found to
be related to neighboring behavior. Other neighborhood-level correlates shown to be
related positively to neighboring have included mean income of residents and the
proportion of Caucasians, Catholics, and homeowners living in the same neighbor-
hood ~Ahlbrandt, 1984!. Areas with homogeneous populations ~i.e., socioeconomic
status @SES#, race, religion! are more likely to have residents who share similar values
and interests. As a result, greater interaction between neighbors is facilitated. Home-
owners tend to have a greater investment in the neighborhood, thereby encouraging
them to have more involvement with their neighbors.
The physical features of the neighborhood—such as the proximity of homes,
placement of doors of homes ~i.e., closer to one another!, and location of recreational
facilities—also have been found to be related to neighboring ~Appleyard & Lintell,
1972; Caplow & Forman, 1950; Festinger, Schacter, & Back, 1950!. Such features may
serve to facilitate social interaction between neighbors by decreasing the distance
between them.
A limitation of the research on neighborhood-level correlates of neighboring is
that they are investigated at the census-track level, using large areas as the unit of
analysis, often including several distinct neighborhoods within a census tract. The
problem with this approach is that the heterogeneity of the constituent neighbor-
hoods often is lost in the classification of the larger areas. Wiesenfeld ~1996! noted
that communities are dynamic and historically determined. She argued that in study-
ing communities, large definitions of neighborhoods ~such as those used in census
track data! do not account for the heterogeneity of different communities, and there-
fore ignore the stages of the process of neighborhood development through which
both neighborhoods and their members pass. What would be of more value in the
investigation of the impact of the types of neighborhoods on neighboring behaviors
would be to have smaller homogeneous neighborhoods as units for analysis, and
compare the units according to a specified criteria ~e.g., house types, age of dwelling
units, family status, age-based population!. The coding of census data has only recently
allowed for more fine-grained analysis involving smaller areas as the units of analysis
~Currie, 1989!.
Neighboring has been found to be related to various types of community involve-
ment and feelings of attachment to, loyalty to, and satisfaction with the neighborhood
~Ahlbrandt, 1984!. Prezza and her colleagues ~2001! found that neighboring relations
were stronger for women, members of large families, and those with less education
who had lived in the community for many years and were members of groups or
associations. They also noted that the strongest predictor of sense of community was
 Neighborhood and Neighbors • 13

neighborhood relations. In addition, social support derived through social interaction

between neighbors likely contributes to a greater sense of well-being. Furthermore, a
sense of personal well-being may facilitate an individual’s interest in neighboring
activities.
Review of the relevant studies suggests that neighboring behavior is an important
variable for consideration in investigating neighborhood issues. It is associated with
both neighborhood characteristics and personal well-being.

RATIONALE
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between neighbor-
hood characteristics and personal well-being as mediated by sense of community and
neighboring. To date, few studies have been conducted to examine the relationship
between types of neighborhoods and sense of well-being. Brown ~1995! observed that
“little is understood about the neighborhood contextual effects on human behavior
and affective states” ~p.541!. Adams ~1992! investigated the influence of urban versus
suburban neighborhoods on psychological health ~as measured by perceived quality of
life and self-efficacy!. Results revealed that people living in the suburbs were no more
likely to express greater satisfaction with their neighborhood, the quality of their lives,
or experience greater self-efficacy than those living in the city. Although it is impor-
tant to examine qualitative differences between suburban and urban neighborhoods,
looking only at differences between suburban and urban areas ~which may encompass
a variety of neighborhoods within each area! does not provide information about the
effect of a specific neighborhood on the self-efficacy of its residents. Brown ~1995!
commented that a limitation of such types of analyses is the restricted scope of
neighborhood conditions investigated.
The present study examined the relationship between the characteristics of dif-
ferent neighborhood areas ~with set physical boundaries and relatively homogeneous
populations! with personal well-being. In the proposed model ~see Figure 1!, sense of
community and neighboring behavior were hypothesized as mediators. Therefore, it
was predicted that neighborhood characteristics would be related to sense of commu-
nity and neighboring behavior. In turn, sense of community and neighboring behav-
ior were expected to be associated positively with sense of well-being.

METHOD
Data collected in the study formed part of a mail survey completed by residents living
in Winnipeg, Canada, in 1989 that focused on their beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral
intentions regarding having persons with psychiatric disabilities as neighbors ~Aubry,
Tefft, & Currie, 1995a, 1995b!.

Study Sample
The population universe of the study involved all households ~excluding nursing
homes, temporary shelters, apartment units, vacant homes, and households serving
exclusively as businesses! located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The latter types of resi-
dences were excluded since the original study focused on public responses to having
persons with psychiatric disabilities as neighbors. It was expected that the issue would
14 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004

Figure 1. Proposed model.

not be relevant to persons living in these residences. A systematic random sample of

590 households from the population universe was generated for the study by com-
puter from the 1987 tax-assessment file of the City of Winnipeg Environmental Plan-
ning Department. This listing is an accurate record of all households in Winnipeg,
Canada, to within 0.5%.
For each sampled household, one eligible resident was asked to serve as a respon-
dent in the study. Eligibility criteria for participation in the study included being 18
years of age or older, living on a regular basis in the sampled household, and being of
the sex randomly predesignated for each household by the investigator. Households
lacking an adult of the designated sex were invited to have any other adult living there
serve as a respondent.
Of 590 sampled households meeting the inclusion criteria, 345 questionnaires
were returned from eligible respondents, representing a response rate of 58.5%. This
 Neighborhood and Neighbors • 15

final sample was found to be comparable on major social-demographic characteristics

with a subsample similar in household types drawn from the 1989 Winnipeg Area
Study. The Winnipeg Area Study is an annual in-home survey conducted on a system-
atic random sample of households in the city of Winnipeg. It has been shown consis-
tently to be representative of the Winnipeg population when compared to Federal
Census data ~Currie, 1989!.
Based on the comparability of the study sample with the 1989 Winnipeg Area
Study sample, it reasonably can be concluded that the study sample was representative
of Winnipeg residents living in households other than apartments, nursing homes, or
temporary settings. Moreover, a comparison of the demographic profile of the Win-
nipeg population in 1986 versus 2001 on such characteristics as sex, age, education,
marital status, type of dwelling, household size, and home ownership showed it to be
remarkably stable ~Statistics Canada, 1986, 2003!. Differences that were relatively small
revealed that a greater proportion of the 2001 Winnipeg population completed a
university degree ~17% in 2001 vs. 11% in 1986!, were married ~50% in 2001 vs. 46%
in 1986!, and owned their home ~65% in 2001 vs. 61% in 1986! ~Statistics Canada,
1986, 2003!. Characteristics of the study sample are shown in Table 1.

Measures
Social-Demographic Characteristics. Measures of age, sex, marital status, employment sta-
tus, education, income, length of neighborhood residency, and number of children in
the household were adapted from social-demographic items in the Winnipeg Area
Study ~Statistics Canada, 1986!.

Neighborhood Characteristics. Each respondent was classified by the neighborhood in

which his0her residence is located using the neighborhood scheme developed by the
Department of Environmental Planning of the City of Winnipeg ~1978!. There are 248
neighborhoods in this classification scheme, determined by both physical conditions
~e.g., land use, condition of buildings! and population characteristics ~e.g., sex, age,
family size, household income!. Previous research has shown these neighborhoods to
be generally more socially homogeneous than census tracts ~Hamm, Currie, & Forde,
1988!. Neighborhood characteristics used in the present study ~for each of the neigh-
borhoods! included: average income, average level of education, level of unemploy-
ment, average house size, percentage of children, age of dwelling ~classified as
percentages in the categories of 1971 to 1980 or 1980 to 1986!, marital status ~per-
centage of persons married!, and mobility ~percentage of households moved within
the neighborhood!.

Sense of Community. Based on McMillan and Chavis’ ~1986! definition of sense of

community, seven major beliefs about the neighborhood were identified as integral
elements of the concept:

1. perceived physical boundaries,

2. safety in the neighborhood,
3. similarity in values to neighbors,
4. influence over neighbors,
5. availability of help from neighbors,
16 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004

Table 1. Sample Characteristics

Frequency (%)
Characteristic (N ⫽ 345)

Sex
Male 45.0
Female 55.0
Age
18–29 16.1
30– 44 42.1
45– 59 22.1
60–74 14.5
Over 74 5.2
Educational Attainment
Grade School or Less 8.1
Some High School 18.7
High-School Graduate 40.7
Some post secondary 12.1
Post-secondary degree 20.5
Marital Status
Single 13.4
Married 71.1
Common Law 4.0
Separated or Divorced 6.3
Widowed 5.2
Home Ownership
Own 87.1
Rent 12.9
Number of Persons in Household
1 12.8
2 31.5
3 19.6
4 22.9
5 9.8
6 or more 3.3

6. social acceptance from neighbors, and

7. shared history with neighbors.

The presence of these beliefs was measured by asking respondents how much they
agree or disagree with belief statements operationalizing them. Statements were writ-
ten to operationalize each belief. For example, concerning safety of the neighbor-
hood, respondents will be presented with the statement, “This neighborhood is a safe
place to live in,” with possible responses ranging on a five-point continuum from
“Strongly Disagree” ~1! to “Strongly Agree” ~5!. The final measure consisted of 14
items. The internal consistency ~a coefficient! of the measure for the present study
was 0.72.

Sense of Well-Being. The General Health Questionnaire ~GHQ!, a self-report instrument

designed for identifying minor psychiatric morbidity in the general population ~Gold-
berg, 1978!, measured sense of well-being. For the purposes of this study, the 12-item
 Neighborhood and Neighbors • 17

version of the GHQ was used. Questions ask about current or recent difficulties,
functioning levels, and0or well-being with respect to a number of areas ~e.g., sleep,
decision making, feelings of happiness!. Individual items are scored from 1 to 4
depending on the frequency of the indicator. Again, individual items were used in
model testing. The GHQ has been shown to correlate highly with more comprehen-
sive psychiatric interviews. Its a coefficient has been reported as consistently high,
ranging from 0.82 to 0.90 ~Goldberg, 1978!. The internal consistency ~a coefficient! in
the present study was 0.78.

Neighboring Behavior. A measure of past neighboring behavior was created for the
study. Scales used in previous studies to measure neighboring activities were consulted
in developing individual items ~Ahlbrandt, 1984; Riger & Lavrakas, 1981; Unger &
Wandersman, 1982!. In line with the definition of neighboring proposed by Unger
and Wandersman ~1985!, the 12 items in the measure involved activities that exchanged
emotional, instrumental, or informational support with neighbors. Respondents were
asked about the frequency that they engaged in these different activities with possible
responses ranging from “Never” ~1! to “Very Often” ~4!. The internal consistency ~a
coefficient! for the scale was 0.93.

Procedure

Data was collected using mail survey procedures specified by the Total Design Method
~Dillman, 1978!. Each mailing packet consisted of a cover letter on university statio-
nery, a questionnaire booklet, and a self-addressed stamped return envelope. Each
questionnaire booklet was numbered and a list matching numbers with addresses was
kept in order to track and follow up non-respondents.
The initial mailing to sampled households was sent out on the same day. A
postcard follow up was sent to all households one week after the initial mailing. A
second mailing that included a replacement questionnaire was made to households
who had not responded three weeks after the first mailing. Finally, a replacement
questionnaire was sent by courier to those who still had not responded seven weeks
after the initial mailing. Couriers either hand delivered the final mailing if someone
was home or left it in the mailbox if no one was home.

RESULTS

Data screening involved analysis of missing data and assessment of normality. The
assumption of multivariate normality was evaluated through SPSS ~Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences! and AMOS ~Analysis of Moments Structures! 4.01.
The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1. Circles and ellipses represent
latent variables and rectangles represent observed variables ~indicators!. Each direct
effect of a variable on another is represented by a single-headed arrow, and any
covariance between pairs of exogenous variables are represented by curved double-
headed arrows. According to this model, socio-economic status, family composition,
and stability of neighborhoods influence both the neighboring behavior and sense of
community among residents, thus increasing their sense of well-being.
18 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004

Model Estimation
Using AMOS 4.01, the independence model that states that variables are uncorrelated
between each other was rejected ~x 2 ⫽ 4076.41, df ⫽ 435, p ⬍ .001!. The plausibility
of the proposed model ~shown in Figure 1! was assessed similarly. The analysis showed
that this model is not supported by the available data ~Comparative Fit Index @CFI# ⫽
.78, Tucher-Lewis Index @TLI# ⫽ .77, Root Mean Square Error Approximation @RMSEA# ⫽
.07!. In order to locate possible sources for misfit, modification indices were exam-
ined. A modification was applied only if a theoretical ground existed to explain it.
Furthermore, direct effects that were nonsignificant were considered for removal.
Again, this was done only on the basis of theoretical considerations. Modifications
were performed one at a time.
One modification index pointed to a covariance between the error terms of
variables neigh10 and neigh12. These items are “invited a neighbor in your home”
and “talked to a neighbor about personal issues”, which often are co-existing activities.
Therefore, in addition to measuring neighboring behavior, these items seem to mea-
sure the propensity of an individual to develop personal relationships with neighbors.
Similarly, another modification index revealed a covariance between the error terms
of neigh6 and neigh10 that were items related to “going to a social event” and
“inviting a neighbor in your home”, both relating to the propensity to engage in social
activities with neighbors. Finally, the covariance between the error terms of neigh7
and neigh8, which were items related to “sharing information about home repairs and
care” and “discussing neighborhood issues related to the propensity to share infor-
mation related to the care and maintenance of the neighborhood” both related to the
care of property, either personal or communal. All items in the neighboring behavior
scale were used in the final model. One item in the sense of community scale, “there
is a feeling in this neighborhood that people should not get too friendly with each
other”, was removed due to its insignificant contribution to the construct. Seven items
of the General Health Questionnaire ~related to coping, feeling happy, and decision
making! were removed from the final model due to their insignificant contribution to
the construct of well-being. The listing of items for each measure is shown in Table 2.
The final model is shown in Figure 2. The overall difference between the observed
and implied covariance matrices was still significant ~x 2 ⫽ 742.98, df ⫽ 401, p ⬍ .001!,
but the overall fit was improved considerably with respect to the initial model ~CFI ⫽
.91 TLI ⫽ .90, RMSEA ⫽ .05!. Basically, this model does not rule out the idea that the
stability of a neighborhood ~mainly the marital status and mobility of residents! influ-
ences both their neighboring behavior ~PNeighbeh,Stab ⫽ 0.406, p ⬍ .01! and their sense
of community ~PSencomm,Stab ⫽ 0.184, p ⬍ .01!, which in turn increases their sense of
well-being ~PSenwell, Sencomm ⫽ 0.114, p ⬍ .01!. There was no direct effect of neighboring
behavior on individuals’ sense of well-being. However, an indirect effect between
these constructs via the sense of community was evidenced ~PSencomm,Neighbeh ⫽ 0.263,
p ⬍ .01!. The family composition and socio-economic status do not have similar
influences and were removed from the model.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to test the relationship between neighborhood
characteristics and personal well-being as mediated by sense of community and neigh-
boring behavior. The present study examined the relationship between the characteristics
 Neighborhood and Neighbors • 19

Table 2. Listing of Items Used from Each Scale

Item from Scale Item Content CR Value

Neighboring Behavior
NBR1 Lent things to a neighbor, such as books, magazines, dishes, tools, 14.20
recipes, or food
NBR2 Had a conversation with a neighbor when seeing them on the 12.02
street
NBR3 Helped a neighbor by looking after their home while they were 1.00
away and taking care of such things as watering plants, gathering
mail, or feeding pets
NBR4 Told a neighbor about your dentist, family doctor, or other 12.91
professional services you use
NBR5 Offered a ride to a neighbor when they needed it 12.69
NBR6 Gone with a neighbor on a social outing such as shopping, to a 12.61
movie, concert, or other similar kind of event
NBR7 Shared information with a neighbor about such things as home 12.04
repairs and lawn care
NBR8 Discussed neighborhood issues and problems with a neighbor 11.57
NR9 Informed a neighbour about a neighborhood event 12.56
NBR10 Invited a neighbor to your home for coffee or similar kinds of 13.62
socializing
NBR11 Assisted a neighbor with a household task such as a minor repair 12.05
or moving furniture
NBR12 Talked with a neighbor about their personal issues such as family 11.48
concerns, work problems, or health

Sense of Community
SOFCOM1 Compared to other neighborhoods, I view my neighborhood as a 1.00
safe place for the people living in it
SOFCOM2 I like to think of myself as similar to the people who live in this 8.44
neighborhood
SOFCOM4 If I had an emergency, even people I do not know in this 8.24
neighborhood would be willing to help
SOFCOM5 If the people in my neighborhood were planning something, I’d 7.84
think of it as something “we” were doing rather than “they” were
doing
SOFCOM6 I would be willing to work together with others on something to 6.17
improve my neighborhood
SOFCOM7 I think I agree with most people in my neighborhood about what 7.31
is important in life
SOFCOM8 If I needed advice about something, I could go to someone in my 8.44
neighborhood
SOFCOM9 I plan to remain a resident of this neighborhood for a number of 7.71
years
SOFCOM12 I think that “every man for himself is a good description of how ⫺7.05
people act in this neighborhood
SOFCOM13 If there was a serious problem in this neighborhood, the people 8.04
here could get together and solve it

Sense of Well-being
GHQ7 Felt you couldn’t overcome your difficulties 9.55
GHQ8 Lost much sleep over worry 7.99
GHQ9 Been feeling unhappy and depressed 9.19
GHQ10 Been losing confidence in yourself 1.00
20 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004

Figure 2. Modified model.

of different neighborhood areas ~with set physical boundaries and relatively homo-
geneous populations! with personal well-being. Using the neighborhood, rather than
the town or city ~which is expected to contain heterogeneous neighborhoods!, as the
unit of analysis allowed for a more fine-grained investigation involving smaller clusters
of residential units than have been examined in previous research.

Relationships in the Final Model

The final model demonstrates the role of sense of community in mediating the
relationship between the stability of the neighborhood ~as defined by the marital
status and mobility! and the frequency of neighboring behavior with the residents’
well-being. Contrary to the hypothesized model, the frequency of engaging in
neighboring behavior was not predictive of residents’ sense of personal well-being.
Instead, the frequency of neighboring behavior was predictive of increased sense of
 Neighborhood and Neighbors • 21

community, consistent with previous findings that neighborhood relations predicted

individuals’ sense of community, which often is conceptualized as community involve-
ment and feelings of attachment to the community ~Ahlbrandt, 1984; MacMillan &
Chavis, 1986, Prezza et al., 2001!.
Only the proportion of married couples and the mobility of residents within the
neighborhood were significant predictors of both neighboring behavior and sense
of community. In particular, a greater proportion of married couples and lower levels
of mobility are related to more neighboring and a greater sense of community. In-
tuitively, longer-term residents of a neighborhood will experience a greater sense of
community and engage in more neighboring behavior due to longer-term relation-
ships with their neighbors. In addition, being married may make some couples more
permanently anchored in their neighborhood, thereby decreasing their mobility and
increasing their exposure to others, thus, increasing their neighboring behavior and
sense of community. Further, a spouse’s involvement with neighbors also may con-
tribute to the other spouse’s sense of community with increased exposure to others
and increased coverage of the neighborhood. This finding, which involves a
neighborhood-level characteristic ~neighborhood stability!, is consistent with previ-
ous research examining the individual-level characteristics of residents and their
relationship to sense of community. Specifically, Glynn ~1981! reported that the
number of years married and number of years in the community of residents were
predictive of sense of community. Moreover, Prezza et al. ~2001! found that sense of
community in residents was predicted by the frequency of their neighboring rela-
tions, number of years of residence, and being married. The present finding sug-
gests that it is the “rootedness” or stability within the neighborhood that influences
individuals’ propensity towards engaging in neighboring behavior and influences
their sense of community within their neighborhood. Our study joins other studies
in showing that the transience of residents when it does occur on a regular basis in
a neighborhood serves to undermine contact between neighbors and the develop-
ment of a sense of community.
In his influential book, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Commu-
nity, Roger Putnam examined the loss of “social capital” in the United States over the
last several decades. Putnam ~2000! noted the decline of informal social connections
including less contact between neighbors over the last 25 years as evidence of this
alarming trend. In explaining this development, Putnam cited a number of factors
including the ascendance of two-career families, suburbanization, and television as a
source of entertainment, as well as generational changes regarding the value of civic
involvement. Interestingly, Putnam dismissed mobility of the population as a contrib-
utor to this loss of social capital, citing population-level statistics that show no change
in the mobility of the American population over the past five decades. Our findings
suggest that the mobility of residents when it does occur in large enough numbers in
neighborhoods contributes to the loss of “community” there.
The prediction of well-being by sense of community is consistent with past re-
search that found that feelings of membership need fulfillment and shared emo-
tional connection contributed to personal coping and overall health ~including subjective
well-being! of community members ~Bachrach & Zatura, 1985; Davidson & Cotter,
1991; Riger & Lavrakas, 1981!. The mediation of well-being and neighborhood char-
acteristics by sense of community also is consistent with past findings, suggesting
that the stability of the neighborhood promotes positive relations between neighbors
22 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004

while increasing their sense of community and promoting their personal well-being
~Hughley, Speer, & Peterson, 1999!. Therefore, it is the psychological response rather
than behavioral reactions to neighbors that directly influence residents’ well-being.
The extent of neighboring among neighbors does contribute to sense of community.
Our findings provide further evidence of the importance of having a sense of
community even when it is defined from the standpoint of neighbors and the
neighborhood.
Finding ways of increasing the sense of community of residents in neighborhoods
remains an elusive goal. Consistent with previous research, our results are indicative of
the importance of facilitating contact between neighbors as one way of helping to
achieve this goal. At the neighborhood level, our findings suggest that city planners
need to find ways of increasing the stability of population in neighborhoods. They
also need to find ways to facilitate increased opportunities for neighbors to interact
with each other, thus increasing their sense of community. Consistent with previous
research, fostering sense of community may include adaptation to physical features of
neighborhoods such as proximity of homes and location of recreational facilities
~Appleyard & Lintell, 1972; Caplow & Forman, 1950; Schacter & Back, 1950!. In
addition, developing neighborhoods that have mixed housing from the standpoint of
owned versus rented and a heterogeneous population in terms of age and marital
status should be considered. Furthermore, it would make sense for planners to work
towards making neighborhoods as attractive as possible for residents to remain living
in them.

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
One of the contributions of this study was to understand the relationship between
neighborhood characteristics, neighboring behavior, sense of community, and resi-
dents’ well-being. It further demonstrated that neighborhood characteristics are impor-
tant both to influence the sense of community and the neighboring behavior of
residents. This study also addressed limitations of prior research that used larger units
of analysis ~i.e., towns and cities! by using individual neighborhoods as the units of
analysis. Although the study was conducted in 1989, the stability of the demographic
characteristics of the population suggests that the reported findings are likely to be
replicated in the contemporary situation.
A limitation of the study is that it focused on residents living in non-apartment
dwellings. Given the lessened contact between neighbors and lower sense of commu-
nity that can be expected in apartment dwellings, it is possible that the inclusion of
these individuals may have produced different findings. However, the presence of
apartments in neighborhoods can be expected to influence negatively the neighbor-
ing behavior and sense of community experienced by individuals in non-apartments.
Consequently, their presence in the neighborhoods examined in our study are likely
to contribute to finding of neighborhood-level characteristics being associated with
neighboring and sense of community.
Another potential limitation of the study may be that even neighborhoods
may still be too large a geographical unit in which to examine sense of community
and neighboring behavior. Perhaps characteristics of individual buildings or streets
may need to be examined to decrease the potential heterogeneity in each unit of
 Neighborhood and Neighbors • 23

analysis. Furthermore, neighborhood characteristics in this study were limited to

demographic characteristics. Broader characteristics such as rate of crime, avail-
ability of common space ~e.g., parks and community centers!, and quality of
neighborhood maintenance may have important influence on frequency of neigh-
boring behaviors and residents’ sense of community and should be examined. In
addition, Hill ~1996! suggested studying neighborhoods in a longitudinal manner;
therefore future directions for research include repeated analysis of neighborhood
characteristics and the impact of their change on residents’ neighboring, sense of
community, and well-being.

REFERENCES

Adams, R.E. ~1992!. Is happiness a home in the suburbs? The influence of urban versus
suburban neighborhoods on psychological health. Journal of Community Psychology, 20,
353–371.
Ahlbrandt, R.S. ~1984!. Neighborhoods, people and community. New York: Plenum Press.
Appleyard, D., & Lintell, M. ~1972!. Environmental quality of city streets: The resident’s view-
point. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 38, 84 –101.
Aubry, T., Tefft, B., & Currie, R.F. ~1995a!. Predicting intentions of community residents toward
neighbours with psychiatric disabilities. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 18, 51– 66.
Aubry, T., Tefft, B., & Currie, R.F. ~1995b!. Public attitudes and intentions regarding tenants of
community mental health residences who are neighbours. Community Mental Health Jour-
nal, 31, 39– 52.
Bachrach, K.M., & Zautra, A.J. ~1985!. Coping with a community stressor: The threat of a
hazardous waste facility. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 26, 127–141.
Brown, V. ~1995!. The effects of poverty environments on elders’ subjective well-being: A con-
ceptual model. The Gerontologist, 35, 541– 548.
Buckner, J.C. ~1988!. The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771–791.
Caplow, T., & Forman, R. ~1950!. Neighborhood interaction in a homogeneous community.
American Sociological Review, 15, 357–366.
Chavis, D.M., & Wandersman, A. ~1990!. Sense of community in the urban environment: A
catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 18, 55–81.
Currie, R. ~1989!. Selected findings from the 1989 Winnipeg Area Study ~Research report No. 26!.
Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba, Department of Sociology, Winnipeg Area Study.
Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. ~1989!. Sense of community and political participation. Journal of
Community Psychology, 17, 119–125.
Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. ~1991!. The relationship between sense of community and
subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 246 –253.
Dillman, D. ~1978!. Mail and telephone surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley-
Interscience.
Festinger, L., Schacter, S., & Back, K. ~1950!. Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Florin, P.R., & Wandersman, A. ~1984!. Cognitive social learning and participation in commu-
nity development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 689–708.
Glynn, T.J. ~1981!. Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human
Relations, 34, 789–818.
24 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2004

Glynn, T.J. ~1986!. Neighborhood and sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology,
14, 341–352.
Goldberg, D. ~1978!. Manual for the General Health Questionnaire. London: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Gusfield, J.R. ~1975!. The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Hamm, B., Currie, R.F., & Fords, D. ~1988!. A dynamic typology of urban neighborhoods: The
case of Winnipeg. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 25, 439– 455.
Hill, J.L. ~1996!. Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research. Journal of
Community Psychology, 24, 431– 438.
Hughley, J., Speer, P.W., & Peterson, A. ~1999!. Sense of community in community organiza-
tions: Structure and evidence of validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 97–113.
Kahn, R.L., & Antonucci, T. ~1980!. Convoys over the life cycle: Attachment, roles and social
support. In P.B. Bates & O. Brin ~Eds.!, Lifespan development and behaviour, vol. 3.
Boston, MA: Lexington.
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. ~1986!. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal
of Community Psychology, 14, 6 –23.
Prezza, M., Amici, M., Roberti, T., & Tedeschi, G. ~2001!. Sense of community referred to the
whole town: Its relations with neighboring, loneliness, life satisfaction and area of resi-
dence. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 29– 52.
Prezza, M., & Costantini, S. ~1998!. Sense of community and life satisfaction: Investigation in
three different territorial contexts. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8,
181–194.
Putnam, R. ~2000!. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. ~1981!. Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interaction
in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 55– 66.
Robinson, D., & Wilkinson, D. ~1995!. Sense of community in a remote mining town:
Validating a neighborhood cohesion scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23,
137–148.
Royal, M.A., & Rossi, R.J. ~1996!. Individual-level correlates of sense of community: Findings
from workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 395– 416.
Sarason, S.B. ~1974!. The psychological sense of community: Prospects for community psychol-
ogy. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Skjaeveland, O., Garling, T., & Maeland, J.G. ~1996!. A multidimensional measure of neighbor-
ing. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 413– 435.
Statistics Canada ~1988!. 1986 Census Special Tabulations by Neighbourhood, Statistics Canada
for Winnipeg Neighbourhoods. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
Statistics Canada ~2003a!. Statistics Canada 2001 Community Profiles: Municipal Components
for Winnipeg. Retrieved dataset from the Morisset library, University of Ottawa.
Statistics Canada ~2003b!. Statistics Canada 2001 Community Profiles: Municipal Components
for Winnipeg. Retrieved from http:00www12.statscan.ca0english0placesearchform1.cfm
Unger, D.G., & Wandersman, A. ~1982!. Neighboring in an urban environment. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 493– 509.
Unger, D.G., & Wandersman, A. ~1985!. The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive and
affective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 139–169.
Wandersman, A., & Giamartino, G. A. ~1980!. Community and individual difference character-
istics as influences of initial participation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8,
217–228.
 Neighborhood and Neighbors • 25

Weenig, M.W.H., Schmidt, T., & Midden, C.J.H. ~1990!. Social dimensions of neighborhoods
and the effectiveness of information programs. Environment and Behavior, 22, 27– 54.
Weiss, R.S. ~1982!. Relationship of social support and psychological well-being. In H.G. Schul-
berg & S.M. Killilea ~Eds.!, The modern practice of community mental health ~pp. 148–
162!. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Wiesenfeld, E. ~1996!. The concept of “we”: A community social psychology myth? Journal of
Community Psychology, 24, 337–345.
Wilson, G., & Baldassare, M. ~1996!. Overall “sense of community” in a suburban region: The
effects of localism, privacy, and urbanization. Environment and Behavior, 28~1!, 27– 43.