A Place to Call Home: Identification with Dwelling, Community, and Region
Author(s): Lee Cuba and David M. Hummon
Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1993), pp. 111-131
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121561
Accessed: 27/10/2009 10:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Sociological Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
A PLACETO CALLHOME:
Identification With Dwelling, Community,
and Region
Lee Cuba*
WellesleyCollege
David M. Hummon
Holy Cross College
Theconceptof placeidentityhasbeenthesubjectof a numberof empiricalstudiesin a
varietyof disciplines,but therehave been relativelyfew attemptsto integratethis
literature
intoa moregeneraltheoryof identityandenvironment.
Suchendeavors
have
withplaces
beenlimitedby a lackof studiesthatsimultaneously
examineidentification
of differentscale. This articleaddressesthiscriticalomissionby analyzinghow residentsof CapeCod, Massachusetts,
developa senseof homewithrespectto dwelling,
community,and region.Ourresultssuggestthatdifferentsocial andenvironmental
factorsdiscriminateidentification
acrossplace loci: specifically,that demographic
residentialaffiliationsare criticalto dwelling
qualitiesof residentsand interpretive
in the local communityis essentialfor community
identity;thatsocial participation
identity;andthatpatternsof intercommunity
spatialactivitypromotea regionalidentiwe propose,are importantto constructingan integrated
ty. Such understandings,
theoryof placeidentity,one sensitiveto the complexways the self is situatedin the
social-spatialenvironment.
The 1980s witnessed widespreadgrowth in scholarshipaddressingidentity and the environment, not only in sociology but also in such relatedfields as environmentalpsychology, phenomenological geography,cultural history, and the design professions. Much of
this interdisciplinarywork focused on the dwelling place as it emerged historically as a
locus of sentiment and home in modem Western culture (Altman and Werner 1986;
Duncan 1982; Rybczynski 1986) and as it serves today as a significant symbol for the
communication of personal and social identity (Csikzentimihalyiand Rochberg-Halton
1981; Hummon 1989; Lauman and House 1972; Pratt 1982; Rapoport 1982a). Other
studies examined the interplayof identity and environmentwith regardto neighborhood
and community.Studies of community attachment,in particular,documentedhow such
locales continue to provide a significant locus of sentiment and meaning for the self
(Duncan 1973; Feldman 1990; Gerson, Stueve, and Fischer 1977; Hummon 1990; Kasar*Address all correspondenceto Lee Cuba, Departmentof Sociology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02181.
The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 34, Number 1, pages 111-131.
Copyright ? 1993 by JAI Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 0038-0253.
112
THESOCIOLOGICAL
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
QUARTERLY
da and Janowitz 1974; Rivlin 1987; Sampson 1988). Even regions have drawnattentionas
importantloci of meaning, with exploratorywork on Isle Royale, Alaskan, and Southern
identities (Cochrance 1987; Cuba 1987; Reed 1983).
This disparateresearchhas contributedmuch to our understandingof place identification. It has challengedboth popularand social-scientificimages of the placelessness of the
contemporarylandscapeand the self. It has highlightedthe variedenvironmental,psychological, social, and cultural sources of place identification. Yet despite these advances,
this work has not led to a more general theory of place identity, although significant
integrative essays have appearedoutside of sociology (Lavin and Agatstein 1984; Low
and Altman 1992; Proshansky,Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983; Rapoport 1982b; Shumaker
and Taylor 1983). In part, such integrativescholarshiphas been limited by a critical lack
of studies that simultaneouslyexamine identificationwith places of differentscale, ranging from the dwelling place to the communityand the region.'
This study undertakessuch an analysis, posing several questions vital to an integrated
study of place identity: To what extent do individuals identify with single or multiple
locales? What factors increase the likelihood of identificationwith locales of different
scales? Do factors that enhance identificationwith one locale enhance or mitigateidentification with locales of differentscale?
To provide preliminaryanswers to these queries, we analyze how residents of Cape
Cod, Massachusetts,develop a sense of home with respect to dwelling, community,and
region. Our results suggest that different social and environmentalfactors discriminate
identificationacross place loci: specifically, that demographicqualities of residents and
interpretiveresidentialaffiliationsare criticalto dwelling identity;that social participation
in the local community is essential for communityidentity;and that patternsof intercommunity spatial activity promotea regional identity.Such understandings,we propose, are
importantto constructinga general theory of place identity,one sensitive to the complex
ways the self is situated in the social-spatial environment.
PLACEIDENTITY:FUNCTIONS AND SOURCES
Functions of Place Identity
In general terms, place identity can be defined as an interpretationof self that uses
environmentalmeaningto symbolize or situateidentity.Like otherformsof identity,place
identity answers the question-Who am I?-by countering-Where am I? or Wheredo I
belong? From a social psychological perspective, place identities are thought to arise
because places, as bounded locales imbued with personal, social, and culturalmeanings,
provide a significant frameworkin which identity is constructed,maintained,and transformed.2Like people, things, and activities, places are an integralpartof the social world
of everyday life; as such, they become importantmechanismsthroughwhich identity is
defined and situated (Proshanskyet al. 1983; Weigert 1981).
Although places and their attendantmeanings contributeto identity in complex ways,
previous work on place identity has typically focused on two broadfunctions:display and
affiliation.3 With regard to place identity as display, researchershave documentedhow
people use places to communicatequalities of the self to self or other. Places may be
integrallyinvolved in the constructionof both personalidentities-unique configurations
of life historyitems thatdifferentiatethe self from other-and social identities-groups of
A Place to Call Home
113
attributesassociated with persons of a given social category (Goffman 1963). For example, given the emphasis on individualismin American society, middle-class individuals
frequently personalize domestic environments to express their personhood as unique
selves (Altman and Chemers 1980; Duncan 1982; Hummon 1989). Dwelling places, as
storehousesof life-long personal symbols, also preservethe self, serving as a mnemonic
to personal identity (Csikzentimihalyiand Rochberg-Halton1981). At the same time,
places function to communicate social identity. For instance, diverse work has documented the use of place to communicatesocial rank, whetherthroughinteriordecoration
of dwellings (Laumanand House 1970; Pratt1982), neighborhoodlandscapestyles (Duncan 1973), or the symbolic ecology of the metropolitanlandscape (Hunter 1987). In
conversations with the self, cultural images of places may even be appropriatedby
individualsto elaborateself-conception, as when urbanenthusiastsdescribe themselves as
being particularlysophisticated,politically aware, tolerant, and free (Hummon 1990; cf.
Feldman 1990).
With regard to place identity as affiliation, scholars have explored how people use
places to forge a sense of attachment or home. Such identification with place often
involves emotional ties to place, but it may also involve a sense of shared interests and
values. This identificationwith place is often experiencedas a sense of being "athome"of being comfortable, familiar,and "reallyme" here (Relph 1976; Rowles 1983; Seamon
1979). In either case, place identities affiliatethe self with significantlocales, bringing a
sense of belonging and order to one's sociospatial world.
Sources of Place Identity
Scholars have been less successful in systematically analyzing the conditions that
nourish place identity, in general, and that favor identificationwith locales of different
scales, in particular.Nevertheless, interdisciplinaryresearchindicates that place identity
arises in a dialectic involving both the qualities of places and the characteristicsand
relations of people to places (Steele 1981).
Places
Places may influence the process of identification directly as physical, social, and
culturalenvironments. Studentsof landscape and the built environmentnote that places
differ remarkablyin their boundedness, distinctiveness, scale, and proportion (Steele
1981) and that such qualities enhance identificationby providing significant, discrete
place meanings for the articulationof self. Such argumentsare usually made within a
broadcritiqueof the effects of modernizationon the environmentand identity.Standardization of built form, the erosion of distinct ruraland regional landscapes, and geographic
mobility are thought to enervate physically encoded meanings of the landscape, thus
weakening personal identificationwith locale (Buttimer 1980; Klapp 1969; Relph 1976).
Similar observations are routinely voiced by environmentaldesigners and artists who
believe that "placemaking"must be an importantpartof the constructionand preservation
of the built environmentin order to enhance the identities of people as well as places
(Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein 1977; Fleming and von Tscharner 1987). Such
historicaland prescriptivearguments,however, find limited supportin systematic studies
of environmentalperceptionand design. For instance, mental map studies clearly demonstratethat cities differ in their "imageability"(Lynch 1960), althoughthey do not indicate
114
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
THESOCIOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY
whether such differences translateinto strongerpersonal affiliation with more readable
landscapes. Guest and Lee (1983), however, provide some evidence that this may be the
case. In a study of neighborhoodattachmentin the metropolitancontext, proximity to
local landmarksincreased identificationwith neighborhood.
Places may also shape place identificationas social contexts. Here again, scholarshave
focused on the effects of modernizationon identity.With respectto the dwelling place, the
historical separationof work from the home environment,the privatizationof family life,
and the domesticationof women's roles are thoughtto both enrichthe experienceof being
"at home" in everyday life and to locate that experience in the domestic environment
(Loyd 1982; Rybczynski 1986). Conversely, traditional,Wirthian(Wirth 1938) theories
of urbanizationand community decline have argued that increased scale, density, and
heterogeneityof communitylife have weakenedcollective sentimentsandpersonalattachment to locality. Contemporarystudies of communityattachment,however, fail to document such a loss of local attachment:emotional attachmentto the community is not
strongly related to community size, density, or type (Brown 1989; Gerson et al. 1977;
Goudy 1982; Kasardaand Janowitz 1974; Sampson 1988).4 Further,althoughthe significance of the dwelling place as a locus of home receives supportin studies of dwelling
places and identity (Csikzentimihalyiand Rochberg-Halton1981), the paramountsignificance of the dwelling relative to other places has seldom been examined. Seamon (1979)
provides qualitativeevidence that the dwelling may well be the most significantlocus of
place identity,but other studies indicatethatthe dwelling place may play a secondaryrole
in the construction of a sense of home (Cochrance 1987; Lavin and Agatstein 1984).
Though least studied, place identificationmay also be shaped by places as symbolic
contexts. Meyrowitz (1986) arguesthatelectronic media have weakenedplaces as distinct
informationalsettings for face-to-face behavior,eroding the spatiallysituatedcharacterof
traditionalbehavior as well as many forms of group identity. Nevertheless, community
sociologists have documented the continuing vitality of places as symbolic locales
(Strauss 1961). Large urbanplaces, with their traditionsof local boosting, city heroes,
public landmarks,and local myths, provide a strong local culture, supportingidentification by local residents(Karp,Stone, and Yoels 1977; Suttles 1984; Tuan1974). Such place
subculturesmay also arise in other geographic locales. Reed (1983) offers evidence that
the South, as a subculture,endows many southernresidents with a suitableidentityand a
sense of attachment.Hummon (1990) notes that settlementtypes may also provide residents with a community identity as a city person, countryperson, small-town person, or
suburbanitethrough place ideologies that contrast community forms. Even forms of
dwelling-single-family dwellings versus apartments,private versus public housingmay valorize or stigmatize identity in the iconographyof Americanculture (Perin 1977;
cf. Krase 1979 on stigmatized places).
People and Place Experiences
Although places as physical, social, and culturalcontexts influenceplace identity,place
identificationis also mediatedby the characteristicspeople bring to places and the structure of their experiences with places. Such factors are criticalto the meaningsof places to
the individual, providing a social counter movement in the dialectic of people and place
that underlies place identification.
The importanceof the social mediationof place experience for place identificationcan
A Place to Call Home
115
be seen in several ways. First, community attachmentresearch indicates that integration
into the local area is a prime determinant of attachment to locale. Local social
involvements-particularly those with friends, but also those involving kin, organizational memberships, and local shopping-prove to be the most consistent and significant
sources of sentimentalties to local places (Gersonet al. 1977; Goudy 1982; Guest and Lee
1983; Hunter 1974; Kasardaand Janowitz 1974; St. John, Austin, and Baba 1986). The
significance of local social involvementfor place identificationalso receives supportfrom
ethnographicwork, whetherof urbanneighborhoods(Gans 1962; Rivlin 1982; Solomon
and Steinitz 1986) or ruralenclaves (Coles 1967; Peshkin 1978).
Second, long-termresidence also contributesto place identity, particularlyin building
sentimental attachmentand a sense of home. Duration of residence not only enhances
local social ties (Gerson et al. 1977; Sampson 1988), but it also provides a temporal
context for imbuing place with personalmeanings. This may be particularlyimportantin
linking significant life events to place, providing the individual with a sense of "autobiographical insidedness" (Rowles 1983). The importance of such long-term personal
associations to place identityis manifestedwhen disruptedby forced mobility-studies of
naturaldisasters and urbanrenewal indicate the profoundsense of displacementand grief
that may result from such moves among long-termresidents (Erikson 1976; Fried 1963).
Third, identificationwith place is influenced by stage in the life-cycle, though these
relations are clearly complex. For example, researchon aging indicates that the dwelling
place becomes an increasingly importantfocal point in the lives of the elderly, and as
such, may play a leading role in place identification at this stage of life (Cuba and
Hummon 1991; Rowles 1978; Rubenstein 1987). The meaning of the home and its
domestic objects may also change with age, with older persons particularlylikely to
treasure such objects as photographs for their capacity to elicit memories (Csikzentimihalyi and Rochberg-Halton1981). At the same time, some have suggested that attachment to the local neighborhoodor community also increases modestly with age (Goudy
1982; Sampson 1988). Together,these findings may indicate a general enhancementof
place identification with age, but they raise questions about the primarylocus of place
identificationamong older Americans.
Fourth, although not well understood,some scholarshipindicates that place identification is also mediated by the individual's placement in the broadersociety. Gender, for
instance, does not appearto influencethe strengthof attachmentto locale, but it may well
affect its locus and meaning. Mental map research indicates that women, compared to
men, are more likely to use the home as a spatial reference point, more likely to have a
developed conception of the local neighborhood, but less likely to have an extensive
conception of the communityas a whole (Krupat1985). Inside the home, women are more
likely than men to speak of the dwelling in emotional terms, more likely to describe it in
terms of interpersonalrelations than personalachievements, and more likely to select the
kitchen as the place they feel most "at home" (Csikzentimihalyiand Rochberg-Halton
1981). These patterns of meaning and attachmentreflect the experiences of traditional
gender roles, indicating that gender and place identities intertwine as places become
settings for socially scripted behavior."
In sum, previous scholarshipindicates that place identity uses environmentalmeaning
to display and situate the self and that place identity is a productof both the qualities of
places and the characteristicsand relationsof people to places. These theoreticalinsights,
however, have been generated by disparate studies of place identity across a range of
116
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY
geographicloci, ranging from rooms and dwelling places to communitiesand regions. As
of yet, no systematic research has attemptedto link the existence of place identity at
diferent geographic levels with the variedfactors that contributeto these identities. This
study explores this new territory,analyzing how residentsof Cape Cod constructa sense
of home with respect to the dwelling place, community, and region, and how the geographic locus of home is conditioned by four types of factors: interpretiveplace affiliations, local social participation,spatial activity, and demographicbackground.
SETTING
Cape Cod (BarnstableCounty), Massachusetts,is made up of 15 towns rangingin population from roughly 1,500 to near 41,000. The Cape has served as both a popularvacation
areaand retirementdestinationin New Englandfor at least 50 years (Meyer 1987), andfor
at least the past 30 years, BarnstableCounty has grown at a rate far exceeding that of
Massachusettsas a whole. According to census figures, approximatelyone out of four
BarnstableCounty residents age 5 and over in 1980 had lived in a different county in
1975. About 42 percent of these migrantscame from outside of Massachusetts, and the
majority (57 percent) of these out-of-state migrants moved from another state in the
Northeast United States. In estimating total migration for all counties in the state from
1970-1980, the MassachusettsDepartmentof Commerce and Economic Development
found that BarnstableCounty in-migration(51,102) was highest of the 14 Massachusetts
counties. This patternof migration-drivenpopulationgrowthappearsto have continuedin
the 1980s. While the state populationremainedrelatively stable from 1980-1990, thatof
BarnstableCounty increasedby over 26 percent, from 147,925 to 186,605.
Within New England-an area that abounds with firmly-establishedplace imagesCape Cod is characterizedby a variety of regional imageries, ranging from beautiful
beaches, quaint towns, weathered-shingleCape houses, and a relaxed, rurallifestyle to
hordes of summervisitors, rampantcommercialism, and uncontrolleddevelopment. Despite differences among communities, Cape Cod is nominally recognized by both residents and nonresidentsas a clearly-identifiableterritory:people speak of "vacationingon
the Cape"or "retiringto the Cape." The economic, political and social factors sharedby
all Cape Cod communities reinforces this regional characterization.Every town on the
Cape recognizes the importanceof tourismto its economic health, the mountingconcerns
over environmentalpreservation, and the pressures that drastic increases in population
have placed on the demand for both public and private services.
Nonetheless, the considerablevariationamong the communitiesthat make up the Cape
have coalesced in distinct subregional and community place imageries. The Cape is
divided into three geographic areas-Upper, Middle, and Lower Cape-each thoughtto
be relatively distinct in terms of a numberof social, economic, and demographiccharacteristics. The Upper Cape-the region nearest the Massachusetts mainland-is more
closely tied to the rest of the state than the other regions of the Cape. As a result of the
escalation of housing prices in New England,the UpperCape is fast becoming an ecological extension of Boston's South Shore communities: a home for many who work in
communities off of Cape Cod. The Middle Cape is the commercial and governmental
center of BarnstableCounty. It contains several of the largest communities on the Cape
and receives a greaterinflux of summervisitors than other areas of the Cape. The Lower
Cape-the most geographicallyremote region of BarnstableCounty-is the least com-
A Place to Call Home
117
mercially developed. Because it contains communitieswith large areas of coastal property, land values on the Lower Cape tend to be the highest in BarnstableCounty.
DATAAND METHODS
Data Source
The data for this paper come from surveys administeredto residents of three towns in
BarnstableCounty, one from each of the three subregionsof Cape Cod. The towns range
in size from approximately6,000 to 15,000. These communitieswere selected to represent the varied experiences and characteristicsof residents living on the Cape. Surveys
were administeredto two age-stratified(18-59 and 60 and older) random samples of
residentsin each community;additionaldatafor the projectincluded in-depthaudio-taped
interviews with selected groups of older migrants, archival research of town census
records, and interviews and field observations in a number of Cape Cod communities.
This paperfocuses on surveysadministeredto migrantswho moved to these threecommunities at age 17 or older. A total of 523 surveys were administeredto Cape Cod residents
in the larger project. Sixty-one of these (8.5 percent) were lifetime residents of the Cape
and are excluded from this analysis, as they were not asked the series of place identity
questions. The small proportion of lifetime residents underscores the significance of
migrationto this region. An additional25 respondentswho reportedthat they did not feel
at home were also excluded from the analysis, bring the total sample size in subsequent
analyses to 437.6
The surveys covered a broad range of topics inaccessible through macrolevel data
sources, such as the census: a variety of demographiccharacteristics,exhaustive migration histories, reportsof previous vacation experiences, motivationsfor leaving communities of origin and for choosing migration destinations, patternsof social and spatial
activity on Cape Cod, and a series of questions addressingthe locus and content of the
respondents'place identities. Respondentsfor the sample surveys were selected randomly
from town census lists and were administereda structuredinterview schedule in their
homes by trained interviewers. The cumulative response rate for the surveys was 59
percent.
ConceptualFrameworkand Measurement
This analysis employs four interrelatedconcepts, each measuredby a set of variables:
place identity, demographic/migrationcharacteristics,social participation,and locus of
activity (see Table 1). We begin by defining three elements of place identity as an
expression of "at-homeness":its existence, its affiliations (or bases), and its locus. As
noted above, such sentimentis centralto place identity,and expressionsof "at-homeness"
have been used in both qualitativeanalyses of place identification(Buttimer1980; Rowles
1983; Seamon 1979) and quantitativestudies of community attachment(Goudy 1982;
Kasardaand Janowitz 1974). The existence of a place identitywas measuredby a positive
response to the question: Do you feel at home here? Those who answered yes to this
questionwere then asked the contingency:Why do you feel at home here?Theirresponses
to this open-endedquestion constitute our measureof place affiliation.Respondentswere
allowed to give more than one answer to this question;their responses were then grouped
THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
118
Table 1
Variables and Measurement Description
Variable
Place Identity Variables
Existence of place identity
Place affiliation variables
Self-related
Family-related
Friend-related
Community-related
Organization-related
Dwelling-related
Locus of place identity
Dwelling-based
Community-based
Region-based
Demographic/Migration Variables
Sex
Age
Number of residences prior to moving to Cape Cod
Length of residence on Cape
Community mobility on Cape Cod
Social Participation Variables
Number of club memberships
Percentage best friends on Cape
Church membership
Volunteer work
Town meeting attendance
Locus of Activity Variables
Number of in town activities
Number of other Cape town acts
Number of off Cape activities
Measurement
"Do you feel at home here?" (No (0), Yes (1))
Response to open-endedquestion, "Why do you feel at
home here?" (recoded into six No (0)/Yes (1) dichotomies by type of response; multiple responses allowed)
(e.g., general psychological state happiness, "feeling
comfortable")
(e.g., rearedfamily here, nearnessto family members)
(e.g., meeting people, friendly neighbors)
(e.g., attractivetown lifestyle, sense of community)
(e.g., participationin work, formal organization)
(e.g., home ownership, variety of personalpossessions)
"Do you associate feeling at home with dwelling, community, and/or Cape, in general?"(each place identity
locus coded as No (0)/Yes (1) dichotomies; multiple
responses allowed)
Female (0), Male (1)
Age in years
Number of communities of previous residence
Number of years of Cape Code residence
Lived in more than one Cape community(0), Lived in
only one Cape community (1)
Exact number
Half or fewer (0), More than half (1)
No membership(0), Membership(1)
No volunteer work (0), Volunteer (1)
Half or fewer (0), More than half (1)
Where respondentwas most likely to engage in a series
of eight activities (i.e., attendculturalevent, visit
doctor, attend church, see dentist, buy major home
appliance, see attorney, visit best friends, participate
in leisure activities)
Exact numberfrom above list (Range 0-8)
Exact numberfrom above list (Range 0-8)
Exact numberfrom above list (Range 0-8)
into six dichotomous variables, each measuringdistinct qualitativedimensions of place
affiliation:
1. self-relatedresponses (e.g., general psychological feeling of adjustment,"feeling
comfortable");
2.
family-relatedresponses (e.g., rearedfamily here, nearnessto family);
A Place to Call Home
119
3.
friend-relatedresponses (e.g., meeting people, getting to know neighbors);
4.
community-relatedresponses (e.g., attractivelifestyle, sense of community);
5.
organization-relatedresponses (e.g., participationin work, formal organizations);
and
6.
dwelling-related responses (e.g., home ownership, variety of personal possessions).
Combined, these six dimensions of place affiliationencompass 83 percentof all responses
to the question of why respondentsfelt at home on the Cape.7
The third element of place identity-its locus-was also measuredby a contingency
question asked of those who reportedsome sense of place identity. Respondents were
asked the close-ended question: Do you associate feeling at home with living in this
particularhouse or apartment,with living in this community,or with living on the Cape,
in general? Multiple responses were allowed, so that a person could reporta single locus
of place identity or any combination of these three loci. Three dichotomies were constructed, each indicating whether respondents associated a feeling of home with their
dwelling, the community, or the region. Together,these three dichotomies are the major
dependent variables in this analysis.8
As we expect the reasons people give for why they feel at home in a place will affect
where they feel at home, we hypothesize that the group of six place affiliationvariables
will be variously associated with the three loci of place identity variables. For example,
those who reportdwelling-relatedplace affiliationsshould be most likely to locate their
place identities within their houses or apartments.Place affiliations based on friends,
community, or organizationalattachments,on the other hand, may lead to communitylevel place identities. Inverse relationshipsbetween the two sets of variables are also
plausible. Those whose feeling of at-homeness is based on community-relatedplace
affiliations may be less likely to claim a regional place identity. Similarly, self-related
place affiliationsmay dampen place identities at the community level.
Five demographicand migrationcharacteristicsform the second set of variables. Following our previous discussion, we include gender in the analysis as we expect women to
be more likely to associate feeling at home with dwelling, given their traditionalrole as
home builders. Conversely, we hypothesize that men may be more likely to locate their
place identities at the community-level. We also anticipatea positive association between
age and dwelling-based place identities, suggesting that for the elderly, being "at home"
often involves ties to the dwelling as the immediatesymbolic, social, and spatial arenaof
everyday life.
The numberof communityresidencespriorto moving to Cape Cod provides a measure
of geographic mobility. If, as some suggest (Buttimer 1980; Klapp 1969; Relph 1976;
Webber 1970), mobility underminesplace attachmentby eroding place differences and
destroyingthe particularityof place relations, then high ratesof mobility may be inversely
relatedto community and regional place identities. Conversely,place identities grounded
in dwelling may persist despite a previous patternof mobility, insofar as the home is a
veritable storehouse of identity symbols (Csikzentimihalyiand Rochberg-Halton1981).
Length of residence on Cape Cod may vary directly with any of the three loci of place
identity, depending on patternsof intraCapemobility, but could be expected to increase
one's regional sense of place identity regardlessof the numberof Cape Cod residences.
Research on community attachmentshows that emotional ties to locale grow in strength
120
THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
over time, in partbecause long-termresidence imbues the landscapewith the meaningsof
life experiences, and in part because such residence nourishes ties to friends, kin, and
community organizations (Guest and Lee 1983). Correlatively,a single Cape Cod residence could be expected to enhance one's attachment to dwelling or community,
whereas multiple Cape residences may foster a regional sense of place.
We expect the third set of variables-various measures of social participation-to
influence the acquisition of community and regional place identities. Four of these
variables-the number of club memberships, the percentage of best friends living on
Cape Cod, church membership, and volunteeractivities-may vary directly with either
communityor regional place identification,as these are behaviorsthatcould transcendthe
geographic boundaries of communities. By contrast, attendanceat town meetings (the
form of local governmentin many ruralMassachusettstowns) shouldenhanceone's ties to
either dwelling or community while weakening ties to the region as a whole.
Finally, three measuresof spatial activity are included in the analysis as a fourthset of
variables. Respondentswere asked where they were most likely to engage in the following
activities: attenda culturalevent, visit a physician, attendchurchservices, visit a dentist,
buy a majorhome appliance, consult an attorney,visit their best friends, or participatein
leisure activities. For each of these activities, respondentsselected one of three geographic locations: the community in which they live, another Cape Cod community, or a
communityoutside of BarnstableCounty (i.e., an off-Capecommunity.)In hypothesizing
that patterns of spatial activity generally affect the location of place identities, we expected a positive association between numberof community-of-residenceactivities and a
community-basedplace identity,as well as a positive associationbetween numberof other
Cape community activities and a regional place identity. Conversely, the numberof offCape activities could be expected to vary negatively with all three loci of place identity.
We use these four sets of variablesto addresstwo questions:Among those who claim
some place identity, where is this sense of place located across the spatial range of
dwelling, community,and region?To what extent can variationin the loci of place identity
be explainedby one's place affiliation,demographiccharacteristics,and social and spatial
activity patterns?We begin by examiningfrequencydistributionsof the place identityloci
variables before presenting their bivariate association with the four sets of explanatory
variables. We conclude by assessing the joint effects of these fours sets of variableson the
place identity loci in three discriminantanalyses, one each for dwelling, community,and
region.
RESULTS
The Locationof Place Identity
In this sample of Cape Cod migrants, it was difficult to find respondentswho did not
feel at home there. Fully 95 percentof the sample reportedthatthey felt "athome"on the
Cape, suggesting that some minimal level of place identificationis routinely achievedby
these migrants. Moreover, because length of residence on the Cape varied considerably
among those interviewed, this sense of place identificationdoes not appearto be contingent on long-term residence following the move.
There is greater variation in where these migrants situate their place identities. As
shown in Table 2, respondents identified each of the three loci of place identity-
121
A Place to Call Home
Table 2
Locus of Place Identity Among Respondents
in the Cape Cod Survey
Locus of Place Identity
Aggregatefrequencies
Dwelling(anycombination)
(anycombination)
Community
Region(anycombination)
Disaggregated
frequencies
Dwellingonly
only
Community
Region(CapeCod)only
Dwellingandcommunity
andregion
Community
Dwellingandregion
Dwellingandcommunityandregion
(N)
Percentage
70.7
67.1
65.5
13.0
10.3
16.0
11.2
3.0
3.9
42.6
(437)
dwelling, community,and region-with roughly the same frequency,although a slightly
higherpercentagereporteda dwelling-basedplace identity.(As noted above, respondents
were allowed multiple responses to the question of where they feel at home.) When these
three dichotomous groups are disaggregated, however, furtherdifferences among them
emerge.
It is possible to conceive of the various combinationsof place association as ranging
from singular and sparse (linking one's identity to a single place) to multifaceted and
dense (linking one's identity to a numberof places.) In these data respondentswere most
likely to place themselves at either end of this continuum of place association, with
relatively few falling in between. About two-fifths of the sample (39.3 percent) reported
ties to only one place, with region being the most probable locus of a singular place
identity and communitybeing the least probablelocus. A group of comparablesize (42.6
percent) exhibited the opposite pattern, claiming a sense of place at all three loci. The
remaininggroup-those who reportattachmentsto some combinationof two place lociis the smallest of the three. Less than 20 percent of the respondentscomprise this middle
group; most of these representa pairing of dwelling and community-basedplace identities, the other two possible combinationsof place loci being quite rare.
Although there is considerable variation in how these respondents array their place
identities across the spectrum of dwelling, community, and region, these data provide
inconclusive evidence for a hierarchical model of place attachment. If place identity
referents were ordered from least to most spatially expansive, one would expect the
greatest number of those who report a single place identity locus to identify with their
dwelling. Concomitantly,the most common dual loci identified should be dwelling and
community. While the data support the second of these two expectations, they fail to
confirm the first. The differences between the three subgroupsreporting a single place
identity referent are small, and the largest of the three is composed of those claiming an
exclusively regional identity,not a dwelling-basedidentity as anticipatedin a hierarchical
pattern. It appears more prudent to argue simply that although there is a good deal of
122
THESOCIOLOGICAL
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
QUARTERLY
variationin where people feel at home, most respondentslocate a sense of self in more
than one place and that some configurationsof place loci are more likely to arise than
others.
ExploringVariationin the Loci of Place Identity
In an initial effort to identify factorsthatdiscriminateamong dwelling, community,and
regional place identities, we examineda numberof bivariateassociations with the loci of
place identity dichotomies (see Table 3). With a few exceptions, each of the four sets of
independentvariables-place affiliations, demographic/migrationcharacteristics,social
participation,and locus of activity-were associatedwith predominantlyone place identity locus.
Of the six place affiliation variables (i.e., reasons why respondentsfelt at home in a
Table 3
Place Affiliation, Demographic, Social Participation,and Locus of Activity Variables:
Totals, and by Locus of Place Identity
Variable
Place Affiliation
Self-related (%)
Family-related(%)
Friend-related(%)
Total
Dwelling
(No/lYes)
Community
(No/ Yes)
Region
(No/ Yes)
25.4
13.3
31.8
28.1/24.3
14.1/12.9
28.9/33.0
31.3/22.5"
13.9/13.0
25.0/35.2*
24.5/25.9
15.9/11.9
35.8/29.7
(%)
Community-related
(%)
Organization-related
(%)
Dwelling-related
9.2
12.1
27.9
14.1/7.1*
14.8/11.0
13.3/34.0***
10.4/8.5
7.6/14.3"
25.0/29.4
13.3/7.0*
13.9/11.2
24.5/29.7
Demographic
Sex (%male)
41.2
53.9/35.9***
38.2/42.7
43.7/39.9
Age (mean years)
Number of residences prior to
59.8
2.9
56.6/61.2**
2.5/3.1**
60.1/59.7
2.9/2.9
58.5/60.6
3.2/2.8*
moving(mean)
Lengthof residenceon CapeCod
(meanyears)
11.8
11.6/11.9
12.3/11.6
12.0/11.8
77.3
70.3/80.3***
76.4/77.8
77.5/77.3
Numberof Cape Cod residences
(% only 1)
SocialParticipation
Clubmemberships
(mean)
1.0
0.9/1.0
0.8/1.l**
0.9/1.0
Best friends on Cape Cod (% half
or more)
Churchmembership(%)
Volunteerwork (%)
Town meeting attendance(% half
or more)
57.6
64.8/54.5*
53.1/59.7
50.7/61.2*
66.4
29.2
41.5
68.5/65.6
25.0/30.9
35.9/43.8
67.6/65.9
22.4/32.5*
33.6/45.4*
63.5/68.0
28.0/29.8
46.4/38.9
Locus of Activity
In town activities (mean)
Other Cape town activities (mean)
Off Cape activities (mean)
3.0
3.1
1.5
3.0/3.1
3.4/3.0*
1.4/1.6
3.0/3.0
3.2/3.1
1.5/1.6
Note: *Significant difference between groups, p < .05.
**Significant difference between groups, p < .01.
***Significant difference between groups, p < .001.
3.3/2.9*
2.6/3.4***
1.7/1.4*
A Place to Call Home
123
particularplace), three are significantly associated with a place identity grounded in
community. Reasons for feeling at home linked to friends or organizationalinvolvement,
such as work, are positively related to a sense of communityas home, while self-related
place affiliations-psychological states of attachmentlacking specific referents, such as
feelings of happinessor contentment-are negatively relatedto a community-basedplace
identity. As expected, dwelling-relatedplace affiliationsare strongly and directly associated with a dwelling-based place identity. Community-relatedplace ties, although negatively relatedto both dwelling and regionalplace identities, do not influence the adoption
of a community-level place identity. In general, the place affiliation variables have the
least effect on the regional locus of place identity.
The demographicand migrationcharacteristicshave pronouncedeffects on place identities groundedin dwelling. As anticipated,women were more likely than men to reporta
dwelling-basedplace identity,and older respondentswere more likely to locate their sense
of self in the dwelling than were their younger counterparts.Although higher rates of
geographic mobility prior to moving to Cape Cod were positively related to acquiringa
dwelling-based identity, intraCapemobility was not: those with a only one residence on
the Cape were more likely to identify the dwelling as their place identity locus. None of
the demographicor migrationvariablesare significantlyrelatedto community-levelplace
identification, and only one-previous residential mobility-is inversely related to regional place identification.
The social participationvariables, by contrast, are principallyrelatedto communityas
the locus of place identity. Greater involvement in clubs or volunteer activities lead to
higher levels of communityplace identification,suggesting that both of these often occur
within the boundariesof community.Attendanceat town meetings, which by definitionis
a community-specificactivity, has the same effect. The presence of a majority of best
friends on Cape Cod is the only variablethat influenceseithera dwelling or regional sense
of place; in the former case, this relationshipis negative, in the latter, positive. Because
this variable measures ties to others unrestrictedby community of residence, its positive
association with a regional place identity is not surprising.
Finally, the three locus of activity variables all demonstratesignificant effects on the
acquisition of a regional place identity. As expected, participationin activities both in
one's residential community or off of the Cape decreases the likelihood of reporting a
regional place identity, whereasparticipatingin activities in other Cape Cod communities
increases one's sense of regional identity. Contraryto our expectations, participationin
activities in one's own communitydoes not alterthe likelihood of adoptinga communitybased place identity.
To assess the joint effects and magnitudeof these four sets of variables on the place
identity loci, we performedthree discriminantanalyses, one each for the dwelling, community, and regional dichotomies. Discriminantanalysis is an appropriatetechnique to
address these questions given its goal of classifying respondentsinto one of two groups
(e.g., dwelling-based identity versus nondwelling-basedidentity) and the measurement
structureof the independentvariables(i.e., either dichotomies or intervalvariables). For
each analysis, variableswere enteredvia stepwise selection wherethe criteriafor selection
was the minimization of Wilks' lambda (minimumtolerance level, .001, minimumF to
enter 1.00.) Only those variables that met the minimization criteria (and thus indicate
statistically significant discriminanteffects) were entered into each of the three models.
Table 4 reports the standardizeddiscriminantcoefficients that resulted from these an-
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY
124
Table 4
DiscriminantAnalyses of Loci of Place Identity
StandardizedDiscriminantCoefficients
Discriminant Variables
Dwelling
Place Affiliation
Self-related
Family-related
Friend-related
Community-related
Organization-related
Dwelling-related
Demographic
Sex
Age
Numberof residencespriorto move
Lengthof residenceon CapeCod
mobilityon CapeCod
Community
SocialParticipation
Numberof clubmemberships
Percentagebest friendson Cape
Churchmembership
Volunteerwork
Townmeetingattendance
Locusof Activity
Numberof in townactivities
Numberof otherCapetownactivities
Numberof off Capeactivities
CanonicalCorrelation
Wilks'Lambda
Chi-square
Significance
Overall%CorrectlyClassified
Community
Region
-.250
-.235
.180
.320
-.378
-.200
-.153
.501
.362
.385
- .472
.236
.332
.390
.217
-.333
-.315
.252
-.204
.182
.379
.319
.339
-.273
.684
-.191
.383
.853
65.14
.0001
65.96
.183
.256
.231
.947
22.55
.01
62.36
.306
.906
40.48
.0001
65.50
Note: For each model discriminant variables were entered via stepwise selection where the criterion for selection was the
minimizationof Wilks' lambda.
alyses, allowing for a comparisonof the relative importanceof each explanatoryvariable
in discriminatingthose who reporteddwelling, community,and regionalplace identities.
In general, these findings reaffirm those of the bivariate analyses: dwelling place
identitiesare stronglyinfluencedby demographicand migrationcharacteristics,as well as
a dwelling-relatedplace affiliation;community place identities are largely a function of
social participation attributes in addition to friendship, organizational, and dwellingrelatedplace affiliations;and regionalplace identitiesare principallya resultof participating in activities in Cape Cod communities outside of one's town of residence.
The dwelling-based model containsthe greatestnumberof explanatoryvariablesof the
three (11), although many of these are not of substantialmagnitude. Dwelling-related
place affiliations (i.e., feelings of "at-homeness"based on personal possessions or the
dwelling itself) have the most pronouncedeffect on discriminatingthose selecting the
A Place to Call Home
125
dwelling as their place identity loci. Of additionalimportanceare four demographicand
migration characteristics.Being female and older increases the likelihood of adopting a
dwelling-based place identity,as do residentialmobilityprior to moving to Cape Cod and
residentialstasis on the Cape. Several othervariablesexert smallereffects in the discriminant function. Friend-relatedplace affiliations and town meeting attendance are both
positively associatedwith a dwelling-basedplace identity,while communityand organizational place affiliations, percentage of best friends on Cape Cod, and participationin
activities outside of one's residential community all demonstratenegative effects.
The principal explanatoryeffects in the community model are divided between the
place affiliation and social participation variables. Friendship, organizational, and
dwelling-relatedplace ties all serve to foster a sense of community as home. Similarly,
participation in clubs, having best friends on the Cape, and attending town meeting
enhance one's sense of community identification. Contraryto our expectations and the
findings of previous research,length of residence on Cape Cod has a fairly large negative
effect on acquiringa communityplace identity, the reasons for which are not altogether
apparent.This surprisingfinding may be, to some extent, an artifactof the sample. Only
migrants to Cape Cod were included in this analysis, and length of residence does not
fully capture the duration of contact respondents may have had with the Cape (e.g.,
throughvacation experience or seasonal residence.) Consequently,this finding may support Maines's (1978) hypothesisthatthe migrationof identitiesmay precedethatof bodies
to the extent that community place identities are acquiredpriorto physical relocation on
the Cape. Finally, althoughof lesser magnitude,self-relatedplace affiliationsalso demonstrate a negative effect in the model, and men were more likely than women to report
community-basedties.
While none of the spatialactivity variablesproducedeffects large enough to be included
in the community model, the opposite is true for the regional place identity model. Here,
participationin activities outside of one's residentialcommunityappearsto be integral to
achieving a sense of the Cape as home; the standardizedcoefficient of this discriminant
variable is nearly twice that of any other in the model. The remainingeffects are mainly
divided between the place affiliation and social participationvariables. As anticipated,
community-relatedplace ties show a rathersubstantialnegative effect on regional place
identities;to a lesser extent, the same is true of family place ties. By contrast, attachment
to dwelling has a small positive effect on acquiringa regionalplace identity. With regard
to the social participationvariables, club membershipsand the presence of best friends on
Cape Cod-both boundary-spanningactivities-also reinforcea regional sense of place,
while town meeting attendance-a community-specificactivity-thwarts a regional identity. The single demographic/migrationcharacteristicappearingin the model-the number of residences priorto moving-is negatively associatedwith a regional place identity,
suggesting that mobility may underminea sense of place with larger geographic areas.
Some sense of the predictivepower of these three models can be gained by examining
the percentage of respondentscorrectly classified by the dwelling, community, and regional discriminantfunctions. The dwelling and regional functions classify roughly the
same percentage of respondents (66 percent) correctly, with the community function
classifying slightly fewer correctly (62 percent). Although these percentages represent
substantialimprovementin classification over a randomassignmentto two groups, they
cannot be considered powerful predictive models. However, because we are primarily
interestedin exploring the differentialeffects of four sets of explanatoryvariables on the
126
THESOCIOLOGICAL
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
QUARTERLY
three place identity loci, these discriminantfunctionsneverthelessfurtherour understanding of how place identities are acquiredacross a range of locations.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study of where people locate a sense of home provides importantinsights into the
structureof place identity,the social mediationof place identification,and the complexand sometimes contradictory-sources of identificationwith differentlocales. First, our
analysis demonstratesthat place identity, as expressed by feeling "at-home," is widespread, rich in its attachmentto multiplelocales, and complex in spacial structure.Nearly
all respondents expressed some sense of belonging, and all three locales-dwelling,
community, and region-contributed substantiallyto this process of place identification.
That such variedloci of environmentalmeaningare used to situatethe self underscoresthe
need for furtherresearch on place identity that incorporatesa diversity of locales.
At the same time, place identity is clearly complex in its incorporationof locales. In
these data respondentswere most likely to claim eithera singularor an inclusive sense of
home across the three loci of dwelling, community, and region. On the one hand,
roughly four in ten respondentsidentifiedwith a single locale, and such focused identification was as likely to involve the communityor the region as it was the dwelling place. On
the other hand, approximatelythe same numberof respondentsexpresseda sense of home
attachedto all three locales. These patternsof identificationsuggest a complexity of place
identities not accuratelycapturedby spacial imageriesof place identitiesas nested sets of
bounded locales.
Second, this study demonstrateshow place identitiesare mediatedby a diverse groupof
social factors. Although place identity is no doubt influencedby the qualities of places
themselves, this research underscores how place identification is shaped by people's
interpretationsof place, their experienceswith place, and the demographiccharacteristics
they bring to place. In this sample, factors as varied as people's accounts of place
affiliation, their social participationwith friends and in organizations,their spacial patterns of social activity, and their age andgender were criticalto the interpretationsof place
identificationacross dwelling, community,and region.
Third, although people's socially mediated relationswith place are essential to understanding place identities, relatively few of these factors contributedto a sense of home
across a range of locales. In this study of Cape Cod residents,only dwelling-relatedplace
affiliationsplayed a significant role in strengtheningdwelling, community, and regional
identities, highlighting the significance of dwelling-based ties to establishing a sense of
home at a numberof geographic levels. In some instances, a single factor fosteredplace
identification in two locales, as was the case with friend-relatedplace affiliations (for
dwelling and communityidentification)or club memberships(for communityand regional
identification). In general, however, our results suggest that different elements of the
sociospatial environmentand various demographiccharacteristicsappearto be associated
with one or anothertype of place identity.
Fourth, the same explanatoryfactor may have contradictoryeffects on the loci of place
identity, contributingto a greatersense of home in one locale while decreasinga sense of
home with respect to another.For example, greaterresidentialmobility priorto moving to
Cape Cod was positively associated with a dwelling-basedidentity,but negatively associated with a regional identity. Consequently,a general propositionlinking mobility to the
A Place to Call Home
127
decline of place identity is not supportedin these data;rather,frequentresidentialchange
may intensify a sense of dwelling as home, given that its contents are easily transportable.
Other findings suggest similar counter-effectsof the same variable across the three place
identity loci. Town meeting attendance enhances dwelling and community identities,
while thwartinga regional sense of place; a greaterproportionof best friendson the Cape
strengthenscommunity and regional attachmentswhile weakening ties to dwelling; and
participationin activities outside of one's residential community dampens a dwellingbased identity while bolstering a regional identity. These disparatefindings may help to
explain why previousresearchbased on differentgeographicloci sometimesreportcontradictory effects of the same explanatoryvariable on the acquisition of place identities,
suggesting that models of place identity must be sensitive to the potential varieties of
experience that attach people to a range of places.
Despite these several importantinsights, a numberof questions regardingthe natureof
place identity,questions which we cannot addresswith these data, remainto be explored.
First, we were unable to assess the relative strengthof place identities across the range of
locales. Our three dependentvariablesof dwelling, community,and regionalplace identity were simple dichotomies, not scales that would have allowed us to compare the
intensity of place identities at various geographic levels. Second, we were forced to rely
on a single definition of place identity-an expression of "at-homeness."While this
proved methodologically useful in searchingfor factors that explain place identity across
differentloci, it may be that alternativeconstructionsof place attachmentare predicated
on characteristicsother than those we have identified. Third, because these data were
collected in a single region, furtherresearch in locales that vary in both population size
and geographic location is needed to determinethe generalizabilityof these findings. In
particular,the geographic boundedness of Cape Cod which reinforces its image as a
distinctive regional locale may distinguish it from larger and less sharply bounded regions, such as the South. Finally, our datado not allow for comparisonsbetween migrants
and nonmigrants with respect to the location of place identities. Although migration
appears to have little effect on the existence of some level of place identification, it is
possible that lifetime residentsmay situatetheir identities somewhatdifferentlyacross the
range of locales than do migrants.
Although speculative, the patternsof place identificationdiscussed in this researchpatterns of little geographic nesting, of few integratingfactors, of many contradictory
explanatoryfactors-provide insight into the underlyinglogic of people's relations with
place in modem, mobile society. In seeking to understandthe variedways in which people
come to feel at home in places, we must continueto be attentiveto the socially mediated,
selective, and complex natureof place identification.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This researchwas supportedby GrantNo. 5-R29-AGO5591 from the NationalInstitute
on Aging.
NOTES
1. TheQualityof Life literature,
whichexploresresidentialandcommunitysatisfaction,is one
possibleexceptionto this omission(Campbell,ConverseandRodgers1976;Fried1982;Marans
128
THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
and Rodgers 1975). For treatmentsof this literature, particularlywith respect to the way place
satisfactiondiffers from place attachmentand identification,see Guest andLee (1983) and Hummon
(1990, 1992).
2. To incorporatea diverse, interdisciplinaryliteratureinto this discussion, this social psychological, perspective is framed inclusively. For instance, we incorporatemuch environmentalpsychology, particularlyas it is attentiveto those qualities of the environmentthat situatesocial activity
or display personal or culturalmeaning (Altmanand Chemers 1980). We draw on social ecologists
when concerns with spacial mobility and form are linked to places as social and symbolic locales
(Hunter1987; Park 1926). We have, however, excluded sociobiological perspectivesthattreatplace
identity as a residual of an inherited, territorialinstinct (Greenbie 1981; Van den Berghe 1974).
3. This distinction between display and affiliationparallels that of Stone (1974) who suggests
that identificationmay involve two processes:"identificationof" a type of personand "identification
with"a meaningfulsocial object or group. Significantly,thoughfocusing on such nonverbalsigns as
clothing and gesture, Stone underscoresthe importanceof such appearentialdisplay for presentation
of situatedidentityin interaction,an argumentthatcould be broadenedto include place symbols and
objects.
4. Such broadecological differencesdo shape satisfactionswith communitylife, with people in
smaller, less dense, more rural places voicing more satisfaction (Baldassare 1986; Christenson
1979; La Gory, Wardand Sherman 1985; Marans and Rodgers 1975; Wasserman1982). For an
analysis of these two literatures,see Hummon(1992).
5. Similar relationships may hold for social class. Although higher social class strongly increases satisfaction with the home and local area, it has only modest effects on attachment.Some
evidence suggests that well-to-do are less attachedto the local area, once the influence of better
housing quality is controlled (Gerson et al. 1977; Sampson 1988). Nevertheless, other work indicates that middle class individuals are more likely to use the home as a vehicle for personalized
display and identity (Duncan 1982; Hummon 1989) and that urbanworkingclass residentsare more
likely to bound their sense of home in termsof neighborhoodratherthan simply the dwelling place
(Fried 1963).
6. Although this analysis is restrictedto those moving to Cape Cod at age 17 or older, one
should not assume that all respondentshave limited experience with the Cape. Lengthof Cape Cod
residenceof respondentsin the sample rangesfrom one to fifty years, with a mean of 11.8 years and
a median of 10.0 years. Consequently, length of residence can be meaningfully employed as an
explanatoryvariable in this study of place identity loci. Moreover,because the survey addressesa
number of issues related to geographic mobility, migration characteristics(e.g., number of residences prior to moving to Cape Cod) can also be included in this analysis (see Table 1).
7. Two additionaldimensions of place affiliationwere constructedthroughthis coding process:
amenity-related responses (e.g., climate, natural environment, outdoor activities) and prior
experience-relatedresponses (e.g., previous vacation experience). Because of the small proportion
of responses (12 percent)constitutingthese dimensionsof place affiliation,and because neitherwere
significantlyassociated with locus of place identity,they are excluded from the subsequentanalysis.
8. Given the rural natureof community life on Cape Cod, respondentswere not asked about
theirattachmentsto residentialneighborhoods.Studies thathave been concernedwith neighborhood
as a locus of place identity have generally been conducted in large metropolitanareas.
REFERENCES
Alexander, Christopher,Sara Ishikawa, and MurraySilverstein. 1977. A PatternLanguage. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Altman, Irwin and MartinChemers. 1980. Cultureand Environment.Monterey,CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, Irwin and Carol Werner.1986. Home Environments.New York:Plenum.
A Place to Call Home
129
Baldassare, Mark. 1986. "ResidentialSatisfaction and the CommunityQuestion." Sociology and
Social Research 70: 139-142.
Brown, Samuel R. 1989. "CommunityAttachmentin the United States: A Critique of Two Models." Paperpresentedat the 84th Annual Meeting of the AmericanSociological Association,
San Francisco.
Buttimer, Anne. 1980. "Home, Reach, and The Sense of Place." Pp. 166-187 in The Human
Experience of Space and Place, edited by Ann Buttimerand David Seamon. New York:St.
Martin's Press.
Campbell, Angus, Phillip Converse, and Willard Rodgers. 1976. The Quality of American Life.
New York:Russell Sage.
Christenson, James. 1979. "Urbanismand Community Sentiment."Social Science Quarterly 60:
387-400.
Cochrance, Timothy. 1987. "Place, People, and Folklore: An Isle Royale Case Study." Western
Folklore 46: 1-20.
Coles, Robert. 1967. Migrants, Sharecroppers,and Mountaineers. Boston: Little, Brown.
Csikzentimihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton.1981. The Meaning of Things: Domestic
Symbols and the Self. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Cuba, Lee. 1987. Identityand Communityon the AlaskanFrontier.Philadelphia:TempleUniversity
Press.
Cuba, Lee and David M. Hummon. 1991. "Constructinga Sense of Home." Paperpresentedat the
Association of AmericanGeographersAnnual Meeting, Miami, Florida.
Duncan, James, ed. 1982. Housing and Identity. New York:Holmes and Meier.
Duncan, James. 1973. "LandscapeTasteas a Symbol of GroupIdentity."Geographical Review 63:
334-355.
Erikson, Kai. 1976. Everything in Its Path. New York:Simon and Schuster.
Feldman, Roberta. 1990. "Settlement-Identity:Psychological Bonds with Home Places in a Mobile
Society." Environmentand Behavior 22: 183-229.
Fleming, Ronald Lee and Renatavon Tscharner.1987. Place Makers:CreatingPublic Art that Tells
You Where YouAre. Boston: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
Fried, Marc. 1963. "Grievingfor a Lost Home." Pp. 151-171 in The Urban Condition, edited by
Leonard Duhl. New York:Basic Books.
Fried, Marc. 1982. "ResidentialAttachment:Sources of Residentialand CommunitySatisfaction."
Journal of Social Issues 38: 107-19.
Gans, HerbertJ. 1962. The Urban Villagers. New York:Basic Books.
Gerson, Kathleen, C. Ann Stueve, and Claude Fischer. 1977. "Attachmentto Place." Pp. 139-161
in Networks and Places, edited by Claude Fischer et al. New York:The Free Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Managementof Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Goudy, Willis. J. 1982. "FurtherConsiderationsof Indicatorsof CommunityAttachment."Social
Indicators Research 11: 181-192.
Greenbie, BarrieB. 1981. Spaces: Dimensions of the HumanLandscape. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Guest, Avery M. and Barret Lee. 1983. "Sentiment and Evaluation as Ecological Variables."
Sociological Perspectives 26: 159-184.
Hummon, David M. 1990. Commonplaces:CommunityIdeology and Identityin American Culture.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hummon, David M. Forthcoming."CommunityAttachment:Local Sentimentand Sense of Place."
Pp. 253-278 in Place Attachment, edited by Irwin Altman and Setha Low. New York:
Plenum.
Hummon, David M. 1989. "House, Home, and Identity in American Culture." Pp. 207-228 in
Housing, Culture, and Design, edited by Setha Low and Erve Chambers. Philadelphia:
University of PennsylvaniaPress.
130
THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY
Vol. 34/No. 1/1993
Hunter, Albert. 1974. Symbolic Communities.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hunter, Albert. 1987. "The Symbolic Ecology of Suburbia."Pp. 191-221 in Neighborhoodand
CommunityEnvironments,edited by I. Altman and A. Wandersman.New York: Plenum
Press.
Karp, David, GregoryStone and William Yoels. 1977. Being Urban. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Kasarda,John and Morris Janowitz. 1974. "CommunityAttachmentin Mass Society." American
Sociological Review 39: 28-39.
Klapp, Orin. 1969. Collective Search for Identity. New York:Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Krase, Jerome. 1979. "Stigmatized Places, Stigmatized People: Crown Heights and ProspectLefferts Gardens." Pp. 251-262 in Brooklyn USA. New York: Brooklyn College Press.
Krupat, E. 1985. People in Cities: The Urban Environmentand Behavior. New York:Cambridge
University Press.
La Gory, Mark, R. Wardand S. Sherman. 1985. "The Ecology of Aging: NeighborhoodSatisfaction in an Older Population."Sociological Quarterly26: 405-418.
Laumann, Edward and James House. 1970. "Living Room Styles and Social Attributes:The
Patterningof Material Artifacts in a Modern Urban Community."Sociology and Social
Research 54: 321-342.
Lavin, M. W. and F. Agatstein. 1984. "PersonalIdentity and the Imagery of Place: Psychological
Issues and LiteraryThemes." Journal of Mental Imagery 8: 51-66.
Low, Setha and Irwin Altman. 1992. "PlaceAttachment:A ConceptualInquiry."Pp. 1-12 in Place
Attachment,edited by S. Low and I. Altman. New York:Plenum.
Bonnie.
1982. "Women,Home, and Status."Pp. 181-197 in Housing and Identity,editedby
Loyd,
James Duncan. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Maines, David R. 1978. "Bodies and Selves: Notes on a FundamentalDilemma in Demography."
Pp. 241-265 in Studies in Symbolic Interaction. Vol. 5, edited by Norman K. Denzin.
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Marans, Robertand William Rodgers. 1975. "Towardand Understandingof CommunitySatisfaction." Pp. 299-352 in MetropolitanAmerica in ContemporaryPerspective, edited by A.
Hawley and V. Rock. New York:John Wiley.
Meyer, Judith W. 1987. "A Regional Scale TemporalAnalysis of the Net Migration Patternsof
Elderly Persons over Time." Journal of Gerontology42: 366-375.
Meyrowitz, Joshua. 1986. No Sense of Place: The Impact of the Electronic Media on Social
Behavior. New York:Oxford University Press.
Park, RobertE. 1926. "The UrbanCommunityas a Spacial Patternand MoralOrder."Pp. 3-18 in
The Urban Community,edited by Ernest Burgess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Perin, Constance. 1977. Everything in Its Place. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press.
Peshkin, Alan. 1978. Growing Up American. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Pratt, Gerry. 1982. "The House as an Expressionof Social Worlds."Pp. 135-180 in Housing and
Identity, edited by James Duncan. New York:Holmes and Meier.
Proshansky, Harold M., A. K. Fabian and R. Kaminoff. 1983. "Place Identity:Physical World
Socialization of the Self." Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology 3: 57-83.
Rapoport, Amos. 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment.Beverly Hills: Sage.
. 1982a. "Identityand Environment."Pp. 6-35 in Housing and Identity, edited by James
~
Duncan. New York:Holmes and Meier.
Reed, John Shelton. 1983. Southerners:The Social Psychology of Sectionalism. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press.
Relph, Edward. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.
Rivlin, Leanne. 1982. "Group Membership and Place Meanings in an Urban Neighborhood."
Journal of Social Issues 38: 75-93.
Rivlin, Leanne. 1987. "The Neighborhood,PersonalIdentity,and GroupAffiliations."Pp. 1-34 in
A Place to Call Home
131
Neighborhood and CommunityEnvironments,edited by I. Altman and A. Wandersam.New
York: Plenum Press.
Rowles, Graham D. 1983. "Place and Personal Identity in Old Age: Observationsfrom Appalachia." Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology 3: 299-313.
Rowles, GrahamD. 1978. Prisoners of Space? Exploring the Geographical Experience of Older
People. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rubenstein, Robert L. 1987. "Personal Identity and Environmental Meaning in Later Life."
Journal of Aging Studies 4: 131-147.
Rybczynski, Witold. 1986. Home. New York:Viking.
St. John, Craig, D. MarkAustin and Yoko Baba. 1986. "The Question of CommunityAttachment
Revisited." Sociological Spectrum6: 411-431.
Sampson, RobertJ. 1988. "Local FriendshipTies and CommunityAttachmentin Mass Society: A
Multilevel Systemic Model." American Sociological Review 53: 766-779.
Seamon, David. 1979. A Geography of the Lifeworld. New York: St. Martin'sPress.
Shumaker,Sally A. and Ralph B. Taylor. 1983. "Towarda Clarificationof People-Place Relationships: A Model of Attachmentto Place." Pp. 219-251 in EnvironmentalPsychology, edited
by N.R. Feimer and E. S. Geller. New York: Praeger.
Solomon, Ellen R. and Victoria A. Steinitz. 1986. Starting Out: Class and Communityin the Lives
of Working-ClassYouth.Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
Steele, Fritz. 1981. The Sense of Place. Boston: CBI.
Stone, G.P. 1974. "Appearanceand the Self." Pp. 78-90 in Life as Theatre, edited by D. Brisett
and C. Edgley. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Strauss, Anselm. 1961. Images of the American City. New York:Free Press.
Suttles, Gerald. 1984. "The Cumulative Textureof Local Urban Culture."American Journal of
Sociology 90: 283-302.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Van den Berghe, Pierre. 1974. "BringingBeasts Back In: Towarda Biosocial Theory of Aggression." American Sociological Review 39: 777-788.
Wasserman,I. M. 1982. "Size of Place in Relationto CommunityAttachmentand Satisfactionwith
Community Services." Social Indicators Research 11: 421-436.
Webber, Mel. 1970. "Orderin Diversity." Pp. 791-811 in Neighborhood, City and Metropolis,
edited by R. Gutman and D. Popenoe. New York:Random House.
Weigert, Andrew. 1981. Sociology of EverydayLife. New York:Longman.
Wirth, Louis. 1938. "Urbanismas a Way of Life." AmericanJournal of Sociology 44: 1-24.