E ., : : 5 »

.9 cv .. 2 1 51...”, I. V
14...... a... «v.31». . .WJQdumm
; , :.....mmww...
muﬁxﬁ...
tuning

 

 

.. .x a“ .
IIWWMM hﬂ t» 5‘ Ln:
. =3. . . yr...“ He.

u... L
- (I5. \I‘ .
.3. .1in :.c

. #5003

. n ...
.mw Mm”...

 

w

oymnpmuiféw
1w.......u...n.ﬁhn.¥§.iz S. .
:......sunntf.» our...

 

 

3;? A. Jvﬁbll...

 
 

 
 

 

 

Wf‘ _LlBRARY
100 2 Michigan State
Umversuty

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

EXPLORING HOUSING SATISFACTION AND ADJUSTMENT
PROCESSES OF CROSS-CULTURAL SOJOURNERS:
THE CASE OF KOREAN SOJOURNERS IN THE UNITED
STATES

presented by

EUNSIL LEE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Human Environment:
Design and Management

 

 

WM WM

Major Pro’l’éssor’s Signature
5‘ -— 8 ~ 08

Date

 

MSU is an afﬁrmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

-.-.-.-.—._.-.—-— —

—_.-.-.—.-.-.—._.—.c—-.-.

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:lPrq/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DaleDue indd

 

EXPLORING HOUSING SATISFACTION AND ADJUSTMENT PROCESSES
OF CROSS-CULTURAL SOJOURNERS:
THE CASE OF KOREAN SOJOURNERS IN THE UNITED STATES
By

Eunsil Lee

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Human Environment: Design and Management

2008

ABSTRACT
EXPLORING HOUSING SATISFACTION AND ADJUSTMENT PROCESSES
OF CROSS-CULTURAL SOJOURNERS:
THE CASE OF KOREAN SOJOURNERS IN THE UNITED STATES
By
EUNSIL LEE

This study investigated factors inﬂuencing the housing satisfaction of Korean
sojourners and their housing adjustment processes in the context of cross-cultural
temporary residence.

This study used a mixed method design, combining quantitative and qualitative
methodologies. Data sources included questionnaires and interviews. Two hundred and
thirty-ﬁve questionnaires comprising both a paper version and an online version of the
survey were analyzed using regression analysis and path analysis. Twenty-seven case-
study participants were selected from respondents to the survey. The case studies
involved analyses of interview data.

Factors inﬂuencing housing satisfaction of Korean sojourners were investigated
by testing a conceptual framework based on actual-aspirational gap theory Of residential
satisfaction (Marans and Spreckelmeyer, 1981) and Morris’ and Winter’s model of
housing adjustment (1978). Findings from quantitative analyses revealed that soj ourner
characteristics, housing deﬁcits, and housing perceptions were important determinants of
soj ourners’ housing satisfaction. Housing condition and past sojourning experience
signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced sojourners’ housing satisfaction both directly and indirectly
through housing perceptions. Housing perceptions acted as more important mediators on

housing satisfaction of sojoumers than did housing deﬁcits. Results suggested that

sojourners’ housing satisfaction is better explained by Marans and Spreckelmeyer’s
model (1981) than by Morris’ and Winter’s model (1978). Cultural factors were found to
inﬂuence housing satisfaction indirectly yet signiﬁcantly through perceptions of physical
attributes, perceptions of neighborhoods, and attachment.

The case study investigated sojoumers’ housing adjustment processes and
delivered several important ﬁndings. Four representative cases of sojourner groups were
categorized based on two main constraints of sojourners: their planned total time of
sojourning and length of residence in the US. By most sojoumers, surrounding natural
environment and built-in storage were perceived as satisfactory, while carpeted ﬂoors,
interior lighting, noise and outdated structures were perceived as unsatisfactory. Overall,
newcomers showed more need for cultural amenities while long-term sojourners were
more concerned with better physical quality. Four types of housing adjustments of
sojoumers were identiﬁed: (1) change behaviors, (2) modify housing attributes, (3)
endure inconveniences, and (4) move out.

This study suggests the importance of providing culturally-responsive housing

designs for sojoumer populations which are growing quickly in the United States.

Copyright by
Eunsil Lee
2008

This dissertation is dedicated to
my family for their unconditional love and support
and to God for Making all this possible.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Successful completion of my long doctoral journey was rendered possible by
considerable support from many. In this space, I express to them my sincere appreciation.

First, I express gratitude to members of my dissertation committee for their
constant encouragement, guidance, expertise and time. From my dissertation committee
chair, Dr. Nam-Kyu Park, I received invaluable support. She always allocated priority to
my success in the doctoral program, offering endless encouragement. Thank you for her
patience, expertise and insightful feedback, and for being so readily available to respond
to my needs. She has been a true mentor, in every sense of that word.

My sincere thanks, also, to Professor Roberta Kilty, a true “teacher” to me from
my undergraduate years, and remarkably supportive in multiple ways throughout my
doctoral program. Equally, I am indebted to committee members Drs. Tariq Abdelhamid
and John Schweitzer for their guidance and instruction regarding my conceptual and
methodological approaches, for their insights into my study, and for their precise
comments and suggestions.

To my Michigan State University colleagues and friends, unfailingly excellent
advisors and friends all, my many thanks. Especially, I thank Dr. Jounghwa Choi for her
help in statistical analysis. My friends in the prayers meeting, “Sisters of Lydia” have my
appreciation for their love, supplications, and sharing of my moments of sorrow and
happiness; they include Miran Kim, Kumhee Yang, J ee Young Bang, Jeonghee Noh, J in
Young Choi, Yoo-mi Chin, Sunhee Moon, Sang Eun Lee, Jung Eun Lee, Hyunjoo Ha,

Myung Sun Huh, Han Sook Choi, Jaemin Cha, Heejung Hong, and Christina Dokter. For

vi

my doctoral years they have been my family, helping me overcome setbacks. I am
especially grateful to Miran Kim for her smiles, prayers and collegiality. Additionally, I
thank those Korean students, visiting scholars, and their families who responded to my
survey and participated in the case studies. Without them, this study could not have been
possible.

My doctoral study could not have been completed without support and love from
my family. I express deep gratitude to my husband, Hyungchan Kim, who sacriﬁced
endlessly for my graduate study, and to my precious daughter, Ayoung Kim, for her love
and endurance all these years. Also I am greatly indebted to my mother-in-law, Eunj ae
Kim, for her support and patience. Special thanks to my parents HakHyun Lee and Hwaja
Cho for their unconditional love and support. My sisters, sisters-in-law, brother, brothers-
in-law, and my nephews deserve similar, special thanks.

Most important, my highest thanks to God Who Blessed me with these amazing

people and Made all this possible. Thank You, Lord.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
The Purpose of this Study ............................................................................................ 3
Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................................................................................. 5
Overview of the Following Chapters ........................................................................... 6
CHAPTER H
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 8
Background of Cross-Cultural Housing Adjustment ................................................... 8
General Phases of Cultural Adjustment ............................................................... 8
Cultural Factors in Housing Environments ....................................................... 10
Cross-Cultural Adjustment in Housing .............................................................. 11
Cross—Cultural Housing Adjustment: The Case of Korean Immigrants ............. 13
Theoretical Background ............................................................................................. 16
The actual-aspirational gap theory of residential satisfaction ........................... 16
Morris ' and Winter ’3 Housing Adjustment Model (1978) .................................. 19
Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 20
Housing adjustment ............................................................................................ 20
Housing satisfaction ........................................................................................... 21
Housing deﬁcits .................................................................................................. 25
Housing perceptions ........................................................................................... 26
A conceptual model of the study ......................................................................... 29
CHAPTER HI
RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................. 32
Research Design ........................................................................................................ 32
Rationale for Research Method .......................................................................... 32
Survey Method ........................................................................................................... 33
Population and Sample ....................................................................................... 33
Pilot study ........................................................................................................... 34
Survey instrument and measurement .................................................................. 34
Data Collection ................................................................................................... 38
Case Study ................................................................................................................. 4O
Participants ......................................................................................................... 40
Data Collection ................................................................................................... 41
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 41
Survey Data ........................................................................................................ 41

viii

Case Study Data ................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER IV
FACTORS INFLUENCING HOUSING SATISFACTION OF CROSS-CULTURAL
SOJOURNERS ................................................................................................................. 43
Preliminary Analyses ................................................................................................. 43
Exogenous Variables .......................................................................................... 43
Endogenous variables ......................................................................................... 46
Reliability Test .................................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER V
HOUSING ADJUSTMENT PROCESSES OF CROSS-CULTURAL SOJOURNERS . 77
Four Cases of Sojourners ........................................................................................... 79
Case one: short-term/newcomer ......................................................................... 79
Case two: short-term sojourners halfway or further .......................................... 81
Case three: long-term sojourners in their early part of sojourning ................... 81
Case four: long-term sojourners in the later part of sojourning ........................ 81
Choice of Housing ..................................................................................................... 82
Housing choices of short-term sojourners (Cases 1 and 2) ............................... 83
Housing choices of long-term sojourners (Case 3 and 4) .................................. 87
Evaluation of current housing .................................................................................... 92
Satisfactory housing attributes ........................................................................... 92
Satisfactory attributes in the four representative cases ...................................... 95
Unsatisfactory attributes overall ........................................................................ 96
Unsatisfactory attributes in the four Cases ...................................................... 102
Housing Adjustment Patterns .................................................................................. 103
Changing behaviors tofit housing attributes ................................................... 103
Modifying housing attributes to ﬁt their lifestyles ............................................ 106
Enduring inconvenience ................................................................................... 108
Moving .............................................................................................................. 108
Overall adjustment patterns ............................................................................. 109
Adaptability to housing attributes .................................................................... 109
CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 112
Discussion ................................................................................................................ 1 12
Factors inﬂuencing housing satisfaction of sojourners .................................... 1 12
Housing adjustment processes of sojourners ................................................... 118
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 125
Factors inﬂuencing housing satisfaction of sojourners .................................... 125
Housing adjustment processes of sojourners ................................................... 127
Implications ............................................................................................................. 129
Theoretical Implications ................................................................................... 129

ix

Practical Implications ...................................................................................... 13 1

Study Limitations ..................................................................................................... 134
Future Research ....................................................................................................... 135
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 13 8
APPENDIX A: Questionnaires in English .............................................................. 139
APPENDIX B: Questionnaires in Korean ............................................................... 147
APPENDIX C: Consent Form ................................................................................. 154
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 155

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The Characteristics of Korean Housing and Behaviors ....................................... 14
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Demographic Characteristics .................................... 44
Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Sojouming Characteristics ........................................ 45
Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Housing Characteristics ............................................ 46

Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Housing Conditions, Housing Norms, and Housing

Deﬁcits ............................................................................................................... 48
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Housing Deﬁcit Variables ........................................... 49
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Perceptions of Physical Aspects ............................. 50
Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Perceptions of Neighborhood Environment ............. 52
Table 9. Percentage Distribution Of Perceptions of Cultural Aspects .............................. 54
Table 10. Percentage Distribution of Attachment to Current Housing .............................. 55
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Housing Satisfaction ............................................. 55
Table 12. Results of Reliability Analysis .......................................................................... 57
Table 13. Pearson Correlations ........................................................................................ 59
Table 14. Results of Regression Analysis of Housing Deﬁcits on Exogenous Variables .60
Table 15. Results of Regression Analysis of Perceptions of Physical Attributes on
Exogenous Variables ......................................................................................... 62
Table 16. Results of Regression Analysis of Perceptions of Neighborhood on Exogenous
Variables ............................................................................................................ 63
Table 17. Results of Regression Analysis of Perceptions of Cultural Attributes on
Exogenous Variables ......................................................................................... 64
Table 18. Results of Regression analysis of Attachment to the Current Housing on
Exogenous Variables ......................................................................................... 65
Table 19. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis ..................................................... 67
Table 20. Results of Fit Indices in the Path Model ............................................................ 70

xi

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Table 32.

Table 33.

Signiﬁcant Indirect Effects on Housing Satisfaction ......................................... 75

Standard Estimates for Direct, Indirect, and Total. Effects ................................ 76
Characteristics of Participants in the Case Study .............................................. 78
Information Sources for Housing Choice for Short-term Sojourners .............. 84

Important Housing Attributes for Housing Choice of Short-term Sojoumers...84

First Impressions of the Current Apartment ................................................... 86
Number of Relocations of Long-term Flamed Sojourners .............................. 88
Reasons for Leaving Previous Residences ........................................................ 89
Important Housing Attributes in Housing Choice, Long-term Sojourners ........ 90
Satisfactory Housing Attributes ....................................................................... 94
Unsatisfactory Housing Attributes ..................................................................... 97
Housing Adjustment Patterns ......................................................................... 104
Adaptability to Unsatisfactory Housing Attributes ......................................... 1 11

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual Path Model of the Study .............................................................. 30
Figure 2. Modiﬁed Path Model ...................................................................................... 73
Figure 3. Four Cases of Sojourners During Housing Adjustment Processes ................ 80

xiii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

During the last two decades or so, the United States has experienced a signiﬁcant
growth in the number Of temporary international visitors traveling, studying, or working
abroad. According to the 2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (U .S. Department of
Homeland Security, 2006), there has been a steady increase in non-immi grants admitted
to the United States, from 16.1 million in 1989 to 30.8 million in 2004. Not only has the
number of tourists and short-term visitors increased considerably, but also long-term
visitors - temporary workers, intra-company transferees, exchange visitors, students and
their families - have increased signiﬁcantly in the same period. And the number of
temporary visitors to the United States is expected to continue to increase (U .S.
Department of Commerce, 2007).

A temporary visitor to another country is referred to as a sojourner; this temi
generally includes tourists, students, diplomats, business persons, or others visiting and/or
living in a foreign country for a short while (Kennedy, 1994). One of the most important
issues for these cross-cultural sojourners is adjusting their thinking and behaviors to ﬁt
the new environment. The term “culture shock” refers to sojourners’ behavioral,
emotional, mental, and physical responses to the unfamiliar (Rhinesmith, 1985).
Sojourners’ adaptations to the host culture, acculturation, is the focus of various studies
from several areas as the number of sojourners has grown (Adelman, 1988; Aycan, 1997;
Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Berry, 1997; Ward, 1996; Zheng & Berry,
1991). For example, according to Wagner and Hollenback (1995), 16% to 40% of US.

personnel who go abroad return home prematurely because they are unable to adapt to

foreign surroundings, and the costs of this failure to adjust to new environments are
critical. Well-adjusted sojourners are more effective in their new jobs, with less stress and
better cultural integration (Aycan, 1997).

To pursue subsequent needs for social relationships, self-esteem, and personal
development, sojoumers’ fundamental needs, such as food and housing, for physical
well-being should be met effectively (Maslow, 1943). Satisfactory housing, especially, is
an important contributor to general well—being (Andrews & Withey, 1976), yet in the area
of housing, although housing studies about immigrants have increased, there is a marked
absence of knowledge about the housing adjustment of sojourner populations.

According to Jun et a1. (1993), preferences for permanent or temporary residency
signiﬁcantly inﬂuence cultural identiﬁcation. Those wishing to continue to stay in the
host society tend to identify more with the host culture, while those who View their stays
as temporary identify more with their cultures of origin. It is necessary to study the
housing adjustments of sojourner populations because such adjustments may differ from
those of immigrants. To ﬁll this research gap, the present study examines how sojourners
adjust to the housing environment of their host countries, with particular reference to
Korean sojourners temporarily resident in the US. While the population of such Korean
sojourners is relatively small, it is one of the fastest growing ethnic populations.
According to the US. Department of Commerce (2007), Korea is the seventh-largest
trading partner of the US, and, during the 2006 calendar year, about 758,000 Korean
visitors came to the US. for tourism and business travel, representing the ﬁfth-largest
national group. In addition, Korean students account for the largest number of

international students enrolled in US. universities (U .8. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, 2006). There were some 94,000 Korean Students in USA in 2006 (14.9%
of all international students), plus their dependents accompanying the students to
America. Furthermore, since the number of Korean sojourners is expected to increase
signiﬁcantly if Korea becomes a participant in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) in the
near future (US-Korea VWP Coalition, 2006), Korean sojourners’ housing demand is

also likely to increase accordingly.

The Purpose of this Study

Given the increasing number and diversity of soj oumer populations and limited
housing research concerning sojourner populations, this study’s main purpose is two-
fold: (1) to identify factors inﬂuencing Korean sojourners’ housing satisfaction, by
developing and testing a conceptual model based on previous housing studies and (2) to
investigate, in depth, Korean sojourners’ housing adjustment processes.

First, considering that sojourners’ adjustment in the host country is measured by
their satisfaction levels (Lysgaard, 1995; Berry & Kim, 1988), one of this study’s main
purposes is to investigate factors inﬂuencing such housing satisfaction of sojourners. By
examining determinants of that housing satisfaction, this study aims to identify how
soj oumers adapt to their housing environments and what factors are the main constraints
or facilitators in their housing adjustment processes. While there have been various
studies about the housing satisfaction of a variety of populations, the housing satisfaction
of sojourner populations had not yet been studied effectively. Thus, this study develops
and tests a conceptual model for sojourners’ housing satisfaction, drawn from the (1)

actual-aspirational gap theory of residential satisfaction (Campbell et al., 1976;

F rancescato et al., 1974; Marans & Rodgers, 1975; Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981;
Weidemann & Anderson, 1985) and (2) Morris’ and Winter’s model of housing
adjustment (1978).

Second, based on the notion that a house is not merely a structure but also a
cultural phenomenon best suited to the way of life of a people (Rapoport, 1969), this
study’s purpose is to understand the comprehensive processes of sojourners’ housing
adjustment. This study aims at elaborating how Korean sojourners choose, perceive, and
adjust to the housing environment in the context of the cultural adjustment process.

The speciﬁc research objectives in examining factors inﬂuencing the housing
satisfaction of sojourners are:

1. To investigate how sojourner characteristics (i.e., demographic
characteristics, sojourning characteristics, and housing characteristics)
inﬂuence housing deﬁcits.

2. To investigate how sojourner characteristics (i.e., demographic
characteristics, sojourning characteristics, and housing characteristics)
inﬂuence housing perceptions.

3. To investigate how sojourner characteristics (i.e., demographic
characteristics, sojourning characteristics, and housing characteristics),
housing deﬁcits, and housing perceptions inﬂuence housing satisfaction.

The speciﬁc research objectives in exploring the housing adjustment processes of
sojourners are:
1. To examine main constraints in housing adjustment processes of Korean

sojourners.

2. To examine how Korean sojourners choose their ﬁrst and/or current housing
in the US. and what housing features are perceived to be important when
they choose it.

3. To examine how Korean sojourners feel about their housing environment
and with which housing features Korean sojourners are satisﬁed or
dissatisﬁed.

4. To examine what adjustments have been made to their housing and to what
cultural attributes Korean sojourners feel it is easier or more difﬁcult to

adapt to.

Signiﬁcance of the Study

Theoretically, this study is to develop and test a model of the housing satisfaction
of sojourners which is drawn from (1) actual-aspirational gap theory of residential
satisfaction (Campbell et al., 1976; Francescato et al., 1974; Marans & Rodgers, 1975;
Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981; Weidemann & Anderson, 1985) and (2) Morris’ and
Winter’s model of housing adjustment (1978). By developing an appropriate model for
the housing satisfaction of sojourners, the present study attempts to contribute to the body
of knowledge of cultural housing studies. In addition, this study can contribute to
research in cross-cultural adjustment by exploring how the phases of sojourners' cultural
adjustment (Oberg, 1960; Rhinesmith, 1985; Winkelman, 1994) explain housing
adjustment processes of Korean sojourners.

Practically, by investigating determinants of the housing satisfaction of soj oumers

and the overall process of housing adjustment in host countries, the present study

attempts to provide housing practitioners and policy makers with a knowledge base to
understand housing problems related to speciﬁc cultural sojourner groups in the US.

The ﬁndings. are anticipated to help develop more culturally-responsive housing
environments for not only Korean sojourners but also for other subculture groups.
Furthermore, this study is expected to contribute to the development of speciﬁc housing
policies related to the variability of housing design. Finally, for Korean sojourners
themselves, the ﬁndings of this study will help understanding of, preparing for, and better

adapting to, both cultural- and functional differences in USA housing environments.

Overview of the Following Chapters

From this point, this dissertation is organized thus:

Chapter II, the literature review, comprises two main parts. The ﬁrst describes the
background of cross-cultural housing adjustment, including general phases of cultural
adjustment, cultural factors in housing, and cross-cultural housing adjustment of Koreans.
The second explains the theoretical background and conceptual framework. The
conceptual model of this study is presented along with research questions.

Chapter 111 describes research method details. First, the rationale for choosing a
mixed method is given. Then, a description of population and sample, pilot study,
instrument, and data collection procedure for survey is provided. Next, participants and
data collection procedure for the case study are described. Finally, speciﬁc data analyses
for the survey and case study are discussed.

Chapter IV reports ﬁndings on factors inﬂuencing the housing satisfaction of

sojourners. First, the results of descriptive statistics, the reliability test, and the correlation

are provided. Then ﬁndings from regression analysis and path analysis, employed to
examine the inﬂuences of three groups of factors (i.e., sojourner characteristics, housing
deﬁcits, and housing perceptions) on the housing satisfaction of sojourners is reported.
Chapter V presents an analysis of the case study to describe how Korean
sojourners adjusted to their housing environments in the US. The chapter Opens with
four representative Cases of sojourners. Then, the chapter provides ﬁndings about how
Korean sojourners chose, perceived, and adjusted to their housing environments.
Chapter VI discusses the ﬁndings of the study and its theoretical and practical
implications. Then limitations of the study and recommendations for ﬁiture studies are

presented.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter comprises two sections providing background for this study. In the
ﬁrst, the background of cross-cultural housing adjustment is discussed. In the second,
the theoretical background for this study is discussed. Previous models of housing
satisfaction are reviewed, and the conceptual framework for the present study is

presented.

Background of Cross-Cultural Housing Adjustment
General Phases of Cultural Adjustment

Cross-cultural psychologists refer to temporary visitors to another country as
“cultural soj oumers, who go abroad voluntarily, spending a moderate length of time (six
month to ﬁve years), with intention of returning home, and with more speciﬁc and goal-
oriented motives” (FLunham & Bochner, 1987). When sojourners experience cultural
differences in foreign countries, they can feel loss of their own cultural surroundings and
suffer from facing new environments (Bymes, 1966; Oberg, 1960; Rhinesmith, 1985,
Winkelman, 1994). These reactions to the unfamiliar are called “culture shock” by cross-
—cu1tural researchers (Rhinesmith, 1985).

Although culture shock generally is linked to negative psychological indicators, if
it is handled appropriately, sojourners can recover and adapt to new cultural
circumstances and feel at home (Oberg, 1960). Several researchers have considered
culture shock to be not a singular phenomenon but a sequence of different stages of

cultural adjustment ranging from four (Ferraro, 1990; Kohls, 1984; Oberg, 1960; Preston,

1985) or ﬁve (Adler, 1975) to eight phases (Rhinesmith, 1985). For example, Oberg
(1960) ﬁrst suggested that the four stages of cultural adjustment of international
sojourners consisted of (1) “the honeymoon stage,” where sojourners are excited about
being in a new place, (2) “the crisis stage,” where sojourners face cultural differences
leading to culture shock, (3) “the recovery stage,” where sojourners gradually discover
how to function better in their new cultures, and (4) “the adjustment stage,” where
sojourners are comfortable and function successfully in the new culture. Cross-cultural
adaptation, or acculturation, also refers to this process of ﬁtting in to a new culture and
adapting comfortably new environments (Kim & Gudykunst, 1988).

When researchers explored the relationship between sojourners’ satisfaction
levels and the time spent in the new environment, a sequential “u-curve” pattern is
perceived (Lysgaard, 1955; Berry & Kim, 1988). In his cross-sectional study of 200
Norwegians who previously had studied in the US. for 0-6 months, 6-18 months, or more
than 18 months, Lysgaard (1955) described this curvilinear function and referred to it as
the u-curve phenomenon. Also, Berry and Kim (1988) noted a pattern of a “u-curve” in
terms of satisfaction level in the acculturation process, as the conﬂict stage creates the
highest level of dissatisfaction.

The u-curve pattern of adjustment has not always been supported by empirical
research, however. For example, Church (1982) found evidence for the u-curve “weak,
inconclusive, and overgeneralized.” A longitudinal study of Japanese students in New
Zealand examined this issue (Ward et al., 1998) and clearly showed that, in contrast to
the u-curve of adjustment, adjustment problems were greatest at the entry point and

decreased over time.

Cultural Factors in Housing Environments

According to Rapoport (1969), the primary determinant of physical environment
is not physical factors — climate, need for shelter, materials, socioeconomics, defense, and
religion, but cultural factors, which are modiﬁed by the above physical factors. The
cultural “template” shapes both physical environments and lifestyles (Rapoport, 1977).
As much as lifestyles, or activity systems, vary from one culture to another, so does
housing as a system of physical settings within which certain activities occur from one
culture to another (Rapoport 1980).

There has been increasing number of studies about the relationship between
culture and physical environment. One of the ﬁrst systematic studies was conducted by
Hall (1966) who in his The Hidden Dimension suggested that individuals ﬁom different
cultural backgrounds vary in their spatial behaviors because of different cultural norms
inﬂuencing the use of space within diverse societies. He found cross—cultural differences
and similarities in spatial usage among European and non-European (e.g., Arab and
Japanese) cultures. Canter and Canter (1971) also found use of rooms in houses is diverse
in different countries. For example, in most far—eastern countries (e.g., Japan, China, and
Korea), more ﬂexible use of rooms was developed, unlike the American tradition.
Lawrence (1982) strongly argued that socio-cultural attributes of a society are more
inﬂuential than architectural design in explaining the difference in the use and meaning
of kitchens.

Studies have also found that culturally-responsive housing is likelier to meet
psychological and physical housing needs than is technically or physically sound

housing. For example, Brascugli (1982) found that traditionally-built houses of Gilla

10

River Indians have a higher satisfaction rating for them than more expensive standard
housing. Studies about the housing adjustment of Korean immigrants have shown that
socio-cultural attributes are important factors in creating satisfactory housing
environments (Lee, 1982; Lee, 1998; Song, 1990). Therefore, it is expected that
sojourners’ housing adjustments and housing satisfactions can be much better
understood in a cultural context as well as in a physical context.

C ross-C ultural Adjustment in Housing

For sojourners, re-shaping the nature of space is one of the challenges of the
new country. A study of a migrant settlement on a Greek island (Noussia, 2003)
suggested that migrants’ cultural attitudes are culturally translocated in an attempt to
replicate aspects of their housing culture in their home country, or that there is a cultural
transformation via which cultural practices in the host country are adopted and often
modiﬁed.

Similarly, in a study of the adhesive socio-cultural adaptation of Korean
immigrants to the US, Hurh and Kim (1984) conceptualized adjustment needs related
to housing in three parts: acculturation needs, cultural needs, adhesive needs.
Acculturation needs are immigrants’ desires to be integrated into their host societies,
while cultural needs are their desires to maintain a major part of their own culture
without modiﬁcation; desire to balance the two ends make up their adhesive needs.
Immigrants may want to be acculturated into their host societies but without modifying
any important elements of their own cultural values. Likewise, sojourners’ attitudes
toward the cultural aspects of their host societies affect the scope and extent of housing

adjustments.

11

There is an extensive body of research on the cultural identity of migrants.
Studies have examined the importance of housing in retaining cultural identity (Miller,
2000) and the importance of home interiors and furnishings for maintaining a sense of
belonging (Yalcin-Heckmann, 1995) or presentation of cultural identity through
possession and display of interior objects (Birdwell Pheasant and Lawrence-Zuniga,
1999). In a study of cultural pluralism within cultural heritage in Australia, Armstrong
(2000) explored the relationship of migrants with place and the process of place—makin g.

Studies have shown that one of the inﬂuential factors for cultural adjustment in
housing environments is the length of residence in the host country. In a study of the
housing adjustments of Korean immigrants in the Houston area, Lee (1998) found that
cultural amenity needs were related negatively to length of residence in the US.
Cultural amenity needs were most predominant with newly-arrived immigrants, while the
longer a household resided in the US, the less the household was dissatisﬁed with
cultural amenity needs. Similarly, Song’s (1990) results showed that the longer the
immigrants stayed in the US, the higher their satisfaction with their residence.

On the other hand, Liu (2005) found that length of residence in the US. was not
a signiﬁcant predictor of housing satisfaction for Asian and Paciﬁc Islanders. Based on
Morris’ and Winter’s Housing adjustment theory and using the 2002 American Housing
Survey Metropolitan Sample (AHS-MS), Liu compared the housing satisfaction of an
Asian and Paciﬁc Islander group to a non-Hispanic White group. Although Asian and
Paciﬁc Islanders have cultural values different from their past housing experience, the

cultural factors do not play a signiﬁcant role in their housing satisfaction in the US.

12

C ross-C ultural Housing Adjustment: The Case of Korean Immigrants

Cultural Background of Korean Housing. These days, many Koreans live in
western-style houses or apartments, which appear closely similar to the living style of
Americans; however, cultural differences between Korea and the US. make their space
layouts and uses of spaces different. Table 1 presents the characteristics of Korean
housing and Koreans’ housing behaviors, which can be traced back to traditional
beliefs, Confucian ethics, and their customs and habits.

First, traditional beliefs inﬂuencing Korean housing are Feng-shui, Geomancy,
and Yin-Yang philosophy (Hong, 1975). These traditional beliefs affect building layout
and design, location and orientation of the house in natural surroundings, and the
placement of furniture and objects within rooms. Since ideal location and orientation
are considered to bring good fortune, a house facing south traditionally has been one of
the most important design elements (Hong, 1975). In addition, being highly dependent
on natural lighting inside their dwellings, Koreans have strong preferences for south-
facing housing to optimize natural lighting. A large south-facing door, wall, or window
is also preferred to maintain a full view of the outside. Because of their beliefs that
every built thing ultimately decays and returns to its original state, ﬁrmiture and Obj ects
in the house are not built-in but ﬂexible in Korea (Lee, 1994).

Confucian ethics inﬂuence distinguishable behavioral characteristics of Koreans
including barefoot living and sitting on the ﬂoor rather than on chairs. Generally, the
entrance hall of a Korean house is one step lower than the living space to provide a
place to take off shoes before entering. Also, it is common to have a shoe storage closet

in the entrance hall. Because of sitting on the ﬂoor, radiant ﬂoor heating systems, called

13

On-dol, are still generally used in Korea.

Another inﬂuence of Confucian ethics is the concept of privacy and personal
space. In Korea, the family is a social unit which has priority over individuals, and there
is little concern with privacy or personal space inside. Therefore, Koreans have
developed ﬂexible use of rooms. That is, the same area can serve several functions.

On the contrary, personal space is important inside houses in the US. because people
usually view privacy inside the home as more than, or at least as important as, that of

outside (Rapoport, 1969).

Table 1. The Characteristics of Korean Housing and Behaviors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Housing behaviors Housing characteristics
Barefoot living inside Shoes closet at entrance
Lowered level of entrance hall
Sitting directly on ﬂoor Radiant ﬂoor heating On-dol
Hard ﬂoor materials
Little privacy & personal space Multipurpose rooms
inside housing Outdoor fence
Outdoor main entrance
Depending on natural lighting Daylight oriented housing layout
South-facing orientation
Being closer to nature Large south-facing door for outside view
Natural cooling, ventilation
View of nature Flexible fumiture rather than built-in
Preserving surplus food Extra storage space for food supplies

Kitchen window over sink to remove odors

 

Korean food and eating habits inﬂuence distinguishable characteristics of
Korean culture. Korean food exists largely in the form of preserves, hence a need for
extra storage space. Also traditionally, a kitchen window installed over the sink has
become an important design solution to remove cooking odors. Customs and habits

have changed over time but still affect house form and use of dining, kitchen, and food

14

storage areas in Korean housing.

Housing Adjustments of Korean Immigrants in the U.S. The ﬁrst study of
housing adjustments of Korean immigrants in the U.S. was conducted by Lee (1982),
who attempted to explore family housing adjustment behaviors in response to cultural
change. Basing her study on a conceptual framework developed from models of Morris
and Winter (1978) and Michelson (1977), Lee surveyed 32 Korean immigrant
households in the Washington DC. area. The study found that Korean immigrants were
generally satisﬁed with their housing after successfully adapting to their new
circumstances. Korean immigrants were dissatisﬁed, relatively so, with kitchens
inconvenient for Korean food, lack of proximity to Korean communities, and outside
appearances Of their houses. Positive characteristics reported as important to the
majority of respondents were that it was a good place to rear children, its quietness, and
schools’ quality. The traditional ﬂoor-heating system On-dol was the most desired
characteristic of Korean families in the Washington DC. area.

Song (1990) studied settlement processes of immigrants in the Detroit area, using
data from questionnaires administrated to 148 Korean households and interviews with
sub-samples of 39 households. Findings from this study indicated that immigrants'
residential settlement processes showed some routine patterns: they started at their
relatives' dwellings, subsequently settled into a rental unit near their relatives, and ﬁnally
settled into their own dwellings. Findings also indicated that children’s needs played an
important role in housing adjustments of Korean immigrants.

More recently, Lee (1998) studied housing adjustments of Korean immigrants in

the Houston area. By using surveys and subsequent interviews, Lee studied Korean

15

immigrants’ needs for functional spaces and cultural amenities. Results showed that
immigrants valued both functional spaces and cultural amenities simultaneously and
more-recently-immigrated Korean households were more sensitive to cultural needs.
Overall, Korean households tended to evaluate their housing more positively as they
become more integrated into their host society. Unlike Lee (1982), Lee’s (1998) study
indicated that On-dol ﬂoor heating for rooms was not a preferred cultural amenity among
Korean families in Houston because of the modifying factor of the hot, humid climate
there.

As Rapoport suggested, child-rearing is an important criterion for housing
selection in the settlement processes of Korean immigrants. The needs of children and
especially the school district are signiﬁcant in choosing housing (Song, 1990). The same

ﬁnding was shown in the studies of Kim (1977), Choi (1979), and Lee (1982).

Theoretical Background
Two main purposes of the study were (1) to investigate factors inﬂuencing the
housing satisfaction of sojourners, (2) to examine the processes of sojourners’ housing
adjustments. The actual-aspirational gap theory of residential satisfaction (Francescato et
al., 1974; Marans & Spreckehneyer, 1981) and Morris’ and Winter’s model of housing

adjustment ( 1978) provided a theoretical frameWork for this study.

The actual-aspirational gap theory of residential satisfaction
The actual-aspirational gap theory of residential satisfaction suggests that people

perceive salient attributes of their physical environment and evaluate them based on

16

certain standards of comparison, especially the standard deﬁned by what people believe
they may reasonably aspire to. The extent to which there is little gap between perceived
actual environment and aspired-to environment provides the measure of satisfaction. The
research implications of this approach are that objective features of the environment, and
personal characteristics that presumably inﬂuence perceptions and evaluations, must be
identiﬁed (Campbell et al., 1976; Francescato et al., 1974; Marans & Rodgers, 1975;
Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981; Weidemann & Anderson, 1985).

F rancescato et a1. (1974) ﬁrst considered residents’ housing satisfaction with
physical and social environments. In evaluating residents’ satisfaction in housing for low-
and moderate- income families, Francescato et. al. (1974) initially proposed a model that
viewed residents’ housing satisfaction as being a direct function of three categories of
variables: objective personal characteristics of the residents (e. g., age, sex, previous
housing experience), Obj ective physical characteristics of housing environments (e. g.,
density, site layout, dwelling size), and residents’ subjective perceptions or beliefs about
three aspects of their housing environment (e.g., the physical environment, housing
management, and other residents). Their model considered housing perceptions as
determinants Of housing satisfaction, although intermediate aspects of people’s
perceptions were not considered.

Marans & Rodgers’ (1975) residential satisfaction model suggests the
intermediate link of perceptions between objective environmental attributes and
residential satisfaction. Basically, the model suggests that an individual’s expressed
satisfaction with his or her residential environment is dependent upon his or her

evaluation or assessment of several attributes of that environment. An individual’s

l7

perception of a particular attribute is dependent on but distinct from the objective
environmental attributes itself. The characteristics of an individual are seen as affecting
his or her perceptions and assessments of environmental attributes and the standards for
comparisons used. As an extension of this framework, it has been posited that satisfaction
with the residential environment together with satisfaction with other life domains can
inﬂuence the quality of life that an individual experiences.

The original conceptualization was developed for residential environments, but
these relationships were applied to the analysis of data covering a variety of
environmental settings, such as ofﬁce buildings (Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981),
recreational environments (Marans & Fly, 1981) and institutional settings (Canter et al.,
1980)

In their case study of ofﬁce buildings, Marans and Spreckelmeyer (1981)
suggested a conceptual model derived in part from a previous model of Marans and
Rodgers (1975). They presented a conceptual model explaining the relationships between
objective conditions of the physical environment, subjective experiences, residential
satisfaction, and behavior. Their model implies that a person’s behavior (e. g., moving) is
inﬂuenced by housing satisfaction, as housing satisfaction is affected by the perceptions
and assessments of objective environmental attributes. Residential satisfaction is seen as
contributing both to selected behaviors of residents and to the extent to which these
behaviors occur within the residential setting. The core of the model is represented by
direct and indirect links between objective environmental attributes, people’s subjective
responses to these attributes, overall environmental satisfaction, and some speciﬁc

behaviors.

18

Morris ’ and Winter’s Housing Adjustment Model (19 78)

Morris’ and Winter’s housing adjustment model has been used by researchers in a
number of disciplines to explain housing needs, norms, and adjustment behaviors
(Eichner & Morris, 1984; Ha & Weber, 1991; Kinsey & Lane, 1983; Lee, 1995;
Whiteford & Morris, 1986). The main idea of the housing adjustment model is that
families evaluate their housing conditions in terms Of their norms. When their current
housing conditions do not meet these norms, a deﬁcit is generated. Whenever this
nonnative deﬁcit is perceived, a reduction in housing satisfaction results, and a family
responds to reduce the deﬁcit. That is, dissatisﬁed families move to other housing units,
modify their housing, change their family make-up, or change their norms (Morris &
Winter, 1978).

Cultural norms are the rules or standards, both formal and informal, for the
conduct and life conditions of members of a particular society. Family norms are
family-speciﬁc standards with respect to their own behaviors and conditions they apply
to themselves or speciﬁc housing demands or desires of the family (Morris & Winter,
1994). Housing deﬁcits are calculated by housing conditions in terms of norms. Morris
and Winter (1978) classiﬁed six basic norms for housing: 1) tenure, 2) structure type, 3)
cost, 4) crowding level, 5) dwelling quality, and 6) neighborhood environment.

Morris’ and Winter’s model of housing adjustment has been applied and
analyzed in a number of empirical studies. The concept of normative housing deﬁcit
was demonstrated empirically as a useful notion in explaining housing satisfaction and
housing adjustment processes (Baillie, 1990; Bross, 1975; Crull et al., 1991; Harris,

1976; Morris et al., 1976; Yocky, 1976). Some empirical studies have indicated that

19

housing satisfaction serves as an intervening variable between demographic variables
and housing adjustment desires of families (Crull et al., 1991; Lee at al., 1994; Morris et

al., 1976).

Conceptual Framework

In this section, the conceptual deﬁnitions of variables are reviewed and then the
conceptual model of this study is proposed, along with speciﬁc research questions.
Housing adjustment

According to Morris and Winter (1975), general housing satisfaction is the
inﬂuential factor that causes a family’s housing adjustment behaviors. The housing
dissatisfaction produced by nonnative deﬁcits motivates four types of responses: (1)
residential mobility, (2) residential alterations, (3) structural family adaptations, and (4)
normative family adaptations. The ﬁrst two represent housing adjustment behaviors,
while the second two represent adaptive responses. The family chooses residential
mobility or residential alteration to remove the deﬁcit. If behavioral responses cannot be
accomplished, the family adapts either their family structure or their family housing
norms. After housing adjustment occurs, satisfaction can be expected to rise (Morris &
Winter, 1978).

According to Lee (1998), Korean immigrants in the U.S. tended to relieve a
signiﬁcant part of their deﬁciencies through mobility, rather than through minor
physical or behavioral corrections. Moving to another housing unit, particularly buying
a better house, was the ﬁrst priority among Houston Korean immigrants. Renters are

likelier free to move due to relatively low costs involved in mobility; this leads renters

20

to live close to other Koreans.

Residential alterations refer to changing the present dwelling rather than moving
to another. Parrot (1988) found that satisﬁed people are likelier to personalize their
housing. In Lee’s (1982) study of the housing adjustments of Korean families in the
U.S., the number of Korean immigrant respondents who had made alterations to their
present homes was relatively low, while over one-half of the respondents desired to
move to a new dwelling unit. In a study of the housing satisfaction of East Asian
students in a university setting, Qadir (1993) found that, because of different cultural
backgrounds on campus, student residents often modiﬁed their rented university
apartments slightly to better ﬁt their cultural needs for maximum housing satisfaction

According to Morris and Winter (1978), when constraints are so serious that
adjustment is not feasible, the household takes adaptive actions, including making
changes in resource allocations, family norms, roles, and compositional structure.
Compositional adaptation will generally be reﬂected by a reduction or limitation of
household size in response to perceived high levels of crowding. A family might lower
its housing expectations or it might change its perception of deﬁcits (Morris and Winter,
1978, 1985). According to Lee (1982), Korean immigrants tended to change their
Korean lifestyles to adapt to their new circumstances, including their manner of sitting,
caring for children, and role division among family members. They tended to change
their behaviors instead of altering their housing environments to reduce conﬂict
between environment and behavior.

Housing satisfaction

Housing satisfaction is described by Morris and Winter (1978) as “a state of the

21

level of contentment with current housing conditions” (p. 80). From the perspective of
the actual-aspirational gap approach, housing satisfaction can be a criterion for evaluating
the quality of the residential environment, by measuring the effect Of perceptions and
assessments of the objective environment upon satisfaction (Weidemann & Anderson
(1985). The level of satisfaction of residents relates to how well the housing meets
expectations of the residents (Galster, 1987b).

Since the 19705, there has been a rising concern with the development of
satisfaction measures as subjective indicators of quality of life or social well-being
(Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell & Converse, 1972; Cutter, 1982; Galster & Hesser,
1981; Marans & Rodgers, 1975 ; Weidemann & Anderson, 1982). Also, studies have
indicated that housing satisfaction is a signiﬁcant predictor of a variety of behaviors,
including residential mobility and modiﬁcation (Crull et al., 1991; Guthrie & Barclay,
1981; Lee et al., 1994; Morris et al., 1976; Morris & Winter, 1978; Newman & Duncan,
1979; Premius, 1986; Speare, 1974).

The way housing satisfaction is measured is important in empirical analysis
because it directly inﬂuences ﬁndings. Measurement of housing satisfaction can be both
objective and subjective. In their test Of the housing adjustment model of residential
mobility using two tests, Crull et al. (1991) used two different six-item subjective
indices to measure housing satisfaction. Kinsey and Lane (1983) objectively measured
the number of deﬁciencies in plumbing, security, building structure, pests, and
insulation or heating systems. While objective are speciﬁc, reﬂecting the true picture of
housing and its environment, subjective measurements provide a general view of how

the individual sees his or her housing's condition (Liu, 2005). Morris et al. (1976) and

22

Galster (1987) used a single, overall evaluation because it represents a comprehensive
measure of the satisfaction with various features Of the house and is a more appropriate
measurement than is an arbitrary index or summation.

Most empirical studies Of housing satisfaction measure the effects of various
types of housing, neighborhoods, and demographic characteristics on housing
satisfaction (Baillie & Peart, 1992; Galster, 1987; Ha & Weber, 1991; Maran &
Rodgers, 1975). Even though there has been consistent agreement that certain factors
contribute to housing satisfaction, there have also been inconsistent ﬁndings for several
variables.

Determinants of housing satisfaction. Studies by Campbell, Converse, and
Rogers (1976) and Morris and Winter (1978) found that socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics and also features of the dwelling units were related to total
measurements of housing satisfaction.

A number of important determinants of housing satisfaction, such as income,
tenure, life cycle stage, house size, and housing quality were demonstrated empirically
(Crull, 1994; Galster & Hesser, 1981; Morris & Winter, 1978; Morris & Winter, 1993).
Family life-cycle stage is an important indicator of residential satisfaction, and married
people with children are likelier to be satisﬁed (Lu, 1999; Marans & Rodgers, 1975)
while household size is correlated negatively with satisfaction (Foot et al., 1960; Galster
& Hesser, 1981). In general, higher socio-economic groups are likelier to experience
residential satisfaction (Fried, 1982). Males are slightly likelier to be residentially
satisﬁed than are women (Lu, 1999). The elderly are likelier to be satisﬁed with their

homes than are younger householders, when other characteristics are held constant

23

(Galster, 1987; Kentish, 2000; L00, 1986).

On the other hand, Morris et a1. (1976) showed that none of the demographic
and socioeconomic variables have an independent effect on satisfaction when normative
housing deﬁcits are included in the analysis. Similarly, in the study of Varady (1983),
age of householder, race, length of residence, and other factors had direct effect on the
likelihood of moving but not on the level of housing and neighborhood satisfaction.

Morris and Winter (1982) also found that, although female-headed households
are likelier to live in unconventional housing, they are not different from the jointly
headed households in level of housing satisfaction. Similarly, Heywood (2002) argues
that, although low-income homeowners apparently are satisﬁed with their poor housing
conditions, they are fully aware of the extent to which their homes are in poor condition.
If people are aware of their housing’s problems but still rate their homes highly, it is
probable that other elements regarding housing are more important to them than
housing conditions (Heywood, 2002).

Length of residence is an important factor in housing satisfaction. The longer an
individual lives in an area, the stronger his or her ties to that area tend to become, and the
higher the likelihood that he or she is satisﬁed residentially (Tognoli, 1987). Traditional
assimilation theories consider the length of residence in the host society and
naturalization as a key determinant of immigrants’ success (Park & Burgess, 1967).

The more years immi grants reside in the host society, the better they understand the
norms of ﬁrnctioning in that society (Hao, 2003).
Objective housing quality (Fried, 1982) is critically important to general

residential satisfaction (Lu, 1999; Marans & Rodgers, 1975 ; Weidemann et al., 1982).

24

Related to the general conditions of the dwelling, and of signiﬁcant importance to
public renters, is the repeated ﬁnding that the level of maintenance and the quality of
management and administration of rental housing are highly important to the formation
of residential satisfaction (Burby & Rohe, 1989; Fried, 1982; Weidemann et al., 1982).
Housing deficits

Morris and Winter (1975, 1978) suggested that a deﬁcit between present
housing and normative housing will affect reported levels of housing satisfaction.
Based on the six basic norms for housing, six housing deﬁcits are presented: tenure,
structure, expenditure, space, dwelling quality, and neighborhood. To calculate the
value of a deﬁcit, the norm is subtracted from the actual conditions. Positive values
indicate surplus, negative values indicate shortages.

Tenure and structure type are deﬁned as deﬁcits with deviations from the norms
in either direction being undesirable. For example, if residents desired to be renters but
were actually owners, they had tenure deﬁcits. Space is based on the number of
bedrooms and is considered a deﬁcit only where a shortage of bedrooms is undesirable.
Expenditure deﬁcit is based on monthly payment. The norm was measured by the
amount a household thought it should be spending on housing. Expenditure deﬁcit is a
deﬁcit where paying too much for housing is undesirable. The deﬁcits are totaled to
yield an index of the total deﬁcit for each household.

Morris et a1. (1976) found that normative deﬁcits of structure and space strongly
inﬂuence housing satisfaction. Studies have found that tenure status is an important
factor inﬂuencing housing satisfaction and the decision to move (Crull et al., 1991;

Morris & J akubczak, 1988; Rossi. 1955). Homeowners expressed higher levels of life

25

satisfaction than did renters (Fried, 1982) and contributed to residential and
neighborhood satisfaction (White & Schollaert, 1993). Danes and Morris (1986) found
that renters reported lower satisfaction with their housing than did owners. Generally,
inadequate housing is commoner among renters than owners (Apgar, 1989).

Housing type is an important factor in housing satisfaction and has signiﬁcant
direct effect on propensity to move (Baillie, 1990). Space, often measured by the
number of bedrooms, is the most important factor for consideration in purchasing or
renting family housing (Morris, 1972). Dwelling Size and amount of space available
positively relate to housing satisfaction (Kinsey & Lane, 1983; Morris et al., 1976). In
the U.S., space is evaluated by the number of bedrooms. Person-per-room ratio is often
used by the Census Bureau to measure overcrowding. A person is considered to be
living in an overcrowded situation if there is more than one person, including children,
per room (Meeks, 1980). Different cultures have different norms regarding the gender
and ages of individuals who may share a sleeping room. A typical standard for housing
expenditure in America is that a household should spend no more than 30% of its
household income on housing, especially if renting. Generally, renters suffer greater
housing cost burdens. (Cook et al., 1994).

Housing perceptions

Subjective environment is highly important to understand residential satisfaction.
The same residential characteristics can be ﬁltered differently by each individual resident
as either positive or negative, and the outcome for residential satisfaction is based upon
perceptions, rather than “the actual conﬁguration of residential conditions” (Ameri go &

Aragones, 1997; Lu, 1999).

26

In an attempt to address the multidimensional nature of housing (Shlay, 1995),
various aspects of housing are included in the analysis. In measuring housing perceptions,
Shea and Inman (1994) suggested four levels of residential environments, reﬂecting
physical, social, psychological, and cultural criteria. Physical criteria include public and
private spaces and ﬂoor plans. Social criteria include interaction with the neighborhood.
and. community system. Psychological criteria include a sense of belonging and
attachment. Cultural criteria refer to the overarching ideology, values, norms, and
customs of a society (Shea and Inman, 1994).

Although Shea’s and Inman’s model was developed for older adults, the key
elements of Shea and Inman (1994) are used in this study to measure sojourners’
perceptions of the different aspects of their residential environments. Hwang and Ziebarth
(2006) used Shea’s and Inman’s ecological model for the assessment of housing for older
adults. Results revealed that a sense of belonging and neighborhood social environment
and community related positively to housing satisfaction, while physical environment
was not signiﬁcantly related to housing satisfaction.

A beneﬁt of good housing is place attachment (Brown & Perkins, 1992). Such
attachment is described as an emotional bond between an individual and his or her
physical and social environment (Mesch & Manor, 1998). The feeling of place
attachment was identiﬁed as an important variable in predicting housing satisfaction
(Altman & Low, 1992). Generally, homeownership is a key positive indicator of
attachment, although renters are also capable of having high levels of neighborhood
attachment (Mesch & Manor, 1998). Housing quality correlates positively with elderly

people’s place attachment (Eshelman & Evas, 1998; Kweon et al., 1998)

27

Perceptions of neighborhoods appear to affect housing satisfaction (Peck &
Stewart, 1990; Vrbka & Comb, 1993; Varady & Preiser, 1998). Perceptions of
neighborhood quality have been measured in many different ways but, regardless the
indicator used (clean streets, green areas, quiet, clutter), all point to the physical quality
of a neighborhood being central to perceptions of residential satisfaction.

Neighborhood factors often include personal assessments of different aspects of
their neighborhood, including relations with neighbors, neighborhood’s appearance, and
other issues such as noise and safety. Access to nature and green areas was found. to be
either highly important (Bender et al., 1997), or the most important neighborhood factor
contributing to residential satisfaction (Bender et al., 1997; Fried, 1982). Perceived
safety within homes and neighborhoods has a well established relationship with the
residential satisfaction (Amerigo & Aragones, 1997; Cook, 1997; Greenberg, 1999; Lee,
1986; Varady & Preiser, 1998; Weidemann et al., 1982).

Contribution of social environment to residential satisfaction of individuals and
households is signiﬁcant. Friendship ties were found highly important to residential
satisfaction (Tognoli, 1987) and neighbor relationships were an important local social tie
(Amerigo & Aragones, 1997; Marand & Rodgers, 1975; Weidemann et al., 1982).

In a study of Korean immigrants, tenure status affected immigrants’ perceptions
of their housing and neighborhoods (Lee, 1998; Song, 1990). Song (1990) showed that
tenure status and house value affected immigrants' evaluations of their present residences.
Homeowners who lived in relatively higher-priced dwellings gave high marks to both
their neighborhood and dwelling attributes, including quietness, privacy, and amount of

yard space. Similarly, Lee (1998) showed that renters were most sensitive to complaints

28

about housing situations and lack of cultural amenities, which suggests that ownership
status is closely aligned to the housing problem.
A conceptual model of the study

Factors inﬂuencing housing satisfaction. For the purpose of the study to
examine factors inﬂuencing housing satisfaction of sojourners, the conceptual model
was developed based on the actual-aspirational gap theory of residential satisfaction and
Morris’ and Winter’s (1978) model of housing adjustment. The actual-aspirational gap
theory of residential satisfaction suggests that housing satisfaction is inﬂuenced by
subjective perceptions of objective environment attributes (Campbell et al., 1976;

F rancescato et al., 1974; Marans & Rodgers, 1975; Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981;
Weidemann & Anderson, 1985). Monis’ and Winter’s model of housing adjustment
(1978) introduced the concept of a normative housing deﬁcit causing a reduction in
housing satisfaction. Based on these two housing satisfaction models, the conceptual
model of the present study in Figure 1 suggests that housing satisfaction is inﬂuenced
directly and indirectly by sojourner characteristics, housing deﬁcits, and housing
perceptions.

Figure 1 shows there are two categories of variables in the model: exogenous and
endogenous. Exogenous variables include sojourner characteristics, comprising (1)
demographic characteristics: household size, respondents’ ages, respondents’ gender, and
household income; (2) sojourning characteristics: past sojourning experience, length of
residence in the U.S., time until return, and (3) housing characteristics: housing condition
and duration at current housing. Housing deﬁcits and housing perception are considered

intervening variables between exogenous variables and housing satisfaction. Speciﬁc

29

research questions to be tested are listed below:

RQ 1. How do sojourner characteristics inﬂuence housing deﬁcits?
RQ 2. How do sojourner characteristics inﬂuence housing perception?
RQ 3. How do sojourner characteristics, housing deﬁcit, and housing

perception inﬂuence housing satisfaction?

Sojourner characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H Household size *- RQ 3
.9.
"g. Respondent’s age RQ 1 RQ 3 I
21) ‘ Housing deﬁcits ‘ Housing
g Respondent’s gender Satisfaction
Q . ‘l

H Household Income

Housing Perceptions

ED Length of residence in the US A Physical attributes ._
a Time ""1“ return RQ 2 Neighborhood RQ 3
O r
m Past sojourning experience Cultural attributes
on . . .
g I: Housmg condition g Attachment E
o
I Duration at current housing _

 

Figure 1. Conceptual path model of the study

Process of housing adjustment. Morris’ and Winter’s (1978) model of housing
adjustment suggests that households choose and evaluate their housing based on their
housing norms, and if households are dissatisﬁed with their housing, such dissatisﬁed
families tend to engage in adjustment behaviors: moving to another housing unit,
modifying their housing, changing their family make-up, or changing their family

norms (Morris & Winter, 1978). Based on Morris’ and Winter’s (197 8) model of

30

housing adjustment, the process of sojourners’ housing adjustments links the choice,

evaluation, and adjustments in a cross-cultural context. Speciﬁc research questions are

developed as follows:

RQ 4.

RQ 5.

RQ 6.

RQ 7.

What are the Korean sojourners’ main constraints in the process of
housing adjustment: housing choice, evaluation, and adjustment?

How do Korean soj oumers choose their ﬁrst and/or current housing in
the U.S., and what housing features are perceived to be important
when they choose their housing in the U.S.?

How do Korean sojourners feel about their current housing, and with
what features of housing are Korean sojourners satisﬁed or
dissatisﬁed?

What adjustments (i.e., alterations, improvements, or repairs) have

been made to the current housing and what cultural attributes do
Korean sojourners feel easier or harder to adapt to?

31

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter presents research methods. First, the research design for
investigating research questions and a rationale for choosing a mixed method design are
presented. Then are described the details of survey method: participants, methods of data
collection, data collection instrument, and details of case study. Lastly, methods of data

analysis are explained.

Research Design
Rationale for Research Method

This study used a mixed method combining quantitative and qualitative
approaches. The main reason for such combining was that the qualitative case study
complemented the quantitative method. While quantitative methodology gives a broad,
generalizable set of ﬁndings by obtaining responses from many people, qualitative
methodology permits collection of the more in-depth and detailed information that
quantitative methodology would miss by focusing on a small number of people (Patton,
1990)

Main purpose of the study was to identify what factors inﬂuence housing
satisfaction of sojourners and to describe the processes of sojourners’ housing
adjustments. While the survey was good at examining relationships between factors
inﬂuencing housing satisfaction, it was difﬁcult to design it to look at an overall holistic
picture of the sequential process of housing adjustments. To Obtain a more complete
understanding of sojourners’ housing experiences and more convincing and accurate

ﬁndings, the case study method was also utilized in this study.

32

Survey Method
Population and Sample

The target population consisted of Korean soj oumers in the Lansing area.

Fumham and Bochner (1987) deﬁned a sojourner as “one who goes abroad voluntarily,
spending a moderate length of time (six months to ﬁve years), with intention of returning
home, and with more speciﬁc and goal-oriented motives.” Thus, respondents to the
surveys were essentially deﬁned as Korean sojourners, 18 or Older, who viewed their stay
in the Lansing area as temporary, and who had a deﬁnite intention to return to Korea. To
investigate Korean sojoumer’s housing adjustment processes when they were new to the
culture of the U.S., Korean Americans born and raised in the U.S., Korean immigrants,
and those who had stayed in the U.S. more than eight years were not considered as
respondents.

Since Korean sojourners in the Lansing area constitute a small portion of the
population in that area, a conventional probability sampling procedure would be
inefﬁcient (Marshall, 1996). To study this underrepresented population, participants were
selected based on a convenience sampling method.

To recruit participants, Korean churches were ﬁrst chosen because many Koreans
in the Lansing area are afﬁliated with Korean churches not only for religious reasons but
also for other purposes, such as their children’s education, socialization, and ethnic
solidarity (Kim, 1981). It is possible to recruit a large number of Koreans at churches on
Sunday. Additionally, two Korean markets, Korean restaurants, apartment complexes,
and shopping malls known to be popular with Koreans in the Lansing area were chosen.

A snowball sampling technique was also utilized: a respondent who completed the

33

questionnaire was asked to identify other members of his or her group for potential
participation.

A total of 125 Korean sojourners participated in the survey, and the overall
response rate was about 55%. Because of insufﬁcient numbers of participants in the
surveys, additional participants were recruited from directories of Michigan State
University, Korean students’ associations, and professional associations in the study area
for an online survey based on accessibility and availability. A total of 168 Korean
sojoumers participated in the online survey, the overall response rate for which was about
42%.

Pilot study

TO understand general housing experiences of Korean sojourners in the Lansing
area and to develop the survey questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted. Three focus
group interviews were carried out with twelve housewives of Korean sojourner
households in the Lansing area in July 2006. Through these focus group interviews,
overall characteristics of Korean sojourners, housing conditions, housing perceptions, and
adjustment behaviors were identiﬁed. These interviews provided insights into processes
of Korean sojourners’ housing adjustments in relation to their length of residence and
planned total time for sojourning. Also, the wording sojourners used to describe their
housing conditions and perceptions were examined. Participants’ Opinions and
perceptions form emergent themes that help guide creation and modiﬁcation of survey
questions.
Survey instrument and measurement

The instrument was developed on the basis of previous housing studies (Marans

34

& Spreckelmeyer, 1981; Morris & Winter, 1978; Weidermann & Anderson, 1985) and
interview data from the pilot study, and was modiﬁed for the purposes of this study.
The questionnaire used in the study comprised six sections: (1) housing conditions, (2)
housing norms, (3) housing adjustment behaviors, (4) housing perceptions about physical
attributes, neighborhood attributes, and cultural attributes, (5) satisfaction with housing
and neighborhood, and (6) demographics and sojourning conditions. The measurement
and scale for each variable are as follows:

Sojourner Characteristics. The demographic characteristics contained
household size, respondent’s age, respondent’s gender, and household income.
Household size was measured by the total number of household members currently
living in the dwelling. Respondents were asked to write their ages in years. Household
income was gross income before any deductions and included the income of all
occupants of the housing unit. Respondents were asked to report their household
income by categories, with the lowest being less than $8,999 to the highest being
$120,000 or more.

Sojouming conditions included the length of residence in the U.S., time until
return, and past sojourning experience. Respondents were asked to write how long they
had lived in the U.S. and what their remaining planned time until returning home was.
The past sojourning experience was measured by the question to respondents “Have you
ever stayed in another country for more than three months?”

Housing characteristics included housing conditions and duration at current
housing. Housing condition was self-assessed by respondents on a ﬁve-point Likert

scale: “1” for very poor condition to “5” for excellent condition. Although this housing

35

condition was subjective, prior research indicated that it was an accurate report of
housing condition (Morris and Winter, 1978). To measure their duration at current
housing, respondents were asked to write months and years for the question “How long
have you lived in your current home?”

Housing Deﬁcits. According to Morris and Winter (1993), housing deﬁcit is
deﬁned as the mismatch between sojoumers’ housing norms and their current housing
conditions. Among six housing deﬁcits - tenure, structure, expenditure, space, dwelling
quality, neighborhood (Morris & Winter, 1978), the four deﬁcits of tenure, structure,
expenditure, and space were considered in this study. Housing conditions matched to
family housing norms was considered to be no deﬁcit, while the unmatched housing
condition was considered to be a deﬁcit. Tenure status refers to the two categories,
owned or rented. Generally, renting is considered a cultural deﬁcit in the housing norms
of North America, but in this study, when their family norms for tenure do not match
their tenure conditions, it is considered that a housing deﬁcit exists. Type of structure
was categorized into ﬁve possibilities; “1” for single family detached house, “2” for
apartment, “3” for Condos, duplex (multi-family attached), “4” for mobile home, and
“5” for other. Expenditure was monthly payment and measured by categories with the
lowest of less than $500 to the highest of $1,700 or more. Space deﬁcit was measured
by number of bedrooms.

Housing Perceptions. Housing perception variables were measured in various
ways: perceptions of physical attributes, perceptions of neighborhoods, perceptions of
cultural attributes, and attachment. Initially, eight items for perceptions of physical

attributes and eleven for perceptions of neighborhood were derived from previous

36

housing scales (Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981, Weidemann & Anderson, 1985), and
were reduced by using factor analysis and reliability test. The ﬁnal items for the
perception of physical attributes were ﬁve items of space layout, quality of FF & E',
quality of structure, indoor air quality, and view. A seven-point Likert scale: “1” for
terrible to “7” for excellent was used. for measuring perception of physical attributes.
Final items for perception of neighborhood were six items of noise, greenery, building
appearance, ﬁiendliness Of neighbors, and safety, measured using a seven-point bi-polar
scale: “1” for the most negative to “7” for the most positive.

Perception of cultural attributes was measured by how much respondents were
acculturated to the condition of their current housing. Items for cultural attributes were
derived from previous studies (Lee, 1982; Lee, 1998; Song, 1990) as well as focus
group interviews of pilot study. Participants were asked how satisﬁed or dissatisﬁed
they were with ﬂoor material, interior lighting, bathroom with no ﬂoor-drain system,
and heating system in their current housing, using a seven-point Likert scale: “1” for
extremely dissatisﬁed to “7” for extremely satisﬁed. Perception of psychological
attributes was measured by respondents’ attachment to their current housing by asking
whether or not the respondents felt their current housing was really “their home” using a
seven-point Likert scale: “1” for strongly disagree to “7” for strongly agree.

Housing Satisfaction. Housing satisfaction can be assessed by a single item or a
scale made up of the summation or other weighted combination of indication of
satisfaction with speciﬁc aspects of housing (Morris & Winter, 1978). Several studies
(Harris, 1976a; Morris, 1976; Yockey, 1976a) have found that scales based on several

items had signiﬁcant correlations with a single item on overall housing satisfaction.

 

l FF & E (Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment)

37

Therefore, satisfaction with housing in this study was measured by a single question,
asking, “In general, how satisﬁed or dissatisﬁed are you with your current housing?”
Overall satisfaction with housing was measured using a seven-point Likert scale from
“1” for extremely dissatisﬁed to “7” for extremely satisﬁed.
Data Collection

Quantitative data was collected via a standardized, self-administered survey
questionnaire. Prior to data collection, a description of this study and the data collection
instruments were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of
Michigan State University. Following IRB guidance, participants were informed by the
investigator that participation was completely voluntary and that the results of the
participation would remain conﬁdential and would not be released in any individually
identiﬁable form. Participants were also informed that anonymity would be protected, as
consent is established when the questionnaire is completed and returned to the researcher.

The survey questionnaire was originally written in English. To improve the
reliability and validity of the study, translation and back translation was utilized. The
English questionnaire was translated into Korean by the investigator, and the
questionnaire that was translated into Korean was translated back to English by another
translator. The original and back translated questionnaires were compared, edited, and
veriﬁed. A pilot study was conducted to test the measuring instrument prior to conducting
the ﬁnal study as well as to collect data from research subjects to serve as a guide for the
major study. Based on feedback from ﬁeld testing, the questionnaire was revised.

Paper Version. Survey data was collected through two different approaches: the

paper version and the online version. First, a set of data from the paper version of the

38

questionnaire was collected from May to June, 2007. Next, a set of data was collected
with an online version of the questionnaire from June to July, 2007.

The paper version of the questionnaire was collected on site rather than through
the mail survey, to have higher response rates, as Babbie (1973) and Bailey (1994)
suggested. All four Korean churches in the Lansing area were visited on Sundays in
May, 2007 and questionnaires were distributed to respondents to be ﬁlled out during the
luncheon immediately followed by Sunday worship service. In addition, three Korean
markets, three Korean restaurants, apartment complexes, schools, and any places where
Koreans generally gathered were selected and visited.

Respondents were approached by the investigator and asked about participating
in the survey. To screen for sojourners, a short screening process was used to conﬁrm
residency as temporary. The questionnaire required approximately 10-15 minutes to
complete. If respondents could not complete the survey due to lack of time, a prepaid
return envelope was provided. A total of 125 surveys were collected with the paper
version of the questionnaire (55% response rate).

Online Version. Due to difﬁculties of ﬁnding participants for the paper version of
questionnaire, an online survey was also employed using the web-based survey tool
SurveyMonkey to recruit more participants. Advantages of online surveys include faster
response rates, easier sending Of reminders to participants, easier processing of data, and
expenses (Hewson, Yule, Laurent, & Vogel, 2003; Porterm & Whitcomb, 2003)
relatively lower than other competitive methods such as mail surveys and telephone
surveys.

A survey package was emailed to potential Korean participants from the

39

directories of Michigan State University, Korean churches, Korean students’ associations,
and professional associations. The survey package consists of a cover letter and the
questionnaire. TO screen participants, the cover letter explained (in both Korean and
English) the purpose of the study and encouraged people to participate in the survey if
they were sojourners. A total of 400 surveys were sent via SurveyMonkey. After the
initial email was sent to the target population, two email reminders were sent to those
who had not yet responded. The ﬁnal survey response rate was 42% (N: 168).

Prior to combining the two sets of data, 58 cases (23 from the paper version and 35
from the online version) were dropped because they were found to be inappropriate for
the analysis (e.g., immigrants, those whose length of residence in the U.S. was more than
eight years, those who were not sure to go back to Korea). To combine the two sets of
data, demographic characteristics of participants in these two data sets were compared.
Because there were no signiﬁcant differences between the two sets of data, they were
combined for the analyses. A total of 235 ﬁnal data (N of paper version: 102, N of online

version = 133) were utilized for further analysis.

Case Study
Participants
Participants for the case study were selected purposively from the respondents of
the survey who volunteered to participate in the case study. Because the purpose of the
case study is to understand the overall process of housing adjustment, a stratiﬁed
purposive sampling strategy was used to include sojourners whose length of residence

and planned total time of sojourning varied. All 27 participants were housewives in

40

Korean sojourner households in the Lansing area.
Data Collection

Interviews were conducted in participants’ homes. Each interview lasted
approximately 60-90 minutes. The interview was designed to elicit data on the overall
process of housing adjustment: How they chose their initial and/or current housing units,
how they perceived their current housing units, and how they adjusted to their housing
environment in the U.S. A semi-structured interview protocol was used to ensure
consistent coverage of important questions but, once it began, each interview was
allowed to take its own direction. Based on what each participant said during the
interviews, questions were added. Prior to starting the interview, participants consented to

being tape-recorded. Each interview was numbered and. tape-recorded.

Data Analysis

Survey Data

Survey data was analyzed in three steps. First, preliminary statistics were Obtained
using the Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics were
obtained to determine the distributional characteristics of each variable, including the
mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. For three perception variables (i.e.,
perception of physical attributes, neighborhood attributes, and cultural attributes),
reliability test was employed to examine internal consistency Of scales. Next, correlations
among variables were examined. After these statistics were examined, a regression
analysis was run to examine relative direct inﬂuences of the variables and possibilities

that housing deﬁcits or housing perception variables were mediating exogenous variables

41

on housing satisfaction. Based on the results of regression analysis, a path analysis was
conducted to investigate both direct and indirect effects and adequacy of the overall
model.
Case Study Data

Case study interview data were analyzed via the following steps: First, interviews
were transcribed into printed text. Then transcribed interviews were coded using open,
axial, and, selective coding. By reading the transcribed text carefully, a general sense of
the information was obtained and a list of themes emerged, based on the research
questions. A third step was to code the content of transcripts in relation to these themes.
N-vivo computer software was used to categorize responses. All responses related to each
theme were placed in the appropriate theme category. Next, analytic case study narratives
were written for each case. Finally, cases were compared to each other to understand

patterns of similarities and dissimilarities across cases.

42

CHAPTER IV
FACTORS INFLUENCING HOUSING SATISFACTION OF CROSS-

CULTURAL SOJOURNERS

This chapter presents ﬁndings on the relationships of sojourner characteristics
(i.e., demographic characteristics, sojourning characteristics, and housing condition),
housing deﬁcit, and housing perception on housing satisfaction. This chapter begins with
results of preliminary analysis. The second section presents ﬁndings from the regression
analysis, and the last section presents a report of the ﬁndings from path analysis
examining direct and indirect effects of factors on housing satisfaction and overall model

ﬁt.

Preliminary Analyses
As a ﬁrst step of preliminary analyses, descriptive statistics were examined for

each variable included in the present study to describe basic features of data.

Descriptive Statistics
Exogenous Variables
Exogenous variables were sojourner characteristics including demographic
characteristics, sojourning characteristics, and housing characteristics.
Demographic Characteristics. Table 2 presents the frequency and percentage
distributions for the demographic characteristics of the sample: household size,

respondent age, respondent gender, and household income.

43

Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Demographic Characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographiegherasteﬁstics_ Frequency %
Household size 1 77 35.3
2 35 16.1
3 53 24.3
4+ 53 24.3
Total 218 100
Respondent age 205 59 27.4
305 1.07 49.8
403 42 19.5
505 7 3 .3
Total 215 100
Respondent gender Male 88 40.7
Female 128 59.3
Total 216 100
Household income $8,999 or less 22 10.3
$9,000-39,999 82 38.3
$40,000-79,999 52 24.3
$80,000-119,999 46 21.5
$120,000+ 12 5.6
Total 214 100

 

Household size ranged from one to ﬁve. Slightly over one-third (n = 77, 35.3%)
of respondents were single households while the rest (n = 141, 65.7%) of the respondents
lived with their families: two (16.1%); three (24.3%); four and more (24.3%). The
average age of participants was 34.38, ranging from 20 to 51. About half (n = 107,
49.8%) of the participants were in their 30s, and nearly one-third (n = 59, 27.4%) Of
participants were in their 205. Female was the dominant gender (female: n = 128, 59.3%;
male: n = 88, 40.7%). In terms of household income levels, 82 (38.3%) reported their
annual income to be between $9,000 and $39,999 per year, 52 (24.3%) reported their
income as between $40,000 and $79,999, and 46 (21.5%) reported their income to be

between $80,000 and $119,000.

44

Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Sojouming Characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sojouming characteristics Frequency %
Length of residence Less than a year 73 32.4
in the U.S. 1-2 years 42 18.7

2-3 years 20 8.9
3-4 years 17 7.6
4-5 years 23 10.2
More than 5 years 50 22.2
Time until return Less than a year 74 39.6
1-2 years 38 20.3
2-3 years 23 12.3
3-4 years 19 10.2
4-5 years 20 10.7
More than 5 years 13 7.0
Total 187 100
Past sojourning experience Yes 89 40.1
No 133 59.9
Total 222 100

 

Sojouming Characteristics. Table 3 shows the percentage distribution of

sojourning characteristics of the sample: length of residence in the U.S., time until return,

and past sojourning experience. Regarding length of residence in the U.S., the greatest

number of participants (n = 73, 32.4%) had lived in the U.S. for one year or less, about

one-quarter (n = 42, 18.7%) had lived in the U.S. between one to two years, and about

one-third (n = 73, 32.4%) had lived in the U.S. for over four years. Participants’ planned

time until returning home ranged from three months to seven years. About 40% (n = 74)

of respondents reported they would return home within one year, and about 20% (n = 38)

reported they would return home in somewhere between one and two years. As for past

sojourning experience, about 60% (n = 133) of the respondents indicated that they had no

past sojourning experience, while 40% (n = 89) of the respondents reported that they had

had a sojourning experience before.

45

Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Housing Characteristics

 

 

 

 

Housing characteristics Frequency %

Housing condition Very poor condition 1 0.4
Poor condition 8 3.4
Adequate condition 42 17.9
Good condition 132 56.4
Excellent condition 51 21.8
Time at Less than a year 131 58.0
current housing 1-2 years 54 23.9
2-3 years 17 7.5

3-4 years 12 5.3

4-5 years 7 3.1

More than 5 years 5 2.2

Total 226 100

 

Housing characteristics. Frequency and percentage distribution of housing
characteristics, including housing condition and duration at current housing, is presented
in Table 4. For the question regarding the physical condition of their current housing,
more than half (n = 132, 56.4%) of the respondents indicated that their housing was in a
good condition, and about one-ﬁfth (n = 51, 21.8%) reported their housing condition to
be excellent. Less than 4% indicated their housing was in poor (n = 8, 3.4%) or very poor
condition (n = 1, 0.4%). Respondents’ time at their current housing varied from three
months to over ﬁve years. Far more than half the respondents (n = 131, 58%) had lived in
their current housing for less than one year, about a quarter (n = 54, 23.9%) indicated
they had lived in their current housing between one to two years, and only 18.2% (n = 41)
had lived in their current housing over two years.

Endogenous variables

Endogenous variables in this study include housing deﬁcit, housing perceptions,

and housing satisfaction. Housing perceptions consist of (1) perception of physical

attributes, (2) perception of neighborhood, (3) perception of cultural attributes, and (4)

46

attachment.

Housing deﬁcit. Housing deﬁcit was measured by the ﬁt between respondents’
housing norms and their current housing conditions (Morris and Winter, 1978). Four
types Of housing deﬁcit were considered in this study: (1) tenure, (2) structure type, (3)
expenditure, and (4) space. Table 5 presents the frequency and percentage distributions of
housing deﬁcits.

Regarding tenure status, 93.6% (n = 220) of the respondents were renters, while
83.4% (n = 196) reported that renting was their tenure norm during their sojourn period.
About 11.1% (n = 26) had a deﬁcit in their tenure status.

As for structure type, at the time, the majority of respondents (n = 199, 84.7%)
lived in an apartment, about 8% (n = 19) lived in single-family detached housing, and
about 7% (n = 17) lived in multi-family attached housing (e. g., townhouse,
condominium, etc.). In terms of respondents’ norms for the structure, about 62% (n =
145) of respondents considered living in an apartment as their structural norm during
their sojourning in the U.S., 24.3% (n = 57) considered living in a townhouse or
condominium as their structural norm. As a result, about 27.4% (n = 64) had deﬁcit in
structure type, whereas 72.6% (n = 170) did not have a deﬁcit in their structure.

Regarding expenditure, about half the respondents paid between $700 and $899
monthly, and about 38.2% (n = 82) paid less than $700 per month, while 57.5% (n =
134) felt they should pay less than $700 for their apartment and only 28.8% (n = 67) felt
they should pay about $700 - $899 monthly. Therefore, 41.7% (n = 91) of the
respondents felt an expenditure deﬁcit in payments for their housing.

Space norm was measured by the number of bedrooms (Morris and Winter,

47

1978). About 63.4% (n = 149) of the respondents lived in two-bedroom units, 23.4% (n

= 55) lived in one-bedroom units, and only 8.9% (n = 21) lived in three-bedroom units,

while 34.9% (n = 82) of the respondents reported that they needed three-bedroom units.

More than 45% (n = 106) showed a deﬁcit in the number of bedrooms.

Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Housing Condition, Housing Norm, and Housing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deficit
Deﬁcit types Housing condition Housing norm Deﬁcit
Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Yes (%) No (%)

Tenure

Rented 220(93.6) 196(83.4)

Owned 15(6.4) 38(16.2)
Total 235(100) 234(100) 26(11.1) 209(88.9)
Structure

Rental apartment 199(84.7) 145(62.0)

Single family housing 19(8.1) 32(13.7)

Townhouse, condos. 17(7.2) 57(24.3)
Total 235(100) 234(100) 64(27.4) 170 (72.6)
Expenditure

Less than $700 82(38.2) 134(57.5)

$700-899 109(50.7) 67(28.8)

$900-1099 l4(6.5) 17(7.3)

$1100-1299 6(2.8) 3(1.3)

$1300+ 4(1.9) 12(5.1)
Total 215(100) 233(100) 91(41 .7) l27(58.3)
Space

1 55(23.4) 43(18.3)

2 149(63.4) 97(41.3)

3 21(8.9) 82(34.9)

4+ 10(4.3) 13(5.5)
Total 235(100) 235(100) 106(45.1) 129(54.9)

 

 

As Table 5 presents, respondents showed the highest deﬁcit in space norm, which

was measured by number of bedrooms, closely followed by their expenditure deﬁcit.

The lowest deﬁcit was shown in tenure status, indicating that the majority of sojourners

48

considered renting to be their tenure norm during their sojourning period.

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Housing Deficit Variables

 

 

Total Number of Deﬁcit Per Household Mean SD N
Frequency (%)
No One Two Three Four 1.26 1.039 216

deﬁcit deﬁcit deﬁcits deﬁcits deﬁcits
54(25) 85(39.4) 50(231) 20(93) 7(3.2)

 

 

As reported in Table 6, the total number of housing deﬁcits per household ranged
from 0 to 4, with a mean of 1.26 and a standard deviation of 1.039. A quarter of
respondents (n = 54, 25%) did not have any housing deﬁcits in their current housing
units, while about 40% (n = 85) showed one deﬁcit, and 23.1% (n = 50) showed two
deﬁcits.

Perceptions of physical attributes. Table 7 presents the percentage distribution
and descriptive statistics of participants’ perceptions of physical attributes in their current
housing. The ﬁve physical attributes include 1) space layout, 2) quality of FF & E, 3)
quality of structure, 4) indoor air quality, and 5) view.

Table 7 indicates that participants were generally positive about all ﬁve attributes.
As for the space layout, about one-third (n = 72, 31%) of respondents reported the space
layout in their housing as fair, while more than half evaluated it as good (n = 67, 28.8%)
or very good (n = 55, 23.6%). Concerning quality of FF & E, slightly over one-third (n =
80, 34.3%) of the respondents reported that the FF & E in their housing was fair. About
one-ﬁfth (n = 46, 19.7%) perceived it to be good, while roughly one-ﬁfth (n = 43, 18.5%)

felt it was poor.

49

Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Perceptions of Physical Aspects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Scale Frequency (%) Mean SD n

Space layout 1 Terrible 2 9

2 Very poor 7 3.0

3 Poor 17 7.3

4 Fair 72 30.9

5 Good 67 28.8

6 Very good 55 23.6

7 Excellent 13 5.6 4.77 1.192 233
Quality of 1 Terrible 7 3.0
FF & E 2 Very poor 21 9.0

3 Poor 43 18.5

4 Fair 80 34.3

5 Good 46 19.7

6 Very good 29 12.4

7 Excellent 7 3.0 4.08 1.335 233
Quality of l Terrible 8 3.4
Structure 2 Very poor 27 1 1.6

3 Poor 40 17.2

4 Fair 74 31.9

5 Good 50 21.6

6 Very good 23 9.9

7 Excellent 10 4.3 4.03 1.398 232
Indoor 1 Terrible 9 3.9
Air quality 2 Very poor 20 8.7

3 Poor 39 16.9

4 Fair 55 23.8

5 Good 52 22.5

6 Very good 44 19.0

7 Excellent 12 5.2 4.30 1.496 233
View 1 Terrible 1 4

2 Very poor 5 2.1

3 Poor 14 6.0

4 Fair 43 18.5

5 Good 57 24.5

6 Very good 76 32.6

7 Excellent 37 15.9 5.26 1.260 231

 

 

Regarding quality of structure, about one-third (n = 74, 32%) of the
respondents perceived it to be fair. Slightly over one-ﬁfth (n = 50, 21.6%) perceived it to

be good, while a little less than one-ﬁfth (n = 40, 17.2%) perceived it to be poor. Indoor

50

air quality was evaluated to be fair by 23.8% (n = 55) of respondents, to be good by
22.5% (n = 52), and to be very good by 19% (n = 44). About the view, nearly 60% of the
respondents rated the view in their current housing to be very good (n = 76, 32.6%) or
good (n = 57, 24.5%), and about 16% (n = 37) rated it to be excellent.

Of the ﬁve physical attributes, view was the most positively evaluated, with a
mean of 5.26, followed by space layout, with a mean of 4.77, whereas quality of structure
(M = 4.03) and quality of FF & E (M = 4.08) had lower ratings, being close to neutral.

Perceptions of the neighborhood. Table 8 presents descriptive statistics and
percentage distribution of respondents’ perceptions of their neighborhoods. Five
neighborhood attributes include 1) noise, 2) greenery, 3) building appearance, 4)
friendliness of neighbors, and 5) safety.

As for noise, slightly less than one-third (n = 73, 31.2%) of the respondents
reported that their neighbors were very noisy (n = 29, 12.4%) or noisy (n = 44, 18.8%),
while a little over one-third (n = 80, 35%) felt that their neighbors were quiet (n = 38,
16.2%) or very quiet (n = 42, 17.9%). Regarding greenery, over 70% (n = 163) of the
respondents agreed that greenery was very sufﬁcient (n = 74, 31.9%) or extremely
sufﬁcient (n = 89, 38.4%). Regarding building appearance, a little less than half of the
respondents reported that the building appearance was attractive (n = 56, 24.0%) or very
attractive (n = 54, 23.2%), while a quarter (n = 59, 25.3%) rated it as just average.
Friendliness of neighbors was reported to be just average by 41.3% (n =97) of the
respondents, as friendly by 20.4% (n =48), and as very friendly by 21.3% (n =50).
Concerning safety, more than 60% (n = 142) of the respondents perceived their

neighborhood to be very safe (n = 86, 36.9%) or safe (n = 56, 24%), and, about 18% (n

51

=42) said that their neighborhoods were extremely safe.

Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Perceptions About Neighborhood Environment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Scale Frequency % Mean SD n

Noise 1 Extremely noisy 19 8.1

2 Very noisy 29 12.4

3 Noisy 44 18.8

4 Average 44 18.8

5 Quiet 38 16.2

6 Very quiet 42 17.9

7 Extremgy quiet 18 7.7 4.07 1.731 234
Greenery 1 Extremely insufﬁcient 2 .9

2 Very insufﬁcient 2 .9

3 Insufﬁcient 5 2.2

4 Average 31 13.4

5 Sufﬁcient 29 12.5

6 Very sufﬁcient 74 31.9

7 Extremely sufﬁcient 89 38.4 5.85 1.255 232
Building 1 Extremely unattractive 12 5.2
Appearance 2 Very unattractive 14 6.0

3 unattractive 21 9.0

4 Average 59 25.3

5 Attractive 56 24.0

6 Very attractive 54 23.2

7 Extremely attractive 17 7.3 4.56 1.522 233
Friendliness of 1 Extremely unfriendly l .4
Neighbors 2 Very friendly 1 .4

3 Unﬁiendly 16 6.8

4 Average 97 41.3

5 Friendly 48 20.4

6 Very friendly 50 21.3

7 Extremely friendly 21 8.9 4.81 1.157 234
Safety 1 Extremely unsafe 2 .9

2 Very unsafe 4 1.7

3 Unsafe 12 5.2

4 Average 31 13.3

5 Safe 56 24.0

6 Very safe 86 36.9

7 Extremely safe 42 18.0 5.41 1.250 233

 

 

52

As Table 8 indicates, participants gave positive rating to all ﬁve neighborhood
attributes. Among the ﬁve neighborhood attributes, greenery was the most positively
evaluated attribute, with a mean of 5.85, followed by safety (M = 5.41), while noise was
the most negatively rated attributes, with a mean of 4.07.

Perceptions of cultural attributes. Table 9 shows descriptive statistics and
percentage distributions of participants’ perceptions of cultural attributes in their current
housing. Four cultural attributes include 1) ﬂoor material, 2) interior lighting 3) bathroom
ﬂoor without drain system, and 4) heating system.

Table 9 indicates that the overall ratings for the perception of cultural attributes
were very low. Respondents reported their negative perceptions about the lack of cultural
amenities, with a mean ranging from 2.27 to 3.38. Regarding the ﬂoor material, the mean
was 3.21. More than half the respondents were dissatisﬁed (n = 34, 14.7%), very
dissatisﬁed (n = 15, 22%), or extremely dissatisﬁed (n = 42, 18.1%). The mean for the
perception of interior lighting condition was 2.72. Extreme dissatisfaction was revealed
by 22.8% (n = 53). Also about half were very dissatisﬁed (n = 62, 26.7%) or dissatisﬁed
(n = 47, 20.3%). Having bathrooms without ﬂoor drain systems in their current housing
was evaluated as extremely dissatisfactory by 28.4% (n = 66) of the respondents, as very
dissatisfactory by 24.6% (n = 57), and as dissatisfactory by 11.6% (n = 27). The mean for
perceptions of bathrooms without ﬂoor drain systems was 2.82. As for the heating system
in their current housing, half the respondents were extremely dissatisﬁed (n = 37, 15.9%),
very dissatisﬁed (n = 42, 18.1%), or dissatisﬁed (n = 34, 14.7%), while about 30% (n =
68) were neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed. The mean for the perception of heating system

was 3.38.

53

Among the perception of four cultural attributes, interior lighting was the most

negatively rated by participants, with the mean of 2.72, closely followed by the bathroom

ﬂoor without drain system with the mean of 2.82.

Table 9. Percentage Distribution of the Perception of Cultural Aspects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Scale Frequency % Mean SD 11
Floor 1 Extremely dissatisﬁed 42 18.1
Material 2 Very dissatisﬁed 51 22.0

3 Dissatisﬁed 34 14.7

4 No difference 58 25.0

5 Satisﬁed 24 10.3

6 Very Satisﬁed 15 6.5

7 Extremely satisﬁed 8 3.4 3.21 1.646 232
Interior 1 Extremely dissatisﬁed 53 22.8
Lighting 2 Very dissatisﬁed 62 26.7

3 Dissatisﬁed 47 20.3

4 No difference 48 20.7

5 Satisﬁed 14 6.0

6 Very Satisﬁed 5 2.2

7 Extremely satisﬁed 3 1.3 2.72 1.400 232
Bathroom 1 Extremely dissatisﬁed 66 28.4
w/o ﬂoordrain 2 Very dissatisﬁed 57 24.6

3 Dissatisﬁed 27 11.6

4 No difference 48 20.7

5 Satisﬁed 14 6.0

6 Very Satisﬁed 9 3.9

7 Extremeljpsatisﬁed 11 4.7 2.82 1.709 232
Heating 1 Extremely dissatisﬁed 37 15.9
System 2 Very dissatisﬁed 42 18.1

3 Dissatisﬁed 34 14.7

4 No difference 68 29.3

5 Satisﬁed 26 11.2

6 Very Satisﬁed 16 6.9

7 Extremely satisﬁed 9 3.9 3.38 1.634 232

 

Attachment to the Current Housing. Table 10 presents descriptive statistics and

frequency of the perception of psychological attributes measured by respondents’

54

attachment to their housing. Overall, respondents’ attachment to their current housing

was close to neutral with the mean of 4.25 and a standard deviation of 1.568. More than

one-third of respondents were somewhat agreed (n = 40, 17.2%) or agreed (n = 41,

17.6%) on the statement they feel their housing is really “my home.” About a quarter of

respondents were somewhat disagreed (n = 33, 14.2%) or disagreed (n = 24, 10.3%) to

the statement that they feel their housing is really “my home.” Roughly one-third

reported their attachment to the current housing as neutral (n = 67, 28.8%).

Table 10. Percentage Distribution of the Attachment to the Current Housing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Scale Frequency % Mean SD n
Attachment 1 Strongly disagree 11 4.7
2 Disagree 24 10.3
3 Somewhat disagree 33 14.2
4 Neutral 67 28.8
5 Somewhat agree 40 17.2
6 Agree 41 17.6
7 Strongly agree 17 7.3 4.25 1.568 233
Table 1 1. Percentage Distribution of Housing Satisfaction
.,,XE}I1§P1€;S_N _ “7H , . iSqale _ __-E..-. Frequency % Mean SD M n
Housing 1 Extremely dissatisﬁed 5 2.2
satisfaction 2 Very dissatisﬁed 10 4.3
3 Dissatisﬁed 23 9.9
4 No difference 57 24.6
5 Satisﬁed 45 19.4
6 Very Satisﬁed 74 31.9
7 Extremely satisﬁed 18 7.8 4.81 1.407 232

 

Housing Satisfaction.Table 11 presents descriptive statistics and frequency of

housing satisfaction. Respondents reported that they were satisﬁed overall with their

current housing, with the mean of 4.81 and a standard deviation of 1.407.

55

More than half the respondents were satisﬁed (n = 45, 19.4%) or very satisﬁed (n
= 74, 31.9%), and about 7.8% of the respondents were extremely satisﬁed with their
housing. About a quarter of respondents were neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed with their
housing.

Reliability Test

In preparation for further analysis, the perception of physical attributes,
neighborhood attributes, and cultural attributes were measured from summated scale by
assembling items. The physical perception was measured by assembling ﬁve items:
space layout, quality of FF & E, quality of structure, indoor air quality, and view. To
measure the neighborhood perception, ﬁve items including noise, greenery, building
appearance, friendliness of neighbors, and safety were combined. The cultural
perception was measured by assembling four items: ﬂoor material, interior lighting,
bathroom with no ﬂoor drain, and heating system.

A factor analysis and reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha was employed to
test the internal consistency of scales measuring variables. Results of composite
reliability estimates for three the perception variables are listed in Table 12. The
reliability of three perception variables ranged from .62 to .76 according to Cronbach’s
alpha. Since each of these alpha levels is above the acceptable threshold for reliability
(Nunnally, 1970), these variables were used for further analysis. The reliability of
housing deﬁcit variable (a= .35) was below the acceptable level, but it was not
considered a serious problem in this study, because the housing deﬁcit variable was
measured by the total deﬁcit scores of different aspects of housing deﬁcit: tenure,

structure, expenditure, and space.

56

Table 12. Results of Reliability Analysis

 

 

Variables N of Min. Max. Mean SD Cronbach’s Alpha
items
Physical aspects 5 2 7 4.53 .942 .76
Neighborhood 5 2 7 4. 81 .876 .73
Cultural aspects 4 1 7 2.79 .933 .62

 

Correlations among Variables

Table 13 displays correlation coefﬁcients among all ﬁfteen variables: the nine
exogenous variables (i.e., household size, respondents’ ages, respondents’ gender,
household income, length of residence in the U.S., time until return, past sojourning
experience, housing condition, and duration at current housing), housing deﬁcit, the
four housing perception variables (i.e., perceptions of physical attributes, perceptions of
neighborhood, perceptions of cultural attributes, and attachment), and housing
satisfaction.

Correlation coefﬁcients ranged from .00 to .66. Most demographic variables,
except respondents’ ages, showed weak correlations with housing satisfaction. Among
the exogenous variables, housing condition was the most signiﬁcantly correlated to the
three perception variables: perceptions of physical attributes (r = .56, p < .01),
perceptions of the neighborhood (r = .30, p < .01), and attachment (r = .39, p < .01), as
well as housing satisfaction (r = .49, p < .01). All four housing perception variables
were correlated signiﬁcantly with each other and correlated signiﬁcantly with housing
satisfaction: perceptions of physical attributes (r = .59, p < .01), perceptions of
neighborhoods (r = .46, p < .01), perceptions of cultural attributes (r = .28, p < .01 ), and

attachment (r = .66, p < .01). Among the four housing perception variables, attachment

57

had the highest correlation coefﬁcients (r = .66, p < .01), followed by perceptions of
physical attributes (r = .59,}? < .01).

The conceptual model of this study (Figure 1 in Chapter 2) suggests housing
deﬁcits and housing perception variables as mediating variables between exogenous
variables and housing satisfaction. Generally, mediating variables are expected to be
related strongly to housing satisfaction, and exogenous variables are expected to be
related weakly to housing satisfaction, due to indirect relationships. Results of the

Pearson correlations in Table 12 imply such relations to some degree.

58

Ems-o3 8.8 .3. m8.8 ..

 

 

 

 

t8. t8. :3. ram. :8... :. tau. 8.-....8. 8.- 8. .2- 8.- 88888 8582; 2
_ t8- ...8. t8. t2.- :. ram. 8. .2. 8.- 2. tom- 2.- 25:883.:
_ tom. :8. :8..- :8. 8. 8.- row. 8. 8.- 8.- 2.. .....om.- 88388 E388 888E 2
2 ta. 8.- :. tom 8. *2. .2. 8. 8. :. 8E8aweﬁo88ooeom 2
2 2.- 8. tom. 8.- S. 8. *2. .8.- ..3- message 828.3% 88895.2 :
2 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 8. 2. :88 288: S
_ 8.- .....8. 2.- 2.- 8. 2.- 8.- wamsofapezoaoouga m
2 8.- 8. 8. *2. 2.. 8.- 886:8 wsmsom w
:8. 2.. 8.- 8. tom.- 2.- Eases: 2:? e
2 .3.- :.- 8.- 2.- 8.- .m.:osaoo=oeeco 583 o
_ 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 885on mangoes 8m m
_ 8. 3.8. .2. 2:85 2888: e
_ tom. 8. mouse... .eeoaoeom m
_ 1.8. 88 .eﬁecoeom .o.
_ on... 22885 _
3 2 2 : 2 o w o m e m N _

 

85233.80 too-Eek .2 2an

59

Determinants of Housing Satisfaction
To investigate determinants of housing satisfaction, regression analysis was run
with two purposes: (1) to examine relative direct effects of three groups of variables
(i.e., exogenous variables, housing deﬁcit, and housing perception) on housing
satisfaction and (2) to examine whether housing deﬁcits and housing perceptions are
mediating the inﬂuence of exogenous variables on housing satisfaction. As a ﬁrst step,
hypothesized inﬂuences of the exogenous variables on housing deﬁcits and housing

perception variables were tested individually.

Table 14. Results of Regression Analysis of Housing Deﬁcit on Exogenous Variables

 

 

 

 

Housing deﬁcit
Variable Beta t

Demographic characteristics

Household size .123 1.597

Respondent's age .019 .228

Respondent's gender -.077 -1.159

Household income .01 7 .247
Sojouming characteristics

Length of residence in the U.S. .072 .896

Time until return .229* 3.315

Past sojourning experience .054 .824
Housing characteristics

Housing condition .016 .237

Duration at current housing -.087 -l.115

R3 .074

Adjusted R2 .037

F (9,225) 1987*

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

Effects of sojourner characteristics on housing deficits

Results of the regression analysis of housing deﬁcits on the exogenous variables

60

are presented in Table 14. In the proposed path model of this study (Figure 1 in Chapter
2), it was hypothesized that exogenous variables directly inﬂuence housing deﬁcits. The
model was statistically signiﬁcant, F (9,225) = 1.987,p < .05. The R2 value of .07
(R2Adj = .04) indicated that about 7% of the variance in housing deﬁcit was explained by
sojourner characteristics. It showed that most Of the exogenous variables do not
contribute signiﬁcantly to the housing deﬁcit. Only time until return had signiﬁcant
effects on housing deﬁcit (,8 = .23, p < .05). It indicated that those whose time to remain
in the U.S. is longer tend to have more housing deﬁcits than those whose home-retum
time approaches.
E jfects of sojourner characteristics on housing perceptions

Housing perception variables were hypothesized to be directly affected by
exogenous variables (Figure 1 in Chapter 2). Results of the regression analysis for
housing perceptions on the exogenous variables are shown in Tables 15 through 18.

Perceptions of physical attributes. Table 15 presents the results of a regression
analysis of sojourner characteristics on the perceptions of physical attributes. The model
is statistically signiﬁcant, F (9,229) = 12.28, p < .01. The R2 value of .33 (RZMJ = .30)
indicates that about 30% of the variance in perceptions of physical attributes is
explained by sojourner characteristics. Results indicate that all the demographic and
sojourning characteristics did not signiﬁcantly contribute to perceptions of physical
attributes. Housing condition was the only signiﬁcant determinant of perceptions of
physical attributes (,b’ = .52, p < .01). Results suggest that the better the housing
condition was, the more the respondents felt positively about physical attributes of their

current housing.

61

Exogenous Variables

Table 15. Results of the Regression Analysis of Perceptions of Physical Attributes on

 

Perceptions of Physical Aspects

 

 

 

Variable Beta t

Demographic characteristics

Household size -.045 -.681

Respondent's age -.102 -1.455

Respondent's gender .077 1.362

Household income .036 .629
Sojouming characteristics

Length of residence in U.S. -.033 -.490

Time until return -.055 -.931

Past sojourning experience .057 1.015
Housing characteristics

Housing condition .521 ** 9.259

Time at current home .040 .602

R2 .329

Adjusted R2 .303

F (9,225) 12.279**

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

Perceptions of neighborhood. Results of the regression analysis in Table 16 show
the effects of sojourner characteristics on perceptions of neighborhood. The model is
statistically signiﬁcant (F(9,225) = 4.774, p < .01). The R2 value of.16 (18Adj = .13)
indicates that about 16% of the variance in perceptions of neighborhood is explained by
sojourner characteristics. It shows that all of the demographic did not signiﬁcantly
contribute to perceptions of neighborhood. The signiﬁcant effects were found in past
sojourning experience and housing condition. It indicates that sojourners who had past
sojourning experience are likely to have more positive perceptions about their
neighborhood (,6 = .18, p < .01). Households which live in better housing condition

tended to perceive their neighborhood more positively (,8 = .30, p < .01).

62

Table 16. Results of the Regression Analysis of Perceptions of Neighborhood on

Exogenous Variables

 

Neighborhood Environment

 

 

 

Variable Beta t

Demographic characteristics

Household Size .106 1,442

Respondent's age .038 .476

Respondent's gender -.O64 -1.015

Household income .1 13 1.751
Sojouming characteristics

Length of residence in USA .040 .518

Time until return. -.029 -.444

Past sojourning experience ,184** 2945
Housing characteristics

Housing condition .299** 4.747

Time at current home .125 1.681

R2 .160

Adjusted R2 .127

F(9, 225) 4.774**

 

*p < .05; **p < .01

Perceptions of cultural attributes. Results of the regression analysis in Table 17
show the effects of sojourner characteristics on perceptions Of cultural attributes of
sojourners in their current housing. The model is statistically signiﬁcant (F (9,225) =
2.755, p < .01). The R2 value of.10 (Rim,- = .06) indicates that about 10% ofthe variance
in perceptions of cultural attributes is explained by sojourner characteristics.

Table 17 shows that household size and the time at their current housing related
signiﬁcantly to sojourners’ perceptions of cultural attributes in their current housing.
Household size showed a negative relationship with perceptions of cultural attributes (8 =
—.20, p < .05), indicating that the larger the household size was, the more the sojourners

negatively perceived the lack of cultural amenities in their current housing. Duration at

63

current housing related positively to perceptions of cultural attributes (,8 = .16, p < .05),

meaning that sojourners who had lived in their current housing for longer times tended to

have more positive perceptions about the lack of cultural amenities in their current

housing.

Table 17. Results of the Regression Analysis of Perceptions of Cultural Attributes on

Exogenous Variables

 

Perceptions of Cultural Aspects

 

 

Variable Beta t

Demographic characteristics

Household size -,195* -2, 569

Respondent's age .036 .440

Respondent's gender -.022 -.341

Household income -.021 -.3 14
Sojouming characteristics

Length of residence in U.S. .115 1.450

Time until return -.088 -1.288

Past sojourning experience .011 .176
Housing characteristics

Housing condition .087 1.338

Time at current home .162* 2.096

R2 .099

Adjusted R2 .063

F (9, 225) 2.755**

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

Attachment to current housing. Results of the regression analysis in Table 18

show the effects of sojourner characteristics on attachment to their current housing. The

model is statistically signiﬁcant, (F (9,225) = 6,629, p < .01). The R2 value .21 (RzAdj =

.18) indicates that about 21% of the variance in attachment to the current housing was

explained by soj oumer characteristics. The results indicate that respondent age has a

64

signiﬁcant negative relationship with attachment (,8 = .17, p < .05). The younger the

sojourner was, the more the sojourner tended to feel attachment to his or her current

housing. Housing condition related positively to sojoumer’s housing attachment (,8 = .35,

p < .01). The better the housing condition was, the more the sojourners felt attachment to

their current housing.

Table 18. Results of the Regression Analysis of Attachment to Current Housing on

Exogenous Variables

 

Perceptions of Cultural Aspects

 

 

 

Variable Beta t

Demographic characteristics

Household size -,009 -,132

Respondent's age -.168* -2.200

Respondent's gender .098 1.587

Household income .002 .028
Sojouming characteristics

Length Of residence in U.S. .025 .338

Time until return. -.098 -1.530

Past sojourning experience .110 1,812
Housing characteristics

Housing condition .354** 5.794

Time at current home _097 1.337

R2 .210

Adjusted R2 .178

F (9, 225) 6.629**

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

Effects of Sojourner Characteristics, Housing Deﬁcits, and Housing Perceptions on

Housing Satisfaction

Based on the proposed path model in Figure 1 (Chapter 2), housing satisfaction

was hypothesized to be affected directly by sojourner characteristics, housing deﬁcits,

65

and housing perceptions. It also was suggested that housing satisfaction would be
affected indirectly by sojourner characteristics through mediating variables, housing
deﬁcits, and housing perceptions. To examine direct and potential indirect effects on
housing satisfaction, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with sojourner
characteristics in the ﬁrst block, housing deﬁcits in the second block, and housing
perceptions in the last block. Each successive model adds one more group of factors, so
the results Show how much each group contributes independently to housing
satisfaction. Table 19 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis.

Model 1, which contains only exogenous variables (See Model 1 on Table 19),
was statistically signiﬁcant, (F (9,225) = 12,525,p < .001) and explained 33.4% ofthe
variance in housing satisfaction (R2 = .33; RzAdj = .31). In Model 2, a housing deﬁcit
variable was added to the exogenous model (See Model 2 in Table 19). The overall ﬁt
of Model 2 was found to be statistically signiﬁcant, (F (10,224) =13,207, p < .001), and
explained 37.1% of the variance in housing satisfaction (R2 = .37; RzAdj = .34). The
addition of housing deﬁcits slightly improved the predictions of housing satisfaction (R2
change = .04,p < .01).

In the third step of the hierarchical regression, housing perception variables were
added to Model 2. The overall ﬁt of Model 3 was found to be statistically signiﬁcant,
(F (14,220) = 23,396, p < .001), and about 60% of the variance in housing satisfaction
was explained by Model 3 (R2 = .60; RzAdj = .57). Addition of housing perception
variables considerably improved predictions of housing satisfaction (R2 change = .23, p

< .001).

66

Table 19. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis

 

 

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable Exogenous Housing Housing
Variables Deﬁcits Perceptions
Beta t Beta t Beta t
Sojourner Characteristics
Household size .059 .901 .083 1.305 .080 1.523
Respondent's age -.147* -2.092 -.143* -2.092 -.069 -l 231
Respondent's gender .044 .786 .029 .524 -.006 -.136
Household income —.043 -.746 -.039 -.706 -.061 -1.335
Length of residence in U.S. -.006 -.O95 .008 .119 -.012 -216
Time until return -.171** 2.915 -.125* -2.138 -.092 -1.947
Past sojourning experience .198** 3.548 208" 3.837 .130** 2.896
Housing condition .468** 8.334 .471 ** 8.614 201 *"‘ 3.832
Time at current home .135* 2.040 .118 1.820 .060 1.142
Housing Deﬁcits
Housing deﬁcits -200** -3.636 -.108* -2.358
Housing Perceptions
Physical aspects .186** 3.013
Neighborhood .117* 2.195
Cultural aspects .046 .942
Psychological aspects 373** 6.928
R2 (change in R2 ) .334 (.334**) .371 (.037**) .598 (227**)
Adjusted R2 .307 w .343 .573
F statistics (dt) 12,525 (9,225)** 13,207 (10,224 ** 23,396 (14,220)**

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

Effects of sojourner characteristics. When housing deﬁcits and housing
perceptions were not controlled (see Model 1 on Table 19), ﬁve sojourner
characteristics showed signiﬁcant direct effects on housing satisfaction. The ﬁve
variables were respondents’ ages, past sojourning experience, time until return, housing
condition, and duration at current housing.

When housing deﬁcits and housing perceptions were controlled (see Model 3 on

67

Table 19), only past sojourning experience (ﬂ = .130, p < .01) and housing condition ([3
= .201 , p < .01) continued to have signiﬁcant direct effects on housing satisfaction,
while effects of the other variables faded out. The relative strength of the direct effects
of past sojourning experience and housing condition also dropped considerably after
controlling for housing deﬁcits and housing perceptions. Thus, also considering
correlations among sojourner characteristics, housing perceptions, and housing
satisfaction, as examined in the preliminary analysis section (Table 13), the possibilities
of indirect effects of sojourner characteristics on housing satisfaction were suspected.

Effects of housing deﬁcit. Housing deﬁcit had a signiﬁcant effect (,8 = -.108, p
< .05) on housing satisfaction when sojourner characteristics and housing perception
were controlled. The negative coefﬁcient indicates that sojourners with less Of a housing
deﬁcit tended to have higher satisfaction with their housing.

Effects of housing perception. As Model 3 on Table 19 indicates, most of the
housing perception variables, except the perception of cultural attributes, were found to
be statistically signiﬁcant, when controlling for sojourner characteristics and housing
deﬁcit. The results of Model 3 showed that attachment was the strongest indicator of
housing satisfaction (6’ = .37, p < .01), implying the more attached sojourners were to
their current housing, the more satisﬁed they were with their current housing. The
perception of physical attributes (,8 = .19, p < .01) and the perception of neighborhood
(,8 = .12, p < .05) also showed signiﬁcant effects on housing satisfaction. Results
suggested that the more positively the sojourners evaluated physical attributes, or
neighborhood, the more satisﬁed they were with their housing. Only the perception of

cultural attributes was found to have insigniﬁcant effects on housing satisfaction,

68

although the perception of cultural attributes correlated signiﬁcantly with housing
satisfaction (Table 13).

These ﬁndings prompted further analysis. While the regression analysis showed
how each variable inﬂuenced housing satisfaction, it did not allow for a more speciﬁc
examination of indirect relationships among variables (Kline, 1998). Thus, a path
analysis was conducted (1) to examine any indirect effects of variables on housing
satisfaction, (2) to conﬁrm the results of the regression analysis by testing the direct
effects as well, and (3) to identify an overall model ﬁt. These results are presented in the

next section.

Path analysis

A path analysis was conducted using Mplus 4 (Muthen & Muthen, 2006) because
it allows (1) testing several speciﬁed causal relationships simultaneously and (2)
postulating several alternative models identifying the model that most appropriately
explains the data (J oreskog, 1993).

Missing data were distributed across variables and the missing pattern was not
attributed to any design feature. Therefore, the full information maximum likelihood
method (F IML) was employed as a model estimation method. For the purpose of
evaluating the overall ﬁt, goodness-of-ﬁt was assessed by examining the following
indices: chi-square statistic, comparative ﬁt index (CF I), root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). In
general, a model is considered to have a good ﬁt when the p-value of the chi-square

statistic is greater than .05, CFI exceeds .96, RMSEA is less than .06, and SRMR is less

69

than .10 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Tests of Models

The initial baseline model was constructed on the basis of the originally proposed
path model for regression analysis. Table 20 presents the results of the path analysis of
the initial baseline model. The goodness-of-ﬁt-indices of the initial baseline model
indicated that the ﬁt of model was not acceptable. The p-value of the chi-square statistics
was less than .001 , CF I was less than .96, and RMSEA (.023) was greater than the

acceptable level. Accordingly, a problem was perceived in the model’s ﬁt.

Table 20. Results of F it Indices in the Path Model

 

 

 

1 df CFI RMSEA SRMR
Initial baseline model 130.68*** 10 .768 .227 .062
(90% C1 = [.0193 to 262])
Modiﬁed model 4.89 4 .998 .031 .010

(90% CI=[.00to.107])

 

***p < .001

Modiﬁcation indices suggested that the model would be improved by specifying
relationships 1) between the perception of cultural attributes and three other housing
perception variables (i.e., perception of physical attributes, perception of neighborhood,
and attachment), 2) among the three housing perception variables, and 3) between the
perception of cultural attributes and housing deﬁcit.

As for the relationships between the perception of cultural attributes and the three
housing perception variables, indirect effects of cultural aspects of housing satisfaction
through the perception of physical attributes, the perception of the neighborhood, and

attachment was suspected. Although some literature has suggested the direct effects of

70

cultural aspects on housing satisfaction (Shea & Inman, 1994), no signiﬁcant direct
effects of cultural aspects were found in the earlier regression analysis. In addition, some
literature has suggested that cultural norms inﬂuence housing perception. For example,
Morris and Winter (1976) argued that people evaluate their housing with their cultural
and family norms, suggesting that the perception of cultural aspects may inﬂuence
housing perception and, in turn, affecting housing satisfaction. Besides, since the
perception of cultural attributes was signiﬁcantly correlated with the three housing
perception variables: physiCal attributes, neighborhood, and attachment (see Table 13), it
seemed to be appropriate to add the additional paths from the perception of cultural
attributes to the other three housing perception variables:

The error terms of the three perception variables - physical attributes,
neighborhood, and attachment, were allowed to covary. Since they all captured an aspect
of respondents’ perceptions concerning their housing conditions, it appeared reasonable
to add the covariance among them. These three housing perception variables also showed
high correlations.

Finally, the error covariance between the perceptions of cultural attributes and
housing deﬁcit was added. This is deemed to be reasonable, too, because both reﬂect
some aspects of discrepancies in housing between one’s ideal and one’s reality; the
perception of cultural attributes reﬂects cultural deﬁcit concerning housing condition,
while housing deﬁcit concerns physical deﬁcit. Because there is not enough supporting
evidence to assume a causal relationship between the variables, a covariance was
introduced rather than a causal path.

Based on the suggestions of modiﬁcation indices, the original baseline model

71

was modiﬁed. The model ﬁt of the modiﬁed model is presented in Table 20. The
overall ﬁt of the model was satisfactory: )(2 (4) = 4.89, p > .05, CFI = .998, RMSEA =
.031 (90% CI = [.000 to .107]), SRMR = .01. As the modiﬁed model fulﬁlled the ﬁt
criteria, individual direct and indirect paths were examined based on this modiﬁed
model. The modiﬁed model is presented in Figure 2 along with path coefﬁcients.
Overall, 59% of the variance in housing satisfaction was explained by the modiﬁed path
model, which tested both direct and indirect effects, explaining similarly a proportion of
variance in housing satisfaction as the regression model. For simplicity of presentation,
the path diagram (Figure 2) shows only signiﬁcant paths with standardized parameter
coefﬁcients that represent the strength of direct inﬂuences of variables.
Direct effects

Most paths conﬁrmed results of the hierarchical regression analysis. Two
exogenous variables (i.e., past sojourning experience and housing conditions), housing
deﬁcit, and three housing perception variables (i.e., physical attributes, neighborhood,
and attachment) showed signiﬁcant effects on housing satisfaction. Attachment had the
strongest direct inﬂuence on housing satisfaction (,8 = .38, p < .001), followed by housing
conditions (,6 = .20, p < .001). The perception of physical attributes (,8 =18), the
perception of neighborhood (6 = .14), and past sojourning experience (,8 = .13) had
signiﬁcant direct effects on housing satisfaction at the 0.01 level while housing deﬁcit ([3

= -. 12) had signiﬁcant effects on housing satisfaction at the 0.05 level.

72

use: see ass-Eco: .N came

 

50. V a .23.. :0. v a .1. “mo. Va a. mogva .2 .UONEHmwcﬁm Em 856508 53 :< .882

2:0:

 

wing-ESQ Hm 08:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r- . eoﬁweoo
EOSQN-ﬁmﬁmm SEN wcﬁmzom
@532; 3.2 .
mmrk a... a .39. rd monotomxm
ram... Haugowc< at. wee-5&8 “mum
. ..I
u... \iN "NM a. ﬂ 0
ux. new d 3:: 2MB
eoofonnws Z at. an? . .
a... SIM Ame conceive
e. do e23
389% 8.2293
i
1 .u . 0885
x... mm mm a? Eonomsom
*
828 o @530 a a
. C e . E a... any *0. Hoeeomv
GO.HN *i*\ Any. nmwcowco we.“
dz.
*5\. INN/w ®w<
meoommm EMBED .mEowcomv-om
5.6..me ainr

36 226862

 

 

73

In the regression analysis, respondents’ genders and household incomes did not
contribute to effects on any endogenous variables, whereas results of the path analysis
indicated that household size and household income had signiﬁcant effects on positive
perceptions of neighborhoods (6’ = .15, p < .05 for household size; ,6 = .13, p < .05 for
household income). In addition, respondents’ genders were found to have signiﬁcant
effects on attachment (8 = -.20, p < .01). Results suggested that respondents with larger
household sizes and those with higher household incomes are likelier to have positive
perceptions about their neighborhoods. Also, results indicated that males tended to have
higher attachment to their current housing than did females. Discrepancies between the
two analyses seemed to result from treating missing data differently. Since the path
analysis by Mplus 4 uses the full information maximum likelihood method (F IML),
relying on the results of the path analysis seems more appropriate.

Respondents’ perceptions about cultural aspects were found to have signiﬁcant
effects on. all three perception variables: physical aspects (,8 = .21, p < .001),
neighborhood (,6 = .27, p < .001), and attachment (,6 = .22,p < .001).

Indirect effects

Table 21 presents variables found to have signiﬁcant indirect effects on housing
satisfaction in the modiﬁed path model. Among exogenous variables, household size,
respondents’ ages, past sojourning experience, and housing condition were found to
have signiﬁcant indirect effects on housing satisfaction.

Among those variables, housing condition had the strongest indirect effects on
housing satisfaction through two routes. First, the housing condition had strong indirect

effects on housing satisfaction through attachment (standardized indirect effect

74

coefﬁcient = .13, p < .001). Another route was that housing condition indirectly
inﬂuenced housing satisfaction through perception of physical attributes (standardized

indirect effect coefﬁcient = .09,p < .01).

Table 21. Significant Indirect Effects on Housing Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent Standardized
variable Effects of Via Indirect Effects
Housing Household size 9 Cultural aspects -.02*
satisfaction _) Attachment
Respondents age 9 Attachment -.08*
Past sojouming experience 9 Neighborhood .03*
Housing condition 9 Physical aspects .O9**
9 Attachment .13***
The perception of 9 Physical aspect .04*
cultural attributes
9 Neighborhood .04*
9 Attachment .08**

 

Notes. All coefﬁcients are standardized. * p< .05, ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Next to housing condition, past sojourning experience had the most signiﬁcant
indirect inﬂuence (standardized indirect effect coefﬁcient = .03, p < .05) on housing
satisfaction through perception of neighborhood. Household size had signiﬁcant indirect
effects (standardized indirect effect coefﬁcient = -.02, p < .05) on housing satisfaction
through two stages: ﬁrst cultural aspects and then attachment. Although cultural aspects
did not have direct effects on housing satisfaction, the results showed cultural aspects
signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced housing satisfaction through the perception of physical
attributes (standardized indirect effect coefﬁcient = .04, p < .05), perception of
neighborhood (standardized indirect effect coefﬁcient = -.04, p < .05), and attachment

(standardized indirect effect coefﬁcient = .08, p < .001). Respondents’ ages were found

75

 

to indirectly inﬂuence housing satisfaction through attachment (standardized indirect
effect coefﬁcient = -.08, p < .05).

Table 22 presents the standardized direct, indirect, and total effects of exogenous
variables and the perception of cultural attributes. Among all variables, housing
condition appeared the most important factor with the highest total effects (standardized
total effect coefﬁcient =.47, p < .001) for housing satisfaction, since it had not only
strong direct effects (standardized total effect coefﬁcient =.20, p < .001), but also
strongest indirect effects (standardized total effect coefﬁcient =.27, p < .001) on

housing satisfaction.

Table 22. Standard Estimates for Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects

 

 

Dependent Exogenous variables Standardized Standardized Standardized
variable direct effect indirect effects total effects
Housing Household size .07 -.01 .06
satisfaction Respondents’ ages -.07 -.10 -.17*
Respondents’ genders -.00 .06 .06
Household income -.06 .02 -.04
Past sojourning experience .13* .06* .19**
Length of residence in the U.S. .01 .02 .04
Time until return -.09 -. 10* -. 19*
Housing condition .20*** .27*** .47***
Duration at current housing .05 .06 .11
The perception of cultural .16*** .16***
attributes

 

Notes. All path coefﬁcients are standardized. * p< .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

76

CHAPTER V
HOUSING ADJUSTMENT PROCESSES OF CROSS-CULTURAL

SOJOURNERS

A main purpose of this study was to describe the comprehensive housing
adjustment processes of Korean sojourners in the Lansing area. Case study data was
analyzed to provide inclusive understanding of the whole process of how they choose,
perceive, and adjust to their housing in the Lansing area.

Twenty-seven housewives of Korean sojourner households participated in the
case study. As Table 23 presents, participants’ ages ranged from 33 to 54, and household
size varied from one to ﬁve. Twelve out of twenty-seven (44%) households came to
Lansing for the Visiting International Professional Program (V IPP)2 at Michigan State
University, while ten out of twenty-seven (37%) households resided in the Lansing area
for their own or their husbands’ study in PhD programs. Participants’ planned total time
of sojourning ranged from one to seven years, and their length of residence in the U.S.
ranged from about six months to about six years. All 27 participants lived in rental
apartments in the Lansing area.

Participants in this case study showed their housing adjustment processes in a
variety of ways, but similar adjustment patterns were identiﬁed in the context of the same
planned total time of sojourning and length Of residence in the Lansing area. Based on
these two key aspects of sojourning, sojourners were classiﬁed into four groups. This

chapter starts by presenting four representative cases of sojourners.

 

2 Visiting International Professional Program (VIPP), a part of International Studies and Program (ISP) at
Michigan State University, is a non-degree certiﬁcate program for international professionals, businesses,
and organizations (VIPP, 2007)

77

Table 23. Characteristics of Participants in the Case Study

 

 

 

 

 

ID Age Household Length of Total Purpose Of Apartment Resident
size residence sojourn visit *** number
Case I Short-term sojourners/Newcomer (n=11)
Joo 40 4 6 M* 1 Y* VIPP CMA 1
Suh 42 5 4 M 1 Y VIPP 13wC 1
Hwang 41 4 6 M 1 Y Visiting Professor CMA 1
Song 40 4 6 M 1 Y VIPP CMA 1
Lee 38 4 5 M 1 Y VIPP CMA 1
Oh 36 4 5 M 1 Y VIPP CMA 1
Bang 54 2 5 M 1 Y VIPP CPA 1
Jun 38 4 6 M 1 Y VIPP CMA 1
Yoon 52 5 6 M 1 Y VIPP CPA 1
Kim 42 4 6 M 1 Y VIPP NKC 1
Lim 44 4 6 M 1 Y VIPP KHC 1
Case 2 Short-term sojourners at their halfway or further r(n =4 )
Lee2 43 3 13M 2 Y VIPP CPA 1
Min 52 3 15M 2 Y Child rearing KHC 1
Lee3 48 4 13M 1-5 Y Visiting professor CMA 1
Noh 38 4 12M 1 Y VIPP CPA 1
Case 3 Long—term sojourners in their early part (n =4)
Choi 37 4 1 Y 5 Y PhD student (S)** CMA 2
Kim2 37 1 1.5 Y 5 Y PhD student (R ** TCC 3
Kim3 49 2 2 Y 4 Y Child rearing CPA 3
Lee4 39 2 1.5 Y 5 Y PhD student (R) CPA 2
Case 4 Long-term sojourners in their later part (n =8)
W00 34 4 4 Y 6 Y+ Visiting professor CPA 4
Nth 37 1 6 Y 7 Y PhD student (R) HTB 5
Choi2 35 1 6 Y 7 Y PhD student (R) HTB 5
Kim4 35 3 6 Y 5 Y PhD student (S) CMA 3
KimS 34 4 5 Y 6 Y PhD student (S) PCC 4
Noh3 33 3 4 Y 5 Y+ PhD student (S) PCC 3
Choi3 36 4 4 Y 5 Y+ PhD student (S) TCC 4
Lee5 37 4 4 Y 5 Y+ PhD student (S) TCC 2

 

Notes: * M=months, Y=years

** S= Respondent’s spouse in PhD program, R= Respondent herself in PhD program
*** Apartment complexes in the Lansing area: CM, CP, BW, TC, PC, HT, NK, KH

A= Newly-built, rent in higher range

B= Old structure (about 30 years), rent in higher range
C= Old structure (about 30 years), rent in mid-low range

78

Four Cases of Sojourners

Interview data revealed that sojourners’ planned total time of sojourning played
an important role as a main constraint in their housing adjustment because of the nature
of temporary residency. Their length of residence in the U.S. was regarded as an
acculturation index of sojourners (Berry & Kim, 1988; Lysgaard, 1995; Oberg, 1960).
Based on these two key aspects of sojourning, four representative cases of sojourners
emerged. First, participants in this case study were grouped into short-term and long-term
groups based on their planned total time of sojourning in the U.S. Then, according to
participants’ lengths of residence in the U.S., they were categorized into two groups:
newcomers and those more settled.

Figure 3 shows how respondents were identiﬁed in the four representative cases.
The horizontal axis in Figure 2 shows the planned total time of sojourning in the U.S.
The left side shows more short-term soj oumers and the right side shows more long-term
sojourners. The vertical axis in Figure 2 shows length of residence in the U.S. The
upper end shows more settled sojourners and the lower end shows newcomers. The
characteristics of participants in each case are presented in Table 23. Detailed
characteristics of each case were as follows.
Case one: short-term/newcomer

This group, located in the lower left corner in Figure 2, exempliﬁed newly arrived
short-term sojourners. As Table 23 presents, 11 of 27 participants (40%) were located in
this group. Participants’ ages ranged from 36 to 54, and household size varied from two
to ﬁve. Participants in Case 1 had lived in the U.S. approximately six months or less, with
sojourn plans of one year. The majority of this group (n =10, 91%) consisted of visiting

scholars who were studying in the Visiting International Professional Program (VIPP) at

79

Michigan State University.

    
 
   
 

IL

  

Case 4
Long-term
In Later Part

More Settled

  

  
    
     
 

   
   
   
  

  

Case 3
Long-term

In Early
Part

  

Case 2
Short-term
At Midway

.811 at“ ur gouaptSQJJO 11131191

 
      
 

Case 1
Short-term
Newcomer

Newcomers

 

L
r

Short-term sojourners Long-term sojourners

Total Planned Duration of Sojouming

Figure 3. Four Cases of Sojourners in Housing Adjustment Process

According to an employee of the VIPP program at Michigan State University
(2007), these household heads were generally employees of Korean public corporations,
such as the Korean Land Corporation, the Korea Housing Corporation, or the Korea Gas
Corporation. These public corporations select a team of 10 to 20 families each year and

fund their studies in international programs at selected universities in the U.S., including

80

Michigan State University. When they rettu'n home after ﬁnishing their studies of
generally six months to two years, the next team of visiting scholars in turn comes to the
U.S. for their studies at international programs at the various universities.
Case two: short-term sojourners halfway or further

This group, located on the left, higher than Case 1, exempliﬁed short-term
sojourners at their halfway point or in the later part of their sojourn period (Figure 2). As
Table 23 presents, 4 of 27 participants (15%) were located in this group. Respondents’
ages ranged from 38 to 52, and household sizes were three or four. Respondents in this
group had lived in the U.S. for about a year with their sojourn plan of one year to 18
months. Two of four household heads in this group also studied in the VIPP program at
Michigan State University. Of the others, one was a visiting professor, and the other’s
household resided in the Lansing area for their children’s education.
Case three: long-term sojourners in their early part of sojourning

This group was located at the low end on the right of Figure 2. Four of twenty-
seven participants (15%) were located in this group, representing long-term sojourners in
their early part of sojourning (Table 23). Respondents’ ages ranged from 37 to 49, and
the household size varied from one to four. Households in this group had lived in the U.S.
about one to two years, with total of ﬁve to Six year sojourn's plans. Three of four
household heads in this group were doctoral students at Michigan State University and
one household was visiting the Lansing area for their children's education.
Case four: long-term sojourners in the later part of sojourning

This group was located at the high end on the right, representing long-term

sojourners whose return was approaching (Figure 2). A total of eight participants were

81

included in this group. Their household size varied from one to four and all respondents
were in their 305. Respondents in this group had lived about four to six years in the U.S.
and planned to return home in two months to one year. The majority of household heads

in this group (n = 7, 88%) consisted of doctoral students at Michigan State University.

Choice of Housing

Housing choice is an essential component revealing the housing adjustment
processes of sojourners with different socio—cultural characteristics (Song, 1990).
Participants were asked to describe how they chose their current apartment units and
what important features they wanted in their current apartment, to examine respondents’
housing norms and cultural values in their housing choices.

As Table 23 indicates, all participants lived in rental apartment units. All short-
term planned sojourner households in Cases 1 and 2 (n =15, 56%) were living in their
ﬁrst apartment, while all long-term planned sojourner households in Cases 3 and 4 (n
=12, 44%) were living in their at-least-second apartment, indicating that they had moved
at least once before. Data from short-term sojourners (Cases 1 and 2) revealed the process
of moving from Korea and adjusting to their ﬁrst apartments in the U.S. On the other
hand, data from long-term sojourners (Cases 3 and 4) revealed the process of housing
adjustments from their ﬁrst apartment through to their current apartment. Thus, ﬁndings
about sojourners’ housing choices are reported in terms of the cases of short-term and
long-term sojourners instead of for each of the four representative cases. The following
section describes the process of the housing choice of short-term sojourners ﬁrst, then

moves to the case of long-term sojourners.

82

Housing choices of short-term sojourners (Cases 1 and 2)

Finding and choosing initial housing. When asked how they found and chose
their ﬁrst apartments, the short-term sojourners in Cases 1 and 2 indicated that their
colleagues, staff of the VIPP program, people in Korean churches, or friends helped them
to ﬁnd their apartments. As Table 24 presents, seven of ﬁfteen respondents (47%) cited
their colleagues and ﬁve of ﬁfteen respondents (33%) cited staff of the VIPP program at
Michigan State University.

In choosing their ﬁrst apartments, since respondents could not do apartment
searching by themselves, generally sojourners’ housing norms were not effectively
reﬂected, due to lack of information and limited choices. Although they tried to gather
more information through other colleagues who had been in this area previously or by
searching apartment websites to check ﬂoor plans, locations, or facility conditions, they
did not have enough information about housing environments in the Lansing area. Their
choices of apartments were limited as well. As a general rule, they simply picked one of
the apartments recommended by their helpers in the Lansing area. So, interestingly, most
new, short-term planned, sojourner households continued to choose the same couple of
apartment complexes every year because they repeatedly were recommended. The
majority of short-term sojourners (n =11, 73%) in this case study were found to live in
one of those apartments, for example, Club Meridian or Central Park in the Okemos area.
One of the respondents, Jun stated:

I was told that many Koreans were living in Central Park or Club Meridian in
Okemos area. . ..new building. . .good schools... I was more inclined towards the
staff” 5 suggestion because there weren’t much information on the apartments
here. I had only vague idea about what life would be in the States, nor did I have

chance to ask more information on the phone because I was in Korea. . Now I
see many apartments with better living conditions and better rent around here...

83

only ifl was given more choices... (Jun).

Table 24. Information Sources for Housing Choices for Short-term Sojourners

 

 

 

Sources Case 1 Case 2 Total
Colleagues 7 7
VIPP staffs 3 2 5
Friends 1 1 2
Korean church 1 1
Total 11 4 15

 

Table 25. Important Housing Attributes for Housing Choice of Short-term Sojourners

 

Attributes Number of

 

Case 1 Case 2 Total
(N=11) (N=4) (N=15)
School district, Good school 3 8
Living area facing south

Close to school

Number of bedrooms or bathrooms

Clean and new structure

Utilities: Washer

Close to friends or other Koreans

Units on a Speciﬁc ﬂoor (lSt or 2nd ﬂoor)
Away from other Korean families

Easily taking over household goods

Facilities: workout facilities or swimming pool
Close to shopping 1
Low rent
Convenient bus route 1
Large size of bedrooms 1

NNNt—‘v—‘NNNW-ﬁ-m
u—ar—sv—Ap—th—Iu—a

p—s
t-‘P-‘v—‘HNNNNNUJW-h-hm

 

L
—i

Total mentions 28 13

 

Important housing attributes. When asked about what they considered to be
important housing attributes for their apartments in the U.S., respondents mentioned a
total of ﬁfteen housing attributes (Table 25). Responses indicated that children of

sojourner families played an important role in housing choices. Among a total of 41

84

mentions, almost half (20 mentions) were related to children: school district, close to
schools, number of bedrooms, units on the ﬁrst ﬂoor, and away from other Koreans.
First, the respondents’ main concern was the education of their children. More than half
the respondents (n = 8, 53%) emphasized that a good school district was one of the most
important factors in their housing choices. A few even said that everything else was a
secondary consideration, but that the school district was the most inﬂuential factor in
their choice of housing. One of the respondents, Min, in her 50s and with a daughter in
high school, stressed that her key factor for choosing their home in the U.S. was her
daughter’s education. Being close to schools (n = 4, 27%) and living away from other
Koreans (n = 2, 13%) were also related to the education of their children. Regarding her
reason for wanting to live away from other Koreans, one of the respondents, Song
explained:

We didn't want to have Koreans as neighbors. We are here only for about one

year... Learning more English is really important while we are here. I thought my

children would not beneﬁt from hanging around with other Korean kids. ..

However, once we arrived here, I was disappointed, because there were too many

Koreans in this apartment complex (Song).

Those with older children or teenagers put more emphasis on the number of
bedrooms and bathrooms in choosing housing (n = 4, 27%). They called attention to the
scarcity of decent three-bedroom apartments. Two respondents, renting three-bedroom
apartments, complained that their families did not like their apartments at all, but they
had no choice. On the other hand, those with young children reported that the number of
bedrooms was unimportant to them. They expressed they did not care about crowding for

a short period of sojourning. Rather, they considered living on the ﬁrst ﬂoor to be an

important attribute (n = 2, 13%) because they wanted their children to play freely at home

85

without bothering people downstairs.

Respondents revealed their cultural housing norms by emphasizing the
importance of living areas facing south. About one-third (n = 5, 33%) of the respondents
expressed the importance of living Space that faces south, that is, the importance of a
naturally well-lit interior; however, they realized that it was not easy to have an
apartment facing south in the U.S. One of the respondents, Lim, complained:

Because my colleague did apartment searching for us, it was difﬁcult to request

apartment units facing the south. A friend of mine is living in an apartment facing

the north, though she wanted the one facing the south. . ..I was told that in the

U.S., we Shouldn’t be concerned with the orientation of the houses. What can I do
when Americans aren’t concerned about the orientation of buildings? (Lim)

Table 26. First Impression of T heir Current Apartments

 

 

 

 

First impressions Number of mentions
Negative Interior space was very dark overall 3
Carpeted ﬂoor was annoying 2
Rooms looked small and felt closed in 1
Building was old and in poor condition 2
Total 8
Positive Interior space was much more spacious than 1
expected
It was good overall 1
Outside view was great 1
Building exterior appearance was attractive 1
Total 4
Total 1 2

 

An unexpected response was the importance of easily taking over house goods
from the about-to-depart family. According to two respondents, there is a kind of
tradition among these Short-term sojourners that they hand over all their household goods
to each other. Because of the ﬁxed time of temporary residence, they did not want to

spend money on household goods or furniture. That was why some families passed their

86

household goods on to newly-arrived families when they returned to their home country.

Other important attributes, having a new, clean apartment and the washer
provided, were mentioned thrice each. Living close to Korean friends was mentioned as
an important attribute for some families because they wanted to be able to get help from
Korean friends when they started living in a new, unfamiliar environment.

First impressions. When asked what were their ﬁrst impressions of their current
apartments, among a total of 12 mentions, 8 were negative (67%), 4 were positive (33%),
as shown in Table 26. Most frequently mentioned negative impressions related to interior
lighting and carpeted floors, while exterior building appearances and external views
related to positive ﬁrst impressions. Two respondents, Suh and Joo, recalled the ﬁrst
moments they entered their apartments:

When I got into my apartment at ﬁrst, I thought the place was very spacious for
three bedrooms but when I looked down and saw the carpeted ﬂoor, although I

had already heard that most American houses have carpeted ﬂoors, I felt it was very
unhygienic (Suh).

The ﬁrst impression. . .the apartment felt closed in... Look here! As you can see, the
hallway is poorly lit and narrow... The living room is dark... Compared to my
apartment in Korea, which was really bright... Although I’m used to it now, I always
feel that the house is very dark (J 00).
Housing choices of long-term sojourners (Case 3 and 4)
Twelve of twenty-seven participants (44%) were long—term sojourners (Case 3
and 4). As Table 23 indicates, participants of Case 3 (n = 4, 33%) had lived in the
Lansing area for one to two years, with four- to ﬁve-year sojourning plans, while

participants of Case 4 (n = 8, 53%) had lived in the Lansing area for four- to six-years,

with ﬁve- to seven—year sojourning plans. Among long-term planned sojourner

87

households, the majority of respondents or respondents’ spouses (n=10, 83%) were

working on PhDs at Michigan State University.

Table 27. Number of Relocations of Long-term Planned Sojourners

 

 

Number of Moves Case 3 Case 4 Total
(n=4) (n=8) (n=l2)
1 3 2 5
2 l 2 3
3 or more 4 4

 

As Table 27 shows, long—term planned sojourners tended to have high mobility.

All long-term sojourners in Case 3 moved at least once during their ﬁrst year of
sojourning. Half the long-term sojourners (n=4, 50%) in Case 4 moved three or more
times. As Table 28 presents, main reasons for leaving previous residences related to poor,
inconvenient housing conditions, neighborhoods, ﬁnancial reasons, and family matters.

Reasons for Moving. Long-term planned sojourners’ reasons for leaving previous
apartments are presented in Table 28. Moving from university housing to off-campus
apartments was one of the most frequently mentioned reasons for respondents’ moving (n
= 4, 33%). Those who started living in university housing at ﬁrst reported that they
moved out during their ﬁrst year or two, complaining of the poor conditions of university
housing. Noh recalled her experiences with university housing:

Whenever I entered my apartment, I didn’t feel good... The ﬂoor plan was

weird. . .The kitchen was very small. I thought all the apartments in the U.S. were

the same way. But one day, I visited a friend at Trappers Cove, which was a really

nice apartment, but the rent there was cheaper. I was so frustrated about my place

that I didn't want to go back. So we decided to move right away. Even though we

had to pay the ﬁne because it was a rule to live in university apartments for at
least three months, we just moved out (Noh).

88

Table 28. Reasons for Leaving Previous Residences

 

Reasons Case 3 Case 4 Total
(n=4) (n=8) (n=12)

 

0.)

Moving from university housing to off campus 1
Washer not furnished 1
Poor heating operation and insulation (too cold)

Poor maintenance

Poor water quality

Too crowded (baby, needed more room)

High rent, heating costs not included 1
Old structure

Relocation due to school transfer

Too far from work

Far from other Korean families

Poor surrounding environment

Wanted to move to house with wood ﬂoor
From north orientation to south

t-‘F-‘NNNUJUJUJUJUJ

 

wu—t—v—tNNNNwwmwpr

mr—Ip—tr—tp—It—A
4:.

Total 26

 

Not having a furnished washer (n = 4, 33%) was also one of the most frequently
mentioned reasons for leaving previous apartments. Respondents expressed the
inconvenience of living without a washer at home, while they did not feel any
inconvenience about not having a ﬁrmished dryer. Rather, even those with dryers
provided in their apartment tended to use them infrequently because using dryers is not
common in Korea. Respondents mentioned they felt that dryers wore out their clothes
easily and quickly, and they preferred to hang the laundry inside home to make the indoor
air quality more comfortable. The inconvenience of not having a fumished washer,
however, made them consider moving to another apartment with a furnished washer.
Bang stated:

My ﬁrst-child is a son, so I had to deal with a lot of laundry. Because the laundry

facility was in the basement, the trip down to the basement was scary; it was also

difﬁcult to carry heavy loads of laundry down the steps, and I was worried about

tripping on the steps at night... I didn't feel that the washed clothes were
particularly clean either. I hated the laundry situation so much. My second child

89

was due any day, so I couldn’t hand-wash the clothes... I wanted to move out as
soon as possible (Bang).

Table 29. Important Housing Attributes in Choice of Housing for Long-term Sojourners

 

Attributes Number of mentions

 

Case 3 Case 4 Total
(N=4) (N=8)
Neamess to Korean ﬁiends 1 2
Clean and new structure 1
Spaciousness and openness (size and space layout)
Close to school
Washer
Low rent
Living area facing south

’2
L'
L3

r—IF—‘D—‘F—‘t-‘WN

 

Number of bedrooms or bathrooms

Close to work

Convenient bus route

Surrounding natural environment (trees, lawns, etc.)
Carport

Close to shopping

Safety

Efﬁcient heating operation and insulation
Playground

1
1
l
1
Hard ﬂoor 1
1
1
l
l

 

Nb—‘b—‘D—‘r—lI—db—lr—‘r—‘P—‘NNNNNWWW

p—Ip—np—Ap—Ip—dp—d

Total mentions 10

 

Poor housing quality, including poor heating operation, poor maintenance, and
poor water quality, also were frequently-mentioned reasons for moving. High rent and the
need for one more bedroom caused respondents to move, also.

Important attributes in choosing current apartments. When asked what
attributes long-term planned sojourners considered important when they chose their
current apartment, respondents provided a variety of housing attributes. As Table 29
presents, a total of 17 attributes were mentioned by respondents. Results revealed, unlike
in the cases of short-term sojourners, that respondents’ most frequent answers related to

neamess to other Koreans (n = 3, 25%), clean new structures (n = 3, 25%), and

90

Spaciousness (n = 3, 25%).

Living close to Korean friends was mentioned as important, especially by those
with young children. They preferred to live close to their Korean friends with children of
the same ages because they wanted their children to have friends in the neighborhood.
Also, respondents themselves wanted to socialize with Korean friends. One respondent,
Choi, stated:

I like to live near Koreans. I was very close to my Korean neighbors so after they

returned to Korea, I was sad to see them go. . .I wanted to move to a place where

there would be many playmates about the same age as my child. .. (Choi)

Respondents also frequently cited that a newly-built, clean apartment was their
ﬁrst priority in choosing their current apartments because the building structures as well
as home appliances in their previous apartments were outdated and shabby. Spaciousness
of interior space was also one of the most frequently-cited housing attributes in choosing
their current apartments. Respondents looked for spacious living rooms in terms of both
size and layout. They showed preference for open-planning layouts and larger living
rooms. Kim5 mentioned:

For me, Spaciousness was the most important. . .. when the space was small, it

seemed so closed in. . .. In my last apartment, the living room was too small and I

couldn’t even ﬁnd place for a TV... In contrast, this apartment has open ﬂoor plan

and it is also spacious. . .just like a new apartment in Korea (KimS).

Two cultural attributes, a living room facing south (n = 2, 17%) and a hard ﬂoor
(it = 2, 17%), were mentioned as important in choosing their current apartments.
Respondents emphasized the importance of south-facing living areas because living

spaces facing south have been traditionally signiﬁcant in Korean housing for natural

lighting as well as for the belief that homes facing south bring good fortune. In addition,

91

the importance of a large window on the south wall was emphasized. One of the
respondents, Lee5, explained:
As we were growing up, we were told that the house needs to be bright and have
lots of sunlight coming in. Wherever we go, we look for south-facing houses.
We heard that in the U.S., a lot of houses don’t have the sunlight coming in so we
asked a friend to pay particular attention to the orientation. . ..my house faces the
south so we get lots of sunlight (LeeS).
Three attributes, being close to schools, provided with a washer, and low rent
were mentioned as important. In addition, their concerns about neighborhood (i.e., close
to work, close to shopping, convenient bus route, safety, surrounding natural elements)

and subsidiary service facilities (i.e., carports, playgrounds) were also mentioned in their

responses.

Evaluation of current housing

Once housing has been chosen, extent of the ﬁt between housing norm and actual
physical attributes may bring out an affective response in terms of evaluation
(Francescato et al., 1974; Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981; Weidemann & Anderson,
1985). This section examines how Korean sojourners perceived and evaluated their
current apartment conditions. Overall satisfactory and unsatisfactory attributes were
explored along with differences and similarities in four representative cases.
Satisfactory housing attributes

When asked what features in their current apartments respondents were most
satisﬁed with, the most-frequently—mentioned features were surrounding natural
environment and built-in storage (i.e., number and Size of closets). As reported in Table

30, close to half of total mentions (30 of 70 mentions, 42%) related to these two

92

attributes, surrounding natural environment (15 of 70 mentions, 21%) and built-in storage
(15 of 70 mentions, 21%). After these two attributes, a kitchen open to the living room (7
of 70 mentions, 10%) and exterior appearance (5 of 70 mentions, 7%) were mentioned
most frequently as features they were satisﬁed with in their current apartments. In
addition, subsidiary service facilities (i.e., workout facilities, swimming pool), quietness,
and layout of interior space were somewhat evenly mentioned, thrice each.

Surrounding natural environment. A spacious lawn, gardens, trees, animals, and
fresh air impressed the respondents strongly; more than half (n = 16, 59%) the
respondents mentioned surrounding natural environment and greenery as the most
favorable features of their current apartments (Table 30). For example, the respondents
mentioned:

We lived in several different apartments in Korea. . .a concrete jungle. However,

the natural environment is much better here. . .I love seeing trees and landscapes in

the backyard. I particularly like to see my children playing outside (Lee3).

The scenery is really good. I can see the forest through the window and there is a

pond in the backyard like a cottage. . .I’m so thankful. . .I wasn’t happy with the

house when I came here for the ﬁrst time but the moment that I saw rabbits and
squirrels running around, it felt heavenly (Suh).

Built-in storage: Satisfaction with both the number and size of built-in storage
spaces was also mentioned most frequently. More than half (n = 15, 56%) the
respondents mentioned closets, especially walk-in closets, as their most satisfactory
attributes. Due to constraints of temporary residence, sufﬁcient storage was considered
beneﬁcial because they did not want to spend money on buying furniture or furnishings.

One respondent, Yoon, mentioned:

The interior isn’t very different from Korea but there are a lot more storage spaces
here... It makes moving easy. . .all we had to do was simply hang the clothes after

93

we moved... so it was convenient. . .it’s easy to organize. . ..I want to install the
same built-in closet when we move back to Korea. . ..(Yoon).

Table 30. Satisfactory Housing Attributes

 

Attributes Number of mentions

Casel Case2 Case3 Case4 Toni“
(11:11) (F4) (n=4) (n=8) (F27)

 

 

Natural environment

 

 

 

 

Greenery & natural surroundings 9 2 l 3 15
Personal yard in the back 1 1

Neighborhood attributes

Feeling of safety 1 l

Enough parking space 1

Service facilities (workout, swimming pool, etc.) 1 3
Quietness 2 3
Korean families around 1 1
Close to shopping 1 1

Units on the ground ﬂoor 1 1

Interior attributes

Closets (number and size, walk-in closets) 9 l 3 15
Kitchen Open to living area 4 1 7
Carpet 1 1 2
Kitchen window 1 l 2
View outside 1 l

Spaciousness with high ceiling, open layout 1 1
Interior lighting 1 1
Fireplace 1 1

Separate zoning of private and public areas 2 l 3
Building structure

Building appearance (exterior): shape and material 3 1 1 5
Heating operation 1 1
Low-rise buildings 1 1

New and clean structure 2 2
Appropriate rent 1 1

Total mentions 34 8 10 l 8 70

 

Kitchen Open to Living Room: Over a quarter (n = 7, 26%) of respondents cited a
kitchen layout open to the living room as their favorite feature in their current apartments.
Respondents, particularly those with young children, preferred their kitchens open to

their living rooms to be able to observe their children at play in living rooms when they

94

were working in kitchens. Respondents showed preferences for open-plan layouts of
interior spaces, perceiving such to be family-oriented. Respondents expressed that
working in kitchens was much more enjoyable in their current apartments, compared to
their housing in Korea, because they could talk to their families. One respondent, Lee2,
stated:

I was really surprised by the kitchen layout, which was completely open to the

living room. In Korea, the kitchen was generally secluded from the living room.

So, I felt isolated while working in the kitchen. . .I felt left out... other family

members had fun in the living room... I really like having the kitchen open to the

living room in my current home. I’m happy to work in the kitchen watching and
talking to my family (Lee2).

Exterior building appearance: The architectural form of the apartment building
was mentioned frequently as a satisfactory feature. About one-ﬁfth (n = 5, 19%) of the
respondents cited exterior building appearance as attractive. Compared to the starkness of
their high-rise concrete buildings in Korea, participants reported they were satisﬁed with
living in beautiful low-rise buildings. One respondent, Hwang said:

The apartment I lived in Korea was on 25th ﬂoor. I felt uneasy about living that

high. My favorite feature of this place is living on the 2nd ﬂoor. I like living near

the ground (Hwang).
Satisfactory attributes in the four representative cases

Respondents in the four representative cases offered some differences and
similarities in their perceptions of their housing conditions. Regarding satisfactory
housing attributes, respondents in Case 1 provided a total of 34 mentions, which means
that on average each person mentioned about three satisfactory attributes. More than half

the total mentions (52%) were about natural environment (nine mentions) and built-in

storage (nine mentions). A kitchen open to the living room, exterior appearance, and

95

interior layout were mentioned frequently also.

Respondents in Case 2 provided a total of eight mentions, which means on
average each person cited about two satisfactory attributes. Most-frequently-mentioned
attributes were natural environment (two mentions) and kitchens open to living rooms
(two mentions).

Respondents in Case 3 presented a total of ten mentions about satisfactory
housing features; that is, about two and a half mentions were provided by each person on
average. Most frequently mentioned attribute was built-in storage (two mentions).

Respondents in Case 4 presented a total of 18 mentions, and about 2.25 mentions
were provided by each person on average. Most—frequently-mentioned attributes were
natural environment (three mentions) and built-in storage (three mentions).

In sum, about three satisfactory features were mentioned, on average, by each
respondent in Case 1, who had been in the U.S. six months or less, while two features
were cited, on average, by each respondent from Cases 2, 3, and 4, who had been in the
U.S. at least a year. Surrounding natural environment was the most-frequently—mentioned
satisfactory feature in all cases except Case 3. Built-in storage was also the most
frequently mentioned in all cases except for Case 2.

Unsatisfactory attributes overall

When asked what features in their apartments they were most dissatisﬁed with,
about 40% of the total mentions related to carpeted ﬂoors (17 of 129 mentions, 13%),
poor interior lighting ( 15 of 129 mentions, 12%), and noise (15 of 129 mentions, 12%),
as Table 31 presents. Next to these, respondents’ unsatisfactory perceptions related to

some cultural attributes (i.e., no water drains on bathroom ﬂoors, no shoe amenities in

96

entrances, types of heating system), poor building conditions (i.e., outdated structures and

appliances, poor natural ventilations), and poor mechanical attributes (i.e., poor heating

operations).

Table 31. Unsatisfactory Housing Attributes

 

Attributes

Number of mentions

 

Interior layout and attributes
Carpeted ﬂoors

Interior lighting conditions
Entrance without any amenity for shoes
Outdated appliances/structure
Size of rooms

Long and narrow entrance

Height of sinks and cabinets
Separated kitchen

No kitchen window

Short of storage, few closets
Small windows in the living room
Living area not facing south

Poor door lock system

Kitchen open to living room

Casel

O

t—‘NUJUJNQF—‘O

Case 2
(n=1 1) (n=4)

Nt—‘NUJ

Case3 Case4 Total

(n=4)

Nv-‘de

(n=8)

3
2

3

(n=27)

17
15

00

P—‘t—‘t—‘Nt—‘NF—‘WWOOO

 

Facilities
No playground
Laundry in the basement

Nb.)

 

Bathroom

No water drain on the bathroom ﬂoor
Bathroom with two doors

Fixed showerhead

Nt—‘O

 

Structure and mechanicals

Noise (poor acoustics, squeaks, mechanical)
Poor ventilation

Poor heating/cooling operation (too cold/hot)
Type of heating system

Poor construction

Far away ﬁom shopping centers

Far away from work

High rent

Total mentions

18

12

22

t—tJAv—tr—ir—AQOOQr—A

 

97

Carpeted Floors. About two-thirds (n = 17, 63%) of respondents mentioned
carpeted ﬂoor as their unsatisfactory feature in their apartment (Table 31). The majority
of participants expressed strong dislike of carpeted ﬂoors in their apartments. The main
reason for disliking carpeted ﬂoor related to their perceptions that carpet is unhygienic
compared to hard ﬂoors in their homes in Korea. Respondents felt they could thoroughly
clean the hard ﬂoor by mopping with a damp cloth in their apartments in Korea; however,
respondents believed they could not remove all the dirt embedded in the carpet, no matter
how carefully they vacuumed their carpeted ﬂoors. Due to the impression that carpeted
ﬂoors are unhygienic, respondents felt extremely uncomfortable touching the carpet
directly. One of the respondents, Oh, mentioned:

Because we like to sit on the ﬂoor, it’s customary to mop the ﬂoor. The carpet

looks luxurious, but the fact that we have to live with the carpeted ﬂoor is

unhygienic. I’ve tried to keep it clean but it still feels dirty; I don’t like the feeling

I get when the carpet touches my Skin. It feels as though there are creatures living

under it. It feels even worse on rainy days due to the humidity (Oh).

Particularly, those with young children complained of maintenance problems
because children often spill food or drinks on ﬂoors. Another reason for aversion to
carpeted ﬂoors was dust; respondents stated that dust from carpet made them ill by
worsening allergy symptoms or atopic dermatitis. The majority of participants showed a
strong desire to change the ﬂooring material to wood or vinyl ﬂooring, which are more
easily maintained, if possible. One respondent, Lee, cited:

I hated the carpet from the beginning. I didn’t even put a small rug in Korea

because I have young children. There’s too much dirt in the carpet; it’s

unhygienic. .. I don’t feel comfortable for my children to play or to sleep on the
carpet... I’m worried about my children spilling juice and cleaning the stains

after. I have dust allergy and the synthetic ﬁbers make it worse. So despite the
cold winter, we keep the windows open (Lee).

98

Interior lighting conditions. Interior lighting was one of the most negatively
perceived factors in their present housing. About two-thirds (n = 15 , 63%) of respondents
considered interior lighting to be the most unsatisfactory feature in their apartments
(Table 31). Respondents cited how the dark interior lighting bothered them, and that they
had had difﬁculty accustoming themselves to it. Compared to the level of bright lighting
in their Korean homes, the main complaints about interior lighting related to low overall
illumination levels because of a lack of lighting ﬁxtures, use of incandescent lighting, and
use of low-wattage bulbs. Respondents mentioned they felt conﬁised initially because
their living rooms do not have any general lighting, while it is a norm to place a central
light on the ceiling in each room in Korea. In addition, respondents’ key concerns about
dark interior lighting related to their children. Generally, respondents believed that
reading under low-lighting conditions may impair children’s eyesight, so they expressed
how they could not help but make their interior lighting brighter. Respondents stated:

My biggest complain is the lighting condition. Why does it have to be so dark
here? I feel like I’m living in a cave. I turn on every available light but it’s still

dark. . .I don’t understand why there’s no general lighting in the living room
(Bang).

At ﬁrst, we thought our place was the only one without the lighting in the living
room but that wasn’t the case. The other apartments were just as dark. We like to
have well lit place since the darkness can’t be good for eyesight. My children
have trouble studying and can’t even read a book. Perhaps we were living with
too much lighting in Korea but we always feel that lighting here is inadequate
(Kim).

Noise. Many participants (n = 15, 56%) complained about their experiences with
noise, mainly due to wood frame buildings, poor soundprooﬁng conditions, and

mechanical operations. Respondents Showed widely unfavorable reactions to wood house

99

frames as the main source of sound carrying and squeaks. Based on their experiences and
expectations from housing in Korea, where concrete frames are common, they
complained about lack of sound barriers between units and about squeaks from the ﬂoor.
Being able to hear neighbors’ voices in another unit appeared to be a bad experience.
Footsteps from upstairs and squeaks from ﬂoors were pointed out by respondents as one
of the most bothering attributes in their housing. They mentioned that they felt uneasy
whenever the children walked and caused squeaks. One respondent, Kim, cited:

There’s absolutely no soundprooﬁng and the houses are built poorly. I can hear

the sound of people walking, the ﬂoor squeaking, and even noises from

bathrooms. It gets on my nerves. Sometime the noise from upstairs is so loud that
it feels like the building is going to collapse. I’m startled by the noises in the
bedroom, thinking there’s a thief in my house. At ﬁrst, my children had said
there’s King Kong living upstairs but when we met the person, he had a small
stature. Maybe because they wear shoes in the house, the echo makes the sound
louder (Kim).

Respondents mentioned that noise from heating operating, plumbing, and
refrigerators also were stress factors for them and caused uneasiness.

Bathroom. The bathroom was also frequently mentioned by respondents as an
unsatisfactory housing feature. About one-third (n = 9, 33%) of respondents complained
that cleaning the bathroom was inconvenient due to the absence of a water drain on the
bathroom ﬂoor. Since they were used to cleaning bathroom ﬂoors with running water and
soap in their homes in Korea, newcomers who had been in the U.S. a relatively short time
(e.g., Case 1) tended to be more dissatisﬁed with bathrooms in their current apartments.
Fixed showerhead also was considered an inconvenient feature (n = 2, 17%) for those

with young children because they found it difﬁcult to wash their children therewith. One

of respondent, Kim2, stated:

100

I’m not happy with the bathrooms. Since there’s no drain, I can’t clean the
bathroom with water. It’s inconvenient and I hate to clean the bathroom without
washing the dirt away. In Korea, cleaning the bathroom with soap & water leaves
the bathroom spotless. It would feel good if I could do that here. I’m not used to
cleaning this way; it’s uncomfortable. I don’t know how people clean, but
cleaning with a mop doesn’t really clean the crevasses well. Not only that,
because of the ﬁxed shower head, I have hard time giving baths to my children

(Kim).

Main Entrance. Nearly one-third (n = 8, 30%) of respondents mentioned the
main entrance as an unsatisfactory feature in their apartments. Since Koreans do not wear
shoes inside, the absence of amenities for organizing shoes in the entrance zone was
considered unsatisfactory. Compared to their Korean housing, which typically has a
separated foyer one step lower than the living space, respondents mentioned that
unorganized shoes in entrances cluttered their living space and rendered it unhygienic.
One respondent, Noh2, said:

I’m most unsatisﬁed with the entrance. The entry way is long and looks closed in.

The closet by the entry is awkward & gets in the way when I put the shoes on.

Not only that, the carpet gets dirty due to dirty shoes in the winter. In Korea, there

was another door separating the entry so it was tidier. Since we don’t wear shoes

in the house, I like having a separation at the entrance. For the people who don’t
wear shoes inside, the current layout is cumbersome (Noh2).

Heating System. The traditional heating system in Korean housing is a ﬂoor
heating method, called On-dol, which is an age-old radiant heating device. Modemized
On-dol is still one of the most common heating systems in Korea. Respondents
complained that the forced air heating system in their current apartment was the main
source of harmful, low-quality indoor air. Respondents expressed how their

dissatisfaction with the forced air heating system increased their preference for On-dol in

their homes in Korea. One of the respondents, Noh2, cited:

101

Nobody cleans the air duct. We took a look inside the duct & it was ﬁlled with

dust. How disgusting it was. There was an enormous amount of dirt that came out

of the duct when we cleaned it. No wonder I wasn’t feeling well. As time passes, I

think the “On-do!” is the best and I can’t wait to get back to Korea to lay on the

“On—dol” (Noh2).
Unsatisfactory attributes in the four Cases

As Table 31 indicates, respondents in Casel provided a total of 79 mentions of
unsatisfactory features, indicating that each person provided about 7 mentions on
average. The most frequently mentioned unsatisfactory features were carpeted ﬂoors,
interior lighting conditions, and noise. Respondents in Case 2 presented a total of 18
mentions about unsatisfactory features in their apartment, meaning each person
provided about 4 mentions on average. Similarly to Case 1, carpeted ﬂoor, interior
lighting condition, and noise were the most-frequently-mentioned unsatisfactory
attributes. Respondents in Case 3 provided a total of 12 mentions, indicating that each
respondent provided about 3 mentions on average. The most-frequently-mentioned
unsatisfactory attributes in Case 3 were carpeted ﬂoors and outdated structures and
home appliances. Respondents in Case 4 offered a total of 22 unsatisfactory features,
indicating that 2.75 mentions were provided by each person on average. Carpeted
ﬂoors, outdated structures and small room sizes were most-frequently-mentioned as
unsatisfactory housing features.

In sum, about seven unsatisfactory features were mentioned on average by each
respondent in Case 1, who had been in the U.S. six months or less, while about three to
four unsatisfactory features were cited on average by each respondent from Cases 2, 3,

and 4, who had been in the U.S. at least a year. Respondents in Case 1 cited twice as

many unsatisfactory features about their current apartment as those in other cases. For the

102

short-term sojourners in Cases 1 and 2, the most-frequently-mentioned unsatisfactory
features were carpeted ﬂoors, interior lighting conditions, and noise. On the other hand,
the long-term sojourners in Case 3 and 4 most frequently mentioned carpeted ﬂoors and

outdated structures as unsatisfactory features.

Housing Adjustment Patterns

According to Morris and Winter (1978), housing dissatisfaction motivates four
types of responses. That is, dissatisﬁed families move to other housing units, modify
their housing, change their family make-up, or change their norms (Morris & Winter,
1978). Similarly, in this study of sojourners’ housing adjustments, four patterns of
housing adjustments were identiﬁed: 1) changing their behaviors, 2) modifying existing
housing attributes, 3) enduring inconvenience, and 4) moving (Table 32).
Changing behaviors to ﬁt housing attributes

Respondents reported that their behaviors in their apartments changed to ﬁt their
current apartment conditions. As Table 32 presents, in relation to carpeted ﬂoors, which
was the most frequently mentioned unsatisfactory feature, respondents’ behavioral
changes took place in their ways of cleaning their homes. There were two contrasting
ways of behavioral changes: cleaning house less frequently and cleaning much harder.
Over one-ﬁfth (n = 6, 22%) of the respondents cited that they cleaned their current
apartments much less frequently than they did their homes in Korea. Since dirt on
carpeted floors is less visible, they often forget to vacuum their homes. As the

respondents stated:

103

Table 32. Housing Adjustment Patterns

 

Number of Mentions

 

Adjustment Patterns /Attributes Casel Case2 Case3 Case4 Total
(n=1 1) (n=4) (n=4) (n=8) (n=27)

 

Changing behaviors to ﬁt housing attributes

 

 

 

For Carpeted floor
Cleaned home less frequently 2 l l 2 6
Cleaned home much harder I 1 3
Wore slippers inside 2 1 3
For indoor lighting
Spent more time in dining area 2 2
For not having a furnished washer
More hand-washing of clothes 2 2
For noise
Controlled children make less noise 1 1
Walked carefully at home 1 1
For poor ventilation
Changed eating habits 2 2
Modifying attributes to fit their life styles
For Carpeted ﬂoor
Used cotton mats 2 2
Used bamboo mats 1 2 3 6
For indoor lighting
Uncovered lighting ﬁxtures 2 l 1 4
Used high wattage lamps 3 2 1 1 7
Replaced incandescent bulb with 2 l 1 4
ﬂuorescent
Added more incandescent lighting ﬁxtures l 9
Hung extra ﬂuorescent lighting ﬁxtures l l 2 l 5
For main entrance
Put shoe shelves at the entrance 1 1 2 4
For bathroom
Replaced ﬁxed showerhead with a 1 1 2
moveable showerhead
Enduring without having
Gave up on vinyl or foam mats 2 2
Gave up on movable shower head 2 2
Gave up on washer l 1
Gave up on movable storage, drawers 2 2
Gave up on wood ﬂooring l 1
Gave up on ﬂuorescent lighting ﬁxtures l 1
Moving out
Yes 4 8 12
No 11 4 15

 

104

In Korea, if I don’t clean the house, I see the dust accumulating, so I can’t stop
cleaning, and I had to mop. Although the feeling of cleanness is great, it’s hard on
the body. With the carpet, I can’t see the difference with vacuum so I clean less.
If you think about it, it doesn’t feel so great. But since I don’t mop here, it’s
convenient. At times, I don’t vacuum for a week, although I should clean more
often (Oh & Choi)

In contrast, about 11% of respondents (n = 3) cited that they cleaned and
vacuumed their homes more often than they did in Korea. The reason was that they could
not stand the feeling of the invisible, harmful dirt embedded inside the carpet. Suh
mentioned:

I probably overreact. Whenever the kids spill something, I quickly clean after
and scold them. I vacuum several times a day but I feel it is still unhygienic. It
feels as though there are bugs hiding under the carpet so I hate when the carpet
touches my skin (Suh).

Because of their aversion to touching carpets directly, wearing slippers inside the
home was also a frequently-mentioned behavioral change (n = 3, 11%) because they
generally did not wear slippers in living rooms in Korea. Respondents mentioned that
they tended to force their children to wear slippers at home as well.

Two respondents mentioned how the dark interior lighting conditions caused
them to spend more time around their dining table because the dining area was the
brightest area with general lighting, while other rooms were dark without any general
lighting. On the other hand, regarding interior lighting, some respondents mentioned that
they soon adapted to the existing lighting conditions and did not have feelings of
darkness in their current apartment after overcoming the uncomfortable feeling in two or

three months. Hwang, in Case I, mentioned:

In Korea, we lived with much more lighting but after moving, we had gotten
accustomed to having less lighting. We were uncomfortable for ﬁrst couple of

105

months but after we were accustomed to it (Hwang).

Noh2, in Case 4, who had lived in the U.S. for about ﬁve years, stated that she felt
uncomfortable in bright interior lighting now:
At ﬁrst, I felt my home was too dark, but now I’m used to it. On contrary, if the

light is too bright, it’s hard on my eyes. . ...When I visited Korea this summer, I
was not comfortable with the bright ﬂuorescent lights in my home in Korea

(N oh2).

Due to noise from the neighbors, especially from upstairs, respondents cited that
they tried to live more carefully, not to bother neighbors with their noises. Respondents
with young children also mentioned that they told their children not to jump or run inside,
and respondents themselves tried to walk quietly at home, especially late at night and
early in the morning. One respondent, Lee, stated:

Because of our children, we are well aware of how loud the sound can be when
they play. I tell the children not to scream or jump; I also pay attention not to
make loud noises when I go to the bathroom at night (Lee).
Respondents living in apartments not furnished with washers reported that they
did more hand-washing because of the inconvenience of going out to do the laundry. One
of the respondents, Suh, said:
I hand-washed the laundry often. Not that I was obsessed with cleanness, but with
the laundry machine, the clothes weren’t so clean. At ﬁrst, I started to hand wash
some dirty spots and put them into laundry machine. But now, I just wash small
loads by hand. It helps the air quality as the clothes dry inside room instead of
using a humidiﬁer (Suh).

Modifying housing attributes to ﬁt their lifestyles

Due to living in rental apartment units, it was not possible to alter or renovate

existing housing attributes. However, respondents showed several ways of personalizing

106

and making minor corrections to ﬁt their apartments to their lifestyles. Small changes to
make living more comfortable in their current apartments mainly related to carpeted
ﬂoors and dark interior lighting. To not to touch the carpet directly, about one-third (n =
8, 30%) of respondents mentioned that they overlaid some kinds of ﬂoormats to cover the
carpeted ﬂoor. Mostly, cotton mats, bamboo mats, or interlocking foam mats were used
to overlay carpets. Lee5 explained her case:

My child was young and I couldn’t let him roam freely on carpet because I felt it

wasn’t sanitary. I had ﬂoor mats and blocked areas with blankets so that the baby

could crawl without touching the carpet. I’ve brought many cotton pads from

Korea because someone told me that I would need them for the baby’s room and

the living room (LeeS).

Due to poor interior lighting conditions, respondents brightened up their interior
spaces in several ways. A frequently mentioned modiﬁcation was to add to the number of
incandescent light bulbs. About one-third (n = 9, 33%) of respondents added more
incandescent lamps. Over a quarter (n = 7, 26%) of respondents cited that they replaced
existing light bulbs with higher wattage bulbs (e.g., 100 watts or more). About one-ﬁfth
(n = 5, 19%) of respondents stated that they bought and hung extra ﬂuorescent lighting
ﬁxtures on ceilings or walls. Some respondents (n = 4, 15%) mentioned they uncovered
lighting ﬁxtures on ceilings to brighten their rooms. Replacing incandescent light bulbs
with ﬂuorescent light bulbs (n = 4, 15%) was also one of the frequently mentioned
modiﬁcations. LeeS said:

I couldn’t stand the lighting. The ﬂorescent light bulb isn’t as bright as Korea’s.

I installed few ﬂorescent lights but it’s still dark. I prefer to have the study areas

brighter for the children. . .still, it’s not satisfactory. I bought long ﬂorescent lights
for the living room, which keeps the room Slightly brighter (LeeS).

Due to the inconvenience of organizing shoes in the main entrance, shoe shelves

107

(n = 4, 15%) were used frequently and ﬁxed showerheads were replaced with movable
ones by two respondents.
Enduring inconvenience

Newcomers with short-term sojourning plan (Case 1) distinctively showed their
willingness to endure inconvenience in their current apartments without buying anything
or changing any housing attributes. Although they could afford to buy things conducive
to their convenience, they would rather tolerate inconvenience, considering their
temporary stay for Short-term sojourning. Suh mentioned:

I’ve considered putting vinyl ﬂoorings instead of the carpet because I hated the
carpet so much. But then, my place had 3 bedrooms so it was too big and costly to
install vinyl ﬂooring everywhere. Plus, the quality of ﬂooring wasn’t very good.
Since I’m here only for 1 year, I decided to put up with the carpet. If someone
asks for an advice when moving to the U.S., I would recommend bring the vinyl
ﬂooring from Korea (Suh).

Frequently—mentioned housing attributes respondents desired but did not buy,
were ﬂoormats, movable showerheads, and movable storage units. In addition, washers,
hard ﬂoors, and extra ﬂuorescent lighting ﬁxtures were mentioned.

Moving

As Table 32 presents, moving was shown only in cases of long—term plan
sojourners (Cases 3 and 4). Because of living in rental apartment units, long-term
sojourners showed high mobility. Numbers of times moved and reasons for moving were
described in the housing choice section. Respondents expressed willingness to move if

they found more spacious, new, clean, and well-furnished apartments in good

neighborhoods for a monthly payment similar to what they were paying at the time.

108

Overall adjustment patterns

Overall, short-term planned sojourners tended to change their behaviors and to
modify housing attributes twice as often as long-term planned sojourners did. As Table
32 presents, short-term planned sojourners (Cases 1 and 2) reported about one behavioral
change per person (a total of 15 mentions by 15 respondents) on average, while long-term
sojourners reported about one behavioral change per two people (a total of 5 mentions by
12 respondents). Similarly, in modifying housing attributes, short-term sojourners
reported about two modiﬁcation per person on average (a total of 27 mentions by 15
respondents), while long-term soj oumers reported about one modiﬁcation per person (a
total of 13 mentions by 12 respondents).

In addition, short-term planned sojourners tended to endure inconveniences in
their current apartments when they considered housing adjustments to be complicated or
expensive. Since short-term planned sojourners expected to return home in one or two
years at most, no households in Cases 1 or 2 considered moving to another apartment.
Considering the complexities process of relocation, they tended to endure any situations
in their current apartments. In contrast, long-term sojourners in Cases 3 and 4 tended not
to repress their dissatisfactions with their housing conditions; they moved when they
found better housing which could resolve their dissatisfactions.

As Table 32 indicates, newcomers (Case 1) showed overwhelmingly higher
numbers of behavioral changes and housing modiﬁcations in relation to number of
respondents that made them comparable to respondents in Cases 2, 3 and 4.

Adaptability to housing attributes

Depending on respondents’ length of residence in the U.S., respondents showed

109

some differences and similarities in their housing adjustments. Overwhelmingly, the
majority of sojourners in Case 1, whose length of residence in the U.S. was six months or
less, were dissatisﬁed with two cultural attributes: carpeted ﬂoors (82%) and dim interior
lighting (91 %). Sojourners in Cases 2 and 3, whose length of residence in the U.S. was
between one and two years, reported the same two cultural attributes of carpeted ﬂoors
(38%) and dim interior lighting (3 8%) as unsatisfactory attributes, but mentioned them
much less frequently. On the other hand, the highest numbers of respondents in Cases 2
and 3 were dissatisﬁed with outdated structures. Sojourners in Case 4, whose length of
residence in the U.S. was over 4 years, reported carpeted ﬂoors (3 8%) and outdated
structures (3 8%) more frequently than dim interior lighting (25%), and noises (25 %) as
unsatisfactory features in their current apartments.

As Table 33 indicates, interior lighting conditions and noise were considered
unsatisfactory features by 91% of respondents in Case 1, while only about 25% of the
respondents in Case 4 mentioned interior lighting and noise as unsatisfactory features.
Respondents’ complaints about interior lighting and noise dropped considerably from
91% in Case 1 to 25% in Case 4.

Respondents’ complaints about carpeted ﬂoors dropped less drastically-than did
the two above, namely from 82% in Case 1 to 38% in Case 4. The type of heating system
was cited as an unsatisfactory feature by 45% of the respondents in Case 1, while it was
not cited as an unsatisfactory feature by respondents in Case 4. A bathroom with no ﬂoor
drain system (64%) and entrances (55%) were complained of frequently by respondents
in Case 1, while there was no mention of these two features as unsatisfactory attributes in

Case 4. On the other hand, complaints about outdated structures increased from 18% in

110

Case 1 to 50% in Cases 2 and 3 combined, and 38% in Case 4.

Table 33. Adaptability to Unsatisfactory Housing Attributes

 

Number of mentions (% of respondents)

 

 

Unsatisfactory features Case 1 Case 2 and 3 Case 4
6 months and less 7 months to 2 years Over four years
n=I I n =8 n=8
Carpeted ﬂoors 9 (82%) 3(38%) 3(38%)
Interior lighting 10(91 %) 3(3 8%) 2(25%)
Noise 10(9l%) 3(38%) 2(25%)
Outdated structures 2(18%) 4(50%) 3(3 8%)
Bathroom ﬂoors* 7(64%) 2(25%) 0
Entrances 6(55%) 2(25%) 0

 

* Bathroom with no ﬂoor drain system

In sum, based on the number of mentions by respondents from each representative

Case, carpeted ﬂoors were found to be more difﬁcult and time-consuming to be adapted
to by respondents, than interior lighting conditions or noise problems. Carpeted ﬂoors
seem one of the most uncomfortable attributes for Korean sojourners in the U.S. through
all cases of sojourning. A bathroom with no ﬂoor drain system, and the main entrance,
were complained of frequently by newcomers, but respondents soon were likely to adapt
to existing conditions. Outdated structures seemed not a serious problem for newcomers,
but the longer sojourners lived in the U.S., the more they tended to be dissatisﬁed with

them.

111

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This chapter begins with a discussion of ﬁndings from the survey and the case
study, along with research questions outlined in Chapter 2. Then, conclusions and some
implications from the ﬁndings are presented. In the last section, limitations of the
present study and recommendations for future housing studies of cross-cultural
sojourners are presented.

Discussion

This section provides discussion of ﬁndings regarding factors inﬂuencing the
housing satisfaction and housing adjustment processes of sojourners.
Factors inﬂuencing housing satisfaction of sojourners

One of the main purposes of this study was to identify determinants of the
housing satisfaction of sojourners. A conceptual framework was developed from the
actual-aspirational gap theory of housing satisfaction (Campbell et al., 1976;
Francescato et al., 1974; Marans & Rodgers, 1975; Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981;
Weidemann & Anderson, 1985) and Morris’ & Winter’s (1978) housing adjustment
model. This study, speciﬁcally, focused on relationships between (1) sojourner
characteristics, (2) housing deﬁcits, and (3) perceptions of various housing attributes on
housing satisfaction.

Sojourner characteristics which were exogenous variables in the conceptual
model consist of nine variables: household size, respondent’s age, respondent’s gender,

household income, length of residence in the U.S., time until return, past sojourning

112

experience, housing condition, and time at current home. Focus was on the effects of
two intervening factors: (1) housing deﬁcits and (2) housing perceptions of four housing
attributes: perceptions of physical attributes, perceptions of neighborhoods, perceptions
of cultural attributes, and attachment. Based on regression analyses and path analyses,
major ﬁndings about determinants of the housing satisfaction of sojourners are
summarized, along with the research questions, as follows:

RQ I. How do sojourner characteristics influence housing deﬁcits?

Among nine variables of sojourner characteristics, time until return was found to
signiﬁcantly inﬂuence housing deﬁcits, while demographic or housing characteristics had
no effects on housing deﬁcits. Results suggest that sojourners with longer times
remaining until they return home are likely to have more housing deﬁcits while
sojourners whose return is approaching tend to have the least number of housing deﬁcits.

Morris and Winter (1978) suggested that families with normative housing deﬁcits
tend to exhibit adjustment behaviors to reduce their housing deﬁcits. It seems that those
whose return is approaching have fewer housing deﬁcits because they have reduced such
deﬁcits already through housing adjustment behaviors during their sojourning. On the
other hand, long-term soj oumers in the early part of their sojourning may have the
greatest number of housing deﬁcits because they have not yet engaged well in housing
adjustment.

Through case study interviews, possible reasons for this result were provided as
well. Interviews revealed that newcomers have a greater number of housing deﬁcits
because the sojourners’ housing norms were not reﬂected effectively in choosing their

ﬁrst housing, due to various constraints (e. g., lack of information, limited choices).

113

However, long-term sojourners in the later part of their sojourn showed fewer housing
deﬁcits by solving their housing deﬁcits through mobility.

RQ 2. How do sojourner characteristics inﬂuence housing perceptions?

All four housing perception variables were signiﬁcantly related to sojourner
characteristics. Among nine variables of sojourner characteristics, the housing condition
showed the strongest effects on three variables of housing perceptions: (1) perceptions of
physical attributes, (2) perceptions of neighborhood, and (3) attachment. In terms of
strength of effects, housing condition on perceptions of physical attributes showed the
highest effect size among all hypothesized relationships in the proposed theoretical
framework. Results were not surprising because it was suggested in the actual-
aspirational gap theory of residential satisfaction that people’s perceptions of a particular
attribute are dependent on the objective environmental attributes (Campbell et al., 1976;
Francescato et al., 1974; Marans & Rodgers, 1975; Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981;
Morris & Winter, 1978; Weidemann & Anderson, 1985).

One interesting result was that length of residence in the U.S. or time at the
current home had no effect on sojourners’ attachments to their current housing, while
housing condition was the most inﬂuential determinant of soj oumers’ attachments to
their housing. Generally, the length of association is an important variable affecting place
attachment (Kaltenbom, 1991; Moore & Graefe, 1994; Patterson & Williams, 1991), but
the results of this study showed that sojourners living in better housing had higher
attachment to their housing, regardless of length of association with their current housing
or area. Considering that homeownership is a key positive indicator of attachment

(Mesch & Manor, 1998), renter status of sojourners seemed related to this result. Since

114

most long-term planned sojourners tended to reduce their housing dissatisfaction through
mobility, the length of residence of both short-term and long-term sojourners at their
current housing was generally about a year or two at most. Therefore, housing condition
seemed a more powerful determinant of attachment to their housing rather than did length
of association. Those dissatisﬁed with their housing condition are likely to be less
attached to their housing because they plan to move to better housing. On the other hand,
those satisﬁed with their housing conditions are likely to be more attached to their
housing because they do not plan to move. Studies about the elderly also showed that
housing condition positively correlates with the place attachment of the elderly
(Eshelman & Evas, 1998; Kweon et al., 1998).

Both respondents’ ages and household size signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced sojourners’
attachment to their housing. Results showed negative relationships between respondent’s
ages and their attachment to their current housing. Reasons why younger sojourners
tended to be more attached to their current housing seem related to their purpose of visit
and planned total time of sojourning. In this study, older sojourners were likelier to be
short-term sojourners, such as visiting scholars, while younger sojourners were long-term
sojourning undergraduates or graduate students. Since those older sojourners in this study
have their own homes in Korea and consider their current housing as temporary during
their sojourning, they seemed to have lower attachments to their current housing in the
U.S.

Results showed household income signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced sojourners’
perceptions of neighborhood. Sojourner households with higher income showed more

positive perceptions about their neighborhood. This result was unsurprising because

115

income level is the prime determinant of differences in achieved housing (Michelson,
1967). Previous studies also showed that level of household income is one of the
strongest factors for neighborhood satisfaction (Fried, 1982; Morris, et. al,. 1976) and is
associated with perceived neighborhood pleasantness (Boslaugh et al., 2004).

Household size had signiﬁcant indirect effects on sojourners’ attachments to their
housing through perceptions of cultural attributes. Household size showed negative
relationship with perceptions of cultural attributes. Reasons for the negative relationship
between household size and perceptions of cultural attributes seemed due to the high
correlation between respondents’ ages and household sizes. Generally, younger
respondents were unmarried single students, who constituted the smallest household size,
that is, one. As acculturation theory suggests that those who relocated to the U.S. at early
ages are more acculturated (Tran, 1989; Gim et a1, 1990; Ly, 2001), younger sojourners
appeared to be more acculturated to housing attributes of the host country.

RQ 3. How do sojourner characteristics, housing deﬁcits, and housing
perceptions inﬂuence housing satisfaction ?

Among nine variables of sojourner characteristics, housing condition was the
most inﬂuential determinant of housing satisfaction of sojourners, not only directly but
also indirectly through perceptions of physical attributes and attachment. Results support
the conceptual model of Marans and Spreckelmeyer (1981) suggesting direct and indirect
links between objective environmental attributes, people’s subjective responses to these
attributes, and overall environmental satisfaction.

Past sojourning experience also inﬂuenced housing satisfaction both directly and
indirectly through perceptions of neighborhood. Results suggest that those with previous

sojourning experiences were likelier to be adapted effectively and to be satisﬁed with

116

their housing and neighborhood. Previous acculturation studies supported how prior
sojourning experience is an important factor inﬂuencing cross-cultural adjustment, and
that signiﬁcant differences exist in cultural adaptation between ﬁrst-time sojourners and
experienced sojourners (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1991; Selvarajah, 2003). Also, during the
case study interviews, several respondents mentioned they could anticipate possible
cultural differences and have appropriate preparations for their sojourning life in advance
because they had had previous sojourning experiences.

Housing deﬁcits signiﬁcantly detracted from housing satisfaction. The negative
relationship suggests that sojourners with fewer housing deﬁcits showed higher housing
satisfaction. This result was consistent with the housing adjustment model of Morris
and Winter (1976, 1978); however, results showed little support for housing deﬁcits as
a mediator between sojourner characteristics and housing satisfaction.

Results showed that all four housing perception variables, (1) perceptions of
physical attributes, (2) perceptions of neighborhood, (3) perceptions of cultural attributes,
and (4) attachment, had signiﬁcant effects on housing satisfaction directly or indirectly.
Three housing perception variables, (1) perceptions of physical attributes, (2) perceptions
of neighborhood, and (3) attachment, excluding perceptions of cultural attributes, directly
inﬂuenced housing satisfaction. Among those three variables, attachment was the most
inﬂuential determinant of the housing satisfaction of sojourners, which was no surprise,
as Altman and Low (1992) identiﬁed place attachment as an important variable in
predicting housing satisfaction.

An interesting result was that perceptions of cultural attributes had no signiﬁcant

direct effects on housing satisfaction, but had signiﬁcant indirect effects on housing

117

satisfaction through all the other three perception variables: perceptions of physical
attributes, perceptions of neighborhood, and attachment. Effects of perceptions of
cultural attributes were mediated signiﬁcantly by these three perception variables. The
results showed how cultural aspects of housing environment are important to housing
perceptions as well as housing satisfaction of sojourners. It was demonstrated that
sojourners feel differently about their physical housing attributes, neighborhoods, and
attachment, depending on how comfortable or uncomfortable they feel about cultural
differences in their current housing.

Results indicated that housing perceptions were important intervening variables
between sojourner characteristics and housing satisfaction, while the housing deﬁcits
variable did not show any signiﬁcant mediating effects on housing satisfaction. Among
housing perception variables, attachment was the most signiﬁcant mediator between
sojourner characteristics and housing satisfaction. Morris’ and Winter’s (1978) model
suggested that each family evaluates their housing conditions in terms of their housing
norms and that, if their current housing conditions do not meet their norms, a deﬁcit is
generated. These normative deﬁcits reduce housing satisfaction. On the other hand,
Maran and Spreckelmeyer’s model (1981) suggested housing satisfaction is affected by
subjective perceptions and assessments of the objective environmental attributes. The
ﬁndings of this study showed that the housing satisfaction of sojourners is predicted
better by Maran and Spreckelmeyer’s model (1981) than by Morris’ and Winter’s model
(1978)

Housing adjustment processes of sojourners

To describe housing adjustment processes of sojourners, a conceptual

118

framework of housing choice, housing perceptions and evaluation, and housing
adjustment was developed, based on Morris’ and Winter’s model of housing adjustment
(1978). Findings of the case study are presented in this section, along with research
questions.

RQ 4. What are the main constraints in the housing adjustment processes of
Korean sojourners?

Results showed that sojourners’ planned total time of sojourning and length of
residence in the U.S. were the main constraints throughout the whole processes of
housing choices, housing perceptions, and housing adjustment behaviors. Based on
sojourners’ planned total time of sojourning and length of residence, four representative
cases of sojourners were identiﬁed to describe the patterns of housing adjustment.
Short-term sojourners were categorized into Case 1 and Case 2, where Case 1
represented newcomers and Case 2 exempliﬁed short-term sojourners midway or
further in their sojourning. Most short-term sojourners in Cases 1 and 2 were visiting
scholars. Long-term sojourners were categorized into Case 3 and Case 4, where Case 3
represented long-term sojourners in the beginning of their sojourn and Case 4 typiﬁed
long-term sojourners whose return was approaching. Long—term sojourners were mostly
doctoral students.

RQ 5. How do Korean sojourners choose their ﬁrst and/or current housing
in the U.S., and what housing features are perceived to be important
when they choose their housing in the U.S. ?

The case study revealed that housing norms of soj oumer families were not

reﬂected effectively in the choice of their ﬁrst housing due to various constraints (e.g.,

lack of information, limited choices). For short—term sojourners, since others search for

their apartments, two speciﬁc apartment complexes were found to be chosen by most

119

short-term planned Korean sojourners every year.

Important attributes for short-term sojourners in choosing their housing were
related mostly to children. Especially, since children’s education plays a signiﬁcant role
in housing choice, school district and nearness to schools were top priorities. Importance
of children in choice of housing and neighborhoods were consistent in the studies of
housing adjustment of Korean immigrants (Lee, 1998; Song, 1990).

Long-term sojourners who chose university student housing as their ﬁrst housing
usually moved out to off-campus apartment units within their ﬁrst year or two, due to
poor housing conditions and not having washers provided. Unlike the cases of short-term
soj oumers, long-term soj oumers considered neamess to other Koreans and better
physical quality of housing (i.e., clean new structures, Spaciousness) as important features
when they moved to their current housing.

Overall, in the sojourners’ choice of housing, the life cycles of families seemed an
important factor. Different housing norms are shown in soj ourners with and without
children of school age. Those with children of school age were most concerned with the
school district, while those without children of school age were most concerned with
better living quality and neamess to Korean friends.

RQ 6. How do Korean sojourners feel about their current housing, and what
features of housing are Korean sojourners satisﬁed or dissatisﬁed
with?

Two attributes, the surrounding natural environment and built-in storage spaces

(i.e., number and size of closets), were considered satisfactory features by most

sojourners in all four cases. Next to these two attributes, an open kitchen to the living

room and exterior appearance were mentioned frequently as satisfactory housing features

120

also.

As an unsatisfactory housing feature, carpeted ﬂoors were the most frequently
mentioned across all cases of sojourners, from newcomers to the most settled.

Based on Confucian ethics, barefooted living and sitting on the ﬂoor rather than on a
chair are the most distinguishable behavioral characteristics of Koreans. Due to these two
housing behaviors, a hard ﬂoor with radiant ﬂoor heating - On-dol - is common in
Korean housing. Thus, cultural unfamiliarity with a carpeted ﬂoor, and the notion of an
unhygienic ﬂoor condition due to inconvenience of maintenance, seems to result in
sojourners’ aversion to carpeted ﬂoors. Lee’s (1998) ﬁndings also indicated that the most
wanted cultural amenity of Korean immigrants in Houston was wooden-ﬂoored rooms. A
traditional ﬂoor-heating system - On-dol - was most desired by Korean families in the
Washington DC. area (Lee, 1982). In addition, sojourners’ dislike of carpeting seems to
increased by the poor quality of ﬂoor carpet in many rental apartments.

Next to the carpeted ﬂoor, interior lighting and noise were considered
unsatisfactory housing features in their current housing. On the other hand, results of the
survey showed the perception about interior lighting was the most negatively rated by
participants, closely followed by bathrooms absent ﬂoor drain systems. Different results
between the survey and case study may result from differences in characteristics of
respondents. Considering that all participants in the case study were housewives of
Korean sojourner households, particularly Korean housewives seem to have an extreme
dislike for carpeted ﬂoors.

Results suggest newcomers of Case 1 were more dissatisﬁed with the lack of

cultural amenities in their housing than were others in Cases 2, 3, and 4. Generally,

121

short-term sojourners complained more about lack of cultural attributes in their current
housing, while long-term sojourners were more concerned with physical attributes such
as outdated building structures and fumishings. Results suggest that sojourners’
attitudes about cultural attributes tend to change from cultural translocation to cultural
transformation along with sojourners’ lengths of residence in the U.S., as Noussia
(2003) suggested. Similarly, it can be explained that cultural needs are stronger in
newcomers while adhesive needs are more signiﬁcant in long-term sojourners, as Hurh
and Kim (1984) suggested. This ﬁnding is also supported by studies of Korean
immigrants (Lee, 1982; Song, 1990; Lee, 1998), showing higher cultural amenity needs
in recently-immigrated Koreans.

Results revealed newcomers with short-term sojourning plans (i.e., Case 1)
presented the greatest numbers of favorable features as well as the greatest numbers of
complaints about their housing among the four Cases of soj oumers, while sojourners in
Case 4 cited the least number of complaints about their housing. This result suggests
that housing adaptation process of Korean sojourners can be explained by Oberg’s
(1960) four phases of cultural adjustment to some degree. Newcomers in Case 1 seem
to represent a mixture of “the honeymoon stage” and “the crisis stage,” considering that
newcomers presented the highest numbers of complaints as well as favorable features
about their housing. Newcomers showed responses of the “honeymoon stage,” being
excited about some satisfactory housing attributes (e. g., natural environment, school
districts). At the same time, newcomers showed responses of “the crisis stage,” being
frustrated about unsatisfactory housing (e. g., lack of cultural amenities). On the other

hand, sojourners who had stayed in the U.S. about one to two years (Cases 2 and 3)

122

seemed to show responses of “the recovery stage,” gradually discovering how to work
better with the new housing environment. Furthermore, sojourners who had stayed in
the U.S. for over four years (Case 4) seemed to show responses of “the adjustment
stage,” feeling comfortable in their current housing environments, presenting the least
numbers of complaints about their housing.

Since newcomers showed the mixture of responses of the honeymoon stage and
the crisis stage, the U-curve pattern was not clear.

RQ 7. What adjustments (i.e., alterations, improvements, or repairs) have
been made to adapt to the current housing and what cultural
attributes do Korean sojourners feel are easier or more difficult to
adapt to?

In dealing with unsatisfactory features (i.e., carpeting, indoor lighting, noise,
outdated structures, bathroom absent ﬂoor drain system, and main entrance), the case
study results presented four patterns of housing adjustments of Korean sojourners: l)
changing behaviors to ﬁt to existing housing attributes, 2) modifying existing housing
attributes to ﬁt to their lifestyles, 3) enduring inconveniences, and 4) moving out. To
cope with ﬂoor carpeting and interior lighting conditions, sojourners responded in two
ways: (1) changing their behaviors and (2) modifying existing conditions. Noise made
sojourners change their behaviors in their current housing, while bathrooms and main
entrances caused sojourners to modify existing conditions. Enduring inconvenience
occurred only for short-term sojourners, while only long-term sojourners tended to move
out when they were dissatisﬁed with their housing.

Morris and Winter (1978) suggested four types of housing adjustments: (1)

residential mobility, (2) residential alteration, (3) structural family adaptation, and (4)

normative family adaptation. Among these four housing adjustments, Korean sojourners

123

showed three adjustment behaviors: residential mobility, residential alteration, and
normative family adaptation, excluding structural family adaptation. The housing
adjustment of short-term planned sojourners related mainly to residential alterations (i.e.,
modifying housing attributes) and normative family adaptations (i.e., changing behaviors
and enduring inconveniences). On the other hand, housing adjustments of long-term
planned sojourners related more to residential mobility and residential alteration.

Sojourners tended to adapt to most of the unsatisfactory attributes over time
through various types of adjustment behaviors. Overall, housing attributes related to
Korean culture (e.g., carpeted ﬂoor, interior lighting) took longer for Korean sojourners
to adapt to than functional housing attributes (e.g., noise). Carpeted ﬂoors appeared to be
harder and more time-consuming to be adapted to for sojourners than did other attributes.
Interior lighting and noise problems also take time to be adapted to, but they seem to be
easier to adjust to than carpeted ﬂoor. Bathrooms absent ﬂoor drain system, and
entrances, were indicated to be unsatisfactory attributes by newcomers, but soon
sojourners were likely to adapt to them.

Outdated structures seemed not a serious problem for newcomers, but outdated
structures made long-term sojourners move out of their previous housing. Lee’s (1998)
ﬁndings indicated that immigrants’ attitudes about cultural amenities were related to their
length of residence in the U.S. Recently-immigrated Koreans showed higher cultural
amenity needs, but lower functional space needs. Findings of this study are consistent
with Lee’s (1998) ﬁndings.

Results revealed some routine processes of housing adjustments for long-term

and short-term sojourners, as Song (1990) and Lee (1998) indicated about the usual

124

processes of housing adjustment of Korean immigrants. According to Song (1990),
Korean immigrants in Detroit began in their relatives’ homes ﬁrst, subsequently settled
into rental units near relatives, then bought their own dwellings. Similarly, Lee (1990)
described how Korean immigrants in the Houston area start living in rental units in a
speciﬁc Korean business area, then move to low-cost housing around the city. Likewise,
routine processes of housing adjustment for short-term and long-term sojourners
emerged from this case study.

For Short-term sojourners, although their apartments do not reﬂect their housing
norms effectively, they usually live in their ﬁrst apartment until they return to Korea.
No matter how ﬁt or unﬁt their apartment conditions are for their family circumstances,
short-term planned sojourners do not plan to move. To adjust to their housing
conditions, short-term sojourners engage in minor corrections of housing attributes,
behavioral changes, and lowering their housing norms.

On the other hand, long-term sojourners tend to begin their lives in student
housing units, in which their housing norms are not met. Due to poor housing
conditions and not having washers provided, they usually move off-campus to
apartment units within their ﬁrst year or two, then tend to move every year or two to the

next apartment which better ﬁts their housing norms.

Conclusion
Factors inﬂuencing housing satisfaction of sojourners
Several conclusions were drawn from the analysis of the survey questionnaire.

One, ﬁndings of this study support a conceptual model that incorporates sojourner

125

characteristics, housing deﬁcits, and housing perceptions as determinants of housing
satisfaction. Hypothesized relationships speciﬁed by the conceptual path model of the
housing satisfaction of sojourners are supported. In addition, a modiﬁed path model
based on path analysis provides a better overall model ﬁt and clariﬁes direct and indirect
relationships.

Two, among nine variables of sojourner characteristics, only time remaining until
returning home had signiﬁcant effects on housing deﬁcits. On the other hand, housing
perceptions were inﬂuenced signiﬁcantly by seven variables of sojourner characteristics
except length of residence in the U.S. and time until return. Housing condition and past
sojourning experience signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced housing satisfaction of sojourners both
directly and indirectly through housing perceptions.

Three, sojourners’ perceptions of housing attributes are much stronger predictors
of housing satisfaction than are housing deﬁcits. Findings of this study showed that
housing satisfaction of sojourners is better predicted by Maran and Spreckelmeyer’s
model (1981) than by Morris’ and Winter’s model (1978).

Four, this study has fruitful ﬁndings about how cultural aspects of housing
inﬂuence housing satisfaction of sojourners. Findings demonstrate that sojourners’
perceptions of cultural attributes signiﬁcantly inﬂuence housing satisfaction indirectly
through sojourners’ perceptions of physical attributes, neighborhood, and attachment.
This study ﬁnds that sojourners’ attitudes about cultural attributes, or levels of
acculturation on their housing in the host country, signiﬁcantly inﬂuence sojourners’
perceptions of various other housing attributes which, in turn, signiﬁcantly inﬂuence

housing satisfaction. Previous studies on the housing satisfaction of Korean immigrants

126

(Lee, 1982; Song, 1990; Lee 1998; Hwang, 2006) indicated that socio-cultural attributes
are important factors in creating satisfactory housing environments. Findings of this study
conﬁrm those of previous studies by identifying and locating signiﬁcant indirect effects
of cultural aspects of housing on housing satisfaction.

Five, unlike previous studies (Morris & Winter,l978; Foot et al., 1960; Galster &
Hesser, 1981; Lu, 1999; Tognoli, 1987), the housing satisfaction of sojourners was not
directly related to demographics and the socioeconomic characteristics of household.
Among all factors, housing condition had the highest total effect - combining direct and
indirect effects - on housing satisfaction, while attachment Showed the highest direct
effects on housing satisfaction.

Housing adjustment processes of sojourners

Several conclusions were drawn from an analysis of the case study. One, the
main constraints of housing adjustment of sojourners were their planned total time of
sojourning and length of residence in the U.S. Four representative cases of sojourner
groups emerged based on these two main constraints of sojourners.

Two, in choosing their initial housing units, housing norms of both short-term
and long-term sojourners were not reﬂected effectively due to lack of information and
limited choices. For short-term planned sojourners, needs of children and especially the
school district were the most essential factors in their choice of housing in the U.S.
while better physical housing conditions and neamess to other Koreans were considered
as important to long-term planned sojourners.

Three, surrounding natural environment and built-in storage were perceived as

satisfactory features in their current housing by most sojourners across all four cases of

127

sojourners. Carpeted ﬂoor, interior lighting, and noise were perceived as unsatisfactory
by most short-term planned sojourners, while carpeted ﬂoor and outdated structure were
considered unsatisfactory by long-term planned sojourners. Overall, newcomers showed
more cultural needs while long-term sojourners showed more need for better physical
quality of housing.

Four, four patterns of housing adjustment of sojourners were identiﬁed: (1)
change behaviors, (2) modify housing attributes, (3) endure inconveniences, and (4)
move out. Among four patterns of adjustment behaviors in the model of Morris and
Winter (197 8): (1) residential mobility, (2) residential alteration, (3) structural family
adaptation, and (4) normative family adaptation, the last-mentioned was the main
adjustment pattern for short-term sojourners, involving changing their housing norms and
behaviors or enduring their housing problems. On the other hand, long-term sojourners
resolved unsatisfactory housing attributes by mobility, consistent with the case of
immigrants (Lee, 1998).

Five, generally, unsatisfactory features related to cultural aspects of Korean
housing were found more difﬁcult to be adapted to by sojourners. Among cultural
attributes mentioned by Korean sojourners, carpeted ﬂoors were found the most
difﬁcult to be adapted to by sojourners across all four cases.

Six, considering that newcomers provided the greatest number of complaints as
well as the greatest number of favorable features, housing adjustments of Korean
sojourners were explained by Oberg’s ( 1960) four phases of cultural adjustment to some
degree, although the U-curve was not clear.

Last, through overall sequential processes of housing adjustment of sojourners,

128

routine patterns emerged in terms of short-term and long-term sojourners. Initial
housing units of short-term and long-term sojourners generally do not reﬂect their
housing norm effectively. Short-term sojourners generally chose one apartment from
limited choices and lived in their initial apartment until their return to Korea, lowering
their housing norms. On the other hand, long-term sojourners tend to begin their lives in
student housing units which do not meet their housing norms. Due to poor housing
conditions and not having washers, they usually move to off-campus apartment units
within their ﬁrst year or two, then tend to move every year or two to the next apartment

which better ﬁts their housing norms.

Implications

The results of this study have several implications. Suggestions are presented for
both researchers and practitioners.
Theoretical Implications

The present study has several theoretical implications to housing adjustment
research. One, by investigating the housing satisfaction of sojourners and their
adjustments, the present study is expected to facilitate housing studies in relation to cross-
cultural sojourner populations. Researchers have studied housing satisfaction among
different social groups, (Baillie and Peart, 1992; Cook et al., 1994; Crull, 1994; Friedman
and Cammalleri, 1993; Johnson at al., 1993) such as the elderly (Lawton, 1975; Carstens,
1985), disabled (Anderson, Anthony, Weidman, Bain & Allen, 1988; Bendar, 1977),
children (Weinstein & David, 1986), and those of low income (Cooper, 1975), addressing

the housing needs for the target group and identifying factors that affect housing

129

satisfaction; however, although cross-cultural sojourner populations are one of the fastest
growing cultural subgroups in the U.S., they have not yet received the attention of
housing researchers. The present study awakens researchers’ interests in housing studies
of cross-cultural sojourner groups.

Two, this study conceptualizes the framework of sojoumer’s housing satisfaction
by incorporating both concepts of housing deﬁcits (Morris & Winter, 1978) as well as
housing perceptions (Marans & Rodgers, 1975, Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981).
Previous studies respectively tested the effects of housing deﬁcits on housing satisfaction
based on Morris and Winter’s model (1976) or the effects of housing perception on
housing satisfaction based on actual-aspirational gap theory. The present study
incorporates both housing deﬁcits and housing perception in the sojourner’s housing
satisfaction model as a whole, to test relative effects of each factor on housing
satisfaction. The present study shows that housing perception is a more powerﬁrl
mediator than housing deﬁcits on sojourner housing satisfaction, and sojourners’
attachment to their housing is the strongest mediator.

Three, this study contributes to housing adjustment research by investigating the
effects of cultural variables in the model of sojourner’s housing satisfaction. This study
shows that perception of cultural attributes inﬂuences housing satisfaction through other
perceptions, such as the perception of physical attributes, neighborhoods, and attachment.
The importance of cultural factors in housing satisfaction is demonstrated quantitatively,
while previous studies have investigated cultural factors from a more qualitative
approach.

Four, this study conﬁrms direct and indirect effects of these variables on housing

130

satisfaction by analyzing them using both hierarchical regression and path analysis using
Mplus 4. Most regression results are conﬁrmed through path analyses, and accurate
indirect path and strengths are identiﬁed, while previous housing adjustment studies
analyzed via only regression analysis.

Practical Implications

Since sojourner populations are growing quickly in the United States, housing
demands for cross-cultural sojourners also are likely to increase. By researching housing
adjustment of a speciﬁc culture group, this study discovered a greater knowledge of
cultural differences in the housing environment, which eventually are possible to be
converted into practical and operational use.

When sojourners from various cultures move into any housing units of the host
culture, some housing attributes can be uncomfortable and difﬁcult to adapt to. Once
architects, interior designers, facility managers and marketers understand housing
adjustment of sojourners, it is expected that they better can predict their potential
customers’ housing behaviors and provide more comfortable, adaptable housing
environments to their customers including sojourner populations of different cultural
backgrounds.

Based on ﬁndings obtained through the case study and the survey questionnaire,
this study provides several practical implications for housing practitioners and policy
makers. These implications can be used as possible guidelines for designing, building, or
remodeling rental apartments because the majority of sojourners generally settled in
rented apartments rather than purchased a single family house, due to their status of

temporary residency. The U.S. govemment’s housing policy aims at eliminating socio-

131

cultural variability in housing through architectural determinism (Rapoport, 1989);
however, it is important to have more variability in housing to satisfy varying degrees of
cultural needs for different groups within our society (Rapoport, 1989). McDowell (1989)
also argued that following the same corrrrnunity planning for different groups, ignoring
lifestyles and needs, has led to culturally inappropriate housing. When planning rental
apartments, knowing diverse cultural backgrounds of the target renters seems necessary.

The ﬁndings of this study present several suggestions for designing rental
apartments as follows:

Variability of ﬂoor ﬁnishing material. The ﬁndings of this study imply that ﬂoor
carpeting is the most uncomfortable attribute for Korean sojourners in all four cases of
sojourner types, from newcomers to those who were more settled. Hard ﬂoors (e. g., wood
or vinyl ﬂooring) are preferred by Korean sojourners for better hygiene, easier
maintenance, and greater comfort. Therefore, various ﬂoor ﬁnishing materials should be
considered, effectively to accommodate various customers with different cultural
backgrounds.

Effective layout of general lighting. Korean sojourners perceive overall
illumination levels of interior spaces in their apartments to be very dark. The main reason
for this is a lack of general lighting in living rooms and bedrooms. This was one of the
main sources of culture shock in their housing environments, and it took time for Korean
sojourners to adapt to the feelings of darkness in their interior spaces. Understanding
various needs of people with different cultural background needs is a necessary
prerequisite in planning interior lighting to provide appropriate illumination levels. The

implication is that providing more effective layouts of general lighting in each space,

132

installing dimmers to provide more control, and offering a greater variety of lamp types
(e.g., ﬂuorescent) is necessary.

Careful consideration of building orientation. Because of their daylight-oriented
lifestyle and traditional beliefs about good fortune related to daylight, south-facing
houses (with the living room’s orientation to the south) with big windows on the south
wall were preferred by Korean sojourners. This implies that building orientation should
be carefully considered when planning sites and building layouts for energy efﬁciency
and sustainability issues.

Proper acoustics. The problems of neighbor noise and conversational privacy
between units should be considered carefully when planning apartment units. The
importance of soundprooﬁng between units should be recognized in designing and
building apartment complexes.

Cross ventilation. Because of poor ventilation in their current housing units,
Korean sojourners Showed changes in their eating habits. That implies that interior
layouts should be carefully considered to provide effective cross ventilation with
windows in kitchens.

Service facilities. Korean soj oumer households with young children perceived
inconveniences when they have no playground in their apartment complexes, because
most apartment complexes in Korea have playgrounds. Appropriate service facilities such
as playgrounds should be considered in planning apartment complexes.

Number of bedrooms. Consideration should be given to the number of bedrooms
in apartment units. Korean sojourner families indicated the scarcity of three-bedroom (or

more bedroom) apartments. Households with more than two older children complained

133

about how hard it was to ﬁnd readily available, decent, three-bedroom apartments.
Housing professionals should understand sojourners’ demands for three-bedroom (or
more bedroom) apartments and should provide apartments relevant to potential
customers’ needs.

Quality of school. Although it is not what architects or planners have control
over, the signiﬁcance of school quality in sojourners’ housing choices cannot be
overstated. The importance of the quality of schools should also be recognized in

planning apartment complexes.

Study Limitations

Notwithstanding the contribution of this study to cross-cultural housing
adjustment to housing scholarships and practices, there are several limitations.
Limited generalization of ﬁndings

In relation to sampling, this study used a convenience sampling method because
a random sampling was not efﬁcient for Korean sojourners in the Lansing area, due to
difﬁculties in identifying sojourner populations. Therefore, samples are not necessarily
representative of overall sojourner populations. Care should be taken when applying the
conclusions of this study to other ethnic groups or individuals, because the survey
results are applicable to Korean sojourners in the Lansing area. In addition, since the
majority of the sample in this study is engaged in the educational community including
undergraduate or graduate students, visiting scholars, and accompanying families, the
ﬁndings of this study may not apply to Korean sojourners in other types of community

with different purposes for sojourning in the U.S.

134

The low construct validity of some variables

The construct validities of some of the variables in this study were relatively
low. The variable of perception of cultural attributes may not serve perfectly as a
measurement tool. These items were primarily drawn from previous studies and focus
group interviews from a pilot study; however, previous studies have not measured these
items using a quantitative approach akin to that of this study. It seems there still is much
to be done to enhance cultural variable measures.
Limitations in statistical analysis

Another limitation is that the statistical analyses do not test causal relationships
since data is cross-sectional. All information was collected at the same time, and there is
no direct evidence of one set of variations in one variable. Thus, the language of
“directs,” “inﬂuences,” and “affects” is customary for regression analysis.
Limitations in questionnaire interpretation

Despite an attempt to make the questionnaire understood in one way only,
respondents might have interpreted the questionnaire in different ways. Thus, there is
the possibility of different responses in ways affecting the ﬁndings of this study.
Since this study relied on self-reported data, conclusions are based on sojourners’
reports on their housing adjustments and housing satisfaction. There may have been

some biases in their responses.

Future Research

Future research into cross—cultural housing adjustments will beneﬁt further by

pursuing the following endeavors: First, another approach that needs to be taken in

135

immediate future research into housing adj ustments of Korean sojourners is a further
analysis of this study’s proposed model. Since this study measured housing deﬁcits and
housing perceptions using a summated scale by assembling items, relative effects of each
observed variable were not explored in this study but are worthy of further exploration.
By analyzing the effects of each observed variable for latent variables using Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM), more elaborate complex relationships among the observed
variables can be explored. Exploring such relationships among variables will add another
level of sophistication to the housing adjustment model.

Second, housing adjustment research would beneﬁt from making a more
comprehensive sequential investigation of cross-cultural sojourners using a longitudinal
study. Investigating the whole sojourning process, from the earliest part of the sojourn
through returning home, will provide a more accurate and vivid description of housing
adjustment processes. The results of this study can be further conﬁrmed using more
diverse instruments, not only through interviews but also through observations and the
time activity log method, with a small number of Korean sojourner households. It would
be also relevant to examine how they readapt to their homes in Korea when they return
and how their cultural attitudes toward housing environments change through their
sojourning experiences.

Third, to strengthen external validity of the study, it would be necessary to expand
it to other ethnic groups in the United States such as other Asian cultural groups (e. g.,
Chinese, Japanese, or Indian), Hispanic, and European. Also it would be desirable to
study Korean sojourners in other areas in the United States.

Fourth, it would be desirable for future research about Korean immigrants’

136

housing adjustments and satisfaction to compare to the case of Korean sojourners using
the same measurement. Song (1990) studied the settlement process of Korean immigrants
in the Detroit area, but her study did not test the housing adjustment model with a
quantitative approach. It would be meaningful to compare differences and similarities in
housing adjustment processes and levels of satisfaction between sojourners and
immigrants. In addition, exploring differences in housing adjustment process between
renters and home owners is suggested.

Fifth, since previous studies suggests housing satisfaction is an important
predictor of quality of life (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell & Converse, 1972;
Cutter, 1982; Galster & Hesser, 1981; Marans & Rodgers, 1975 ; Weidemann &
Anderson, 1982), the relationship between the housing satisfaction of sojourners and

quality of life in the host country would be also a desirable topic to study.

137

APPENDICES

138

APPENDIX A: Questionnaires in English

How do you like your home in America?

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am a doctoral student in Michigan State University’s Interior Design program.
The purpose of my study is to investigate how Korean sojourners adapt to their housing
environment in the United States. My related survey will provide the empirical basis for
my dissertation.

Your participation in this survey will take approximately 15 minutes. This study is
for research purposes only. Your responses will not be associated with you in any way
and will remain strictly confidential. Your identity will not be linked to the data you
provide. There are no anticipated risks associated with participation. You consent to
voluntarily participate in this study by completing this survey, and you may choose not to
participate at all, or you may refuse to answer certain questions. Please answer all the
survey questions. There are no right or wrong answers.

Please direct any questions about this study to Eunsil Lee at leeeunsi@msu.edu,
phone (517) 432-3249, fax (517) 432-3772. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed with any aspect of this
study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish: Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Michigan
Sate University’s Director of Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) by phone:
(517) 355-2180 ext 239, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ieroresmsu. edu, or regular mail:
202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

Eunsil Lee

Ph-Dc‘mdidate MICHIGAN STATE

Department of Interior Design,

203BHumanEcology U N l V E R S I T Y
Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

 

This first section of the questions asks about your current housing situation in the

 

United States.

1. Which one of the following best describes your present home? (Please check one)

C] Single-family detached house D Condominium, duplex, etc.
Cl Apartment building [:1 Mobile home
[3 Other (please specify)

 

2. Do you own or rent the home in which you now live? (Please check one)

[:1 Rent home-> move to question 2A
[3 Own home-) move to question 3

139

Ifyou are a renter

2A) What is your apartment complex's name?

 

3.Whether you pay a mortgage (including taxes) or rent, how much does your household
spend per month for your residence (excluding utility and other maintenance costs)?
(Please check one)

1:] Less than $500 1:] $900 — $1099 1:] $1500 — $1699
I] $500—$699 1:1 $1100—$1299 1:1 $1700—ormore
[:1 $700 - $899 1:1 $1300 — $1499
4. How many bedrooms do you have in your home? bedrooms
5. What is the approximate square footage of your current home? About sq. ft

6. Which one of the following best describes the condition of your home?
(Please check one)

D Very poor condition, needs to be torn down

C] Poor condition, needs major repairs

D Adequate condition, needs many repairs but mostly minor ones
1:] Good condition, needs some minor repairs

1:] Excellent condition

7. Please check all the attributes that you have in your current home.
(Please check all that apply)

D Separated zoning for public living area and private bedroom areas
1:] Kitchen open to the living room

S Walk-in closet(s)

D Outside view of nature

1:1 A south-facing window wall

1:] A ceiling mounted lighting ﬁxture in the living room

1:1 Ceiling mounted lighting ﬁxtures in the bedrooms

[:1 Floor to ceiling windows connected to an outside balcony or deck
D Window(s) in the kitchen

1:] A bathroom with a ﬂoor drain

8. How many storage areas, including closet(s), do you have in your current house?

 

140

9. What are the ﬂoor ﬁnishing materials for each room in your current home? (Please
check one for each room)

Living room Bedroom Kitchen Bathroom
0 Carpet 0 Carpet 0 Carpet 0 Carpet
0 Wood ﬂooring 0 Wood ﬂooring D Wood ﬂooring ‘3 Wood ﬂooring
0 Vinyl ﬂooring 0 Vinyl ﬂooring 0 Vinyl ﬂooring 0 Vinyl ﬂooring
0 Ceramic tile 0 Ceramic tile 0 Ceramic tile 0 Ceramic tile
0 Other 0 Other 0 Other 0 Other

   

This second section asks about your family housing norms in the llnited States.

10. What do you think would be the best for your family in the United States right now?
(Please check one)

[3 Own home C1 Rent home [:1 Other

 

l 1. What do you think would be the best kind of housing structure for your family in the
United States right now? (Please check one)

1:1 Single-family detached house C1 Condominium, duplex, etc.
[:1 Apartment building [:1 Mobile home
[:1 Other (please specify)

 

12. How many bedrooms do you feel your family needs right now? bedrooms

13. What do you think is the most suitable amount to pay per month for your current
home? (Please check one)

C] Less than $500 1:1 $900 — $1099 E1 $1500 -— $1699
Cl$500—$699 E1 $1100—$1299 D$1700—or more
[:1 $700 — $899 1:] $1300 — $1499

   

This third section of the questions asks about your previous housing adjustments.

14. Have you moved since coming to the United States?

1:] Yes (move to questionl4A) [:1 No ( move to question 15)

14A. How many times have you moved? times

 

141

14B. What was (were) your main reason(s) for moving (Please describe)

 

 

15. Do you expect to move from your current home to another house?

[:1 Yes (move to 15A) [3 No ( move to 16)

15A. When do you expect to move to another house?

1:1 Within 6 months [:1 l - 2 years [:1 After 3 years
1:1 6 months - 1 years 1:] 2 - 3 years

15B. What is(are) the main reason(s) for your plans to move in the future?

 

 

16. Which of the following have you done in your present home? (Please check all that
apply)

1:] Used electric blankets in the winter

[:1 Laid bamboo mats or cotton blankets on the ﬂoor
[:1 Laid vinyl over the existing ﬂoor

El Replaced the whole ﬂoor material

U Put shoe shelves in the entrance hall or hallway

13 Designated an area for taking off shoes

[:1 Replaced incandescent light bulbs with ﬂuorescent
D Added movable ﬂoor lamps with higher wattage bulbs (i.e., above 60 watts)
1:1 Installed additional ﬂuorescent lighting ﬁxtures

1:1 Hung washing inside the home

[:1 Hung washing outside the home

[3 Hand-washed laundry

[3 Replaced ﬁxed showerheads with movable

This fourth section of the questions asks about your housing perception of your

 

current home.

17 . Overall, compared to where you lived in your home country, is your current home:

D Better D Worse 1:1 The Same

18. Is there anything about your current housing environment you especially like?

142

(Please describe)
1 .

2.

 

 

19. Is there anything about your current housing environment you especially dislike?
(Please describe)
1.

2.

 

 

20. Please express your feeling about your current home. (Please circle only one number
for each set of opposite adjectives to indicate how you feel)

Very Neither Very
Comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uncomfortable
Attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unattractive
Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant
Convenient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inconvenient
Stimulating l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unstimulating
Sanitary l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unsanitary
Healthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unhealthy
Sustainable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unsustainable
Dark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bright

21 . Please rate your home's interior attributes regarding each of these characteristics. (Please
circle only one number for each statement)

Poor Fair Excellent
Overall space layout 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Qualityof ﬁnishing material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Quality of furnishings l 2 3 4 5 6 7
Quality of soundprooﬁng l 2 3 4 5 6 7
Quality of strucune 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Indoorairquality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Outside View 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Amount of Storage space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. Please rate how much you like or dislike each housing attributes in your current home.

143

(Please circle only one number for each statement)

Strongly Neutral Strongly

dislike like
Floor ﬁnishing material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bathroom without ﬂoordrain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Heating system 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Brightness of interior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wearing Shoes inside home 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. Please express your feeling about each attributes of your neighborhood. (Please circle
only one number for each set of opposite adjectives to indicate how you feel)

Very Neutral Very
Privacy Public 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Private
Noise ﬁom other residence Noisy l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quiet
Greenery Insufﬁcient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Suﬁicient
Physical appearance Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attractive
Neighbors Unﬁiendly l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Friendly
Safety Unsafe l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Safe
Quality of school district Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent
Neamess to work Far 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Close
Neamess to Korean ﬁiends Far 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Close
Neamessto Shopping Far 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Close
Public transportation Inconvenient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Convenient

 

24. Please rate your level of satisfaction regarding the following questions. (Please circle
only one number for each question.)

Extremely Extremely
Dissatisﬁed Neutral satisﬁed
In general, how satisﬁed or dissatisﬁed are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
you with your current housing?
In general, how satisﬁed or dissatisﬁed are l 2 3 4 5 6 7
you with your crment neighborhood?

25. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement regarding the following

144

statements. (Please circle only one number for each statement.)

Strongly Neither agree Strongly
Disagree Nor Agree
Ilhugee
If I were to move again, I would like to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
live in my cunent house
Ifeel my current houselamliving inis l 2 3 4 5 6 7
really “my home”
I feel my crnrent neighborhood is really 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
“my neighborhood”

This final section asks about general demographics.

 

(These data will be kept in the strictest conﬁdence and used for statistical purposes only.)

1. Please list all persons who currently live in your home in the United States, starting
with yourself, in the following table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age Gender Occupation Education
(Male/ female) (Highest level of education completed)

Yourself

Spouse
2. How long have you lived in your current home? years months
3. How long have you lived in the United States? years months
4. How long have you lived in the Lansing area years months
5. What school district is your house in? school district
6. Approximately how much longer will you stay in the United States? years
months

7. What was your initial plan of total time for staying in the United States?

145

years months

8. What is the purpose of your visit to the United States? (Please specify)

 

9. Have you ever lived in a foreign country before? (Please check one)

Cl Yes (move to 9A) E] No (move to 10)

9A. Where and for how long? (Please specz'ﬁz)

 

10. Which of the following categories best describes your total 2006 household income
(from all sources and before taxes)? (Please check one)

l:l Less than $ 8,999 D $ 60,000 — $ 79,999
El $ 9,000 — $19,999 El 5 80,000 - $ 99,999

[3 $ 20,000- $ 39,999 D $ 100,000 — $ 119,000
C] $ 40,000 — $ 59,999 El $ 120,000 - or more

Thank you for your participation!

APPENDIX B: Questionnaires in Korean

146

01321 2.434444% 04334 a; 241211.
21214-244 245—4221 2.4422424 4242424 24 4.42.4 24.—4.2.24

Vi
>4

242 4424 244 74424214:- 242424 :2 4474'
224-4424 :1 42 2424 9.142424. 4 4424 242424
42424 24 24a— 24 24244421 42424421244 6 4444

3134444 42244 421.4 2124 422142124 4 442424 242424
2421. 4424: 24 2442-241 2144—241 242.424.2221'L

7%: a
041 442424 °a4 74421744 244 4444 42.24 4 2.1—22421.

3 03‘7““ Eli-Sid 75:15:01 9.1.9.419; °l %§(‘1l*l2311-7§) Interior Design Program, Human
Environment; Design and Management, Michigan State University, 51 ﬁlﬁi (517) 432-3249 (0),
24 .2: (517) 432 3773, 4 43— 0124141 rcccunsia msu edu a 4:44 1442,44 1:4. 4:4 444141
332:) RE} 0:) 312-91 41131415qu EH 5') ° T34 l’l' %35l@,1'9‘%§1l*l3¢l% Michigan Sate
University 9] Director of Human Research Protection Program (HRPP)?_l Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.
01] 71] ’9 ﬁl‘ﬂi (517) 355- 2180 ext 239, 12ll... "‘ .(517) 432-4503, 0] I1'“ ‘2: ierZi‘oresmsu. edu,
BE : “tr—1 24-311: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. E {if-4 131—$31415]-

Eunsil Lee (0 %él), PhD Candidate M lC H l CAN STATE

De artment of Interior Design, U N l V E R 5 g T y
20 B Human Ecology

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

 

4 4 2.44: 4 24:41 4242/ 422/2/ 2424424 2/2’2/1 4:424 2451442124.

 

3191 22746354144? (ax/442,444 137:3 4/ ell-747749)

9455" —4 Single- family detached house

E Apartment building

, Tcr % 3143—1, E}—,%2‘s}%¢ (Condominium, duplex, townhouse, etc.)
14:3; Mobile home

5(WQWEMR)

 

2 ‘53. 1H Hﬁlgl $741114? 2*} 9:. (WEE—£027 2W3 4/ 2577-7547/32)
E] (El Ell 2} (Renter) -) 24441130744432
El 31: ° 'lT7‘l’ (Home owner) -) :13" 32C E ”Xi/32

722577} 2275/71/12! 73:8-

147

2A) %IEHSW 01415., {35,14 8 EIEE'Sl—‘F-i: 0l

o
11‘?

111111

 

3. ESPN/51%:- I. 7iTxl°il 11113104 %)EHE BEE MortgageE ”Hg %JPlE‘ XlET‘Sl’fJLlWl?
D Less than$ 500 El $ 900—$1099 El $1500—$1699
D $ 500—3 699 El $1100- $1299 Cl $1700—ormore
l:l $ 700- $ 899 E] $1300—$1499
4. 24 2474214] 241.12%— (bedroom)€.—°2 - 7144.141 724? 744
5. 33: 54571le 24424 i7l-E-‘2 94* 3234101 ILlE (sq. ft)
6 PM) 7‘l'T‘6l‘Ali: 71491 73%"29 2‘1E?(5'l”5’L Clo/l 27/51' 4/ 57%47/49)
El 0112?. 5801223011541 (42748110122 @EEE 0351’ 01131))
1:] E??? ”SW (432155} Talﬂ' BELEl‘E' 151511)
El Willi 001:9.- Vélzlslxl %Zl‘il Ellxlli ‘34}3 $317l3—5L5l:*05)ll
Cl Ookibil ”3511 (Willi °ok§5llvl QlZl—Ql 731051 31:31 7l’ 3:115lt‘ 01121))
El ”Til °ok§93 2515]) (C TE folio 04%. %‘8‘63' NEH)
7. 1:123- 24121424 2%“; 25‘ :r’lél-i 24 T7l2l°ll {Slit-*3: EE PJEC’ll ﬂit/3H T/‘ian
1:} 733%] l"fl-{'v'i-(private bedrooms)°l 7'1/‘l-r-E-(livingroom)4l 3114-510) 44491721 96111)-
1:] 313% 7l'vci—El7l 7‘l"al°ll RE Blow/(11:)
[:1 $43.01 %EﬁMWalk-in closet) 0] 215}
[:1 7i§°llkl til-@294 Xl‘?§l737"<l(0utside view of nature)-E- %- 2’1: 9111;}
El 3423011251 til-€94 749373 il(0utside view of nature)§.—_-: E ‘4': 91114
El ﬂ’éol ‘Elﬁoiolml Xl‘iipd'ol Eolif- %‘E—Ol 9.151
1:] 7l’é10ll 734.33%“ 9,151
[:1 Zl jéljéloll 55.761132“ 93.15}
D 714‘0114 741/204] 24134.14 BEE KNEE 24224 234723440141 53143—01 9,151
El %Hol'oll %‘E‘Ol 96151
El “942% alglot] %% 4%? 5i: 915% ”HT—7'7} 911‘?

8. 2134 743452124] 34.:— 9471441 ”“0121 452—312} (storage)°l MELVIN—47521 E4547
(Walk-in closet)-a9- 3323571040 algal] 7/‘13/3/l 73247728) 7ll

9. 51% Zl’é—lgl BlEl Ul'E-le‘i- E—‘Bﬂ‘ﬂqﬂl? (437%.? 3i“? Dell 4773 4/ E 377E273)

C] C] 0 Cl [3

744‘ 244—2.! 2444} 42:4
445 2 ﬂaé 2 445 4 ﬂﬂé
45 415—304 2 4.2:. 44404 2 441:. 44:04 2 ° E 44404
Exams—445494. 2 422-4125441242. 2 Eat—4414104 2 2444-4144“
244.1 2 2494. 4 2404 4 F444
7112} 4 7144 2 71144 2 7112}

148

 

2, ure— 263259: 2: —’--::— gag-22121:}.

UL‘

10- “53111 “85%011/41 413191 71721011 0119. %ﬂiwq’r %5301 7179 31?}315151 *37—121’31477}?
(81%221—321/ 273 v eggs/em)

E] i%(0wnhome) E1 @5110 El 7151

 

11. 21213.21] 22122212 «>1: 212.424 271232171218124 71721211 71202 31?:18111131
23 21214:] L4 72}? (31 251-23232 01/ 272 v 3;;—%—x//.g)

952-759,“ (Single-family detached house)

0111?.(Apartment building)

{Ea-E, Tcr% 9313:, 51%31Ti: (Condominium, duplex, townhouse, etc.)
524:;- Mobile home

71E1 (71 33311-74113)

DECIDE]

 

12. 2:221 2122-124 71232] 2271121 211£%(bedroom)°1 2.1%in 2321-5143142}?
7H

13. 216191 2'8; 527121211 9:121 233%: Klee}:- 7,321 11:1212151 *321814212177}?
( 27/ 9231-321 z‘i/iv 81%»2/3)

[:1 Less than $ 500 1:] $ 900-$1099 [3 $1500—$1699
D $ 500—$ 699 D $1100- $1299 1:1 $ 1700—or more
[:1 $ 700 - $ 899 1:1 $1300— $1499

 

‘ ’ 5‘ .5} a) 2}} 5237/1/0// 1.7/9:} —‘,’/ 6119/ 3,1}? 3117/0” 7197?? ”#91 L1 L1

14. 1:13:20“ 5M1 5?— UIELHOM 214% 212} 34°] ﬂﬁqv1?(2ﬂ%*§l—EW/ 27.—27 1/ 6173mm
D 3151(E1%% 15 212;) E1 311:}(14—g—g. 17 9133)

14A. 2% EH. 014237131477}? Ed
148. ONE 6171153. 3153 %‘31% %‘ﬁﬂﬁ—SHﬂN‘é’S-Oi/ yaw-7am)

 

 

15. %Qi 221.71%X12M 21%-332$ 21423 74122121 al—SHﬂuﬁ/e‘bzkﬁoﬂ 27/51 v
21%-4W3)

D 3115} (C1%-% 15A i) D 312} ( 51'3‘9: 16 213:)

149

15A. 0.121%? 211113.} 7112?.1L1771?(31’%‘§1%0// 17L? x/ 3173-17729)

D67Hg chug Dana —1 L3. A121 131251-223 A101
[DRE-3E1. A101 CHE—42.31 A10] [1451 013;:

15B. 0131—:- 71131311 ‘31-:— Zr: %‘3.% 511-91 93L1W1?(‘é1:—;017 7/0’3/1’7-21/49)

 

 

16. 131% ﬂ1*1%1301%%% 551215501 131% 5157121011A1 11°31} “H Ti ﬁg egg.
(£11451 51%H1% " 311191 71721011 311%E1E51 E $13011 21121 \l 3117-11113.

317175153'3‘ 61%91'C1(§EE1)

l£11314 [5311533 131911011 @3151

131% 78135.1% 6161 “1911011 @3151

7331 21‘211112- 131-5% 312; 3152113151

93?.1011’1' i5°11 L‘QXJ‘g—w 1'3?qu

6133:1011 ’tl‘daL% 35953 B1'é0111 311(rug)% €19,151.
‘3—11‘535‘9‘ 3513313; 9.; 151111913151
100 913:; 0115191 5119: 73?“;— *1%§EE1(§51‘51')
71%1011 2711 o1"2191 %§01£:§1_1_E%— *1‘3‘91'51'
3185161“? 7151‘:— ‘7L‘i151'a1 E1014 7361011 @ﬂﬁ‘ﬁq
$391011 “-3311“; €51 5.3—”5351'

33‘3-1‘311 “£13115— 3.312256133131-

{f—“QEH'S‘ t:51451'

6159171 31137:: movable; B11351-

DDDDDCJDDDDDDDD

 

17. 21121219.: 251271211 0‘: 413191 €21 21311311" 211 6221191 :ggq 7.2.2.3.?
(21%231-321 2%? \/ air/(m)

a ”11*?— e [:1 25:21 a 21281:} a 22+ [:1 tan—2 22+

18. 6:1; 71-1531011/‘13 E31 313191 I31%011 5% 7211—8- -‘?—‘3\1%1L1771? (’éj§of/ 7/2’31’7’5113)
1.
2.

 

 

‘51. 71915110131 13391331 27131011711 %‘ﬁéﬁ-ﬁ- 71%?91‘93L1771N‘é’zof/ 7/0’3l/7—4f/ﬁ)
1.
2.

 

 

150

2&1 71—74121 34337341 41211 116191 :2101133353 35:-

713} 75321611431 4517—1316113 21.3011 %131‘31 {SET/1113

21144.

0141 21 2113-01 1:161

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“HT”- 2% ”HT
3321161121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 359.18% 96111
01-37% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 01%?321 $351
@4351 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 £21161]?
5343151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 %aﬁq
%4a 6351 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EEK—10W 93*51
3191293101111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 912110151
217013151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 75.701011 SHEEP
2112173210114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 73210121
_ 621—41 ‘
1326151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E1 #91
0113—51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ‘5151
64711—2191 481111347301] £115.} 21%? 31371331151. 7131 31215;. 141:0“ %13101
211—211-3-
491 21141314 3.3014 run-136614
211412101 {311153-71} 3112.5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
“17:1111(B1E1, t4, {12.1121 1 2 3 4 s 6 7
415191 23
71—? 13.; 13123—9] 40112119} >54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Egg—41511 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21% 21;;- 2515]] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
@111 317-71,< “J 3:117] l 2 3 4 5 6 7
131-@- X‘_1.Uc,1'(view) l 2 3 4 5 6 7
2:13:514 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. E1° 3&E%—E- 1.15191 T71 £91 131—€131.17. 051-717(15- I3151101 T71_9Lﬁ:%?:1L1E1.
3'1: T71X1°11*1 1:11.191 30135-011 l1112.1 71512] 5.21011 3131'? 6&0“ %131‘31

511741113.
1111—?— U1121-011 21%—E1 11%—0151 U11~°r U1137011 E51
13151- Ill-71'2" (ex; carpet) I 2 3 4 5 6 7
uH—r—‘rl <31: 223116121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1’1":'01(heating)13“op—‘1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
élLH 3915' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
”314101161 41ng— 751 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

151

23. {8 715151191 9173191 3151532173011 331311 26.4'1‘1’.-‘1:11’1‘11.51% '5 33501 E11311 01211711
5277115731 311131 $1.101] %JEHJI 611%41192.

71% 12% 011%—
9.111013%] {36559.51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 03311 10.95:}
32% 3.326114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 211104;}
915?]; 21921-321 %E—ﬁ1t} 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 112%6151
23% 631211 01%314 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 01%‘321 92-1111
°1%*1%% 2.134161% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 %7312‘361111
9135163 9.1736151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2.1316111 96151
1315: 61-7-6131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 %‘41‘31E1
1‘173141191 71011 7132151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 gt}
111%.- ﬁﬁ‘ﬂé- 7173151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 @111
33255415 71%;} 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 an}
61%m% 13318151- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $036151

 

24. 7'3; 713671011 E1135.1 716191 7.1%qu 71161 7313112211 3d§011 %131‘3'1 611315411402.

4461?: 5‘8211 6.131 71141 4;] BEE 1
013715011 11.1%613114771?

7161i— €=1=1 71—74191 $12191 31511"; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3.16011 3.141756131117717

25. r51%011 21161—9. 3 333011 111161061 716191 23311011 31112.1 141.301 %ZLE1U1 811%-411.53—

2101 010101 i§°1t1 014— :0101
1:18—01] 1:13] 31:11:15 fax“ 2:151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
010,—:— 212: E1211 9.71%: 416114
2113- 33131-1:- 3101 2.10.3 1 2 3 4 s 6 7
“0113122121 6:212:14
21% 23.-.1315 02—01 01201 2103 1 2 3 4 s 6 7

“141 017%”?5101 3:771 211111.

152

   

§§7P47Wﬂ§916k%ﬂ W§E%H%%LH1

E-‘é 113-:— 522161 C11911110131 67416—312311} 61—2—6:qu

66696

 

1- E1331.711 713191 7:1011 537711 712153131 31%:- 71% 1:71; %7111-3- El?- 21- 131121.01] 7163—5104
6643.

0.1.711 0101 4161601 6161 61
601

0114

61-813
"1 T1

 

1‘11: 7167—61011 93111603 713—6131614771? 91 13. 711%

13151011 0130160.} 716—6193611771? 91 13 71%
11161116101161: 61116667166131 $1471? 91 11 71161.
3112.; %‘U1%-?_1 1316—6011 1:1 716616.371 711613114771? 91 __ 13. 711%
6. 61611 0311163} “151011 71—76% 711612.: 2316611771? _ 1:1 _ 7116

 

PP.“

 

ﬁll

 

7. ”151% ”0132-6171161. %7-‘4—8—7-‘3 31?:1141771?(6//%%‘-30// ET 4773 1/ 6173/11/09)

E1 Visiting scholar (VIP P) [:1 Business D %‘ﬂ BEE t311TX1' 2110:1
E1 Visiting scholar (Ill—’11) D x111 131% 1:1 31* 11173.
1:] 01611 [:1 711—21

 

8. 01751011 9~1i1°11 ”11%01’11 7131-6161 73317101 015161771? (EV/”5363017 37E? 1/ 67/7’547709)

E1 °41 (3160869113943 [:1 011131 ( 1:16—16 10 6.9.6)

9. 016101121 2101691 7166111 611211

 

 

10 #1751 713-191 2131611 (200613) 1.2} 64:31—56? (676434—307 67H 1/ 61754709)

:1 $ 8,999 0161 E] $ 60,000 — $ 79,999
E] $ 9,000 — $19,999 [:1 $ 80,000- $ 99,999

D $ 20,000- $ 39,999 1:1 5 100,000 — $ 119,000
[:1 $ 40,000 — $ 59,999 D $ 120,000 01%

16 (ii-7‘01] 61016101 212161 0116161 6161610101. 66616-61101.

153

 
   

APPENDIX C: Consent Form

The Housing Adaptation of Cross-Cultural sojourner:
The Case of Korean Sojourners in the United States

The purpose of this research is an exploratory study to investigate how Korean temporary
visitors adapt to a new housing environment in the United States. Your input is very
important to this study. It will help the investigators to gain more insight into the design
of homes to create an environment supportive of multi cultural ethnic groups. The
interview will take place in your home at your convenience and if permission is granted
will be tape recorded for accuracy. The length of the interview will vary depending on
your preference, but should be approximately an hour. We would appreciate it if you
would take the time to answer each question as honestly as you can.

There is no potential risk involved in the study. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. Your answers will be kept conﬁdential. Individual
names will not be revealed in the report. The results of the study will be presented in the
professional conferences and can be published in the research journals. We only need
your honest opinion. You may choose not to participate at all, may refuse to participate in
certain procedures or answer certain questions, or may discontinue the interview at any
time without penalty.

If you have any questions regarding the study, or wish to make comments and
suggestions to us, please contact researchers:

1) Nam-Kyu Park, Assistant Professor, by mail 204 Human Ecology, East Lansing, MI
48824, phone: 517) 353-4454, or e-mail: parkn@msu.edu

2) Eunsil Lee, Doctoral Student, by mail: 203B Human Ecology, East Lansing, MI
48824, phone: (517) 432—3249, or e-mail: leeeunsi@msu.edu

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisﬁed with any aspect of this study, you may contact —- anonymously, if you wish:
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Michigan Sate University’s Director of Human Research
Protection Program (HRPP) by phone: (517) 355-2180 ext 239, fax: (517) 432-4503, 6-
mail: i1'b@ores.msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

Your signature indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.
Your Signature Date

Your signature indicates your agreement to allow the use of a tape recorder.
Your Signature Date

 

Thank you!

154

 

REFERENCES

155

REFERENCES

Adelman , M. (1988). Cross-cultural adjustment: A theoretical perspective on social
support. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 183-204.

Adler, P. (1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of cultural shock.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 13-23.

Altman, I., & Low, S. (1992) (Eds) Place attachment, human behavior and environment:
Advances in theory and research, Vol. 12, NY: Plenum Press.

Amérigo, M., & Aragones, J. I. (1990). Residential satisfaction in council housing.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, 313-25.

Amerigo, M. & Aragones, J. I. (1997). A Theoretical and Methodological Approach to
the Study of Residential Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,
47—57.

Armstrong, H. (2000). Cultural pluralism within cultural heritage: Migrant place making
in Australia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales,
Sydney.

Anderson. J. R., Anthony, K. H., Weidemann, S., Bain, B., & Allen, L. (1988). Housing
for disabled adults: User experience with alternate bathroom designs. (Report
supported by grant from the National Endowment for the Arts). Urbana, IL:
Housing Research and Development Program, University of Illinois.

Andrew, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well being: America ’s
perception of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.

Apgar, W. (1989). Recent trends in housing quality and affordability: A reassessment. In
Housing Issues of the 1990s. Eds. Sara Rosenberry and Chester Hartman, 37-66.
New York: Praeger.

Aycan, Z. (1997). Expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted phenomenon: Individual and
organizational level predictors. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 8, 434-456.

Babbie, E. (1973). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Inc.

Bailey, K. (1994). Methods of Social Research (4‘h Edition). New York: The Free Press.

Baillie, S. (1990). Dwelling features as intervening variables in housing satisfaction and
propensity to move. Housing and Society, 17(2), 1-15.

156

Baillie, S. & Peart, V. (1992). Determinants of housing satisfaction for older married and
unmarried women in Florida. Housing and Society, 19(2).

Bednar, M. (1977). Barrier-free environments. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross.

Bender, A., Din, A., F avarger, P., Hoesli, M., & Laakso, J. (1997), An analysis of
perceptions concerning the environmental quality of housing in Geneva, Urban
Studies, 34(3), 503-13.

Berry, J. W., & Kim, U. (1988). Acculturation and mental health. In P.R. Dasen, J .W.
Berry, & N. Sartorius (Eds), Health and cross—cultural psychology: Towards
applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, 8., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation studies
in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 135-186.

Birdwell-Pheasant, D., & Lawrence-Zuniga, D. (1999) (Eds). House Life: Space, Place
and Family in Europe. Oxford: Berg.

Boyer, R., & Savageau, D. (1981). Places rated almanac. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Brascugli, M. (1982). Adapting housing to culture in the Gilla River Indian community.
Housing and Society, 9(3), 36-41.

Brown, R, & Perkins, D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In I. Altman & S. Low
(Eds), Place attachment (pp. 119-132). New York: Plenum.

Burby, R. J ., & Rohe, W. M. (1990). Providing for the housing needs of the elderly.
Journal of American Planning Association, Summer, 324-340.

Bymes, F. (1966). Role shock: An occupational hazard of American technical assistants
abroad. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 368,
95-108.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life:
Perspectives, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Canter, D., & Canter, S. (1971). Close together in Tokyo. Design & Environment, 2, 60—
62.

Carstens, D. Y. (1985). Site planning and design for the elderly: Issues, guidelines, and
alternatives. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Choi, B. Y. (1979). Koreans in America. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

157

Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540-572.

Cooper. C. (1975). Easter Hill Village: Some social implications of design. New York:
Free Press.

Cook, C., Bruin, M., & Laux, S. (1994). Housing cost burden among female heads of
households. Housing and Society, 21(2), 16-31.

Crull, S., Bode, M., & Morris, E. (1991). Two tests of the housing adjustment model of
residential mobility. Housing and Society, 18(3), 53-64.

Crull, S. (1994). Housing satisfaction of households at risk of serious housing problems.
Housing and Society, 21(2), 41-51.

Cutter, S. (1982). Residential satisfaction and the suburban homeowners, Urban
Geography, 3, 315—327.

Danes, S., & Morris, E. (1986). Housing Status, Housing Expenditures and Satisfaction.
Housing and Society, 13, 32-43.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.

Eichner, M. M., & Morris, E. W. (1984). Energy conservation, air quality, health, and
housing satisfaction. Housing and Society, 1 1(1), 1-15.

Eshelman, P., & Evans, G.W. (1998, November). Re-establishing a sense of home. Paper
presented at the 51St Annual Scientiﬁc Meeting of the Gerontological Society of
America, Philadelphia, PA.

Ferraro, G. (1990). The cultural dimension of international business. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

F oote, N. N., Abu-Lughod, J ., Foley, M. M., & Winnick, L. (1960). Housing Choice and
Housing Constraints. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J ., & Chenowith, R. (1974). Evaluating
residents' satisfaction in housing for low and moderate income families. In D.
Carson, (ed.) Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications (Vol.
5. pp. 285-296). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.

Fried, M. (1982). Residential attachment: Sources of residential and community
satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 107-119.

Friedman, A., & Cammalleri, V. (1993). Occupant satisfaction with the narrow-front
starter homes in Montreal. Housing and Society, 20(1), 51-62.

158

F umham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture Shock: Psychological Reactions to
Unfamiliar Environments. London: Methnon and Co.

Fumham, A., & Bochner, S. (1987). The adjustment of sojourners. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B.
Gudykunst (Eds), Cross-cultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp. 42-61).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Galster, G., & Hesser, G. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Contextual and compositional
correlates. Environment and Behavior, 16, 737— 758.

Galster, G. (1987). Identifying the Correlates of Dwelling Satisfaction: An Empirical
Critique. Environment and Behavior, 19(5). 539.

Gim, R. H., Atkinson, D.R., & Whiteley, S. (1990). Asian-American acculturation,
severity of concerns, and willingness to see a counselor. The Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 3 7(3), 281-285.

Greenberg, MR. (1999). Improving neighborhood quality: A hierarchy of needs.
Housing Policy Debate, 10(3), 601-624.

Guthrie, L., & Barclay, N. (1981). Move or Alter: What factors inﬂuence the choice. In
Proceedings of the American Association of Housing Educators 1981 Annual
Conference: Housing and Society.

Ha, M., & Weber, M.J. (1991). Housing values patterns and orientation of households.
Housing and Society, 19(3), 21-30.

Hall, ET. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday.

Hao, L. (2003). Private support and public assistance for immigrant families. Journal of
Marriage and Family, Feb 2003, 65, 36-52.

Harris, C. M. (1976). The Relationship between housing quality, Housing Satisfaction
and Residential adaptation: a normative housing study. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Henderson, C., & Schultz, J. (1985). The inﬂuence of housing satisfaction on job
satisfaction and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa.

Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D., & Vogel, C. (2003). Internet research methods: A
practical guide for the social and behavioral sciences. London: Sage.

Heywood, F ., Oldman, C., & Means, R. (2002). Housing and home in later life.
Phildelphia: Open University Press.

159

 

 

Hong, H. O. (1975). The Effect of Cultural Norm on Traditional Korean Housing.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul.

Hurh, W. M., & Kim, K. C. (1984). Korean Immigrants in North America: A Structural
Analysis of Ethics Confinement and Adhesive Adaptation. Madison: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press.

Hwang, E., & Ziebarth, AC. (2006). Impacts of residential environments on housing
satisfaction among Korean American elders. Housing and Society, 33(2), 1-17.

Johnson, C. Y. (1998). A consideration of collective memory in African American
attachment to wildland recreation places. Human Ecology Review, 5, 5-15.

Johnson, M., Lovingood, R., & Goss, RC. (1993). Satisfaction of elderly residents in
subsidized housing: The effects of the manager’s leadership style. Housing and
Society, 20(2), 51-60.

Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In: K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(eds), Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Jun, 8., Ball, A. D., & Gentry, J. W. (1993). Modes of consumer acculturation. In
McAlister, L., Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Volume
20, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 76-82.

Kaltenbom, B. 1998. Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts.
Applied Geography. 18(2): 169-189.

Kennedy, A. (1994). Personality and psychological adjustment during cross-cultural
transitions: A study of the cultural ﬁt proposition. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Kim, H. C. & Patterson, W. (1977). The Korean in America, 1882-1974: A Chronology
and fact. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications.

Kim, I. S. (1981). New Urban Immigrants: The Korean Community in New York.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kim, Y. Y., & Gudykunst, W. B. (Eds). (1988). Theories in intercultural
communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kinsey, J. Y., & Lane, S. (1983). Race, housing attributes, and satisfaction with housing.
Housing and Society, 10(3), 98-116.

Kohls, R. (1984). Intercultural training: Don’t leave home without it. Washington, DC:
Sietar.

160

Kweon, B., Sullivan, W.C., & Wiley, A. (1998). Green common spaces and the social
integration of inner city older residents. Environment and Behavior, 30, 832-858.

Lawence, R. (1982). Domestic Space and Society: A Cross-Cultural Study. Comparative
Studies in Society and History. 24:104-130.

Lawton, M. P. (1975). Planning and managing housing for the elderly. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Lee, D. Y. (1998). Immigrant Housing Adjustment: A Case Study of Koreans in the
Houston Metropolitan Area. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College Station:
Texas A & M University.

Lee, K. (1995). Residential alterations in Daejeon, Korea; A test of housing adjustment
theory in a cross-cultural context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Lee, K. T. (1994). The life style of Koreans: A Story of House, Seoul, South Korea: Kee
Rhin Won (written in Korean).

Lee, S. J. (1982). Housing Adjustment of Korean Families in American Society.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Gainsville, FL.

Lee, T., & Marans, R. W. (1980). Objective and Subjective Indicators: Scale Discordance
on Interrelationships. Social Indicators Research, 6, 47-64.

Lee, B.A., Oropesa, R.S. & Kana, J .W. (1994). Neighborhood Context and Residential
Mobility, Demography, 31(2), 249-270.

Liu, D. & Crull, S. R. (2006). Housing Satisfaction of Asian and Paciﬁc Islander
households in the United States. Housing and Society, 33(1), 21-38.

Loo, C. (1986). Neighborhood satisfaction and safety: a study of a low—income ethnic
area, Environment and Behavior, 18(1), 109-131.

Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs. regression
model, Growth and Change, 30, 264-287.

Ly, PH. (2001). Acculturation and attitudes toward the utilization of mental health
services among Vietnamese refugees. Ann Arbor: Bell & Howell. (UMI No.
3040102)

Lysgaard, S. (195 5). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees
Visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45-51.

161

Marans, R. W., & Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community
satisfaction. In A. Hawley and V. Rock (eds), Metropolitan America in
Contemporary Perspective, New York: Halsted Press.

Marans, R. W., & Spreckelmeyer, K. F. (1981). Evaluating Built Environments: A
Behavioral Approach. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan.

Marans, R. W., & Fly, J. M. (1981). Recreation and the quality of urban life:
Recreational resources, behaviors, and evaluations of people in the Detroit
region. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Marshall, N. M. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13 (6), 522-
525.

Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Retrieved June 2007, from http://psvclrclassics.yorku.caiMaslow/motivation.htm.

McCowell, K. (1989). Housing and Culture for Native Groups in Canada, in Low, S. and
Chambers, E. (Eds), Housing, Culture and Design: A Comparative Perspective.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Meek, C. (1980). Rural housing: Status and issues. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology: Center for Real Estate Development (HP #19).

Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991), Readings and Cases in International Human
Resource Management. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

Mesch, G. S., & Manor, 0. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception and local
attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30, 504-519.

Michelson, W. (1977). Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential
Satisfaction, New York: Oxford University Press.

Michigan State University, Visiting International Professional Program (VIPP). (2007).
Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.isp.msu.edu/VIPP/

Miller, D. (2001). (eds) Home Possessions: Material Culture behind Closed Doors.
Oxford: Berg.

Moore, R., & Graefe, A. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail-trail
users. Leisure Sciences. 16: 17-31.

Morris, E. W. (1972). Departure from a normatively prescribed state as an independent

variable: An analysis of housing space norms. Working paper no. 5 in the series,
Comparative research on social change and the provision of housing and related

162

service. Ithaca, NR: Dept. of Consumer Economics and Public Policy, New York
State College of Human Ecology, Cornell University.

Morris, E. W., & Winter, M. (1975). A Theory of Family Housing Adjustment. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 37, 79—88.

Morris, E. W., Crull, S., & Winter, M. (1976). Housing norms, housing satisfaction, and
the propensity to move. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 309-320.

Morris, E. W., & Winter, M. (1978). Housing, Family, and Society. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Morris, E. W., & J akubczak, M. (1988). Tenure-structure deﬁcit, housing satisfaction and
propensity to move: A replication of the housing-adjustment model. Housing and
Society, 15(1), 41-55.

Morris, E.W., & Winter, M (1994). Housing, Family, and Society. (2“. Ed). Iowa State
University Press. Ames, IA.

Muthen, L.K., & Muthen, B. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (Version 4). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.

Newman, 8., & Duncan, G. (1979). Residential problems, dissatisfactions and mobility.
Journal of American Planning Association, 45 , 106-112.

Noussia, A. (March, 2004). The Use of Domestic Space by Migrants on a Greek Island:
Transformation or Translocation of Culture? The Cosmopolis: Emerging

Multicultural Spaces in Europe and North America. 30, 60-75.

Nunnally, J .C. Jr. (1970). Introduction to Psychological Measurement. New York:
McGraw Hill

Oberg, K. (1954). Culture shock. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merril Series in Social
Sciences.

Oberg, K. (1960) Culture shock : Adjustment to new cultural enviromnent. Practical
Anthropology, 7, 177-82.

Park, R. & Burgess, E. (1967). The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Parrot, K. (1988). The Relationship of Household Characteristics and the Home
Remodeling Process. Housing and Society, 15(1), 56-69.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.) Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

163

 

Peck, C., & Stewart, K.K. (1985). Satisfaction with housing and quality of life. Home
Economics Research Journal, 13(4), 363-372.

Pierce, R. M. (1985). Rating America’s metropolitan areas. American Demographics, 7,
20-25.

Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey
response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(4), 579-588.

Premius, H. (1986). Housing as a social adaptation process: A conceptual scheme.
Environment and Behavior, 18, 31-52.

Preston, J. (1985). Cultural shock and invisible walls. S UNY International Programs
Quarterly, 1(3/4), 28-34.

Qadir, S. A. (1993). Housing satisfaction and adaptability of East Asian cultural
transplants residing in married student housing at Iowa State University,

Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Rapoport, A. (1969). House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice
Hall.

Rapoport, A. (1976). The mutual interaction of people and their built environment: a
cross-cultural perspective. The Hague, Mouton and Co.

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form. Towards a man-environment
approach to urban form and design. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977.

Rapoport, A. (1980). Toward a cross-culturally valid deﬁnition of housing. In Optimizing
Environment: Research, Practice and Policy, edited by Roger Stough and
Abraham Wandersman. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research
Association, 310-3 16.

Rhinesmith, S. (1985). Bringing home the world. New York: Walsh & Co.

Rossback, S. (1987). Interior design with feng shui. New York: Penguin Group.

Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Free Press.

Selvaraj ah, C. (2003). The expatriation experience of the Chinese spouse in New
Zealand. Equal Opportunities International, 22(5), 31-49.

Shea, J ., & Inman, M. (1994). An ecological model for assessment of housing design for
aging populations. Housing and Society, 21(3), 91-96.

Shlay, A. B. (1995). Housing in the Broader Context in the United States. Housing Policy

164

Debate, 6(3), 695-720.

Song, B. H. (1990). The Immigrants ’ Residential Settlement Process: The Case of
Koreans in the Detroit Region. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential
mobility. Demography, 11, 1973—1988.

Tran, LA. (1989). Acculturation of Vietnamese-American women students in higher
education. Ann Arbor: Bell & Howell. (UMI No. 1337410)

Tognoli, J. (1987). Residential environments. In: D. Stokols and I. Altman, Editors,
Handbook of environmental psychology Vol. 1, Wiley, New York (1987), 655—
690.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Ofﬁce of Travel and Tourism Industries (2006). 2005
Proﬁle Of Overseas Travelers To The U.S. — Inbound. Retrieved December 25,
2006 from http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/cat/f-2005-07-002.html.

 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Ofﬁce of Immigration Statistics (2006).
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2004. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from
http://www.dhs.gv/xlibrarviasscts/statistics/vearbook/2004/Yearbook2004.pdf

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Dec. 2006). SE VIS General Summary
Quarterly Review. Retrieved November 5, 2007 from
http:.//www.icegov/doclib/sevis/pdf/quarterly reportidec06v4pdf

U.S. - Korea Visa Waiver Program Coalition. (2006). Summary of Key facts on South
Korea and The Visa Waiver Program. Retrieved December 25, 2006, from
http://www.welcome—koreacrgﬂ

 

Varady, D. P. (1983). Determinants of residential mobility decisions: The role of
government services in relation to other factors. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 49(3), 184-199.

Varady, DP. and Preiser, W.F.E. (1998). Scattered-Site Public Housing and Housing
Satisfaction: Implications for the New Public Housing Program. Journal of

American Planning Association, 6(2): 189-207.

Vrbka, S., Combs, E. (1993). Predictors of neighborhood and community satisfactions in
rural communities, Housing and Society, 20: 41-49.

Wagner, J. A., & Hollenbeck, J .R. (1995). Management of organizational behavior,
2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds), Handbook of

165

intercultural training (pp. 124-147). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ward, C., Okura, Y., Kennedy, A., & Kojima, T. (1998). The U-curve on trial: A
longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-
cultural transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 277-291.

Weidemann, S., Anderson, J .R., Butterﬁeld, D.I., & O’Donnell, P. (1982). Residents’
perceptions of satisfaction and safety: a basis for change in multifamily housing.
Environment and Behavior, 14, 695—724.

Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential
satisfaction. In Altman, I., & Werner, C. (eds), Home Environments (pp. 153—
182). New York and London: Plenum.

Weinstein, C. S., & David, T. G. (Eds). (1986). Spaces for children: The built
environment and child development. New York: Plenum Press.

White, G., & Schollaert, P. T. (1993). Home ownership and well-being. Housing and
Society, 20, 31-40.

Whiteford, P.C., & Morris, E.W. (1986). Age, tenure, and housing satisfaction: A
comparison between the elderly and the non-elderly. Housing and Society, 13(2),
160-172.

Winkelman, M., (1994, Nov/Dec). Culture Shock and Adaptation. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 73, 121-125.

Yalcin-Heckmann, L. (1995). The Predicament of Mixing Culture and Religion: Turkish
and Muslim Communities in Post-immigration Germany, in Baumann, G, and
Sunier, T. (eds) Post-migration Ethnicity Cohesion, Commitments, Comparison.

Amsterdam, Siswo/IMES, 78-98.

Yocky, KM. (1976). Residential alterations and additions and housing-neighborhood
satisfaction. Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Zheng, X., and Berry, J. W. (1991). Psychological adaptation of Chinese sojourners in
Canada. International Journal of Psychology, 26 (4), 451-470.

166

1. . .1. , .. . . a , . . . 1.1... . . .. . .. , .. .9.» 1.1. ...SE.
. :...-th ; :2... c. la .53.”? I: I re: . ...rrin .L. a...“ 113...)..121. .. .. . . , . i , L}. :37... 4. .JT. .... .u 4.2%... :..1 N... ”134.1. .mwnﬁrﬁeltt an“... . .i.=?ﬂhﬁ«£ﬂsf 3.. ...re

 

. Lu. .II...’ o

«a... a L. ort— I

a.
.rl

u u.~;a

it. .. . . ,.... .... N!
C. ._ .. .

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111