192

Apartment Environments andSocialization of Young Children

Interaction between the physical environment, parental attitudes, and socialization settings ofyoung children were investigated. The specific problem related apartment residence on the firstversus second floor to spatial location and supervision of children, as well as to maternal attitudesabout housing and child rearing. Respondents were 67 mothers who lived in student apartmentsand who had children aged 30 to 66 months. Each mother kept records of child activity, location,and supervision and also completed a questionnaire that investigated child-rearing attitudes andsatisfaction with housing.

Children living in second-floor apartments were more restricted than those who lived on the firstfloor, especially during afternoon hours. Although the amount of parental supervision did not varyby floor level, first-floor children had more contacts with other children and adults. These and otherfindings suggest that designers and owners of apartments as well as parents living in apartments

need to consider possible effects of apartment living on the development of young children.(Home Economics Research Journal, March 1975, Vol. 3, No. 3)

Kathy R. Thornburg

Apartment living seems to pose unique prob-lems for parents, especially for mothers of

young children. Close proximity to neighborsand lack of private space surrounding the

living unit may force the restraining of a child’sfreedom to move beyond the interior of theliving unit. Such constraints could foster over-dependency in the child and delay the de-velopment of autonomous behavior during thepreschool years. In addition, parental needs tocontrol the child and anxieties about the child’s

safety could reduce the parents’ effectiveness

in teaching the child to master his environ-

ment.

Although apartment living is not the idealcondition for rearing young children, upper-level apartments may impose even more con-straints on the socialization settings for chil-dren. For example, the amount of parentalsupervision needed and the spatial mobilityand activity patterns of the child might beaffected.

In a London study, information concerningplay activities and needs of young children wasgathered by interviewing 201 mothers in a

housing area (Maizels, 1961 ). The responses ofmothers living in &dquo;low flats&dquo; (the first five

floors) were compared to those of mothersliving in &dquo;high flats&dquo; (sixth floor or higher). In

Author’s address: Human Development and Family Rela-tions, University of Kentucky, Lexington 40508.

This research was conducted at the University of Missouri,Columbia.

193

general, all mothers reported that housingconditions had detrimental effects on their

children, with 50 percent of the mothers wholived in low flats and 75 percent of the motherswho lived in high flats reporting difficultiesover safety (anxiety over stairs, windows, bal-conies, etc. Maizels, 1961, p. 24).

Mothers living &dquo;high&dquo; mentioned more fre-quently that their children had nowhere toplay. A higher proportion of those living &dquo;low&dquo;

used the available play spaces than of thoseliving &dquo;high&dquo; (Maizels, 1961, p. 19).

Maizels’ findings suggest that children living&dquo;low&dquo; had more opportunities to move awayfrom their apartments and maternal supervi-sion than those living &dquo;high.&dquo; It appears thatfirst-floor children had more freedom to movefrom the living unit and were less directlysupervised than upper-level children.The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan

Toronto sponsored a preliminary study inwhich a number of families in apartmenthouses were interviewed and observed

(Kumove, 1966). The study examined andreported the problems and opportunities ofhigh-density living conditions for individuals,families, and communities. It emphasizedhousing as one important influence upon be-havior. Details such as sample size and datasummaries were not reported.Kumove (1966, p. 28) noted that

as most apartments were either not designed forchildren or not designed for the numbers that theycome to house, the play and regulation of childrenpresent serious problems. Families overcome theseproblems by strenuous efforts but children remain asource of difficulty and friction for managementand tenants.

This finding suggests that housing con-

straints might affect parental child-rearingpractices and possibly contribute to the de-

velopment of more restrictive attitudes towardchild rearing. Such attitudes would hamper the

normal development of children’s trust andautonomy.

HypothesesTwo main hypotheses were proposed.

Hypothesis 1: The spatial location of chil-dren living on the second floor is more limitingthan that of children living on the first floor.

Hypothesis 2: When children are out of theapartment interior, those living on the secondfloor are under the supervision of the parents(in sight) proportionately more than those liv-ing on the first floor.

How do other variables interact and relate tomaternal attitudes and practices? Three addi-tional sets of variables were compared.

1. In comparison to residents living on thefirst floor, it seems likely that those living onthe second floor would be more concernedabout children’s safety and would prefer tolive on the ground floor.

2. Basic preferences for multiple- versus

single-unit housing probably derive from thepast experience of individuals. Those who

have experienced and adapted to multiple-unitliving are likely to be more satisfied with

apartment living. Those who prefer singlefamily dwellings, but who are temporarily liv-ing in apartments, will probably feel less satis-fied.

3. Maternal child-rearing attitudes probablyinteract differentially with the environmentalconstraints of second-floor living. Mothers wholive on the second floor and who tend to bemore restrictive and less equalitarian may befairly well satisfied, since the second-floor en-vironment facilitates greater restriction of

children. On the other hand, those who aremore equalitarian and less restrictive may bedissatisfied, since the environment constrainsand conflicts with their personal child-rearingattitudes.

194

Methodology

SubjectsSubjects for this study were mothers living in

married-student housing at the University ofMissouri, Columbia. The university housingoffice indicated that student families were ran-

domly assigned to apartment complexes and tofirst- and second-floor units.

In the 360 housing units available to marriedstudents, 127 of the families had children. Ofthe 127 families, 72 were asked to participatein the study because they had children betweenthe ages of 30 to 66 months; 67 mothers

provided the information requested.Although the backgrounds of the families

varied, student families can be assumed to havemiddle- to upper-class aspirations. Of the par-ticipating families 49 were American and 18were from foreign countries. Because of thepossible influences of self-selection and otherfactors, the sample cannot be construed to berepresentative of all student families at the

University of Missouri nor of student families ingeneral.

Instruments

Socialization Setting Record. To assess thesocialization settings of the children, eachchild’s location, activity, and supervision wererecorded by the mother. Information re-

corded included the child’s location (in theapartment, areas adjoining, or areas awayfrom), people who were responsible for thechild and their location, and the location of themother if she was not the one responsible.Activity of the child was also recorded. Themother recorded this information beginningat 7:00 in the morning and each hour there-after until 8:00 p.m. Each mother kept herrecords for one week. The record-keepingprocess was explained to each parent at somepoint prior to the week in which she was toparticipate; her progress was checked on dur-ing the week and evaluated at the end ofthe week. The record-keeping technique ap-

peared to function satisfactorily as a means

of obtaining the desired information.

Questionnaire. The questionnaire given tothe mothers on the initial contact provideddata on apartment location, family composi-tion, and child-care arrangements. A secondquestionnaire elicited information about hous-ing preferences and characteristics, maternalconcern for the child’s safety, and social classorigin of the mother. Social class origin wasdetermined from data on residence, occupa-tion, and education. The index of social classwas an adaptation of the method of Hollings-head and Redlich (1958, p. 67).The remaining parts of the questionnaire

investigated the mothers’ attitudes toward

child-rearing practices and their satisfaction

with present living quarters. The Parental At-titude Research Instrument, as revised byRadin and Glasser (1965), was used to deter-mine equalitarian and restrictive child-rearingattitudes. Mothers responded to statements

indicating agreement on a 4-point Likert-typescale. Satisfaction with present living quarterswas determined by the Personal ReactionForm.’ Satisfaction with 32 characteristics ofthe interior and exterior of the apartment wererated on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Amongthe characteristics rated were features of theresidence such as amount of space, privacy,play facilities, noise, and safety. Mean satisfac-tion scores were calculated with the lowerscores indicating higher satisfaction.

ProcedureThe mothers completed the preliminary

data sheet giving information about the family.Later, each mother observed and recorded herchild’s activities and location on the Socializa-tion Setting Record. At the end of the observa-

’G. Nygren, R. Boger, S. Evers, F. Plowman, and B.Eubank. The relationships of density, elaboration and useof dwelling space and the socialization of pre-school chil-dren. Paper presented at the meeting of the AmericanHome Economics Association, June, 1972. (Mimeographedcopy available from G. Nygren, College of Human Ecology,Michigan State University, East Lansing.)

195

tion period, the mothers completed the finalportions of the questionnaire.Descriptive data, including age and family

size, were analyzed to assess comparability ofthe groups on such variables. Chi-square testswere used to determine the relationship be-tween floor level and the descriptive variables.In addition, gamma tests were used to predictone variable from another, learn the directionof the relationship, and indicate the strength ofthe relationship when data were ordinal (An-derson and Zelditch, 1968, p. 152).

Results

As hypothesized, living on the first or secondfloor appeared to have some bearing on spatiallocation and supervision of children.

Socialization Setting (Hypothesis 1)Spatial location indices revealed a high inci-

dence of child location within the apartment orthe surrounding area (restricted spatial loca-tion score). The mean indices were computedby assigning a value to each hourly recording(&dquo;in the apartment,&dquo; &dquo;areas adjoining,&dquo; and&dquo;areas away from&dquo;). A few more first-floor

children had higher spatial location indices

(extended spatial location scores) than second-floor children. Although the chi-square com-paring total observations was not significantand indicated little difference (X2 = 1.80, df = 1,p < .18), the gamma of +.37 reflected a modestcorrelation between floor level and spatial loca-tion. In an attempt to locate where the differ-ences occurred, spatial location data were alsoexamined to see if patterns existed for differ-ent hours during the day and for differentdays during the week. During afternoon

hours, more second-floor children were re-stricted than first-floor children ( =

74.20, df = 2, p < .00 1; y = -. 15). On Saturdayand Sunday afternoons, the children living onthe second floor were either in their apart-ments or in the area immediately surroundingthe building for 81 percent of the observations.First-floor children were more likely to be outand about, with only 63 percent in their

apartments or immediately surrounding thebuilding.

In addition to floor level, other variables

appeared to be related to the children’s spatiallocation. The number of children in the familywas related to restricted or extended spatiallocation scores (x2 = 10.64, df = 2, p < .005; y= +.64). An only child was more likely to be inor around the apartment than were childrenfrom families with two or three children. Only30 percent of the children in one-child familieshad extended scores, compared to 60 percentfor two-child families and 100 percent forthree-child families.

Scores for children from foreign countrieswere lower (more restricted); AmericanCaucasian children had more extended spatiallocation scores (x2 = 7.16, df = 2, p < .03).Although the difference was not significant,there were more 3-year-olds having low spatiallocation scores (restricted) and more

5-year-olds with high scores (x2 = 4.58, df = 2,P < 10; Y = +.41).

In addition to providing some support forthe hypothesis of greater restriction forsecond-floor children, the data suggest a com-plex of variables that might lead to more

restrictive environments: an only child; a childin a smaller family; a child with foreign-bornparents; a younger child; a child with parentswho advocate apartment living.

Parental Supervision (Hypothesis 2)Data concerning supervision of children

were collected for all hours of the day. Parentsdirectly supervised two-thirds of all children atleast half of the time they were observed out-side the apartment; half of those children were

supervised at least 80 percent of the time. Thesecond hypothesis was not supported becausethere was no significant difference between theamount of parental supervision of first- andsecond-floor children when comparing thetotal data. However, using the data on 7 daysof observations, half of the possible 98 supervi-sion comparisons indicated differences at the.05 level of significance between first- and

196

second-floor mothers. In all but one of these

hourly comparisons, more second-floor

mothers or fathers were in sight or withinhearing distance of their children; first-floorchildren had not only one or both parents butalso other children or adult friends within sightor hearing. These findings indicate that hous-ing might influence supervision patterns, in-cluding not only the amount of supervision butwho supervises as well.

Maternal Attitudes Toward Floor PreferenceThe degree of safety of present housing was

rated toward the &dquo;unsafe&dquo; end of the 7-pointscale by two-thirds of all mothers. Responsepatterns of floor-level groups were almostidentical on this measure. After indicating thepreferred apartment, mothers indicatedreasons for the preference by checking a list ofnine items. Nearly half the respondentschecked safety as a reason for floor prefer-ence ; in fact, they indicated safety as a reasonfor floor preference more often than any othercategory.Of the subjects preferring the first floor, 50

percent gave as a reason that it was safer forchild’s play; 42 percent of those preferring thesecond floor gave safety as a reason. Bothmeasures (safety scale and reasons checked)failed to show a difference between first- and

second-floor groups, although the data indi-cated that subjects on both floors were con-cerned with safety. About three-fourths of themothers preferred to stay on the level on whichthey lived rather than shift to the other level.Of the 13 mothers who wanted to move, 10lived on the second floor and only 3 on the firstfloor. This fact, plus a higher proportionof first-floor mothers who would remain there,resulted in a chi-square test that showed a

relationship approaching significance (x2 _3.02, df = 1, p < .08).

Living on the first floor was preferred by 60percent of the mothers. Their reasons in-cluded no steps to climb, safer conditions forchild’s play, and being closer to the play-ground. Reasons less related to socialization of

children included closeness to the laundry andparking. Major reasons given for second-floorpreference included less noise and greatersafety for the children. Responses for prefer-ence of floor level were equally divided be-tween adult-related and child-related reasons.

Variables associated with second-floor prefer-ences included noise level, proximity to friends,and distance from the street. &dquo;Closer to laundryand parking&dquo; seemed to be the only adult-related response associated with first-floor

preference. The patterns reflect what would beexpected in considering the physical aspectsof the units.

Single- Versus Multiple-Unit DwellingsFifty of the 67 mothers stated that they

preferred single-unit dwellings for the future.Of the 50, slightly more than half indicated lowsatisfaction with their present housing. Satis-faction indices of the mothers ranged from 2.3(more satisfaction) to 6.3 (less satisfaction) onthe 1-to-7 point scales, with the median of 4.8as the dividing point for more and less satisfac-tion with present housing. More subjects rec-ommending university housing to other stu-dent families had high satisfaction scores;

more of those recommending single-familydwellings had lower satisfaction scores (x2 =12.04, df = 2, p < .01). Thus, it is logical toconclude that a relationship exists between

preferences and satisfaction with present hous-ing.

Maternal Attitudes Toward Child RearingDistribution of first- and second-floor sub-

jects as to equalitarian attitude and housingsatisfaction was approximately equal. Addi-tional comparisons were made to explore otherpossible relationships between child-rearing at-titudes, floor level, and housing satisfaction.Floor level of residence and housing satisfactionwere examined for each of the four attitude

groups as measured on the Parental AttitudeResearch Instrument (Radin and Glasser,1965). In comparing first- and second-floor

subjects on housing satisfaction, the groups of

197

subjects with more and less agreement with

equalitarian statements were evenlydistributed. Mothers agreeing with restrictivestatements were evenly divided by floor level,but twice as many of these subjects were moresatisfied as compared to the less satisfied. Asimilar pattern existed for mothers who agreedless with restrictive statements; twice as manyindicated less satisfaction than the number

indicating greater housing satisfaction. In

comparing all mothers on satisfaction and re-strictive attitudes, the data suggested that hold-ing less restrictive attitudes is related to lowersatisfaction with housing, and agreement withrestrictive statements relates to greater satisfac-tion (x2 = 4.31, df = 1, p < .04; y = +.52).

SummaryThe results indicated that first-floor children

were out and about more during afternoonhours than those on second floor. Althoughthe amount of supervision did not vary by floorlevel, first-floor children had more social con-tacts. Mothers indicated concern about safety,although the floor-level groups did not differ.Mothers were more likely to prefer first-floorliving. Housing satisfaction was unrelated topreference for multiple- or single-unit hous-ing. Finally, housing satisfaction and child-

rearing attitudes were not differentially relatedto floor level; however, more restrictive at-

titudes were related to greater satisfaction withthe apartment dwellings presently occupied bythe mothers.

ImplicationsData were collected to study the interaction

between the physical space of apartment livingand how it might relate to psychosocial factorsand parental socialization practices.

Overall, mothers did not consider their

apartments adequate. Those with less restric-tive attitudes were even less satisfied with their

present environment. Is it possible to providegreater choice of living units and maximizefamily satisfaction? If a parent is dissatisfiedwith the physically and socially restricting envi-

ronment of upper-level living, the child andthe parents would no doubt indicate greatersatisfaction if ground-level housing were pro-vided. For nearly all hours when children wereawake, adults were within the child’s sight orhearing. If apartment living encourages theseconstraints, then adults should seriously con-sider its possible negative effects on child de-velopment.

Second-floor living posed even greater con-straints on children. Spatial movement wasrestricted and children had fewer social con-tacts with people other than family. Possiblyeven greater spatial and social restrictionwould be associated with living on the sixth oreighth floor of an apartment building. Canhousing be designed and assigned with moreattention to children’s social and physicalneeds? New housing is being built that includesprivate space and small-scale public space ad-joining the ground floor which will be assignedto families with small children. Children will besafe in these spaces with a minimum of adult

supervision and intrusion. Core designs withapartments opening into a central court wouldbe more conducive to expanded social relation-ships for young children than the customarylinear arrangement of most apartments.

References

Anderson, T. R., and Zelditch, M., Jr. A Basic Coursein Statistics with Sociological Applications. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968.

Hollingshead, A. deB., and Redlich, F.C. Social Classand Mental Illness: A Community Study. New York:Wiley, 1958.

Kumove, L. A preliminary study of the social impli-cations of high-density living conditions, 1966.

(Mimeographed copy available from Social Plan-ning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 55 YorkStreet, Toronto 1, Ontario.)

Maizels, J. Two to Five in High Flats. London: Ath-lone, 1961.

Radin, N., and Glasser, P.H. The use of parentalattitude questionnaires with culturally disadvan-taged families. Journal of Marriage and the Family,1965, 27, 373-382.

Received June 6, 1974; accepted October 9, 1974.