Social Indicators Research

, Volume 86, Issue 2, pp 257–274 | Cite as

The relevance of social interactions on housing satisfaction

  • Esperanza Vera-Toscano
  • Victoria Ateca-Amestoy


For most individuals, housing is the largest consumption and investment item of their lifetime and, as a result, housing satisfaction is an important component of their quality of life. The purpose of this paper then is to investigate the determinants of individual housing satisfaction as a particular domain of satisfaction with life as a whole, examining the effects of individual and household attributes (predictive), housing characteristics (hedonic), and more importantly, of social interactions originated in one's residential neighbourhood. To do so, we model housing as a composite commodity that satisfies dwelling needs, as well as other intangibles such as familiar relationships and socio-status aspects. We use the Survey of Living Conditions and Poverty (Spain). Specifically, using a self-reported measure of housing satisfaction, we estimate ordered probit models searching for the empirical specification that provides the best fit accounting for divergences driven by aspirations defined in the own household (internal norm), and by social comparisons (peer-effect or external norm).


Subjective well-being Housing Peer-effects Ordered probit 



We are grateful to the Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces for their financial support through the project "Satisfacción con la Vivienda en Andalucía" (SOCH 2.05/009). Funding from the Department of Social Affairs of the Andalucian Regional Government to undertake the Survey is also acknowledged. Vera-Toscano wants to further acknowledge Junta de Andalucía for the support provided for this research through Averroes, and Ateca-Amestoy acknowledges Gobierno Vasco (BFI 05.225). All usual caveats apply.


  1. Bajari, P., Benkard, C. L., & Krainer, J. (2005). House prices and consumer welfare. Journal of Urban Economics, 58, 474–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bover, O. (2004). The Spanish Survey of Household Finances (EFF): Description and methods of the 2002 wave, Occasional paper no. 0409, Banco de España.Google Scholar
  3. Bover, O. (2005). Wealth effects on consumption: Microeconometric estimates from the Spanish Survey of Household Finances, Documento de Trabajo no. 0522, Banco de España.Google Scholar
  4. Brock, W. A., & Durlauf, S. N. (2003). Multinomial choice with social interactions, Mimeo.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess, E. (1925). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.), The city (pp. 47–62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E, & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4(4), 341–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, A.E, & Oswald A. J. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. Economic Journal, 104(424), 648–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (2003). Unemployment as a social norm: Psychological evidence from panel data. Journal of Labor Economics, 21, 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Pasquale, D., & Glaeser, E. (1999). Incentives and social capital: Are homeowners better citizens? Journal of Urban Economics, 45, 354–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Díaz-Serrano, L. (2005). Housing satisfaction, homeownership and housing mobility: A panel data analysis for twelve EU countries. IZA DP N0, 2318, IZA Bonn.Google Scholar
  12. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective wellbeing? A literature review and guide to needed research. Social Indicators Research, 57, 119–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falk, A., & Knell, M. (2000). Choosing the Joneses: On the endogeneity of reference groups. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich WP, No. 59.Google Scholar
  14. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2002a). Subjective questions to measure welfare and well-being: A survey. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 2002-020/3.Google Scholar
  15. Ferrer-i-Carbonell (2002b). Income and Well-Being. An empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 2002-019/3.Google Scholar
  16. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Economic Journal, 114, 641–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foley, D. L. (1980). The sociology of housing. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frey, B. S., Benz, M., & Stutzer, A. (2003). Introducing procedural utility: Not only what but also how matters. IEW working paper no. 129, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
  19. Galster, G. C. (1987). Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: An empirical critique. Environment and Behavour, 19(5), 539–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galster, G. C, & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Green, R. K, & White, M. J (1997). Measuring the benefits of homeowning: Effects on children. Journal of Urban Economics, 41, 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greene, W. (1990). Econometric analisis. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  23. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2005). Encuesta continua de presupuestos familiares. Base 1997. Scholar
  24. Ioannides, Y. M., & Zabel, J. E. (2003). Neighbourhood effects and housing demand. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Foundations of hedonic psychology: Scientific perspectives on enjoyment and suffering. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. Regression Models. Growth and Change, 30, 264–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luttmer, E. F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 963–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morris, E. W., & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of family housing adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morris, E. W., & Winter, M. (1978). Housing, family and society. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  31. Oswald, A. J. (1999). The housing market and Europe’s unemployment: A non-technical paper, Mimeo, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  32. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rohe, W. M., & Basolo, V. (1997). Long-term effects of homeownership on the self-perceptions and social interaction of low-income persons. Environment and Behavior, 29(6), 793–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move. Glenco IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sen, A. K. (1999). The possibility of social choice. American Economic Review, 89, 349–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Praag, B. M. S., Frijters, P., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2003). The anatomy of wellbeing. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Praag, B. M. S., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2004). Happiness quantified. A satisfaction calculus approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Vera Toscano, E., Ateca Amestoy, V., & Serrano del Rosal, R. (2006). Building financial satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 77, 211–243.Google Scholar
  39. Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of leisure class. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esperanza Vera-Toscano
    • 1
  • Victoria Ateca-Amestoy
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Advanced Social StudiesNational Higher Research Council (IESA-CSIC)CordobaSpain
  2. 2.FAE IIUniversity of the Basque CountryBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations