Advertisement

Using Household Budgetary Constraints to Explore Negative-interaction Behavior Among Homeowners in Coastal Southeast United States

  • Randall A. CantrellEmail author
  • Victor W. Harris
  • C. Brad Sewell
Original Paper
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, household “Negative Interaction” behaviors (counterproductive behavior between home occupants) were measured by examining “Household Budgetary Constraints” (a relative measure of the balance between income and expenses), via the discriminant analysis segmentation strategy: Decision-Ade. In the current methodological study, the Decision-Ade segmentation strategy is expanded from its origins in energy-efficiency research, to family and economic issues research, thereby expanding the scholarly and programmatic “toolkit” approaches used by researchers and stakeholders in this discipline. The sample consisted of 1943 homeowners in southeast coastal United Stated (US) who were part of a larger disaster-preparedness study related to energy efficiency and occupant relationships. Among the sample, 54% (n =1049) of respondents reported the presence of “negative interaction” behaviors in their home. They also displayed misperceptions regarding their “Communication Practices” and “Engagement Practices” (how home occupants communicate and interact with one another). Interestingly, 72% of these respondents (n =1399) reported earning between $25,000 and $100,000 in annual household income, with 39% (n =758) earning > $50,000. Although this could constitute a “living wage,” those studied in this research self-reported as having “Household Budgetary Constraints,” which indicates an imbalance between income and expenses. These same respondents also were highly likely to be associated with having “negative-interaction” behaviors occurring in their home, which is considered a major deterrent to stable, healthy households in family studies research.

Keywords

Family communications Relationships Decision making Research methods Quantitative 

Notes

Funding

This study was partially supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project number 1009782.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Amato, P. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amato, P., & Cheadle, J. (2005). The long reach of divorce: Divorce and child well-being across three generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Public Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruner, G. (2013). What are scales? Retrieved September 9, 2017 from https://www.marketingscales.com/about-marketing-scales/what-are-scales
  5. Cantrell, R., Harris, V., & Ellis, S. (2015). Homeflow: Creating and maintaining healthy families and homes, video: https://extensionhealthyhomes.org/homeflow.html. USDA National Healthy Homes Partnership, Washington, DC; and PowerPoint slide set, 160 slides. Developed for Cooperative Extension faculty and Habitat for Humanity for use with home occupants. University of Florida/IFAS Bookstore, Gainesville, FL, http://ifasbooks.ifas.ufl.edu/c-12-homes-and-home-maintenance.aspx
  6. Cantrell, R., & Sewell, C. (2015). Decision-Ade: An innovative process for segmenting U.S. homeowners by utility-bill “botheredness” and budget constraints. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 21(3), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caughlin, J., Huston, T., & Houts, R. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Divorce Rates by State 1990, 1995, and 1999-2015. Retrieved October 10, 2017 from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/state_divorce_rates_90_95_99-15.pdf
  9. Dyk, P. (2004). Complexity of family life among low-income and working poor: Introduction to the special issue. Family Relations, 53(2), 122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fabi, V., Andersen, R., Corgnati, S., & Olesen, B. (2012). Occupants’ window opening behaviour: A literature review of factors influencing occupant behaviour and models. Building and Environment, 58, 188–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fan, A., Prescott, M., Zhao, G., Gotway, C., & Galea, S. (2015). Individual and community-level determinants of mental and physical health after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Findings from the Gulf States Population Survey. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 42(1), 23–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-014-9418-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fincham, F., & Beach, S. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 630–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedmann, A. (2003). Building communities of participation through student advancement programs: A first step towards relationship fund raising (Doctoral dissertation). Williamsburg: College of William and Mary.Google Scholar
  14. Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital process and marital outcomes. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Gottman, J., Katz, L., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Gottman, J., & Notarius, C. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 927–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grafova, I. (2007). Your money or your life: Managing money, managing health. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28(2), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, V., Schramm, D., Marshall, J., & Lee, T. (2012). Marital quality, context, and interaction: A comparison of those currently receiving government assistance with those who are not. Marriage & Family Review, 48(4), 386–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hawthorne, H. (2002). Quality of life assessment and people living with psychosis. Journal of Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 14, 510–518.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, C., Stanley, S., Glenn, N., Amato, P., Nock, S., Markman, H., et al. (2002). Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 Baseline statewide survey on marriage and divorce (S02096OKDHS). Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  21. Julien, D., Markman, H., & Lindahl, K. (1989). A comparison of a global and microanalytic coding system: Implications for future trends in studying interactions. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 81–100.Google Scholar
  22. Kohm, L., & Toberty, R. (2012). A fifty-state survey of the cost of family fragmentation. Regent University Law Review, 25(25), 25–88.Google Scholar
  23. Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95–102.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landsea, C. (2015). How Many Direct Hits by Hurricanes of Various Categories Have Affected Each State? Hurricane Research Division of NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory. Retrieved September 9, 2017 from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E19.html
  25. Laska, S., & Morrow, B. (2006). Social vulnerabilities and hurricane Katrina: An unnatural disaster in New Orleans. Marine Technology Society Journal, 40(4), 16–26.  https://doi.org/10.4031/002533206787353123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Notarius, C., & Markman, H. (1989). Coding marital interaction: A sampling and discussion of current issues. Special issue: Coding marital interaction. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 1–11.Google Scholar
  27. Peacock, W., Brody, S., & Highfield, W. (2005). Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida’s single-family homeowners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(2–3), 120–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Presser, H. (2000). Nonstandard work schedules and marital instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers, E. (1971). Diffusion of innovations (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Scafidi, B. (2008). The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing. Institute for a Marriage and Public Policy. Retrieved May 5, 2018 from: https://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/The-Taxpayer-Costs-of-Divorce.pdf
  35. Schramm, D. (2009). Counting the costs of divorce: What those who know better rarely acknowledge. Retrieved November 3, 2018 from: http://familyinamerica.org/journals/fall-2009/counting-cost-divorce-what-those-who-know-better-rarely-acknowledge/
  36. Schramm, D., Marshall, J., Harris, V., & George, A. (2003). Marriage in Utah: 2003 baseline statewide survey on marriage and divorce. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Workforce Services.Google Scholar
  37. Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  39. White, L., & Rogers, S. (2000). Economic circumstances and family outcomes: A review of the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1035–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Family, Youth and Community SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations