Urbanism and Social Psychological Well-Being: A Cross-Cultural Test of Three Theories*

Three competing theories of how urbanism affects social-psychological well-being are tested using data from London, England; Los Angeles, California; and Sydney, Australia. Path analyses are conducted using visiting friends, visiting kin, and marriage companionship in the different paths. It is found that determinist theory can be rejected because most-urban people do not have fewer social relations than less-urban people; in fact, they may have more. Subcultural theory received some weak but mixed support, and compositionalist theory generally is not supported. The three metropolitan areas do not differ markedly from each other in the paths they show. The best predictor of well-being is the quality of people's social relationships.     

Effects of urbanism,race, and class on happiness and physical health

The joint effects of urbanism, race, and socioeconomic status on self reported health and happiness are studied. Relationships of “neighborhood fear” and unemployment with health and happiness are also studied within different urban/rural race‐class categories. It is hypothesized that 1) lower socioeconomic status (SES) blacks residing in central cities will report the poorest health and lowest happiness and 2) “neighborhood fear” and unemployment will be most strongly related to health and happiness among central city lower SES blacks. The sample is pooled data from the 1972–1983 National Opinion Research Center (NORC) General Social Surveys. Findings indicate that urbanism has a modest negative relationship to happiness, but low SES urban blacks are not uniquely low in happiness. Contrary to the central city hypothesis, neighborhood fear is most strongly related to health among suburban blacks with less than high school or high school graduation attainment. A relative deprivation explanation is advanced. Unemployment negatively relates to the happiness of blacks and whites in a variety of urban‐SES‐race categories.