Keywords

A number of studies have indicated that some individuals have a strong sense of attachment to a particular region or area and are reluctant to move to another location, regardless of how bad their situation there becomes (e.g., Frieze, Hansen, & Boneva, 2006). Others are dissatisfied with their situation and seek opportunities to leave, even when others are content to stay (Carr, Chap. 7, this volume; Inkson & Thorn, this volume). This latter group has been described as having a “migrant personality” (e.g., Boneva & Frieze, 2001). As others have noted (Tartakovsky & Schwartz, 2001), deficiency models that argue it is the most desperate individuals who leave for another region have not received strong empirical support. Geographically mobile individuals are often found to have higher levels of skills or education than those who have decided not to leave, even when conditions are quite bad in the home region (Boneva & Frieze, 2001; Tartakovsky & Schwartz, 2001). Thus, it does appear that if we want to understand individual mobility choices, we need to analyze the underlying personality of the person.

In this chapter, we review studies about the characteristics of those who want to move to another region or who actually do so, and argue that these characteristics form what might be labeled as forming a “mobile personality.” We also analyze those who might be described as having a non-mobile personality, or as having a strong place attachment. This term draws on studies of those who do and do not move from one country to another as well as studies of “internal migration,” within a region or country. As others have noted (e.g., Whitfield, Zhu, Heath, & Martin, 2005), very similar decision-making may occur in the decision to move to another country or to another region of a large country such as the United States or Australia. We also look briefly at sojourners who leave one region and move to another with the expectation of a relatively brief stay, to achieve educational or training goals, for example, and at people who like to travel for vacation or leisure. We argue that the same types of personality factors may be associated with all of these types of mobility.

The Mobile Personality

One of the common characteristics among those who desire to “emigrate” or who have actually moved from one region to another is that they are dissatisfied with their present location (Boneva & Frieze, 2001; Silventoinen et al., 2007; Tartakovsky & Schwartz, 2001). As we discuss below, this dissatisfaction can have many sources. An important source may be based on frustration of basic motives. We argue that wanting to change one’s life to better satisfy basic motives underlies many decisions about mobility.

Motivation and the Mobile Personality

According to McClelland (1987), a major motivation theorist, three basic motives that drive human behavior are achievement motivation, affiliation motivation, and power motivation. Evidence has been found that each of these may be related to mobility, although in different ways. We suspect that other basic motives are also involved, although we are not aware of strong empirical support for other motives. As will be discussed later on in the chapter, both achievement and power motivation appear to be especially associated with the mobile personality. The role of affiliation motivation is more complex, but is often correlated positively with place attachment or negatively with mobile personality.

Achievement Motivation

Achievement motivation is the desire to do things well, work hard, and compete with others, and has been associated with economic success both in the individual and for entire regions with high concentrations of those with high achievement motivation (McClelland, 1961, 1987). People who have higher achievement motivation are more likely to have a stronger belief in their own abilities and are more likely to work harder after failure; starting one’s own business or other entrepreneurial activities are also associated with achievement motivation (McClelland, 1987). They are also believed to be “more restless and avoid routine” (McClelland, 1987, p. 249). Therefore, they may also be more innovative and may more actively seek out information that can help them do things better or give them information about where they will move.

Some of the earliest research on the “migrant” personality looked at the role of achievement motivation, and many studies have supported the theory that achievement motivation is a predictor of actual mobility and of desires to move from one place to another. For example, Matter (1977) found that during periods of economic decline and stability (but not during periods of economic improvement), overall levels of achievement motivation were lower among those remaining in the community than for those who left the same community. These data were interpreted by Matter as indicating that those with higher levels of achievement motivation left for better opportunities when the community was declining. The assumption was that when a region is suffering economically, there are relatively few opportunities for the satisfaction of achievement motivation through work or entrepreneurial activities.

Other research also supports an association between achievement motivation and movement into a new country. High levels of achievement motivation have been associated with Japanese new settlers into the United States (Caudill & DeVos, 1956) and Korean (DeVos, 1983). Others have found supporting evidence of a relationship between mobility into the U.S. specifically higher levels of achievement motivation among Mexican new settlers (Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 1995), and also among students intending to leave Jamaica (Tidrick, 1971).

Building on these ideas, Frieze and her colleagues have looked at outward mobility desires in a large sample of Central and Eastern European university students. Surveys of students in this region included a question about where they wanted to live the majority of their adult lives. Those who indicated that they wanted to live in another country were classified as having “emigration desires,” and were compared to those wanting to live in the same region where they were studying. During the early and mid-1990s, when these regions were in economic decline as they moved from state-sponsored economies to market economies, higher levels of achievement motivation were found in those wanting to leave these relatively economically depressed areas than those who wanted to stay (Boneva et al., 1997; Boneva, 1998). However, in a later sample from these same regions, as well as from Russia, another formerly socialist country, achievement motivation levels alone did not predict “emigration desires” (Frieze et al., 2004). Instead, an interaction between achievement motivation and work centrality was significant. This was interpreted as indicating that only those high in both achievement motivation and work centrality were interested in outward mobility at this time. Such an interpretation is consistent with the motive frustration theory of mobility desires. If we assume that there were ways to satisfy achievement motivation through non-work activities in the original region, there would be no desire for outward mobility. We are suggesting that those high in work centrality are the most likely to want to move away for economic reasons if they also have high achievement motivation. As we discuss later, the interaction of power motivation and work centrality may also be predictive of desires to emigrate. Since the pattern of international mobility is so often from economically disadvantaged regions to countries where there are many relatively high paying jobs, it appears that frustrated achievement motivation and high work centrality may be one of the most common forms of the mobile personality (Boneva et al., 1997, 1998).

We have also looked at personality factors in internal new settlement desires within the United States. We have been asking college students about their desires to move from Pittsburgh, a region of low economic growth, to other parts of the United States, using the same question about where they ideally wanted to live most of their adult lives. Data were collected in most years starting from 1991 and ending in 2004. In analyzing these data, comparing those who wanted to leave with those who did not, we found no significant difference in achievement motivation between the groups. This might be explained by the fact that sports participation or hobbies or playing Internet games would all be possible outlets for the expression of achievement motivation. Such activities would be available in Pittsburgh just as well as other regions of the United States.

Power Motivation

In addition to frustrated achievement motivation creating a push factor in desires to emigrate, our research has suggested that power motivation appears to be another important motivation related to desires to emigrate. The power motive is associated with desires to take on leadership roles, and a concern with having control over others or with being able to impact the lives of others. Those high in power motivation tend to be risk takers (McAdams, 1988; McClelland, 1987). They also tend to seek prestige, behave so they will be recognized in groups (McClelland, 1987), and make themselves known to other people (Winter, 1973). However, they have also been found to be associated with more aggressive acts and more assertive and negative self-views (McClelland, 1987; Winter, 1973).

As with achievement motivation, in regions suffering economic problems, those with high power motivation may feel that they are not able to express this motivation in their lives, especially if they also place a high value on work (Frieze et al., 2004). In regions with many work opportunities, management and government jobs are often chosen by those with high power motivation. Power motivation also tends to be high in professions that allow one to impact others through helping. Such jobs would include clergy and therapists of all types (Frieze & Boneva, 2001; Winter, 1973, 1993). When such jobs are not available or are extremely difficult to obtain, power motivation is frustrated, and people high in this motive may seek to move to another region where their power motivation can be more easily expressed.

This hypothesized association of power motivation with international mobility desires has been tested in a series of studies using samples of university students in Central and Eastern Europe during the period of transition from communist economies to market economies described earlier (Boneva et al., 1997, 1998; Frieze et al., 2004) as well as in studies of place attachment in U.S students (Frieze et al., 2006). These studies have provided some empirical support for the ideas. In the 2004 study (Frieze et al., 2004), power was found to be a more important predictor of international mobility desires than achievement motivation.

Affiliation Motivation

The third of McClelland’s three basic motives is affiliation motivation. This is defined as the desire to form and maintain relationships with other people. Those high in affiliation motivation are unhappy when separated from friends and family. People with high affiliation motivation perform better when affiliative incentives are given for performance. For example, high affiliation motivation students perform better when teachers are warm and friendly (McClelland, 1987). High affiliation motivation people are also quicker in acquiring social relationships. They put more effort into maintaining social networks, such as visiting their friends more often (McClelland, 1987; Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). They are found to be more cooperative, tend to avoid conflict and are more likely to conform. Finally they are also found to have more fear of rejection, and in spite of their strong desire to have friends, they are not necessarily popular or successful in connecting with other people (McClelland, 1987).

In general, we argue that mobility decisions are related in a negative way to affiliation motivation, such that those who are high in affiliation motivation would be less interested in wanting to move to another region than those low in this motive (Carr, Chapter 7, this volume). We see high affiliation motivation as also being related to place attachment, a concept discussed below.

Empirical support for these expected relationships between new settlement desires and affiliation motivation have been mixed. Ali and Toner (2001), comparing women who immigrated into Canada with a comparison group of women who remained in their Caribbean homes, found that those who had left placed a lower value on their interpersonal relationships. This is consistent with the idea of lower affiliation motivation in those who are more mobile. Also, data collected from Albanian college students in 1996 indicated that men with high affiliation motivation had less interest in emigrating from Albania than men with low affiliation motivation, but there was no effect of affiliation motivation for women (Boneva et al., 1998). A similar finding, of feeling that their affiliative needs were not being met in their present location being related to intentions to want to move, was reported by DeJong (2000) for men in Thailand, but not for women. If this gender difference continues to replicate in other studies, it may suggest that affiliative needs are related in complex ways to gender roles and mobility and that men and women need to be considered separately in such studies.

One reason that theories related to affiliation may not be supported in recent studies is that mobility, even to another country, may not strongly disrupt relationships with friends and family. Owusu (2003) finds that recent new settlers into Canada from Africa are able to use electronic means to stay in touch with family and friends from the home region. This may suggest that place attachment and affiliation motivation may become less important as inhibitors to human mobility in future years.

Place Attachment

Place attachment has been identified as a psychological involvement associated with the home and region in which one lives (Gustafson, 2001; Low & Altman, 1994). Place attachment is quite common. It is assumed to be predictive of wanting to stay in a particular region rather than wanting to move away from it (e.g., Gustafson, 2001). One of the first studies of place attachment was done by Low and Altman (1994). Although much of this work has focused on why certain types of environments are seen as more desirable, with many having strong feelings of attachment to a particular location (e.g., Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004; Low & Altman, 1994), there are always individual differences among those in desirable and less desirable areas. Thus, like desires to be mobile, place attachment can be seen as a function of the person as well as of the environment (Frieze et al., 2006). It is assumed that those who are less attached would be most likely to want to leave (van Ecke, 2005).

It is not difficult to find evidence that people tend to feel more comfortable and secure in familiar locations (Manzo, 2003; Schumacher & Taylor, 1983). Those with especially strong place attachments are likely to feel “homesick” when away (Fisher, 1989). Attachment to home is often based on feelings of closeness to family and friends, but can also extend to an emotional tie to the actual physical environment (McAndrew, 1998). Such ties may be so strong that people refuse to relocate, even when faced with losing their jobs (Turban, Campion, & Eyring, 1992).

A study of place attachment among students at the University of Pittsburgh indicated that about a third of the students desired to live their adult lives in the Pittsburgh area (Frieze et al., 2006). Thus, a relatively high proportion of this young adult sample would be classified as having place attachment. This high place attachment group was more often female than male. They were also characterized by being more likely to feel that their family was central to them, while they scored lower on work centrality. Place attachment was also associated with higher levels of affiliation motivation, a desire to have many friends and placing a high value on establishing and maintaining relationships with others. Place attachment among this student group was also higher for women who wanted more children than for women wanting fewer children. However, desires for children did not predict place attachment in men.

Deciding Where and When to Go

An important question that arises once someone has decided that he or she wants to relocate and move to another region within the country, or even to another country, is where to go. We argue that this choice will depend on many factors. As with place attachment, some locations are generally more desirable than others, both because they offer many positive features, and also because they are more welcoming of incoming new settlers (Dovidio & Esses, 2001). People do appear to seek a particular area within the new region that fits their sense of place. Thus, people who feel more at home in urban areas choose to live in the city in their new home, while others may choose to live outside the city (Feldman, 1990). Like place attachment, however, the choice is also dependent on the motivations and desires of the individual (Fawcett, 1985). Settlers into a new country are seeking a “better” life (Van der Veer, Ommundsen, Krumov, Van Le, & Larsen, 2008), but each individual defines “better” in his or her unique way. Those seeking better work opportunities might make very different choices than those wanting to reunite with family. Jokela, Elovainio, Kivimäki, and Keltkangas-Järvinen (2008) have found that people who are more sociable are more likely than others to move from a less to a more urban area. In general, settlers into a new country appear to be more likely to move to large cities (e.g., Hyndman, Schuurman, & Fiedler, 2006), possibly because there are more opportunities for motive satisfaction in larger urban areas.

Although, generally, people do act on their intentions or desires (Ajzen, 1991; Perugini & Conner, 2000), there is also data indicating that there is not always a direct relationship between stated desires to move and actually doing so (Lu, 1999). For example, Lu found that younger individuals were more likely to act on their desires to move than older individuals, and that renters were more likely to follow through on planned moves than homeowners. These data may suggest that those with more obligations and perhaps with more highly developed place attachments had stronger barriers to overcome in leaving.

There may also be gender differences in motives for international mobility, although we have found no gender differences in predictors of international mobility decisions in our own work. We do often find that men and women differ on some of the predictors of general mobility desires, though. For example, in our sample of Pittsburgh students wanting to stay or leave Pittsburgh, Frieze et al. (2006) found that men were higher in achievement motivation and work centrality than women, and women were higher in affiliation motivation. These types of gender differences might lead to men being more likely overall to move internationally, as was the case in this sample. Derwing and Krahn (2008) found that the large majority of a sample of primarily women new settlers into Alberta, Canada, came because of family and friends telling them about it. About a third cited economic reasons for coming and about the same percentage mentioned joining family and friends as a factor. Within the sample, women were relatively more likely to mention family and friends while men more often mentioned economic reasons to come to this economically successful region.

Reasons for new settlement may relate to adaptation in the region where people have relocated. Our analysis would suggest that these relationships would be complex and that adaptation would relate not only to reasons for relocating, but also to whether or not the new home provides opportunities for satisfaction of the motives that drove the initial mobility decision.

Temporary Mobility: Sojourners and Enjoyment of Leisure Travel

Some of the ideas presented in this chapter about the mobile personality may also apply to temporary travelers of all kinds. Diverse areas of research have examined many types of people who move or travel from one area to another. This would include sojourners, tourists and seasonal workers. Others who travel are the elderly who move from one region of the country and then back as the seasons change and those with second homes. It has been suggested that even those who travel to conferences or conventions might share some common personality characteristics with people who relocate more permanently to another country (Bell & Ward, 2000).

Sojourners are defined as people who live at least 6 months in a foreign country (Church, 1982). There are many reasons that people may choose a brief move. For example, sojourners can be business managers, international students, tourists, missionaries, or military staff (Berlin & David, 1971). Different kinds of sojourners are believed to be very different, especially in their perception of and involvement with the host culture (Navara & James, 2002). For example, Navara and James (2002) suggested that students may be on one end of wanting to become involved with the host culture, while military personnel may have no contact with the host culture at all. The abundant financial resources of business managers may make them different than other groups of sojourners and may mean that they have less involvement with the host culture and have more opportunities to continue ties with friends and family in the area they have left.

People who enjoy leisure travel to different regions might also share some of the characteristics of those who move internationally more permanently. Studies segmenting tourism motivation point to the same basic motives that were discussed in the beginning of the chapter as motivating some tourism. For example, Dann (1977) argued that people travel because they are frustrated about the “anomie society” (p. 187) or any situations in their homes that are unsatisfactory. This acts as a push factor for people to seek what they cannot achieve in their home. Economic instability or even their unfulfilled needs of social interaction could motivate them to travel away from their perceived “anomie society”. Dann also argued that in order to fulfill their need to be recognized or the need for higher status, people may use travel as a strategy for ego-enhancement, which is a characteristic of those high in power motivation.

In an interview study, Crompton (1979) reported that participants expressed the idea of wanting to escape from their mundane environment, regardless of the living environment of their home places, to fulfill their need to achieve. In the same study, interviewees also showed high power motivation when they reported that traveling helps them gain prestige, although this motivation fades away as they travel more. They also reported wanting to explore their self, which may be a characteristic of power or achievement motivation. Interviewees also expressed using leisure travel to enhance kinship relationships or facilitate social interaction, a way to fulfill affiliation motivation.

Other studies also find evidence for the motivations underlying various types of new settlement or travel discussed earlier. Although researchers often associate achievement needs and desires for better employment with permanent settlement into another country or region, Bell and Ward (2000) argue that this is not necessarily true. Short-term travel for business or travel for seasonal work is clearly work-related. Studies of tourists conducted in Kenya (Beh & Bruyere, 2007), Japan (Sangpikul, 2008) and the Philippines (de Guzman, Leones, Tapia, Wong, & de Castro,, 2006) have identified motivations such as ego-enhancement, personal growth, rest and relaxation, socialization and family togetherness, novelty seeking, escaping and learning. McHugh and Mings (1996) suggest that the need for autonomy is a strong reason for the elderly to move from their homes to a different region on a seasonal basis. By doing this, they are less dependent on their children. This desire for autonomy is associated with power motivation in theoretical research (McClelland, 1975). Werker and Ahmed (2008) discuss the many challenges experienced by those with strong altruistic desires who work in NGOs in very difficult environments. This desire to help others is associated with power motivation (Frieze & Boneva, 2001).

Motivations to travel do not necessarily mean that people are low in place attachment. In an interview study, Gustafson (2001) found that people who like to travel see this as interesting and exciting. It appears that they like learning new things, a characteristic of those with high achievement motivation. The idea of seeing things from a new perspective was also mentioned in the interviews. This might well be something that would be of interest to those with high power motivation. The same respondent said that living in one place and never moving “was for those who knew their place, literally as well as metaphorically. They were satisfied with what they had…” (Gustafson, 2001, pp. 675–676). Several of the interviewees in this study reported that they had a strong attachment to their homes and where they lived, but they also found that travel to other regions was interesting. Such individuals might be high in achievement, power, and affiliation motivation, or, as McHugh and Mings (1996) suggest temporary mobility or travel may be a way of satisfying needs that are not being met in the home area, without having to disrupt feelings of strong place attachment.

There appears to be a growing consensus that some of the same factors underlie all types of travel or more permanent forms of mobility, global and regional (Bell & Ward, 2000; McHugh & Mings, 1996). Although sojourners are seen as moving from one region to another to achieve temporary goals, many people who are later classified as “immigrants” and who end up remaining in their “migrant” destination as new settlers, came originally as sojourners (Gans, 1999). This would further support our suggestion that some of the personality factors associated with desires for the relatively durable forms of mobility may also be found in at least some types of sojourners.

We are not assuming that all those who travel do so to satisfy unfulfilled achievement, power or affiliation motivation. If students go to study in another region at the insistence of their parents rather than out of personal choice, they would not necessarily demonstrate a mobile personality, since they might have quite different motives for moving to another region (Chirkov, Vansteenkiste, Tao, & Lynch, 2007). Although Chirkov and his colleagues focus on the desires of the student to become involved with the culture of the host location, we would argue that another major concern in analyzing why students move to a new region is what they hope to accomplish in the host location. A number of studies have indicated that the type of acculturation motive affects the adjustment of foreign students (Coelho, 1958; Kim, 2001; Selltiz & Cook, 1962; Selltiz, Crist, Havel, & Cook,, 1963), but to our knowledge the basic motivation for moving has not been directly examined in these studies.

Policy and Research Implications

Personality and Mobility

We have presented one type of theoretical framework for looking at mobility and place attachment. Others have investigated other types of underlying personality factors. Some people appear to simply desire change and have been found to be likely to make major moves more than once in their lives (Jennings, 1970; Jokela et al., 2008). Although this personality characteristic has not been well studied, it appears to relate more to a desire for new experiences than to frustration of basic motives. Of course, this desire is associated with achievement motivation.

Another widely studied personality characteristic that may be related to this desire for change is sensation seeking. This is defined as the preference for changing, new and intense sensational experiences (Zuckerman, 1994). It also refers to people’s disposition to expose themselves to risks, such as physical, financial and social risks in order to gain the experiences. Sensation seeking has been associated with people who move from high income locations (van Dalen & Henkens, 2007), an atypical form of mobility since this involves moving from a highly desirable region. Such movement is not easily attributed to achievement, power, or affiliation motivation and appears to have a different underlying basis. We further suggest that this desire for change may lead to a desire for recreational travel in those with strong place attachment, although we can find no empirical studies that have examined this question.

Using Schwartz’s (1994) theory of basic human values, Tartakovsky and Schwartz (2001) have found that potential new settlers into Russia were motivated by one or more of three basic types of values. The first value they labeled “preservation”; this variable included concerns about the situation in Russia as well as desires to be reunited with family. The second value was “self-development”, which appeared to have many of the elements that would be associated with achievement motivation, such as interests in another culture or looking for new academic opportunities. The third value was “materialism”, which was associated with wanting a better financial situation. Further research is needed to determine if these values can be mapped onto the motivational framework presented in this chapter; or if these represent additional basic motivations for mobility.

In looking at internal mobility within Finland, Jokela and his colleagues (Jokela et al., 2008) found that those who were more sociable were more likely to relocate to urban areas, while less sociable individuals tended to move to rural areas. They also reported that those higher in activity levels were more likely to move, independently of the region selected. These characteristics are not clearly related to the motivational analysis developed in this chapter, although higher levels of activity have been related to achievement motivation (McClelland, 1987). It is clear that personality factors underlying mobility are complex, and need more study.

In another study that attempted to use mathematical techniques to identify different underlying personality factors for mobility, Jackson et al. (2005), in a sample of those who had emigrated from New Zealand, identified many of the same types of factors discussed earlier. One important factor that served to link people to home was ties with friends and family. Career and economic concerns were more related to reasons for leaving New Zealand. As Jackson and his colleagues noted, if New Zealand wants to bring some of the highly skilled expatriated New Zealanders back home, they will have to find ways to better satisfy these career needs as well as affiliation needs.

Adaptation and Mobility

A major policy concern for those who work with mobile people of all types, from sojourners to new settlers into a host country or society is how well these individuals adapt to their new environment. There appear to be many sources of stress for these people, especially those who move from one country to another. One is discrimination by the native-born population (e.g., Dovidio & Esses, 2001; Hallak & Quina, 2004). Another is that changes in lifestyle may lead to changes in gender roles and in the relations between the husband and wife (e.g., Parrado, Flippen, McQuiston, 2005). Some of these sojourner studies assume that sojourners generally go through a universal process of adaptation, regardless of their personality or motivation for coming (e.g. Berry, this volume; Furnham, this volume; Hammer, 1992; James, Hunsley, Navara, & Alles, 2004; Tsai, 1995). However, these studies do recognize some factors associated with sojourners’ adaptation, such as marital satisfaction with their partners (James et al., 2004), attitudes towards the host culture (Tsai, 1995), interpersonal competence and prejudice experienced (Kuo & Roysircar, 2006).

An often-cited statistic is that it is not unusual for new settlers to be economically successful in their new home. This economic success has been primarily associated with new settlers described as having a high “need for success” as compared to those who have left their home country for political reasons (e.g., Winter-Ebmer, 1994). Such data are quite consistent with our earlier analysis that those high in achievement motivation are especially likely to want to leave in order to find better opportunities for economic success or other forms of achievement. The finding that one of the “biggest problems” that Canadian new settlers encountered in their new community was difficulty finding decent employment (Derwing & Krahn, 2008) is also consistent with the idea that many new settlers come hoping for economic success and satisfaction of achievement or power motivation, through work (Podsiadlowski & Ward, this volume). Since it appears that economic success is so important to new settlers, it is not surprising that many of them might be disappointed not to find the level of success they were hoping for, and, hence, the disappointment in not finding “decent” work (Carr, Chapter 7, this volume).

We would argue that a key factor that studies of adaptation have ignored is the underlying reasons for the decision to move countries. People who change countries to unite with family who have previously moved to another location may have very different reasons for adapting to their new home than someone coming because of frustrated achievement motivation or power motivation. It is interesting to note that one of the reasons that highly-skilled information technology workers who have relocated to California in the United States become dissatisfied, and may return to their original home region, is their frustration over discrimination and lack of promotion to higher management positions (Alarcon, 1999). This can easily be interpreted as frustration of the power or achievement motivation that led to the original mobility.

Studies of adaptation sometimes consider the children of the mobile. Children of parents who have immigrated into a new country often report social and school-related concerns (e.g., Gun & Bayraktar, 2008). The theoretical framework developed in this chapter would suggest that children should not be combined with their parents as one sample (of “Im/migrants”). As we have argued, mobile adults are seen as choosing to move for personal reasons related to satisfaction of basic motives. Their adaptation would relate to whether or not these motives are satisfied in their new location. The situation for children is quite different, since they have not moved out of personal choice. And, indeed, studies that have compared the mental health of these children with their mobile parents do find differences. For example, in a study of Australian new settlers and their children, the mental health of the children was more comparable to that of native-born Australians than to their parents (Alati, Naiman, Shuttlewood, Williams, & Bor, 2003).

Effects of Leaving on the Home Country

As discussed earlier, not everyone leaves a country, no matter how bad the conditions. It appears to be those who have the money and skills to move who are more likely to leave their home country and move to another country or region (Boneva & Frieze, 2001; Fang, 2006; Jackson et al., 2005). This leaves the original country with a “brain drain” as some of those who might be best suited to help develop the country are the ones most likely to leave. McClelland (1961) pointed to an association between levels of achievement motivation in a country and economic development in his early writings. If countries such as New Zealand want to bring back some of their own, the theoretical arguments presented here suggest that greater efforts will need to be made to provide more opportunities for the expressions of achievement and power motivation (see Inkson et al., 2007). Since it is young adults who are the most likely to emigrate (Bell & Ward, 2000), such efforts will need to be especially directed toward this population.

Policy Implications

As we have suggested, new settlers can be highly beneficial to a receiving country. In order to enhance this process, our analysis has suggested several concrete policy implications:

  1. 1.

    Overcoming prejudice against new settlers. Since negative reactions of those in the receiving country or region can be quite destructive and may even cause new settlers to return to their original region, it is important to provide positive information about new settlers to the public, especially to individuals with direct contact. Making people more aware of the fact that new settlers come for very good reasons and can benefit the society might help overcome prejudicial attitudes. There is a large body of work on this type of prejudice that is beyond the scope of this chapter to review. For example, see special issues of the Journal of Social Issues published in 2001 and 2008 (Esses, Dovidio, & Dion, 2001; Zick, Pettigrew, & Wagner, 2008).

  2. 2.

    Assistance to new settlers in finding appropriate employment. As much as possible, our analysis would suggest that it is employment assistance that would be most helpful to new settlers.

  3. 3.

    Attracting new settlers. Potential new settlers who are already experiencing frustration in the expression of their achievement and/or power motivation at home, and who are high in work centrality, could be targeted with information about good job opportunities in the receiving region.

  4. 4.

    Emigration policies should limit family members who can accompany the primary new settler. We have focused in this chapter on those who seek to move/relocate in order to fulfill their own needs for achievement and power. Such new settlers can be considered primary new settlers. Others who come with them may not have these same motivational needs. Allowing large family groups to accompany the primary new settler may not be beneficial to the receiving society (see Boneva & Frieze, 2001, for more discussion of this issue).

Directions for Future Research

The ideas proposed in this chapter, although based on empirical research data, are quite preliminary. We would argue that it is especially important to use a well-grounded theoretical framework in attempting to study global (and regional) mobility. We have proposed one such framework – based on relatively mobile personality traits – but we suspect there are many others that might serve equally well. Researchers and policy makers also need more data on the psychological factors relating to why people choose to leave one region and move to another. We also need better data to determine if the ideas proposed here, that the same basic motivations underlie all types of mobility, are valid. As such studies are done, it will be important to determine if men and women do move for the same reasons, and if different cultural groups indeed have the same basic motives for their mobility.