1

The Place Attachments of College Students

Deborah Tuggy

Grove City College

2

The Place Attachments of College Students

ABSTRACT

This study supports and expands Cross’ interactional framework of place attachments, which explores how people form place attachments through interaction with others and places over time. She proposes that place attachments are formed through seven distinct processes through which are unique in nature and develop differently over space and time on the individual, group, or cultural level. This study expands Cross’ research by exploring the place attachments of college students, who are in a transitory stage of life. In addition, it responds to several of Cross’ suggestions for future research by looking at the historic process in greater depth, by noting the role of social relationships in the formation of place attachments, and by looking at the impact of negative emotion on place attachments.

Key words

Place attachment; college; processes of place attachment; interactional processes

3

The Place Attachments of College Students

THE STUDY

Jennifer Eileen Cross recently published a study in the Journal of Symbolic

Interactionism called “Processes of Place Attachment: An Interactional Framework”

which explored how people form place attachments through interaction with others

and places over time. She discovered that attachments to place are built through

seven processes: sensory, narrative, historical, spiritual, ideological, commodifying,

and material dependence. These attachments are unique in nature and develop

differently over space and time on the individual, group, or cultural level. Her study

did not, however, look at the dynamic of place attachments during transitory stages

of life, such as college. As a college student myself, I saw potential in exploring this

aspect of place attachments. College is a weird in-between time in life where

students leave home with the goal of earning a degree to start their career in the real

world. It plays a huge role in the development of the self for many people but no one

has investigated how going to college impacts place attachments.

Therefore, I decided to study place attachments during college. I hypothesize

that I will find evidence to support Cross’ processes of place attachment, and also

that for people in a transitory stage of life these processes will function differently

than they do for those in more stable times in life such as childhood or settled adults.

The purpose of this study, therefore, is to discover the nature of these differences in

attachment to place.

Before delving into this study, it is necessary to define place and place

attachment. According to Cross, place is “space that has been imbued with meaning

through personal, group, and cultural processes” (Low and Altman 1992). Secondly,

Place attachment is a “positive, affective bond people form with particular places

4

where they feel comfortable and safe and desire to maintain their connection” (Cross

2015; Hidalgo and Hernandez 2001; Low 1992). From a “constructivist approach,”

Cross argues that “place attachment is the interactional processes of associating

place with meanings and emotional affection which may occur at the individual,

group, or cultural level.”

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This study is largely based on the work of Jennifer Eileen Cross, “Processes of

Place Attachment: An Interactional Framework.” Cross’ findings expand on previous

research by proposing a comprehensive framework of the multiple individual and

cultural processes through which place attachments are formed and maintained,

which no one had done before. In the past, researchers of different disciplines had

established how place attachments are “establish, maintained, and recreated.” Cross

conducts a thorough review of the literature which describes how these various

disciplines have expanded the research on place attachments.

Place Attachments as Dynamic Experiences

The first discipline which is interested in place attachment theories are the

phenomenologists. They do not see science as objective but examine the dynamic

processes of experience and consciousness. Thus, their theory of place attachment is

the most process-oriented (Cross 2015).

David Seamon (1979, 2014) argues that place attachments develop through

the process of what he calls, “body-ballet”, or moving the body across space and

time while using language to give meaning to sensory experiences. Thus the

processes of place attachment come through sensory experience, association of

identity with place, and committing to care for place. Two similar additional

processes are that of place creation, which changes a place in positive ways through

5

the actions of people and place intensification which strengthens place through the

independent power of policy, design, and fabrication.

Manzo (2003) found that “people’s emotional relationship to places (1)

encompass a broad range of places and emotions, (2) are dynamic and ever-

changing, and (3) exist within a larger sociopolitical milieu.” Positive experiences

create attachment because of the “desire to maintain connection to a place and the

senses of safety and comfort” (Hernández et al.2007).

In contrast, negative experiences also impact place attachments. Cross

argues through a review of the literature that “changes in life course (Rubinstein and

Parmelee 1992) or (involuntary) changes in place (Erikson 1976; Fried 1963; Manzo,

Kleit, and Couch 2008; Milligan 1998) can disrupt place attachments.” Brown and

Perkins (1992) advanced this idea by exploring the difference between voluntary and

involuntary disruptions. They found that often, “voluntary disruptions in place are

associated with increased place attachments while involuntary disruptions create a

sense of loss and diminished attachments.”

Cross summarizes all of these studies saying that they show how place

attachments are dynamic and changing as the conditions and meanings about those

conditions change (Devine-Wright 2011; Milligan 1998).

Discursive and Constructive Perspectives

The discursive perspective focuses attention on the interactional nature of

place attachment processes through which “place meanings are collectively created,

shared, and maintained (Auburn and Barnes 2006; Di Masso, Dixon, and

Durrheim 2014).

6

Di Masso, Dixon, and Durrheim (2014) posited that place attachments are

formed linguistically through interaction with individuals who “co-construct the

meaning of places and person-place relationships.” These discursive processes of

place attachment form person-place bonds which are “(1) created through

interaction as people routinely talk about themselves in places, (2) used to

accomplish various kinds of social and rhetorical work, and (3) are entwined with

other ideological traditions that are used to justify sociospatial entitlements” (Di

Masso, Dixon, and Durrheim 2014; Dixon and Durrheim 2000).

Per Gustafson (2001a) suggested a process oriented definition of place

attachment in which “a meaningful place appears as a process, where various

individual (and collective) projects converge and/or compete with other projects, with

external events, and with the course of time” (Gustafson 2001a:13).

Cross summarizes these studies saying that “place attachments are formed

through personal stories about place as well as ideological traditions that make

normative claims about place and who belongs. By examining the narrative, cultural,

and ideological processes of place construction, these theorists are shifting the focus

from individual experience to the narrative practices used to create, maintain, and

challenge place attachments.”

Types of Attachment

Setha Low (1992) identified six distinct cultural place attachments processes –

genealogical, narrative, loss and destruction, economic, celebratory cultural events,

and cosmological – which he argued are distinct processes that “occur together in

time and space and experience.”

7

Robert Hay (1998) looked at the various gradations of the historic process of

place attachment: personal, familial, ancestral, and cultural. Other studies explore

the narrative process which individuals create a “sense of belonging and identity to

places” by learning “about the history of a place, the cultural meanings of that place,

their place as individuals in both the landscape and the culture, and stake a claim

about their membership in community” (Basso 1996; Dominy 2001; Sampson and

Goodrich 2009; Cresswell 1996).

Cross concludes her literature review by explaining that “these recent studies

confirm Low's argument that there are several processes shaping place attachment,

and support the constructivist view that place attachments are dynamic, shifting

across place and space, and interactional.”

An Interactional Framework of Place Attachment

Cross goes on to expand the previous research by proposing an Interactional

Framework of Place Attachment. She reports in her research how people form place

attachment through interactions with others and places over time. In her study Cross

“describes place attachment as the interactional processes—continuous series of

actions and interactions—through which people create meaning and affective bonds

with places” (Cross 2015). Table 1 (Cross 2015) delineates each of Cross’ seven

processes of place attachment – sensory, narrative, historical, spiritual, ideological,

commodifying, and material dependence.

8

These processes are distinct and co-occurring and change over time. Cross’ model

focuses on the “ongoing actions, interactions, and meaning making that bond people

to places. Place attachments are created in the intersection of experience and

meaning, which occur simultaneously through several processes and at the

individual, interpersonal, and cultural levels” (Cross 2015).

METHODS

Hypothesis

9

My hypothesis is that there are at least seven processes of place attachment

formation: sensory, narrative, historical, spiritual, ideological, commodifying, and

material dependence. Each process is unique in nature and develop differently over

space and time on the individual, group, or cultural level. Furthermore, for people in

a transitory stage of life such as college, these processes function differently than

they do for those in more stable times in life such as childhood or settled adults. I did

not know what the nature of these differences would be, as there is no literature

looking at this particular aspect of place attachment, so this project is exploratory.

Data Collection

Originally I planned on conducting qualitative interviews, but due to time

constraints I decided to do focus group discussions. I organized three groups and

talked with twenty-two students total. For the most part, these people knew each

other and me, so discussion was natural. For two of the three groups, I asked the

students to bring a friend with them and several did. I recorded these discussions

with everyone’s consent. The first two focus groups were essential for me to test out

my research questions and develop my theory, and by the third focus group I had

settled on the questions I would ask the rest of the participants. The nature of my

questions didn’t change, but I did tweak the wording a little to get at exactly what I

wanted to know.

In order to save time and allow for a bigger sample, I came up with the idea to

send out open ended surveys via email to the twenty one students who agreed to

participate and signed an informed consent form. I was able to get in depth, first

impression answers which I could then ask clarifying or follow up questions if

necessary.

Sampling

10

Research for this project was conducted at a four-year undergraduate college

of approximately 2,500 students. This college is a private, Christian, liberal arts and

sciences institution located in the eastern Midwest with a traditionally-aged student

body. It is notable for being conservative politically and religiously. It is coed with

around a 50/50 gender ratio. The student body is over 95% White.

I used convenience, snowball, and theoretical sampling. First, I recruited most

of my friends to participate because I knew they would be more willing to answer and

feel comfortable talking with me. Second, I asked students in the focus groups to

bring a friend with them. Several did so, thus expanding my sample. Thirdly, I talked

to specific people that I knew had unique backgrounds that were of interest to me. I

surveyed and talked to a total of forty three students of varying years, genders, and

backgrounds.

The criticism could fairly be raised that surveys administered to and focus

groups conducted with these students did not produce a representative sample

because they were almost all people that I know personally and many know each

other. However, the sample represents students from liberal arts and sciences along

with engineering and other disciplines. Additionally, participants came from widely

diverse backgrounds for the purposes of this study and several are from other

countries or are second generation Americans.

Having noted this, however, it is significant that the age range of respondents,

the nature of the college itself, and the relative homogeneity of the student body

certainly limit the generalizability of the results. In other words, the characteristics of

the sample certainly differs from national norms of the general population or the

college-aged population in the U.S. Generalizability, therefore, is broadly limited to

the sampled campus and, perhaps weakly, to other college students of similar age,

11

background, and institutions of higher learning with similar academic, cultural and

organizational characteristics and missions.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The data was collected through asking ten questions looking at different

facets of the processes of place attachment. What I found supports Cross’s

Interactional Process of Place Attachment Framework and expands on that to look at

the nature of these processes of attachment during college. Additionally, I uncovered

some extraordinary nuances of these processes which Cross did not consider.

Manifestations of the Processes:

One such aspect is that of the history processes of place attachments. Cross

argues that the biographical, genealogical, and ancestral place attachment processes

are “three levels of the same attachment process—linkage to place through

experiencing ordinary and defining events and connecting them to personal, family,

or cultural history” (Cross). This process of Historical attachment is the “process of

accumulating experience in a place and creating meaning about those experiences

that tie both ordinary and significant life events to a particular place as well as to the

history of a place.” The biographical component is the personal history a person has

in a place, whereas ancestral and genealogical are more from the accumulated

history of society in a place over time. Jordan describes both of these components

when talking about home:

For me home is the place I grew up; Bellwood, Pa. Almost all of my

family lives there and I have been around them my whole life. It’s a

small town and not very advanced by any means, but it is a

comfortable town to live in where it is common to know almost

everyone you pass in a day. I live outside of town on the edge of the

12

woods and I am very familiar with the forest there. That has been a

wonderful place to go and get my mind off whatever is happening

elsewhere. The land I live on has been in my family for several

generations and I feel a bit of a tie to it because of that.

Jordan talks about his own personal history of knowing the forest and going

there to recharge. He separately mentions that the land is especially meaningful to

him because it has genealogical history in his family. He has no personal memory of

this history, but the tie is still there.

I would argue that although ancestral history and personal history are closely

related and are part of the same process, they are distinct and need to be discussed

separately from each other. This is because while genealogical or ancestral ties to a

place may shape our culture and our Self at a deep level, they are often unconscious

or distant. This is particularly true in a relatively new country like the United States,

in which most ancestral memory of a particular place is only a few generations old.

Additionally, the culture of the United States tends to be transitory in that people

leave home at a certain age to go to college and get a job. So typically, genealogical

or ancestral history in a particular place is not as foundational in the development of

the Self. In contrast, the personal accumulation of experience and creating meaning

about those experience is a present memory in the Self of those who experience that

memory directly. Thus, for the purposes of this study I will distinguish between

ancestral/genealogical history (which I will call the ancestral history process) and

biographical history (which I will call the biographical history process), though I

recognize that they are part of the same process of place attachment.

The second aspect that plays a huge role in people’s attachment to places is

social ties. Many of Cross’ processes are social in nature and I wouldn’t go so far as

13

to say that social ties are a unique process in and of itself, but I would say it must be

emphasized as a major factor in the creation of attachments through different

processes. This is because participants themselves spoke of these attachments as

being separate.

“It’s not the place, but the people” emerged as a common theme throughout

the study. This was fascinating because I did not prompt this at all, and yet over and

over again participants made this distinction very clearly when talking about their

attachments to home. In one focus group, Andy and his brother, Ralphio, expressed

this while talking about how their attachments to home have shaped who they are

today.

I don’t know that the homes themselves have necessarily changed who

I am I think it’s the memories and the stuff that’s happened. Like I

don’t know that it’s the physical location, it’s more like time with my

family or friends in my home that’s shaped who I am today.

Although this sentiment was conveyed by participants of a variety of

backgrounds, it was especially present among those who had moved frequently, had

experienced a significant move or had bad memories associated with the place they

considered home. This was especially noticeable when talking about attachments on

campus. When describing her attachments on campus, Linda articulates this theme:

I think for me I get attached not so much to the places around campus

cause I know it’s temporary but it’s more the people because I know

those can last like that relationship and friendships can last a lot longer

so that’s what I get attached to and that’s what makes it homey.

The temporary nature of college means that there is not adequate time or

emotional capacity for the formation of attachments to the place itself, but students

14

do form strong attachments with people because they recognize that these deep

friendships can last far beyond the four years that they are physically living together.

Cross focused mainly on the different processes of place attachment in her

analysis of the data without detailing the particular ways that people answered

specific questions. While I also have discussed these processes, I found that each

individual question reveals unique and captivating information about the nature of

these processes as they are played out over the life process of a college student.

Sensory and narrative processes were exhibited when describing attachments

to home, significant places, and campus. The historical process in the ancestral sense

was only mentioned when talking about attachments to home. The historical process

in the biographical sense was seen throughout all attachments. None of the

respondents mentioned a spiritual attachment to a place, which does in part confirm

Cross’ theory because it is such a rare occurrence and difficult to articulate. The

ideological, commodifying, and material dependence processes were showcased in a

move, in the decision to come to college, and in ideal places to live after college.

Kelly vocalizes five of these seven processes in describing her childhood home and

then moving to a new house – sensory, narrative, biographical, commodifying, and

material dependence:

I think my old house was super small like I said (sensory). And I think

what made it so sentimental was growing up and remembering all the

memories that happened there like I can mentally picture walking

through the rooms of the house (biographical)…there’s a little hole in

this one closet you can see through to the basement! You can like spy

on people down there, which I did! *laughter* (narrative.) And ah… I

knew how to go down the hallway without making the floorboards

15

creak. And I helped refinish the floor and like I know that house and it’s

weird that other people live there now. But I could – this sounds so

weird – but if I broke into the house I would know like how to get

around cause I KNOW the house! *laughter* like I grew up there. I’m

not gonna do that (biographical). But um yeah. The new house is

bigger and it’s mostly we got it for my grandparents because it had a

good place for them and it’s kind of a good place to put our stuff

(material dependence). And yeah it’s where my parents live. And

they’re already talking about moving out and going to a smaller place

cause it’s too much to clean. And it just isn’t... I mean there’s my room

and it’s painted purple cause that’s the color I wanted but like you

know it’s just– it’s just a house (commodifying).

It’s interesting to see how Kelly’s attachments to places are different

depending on the type of process at work in each place. As shown above, in

describing her childhood home she spoke fondly of it and her memories there,

displaying attachment through the sensory, biographical, and narrative processes.

She illustrates her attachments to the new house through the processes of material

dependence and commodity. To her, it is “just a house” because she has less history

there.

Ten Questions:

In the data I found that though these processes of place attachment are

present for everyone, they work in unique ways for each individual. A few trends

surfaced as participants responded to the ten questions.

1. What does it mean to feel at home?

16

Most participants agreed that to feel at home they must feel comfortable and

be surrounded by the people they love. Other words and phrases commonly used to

describe feeling at home were relaxing, safe, a place you can be yourself, a place

that is restorative, a feeling of belonging, familiar, a place you have memories or

history, and a place where you are known. Jess sums up the general consensus that

“’feeling at home’ is when I feel entirely comfortable and loved in a place, as though I

belong there. The place has to be familiar to me and normally has many happy

memories.”

Many, such as Jen, express that they feel at home through sensory

experiences which remind them of home:

For me whenever it’s more sunny it feels more like home. And

whenever I see mountains. Not fake mountains. But real mountains.

Not Hills but Mountains. Even if it’s not in Colorado that’s very

comforting because that’s what I grew up around. So the other day

they had mowed the lawns and I was walking out and I smelled that

fresh cut grass smell. And was like “AH! This feels like home.” And it

was sunny and it was blue skies and so that to me kind of just makes

me feel comfortable.

This demonstrates that even when people aren’t in the place they call home,

they can still be reminded of home through sensory experience.

2. What place do you call home?

Most students have strong attachments to home which were expressed

through the sensory, narrative, historical, and biographical processes of attachment.

Several of these processes can be seen at work as George describes the place he

calls home:

17

I’ve lived in Cazenovia NY since I was 9 – so about 13 years now. It’s a

small rural village south of Syracuse by about 40 minutes. My

neighborhood is on Oxbow Rd. – the name taken from the loop at the

end of the road. We live right at the base of a hill that stretches behind

all the neighborhood houses. In the spring everything is insanely green

– a much richer green than I’ve ever seen here in PA. During the

summer the weeds on the hill grow up to your chest and I mow every

week just to keep the grass near the house at an acceptable height.

During the fall the leaves are beautiful. I’ve never seen anything like

the colors of central NY during the fall. I have a hard time describing it

to anyone that hasn’t been there except everything just feels so much

fresher. The winter always hits hard and the biggest winter we ever

had there was insane. The drifts on the side of the road was enormous

and we had about a twenty foot stretch of it all tunneled out. We had

sleds for doors and during the blizzards we could tramp through the

snow, open our door and fit a few friends in our “snow longhouse.” A

lot of my memories of the winters are just how much shoveling of our

driveway my sister, dad, and I did.

George’s attachment to home is strongly connected to the sensory process as

he recalls the colors of central New York as well as the narrative process as he talks

about the harsh winters there.

Justin describes his attachment to this city through the ancestrally historic and

narrative processes by recounting the key facts about his city which bring him pride

in his heritage:

18

I call Rochester, NY home. I have lived in the suburbs Rochester my

whole life (20 years, including the time I’ve been at Grove City) but

have lived in different parts of Rochester. Located on the southern

shore of Lake Ontario, and as the metropolitan center of western New

York, Rochester has a population of roughly 200,000. It is the third

largest city in New York State, behind New York City and Buffalo.

We’re known being the world headquarters for the Eastman Kodak

company, as well as the birthplace of Xerox and Bausch & Lomb. Our

major universities, the University of Rochester and the Rochester

Institute of Technology, have renowned research programs. We’re also

known for our cold and snowy winters. Originally known as the “Flour

City” due to its many flour mills located along the Genesee River,

Rochester became known as the “Flower City” in 1850 due to the

growing seed companies in Rochester, which had now grown to the

largest in the world. Today, we have an annual Lilac Festival in the

spring to celebrate our pride in our heritage.

This shows that for people who relate strongly to the culture of a place, the

historic facts and cultural narratives play a large part in their identity with that place.

3. How has moving OR growing up in one place impacted the way you form

attachments today?

Overall, most students indicate that they make new attachments easily and/or

have deep attachments to home. There were several general trends which have

noteworthy implications.

19

Firstly, those who grew up in the same place or who moved within the area

tend to have strong attachments to home. For example, Violet grew up in the same

house and she indicates how this has shaped who she is:

I tend to be a very loyal person. I think my parents greatly

demonstrated the significance of loyalty and stability, and that’s

probably evidenced by the fact that they’ve spent most of their life in

the same town which is 15 minutes from the town in which they grew

up. They’ve done a lot of traveling and I definitely inherited the love for

that, but they and I also love coming home.

Those who experienced a significant move (one which was emotionally

difficult or across a far distance) or who moved frequently tend to describe weaker

attachments to the physical place and difficulty forming new attachments. They

usually place more emphasis on being attached to the people in that place. Growing

up, Andres moved a lot in Mexico and in the United States, and demonstrates this

sentiment as he calls to mind how moving frequently affected him:

I understand that people and places come and go. It makes me think

whether or not is worth it to found strong bonds with people and

places. I consider myself to be a quite detached individual. The little

emotional attachment that I develop is with people and places with

whom I interact almost daily for very long periods of time. The longer

and the more frequent, the more “real” are my attachments.

This leads into a striking feature of place attachment, which Cross suggested

needs further research. That is the impact of negative memory on place attachment.

Many students mentioned this when talking about their attachments to home and to

20

the campus. As there are more mentions of this phenomenon later in the questions, I

will analyze it further in the discussion of this study.

Neither of these situations (growing up moving frequently or in the same

place) indicated whether the individual would want to put down roots or would want

to branch out, but they did inform the reason behind this desire. Both April and Leslie

grew up moving frequently. Leslie wants to move constantly because she wants

adventure:

Leslie: I…well, I’ll give you some background. I moved 18 times in the

first 11 years of my life. So for me it’s affected me in that it makes me

want to… I get stir crazy and I can’t stay in one place and I’m thirsty

for adventures and see new things and do new things and like my

family was always either moving or traveling even though we weren’t

moving and so basically, moving cause we would stay different places

for extended periods of time. But I mean I think my brother was

affected differently cause he because of that he wants to never leave

Bradford. But me, I’m like no I’ve seen better things I need to go see

more better things!

In contrast, April desires to stay in one place because she wants to have roots

somewhere:

April: Yeah I think since we moved so much growing up it makes me

want to stay put and not go anywhere and just like I wanna pick a spot

and stay there forever.

Thus, for each individual these processes function uniquely.

4. Why did you come to Grove City

21

Most students chose the college based on ideological, commodifying, and

material dependence processes. Ray expressed all three of these processes:

One of the major reasons that I came to GCC what honestly that I felt

that I could feel at home here. When I visited the campus, the people I

met really made me feel welcome and accepted. In addition, I really

appreciated the academic excellence that Grove City offers.

As showcased by Ray’s response, most students mentioned typical

commodifying answers such as wanting a small, Christian school with a good

community. They demonstrate material dependence by choosing a school that was

affordable with good academics. Some noted that they had siblings or relatives who

attend or work here, and a few students said their guidance counselors or pastors

had recommended it. Another response that came up frequently articulated the

ideological process was that “it felt right”, “it felt like home”, and “it felt like it was

where God wanted me.”

5. How has moving to Grove City College impacted your attachments to home?

Moving to Grove City College tends to strengthen student’s relationships with

their family and made them appreciate home more while also developing their

independence. Violet describes the dynamic change and expansion in her

attachment to home as she becomes more independent:

I think it has both increased my attachments to home and family and

also made me more independent—which I suppose is half the goal of

going to college, so that’s not really a new idea. It has definitely given

me a greater appreciation for the peace of home and the woods and

my mom’s cooking. I also have a greater appreciation for time with my

family because it’s even rarer. But at the same time, I am also more

22

excited to have my own home—I have come to feel a little more like a

guest in my home (although it is by far the homiest, coziest, most

comfortable place I’ve been to). It’s not because I feel less attached to

my home, but I guess just more that I’ve grown more independent and

ready for my own home.

However, some students, such as Beth, found that they feel less attached to

home now that they have lived away from it.

I definitely don’t feel quite as attached to home as before, but it’s still

my home and I love going back to it. I just don’t miss it so much when

I’m not there anymore.

6. How has temporality of college impacted your attachments on campus?

I had a special interest in how participants would answer this question, as it is

central to what I am exploring in this study. How does the temporary nature of the

college institution impact the formation of place attachments? I had somewhat

expected students to say that they had a hard time forming attachments to a place

they knew they would leave soon. This would make sense on an emotional level in

order to protect themselves from the inevitable heartbreak to come when they have

to say goodbye. However, I found this wasn’t the case at all. Many students

responded saying that this made them want to make the most of their time at college

and take advantage of the opportunities they have. Leslie expresses her awareness

of the temporality of college:

I have been very aware of the shortness of college the entire time

we’ve been here pretty much. I remember after the first semester

freshman year was over I was like “shoot that went by so fast! College

is gonna be over tomorrow basically.” So I wanna make sure – I’ve

23

tried to make sure – that I’m taking advantage of the opportunities that

we have here and getting involved in the things that I care about and

spending time with my friends because I know after this I’m never

gonna see them this often ever again.

Like Leslie, students tend to want to invest in deep friendships. Violet reveals

another tendency in being more selective in choosing friends, and invest in and

strengthen those friendships so they will last beyond college.

It drives me to invest more in the people here who I really care about. I

don’t want to lose touch with the people whom I have grown to love

dearly. I think it might also make me a little choosier about who I really

attach myself to—I want to form connections with people who will also

invest in me and encourage me in my relationship with God and want

to support me and walk alongside me through life.

Those who are upperclassmen had the insight that at first they didn’t think

much about leaving and often made a lot of new friends every year, but now they

realize they don’t have much time so they are investing all their time in those

friendships that are the most meaningful to them.

Beth: At least for this year, I think it’s actually made my attachments

stronger. I know I’m leaving soon and that makes me remember all the

good memories here and the fact that I’m going to miss it when I’m

gone. The other years I never think very much about the fact that I

would leave GCC.

Occasionally, students like April said that college has always been something

very transitional and goal oriented. This makes them focused on the goal of earning a

degree but also enjoying a few close friendships:

24

I’m just weird. I’ve always seen college as a very goal oriented thing.

You go to college to get your degree so you can go to grad school so

you can get your degree so you can get a job and I’ve always viewed

college as a very transitionary time… Like I don’t necessarily enjoy

college that much. I try to, like for my own sanity, I try to find joy in

every day and in my friendships that I have and there are some things

that I really enjoy about it but I definitely, because I see it as such a

transition time from like being a child to like being an adult it’s like

something you have to do. You know? I would say it’s probably

affected like my relationships. Like as a freshman I was like well what’s

the point of meeting people I’m gonna graduate in four years and

we’re never gonna see each other again, you know? So but I’m glad

that didn’t keep me from meeting anyone or getting close to anyone.

But yeah. I’ve always been very aware of the fact of that it’s a very

goal oriented time in life so it’s little weird for me.

April and Beth mentioned here another remarkable feature of place

attachments during college; that of the change in attitudes and behaviors throughout

the progression from freshman to senior year.

Many students chose a school that was far away because they wanted an

adventure, or wanted to get away from home. Over time, they realized that distance

really does make the heart grow fonder as they grew to appreciate home more.

Several people, like Morgana, also expressed that “now it’s a pain to have to fly

home for every holiday.” Some students like April explain how they have grown over

time. Lisa describes how she has changed since freshman year:

25

I guess looking back – I’m a sophomore – and so last year it was a

rough start I guess I feel like I was just anxious all the time about like

meeting new people and getting started – I don’t know. But then

second semester it was a lot better and now I just feel so much more

comfortable with the relationships I’ve made and some of my best

friends are here and grown me as a person and like he said, it’s grown

me in my confidence also.

A lot of seniors like Beth show a change in behavior as they approach

graduation. Many stop actively seeking out new friends and instead invest in their

closest relationships which they know will last beyond college.

7. Can you describe your attachments here?

Attachments on campus are described through narrative, sensory, ideological

and personal historical processes. Generally speaking, people’s attachments on

campus tend to be the people, rather than the places on campus themselves. Noah

discusses his attachments here on campus:

I joined a fraternity my freshman year and became an RA for the

fraternity hall this year. Both these aspects of my time here have

allowed some incredible bonding and spiritual/emotional growth. I’m

also a biology major which has been exhausting and a ton of work

(especially my first two years). That aspect has been incredibly

stressful and has demanded a ton of time, inhibiting the amount of

time I can spend with others/doing things for fun. I know the work is

worth it in the long run (I want to go to med school) but it’s definitely

prevented any attachments forming. Any fondness or attachment

26

associated with GCC is definitely from the relationships I’ve formed

here and not the place itself.

Most students feel at home here, because they have grown accustomed to the

location and the routine, and have made life-long friends. However, for many of

them, even if they “feel at home” they don’t consider it to be “home.” This may be

because, as evidenced by Noah, college is an exhausting place where it is difficult to

find rest. Restoration is vital to creating positive emotions in regards to place so if

such rest is absent, it’s difficult to form attachments to that place.

8. What is your favorite place on campus?

Most people responded that their favorite place is their room or their hall.

Using the sensory and biographical processes of place attachment, April explains why

her room is her favorite place.

My room is my favorite place. Cause that’s where I do all my

homework, it’s where I hang out, it just like comfortable there. And I

have my fishes and my little yellow couch. It’s just a nice little place.

People named the SAC, STEM, the Peacock Room, the prayer loft of Rathburn,

the picnic area by Wolf Creek, and the Chapel Garden as other favorite places on

campus.

27

James, who grew up in a rural area and feels most at home in nature

describes his favorite places on campus and likewise expresses the sensory

biographical processes:

Honestly, mine’s changed recently. I used to be for the longest time if I

ever needed to think or just meditate or do devotions or stuff. Down on

the other side of the chapel facing the garden there which nobody

goes into except occasionally there’s a couple like making out there

which is really awkward *laughter* but when there’s NOT a couple

making out there, those little stone steps that lead up to the side door.

Especially in the summer time there’s bushes on this side and the

tree’s over-grown. And if you sit just right everything’s cut off and all

you can see is the garden. And it’s really beautiful. But I found down by

Wolf Creek right before you get to the picnic tables there’s this huge

pine tree and it’s usually pretty dry under there and you can just sit

there and watch the stream and I’ve gone down there a couple times

and I usually end up falling asleep while studying *laughter* and I love

it! It’s quiet, nobody’s ever down there anyway so it’s really nice!

Violet explains that her favorite place on campus feels more at home to her

because the ceilings are low like they are at home:

I love the peacock room in south lobby—it’s quiet, warm, homey, and

private. I did a January intersession this year and I spent pretty much

all day, every day in that room. I love the fireplace and the books and

the window. And it helps to not have the high ceilings—for some

reason that always reminds me that I’m at an institution and not at a

home . . .

28

Students describe their favorite places as being restorative because they

associate it with positive emotions and memories. April’s favorite place is her favorite

because it’s where she spends the most time whereas James and Violet love their

favorite place because it reminds them of home.

9. What do you think you’ll miss the most when you leave?

Almost every single participant responded, like Neil, that they would miss the

people and living close to their friends.

Neil: I know I’ll miss the people at Grove City the most, they’ve been

some of the best influences on me in my life and they always make me

feel welcome and accepted for who I am. I’ve experienced so much

growth because of the good influences I’ve had from people that

without them I would be completely different and probably a much

more immoral person.

Some other responses included sports, learning constantly, the security of the

campus, the “cheap as heck” print services, and professors.

10. Looking to the future, what criteria would you look for in choosing your ideal

place to live?

The way that people described their ideal place was intriguing because often

their ideal place was informed by the type of place they grew up. For example, if they

grew up in a rural area like Violet, they tended to want to live in a rural area.

I would love a place that’s more in the country—I love woods, if you

couldn’t tell. I would love to have some space, outside and inside. Of

course, cost will have a huge influence on where I live first after school.

But eventually I’d like a sort of ranch-style house with a porch and land

29

to go with it. I don’t want to be far away from civilization, but I also

want a little privacy. Comfortable furniture, warm colors, people I love,

not loads of rules, fresh air . . . I like having all four seasons. I prefer

fall, I think, but they all have their merits. Not right next door to my

parents, but I would like to be close enough to see them fairly often—I

want my kids to love their grandparents.

Those who grew up in the suburbs, like Noah, typically want to live in the

suburbs after college. Noah expresses the commodifying and sensory processes as

he comments on his ideal place:

Probably something relatively small but comfortable (cozy). I’ve always

loved older houses because I think they have more personality than

newer homes. Honestly I wouldn’t even mind an apartment for some

time after college before I have a family. Maybe some art on the walls,

wood furniture, record player. Not too many things in there to make it

cluttered but enough so that it doesn’t feel empty. Ideally in a location

more suburban (more like North Jersey where I’m from rather than like

a more rural place like Grove City) because of the accessibility (so

much more to do/see/eat in a closer radius).

Similarly to Noah, almost everyone said they wanted to have access to nature,

necessary stores, cities with things to do, and a great community of neighbors.

Raul’s ideal place is based on the commodifying and material dependence

processes.

Honestly any time I imagine myself getting out of college I see myself

living in a crappy efficiency apartment… I keep imagining this place

and I’m like “wow why am I imagining this place?” But before when my

30

teacher asked me to draw my ideal house and I drew this hut thing

with like straws and stuff *laughter* and I just noticed that I love living

in these small places. That’s why I … even back in my dorm I’d hang

out in my room and I was like “wow I could see myself living in a place

like this when I get out of college.” Like in the city maybe like this

small room or apartment back in Erie or something. I guess just living

with some people nearby. You know like neighbors that are actually

neighbors beside you.

Like him, many students will choose their ideal place to live based on realistic

material needs, such as following a job and living in an affordable small house.

Additionally, some people said they want to live where they can find a good

church or a conservative community which exhibits the ideological process of place

attachment.

DISCUSSION

Cross’ interactional framework of place attachments proposes that there are

at least seven processes of place attachment. Each process is distinct, co-occurring,

and dynamic across time and space at an individual and cultural level. This research

has supported her findings by demonstrating the following three components of place

attachment: first, “each has a unique relationship with time and space,” second,

“they occur simultaneously at the individual, group, and cultural levels,” and third,

“they are interactional, having both unique and interactive effects on an individual's

place attachment.” Moreover, the findings support my hypothesis that these

processes would work in unique ways for people who are living in a temporary place.

Finally, I responded to several of Cross’ suggestions for further research.

31

This research explores a unique part of the life cycle which offers an intriguing

perspective on each place attachment process’ relationship to time. College only

lasts for four years, so these processes must work at an accelerated pace within a

condensed and limited amount of time as students form new attachments on their

campus and their attachments to home change over their time at college.

It is evident, therefore, that the process of personal history is inclined to

deepen and grow attachments over time as students remember their positive

experiences in a place. The narrative process may either weaken or strengthen

attachments over time as students select stories to tell about their experiences in a

place. The sensory process tends to strengthen attachments over time as students

remember their sensory experiences at home. Similarly, as students become familiar

with their new surroundings on campus they begin to feel comfortable and can find

refreshing places to relax or experience sensory input that reminds them of home.

The ideological process is palpable at a college such as Grove City, which is full of

people who are there with the common goal of earning a degree among a community

of like-minded students. This process is generally static over their time, but will likely

change as they graduate. A longitudinal study which follows students after college

would disclose the nature of this process. The commodifying process plays a huge

part in the selection of a school, as does the material dependence process. Both

typically to fade over time, but the material dependence remains important for the

duration of students time in the college place. Thus, for each individual, place

attachments are dynamic across time.

As Cross discovered, some of these place attachments such as the narrative

and historical processes are more closely tied to social experience while others such

as the sensory process are more related to individual experience. Thus, each process

may be “psychological, social, or both in nature” (Cross 2015.)

32

I responded to Cross’ suggestion for future research by examining how

attachments to one place influence attachments to other places. Students have

recently moved away from home and it is easy to see how each place attachment is

formed across multiple places and how these new attachments “inform their

experiences and bonds in all of those places” (Cross 2015). Place attachments

develop across multiple places because they last long after we leave places. These

features become more pronounced for upperclassmen who have grown more

independent from home yet appreciate it more than before.

In addition to supporting Cross’ framework and exploring the nature of place

attachments in a temporary place, I expanded Cross’ research by responding to her

suggestions for future research. I further inspected these general processes to reveal

noteworthy facets of the process of personal history. This discovery answers her call

to inquire into the “interplay of personal (individual) and cultural (social) linkages to

place” (Cross 2015). In the past, researchers have understood the historic process of

place attachment as being made up of three components: ancestral, genealogical,

and biographical (Cross 2015; Hay 1998). I found that while these three components

are closely related and part of the same process, they are distinct and should be

discussed separately. The ancestral or genealogical processes are distant and play a

part in creating the culture that shapes an individual. This individual has no personal

memory of these attachments, but know about them as others narrate stories to

them or describe their own personal history in a place. In contrast, the biographical

process is exceedingly personal to a particular individual. It is their own memories

and experiences within their life time which shape their self and their attachments

over time. While personal, this process is not necessarily only psychological but has a

social angle as well because experiences and memories often involve interactions

with other people.

33

This research draws a distinction between attachments to place and

attachments to people. Cross and other researchers have mentioned that places are

“repositories and contexts within which interpersonal, community, and cultural

relationships occur, and it is to those social relationships, not just place qua place, to

which people are attached” (Low and Altman 1992:7).

Cross recognizes that social relationships play a role in many processes of

place attachment, but she did not note that these relationships sometimes stand

alone. This is what I have found in my research, and I have placed greater emphasis

on this distinction and the importance of these relationships in the formation of place

attachments. I found that respondents themselves clearly drew this distinction over

and over again as they told me, “it’s not the place, but the people that I’m attached

to or that have shaped me.” Thus, it is evident that because place is the platform for

social interaction, place attachments and people attachments are distinct yet closely

linked. Future research should develop this dynamic in greater depth.

Another key recommendation that Cross advocates is to further explore the

complexities of person-place relationships. This research does so by investigating the

impact of negative emotions associated with places. Often, bad memories and the

subsequent negative emotions lead to weakened attachments to the places

associated with these experiences. June who associates Grove City College with

“studying, stressing, and missing home” so while she does have a few close friends

with whom she has formed attachments, she has not developed attachments with

the campus itself.

Occasionally these experiences shape the self in positive ways because the

individual keeps a positive outlook and is able to form new attachments to places

they associate with good memories. Joan grew up moving constantly and has bad

34

memories associated with these places. As such, she is not attached to these places,

but is to her family, which remained a constant in her life. Additionally, her negative

experiences helped her to move on and travel to new places where she can make

new memories. Another example is that of Ben, who grew up living in the same place

but was isolated from any sort of social interaction. The negative emotions

associated with this caused him to want to branch out and form attachments to new

places. As such, he went to college far away from home and has found a strong

community of friends.

If attachments to places are non-existent as consequence of negative

emotions, the impact on the self is detrimental. Andres moved frequently both in

Mexico and in the United States. He is not attached to anything other than his

parents, and has a difficult time forming new attachments both to places and to

people. Even on campus he doesn’t expect to carry on relationships with people after

college. The positive that comes out of this situation is that Andres desires to settle

down in one place to provide a more stable home for his children in the future,

because he recognizes the detrimental effect that moving had on the formation of

himself.

These findings show that negative emotions have unique effects on each

individual’s attachment to places. Most people rely on their attachments to people as

their constant, rather than the places themselves. Some are pushed to branch out

and form new attachments to places associated with positive memories while others

have a hard time forming new attachments at all. This highlights the significant

importance of place attachments in the formation of the self.

In addition to everything mentioned above, I discovered a few more things to

note. Many students mentioned the different types of friendships that they had with

35

others. Almost all of them expressed a deep and lasting relationship with their

families. At another level, they recognized that some close friendships would last

beyond college, while others probably wouldn’t. Violet highlights the nature of her

friendships during college:

I have a smaller group of really close friends. I don’t think they’ll ever

not be important to me, even if we haven’t talked in a while. I have a

wider circle of friends/acquaintances with whom I spend a lot less time

and there will probably come a time in the future when we’ve grown

apart and are not all that significant in each other’s lives. But I’ll still

consider them friends and remember them fondly, even though I

probably won’t communicate with them for long after we graduate.

Even if people are only in my life for a short time, they still often

impact me in small ways and God can definitely use people in my life

even if I don’t know them for very long.

Future research could look more closely at this aspect of attachments, and how place

has an impact on the formation of these attachments to people.

I found that place attachments, social relationships, behaviors, and attitudes

changed over time as students progressed from freshman year to senior year.

Overall, attachments to the campus became stronger over time, as did attachments

to home. Personal growth was shown to be greatly accelerated during college.

Finally, as seniors approach graduation, they begin investing in deep friendships that

would last beyond college.

With all this in mind, further research is needed to address shortcomings of

the sample in order to be able to generalize these findings across college students or

the general population. A suggestion would be to study colleges which are more

36

representative of typical colleges by sampling from different colleges varying in the

type of institution, ideology and culture, and the size and setting of the campus. It

would be beneficial to use a probability sample to be sure and get a representative

sample. To gain more depth and insight into the research, it would be worthwhile to

conduct interviews, as was my original intention for this study. All of these

suggestions would help to support and advance my findings in a more decisive way.

From a theoretical standpoint, further research is needed to look at the connector or

mediator between place and attachment. Perhaps it is memories, people, time, or

some combination of those things. I found evidence that this is not a direct

connection and it is complex. Finally, it would be fascinating to look more closely at

the specific role that memory and nostalgia play in place attachments.

This study supports Cross’ findings and advances the literature of place

attachments by looking at them from the viewpoint of college students who are in a

transitionary time in life. These findings show that that old cliché rings true: there

truly is no place like home.

37

REFERENCES

Auburn, Timothy and Rebecca Barnes. 2006. “Producing Place: A Neo-Schutzian

Perspective

on the ‘Psychology of Place’.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 26(1):38–

50.

Basso, Keith H. 1996. “Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on a Western Apache

Landscape.” Pp. 53–

90 in Senses of Place, edited by Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso. Sante Fe, NM:

School of American Research Press.

Brown, Barbara B. and Douglas D. Perkins. 1992. “Disruptions in Place Attachment.”

Pp. 279–

304 in Place Attachment, edited by Irwin Altman and Setha Low. New York:

Plenum.

Cresswell, Tim. 1996. In Place-out of Place: Geography, Ideology, and

Transgression. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Cross, Jennifer E. 2015. “Processes of Place Attachment: An Interactional

Framework.”

Symbolic Interaction, 38: 493–520. doi: 10.1002/symb.198.

Devine-Wright, Patrick. 2011. “Place Attachment and Public Acceptance of

Renewable Energy:

A Tidal Energy Case Study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 31(4):336–

43.

Di Masso, Andres, John Dixon, and Kevin Durrheim. 2014. “Place Attachment as

Discursive

38

Practice.” Pp. 75–86 in Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and

Applications, edited by L.C. Manzo and Patrick Devine-Wright. New York:

Routledge.

Dixon, John and Kevin Durrheim. 2000. “Displacing Place-Identity: A Discursive

Approach to

Dominy, Michèle D. 2001. Calling the Station Home: Place and Identity in New

Zealand's High Country. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Erikson, Kai. 1976. Everything in Its Path: Destruction of Community in the Buffalo

Creek

Fried, Marc. 1963. “Grieving for a Lost Home.” Pp. 151–71 in The Urban

Condition: People and Policy in the Metropolis, edited by Leonard J. Huhn. New

York: Basic Books.

Gustafson, Per. 2001a. “Meanings of Place: Everyday Experience and Theoretical

Conceptualizations.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(1):5–16.

Hay, Robert. 1998. “Sense of Place in Developmental Context.” Journal of

Environmental

Psychology 18(1):5–29.

Hernández, Bernardo, Carmen M. Hidalgo, M. Esther Salazar-Laplace, and Stephany

Hess. 2007. “Place Attachment and Place Identity in Natives and Non-

natives.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 27(4):310–19.

Low, Setha M. 1992. “Symbolic Ties that Bind: Place Attachment in the Plaza.”

Pp. 165–

86 in Place Attachment, edited by Irwin Altman andSetha Low. New York:

Plenum Press.

39

Manzo, Lynne C., Rachel G. Kleit, and Dawn Couch. 2008. ““Moving Three Times Is

Like

Having Your House on Fire Once”: The Experience of Place and Impending

Displacement Among Public Housing Residents.” Urban Studies 45(9):1855–

78.

Manzo, Lynne C. 2003. “Beyond House and Haven: Toward a Revisioning of

Emotional

Relationships with Places.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(1):47–61.

Milligan, Melinda J. 1998. “Interactional Past and Potential: The Social Construction of

Place

Attachment.” Symbolic Interaction 21(1):1–33.

Rubinstein, Robert I. and Patricia A. Parmelee. 1992. “Attachment to Place and the

Representation of the Life Course by the Elderly.” Pp.139–63 in Place

Attachment, edited by I. Altman and S. Low. New York: Plenum.

Sampson, Kaylene A. and Colin G. Goodrich. 2009. “Making Place: Identity

Construction and

Community Formation through “Sense of Place” in Westland, New

Zealand.” Society & Natural Resources 22(10):901–15.

Seamon, David. 1979. A Geography of the Life World: Movement, Rest, and

Encounter. New

York: St. Martin's.

Seamon, David. 2014. “Place Attachment in Phenomenology: The Synergistic

Dynamism of

40

Place.” Pp. 11–22 in Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and

Application, edited by L.C. Manzo and Patrick Devine-Wright. New York:

Routledge.

41

P.S. for the enjoyment of the professor I thought I would add this excerpt after the paper because it’s a bit long to use in the actual paper itself, but I still found it remarkable.

As a follow up question to “What place do you call home,” I asked “what are

your favorite memories or places at home?” and some of my most favorite responses

came from one focus group in particular who had really interesting things to say. Jen

displays attachment to her home through sensory descriptions of her favorite place

and through a humorous narrative about her and her best friend. It’s a long read but

a fascinating example of the sensory, narrative, and biographical processes of place

attachment:

I have a memory and a place. So we live in this subdivision that’s surrounded by a golf course. So where we are, we’re right off of the 14th hole and there’s the golf cart paths and there’s also just kind of walk around the golf course paths. So there’s this when you go up to the golf course you pass there’s this little tree bush thing that’s dead but it’s still there and it’s still sturdy and you can sit in it. So you have to walk over this little bridge because there’s like a river that runs underneath it. And then there’s this rock wall kind of thing of just a bunch of rocks stacked up on top of each other and this dead tree is just coming out of the rock wall and just sits there right next to the pedestrian path. So whenever I take my dog on a walk we have to like walk around the circle and then up to the golf course and I always bring my journal or my book or my headphones and I’m just listening to my music or whatever. And I always go and I sit down inside of the tree. Cause it doesn’t require climbing cause I don’t climb. But you can kind of sit there and my dog will lay on the rocks and especially if it’s sunny he’ll like fall asleep while I’m journaling or reading or just listening to music. And that has always been a place wherever I’m overwhelmed at home at my house with my family or with friends I’ll just go and there’s like a little pond thing near it and it’s a golf course so it’s all quiet which is really nice.

This description of her favorite place is so cool because it exemplifies

a restorative place like Cross mentions in her description of the sensory

process. This is a perfect example of the strength of attachment to this

restorative place due to the positive emotions associated with it. Jen goes on

42

to narrate one of her favorite memories that she has with her best friend

from home.

And then my favorite memory is about five minutes away from my house there’s this Big lake that’s kind of like the center of the town and my best friend and I freshman year of high school were walking around and you can go kind of down right to the shore of the lake but you have to climb over all of these trees and there’s this Big one that’s completely fallen down and so we’d go and sit on the end of the tree and dip our feet in the water. Well one day we were walking through this foresty bushy area and I tripped over a stump and my prosthetic leg snapped in half! It didn’t hurt! But *laughter* cause like the top of it was still connected to my leg but the metal part that’s the food just came off! And I’m sitting there laughing and my friend is looking at me and she was like it is a TWO Mile Walk back home and neither of us have our cell phones. And we didn’t have any way to get in contact with our friends or family or anything. So she picks up the bottom part of my leg and I like hop and crawl down the path and there’s a ton of people in this park cause it’s a very open area and very public place and NO BODY stopped to ask if we were okay!! And we were just like hoppin’ down the bunny trail and trying to get there. and finally we reach her neighborhood and this old man he’s like 75 years old he comes wobbling over and he goes “are you ladies all right??” and we were like “yeah just struggling a little bit!” and he was like “well I’ll give you a piggy back ride back to your house!” And I look at Emily and I look at this old man and I was like this is NOT a good idea *laughter* so Emily’s like okay well maybe you could just like carry the leg back and I can give her a piggy back ride. Cause like we had tried to have her give me a piggy back ride but while carrying this prosthetic leg it doesn’t really work. So this old man just wobbles behind us carrying this part of my leg and Emily’s giving me a piggy back ride back to her house. And we get to her front door. Her mom is so angry at us. She’s like “she’s bleeding!!” cause I had to like crawl through the grass because my leg gave out like a mile in because hopping…not worth it… anyway…so I call my mom and I’m like “heyyyy mom I broke my leg” and she was like “which oneeee….” *laughter* and I was like “the one that’s expensive….” And she just goes that’s okay we can fix it. And you could just hear her shaking her head like what did you do?!? But that’s my favorite story cause that’s just like the relationship between my best friend and I like we’re never prepared and then we do stupid things and we never get in trouble but we just have funny stories.

43

Like I said, this story is hilarious and one of my favorite responses

from any of the questions. It’s really cool because it exemplifies the

importance of social relationships in the formation of attachments to place,

particularly in the narrative process of place attachment.

Another really amazing response to this same question was from Raul who

describes a sensory attachment to a place through a memory he has in that place.

Back in Erie there’s that giant lake that’s also there in Erie… yeah *laughter* and we had this place in our house that you could walk along this trail and in three minutes you’ll be at the lake. And one winter I went down by myself. And I‘m just walking. It’s snowing and there’s like a foot of snow down already. And I can’t really hear any waves cause the lake is supposed to be frozen over. So I walk out and I see the lake and it’s all frozen and all you could see like dirt and stuff chunked out and wood out on the lake and it’s so beautiful. I’m just admiring it for like five minutes. I’m just looking and it’s just I really love that place.

I love how Raul’s memory is so vivid and so closely tied to sensory

experience that he speaks of it in present tense, as if he is there in the

moment.

I really enjoyed this project. It’s fascinating to listen to people talking

about their attachments to places that they love and see how college

impacts them. I hope you enjoyed reading it, even though it is 44 pages

long…