Stigmatized Properties and Housing Values: An Exploratory Study

OHO-D-18-00206 March 2019

David Chapman, University of Central Oklahoma; Marty Ludlum, University of Central Oklahoma; Ramachandran Vijayan, Oklahoma City Community College; Weichu Xu, East Stroudsburg U. of Pennsylvania; Burle Steelman, University of Central Oklahoma; Dan Range, Coventry University; Deependra Dehariya, University of Central Oklahoma.

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to provide an understanding of the potential effects that stigmatized properties may have for potential house purchasers decision making, as well as how a purchasers willingness to pay might be impacted. The originality of this research emerges from the distinct lack of empirical evidence in the current literature base with only one such study having investigated this phenomena in the past. Most research that has investigated aspects of stigmatization, have focused on the analysis of transaction prices from a quantitative perspective, with limited scholarly attention paid towards the psychological factors that may effect a purchasers willingness to purchase a property, their willingness to pay for a stigmatized property, as well as understanding if real estate agents should fully disclose stigmatization to prospective buyers. The study employed a qualitative survey that was designed to answer these fundamental gaps in the literature base, through a sample of 410 individuals. The results demonstrated that while some ambivalence existed, there was general consensus that such properties would incur a reduction in price, and would impact upon the selling potential of the property, if such stigmas were fully disclosed. Keywords: Stigmatized Properties; Buyer Behavior; House Prices; Willingness to Pay 1. Introduction Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript 2015 Stigma Property Survey paper revised 11August2018.doc Click here to view linked References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 2 The current real estate knowledge base pays significant attention to the role of amenities in understanding residential property values. These studies have focused on analyzing the impact of a diverse range of externalities and whether positive or negative effects have occurred. From a negative perspective, research has explored issues such as air quality and pollution (Murdoch and Thayer, 2017), land contamination (Simons and Saginor, 2006), crime (McIlhatton et al., 2016), underground storage tanks (Simons et al., 1997), wind turbines (Hoen and Atkinson-Palombo, 2016), fracking (Throupe et al., 2013), and power lines (Wyman and Mothorpe, 2018; Seiler, 2014). Other research has examined the positive impact of externalities on property values, including amenities such as ocean views (Wyman et al., 2016; Mothorpe and Wyman, 2017), open space and parks (McCord et al., 2013; Anderson and West, 2006; Irwin, 2002), school quality (Wada and ZahirovicHerbert, 2013), and transit corridors (Kilpatrick et al., 2007). While the extant literature is saturated with empirical investigations in to the quantitative impact on residential property values, and predominantly analysed from sales transactions, there is less attention paid to the factors that influence a buyers willingness to pay (Seiler, 2014) from a behavioral perspective. Indeed, there is even less knowledge available on the impact that stigmatized properties, including those related to issues such as crime, health/illness, properties in proximity to death-related facilities (such as mortuaries, funeral homes) and cemeteries, have on the purchase decision. This paper seeks to develop the literature in this area through an analysis of the likelihood that individuals would purchase properties stigmatized by death, the potential rate of devaluation that such stigmatization would have, and whether such stigmatizations should be disclosed to the buyer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 3 The paper is structured as follows. Section two explores the issues stemming from the literature base concerning death-related stigmatization. Section three presents the methodological framework used to underpin the empirical analysis conducted by this research. Section four brings forward the results of the study, with section five drawing conclusions. 2. Literature Review The impact of physical defects of residential properties on their value is well documented in many studies, however the impact that psychological influences have, is not understood to any great degree. Larsen and Coleman (2001) highlight that a property may be in an excellent physical condition, but it may be stigmatized by a psychologically perceived condition. These conditions may include the residential property being the scene of a murder, suicide, or natural death, as well as being potentially haunted, or related to death in some manner (such as cemeteries and mortuaries) which may cause some form of emotional or psychological discomfort to the buyer (McEvoy, 1991). Questions then arise around the comparability of these properties with other properties that do not have similar psychological influences or stigmatizations (Larsen and Coleman, 2001), as well as other concerns such as disclosure by the broker/seller. Disclosure of Information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 4 In recent times, significant advancements in technology and data, driven by the rapid growth in online activities and open data strategies, has provided real opportunities for prospective buyers to conduct their own due diligence on properties and neighborhoods. Real estate agents are governed by different regulations in different states and countries, however, most have mandatory disclosures on known physical defects in the home, lead based paint, radon gas, and other related challenges such as zoning. Nevertheless, there is no common approach utilized for disclosure of events and characteristics that would cause a property to be considered stigmatized and as a consequence it is a potential ethical dilemma for real estate agents. Effects of Stigmatised Properties There is extremely limited research detailing the impact of stigmatized properties on real estate value from a psychological perspective with previous studies mostly focusing on the effects of external factors on housing transactions. The literature presents many examples of how violent crime affects the sale price of properties. Rosenbloom (2006) highlights that the apartment where Menendez brothers killed their parents in 1989 lost more $1 million in market value when it finally sold as a consequence of the stigma. In the case of Reed v King (1983) the sellers of a property were sued for not disclosing that a woman and her four children were murdered in the home ten years earlier. The buyers claimed that the stigma from the past murders decreased the property value by 17% with the California Court upholding this claim. In research by Abelson et al. (2013) the propensity for violent crime was found to negatively impact detached property values by 5.6%. Similarly, Tita et al. (2006) and Boggess et al. (2013) articulate a similar narrative in their respective studies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 5 Other issues such as proximity to sex offenders homes and their effects on value have also been explored with research by Caudill et al. (2015) finding that property values within 0.1 miles of a sex offenders residence negatively affected value by 14% and 7% if the properties were within a 1 mile radius. Indeed, other research by Pope (2008) found that a sex offender moving in to a neighborhood resulted in a 2.3% fall in property values. Another type of stigmatized property is that of paranormal phenomena (haunted houses). While no significant empirical analysis exists demonstrating the potential impact that such locations may have on house prices, there is limited evidence highlighting that in some cases, houses appreciated in value despite owners knowing the stigma prior to purchasing (Cavanaugh, 2002). Research has also been conducted on the impact of places associated with death. Ludlum (1989) indicated that while funeral homes are a necessity, they have a public relations problem which affects the value of adjoining properties. The fear is not based on the mortuary being a commercial enterprise (parking and noise issues), but because of the relationship to death. The stigma of the practical aspects of death are ironic. Victorian era homes had ‘coffin corners’, stairwell niches which allowed a coffin to be maneuvered down the stairs (Rosenbloom, 2006) and most people died at home. Despite this, there is a significant gap in the current literature base concerning the potential impact that stigmatized properties may have on buyer decision making. The research presented in this research helps to fill this gap through an empirical investigation in to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6 whether potential purchasers would buy stigmatized properties and the likely effect, stigmatization would have on value. The next section of the paper reviews the methodology used for this research. 3. Methodology The research is designed to provide an informed understanding of the perceptions of stigmatised properties and their impact on housing values. As such, there was a need to develop these understandings through questions that mapped back against the gaps identified in the literature and which enabled us to address these gaps through the responses achieved. The gaps realized included a distinct lack of knowledge relating to whether the seller should inform the buyer about stigmatizations, how much these stigmatizations impact the sale values of the properties, and whether those questioned would buy a stigmatised property. As a consequence, the question set developed corresponded directly with these themes. The types of stigmatised properties utilised within the research were that of those associated with paranormal phenomena, locations of violent crime, HIV/AIDS related deaths, and properties in proximity to funeral homes/mortuaries. The research was conducted using a survey instrument which allowed a greater number of respondents to be reached than what one-to-one interviews would have enabled, in a more efficient manner. In total, 668 surveys responses were delivered to potential respondents, with a response of 410 being used for the analysis representing a response rate of 61.4%. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 7 Data responses were analysed using the identified questions discussed previously. The study was conducted with business students across three Universities in the United States. Students were used as they were deemed to be future residential property buyers and as such, provided a strong cohort for perspectives related to buyer decision making. 3.1 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics for the respondents were collected and are presented in Table 1. Control questions were utilized to understand the spread of responses across different departments, as well as by demographics. Most respondents (70.7%) were business majors, the balance were liberal arts (4.2%), fine arts (.24%), and other (24.9%) majors. Respondents reported being in the following academic years: first (20.3%), second (10.5%), third (27.5%), fourth (39%), and fifth (2.7%). In our sample, males outnumbered females 63.7% to 36.3%. Ages ranged from 18 to 51, with 73.7% between the ages of 18- 23, with another 16.1% between ages 24-26. The mean age of the respondents was 22.54 years. Only 34 respondents (8.3%) reported being married and almost 73% of respondents reported being employed at least part time. Regarding political views, 38% identified as very conservative or conservative, 41.7% identified as independent, and 20.2% identified as liberal or very liberal. The bulk of our sample identified as moderately religious (44%), while almost equal proportions identified as very religious (18.1%), slightly religious (19.9%), or not religious (17.9%). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 8 Table 1. Descriptive statistics for sample surveyed Number Percentage Total surveys completed 668 Samples used for analyses 410 Year in school One 83 20.34 Two 43 10.54 Three 112 27.45 Four 159 38.97 Five 11 2.70 Total 408 100.00 Gender Males 260 63.73 Females 148 36.27 Total 408 100.00 Employment status Not employed 110 26.96 Part-time 213 52.21 Full-time 85 20.83 Total 408 100.00 Marital status Married 34 8.33 Not married 374 91.67 Total 408 100.00 Age 18-23 300 73.53 24+ 108 26.47 Total 410 100.00 Political views Very conservative 19 4.66 Conservative 136 33.33 Independent 170 41.67 Liberal 73 17.89 Very liberal 10 2.45 Total 408 100.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 9 Religious views Very religious 74 18.14 Moderately religious 180 44.12 Slightly religious 81 19.85 Not religious 73 17.89 408 100.00 Believes in ghosts 181 45.14 Does not believe in ghosts 220 54.86 401 100.00 4. Findings and Discussion Understanding the perceptions of potential buyers on stigmatized property and their impact on value is important for understanding demand, as well as realizing the potential effect that they could have for both buyers and sellers. In trying to develop these understandings, the research sought to identify responses across a number of different themes related to disclosure, likely devaluation of the stigmatized property, and preference for purchasing such properties. The results of this analysis are presented for each stigmatized property type identified previously. 4.1 HAUNTED HOUSES First we asked if buyers should be told that a house is haunted. Our findings were 70.3% said yes; 29.7% said no. Since the 70.3% is higher than the percentage of responses who believed in haunted houses (45%), many of those who did not believe in haunted houses still thought potential buyers should be informed. We also asked respondents how much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 10 the reputation of being haunted would affect the value of the home. The average for all respondents was a price decrease of 16.55% for a haunted house. The breakdown of how much haunted houses should be devalued is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Haunted House Priced Decrease Change Number percent None 194 36.33% 1-10% drop 162 30.34% 11-20% drop 53 9.93% 21-30% 30 5.62% 31-40% 16 3.00% 50% 46 8.61% 51-90% 19 3.56% 100% drop 14 2.62% Overall, one-third of respondents thought the haunted houses did not affect the value at all, and another one-third thought the price affect was less than 10%. However, a small but significant number of respondents (over 6%) thought a haunted home was a drastic decrease in value (over 50%). Others did not believe in haunted houses (55%), and did not believe haunted houses would diminish the property value (36.33%) but still thought a potential buyer should be informed. Finally, we asked whether a student would purchase a haunted house for their own residence. Our findings were 39% would live in a haunted house while 61% would not. Interestingly, some respondents who did not believe in haunted houses (55%) did not want to live in one (39%). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 11 4.2 NEXT TO A MORTUARY Respondents were asked whether they should inform a home buyer that a mortuary was close proximity. The results indicate that 83.6% of those questioned responded yes, while 16.4% responded no. This result was surprisingly high since (unlike haunted houses) a nearby mortuary could be easily determined by a physical inspection. The research also investigated how much the property value would be affected by being next to a mortuary. The results found an average decrease of 17.3%, which is slightly higher than the decrease for a haunted house (16.55%). A breakdown of the effect of a mortuary in proximity to a property and how it would likely devalue a home is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Mortuary Priced Decrease Change Number percent None 147 27.02% 1-10% drop 171 31.43% 11-20% drop 82 15.07% 21-30% 50 9.19% 31-40% 20 3.68% 50% 48 8.82% 51-90% 18 3.31% 100% drop 8 1.47% Over a quarter of completed surveys (27%) indicated that a mortuary would not change the value of the home. Another 31% indicated that a price change would be minimal (less than 10%). However, over 13% indicated the value loss would be severe (over 50% of value). We also asked whether our sample would purchase a home next to a mortuary for their residence. Over two-thirds (68.5%) said no, while only 31.5% would live proximate to a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 12 mortuary. Ironically, more people are willing to live in haunted house than close-by to a mortuary. While both are associated with death, the difference may be the commercial nature of the mortuary, and the number of visitors to the business. 4.3 LOCATION OF VIOLENT CRIME Similarly to the previous stigmatized property types, respondents were asked if they should inform a potential buyer that a murder had occurred in a residence. Responses indicated that the majority (75.7%) believed that they should, with the remainder (24.3%) suggesting that potential buyers should not be informed. Interestingly, fewer favored disclosure of the violent crime (than a mortuary) even though the violent crime could not be easily detected upon inspection (unlike the mortuary). The reputation of a violent crime decreased the value by 24%, much more than the other factors considered in this study. A breakdown of how much a murder would potentially decrease the value of a home is shown in Table 4. Table 4. Murder House Priced Decrease Change Number percent None 145 27.05% 1-10% drop 125 23.32% 11-20% drop 78 14.55% 21-30% 48 8.96% 31-40% 20 3.73% 50% 62 11.57% 51-90% 33 6.16% 100% drop 25 4.66% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 13 Over half the respondents stated that the reputation of a home where a murder took place would be marginal (10% or less), with 22% indicating that prices would be devalued by approximately 50% or more. Indeed, it was found that being stigmatized as a location of a violent crime would generate a much higher negative impact than any of the other types of death stigma. When asked whether the respondents would purchase a residence which had been the location of a murder, only 32.4% indicated yes, while 67.6% indicated no. 4.4 LOCATION OF HIV/AIDS VICTIM Finally, respondents were asked whether a potential buyer should be told that the former resident of the home had HIV/AIDS. In our sample, 54.5% indicated the buyer should be informed, while 45.5% said that they should not be informed. The average decrease in value for the home of an HIV/AIDS victim was 18.25%. The breakdown of how much an AIDS victim devalued the house is shown in Table 5. Table 5. HIV/AIDS House Priced Decrease Change Number percent None 261 48.60% 1-10% drop 107 19.93% 11-20% drop 30 5.59% 21-30% 29 5.40% 31-40% 10 1.86% 50% 48 8.94% 51-90% 21 3.91% 100% drop 31 5.77% Nearly half the respondents (48.6%) indicated that a former resident’s HIV/AIDS status would have no effect on the value. When asked whether they would purchase this home for their personal residence, 47% said yes, while 53% said no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 14 The authors would argue that these results are heavily influenced by time. Fears of HIV/AIDS, and the resulting stigmas have been slowly replaced, year by year, with information about the transmission of the virus. 4.5 Statistical Analysis of Results The research also examined student differences based on several demographic factors to see if relationships existed. The analysis utilized four research hypotheses for this portion of the project. The null hypotheses are listed below. Hypothesis 1. Age did not affect the attitudes towards stigmatized properties; Hypothesis 2. Gender did not affect the attitudes towards stigmatized properties; Hypothesis 3. Having children did not affect the attitudes towards stigmatized properties; and Hypothesis 4. Marital status did not affect the attitudes towards stigmatized properties. The research conducted chi-square analysis of all stigmatized property types. In the context of belief in ghosts, the variables producing significant results were gender of the respondent, whether the respondent was a real estate major, and whether or not the respondent had taken a real estate course. Table 6. Chi-square analysis for belief in ghosts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 15 Chi-square Degrees of freedom Female 5.30* 1 Year in school 2.51 4 Major 1.83 3 Real estate major 5.42* 1 Had a real estate course 4.93* 1 Political views 7.61 4 Employment .53 2 Marital status .03 1 Religious intensity 1.73 3 Note: + p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Indeed, gender differences are also noted in several other analyses. It is again noted in these analyses of whether or not to inform the potential buyer that a house was reportedly haunted and whether or not to notify that a homicide/suicide had occurred in the residence. Table 7. Chi-square analysis for informing buyer of haunted house Chi-square Degrees of freedom Female 4.96* 1 Year in school 4.05 4 Major 3.95 3 Real estate major 2.59 1 Had a real estate course .35 1 Political views 6.77 4 Employment 1.21 2 Marital status .66 1 Religious intensity 4.50 3 Note: + p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Table 8. Chi-square analysis for informing buyer of murder/suicide Chi-square Degrees of freedom Female 4.60* 1 Year in school 3.81 4 Major 1.29 3 Real estate major .27 1 Had a real estate course .01 1 Political views 4.92 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 16 Employment 4.78+ 2 Marital status .01 1 Religious intensity .18 3 Note: + p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 To investigate the results holistically, logistic regression was performed for each of the binary response questions. Results of this suggested that no statistical significance was present in questions related to, whether a prospective buyer should be notified that a house may be haunted, notifying a prospective buyer that a house is located next to a mortuary, notifying a prospective buyer that a house had a murder or suicide occur in the residence, or notifying a prospective buyer that a previous owner died of HIV/AIDS in the home. The only models producing significant results were related to whether the real estate agent would buy a reportedly haunted house or a house in which a murder or suicide had occurred. See Table 9 below. Table 9. Results of logistic regression for each of the listed questions. Ghosts Haunted tell Haunted buy Mortuary tell Mortuary buy Murder tell Murder buy HIV/AID S tell HIV/AID S buy Year in school -.02 (.11) .19 (.12) -.28* (.12) .25 (.16) -.06 (.12) -.01 (.13) -.02 (.12) -.05 (.11) -.04 (.11) Major -.04 (.09) .11 (.10) .02 (.09) .07 (.13) .09 (.09) .07 (.11) .05 (.10) -.14 (.09) .04 (.09) Real estate major -1.06 (.67) -.91 (.56) 1.46* (.68) -1.66** (.63) .59 (.54) .37 (.69) .84 (.56) -.60 (.54) .51 (.56) Female .44* (.22) .47+ (.25) -.57* (.23) .48 (.33) -.14 (.23) .50+ (.27) -1.05*** (.25) -.24 (.22) .13 (.22) Real estate course -.42 (.34) .36 (.39) .52 (.34) .34 (.53) .35 (.34) .12 (.15) .55 (.34) .05 (.33) .21 (.33) Political views .17 (.13) .07 (.14) -.15 (.13) -.04 (.17) -.02 (.13) .14 (.15) -.01 (.13) .06 (.12) .17 (.13) Employment .06 (.15) .08 (.17) .25 (.16) .22 (.22) .10 (.16) .22 (.18) .05 (.16) -.13 (.15) .11 (.15) Married .001 (.46) -.19 (.17) .95+ (.50) -.02 (.78) .73 (.50) .24 (.53) .14 (.48) .25 (.44) .52 (.46) Age .01 (.04) -.02 (.04) .10* (.04) .04 (.06) .05 (.04) .01 (.05) .03 (.04) -.05 (.04) .05 (.04) No. of children -.30 (.31) .10 (.33) -.17 (.31) -.001 (.47) .02 (.31) .11 (.36) .12 (.31) .23 (.30) -.04 (.30) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 17 Religious views -.08 (.11) -.22 (.12) .17 (.12) .12 (.16) .08 (.12) -.01 (.13) .14 (.12) -.14 (.11) .19+ (.11) N 408 405 403 407 407 408 407 408 403 Model significance n.s. n.s. p<.001 n.s. n.s. n.s. p<.001 n.s. n.s. Note: + p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 In the model regarding whether the person would purchase a purportedly haunted house, it appears that respondents that have been at college longer, and females, are less likely to make the purchase. Real estate majors and married respondents were more likely to purchase the residence in question. Initial examination of the three value-based variables indicated that each was positively skewed. For each of the questions regarding how the value of the home would be impacted by the various scenarios, ordered logistic regression was conducted after transforming the dependent variables to categorical, ordinal variables. See Table 10 below. Table 10. Ordered logistic regression results. Haunted house value Murder/suicide house value HIV/AIDS death house value Year in school -.13 (.10) -.04 (.10) .07 (.11) Major -.13 (.08) -.04 (.08) -.04 (.08) Real estate major -1.26* (.56) -.40 (.48) -.51 (.61) Female .73*** (.20) .84*** (.19) .36+ (.20) Real estate course -.23 (.30) -.31 (.29) -.99** (.34) Political views -.07 (.11) -.02 (.11) -.17 (.12) Employment -.28 (.14) -.20 (.13) -.34 (.47) Married -.89* (.40) -.57 (.39) -.33 (.47) Age -.08* (.04) -.04 (.03) -.11* (.05) No. of children .16 (.27) -.24 (.27) -.29 (.37) Religious views -.10 (.10) -.11 (.10) -.23* (.11) N 408 402 399 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 18 Model significance p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 Note: + p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 All three questions produce statistically significant models. In each model, female respondents indicate the value of each of the properties in question would be devalued more than their male counterparts, although in the HIV/AIDS death property, the result merely approaches significance. Regarding the haunted residence it is apparent that real estate majors purport less devaluation of the property, as do older, and married respondents. Regarding the impact on the value of the residence in which the owner died of HIV/AIDS, respondents having taken a real estate course, older respondents, and less religious respondents report similar effects. Other results were surprising. No statistically significance was found when the religion of the respondent was examined. We expected a large result because of the tie between religion and death issues. Religion is highly correlated with death anxiety (Dezutter, Luyckx, and Hutsebaut, 2009). Death anxiety distinction may be based on intrinsic versus extrinsic religiosity (Cohen, et al., 2005). However, in the presented research, the study lacked religious diversity, with an overwhelmingly protestant sample. Other religions were too small to be significant. 5. Conclusions The research was concerned with understanding how stigmatized properties are impacted by psychological processes of prospective purchasers. Very little research has explored the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 19 topic from a pre-sale perspective, with an extensive literature base concerned with externalities using sale price data. The research found that while there was diversity in opinion across the study sample, there was general consensus that stigmatized properties would incur a reduction in what a potential purchaser was willing to pay, as well as have a negative effect on the sale potential if the stigma was disclosed. References Aalberts, B. & R. Hoyt. (2000). Appraisers and toxic mold: Legal and valuation issues. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management 6.2, 203-215. Bartholomew, R.E. & J. Nickell. (2016). The Amityville hoax at 40: Why the myth endures. Skeptic Magazine 21.4, 8-12. Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York, NY: Free Press. Ben-Ezra, M. & A. Perlin. (2005). A primer on selling haunted houses and other stigmatized property. Probate & Property 19, 59-62. Benjamin, J., E. Zietz, and S. Sirmans. (2003). The environment and performance of industrial real estate. Journal of Real Estate Literature 11.3, 279-324. Bering, J.M. (2006). The folk psychology of souls. Behavior and Brain Sciences 29, 453-462. Black’s Law Dictionary 236 (8th ed. 2004). Bleich, D. (2003). The reaction of multifamily capitalization rates to natural disasters. Journal of Real Estate Research 25.2, 133-144. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. London: Heinemann. Boyle, M. & K. Kiel. (2001). A survey of house price hedonic studies of the impact of environmental externalities. Journal of Real Estate Literature 9.2, 117-144. Braunstein, M. & Genn, H. (1991). Odd man out: Preliminary findings concerning the diminished role of lawyers in the home-buying process. Ohio State Law Journal 52, 469-480. Brown, R.B., & Thurlow, T.H. (1996). Buyers beware: Statutes shield real estate brokers and sellers who do not disclose that properties are psychologically tainted. Oklahoma Law Review 49, 625-648. Bryant, J. & D. Epley. (1998). Cancerphobia: Electromagnetic fields and their impact in residential loan values. Journal of Real Estate Research 15.1, 115-129. Cavanaugh, S. (2002). Nice to know a house is haunted. Washington Post (Oct. 26) 1. Chapman, D. & Ludlum, M. (2014). Teaching stigmatized property: You don’t have a ghost of a chance. Journal of Business Cases and Applications, 11.1, 63-70. Cohen, A.B., Pierce, J.D., Chambers, J., Meade, R., Gorvine, B.J., & Koenig, H.G. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, belief in the afterlife, death anxiety, and life satisfaction in young Catholics and Protestants. Journal of Research in Personality 39, 307-324. Copeland, C. (2011). Madness and mayhem: The aesthetics of dark tourism. Afterimage 39.1, 43-46. Cozzolino, P.J., Blackie, L.E.R., and Meyers, L.S. (2014). Self-related consequences of death fear and death denial. Death Studies 38, 418-422. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 20 Daneshvary, N., T. Clauretie, & A. Kader. (2011). Short-term own-price and spillover effects of distressed residential properties: The case of a housing crash. Journal of Real Estate Research 33.2, 179-207. Dezutter, J., Luyckx, K., & Hutsebaut, D. (2009). “Are you afraid to die?” Religion and death attitudes in an adolescent sample. Journal of Psychology and Theology 37, 163-173. Elmore, K. (2006). Southern discomfort: AIDS stigmatization in Wilmington, North Carolina. Southeastern Geographer 46.3, 215-230. Engberg, J. & R. Greenbaum. (1999). State enterprise zones and local housing markets. Journal of Housing Research 10.2, 163-187. Epley, D. (2012). The Gulf oil spill and its impact on coastal property value using the before-and-after procedure. Journal of Real Estate Literature 20.1, 121-137. Filippova, O., & M. Rehm. (2013). Market conditions, marketing time, and house prices. Journal of Housing Research 23.1, 45-55. Foust, M.A. (2013). Experience as a prelude to disaster: American philosophy and the fear of death. Mortality 18.1, 1-16. Francois, R. (2002). Power lines, visual encumbrance and house values: A microspatial approach to impact measurement. Journal of Real Estate Research 23.3, 275-302. Freybote, J. & E. Fruits. (2015). Perceived environmental risk, media, and residential sales prices. Journal of Real Estate Research 37.2, 217-244. Gallup, G.H. & Newport, F. (1991). Belief in paranormal phenomena among adult Americans. Skeptical Inquirer 15, 137-146. Guntermann, K. (1995). Sanitary landfills, stigma and industrial land values. Journal of Real Estate Research 10.5, 531-542. Hannum, C., Laposa, S., Reed, S., Pejchar, L. and L. Ex. (2012). Comparative analysis of housing in conservation developments: Colorado case studies. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 4.1, 149-176. Hartog, R.R. (1994). The psychological impact of AIDS on real property and a real estate broker’s duty to disclose. Arizona Law Review 36, 757-783. Hoen, B. and Atkinson-Palombo, C. (2016). Wind turbines, amenities, and disamenities: A study of home value impacts in densely populated Massachusetts. Journal of Real Estate Research 38.4, 473-504. Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Cappers, P., Thayer, M., & G. Sethi. (2011). Wind energy facilities and residential properties: The effect of proximity and view on sales prices. Journal of Real Estate Research 33.3, 279-316. Houtsonen, J., Kymla, J., Korhonen, T., Valimaki, M., and Suominen, T. (2014). University students’ perception of people living with HIV/AIDS: Discomfort, fear, knowledge and a willingness to care. College Student Journal 48.3, 534-547. Iserson, K.V. (2001). Death to dust. Tuscon, AZ: Galen Press. Jackson, T. (2001). The effects of environmental contamination on real estate: A literature review. Journal of Real Estate Literature 9.2, 91-116. Johnson, J. (2011, April 21). Overcoming our fear of death. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judith-johnson/fear-of-death_b_844220.html. Johnson, K., Salter, S., Zumpano, L., & R. Anderson. (2001). Exterior insulation and finish systems: The effect on residential housing prices and marketing time. Journal of Real Estate Research 22.3, 289-312. Jud, D., Seaks, T., & Winkler, D. (1996). Time on the market: The impact of residential brokerage. Journal of Real Estate Research 12.2, 447-458. Kilpatrick, J. (2004). Application of repeat sales analysis to determine the impact of a contamination event. Journal of Housing Research 15.2, 129-142. Kilpatrick, J., R. Throupe, J. Carruthers, & A. Krause. (2007). The impact of transit corridors on residential property values. Journal of Real Estate Research 29.3, 303-320. Komuves, F.L. (1997). For sale: Two-bedroom home with spacious kitchen, walk-in closet, and pervert next door. Seton Hall Law Review 27, 668-707. La Roche, C., Waller, B., and Wentland, S. (2014). “Not in my backyard”: The effect of substance abuse treatment centers on property values. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 6.2, 63-92. Lane, M.A., M.J. Seiler, & V.L. Seiler. (2015). The impact of staging conditions on residential real estate demand. Journal of Housing Research 24.1, 21-36. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 21 Larsen, J. & Coleman, J. (2001). Psychologically impacted houses: Broker disclosure behavior and perceived market effects in an unregulated environment. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education 4.1, 1-16. Lauzardo, M., Lee, P., Duncan, H., & Hale, Y. (2001). Transmission of mycobacterium tuberculosis to a funeral director during routine embalming. Chest 119, 640-642. Lipscomb, C., Mooney, A., & Kilpatrick, J. (2013). Do survey results systematically differ from hedonic regression results? Evidence from a residential property meta-analysis. Journal of Real Estate Literature 21.2, 233-253. Lo, C. (2012). Techniques of emotion: A study of the fear of funeral home workers in Hualien towards death related matters. Taiwan Journal of Anthropology 10.2, 59-99. Long, W. & Millsap, C.A. (2008). Fear of AIDS and homophobia scales in an ethnic population of university students. Journal of Social Psychology 148.5, 637-640. Ludlum, M.P. (1989). The funeral industry and public relations: A call for action. The Director 60.1, 18-19. Man, K.F. & V. Wong. (2012). Haunted flats: Quantifying the value of stigmatization in an apartment market. Appraisal Journal (fall) 330-336. McCloud, S. (2013). Mapping the spatial limbos of spiritual warfare: Haunted houses, defiled land and the horrors of history. Material Religion 9.2, 166-185. McElveen, M.A., B.E. Brown, & C.M. Gibbons. (2017). Natural gas pipelines and the value of nearby homes: A spatial analysis. Journal of Housing Research 26.1, 27-38. McGreal, S., A. Adair, L. Brown, & J. Webb. (2009). Pricing and time on the market for residential properties in a major U.K. city. Journal of Real Estate Research 31.2, 201-234. McKee, D.K. (1988). Potential liability for misrepresentation in residential real estate transactions: Let the broker beware. Fordham Urban Law Journal 16, 127-154. McLean, D. & B. Mundy. (1998). The addition of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis to the required body of knowledge for the estimation of environmental damages to real property. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education 1.1, 1-19. Morgan, R.M. (1994). The expansion of the duty to disclosure in real estate transactions: It’s not just for sellers anymore. Florida Bar Journal, (Feb.), 31. Musella, D.P. (2005). Gallup poll shows that Americans’ belief in the paranormal persists. Skeptical Inquirer 29, 5. Pacelle, M. (1991). Ghost stories haunt realtors: Who you gonna call? Lawyers. People flee spooky houses, then call deal-busters to scare up their money. Wall Street Journal (Oct. 31), A1. Parker, R., & P. Aggleton. (2003). HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: A conceptual framework and implications for action. Social Science & Medicine 57, 13-24. Paul, M. (2012, April 5). Fear of death. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-paul-phd/fear-of-death_b_1404365.html. Pennington-Cross, A. (2006). The value of foreclosed property. Journal of Real Estate Research 28.2, 193- 214. Persson, A., and C. Newman. (2008). Making monsters: Heterosexuality, crime and race in recent western media coverage of HIV. Sociology of Health & Illness 30.4, 632-646. Peterson, M. (2002). Seller beware: Mandatory disclosure provisions in Iowa put sellers of residential real estate on alert. Drake Law Review 50, 569-591. Reed v. King, 145 Cal. App. 3d 261, 193 Cal. Rptr. 130 (1983). Rittichainuwat, B. (2011). Ghosts: A travel barrier to tourism recovery. Annals of Tourism Research 38.2, 437-459. Roddewig, R. (1996). Stigma, environmental risk and property values: 10 critical inquiries. Appraisal Journal (Oct.) 375-387. Rosenbloom, S. (2006). Some buyers regret not asking: Anyone die here? New York Times (April 30) 1. Salter, S. & E. King. (2009). Price adjustment and liquidity in a residential real estate market with an accelerated information cascade. Journal of Real Estate Research 31.4, 421-454. Scambler, G. (2006). Sociology, social structure and health-related stigma. Psychology, Health & Medicine 11.3, 288-295. Seiler, M. (2014). Power lines and perceived home prices: Isolating elements of easement rights and noise pollution. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 6.2, 47-61. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 22 Simons, R., & J. Saginor. (2006). A Meta-analysis of the effect of environmental contamination and positive amenities on residential real estate values. Journal of Real Estate Research 28.1, 71-104. Simons, R., W. Levin, & A. Sementelli. (1997). The effect of underground storage tanks on residential property values in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Journal of Real Estate Research 14.1, 29-42. Simons, R.A., Y. Seo, & P. Rosenfeld. (2015). Modeling the effects of refinery emissions on residential property values. Journal of Real Estate Research 37.3, 321-342. Sparks, G.G., Hansen, T., & Shah, R. (1994). Do televised depictions of paranormal events influence viewers’ paranormal beliefs? Skeptical Inquirer 22, 35-39. Sparks, G.G. & Miller, W. (2001). Investigating the relationship between exposure to television programs that depict paranormal phenomena and beliefs in the paranormal. Communication Monographs 68.1, 98-113. Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.U.S.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). Steins, G. & B. Weiner. (1999). The influence of perceived responsibility and personality characteristics on the emotional and behavioral reactions to people with AIDS. The Journal of Social Psychology 139.4, 487- 495. Thomas, J. (2002). Environmental contamination and industrial real estate prices. Journal of Real Estate Research 23.1, 179-200. Throupe, R., Simons, R., & Mao, X. (2013). A review of hydro “fracking” and its potential effects on real estate. Journal of Real Estate Literature 21.2, 205-232. Tse, R.Y.C. & P.E.D. Love. (2000). Measuring residential property values in Hong Kong. Property Management 18.5, 366-374. Ukpevbo, P. & I.R. Egbenta. (2016). Buyers’ perceptions of the proximity of high-voltage overhead electricity transmission lines on residential land values in Auchi, Nigeria. Journal of Real Estate Literature 24.1, 167-182. United Nations. (2017). Fact sheet – Latest statistics on the status of the AIDS epidemic. Retrieved from http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet. Valk, U. (2006). Ghostly possession and real estate: The dead in contemporary Estonian folklore. Journal of Folklore Research 43.1, 31-51. Wada, R. @ Zahirovic-Herbert, V. (2013). Distribution of demand for school quality: Evidence from quantile regression. Journal of Housing Research 22.1, 17-31. Warner, D.M. (1993). Caveat Spiritus: A jurisprudential reflection upon the law of haunted houses and ghosts. Valparaiso University Law Review 28, 207-245. Weber, B. (1997). The valuation of contaminated land. Journal of Real Estate Research 14.3, 379-398. Weinberger, A.M. (1996). Let the buyer be well informed? Doubting the demise of caveat emptor. Maryland Law Review 55, 387-424. Wiseman, R., C. Watt, P. Stevens, E. Greening, & C. O’Keeffe. (2003). An investigation into alleged ‘hauntings.’ British Journal of Psychology 94, 195-211. Wisinger, P. (2014). Chemical hazardous sites and residential prices: Determinants of impact. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 6.2, 3-21.