The Curse of Stigmatised Houses: How Cultural Beliefs Affect Property Values in Malaysia

Stigmatised properties refer to residential units that are psychologically affected by past events such as death, crime, or alleged paranormal occurrences which may influence buyer perceptions despite having no physical defects. In culturally sensitive contexts such as Malaysia, where traditional beliefs and superstitions remain influential, such properties may face distinctive market challenges. This study investigates the market implications of stigmatised houses in Malaysia from the perspective of property industry professionals. A structured questionnaire survey was administered to 54 respondents, comprising licensed estate agents and property negotiators. The findings indicate that cultural beliefs significantly shape market reactions toward stigmatised properties, leading to extended marketing periods and price discounts compared to non-stigmatised units. The results further reveal that many agents are reluctant to accept listings of properties associated with negative stigma due to reputational and transaction risks. These findings contribute to the limited empirical literature on psychological stigma in emerging property markets and provide practical insights for real estate practitioners and property owners in developing appropriate pricing and marketing strategies for stigmatised properties.

stigmatised property, marketability, property value, stigma effect

1. Abelson, P., Joyeux, R., & Mahuteau, S. (2013). Modelling house prices across Sydney. Australian Economic Review, 46, 269–285. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alias, A., Hamsani, D., Chua, S., & Zaid, S. (2014). Psychologically Impacted Houses: Superstitions and Marketability Problems. Journal of Building Performance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Barro, R. J., & R. M. McCleary. (2002). Religion and Political Economy in an International Panel. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Boggess, L. N., Greenbaum, R. T., & Tita, G. E. (2013). Does crime drive housing sales? Evidence from Los Angeles. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36(3), 299–318. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cavanaugh, S. (2002). Nice to know a house is haunted. Washington Post, Oct. 26, 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Drehmann, M., Gerner-Beuerle, C., & Marsh, I. W. (2020). Stigmatized properties, foreclosures, and resale discounts. Real Estate Economics, 48(1), 43-83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fierro, I., Shue, K., & DeBauche, A. (2019). The Effect of Stigmatized Property on Housing Market. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 12(5), 802-817. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hajnal, I. (2017). Stigmatised Property: A Method of Comparing Blights. Procedia Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hofmann, J. V. (1999). When bad things happen to good properties, Tierra Grande. The Real Estate Center Journal, 1278, 1999. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Larsen, J. E., & Coleman, J. W. (2001, January). Psychologically Impacted Houses: Broker Disclosure Behavior and Perceived Market Effects in an Unregulated Environment. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Mahalingam, E. (2012, Jun 30). Selling a haunted house. Retrieved January 2018, from The Star Online: https://www.thestar.com.my/business/businessnews/2012/06/30/selling-a-haunted-house/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Nallathiga, R., Bindal, S., Chauraisia, A., & Talodhikar, M. (2017). The Stigma Effect on Property Value: A Study of 'Value Depreciation' and Its Distribution in India. Advances in Project, Real Estate and Infrastructure Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Qin, P. (2008, March). Notoriety affecting property values. Australian and New Zealand Property Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Reed v. King, 145 Cal. App. 3d 261, 193 Cal. Rptr. 130 (1983). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Rosenbloom, S. (2006). Some buyers regret not asking: Anyone die here? New York Times, April 30, 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rosli Said, Rohayu Ab. Majid, & Chuah, T. G. (2016). Making Sense of Stigmatised Property: A Cross-Professional Perspective. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Tita, G. L., Petras, T. L., & Greenbaum, R. T. (2006). Crime and residential choice: A neighborhood level analysis of the impact of crime on housing prices. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 299–317. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Torgler, B. (2007). Determinants of superstition. Journal of Socio-Economics. 36(5): p. 713-733. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar