Explain the classification and measurement of territoriality.

 CLASSIFICATION OF TERRITORIALITY

Classification of territoriality has been done in terms of a number of systems which are given below in detail.

1. The Altman System

Irwin Altman (1975) categorized territories into 3 types. Altman’s typology is the degree of privacy, affiliation, or accessibility allowed by each type:

Primary territories: These are spaces owned by individuals or primary groups, controlled on a relatively permanent basis by them, and central to their daily lives. Examples include one’s bedroom or a family’s dwelling. The psychological importance of a primary territory to its occupant(s) is always high.

Secondary territories: They are less important to us than primary territories, but they do possess moderate significance to their occupants. For example, a person’s desk at work, favorite restaurant, locker in the gym etc. Control of these territories is less essential to the current occupant and is more likely to change, rotate, or be shared with strangers.

Public territories: They are areas open to anyone in good standing with the community. Beaches, sidewalks, hotel lobbies, trains, stores etc. are public territories. Occasionally, because of discrimination or unacceptable behaviour, public territories are closed to certain individuals. In contrast to primary territories, which generally are closed to outsiders, public territories are open to all outsiders who are not specifically excluded.

Altman describes two other types of territories, although they are not universally recognized territories:

Objects: They meet some of the criteria for territories - we mark, personalize, defend and control our books, coats, bicycles, and calculators.

Ideas: They are also territories in a certain manner. We defend them through patents and copyrights. We have rules against plagiarism. Software authors try to protect ownership of their programs.

The Lyman and Scott System

Lyman and Scott (1976) categorised territories into the following types –

i) Interactional territories: They are areas temporarily controlled by a group of interacting individuals. For example, include a classroom, a family’s picnic area etc. Little overt marking of these territories may occur, yet entry into them is perceived as interference, rudeness, or “crashing”.

ii) Body territories: This is not the same as personal space because the boundary is at one’s skin rather than some distance away from it. Bodies may be entered with permission (as in surgery) or without permission (as in a knife attack), but individuals mark and personalise their bodies with makeup, jewelry, tattoos, and clothing and they certainly defend and try to control access to their bodies.

iii) Public Territory: is an area that is used and can be entered by anyone but he must comply with existing norms. It has low ownership cognition, control is very difficult and residents can only see but cannot be owned and controlled exclusively by individuals or groups.

iv) Home territory: areas where the regular participants have a relative freedom of behavior and sense of intimacy and control over the area. Hussein El-Sharkawy (1979) in Lang (1987), shows four types of territoriality that are useful in environmental design namely;

1. Attached territory, is a personal space that is owned by someone

2. Central territory, is the house, building with ownership

3. Supporting territory; semi-private and semi-public zones such as corridors, swimming pools, front gardens, back gardens

4. Peripheral territory; is a public space such as a shared sports field, and a city park.

Brower (1976) distinguishes territories into four types:

1. Personal territory: Personal territory is controlled individually or in groups. Group members are members who have a very close relationship such as a relationship due to marriage or relationships due to blood ties.

2. Community territory: Community territory is controlled by groups whose members sometimes change, but each member has gone through a screening process and sometimes an inauguration ceremony is held in accepting the member. This is done is to clarify the differences between group members and people outside the group.

3. Society territory: This territory is controlled by the general public and is open to the public, including public places such as a highway, and also places that are not public property such as waiting rooms in terminals, performance halls in theaters and so on. Prohibition and control are less free than previous types of ownership. This is done through rules or norms that come from the community, these regulations can be based on gender differences, age differences, or racial differences.

4. Free territory: This territory has no permanent residents, and the subject’s existence is not under the prohibition or control of certain parties. The rules that guide behavior are self-determined or based on natural forces or because of moral norms. This territory is characterized by the absence of territorial signs and therefore restrictions or controls that arise are more due to the exploration and imagination of its inhabitants.

MEASUREMENT OF TERRITORIALITY

Territoriality can be measured through certain techniques which are as follows:

1. Field Studies and Field Experiments

Field experiments are attempts to exercise experimental control and random assignment of subjects in real world settings. Field experiments require unusual creativity and perseverance to design and carry out.A study conducted by Simone, Barile and Calabrese (2018) is a rare example of territoriality and decision making. The purpose of this study was to discover whether being in one’s own territory gives a person greater influence than a visitor on the outcome of a mutual decision. In addition, the researchers wanted to find out whether dominance (as a personality trait) influenced the process. They asked groups of three students to meet in a room in which one student was the resident and the other two were visitors. The group was asked to discuss a budget problem and reach a consensus.

Dominance did not affect decision making much. Instead, the final consensus reflected the territory owner’s point of view in the debate much more than it reflected the visitors’ point of view. The results suggest that if you want decisions to go your way you should try to get others to discuss the decision at your place. This strategy, it appears, works whether or not you have a dominating personality.

Field studies, also performed in real world settings, focus on naturally occurring correlations or differences between variables because the researcher cannot randomly assign subjects or exercise control over the http://variables.In a typical field study, several variables are measured but not controlled by the researcher, and there is no random assignment to the experimental conditions or settings. For example, Jason, Reichler and Rucker (1981)investigated territoriality on beaches. Sunbathers tend to mark off territories using radios, towels, and umbrellas. The results showed that females claim smaller territories than males, and those mixed sex groups and larger groups claim less space (per person) than do same sex groups and smaller groups.

2. Surveys and Interviews

Another way to study territoriality is to ask individuals about their behaviour and experiences. Self-report methods such as surveys and interviews have the disadvantage that respondents may not be able or willing to report their behaviour accurately. However, these methods usually have two advantages: The researcher’s resources can be stretched to include a much larger number of individuals in the study, and the opinions, beliefs, feelings and other cognitions of respondents can be studied.

A good example of the interview approach is a study by Ali and Kodmany (2012) conducted on 185 residents of highrise buildings in Israel. Every member of 45 families, including children over age 5, was asked about his/her actual territory relevant behaviours and cognitions. For example, residents were asked,

i) where they chose to engage in specific activities in the apartment (a behaviour question), and

ii) who, in their opinion, owned various places within the apartment (a cognition question).

3. Naturalistic Observation and Unobtrusive Measures

Another strategy for studying human territoriality is to observe ongoing territoriality behaviour in a careful, structured way. For instance, the researcher may watch how children occupy and defend certain areas of a school playground. When unobtrusive measures are employed, the researcher may count the number and location of items that individuals deploy to control a space. For instance, a university’s cafeteria is generally so heavily used that experienced students going to lunch first locate a vacant seat, where they deposit their books on the table and their coat on the back of the chair, then go to the food lines.

Two typical unobtrusive measures of territoriality are marking and personalisation. If you wished to discover whether some ethnic groups express territoriality differentially, you could unobtrusively compare the amount they personalise their front yards. Berger et al. (2016) mentions that inner city Slavic Americans personalised their yards more than their non-Slavic neighbors. The Slavs landscaped their yards more, maintained their houses better, and placed more potted plants in view.

Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)