psych 372 environmental psychology (8 territoriality)

8/11/2019 Psych 372 Environmental Psychology (8 Territoriality)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psych-372-environmental-psychology-8-territoriality 1/35

Territoriality



Overview

• Definitions and terms

• Methods of study

• Territorial behaviour

• Theories of territoriality

• Applications



Definitions and terms

• Territoriality: patterns of behaviour based onperceived ownership

• Most commonly, we think of this as purely spatial, but

we can own other things like objects or ideas

• Altman system: primary (permanent), secondary(transient) and public

• Lyman and Scott add to this: interactional territories

(eg. A sidewalk convo) and body



Types of territorial infringement

• Invasion – entering and taking control

• Violation – burglary, assault, vandalism

• Contamination – messing up someone’sspace, eg. With a toxin



Types of territorial defense

• Preventative defense

• Marking, fences, signs

• Reaction defenses• Physical action

• Complaints, glaring, etc.

• Occupation (yes we are slower to leave a parking

spot when someone is waiting)

• Social boundaries

• Rituals, passwords, the “secret handshake”



Study methods

• By its nature, territoriality is very difficult tostudy in the lab

• Normally takes a bit of time to develop

• But there are some good examples

• Perceptual studies show perceived object distances affectedby perceived ownership

• Suggests that our basic perceptions of the world are influenced byterritory



Study methods

• Field studies are much more common

• For example, studies of territoriality on beaches

• Men occupy larger territories than women

• Groups occupy smaller per-person territories than singles

• But as with all field studies, many variableuncontrolled and causal inferences problematic



Territorial behaviour

• Personalization and marking

• Generally a good thing – we’ll look in more detail shortly.

• Aggression and defense

• This is rare and usually when boundaries are vague• Gang warfare

• Refusing to leave

• Dominance and control

• Mental institution study

• High status patients had no territory. Middle and low statuspatients had territory with size correlated with their status



How they did it

• Unobtrusive observations in a unit with 20-25patients

• Established “pecking order” by looking at:

• Total number of interactions

• Total number of interactees

• Total number of interactions with staff

• Measured territory by dividing floor into a grid

• Deemed territory as a location in which a patient was seen onat least 25% of observation periods



Home field advantage in sports

• Most findings show a strong home fieldadvantage when crowd noise is a factor

• Enclosed sports like hockey and basketball vs. open

environments like baseball and soccer

• Referees also favour home team, but again mostly innoisy environments

• One study showed video to referees with and without crowd

noise – their judgements favoured home team only with noise



Applications

O N ’ D f ibl S



Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space:Crime Prevention ThroughEnvironmental Design

• Story begins with Pruitt-Igoe

A Corbusian design



Le Corbusier

• A most influential modernist architect

• Designed everything from residences toneighborhoods

• Most ambitious plan was Radiant City in which heproposed tearing down much of Paris to build asparse, clean setting with a wide open ground planefilled with freeways and even runways for airports,while everyone lived in the sky



The reality….



The sad facts• Pruitt-Igoe never exceeded 60% occupancy

• Public areas had high crime and vandalism



Across the street….

Carr Square Village – similar density and demographics



What went wrong?

• Newman argued that the main problem had todo with how the shape of space influencesterritoriality

• Most crime in residential areas takes place in publicspaces

• So look at how public spaces are arranged

• Newman said that the more people who use a public area, theless likely any of them are to feel psychological ownership



This is fixable!

Two different designs:

Same density but

arrangement of public

areas encourages more

psychological

ownership in the lower

model



A suggested design: Greek cross



More crosses



A second application

• Territoriality in organizations

• This has become a key issue given open officedesigns



Territorial behaviour andpsychological ownership

• A very extensive understanding of“psychological ownership” which can transcendspace

• “The stronger an individual's psychologicalownership of an object, the greater thelikelihood he or she will engage in territorialbehaviors toward that object. “



Territorial Marking in Organizations – Identity oriented marking

• “The relationship between psychologicalownership and identity-oriented marking of a

territory will be stronger to the extent that theindividual believes he or she is otherwiseunable to express his or her distinctivenessfrom others at work”

• So in other words the more homogeneous andopen the environment, the more marking willbe observed

Territorial marking in organizations:



Territorial marking in organizations:Control-oriented marking: “This is myspace!”

• “The relationship between psychologicalownership and control-oriented marking of aterritory will be moderated by the ambiguity

regarding the ownership of the object such thatthe more ambiguity there is the stronger therelationship will be.”



Territorial defense and organizations: Anticipatory defense

• Anticipatory defense – door locks, receptionists

• Differs from control-oriented marking becausemarking is communicative whereas this type of

defense is not• Eg. A “private” sign vs a locked door



Territorial defense in organizations: Anticipatory defenses

• “The relationship between psychologicalownership and anticipatory defenses will bestronger to the extent that the individual

perceives a greater likelihood of infringementdespite marking.”



Territorial defense in organizations:Reactionary defenses

• The relationship between psychologicalownership and reactionary defenses will bemoderated by an individual's attributions aboutthe infringement such that the relationship willbe stronger to the degree that theorganizational member holds the infringerresponsible for the infringement.

• Reactionary defenses are seldom violent butcan include yelling, firing off emails, glaring,etc.

• They function to regulate affect



Effects of territorial behaviour onindividual behaviour in organizations

• Engagement in territorial behavior will increasean individual's commitment to the organization.

• Marking increases attachment because it affords

expression of distinctiveness• Marking and defense increase rootedness

• Marking and defense require time and energy, whichincreases feelings of belonging



Organizational consequences ofterritoriality

• The operation of marking and defense inorganizations has behavioural effects thatinfluence the entire organization



Organizational consequences ofterritoriality

• To the degree that territorial behavior involvesor creates socially agreed upon territories, itwill decrease the level of process conflict

among organizational members.



Negative effects of territoriality inorganizations

• Territorial behavior will distract organizationalmembers from inrole performance.



Negative effects of territoriality inorganizations

• Territorial behavior will increase the degree towhich organizational members are isolatedfrom one another.



Implications

• Managers must allow territoriality to operate ina healthy way because it will operate

• This can be harder to manage in open officeenvironments



In general and by way of summary

• Territoriality, like personal space to which it isrelated, probably has ancient biological roots

• Territoriality is largely positive. It regulates our

social interactions, gives structure to grouporganization, and promotes feelings of attachment

• Territoriality can have negative consequences

• Rarely, can erupt into violence• Can cause distractions and feelings of isolation

psych 372 environmental psychology (8 territoriality)

Documents