ruback, kohli / territoriality / t the 2005 environment and

8/14/2019 Ruback, Kohli / Territoriality / t the 2005 Environment And

1/23

10.1177/0013916504266807ENVIRONMENTAND BEHAVIOR /March 2005Ruback,Kohli/TERRITORIALITY ATTHEMAGH MELA

TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA

The Effects of Organizational Factors

and Intruder Characteristics

R. BARRYRUBACK is a professorof crime, law, andjusticeandsociology at Penn-

sylvania State University. His research in environmental psychology focuses on the

correlates of environmental stressors, particularly crowding. He is also interested in

decision making in the legal system.

NEENA KOHLI received her B.A., M.A., and D.Phil. degrees from theUniversity ofAllahabad, India. Currently a senior lecturer at the University of Allahabad, she has

worked onfactors involved in psychological recovery following tragic lifeevents.Her

present researchinterests includeillnesscognitionsand adjustment to chronicillness,

the role of health beliefs in recovery, and stress and pain management.

ABSTRACT:The Magh Mela, an annual Hindu festival held at the confluence of the

Ganges and Yamuna rivers, attracts about 150,000 pilgrims who stay for a month in

campsites maintained byreligious organizations.Thisstudyexamined territoriality at

the campsites in terms of (a) observed characteristicsincluding personalizations

(e.g., flags, banners) and barriers (e.g., fences, gates)and (b) behavioral responses

to an experimental intrusion by 1 or 2 intruder-interviewers who were either male or

female. Across dependent measures, larger organizations and more fundamentalistorganizations were more territorial. Results from the experiment indicated that terri-

torialdefense,in the form of a fasterresponse toan intrusion, was evidenced more for

female than male intruders and more for 1 than 2 intruders. These findings suggest

that the concept of territorial defense should be broadened beyond physically threat-

ening intrusions to includesymbolically threatening intrusions (e.g., an intrusion by a

single woman).

Keywords: territoriality; religion; gender; India

Territoriality refers to marking a physical location, occupying it, and

potentially defending it against intruders. This territorial behavior is an

important way by which individuals and groups can regulate social interac-

tions(Altman,1975)through warning potential intruders(Ley& Cybriwsky,

178

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 37 No. 2, March 2005 178-200

DOI: 10.1177/0013916504266807

2005 Sage Publications


2/23

1974) andprotecting thearea from outsiders(Lyman & Scott,1967; Sommer

& Becker, 1969). There canbe other benefitsas well. For instance, when ter-

ritories are clearly defined, aggression is less common (Eibl-Eibesfeldt,

1970), group cohesion is greater (Suttles, 1968, p. 38), and valuable

resources are likely to last longer (Acheson, 1975; Taylor, 1988).

Territorial behavior is especially important for primary territoriesareas

that are central to ones life. The more important the area is, the more defen-

sivemeasuresthatarelikely tobeemployed.For example,withprimary terri-

tories such as the home, occupants are likely to use several defensive mea-

sures (e.g., fences, lockeddoors) tokeep outsidersoutside.Thus, peoplewho

owntheir homes aremore likely than renters to personalize their homes with

markers (Greenbaum & Greenbaum, 1981), although it might be that causal-

ity works both ways. That is, individuals who are more territorial use moremarkers of territory, and individuals who personalize their territory with

more markers are more attached to that territory (Brown, 1987). Similarly,

homeowners who use aggressive territorial markers (e.g., No Trespassing

signs, Beware of Dog signs, fences) are likely to have lived longer in their

homes, plan to live there longer in the future, and respond to a doorbell more

quickly (Edney, 1972).

Most studies of territoriality have examined public territoriesareas that

are temporarily occupied and to which anyone has free access (Altman,

1975). Studies of territoriality at such public territories as hallways, beaches,

park benches, and library tables suggest that people establish territories

(Edney& Jordan-Edney, 1974; H. W. Smith, 1981) and that potential intrud-

ers recognize these temporary territories (Cheyne & Efran, 1972). However,

occupantsare notlikely todefendthem (e.g.,Patterson, Mullens,& Romano,1971; Sommer& Becker, 1969) unless those locationsarevaluablefora par-

ticular purpose (Ruback, 1987; Ruback, Pape, & Doriot, 1989; Taylor &

Brooks, 1980). There is also some evidence that people will defend public

territories even if it is contrary to their goal of leaving (Ruback & Juieng,

1997). In contrast to these studies of public territories, the present research

examined secondary territories, those semipublic locations that are less cen-

tral and exclusive than primary territories but that have more ownership and

are under more control than public territories (Altman, 1975).

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 179

AUTHORSNOTE: Thisresearch wassupported by PennState University andby the

Centre for AdvancedStudy in Psychology and theCentre forBehaviouraland Cogni-

tive Sciences at the University of Allahabad. We thank Sabika Abbas, Pankaj Bharti,

Azra Ishrat, and SunilVermafor theirhelp with thecollection andcoding of thedata.

We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.


3/23

Although occupants of primary and secondary territories are likely to

defend these areas against outsiders, there may be some important locations

or some circumstances when occupants may also welcome outsiders. Such a

situation might occur among religious groups that face a potential conflict

between protecting the organization from nonmembers who may threaten

their physical and spiritual integrity and wanting to bring in new members.

The present research investigated this dilemma by looking at territorial

behaviorat theMagh Mela, an annual religiousfestival in north India. In par-

ticular, the study examined the effects of two aspects of the religious organi-

zations occupying the land (size and religious fundamentalism) and two

aspects of intruders onto the land (gender and number).

ROLE OF RELIGION

Although there are many individual aspects to religion, religion is also a

group phenomenon (Johnstone, 2001, pp. 7-9, 42-44). Members share com-

mon goals and norms, they identify with the group, there are roles to fulfill,

and there is a status system. In Hinduism, the group aspect is somewhat dif-

ferent than it is in theWest in that individualsgenerallyaffiliatewith a partic-

ular pandit and feel attached to that specific person rather than to the larger

religion.1 This occursbecause there isno singledogmaforHinduism. Rather,

peopleareHindu because they areborn to Hindu parents. Theparticular way

it is practiced depends on the social class and geographical region a person

belongs to (Johnstone, 2001, pp. 204-205).

Oneof theimplications of thefact that there aregroupaspects to a religion

is that factors about groups, such as size, should affect the way a religiousgroup functions. Although larger size is often considered an indication that

the group is successful, there are five implications of larger sized religious

groups (Johnstone, 2001, pp. 43-44). First, larger groups are likely to have

less consensus about goals and normsin large part because there is less

communication and therefore less understanding. Second, this reduction in

consensus is likely to result in greater diversity in behavior. Third, when

groups are larger, thereare more formal norms and principles. Fourth, larger

religious groups are likely to have more specialized roles and more full-time

roles. Finally, there is greater social distance between religious coordinators

and the rank-and-file membership.

Virtually all examinations of the size of religious groups have been con-

ducted in thecontext of Western religions, particularlyProtestantchurches in

the United States (Johnstone, 2001). This literature suggests that larger

groups tend to be more acceptingof theprevailing socialvalues in their envi-

180 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005


4/23

ronment whereas smaller groups tend to bemore rejectingof these prevailing

values (Johnson, 1963, as cited in Stark & Finke, 2000, p. 143). Within these

groups, members tend to be more highlycommittedto smaller groups (sects)

than to largerorganizations (churches) because inaddition to thegreater con-

sensus and greater communication, sects have more requirements (Weber,

1922/1963). The strictness eliminates members who do not have high com-

mitment and, for those who remain, increases the benefits of membership

(Iannaccone, 1994).

In the context of territorial behavior, the size of a religious group could

have conflicting effects. Small groups are likely to have more committed

members, which should lead to greater defense. However, they arealso often

interested in attracting new members, which should mean less defense.

Larger groups generallyhave lessindividual commitment, whichshould leadto less defense. However, because they are also likely to have more property

and greater wealth, they should be more territorial. Moreover, because they

have more members, they are likely to have more role specialization. In par-

ticular, they are more likely to have individuals whose job it is to guard the

campsite. We expected larger organizations to be more territorial because

with greater wealththereis more need andmore resourcesto protect thesite.

Fundamentalism refers broadly to religious movements against manifes-

tations of modernity, especially individual liberation and secularization

(Johnstone, 2001, pp. 154-157). The religious fundamentalism of a group

could also be evidenced in territorial behavior. We expected that because of

their high level of commitment to the group, high fundamentalist groups

would be likely toexclude others who werenot in their sectwhereas low fun-

damentalist organizations would be more likely to welcome strangers.

THE MAGH MELA

This studyexamined territorialbehaviorby religiouspilgrims at theMagh

Mela duringFebruary 2003. TheMagh Mela is a religiousfestival held annu-

ally at theSangam, theconfluence of theGanges river, theYamuna river,and

the mythical Saraswati river, which is said to come from the center of the

earth. The Sangam is a holy place for ritual bathing and the Magh Mela has

been held there for centuries. The festival (Mela in Hindi) is held during the

month of Magh, which begins in mid-January with the ritual bathing day of

Makar Sankranti. Thereareseveralotherritual bathing days duringtheMela,

which lasts about a month.

Aside from thebathers,whocannumber in themillionson thethreemajor

bathing days, there are about 150,000 kalpavasis, or religious pilgrims, who



5/23

camp on theopen land of theSangam. During themonsoon season, theGan-

ges at this point is about a mile wide. During the month of Magh, however,

the Ganges River is less than a quarter mile wide, which means there are

extensive areas of sand and silt. It is on this land that the kalpavasis camp.

According to thegovernment authorities overseeing the festival, the2003

Mela spread across an area of about 300 bighas, or roughly 600 acres.About

one sixth of this area was nonresidential and was devoted to administrative

offices, police stations, and medical facilities. The remaining land was resi-

dential (i.e., where the camps were set up). Altogether in 2003 there were

approximately 2,150 campsites of which 1,500 were set up by various orga-

nizations and 650 by religious pandits (learned men who organize their own

camps, often for profit). The Mela Authority, which is part of the Uttar

Pradesh state government, allocates land for the campsites.

Allocation of land. The most desirable sites at the Mela are those located

on the major roads and near the Sangam. In general, those organizations that

hadbeen to theMagh Mela beforecontinue to receive the same campsite that

they had used before. However, because the course of the Ganges River

changes every year, the location of streets and the amount of land available

forcampsitesnecessarilychanges as well. Theallocation of land is also com-

plicated by the fact that the riverbed is not even, and organizations assigned

land containing pits arelikely tobedissatisfied. Moreover, allocation canbe a

problem when new organizations apply for space. Sometimes they are given

land that hadoriginallybeen assigned toanorganization that didnot show up.

If the new organizations are powerful they are given the best sites, irrespec-

tive of the group to which it had been originally allotted. More often, neworganizations aregiven new siteswhere therewasno camp theprevious year.

Facilities. The state government provides religious organizations, free of

cost, basic facilities like electricity and water. In addition, the government

provides tents and many household items (e.g., incandescent lights, beds,

utensils). Organizations often bring more of these items because of the large

number of people who stay there. Moreover, wealthier organizations lease

from private businesses better quality facilities including tents, toilets, fluo-

rescent lights, and cooking facilities. The wealthier organizations also have

more water taps, more toilets, and greater electrical supply.

Most campsites have banners, written in Hindi, identifying the organiza-

tion sponsoring the campsite. In addition, most campsites have identifying

flags flyingfrom tall poles so that peoplecan locatetheircampsitefroma dis-

tance. Because a large percentage of the pilgrims are illiterate, these flags



6/23

generally are brightly colored, may be of various shapes, and often contain

symbols so that pilgrims can easily identify them.

The Mela provides an excellent opportunity to investigate territoriality in

secondary territories, andthis study extends research on territoriality in three

ways. First, it examines the cross-cultural generalizability of some of the

underlying assumptions of territoriality. That is, most territorial research

hasassumed that the threat from intrusionto thephysical space is to occu-

pants or possessions. It might be that the primary threat posed by an

intruder is to beliefs rather than to physical security. Thisnotion is consis-

tent with Altmans (1975) suggestion that territorialityespecially for

secondary territoriescanserve severalfunctions, includinggroupidentity.

In such cases, territoriality is a way to defend that identity. Second, it investi-

gates theconflictreligiousgroupsmay havein termsof welcomingor barringoutsiders. Third, it looks at the role of groups in territorial behavior, specifi-

cally group norms and specialized roles.

HYPOTHESES

We expected that territoriality would be evidenced both by person-

alizations (e.g., the number andsize of identifying flags and banners) and by

barriers (e.g., fences, gates, and guards). We also expected that more territo-

rial camps would have rules about who could enter the campsite. In addition

to these observable aspects, we expected that how campsites responded to an

intrusion by one or two strangers who were either male or female could be

measured by how quickly they responded to an intrusion, which would be an

indication of territorial defense (Edney, 1972). We also collecteddata on fivevariables occurring after the initial response that we considered indicators of

how welcoming the campsites were of intruders: (a) the length of time they

spent with the intruder, (b) thenumber of pilgrims who spoke to the intruder,

(c) where the interviews were conducted, (d) whether intruder-interviewers

were allowed to sit, and (e) whether intruder-interviewers were offered

refreshment.

In addition to investigating the size and religious fundamentalism of the

organizations occupying the land, we also were interested in studying the

effects of the gender and number of intruders. For the most part, studies on

territoriality have examined how men and women react to intrusions by a

male, but therehave been few, if any, studies of howindividuals react to intru-

sions by a female. Analogous research on invasions of personal space indi-

cates that invasions by males are more distressing and more likely to lead to

flight than are invasions by females (Krail & Leventhal, 1976; McBride,



7/23

King, & James, 1965). The absence of research on territorial intrusions by

women could be because intrusions by females aregenerally rare. For exam-

ple, studies of seating in college classrooms suggest that females are reluct-

ant to invade the territories of males (Haber, 1980). This reluctance would

probably be even more true in a culture such as Indias where women have

substantially less social power than in the West.

Despite these findings on the effects of gender, we expected in our study

that females wouldcausemore territorial response than wouldmales because

in South Asia territorial intrusions by women, especially a woman alone,

would be so nonnormative as to call for immediateaction. That is, outside of

the large cities, women in India rarelygo outby themselves and, thus, female

intruders would be unusual.

In terms of the experimental manipulation of the number of intruders, weexpected that twointruders would pose more of a threatthan oneintruder and

thus should elicit more territorial behaviors (e.g., a quicker response to an

intrusion). We also expected an interaction of gender and number. The intru-

sion of two males should be a greater threat than the intrusion of one male

because two males can do more harm than one male. In contrast, in India the

intrusion of one female is a greater threat than the intrusion of two females

because a woman alone is so unusual and nonnormative. In India, a lone

woman is virtually never seen outside of the metropolitan areas. Thus, there

would be more territoriality with one than two female intruders.

METHOD

OVERVIEW

We used three data sources to investigate territorial behavior at the Magh

Mela. First, we observed campsites to obtain more detailed information

about the quality of the campsites (e.g., number of tents, type of toilets,

kitchen). Second, we obtained information through a structured survey of a

representative of the camp that included questions about the groups open-

ness to outsiders, the groups history at the Mela, the groups satisfaction

with the campsite, the nature of the groups relations with its neighbors, and

whether there are any rules regarding entry by strangers. Third, we obtained

behavioral measures of territoriality including the amount of time (in sec-

onds) between the entry by the interviewer(s) and when some member of thecampsite first spoke to them. This territorial intrusion was experimentally

manipulated in terms of number and gender of intruders.



8/23

PARTICIPANTS

Of theapproximately 2,150 campsites at theMela we sampled 241. More

than half (53%) of theorganizations andpandits sponsoring thecamps in the

sample came from the Allahabad district (the region in which the city of

Allahabad and the Sangam are located), and 72% came from the northern

Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, the state of about 170 million people in which

Allahabad is located. Most of the remaining 28% generally came from the

states of Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharasthra.

PROCEDURE

Two teams, consisting of either two males or two females, conducted the

study. Each pair conducted the intrusions as a replicate of four conditions inthe following order: intrusion by both, intrusion by one, intrusion by both,

intrusion by the other. In this way there were the same number of single and

double intrusion conditions, and this order permitted us to control for possi-

ble day and time of day effects. When both individuals intruded, one asked

thequestionsandtheothercompletedthe observation form. Thetwoindivid-

uals alternated between these roles in the condition where both intruded.

From the Mela administration authorities we obtained a map of the site

that we used to systematically sample campsites from every street in the

Mela. Researchers started at one end of the street and collected data at every

other camp. For each road in the Mela the two men worked as a team on one

side while the two women worked as a team on the other side.

The study was conducted on 9 different days during a 2-week period in

February 2003. No interviews were conducted on the major ritual bathing

days when there were about a million visitors to the Sangam.

Entering the campsite. The intruder-interviewers (one or two, male or

female, depending on condition) walked five steps into the campsite,2 stood

there until someone came to them, and, using a stopwatch, measured thetime

in seconds from the time they entered the campsite until someone came to

speak with them. In several cases, walking the five steps was not possible

because the gate was closed,3 the intruder-interviewers were stopped at the

gate andquestioned there,or they were questioned beforetheycould take five

steps. Ifno one cameto talkto them, they waitedup to2 min and thenlooked

for someone to talk to.

Surveying respondents. The intruder-interviewers introduced themselves

as graduate students in psychology at Allahabad University. They then said



9/23

they were conducting a study on the use of space at the Mela and were inter-

ested in asking respondents some questions that would take about 10 min.4 If

they agreed, andalldid, then theinterviewers beganthestructured questions.

All of the intruder-interviewers were extensively trained and had the oppor-

tunity to practice delivering these instructions during several pilot sessions.

Consistent with the practice in other studies involving minor intrusions that

commonly occur (e.g., Milgram, Liberty, Toledo, & Wackenhut, 1986), we

did not debrief research participants about the experimental manipulation.

Three interviews were terminated before all of the interview data were col-

lected. The individuals at these three campsites, when told about the inter-

view, said they preferred not to answer any questions because they had

additional equipment from the government (e.g., fluorescent lights) beyond

what they should have had. Even though they hadbeen promised anonymity,they were afraid that their behavior would become known to the authorities.

For these three campsites, however, we still had measures of intrusion time

and of the observation items.

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

The interview schedule consisted of 29 questions that asked about the

organization that sponsored the camp (size of the sponsoring organization,

home location, name of the individual who was its head), the organizations

history at the Mela, their opinion about the quality of the campsite, whether

the campsite was the groups first choice, the number of people at the camp-

site, the groups attitude toward strangers, and the groups religious funda-

mentalism. In addition to these questions, the interviewers noted thenumberof people they spoke to, the length of their interviews, whether they were

asked to sit, where the interview was conducted (at the gate or inside the

camp), whether they were offered refreshment, and whether there were any

religious programs going on at the time.

OBSERVATION FORM

In addition to the interview schedule, the intruder-interviewers also com-

pleted an observation form. Their ratings included observations of the num-

ber and size of flags (coded as small, about 1 ft; medium, about 2 ft;or large,

about 3 ft) and banners (coded as small, about 3 ft; medium, about 6 ft, or

large, about 9 ft); the type of gate (coded as none, bamboo, bamboo with

cloth, wood, decorated wood, and steel); position of the gate (open, half-

open, closed); the type of boundary around the camp (none, twine, rope,

wood, bamboo, steel, or brick); the height of the boundary (approximately



10/23

3 ft, 6 ft, or 9 ft); the number and type of tents; the number of water taps and

toilets; the size and type of cooking facility; the number of incandescent and

fluorescent bulbs; the number of beds and chairs; the type of flooring in the

camp; and whether the camp had grass and flowers.

When two interviewers intruded, they completed the observation form

together. When only one interviewer intruded, both that person and theother

person (who was on the road outside the camp) completed the observation

form. Thus, for half of the campsites (i.e., when there was only one intruder)

we have measures of the reliability of the observations. Because the person

who was on the road outside could not see everything that was inside the

camp, reliability could be determined for only 15 items.

In general, reliability was very high for the nominally coded items: 97%

for the size of the flags, 98% for the size of the banners, 97% for whetherthere were private guards, 99% for the type of gate, 100% for the position of

thegate (open,half open, or closed), 95%for theheight of theboundary, 99%

for the type of boundary, 94% for whether there was a covered area for reli-

gious discourse, 91% for whether there was grass in the camp, 96% for

whether there were flowers in the camp, and 91% for the type of flooring in

the tents. For the continuous items that the outside observer could see, the

correlations were also very high (rs greater than .99 for the number of flags,

number of banners, and number of boundaries and r= .91 for the number of

small tents).

RESULTS

Before conducting analyses of theobserved indicators of territorialityand

of the behavioral responses to an intrusion we related the camps distance

from the Sangam to factors about the camp. Then we used responses to the

survey to divide the campsites based on the size and fundamentalism of the

sponsoring organization.

Distance from theSangam. We conductedtwodifferent analyses based on

location in the Mela. The first was based on the street on which the campwas

situated.A one-way ANOVA by street indicatedthat different streets haddif-

ferent amounts of wealth as indicated by the number of water taps, fluores-

cent lights, wooden beds, chairs, mats, and toilets. In addition to using the

street, we also measured the distance on a map from the midpoint of each ofthestreetsonwhich interviews were conductedto thepointwherethe Ganges

River meets the Yamuna River. We used a point in the water because bathers



11/23

would use both banks at the point where the two rivers meet. For two very

long streets we used two midpoints to calculate the distance from the

Sangam. Correlationsbetween this distanceon themap andcharacteristics of

the campsites revealed several significant relationships. In general, these

results suggested that camps that were farther from the Sangam were less

territorialfewer flags, r(238) = .13,p < .05, and fewer boundaries around

the camp, r(238) = .37, p < .001. People at campsites farther from the

Sangam were less likely to say the site was their first choice and more likely

to say they had gone to the Mela authorities to ask for a new location. This

finding is consistent with the fact that campsites farther away are less

desirable.

Size. Respondents gave us self-reports about whether the campsite wassponsored by a single pandit (13%) or by an organization that was small

(30%), medium (14%), or large (43%) in size. We used this information to

create a dichotomous variable relating to the size of the organization: (a)

smallorganizations(43%)thatconsistedof single pandits and self-described

small organizations and (b) large organizations (57%) that consisted of self-

described medium and large organizations. To determine whether this di-

chotomy was a valid indicator or size we conducted ttests comparing these

organizations on thenumber of people there andproperty in thecampsite.As

shown in Table 1, campsitessponsored by large organizations hadmore peo-

pleat thecampsite (about three fifths of whom were male).Moreover, camp-

sites sponsored by large organizations were wealthier as evidenced by the

fact that they had more of virtually all types of personal property. The one

exception was light bulbs, of which smaller organizations had more. Butbecause incandescent bulbs are not as efficient and do not give as much light

as fluorescent lights, the fact that the smaller camps had more light bulbs is

really an indication that they were poorer.

Fundamentalism. Duringthe interview, respondents were asked to rate on

a 4-point scale how staunch they were in their religious beliefs.5 Of the 238

individualswho answered this question, themeanwas3.05 (Mdn = 3.00).We

dichotomized this variable based on a median split such that 140 (59%)

answered 1, 2, or 3which we coded as low fundamentalismand 98

(41%) answered 4which we coded as high fundamentalism. Answers to

two of the survey items suggest that this division is reasonable and that the

measure is valid. With regard to the question of whether anyone could

become a member, high fundamentalist camps (47%) were less likely than

lowfundamentalistcamps (78%) to answer affirmatively, 2(1, 238) = 22.92,

p < .001. With regard to the question of whether there were rules for who



12/23

could enter the camp, high fundamentalist organizations (57%) were

more likely than low fundamentalist camps (16%) to answer affirmatively,

2(1, 238) = 41.28,p < .001. Thesizeandfundamentalism of theorganization

were not significantly related, 2(1, 238) = 1.19, ns (this and all other 2 2

tables used Yates correction).


TABLE 1

Comparison of Small and Large Campsites at the Magh Mela

Size of Organization

Small Large

Aspects of the Campsite ( n = 103) ( n = 138) t or2

Total number of people 34.99 108.61 3.05**

Number of males 21.47 72.37 3.05**

Number of females 13.52 36.24 2.33*

Number of water taps 1.33 2.85 5.47***

Number of incandescent lights .21 .05 3.81***

Number of fluorescent lights .28 2.43 3.36***

Number of folding beds .27 .49 1.16

Number of wooden beds 2.30 5.67 4.48***

Number of chairs 1.89 6.67 4.71***

Number of mats 2.35 6.66 4.11***

Number of toilets 1.44 3.09 4.54***

Observable Territorial Characteristics

Number of flags 1.56 3.14 2.69**

Size of flagsa

2.50 2.21 2.10*

Number of banners .71 1.72 5.38***

Size of bannersb

1.69 1.91 1.98*

Number of sides of the camp on which

there were barriers (0-4) 2.35 3.61 6.51***

Type of barrierc

1.89 1.95 .39

Height of barrierd

2.10 2.28 1.82

Type of gatee

1.20 2.30 6.47***

Position of gatef 2.89 2.80 1.50Whether grass planted in camp (% yes) 40% 48% 1.42

Whether flowers planted in camp (% yes) 2% 14% 8.58**

Whether there was a private guard (% yes) 1% 8% 4.54*

a. n= 133. Coded as 1 = 1 ft, 2 = 2 ft, 3 = 3 ft.

b. n= 167. Coded as 1 = 3 ft, 2 = 6 ft , 3 = 9 ft.

c. n= 191. Coded as 1 = bamboo, 2 = wood, 3 = wood and cloth, 4 = corrugated steel.

d. Coded as 1 = 3 ft, 2 = 6 ft, 3 = 9 ft.

e.Codedas 1 = nogate, 2 = bambooonly, 3 = bambooandcloth,4 = wood,5 = corrugatedsteel.

f. Coded as 1 = closed, 2 = half open, 3 = open.

*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.


13/23

Compared to low fundamentalist organizations, high fundamentalist

organizations had significantly morepeople,Ms = 191.98 vs. 96.86, t(236) =

2.37,p < .05; significantly more water taps,Ms = 2.53vs. 1.94, t(235) = 1.99,

p < .05; significantly more toilets,Ms = 3.06 vs. 1.91, t(234) = 3.09,p < .01);

and significantlyfewer incandescent lights,Ms = 0.04vs.0.17, t(235) = 3.10,

p < .01. On all other aspects of the campsite high and low fundamentalist

organizations did not differ significantly.6

OBSERVED INDICATORS OF TERRITORIALITY

We related thesize and fundamentalism of the sponsoring organization to

nine observed indicators of territoriality: number and size of flags, number

and size of banners, number of sides of the campsite on which there was abarrier, the type of barrier, the height of the barrier, the type of gate, and the

position of the gate.

Size of the organization. Because they would have greater wealth, we

expected larger organizations to be more territorial. As shown in Table 1,

large organizations generally were more territorial than small organizations.

Specifically, they had significantly more flags, banners, and boundaries

around the campsite. They also had significantly higher boundaries and sig-

nificantly more substantial boundaries. The gates were also significantly

more substantial and significantly less likely to be completely open. The

campsites of large organizations were also significantly more likely to have

planted flowers and to have private guards. However, the size of organiza-

tions was unrelated to rules for entry, boundary disputes with neighbors, andhow upset respondents indicated they were when strangers entered.

Fundamentalism of the organization. Based onthe notion thathighfunda-

mentalist organizations would be more exclusive, we expected high funda-

mentalistorganizations to be moreterritorial.Consistentwith thathypothesis

we found that in general, high fundamentalist organizations were more terri-

torial than lowfundamentalistorganizations.Compared to lowfundamental-

ist organizations, high fundamentalist organizations had more substantial

barriers around thecamp,Ms = 2.11vs.1.75, t(187) = 2.24,p < .05; moresub-

stantial gates,Ms = 2.15 vs. 1.57, t(232) = 3.11, p < .01; and their gates were

less likelyto beopen,Ms = 2.76vs.2.89, t(236) = 2.12,p < .05.However, low

fundamentalist organizations were significantly more likely to have grass in

their campsites (54% vs. 32%),2(1, 229) = 9.63,p < .002. On all other mea-

sures, highand lowfundamentalistorganizationsdid not differ on observable

territorial characteristics.



14/23

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO INTRUSION

In this study we had six behavioral indicators of territoriality based on

how persons at the campsite responded to the intruders. These indicators

included three types of continuous measures: response time after intrusion,

the duration of the interview, and the number of people who spoke with the

intruders. There were also three dichotomous measures of territorial behav-

ior: where the interview was conducted (at the gate or inside), how the inter-

view was conducted (standing or sitting), and the hospitality of the respon-

dents (whether refreshments were offered).

Response time after intrusion. The first measure of territorial behavior

was thelatencyof response in seconds from the time theintruders entered the

campsite to the timesomeone spoke with them. This measure ranged from 0to 120 s. As with all reaction time measures, most of the responses occurred

soon after the intruders entered (M= 33.4 s; Mdn = 12.0 s). Despite this

strong positive skew, however, in 30 campsites (12%) no one responded to

the intruders during the 2-min waiting period. Bivariate analyses suggested

that the religious pilgrims tended to respond sooner to the female intruders

(M= 28.6 s) than to the male intruders, M= 38.9 s, t(239) = 1.95, p = .052.

Therewasalsoa tendencyforpilgrims to respond soonerto oneintruder (M=

28.4 s) than to two intruders, M= 38.2 s, t(239) = 1.85, p = .065.

A 2 2 22 (Number of IntrudersGender of IntrudersSize of Orga-

nization Fundamentalism of Organization) ANOVA revealed four signifi-

cant effects.First, therewasa significantNumberof IntrudersSize of Orga-

nization interaction, F(1, 222) = 4.78, p < .05. When there was one intruder,

smallorganizations (M= 37.4 s) and large organizations (M= 31.7 s) did not

differ significantly. When therewere two intruders, however, small organiza-

tions (M= 25.6s) respondedsignificantlysooner thandid large organizations

(M= 45.1 s). (This andall subsequent post hoc tests used theNewman-Keuls

procedure, p < .05).

Second, therewasa significant Numberof IntrudersFundamentalismof

Organization interaction, F(1, 222) = 7.10, p < .01. Based on post hoc

Newman-Keuls tests, low fundamentalist organizations responded signifi-

cantly sooner to one intruder (M= 23.9 s) than to two intruders (M= 40.1 s)

whereas high fundamentalist organizations responded significantly sooner

to two intruders (M= 30.7 s) than to one intruder (M= 45.2 s). Third, there

was a significant Size of Organization Fundamentalism of Organization

interaction, F(1, 222) = 15.34,p < .001. Small, lowfundamentalist organiza-tions (M= 17.3 s) responded significantly faster than large, high fundamen-

talist organizations (M= 30.1 s), which responded significantly faster than



15/23

both small, high fundamentalist organizations (M= 45.8 s) and large, low

fundamentalist organizations (M= 46.7 s), which did not differ significantlyfrom each other.

Finally, therewasa significant Numberof IntrudersGenderof Intruders

Sizeof Organization interaction, F(1, 222) = 4.14,p < .05. As shown inTable

2, most of the difference was due to how the organizations responded to

female intruders. With small organizations, two females elicited the fastest

response of any condition. With large organizations, a single female intruder

was responded to significantly sooner than were two females or than one or

two males. For male intruders, in contrast, regardless of sizeof the organiza-

tion, people at the campsite responded sooner to one than to two intruders.

Small organizations were less likely to have a gate and boundaries and to be

holding religious discourses. For such small organizations, a single person

may have been viewed as someone coming to visit a kalpavasi. But two

strangers could not be so easilyexplained. In contrast, a lone person, male orfemale, coming to a large organization would be unusual and would require

an immediate response.

Because thetimeafter intrusionbeforepilgrimsspoketo theintruders was

not distributed normally, we transformed the raw scores using a logarithmic

transformation and conducted the complete ANOVA on these transformed

scores. Exactly the same pattern of results was obtained with this analysis as

with theraw scoresexcept that thethree-way interactionwasonly marginally

significant (p < .06). Post hoc tests of the means of the transformed scores

showed the same pattern as with the raw scores.

Duration of the interview. The interviews ranged in length from under 3

minto45min(M= 8.98,Mdn = 8.00). A 2 2 2 2 (Number of Intruders

Gender of Intruders Size of Organization Fundamentalism of Organiza-tion)revealedthreesignificant effects.Interviews of male intrudersweresig-

nificantly longer (M= 10.8 min) than were interviews of female intruders


TABLE 2

Interaction of Number of Intruders, Gender of Intruders, and Size

of Organization on Response Time to Intrusion (Means in Seconds)

Number of Small Organizations Large Organizations

Intruders Male Female Male Female

One 31.3c

43.5d,e

39.3c,d

24.2b

Two 36.7c,d

14.6a

46.4e

43.9d,e

NOTE:Meansthat sharea commonsuperscript arenot significantlydifferent accordingto a posthoc

Newman-Keuls test (p< .05).


16/23

(M= 7.9 min), F(1, 222) = 24.46,p < .001. Interviews with males could have

been longer because our intruder-interviewers, despite their training, might

have behaved differently; themales might have been more curious andasked

questions whereas the females were more businesslike. More likely, how-

ever, thecamp members probably felt more comfortable talking with themen

than with the women.

There was also a significant Number of Intruders Gender of Intruders

interaction, F(1, 222) = 4.38, p < .05, such that although people in the camp-

sites always responded sooner to female than male intruders, the difference

was much greater when there were two intruders (Ms = 7.7 s vs. 11.7 s for

female and male intruders, respectively) than when there was one intruder

(Ms = 8.2 s vs. 9.8 s for female and male intruders, respectively). The means

for the female intruder conditions were not significantly different from eachother, but all other differences were significant.

Finally, there was a significant Gender of Intruders Fundamentalism of

the Organization interaction, F(1, 222) = 5.70, p < .05. The difference in

lengths of interviews of female and male intruders was significantly greater

for low fundamentalist organizations (Ms = 11.2 min vs. 6.9 min for female

and male intruders, respectively) than for high fundamentalist organizations

(Ms = 8.9 min and 10.4 min for female and male intruders, respectively). All

means were significantly different from each other.

Number of people spoken to. We believed that the number of camp resi-

dents who spoke to the interviewers would be a measure of interest in

strangersand thereforewould be related to territoriality. Thenumber of people

whospoketo the intruders rangedfrom 1 to10 (M= 1.98,Mdn =2.00).A222 2 (Number of Intruders Gender of Intruders Size of Organization

Fundamentalism of Organization) revealed two significant effects. Not sur-

prisingly, more people from large organizations spoke to the intruders (M=

2.22) than did people from small organizations,M= 1.66, F(1, 220) = 11.01,

p < .001. Therewasalso a significant Genderof IntrudersSizeof Organiza-

tionFundamentalismof Organization interaction, F(1, 220) = 4.30,p < .05.

As can be seen in Table 3, for high fundamentalist organizations, for both

male andfemaleintruders, more peoplespoketo theintruders when theorga-

nizationswere large than small,althoughthedifferencewasmuch greater for

female than male intruders. For low fundamentalist organizations there was

no difference for female intruders as a function of organization size, but for

male intruders there was theoverall main effect of more people for large than

small organizations.

Because thenumber of pilgrims at a campsite greatly varied, we also ana-

lyzed the datain terms ofpeoplespoken toas a proportion ofthe total number



17/23

of people staying at the campsite. This analysis revealed three significanteffects.7 First, there was a significant effect for organizationsize, F(1, 220) =

8.77,p < .01, such that a higherproportion of individualsin smaller organiza-

tions spoke to theintruders (M= 0.17) as compared to theproportion in larger

organizations (M= 0.09). Second, there was a significant effect for funda-

mentalism,F(1, 220) = 4.71,p < .05, such that a higherproportion of individ-

uals in low fundamentalist organizations spoke to the intruders (M= 0.16) as

compared to the proportion in high fundamentalist organizations (M= 0.10).

Finally, there was a significant interaction of Organization Size and Funda-

mentalism of Organization, F(1, 220) = 4.97,p < .05.With large organizations

there was no difference in the proportion of individuals who spoke to the

intruders whether the fundamentalism of the organization was low (M= 0.09)

or high (M= 0.09). In contrast, with small organizations a significantly higher

proportion of individuals in low fundamentalist organizations spoke to theintruders (M= 0.23) as compared to the proportion in high fundamentalist

organizations (M= 0.11). This finding suggests that in terms of proportion,

small, low fundamentalist organizations were the most welcoming of

strangers.

Dichotomous measures of territoriality. There were three dichotomous

behavioral measures of territoriality: (a) whether the interview was conducted

at the gate or inside the campsite, (b) whether the intruder-interviewers stood

duringthe interview or were invited to sitdown,and (c)whether the intruder-

interviewerswerenotor wereofferedrefreshment.For the logistic regression

analyses of all three variables the main effects were entered first, then the

two-way interactions, and then the three-way interactions. In all three mod-

els, the addition of the block of main effects was significant. However, for

none of themodelsdid theblocks of two-way or three-wayinteractions reach


TABLE 3

Interaction of Gender of Intruders, Size of Organization, and Fundamentalism

of Organization on Number of People Who Spoke to the Intruders

Low Fundamentalist High Fundamentalist

Size of Organizations Organizations

Organization Male Female Male Female

Small 1.63b

1.90c,d

1.71b,c

1.38a

Large 2.18e

2.01d,e

2.03d,e

2.67f

NOTE:Meansthat sharea commonsuperscript arenot significantlydifferent accordingto a posthoc

Newman-Keuls test (p< .05).


18/23

significance. Thus, we report here only the main effects for the three

variables.

As canbe seen in Table 4, male intruder-interviewers were more welcome

at the campsites than were female intruder-interviewers as male intruder-

interviewers were more likely to have been invited inside the camp and to sit

down. Similarly, two intruders were more likely than one intruder to be wel-

comed as two intruders were more likely to be invited inside the camp,

invited tositdown,andoffered refreshment.Largerorganizations were more

likely to have offered refreshment. The fundamentalism of the organization

had no effect on any of the dichotomous measures.

PHOTOGRAPHS

In addition to theintruder-interviewersratings, we also hada more objec-

tive measure of the camp. After completing the interview at the camp, the

intruder-interviewers took a photograph of the gate to the campsite. Some of

the photographs could not be printed, so we were left with 206 photographs

(85%) of the241 campsitesin thestudy. Thesephotographs were then shown

to twograduatestudent raterswhowere blind to thenature andhypotheses of

the study. These students rated each of the gates on a scale ranging from 1

(poverty) t o 5 (wealth). Their ratings had reasonably high reliability (r= .65,

p < .001). Thetworatings were then averagedandcorrelated with other mea-

sures. Rated wealth was significantly related to several physical characteris-tics of the camp: the number of boundaries (r= .42, p < .001); the number of

flags (r= .31, p < .001); the number of banners (r= .34, p < .001); and the


TABLE 4

Logistic Regressions of Dichotomous Measures of Territoriality

Whether Invited Whether Offered

Place of Interview to Sit Down Refreshment

(0 = gate;1 = inside) (0 = no;1 = yes) (0 = no;1 = yes)

Gender (0 = F; 1 = M) 1.35** 1.01** .23

Number of intruders

(0 = 1; 1 = 2) .77* 1.03** .98**

Size of organization

(0 = small; 1 = large) .61 .46 .97**

Fundamentalism

(0 = low; 1 = high) .33 .21 .20

Model 2

18.61*** 18.34*** 20.64***

Nagelkerke R2 .124 .117 .121

*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.


19/23

heightof theboundary (r=.30,p < .001).Thus, as is reasonable, territoriality

is in part a function of wealth. Rated wealth was negatively related to the

number ofyears the group had beencomingto the Mela(r= .19,p


20/23

(1967) referred to as a violation. Theresults probably would havebeen dif-

ferent had the intrusion been greater. For example, it may be the case that our

manipulation of multiple males was not strong enough. That is, two male

strangers may not have posed enough additional threat beyond a single male

stranger to cause increased concern about the welfare of the campsite.

TERRITORIALITY AND RELIGION

One of the novel aspects of this research was that it was conducted at a

location where Hindu pilgrims went for religious purposes. Because of the

uniquenatureof thepopulation and thelocation, theresults mayhave limited

generalizability. It would be important to determine whether these findings

are replicable in other cultures. For example, would high fundamentalistorganizations holding revival meetings in the United States be territorial in

response to intrusions by strangers?

There is an interesting irony in terms of the nature of social identity and

the practice of religion in Asian and Western cultures. In general, in terms of

social identity, Asian cultures tend to be more collectivistic (i.e., individuals

tend to define themselves primarily in terms of group memberships such as

family and nation) whereas Western cultures tend to be more individualistic

(i.e., individuals tend to place their own goals and happiness above those of

the groups to which they belong; Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama,

1991).

But with the practice of religion, the pattern is different. As Iannaccone

(1995) has noted, Western religions tend to be collective in that they arecon-

gregationally oriented. To prevent the free-rider problem, these religionstend to be exclusive and require high levels of commitment. In contrast,

Asian religions tend to be more private. People often do not have exclusive

attachments to a single religion, and their religious practices tend to focus on

a single religious practitioner or to involve fee-for-service transactions

(Iannaccone, 1995). In addition, there tend to be more household rituals and

more money offerings to specific gods for particular outcomes.

These patterns of social identity and religious practices in Asian and

Western cultures suggest an interaction regarding territoriality in nonreli-

gious andreligious places. Although collective solutions arenotalways used

in collective societies (P. B. Smith & Bond, 1993), they are probably more

likely because group membership is an important component of identity,

groups are less easy to leave,and group efforts aremore likely to be success-

ful (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Thus, we might

expect more of a collective response to intrusions in nonreligious settings in

Asian than in Western locations whereas we might expect more of a collec-



21/23

tive response to intrusions in religioussettings in Western than in Asian loca-

tions. Future researchmightfruitfully investigate thisproposed interaction.

NOTES

1. The Hindi term is panda. Pandas help worshippers gain quick entry to their temple, and

at the Sangam they help people perform the last rites of the dead. Individuals have their own

panda and visit only him for religious reasons. Whenever an individual visits a panda, the

panda enters the event in ledgers that contain records of the visits of that persons ancestors to

the pandas forefathers. Regions, groups, and sects are likely to have their own panda.

2.All but 46campsites hada physicalboundaryof some type facingthestreet,andthusit was

clear when theintrudershad entered thecampsite. Forthe46 campsitesthatdid nothave a physi-cal boundary, the intruders were considered to have entered the campsite when they crossed an

imaginary boundary that was aligned with the boundaries of the neighboring campsites.

3. We counted a closed gate as 0 s because it was the same as being met immediately at the

gate. Excluding the three cases in which the gate was closed from the analyses of response time

produced substantially the same pattern of results as those reported in the Response Time After

Intrusion section.

4.In most cases therespondingindividualwas theperson whogreetedthe intruders. Insome

cases, however, the intruders were taken to the head of the campsite. In all cases the responding

individual was a male.

5. Because many respondents were illiterate and not accustomed to scales, we used a two-

stepprocedure inwhich respondents werefirstasked whetherthey werefundamentalista lotor

just a little. If they answered a lot, they were then asked whether their fundamentalism was

strong orverystrong. If theyanswered a little, theywere thenaskedwhethertheir fundamental-

ism was little or very little.

6. Theinterviewersasked respondents to namethe primarygod to which thesect worshipped

because wesuspected that the genderandnature ofthe godmight berelatedto territorialdefense.

To test this hypothesis, we recoded responses into eight categories: Durga (4%), Ganga (7%),

Hanuman (3%), Krishna (4%), Ram (22%), Shiva (24%), Vishnu (7%), and other gods (29%).

However, analyses of variance of the continuous measures andchi-squareanalyses of thenomi-

nal measures indicated that this variable was not significantly related to any of our measures of

territoriality and thus it is not discussed further.

7. When we conducted the analysis using an arcsine transformation of the proportion there

was thesamemain effect fororganization sizeand a marginally significantinteraction(p = .056).

The fundamentalism effect was not significant.

REFERENCES

Acheson, J. M. (1975). The lobster fiefs: Economicand ecological effects of territoriality in the

Maine lobster industry. Human Ecology, 3, 183-207.

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.



22/23

Brown,B. B. (1987).Territoriality. InD.Stokols& I.Altman (Eds.),Handbookof environmental

psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 505-532). New York: John Wiley.

Cheyne, J. A., & Efran, M. G. (1972). The effect of spatial and interpersonal variables on the

invasion of group controlled territories. Sociometry, 35, 477-489.

Edney, J. J. (1972). Property, possession, and permanence: A field study in human territoriality.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 275-282.

Edney, J. J., & Jordan-Edney, N. L. (1974). Territorial spacing on a beach. Sociometry, 37, 92-

104.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1970). Ethology: The biology of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Greenbaum, P. E., & Greenbaum, S. D. (1981). Territorial personalization: Group identity and

social interaction in a Slavic-American neighborhood.Environment and Behavior, 13, 574-

589.

Haber, G. M. (1980). Territorial invasion in the classroom: Invadee response. Environment and

Behavior, 12, 17-31.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related val-ues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology, 99,

1180-1211.

Iannaccone, L. R. (1995). Risk, rationality, andreligious portfolios.Economic Inquiry, 33, 285-

295.

Johnstone, R. L. (2001).Religionin society: A sociology of religion (6thed.). Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Krail, K. A., & Leventhal, G. (1976). The sex variable in the intrusion of personal space.

Sociometry, 39, 170-173.

Ley, D., & Cybriwsky, R. (1974).Urbangraffiti as territorial markers.Annals of the Association

of American Geographers, 64, 491-505.

Lyman,S. M., & Scott, M. B. (1967). Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension.Social

Problems, 15, 236-249.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,

and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.McBride, G., King, M. G., & James, J. W. (1965). Social proximity effects on galvanic skin

responses in adult humans. Journal of Psychology, 61, 153-157.

Milgram,S., Liberty, H. J., Toledo, R., & Wackenhut,J. (1986).Response to intrusion intowait-

ing lines. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 683-689.

Patterson, M. L., Mullens,S., & Romano, J. (1971).Compensatory reactions to spatial markers.

Sociometry, 34, 114-121.

Ruback, R. B. (1987). Deserted (and nondeserted) aisles: Territorial intrusion can produce per-

sistence, not flight. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 270-276.

Ruback, R. B.,& Juieng, D. (1997). Territorial defense in parking lots: Retaliation against wait-

ing drivers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 823-836.

Ruback, R. B.,Pape,K. D.,& Doriot, P. (1989). Waitingfor a phone:Intrusionon callers lead to

territorial defense. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 232-241.

Smith, H. W. (1981). Territorial spacing on a beach revisited: A cross-national exploration.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 132-137.

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspec-tives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sommer, R., & Becker, F. D. (1969). Territorial defense and the good neighbor. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 11, 85-92.



23/23

Stark,R.,& Finke,R. (2000).Actsof faith:Explainingthe human sideof religion. Berkeley: Uni-

versity of California Press.

Suttles, G. D. (1968). Thesocialorder of theslum: Ethnicity andterritory inthe inner city. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.

Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human territorial functioning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Taylor, R. B.,& Brooks,D. K. (1980).Temporaryterritories?Responsesto intrusions in a public

setting. Population and Environment, 3, 135-145.

Triandis, H. C.,Bontempo,R., Villareal,M. J.,Asai,M., & Lucca,N. (1988). Individualism and

collectivism: Cross-culturalperspectives on self-ingrouprelationships.Journalof Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.

Weber, M. (1963). The sociology of religion (E. Fischoff, Trans.). Boston: Beacon. (Original

work published 1922)


ruback, kohli / territoriality / t the 2005 environment and

Documents