TOWARDS A MODEL OF HUMAN TERRITORY

ABSTRACT

This paper attempts to establish a simple robust model which helps explain human territorial behavior. A huge body of knowledge regarding territory already exists. Human territory is composed of objects and boundaries. A territorial object is any item that you value. The boundaries determine how an object will be influenced, used and controlled. The territories are dynamic, multi dimensional and change over time. The objects and boundaries of a territory can expand or contract. Most individuals seek to secure and expand their territory over time. Territorial conflict occurs when an individual perceives a territorial loss. When this happens, they act in ways to defend their territory.

INTRODUCTION

"You can't sit there. Why not? Because it's my favorite chair."

Humans seem to have a lot in common with the children's story, Goldilocks and the Three Bears." They are territorial. People, like other animals, have certain territories they claim as their own. They seek to enhance them and protect them. It can be a chair, a bed, a bowl, a goal, a job, a department, or an idea. For example, millions of people have personal internet sites on MySpace or Facebook. They can determine who has access to their site and, within bounds, use their sites as they see fit.

A huge body of knowledge regarding territory already exists. It is multi- disciplinary and comes from a variety of fields (Van Dyne, et. al. 2004). These disciplines range from hard sciences such as math, physics, and biology to softer sciences such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and military science. It is a concept that that has been used to explain the behavior of individuals, animals, families, tribes, groups, organizations, cities, states, and countries.

This paper attempts to establish a simple robust model which helps explain human territorial behavior. While the model can be applied to many different disciplines, it draws heavily from socio-psychological fields. The constructs of the model can be found in the following theories.

FOUNDATION THEORIES

Need Theory (Maslow, 1943): A need is a requisite or a requirement for an individual. It gives purpose to behavior. The most fundamental need is survival, causing one of the most basic behavioral choices, fight or flight.

Motivation theory (Cornelius, K, & Steel, P., 2006): Motivation is a driving force towards goal accomplishment or the reductions of need. When a need is not being met, it creates tension or anxiety. The reduction of the tension is rooted in providing pleasure and avoiding pain.

Object Relations Theory (Grotstein, J. S. & Rinsley, 1994): An object is any item that exists in an individual's mind. The object can be tangible or intangible.

Attachment Theory (Bowlby, J., 1969): An attachment is a bond or relationship that a person feels towards an object. The object can be physical such another person or meta-physical such as an idea.

Learning Theory (Skinner, B. F., 1971): Conditioning sets the rules for behavior through rewards or punishment (i.e., providing pleasure or pain in response to behavior).

Boundary Theory (Desrocher, L. & Sargent, L., 2003): A boundary is a limit, rule, law, norm or demarcation that defines a physical space or defines reasonable ways to behave. A boundary also determines the control or influence over objects.

Ownership Theory (Peirce, et. al., 2003): Ownership is the feeling of the right to influence, use or control an object.

Self-Concept Theory (Greas, V., 1982): The concept of the self is an attitude about one�euro(TM)s identity. It is how a person views himself and is made up of cognitive, effective, and behavioral components.

Place Theory (Markus, H. & Wurf, E., 1987): Where the self is in relation to objects and boundaries.

TERRITORIAL MODEL

Human territory is composed of objects and boundaries. A territorial object is any item that you take ownership of and value. The object can be tangible or intangible. As an individual matures, objects become relational and transferable (Bowlby, 1969, Grotstein & Rinsley, 1994). As an individual develops attachments with objects, the objects gain value by the amount of investment one puts into the relationship with the object or by how the objects can be traded or exchanged for other objects of value. The closer the relationship between the objects and the individual, the more valuable the object becomes.

The boundaries determine how an object will be influenced, used and controlled. The territories are dynamic, multi-dimensional and change over time (Pierce, et. al. 2003). The objects and boundaries of a territory can expand or contract. Territorial conflict occurs when an individual perceives a territorial loss. When this happens, the person attempts to defend their territory (Wlipert, 1991).

TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT

The development of human territory has its roots in developmental psychology. At the most basic level is an instinct to engage in behavior that ensures survival and seeks to enhance pleasure and avoid pain. When an individual senses a threat, his level of anxiety or fear increases, and he is motivated to reduce this fear. Infants are dependent on parents or caregivers to ensure their basic needs are met and begin to form attachments with them because they provide a sense of security and pleasure (Bowlby, 1969).. As children develop their attachment towards their parents, the attachment is often transferred to inanimate objects such a blanket or a pacifier which also provides them with a sense of security, thus reducing their anxiety in the absence of their parents (Issacs, 1933).

Territory emerges when children learn boundaries which determine how they can interact with or use an object. At a very early age they are taught what is and is not acceptable behavior. Most of the early rules a child learns are taught to them by their parents and later by siblings, friends, teachers and other figures of authority. Sometimes the boundaries are clear cut and other times they are not. The boundaries can be rigid, flexible or fuzzy. As children mature they attempt to behave in a way to ensure their control and influence over objects that are important to them and to secure the boundaries that determine the use of the objects.

At some point in time, the attachment a child feels towards an object develops into a sense of possession and finally a sense of ownership (Wilpert, 1991). Once the ownership becomes manifest, an individual assumes control and influence over the object. This sense of ownership determines what is mine and what is theirs (Issacs, 1933, Van Dyne, et. al. 2004). For instance, a child determines that a toy is his or hers and assumes control over who can play with it. This sense of entitlement over an object creates power for whoever is in control. As a result, the object takes on value if it can be used as an asset, resource or tool by whoever controls it.

The control and interaction between the individual and objects provides a means of determining and expressing a self-identity. The more an individual invests in an object, the closer the individuals identify with the objects causing the objects to become more valuable to the person (Begann, 1992). As this progresses both the tangible and intangible objects owned by individuals become part of a persona or personality and an extension of the self.

In order to maintain a degree of stability, they develop a sense of place in relation to their objects and boundaries (Pierce, et.al. 2003, Wilpert, 1991). This sense of place increases their feeling of security and reduces feelings of anxiety (Porteous, 1976). As children move into adolescence, they acquire more objects including attachments to groups and ideas and more boundaries are imposed that influence the uses and interactions with the objects they value. They seek to ensure control and ownership of the objects they value by protecting themselves against loss and seek to enlarge their territories and increase the value of these objects within the boundaries which will enhance their self image (Hall, 1996). This process continues into adulthood as the attachment, ownership, and boundaries become increasingly complex and more dynamic.

TERRITORIAL COMPLEXITY

As human territory develops it becomes more complex (Pierce, et. al., 2003, p. 103). Territories of an individual overlap and become shared with others. They become multidimensional occurring at both horizontal and vertical levels within organizations, and exist across multiple systems.

Some of the objects a child develops attachments to must be shared with others. This is especially true in families that have siblings giving rise to sibling rivalry and rules to resolve the conflict. The shared or overlapping territories creates an interaction that includes interdependence, assimilation, and adjustment. For instance, rooms and toys can be shared. Rules, norms and procedures can be created as to who can use them, how they are to be used, and when they are to be used. The same thing happens in an office where common areas such as break rooms and equipment are shared. It can happen between individuals or groups of individuals where community property is shared such as roads and recreational facilities.

Human territories are multi-dimensional and hierarchical. Territories exist horizontally where a child has his or her own clothes, toys, room or chores within a family structure. At school a child can have his or her own desk and a certain place in the lunch line. Individuals can own property or have their own ideas. At work a person can have their own parking space, desk and responsibilities. Territories also exist vertically across and between levels in the social structure of families or the hierarchical structure of a formal organization where territories such as formal work groups span vertical boundaries (Desrocher, L. & Sargent, L., 2003). Or, they can be a combination of both horizontal and vertical territories where interaction and sharing is required.

Human territories also exist in systems. The family unit is a social system just as schools, businesses, or communities are social systems. There will be multi dimensional and overlapping territories within and between the systems adding to the complexity of boundaries which determine how territories are managed (Desrocher, L. & Sargent, L., 2003). As a result an individual can belong to and share numerous territories with different and sometimes conflicting boundaries.

For instance children, from different families or cultures can have a different set of rules for sharing a toy at home and have yet a different set of rules for sharing the same toy at school. Or a person from one department can have a norm, policy, procedure or rule for using a copier or cleaning up a common area that differs from another department, an informal group, or from what is expected by the boss. These rules can be quite clear or vague and imprecise. To complicate matters further, the rules can change over time.

TERRITORIAL DYNAMICS

Human territories are dynamic. Although objects and boundaries are necessarily durable and have an element of continuity to maintain a sense of security and stable self image, they can vary and fluctuate, sometimes dramatically causing the size and shape of the territory to change (Dirks, et. al. 1966). A person's family, possessions, friends, or assets can increase or decrease suddenly or gradually. Just as norms, rules, policies, and laws can change or be modified suddenly or gradually. This can happen naturally, be self-determined or be imposed by others.

An individual can enlarge a territory by increasing the number or value of objects. This can be accomplished through innovation by creating new objects, buying or trading existing objects, sharing objects with others or taking objects from others. Since boundaries determine the use and influence over objects, a territory can be changed by increasing or decreasing the boundaries.

Changing a boundary implies the use of power. The power may be legitimate backed by laws and policies; be positional or personal backed by authority, expertise and persuasion; or be backed by imposing your will on others. In all cases the level or amount of power to change a boundary is relative to the force of the individual versus the force of others. Changing a boundary in a positive manner can increase the number or value of objects in an individual's territory which increase the resources or assets under the individual's control. This, in turn, increases or enhances the force available and, thus, the power to establish new boundaries.

The level or amount of force that can be generated from the resources is moderated by the interaction between the self and the objects. If the changes in the boundaries are not perceived by the individual as enhancing the self or providing a more secure place then the increase in the value of the objects may not result in the generation of more resources. Consequently, power to increase territory is hindered.

TERRITORIAL CONFLICT

The amount of power that can be generated also is moderated by the force of others. If there are opposing forces from others, territory may be lost. When change is imposed by others territorial conflict is created. There are two types of imposed conflict. Type A conflict is a dispute or a disagreement over the ownership of objects, the rules governing the use of objects, and differences in the way an individual is perceived.

Type B conflict is fear of the actual loss of objects, loss of their value, or the loss of use or control over them. There are three types of B conflict. The first is real or imagined threats to an object, boundaries or self-image. The second is trespassing that occurs when a boundary is inadvertently crossed or a personal object is used without permission. This can be caused by fuzzy or ill-defined boundaries or even flexible boundaries. The third is an attack or invasion of a person's territory resulting in the actual loss.

The notion of loss creates stress, anxiety, and fear (Dirks, et. al., 1996). This causes individuals to engage in behavior to protect, defend, change or abandon their territory (Hall, 1996). There are five types of defensive behavior. The least aggressive is flight. The next least aggressive is a warning. This can come in the form of a signaling, marking, or posturing. Animals engage in this type of behavior when staking out a territory by posturing, urinating or whistling. A simple example of humans doing this would be a child putting up a keep out sign on their room or club house. A second passive way of protecting a territory is developing barriers. These can be physical barriers such fences or walls or psychological barriers such as not listening to others ideas. More aggressive behavior can come in the form of enforcing laws, policies and rules. The most aggressive way to protect a territory is to fight for it.

A dispute about or loss of territory can result in either positive or negative behavior. On the negative side, there can be anger and retaliation. Resentment can lead to the need for vengeance, punishment or restitution. On the positive side there can be resignation and forgiveness. This can lead to coping, adjustment, stabilization and positive reconciliation. The idea of a positive approach is willingness to give up territory or share it by accepting the reduction in the value or use of the objects, adjusting to new boundaries, and developing a new view of yourself.

MANAGING TERRITORIAL CONFLICT

Managing territorial conflict can be approached on three different dimensions. The simplest is a single dimension that measures aggression. It is essentially the flight or fight approach to defending a territory. The defensive behavior exists in a continuum ranging from, in descending order of aggression, flight, warning, barriers, enforcement, to the most aggressive behavior, fight.

The second model is more sophisticated and is composed of two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperation. The behaviors of conflict resolution in this model include avoidance, competition, compromise, accommodation, cooperation, and collaborating.

The third model uses the dimensions of the second model and adds the contingency factors of the value of objects and relative power of the aggressor. The size of the threat or loss is a combination of the value of the object and the relative power of the aggressor versus the power of the individual.

The greater the potential loss, the greater the fear.

The greater the power of the aggressor, the greater the fear.

The greater the power of the individual, the less the fear.

If power is equal and the value is high then cooperation and accommodation should be high. If relative power is low and the value is high then compromise or accommodation should be high. If the relative power of the individual is high and the value is high then competition or collaboration should be high.

If the value for the individual is low regardless of the power differentials then avoidance, accommodation, or compromise should be high.

[Reference]

REFERENCES

Begann, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994). Association as a psychological justification for ownership. Journal of Psychology, 128, 365-380.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1, Attachment , London, Hogarth.

Cornelius, K. & Steel, P. (2006), Integrating theories of motivation, , Academy of Management Review , 31 (4), 889913.

Desrocher, S. & Sargent, L. (2003). Boundary theory and work-family integration, A Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia. Chestnut Hill, MA, Boston College.

Dirks, K. T., Cummings, L. L., Pierce, J. L. (1996). Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resists change. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.). Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 9, pp. 1-23), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Furby, L. (1991). Understanding the psychology of possessions and ownership: A personal memoir and an appraisal of our progress, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 6, 457-463.

Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. American Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33.

Grotstein, J.S & Rinsley (1994). Fairbain and the origins of object relations. New York, Gillford Press.

Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension , Farden City, NY: Doubleday.

Issacs, S., (1933). Social development in young children, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Markus, H. & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept. Annual Review of Psychology , 38.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (3), 479-499.

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology , 7(1), 84-107.

Porteous, J. LD. (1976). Home: The territorial core. Geographic Review, 16, 121-144.

Rochberg-Halton, E.W. (1980). Cultural signs and urban adaption: the meaning of cherished possessions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Dissertation Abstracts International , 40(8A), 4754-4755.

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and Dignity , New York, Knof.

Van Dyne, L. & Pierce, J. E. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25, 439.

Wilpert, B. (1991). Property, ownership, and participation: On the growing contradictions between legal and psychological ownership concepts. In R. Russell & V. Rus (Eds.), International handbook of participations in organizations: For the study of organizational democracy, co-operation, and self-manag ement (Vol. 2, pp.149-64), New York: Oxford University Press.

[Author Affiliation]

Steve Brown, Eastern Kentucky University

Ted Brown, Community Service Board