Territorial Behavior and Psychological Ownership

Abstract

Psychological ownership is a feeling of possession over a tangible or intangible target, which may result in territorial behavior either to protect that target or in reaction to an infringement upon that ownership. It is one of the phenomena that explains identification with cultural touchstones or organizations as well as behavior with respect to the spaces people inhabit, like workspaces, favorite restaurants, and seating on public transportation. People demonstrate their territoriality primarily with body language and often without being conscious of it and are more likely to do so if they have a high degree of narcissism.

Overview

In the social sciences, psychological ownership is the feeling of ownership independent of the realities of legal ownership. When a student sits in the same seat in class every session, that student may feel in some way in possession of the seat—a sense of ownership that makes the student feel aggravated or wronged if on arriving to class one day someone else is sitting in it. Feeling this way does not suggest a belief that the chair is legally the student’s or that it would be all right for the student to take it home. However, the feeling of ownership may be so strong that the student is moved to tell the invading party, “That’s my chair,” and follow up with a display of territorial behavior—that is, nonverbal communication indicating a claim on or defense of the object of ownership.

Psychological ownership (henceforth, simply “ownership” except as needed for clarity) can have as its target any number of intangible things, not just tangible properties: this idea for a novel is “mine,” this project is “mine,” this fashion style is “mine.” This is reflected in casual speech all the time: When a song comes on the radio and someone says, “This is my song!”, it is not an intellectual property claim, but rather an expression of particular emotional attachment or identification. The sense of ownership over a song may produce resentment or offense when it is used in a commercial for some product with which the person does not identify. The association of the song and the intruding brand may be felt to be a misrepresentation of the person’s own character or an attempt to steal the song and deprive it of its meaning for the person. Ownership has become a much talked-about subject in organizational psychology and other fields studying organizational behavior: Creating the work conditions that encourage feelings of ownership on the part of employees with targets like “my organization,” “my office,” “my workspace,” “my team,” “my job” results in increases in employee engagement, retention, and identification with the organization and its goals.

Though initial literature on ownership focused on “mine,” subsequent work has extended this to include “ours,” especially in organizational psychology. For instance, encouraging feelings of ownership and identification with the organization leads to employees thinking not only “this cubicle is mine,” but also “this market sector is ours.” This is analogous to the encouragement of “school spirit” in high schools, where pep rallies held to support interscholastic sports teams have the additional purpose of encouraging a sense of belonging on the part of students, and with that belonging, a feeling of shared destiny with the sports team: The team did not win that game, “we” won that game, including those who did not play, those who were not even there.

This sense of ownership overlaps with other concepts in organizational psychology that examine the psychological and affective relationship between the individual and the organization. School spirit, for instance, depends on organizational identification—the weight an individual assigns to membership in an organization as part of self-definition. The things that first come to mind during an introduction to a stranger are strong indications of identification—someone with strong political feelings who spends a lot of time volunteering may identify as a member of a political party, while an alumnus of Harvard may find a way to work that into the conversation. There is no overall consensus in the field as to the exact bounds of ownership versus organizational identification, and although metrics exist for measuring each, consensus has not yet developed on the foundation for such metrics either.

Territorial behavior is a form of nonverbal communication, and one of the subjects of study in the field of proxemics, the study of how humans use space and interpersonal distance. Territorial behavior or territoriality is a means by which people demonstrate their ownership of a space, especially a space they routinely use (the aforementioned seat in class, an office cubicle, a favorite seat in the living room) or the space currently surrounding them. For instance, studies of car ownership frequently suggest that larger passenger vehicles like trucks or SUVs are appealing not because of practical concerns like safety or off-road capability, but because of the amount of space they occupy, thus asserting more forcefully the driver’s ownership claim on the road.

Important to the discussion of territoriality is the idea of personal space—the space, or “bubble,” surrounding an individual over which the individual’s presence confers ownership, such that others entering it are intruding. Culture, to some extent, has an impact on the size of personal space; however, context may have a greater effect on a person’s bubble. While people may not love being shoulder-to-shoulder with others on the subway or when flying coach, neither do they consider this close proximity an intrusion in the same way that it would be an intrusion if a stranger or slight acquaintance sat as close to one on an ample sofa. There is even a common response to this: it is very common for people in close quarters, like transportation (including elevators), waiting in lines in crowded places, or movie theaters, to avoid eye contact with others, as though eye contact would be a violation of personal space. (Long before cell phones, newspapers and magazines provided an easy visual distraction.) In transportation and in line, it is common to look down as a way to avoid eye contact; in some theorists’ view, this is an overt sign of submission, an instinctive way of signaling that the infringement of personal space does not constitute a threat. In movie theaters this negotiation is not possible, but the movie screen is there as a visual focus.

Edward Hall, who coined the term proxemics, defined four zones of space with respect to the individual: intimate distance, from which touching and whispering are possible; personal distance, which is the sphere of personal space that feels like “mine” but which does not feel violated if friends or family enter it; social distance, the distance from which people are comfortable with strangers and acquaintances; and public space, the distance at which public speakers tend to address people.

There are a number of theories on how territorial behavior at the scale of the individual relates to territoriality at larger scales, for example, whether border disputes are driven by similar forces as those which determine the boundaries of our personal space. In the mid-twentieth century, social science treated human territorial behavior as biological in origin, stemming from the same mechanisms as territoriality in animals; in the last few decades, social and cultural factors have been emphasized instead. These two approaches are not necessarily exclusive.

People respond territorially to infringement upon any target of their psychological ownership, tangible or intangible. One of the results of territoriality is that when an individual feels ownership over a target, infringements may feel threatening and give rise to hostility. Behavioral experiments have found that when an infringer acknowledges the individual’s ownership, reactions to infringement are subdued. A common scenario, which has formed the basis for a number of experiments, involves friends sharing a pizza. One piece is left. If one of the friends simply takes and eats the last piece, one or more of the other friends may feel disgruntled. But if the friend first says, “Anyone mind if I have the last slice?”, resentment is less likely, even if slices wound up being unevenly distributed. The simple request acknowledges that the other friends have an ownership stake in the pizza—one that is independent of how the pizza has been paid for.

Throughout daily life, there are numerous social interactions that similarly warrant permission before infringing on a target another feels ownership of: for example, hovering in a doorway while waiting to be acknowledged before entering; standing by someone’s cubicle, just outside the social space, before interrupting; asking if a seat is taken before sitting in it, in a public space with no assigned seating; maintaining distance in other public seating situations, such as sitting on a separate bench in a park rather than taking an available seat on a bench already occupied by a stranger. Further, behavior around territoriality and ownership is impacted by interpersonal dynamics: a close work friend might sit next to a coworker without asking permission; a boss may enter a subordinate’s office or cubicle space without waiting for acknowledgement, signaling a claim to ownership of the space that is superior to the occupant’s; on encountering a friend in a public space, the idea of sitting at a distance might seem strange.

Just as “infringers” may signal their infringement, “owners” may signal their reaction to infringement in a number of ways. Even shifting position after someone sits in the next seat on the subway, pulling slightly away, is a means—however unconscious—of letting the infringer know an incursion has taken place. Other reactions may be punitive. In one study, people using public pay phones responded to intrusions into the phone booth by remaining on the phone longer, prolonging their usage/possession/ownership of the space. Even minor or benevolent infringements have been shown to result in reactionary or anticipatory defenses, such as a diner picking up a water glass, touching it, or pulling it slightly closer, reasserting ownership in response to a server refilling it.

Applications

There are three means by which people come to feel psychological ownership of a target. Control, including physical possession, is one means. This applies, for instance, to the physical space one occupies (and the space immediately surrounding it) and to shared or public spaces or resources one makes regular use of (e.g., the favorite mug in the cabinet, the usual seat in a classroom). Studies have found that even picturing touching an object increases the individual’s feeling of ownership.

The second means is an investment of resources. One feels ownership over work, purchases, pets, even friends. That investment can lead to a sense of pride, as when a collaborative work project is successful, but also a sense of entitlement. Finally, intimate knowledge of the target can confer a feeling of ownership—friendships again, but also familiar spaces, favorite songs and books, television shows. Passionate responses to the lives of fictional characters can be explained in part because of this sense of ownership: readers investing time in reading the Harry Potter books and viewers watching multiple seasons of Supernatural come to know the characters well. When bad things happen to them, some fans feel betrayed by the characters’ creators.

One of the recent areas of research in ownership and territoriality is the impact of narcissism. As a personality trait (not to be confused with narcissistic personality disorder), narcissism is excessively high self-regard and gratification from considering one’s own virtues. (The second element is one separates it from mere egocentrism.) Narcissism is a persistent pattern of behavior and affect, not simply a feel-good mood. There is considerable social research on narcissism and the consistently exaggerated self-perceptions of narcissists—and further, their exaggerated metaperceptions. Metaperceptions are perceptions about other peoples’ perceptions, which is to say, narcissists have an inflated opinion of how other people feel about them (and may write off any negative responses from people as jealousy or envy). Studies have shown that this exaggerated self-image is externalized through narcissists’ possessions. Narcissists are more likely to purchase, or pointedly display, objects that are unique, valuable, or otherwise serve to differentiate them from others.

It makes sense, then, that studies in the twenty-first century have found that participants with high degrees of narcissism are more likely to react to feelings of ownership than participants with low narcissism. It is not, however, merely that narcissists are more likely to feel ownership over things. Repeated studies show that narcissists are more likely to perceive infringements in circumstances where low-narcissism participants do not. This seems to relate to their metaperceptions: Narcissists assign a greater value to a thing they feel ownership of and believes that other people perceive that same value (making others more likely to want to take it from them); and narcissists are more likely to assume that other people are aware of their claim of ownership. Anyone can be upset about not getting the last piece of pizza; a narcissist is more likely to get upset that, when there are three pizzas available, someone took the last piece of sausage pizza, which everyone should have known was the narcissist’s favorite.

Issues

Territory-claiming behavior can be observed in public or otherwise shared spaces. Some library patrons may keep their belongings and books in a small space, taking up only as much space as they need. Others sprawl out, even if they are not actively using everything surrounding them, taking up more space in order to increase the size of the bubble around them. Some office mates’ work areas may spread out into ostensibly shared spaces for the same reason.

Because culture plays a role in territoriality and conceptions of personal space, so too does gender. Many people have observed that there are norms of personal space in contexts like public men’s restrooms, where it is common to assign a larger sphere of personal space according to how much space is available, rather than standing next to another at the urinals. Studies also agree that men display more territoriality than women—specifically that they are more likely to assert ownership and more likely to defend it.

A common test studied in social research on gendered territorial behavior is the response of an individual, unaware of being observed for the purpose, to a stranger moving into the person’s personal space. Women are more likely to move away. This preserves the interpersonal distance previously maintained but at the expense of the specific territory previously held. Men are more likely to stand their ground, or even to close the distance further. This holds true even in circumstances where there is no value to the territory, as opposed to, for example, waiting in line, where ceding territory could mean losing one’s place and having a longer wait.

A famous example of gendered territorial behavior is “manspreading,” a term coined in the early 2010s when digital camera ubiquity enabled the public posting of manspreading photos. Manspreading is a masculine behavior commonly observed in public spaces, whereby a sitting man’s knees or legs are spread apart and encroaching into the space of adjacent seats. While it has provoked many indignant defenses when pointed out, manspreading is a classic example of territorial body language, asserting ownership by occupying as much space as possible. Subsequent studies of the social meaning of this kind of body language have not been conclusive but have suggested that there is a difference in how Americans at least read such body language: in men, spreading out to occupy more space connotes dominance and assertiveness, while in women the exact same actions are read as vulnerable or awkward.

Terms & Concepts

Identification: Identification is an individual’s feeling of close association, goal-sharing, and values-sharing with a separate entity. A reader may identify with the protagonist of the novel they are reading, for instance, wanting the protagonist to succeed for that reason. Organizational identification is an organization member’s identification with that organization, especially in reference to the individual’s employer.

Narcissism: Derived from the Greek myth of Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection, narcissism is excessive self-regard. Though it is part of the diagnostic classification of narcissistic personality disorder, not every reference to narcissism as a trait implies actual pathology.

Ownership: In psychology, the feeling of having possession and attendant rights over a thing, which need not be a tangible or legal property.

Personal Space: In proxemics, refers to the second smallest sphere of space surrounding an individual. Also called a personal bubble. If other people enter an individual’s personal space, it results in the individual feeling uncomfortable. It can be differentiated from social distance (the distance people are most comfortable maintaining from strangers and acquaintances during social interactions) and intimate distance (the proximity necessary for touching or whispering).

Proxemics: The study of the human use of space, especially with regards to that usage’s role in communication, and how interpersonal distance and other concerns influence the intentional layout of human-used spaces such as homes and offices. An important area in proxemics is the study of cross-cultural differences in the use of space.

Territoriality: A form of nonverbal communication conveyed through the use of space and one’s personal surroundings.

Bibliography

Brown, G., & Zhu, H. (2016). “My workspace, not yours”: The impact of psychological ownership and territoriality in organizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 54–64. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=120143688&site=ehost-live

Contzen, N., & Marks, S. J. (2018). Increasing the regular use of safe water kiosk through collective psychological ownership: A mediation analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 45–52. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=130911421&site=ehost-live

Cupers, K. (2017). Human territoriality and the downfall of public housing. Public Culture, 29(1), 165–190. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=119798625&site=ehost-live

Hyewon K., & Hyosun K. (2017). “Customer aggression and workplace deviance: The moderating role of psychological ownership.” Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 45(11), 1761–1773. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=126784436&site=ehost-live

Naz, S., & Liaquat, S. (2015). Impact of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction and psychological ownership among public and private employees: A case study of Multan City. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 35(2), 1121–1131. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=112287847&site=ehost-live

Pierce, J. L., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Coghlan, A.-M. (2004). Work environment structure and psychological ownership: The mediating effects of control. Journal of Social Psychology, 144(5), 507–534. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=14175629&site=ehost-live

Su, X., & Ng, S.-M. (2019). The differential impacts of collective psychological ownership and membership identification on work burnout and engagement. Journal of Social Service Research, 45(1), 44–58. Retrieved January 1, 2019 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=133674222&site=ehost-live

Verkuyten, M., Sierksma, J., & Thijs, J. (2015). First arrival and owning the land: How children reason about ownership of territory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 58–64. Retrieved January 1, 2019 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=101001202&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Haokip, L. (2018). Culture, ethnicity and territoriality: A cultural history of imagined land in Manipur, 1950s-1990s. Asian Ethnicity, 19(3), 344–364. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=128598668&site=ehost-live

Ross, H., Friedman, O., & Field, A. (2015). Toddlers assert and acknowledge ownership rights. Social Development, 24(2), 341–356. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=101792287&site=ehost-live

Wei W. H., Huang Y., Chenghao M., Jinlian L., Xianmiao L., & Kwok L. T. (2017). Territoriality, motivational climate, and idea implementation: We reap what we sow. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 45(11), 1919–1932. Retrieved January 1, 2019 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=126784448&site=ehost-live