Territorialism: Locks, alarms, lights, and other ways to protect your stuff

This topic submitted by Andy Dolan (an_d_lyte@hotmail.com) at 10:10 PM on 4/30/02. Additions were last made on Wednesday, May 1, 2002. Section: Myers.

Abstract

This is a study on territorialism in the form of home security and the protection of personal belongings. One hundred people were surveyed, mostly Miami students, and some other people throughout Ohio, regarding their thoughts on home security. It was my hypothesis that males would express more desire to have a safe, secure, and well-protected home. This hypothesis was supported by research conducted while observing various primates at the Cincinnati Zoo, and their reaction to a mirror.

Introduction

Territorialism can take on many forms. Be it aggressive behavior, displays, or marking of territory among others. In many cases the reason for the territorial action is most often to protect oneself and or offspring, or to secure resources for oneself and or offspring. These acts of territorialism are most commonly found in the animal kingdom; however, humans also have ways of expressing their own territorialism.

Generally humans express territorialism in terms of boundaries and markers. We build walls, fences, and fortresses. We have no trespassing signs, lights, alarms, and locks. These are ways of marking ones territory without actually having to confront those who wish to impede, and thus protecting oneself from harm while protecting ones territory. In his essay on privacy as an expression of territoriality, Leon Pastalan quotes Altman as saying, ÒHuman territoriality encompasses temporally durable, preventive, and reactive behaviors including perceptions, use and defense of places, people, objects, and ideas, by means of verbal, self-marker, and environmental prop behaviors in response to the actual or implied presence of others and in response to properties of the environment, and is geared to satisfying certain primary and secondary motivational states of individuals and groupsÓ.

In this study I was particularly interested in the defense of ones offspring and belongings through the use of home security. Currently home security is a booming market. More and more Americans are investing in ways to make their homes safer. Security systems, locks and floodlights are becoming more sophisticated, and are being installed today more than ever, at outrageous costs. Considering the staggering advancement, and perceived necessity for home security, one must ask, why are people turning their homes into fortresses? The answer is simple. They donÕt feel safe, and for good reason. A poll of the National Crime Prevention Council stated that one out of every ten homes is burglarized every year. ItÕs not just burglary that has people in such frenzy. ItÕs the threat of potential violence that comes along with burglary. ÒBurglary is the most pervasive crime in the United States. It cuts across geographic, economic, and cultural boundaries. While it is not officially classified as a crime of violence, burglary creates the fear of violence. Because of it many people no longer feel safe in their homesÓ (Home Security Book).

All of this information sets up an interesting paradigm. There are those who have family, or valuable possessions, a.k.a. territory, and there are those who wish to harm family and or take that territory. In todayÕs society the most excepted way of guarding territory is home security. That is why I am conducting this study. I wish to find out who is more concerned with territory, males or females, and in what ways they intend to protect that territory.

Relevance

I found it a little difficult to find information on the topic of home security. I did find a few documents from The National Crime Prevention Council that neither supported or opposed my hypothesis that males would be more protective of the home. The information from the NCPC did, however, support a general concern for home security in both sexes. I did get support for my hypothesis in J.J. EdneyÕs essay ÒThe Psychological Role of Property Rights in Human BehaviorÓ. In it he states, ÒThe revolutionary implications of this theory from a biological standpoint are that it contradicts Charles DarwinÕs notion of natural selection as a process in which males competed for females. In Wynne-Edwards system, males compete for territory, and may or may not copulate after winning (females are, however, usually drawn to males with property in this system). Territory therefore becomes a very important part of many animalsÕ lives. Whether this process applies to humans also is a difficult question at this point, although there are certainly intriguing parallels to be drawn in human property-oriented culturesÓ. Although there were no studies that I could find that tested whether or not human males competed for territory, I feel that my study may help others who wish to test the inherent male concern of home security.

Methods and Materials

My experimental design was to test whether or not human males would show more concern regarding issues of home security as an act of territorialism. My first step in this process was to observe other species and see how the males would act. I brought a video camera and a handheld mirror to the Cincinnati Zoo. I proceeded to show the mirror to different groups of primates in the hope that they would think their reflection was an intruder. I was interested to see if a male or a female would approach first, and how they would react. In almost every case a male would approach the mirror in a slightly aggressive manner. After proper investigation and assured safety the male would lose interest. Only after the male had approached would females and adolescents approach the mirror. It was as if the male had deemed everything safe. In one case the largest male began to bear his teeth into the mirror in an extremely threatening manner. Upon seeing his reflection bearing teeth back he became very upset. He reared up on his hands and kicked the glass right in front of the mirror. He then began to race around his enclosure uttering hoots and grunts, while throwing objects. This was an obvious display of male aggression in defense of kin and territory. This observation of primates and their behavior in terms of territorialism is relevant to my hypothesis in that if males of other species are more likely to display territorial behavior it wouldnÕt be far fetched to assume that human males may behave similarly.

My next step in the experiment was to compile a survey that would help me to discern whether males or females were more concerned with issues of home security. Questions such as, ÒHow safe do you feel in your home?Ó and other questions concerning actually safety precautions and the subjectÕs willingness to use them were asked. The questions concerning perceived safety were based on a scale of one to five, with one being not safe at all, and five being very safe. Questions on actually safety precautions like alarms, and door locks were yes and no answers. The reasoning behind the different styles of questions was to get a sense of how safe someone actually feels, compared to their compliance with safety measures. I could also determine whether oneÕs feelings of safety correlated with the amount of safety measures they would take to protect their homes. This survey was then passed out to one hundred people, mostly Miami students, and some other people throughout Ohio. The test group was compiled of forty-four males and fifty-six females. The age of the participants ranged from seventeen to fifty-three, but their ages were not taken into account in the actual study. The survey itself is displayed on the next page.

How Safe is Your Stuff?
Natural Systems II: Nature of Human Nature

1.) What is your sex? Male or Female

2.) How safe do you feel in your home?
(Not safe) 1 Ð 2 Ð 3 Ð 4 Ð 5 (Very safe)

3.) Do you lock your doors before leaving your home? Yes or No

4.) How much do you worry about the safety of your possessions when away from home? (Not at all) 1 Ð 2 Ð 3 Ð 4 Ð 5 (Very Much)

5.) Does your home have locks on all doors and windows? Yes or No

6.) Do you have a dog in your house? Yes or No

7.) Would you feel safer with a guard dog? (Not at all) 1 Ð 2 Ð 3 Ð 4 Ð 5 (Very)

8.) Do you have a fence around your house? Yes or No

9.) Do you have motion sensitive lights on your house? Yes or No

10.)Does your home have some sort of electrical security system? Yes or No

11.) How safe would you feel with a home security system? (Not Safe) 1 Ð 2 Ð 3 Ð 4 Ð 5 (Very Safe)

Discussion

In contradiction with my hypothesis that males would tend to be more interested in a safe, secure, and well-protected house, the results showed patterns indicating that it was actually the females who preferred a well protected home. When asked to rate how safe they felt at home, it was the males who felt the safest. Almost 75% of females gave answers of 3,4,or 5, while over 80% of males registered answers claiming they felt safe. The difference in the results may be attributed to the male, Òmy home is my castleÓ.

The next question asked whether the participant locked their doors. The results were very close, with a slight edge to the females locking their doors. This question was a prompt for my next question, which asked if the participant worried about their house/belongings when away from home. This category also went to the females with decided results of 55% males and over 65%females. The mean female answer in category was 2.93, and the male response was 2.77. This could be a case of the males having more trust in the security measures taken, or simply that the women may be more prone to worrying.

The results for the question of whether or not the participant had a dog were very close with a slight advantage to the males. The difference is so slight that I cannot even make any assumptions as to why the males would tend to own dogs, it is probable that the difference is due to the small test population. However, when asked whether they would feel safer with a dog, the males again had slightly higher results. That one may be toted up to the old saying, ÒmanÕs best friendÓ. I would put my money on the small test population though.

The next two questions really donÕt add any input to this study. I asked whether the participants had fences and motion sensitive lights on their house. I hadnÕt realized that most of my test subjects still lived at home and had no input on whether or not their house had those items. So the data for those questions really doesnÕt apply.

The question of whether or not their house had a security system was, however, relevant. The final question of the survey asked whether or not the participant would feel safer with a security system. Again the females elicited a greater desire to have a security system. The edge was only a very tiny one though, with the male mean at 3.909, and the female mean at 3.911. To my surprise the females expressed more desire to have a well protected home. But when I actually really thought about these results I realized that maybe I shouldnÕt have been surprised. As mentioned before, my observations supported the idea of males being the protectors and aggressors. The results of the first question on the study would also support this idea. Males feel safer in their homes. They view themselves as the protectors, and this role may make them rely less on home security.

Conclusion

In conclusion my results in no way support my hypothesis that males would express their territorialism through home security measures. It does, however, show patterns that may suggest the opposite, that females have a greater interest in security. This may be due to the elevated rates of violent crimes committed against females, particularly rape. This is merely an assumption, but may be a good prompt for further study.

Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu