Territorial Invasion in the Classroom

Abstract

A comparison is made, among humans, testing dominance and subordination among the spatially central and peripheral in fourteen college classrooms. An operational definition of dominance was whether a person whose stably occupied seat was invaded (occupied by the experimenter during the "owner's" absence) defended his seat by asking for it back. The hypothesis was tested that the spatially central would defend territory (ask for their seat back) significantly more than would the spatially peripheral. Some findings were: (1) The spatially central defended territory significantly more than the spatially peripheral when invaded. (2) Those who defended stopped and stared before defense of territory significantly more than those who retreated. (3) Defenders of territory related their wishes verbally to invaders significantly more often than did retreaters. (4) The longer territory had been occupied and/or marked with personal property, the more often territory was defended against invaders. (5) After invasion, invadee retreaters (who took another seat) mainly took another seat in close proximity to the invader, suggesting perhaps nonverbal threat. (6) In the succeeding session all invadees whether they had defended their seat or retreated when perceiving themselves invaded, both arrived earlier than usual and occupied or reoccupied (for retreaters) their own territory.