Cottage Fourteen

Esser, Aristide H.

doi:10.1177/104649647300400201

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sundstrom and Altman (1974) pointed out that the relationship between territoriality and dominance has received mixed support. One of Esser's studies (Esser et al,196S) showed a negative relationship (low-dominant patients were more territorial), whereas another observational study in the same paradigm (Esser, 1973) showed a positive relationship (high-dominant subjects were more territorial). A third study (Esser, 1968) showed no significant association.…”

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human territoriality.

Edney¹

1974

Psychological Bulletin

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is based on a paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree at Yale University.The author would like to thank J. Richard Hackman for his help and advice on an earlier draft of this paper; Nancy L. Jordan-Edney for her patience, moral support, and thoughtful advice; and P. E. Diebold, D. Feldman, and J. Rodin for their useful criticisms and suggestions.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Julian

show abstract

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%

“…A final study of Esser's (1973) was also intended to illustrate the significance of ethological concepts (territoriality and dominance) for understanding behavior in institutions. Observations were made of 17 institutionalized boys in a residential building over a period of 25 weeks.…”

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Human territoriality.

Edney¹

1974

Psychological Bulletin

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Power in organizations stems from the control of scarce, valuable resources and the ability to exploit that control through various strategies (Hickson, Hinings, Schneck, & Pennings, 1972;Pfeffer, 1981). Similarly, territoriality is concerned with the control of organizational resources; territories represent valued organizational objects over which members make proprietary claims (Esser, 1968(Esser, , 1973. Moreover, one of the reasons individuals may be motivated to engage in territorial behaviors is to gain the influence and strategic advantage that control of some object may afford them in the organization.…”

Section: The Concept Of Territorialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Territoriality in Organizations

Brown

Lawrence

Robinson

2005

AMR

411

483

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Territorial feelings and behaviors are important, pervasive, and yet largely overlooked aspects of organizational life. Organizational members can and do become territorial over physical spaces, ideas, roles, relationships, and other potential possessions in organizations. We examine how territorial behaviors are used to construct, communicate, maintain, and restore territories in organizations. We then go on to discuss the organizational consequences of these behaviors, including their effects on organizational commitment, conflict, preoccupation, and individual isolation.

show abstract

“…A second aspect of the "person" component, personality and particularly the dominance dimension of personality, has been variously related to territoriality. For example, Esser (1968) found no relationship between dominance and territoriality; Esser, Chamberlain, Chapple, and Kline (1965) found a negative relationship between the two; and Esser (1973) and DeLong (1973) found a positive relationship between the two. Further, two studies (Altman & Haythom, 1967;Altman, Taylor, & Wheeler, 1971) found that, in spacesharing situations, one dominant person paired with a submissive person were more compatable than dominant-dominant or submissive-submissive pairs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Behavior of University Undergraduates in Double‐Occupany Residence Rooms: An Inventory of Effects

Mercer

Benjamin

1980

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spatial behavior of 116 male and 190 female pairs of university under‐graduates was examined in the context of their self‐reported own and shared territories within double‐occupany residence rooms. The variables were divided into a number of conceptual categories, R‐squared calculated for the contribution of each category to own and shared territory estimates, and finally regressions for the entire set of variables were calculated for each gender on these estimates. The conceptual categories used were: personality; subjects' physical characteristics; distal or past environments; behavior in the room; sports, social, outdoor, and aesthetic behaviors; attitudes toward room and roommate; and physical characteristics of the room. The entire set of variables accounted for 53% of the variance in the own territory and 42% of the variance in public territory for the males, while the figures for the females were 46% and 39% respectively. Generally, the males' reported spatial behaviors were more influenced by “internal” variables, such as personality and attitudes, than were the females' spatial behaviors, which were more influenced by “external” variables, such as the physical characteristics of the room and the social situation.

show abstract

Cottage Fourteen

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

Human territoriality.

Human territoriality.

Territoriality in Organizations

Spatial Behavior of University Undergraduates in Double‐Occupany Residence Rooms: An Inventory of Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About