Ruback, Kohli / Territoriality / T The 2005 Environment And

ENVIRONMENT 10.1177/0013916504266807 Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AND BEHAVIOR A / TMarch THE MAGH 2005 MELA

TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA The Effects of Organizational Factors and Intruder Characteristics R. BARRY RUBACK is a professor of crime, law, and justice and sociology at Pennsylvania State University. His research in environmental psychology focuses on the correlates of environmental stressors, particularly crowding. He is also interested in decision making in the legal system. NEENA KOHLI received her B.A., M.A., and D.Phil. degrees from the University of Allahabad, India. Currently a senior lecturer at the University of Allahabad, she has worked on factors involved in psychological recovery following tragic life events. Her present research interests include illness cognitions and adjustment to chronic illness, the role of health beliefs in recovery, and stress and pain management.

ABSTRACT: The Magh Mela, an annual Hindu festival held at the confluence of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, attracts about 150,000 pilgrims who stay for a month in campsites maintained by religious organizations. This study examined territoriality at the campsites in terms of (a) observed characteristics—including personalizations (e.g., flags, banners) and barriers (e.g., fences, gates)—and (b) behavioral responses to an experimental intrusion by 1 or 2 intruder-interviewers who were either male or female. Across dependent measures, larger organizations and more fundamentalist organizations were more territorial. Results from the experiment indicated that territorial defense, in the form of a faster response to an intrusion, was evidenced more for female than male intruders and more for 1 than 2 intruders. These findings suggest that the concept of territorial defense should be broadened beyond physically threatening intrusions to include symbolically threatening intrusions (e.g., an intrusion by a single woman). Keywords:

territoriality; religion; gender; India

Territoriality refers to marking a physical location, occupying it, and potentially defending it against intruders. This territorial behavior is an important way by which individuals and groups can regulate social interactions (Altman, 1975) through warning potential intruders (Ley & Cybriwsky, ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 37 No. 2, March 2005 178-200 DOI: 10.1177/0013916504266807 © 2005 Sage Publications

178

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 179

1974) and protecting the area from outsiders (Lyman & Scott, 1967; Sommer & Becker, 1969). There can be other benefits as well. For instance, when territories are clearly defined, aggression is less common (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970), group cohesion is greater (Suttles, 1968, p. 38), and valuable resources are likely to last longer (Acheson, 1975; Taylor, 1988). Territorial behavior is especially important for primary territories—areas that are central to one’s life. The more important the area is, the more defensive measures that are likely to be employed. For example, with primary territories such as the home, occupants are likely to use several defensive measures (e.g., fences, locked doors) to keep outsiders outside. Thus, people who own their homes are more likely than renters to personalize their homes with markers (Greenbaum & Greenbaum, 1981), although it might be that causality works both ways. That is, individuals who are more territorial use more markers of territory, and individuals who personalize their territory with more markers are more attached to that territory (Brown, 1987). Similarly, homeowners who use aggressive territorial markers (e.g., “No Trespassing” signs, “Beware of Dog” signs, fences) are likely to have lived longer in their homes, plan to live there longer in the future, and respond to a doorbell more quickly (Edney, 1972). Most studies of territoriality have examined public territories—areas that are temporarily occupied and to which anyone has free access (Altman, 1975). Studies of territoriality at such public territories as hallways, beaches, park benches, and library tables suggest that people establish territories (Edney & Jordan-Edney, 1974; H. W. Smith, 1981) and that potential intruders recognize these temporary territories (Cheyne & Efran, 1972). However, occupants are not likely to defend them (e.g., Patterson, Mullens, & Romano, 1971; Sommer & Becker, 1969) unless those locations are valuable for a particular purpose (Ruback, 1987; Ruback, Pape, & Doriot, 1989; Taylor & Brooks, 1980). There is also some evidence that people will defend public territories even if it is contrary to their goal of leaving (Ruback & Juieng, 1997). In contrast to these studies of public territories, the present research examined secondary territories, those semipublic locations that are less central and exclusive than primary territories but that have more ownership and are under more control than public territories (Altman, 1975).

AUTHORS’NOTE: This research was supported by Penn State University and by the Centre for Advanced Study in Psychology and the Centre for Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences at the University of Allahabad. We thank Sabika Abbas, Pankaj Bharti, Azra Ishrat, and Sunil Verma for their help with the collection and coding of the data. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

180 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005

Although occupants of primary and secondary territories are likely to defend these areas against outsiders, there may be some important locations or some circumstances when occupants may also welcome outsiders. Such a situation might occur among religious groups that face a potential conflict between protecting the organization from nonmembers who may threaten their physical and spiritual integrity and wanting to bring in new members. The present research investigated this dilemma by looking at territorial behavior at the Magh Mela, an annual religious festival in north India. In particular, the study examined the effects of two aspects of the religious organizations occupying the land (size and religious fundamentalism) and two aspects of intruders onto the land (gender and number). ROLE OF RELIGION

Although there are many individual aspects to religion, religion is also a group phenomenon (Johnstone, 2001, pp. 7-9, 42-44). Members share common goals and norms, they identify with the group, there are roles to fulfill, and there is a status system. In Hinduism, the group aspect is somewhat different than it is in the West in that individuals generally affiliate with a particular pandit and feel attached to that specific person rather than to the larger religion.1 This occurs because there is no single dogma for Hinduism. Rather, people are Hindu because they are born to Hindu parents. The particular way it is practiced depends on the social class and geographical region a person belongs to (Johnstone, 2001, pp. 204-205). One of the implications of the fact that there are group aspects to a religion is that factors about groups, such as size, should affect the way a religious group functions. Although larger size is often considered an indication that the group is successful, there are five implications of larger sized religious groups (Johnstone, 2001, pp. 43-44). First, larger groups are likely to have less consensus about goals and norms—in large part because there is less communication and therefore less understanding. Second, this reduction in consensus is likely to result in greater diversity in behavior. Third, when groups are larger, there are more formal norms and principles. Fourth, larger religious groups are likely to have more specialized roles and more full-time roles. Finally, there is greater social distance between religious coordinators and the rank-and-file membership. Virtually all examinations of the size of religious groups have been conducted in the context of Western religions, particularly Protestant churches in the United States (Johnstone, 2001). This literature suggests that larger groups tend to be more accepting of the prevailing social values in their envi-

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 181

ronment whereas smaller groups tend to be more rejecting of these prevailing values (Johnson, 1963, as cited in Stark & Finke, 2000, p. 143). Within these groups, members tend to be more highly committed to smaller groups (sects) than to larger organizations (churches) because in addition to the greater consensus and greater communication, sects have more requirements (Weber, 1922/1963). The strictness eliminates members who do not have high commitment and, for those who remain, increases the benefits of membership (Iannaccone, 1994). In the context of territorial behavior, the size of a religious group could have conflicting effects. Small groups are likely to have more committed members, which should lead to greater defense. However, they are also often interested in attracting new members, which should mean less defense. Larger groups generally have less individual commitment, which should lead to less defense. However, because they are also likely to have more property and greater wealth, they should be more territorial. Moreover, because they have more members, they are likely to have more role specialization. In particular, they are more likely to have individuals whose job it is to guard the campsite. We expected larger organizations to be more territorial because with greater wealth there is more need and more resources to protect the site. Fundamentalism refers broadly to religious movements against manifestations of modernity, especially individual liberation and secularization (Johnstone, 2001, pp. 154-157). The religious fundamentalism of a group could also be evidenced in territorial behavior. We expected that because of their high level of commitment to the group, high fundamentalist groups would be likely to exclude others who were not in their sect whereas low fundamentalist organizations would be more likely to welcome strangers. THE MAGH MELA

This study examined territorial behavior by religious pilgrims at the Magh Mela during February 2003. The Magh Mela is a religious festival held annually at the Sangam, the confluence of the Ganges river, the Yamuna river, and the mythical Saraswati river, which is said to come from the center of the earth. The Sangam is a holy place for ritual bathing and the Magh Mela has been held there for centuries. The festival (Mela in Hindi) is held during the month of Magh, which begins in mid-January with the ritual bathing day of Makar Sankranti. There are several other ritual bathing days during the Mela, which lasts about a month. Aside from the bathers, who can number in the millions on the three major bathing days, there are about 150,000 kalpavasis, or religious pilgrims, who

182 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005

camp on the open land of the Sangam. During the monsoon season, the Ganges at this point is about a mile wide. During the month of Magh, however, the Ganges River is less than a quarter mile wide, which means there are extensive areas of sand and silt. It is on this land that the kalpavasis camp. According to the government authorities overseeing the festival, the 2003 Mela spread across an area of about 300 bighas, or roughly 600 acres. About one sixth of this area was nonresidential and was devoted to administrative offices, police stations, and medical facilities. The remaining land was residential (i.e., where the camps were set up). Altogether in 2003 there were approximately 2,150 campsites of which 1,500 were set up by various organizations and 650 by religious pandits (learned men who organize their own camps, often for profit). The Mela Authority, which is part of the Uttar Pradesh state government, allocates land for the campsites. Allocation of land. The most desirable sites at the Mela are those located on the major roads and near the Sangam. In general, those organizations that had been to the Magh Mela before continue to receive the same campsite that they had used before. However, because the course of the Ganges River changes every year, the location of streets and the amount of land available for campsites necessarily changes as well. The allocation of land is also complicated by the fact that the riverbed is not even, and organizations assigned land containing pits are likely to be dissatisfied. Moreover, allocation can be a problem when new organizations apply for space. Sometimes they are given land that had originally been assigned to an organization that did not show up. If the new organizations are powerful they are given the best sites, irrespective of the group to which it had been originally allotted. More often, new organizations are given new sites where there was no camp the previous year. Facilities. The state government provides religious organizations, free of cost, basic facilities like electricity and water. In addition, the government provides tents and many household items (e.g., incandescent lights, beds, utensils). Organizations often bring more of these items because of the large number of people who stay there. Moreover, wealthier organizations lease from private businesses better quality facilities including tents, toilets, fluorescent lights, and cooking facilities. The wealthier organizations also have more water taps, more toilets, and greater electrical supply. Most campsites have banners, written in Hindi, identifying the organization sponsoring the campsite. In addition, most campsites have identifying flags flying from tall poles so that people can locate their campsite from a distance. Because a large percentage of the pilgrims are illiterate, these flags

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 183

generally are brightly colored, may be of various shapes, and often contain symbols so that pilgrims can easily identify them. The Mela provides an excellent opportunity to investigate territoriality in secondary territories, and this study extends research on territoriality in three ways. First, it examines the cross-cultural generalizability of some of the underlying assumptions of territoriality. That is, most territorial research has assumed that the threat from intrusion to the physical space is to occupants or possessions. It might be that the primary threat posed by an intruder is to beliefs rather than to physical security. This notion is consistent with Altman’s (1975) suggestion that territoriality—especially for secondary territories—can serve several functions, including group identity. In such cases, territoriality is a way to defend that identity. Second, it investigates the conflict religious groups may have in terms of welcoming or barring outsiders. Third, it looks at the role of groups in territorial behavior, specifically group norms and specialized roles. HYPOTHESES

We expected that territoriality would be evidenced both by personalizations (e.g., the number and size of identifying flags and banners) and by barriers (e.g., fences, gates, and guards). We also expected that more territorial camps would have rules about who could enter the campsite. In addition to these observable aspects, we expected that how campsites responded to an intrusion by one or two strangers who were either male or female could be measured by how quickly they responded to an intrusion, which would be an indication of territorial defense (Edney, 1972). We also collected data on five variables occurring after the initial response that we considered indicators of how welcoming the campsites were of intruders: (a) the length of time they spent with the intruder, (b) the number of pilgrims who spoke to the intruder, (c) where the interviews were conducted, (d) whether intruder-interviewers were allowed to sit, and (e) whether intruder-interviewers were offered refreshment. In addition to investigating the size and religious fundamentalism of the organizations occupying the land, we also were interested in studying the effects of the gender and number of intruders. For the most part, studies on territoriality have examined how men and women react to intrusions by a male, but there have been few, if any, studies of how individuals react to intrusions by a female. Analogous research on invasions of personal space indicates that invasions by males are more distressing and more likely to lead to flight than are invasions by females (Krail & Leventhal, 1976; McBride,

184 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005

King, & James, 1965). The absence of research on territorial intrusions by women could be because intrusions by females are generally rare. For example, studies of seating in college classrooms suggest that females are reluctant to invade the territories of males (Haber, 1980). This reluctance would probably be even more true in a culture such as India’s where women have substantially less social power than in the West. Despite these findings on the effects of gender, we expected in our study that females would cause more territorial response than would males because in South Asia territorial intrusions by women, especially a woman alone, would be so nonnormative as to call for immediate action. That is, outside of the large cities, women in India rarely go out by themselves and, thus, female intruders would be unusual. In terms of the experimental manipulation of the number of intruders, we expected that two intruders would pose more of a threat than one intruder and thus should elicit more territorial behaviors (e.g., a quicker response to an intrusion). We also expected an interaction of gender and number. The intrusion of two males should be a greater threat than the intrusion of one male because two males can do more harm than one male. In contrast, in India the intrusion of one female is a greater threat than the intrusion of two females because a woman alone is so unusual and nonnormative. In India, a lone woman is virtually never seen outside of the metropolitan areas. Thus, there would be more territoriality with one than two female intruders.

METHOD OVERVIEW

We used three data sources to investigate territorial behavior at the Magh Mela. First, we observed campsites to obtain more detailed information about the quality of the campsites (e.g., number of tents, type of toilets, kitchen). Second, we obtained information through a structured survey of a representative of the camp that included questions about the group’s openness to outsiders, the group’s history at the Mela, the group’s satisfaction with the campsite, the nature of the group’s relations with its neighbors, and whether there are any rules regarding entry by strangers. Third, we obtained behavioral measures of territoriality including the amount of time (in seconds) between the entry by the interviewer(s) and when some member of the campsite first spoke to them. This territorial intrusion was experimentally manipulated in terms of number and gender of intruders.

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 185 PARTICIPANTS

Of the approximately 2,150 campsites at the Mela we sampled 241. More than half (53%) of the organizations and pandits sponsoring the camps in the sample came from the Allahabad district (the region in which the city of Allahabad and the Sangam are located), and 72% came from the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, the state of about 170 million people in which Allahabad is located. Most of the remaining 28% generally came from the states of Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharasthra. PROCEDURE

Two teams, consisting of either two males or two females, conducted the study. Each pair conducted the intrusions as a replicate of four conditions in the following order: intrusion by both, intrusion by one, intrusion by both, intrusion by the other. In this way there were the same number of single and double intrusion conditions, and this order permitted us to control for possible day and time of day effects. When both individuals intruded, one asked the questions and the other completed the observation form. The two individuals alternated between these roles in the condition where both intruded. From the Mela administration authorities we obtained a map of the site that we used to systematically sample campsites from every street in the Mela. Researchers started at one end of the street and collected data at every other camp. For each road in the Mela the two men worked as a team on one side while the two women worked as a team on the other side. The study was conducted on 9 different days during a 2-week period in February 2003. No interviews were conducted on the major ritual bathing days when there were about a million visitors to the Sangam. Entering the campsite. The intruder-interviewers (one or two, male or female, depending on condition) walked five steps into the campsite,2 stood there until someone came to them, and, using a stopwatch, measured the time in seconds from the time they entered the campsite until someone came to speak with them. In several cases, walking the five steps was not possible because the gate was closed,3 the intruder-interviewers were stopped at the gate and questioned there, or they were questioned before they could take five steps. If no one came to talk to them, they waited up to 2 min and then looked for someone to talk to. Surveying respondents. The intruder-interviewers introduced themselves as graduate students in psychology at Allahabad University. They then said

186 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005

they were conducting a study on the use of space at the Mela and were interested in asking respondents some questions that would take about 10 min.4 If they agreed, and all did, then the interviewers began the structured questions. All of the intruder-interviewers were extensively trained and had the opportunity to practice delivering these instructions during several pilot sessions. Consistent with the practice in other studies involving minor intrusions that commonly occur (e.g., Milgram, Liberty, Toledo, & Wackenhut, 1986), we did not debrief research participants about the experimental manipulation. Three interviews were terminated before all of the interview data were collected. The individuals at these three campsites, when told about the interview, said they preferred not to answer any questions because they had additional equipment from the government (e.g., fluorescent lights) beyond what they should have had. Even though they had been promised anonymity, they were afraid that their behavior would become known to the authorities. For these three campsites, however, we still had measures of intrusion time and of the observation items. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

The interview schedule consisted of 29 questions that asked about the organization that sponsored the camp (size of the sponsoring organization, home location, name of the individual who was its head), the organization’s history at the Mela, their opinion about the quality of the campsite, whether the campsite was the group’s first choice, the number of people at the campsite, the group’s attitude toward strangers, and the group’s religious fundamentalism. In addition to these questions, the interviewers noted the number of people they spoke to, the length of their interviews, whether they were asked to sit, where the interview was conducted (at the gate or inside the camp), whether they were offered refreshment, and whether there were any religious programs going on at the time. OBSERVATION FORM

In addition to the interview schedule, the intruder-interviewers also completed an observation form. Their ratings included observations of the number and size of flags (coded as small, about 1 ft; medium, about 2 ft; or large, about 3 ft) and banners (coded as small, about 3 ft; medium, about 6 ft, or large, about 9 ft); the type of gate (coded as none, bamboo, bamboo with cloth, wood, decorated wood, and steel); position of the gate (open, halfopen, closed); the type of boundary around the camp (none, twine, rope, wood, bamboo, steel, or brick); the height of the boundary (approximately

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 187

3 ft, 6 ft, or 9 ft); the number and type of tents; the number of water taps and toilets; the size and type of cooking facility; the number of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs; the number of beds and chairs; the type of flooring in the camp; and whether the camp had grass and flowers. When two interviewers intruded, they completed the observation form together. When only one interviewer intruded, both that person and the other person (who was on the road outside the camp) completed the observation form. Thus, for half of the campsites (i.e., when there was only one intruder) we have measures of the reliability of the observations. Because the person who was on the road outside could not see everything that was inside the camp, reliability could be determined for only 15 items. In general, reliability was very high for the nominally coded items: 97% for the size of the flags, 98% for the size of the banners, 97% for whether there were private guards, 99% for the type of gate, 100% for the position of the gate (open, half open, or closed), 95% for the height of the boundary, 99% for the type of boundary, 94% for whether there was a covered area for religious discourse, 91% for whether there was grass in the camp, 96% for whether there were flowers in the camp, and 91% for the type of flooring in the tents. For the continuous items that the outside observer could see, the correlations were also very high (rs greater than .99 for the number of flags, number of banners, and number of boundaries and r = .91 for the number of small tents).

RESULTS

Before conducting analyses of the observed indicators of territoriality and of the behavioral responses to an intrusion we related the camps’ distance from the Sangam to factors about the camp. Then we used responses to the survey to divide the campsites based on the size and fundamentalism of the sponsoring organization. Distance from the Sangam. We conducted two different analyses based on location in the Mela. The first was based on the street on which the camp was situated. A one-way ANOVA by street indicated that different streets had different amounts of wealth as indicated by the number of water taps, fluorescent lights, wooden beds, chairs, mats, and toilets. In addition to using the street, we also measured the distance on a map from the midpoint of each of the streets on which interviews were conducted to the point where the Ganges River meets the Yamuna River. We used a point in the water because bathers

188 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005

would use both banks at the point where the two rivers meet. For two very long streets we used two midpoints to calculate the distance from the Sangam. Correlations between this distance on the map and characteristics of the campsites revealed several significant relationships. In general, these results suggested that camps that were farther from the Sangam were less territorial—fewer flags, r(238) = –.13, p < .05, and fewer boundaries around the camp, r(238) = –.37, p < .001. People at campsites farther from the Sangam were less likely to say the site was their first choice and more likely to say they had gone to the Mela authorities to ask for a new location. This finding is consistent with the fact that campsites farther away are less desirable. Size. Respondents gave us self-reports about whether the campsite was sponsored by a single pandit (13%) or by an organization that was small (30%), medium (14%), or large (43%) in size. We used this information to create a dichotomous variable relating to the size of the organization: (a) small organizations (43%) that consisted of single pandits and self-described small organizations and (b) large organizations (57%) that consisted of selfdescribed medium and large organizations. To determine whether this dichotomy was a valid indicator or size we conducted t tests comparing these organizations on the number of people there and property in the campsite. As shown in Table 1, campsites sponsored by large organizations had more people at the campsite (about three fifths of whom were male). Moreover, campsites sponsored by large organizations were wealthier as evidenced by the fact that they had more of virtually all types of personal property. The one exception was light bulbs, of which smaller organizations had more. But because incandescent bulbs are not as efficient and do not give as much light as fluorescent lights, the fact that the smaller camps had more light bulbs is really an indication that they were poorer. Fundamentalism. During the interview, respondents were asked to rate on a 4-point scale how staunch they were in their religious beliefs.5 Of the 238 individuals who answered this question, the mean was 3.05 (Mdn = 3.00). We dichotomized this variable based on a median split such that 140 (59%) answered 1, 2, or 3—which we coded as low fundamentalism—and 98 (41%) answered 4—which we coded as high fundamentalism. Answers to two of the survey items suggest that this division is reasonable and that the measure is valid. With regard to the question of whether anyone could become a member, high fundamentalist camps (47%) were less likely than low fundamentalist camps (78%) to answer affirmatively, χ2(1, 238) = 22.92, p < .001. With regard to the question of whether there were rules for who

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 189 TABLE 1 Comparison of Small and Large Campsites at the Magh Mela

Size of Organization Aspects of the Campsite Total number of people Number of males Number of females Number of water taps Number of incandescent lights Number of fluorescent lights Number of folding beds Number of wooden beds Number of chairs Number of mats Number of toilets

Small (n = 103)

Large (n = 138)

34.99 21.47 13.52 1.33 .21 .28 .27 2.30 1.89 2.35 1.44

108.61 72.37 36.24 2.85 .05 2.43 .49 5.67 6.67 6.66 3.09

3.05** 3.05** 2.33* 5.47*** 3.81*** 3.36*** 1.16 4.48*** 4.71*** 4.11*** 4.54***

1.56 2.50 .71 1.69

3.14 2.21 1.72 1.91

2.69** 2.10* 5.38*** 1.98*

2.35 1.89 2.10 1.20 2.89 40% 2% 1%

3.61 1.95 2.28 2.30 2.80 48% 14% 8%

6.51*** .39 1.82 6.47*** 1.50 1.42 8.58** 4.54*

t or

2

Observable Territorial Characteristics Number of flags a Size of flags Number of banners b Size of banners Number of sides of the camp on which there were barriers (0-4) c Type of barrier d Height of barrier e Type of gate f Position of gate Whether grass planted in camp (% yes) Whether flowers planted in camp (% yes) Whether there was a private guard (% yes)

a. n = 133. Coded as 1 = 1 ft, 2 = 2 ft, 3 = 3 ft. b. n = 167. Coded as 1 = 3 ft, 2 = 6 ft , 3 = 9 ft. c. n = 191. Coded as 1 = bamboo, 2 = wood, 3 = wood and cloth, 4 = corrugated steel. d. Coded as 1 = 3 ft, 2 = 6 ft, 3 = 9 ft. e. Coded as 1 = no gate, 2 = bamboo only, 3 = bamboo and cloth, 4 = wood, 5 = corrugated steel. f. Coded as 1 = closed, 2 = half open, 3 = open. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

could enter the camp, high fundamentalist organizations (57%) were more likely than low fundamentalist camps (16%) to answer affirmatively, χ2(1, 238) = 41.28, p < .001. The size and fundamentalism of the organization were not significantly related, χ2(1, 238) = 1.19, ns (this and all other 2 × 2 tables used Yates’ correction).

190 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005

Compared to low fundamentalist organizations, high fundamentalist organizations had significantly more people, Ms = 191.98 vs. 96.86, t(236) = 2.37, p < .05; significantly more water taps, Ms = 2.53 vs. 1.94, t(235) = 1.99, p < .05; significantly more toilets, Ms = 3.06 vs. 1.91, t(234) = 3.09, p < .01); and significantly fewer incandescent lights, Ms = 0.04 vs. 0.17, t(235) = 3.10, p < .01. On all other aspects of the campsite high and low fundamentalist organizations did not differ significantly.6 OBSERVED INDICATORS OF TERRITORIALITY

We related the size and fundamentalism of the sponsoring organization to nine observed indicators of territoriality: number and size of flags, number and size of banners, number of sides of the campsite on which there was a barrier, the type of barrier, the height of the barrier, the type of gate, and the position of the gate. Size of the organization. Because they would have greater wealth, we expected larger organizations to be more territorial. As shown in Table 1, large organizations generally were more territorial than small organizations. Specifically, they had significantly more flags, banners, and boundaries around the campsite. They also had significantly higher boundaries and significantly more substantial boundaries. The gates were also significantly more substantial and significantly less likely to be completely open. The campsites of large organizations were also significantly more likely to have planted flowers and to have private guards. However, the size of organizations was unrelated to rules for entry, boundary disputes with neighbors, and how upset respondents indicated they were when strangers entered. Fundamentalism of the organization. Based on the notion that high fundamentalist organizations would be more exclusive, we expected high fundamentalist organizations to be more territorial. Consistent with that hypothesis we found that in general, high fundamentalist organizations were more territorial than low fundamentalist organizations. Compared to low fundamentalist organizations, high fundamentalist organizations had more substantial barriers around the camp, Ms = 2.11 vs.1.75, t(187) = 2.24, p < .05; more substantial gates, Ms = 2.15 vs. 1.57, t(232) = 3.11, p < .01; and their gates were less likely to be open, Ms = 2.76 vs. 2.89, t(236) = 2.12, p < .05. However, low fundamentalist organizations were significantly more likely to have grass in their campsites (54% vs. 32%), χ2(1, 229) = 9.63, p < .002. On all other measures, high and low fundamentalist organizations did not differ on observable territorial characteristics.

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 191 BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO INTRUSION

In this study we had six behavioral indicators of territoriality based on how persons at the campsite responded to the intruders. These indicators included three types of continuous measures: response time after intrusion, the duration of the interview, and the number of people who spoke with the intruders. There were also three dichotomous measures of territorial behavior: where the interview was conducted (at the gate or inside), how the interview was conducted (standing or sitting), and the hospitality of the respondents (whether refreshments were offered). Response time after intrusion. The first measure of territorial behavior was the latency of response in seconds from the time the intruders entered the campsite to the time someone spoke with them. This measure ranged from 0 to 120 s. As with all reaction time measures, most of the responses occurred soon after the intruders entered (M = 33.4 s; Mdn = 12.0 s). Despite this strong positive skew, however, in 30 campsites (12%) no one responded to the intruders during the 2-min waiting period. Bivariate analyses suggested that the religious pilgrims tended to respond sooner to the female intruders (M = 28.6 s) than to the male intruders, M = 38.9 s, t(239) = 1.95, p = .052. There was also a tendency for pilgrims to respond sooner to one intruder (M = 28.4 s) than to two intruders, M = 38.2 s, t(239) = 1.85, p = .065. A 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 (Number of Intruders × Gender of Intruders × Size of Organization × Fundamentalism of Organization) ANOVA revealed four significant effects. First, there was a significant Number of Intruders × Size of Organization interaction, F(1, 222) = 4.78, p < .05. When there was one intruder, small organizations (M = 37.4 s) and large organizations (M = 31.7 s) did not differ significantly. When there were two intruders, however, small organizations (M = 25.6 s) responded significantly sooner than did large organizations (M = 45.1 s). (This and all subsequent post hoc tests used the Newman-Keuls procedure, p < .05). Second, there was a significant Number of Intruders × Fundamentalism of Organization interaction, F(1, 222) = 7.10, p < .01. Based on post hoc Newman-Keuls tests, low fundamentalist organizations responded significantly sooner to one intruder (M = 23.9 s) than to two intruders (M = 40.1 s) whereas high fundamentalist organizations responded significantly sooner to two intruders (M = 30.7 s) than to one intruder (M = 45.2 s). Third, there was a significant Size of Organization × Fundamentalism of Organization interaction, F(1, 222) = 15.34, p < .001. Small, low fundamentalist organizations (M = 17.3 s) responded significantly faster than large, high fundamentalist organizations (M = 30.1 s), which responded significantly faster than

192 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005 TABLE 2 Interaction of Number of Intruders, Gender of Intruders, and Size of Organization on Response Time to Intrusion (Means in Seconds)

Number of Intruders

Small Organizations Male Female

One Two

31.3 c,d 36.7

c

d,e

43.5 a 14.6

Large Organizations Male Female c,d

39.3 e 46.4

b

24.2 d,e 43.9

NOTE: Means that share a common superscript are not significantly different according to a post hoc Newman-Keuls test (p < .05).

both small, high fundamentalist organizations (M = 45.8 s) and large, low fundamentalist organizations (M = 46.7 s), which did not differ significantly from each other. Finally, there was a significant Number of Intruders × Gender of Intruders × Size of Organization interaction, F(1, 222) = 4.14, p < .05. As shown in Table 2, most of the difference was due to how the organizations responded to female intruders. With small organizations, two females elicited the fastest response of any condition. With large organizations, a single female intruder was responded to significantly sooner than were two females or than one or two males. For male intruders, in contrast, regardless of size of the organization, people at the campsite responded sooner to one than to two intruders. Small organizations were less likely to have a gate and boundaries and to be holding religious discourses. For such small organizations, a single person may have been viewed as someone coming to visit a kalpavasi. But two strangers could not be so easily explained. In contrast, a lone person, male or female, coming to a large organization would be unusual and would require an immediate response. Because the time after intrusion before pilgrims spoke to the intruders was not distributed normally, we transformed the raw scores using a logarithmic transformation and conducted the complete ANOVA on these transformed scores. Exactly the same pattern of results was obtained with this analysis as with the raw scores except that the three-way interaction was only marginally significant (p < .06). Post hoc tests of the means of the transformed scores showed the same pattern as with the raw scores. Duration of the interview. The interviews ranged in length from under 3 min to 45 min (M = 8.98, Mdn = 8.00). A 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 (Number of Intruders × Gender of Intruders × Size of Organization × Fundamentalism of Organization) revealed three significant effects. Interviews of male intruders were significantly longer (M = 10.8 min) than were interviews of female intruders

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 193

(M = 7.9 min), F(1, 222) = 24.46, p < .001. Interviews with males could have been longer because our intruder-interviewers, despite their training, might have behaved differently; the males might have been more curious and asked questions whereas the females were more businesslike. More likely, however, the camp members probably felt more comfortable talking with the men than with the women. There was also a significant Number of Intruders × Gender of Intruders interaction, F(1, 222) = 4.38, p < .05, such that although people in the campsites always responded sooner to female than male intruders, the difference was much greater when there were two intruders (Ms = 7.7 s vs. 11.7 s for female and male intruders, respectively) than when there was one intruder (Ms = 8.2 s vs. 9.8 s for female and male intruders, respectively). The means for the female intruder conditions were not significantly different from each other, but all other differences were significant. Finally, there was a significant Gender of Intruders × Fundamentalism of the Organization interaction, F(1, 222) = 5.70, p < .05. The difference in lengths of interviews of female and male intruders was significantly greater for low fundamentalist organizations (Ms = 11.2 min vs. 6.9 min for female and male intruders, respectively) than for high fundamentalist organizations (Ms = 8.9 min and 10.4 min for female and male intruders, respectively). All means were significantly different from each other. Number of people spoken to. We believed that the number of camp residents who spoke to the interviewers would be a measure of interest in strangers and therefore would be related to territoriality. The number of people who spoke to the intruders ranged from 1 to 10 (M = 1.98, Mdn = 2.00). A 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 (Number of Intruders × Gender of Intruders × Size of Organization × Fundamentalism of Organization) revealed two significant effects. Not surprisingly, more people from large organizations spoke to the intruders (M = 2.22) than did people from small organizations, M = 1.66, F(1, 220) = 11.01, p < .001. There was also a significant Gender of Intruders × Size of Organization × Fundamentalism of Organization interaction, F(1, 220) = 4.30, p < .05. As can be seen in Table 3, for high fundamentalist organizations, for both male and female intruders, more people spoke to the intruders when the organizations were large than small, although the difference was much greater for female than male intruders. For low fundamentalist organizations there was no difference for female intruders as a function of organization size, but for male intruders there was the overall main effect of more people for large than small organizations. Because the number of pilgrims at a campsite greatly varied, we also analyzed the data in terms of people spoken to as a proportion of the total number

194 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005 TABLE 3 Interaction of Gender of Intruders, Size of Organization, and Fundamentalism of Organization on Number of People Who Spoke to the Intruders

Size of Organization Small Large

Low Fundamentalist Organizations Male Female b

1.63 e 2.18

c,d

1.90 d,e 2.01

High Fundamentalist Organizations Male Female b,c

1.71 d,e 2.03

a

1.38 f 2.67

NOTE: Means that share a common superscript are not significantly different according to a post hoc Newman-Keuls test (p < .05).

of people staying at the campsite. This analysis revealed three significant effects.7 First, there was a significant effect for organization size, F(1, 220) = 8.77, p < .01, such that a higher proportion of individuals in smaller organizations spoke to the intruders (M = 0.17) as compared to the proportion in larger organizations (M = 0.09). Second, there was a significant effect for fundamentalism, F(1, 220) = 4.71, p < .05, such that a higher proportion of individuals in low fundamentalist organizations spoke to the intruders (M = 0.16) as compared to the proportion in high fundamentalist organizations (M = 0.10). Finally, there was a significant interaction of Organization Size and Fundamentalism of Organization, F(1, 220) = 4.97, p < .05. With large organizations there was no difference in the proportion of individuals who spoke to the intruders whether the fundamentalism of the organization was low (M = 0.09) or high (M = 0.09). In contrast, with small organizations a significantly higher proportion of individuals in low fundamentalist organizations spoke to the intruders (M = 0.23) as compared to the proportion in high fundamentalist organizations (M = 0.11). This finding suggests that in terms of proportion, small, low fundamentalist organizations were the most welcoming of strangers. Dichotomous measures of territoriality. There were three dichotomous behavioral measures of territoriality: (a) whether the interview was conducted at the gate or inside the campsite, (b) whether the intruder-interviewers stood during the interview or were invited to sit down, and (c) whether the intruderinterviewers were not or were offered refreshment. For the logistic regression analyses of all three variables the main effects were entered first, then the two-way interactions, and then the three-way interactions. In all three models, the addition of the block of main effects was significant. However, for none of the models did the blocks of two-way or three-way interactions reach

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 195 TABLE 4 Logistic Regressions of Dichotomous Measures of Territoriality

Place of Interview (0 = gate; 1 = inside) Gender (0 = F; 1 = M) Number of intruders (0 = 1; 1 = 2) Size of organization (0 = small; 1 = large) Fundamentalism (0 = low; 1 = high) 2 Model χ 2 Nagelkerke R

Whether Invited to Sit Down (0 = no; 1 = yes)

Whether Offered Refreshment (0 = no; 1 = yes)

1.35**

1.01**

–.23

.77*

1.03**

.98**

.61

.46

.97**

–.33 18.61*** .124

–.21 18.34*** .117

–.20 20.64*** .121

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

significance. Thus, we report here only the main effects for the three variables. As can be seen in Table 4, male intruder-interviewers were more welcome at the campsites than were female intruder-interviewers as male intruderinterviewers were more likely to have been invited inside the camp and to sit down. Similarly, two intruders were more likely than one intruder to be welcomed as two intruders were more likely to be invited inside the camp, invited to sit down, and offered refreshment. Larger organizations were more likely to have offered refreshment. The fundamentalism of the organization had no effect on any of the dichotomous measures. PHOTOGRAPHS

In addition to the intruder-interviewers’ratings, we also had a more objective measure of the camp. After completing the interview at the camp, the intruder-interviewers took a photograph of the gate to the campsite. Some of the photographs could not be printed, so we were left with 206 photographs (85%) of the 241 campsites in the study. These photographs were then shown to two graduate student raters who were blind to the nature and hypotheses of the study. These students rated each of the gates on a scale ranging from 1 (poverty) to 5 (wealth). Their ratings had reasonably high reliability (r = .65, p < .001). The two ratings were then averaged and correlated with other measures. Rated wealth was significantly related to several physical characteristics of the camp: the number of boundaries (r = .42, p < .001); the number of flags (r = .31, p < .001); the number of banners (r = .34, p < .001); and the

196 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005

height of the boundary (r = .30, p < .001). Thus, as is reasonable, territoriality is in part a function of wealth. Rated wealth was negatively related to the number of years the group had been coming to the Mela (r = –.19, p < .01) and the number of years the group had been at the campsite (r = –.23, p < .001). Camps that asked the intruder-interviewers to take refreshment were rated wealthier (M = 3.89) than camps that did not offer refreshment, M = 3.49, t(201) = 2.55, p < .05. Similarly, camps that invited other people to lunch were rated wealthier (M = 3.69) than camps that did not, M = 2.96, t(202) = 3.34, p < .001. Finally, camps that said anyone can become a member were rated wealthier (M = 3.72) than camps that limited membership, M = 3.42, t(202) = 2.03, p < .05.

DISCUSSION

This study found clear differences in territoriality at the Magh Mela. Larger (and wealthier) organizations had more personalizations (flags, banners) and more barriers (gates, boundaries) around the campsite. In addition, more fundamentalist organizations tended to be more territorial. In addition to being affected by these organization-level factors, responses to intrusions were also affected by the gender and number of the intruders. The results suggest that contrary to research in the West, intrusions by women are more upsetting than intrusions by men and that intrusions by one person require more territorial defense than intrusions by two people. Arguably, the quicker response time to intrusion by women, especially a lone woman, might be evidence of concern for her welfare rather than of territorial behavior. However, the fact that the interviews conducted by women were significantly shorter than the interviews conducted by men suggests that concern for the women was not the primary reason, for, if it were, then the interviews should have been at least as long as those conducted by the men. In fact, interviews with the women were significantly shorter. Intrusion in territory is usually thought of as an attack on a particular place; a threat that the land or something on it will be taken or damaged. In our study, the intrusion by the female confederate might have also constituted an attack on cultural norms. Thus, in contrast to research on territoriality among animals, research on territoriality among humans needs to examine the extent to which defense protects not only against territorial intrusions but also intrusions against social deviance. Future research might vary the extent of the territorial intrusion. In this study, the intrusion was a minor, temporary intrusion; what Lyman and Scott

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 197

(1967) referred to as a “violation.” The results probably would have been different had the intrusion been greater. For example, it may be the case that our manipulation of multiple males was not strong enough. That is, two male strangers may not have posed enough additional threat beyond a single male stranger to cause increased concern about the welfare of the campsite. TERRITORIALITY AND RELIGION

One of the novel aspects of this research was that it was conducted at a location where Hindu pilgrims went for religious purposes. Because of the unique nature of the population and the location, the results may have limited generalizability. It would be important to determine whether these findings are replicable in other cultures. For example, would high fundamentalist organizations holding revival meetings in the United States be territorial in response to intrusions by strangers? There is an interesting irony in terms of the nature of social identity and the practice of religion in Asian and Western cultures. In general, in terms of social identity, Asian cultures tend to be more collectivistic (i.e., individuals tend to define themselves primarily in terms of group memberships such as family and nation) whereas Western cultures tend to be more individualistic (i.e., individuals tend to place their own goals and happiness above those of the groups to which they belong; Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). But with the practice of religion, the pattern is different. As Iannaccone (1995) has noted, Western religions tend to be collective in that they are congregationally oriented. To prevent the free-rider problem, these religions tend to be exclusive and require high levels of commitment. In contrast, Asian religions tend to be more private. People often do not have exclusive attachments to a single religion, and their religious practices tend to focus on a single religious practitioner or to involve fee-for-service transactions (Iannaccone, 1995). In addition, there tend to be more household rituals and more money offerings to specific gods for particular outcomes. These patterns of social identity and religious practices in Asian and Western cultures suggest an interaction regarding territoriality in nonreligious and religious places. Although collective solutions are not always used in collective societies (P. B. Smith & Bond, 1993), they are probably more likely because group membership is an important component of identity, groups are less easy to leave, and group efforts are more likely to be successful (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Thus, we might expect more of a collective response to intrusions in nonreligious settings in Asian than in Western locations whereas we might expect more of a collec-

198 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005

tive response to intrusions in religious settings in Western than in Asian locations. Future research might fruitfully investigate this proposed interaction.

NOTES 1. The Hindi term is panda. Pandas help worshippers gain quick entry to their temple, and at the Sangam they help people perform the last rites of the dead. Individuals have their own panda and visit only him for religious reasons. Whenever an individual visits a panda, the panda enters the event in ledgers that contain records of the visits of that person’s ancestors to the panda’s forefathers. Regions, groups, and sects are likely to have their own panda. 2. All but 46 campsites had a physical boundary of some type facing the street, and thus it was clear when the intruders had entered the campsite. For the 46 campsites that did not have a physical boundary, the intruders were considered to have entered the campsite when they crossed an imaginary boundary that was aligned with the boundaries of the neighboring campsites. 3. We counted a closed gate as 0 s because it was the same as being met immediately at the gate. Excluding the three cases in which the gate was closed from the analyses of response time produced substantially the same pattern of results as those reported in the Response Time After Intrusion section. 4. In most cases the responding individual was the person who greeted the intruders. In some cases, however, the intruders were taken to the head of the campsite. In all cases the responding individual was a male. 5. Because many respondents were illiterate and not accustomed to scales, we used a twostep procedure in which respondents were first asked whether they were fundamentalist “a lot” or just “a little.” If they answered “a lot,” they were then asked whether their fundamentalism was strong or very strong. If they answered “a little,” they were then asked whether their fundamentalism was “little” or “very little.” 6. The interviewers asked respondents to name the primary god to which the sect worshipped because we suspected that the gender and nature of the god might be related to territorial defense. To test this hypothesis, we recoded responses into eight categories: Durga (4%), Ganga (7%), Hanuman (3%), Krishna (4%), Ram (22%), Shiva (24%), Vishnu (7%), and other gods (29%). However, analyses of variance of the continuous measures and chi-square analyses of the nominal measures indicated that this variable was not significantly related to any of our measures of territoriality and thus it is not discussed further. 7. When we conducted the analysis using an arcsine transformation of the proportion there was the same main effect for organization size and a marginally significant interaction (p = .056). The fundamentalism effect was not significant.

REFERENCES Acheson, J. M. (1975). The lobster fiefs: Economic and ecological effects of territoriality in the Maine lobster industry. Human Ecology, 3, 183-207. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Ruback, Kohli / TERRITORIALITY AT THE MAGH MELA 199 Brown, B. B. (1987). Territoriality. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 505-532). New York: John Wiley. Cheyne, J. A., & Efran, M. G. (1972). The effect of spatial and interpersonal variables on the invasion of group controlled territories. Sociometry, 35, 477-489. Edney, J. J. (1972). Property, possession, and permanence: A field study in human territoriality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 275-282. Edney, J. J., & Jordan-Edney, N. L. (1974). Territorial spacing on a beach. Sociometry, 37, 92104. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1970). Ethology: The biology of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Greenbaum, P. E., & Greenbaum, S. D. (1981). Territorial personalization: Group identity and social interaction in a Slavic-American neighborhood. Environment and Behavior, 13, 574589. Haber, G. M. (1980). Territorial invasion in the classroom: Invadee response. Environment and Behavior, 12, 17-31. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1180-1211. Iannaccone, L. R. (1995). Risk, rationality, and religious portfolios. Economic Inquiry, 33, 285295. Johnstone, R. L. (2001). Religion in society: A sociology of religion (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Krail, K. A., & Leventhal, G. (1976). The sex variable in the intrusion of personal space. Sociometry, 39, 170-173. Ley, D., & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). Urban graffiti as territorial markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64, 491-505. Lyman, S. M., & Scott, M. B. (1967). Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension. Social Problems, 15, 236-249. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. McBride, G., King, M. G., & James, J. W. (1965). Social proximity effects on galvanic skin responses in adult humans. Journal of Psychology, 61, 153-157. Milgram, S., Liberty, H. J., Toledo, R., & Wackenhut, J. (1986). Response to intrusion into waiting lines. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 683-689. Patterson, M. L., Mullens, S., & Romano, J. (1971). Compensatory reactions to spatial markers. Sociometry, 34, 114-121. Ruback, R. B. (1987). Deserted (and nondeserted) aisles: Territorial intrusion can produce persistence, not flight. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 270-276. Ruback, R. B., & Juieng, D. (1997). Territorial defense in parking lots: Retaliation against waiting drivers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 823-836. Ruback, R. B., Pape, K. D., & Doriot, P. (1989). Waiting for a phone: Intrusion on callers lead to territorial defense. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 232-241. Smith, H. W. (1981). Territorial spacing on a beach revisited: A cross-national exploration. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 132-137. Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Sommer, R., & Becker, F. D. (1969). Territorial defense and the good neighbor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 85-92.

200 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005 Stark, R., & Finke, R. (2000). Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. Suttles, G. D. (1968). The social order of the slum: Ethnicity and territory in the inner city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human territorial functioning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, R. B., & Brooks, D. K. (1980). Temporary territories? Responses to intrusions in a public setting. Population and Environment, 3, 135-145. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338. Weber, M. (1963). The sociology of religion (E. Fischoff, Trans.). Boston: Beacon. (Original work published 1922)