Psychology programs explore the human mind and provide understanding of human behaviors, reactions, actions, emotions and attitudes. Continue reading to determine if psychology and human behavior is the right field for you.

Many students are drawn to education and careers in psychology and human behavior because of the field's broad scope and its many applications. Psychology programs are available at the undergraduate and graduate levels of study. Students may specialize in a branch of the field, such as clinical, counseling, neuroscience or school psychology. This can narrow the type of psychology that graduates practice and their potential work settings.

Whether you're looking for more information about degree options, the careers you can pursue in psychology or specific specializations, Study.com has the resources you need to determine if this field is right for you.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a doctoral degree is required for employment as an independent, licensed clinical or counseling psychologist (www.bls.gov). A bachelor's or a master's degree can lead to other positions, such as youth worker, social services aide, caseworker or substance abuse counselor. Depending on the state and work setting, these professionals may also be required to obtain licensure.

Psychology programs can lead to associate's, bachelor's, master's or doctoral degrees. The following pages can help you decide which educational path is right for you.

As with many fields of study, there are numerous distance learning opportunities in psychology. Explore the following pages to learn about a selection of online psychology classes, including some free learning opportunities, and online degree programs. Keep in mind that some distance learning opportunities in psychology may have certain in-person requirements.

Psychology has many branches and specializations, including those outlined below. These specializations can prepare you for a specific career in psychology and provide an additional glimpse into a certain part of the human mind. Explore the following pages to learn more.

To become a licensed psychologist or to pursue other careers in psychology, certification is occasionally necessary. The following Study.com pages provide some information about certification requirements for a small sample of psychology careers.

The following careers are a small sample of what you can do with a degree in psychology.

Employment of psychologists overall was expected to increase roughly 12% from 2012-2022, according to the BLS, which is about average. Earnings for these professionals relied on specialty; the median annual wage for industrial and organizational psychologists was $80,330 in May 2013, while counseling, clinical and school psychologists made $67,760.

Related careers are also expected to see an increase in employment from 2012-2022; the BLS anticipated jobs for substance abuse and behavioral disorder counselors to grow by 31% during this time. Meanwhile, employment of social workers was expected to increase by 19%, and jobs for other social and human service assistants were projected to grow 22%.

The BLS also noted that as of May 2013, substance abuse and behavioral disorder counselors made a median annual salary of $38,620, and social and human service assistants made $29,230. At the same time, child, family and school social workers earned a median annual wage of $42,120, while healthcare social workers made $50,820.

More here:
Psychology and Human Behavior - Study.com

Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristicsincluding ways of thinking, feeling, and actingwhich humans tend to have naturally.[1][2][3][4]

The questions of whether there truly are fixed characteristics, what these natural characteristics are, and what causes them are among the oldest and most important questions in philosophy and science. The science that examines human nature is known as psychology and more recently also neuroscience.[5][6][7][8] The concept of human nature is traditionally contrasted not only with unusual human characteristics, but also with characteristics which are derived from specific cultures, and upbringings. The "nature versus nurture" debate is a well-known modern discussion about human nature in the natural science.

These questions have particularly important implications in economics, ethics, politics, and theology. This is partly because human nature can be regarded as both a source of norms of conduct or ways of life, as well as presenting obstacles or constraints on living a good life. The complex implications of such questions are also dealt with in art and literature, the question of what it is to be human.

The concept of nature as a standard by which to make judgments is traditionally said to have begun in Greek philosophy, at least as regards the Western and Middle Eastern languages and perspectives which are heavily influenced by it.[9]

The teleological approach of Aristotle came to be dominant by late classical and medieval times. By this account, human nature really causes humans to become what they become, and so it exists somehow independently of individual humans. This in turn has been understood as also showing a special connection between human nature and divinity. This approach understands human nature in terms of final and formal causes. In other words, nature itself (or a nature-creating divinity) has intentions and goals, similar somehow to human intentions and goals, and one of those goals is humanity living naturally. Such understandings of human nature see this nature as an "idea", or "form" of a human.[10]

However, the existence of this invariable and metaphysical human nature is a subject of much historical debate, continuing into modern times. Against this idea of a fixed human nature, the relative malleability of man has been argued especially strongly in recent centuriesfirstly by early modernists such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In Rousseau's Emile, or On Education, Rousseau wrote: "We do not know what our nature permits us to be".[11] Since the early 19th century, thinkers such as Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, structuralists, and postmodernists have also sometimes argued against a fixed or innate human nature.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has changed the nature of the discussion, supporting the proposition that mankind's ancestors were not like mankind today. Still more recent scientific perspectivessuch as behaviorism, determinism, and the chemical model within modern psychiatry and psychologyclaim to be neutral regarding human nature. As in much of modern science, such disciplines seek to explain with little or no recourse to metaphysical causation.[12] They can be offered to explain human nature's origins and underlying mechanisms, or to demonstrate capacities for change and diversity which would arguably violate the concept of a fixed human nature.

Philosophy in classical Greece is the ultimate origin[citation needed] of the Western conception of the nature of a thing. According to Aristotle, the philosophical study of human nature itself originated with Socrates, who turned philosophy from study of the heavens to study of the human things.[13] Socrates is said to have studied the question of how a person should best live, but he left no written works. It is clear from the works of his students Plato and Xenophon, and also by what was said about him by Aristotle (Plato's student), that Socrates was a rationalist and believed that the best life and the life most suited to human nature involved reasoning. The Socratic school was the dominant surviving influence in philosophical discussion in the Middle Ages, amongst Islamic, Christian, and Jewish philosophers.

The human soul in the works of Plato and Aristotle has a divided nature, divided in a specifically human way. One part is specifically human and rational, and divided into a part which is rational on its own, and a spirited part which can understand reason. Other parts of the soul are home to desires or passions similar to those found in animals. In both Aristotle and Plato, spiritedness (thumos) is distinguished from the other passions (epithumiai).[14] The proper function of the "rational" was to rule the other parts of the soul, helped by spiritedness. By this account, using one's reason is the best way to live, and philosophers are the highest types of humans.

AristotlePlato's most famous studentmade some of the most famous and influential statements about human nature. In his works, apart from using a similar scheme of a divided human soul, some clear statements about human nature are made:

For Aristotle, reason is not only what is most special about humanity compared to other animals, but it is also what we were meant to achieve at our best. Much of Aristotle's description of human nature is still influential today. However, the particular teleological idea that humans are "meant" or intended to be something has become much less popular in modern times.[18]

For the Socratics, human nature, and all natures, are metaphysical concepts. Aristotle developed the standard presentation of this approach with his theory of four causes. Every living thing exhibits four aspects or "causes": matter, form, effect, and end. For example, an oak tree is made of plant cells (matter), grew from an acorn (effect), exhibits the nature of oak trees (form), and grows into a fully mature oak tree (end). Human nature is an example of a formal cause, according to Aristotle. Likewise, to become a fully actualized human being (including fully actualizing the mind) is our end. Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, Book X) suggests that the human intellect () is "smallest in bulk" but the most significant part of the human psyche, and should be cultivated above all else. The cultivation of learning and intellectual growth of the philosopher, which is thereby also the happiest and least painful life.

Human nature is a central question in Chinese philosophy.[19] Human nature was considered by Confucius and Mencius to be essentially good.[19] From the Song dynasty the theory of the original goodness of human beings dominated Confucian thought.[20] However, Hsun Tzu taught that human nature was essentially evil.[19] As suggested by these contrasting views, the question of human nature has generated a long debate among Chinese thinkers.[20]

In Christian theology, there are two ways of "conceiving human nature". The first is "spiritual, Biblical, and theistic", whereas the second is "natural, cosmical, and anti-theistic".[21] The focus in this section is on the former. As William James put it in his study of human nature from a religious perspective, "religion" has a "department of human nature".[22]

Various views of human nature have been held by theologians. However, there are some "basic assertions" in all "biblical anthropology".[23]

The Bible contains no single "doctrine of human nature". Rather, it provides material for more philosophical descriptions of human nature.[24] For example, Creation as found in the Book of Genesis provides a theory on human nature.[25]

Catechism of the Catholic Church[26] in chapter "Dignity of the human person" has article about man as image of God, vocation to beatitude, freedom, human acts, passions, moral conscience, virtues and sin.

As originally created, the Bible describes "two elements" in human nature: "the body and the breath or spirit of life breathed into it by God". By this was created a "living soul", that is, a "living person".[27] According to Genesis 1:27, this living person was made in the "image of God".[28] From the biblical perspective, "to be human is to bear the image of God".[29]

Genesis does not elaborate the meaning of "the image of God", but scholars find suggestions. One is that being created in the image of God distinguishes human nature from that of the beasts.[30] Another is that as God is "able to make decisions and rule" so humans made in God's image are "able to make decisions and rule". A third is that mankind possesses an inherent ability "to set goals" and move toward them.[31] That God denoted creation as "good" suggests that Adam was "created in the image of God, in righteousness."[32]

Adam was created with ability to make "right choices", but also with the ability to choose sin, by which he fell from righteousness into a state of "sin and depravity".[33] Thus, according to the Bible, "humankind is not as God created it".[34]

By Adam's fall into sin, "human nature" became "corrupt", although it retains the image of God. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach that "sin is universal".[35] For example, Psalm 51:5 reads: "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me."[36] Jesus taught that everyone is a "sinner naturally" because it is mankind's "nature and disposition to sin".[37] Paul, in Romans 7:18, speaks of his "sinful nature".[38]

Such a "recognition that there is something wrong with the moral nature of man is found in all religions".[39] Augustine of Hippo coined a term for the assessment that all humans are born sinful: original sin.[40] Original sin is "the tendency to sin innate in all human beings".[41] The doctrine of original sin is held by the Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant denominations, but rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which holds the similar doctrine of ancestral fault.

"The corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature": to "reason and will" as well as to "appetites and impulses". This condition is sometimes called "total depravity".[42] Total depravity does not mean that humanity is as "thoroughly depraved" as it could become.[43] Commenting on Romans 2:14, John Calvin writes that all people have "some notions of justice and rectitude ... which are implanted by nature" all people.[44]

Adam embodied the "whole of human nature" so when Adam sinned "all of human nature sinned".[45] The Old Testament does not explicitly link the "corruption of human nature" to Adam's sin. However, the "universality of sin" implies a link to Adam. In the New Testament, Paul concurs with the "universality of sin". He also makes explicit what the Old Testament implied: the link between humanity's "sinful nature" and Adam's sin[46] In Romans 5:19, Paul writes, "through [Adam's] disobedience humanity became sinful".[47] Paul also applied humanity's sinful nature to himself: "there is nothing good in my sinful nature."[48][49]

The theological "doctrine of original sin" as an inherent element of human nature is not based only on the Bible. It is in part a "generalization from obvious facts" open to empirical observation.[50]

A number of experts on human nature have described the manifestations of original (i.e., the innate tendency to) sin as empirical facts.

Empirical discussion questioning the genetic exclusivity of such an intrinsic badness proposition is presented by researchers Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson. In their book, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, they propose a theory of multilevel group selection in support of an inherent genetic "altruism" in opposition to the original sin exclusivity for human nature. [57]

Liberal theologians in the early 20th century described human nature as "basically good" needing only "proper training and education". But the above examples document the return to a "more realistic view" of human nature "as basically sinful and self-centered". Human nature needs "to be regenerated ... to be able to live the unselfish life".[58]

According to the Bible, "Adam's disobedience corrupted human nature" but God mercifully "regenerates".[59] "Regeneration is a radical change" that involves a "renewal of our [human] nature".[60] Thus, to counter original sin, Christianity purposes "a complete transformation of individuals" by Christ.[61]

The goal of Christ's coming is that fallen humanity might be "conformed to or transformed into the image of Christ who is the perfect image of God", as in 2 Corinthians 4:4.[62] The New Testament makes clear the "universal need" for regeneration.[63] A sampling of biblical portrayals of regenerating human nature and the behavioral results follow.

One of the defining changes that occurred at the end of the Middle Ages was the end of the dominance of Aristotelian philosophy, and its replacement by a new approach to the study of nature, including human nature.[citation needed] In this approach, all attempts at conjecture about formal and final causes were rejected as useless speculation.[citation needed] Also, the term "law of nature" now applied to any regular and predictable pattern in nature, not literally a law made by a divine lawmaker, and, in the same way, "human nature" became not a special metaphysical cause, but simply whatever can be said to be typical tendencies of humans.[citation needed]

Although this new realism applied to the study of human life from the beginningfor example, in Machiavelli's worksthe definitive argument for the final rejection of Aristotle was associated especially with Francis Bacon. Bacon sometimes wrote as if he accepted the traditional four causes ("It is a correct position that "true knowledge is knowledge by causes". And causes again are not improperly distributed into four kinds: the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final") but he adapted these terms and rejected one of the three:

But of these the final cause rather corrupts than advances the sciences, except such as have to do with human action. The discovery of the formal is despaired of. The efficient and the material (as they are investigated and received, that is, as remote causes, without reference to the latent process leading to the form) are but slight and superficial, and contribute little, if anything, to true and active science.[68]

This line of thinking continued with Ren Descartes, whose new approach returned philosophy or science to its pre-Socratic focus upon non-human things. Thomas Hobbes, then Giambattista Vico, and David Hume all claimed to be the first to properly use a modern Baconian scientific approach to human things.

Hobbes famously followed Descartes in describing humanity as matter in motion, just like machines. He also very influentially described man's natural state (without science and artifice) as one where life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".[69] Following him, John Locke's philosophy of empiricism also saw human nature as a tabula rasa. In this view, the mind is at birth a "blank slate" without rules, so data are added, and rules for processing them are formed solely by our sensory experiences.[70]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau pushed the approach of Hobbes to an extreme and criticized it at the same time. He was a contemporary and acquaintance of Hume, writing before the French Revolution and long before Darwin and Freud. He shocked Western civilization with his Second Discourse by proposing that humans had once been solitary animals, without reason or language or communities, and had developed these things due to accidents of pre-history. (This proposal was also less famously made by Giambattista Vico.) In other words, Rousseau argued that human nature was not only not fixed, but not even approximately fixed compared to what had been assumed before him. Humans are political, and rational, and have language now, but originally they had none of these things.[71] This in turn implied that living under the management of human reason might not be a happy way to live at all, and perhaps there is no ideal way to live. Rousseau is also unusual in the extent to which he took the approach of Hobbes, asserting that primitive humans were not even naturally social. A civilized human is therefore not only imbalanced and unhappy because of the mismatch between civilized life and human nature, but unlike Hobbes, Rousseau also became well known for the suggestion that primitive humans had been happier, "noble savages".[72]

Rousseau's conception of human nature has been seen as the origin of many intellectual and political developments of the 19th and 20th centuries.[73] He was an important influence upon Kant, Hegel, and Marx, and the development of German idealism, historicism, and romanticism.

What human nature did entail, according to Rousseau and the other modernists of the 17th and 18th centuries, were animal-like passions that led humanity to develop language and reasoning, and more complex communities (or communities of any kind, according to Rousseau).

In contrast to Rousseau, David Hume was a critic of the oversimplifying and systematic approach of Hobbes, Rousseau, and some others whereby, for example, all human nature is assumed to be driven by variations of selfishness. Influenced by Hutcheson and Shaftesbury, he argued against oversimplification. On the one hand, he accepted that, for many political and economic subjects, people could be assumed to be driven by such simple selfishness, and he also wrote of some of the more social aspects of "human nature" as something which could be destroyed, for example if people did not associate in just societies. On the other hand, he rejected what he called the "paradox of the sceptics", saying that no politician could have invented words like "'honourable' and 'shameful,' 'lovely' and 'odious,' 'noble' and 'despicable'", unless there was not some natural "original constitution of the mind".[74]

Humelike Rousseauwas controversial in his own time for his modernist approach, following the example of Bacon and Hobbes, of avoiding consideration of metaphysical explanations for any type of cause and effect. He was accused of being an atheist. He wrote:

We needn't push our researches so far as to ask "Why do we have humanity, i.e. a fellow-feeling with others?" It's enough that we experience this as a force in human nature. Our examination of causes must stop somewhere.[74]

After Rousseau and Hume, the nature of philosophy and science changed, branching into different disciplines and approaches, and the study of human nature changed accordingly. Rousseau's proposal that human nature is malleable became a major influence upon international revolutionary movements of various kinds, while Hume's approach has been more typical in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the United States.[citation needed]

[relevant? discuss]

As the sciences concerned with humanity split up into more specialized branches, many of the key figures of this evolution expressed influential understandings about human nature.[citation needed]

Charles Darwin gave a widely accepted scientific argument for what Rousseau had already argued from a different direction, that humans and other animal species have no truly fixed nature, at least in the very long term. However, he also gave modern biology a new way of understanding how human nature does exist in a normal human time-frame, and how it is caused.[citation needed]

E. O. Wilson's sociobiology and closely related theory of evolutionary psychology give scientific arguments against the "tabula rasa" hypotheses of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. In his book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998), Wilson claimed that it was time for a cooperation of all the sciences to explore human nature. He defined human nature as a collection of epigenetic rules: the genetic patterns of mental development. Cultural phenomena, rituals, etc. are products, not part of human nature. Until now, these phenomena were only part of psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies. Wilson proposes that they can be part of interdisciplinary research.

Read more from the original source:
Human nature - Wikipedia

This journal has partnered with Heliyon, an open access journal from Elsevier publishing quality peer reviewed research across all disciplines. Heliyons team of experts provides editorial excellence, fast publication, and high visibility for your paper. Authors can quickly and easily transfer their research from a Partner Journal to Heliyon without the need to edit, reformat or resubmit.>Learn more at Heliyon.com

Go here to see the original:
Computers in Human Behavior - Journal - Elsevier

Many scientific researches have shown an obvious fact, that the behavior of a human being is created by the environment. If genes predispose a certain behavior but the environment doesnt support it, then that behavior wont manifest, so in this case, genes arent important.

TROMNarrator

The section ENVIRONMENT in the documentaryTROM (The Reality Of Me)shows how the environment shapes human beings behaviors via:

Dr. Gregory Forbes, recorded at TEDGlobal 2010:

We live in a remarkable time the age of genomics. Your genome is the entire sequence of your DNA. Your sequence and mine are slightly different. Thats why we look different. Ive got brown eyes you might have blue, or gray; but its not just skin-deep.

The headlines tell us that genes can give us scary diseases, maybe even shape our personality, or give us mental disorders. Our genes seem to have awesome power over our destinies, and yet, I would like to think that I am more than my genes.

Likewise, every connectome changes over time.

Its true; to some extent, they are programmed by your genes. But thats not the whole story, because there are signals: electrical signals, that travel along the branches of neurons, and chemical signals, that jump across from branch to branch. These signals are called neural activity. And theres a lot of evidence that neural activity is encoding our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions, our mental experiences. And theres a lot of evidence that neural activity can cause your connections to change.

If you put those two facts together, it means that your experiences can change your connectome. And thats why every connectome is unique, even those of genetically identical twins. The connectome is where nature meets nurture. And it might be true that just the mere act of thinking can change your connectome; an idea that you may find empowering.

Think about the way you act, your facial expression, the values accepted by you, the way you talk, everything, and remember that they are a result of your environment.

TROMNarrator

Male & Female Behaviors That Result From Environmental Conditioning

Louann Brizendine, neuropsychiatrist and author ofThe Female Brain(2006) andThe Male Brain(2010), recorded at Dominican University of California, March 31, 2010

The nature nurture debate is dead for the following reason: the brain is very, very malleable.

Were all born with male or female predispositions, and then well have hormones that increase that circuitry for behavior, which is what a hormone is supposed to do. A hormones job is to make us predisposed to certain behaviors.

However, the way were raised, for example, little boys: Studies have shown that little boys who were told theyre not supposed to touch something, they often will grab it and touch it, whereas a little girl can be given a verbal demand not to touch it.

Little boys worldwide are punished more frequently for transgressions. Little boys are told not to cry, that theyre supposed to man-up, right? Even at a young age, dads sometimes are very, very scared if their little boy is showing any version of effeminate behaviors.

For example, I remember flying coast to coast with a guy who sat next to me. He said his 18 month old son, when he saw his 4 year old sister open a present earlier that week, which was a purse, he said, Oh, can I have a purse too? And he said he found himself, like someone had kicked him in the stomach, and he just yelled at his eighteen month old son, No, boys dont have purses! He was reporting to me this event, and he felt so ashamed and embarrassed afterwards, because he realized that his little boy wasnt expressing anything about being effeminate or not.

So the way we raise little boys, and we raise little girls, our brain circuits are so malleable. For example, we werent born learning to play the piano, right? You do practice, practice, practice.

You can retrain brain circuits, to do a variety of things. All of our life, we are trained, gender trained, to be more one way or the other.

Males: facial expressions for example, when they measure them and put electrodes on them, and show them a grizzly photograph that is supposed to make you cringe and emotional, their facial expressions, versus females, actually showed more emotional response in the time before it becomes conscious. Then right after the one second level when it becomes conscious, their facial muscles start to freeze down for frowning or smiling. In females, facial muscles actually amplify, and the males go down. Scientists believe, the hypothesis is, that the males have been trained to suppress an emotional feeling.

There is no such thing as: bad, criminal, lazy, brilliant people, thieves or racists. Only people predisposed to such behavior. But if the environment doesnt trigger them, the behavior never manifests.

TROMNarrator

Children Who Lived Isolated From Human Contact From A Very Young Age

The most extreme case is represented by feral children. A feral child is a human child who has lived isolated from human contact from a very young age, and has no (or little) experience of human care, loving or social behavior, and, crucially, of human language.

Feral children lack the basic social skills which are normally learned in the process of enculturation. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in human activity around them.

Oxana Malaya began her life living with dogs, rejected by her mother and father. She somehow survived for six years, living wild, before being taken into care. There are few cases of feral children whove been able to fully compensate for the neglect theyve suffered.

Oxana is now 22, but her future still hangs in the balance. Have scientists learned enough from previous cases to rehabilitate?

For six years, Oxana Malaya spent her life, living in a kennel, with dogs. Totally abandoned by her mother and father, she was discovered, behaving more like an animal, than a human child.

For two centuries, wild children have been the object of fascinating study. Raised without love, or social interaction, wild (or feral) children pose the question: What is it that makes us human?

View post:
3 Ways The Environment Shapes Human Behavior - Mutual ...

March 7, 1975

AIM AND INTRODUCTION:

The aim of the practical was to observe territorial behavior among human beings and explore it in relation to animals in the comparative psychological perspective. The general definition of a territory is a defended area. It has to be defended through actual aggression or the threat of it. Territoriality has been observed to exist among certain animal species like birds, insects, mammals and vertebrates. Therefore, a parallel with man has had to be established because territoriality has been seen to exist in man; both as an individual and a group.

The major characteristic of territoriality as observed by comparative psychologists like Lorenz, Tinbergen, and ethnologists like Eibl-Ebesfeldt, is that an animal must be aggressive towards conspecifics. Through studies and observations, the authors have come to the conclusion that the territorial behavior possesses several functions in the evolution and preservation of species. In general it has been suggested that territoriality saves the purposes of distributing or spreading the animals over a large area resulting in the proper utilization of feeding resources, to enable safe and undisturbed reproductive behavior, for example, territoriality in birds ensures that they do not build nests too close together. And a last function of territoriality is said to be reduction of aggression in the animal species which have a high level of it.

SUBJECTS: The subjects consisted of the University of Zambia students who read in the University library. Eight subjects were observed.

MATERIALS: The apparatus used in the experiment consisted of a pen and paper for recording the sitting arrangements and signs of territorial behavior of the subjects.

PROCEDURE: O represents Observer

S represents Subject

Initially, O goes into the library and sits on one of the tables. He notes sitting arrangements of Ss, spacing and objects which are possibly used for marking Ss territory. After a while, O moves to a table which has almost all the seats full and sits next to S and notes the reaction of S; moving chair, objects etc.

Then especially during a different time when there are many empty seats; 12 to 13 hours when many subjects go for lunch, O sits next or adjacent to a subject and notes his reaction.

RESULTS: The tables are made out of a combination of several smaller tables which provide a comfortable space for writing and reading for an individual student.

When a student sits down, he normally or always defines his territory by placing his books all over the rectangular spacing. This was confirmed in all the observations I made when the books are placed in this way, no other student can sit on the chair to read even if the owner of the territory goes away for a long time.

On 31st December 1974 at 9 hours, I was seated on a desk in the reference deck. Six students got their writing pads and apparently went away to attend class lectures. While they were away, three students came looking for a table where they could read. Each one of them came, looked around and went away to another deck. Despite the fact that the owners of the books were away, the three could not occupy their desks. From this observation, we can say that objects act as very strong definitions of territory for human beings.

On deck 14 (psychology) 23rd December 1974, I sat down to read beside a female student. Immediately I sat on the chair next to her, she pulled towards her the edges of books which were protruding into my space. This showed that human beings respect and recognize each others territory.

ISOLATED INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

Students who read in the library regularly, at least every day, tend to have a specific chair and table where they read from every day. It is as if they say; This is my space, I own it.

***************

On 14th February 1975, a Zambian female student stopped reading at 17 hours. She piled her books on the table, expecting to return and resume reading after supper. When she returned, the table was occupied by three Asian students. Her books had been moved to the middle of the table where it was difficult to determine whether she had previously sat on one of the chairs. With a hissing whisper, she asked one of the students whether he had moved the books. The student denied it. There was a hushed argument pointing of fingers; then the Asian male student rose violently but was held by the other two. At this point, the female student angrily got her books and walked out.

***************

During the first week of the beginning of my second year, I went into the library on the sociology deck. I put my books on one of the tables, sat and wrote for a while. Then I went to look for a book on the shelves. A first year male student arrived; he pushed aside my books and sat down to read. I was very angry. I went there and stared at him for a few seconds and hissed; You dont push away books when someone is already sitting there! I walked away and he seemed amazed. Apparently, he was not yet acquainted with the informal rules about marking ones space in the library.

DISCUSSION

The few observations made seem to confirm that people display territoriality although it lacks overt aggression as is the case with animals.

What purpose, if any, does territoriality save for the human being in such a place like the library? Biological functions are not very evident. People do not mate or show overt courtship behavior in the library and they do not obtain their food from it. Therefore, the only plausible explanation for man to display territoriality in places like the library, is that it is one of those behaviors which have lost their specific evolutionary functions and their remnants are perhaps in the process of degenerating into ritual behavior; i.e. it will no longer save its original biological function.

But one of the functions it could be still saving is to distribute or rather spread the readers over all the available space in the library. Presumably, man feels uncomfortable having limited breathing and elbow movements, when they are too close together.

Territoriality, the one displayed in libraries in particular seems to be an innate or inherited tendency. As in most vertebrates, we observe in man distinct territorial behavior. Individuals maintain distinct distances between themselves and others. Children develop a feeling for property. The expression of both tendencies seems to be based on a common mechanism. (Eibl-Ebesfeldt; 1971, P. 444)

The spacing which is induced by territoriality might be important for the propagation of the human species. This is suggested by an experiment in overcrowding in which animals showed serious behavioral pathologies and physiological malfunctioning. Calhoun (1956, 1962) conducted an experiment in which a colony of Norway rats were made to live in an overcrowded pen. Although the rats were allowed to roam in various compartments, they ended up living together in one pen. Calhoun termed this phenomenon pathological togetherness. The rats fertility was lowered and their life span was shortened. Mann sums up by saying; In mice, overcrowding in laboratory cages leads to abnormal sexual behavior, decreased reproductive and nursing capacities, and aborted pregnancies, deficient maternal care for the young and disrupted next building. (Mann, 1969, P. 17)

Although the analogy cannot be applied to the library situation, nevertheless, territoriality in humans in the library could be to the advantage of the species. For example some contagious diseases like sneezing and other more serious diseases are prevented from spreading due to the distances which human beings maintain between each other. The evidence from overcrowding rats could also explain the high incidence of crime and violence which prevails in overcrowded suburbs of cities.

An interesting area of further examination in the library is the observation in animals that Territories have been likened to elastic discs the more they are compressed, the more they resist further compression. (Manning; 1972, P. 99). In the library this could be tested by an observer or experimenter noticing that a table is already filled but puts an extra chair where there is supposed to be none as shown below.

If a chair is for example placed on either X, since the territories are further compressed, would A and B or A and D react with overt aggression? In this respect perhaps ethical values of the individual subjects would come into question. But however, the results would be interesting.

In contrast with the seemingly inhibited aggression in the library human territoriality, I report on the few observations made at Lachnver National Park during a field trip last December. The Kafue Leahwe was observed at the beginning of the establishment of territories. There was a herd of 10,000 Leahwe, females were moving in large herds while males were scattered around in distances of about fifteen meters apart. There was a fight nearly every five minutes. Chessing between males had a very high frequency and they were also constantly digging horns in the ground. In the 10 minutes we spent observing the last herd of about 1,000, six fights were observed between males and the last one lasted up to 10 minutes until a third male had to separate them to end the fight.

REFERENCES

Manning, A. W. G., An introduction to Animal behavior. (1972)

Mann, L. Social Psychology(1969)

Eibl-Ebesfeldt, Ethology(1970)

(The original document was written on March 7, 1975 when the author, now Mwizenge S. Tembo, was a Junior at University of Zambia majoring in Psychology and Sociology)

Observing Territorial Behavior of Human Beings:

Psychology 932 Practical Report By Jacob Tembo

Here is the original post:
Territorial Behavior Among Human Beings | Hunger For Culture