Childrens Sense of Home

It has long been known that people see things differently. What may be seen by a person in a particular view might be seen by another in a different light. Perception suggests that we have uniquely organized faculties in our sensory modalities and brains which may be responsible for the differences humans have in terms of perceiving various stimuli. Other than perception however, our divergence can also mainly be due to discrepancies in cognitive development. By virtue of the principles of human development, it is therefore suffice to say that children and adults differ a lot in terms of perceiving things around them. One particular concept which adults and children may have disparities in understanding is the sense of home. The environment that children are exposed to is limited to the home. Compared to adults, children do not enjoy going out from the house without their parents worries. This may come from our regard of the home as a safe place and the outside not. Furthermore, it is of interest to the researchers whether childrens concept and sense of home may be to an extent related to or affected by variables such as territoriality, personal space, privacy, and ownership. Could a kid who dwells in a spacious, gated community have a sense of home very different from another kid who lives in a neighborhood with houses almost sharing the same walls? In this study, we wish to look into childrens sense of home and its correlation with their sense of territoriality, personal space, privacy, and

Childrens Sense of Home

ownership as well as a host of other variables which include age, gender, settlement classification, socioeconomic status, and birth order.

Review of Related Literature A sense of home is vital to the structuring of ones reality and the formation of ones identity. There have been few studies on the concept and none of these has provided a universal definition of sense of home. Chow (2008) has attempted to define it as a place attachment to a specific fixed physical space, the home. The question however is this, is sense of home influenced by or related to the concepts pertaining to place identity namely territoriality, ownership, privacy, and personal space? Sense of Home Porteous (1978) views home as the most significant of the several space-group-time complexes, and can thus claim to be the basic focus of territoriality. Defining ones sense of home is vital in the path towards selfdiscovery and self-definition (Jordan, 2004). The home plays a central role in everyday life. Aside from possessing rich social, cultural, and historical significance it also holds numerous psychological meanings which are critical for identity shaping. These meanings are all associated with the symbolic nature of home as a private space (Moore, 2000 in Chow & Healey, 2008). Its very concept suggests that home is a catalyst in the development of peoples sense of themselves, as belonging to a place (Proshansky et al., 1983 in Chow & Healey, 2008). Boundary lines are important to the home owner and may be actively defended to the point of litigation. Fences and walls for example, are efficient territorial markers. Porteous has put it that the average citizen seems to expend more effort in personalizing and defending the home than

Childrens Sense of Home

any other level of fixed physical space. Few persons have more than one true home at any given time. One may personalize and protect an office, a classroom, and other work areas but these places are also invaded by other people such as janitors, teachers, fellow students, and a whole lot more who may claim temporary jurisdiction over the same area. The degree of identification we have with places other than home is rarely as intense as that of the home base. Cognitive mapping studies by Gould (1968) have shown that cognitive maps are most detailed in the region of the home, a finding which is especially true for women and children. A sense of home is important to children. It contains features that contribute to our overall sense of happiness and well-being. Most people report that the happiest place in which they lived was their childhood home, to which they then compare all their subsequent abodes (Flade, 2007). People have varying ideas about what good living accommodations should offer. These preferences differ across age, culture, life circumstances, and previous housing experiences. Although people have different home feature preferences and concepts of a livable place, five criteria seem especially important in making a good home. These are contact with neighbors, privacy, flexible usage, opportunities for personalization, and security. Territoriality One definition of territoriality refers to it as the attempt to affect, influence, or control actions, interactions, or access by asserting and attempting to enforce control over a specific geographic area (Sack, 1983). In his dissertation, Porteous (1976, p.1) deems that: the theory of territoriality suggests that in many animal species, including Homo sapiens, both individuals and groups tend to assert exclusive jurisdiction over physical space. The definition of territoriality however, may not be solely centered on control over physical space. Graham et al., (2005) define it as an individuals behavioral expression of his or her feelings of ownership toward a physical or

Childrens Sense of Home

social object. Such a definition expands the focus of territoriality on physical space for it also includes behaviors for constructing, communicating, maintaining, and restoring territories around those objects in the organization toward which one feels proprietary attachment. Furthermore, territoriality is a social behavioral concept that has two aspects. First, it involves social actions that flow from psychological ownership in a social context. People will only develop territorial behaviors to objects which they have a proprietary attachment with. Second, territoriality reflects the social meanings of actions about claiming and defending objects as they are negotiated in the social context. Sommer (1969) holds that at the level of personal space, spatial control is necessary for psychic health but at all levels of territoriality that is from body space to national boundaries, the absolute control of territory accords its occupants three substantial benefits. These are identity, security, and stimulation. Another definition postulated by Brown (2005) holds that territoriality is a social-behavioral construct wherein people mark and defend their claims in relation to other people. Territorial behaviors are centrally appertaining to establishing, communicating, and maintaining ones relationship with an object or place relative to others in the social environment. Furthermore, territorial behavior involves personalization and ownership marking a place or object and communication that it is already owned by a person or group (Altman, 1975 as cited in Brown, G., 2005). Various studies ( Altman, 1975; Pastalan, 1970; Proshansky, Ittleson, & Rivlin, 1970) have held that this particular definition emphasizes territorial behavior as a mechanism that can help people prevent unwanted intrusions. Hence its major function is to maintain privacy. Gender differences in territoriality. Compared to females, males exhibit a fair degree of territoriality which is often times expressed in aggressive behaviors when the threat of intrusion in their territories abound. Women on the other hand are less involved in the defense of territories. In a study by

Childrens Sense of Home

Charness and Rustichini (2008) on territoriality and gender differences, striking differences have been found in the territorial behaviors of males and females. Males tend to cooperate less at home while females tend to cooperate more at home. Home - a source of the territorial triad More than just a physical space, home is a space that people have made meaningful, situated geographically and socially, imbued with deep feelings and vested with emotion. It provides a central fixed point of reference around which an individual may structure his or her identity and spatial reality (Cresswell, 2004 & Porteous, 1976). The home is said to be a major source of identity, security, and stimulation. These three satisfactions derive from the control of physical space which is secured by two major means, personalization of space and defense of space. Personalization of space is an assertion of identity and a means of ensuring stimulation while defense of space is the means by which stimulation is achieved and security assured (Porteous, 1976). In everyone, there exists a deep association with and consciousness of the places where we were born, grew up, are currently residing, or those where we had memorable moments. All of which vitally contribute to the formation of individual and cultural identity as well as security (Relph, 1976). Personal Space Personal space, first coined by Kaltz (1937, as cited by Aiello & Aiello, 1974), was derived from the concept personal distance, the distance an organism keeps between itself and other organisms. Later on Hall (1961) conceptualized personal space as a series of spatial spheres (bubbles) with the organism at its center. The bubble ranges from intimate 0-18 inches to public space 144 inches (Hall, 1964 as cited by Guardo, 1969). Development of Personal Space. The development of personal space has been studied by Aiello and Aiello (1974) among children from ages 6

Childrens Sense of Home

through16. They made observations of childrens behavior of using space during interaction with a same-sex child. The results showed that children used space more as they grew older. Furthermore, adult personal space behaviors were acquired at age 12. This was consistent with the findings in Willis, Carlson, and Reeves (n.d.) observation among children from kindergarten through sixth grade. Unlike Aiello and Aiellos study, this was conducted in a natural setting where childrens personal space in school cafeteria queues was observed. Results showed that children stood closer in the lower grades than in the higher grades. An experiment done by Guardo (1969) among 6th grade children shed light into what may be in childrens minds about distances between people. 2 tasks were completed. One required children to give acquaintance or liking designations for printed silhouettes of peer dyads. The second required children to designate distances between a self-referent figure and printed peer figures with different descriptions. Results showed that six graders assumed a correlation between physical proximity and psychological closeness. Sex and race. In all three studies mentioned above, sex differences were present. While there were no sex differences with younger children, males at early adolescence were observed to stand farther against each other than females (Aiello & Aiello, 1974). However, this result contradicts with Willis, Carlson and Reeves observations in 3 schools where all children were white. They found that while all sex combinations showed increase in personal space across grades, male to male combination did not. Interestingly, for the 2 schools where all children were colored, this increase in personal space across grades was not found. Furthermore, they found that children stood closer to same-sex children than other-sex children. Children in the white schools had greater queue distances than in the colored schools.

Childrens Sense of Home

Ownership Psychological Ownership. Ownership is such a broad term that it transcends almost all fields of study, from economics to history, and down to psychology. For the purpose of this research, however, we shall zero in on psychological ownership which by Pierces (2001) definition refers to the feeling of possessiveness and of being psychologically tied to an object. Psychological ownership has its roots in three fundamental human drives that provide the reason as to why we experience it. First, psychological ownership fulfills the need for efficacy: individuals are motivated to be efficacious and competent and consequently desire to control their environments in ways that might facilitate this. Second, psychological ownership is rooted in the need for self identity: through connections to organizational objects, one can communicate ones identity, as well as explore and reflect on ones own understanding of that identity. Finally, psychological ownership is rooted in the inherent need of people to have a place of their own: a home, whether physical or metaphorical, can provide physical and psychological security that can serve as a foundation for a variety of positive experiences and behaviors (Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005, pp. 578-579). Psychological Ownership an antecedent of territorial behavior. Psychological ownership, according to Graham et al., (2005) is expressed through territorial behaviors. In a research done by Altman (1975), as indicated by Graham et al., the degree of propriety attachment is directly related to the degree of territorial behavior. The explanation being the greater ones psychological attachment, the more it fulfills the basic needs of efficacy, self-identity, and having a place of ones own. The fulfillment of those needs means that the territory in question has stronger psychological value to the individual, motivating him or her to communicate it to others and to protect and keep it as his or her own (p. 580)

Childrens Sense of Home

Privacy Privacy, by dictionary definition is the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs. Privacy is keeping ones thoughts and feelings personal and secret, or finding space in which to be alone mentally or physically (Balter, n.d.). Unlike most peoples notion of privacy, Altmans (1977) classic definition of privacy was: It is a dialectical boundary-control process, which includes both an opening and a closing of the self to others. At a young age children already make actions showing they want privacy: occasional pulling away from caregivers is something children naturally seek as vital to emotional adjustment, toddlers and older children find in play essential private area for explorations (Balter, n.d). While there are many studies about peoples privacy, only very few studies have touched in aspects of childrens privacy : what is privacy on children, the extent to which children have access to privacy in their early childhood settings ( Zeegers, Readdick, & Hansen-Gandy, 1994), how did the children achieve privacy, why would children go to their considered secluded place/s. Parents often dont realize how essential privacy is to children, especially for young children. Today as technology dominates our lifestyle, most parents have quickly turned the risks of these devices (e.g. cell phone, internet) into an opportunity to find out where their kids are and what they're doing. The downside of this is if their children are always being watched, they may well lose any natural instinct of privacy and modesty (Cline, 2004) Identification of childrens privacy is important; once parents realize positive privacy is a healthy, normal need for children, they can begin to see how children signal times when they want togetherness and time when they want some private space, and most imaginative play occurs when children are alone (Balter, n.d.). Through privacy, children, like all human beings, control the access of others to the self in order to construct a sense of self as

Childrens Sense of Home

separate from others (Laufer and Wolfe 1977 ascited by Zeegers, Readdick, & Hansen-Gandy, 1994). The benefits that people get from acquiring a sense of territoriality, personal space, ownership and privacy are in abundance. It has been proven that the home is the most promising place where we can develop the aforementioned. However, it has also been noted that children, given that they do not have the tools to assert their needs, may not be getting these at home. Understanding their sense of home will certainly give light into how we should put our home together for our children. Statement of the Problem The proposed study aims to provide answers to the following questions: 1. How do children define and understand home? 2. Does sense of home vary according to childrens : a. Territoriality b. Personal space c. Ownership d. Privacy e. Age f. Gender g. Settlement Classification h. Socioeconomic status i. Birth order 3. Is there a correlation between childrens sense of home and these factors?

Childrens Sense of Home

10

4. At what age does a sense of home emerge? Hypotheses

1. Children understand home as a physical space where they are free to

play. Their understanding of home is limited to the confines of physical space. That is, home which is a psychic concept may be similar to a house, the physical structure around which the concept of home develops and thrives.

2. Childrens sense of home does vary across territoriality, personal space, ownership, privacy, age, gender, settlement classification, socioeconomic status, and birth order. The range of childrens propriety attachment and privacy influence their territorial behaviors which in turn affects their sense of home. Furthermore, sense of home varies across settlement classification and socioeconomic status. Children living in slum areas have a relatively lower sense of home compared to those kids who are in the higher rungs of societys ladder, living in spacious and comfortable houses.

3. There is a positive correlation between sense of home, territoriality, ownership, privacy, socioeconomic status, and settlement classification. As for the rest of the variables, a weak correlation exists between them and sense of home.

Childrens Sense of Home

11

Conceptual Framework

M Gender F Territoriali ty Privacy

Age

SENSE OF HOME

Personal Space Ownership Settlement Classificatio n Urban Rural Lower Class Middle Class Upper Class

Birth Order

Socioeconomi c Status

Childrens Sense of Home

12

Methodology Research Setting The survey will be conducted in Sogod, a rural district (5th) in the northern part of Cebu as well as in Mandaue. As of August 2007, Sogod has a population of 28,927 where 11, 762 are under the age of 18 (National Statistics Office). This age group is further divided with the male population being 6,079, and the female 5,683. Barangay Bagakay and Barangay Ibabao Estancia were randomly selected. The former has the smallest population among the 18 barangays that Sogod has, with only 555 residents (National Statiscal Coordination Board) while the latter has a population of 9624 residents as of August 2007. Participants The sample will include children from different age groups preschoolers (3-6 years) and school age children (7-12 years). The sample will be obtained through random selection from different elementary schools in Cebu. Letters of invitation for participation will be sent to school principals, followed by phone calls requesting appointments. During each appointment, after the director has agreed to participate, ten children will be randomly selected from a list of current enrollees. Sealed letters containing request for permission will be sent to parents of the selected children. If a parent denies permission, an alternate child will be selected randomly and parental permission will again be solicited. Research Design and Procedure The researchers will gather data through interviews with children. The interview will be constructed and conducted in the most creative way possible to match up with the respondents attention span. Apart from the interview, respondents will also be asked to do what is instructed of them

Childrens Sense of Home

13

such as drawing their homes and answering scales about territoriality, personal space, ownership, and privacy. Scales shall be in the form of drawings corresponding to childrens level of understanding. Research Instrument a. Paper, pencil, eraser, crayons (for drawing) b. The researchers will use an interview guide containing questions about the topic of study. Here is a proposed research instrument that the researchers wish to use in the study.

Age: Gender: Settlement Classification:

Birth Order: Socioeconomic status:

1.

Have you heard of the word home?

2.

What for you is home? Please draw on a separate sheet of paper your home

3.

What are the things that should be seen at home?

4.

Who are the persons living in a home? (Father, mother, grandparents, siblings)

5.

What are the things (and places) that you own at home? (ownership)

Childrens Sense of Home 6.

14

Where are the places that you feel secluded at home? (privacy)

7.

Do you personalize particular objects or places in your home? (territoriality)

8.

Do you prevent your room or any other place in your home from being intruded by other people? (territoriality)

9.

References Aiello J. & Aiello C. (1974).The Development of Personal Space: Proxemic Behavior of Children 6 through 16. Human Ecology Vol. 2 No. 3 Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/ t6840012g8v58q52/ on September 2, 2010 Balter, L. (n.d.). Parenthood in America: an encyclopedia. N-Z, 2 from http://books.google.com.ph/books? id=d5TqV3A3xWwC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=fal se retrieved on September 06, 2010 Brown, G. (2009). Claiming a Corner at Work: Measuring Employee Territoriality in their workspaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 44-52 Brown, G, Lawrence, T.B, & Robinson, S.L (2005). Territoriality in Organizations. Academy of Manage-ment Review, Vol. 30, No.3, 577-594. Retrieved from http://www.psych.uncc. edu/alblanch/ODIL/Brown2005.pdf on September 6, 2010 Charness, G and Rustichini, A (2008). Territoriality and Gender in the Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.econ.ucsb.edu on September 6, 2010

Childrens Sense of Home

15

Cline,

J. (2004). Children's Privacy Requires Special Handling from http://www.computerworld. com/s/article/98443/Children_s_Privacy_Requires_Special_Handling September 01, 2010 Place like Home. Scientific American Mind.

Flade, A (2007). No February/March, 70-75

Guardo, C. (1969) Personal Space in Children. Child Development. Vol. 40, No. 1 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/1127163 on September 2, 2010 Household Population by Age Group, Sex, City/Municipality Retrieved from http://www.census. gov.ph/data/sectordata/2007/Cebu_Table%202.pdf on September 5, 2010 Jordan, J (2004). A Sense of Home. http://www.coe.uga.edu/~smago/ VirtualLibrary/ Jordan.pdf on September 6, 2010 Retrieved from

Manzo, L. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 67-86. Porteous, J.D (1976). Home: the territorial core. Geographical Review, Vol. 66, No. 4., 383-390. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?=00167428%28197610%2966%3A4%3C38 3%3AHTTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N on July 23, 2010 Willis, F., Carlson, R., & Reeves, D. (n.d.) The development of personal space in primary school children. Journal of Non-verbal behavior Vol. 3 No. 4. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/uu6g8751l6168g26/ on September 2, 2010. Zeegers, S. Readdick, C. & Hansen-Gand S. (1994). Daycare Children's. Childrens Environments Establishment of Territory to Experience Privacy from http://74.125.155.132/scholar? q=cache:u54tgUIEpnsJ:scholar.google.com/

Childrens Sense of Home

16

+ownership+territoriality+privacy+space+children&hl=en&as_sdt=20 00 retrieved on September 06, 2010.