Psychometric Testing Construct:

Territoriality Group Number 1

Deepanwita Chowdhury: 22PGDMHR12

Dhairya Mehta: 22PGDMHR13
Pranjal Sud: 22PGDMHR35
Sukriti Chawla: 22PGDMHR54
Urval Shah: 22PGDMHR59
Reviewing literature has made us realize that territorial behaviour at the workplace leads
to organizational deviance and dysfunctional behaviours. We have hence developed a
scale which can help measure the territorial tendencies in students, so that they can be
made aware and be helped before they enter the corporate world.

Territoriality is the behaviour of psychologically establishing ownership and entitlement

over things or people in the form of communication, behaviours to assert control or
reinstate boundaries around items in an organization which is otherwise not legally
owned.

 Dominance is a trait of creating and establishing a sense of highest authority

over marked objects or people for limiting the invasion and overruling.

 Aggressiveness involves the deliberate exhibition of threatening behaviour and

direct challenges toward acquaintances with the primary objective being to
safeguard or to 0contest one's established authority or territorial boundaries.

 Familiarity is a sense of recognition and comfort that individuals develop

towards specific objects or people, resulting in increased confidence and
efficiency in their interactions and contributions.

 Envy refers to the sense of insecurity, fear, and concern arising out of relative lack
of possession of a psychologically owned object or a person.

 Control refers to the ability of an individual to influence or direct the use of

information or resources through a variety of means, such as physical barriers,
social norms, or personal relationships.

The items would be asked on a 5-point Likert scale. 1 being “least like me” to 5 “mostly
like me”.
Note: Few items are reverse coded.

Envy:
1. It makes me insecure when my friend gets closer to some new person.
2. It makes me feel uncomfortable when someone performs better in my
area of expertise than me.
3. I get jealous when people I make groups with, team up with other people if a
classmate asks for help with a topic I consider my area of expertise, I often control
the extent of assistance I provide, especially if I view it as my academic territory.
4. I feel uneasy when I see some other student approaching the professor with
whom I have connected well.
5. I feel happy when my friend performs better when they team up with someone
than when they have teamed up with me.
Control:
1. I feel a strong sense of ownership over the spaces I consider mine.
2. I am comfortable setting boundaries to protect my personal space.
3. I believe that people should respect the boundaries I establish.
4. If a classmate asks for help with a topic I consider my area of expertise, I often
control the extent of assistance I provide, especially if I view it as my academic
territory.
5. If I happen to get some valuable information that benefits the class, I tend to share it
with everyone

Aggressiveness: 
1. I have no hesitation in letting others know when they have occupied my designated
seat in the classroom
2. In situations where someone challenges my authority or tries to take control of a
project in my area of expertise, I tend to respond assertively or aggressively.
3. I prefer to avoid confrontations and physical altercations whenever possible, even if
my territory is at stake.
4. I feel revengeful when someone disrespects my personal space
5. I have feelings of retaliation when someone outperforms me in my area of expertise

Dominance:
1. I openly confront someone who has occupied my usual seat
2. I prefer making sure others acknowledge and adhere to my territorial limits
3. I tend to make upfront communication to align everyone as per my opinion
4. I tend to be more alert when someone tries to encroach my area of expertise
5. I make efforts to take the leadership role in a project even if i am not an expert in the
subject

Familiarity:
1. I make the same team for case competitions/projects with familiar people
2. I prefer going out with people with whom I share a link of similar social background
3. I prefer to team up with someone for sports based on similar likings for a particular
sportsman 
4. I am indifferent towards people with whom I share no social or cultural background
5. I feel more comfortable bonding with people previously unknown during
internships/case competitions solely based on a similar college connect.
Feedback through Peer Group Review:

Envy

Question 3: This question is double-barreled, meaning that it asks two questions at once. It
would be better to split this question into two separate questions.
Question 5: This question is also double-barreled. It would be better to ask about how the
respondent feels when their friend performs better, regardless of whether they are teamed up
with them or not.

Control

Question 7: This question does not seem to be relevant to the concept of control. Setting
boundaries is a normal and healthy thing to do, and it does not necessarily mean that the
person is trying to control others.
Question 9: This question is too long and confusing. It would be better to break it up into
two or three shorter questions.
Question 10: This question does not seem to be related to the concept of control. Sharing
information with others is not the same as controlling them.

Aggressiveness

Question 12: This question is double-barreled. It would be better to ask about how the
respondent responds when someone challenges their authority, regardless of whether they
respond assertively or aggressively.
Question 13: This question is also double-barreled. It would be better to ask about how the
respondent feels about confrontations and physical altercations, regardless of whether they
are related to their territory.

Dominance

Question 16: This question is the same as question 11, and it is not really related to the
concept of dominance.
Question 19: This question is not really related to the concept of dominance. Being alert
when someone tries to encroach on your area of expertise is not the same as being
dominant.
Question 20: Leadership and dominance are not the same thing. A person can be a leader
without being dominant, and vice versa.

Familiarity

Question 23: This question is too specific to sports. It would be better to ask about how the
respondent prefers to team up with people in general, regardless of the activity.
Question 22: This question is very similar to question 24. It would be better to ask one
question about how the respondent feels about going out with people from similar social
backgrounds, and one question about how they feel about being indifferent towards people
from different social backgrounds.

Feedback by Academic Expert: (Chitra Kelkar is a Certified Life Coach, Executive Coach
and Mindfulness Coach at Manovedh wellness centre.)

Regarding the scale of Territoriality, my observations are as follows:

1. The construct is fine but the components seem to overlap the way you have explained
them leading to possible contamination of data,
2. The items/questions to capture the components need to be seriously looked at as the
overlap in meaning gets more pronounced there,
3. Review usage of the terms "assertive" and "aggressive", for they mean different things,
4. Align each item carefully with the components,
5. You can reduce the number of items for measuring components of territoriality to 3 only
from the current 5. It will make the scale more precise and items clearly differentiated.

Feedback by Industry Expert: (Dr. Irfan A. Rizvi is a Professor of Leadership and change
Management at IMI, New Delhi.
At the outset of the review, I would like to express gratitude for opting to choose a distinct
topic for the construction of the test. I have indicated my viewpoints on certain items that
necessitate revision through notes on the PDF document. Here, I am providing my general
comments.
1. My primary concern revolves around the phrasing of the test items. Rephrasing
them in behavioral terms could enhance their relatability to the test-taker, while also
mitigating the tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner. For instance:
 Envy: You observe that a fellow student is receiving more recognition and
commendation from teachers compared to you, for a project that you
believe you have executed exceptionally. How would you react? Choose
one: Not envious at all | Slightly envious | Moderately envious | Heavily
envious | Extremely envious
 Familiarity: You have been appointed to lead a project with a team of
classmates whom you are unfamiliar with. How confident would you feel in
contrast to leading a team consisting of familiar classmates? Choose one:
Much more confident | Somewhat more confident | Same level of confidence
| Less confident
 Control: If a classmate requests assistance on a topic within your area of
expertise, particularly if you view it as your academic territory, how much
aid would you provide? Choose one: Total assistance | High assistance |
Moderate assistance | Slight assistance | No assistance at all.
 Dominance: In a scenario where a classmate is using your desk without
permission, how inclined are you to assert your authority and ask them to
vacate? Not Likely at All | Slightly Likely | Moderately Likely | Very Likely
| Extremely Likely
 Aggression: If a classmate excels in your area of expertise and garners praise
from both the teacher and fellow students, how likely are you to entertain
thoughts of causing harm to that classmate? Not Likely at All | Slightly Likely
| Moderately Likely | Very Likely | Extremely Likely

2. The items appear to originate from a limited pool, and certain themes are reiterated
across 2 or 3 dimensions. For instance, item no. 6 in the control dimension, item
 no. 11 in the aggressiveness dimension, and item no. 16 in the dominance
dimension all seem to converge on a single theme.

3. Regarding the dimension of aggression, it would be valuable to determine

whether emotional/reactive aggression or cognitive/planned aggression is more
applicable within the context of territoriality. The dimension more closely tied to
territoriality should be emphasized in the test.

4. I reiterate the suggestion that initially generating around 30 to a maximum of 50

statements for each dimension is advisable. Subsequently, each member of the team
can assess every statement's appropriateness or validity for the given dimension,
using a Likert-type scale. Alternatively, adhering strictly to the development of valid
Likert scale statements could involve presenting this pool to a minimum of 7 and
preferably 11 raters. Raters could include classmates, teachers, or knowledgeable
adults who understand the concept of territoriality and the rating process. After this
assessment, select 8 to 10 items with the highest average ratings in each dimension
and then submit them for review.