When it comes to territory vs. influence, I don't think there is anything wrong with experimenting. In fact, I would almost argue that if you can't seem to get your influence games down you should try to play for moyos and influence more often. Losing a game of go because you are learning something new isn't bad. It can be said that you lose a stone before gaining two as you integrate new knowledge and try new things.
I will give you some simplified rules for territory vs. influence that I've heard.
#1 - 3rd line is the territory line, 4th line is the influence line. This applies to opening moves and is generally true. If you play a 3rd line stone you want to secure territory. If you play 4th line you want influence toward the center. Ideally you want a mix of both "making waves" in your opening, but this is sort of a rule of thumb. For this reason the star point stone is seen as an influence stone, not a territory stone, while the 3-4 is some of each and the 3-3 is pure territory.
#2 - Many joseki are a territory/influence trade off. The idea is that, when you play a joseki, one person typically gets corner territory and the other gets a wall facing the outside (influence). I'm not really sure why this is a rule when I know so many exceptions to it, but I've heard it a lot so this is something to consider when picking a joseki. The best example joseki for this is the 3-3 invasion to the 4-4.
#3 - Influence is for building big things. If you play the sanrensei or some other influence-oriented opening you are trying to get a moyo (territorial framework). However, a moyo is not necessarily going to become your territory. It is more like a threat to make something into territory. Moyos can be invaded and reduced from the outside. Territory is territory. If you are playing a territorial game you build some territory pockets on the board that are hard to invade or reduce and try to just get enough to win. If you play for influence you try to make something either so big that your opponent can't reduce it enough or gain enough profit from attacking your opponent when they try.
Other than that, I wanted to make some comments about the one-space high-approach to the 4-4 stone in your first game. There is nothing wrong with the high-approach move, but it is not just about making influence vs playing for territory.
This is from The Second Book of Go by Richard Bozulich:
The one-space high-approach at White 1 is used when White doesn't want Black to play a pincer. - The Second Book of Go, p. 40
So you can think of it as the "anti-pincer" move. The "normal" response is a one-space high pull back (like how the typical response to a low-approach is a low pull back). Now, this does translate into the move being about influence because if your opponent doesn't pincer then you do get influence toward that side. The book explains a bit about how the high-approach works and shows some joseki.
If Black pulls back as normal, White would then try to build something on the left. Bozulich shows this joseki:
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Building the left
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 7 , . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 . . .
$$ | . . 5 . . . .
$$ | . . 3 X . 2 .
$$ | . 6 4 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ --------------[/go]
The double high-approach is very severe. For this reason, as MJK mentioned, tenuki from a high-approach is not advisable and it is also why the high-approach is not typically pincered. Bozulich simply recommends counter pincering right away in response to a black pincer and playing out this joseki.
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Response: counter-pincer
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 0 . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 8 . . .
$$ | . . . . 4 . . .
$$ | . . 6 X 9 3 . .
$$ | . . 5 7 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ --------------[/go]
This is the joseki shown in the book. However, your opponent pincered close to you (instead of the 3-space pincer), so likely this would be the joseki.
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Close pincer joseki
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 9 . 1 8 . . .
$$ | . . . . 4 . . .
$$ | . . 7 X . 3 . .
$$ | . . 5 6 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ --------------[/go]
This seems fine for white. White's group is more-or-less secure in the corner and  is damaged, but still can do things on an open board like the situation from your game. Black's wall is okay, but doesn't seem all that useful without another move. But, then again, there is a reason why the pincer is not played often against the high approach.
Your jump out is not necessarily a bad move. I'm sure there are joseki that follow. But as MJK said your moves weren't quite right after your opponent pretty much tenukied. The pincer and attachment underneath are the key points in this type of joseki situation. Something like this is more normal, but I would not say this is common and I'm not sure it's really joseki. (Note that black plays  and does not try to help  as your opponent did. MJK's suggestion of a pincer is probably best if isn't played.) You could then play something like a or b as white, a is probably better but I generally like to find a way to settle (not sure how you could in this case, but b is probably the move I would try).
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Jumping out pseudo-joseki
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . b 2 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 . 3 . a
$$ | . . 7 . . . . .
$$ | . . 5 X . 4 . .
$$ | . 8 6 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ --------------[/go]
|
) In the first game, the Black 7 pincer came too early; White replied with D8 and this probably coordinated well with the White sanrensei. Probably should've built up the left side before the approach or counter-pincered White 8.
XSJJOTVOLD.sgf [4.99 KiB]
