No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Not by intuitions alone: Institutions shape our ownership behaviour
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 October 2023
Abstract
Every day, people make decisions about who owns what. What cognitive processes produce this? The target article emphasises the role of biologically evolved intuitions about competition and cooperation. We elaborate the role of cultural evolutionary processes for solving coordination problems. A model based fully on biological evolution misses important insights for explaining the arbitrariness and historical contingency in ownership beliefs.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Berge, E., Kambewa, D., Munthali, A., & Wiig, H. (2014). Lineage and land reforms in Malawi: Do matrilineal and patrilineal landholding systems represent a problem for land reforms in Malawi? Land Use Policy, 41, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K., & Samuelson, L. (1997). Muddling through: Noisy equilibrium selection. Journal of Economic Theory, 74(2), 235–265. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.1996.2255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chimhowu, A. (2019). The “new” African customary land tenure. Characteristic, features and policy implications of a new paradigm. Land Use Policy, 81, 897–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, C. (2017). Francesco Guala’s understanding institutions (book review). BJPS Review of Books. https://www.thebsps.org/reviewofbooks/francesco-guala-understanding-institutions/.Google Scholar
Crittenden, A. N., & Zes, D. A. (2015). Food sharing among Hadza hunter-gatherer children. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0131996. https://doi.org/doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0131996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabbri, M., Rizzolli, M., & Maruotti, A. (2021). Possession is nine-tenths of the law: Possession, property, and coordination in a Hawk–Dove experiment. Journal of Institutional Economics, 17, 267–288. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S1744137420000442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, O. (2008). First possession: An assumption guiding inferences about who owns what. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 290–295. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, O., & Neary, K. (2009). First possession beyond the law: Adults’ and young children's intuitions about ownership. Tulane Law Review, 83, 1–12. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/tulr83&div=26&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals.Google Scholar
Guala, F. (2016). Understanding institutions: The science and philosophy of living together. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Heintz, C. (2014). Scaffolding on core cognition. In Caporael, L. R., Griesemer, J. R., & Wimsatt, W. C. (Eds.), Developing scaffold in evolution, culture, and cognition (pp. 209–228). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hindriks, F., & Guala, F. (2015). Institutions, rules, and equilibria: A unified theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137414000496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovács, Z., & Herfert, G. (2012). Development pathways of large housing estates in post-socialist cities: An international comparison. Housing Studies, 27(3), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2012.651105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightner, A. D., Pisor, A. C., & Hagen, E. H. (2022). In need-based sharing, sharing is more important than need. Preprint. https://psyarxiv.com/cm3ap.Google Scholar
Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2013). “We were here first, so we determine the rules of the game”: Autochthony and prejudice towards out-groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nancekivell, S. E., Friedman, O., & Gelman, S. A. (2019). Ownership matters: People possess a naïve theory of ownership. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.11.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, C. M. (1985). Possession as the origin of property. University of Chicago Law Review, 52(1), 73–88. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol52/iss1/2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savas, E. S. (1992). Privatization in post-socialist countries. Public Administration Review, 52(6), 573–581. https://doi.org/10.2307/977167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verdery, K. (1998). Transnationalism, nationalism, citizenship, and property: Eastern Europe since 1989. American Ethnologist, 25(2), 291–306. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1525/ae.1998.25.2.291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation: A minimalist model
Related commentaries (31)
A cooperative–competitive perspective of ownership necessitates an understanding of ownership disagreements
A developmental perspective on the minimalist model: The case of respect for ownership
Autonomy, the moral circle, and the limits of ownership
Beyond personal ownership: Examining the complexities of ownership in culture
Boyer's minimal model should also represent multiple ownership without collective agency
Computational theories should be made with natural language instead of meaningless code
Development, history, and a minimalist model of ownership psychology
Hold it! Where do we put the body?
How the minimalist model of ownership psychology can aid in explaining moral behaviors under resource constraints
Invested effort and our open-ended sense of ownership
No single notion of cooperation explains when we respect ownership
Not by intuitions alone: Institutions shape our ownership behaviour
On intuitive versus institutional accounts of ownership
Ownership and willingness to compete for resources
Ownership as a component of the extended self
Ownership as an extension of self: An alternative to a minimalist model
Ownership is (likely to be) a moral foundation
Ownership language informs ownership psychology
Ownership psychology and group size
Ownership psychology as a “cognitive cell” adaptation: A minimalist model of microbial goods theory
Primordial feeling of possession in development
Psychological ownership: Actors' and observers' perspectives
Reciprocal contracts – not competitive acquisition – explain the moral psychology of ownership
Similarity and the coordination of ownership
The curious origins of ownership
The evolutionary psychology of ownership is rooted in the Lockean liberal principle of self-ownership
The missing link? How do non-human primates fit in the minimalist model of ownership?
The origins of property law
The recursive nature of ownership intuitions
What do infants need an ownership concept for? Frugal possession concepts can adequately support early reasoning about distributive dilemmas
When it comes to taxes, ownership intuitions abide by the law
Author response
Ownership psychology, its antecedents and consequences