No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ownership psychology and group size
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 October 2023
Abstract
Human group size seemingly has no limit, with many individuals living alongside thousands – even millions – of others. Non-human primate groups, on the other hand, cannot be sustained past a certain, relatively small size. I propose that Pascal Boyer's model of ownership psychology may offer an explanation for such a significant divergence.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Abernethy, K., White, L., & Wickings, E. (2002). Hordes of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx): Extreme group size and seasonal male presence. Journal of Zoology, 258(1), 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, C. A., & Chapman, L. J. (2000). Determinants of group size in primates: The importance of travel costs. In Boinski, S. & Garber, P. A. (Eds.), On the move: How and why animals travel in groups (pp. 24–41). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A., & Teichroeb, J. A. (2012). What influences the size of groups in which primates choose to live? Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 9.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganas, J., & Robbins, M. M. (2005). Ranging behavior of the mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda: A test of the ecological constraints model. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 58, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janson, C. H., & van Schaik, C. P. (1988). Recognizing the many faces of primate food competition: Methods. Behaviour, 105, 165–186.Google Scholar
Lehmann, J., & Boesch, C. (2003). Social influences on ranging patterns among chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in the Taï National Park, Côte d'Ivoire. Behavioral Ecology, 14(5), 642–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markham, A. C., Gesquiere, L. R., Alberts, S. C., & Altmann, J. (2015). Optimal group size in a highly social mammal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(48), 14882–14887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meder, A. (2013). Great ape social systems. In Henke, W. & Tattersall, I. (Eds.), Handbook of paleoanthropology (pp. 1–34). Springer.Google Scholar
Snaith, T. V., & Chapman, C. A. (2005). Towards an ecological solution to the folivore paradox: Patch depletion as an indicator of within-group scramble competition in red colobus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 59, 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snaith, T. V., & Chapman, C. A. (2007). Primate group size and socioecological models: Do folivores really play by different rules? Evolutionary Anthropology, 16, 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teichroeb, J. A., & Sicotte, P. (2009). Test of the ecological-constraints model on ursine colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus) in Ghana. American Journal of Primatology, 71, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2020). The adaptive origins of uniquely human sociality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375, 20190493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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