No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Development, history, and a minimalist model of ownership psychology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 October 2023
Abstract
Boyer's minimalist model is a compelling account of ownership psychology that is more efficient than previous models. However, it is unclear whether the two simple systems that make up this model – acquisitiveness and cooperation – are sufficient to both explain the nuanced development of ownership concepts and to account for the prominent influence that history has on ownership psychology.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Friedman, O., & Neary, K. R. (2008). Determining who owns what: Do children infer ownership from first possession? Cognition, 107, 829–849. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Frazier, B. N., Noles, N. S., Manczak, E. M., & Stilwell, S. M. (2015). How much are Harry Potter's glasses worth? Children's monetary evaluation of authentic objects. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16, 97–117. doi:10.1080/15248372.2013.815623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Manczak, E. M., & Noles, N. S. (2012). The nonobvious basis of ownership: Preschool children trace the history and value of owned objects. Child Development, 83, 1732–1747. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01806.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Manczak, E. M., Was, A. M., & Noles, N. S. (2016). Children seek historical traces of owned objects. Child Development, 87, 239–255. doi:10.1111/cdev.12453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hood, B. M., & Bloom, P. (2008). Children prefer certain individuals over perfect duplicates. Cognition, 106, 455–462. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hood, B. M., Weltzien, S., Marsh, L., & & Kanngiesser, P. (2016). Picture yourself: Self-focus and the endowment effect in preschool children. Cognition, 152, 70–77. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S., & Kalish, C. W. (2009). Children's ascriptions of property rights with changes of ownership. Cognitive Development, 24, 322–336. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEwan, S., Pesowski, M. L., & Friedman, O. (2016). Identical but not interchangeable: Preschoolers view owned objects as non-fungible. Cognition, 146, 16–21. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nancekivell, S. E., Davidson, N. S., Noles, N. S., & Gelman, S. A. (2023). “She should get her own cat”: Parent-child conversations about ownership and sharing. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 63, 434–445. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.01.007.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, 102–113. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.11.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, G. E., Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2011). Celebrity contagion and the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 215–228. doi:10.1086/658999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noles, N. S., & Keil, F. C. (2019). Exploring the first possessor bias in children. PLoS ONE, 14, Article e0209422. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209422.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