No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Boyer's minimal model should also represent multiple ownership without collective agency
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 October 2023
Abstract
Boyer's minimal model of ownership psychology suggests that joint possession triggers representations of collective agency. However, many forms of co-ownership based on cooperation or competition can be represented as a set of P() or L() tags without inferring a unifying collective entity. Moreover, representations of partible ownership are required to engage in cooperative production and distribution of resources.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Baumard, N., Mascaro, O., & Chevallier, C. (2012). Preschoolers are able to take merit into account when distributing goods. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 492–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeScioli, P., & Karpoff, R. (2015). People's judgments about classic property law cases. Human Nature, 26, 184–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-015-9230-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huh, M., & Friedman, O. (2017). Young children's understanding of the limits and benefits of group ownership. Developmental Psychology, 53(4), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., & Price, M. E. (2006). Cognitive adaptations for n-person exchange: The evolutionary roots of organizational behavior. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27(2–3), 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Umbres, R. (2022). Living with distrust: Morality and cooperation in a Romanian village. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyten, M., Sierksma, J., & Martinovic, B. (2015). First arrival and collective land ownership: How children reason about who owns the land. Social Development, 24(4), 868–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widlok, T. (2016). Anthropology and the economy of sharing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315671291.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