No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Primordial feeling of possession in development
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 October 2023
Abstract
Boyer's minimalist model of human ownership psychology overlooks important cues that children provide in their development leading them from pre-conceptual to conceptual (symbolic) expressions of the basic feeling experience of control over things, qua ownership in the most basic psychological sense. Appeal for innate core knowledge and evolutionary logic blows out the light of this rich and unique ontogenetic progression.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Bates, E. (1990). Language about me and you: Pronominal reference and the emerging concept of self. In Cicchetti, D. & Beeghly, M. (Eds.). The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 165–182). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2015). The relationship between infant holdout and gives, and pointing. Infancy, 20(5), 576–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, B., Wei, R., & Rowe, M. L. (2021). Show, give, and point gestures across infancy differentially predict language development. Developmental Psychology, 57(6), 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rochat, P. (2014). Origins of possession. Owning and sharing in development. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochat, P. (2018). The ontogeny of human self-consciousness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(5), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418760236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochat, P., Robbins, E., Passos-Ferreira, C., Oliva, A.D., Dias, M., & Guo, L. (2014). Ownership reasoning in children across cultures. Cognition, 132, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (1998). One child early talk about possession. In Newman, J. (Ed.), The linguistic of giving (pp. 349–370). John Benjamins.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