For property rights to be upheld, people need to be able to judge how ownership is established. Previous research suggests that people may judge that the first person to possess an object establishes ownership over it. This article proposes and tests an alternative account, which claims that people decide who owns an object by judging who was probably necessary for the object to be possessed. Participants read stories in which one character pursues an object (e.g., an animal being hunted, a gem jutting out of a high cliff), which a second character then captures. Judgments about which character owns the object depended on which character was plausibly necessary for capturing the object. The findings support the “necessary for possession” account and suggest that people’s judgments about ownership likely depend on counterfactual reasoning or on processes akin to those used to make judgments about causality.
Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J.R. (1982). Social rules governing object conflicts in toddlers and preschoolers. In K. J. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood (pp. 99-110). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
2.
Beggan, J.K. ( 1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 62, 229-237.
3.
Beggan, J.K., & Brown, E.M. ( 1994). Association as a psychological justification for ownership . Journal of Psychology, 128, 365-380.
Blumenthal, J.A. ( 2002, March). Lay perceptions of property and nuisance: Do intuitions match legal doctrine?Poster presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Austin, TX.
6.
Cunningham, S.J., Turk, D.J., Macdonald, L.M., & Macrae, C.N. ( 2008). Yours or mine? Ownership and memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 312-318.
7.
Danby, H. ( 1933). The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with introduction and brief explanatory notes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
Darley, J.M. ( 2001). Citizens’ sense of justice and the legal system . Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 10-13.
9.
Darley, J.M., & Shultz, T.R. ( 1990). Moral rules: Their content and acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 525-556.
10.
Epstein, R.A. ( 1979). Possession as the root of title. Georgia Law Review, 13, 1221-1243.
11.
Friedman, O. ( 2008). First possession: An assumption guiding inferences about who owns what. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 290-295.
12.
Friedman, O., & Neary, K.R. ( 2008). Determining who owns what: Do children infer ownership from first possession? Cognition, 107, 829-849.
13.
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D.G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review , 103, 650-669.
14.
Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. ( 2008). Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition , 34, 1055-1075.
15.
Hoebel, E.A. ( 2006). The law of primitive man: A study in comparative legal dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1954)
16.
Holyoak, K.J., & Simon, D. ( 1999). Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 128, 3-31.
17.
Hook, J. ( 1993). Judgments about the right to property from preschool to adulthood. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 135-146.
18.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., & Thaler, R.H. ( 1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193-206.
19.
Lueck, D. ( 1995). The rule of first possession and the design of law. Journal of Law and Economics, 38, 393-436.
20.
Neary, K.R., Friedman, O., & Burnstein, C.L. (2009). Preschoolers infer ownership from "control of permission."Developmental Psychology, 45, 873-876.
21.
Pierson v. Post, 3 Cal. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (N.Y., 1805).
22.
Shotland, R.L., & Hyers, L. ( 2000). Evidence for the common law as a hypothesis-generating tool for conflict resolution: What is fair? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2534-2557.
23.
Simon, D., Snow, C.J., & Read, S.J. ( 2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories: Evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 814-837.
24.
Spellman, B.A. ( 1997). Crediting causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 323-348.
25.
Spellman, B.A., Kincannon, A., & Stose, S. ( 2005). The relation between counterfactual and causal reasoning . In D. R. Mandel, D. J. Hilton, & P. Catellani (Eds.), The psychology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 28-43). London, UK: Routledge.
26.
Spellman, B.A., & Mandel, D.R. ( 1999). When possibility informs reality: Counterfactual thinking as a cue to causality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 120-123.
27.
Stake, J.E. ( 2004). The property "instinct." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1763-1774.
