Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T22:26:38.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not by intuitions alone: Institutions shape our ownership behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2023

Reka Blazsek Open the ORCID record for Reka Blazsek [Opens in a new window]  and
Christophe Heintz Open the ORCID record for Christophe Heintz [Opens in a new window]
Reka Blazsek
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Wien, Austria blazsek_reka@phd.ceu.edu; https://cognitivescience.ceu.edu/people/reka-blazsek heintzc@ceu.edu; http://christophe.heintz.free.fr/
Christophe Heintz
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Wien, Austria blazsek_reka@phd.ceu.edu; https://cognitivescience.ceu.edu/people/reka-blazsek heintzc@ceu.edu; http://christophe.heintz.free.fr/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Every day, people make decisions about who owns what. What cognitive processes produce this? The target article emphasises the role of biologically evolved intuitions about competition and cooperation. We elaborate the role of cultural evolutionary processes for solving coordination problems. A model based fully on biological evolution misses important insights for explaining the arbitrariness and historical contingency in ownership beliefs.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e329
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berge, E., Kambewa, D., Munthali, A., & Wiig, H. (2014). Lineage and land reforms in Malawi: Do matrilineal and patrilineal landholding systems represent a problem for land reforms in Malawi? Land Use Policy, 41, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K., & Samuelson, L. (1997). Muddling through: Noisy equilibrium selection. Journal of Economic Theory, 74(2), 235–265. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.1996.2255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chimhowu, A. (2019). The “new” African customary land tenure. Characteristic, features and policy implications of a new paradigm. Land Use Policy, 81, 897–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, C. (2017). Francesco Guala’s understanding institutions (book review). BJPS Review of Books. https://www.thebsps.org/reviewofbooks/francesco-guala-understanding-institutions/.Google Scholar
Crittenden, A. N., & Zes, D. A. (2015). Food sharing among Hadza hunter-gatherer children. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0131996. https://doi.org/doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0131996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabbri, M., Rizzolli, M., & Maruotti, A. (2021). Possession is nine-tenths of the law: Possession, property, and coordination in a Hawk–Dove experiment. Journal of Institutional Economics, 17, 267–288. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S1744137420000442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, O. (2008). First possession: An assumption guiding inferences about who owns what. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 290–295. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, O., & Neary, K. (2009). First possession beyond the law: Adults’ and young children's intuitions about ownership. Tulane Law Review, 83, 1–12. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/tulr83&div=26&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals.Google Scholar
Guala, F. (2016). Understanding institutions: The science and philosophy of living together. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Heintz, C. (2014). Scaffolding on core cognition. In Caporael, L. R., Griesemer, J. R., & Wimsatt, W. C. (Eds.), Developing scaffold in evolution, culture, and cognition (pp. 209–228). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hindriks, F., & Guala, F. (2015). Institutions, rules, and equilibria: A unified theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137414000496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovács, Z., & Herfert, G. (2012). Development pathways of large housing estates in post-socialist cities: An international comparison. Housing Studies, 27(3), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2012.651105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightner, A. D., Pisor, A. C., & Hagen, E. H. (2022). In need-based sharing, sharing is more important than need. Preprint. https://psyarxiv.com/cm3ap.Google Scholar
Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2013). “We were here first, so we determine the rules of the game”: Autochthony and prejudice towards out-groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1980.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(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.11.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierson v. Post (1805), 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264.Google Scholar
Rose, C. M. (1985). Possession as the origin of property. University of Chicago Law Review, 52(1), 73–88. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol52/iss1/2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savas, E. S. (1992). Privatization in post-socialist countries. Public Administration Review, 52(6), 573–581. https://doi.org/10.2307/977167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verdery, K. (1998). Transnationalism, nationalism, citizenship, and property: Eastern Europe since 1989. American Ethnologist, 25(2), 291–306. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1525/ae.1998.25.2.291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar