Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T15:11:34.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The recursive nature of ownership intuitions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2023

Anat Shechter Open the ORCID record for Anat Shechter [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael Gilead  and
Yoella Bereby-Meyer Open the ORCID record for Yoella Bereby-Meyer [Opens in a new window]
Anat Shechter
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel anathos@post.bgu.ac.il michaelgilead@gmail.com
Michael Gilead
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel anathos@post.bgu.ac.il michaelgilead@gmail.com
Yoella Bereby-Meyer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel yoellabm@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The proposed model overlooks the self-referential and self-perpetuating nature of ownership intuitions. Human knowledge is primarily formed through social interaction within power dynamics. Accordingly, we suggest that legitimate ownership of one object can influence perceptions of legitimate ownership of another object. Ultimately, we argue that ownership intuitions are not independent but embedded in a self-referential system that perpetuates inequality.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e349
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

Berger, L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. First Anchor.Google Scholar
Braddock, J. C. (1949). The effect of prior residence upon dominance in the fish Platypoecilus maculatus. Physiological Zoology, 22(2), 161–169.10.1086/physzool.22.2.30152038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foucault, M. (1976). Sorvegliare e punier (vol. 21), Foucault.Google Scholar
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks, Hoare, Q. & Nowell-Smith, G. (Eds.). Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
Kokko, H., López-Sepulcre, A., & Morrell, L. J. (2006). From hawks and doves to self-consistent games of territorial behavior. The American Naturalist, 167(6), 901–912.10.1086/504604CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marx, K. (1875). Le capital. Maurice Lachatre.Google Scholar
Nelissen, R. M., & Meijers, M. H. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343–355.10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1958). The strategy of conflict. Prospectus for a reorientation of game theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(3), 203–264.10.1177/002200275800200301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. M., & Parker, G. A. (1976). The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour, 24(1), 159–175.10.1016/S0003-3472(76)80110-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar