Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0871-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Knowing whether an object is owned and by whom is essential to avoid costly conflicts. We hypothesize that everyday interactions around objects are influenced by a minimal sense of object ownership grounded on respect of possession. In particular, we hypothesize that tracking object ownership can be influenced by any cue that predicts the establishment of individual physical control over objects. To test this hypothesis we used an indirect method to determine whether visual cues of physical control like spatial proximity to an object, temporal priority in seeing it, and touching it influence this minimal sense of object ownership. In Experiment 1 participants were shown a neutral object located on a table, in the reaching space of one of two characters. In Experiment 2 one character was the first to find the object then another character appeared and saw the object. In Experiments 3 and 4, spatial proximity, temporal priority, and touch are pitted against each other to assess their relative weight. After having seen the scenes, participants were required to judge the sensibility of sentences in which ownership of the object was ascribed to one of the two characters. Responses were faster when the objects were located in the reaching space of the character to whom ownership was ascribed in the sentence and when ownership was ascribed to the character who was the first to find the object. When contrasting the relevant cues, results indicate that touch is stronger than temporal priority in modulating the ascription of object ownership. However, all these effects were also influenced by contextual social cues like the gender of both characters and participants, the presence of a third-party observer, and the co-presence of characters. Consistently with our hypothesis, results indicate that many different cues of physical control influence the ascription of ownership in daily social contexts.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 50 kb)426_2017_871_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx
Aglioti, S., Smania, N., Manfredi, M., & Berlucchi, G. (1996). Disownership of left hand and objects related to it in a patient with right brain damage. Neuro Report, 8, 293–296.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609. PubMed
Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994). Association as a psychological justification for ownership. Journal of Psychology, 128, 365–380. CrossRef
Borghi, A., & Scorolli, C. (2009). Language comprehension and dominant hand motion simulation. Human Movement Science, 28(1), 1–27. CrossRef
Botvinik, M. (2004). Probing the neural basis of body ownership. Science, 305, 782–783. CrossRef
Brosnan, S. F. (2011). Property in nonhuman primates. In H. Ross & O. Friedman (Eds.), Origins of ownership of property. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 132, 9–22.
Calvo-Merino, B., Grèzes, J., Glaser, D. E., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2006). Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Current Biology, 16(22), 2277. CrossRef
Elgesem, D. (1997). The modal logic of agency. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(2), 1–46.
Epstein, R. A. (1979). Possession as the root of title. Georgia Law Review, 13, 1221–1243.
Ericson, K. M., & Andreas, F. (2014). The Endowment Effect. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 555–579. CrossRef
Eswaran, M., & Neary, H. M. (2014). An Economic Theory of the Evolutionary Emergence of Property Rights. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 6, 203–226.
Friedman, O. (2008). First possession: an assumption guiding inferences about who owns what. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 290–295. CrossRef
Friedman, O., & Ross, H. (2011). Twenty-one reasons to care about the psychological basis of ownership. In H. Ross & O. Friedman (Eds.), Origins of ownership of property. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 132, 1–8.
Gintis, H. (2007). The evolution of private property. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 64(1), 1–16. CrossRef
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: a comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 379–401. CrossRef
Haggard, P., & Eitam, B. (Eds.). (2015). The sense of agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B. (1997). Possession—cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Herslund, M., & Baron, I. (2001). Introduction: Dimensions of possession. In M. Herslund, I. Baron, & F. Sørensen (Eds.), Dimensions of possession (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Jackendoff, R. (1992). Languages of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348. CrossRef
Kummer, H. (1991). Evolutionary transformations of possessive behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 75–83.
Lugli, L., Obertis, A. C., & Borghi, A. M. (2016). Hitting is male, giving is female: automatic imitation and complementarity during action observation. Psychological Research. doi: 10.1007/s00426-016-0808-8
McAdams, R. H. (2009). Beyond the Prisoners’ Dilemma: coordination, game theory, and law. Southern California Law Review, 82, 209–258.
Merrill, T. W. (1998). Property and the right to exclude. Nebraska Law Review, 77, 730–755.
Merrill, T. W. (2015). Possession and ownership. In Tun-Chien Chang (Ed.), Law and Economics of possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, G., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. CrossRef
Peck, J., Barger, V. A., & Webb, A. (2013). In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(2013), 189–196. CrossRef
Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 434–447. CrossRef
Rose, C. M. (1985). Possession as the Origin of Property. The University of Chicago Law Review, 52(1), 73–88. CrossRef
Ross, H. S. (1996). Negotiating principles of entitlement in sibling property disputes. Developmental Psychology, 32, 90–101. CrossRef
Scorolli, C. (2014). Embodiment and Language. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition. (pp. 127–138), Routledge: Taylor & Francis. ISBN: 978-0-415-62361-2.
Sugden, R. (2004). The economics of rights, co-operation and welfare (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wolf, J. R., Arkes, H. R., & Muhanna, W. A. (2008). The power of touch: an examination of the effect of duration of physical contact on the valuation of objects. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(6), 476–482.
Zwaan, R.A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B.H. Ross (Ed.) Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 35–62), vol. 44, New York: Academic.
- Cues of control modulate the ascription of object ownership
Anna M. Borghi
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg