Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T08:21:11.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On intuitive versus institutional accounts of ownership

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2023

Aidan Feeney Open the ORCID record for Aidan Feeney [Opens in a new window]  and
Robin Hickey
Aidan Feeney
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Northern, Ireland a.feeney@qub.ac.uk; https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/persons/aidan-feeney
Robin Hickey
Affiliation:
School of Law, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland r.hickey@qub.ac.uk; https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/persons/robin-hickey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We contrast Boyer's intuitive account of ownership with formal legal accounts based on institutions of ownership. Boyer's emphasis on social aspects of ownership intuitions may have a bearing on recent arguments that property institutions are justified by their capacity to promote human flourishing. Moreover, Boyer's account of property intuitions facilitates the study of acquisition and mental representation of formal ownership concepts.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e334
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.)

References

Alexander, G. S., Penalver, E. M., Singer, J. M., & Underkuffler, L. S. (2009). A statement of progressive property. Cornell Law Review, 94(4), 743–744.Google Scholar
Alexander, S. S. (2018). Property and human flourishing. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. (2015). Relations between intuitive biological thinking and biological misconceptions in biology majors and nonmajors. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dagan, H. (2011). Property: Values and institutions. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. W. (1996). Property and justice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, L. (2008). Exclusion and exclusivity in property law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 58(3), 275–315. doi:10.3138/utlj.58.3.275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFarlane, B. (2008). The structure of property law. Hart Publishing.Google 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
Ronfard, S., Brown, S., Doncaster, E., & Kelemen, D. (2021). Inhibiting intuition: Scaffolding children's theory construction about species evolution in the face of competing explanations. Cognition, 211, 104635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shtulman, A., & Lombrozo, T. (2016). Bundles of contradiction: A coexistence view of conceptual change. In Barner, D. & Baron, A. S. (Eds.), Core knowledge and conceptual change (pp. 49–67). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar