People’s Judgments About Classic Property Law Cases

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Peter DeScioli ; Rachel Karpoff
• 关键词：Property ; Ownership ; Property law ; Property disputes ; Finders
• 刊名：Human Nature
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：June 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：26
• 期：2
• 页码：184-209
• 全文大小：367 KB
• 参考文献：Aigler, R. W. (1923). Right of finders. Michigan Law Review, 21, 664-82.View Article
  Alchian, A., & Demsetz, H. (1973). The property right paradigm. Journal of Economic History, 33, 16-7.View Article
  Arnott, G., & Elwood, R. W. (2009). Assessment of fighting ability in animal contents. Animal Behaviour, 77, 991-004.View Article
  Blake, P. R., & Harris, P. L. (2009). Children’s understanding of ownership transfers. Cognitive Development, 24, 133-45.View Article
  Brosnan, S. F. (2011). Property in nonhuman primates. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 132, 9-2.View Article
  Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-.View Article
  Cohen, E. R. (1970). The finders cases revisited. Texas Law Review, 48, 1001-027.
  Cribbet, J. H., Johnson, C. W., Findley, R. W., Smith, E. E., & Dzienkowski, J. S. (2007). Property cases and materials (9th ed.). New York: Foundation Press.
  Cunningham, S. J., Turk, D. J., Macdonald, L. M., & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Yours or mine? Ownership and memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 312-18.View Article
  Cunningham, S. J., Conway, M. A., Turk, D. J., & van den Bos, M. (2010). Mine to remember: the impact of ownership on recollective experience. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1065-071.View Article
  Darley, J. M. (2001). Citizens-sense of justice and the legal system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 10-3.View Article
  De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.
  Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review, 57, 347-59.
  DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009a). Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112, 281-99.View Article
  DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009b). The alliance hypothesis for human friendship. PLoS One, 4, e5802.View Article
  DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 477-96.View Article
  DeScioli, P., & Wilson, B. J. (2011). The territorial foundations of human property. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 297-04.View Article
  Dukeminier, J., Krier, J., Alexander, G., & Schill, M. (2006). Property (6th ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers.
  Ellickson, R. C. (1991). Order without law: How neighbors settle disputes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  Friedman, O. (2008). First possession: an assumption guiding inferences about who owns what. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 290-95.View Article
  Friedman, O. (2010). Necessary for possession: how people reason about the acquisition of ownership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1161-169.View Article
  Friedman, O., & Neary, K. R. (2008). Determining who owns what: do children infer ownership from first possession? Cognition, 107, 829-49.View Article
  Gintis, H. (2007). The evolution of private property. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 64, 1-6.View Article
  Goodhart, A. L. (1928). Three cases on possession. The Cambridge Law Journal, 3, 195-08.View Article
  Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-34.View Article
  Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Retrieved from Project Gutenberg. http://?www.?gutenberg.?org/?dirs/-/-/-/-207/-207.?txt .
  Hook, J. (1993). Judgment about the right to property from preschool to adulthood. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 135-46.View Article
  Hume, D. (1740). A treatise of human nature. Retrieved from Project Gutenberg. http://?www.?gutenberg.?org/?dirs/-/-/-/-705/-705.?txt .
  Jones, O. D., & Brosnan, S. F. (2008). Law, biology, and property: a new theory of the endowment effect. William and Mary Law Review, 49, 1935-990.
  Jones, O. D., & Goldsmith, T. H. (2005). Law and behavioral biology. Columbia Law Review, 105, 405-02.
  Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193-06.View Article
  Kanngiesser, P., Gjersoe, N., & Hood, B. M. (2010). The effect of creative labor on property-ownership transfer by preschool children and adults. Psychological Science, 21, 1236-241.View Article
  Kim, S., & Kalish, C. W. (2009). Children’s ascriptions of property rights with changes of ownership. Cognitive Development, 24, 322-36.View Article
  Kimbrough, E. O. (2011). Learning to respect property by refashioning theft into trade. Experimental Economics, 14, 84-09.View Article
  Kimbrough, E. O., Smith, V. L., & Wilson, B. J. (2008). Historical property rights, sociality and the emergence of impersonal exchange in long-distance trade. American Economic Review, 98, 109-039.
  Kimbrough, E. O., S
• 作者单位：Peter DeScioli (1)
  Rachel Karpoff (2)
  
  1. Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA
  2. Department of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA
  
• 刊物主题：Anthropology; Behavioural Sciences; Biological Psychology;
• 出版者：Springer US
• ISSN：1936-4776

文摘

People’s judgments about property shape how they relate to other people with respect to resources. Property law cases can provide a valuable window into ownership judgments because disputants often use conflicting rules for ownership, offering opportunities to distinguish these basic rules. Here we report a series of ten studies investigating people’s judgments about classic property law cases dealing with found objects. The cases address a range of issues, including the relativity of ownership, finder versus landowner rights, object location, objects below- versus above-ground, mislaid versus lost objects, contracts between landowners and finders, and the distinction between public and private space. The results show nuanced patterns in ownership judgments that are not well-explained by previous psychological theories. Also, people’s judgments often conflict with court decisions and legal principles. These empirical patterns can be used to generate and test novel hypotheses about the intuitive logic of ownership.