Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

People’s Judgments About Classic Property Law Cases

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aigler, R. W. (1923). Right of finders. Michigan Law Review, 21, 664–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alchian, A., & Demsetz, H. (1973). The property right paradigm. Journal of Economic History, 33, 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnott, G., & Elwood, R. W. (2009). Assessment of fighting ability in animal contents. Animal Behaviour, 77, 991–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, P. R., & Harris, P. L. (2009). Children’s understanding of ownership transfers. Cognitive Development, 24, 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F. (2011). Property in nonhuman primates. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 132, 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. R. (1970). The finders cases revisited. Texas Law Review, 48, 1001–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, S. J., Turk, D. J., Macdonald, L. M., & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Yours or mine? Ownership and memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 312–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1065–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M. (2001). Citizens’ sense of justice and the legal system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 10–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review, 57, 347–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009a). Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009b). The alliance hypothesis for human friendship. PLoS One, 4, e5802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeScioli, P., & Wilson, B. J. (2011). The territorial foundations of human property. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 297–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukeminier, J., Krier, J., Alexander, G., & Schill, M. (2006). Property (6th ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellickson, R. C. (1991). Order without law: How neighbors settle disputes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, O. (2008). First possession: an assumption guiding inferences about who owns what. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 290–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, O. (2010). Necessary for possession: how people reason about the acquisition of ownership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1161–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, O., & Neary, K. R. (2008). Determining who owns what: do children infer ownership from first possession? Cognition, 107, 829–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H. (2007). The evolution of private property. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 64, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhart, A. L. (1928). Three cases on possession. The Cambridge Law Journal, 3, 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Retrieved from Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/3/2/0/3207/3207.txt.

  • Hook, J. (1993). Judgment about the right to property from preschool to adulthood. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1740). A treatise of human nature. Retrieved from Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/0/4705/4705.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, 1935–1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, O. D., & Goldsmith, T. H. (2005). Law and behavioral biology. Columbia Law Review, 105, 405–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1236–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., & Kalish, C. W. (2009). Children’s ascriptions of property rights with changes of ownership. Cognitive Development, 24, 322–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrough, E. O. (2011). Learning to respect property by refashioning theft into trade. Experimental Economics, 14, 84–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 109–1039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrough, E. O., Smith, V. L., & Wilson, B. J. (2010). Exchange, theft, and the social formation of property. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 74, 206–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko, H., Lopez-Sepulcre, A., & Morrell, L. J. (2006). From hawks and doves to self-consistent games of territorial behavior. The American Naturalist, 167, 901–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krier, J. E. (2009). Evolutionary theory and the origin of property rights. Cornell Law Review, 95, 139–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1689). Two treatises of government. Retrieved from Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7370/pg7370.txt.

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Neary, K. R., Friedman, O., & Burnstein, C. L. (2009). Preschoolers infer ownership from “control of permission”. Developmental Psychology, 45, 873–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1981). Structure and change in economic history. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, K. R., & Shaw, A. (2011). “No fair, copycat!”: what children’s response to plagiarism tells us about their understanding of ideas. Developmental Science, 14, 431–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Harper Collins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, F., & Wright, R. S. (1888). An essay on possession in the common law. Oxford: Claredon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purves, D., & Lotto, R. B. (2003). Why we see what we do: An empirical theory of vision. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability and blame. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. H., Kurzban, R., & Jones, O. D. (2007). Origins of shared intuitions of justice. The Vanderbilt Law Review, 60, 1633–1688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, F. X., Hoffman, M. B., Jones, O. D., & Greene, J. D. (2011). Sorting guilty minds. New York University Law Review, 86, 1306–1360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, J. E. (2004). The property ‘instinct’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 1763–1774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bos, M., Cunningham, S. J., Conway, M. A., & Turk, D. J. (2010). Mine to remember: the impact of ownership on recollective experience. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1065–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbord, R. K., & DeScioli, P. (2010). The effects of donor standing on philanthropy: insights from the psychology of gift-giving. Gonzaga Law Review, 45, 225–289.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Michael Saks, Bobbie Spellman, and our anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous drafts of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA

    Peter DeScioli

  2. Department of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA

    Rachel Karpoff

Authors
  1. Peter DeScioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Karpoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter DeScioli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

DeScioli, P., Karpoff, R. People’s Judgments About Classic Property Law Cases. Hum Nat 26, 184–209 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-015-9230-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-015-9230-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation