People Have Systematically Different Ownership Intuitions in Seemingly Simple Cases.

IF 4.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1177/09567976241240424
Xiuyuan Zhang, Paul Bloom, Julian Jara-Ettinger
{"title":"People Have Systematically Different Ownership Intuitions in Seemingly Simple Cases.","authors":"Xiuyuan Zhang, Paul Bloom, Julian Jara-Ettinger","doi":"10.1177/09567976241240424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our understanding of ownership influences how we interact with objects and with each other. Here, we studied people's intuitions about ownership transfer using a set of simple, parametrically varied events. We found that people (<i>N</i> = 120 U.S. adults) had similar intuitions about ownership for some events but sharply opposing intuitions for others (Experiment 1). People (<i>N</i> = 120 U.S. adults) were unaware of these conflicts and overestimated ownership consensus (Experiment 2). Moreover, differences in people's ownership intuitions predicted their intuitions about the acceptability of using, altering, controlling, and destroying the owned object (<i>N</i> = 130 U.S. adults; Experiment 3), even when ownership was not explicitly mentioned (<i>N</i> = 130 U.S. adults; Experiment 4). Subject-level analyses suggest that these disagreements reflect at least two underlying intuitive theories, one in which intentions are central to ownership and another in which physical possession is prioritized.</p>","PeriodicalId":20745,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"858-871"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241240424","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our understanding of ownership influences how we interact with objects and with each other. Here, we studied people's intuitions about ownership transfer using a set of simple, parametrically varied events. We found that people (N = 120 U.S. adults) had similar intuitions about ownership for some events but sharply opposing intuitions for others (Experiment 1). People (N = 120 U.S. adults) were unaware of these conflicts and overestimated ownership consensus (Experiment 2). Moreover, differences in people's ownership intuitions predicted their intuitions about the acceptability of using, altering, controlling, and destroying the owned object (N = 130 U.S. adults; Experiment 3), even when ownership was not explicitly mentioned (N = 130 U.S. adults; Experiment 4). Subject-level analyses suggest that these disagreements reflect at least two underlying intuitive theories, one in which intentions are central to ownership and another in which physical possession is prioritized.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在看似简单的情况下,人们的所有权直觉却存在系统性差异。
我们对所有权的理解影响着我们与物品以及人与人之间的互动方式。在这里,我们通过一组简单的、参数多样的事件来研究人们对所有权转移的直觉。我们发现,人们(人数 = 120 名美国成年人)对某些事件的所有权有着相似的直觉,但对另一些事件的直觉却截然相反(实验 1)。人们(N = 120 名美国成年人)没有意识到这些冲突,并高估了对所有权的共识(实验 2)。此外,人们在所有权直觉上的差异预测了他们对使用、改变、控制和破坏所拥有物品的可接受性的直觉(实验 3,人数 = 130 名美国成年人),即使在没有明确提及所有权的情况下也是如此(实验 4,人数 = 130 名美国成年人)。受试者层面的分析表明,这些分歧至少反映了两种基本的直觉理论,一种理论认为意图是所有权的核心,另一种理论则认为实际占有是优先考虑的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Science
Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Psychological Science, the flagship journal of The Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society), is a leading publication in the field with a citation ranking/impact factor among the top ten worldwide. It publishes authoritative articles covering various domains of psychological science, including brain and behavior, clinical science, cognition, learning and memory, social psychology, and developmental psychology. In addition to full-length articles, the journal features summaries of new research developments and discussions on psychological issues in government and public affairs. "Psychological Science" is published twelve times annually.
期刊最新文献
Gaze Behavior Reveals Expectations of Potential Scene Changes. Why Do Children Think Words Are Mutually Exclusive? The Affect Misattribution Procedure Revisited: An Informational Account. Narrative Identity, Traits, and Trajectories of Depression and Well-Being: A 9-Year Longitudinal Study. People Place Larger Bets When Risky Choices Provide a Postbet Option to Cash Out.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1