Collective ownership threat is the fear of losing control over what is perceived to be owned. In two experimental studies, we examined the intergroup consequences of collective ownership threat in relation to perceived owned territories. First, among a sample of Dutch adolescents ( N = 227), we found that infringement of a hangout place owned by a group of friends led to more perceived collective ownership threat (and not symbolic threat), which was in turn related to more marking and anticipatory defending behavior. Second, among a sample of native Dutch adults ( N = 338), we found that framing Turkish EU accession as an infringement of the collective ownership of the country led to more perceived collective ownership threat (and not symbolic and economic threat), which was in turn related to more opposition to Turkey’s possible accession. Our findings indicate that collective ownership threat is an important construct to consider in intergroup research.

Political campaign slogans, such as 'Take back control of our country' (United Kingdom Independence Party) and 'The Netherlands ours again' (Dutch Party for Freedom), indicate that right-wing populism appeals to the belief that the country is 'ours', and therefore, 'we' have the exclusive right to determine what happens. We examined this sense of ownership of the country (i.e. collective psychological ownership [CPO]) with the related determination right in relation to exclusionary attitudes and voting behaviour. Among Dutch (Study 1, N = 572) and British (Study 2, N = 495) participants, we found that CPO explained anti-immigrant and anti-EU attitudes, and these attitudes in turn accounted for voting 'leave' in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the British sample (Study 2). Additionally, CPO was more strongly related to negative immigrant attitudes among right-wing Dutch participants, whereas it was more strongly related to negative EU attitudes and voting 'leave' among left-wing British participants. CPO contributes to the understanding of critical contemporary social attitudes and political behaviour. Through such political campaign slogans as 'Take back control of our country' and 'The Netherlands ours again', right-wing populist parties (United Kingdom Independence Party and Dutch Party for Freedom, respectively) endeavour to appeal to beliefs that the country is 'ours' and therefore 'we' are its rightful owners. These political parties appeal to people's sense of ownership and the (arguably) related exclusive determination right to back up opposition to immigration and European integration (

People can have a sense of collective ownership of a particular territory, such as “our” country, “our” neighborhood, and “our” park. Collective psychological ownership is argued to go together with rights and responsibilities that have different behavioral implications. We found that collective psychological ownership leads to perceived determination right, and indirectly to the exclusion of outsiders from “our” place. Simultaneously, collective psychological ownership leads to perceived group responsibility, and indirectly to engagement in stewardship behavior. These results were found among Dutch adults, cross-sectionally in relation to their country (Study 1; N = 617) and a neighborhood (Study 2; N = 784), and experimentally in relation to an imaginary local park (Study 3; N = 384, Study 4; N = 502, both pre-registered). Our research shows that the feeling that a place is “ours” can, via perceived rights and responsibilities, result in both exclusionary and prosocial behavioral tendencies.

This study examines whether negative contact with immigrants promotes voting for radical right‐wing parties, to what extent this relationship can be explained by feelings of outgroup threat, and whether this relationship depends on perceived personal and collective self‐efficacy. Hypotheses were tested among 630 native Dutch respondents, mainly living in multicultural neighborhoods. The results show that negative contact with immigrants is associated with feelings of personal (egocentric) and group (sociotropic) threat, and both these feelings, in turn, are associated with radical right‐wing voting. However, negative intergroup contact is less strongly related to egocentric threat when individuals feel able to personally address negative situations with other people (personal self‐efficacy). Furthermore, the findings suggest that negative intergroup contact is less strongly related to sociotropic threat when individuals believe that people in their neighborhood are able to collectively address some negative situations (collective self‐efficacy).

No abstract