No abstract

Collective psychological ownership as a sense that a territory belongs to a group might explain attitudes of the White majority toward territorial compensation for Indigenous Peoples in settler societies. Ownership can be inferred from different general principles and we considered three key principles: autochthony (entitlements from first arrival), investment (entitlements from working the land), and formation (primacy of the territory in forming the collective identity). In two studies, among White Australians (Study 1, N = 475), and White South Africans (Study 2, N = 879), we investigated how support for these general principles was related to perceived ingroup (Anglo-Celtic/White South African) and outgroup (Indigenous Australian/Black South African) territorial ownership, and indirectly, to attitudes toward territorial compensation for the Indigenous outgroup. Endorsement of autochthony was related to stronger support for territorial compensation through higher perceived outgroup ownership, whereas investment was related to lower support through higher perceived ingroup ownership. Agreement with the formation principle was related to stronger support for compensation through higher outgroup ownership, and simultaneously to lower support through higher ingroup ownership.

Immigration leads to strong public and political debates in Europe and the Western world more generally. In some of these debates, migrants are described as either having little choice but to migrate (involuntary migrants) or migrating out of their own free choice (voluntary migrants). In two experimental studies among national samples of native Dutch respondents, we examined whether support for the accommodation of newcomers differs for voluntary and involuntary migrants and whether this depends on the relative importance of humanitarian considerations and host society considerations. The findings demonstrate that for people who find the topic of immigration personally important, involuntary, compared to voluntary, migration leads to stronger societal considerations which, in turn, is associated with weaker support for the accommodation of migrants. Additionally, humanitarian considerations are associated with stronger support but especially for participants who do not find the topic of immigration very important.

Intergroup relations in settler societies have been defined by historical conflict over territorial ownership between indigenous peoples and settler majorities. However, the indigenous groups were there first, and first arrival is an important principle for assigning ownership to a group. In two studies among Australians of Anglo-Celtic origin (N = 322 and N = 475), we argued and found that the general belief in entitlements for first comers (i.e. autochthony) is related to more support for reparations in terms of apology and instrumental compensation for Aborigines, as well as to less topic avoidance. We further proposed that the group-based emotions of collective guilt, moral shame and image shame account for these associations. We found that majority members who endorsed autochthony belief experienced more guilt (Study 1 and 2), moral shame (Study2) and image shame (Study 2). In turn, guilt and moral shame were related to more support for reparations and less topic avoidance, whereas image shame was related to more topic avoidance, thereby partially suppressing the negative association between autochthony belief and topic avoidance. Our research points at the importance of considering autochthony belief and different types of moral emotions in research on past transgressions and current attempts to restore social justice for indigenous peoples.

Conflicts over the ownership of territory have shaped intergroup relations between indigenous and nonindigenous groups in settler societies. Using latent profile analysis, we found four different subgroups of individuals among a sample of European New Zealanders based on their perceived ingroup (NZ European) and outgroup (Māori) ownership. Most people (75.9%) perceived shared territorial ownership, but there were also individuals predominantly recognizing ingroup ownership (8.2%), outgroup ownership (6.4%), or no territorial ownership (9.4%).These subgroups differed in meaningful ways in their support for principles of ownership, perceived rights and responsibilities, compensation for Māori, and support for strict immigration policies. | INTRODUCTIONPeople can have a perception of ownership which involves the sense that a certain object or place belongs to them (Pierce et al., 2003). Just as one can feel to personally own something ("mine"), one can also think that something belongs to one's group ("ours"). This is referred to as collective psychological ownership (Pierce & Jussila, 2011), such as ownership of territories like "our beach" (Due & Riggs, 2008), "our neighborhood" (Toruńczyk-Ruiz & Martinović, 2020), and "our land" (Nijs, Martinović, Verkuyten et al., 2021). Importantly, people not only have a sense of what belongs to their ingroup, but can also recognize outgroups as owners (Nooitgedagt, Martinović et al., 2021; Storz et al., 2021). Collective psychological ownership perceptions can have important implications in settler societies that were colonized by predominantly European settlers, and where disputes and conflicts over the ownership of territory have shaped intergroup relations between indigenous and nonindigenous (settler) groups (Alfred & Corntassel, 2005). However, not much is known about the distinct ways in which individuals subjectively combine perceptions of ingroup and outgroup territorial ownership in these settings. | The current studyThe first and primary aim of the current study is to examine qualitatively different understandings of territorial collective ownership that nonindigenous people can have by considering three related key aspects of collective ownership: who is seen as the owner, why is that group seen as the owner, and what ownership implies in terms of perceived rights and responsibilities.The first aspect of collective ownership ("who") refers to the question which group is considered to own a territory, and we will examine different ways in which ingroup and outgroup territorial ownership beliefs can be subjectively combined. In contrast to examining associations between variables (a variable centered approach, e.g., Storz et al., 2021), we will use a person-centered approach to examine the possibility