Collective Psychological Ownership and Intergroup Relations

Abstract

Whereas much social psychological research has studied the in-group and out-group implications of social categorization and collective identity (“we”), little research has examined the nature and relevance of collective psychological ownership (“ours”) for intergroup relations. We make a case for considering collective psychological ownership as an important source of intergroup tensions. We do so by integrating theory and research from various social sciences, and we draw out implications for future social psychological research on intergroup relations. We discuss collective psychological ownership in relation to the psychology of possessions, marking behavior, intergroup threats, outgroup exclusion, and in-group responsibility. We suggest that the social psychological processes discussed apply to a range of ownership objects (territory, buildings, cultural artifacts) and various intergroup settings, including international, national, and local contexts, and in organizations and communities. We conclude by providing directions for future research in different intergroup contexts.

The benefits of studying immigration for social psychology

“…Collective psychological ownership involves the psychology of possessions, and ownership threats differ from realistic and symbolic threats (Verkuyten & Martinovic, ). Competition over scarce material resources in which material wellbeing is at stake, and identity undermining outgroup norms and values in which a positive and distinctive ingroup identity is at stake, do not have to be experienced as an infringement on one's ‘gatekeeper right’ with the related righteous indignation and anger.…”

“…Anticipatory defense, in contrast, occurs before an infringement and serves to thwart infringement attempts by others, such as the setting up of fences and walls (e.g., to keep immigrants from entering Hungary or the US), use of warning signs and border controls, and the implementation of exclusionary rules and regulations (e.g., voting restrictions for migrants). Collective psychological ownership involves the psychology of possessions, and ownership threats differ from realistic and symbolic threats (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2017). Competition over scarce material resources in which material wellbeing is at stake, and identity undermining outgroup norms and values in which a positive and distinctive ingroup identity is at stake, do not have to be experienced as an infringement on one's 'gatekeeper right' with the related righteous indignation and anger.…”

The Relationship between Local Identification, Urban Disorder Sensitivity, and Prejudice Toward Immigrants: The Role of Autochthony

“…They showed that the first arrival principle is the criterion for establishing individual (see Verkuyten, Sierksma, & Thijs, ) and collective place ownership (Verkuyten, Sierksma, & Martinovic, ). According to Verkuyten and Martinovic (), property confers special rights with respect to what is owned and thus legitimizes the rights of the owners against others.…”

“…When an individual's identity is closely tied to a neighborhood, a city or a country, the desire to maintain and preserve such identity can strengthen a sense of “proprietary attachment” (Verkuyten & Martinovic, ). This sense of “place ownership” that people experience towards the areas where they feel at ease (at the individual and the group level) underscores the implicit association between what is “me” and what is mine.…”

“…This sense of “place ownership” that people experience towards the areas where they feel at ease (at the individual and the group level) underscores the implicit association between what is “me” and what is mine. Such proprietary attachment can lead to claims of ownership in relation to others and outgroups, as it implies stressing that this is “my” / “our” place (city, neighborhood, country) and not “yours” / “theirs.” Summarizing, ownership adds to “who we are” a powerful justification for what “we” rightfully can do with what is “ours,” including the right to exclude others (Verkuyten & Martinovic, , p. 1025).…”