Creation in judgments about the establishment of ownership

Levene, Merrick; Starmans, Christina; Friedman, Ori

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.011

Cited by 42 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The endowment effect demonstrates that people develop a sense of ownership just by being arbitrarily endowed with a good (e.g., coffee mug), even though they did not put any physical effort into obtaining the good (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1990;Schurr & Ritov, 2013). A related line of research shows that people judge the person who created an object to be its legitimate owner, even when the owner puts little effort into creating it (Levene, Starmans, & Friedman, 2015) or when others slightly alter the object (Kanngiesser, Gjersoe, & Hood, 2010). Taken together, it seems that even when the creation of a counterfactual requires little psychical effort, those who produce the counterfactual (i.e., rolled the die) will have a higher sense of ownership than those who just observed it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Provides Justification for Cheating—Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

Bassarak

Leib

Mischkowski

et al. 2017

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people can profit financially by lying, they do so to the extent to which they can justify their lies. One type of justification is the observation and production of desirable counterfactual information. Here, we disentangle observing and producing of desired counterfactuals and test whether the mere observation is sufficient or whether one actually needs to produce the information in order to justify lying. By employing a modified version of the Die‐Under‐Cup task, we ask participants to privately roll a die three times and to report the outcome of the first die roll (with higher values corresponding to higher payoffs). In all three conditions, participants produce (roll the die) and observe the first die roll, which is relevant for pay. We manipulate whether participants produce and observe versus only observe the second and third die roll outcomes, which are both irrelevant for pay. Results reveal that people lie to the same extent—when producing and observing the counterfactuals, and when merely observing them. It seems that merely observing counterfactual information is sufficient to allow people to use this information to justify their lies. We further test whether creativity and moral disengagement are associated with dishonesty and replicate the finding showing that unethical behavior increases with creativity. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Provides Justification for Cheating—Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

Bassarak

Leib

Mischkowski

et al. 2017

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Is it possible to design an experiment to disentangle first possession from related principles, such as creation and discovery? Levene, Starmans, and Friedman [18] tried to do exactly this. They tested adults by using ingenious situations that aim at illustrating an act of creation without possession.…”

Section: First Possession Is Always Mixed With Other Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The case of someone splattering paint on a board is analogous to the aforementioned cases in that they illustrate possession without physical contact; in both cases, the agent is controlling the object without touching it. In the vignettes in Levene et al 's [18] paper, even if creation is done at a physical distance, it involves object control. The agent who tosses paint against a canvas is controlling the paint, the canvas, and the resulting product with a certain intention and can be deemed as a possessor in that sense.…”

Section: First Possession Is Always Mixed With Other Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The agent who tosses paint against a canvas is controlling the paint, the canvas, and the resulting product with a certain intention and can be deemed as a possessor in that sense. If the creator is a possessor, then Levene et al 's [18] script fails to test for creation without possession, and hence the conclusion that "pure" creation trumps "pure" first possession is unwarranted. In the real world, these principles are never unmixed.…”

Section: First Possession Is Always Mixed With Other Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Young Children Use Discovery and Creation Significantly More Than Adults for Deciding Ownership

Faigenbaum

Sigman

Casiraghi

2018

Child Development Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study attempted to determine differences between children and adults in the resolution of third-party property disputes involving different claims for ownership. Children (n = 110; mean age ± SD = 6.3 ± 1.2) and adults (n = 74; 37.5 ± 12.6) watched videos depicting ownership conflicts between two characters who held opposing claims over an object and were asked to decide who should own it. In the stories, each character based her claim on one of four distinct arguments: Discovery, Creation, Occupation, and Transaction. A key difference between these claims lies in the presence or absence of a "first possession" element: Discovery and Creation imply prior possession of the discovered or created object, whereas Occupation and Transaction necessarily involve a preexisting owner. We found that children assigned ownership to prior possessors in the stories twice as much as adults (Medians = 4 and 2, out of four cases, respectively; p < 0.001) and favored discoverers and creators substantially more than adults. Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of first possession in the adjudication of ownership for both children and adults. The present study deals with first possession as instantiated in Discovery and Creation episodes and provides novel quantitative evidence that children value first possession significantly more than adults. In contrast with previous studies, we found that discovery trumps creation in certain contexts, suggesting that narrative and contextual details influence children's reasoning.

show abstract

“…Adults judge that an object may be owned if the putative owner intentionally worked to attain the object (Palamar, Le, & Friedman, 2012). In particular, if someone intentionally creates an object, he or she may be granted ownership of the object (as when works of art are created; Levene, Starmans, & Friedman, 2015).…”

Section: Article In Pressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why the designer's intended function is central for proper function assignment and artifact conceptualization: Essentialist and normative accounts

Chaigneau

Puebla

Canessa

2016

Developmental Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Creation in judgments about the establishment of ownership

Cited by 42 publications

References 40 publications

What Provides Justification for Cheating—Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

What Provides Justification for Cheating—Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

Young Children Use Discovery and Creation Significantly More Than Adults for Deciding Ownership

Why the designer's intended function is central for proper function assignment and artifact conceptualization: Essentialist and normative accounts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About