1932

Abstract

Our social norms and moral values shape our beliefs about the propriety of different types of market exchanges. This review considers social and moral influences on beliefs about property and the consequences of these beliefs for the legal regulation of property. The focus is mainly on empirical evidence from social psychology, with additions from related areas like cognitive psychology, behavioral economics, and other social sciences. After briefly reviewing empirical findings on perceptions of property at the level of the individual person, I examine how social relationships shape perceptions about ownership and exchange of property, as well as the boundaries of the broad category of property. Finally, I explore one important type of socially embedded property—the home—and how social psychological conceptions of property as embedded in social relationships have clashed with the development of the legal doctrine of eminent domain.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113627
2018-10-13
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/14/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113627.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113627&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ackerman BA 1980. Four questions for legal theory. Nomos 22:351–75
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Banner S 2011. American Property Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  3. Barros DB 2005. Home as a legal concept. Santa Clara Law Rev 46:255–306
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaton A, Cook M, Kavanagh M, Herrington C 2000. The psychological impact of burglary. Psychol. Crime Law 6:133–43
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Becker GS 1991. A Treatise on the Family Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  6. Belk RW 1988. Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res. 15:2139–68
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blumenthal JA 2002. Law and social science in the twenty-first century. South. Calif. Interdiscip. Law J. 12:1–53
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blumenthal JA 2009. To be human: a psychological perspective on property law. Tulane Law Rev 83:609–44
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blumenthal JA 2010. Property law: a cognitive turn. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 17:2186–91
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A 2012. Salience in experimental tests of the endowment effect. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:347–52
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brenner L, Rottenstreich Y, Sood S, Bilgin B 2007. On the psychology of loss aversion: possession, valence, and reversals of the endowment effect. J. Consum. Res. 34:3369–76
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Buccafusco C, Sprigman C 2010. Valuing intellectual property: an experiment. Cornell Law Rev 96:1–46
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Buccafusco C, Sprigman CJ 2011. The creativity effect symposium: the licensing of intellectual property. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 78:31–52
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Burke MA 2006. Much ado about nothing: Kelo v. City of New London, Babbitt v. Sweet Home, and other tales from the Supreme Court. Univ. Cincinnati Law Rev. 75:663–724
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bushong B, King LM, Camerer CF, Rangel A 2010. Pavlovian processes in consumer choice: The physical presence of a good increases willingness-to-pay. Am. Econ. Rev. 100:41556–71
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Calabresi G, Melamed AD 1972. Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: one view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Rev 85:61089–128
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Carmon Z, Ariely D 2000. Focusing on the forgone: how value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. J. Consum. Res. 27:3360–70
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Coase RH 1960. The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3:1–44
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Conway H, Stannard J 2016. Property and emotions. Emot. Rev. 8:138–43
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cooper C 2014. The house as a symbol of the self. The People, Place, and Space Reader JJ Gieseking, W Mangold 168–72 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cunningham SJ, Turk DJ, MacDonald LM, Macrae CN 2008. Yours or mine? Ownership and memory. Conscious. Cogn. 17:1312–18
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Curasi CF, Price LL, Arnould EJ 2004. How individuals’ cherished possessions become families’ inalienable wealth. J. Consum. Res. 31:3609–22
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dana D, Merrill TW 2002. Property: Takings New York: Foundation
  24. Demsetz H 1967. Toward a theory of property rights. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 57:347–59
    [Google Scholar]
  25. DeScioli P, Karpoff R 2015. People's judgments about classic property law cases. Hum. Nat. 26:2184–209
    [Google Scholar]
  26. DeScioli P, Rosa NM, Gutchess AH 2015. A memory advantage for property. Evol. Psychol. 13:2411–23
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ellickson RC 1973. Alternatives to zoning: covenants, nuisance rules, and fines as land use controls. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 40:4681–781
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Espeland WN, Stevens ML 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24:1313–43
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fennell LA 2004. Taking eminent domain apart. Mich. State Law Rev. 2004:957–1004
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Festinger L 1962. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  31. Fiske AP 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychol. Rev. 99:4689–723
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fiske AP, Tetlock PE 1997. Taboo trade-offs: reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Political Psychol 18:2255–97
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Friedman O 2008. First possession: an assumption guiding inferences about who owns what. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15:2290–95
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Friedman O, Neary KR 2008. First possession beyond the law: adults’ and young children's intuitions about ownership. Tulane Law Rev 83:679
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Garnett NS 2007. Planning as public use symposium: litigating takings. Ecol. Law Q. 34:443–70
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Holmes OW 1897. The path of the law. Harvard Law Rev 10:457–78
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnson EJ, Haubl G, Keinan A 2007. Aspects of endowment: a query theory of value construction. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 33:3461–74
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jones JD 2011. Property and personhood revisited. Wake Forest J. Law Policy 1:93–136
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kacelnik A, Marsh B 2002. Cost can increase preference in starlings. Anim. Behav. 63:2245–50
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kanngiesser P, Hood B 2014. Not by labor alone: considerations for value influence use of the labor rule in ownership transfers. Cogn. Sci. 38:2353–66
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kaplow L, Shavell S 1996. Property rules versus liability rules: an economic analysis. Harvard Law Rev 109:4713–90
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 2005.
  43. Kleine SS, Kleine RE, Allen CT 1995. How is a possession “me” or “not me”? Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession attachment. J. Consum. Res. 22:3327–43
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Knetsch JL 1989. The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. Am. Econ. Rev. 79:51277–84
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Korobkin RB, Ulen TS 2000. Law and behavioral science: removing the rationality assumption from law and economics. Calif. Law Rev. 88:41051–144
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Krier JE, Serkin C 2004. Public ruses. Mich. State Law Rev. 2004:859–76
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ledgerwood A, Liviatan I, Carnevale PJ 2007. Group-identity completion and the symbolic value of property. Psychol. Sci. 18:10873–78
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Levene M, Starmans C, Friedman O 2015. Creation in judgments about the establishment of ownership. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 60:Suppl. C103–9
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Locke J 2003 (1690). Two Treatises of Government New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  50. Maguire M 1980. The impact of burglary upon victims. Br. J. Criminol. 20:261–75
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Markell D, Tyler T, Brosnan SF 2012. What has love got to do with it—sentimental attachments and legal decision-making. Villanova Law Rev 57:209–60
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Marris P 1986. Loss and Change New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul
  53. McGraw AP, Tetlock PE 2005. Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges. J. Consum. Psychol. 15:12–15
    [Google Scholar]
  54. McGraw AP, Tetlock PE, Kristel OV 2003. The limits of fungibility: relational schemata and the value of things. J. Consum. Res. 30:2219–29
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Merrill TW 1986. Economics of public use. Cornell Law Rev. 72:61–116
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Metcalf C 2014. Property law culture: public law, private preferences and the psychology of expropriation. Queen's Law J. 39:2685–732
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Milligan MJ 1998. Interactional past and potential: the social construction of place attachment. Symb. Interact. 21:11–33
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Nadler J, Diamond SS 2008. Eminent domain and the psychology of property rights: proposed use, subjective attachment, and taker identity. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 5:4713–49
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Nadler J, Diamond SS, Patton MM 2008. Government takings of private property. Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy by N Persily, J Citrin, PJ Egan 286–309 Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Nash JR 2008. Packaging property: the effect of paradigmatic framing of property rights. Tulane Law Rev. 83:691–734
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Nash JR, Stern SM 2009. Property frames. Wash. Univ. Law Rev. 87:449–504
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Northcraft GB, Neale MA 1987. Experts, amateurs, and real estate: an anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 39:184–97
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Norton MI, Mochon D, Ariely D 2012. The IKEA effect: when labor leads to love. J. Consum. Psychol. 22:3453–60
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Peck J, Shu SB 2009. The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. J. Consum. Res. 36:3434–47
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT 2003. The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 7:184–107
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Price LL, Arnould EJ, Curasi CF 2000. Older consumers’ disposition of special possessions. J. Consum. Res. 27:2179–201
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Radin MJ 1982. Property and personhood. Stanford Law Rev 34:957–1015
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Reb J, Connolly T 2007. Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgm. Decis. Mak. J. 2:2107–14
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Rudmin FW 1988. A history and a cross-cultural study of motivations for private property. Behav. Sci. Res. 22:1–4i–xiii
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Sax JL 2005. Kelo: a case rightly decided symposium: federalism issues following Kelo v. City of New London. Univ. Hawai'i Law Rev. 28:365–72
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Shoked N 2014. The duty to maintain. Duke Law J 64:3437–513
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Spellman BA, Schauer F 2008. Artists’ moral rights and the psychology of ownership. Tulane Law Rev 83:661–78
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Stern SM 2008. Residential protectionism and the legal mythology of home. Mich. Law Rev. 107:1093–144
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Tetlock PE 2003. Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7:7320–24
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Tetlock PE, Kristel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS 2000. The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78:5853–70
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Underkuffler LS 2003. The Idea of Property: Its Meaning and Power Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113627
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error