Ownership as interpersonal dominance

Rudmin, Floyd W.

Bibliographic data

Book

Document type:: Book

Collection:: POP - Possession, Ownership, Property

Title:: Ownership as interpersonal dominance: a history and three studies of the social psychology of property

Author:: Rudmin, Floyd W.

Year of publication:: 1988

Language:: English

Subject:: Besitz Eigentum Sozialpsychologie

Topic:: C - Psychology

Shelfmark:: C/R916 O9

Access:: Free access

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.48671/pop.AC14489044

‘02 assertion clustered with possession. The present study and those by Rapoport and Fillenbaum (1972) and Takane (1980) found that next closest in meaning to own, following verbs of possession and dominion, were verbs of acquisition. Clearly at the psycholinguistic level, owning entails the possession of property, dominion over it, and processes of acquisition and transfer. Judgements were more tentative and disparate concerning the importance of attachment (use, like, be used to, protect, be familiar with) to the meaning of owning. As noted earlier, Hume (1739/1962) described this feature of ownership as a product of associationistic processes. In Rudmin and Berry (1987), attachment criteria were familiarity, knowledge, aesthetics, and utility. A description of attachment to property by from a police officer describing the burgiary of his own home illustrates this point: If you're a victim, it's traumatic. You start looking at little things that were missing and you think, ‘Holy Jesus, that may only show up as $10 for insurance purposes, but it's something you used, something you’re familiar with, something that provided some memories’. (Cited in Rudmin, 1987a, p. 4) Two of the verb clusters were marginally related to the meaning of own. Stewardship seems to be socially sanctioned management and planning, based on familiarity with the property, and not intended for private benefit. There has been little discussion, if any, of stewardship in the psychological literature; however, it has always been a major part of Christian theories of property (Schlatter, 1951; Tawney, 1926). Covetousness (desire, want, need, cherish) seems to replicate the cluster of need, lack, and want found by Rapoport and Fillenbaum (1972) and.Takane (1980). Hide was the only one of the 24 verbs examined which clearly did not contribute to the meaning of own. Thus, one conclusion following from this study and the related psychologistic research is that owning entails possession, dominion, acquisition and, to a marginal degree, attachment, stewardship and covetousness. The hypothesis that owning is related to interpersonal dominance also finds support. James (1890), Cooley (1902), Isaacs (1933), Lattke (1936), and many others have reported dominance to be an important component of children’s property behavior. Laborit (1978) has provided a-biological explanation of property as an expression of dominance; Manz and Gioia (1 983) have provided a more social psychological explanation; and Study 1 provided an explanation from cultural ecology. In the present study, the Dominance trait correlated with own having more of a meaning of dominion, whereas, Abasement, the opposite trait to Dominance.

Book

Cite and reuse

Book

Image

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation