E 
owned and not owned exemplars. The difference scores 
between each subject's mean criteria applicability for owned 
things minus the mean applicability for things not owned was 
used to reduce the influence of any extraneous selection 
criteria. Finally, by way of comparison, explicit 
judgements were made of the criteria of ownership 
themselves. Summaries of the four. judgement schemes in 
Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 show that criteria were quantitatively 
differentiated at the top and at the bottom of each criteria 
rank ordering, with a groups of relatively undifferentiated 
criteria in the middle. These upper and lower groupings will 
be discussed for each measurement scheme. 
For the judgements of the applicability of criteria to 
exemplars of owned things displayed in Table 6, Possession 
was almost always completely applicable. On only eight of 
1200 items listed as owned was Possession judged to be not 
applicable. Those items were: watch, passport, ‘van, 
cookbooks, bicycle (twice) and microwave (twice). There is 
nothing noteworthy about these items, and presumably the 
non-applicability of Possession had to do with the items 
being absent, loaned, or perhaps stolen. It is also 
important to note that subjects claimed possession of such 
items as houses, cottages, cars, and investments. Thus, 
possession: "I've got it" was not being interpreted in the 
restricted sense of having something in hand or even near