The Two Routes of Collective Psychological Ownership: Rights and Responsibilities Explain Intentions to Exclude Outsiders and Engage in Stewardship Behavior

People can have a sense of collective ownership of a particular territory, such as "our" country, "our" neighborhood, and "our" park. Collective psychological ownership is argued to go together with rights and responsibilities that have different behavioral implications. We found that collective psychological ownership leads to perceived determination right, and indirectly to the exclusion of outsiders from "our" place. Simultaneously, collective psychological ownership leads to perceived group responsibility, and indirectly to engagement in stewardship behavior. These results were found among Dutch adults, cross-sectionally in relation to their country (Study 1; N = 617) and a neighborhood (Study 2; N = 784), and experimentally in relation to an imaginary local park (Study 3; N = 384, Study 4; N = 502, both pre-registered). Our research shows that the feeling that a place is "ours" can, via perceived rights and responsibilities, result in both exclusionary and prosocial behavioral tendencies.

Collective psychological ownership as a new angle for understanding group dynamics

Even without legal ownership, groups can experience objects, places, and ideas as belonging to them ('ours'). This state of mind-collective psychological ownership-is understudied in social psychology, yet it is central to many intergroup conflicts and stewardship behaviour. We discuss our research on the psychological processes and social-psychological implications of collective psychological ownership. We studied territorial ownership, in different parts of the world and at different geographical levels, offering not only a cross-national but also conceptual replication of the processes. Our findings show that collective psychological ownership is inferred based on primo-occupancy, investment, and formation. Further, we demonstrate that collective psychological ownership can have positive intragroup and negative intergroup outcomes, which are guided by perceived group responsibility and exclusive determination right. We then discuss ownership threat (losing what is 'ours'), and we consider the role of group identification in ownership-related processes. We conclude by providing directions for future research.

When they want to take away what is “ours”: Collective ownership threat and negative reactions towards refugees

People can display negative reactions towards those who challenge their sense of psychological ownership. We tested whether natives would show negativity towards refugees upon perceiving collective ownership threat (COT)—the fear of losing control over a territory that is perceived to be “ours”—in the context of mass immigration (Syrian refugees in Turkey; total N = 1,598). Correlational Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated COT to be associated with intolerance and negative reactions towards refugees through negative intergroup emotions (anger specifically). Preregistered experimental studies demonstrated that while there was no causal effect of COT in neighborhoods with relatively high refugee concentration (Study 3a), COT decreased outgroup tolerance and increased defensive reactions towards Syrian refugees via outgroup anger among a more general community sample (Study 3b). The wider intergroup implications of the fear of losing one’s sense of territorial ownership are discussed.

Support for Conciliatory Policies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Role of Different Modes of Identification and Territorial Ownership Perceptions

Understanding people’s attitudes toward conciliatory policies in territorial interethnic conflicts is important for a peaceful conflict resolution. We argue that ingroup identification in combination with the largely understudied territorial ownership perceptions can help us explain attitudes toward conciliatory policies. We consider two different aspects of ingroup identification—attachment to one’s ethnic ingroup as well as ingroup superiority. Furthermore, we suggest that perceptions of ingroup and outgroup ownership of the territory can serve as important mechanisms that link the different forms of ingroup identification with conciliatory policies. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among Israeli Jews (N = 1,268), we found that ingroup superiority, but not attachment, was negatively related to conciliatory policies. This relationship was explained by lower outgroup (but not by higher ingroup) ownership perceptions of the territory. Our findings highlight the relevance of studying ingroup superiority as a particularly relevant dimension of identification that represents a barrier to acknowledging outgroup’s territorial ownership, and is thus indirectly related to less support for conciliatory policies in intergroup conflict settings.

Collective Psychological Ownership and Territorial Compensation in Australia and South Africa

Collective psychological ownership as a sense that a territory belongs to a group might explain attitudes of the White majority toward territorial compensation for Indigenous Peoples in settler societies. Ownership can be inferred from different general principles and we considered three key principles: autochthony (entitlements from first arrival), investment (entitlements from working the land), and formation (primacy of the territory in forming the collective identity). In two studies, among White Australians (Study 1, N = 475), and White South Africans (Study 2, N = 879), we investigated how support for these general principles was related to perceived ingroup (Anglo-Celtic/White South African) and outgroup (Indigenous Australian/Black South African) territorial ownership, and indirectly, to attitudes toward territorial compensation for the Indigenous outgroup. Endorsement of autochthony was related to stronger support for territorial compensation through higher perceived outgroup ownership, whereas investment was related to lower support through higher perceived ingroup ownership. Agreement with the formation principle was related to stronger support for compensation through higher outgroup ownership, and simultaneously to lower support through higher ingroup ownership.

Can 'we' share the contested territory with 'them'? Shared territorial ownership perceptions and reconciliation intentions in Kosovo

Territorial ownership claims are central to many interethnic conflicts and can constitute an obstacle to conflict resolution and reconciliation. However, people in conflict areas might also have a perception that the territory simultaneously belongs to one’s ingroup and the rival outgroup. We expected such perceptions of shared ownership to be related to higher reconciliation intentions. We examined this expectation in relation to the territory of Kosovo among random national samples of Albanians and Serbs from Kosovo, and Serbs from Serbia (Study 1, total N = 995). In general, participants perceived low levels of shared ownership, however, shared ownership perceptions were positively related to reconciliation intentions in Kosovo. In Study 2 (total N = 375), we experimentally manipulated shared ownership (vs. ingroup ownership) and found that shared ownership elicited stronger reconciliation intentions. It is concluded that fostering a sense of shared ownership can be important for improving intergroup relations in post‐conflict settings.

'This country is OURS': The exclusionary potential of collective psychological ownership

Political campaign slogans, such as ‘Take back control of our country’ (United Kingdom Independence Party) and ‘The Netherlands ours again’ (Dutch Party for Freedom), indicate that right‐wing populism appeals to the belief that the country is ‘ours’, and therefore, ‘we’ have the exclusive right to determine what happens. We examined this sense of ownership of the country (i.e. collective psychological ownership [CPO]) with the related determination right in relation to exclusionary attitudes and voting behaviour. Among Dutch (Study 1, N = 572) and British (Study 2, N = 495) participants, we found that CPO explained anti‐immigrant and anti‐EU attitudes, and these attitudes in turn accounted for voting ‘leave’ in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the British sample (Study 2). Additionally, CPO was more strongly related to negative immigrant attitudes among right‐wing Dutch participants, whereas it was more strongly related to negative EU attitudes and voting ‘leave’ among left‐wing British participants. CPO contributes to the understanding of critical contemporary social attitudes and political behaviour.