English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Think of the word ownership. What does it mean? For most people that we encounter our students in particular, initial thoughts focus on ownership in terms of having, holding, and belonging to oneself. Ownership is a legal right of possession. This emphasis upon the word ‘right’ expands, such that ownership can be seen as entailing a ‘bundle of rights’ relating to control over, information pertaining to, and a fi nancial stake in the target of ownership (that is, rights to a ‘piece of the rock’). These three rights are commonly associated with and are the most often recognized in modern societies as to the meaning of ownership. Upon refl ection, it is common for us to express our relationship with objects by employing the personal and possessive pronouns, such as – mine, my, ours, and theirs. In recognition of this mindset, Heider (1958) wrote that ‘attitudes of ownership’ are common among people. Similarly, it was Etzioni (1991, p. 466) who commented that ownership is a ‘dual creation, part attitude, part object, part in the mind, part “real”.’ These views are consistent with the thesis, off ered by economic psychologist Leon Litwinski (1942) and social psychologist Lita Furby (1991), that a ‘psychology of mine and property attaches itself to objects.’ As a psychological state, the existence of ownership is present within the individual, it attaches to objects that may or may not be owned legally, and its accompanying rights and responsibilities are defi ned by the individual and not the legal system. Taking a ride ‘back in time’ reveals that the meaning of ownership varied dramatically dependent on time and place. The works of Rudmin (1999) and Dittmar (1992), among others, point out that there has been little consensus on the ‘true basis of ownership.’ Classical philosophers, drawing arguments from both religion and politics, debated whether ownership should be conceptualized as private or common, and whether it should be treated as primarily objective or subjective phenomenon (cf. Rudmin, 19991). While taking a neutral stance to these debates, we note that there appears to be widespread agreement that it is common

Life’s Ownership Experiences: An Introduction to Psychological Ownership