An interesting study published in Cognition shows that toddlers have an inherent concept of property. Furthermore, it seems that they base it specifically on first possession and trade. Interesting…
In an initial study, children aged between two and four were told a simple story about a boy and a girl playing with a toy, after which they were asked to say who owned the toy. If the story described the girl as playing with the toy first, then the children tended to say she owned the toy, and vice versa if the boy was described as playing with the toy first.
But what if the children were simply attributing ownership to whichever person was first associated with the toy, rather than in possession of it? A further experiment involved telling the children that the girl likes the toy, and then that the boy likes the toy. However, in this case, the children were no more likely to say the girl owned the toy than the boy did, even though the girl had been associated with the toy first (the same was true with the sexes reversed).
Finally, Friedman and Neary wanted to see how easily the first possession rule could be overcome in the context of gift giving. When the young children were told that the boy has a ball which he then gives to the girl as a present, they still tended to say that the boy owns the ball (the reverse being true if the story began with the girl in possession). However, when the gift giving was made more explicit (a wrapped present on the girl’s birthday), then the first possession rule was broken, and the young children correctly realised that the girl now owned the gift.




![Validate my RSS feed [Valid RSS]](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a339/Franc28/valid-rss.png)






Fortunately we are not children… oh, wait… nevermind.
By: Mike Gogulski on November 16 2008
at 20:35
Nobody asked the kids’ parents who held title?
By: Bob Kaercher on November 19 2008
at 18:21
What are you talking about.
By: Francois Tremblay on November 19 2008
at 18:41
I also recently heard some mention of a study about how people tended to respect an empty chair simply because of a coat on the back or some sign of use…for hours and even days, I think. Whenever some property theory wonk wants to get into hard and fast rules, I really just want to throw up my hands and say “People will work it out!”. They also like to couch every scenario like we are all thieves foaming at the mouth without asking why someone might be a thief (lack of opportunity anyone?) There is a tremendous amount of common sense around property and the semiotics of mine and thine.
By: neverfox on November 20 2008
at 16:59
I should add that this seems to show that toddlers know the parts of property meta-theory related to initial ownership and exchange of ownership but not the third aspect: the transition from owned to unowned or abandonment. Technically, mutualist property only differs from Lockean at the third aspect so the title presumes too much perhaps.
That said, I’d like to see experiments about abandonment and absentee owners.
By: neverfox on November 20 2008
at 17:08
Interesting study, but I’m confused as to how the toddlers’ understanding of property reflects mutualism.
By: incarnadine256 on November 21 2008
at 20:16