Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-4kfsg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T03:07:02.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A developmental perspective on the minimalist model: The case of respect for ownership

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2023

Peter R. Blake Open the ORCID record for Peter R. Blake [Opens in a new window]
Peter R. Blake*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA pblake@bu.edu; www.bu.edu/sdll
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The developmental evidence for children's respect for ownership reveals that children will enforce the property rights of third parties before they themselves respect other's property. This pattern of development suggests the need for clarification or modification of the minimalist model. Here, I consider three explanations for the gap between knowledge and behavior for respect of ownership.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e328
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J. R. (1982). Social rules governing object conflicts in toddlers and preschoolers. In Rubin, K. H. & Ross, H. S. (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood (pp. 99–111). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8180-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K., & Warneken, F. (2014). The developmental origins of fairness: The knowledge-behavior gap. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 559–561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, D. W., Fein, G. G., Killen, M., & Tam, H. P. (2001). Peer conflicts of preschool children: Issues, resolution, incidence, and age-related patterns. Early Education and Development, 12(4), 523–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davoodi, T., Nelson, L. J., & Blake, P. R. (2020). Children's conceptions of ownership for self and other: Categorical ownership versus strength of claim. Child Development, 91, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, D. F., Paine, A. L., Perra, O., Cook, K. V., Hashmi, S., Robinson, C., … Slade, R. (2021). Prosocial and aggressive behavior: A longitudinal study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 86(2), 7–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, M., Gummerum, M., Canz, T., Gigerenzer, G., & Takezawa, M. (2013). The is and ought of sharing: The equality heuristic across the lifespan. In Simple heuristics in a social world (pp. 171–195). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Licht, B., Simoni, H., & Perrig-Chiello, P. (2008). Conflict between peers in infancy and toddler age: What do they fight about? Early Years, 28(3), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesowski, M. L., Kanngiesser, P., & Friedman, O. (2019). Give and take: Ownership affects how 2-and 3-year-olds allocate resources. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 185, 214–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Putallaz, M., & Sheppard, B. H. (1990). Social status and children's orientations to limited resources. Child Development, 61(6), 2022–2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Young children's understanding of violations of property rights. Cognition, 121(2), 219–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shantz, C. U. (1987). Conflicts between children. Child Development, 58, 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. E., Blake, P. R., & Harris, P. L. (2013). I should but I won't: Why young children endorse norms of fair sharing but do not follow them. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e59510.Google ScholarPubMed
Steinbeis, N., & Over, H. (2017). Enhancing behavioral control increases sharing in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 159, 310–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed