Central to the model of ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation is the assumption about general respect of ownership as a consequence of cooperation expectations (Boyer, Reference Boyer2022). Boyer suggests that ownership is derived from the interaction of two cognitive systems, one that handles competition for resources and another that handles anticipated cooperation. These systems are argued to account for the flexibility of people's intuitions about ownership. This flexibility in turn allows criminal agents not to be inconsistent in their ownership intuitions, but simply to not include their unethical behavior “in the range of cooperation intuitions” (Boyer, Reference Boyer2022, p. 32). As Boyer argues: “It is a familiar observation that most criminals think in terms of Us vs. Them, explicitly differentiate their world from the ‘regular’ world of their victims” (Boyer, Reference Boyer2022, p. 32).
There are two previous accounts on (im)moral behavior that we see as interestingly connected by Boyer's theoretical framework; (1) the theory of morality-as-cooperation, which argues that morality promotes cooperation (Greene, Reference Greene2015) and has evolved to solve recurrent problems of cooperation and therefore that certain moral behaviors (e.g., reciprocating, helping kin) are considered universally “good” across societies, as they facilitate cooperation (Curry, Mullins, & Whitehouse, Reference Curry, Mullins and Whitehouse2019) and (2) moral disengagement, a cognitive heuristic, which influences peoples justifications for engaging in (im)moral behavior by reducing anticipatory guilt, when individuals distance themselves from the potential consequences of their decisions and act in ways that do not involve their own identity (Bandura, Reference Bandura2017). Boyer's framework on ownership links these two accounts of moral decision-making, by identifying that ownership cognition handles cooperation versus competition problems, while at the same time allowing for some degree of flexibility between behaving ethically (vs. unethically), which in turn allows for justifications and disengagement to kick in.
A general limitation of the model is not in the perspective it presents, but rather in what it leaves out. Here, we provide a perspective on how Boyer's model of ownership could explain how and why people decide to engage in unethical behavior by using a disengagement heuristic to rationalize their unethical behavior (Shu, Gino, & Bazerman, Reference Shu, Gino and Bazerman2011), particularly when contextual cues of resource scarcity (vs. abundance) (Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe, & Otterbring, Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021a, Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021b; Elbæk, Mitkidis, Aarøe, & Otterbring, Reference Elbæk, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2022; Mitkidis et al., Reference Mitkidis, Lindeløv, Elbaek, Porubanova, Grzymala-Moszczynska and Ariely2022) and competition (vs. cooperation) (Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo, & Reade, Reference Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo and Reade2016; Schurr & Ritov, Reference Schurr and Ritov2016) are available and influence people's downstream unethical behavior. For example, if the situation is one in which resources are scarce and/or competition is high, agents may adopt a competitive maximizing mindset (Goldsmith, Roux, & Ma, Reference Goldsmith, Roux and Ma2018), making them more likely to prioritize their own interests and possessions over those of others, thus discounting the potential benefits of cooperation. Conversely, if the situation is one in which resources are abundant and/or cooperation appears beneficial, people may be more willing to share resources.
In relation to resource scarcity (vs. abundance) it should here be noted that material resource scarcity can be categorized in different states (chronic vs. acute) and types (i.e., financial, physiological, low socioeconomic status [SES]) with a recent meta-analysis stating the mixed nature of results on the impact of material scarcity on unethical behavior and finding that acute (vs. chronic) scarcity can increase unethical economic behavior (Elbaek et al., Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021a). Boyer's theoretical framework might be able to theoretically explain this finding, as acute scarcity could function as a disengagement heuristic, in turn activating competitive attitudes for scarce resources. That is, as the acute experience of scarcity can trigger a competitive mindset aimed at regaining resources in the short-term, this allows individuals to morally disengage from unethical actions as such can serve to restore resources instantly, which cooperation might not. Previous research on how competition might increase agent's propensity to engage in unethical behavior, and provides justifications for such, corroborates this hypothesis (Goldsmith et al., Reference Goldsmith, Roux and Ma2018; Kilduff et al., Reference Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo and Reade2016; Schurr & Ritov, Reference Schurr and Ritov2016).
At the same time, recent large-scale cross-cultural research, across 67 countries, on how chronic material scarcity affects moral judgment and decision-making suggests that low SES and income inequality, as forms of chronic material scarcity on the individual and macro-level, respectively, are associated with increased focus on acting according to universal moral behaviors as outlined morality-as-cooperation (e.g., reciprocating, helping kin) and increased prosocial intentions aimed toward others (i.e., donating to charities) (Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe, & Otterbring, Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021b). This line of work highlights that when resources are persistently scarce, cooperative attitudes might be activated to deal with the chronic form of scarcity, as cooperation can aid in generating better outcomes for resource-deprived individuals. This concurs with previous research on how chronically resource-deprived individuals increase their social orientation and act less individualistic in contexts of resource scarcity, as an adaptation to harsh environments substantiates this hypothesis (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, Reference Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt and Keltner2012; Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, Reference Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng and Keltner2010).
In sum, we propose that Boyer's (Reference Boyer2022) model of ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation can aid in further understanding inconsistencies in the current state-of-the art on how experiences of resource scarcity might influence people's propensity to either engage in immoral behaviors (e.g., stealing resources) or cooperative behaviors (e.g., sharing resources). That is, acute resource scarcity can highlight competition and in turn probe the activation of a maximizing mindset (Goldsmith et al., Reference Goldsmith, Roux and Ma2018), which can lead individuals to morally disengage from unethical actions aimed at regaining resources (Elbaek et al., Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021a, Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021b), while chronic resource scarcity can probe cooperative behaviors, because agents can observe that such investments can aid prospective resource acquisition.
Yet further work is needed in the field of psychology of scarcity and behavioral ethics, exploring, for example, how different states (chronic vs. acute) or forms (financial scarcity, physiological scarcity, and lower social class) of resource scarcity interact with ownership intuitions and correspond to different behavioral outcomes. We believe it is worth expanding on possible interactions of the formal model's predictive outcomes, to propose both theoretical and practical recommendations for future research and policy making.
Central to the model of ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation is the assumption about general respect of ownership as a consequence of cooperation expectations (Boyer, Reference Boyer2022). Boyer suggests that ownership is derived from the interaction of two cognitive systems, one that handles competition for resources and another that handles anticipated cooperation. These systems are argued to account for the flexibility of people's intuitions about ownership. This flexibility in turn allows criminal agents not to be inconsistent in their ownership intuitions, but simply to not include their unethical behavior “in the range of cooperation intuitions” (Boyer, Reference Boyer2022, p. 32). As Boyer argues: “It is a familiar observation that most criminals think in terms of Us vs. Them, explicitly differentiate their world from the ‘regular’ world of their victims” (Boyer, Reference Boyer2022, p. 32).
There are two previous accounts on (im)moral behavior that we see as interestingly connected by Boyer's theoretical framework; (1) the theory of morality-as-cooperation, which argues that morality promotes cooperation (Greene, Reference Greene2015) and has evolved to solve recurrent problems of cooperation and therefore that certain moral behaviors (e.g., reciprocating, helping kin) are considered universally “good” across societies, as they facilitate cooperation (Curry, Mullins, & Whitehouse, Reference Curry, Mullins and Whitehouse2019) and (2) moral disengagement, a cognitive heuristic, which influences peoples justifications for engaging in (im)moral behavior by reducing anticipatory guilt, when individuals distance themselves from the potential consequences of their decisions and act in ways that do not involve their own identity (Bandura, Reference Bandura2017). Boyer's framework on ownership links these two accounts of moral decision-making, by identifying that ownership cognition handles cooperation versus competition problems, while at the same time allowing for some degree of flexibility between behaving ethically (vs. unethically), which in turn allows for justifications and disengagement to kick in.
A general limitation of the model is not in the perspective it presents, but rather in what it leaves out. Here, we provide a perspective on how Boyer's model of ownership could explain how and why people decide to engage in unethical behavior by using a disengagement heuristic to rationalize their unethical behavior (Shu, Gino, & Bazerman, Reference Shu, Gino and Bazerman2011), particularly when contextual cues of resource scarcity (vs. abundance) (Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe, & Otterbring, Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021a, Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021b; Elbæk, Mitkidis, Aarøe, & Otterbring, Reference Elbæk, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2022; Mitkidis et al., Reference Mitkidis, Lindeløv, Elbaek, Porubanova, Grzymala-Moszczynska and Ariely2022) and competition (vs. cooperation) (Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo, & Reade, Reference Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo and Reade2016; Schurr & Ritov, Reference Schurr and Ritov2016) are available and influence people's downstream unethical behavior. For example, if the situation is one in which resources are scarce and/or competition is high, agents may adopt a competitive maximizing mindset (Goldsmith, Roux, & Ma, Reference Goldsmith, Roux and Ma2018), making them more likely to prioritize their own interests and possessions over those of others, thus discounting the potential benefits of cooperation. Conversely, if the situation is one in which resources are abundant and/or cooperation appears beneficial, people may be more willing to share resources.
In relation to resource scarcity (vs. abundance) it should here be noted that material resource scarcity can be categorized in different states (chronic vs. acute) and types (i.e., financial, physiological, low socioeconomic status [SES]) with a recent meta-analysis stating the mixed nature of results on the impact of material scarcity on unethical behavior and finding that acute (vs. chronic) scarcity can increase unethical economic behavior (Elbaek et al., Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021a). Boyer's theoretical framework might be able to theoretically explain this finding, as acute scarcity could function as a disengagement heuristic, in turn activating competitive attitudes for scarce resources. That is, as the acute experience of scarcity can trigger a competitive mindset aimed at regaining resources in the short-term, this allows individuals to morally disengage from unethical actions as such can serve to restore resources instantly, which cooperation might not. Previous research on how competition might increase agent's propensity to engage in unethical behavior, and provides justifications for such, corroborates this hypothesis (Goldsmith et al., Reference Goldsmith, Roux and Ma2018; Kilduff et al., Reference Kilduff, Galinsky, Gallo and Reade2016; Schurr & Ritov, Reference Schurr and Ritov2016).
At the same time, recent large-scale cross-cultural research, across 67 countries, on how chronic material scarcity affects moral judgment and decision-making suggests that low SES and income inequality, as forms of chronic material scarcity on the individual and macro-level, respectively, are associated with increased focus on acting according to universal moral behaviors as outlined morality-as-cooperation (e.g., reciprocating, helping kin) and increased prosocial intentions aimed toward others (i.e., donating to charities) (Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe, & Otterbring, Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021b). This line of work highlights that when resources are persistently scarce, cooperative attitudes might be activated to deal with the chronic form of scarcity, as cooperation can aid in generating better outcomes for resource-deprived individuals. This concurs with previous research on how chronically resource-deprived individuals increase their social orientation and act less individualistic in contexts of resource scarcity, as an adaptation to harsh environments substantiates this hypothesis (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, Reference Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt and Keltner2012; Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, Reference Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng and Keltner2010).
In sum, we propose that Boyer's (Reference Boyer2022) model of ownership psychology as a cognitive adaptation can aid in further understanding inconsistencies in the current state-of-the art on how experiences of resource scarcity might influence people's propensity to either engage in immoral behaviors (e.g., stealing resources) or cooperative behaviors (e.g., sharing resources). That is, acute resource scarcity can highlight competition and in turn probe the activation of a maximizing mindset (Goldsmith et al., Reference Goldsmith, Roux and Ma2018), which can lead individuals to morally disengage from unethical actions aimed at regaining resources (Elbaek et al., Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021a, Reference Elbaek, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Otterbring2021b), while chronic resource scarcity can probe cooperative behaviors, because agents can observe that such investments can aid prospective resource acquisition.
Yet further work is needed in the field of psychology of scarcity and behavioral ethics, exploring, for example, how different states (chronic vs. acute) or forms (financial scarcity, physiological scarcity, and lower social class) of resource scarcity interact with ownership intuitions and correspond to different behavioral outcomes. We believe it is worth expanding on possible interactions of the formal model's predictive outcomes, to propose both theoretical and practical recommendations for future research and policy making.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interest
None.