Boyer proposes a cooperative/competitive framework to understand ownership, arguing that ownership intuitions are derived from competing cognitive systems grappling with the need to allocate resources across people in a society. The idea that cooperation and competition serve as drivers of ownership (legal, psychological, and perceived) brings to light an underexplored area of research on ownership: disagreements in ownership. Indeed, despite the growing literature on what gives rise to perceptions or feelings of ownership, there has been relatively little attention given to understanding what can lead to disagreements in ownership beliefs.

Broadly speaking, ownership can be studied in three forms: legal or “rightful” ownership, psychological ownership, or perceptions of ownership. Legal ownership is based on property rights and liabilities recognized by the law and enforced by the government (Honoré, Reference Honoré and Coleman2013). Ownership beliefs refer to perceptions about who owns something. They can be informed by legal ownership but are also shaped by factors such as social norms, cultural expectations, and possession (Friedman, Reference Friedman2008). Finally, psychological ownership refers to the feelings of ownership that a person experiences over a target. Although psychological ownership shares some similarities with ownership beliefs, psychological ownership is typically conceptualized as the extent to which someone feels ownership over a given target rather than a judgment about which entity owns a given target (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, Reference Pierce, Kostova and Dirks2001).

Research exploring ownership beliefs and psychological ownership has examined factors that contribute positively to ownership beliefs across the lifespan (e.g., Friedman & Neary, Reference Friedman and Neary2008; Norton, Mochon, & Ariely, Reference Norton, Mochon and Ariely2012; Palamar, Le, & Friedman, Reference Palamar, Le and Friedman2012; Peck & Shu, Reference Peck and Shu2009; Pesowski, Nancekivell, Tasimi, & Friedman, Reference Pesowski, Nancekivell, Tasimi and Friedman2022; Pierce et al., Reference Pierce, Kostova and Dirks2001; Ross, Friedman, & Field, Reference Ross, Friedman and Field2015). Notably, these factors can range from simple physical interactions with an object to more complex psychological experiences. Researchers have also examined the consequences of ownership such that ownership, or beliefs of ownership, increase valuations of what is deemed to be owned (e.g., Atasoy & Morewedge, Reference Atasoy and Morewedge2018; Beggan, Reference Beggan1992; Thaler, Reference Thaler1980), positively influence stewardship over what is deemed to be owned (e.g., Peck, Kirk, Luangrath, & Shu, Reference Peck, Kirk, Luangrath and Shu2021; Preston & Gelman, Reference Preston and Gelman2020), and increase interest in obtaining and using resources with higher perceptions of ownership (e.g., De La Rosa, Sharma, Tully, Giannella, & Rino, Reference De La Rosa, Sharma, Tully, Giannella and Rino2021; Sharma, Tully, & Cryder, Reference Sharma, Tully and Cryder2021). Missing from the current knowledge are factors that lead to disagreements in ownership perceptions, and the consequences of those disagreements.

It is important to explore and understand the factors that influence disagreements in ownership as disagreements over ownership can have far-reaching consequences and can cause conflicts in a variety of contexts, including personal relationships, between organizations, or even between nations. For example, after Prince died in 2016, various parties claimed ownership over his assets and intellectual property. The legal disputes between Prince's family members over the estate caused significant strife within the family (Carlson, Reference Carlson2021). Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. serve as an example of the consequences of ownership disagreements between organizations. Disputes about ownership of product design between these companies led to a significant, long-running legal battle with estimated costs running into the hundreds of millions of dollars (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., 2016). Finally, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is just one example of the consequences of disagreements in ownership between nations. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, a region in Ukraine; however, Ukraine and many Western countries consider the annexation to be illegal and claim that Crimea is part of Ukrainian territory. This disagreement over land ownership has since escalated into a larger war and remains a source of ongoing disagreement and conflict. These examples highlight that disagreements about ownership can lead to disputes, which can escalate into larger conflicts and can cause harm to individuals and communities.

Understanding the underlying factors that contribute to disagreements over ownership may help prevent conflicts, promote social harmony, build trust and cooperation, and foster positive relationships between individuals, communities, and nations. Moreover, understanding the factors that contribute to disagreements over perceptions of ownership can also inform policy-making and legal decisions. By accounting for the subjective and cultural dimensions of ownership, it may be possible to design and implement more effective policies and legal frameworks that recognize the diversity of ownership experiences and promote equitable outcomes.

Boyer's cooperative/competitive framework should thus encourage researchers to rethink the existing approaches to studying ownership. Indeed, if we think about cooperation and competition as the source of ownership intuitions, factors that lead to disagreements in perceptions of ownership should be just as, if not more important than, agreements in perceptions of ownership. Disagreements may be with respect to whether a target can be owned. Disagreements may also occur across types of ownership, such as when one's perceptions of ownership do not match their legal ownership status. Finally, disagreements may also be within a specific type of ownership, such as when two individuals differ with respect to perceptions of ownership over a specific target. It is important to note, however, that not all “disagreements” will lead to conflict. For example, an artist may feel psychological ownership over a piece of art they have sold to a buyer while recognizing that they are not the legal owner, and this discrepancy may not lead to negative conflict even if the buyer feels a similar level of psychological ownership over the artwork.

The likelihood of disagreements over ownership may, in part, be predictable. We suspect that this likelihood may be greater for targets of ownership that are intangible since physical possession cues may be more difficult to ascertain for these targets. Similarly, we believe that ownership disagreements are more likely to arise when individuals, organizations, or nations lack similar cultural norms and beliefs, albeit which norms or beliefs are most critical remains unknown. Thus, we strongly encourage researchers and scholars to more seriously consider the role of disagreement in ownership, and appreciate the framework provided by Boyer for bringing this dearth of research to the forefront.