Losing what is OURS: The intergroup consequences of collective ownership threat

Collective ownership threat is the fear of losing control over what is perceived to be owned. In two experimental studies, we examined the intergroup consequences of collective ownership threat in relation to perceived owned territories. First, among a sample of Dutch adolescents (N = 227), we found that infringement of a hangout place owned by a group of friends led to more perceived collective ownership threat (and not symbolic threat), which was in turn related to more marking and anticipatory defending behavior. Second, among a sample of native Dutch adults (N = 338), we found that framing Turkish EU accession as an infringement of the collective ownership of the country led to more perceived collective ownership threat (and not symbolic and economic threat), which was in turn related to more opposition to Turkey’s possible accession. Our findings indicate that collective ownership threat is an important construct to consider in intergroup research

The Two Routes of Collective Psychological Ownership: Rights and Responsibilities Explain Intentions to Exclude Outsiders and Engage in Stewardship Behavior

People can have a sense of collective ownership of a particular territory, such as “our” country, “our” neighborhood, and “our” park. Collective psychological ownership is argued to go together with rights and responsibilities that have different behavioral implications. We found that collective psychological ownership leads to perceived determination right, and indirectly to the exclusion of outsiders from “our” place. Simultaneously, collective psychological ownership leads to perceived group responsibility, and indirectly to engagement in stewardship behavior. These results were found among Dutch adults, cross-sectionally in relation to their country (Study 1; N = 617) and a neighborhood (Study 2; N = 784), and experimentally in relation to an imaginary local park (Study 3; N = 384, Study 4; N = 502, both pre-registered). Our research shows that the feeling that a place is “ours” can, via perceived rights and responsibilities, result in both exclusionary and prosocial behavioral tendencies

Can ‘we’ share the contested territory with ‘them’? Shared territorial ownership perceptions and reconciliation intentions in Kosovo

Territorial ownership claims are central to many interethnic conflicts and can constitute an obstacle to conflict resolution and reconciliation. However, people in conflict areas might also have a perception that the territory simultaneously belongs to one’s ingroup and the rival outgroup. We expected such perceptions of shared ownership to be related to higher reconciliation intentions. We examined this expectation in relation to the territory of Kosovo among random national samples of Albanians and Serbs from Kosovo, and Serbs from Serbia (Study 1, total N = 995). In general, participants perceived low levels of shared ownership, however, shared ownership perceptions were positively related to reconciliation intentions in Kosovo. In Study 2 (total N = 375), we experimentally manipulated shared ownership (vs. ingroup ownership) and found that shared ownership elicited stronger reconciliation intentions. It is concluded that fostering a sense of shared ownership can be important for improving intergroup relations in post-conflict settings

Collective psychological ownership and territorial compensation in Australia and South Africa

Collective psychological ownership as a sense that a territory belongs to a group might explain attitudes of the White majority toward territorial compensation for Indigenous Peoples in settler societies. Ownership can be inferred from different general principles and we considered three key principles: autochthony (entitlements from first arrival), investment (entitlements from working the land), and formation (primacy of the territory in forming the collective identity). In two studies, among White Australians (Study 1, N = 475), and White South Africans (Study 2, N = 879), we investigated how support for these general principles was related to perceived ingroup (Anglo-Celtic/White South African) and outgroup (Indigenous Australian/Black South African) territorial ownership, and indirectly, to attitudes toward territorial compensation for the Indigenous outgroup. Endorsement of autochthony was related to stronger support for territorial compensation through higher perceived outgroup ownership, whereas investment was related to lower support through higher perceived ingroup ownership. Agreement with the formation principle was related to stronger support for compensation through higher outgroup ownership, and simultaneously to lower support through higher ingroup ownership

“These benefits are ours because we were here first”: relating autochthony to welfare chauvinism and welfare ethnocentrism

A substantial portion of Europeans opposes granting welfare benefits to immigrants (welfare chauvinism) and to longer-established ethnic minorities (welfare ethnocentrism). We aim to explain welfare chauvinism and welfare ethnocentrism by introducing autochthony as a novel determinant. Autochthony is the general belief in entitlements for firstcomers. Using a representative sample of British (N = 3,516) and Dutch (N = 1,241) natives, we find that autochthony indeed predicts higher welfare chauvinism, even after taking into account a great range of existing explanations. Moreover, an experiment among British natives showed that autochthony not only explains welfare chauvinism towards immigrants but also welfare ethnocentrism towards established ethnic minorities and Muslims. However, autochthony did not explain welfare ethnocentrism towards black Britons. Our findings indicate that the argument “we were here first” can help to shed light on welfare attitudes that are of growing importance in diverse Western societies

Who believes the country belongs to their ethnic ingroup? The background characteristics of 'owners' and their support for stricter immigration policies across three Western societies

We examined if ethnic majority members with different background characteristics (national identification, political orientation, gender, education, and age) differ in the perception that their ethnic group owns the country they live in, and whether this can explain their opinions about stricter immigration policies. Using nationally diverse samples of Anglo-Australian (N = 475), Dutch (N = 599), and British participants (N = 1005), we found that ownership beliefs were consistently positively associated with support for stricter immigration policies. Further, we showed that ownership beliefs were stronger among higher national identifiers, men, right-wing, lower educated (United Kingdom only), and older people (Australia only), and ownership partially accounted for these groups’ stronger endorsement of stricter immigration policies. Our study underscores the relevance of ownership beliefs as a novel construct that can explain the relation between personal background characteristics and anti-immigration stance among ethnic majority populations in Western countries

New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution.

Body fat distribution is a heritable trait and a well-established predictor of adverse metabolic outcomes, independent of overall adiposity. To increase our understanding of the genetic basis of body fat distribution and its molecular links to cardiometabolic traits, here we conduct genome-wide association meta-analyses of traits related to waist and hip circumferences in up to 224,459 individuals. We identify 49 loci (33 new) associated with waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for body mass index (BMI), and an additional 19 loci newly associated with related waist and hip circumference measures (P < 5 × 10(-8)). In total, 20 of the 49 waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI loci show significant sexual dimorphism, 19 of which display a stronger effect in women. The identified loci were enriched for genes expressed in adipose tissue and for putative regulatory elements in adipocytes. Pathway analyses implicated adipogenesis, angiogenesis, transcriptional regulation and insulin resistance as processes affecting fat distribution, providing insight into potential pathophysiological mechanisms