认知与发展心理学研究室知识库

所有权包括法律所有权和心理所有权。心理所有权是一种心理状态，即个人感觉目标物体或者目标物体的一部分好像是他/她的一样。儿童所有权的认知是其社会认知的重要组成部分。之前有关儿童所有权认知的很多研究主要集中在西方国家，针对中国儿童的研究很少。我国的所有制结构和社会文化均不同于西方，这可能导致儿童在对所有权进行判断时也不同于西方儿童。本研究在以往研究的基础上，对中国儿童的所有权理解进行研究。

研究一以中国的3岁、5岁、7岁儿童和成人为被试，通过故事法考察了在付出劳动和第一占有者发生冲突的情况下，儿童对所有权的归属判断。结果表明，当付出劳动和第一占有者发生冲突时，不同年龄儿童和成人在判断所有权归属时是有所不同的，并且会受到付出劳动是否得到第一占有者许可的影响。这主要体现在3岁幼儿和成人的所有权判断上。成人在未经第一占有者许可条件下更倾向于判断经过劳动者改造的物品仍属于第一占有者，而3岁幼儿在未经第一占有者许可条件下对劳动者和第一占有者的支持无显著差异，但是在得到第一占有者许可条件下对劳动者和第一占有者的支持有显著差异，更认为第一占有者应该占有改造过的物品。这说明，3岁幼儿能够考虑是否得到他人许可这一线索，这会导致他们在没有他人许可条件时更多地考虑付出劳动对所有权归属的作用。3岁幼儿和成人对许可线索的不同表征可能是产生这一结果的主要原因。

研究二以中国的3}5岁幼儿和成人为被试，通过故事法考察了儿童对赠予、偷窃、丢失和遗弃四种条件下所有权变化的理解。结果表明，多数4岁以上儿童能够理解赠予条件下所有权发生了转移，但3岁儿童不能;3-5岁儿童均能较好的理解偷窃不能导致所有权发生变化。4岁儿童在理解丢失不能一导致所有权发生变化这一点上存在一定困难，5岁儿童的理解己接近成人水平。3岁幼儿在遗弃条件下表现出明显的第一占有者偏好，认为被扔掉的物品仍属于原来的那个人，但是5岁幼儿能理解被遗弃的物品可以发生所有权转移。总体而言，儿童对所有权的理解情况是随着年龄不断提高的，5岁幼儿对四种转移方式中所有权变化的理解己较为成熟。3岁幼儿对偷窃和丢失两种转移方式的所有权判断好于对遗弃转移方式的所有权判断，5岁幼儿对赠予转移方式的所有权判断好于对遗弃转移异。这说明，儿童对所有权变化的理解会受到不同转移方式的影响，对某些转移方式的所有权判断，4岁幼儿和成人对四种转移方式的所有权判断不存在显著差异。这说明，儿童对所有权变化的理解会受到不同转移方式的影响，对某些转移方式(如偷窃、丢失)下的所有权推理好于其他转移方式(如遗弃)下的所有权推理。

除此以外，本研究还发现，中国幼儿的所有权理解和西方儿童存在着某些差异。在得到第一占有者许可的条件下，当付出劳动和第一占有者发生冲突时，中国幼儿更偏向于选择第一占有者是加工过的物品的所有者，而非加工者(劳动者)。中国的4岁幼儿己能理解赠予会发生所有权转移，3岁幼儿已能理解偷窃不会发生所有权转移。中国儿童对这两种转移方式中所有权变化的理解均早于西方儿童。

Ownership includes the legal ownership and psychological ownership. Psychological ownership is a state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is "theirs". To study children's understanding of ownership can help us understand the origin of human's psychological ownership. Some previous studies in this topic focused on children in western countries, whereas there is few study in china. The system of ownership and social culture in our country are very different from that in western countries. This may lead Chinese children's judgment of ownership vary from western children, too. Based on prior studies, this study further explore Chinese children's understanding of ownership.

In study 1, we chose Chinese 3, 5, 7-year old children and adults as participants. With a method of telling story we inspected their attribution of ownership when the cue of labor and first possession conflicted. As the result showed, when the cue of labor was conflicted with first possession, children at different age and adults displayed divergent attitude toward the laborer and first possessor, and this tended to be influenced by first possessor's permission. This could be reflected in the attribution of ownership of 3 years old children and adults. While adults more tended to judge the modified material belonging to first possessor under without permission condition, the 3gyyear-old children were more unlikely to judge the modified material belonging to the first possessor in this condition. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the approval of labourer and first possessor in the without permission condition, but in the within permission condition, the difference was significant. This indicated that 3-year.old children could consider the cue of permission, and this led them to more regard the role labor in the without permission condition when attributing the ownership.

In study 2, we chose the 3-5 years old children and adults as participants. With a method of telling story we inspected their understanding of ownership change indifferent transfer(ie. giving, stealing, losing and finding, abandoning and finding) condition. As the results showed, most 4dyear-old and elder children could understand that giving might cause the ownership to transfer, but 3.year-old children could not understand this. Most‘3-5-year-old child could understand that ownership was not transferred in the stealing condition. 4-year-old children had sonic difficulty in understanding ownership change in losing and finding condition, but 3-year-old children, 5-year-old children and adults could understand this well. 3-year-old children showed obvious first possession bias in abandoning and finding condition and thought that thrown toy was still belong to the man who thrown it9 but 5-year-old children did not think so. General spearing, children's understanding of ownership improved with age, but it differed in different transfer condition. 3-year-old children's judgments of ownership in stealing and losing and finding conditions were better than that in abandoning and finding condition. 5mycar-old children's judgment of ownership in giving condition was better than that in abandoning and finding condition. 4-year-old children and adults' judgments of ownership for four transfer conditions were not significantly different. This indicated that there existed age difference in children's reasoning that not all transferring could lead ownership to change. The understanding for some transfer ways(such as stealing and losing and finding) developed more fast than other ways(such as abandoning).

Besides, we found there was some difference in the understanding of ownership between Chinese children and western children. in the within permission condition, when labor cue was conflicted with first possession, Chinese children tended to choose the first possessor as owner for the modified material, but not the labourer. Chinese 4-year-old children could understand that giving permitted the ownership to transfer, and 3-year-old children understood that ownership did not transfer in stealing condition. Chinese children's understanding of ownership change in these two transfer conditions was better than western children.