Skip to main content
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Nov 29;359(1451):1763–1774. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1551

The property 'instinct'.

Jeffrey Evans Stake 1
PMCID: PMC1693451  PMID: 15590617

Abstract

Evolutionary theory and empirical studies suggest that many animals, including humans, have a genetic predisposition to acquire and retain property. This is hardly surprising because survival is closely bound up with the acquisition of things: food, shelter, tools and territory. But the root of these general urges may also run to quite specific and detailed rules about property acquisition, retention and disposition. The great variation in property-related behaviours across species may mask some important commonalities grounded in adaptive utility. Experiments and observations in the field and laboratory suggest that the legal rules of temporal priority and possession are grounded in what were evolutionarily stable strategies in the ancestral environment. Moreover, the preferences that humans exhibit in disposing of their property on their deaths, both by dispositions made in wills and by the laws of intestacy, tend to advance reproductive success as a result of inclusive fitness pay-offs.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (165.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brosnan Sarah F., De Waal Frans B. M. Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature. 2003 Sep 18;425(6955):297–299. doi: 10.1038/nature01963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Burgess J. W. Social spiders. Sci Am. 1976 Mar;234(3):100–106. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0376-100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kummer H., Götz W., Angst W. Triadic differentiation: an inhibitory process protecting pair bonds in baboons. Behaviour. 1974;49(1):62–87. doi: 10.1163/156853974x00408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Rivers J. P., Crawford M. A. Maternal nutrition and the sex ratio at birth. Nature. 1974 Nov 22;252(5481):297–298. doi: 10.1038/252297a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Rizzolatti G., Fadiga L., Gallese V., Fogassi L. Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1996 Mar;3(2):131–141. doi: 10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Tobias J. Asymmetric territorial contests in the European robin: the role of settlement costs. Anim Behav. 1997 Jul;54(1):9–21. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Trivers R. L., Willard D. E. Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science. 1973 Jan 5;179(4068):90–92. doi: 10.1126/science.179.4068.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES