Collective psychological ownership refers to people’s perception that an object, place, or idea belongs to their own group. We considered this concept in the context of territorial conflicts and proposed that (1) collective psychological ownership is distinct from place attachment, (2) higher ingroup identifiers are more likely to claim collective ownership and feel attached to the territory, yet (3) only ownership claims are related to lower support for reconciliation. These hypotheses were tested in two studies using structural equation modelling. Study 1 addressed the Kosovo conflict, based on Serbian participants living in Serbia (N = 264). We found that collective psychological ownership and place attachment were distinct. Moreover, higher Serbian identifiers had a stronger sense of collective ownership of Kosovo and were more attached to it. Those with stronger feelings of collective ownership supported reconciliation with Albanians less, while place attachment did not hinder reconciliation. Study 2 replicated these findings among a new sample of Serbs in Serbia (N = 173), among Serbs in Kosovo (N = 129), and in two other conflict settings: among Greek Cypriots in Cyprus (N = 135) and Jews in Israel (N = 109). Altogether, we provide evidence that collective psychological ownership can represent an obstacle to reconciliation in conflict regions.

This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.

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 postconflict settings.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Understanding people’s attitudes toward conciliatory policies in territorial interethnic conflicts is important for a peaceful conflict resolution. We argue that ingroup identification in combination with the largely understudied territorial ownership perceptions can help us explain attitudes toward conciliatory policies. We consider two different aspects of ingroup identification—attachment to one’s ethnic ingroup as well as ingroup superiority. Furthermore, we suggest that perceptions of ingroup and outgroup ownership of the territory can serve as important mechanisms that link the different forms of ingroup identification with conciliatory policies. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among Israeli Jews (N = 1,268), we found that ingroup superiority, but not attachment, was negatively related to conciliatory policies. This relationship was explained by lower outgroup (but not by higher ingroup) ownership perceptions of the territory. Our findings highlight the relevance of studying ingroup superiority as a particularly relevant dimension of identification that represents a barrier to acknowledging outgroup’s territorial ownership, and is thus indirectly related to less support for conciliatory policies in intergroup conflict settings.

In territorial interethnic conflicts people often claim exclusive land ownership for their ingroup. However, they can also view the ingroup and outgroup as entitled to the land.It is unknown what explains such shared ownership perceptions and how these in turn inform opinions about conflict resolution. We focused on different types of collective victimhood as precursors of shared ownership perceptions, and on joint decisionmaking as a political outcome. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian and Kosovo disputes, using national samples of Jewish Israelis (N = 609, Study 1) and Albanians and Serbs (N = 995, Study 2), we found that inclusive victimhood was related to higher, and competitive victimhood to lower, shared ownership perceptions. Shared ownership was, in turn, related to more support for joint decision-making. Our findings highlight the importance of collective victimhood in explaining shared ownership perceptions, which consequently inform opinions about the political route to conflict resolution.