See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284346388

Effects of Psychological Ownership on Students’ Commitment and

Satisfaction

Article · October 2013

DOI: 10.1080/10963758.2013.850294

CITATIONS READS

9 301

5 authors, including:

Lisa Slevitch Robert E Larzelere

Oklahoma State University - Stillwater Oklahoma State University - Stillwater
24 PUBLICATIONS   267 CITATIONS    108 PUBLICATIONS   3,857 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cristian Morosan
University of Houston
47 PUBLICATIONS   979 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Intergenerational Transmission of Financial Stress and Relationship Outcomes View project

Hospitality and Tourism Marketing Website for Professors View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lisa Slevitch on 07 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education

ISSN: 1096-3758 (Print) 2325-6540 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhat20

Effects of Psychological Ownership on Students’

Commitment and Satisfaction

Vahagn S. Asatryan PhD , Lisa Slevitch PhD , Robert Larzelere PhD , Cristian
Morosan PhD & David J. Kwun PhD

To cite this article: Vahagn S. Asatryan PhD , Lisa Slevitch PhD , Robert Larzelere PhD , Cristian
Morosan PhD & David J. Kwun PhD (2013) Effects of Psychological Ownership on Students’
Commitment and Satisfaction, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 25:4, 169-179, DOI:
10.1080/10963758.2013.850294

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2013.850294

Published online: 04 Dec 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 190

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhat20

Download by: [Oklahoma State University] Date: 07 July 2016, At: 11:25
 Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 25: 169–179, 2013
Copyright © The International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education
ISSN: 1096-3758 print / 2325-6540 online
DOI: 10.1080/10963758.2013.850294

Effects of Psychological Ownership on Students’ Commitment

and Satisfaction
Vahagn S. Asatryan, PhD
Department of Business, Redeemer University College

Lisa Slevitch, PhD

School of Hotel and Restaurant Administration, Oklahoma State University—Main Campus
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016

Robert Larzelere, PhD

Department of Human Development and Family Science, Oklahoma State University–Main Campus

Cristian Morosan, PhD

Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel & Restaurant Management, University of Houston

David J. Kwun, PhD

Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida

This study applies psychological ownership theory (J. L. Pierce, T. Kostova, & K. Dirks,
2003) in an attempt to explain the complexity of factors influencing students’ satisfaction
and commitments toward their programs. The proposed framework evaluates psychological
ownership through the following antecedents: perceived control, sense of belonging, student
involvement, and identification. The sample includes students from 4 hospitality programs in
the United States and Canada. The relationships between psychological ownership and satis-
faction and commitment are tested with structural equation modeling. The results provide new
knowledge about affective and psychological factors that contribute to students’ satisfaction
and commitment.

Keywords: psychological ownership, student involvement, satisfaction, commitment

INTRODUCTION Tinto, 1975). Astin’s (1984) theory of student involvement,

Students’ satisfaction and commitment issues have gained
significant attention in the recent decades in higher educa-
tion, as they play substantial roles in enrolling and retaining
students as well as in securing approval from accrediting
bodies (Kuh, 2001). The issues of student satisfaction and
commitment appear to be complex, and previous studies
have revealed several key constructs affecting those out-
comes (Astin, 1984; Bean, 1983; Strauss & Volkwein, 2004;
Correspondence should be addressed to Vahagn S. Asatryan, 777
Garner Rd. E. 219H, Ancaster, ON L9K 1J4, Canada. E-mail: vasatryan@
redeemer.ca
for example, identified a number of prevalent factors, such
as the investment of physical and psychological energy, as
well as the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of such
involvement. Astin’s theory is one of the most frequently
cited frameworks in the literature on student retention, and
evidence of empirical support for the theory has been well
documented (Kuh et al., 1991). This theory provides the
conceptual foundation for the present study.
The interactionist theory of student retention (Tinto,
1975) posits that the degree of students’ social and academic
interaction within an institution positively affects the college
experience. Tinto’s (1993) revised model suggests that stu-
dents’ academic and social integration into the institution’s
 170 ASATRYAN ET AL.
community plays a particularly important role in student
commitment to remain at the university. A number of studies
have validated Tinto’s theory (e.g., Knight, 2002; Pascarella
& Chapman, 1983). For example, drawing on Tinto’s model,
Caison (2007) used data from institutional student databases
to successfully develop an alternative method of predicting
undergraduate retention. In addition, the theory has been
tested in educational settings outside of North America.
Mannan (2007) validated the theory and found that stu-
dents’ engagement in the academic and social life of the
university, which led to their persistence, depended on the
subject area of their studies. Furthermore, in their research
on hospitality education, Wong and Wong (2009) found
that experiential learning was positively related to student
satisfaction. However, the empirical evidence in this area
has often been inconsistent, especially across institutions of
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016
different sizes (Strauss & Volkwein, 2004). Despite some
criticisms of Tinto’s framework, his theory has been one
of the most widely cited and used in research on student
retention.
Previous research in organizational commitment, popu-
larized by Bean (1983, 1990), revealed that the effects of
various organizational attributes, such as participation in
an organization’s decision-making processes, have a signif-
icant impact on organizational retention and commitment.
Braxton and Brier (1989) attempted to meld the interaction-
ist and organizational approaches to study student attrition
in one expanded model; however, their results were empir-
ically inconsistent. Consequently, Jackson and Kile (2004)
called for a new research effort to expand and improve exist-
ing models and tackle the inconsistency in the findings.
Similarly, Gursoy and Swanger (2004) examined percep-
tions of students, faculty members, and managers toward
hospitality and business curricula in hospitality and busi-
ness academic programs. They concluded that new research
was needed to understand students’ involvement in and
commitment toward their academic program.
To address the gap specified in previous studies on the
topic, this study applies the theory of psychological own-
ership (PO; Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003) and examines
a new conceptual framework that specifies factors affect-
ing students’ commitment and satisfaction. Specifically, this
study investigates the effects of affective and psychologi-
cal variables of student PO and their effects on satisfaction
and commitment toward an academic institution. Thus, we
answer the call of Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson (1997)
to develop complementary perspectives or helper theories to
enhance Tinto’s existing theory.
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS
The PO theory states that the three human motives of efficacy
and effectance, self-identity, and having a place constitute
the source of PO, “a state in which individuals feel as though
the target of ownership or a piece of that target is ‘theirs’”
(Pierce et al., 2003, p. 86). The target may be both a physical
and non-physical entity. For example, customers have been
shown to experience PO toward their favorite restaurants
(Asatryan & Oh, 2008), and children have been observed
expressing possessiveness toward nursery rhymes (Issacs,
1933). PO is defined, thus, as separate and distinct from legal
ownership. PO reflects an individual’s awareness, thoughts,
and feelings regarding the target of ownership. A close con-
nection with the target also characterizes the state of PO
(Wilpert, 1991). It is interesting that Pierce et al. (2003)
reported that in Western or individualist cultures the notion
of “our” is dually possessive. Consequently, the PO object
may have a simultaneous connection with both the self (i.e.,
“my dorm room”) and the collective (i.e., “our dorm room”).
The PO theory has been applied in a variety of settings,
such as restaurants (Asatryan & Oh, 2008), clinical informa-
tion systems (Pare, Sicotte, & Jacques, 2006), and student
group projects (Wood, 2003). Pierce et al. (2003) argued
that PO fosters a sense of responsibility among employ-
ees in workplaces. Previous studies also associated PO with
increased job satisfaction, employee involvement, organiza-
tional commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior
(Pierce et al., 2003; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle,
Van Dyne, & Kostova, 1995). For example, Vandewalle et al.
(1995) reported a positive association between residents’
PO toward a university-affiliated housing community and
commitment toward that organization. Furthermore, student
ownership toward learning experiences has been associated
with higher levels of self-reported learning (Wood, 2003).
Consequently, we define student PO as a state in which stu-
dents feel as though the academic program they are enrolled
in is theirs.
Antecedents of PO
Student involvement has often been described as a key vari-
able of student success in theories of higher education (Astin,
1993). Astin (1984) defined it as a psychological and phys-
ical energy that students spend on academic experience, as
he elevated the prominence of this concept in his devel-
opmental theory of higher education. Astin suggested that
the concept of student involvement has a continuous nature,
including both quantitative (e.g., hours spent studying) and
qualitative (e.g., comprehension of the academic material)
aspects. More important, Astin proposed a positive rela-
tionship between the amount and the quality of student
involvement and student learning.
Past research has shown evidence of a positive relation-
ship between student involvement and persistence variables.
Mallinckrodt and Sedlacek (1987) suggested that greater
involvement in campus activities was positively related to
student–institution identification and higher rates of reten-
tion among African American students. Furthermore, student
involvement also appears to play a significant role in student
 EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP 171

withdrawal decision making. Kuh et al. (1991) found positive
effects of student involvement on institutional commitment.
Astin (1996) reported that student involvement with fac-
ulty members and student peers has a particularly strong
effect on students’ outcomes. In addition, Beggan and Brown
(1994) had shown earlier that active involvement with an
object, whereby a deeper, intimate knowledge of that object
is acquired, is associated with possessive attachment. Thus,
participation in the academic and social life of a univer-
sity, which breeds a growing familiarity with that community
and its structures, may lead to the formation of psycho-
logical attachment that reflects some aspects of ownership.
Therefore, it can be proposed that higher levels of involve-
ment or investment of the self in the PO target may lead to
stronger feelings of possessiveness or PO.
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016
Therefore, feelings of control over an entity give rise to feel-
ings of ownership over that entity and result in PO (Perry
et al., 2001). This particularly refers to social control where
individuals believe that they are able to exert power or
control over their relationship with others. Thus, students’
perceptions of control over their educational experiences and
outcomes may positively influence PO. The greater the stu-
dent’s feeling of control over the program, the deeper the
feeling of PO toward that program.
H2: Perceived control is positively related to PO.
Individual–institution identification stands for the rela-
tionship between the self and the ownership target (i.e., the
academic program) as well as the desire to maintain continu-
ity of self-identity and expression of self-identity to others

H1: Student involvement is positively related to PO.

(Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Organizational identification is a
concept that has many roots in social identity theory, which
Perceived control is the ability to intentionally influence
ties the perception of oneness with some social or human
environmental, psychological, and behavioral events (Pierce
entity. Pratt (1998) stated that organizational identification
et al., 2003). It is often described as feelings of control over
occurs when individuals integrate their beliefs about the
the external environment that arise from the efficacy motive.
organization into their own identity. Tajfel (1982) suggested
In the context of the current study, students’ perceived con-
that to achieve this state of identification, two components
trol refers to the degree to which they perceive that they are
are necessary: a cognitive one (an awareness of member-
able to influence the educational process and its outcomes
ship) and an evaluative one (a sense that this awareness is
(Van Raaij & Pruyn, 1998).
related to some value connotations). Ellemers, Kortekaas,
Bandura (1977) suggested that effectance is a common
and Ouwerkerk (1999) added an emotional or affective com-
human need to feel capable of changing the environment
ponent (a sense of emotional involvement with the group) to
and interacting with its elements. Possessions, as elements
the concept of identification.
of the extended self, satisfy this need for effectance. A num-
Recognizing the prominence of organizational identi-
ber of studies have identified a positive relationship between
fication in the organizational commitment literature (Van
perceived control and PO. For example, Pierce, O’Driscoll,
Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006), especially its relationship
and Coghlan (2004) found a significant positive relationship
to emotional attachment (Van Dick, 2001), we argue here
between employees’ perceived control and PO toward an
that beliefs of overlapping values with the target of PO con-
organization. Lee and Chen (2011) reported similar results
stitute another motivation for feelings of PO (Pierce et al.,
for the relationship between control and PO toward a virtual
2003). Asatryan and Oh (2008) found empirical support for
world website. Empirical evidence of a positive relation-
a positive relationship between restaurant patrons’ sense of
ship between control and PO in the literature, however, is
identification and PO toward the institution. Studies involv-
inconclusive (Pierce & Jussila, 2011).
ing students provide additional evidence of this relationship.
A number of studies also connect control with what makes
Balmer and Liao (2007) indicated a strong emotional attach-
students’ interaction with their academic programs or institu-
ment to a school’s brand among undergraduate students with
tions effective (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). For example,
high levels of identification with that school. Zea, Reisen,
Stipek and Weisz (1981) and Perry, Hladkyj, Pekrun, and
Beil, and Caplan (1997) showed a significant positive effect
Pelletier (2001) provided empirical support for the positive
of institutional identification on commitment to remain in
effects of control on academic performance and academic
college. In view of the existing evidence, it can be con-
motivation. Specifically, Perry et al. found that students with
cluded that identification can have a positive influence on
high academic control showed more effort and motivation
PO.
and were less bored and anxious about their academic expe-
riences in comparison to their counterparts with low control
(p. 776), thus indicating positive effects of this feeling on H3: Student–institution identification is positively
student outcomes in college. related to PO.
Ownership feelings toward an object are generally asso-
ciated with the perceived control one exerts over that object. Sense of belonging refers to the feeling of being at home
That is, the greater the degree of that control over the object, and the sense of affinity that is often expressed through
the more likely that object is to become a part of the self. the target of ownership (Duncan, 1981). Dreyfus (1991)
 172 ASATRYAN ET AL.
suggested that people may “feel at home” even toward imma-
terial objects (e.g., language, skills). Hausmann, Schofield,
and Woods (2007) defined it as “the psychological sense
that one is a valued member of the college community”
(p. 804). Academic programs often appeal to such feelings
of belonging in their mission statements and recruitment
materials. Sense of belonging was identified as an impor-
tant variable in students’ institutional experiences (Hurtado
& Carter, 1997). Tinto’s (1987) model, for example, makes
student sense of belonging (i.e., social and academic inte-
gration) a leading factor in student persistence. Research
on the effects of sense of belonging, however, is lim-
ited (Velasquez, 1999), and Hurtado and Carter (1997)
have called for more studies to investigate this relation-
ship.
Nora and Cabrera (1993) have shown the significance of
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016
this construct in studying student institutional commitment.
Hausmann et al. (2007) conducted a longitudinal study of
full-time first-year nontransfer students who reported a pos-
itive association between sense of belonging and intention
to persist. They found evidence of the positive effects of
institutional intervention (i.e., sending students small gifts
with the university logo) on sense of belonging. The results
of their study also suggested that “greater sense of belong-
ing at the start of the academic year was associated with
peer group interactions, interactions with faculty, peer sup-
port, and parental support, but not academic integration”
(p. 825). Asatryan and Oh (2008) additionally found a pos-
itive relationship between the sense of belonging patrons
experienced toward their favorite restaurant and their sense
of PO toward the same institution. Students may experi-
ence a sense of possessiveness toward a program when they
develop such feelings of belonging, thereby developing a
sense of ownership toward the program that enhances those
feelings. Consequently, sense of belonging can be positively
associated with PO.
H4: Sense of belonging is positively related to PO.
Outcomes of PO
Satisfaction experienced by students is often considered one
of the most important intermediary outcomes of higher edu-
cation, as more and more institutions regard higher education
as a business-like service industry (Astin, 1993; Gruber, Fuß,
Voss, & Gläser-Zikuda, 2010). According to Shank, Walker,
and Hayes (1995), higher education has several service
characteristics, such as intangibility, perishability, and insep-
arability, and should be viewed as “pure” service (Oldfield
& Baron, 2000). Similar to in other service industries, stu-
dent satisfaction in educational settings was reported to be
positively associated with such highly desirable outcomes as
retention and recruitment of students (Helgesen & Nesset,
2007).
A number of studies have conceptualized satisfaction as
an attitude-like variable referring to a particular object that
captures a large portion of an individual’s total reaction to the
object or experience in question (Oliver, 1997). The present
study follows a prevailing approach and defines satisfac-
tion as an attitudinal construct that captures a large portion
of students’ reaction to studying in a program in question.
Asatryan and Oh (2008) suggested that in the context of
restaurant business, PO was positively related to such con-
structs as relationship intent, word of mouth, and willingness
to pay more, which are often considered outcomes of sat-
isfaction. A similar pattern may occur in the educational
environment as well, and PO may have an impact on the
antecedent of the constructs identified by Asatryan and Oh.
Therefore, it can be proposed that high levels of PO in stu-
dents will be positively related to their satisfaction with their
educational program or institution.
Commitment, as defined by Moorman, Zaltman, and
Deshpande (1992), refers to “an enduring desire to maintain
a valued relationship” (p. 316). Zea et al. (1997) indi-
cated that value congruence and collective self-esteem as a
member of the institution’s community—concepts similar
to PO—influence student commitment to remain in college.
Feelings of ownership may positively influence an indi-
vidual’s commitment toward the institution because they
satisfy the need for belonging and attachment. Hence, it can
be assumed that PO will be positively related to commit-
ment. Moreover, multiple studies in consumer behavior have
reported that satisfaction also has a positive impact on com-
mitment (Oliver, 1997). Thus, the following hypotheses can
be formulated:
H5: PO positively affects satisfaction.
H6: PO positively affects commitment.
H7: Satisfaction positively affects commitment.
Figure 1 depicts the proposed relationships among the
constructs.
METHODS
Sample, Instrument, and Data Collection
A convenience sample of hospitality and business undergrad-
uate students from four programs in the United States and
Canada was used to collect data in an online format. All
universities had a mix of commuter and residential student
populations. The schools in this study included both pri-
vate and public universities with different student population
sizes. An online questionnaire was developed based on the
constructs specified in Figure 1. The respondents were pro-
vided with an incentive and an opportunity to participate in
a draw for gift certificates.

Student
Involvement
Perceived Control
Psychological
Ownership
Identification
Sense of
Belonging
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016
FIGURE 1 The proposed model of students’ psychological ownership.
All measurement items and scales were adopted from
previous publications on the subject of PO and its out-
comes (Asatryan & Oh, 2008; Soderlund, 2006; Strauss
& Volkwein, 2004). Standard instrument development
procedures were followed in the compilation of the ques-
tionnaire. An extensive literature review of previous studies
of PO and other variables resulted in the collection of items
presented in Table 1.
The instrument underwent a review by four faculty mem-
bers from one of the participating universities to ensure
content validity. All measurement items, except for student
involvement, program rating, and demographics, were mea-
sured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); for example, sense of belong-
ing (“I feel I belong to this program”), control (“I feel in
control over my education in this program”), and PO (“I
feel like this program is ‘mine’”). The satisfaction scale
included items such as “I am satisfied with my decision
to attend this program.” Students’ commitment to the pro-
gram was measured using items such as “I intend to continue
to associate with the program after graduation.” Student–
institution identification was also measured on a 5-point
scale (e.g., “My own values overlap with those of the pro-
gram”). Finally, student involvement included statements
such as “I contributed ideas when completing assignments
(i.e., homework, projects, and class discussions),” ranging
from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).
A total of 352 subjects expressed an interest in participat-
ing in the study; out of these, 264 actually participated in the
study and responded to the questionnaire. After we removed
unusable responses (e.g., incomplete questionnaires), there
were 218 usable responses, for a net response rate of about
68%. Females constituted 72.9% of the respondents. The
average age was 22 years. The vast majority of respon-
dents (83.9%) were Caucasian, with Hispanic and Native
EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP 173
Commitment
Satisfaction
American students represented at rates of 6.9% and 4.1%,
respectively.
Data Analysis
The analysis consisted largely of two parts: (a) pre-
liminary/descriptive analyses and (b) structural equation
modeling. Missing data, normality, reliability, and sampling
adequacy were checked during the preliminary analysis. The
proposed measurement model was examined by conduct-
ing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The model con-
sisted of seven latent constructs with 41 indicators. In the
model, four of the latent constructs (sense of belonging, per-
ceived control, student involvement, and student–institution
identification) were exogenous variables, and three of the
variables (PO, satisfaction, and student commitment) were
endogenous variables. Structural equation modeling was
used to conduct measurement and structural model analy-
sis. Preliminary results indicated positive correlations among
all constructs (see Table 2). The structural model fit was
assessed through a number of fit indices recommended by
Kline (2005), such as chi-square, goodness-of-fit index, and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
RESULTS
A summary of the demographic characteristics of the respon-
dents is presented in Table 3. Hospitality and tourism stu-
dents made up the majority of the respondents (72.9%).
To address the concern that students from different universi-
ties and majors would have different response patterns, we
performed analysis of variance. There were no significant
differences in responses between the two samples (business
students and hospitality students) at the p < .05 level, with
 174 ASATRYAN ET AL.

TABLE 1
Instrument Items and Testing

Construct (Cronbach’s α)
and Source Items Factor Loadings

Involvement (.70) I worked with other students on class projects. .675

Berger & Milem (1999)
I contributed ideas when completing assignments (i.e., homework, projects, and class discussions). .557
I discussed what I have learned in the program with others outside the class (students, family .621
members, coworkers, etc.).
I participated in extracurricular activities (organizations, publications, student honor societies, etc.). .371a
I made a class presentation. .509

Belonging (.86) I feel I belong to this program. .903

Jones et al. (2000) I feel “at home” in this program. .852
Lalli (1992) I feel like a stranger in this program. .717
I feel attached to the program. .657

Identification (.89) Imagine that one of the circles at the left in each row below represents your own self-definition or .579
Bergami & Bagozzi (2000) identity and the other circle at the right represents your academic program’s identity. Please
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016

Aron et al. (1992) indicate which case (A, B, C, D, E, F, or G) best describes the level of overlap between your own
and the academic program’s identities.
My own values overlap with those of the program. .626
I identify with the program’s values. .740
My sense of who I am matches my sense of this program. .785
I can identify with this program’s students. .761
I consider myself a typical student in this program. .675
I am not at all like any of the program’s students I know. .623b
The image of the typical student in the program is very dissimilar from the kind of person I am. .577b
I feel my personal profile is similar to the students of this program. .695
I do not have anything in common with the students in this program. .544b

Control (.82) I have influence over the quality of education I receive in this program. .799
Perry et al. (2001) I feel in control over my education in this program. .783
I can modify my plan of study in this program. .587
I have a lot of influence on how my learning occurs in this program. .697

Psychological Ownership (.89) I feel like this program is “mine.” .947

Asatryan & Oh (2008) I feel “personal ownership” toward this program. .904
Van Dyne & Pierce (2004) I hardly think of this program as being “mine.” .636
Most of the students who are in this program feel as though the program is “theirs.” .569
This is my program. .849

Commitment (.82)
Strauss & Volkwein (2004)
If I could start college/university over, I would choose to attend this program. .844
It is important for me to graduate from this program. .712
I really care about the fate of this program. .597
I intend to continue to associate with the program after graduation. .560
I intend to contribute to the institution financially after graduation (e.g., funds for scholarships, .400a
library support, special projects, etc.).

Satisfaction (.93) I am satisfied with my decision to attend this program. .921

Soderlund (2006) My choice to enroll in this program was a wise idea. .806
I am happy that I enrolled in this program. .919
a Removed because of factor loadings <.5. b Removed to improve model fit.

the exception of one variable that was later removed from
the analysis because of a low factor loading (see Table 1).
Therefore, combining majors and universities seemed appro-
priate for the subsequent analysis.
Results were generally supportive of the proposed
theoretical framework. The value of the Kaiser–Mayer–
Olkin test exceeded the recommended acceptable level of
.7 for all constructs (George & Mallery, 2001). These results
indicated an acceptable level of sampling adequacy for
conducting factor analysis with the data. Bartlett’s test of
sphericity indicated significant chi-squares for all constructs
(p < .01). This meant that the correlation matrix was not
an identity matrix and was suitable for conducting fac-
tor analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was computed to evaluate
scale reliabilities of the variables in the measurement model.
Cronbach’s alpha was .7 or greater (see Table 1) for all
constructs, thus indicating high internal consistency for all
constructs (Churchill, 1979). The item means ranged from
2.33 (SD = 0.94) for PO-4 to 4.54 (SD = 0.75) for word of
mouth for 5-point scale items.
 EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP 175

TABLE 2
Interconstruct Correlation Matrix

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Involvement .352
2. Belonging .193 .621
3. Identification .196 .403 .490
4. Sontrol .152 .262 .329 .520
5. Psychological Ownership .211 .446 .495 .362 .633
6. Commitment .203 .511 .540 .343 .511 .474
7. Satisfaction .194 .447 .453 .323 .467 .612 .780

Note: The values on the diagonal represent the average variance extracted.

CFA was performed with MPlus 4.0 to check the con-
struct validity of the measures. Initial CFA resulted in a
slightly poor fit, χ 2 (573, N = 218) = 1,228.53, p < .001,
RMSEA = .07, comparative fit index (CFI) = .85. Following
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016
involvement were removed from the original model because
of low loadings in the measurement model, H1 and H2 were
not evaluated.

The paths from identification and belonging to PO were

recommendations by Byrne (1998), five items were removed statistically significant, indicating that identification and
from the measurement model because of relatively low fac- belonging were good predictors of PO. As shown in Figure 2,
tor loadings (see Table 1). In addition, the average variance identification (β = .46, p < .001) and sense of belonging
extracted values were above the cutoff value of .50 for all (β = .31, p < .005) were positively related to PO, thus
constructs except involvement, control, and identification supporting H3 and H4. In addition, identification had a sta-
(Bagozzi, 1994). Although the average variance extracted tistically significant direct impact on commitment (β = .26,
of identification was close to .50 (.49) and was retained p < .005) and belonging had a significant positive effect on
(see Table 2), involvement and control were dropped from satisfaction (β = .77, p < .001) after PO was controlled for.
the modified CFA model. As a result, the modified CFA Although PO had no direct effect on commitment (β =
resulted in an adequate model fit, χ 2 (217, N = 218) = −.07, p > .05), thus contradicting H6, H5 was marginally
406.90, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .95, standardized supported. Consistent with H5, PO was marginally associ-
root-mean-square residual (SRMR) = .06. ated with satisfaction (β = .14, p = .055). H7 was supported,
Testing the structural model resulted in modification of as satisfaction was positively related to commitment (β =
the original model (see Figure 2 ). A modified set of hypoth- .83, p < .001).
esis tests were conducted based on the model in Figure 2.
The modified structural model resulted in a fit within the
acceptable range as recommended by Kline (2005), χ 2 (219, DISCUSSION
N = 218) = 428.03, p < .001, RMSEA = .066, CFI =
.94, SRMR = .06. Because perceived control and student Developing long-term relationships with students is imper-
ative for educational institutions. This study has attempted
TABLE 3
to examine the factors that affect the development of rela-
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 218) tionships based on student satisfaction and commitment. The
study tested a conceptual model of PO to better explain the
Category n % role that feelings of “mine-ness” play in student–educational
Gender institution relationships. The model tested the role of PO
Female 159 72.9 in the process of nurturing student satisfaction and com-
Male 58 26.6 mitment. The findings indicate that sense of belonging and
Unidentified 1 0.5 identification with the attended institution continue to be
Age (years)
associated with the formation of more complex psycho-
18–20 82 38.3
21–23 91 49.6 logical states among college-level students. Research on
24–26 14 6.5 the formation of PO toward an academic institution has
Older than 26 12 3.8 until now been very scarce. First, research related to PO
Unidentified 4 1.8 mostly concentrated on employer–employee relationships
Major
(Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) or customer–company relations
Hospitality and tourism 159 72.9
Business 51 23.4 (Asatryan & Oh, 2008). Second, the current findings are
Other 7 3.4 beginning to identify the role of PO in the formation of
Unidentified 1 0.5 student satisfaction toward the educational program. Finally,
this study provides a preliminary examination of variables
 176 ASATRYAN ET AL.
.26, t = 3.27**
Identification
.46, t = 4.63**
Psychological
Ownership, R2 = .52
.31, t = 3.04**
Sense of
Belonging
.77, t = 12.42**
FIGURE 2 Modified structural model. a p = .055. ∗∗ p < .001.
that may contribute to students’ overall commitment toward
the academic institution.
The results indicate that the PO theory can be applied
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016
to educational research with potentially significant results.
The findings of the study support some of the hypothe-
sized structure of antecedents of PO. Identification had a
direct impact on commitment. In addition, sense of belong-
ing had a direct as well as an indirect impact on satisfaction.
It should be noted, though, that sense of belonging and
student–institution identification appeared to have consider-
able impact on formation of PO, which complies with the PO
theory. (Figure 2 reports the average R2 for each equation.)
Therefore, the results support earlier suggestions that PO can
be applied in educational settings (Pierce et al., 2004).
Although the relationship of perceived control and stu-
dent involvement to PO was not supported in the current
study, several other authors have reported supportive find-
ings. Pierce et al. (2004) and Asatryan and Oh (2008) pro-
vided evidence of positive effects of control and involvement
on PO. In a more recent study, Lee and Chen (2011) exam-
ined the effects of PO and self-investment on future visit
and use intention of a virtual world website (i.e., an online
community in the form of a computer-based simulation that
allows users to interact with one another and virtual objects).
They found that perceived control was positively associated
with PO. Therefore, the nonsignificant relationship between
these constructs in this study requires further investigation.
It is possible that the nonsignificant relationship between
the variables is due to some missing key variables (Farris,
Parry, & Ailawadi, 1992). This may be the case because
the PO theory is currently underdeveloped, and little empir-
ical research has been done so far on the subject. A recent
study by Edens (2011), for example, found that self-efficacy
and self-regulated learning (control) and engaged learning
(involvement) were positively related to student satisfaction
with learning.
Another plausible explanation has to do with respondents’
perceived lack of control over their educational experiences
due to the limited number of available choices. For example,
students may feel that they have little control over changes
in the program of studies, course availability, and schedules.
Commitment, R2 = .96
–.07, t = –1.07
.83, t = 13.47**
.14, t = 1.92a
Satisfaction, R2 = .74
This perception of limited control may be more prevalent
among younger students, freshmen and sophomores. Indeed,
38.3% of study participants were between 18 and 20 years
old. This finding may have also been a result of the choice of
the institutions included in this study. Sense of control was
measured on a 5-point Likert scale using items such as “I
can modify my plan of study in this program” and “I have a
lot of influence on how my learning occurs in this program.”
Smaller hospitality and business programs may not have the
variety of options to meet students’ needs for such flexibility.
The relationship between PO and student satisfaction
appeared to be positive and significant at p = .055. This
indicates a positive influence of feelings of mine-ness toward
an educational institution on students’ reported experiences
with that institution. The results show that educational insti-
tutions may benefit by cultivating students’ sense of belong-
ing and identification with the institution and thus reap such
rewards as students’ satisfaction with their educational expe-
riences, which in turn can lead to positive outcomes such as
long-term alumni relationships. These results are consistent
with previous findings in the organizational behavior liter-
ature that suggested a positive relationship between PO and
satisfaction (e.g., Vandewalle et al., 1995). Wood (2003) also
reported that students “learn more from group projects that
are set up to increase their level of psychological ownership”
(p. 246). Thus, educators may encourage the formation of
PO and increase its salience by designing relevant educa-
tional experiences through meaningful options (e.g., choices
in service-learning projects or student consulting assign-
ments). For example, we recommend encouraging students
to design their own assignments based on a set of predeter-
mined assessment rubrics when consulting local hospitality
businesses on marketing or operations management issues.
The students may choose to design and implement a direct
marketing campaign, or alternatively they may choose to
develop a social media program for a restaurant of their
choice in a hospitality marketing course. These projects have
raised the level of engagement and satisfaction with course
outcomes among students in courses we have taught.
In addition, soliciting students’ feedback on program cur-
riculum design and implementation can enhance students’

perceived control over the learning outcomes and deepen
the intellectual and emotional investment of the self with
the program. The resulting sense of ownership is likely to
have a positive impact on student retention. PO has been
shown to have a positive influence on intention to stay at
the organization (Avery, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2009).
Furthermore, cultivation of PO may result in stronger inter-
nal motivation directed toward the program and a sense of
responsibility or group stewardship—a hypothesis supported
in other organizational settings (Groesbeck, as cited in Pierce
& Jussila, 2011). These findings provide significant support
for the importance of nurturing a sense of ownership toward
an educational program, which may benefit both the student
and the institution.
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The basic objective of this study was to investigate the
antecedents of PO and to measure the construct’s impact
on organizational commitment toward an educational institu-
tion. This study, which has never been attempted in the past,
has to be viewed in light of its limitations. First, the study
was limited to students enrolled in hospitality and business
programs in four universities, which may somewhat limit
the generalizability of the results. Pascarella (1985) speci-
fied structural or organizational characteristics of institutions
as well as institutional environment (e.g., safety) as factors
affecting student engagement and the learning experience.
Factors such as local economic conditions and even the dis-
tance the students have to travel to attend classes, identified
in past research (Hoenack & Weiler, 1975), have been shown
to impact students’ university experiences. Furthermore,
institutional characteristics of universities (e.g., residential
facilities) and programs may also affect both the formation
of PO and the proposed outcome variables. Thus, a more
comprehensive study including these variables may improve
model identification and fit.
Second, all model variables were measured using one sur-
vey instrument, thus possibly inducing common method bias
(i.e., simultaneous measurement of predictor and criterion
variables) and inflating the strength of the observed relations
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Third,
the study is limited by geographical and cultural factors;
thus, future research should focus on including, for example,
European institutions, in which different departmental struc-
tures and student–faculty relationships may affect the inten-
sity and context of PO formation. Furthermore, conducting
survey research in an educational setting provides additional
challenges. For example, it is difficult to control and to dis-
cern whether students refer to the department, the division,
or the entire university when responding to some of the sur-
vey questions (e.g., “I feel in control over my education in
this program”), thus potentially biasing the results.
Research in PO may benefit from longitudinal studies
designed to reduce the limitations of survey methodology.
EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP 177
Tracking students’ attitudes as well as formation and poten-
tial evolution of PO toward the university or a program
as they continue to spend time at the institution may pro-
vide a valuable insight. Bean (1990) identified a number of
other variables that influence students’ decisions to remain
enrolled at an institution (e.g., demographic characteristics,
family responsibilities, employment obligations, income lev-
els, financial stress). These variables were not available
in this study. Therefore, future studies should explore the
effects of such variables on the formation of PO as well
as other outcome variables. Variables such as the prestige
associated with the university or program, the private versus
public status of the institution, the size of the university stu-
dent population, the geographic location (urban vs. rural) and
spread, among others, were also absent in our study and may
be included in future studies. In addition, because the present
study is an initial step in gaining insight into the relation-
ship between PO and student retention variables, the model
appears incomplete and is possibly underspecified.
Future research, then, should also assess an expanded set
of outcomes. Previous research mostly focused on the posi-
tive outcomes of PO (e.g., positive attitudes and behaviors,
such as citizenship and commitments). What are the neg-
ative implications of PO in the educational context? For
example, Heskett’s (2002) analysis of customer loyalty sug-
gested that ownership-driven customers not only may have
a significant impact on company strategies but may actu-
ally attempt to modify company tactics to suit their needs
(e.g., boycotting or criticizing eBay’s policies or even revers-
ing branding efforts, such as in the case of Gap Inc.). What
are the effects of PO-motivated student behaviors when a
business or hospitality program decides to rebrand itself or
reorganize its structure? What are the effects of PO forma-
tion on the continuing relationship between alumni and the
educational program or the university? How likely are cur-
rent students to become future contributors to the program’s
success and growth through donations, internship and coop-
erative education opportunities, or employment placements?
Furthermore, do cultural and economic factors, such as
collectivist cultures and economic prosperity in the commu-
nity or country, play a role in the formation of PO toward an
educational program? For example, students in developing
countries may find themselves spending more time work-
ing to fund their education because of a weaker system of
government-supported or private financial aid programs or
insignificant scholarship opportunities. Future research will
need to address these issues.
REFERENCES
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self-
scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.
Asatryan, V., & Oh, H. (2008). Psychological ownership theory: An
exploratory application in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality
& Tourism Research, 32(3), 363–386.
 178 ASATRYAN ET AL.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for
higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited
(1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons
we have learned. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2),
123–134.
Avery, J., Avolio, B., Crossley, C., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological
ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement, and relation to work
outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 50, 173–191.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1994). Structural equation models in marketing research:
Basic principles. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research
(pp. 317–385). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Liao, M-N. (2007). Student corporate brand identi-
fication: An exploratory case study. Corporate Communications, 12(4),
356–375.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bean, J. P. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016
organizations. Review of Higher Education, 6, 129–148.
Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler
& J. P. Bean (Eds.), The strategic management of college enrollments (pp.
147–169). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994). Association as a psychological
justification for ownership. Journal of Psychology, 128, 365–380.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective com-
mitment, and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the
organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577.
Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement
and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence.
Research in Higher Education, 40, 641–664.
Braxton, J. M., & Brier, E. M. (1989). Melding organizational and inter-
actional theories of student attrition: A path analytic study. Review of
Higher Education, 13(1), 47–61.
Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. S., & Johnson, R. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s
theory of college student departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher educa-
tion: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 12, pp. 107–164). New York,
NY: Agathon Press.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS,
and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Caison, A. L. (2007). Analysis of institutionally specific retention research:
A comparison between survey and institutional database methods.
Research in Higher Education, 48, 435–451.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger’s
Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Duncan, N. G. (1981). Home ownership and social theory. In J. S. Duncan
(Ed.), Housing and identity: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 98–134).
London, England: Croom Helm.
Edens, D. (2011). Predictors of culinary students’ satisfaction with learning.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 23(3), 5–15.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization,
commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct
aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29,
371–389.
Farris, P. W., Parry, M. E., & Ailawadi, K. L. (1992). Structural analysis
of models with composite dependent variables. Marketing Science, 1(1),
76–95.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows step by step: A sim-
ple guide and reference 10.0 update (3rd ed.). Needham, MA: Pearson
Education.
Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining
student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measure-
ment tool. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2),
105–123.
Gursoy, D., & Swanger, N. (2004). An industry-driven model of hospital-
ity curriculum for programs housed in accredited colleges of business.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 16(4), 13–20.
Hausmann, L. R., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belong-
ing as a predictor of intentions to persist among African American and
White first-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 48,
803–839.
Helgesen, O., & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students’ loy-
alty? Some field study evidence. International Journal of Educational
Management, 21(2), 126–143.
Heskett, J. L. (2002). Beyond customer loyalty. Managing Service Quality,
12(6), 355–357.
Hoenack, S. A., & Weiler, W. C. (1975). Cost-related tuition policies and
university enrollments. Journal of Human Resources, 10(3), 332–360.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. (1997). Effects of college transition and percep-
tions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of
belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324–325.
Issacs, S. (1933). Social development in young children. London, UK:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jackson, J. F. L., & Kile, K. S. (2004). Does a nexus exist between the work
of administrators and student outcomes in higher education? An answer
from a systematic review of research. Innovative Higher Education,
28(4), 285–301.
Jones, C. D., Patterson, M. E., & Hammitt, W. E. (2000). Evaluating the con-
struct validity of sense of belonging as a measure of landscape perception.
Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 383–395.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation model-
ing. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Knight, W. E. (2002). Toward a comprehensive model of influences upon
time to bachelor’s degree attainment (AIR Professional File No. 85).
Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside
the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17.
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., Andreas, R. E., Lyons, J. W., Carney
Strange, C., . . . MacKay, K. A. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful
approaches to fostering student learning and personal development
outside the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empiri-
cal findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285–303.
Lee, Y., & Chen, A. (2011). Usability design and psychological ownership
of a virtual world. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3),
269–307.
Mallinckrodt, B., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Student retention and use
of campus facilities by race. National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators, 24(3), 28–32.
Mannan, A. (2007). Student attrition and academic and social integration:
Application of Tinto’s model at the University of Papua New Guinea.
Higher Education, 53, 147–165.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between
providers and users of marketing research: The dynamics of trust
within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3),
314–328.
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1993). The construct validity of institu-
tional commitment: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research in Higher
Education, 34(2), 243–262.
Oldfield, B. M., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality
in a UK university business and management faculty. Quality Assurance
in Education, 8(2), 85–95.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the customer.
New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Pare, G., Sicotte, C., & Jacques, H. (2006). The effects of psycho-
logical ownership on physicians’ acceptance of clinical information
systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(2),
197–205.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning
and cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 1(1), 1–61.

Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983). A multi-institutional path
analytic validation of Tinto’s model of college withdrawal. American
Education Research Journal, 20, 87–102.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students:
Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R. H., & Pelletier, S. T. (2001).
Academic control and action control in the achievement of college stu-
dents: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
776–789.
Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organi-
zational context: Theory, research evidence and application. Cheltenham,
England: Edward Elgar.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2003). The state of psychological
ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of
General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107.
Pierce, J. L., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Coghlan, A.-M. (2004). Work envi-
ronment structure and psychological ownership: The mediating role of
control. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 507–534.
Downloaded by [Oklahoma State University] at 11:25 07 July 2016
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879–903.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational
identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organi-
zations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shank, M. D., Walker, M., & Hayes, T. (1995). Understanding profes-
sional service expectations: Do we know what our students expect
in a quality education? Journal of Professional Services Marketing,
13(1), 71–83.
Soderlund, M. (2006). Measuring customer loyalty with multi-item scales:
A case of caution. International Journal of Service Industry Management,
17(1), 76–98.
Stipek, D. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived control and academic
achievement. Review of Educational Research, 51, 101–138.
Strauss, L. C., & Volkwein, J. F. (2004). Predictors of student commitment at
two-year and four-year institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 75(2),
203–227.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of inter-group relations. Annual Review
of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup con-
flict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
View publication stats
EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP 179
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical syn-
thesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45,
89–125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organisational contexts: Linking the-
ory and research from social and organisation psychology. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 265–283.
Van Dyne, L. V., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feel-
ings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 439–459.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational iden-
tification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social
exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
571–584.
Van Raaij, W. F., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (1998). Customer control and eval-
uation of service validity and reliability. Psychology & Marketing, 15,
811–832.
Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L. V., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological
ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences. Group &
Organization Management, 20(2), 210–226.
Velasquez, P. (1999, November). The relationship between cultural devel-
opment, sense of belonging, and persistence among Chicanos in
higher education: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
San Antonio, TX.
Wilpert, B. (1991). Property, ownership, and participation: On the grow-
ing contradictions between legal and psychological concepts. In R.
Russell & V. Rus (Eds.), International handbook of participation in
organizations: For the study of organizational democracy, co-operation,
and self-management (Vol. 2, pp. 149–164). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Wong, A., & Wong, C.-K. (2009). Factors affecting students’ learning and
satisfaction on tourism and hospitality course-related field trips. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 21(1), 25–35.
Wood, C. M. (2003). The effects of creating psychological ownership
among students in group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3),
241–249.
Zea, M. C., Reisen, C. A., Beil, C., & Caplan, R. D. (1997). Predicting
intention to remain in college among ethnic minority and nonminority
students. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 149–160.