PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

2014, 67, 463–485

PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP, TERRITORIAL

BEHAVIOR, AND BEING PERCEIVED AS A TEAM
CONTRIBUTOR: THE CRITICAL ROLE OF TRUST IN
THE WORK ENVIRONMENT
GRAHAM BROWN
University of Victoria

CRAIG CROSSLEY
University of Central Florida

SANDRA L. ROBINSON
University of British Columbia

In this field study, we develop and test a theory regarding the role of
trust in the work environment as a critical condition that determines the
relationship between psychological ownership, territoriality, and being
perceived as a team contributor. We argue that, dependent upon the
context of trust in the work environment, psychological ownership may
lead to territorial behaviors of claiming and anticipatory defending and
that, dependent upon the context of trust, territorial behavior may lead
coworkers to negatively judge the territorial employee as less of a team
contributor. A sample of working adults reported on their psycholog-
ical ownership and territorial behavior toward an important object at
work, and a coworker of each provided evaluations on the level of trust
in the work environment and rated the focal individual’s contributions
to the team. Findings suggest that a work environment of trust is a
“double-edged sword”: On the one hand, a high trust environment re-
duces the territorial behavior associated with psychological ownership;
on the other hand, when territorial behavior does occur in high trust
environments, coworkers rate the territorial employee’s contributions to
the team significantly lower. We discuss the nature and management of
territorial behavior in light of these findings.

The past decade has witnessed a growth in research addressing psycho-

logical ownership in organizations. Psychological ownership is a feeling
of possessiveness and attachment to a variety of objects in organizations

We wish to thank the members of the Organisational Behaviour and Human Resources
group at Singapore Management University for their constructive comments on earlier
drafts of this manuscript. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
supported this research with a grant (410–2011–1697) to the first author.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Graham Brown, Peter
B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria,
BC, Canada V8W 2Y2; grbrown@uvic.ca.

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. doi: 10.1111/peps.12048

463
464 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

(Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001, 2003; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).
These feelings of ownership lead one to value, have concern for, and
take responsibility for that which belongs to him or her (Dipboye, 1977;
Korman, 1970). As such, many studies have revealed that organizational
members with a sense of psychological ownership over their jobs or
organizations experience more positive work related attitudes, such as
satisfaction and commitment, and contribute more in terms of their in-role
and extra-role performance (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997; Van Dyne &
Pierce, 2004; VandeWalle, Van Dyne, & Kostova, 1995; Wagner, Parker,
& Christiansen, 2003). Although the majority of this research has focused
on psychological ownership directed to one’s job or the organization,
Pierce et al. (2001, 2003) note that individuals can feel ownership
toward their actual work (Beaglehole, 1932), the products they create
(Das, 1993), and even specific issues within their organization (Pratt &
Dutton, 2000).
To date, the empirical research in this area has almost exclusively fo-
cused upon the positive aspects of psychological ownership, even though
Pierce et al.’s (2001) seminal work on this topic highlighted both the
positive and negative implications of psychological ownership in organi-
zations. This focus on the positive outcomes of ownership may come from
the fact that prior studies, which almost exclusively address psychologi-
cal ownership over one’s job or the organization, do not take into account
the role of the social context. These studies have neglected to consider
the impact of ownership beyond the individual to look at how other’s
perceive and respond to claims and expressions of ownership, especially
claims to specific objects, roles, projects, ideas, and responsibilities in
organizations.
The social context is particularly relevant for the ownership of job
related objects when legal or formal ownership mechanisms do not ex-
ist. Whereas legal or formal ownership involves certainty and assurance
of one’s possession, such as a patent that validates and establishes a
claim, psychological ownership does not involve certainty or assurance
of ownership and is subject to different interpretations, perceptions, and
motivations among organizational members who may be vying for posses-
sion over the same work-related object. Indeed, psychological ownership
is subjective, ambiguous, and tenuous because colleagues may take, use,
or control another’s possessions as their own. Consequently, individuals
who feel ownership may engage in territorial behaviors to communicate
and defend their ownership claims. Further, variations in the social con-
text of the work environment can influence whether individuals engage
in these territorial behaviors and can shape how other’s respond to these
ownership-driven behaviors.
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 465

We contend that a key aspect of the social work environment that is

pertinent to the expression of territorial behavior is the degree of trust
present in the environment. Trust has long been considered a founda-
tional feature of social relationships (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985),
a key ingredient for cooperation (Barnard, 1938; Blau, 1964), and the
basis for stability in broader social institutions (Arrow, 1974; Williamson,
1974; Zucker, 1986). Based on theories of organizational trust (Dirks
& Ferrin, 2001; Inkpen & Currall, 2004; Pearce, Branyiczki, & Bigly,
2000), we suggest that an environment of trust may serve several critical
roles in the expression and impact of psychological ownership. First, we
posit that although psychological ownership leads employees to invest
in and take responsibility for work-related objects, depending upon the
level of trust in the environment, it may also lead employees to engage
in territorial behavior aimed at protecting and maintaining that which
they feel belongs to them. Second, the environment of trust may also
shape how others’ view territorial actions, potentially undermining their
evaluation of the territorial individual as a team contributor (defined as
being perceived as contributing to the success of the team; Welbourne,
Johnson, & Erez, 1998). Thus, the focal point of our paper is to ex-
amine trust as a key social context variable, which influences not only
whether psychological ownership leads to territorial behavior in the work-
place but also how territorial behavior can negatively impact the actor in
terms of how he or she is viewed by coworkers as a contributor to the
team.
We examine the moderating role of trust using a diverse field study
representing a variety of objects of ownership across a variety of job
functions and organizations. In so doing, we seek to add to the exist-
ing literatures on psychological ownership and territoriality in several
ways. First, this study will seek to identify territorial behavior as a po-
tentially detrimental aspect of psychological ownership, advancing re-
search that currently focuses exclusively on the positive implications
of psychological ownership. Second, this study will expand the focus
of psychological ownership to aspects of work beyond one’s job and
the organization itself. Indeed, as has been conceptually noted, employ-
ees can develop psychological ownership over a myriad of tangible and
intangible objects at work, notwithstanding the dearth of empirical re-
search examining this diversity of ownership objects. Finally, this study
integrates theories of organizational trust and bridges the literature of
psychological ownership to the literature on territoriality, pushing the
construct of psychological ownership into a more social realm and at
the same time advancing work on territorial behaviors in organizational
settings.
466 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Theoretical Background

Psychological Ownership

Pierce et al. defined psychological ownership as a state of mind, a

feeling that one has ownership over something, even if it is not legal own-
ership (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). This construct reflects one’s perceived
relationship between the self and the focal object (Belk, 1988; Dittmar,
1992), and from a psychological point of view, what one perceives as
“mine” is, in a sense, a part of what one considers “myself.”
Pierce and his colleagues (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003; Van Dyne &
Pierce, 2004) argued that psychological ownership can develop over a
myriad of different objects and as a result of one or more experiences
with a given object. The “routes” to psychological ownership (i.e., the
experiences or paths down which people travel that gives rise to feelings
of ownership) include controlling the target, intimately knowing the target,
and investing the self into the target. Thus, the development of ownership
is not dependent on the type of object itself but rather one’s relationship
and experience with that object. In psychological ownership theory, the
route “intimate knowing” refers to the depth and breadth of knowledge
of the object. Objects that have a history or story associated with them
(i.e., a gift from someone special) will further the ownership felt toward
that object. The route “investment of self” involves the individual investing
their time, energy, and aspects of themselves into the object. Thus, feelings
of ownership increase as the individual invests themselves in the object
and makes the object part of the extended self. Through the enactment
of one or more of these paths, employees can and do become attached to
a wide range of objects in organizations, such as relationships, projects,
ideas, and space (Brown & Robinson, 2011; Pierce et al., 2001), and
the sense of ownership emerges over time as one builds a relationship
with the focal object. When considering relationships, the greater the
depth and understanding of the other person, the greater the ownership
feelings.
One’s sense of ownership serves to fulfill a number of fundamental
and important needs, including a sense of efficacy and control over one’s
environment, a desire to have a place of one’s own or a sense of home,
and self-identification evolving from knowledge of one’s self and the
ability to express that to others (Pierce et al., 2003). Not surprisingly, if
employees’ possess a sense of psychological ownership over the job or
their organization, it may result in good things: Employees’ needs are
fulfilled, and the organization benefits as well. This is because feelings of
ownership leads one to like, value, invest in, and take responsibility for that
which they feel belongs to them. Thus, employees who feel ownership over
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 467

their jobs or organizations will seek to protect, care, and make sacrifices
for them (Pierce et al., 2001).
Although most of the empirical work on psychological ownership
has focused exclusively upon psychological ownership over one’s job or
organization (e.g., Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner, 2007) and
subsequent positive consequences, such as organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, involvement, in-role performance, citizenship behavior,
and remaining with the organization (Parker et al., 1997; Pendleton,
Wilson, & Wright, 1998; Pierce et al., 2003; VandeWalle et al., 1995; Van
Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Wagner et al., 2003), Van Dyne and Pierce (2004)
called for additional research to take a finer grained approach and examine
feelings of ownership toward specific targets within organizations. For
example, employees may feel ownership over various aspects of the
job or organization, such as specific job roles, designated workspaces,
important projects, new ideas, client relationships, and the like. Any
object that fulfills the needs of place, identity, or efficacy may engender
feelings of ownership (Pierce et al., 2003). These objects may be more
concrete or personal and thus foster stronger feelings of ownership than
more complex, shared, and distal targets such as the organization as a
whole (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).
Psychological ownership is a cognitive phenomenon reflecting one’s
beliefs about what is “mine”; however, Pierce and Jussila (2010) note that
“mine” can also be “ours” and that an object can have a connection with
the self while simultaneously having a connection to another individual
or group. Although groups may develop collective psychological owner-
ship where an object is shared, perhaps most important to our discussion
in this paper, it can also be the case that two or more individuals can
simultaneously claim a focal object as belonging exclusively to him or
herself at the same time. As such, psychological ownership over objects at
work are inherently subjective, tenuous, and potentially under threat from
others.

Territorial Behavior

The socially defined nature of ownership boundaries and attachments

means they may be subject to differing interpretations and the source of
spoken or unspoken conflict (Wollman, Kelley, & Bordens, 1994). In ad-
dition, because some property may be “objectively” valuable, different or-
ganizational members may be motivated to gain control over it, even when
claimed by another. For these reasons, Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson
(2005) developed a theory of territoriality in organizations, arguing that
employees with a sense of ownership may not only invest in, sacrifice for,
and take responsibility for that which they feel they own, but that they may
468 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

also feel compelled to protect that possession from others by engaging

in territorial behavior. Territoriality refers to behaviors used to mark and
defend those objects that one feels psychological ownership over and to
help establish not only what is “mine” but also what is “not yours” (Brown
et al., 2005). Specifically, individuals can engage in claiming behavior to
communicate to others that one has psychological ownership over them
(Altman, 1975; Becker & Mayo, 1971) and anticipatory defending behav-
iors to prevent others from successfully taking or using that which they see
as belonging exclusively to them (Dyson-Hudson & Smith, 1978; Edney,
1976).
Claiming behavior involves marking or labeling an object to com-
municate the boundaries of a territory and clarifying who possesses psy-
chological ownership over it (Altman, 1975; Becker & Mayo, 1971). An
example of claiming might include creating a physical border (e.g., ar-
ranging furniture in a shared office) to demarcate the boundaries of the
territory or using formal meetings to claim scope over certain roles or
resources that may be claimed by other groups or individuals. Claiming
behavior serves to communicate to others that someone has marked a
territory so that other people are discouraged from accessing, using, or
claiming the territory for themselves.
Although claiming demarcates territorial boundaries and indicates the
relationship between a territory and an individual, the socially defined
nature of these boundaries and attachments means they may come under
conflict and be subject to differing interpretations (Lyman & Scott, 1967;
Wollman et al., 1994). For example, workgroup members or newcomers
to the organization may be unaware or misinterpret territorial signals.
Because some territories may be “objectively” valuable, people may try
to gain control of the territory, despite the claim of another individual.
Fearing this situation, individuals may take action to prevent others
from successfully taking or using their territory. These actions are clas-
sified as anticipatory defenses because people engage in them to thwart
others from claiming and using the object (Dyson-Hudson & Smith, 1978;
Edney, 1976; Knapp, 1978). An example of an anticipatory defense might
include a lock on a door or a password preventing access to computer files.
In their foundational theory of organizational territoriality, Brown et al.
(2005) forwarded a critical proposition that strong feelings of ownership
can engender territorial behaviors. This is in line with research that has
long argued that people are innately motivated to mark and defend what
they feel is theirs (Hall, 1966). Managing and controlling one’s posses-
sions through territorial behaviors helps establish and secure one’s claims.
Without marking behaviors, others would not know what had already been
claimed or by whom. Engaging in these behaviors may increase the sense
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 469

of security and control over the object. Without defending behaviors,

people could easily take even an object that is marked. Wilpert (1991)
similarly stated that when people feel they have rights to something, they
are more likely to mark what they feel is theirs, as well as control and
limit access to the object. Thus feelings of ownership are expected to be
positively related to claiming and defending behavior.

Moderating Role of Trust

Trust is generally defined as the willingness to be vulnerable to another

based on one’s expectations of the other’s favorable character, intentions,
and behaviors (see Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Pearce et al.
(2000) argued that workgroups and organizations can form an overarching
environment of trust that relies, in part, on the basis of personal trust and
physical proximity and evolves across social networks to permeate the
work environment.
As with any environmental context, a trust environment can have
a significant influence on individual-level relationships (Johns, 2006).
This is because it is part of employees’ sense making, helping them to
both construct and interpret events that happen in that environment, as
well as understand what behaviors are considered appropriate, important,
expected, and rewarded (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).

The Role of Trust on Territoriality

Dirks and Ferrin (2001) argued that as a contextual factor in organiza-

tions, trust may serve a critical role that moderates the impact of primary
determinants on outcomes by influencing how individuals understand their
relationship with others. Accordingly, we contend that trust levels in the
work environment may act as a boundary condition that governs when
a person’s feelings of ownership are likely to be expressed in territorial
behaviors and, if so, whether these territorial behaviors affect observer
perceptions of the territorial individual.
Dirks and Ferrin (2001) note two ways by which trust may play a
moderating effect on organizational relationships. First, their anticipation
hypothesis argues that trust may influence how employees assess the
future behavior of others, especially in contexts where interdependent ac-
tors have mixed motives. Indeed, individuals develop anticipatory beliefs
or forecasts about future outcomes, based in part, on the normative context
(Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2002). We extend this idea to suggest that the
degree of trust in the environment may moderate the relationship between
psychological ownership and territoriality because it influences the actor’s
470 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

perception of their coworkers’ future actions in terms of how they will

behave with regards to one’s possessions. In the case of psychological
ownership, employees may be motivated toward cooperation and the
sharing of organizational resources for the betterment of the organization
if they can trust that their coworkers will do the same. Yet they may also
be motivated toward competition, to proactively engage in territorial be-
havior so as to hold onto and protect their value of possessions even at the
expense of cooperation and collaboration, and particularly if they believe
their coworkers may seek to usurp that which “rightfully” belongs to
them.
Trust assists in the calculation of costs and benefits of one’s actions
(Delgado-Márquez, Hurtado-Torres, & Aragón-Correa, 2012; Jøsang &
Presti, 2004).). In high trust environments, employees may assume others
are unlikely to infringe upon their possessions, and thus, territorial be-
havior is unnecessary. They gain the benefits of cooperation and freely
sharing resources along with their coworkers, with little risk of losing
ownership. In low trust environments, however, one may anticipate that
cooperative sharing may not result in personal gains but risk loss of
control over their possessions. Thus, one may be motivated to act more
instrumentally, maintaining control and mitigating the risk (Luhmann,
1990).
Such territorial behavior may be necessary as others are seen as also
engaging in these behaviors (Pearce et al., 2000). Thus, for example, an
employee may lock up files or rely upon digital passwords because he
or she anticipates that others will access and use that information to get
ahead at the individual’s expense (Crossley, 2009). Likewise, one may
brand every slide in a presentation, distribute documents in an unchange-
able format, or withhold one’s best ideas from a public conversation to
ensure his or her credit or ownership is not usurped by others. Thus, in low
trust environments, these concerns of infringement may pose a more le-
gitimate threat, thereby strengthening the relation between psychological
ownership and territorial behavior. In high trust environments, however,
there may be less of a perceived need to prove and defend ownership by
engaging in territorial behaviors, thereby attenuating the relation between
psychological ownership and territorial behavior.

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between psychologi-

cal ownership and territoriality, and this relationship
is moderated by the trust environment; the relation-
ship between psychological ownership and territorial
behavior is stronger in environments characterized by
low trust than in those characterized by high trust.
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 471

The Role of Trust on Perceptions of One as a Team Contributor

Dirks and Ferrin (2001) also suggest an interpretation hypothesis

wherein trust plays a second type of moderating role between actions
and outcomes by influencing how past actions of others are interpreted.
Interpersonal behaviors are, to a degree, ambiguous and subject to in-
terpretation. In particular, individuals have a need to make sense of and
understand the cause of others’ behavior, especially when that behavior is
unexpected and/or potentially detrimental or negative (Wong & Weiner,
1981). We extend these ideas here to argue that trust in the environment
may lead to negative interpretations of territorial behavior, and thus, the
territorial actor will be perceived as self-interested rather than as a team
contributor.
Some have argued that individual trust, as a prior belief, directs indi-
viduals to selectively notice and interpret others’ behavior in a way that
is consistent with their prior trust (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Robinson,
1996), thus high trust leads to more positive interpretations and low trust
leads to more negative interpretations. We contend, however that in the
context of psychological ownership and territoriality, an environment of
trust may actually produce the opposite effect; that is, a high trust envi-
ronment may lead to more negative interpretations of territorial behavior.
The reason that an environment of trust may lead to more negative in-
terpretations of territorial behavior is because this environment creates a
frame of reference against which one can make judgments about specific
behavior (Schneider, 1975), a backdrop reflecting the norms and expec-
tations for appropriate behavior and against which behavior is compared
and contrasted. Thought of another way, it provides the overarching social
contract reflecting the assumptions, beliefs, and norms about appropriate
behavior within a particular social unit (Gough, 1963; Homans, 1961). In
a high trust environment, territoriality is both unusual and in contrast to the
larger normative context and social contract. According to Kelley’s (1967)
attribution theory, individuals are more likely to judge behavior that is dis-
tinctive from the larger social context as being due to internal attributes of
the actor rather than due to the situation. Thus, against the backdrop of a
high trust environment, people who observe or are affected by territorial
behaviors may feel more upset, betrayed, or surprised because they did
not expect territorial behavior, such actions are not readily justified or per-
ceived as necessary or rational (Pearce et al., 2000), and one is likely to
attribute it to the character of the actor (Kelley, 1967). In such cases, there
is “mismatched-based surprise” (Lorini & Castelfranchi, 2007) leading to
a violation of “hope-cast” (an anticipated positive outcome) that results in
a sense of injustice and betrayal (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2002).
472 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Thus, in a high trust environment, the territorial behaviors that are

exhibited (although they may be fewer in frequency) may be more salient
and stand in stark contrast to normative and socially acceptable behaviors
such as sharing and cooperation, thus invoking an attribution process fo-
cused on internal causes and aimed at uncovering the actor’s intentions.
When an individual exhibits territorial behavior in a high trust environ-
ment, the actions may be perceived as self-interested rather than channeled
toward group goals (cf. Dirks, 1999). These territorial displays may thus
be viewed as controlling, manipulative, or as a preemptive attempt to gain
advantage over or “get the jump on others,” and may thus undermine
observers’ perceptions of the actor’s concern for and contribution to the
team. Territorial behaviors that claim resources or block others from us-
ing objects may signal that the individual is more interested in preserving
their own interests and is less concerned about the welfare of others or the
entire team (Brown et al., 2005). Thus, in low trust environments territo-
rial behavior may be expected, but in high trust environments territorial
behaviors may magnify the perceptions that the person is not interested
in being a team player by creating symbolic and actual barriers to open
sharing. Accordingly, we expect:

Hypothesis 2: The degree of trust in the work environment interacts

with territoriality to determine how one is perceived
as a team contributor; in environments of high trust,
compared to environments of low trust, territoriality is
more negatively related to evaluations of being a team
contributor.

Method

Participants and Procedure

One hundred and forty-eight undergraduate business students at a uni-

versity in Singapore were asked to recruit up to two participants each
for this study. Participants were to be (a) full-time working adults that
worked in collaborative settings (defined as work settings where the par-
ticipant interacted with other coworkers in order to do their job), (b) able
to read English, and (c) willing to complete an online survey. We pur-
posely instructed students to avoid recruiting people that worked largely
in isolation and apart from others (i.e., delivery people). Several studies
have used similar procedures to collect data (e.g., Hazer & Highhouse,
1997; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003; Liao, 2007) and have shown
that data collected using this approach are of comparable quality to data
collected via more traditional procedures (e.g., Smith, Tisak, Hahn, &
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 473

Schmeider, 1997). This also assured a more heterogeneous sampling of

jobs, organizations, and participants. Participants were informed that their
responses were voluntary, completely confidential, and that they would
be used for research purposes only. Through this method, we asked 280
adults from a variety of organizations in Singapore to participate in our
survey. Of these, 262 (97%) completed usable surveys. As a check on
the quality of the data, we called 42 (16%) respondents and asked them
to confirm their completion of the surveys and to verify one of their re-
sponses (e.g., age). All of the respondents we called (100%) confirmed
their participation and accurately confirmed one of their responses.
The average age was 33.4 years (SD = 8.49), and 54% of the partic-
ipants were female. Participants worked in a variety of industries (27%
service industry; 9% government; 14% financial industry; 12% manu-
facturing industry; 6% transportation industry), with the average tenure
in the organization being 5.2 years (SD = 1.10). Fifty-one percent re-
ported occupying manager-level positions, and 50% had a college degree
or higher.
Upon completing the surveys, participants were asked to send a team-
mate survey (a link via email) to the person in their workgroup sitting
in closest physical proximity to them. This technique was expected to
generate responses from a coworker who worked with the participant
and witnessed their daily interactions with other teammates but was not
necessarily a close friend. A total of 139 coworkers participated in the
study and returned complete and usable data for peer-rated analyses. An
analyses of response bias suggested that coworker participation (0 =
no, 1 = yes) was not associated with target participant demographics
(i.e., gender, tenure, ethnicity, age) or to the amount of ownership or
territorial behaviors reported by the target participant (χ 2 (10) = 6.03, p >
.05).

Measures

Self-Report Variables

Psychological ownership. Psychological ownership was measured us-

ing the four self-referenced (“mine”) items from Van Dyne and Pierce
(2004). Respondents were instructed to think of an “object” (e.g., idea,
tool, workspace, key relationship, work project, etc.) that was critical to
their job and to answer questions with that object in mind. Scale items
were reworded replacing the word organization/company with the word
“object” as follows: “I feel a very high degree of personal ownership
for this object” (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; α = .91).
A CFA confirmed that items loaded a single ownership factor that was
474 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1
Items and Factor Loadings for Respective Territorial Behavior Scales

Item Factor loadings

CB1 . . . let others know the ‘ ’ .65
has been claimed
CB2 . . . tell/ show others that the .76
‘ ’ belongs to me
CB3 . . . clarify the boundaries around .61
the ‘ ’ (to establish what is
and is not yours)
AD1 . . . make the ‘ ’ hard to .59
use/ access
AD2 . . . hide the ‘ ’ so others .77
don’t know about it until I want
AD3 . . . make the ‘ ’ .71
unattractive so others do not want
to claim it
PO1 I feel a very high degree of .72
personal ownership for this object
PO2 This is my object .89
PO3 I sense that this object is mine .86
PO4 I sense that this is my object .89

Note. CB = claiming behavior; AD = anticipatory defending; PO = psychological own-

ership. Factor loadings are on respective latent factors. Maximum likelihood confirmatory
factor analysis via Lisrel 8.5.

distinct from the claiming and anticipatory defending factors discussed

next; three-factor χ 2 (32) = 77.30, p < .01, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .98,
SRMR = .03; one-factor χ 2 (35) = 754. 90, p < .01, RMSEA = .24, CFI
= .75, SRMR = .14 (see Table 1 for the specific items and their factor
loadings).
Territorial behavior. We adapted Brown’s (2009) measure of claiming
and anticipatory defending behavior to apply to a variety of types of
territories (the original measure assessed physical workspace only). We
began by translating the Brown (2009) items into general item statements
that could apply to a wide variety of territories and to reflect the underlying
behaviors used to claim and defend territories. These behaviors were next
reviewed and assessed by a separate panel of judges who evaluated the
items on several dimensions. The first criterion was to determine whether
the item was indeed a behavior. The second decision was whether the item
could apply to a variety of objects (i.e., workspace, role, idea, and tool).
Finally, judges sorted each item onto its intended dimension. Through this
process we identified six items for further validation.
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 475

We then collected data on the six-item measure via a sample of partic-

ipants provided by Market Tools Inc., an online survey organization with
over 2.5 million people across the United States who, in return for complet-
ing surveys, earn points toward various prizes. Similar services have been
used to study phenomena such as job characteristics (Piccolo & Colquitt,
2006) and employee commitment (Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield,
2007). We specified a random draw of 500 working adults that reflected
the same gender and geographical distribution as the larger U.S. popula-
tion. We received 332 completed usable responses (66% response rate), of
which 51% were female, 82% were White, and 44% had a college degree
or higher. Participants represented a variety of occupations, the largest
occupational groups being managers (15%), administrative staff (11%),
engineers (12%), and health professionals (10%). Participants were asked
to choose an object (e.g., idea, project, relationship, computer, workspace)
in the organization that they felt was theirs and with this object in mind
respond to the six items in addition to items assessing levels of owner-
ship. Because we were unsure of how these revised items would behave
when used to assess a variety of object types across diverse organizational
settings, we subjected the data to an exploratory factor analysis. Results
of a maximum likelihood analysis with oblique rotation suggested a two-
factor solution with eigenvalues greater than 1, and items loading on the
expected factors. Based on this survey we confirmed the six-item, two-
factor structure (see Table 1 with factor loadings) with good reliability
(α = .85 claiming, α = .74 anticipatory defending).
Using this revised measure, we asked our focal study participants to
complete the three-item claiming and three-item anticipatory defending
measures with reference to the same object that was used to answer the
psychological ownership questions. A CFA verified the two-factor model
χ 2 (8) = 23.00, p < .05; RMSEA = .07, CFI = .98, SRMR = .03 (α =
.72 claiming, .74 anticipatory defending). Items and factor loadings are
included in Table 1.

Team-Member Variables

Trust environment. We used an adapted version of the five-item en-

vironment of trust measure (Pearce et al., 2000). Team members of the
target participants were asked to think about their workgroup overall and
respond to questions such as “we have confidence in one another in this
workgroup” and “members of this workgroup show a great deal of in-
tegrity” α = .93. The reverse-scored item “there is no ‘team spirit’ in
my work group” was not used in study analysis due to a low item-total
correlation (r = .19) that undermined the scale’s reliability.
476 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 2
Intercorrelations Among Study Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Tenure –
2. Gender –.05 –
3. Length of relationship .31** .03 –
4. Psychological ownership .10 –.06 .11 (.91)
5. Trust environment .04 –.10 .04 .04 (.93)
6. Claiming behavior .10 –.20* .13 .51** .07 (.72)
7. Anticipatory defending behavior .04 –.02 .22* .16* –.14 .53** (.74)
8. Team contributor –.03 –.05 .02 .18* .41** –.07 –.25** (.92)
Mean 5.20 .54 2.68 5.49 5.15 4.41 2.83 6.09
SD 1.10 .50 1.35 1.20 1.12 1.55 1.29 .88
Note. N = 139. Cronbach alpha estimates are in parentheses. Length of relation is reported
in years. Gender was coded 1 = female, 0 = male.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Team contributor. The proximal coworker also assessed the territorial

individual’s contributions to the success of the team using Welbourne
et al.’s (1998) four-item team contributor scale. Observers were asked to
rate the target participant on items such as “makes sure his/her work group
succeeds” and “responds to the needs of others in his/ her work group”
(1 = needs much improvement, 7 = excellent; α = .92).
Control variables. We controlled for gender, tenure, and length of
relationship between the participant and coworker.

Results

Table 2 displays descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between

the study variables. Before proceeding to tests of our hypotheses, we
conducted an analysis to examine the range of objects of psychological
ownership chosen by participants. Table 3 lists the types of objects and
frequency to which each was reported by our sample, using Brown and
Robinson’s (2011) categorization scheme. This scheme was slightly mod-
ified, as we dropped the category “privacy/mental workspace” because we
did not find any examples in our data set, and we added “relationships,”
which was originally included in their “miscellaneous” category.
We then tested for differences in (a) psychological ownership, (b)
claiming, and (c) anticipatory defending by type of object. We used the
reduced sample that included coworker responses (N = 139); the full
sample that included all focal participant responses (N = 262); and an
additional verification sample (N = 332), which was used to validate
the anticipatory defending and claiming behavior measures as discussed
 TABLE 3
Types and Frequency of Objects Psychologically Owned by Participants in Each Sample

Reduced sample Full sample Verification sample

Type Frequency Valid% Frequency Valid% Frequency Valid% Example

Physical objects 49 35.3% 98 37.4% 101 30.6% “Personally issued stamps with
unique numbering that
represents you. Must treat it like
your life”
Spaces 37 26.6% 61 23.3% 44 13.3% “The laboratory where all the
designated equipment are set up,
where experiments are
conducted”
Work products/projects 14 10.1% 35 13.4% 56 16.9% “EBay project”
Roles/job 15 10.8% 27 10.3% 62 18.8% “‘Gatekeeper’ role for protecting
employee confidentiality”
Ideas/ knowledge 10 7.2% 15 5.7% 26 7.8% “Proper process guidelines for any
kind of circuit implementation”
Files/documents 5 3.6% 10 3.8% 12 3.6% “My folders and data inside the
GRAHAM BROWN ET AL.

computer”
Relationships 5 3.6% 8 3.1% 27 8.2% “Relationship with clients, staff in
my department”
Miscellaneous 4 2.9% 8 3.1% 2 0.61% (Organization’s reputation) “Good
record for prompt delivery, good
quality product and service to
customers”
Total 139 100% 262 100% 332 100%
477
478 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 4
Relationships Between Psychological Ownership, Territorial Behaviors, and
Team Contributor Ratings Under Conditions of High and Low Trust

Psychological ownership and Claiming/defending

claiming/defending and team contributor

High trust Low trust  High trust Low trust 

Claiming .43** .66** .23** –.19** .02 .22*
Defending .07 .26** .19** –.19* –.12 .06

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

above. Across all three samples’ ANOVA tests (three per sample) we found
no significant differences between the object types on the key variables of
psychological ownership, claiming, and defending behaviors.
We next tested our hypotheses, using the nested equations, total effects
model as outlined by Edwards and Lambert (2007). Among its advantages,
and most relevant to this study, is the ability to test multiple moderated
paths simultaneously. Variables were centered, and reduced-form equa-
tions were then used to derive the effects of the independent variable
(psychological ownership) across levels of the moderator variable (trust
environment). Following standard procedure, we examined these effects
at one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the
mean of the moderator.
As expected, psychological ownership was positively related to claim-
ing (β = .43, p < .01). The interaction between psychological ownership
and trust environment on claiming was also significant (β = .22, p < .01).
Claiming was negatively related to perceptions of team contributor (β =
–.19, p < .05), and the interaction between claiming and trust was signifi-
cant (β = .24, p < .01). For the territorial behavior of claiming, the model
predicts 36% of variance in claiming and 31% variance in perception of
being a team contributor.
For the territorial behavior of anticipatory defending, the model pre-
dicts 12% of variance in anticipatory defending and 29% variance in
team contributor. Although the main effect of psychological ownership on
anticipatory defending was not significant (β = .07, p > .05), the interac-
tion between psychological ownership and trust on anticipatory defending
was significant (β = .18, p < .05). Anticipatory defending was related
to perceptions of being a team contributor (β = –.19, p < .05), but the
interaction between anticipatory defending and trust on ratings of team
contributor was not significant (β = .07, p > .05). The information from
these results was used to calculate the simple effects at low and high levels
of trust (shown in Table 4).
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 479

Table 4 shows the relationship between psychological ownership

and the territorial behaviors at low and high levels of trust in the work
environment. The difference () in magnitude of relationship between
psychological ownership and territorial behavior under high versus low
levels of trust provides evidence of first-stage moderation. As shown in
Table 4, the relationship between psychological ownership and territorial
behavior was stronger in low trust environments, compared to high trust
environments; claiming ( = .23 [.66 – .43], p < .01) and anticipatory
defending ( = . 19 [.26 – .07], p < .01). Thus Hypothesis 1 was fully
supported.
Table 4 also shows the association of claiming and defending behaviors
with subsequent team contributor evaluations at low and high levels of
trust environment. The difference () between the two is used to test
for the presence of second-stage moderation. The relationship between
claiming and team contributor was stronger in high trust environments
than low trust environments ( = .22 [–.19 – .02], p < .05), but this was
not the case for anticipatory defending ( = .06 [–.19 – (–.12)], p > .05).
Thus Hypothesis 2 was partially supported.

Discussion

Our study provides insight into a common and puzzling dilemma.

Should managers and organizations encourage feelings of personal own-
ership? To this point the prevailing sentiment and research implications
have been uniformly affirmative because it appears that psychological
ownership has been associated with numerous positive outcomes. This
study suggests that psychological ownership may also have an impor-
tant downside and highlights the critical nature of trust in understanding
these relationships. In work contexts with high trust environments, em-
ployees with high psychological ownership may be less likely to engage
in territorial behaviors over their perceived possessions, but if they do,
these territorial behaviors contrast with the high trust environment and
may signal self-interested motives, thereby undermining perceptions of
the individual’s contributions to the team.
This study advanced prior research in several ways. First, our study
provides a critical first test of key propositions of Brown et al.’s (2005)
conceptual theory of territoriality. We empirically confirm that psycho-
logical ownership is associated with territorial behavior. Extending this
theoretical work, we provide further insight into the nature and boundary
conditions of these relations by showing the critical role of trust in this re-
lationship. In doing so, we also respond to the recent call by Pierce, Jussila,
and Cummings (2009) to examine the “dark” side of ownership. This study
extends our understanding of psychological ownership by demonstrating
480 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

how and when psychological ownership is related to negative out-

comes.
We also extend the empirical research on psychological owner-
ship by going beyond the traditional focus on jobs and organiza-
tions, and examining ownership over other organizational objects. This
broader application of psychological ownership to a myriad of orga-
nizational objects is consistent with foundational theories of psycho-
logical ownership, which are agnostic about the nature of the focal
objects. As our study shows, organizational members can and do be-
come possessive over particular objects at work, and the behaviors as-
sociated with those feelings of possession have important organizational
implications.
We also contribute to the research that has shown the important role
of trust as a moderator rather than merely as a “main-effect” predictor of
important organizational outcomes (e.g., Dirks, 1999; Langfred, 2004). In-
terestingly, while high trust environments may weaken relations between
psychological ownership and territorial behavior, high trust environments
also accentuate the negative impact of these behaviors when they do oc-
cur. In high trust environments, we may not expect others to engage in
territorial behaviors, and they typically refrain from such behavior. How-
ever, in these high trust environments, people who violate expectations by
engaging in territorial behaviors stand out and may be viewed by others
as not contributing to the team. In this case, not only is trust a modera-
tor, but it plays a role as a fascinating dual edge sword, illuminating the
complex relationship among ownership, territoriality, and perceptions of
one’s contribution to the team.
Our results also raise interesting questions about territoriality itself.
Although not hypothesized, the results show that in both high and low
trust conditions psychological ownership has a stronger relationship to
claiming than anticipatory defenses (by a similar magnitude in both con-
ditions). Although this main effect difference is beyond the scope of the
paper, we can suggest a few reasons for it. One is a statistical explana-
tion: Anticipatory defenses has lower variance than claiming, which could
restrict its observed correlations with other variables. A theoretical expla-
nation may be that anticipatory defenses, compared to claiming, may be
more influenced by variables aside from ownership, such as beliefs that
others may attempt to infringe and such attempts need to be thwarted.
Future research is needed to examine additional predictors of territorial
behaviors.
Practically speaking, based on our results we suggest that managers
will generally benefit most from “creating a high trust environment” and
diminishing the occurrence of territorial behaviors. There may be real
value for organizations in fostering feelings of ownership among (rather
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 481

than between) employees, with an associated increase in feelings of re-

sponsibility for important clients or projects and commitment to the suc-
cess of the firm. Nevertheless, organizations and managers need to explic-
itly address and learn to recognize issues of ownership and territoriality,
as territorial behavior may serve an important human function, making
it difficult to completely eliminate from organizations. Managers may
benefit from establishing an environment of trust among coworkers be-
fore fostering ownership, as this may reduce the occurrence of claiming
and defending behaviors that can accompany ownership when trust levels
are low. Managers who are trained to recognize territoriality could detect
such displays as an early warning of individuals who may undermine
team effectiveness and thereby help address underlying individual and
team needs before the effects of territoriality spill over to deteriorate the
social environment.

Limitations and Future Research

Although we have introduced an empirical model to test our integration

of theories of organizational trust, psychological ownership, and territo-
riality, we realize a major limitation is the inability to establish causality
given the correlational nature of our study. As a first study, this work
supports the existence of important relationships, and further research is
clearly needed to disentangle issues of causality. Problems inherent in
self-report techniques also limit the study implications. Although recent
research (Spector, 2006) suggests that, as a field, management scholars of-
ten overstate the problems associated with common method variance, the
effects of self-report bias in this study cannot be clearly discerned or com-
pletely disregarded. Nevertheless, the separation of predictor (self-rated
psychological ownership and territorial behavior) and outcome (other-
rated perception of being a team contributor) helps reduce concerns of
common method artifacts such as percept–percept inflation as an alterna-
tive explanation for study findings.
In addition, because our study is an initial step toward understanding
the link between psychological ownership and territoriality in the organi-
zation and their effects on organizational outcomes, our model is incom-
plete and underspecified. For example, future research could include alter-
nate measures of performance including “objective” measures of both in-
dividual and team performance. Having “objective” contributions to team
performance would allow us to understand whether the effect on perfor-
mance is caused by the person actually contributing less versus an effect of
how others view the territorial individual. An alternative, and limitation in
this study, is the use of a single rater to evaluate trust and performance. Us-
ing multiple raters would be less susceptible to any influence of a specific
482 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

relationship between a territorial individual and a single rater. Further

research is also warranted to better understand objects of ownership. Al-
though we did not find systematic differences in feelings of ownership or
territoriality as a function of type of object, the fact that people claim such
a wide variety of objects necessitates further exploration on possible dif-
ferences for personal motivation and other deleterious types of behaviors
in the workplace. Future work may also examine the numbers and patterns
of objects over which an individual may develop feelings of ownership or
“hoarding” types of territorial behaviors.
Although outside the scope of this study, it is likely that reciprocal
relations exist between trust and territorial behaviors, such that claiming
and defending behaviors act as signaling events that erode trust over time
and may explain the evolution of distrust that ensues under conditions
where territoriality may be warranted, such as reorganizations, down-
sizing, mergers, acquisitions, or divestitures. Future research may thus
benefit from exploring the dynamic relations among trust, psychological
ownership, and territorial behaviors of individuals and workgroups.
The dilemma between ownership and territoriality has a number
of potential implications for organizations, such as how it impacts
group decision making. Stasser and Titus (1987) have highlighted
how effective group decision making depends upon uncovering hidden
profiles, which occurs only when group members effectively pool their
respective partial knowledge about a superior decision alternative. Only
by sharing and combining that partial knowledge held by individuals
can the group appreciate and select the superior alternative. Taking the
results of this study in combination with past evidence that organizational
members can be territorial over their knowledge (Baer & Brown,
2012; Brown et al., 2005) suggests that such sense of ownership over
information and knowledge may actually undermine (a) the individual’s
willingness to share information with the group, (b) the group’s ability
to uncover hidden profiles, and ultimately (c) effective group decision
making.
Finally, these findings encourage more research on territoriality itself,
particularly ways to mitigate its potential negative consequences. Territo-
riality is theorized to meet psychological needs and to have at least some
positive effects for individuals, and as a type of proactive behavior, it may
help people adjust to and shape their work environment. Unfortunately, if
it is perceived negatively by others, then the personal psychological out-
comes may actually be offset by negative social outcomes such as social
exclusion or ostracism by teammates. These and other questions offer an
exciting area of future research that can help individuals and organizations
to achieve greater positive results.
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 483

REFERENCES

Altman I. (1975). Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and
crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Arrow KJ. (1974). The limits of organization. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Baer M, Brown G. (2012). Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas
affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 118, 60–71.
Barnard CI. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Beaglehole E. (1932). Property: A study in social psychology. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Becker FD, Mayo C. (1971). Delineating personal space and territoriality. Environment
and Behavior, 3, 375–381.
Belk RW. (1988). Possessions and the self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
139–168.
Blau PM. (1964). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Brown G. (2009). Measuring territoriality in organizations. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29, 44–52.
Brown G, Lawrence TB, Robinson SL. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 3, 577–594.
Brown G, Robinson SL. (2011). Reactions to infringement. Organization Science, 22,
210–224.
Crossley CD. (2009). Emotional and behavioral reactions to social undermining: A closer
look at perceived offender motives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 108, 14–24.
Crossley CD, Bennett RJ, Jex SM, Burnfield JL. (2007). Development of a global measure
of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1031–1042.
Das G. (1993). Local memoirs of a global manager. Harvard Business Review, 71, 38–47.
Delgado-Márquez BL, Hurtado-Torres NE, Aragón-Correa JA. (2012). The dynamic nature
of trust transfer: Measurement and the influence of reciprocity. Decision Support
Systems, 54, 226–234.
Dipboye RL. (1977). A critical review of Korman’s self-consistency theory of work moti-
vation and occupational choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
18, 108–126.
Dirks KT. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.
Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12, 450–467.
Dittmar H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New
York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Dyson-Hudson R, Smith EA. (1978). Human territoriality: An ecological reassessment.
American Anthropologist, 80, 21–41.
Edney JJ. (1976). Human territories: Comment on functional properties. Environment and
Behavior, 8, 31–47.
Edwards JR, Lambert LS. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Meth-
ods, 12, 1–22.
Gough JW. (1963). The social contract. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hall ET. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Doubleday.
484 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Hazer JT, Highhouse S. (1997). Factors influencing managers’ reactions to utility analysis:
Effects of SDy method, information frame, and focal intervention. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 104–112.
Homans G. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace
& World.
Inkpen AC, Currall SC. (2004). The coevolution of trust, control, and learning in joint
ventures. Organization Science, 15, 586–599.
Johns G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 31, 386–408.
Jøsang A, Presti S. (2004). Analysing the relationship between risk and trust. Trust Man-
agement, 2995, 135–145.
Judge TA, Erez A, Bono JE, Thoresen CJ. (2003). The core self-evaluation scale: Devel-
opment of a measure. P ERSONNEL P SYCHOLOGY, 56, 303–331.
Kelley HH. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Levine D (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–240). Lincoln, NE: University of Ne-
braska Press.
Knapp ML. (1978). Non-verbal communication in human interaction. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Korman AK. (1970). Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Psychology, 54,
31–41.
Langfred CW. (2004). Too much of a good thing? The negative effects of high trust and
autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 385–399.
Liao H. (2007). Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance
in customer-perceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 475–489.
Lorini E, Castelfranchi C. (2007). The cognitive structure of surprise: Looking for basic
principles. Topoi, 26, 133–149.
Luhmann N. (1990). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In Gambetta
D (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 94–107). Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Lyman SM, Scott MB. (1967). Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension. Social
Problems, 15, 236–249.
Mayhew MG, Ashkanasy NM, Bramble T, Gardner J. (2007). A study of the antecedents
and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. Journal of
Social Psychology, 5, 477–500.
Miceli M, Castelfranchi C. (2002). The mind and the future: The (negative) power of
expectations. Theory Psychology, 3, 335–366.
Parker SK, Wall TD, Jackson PR. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible em-
ployee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899–929.
Pearce JL, Branyiczki I, Bigly GA. (2000). Insufficient bureaucracy: Trust and commitment
in particularistic organizations. Organization Science, 11, 148–162.
Pendleton A, Wilson N, Wright M. (1998). The perception and effects of share ownership:
Empirical evidence from employee buy-outs. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
36, 99–123.
Piccolo RF, Colquitt JA. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The medi-
ating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340.
Pierce JL, Jussilla I. (2010). Collective psychological ownership. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30, 477–496.
Pierce JL, Jussilla I, Cummings A. (2009). Psychological ownership within the job design
context: A revision of the job characteristics model. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30, 477–496.
 GRAHAM BROWN ET AL. 485

Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298–310.
Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating
and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84–107.
Pratt MG, Dutton JE. (2000). Owning up or opting out: The role of identities and emotions
in issue ownership. In Ashkanasy N, Hartel C, Zerbe W (Eds.), Emotions in the
workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 103–129). New York, NY: Quorum.
Rempel JK, Holmes JG, Zanna MP. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112.
Robinson SL. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 41, 574–599.
Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
Salancik GR, Pfeffer J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climate: An essay. P ERSONNEL P SYCHOLOGY, 28,
447–479.
Smith CS, Tisak J, Hahn SE, Schmieder RA. (1997). The measurement of job control.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 225–237.
Spector PE. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?
Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.
Stasser G, Titus W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage shared informa-
tion on the dissemination of unshared information during discussion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93.
Van Dyne L, Pierce JL. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three
field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 439–460.
VandeWalle D, Van Dyne L, Kostova T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An empirical
examination of its consequences. Group & Organization Management, 20, 210–226.
Wagner SH, Parker CP, Christiansen ND. (2003). Employees that think and act like own-
ers: Effects of ownership beliefs and behaviors on organizational effectiveness.
P ERSONNEL P SYCHOLOGY, 56, 847–871.
Welbourne TM, Johnson DE, Erez A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity
analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540–555.
Williamson OE. (1974). Markets and hierarchies. New York, NY: Free Press.
Wilpert B. (1991). Property, ownership, and participation: On the growing contradictions
between legal and psychological ownership concepts. In Russell R, Rus V (Eds.),
International handbook of participations in organizations: For the study of orga-
nizational democracy, co-operation, and self management (Vol. 2, pp.149–164),
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wollman N, Kelly BM, Bordens KS. (1994). Environmental and intrapersonal predictors
of reactions to potential territorial intrusions in the workplace. Environment and
Behavior, 26, 179–194.
Wong P, Weiner B. (1981). When people ask “why” questions, and the heuristics of
attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650–663.
Zucker LG. (1986). The production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure,
1840–1920. In Staw BM, Cummings LL (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 8, pp. 55–111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Copyright of Personnel Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.