Psychological Ownership

The IRIOP Annual Review Issue
Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 163–183 (2017)

Published online 12 October 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2057
Psychological ownership: A review and research

agenda†
SARAH DAWKINS1, AMY WEI TIAN2, ALEXANDER NEWMAN3* AND
ANGELA MARTIN1
1
Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
2
University of Western Australia Business School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia,
Australia
3
Department of Management, Monash Business School, Monash University, Caulfield East, Victoria, Australia
Summary The concept of psychological ownership (PO) reflects a state in which individuals feel as though the target of
ownership (e.g., job or organization) is theirs. In recent years, there has been an expansion of research linking
PO with a range of desirable employee attitudes and behaviors. However, the theoretical foundations of the
construct, its measurement, the factors that influence its development, and when and how it influences out-
comes are areas of continued debate in the literature. In this article, we provide a narrative review of extant
PO literature with the aim of developing a research agenda that encourages scholars to target opportunities
for future research. In particular, we highlight the need for continued refinement of the conceptualization
and measurement of PO, and development of its nomological network. In addition, we call for greater inves-
tigation of PO towards different objects or foci; examination of possible multilevel applications of PO re-
search; identification of potential boundary conditions of PO; and exploration of the influence of culture
and individual differences on the development and influence of PO. We also introduce alternative theoretical
approaches for understanding and investigating PO. In doing so, we provide a roadmap for scholars to prog-
ress the development of the field. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: psychological ownership; antecedents; outcomes; measurement
Introduction
With its focus on the factors that promote employee retention, discretionary effort, performance, innovation and well-
being, a major focus in organizational behavior research has been on understanding the ways in which employees re-
late to, or feel psychologically “attached” to, their organization and their work. A key emerging construct in this area
is psychological ownership (PO), defined as “a state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership (or a
piece of that target) is theirs (i.e., it is ‘MINE’)” (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003, p. 86). The construct of PO has
evolved from broader literatures concerned with the psychology of “mine,” possession, and property (e.g., Dittmar,
1992; Furby, 1978); adapting the psychology of possession and ownership to the organizational context. The target of
ownership is one that assumes importance for the way people define themselves (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001),
including tangible and intangible targets such as “the organization,” “the job,” or a specific aspect of work such as
a novel idea, a strategic initiative, or a specific project, and its implementation (Avey, Wernsing, & Palanski,
2012; Baer & Brown, 2012; Brown, Crossley, & Robinson, 2014a; Brown & Robinson, 2011).
Although PO has, to some degree, been theoretically and empirically distinguished from other similar constructs,
such as organizational commitment and organizational identification, the theoretical foundations of the construct, its
*Correspondence to: Alexander Newman, Department of Management, Monash Business School, Monash University, Caulfield East, Victoria,
Australia. E-mail: alex.newman@monash.edu
†
A Video Abstract to accompany this article is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALzMgeHKK_Q&feature=youtu.be
Received 24 November 2014

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 21 August 2015, Accepted 14 September 2015
164 S. DAWKINS ET AL.
measurement, the factors that influence its development, and when and how it influences outcomes, are areas of
continued debate in the literature. For example, there is no overall consensus among researchers as to how PO
should be conceptualized and measured, and limited research has examined multilevel applications of PO research
and the situations in which PO will have stronger effects on work outcomes.
In light of this, and the absence of a meta-analysis to synthesize the empirical evidence, there is a need for detailed
and focused review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents and consequences of PO in the workplace, as well
as issues associated with its conceptualization and measurement. Although Jussila, Tarkiainen, Sarstedt, and Hair
(2015a) have provided an overview of PO and its implications specific to marketing research, this review will pro-
vide a seminal and critical analysis of the construct in terms of its theoretical conceptualization and measurement in
the management discipline and present a roadmap for future research.
In line with best practice (Short, 2009), we used Web of Science, Google Scholar, and related databases to identify
peer-reviewed articles with Psychological Ownership in their title or keywords. We excluded articles that exclusively
examined customer perceptions of ownership, rather than employee perceptions of ownership over different foci. Ac-
cordingly, empirical articles published in the recent special issue on PO in the Journal of Marketing: Theory and Practice
(Jussila, Tarkiainen, Sarstedt, & Hair, 2015b) have not been included given their specific focus on customer perceptions
of PO. As a result, 40 articles were identified for inclusion in this review, of which 34 were empirical (33 quantitative and
1 qualitative). We organize the review into two main sections. In the first section, we review past research on PO. Here,
we define PO and critically assess how it has been measured in previous research. We then review research that has
examined the antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of PO. In the second section, we present an agenda for future re-
search and propose alternate theoretical lenses through which to investigate how PO develops and influences outcomes.
Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Basis, Dimensionality, and Levels
Pierce et al. (2001, 2003) argued that PO comprises both affective and cognitive elements. As noted by Etzioni (1991,
p. 466), ownership is a “dual creation, part attitude, part object, part in the mind, part real.” This is exemplified using
statements such as “She is MY daughter”—which includes both affective and cognitive information based on affective
judgments, as well as more abstract beliefs (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004, p. 442). Thus, PO, in part, consists of an emo-
tional attachment to the target that exceeds the cognitive evaluation of the target. Further, although they may share some
overlap, PO differs notably from legal ownership (Pierce et al., 2003). For instance, legal ownership is recognized by
others and is upheld by the legal system, while PO is most commonly conceptualized as a self-derived perception,
thereby recognized primarily by the individual. There is no formal recognition from others regarding PO, as it is the in-
dividual in which feelings of ownership are manifested and the boundaries associated with ownership are determined.
Traditionally, two schools of thought have existed in relation to the function of the state of ownership. On one
hand, scholars believe that individuals have an innate need to possess, and that the desire to collect objects and pos-
sessions can be observed across most cultures; thereby arguing that the state of ownership seems instinctive
(McDougall, 1923). In their original conceptualization of PO, Pierce et al. (2001) described it as “innately human.”
However, others highlight that there is no evidence to support the idea of an ownership instinct and assert that
ownership is a learned behavior, which emerges as an early developmental process (Seligman, 1975).
While no empirical evidence exists to currently confirm or disconfirm either of these hypotheses, PO scholars tend to
agree that PO emerges because it “satisfies certain human motives, some of them genetic and others social in nature”
(Pierce et al., 2001, p. 300). Thus, it is suggested that PO serves three fundamental human needs: (1) efficacy; (2)
self-identity; and (3) belongingness (a sense of “place”). The first of these, efficacy, reflects a basic human need to feel
capable in a given domain (Bandura, 1997). Possession of tangible or intangible objects can enhance feelings of efficacy
as they provide a sense of power, control, or influence (Pierce et al., 2004). Similarly, possessions and perceptions of
“mine” can clarify a sense of the self. Specifically, possessions can reflect one’s self-identity; symbolic expressions of
the self that convey core values or individuality (Dittmar, 1992). Finally, possessions or a sense of ownership provide
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 163–183 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/job
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP: A REVIEW 165
an individual with a sense of place or belongingness, which is essential for providing feelings of comfort, pleasure, and
security (Heidegger, 1967).
In contrast to Pierce et al. (2001), conceptualization of PO as reflecting feelings of possessiveness, and of being
psychological connected to an object (or part of an object), others have suggested that PO reflects a sense of respon-
sibility for the object. Parker, Wall, and Jackson (1997) suggested that individuals have a stronger sense of owner-
ship when they have concern for and perceived responsibility for the target. In addition, Avey, Avolio, Crossley, and
Luthans (2009) extended Pierce et al.’s conceptualization of PO to also include the dimension of accountability.
Accountability is defined as “the implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify one’s beliefs,
feelings, and actions to others” (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999, p. 255). Specifically, Avey et al. (2009) contended that PO
manifests when individuals feel the following: (1) efficacious about working with the target of ownership; (2) ac-
countable for the target of ownership; and (3) a sense of belongingness and personal identification with the target
of ownership (p. 24). This conceptualization deviates somewhat from Pierce et al. who theorized that PO and per-
ceived responsibility are in fact distinct states, whereby a sense of responsibility or concern for an object is derived
from PO, rather than being a component of PO.
Further, two distinct and independent forms of PO have been suggested: promotive and preventative (Avey et al.,
2009, 2012). The basis for this conceptualization of PO is derived from regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997,
1998). This theory suggests that individuals have two self-regulatory systems. The promotive self- regulation
system relates to accomplishments and aspirations, while the preventative self-regulation system is concerned with
duties and obligations. According to Higgins (1997, 1998) these self-regulation systems determine how individuals
set personal goals for themselves. Individuals who use a promotional self-regulation approach develop goals that
reflect their hopes and aspirations. In contrast, those who employ a preventative self-regulatory approach devise
goals to reduce the likelihood of punishment and to uphold obligations and rules.
Avey et al. (2009) suggest that each of these self-regulation approaches have a bearing on PO. Promotive PO is a
higher-order construct comprising four sub-constructs: self-efficacy, belongingness, self-identity, and accountability
(Avey et al., 2009). Hence it is characterized by individuals “feeling more efficacious about working with the target,
feeling more accountable for what happens with respect to the target, experiencing a greater sense of belongingness to
the target, and feeling a sense of personal identification with the target of ownership” (Avey et al., 2012, p. 24). Pre-
ventive PO is concerned with meeting obligations and avoiding punishments, and can be associated with individuals
being overly possessive and territorial about their organizational targets of ownership (Avey et al., 2009).
Promotive focus is concerned with fulfilling hopes and aspirations (Avey et al., 2009). For example, a manager
with promotive PO is more likely to share information he/she “owns” with members of another division within the
company, when they perceive that this sharing may be of benefit to the company, because they perceive company en-
hancement as personally fulfilling. In contrast, a manager with a preventative approach to PO may be less likely to
share the information because they seek to maintain the status quo and avoid change or the potential for risk.
Alok (2014) argued that the preventive and promotive dimensions are too independent to be a part of one multi-
dimensional construct, citing a lack of significant covariance between them, and no indication that they are associ-
ated with antecedents such as authentic leadership and tenure in consistent ways. The role of territoriality as a part of
the PO construct (Avey et al., 2009), or as a behavioral outcome of PO (Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005;
Pierce et al., 2001) has also been debated. Brown et al. (2005, p. 578) defined territoriality as “an individual’s be-
havioral expression of his or her feelings of ownership towards a physical or social object” including “behaviors
for constructing, communicating, maintaining, and restoring territories around those objects in the organization to-
wards which one feels proprietary attachment”. They argued that territoriality represents actions or behaviors that
‘emanate’ from PO, and that the constructs of PO and territoriality are distinct but related.
PO can also be conceived at the group level where members feel as if something is collectively “theirs”. In
their conceptual paper, Pierce and Jussila (2010, p. 810) outline how “collective psychological ownership
emerges through interactive dynamics whereby individuals come to a single and shared mind-set as it relates
to a sense of ownership for a particular object.” Importantly, a social-identity motive underpins the development
of collective PO, which is not necessarily the case for personal feelings of ownership, which are more related to
DOI: 10.1002/job
personal identity. Further, Pierce and Jussila also state that collective PO is distinguished from group identifica-
tion in general. Empirical support for the existence of two distinctive individual and collective-oriented dimen-
sions of PO has been obtained (Henssen et al., 2014), and a measure of collective PO has been developed
(Pierce & Jussila, 2010). However, collective PO remains an emergent construct without empirical testing using
multilevel analysis. We return to discussion of “levels” of PO later in the paper where future research directions
are discussed.
Measuring Psychological Ownership
Following their seminal conceptual research introducing the concept of PO to organizational contexts, Van Dyne
and Pierce (2004) developed and validated a seven-item measure of PO. Items incorporate possessive vocabulary
(e.g., my, mine, our; Furby, 1978) to reflect the attitude of PO of organizational targets. Example items include “This
is MY organization” and “I sense this is OUR company” (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). The content validity of the
seven items was assessed by a panel of organizational behavior researchers. The panel determined that the items
did not represent contamination with other theoretical domains or deficiency with respect to the PO domain. Initial
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across three independent samples supported the homogeneity and unidimension-
ality of this PO measure. Further, the measure was reported to have acceptable internal consistency in each of the
samples (r = 0.87–0.93) and moderate test–retest stability across a three-month time lag (r = 0.72, p < 0.001;
Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).
In the 10 years since its initial development, there has been growing evidence to support the factorial structure
of the Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) PO measure (e.g., Knapp, Smith, & Sprinkle, 2014; Liu, Wang, Hui, & Lee,
2012; Park, Song, Yoon, & Kim, 2013). Consequently, this scale appears to be the measure of choice for PO
within organizational scholarship. We identified 18 empirical studies conducted over the past 10 years that have
implemented the Van Dyne and Pierce’s measure in its entirety or modified (abbreviated) versions of the measure
(e.g., Baer & Brown, 2012; Brown et al., 2014a; Chi & Han, 2008; Han, Chiang, & Chang, 2010; Qian et al.,
2015). Several reasons for modifying this measure have been cited, including removing items because of insuffi-
cient factor loadings (Chi & Han, 2008; Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner, 2007), poor face validity
(Park et al., 2013), and difficulties translating items into a language other than English (Bernhard & O’Driscoll,
2011). In addition, Bernhard and O’Driscoll (2011) stated that the removal of an item (“Most of the people that
work for this organization feel as though they own the company”) was logical from a content validity perspective
as “this item referred to a mutual sense of ownership, rather than an individual’s personal level of perceived own-
ership” (p. 358).
Two further studies (Kaur, Sambasivan, & Kumar, 2013; Md-Sidin et al., 2009) reported using a measure similar
to the Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) measure, comprising 12 items (Pierce, O’Driscoll, & Coghlan, 2004); and an-
other five studies (Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011; Ramos, Man, Mustafa, & Ng, 2014; Sieger, Bernhard, & Frey,
2011; Sieger, Zellweger, & Aquino, 2013; Vandewalle, Van Dyne, & Kostova, 1995) reported using a measure
of PO developed by Pierce, Van Dyne, and Cummings (1992).
Work has also commenced to establish the cross-cultural validity of these measures. Studies have reported using
translated versions of the PO measures developed by Pierce and colleagues in Chinese (e.g., Chi & Han, 2008; Han
et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2012; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Qian et al., 2015; Ramos et al., 2014; Zhu, Chen, Li, & Zhou,
2013), Korean (Park et al., 2013), Malaysian (Kaur et al., 2013; Md-Sidin et al., 2009); German (Sieger et al.,
2011; Sieger et al., 2013), and Finnish (Henssen, Voordeckers, Lambrechts, & Koiranen, 2014).
We further identified eight studies that used different measures to assess PO. Most notably, Avey et al. (2009)
developed a 16-item measure to reflect their conceptualization of PO using inductive and deductive processes. Spe-
cifically, three items were selected to represent each domain of promotion-oriented PO (self-efficacy, accountability,
DOI: 10.1002/job
belongingness, and self-identity with the target). A further four items were added to the scale to represent the domain
of territoriality, which was theorized as a dimension of preventive-oriented PO. CFA and model comparison analy-
ses provided support for the multidimensional second-order structure of PO as purported by Avey and colleagues. In
particular, their results showed that promotive PO was best represented by the second-order measurement model,
while preventative-oriented PO was best represented by a single-order model; suggesting that this form of PO
reflects a distinct aspect consistent with its preventative focus (Avey et al., 2009). These model structures have been
further supported in more recent research (Avey et al., 2012).
Other authors have developed their own measures of PO. The measures ranged from a three-item scale (Chiu,
Hui, & Lai, 2007), to scales composed of 17 items (Pan, Qin, & Gao, 2014), and 18 items (Ikävalko et al., 2010).
A further study (Hsu, 2013) manipulated participants’ perceptions of PO of a business venture using two different
cover stories (high versus low PO). Manipulation checks of the two PO conditions (high/low) were conducted
using a one-item measure (“I feel the venture is mine”) rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (total dis-
agree) to 7 (total agree).
Foci of Psychological Ownership
Psychological ownership research generally differentiates between two distinct foci of possession in organizational
settings. Organization-based PO relates to employees’ feelings of possession to the organization as a whole
(e.g., “This is MY organization”). In contrast, job-based PO is concerned with employees’ psychological connection
to their specific job or role. The majority of PO research conducted to date (19 studies) has solely focused on
organization-based PO. Four studies have investigated job-based PO and a further five (Bernhard & O’Driscoll,
2011; Mayhew et al., 2007; O’ Driscoll et al., 2006; Pierce et al., 2004; Ramos et al., 2014) have examined both
organization-based and job-based PO concurrently.
Studies which have examined job-based PO have consistently employed items adapted from the Van Dyne and
Pierce (2004) scale, with the wording of items modified to assess individuals’ feelings of possession towards their
jobs (e.g., “This is MY job”). Positive correlations between organization-based and job-based PO have been consis-
tently reported across studies (r = 0.43–0.60). These positive correlations are explained as ‘expected’ given that em-
ployees are assumed to experience their organization through their job experiences (Pierce et al., 2004, p. 518). A
further five studies have started to examine PO towards other foci (Baer & Brown, 2012; Brown et al., 2014a;
Hou, Hsu, & Wu, 2009; Hsu, 2013; Wagner, Parker, & Christiansen, 2003).
Discriminant and convergent validity

Empirical evidence to support the uniqueness of PO has been reported in prior research. Most notably, Van Dyne and
Pierce (2004) reported CFA evidence to support the uniqueness of organization-based PO from other related constructs,
including organizational commitment, satisfaction, organization-based self-esteem, performance, and self-rated and
supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Further, it was reported that a panel of independent judges
was able to discriminate items that assessed organization-based PO from items that assessed organizational and affective
commitment, organizational identification and internalization, job satisfaction, and job involvement.
More recently, other studies have also reported evidence that supports the distinction between PO and organizational
commitment (e.g., Han et al., 2010; Mayhew et al., 2007; O’Driscoll et al., 2006), affective commitment (Liu et al., 2012;
Sieger et al., 2011), perceived insider status and organizational identity (Knapp et al., 2014), and job satisfaction (Sieger
et al., 2011). It has also been demonstrated that PO is distinct from a broader set of constructs including distributive and
procedural justice (Chi & Han, 2008), organizational optimism (Chiu et al., 2007), future orientation (Qian et al., 2015),
DOI: 10.1002/job
emotional and spiritual intelligence (Kaur et al., 2013), organization performance (Sieger et al., 2013), relationship close-
ness at work, intent to stay, and particularistic ties (Zhu et al., 2013). It is important to note that much of this evidence has
been in relation to organization-based PO, with substantially less psychometric evaluation generated for job-based PO.
Interestingly, only a small number of studies have examined the discriminant and convergent validity of PO in
relation to measures reflective of territoriality (Avey et al., 2009; Brown et al., 2014a) and accountability (Alok,
2014; Avey et al., 2009). This is somewhat surprising given current inconsistencies in the conceptualization of
PO in organizational research and the debate as to whether territoriality and accountability are components of PO
(e.g. Avey et al., 2009), or conversely, related but distinct constructs (e.g., Alok, 2014; Brown et al., 2005; Brown
et al., 2014a; Pierce et al., 2001, 2004).
Methodological concerns
In reviewing prior empirical work, we have identified several methodological concerns with the extant research on job-
based and organization-based PO. This first relates to a lack of clarity regarding the conceptualization and subsequent
measurement of PO in organizational settings. Most studies appear to ascribe to Pierce et al. (2001, 2003) conceptuali-
zation of PO as fulfilling three basic human motives of efficacy, self-identity, and a sense of place (or “belongingness”),
and have subsequently implemented adaptations of the 7-item scale developed by Van Dyne and Pierce (2004).
However, other researchers have adopted alternate conceptualizations and measures of PO. Most notably, Avey
et al. (2009, 2012) also include accountability and territoriality (preventive) into their conceptualization of PO. This
is in contrast to the view held by most scholars, which considers that territorial behavior is an outcome of PO, rather
than a basis of the construct (e.g., Brown et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2014a; Dirks, Cummings, & Pierce, 1996; Pierce
et al., 2001). Recent research has endorsed this view by demonstrating that preventive (territoriality) and promotive
PO respond differently to external influences (Alok, 2014). Specifically, tenure was found to have a negative
relationship with preventive PO, but no relationship with promotive PO ownership. Further, it seems contradictory
to conceptualize two dimensions (preventive and promotive PO) as reflective of a single second-order PO construct,
despite psychometric evidence to suggest that they are in fact distinct and independent dimensions (e.g., Alok, 2014).
It is clear that more work is needed to validate Avey et al.’s (2009) measure of PO. In examining these issues,
determination is needed as to whether PO is best measured using a reflective approach, where changes in the latent
variable (i.e., PO) are reflected in changes in the observable indicators (i.e., self-efficacy, self-identity, and belonging-
ness); or alternatively, using a formative (or composite) approach, whereby changes in the indicators determine
changes in the latent variable (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006).
Despite its widespread use in the extant literature, further work is also needed to improve the measurement of
PO as proposed by Pierce and colleagues. As outlined earlier, most extant studies have employed variants of the
Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) scale to assess PO. Although details regarding the development of this measure have
been described (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), it remains unclear how items were selected, and more specifically,
how they relate to each of the subcomponents or motives of PO (efficacy, self-identity, and belongingness). For
example, efficacy has been highlighted as a basis of PO because of the motive to control objects and to be
effectant with their application (Furby, 1991). This capacity to control objects or targets may promote feelings
of self-efficacy. However, from reviewing the items included in the Van Dyne and Pierce measure, it is unclear
which items represent the base of efficacy. In contrast, the Avey et al. (2009) measure of PO was developed using
items adapted from existing and validated measures of efficacy (Parker, 1998) and organizational identity (Mael &
Ashforth, 1992). Consequently, items included in this measure appear to more clearly reflect each of the bases of
PO. Example items include “I am confident setting high performance goals in my organization” (efficacy), “I feel
being a member in this organization helps define who I am” (identity), and “This place is home for me” (a sense of
place). Thus, if the Van Dyne and Pierce measure is to continue as the scale of choice to assess PO, further work
is needed to establish its convergent validity with scales that reflect each of the three motives that facilitate the
development of PO.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Related to this, we also have concerns regarding the combined use of the terms “My,” “Our,” and “Mine” to reflect
possession in the Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) measure of PO. This is consistent with prior research, which has ex-
amined the psychology of ownership in terms of both an individual-based experience of possession (“This is mine”)
as well as individual-level perceptions of shared ownership (“This is ours”). However, there is some question as to
whether items that use individual-oriented language (my and mine) and those that use collective-oriented language
(ours) reflect a unidimensional construct or rather, represent related but two independent sub-constructs of overarch-
ing PO. In other words, it may be possible to experience high levels of individual-oriented PO, without necessarily
experiencing high levels of collective PO. For example, an employee who has been with an organization for 30 years
may feel a strong sense of individual-oriented PO (“This is my organization”), but may experience less collective-
oriented PO (“This is our organization”), if several of his/her colleagues have only recently joined the organization.
Using current measurement approaches (e.g., Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), this potential issue is overlooked. However,
one recent study (Henssen et al., 2014) modeled and reported empirical support for the existence of these two separate
dimensions of PO at the individual-level. We suggest that future research continue to employ this model of PO for two
reasons. First, using this model will enable further examination and confirmation of the implied multidimensional na-
ture of PO (cf. Pierce & Jussila, 2010). Second, distinguishing between individual-oriented and collective-oriented
PO at the individual-level will provide greater clarity and “nuanced or fine-grained theory building” (Henssen
et al., 2014, p. 9), which will be essential as research begins to examine whether the overall construct of PO can be
conceptualized and measured in a multilevel framework (e.g., at the individual level and group level).
More broadly, there are also concerns regarding the lack of longitudinal research on PO across multiple time
points. Although there has been a notable increase in studies examining the construct of PO in recent years, most
studies have employed cross-sectional designs. Beyond placing constraints on inferring causality, it also restricts un-
derstanding of PO as a “state-like” capacity, which may be open to change development, as recently proposed by
Avey et al. (2009, p. 174).
Another methodological concern relating to the PO literature to date is the reliance on single source, self-report
measures, making reported results vulnerable to bias. Most notably, the use of a single-source method to measure
predictor and criterion variables increases the risk for common method variance (CMV). Although there is debate
regarding the bearing CMV has on findings, with some arguing that the problem is over-stated (e.g. Lindell &
Whitney, 2001; Spector, 1987, 2006; Vanderberg, 2006), it is generally accepted that correlations between vari-
ables measured using the same method and/or source may be somewhat inflated, which therefore creates biases
in empirical conclusions (Lance, Dawson, Birkelbach, & Hoffman, 2010). Although procedural remedies to reduce
the risk for CMV have been included in some studies (e.g., temporal separation of data collection points for pre-
dictor and criterion measures; Harman’s (1967) single factor test), future research may look towards developing
alternate measures of PO, which are not reliant on self-report and/or single-source methodologies. Implementing
multiple sources for data collection arguably make it less likely for observed relationships between variables to
be biased because the effects of social desirability, consistency motives, and respondent mood states are either re-
duced or eliminated altogether (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Given that recent measures of PO
have been developed to also include items to reflect actual behaviors of PO (e.g., “I act as though this organization
is mine,” Henssen et al., 2014), the use of other-rated measures to capture PO may be a viable option for reducing
CMV associated with self-report, single-source methodologies. Alternatively, an experimental approach might be
used to capture feelings of ownership. Other methodological approaches could also be implemented including
the use of implicit measures of PO (see Harms & Luthans, 2012, as an example to demonstrate the efficacy
of implicit measures for organizational behavior constructs); incorporating objective data to measure criterion
variables (e.g., HR records of employee absenteeism and turnover); and employing mixed-method study designs
that include a qualitative component.
Finally, we have identified that although foundational work has commenced aimed at establishing the construct
validity of PO, there is a need for further research in this area. In particular, exploration of the discriminant and con-
vergent validity between PO and constructs such as psychological empowerment (Siebert, Silver, & Randall, 2004),
and job involvement (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), is warranted.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Antecedents of Psychological Ownership and Psychological Ownership as a

Mediator
In their initial work on PO, Pierce et al. (2001, 2003) highlight how psychological ownership may develop as a result
of the experiences or paths down which people travel, or what they label as “routes” to ownership. According to
them, three main factors give rise to feelings of PO: experienced control over the target of ownership, intimate
knowing of the target of ownership, and investment of the self into the target of ownership. Building on these initial
ideas regarding the “routes” of psychological ownership, researchers have begun to examine various antecedents of
organization-based and job-based PO.
Organization-based psychological ownership

A growing number of studies have begun to identify factors that may increase employees’ organization-based PO.
These include leadership, participation in decision-making, involvement in stock ownership or profit-sharing
schemes, provision of autonomy, and structure of the work environment.
Several studies have looked at the role played by leaders in eliciting PO (Avey et al., 2009; Avey et al., 2012;
Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011; Park et al., 2013). Research has typically found that transformational leadership is
positively related to organization-based PO (Avey et al., 2009), which in turn positively predicted OCBs (Bernhard
& O’Driscoll, 2011; Park et al., 2013), employee job attitudes such as job satisfaction and affective commitment
(Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011), and negatively predicted their turnover intentions (Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011).
Researchers have also found that both ethical and transactional leadership styles also positively predict
organization-based PO, which in turn has a positive influence on employee work attitudes (Avey et al., 2012;
Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011). In contrast, passive leadership styles have been found to lead employees to exhibit
lower levels of organization-based PO (Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011). More recent research by Zhu et al. (2013)
found that benevolent leadership promotes professional managers’ feelings of PO in Chinese family businesses
through strengthening their relationship closeness with the CEO.
Empirical research has also confirmed a strong association between employee participation in decision-making and
organization-based PO (Chi & Han, 2008; Han et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2012). These findings are consistent with Pierce
et al. (2001, 2003) ideas on the “routes” to PO, as participation in decision-making is likely to enhance employees’
experienced control over the target of ownership. For example, Han et al. (2010) found that employee participation
in decision-making was positively associated with their organization-based PO, which in turn predicted their organi-
zational commitment. Similarly, Chi and Han (2008) found that participation in decision-making led to higher levels
of organization-based PO through promoting employee perceptions of procedural justice. Liu et al. (2012) found that
participation in decision-making and a self-managing team climate both promoted employees’ organization-based
PO, which in turn predicted higher organizational-based self-esteem, organizational commitment, and OCBs.
Other studies have found that employee participation in employee stock ownership, or profit-sharing schemes, lead
to higher levels of organization-based PO (Chi & Han, 2008; Chiu et al., 2007). For example, Chi and Han (2008)
found that participation in profit-sharing schemes led to higher levels of organization-based PO through heightening
employee perceptions of distributive justice. Chiu et al. (2007) found that participation in a stock ownership scheme
had a positive effect on organization-based PO through enhancing employees’ extrinsic job satisfaction.
Another group of researchers have begun to examine whether the provision of autonomy to managers and em-
ployees over how they go about their work leads to higher levels of organization-based PO (Henssen et al., 2014;
Mayhew et al., 2007). For example, Henssen et al. (2014) found that CEOs’ autonomy led them to experience higher
levels of PO over the family business, and in turn, predicted their stewardship behavior. Mayhew et al. (2007) found
that employee autonomy predicted organization-based PO, which in turn, partially mediated the effects of autonomy
on both job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Researchers have also looked at the effects of work environment structure, as measured by participation in decision-
making, job-related autonomy, and technological routinization, on organization-based PO (O’Driscoll et al., 2006;
Pierce et al., 2004). For example, O’Driscoll et al. (2006) found that a less structured work environment, where individ-
uals had greater autonomy, participation in decision-making, and lower levels of technology routinization, promoted
their organization-based PO, which in turn influenced their helping behavior and affective commitment. Pierce et al.
(2004) found that experienced job control mediated the effects of work environment structure on organization-based
PO. Similarly, Peng and Pierce (2015) found that experienced job control was positively related to organization-based
PO, and that job-based PO mediated the relationship between experienced job control and organization-based PO.
Other research has established that distributive rather than procedural justice (Sieger et al., 2011) and organiza-
tional identification (Knapp et al., 2014) heightened employees’ organization-based PO, which in turn mediated
its effects on employee work attitudes. Finally, researchers have found that employee’s locus of control predicted
their levels of PO (McIntyre, Srivastava, & Fuller, 2009).
Job-based psychological ownership
Comparatively less research has examined antecedents of employees’ feelings of job-based PO than organization-
based PO. Of the research that has been performed, the main antecedents identified include autonomy, job
complexity, leadership, the structure of the work environment, and employees’ spiritual and emotional intelligence.
For example, Mayhew et al. (2007) found that employee autonomy predicted job-based PO, which in turn partially
mediated the effects of autonomy on job satisfaction. Brown, Pierce, and Crossley (2014b) found a positive relation-
ship between job complexity and job-based PO. Research by Bernhard and O’Driscoll (2011) established that trans-
formational and transactional leadership led employees to experience higher levels of job-based PO, which in turn
mediated the effects of such leadership styles on employee work attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, but not on OCBs. Other research has demonstrated that work environment structure, as measured by
participation in decision-making, job-related autonomy, and technological routinization, was associated with en-
hanced feelings of job-based PO (O’Driscoll et al., 2006; Pierce et al., 2004). For example, Pierce et al. (2004) found
that control mediated the effects of work environment structure on job-based PO, while O’Driscoll et al. (2006)
found that job-based PO mediated the effects of work environment structure on effective organizational
commitment. Finally, Kaur et al. (2013) found that an employees’ spiritual and emotional intelligence positively
predicted employees’ job-based PO, and in turn their caring behavior.
Outcomes of Psychological Ownership
The findings from this review indicate that PO influences a variety of outcomes at different levels of analysis, espe-
cially at the individual-level of analysis where most empirical research has been conducted.
Psychological ownership and individual attitudes
A significant body of research has examined the effects of PO (both organization-based and job-based) on desirable
employee attitudes. For example, PO has been found to influence employees’ overall organizational commitment
(Han et al., 2010; Hou et al., 2009; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995), affective commitment
(Liu et al., 2012; Mayhew et al., 2007; Sieger et al., 2011), job satisfaction (Avey et al., 2012; Bernhard & O’Driscoll,
2011; Knapp et al., 2014; Mayhew et al., 2007; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Sieger et al., 2011), organization-based self-
esteem (Liu et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2014; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), work engagement (Ramos et al., 2014), and
DOI: 10.1002/job
intention to stay (Zhu et al., 2013). This work has typically found organization-based PO to be a stronger predictor of
key employee attitudes than job-based PO. For example, while prior work has consistently demonstrated a positive
link between organization-based PO and key work attitudes (e.g., Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011; Van Dyne & Pierce,
2004; Zhu et al., 2013), research has reported mixed findings as regards the influence of job-based PO. While some
studies have reported a positive influence of job-based PO (Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011; Md-Sidin, Sambasivan, &
Muniandy, 2009), others have found insignificant effects (Hou et al., 2009; Mayhew et al., 2007). Although limited,
research has also started to examine PO influence on undesirable employee attitudes such as intention to quit. For in-
stance, both Bernhard and O’Driscoll (2011) and Knapp et al. (2014) found that employees high in organization-
based PO had lower intention to quit. However, in contrast, Peng and Pierce (2015) found that while job-based PO
negatively predicted intention to quit, organization-based PO did not.
Psychological ownership and individual behaviors

Growing empirical work has also examined the effects of PO on work-related behaviors (e.g., Liu et al., 2012; Van
Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Prior studies have generally established a positive relationship between PO and extra-role be-
haviors such as OCBs, stewardship behavior, voice behavior, and helping behavior (e.g., Bernhard & O’Driscoll,
2011; Park et al., 2013; Ramos et al., 2014; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vandewalle et al., 1995; Zhu et al., 2013).
For example, Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) found that organization-based PO explained variance in employees’ help-
ing behaviors, over and above the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. They argued that feel-
ings of ownership are likely to be extremely relevant to extra-role behaviors, as such behaviors require employees to
go beyond what is required of them in their job description. At the organizational level, Henssen et al. (2014) reported
that high levels of individual-oriented and collective-oriented PO are related to organizational leaders’ stewardship
behavior. However, some studies have found insignificant relationships between PO and extra-role behaviors when
supervisor-rated measures of subordinates OCBs, as opposed to self-ratings, were utilized (Liu et al., 2012; Mayhew
et al., 2007; O’Driscoll et al., 2006). Although O’Driscoll et al. (2006) found that the effects of organization-based PO
on extra-role behaviors were stronger than the effects of job-based PO, Peng and Pierce (2015) found the opposite. In
addition, researchers have also found mixed results when investigating the relationship between PO and employees’
voice behavior. For example, while O’Driscoll et al. found that employee perceptions of PO towards their jobs and
organizations positively predicted employee self-rated voice behavior, when supervisors rated the voice behavior
of subordinates the positive effects became insignificant (also see, Mayhew et al., 2007). These results suggest the
influence of PO on employee behavior might not be as significant as some researchers have intimated.
In comparison, relatively limited research has looked at whether organization and job-based PO leads to higher job
performance (Brown et al., 2014b; Mayhew et al., 2007; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Wagner et al., 2003). Generally,
the research suggests that the positive effects on PO on job performance are negligible or nonsignificant. For example,
although Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) demonstrated that the relationship between organization-based PO and
supervisor-rated job performance was marginally significant (p < 0.10), Mayhew et al. (2007) found a nonsignificant
relationship between both organization-based and job-based PO and job performance. In contrast, Brown et al.
(2014b) reported a strong relationship between job-based psychological ownership and sales performance.
Other outcomes of psychological ownership
Recent empirical work has examined the relationship between both organization and job-based PO, and other out-
comes such as burnout (Kaur et al., 2013), knowledge sharing/holding behavior (Han et al., 2010; Peng & Pierce,
2015), and owners’ strategic behavior (Ikävalko, Pihkala, & Kraus, 2010). For example, Kaur et al. (2013) found
that PO was negatively related to employee burnout. In addition, Han et al. (2010) found that organization-based
PO led to higher levels of knowledge sharing behavior through enhancing employees’ organizational commitment,
and Peng and Pierce (2015) found that it decreased knowledge holding.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Researchers have also started to examine the possible negative consequences of PO. For example, Brown et al.
(2014a) found that as well as promoting positive work attitudes and behaviors among employees, PO may also lead
employees to engage in territorial behavior to protect and maintain that which they feel belongs to them. They found
that in a high-trust environment, employees with high PO are less likely to engage in territorial behaviors over im-
portant objects at work, but when they do so, their territorial behavior may lead coworkers to negatively judge the
territorial employee as less of a team contributor. Furthermore, Baer and Brown (2012) found that while PO led in-
dividuals to embrace the adoption of suggestions that allowed them to expand their possessions (additive change), it
also made them shun the adoption of suggestions that shrank their possessions (subtractive change).
Factors Moderating the Relationship Between Psychological Ownership and

Workplace Outcomes
Although there is a significant body of literature on the outcomes of PO, a surprisingly limited number of studies
have focused on factors that may moderate the relationship between PO and various workplace outcomes. We iden-
tified only five studies that have examined the boundary conditions of the PO-workplace outcomes relationship
(Baer & Brown, 2012; Brown et al., 2014a; Hsu, 2013; Liu et al., 2012; Ramos et al., 2014). For example, Liu
et al. (2012) found that employees’ power distance moderated the effects of participative decision-making and
self-managing team climate on work outcomes (organization-based self-esteem and affective organizational commit-
ment) through the mediating mechanism of organization-based PO. More specifically, they found that the mediating
effects of PO were weaker for individuals with high as opposed to low levels of power distance.
Brown et al. (2014a) found that the trust environment, as rated by team members, moderated the relationship be-
tween an individual’s organization-based PO over an object and their territorial behaviors (claiming and anticipated
defending), in such a way that the relationship was stronger in low trust, as opposed to high-trust environments. Fur-
thermore, Baer and Brown (2012) found that change type moderated the relationships between PO over one’s ideas
and individuals’ adoption of change (either subtractive or additive change), in such a way that participants in the
enhanced ownership condition adopted significantly less subtractive and more additive suggestion for change than
participants in the limited ownership condition. Baer and Brown further investigated how the PO and change type
interaction influenced individuals’ response to change. Consistent with their proposed relationships, the authors
found that the change type moderated the PO-sense of personal loss and PO-negative affect. More specifically, they
demonstrated that compared with participants with limited ownership, participants with enhanced ownership over
their ideas experienced higher levels of personal loss and negative effect when faced with subtractive change and
lower levels of personal loss and negative effect when faced with additive change. Furthermore, the moderating ef-
fect of change type upon the PO-adoption of change relationship was sequentially mediated by both sense of per-
sonal loss and negative affect. Hsu (2013) found that the prevention focus orientation of entrepreneurs moderated
the relationship between their PO and intentions to re-enter entrepreneurship, in such a way that the relationship
was stronger the greater their prevention focus orientation. Finally, Ramos et al. (2014) found that family member-
ship accentuated the effects of job-based PO on two dimensions of work engagement: vigor and absorption.
Future Research Agenda
In the following section, we outline a research agenda that encourages scholars to systematically target opportunities
for future research in the field. In particular, a primary imperative for future research is to reconcile a conceptually
and empirically divergent approach in recent PO literature to include notions of accountability and territoriality
within the PO construct (Avey et al., 2009). In our review, we observe a clear preference in the literature for the
DOI: 10.1002/job
original conceptualization and operationalization of psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2001), and have noted
the potential for confounding PO with its antecedents (ownership “control” and “intimate knowledge”; Brown
et al., 2014b), and outcomes (territorial behavior; Brown et al., 2005), which may result from adoption of the Avey
et al. (2009) conceptualization. In addition, Avey et al.’s (2009) conceptualization of PO may also present problems
in allowing us to separate and distinguish PO from other “psychological state” constructs, such as empowerment and
identification, as well as behaviors including knowledge sharing/hiding and counterproductive behaviors.
Despite these issues, we do acknowledge that the model of PO by Avey et al. (2009, 2012) enables comparison
between different aspects of PO (preventative and promotive). Initial findings suggest that promotive-aspects of PO
may have more favorable outcomes for organizations than preventative-aspects of PO (Avey et al., 2009). The con-
trasting approaches to PO may stimulate debate, hypothesizing, and empirical research, and thus, both models could
simultaneously inform the study of PO. Accordingly, we suggest that as a first priority, more in-depth theoretical
analysis and/or direct empirical comparison of these two orientations to the study of PO could provide insight re-
garding if and how these approaches may complement one another to provide greater understanding of PO.
In addition to this primary imperative, we highlight several areas worthy of attention related to extending exam-
ination of the antecedents and outcomes of different foci of PO; multilevel perspectives on PO; delineating the
boundary conditions of the PO/work outcomes relationship; understanding how personal differences and culture
influence the development of PO; investigating the dynamic nature of PO over time; and considering alternative
theoretical lenses for understanding how PO develops and influences work outcomes. The future research directions
are summarized in Table 1.
A multi-foci approach
While existing empirical work has advanced our understanding of PO and its effects, there is a clear need to extend
the investigation of PO towards different objects or foci beyond one’s job and the organization (e.g., people,
occupations, projects, teams, and groups). Indeed, as initially noted by Pierce et al. (2001, 2003), at the core of own-
ership is a sense of possession of a particular target and of being psychologically tied to that target. They acknowl-
edged that employees can develop feelings of ownership over a myriad of material (e.g., work, product, and tools)
and non-material (e.g., ideas and roles) objects at work. Examination of these targets are especially important given
the suggestions of Brown et al. (2014a, p. 467) that specific objects within organizations (e.g., specific job roles,
designated workspaces, and important projects) “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.”
More specifically, future research should examine the extent to which the various PO foci differentially affect
work outcomes. For example, job-based PO may have stronger relationships with proximal outcomes such as job
performance, whereas organization-based PO may be more strongly related to outcomes such as OCBs and organi-
zational commitment.
Multilevel approaches to study of psychological ownership

We propose that multilevel approaches to studying PO at the group and organizational level should be progressed
given that virtually all empirical work on PO “has treated feelings of ownership as an individual-level phenomenon”
(Pierce & Jussila, 2010, p. 811). Although, Pierce and Jussila (2010, p. 811) have argued that PO also exists at a
collective-level, defining collective PO as a “collective held sense (feeling) that this target of ownership (or a piece
of that target) is collectively ours”; to date, no empirical work has been undertaken to show that PO can be aggre-
gated to the group levels or organizational levels. As well as undertaking empirical research to confirm the existence
of collective PO on multiple samples from different cultural and industrial settings, we also call on researchers to
investigate the factors that influence collective PO strength, that is, the degree of within-group or within-
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. Summary of future research directions.

Theoretical directions Conceptualization There is a need to further investigate conceptually and empirically
divergent approaches to the study of PO. Additional research is
needed to allow in-depth comparison between the two orientations
proposed by Pierce and Jussila (2010) and Avey et al. (2009) and
determine if and how these approaches can inform the study of PO
simultaneously.
Multi-foci approach There is a need to extend the investigation of PO towards different
objects or foci above and beyond one’s job and the organization
(e.g., people, occupations, projects, teams, and groups). In addition,
future research should examine the extent to which the various PO
foci differentially affect work outcomes.
Alternative theoretical Researchers might consider adopting a number of theoretical
explanations perspectives to aid understanding of how PO develops and
influences workplace outcomes. These include trait-activation
theory; social identity theory; social exchange theory; evolutionary
theory; and neurobiological approaches.
Methodological directions Boundary conditions— More work is needed to explore the potential impact that cultural
cross-cultural context context might have on the (1) formation and (2) effects of PO.
Boundary conditions— More work is needed to understand the boundary conditions of PO-
situational effects outcomes relationships. For example, empirical studies can be
designed to (1) identity factors that potentially moderate the effect
of PO upon different work outcomes and (2) explore the optimal
range of PO that is psychologically healthy and engaging.
Boundary conditions— More work is needed to investigate how and to what extent key
personal differences and PO individual difference variables may influence PO. Such differences
include (1) the strength of one’s innate motives for the routes of
PO, both within and between individuals; (2) personality traits; and
(3) personal value differences.
Dynamic nature of PO There is a need to understand the potential fluctuation of PO as a
result of changing circumstances at work. Empirical studies should
collect longitudinal data across multiple time points to understand
the dynamic nature of PO.
Multilevel perspective Multilevel approaches to studying PO at the group levels and
organizational levels should be progressed. For example, empirical
studies can be designed to (1) confirm the existence of collective
PO at the group levels and/or organizational levels; (2) investigate
the factors that influence collective PO strength; (3) examine the
influence of PO strength on different outcomes at the group levels
and/or organizational levels; and (4) further explore the cross-level
effects of PO, in particular, potential conflicting cross-level effects.
Note: PO = psychological ownership.
organization agreement on members’ collective PO perceptions. Researchers may also examine the influence of PO
strength on different outcomes at the group level and organizational level in line with studies in team climate re-
search (González-Romá, Fortes-Ferreira, & Peiró, 2009; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002).
Furthermore, researchers have only just begun to examine the relationship between PO and its
antecedents/outcomes at different levels of analysis (e.g., Liu et al., 2012). This lack of multilevel theorizing is sur-
prising given that “individuals are nested in teams, which in turn are nested in organizations, which exist in the en-
vironment” (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008, p. 413). In other words, individual feelings of ownership
invariably result from the group or organizational context within which an individual is situated. Echoing the
suggestions of Liu et al. (2012, p. 870) that PO is “plausibly a cross-level or meso-theoretical phenomenon in that
the construct ties the individual to a larger external entity,” we call on researchers to advance our knowledge of PO
through the use of multilevel research design and analysis.
DOI: 10.1002/job
For example, future empirical work may seek to confirm Pierce and Jussila’s (2010, 2011) assertions that col-
lective PO can have positive effects on individual-level outcomes such as affective commitment, in-role perfor-
mance, and OCBs, as well as collective-level outcomes such as group learning behavior and commitment to
high-quality group work. A further important research direction in relation to the cross-level effects of PO is
the potential for conflicting cross-level effects. For instance, while individual PO has shown to increase positive
individual-level attitudes and behaviors such as organizational commitment (e.g., Han et al., 2010; Liu et al.,
2012) and job performance (e.g., Brown et al., 2014b), we argue that when individuals engage excessively in
fulfilling one or more of the motives that underpin personal feelings of ownership, one has less capacity and
energy to engage in behaviors that contribute to team and/or organizational goals. This is similar to the argument
of Brown et al. (2005) that excessive territorial behaviors may deplete one’s ability to focus on higher-priority
issues at the organizational level. In the same vein, we believe that while collective PO should have a positive
effect on a number of group-level outcomes such as improved intra-group learning and effectiveness and re-
duced group social loafing (Pierce & Jussila, 2010), collective PO may lead to negative effects at the individual,
team, and organizational levels. For example, while collective PO may increase intra-group learning and sharing
behavior, groups with a strong sense of collective PO may become preoccupied with protecting what they con-
sider to be “theirs,” and potentially engage in behaviors that are organizationally dysfunctional, such as less
inter-group cooperation and greater knowledge hoarding, thus ultimately negatively affecting overall organiza-
tional goals.
When conducting cross-level research, researchers should choose a sample carefully to ensure adequate statistical
power. For example, if the interactive effects of a team-level variable with an individual level variable on individual
PO are examined using regression analysis, it is critical that there be a reasonable number of teams to ensure ade-
quate statistical power (for guidance as to an appropriate sample size, see Scherbaum & Ferreter, 2009). If multilevel
structural equation modeling is to be employed, the number of teams should even be greater. Team sampling and
response rates also need due consideration when conducting multilevel research (Maloney, Johnson, & Zellmer-
Bruhn, 2010).
Boundary conditions of psychological ownership/outcomes relationships

More work is also needed to understand the boundary conditions of PO-outcomes relationships. The premise of so-
cial cognitive theory reflects a transaction between person and environment (Bandura, 2011). Thus, as well as inves-
tigating in which situations, and for which individuals, PO will have the strongest effect on work outcomes, research
should also investigate the situations in which PO may have negative outcomes. For example, we may expect ex-
tremely high or low levels of PO to be negatively related to well-being. Like the job stress literature that shows a
curvilinear relationship between job demands and psychological health (Warr, 1990), there may be an optimal range
for PO that is psychologically healthy and engaging. Hence, PO may be usefully integrated with theories of work-
aholism (Oates, 1971) and burnout (Maslach & Goldberg, 1998).
In the context of entrepreneurship, high levels of PO might lead entrepreneurs to continue with a failing venture,
or research and development teams to continue with an idea that has not found support. Insights into this may be
drawn from the escalation of commitment literature (Sleesman, Conlon, McNamara, & Miles, 2012), in that psycho-
logical ownership over a venture or an idea may lead individuals to maintain commitment irrespective of negative
information, which suggests they may be better advised to discontinue with the venture or idea.
Building on the recent work of Liu et al. (2012), who found that self-managing team climate at the group level and
participative decision-making at the individual level, both directly influence individual-level PO, future work may
look at how such factors interact to influence PO, and subsequently influence outcomes, at different levels of anal-
ysis. There is also the potential to examine whether collective PO strength moderates the effects of collective PO on
different outcomes in line with recent studies in the team climate literature (González-Romá et al., 2009; Schneider
et al., 2002).
DOI: 10.1002/job
Influence of individual differences on psychological ownership

Research on how individual differences between employees predict PO towards different foci would also extend our
understanding of the antecedents of PO. Previous studies examining the antecedents of PO have typically looked at
group-level and organizational-level predictors, with little attention paid to the influence of personality traits and
other key individual difference variables. This is in spite of the fact that Pierce et al. (2003) highlight several key
individual differences variables that may influence PO including the following: (1) the strength of one’s innate mo-
tives for the routes of PO (efficacy and effectance, self-identification, and belongingness), both within and between
individuals; (2) personality traits; and (3) personal value differences.
To date, only a small number of studies have examined how individual differences influence PO directly or mod-
erate the influence of PO on work outcomes. For example, McIntyre et al. (2009) reported that although an individ-
ual’s dispositional trait of locus of control was marginally related to organization-based PO (p < .10), individualism
was not. More recently, Kaur et al. (2013) found a positive relationship between both emotional and spiritual intel-
ligence and job-based PO.
In future research, examination of the potential effect of conscientiousness on job-based PO is warranted, given
that individuals high in this trait often encompass characteristics such as dependability, reliability, persistence,
and an achievement-orientation (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Research has suggested that conscientious individuals
tend to become highly involved in their jobs (Organ & Lingl, 1995). An increase in job involvement typically leads
to an accumulation of workplace rewards that can heighten factors such as continuance commitment (Erdheim,
Wang, & Zickar, 2006). We suggest that increased job involvement may also predict feelings of ownership over
the job, as conscientious employees substantially invest in their jobs, which may yield feelings of ownership. Fur-
thermore, narcissism may be associated with territoriality given it has been suggested that “the narcissistic dimen-
sion of personality is regarded as a phylogenetic derivative of a territorial instinct” (Noshpitz, 1984, p. 17). Thus,
building on preliminary empirical evidence (Kaur et al., 2013; McIntyre et al., 2009) and Pierce et al. (2003) asser-
tions that individual differences variables such as personality traits may influence “how an individual goes about
pursuing relationships with ownership objects and the types of objects deemed suitable” (p. 95), we call for more
research to investigate how personality traits and other individual differences might affect PO.
In examining the influence of personality traits on PO, researchers might consider utilizing trait-activation theory
(Tett & Guterman, 2000) to explain how “strong” and “weak” situations may lead individuals with similar traits
(e.g., internal locus of control or conscientiousness) to develop different levels of PO towards their job and the
organization. The main premise of trait-activation theory is that personality traits and situations are sources of be-
havioral variance, and traits are expressed as responses to trait-relevant situational cues (Tett & Guterman, 2000).
Thus, rather than assume that personality traits influence the development of PO in some identifiable way, trait-
activation theory suggests that “traits influence behavior only in relevant situations…” (Kenrick & Funder,
1988, p. 29). For example, the effects of conscientiousness on an individual’s job-based PO and related behavioral
work outcomes might be stronger when the individual is working in an organization that utilizes performance-
based rewards to incentivize conscientious employees (i.e., there is a strong situation that allows an individual
to express their trait of conscientiousness).
Influence of culture on psychological ownership
Although a considerable body of work has been published on PO, as yet, there has been no attempt to undertake
work that examines how culture shapes PO and its differential effects on outcomes across cultural contexts. This is
a critical research gap as prior meta-analytical work from the organizational commitment literature has shown
culture to exert significant effects on employee feelings of identification and obligation (Meyer et al., 2012).
Although preliminary work suggests that that feelings of ownership manifest in a similar way in both more
collectivistic Eastern cultures and more individualistic Western cultures (Peng & Pierce, 2015), we call on
DOI: 10.1002/job
researchers to investigate in greater depth, through the use of cross-cultural data, whether culture influences the
formation and effects of PO at different levels of analysis. For example, in light of empirical research which
has established that employees identify with the organization (affective commitment), and feel greater obligation
towards the organization (normative commitment), in countries where they are high levels of in-group collectivism
(Meyer et al., 2012), we might expect culture to be an important determinant of PO. More specifically, we might
expect collective PO to be stronger in more collectivistic cultures, where there is limited separation of work and
non-work domains, and individual PO to be stronger in more individualistic cultures. When ascertaining the im-
pact of culture on PO, data should be collected from a large number of countries to achieve robust results. For
example, Taras, Rowney, and Steel (2009) suggest that when testing factor structures across cultures, it is neces-
sary to include at least 10 countries per factor.
Dynamic nature of psychological ownership

Prior studies have typically overlooked the dynamic nature of PO. As PO has been defined as a state of mind “in
which individuals feel as though the target of ownership (material or immaterial in nature) or a piece of it is theirs”
(Pierce et al., 2001, p. 299), it is reasonable to assume that feelings of ownership might fluctuate over time, as a re-
sult of various situational influences at work. For instance, organizational change is likely to have a considerable
impact on the formation and stability of one’s PO given it involves “a transformation in mission, strategies, struc-
tures, systems, networks, and/or core values” (Elstak, Bhatt, Van Riel, Pratt, & Berens, 2015, p. 36).
Although organization-based and job-based PO may ensure that employees maintain their sense of belonging-
ness, self-identity, and efficacy during times of organizational change, PO might also be impacted by change, es-
pecially when it involves the merger of different organizational entities and the closure of organizational units.
These structural changes may lead to changes in an employee’s status and role within the company, personal con-
trol over his/her work, accountability, and ownership over a range of tangible objectives, such as designated
workspace. For example, if two large organizations merge together, offices may be closed, supervisory relation-
ships may change, and individuals may be given new responsibilities in new locations. If PO is particularly high,
frustration and stress are more likely to be experienced when targets of PO are altered, or one is separated from a
target of ownership (Pierce & Jussilla, 2011), processes that are likely to occur during organizational change. Dur-
ing such times, an individual’s sense of job-based and organization-based PO might be ambiguous or in-flux and
impact on the three fundamental motives of PO: self-identity, efficacy and effectance, and sense of belonging
(Chreim, 2002; Elstak et al., 2015; Pierce et al., 2001). In other words, PO is not static and is likely to fluctuate
as a result of changing circumstances at work. When conducting research to ascertain the effect of organizational
change on PO, in line with best practice, researchers should collect longitudinal data across multiple time points,
that is, before organizational change is announced, during implementation, and after organizational change has
been adopted (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011).
Alternative theoretical approaches to the study of psychological ownership

In addition to trait activation theory, which may assist us in understanding why certain personality types develop
high levels of psychological ownership, researchers might consider adopting a number of theoretical perspectives
to aid understanding of how PO develops and influences workplace outcomes. Such perspectives include social
identity, social exchange, evolutionary theory, and neurobiological approaches.
First, clearly evident from this review of extant research is the centrality of identity as a theoretical lens for under-
standing PO. The work of Pierce et al. (2001) draws heavily on individual identity management functions of PO.
Social identity theory (Hogg & Terry, 2000) tells us that perceived membership of any social group has esteem-
enhancing, or uncertainty-reduction functions. Hence, when the target of PO is a group (team, organization, and
DOI: 10.1002/job
occupational group), the perceived “attractiveness” of group membership and other salient social identity variables
may be important moderators of relationships between PO and both its antecedents and outcomes. Given our
discussion of the potential for more focus on collective PO, greater integration of social identity theory may benefit
expansion of this particular focus in the literature.
Social exchange theory (SET; Blau, 1964), which focuses on one’s relationship with the organization, may also
further the understanding of PO towards different foci. The degree to which employees perceive that the
organization is supportive (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986), that there is a balance between
their efforts and rewards (Siegrist, 1996), that they have a primarily “relational” psychological contract with the
organization (Rousseau, 1989), and that the organization treats them fairly (i.e., Greenberg, 1990) are likely to
be associated with PO. Social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal obligation, gratitude, and trust.
Accordingly, SET’s core concept of reciprocity (Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, & Hall, 2014) is likely to be
important in understanding the effects of PO.
In addition to social motives for PO, “genetic” motives for PO were referred to seminal theoretical work. Pierce
and Jussilla (2011) refer to the innate or instinctive nature of human possession and territoriality, universally ob-
served in humans and primates. In our review, we observed little integration of evolutionary perspectives in the
literature. Yammarino and Dansereau (2011, p. 1043) present a case for “infusion of evolutionary theory in the
field of organization science and leadership,” particularly that which is conducted at multiple levels of analysis.
Although beyond the scope of this paper to articulate their analysis here, we encourage readers to examine the
conceptualization and operationalization of PO in relation to their alignment of evolutionary theory with multilevel
organizational phenomena.
Finally, with due consideration of the complexities and critiques of these approaches (cf. Healey & Hodgkinson,
2014; Lindebaum & Jordan, 2014; Lindebaum & Zundel, 2013), neurobiological methods may be usefully incorpo-
rated into the study of emotion, cognition, and perception in organizational behavior (Ashkanasy, Becker, &
Waldman, 2014; Senior, Lee, & Butler, 2011). These methods may be usefully applied to understanding PO and ter-
ritoriality (e.g., brain regions activated in reaction to PO stimuli shown via functional magnetic resonance imaging)
and responses to different PO foci (e.g., biofeedback to PO stimuli).
Conclusion
In providing an in-depth narrative review of the PO construct and empirical research to date, this paper has presented
a synthesis of extant theoretical conceptualizations of PO, and an overview of the empirical evidence on its anteced-
ents and outcomes. However, several issues pertaining to the conceptualization and measurement of PO have been
highlighted, along with opportunities for future research. Endorsement of the proposed research agenda will serve to
strengthen the conceptualization and measurement of PO, develop its nomological network, and thereby provide a
richer understanding of PO and its applications in the workplace.
Author biographies
Sarah Dawkins is completing post-doctoral research at the Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, Univer-
sity of Tasmania. Her research focuses on the development of positive psychological resources in employees and
work teams. Sarah’s research has been published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
and Human Relations.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Amy Wei Tian is currently an Assistant Professor at University of Western Australia in Australia. She has published
in the areas of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior in such journals as the International
Journal of Human Resource Management and Personnel Review.
Alex Newman is currently an Associate Professor at Monash University in Australia. He has published widely in the
areas of Entrepreneurship and Organizational Behavior in such journals as the Journal of Applied Psychology, En-
trepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Leadership Quarterly, Human Resource Management, and Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior.
Angela Martin is an Associate Professor at the Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of
Tasmania. Her research focus is the management of employee health and well-being. Angela’s research has been
published in Academy of Management: Learning & Education, Human Resource Management, Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, and European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
References
Alok, K. (2014). Authentic leadership and psychological ownership: Investigation of intercorrerlations. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 36, 266–285.
Ashkanasy, N., Becker, W. J., & Waldman, D. A. (2014). Neuroscience and organizational behavior: Avoiding both
neuro-euphoria and neuro-phobia. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 909–919.
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. R., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement,
and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 173–191.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. (2012). Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of
employee voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 21–34.
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.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2011). Social cognitive theory. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of
theories of social psychology (pp. 349–373). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Bernhard, F., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2011). Psychological ownership in small family-owned businesses: Leadership style and
nonfamily-employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Group and Organization Management, 36, 345–384.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brown, G., Crossley, C., & Robinson, S. L. (2014a). Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team
contributor: The critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel Psychology, 67, 463–485.
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30,
577–594.
Brown, G., Pierce, J. L., & Crossley, C. (2014b). Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 35, 318–338.
Brown, G., & Robinson, S. L. (2011). Reactions to territorial infringement. Organization Science, 22, 210–224.
Chi, N. W., & Han, T. S. (2008). Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and psychological ownership for the organization:
The mediating role of organizational justice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 691–711.
Chiu, W. C. K., Hui, C. H., & Lai, G. W. F. (2007). Psychological ownership and organizational optimism amid China’s
corporate transformation: Effects of an employee ownership scheme and a management dominated board. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 303–320.
Chreim, S. (2002). Influencing organizational identification during major change: A communication-based perspective. Human
Relations, 55, 1117–1137.
Cropanzano, R. S., Anthony, E., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2014). Another look at social exchange: Two dimensions of
reciprocity. Academy of Management Proceedings. 10.5465/AMBPP.2014.10144abstract.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A
comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17, 263–282.
Dirks, K. T., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1996). Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under which
individuals promote and resist change. In Woodman, R., & Pasmore, W. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (Vol. 9, pp. 1–23)Vol. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York, NY: St Martin’s Press.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Elstak, M. N., Bhatt, M., Van Riel, C., Pratt, M. G., & Berens, G. (2015). Organizational identification during a merger: The role
of self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction motives during a major organizational change. Journal of Management Studies,
52, 32–62.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment.
Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 959–970.
Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. In F. W. Rudmin (Ed.), To have possessions: A handbook on ownership
and property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 465–468.
Furby, L. (1978). Possession in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 49–65.
Furby, L. (1991). Understanding the psychology of possession and ownership: A personal memoir and an appraisal of our
progress. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 457–463.
González-Romá, V., Fortes-Ferreira, L., & Peiró, J. M. (2009). Team climate, climate strength and team performance. A
longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 511–536.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.
Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., & Chang, A. (2010). Employee participation in decision making, psychological ownership and
knowledge sharing: Mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 21, 2218–2233.
Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Harms, P. D., & Luthans, F. (2012). Measuring implicit psychological constructs in organizational behavior: An example using
psychological capital. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 589–594.
Healey, M. P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2014). Rethinking the philosophical and theoretical foundations of organizational
neuroscience: A critical realist alternative. Human Relations, 67, 765–792.
Heidegger, M. (1967). Being and time, J. Macquarie & E. Robinson (Trans). Oxford: Basil Blackwell original work published
1927.
Henssen, B., Voordeckers, W., Lambrechts, F., & Koiranen, M. (2014). The CEO autonomy–stewardship behavior relationship
in family firms: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5, 312–322.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization process in organizational contexts. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 121–140.
Hou, S. T., Hsu, M. Y., & Wu, S. H. (2009). Psychological ownership and franchise growth: An empirical study of a Taiwanese
taxi franchise. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 15, 415–435.
Hsu, D. K. (2013). ‘This is my venture!’ The effect of psychological ownership on intention to reenter entrepreneurship. Journal
of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 26, 387–402.
Ikävalko, M., Pihkala, T., & Kraus, S. (2010). The role of owner-managers’ psychological ownership in SME strategic behavior.
Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 23, 461–479.
Jussila, I., Tarkiainen, A., Sarstedt, M., & Hair, J. F. (2015a). Individual psychological ownership: concepts, evidence, and
implications for research in marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23, 121–139.
Jussila, I., Tarkiainen, A., Sarstedt, M., & Hair, J. F. (2015b). Special issue on psychological ownership: A concept of value to the
marketing field. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 119–120.
Kaur, D., Sambasivan, M., & Kumar, N. (2013). Effect of spiritual intelligence, emotional intelligence, psychological ownership
and burnout on caring behavior of nurses: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 22, 3192–3202.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American
Psychologist, 43, 23–34.
Knapp, J. R., Smith, B. R., & Sprinkle, T. A. (2014). Clarifying the relational ties of organizational belonging: Understanding the
roles of perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational identification. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 21, 273–285.
Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birkelbach, D., & Hoffman, B. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement error and substantive
conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 435–455.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275.
Lindebaum, D., & Jordan, P. J. (2014). A critique on neuroscientific methodologies in organizational behavior and management
studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 898–908.
Lindebaum, D., & Zundel, M. (2013). Not quite a revolution: Scrutinizing organizational neuroscience in leadership studies.
Human Relations, 66, 857–877.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.
Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2012). Psychological ownership: How having control matters. Journal of Management
Studies, 49, 869–895.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model organizational identity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.
Maloney, M., Johnson, S., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2010). Assessing group-level constructs under missing data conditions: A
Monte Carlo simulation. Small Group Research, 41(3), 281–307.
Maslach, C., & Goldberg, J. (1998). Prevention of burnout: New perspective. Applied & Preventative Psychology, 7, 63–74.
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements
and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.
Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007). Study of the antecedents and consequences of
psychological ownership in organizational settings. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 477–500.
McDougall, W. (1923). An introduction to social psychology. London: Methuen.
McIntyre, N., Srivastava, A., & Fuller, J. A. (2009). The relationship of locus of control and motives with psychological
ownership in organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 21, 383–401.
Md-Sidin, S., Sambasivan, M., & Muniandy, N. (2009). Impact of psychological ownership on the performance of business
school lecturers. Journal of Education for Business, 85, 50–56.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Jackson, T. A., McInnis, K. J., Maltin, E. S., & Sheppard, L. (2012). Affective, normative, and
continuance commitment levels across cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 225–245.
Noshpitz, J. D. (1984). Narcissism and aggression. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 38, 17–34.
Oates, W. E. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York: World.
O’ Driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A. M. (2006). The psychology of ownership: Work environment structure,
organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 31, 388–416.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of
quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 461–524.
Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social
Pan, X. F., Qin, Q. W., & Gao, F. (2014). Psychological ownership, organization-based self-esteem and positive organizational
behaviors. Chinese Management Studies, 8, 127–148.
Park, C. H., Song, J. H., Yoon, S. W., & Kim, J. (2013). A missing link: Psychological ownership as a mediator between
transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Development International, 16,
558–574.
Parker, S. (1998). Enhancing role-breadth self efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.
Parker, S. W., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). ‘That’s not my job’: Developing flexible employee work orientations.
Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899–929.
Peng, H., & Pierce, J. L. (2015). Job- and organization-based psychological ownership: Relationship and outcomes. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 30, 2.
Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct
introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 810–834.
Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context: Theory, research, evidence and
application. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 26, 298–310.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of
research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84–107.
Pierce, J. L., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Coghlan, A. M. (2004). Work environment structure and psychological ownership: The
mediating effects of control. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 507–534.
Pierce, J. L., Van Dyne, L., & Cummings, L. L. (1992). Psychological ownership: A construct validation study. In Schnake, M.
(Ed.), Proceedings of the southern management association (pp. 203–211). Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method biases in social sciences research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 539–569.
Qian, J., Lin, X. S., Han, Z. R., Tian, B. W., Chen, G. Z., & Wang, H. W. (2015). The impact of future time orientation on
employees’ feedback-seeking behavior from supervisors and co-workers: The mediating role of psychological ownership.
Journal of Management & Organization, 21, 336–349.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Ramos, H. M., Man, T. W. Y., Mustafa, M., & Ng, Z. Z. (2014). Psychological ownership in small family firms: Family and
non-family employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5, 300–311.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2,
121–139.
Scherbaum, C., & Ferreter, J. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using
multilevel modeling. Organisational Research Methods, 12, 347–367.
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: A new direction for climate research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 220–229.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman.
Senior, C., Lee, N., & Butler, M. (2011). Organizational cognitive neuroscience. Organization Science, 22(3), 804–815.
Siebert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randall, A. W. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multi-level model of
empowerment, performance and satisfaction. The Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332–349.
Sleesman, D. J., Conlon, D. E., McNamara, G., & Miles, J. E. (2012). Cleaning up the big muddy: A meta-analytic review of the
determinants of escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 541–562.
Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35, 1312–1317.
Sieger, P., Bernhard, F., & Frey, U. (2011). Affective commitment and job satisfaction among non-family employees:
Investigating the roles of justice perceptions and psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2, 78–89.
Sieger, P., Zellweger, T., & Aquino, K. (2013). Turning agents into psychological principals: Aligning interests of non-owners
through psychological ownership. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 361–388.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1,
27–41.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-report affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438–443.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend. Organizational Research Methods, 9,
221–232.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Review of approaches, challenges, and limitations
based on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of International Management, 15, 357–373.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a
principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.
Vanderberg, R. J. (2006). Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Where, pray tell, did they get this idea?
Organizational Research Methods, 9, 194–201.
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting
employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439–459.
Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences.
Group & Organization Management, 20, 210–226.
Wagner, S. H., Parker, C. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2003). Employees that think and act like owners: Effects of ownership beliefs
and behaviors on organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 56, 847–871.
Warr, P. B. (1990). Decision latitude, job demands, and employee well-being. Work and Stress, 4, 285–294.
Yammarino, F., & Dansereau, F. (2011). Multilevel issues in evolutionary theory and organizational behavior. Leadership
Quarterly, 22, 1042–1057.
Zhu, H., Chen, C. C., Li, X. C., & Zhou, Y. H. (2013). From personal relationship to psychological ownership: The importance of
manager–owner relationship closeness in family businesses. Management and Organization Review, 9, 295–318.
DOI: 10.1002/job

Psychological Ownership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Ownership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The IRIOP Annual Review Issue

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 163–183 (2017)

Psychological ownership: A review and research

Received 24 November 2014

Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Basis, Dimensionality, and Levels

Measuring Psychological Ownership

Foci of Psychological Ownership

Discriminant and convergent validity

Antecedents of Psychological Ownership and Psychological Ownership as a

Organization-based psychological ownership

Job-based psychological ownership

Outcomes of Psychological Ownership

Psychological ownership and individual attitudes

Psychological ownership and individual behaviors

Other outcomes of psychological ownership

Factors Moderating the Relationship Between Psychological Ownership and

Future Research Agenda

Multilevel approaches to study of psychological ownership

Table 1. Summary of future research directions.

Boundary conditions of psychological ownership/outcomes relationships

Inﬂuence of individual differences on psychological ownership

Inﬂuence of culture on psychological ownership

Dynamic nature of psychological ownership

Alternative theoretical approaches to the study of psychological ownership

You might also like