Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda

• Author: Amy Wei Tian,Sarah Dawkins,Alexander Newman,Angela Martin
• Date: 01 February 2017
• Published date: 01 February 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2057

Psychological ownership: A review and research

agenda

†

SARAH DAWKINS

1

, AMY WEI TIAN

2

, ALEXANDER NEWMAN

3

*AND

ANGELA MARTIN

1

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

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 24 November 2014

Revised 21 August 2015, Accepted 14 September 2015

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

The IRIOP Annual Review Issue

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 identif y

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 recentspecial 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 (33quantitative and

1 qualitative).We organize the review into two mainsections. In the first section, we reviewpast 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 proposealternate theoreticallenses through which to investigate how PO develops andinfluences outcomes .

Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Basis, Dimensionality, and Levels

Pierce et al. (2001, 2003) argued that PO comprisesboth affective and cognitive elements. Asnoted 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 includesboth affective and cognitive information based on affective

judgments, as well as moreabstract beliefs (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004, p. 442). Thus, PO, in part, consistsof an emo-

tional attachmentto the target that exceeds the cognitive evaluation of thetarget. Further, although theymay 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 recognizedprimarily by the individual. There is no formalrecognition 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 empiricalevidence exists to currently confirm or disconfirm either of these hypothe ses, 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 thr ee 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

164 S. DAWKINS ET AL.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 163–183 (2017)

DOI: 10.1002/job