TheStateofPsychologicalOwnership:
IntegratingandExtendingaCenturyofResearch
JonL.Pierce
UniversityofMinnesotaDuluth
TatianaKostova
UniversityofSouthCarolina
KurtT.Dirks
WashingtonUniversityinSt.Louis
Peopledevelopfeelingsofownershipforavarietyofobjects,materialandimmaterialinnature.Werefertothisstateaspsychologicalownership.Buildingonandextendingpreviousscholarship,theauthorsofferaconceptualexaminationofthisconstruct.Afterdefiningpsychologicalownership,theyaddress“why”itexistsand“how”itcomesintobeing.Theyproposethatthisstatefindsitsrootsinasetofintraindividualmotives(efficacyandeffectance,self-identity,andhavingaplacetodwell).Inaddition,theydiscusstheexperiencesthatgiverisetopsychologicalownershipandproposeseveralpositiveandnegativeconsequencesofthisstate.Theauthors’workprovidesafoun-dationforthedevelopmentofacomprehensivetheoryofpsychologicalownershipandtheconceptualunderpinningsforempiricaltesting.
Expressinga“classical”Westernperspective,Rousseau(1762/1950)suggestedthat“civilso-ciety”mostlikelybeganwhenapersonfencedoffaplotofgroundandtookitintohisorherheadtoclaim“Thisismine,”andothersac-ceptedthisassertion.Recognizingthepsychol-ogyofownership,Etzioni(1991)wrotethatownershipisa“dualcreation,partattitude,partobject,partinthemind,part‘real’”(p.466),andHeider(1958)observedthat“attitudesofownership”arecommonamongpeople.Consis-tentwiththeseviews,economicpsychologistLeonLitwinski(1942)andsocialpsychologistLitaFurby(1991)offeredthethesisthatthereisa“psychologyofmineandproperty”thatat-tachesitselftoobjects.Theseperspectivespro-videanewlenswithwhichtoviewpossession,property,andownership.Werefertothislensas
JonL.Pierce,DepartmentofManagementStudies,SchoolofBusinessandEconomics,UniversityofMinne-sotaDuluth;TatianaKostova,InternationalBusinessDe-partment,MooreSchoolofBusiness,UniversityofSouthCarolina;KurtT.Dirks,JohnM.OlinSchoolofBusiness,WashingtonUniversityinSt.Louis.
Correspondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbead-dressedtoJonL.Pierce,DepartmentofManagementStud-ies,SchoolofBusinessandEconomics,UniversityofMin-nesotaDuluth,10UniversityDrive,Duluth,Minnesota55812.E-mail:jpierce@d.umn.edu
84
psychologicalownership,acognitive–affectivestatethatcharacterizesthehumancondition.Scholarsfromvariousdisciplineshavebeeninterestedinthegenesisofpossessivetenden-ciesandthepsychologyofmineandproperty(e.g.,Etzioni,1991;Furby,1991;Litwinski,1942,1947).Somehaveofferedageneticex-planationfortheemergenceofsuchpsycholog-icalstates(e.g.,Burk,1900;Darling,1937),whereasothershavearguedthattheyaretheproductofsocializationpracticescarriedoutinsociety(e.g.,Furby,1976;Kline&France,19);asociobiologicalperspective(seeBuss,1990;Wilson,1975)envisionsacombinationofbothbiologicaltendenciestowardterritorialityandacceptedsocialpractices.Thepsychologyofownershiphasbeenstudiedinavarietyofcontexts,includingchilddevelopment(e.g.,Isaacs,1933;Kline&France,19),consumerbehavior(Belk,1988),amongtheelderly(Cram&Paton,1993;Kamptner,19),withinthecustomsandpracticesofdifferentsocieties(Kline&France,19),fromtheperspectiveofholdinglandandhavingahouse“withfourwalls”(Duncan,1981;Porteous,1976),acrossdifferentsocioeconomicstrata(Rochberg-Hal-ton,1980),withinphilosophicaldiscussionsof“being”(Heidegger,1927/1967;Sartre,1943/1969),and,finally,intheworkplace(Dirks,
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP85
Cummings,&Pierce,1996;Pierce,Kostova,&Dirks,2001;Pratt&Dutton,1998).
Weintegrateandbuildonthesediverselit-eraturesindevelopingoneconceptualperspec-tiveonpsychologicalownership.Wefocusonseveralquestionsthatarecentraltotheestab-lishmentoftheconstructandthatstillneedtobeaddressedinasystematicmanner,includingthemeaningofpsychologicalownership,thegene-sisofthisstate,andtheconditionsunderwhichitmanifestsitself.Ourexaminationisparticu-larlyinformedbytheworkofJames(10)andPrelinger(1959)onobjectsperceivedtobepartoftheselfandnot-self,Etzioni’s(1991)workontheobjectiveandsubjectiveaspectsofown-ership,Heider’s(1958)reflectionsonattitudesofownership,theworkonself-identityandthepsychologyofmine(e.g.,Litwinski,1947;Rochberg-Halton,1980),andresearchonthefeelingsof“mine”and“me”indevelopmentalpsychology(seeFurby,1991).
Weexpandpastresearchonthepsychologyofownershipintwomajorways.First,afterpresentingthetheoreticalfoundationsforourwork,wearticulatethemotivationfor(i.e.,theindividualfunctionsservedby)psychologicalownership.Thus,weaddressthequestionofwhyindividualscometofeelownership,whichhasnotbeendoneinasystematicmannerbe-fore.Second,weexplicatethehumanexperi-encesthatresultintheemergenceofpsycho-logicalownership,thusexploringthequestionsofwhatfactorscauseindividualstoexperiencethesefeelingsandhowthispsychologicalstateisachieved.Inaddition,weprovideinitialin-sightintowhatcanandcannotbeownedpsy-chologically(i.e.,theobjectsortargetsofown-ership),aswellastheprocessthroughwhichpsychologicalownershipemerges.Finally,wediscusstheeffectsofthisstateonindividuals.
TheoreticalBackground
Inthispartofthearticle,welayoutthetheoreticalfoundationsforourexaminationofpsychologicalownership.Webeginwithabriefreviewofextantresearchonthepsychologyofownershipsuggestingthatthispsychologicalstateexistsasapartofthehumancondition.
PsychologicalExperiencesofOwnership
Thereisdiverseliteraturethatsuggeststhatthepsychologyofpossession1iswellrootedin
peoplesocializedbyaWesternheritage.2Thepsychologicalaspectsofownershiphavebeenexploredbyanthropologists,psychologists,so-cialpsychologists,geographers,philosophers,animalbehaviorists,consumerbehaviorists,his-torians,artists,andstudentsoflife-spandevel-opment,amongothers.CramandPaton(1993),forexample,intheirdiscussionofpossessionsaspartoftheextendedself,notedthatitiscommontowitnessthedebilitatingeffectsas-sociatedwiththemovementoftheelderlyfromtheirhomestonursingfacilities.Theyattributedtheseeffectstotheseparationofindividualsfromtheirpossessions,inwhichmuchoftheselfhasbecomeinterwoven.Developmentalpsychologistssuggestthatthefeelingsof“mine”andthecloseconnectionbetween“me”and“mine”emergebecauseofthetoddler’sinnatemotivetocontrolobjectsandtobeef-fectant(seeFurby,1991).Amongyoungchil-drenatplay,onecanoftenobservestrongreac-tions(“MYcar,ME!”)whenachildpicksupanotherchild’stoy(seeIsaacs,1933;Levine,1983).
AccordingtoDittmar(1992),itiscommonforpeopletopsychologicallyexperiencetheconnectionbetweenselfandvarioustargetsofpossessionsuchashomes,automobiles,space,andotherpeople.Possessionscometoplaysuchadominantroleintheowner’sidentitythattheybecomepartoftheextendedself(seeBelk,1988;Dittmar,1992).Mann(1991)wrote,“WhatIownfeelslikeapartofme”(p.211).Sartre(1943/1969),inhistreatiseon“beingandnothingness,”notedthat“tohave”(alongwith“todo”and“tobe”)isoneofthethreecatego-riesofhumanexistenceandthat“thetotalityofmypossessionsreflectsthetotalityofmybe-ing...IamwhatIhave....Whatismineismyself”(pp.591–592).Likewise,James(10)commentedonthefinelinebetween“me”and“mine”:
Aman’sSelfisthesumtotalofallthatheCANcallhis,notonlyhisbodyandhispsychicpowers,buthisclothsandhishouse,hiswifeandchildren,hisances-torsandfriends,hisreputationandworks,hisland,andyachtandbankaccount.Allthesethingsgivethesame
1Consistentwiththeworkofothers(seeDittmar,1992;Furby,1976,1978a,1978b,1980),wetendtoequatefeel-ingsofpossessionwithfeelingsofownership.Accordingly,weusethetermsinterchangeably.2Theliteraturethatwereview,aswellastheperspectivethatweoffer,isthatofaWesterntradition.
86PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
emotions.Iftheywaxandprosper,hefeelstriumphant;iftheydwindleanddie,hefeelscastdown.(pp.291–292)3Althoughownershipisgenerallyexperiencedasinvolvingperson–objectrelations,itcanalsobefelttowardnonphysicalentitiessuchasideas,words,artisticcreations,andotherpeo-ple.Isaacs(1933),forexample,observedfeel-ingsofownershipamongchildrentowardnurs-eryrhymesandsongs;theywere“theirs”iftheyheardthemfirst,andnooneelsehadarighttosingorhearthemwithouttheirpermission.Itiscommonforyoungchildren,Isaacs(1933)noted,tofeelthatthingsare“theirs”iftheyhave“usedormentionedthemfirst.”Heider(1958)discussedtheconflictsamongscientistsastotheparentageofideasorinventions(Isaacs,1933).
Feelingsofownershiptowardvariousobjectshaveimportantandpotentiallystrongpsycho-logicalandbehavioraleffects.Thegrowthofpossessions,forexample,producesapositiveandupliftingeffect(Formanek,1991).Possiblyasaresultofself-enhancingbiases,investedeffort,controllability,andsocialapproval,ownedobjectsappeartobemoreattractiveandratedmorefavorablythanobjectsthatarenotowned(Beggan,1992;Nuttin,1987).Similarly,thesenseofownershipthatpeopledevelopto-wardtheirhomestypicallyresultsinpreoccu-pationwithdecoration.Homeisoftenextolledinsong,poetry,andproverb(Porteous,1976).Thelossofpossessions,ontheotherhand,leadsto“shrinkageofourpersonality,apartialcon-versionofourselvestonothingness”(James,10,p.178),andfeelingsofdepression(For-manek,1991).Insummary,bothpastresearchandsocialpracticesuggestthatfeelingsofown-ershiparepartofthehumancondition,thesefeelingscanbedirectedtowardavarietyofobjects,andtheyhaveimportantconsequencesfortheindividual.
PsychologicalOwnership:ConstructDefinitionandElaboration
Weconceptuallydefinepsychologicalown-ershipasthestateinwhichindividualsfeelasthoughthetargetofownershiporapieceofthattargetis“theirs”(i.e.,“Itismine!”).Elaborationoftheconstructrepresentedbythisdefinitionhighlightsanumberofdistinguishingfeatures.First,thesenseofownershipmanifestsitselfinthemeaningandemotioncommonlyassociated
withmyormineandour.4Psychologicalown-ershipanswersthequestion“WhatdoIfeelismine?”anditsconceptualcoreisasenseofpossession(Wilpert,1991)towardaparticulartarget(e.g.,theproductsofone’slabor,toys,home,land,orsignificantothers).Second,psy-chologicalownershipreflectsarelationshipbe-tweenanindividualandanobject(materialorimmaterialinnature)inwhichtheobjectisexperiencedashavingacloseconnectionwiththeself(Furby,1978a,1978b;Litwinski,1942;Wilpert,1991),becomingpartofthe“extendedself”(Belk,1988;Dittmar,1992).AsIsaacs(1933)noted,“whatisminebecomes(inmyfeelings)apartofME”(p.225).
Third,thestateofpsychologicalownership(i.e.,“mine-ness”or“our-ness”)iscomplexandiscomposedofacognitiveandaffectivecore.Itisaconditionofwhichoneisawarethroughintellectualperception.Itreflectsanindividu-al’sawareness,thoughts,andbeliefsregardingthetargetofownership.Thiscognitivestate,however,iscoupledwithanemotionaloraffec-tivesensation.Feelingsofownershiparesaidtobepleasureproducingperse(seeBeggan,1992;Furby,1978a;Nuttin,1987;Porteous,1976)andareaccompaniedbyasenseofefficacyandcompetence(White,1959).Theaffectivecom-ponentbecomesapparentinthefeelingsthatarisewhenotherslayclaimtoobjectsforwhichonefeelsasenseofpersonalownership(e.g.,“Thoseideasaremine!”)orcollectiveowner-shipsharedwithagroup(e.g.,“Thatgardenspaceisours!”).
Ourconceptualizationofpsychologicalown-ershiphelpshighlightitsdistinctionfromlegalownership.Recognizingthisdistinction,Etzioni(1991)notedthatpropertyandownershiparerealaswellaspsychologicallyexperienced,in
3Wenotethedatedandsexistlanguageinthisquotation.Wehaveincludedthisscriptforitsoverallconceptualcontributiontothethemeofourwork.4FromaWesternandindividualisticculturaltradition,ourisadoublepossessiveinform.Itimpliesthattheobjectofpossessionhasaconnectionwiththeself(my)whilesimultaneouslyhavingapossessiverelationshipwithoneormoreotherindividuals.“Sheisourdaughter”quitesimplymeansthatsheismydaughteraswellasthedaughterofhermother.Thus,adualpossessive,inwhichcasesheisalsoourdaughter,isacollectivetargetofpossession.Finally,weacknowledgethattheremaybecertainculturalconditionsthatblockindividualizedexperiencesofownership,inwhichcasethereisnomysimultaneouslyexperiencedwithour.
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP87
thattheyexistinthe“mind.”Althoughpossiblyrelated,legalandpsychologicalownershipdif-ferinsomesignificantways.Forexample,legalownershipisrecognizedforemostbysociety,andhencetherightsthatcomewithownershiparespecifiedandprotectedbythelegalsystem.Incontrast,psychologicalownershipisrecog-nizedforemostbytheindividualwhoholdsthisfeeling.Consequently,itistheindividualwhomanifeststhefeltrightsassociatedwithpsycho-logicalownership.Furthermore,psychologicalownershipcanexistintheabsenceoflegalownership,asnotedbyFurby(1980),Isaacs(1933),andEtzioni(1991),amongothers.Finally,peoplecanlegallyownanobject(e.g.,automobileorhome)yetneverclaimthepossessionastheirown(“Itneverseemstobelongtome”;McCracken,1986,p.79).Ac-cordingtoMcCracken(1986),underthesecon-ditionsindividualssimplyfailtoclaimtheob-jectas“theirs”becausetheydonotfindper-sonalmeaningintheobject’ssymbolicproperties,whichisnecessaryforclaimingsomethingas“mine.”Inasimilarfashion,theresponsibilitiesassociatedwithlegalandpsy-chologicalownershipdiffer.Theresponsibili-tiesthatcomewithlegalownershipareoftenanoutgrowthofthelegalsystem,whereasthoseassociatedwiththepsychologicalstatestemfromtheindividual,thatis,fromhisorherfeelingsofbeingresponsibleandactsofclaim-ing(asserting)thenonownedas“mine.”
Inthenextsection,weexplorethegenesisofpsychologicalownership.Thus,weaskthequestion“Whydoesthisstateexist?”
GenesisofPsychologicalOwnership
Whydopeopledevelopfeelingsofpsycho-logicalownership?Whatarethe“roots”ofthispsychologicalstate?Whatindividualmotivesbecomeservedthroughthisfeeling?
Althoughnocomprehensivetaxonomyorempiricalevidencecurrentlyexiststhatresolvesthegenesisquestion,severalscholarshavespeculatedonthisissueandhavesuggesteddifferentreasonsforownershipanditsaccom-panyingpsychologicalstate.Somehaveap-proachedthisquestionbylookingforthemean-ingofandroleplayedbypossessionsinpeo-ple’slives(Rochberg-Halton,1980;Wallendorf&Arnould,1988).Richins(1994),forexample,suggestedthatpossessionsarevaluedforutili-tarian,enjoyment,interpersonal,identity,finan-
cial,andappearance-relatedreasons.Dittmar(1992)notedthatpossessionsplayseveralim-portantroles;inadditiontoservingaclassicaleconomicutilitarianvalue,theyalso“shapeourconsciousness,ourself-awarenessandourper-ceptionoftheworld”(p.65).Porteous(1976)offeredthattherearethreesatisfactionsthatderivefromownership:(a)controloverspaceperse,(b)personalizationofspaceasanasser-tionofidentity,and(c)stimulation(achieved,forexample,bythinkingabout,using,improv-ing,ordefendingone’spossessions–territory).Ithasalsobeenargued(e.g.,Ardrey,1966;Duncan,1981;Porteous,1976;Weil,1949/1952)thatpossessionshelpcreate“aplace,”symbolicallycapturedbytheconceptof“home”anditscapacitytoprovidetheindivid-ualwithacontextinwhichtodwell,asenseofpsychiccomfort,pleasure,andsecurity(seeDreyfus,1991;Heidegger,1927/1967;Steiner,1978).
Withinthisdiversity,thereappeartobetwoschoolsofthoughtonthegenesisofpsycholog-icalownership.Thefirstgroupofscholarstakesabiologicalperspectiveandfixestheoriginofpsychologicalexperiencesofownershipintheindividual’sinnategeneticstructure(McDou-gall,1908/1923).Thesecondgrouptakesaso-cial(cultural)constructionistviewandfocusesonthesocializationpracticesandritualscarriedoutindifferentsocieties(McCracken,1986).Representingthe“nature”sideoftheargu-ment,manybelievethatthehumanconditionischaracterizedbyaninnateneedforpossession(seeArdrey,1966;Burk,1900;Darling,1937;Hall&Wiltse,11;Kline&France,19;Porteous,1976;Weil,1949/1952).Baldwin(ascitedinLitwinski,1942),forexample,sug-gestedthatpossessiveandproperty-relatedbe-haviorisaninstinct:
Evenwithanimalsonefindstherecognitionofmeumandtuumandthatnotonlywithregardtootherindi-vidualsliketheyoungofthefamily,butequallywithregardtothings.Thebirdclaimsthenestandthewholetreeasitsown.Certainbirdslikemagpiesevenappro-priateuselessobjectsandconsiderthemastheirown.(p.36)
Ellis(1985)notedthattheprimitivedrivetopossessisrevealedeveninlaboratoryratsandpigeons,whichoftenpreferfoodthatthey“earned”(bypressingleversinaSkinnerbox)insteadofthesamefoodfreelyavailableelse-where.Similarly,possessivebehaviorofchil-dreniscommonlyobservedataveryearlyage
88PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
and,attimes,beforetheiruseofwordswithpossessiveorownershipreferences(Ellis,1985).Litwinski(1942)notedthat,amongchil-dren,theimpulsetoactpossessivelyandassertclaimsofownershipdevelopsveryearly:“Itmustbeconsideredasaninnatetendencythough,inspiteofthefactthatdoubtlessitowesmuchofitsstrength,aswellasthedirectionwhichitsdevelopmenttakestoexampleandsocialeducation”(p.36).Similarly,McDougall(1908/1923)statedthat“theimpulsetocollectandhoardvariousobjectsisdisplayedinonewayoranotherbyalmostallhumanbeings,andseemstobeduetoatrueinstinct”(p.75).Recently,Ellis(1985)concludedhisreviewoftheliteratureonpossessionsandpropertybynotingthatpossessivebehaviorappearstobeuniversallypresentinallhumansocietiesandismostevidentinreferencestoselfandone’sownpersonalspace.Healsonotedthatownershipisnotauniquelyhumanphenomenon:“Someneurologicalprocessesthathumanssharewithotherprimates...mustcauseustoclaimprop-ertyandgenerallyhonortheclaimsofothersocialgroupmembers”(Ellis,1985,pp.129–130).
Beaglehole(1932),ontheotherhand,arguedthatthereisverylittle,ifany,evidencesupport-ingthenotionofaninnateownershipinstinct.Althoughpossessionsappeartoserveavarietyoffunctionssuchassatisfyingpeople’sneedsforsecurity,food,andreproduction,theyarenotanendinandofthemselves(Rudmin,1990a,1990b).Similarly,Dittmar(1992)sug-gestedthatbiologymightplayarole,butnotanoverridingone.“Socialandculturalfactorssig-nificantlyinfluencehowpeoplerelatetotheirmaterialpossessions”(Dittmar,1992,p.36).The“nurture”sideoftheargumentisarticu-latedbythehumandevelopmentscholars(seeFurby,1978b;Levine,1983;Lewis&Brook,1974;Seligman,1975)whosuggestthatown-ershipanditspsychologicalstateareexperi-encedearlyinthedevelopmentprocess.Fortheyoungchild,thedifferentiationbetweenselfandnot-selfcorrelateswithcontrol(seeFurby,1978b;Lewis&Brook,1974;Seligman,1975);objectsthatcanbecontrolledcometobecon-sideredaspartoftheself,andthosethatcannotfallwithinthenot-selfregion.Itisalsothroughaparent’seducation(e.g.,“notyours,don’ttouch”;“goandgetyourball”;and“bringbackyourbucket,whichthelittleboyhasstolenfromyou”)thatyoungchildrencometoconsider
objectsastheirown(Litwinski,1942).Accom-panyingmaturationandanawarenessofsocialrelationships,peoplemovetoexperiencesofownershipinvolvingmorecomplexthree-wayrelationships(i.e.,self–object–other).Asare-sult,individualsbegintothinkofpossessionsintermsofmeumettuum(thisismineandnotyours;thatisyoursandnotmine).
ConcurringwithDittmar(1992),wesuggestthatbothbiologyandsocialexperiencesplayaroleinshapingpeople’srelationstotheirpos-sessions.Onthebasisoftheprecedingdiscus-sion,weproposethattherootsofpsychologicalownershipcanbefound,inpart,inthreehumanmotives:(a)efficacyandeffectance,(b)self-identity,and(c)havingaplace.5Thistaxonomydepartsfromandadvancesexistingresearchonmotivesinseveralways.First,itfocusesonlyonthemotivesthatpsychologicalownershipfulfills,asopposedtomotivesfulfilledbylegalownership,suchasinstrumentalorutilitarianfunctions.Second,itintegratespreviousre-searchbyprovidingacompleteyetparsimoni-oustaxonomyofthemotivesthatpsychologicalownershipfulfills.Forexample,inadditiontofulfillingthebasicneedsofefficacyandeffec-tance,self-identity,andhavingaplaceinwhichtodwell,thesemotivesserveassociatedfunc-tionssuchasstimulationandprovisionofsecu-rity,comfort,andpleasure.Inthatsense,wehaveattemptedtoprovideparsimonybycaptur-ingtheelementalmotives.Eachofthethreemotivesforpsychologicalownershipisex-ploredingreaterdetailinthesectionstofollow.
EfficacyandEffectance
Isaacs(1933)statedthatthedesiretoown“canonlybethoughtofintermsofpower—orrather,ofpowerlessness”(p.225).Themotiveforpossessionisinlargepartbeingincontrol,havingthemeanstosatisfy“myneedasmine”;possessionsenablepeopletofeelsafewhentheyare“minetohaveandtohold”(Isaacs,1933,p.225).Having,therefore,becomesanendinitself,anissueof“powerorpowerless-ness”:hence,thepsychologicalconsequencesofthesestates.Theultimatemeaningofown-5Weacknowledgethattherearedifferentperspectives(e.g.,biologicalandsociobiological)fromwhichonecanviewandexplorethiscomplexphenomenonofpsycholog-icalownership.Weofferanintraindividualperspectivetoilluminateoneimportantperspectiveandprocess.
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP
ershipisthefusingofthetargetofownershipwiththeself.“Tohave”istotakeintooneself,thisbeingtheliteralandultimateformofcon-trolandpossession(seeDittmar,1992).
Inherreviewofindividual-centeredexplana-tionsfortheprocessbywhichmaterialposses-sionsbecomeapartoftheextendedself,Ditt-mar(1992)referredtodevelopmentaltheoryandtheworkofFurby(1978a,1978b,1980).Thisworkpostulatesthatthemotivationforpossessionstemsfromtheindividual’sneedforeffectanceandtheabilitytoproducedesiredoutcomesintheenvironment(seeWhite,1959).AccordingtoFurby(1978b):
Possessionshaveaninstrumentalfunction—theymakepossiblecertainactivitiesandpleasures.Inotherwords,theyenableonetoeffectdesiredoutcomesinone’senvironment.Theimportanceofthisinstrumen-talfactoratallages...isprovocative....Theresultsheresuggestpossessionmaybeonemanifestationofeffectancemotivationinthatacentralfeatureofpos-sessionistheabilitytoaffectandcontroltheobjectinwhateverwayonewishes.(p.60)
White(1959)arguedthatpartofthehumanconditionisrevealedbytheindividual’sexplo-rationoftheenvironment,whichinturnisdrivenbytheeffectancemotive,thatis,theindividual’sdesiretointeracteffectivelywithhisorherenvironment.Theeffectancemotiveisarousedbydifferencesintheenvironmentandissustainedwhenone’sactionsproducefurtherdifferences.Themotivesubsideswhenasituationhasbeenexploredtothepointthatitnolongerpresentsnewpossibilities.Explora-tionof,andtheabilitytocontrol,one’senvi-ronmentgivesrisetofeelingsofefficacyandpleasure,whichstemfrom“beingthecause”andhavingalteredtheenvironmentthroughone’scontrol–actions.Inadditiontoproducingintrinsicpleasure,controlovertheenvironmentmayproduceextrinsicsatisfaction,becausecer-taindesirableobjectsareacquired.Beggan’s(1991)researchprovidesfurtherevidencethatpossessionsservetosatisfyindividuals’controlmotivation.
Similarly,Furby(1978a)suggestedthatbothintrinsicandinstrumentalfunctionsareservedbypossessions.Themotivationforandthemeaningofownershipareembeddedinanef-fectanceorcompetencemotive.Thedesiretoexperiencecausalefficacyleadstoattemptstotakepossessionofobjectsinone’senvironment.BuildingonWhite’s(1959)work,Furbypro-posedthatcontrolofobjectsthroughownership
producespleasureperseandleadstopercep-tionsofpersonalefficacy.Furbyalsostatedthatpossessionscometobepartoftheextendedselfbecause“theyexpressaperson’sabilitytoexertdirectcontroloverthesocialandphysicalen-vironment”(ascitedinDittmar,1992,p.58).Thus,possessionsareimportanttoindividualsbecausetheyareinstrumentalforexercisingcontroloverthephysicalenvironmentandoverpeople(Furby,1978a).Controloverthephysi-calenvironmentstemsfromcontroloftheob-ject,controlovertheuseoftheobject,anduseoftheobjectasamechanismtoexertcontroloverotherpartsoftheenvironment.Socialcon-trolstemsfromtheabilitytoregulateothers’accesstooruseofone’spossessions.
Onthebasisoftheprecedingdiscussion,weproposethatpsychologicalownershipisgrounded,inpart,inthemotivationtobeeffi-caciousinrelationtoone’senvironment.Be-causeoftheinnateneedforfeelingsofefficacyandcompetence,individualsarepropelledtoexploreandmanipulatetheirenvironment.Theseperson–environmentinteractionsmayre-sultintheexerciseofcontrolandsubsequentfeelingsofpersonalefficacyandcompetence.Throughthisprocess,“possessionsandselfbe-comeintimatelyrelated”(Furby,1991,p.460).
Self-Identity
Numerousscholarshavesuggestedthat,inadditiontoservinganinstrumentalfunction(ef-ficacy–effectancemotive),possessionsserveassymbolicexpressionsoftheselfandthattherearecloseconnectionsamongpossessions,self-identity,andindividuality(e.g.,Abelson&Prentice,19;Dittmar,1992;Mead,1934;Porteous,1976).Drawingonthisresearch,weproposethatownershiphelpspeopledefinethemselves,expresstheirself-identitytoothers,andmaintainthecontinuityoftheselfacrosstime.
Comingtoknowthyself.Thesymbolicin-teractionismandthesocialconstructionismper-spectives(e.g.,Mead,1934)providevaluableinsightsintotheprocessofself-identityanditsconnectionwithpossessions.Identityisattheinterfacebetweentheindividualandsociety.Peopledevelopasenseofself-identityasaresultofviewingthemselvesfromtheperspec-tiveofhowothersviewthem.Self-awarenessistheoutcomeofreflection(Dittmar,1992;Mead,1934).
90PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
Possessionsplayanimportantroleintheprocessofself-understandingandself-identitybecauseofthemeaningandtheimportanceascribedtothembysociety(McCracken,1986;Mead,1934).Throughaninteractive,cyclical,andreinforcingprocess,individualscometofindpleasure,comfort,andself-understandingintheirrelationshipwithcertainobjects.Inotherwords,possessionsarebroughtintotherealmoftheextendedselfastheindividualinteractswiththeminsearchofself-knowledgeandmeaning.Aspleasureandcomfortarefoundinone’sinteractionswithobjects,thesociallysharedmeaningascribedtothoseob-jectsisinternalizedandbecomespartofone’sself-identity(McCracken,1986).“Personalpos-sessions,”accordingtoDittmar(1992),“cometoobjectifyaspectsofself-definition”(p.85).Thus,throughexplorationoftheirenvironmentandthroughexperiencinganobject,peoplelearnsomethingaboutit,aswellasaboutthem-selves,astheyarecloselylinked.Thisnearnesssuggeststhatthepersonandobjectareone(Dittmar,1992).
Thus,itisthroughourinteractionwithourpossessions,coupledwithreflectionontheirmeaning,that“oursenseofidentity,ourself-definition,areestablished,maintained,repro-ducedandtransformed”(Dittmar,1992,p.86).Itisthroughtheinteractiveprocesswithone’spossessionsthattheyprovidespace,comfort,autonomy,pleasure,andopportunitythatfacil-itatethedevelopmentandcultivationofone’sidentity(Kron,1983;Saunders,1990),inthattheyaresymbolsofself(Cooper,1976).
Expressionofself-identitytoothers.Assuggestedbyresearchersindifferentfields,in-cludinganthropology,consumerbehavior,andpsychology,possessionsplayasignificantroleinsocialinteraction(Dittmar,1992;Mc-Cracken,1986).Inadditiontoaffordingpoweroverothers,theycommunicatetheindividual’sidentitytoothers,henceachievingrecognitionandsocialprestige.Thus,objectscanobjectifytheself(Dittmar,1992).Inobjectivelytellingwhoweare,whatwedo,andwhoorwhatwemightbecome,thingscanactassignsoftheselfandrolemodelsforitscontinuedcultivation(Rochberg-Halton,1984,p.339).
Peoplecollectandpubliclydisplayamyriadofdifferentobjectsassymbolicexpressionsoftheirself-identity(Dittmar,1992).Examplesin-cludeclothingandautomobiles;locationandtypeofhomeowned,alongwithitsinteriorand
exteriordecoration;andpictures,awards,de-grees,andcertificatespubliclydisplayedonof-ficewalls.Suchself-expressionappearstobemostrevealingintherealmofconsumergoods.Itemsthatwepurchaseanddisplayserveassymbolsexpressingpersonalvalues,qualities,attitudes,education,socialaffiliations,andac-complishments(Levy,1959).Peoplefrequentlyexpressconcernwithhowotherswillviewtheminrelationtocertainpossessions(Munson&Spivey,1980).Furthermore,consumersworktomatchtheirimagewiththeimageofthetypicaluserofaparticularproduct(Grubb&Hupp,1968;Sirgy,1985).
Maintainingthecontinuityofself-identity.Possessionsarepsychologicallymeaningfulforyetanotherself-identityperspective:asawaytoachieveacontinuityoftheself(e.g.,Kamptner,19,1991;Price,Arnould,&Curasi,2000;Rochberg-Halton,1980).Possessionsprovidepeoplewithfeelingsofcomfort,anemotionalconnectionbetweenthemselvesandtheirpast.AssuggestedbyCramandPaton(1993),“Pos-sessionsarerepositoriesofmemoriesofone’sselfidentityinthepast”(p.19).Forexample,aspeoplegetoldertheirpast,asreflectedinme-mentos,photographs,diaries,letters,andgiftsfromothers,becomesanincreasinglyimportantpartoftheirself-identity(Cram&Paton,1993;Rochberg-Halton,1984).Possessionsmayevenaffordasenseofsecurity(Dittmar,1992).Iftheyarelostortakenaway,individualsmayexperienceanerosionofthesenseofself(e.g.,James,10;Kamptner,19).Incontrast,pre-servingpossessionsallowspeopletomaintainasenseofcontinuitythroughthoseitemsthathavebecomesymbolicextensionsoftheirselves.
Thus,itcouldbeproposedthatthemotiva-tionforownershipandpsychologicalownershipis,inpart,groundedinself-identity.Arisingoutofthedynamicsassociatedwithcomingtoknowthyself,expressingself-identitytoothers,andmaintainingitacrosstime,peoplebecomepsychologicallyattachedtoobjectsandinte-gratethemintotheself.
HavingaPlace
Tohaveaplaceis,accordingtoFrenchpo-liticalphilosopherSimoneWeil(1949/1952),animportant“needofthehumansoul”(p.41).Anumberofscholarshavelinkedthisneedtofeelingsofownership(seeArdrey,1966;Dar-
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP91
ling,1937,1939;Duncan,1981;Porteous,1976;Weil,1949/1952).Weil(1949/1952),forexample,claimedthatproperty(i.e.,privateandcollective)alongwithorder,liberty,freedomofopinion,truth,obedience,andresponsibilityare“vitalneedsofthesoul...thesoulfeelsiso-lated,lost,ifitisnotsurroundedbyobjectswhichseemtoitlikeanextensionofthebodilymembers”(p.33).
Similarly,Ardrey(1966),LorenzandLey-hausen(1973),andPorteous(1976)havear-guedthatindividualshaveaninnateterritorial-ityneed,thatis,aneedtopossessacertainspace.AccordingtoPorteous,home“is‘theterritorialcore,’‘apreferredspace,andafixedpointofreference’aroundwhichpeoplestruc-turetheirdailylives”(ascitedinKron,1983,p.23).DrawingontheworkofenvironmentalpsychologistD.GeoffreyHayward,Kron(1983)statedthathomeisaplaceofrefugeandone’sroots.
Ardrey(1966)suggestedthatpeoplehaveaninherentdrivetogainandtodefendanexclu-siveproperty.ForDarling(1937,1939),terri-toryisinessenceapsychologicalexpression.Itisbecauseofthisneedthatpeopledevotesig-nificantamountsoftime,energy,andresourcestoacquire,protect,decorate,anddisplaytheirhomes.Inherdiscussion,Duncan(1981)alsowroteofhomeownershipasapsychologicalphenomenonthatmayhaverootsinhumanneeds.Thehome,shesuggested,isanobjectofownershipthatmayservethehumanneedforhavingaplace(“myplace”).Porteous(1976)tooarguedthatthehomeisimportantbecauseitprovidestheindividualwithbothphysicalandpsychicsecurity.Insupportofthisnotionofthehomeprovidingasenseofsecurity,MehtaandBelk(1991)describedhowimmigrantsretainedandusedpossessionsas“securityblankets”pro-vidingthemwithasenseofplaceastheyadaptedtotheirnewenvironments.DrawingontheJungianconceptofthesanctityofthethresh-oldasauniversalphenomenon,Porteous(1976)claimedthatthepersonificationofownedob-jects(e.g.,thehome)servestopromotesecurity,identity,andindividualism,eachofwhichisimportantbecauseitrepresentsfreedomofself-determination.
Porteous(1976)provideduswithinsightintotheconceptofhomeandthethreeterritorialsatisfactions(i.e.,controloverspace,personal-izationofspaceasanassertionofidentity,andstimulation)thatderivefromthepossessionofterritory.Althoughinitiallydiscussingthehomeintermsofgeographicalspace,includingfourwallsonaplotofland,heacknowledgedthatsuchplacesasthevillage,compound,orneigh-borhood(whichheacknowledgedascollec-tivelyowned)alsoserveasahomeorahomebaseforsomepeople,therebyhelpingtofulfilltheirterritorialneeds.Hefurthersuggestedthathomecanalsobethoughtoffromtheperspec-tiveofafixedpointofreferencearoundwhichtheindividualstructuresasignificantportionofhisorherreality.Psychologically,possessionsthatcometobeexperiencedashomearethoseinwhichtheindividualhas,inalllikelihood,madeaconsiderableemotionalinvestment(Porteous,1976).Itmightbesuggested,there-fore,thatitisthosepossessionsinwhichanindividualfindsastrongsenseofidentificationthatcometoberegardedashome.
InterpretingtheworkofHeideggerandPolanyi,Dreyfus(1991)notedthatwhenweinhabitsomething,thatsomethingisnolongeranobjectforus;instead,itbecomesapartofus.HeideggerandPolanyilabeledthis“dwellingin”or“inhabiting.”AccordingtoPolanyi,peo-plemaydwell(i.e.,cometofeelathome)evenintheirlanguage.Aspeopledeveloptheir“homebase,”theybecomepsychologicallyat-tached(e.g.,cometofeelathomeintheirlan-guage,country,orpossessions)toavarietyofobjectsofmaterialorimmaterialnature.Inmanyofthesepossessionstheymayfindaspe-cialplace,onethatis“theirs,”thatisfamiliar,thatprovidessomeformofpersonalsecurity.Thus,wesuggestthatthemotivationforpsy-chologicalownershipis,inpart,groundedinhavingahome,aplaceofone’sown.
Tosummarize,feelingsofownershipallowindividualstofulfillthreebasichumanmotives:efficacyandeffectance,self-identity,andhav-ingaplace(home).Thesemotives,therefore,areamongthereasonsforexperiencingfeelingsofownership.Eachmotivefacilitatesthedevel-opmentofpsychologicalownership,asopposedtodirectlycausingittooccur.
Inthenextsection,wefocusontheexperi-encesthatleadtothispsychologicalstate,thusaddressingthequestionofhowpsychologicalownershipemerges.Whatarethepathsdownwhichpeopletravelthatgiverisetothesefeel-ings?Whatarethe“routes”topsychologicalownership?
92PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
KeyExperiences
Thusfar,wehaveproposedthatthephenom-enonofpsychologicalownershipisrootedinasetofhumanmotivesandthatindividualscandevelopfeelingsofownershipforavarietyofobjectssolongastheseobjectsallowthesemotivestooperateandtobesatisfied.Inthissection,weproposethreemajorexperiences(i.e.,routes,paths,andmechanisms)throughwhichpsychologicalownershipemerges:con-trollingtheownershiptarget(object),comingtoknowthetargetintimately,andinvestingtheselfinthetarget.
ControllingtheOwnershipTarget
Aspreviouslysuggested,controlexercisedoveranobjecteventuallygivesrisetofeelingsofownershipforthatobject(Furby,1978a;Mc-Clelland,1951;Rochberg-Halton,1980;Sartre,1943/1969).Inhercontrolmodelofownership,Furby(1978a)arguedthatthegreatertheamountofcontrolapersoncanexerciseovercertainobjects,themoretheywillbepsycho-logicallyexperiencedaspartoftheself.Todevelopthisproposition,shebuiltontheworkofWhite(1959)andMcClelland(1951).White’s(1959)workfocusedonthemotivesforenvironmentalexploration,control,andsubse-quentfeelingsofefficacy.McClelland(1951)developedtheideathat,muchlikepartsofthebodyandcontroloverthem,materialobjectsthatcanbecontrolledcometoberegardedaspartoftheself.Whilerecognizingindividualdifferencesintermsofimportanceofposses-sionsforpersonalidentity(e.g.,Sampson,1978),Prelinger(1959)providedsupportfortheproposedrelationshipbetweenselfandcontroloverobjects.Specifically,hefoundthatobjectsoverwhichtherespondenthadcontrolorcouldmanipulate,orobjectsbywhichsheorhecouldbeaffected,weremorelikelytobeperceivedaspartsoftheselfthanobjectsforwhichneitherwasthecase.SimilarfindingswereprovidedbyDixonandStreet(1957).
ControlalsowasfoundtobeacorefeatureofownershipbyRudminandBerry(1987)intheirstudiesofownershipsemantics.Theyfoundthatownershipmeanstheabilitytouseandtocon-troltheuseofobjects.Althoughcausalitywasnotexplicitlyaddressed,theirworkseemstosuggestacausalpath.Thoseobjectsoverwhichindividualsexercisethemostcontrolarethe
onesmostlikelytobeperceivedastheirs.ThisisconsistentwiththethinkingofPrelinger(1959),Furby(1978b),andTuan(1984).Sim-ilarly,LewisandBrook(1974)andSeligman(1975),intheirearlierworkinhumandevelop-ment,arguedthatthroughtheexerciseofcon-trolobjectsbecomeassociatedwiththeself,andthoseobjectsthatarecontrolledbyothersorthosethatcannotbecontrolledarenotapartoftheindividual’ssenseofself.
Finally,Ellwood(1927)suggestedthatakeyconceptmightbe“use.”Thoseobjectsthatarehabituallyusedbyanindividualbecomeassim-ilatedintotheuser’sself.AsnotedbyFurby(1978a),useofanobjectcanbeseenasexerciseofcontroloverthatobject.Furthermore,accesstouseofanobjectgivesapersoncontroloverothersandtheiraccesstotheobject:“ThatoverwhichIexercise...controlbecomesapartofmysenseofself”(Furby,1978a,pp.322–323).
ComingtoIntimatelyKnowtheTarget
James(10)suggestedthatthroughalivingrelationshipwithobjects,individualscometodevelopfeelingsofownershipforthoseobjects.Supportingthenotionthatfeelingsofowner-shipemergefromalivedrelationshipwithob-jects,Beaglehole(1932)tooarguedthatwhenanobject(personorplace)isknownpassion-ately(intimately),itbecomespartoftheself.Commentingontheprocessesthroughwhichfeelingsofownershiplikelyemerge,Weil(1949/1952)stated:
Allmenhaveaninvincibleinclinationtoappropriateintheirownminds,anythingwhichoveralong,uninter-ruptedperiodtheyhaveusedfortheirwork,pleasure,orthenecessitiesoflife.Thus,agardener,afteracertaintime,feelsthatthegardenbelongstohim.(p.33)
Peoplecometofindthemselvespsychologicallytiedtothingsasaresultoftheiractivepartici-pationorassociationwiththosethings.Thegardener,forexample,“comestoberootedinthegarden”asaresultofworkingthegardenandbecomingfamiliarwithitsneeds.Throughthisprocessofactiveassociation,knowledgedevelops,andthegardenercomestofeelthatthegardenishisorhers,thatheorsheisonewiththegarden(i.e.,groundedinandwithit;Weil,1949/1952,pp.33–35).Sartre(1943/1969)andFurby(1978b)alsosuggestedthatthereisanassociationalaspecttoownership.
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP93
Somethingcanbeone’sown,inone’sfeelings,byvirtueofonebeingassociatedandfamiliarwithit.
Consistentwiththepreceding,BegganandBrown(1994)andRudminandBerry(1987)suggestedthatthroughtheprocessofassocia-tion,wecometoknowobjects.Themoreinfor-mationpossessedaboutthetargetofownership,themoreintimatebecomestheconnectionbe-tweentheindividualandthattarget.AccordingtoJames(10),apartofourfeelingsaboutwhatisoursstemsfromlivingcloseto,gettingtoknow,andexperiencingthingsaroundus.Thus,themoreinformationpossessedaboutthetargetofownership,themorethingsarefeltthoroughlyanddeeply,andintheprocesstheselfbecomesattachedto(onewith)theobject.Alongthesamelines,BegganandBrown’s(1994)researchshowedthatindividualstendtoframeissuesofownershipasafunctionofanassociationbetweenthemselvesandtheobject.RudminandBerry(1987)notedthat“own-ershipislinguisticallyanopaqueconcept,”thatitsmeaningisdifficulttograspoutsideofanintraindividualview:“Afterall,astolenappledoesn’tlookanydifferentfromanyother”(Snare,1972,p.200).Theysuggestedthatat-tachmentprovidespartofthemeaningofown-ershipandthatattachmentbreedsfamiliarityandknowledge.Thus,psychologicalownershipreflectsanintimaterelationshiporapsycholog-icalproximityoftheownertotheowned.CitingHorwicz(1878),RudminandBerrynotedthatwetendtopreferourownpossessionstoothers,evenothersofasimilarkind(seeBeggan,1992;Nuttin,1987),because“weknowthembetter,realizethemmoreintimately,feelthemmoredeeply”(translationfromJames,10,p.326).
InvestingtheSelfIntotheTarget
TheworkofLocke(1690),Sartre(1943/1969),andRochberg-Halton(1980),amongothers,providesuswithinsightintotherela-tionshipbetweenworkandpsychologicalown-ership.Aspartofhispoliticalphilosophy,Locke(1690)arguedthatweownourlaborandourselves,andthereforewearelikelytofeelthatweownthatwhichwecreate,shape,orproduce.Throughourlabor,weinvestnotonlyourtimeandphysicaleffortbutalsoourpsychicenergyintotheproductofthatlabor.Sartre(1943/1969)evensuggestedthatbuyinganob-jectissimplyanotherformofcreatinganob-
ject,inthatittoostemsfromthefruitsofourlabor.Thus,muchlikeourwords,thoughts,andemotions,thatwhichstemsfromourlabor,beitourworkorthewidgetthatwemake,isarepresentationoftheself.
Themostobviousandperhapsthemostpow-erfulmeansbywhichanindividualinvestshim-selforherselfintoanobjectistocreateit.Creationinvolvesinvestingtime,energy,andevenone’svaluesandidentity.“Things”areattachedtothepersonwhocreatedthembe-causetheyarehisorherproduct;theyderivetheirbeingandformfromhisorherefforts.Thus,theindividualwhocreatedthemownstheminmuchthesamewayasheorsheownshim-orherself(Durkheim,1950/1957).Theinvestmentofanindividual’sselfintoobjectscausestheselftobecomeonewiththeobjectandtodevelopfeelingsofownershiptowardtheobject(Rochberg-Halton,1980).Thissenseofownershipcandevelopbetweenworkersandtheirmachines,theirwork,andtheproductsoftheirlabor(Beaglehole,1932).Inothervoca-tions,individualsmayfeelownershipfortheproductstheycreatethroughscholarlypursuits(academics),theorganizationstheyestablish(entrepreneurs),orthebillstheydraft(politi-cians).Investmentoftheselfallowsindividualstoseetheirreflectioninthetargetandtofeeltheirowneffortinitsexistence.
Finally,weexpectthatresponsibilityforatarget,eitherperceivedorreal,leadstofeelingsofownership.Asthepersonisheldorfeelsresponsibleforatarget,heorshebeginstoinvesthimselforherselfintothattargetthroughtheenergy,care,andconcernexpended.Amen-tor–prote´ge´relationshipisoneexampleofthisphenomenon.Thementorfeelsresponsiblefortheprote´ge´’sdevelopmentand,hence,investshisorherenergy,time,emotion,andevenval-uesintheprote´ge´.Forbetterorworse,thisislikelytoresultinthementorcomingtothinkoftheotherpersonintermsofhisorherprote´ge´.Socialrecognitionofthisrelationshiptendstofurtherreinforcethefactthatpeopleseethem-selvesinthetarget.
EmergenceofPsychologicalOwnership
Inthissection,weprovidesomeinsightintoadditionalfactorsinfluencingtheemergenceofpsychologicalownership.Weproposethatthepotentialforthedevelopmentofthisstatere-sidesinboththetargetandtheindividualand
94PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
thatitsemergenceandmanifestationarealsostronglyinfluencedbysituationalforces.Inad-dition,weaddresssomecomplexitiesrelatedtothejointeffectsofthedifferentrootsandroutesinthecontextoftheprocessbywhichfeelingsofownershipemerge.
TargetFactors
Althoughtherehavebeenmanyattemptstoidentifythetargetstowhichindividualsbecomepsychologicallytied(seeKamptner,1991;Rochberg-Halton,1980;Rudmin&Berry,1987),theredoesnotappeartobea“theoryofownershiptargets,”noristherewidespreadac-ceptanceofaparticularclassificationschemeofownershiptargets.Whathasemergedfromthisworkistherecognitionthatcultureandpersonalvaluesshapewhatcanandcannotbeowned(Furby,1976);thenatureandcharacterofone’smostvaluedpossessionschangethroughoutone’slifespan(Kamptner,1991);malestendtoidentifywithobjectsthatinvolvephysicalin-teractionandactivity,whereasfemalesaremoreinclinedtoassociatewithmorecontemplative,expressive,andsymbolicobjects(Kamptner,1991;Rochberg-Halton,1980);andthoseitemsthatarecontrolled,areknownintimately,orflowfromtheselfarelikelytobeitemsforwhichapsychologyofmineemerges.Inaddi-tion,ownershipappearstoattachitselftoawidevarietyoftargets:work(Holmes,1967);tools(Ellis,1985);physical–materialobjects(Ditt-mar,19;Isaacs,1933;Prelinger,1959),someofwhichareactionoriented(e.g.,sportsequip-ment)andothersofwhicharemorecontempla-tiveinnature(e.g.,photosandbooks);ideas(Isaacs,1933;Prelinger,1959);relationships–people(e.g.,copulatorypartnersandoffspring;Ellis,1985;Prelinger,1959;Rudmin&Berry,1987);space–territory(Rudmin&Berry,1987);bodyparts(Rudmin&Berry,1987);ingestibles(Ellis,1985);creations(Locke,1694;Rudmin&Berry,1987);andsounds(e.g.,nurseryrhymes)heard(Isaacs,1933).
Theconceptualizationpresentedinthisarti-clecanaidininformingourthinkingontargetsofownershipandonwhatcanandcannotbeowned.Buildingonourdiscussionoftherootsofandroutestopsychologicalownership,wesuggestthatthedegreetowhichanindividualwillactuallydevelopfeelingsofownershipforatargetwillbeaffectedbyspecifictargetat-tributesthatinfluence(a)thepotentialofthe
targettosatisfythethreemotivesservingasfoundationsofpsychologicalownershipand(b)thecapacityofthetargettofacilitateorimpedetheroutesthroughwhichthefeelingsofown-ershipemerge.Thus,attributessuchasattrac-tiveness,accessibility,openness,andmanipula-bilityrenderthetargetmoreorlesssubjecttopsychologicalownership.Ataminimum,thetargetmustbevisibleandattractivetotheindi-vidual,itmustbeexperiencedbytheindividual,anditmustcapturetheinterestorattentionoftheindividual.
Ingeneral,targetswithattributessuchthattheycansatisfythemotivesofefficacyandeffectance,self-identity,orhavingaplace(i.e.,therootsofpsychologicalownership)arebettercandidatesforpsychologicalownership.Thetargetmustbemanipulable,becauseonlythenwillitbecapableofpotentiallyservingtheneedforefficacyandeffectance.Itneedstobeat-tractive,sociallyesteemed,andself-revealingiftheindividualisgoingtouseittoservetheself-identitymotive.Finally,thetargetneedstobeopen(available,receptive,andhospitable)totheindividual,becauseonlythenwillitenabletheindividualtofindahomewithinit.
Furthermore,viabletargetsofownershiparethosewhoseattributescanfacilitatetheactsofindividualscontrolling,comingtoknow,andinvestingtheselfintothem(i.e.,theroutestopsychologicalownership).Forexample,fromthecontrolperspective,itmaybemoredifficultforacademicstodevelopfeelingsofownershipfortheentireuniversitythanfortheirresearchprogram,becausethelatterismoresubjecttotheircontrol.Similarly,itisunlikelythatpro-fessorswillfeelthesamelevelofpsychologicalownershipforundergraduatestudentstheydofordoctoralstudents,simplybecauseofthedifferentdegreetowhichtheycometoknowthesetwogroupsofstudentsandtheamountofthemselvesinvestedinthem.
IndividualFactors
Asarguedearlier,individualshaveaneedforpsychologicalownershipowingtotheinnatemotivesforefficacyandeffectance,self-iden-tity,andhavingaplacetodwell.Althoughthesemotivesareuniversal,weanticipatethattherewillbeindividualdifferencesinthisprocess.First,individualswilldifferintermsofstrengthofmotives,bothacrossindividualsandwithinindividualsacrosstimes.Thiswillresultina
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP95
varyinglikelihoodofthedevelopmentoffeel-ingsofownershipacrossindividuals,orevenwithinasingleindividualatdifferentpointsintime.Second,personalitywillhaveanimpactaswell.OnthebasisofWinter,John,Stewart,Klohnen,andDuncan’s(1998)argumentthattraitschanneltheoperationofmotivestowarddifferentialbehavior,wesuggestthattraitswillaffecthowanindividualgoesaboutpursuingrelationshipswithownershipobjectsandthetypesofobjectsdeemedsuitable.Forexample,extravertsmayprefertopursuetargetsthroughsocialmeans,orpeoplehigh(vs.low)ontheopennesstoexperiencedimensionofpersonal-itymaybewillingtoconsideragreatervarietyoftargets.IndividualswithMachiavellianandauthoritarianpersonalitiesmayprefertopursuetargetsthroughtheexerciseofcontrolandpowerratherthanthroughthedevelopmentofaclose,intimaterelationshiporthroughanin-vestmentoftheself.Finally,peoplewithastrongsenseofself(i.e.,highself-esteemorhighself-actualization)maypursueintrinsictar-gets,whereasthosewithaweakerself-conceptmaybemorepronetoseekmaterialistictargets(Kasser&Ryan,1993).
Personalvaluesmakecertainobjectsmoreorlessesteemed(Pelham,1995).Differentat-tributesareimportantfordifferentpeople,anddifferenttypesofobjectsaresoughtbyindivid-ualsasaresult.Fromtheperspectiveoftheself-concept,individualsmaystrivetoincreasefeelingsofself-worthbyattemptingtolegallyorpsychologicallypossessitemsofgreatestim-portancetothem.Ownershipisonemeanstoboostself-evaluationsandself-esteem;hence,individualsarelikelytofeelownershipoverthoseobjectsconsideredtobemostimportantaccordingtotheirpersonalvalues.Forexample,individualswhoseperceptionsofself-wortharepredicatedonintellect,orwhoarepartofcul-turesthatvalueintellect,mayseektofeelown-ershipovertargetsthatreinforcethisattribute(e.g.,booksorpiecesofart).Finally,andasnotedearlier,anindividualmaylegallyownsomeobjectbutnotfeelasenseofownershipforit.Thisconditionmayexistwhentheobjectisnotasourceofeffectanceandefficacy,isnotassociatedwithone’sself-identify,orisnotaplacewithinwhichtodwell,eventhoughitmighthavebeenpurchasedwithhard-earnedcashandiscontrolledandknown.
Process
Inreality,theprocessbywhichpsychologicalownershipemergesisassociatedwithcomplexinteractionsamongalloftheelementsofourtheorydiscussedhere:roots,routes,targetfac-tors,andindividualfactors.Althoughafullexaminationofallpossibleinteractionsamongtheseelementsisbeyondthescopeofourarti-cle,weoffersomeideasofthesecomplexities.Thefirstquestionalongtheselinesconcernstherelationshipamongthethreerootsofpsy-chologicalownership(i.e.,efficacyandeffec-tance,identity,andhavingahome).Weexam-inedtheseintraindividualfunctionsservedbythepsychologicalstateofownershipasconcep-tuallydistinct,butwesuggestthattheyarenottotallyindependentofoneanother.Thus,oncesatisfied,theneedforaplacetodwell,althoughindependentfromtheneedforefficacyandeffectanceorself-identity,mayreinforcetheothers.Forexample,onemaywellfeelmoreefficaciouswithintheconfinesofone’shomethaninlessfamiliarsurroundings.Similarly,one’sself-identitycanbeserved(defined,com-municatedtoothers,ormaintained)throughex-pressionsofone’shome,arelationshipac-knowledgedbyMehtaandBelk(1991).Theysuggestedthatimmigrantstendtocherishpos-sessionsbecausetheseobjectssimultaneouslyprovidethemwithafeelingofsecurity(aneedsatisfiedbyhavingafamiliarplaceinwhichtodwell)andservetoreinforcecontinuityintheiridentity.
Furthermore,wesuggestthatthethreerootsofpsychologicalownershiparecomplementaryandadditiveinnature.Thus,ownershipmayemergeastheresultofanyone,oranysubset,oftheseneeds.Forexample,anindividualmayfeelownershipwhenheorshehasastrongefficacyandeffectancemotive,eventhoughtheidentitymotivemightbenonactive.Conse-quently,strongerandamoreintensesenseofownershipislikelytoemergewhentwoormoreofthethreerootsareactiveandserved.
Similarly,wesuggestthatthethreeroutestopsychologicalownership(i.e.,control,intimateknowing,andinvestmentofself)aredistinct,complementary,andadditiveinnature.Anysingleroutecanresultinfeelingsofownershipindependentoftheothers.However,thefeel-ingsofownershipforaparticulartargetwillbestrongerwhenanindividualarrivesatthisstateasaresultoftravelingmultipleroutes(e.g.,
96PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
intimateknowingandcontrolling)ratherthanjustoneroute.Theroutesdonothaveamulti-plicativerelationship,whichwouldimplythatifanyoneoftheroutesdonotoccur,ownershipwillnotemerge.
Atpresent,itisnotclearwhethersomeroutesaremoreeffectiveatgeneratingpsychologicalownershipthanothers.Wespeculatethattheroutesofcontrolandinvestingselfinthetargethavethepotentialtobemosteffective.Onereasonisthattheresearchandtheoryreviewedearliersuggestthattheseroutestendtobepar-ticularlyeffectiveatbringingthetargetwithintheselfregion.Asecondreasonisthat,amongothereffects,controllingandinvestingtheselfhavethepotentialtoalsoresultincomingtoknowintimately.Stateddifferently,aby-prod-uctofcontrollinganobjectorinvestingtheselfinthatobjectiscomingtoknowthepropertiesofthatobject.Forexample,writingamanu-script,craftingasculpture,orbuildingahouseislikelytoresultinadetailedandin-depthunderstandingoftheproductofone’screation.Notethatthisdoesnotmeanthatcomingtoknowisnotindependentoftheotherroutes;onecancometoknowanobjectintimatelywithouteithercreatingorcontrollingit.Hence,becauseinvestingtheselfandcontrollingcanleadtotheotherroute,andbecausewepositthattherouteshaveadditiveeffects,webelievethattheformermayhaveagreateroveralleffectthansimplycomingtointimatelyknowthetarget.
Animportantquestionregardingtheemer-gentprocessconcernstheamountoftimenec-essaryforthispsychologicalstatetodevelop.Atthecognitivelevel,wesuggestthatindivid-ualsmaycometorecognizethataparticulartargetis“theirs”ratherquickly.Considerthecaseofacquiringapuppyandtheamountoftimeittakestocometotherealizationthatthereareadditionalresponsibilities.Yet,forthisfeel-ingtofullydevelopandblossomtothepointatwhichitmanifestsitselfasacompletecogni-tive–affectivestateintegratedintotheself-con-cept,theprocessmaywellbelengthy,dynamic,andreiterativeinnature.
Hereinresidesoneofthedistinctionsbe-tweenlegalandpsychologicalownership.Whereasindividualsbecomelegalownersofapieceofpropertyattheverymomenttheyac-quireit,itmaytakequitesometimebeforetheybegintofeelthispropertyastheirs.Althoughtheremaybeexceptions,sufficientcontrol,in-timateknowing,andinvestmentoftheselfareunlikelytoemergequickly.Forexample,oneoftheauthorsobservedthattruckdriversem-ployedatalocalminedidnotfeelownershipforthetruckstheyoperateduntilanewcompanypolicywasimplementedthatassignedeachdrivertoaparticulartruck.Onlyafterthat,andwiththepassageoftime,didthedriversbegintochangetheirattitudesandbehaviorstowardthetrucks:fromuseandabusetocareandmaintenance.Theygraduallybegantorefertotheirtruckas“my”truck,tocleanitsinterior,andtoattendtomechanicalmaintenance.Onedriverevennamedhistruckandspenthisownmoneytohavethisnamepaintedonthedoors.Asthisexampleshows,psychologicalowner-shipcanemergeintheabsenceoflegalowner-ship.Itmostlikelyemergesthroughalengthyanditerativeprocess.Investingtheselfinthetargeteventuallygivesrisetofeelingsofown-ershipforthattarget.Feelingsofownershipleadtheindividualtomakepersonalsacrificesonbehalfofthetarget,which,inturn,generatesevenstrongerfeelingsofownership.
Note,however,thatlegalownershipmayfa-cilitateandspeeduptheemergenceofpsycho-logicalownership,becauseitallowstheindi-vidualtoexplorethethreeroutesleadingtothisstate.Legalownershipprovidestherighttocontrolorchangethetargetmoreorlessatone’sownwill,therighttoexploreandtocometointimatelyknowthetarget,andtherighttoinvesttheselfinthetarget.Lackoflegalown-ershipmayinsomecasesprovideamorepre-cariousformofownership,inthatanindividualhastoavoidviolationofthelaw(e.g.,physicalbarriers,customs,andsocialpractices)toexer-ciseoneormoreofthethreeroutestopsycho-logicalownership.Intheabsenceoflegalown-ership,onemayalsohavetocontendwithagreaterfearofseparation,claimofownershipbythelegalowner,andlossoftheobject.Theprocessofpsychologicalownershipisalsofurtherfacilitatedbythe“possessionritu-als”inwhichpeopleengage.AccordingtoMc-Cracken(1986),ritualssuchasdisplaying,showingoff,using,andpersonalizingposses-sionsfacilitatethemovementoftheculturallyprescribedmeaningofobjectstotheindividu-al’sself-identity.Accompanyingtheseacts,peoplefrequently“claim”theobjectastheirs.Claimingisbothan“assertionofterritorialitythroughownership”andan“attempttodrawfromtheobjectthequalitiesthathavebeengiventoit”bysocietyaspartofone’sself-
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP97
identity(McCracken,1986,p.79).Throughsuchrituals,especiallythoseofusing,spendingtimewith,reflectingon,anddisplaying,theindividualmayfindtheobjectacomfortableplaceinwhichtodwellandultimatelyclaimitas“mine.”
Finally,notethatfeelingsofownershipforaparticulartargetdonotnecessarilylastforever.Theycandissipateaspeoplenolongerfeelasenseofownershipfortargetsthatwereonceintegratedintotheself-concept.Wesuggestthatthisdecouplingprocessisassociatedwiththesameforcesthatproducedthepsychologicalstateofownership.Thus,theoriginofthede-couplingistobefoundinchangesinroots,routes,thecharacteristicsofthetargetandtheindividual,andtheinteractionamongthem.Forexample,achangeinanunderlyingmotive(e.g.,aredirectedsenseofefficacyandeffec-tance,achangeinself-identity,ortheemer-genceofanewplaceinwhichtodwell)mayserveasacatalystfortheremovalofatargetfromthecitadeloftheself.Thedisappearanceofoneormoreoftheroutestoownership(e.g.,lossofcontrol,increasedunfamiliarity,orwith-drawaloftheselffromthetarget)willcontrib-utetosuchdecouplingaswell.Similardecou-plingeffectswillemergeastargetsbecomelessvisible,attractive,manipulable,open,orrecep-tive.Finally,individualsmaygothroughanumberofformalrituals(e.g.,estrangement,divorce,devaluation,hostility,anddepersonal-ization)inanefforttodecoupletheircognitiveandemotionalattachmenttocertainprevioustargetsofpsychologicalownership.
Context
Uptothispoint,theemergenceofpsycho-logicalownershiphasbeendescribedvoidofcontext,yetitisreasonabletosuggestthatsit-uationalforcesinfluencethisprocessandtheendstate.Note,asanexample,thattherearesubstantialcross-culturaldifferencesinorienta-tiontolandandownershipbetweenScandina-viansofaNorthGermanicheritageandtheirSamibrethrentothefarnorth.Furthermore,cross-culturalpsychologyhighlightsdifferencesintheconceptualizationoftheselfacrosspeo-pleandregionsoftheworld(Erez&Earley,1993;Hsu,1985;Joy&Dholakia,1991;Markus&Kitayama,1991),aswellasdiffer-encesinsocializationpracticesthatresultincollectivisticversusindividualisticownership
experiences(Furby,1976).Finally,O’Driscoll,Pierce,andCoghlan(2001)reportedsignificantdifferencesinfeelingsofownershipasafunc-tionofworkenvironmentstructure.
Wesuggestthatourconceptualizationofpsy-chologicalownershipmayserveasafoundationforamoresystematicexaminationofcontextualfactors.Althoughweanticipatethatawideva-rietyofcontextualelementswillhaveaneffectontheemergenceofpsychologicalownership,wefocusourdiscussionontwomainaspects:structuralandcultural.
Structuralaspectsofthecontext,suchaslaws,norms,rules,andhierarchy,maypromoteorpreventindividualsfromdevelopingfeelingsofownershipinseveralways.SomeinsightsintothestructuralaspectsofcontextanditsimplicationsfortheoperationofthemotivesdiscussedearliercanbegainedbyemployingaframeworkpresentedbyMischel(1973).Hisworkspeakstotheroleofthesituationandanindividual’sdispositionalstateinthedetermi-nationofindividualbehaviors.Fromasocialpsychologicalperspective,structuralfactorsop-erateincreatingstrongorweaksituations(Mis-chel,1973)thatinturnaffecttheemergenceanddisplayofindividualdifferencesandattitudes.Tohelpunderstandtheinteractionofindividualdifferencesandsituationalfactors,Mischel(1973)suggestedthatstrongsituationscon-strainorhomogenizebehavior,therebyrestrict-ingtheexpressionofindividualdifferences.Asaconsequence,individualdifferences,asre-vealedbyone’sdispositionalstate,arelikelytoplayalimitedroleindeterminingwhetherandhowpsychologicalownershipwilldevelop.Weaksituations,ontheotherhand,willaffordoneagreateropportunitytodefinethemeaningofevents,generateresponses,andrevealone-selfandengageinsuchbehaviors.Thus,itisreasonedthatthemotivesforpsychologicalownershipwillbelesslikelytoexpressthem-selvesandthatpsychologicalownershipwillbelesslikelytoemergeunderstrong(e.g.,highlystructured)asopposedtoweaksituations.
Furthermore,structuralcontextmaylimittheopportunitytoengageinthekeybehaviorslead-ingtopsychologicalownership(controlling,comingtoknow,andinvestingtheself).Themetaphorof“fences”thatareplacedaroundobjectscanbeusedtoillustratethisidea.Therearemanydifferenttypesofboundariesthatstandbetweenanindividualandapotentialtargetofownership.Thesefences(structural
98PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
factors)preventcontrol,comingtoknow,andinvestmentoftheself,therebyblockingthefulfillmentofoneormoreofthemotivesforownershipthroughthe“fenced-in”object.Fences,suchasphysicalbarriers,boundaries,laws,propertyrights,governancestructures,customs,andmoresofasociety,limitthede-greetowhichonecancomeintocontactwithcertaintargets,therebyaffectingthedegreetowhichthesetargetscanbecontrolled,known,ortherecipientofone’sinvestment.
Asanexample,organizationalsociologistsandpsychologistshavediscussedhow“mecha-nistic”(bureaucratic)organizationalstructuresinvolvingarigidhierarchy,divisionoflabor,centralization,formalization,andstandardiza-tionlimittheexpressionofself-directionandself-control(Argyris,1957;Berger&Cum-mings,1979;Hage,1965;Weber,1920/1947).Asaconsequenceofsuchstructure,thebehav-iorsthatresultinpsychologicalownershipwillbecurtailed,therebylimitingthelikelihoodofpsychologicalownershipdeveloping.Consis-tentwiththisidea,O’Driscolletal.(2001)foundanegativerelationshipbetweenworken-vironmentstructureandthelevelofpersonalcontrolexperiencedbyorganizationalmembers,aswellasthestrengthoftheirpsychologi-calownershipfortheworktheydoandfortheemployingorganization.Theyalsoreportedevidencesuggestingthatcontrolactsasame-diatingvariableintherelationshipbetweenworkenvironmentstructureandpsychologicalownership.
Theculturalaspectsofasocialcontextwillalsohaveasignificantimpactonthephenome-nonofpsychologicalownership.Forthepur-posesofthisarticle,weemployHofstede’s(1980)definition,whichsuggeststhatcultureis“thecollectiveprogrammingofthemindwhichdistinguishesmembersofonehumangroupfromanother”(p.25).Therearetwotheoreticalreasonsforwhichwebelieveculturewillhaveaneffectonpsychologicalownership.First,psychologicalownershipisverytightlylinkedtotheconceptofself,andtheconceptofself,inturn,isinpartsociallyprescribedandaffectedbyculture(seeErez&Early,1993).Cross-culturalpsychologyoffersmultipleconceptual-izationsoftheselfthataretheproductofcul-turalvaluesandbeliefs,forexample,indepen-dentversusinterdependentself(Triandis,1994),dominatingnatureversusinharmonywithorsubmissivetonature(Kroeber&Kluck-holm,1952),“doing”versus“being”(Kroeber&Kluckholm,1952),andascriptiveversusachievementoriented(Trompenaars&Hamp-den-Turner,1998).
Second,psychologicalownershipispartlylearnedthroughsocializationpractices,whichagainareculturallydetermined.Forexample,Furby(1980)reportedthattoddlersin“totalcare”kibbutzimhavefewerstrugglesoverob-jectsthanthosein“daycare”kibbutzim,andchildrenwhoseparentstakethingsfromthemoftendisplaythesametakingbehavior,whereaschildrenwhoseparentsarefrequentgiversdis-playgivingbehaviorintheirplaywithothers.Thus,cultureisanimportantconditionthatneedstobeexaminedtobetterunderstandthephenomenonofpsychologicalownership.Re-flectedintraditions,customs,norms,mores,andbeliefsinasociety,cultureshapesthein-dividual’sself-conceptandvalueswithregardtocontrol,self-identity,self-expression,owner-ship,andproperty.
Integratingresearchonculturewithourwork,weproposethatculturewillhaveanimpactonallelementsofourframeworkofpsychologicalownership:theconstructitself,roots,routes,targets,individuals,andprocess.Itispossible,forexample,thatalthoughposses-sivefeelingsareuniversal,individualsfromdif-ferentculturesattributedifferentmeaningstopossessionsintermsofviewingthemaspartoftheirextendedselves.Insomeculturesposses-sionsmayplayamorecentralroleinself-definitionthaninothers.Therefore,feelingsofownershipmaybepresenttoadifferentextentindifferentcultures.
Culturesmayalsodifferwithrespecttothesalienceofthevariousownershipmotivesorroots.Theefficacyandeffectancemotivemightbemoresalientthanthehavingaplacemotiveinindividualisticthanincollectivisticcultures(Hofstede,1980),inculturescharacterizedbya“doing”asopposedtoa“being”orientation,andinmoredeterministiccultures,whichgen-erallyassumedominanceofpeopleovernature(Kroeber&Kluckholm,1952).Theidentitymotive,especiallythoseaspectsofitthatrelatetothecontinuityoftheself,islikelytobemoresalientincultureswithalongertermpast–futureorientation(e.g.,HongKongandSouthKorea)thaninculturesthataremorefocusedonthepresent(e.g.,theUnitedStates).Theotheras-pectoftheself-identitymotive—expressionofself-identitytoothers—willbemoreimportant
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP99
incultureswithacollectivisticorientation(inthatpeoplecareabouthowothersperceivethem)aswellasincultureswithanascriptionversusachievementorientation(Trompenaars&Hampden-Turner,1998).Cross-culturaldif-ferencescouldalsobesuggestedwithregardtotheroutestopsychologicalownership.Asonemovesfrommoredeterministicand“doing”culturalorientationstomorefatalisticand“be-ing”orientations,therewillbeashiftfromthecontrolandinvestmentofselfroutetotheget-tingtointimatelyknowroute.
Furthermore,differenttargetsanddifferentcharacteristicsofpotentialtargetsofpsycholog-icalownershipmaybecomemoresalientindifferentcultures.Ataverybasiclevel,thetypesoftargetstowardwhichpeopledevelopfeelingsofownershipwilldependonwheretheself-conceptofindividualsinagivensocietyprimarilyresides.Forexample,morefamilial,collectivistic,relationship-basedculturesaresaidtobeorientedmuchmoretowardfriendsandfamily,whereasothersderivetheirself-conceptprimarilyfromtheirpersonalachieve-mentsandsuccesses.Accordingly,wecanex-pectthattheformerwilltendtodevelopfeel-ingsofownershipprimarilytowardsocialtargetssuchaspeopleandfamily,whereasthelatterwillbemorefocusedontheirworkandmaterialpossessionsthatspeaktotheseachievements.Consistentwiththis,ithasbeenfoundthatdifferentculturesattributedifferentmeaningstoworkandthatworkhasadifferentcentralityinpeople’slives(MeaningofWork-ingNationalResearchTeam,1987).Further-more,materialtargets(e.g.,cars)areperhapsmoresalientthanidealistictargets(e.g.,ideas)inmasculine(i.e.,materialistic)culturesthaninfeminine(i.e.,relation)cultures(Hofstede,1980).Finally,manipulabilityofthetargetismoreimportantinculturesthatbelieveinthedominanceofpeopleovernature(Kroeber&Kluckholm,1952;Trompenaars&Hampden-Turner,1998).
Withregardtotheprocessofemergenceofpsychologicalownership,wesuggestatleastthreecontextualeffects.First,theimportanceoflegalownershipfortheemergenceofpsycho-logicalownershipmayvaryacrosscontexts.Insettingscharacterizedbydevelopedformalin-stitutionalarrangementsregardingpossessionsandpropertyrights(e.g.,theUnitedStates),whicharealsoreflectedinculturalvaluesto-wardproperty,legalownershipmightbemoreimportantforthisstatetooccur.Inotherenvi-ronmentswherepropertyrightsarelessre-spectedandenforced,legalownershipislikelytobelesscritical.Second,culturewillalsoaffectthetimenecessaryforpsychologicalownershiptodevelop.Incultureswithalongertermorientation,anindividualwillprobablyneedmoretimetointeractwiththepotentialtarget(throughcontrolling,comingtoknow,andinvestingtheself)beforeheorshecomestoperceivethetargetastheextendedself.Incon-trast,peoplewithshortertermorientationswillprobablydevelopfeelingsofownershipmorequickly.
Finally,wesuspectthatalongertermorien-tationwillalsoresultinmorelengthy,difficult,andpainfuldecouplingoftheindividualfromtargetsofwhichheorshefeltownership.Incontrast,inmoredynamic,shorter-term-ori-entedcultures,individualswillprobablymoveinandoutofthesepsychologicalrelationshipswithtargetsmuchmorefrequentlyandlesspainfully.Socialpracticeprovidessubstantialevidencesupportingtheseideas.Forexample,peopleintheUnitedStatesseemtomoveacrossplaces,organizations,andrelationshipsandswitchbetweentargetsofpsychologicalowner-shipmuchmoreoftenthanpeopleinothercountriessuchasFranceandJapan.Aquestionremainsastothedepthofthefeelingsofown-ershipthatthesedifferencesinvoke.
Examiningculturaleffectsisimportantnotonlyforpracticalreasons,suchasunderstand-ingexistingcross-culturaldifferences.Itisalsoinstructiveforthefurthertheoreticaldevelop-mentofourconceptualizationofpsychologicalownership.Recognizingthevarietyofpsycho-logicalexperiencesrelatedtoownershipacrossculturesmayleadustosuggest,forexample,thatanimportantaspectoftheconstructofpsychologicalownershipisitslocusorform(i.e.,thelevelatwhichthisfeelingresides),definedasindividualversuscollective.Theoret-ically,itcouldbearguedthatthemoretheself-conceptistiedtothecollectiveentity(asincollectivisticculturessuchasJapanandChina),themorepsychologicalownershipwillbede-finedasacollective,sharedfeeling.Incontrast,inindividualisticcultures(e.g.,AustraliaandtheUnitedStates),thefeelingofownershipwilltendtobeexperiencedattheindividuallevel.Thereislimitedempiricalevidenceinsupportofsuchpropositions.
100PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
Forexample,ina10-countrystudy,Kostova(1996)foundthatpeoplefromcollectivisticcountries(e.g.,Portugal)madeaverycleardis-tinctionbetweentwosetsofwordsthatde-scribedownership:weandour,ontheonehand,andIandmine,ontheother.Thelevelsofcollectivepsychologicalownershipcapturedbythe“we”itemsweresignificantlyhigherthanthosecapturedbythe“I”items.Thisdistinctionwasinsignificantinothercountries,suchastheUnitedStatesandFrance,thathavebeenchar-acterizedasmoreindividualistic.Insummary,studyingcontextualimpactsonpsychologicalownershiphasthepotentialbothtoprovidesignificantknowledgeandunderstandingofcross-countrydifferencesandtofurtherthethe-oreticaldevelopmentoftheconstruct.
EffectsofPsychologicalOwnership
Thepsychologicalstateofownershipisnotwithoutconsequences.Inthissection,wedis-cusssomeofitseffectsontheindividual.Vi-sionsofparentstakingextremepersonalriskstoprotecttheirchildrensuggestpositiveeffects.Imagesofayoungchildrefusingtosharemom-my’slapwithanewbornsibling,historicalac-countsofpeoplewhohavegonetowarforlandthattheyfelttoberightfullytheirs,andmurderscommittedoutofjealousy,however,remindusthatthereisadarksidetostrongfeelingsofownership.
APositiveSidetoPsychologicalOwnership
Thereareamyriadofpositiveandconstruc-tivebehaviorsassociatedwithfeelingsofown-ershipforatarget.Amongthose,wecommentonactsofcitizenship,personalsacrificeandtheassumptionofrisk,andexperiencedresponsi-bilityandstewardship.
Citizenship.Drawingonpastresearch,weproposethatpsychologicalownershipisposi-tivelyassociatedwithcitizenshipbehavior(i.e.,behaviorthatcontributestothecommunity’swell-being,isvoluntary,andisintendedtobepositiveinnature,withnopromisedorimpliedquidproquo;Organ,1988).Behavioris,inpart,afunctionofself-identity,inthatindividualscreateandmaintaintheirsenseofselfbyiniti-atingstablepatternsofbehaviorthatinfuseroleswithpersonalmeaning(Burke&Reitzes,
1991).Therefore,whenindividualsfeelowner-shipforasocialentity(e.g.,family,group,organization,ornation),theyarelikelytoen-gageincitizenshipbehaviorstowardthatentity.Thislinkhasalsobeensuggestedbyempiricalresearchreportingapositiveandsignificantcor-relationbetweenpsychologicalownershipandcitizenshipbehaviorinacooperativelivingar-rangement(VandeWalle,VanDyne,&Kos-tova,1995).
Personalsacrificeandassumptionofrisk.Thewillingnesstoassumepersonalriskormakepersonalsacrificesonbehalfofasocialentityisanotherimportantoutcomeofpsycho-logicalownership.Whereassuchbehaviorsarepartofrolerequirementsforrescueteams,mil-itary,police,andfire-fightingorganizations,theyareimportantandalsooccurinothersitu-ationsinwhichtheyarenotobligatory.Forexample,memberswhoarewillingtostepfor-wardand“blowthewhistle”(e.g.,reportuneth-icalbehavior,illegalacts,ormalfeasance)aretakingpersonalriskandmakingasacrificeforthewell-beingoftheirorganizations.Wepro-posethatsuchbehaviorswillbepromptedbyfeelingsofownershipforthetarget(e.g.,orga-nization).Thisis,afterall,thesituationinwhichthetargethasbeenbroughtintothecit-adeloftheself,anditsimpairmentresultsinadiminutionoftheself.Thus,whenindividualsbecomecognizantofeventsthataredetrimentaltothehealthandwell-beingoftheirorganiza-tions,theywillassumetheriskofblowingthewhistle.
Experiencedresponsibilityandstewardship.Psychologicalownershipforaparticulartargetmayalsopromotefeelingsofresponsibilitythatincludefeelingsofbeingprotective,caring,andnurturingandtheproactiveassumptionofre-sponsibilityforthattarget.Whenanindividu-al’ssenseofselfiscloselylinkedtothetarget,adesiretomaintain,protect,orenhancethatidentitywillresultinanenhancedsenseofresponsibility(Dipboye,1977;Korman,1970).Addressingcooperativeownershiparrange-ments(e.g.,food,electrical,housing,andagri-culturalcooperatives),KubzanskyandDruskat(1995)theorizedthatwhenownershipsenti-mentsarise,theowneristransformedinrela-tionshiptotheorganization,andresponsibilityfortheorganizationisalikelyoutcome.
Closelyrelatedtoexperiencedresponsibilityarethefeelingsofstewardshipthatarisewhenindividualsfeelresponsibleasthecaretakersof
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP101
aproperty,eventhoughtheyarenotthelegalowners.AsrecentlyproposedbyDavis,Schoor-man,andDonaldson(1997)intheirstewardshiptheory,incertainsituationsinwhichindividualsfeelasthoughtheyarestewards,theyaremo-tivatedtoactinthebestinterestoftheprincipalsratherthanintheirpersonalinterests.Wesug-gestthatpsychologicalownershipislikelytocreatesuchsituations.Thatis,whenindividualsfeelpsychologicalownership,theymayfeelasthoughtheyarethe“psychologicalprincipals”orstewardsandactaccordingly.
ADarkSidetoPsychologicalOwnership
Attimes,psychologicalownershipmayhaveadarkside.Muchliketheoverlypossessivechild,individualsmaybeunwillingtosharethetargetofownershipwithothersormayfeelaneedtoretainexclusivecontroloverit.Suchbehaviors,inturn,willlikelyimpedecoopera-tion.Peoplemayalsobecomepreoccupiedwithenhancingtheirpsychologicalpossessionsandmaybecome,forinstance,obsessedwithim-provingtheir“toys”atthecostoftheirfamilyorcommunity.Withinthecontextofthetransitionfromtotalitariantodemocraticstates,politicalandmilitaryleadersmayresistinterventionsthatempowertheircitizenry.Associetiesat-tempttomakethetransitiontodemocracy,lead-erswillbecalledontotransferauthority,toshareinformationandcontrol.Ahighdegreeofownershipfeltbytheseleadersforthecurrentstatecouldtriggerthenegativesideofposses-siveness,inhibitingimplementationoftheinsti-tutionsdemandedbyademocraticsociety.Researchonmaterialismrevealsanotherpo-tentialmalady.Having(i.e.,aconsummatoryorientation),asopposedtobeing(i.e.,anexpe-rientialorientation),commonlydistractsthein-dividualfromactualizationandisassociatedwithdistress(Fromm,1976).Asnoted,KasserandRyan(1993)observedthatthepursuitofextrinsicpossessionsandfinancialsuccessisoftenassociatedwiththeabsenceofpsycholog-icaladjustmentandwell-being.Similarly,DeciandRyan’s(1985,1987)workonintrinsicmo-tivationleadsustospeculatethatthepursuitofcontroloverextrinsicobjectsthatmayresultinpsychologicalownershipwillatthesametimecauseadiminutionintheself-concept,asthelocusofcontrolisshiftingfromwithintoout-sidetheself.
Psychologicalownershipmayalsoleadtodeviancebehaviors,definedasvoluntarybehav-iorsthatviolategroupnormsandthreatenthewell-beingofthegrouporitsmembers.Indi-vidualsseparatedagainsttheirwillfromthatforwhichtheyfeelstrongownership(e.g.,asaresultofarestrainingorder,divorce,ores-trangement)mayengageindeleteriousactssuchassabotage,stalking,destruction,orphys-icalharmasopposedtolettingotherscontrol,cometoknow,orimmersetheselfintothetargetofownership.Wedonotsuggest,how-ever,thatpsychologicalownershipwillneces-sarilyleadtodysfunctionaleffects.Instead,weproposethatitmayleadtosucheffectsifcertainconditionsareinplace.Althoughfullexplora-tionofsuchmoderatingconditionsisbeyondthescopeofthisarticle,weenvisionthattheywillberelatedtocertainpersonalitycharacter-istics(e.g.,ahighneedforpersonalcontroloranauthoritarianpersonality)aswellastothecombinationoftheparticularmotives(i.e.,roots)androutesthathaveledtothefeelingsofownership.Forexample,whentheprimarymo-tivefortheownershipexperiencehasbeenef-ficacyandeffectanceandtheprimaryroutetoithasbeencontrol,theeffectmaybemoredys-functionalthanwhentheprimarymotivehasbeenidentityandtheprimaryroutehasbeengettingtoknowthetargetintimately.
Psychologicalownershipmayalsobeassoci-atedwithpersonalfunctioningmaladies.Therearetimeswhenfeelingsofownershipcanleadanindividualtofeeloverwhelmedbythebur-denofresponsibility.Inaddition,whenpeoplewitnessradicalalterationoftargetsthattheyperceiveasbeingtheirs,theymaycometofeelpersonalloss,frustration,andstress.Theseef-fectsfindtheirorigininthelackofcontroloverwhatoncewastheirs(seeBartunek,1993).Ac-cordingtoJames(10),lossofpossessionscanleadto“theshrinkageofourpersonality”(p.178)oreven,inextremecases,tosicknessandlossofthewilltolive(Cram&Paton,1993).
MixedEffects
Ithasalsobeenobservedthatfeelingsofownershiphaveeffectsthat,atcertaintimes,canbeeitherpositiveornegativeinnature.Asafinalpartofourdiscussion,wenotethatthisstatecanproducecomplicatedeffectsintermsofpromotionofchangeandresistancetochange.
102PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
Therearemanyoccasionsinwhichweareexposedtochangesbeingmadetoobjectsthatarepartofourlives(e.g.,rentersmakechangestotheapartmentstheyrent,spousesmakechangestothehousesinwhichwelive,bossesmakechangestothejobsthatweperform,andcoauthorsmakechangestothesentencesthatwewrite).Someofthesechangesarewelcomedandsupported,whereasothersareresisted.Intheirpsychologicaltheoryofchange,Dirksetal.(1996)arguedthatpsychologicalownershipprovidesinsightintowhy,andtheconditionsunderwhich,individualsbothpromoteandre-sistchange.Theseauthorsproposedthattherearethreecategorizationsofchange—self-initi-atedversusimposed,evolutionaryversusrevo-lutionary,andadditiveversussubtractive—eachofwhichhasdifferentpsychologicalimplications.
Individualsmaybepositivelyorientedtosometypesofchangeandnegativelydisposedtoothertypesaccordingtothestrengthoftheirfeelingsofownershipforthetargetofchange.Theyarelikelytopromotechangeofatargettowardwhichtheyfeelownershipwhenthechangeisself-initiated(becauseitreinforcestheirneedforcontrolandefficacy),evolution-ary(becauseittendstopromotetheirsenseofself-continuity),oradditive(becauseitcontrib-utestotheirneedforcontrol,self-enhancement,andfeelingsofpersonalefficacy).Ontheotherhand,theyarelikelytoresistchangeofatargetofpsychologicalownershipwhenthechangeisimposed(becauseitisseenasthreateningtheirsenseofcontrol),revolutionary(becauseitisathreattoself-continuity),orsubtractive(be-causeittakesawayordiminishesthecoreofthattowhichtheyhaveattachedthemselves)innature.
Discussion
Possessions,securedinaspecialplacela-beled“mine,”emergeinchildrenataveryyoungage(Isaacs,1933;Kline&France,19).Beginninginchildhood,“mine”playsasignificantroleinshapingandmaintainingourself-identity,providingaplaceinwhichtodwell,andmakingusfeelefficacious.Reflect-ingonthepsychologyofmine,Rudmin(1993)wrote:
“Mine”isasmallword.Itisdeceptiveinitspowerandimportance.Itcontrolsourbehavior,butwerarely
notice,aswemoveaboutourworldrestrictingour-selvestonarrowwalkwaysandtothoseplacesforwhichwehavekeys.(p.55)
Ithasbeenourintentiontointegrateanum-berofdiverseliteraturesdevelopedoverthepastcentury(e.g.,fromsubdisciplinesofpsy-chology,aswellasphilosophy,sociology,an-thropology,childdevelopment,geography,andorganizationalbehavior)thatpresentdifferentinsightsonpsychologicalownership.Byinte-gratingandfurtherextendingtheseliteratures,weareabletoofferaconceptualframeworkthatcanserveasthebuildingblockforthedevelop-mentofacomprehensivetheoryofpsycholog-icalownership.Buildingonpreviouswork,wehaveprovidedalensintothemeaningofpsy-chologicalownershipandpresentedadefinitionofthisstate.Centraltoourconceptualizationisdiscussionofthegenesisofthisstate:“Whydopeopledevelopfeelingsofownership?”Wehavearguedthattheexistenceofpsychologicalownershipcanbeexplainedbythreeintraindi-vidualfunctions—efficacyandeffectance,self-identity,andtheneedforhavingaplace—thatareservedbythisstateandare,therefore,amongthereasonsforanindividualtoexperi-enceit.Identifyingthese“roots”iskeytoun-derstandingtheprocessesthroughwhichpsy-chologicalownershipemerges,anditwascen-traltoourconsequenttheoreticaldevelopment.Wefocusedontheantecedentsandconse-quencesofpsychologicalownership,aswellassomemoderatorsandboundaryconditionsthatinfluenceitsemergence.Weproposedthatthisstateresultsfromcontrol,intimateassociation,ortheimmersionoftheselfintothetargetofownership.Itisthrougheachofthese“routes”thatindividualscometofeeltheyaretiedto(onewith)thetarget.Wefurtherarguedthatpsychologicalownershipwillhavebothpos-itiveandnegativeconsequences.Onthepos-itiveside,itislikelytoleadtoassumptionofresponsibility,caring,protection,nurturance,stewardship,andawillingnesstomakeper-sonalsacrificesandassumeriskonbehalfofthetarget.Onthenegativeside,itmayleadtoalienation,frustration,andstress.Radicalchangeordestructionofobjectsforwhichtherearestrongfeelingsofownershipcanresultinadiminutionofone’sself-concept,adversehealtheffects,andfeelingsofnorm-lessnessandpowerlessness.
Recognizingboththepositiveandthedarksideofthisstatesuggeststhattheremaybea
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP103
limittowhatconstitutesa“healthy”levelofpsychologicalownership.Becauseoneofthefactorsthatcreatesandmaintainspsychologicalownershipiscontroloverthings,onecaneasilyenvisionthattoomuchcontrolcanleadtoun-desirablebehaviors.Individualssimplycannotpsychologicallyowneverything,andthefeltneedtodosoperhapscouldbeviewedasaformofpathology.Weviewourtreatmentoftheconsequencesasanimportantadditiontotheliteratureonpsychologicalownership,inthatmostextantworkhasfocusedondifferentrootsandroutes.
Developingthisbasicmodelfurther,wespecifiedthreegroupsofadditionalmoderatingfactorsthatinfluencetheemergenceofpsycho-logicalownership.Characteristicsoftheindi-vidual,thepotentialownershiptarget,andthecontextaffectthisprocessbyenhancingorim-pedingitsdevelopment.Thus,thestateofpsy-chologicalownership,althoughpotentiallyla-tentwithineachindividual,doesnotnecessarilyalwaysoccurandisnotequallystrongacrossindividuals,targets,andsituations.Itisdeter-minedbyacomplexinteractionofanumberofintraindividual,object-related,andcontextualfactors.Inthisarticle,wehaveelaboratedpri-marilyontheseparateeffectsofthesefactorsandaddressedsomeofthejointeffectsbetweenthedifferentrootsandroutes.
Whatneedstocomenext?Weofferseveraldirectionsforfuturetheoreticaldevelopmentandresearchbasedonourwork.First,furtherinquiriesshouldexamineamorecompletesetofinteractionsamongthefactorsleadingtotheemergenceofpsychologicalownership,suchasinteractionsbetweenindividualandcontextualcharacteristicsandamongroutes,individuals,andcontexts.Dealingwiththesecomplexitieswouldposearatherchallengingconceptualtaskandonethatwouldneedtobeaddressedinasystematicmanner.Tothisend,onecouldthe-orizeabouttheseeffectsbyholdingconstantoneormoreofthefactorsthatcomeintoplay.Thiscouldbeachieved,forexample,byextend-ingthemodelpresentedheretoaddresstheemergenceofpsychologicalownershipinpar-ticulartypesofsituationsandcontextsorforparticulartypesofownershiptargets.Suchanapproachtotheorydevelopmentcouldleadtoapplicationofthebuildingblocksweprovidedtodifferentdisciplinaryareas(e.g.,childdevel-opment,consumerbehavior,organizationalstudies,andcross-culturalstudies).Inthissense,theframeworkpresentedherecanbeviewedasonestepintheprocessofdevelopingatheoryonpsychologicalownershipwithinthediverseliteraturesoutofwhichourideashadtheirorigin.
Second,apotentialdirectionfortheoreticaldevelopmentinthefuturecouldbeamorein-depthexaminationofthelinkbetweenpsycho-logicalownershipandtheself-concept.Inthisarticle,wedrewonpreviousworkthathasrelatedtheself-concepttothepsychologyofpossession,referringtoscholarssuchasJames(10),whosuggestedthatthereisacomplexandoftenindistinguishablerelationshipbe-tweenthatwhichanindividualcalls“me”andthatwhichisconsidered“mine,”andCooley(1968),whoarguedthatthingsweknowwellandoverlongperiodsoftimearebroughtintothecitadeloftheselfandareassertedasapartoftheself.Itcouldbesuggested,however,thatthereareadditionalpossibilitiesforincorporat-ingpreviousworkontheself-concept(e.g.,Campbell,1990;Gecas,1982;Markus&Wurf,1987;Rosenberg,1979)tostrengthenfurtherthetheoreticalunderpinningsofpsychologicalownership.
Forexample,onecouldexplorefurthertheobservationthattheself-conceptismultidimen-sionalinnature.Twoimportantdimensionsoftheself-concept,self-esteem(Coopersmith,1967;Rosenberg,1965)andself-efficacy(Ban-dura,1977,1978),appeartoberelatedtopsy-chologicalownershipthroughthemotivesofefficacyandeffectance,self-identity,andhav-ingaplaceinwhichtodwell.Thesemotivesservethepsychologicalowner’sself-concept.Disentanglingfurthertherelationshipbetweenthedifferentdimensionsoftheself-conceptandpsychologicalownershipmightbeaninterest-ingtheoreticalvenue.Relatedtothisispossibletheorizingonthelinksbetweenpsychologicalownership(theroutes,inparticular)andtheself-regulatorymechanisms,suchasself-con-sistency,self-enhancement,andself-protection,thathavebeenassociatedwithservingtheself-concept(seeDipboye,1977;Korman,1970,2001).
Finally,itmightbeinsightfultochallengeorextendourtheorizingontherootsofpsycho-logicalownershipbyincorporatingtheideaoftheelasticityoftheself.Itmightbethatpsy-chologicalownershipoccurspartlybecausetheboundariesoftheselfareintrinsicallyelastic.Thisstatemaysimplyreflectthenaturalability
104PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
oftheselftoextendandcontractitsboundaries,thatis,totreataspectsoftheexternalenviron-mentasiftheywereanaspectoftheself,withthesamefeelings,burdenofresponsibility,pleasure,rights,andobligationsasphysicalat-tachmentsandownedobjects(S.Albert,per-sonalcommunication,April18,1995).Thus,wewouldliketoencouragetheexplorationanddevelopmentofanunderstandingofthedynam-icsassociatedwithanelasticselfwrappingit-selfaroundanobjectandcomingtofeelitasapartoftheself.
Inadditiontothedirectionsforfuturetheo-reticaldevelopmentsuggestedhere,weac-knowledgetheneedforempiricaltestingandresearchonpsychologicalownership.Theframeworkpresentedinthisarticleprovidestheunderpinningsforanumberofhypothesesandsuggestsdirectionsforempiricalinquiry.Asafirststep,thereisaneedfordevelopmentandvalidationofameasurementinstrumentofpsy-chologicalownership.Afterthisveryimportantstep,effortscanbetakentobeginempiricaltesting.
References
Abelson,R.P.,&Prentice,D.A.(19).Beliefsaspossessions:Afunctionalperspective.InA.R.Pratkanis,S.J.Breckler,&A.G.Greenwald(Eds.),Attitudestructureandfunction(pp.361–381).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Ardrey,R.(1966).Theterritorialimperative:Aper-sonalinquiryintotheanimaloriginsofpropertyandnations.NewYork:Dell.
Argyris,C.(1957).Personalityandorganization:Theconflictbetweensystemandtheindividual.NewYork:HarperTorchbooks.
Bandura,A.(1977).Self-efficacy:Towardaunifyingtheoryofbehavioralchange.PsychologicalRe-view,84,191–215.
Bandura,A.(1978).Theselfsysteminreciprocaldeterminism.AmericanPsychologist,33,344–358.
Bartunek,J.M.(1993).Rummagingbehindthescenesoforganizationalchangeandfindingroletransitions,illness,andphysicalspace.InR.W.Woodman&W.A.Pasmore(Eds.),Researchinorganizationalchangeanddevelopment(Vol.7,pp.41–76).Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Beaglehole,E.(1932).Property:Astudyinsocialpsychology.NewYork:Macmillan.
Beggan,J.K.(1991).Usingwhatyouowntogetwhatyouneed:Theroleofpossessionsinsatisfy-ingcontrolmotivation.JournalofSocialBehaviorandPersonality,6,129–146.
Beggan,J.K.(1992).Onthesocialnatureofnonso-cialperceptions:Themereownershipeffect.Jour-nalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,62,229–237.
Beggan,J.K.,&Brown,E.M.(1994).Associationasapsychologicaljustificationforownership.JournalofPsychology,128,365–380.
Belk,R.W.(1988).Possessionsandtheextendedself.JournalofConsumerResearch,15,139–168.Berger,C.B.,&Cummings,L.L.(1979).Organiza-tionstructure,attitudes,andbehavior.InB.M.Staw(Ed.),Researchinorganizationalbehavior(pp.169–208).Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Burk,C.(1900).Thecollectinginstinct.PedagogicalSeminary,7,179–207.
Burke,P.J.,&Reitzes,D.C.(1991).Anidentitytheoryapproachtocommitment.SocialPsychol-ogyQuarterly,54,239–251.
Buss,D.M.(1990).Evolutionarysocialpsychology:Prospectsandpitfalls.MotivationandEmo-tion,14,265–286.
Campbell,J.D.(1990).Self-esteemandclarityoftheself-concept.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,59,538–549.
Cooley,C.(1968).Thesocialself:Onthemeaningsof“I.”InC.Gordon&K.Gergen(Eds.),Theselfinsocialinteraction(pp.87–92).NewYork:Wiley.
Cooper,C.(1976).Thehouseasasymboloftheself.InH.M.Proshansky,W.H.Ittelson,&L.G.Rivlin(Eds.),Environmentalpsychology(pp.448–453).NewYork:Holt,Rinehart&Winston.Coopersmith,S.(1967).Theantecedentsofself-es-teem.SanFrancisco:Freeman.
Cram,F.,&Paton,H.(1993).Personalpossessionsandself-identity:Theexperiencesofelderlywomeninthreeresidentialsettings.AustralianJournalonAging,12,19–24.
Darling,F.F.(1937).Aherdofreddeer.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
Darling,F.F.(1939).AnaturalistonRona.NewYork:ClarendonPress.
Davis,J.H.,Schoorman,F.D.,&Donaldson,L.(1997).Towardastewardshiptheoryofmanage-ment.AcademyofManagementReview,22,20–47.
Deci,E.L.,&Ryan,R.M.(1985).Intrinsicmotiva-tionandself-determinationinhumanbehavior.NewYork:Plenum.
Deci,E.L.,&Ryan,R.M.(1987).Thesupportofautonomyandthecontrolofbehavior.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,53,1024–1037.
Dipboye,R.L.(1977).AcriticalreviewofKorman’sself-consistencytheoryofworkmotivationandoccupationalchoice.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanPerformance,18,108–126.
Dirks,K.T.,Cummings,L.L.,&Pierce,J.L.(1996).Psychologicalownershipinorganizations:Condi-
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP105
tionsunderwhichindividualspromoteandresistchange.InR.W.Woodman&W.A.Pasmore(Eds.),Researchinorganizationalchangeandde-velopment(Vol.9,pp.1–23).Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Dittmar,H.(19).Genderidentity-relatedmeaningsofpersonalpossessions.BritishJournalofSocialPsychology,28,159–171.
Dittmar,H.(1992).Thesocialpsychologyofmate-rialpossessions:Tohaveistobe.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress.
Dixon,J.C.,&Street,J.W.(1957).Thedistinctionbetweenselfandnot-selfinchildrenandadoles-cents.JournalofGeneticPsychology,127,157–162.
Dreyfus,H.L.(1991).Being-in-the-world:Acom-mentaryonHeidegger’sBeingandTime,DivisionI.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Duncan,N.G.(1981).Homeownershipandsocialtheory.InJ.S.Duncan(Ed.),Housingandiden-tity:Cross-culturalperspectives(pp.98–134).London:CroomHelm.
Durkheim,E.(1957).Professionalethicsandcivilmorals(C.Brookfield,Trans.).London:Routledge&KeganPaul.(Originalworkpublished1950)Ellis,L.(1985).Ontherudimentsofpossessionsandproperty.SocialScienceInformation,24,113–143.Ellwood,C.A.(1927).Culturalevolution:Astudyofsocialoriginsanddevelopment.NewYork:Cen-tury.
Erez,M.,&Earley,C.P.(1993).Culture,self-iden-tity,andwork.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Etzioni,A.(1991).Thesocio-economicsofproperty.JournalofSocialBehaviorandPersonality,6,465–468.
Formanek,R.(1991).Whytheycollect:Collectorsrevealtheirmotivations.JournalofSocialBehav-iorandPersonality,6,275–286.
Fromm,E.(1976).Tohaveortobe?NewYork:Harper&Row.
Furby,L.(1976).Thesocializationofpossessionandownershipamongchildreninthreeculturalgroups:Israelikibbutz,Israelicity,andAmerican.InS.Modgil&C.Modgil(Eds.),Piagetianresearch:Compilationandcommentary(Vol.8,pp.95–127).Windsor,England:NationalFoundationofEducationalResearch.
Furby,L.(1978a).Possessions:Towardatheoryoftheirmeaningandfunctionthroughoutthelifecycle.InP.B.Baltes(Ed.),Lifespandevelopmentandbehavior(pp.297–336).NewYork:AcademicPress.
Furby,L.(1978b).Possessioninhumans:Anexplor-atorystudyofitsmeaningandmotivation.SocialBehaviorandPersonality,6,49–65.
Furby,L.(1980).Theoriginsandearlydevelopmentofpossessivebehavior.PoliticalPsychology,2,30–42.Furby,L.(1991).Understandingthepsychologyofpossessionandownership:Apersonalmemoirandanappraisalofourprogress.JournalofSocialBehaviorandPersonality,6,457–463.
Gecas,V.(1982).Theself-concept.AnnualReviewofSociology,8,1–33.
Grubb,E.L.,&Hupp,G.(1968).Perceptionsofself,generalizedstereotypes,andbrandselection.Jour-nalofMarketingResearch,5,48–63.
Hage,J.(1965).Anaxiomatictheoryoforganiza-tions.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,10,2–320.
Hall,G.,&Wiltse,S.(11).Children’scollections.PedagogicalSeminary,1,234–237.
Heidegger,M.(1967).Beingandtime(J.Macquarrie&E.Robinson,Trans.).Oxford,England:BasilBlackwell.(Originalworkpublished1927)
Heider,F.(1958).Thepsychologyofinterpersonalrelations.NewYork:Wiley.
Hofstede,G.(1980).Culture’sconsequences:Inter-nationaldifferencesinwork-relatedvalues.Bev-erlyHills,CA:Sage.
Holmes,R.(1967).Theownershipofwork:Apsy-chologicalapproach.BritishJournalofIndustrialRelations,5,19–27.
Horwicz,A.(1878).PsychologischeAnalysenaufphysiologischerGrundlage[Psychologicalanaly-sisofphysiologicalfoundation].Magdeburg,Ger-many:Faber.
Hsu,F.L.K.(1985).Theselfincross-culturalper-spectives.InA.J.Marsella,G.DeVos,&F.L.K.Hsu(Eds.),Cultureandself:AsianandWesternperspectives(pp.24–55).NewYork:Tavistock.Isaacs,S.(1933).Socialdevelopmentinyoungchil-dren.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.
James,W.(10).Theprinciplesofpsychology.NewYork:Holt.
Joy,A.,&Dholakia,R.R.(1991).Remembrancesofthingspast:ThemeaningofhomeandpossessionsofIndianprofessionalsinCanada.JournalofSo-cialBehaviorandPersonality,6,385–403.
Kamptner,N.L.(19).Personalpossessionsandtheirmeaningsinoldage.InS.Spacapan&S.Oskamp(Eds.),Thesocialpsychologyofaging(pp.165–196).London:Sage.
Kamptner,N.L.(1991).Personalpossessionsandtheirmeanings:Alife-spanperspective.JournalofSocialBehaviorandPersonality,6,209–228.Kasser,T.,&Ryan,R.M.(1993).AdarksideoftheAmericandream:Correlatesoffinancialsuccessasacentrallifeinterest.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,65,410–422.
Kline,L.,&France,C.J.(19).Thepsychologyofmine.PedagogicalSeminary&GeneticPsychol-ogy,6,421–470.
Korman,A.H.(1970).Towardahypothesisofworkbehavior.JournalofAppliedPsychology,54,31–41.
106PIERCE,KOSTOVA,ANDDIRKS
Korman,A.H.(2001).Self-enhancementandself-protection:Towardatheoryofworkmotivation.InM.Erez,U.Kleinbeck,&W.Thierry(Eds.),Workmotivationinthecontextoftheglobalizingecon-omy(pp.121–130).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Kostova,T.(1996).SuccessofthetransnationaltransferoforganizationalpracticeswithinMNEs.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofMinnesota,Minneapolis.
Kroeber,A.,&Kluckholm,F.(1952).Culture:Acriticalreviewofconceptsanddefinitions(Pea-bodyMuseumPapers,No.47:1).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Kron,J.(1983).Home-psych:Thesocialpsychologyofhomeanddecoration.NewYork:Potter.
Kubzansky,P.E.,&Druskat,V.U.(1995,August).Psychologicalsenseofownership:Conceptualiza-tionandmeasurement.Paperpresentedatthe104thAnnualConventionoftheAmericanPsy-chologicalAssociation,Toronto,Ontario,Canada.Levine,L.E.(1983).Mine:Self-definitionin2-year-oldboys.DevelopmentalPsychology,19,544–549.
Levy,S.J.(1959).Symbolsforsale.HarvardBusi-nessReview,37,117–124.
Lewis,M.,&Brook,J.(1974).Self,other,andfear:Infants’reactionstopeople.InM.Lewis&L.S.Rossenblum(Eds.),Theoriginsoffear(pp.195–227).NewYork:Wiley.
Litwinski,L.(1942).Isthereaninstinctofposses-sion?BritishJournalofPsychology,33,28–39.Litwinski,L.(1947).Thepsychologyof“mine.”Philosophy,22,240–251.
Locke,J.(1690).Twotreatisesofgovernment.Lon-don:AwnshamChurchill.
Locke,J.(1694).Twotreatisesofgovernment(2nded.,corrected).London:AwnshamandJohnChurchill.
Lorenz,K.,&Leyhausen,P.(1973).Motivationofhumanandanimalbehavior:Anethologicalview(B.A.Tonkin,Trans.).NewYork:VanNostrandReinhold.
Mann,D.W.(1991).Ownership:Apathographyoftheself.BritishJournalofMedicalPsychol-ogy,,211–223.
Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1991).Cultureandtheself:Implicationsforcognition,emotion,andmotivation.PsychologicalReview,98,224–253.Markus,H.,&Wurf,E.(1987).Thedynamicself-concept:Asocialpsychologicalperspective.An-nualReviewofPsychology,38,299–337.
McClelland,D.(1951).Personality.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart&Winston.
McCracken,G.(1986).Cultureandconsumption:Atheoreticalaccountofthestructureandmovementoftheculturalmeaningofconsumergoods.Jour-nalofConsumerResearch,13,71–84.McDougall,W.(1923).Anintroductiontosocialpsychology(18thed.).London:Methuen.(Origi-nalworkpublished1908)
Mead,G.H.(1934).Mind,self,andsociety.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
MeaningofWorkingNationalResearchTeam.(1987).Themeaningofworking.London:Aca-demicPress.
Mehta,R.,&Belk,R.(1991).Artifacts,identity,andtransition:FavoritepossessionsofIndiansandIn-dianimmigrantstotheU.S.JournalofConsumerResearch,17,398–411.
Mischel,W.(1973).Towardacognitivesociallearn-ingreconceptualizationofpersonality.Psycholog-icalReview,80,252–283.
Munson,J.M.,&Spivey,W.A.(1980).Assessingselfconcept.InJ.C.Olson(Ed.),Advancesinconsumerresearch(Vol.7,pp.598–603).AnnArbor,MI:AssociationforConsumerResearch.Nuttin,J.M.,Jr.(1987).Affectiveconsequencesofmereownership:ThenamelettereffectintwelveEuropeanlanguages.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,17,381–402.
O’Driscoll,M.P.,Pierce,J.L.,&Coghlan,A.M.(2001,August).Psychologicalownershipofthejobandorganization:Theroleofworkenviron-mentstructureandexperiencedcontrol.Paperpre-sentedattheannualconferenceoftheNewZea-landPsychologicalSociety,Auckland,NewZea-land.
Organ,D.W.(1988).Organizationalcitizenshipbe-havior:Thegoodsoldiersyndrome.Lexington,MA:LexingtonBooks.
Pelham,B.(1995).Self-investmentandself-esteem:EvidenceforaJamesianmodelofself-worth.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,69,1141–1150.
Pierce,J.L.,Kostova,T.,&Dirks,K.T.(2001).Towardsatheoryofpsychologicalownershipinorganizations.AcademyofManagementRe-view,26,298–310.
Porteous,J.D.(1976).Home:Theterritorialcore.GeographicalReview,66,383–390.
Pratt,M.G.,&Dutton,J.E.(1998).Owninguporoptingout:Theroleofidentitiesandambivalenceinissueownership(Workingpaper).Champaign:UniversityofIllinoisatUrbana–Champaign.
Prelinger,E.(1959).Extensionandstructureoftheself.JournalofPsychology,47,13–23.
Price,L.L.,Arnould,E.J.,&Curasi,C.F.(2000).Olderconsumers’dispositionofspecialposses-sions.JournalofConsumerResearch,27,179–201.
Richins,M.L.(1994).Valuingthings:Thepublicandprivatemeaningsofpossessions.JournalofConsumerResearch,21,504–521.
Rochberg-Halton,E.(1980).Culturalsignsandur-banadaptation:Themeaningofcherishedhouse-holdpossessions(Doctoraldissertation,University
PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP107
ofChicago).DissertationAbstractsInternational,40(08),4754A–4755A.
Rochberg-Halton,E.(1984).Objectrelations,rolemodels,andcultivationoftheself.EnvironmentandBehavior,16,335–368.
Rosenberg,M.(1965).Societyandtheadolescentself-image.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Rosenberg,M.(1979).Conceivingtheself.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Rousseau,J.J.(1950).Thesocialcontract(G.D.H.Cole,Trans.).NewYork:Dutton.(Originalworkpublished1762)
Rudmin,F.W.(1990a).TheeconomicpsychologyofLeonLitwinski:Aprogramofcognitiveresearchonpossessionandproperty.JournalofEconomicPsychology,11,307–339.
Rudmin,F.W.(1990b).GermanandCanadiandataonmotivationsforownership:WasPythagorasright?InM.E.Goldberg,G.Gorn,&R.W.Pollay(Eds.),Advancesinconsumerresearch(Vol.17,pp.176–181).Provo,UT:AssociationforCon-sumerResearch.
Rudmin,F.W.(1993).Property.InW.Lonner&R.Malpass(Eds.),Psychologyandculture(pp.55–58).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.
Rudmin,F.W.,&Berry,J.W.(1987).Semanticsofownership:Afree-recallstudyofproperty.Psy-chologicalRecord,37,257–268.
Sampson,E.E.(1978).Personalityandthelocationofidentity.JournalofPersonality,46,552–568.Sartre,J.-P.(1969).Beingandnothingness:Aphe-nomenologicalessayonontology.NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary.(Originalworkpublished1943)
Saunders,P.(1990).Anationofhomeowners.Lon-don:UnwinHyman.
Seligman,M.E.P.(1975).Helplessness.SanFran-cisco:Freeman.
Sirgy,M.J.(1985).Usingself-congruityandidealcongruitytopredictpurchasemotivation.JournalofBusinessResearch,13,195–206.
Snare,F.(1972).Theconceptofproperty.AmericanPhilosophicalQuarterly,9,200–206.
Steiner,G.(1978).MartinHeidegger.Chicago:Uni-versityofChicagoPress.
Triandis,H.(1994).Cultureandsocialbehavior.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Trompenaars,F.,&Hampden-Turner,C.(1998).Ridingthewavesofculture:Understandingcul-turaldiversityinglobalbusiness.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Tuan,Y.(1984).Dominanceandaffection:Themak-ingofpets.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.
VandeWalle,D.,VanDyne,L.,&Kostova,T.(1995).Psychologicalownership:Anempiricalexaminationofitsconsequences.GroupandOr-ganizationManagement,20,210–226.
Wallendorf,M.,&Arnould,E.J.(1988).Myfavoritethings:Across-culturalinquiryintoobjectattach-ment,possessiveness,andsociallinkage.JournalofConsumerResearch,14,531–547.
Weber,M.(1947).Thetheoryofsocialandeconomicorganization(A.M.Henderson,Trans.;T.Par-sons,Ed.).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.(Originalworkpublished1920)
Weil,S.(1952).Theneedforroots:Preludetoadeclarationofdutiestowardsmankind.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.(Originalworkpub-lished1949)
White,R.W.(1959).Motivationreconsidered:Theconceptofcompetence.PsychologicalReview,66,297–330.
Wilpert,B.(1991).Property,ownership,andpartic-ipation:Onthegrowingcontradictionsbetweenlegalandpsychologicalconcepts.InR.Russell&V.Rus(Eds.),Internationalhandbookofpartici-pationinorganizations:Forthestudyoforgani-zationaldemocracy,co-operation,andself-man-agement(Vol.2,pp.149–1).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Wilson,E.O.(1975).Sociobiology:Thenewsynthe-sis.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Winter,D.,John,O.P.,Stewart,J.O.,Klohnen,E.,&Duncan,L.(1998).Traitsandmotives:Towardanintegrationoftwotraditionsinpersonalityre-search.PsychologicalBulletin,105,230–250.
ReceivedNovember6,2001RevisionreceivedApril1,2002
AcceptedApril2,2002Ⅲ
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容
Copyright © 2019- 91gzw.com 版权所有 湘ICP备2023023988号-2
违法及侵权请联系：TEL:199 18 7713 E-MAIL:2724546146@qq.com
本站由北京市万商天勤律师事务所王兴未律师提供法律服务