Psychological Ownership: A 20-Year Review

ABSTRACT

Psychological Ownership（PO）may lead to a wide range of positive outcomes at work and nonwork environment, has for a long time attracted the interest of scholars from various disciplines. I provide an integrative and comprehensive review of the research on individual- level PO spanning 20 years（2001–2021）, to provide an overview of the definition and development of psychological ownership within management fields.

First, I introduce the basic definition of different forms of PO, then I review empirical findings to identify the antecedents and outcomes of PO at workplace. Finally, I suggest the direction for future research.

１． Introduction

Psychological ownership（PO）describes the psychology of possession in the lives of people. Especially at the workplace, it describes how individuals feel as though the target of ownership（e.g., job or organization）is theirs（Pierce et al., 2003）. In the past 20 years, PO has been studied from various disciplines and theoretical perspectives.

This study aims to review empirical results during these 20 years to provide an overview of PO research. I identified empirical peer-reviewed papers between 2001 and 2021 for this review by keyword searching of Psychological Ownership in several databases（e.g., Web of Science and JSTOR）. These databases provide comprehensive data from journals specializing in the general management and organizational behavior domain in which this research study resides.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the first section, I introduce the definition of PO based on past research. Next, I review previous research that has examined the antecedents of PO, mediating roles of PO and outcomes of PO. In the last section, I discuss suggestions for future research.

２． Definition of psychological Ownership

Psychological ownership（PO）, originally defined as “a state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership（or a piece of that target）is theirs（i.e., it is ‘MINE’）” （Pierce et al., 2003）. The target of ownership assumes importance for the way people define themselves（Pierce et al., 2001）. In management studies, targets could be tangible and intangible things such as “the organization,” “the job,” or a specific aspect of work. Moreover, based on different foci of PO（i.e. this job is MINE; I feel this is MY organization）, scholars distinct PO into jobbased PO（JPO）and organizational-based PO（OPO）and examine their relationships with workplace outcomes differently （e.g., Peng & Pierce, 2015）.

Pierce et al.（2001）haveargued that PO conceptually serves three essential human needs: efficacy, self-identity, and belongingness. PO is discriminant from other related constructs in its conceptual core and motivational bases, namely possessiveness. Van Dyne and Pierce（2004）extended this argument by comparing psychological ownership with commitment and identification. In particular, they emphasize that psychological ownership asks the question, ‘‘How much do I feel this organization is mine?’’ Whereas commitment asks, ‘‘Should I maintain my membership in this organization?’’ identification asks, “Who am I?” Thus, the explicit focus on possessiveness is a primary distinguishing factor in psychological ownership. Another key distinctive feature of psychological ownership relative to identification is the experience of control. Identification with an object involves bonding the self to an entity bigger than oneself, and thus, feeling comfort in being part of something larger than the individual. Individuals attach themselves to something that is beyond their control. In contrast, a sense of ownership describes people make something external to themselves internal, or they bring the object within their control range（Belk, 1988; Furby, 1978）.

Promotive PO and Preventive PO. Avey et al.（2009）extended the original PO conceptualization by developing PO as a multi-dimensional construct. Specifically, borrowing from the work of Higgins（1997, 1998）on regulatory focus theory, they suggest that there are two forms of PO, one of which is promotive and one preventive in nature. Those with a promotion focus collaborate and share because they see such acts as resulting in an improvement in the organization and personally fulfilling. In constrast, those with a preventive focus tend to hold information from others because they avoid change and maintain stability （Avey et al., 2009, p. 176）.

Collective PO （CPO）. Based on Furby’s （1980）work on the psychology of collective possession, Pierce and Jussila（2010）introduced the concept of collective psychological ownership（CPO）. It represents as an extension of individual-oriented psychological ownership（IPO）and feelings of shared ownership, such that a group of individuals come to a ‘collective mindset’ that a particular target of ownership is ‘ours’ together. They also developed a measure of CPO（Pierce & Jussila, 2010）. Following this framework, scholars explored CPO by conducting cross-level studies. For example, Giordano et al.（2019）conducted a multi-wave designed research to investigate the antecedents and outcomes of CPO. Findings showed that, at the individual level, CPO could enhance team effectiveness evaluations, intentions to champion the work product, and decrease team turnover intentions. In addition, CPO mediates the relationship between self investment and intimate knowledge regarding the product and team effectiveness evaluations, team turnover intentions, and intentions to champion the work product. At the team level, CPO was predicted by the ownership activating experiences. Similarly, in their multi-level study, Martinaityte et al. （2020）examined the distinct effects from IPO and CPO on individual and teamwork outcomes: The findings showed that at the individual level, both IPO and CPO improved individual engagement, which leads to individual creativity. At the group level, group-mean IPO decreases team engagement while group-mean CPO enhances team engagement and leads to team creativity. Gray et al.（2020）explained how CPO emerged in new creative teams, and its team work outcomes. Relying on the data from 79 creative teams, they showed, that team ownership conflicts decrease CPO. However, team identification enhances CPO. In addition, they also suggested that CPO positively relates to the early success of new creative teams. Regardless of the critical roles of CPO in teamwork contexts, the number of CPO empirical studies is relatively tiny （Dawkins et al., 2015; Giordano et al., 2019）. This study thus mainly summarizes empirical results of IPO.

３． Antecedents of PO and the mediating roles of PO

Pierce et al.（2001）identified three routes through which psychological ownership emerges. First, control of an object may produce feelings of ownership toward the object. Second, feelings of ownership may develop with more excellent knowledge of and familiarity with an object. Third, individuals may develop feelings of ownership for an object if they create it, especially if the creation involves a significant investment of the self.

Following their framework, scholars found evidence that individual differences, leader-related and, work-related factors may predict PO. In the following section, I summarized the empirical findings of each aspect （see all summaries in appendix）.

3-1． Individual differences factors

Present results showed that the differences in individual dispositions, and characteristics may result in PO. For example, Yitshaki（2021）pointed that an entrepreneur’s emotional intelligence could predict PO. McIntyre et al.（2009）also reported that an individual’s locus of control relates to OPO. Moreover, Qian et al.（2015）identified that employee’s future time orientation might enhance JPO, which improves the frequencies of feedback-seeking from supervisor and colleagues.

3-2． Leader-related factors

A significant body of evidence has shown that leadership styles may serve as antecedents of PO. For example, research has found that transformational leadership is positively related to PO, which predicts OCBs（Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011; Park et al., 2013）, job satisfaction and affective commitment, and decreases their turnover intentions（Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011）. Adopting JD-R theory, Naeem et al.（2020）reported that JPO mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and job crafting. Furthermore, affective commitment moderates the relationship between JPO and job crafting significantly. In addition, the relationship tends to be stronger at the high levels of affective organizational commitment.

Avey et al.（2012）found that ethical leadership positively predicts PO. Obtaining a sample of 344 engineering designers, Sun et al.（2019）also showed that PO mediates the influence of ethical leadership on knowledge contribution loafing. In a recent empirical study, Gardner et al.（2020）found that organizational relational psychological contract fulfillment could predict OCB through a sequential mediation of investment self into Job and JPO.

Kim et al.（2017）examined the negative relationship between empowering leadership and followers’ deviant behaviors through psychological ownership. Jiang et al.（2019）also indicated the effects of empowering leadership on employee OCB toward the environment（OCBE）through PO, the results showed that empowering leadership has an indirect impact on OCBE through PO. Furthermore, this indirect effect is more potent when employees maintain higher future time perspectives.

Using the data of 346 managers in academic institutions, Dahleez et al.（2020）showed that servant leadership might predict PO and PO mediates the relationship between servant leadership and employees’ affective commitment.

Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, Xu et al.,（2021）investigated 316 employees and their supervisors in China to examine how authentic leadership increases employee voice behavior through PO. The results demonstrated that PO mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and employees’ speaking out behavior. Moreover, Chinese traditionality moderates the indirect effect of authentic leadership on employees’ speaking out behavior through PO. The mediation effect is stronger for employees who were higher in traditionality. Torp and Nielsen（2018）found that a participative leadership style leads to psychological ownership. However, using data from 344 full-time employees enrolled in a university executive development program, Teo et al.（2020）showed that abusive supervision may reduce PO, which may lead to knowledge hiding behavior.

3-3． Work-related factors

Pierce and colleagues（2001）suggested that a critical route of PO is the investment of self. Following their work, a nunber of studies have begun to examine the relationship between employee participati-on and PO. For example, scholars reported profit-sharing plans（Chi & Han, 2008）, employee participation in a stock ownership plan（Chiu et al., 2007）, and stock ownership（Torp & Nielsen, 2018）triggers PO. Moreover, a positive relationship between participative decision-making and PO has also been identified（Hui et al., 2010; Pierce et al., 2004）.

In addition, scholars found contextual factors in the workplace may trigger PO. For example, organizational justice（Hameed et al., 2019; Sieger et al., 2011）proves to be a predictor of PO. Han et al.（2015）identified that PJ fit improves contextual performance through the mechanism of PO. Drawing upon the psychology of working theory and PO theory, Smith et al.（2020）examined the experiences of gender and sexual minority employees regarding their ability to secure decent work. The findings showed that an unsupportive LGBQT+ work climate could reduce PO. Also, PO could enhance employee’s ability to secure decent work. Wang et al.（2018）examined that the association between job crafting and PO when employees experience tough times at work. Particularly, the relationship between job crafting and PO will be stronger when employees are rated as poor performers.

４． Outcomes of PO

Prior studies have found that PO maintains direct and indirect effects with various positive and negative work outcomes.

4-1． Direct Effects and Indirect Effects of PO on Positive Work Outcomes Job Attitudes

PO has been identified as a predictor to influence employees’ job attitudes, such as organizational commitment（Han et al., 2010; Han & Kim, 2018; Hou et al., 2009）, affective commitment（Dahleez et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2012; Naeem et al., 2020）; job satisfaction （Avey et al., 2012; Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011; Knapp et al., 2014; Mayhew et al., 2007; Mustafa et al., 2016; Peng & Pierce, 2015; Sieger et al., 2011）, organization-based self-esteem （Liu et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2014; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004）, work engagement （Chai et al., 2020）, and intention to stay （Zhu et al., 2013）.

Scholars also found out the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions of the relationship between PO and job attitudes. For example, Fan et al.（2019）used two separate samples to test the positive relationship between PO and employees’ subjective happiness through the mechanism of flow. Findings proved that two different measures of flow（immersion and mastery）fully mediate the relationship between PO and employee subjective happiness in Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. By using a sample from 110 middle managers in the hotel industry, Mustafa et al.（2021）showed that PO positively relates to commitment. This relationship tends to be stronger among employees with longer organizational tenure.

4-2． Job Performance

PO has also been proved as a strong predictor of job performance. For example, Sieger et al.（2013）found PO positively relates to organizational performance. Using a sample of 295 chief financial officers（CFO）in Denmark, Torp and Nielsen（2018）also reported that PO has a positive effect on financial performance. With a sample of 301 employees of Islamic financial institutions, Mohammad et al.（2018）suggested PO enhance employees’ performance, they also indicated the relationship between Islamic work ethic and employees’ performance through the underlying mechanism of PO.

4-3． Job Behaviors

Past research has shown strong links between PO and three types of job-related behaviors, namely, OCB, innovative behavior, and knowledge sharing behavior.

OCB. In his recent study, Shukla（2019）suggested that PO could lead to OCB through genuine motives. By collecting data from 338 employees and their supervisors in a large IT MNC, he observed PO could lead to self-rated helping and compliance behavior. However, the disparity between self-rating and other-rating on helping citizenship behavior and the disparity between self-rating and other-rating on compliance citizenship behavior negatively moderate these relationships, respectively. In particular, the lower the discrepancy between self-rating and other-rating on OCB behavior, the stronger the relationship between PO and OCB could be. Using data from 543 police officers, Chen et al. （2021） analyzed the mechanisms between positive psychological status at work and employee organizational citizenship behavior and job performance within the conservation of resources（COR）theory. The results showed that PO leads to job performance and OCB through psychological contracts.

Innovative Behavior. Relying on a sample of 168 executives from 92 organizations, Chai et al.（2020）found that PO positively affects engagement, knowledge creation, and openness to change. Liu et al.（2019）proved OPO is an essential determinant of individual innovative behavior. Leyer et al.（2021）also showed that PO enhances both incremental innovation behavior and radical innovative behavior. Moreover, incremental innovation behavior mediated the relationship between PO and radical innovative behavior.

Knowledge-Sharing Behavior. Using a sample from executives in 93 Spanish family firms, Pittino et al.（2018）identified PO as a predictor of entrepreneurial orientation. In addition, the relationship between PO and entrepreneurial orientation is mediated by knowledge sharing. They also found the moderating roles of heterogeneous governance conditions between the relationship between PO and knowledge sharing. Hameed et al. （2019） revealed that organizational justice positively influences PO. Additionally, PO mediates the relationship between the relationship of organizational justice and knowledge-sharing behavior. They also found that a higher level of perceived organizational support strengthens the relationship between PO and knowledge sharing behavior.

4-4． Other Positive Outcomes

Some researchers tend to focus on how PO influences manager and CEO behaviors. For example, Mustafa et al.（2016）identified that PO positively relates to middle managers’ entrepreneurial behavior through the mechanism of Job satisfaction. Similarly, drawing on territoriality and mate-guarding theory, Gardner et al.（2018）found that managers’ PO of subordinates predicts employee guarding directed toward those subordinates. Lee et al.（2019）investigated how PO motivation could predict corporate entrepreneurship differently among family and non-family TMT members. They used a sample of 192 TMT members from 90 Korean companies, and results showed that family and non-family TMT members are not different in the levels of JPO and OPO. Also, JPO and OPO predict corporate entrepreneurship. Also, engagement mediates the relationship between PO and knowledge creation. Lee and Kim （2021） examined the effects of JPO and OPO on managers’ ambidextrous behaviors. Specifically, they found JPO enhances exploitation behavior, OPO enhances exploration behavior. Furthermore, the interaction effects between JPO and OPO may lead to an individual’s ambidexterity. By investigating 106 entrepreneurs, Yitshaki（2021）identified that PO positively influences venture growth.

4-5． Direct Effects and Indirect Effects of PO on Negative Work Outcomes

Although there is rich evidence of positive effect in PO studies, researchers have also examined the “dark sides” of PO.

To further understand this mechanism, they also investigated significant boundary conditions within the relationship between PO and negative outcomes. For example, Brown et al.（2014）explored the link between PO and territorial behaviors. They also found that in a high-trust environment, the relationship between PO and territorial behaviors becomes weaker. Huo et al.（2016）reported that PO leads to territoriality which is associated with knowledge hiding behavior. In addition, both perceived knowledge value and task interdependence moderate the relationship between PO and territoriality. The relationship was weaker when perceived knowledge value was lower, and task interdependence was higher.

Besides, recent studies tend to study the relationship between PO and unethical behaviors. Xu et al.（2018）explored the mediating role of psychological ownership on the relationship between employees’ perceptions of a high-performance work system（HPWS）and employee’s unethical pro-organizational behavior（UPB）. Also, they found the effect of HPWS on UPB through PO is more pungent when employees have lower levels of moral identity. Wang et al.（2019）conducted two survey studies with multisource multiphase data to test double-edged effects of job engagement on workplace outcomes through the mediating role of JPO. The evidence proved that job engagement could enhance in-role performance and OCB through JPO. Meanwhile, JPO mediates the relationship between job engagement and adverse workplace outcomes such as territorial behavior, knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior. Moreover, employees’ avoidance motivation moderates these indirect effects of job engagement on deviant work outcomes. In particular, the effect is stronger when employees’ avoidance motivation is high.

4-6． Suggestions of Future Direction

In this article, the review of antecedents and outcomes of PO advanced our knowledge of PO studies. However, several questions remain unanswered at present. For example, most empirical results were limited to individual-level research design and are therefore the research of CPO remains to be explored. As Giordano et al.（2019）suggested that CPO on work connects employees to their work especially in uncertain contexts. Future studies on CPO would help us establish a greater accuraly on this issue.

Also, the boundary conditions of PO and potential work outcomes are under research. As Dawkins et al.（2015）observed that limited research has examined what conditions will improve PO’s effects on work outcomes. I thus recommend that further studies could focus more on moderate effects within these relationships.

（筆者＝京都大学大学院経済学研究科）

 Appendix

Table A Antecedents of PO

Table A （Continued）

Table B PO as mediators

Table B （Continued）

Table B （Continued）

Table B （Continued）

Table B （Continued）

Table C Outcomes of PO

Table C （Continued）

Table C （Continued）

Reference

•   Alok, K.（2014）. Authentic leadership and psychological ownership: Investigation of intercorrerlations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36, 266-285.
•   Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E.（2012）. Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 107（1）, 21-34.
•   Belk, R. W.（1988）. Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15（2）, 139.
•   Bernhard, F., & O’ Driscoll, M. P.（2011）. Psychological Ownership in Small Family- Owned Businesses: Leadership Style and Nonfamily-Employees’ Work Attitudes and Behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 36（3）, 345-384.
•   Brown, G., Pierce, J. L., & Crossley, C.（2013）. Toward an Understanding of the Development of Ownership Feelings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35（3）, 318- 338.
•   Brown, G., Crossley, C., & Robinson, S. L.（2014）. Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: The critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel psychology, 67（2）, 463-485.
•   Chai, D. S., Song, J. H., & You, Y. M.（2020）. Psychological Ownership and Openness to Change: The Mediating Effects of Work Engagement, and Knowledge Creation. Performance improvement quarterly, 33（3）, 305-326.
•   Chen, Y. S., Lien, C. M., Lo, W. Y., & Tsay, F. S. （2021）. Sustainability of Positive Psychological Status in the Workplace: The Influence of Organizational Psychological Ownership and Psychological Capital on Police Officers’ Behavior. Sustainability, 13（5）, 2689.
•   Chi, N. W., & Han, T. S. （2008）. Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and psychological ownership for the organization: The mediating role of organizational justice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81（4）, 691-711.
•   Chiu, W. C., Harry Hui, C., & Lai, G. W. （2007）. Psychological ownership and organizational optimism amid China’s corporate transformation: effects of an employee ownership scheme and a management-dominated board. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18（2）, 303-320.
•   Dahleez, K. A., Aboramadan, M., & Bansal, A.（2020）. Servant leadership and affective commitment: the role of psychological ownership and person-organization fit. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29（2）, 493-511.
•   Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A.（2015）. Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38（2）, 163-183.
•   Fan, H. L., Hou, S. T., & Lin, Y. H.（2019）. Flow as a mediator between psychological ownership and employees’ subjective happiness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34（7）, 445-458.
•   Furby, L.（1978）. Possession in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 6（1）, 49-65.
•   Furby, L. （1980）. Collective Possession And Ownership: A Study Of Its Judged Feasibility And Desirability. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 8（2）, 165-183.
•   Gardner, T. M., Munyon, T. P., Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W.（2018）. When Territoriality Meets Agency: An Examination of Employee Guarding as a Territorial Strategy. Journal of Management, 44（7）, 2580-2610.
•   Gardner, D. G., Pierce, J. L., & Peng, H.（2020）. Social exchange and psychological ownership as complementary pathways from psychological contract fulfillment to organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Review, 50（6）, 1479-1497.
•   Ghani, U., Teo, T., Li, Y., Usman, M., Islam, Z. U., Gul, H., Naeem, R, M., Bahadar, H., Yuan, J., & Zhai, X.（2020）. Tit for Tat: Abusive Supervision and Knowledge Hiding-The Role of Psychological Contract Breach and Psychological Ownership. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17（4）, 1240.
•   Giordano, A. P., Patient, D., Passos, A. M., & Sguera, F.（2019）. Antecedents and consequences of collective psychological ownership: The validation of a conceptual model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41（1）, 32–49.
•   Gray, S. M., Knight, A. P., & Baer, M.（2020）. On the emergence of collective psychological ownership in new creative teams. Organization Science, 31（1）, 141-164.
•   Hameed, Z., Khan, I. U., Sheikh, Z., Islam, T., Rasheed, M. I., & Naeem, R. M.（2019）. Organizational justice and knowledge sharing behavior: The role of psychological ownership and perceived organizational support. Personnel Review, 48（3）, 748-773.
•   Han, K., & Kim, A.（2018）. Differential impact of short-term and long-term group incentives. Employee Relations, 40（3）, 549-564.
•   Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., & Chang, A.（2010）. Employee participation in decision making, psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21（12）, 2218-2233.
•   Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., McConville, D., & Chiang, C. L.（2015）. A Longitudinal Investigation of Person–Organization Fit, Person–Job Fit, and Contextual Performance: The Mediating Roleof Psychological Ownership. Human Performance, 28（5）, 425-439.
•   Higgins, E. T.（1997）. Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52（12）, 1280.
•   Higgins, E. T.（1998）. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46.
•   Huo, W., Cai, Z., Luo, J., Men, C., & Jia, R.（2016）. Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: a multi-level study of R&D team’s knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20（5）, 880-897.
•   Jiang, M., Wang, H., & Li, M.（2019）. Linking Empowering Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Toward Environment: The Role of Psychological Ownership and Future Time Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2612.
•   Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A.（2017）. Self-Efficacy and Psychological Ownership Mediate the Effects of Empowering Leadership on Both Good and Bad Employee Behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24（4）, 466-478.
•   Knapp, J. R., Smith, B. R., & Sprinkle, T. A.（2014）. Clarifying the Relational Ties of Organizational Belonging. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21（3）, 273-285.
•   Lee, K., Makri, M., & Scandura, T.（2019）. The effect of psychological ownership on corporate entrepreneurship: Comparisons between family and nonfamily top management team members. Family Business Review, 32（1）, 10-30.
•   Lee, K., & Kim, Y.（2021）. Ambidexterity for my Job or Firm? Investigation of the Impacts of Psychological Ownershipon Exploitation, Exploration, and Ambidexterity. European Management Review, 18（2）, 141-156.
•   Leyer, M., Hirzel, A. K., & Moormann, J.（2021）. It’s Mine, I Decide What To Change: The Role of Psychological Ownership in Employees’ Process Innovation Behaviour. International Journal of Innovation Management, 25（1）, 2150013.
•   Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C., & Lee, C.（2012）. Psychological Ownership: How Having Control Matters. Journal of Management Studies, 49（5）, 869-895.
•   Liu, F., Chow, I. H. S., Zhang, J. C., & Huang, M. （2019）. Organizational innovation climate and individual innovative behavior: Exploring the moderating effects of psychological ownership and psychological empowerment. Review of Managerial Science, 13（4）, 771-789.
•   Martinaityte, I., Unsworth, K. L., & Sacramento, C. A. （2020）. Is the project ‘mine’ or ‘ours’ ? A multilevel investigation of the effects of individual and collective psychological ownership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93（2）, 302-327.
•   Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. （2007）. A Study of the Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147（5）, 477-500.
•   McIntyre, N., Srivastava, A., & Fuller, J. （2009）. The Relationship of Locus of Control and Motives with Psychological Ownership in Organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 21（3）, 383-401.
•   Mohammad, J., Quoquab, F., Idris, F., Al-Jabari, M., Hussin, N., & Wishah, R. （2018）. The relationship between Islamic work ethic and workplace outcome: A partial least squares approach. Personnel Review, 47（7）, 1286-1308.
•   Mustafa, M. J., Mansilla, O., & Gibson, M. T. （2021）. Examining when hotel middle-managers’ psychological ownership influences their commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 20（2）, 198-221.
•   Mustafa, M., Martin, L., & Hughes, M. （2016）. Psychological Ownership, Job Satisfaction, and Middle Manager Entrepreneurial Behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23（3）, 272-287.
•   Naeem, R. M., Channa, K. A., Hameed, Z., Ali Arain, G., & Islam, Z. U. （2020）. The future of your job represents your future: a moderated mediation model of transformational leadership and job crafting. Personnel Review, 50（1）, 207-224.
•   O’driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A. M.（2006）. The Psychology of Ownership work environment structure, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 31（3）, 388-416.
•   Park, C. H., Kim, W., & Song, J. H. （2015）. The Impact of Ethical Leadership on Employees’ In-Role Performance: The Mediating Effect of Employees’ Psychological Ownership. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26（4）, 385-408.
•   Park, C. H., Song, J. H., Yoon, S. W., & Kim, J.（2013）. A missing link: psychological ownership as a mediator between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour. Human Resource Development International, 16（5）, 558-574.
•   Peng, H., & Pierce, J. （2015）. Job- and organization-based psychological ownership: relationship and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30（2）, 151-168.
•   Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. （2010）. Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31（6）, 810-834.
•   Pierce, J. L., Jussila, I., & Li, D.（2017）. Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings. Journal of Management & Organization, 23（1）, 1-17.
•   Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T.（2001）. Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26（2）, 298-310.
•   Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. （2003）. The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research. Review of General Psychology, 7（1）, 84-107.
•   Pierce, J. L., O’driscoll, M. P., & Coghlan, A. M.（2004）. Work Environment Structure and Psychological Ownership: The Mediating Effects of Control. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144（5）, 507-534.
•   Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. （1991）. Employee ownership: a conceptual model of process and effects. Academy of Management Review, 16, 121-144.
•   Pierce, J. L., Van Dyne, L., & Cummings, L. L. （1992）. Psychological ownership: A conceptual and operational exploration. Southern Management Association Proceedings, USA, 1992, 203-211.
•   Pittino, D., Barroso Martínez, A., Chirico, F., & Sanguino Galván, R.（2018）. Psychological ownership, knowledge sharing and entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: The moderating role of governance heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84, 312-326.
•   Qian, J., Lin, X., Han, Z. R., Tian, B., Chen, G. Z., & Wang, H.（2015）. The impact of future time orientation on employees’ feedback-seeking behavior from supervisors and co-workers: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Journal of Management & Organization, 21（3）, 336-349.
•   Ramos, H. M., Man, T. W. Y., Mustafa, M., & Ng, Z. Z.（2014）. Psychological ownership in small family firms: Family and non-family employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5（3）, 300-311.
•   Shukla, A.（2019）. Soldier or actor?: The role of psychological ownership as a marker for genuine citizenship behaviour. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27（1）, 94-108.
•   Shukla, A., & Singh, S. （2015）. Psychological ownership: scale development and validation in the Indian context. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 10（2）, 230-251.
•   Sieger, P., Bernhard, F., & Frey, U.（2011）. Affective commitment and job satisfaction among non-family employees: Investigating the roles of justice perceptions and psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2（2）, 78-89.
•   Sieger, P., Zellweger, T., & Aquino, K.（2013）. Turning Agents into Psychological Principals: Aligning Interests of Non-Owners through Psychological Ownership. Journal of Management Studies, 50（3）, 361-388.
•   Smith, R. W., Baranik, L. E., & Duffy, R. D.（2020）. Psychological ownership within psychology of working theory: A three-wave study of gender and sexual minority employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103374.
•   Sun, H., Zhang, L., & Meng, J.（2019）. Alleviating knowledge contribution loafing among engineering designers by ethical leadership: the role of knowledge-based psychological ownership and emotion regulation strategies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24（2）, 235-257.
•   Torp, S., & Nielsen, B. B.（2018）. Psychological ownership and financial firm performance: The interplay of employee stock ownership and participative leadership. Australian Journal of Management, 43（3）, 476-492.
•   Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L.（2004）. Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25（4）, 439-459.
•   Wang, H. J., Demerouti, E., Blanc, P. L., & Lu, C. Q.（2018）. Crafting a job in ‘tough times’ : When being proactive is positively related to work attachment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91（3）, 569-590.
•   Wang, L., Law, K. S., Zhang, M. J., Li, Y. N., & Liang, Y.（2019）. It’s mine! Psychological ownership of one’s job explains positive and negative workplace outcomes of job engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104（2）, 229-246.
•   Xu, T., & Lv, Z.（2018）. HPWS and unethical pro-organizational behavior: a moderated mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33（3）, 265-278.
•   Xu, Z., Yang, F., & Peng, J.（2021）. How does authentic leadership influence employee voice? From the perspective of the theory of planned behavior. Current Psychology.
•   Yitshaki, R. （2021）. Entrepreneurs’ emotional intelligence as a factor explaining entrepreneurial psychological ownership and high-tech start-up growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 28（4）, 489-514.
•   Zhang, Y., Liu, G., Zhang, L., Xu, S., & Cheung, M. W. L.（2020）. Psychological Ownership: A Meta-Analysis and Comparison of Multiple Forms of Attachment in the Workplace. Journal of Management, 47（3）, 745-770.
•   Zhu, H., Chen, C. C., Li, X., & Zhou, Y.（2013）. From Personal Relationship to Psychological Ownership: The Importance of Manager–Owner Relationship Closeness in Family Businesses. Management and Organization Review, 9（2）, 295-318.