JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

People develop feelings of ownership for a variety of objects, material and immaterial in nature. We refer to this state as psychological ownership. Building upon and extending prior scholarship we offer a conceptual examination of this construct. After defining psychological ownership, we address "why" it exists and "how" it comes into being. We propose that this state finds its roots in a set of intra-individual motives (efficacy and effectance, self-identity, and having a place to dwell). In addition, we discuss the experiences that give rise to psychological ownership and propose several positive and negative consequences of this state. Our work provides a foundation for the development of a comprehensive theory of psychological ownership and the conceptual underpinnings for empirical testing.2 Expressing a 'classical' Western perspective, Rousseau (1950) suggested that 'civil society' most likely began when a person fenced off a plot of ground and took it into his/her head to claim 'this is mine,' while others accepted this assertion. Recognizing the psychology of ownership, Etzioni writes that ownership is a "dual creation, part attitude, part object, part in the mind, part 'real'" (1991: 466), andHeider (1958) observes that 'attitudes of ownership' are common among people. Consistent with these views, economic psychologist Leon Litwinski (1942) and social psychologist Lita Furby (1991) offer the thesis that there is a 'psychology of mine and property' that attaches itself to objects. These perspectives provide a new lens with which to view possession, property, and ownership. We refer to this lens as psychological ownership, a cognitive-affective state that characterizes the human condition.Scholars from various disciplines have been interested in the genesis of possessive tendencies and the psychology of mine and property (e.g., Etzioni, 1991;Furby 1991;Litwinski, 1942Litwinski, , 1947. Some have offered a genetic explanation for the emergence of such psychological states (e.g., Burk, 1900;Darling, 1937), others have argued that they are the product of socialization practices carried out in society (e.g., Furby, 1976;Kline & France, 1899), while a sociobiological (cf. Buss, 1990;Wilson, 1975) perspective envisions a combination of both biological tendencies toward territoriality and accepted social practices. The psychology of ownership has been studied in a variety of contexts including child development (e.g., Isaacs, 1933;Kline & France, 1899), consumer behavior (Belk, 1988), among the elderly (Cram & Paton, 1993;Kamptner, 1989), within the customs and practices of different societies (Kline & France, 1899), from the perspective of holding land and having a house "with four walls" (Duncan, 1981;Porteous, 1976), across different socio-economic strata (Rochberg-Halton, 1980), within the philosophical discussions of 'being' (Heidegger, 1967;Sartre, 1943), and finally, in the workplace (Dirks, Cummings, & Pierce, 1996;Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001;Pratt & Dutton, 1998).We integrate and build on t...

SummaryAn increasing number of scholars and practitioners have emphasized the importance of 'feelings of ownership' for the organization (even when employees are not legal owners).In this exploratory study, we examine the relationships of psychological ownership with work attitudes and work behaviors. We start by developing hypotheses based on the psychology of possession and psychological ownership literatures. We then test these hypotheses with data from three field samples, using responses from over 800 employees, as well as manager and peer observations of employee behavior. Results demonstrate positive links between psychological ownership for the organization and employee attitudes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction, organization-based self-esteem), and work behavior (performance and organizational citizenship). More important, psychological ownership increased explained variance in organization-based self-esteem and organizational citizenship behavior (both peer and supervisor observations of citizenship), over and above the effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Contrary to prior theoretical work on psychological ownership, results, however, fail to show an incremental value of psychological ownership in predicting employee performance.

On numerous occasions it has been suggested that an individual’s self-esteem, formed around work and organizational experiences, plays a significant role in determining employee motivation, work-related attitudes and behaviors. We review more than a decade of research on an organization-based conceptualization of self-esteem. It is observed that sources of organization structure, signals about worth from the organization, as well as, success-building role conditions predict organization-based self-esteem. In addition, organization-based self-esteem is related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, motivation, citizenship behavior, in-role performance, and turnover intentions, as well as, other important organization-related attitudes and behaviors. Explanations for these effects and directions for future research are discussed.