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...

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 support@jstor.org.. Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Journal.

No abstract

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 support@jstor.org.. Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review.We examine organizational legitimacy in the context of the multinational enterprise (MNE). After discussing three types of complexity (of the legitimating environment, the organization, and the process of legitimation) that MNEs typically face, we explore their effects on MNE legitimacy. In particular, we distinguish between the legitimacy of the MNE as a whole and that of its parts, and we develop propositions that include issues of internal versus external legitimacy and positive and negative legitimacy spillovers.

We examine organizational legitimacy in the context oi the multinational enterprise (MNE). Aiter discussing three types oi complexity (oi the legitimating environment, the organization, and the process oi legitimation) that MNEs typically face, we explore their eiiects on MNE legitimacy. In particular, we distinguish between the legitimacy of the MNE as a whole and that oi its parts, and we develop propositions that include issues of internal versus external legitimacy and positive and negative legitimacy spillovers.

No abstract

No abstract