KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover

Intentions
1
Saket Jeswani and 2 Dr. Sumita Dave
1
Sr. Assistant Professor, Shri Shankaracharya
Institute of Technology and Management, Bhilai,
saketjeswani@yahoo.com
2
Professor, Faculty of Management Studies, SSGI, Bhilai
sumitadave@rediffmail.com

Abstract

People develop feelings of ownership for a variety of objects, material and immaterial and this state is
referred to as psychological ownership. In the light of various theories and broad discussions with faculty
members of various technical institutions, psychological ownership acts as a positive source of job
satisfaction and turnover intention. This conceptual study investigates the links between promotion focused
and preventative focused factors of psychological ownership on turnover intentions in context with
faculties of technical education institutes of India. On the basis of various research and published
literature, the study proposes that this state finds its roots in a set of eight individual motives, which are
identified as factors of psychological ownership and predictors of turnover intention. From the review of
literature and group discussions, the seven theory-driven domains determined to best constitute the
dimensions of promotion-oriented psychological ownership included self-efficacy, accountability, sense of
belonging, self-identity, association with the organization, controlling and investing the self. The domain
of territoriality was identified as a dimension of a preventative form of ownership. On the basis of various
research and published literature, a 36-item research instrument was generated representing the eight
theory-driven components of psychological ownership. The work provides a foundation for the
development of a comprehensive theory of psychological ownership and the conceptual underpinnings for
empirical testing.
Keywords: Psychological Ownership, Individual Factors, Job Satisfaction, Turnover Intention.

Both researchers and human resource

1. Introduction: (HR) practitioners agree that the employment
Organization Behaviour is the study and relationship is undergoing fundamental changes
application of individual or group of people that have implications for the attraction,
working in team within the organizational setting motivation and retention of talented employees
in context to their attitude and behaviour has (Horwitz, Heng, & Quazi, 2003: Roehling,
been the topic of interest to scholars and Cavanaugh, Moyhihan & Boswell, 2000;
practitioners for many decades. To date, many Turnley & Feldman, 2000). The employees are
theories and models have been developed to difficult to retain due to their tendency to attach
explain employees' behaviour and attitude in the more importance to marking out their own career
work environment. This study continues this line path than to organizational loyalty; a tendency
of research in examining an attitude known as which results in increased rates of voluntary
psychological ownership. turnover (Cappelli, 2001). Within the HRM
literature, retention management has become a
50

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

popular concept to examine the portfolio of HR Researchers are also interested in

practices put into place by organizations in order examining ownership from a psychological point
to reduce voluntary turnover rates (e.g. Cappelli, of view, referring to the psychological
2001; Mitchell et al., 2001; Steel et al., 2002). experience of ownership. Many researchers
Psychological ownership refers to the initially saw psychological ownership as a
employees‟ subjective interpretations and component of legal ownership (Pierce et al.,
evaluations of their deal with the organization 1991; Wagner, Parker, & Christiansen, 2003).
(Rousseau, 1996; 2001; Turnley & Feldman, Hence, in an employee-owned organization, an
1998). Researchers in this field argue that in employee who legally holds shares in the
order for retention management to be effective, company is believed to psychologically
the creation of an optimal portfolio of HR experience the feeling of ownership towards the
practices is not sufficient and that it is important organization, which in turn influences the
to manage employees‟ expectations relating to employee's attitudes and behavior. In this
these practices. Only in this way HR managers scenario, the legal form of ownership must exist
can be confident to create a deal that is mutually in order for the psychological form of ownership
understood by both the organization and its to take place. However, Pierce et al. (2001/2003)
employees (Rousseau, 1996). While retention have claimed that psychological ownership can
management addresses the type of organizational exist in the absence of legal ownership. This
inducements and HR strategies that are effective study follows this viewpoint in examining
in reducing voluntary employee turnover, the psychological ownership in the work
psychological ownership focuses on employees‟ environment.
subjective interpretations and evaluations of 3. Literature Review:
inducements and how these affect their intentions Feelings of ownership can develop
to stay. This implies that retention practices towards both material and immaterial objects,
might only turn out successful if they are in line and serve to shape identity (Belk, 1988; Dittmar,
with what employees value and what they take 1992) and affect behavior (Isaacs, 1933;
into account when deciding to stay with or leave O‟Toole, 1979). Such feelings can exist in the
the organization. absence of any formal or legal claim of
This conceptual study attempts to draw a ownership. Instead, mere association has been
framework on the various promotion focused and considered ample to produce feelings of
preventative focused antecedents of ownership (Beggan & Brown, 1994). It is these
psychological ownership that influence turnover essential characteristics of possession that are
intentions of faculties of technical educational encapsulated in the concept of psychological
institutes of India and draw inferences regarding ownership. Pierce et al. (2001) define
its affects in this context. The review of research psychological ownership as a “state in which
and literature in the areas of psychological individuals feel as though the target of ownership
ownership and turnover intentions aims to (material or immaterial in nature) or a piece of it
demonstrate the links between these factors. The is „theirs‟ (i.e., „it is MINE!‟).”
study is expected to contribute to policy makers Considering the ubiquitous nature of
of technical educational institutes as well as feelings of possession and ownership, it can be
further empirical research work in the associated expected that psychological ownership may
field. develop towards any number of different
2. Psychological Perspective of Ownership: organizational targets, for example, the
organization, the job, the work tasks, the work

51

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

space, work tools or equipment, ideas or Based on literature pertaining to what

suggestions, team members, and so on (Rudmin constitutes possession and ownership, Pierce et
& Berry, 1987; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). The al. (2001) concluded: (1) the feeling of
intention in the present research is to focus on ownership is innately human, (2) psychological
faculties feeling of ownership towards both their ownership can occur toward both tangible and
organization and their job. intangible objects (targets), and (3) psychological
A sense of possession (feeling as though ownership has important emotional, attitudinal
an object, entity, or idea is „MINE‟ or „OURS‟) and behavioral effects on those that experience
is the core of psychological ownership (Furby, ownership. These conclusions indicates that
1978). Possessive feelings are omnipresent, can psychological ownership is an individual factor
refer to tangible or intangible objects and serve as a starting point for how
(Beaglehole, 1932; James, 1890), and can occur psychological ownership is defined and its
based on legal ownership or in the absence of effects are used in this study. The overall
legal ownership (Wilpert, 1991). Scholars in a purpose of the study is to investigate & examine
wide variety of fields note the close connection the various individual antecedents of
between possessions, feelings of possession, and psychological ownership and suggest research
feelings of ownership. For example, Etzioni instrument for future empirical testing.
(1991) described ownership as a „dual creation,
part attitude, part object, part in the mind, part 3.1 Individual Factors
“real”. In sum, people tend to equate feelings of There are various individual and
possession with feelings of ownership (Dittmar, organizational factors implied on an employee
1992; Furby, 1978). which guides the behavior in a workplace setting.
The psychology of possession literature Individual factors are the innate factors of an
demonstrates that people feel positively about individual which are controllable. While
tangible and intangible targets of ownership. For organizational factors are external factors which
example, Beggan (1992) proposed the idea of are out of the discretion of an employee. The
„mere ownership effects‟ based on empirical paper focuses only on the individual factors in
analysis of reactions to perceptions of ownership. relation to the psychological ownership of an
Results of this study showed that people employee, means how an employee can work on
evaluated ideas and objects more favorably when those internal factors which modifies
they felt a sense of ownership for the target. In psychological ownership and how an
other words, feelings of psychological ownership organization can help employee to work on those
lead to positive attitudes about the entity (Nuttin, internal factors for enhanced psychological
1987). ownership.
Pierce et al. (2001) theorized that As argued above, the individual is ready
psychological ownership can be differentiated for psychological ownership due to the innate
from other constructs based on its conceptual motives for efficacy and effectance, self-identity,
core (possessiveness) and motivational bases. having a place to dwell and likewise. While these
They argued that psychological ownership motives are universal, it is been anticipated that
satisfies three basic human needs: „home‟ there will be individual differences in this
(having a sense of place), efficacy and process. First, individuals will differ on the
effectance, and self-identity. When employees strength of motives, both across individuals and
experience psychological ownership, they are within individuals across times. This will result
able to satisfy these basic needs. in varying likelihood of developing feelings of

52

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

ownership across individuals, or even within a computer or production machine), or work itself.
single individual at different points in time. Different targets of ownership can vary in
Different attributes are important for different salience, depending on the individual and the
people and different types of objects are „sought‟ situation. For example, some employees have
by individuals, as a result. From the perspective psychological ownership for their work and
of the self-concept, individuals may strive to others might have ownership feelings for the
increase feelings of self-worth by attempting to overall organization. When people have a sense
legally or psychologically possess items of of ownership, they experience a connection
greatest importance to them. Ownership is one between themselves and various tangible and
means to boost self-evaluations and self-esteem; intangible „„targets‟‟ (Dittmar, 1992). The term
hence, individuals are likely to feel ownership „„target‟‟ in the psychological ownership
over those objects considered to be most literature is quite broad and refers to whatever
important according to their personal values. For the object of attachment represents to an
example, individuals whose perceptions of individual or group. These targets may be
selfworth are predicated on intellect, or who are something as small as a preferred seat in the
part of cultures that value intellect, may seek to company cafeteria, or as large as the organization
feel ownership over targets that reinforce this or industry as a whole. In this investigation, the
attribute (e.g., books, pieces of art). Finally, and focus is on the organization as the target of
as noted earlier, an individual may legally own feelings of ownership (psychological ownership
some object, but not feel a sense of ownership for the organization).
for it. This condition may exist when the object
is not a source of effectance and efficacy, is not 3.3 Dimensions of psychological
associated with one's self-identify, and/or a place ownership: Promotion and Prevention
within which to dwell, even though it might have The basis for examining two unique and
been purchased with hard earned cash and is independent forms of psychological ownership
controlled and known. comes from the work of Higgins‟ (1997, 1998)
regulatory focus theory. He proposes that
3.2 Psychological Ownership for the individuals have two basic self-regulation
Organization: systems: promotion and prevention. Kark and
Psychological ownership is the Van Dijk (2007) noted that, „„individuals who
psychologically experienced phenomenon in operate primarily within the promotion focus are
which an employee develops possessive feelings more concerned with accomplishments and
for the target. Building on Furby (1978) and aspirations and show more willingness to take
Dittmar (1992), Pierce et al (2001) linked risks,” whereas “individuals who operate
feelings of possession with feelings of ownership primarily within the prevention focus are more
and defined psychological ownership as the state concerned with duties and obligations and
in which an individual feels that an object (i.e., experience emotions of anxiety and agitation”.
material or immaterial) is experienced Higgins (1997, 1998) argues that both
possessively (i.e., it‟s „MINE‟ or it is „OURS‟). prevention and promotion are needed for human
This tight connection between survival and that one approach is not necessarily
possession and feelings of ownership can be more desirable then the other. When applied to
directed at the organization (or workplace) as a examining psychological ownership, individuals
whole or at specific aspects of the organization who are more promotion oriented may
such as the group, job, work tools (i.e., a experience feelings toward targets of ownership

53

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

that are quite different from those who are to do this task, I can do it, and I therefore own
prevention oriented. For example, in a scenario the responsibility for achieving success.‟‟
where sharing information may lead to change White (1959) argues that part of the
and improvement within a company, a manager human condition is revealed by the individual‟s
possessing promotive psychological ownership exploration of the environment, which in turn is
with a successfully completed project may driven by the effectance motive, that is, the
decide to share information „„he owns‟‟ with a individual's desire to interact effectively with
cohort or team in a different division of the his/her environment. The effectance motive is
company because he sees improvement in the aroused by differences in the environment and is
company as personally fulfilling. sustained when one's actions produce further
Building on the three recognized differences. The motive subsides when a
dimensions of psychological ownership (i.e., situation has been explored to the point that it no
belongingness, self-efficacy, and self-identify, longer presents new possibilities. Exploration of,
Pierce et al., 2001), the concepts of territoriality, and the ability to control, one's environment
association with organization, investing the self, gives rise to feelings of efficacy and pleasures,
controlling and accountability are posited as which stem from "being the cause" and having
additional aspects of psychological ownership. altered the environment through one's
Promotion-oriented psychological ownership control/actions. In addition to producing intrinsic
includes self-efficacy, accountability, sense of pleasure, control over the environment may
belonging, self-identity, association with produce extrinsic satisfaction as certain desirable
organization, investing the self and controlling objects are acquired.
the target. The domain of territoriality was Based on the discussion above, the study
identified as a dimension of a preventative form proposes that psychological ownership is
of ownership. grounded, in part, in the motivation to be
efficacious in relation to one's environment. Due
3.3.1 Self-Efficacy: to the innate need for feelings of efficacy and
Self-efficacy relates to people‟s belief competence, individuals are propelled to explore
they can successfully implement action and be and manipulate their environment. These person-
successful with a specific task (Bandura, 1997). environment interactions may result in the
White‟s (1959) early conceptualization of exercise of control and subsequent feelings of
ownership and possession argued that one‟s personal efficacy and competence. Through this
feelings of ownership may be inextricably linked process, "possessions and self become intimately
to the individual‟s need for effectance. Furby related" (Furby, 1991: 460).
(1991) suggested that feelings of ownership
emerge even in young children because of the 3.3.2 Accountability:
motive to control objects and to be effectant with Accountability has become a popular
their application. This freedom to control one‟s concept in business and public policy domains.
actions is a psychological component that results Accountability is „„the implicit or explicit
in feelings of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and expectation that one may be called on to justify
may promote a sense of psychological ownership one‟s beliefs, feelings and actions to others‟‟
concerning a particular task, process, and (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).
procedure. This self-efficacy component of Accountability as a source of
psychological ownership seems to say, „„I need psychological ownership is evident in many
areas of society such as economic systems and

54

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

sports teams. For example, the owners of major Feelings of psychological ownership through
pro sports teams hold others (coaches, players) attachment to a place or an object, becomes a
accountable for team performance, while they „„home‟‟ or place for the individual (Pierce et al.,
themselves are held accountable by other 2001). Beyond belongingness being enhanced by
constituents (media, fans) for the team and physical possessions, belongingness in terms of
franchise‟s failures and successes. Expectations psychological ownership in organizations may
of the perceived right to hold others accountable best be understood as a feeling that one belongs
and to hold one‟s self-accountable are consistent in the organization. When people feel like
with Pierce et al.‟s (2003) description of owners in an organization, their need for
expected rights and responsibilities. First, belongingness is met by „„having a place‟‟ in
individuals who experience higher feelings of terms of their social and socio-emotional needs
psychological ownership expect to be able to call being met. The need to belong in a work place
others to account for influences on their target of may be satisfied by a particular job, work team,
ownership. The expectation of information work unit, division, organization or industry as a
sharing and permission to influence the direction whole.
of the target are consequences of this expected
right to hold others accountable. Second, 3.3.4 Self-identity:
individuals not only have expected rights about Self-identity along with social identity is
holding others accountable, they have expected recognized as major parts comprising the self-
responsibilities for the self, sometimes described concept domain. Researchers have noted that
as a sense of burden sharing. When targets of groups of people (Abrams & Hogg, 2004) and
ownership are seen as an extension of the self, possessions often act as symbols through which
accountability for what happens to and with people identify themselves (Belk, 1988;
those targets has implications for what happens Rousseau, 1998). Specifically, it has been noted
to and with the self. This is also evident in Pierce that individuals establish, maintain, reproduce
et al.‟s (2003) use of descriptive behaviors such and transform their self-identity through
as stewardship and self-sacrifice to characterize interactions with tangible possessions (Dittmar,
those with high levels of psychological 1992) and intangibles such as an organization,
ownership. mission or purpose (Rousseau, 1998). For
example, people may define themselves as a
3.3.3 Belongingness: sports car driver, a yacht owner, or an antique
The human need for a home or a place to collector. These targets of ownership are often
dwell has been articulated over the years by used as descriptors of one‟s identity.
social psychologists (e.g., Ardrey, 1966; Duncan, Feelings of psychological ownership
1981) as a fundamental need that exceeds mere over these objects may provide a foundation
physical concerns and satisfies the pressing from which individuals can identify themselves
psychological need to belong. For example, as being unique, thus contributing to their
Ardrey (1966) argued people will take ownership personal identity. In addition to targets such as
of, and structure their lives around, possessions objects, a job, or a work team, individuals may
in an effort to satisfy their need for belonging. identify with an organization, mission or purpose
This example is highlighted by Mehta and Belk (Rousseau, 1998). This is because people have a
(1991) who note that immigrants tend to retain strong drive to identify with the settings in which
possessions as „„security blankets‟‟ to provide they work (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). According
them with a sense of place or belongingness. to Tajfel‟s social identification theory, humans

55

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

are not only calculative by nature, but also with it (Weil, 1952). Sartre (1943) and Furby
expressive of feelings and values (Tajfel & (1978b) have also suggested that there is an
Turner, 1986). As stated by Shamir, House, and associational aspect to ownership. Something can
Arthur (1993) „„We „do‟ things because of what be mine, in my feelings, by virtue of my being
we „are‟, because by doing them we establish associated and familiar with it. Consistent with
and affirm an identity for ourselves.‟‟ Albert, the above, Beggan and Brown (1994) and
Ashforth, and Dutton (2000) suggest that by Rudmin and Berry (1987) suggested that through
internalizing the organizational identity as a the process of association we come to know
definition of the self, the individual gains a sense objects. The more information possessed about
of meaningfulness and connectedness. Thus, the target of ownership the more intimate
individuals may feel a sense of psychological becomes the connection between the individual
ownership over a target at multiple levels to the and that target.
extent that it appeals to and affirms their values According to James (1890), a part of our
and self-identity. Since people are expressive and feelings about what is ours stems from living
seek opportunities to affirm their self-identity, close to, getting to know, and experiencing
the need for self-identity can be considered a things around us. Thus, the more information
potential component of psychological ownership. possessed about the target of ownership, the
more things are felt thoroughly and deeply and in
3.3.5 Association with organization: the process the self becomes attached to (one
James (1890) suggested that through a with) the object. Along the same lines, Beggan
living relationship with objects, individuals come and Brown's (1994) research found that
to develop feelings of ownership for those individuals tend to frame issues of ownership as
objects. Supporting the notion that feelings of a function of an association between themselves
ownership emerge from a lived relationship with and the object.
objects. Beaglehole (1932) too argued that by Rudmin and Berry (1987) noted that
knowing an object (person or place) passionately "ownership is linguistically an opaque concept,"
(intimately) it becomes part of the self. its meaning is difficult to grasp outside of
Commenting on the processes through which looking intra-individually --"After all, a stolen
feelings of ownership likely emerge, Weil states apple doesn't look any different from any other"
"All men have an invincible inclination to (Snare, 1972). They suggested that attachment
appropriate in their own minds, anything which provides part of the meaning of ownership and
over a long, uninterrupted period they have used that attachment breeds familiarity and
for their work, pleasure, or the necessities of life. knowledge. Thus, psychological ownership
Thus, a gardener, after a certain time, feels that reflects an intimate relationship or a
the garden belongs to him". People come to find psychological proximity of the owner to the
themselves psychologically tied to things as a owned. Horwicz A (1878), they noted that we
result of their active participation or association tend to prefer our own possessions to others,
with those things. The gardener, for example, even others of a similar kind (Beggan, 1992;
"comes to be rooted in the garden," as a result of Nuttin, 1987) because "we know them better,
working the garden and becoming familiar with realize them more intimately, feel them more
its needs. Through this process of active deeply" (translated by James, 1890: 326).
association, knowledge develops and the
gardener comes to feel that it is his [hers], that 3.3.6 Investing the self:
he/she is one with the garden - grounded in and

56

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

The work of Locke (1690), Sartre responsible for a target he/she begins to invest
(1943), Rochberg-Halton (1980), among others, him/herself into that target through the energy,
provides us with insight into the relationship care, and concern expended. A mentor-protégé
between work and psychological ownership. As relationship is one example of this phenomenon.
part of his political philosophy, Locke (1690) The mentor feels responsible for the protégé's
argued that we own our labor and ourselves, and development, and hence invests their energy,
therefore, we are likely to feel that we own that time, emotion, and even their own values, in the
which we create, shape, or produce. Through our protégé. For better or worse, this is likely to
labor, we not only invest our time and physical result in the mentor coming to think of the other
effort but also our psychic energy into the person in terms of „their‟ protégé. Social
product of that labor. Sartre (1943) even recognition of this relationship tends to further
suggested that buying an object was simply reinforce the fact that people see themselves in
another form of creating an object as it too stems the target.
from the fruits of our labor. Thus, that which
stems from our labor, be it our work or the 3.3.7 Controlling:
widget that we make, much like our words, As previously suggested, control
thoughts, and emotions are representations of the exercised over an object eventually gives rise to
self. The most obvious and perhaps the most feelings of ownership for that object (Furby,
powerful means by which an individual invests 1976a; McClelland, 1951; Rochberg-Halton,
him/herself into an object is to create it. Creation 1980; Sartre, 1943). In her control model of
involves investing time, energy, and even one's ownership, Furby (1978a) argues that the greater
values and identity. "Things" are attached to the the amount of control a person can exercise over
person who created them because they are certain objects, the more they will be
his/her product, they derive their being and form psychologically experienced as part of the self.
from his/her efforts; hence, the individual who To develop this proposition, she builds upon the
has created them owns them in much the same work of White (1959) and McClelland (1951).
way as he/she owns him/herself (Durkheim, White's (1959) work focused on the motive for
1957). The investment of an individual's self into environmental exploration, control, and
objects causes the self to become one with the subsequent feelings of efficacy.
object and to develop feelings of ownership McClelland (1951) developed the idea
towards that object (Rochberg-Halton, 1980). that much like parts of the body and control over
This sense of ownership can develop between them, material objects that can be controlled
workers and their machines, their work, and the come to be regarded as part of the self. While
products of their labor (Beaglehole, 1932). In recognizing individual differences in terms of
othermvocations, individuals may feel ownership importance of possessions for personal identity
for the products they create through scholarly (e.g., Sampson, 1978). Prelinger (1959) provided
pursuitsm (academics), organizations they found support for the proposed relationship between
(entrepreneurs), or bills they draft (politicians). self and control over objects. Specifically, he
The investment of the self allows an individual to found that objects over which the respondent had
see their reflection in the target and feel their control, could manipulate, or objects by which
own effort in its existence. she/he could be affected, were more likely to be
Lastly, we expect that responsibility for perceived as parts of the self than objects for
a target, either perceived or real, leads to feelings which neither was the case. Similar findings have
of ownership. As the person is held or feels been provided by Dixon and Street (1957).

57

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

Control also was found to be a core contemporary work organizations.‟‟ When

feature of ownership by Rudmin and Berry individuals form bonds of ownership over
(1987) in their studies of ownership semantics. objects in the organization including physical,
They found that ownership means the ability to informational or social objects, they may seek to
use and to control the use of objects. While mark those possessions as belonging exclusively
causality was not explicitly addressed, their work to themselves. In addition, if individuals
seems to suggest a causal path. Those objects anticipate infringement on their targets of
over which individuals exercise the most control ownership, they may engage in protective
are the ones most likely to be perceived as theirs. territoriality to maintain levels of ownership and
This is consistent with the thinking of Prelinger to communicate ownership to potential threats
(1959), Furby (1978), and Tuan (1984). and the social unit as a whole. In developing a
Similarly, Lewis and Brook (1974) and Seligman theoretical foundation of territoriality, Brown et
(1975), in their earlier work in human al. (2005) explicitly focused on the concept of
development, have argued that through the territoriality as being behavioral and propose
exercise of control objects become associated (2005, p. 580) that „„the stronger an individual‟s
with the self, and those objects which are psychological ownership of an object, the greater
controlled by others or those which cannot be the likelihood he or she will engage in territorial
controlled are not a part of the individual's sense behaviors.‟‟ However, in light of Pierce et al.‟s
of self. Finally, Ellwood (1927) suggested that a (2001) argument that psychological ownership is
key concept might be „use.‟ Those objects which a cognitive-affective construct, this study leans
are habitually used by an individual become heavily on cognitive aspects (versus behavioral
assimilated into the user‟s self. As noted by displays) of territoriality as a more preventative
Furby (1978a) use of an object can be seen as the form of psychological ownership.
exercise of control over that object. Furthermore,
access to use of an object gives a person control 3.4 Turnover Intention:
over others and their access to the object --"That Many researchers argue that the
over which I exercise ... control becomes a part psychological contract plays an important role in
of my sense of self" (Furby, 1978a: 322-323). helping to define and understand the
contemporary employment relationship
3.3.8 Terriotality: (Rousseau, 2001; Shore & Coyle-Shapiro, 2003;
Indeed, Brown et al. (Brown, Lawrence Turnley & Feldman, 1998). Psychological
& Robinson, 2005) argue that ownership and contracts consist of individuals‟ beliefs regarding
self-identity are so interrelated that people the terms and conditions of the exchange
engage in territorial behaviors, such as marking agreement between themselves and their
or defending their territory as a way to identify organizations (Rousseau, 1996). They emerge
and defend possessions as an extension of when individuals believe that their organization
themselves. has promised to provide them with certain
Brown et al. (2005) have noted that inducements in return for the contributions they
„„Organizational members can and do become make to the organization (Turnley & Feldman,
territorial over physical spaces, ideas, roles, 2000). The growing body of literature on the
relationships, and other potential possessions in psychological contract reflects accumulating
organizations‟‟ and that to limit territoriality as evidence for its influence on diverse work-
being „„petty, political or self-serving is to related outcomes. These studies show that
overlook their importance to employees in employees evaluate the inducements they receive

58

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

from their organization in view of previously empirical work demonstrates that psychological
made promises and that this evaluation leads to a contract violation is relatively common and that
feeling of psychological contract fulfillment or this could explain the difficulties organizations
breach (Turnley & Feldman, 1998). In turn, a are currently experiencing in retaining their
feeling of contract breach has a negative impact employees. Since the psychological contract
on employees‟ willingness to contribute to the encompasses employees‟ subjective
organization and on their intentions to stay with interpretations and evaluations of their
the organization (e.g. Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; employment deal, the retention factors discussed
Robinson, 1996; Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, in the practitioner and scientific literature will
1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1998; 2000). Other only turn out to be effective for employee
studies have found a positive correlation with retention if they are in line with employees‟
actual turnover (e.g. Guzzo, Noonan & Elron, subjective views and expectations. Within the
1994; Robinson, 1996). Together these results psychological contract literature, the retention
suggest that the psychological contract is a factors we have discussed in the previous
construct of both scientific and practical paragraph are used by several researchers to
importance and that it is especially relevant for measure the content of the psychological contract
HR managers concerned with the retention of (e.g. Robinson, 1996; Robinson et al., 1994;
their employees. Turnley & Feldman, 2000). However, as to date
Existing research indicates that researchers have not explicitly paid attention to
employees are rather pessimistic about the extent 10 the relative importance of each of these
to which their organization lives up to its content dimensions to employees and to their
promises. For example, Turnley & Feldman differential impact on employees‟ willingness to
(1998) found that approximately twenty-five stay with the organization. Instead, global
percent of their sample of employees felt that measures of psychological contract evaluation
they had received less (or much less) than they have been constructed in which employees‟
had been promised. This was most strongly the evaluations of employer promises relating to
case for promises relating to job security, amount these different types inducements are aggregated
of input into important decisions, opportunities (e.g. Coyle- Shapiro, 2002; Guzzo et al., 1994;
for advancement, health care benefits, and Robinson, 1996; Turnley & Feldman, 2000).
responsibility and power. Robinson et al. (1994) Turnley & Feldman (1998) did measure overall
found that fifty-five percent of their sample psychological contract violation as well as
reported contract violations by their employer violation of 16 specific elements of the
two years after organizational entry. Content psychological contract (e.g. salary, job
analysis showed that these violations most challenge).
frequently concerned training and development, 4. Model of the Study:
compensation, and promotion. Together, this

59

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

 KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

Fig 1: Conceptual Framework of Psychological Ownership and Turnover Intention

5. Independent & Dependent Variables

Independent Variables Source Dependent Variable

60

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

 KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

Psychological Ownership -
A sense of possession (feeling as though an
Turnover Intention -
object, entity, or idea is „MINE‟ or „OURS‟)
The implementation of integrated
is the core of psychological ownership
strategies or systems designed to increase
(Furby, 1978).
Guzzo, Noonan & workplace productivity by developing
Pierce and colleagues (2001) linked feelings
Elron, 1994; improved processes for attracting,
of possession with feelings of ownership and
Robinson, 1996 developing, retaining, and utilizing
defined psychological ownership as the state
people with the required skills and
in which an individual feels that an object
aptitude to meet current and future
(i.e., material or immaterial) is experienced
business needs (Lockwood, 2006).
possessively (i.e., it‟s „MINE‟ or it is
„OURS‟).

Independent Source Concept Dependent

Variables Variable

In other words, self-efficacy is a person‟s belief in his

or her ability to succeed in a particular situation.
Bandura (1994) described these beliefs as
determinants of how people think, behave, and feel.
According to Albert Bandura (1995), self-efficacy is
“the belief in one‟s capabilities to organize and
Beggan, 1991;
execute the courses of action required to manage
Furby, 1978;
Self-Efficacy prospective situations”.
White, 1959;
Capacity or power to produce a desired effect, desire
Bandura, 1997
to experience the power in altering the environment
leads to attempt to take possession and to the Psychological
emergence of ownership feelings. Self-efficacy Ownership
relates to people‟s belief they can successfully
implement action and be successful with a specific
task (Bandura, 1997).
Accountability is the implicit or explicit expectation
that one may be called on to justify one‟s beliefs,
Lerner & feelings and actions to others (Lerner & Tetlock,
Accountability
Tetlock, 1999 1999).
Accountability is the tendency for an individual to
feel a sense of responsibility to hold individuals and

61

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

organizations accountable for the object of

ownership.
Beyond belongingness being enhanced by physical
Ardrey, 1966;
Sense of possessions, belongingness in terms of psychological
Mehta and Belk,
Belonging ownership in organizations may best be understood
1991
as a feeling that one belongs in the organization.
Albert, Ashforth, and Dutton (2000) suggest that by
internalizing the organizational identity as a
definition of the self, the individual gains a sense of
meaningfulness and connectedness. Thus, individuals
Dittmar, 1992; may feel a sense of psychological ownership over a
Self-Identity
Rousseau, 1998 target at multiple levels to the extent that it appeals to
and affirms their values and self-identity.
The term "identity" refers to the capacity for self-
reflection and the awareness of self (Leary &
Tangney, 2003).
Association Association with the target means intimidate
with the Sartre (1969) knowledge of an object, person or place, a fusion of
Target self takes place with the object (Beaglehole, 1932).
The investment of an individual‟s energy, time, effort
and affection into objects and to develop feelings of
Sartre, 1969; ownership toward that object. The investment of
Investing the Csikszentmihalyi one‟s time, ideas, skills, physical, psychological and
Self & Rochberg- intellectual energies. As a result, the individual may
Halton, 1981 begin to feel that the target of ownership flows from
the self. (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg- Halton,
1981)
Csikszentmihalyi Controlling the target means ability to use and to
& Rochberg- control the use of object. (Rudmin & Berry, 1987).
Halton, 1981;
Controlling Dixon & Street,
the Target 1957; Sartre,
1969; Tuan,
1984; White,
1959.
Brown et al. (2005) explicitly focused on the concept
Brown et al., of territoriality as being behavioral and propose that
Territoriality
2005 „„the stronger an individual‟s psychological
ownership of an object, the greater the likelihood he

62

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

or she will engage in territorial behaviors.‟‟

Territoriality tends to be preventative (e.g., marking
territory, using anticipatory defenses to prevent
infringement, and reactionary defenses to prevent
future infringements).

6. Psychological Ownership Measure:

Based on the theoretical framework psychological ownership and discussions with
discussed, a new measure of psychological the faculty members. Overall 36 items were
ownership was developed exclusively for the generated representing both independent and
faculties of technical educational institutes. Item dependent variables i.e. turnover intention and
generation was initiated on the basis of predictors of psychological ownership.
comprehensive review of the literature on
7. Research Instrument:

Variable Items Scale Source

Y1 Satisfaction with present job Staying or Leaving
Turnover Intention (Y) Y2 Thinking about quitting Index (SLI) -
Y3 Intention to quit present job Bluedorn (1982)
X11 View challenging problems as tasks to Bandura A. (1994)
master
Self-Efficacy (X1) X12 Develop deeper interest in the activities
X13 Form a stronger sense of commitment
X14 Recover quickly from setbacks
X21 Seek out information Dianne Schilling
X22 Own problems and circumstances. (2009)
X23 Admit mistake
Accountability (X2)
X24 Contribution to organizational objectives
X25 Extra Task
X26 Others accountability
X31 Esteem Somers‟ (1999)
X32 Connectedness
Sense of Belonging (X3)
X33 Efficacy
X34 Involvement
X41 Confidence Erwin T. D. (1979)
Self-Identity (X4) X42 Sexual identity
X43 Conceptions about body
X51 Knowing the organization Beaglehole (1932)
Association with X52 Active participation
Organization (X5) X53 Information possessed about the
organization
63

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

X61 Effort in organization existence Locke (1690),

Investing the Self (X6) X62 Creation Beaglehole (1932)
X63 Responsibility
X71 Defining own job responsibilities Russell A.
X72 Paid leave of absence Matthews,
Controlling (X7) X73 Goal setting Wendy Michelle
X74 Setting own working standards Diaz and Steven G.
X75 Provide reviews of superiors Cole (2003)
X81 Constructing Territories Graham B, Thomas
X82 Communicating Territories B.I. & Sandra L. R.
Territoriality (X8) X83 Maintaining Territories (2005)
X84 Restoring Territories
X85 Psychologically valuing the territory

8. Implications and Conclusion: reallocating the ownership rights, psychological

The primary objective in this study was ownership can be generated among faculties
to investigate & examine the various predictors towards their institutes with the help of
of psychological ownership by undergoing formulating strategies focusing on individual
exhaustive literature review and to draw an factors of psychological ownership as discussed
outline of conceptual research for further in the literature.
empirical testing to predicate relationships
between feelings of ownership and employees
intention to quit or stay. 9. Directions for Future Research:
In this competitive world, technical The paper suggests conceptualization of
educational institutes require satisfied and psychological ownership may serve as a
committed faculties to generate value for the foundation for a more systematic examination of
institution. But the question is why should contextual factors. It is anticipated that a wide
faculties invest more in the firm than they are variety of contextual elements will have an effect
paid to do? As turbulent environments and on the emergence of psychological ownership,
changing expectations regarding employment this research focus on discussion of two main
lead to shorter tenure with institutes. aspects –promotion focused and preventive
Reallocation of ownership rights is an focused.
alternative, particularly among highly skilled In addition to the directions for future
faculties. Employers prefer to share ownership theoretical development suggested above, this
rights with certain faculties over others, based on research acknowledges the need for empirical
the their competence, marketability and testing and research on psychological ownership.
potential. Bundling ownership rights with The framework presented here provides the
financial information, participation in decision underpinnings for a number of hypotheses and
making and other supporting practices can suggests directions for empirical inquiry. As a
enhance the productivity through creating first step, there is a need for the development and
employment relationships based upon high trust validation of a measurement instrument of
and shared psychological contracts between psychological ownership. In conclusion, these
employer and faculty. But is it practically results are intended to provide a platform and
possible? So, what is the alternative? Without stimulation for further discussion and empirical
64

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

research on the positive resource of Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S.

psychological ownership and how it can Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
potentially relate to all facets of individual, human behavior, 4. New York:
group, and organizational effectiveness and Academic Press, pp. 71-81.
ultimately competitive advantage. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise
of control. New York: Freeman.
References Beaglehole, E. (1932). Property: A study in
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Meta- social psychology. New York:
theory: Lessons from social identity Macmillan.
research. Personality & Social Bedeian, A.G., & Armenakis, A.A. APath-
Psychology Review, 8, 98–106. analytic study of the consequences of
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. role conflict and ambiguity. Academy of
(2000). Organizational identity and management Journal, 1981, 24, 417-424.
identification: Charting new waters and Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of
building new bridges. Academy of nonsocial perception: the mere
Management Review, 25, 13–17. ownership effect. Journal of Personality
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. and Social Psychology, 62, 229–237.
(2000). Organizational identity and Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994).
identification: Charting new waters and Association as a psychological
building new bridges. Academy of justification for ownership. Journal of
Management Review, 25, 13–17. Psychology, 128, 365-379.
Angle, H.L., & Perry, J.L. An empirical Belk, R. W. (1988). Possession and the extended
assessment of organizational self. The Journal of Consumer Research,
commitment and organizational 15, 139-168.
effectiveness, Administrative Science Bluedorn AC (1982). “A unified model of
Quarterly. 1981, 26, 1-14. turnover from organizations”, Hum.
Ardrey, R. (1966). The territorial imperative: A Relations, 35: 13-153.
personal inquiry into the animal origins Brown, G., Lawrence, T.B., Robinson, S.L.
of property and nations. New York: Dell. (2005). Territoriality in organizations.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Academy of Management Review, 30:
identity theory and the organization. 577-594.
Academy of Management Review, 14, Cappelli, P. (2001). A market-driven approach to
20-39. retaining talent. Harvard Business
Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P.C., Irwin, Review on finding and keeping the best
J.L., Bachiochi, P.D., Robie, C., Sinar, people (pp. 27-50). Boston : Harvard
E.F., & Parra, L.F. (1997). Users‟ Business School Press.
Manual for the Job Descriptive Index Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. (2002). A psychological
and the Job in General Scales. Bowling contract perspective on organizational
Green, OH: Bowling Green State citizenship behavior. Journal of
University. Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 927-
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a 946.
unifying theory of behavioral change. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Rochberg-Halton, E.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic

65

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

symbols and the self. Cambridge: the life cycle. In P. B. Baltes (Ed.), Life
Cambridge University Press Wagner Span Development and Behavior (1, pp.
Dianne Schilling (2009), “The Power of 297-336). New York: Academic Press.
Accountability”, Human Resource Furby, L. (1991). Understanding the psychology
Management, 39(4), 305-320. of possession and ownership: A personal
http://www.womensmedia.com/grow/18 memoir and an appraisal of our progress.
4-the-power-of-accountability.html Journal of Social Behavior and
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of Personality, 6, 457–463.
material possessions: To have is to be. Graham B, Thomas B.I. & Sandra L. R. (2005).
Hemel Hempstead, England: St Martin‟s Territoriality in Organizations. Academy
Press. of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 3,
Dixon, J. C., & Street, J. W. (1957). The 577–594.
distinction between self and not-self in Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E.
children and adolescents. Journal of (1994). Expatriate managers and the
Genetic Psychology, 127, 157-162. psychological contract. Journal of
Duncan, N. G. (1981). Home ownership and Applied Psychology, 79(4), 617-626.
social theory. In S. Duncan (Ed.), Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain.
Housing and identity: Crosscultural American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
perspectives (pp. 98–134). New York: Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention:
Holmes & Meier. Regulatory focus as a motivational
Durkheim, E. (1957). Professional ethics and principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
civil morals. Translated by C. Advances in experimental social
Brookfield. London: Routledge & Kegan psychology, Vol. 30, (1–46). New York:
Paul, Ltd. Academic Press.
Ellwood, C. A. (1927). Cultural evolution: A Horwicz, A. (1878). Psychologische Analysen
study of social origins and development. auf Physiologischer Grundlage, 2:2,
New York: Century. Magdeburg: Faber.
Erwin, T. D. (1979). The validation of the Erwin Horwitz, F. M., Heng, C. T., & Quazi, H. A.
Identity Scale. (Doctoral dissertation, (2003). Finders, keepers? Attracting,
The University of Iowa, 1978). motivating and retaining knowledge
Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, workers. Human Resource Management
4818A. Journal, 13(4), 23-44.
Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of Isaacs, S. S. (1933). Social development in
property. In F. W. Rudmin (Ed.), To young children: A study of beginnings.
have possessions: a handbook on London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
ownership and property. Journal of James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology.
Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), New York: Macmillan.
465–468. Kinicki, A. J. (2002). Assessing the construct
Furby, L. (1978). Possession in humans: an validity of the job descriptive index: A
exploratory study of its meaning and review and meta-analysis. Journal of
motivation. Social Behavior and Applied Psychology, 87, 14-32.
Personality, 6, 49–65. Leary, M. R.; Tangney, J. P. (2003). Handbook
Furby, L. (1978a). Possessions: Toward a theory of self and identity. New York: Guilford
of their meaning and function throughout Press. ISBN 1572307986.

66

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

http://books.google.com/?id=fa4_5xN9c Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the

5wC. psychological contract. Administrative
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599.
Accounting for the effects of Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D.
accountability. Psychological Bulletin, M. (1994). Changing obligations and the
125, 255–275. psychological contract: A longitudinal
Lewis, M., & Brook, J. (1974). Self, other, and study. Academy of Management Journal,
fear: Infants' reactions to people. In M. 37(1), 137-152.
Lewis & L. S. Rossenblum (Eds.), The Rochberg-Halton, E. (1980). Cultural signs and
origins of fear. New York: Wiley. urban adaptation: The meaning of
Locke, J. (1690). Two treatises of government. cherished household possessions.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doctoral dissertation, University of
McClelland, D. (1951). Personality. New York: Chicago. Dissertation Abstracts
Holt, Rinehart and Winston. International, 40(8-A), 4754-4755.
Mehta, R., & Belk, R. (1991). Artifacts, identity Roehling, M. V., Cavanaugh, M. A., Moynihan,
and transition: Favorite possessions of L. M., & Boswell, W. (2000). The nature
Indians and Indian immigrants to the of the new employment relationship : A
U.S. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, content analysis of the practitioner and
398–411. academic literatures.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B.C., & Lee, T. W. Rousseau, D. M. (1996). Changing the deal
(2001). How to keep your best while keeping the people. Academy of
employees : Developing an effective Management Executive, 10(1), 50-58.
retention policy. Academy of Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still
Management Executive, 15(4), 96-109. identify with organizations. Journal of
Nuttin, J. M. Jr. (1987). Affective consequences Organizational Behavior, 19, 217-233.
of mere ownership: the name letter effect Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal:
in twelve European languages. European Flexibility versus fairness?
Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 381– Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 260-
402. 273.
O‟Toole, J. (1979). The uneven record of Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987).
employee ownership. Harvard Business Semantics of ownership: A free-recall
Review, 57, 185-197. study of property. The Psychological
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Record, 37, 257-268.
Toward a theory of psychological Russell A. Matthews, Wendy Michelle Diaz and
ownership in organizations. Academy of Steven G. Cole (2003). The
Management Review, 26, 298-310. organizational empowerment scale.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K.T. (2003). Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp.
The state of psychological ownership: 297-318
Integrating and extending a century of Sampson, E. E. (1978). Personality and the
research. Review of General Psychology, location of identity. Journal of
7, 84-107. Personality, 46(3):552-568.
Prelinger, E. (1959). Extension and structure of Sartre, J. P. (1943/1969f). Being and
the self. The Journal of Psychology, 47, nothingness: A phenomenological essay
13-23.

67

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions

KKIMRC IJRFA Vol-01: No-01 Sep-Nov 2011

on ontology. New York: Philosophical Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004).
Library/London: Methuen. Psychological ownership and feelings of
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness. San possession: Three field studies predicting
Francisco: Freeman. employee attitudes and organizational
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur,M. B. (1993). citizenship behavior. Journal of
The motivational effect of charismatic Organizational Behavior, 25, 439-459.
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Wagner, S. H., Parker, C. P., & Christianson, N.
Organizational Science, 4, 577–594. D. (2003). Employees that think and act
Shore, L. M., & Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. (2003). like owners: Effects of ownership beliefs
Editorial. New developments in the and behaviors on organizational
employee organization relationship. effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 56,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 847–871
443-450 Weil, S. (1952). The need for roots: Prelude to a
Snare, F. (1972). The concept of property. declaration of duties toward mankind.
American Philosophical Quarterly, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
9(2):200-206. (original work published 1949).
Somers, M. (1999). Development and White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered:
preliminary validation of a measure of The concept of competence.
belongingness. Unpublished PhD, Psychological Review, 66, 297–330.
Temple University, Philadelphia. Wilpert, B. (1991). Property, ownership, and
Steel, R. P., Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. participation: on the growing
(2002). Practical retention policy for the contradictions between legal and
practical manager. Academy of psychological concepts. In R. Russell, &
Management Executive, 18(2), 149- V. Rus (Eds.), International handbook of
169. participation in organizations: For the
Tajfel, H.,& Turner, J. (1986). The social study of organizational democracy, co-
identity theory of intergroup behavior. In operation, and self management (Vol. 2,
S.Worchel &W. Austin (Eds.), pp. 149–164). New York: Oxford
Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. University Press.
7–24.). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Tuan, Y. (1984). Dominance and affection: The
making of pets. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1998).
Psychological contract violation during
corporate restructuring. Human Resource
Management, 37(1), 71-83.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-
examining the effects of psychological
contract violations: unmet expectations
and job dissatisfaction as mediators.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
25-42.

68

Conceptual Framework on Psychological Ownership as Predictor of Turnover Intentions