You Are Here Home Other project topics DESCRIPTION OF INQUIRY STRATEGY AND BROAD RESEARCH DESIGN

DESCRIPTION OF INQUIRY STRATEGY AND BROAD RESEARCH DESIGN

Project topics and materials 0

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

What do these studies imply?

These findings are extremely suggestive since, if ownership remains unchanged between the two points of investigation, some mediating and/ or extraneous variable is operating other than ownership per se that must be driving attitudinal change. Pierce et al. (1991) identify an intervening variable, “psychological ownership” that could play a role between the presence of share ownership and employee commitment. In later work, Pierce, Kostova & Dirks (2001, 2003), drawing on work from sociology, philosophy, human development and psychology formally introduced a theory of psychological ownership in organisations that defined psychological ownership as separate and distinct from legal/equity ownership of the organisation. According to Kubzansky and Druskat (as cited in Pierce et al., 2001), the psychological sense of ownership may be an integral part of the individual employee’s relationship with the organisation. Ownership, as an attitudinal state, becomes attached to issues that organisational members feel worthy of attentional investment (Pratt & Dutton, 2000). Therefore, Pierce et al. suggest that if ESOP employees feel a greater sense of ownership, commitment to the organisation is likely to increase. If, on the other hand, they do not experience psychological ownership, the level of organisational commitment is likely to remain unchanged, whatever the level of share ownership.

Current measurements of psychological ownership

Pierce, Van Dyne and Cummings (as cited in VandeWalle Van Dyne & Kostova, 1995) developed and validated a five-item instrument for the measurement of psychological ownership. In this instrument, psychological ownership was operationalised with a set of items measuring the attitude of feeling ownership of the company, such as “this is my company,” and “I sense that this company is our organisation” (VandeWalle et al.,1995, p. 215). Each item was measured by making use of a seven-point Likert scale. VandeWalle et al. found a Cronbach alpha of .89 for this measure in their sample consisting of 797 respondents. This survey was conducted utilising residents of university-affiliated housing cooperatives in a major upper-midwestern metropolitan area in the United States. A limitation of this study is that psychological ownership was measured by utilising only a five-item instrument. Since psychological ownership is a multi-dimensional construct (Avey et al., 2009) this five-item instrument seemingly lacks the ability to grasp the comprehensiveness that represents psychological ownership.

elimitations

Firstly, the current study will focus on psychological ownership and not on legal ownership. Pierce et al. (2003) declare that psychological ownership is distinguished from legal ownership. Etzioni (1991) states that property and ownership are both real and both psychologically experienced, as they exist in the “mind.” Although these two concepts are related, legal and psychological ownership differ in substantial ways. Psychological ownership can exist in the absence of legal ownership, and vice versa. Secondly, the study will focus on the positive aspects of psychological ownership. In certain situations and in conjunction with certain intense character traits, psychological ownership may produce behaviour such as reluctance to delegate authority and share information, obstructing of participative management, teamwork and cooperation, and even sabotage of organisational goals. It may also lead such employees themselves to feel frustration, stress and alienation, and to suffer physically and psychologically. Thirdly, the study will be limited to the South African population, specifically individuals employed in the targeted organisations. As such, individuals from other countries will be excluded and findings could probably not be generalised. The researcher hopes, however, that data will be largely representative of the different cultural groups in South Africa.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE OF OWNERSHIP

The psychology of possession is well rooted in people, and according to Furby (1978) this sense of possession (the feeling that an object, idea, or entity is “mine” or “ours”) is the core of psychological ownership. Psychologists, anthropologists, philosophers, geographers, and child development specialists, among others, have explored the psychological aspects of ownership in a variety of contexts, including child development (Isaacs, 1933), consumer behaviour (Belk, 1988), house ownership (Porteous, 1976), across different socio-economic strata (Rochberg-Halton, 1980), within the philosophical discussions of ”being” (Sartre, 1943) and in the workplace (Pierce et al., 2001; Pratt & Dutton, 1998). They all came to the conclusion that possession and feelings of ownership are a natural part of the human condition (Belk, 1988; Litwinski, 1947; Furby, 1978).

Self-concept

The psychology of possession also proposes that feelings of ownership cause people to view tangible and intangible possessions as part of the extended self. Dittmar (1992) believes that it is common for people to experience a psychological connection between the self and various targets of possession, such as homes, motor cars, space, and other people. According to Belk (1988) and Dittmar (1992), possessions become so much a part of our identity that we see them as an extension of ourselves. In his treatise Being and nothingness, Sartre (1969 [1943] notes that “to have” (along with “to do” and “to be”) is one of the three categories of human existence and that “the totality of my possessions reflects the totality of my being …I am what I have …What is mine is myself”. Mann (1991, p. 211) supports this, writing, “What I own feels like part of me”. In 1890, psychologist William James commented on the fine line between “me” and “mine”: “We feel and act about certain things that are ours very much as we feel and act about ourselves” (James, 1890, p. 291). Thus, tangible and intangible possessions and feelings of psychological ownership become linked to the self-concept.

READ  LEADERSHIP MISCONCEPTIONS IN MARK 10:35-45

A cognitive and affective core

Thirdly, Pierce et al. (2003) have noticed that psychological ownership (the feeling that something is “mine” or “ours”) has many facets and includes a cognitive and affective core. The cognitive aspect reflects individual’s awareness, beliefs and thoughts regarding the target of ownership. Affectively, feelings of ownership are said to be pleasure producing in themselves (Beggan, 1992; Furby, 1978; Porteous, 1976) and give the owner a feeling of efficacy and competence (White, 1959). This affective and cognitive information based on affective judgements and more abstract beliefs is consistent with basic psychological research on attitudes conducted by Breckler and Wiggins (1989) and with the Affective Events Theory of Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) that differentiates beliefs about the job from emotional experiences at work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

  • Declaration
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abstract
  • Table of Contents
  • List of Tables
  • List of Figures
  • CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
    • 1.1 BACKGROUND
    • 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
    • 1.3 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
    • 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
    • 1.5 IMPORTANCE AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED STUDY
    • 1.6 DELIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
    • 1.6.1 Delimitations
    • 1.6.2 Assumptions
    • 1.7 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
    • 1.8 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
  • CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
    • 2.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 2.2 OWNERSHIP DEFINED
    • 2.3 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE OF OWNERSHIP
    • 2.4 PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP DEFINED
    • 2.5 THE CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTIVENESS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WNERSHIP
    • 2.6 THE MOTIVES FOR (“ROOTS OF”) PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
    • 2.6.1 Efficacy and effectance
    • 2.6.2 Self-identity
    • 2.6.3 Having a place
    • 2.6.4 Summary
    • 2.7 THE DETERMINANTS OF (“ROUTES TO”) PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
    • 2.7.1 Controlling the ownership target
    • 2.7.2 Coming to intimately know the target
    • 2.7.3 Investing the self in the target
    • 2.7.4 Summary
    • 2.8 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EMERGENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
    • 2.8.1 Target factors
    • 2.8.2 Individual factors
    • 2.8.3 The process
    • 2.8.4 Contextual factors
    • 2.8.5 Summary
    • 2.9 THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
    • 2.10 THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
    • 2.11 THE CONSEQUENCES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
    • 2.11.1 A positive side of psychological ownership
    • 2.11.1.1 Motivational consequences
    • 2.11.1.2 Behavioural consequences
    • 2.11.1.3 Self-concept
    • 2.11.1.4 Attitudinal consequences
    • 2.11.1.5 Mixed effects
    • 2.11.2 The dark side of psychological ownership
    • 2.11.3 Summary
    • 2.12 AN INTEGRATED MOTIVATIONAL MODEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
    • 2.12.1 Needs
    • 2.12.2 Routes to psychological ownership
    • 2.12.3 The cognitive and affective core of psychological ownership
    • 2.12.4 Factors influencing psychological ownership
    • 2.12.5 Goals
    • 2.12.6 Action (behaviours)
    • 2.12.7 State of psychological ownership
    • 2.12.8 Consequences of psychological ownership
    • 2.12.9 Outcomes of psychological ownership
    • 2.12.10 Summary
    • 2.13 PSYCHOLOGOCAL OWNERSHIP AS A MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONSTRUCT
    • 2.13.1 Defining a multidimensional construct
    • 2.13.2 Psychological ownership as a multidimensional construct
    • 2.13.3 Summary
    • 2.14 PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND RETENTION
    • 2.14.1 Retention defined
    • 2.14.2 Retention strategies
    • 2.14.2.1 Defining goals
    • 2.14.2.2 Creating a sense of purpose
    • 2.14.2.3 Empowering employees
    • 2.14.2.4 Getting to know employees
    • 2.14.2.5 Communicating to employees
    • 2.14.2.6 Listening intently
    • 2.14.2.7 Celebrating success
    • 2.15 CONCLUSION
  • CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
    • 3.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 3.2 THE THREE WORLDS FRAMEWORK
    • 3.2.1 World 1: The world of everyday life
    • 3.2.2 World 2: The world of science
    • 3.2.3 World 3: The world of meta-science
    • 3.3 RESEARCH PARADIGM/PHILOSOPHY
    • 3.3.1 Motivation for choice
    • 3.4 RESEARCH APPROACH
    • 3.4.1 Deduction
    • 3.4.2 Induction
    • 3.4.3 Application to this study
    • 3.5 DESCRIPTION OF INQUIRY STRATEGY AND BROAD RESEARCH DESIGN
    • 3.6 SAMPLING
    • 3.6.1 Target population, context and unit of analysis
    • 3.6.2 Sampling methods
    • 3.6.3 Sample size
    • 3.6.4 Application to this study
    • 3.7 SCALE DEVELOPMENT
    • 3.7.1 Step 1: Defining the construct
    • 3.7.2 Step 2: Generating an item pool
    • 3.7.3 Step 3: Determining the format for measurement
    • 3.7.4 Step 4: Having the initial pool reviewed by a pool of experts
    • 3.7.5 Step 5: Administering items to a development sample
    • 3.7.6 Step 6: Initial item reduction
    • 3.7.7 Step 7: Confirmatory factor analysis
    • 3.7.8 Step 8: Discriminant and criterion-related validity
    • 3.8 DATA COLLECTION
    • 3.9 ASSESSING AND DEMONSTRATING THE QUALITY AND RIGOUR THE RESEARCH DESIGN
    • 3.9.1 Bias
    • 3.9.2 Errors in human inquiry
    • 3.9.3 Validity
    • 3.9.4 Reliability
    • 3.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
    • 3.11 CONCLUSION
  • CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGS
    • 4.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 4.2 STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED IN SCALE DEVELOPMENT
    • 4.2.1 Step 1: Defining the construct
    • 4.2.2 Step 2: Generation of an item pool
    • 4.2.3 Step 3: Determining the format of the questionnaire
    • 4.2.4 Step 4: Having the initial pool reviewed by a panel of experts and pilot study
    • 4.2.5 Step 5: Administering items to a development sample
    • 4.2.6 Step 6: Initial item reduction
    • 4.2.6.1 Exploratory factor analysis
    • 4.2.6.2 Examination of construct equivalence
    • 4.2.6.3 Examination of internal consistency
    • 4.2.6.4 Descriptive statistics of the scales of the SAPOS
    • 4.2.7 Step 7: Confirmatory factor analysis
    • 4.2.8 Step 8: Discriminant and criterion-related validity
    • 4.2.8.1 Discriminant validity
    • 4.2.8.2 Criterion-related validity
    • 4.2.8.3 Comparing different groups
    • 4.3 CONCLUSION
  • CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    • 5.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 5.2 ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDY OBJECTIVES
    • 5.3 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY TO THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
    • 5.3.1 Contribution from a theoretical perspective
    • 5.3.2 Contribution from a methodological perspective
    • 5.3.2.1.Face or content validity
    • 5.3.2.2 Convergent validity
    • 5.3.2.3.Discriminant validity
    • 5.3.2.4.Nomological and criterion-related validity
    • 5.3.2.5 Construct equivalence
    • 5.3.3 Contribution from a practical perspective
    • 5.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
    • 5.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
    • 5.6 FINAL CONCLUSION

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL MEASURE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP FOR SOUTH AFRICAN ORGANISATIONS

Related Posts

Mechanism of ice accretion on insulator surface 

Fine scale habitat selection by forest

Raw materials and their impact on anode quality

Bacterial coloniza tion of winter flounder (pseudopleuronectes americanus)

Stereodivergence in asymmetric catalysis: towards selecting the configuration of consecutively formed stereogenic centers in a single pot catalytic process

BIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF TWO NATURAL N-ACYL HOMOSERINE LACTONES