IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jomorg/v24y2018i06p776-792_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings

Author

Listed:
  • Pierce, Jon L
  • Jussila, Iiro
  • Li, Dahui

Abstract

Recently, there emerged a theory of collective psychological ownership – an intersubjective sense of possession for different objects within the work and organizational context (e.g., work space). This shared mind-set has been cast as having the potential to explain a variety of collective, work-related attitudes, and actions. Preventing scientific inquiry into this phenomenon is the absence of an instrument for the measurement of this construct. The purpose of this work was the development and validation of such an instrument. To this end, work with a panel of judges and three sequentially conducted field studies was undertaken. Construct validation evidence (e.g., content, discriminant, nomological, and incremental validity) for an instrument for the assessment of collective psychological ownership is provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierce, Jon L & Jussila, Iiro & Li, Dahui, 2018. "Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(6), pages 776-792, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:24:y:2018:i:06:p:776-792_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1833367216000663/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benjamin Ambuehl & Jennifer Inauen, 2022. "Contextualized Measurement Scale Adaptation: A 4-Step Tutorial for Health Psychology Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-24, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:24:y:2018:i:06:p:776-792_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jmo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.