Content uploaded by Yongyi Liang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yongyi Liang on Jun 21, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Applied Psychology
It’s Mine! Psychological Ownership of One’s Job Explains
Positive and Negative Workplace Outcomes of Job
Engagement
Lin Wang, Kenneth S. Law, Melody Jun Zhang, Yolanda Na Li, and Yongyi Liang
Online First Publication, September 13, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000337
CITATION
Wang, L., Law, K. S., Zhang, M. J., Li, Y. N., & Liang, Y. (2018, September 13). It’s Mine!
Psychological Ownership of One’s Job Explains Positive and Negative Workplace Outcomes of Job
Engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000337
It’s Mine! Psychological Ownership of One’s Job Explains Positive and
Negative Workplace Outcomes of Job Engagement
Lin Wang
Sun Yat-sen University Kenneth S. Law, Melody Jun Zhang,
and Yolanda Na Li
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Yongyi Liang
Jinan University
Job engagement denotes the extent to which an employee invests the full self in performing the job.
Extant research has investigated the positive outcomes of job engagement, paying little attention to its
potential costs to the organizations. Integrating the extended self theory and the literature on psycho-
logical ownership as our overarching theoretical framework, we develop and test the double-edged
effects of job engagement on workplace outcomes through the mediating role of job-based psychological
ownership. Analyses of two survey studies with multisource multiphase data support that job engagement
can lead to positive workplace outcomes including in-role performance and organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs) through job-based psychological ownership. At the same time, job engagement is also
positively related to negative workplace outcomes including territorial behavior, knowledge hiding, and
pro-job unethical behavior through the same mechanism of job-based psychological ownership. These
indirect effects of job engagement on negative work outcomes are amplified by employees’ avoidance
motivation. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Keywords: approach/avoidance motivation, job-based psychological ownership, job engagement, work-
place outcomes
Given that engaged employees can enhance companies’ com-
petitive advantages, employees’ job engagement has for a long
time attracted the interest of both academics and practitioners (e.g.,
Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2014; Corporate Leadership Coun-
cil, 2006; Gallup Management Journal, 2005; Harter, Schmidt, &
Hayes, 2002). Following Kahn’s (1990, 1992) seminal papers,
researchers conceptualize job engagement as a simultaneous and
extensive investment of physical, cognitive, and emotional ener-
gies by employees into their job roles (e.g., Barrick, Thurgood,
Smith, & Courtright, 2015; Chen et al., 2013; Rich, LePine, &
Crawford, 2010). Under this conceptualization, it is evident that
job engagement is an important contributor to positive outcomes
such as task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCBs), and firm performance (e.g., Barrick et al., 2015; Rich et
al., 2010).
However, some scholars have suggested that there may be
possible “dark sides” of job engagement (e.g., Rothbard, Galinsky,
& Medvec, 2000). Halbesleben, Harvey, and Bolino (2009) found
that engaged workers tend to experience more work–family con-
flict as a result of their excessive investment of self-related re-
sources into work. Rothbard (2001) showed that highly engaged
employees are more likely to underperform in family roles. How-
ever, these studies almost exclusively explored the negative out-
comes of job engagement in nonwork domains such as work to
family conflict. To the best of our knowledge, no study on the
possible negative outcomes of job engagement in work-related
domains has yet been published. In this paper, we extend Halbes-
leben et al.’s (2009) and Rothbard’s (2001) findings and suggest
that job engagement may have both positive and negative work-
related outcomes.
Integrating the extended self theory (Belk, 1988, 2000; Dittmar,
1992) and the literature on psychological ownership (e.g., Pierce,
Kostova, & Dirks, 2001, 2003) as our overarching theoretical
framework, we explore how and when job engagement may lead to
positive and negative workplace outcomes. The extended self
framework notes that individuals personalize objects as theirs and
as parts of their extended self through different ways (e.g., Belk,
1988, 2000; Pierce et al., 2001, 2003). We argue that when
employees are highly engaged in their jobs, they invest their self in
their jobs and treat their jobs as a core element in defining their
extended self. This process of extending the self to one’s job can
Lin Wang, Department of Management, Lingnan College, Sun Yat-sen
University; Kenneth S. Law, Melody Jun Zhang, and Yolanda Na Li,
Department of Management, CUHK Business School, The Chinese Uni-
versity of Hong Kong; Yongyi Liang, School of Management, Jinan
University.
All five authors contributed equally to the manuscript.
Lin Wang’s work on this article was supported by a research grant from
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71572200).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Melody
Jun Zhang, Department of Management, CUHK Business School, The
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 999077. E-mail: zhangjun
.melody@gmail.com
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Applied Psychology
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 1, No. 2, 000
0021-9010/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000337
1
be manifested as a sense of job-based psychological ownership, a
feeling that an individual has possession over various aspects of
his or her job (Brown, Crossley, & Robinson, 2014). Building on
the integrated extended self framework, we posit that job-based
psychological ownership, as promoted by job engagement, could
lead to diverse outcomes. On the one hand, job-based psycholog-
ical ownership gives employees strong motives to enhance and
maintain the ownership bond with their jobs, which promotes
in-role performance, proactive work behavior, and OCBs. On the
other hand, employees who have a strong sense of possessing their
jobs often resent infringements of their job ownership, and exhibit
territorial behavior, knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical be-
havior.
We further propose that individual differences in approach and
avoidance motivations moderate these effects. Scholars have sug-
gested that the differentiating effects of psychological ownership
depend on individual characteristics that affect the degree of
attention an employee devotes to enhancing his or her bond with
the “owned” object and avoiding others’ infringements of that
bond (e.g., Dirks, Cummings, & Pierce, 1996; Pierce et al., 2003).
Approach motivation is characterized as the energization of be-
havior by focusing on facilitating gains, whereas avoidance moti-
vation is characterized as the energization of behavior by focusing
on preventing losses (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2002). We
argue that employees high in approach motivation focus more on
the gains of job-based psychological ownership and input greater
efforts to promote in-role performance, proactive work behavior,
and OCBs. By contrast, employees with a high avoidance moti-
vation tend to emphasize the nonloss of job-based psychological
ownership and engage in behaviors such as territorial behavior,
knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior (e.g., Elliot,
1999; Ferris et al., 2011). We conducted two empirical studies
using a multisource multiphase design to test our theoretical
model.
This study makes several theoretical contributions to this field.
First, we extend research on the dark side of job engagement and
provide initial evidence for the negative consequences of job
engagement in the workplace. Our paper provides empirical evi-
dence for the double-edged effects of job engagement in work-
related domains. Second, using job-based psychological ownership
as a manifestation of the extended self at work, we contribute to
the extended self theory by operationalizing the mechanism of the
self-extension process. Finally, we identify employees’ approach
and avoidance motivations as key contingencies affecting the
proposed double-edged effects of job engagement through job-
based psychological ownership. Our results will make it easier to
predict which individuals are more likely to generate positive or
negative work outcomes among employees with high job engage-
ment and job-based psychological ownership.
Theory and Hypotheses
Extended Self Framework and Psychological Ownership
Building on the extended self theory (Belk, 1988, 2000; Dittmar,
1992) and the literature on psychological ownership (e.g., Pierce et
al., 2001, 2003), we posit an integrated extended self framework
and argue that job engagement may lead to both positive and
negative work outcomes through job-based psychological owner-
ship. The extended self theory emphasizes the fundamental role of
personal possessions in understanding and defining an individual’s
self (e.g., Belk, 1988, 2000; Pierce et al., 2003). According to the
extended self theory (Belk, 1988, 2000; Dittmar, 1992), posses-
sions play important roles in people’s lives. When people develop
possessive feelings for some important tangible or intangible ob-
jects, they may extend their self to these objects and consider them
as being parts of their self. As a result, they strive to maintain,
protect, and consolidate their possessive feelings for these objects
(Belk, 1988; Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005; Dittmar, 1992;
Pierce et al., 2003; Richins, 1994).
It should be noted that a person’s self-concept is multifaceted.
People mainly use “doing” (i.e., what they have done or will do),
“being” (i.e., who they think they are), and “having” (i.e., what
they feel possessive of) to define their self-concept (e.g., Belk,
1988; Sartre, 1969). Whether they construct their working self-
concept around “doing,” “being,” or “having” in a given situation
depends on which element is more accessible and salient to them
(e.g., Baumeister, 1998; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Zhang, Chen,
Chen, Liu, & Johnson, 2014). The extended self theory suggests
that individuals highlight the role of “having” in self-definition and
incorporate objects as important parts of their self when they (a)
invest their self into the objects to create them, (b) control them,
and/or (c) know them well (e.g., Belk, 2000). Evolving from the
extended self theory, Pierce and colleagues (2001, 2003) proposed
the specific concept of psychological ownership, in which the
object is perceived as having a possessive connection with the
person’s self and becomes an extension of the self. As Isaacs
(1933, p. 225) stated, “what is mine becomes (in my feelings) a
part of ME.” In their seminal papers, Pierce et al. (2001, 2003)
illustrated three ways (i.e., investing the self into the object,
controlling the object, and/or coming to intimately know the ob-
ject) that underlie the extended self theory as key routes through
which psychological ownership emerges.
By synthesizing the extended self theory and the literature on
psychological ownership as our theoretical framework, we argue
that job engagement causes employees to extend their self into
their jobs. We use psychological ownership, specifically, job-
based psychological ownership, to represent the self-extension
process toward one’s job. Job-based psychological ownership
1
1
Prior research has provided substantial evidence for distinguishing
job-based PO from related constructs such as relational identification and
job involvement in terms of different foci and nomological networks (e.g.,
Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2014; Pierce et al., 2001). For example,
relational identification focuses on a given role-relationship (Chen,
Boucher, & Tapias, 2006), whereas job-based PO contains not only role
relationships but also tangible objects (e.g., office and machines), personal
ideas, and specific projects related to one’s job. Likewise, job involvement
emphasizes the centrality of work to one’s life (Brown, 1996; Kanungo,
1982). Many employees, for example, may have a strong feeling of
ownership of their jobs but would stop thinking about work when they
leave their office. To obtain empirical evidence to support these arguments,
we collected data from 148 part-time MBA students. According to the
results of the bivariate correlations, all the correlations between job-based
PO and relational identification, job involvement, job engagement, job
satisfaction, and territorial behavior fall within the ranges documented in
previous studies (Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2014; Dawkins, Tian, New-
man, & Martin, 2017; Pierce et al., 2001). In particular, the correlation
between job-based PO and relational identification is not significant (r⫽
.11, p⬎.05). The correlation between job-based psychological ownership
and job involvement is .19 (p⬍.05).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2WANG, LAW, ZHANG, LI, AND LIANG
(hereafter job-based PO) describes a psychological state that an
individual feels ownership of his or her job and considers it as a
part of the extended self (Brown, Crossley, & Robinson, 2014;
Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2014). Previous studies of job-based
PO have indicated that employees might feel ownership over
various aspects of their jobs, including attributes (e.g., knowledge
and competencies), mental processes (e.g., ideas and understand-
ings), material objects (e.g., computers and issued stamps), people
and relationships (e.g., client relationships), spaces (e.g., meeting
room and office), responsibilities (e.g., leading role of job assign-
ments), and work outcomes (e.g., work products and projects; e.g.,
Brown, Crossley, & Robinson, 2014; Brown & Robinson, 2011;
Pierce & Jussila, 2011).
When an individual’s job serves as the target object of owner-
ship, job-based PO can be a specific manifestation of the self-
extension process at work. In their work on the extended self and
psychological ownership, Belk (1988, 2000) and Pierce et al.
(2001, 2003) discussed the consequences of self-extension. Incor-
porating their thoughts, we categorize in summary form key out-
comes of job engagement through job-based PO. We will illustrate
how job-based PO results from job engagement and leads to such
diverse outcomes in the following sections.
Job Engagement and Job-Based PO
Following Kahn’s (1990) conceptualization, we define job en-
gagement as immersing one’s full self physically, cognitively, and
emotionally in performing the job. Employees who are high in job
engagement are described as being fully there, devoted, attentive,
and focused in their work roles, and bring their complete selves to
perform (Kahn, 1992; Rich et al., 2010). Employees exhibit en-
gagement when they are physically dedicated to work tasks, are
cognitively vigilant, focused, and attentive to tasks, and are emo-
tionally connected to their jobs (Kahn, 1990). Put simply, the
essence of job engagement is investing the full self in terms of
“hands, head, & heart” (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995, p.110) in
performing one’s job.
The core of job engagement shares theoretical roots with the
extended self framework, which emphasizes the primary role of
investing the self into the object in cultivating a sense of the
extended self (e.g., Belk, 1988, 2000; Pierce et al., 2001, 2003).
Scholars have suggested that objects would be regarded as parts of
the self when people invest their self, in terms of effort, time, and
attention, into these objects (Belk, 1988; Csikszentmihalyi &
Rochberg-Halton, 1981). Belk (2000, p.93) noted that “Objects...
become a part of extended self because we have intentionally
worked on or created these things, investing both energy and self
in them.” The theoretical overlap between the extended self frame-
work and job engagement allows us to provide an integrated
theoretical model to identify the transmitting role of job-based PO
in the double-edged effects of job engagement.
Drawing on the extended self framework, we posit a positive
relationship between job engagement and job-based PO. The ex-
tended self theory and the psychological ownership literature both
suggest that three important routes lead to job-based PO: investing
one’s self into one’s job,exerting control of one’s job, and coming
to intimately know one’s job. We posit that job engagement leads
to job-based PO through these three routes. First and most impor-
tantly, employees who are highly engaged at work invest their self
into their jobs through the simultaneous investment of their phys-
ical, cognitive, and emotional energies, leading to work progresses
and outputs that grow or emerge from their self (Belk, 1988;
Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981). A feeling of owner-
ship of the job is thus generated because, as Belk (1988, 1991,
2000) suggested, objects are personalized as one’s own and be-
come a part of the extended self once we spend so much of our
energies on these objects. Second, employees with high job en-
gagement might come to have greater control over their jobs
because of their accumulated investment in them. The exercise of
controlling one’s job shows the employee’s ability to use and
master job resources, work progresses, and outcomes, which is a
core feature of ownership (Pierce et al., 2003; Rudmin & Berry,
1987). Third, highly engaged employees may come to know more
about various aspects of their jobs because they interact intensively
with their jobs and work roles. These interactions enable them to
understand their jobs thoroughly and deeply, a process in which
the job becomes an important part of their self (Pierce et al., 2003).
Based on the above arguments, we posit that:
Hypothesis 1: Job engagement is positively related to job-
based PO.
Job-Based PO and Job Outcomes
According to the extended self theory, the possessive relation-
ship between a person and an object is never as simple as a
self-object bond, but always involves the self-object-others bond
because the possessive relationship may be altered or undermined
when others interfere in the relationship or also claim to possess
the same object (Belk, 1988, 2000; Dittmar, 1992). To clarify the
terminology used in this paper, the self refers to the focal em-
ployee, the job is the object, and others refer to coworkers who
may encroach on the focal employee’s possessive relationship with
the job. We follow this key proposition in the extended self theory
(Belk, 1988; Brown et al., 2005; Dittmar, 1992; Pierce et al.,
2003), and argue that once employees develop a sense of personal
ownership of their jobs and regard their jobs as vital parts of their
extended self, they strive to protect, maintain, and enhance their
job ownership (i.e., ensuring the self-object bond) and endeavor to
avoid others interfering and claiming such ownership (i.e., avoid-
ing the self-object-others bond). These two focuses have strong
implications for positive and negative work outcomes of engage-
ment through job-based PO respectively.
Besides the classification of the self-object and self-object-
others relationships, Pierce et al. (2003), in an extension of ex-
tended self theory, also theorized that feelings of ownership help
individuals to define their self, on top of which individuals strive
to express their self-identity to others and maintain the continuity
of their self-identity over time through their possessed objects.
Referring to one’s job as the “owned” object, when employees
have strong possessive feelings of their jobs, they extend their self
into their jobs and use their jobs to define (at least partly) their self.
To these employees, ownership of their jobs could function both to
express their self to others and to maintain the continuity of their
self.
We integrated these two focuses (ensuring the self-object bond
vs. avoiding the self-object-others bond) and two functions (ex-
pressing the self vs. maintaining the continuity of the self) under-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
lying the extended self framework to categorize key outcomes of
job engagement through job-based PO. The 2 ⫻2 dichotomized
structure is shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.
Under the focus of ensuring the self-object bond, we argue that
in striving to express their extended self through their jobs, em-
ployees high in job-based PO will be strongly committed to excel
in their job performance and conduct more OCBs. Furthermore, to
maintain the continuity of their self-identity through their jobs in
which they exhibit high possessive feelings, employees will be
concerned about the stability and continued excellence of their
performance, and as a result will be motivated to engage in
proactive work behaviors. On the other hand, under the focus of
avoiding the self-object-others bond, employees with high job-
based PO will be chiefly concerned to preventing others’ infringe-
ment of the self-object bond. They will tend to claim and defend
their jobs to others through territorial behavior, aiming to express
their extended self through their jobs. In addition, in striving to
maintain the continuity of their self-identity through their jobs,
employees are more likely to engage in knowledge hiding and
pro-job unethical behavior.
Ensuring the Self–Object Bond: Positive Outcomes of
Job Engagement Through Job-Based PO
Job-based PO and in-role performance. According to the
extended self theory, our jobs, once we have claimed ownership,
not only characterize us but can also serve to communicate our
characteristics to others. In other words, our jobs act as symbolic
expressions of our self-identity to others, by informing people
about who we are, what we do, and what we might become at work
(Belk, 1988; Rochberg-Halton, 1984). Job performance, which
represents the prospect and enhancement of one’s job, is therefore
of crucial importance to employees, enabling them to express a
positive self-identity and gain social prestige in the workplace
(e.g., Chen et al., 2013). Conceivably, employees with strong
feelings of possession of their jobs would be motivated to expand
their responsibility and work efforts, which should translate into
higher performance (e.g., Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2014). Be-
sides increased responsibility and work efforts, engaged employ-
ees who feel that they own their jobs are likely to gain intimate
information and knowledge about their jobs by investing time and
energy into them. This increase in job-related knowledge would
also help to promote job performance. In support of our argument,
Brown, Pierce, and Crossley (2014) found a positive relationship
between employees’ job-based PO and their objective sales per-
formance. We therefore propose that:
Hypothesis 2a: Job-based PO is positively related to in-role
performance.
Job-based PO and proactive work behavior. Proactive work
behavior is characterized by a self-starting, forward-thinking, and
long-term oriented approach to work tasks (Grant & Ashford,
2008; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). The extended self framework
suggests that our jobs, once they have become a key part of our
extended self, are useful in helping us maintain the continuity of
our self-identity. First, those who have a strong sense of ownership
of their jobs tend to believe that “the future of my job represents
the future of me” (e.g., Pierce et al., 2003). Besides ensuring good
performance here and now, they also strive to keep their jobs on
the right track to maintain the continuity of their self in future.
Second, a sense of job ownership serves as a repository for
work-related memories and meanings, which deposits the past self
and provides psychological support for confronting an uncertain
future (Belk, 1991, 2000). Employees who are high in job-based
PO, therefore, are more likely to display proactive work behaviors
such as taking self-initiated, anticipatory actions and taking charge
of job-related issues. In support of this view, Parker, Bindl, and
Strauss (2010) argued that the self-initiating and forward-looking
nature of proactive work behavior manifests a sense of ownership
of the job. Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) also suggested that feelings
of “mine” promote proactive behavior. Empirically, Wagner,
Parker, and Christiansen (2003) found that psychological owner-
ship is closely related to employee initiative actions at work. Based
on these arguments, we propose that:
Hypothesis 2b: Job-based PO is positively related to proactive
work behavior.
Job-based PO and OCBs. As an extension of job perfor-
mance, OCBs are discretionary work behaviors that go beyond the
formal job requirements (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988,
1990). As employees with high job-based PO are motivated to
express their self to others in the workplace through in-role per-
formance, we argue that such employees may also conduct OCBs
from the same motive. OCBs, such as volunteering for special
tasks and orientating new employees, are usually salient acts that
Express the sel
f
Maintain the
continuity of the self
Ensure self-object
bond
Avoid Self-object-
other bond
In-role performance
(Studies 1 & 2)
OCBs
(
Stud
y
2
)
Proactive wor
k
b
ehavior
(Studies 1 & 2)
Knowledge hiding
(Studies 1 & 2)
Pro-job unethical behavior
(
Stud
y
2
)
Functions of self-
extension
Focuses of self-
extension
Territorial behavio
r
(Studies 1 & 2)
Figure 1. The 2 ⫻2 dichotomized structure.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4WANG, LAW, ZHANG, LI, AND LIANG
can be well observed and are desirable in the eyes of supervisors
and coworkers (e.g., Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002; Yaffe
& Kark, 2011). For employees who are high in job-based PO and
extend their self into their jobs, OCBs could be, in part, behavioral
manifestations of displaying a positive sense of self to others. By
conducting behaviors that infuse work roles with stewardship and
manifest extra assumption of responsibility for their jobs, employ-
ees can signal their ownership, express a positive self to others and
gain recognition and social prestige (Pierce et al., 2003; Van Dyne
& Pierce, 2004). In addition, for employees with high job-based
PO, displaying OCBs could help them to be understood and
supported by colleagues, which could further increase their high-
quality interactions with others and express their positive self to
others (Grant, Berg, & Cable, 2014; Kahn, 1990; Swann, Polzer,
Seyle, & Ko, 2004). In support, Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) found
that psychological ownership indeed produces more OCBs. We
therefore propose that:
Hypothesis 2c: Job-based PO is positively related to OCBs.
Taking the above arguments together, the self-investment notion
grounded in the extended self framework suggests that job engage-
ment promotes job-based PO, and that a heightened sense of job
ownership in turn contributes to in-role performance, proactive
work behavior, and OCBs. Integrating Hypothesis 1 and 2a–2c, we
expect:
Hypothesis 3a: Job engagement has a positive indirect effect
on in-role performance through job-based PO.
Hypothesis 3b: Job engagement has a positive indirect effect
on proactive work behavior through job-based PO.
Hypothesis 3c: Job engagement has a positive indirect effect
on OCBs through job-based PO.
Avoiding the Self–Object–Others Bond: Negative
Outcomes of Job Engagement Through Job-Based PO
Job-based PO and territorial behavior. The extended self
framework suggests that employees who extend their self through
their jobs are unwilling to share their jobs with others and want to
retain exclusive ownership over them. In short, they try to avoid
the self-object-others bond (Belk, 1988; Pierce et al., 2001, 2003).
We argue that employees who have high job-based PO and extend
their self to their jobs tend to adopt territorial behavior to explicitly
express their self in respect of the self-object-others bond. Terri-
torial behavior refers to individuals’ behavioral expression of
marking and defending the objects that they feel psychological
ownership toward (Brown & Robinson, 2011). Employees perform
various forms of territorial behaviors in the workplace, such as
presenting ideas to colleagues in a file with a nonchangeable
format, marking their names on the file, or making their ideas so
unattractive that others do not want to become involved in them
(Brown et al., 2005; Wells, 2000).
As far as job ownership in relation with others is concerned,
employees with high psychological ownership of their jobs try to
shield others from their jobs because those who can work on the
same job may also claim ownership of the job. With strong
possessive feelings for their jobs, these employees would explicitly
claim and protect their jobs, together with the materials, pro-
gresses, and outputs related to the job, as belonging exclusively to
themselves. They do so to express the selves they have extended to
their jobs (Belk, 1988; Brown et al., 2005; Pierce et al., 2003). By
asserting that “this is mine, not yours,” displaying territorial be-
haviors helps the employees to build a clear identity of the self
they have extended to their jobs. They can then express, commu-
nicate, and secure their self-identity to others at work. In the light
of these arguments, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4a: Job-based PO is positively related to territorial
behavior.
Job-based PO and knowledge hiding. We further posit that
employees with high job-based PO are more likely to engage in
knowledge hiding at work to maintain the continuity of their self
extended to their jobs. Knowledge hiding refers to an intentional
attempt to conceal or withhold knowledge that others have re-
quested (C
ˇerne, Nerstad, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2014; Connelly,
Zweig, Webster, & Trougakos, 2012). Knowledge here encom-
passes task information, ideas, know-how, and expertise relevant
to performing tasks (e.g., Bartol & Srivastava, 2002).
Job-related knowledge is accumulated through past interactions
with the job and signals an important part of the extended self at
work (Belk, 1988; Brown & Robinson, 2011; Peng & Pierce, 2015;
Pierce & Jussila, 2011). Through interactive processes with their
jobs, employees come to understand things about their jobs as well
as about themselves, and a sense of self-identity thus is estab-
lished, reproduced, transformed, and maintained (e.g., Dittmar,
1992; Pierce et al., 2003). As Beaglehole (1932) suggested, it is
our intimate knowledge of the job that makes the job not only
“ours” but also a part of our selves. If personal knowledge of a job
is also known to colleagues, it may indicate a loss of exclusive job
ownership and cause a threat to the extended self for employees
with high job-based PO (Cram & Paton, 1993; James, 1890;
Kamptner, 1989; Pierce et al., 2003). In contrast, preserving such
job-related knowledge helps employees to preserve their extended
self and maintain the continuity of their self-identity in the long
run (Pierce et al., 2003). Taking sales representatives as an exam-
ple, a key aspect of their job that they tend to experience posses-
sive feelings is their job-related knowledge, such as product and
customer information, know-how, and skills to promote sales.
They may strive to keep this job-related knowledge to themselves,
to maintain a sense of security and distinctiveness of their self at
work. Based on the above arguments, we propose that:
Hypothesis 4b: Job-based PO is positively related to knowl-
edge hiding.
Job-based PO and pro-job unethical behavior. Psycholo-
gical ownership literature suggests that employees with high job-
based PO may also engage in deviant behaviors (i.e., voluntary
behaviors that violate group norms or threaten the well-being of its
members), such as detrimental competition, sabotage or stalking,
and blocking others from taking ownership of their jobs (Pierce et
al., 2001, 2003). In the light of the literature on progroup and
proorganizational unethical behavior (e.g., Thau, Derfler-Rozin,
Pitesa, Mitchell, & Pillutla, 2015; Umphress & Bingham, 2011),
we define pro-job unethical behavior as actions that are intended to
strengthen an employee’s own bond with the job at the cost of
violating standards of proper conduct, such as discrediting others’
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
performance and purposely excluding others in the work group.
Pro-job unethical behavior is paradoxical. Employees exhibit such
behavior with the positive intention of protecting their own self-
job bond, but it involves them in unethical conducts toward others.
As far as the role of others is concerned, we posit that employees
who are high in job-based PO tend to feel threatened by others’
infringement of their jobs, for which they take ownership, and thus
might engage in unethical acts in an attempt to protect their
ownership (i.e., avoiding the self-object-others bond) even though
such acts violate societal standards. Others’ infringement of the job
indicates a potential loss or erosion of ownership (Brown &
Robinson, 2011). When employees experience strong ownership
of their jobs and regard their jobs as important parts of the
extended self, it follows that loss or erosion of job ownership
should be regarded as a threat to the self, inducing an effort to
maintain the continuity of their self via protecting their job own-
ership (Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992). A sense of threat to the self
channels individuals to focus narrowly on their current needs and
be less mindful of moral standards (e.g., Kouchaki & Desai, 2015;
Winterich, Mittal, & Morales, 2014). In other words, because of
the importance of the self that is extended into the job, possible
unethical behaviors induced by a perceived threat to the self may
trump ethical principles in the case of employees who are high in
job-based PO. A desire to maintain and protect their job ownership
may blind such employees from ethical concerns and make them
more prone to commit unethical acts (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel,
2011; Sykes & Matza, 1957). In support of our arguments, re-
search has shown that when employees define themselves in terms
of the organization, they are more likely to ignore ethical issues
and engage in proorganizational unethical behavior (Chen, Chen,
& Sheldon, 2016; Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010). Based
on these arguments, we propose:
Hypothesis 4c: Job-based PO is positively related to pro-job
unethical behavior.
Taking Hypotheses 1 and 4a–4c together, we posit that job-
based PO is a crucial bridge linking job engagement to territorial
behavior, knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior. In
other words, the effect of job engagement travels through job-
based PO to induce territorial behavior, knowledge hiding, and
pro-job unethical behavior. Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 5a: Job engagement has a positive indirect effect
on territorial behavior through job-based PO.
Hypothesis 5b: Job engagement has a positive indirect effect
on knowledge hiding through job-based PO.
Hypothesis 5c: Job engagement has a positive indirect effect
on pro-job unethical behavior through job-based PO.
The Moderating Effects of Trait Motivations
The extended self framework suggests that the differentiating
effects of psychological ownership depend on certain individual
characteristics that influence individuals’ systematical interpreta-
tion of psychological ownership and their concern to ensure the
self-object bond and to avoid the self-object-others bond (e.g.,
Dirks et al., 1996; Pierce et al., 2003). We follow this line of
thought and further investigate the contingencies of individuals’
approach and avoidance motivations on the double-edged effects
of job engagement through job-based PO. Approach motivation is
characterized as the energization of behavior by procuring positive
outcomes and focusing on facilitating gains, whereas avoidance
motivation is characterized as the energization of behavior by
focusing on avoiding losses and negative outcomes (Elliot, 1999;
Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Ferris et al., 2013). Approach and avoid-
ance motivations differ as a function of valence and are indepen-
dent constructs rather than poles of a continuum (Elliot, 2006;
Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Ferris et al., 2011).
We argue that when experiencing high job-based PO, employees
with a high approach motivation focus more on the gains related to
their ownership of their jobs. As Elliot (1999) indicated, the
behaviors of an individual with approach motivation are instigated
or directed by potential gains or desirable possibilities. To ensure
and enhance their ownership of the job (that is, the self-object
bond), employees high in approach motivation tend to be more
motivated to enhance their relationships with their jobs by improv-
ing their in-role performance and engaging in more proactive work
behavior and OCBs. By contrast, employees who have strong
job-based PO but are high in avoidance motivation are more
concerned to avoid losing their ownership of the job, and therefore
engage in what are viewed as negative outcomes from the com-
pany’s standpoint to protect their personal possessions. Their be-
haviors are more directed toward alleviating potential losses or
undesirable possibilities (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). The potential
threat or loss of one’s ownership of the job is a salient undesirable
possibility to be addressed. In such circumstances, employees with
avoidance motivation are more likely to engage in territorial be-
haviors, knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior.
We have already posited the crucial role of job-based PO in
linking engagement to both positive work outcomes (i.e., in-role
performance, proactive work behavior, and OCBs) and negative
work outcomes (i.e., territorial behavior, knowledge hiding, and
pro-job unethical behavior). As a theoretical extension, we further
propose here that approach motivation strengthens the relationship
between job-based PO and positive work outcomes, whereas
avoidance motivation amplifies the linkage between job-based PO
and negative work outcomes. We therefore postulate:
Hypothesis 6a: Approach motivation moderates the positive
indirect effect of job engagement on in-role performance
through job-based PO such that the effect is stronger when
approach motivation is high.
Hypothesis 6b: Approach motivation moderates the positive
indirect effect of job engagement on proactive work behavior
through job-based PO such that the effect is stronger when
approach motivation is high.
Hypothesis 6c: Approach motivation moderates the positive
indirect effect of job engagement on OCBs through job-based
PO such that the effect is stronger when approach motivation
is high.
Hypothesis 7a: Avoidance motivation moderates the positive
indirect effect of job engagement on territorial behavior
through job-based PO such that the effect is stronger when
avoidance motivation is high.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6WANG, LAW, ZHANG, LI, AND LIANG
Hypothesis 7b: Avoidance motivation moderates the positive
indirect effect of job engagement on knowledge hiding
through job-based PO such that the effect is stronger when
avoidance motivation is high.
Hypothesis 7c: Avoidance motivation moderates the positive
indirect effect of job engagement on pro-job unethical behav-
ior through job-based PO such that the effect is stronger when
avoidance motivation is high.
Study Overview
We conducted two studies to test our theoretical model.
2
In
Study 1, we used sales representatives as our sample and tested our
hypothesized relationships. To ensure that our results can be gen-
eralized, and to provide a more rigorous test of our proposed
theoretical model, we conducted Study 2, which extended Study 1
in two ways. First, Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1 in a
different setting and generalized the findings of Study 1. Second,
Study 2 extended the double-edged consequences of job engage-
ment to a broader group of workplace outcomes, including OCBs
and pro-job unethical behavior that were not tested in Study 1.
Study 1
Method
Sample and procedure. We collected three waves of data
from sales representatives and their supervisors in a large pharma-
ceutical company in southern China. We sent questionnaires to 353
sales representatives through the Qualtrics online survey system.
We asked these sales employees to report their job engagement
and demographics in phase one. Three weeks later, 288 employees
who responded in phase one were asked to rate their job-based PO.
Another three weeks later, 220 employees who responded in both
of the first two rounds were asked to report their approach and
avoidance motivations, territorial behavior, and knowledge hiding.
Their supervisors were then asked to rate their employees’ in-role
performance and proactive work behavior. One supervisor was in
charge of one team, and no employee belonged to more than one
team in our sample.
Our final sample consisted of 178 valid responses, with an
overall response rate of 61.81%. The 178 employees were nested
in 86 teams, and included 65 males (36.5%) and 113 females
(63.5%). The mean age of the sales representatives was 33.77
(SD ⫽6.43). Just over half of the employees (56.0%) held entry-
level positions, and 52.8% had at least a college degree.
3
Measures. All items in the survey had response options rang-
ing from 1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree. We conducted
a translation and back-translation procedure by the established
cross-cultural translation approach (Brislin, 1986).
Job engagement. We used Rich et al.’s (2010) 18-item en-
gagement scale to measure the three dimensions (physical, cogni-
tive, and emotional) of job engagement. A sample item was: “I
devote a lot of energy to my job.” The Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cient was .89.
Job-based PO. We measured job-based PO using Brown,
Pierce, and Crossley’s (2014) six-item scale. A sample item was:
“I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for job.” The
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .85.
Approach/avoidance motivation. Approach and avoidance
motivations were measured by Carver and White’s (1994) 11-item
BAS and BIS scale. A sample item of approach motivation was
“When I see an opportunity for something I like, I get excited right
away.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .82. A sample item
of avoidance motivation was: “I worry about making mistakes.”
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .86.
In-role performance. Bearing in mind the key features of
sales representatives’ work, we used Liao and Chuang’s (2004)
seven-item scale to measure employees’ service performance. A
sample item was: “Asking good questions and listening to find out
what a customer wants.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
.89.
Proactive work behavior. Previous studies (e.g., Raub & Liao,
2012) usually studied proactive behaviors of sales representatives
as manifested by proactive customer service performance, a crucial
aspect of performance in service industries. Because our sample
consisted of sales representatives in a service industry, we adapted
Rank, Carsten, Unger, and Spector’s (2007) four-item proactive
customer service performance scale to measure the proactive be-
havior of the sales representatives. A sample item was: “This
employee anticipates issues or needs customers might have and
proactively develops solutions.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
was .94.
Territorial behavior. Territorial behavior was assessed by six
items adapted from Brown, Crossley, and Robinson (2014). To
determine the target objects of the territorial behavior scale, one of
the authors interviewed the manager and employee representatives
of the sample before we conducted Study 1. Based on these
interviews, and reflecting the key features of sales representatives’
work, we referred to customer information and relationships as the
key objects. Sample items were: “Tell/show others that the ‘cus-
tomer information and relationships’ belong to me” and “Let
others know that the ‘customer information and relationships’ have
been claimed.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .94.
Knowledge hiding. We adopted Connelly et al.’s (2012) 12-
item scale to measure knowledge hiding. We used the following
opening instruction: “When your coworkers request knowledge of
customer information and relationships from you, to what extent
do you. . .?” Sample items were: “pretend that I do not know what
s/he is talking about” and “tell him/her that my boss would not let
anyone share this knowledge.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
was .94.
Analytical strategy. Although our proposed model operates
at the individual level, our data structure is nested because one
supervisor rated several employees on their in-role performance
2
Study 1 was approved by Lingnan College of Sun Yat-sen University
(No. 141107, entitled “Job Engagement in Workplace”). Study 2 was
approved by Lingnan College of Sun Yat-sen University (No. 161028,
entitled “The double-edged sword effect of job engagement in Work-
place”).
3
Employees’ demographic information including age, sex, education,
and position rank were collected in our study. All the analyses were first
conducted with these demographic variables as control variables and then
replicated by removing all the variables. The patterns of the findings were
virtually the same. For simplicity, we report results without control vari-
ables in our model.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
and proactive work behavior. Adopting the multilevel structural
equation modeling (MSEM) approach (e.g., Preacher, Zyphur, &
Zhang, 2010), we first calculated the ICC(1)s for the outcome
variables. We then used MSEM to test the proposed hypotheses
with Mplus 7.4 (Muthen & Muthen, 2015). For the estimated path
coefficients, we followed Liu, Zhang, Wang, and Lee’s (2011)
parameter bootstrapping technique to test the moderated indirect
effects using RStudio 1.0.136. The mathematical equations to test
the moderated indirect effects are summarized in the Appendix.
Preliminary analyses. The results of analysis of variance
(ANOVA) show significant variances at the supervisor level, both
for supervisor-rated in-role performance, F(85, 177) ⫽3.76, p⬍
.01 and proactive work behavior of the salespersons, F(85, 177) ⫽
2.60, p⬍.01. The estimated ICC(1)s are .57 for supervisor-rated
in-role performance and .44 for proactive work behavior, implying
that around 57% variances of in-role performance and 44% vari-
ances of proactive work behavior were attributable to the
supervisor-level factors. The supervisor-level effects are not sig-
nificant for individual employees’ self-reported territorial behav-
ior, F(85, 177) ⫽1.28, p⬎.05, or knowledge hiding, F(85,
177) ⫽1.34, p⬎.05. The corresponding ICC(1)s are .12 for
self-reported territorial behavior and .14 for self-reported knowl-
edge hiding. We thus controlled for between-level variances of the
supervisor-rated outcome variables that are significantly explained
at the supervisor level in the subsequent analyses.
Results
Table 1 and 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and cor-
relations among our studied variables. An examination of the
zero-order correlations provides initial support for our hypotheses.
Job engagement is positively related to job-based PO, r⫽.34, p⬍
.01. Job-based PO is positively related to in-role performance, r⫽
.18, p⬍.05, and proactive work behavior, r⫽.17, p⬍.05, as
well as territorial behavior, r⫽.39, p⬍.01, and knowledge
hiding, r⫽.22, p⬍.01.
Confirmatory factor analyses. Before testing our hypothe-
ses, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). In view
of our relatively small sample size, we followed Landis, Beal,
and Tesluk’s (2000) approach and created three parcels for each
latent variable by combining the items in order. For instance,
the measurement scale of job-based PO has six items, so we
averaged the first two items of job-based PO as the first parcel.
Items three and four were averaged as the second parcel and
items five and six as the third parcel. For constructs with an odd
number of items, we allowed the last parcel to include one more
or one less item. For example, in-role performance was mea-
sured using seven items. We averaged the first two items as the
first parcel, the third and fourth items as the second parcel, and
the remaining three items as the third parcel. As shown in the
upper part of Table 3, the CFAs show that our hypothesized
eight-factor model fitted the data better than other alternative
models. Given the results, we concluded that the scales were
measuring distinctive constructs, and moved on to test the
proposed hypotheses.
Hypothesis testing. Snijders and Bosker’s (1994) formulas
were used to calculate pseudo-R
2
for the effect sizes in predict-
ing outcomes. Predictors included in the model accounted for
17.6% of the total variance in job-based PO, 8.1% of the total
variance in in-role performance, 13.7% of the total variance in
proactive work behavior, 26.3% of the total variance in terri-
torial behavior, and 20.4% of the total variance in knowledge
hiding. In particular, the two-level structural model estimates
show that after ruling out the variances due to team member-
ship, job engagement is positively related to job-based PO (␥⫽
.57, SE ⫽.12, p⬍.01, H1) at the employee level. Job-based PO
has significant and positive effects on in-role performance (␥⫽
.19, SE ⫽.09, p⬍.05, H2a) and territorial behavior (␥⫽.59,
SE ⫽.14, p⬍.01, H4a). Job-based PO, however, is not
significantly related to proactive work behavior (␥⫽.17, SE ⫽
.10, p⬎.05, H2b) or knowledge hiding (␥⫽.23, SE ⫽.12, p⬎
.05, H4b), even though we found them to be significant at p⬍
.10.
H3 and H5 depicted the indirect effects of job engagement on
workplace outcomes through job-based PO. The results of these
indirect effects are shown in Table 4. The parameter bootstrapping
results show that the indirect effects of job engagement on in-role
performance (indirect effect ⫽.11, 95% CI [.01, .23], H3a) and
territorial behavior (indirect effect ⫽.33, 95% CI [.15, .56], H5a)
Table 1
Study 1
a
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Studied Variables
Variable Mean SD 1234 5 678
1. T1 JE 5.94 0.52 —
2. T2 Job-based PO 4.41 0.86 .34
ⴱⴱ
—
3. T3 Avoidance 4.78 1.12 .25
ⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱ
—
4. T3 Approach 4.32 1.08 .23
ⴱⴱ
.39
ⴱⴱ
.35
ⴱⴱ
—
5. T3 Sup-rated Perf 5.33 0.99 .12 .18
ⴱ
.09 .07 —
6. T3 Sup-rated Proa 5.50 1.03 .18
ⴱ
.17
ⴱ
.10 .08 .85
ⴱⴱ
—
7. T3 Self-rated TB 4.04 1.39 .13 .39
ⴱⴱ
.35
ⴱⴱ
.48
ⴱⴱ
⫺.02 ⫺.02 —
8. T3 Self-rated KH 3.31 1.23 .18
ⴱ
.22
ⴱⴱ
.30
ⴱⴱ
.40
ⴱⴱ
⫺.05 ⫺.01 57
ⴱⴱ
—
Note. JE ⫽Job engagement; Approach ⫽Approach motivation; Avoidance ⫽Avoidance motivation;
Supervisor-rated Perf, Proa, and OCB refer to employees’ in-role performance, proactive work behavior, and
OCBs assessed by their supervisors; Self-rated TB, KH, and Unethic refer to employees’ territorial behavior,
knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior reported by themselves. T1, T2, and T3 refer to the time wave
variables collected at phases 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
a
N⫽178 employees and 86 supervisors.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8WANG, LAW, ZHANG, LI, AND LIANG
were positive and significant. However, job engagement has no
significant indirect effect on proactive work behavior (indirect
effect ⫽.10, 95% CI [⫺.02, .23], H3b) or knowledge hiding
(indirect effect ⫽.13, 95% CI [⫺.01, .29], H5b) through job-based
PO. Therefore, H3a and H5a were supported but H3b and H5b
were not.
H6 and H7 suggested a conditional indirect effect model, in
which employees’ trait motivations moderate the indirect effect of
job engagement on workplace outcomes via job-based PO. As
summarized in the upper part of Table 4, the MSEM results show
that approach motivation has no significant moderating effects on
the indirect effects of job engagement on in-role performance
(conditional indirect effect conditional indirect effect ⫽.10, 95%
CI [⫺.06, .29], H6a) or proactive work behavior (conditional
indirect effect ⫽.17, 95% CI [⫺.02, .40], H6b) via job-based PO.
However, avoidance motivation significantly moderates the indi-
Table 2
Study 2
b
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations Among Studied Variables
Variable Mean SD 1234 5 678910
1. T1 JE 5.73 .75 —
2. T2 Job-based PO 4.95 .93 .37
ⴱⴱ
—
3. T2 Avoidance 3.74 1.21 .01 .04 —
4. T2 Approach 4.46 1.04 .30
ⴱⴱ
.40
ⴱⴱ
.20
ⴱⴱ
—
5. T3 Sup-rated Perf 5.63 .89 .22
ⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱ
.04 .09 —
6. T3 Sup-rated Proa 4.06 .75 .13
ⴱ
.23
ⴱⴱ
.02 .14
ⴱ
.64
ⴱⴱ
—
7. T3 Sup-rated OCB 5.07 1.00 .17
ⴱⴱ
.25
ⴱⴱ
.08 .13
ⴱ
.57
ⴱⴱ
.53
ⴱⴱ
—
8. T3 Self-rated TB 2.75 1.12 .11
ⴱ
.29
ⴱⴱ
.29
ⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱ
.04 .05 .02 —
9. T3 Self-rated KH 2.55 .96 .02 .17
ⴱⴱ
.25
ⴱⴱ
.15
ⴱⴱ
⫺.02 .02 ⫺.05 .64
ⴱⴱ
—
10. T3 Self-rated Unethic 2.42 .99 .04 .21
ⴱⴱ
.30
ⴱⴱ
.29
ⴱⴱ
.03 .03 ⫺.01 .68
ⴱⴱ
.67
ⴱⴱ
—
Note. JE ⫽Job engagement; Approach ⫽Approach motivation; Avoidance ⫽Avoidance motivation; Supervisor-rated Perf, Proa, and OCB refer to
employees’ in-role performance, proactive work behavior, and OCBs assessed by their supervisors; Self-rated TB, KH, and Unethic refer to employees’
territorial behavior, knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior reported by themselves. T1, T2, and T3 refer to the time wave variables collected
at phases 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
b
N⫽301 employees and 72 supervisors.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
Table 3
Confirmatory Factory Analysis Results for Model Comparison in Studies1&2
Study/Model
2
df ⌬
2
CFI TFI RMSEA
Study 1
a
Eight factor (JE, PO, and 4 DVs moderated by 2 moderators) 357.88
ⴱⴱ
224 — .96 .95 .06
Seven factor (Combine JE & PO) 561.53
ⴱⴱ
231 203.65
ⴱⴱ
.90 .88 .09
Six factor (combine Perf & Proa & Appr) 671.69
ⴱⴱ
237 313.81
ⴱⴱ
.86 .84 .10
Six factor (combine avoidance & KH & TB) 777.76
ⴱⴱ
237 419.88
ⴱⴱ
.83 .80 .11
Five factor (combine JE & PO AND combine Perf & Proa & Appr) 870.24
ⴱⴱ
242 512.36
ⴱⴱ
.80 .77 .12
Five factor (combine JE & PO AND combine TB & KH & Avoid) 965.00
ⴱⴱ
242 607.12
ⴱⴱ
.77 .74 .13
Three factor (combine JE & PO AND combine Perf & Proa & Appr AND combine TB &
KH & Avoid) 1251.69
ⴱⴱ
249 893.81
ⴱⴱ
.68 .65 .15
Two factor (combine JE & PO & Perf & Proa & Appr AND combine TB & KH & Avoid) 1588.05
ⴱⴱ
251 1230.17
ⴱⴱ
.58 .54 .17
Single factor 2542.16
ⴱⴱ
252 2184.28
ⴱⴱ
.28 .21 .23
Study 2
b
Ten factor (JE, PO, and 6 DVs moderated by 2 Moderators) 705.85
ⴱⴱ
360 — .95 .94 .06
Nine factor (combine JE & PO) 1261.17
ⴱⴱ
369 555.31
ⴱⴱ
.87 .85 .09
Eight factor (combine Perf & Proa & OCB) 1245.97
ⴱⴱ
377 540.11
ⴱⴱ
.87 .85 .09
Eight factor (combine TB & KH & Unethic) 1073.61
ⴱⴱ
377 367.75
ⴱⴱ
.90 .88 .08
Seven factor (combine JE & PO AND combine Perf & Proa & OCB) 1623.86
ⴱⴱ
384 918.00
ⴱⴱ
.82 .80 .10
Seven factor (combine JE & PO AND combine TB & KH & Unethic) 1801.03
ⴱⴱ
384 1095.17
ⴱⴱ
.79 .77 .11
Six factor (combine JE & PO AND combine Perf & Proa & OCB & Appr) 2439.71
ⴱⴱ
390 1733.85
ⴱⴱ
.70 .67 .13
Six factor (combine JE & PO AND combine TB & KH & Unethic & Avoid) 2291.07
ⴱⴱ
390 1585.21
ⴱⴱ
.72 .69 .13
Five factor (combine JE & PO & Perf & Proa & OCB & Appr) 3029.65
ⴱⴱ
395 2323.79
ⴱⴱ
.62 .58 .15
Two factor (combine JE & PO & Perf & Proa & OCB & Appr AND combine TB & KH &
Unethic & Avoid) 4041.20
ⴱⴱ
404 3335.34
ⴱⴱ
.47 .43 .17
Single factor 5791.09
ⴱⴱ
405 5058.23
ⴱⴱ
.21 .16 .21
Note.JE⫽Job engagement; PO ⫽Job-based PO; Appr ⫽Approach motivation; Avoid ⫽Avoidance motivation. TB, KH, and Unethic refer to
employees’ territorial behavior, knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior reported by participants themselves. Perf, Proa, and OCB refer to
employees’ in-role performance, proactive work behavior, and OCBs assessed by their supervisors.
a
N⫽178.
b
N⫽301.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
Table 4
Multi-Level Structural Equation Modeling Results for Dual-Edged Sword Effects of Job Engagement via Job-Based PO
Supervisor-rated workplace outcomes (within-team) Self-rated workplace outcomes
In-role performance
Proactive work
behavior OCB Territorial behavior Knowledge hiding
Pro-job unethical
behavior
Variable ␥SE 95% CI ␥SE 95% CI ␥SE 95% CI ␥SE 95% CI ␥SE 95% CI ␥SE 95% CI
Study 1
a
Indirect effects .11 .06 [.01, .23] .10 .07 [⫺.02, .23] .33 .11 [.15, .56] .13 .07 [⫺.01, .29]
Conditional indirect effects
High Avo 1.28 .42 [.54, 2.21] 1.07 .40 [.37, 1.95]
Low Avo .90 .28 [.42, 1.50] .69 .25 [.25, 1.25]
Difference .38 .15 [.11, .70] .38 .16 [.11, .71]
High App .38 .25 [⫺.07, .92] .54 .29 [.02, 1.17]
Low App .28 .16 [⫺.01, .62] .37 .19 [.03, .78]
Difference .10 .09 [⫺.06, .29] .17 .10 [⫺.02, .40]
Study 2
b
Indirect effects .09 .04 [.02, .16] .04 .02 [⫺.01, .09] .09 .03 [.02, .16] .14 .03 [.08, .20] .07 .02 [.03, .12] .10 .04 [.03, .17]
Conditional indirect effects
High Avo .53 .12 [.31, .77] .41 .11 [.20, .65] .46 .13 [.22, .74]
Low Avo .34 .07 [.21, .48] .24 .06 [.13, .37] .28 .08 [.14, .45]
Difference .19 .06 [.10, .30] .17 .06 [.07, .28] .18 .06 [.07, .30]
High App .33 .24 [⫺.12, .81] .15 .18 [⫺.20, .52] .42 .19 [.07, .80]
Low App .24 .15 [⫺.01, .54] .11 .11 [⫺.11, .34] .29 .12 [.07, .54]
Difference .09 .09 [⫺.08, .27] .04 .07 [⫺.09, .18] .13 .07 [⫺.01, .27]
Note. App ⫽Approach motivation; Avo ⫽Avoidance motivation. High and Low refer to one standard deviation above and below the mean value of avoidance/approach. For both Study 1 and Study
2, the indirect effects and conditional indirect effects were tested using two-level modeling in Mplus 7.4 with 20,000 times of parameter bootstrapping in RStudio 1.136. ␥and SE refer to the
unstandardized parameter estimates and their corresponding standard errors, respectively. 95% CI refers to 95% confidence intervals.
a
N⫽178.
b
N⫽301.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 WANG, LAW, ZHANG, LI, AND LIANG
rect effects of job engagement on both territorial behavior (condi-
tional indirect effect ⫽.38, 95% CI [.11, .70], H7a) and knowl-
edge hiding (conditional indirect effect ⫽.38, 95% CI [.11, .71],
H7b) via job-based PO. Figures 2 and 3 show that employees who
have stronger avoidance motivation exhibit more territorial behav-
ior and are more likely to hide job-related information from others.
Therefore, H7a and H7b were supported, but H6a and 6b were not.
Study 2
We conducted Study 2, another multiwave, multisource survey
study, to replicate and generalize the results of Study 1 and to test
and extend two additional consequences (i.e., OCBs and pro-job
unethical behavior) of job engagement through job-based PO.
Method
Sample and procedure. In Study 2, we invited 465 employ-
ees in an electronic company in southern China to participate in
our online survey. Our participants included technical engineers,
technicians, customer service engineers, research and development
workers, human resource practitioners, and general clerical sup-
port workers. Adopting Ployhart and Vandenberg’s (2010) sug-
gestion, we changed our time interval from three weeks in Study
1 to two weeks in Study 2, to alleviate concerns about time effects.
We asked participants to report their job engagement and demo-
graphics at Time 1, job-based PO and approach and avoidance
motivations at Time 2, and their territorial behavior, knowledge
hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior at Time 3. At Time 3, we
also asked supervisors to assess the participants’ in-role perfor-
mance, proactive work behavior, and OCBs. As in Study 1, our
sample was not complicated by cross-nesting. Each supervisor was
only in charge of one team and no participant belonged to more
than one team.
Our final sample consisted of 301 employees nested in 72 teams,
with a team size around 4.17. The overall response rate was 64.7%.
Among the employees, 77.4% were male. The mean age was 31.94
(SD ⫽5.66). Just over a third (34%) of the participants were
entry-level employees, and 94% had at least a bachelor degree.
4
Measures. As in Study 1, we followed a translation and
back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1986) and used a 7-point Lik-
ert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree).
4
As in Study 1, we collected employees’ demographic information,
including their age, sex, education, and job position in Study 2. The result
patterns were virtually the same whether these demographic variables are
included or not. For simplicity, we report results without control variables
in our model.
Figure 2. The moderating effect of avoidance motivation on territorial
behavior in Studies 1 and 2.
Figure 3. The moderating effect of avoidance motivation on knowledge
hiding in Studies 1 and 2.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
We measured job engagement, job-based PO, territorial behavior,
knowledge hiding, approach, and avoidance motivations, using the
same scales as in Study 1. Because our sample consisted of various
types of staff in Study 2, we referred to personal knowledge, ideas,
and work outcome as target objects for job ownership and territo-
rial behavior. Specifically, to measure territorial behavior, respon-
dents were instructed to think of the “objects” (e.g., personal
knowledge, ideas, and work outcomes) that were critical to their
job and to answer the questions of territorial behaviors with these
objects in mind.
In-role performance. We used Eisenberger et al.’s (2010)
five-item scale to measure employees’ in-role performance. A
sample item was: “This employee fulfills responsibilities specified
in his/her job description.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
.89.
Proactive work behavior. Because the participants in Study 2
held different jobs, we used a more general measure of proactive
work behavior using Griffin et al.’s (2007) three-item scale. A
sample item was: “This employee initiates better ways of doing
your core tasks.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .85.
OCBs. We used Wayne, Shore, and Liden’s (1997) seven-item
scale measuring OCBs. A sample item was: “This employee vol-
unteers to do things not formally required by the job.” The Cron-
bach’s alpha coefficient was .85.
Pro-job unethical behavior. Employees’ pro-job unethical be-
havior was adapted from Thau et al.’s (2015) five-item scale of
progroup unethical behavior. A sample item was: “I would pur-
posely not include others in the work group, to make myself more
valuable.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .85.
Preliminary analyses. As in Study 1, the design of Study 2
involved employees nested in teams. We first conducted
ANOVA and calculated ICC(1)s for the outcome variables to
examine the data structure. The ANOVA results showed that
there are significant variances explained at supervisor level, for
supervisor-rated in-role performance, F(71, 300) ⫽1.68, p⬍
.01, supervisor-rated proactive work behavior, F(71, 300) ⫽
2.44, p⬍.01, and supervisor-rated OCBs, F(71, 300) ⫽1.67,
p⬍.01. The estimated ICC(1)s for supervisor-rated in-role
performance, proactive work behavior, and OCBs were .14, .26,
and .14, respectively. The ANOVA results also showed significant
variances at the supervisor level for self-reported territorial behav-
ior, F(71, 300) ⫽1.69, p⬍.01, and knowledge hiding, F(71,
300) ⫽1.44, p⬍.05, but not for pro-job unethical behavior, F(71,
300) ⫽1.20, p⬎.05. The estimated ICC(1)s for self-reported
territorial behavior and knowledge hiding were .14 and .09, re-
spectively. Because of the nested structure of the data, we tested
our hypotheses using MSEM, by controlling between-level vari-
ances of all the supervisor-rated outcome variables and self-
reported territorial behavior and knowledge hiding that were sig-
nificantly explained by between-team level factors.
As in Study 1, we also created three parcels for each latent
variable in Study 2 and conducted CFAs to examine our measure-
ment model before we tested our hypotheses. The CFAs summa-
rized at the bottom of Table 3 showed that our hypothesized
10-factor model fitted the data better than other, more parsimoni-
ous, models.
Hypotheses testing. Pseudo-R
2
calculated by Snijders and
Bosker’s (1994) formulas showed that predictors included in the
model accounted for 17.5% of the total variance in job-based PO,
13.7% of the total variance in in-role performance, 7.6% of the
total variance in proactive work behavior, 11.3% of the total
variance in OCB, 20.5% of the total variance in territorial behav-
ior, 16.4% of the total variance in knowledge hiding, and 19.3% of
the total variance in pro-job unethical behavior.
Table 2 shows the bivariate correlations among the variables
explored in Study 2. The MSEM analysis results summarized at
the bottom of Table 4 provided support for H2c, H3c, H4c, and
H5c. They also replicated the findings in Study 1, supporting H1,
H2a, H3a, and H4a, but not H3b. In particular, job engagement
was found to be significantly and positively related to job-based
PO (␥⫽.47, SE ⫽.06, p⬍.01, H1). Job-based PO was
significantly and positively related to employees’ in-role perfor-
mance (␥⫽.18, SE ⫽.07, p⬍.05, H2a), OCBs (␥⫽.18, SE ⫽
.07, p⬍.01, H2c), territorial behavior (␥⫽.29, SE ⫽.06, p⬍.01,
H4a), knowledge hiding (␥⫽.15, SE ⫽.05, p⬍.01, H4b), and
pro-job unethical behavior (␥⫽.20, SE ⫽.07, p⬍.01, H4c).
However, job-based PO was only significantly related to employ-
ees’ proactive work behavior at p⬍.10 (␥⫽.08, SE ⫽.05, p⬍
.10, H2b).
The MSEM analysis and parameter bootstrapping results of
Study 2 (the bottom of Table 4) also revealed positive and signif-
icant indirect effects of job engagement on in-role performance
(indirect effect ⫽.09, 95% CI [.02, .16], H3a), OCBs (indirect
effect ⫽.09, 95% CI [.02, .16], H3c), territorial behavior
(indirect effect ⫽.14, 95% CI [.08, .20], H5a), knowledge
hiding (indirect effect ⫽.07, 95% CI [.03, .12], H5b), and
pro-job unethical behavior (indirect effect ⫽.10, 95% CI [.03,
.17], H5c) through job-based PO. However, job engagement had
no significant indirect effect on proactive work behavior (indirect
effect ⫽.04, 95% CI [⫺.01, .09], H3b) through job-based PO.
Consistent with the results of Study 1, we found that approach
motivation had no significant moderating effects on the indirect
effect of job engagement on in-role performance (conditional
indirect effect ⫽.09, 95% CI [⫺.08, .27], H6a), proactive work
behavior (conditional indirect effect ⫽.04, 95% CI [⫺.09, .18],
H6b), or OCBs (conditional indirect effect ⫽.13, 95% CI [⫺.01,
.27], H6c). Avoidance motivation had significant moderating im-
pacts on the indirect effects of job engagement on territorial
behavior (conditional indirect effect ⫽.19, 95% CI [.10, .30],
H7a), knowledge hiding (conditional indirect effect ⫽.17, 95% CI
[.07, .28], H7b), and pro-job unethical behavior (conditional indi-
rect effect ⫽.18, 95% CI [.07, .30], H7c).
The lower parts of Figures 2 and 3 and Figure 4 depict the
moderation effects in Study 2. These effects indicate that for
employees who are more avoidance-oriented, job-based PO leads
to more job-related knowledge hiding, territorial behavior, and
pro-job unethical behavior. H7a–7c was therefore supported, but
not H6a–6c. All the estimates of the hypothesized relationships
among the variables are summarized in Figure 5. The estimates of
Study 1 are presented on the left side of “/” and the results of Study
2 are on the right side of “/”.
Discussion
Integrating the extended self theory and the literature on psy-
chological ownership as our theoretical framework, we theoreti-
cally link job engagement to both positive workplace outcomes
(in-role performance, proactive work behavior, and OCBs) and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12 WANG, LAW, ZHANG, LI, AND LIANG
negative workplace outcomes (territorial behavior, knowledge hid-
ing, and pro-job unethical behavior) via job-based PO. The results
from two multiwave multisource studies revealed that the effect of
job engagement on employees’ negative workplace outcomes via
job-based PO was moderated by employees’ avoidance orienta-
tion. Employees with stronger avoidance motivation are more
likely to resort to negative workplace behaviors such as territorial
behavior, knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior to
protect their job ownership. However, it seems that as long as
engaged employees have invested their self in their jobs and
developed psychological ownership of their jobs, they will perform
positive workplace behaviors to improve their extended self, re-
gardless of their approach orientation.
Theoretical Implications
This study makes several theoretical contributions to the field.
First, we supplement previous studies on job engagement by
exploring the double-edged effects of job engagement in the work-
place. Job engagement is considered as a prototype of positive
organizational behaviors (e.g., Kahn, 1990, 1992). Most previous
studies have focused either on the positive outcomes of job en-
gagement in organizations or on factors promoting engagement at
work (e.g., Barrick et al., 2015; Rich et al., 2010). More recently,
scholars have started to examine the negative consequences of job
engagement (e.g., Halbesleben et al., 2009; Rothbard, 2001). It has
Figure 4. The moderating effect of avoidance motivation on pro-job
unethical behavior in Study 2.
Figure 5. Multilevel path-analysis results for Studies 1 and 2. All the path estimates on the left of each pair
are from Study 1 and the estimates on the right are from Study 2. “--” indicates a relationship that was not
available to be modeled in Study 1. n.s. refers to a not significant estimate.
†
p⬍.10.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
13
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
been shown that job engagement is positively related to family
depletion and work interference with the family (Halbesleben et
al., 2009; Rothbard, 2001). However, our knowledge of the pos-
sible negative effects of job engagement on workplace outcomes is
very limited. This paper establishes a link between job engagement
and both positive and negative workplace outcomes, and demon-
strates that job engagement can simultaneously motivate employ-
ees to engage in both positive and negative workplace behaviors.
As a result, we have extended previous studies of the consequences
of job engagement by identifying the benefits and costs of job
engagement in the work setting and depicting a more holistic
picture of the effects of job engagement.
Second, we contribute to the extended self framework by build-
ing the linkages of two important psychological variables: job
engagement and job-based PO. Nearly all previous studies con-
ducted within the extended self framework have theoretically
focused on the role of self-investment in developing psychological
ownership in organizations while ignoring the role of job engage-
ment, which captures self-investment at work and has strong
practical implications in organizations (e.g., Kahn, 1990, 1992;
Rich et al., 2010). As far as self-investment is concerned, these two
streams of research have remained largely distinct. By integrating
job engagement into the development process of job-based PO, we
contribute to the extended self framework by extending the ante-
cedents of self-extension to a specific and important concept: job
engagement. We also propose job-based PO as an underlying
mechanism linking job engagement and its positive and negative
workplace outcomes. By doing so, we contribute to a better un-
derstanding of the nomological network of the extended self theory
when applied in the workplace.
Finally, although previous studies have explored the boundary
conditions of job engagement on positive and negative outcomes,
they have shed little light on the motives that influence positive or
negative workplace behaviors on the part of particular individuals.
Our results suggest that avoidance motivation has important im-
plications for the way in which job-based PO is evaluated by
employees, whereas approach motivation does not. In this respect,
the findings of this study not only contribute to the extended self
theory by extending the research stream on psychological owner-
ship through identifying the moderators, but also help to identify
the situations where job engagement is more likely to induce
negative workplace consequences, further extending our under-
standing of the negative impacts of job engagement.
Practical Implications
Our findings have the following implications for practitioners.
First, our results suggest that managers should be aware of the
potential negative consequences of employees’ job engagement,
such as territorial behavior, knowledge hiding, and pro-job uneth-
ical behavior. As job engagement is normally assumed to have
predominantly positive impacts, managers have strong motives to
encourage employees to be engaged in their jobs. Our findings are
cautionary reminders that engaged employees may generate neg-
ative workplace behaviors. Managers should pay attention to this
possibility and try to reduce the negative behaviors of engaged
employees. For example, they could try to establish a high-trust
environment to foster the perception that workers respect each
other’s ownership (Brown, Crossley, & Robinson, 2014).
Second, based on our findings on the moderating roles of
individuals’ motivational foci, managers should be mindful of
employees with high avoidance motivations. When these employ-
ees become highly engaged in their jobs, they display an even
stronger tendency to exhibit detrimental workplace behaviors,
because avoidance motivation stimulates an engaged employee to
focus on avoiding losses. When engaged employees have strong
avoidance motivation, managers could consider implementing pol-
icies and procedures to discourage the negative workplace behav-
iors which may result.
Third, previous studies have shown that employees with a
growth mindset tend to perceive individual traits as malleable and
have proposed corresponding methods to nurture this kind of
perception (e.g., Dweck, 2006; Heslin & Keating, 2016). We
encourage companies to develop these kinds of training programs
to mitigate the negative effects of job-based PO. Companies might
explain to employees that avoidance motivation can be controlled
or altered. Managers could also create a supportive climate for
employees with high avoidance orientation, for example, by pro-
viding training workshops and interpersonal counseling. This may
reduce their tendency to focus on the negative aspects of psycho-
logical ownership.
Limitations and Future Research Agenda
This study has several inevitable limitations. First, two findings
were unexpected in both studies. Although the indirect effect of
job engagement on proactive work behavior through job-based PO
was not significant, it should be noted that the effect sizes of the
indirect effect on proactive work behavior in both studies were in
the expected positive direction (indirect effects are .10 in Study 1
and .04 in Study 2) and were significant at the .10 level. One
possible explanation is that we have adopted relatively general
measures of proactive work behavior. Future studies might use-
fully focus on specific proactive behaviors that are more directly
related to job-based PO (such as taking charge) when they explore
the relationship between job-based PO and proactive behavior.
Intriguingly, however, the moderated mediation effects of ap-
proach orientation on all the positive job outcomes in both studies
were not significant. One possible explanation is that Elliot and
Harackiewicz’s (1996) trichotomous achievement goal framework
may be more suitable for our model. Elliot (1999) proposed that an
individual’s achievement motivation should be grouped into three
types of goals: mastery, performance-approach, and performance-
avoidance. Engaged employees who have strong job-based PO and
high approach motivation may be strongly motivated to master
their job because of self-extension rather than a concern with
performance improvement. Whether these employees would strive
for performance depends on whether they have a mastery or a
performance goal orientation. Future studies could explore this
possible moderation effect.
Second, we conducted our studies merely in China and did not
take cultural aspects into consideration in our model. To our
knowledge, Peng and Pierce (2015) suggested that feelings of
ownership manifest in a similar way in both collectivistic and
individualistic cultures. Wong and Hogg (2008) also found that
participants revealed both collectivistic and individualistic aspects
of their self and identities when narrating their personal stories
about possessions and their self in different settings in Hong Kong.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
14 WANG, LAW, ZHANG, LI, AND LIANG
However, we are aware of Belk’s proposition (Belk, 1989, p.129)
that “in individualistic societies, we need only elicit individuals’
self-perceptions to assess the extended self, while in societies with
more aggregate identities, perceptions of group identity are more
relevant.” In the light of this notion, we urge future researchers to
be sensitive to the possible cultural influences of collectivism and
individualism on the extended self and psychological ownership.
Third, although people could use what they have to define who
they are, we admit that people may use “doing” and “being” to
define who they are as well. Although we followed the extended
self theory and proposed that job engagement could lead to self-
definition through taking the job as an extension of the self and
have provided empirical support for this theoretical hypothesis, it
is premature to conclude that such self-definition is the only
mechanism between job engagement and double-edged workplace
outcomes. Future studies might usefully consider other self-
definition approaches (i.e., “doing” and “being”) when studying
the mechanisms between job engagement and workplace outcomes
and identify their different boundary conditions.
Finally, in common with the authors of many other published
studies, we may have not done enough to minimize the proportion
of nonresponses when we designed our study. Recent studies
(Newman, 2014; Schafer & Graham, 2002) on missing data have
proposed advanced solutions to maximize the use of data in
analysis. We suggest that future studies might profitably consider
applying the procedures suggested by Newman (2014) for dealing
with missing data, thereby improving the quality of the study
design and the rigor of the research method.
Conclusion
This study extends the current understanding of job engagement
and represents an initial attempt to explore the double-edged
effects of job engagement on workplace outcomes. In particular,
drawing on the extended self framework and denoting job-based
PO as the vital transferring mechanism, we link job engagement to
both positive and negative workplace outcomes. We found that job
engagement contributes to positive work outcomes including in-
role performance and OCBs, whereas the effects of job engage-
ment on negative work outcomes, including territorial behavior,
knowledge hiding, and pro-job unethical behavior, are amplified
by individuals’ avoidance motivation. We hope that our study will
encourage scholars to further explore the consequences of job
engagement in a more comprehensive way and to identify possible
moderators that can alleviate the negative effects or amplify the
positive effects of job engagement.
References
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A
reappraisal. Human Relations, 48, 97–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001872679504800201
Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. (2015).
Collective organizational engagement: Linking motivational anteced-
ents, strategic implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 58, 111–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0227
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing:
The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 9, 64–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10717
9190200900105
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good
soldier: The relationship between affect and “citizenship”. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 587–595. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255908
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 680–740). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind spots: Why we fail to
do what’s right and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400837991
Beaglehole, E. (1932). Property: A study in social psychology. New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 15, 139–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209154
Belk, R. W. (1989). Extended self and extending paradigmatic perspective.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 129–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/
209202
Belk, R. W. (1991). Possessions and the Sense of Past. In R. W. Belk (Ed.),
Highways and buyways: Naturalistic research from the consumer be-
havior odyssey (pp. 114–130). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
Belk, R. W. (2000). Are we what we have? In A. Benson (Ed.), I shop
therefore I am: Compulsive Spending and the search for self (pp.
76–104). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Press.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship
behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. The Academy
of Management Review, 27, 505–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr
.2002.7566023
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments.
In W. J. Lonner, J. W. Berry, W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field
methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Brown, G., Crossley, C., & Robinson, S. L. (2014). Psychological owner-
ship, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: The
critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel Psychology, 67,
463–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12048
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in
organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 30, 577–594.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.17293710
Brown, G., Pierce, J. L., & Crossley, C. (2014). Toward an understanding
of the development of ownership feelings. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 35, 318–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1869
Brown, G., & Robinson, S. L. (2011). Reactions to infringement. Organi-
zation Science, 22, 210–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0507
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research
on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235–255. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.235
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral
activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment:
The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
319–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
C
ˇerne, M., Nerstad, C. L., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes
around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational cli-
mate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 172–192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0122
Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Sheldon, O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral reasoning
to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-
organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1082–
1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000111
Chen, S., Boucher, H. C., & Tapias, M. P. (2006). The relational self
revealed: Integrative conceptualization and implications for interper-
sonal life. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 151–179. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0033-2909.132.2.151
Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Yan, M., Zhou, M., & Hong, Y.
(2013). Self-love’s lost labor: As elf-enhancement model of workplace
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
15
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
incivility. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1199–1219. http://dx
.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0906
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2014). Work engage-
ment: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and
contextual performance [Erratum]. Personnel Psychology, 67, 309–311.
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012).
Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 33, 64– 88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.737
Corporate Leadership Council. (2006, May). The effort dividend: Driving
employee performance and retention through engagement. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational
Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Cram, F., & Paton, H. (1993). Personal possessions and self-identity: The
experiences of elderly women in three residential settings. Australian
Journal on Aging, 12, 19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612
.1993.tb00579.x
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of
things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167611
Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psycholog-
ical ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 38, 163–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2057
Dirks, K. T., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1996). Psychological
ownership in organizations: Conditions under which individuals pro-
mote and resist change. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 9, pp. 1–23).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have
is to be. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. London, UK: Robinson.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moder-
ation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated
path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E.,
Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-
member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The con-
tribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 1085–1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020858
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement
goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance moti-
vation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11031-006-9028-7
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance
achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in
personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804– 818. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804
Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Djurdjevic, E., Chang, C.-H.,
& Tan, J. A. (2013). When is success not satisfying? Integrating regu-
latory focus and approach–avoidance motivation theories to explain the
relation between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98, 342–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029776
Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. C., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy, S., & Heller,
D. (2011). Approach or avoidance (or both?): Integrating core self-
evaluations within an approach/avoidance framework. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 64, 137–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01204.x
Gallup Management Journal. (2005). Unhappy workers are unhealthy too.
Retrieved from http://gmj.gallup.com
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
Grant, A. M., Berg, J. M., & Cable, D. M. (2014). Job titles as identity
badges: How self-reflective titles can reduce emotional exhaustion.
Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1201–1225. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/amj.2012.0338
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role
performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent con-
texts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5465/amj.2007.24634438
Halbesleben, J. R., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A
conservation of resources view of the relationship between work en-
gagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 94, 1452–1465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017595
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. (2002). Business-unit-level
relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and
business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
268–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Heslin, P. A., & Keating, L. A. (2016). Stuck in the muck? The role of
mindsets in self regulation when stymied during the job search. Lead-
ership Quarterly, 53, 146–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joec.12040
Isaacs, S. (1933). Social development in young children. London, UK:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Holt.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work.
Human Relations, 45, 321–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679
204500402
Kamptner, N. L. (1989). Personal possessions and their meanings in old
age. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of aging
(pp. 165–196). London, UK: Sage.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.67.3.341
Kouchaki, M., & Desai, S. D. (2015). Anxious, threatened, and also
unethical: How anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit
unethical acts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 360–375. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0037796
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of
approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation mod-
els. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186–207. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/109442810032003
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors
influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 41–58.
Liu, D., Zhang, S., Wang, L., & Lee, T. W. (2011). The effects of
autonomy and empowerment on employee turnover: Test of a multilevel
model in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1305–1316. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024518
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets,
V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening
variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
Newman, D. A. (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organi-
zational Research Methods, 17, 372–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1094428114548590
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The “good
soldier” syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
16 WANG, LAW, ZHANG, LI, AND LIANG
behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in orga-
nizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen:
A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
Peng, H., & Pierce, J. L. (2015). Job- and organization-based psychological
ownership: Relationship and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychol-
ogy, 30, 151–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2012-0201
Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the orga-
nizational context: Theory, research, evidence and application. Chel-
tenham, UK: Edward Elgar. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9780857934451
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of
psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 298–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378028
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological
ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of
General Psychology, 7, 84–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7
.1.84
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The
theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36,
94–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel
SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological
Methods, 15, 209–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
Rank, J., Carsten, J. M., Unger, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Proactive
customer service performance: Relationships with individual, task, and
leadership variables. Human Performance, 20, 363–390.
Raub, S., & Liao, H. (2012). Doing the right thing without being told: Joint
effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee pro-
active customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97, 651–667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026736
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement:
Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 53, 617–635. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of
possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 504–521. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1086/209414
Rochberg-Halton, E. (1984). Object relations, role models, and cultivation
of the self. Environment and Behavior, 16, 335–368. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0013916584163003
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engage-
ment in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,
655–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094827
Rothbard, N. P., Galinsky, A., & Medvec, V. H. (2000, August). Frustration
and satisfaction at work: Emotion and engagement in multiple tasks. Paper
presented at the National Meeting of the Academy of Management, To-
ronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987). Semantics of ownership: A
free-recall study of property. The Psychological Record, 37, 257–268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03394988
Sartre, J. P. (1969). Being and nothingness: A phenomenological essay on
ontology. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state
of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification:
Defining ourselves through work relationships. The Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 32, 9–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23463672
Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (1994). Modeled variance in two-level
models. Sociological Methods & Research, 22, 342–363. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0049124194022003004
Swann, W. B., Jr., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D., & Ko, J. (2004). Finding value
in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse
groups. Academy of Management Review, 29, 9–27. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/AMR.2004.11851702
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory
of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664– 670. http://dx
.doi.org/10.2307/2089195
Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M. S., & Pillutla, M. M.
(2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and
pro-group unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 98–
113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036708
Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for
good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organi-
zation Science, 22, 621–640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0559
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical
behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of orga-
nizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical
pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769–
780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019214
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings
of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 25, 439– 459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.249
Wagner, S. H., Parker, C. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2003). Employees that
think and act like owners: Effects of ownership beliefs and behaviors on
organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 56, 847–871. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00242.x
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organiza-
tional support and Wayne leader-member exchange: A social exchange
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/257021
Wells, M. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: The
role of office personalization in employee and organizational well-being.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 239–255. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1006/jevp.1999.0166
Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Morales, A. C. (2014). Protect thyself: How
affective self-protection increases self-interested, unethical behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 151–
161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.07.004
Wong, P., & Hogg, M. K. (2008). Symbolic consumption in Hong Kong
Chinese society: Narratives of self and special possessions. European
Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 126–127.
Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader
OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 806– 826. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0022464
Zhang, S., Chen, G., Chen, X. P., Liu, D., & Johnson, M. D. (2014).
Relational versus collective identification within workgroups: Concep-
tualization, measurement development, and nomological network build-
ing. Journal of Management, 40, 1700–1731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206312439421
(Appendix follows)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
17
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP AND JOB ENGAGEMENT
Appendix
Equations to Test the Moderated Indirect Effects Model
We relied on path analytic methods and parameter bootstrapping
techniques to test the statistical significance of indirect effects in
mediation models and moderated mediation models (e.g., Edwards
& Lambert, 2007; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, &
Sheets, 2002). After stripping out the variances of outcomes
caused by the same supervisor rating effect, our model is at the
individual level. The test involved estimating the following two
equations:
PO ⫽a0⫹a1JE ⫹e1(1)
Outcome ⫽b0⫹b1JE ⫹b2PO ⫹b3Motivation
⫹b4PO ⫻Motivation ⫹e2(2)
We substituted Equation 1 into Equation 2 and calculated indi-
rect effects of job engagement (referred as JE) on both positive and
negative outcomes through job-based PO (referred as PO) at high
and low levels of approach/avoidance motivation (referred as
Motivation). We calculated the significance of the indirect effects
by bootstrapping 20,000 times to obtain the distribution of the
parameters and calculating the 95% confidence intervals. Table 4
presents the indirect effects and the conditional indirect effects at
high (one SD above the mean) and low (one SD below the mean)
values of approach and avoidance motivations.
Received August 22, 2016
Revision received May 21, 2018
Accepted May 30, 2018 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
18 WANG, LAW, ZHANG, LI, AND LIANG
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Applied Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
