Ijebr 11 2012 0126 - 077101141242

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research
Psychological ownership in team-based entrepreneurship education activities

Thomas Wing Yan Man Maris Farquharson
Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Thomas Wing Yan Man Maris Farquharson , (2015),"Psychological ownership in team-based
entrepreneurship education activities", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 600 - 621
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2012-0126
Downloaded on: 17 November 2015, At: 14:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 89 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 226 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Ignatius Ekanem, (2015),"Entrepreneurial learning: gender differences", International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 557-577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJEBR-08-2014-0146
Peter Raven, Quan V. Le, (2015),"Teaching business skills to women: Impact of business training
on womens microenterprise owners in Vietnam", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
& Research, Vol. 21 Iss 4 pp. 622-641 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2014-0099
Hemant Kassean, Jeff Vanevenhoven, Eric Liguori, Doan E. Winkel, (2015),"Entrepreneurship
education: a need for reflection, real-world experience and action", International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 21 Iss 5 pp. 690-708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJEBR-07-2014-0123
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:512739 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of

download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm
IJEBR
21,4
Psychological ownership in
team-based entrepreneurship
education activities
600
Received 7 November 2012
Revised 11 April 2014
10 July 2014
29 December 2014
30 March 2015
Accepted 31 March 2015
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research
Vol. 21 No. 4, 2015
pp. 600-621
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1355-2554
DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-11-2012-0126
Thomas Wing Yan Man and Maris Farquharson

Business School, Nottingham University Ningbo China, Ningbo, China
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore psychological ownership (PO) during team-based
projects as part of entrepreneurship education.
Design/methodology/approach The critical incident technique using semi-structured interviews
was adopted on a sample of 20 participants involved in team-based entrepreneurship education
activities. From reported critical incidents interpretation of the participants perceived ownership
behaviour centred on: what participants perceived they owned; when PO occurred; and how they
perceived that ownership.
Findings Different forms of collective and individual levels PO exist as an important element in the
context of team-based entrepreneurship education activities. The form of PO changes at junctures
during different stages of team-based entrepreneurship education activity. Moreover, PO is heavily
influenced by a range of individual and group-based factors, specifically the social interaction at the
start of such projects and self-reflection towards the end.
Research limitations/implications Further investigations might be made on the measures of PO,
and on the relationship between PO and learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education. The impact
of group dynamics and culture on the formation of PO should be addressed.
Practical implications As an important element for effective entrepreneurship education,
PO should be promoted through team oriented, authentic and experiential activities allowing nurturing
and encouraging contacts with various stakeholders. Such activities should also be reflective, allowing
rotation of team roles, and extending over a longer time horizon.
Originality/value This study is an attempt to empirically examine the role of PO in entrepreneurship
project teams. It also contributes to our understanding of the dynamic nature of PO through social
interaction and reflection.
Keywords Entrepreneurial education, Critcial incident technique, Psychological ownership,
Team-based projects
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The concept of psychological ownership (PO), which can be defined as the state of the
mind in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership, or a piece of it, is
theirs (Pierce et al., 2001), has received increasing attention in the field of management
research in recent years (e.g. Avey et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2003; Pierce and Jussila,
2010). While the origin of this concept can be traced back to decades of research in
psychology (Furby, 1978; Heider, 1958), it also has a close connection to the studies of
employee ownership through financial ownership and profit-sharing schemes
(Florkowski, 1987). Pierce et al. (1991) were among the first who distinguished
employee ownership into its formal (legal and financial) as well as psychological
dimensions. According to them, formal ownership is influenced by PO, which is subject
to the nuances of self-perception regarding both ownership status and external influences.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of a research grant of the Nottingham
University Ningbo China for successful completion of this research.
It is further argued that PO towards a target can exist even though there is no legal
ownership because it entails a feeling of possessiveness associated with senses of control,
pride, and responsibility (Vandewalle et al., 1995). PO, therefore, is a distinctive concept
distinguished from other work-related attitudes like affective organisational commitment
(Mayhew et al., 2007). It can be adopted for explaining a range of positive attitudinal,
motivational, and behavioural outcomes unaccounted for by other work-related attitudes
(Vandewalle et al., 1995; Pierce et al., 2001; Wagner et al., 2003).
Previously PO has been studied in a range of different contexts, including organisations
and teams (McIntyre et al., 2009; Wagner et al., 2003), education (Wood, 2003), profession
(Pare et al., 2006), and consumer behaviour (Fuchs et al., 2010). In this study, we aim
to explore the presence of PO in the context of team-based entrepreneurship education.
This context was chosen for studying PO because ownership is recognised
as an important element in entrepreneurship education, whether in the form of a simulation
start-up or using real capital of start-up (e.g. Man and Yu, 2009). Moreover,
entrepreneurship education is often presented as a team-based activity, which is
characterised by experiential, authentic, and interactive characteristics (Heinoen
and Poikkijoki, 2006; Schelfhout et al., 2004; Man and Yu, 2007). Such characteristics
may help create a sense of control, self-identity, and responsibility which are
closely related the development of PO. Moreover, in practice, entrepreneurship is
often associated with PO (as in corporate entrepreneurship) and very often
legal ownership (as in start-up enterprises). Therefore, experiencing PO in
entrepreneurship education might help participants stimulate and nurture their
entrepreneurial potential. Entrepreneurship team-based educational activities provide
a suitable context for studying PO.
Recently, there has been growing attention given to PO in its collective form (Pierce
and Jussila, 2010; Caspi and Blau, 2011). This is related to the notion of a shared mental
model of PO which involves a collective belief that all members within a team are
part-owners, responsible for actions and outcomes (Druskat and Pescosolido, 2002).
This collective notion of PO is most prevalent in the context of work groups or project
teams. In this context, different roles of ownership (e.g. as a team member or team leader),
different objects of ownership (e.g. individual roles and tasks, team membership, or the
project as a whole), as well as different forms of PO (e.g. individual level vs collective level),
may co-exist.
Given the above considerations, the main purpose of this study is to examine PO by
studying the functioning of teams as part of an empirical study in entrepreneurship
education activities. We propose three research questions for this study:
RQ1. What forms of PO exist in the context of team-based entrepreneurship
education activities?
RQ2. When does PO occur for participants/teams participating in entrepreneurship
RQ3. How do participants frame PO in the context of team-based entrepreneurship
In this paper, we begin by reviewing the literature related to the pedagogical
characteristics of entrepreneurship education and the concept of PO. We then describe
the methodology of an empirical study to assist in answering the above research
questions. Finally, we present our research results with a number of propositions,
discuss the implications based on the results, and build conclusions.
Psychological
ownership
601
IJEBR
21,4
602
Theoretical background
The pedagogical characteristics of entrepreneurship education
Entrepreneurial education is multi-faceted which serves not only to develop student
skills and awareness for business start-up but also to provide an in-depth
understanding of the entrepreneurial development process, whilst offering scope to
learn various generic skills, attitudes, and competencies (Deuchar, 2004; Keogh and
Galloway, 2004; Tan and Ng, 2006). It stretches further afield than simply promoting
wealth creation by examining the social, economic, and cultural necessities for
improving the livelihood of economically vulnerable people (Kourilsky and Esfandiari,
1997) influenced by and shaping a countrys culture, competitiveness, innovation, and
creativity (Robertson and Collins, 2003). As a result, there has been a raised interest in
entrepreneurship education recently with an increasing number of programmes,
activities, and participants at various levels, worldwide (Finkle, 2007; Solomon, 2007;
Jamieson, 1984; Garavan and OCinneide, 1994; Hytti and OGorman, 2004).
Along with this greater awareness in entrepreneurship education, understanding
the various approaches to its implementation has become an important issue (Hytti and
OGorman, 2004; Pittaway and Cope, 2006). Unlike the traditional functional-specific
curriculum of business education, entrepreneurship education is cross-functional and is
focused on distinctive themes such as business opportunities, creativity, ambiguity
tolerance, and risk-taking propensity (Solomon, 2007). As a result, a different pedagogical
approach from traditional business education is required for entrepreneurship education
(Birdthistle et al., 2007; Peterson, 2004). Johnson et al. (1987), for example, suggested
that an enterprise-teaching approach is characterised by being process-driven,
student-oriented, focused on knowing-how knowledge and skill, and comprised of small
group endeavours, as well as being collaborative, generative, independent, flexible, and
negotiable in the learning process. It is often associated with active learning,
experiential learning, and student-centred learning (Harris, 1993). Henry (2000) argued
that the positive impact of entrepreneurship education is subject to providing an
enabling environment, raising a strong sense of awareness, making entrepreneurship
courses attractive, encouraging real-life situations, and adopting an authentic approach
to teaching. In other words a student-centred approach is the basis of an effective
provision of interactive, problem solving entrepreneurship education programmes.
Entrepreneurship is fundamentally problem solving and people centred.
Moreover, entrepreneurship education is often organised as team-based activities
in an authentic context. These allow the presence of an extensive scope of social
interaction opportunities amongst the team members and also with other people
including mentors, advisors, instructors, and various business stakeholders such as
customers, suppliers and competitors (Collins and Robertson, 2003; Hytti and
OGorman, 2004; Lewis and Massey, 2003; Man and Yu, 2007; Schelfhout et al., 2004).
The presence of various parties is important not only because they provide the skills
and knowledge for entrepreneurship, but also provide support and empathy (Lewis
and Massey, 2003) as well as authentic experience about the real practices during
actual business start-up (Man and Yu, 2007).
Prior studies have addressed the importance of structural and group
characteristics in the effective provision of entrepreneurship education, such as the
need to allow students to interactively experiment in group activities ( Johnson and
Spicer, 2006; OHara et al., 1996). Provision of an authentic context in which to
conduct activities (Audet, 2001; Lewis, 2005; Man and Yu, 2009), and allowing the
participants space and time to interact with each other and different people, has also
been perceived as important (Collins and Robertson, 2003; Hytti and OGorman, 2004;
Lewis and Massey, 2003; Schelfhout et al., 2004). Nevertheless, little attention
has been given to a thorough examination of the psychological state of the
participants in entrepreneurship education activity. In this study, we propose this
psychological state during an entrepreneurship education activity is worthy of our
attention and it can be conceptualised through the construct of PO as explained in the
following section.
The nature of PO
Ownership towards an object is often associated with financial and legal rights.
Rousseau and Shperling (2003) defined ownership as the rightful claim to property
which brings with it certain privileges such as rents or property. However, it is
recognised that there is also an attitudinal or psychological component associated with
ownership, which can exist without the presence of formal ownership (Etzioni, 1991;
Furby, 1991; Pierce et al., 1991). In the theoretical framework developed by Pierce et al.
(2001), it was suggested that the conceptual core of PO is the sense of possessiveness
towards a target/object (i.e. that the object is an extension of the self or group).
Such a conceptual core helps to form different types of PO subject to other constructs
such as organisational identification, organisational commitment, internalisation, job
involvement and job satisfaction (Pierce et al., 2001; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004).
In addition, PO is considered as comprising both cognitive and affective psychological
states, which reflect ones awareness, thoughts and beliefs towards a target of
ownership (Pierce et al., 2009). Such combinations of cognitive evaluation and
emotional attachment may offer a unique exploratory opportunity to study PO towards
organisational outcomes and objects (or in this case towards entrepreneurship
education activities) (Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004).
It is suggested that ones PO can be developed towards a wide range of both
physical and non-physical entities, including organisations, job roles, work tasks,
work space, work tools or equipment, ideas, or suggestions, and team members
(Mayhew et al., 2007). Pierce et al. (2001) theorised that PO is rooted in human motives
of effectance, control and self-identity. PO is therefore influenced by peoples ability
to control a target/object; to know the target/object intimately and a desire to invest
ones self in the target/object for ownership. Wang et al. (2006) further noted that the
motive for PO is grounded upon ones social cognition, efficacy, feeling of control and
self-identity towards an object. In other words, PO is closely associated with knowing,
identifying, being involved and controlling a target/object. Moreover, PO can be externally
determined by work conditions and job context (e.g. in a less-structured work
environment there are fewer routines, more autonomy in job design and evidence of
participative decision making) (ODriscoll et al., 2006).
It is also found that PO may lead to a range of consequences. These include
employee attitudes towards an organisation (Wagner et al., 2003); perception
towards, involvement and participation in a target/object (Pare et al., 2006); employee
citizenship behaviour; extra-role behaviour and organisational commitment
(ODriscoll et al., 2006; Vandewalle et al., 1995); job satisfaction and organisational
commitment (Mayhew et al., 2007). In sum, PO can be considered as a construct of
an attitudinal nature with both cognitive and affective foundations. It is affected
by organisational, job and personal-related factors, and is significant in leading to
a range of motivational, behavioural, and performance consequences. PO is relevant
in a variety of contexts.
Psychological
ownership
603
IJEBR
21,4
604
PO in teams
In the context of teams, PO cannot simply be considered as an individual psychological
feeling. Different individuals will exhibit ownership differently towards an object either
independently or as part of a group. Previous studies have attempted to differentiate
between different forms of PO. For example, the sense of MINE and the sense
of OURS in PO are considered to be different. OURS, for example, indicates
a collective target of possession (Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004). Druskat and Pescosolido
(2002) also argued that PO is considered as a shared mental model, involving
a collective belief that all members own. This view of a shared mental perspective of PO
was echoed by Wagner et al. (2003), who suggested that PO can be conceptualised as
both an individual and a group level construct. In their study of franchise branding,
Hou et al. (2009) attempted to differentiate the self-centred propensity towards PO
(i.e. MY own brand) from the degree of PO (i.e. OUR brand). It is therefore possible
to separate individual from a shared PO at an individual level (Ikavalko et al., 2008).
The presence and the influence of PO in collaborative contexts has also been
examined empirically (Caspi and Blau, 2011; Wang et al., 2006), but the nature of
a collective form of PO has not been clearly studied. In this context Pierce and Jussila
(2010) made a further effort to systematically develop a construct of collective PO by
extending previous works on individual PO. Accordingly, collective PO is grounded
upon a socio-biological sense of possession developed through territorial instinct,
personal experience, cognitive development, socialisation practices, social interaction
and collective efforts. It is differentiated from individual PO in that it represents
a collective realisation of sharing at group level which is different from the constructs
of group-identity towards a target. The key motive of collective PO appears to be social
identity, coupled with other motives such as personal PO of efficacy and effectance,
self-identify and home (Pierce et al., 2001).
Moreover, a sense of collective PO can only exist when there is a collective cognition
from the group members (together as a team), rather than simply a personal feeling of
being in a group so that PO is stimulated by a collective cognition towards a target, not
towards group membership. This collective cognition must be accompanied with
a feeling of control over the target of ownership gained through an intimate knowledge
of the target and/or an investment from all group members to each other. According to
Pierce and Jussila (2010), a target of ownership must offer certain attributes which
draw the interest and attention of the group members collectively. Collective PO is also
influenced by a number of boundary conditions (i.e. group values, beliefs, and
relationships) reflected in the presence of collectivistic values, high levels of task
interdependence, mutual attraction and personal bonding within a team. Caspi and
Blau (2011) argued that not all boundary conditions need to be positive (i.e. based on
competition or conflict). Tension between personal ownership and peer ownership,
especially for knowledge and ideas of the targets, can also positively influence PO.
That being stated, there is existing recognition that individuals may develop PO
towards different targets within an organisation including the organisation itself, jobs,
work tasks, work space, work tools or equipment, ideas or suggestions, and team members
(Mayhew et al., 2007). In fact, whilst Pierce and Jussila (2010) focus on the collective PO of
a single target by a group, multiple targets exist. We argue that it is likely different team
members sense their ownership towards different targets. Certain targets may appeal to
self-centred levels of PO, even under a collaborative condition (Caspi and Blau, 2011).
As a result, multiple subjects and multiple objects of ownership may co-exist in the context
of project teams (Ikavalko et al., 2008), resulting in the presence of different forms of PO.
Method
Critical incident technique (CIT)
The CIT was used to collect data because the focus of the study was on the behaviour
of students in self-defined situations associated with feelings of ownership (McClelland,
1987; Spencer and Spencer, 1993). We also chose this method based on the assumption
that ownership belief is exhibited through ownership behaviour towards an object
(Wagner et al., 2003). Chell suggests that the critical incident technique is a qualitative
interview procedure which facilitates the investigation of significant occurrences
(events, incidents, processes or issues) identified by the respondents, the way they are
managed, and the outcomes in terms of perceived effects. The objective is to gain
understanding of the incident from the perspective of the individual, taking into
account cognitive, affective, and behavioural elements (Chell and Pittaway, 1998;
Chell, 2004, p. 48). During the interview our focus was on the participants emergent PO.
Although we were specifically exploring ownership we could not anticipate what it
was that participants would identify as being owned or when or how that PO was
manifest. We therefore asked participants to elucidate as freely as possible when
answering the following questions supported by multiple prompts:
(1) During your involvement in the project were there at any moments or a time
when you experienced a sense of ownership in the project?
(2) What was it that you felt you owned?
(3) How did you come to have such a feeling of ownership?
In turn we were able to collect interviews of incidents, analyse and interpret the reports
of actions and feelings towards these incidents and interpret the actions taken by
participants to these incidents. Classification systems of critical incidents or ownership
allowed us to order incidents and their effect on participants into categories. Inferences
were then drawn from the interviews about the forms of ownership towards the critical
incidents. For example, when asking the participants to recall their behaviours
related to an incident, we explored what they owned and when and how they felt
ownership. Different forms of PO were thus identified through participants own
reported perceptions.
The CIT has come under investigation and celebration for its flexibility and
diversity of application (Butterfield et al., 2005). Historically the technique has been
used in a variety of subject areas including the banking sector, the hotel sector, the
retailing sector, counselling, marketing, wine retailing, education and teaching
(Marcella et al., 2013; Douglas et al., 2009). CIT has also been successfully used to
uncover participants entrepreneurial realities to explore issues surrounding experiential
learning (Cope and Watts, 2000), in appraising opportunistic entrepreneurs (Chell, 2000)
and critiqued as a valid and reliable technique for capturing the voice of students in higher
education (Douglas et al., 2009).
There are certain recognised strengths to CIT. First, participants identify the
incidents they wish to talk about, not the researcher. Second, CIT embraces a methodology
of induction which allows the data to speak and third, the rich data reflect the original
participants experiences enabling analysis to be conducted from the participants
perspective (Chell and Pittaway, 1998). This interpretivist perspective to CIT additionally
allows insights into both individual cases and across cases and is thus suitable for
comparison (Chell, 2004). Finally, patterns which are recognised after analysis may
enable the building of future theoretical understanding (i.e. understanding PO for future
Psychological
ownership
605
IJEBR
21,4
606
development of entrepreneurial educational activities). The final phase in pattern

recognition and analysis in this study was deriving propositions from the data which
consisted of linking each proposition with supporting evidence from the data, in the form
of quotations and then drawing out a logic for future thinking (Bryman, 2004).
We are aware, however, of some reported weaknesses. Researchers may mis-represent
or mis-interpret data and ambiguities may arise from data coding. Gathering data,
retrospectively, are not reliable because participants recollections of events are affected by
the passing of time. To alleviate these potential weaknesses coding in this study was
always conducted independently by the two researchers. Some categories for coding were
grounded in existing literature (Miles and Huberman, 1994) but new codes and insights
were presented during joint coding meetings. To help with participant recollection
interviews were conducted with participants immediately after their entrepreneurship
educational activity had been completed.
Sample and data collection
The fieldwork was conducted in the coastal city of Ningbo, China which is famed for its
entrepreneurial spirit (Bao, 2006). As with other Chinese cities, entrepreneurship education
is actively being promoted at universities in Ningbo, in the form of entrepreneurship
projects, to enhance entrepreneurship teaching and learning (Zhou, 2010). Our purposive
sample consisted of 20 undergraduate students who took part in two entrepreneurship
education activities (Punch, 2007). Both activities required them to form teams and to
develop a business idea within a fixed period of time (i.e. within one semester).
These activities were conducted on an extra-curricular bases and participation was
voluntary. The two activities were similar in that both were experiential and were related
to identifying and developing a business opportunity and the two groups were considered
relevant to our conceptual framework and appropriate for answering our research
questions (Punch, 2007). At the end of the activities, the teams presented their plans, or the
experience in executing their plans, to a panel of judges and those best performing teams
received awards.
Before conducting interviews, consent was obtained from the conveners of the
respective activities to interview individual students. Participants were invited to
interview after completing their team activity and those who volunteered reflected
a cross section of membership of nine teams holding varying responsibilities (i.e. team
leaders and team members). The participants were then invited to individual interviews
to describe their experiences freely (Bryman, 2001). Before the interview they were
informed that participation was on a voluntary basis and that they could withdraw
from the study at any time without prejudice.
Participants were asked to express themselves in the language of their choice
(English or Mandarin) and interviews were conducted with the help of a bi-cultural
research assistant who was trained in the critical incident interview process and who
could speak English and Mandarin (Von Glinow and Teagarden, 2009). Typically an
interview began with a brief introduction about the purpose of the interview and
asking the participants permission for voice recording. A few general questions were
posed to put the participant at ease and to gather more factual information including
the participants particular role in their chosen entrepreneurship activity and why they
had chosen to participate in it. On average, each interview lasted for about 45 minutes.
In total, 20 interviews were conducted, and the interviewees were labelled from A to
T for subsequent analysis. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and stored as
words documents. Seven participants were team leaders and 13 were team members.
All were undergraduate students studying business, economics, engineering, or

architecture in their university. In all, 11 of them were male and student ages ranged
from 19 to 23 years.
Method of analysis
To help explore the three research questions we focused on identifying the objects
of ownership in the reported critical incidents, recorded when participants felt that
ownership and identified how they felt it. Through a process of reading and re-reading
the scripts we independently extracted the critical incidents that contained
participants expressions of having PO towards an object/target, which served as an
anchor for the presence of PO, so that we could first identify what forms of PO exist
through examining who was reporting incidents of PO and noting their role in the
activity. Second, we identified when these critical incidents happened. Third, we
attempted to frame how participants were reporting PO examining the relationship
between participants and their environment (i.e. as reflected in the behavioural
description contained in the reported critical incidents). This process was in keeping
with recommendations on CIT analysis outlined by Chell (2004, p. 50).
From the 20 interviews, a total of 70 critical incidents (i.e. PO incidents)
were identified. Objects of ownership and forms of ownership were subject to a cyclical
process of analysis (Saldaa, 2013). Coding, conceptualising, cataloguing, re-coding,
evaluating and finally theming the data continued until the incidents from all 20 interview
transcripts were analysed (Bryman, 2004). The two authors conducted coding
independently and discrepancies were subjected to discussion until consensus was
agreed. Independently we identified critical incidents of ownership to be associated
with the project itself; student roles in the project; project goals; the process of project
development; project responsibilities; participation in the project; creation of the project;
development of the project, etc. We created a master spread sheet to record our findings
and to capture and store narratives identifying critical incidents. Individual students
reported multiple critical incidents in their narratives, about the same project,
at different stages of their project development (e.g. during project start-up, division
of project responsibilities and project outcomes) as reflected in column 2 of Table I
(i.e. targets of ownership).
Findings
Framing what forms PO exist
Having established the critical incidents of PO we then identified the forms of PO
through examining who in the team was reporting PO and recording their role in the
project. We did that mainly through examining their expressions of PO towards
the incident. If the participant reported, for example, that I feel that the project belongs
to US when he/she reported his/her involvement in the project, then the object of
ownership was the project and the PO involvement was at individual level but with
a group-centred focus (i.e. the project belong to US). This can be differentiated
from a more individualistic focus of PO (i.e. I feel the project belongs to ME).
As a result, different objects and different forms of ownership were distinguished
through participants own perception. In this regard, we followed an example set by
Gartner et al. (2003) who analysed the use of personal pronouns in the identification of
opportunities (Gartner et al., 2003). As a result, three forms of PO were distinguished,
as shown in Table II with examples.
Psychological
ownership
607
IJEBR
21,4
608
Table I.
Critical incidents
of PO
Original coding and frequency of reporting
Project creation and development of the project (9)

Project creation (4)
Project team, membership, and reputation (7)
Project development (5)
Project responsibility, role and task (25)
Project membership (5)
Project experience and process (12)
Project team (1)
Project goal, achievement and outcome (13)
Project team reputation (1)
Project in general (4)
Project responsibility (10)
Project role (10)
Project task (5)
Project experience (6)
Project process (6)
Project goal (7)
Project outcome (3)
Project achievement (3)
Project general (4)
Total: 70
Note: The targets of ownership are later used for comparing different forms of PO see Figure 1
Forms of
psychological
ownership
Collective
group-centred
Individual
group-centred
Table II.
Forms of
psychological
ownership
Final targets of ownership and frequency
Individual
self-centred
Example
We created our project from scratch. We raised this project by
ourselves and grew with it. This is the reason why we feel
ownership of this project (Participant G)
I felt strong ownership when our project was affirmed by this
kind of wise adult (the President of a charity federation) and
felt our effort was worthy and meaningful (Participant L)
I regarded this project as my own and paid more attention to
the overall operation of the project. I think this is an expression
of my ownership (Participant H)
Frequency of
critical incidents
10
33
27
Framing when PO occurs

We then turned our attention to when PO was perceived in the context of team-based
entrepreneurship education activities. In doing so, we conducted further analysis of the
contexts associated with the ownership behaviours that demonstrated different forms
of PO. The finding is shown in Figure 1.
Our analysis has shown that PO occurs along the five types of critical incidents
identified from Table II. They can be further represented as three phrases beginning
from Project Start-Up, to Division of Project Responsibilities, ending with Project
Goals and Outcomes. Around one-third of the participants claimed they felt ownership of
their responsibilities, roles and tasks within the project. Another one-third focused on
ownership of the process of the project team, including project creation and development
through participating in the project. The other noticeable targets included goals,
achievements and outcomes of the project, the team members and the membership within
the project team, as well as the project teams reputation as a whole.
Moreover, we recognised a dynamic about PO, as the form of PO changed according to
the development process of the student entrepreneurial educational activity (i.e. project
Resulting Form of PO:

Collective Level Groupcentred PO
Learning from ownership
Culture of commitment
Key factors:
In-depth social interaction:
task-based and relationship
based
Critical Incident:
Project creation and
development
Resulting form of PO:

Collective Level Groupcentred PO
Key factor:
In-depth social
interaction: informal
interaction and
socialisation based on
familiarisation
Critical Incident:
Team membership and
reputation
Project start-up

Individual Level Groupcentred PO
Key Factor:
Task-based social
interaction: recognition of
team member contribution,
individual identity, group
roles, interdependence, and
team commitment
Critical Incident:
Project responsibility, role
and task
Division of project
responsibilities

Individual Level Self-centred
PO
Consolidation and reflection

upon experience
Key Factors:
Self-reflection of individual
sense of responsibilities and
individual task-based
commitment
Critical Incident:
Project process and experience
Resulting PO:
Individual Level Self-centred
PO
Affirmation of tasks and team
Key Factors:
Self-reflection of commitment
and responsibility to roles
Critical Incident:
Project goal, achievement and
outcome
Project goals and outcomes
Psychological
ownership
609
Juncture for chang in form of PO
Juncture for change in form of PO
Figure 1.
Targets of
ownership and
influences
shaping PO
IJEBR
21,4
610
start-up, division of project responsibilities and project outcomes). In terms of changing

PO, ownership moved from collective level group-centred to individual level self-centred.
During this process two main junctures were crossed where some participants changed
from collective level group-centred to individual level group-centred and from individual
level group-centred to individual level self-centred. We further explore the association of
PO in different types of critical incidents as well as their changes in the following section.
Framing how PO occurs
Given the five types of critical incident indicating when PO occurs and the two
junctures identified (Figure 1), we made a further attempt to explore how PO occurred
in the respective five types of incidents. During this exploration our analysis was
guided by our literature review and evolved from qualitative interpretations of the rich
data we collected. Our approach fitted with the inductive form of research (Cope and
Watts, 2000) and only after there was the systematic interpretation of the data was it
used to generate propositions for future verification (Bryman, 2004).
1. Project start-up: project creation and development. When PO was identified as
a collective level group-centred attitude, we noted the presence of in-depth social
interaction between team members. The intensity of interaction experience when
working and collaborating with team members was deeply profound. A sense of
emotional attachment with the critical incident project creation and development
(Figure 1) was based on a team culture centring on commitment and from what was
learned from ownership as illustrated in this extract:
In my understanding, entrepreneurship is like adventure, collaboration, sacrifice, integrity,
learning, insistence, and so on. We establish this project from the project name, brand name
and production. In the procedure, we all lend money to this project. Not only from an economic
aspect but also for all the things we did [] []. This project is grown up from zero [].
We raise this project by ourselves and grow together with this project (Participant G).
Social interaction has been identified as a crucial contribution to persons satisfaction of

learning (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1996) and allows members to share and validate
information within their social unit with a feeling of certainty, facilitating the formation
of affiliation, building a stronger societal bond by increasing shared beliefs and
increasing a sense of likeness through increased confidence (i.e. raising the project
and growing as a team) (Strangor et al., 2001). Moreover, social interaction in a team
context has been shown to play a critical role in affecting the teams effectiveness (Hare,
1992; Wageman, 1995), as well as on entrepreneurial teams venture success (Lecher,
2001). In this study, collective level group-centred PO, at the project start-up phase of
entrepreneurship team-based education activity, was developed from in-depth social
interaction manifest in displays of commitment including task-based collaboration and
relationship-based experience (i.e. growing from zero to raising the project together).
Moreover, the influence of this kind of entrepreneurial collaboration on collective level
group-centred PO is conditioned upon participants learning about ownership through
their positive and negatives experiences, as shown in the above example (i.e. through
sacrifice and insistence). Therefore, we postulate the first proposition as follows:
P1. Collective level group-centred PO can be developed from in-depth task-based
and relationship interactions during an entrepreneurship education activity.
This relationship is conditioned upon the presence of a culture of commitment
and learning through ownership.
2. Project start-up: team membership and reputation. More noticeably, apart from
displays of commitment, informal relationship-based social interactions among the
team members played a significant role at the critical incident Building team
membership and reputation (Figure 1). Influence was exerted through informal
interactions unconnected to the entrepreneurial educational task so that a stronger
sense of a collective level group-centred PO was developed. The impact of this type of
social interaction is illustrated in the following identified quotes:
Ownership is about making good friends with the team members and collaborating well with
them. We are familiar with each other through study and this helps us to cooperate with each
other in harmony in the project (Participant D).
Wed like to have dinner together to discuss not only project but also our study life in a relaxed
condition. I think the collaboration together with all members makes me feel ownership
(Participant C).
In the above examples making friends and study time allowed team members to
collaborate better and to be familiar with each other. Therefore, for the formation of
the collective level group-centred PO to develop, informal social interaction based on
socialisation and familiarisation play a crucial role in affecting the emotional root
leading its formation. Social interaction with team members, as outlined by Strangor
et al. (2001), enhanced confidence and affiliation of the group and, more importantly,
builds a greater understanding of the target of PO (i.e. to team membership
and reputation). Strengthening social interaction may therefore simulate a sense of
emotional attachment, which in turn leads to a stronger sense of collective ownership,
important at the start of entrepreneurship education activities. A recommendation for
entrepreneurship education activities in the future might be that team work is
conducted with teams who self-select enhancing the possibility of affirmative PO.
According to our findings, social interaction is shown to have a critical role to collective
level group-centred PO leading to the formation of the following proposition:
P2. In-depth social interaction in the form of informal interaction and socialisation,
based on familiarisation, gives rise to collective level group-centred PO during
a team-based entrepreneurship education activity.
3. Division of project responsibilities: project responsibility, role and task. The formation of
individual level group-centred PO was heavily associated with division of Project
Responsibilities, Roles and Tasks (Figure 1). In particular, team leaders often felt that the
team inferred ownership towards the project and created a sense of ownership through
exploring and understanding their own individual roles and responsibilities. This was
especially true when the individual was the one leading or managing the project and team
members. A team manager explained the reason why he had a sense of ownership
towards the team as follows:
To me, having a sense of ownership means that I care more about our teams glory and
reputation (Participant I).
In the above example, although the participant is the focus of action (i.e. I care), he has taken
the team into consideration (i.e. the glory and reputation of OUR team). PO is sensed
through building a role identity associated with caring and protecting team members.
In addition, when a participant worked collaboratively with other team members,
their sense of group-centred PO increased because of the recognised interdependence of
Psychological
ownership
611
IJEBR
21,4
612
their own individual roles with others. Recognition of an individuals role increased
a sense of ownership and was further realised through a process of affirmation and
appreciation by others as illustrated in the following critical incident:
The factor increasing ownership is the role in the project. The role determines the amount and
direction of work. I have to make a schedule for a complete view and distribute the work to
members. At the same time I have to report the process of the project to our board. In that
circumstance I feel strong ownership of this project (Participant I).
Increased commitment to individual roles and increased comprehension of individual

contributions increased feelings of PO, which in turn increased commitment to
the group. Social interaction, particularly with a task-based (i.e. roles) focus led to the
formation of individual level group-centred PO through a process of understanding
the participants own individual role and their interdependence on other team members.
Recognising participants individual contributions and rewarding contributions,
perhaps through promotion, might therefore be a recommendation for future
entrepreneurial educational activities.
In this form of PO, however, the participants own perspective is still the focus of
ownership feelings as confirmed in the following example:
To improve the efficiency of the whole team when some members felt alienation, the manager
and I divided the tasks to the members in a very detailed form [].We also had conversations
with those members who were not active and mobilized their initiative. I could feel ownership
when doing these things (Participant L).
Individual level group-centred PO, therefore, centred on a core value held by the reporting
individual (i.e. caring about team members; their role in the project; the doing of
responsibilities well and recognition of the motivational force of the sense of ownership
enhancing performance). Role status might also increase a sense of PO, an observation
supported by Wageman (1995), giving rise to our next proposition:
P3. Task-based social interaction leads to the shift from collective level group-centred
PO to individual level group-centred PO through the increased understanding of
group roles and team commitment during an entrepreneurship education activity.
4. Project goals and outcomes: project process and experience. In the majority of
identified critical incidents associated with Project Process and Experience participants
displayed an internal drive (or push) and talked of the importance of an individual sense of
responsibility which increased or triggered feelings of PO (i.e. individual level self-centred).
An explanation might be that the entrepreneurship projects during this time were at
a mature level of operation and members knew their roles and held expectations
for themselves and of others. Although PO was centred on self, these participants
displayed a strong task-based commitment to their projects as illustrated in the
following quotations:
Ownership helps to simulate my ambitions [] It is an internal motivation to push me doing
everything to develop the business (Participant A).
[A business man] taught me a lot that doing business is not only for profit but also something
for good. At that moment I felt strong ownership of the project (Participant A).
If there is no ownership involved, I would maybe only finish the work and not have much
passion about it. I will not explore my pro-activeness in doing the job. I think this is a good
spirit that I can use in other projects or future career (Participant N).
The individuality of this form of ownership was attributed to the building of human
capital (i.e. management experience and project outcome) learned from their contribution
to their project. Some influences lay outside of boundaries of the team (i.e. external
stakeholders). Such cognitive evaluations allowed an investment of the self in the project
stressing the nature of PO to be centred on self-efficacy or self-identity (Wang et al., 2006)
(i.e. individual level self-centred PO stimulates ambition). The focus on human capital
enhancement was further explained by one student who saw entrepreneurship education
as being useful for future career development. These observations lead to a proposition
which is not focused on social interaction but self-reflection:
P4. Individual level self-centred PO can be developed from the consolidation
and reflection upon the participants own experiences, responsibilities, and
task-based commitment during an entrepreneurship education activity.
5. Project goals and outcomes: project goal, achievement and outcome. In addition to
consolidation and reflection of experience, we found a pattern indicating that if the
participant felt rewarded for their work then the emphasis shifted from individual level
self-centred PO to individual level group-centred PO. Since these are educational-based
activities compensation for financial ownership or profit-sharing schemes PO seems to
be enacted in behavioural forms associated with psychological rewards or through
self-perception, relationships or exacerbated through feelings of pride, altruism, control
and responsibility. Reward was described as achievement, winning and recognition as
outlined below:
The experience I gained during this process is the best reward for me. I prefer psychological
outcomes than material outcomes (Participant A).
Finally our team won the first place and I felt sense of achievement. At that time I felt
ownership strongly (Participant I).
I will sense achievement if personal or team-based rewards are obtained because its a signal
of affirmation (Participant P).
As shown in P4, changes from collaborative level group-centred PO to individual level

group-centred PO are attributable to individual team members gaining experience and
understanding about their projects and their project roles and goals. In addition to
this pattern of changes, we further contend that changes from individual level
group-centred PO to individual level self-centred PO are attributable to the affirmation
of tasks and team grounded upon self-reflection of individual participants experiences
of the processes involved in the project and ultimately in the attainment of project goals
and rewards. Ownership thus becomes a result of reflective learning which in turn
influences the dynamics of PO, indicating that future entrepreneurial group activities
should build in time for reflection on learning. Based on this analysis, we can conclude
with the last proposition:
P5. The affirmation of experience, project role and goals leads to changes from
individual level group-centred PO to individual level self-centred PO.
Discussion
The role of social interaction
It is noted that the social process that takes place in work groups is a vital factor that
leads to the formation of PO (Wagner et al., 2003). As discussed earlier, Pierce and
Psychological
ownership
613
IJEBR
21,4
614
Jussila (2010) have highlighted the importance of a group process in their conceptualisation
of the boundary conditions for collective PO. This has been empirically examined recently.
Caspi and Blaus (2011) studied the effect of collaboration among group members on PO
and Bernhard and ODriscolls (2011) studied the importance of leadership styles in
affecting the formation of PO.
In our study there was a clear move from collective to individual level PO during
entrepreneurship educational activities. As indicated in P1 we speculate that informal
interaction can enhance collective PO (at start-up) but that self-reflection, as indicated
in P4, can increase a participants individual level PO (especially for leadership roles for
project outcomes). In this study, we induced from the data that the presence of in-depth
relationship-based social interaction amongst team members played a crucial role
leading to the intensification of collective level group-centred PO (Figure 1: project
start-up). This can only happen with a more extended period of time involved in
interaction. The recent authentic leadership literature is also in tune with the latter
proposition and conceptualises two core components of leadership: self-regulation and
self-awareness (Berkovich, 2014).
Moreover, social interaction, especially task-based interaction, such as working and
collaborating with team members and leading and managing the project teams, played
an important role in the formation of group-centred PO through the building
and recognition of a sense of self-identity and acknowledgement attributed to
the interdependence between team members. Such a finding corresponded to the
importance of group members interdependence and the role of collaboration in PO as
suggested by Pierce and Jussila (2010) and Caspi and Blau (2011), respectively.
However, we add a new point by suggesting that a more intensive social interaction,
through regular task-based contacts, has a transformative role in re-forming PO from
a purely group focused PO to an intense individual-centred feeling of ownership
(Figure 1: division of project responsibilities). In addition, the opposite might also be
possible. Because of greater understanding of members roles there could also be
a transformation from a purely individual level PO to individual level group-centred
PO. This can be an interesting proposition for future research.
The importance of self-reflection
The data also revealed that individual level self-centred PO manifests itself as an
internally driven construct as outlined in P4. It is based on an individuals sense of
responsibility and introspective commitment to the self, influenced by a process which
is dynamic during the evolution of the entrepreneurship education activity, changing
from collectivist to individualistic (Figure 1: project goals and outcomes). This process
enabled students to increase their experience (human capital) for future career prospects.
It served as grounds for consolidating and reflecting upon a particular experience
influencing the development of PO specifically at the individual self-centred level. In so
doing individuals exerted their efficacy and effectance, developed their self-identity, and
found a home for attachment (Pierce et al., 2001). Processes, goals and outcomes became
the critical targets of ownership dealt with through subjective analysis.
Conclusions
In this study, we examine the role of PO in a context of team-based entrepreneurship
education activities relying on CIT for gathering data and analysing targets of
ownership. According to the findings, different forms of collective and individual levels
of PO exist as an important element in the context of team-based entrepreneurship

education activities. We also contend that PO, within the context of team-based
activities, is characterised by the presence of multiple subjects (i.e. leader, team
members, and a collective presence), multiple objects of ownership (i.e. different targets
of ownership within the project) in a context which is dynamic (i.e. representing the
different stages of the entrepreneurship education activity) and is governed by
different forms of social interaction (i.e. task-based or relationship-based) and
self-reflection. Therefore, we are able to offer a more holistic understanding about the
collective nature of PO as compared to the current understanding of PO involving
a collective target of possession (Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004), shared mental model
(Druskat and Pescosolido, 2002), and collective realisation of sharing at group level
(Pierce and Jussila, 2010). More specifically, in addition to the individual and collective
forms of PO identified in the literature (Hou et al., 2009; Ikavalko et al., 2008), we have
differentiated three different forms of PO, namely, individual level self-centred,
collective level self-centred and collective level group-centred, which co-exist together
at different stages of the entrepreneurship education activity. These forms of PO are
associated with different cognitive and behavioural factors such as learning, commitment,
social interaction, reflection, and affirmation as postulated in our propositions.
More importantly, our study has demonstrated the dynamic nature of PO which can
shift from one form to another, and the key factors influencing such changes are social
interaction and reflection. Therefore, our study has furthered our understanding of the
dynamic nature of PO. We believe our findings are also applicable to other contexts
involving collaborative team-based activities.
In relation to entrepreneurship education specifically we have shown that PO, as
a psychological state of the participants, is a significant element in the provision
of entrepreneurship education. Our study has supplemented the current literature of
entrepreneurship education which focuses mostly on the structural and group
characteristics of entrepreneurship education (e.g. Audet, 2001; Collins and Robertson,
2003; Hytti and OGorman, 2004; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Massey, 2003; Man and Yu,
2009; Schelfhout et al., 2004). Prior studies have revealed that PO is linked to a number
of outcomes such as involvement and participation, employee citizenship behaviour,
extra-role behaviour, organisational commitment, and job satisfaction (Mayhew et al.,
2007; ODriscoll et al., 2006; Pare et al., 2006; Vandewalle et al., 1995). Therefore, we
postulate that the presence of PO in entrepreneurship education should have
a significant outcome implication which is worthy of further investigation. In fact,
given that ownership is an important element in real-life business entrepreneurship, we
believe that having PO in entrepreneurship education should be essential for
simulating and nurturing students entrepreneurial behaviour in respect to their future
entrepreneurial careers. The sense of ownership should also be significant in the
learning process of entrepreneurship education as the ownership of learning is
considered as having an important role in engaging students in the learning process
(ONeill and Barton, 2005; Stefanou et al., 2004; Wood, 2003). This is particularly true in
action learning (Revans, 1983).
The findings of this study should be particularly relevant to the design of
entrepreneurship education activities in the future. First, we would strongly advocate
team oriented, authentic and experiential activities for promoting PO in projects and
learning. Nurturing and encouraging contact with outside stakeholders (business
people, investors, customers, etc.) has been shown to have a positive effect on PO.
Not all these relationships need to promote positive experiences because we have found
Psychological
ownership
615
IJEBR
21,4
616
that PO also grows out of challenging situations (both relationship-based and

task-based). Some universities already have formalised their approach to reflexive
learning and the benefits claimed might assist students in their learning and appreciation
of the entrepreneurial process (Boyd and Fales, 1983). Within entrepreneurship teams
there might also be room for contemplation about rotating the roles students play
(i.e. peripatetic leadership roles, etc.).
In addition, since PO has the potential to be dynamic in nature involving the
transformation from one form to another, we recommend learning space within
the curriculum for self-reflection. We should recognise development of self-identity in
team situations with interdependence between members involving in-depth social
interaction. In accordance with Gartner (1985), we agree that the entrepreneur in
entrepreneurship is not a solo being. We would encourage the promotion of team-based
and group-initiated entrepreneurship education activities because they help shift the
focus from the group to the self in a dynamic process.
Moreover, one proviso which we would recommend is that team work should be
long term (i.e. a number of months rather than a number of weeks). As a result, students
might benefit from more in-depth social interaction which subsequently leads to
different levels of PO. Not only is social interaction recognised as an important element
for effective entrepreneurship education, we believe such feelings of ownership
(from social interaction) are useful and transferrable to other contexts of learning as
a sense of ownership is considered crucial in the engagement of participants in learning
processes (ONeill and Barton, 2005; Revans, 1983; Stefanou et al., 2004). Also, for future
entrepreneurial education team projects winning, being rewarded and achieving set
goals might be formalised and individual and team effort officially recognised
(i.e. awards, gaining certification, etc.).
However, whilst the subject of this study was student group activities, similar types
of social interaction and forms of PO can be found in other project team contexts and
we believe the findings might be relevant to other organisational work team contexts.
Considerations should, therefore, be taken into account when trying to make use of our
results in other contexts. These include whether there is a clear goal for the team; the
amount of time the project team has known each other; and the influence of other group
dynamics such as leadership, politics and internal conflicts (Bernhard and ODriscoll,
2011; De Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001; Jehn and Mannix, 2001).
This study has provided a foundation for investigating different forms of PO in
team-based activities. Further efforts can be made to refine the current measures of PO
based on this extended understanding as well as on their potential outcomes. Moreover,
specifically related to the research of entrepreneurship education, further studies can be
conducted exploring the relationship between PO and learning outcomes. In this study
we uncovered a relationship among social interaction, reflection and PO without
explicit consideration of different forms of entrepreneurship education activities.
In further studies it might be of interest to examine PO in different entrepreneurship
education activities because the different structural characteristics of different activities
might result in different forms of social interaction. A comparative case study may be of
particular interest. Also, whilst cultural influence on the relationship between social
interaction and PO is speculative it may be an area worthy of further investigation.
In particular, the findings of this study imply that it is imperative to provide time for the
participants to interact with their team members and with various stakeholders. Directly
or indirectly this will lead to the development of a sense of ownership, and will in turn
result in better learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education.
References
Audet, J. (2001), Two pedagogical approaches to entrepreneurship education using an
intention-based model of venture creation, paper presented at the Annual Conference of
the Canadian Council of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Quebec City, October.
Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Crossley, C.D. and Luthans, F. (2009), Psychological ownership: theoretical
extension, measurement and relation to work outcomes, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 173-191.
Bao, S.P. (2006), The modern entrepreneurship in Ningbo, Journal of The Party School of CPC
Ningbo Municipal Committee, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 83-87, available at: http://wuxizazhi.cnki.
net/Article/ZGLB200602018.htm (accessed 21 October 2011).
Berkovich, I. (2014), Between person and person: dialogical pedagogy in authentic leadership
development, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 245-264.
Bernhard, F. and ODriscoll, M.P.O. (2011), Psychological ownership in small family-owned
business: leadership style and nonfamily-employees work attitudes and behaviours,
Group and Organization Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 345-384.
Birdthistle, N., Hynes, B. and Fleming, P. (2007), Enterprise education programs in secondary
schools in Ireland: a multi-stakeholder perspective, Education and Training, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 265-276.
Boyd, E.M. and Fales, A.W. (1983), Reflective learning: key to learning from experience, Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 99-117.
Bryman, A. (2001), Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Butterfield, L.D., Borgen, W.A., Amundson, N.E. and Maglio, A.S. (2005), Fifty years of the critical
incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond, Qualitaitve Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 475-497.
Caspi, A. and Blau, I. (2011), Collaboration and psychological ownership: how does the tension
between the two influence perceived learning?, Social Psychology in Education, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 283-298.
Chell, E. (2000), Towards researching the opportunitic entrepreneur: a social constructionist
approach and research agenda, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 63-80.
Chell, E. (2004), Critical incident technique, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (Eds), Essential Guide to
Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Sage, London, pp. 45-60.
Chell, E. and Pittaway L. (1998), A study of entrepreneurship in the restaurant and caf industry:
exploratory work using the critical incident technique as a methodology: prize-winning
paper from the IAHMS Conference at Sheffield Hallam University, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, November 1997, England, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 23-32.
Collins, A. and Robertson, M. (2003), The entrepreneurial summer school as a successful model
for teaching enterprise, Education and Training, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 324-330.
Cope, J. and Watts G. (2000), Learning by doing. An exploration of experience, critical incidents
and reflection in entrepreneurial learning, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 104-124.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2001), Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 309-328.
Deuchar, R. (2004), Changing paradigms: the potential of enterprise education as an adequate
vehicle for promoting and enhancing education for active and responsible citizenship:
illustrations from a Scottish perspective, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 223-239.
Psychological
ownership
617
IJEBR
21,4
618
Douglas J.A., McClelland, R., Davies, J. and Sudbury, L. (2009), Using critical incident technique
(CIT) to capture the voice of the student, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 305-318.
Druskat, V.U. and Pescosolido, A.T. (2002), The content of effective teamwork mental models in
self-managing teams: learning, ownership, and heedful interrelating, Human Relations,
Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 283-314.
Etzioni, A. (1991), The socio-economics of property, Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality,
Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 465-468.
Finkle, T. (2007), Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty from 1989-2005, Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Florkowski, G.W. (1987), The organizational impact of profit sharing, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 622-636.
Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E. and Schreier, M. (2010), The psychological effects of empowerment
strategies on consumers product demand, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 65-79.
Furby, L. (1978), Possessions: towards a theory of their meaning and function throughout the life
cycle, in Baltes, P.B. (Ed.), Life Span Development and Behaviour, Academic Press,
New York, NY, pp. 297-336.
Furby, L. (1991), Understanding the psychology of possession and ownership: a personal
memoir and an appraisal of our progress, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 6
No. 6, pp. 457-463.
Garavan, T. and OCinneide, B. (1994), Entrepreneurship education and training programmes:
a review and evaluation part 1, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 8 No. 8,
pp. 3-12.
Gartner, W.B. (1985), A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 696-706.
Gartner, W.B., Carter, N.M. and Hills, G.E. (2003), The language of opportunity, in Steyaert, C.
and Hjorth, D. (Eds), New Movements in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, London,
pp. 103-124.
Gunawardena, C.N. and Zittle, R.H. (1996), An examination of teaching and learning processes in
distance education and implications for designing instruction, Research Monograph of the
American Center for the Study of Distance Education, No. 12, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA, pp. 51-63.
Hare, A.P. (1992), Groups, Teams, and Social Interaction: Theories and Applications, Praeger
Publishers, New York, NY.
Harris, A. (1993), Enterprise education in secondary schools: an investigation into teaching
approaches, PhD dissertation, Bath University, Bath.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Heinoen, J. and Poikkijoki, S. (2006), An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship
education: mission impossible?, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 80-94.
Henry, C. (2000), The effectiveness of entrepreneurship training programmes in supporting and
developing aspiring entrepreneurs an investigative study, PhD thesis, Queens
University of Belfast, Belfast.
Hou, S.T., Hsu, M.Y. and Wu, S.H. (2009), Psychological ownership and franchise growth: an
empirical study of a Taiwanese franchise, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 415-435.
Hytti, U. and OGorman, C. (2004), What is enterprise education? an analysis of the objectives
and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries, Education
and Training, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-23.
Ikavalko, M., Pihkala, T. and Jussila, I. (2008), A family dimension in SME owner-managers
ownership profiles a psychological ownership perspective, Electronic Journal of Family
Business Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 4-25.
Psychological
ownership
Jamieson, I. (1984), Schools and enterprise, in Watts, A.G. and Moran, P. (Eds), Education for
Enterprise, CRAC, Cambridge, pp. 19-27.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 238-251.
Johnson, C. and Spicer, D. (2006), A case study of action learning in an MBA program,
Education and Training, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Johnson, C., Marks, S., Matthews, M. and Mike, J. (1987), Key skill: Enterprise Skills through Active
Learning, Hodder & Stoughton Educational, London.
Keogh, W. and Galloway, L. (2004), Teaching enterprise in vocational disciplines: reflecting on
positive experience, Management Decision, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 531-541.
Kourilsky, M.L. and Esfandiari, M. (1997), Entrepreneurship education and lower socioeconomic
youth: an empirical investigation, The Urban Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 205-215.
Lecher, T. (2001), Social interaction: a determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 263-278.
Lewis, K. (2005), The best of intentions: future plans of young enterprise scheme participants,
Lewis, K. and Massey, C. (2003), Delivering enterprise education in New Zealand, Education and
Training, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 197-206.
McClelland, D.C. (1987), Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs, The Journal of Creative
Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 219-233.
McIntyre, N., Srivastava, A. and Fuller, J. (2009), The relationship of locus of control and motives
with psychological ownership in organizations, Journal of Management Issues, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 383-401.
Man, T.W.Y. and Yu, C.W.M. (2007), Social interaction and adolescents learning in
enterprise education: an empirical study, Education and Training, Vol. 49 Nos 8/9,
pp. 620-633.
Man, T.W.Y. and Yu, C.W.M. (2009), An investigation of the roles of social interaction on
perception towards entrepreneurship in authentic enterprise exposures, International
Review of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 207-224.
Marcella, R., Rowlands, H. and Baxter, G. (2013), The critical incident technique as a tool for
gathering data as part of a qualitative study of information seeking behaviour, European
Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Kidmore End
Academic Conferences International Limited.
Mayhew, M.G., Ashkanasy, N.M., Bramble, T. and Gardner, J. (2007), A study of the antecedents
and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 147 No. 5, pp. 477-500.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitiative Data Analysis, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
ODriscoll, M.P., Pierce, J.L. and Coghlan, A.M. (2006), The psychology of ownership: work
environment structure organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 388-416.
OHara, S., Webber, T. and Reeve, S. (1996), Action learning in management education,
619
IJEBR
21,4
620
ONeill, T. and Barton, A. (2005), Uncovering student ownership in science learning: the making
of a student created mini-documentary, School Science & Mathematics, Vol. 105 No. 6,
pp. 292-301.
Pare, G., Sicotte, C. and Jacques, H. (2006), The effects of creating psychological ownership on
physicians acceptance of clinical information systems, Journal of the American Medical
Informatics Association, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 197-205.
Peterson, T. (2004), So youre thinking of trying problem based learning?: three critical success
factors for implementation, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 630-648.
Pierce, J.L. and Jussila, I. (2010), Collective psychological ownership within the work and
organizational context: construct introduction and elaboration, Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 810-834.
Pierce, J.L., Jussila, I. and Cummings, A. (2009), Psychological ownership within the job design
context: revision of the job characteristics model, Journal of Organisational Behaviour,
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 477-496.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2001), Toward a theory of psychological ownership in
organizations, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 298-310.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2003), The state of psychological ownership: integrating
and extending a century of research, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 84-107.
Pierce, J.L., Rubenfeld, S.A. and Morgan, S. (1991), Employee ownership: a conceptual model of
process and effects, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 121-144.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2006), Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the
evidence, Working Paper No. 002/2006, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.
Punch, K.F. (2007), Introduction to Social Research: Quantitiative and Qualitative Approaches,
Sage Publications, London.
Revans, R. (1983), ABC of Action Learning, Chartwell-Bratt, Kent.
Robertson, M. and Collins, A. (2003), Developing entrepreneurship in West Yorkshire: West
Yorkshire universities partnership and business start-up @leeds met, Education and
Training, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 303-307.
Rousseau, D. and Shperling, Z. (2003), Pieces of the action: ownership and the changing
employment relationship, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 553-570.
Saldaa J. (2013), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage, London.
Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F. and Janssens, S. (2004), The use of self, peer and teacher assessment as
a feedback system in a learning environment aimed at fostering skill of cooperation in an
entrepreneurial context, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 177-201.
Solomon, G. (2007), An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States, Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 168-182.
Spencer, L.M. and Spencer, S.M. (1993), Competence at Work: Model for Superior Performance,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Stefanou, C.R., Perencevich, K.C., DiCintio, M. and Turner, J.C. (2004), Supporting autonomy in
the classroom: ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership,
Educational Psychologist, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 97-110.
Strangor, C., Sechrist, G.B. and Jost, T.T. (2001), Social influence and intergroup beliefs: the role
of perceived social consensus, in Forgas, J.P. and Williams, K.D. (Eds), Social Influence:
Direct and Indirect Processes, Psychology Press, Hove, pp. 235-252.
Tan, S. and Ng, F. (2006), A problem-based learning approach to entrepreneurship education,
Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J.L. (2004), Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three
field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behaviour,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 439-459.
Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L. and Kostova, T. (1995), Psychological ownership: an empirical
examination of its consequences, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 210-226.
Von Glinow, M.A. and Teagarden, M.B. (2009), The future of Chinese management research:
rigour and relevance redux, Management and Organizational Review, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 75-89.
Wageman, R. (1995), Interdependence and group effectiveness, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 145-180.
Wagner, S.H., Parker, C.P. and Christiansen, N.D. (2003), Employees that think and act like
owners: effect of ownership beliefs and behaviors on organizational effectiveness,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 847-871.
Wang, Q.Y., Battocchi, A., Graziola, I., Pianesi, F., Tomasini, D., Zancanaro, M. and Nass, C.
(2006), The role of psychological ownership and ownership markers in collaborative
working environment, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Multimodal
Interfaces, Banff, Alberta, pp. 225-232.
Wood, C.M. (2003), The effects of creating psychological ownership among students in group
projects, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 241-249.
Zhou, M.B. (2010), Future education: to foster new generation of entrepreneur in Ningbo,
Southeast Business, 23 October, available at: http://daily.cnnb.com.cn/dnsb/html/2010-10/
23/content_248345.htm (accessed 6 November 2012).
Further reading
Chell, E. (1998), Critical incident technique, in Symon, G and Cassel, C (Eds), Qualitative Methods
and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage, London, pp. 51-72.
Druskat, V.U. and Perscosolido, A. (2003), The content of effective teamwork mental models in
self-managing teams: ownership, learning and heedful interrelating, Human Relations,
Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 283-314.
Flanagan, J.C. (1954), The critical incident technique, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 51 No. 4,
pp. 327-358.
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980), The case for qualitative research, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 491-500.
Pierce, J.L. and Rodgers, L. (2004), The psychology of ownership and worker-owner
productivity, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 588-613.
Corresponding author
Dr Thomas Wing Yan Man can be contacted at: wingyan.man@nottingham.edu.cn
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Psychological
ownership
621

Ijebr 11 2012 0126 - 077101141242

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ijebr 11 2012 0126 - 077101141242

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

Psychological ownership in team-based entrepreneurship education activities

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Thomas Wing Yan Man and Maris Farquharson

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

development of entrepreneurial educational activities). The final phase in pattern

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

All were undergraduate students studying business, economics, engineering, or

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Original coding and frequency of reporting

Project creation and development of the project (9)

Final targets of ownership and frequency

Framing when PO occurs

Resulting Form of PO:

Learning from ownership

Resulting form of PO:

Resulting form of PO:

Resulting form of PO:

Consolidation and reflection

Affirmation of tasks and team

Project goals and outcomes

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Juncture for chang in form of PO

Juncture for change in form of PO

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

start-up, division of project responsibilities and project outcomes). In terms of changing

Social interaction has been identified as a crucial contribution to persons satisfaction of

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Increased commitment to individual roles and increased comprehension of individual

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

As shown in P4, changes from collaborative level group-centred PO to individual level

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

of PO exist as an important element in the context of team-based entrepreneurship

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

that PO also grows out of challenging situations (both relationship-based and

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by University of British Columbia At 14:00 17 November 2015 (PT)

S-ar putea să vă placă și