Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
Psychological Ownership and the Individual Appropriation of Technology
James Gaskin
Case Western Reserve University
[email protected]
Abstract
We use information technology to accomplish a
significant portion of our daily tasks. The way
individuals choose to use technology varies as much as
the outcomes of their usage. Appropriation – the way
that people choose or learn to use technology – has
been explored at a group level to explain group
behaviors and performance. Although appropriation
antecedents and outcomes have been investigated in
many studies, none has attempted to explain the
motivations or factors influencing the individual
appropriation of technology; nor has extant research
discovered the impacts resulting from individual
appropriation. In this exploratory paper, we inquire
within this gap by arguing that appropriation and
psychological ownership are theoretically equivalent.
This new theoretical connection suggests potentially
significant antecedents for individual appropriation,
which have been overlooked.
1. Introduction
Research on technology usage to date has largely
focused on technology acceptance [e.g., 1, 9, 6, 8, 13,
43]. Variations on the technology acceptance model
(i.e., TAM, TAM II, UTAUT) are primarily concerned
with getting people to adopt new technology.
“Computer systems cannot improve organizational
performance if they aren't used. Unfortunately,
resistance to end-user systems by managers and
professionals is a widespread problem. To better
predict, explain, and increase user acceptance, we need
to better understand why people accept or reject
computers.” [8, p. 982].
Twenty years ago, the use of information
technology (IT) in business environments was still in a
formative period. Thus, the focus on increasing general
acceptance of IT was understandable and valuable.
But, in the technology rich environments of today, this
issue is largely passé – managers and knowledge
workers must use technology in order to conduct their
Kalle Lyytinen
Case Western Reserve University
[email protected]
daily business. Nearly every business professional of
today has, willingly or not, adopted IT. We contend
that the locus of study now should not be whether they
adopt technology, but how they use it to get the job
done. Accordingly, in this paper we formulate a model
for the individual appropriation of technology (IAT).
The appropriation of technology has been a notable
area of research in information systems (IS), but this
discourse has almost exclusively been at a group, or
organizational level [see e.g., 14, 31]. Furthermore,
studies interested in factors affecting appropriation
have focused on external influences rather than internal
influences [e.g., 30]. Though external influences such
as institutional structures, social norms, and task
context [14] clearly have an influence on an
individual’s
appropriation
behaviors,
internal
influences, such as desire for control and pleasure,
must also play a role – and possibly a greater role,
because individuals use many IT tools voluntarily and
they expand their use based on intrinsic motivations.
Thus, group level appropriation studies need to be
supplemented with studies focusing on individual
behaviors, if we want to truly understand the effective
use of IT at an individual level. Likewise, individual
level impacts resulting from appropriation remain
unexplored in the literature. However, individual level
impacts resulting from technology usage (such as job
satisfaction, competency, and commitment) have been
shown to have positive effects on performance [25],
and thus, ought to be analyzed.
In this paper we adopt psychological ownership as a
framework for studying the individual appropriation of
technology. Psychological ownership refers to feelings
of possession towards a target object [35]. It is a sense
of “mine.” Similarly, appropriation is the extent to
which users “take possession” of a technology by
making it their own [7]. Users take possession of
technology by using it in ways that best suit their
needs; using some features, neglecting others, and even
creating new uses unintended by the designers [33].
Psychological ownership and appropriation are both
interested in what motivates possession and what the
consequences of the possession are. Thus, in this paper
978-0-7695-3869-3/10 $26.00 © 2010 IEEE
1
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
we make a new theoretical connection between these
two concepts.
Research on the antecedents and consequences of
the individual appropriation of technology has been
surprisingly lacking. No theoretical explanations have
been offered to explain the motivations and
consequences of the appropriation of technology at the
individual level. Thus the research questions we are
pursuing are whether there is a theoretical model that
helps explain the motivations and consequences of the
individual appropriation of technology, what internal
factors affect the individual appropriation of
technology, and what individual impacts may result
from the individual appropriation of technology.
We propose that the individual appropriation of
technology has its foundation in the theory of
psychological ownership. The next section of this
paper examines the theory of psychological ownership
as well as related theories on possession. This is
followed by a review of the concept appropriation and
its uses in the literature. The antecedents and
consequences of psychological ownership are then
applied to the individual appropriation of technology.
Gaps in the research are pointed out and
recommendations for future research are offered.
2. Literature Review
This section discusses and reviews theories and
literature related to psychological ownership and
possession as well as extent research on appropriation.
2.1. Possession and Ownership
Theories on ownership and possession originate
from research in psychology [4, 15, 20, 19, 28, 38],
marketing [5, 2, 17, 27], and management [16, 36, 42].
Our study is interested mainly in the psychological
stream to help understand motivations for ownership,
and the management stream to help understand the
possible consequences of ownership on individual
behaviors in a management context.
Marketing
research on ownership and possession mainly focuses
on brand loyalty, which is not within the scope of our
interest.
There are various reasons for acquiring, obtaining
possession, or seeking to own something. Furby (1978)
– a seminal piece on possession [41] – conducted openended interviews with 270 culturally diverse
individuals of varying socio-economic status, and aged
from kindergartners to 50 year-olds, for the purpose of
understanding motivations for possessive behavior.
A careful content analysis extracted consistent reasons
for possessive behavior resulting in 29 main reasons.
The two most common reasons unaffected by any
demographic factor included "(a) to make possible
certain activities… convenience, or enjoyment… and
(b) positive affect for the object. Both of these factors
were major reasons given at all age levels for why
people have personal possessions" [20, p. 59].
So what does this tell us about people’s motivation
for possession or acquisition? (We use acquisition to
refer to the act of gaining possession, which results in
ownership.) Possessions “make possible certain
activities and pleasures… they enable one to affect
desired outcomes in one's environment" [20, p. 60]. In
other words, an individual is motivated to take
possession of something because he feels that by taking
possession he will be more able, or in a better position,
to bring about more desirable results and more
pleasurable outcomes within the contextual scope of
the acquired object. For example, if I acquire a car, I
am in a better position to go on dates – and this would
likely lead to a “more pleasurable outcome” than if I
had no car.
Another reason for possession that was shared
among all groups of Furby’s study, except the
kindergartners, was a desire for control. By owning an
object one obtains control over its usage. The work
done be Deci and others [9, 10, 11, 12, 45] agrees that
“human beings are motivated to affect and control their
environment” [20, p. 60]. This is evident to anyone
who has temporarily lodged at another’s residence. The
transient lodger who does not “own” the residence
feels much less in control of the goings-on in the
residence, and acts primarily as an observer of all the
happenings there. From a more technical perspective,
if I acquire a smart phone I enjoy more autonomy over
my communications and am less limited by location.
For high school students and adults, “liking an
object becomes a logical prerequisite to acquiring it"
[20, p. 60]. Liking, or perceived enjoyment and
satisfaction, is a logical antecedent to acquisition. The
more you like something the more you want to have it.
The study also found possession to be satisfying. Thus,
once you acquire something, it is satisfying to own it
[see also 35].
It is interesting to note that there are two
consequences of possession that were peculiar to highschoolers and adults: “(a) possessions enhance social
power and status, and (b) possessions help define
individuality and are extensions of the individual" [20,
p. 61]. Naturally, as one feels more of a sense of
power through acquisition, and in a better position to
influence his circumstances, he feels an enhancement
of social power, or an increasing ability to influence
social circumstances and outcomes. Furthermore, as
early as the late 19th century, psychology research has
argued that man feels that he is the sum and total of
what he owns [23]. Thus, possessions become an
2
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
extension of man [35]. Lastly, high-schoolers and
adults report that “possessions provide security" [20, p.
61]. One who owns a home and a car may feel much
more secure than one who has neither. In a more
abstract sense, one who “owns” his career, through
accepting responsibilities and successfully performing
work tasks, may feel more secure than one who does
not “own” his career.
Along these lines of psychological ownership (like
“owning” your career), Vandewalle et al. (1995) did a
study of 797 individuals to see what the consequences
are of this abstracted ownership.
Psychological
ownership was found to be positively related to extrarole behavior. Extra-role behavior is “discretionary
behavior that is not formally rewarded by the
organization" [42, p. 212]. It is taking on extra
responsibilities and spending extra time beyond what is
expected, during one’s discretionary time, in order to
contribute more to the organization [26, 40].
Vandewalle et al. (1995) report that “those with higher
levels of psychological ownership were more likely to
engage in extra-role behavior that benefits the
organization" (p. 219).
They also found that
psychological ownership was significantly related to
job satisfaction and commitment to the organization.
These results were also confirmed by a study published
in 2004 by Van Dyne and Pierce.
Other research has also connected extra-role
behavior of possession to performance [21, 41]. “Thus,
it is possible to speculate that psychological ownership
makes a difference because psychological ownership
leads to organizational commitment; committed
workers engage in extra-role behavior; and extra-role
behavior contributes to higher performance" [42, p.
221]. Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) also confirmed
these results and added to them organization-based
self-esteem and organizational citizenship. White
(1959) also found efficacy and competence to be
related to a sense of psychological ownership.
In summary, the extant literature on ownership and
possession indicates that the antecedents of
psychological ownership include: desire for autonomy
or control, desire for pleasure, desire for security
enjoyment expectation, and satisfaction expectation.
The indicated consequences of psychological
ownership include: satisfaction, control, social power
and status, self-identity, security, extra-role behavior
(productive use of discretionary time), job satisfaction,
commitment to organization, organizational selfesteem, organizational citizenship, efficacy, and
competence.
Closely related to the concept of psychological
ownership is the concept of appropriation – both are
interested in the behavior of acquiring. In the next
section we define appropriation in the context of
information systems and provide a review of the
literature discussing appropriation in the IS arena.
2.2. Appropriation
In the IS context appropriation has been defined as
"the way that users ‘take possession’ of a technology
innovation over time" [7, p. 2], "the extent to which an
innovation is changed during its adoption and
implementation" [3, p. 497], and "completing design
through use" [18, p. 3]. Orlikowski uses the concept of
appropriation in many of her studies [31, 32, 33, 34].
"While users can and do use technologies as they were
designed, they also can and do circumvent inscribed
ways of using the technologies—either ignoring certain
properties of the technology, working around them, or
inventing new ones that may go beyond or even
contradict designers’ expectations and inscriptions"
[33, p. 407]. Likewise Poole and DeSanctis
characterized how groups exhibit appropriation
behaviors during the adoption of group support systems
[14, 37]:
“Appropriations are not automatically
determined by technology designs. Rather, people
actively select how technology structures are used, and
adoption practices vary. Groups actively choose
structural features from among a large set of
potentials” [14, p. 129].
The common theme among these several definitions
and uses of appropriation seems to be the concept of
ownership. A user “takes possession” of a technology
by choosing which features to use and “actively
selecting how technology structures are used.” Users
“own” the technology by deciding how they will use it.
Their use of the technology then becomes part of their
identity, or the way they work. When users appropriate
features of a technology they take responsibility for the
way the technology is used – effectively removing that
responsibility from the designers; thus, appropriation is
“completing design through use” because there has
been a transfer of ownership from the designers to the
users. This type of use would tend to increase one’s
competence and familiarity with a technology.
Appropriation has been primarily investigated at the
group level. Two prominent examples of this are
adaptive structuration theory (AST) [14] and
technology adaptation [30]. Leveraging structuration
theory [22] and the concept of appropriation, AST is a
framework for studying variations in group work
behaviors that occur whilst technologies are used. AST
studies appropriation at an organizational level and
explains 1) what affects appropriation and 2) what
appropriation affects including, for example, decision
processes. The way technology is used depends on the
features and “spirit” of the technology (spirit is the
“general intent” of the technology), the organization
3
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
and intergroup contexts, and the evolution of use of the
technology (e.g., learning and adapting) [14, p. 126].
New structures for use emerge as the technology is
used. Group decisions and outcomes depend on the
appropriations made. Given ideal combinations of
structures and use, desirable outcomes will result
(efficiency, quality, etc.). Individual factors effecting
appropriation and the individual impacts of
appropriation are not within the scope of AST, as the
focus of AST is on group behavior rather than on
individual behavior.
Majchrzak et al. (2000)’s model for technology
adaptation is based on AST and they add to it elements
from other literature: misalignment [29], malleability
[24], and occurrence of discrepant events [39].
Technology adaptation proposes that discrepant events
trigger appropriating behaviors in order to make
decisions that will lead to positive outcomes, while preexisting structures (from AST) are changed and added
to by emergent structures that come from
appropriations.
Malleability, or the adaptability
afforded by the level of structural rigidness, moderates
an organization’s opportunity to appropriate. The goal
of technology adaptation is to demonstrate why
appropriation occurs and what the consequences are at
the level of the organization; therefore, no
considerations were made for technology appropriation
at the individual level.
In order to measure the individual appropriation of
technology, we must discover its antecedents and
expected outcomes. Though a model of technology
appropriation (MTA) has been suggested [7], no
hypotheses or propositions accompany this model. The
follow up to this model was recently presented by
Fidock and Carroll (2006), though no scales for the
appropriation of technology are suggested. In
summary, appropriation is the psychological ownership
of technology – the choosing of which features to use
and how to use them – effectively taking responsibility
for the way a technology is used. This concept of
appropriation has been investigated primarily at a
group level in studies such as DeSanctis and Poole’s
AST [14] and Majchrzak et al.’s technology adaptation
[30]. This focus on group level appropriation has left
uninvestigated the individual factors affecting
appropriation and the individual impacts of
appropriation. In the discussion that follows we offer
our support for applying the antecedents and
consequences of psychological ownership to the
individual appropriation of technology.
3. Discussion
Appropriation is about “taking possession” [7, p. 2]
of a technology, or “making it your own.” We propose
that appropriation and psychological ownership are
theoretically equivalent at the individual level. From
the literature we observed that psychological
ownership affects performance and individual impacts,
and is motivated primarily by internal factors (e.g.,
desires for control, autonomy, pleasure, satisfaction,
and security) [20]. However, IS research has
overlooked internal factors as antecedents – rather
favoring external factors to explain appropriation
behaviors – due to the tendency to investigate
appropriation at the group level where internal (to the
individual) factors may be of less consequence. This
myopic focus on the external may in fact be leaving out
potentially
more
powerful
antecedents
of
appropriation. In addition, in light of long standing
research showing that individual impacts (like job
satisfaction) have positive effects on performance gains
[see 25 for an exhaustive list of job satisfaction Æ job
performance studies], research on appropriation cannot
afford to overlook the important role of the individual
in technology appropriations. In this section we briefly
discuss each antecedent and consequence of
psychological ownership and its potential relevance
and application to the individual appropriation of
technology. See Figure 1.
3.1 Antecedents
The literature on psychological ownership reveals
five main antecedents: desire for autonomy or control
[12, 20], desire for pleasure [20], desire for security
[20], enjoyment expectation [20], and satisfaction
expectation [20, 35]. Similarly, we expect each of
these constructs to positively affect the individual
appropriation of technology. In other words, we
propose that each of these constructs helps to explain
why individuals appropriate technology.
A desire for autonomy or control [12, 20] over a
technology and a task may induce an individual to
engage in appropriation. For example, when an
individual is not familiar with a technology, he may
feel unable to control with consistency the outcomes of
his use. His autonomy, with regards to the technology,
may be lacking in that he may be unable to accomplish
his will or intentions when using the technology. This
would tend to increase his desire to gain control and
autonomy [deci references] through exploration of the
technological features and appropriation of those
features.
A desire for pleasure [20] when using a technology,
or the ability to affect more pleasurable outcomes, may
induce an individual to engage in appropriation. It is
frustrating to feel like you can’t influence the outcomes
of your use of a technology. A user may feel that if he
can only gain some mastery over the technology he
4
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
would enjoy using the technology more and be able to
feel better about the tasks he accomplishes with the
technology.
A desire for security [20] may induce an individual
to engage in appropriation. Having not become
familiar with the technology one is supposed to use to
accomplish his work, he may feel insecure regarding
Figure 1. Proposed antecedents and consequences of individual appropriation
his ability to perform and deliver. This insecurity will
lead him to explore and appropriate features of the
technology in order to feel more secure in his work.
An expectation of enjoyment [20] when using a
technology may induce an individual to engage in
appropriation. One may explore and appropriate
features of a technology in order to achieve a level of
competence that will result in more enjoyable use. It is
much more enjoyable to use a technology competently
than incompetently. This competence may only come
after a user has engaged in appropriation.
An expectation of satisfaction [20, 35] when using a
technology may induce a user to engage in
appropriation. It is satisfying to feel in control, secure,
and competent when using a technology. A user may
expect to enjoy this satisfaction once he has explored
and appropriated the features of a technology to the
extent that he feels in control, secure, and competent
with it.
3.2 Consequences
The literature on psychological ownership reveals
several consequences: personal and object related
satisfaction [20, 35], control [12, 20], social power and
status [20], self-identity [5, 23, 35], security [20],
extra-role behavior (productive use of discretionary
time) [21, 26, 40, 41, 42], job satisfaction [41, 42],
commitment to organization [41, 42], organizational
self-esteem [41], organizational citizenship [41],
efficacy [44], and competence [44]. Similarly, we
expect each of these outcomes with regards to the
individual appropriation of technology. In other words,
we propose that individuals who engage in the
appropriation of technology may expect to enjoy these
consequences.
We expect individuals who engage in appropriation
to enjoy a sense of personal and object related
satisfaction [20, 35]. Appropriation tends to increase
one’s familiarity and competence with a technology.
Competence is more satisfying than incompetence.
Knowing that you can influence the outcomes of your
use is also satisfying.
We expect individuals who engage in appropriation
to enjoy a sense of control [12, 20]. Individuals who
have decided which features of a technology to use and
how they will use them will feel much more in control
of the outcomes of their use than those who have not
done so. This is due to familiarity and experience with
the technology – one is more able to predict the results
5
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
of his actions with respect to the technology when he
has appropriated its features.
We expect individuals who engage in appropriation
to enjoy a sense of increased social power and status
[20]. Appropriation will tend to increase competence.
Those who have appropriated the features of a
technology are better able to perform with the
technology. Thus, they will enjoy a position of respect
from the perspective of those who have not engaged in
appropriation. They will be able to perform better than
those around them, therefore they will enjoy a sense of
increased social power and status which may be an
unspoken perception or come in the form of actual
promotion due to increased ability.
We expect individuals who engage in appropriation
to enjoy a sense of self-identity [5, 23, 35]. The way an
individual uses a technology says something about
him. Becoming competent with a technology also
makes that technology an extension of oneself; it
becomes part of one’s identity. Having become
competent through appropriation, a user may include
their competence with this technology on their resume
because it identifies a part of him.
We expect individuals who engage in appropriation
to enjoy a sense of security [20]. One may feel more
secure in his work if he has become competent through
exploring and appropriating features of the technology
he uses to accomplish his work. It is less likely he will
feel insecure with regards to his performance with that
technology.
We expect individuals who engage in appropriation
to also engage in extra-role behavior [21, 26, 40, 41,
42]. Extra-role behavior is using one’s discretionary
time productively for the benefit of the organization.
When a user is both competent with a technology and
enjoys a sense of satisfaction when using it, it is likely
he will not hesitate to engage in using it even when
“off the clock.” This sort of behavior is similar to the
motivation to participate in open-source projects.
Though there are fewer extrinsic motivations than
intrinsic motivations to contribute, the intrinsic
motivations such as satisfaction, increased self-identity
and feelings of recognition are sufficient to induce an
individual to engage in productive work for others even
during their “off time.”
We expect individuals who engage in appropriation
to enjoy a sense of job satisfaction [41, 42]. Those
who have become competent through appropriation are
satisfied when they use the technology, and therefore,
they will be more satisfied with work. They will also
feel more secure and in control. These feelings are
likely to lead to more job satisfaction than less.
We expect individuals who engage in appropriation
to exhibit a greater commitment to the organization
[41, 42]. If employees are engaging in extra-role
behavior and are enjoying a sense of job satisfaction, as
proposed earlier, they are also likely to greater
commitment to their organization than those who have
not received these benefits through appropriation.
Organizational self-esteem [41] refers to one’s
confidence in the organization’s performance ability.
As one becomes more confident in his own abilities
through appropriation, he may extrapolate that
confidence to the organization. If he is confident in his
performance, he may be more optimistic about the
company as a whole.
Organizational citizenship [41] refers to one’s sense
of individual contribution to the organization.
Logically, as one increases his abilities through
appropriation he will also feel better about his ability to
contribute and perform.
We expect individuals who engage in appropriation
to enjoy a sense of efficacy [44]. Efficacy refers to
one’s effectiveness. As one increases his familiarity
and abilities through appropriation he will also feel
more effective with the technology.
Lastly, we expect individuals who engage in
appropriation to enjoy a sense of competency [44]. As
one chooses which features to use and how to use
them, he will become more familiar with the
capabilities of the technology and more confident in his
ability to use the technology. Thus, he will become a
more competent user.
4. Limitations and Future Research
The focus of this study has been to review and
compare psychological ownership and the individual
appropriation of technology. Appropriation at the
individual level has not been thoroughly examined by
IS researchers, thus we have been required to make
some assumptions regarding the effects of
appropriation.
Our major assumption is that
appropriation increases competency. This assumption
is explained in the previous section. But it is upon this
assumption that many of the other affects of
appropriation rely. For example, an individual may
feel an increased sense of organizational citizenship
due to the increased competence he feels through
appropriation. Taking this into account, future research
ought to seek to validate this relationship first, then the
others will likely follow.
As far as we can tell, none of the relationships
involving appropriation in this paper have been tested.
Thus future efforts ought to be focused on establishing
these relationships though empirical research.
Additionally, the consequences of individual
appropriation appear to be a seeming “laundry list” of
variables. Due to the unexplored nature of this area of
inquiry, we did not want to combine these variables
6
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
into multidimensional constructs for this paper.
However, future research may benefit from grouping
the outcome variables into highly correlated
(statistically and logically) sets.
5. Conclusion
Technology usage occurs at the individual level,
and yet research on appropriation has focused on the
group or organizational level. This leaves a large gap
in the research, towards which we have directed our
inquiry. In this paper we have reviewed theories of
psychological ownership and extant research on
appropriation. Specifically we have been interested in
the individual appropriation of technology, its potential
antecedents and consequences. We observe that
appropriation
is
theoretically
equivalent
to
psychological ownership, and thus, is likely to have
similar antecedents and consequences.
Research
exploring the internal factors that may affect
appropriation and the individual impacts that may
result from appropriation has been largely neglected by
IS researchers. Thus, we recommend future research
focus on these two aspects. As appropriation likely
leads to increased competence and other desirable
outcomes, the study of appropriation is a fruitful and
beneficial vista for future research.
6. References
[1]
Agarwal, R., Tanniru, M., & Wilemon, D.
(1997).
Assimilating
information
technology
innovations: strategies and moderating influences.
Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on,
44(4), 347-358.
[2]
Barone, M. J., Shimp, T. A., & Sprott, D. E.
(1999). Product ownership as a moderator of selfcongruity effects. Marketing Letters, 10(1), 75-86.
[3]
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005).
Understanding User Responses to Information
Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation. MIS
Quarterly, 29(3), 493-524.
[4]
Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994).
Association as a psychological justification for
ownership. The Journal of psychology, 128(4), 365380.
[5]
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the
extended self. Journal of Consumer research, 15(2),
139.
[6]
Braun, E. (1998). Technology in context:
technology assessment for managers. Routledge.
[7]
Carroll, J. (2004). Completing design in use:
closing the appropriation cycle. In Proceedings of the
12th European Conference on Information Systems.
AIS.
[8]
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P.
R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models. Management
science, 982-1003.
[9]
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally
mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115.
[10]
Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 113-120.
[11]
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation.
Plenum Publishing Corporation.
[12]
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic
Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior
(p. 371). Springer.
[13]
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The
DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
[14]
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994).
Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology
Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization
Science, 5(2), 121-147. doi: 10.2307/2635011.
[15]
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of
material possessions: To have is to be. Harvester
Wheatsheaf London.
[16]
Druskat, V. U., & Kubzansky, P. E. (1995).
Measuring the psychological sense of ownership in the
workplace. In Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Vancouver, Canada.
[17]
Farquhar, P. H. (2000). Brand waves: building
momentum throughout the ownership cycle. Marketing
Management, 9(2), 14-21.
[18]
Fidock, J., & Carroll, J. (2006). The model of
technology appropriation: A lens for understanding
systems integration in a Defence context. In ACIS 2006
Proceedings. AIS. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2006/88/.
[19]
Furby, L. (1980). The origins and early
development of possessive behavior. Political
psychology, 30-42.
[20]
Furby, L. (1978). Possession in Humans: An
Exploratory Study of its Meaning and Motivation.
Social Behavior & Personality: An International
Journal, 6(1), 49.
[21]
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of
positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 299-307.
[22]
Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of
society: Outline of the theory of structuration.
University of California press.
[23]
James, W. (1890). The Principles of
Psychology (p. book). H. Holt and company.
7
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
[24]
Johnson, B. M., & Rice, R. E. (1987).
Managing Organizational Innovation (p. 242).
Columbia University Press.
[25]
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., &
Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and
quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3),
376-407.
[26]
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social
psychology of organizations (p. 838). Wiley.
[27]
Kirmani, A., Sood, S., & Bridges, S. (1999).
The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand
line stretches. The Journal of Marketing, 88-101.
[28]
Kline, L., & France, C. J. (1899). The
psychology of mine. Pedagogical Seminary & Genetic
Psychology, 6(4), 421-470.
[29]
Leonard-Barton, D. (1987). Implementation as
Mutual Adaptation of Technology and Organization (p.
47). Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
[30]
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A.,
Nelson King, & Ba, S. (2000). Technology Adaptation:
The Case of a Computer-Supported InterOrganizational Virtual Team. MIS Quarterly, 24(4),
569-600.
[31]
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of
technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in
organizations. Organization science, 398-427.
[32]
Orlikowski, W. J. (1999). Technologies-inpractice: an enacted lens for studying technology in
organizations. Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[33]
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology
and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying
technology in organizations. Organization science,
404-428.
[34]
Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991).
Information technology and the structuring of
organizations.
[35]
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(1), 84-107.
[36]
Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S.
(1991). Employee Ownership: A Conceptual Model of
Process and Effects. Academy of Management Review,
16(1), 121-144.
[37]
Poole, M., & DeSanctis, G. (1989). Use of
group decision support systems as an appropriation
process. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual
Hawaii International Conference on Information
Systems (Vol. 4, pp. 149-157).
[38]
Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987).
Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of
property. The Psychological Record, 37, 257-268.
[39]
Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994).
Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of
technological adaptation in organizations. Organization
Science, 98-118.
[40]
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L., & Parks, J. M.
(1995). Extra-role Behaviors: In Pursuit of Construct
and Definitional Clarity (A Bridge over Muddied
Waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17,
215.
[41]
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 Behavior, 25(4), 439-459.
[42]
Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T.
(1995). Psychological Ownership: An Empirical
Examination of its Consequences. Group Organization
Management, 20(2), 210-226.
[43]
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., &
Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. Mis Quarterly,
425-478.
[44]
White,
R.
W.
(1959).
Motivation
reconsidered:
The
concept
of
competence.
Psychological Review, 66(5), 297-333.
[45]
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., & Deci,
E. L. (1978). On the Importance of Self-Determination
for Intrinsically-Motivated Behavior. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(3), 443-446.
8