Clarifying the Relational Ties of Belonging 2014 knapp smith sprinkle

http://jlo.sagepub.com/
Organizational Studies
Journal of Leadership &
http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/10/1548051814529826
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1548051814529826
published online 11 April 2014Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Joshua R. Knapp, Brett R. Smith and Therese A. Sprinkle
Status, Psychological Ownership, and Organizational Identification
Clarifying the Relational Ties of Organizational Belonging: Understanding the Roles of Perceived Insider
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Midwest Academy of Management
can be found at:Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesAdditional services and information for
http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Apr 11, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record>>
at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies
1–13
© The Authors 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1548051814529826
jlo.sagepub.com
Article
The employee–organization relationship (EOR; Coyle-
Shapiro & Shore, 2007) is complex because it is composed of
a variety of theoretically distinct relational ties, each of which
potentially influence important job-related outcomes. In
response to this complexity, Masterson and Stamper (2003)
developed a multidimensional theoretical model of perceived
organizational membership (POM) designed to organize
relational tie concepts under the dimensions of belonging,
need fulfillment, and mattering. To date, this model has moti-
vated theoretical advances (e.g., Stamper, Masterson, &
Knapp, 2009) and empirical examinations of individual con-
cepts(e.g.,Armstrong-Stassen&Schlosser,2011;Epitropaki,
2013). However, the aggregate nature of the POM model has
yet to be fully leveraged in empirical research, leaving us
with an incomplete understanding of how multiple relational-
tie concepts subsumed under the same POM dimension influ-
ence job-related attitudes and behaviors.
We focus on the belonging dimension of POM to make
two important contributions. First, we seek to empirically
distinguish between all three concepts (i.e., perceived insider
status: Stamper & Masterson, 2002; psychological owner-
ship: Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001; and organizational
identification: Mael & Ashforth, 1992) subsumed under this
dimension. Research has yet to establish that there are
measurable differences between the three concepts, and it is
currently unknown whether or not these concepts exhibit
discriminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Kerlinger &
Lee, 2000). While each of these constructs has undergone
separate rigorous measure development procedures, we pro-
vide simultaneous consideration of these variables, which is
important for the ongoing empirical testing of the theoretical
model. Second, we seek to empirically test the entire belong-
ing dimension of the POM as it relates to job satisfaction and
turnover intentions. These variables were chosen because
they both have well-documented pragmatic value for organi-
zations and because they both have reliable and valid rela-
tionships with a variety of organizational behavior concepts
(Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2001; Spector,
1997). Thus, empirically testing relationships with these
variables provides an important benchmark for validating
529826JLOXXX10.1177/1548051814529826Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesKnapp et al.
research-article2014
1
University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
2
Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA
3
University of Dallas, Irving, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Joshua R. Knapp, Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, 4401
University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4.
Email: joshua.knapp@uleth.ca
Clarifying the Relational Ties of
Organizational Belonging: Understanding
the Roles of Perceived Insider
Status, Psychological Ownership, and
Organizational Identification
Joshua R. Knapp1
, Brett R. Smith2
, and Therese A. Sprinkle3
Abstract
In order to clarify the roles of relational ties within the perceived organizational membership theoretical framework,
we test the discriminant validity and concurrent predictive validity of perceived insider status, psychological ownership,
and organizational identification. Hypotheses were tested using confirmatory factor analysis and hierarchical multiple
regression for a sample of 347 workers across two industry segments. Results indicate that the constructs of interest each
explain unique variance. Perceived insider status and psychological ownership were significant predictors of job satisfaction
and turnover intentions, whereas organizational identification was only found to predict job satisfaction. Post hoc analyses
indicate that relationship between organizational identification and turnover intentions is fully mediated by perceived
insiders status and psychological ownership.
Keywords
perceived organizational membership, belonging, psychological ownership, perceived insider status, organizational
identification, job satisfaction, turnover intentions
at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on April 14, 2014jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
the POM model of the EOR. In this way, we extend prior
findings by clarifying the nature of each predictor’s relation-
ship with outcomes, including relative importance.
Theory and Hypotheses Development
EORs influence job-related outcomes through a number of
complex and multifaceted mechanisms (Coyle-Shapiro &
Shore, 2007; Shore et al., 2004), many of which occur at the
individual level and involve employees’ perceptions of the
organizational context. The POM framework (Masterson &
Stamper, 2003) is one such micro-level mechanism that has
gained increased attention in recent academic research.
According to Masterson and Stamper (2003), employees’
association with their organization can be represented along
three different dimensions, each representing a different
kind of perception. The need fulfillment dimension repre-
sents the perception that the organization is providing
important benefits as demonstrated by organizational fit
(Kristof, 1996) and psychological contract fulfillment
(Rousseau, 1989, 1995). The mattering dimension repre-
sents the perception that the organization values the
individual employee as demonstrated by perceived organi-
zational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, &
Sowa, 1986). The belonging dimension represents the per-
ception of intimate association as demonstrated by insider
status (Stamper & Masterson, 2002), organizational identi-
fication (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), and psychological own-
ership (Pierce et al., 2001).
Our goal is to clarify the theoretical and empirical simi-
larities of the three concepts included in the belonging
dimension (see Figure 1). Through a review of relevant
research we explain why, despite significant similarities,
each variable represents a fundamentally different facet of
the employee–organization relationship, and we develop
hypotheses based on our rationale.
Similar but Distinct Employee Relationship
Concepts
Perceived Insider Status. Perceived insider status represents
employees’ sense of inclusion within their organizations
(Stamper & Masterson, 2002). This perception develops
when a combination of organizational socialization prac-
tices and benefits signal to employees that they have
achieved the status of in-group member. The perception of
insider status is a separate phenomenon from objective
organizational inclusion in that individuals working long
hours and holding important titles and positions can still
feel as if they are not really members. Conversely, someone
may work relatively few hours or be an external contract
employee (Lapalme, Stamper, Simard, & Tremblay, 2009)
and still have a sense of acceptance.
Employees who have come to feel a strong sense of
insider status perceive that they are a central and important
part of the organization, and this sense fills human needs
for inclusion, agency, and control. Consequently, high
insider status employees are also more likely to accept
Perceived Organizational Membership (Masterson & Stamper, 2003): A
model of the EOR that organizes relational tie concepts into three dimensions. Our
research focus is on the belonging dimension.g g
Belonging: The perception of an intimate association with the organization as demonstrated by a sense of:
• Perceived Insider Status (Stamper & Masterson, 2002): Personal space and acceptance that is potentially independent from
objective inclusion.
• Psychological Ownership (Vandewalle et al 1995): Possessiveness that is potentially independent from objective legal claim• Psychological Ownership (Vandewalle et al., 1995): Possessiveness that is potentially independent from objective legal claim.
• Organizational Identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989): Self-definition in terms of the work organization.
Mattering: The perception that the organization values the employee as demonstrated by a sense of:
• Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986): The organization cares for individual well-being.
Need Fulfillment: The perception that the organization is providing important benefits as demonstrated by a sense of:
• Psychological Contract Fulfillment (Rousseau, 1989; 1995): The organization is providing promised benefits as part of ay g ( , ; ) g p g p p
perceived exchange.
• Person-Organization Fit (Kristof, 1996): The individual is compatible with the organization.
Figure 1. Theoretical domain and research focus.

Knapp et al. 3
responsibilities as an organizational citizen (Stamper &
Masterson, 2002; Wang, Chu, & Ni, 2010), more likely to
have positive organizational attitudes (e.g., job satisfac-
tion: Chen & Aryee, 2007; affective commitment: Lapalme
et al., 2009; intention to stay: Armstrong-Stassen &
Schlosser, 2011), and more likely to behave in ways sup-
porting organizational functions (e.g., task performance
and innovative behavior: Chen & Aryee, 2007).
Psychological Ownership. Psychological ownership is a feel-
ing of possessiveness over some target object (Pierce et al.,
2001; Vandewalle, Van Dyne, & Kostova, 1995). This
ownership develops when people become possessive over
things that they control, know intimately, and invest them-
selves in (Pierce et al., 2001). Psychological ownership can
occur even if a legal claim of ownership does not exist, and
it can be felt toward a wide variety of material (e.g., houses)
and immaterial (e.g., ideas) objects (Pierce et al., 2001).
People who have come to feel a strong sense of owner-
ship over their employment organizations have come to
perceive that it is “MY organization” (Vandewalle et al.,
1995). This possessiveness satisfies common human needs
for efficacy and sense of place (Pierce et al., 2001).
Employees with a stronger sense of ownership over their
organizations have higher expectations of organization-
related rights (e.g., right to information and voice in deci-
sion making: Pierce et al., 2001) and responsibilities (e.g.,
responsibility to contribute to organizational functioning:
Pierce et al., 2001; accountability: Avey, Avolio, Crossley,
& Luthans, 2009) resulting in more positive organizational
attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment, job satisfaction,
and organization-based self-esteem: Van Dyne & Pierce,
2004), fewer turnover intentions (Armstrong-Stassen &
Schlosser, 2011), and organization-related behaviors (e.g.,
citizenship: O’Driscoll, Pierce, & Coghlan, 2006; Van
Dyne & Pierce, 2004).
Organizational Identification. Organizational identification
represents employees’ perception of oneness with their
organization such that these individuals define themselves
in terms of their organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
Organizational identification can develop when individuals
perceive an organization as being distinctive and presti-
gious, when the awareness of out-groups makes group
membership more relevant, or when there is a sense of
shared goals and history. Furthermore, individuals can
experience identification even if they are not a current
member of the organization. For example, non-member
identification with sports teams (e.g., Mael & Ashforth,
1992; Wann & Branscombe, 1990) and consumer product
companies (e.g., Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) is well
documented.
Employees who strongly identify with their organiza-
tions perceive similarity between their own identities and
those of their organizations’ thereby satisfying a need for
self-worth (Abrams & Hogg, 1988) and a need for under-
standing who they are (Hogg, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1985).
A strong sense of identification can result in a number of
positive employee outcomes, including job satisfaction, job
involvement, in-role performance, extra-role performance,
and fewer turnover intentions (Riketta, 2005).
Similarities and Distinctions. The descriptions of psychologi-
cal ownership, perceived insider status, and organizational
identification provided above draw attention to a number of
similarities between these concepts. First, all are self-refer-
ential evaluations of the EOR. In effect, psychological own-
ership represents employees’ determination that “I own my
organization,” perceived insider status represents employ-
ees’ determination that “I am an important part of my orga-
nization,” and organizational identification represents
employees’ determination that “I am defined by my organi-
zation.” Collectively, these three concepts have been char-
acterized as representing a sense of belonging (Masterson
& Stamper, 2003) in that individuals have invested them-
selves in the organization and consider it to be a personal-
ized space.
Second, these three concepts are perceptions and not
necessarily grounded in objective criteria. Individuals can
perceive ownership even though they may not have a real
legal claim, whereas other individuals with objective own-
ership rights may still not perceive the organization as really
being theirs. Also, individuals can perceive that they are
organizational insiders even though they may not actually
be employees (e.g., contract workers), whereas long-time
employees in management positions may feel as if they are
“out of the loop” and not a central part of organization func-
tions. Finally, valued positive organizational characteristics
can cause individuals to identify with an organization even
though they are not actually members, and conversely,
members may believe that the organization is irrelevant to
their self-definition.
Despite similarities, there are important distinctions
between these three concepts. First, each of these concepts
has different theoretical grounding. Psychological owner-
ship is rooted in theories of possession and emphasizes
employees’ responsibility for and control over their organi-
zation (Pierce et al., 2001). Perceived insider status is
rooted in the perception of inclusion and emphasizes
employees’ belief that they are important and central
within their organization (Stamper & Masterson, 2002).
And, organizational identification is rooted in social iden-
tity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1985)
and emphasizes employee self-worth in conjunction with
self-definition (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg, 2001; Tajfel
& Turner, 1985). Second, no one concept is either a suffi-
cient or necessary condition for the other. For example,
part-time administrative assistants at a large university

with a successful sports team may identify with their orga-
nization (as demonstrated by wearing branded clothing),
but they may not perceive ownership or insider status
because they have little authority or limited access to
resources. Alternately, middle managers may perceive that
they are an important and central part of an organization
with considerable access to information and resources (i.e.,
high in perceived insider status) without necessarily believ-
ing that they are owners and without linking their defini-
tion of self to the organization.
Given these similarities and distinctions, we hypothesize
that, when examined simultaneously, psychological owner-
ship, perceived insider status, and organizational identifica-
tion are related but distinct concepts. In other words, even
though these concepts are likely to exhibit statistically sig-
nificant correlations, they will still exhibit discriminant
validity.
Hypothesis 1: Perceived insider status, psychological
ownership, and organizational identification will exhibit
statistically significant correlations.
ownership, and organizational identification will exhibit
discriminant validity.
Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions as
Common Outcomes
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is a feeling of contentment
generated by employees who have had their work expecta-
tions met (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991). Job
satisfaction is considered important due to its well-docu-
mented negative relationship with undesirable outcomes
such as turnover (e.g., Tett & Meyer, 1993) and positive
relationships with desirable outcomes such as citizenship
behavior (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983) and employee
well-being (e.g., Faragher, Cass, & Cooper, 2005).
In our study, each variable of interest represents a dif-
ferent reason why employees might perceive their work
expectations are met leading to satisfaction. The sense of
control, knowing, and investment associated with psycho-
logical ownership, and the feelings of affiliation and
belonging associated with perceived insider status as well
as the sensation of oneness associated with organizational
identification should each simultaneously contribute to
employees’ belief that their work is providing the benefits
they expect. Building on research that separately demon-
strates that each concept has a positive relationship with
job satisfaction (e.g., perceived insider status: Chen &
Aryee, 2007; psychological ownership: Van Dyne &
Pierce, 2004; organizational identification: Van Dick et al.,
2004), we predict that these concepts will exhibit concur-
rent predictive validity and have simultaneous relation-
ships with job satisfaction.
ownership, and organizational identification will
have simultaneously positive relationships with job
satisfaction.
Turnover Intentions. Turnover intentions represent employ-
ees’ conscious desire to leave their organizations (Steel &
Ovalle, 1984). These kinds of intentions are important
because they are some of the most consistent predictors of
actual turnover (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Similar to our rea-
soning for predicting job satisfaction, we believe that high
levels of each belonging variable represent a different rea-
son why employees may want to stay at their organization
whereas lower levels of each variable represent separate
reasons to leave. We again build on research that separately
demonstrates that each concept has a negative relationship
with turnover intentions (e.g., psychological ownership:
Bernhard & O’Driscoll, 2011; perceived insider status:
Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2011; organizational iden-
tification: Riketta, 2005) to predict that these concepts will
exhibit concurrent predictive validity and have simultane-
ous negative relationships with turnover intentions.
ownership, and organizational identification will have
simultaneously negative relationships with turnover
intentions.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Recruitment of participants and data collection was done
online using Zoomerang online data collection services
(www.zoomerang.com). Zoomerang provides access to
high-quality online survey panels that can be segmented
based on characteristics such as employment status, indus-
try, geographic location, consumer preferences, and demo-
graphics. These survey panels also have appropriate
research checks applied, including verification of panel
member attributes, ensuring that panel members do not
complete multiple surveys for the same study, and removal
of panel members who provide inappropriate responses.
Participants completing a survey received non-cash “points”
as an incentive. These points can be accumulated and
redeemed for an assortment of premiums (e.g., entry into a
sweepstakes, gift cards to retailers, charitable donations).
Actual value of points given for participating in this study
was less than $5.
Given that work context is known to influence employee
attitudes and intentions (Johns, 2006), we purposefully col-
lected data from respondents who worked in two contrast-
ing industries. Our rationale was that it would improve the

Knapp et al. 5
generalizability of our findings and the breadth of our
understanding if we could find similar results in two differ-
ent environments. More specifically, we chose to collect
data from employees of nonprofit organizations because the
social goals and service-oriented environment of these
kinds of organizations can cause familiar management con-
cepts to manifest in unique ways (Hull & Lio, 2006), and
we chose to collect data from employees of manufacturing
organizations because the economic goals and production-
oriented environment of these kinds of organizations pro-
vides a strong contrast.
Potential respondents were residents of the United States
of America who received an emailed invitation to partici-
pate in an academic study examining work attitudes. This
invitation contained a link to a web page explaining the pur-
pose of the study and issues related to informed consent.
Participants who acknowledged reading and understanding
this disclosure were allowed access to our questionnaire.
The link to the survey was disabled when 180 respondents
from each context had completed the survey.
As a check to ensure that respondents were part of the
desired populations, our email invitations were sent to indi-
viduals prescreened to be working in either nonprofit orga-
nizations or for-profit manufacturing organizations.
However, respondents were not informed that they were
contacted based on their membership in these kinds of orga-
nizations, nor were they told that participation in this study
was dependent on being currently employed in these kinds
of environments. The first two questions in the survey asked
respondents to identify their employment status and the
industry that they were currently working in. Respondents
whose responses did not match the intention of this study
were automatically thanked for their time, informed that
they did not qualify for participation, and blocked from
completing the survey. These procedures helped neutralize
the potential for participants to inaccurately represent them-
selves in order to receive incentives because it was not pos-
sible to know beforehand why they were invited to
participate or what the requirements for participations were.
After screening the data for inappropriate responses
(e.g., responses that were completed in unrealistically short
periods of time and/or contained nonsensical response pat-
terns), we were left with 174 completed surveys from work-
ers in nonprofit contexts and 173 completed surveys from
workers in manufacturing contexts. The average age of
respondents was 50.57 years with a range from 21 to 92 and
a median age of 52 years. The average organizational tenure
was 7.97 years with a range from 1 to 12. This sample was
also 89% Caucasian and 42% female. Respondents worked
in a wide variety of jobs with varying degrees of authority.
Eighty-five percent were full-time workers. Incomes also
varied widely and fell into the following ranges: 16% mak-
ing less than $25,000, 29% making between $25,001 and
$40,000, 20% making between $40,001 and $55,000, 14%
making between $55,001 and $70,000, and 21% making
more than $70,000.
Measures
All measures were well-established self-report scales exhib-
iting strong construct validity characteristics in previous
studies and using a 7-point Likert-type scale.
Perceived insider status was measured using Stamper
and Masterson’s (2003) 6-item measure. Respondents were
asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements
such as “This work organization makes me believe that I am
included in it” and “I feel I am an insider in this work orga-
nization” (Cronbach’s α = .93).
Psychological ownership was measured using Van Dyne
and Pierce’s (2004) scale. Respondents were asked to indi-
cate their level of agreement with statements such as “This
is MY organization.” Due to an administrative error, Item 4
(“I sense that this is my company”) was not included in our
survey. The 6 remaining items adequately represent the
theoretical domain of the psychological ownership concept
(Cronbach’s α = .92).
Organizational identification was measured using Mael
and Ashforth’s (1992) 6-item scale. Respondents were
asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements
such as “When I talk about my organization, I usually say
‘we’ instead of ‘they’” (Cronbach’s α = .90).
Job satisfaction was measured using Bacharach et al.’s
(1991) 5-item measure. This measure asks respondents to
indicate the degree to which they are satisfied with vari-
ous aspects of their job, including “your present job when
you compare it to jobs in other organizations” (Cronbach’s
α = .96).
Turnover intentions were measured using 4 items reflect-
ing employees’ intention to leave their current employer
(e.g., Bluedorn, 1982). Respondents indicated their level of
agreement with statements such as “I will still be working for
this organization 6 months from now” (Cronbach’s α = .88).
Analyses and Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations are reported in
Table 1. Significant correlations between perceived insider
status, psychological ownership, and organizational identi-
fication fully support Hypothesis 1.
We used the AMOS v.19 computer program to assess the
validity of our measurement model through confirmatory
factor analysis using a combination of statistics, including
chi-square goodness of fit as a descriptive, root-mean-
square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990)
using a standard of ≤.08, comparative fit index (CFI;
Bentler, 1990) using a standard of ≥.90, and standardized
root-mean-square residual (SRMSR, Hu & Bentler, 1999)
using a standard of ≤.10. Error terms for within-measure

reverse-coded items were allowed to co-vary a priori. Two
separate measurement models were examined so as to
determine which one was the best fit to our data. The first
model assumed that all constructs were distinct by allowing
measure items for each construct to load on their own sepa-
rate factor. All items loaded on the intended factor, and the
model met our criteria for good fit, χ2
(310, N = 347) =
1288.39, p < .001, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .94, and SRMR =.07.
The results of this confirmatory factor analysis, including
factor loadings, are reported in Figure 2. Noting the poten-
tial similarities between psychological ownership, per-
ceived insider status, and organizational identification
(Masterson & Stamper, 2003), the second model combined
the items from these three measures into a single overarch-
ing factor representing belonging. This model did not meet
the criteria for good fit, χ2
(317, N = 347) = 3232.312, p <
.001, RMSEA = .13, CFI = .808, and SRMR = .081. A chi-
square difference test confirmed that the first measurement
model representing variables of interest as distinct concepts
was a better description of the data Δχ2
(12, N = 542) =
1980.207, p <.001. These results fully support Hypothesis 2.
We tested Hypotheses 3 and 4 using hierarchical multi-
ple regression. We controlled for age, gender, organiza-
tional tenure, part-time versus full-time status, salary level,
and whether respondents worked in a nonprofit or for-profit
manufacturing industry. Control variables were entered into
the equation in Step one, and measures of perceived insider
status, psychological ownership, and organizational identi-
fication were simultaneously entered in Step two. Results
for these regressions appear in Table 2. When job satisfac-
tion was included as the outcome variable, all three inde-
pendent variables exhibited significant beta weights, and
there was a total R2
of .59. These results fully support
Hypothesis 3. When turnover intentions was included as the
outcome variable, only perceived insider status and psycho-
logical ownership exhibited significant beta weights, and
there was a total R2
of .37. Organizational identification was
not a significant predictor. These results only partially sup-
port Hypothesis 4.
Discussion
Relational ties between employees and their organizations
represent an important domain of research given their influ-
ence on job-related attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. To
better understand the influence of different types of per-
ceived relational ties within the POM framework, our study
provides an important first test of the aggregate validity of
the belonging dimension. This was done by differentiating
between similar relational constructs and by empirically
testing relationships so as to account for unique variance
explained by each. We were able to demonstrate discrimi-
nant validity of psychological ownership, perceived insider
status, and organizational identification through confirma-
tory factor analysis. Our results provide evidence of differ-
ences in the predictive validity of these relational ties for
job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Specifically, we
found that all three concepts predicted job satisfaction, but
only perceived insider status and psychological ownership
predicted turnover intentions. Thus, our data suggests that
these concepts are not redundant and may be useful in fur-
ther understanding the influence of different types of rela-
tional ties on job-related variables. However, these findings
also suggest that organizational identification may not be as
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age 50.57 10.70 —
2. Gendera
0.42 .49 −.01 —
3. Organizational tenureb
7.97 4.01 .22** −.07 —
4. Part-time vs. full-timec
.14 .34 .15** .10 −.17* —
5. Salaryd
3.15 1.79 .00 −.17** .12* −.29** —
6. Industrye
0.50 .50 −.04 −.05 .16** −.30** .20** —
7. Perceived insider status 5.27 1.53 .16** .02 .05 .05 −.02 −.24** —
8. Psychological ownership 3.99 1.69 .15** .00 .09 .05 .05 −.20** .60** —
9. Organizational identification 4.88 1.44 .08 .02 .02 .09 −.01 −.25** .57** .64** —
10. Job satisfaction 5.10 1.61 .12* .08 .07 .05 −.02 −.18** .68** .67** .60** —
11. Turnover intentions 2.77 1.73 −.08 .04 −.09 .03 −.01 .08 −.55** −.52** −.43** −.63**
Note. Total N = 347.
a. Gender coded 0 = male; 1 = female.
b. Tenure reported in years.
c. Job status coded 0 = full-time; 1 = part time.
d. Income coded 1 = <$25,000; 2 = $25,001-$40,000; 3 = $40,001-$55,000; 4 = $55,001-70,000; 5 = $70,001-$85,000; 6 = $85,001-100,000; 7 >
$100,000.
e. Industry coded 0 = nonprofit; 1 = manufacturing.
* p < .05. **p < .01.

Knapp et al. 7
Turnover
IntenƟons
Perceived
Insider Status
Job
SaƟsfacƟon
OrganizaƟonal
IdenƟﬁcaƟon
Psychological
Ownership
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
X11
X12
X13
X14
X15
X16
X17
X18
X19
X20
X21
X22
X23
X24
X25
X26
X27
.03 .96
.02
.10
.10
.09
.10
.98
.70
.70
.77
.75
.05 .92
.08
.05
.04
.12
.17
.84
.91
.95
.69
.64
.11 .76
.08
.10
.06
.05
.15
.80
.78
.87
.90
.60
.05 .89
.03
.04
.04
.04
.93
.91
.90
.90
.11 .61
.12
.09
.11
.73
.93
.90
Figure 2. Hypothesized structural equation model with standardized factor loadings.

Table 3. Exploratory Hierarchical Regression of the Relationship Between Organizational Identification and Turnover Intentions.
Dependent variable: Turnover intentions
Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 (OID and PIS IVs) Step 3 (OID and PSYOWN IVs)
Age −.07 −.04 .01 .01
Gender .03 .04 .05 .04
Tenure −.09 −.06 −.05 −.04
Part-time vs. full-time .05 .06 .04 .06
Salary .01 .03 .02 .05
Industry .10 −.02 −.07 −.04
Organizational identification (OID) −.43** −.18** −.18**
Perceived insider status (PIS) −.47** NA
Psychological ownership (PsyOwn) NA −.41**
Change in R2
.17** .15** .10**
Total R2
.02 .19 .34 .29
Note. Standardized regression coefficients shown.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
similar to perceived insider status and psychological owner-
ship as the POM model implies. A number of issues related
to our findings warrant further discussion.
Exploration of Organizational Identification
Nonfinding
Given that we found that organizational identification was
not a simultaneous and significant predictor of turnover
intentions in our study and given that our results stand in
contrast to prior findings on organizational identification
and turnover intentions (e.g., Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley,
2008; Riketta, 2005), we conducted post hoc exploratory
analyses to achieve our goal of clarifying the theoretical and
empirical similarities and distinctions between the three dif-
ferent facets of belonging.
Toward this end, we performed two supplementary
3-step hierarchical regressions. In the first, variables
were entered in the sequence: control variables, organi-
zational identification, and perceived insider status. In
the second, variables were entered in the sequence: con-
trol variables, organizational identification, and psycho-
logical ownership (see Table 3). Results indicated that
organizational identification is a significant predictor
when it is considered on its own and when it is consid-
ered with either perceived insider status or psychological
ownership. The fact that organizational identification did
not predict turnover intentions only when the effects of
Table 2. Regression Results for Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions.
Dependent variable: Job satisfaction Turnover intentions
Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Age .10 −.01 −.07 .03
Gender .09 .07 .03 .05
Tenure .09 .03 −.09 −.03
Part or full-time −.01 .00 .05 .04
Salary .01 −.03 .01 .04
Industry −.18** .04 .10 −.08
Perceived insider status .40** −.38**
Psychological ownership .33** −.26**
Organizational
identification
.17** −.06
Change in R2
.53** .35**
Total R2
.06 .59 .02 .37
Note. Standardized regression coefficients shown.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Knapp et al. 9
both perceived insider status and psychological owner-
ship are simultaneously controlled for (as in our initial
analyses) raised the possibility that these two variables
serve as multiple mediators between identification and
turnover intentions. Testing mediation using 5,000 boot-
strapping samples according to the techniques outlined
by Preacher and Hayes (2008) confirmed the suspected
mediation effect. Bias corrected estimate of indirect
effects operating through perceived insider status were
−.25, with the 95% confidence interval lower boundary
being −.36 and the upper boundary being −.15. Bias cor-
rected estimate of indirect effects operating through psy-
chological ownership were −.21, with the 95% confidence
interval, lower boundary being −.32 and the upper bound-
ary being −.11.
These post hoc findings suggest that the nature of the
relationship between organizational identification and
outcomes operate through a different mechanism than
the other two aspects of belonging. One potential expla-
nation for this pattern of results is that perceived insider
status and psychological ownership are the most proxi-
mal predictors of turnover intentions because they reflect
employees’ more immediate and pragmatic interests and
needs. In effect, because “I own” and because “I’m part
of,” I have control over and access to resources and am
less likely to leave. In contrast, organizational identifica-
tion may reflect more distal idealistic interest that benefit
the individual and influence attitudes but are not neces-
sarily directly and immediately related to behavioral
intentions. Future researchers may want to clarify this
issue with longitudinal research designs that hypothesize
multiple mediation effects a priori while utilizing struc-
tural equation modeling for data analysis (Chung & Lau,
2008; MacKinnon, 2008; MacKinnon, Coxe, & Baraldi,
2012).
Exploration of Interaction Effects
Even though we did not hypothesize that interaction
effects would be present in our data, we did conduct two
groups of post hoc exploratory analyses to determine if
they were present. The first group of analyses was done to
determine if there were any significant interaction effects
between our perceived insider status, psychological own-
ership, and organizational identification. Variables were
centered, all possible combinations of interactions
between these variables were calculated, and hierarchical
regressions was performed to determine if any of the
interaction terms were predictors of job satisfaction and
turnover intentions. No significant relationships were
found. The second group analyses followed similar pro-
cedures and was done to determine if there were any sig-
nificant interaction effects involving any of our control
variables (i.e., age, gender, tenure, part-time vs. full-time
status, salary, and industry). Again, no significant effects
were found.
Exploration of Age Effects
Even though there were no significant interaction effects
found involving respondents’ age, we felt that this variable
deserved some additional exploratory analyses because the
mean age was high (50.57 years), the age range was large
(between 21 and 92 years), and 6 of our respondents were
70 years old or older. Analyses revealed that excluding
employees older than 70 lowered the mean age to 50.09
years, but did not alter our results in any meaningful way.
Also, there were no significant age differences between
industries. While not having an apparent influence in our
data, we believe that these demographics reflect the realities
of an aging workforce in the United States (Sommers &
Franklin, 2012).
Limitations
Employees were the best source of data for the concepts of
interest in this study as each represented employees’ per-
sonal perceptions, attitudes, and intentions (e.g., employ-
ees’ evaluation of their relationship with their organization,
employees’ intention to quit, and job satisfaction). Thus, a
self-report questionnaire-based methodology was appropri-
ate. However, because our data is single source and self-
report, there is the possibility of methodological issues
related to common method variance, an inability to deter-
mine causality, and the exclusion of measures relating to
actual behavior.
Given that our data are cross-sectional and self-report, we
examined the data for evidence of common method bias
(Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006). When common method
variance becomes a problem, the measurement method
(rather the concepts of interest) strongly influences the
observed relationships between variables (Podsakoff et al.,
2003; Spector, 2006). However, common method variance is
not necessarily an issue in cross-sectional research designs
(Conway & Lance, 2010). To determine whether or not com-
mon method bias was an issue in our data, we used the com-
mon latent factor method whereby an additional common
factor was added to our measurement model. This method
determined that the total variance attributable to a common
latent factor was less than .03. As an added check, we exam-
ined the effect of a common latent factor on the standardized
regression weights of observed variables, and we found that
the variance attributable to common method variance was
less than .01 for each observed variable. These analyses indi-
cate that common method bias is not an issue in our data.
Because our data are cross-sectional, we are unable to
determine causality among our variables. We recognize that

this limits the conclusions that we can make from our data.
Thus, we acknowledge that our research is only a first step.
Future researchers should study these variables over time so
that the evolution of, and the causal relationships between,
these concepts can be determined.
Another limitation of this study is that we focused on
only two subjective outcomes: job satisfaction and turnover
intentions. Researchers may want to examine how addi-
tional subjective attitudinal outcomes such as affective
commitment or fairness perceptions relate to perceptions of
belonging. Or, researchers might choose to examine more
objective outcomes. For example, future researchers may
want to examine job performance, organizational citizen-
ship behavior, and actual turnover. Variables such as these
are considered important because they represent actual
behaviors (rather than attitudes or intentions) with a more
direct impact on organizational performance.
Future Research
The results of our analyses emphasize the importance of
perceived insider status and psychological ownership for
predicting outcomes. However, this work is only an initial
examination that sets the stage for future empirical clarify-
ing the nature of complex EORs.
In particular, we believe that it is important for future
researchers to systematically consider each of the concepts
associated with mattering (i.e., POS) and need fulfillment
(i.e., P-O fit and psychological contract fulfillment) sepa-
rately and in conjunction with the belonging concepts
examined in this study. We can expect some degree of theo-
retical and empirical overlap among all the dimensions and
each of the individual constructs because they each repre-
sent different facets of the EOR as represented in the POM
model. As such, each variable potentially suffers from the
same two issues brought up in our introduction. That is, to
the extent that these concepts and their theorized outcomes
have not received simultaneous empirical consideration, it
is not yet known whether or not these concepts exhibit dis-
criminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Kerlinger &
Lee, 2000), or whether they are useful as simultaneous pre-
dictors of outcomes. Granted, a number of previous studies
have separately established linkages between each variable
and a variety of outcomes, but these efforts have not con-
verged to the point of simultaneous consideration. This lack
of convergence is unfortunate because omitting a variable
relevant to the outcome being predicted can cause regres-
sion coefficients to be artificially inflated or inaccurately
significant (i.e., omitted variable bias), and we do not yet
know if each variable remains a useful predictor after the
influence of the other POM concepts have been accounted
for. Addressing these concerns is important because they
are key aspects of determining overall construct validity
(Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991; Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
We also think that it would be interesting for future
researchers to assess the relative importance of each POM-
related concept for predicting different kinds of outcomes.
While not anticipated, our results demonstrated a rather
interesting pattern when considered in the context of previ-
ous research. In our data, perceived insider status explained
the greatest amount of variance in job satisfaction (stan-
dardized beta = .40, p < .01) and turnover intentions (stan-
dardized beta = −.38, p < .01). Yet of the three belonging
concepts, perceived insider status has received the least
amount of attention in previous research. These observa-
tions suggest a potential disconnect between the relative
utility of each concept and the amount of research employ-
ing these variables. We believe that it should be a research
priority for future researchers to determine if this is the
case.
Finally, future researchers should continue to assess
issues of validity and relative importance of POM concepts
in a variety of contrasting contexts. As Johns (2006) points
out, the same phenomenon can manifest in fundamentally
different ways dependent on the nature of work environ-
ment. Base rates, ranges, nature of relationship, and causal
directions can vary widely across organizations, and it
would be interesting to identify such cases as they relate to
the EOR.
Practical Implications
Perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and orga-
nizational identification all had a positive relationship with
job satisfaction and a negative relationship with turnover
intentions, albeit the relationship between organizational
identification and turnover intentions was indirect and
revealed through post hoc analysis. These findings suggest
that it is important for managers to cultivate all three kinds
of perceptions such that employees believe that they belong
within the organization, and we recommend that organiza-
tions with high turnover and low job satisfaction take a three
pronged belonging-based approach to managing these
issues. The perception of personal space and inclusion asso-
ciated with perceived insider status might be strengthened
through positive socialization practices (Stamper &
Masterson, 2002) designed to communicate to employees
that they are important part of an intimate group. The per-
ception of personal space and inclusion associated with per-
ceived insider status can be fostered by granting employees
adequate autonomy (Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, &
Gardner, 2007). The self-definition associated with organi-
zational identification can be encouraged by making sure
that employees are aware of admirable and prestigious orga-
nizational characteristics (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). If such
an approach is not possible (perhaps because of limited
resources), we believe that managers should focus on devel-
oping those belonging perceptions that appear to have the

Knapp et al. 11
most direct relationship with outcomes (i.e., perceived
insider status and psychological ownership).
Conclusion
In this article, we examined how three similar, yet distinct,
relational ties related to workplace outcomes. Our research
used a highly diverse sample of employees, and our results
suggest that managers and researchers would benefit from a
more holistic approach to EORs. We found that perceived
insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational
identification exhibited discriminant validity and concur-
rently predicted job satisfaction: thus, we can conclude that
these concepts are not redundant. We also found that psy-
chological ownership and perceived insider have the most
direct relationship with turnover intentions whereas organi-
zational identification did not directly explain significant
variance in this outcome. As a whole, our analyses and dis-
cussion represent an important first step toward assessing
the construct validity of the belonging dimension of the
POM theoretical framework. We hope our results encour-
age researchers to systematically consider each of the indi-
vidual POM concepts in a way that helps determine their
relative importance and minimizes the possibility of omit-
ted variable bias.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
research reported in this article was funded by the University of
Lethbridge Faculty of Management’s Start-up Fund and by the
University of Lethbridge Research Fund.
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motiva-
tional status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup
discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18,
317-334. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180403
Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Schlosser, F. (2011). Perceived organiza-
tional membership and the retention of older workers. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 32, 319-344. doi:10.1002/job.647
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008).
Identification in organizations: An examination of four fun-
damental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374.
doi:10.1177/0149206308316059
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
doi:10.2307/258189
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F.
(2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions,
measurement, and relation to work outcomes. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 173-191. doi:10.1002/job.583
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-
home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the
impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39-53. doi:10.1002/
job.4030120104
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing con-
struct validity in organizational research. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36, 421-458.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the
good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee
“citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.
doi:10.2307/255908
Bernhard, F., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2011). Psychological own-
ership in small family-owned businesses: Leadership style
and nonfamily employees’ work attitudes and behav-
iors. Group & Organization Management, 36, 345-384.
doi:10.1177/1059601111402684
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company iden-
tification: A framework for understanding consumers’ rela-
tionships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-88.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects,
and meaning. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1,
75-128.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and dis-
criminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. doi:10.1037/h0046016
Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work
outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediat-
ing processes in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
226-238. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24162389
Chung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and sup-
pression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with struc-
tural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11,
296-325. doi:10.1177/1094428107300343
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should
expect from authors regarding common method bias in orga-
nizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25,
325-334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee-orga-
nization relationship: Where do we go from here? Human
Resource Management Review, 17, 166-179. doi:10.1016/j.
hrmr.2007.03.008
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D.
(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Epitropaki, O. (2013). A multi-level investigation of psychologi-
cal contract breach and organizational identification through
the lens of perceived organizational membership: Testing
a moderated-mediated model. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34, 65-86. doi:10.1002/job.1793
Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relation-
ship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis.
Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 62, 105-112.
doi:10.1136/oem.2002.006734
Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization,
and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.),

Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes
(pp. 57-85). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria ver-
sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Hull, C. E., & Lio, B. H. (2006). Innovation in non-profit and
for-profit organizations: Visionary, strategic, and financial
considerations. Journal of Change Management, 6, 69-74.
doi:10.1080/14697010500523418
Johns, J. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational
behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687
Judge, T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R.
(2001). Job satisfaction: A cross-cultural review. In N.
Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psy-
chology (pp. 25-52). London, England: Sage.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behav-
ioral research (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Nelson
Thomson Learning.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review
of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications.
PersonnelPsychology,49,1-49.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.
tb01790.x
Lapalme, M., Stamper, C. L., Simard, G., & Tremblay, M. (2009).
Bringing the outside in: Can “external” workers experience
insider status. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 919-
940. doi:10.1002/job.597
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation
analysis. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
MacKinnon, D. P, Coxe, S., & Baraldi, A. N. (2012). Guidelines
for the investigation of mediating variables in business
research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 1-14.
doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9248-z
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma
mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organiza-
tional identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
103-123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202
Masterson, S. S., & Stamper, C. L. (2003). Perceived organi-
zational membership: An aggregate framework represent-
ing the employee-organization relationship. Journal of
Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner,
J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences
of psychological ownership in organizational settings.
Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 477-500. doi:10.3200/
SOCP.147.5.477-500
O’Driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A. (2006). The
psychology of ownership: Work environment struc-
ture, organizational commitment, and citizenship behav-
iors. Group & Organization Management, 31, 388-416.
doi:10.1177/1059601104273066
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory
of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 26, 298-310. doi:10.2307/259124
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.
(2003).Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resam-
pling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects
in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384. doi:10.1016/j.
jvb.2004.05.005
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in
organizations. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal,
2, 121-139. doi:10.1007/BF01384942
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organiza-
tions: Understanding written and unwritten agreements.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Smith, R. H., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.,
Liden, R. C., McLean-Parks, J., . . . Van Dyne, L. (2004).
The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in
a period of transition. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in per-
sonnel and human resource management (Vol. 23, pp. 291-
370). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment,
causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research:
Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9,
221-232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955
Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider?
How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 875-894.
doi:10.1002/job.175
Stamper, C. L., Masterson, S. S., & Knapp, J. R. (2009). A
typology of organizational membership: Understanding dif-
ferent membership relationships through the lens of social
exchange. Management and Organization Review, 5, 303-
328. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00147.x
Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis
of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions
and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
673-686. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.673
Sommers, D., & Franklin, J. C. (2012). Employment outlook:
2010-2020. Monthly Labor Review, 135, 3-20.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of
intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 33-47).
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses
based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46,
259-293. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995).
Psychological ownership: An empirical examination of its
consequences. Group & Organization Management, 20,
210-226. doi:10.1177/1059601195202008
Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede,
O., Grubba, C., . . . Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I
stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with
organizational identification and job satisfaction. British
Journal of Management, 15, 351-360. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2004.00424.x

Knapp et al. 13
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
Wang,L.,Chu,X.,&Ni,J.(2010).Leader-memberexchangeandorga-
nizational citizenship behavior: A new perspective from perceived
insider status and Chinese traditionality. Frontiers of Business
Research in China, 4, 148-169. doi:10.1007/s11782-010-0007-1
Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-
weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and
CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 14,
103-117. doi:10.1177/019372359001400203
Author Biographies
Joshua R. Knapp is an associate professor of human resources
and organizational behavior at the University of Lethbridge. His
PhD was granted by the University of Cincinnati. His primary
research interests relate to understanding how employees navi-
gate the organizational environment, including topics related to
social exchange, social cognition, and employee-organization
relationships.
Brett R. Smith is an associate professor of entrepreneurship and
director of the Institute for Entrepreneurship in the Farmer School
of Business at Miami University. He received his PhD from the
University of Cincinnati. His research interests are social entrepre-
neurship and identity-related issues.
Therese A. Sprinkle is an assistant professor of Managemetn in
the Satish & Yasmin Gupta School of Business at the University
of Dallas. She received her PhD from the University of Cincinnati.
Her research interests concern roles and role behaviors, as well as
organizational justice.

Clarifying the Relational Ties of Belonging 2014 knapp smith sprinkle

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Clarifying the Relational Ties of Belonging 2014 knapp smith sprinkle

Similar to Clarifying the Relational Ties of Belonging 2014 knapp smith sprinkle (20)

Clarifying the Relational Ties of Belonging 2014 knapp smith sprinkle