Our Future Environment

Psychological ownership can be defined as that state where an individual feels as though the object of ownership is ‘theirs’ and has a sense of responsibility not necessarily bounded by legal right or static place (Pierce, Kostova & Dirks, 2001; 2003). Three features help elaborate this definition. First, the sense of ownership manifests itself in the meaning and emotion commonly associated with ‘my’, ‘mine, or ‘our’. Psychological ownership’s conceptual core is a sense of possession towards a particular object (Wilpert, 1991). Second, psychological ownership reflects a relationship between an individual an object in which the object is experienced as having a close connection with the self (Wilpert, 1991). Third, the state of psychological ownership is complex and is comprised of a cognitive and effective core. It reflects an individual’s awareness, thoughts, and beliefs regarding the object of ownership and is coupled with an emotional or affective sensation. Feelings of ownership are accompanied by a sense of efficacy and competence (White, 1959) and these feelings often arise when claims to ‘property’ are challenged.
This conception of psychological ownership highlights its distinction from legal ownership. However, a sense of ownership is as ‘real’ as property because they are both psychologically experienced in the mind. Although related, legal and psychological ownership differ in significant ways. A governing body and the majority of a society recognizes legal ownership and thus rights that accompany ownership are specified, protected and enforced by a legal system. In contrast, the individual who holds a feeling of psychological ownership recognizes it foremost regardless of whether they agree with a prevailing legal system.
Psychological ownership often occurs in a lengthy and iterative process involving investing the self and making personal sacrifices on behalf of the object (Pierce , Kostova & Dirks, 2003). Interestingly, people can also legally own an object yet never claim the possession as their own. In these cases, the individual simply fails to claim the object as ‘theirs’ because they do not find personal meaning in the object’s symbolic properties, which McCracken (1986) claims is a necessary precondition for the experience of claiming something as ‘mine’. Similarly to the above claims, the responsibilities that accompany legal and psychological ownership differ. The responsibilities that come with legal ownership are often an outgrowth of the legal system but those associated with the psychological state stem from the individual.
Another way to consider legal ownership is its ability to facilitate the emergence of psychological ownership. Legal ownership provides the right to control or change the object, the right to explore it, and the right to invest oneself into the object of possession. The lack of legal ownership may in some cases provide a more precarious form of ownership since an individual has to avoid violation of the law, physical barriers, customs and social practices (Pierce , Kostova & Dirks, 2003).
Psychological ownership for a particular place may also promote feelings of responsibility that include feelings of being protective, caring, and nurturing and the proactive assumption of responsibility for that place. When an individual’s sense of self is closely linked to the place, a desire to maintain, protect, or enhance that identity will result in an enhanced sense of responsibility (Dipboye, 1977; Korman, 1970). In respect to a specific place, for tourists, psychological ownership has its roots in a self-identity motive whereas for local land-owners psychological ownership is tied to the motive of having a place to dwell. Overall, the feelings of ownership, regardless of legal status, allow individuals to fulfill three basic human motives- efficacy and effectance, self-identity, and having a place/home (Pierce , Kostova & Dirks, 2003).

Filed under: anthro of property, observations and opinions, natural landscape on April 19th, 2008