Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of psychological ownership of knowledge on knowledge hiding behaviour: a bibliographic analysis

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study of bibliometric analysis aims to identify the role of psychological ownership (PO) in knowledge hiding behaviour (KHB) by reviewing 46 publications from Web of Science (Wos) and Scopus. In the initial stage we examined the existing literature on PO and KHB. In the second step, we utilize the PRISMA approach for systematic literature review including identification, screening, and eligibility of relevant literature. In the third step, we utilize the VOS viewer and ARCGIS for further bibliometric analysis. Results show that the most productive country is China, with 17 institutions, the top one of which is Renmin University. The journal with the most articles published is the Journal of Knowledge Management. Important study areas were discovered by a keyword analysis, including knowledge management, psychological ownership, organizational/knowledge-based PO, employee knowledge, and knowledge work. It is observed that organizations will improve more if the PO of the knowledge decreases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrassquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., & Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a criticle review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1), 329–346.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Abubakar, A. M., Behravesh, E., Rezapouraghdam, H., & Yildiz, S. B. (2019). Applying artificial intelligence technique to predict knowledge hiding behavior. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Alawi, A. I., Al‐Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898.

  • Aljawarneh, N. M. S., & Atan, T. (2018). Linking tolerance to workplace incivility, service innovative, knowledge hiding, and job search behavior: The mediating role of employee cynicism. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 11(4), 298–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alnaimi, A. M. M., & Rjoub, H. (2021). Perceived organizational support, psychological entitlement, and extra-role behavior: The mediating role of knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(3), 507–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, A., Centobelli, P., & Cerchione, R. (2020). Why should I share knowledge with others? A review-based framework on events leading to knowledge hiding. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(2), 379–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, A., Walsh, I., & Moffett, S. (2019). Does humility facilitate knowledge sharing? Investigating the role of humble knowledge inquiry and response. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(6), 1218–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andereck, K. L. (1997). Territorial functioning in a tourism setting. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 706–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arain, G. A., Bhatti, Z. A., Ashraf, N., & Fang, Y. H. (2018). Top-down knowledge hiding in organizations: an empirical study of the consequences of supervisor knowledge hiding among local and foreign workers in the Middle East. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 611–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardrey, R. (1966). The territorial imperativea personal inquiry into the animal origins of property and nations. Dells.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(2), 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1980). Power and politics in organizations. The Social Psychology of Conflict, Coalitions, and Bargaining. Josssey-Based.

  • Baker, J. J., Kearney, T., Laud, G., & Holmlund, M. (2021). Engaging users in the sharing economy: individual and collective psychological ownership as antecedents to actor engagement. Journal of Service Management, 32, 483–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

  • Bari, M. W., Abrar, M., Bashir, M., Baig, S. A., & Fanchen, M. (2019a). Soft issues during cross-border mergers and acquisitions and industry performance, China–Pakistan economic corridor based view. Sage Open, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019845180

  • Bari, M. W., Abrar, M., Shaheen, S., Bashir, M., & Fanchen, M. (2019b). Knowledge hiding behaviors and team creativity: the contingent role of perceived mastery motivational climate. Sage Open, 9(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019876297

  • Bari, M. W., Ghaffar, M., & Ahmad, B. (2020). Knowledge-hiding behaviors and employees’ silence: mediating role of psychological contract breach. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2020-0149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barki, H., Paré, G., & Sicotte, C. (2008). Linking IT implementation and acceptance via the construct of psychological ownership of information technology. Journal of Information Technology, 23(4), 269–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J. M. (1993). Rummaging behind the scenes of organizational change and finding role transitions, illness, and physical space. in Woodman, R.W. and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, 7, 41–76.

  • Beaglhole, E. (1932). Property: A study in social psychology. Macmillan.

  • Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 229–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S., & Sharma, P. (2019). Dilemma between ‘It’s my or it’s my organization’s territory’: Antecedent to knowledge hiding in Indian knowledge base industry. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 24–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bibri, S. E. (2020). Advances in the leading paradigms of urbanism and their amalgamation: compact cities, eco–cities, and data–driven smart cities. Springer Nature.

  • Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 577–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. L. (1989). What will it take to win? Industry Week, 19, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt, A. S., & Ahmad, A. B. (2019). Are there any antecedents of top-down knowledge hiding in firms? Evidence from the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(8), 1605–1627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K., & Dutton, J. (2003) (Eds). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

  • Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Causino, N., & Blumenthal, D. (2000). Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29(2), 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Černe, M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2017). The role of multilevel synergistic interplay among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work behavior. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(2), 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 172–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceuppens, B., & Geschiere, P. (2005). Autochthony: Local or global? New modes in the struggle over citizenship and belonging in Africa and Europe. Annual Review ofAnthropology, 34, 385–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1978). Environmental load and the allocation of attention. Advances in Environmental Psychology, 1, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: a review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 82–108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, C. E., & Zweig, D. (2015). How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(3), 479–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2006). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Paper presented in the sypmosium ‘Dont say a word: explaining employees’ withholding of knowledge from workers. the Society for Industrial and Organizatioanl Psychology Conference. Dallas, TX

  • Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C., Hislop, D., Taneva, S. K., & Barnard, S. (2020). The strategic impacts of Intelligent Automation for knowledge and service work: An interdisciplinary review. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(4), 101600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cram, F., & Paton, H. (1993). Personal possessions and self-identity: The experiences of elderly women in three residential settings. Australian Journal on Ageing, 12(1), 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cress, U., Barquero, B., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2005). Social dilemma in knowledge communication via shared databases. In Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication, Boston, MA.

  • Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. O. (1999). Human capital: What it is and why people invest it. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Vaio, A., Hasan, S., Palladino, R., Profita, F., & Mejri, I. (2021). Understanding knowledge hiding in business organizations: a bibliometric analysis of research trends, 1988–2020. Journal of Business Research, 134, 560–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 465–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. M., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2015). Withholding the ace: The individual-and unit-level performance effects of self-reported and perceived knowledge hoarding. Organization Science, 26(2), 494–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felix, R., & Almaguer, J. (2019). Nourish what you own: psychological ownership, materialism and pro-environmental behavioral intentions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(1), 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D., Myrden, S. E., & Jones, T. D. (2015). Understanding “disengagement from knowledge sharing”: Engagement theory versus adaptive cost theory. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(3), 476–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. P., & Staples, S. (2010). Are full and partial knowledge sharing the same? Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 394–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furby, L. (1978). Possession in humans: an exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 49–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, M., Tian, A. W., Soo, C., Zhang, B., Ho, K. S. B., & Hosszu, K. (2019). Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: The role of motivating work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 783–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, C., Sun, M., Geng, Y., Wu, R., & Chen, W. (2016). A bibliometric analysis based review on wind power price. Applied Energy, 182, 602–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghasemaghaei, M., & Turel, O. (2021). Possible negative effects of big data on decision quality in firms: The role of knowledge hiding behaviours. Information Systems Journal, 31(2), 268–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, K., Salvatier, J., Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Evans, O. (2018). When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 62, 729–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guenter, H., Van Emmerik, I. H., & Schreurs, B. (2014). The negative effects of delays in information exchange: Looking at workplace relationships from an affective events perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 283–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, M. R., & Park, S. (2010). To share or not to share? Professional norms, reference groups, and information withholding among life scientists. Organization Science, 21(4), 873–891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., & CHang, A. (2010). employee participation in decision making psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high tech organization. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(12), 2218–2233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernaus, T., Cerne, M., Connelly, C., Vokic, N. P., & Škerlavaj, M. (2019). Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(4), 597–816. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2017-0531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle (Vol. 30). Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research agenda. Employee Relations, 25(2), 182–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hislop, D., Bosua, R., & Helms, R. (2018). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

  • Hulland, J., Thompson, S. A., & Smith, K. M. (2015). Exploring uncharted waters: Use of psychological ownership theory in marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 140–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huo, W., Cai, Z., Luo, J., Men, C., & Jia, R. (2016). Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: a multi-level study of R&D team’s knowledge hiding behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2015-0451

  • Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), 60–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifinedo, P. (2012). Understanding information systems security policy compliance: An integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. Computers & Security, 31(1), 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, S. (1933). Social development in young childern. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  • Israilidis, J., Siachou, E., Cooke, L., & Lock, R. (2015). Individual variables with an impact on knowledge sharing: the critical role of employees’ ignorance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1109–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890/1950/1963). Principles of psychology Macmillan.

  • Javed, T., & Idris, S. (2018). Impact of employee ownership on an organizational productivity: A mediating role of psychological ownership. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 22(2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha, J. K., & Varkkey, B. (2018). Are you a cistern or a channel? Exploring factors triggering knowledge-hiding behavior at the workplace: evidence from the Indian R&D professionals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 824–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jussila, I., Tarkiainen, A., Sarstedt, M., & Hair, J. F. (2015). Individual psychological ownership: Concepts, evidence, and implications for research in marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 121–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamleitner, B., & Feuchtl, S. (2015). As if it were mine”: Imagery works by inducing psychological ownership. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 208–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamptner, N. L. (1989). Personal possessions and their meanings in old age. Sage.

  • Kang, S. W. (2016). Knowledge withholding: Psychological hindrance to the innovation diffusion within an organisation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(1), 144–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karahanna, E., Xu, S. X., & Zhang, N. (2015). Psychological ownership motivation and use of social media. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 185–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettinger, W. J., Li, Y., Davis, J. M., & Kettinger, L. (2015). The roles of psychological climate, information management capabilities, and IT support on knowledge-sharing: an MOA perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(1), 59–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A. K., & Abbas, N. (2018). When and how abusive supervision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors: An Islamic work ethics perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(6), 794–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, C. P., Swain, S. D., & Gaskin, J. E. (2015). I’m proud of it: Consumer technology appropriation and psychological ownership. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 166–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, L., & France, C. J. (1899). The psychology of mine. Pedagogical Seminary & Genefic Psychology, 6(4), 421–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubzansky, P. E., & Druskat, V. U. (1993). Psychological sense of ownership in fhe workplace: Conceptualization and measurement Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario.

  • Kumar Das, A., & Chakraborty, S. (2018). Knowledge withholding within an organization: the psychological resistance to knowledge sharing linking with territoriality. Journal on Innovation and Sustainability RISUS, 9(3), 94–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, J., & Nayak, J. K. (2019). Exploring destination psychological ownership among tourists: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 39, 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladan, S., Nordin, N. B., & Belal, H. M. (2017). Does knowledge based psychological ownership matter? Transformational leadership and knowledge hiding: A proposed framework. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, 11(4), 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lähdesmäki, M., & Matilainen, A. (2014). Born to be a forest owner? An empirical study of the aspects of psychological ownership in the context of inherited forests in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(2), 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanke, P. (2018). Knowledge hiding: impact of interpersonal behavior and expertise. Human Resource Management International Digest, 26(2), 30–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, F. J. (1987). Employee perspectives on stock ownership: financial investment or mechanism of control? Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 427–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le, C., & Li, W. (2022). Analysis on the influence path of user knowledge withholding in virtual academic community-based on structural equation method-artificial neural network model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 764857–764857.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lessard-Bonaventure, S., & Chebat, J. C. (2015). Psychological ownership, touch, and willingness to pay for an extended warranty. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 224–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Z., & Cheng, Y. (2022). Supervisor bottom-line mentality and knowledge hiding: A moderated mediation model. Sustainability, 14(2), 586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information & Management, 47(3), 188–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Chen, X. W., & Xiao, N. (2016). When collaboration requirements meet with “Mountain-stronghold mentality”: The impact of territorial behavior and task interdependence on team performance. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), 19(5), 99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2012). Psychological ownership: How having control matters. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 869–895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Wang, J., Li, C., Chen, B., & Sun, Y. (2019). Using bibliometric analysis to understand the recent progress in agroecosystem services research. Ecol Econ Ecological Economics, 156, 293–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge (Vol. 198).

  • Ma, L., Zhang, X., & Ding, X. (2020). Enterprise social media usage and knowledge hiding: a motivation theory perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24, 2149–2169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manhart, M., & Thalmann, S. (2015). Protecting organizational knowledge: a structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 190–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matilainen, A., Pohja-Mykrä, M., Lähdesmäki, M., & Kurki, S. (2017). “I feel it is mine!”–Psychological ownership in relation to natural resources. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 31–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. The Journal of Social Psychology, 174(5), 477–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(3), 349–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menard, P., Warkentin, M., & Lowry, P. B. (2018). The impact of collectivism and psychological ownership on protection motivation: A cross-cultural examination. Computers & Security, 75, 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nuttin, J. M. J. (1987). Affective consequences of mere ownership: the name letter effect in twelve European languages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 381–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A. M. (2006). The psychology of ownership work environment structure, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 388–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paundra, J., Rook, L., Van Dalen, J., & Ketter, W. (2017). Preferences for car sharing services: Effects of instrumental attributes and psychological ownership. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., Barger, V. A., & Webb, A. (2013). In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 189–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., Kirk, C. P., Luangrath, A. W., & Shu, S. B. (2021). Caring for the commons: Using psychological ownership to enhance stewardship behavior for public goods. Journal of Marketing, 85(2), 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. Oxford University Press.

  • Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1).

  • Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context: Theory, research evidence, and application. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857934451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. (1991). Employee ownership: A conceptual model of process and effects. Academy of Management Review, 16, 121–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (2004). Healthy, happy, productive work: A leadership challenge. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 329–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi, A. M. A., & Evans, N. (2015). Deterrents to knowledge-sharing in the pharmaceutical industry: a case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 296–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership, and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, J. G. (1985). Competition with hidden knowledge. Journal of Political Economy, 93(5), 958–976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987). Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of property. The Psychological Record, 37, 257–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadegh, T., Khani, R. M., & Modaresi, F. (2018). Introducing a model of relationship between knowledge sharing behavior and organizational citizenship behavior and positively orientated organizational behavior: A two-wave study. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJKM.2018070102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2016). Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Hull, E. (2016). An application of the knowledge management maturity model: the case of credit unions. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(3), 338–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillitoe, P. (2004). Interdisciplinary experiences: working with indigenous knowledge in development. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29(1), 6–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. K. (2019). Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: Empirical evidence on role of knowledge hiding. Journal of Business Research, 97, 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Škerlavaj, M., Connelly, C. E., Cerne, M., & Dysvik, A. (2018). Tell me if you can: time pressure, prosocial motivation, perspective taking, and knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(7), 1489–1509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takala, T., & Urpilainen, J. (1999). Managerial work and lying: A conceptual framework and an explorative case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(3), 181–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toma, C. L., Jiang, L. C., & Hancock, J. T. (2018). Lies in the eye of the beholder: asymmetric beliefs about one’s own and others’ deceptiveness in mediated and face-to-face communication. Communication Research, 45(8), 1167–1192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsay, C. H. H., Lin, T. C., Yoon, J., & Huang, C. C. (2014). Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: The roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition. Decision Support Systems, 67, 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: The International Journal of Industrial Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(4), 439–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von der Trenck, A. (2015, December 13–16, 2015). “It’s mine”. The role of psychological ownership and territoriality in knowledge hiding. Proceedings of the international conference on informatoon systems - Exploring the informatoon frontier, ICIS 2015. Association for Iformation Systems.

  • Wang, L., Law, K. S., Zhang, M. J., Li, Y. N., & Liang, Y. (2018). It’s mine! Psychological ownership of one’s job explains positive and negative workplace outcomes of job engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(2), 229.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Fielding, K. S., & Dean, A. J. (2022). Psychological ownership of nature: A conceptual elaboration and research agenda. Biological Conservation, 267, 109477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J., BROWN, G., Zweig, D., Connelly, C., Brodt, S., & Sitkin, S. (2008). Beyond knowledge sharing: Knowledge hiding and hoarding at work. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 27, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen, J., & Ma, R. (2021). Antecedents of knowledge hiding and their impact on organizational performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.796976

  • Wen, J., Zheng, J., & Ma, R. (2022). Impact of knowledge hiding behaviors on workplace invincibility: Mediating role of psychological contract breach. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.809683

  • White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological review, 66(5), 297–330.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilpert, B. (1989). Property, ownership, and participation: On the growing contradictions between legal and psychological concepts (2 vol.). Oxford University Press.

  • Wilpert, C. (1991). Migration and ethnicity in a non-immigration country: Foreigners in a united Germany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 18(1), 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C. M. (2003). The effects of creating psychological ownership among students in group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3), 240–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, T. A. (2004). The role of “happiness” in organizational research: Past, present and future directions (4 vol.). JAI Press.

  • Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well-being in job performance:: a fresh look at an age-old quest. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 338–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J. (2021). Impact of personality traits on knowledge hiding: A comparative study on technology-based online and physical education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 791202–791202.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, Q., Yan, S., Zhang, Y., & Chen, B. (2019). The curvilinear relationship between knowledge leadership and knowledge hiding: the moderating role of psychological ownership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(6), 699–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, M., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Why and when knowledge hiding in the workplace is harmful: a review of the literature and directions for future research in the Chinese context. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(4), 470–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xinyan, Z., & Xin, Z. (1986). Moderating effects of organizational justcie to knowledge-based psychological ownership and knowledge sharing 8th International Conference on Innovation & Management

  • Yildiz, B., & Yildiz, H. (2015). The effect of servant leadership on psychological ownership: The moderator role of perceived organizational support. Journal Of Global Strategic Management| Volume, 9(2), 65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y., Yang, L., Cheng, X., & Wei, J. (2020). What is bullying hiding? Exploring antecedents and potential dimension of knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25, 1146–1169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., & Xu, H. (2019). Impact of destination psychological ownership on residents’“place citizenship behavior”. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 14, 100391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X. J., Jingpeng, X., & Khan, F. (2020). The influence of social media on employee’s knowledge sharing motivation: A two-factor theory perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X. J., Khan, F., Jinpeng, X., & Khan, K. U. (2019). Study of cognitive and affected trust in knowledge sharing evidence from Chinese frms – A review paper. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 13(1), 147–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Xia, Q., He, P., Sheard, G., & Wan, P. (2016). Workplace ostracism and knowledge hiding in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 59, 84–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government and Public Policy, National Defence University, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Farhan Khan, Sana Bashir & Mirza Nouman Ali Talib

  2. Department of Management, College of Business and Public Management, Wenzhou-Kean University, Wenzhou, 325060, China

    Kashif Ullah Khan

Authors
  1. Farhan Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sana Bashir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirza Nouman Ali Talib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kashif Ullah Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Farhan Khan, Sana Bashir, Mirza Nouman Ali Talib and Kashif Ullah Khan. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Farhan Khan and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kashif Ullah Khan.

Ethics declarations

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1 Prisma 2020 Checklist

Appendix 1 Prisma 2020 Checklist

Section and topic

Item #

Checklist item

Location where item is reported

Title

 

Title

1

Identify the report as a systematic review.

Page 1

Abstract

 

Abstract

2

See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist.

Page 1

Introduction

 

Rationale

3

Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.

Page 2

Objectives

4

Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.

Page 3

Methods

 

Eligibility criteria

5

Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.

Page 6

Information sources

6

Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.

Page 5

Search strategy

7

Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.

Page 5

Selection process

8

Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

Page 6

Data collection process

9

Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

Page 6

Data items

10a

List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.

Page 8

10b

List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.

Page 8

Study risk of bias assessment

11

Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

Page 7

Effect measures

12

Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.

N/A /Page 8

Synthesis methods

13a

Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).

Page 8

13b

Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.

Page 8–11

13c

Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.

Page 12–13

13d

Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.

Page 8

13e

Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression).

Page 12–13

13f

Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.

N/A

Reporting bias assessment

14

Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).

N/A

Certainty assessment

15

Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.

N/A

Results

 

Study selection

16a

Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.

Page 8

16b

Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.

Page 8

Study characteristics

17

Cite each included study and present its characteristics.

Page 20

Risk of bias in studies

18

Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.

Page 13

Results of individual studies

19

For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.

NA

Results of syntheses

20a

For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.

Page 14–17

20b

Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.

Page 8–13

20c

Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.

N/A

20d

Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.

N/A

Reporting biases

21

Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.

Page 16–20

Certainty of evidence

22

Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.

Page 16–20

Discussion

 

Discussion

23a

Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.

Page 21

23b

Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.

Page 24

23c

Discuss any limitations of the review processes used.

Page 24

23d

Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.

Page 22–23

Other information

 

Registration and protocol

24a

Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.

N/A

24b

Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.

Page 6

24c

Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.

N/A

Support

25

Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.

Page 24

Competing interests

26

Declare any competing interests of review authors.

Page 24

Availability of data, code and other materials

27

Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.

Page 6

  1. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  2. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, F., Bashir, S., Talib, M.N.A. et al. The impact of psychological ownership of knowledge on knowledge hiding behaviour: a bibliographic analysis. Curr Psychol 42, 30187–30209 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04033-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04033-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation