Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (6) : 677-687     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00677
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Collective psychological ownership, status conferral criteria and team creativity
WEI Lihua1,LIU Zhiqiang1,LIAO Shudi2(),LONG Lirong1,LIAO Jianqiao1
1 Management School, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
2 Business School, Hubei University, Wuhan 430062, China
Download: PDF(428 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Collective psychological ownership has been studies as the latest issue in the field of psychology. Existing studies have not yet explored the mechanism of how collective psychological ownership affects team creativity. This study aims to address the above gaps by examining whether, when and how Collective psychological ownership has impacted on team creativity. Based on the Motived Information Processing in Group Model, this paper first empirically explores the mechanism of collective psychological ownership on team creativity. This study theorizes that collective psychological ownership could affect information elaboration, and in turn enhanced team creativity. At the same time, criteria for status promotion would moderated the positive relationship that collective psychological ownership affects team creativity through information elaboration.

In order to test our hypothesized model, we invited 101 Knowledge-based team leaders and their 800 subordinates who came from 16 big companies located in Wuhan, Zhengzhou and Guangzhou to participate in this research survey. In the end, we got 91 leader-followers dyads. As for scale to measure criteria for status promotion, we learned from Liu et al. (2013) measurement method of how to measure criteria for status promotion. Also, we adopte two items which are Adapted from the scale of Pierce et al (2004) to measure collective psychological ownership, as well as other measurements were well-established scales. Confirmatory factor analyses showed satisfactory model fit indices. Inter-rated agreement (Rwg) and intra-class correlation (ICC) value justified the aggregation of team information elaboration, Collective psychological ownership, Relationship conflict, Team Learning Behavior and Team Creativity.

A hierarchical regression analysis method is adopted to test the hypothesized model. Results showed that collective psychology ownership has a positive impact on team creativity, and information elaboration mediates the relationship between collective psychological ownership and team creativity. Criteria for status promotion moderates the relationship between collective psychological ownership and information elaboration. However, criteria for status promotion does not significantly moderates the relationship between collective psychological ownership and team creativity through information elaboration.

The present research makes some contributions to the Existing literature. First, by examining the positive effect of Collective psychological ownership on team creativity, this research proves the effectiveness of Collective psychological ownership beyond past literatures. Second, this study indicates the mediating role of information elaboration as well as its boundary conditions. For the practical implications, this research suggests that strengthening awareness of collective psychological ownership is conducive to the promotion of information elaboration and team creativity, also leaders should realize that criteria for status promotion will lead to different levels of competition, which impacts the relationship between collective psychological ownership and information elaboration.

Keywords collective psychological ownership      information elaboration      team creativity      status conferral criteria      motived information processing     
ZTFLH:  B849: C93  
Corresponding Authors: Shudi LIAO     E-mail: shudiliao@hubu.edu.cn
Issue Date: 25 April 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Lihua WEI
Zhiqiang LIU
Shudi LIAO
Lirong LONG
Jianqiao LIAO
Cite this article:   
Lihua WEI,Zhiqiang LIU,Shudi LIAO, et al. Collective psychological ownership, status conferral criteria and team creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(6): 677-687.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00677     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I6/677
  
变量 测项 载荷 t值 AVE CR
关系冲突 我们团队经常引发与工作无关的人际关系紧张 0.77 12.61 0.67 0.86
在一起工作时, 我们团队成员很容易变得暴躁 0.85 9.09
我们团队内部经常存在个体之间情绪性的冲突 0.83 10.41
信息深加工 我们团队成员公开地分享他们的知识来互相弥补不足 0.69 13.97 0.57 0.84
我们团队成员为产生最佳解决方案而仔细考察各个观点 0.75 12.89
我们团队成员会仔细考虑每个人提供的独特信息 0.77 12.37
我们团队产生的思想和解决方案比个人提出的好很多 0.80 11.36
团队创造力 我们团队的工作成果具有创新性 0.64 14.06 0.52 0.81
我们团队做出了很多具有原创性和实用性的工作成果 0.63 14.15
我们团队的产出表明我们能创造性地应用现有资源和信息 0.84 8.00
我们团队提出了许多解决问题的创造性解决方案 0.76 11.21
集体心理所有权 团队中的工作是我们成员集体的工作 0.91 2.23 0.70 0.82
我们觉得团队中的工作是我们成员集体的 0.75 7.40
  
测量模型 χ2 df χ2/df GFI CFI RMSEA
四因素模型
(RC, EI, TC, CPO)
96.40 57 1.69 0.97 0.99 0.04
三因素模型 (RC+CPO, EI, TC) 492.42 60 8.21 0.89 0.86 0.11
三因素模型
(RC, EI+CPO, TC)
420.31 60 7.01 0.91 0.88 0.10
三因素模型
(RC, EI, CPO+TC)
459.40 60 7.66 0.90 0.87 0.11
二因素模型 (CPO+RC+EI, TC) 1083.10 62 17.47 0.77 0.67 0.17
二因素模型
(EI, RC+CPO+TC)
899.64 62 14.51 0.80 0.73 0.15
一因素模型 (RC+CPO+EI+TC) 1556.26 63 24.70 0.69 0.51 0.21
  
变量 Rwg中值 Rwg均值 ICC1 ICC2
团队创造力 0.95 0.93 0.17 0.56
关系冲突 0.90 0.87 0.36 0.78
集体心理所有权 0.91 0.86 0.16 0.54
信息深加工 0.92 0.90 0.22 0.64
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 团队任期 2.59 1.56
2. 团队规模 7.23 2.79 0.09
3. 地位晋升标准 3.63 1.03 -0.00 0.03
4. 关系冲突 3.27 0.78 0.03 0.23* 0.07
5. 集体心理所有权 4.58 0.56 -0.11 -0.15 0.01 -0.34**
6. 信息深加工 4.79 0.60 0.17 -0.09 -0.21* -0.44** 0.49**
7. 团队创造力 4.67 0.45 0.22* 0.05 -0.13 -0.24* 0.36** 0.43**
  
变量 团队创造力 信息深加工
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
(常量) 4.67*** 4.87*** 4.79*** 5.20*** 5.15***
第一步:控制变量
团队任期 0.10* 0.12** 0.11 0.13** 0.13**
团队规模 0.04 0.05 -0.01 0.01 0.01
关系冲突 -0.12* -0.06 -0.26*** -0.17** -0.16**
第二步:主效应
集体心理所有权 0.16** 0.25*** 0.28***
地位晋升标准 -0.06 -0.11* -0.10*
第三步:调节效应
地位晋升标准×集体心理所有权 0.12*
ΔR2 0.12* 0.12** 0.23*** 0.19*** 0.03*
F 3.84 5.35 8.50 12.02 11.18
  
预测变量 信息深加工 团队创造力
M6 M7
b SE Boot 95% CI b SE Boot 95% CI
控制变量:
团队任期 -0.22 0.09 [0.0520, 0.3939] 0.20 0.10 [0.0069, 0.3948]
团队规模 0.02 0.09 [-0.1551, 0.1953] 0.11 0.10 [-0.0799, 0.3031]
关系冲突 -0.31 0.09 [-0.4926, -0.1252] -0.07 0.11 [-0.2856, 0.1412]
自变量:
集体心理所有权 0.41 0.09 [0.2323, 0.5959] 0.25 0.11 [0.0256, 0.4678]
中介变量:
信息深加工 0.25 0.12 [0.0168, 0.4853]
R2 0.38*** 0.26***
间接效应 中介变量 效应值 SE Boot95%CI
信息深加工 0.10 0.07 [ 0.0053, 0.2728]
  
  
集体心理所有权→信息深加工→团队创造力
调节变量 水平 效应值 SE Boot 95% CI
地位晋升标准 高水平
(刻度型标准)
0.36 0.19 [-0.0167, 0.7463]
中等水平 0.29 0.12 [0.0491, 0.5258]
低水平
(竞赛型标准)
0.21 0.14 [-0.0595, 0.4798]
  
[1] Amabile T. M . ( 1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45( 2), 357-376.
url: http://content.apa.org/journals/psp/45/2/357
[2] Amabile T. M . ( 1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
[3] Aronson E., Wilson T. D., & Akert R. M . ( 2005). Social Psychology (5th edition), Prentice-Hall.
[4] Baer M., Leenders R., Oldham G. R., & Vadera A. K . ( 2010). Win or lose the battle for creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53( 4), 827-845.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2010.52814611
[5] Baer M., & Oldham G. R . ( 2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91( 4), 963-970.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.963
[6] Bechtoldt M. N., de Dreu C., Nijstad B. A., & Choi H-S . ( 2010). Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 99( 4), 622-37.
[7] Bendersky C., & Hays N. A . ( 2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23( 2), 323-340.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1110.0734
[8] Carnevale P. J. D., & Probst, T. M . ( 1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74( 5), 1300-1309.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1300
[9] Charness G., Masclet D., & Villeval M. C . ( 2014). The dark side of competition for status. Management Science, 60( 1), 38-55.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1747
[10] Courtright S. H., Thurgood. G. R., Greg L & Pierotti, S. A. J. ., ( 2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 100( 6), 1825-1846.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/apl0000027
[11] 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.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/job.2057
[12] de Dreu C. K. W . ( 2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91( 2), 280-295.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749597803000220
[13] de Dreu C. K. W . ( 2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92( 3), 628-638.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.628
[14] de Dreu C., Nijstad B. A., Bechtoldt M. N., & Baas M . ( 2011). Group creativity and innovation: A motivated information processing perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5( 1), 81-89.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/aca/5/1/81/
[15] de Dreu C., Nijstad B. A., & van Knippenberg D . ( 2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12( 1), 22-49.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868307304092
[16] Farh J. L., Lee C., & Farh C. I . ( 2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 6), 1173-1180.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0020015
[17] Hair J. F., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L., & Black W. C . ( 1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed). Prentice Hall.
[18] Hinsz V. B., Tindale R. S., & Vollrath D. A . ( 1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121( 1), 43-64.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
[19] Hoever I. J., van Knippenberg D., van Ginkel W. P., & Barkema H. G . ( 2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97( 5), 982-996.
pmid: 22774764 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0029159
[20] Homan A. C., van Knippenberg D., van Kleef G. A & de Dreu, C. K. W. .,( 2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92( 5), 1189-1199.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189
[21] James L. R., Demaree R. G., & Wolf G . ( 1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69( 1), 85-98.
url: http://content.apa.org/journals/apl/69/1/85
[22] Jiang J., & Yang B. Y . ( 2016). Perspective taking, task reflexivity and team creativity: The moderating role of leaders’ critical thinking. Nankai Business Review, 19( 6), 27-35.
[22] [ 江静, 杨百寅 . ( 2016). 换位思考、任务反思与团队创造力:领导批判性思维的调节作用. 南开管理评论, 19( 6), 27-35.]
[23] Kearney E., Gebert D., & Voelpel S. C . ( 2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52( 3), 581-598.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2009.41331431
[24] Koestler A . ( 1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan.
[25] Lin X. M., Bai X. W., & Lin L . ( 2014). Effects of similarity and accuracy indices of shared mental models on team creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46( 11), 1734-1747.
[25] [ 林晓敏, 白新文, 林琳 . ( 2014). 团队心智模型相似性与正确性对团队创造力的影响, 心理学报, 46( 11), 1734-1747.]
[26] Liu Z. Q., Deng C. J., Liao J. Q., & Long L. R . ( 2013). Status-striving motivation, criteria for status promotion and employees’ innovative behavior choice. C hina Industrial Economics, 10, 83-95.
[26] [ 刘智强, 邓传军, 廖建桥, 龙立荣 . ( 2013). 地位竞争动机、地位赋予标准与员工创新行为选择. 中国工业经济, 10, 83-95.]
[27] Madrid H. P., Totterdell P., Niven K., & Barros E . ( 2016). Leader affective presence and innovation in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101( 5), 673-686.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/apl0000078
[28] Mayhew M. G., Ashkanasy N. M., Bramble T., & Gardner J. A . ( 2007). Study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147( 5), 477-500.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/SOCP.147.5.477-500
[29] Ni X. D., Xiang X. X., & Yao C. X . ( 2016). Balance of team diversity’ effects on team creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 5), 556-565.
[29] [ 倪旭东, 项小霞, 姚春序 . ( 2016). 团队异质性的平衡性对团队创造力的影响. 心理学报, 48( 5), 556-565. ]
[30] Peng H., & Pierce J. ,( 2015). Job- and organization-based psychological ownership: Relationship and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30( 2), 151-168.
url: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/JMP-07-2012-0201
[31] Pierce J. L., & Jussila I. , ( 2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31( 6), 810-834.
[32] Porath C. L., Overbeck J. R., & Pearson C. M . ( 2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38( 7), 1945-1980.
[33] Schultz P. W., & Searleman A. , ( 1998). Personal need for structure, the einstellung task, and the effects of stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 24( 3), 305-310.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191886997001797
[34] Shin S. J., & Zhou J. , ( 2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92( 6), 1709-1721.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709
[35] Stasser G. & Birchmeier, Z. ,( 2003) . Group creativity and collective choice. In P. B.Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 85-109). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
[36] Steenkamp J-B. E. M., & Trijp H. C. M . ( 1991). The use of lisrel in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8( 4), 283-299.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0167811691900275
[37] Tett R. P., & Burnett D. D . ( 2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 3), 500-517.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500
[38] Tjosvold D .( 1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47( 3), 285-342.
url: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/apps/47/3
[39] van der Vegt G. S, & Bunderson J. S . ( 2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48( 3), 532-547.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2005.17407918
[40] 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 Organization Behavior, 25( 4), 439-460.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/%28ISSN%291099-1379
[41] van Knippenberg D., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan A. C . ( 2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89( 6), 1008-1022.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
[42] Wang S . ( 2015). Emotional intelligence, information elaboration, and performance: The Moderating role of informational diversity. Small Group Research, 46( 3), 324-351.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046496415578010
[43] Wang X-H., Kim T-Y., & Lee D-R . ( 2016). Cognitive diversity and team creativity: Effects of team intrinsic motivation and leadership. Journal of Business Research, 69( 9), 3231-3239.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296316000977
[1] NI Xudong,JI Baile. Eliminating the negative impact of subgroups by exchanging members in the subgroups[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(2): 259-268.
[2] Weiguo LIU, Yanran FANG, Junqi SHI, Shenjiang MO. The impact of supervisor’s creativity expectation on team creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(6): 667-677.
[3] Shengming LIU,Lifan CHEN,Simai WANG. Modesty brings gains: The effect of humble leader behavior on team creativity from a team communication perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(10): 1159-1168.
[4] NI Xudong; XIANG Xiaoxia; YAO Chunxu. Balance of team diversity’ effects on team creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(5): 556-565.
[5] LV Jie; ZHANG Gang. The Mechanisms of Knowledge Heterogeneity on Creativity of Knowledge Teams: An Interactive Cognition Perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(4): 533-544.
[6] LIN Xiaomin; BAI Xinwen; LIN Lin. Effects of Similarity and Accuracy Indices of Shared Mental Models on Team Creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(11): 1734-1747.
[7] CAI Yahua;JIA Liangding;YOU Shuyang;ZHANG Yi;CHEN Yanlu. The Influence of Differentiated Transformational Leadership on Knowledge Sharing and Team Creativity: A Social Network Explanation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(5): 585-598.
[8]

Zhang Gang,Ni Xudong

. The Impact of Knowledge Difference and Knowledge Conflict on the Creativity of Team[J]. , 2007, 39(05): 926-933.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech