Psychological Ownership, Territorial Behavior, and Being Perceived as a Team Contributor: The Critical Role of Trust in the Work Environment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this field study, we develop and test a theory regarding the role of trust in the work environment as a critical condition that determines the relationship between psychological ownership, territoriality, and being perceived as a team contributor. We argue that, dependent upon the context of trust in the work environment, psychological ownership may lead to territorial behaviors of claiming and anticipatory defending and that, dependent upon the context of trust, territorial behavior may lead coworkers to negatively judge the territorial employee as less of a team contributor. A sample of working adults reported on their psychological ownership and territorial behavior toward an important object at work, and a coworker of each provided evaluations on the level of trust in the work environment and rated the focal individual's contributions to the team. Findings suggest that a work environment of trust is a “double‐edged sword”: On the one hand, a high trust environment reduces the territorial behavior associated with psychological ownership; on the other hand, when territorial behavior does occur in high trust environments, coworkers rate the territorial employee's contributions to the team significantly lower. We discuss the nature and management of territorial behavior in light of these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it