Impact of psychological ownership on customer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE:

This paper aims to explore the effects of customers’ psychological ownership of shared products on customer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy. This study hypothesizes that customer-company identification can increase consumers’ psychological ownership of shared products in the absence of legal ownership, thereby promoting customer citizenship behaviour. This study asserts that psychological ownership plays a mediating role in the relationship between customer-company identification and customer citizenship behaviour based on social identity theory. We explore the moderating role of consumers’ proactive personalities in the sharing economy.

METHODS:

A questionnaire including the following was constructed: customer-company identification, psychological ownership, customer citizenship behaviour, and proactive personality. We administered the online consumer questionnaire in China to investigate the factors that affect consumer behavioural intentions in the sharing economy.

RESULTS:

First, based on a sample of 326 participants, the results suggest that both customer-company identification and psychological ownership are positively related to customer citizenship behaviour. Second, psychological ownership partially mediates the relationship between customer-company identification and customer citizenship behaviour. Third, proactive personality moderates the relationship between customer-company identification and customer citizenship behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings highlight the importance of psychological ownership in promoting customer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy.

Keywords

Customer-company identification sharing economy psychological ownership proactive personality customer citizenship behaviour

Gaixia Wang is a graduate student at the School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, China. Her research interests include organization behaviour and consumer psychology.

Jian Zhang is a professor of Management and Psychology at the School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, China. She received her Ph.D. from Capital Normal University in 2003. Her current research interests include motivation and emotion at work workplace, organization behaviour, leadership, and consumer psychology.

1 Introduction

The sharing economy has transformed production and consumption systems in cities worldwide based on internet technologies and mobile payment services [1]. The Annual Report on China’s Sharing Economic Development of 2019 noted that the main feature of the sharing economy is the sharing of use rights and defined the sharing economy as the sum of economic activities that utilize modern information technologies, integrate scattered and massive resources, and meet diverse needs. The sharing economy conforms to the concepts of resource conservation, environmental protection and green consumption. Although the sharing economy has introduced great convenience to our everyday lives, it inevitably has some disadvantages. Due to the impulses of capital arbitrage, imperfect management systems, the absence of supervision, and limited company control over consumers’ behaviours, resources are often damaged in the sharing economy through intentional damage and discarding. To avoid profit losses, companies can adopt measures to enhance consumers’ feeling of responsibility in the sharing economy. If consumers voluntarily exhibit citizenship behaviours, such as helping enterprises publicize, completing customer feedback forms or recommending services to family members and friends, enterprises can better improve their business performance and reduce marketing costs. Therefore, how to improve customer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy is an issue that enterprises must consider.

Customer citizenship behaviour (hereafter referred to as CCB) is defined by Groth [2] as voluntary and discretionary consumer behaviour that is not required for the successful production or delivery of a service but benefits the company. Previous research has found that the following three main factors influence CCB: (a) personal attributes of customers, such as gender, age, education level, customer socialization and personality factors; (b) enterprise-related factors, such as employee citizenship behaviour, corporate reputation and corporate image; and (c) customer-company relationships, such as customer satisfaction, customer participation, customer trust and commitment [3]. Through social capital, a company can carry out corporate social responsibility activities and deliver consumer identification to improve CCB in the sharing economy environment [4]. CCB helps enhance the competitiveness of companies by reducing marketing costs and improving product quality and services. It is particularly necessary for enterprises in the sharing economy to motivate consumers to perform more citizenship behaviours. However, consumers only briefly use shared products and have no clear sense of responsibility for these products, likely leading to unethical behaviour among consumers because of the separation between the ownership and use rights of shared products. Consumers gain access to shared products for short-term periods by paying per use. Consumers no longer have a clear responsibility for products and lack a sense of ownership of and responsibility for shared products. In addition, it is difficult for consumers to establish brand relationships with enterprises in the sharing economy [5]. Bardhi and Eckhardt [6] showed that consumers are more reckless when driving shared cars than when driving private cars. This finding illustrates that it is necessary to explain consumer behaviours in the sharing economy from the perspective of ownership.

Possession and ownership can influence an individual’s attitude, motivation and behaviour. Psychological ownership (hereafter referred to as PO) is defined as a state in which an individual feels that a target or a portion of the target belongs to him or her [7]. PO is distinct from legal ownership and is a psychologically experienced phenomenon in which individuals have a sense of possessing a target (both material and immaterial in nature). For example, Isaacs [8] observed that when young children first hear songs, they probably perceive a sense of ownership of the songs, i.e., these children think that the songs are “theirs”. Individuals may still develop a perceived sense of PO over objects that they do not own, even if they lack legal ownership [9]. For example, in touch research by Peck and Shu [10], the authors demonstrated an important finding that among nonowners or legal owners, mere touch increases the feeling of ownership of an object. Similarly, consumers may perceive ownership of shared goods even when they do not own these goods [6]. This finding raises an interesting question of whether we could increase the PO of shared goods in the absence of actual legal ownership to promote customer citizenship behaviour.

Bhattacharya and Sen [11] proposed that customer-company (C–C) identification is an active, selective, and volitional act motivated by the satisfaction of one or more self-definitional (i.e., “Who am I?”) needs. Dutton et al. [12] noted that when a customer’s self-concept more closely matches a brand’s image, business concepts and values, the customer will strongly identify with the organization and become attached to the organization’s products or services. Einwiller et al. [13] also stated that when customers’ self-identity and values are consistent with those of an enterprise, they feel a sense of identification. By contrast, C–C identification, communication and contact with the company, and customer citizenship behaviour are lower if customers believe that the organization’s image or values do not align with their values. When customers identify with an enterprise, there is a psychological connection between the enterprise and the customers. Therefore, a positive sense of identification can deepen customer-company relationships [14]. In addition, as a link between customers and enterprises, C–C identification has an impact on customers’ attitudes and behaviours, prompting consumers to establish strong relationships with enterprises [15] and encouraging customers to engage in extra-role behaviours that are advantageous to enterprises, such as customer loyalty, company promotion and other behaviours [11].

The primary goal of this article is to investigate the effects of customers’ psychological ownership of shared products on customer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy. We hypothesize that customer-company identification can increase consumers’ psychological ownership of shared products in the absence of legal ownership, thereby promoting customer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy. The present research also examines the moderating effect of proactive personality on the relationship between C–C identification and CCB. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications of this work are discussed.

The following are the contributions of this paper. (1) Existing research concerning consumer behaviours in the sharing economy is mostly based on motivation, while few studies discuss the psychological mechanisms of consumers involved in the process of consumption. As a result, we present the psychological concept of PO as a mediating variable to examine the psychological mechanisms underlying consumer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy. (2) Based on social identity theory, this paper explores how people outside an organization, namely, consumers, can establish ownership of the organization’s products through a sense of identification with the organization, which, in turn, leads them to behave in ways that benefit the business. Therefore, we construct and empirically test a theoretical model to investigate how customer-company relationships influence customer citizenship behaviour through psychological ownership in the sharing economy environment. (3) Employees’ proactive personalities in organizational behaviour have been the subject of extensive research. However, few studies examined the effects of a proactive personality on consumer attitudes and behaviours. This research adds to the existing evidence regarding the moderating role of customers’ proactive personalities in the context of the sharing economy.

2 Literature review and hypotheses

2.1 Social identity theory

Proposed by Tajfel and Turner [16], social identity theory provides a theoretical basis for understanding the development of C–C identification. In particular, this theory suggests that an individual enhances his or her self-esteem by achieving or maintaining a positive social identity based on favourable comparisons of one’s in-group and some relevant out-groups [16]. Individuals define the social environment and others according to social categorizations and generate thoughts and behaviours according to their categorizations. Such social categorizations easily trigger in-group bias; thus, individuals always tend to favour the in-group rather than the out-group in relation to evaluations and behaviour. Yang et al. [17] confirmed that users’ social identity with the social media means that users have a sense of belonging to that social media community and develop a strong intention of continuously using social media platforms.

However, researchers found that individual-organization identification also occurs even without formal membership in the organization [11, 18]. In addition, Einwiller [13] argued that if a consumer and company share the same values, the customer can identify with the company or organization even if he or she does not know the company. For example, Hellobike is a company that provides bike and car sharing services in China. A customer may develop a sense of connection and identification with Hellobike even though they are not formal members of this company. Such customers define both themselves and Hellobike as supporters of green commuting.

Thus far, the concept of social identification has been widely used in organizational behaviour research and has been conceptualized as organizational identification [19], C–C identification [20], broadcaster identification, group identification, community identification [21], and other forms. Recently, several studies demonstrated that C–C identification is associated with positive outcomes, such as customer voice behaviour, positive word-of-mouth (hereafter referred to as WOM) intentions, and repurchase intentions [22 –24]. Positive word-of-mouth refers to making others aware that one conducts business with a company, actively recommending the company to others, and praising the company’s quality orientation [24].

2.2 Customer-company identification and customer citizenship behaviour

The concept of CCB originated from organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), which was clearly conceptualized by Organ [25] as discretionary behaviour that is not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system but, in aggregate, promotes the effective functioning of an organization. Furthermore, Organ [25] divided OCB into five dimensions, namely, altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. Thus far, this perspective represents the authoritative view of the dimensions of OCB and constitutes the research basis of many scholars. OCB contributes to the effectiveness of the entire organization and can guide the organization to success in the highly competitive business environment [26]. Groth [2] also increasingly focused on citizenship behaviours in the customer domain.

According to past research, different scholars define consumer citizenship behaviour differently and divide it into distinct aspects. CCB has been labelled customer extra-role behaviours [27], customer organizational citizenship behaviours [28] and customer voluntary performance [29] in the previous literature. In particular, CCB refers to customers’ voluntary extra-role behaviours that are conducive to the operation of an organization and can provide assistance to an organization [28]. Bettencourt [29] defined customer voluntary performance as “helpful, discretionary customer behaviours that support the ability of the organization to provide service quality”. Therefore, Mills and Morris [30] believed that customers may be viewed as temporary members or “partial employees” of the organization participating in service delivery. In this article, we adopt Groth’s definition of customer citizenship behaviour [2]. Customer citizenship behaviour refers to consumers voluntarily recommending a company to others, helping other customers, and actively providing feedback to the company, which benefits the company. Some research has shown that CCB is exhibited through various behaviours, including providing suggestions for service improvements, positive WOM, and providing recommendations to relatives and friends [4, 29].

Bove [28] identified eight dimensions of CCB, namely, positive word of mouth, displays of relationship affiliation, participation in firm activities, benevolent acts of service facilitation, flexibility, suggestions for service improvements, voice and policing of other customers. The most representative dimensions are the following three dimensions of CCB defined by Groth [2]: (a) making recommendations (specifically, consumers recommend businesses to co-workers, family members, peers and those interested in certain businesses’ products or services); (b) helping other customers (consumers assist other customers in finding products, help others shop or explain how to use services correctly), and (c) providing feedback to organizations. Thus, consumers provide feedback that helps enterprises improve. Based on previous research, potential determinants have been found to influence CCB. For example, several studies have suggested that perceived customer support, customer satisfaction, corporate social responsibility behaviour, and affective commitment influence CCB [29 , 32].

Based on Bhattacharya and Sen [11], customer-company identification refers to customers’ perception of the comparison between enterprises’ identities and customers’ identities, and such perceptions enable consumers to obtain the psychological needs of self-identification and affect their consumption behaviours. Bhattacharya and Sen [11] argued that customers generate self-identity and self-categorization in interactions with enterprises based on social identity theory. If a company and customers share the same core characteristics, such as values and preferences, customers will identify with the company and engage in behaviours that benefit the company. When customers identify with a company, they are more likely to develop a psychological attachment to and care about the company, contribute to its goals, exert more volunteer efforts for the company, actively connect and cooperate with its members [11], and display beneficial and supportive behaviours [18]. In the previous literature, some scholars have confirmed that C–C identification positively affects CCBs [31, 33]. Individuals are more inclined to exhibit beneficial behaviours on behalf of an organization rather than purely self-interested behaviours when they strongly identify with the organization [34]. For example, Wu and Tsai [35] showed that in the direct selling industry, identification with a company results in customer loyalty, customer tolerance of defects, and the provision of advice and complaints for its improvement. We propose our first hypothesis as follows:

H1: Customer-company identification is positively related to customer citizenship behaviour.

2.3 Psychological ownership and customer citizenship behaviour

Heskett [36] developed a five-level hierarchy of customer behaviours, including customer satisfaction, mere loyalty, commitment, apostle-like behaviour, and ownership. According to this study, certain consumers are regarded as owners of a company, and these consumers are more inclined to contribute to the company’s sustainable development. Based on the theory of PO, a sense of ownership can significantly predict individuals’ attitudes and behaviours in relation to an organization. The conceptual core of PO is a sense of possession [37] of a particular target (e.g., one’s homes, cars, space, ideas or significant others). Individuals regard possessions as extensions of themselves, which affects their attitudes, motivations and behaviours towards such possessions [38]. There are three main routes through which consumers can develop a sense of ownership of shared products as follows: controlling the target, intimately knowing the target, and investing the self into the target [7]. PO is rooted in the following three basic human needs: efficacy and effectance, self-identity, and “home” (having a sense of place) [7]. Dyne and Pierce [39] suggest that when these basic needs are satisfied based on the PO of the organization, this results in a sense of responsibility. In addition, according to the psychology of possession, when individuals develop a sense of PO, they have positive attitudes, extend their self-concept and trigger a sense of responsibility towards the target. According to Pierce’s research [7], psychological ownership refers to a psychological state in which individuals think that a target or a part of a target belongs to them (such as a shared bike or a shared charger). Individual psychological ownership of shared products may also emerge in the context of the sharing economy. For example, an individual may feel that a shared bike may be “his” or “hers” because he or she uses it often.

Based on empirical evidence, according to Dyne and Pierce [39], PO has been demonstrated to positively promote individual behavioural outcomes. Organizational PO is positively related to OCB among employees. Chiang et al. [40] demonstrated that employees with brand PO can develop a brand altruistic spirit that contributes to brand citizenship behaviours. Most previous studies examined employees’ PO from the perspective of enterprises. However, current research concerning PO has gained increasing attention in marketing. Joo and Marakhimov [41] believed that similar to employees, consumers can participate in corporate activities to generate psychological ownership. Furthermore, Joo and Marakhimov [41] found that when consumers have feelings of PO, they may engage in positive WOM and boycott activities that reduce the negative impact on the company or products. Peck et al. [42] demonstrated through experiments that consumers’ psychological ownership increases perceived responsibility, which, in turn, contributes to stewardship behaviour for public goods. If individuals feel a sense of ownership of public goods, they value public goods. Similarly, shared goods are public goods to a certain extent; thus, we can also enhance consumers’ psychological ownership to promote their positive citizenship behaviours. In summary, we posit that consumers with higher levels of PO towards shared objects are willing to show customer citizenship behaviour, which is beneficial to companies based on the sense of responsibility for shared products. We propose our next hypothesis as follows:

H2: Psychological ownership is positively related to customer citizenship behaviour.

2.4 The mediating role of psychological ownership

Pierce et al. [43] stated that one of the motives behind PO is self-identity. Possessions are regarded as a part of the extended self and become a part of one’s self-identity [44]. Some scholars believe that C–C identification can contribute to such self-extension [11]. Some personal characteristics of individuals are the influencing factors of psychological ownership, which mainly include a sense of belonging, motivation, strong sense of ownership, self-efficacy, ownership, and self-identity [45]. Regarding the relationship between C–C identification and psychological ownership, a previous study demonstrated that customers’ sense of belonging and positive identification with a hotel’s values can promote feelings of ownership of the hotel [46]. Even without legal ownership, such feelings of ownership may prompt consumers to generate specific behavioural outcomes, such as relationship intentions, WOM recommendations, and a willingness to spend more money at the hotel. As proposed by Bhattacharya et al. [47], when consumers identify with what an organization represents, it is quite probable that they will become loyal followers of its products or services. Thus, we believe that consumers who identify with certain companies may develop a sense of PO of the shared objects they use. When consumers believe that they have similar values and beliefs as those of companies, value congruence occurs [46]. For example, people identify with bike-sharing companies because they identify with these companies’ values, such as an interest in low-carbon transportation. According to social identity theory, when customers identify with a company, their behaviours and attitudes are more likely to be consistent with the company, enhancing their sense of ownership of shared objects. Taken together, our next hypothesis is as follows:

H3: Psychological ownership has a significant mediating effect on the relationship between customer-company identification and customer citizenship behaviour.

2.5 The moderating effect of proactive personality

In this article, we adopt the definition of proactive personality in the research by Bateman and Crant [48]. As proposed by Bateman and Crant [48], as a type of personality trait, proactive personality is the relatively stable disposition of an individual unconstrained by situational forces, and proactive individuals can change the environment. This perspective is similar to social interaction theory, which posits that changes in individuals’ behaviours might cause their external environment to change. A proactive personality is a more predictive factor than the Big Five personality traits in explaining individual behaviour [49]. Moreover, Thompson [50] argued that a proactive personality is the most predictive personality trait identified thus far. Bateman and Crant [48] suggested that proactive individuals are more likely to actively search for information, explore the environment, identify and seek opportunities and persevere until they change their situations. In contrast, less proactive individuals remain passive, fail to seize opportunities to make changes, and rely on others to act as forces for change. Such individuals passively adapt to, rather than change, circumstances [49].

According to personal initiative theory, proactive individuals pursue their goals and act to implement their ideas in an active and spontaneous way through anticipation, planning and action directed towards future impact [51]. Proactive individuals actively seek resources and take active actions, leading to more citizenship behaviours, thereby achieving the purpose of supporting enterprises and rewarding society. When consumers have less proactive personalities, even if they identify with a company, they may succumb to the pressure of the external environment and, thus, restrain citizenship behaviour. However, individuals with highly proactive personalities take the initiative to transform their sense of identification into customer citizenship behaviour.

Based on empirical research, a proactive customer is willing to exhibit CCBs [52]. Wang and Xiong [53] confirmed the moderating effect of a proactive personality on the relationship between the emotional loyalty of consumers and customer citizenship behaviour. The results show that when customers have highly proactive personalities, positive emotions, such as love for and trust in a company, are more likely to be activated and transformed into customer citizenship behaviours. Therefore, such individuals actively search for information related to the company or products and take the initiative to engage in behaviours favourable for the improvement of the company’s products or services. Thus, we posit that when consumers identify with a company, individuals with highly proactive personalities value the products that they use more, recommend products or services to others, help other customers and engage in other favourable behaviours. Thus, our final hypothesis is as follows:

H4: A proactive personality moderates the effect of customer-company identification on customer citizenship behaviour.

Figure 1 presents the theoretical model proposed in this work. C–C identification can directly affect CCB, and psychological ownership mediates the relationship between C–C identification and CCB. Finally, a proactive personality moderates the direct influence of C–C identification on CCB.

Fig. 1

Theoretical model.

3 Methodology

3.1 Sample

We mainly distributed the questionnaires anonymously and randomly through social media platforms, such as WeChat and Weibo. We sent a link to the questionnaire, and the participants completed the questionnaire using their mobile phones or computers. In addition, we collected paper questionnaires from friends and classmates who previously used shared goods. The completeness of the answers and the accuracy of the trap question were used as the sample criteria. We considered the questionnaires with incomplete answers and incorrect answers to the trap question invalid questionnaires. We excluded questionnaires from participants who never used shared products.

Finally, 414 questionnaires were distributed and collected. After eliminating the invalid and incomplete questionnaires, we received 326 valid questionnaires, and the recovery rate of the valid questionnaires was 78.7%. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the sample as shown in Table 1. In the sample of this study, the ratio of men to women was relatively balanced. Most participants were aged between 19 and 30 years, followed by 18.4% who were aged 31–40 years. In addition, 68.4% of the participants held a bachelor’s degree. Among the participants, 59.8% were students, 20.2% were enterprise staff and 11.3% were freelancers. The respondents in this study used some shared products, such as bike sharing (85.6%), electric car sharing (35.6%), car sharing (16.3%) and shared chargers (55.8%). The average time spent per use of these participants was mainly within 30 minutes or 30–60 minutes. However, only 11% of the participants spent more than 60 minutes per use.

Table 1
Characteristics of the Sample

Category Number Percent (%)

Gender

Female 162 49.7

Male 164 50.3

Education

High school or below 33 10.1

Junior college 46 14.1

College 223 68.4

Postgraduate 24 7.4

Age

Under 18 21 6.4

19–30 228 69.9

31–40 60 18.4

41–50 13 4.0

Over 50 4 1.2

Occupation

Administrative agency professional 15 4.6

Enterprise staff 66 20.2

Freelancer 37 11.3

Student 195 59.8

Retiree 1 0.3

Other 12 3.7

Shared product categories

Bike sharing 279 85.6

Electric car sharing 116 35.6

Car sharing 53 16.3

Shared charger 182 55.8

Average time spent per use

Within 30 minutes 145 44.5

30–60 minutes 145 44.5

60–120 minutes 31 9.5

Over 120 minutes 5 1.5

Category	Number	Percent (%)
Gender
Female	162	49.7
Male	164	50.3
Education
High school or below	33	10.1
Junior college	46	14.1
College	223	68.4
Postgraduate	24	7.4
Age
Under 18	21	6.4
19–30	228	69.9
31–40	60	18.4
41–50	13	4.0
Over 50	4	1.2
Occupation
Administrative agency professional	15	4.6
Enterprise staff	66	20.2
Freelancer	37	11.3
Student	195	59.8
Retiree	1	0.3
Other	12	3.7
Shared product categories
Bike sharing	279	85.6
Electric car sharing	116	35.6
Car sharing	53	16.3
Shared charger	182	55.8
Average time spent per use
Within 30 minutes	145	44.5
30–60 minutes	145	44.5
60–120 minutes	31	9.5
Over 120 minutes	5	1.5

3.2 Measures

A Likert scale with six options was used in this study to eliminate the interference of consumers’ compromising thinking. All questionnaires were measured using a Likert scale with six options ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 6 = “strongly agree”.

Customer-company identification: We measured this variable using the scale developed by Jin [54] and Mael and Ashforth [55], which includes “I pay attention to relevant information and development of the company”, “When someone criticizes the company, it feels like a personal insult” and five other items. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.809.

Psychological ownership: We measured this variable using the psychological ownership scale developed by Fuchs et al. [56], which contains six items, including “I feel that these shared products belong to me” and “I feel a strong sense of closeness with these products”. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.744.

Customer citizenship behaviour: CCB was measured by averaging 12 items following Groth [2], including “Refer fellow students or co-workers to the business”, “Assist other customers in finding products” and 12 other items. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.915.

Proactive personality: We measured this variable using the revised scale developed by Shang and Gan [57], including 11 items, such as “If I see someone in trouble, I help out in any way I can” and “I am good at turning problems into opportunities”. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.875.

Control variables: In the previous research literature, individuals’ gender, age, education level and occupation have been shown to be important influences of CCB [3]. In addition, the duration of object ownership can influence individuals’ perceptions of psychological ownership. Therefore, we also control the average amount of time customers spend using these shared items.

4 Results

We used the skewness value to test normality. The skewness coefficients of customer-company identification, psychological ownership, proactive personality, and customer citizenship behaviour were 0.08, 0.41, 0.17, and 0.06 respectively. The kurtosis coefficients of these variables were –0.02, –0.21, –0.07, and –0.22 respectively. All skewness and kurtosis coefficients range from –0.22 to 0.41; thus, the distribution is normal.

4.1 Measurement validation

The value of KMO of customer-company identification scale, psychological ownership scale, proactive personality scale, and customer citizenship behaviour scale were 0.78, 0.80, 0.90, 0.92 respectively. And we used Amos 23.0 to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis, which was used to assess the discriminant validity of the theoretical model. We evaluated the model fit by processing x²/df, IFI, TLI, CFI and RMSEA. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis are shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, we can observe that the four-factor measurement model provides a good model fit to the data of this study (x²/df = 1.956, IFI = 0.912, TLI = 0.901, CFI = 0.911, and RMSEA = 0.054), whereas the other three alternative models fit poorly.

Table 2
Results of the CFA

Model x²/df IFI TLI CFI RMSEA

Four-factor model CCI, PO, CCB, PP 1.956 0.912 0.901 0.911 0.054

Three-factor model CCI+PO, CCB, PP 2.854 0.821 0.807 0.820 0.076

Two-factor model CCI+PO, CCB+PP 3.160 0.791 0.776 0.790 0.082

Single-factor model CCI+PO+CCB+PP 4.020 0.707 0.686 0.705 0.096

Model		x²/df	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Four-factor model	CCI, PO, CCB, PP	1.956	0.912	0.901	0.911	0.054
Three-factor model	CCI+PO, CCB, PP	2.854	0.821	0.807	0.820	0.076
Two-factor model	CCI+PO, CCB+PP	3.160	0.791	0.776	0.790	0.082
Single-factor model	CCI+PO+CCB+PP	4.020	0.707	0.686	0.705	0.096

Note: n = 326. CCI = customer-company identification, PO = psychological ownership, PP = proactive personality, CCB = customer citizenship behaviour.

4.2 Correlation analysis

Table 3 illustrates the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations of the variables. C–C identification was positively related to psychological ownership (r = 0.67, p < 0.05) and significantly related to CCB (r = 0.61, p < 0.01) and proactive personality (r = 0.49, p < 0.01). Moreover, we observed a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51, p < 0.01) between psychological ownership and customer citizenship behaviour. Hence, we obtained rudimentary support for H1 and H2.

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of the variables

Variable M±SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. gender 1.50±0.50

2. age 2.24±0.68 –0.39^

3. education 2.73±0.74 0.34^ –0.34^

4. occupation 3.42±1.08 0.29^ –0.35^ 0.19^

5. average time spent per use 1.68±0.71 –0.11^ 0.06 –0.06 –0.09

6. CCI 4.00±0.87 –0.19^ 0.30^ –0.20^ –0.24^ 0.10

7. PO 3.65±0.73 –0.28^ 0.27^ –0.20^ –0.25^** 0.11^* 0.67^*

8. CCB 4.45±0.72 –0.15^ 0.33^ –0.19^ –0.16^ 0.08 0.61^ 0.51^

9. PP 4.47±0.68 –0.10 0.26^** –0.10 –0.12^* 0.12^* 0.49^ 0.43^ 0.74^**

Variable	M±SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. gender	1.50±0.50
2. age	2.24±0.68	–0.39^**
3. education	2.73±0.74	0.34^**	–0.34^**
4. occupation	3.42±1.08	0.29^**	–0.35^**	0.19^**
5. average time spent per use	1.68±0.71	–0.11^**	0.06	–0.06	–0.09
6. CCI	4.00±0.87	–0.19^**	0.30^**	–0.20^**	–0.24^**	0.10
7. PO	3.65±0.73	–0.28^**	0.27^**	–0.20^**	–0.25^**	0.11^*	0.67^*
8. CCB	4.45±0.72	–0.15^**	0.33^**	–0.19^**	–0.16^**	0.08	0.61^**	0.51^**
9. PP	4.47±0.68	–0.10	0.26^**	–0.10	–0.12^*	0.12^*	0.49^**	0.43^**	0.74^**

Note: n = 326. ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01. CCI = customer-company identification, PO = psychological ownership, PP = proactive personality, CCB = customer citizenship behaviour.

4.3 Hypothesis testing

In this section, we use regression analyses to further test our hypotheses. The results of the regression model analysis are shown in Table 4. Model 2 demonstrates that C–C identification (β= 0.56, SE = 0.04, p < 0.01) has a positive impact on CCB, supporting Hypothesis l. Model 3 demonstrates that psychological ownership (β= 0.47, SE = 0.05, p < 0.01) also has a positive impact on CCB, supporting Hypothesis 2.

Table 4
Results of the regression model analysis

PO CCB

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5

Gender –0.13^ 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.01

Age 0.01 0.17^ 0.22^ 0.17^ 0.07

Education –0.02 –0.04 –0.05 –0.03 –0.05

Occupation –0.05 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.01

Average time spent per use 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 –0.03

CCI 0.62^ 0.56^ 0.44^ 0.27^

PO 0.47^** 0.19^*

PP 0.58^**

CCI×PP 0.09^*

R² 0.48 0.39 0.31 0.41 0.65

ΔR² 0.34 0.27 0.19 0.02 0.01

F 48.37^ 34.33^ 23.62^ 31.71^ 72.32^**

	PO	CCB
Gender	–0.13^**	0.02	0.08	0.05	0.01
Age	0.01	0.17^**	0.22^**	0.17^**	0.07
Education	–0.02	–0.04	–0.05	–0.03	–0.05
Occupation	–0.05	0.03	0.02	0.04	0.01
Average time spent per use	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.01	–0.03
CCI	0.62^**	0.56^**		0.44^**	0.27^**
PO			0.47^**	0.19^*
PP					0.58^**
CCI×PP					0.09^*
R²	0.48	0.39	0.31	0.41	0.65
ΔR²	0.34	0.27	0.19	0.02	0.01
F	48.37^**	34.33^**	23.62^**	31.71^**	72.32^**

Note: n = 326. ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01. CCI = customer-company identification, PO = psychological ownership, PP = proactive personality, CCB = customer citizenship behaviour.

Furthermore, Model 1 indicates that C–C identification (β= 0.62, SE = 0.04, p < 0.01) has a positive impact on psychological ownership. Model 4 shows that C–C identification (β= 0.44, SE = 0.05, p < 0.01) can positively affect CCB via psychological ownership. After adding the variable of psychological ownership, the path coefficient significantly decreased from 0.56 in Model 2 to 0.44 in Model 4.

We further evaluated the proposed model using the bootstrapping procedure by running 5000 samples [58]. The analyses of the bootstrapping test reveal the indirect influence of C–C identification on CCB via psychological ownership (β= 0.19, p < 0.01). After the addition of psychological ownership, the influence of C–C identification on CCB significantly decreased, denoting a partial mediating effect of psychological ownership. Table 5 shows the analysis of the mediating effects of psychological ownership. In addition, we provide the total, direct, and indirect effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable based on the 95% confidence interval as shown in Table 5. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported by our verification.

Table 5

Total effect, direct effect and mediating effect

	Effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	Relative effect
Total effect	0.47	0.04	0.39	0.55
Direct effect	0.37	0.05	0.27	0.48	78.93%
Indirect effect of psychological ownership	0.10	0.03	0.03	0.17	21.07%

Hypothesis 4 proposed that proactive personality has a moderating effect on the relationship between C–C identification and CCB. Model 5 shows that the interaction between C–C identification and proactive personality had a significant effect on CCB as shown in Table 4 (β= 0.09, SE = 0.04, p < 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported. To obtain a clearer understanding of the moderating effect of a proactive personality, this study generated an analysis diagram of the moderating effect as shown in Fig. 2. Figure 2 shows the moderating effect of a proactive personality on the relationship between C–C identification and customer citizenship behaviour. The results in Fig. 2 showed that the slope of low proactive personality is lower than the slope of high proactive personality. When proactive personality is low, the positive relationship between customer-company identification and customer citizenship behaviour is weak (Effect = 0.16, SE = 0.05, p < 0.01); when proactive personality is high, the positive relationship between customer-company identification and customer citizenship behaviour is strong (Effect = 0.29, SE = 0.04, p < 0.01).

Fig. 2

Moderating effect of a proactive personality on C-C identification and customer citizenship behaviour relationship.

5 Discussion

Sharing, as a form of consumption, has been noted by scholars to have positive effects on social development through socially responsible behaviours [1, 59]. In recent years, the sharing economy has developed rapidly in the fields of tourism, transportation, and financial services. Yin et al. found that the motivation of Chinese consumers to use bike-sharing services depends on whether they think that such services can help protect natural resources, reduce unnecessary waste, and other societal benefits [59]. However, customer misbehaviour is more likely to occur in the sharing economy, undermining the sustainable development of sharing platforms and affecting other customers’ experiences [60]. In the context of the sharing economy, customer misbehaviour mainly includes property damage, overuse of resources, and failure to keep property clean and tidy [60]. Therefore, effective management of customer behaviour is also more urgent. Altruistic customer citizenship behaviour is conducive to the sustainable development of sharing platforms.

Based on social identity theory, a quantitative method was employed to explore the underlying mechanisms involved in customer-company relationships and CCB. We designed a model to discuss the relationships among consumers’ identification with enterprises, psychological ownership and CCB.

First, the results indicate that C–C identification significantly affects CCBs (H1). The positive impact of C–C identification on customer citizenship behaviour is significant, confirming the findings reported by other researchers. This finding is compatible with the research conclusions of Hur [31].

Second, psychological ownership of shared objects may be an important factor influencing CCB in the sharing economy (H2). This finding is consistent with Asatryan and Oh [46]. Thus, after customers have a sense of ownership of a company’s products, they care about the company from the bottom of their heart and, thus, show more voluntary behaviours that are beneficial to the company. Therefore, to promote individuals’ voluntary citizenship behaviour, it is particularly essential to shape consumers’ psychological ownership consciousness of products.

Third, we theoretically propose the mediating role of psychological ownership in the relationship between C–C identification and CCB (H3). According to the conclusion of the article, the test of the mediating effect provides a new theoretical basis for and empirical evidence explaining the mechanism by which consumers’ identification with a firm influences customer citizenship behaviour. This finding indicates that C–C identification can effectively foster a sense of ownership, thereby triggering consumers’ favourable behaviours towards platforms, products and individual service providers.

Finally, a proactive personality moderates the direct effect of C–C identification on CCB (H4). When consumers are individuals with highly proactive personalities, they are more inclined to exchange information with others, challenge the status quo, and carry out a series of voluntary actions to achieve their goals. This study reports that compared with consumers with less proactive personalities, among consumers with highly proactive personalities, C–C identification is more likely to stimulate customer citizenship behaviour. Customers with highly proactive personalities are more inclined to engage in essential behaviours in the consumption process and non-compulsory behaviours that are conducive to the improvement and innovation of products or services when they have a sense of identification with the company.

5.1 Theoretical implications

In the Chinese context, this research analysed the impact of identification with a company and psychological ownership of shared goods on CCB based on social identity theory, which serves as a useful supplement to the existing theoretical literature concerning CCB. The results confirm that consumer identification with enterprises has a positive effect on CCB through the mediating role of PO and reveal that proactive personality is a boundary condition in this relationship.

First, this research contributes to the literature on the sharing economy. Previous sharing economy research focusing on consumers cover five different topics, including usage intention/behaviours, perception, activities, outcome, and individual characteristics [61]. Various factors that affect consumers’ intention/behaviour include social, service, outcome, and individual factors. However, the psychological factors driving customer citizenship behaviour remain largely unknown. To this end, this study shows a new relationship. The sharing economy separates the ownership and use rights of shared products. Despite the lack of legal ownership, customers’ psychological ownership will promote positive customer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy.

Second, undoubtedly, C–C identification is an important predictor of CCBs [31, 33]. In contrast to Wang and Ho [4], our research suggests that consumers’ identification with enterprises not only directly enhances CCB but also increases CCB through the mediating role of PO. According to Ahearne [34], a high level of C-C identification encourages consumers to show citizenship behaviour on behalf of a company. When consumers and enterprises share consistent or similar values, social identities and other aspects, such consumers tend to identify with these enterprises and exhibit some behaviours that are beneficial to the enterprises.

Third, this study extends research concerning psychological ownership into a new context, namely, the sharing economy. The previous literature concerning PO focuses on the realms of organization and management. We explore the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ psychological ownership. The results of this study reveal how psychological ownership is formed in customer psychology and the influence of psychological ownership on the subsequent behaviour of customers. Research investigating the reasons for this feeling of psychological ownership revealed that a sense of identification with a company seems to affect the feeling of PO. We find that consumers who identify with an organization feel higher levels of ownership, which is consistent with previous studies [46]. According to the study by Bhattacharya and Sen [11], consumers identifying with a firm are willing to establish strong, committed, and meaningful connections with the firms. In particular, when consumers’ identification with a company’s values promotes a sense of ownership, consumers feel that shared products are their “own”. This sense of ownership stimulates a sense of responsibility in such customers, triggering citizenship behaviours. When this sense of ownership is enhanced, consumers use shared service facilities as if they own them and spontaneously behave in a way that is beneficial to platforms, products or service providers. For example, consumers help the enterprise publicize, make recommendations to and help other customers, and provide suggestions and feedback to the enterprise to help it succeed.

Finally, previous studies investigating proactive personality traits have paid less attention to the consumer context. A proactive personality, as an individual difference factor, plays a significant moderating role; thus, it strengthens the influence of C-C identification on CCB. Choi and Hwang [52] showed that customers with highly proactive personalities participate more in CCB than customers with less proactive personalities. Thus, we extend previous studies showing that consumers with highly proactive personality traits are more willing to convert their sense of identification with companies into citizenship behaviours.

5.2 Managerial implications

The sharing economy is conducive to promoting sustainable social development and reduces environmental impacts by allowing underutilized assets to work [1]. Companies have reached a consensus that customer citizenship behaviour is one of the most crucial resources for facilitating development in the market in which competition in the sharing economy is still fierce. The results of this research can provide certain practical guidelines for managerial practices in shared services.

First, PO has a positive impact on customer citizenship behaviour. Companies in the sharing economy should consider the psychological ownership of consumers when formulating marketing strategies. For example, when consumers use shared bikes, they can see the sign “welcome to use your bike” in the app. To stimulate customers’ sense of psychological ownership, enterprises can consider enhancing their C-C identification. By enhancing consumers’ sense of company belonging and identification, consumers can have an increased sense of ownership of shared objects, thereby enhancing consumers’ sense of responsibility when using products.

Second, customer-company identification is an indispensable factor in the formation of psychological ownership. As described above, given the positive impact of C-C identification, companies might consider their customer relationship management strategies. For example, to effectively promote customer identification, managers should pay more attention to building a positive corporate image, cultivating a sense of identification among customers and improving communication with customers [34]. In addition, managers should organize thematic activities to enhance the connection between consumers and companies, promote communication with customers, and inspire citizenship behaviour.

Third, it is logical to identify consumers with highly proactive personalities. Marketers should adjust their communication approaches toward these customers to activate their initiative potential, encouraging them to actively and voluntarily act in favour of the company. Thus, when customers develop a sense of identification with a company, highly proactive people are more inclined to make recommendations to family members or friends and help other customers who are experiencing problems with certain products. Managers should identify groups with highly proactive personality traits among potential customers and encourage these groups to play an active role in protecting and caring for shared objects.

Finally, it is necessary for managers to open diversified feedback channels and use feedback forms. Given the development of the internet and the particularity of shared service facilities, when consumers identify equipment damage or other encroachment behaviours among customers, they can provide timely feedback to enterprises to address such issues and help such enterprises improve service quality and efficiency levels.

5.3 Limitations and avenues for future research

Undeniably, there are still some deficiencies in this study. In this section, we propose the existing limitations in this research and discuss avenues for future research.

First, the generalizability of our conclusions to other countries, regions, and cultures may be limited because the sample used in this study is limited to consumers of the sharing economy in China. For example, Dawkins et al. [62] suggest that culture may be an important determinant of PO. The formation and influence of PO differ between more collectivist Eastern cultures and more individualistic Western cultures. Furthermore, the sample investigated in this study is small in size, uneven in age distribution, and composed primarily of university students and young people aged 19∼30 years. The sample areas, occupations and age ranges studied are expected to be expanded. In addition, different types of industries (such as the service industry and manufacturing industry) may have different requirements for the intensity of psychological ownership of consumers. Therefore, future research can be carried out by combining the specific characteristics of different industries.

Second, previous studies usually ignored the dynamic characteristics of psychological ownership, but some researchers have noted the dynamic nature of psychological ownership [62]. Consumers’ PO of shared objects might change over time, and the results could be affected by various factors involved in given contexts. Psychological ownership is not static and may fluctuate due to changes in the work environment. For example, employee psychological ownership may be affected by changes in the process of organizational change. Scholars are expected to apply a longitudinal design to examine the dynamic nature of PO in future research. Researchers can collect data at several stages throughout the inquiry to understand how consumer psychological ownership changes, such as before, during, and after the use of shared goods.

Third, current research generally agrees that PO has a positive impact on individuals or organizations but ignores its duality. Some scholars have noted that psychological ownership may have a negative impact on individuals, interpersonal relationships and organizational operations. Dirks et al. [63] believed that excessive psychological ownership could facilitate employees to protect their own interests at the expense of others. We mainly discuss the positive effects of PO and do not consider its negative effects. When consumers’ PO becomes excessive, does this inhibit customer citizenship behaviour? The potentially negative effects of this phenomenon can be explored in future work. We should consider the balance between the favourable and unfavourable aspects of psychological ownership and, on this basis, seek appropriate strategies to minimize the unfavourable effects of PO under different situations to the greatest extent possible.

6 Conclusion

This work adds to the theoretical and practical understanding of research concerning customer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy. We demonstrated the importance of psychological ownership in promoting customer citizenship behaviour. The results of the model analysis show that customer-company identification is an independent variable that can directly or indirectly affect customer citizenship behaviour through psychological ownership. Specifically, customer-company identification can directly affect customer citizenship behaviour. Improving customer-company identification can increase consumers’ psychological ownership of shared products in the absence of legal ownership, thereby promoting customer citizenship behaviour in the sharing economy. The results also showed that a proactive personality strengthens the positive correlation between customer-company identification and customer citizenship behaviour.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

National Natural Science Foundation of China (71771022); Beijing Natural Science Foundation (9202010)

Author contributions

All authors contributed equally.

References

Mont

, Palgan

, Bradley

, Zvolska

. A decade of the sharing economy: Concepts, users, business and governance perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;269:122–215.

Groth

. Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet service deliveries. Journal of Management. 2005;31(1):7–27.

Chao

, Liu

. Literature review on influencing factors of customers citizenship behavior. Economic Forum. 2012;5:151–4.

Wang

Y-B

, Ho

C-W

. No money? No problem! The value of sustainability: Social capital drives the relationship among customer identification and citizenship behavior in sharing economy. Sustainability. 2017;9(8):1400.

Yang

S-G

, Deng

H-X

, Wang

. Research on sharing economy: Review and prospects on the liquid consumption perspective. Modernization of Management. 2019;39(2):122–5.

Bardhi

, Eckhardt

. Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research. 2012;39(4):881–98.

Pierce

, Kostova

, Dirks

. Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 2001;26(2):298–310.

Isaacs

. Social development in young children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1933.

Rousseau

, Shperling

. Pieces of the action: Ownership and the changing employment relationship. Academy of Management Review. 2003;28(4):553–70.

10.

Peck

, Shu

. The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research. 2009;36(3):434–47.

11.

Bhattacharya

, Sen

. Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing. 2003;67(2):76–88.

12.

Dutton

, Dukerich

, Harquail

. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1994;39(2):239–63.

13.

Einwiller

, Fedorikhin

, Johnson

, Kamins

. Enough is enough! When identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2006;34(2):185–94.

14.

M-X

, Luo

J-H

. The mechanisms of corporate reputation impact on consumer emotion attachment and customer citizenship behaviour based on customer-company identify theory. China Business and Market. 2016;30(4):108–14.

15.

Bergami

, Bagozzi

. Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2000;39(4):555–77.

16.

Tajfel

, Turner

. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. 1985;13(3):7–24.

17.

Yang

, Hu

, Kpandika

, Liu

. Effects of social attachment on social media continuous usage intention: The mediating role of affective commitment. Human Systems Management. 2021;40(4):619–31.

18.

Scott

, Lane

. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review. 2000;25(1):43–62.

19.

Boutmaghzoute

, Moustaghfir

. Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility actions and employee retention: A human resource management perspective. Human Systems Management. 2021;40(6):789–801. doi:10.3233/HSM-211202

20.

Kwon

, Ha

, Kowal

. How online self-customization creates identification: Antecedents and consequences of consumer-customized product identification and the role of product involvement. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017;75:1–13.

21.

, Zhang

, Wang

. Why do audiences choose to keep watching on live video streaming platforms? An explanation of dual identification framework. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017;75:594–606.

22.

Ran

, Zhou

. Customer-company identification as the enabler of customer voice behavior: How does it happen? Front Psychol. 2020;11:777.

23.

, Swanson

, Chen

. The effects of perceived service quality on repurchase intentions and subjective well-being of chinese tourists: The mediating role of relationship quality. Tourism Management. 2016;52:82–95.

24.

Hong

, Yang

S-U

. Effects of reputation, relational satisfaction, and customer–company identification on positive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research. 2009;21(4):381–403.

25.

Organ

. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington: Lexington Books. 1988.

26.

Al-Mamary

YHS

. The impact of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behaviour: Evidence from malaysian higher education context. Human Systems Management. 2021;40(5):737–49.

27.

Hur

W-M

, Moon

T-W

, Kim

. When does customer csr perception lead to customer extra-role behaviors? The roles of customer spirituality and emotional brand attachment. Journal of Brand Management. 2020;27(4):421–37.

28.

Bove

, Pervan

, Beatty

, Shiu

. Service worker role in encouraging customer organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Research. 2009;62(7):698–705.

29.

Bettencourt

. Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service delivery. Journal of Retailing. 1997;73(3):383–406.

30.

Mills

, Morris

. Clients as “partial” employees of service organizations: Role development in client participation. Academy of Management Review. 1986;11(10):726–35.

31.

Hur

W-M

, Kim

. Does customer engagement in corporate social responsibility initiatives lead to customer citizenship behaviour? The mediating roles of customer-company identification and affective commitment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2018;25(6):1258–69.

32.

Meng

, He

. Study on customers’ multiple interaction and citizenship behavior intention in the sharing economy: The perspective of psychological ownership. Tourism Tribune. 2019;34(7):85–97.

33.

Tuzun

, Devrani

. The impact of perceived employee identification on the relationship between customer company-identification and customer citizenship behaviour: Practice from turkish hotels. African Journal of Business Management. 2011;5(5):1781–6.

34.

Ahearne

, Bhattacharya

, Gruen

. Antecedents and consequences of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005;90(3):574–85.

35.

, Tsai

. The empirical study of crm: Consumer-company identification and purchase intention in the direct selling industry. International Journal of Commerce and Management. 2008;17(3):194–210.

36.

Heskett

. Beyond customer loyalty. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal. 2002;12(6):355–7.

37.

Furby

. Possession in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal. 1978;6(1):49–65.

38.

Furby

. Understanding the psychology of possession and ownership: A personal memoir and an appraisal of our progress. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 1991;6(6):457–63.

39.

Dyne

, Pierce

. Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004;25(4):439–59.

40.

Chiang

, Chang

, Han

. A multilevel investigation of relationships among brand-centered hrm, brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behaviors, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing. 2012;46(5):626–62.

41.

Joo

, Marakhimov

. Antecedents of customer participation in business ecosystems: Evidence of customers’ psychological ownership in facebook. Service Business. 2017;12(1):1–23.

42.

Peck

, Kirk

, Luangrath

, Shu

. Caring for the commons: Using psychological ownership to enhance stewardship behavior for public goods. Journal of Marketing. 2020;85(2):33–49.

43.

Pierce

, Kostova

, Dirks

. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology. 2003;7(1):84–107.

44.

Belk

. Possessions and extended self. Journal of Consumer Research. 1988;15(2):139–68.

45.

Gede Riana

. Mediation role of job satisfaction analysis on the effect of psychological ownership and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Systems Management. 2021. doi: 10.3233/HSM-201055

46.

Asatryan

, Oh

. Psychological ownership theory: An exploratory application in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 2008;32(3):363–86.

47.

Bhattacharya

, Rao

, Glynn

. Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing. 1995;59(4):46–57.

48.

Bateman

, Crant

. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1993;14(2):103–18.

49.

Crant

, Bateman

. Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2000;21(1):63–75.

50.

Thompson

. Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005;90(5):1011–17.

51.

Grant

, Ashford

. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2008;28:3–34.

52.

Choi

, Hwang

. The role of prosocial and proactive personality in customer citizenship behaviors. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2019;36(2):288–305.

53.

Wang

H-H

, Xiong

L-J

. Research on the influencing factors of customer participation in value co-creation under the background of sharing economy. Journal of Commercial Economics. 2018;21:43–5.

54.

Jin

L-Y

. The effects of consumers’ company identification on their evaluation of products and behavioral responses. Nankai Business Review. 2006;9(3):16–21.

55.

Mael

, Ashforth

. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1992;13(2):103–23.

56.

Fuchs

, Prandelli

, Schreier

. The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers’ product demand. Journal of Marketing. 2010;74(1):65–79.

57.

Shang

J-Y

, Gan

Y-Q

. Analysis of the effects of the proactive personality on graduates’ career decision-making self-efficacy. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis. 2009;45(3):548–54.

58.

Preacher

, Hayes

. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(3):879–91.

59.

Yin

, Qian

, Singhapakdi

. Sharing sustainability: How values and ethics matter in consumers’ adoption of public bicycle-sharing scheme. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016;149(2):313–32.

60.

, Gu

, Hampson

, Wang

. Enhancing customer civility in the peer-to-peer economy: Empirical evidence from the hospitality sector. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019;167(1):77–95.

61.

Wang

, Lin

, Abdullat

. Sharing economy: A review of the literature and a framework for future research. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 2020;51(3):418–37.

62.

Dawkins

, Tian

, Newman

, Martin

. Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2017;38(2):163–83.

63.

Dirks

, Cummings

, Pierce

. Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. Research in Organizational Change and Development. 1996;9:1–23.