A Study of the Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Psychological Ownership---Multilevel and Longitudinal Approaches

(1)

行政院國家科學委員會

獎勵人文與社會科學領域博士候選人撰寫博士論文

成果報告

A Study of the Antecedents and Consequences of

Brand Psychological Ownership: Multilevel and

Longitudinal Approaches

核定編號： NSC 98-2420-H-004-181-DR 獎勵期間： 98 年 08 月 01 日至 99 年 07 月 31 日執行單位：國立政治大學企業管理研究所指導教授：張愛華博士生：江旭新公開資訊：本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，1 年後可公開查詢

中華民國 99 年 09 月 28 日

(2)

品牌心理擁有感之前因與結果因素之研究：

量表發展與多層次之研究方法

A Study of the Antecedent and Consequence of

Brand Psychological Ownership:

(3)

Figures

Figure 1-1 Research Process………....16

Figure 2-1 The Relationship between Two Constructs: Brand citizenship Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behavior...53

Figure 3-1: Measure Model of Corporate Branding………74

Figure 3-2: Secondary CFA of Corporate Branding………75

Figure 3-3: Measurement Model of Brand Psychological Ownership………98

Figure 3-4: Secondary CFA of Brand Psychological Ownership………99

Figure 3-5: Measurement Model of Brand Citizenship Behavior...……….101

Figure 3-6: Secondary CFA of Brand Citizenship Behavior...……….102

Figure 3-7 Measurement Model of BPO and BCB……….107

Figure 3-8 Measurement Model of BPO, OPO and OC………...112

Figure 3-9 Measurement Model of BPO, BCB and OCB……….116

(6)

Tables

Table 2-1 A Comparison between Corporate and Product Brands………..20

Table 2-2 Key Concepts of Corporate Brand, Corporate Identity, Corporate Image, and Corporate Reputation………22

Table 2-3 Key Concepts of Corporate Branding……….23

Table 2-4 Dimensions of Corporate Branding……….26

Table 2-5 Comparison between Organizational Psychological Ownership and Brand Psychological Ownership………..37

Table 2-6 Key Concepts of Brand Psychological Ownership, Brand Commitment and Organizational Commitment………38

Table 2-7 Dimensions of Psychological Ownership and Brand Psychological Ownership.………..……..41

Table 2-8 Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Brand Citizenship Behavior..……….………49

Table 3-1 Key Concepts of Corporate Branding Obtained from In-depth Interviews.57 Table 3-2 Expertise Validity of Corporate Branding………62

Table 3-3 EFA of Corporate Branding (Varimax Rotation)………..67

Table 3-4 Items of Communication and Evaluation of Corporate Branding………...69

Table 3-5 Items of Departmental Coordination of Corporate Branding………..70

Table 3-6 Leadership and Interaction with Stakeholders of Corporate Branding……71

Table 3-7 Items of Training and Selection of Corporate Branding……….72

Table 3-8 Items of Vision and Culture of Corporate Branding………73

Table 3-9 CFA of Corporate Branding……….73

Table 3-10 PHI, SE, and T in Measure Model of Corporate Branding………76

Table 3-11 Standardized λand T in Measure Model of Corporate Branding………..77

Table 3-12 Key Concepts of Brand Psychological Ownership Obtained from In-depth Interviews………80

Table 3-13 Key Concepts of Brand Citizenship Behavior Obtained from In-depth Interviews………82

Table 3-14 Expertise Validity of Brand Psychological Ownership……….84

Table 3-15 Expertise Validity of Brand Citizenship Behavior………..86

Table 3-16 EFA of Brand Psychological Ownership (Varimax Rotation)…………..90

Table 3-17 EFA of Brand Citizenship Behavior (Varimax Rotation)………91

Table 3-18 Items of Identification and Belongingness of Brand………93

Table 3-19 Items of Brand Self-efficacy……….93

Table 3-20 Items of Brand Accountability………94

(7)

Table 3-22 Items of Helping Behavior of Brand………95

Table 3-23 Items of Consideration and Enhancement of Brand………..96

Table 3-24 CFA of Brand Psychological Ownership………...98

Table 3-25 Fitness indices of Brand Citizenship Behavior...………101

Table 3-26 PHI, SE, and T in Measurement Model of Brand Psychological Ownership...103

Table 3-27 Standardized λand T in Measurement Model of Brand Psychological Ownership...104

Table 3-28 PHI, SE, and T in Measurement Model of Brand Citizenship Behavior.105 Table 3-29 Standardized λand T in Measurement Model of Brand Citizenship Behavior...105

Table 3-30 Fitness indices of Brand Citizenship Behavior………108

Table 3-31 PHI, SE, and T in Measurement Model of BPO and BCB………..108

Table 3-32 Standardized λand T in Measurement Model of BPO and BCB……….109

Table 3-33 Items of Organizational Psychological Ownership………..111

Table 3-34 Items of Organizational Commitment………..111

Table 3-35 PHI, SE, and T of Measurement Model of BPO, OPO and OC………..113

Table 3-36 Standardized λand T of Measurement Model of BPO, OPO and OC….113 Table 3-37 Items of Organizational Citizenship Behavior..………..……….115

Table 3-38 PHI, SE, and T in Measurement Model of BPO, BCB and OCB………117

Table 3-39 Standardized λand T in Measurement Model of BPO, BCB and OCB..117

Table 5-1 Procedures Used to Justify Aggregation………146

Table 5-2 Values of

r

wg………...……148

Table 5-3 Values of ICC (1) and ICC (2) ………..………...……148

Table 5-4 Data Utilized in Multilevel Analyses………149

Table 5-5 Fitness indices of Different Models………..………154

Table 5-6 Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Research Constructs…155 Table 5-7 Null Model………157

Table 5-8 Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results of the Proposed Model…………161

Table 5-9 Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results: Brand PO on Band CB (Detailed Analyses)……….165

Table 5-10 Hierarchical linear modeling results of the proposed model (Detailed Analyses)………168

(8)

A Study of the Antecedent and Consequence of Brand

Psychological Ownership: Scale Development and

Multilevel Approaches

Abstract

This thesis aims to investigate the antecedent and consequence of brand

psychological ownership. Three major constructs related to branding efforts and

results studied and explored by this research include corporate branding, brand

psychological ownership, and brand citizenship behavior. The first construct,

corporate branding, represents practices that improve brand cognitions and brand

attitude of multiple stakeholders. The second construct, brand psychological

ownership, represents the psychological state that makes employees produce feeling

of ownership toward the corporate brand. The third construct, brand citizenship

behavior, shows that employees have brand-oriented altruistic spirit and live the brand.

In order to explore the antecedent and consequence of brand psychological ownership,

two major steps are conducted by this study. First, this study conducts the scale

developments of corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, and brand

citizenship behavior. Second, this study explores the multilevel relation between

corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behavior, and

brand equity.

The guidelines of Hinkin (1998) are followed as the procedures of scale

development. As for the scale development of corporate branding, a survey conducted

among a sample of 275 managers from the franchise organizations in Taiwan was

undertaken. Five factors of corporate branding obtained after EFA and CFA include:

communication and evaluation of corporate branding, departmental coordination of corporate branding, leadership and interaction with stakeholders of corporate branding, training and selection of corporate branding, and vision and culture of

(9)

corporate branding. The results represent a scale of corporate branding with good

reliability and validity.

As for scale developments of brand psychological ownership and brand

citizenship behavior, a survey conducted among a sample of 361 customer-facing

employees from the franchise organizations in Taiwan was undertaken. Three factors

of brand psychological ownership obtained after EFA and CFA include: brand

self-efficacy, brand accountability and identification and belongingness of brand.

Three factors of brand citizenship behavior obtained after EFA and CFA include:

sportsmanship and endorsement of brand, helping behavior of brand, and consideration and enhancement of brand. The results represent scales of brand

psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior with good reliability and

validity.

In the individual level analyses, brand psychological ownership has a positive

effect on brand citizenship behavior, and most factors of brand psychological

ownership have positive effects on factors of brand citizenship behavior. In the

multilevel analyses, results demonstrate that corporate branding has positive effects

on brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior.

Organizational-level brand citizenship behavior positively affects brand equity. It is

also found that brand psychological ownership fully mediates the relationship

between corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior. Detailed analyses show

that many factors of corporate branding have positive effects on different factors of

brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior. Most factors of brand

citizenship behavior positively affect brand equity. Discussion, contributions,

implication, limitation, and future study are also discussed.

Key words: corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship

(10)

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Research Motives

Compared to extensively studied topics related to brand management (e.g.,

perception, associations, and extension), brand psychological ownership is a new

construct that recently attracts the attention of practitioners and academics. Brand

psychological ownership is extended from perspectives of organization psychological

ownership. Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks (2001) assert that psychological ownership is

regarded as the feeling of possessiveness making organizational members

psychologically tied to tangible and intangible objectives. Van Dyne and Pierce (2004)

argue that psychological ownership is the psychologically experienced phenomenon

that makes employees produce possessive feelings toward the target. Avey, Avolio,

Crossley, and Luthans (2009) assert that psychological ownership is a

cognitive-affective construct defined as the state in which organizational members

feel the targets as theirs and reflect their awareness, thoughts, and beliefs concerning

the target. Extended from above-mentioned perspectives, brand psychological

ownership is regarded as the psychologically experienced state in which

organizational members feel they are psychologically tied to the brand of the

organization. Organizational members feel the brand as their own brand, and reflect

(11)

Brand psychological ownership is especially significant in the franchise

organization, because the brand image, organizational reputation, and corporate name,

which can be enhanced by practices of corporate branding (Souiden, Kassim and

Hong, 2006), are important assets in the franchise organization. Based on Burmann

and Zeplin (2005), employees’cognition (i.e., brand commitment) can be improved

by branding practices, such as brand leadership, brand communication, and

brand-centered HRM. Similarly, a franchisee organization may adopt practices of

corporate branding (i.e., brand-centered HRM, brand leadership and brand

communication) to make organizational members have feelings of brand

psychological ownership, thus contributing to brand image, organizational reputation,

and corporate name. For example, McDonald and Wang Steak adopt some practices of

corporate branding (e.g., brand training and brand communication) to make

employees feel they are closely connected with the corporate brand and then produce

good service attitudes and behaviors, thus contributing to the brand image of Wang

Steak. However, few researches have explored the construct of brand psychological

ownership; there exists a large gap to improve in the field of brand psychological

ownership. Organizational members who have psychological ownership produce the

feeling of “ItisMINE!”towards tangible and intangible objects (Pierce, Rubenfeld, and Morgan 1991). That is, employees with brand psychological ownership have the

(12)

feeling of “ItisMINE!”toward tangible objects (e.g., product) and intangible objects (e.g., corporate brand). Van Dyne et al. (2004) argued that employees with

organizational psychological ownership have three traits which include positive

attitudes, self-concept, and sense of responsibility toward the target, all of which

contribute to organizational citizenship behavior. Building on the argument, brand

psychological ownership can make employees produce positive brand attitudes and

behavior. From practical phenomenon of Wang Steak, employees who have brand

psychological ownership produce feelings of ownership toward the corporate brand

and feel effective in brand-related activities. For example, employees can participate

in brand-related decision-making in “Awaking Lion Program”. However, the formation of brand psychological ownership has not yet been explored. Thus, the first

motive of this research is to explore the key concepts and contents of brand

psychological ownership.

Psychological ownership is profoundly related to altruistic spirit that contributes

to organizational citizenship behavior. Van Dyne et al. (2004) found that

organizational psychological ownership is positively associated with organizational

commitment, which further contributes to organizational citizenship behavior

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach, 2000). The factors that foster

(13)

demonstrated by Allen, Shore, and Griffeth (2003), organizational commitment is

positively affected by perceived organizational support; employees who perceive

organizational support may be encouraged to produce positive attitudes to reciprocate

organizations (Blau, 1986), thus producing altruistic spirit which contributes to

organizational citizenship behavior. In addition, the organizational support (e.g.,

corporate branding) could evoke the feeling of psychological ownership as contended

in the preceding paragraph. Extended from above-mentioned perspectives, this study

argues that brand psychological ownership is positively associated with brand

altruistic spirit that contributes to brand citizenship behavior. In the context of

franchise organizations, employees who have psychological feelings of being closely

connected with the corporate brand may produce brand psychological ownership that

contributes to brand citizenship behavior. Similarly, Burmann et al. (2005) proposed

that brand commitment can arouse brand altruistic spirit which contributes to brand

citizenship behavior, yet, they did not further investigate the relationship between

brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior. This study argues that

brand psychological ownership which can make employees produce brand altruistic

spirit contributes to brand citizenship behavior. Based on practical phenomenon of

Burger King, employees with brand psychological ownership identify the corporate

(14)

behavior. However, researchers have not yet investigated why brand psychological

ownership contributes to brand citizenship behavior. Therefore, the second motive of

this research is to explore the relationship between brand psychological ownership

and brand citizenship behavior.

In response to the dynamic environment, organizations have to make strategies

adapted to the environment and then enhance their competitive capability; therefore,

an organization may adopt the strategy of differentiated position related to the

organizational symbolized values, such as corporate brands (Hatch and Schulz, 2003).

Several scholars proposed the concept of corporate branding to describe the branding

efforts especially focused on corporate brands instead of building product brands.

According to Harris and de Chernatony (2001), corporate branding concerns the

coordination of internal and external resources to contribute to a coherent brand

reputation, and a favorable brand identity perceived and held by multiple stakeholders

such as employees, customers, and managers. Employees as key stakeholders who

provide the interface between internal identity and external expression may be

expected to interact with other stakeholders (e.g., customers), and then enhance the

corporate brand values (Brexendorf and Kernstock, 2007). As argued by Hatch et al.

(2003), an organization may communicate values, beliefs, basic assumptions of the

(15)

organizational members have congruent cognitions which contribute to the success of

corporate branding (Harris et al., 2001). Furthermore, Burmann et al. (2005) assert

that the three levers including brand-centered HRM, brand communication, and brand

leadership can affect employees’brand-related cognitions (e.g., brand commitment)

which imply that practices of corporate branding can be considered as the antecedents

of brand psychological ownership. Apparently, employees’passion for the corporate

brand is the success of corporate branding efforts; those branding efforts like building

corporate brand and empowerment of employees shall be important. According to the

practical phenomenon of 7-Eleven, practices of corporate branding (e.g.,

brand-centered HRM) affect employees’cognitions and make employees feel

responsible for brand-related activities. However, researchers have not yet

investigated why practices of corporate branding can affect brand psychological

ownership. Thus, the third motive of this research is to explore relationship between

practices of corporate branding and brand psychological ownership.

As argued by Hatch et al. (2003), an organization can transmit vision, belief,

value, and norm of brand toward employees in the process of corporate branding, and

then make employees’behaviors transformed. Brand citizenship behavior is

considered not only as one part of organizational citizenship behavior, but also the

(16)

(Burmann et al., 2005). The practices of corporate branding (e.g., brand-centered

leadership) may foster followers’perception of variety and autonomy and then make

employees produce positive behavior (e.g., brand citizenship behavior) (Piccolo and

Coiquitt, 2006). From empirical evidence, transformational leadership is positively

associated with organizational citizenship behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Moorman and Fetter, 1990). Both transformational leadership and brand-oriented

leadership are considered as effective leadership (Burmann et al., 2005). According to

above-mentioned perspectives, this study argues that practices of corporate branding

positively affect brand citizenship behavior. From practical phenomenon of 7-Eleven,

practices of corporate branding (e.g., brand communication) make employees produce

positive behavior, such as following brand guidelines before actions. However, few

researches have investigated why practices of corporate branding affect brand

citizenship behavior. Therefore, the fourth motive of this research is to investigate the

relationship between corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior.

Based on prior research, practices of corporate branding (e.g., brand-centered

HRM) can make employees be a good organizational agent, thus contributing to

perceptions of customers. Supportive HRM may contribute to the employee’s role of

a good organizational agent that enhances customers’perceptions (Sun, Aryee, and

(17)

behavior that contributes to internal stakeholders but also service-oriented behaviors

that improve brand equity (Burmann et al., 2005). Based on practical phenomenon of

Wang Steak, customer-facing employees who have brand citizenship behavior (e.g.,

helping behaviors of corporate brand) can improve customers’perceptions toward the

corporate brand. However, researchers have not yet investigated why brand

citizenship behavior contributes to brand equity. The fifth motive of this research is to

explore the relationship between brand citizenship behavior and brand equity.

Based on previous research, corporate branding has been discussed by many

scholars (e.g., de Chernatony, 1999; Urde, 2001; Leitch and Richardson, 2003;

Balmer, 2001; Harris et al., 2003; Knox and Bickerton, 2003; Balmer and Gray, 2003;

Hatch et al., 2003; Martin, Beaumont, Doig and Pate, 2005; Vallaster and de

Chernatony, 2006; Uggla, 2006; Balmer, 2008), indicating corporate branding is an

important issue. However, few researches have investigated the dimensions of

corporate branding, which represents there exists a gap to improve the scale

development of corporate branding. Although Souiden et al. (2006) proposed four

dimensions of corporate branding, which include corporate name, image, reputation,

and loyalty, to investigate interrelation among four corporate branding dimensions,

and examine effects of their joint effect on customers’product evaluation, these four

(18)

Scholars have revealed important components of corporate branding, such as vision,

culture, and image (Hatch et al., 2003), brand-centered HRM (Burmann et al., 2005),

interaction with multiple stakeholders (Leitch et al., 2003), brand leadership (Kay,

2006), brand communication (Harris et al., 2001), and departmental coordination (de

Chernatony, 1999). These aspects of corporate branding should be included in the

dimensions of corporate branding. From empirical phenomenon, practices of

corporate branding adopted by franchise organizations, such as Burger King, Wang

Steak, McDonald and 7- Eleven, indeed contain the activities of transmitting vision,

mission, and values toward organizational members through various kinds of

communication channels, such as meetings between departments, training and

interaction with colleagues. However, researchers have not yet utilized a

comprehensive perspective of scale development of corporate branding that can

contribute to academics and practitioners in further understanding and using the

construct. Therefore, the sixth motive of this research is to conduct the scale

development of corporate branding.

Brand psychological ownership is as important as psychological ownership in the

organization which has to enhance competitive advantage in dynamic environments.

According to previous research, many scholars have investigated organizational

(19)

2008; Pierce Jussila and Cummings, 2009; Avey et al., 2009), revealing organizational

psychological ownership is an important issue. Building on theory of psychological

ownership, four dimensions of psychological ownership proposed by Avey et al.

(2009) include self-efficacy, accountability, belongingness, and self-identity. Compare

to organizational psychological ownership, few researches have explored brand

psychological ownership, representing there exists a large gap to explore the concepts

and contents of brand psychological ownership. From practical phenomenon of Wang

Steak, employees with brand psychological ownership may have positive cognitions,

such as responsibility for brand-related activities. However, researchers have not yet

conducted the scale development of brand psychological ownership that can help

academics and practitioners clearly clarify and utilize the new construct. Thus, the

seventh motive of this research is to conduct the scale development of brand

psychological ownership.

According to Podsakoff et al. (2000), seven dimensions of brand citizenship

behavior are asserted by Burmann et al. (2005) which include helping behavior, brand

consideration, brand enthusiasm, brand sportsmanship, brand endorsement,

self-development, and brand advancement, all of which contribute to the brand

strength. Brand citizenship behavior is regarded as brand-oriented behavior that

(20)

behavior (Burmann et al., 2005), indicating employees with brand citizenship

behavior can both help internal stakeholders (i.e. newcomers) to enhance

organizational effectiveness and solve the problems of external stakeholders (i.e.

customers) to foster the brand equity. From empirical phenomenon of McDonald,

employees with brand citizenship behavior (e.g., helping behaviors of corporate brand)

contribute to brand equity. Although the construct of brand citizenship behavior is

first proposed by Burmann et al. (2005), the extant literature has not yet documented

the scale development of brand citizenship behavior. Therefore, the eighth motive of

this research is to conduct scale development of brand citizenship behavior.

1.2 Research Objectives and Questions

Although this thesis aims to investigate the antecedent and consequence of brand

psychological ownership, the measurement items of brand psychological ownership,

corporate branding, and brand citizenship behavior have not been developed.

Therefore, this research have to first conduct scale developments of these constructs

and then utilize measurement items obtained from scale developments to investigate

the antecedent and consequence of brand psychological ownership. To fulfill

above-mentioned research motives, several objectives adopted by this research are

discussed as follows. First, this research conducts the scale developments of three

(21)

according to the guidelines of Hinkin (1998). Second, after conducting scale

developments of three constructs, this research can utilize items of three constructs to

investigate the multilevel relationships. That is, a holistic model is proposed by this

study to investigate the antecedent and consequence of brand psychological

ownership. Since the phenomena have to be observed at multiple levels of the

organizational behavior, hierarchical linear modeling is utilized to investigate the

relationships among the constructs. In individual-level analyses, this study focuses on

the relation between brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior

(Brand CB). In cross-level analyses, this study investigates the relationship between

practices of corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, and brand citizenship

behavior. Third, this study investigates the relation between aggregated brand CB and

brand equity to reveal the effect of employees’brand CB on organizational

effectiveness. Based on these research objectives, specific research questions are

discussed as follows.

(1) What are the key concepts and contents of brand psychological ownership?

(2) What is the relationship between brand psychological ownership and brand

citizenship behavior?

(3) What is the relationship between corporate branding and brand psychological

(22)

(4) What is the relationship between corporate branding and brand citizenship

behavior?

(5) What is the relationship between organization-level brand citizenship behavior

and brand equity?

(6) What are the measurement items of corporate branding?

(7) What are the measurement items of brand psychological ownership?

(8) What are the measurement items of brand citizenship behavior?

1.3 Research Process

As showed in Figure 1-1, the processes of this research include:

(1) Background, motives, and objectives of this research

(2) Literature review and dimension definition

(3) Scale developments of three constructs

(4) Data collection to conduct analyses of EFA and CFA

(5) Hypotheses development

(6) Continuous data collection to investigate constructs in multilevel relationships

(7) Analytical results

(23)

1.4 Expected Contribution

Several expected contributions of this study are discussed as follows. First, a new

construct, brand psychological ownership, has not yet been explored by previous

research. This research is the first one to explore the new construct, which can help

researchers to understand employees’mental process toward the corporate brand.

Second, three constructs which include corporate branding, brand psychological

ownership, and brand citizenship behavior are important to academics and

practitioners, however, researchers have not yet conducted measurements of three Background, motives, and objectives of this research

Literature review

Scale developments

Data collection & data analyses

Continuous data collection

Data analyses

Discussion and implication

Figure 1-1 Research Process

(24)

ownership, and brand citizenship behavior, have been conducted by this study, can be

utilized by researchers to further explore these phenomena. Kidwell, Mossholder and

Bennett (1997) argue that multilevel approaches may solve bias caused by single level

analysis method to investigate the predictors at different levels. A multilevel approach

is adopted by this research to investigate the relationships among corporate branding,

brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behavior, and brand equity, thus

estimates obtained are less biased than the single level method.

1.5 Dissertation Organization

In Chapter 1, this research discusses background, motives, questions, research

process, expect contribution, and dissertation organization. This research presents the

literature review to clarify conceptions and definitions of corporate branding, brand

psychological ownership, and brand citizenship behavior in Chapter 2. Scale

developments of three constructs are conducted by this study according to the scale

development guidelines of Hinkin (1998) in Chapter 3. The investigation of the

antecedent and consequence of brand psychological ownership through multilevel

analyses is investigated in Chapter 4. Discussion, implications, contributions,

(25)

Chapter 2 Literature Review

In the chapter, this research first discusses the conceptions, definitions and

dimensions of corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, and brand

citizenship behavior according to the literature review. Based on concepts and

definitions, this research conducts scale developments of corporate branding, brand

psychological ownership, and brand citizenship behavior (in chapter 3). Then this

research utilizes measurement items captured from scale developments to investigate

the antecedent and consequence of brand psychological ownership (in chapter 4 & 5).

2.1 Corporate Branding

2.1.1 The Definition of Corporate Branding

Corporate branding is regarded as a systematical process planned and

implemented by an organization to create and maintain favorable image and

reputation through sending signals to all stakeholders, managing organizational

behavior, communication, and symbolism (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006; Einwiller

and Will, 2002). Hatch et al. (2003) describe corporate branding as an organizational

tool which depends on attending to strategy, organizational context, and

communication that can help managers analyze organizational contexts aligned

between strategic vision, organizational culture, and corporate image, thus

(26)

management of corporate branding as “the activity is rendered more complex by

managers conducting these practices at the level of the organization, rather than the

individual product or service, and the requirement to manage interactions with

multiple stakeholder audiences”(pp. 999). Corporate branding is considered as a

different management approach that has to pay great attention to the role of

employees whose congruent perceptions can facilitate the success of brand building

(Harris et al., 2001).

Based on the literature review, this study defines corporate branding as

systematical processes of creating and maintaining favorable image and reputation

(Muzellec et al., 2006), communications of signals and symbols toward internal and

external stakeholders (Harris et al. 2001). It involves practices of brand-centered

HRM (Burmann et al., 2005), interactions with multiple stakeholders, and

departmental coordination (Leitch et al., 2003), and brand leadership (Burmann et al.,

2005; Vallaster et al., 2006). The success of corporate branding depends on the

alignment of vision, culture and strategies of the corporate brand (Hatch et al., 2003).

2.2 Corporate Brand

2.2.1 The Difference between Product brands and Corporate Brands

Corporate brands are different from product brands because of multiple

(27)

2001). As reported in Table 2-1, the criteria of management, responsibility, cognate

disciplines, communication mix, focus, and values reveal the difference between

corporate brands and product brands (Balmer, 2001). Corporate brands are mainly

managed by CEO, responsibility undertaken by all personnel, and communicated with

a set of fundamental core values, which can become the powerful source of brand

equity (Balmer, 1998; Uggla, 2006). The building of corporate brands including

internal and external core value-based processes can contribute to the brand

architecture, brand positions, communication strategies, and image of the corporate

brand (Urde, 2001). Therefore, corporate brands defined by organizational values and

goals can make the organization visible and notable (Kay, 2006) and bring an

organization into the success of corporate branding (Harris et al., 2001).

Table 2-1 A Comparison between Corporate and Product Brands

Product brands Corporate brands

Management Middle manager CEO

Responsibility Middle manager All personnel

Cognate disciplines Marketing Strategy/multi disciplinary

Communication mix Marketing communicator Total corporate communications

Focus Mainly customer Multiple. Internal and external

stakeholder groups and networks

Values Mainly contrived Those of founder(s) + mix of

corporate + other sub-cultures

Source: Balmer (2001)

(28)

As reported in Table 2-2, the concept of corporate brand is derived from

organizational identity and associated with concepts of corporate image, corporate

reputation, and perception. The elements of corporate brand are cultural, intricate,

tangible and ethereal (Balmer, 2001). First, Corporate identity which gives

organizations their distinctiveness emphasizes several important elements include

culture, strategy, structure, history, business activities, and market scope. Second,

creating a positive image is the espoused objective that facilitates the organization to

effectively manage the corporate image. Three disciplinary approaches of corporate

image draw from psychology, graphic design and from public relations, which

contribute to the corporate identity. A favorable corporate reputation makes an

organization survived and benefited from good perceptions of multiple stakeholders.

The objective of corporate identity is to acquire a favorable corporate reputation

among multiple stakeholders, thus giving the organization competitive advantages

which include financial worth, traits and signals, formation, expectations, norms,

assets and mobility barriers. Based on prior literatures, corporate branding is regarded

as organizational practices whose successful applications depend on the success of

corporate identity (Abratt, 1989), corporate reputation (Harris et al., 2001; Van Riel

(29)

Table 2-2 Key Concepts of Corporate Brand, Corporate Identity, Corporate Image, and Corporate Reputation

Concepts Key characteristics

Corporate brand 1. Derive from the organization’sidentity.

2. Elements are cultural, intricate, tangible and ethereal. 3. Relate to corporate reputation, corporate image, and

perception.

Corporate identity 1. Give organizations their distinctiveness.

2. Important elements include culture, strategy, structure, history, business activities and market scope.

Corporate image 1. Create a positive image.

2. Three disciplinary approaches draw from psychology, graphic design and from public relations.

Corporate reputation

1. Give the organization competitive advantages.

2. Focus on financial worth, traits and signals, formation, expectations, norms, assets and mobility barriers.

Source: Balmer (2001)

2.3 Key Concepts of Corporate Branding

According to prior research, eight key concepts of corporate branding are

proposed by this study (reported in Table 2-3). First, corporate branding is cultural,

intricate, tangible, ethereal, and commitment (Balmer et al., 2003). Corporate

branding is regarded as underpinned processes linking three components including

strategic vision, organizational culture, and corporate images (Hatch et al., 2003).

Second, corporate branding depends on the interactive process with multiple

stakeholders. As argued by Leitch et al. (2003), the brand web concept helps an

organization understand how to manage the web of brand relationships, revealing that

(30)

with multiple stakeholders (Knox et al., 2003). Third, key internal factors which

include managers, teams and employees are identified as important factors of

corporate branding which can leverage brand resources and then enhance brand

performance (Harris et al., 2003). Fourth, sophisticated HR policies can improve

internal brand identity and external brand image. A strong and positive internal brand

identity which can be established through the achievement of sophisticated HR

policies may improve the external image and reputation of an organization (Martin et

al., 2005), and then contribute to corporate branding.

Table 2-3 Key Concepts of Corporate Branding

Key concepts of corporate branding Sources

Cultural, intricate, tangible, ethereal, and commitment Hatch et al. (2003); Balmer et al. (2003)

Interactive with multiple stakeholders Leitch et al. (2003); Knox et al.

(2003)

Internal factors Harris et al. (2003)

Sophisticated HR policies Martin et al. (2005); Burmann et al.

(2005)

Successful leaders Vallaster et al. (2006) ; Kay (2006);

Burmann et al. (2005)

Communicational context Balmer, (2001); Hatch et al. (2003);

Uggla (2006); Burmann et al. (2005)

Coordination of internal resources Balmer et al. (2001); de Chernatony

(1999)

Explicit conventions Knox et al. (2003); Balmer et al.

(2003)

Source: this research

(31)

corporate branding decisions. Corporate brand values shall be directed by managers

who can make appropriate corporate branding decisions which establish corporate

identities and enhance corporate reputations (Kay, 2006). Successful leaders are

considered as two-level forces that integrate corporate identity structures, corporate

branding structures and the individuals (Vallaster et al., 2006). Sixth,

communicational context makes corporate branding become the powerful sources of

brand equity. Corporate branding is regarded as an organizational tool which uses

strategic, organizational and communicational context to make the application of

corporate branding successful (Hatch et al., 2003). The general advantages of

corporate branding are that corporate brands are differentiated and communicated,

and then corporate brands become the powerful sources of brand equity (Balmer,

2001; Uggla, 2006). Seven, corporate branding that emphasizes the multidimensional

nature involving coordination of internal resources makes an organization create a

favorable brand identity (de Chernatony, 1999). Eight, a corporate brand is considered

to be an explicit covenant between an organization and its multiple stakeholders. The

covenant asserted by a senior manager is promoted via multiple channels of

communication, such as advertisement and customer-facing employees, thus

contributing to the success of corporate branding (Balmer et al., 2003). Six

(32)

context-setting the coordinates, brand construction-the corporate brand positioning

framework, brand confirmation-articulating the corporate brand position, brand

consistency-developing consistent corporate brand communications, brand

continuity-driving the brand deeper into the organization, and brand

conditioning-monitoring for relevance and distinctiveness.

2.4 The Dimensions of Corporate Branding

The concepts of corporate branding are related to vision, culture, and image

(Hatch et al., 2003), brand-centered HRM (Burmann et al., 2005), interaction with

multiple stakeholders (Leitch et al., 2003), brand leadership (Kay, 2006), brand

communication (Harris et al., 2001), and departmental coordination (de Chernatony,

1999). However, few researches have explored the concepts of corporate branding via

a comprehensive method. Based on key concepts of corporate branding showed in

Table 2-4, this research deduces six dimensions of corporate branding include (1)

vision, culture, and image of corporate branding; (2) interactions with multiple

stakeholders; (3) leadership of corporate branding; (4) departmental coordination; (5)

HR practices of corporate branding; and (6) communication of corporate branding.

First, because characteristics of corporate branding are cultural, intricate, tangible,

ethereal, and commitment, senior managers may frame vision and culture of brand

(33)

Second, internal and external core value-based processes contributing to brand

architecture, brand positions, communication strategies represent that the interaction

with multiple stakeholders can help an organization improve corporate branding and

enhance brand equity via capturing diversified perspectives from internal and external

stakeholders (Leitch et al., 2003; Knox et al., 2003). Third, brand leaders who can

integrate corporate identity structures, corporate branding structures, and

organizational members may frame vision, culture, values, and conventions, and then

make appropriate corporate branding decisions contributing to brand image and brand

reputation (Balmer et al., 2003; Kay, 2006; Vallaster et al., 2006). Fourth, the internal

factors which include managers, teams and employees are identified as important

factors which contribute to brand equity; nevertheless, organizational members from

different departments may be difficult to coordinate (Harris et al., 2003). Therefore,

the departmental coordination which makes internal factors coordinated may

contribute to corporate branding (Balmer et al., 2001; de Chernatony, 1999).

Table 2-4 Dimensions of Corporate Branding

Dimensions of corporate branding Sources

1. Corporate name,

2. Image,

3. Reputation

4. Loyalty

(34)

Table 2-4 Dimensions of Corporate Branding (Continued)

Dimensions of corporate branding Sources

1. Vision, culture, and image of corporate branding 2. Interactions with multiple stakeholders

3. Leadership of corporate branding 4. Departmental coordination

5. HR practices of corporate branding 6. Communication of corporate branding

This study

Fifth, a strong and positive internal brand identity which contributes to the

building process of corporate branding can be established through the achievement of

sophisticated HR practices, such as brand-related training, selection, compensation,

development, and promotion (Martin et al., 2005; Burmann et al., 2005). Sixth, the

vision, culture, and covenant of corporate branding asserted by senior managers are

promoted through multiple channels of communication; therefore, brand

communication plays an important role in the building process of corporate branding

(Balmer, 2001; Balmer, 2003; Uggla, 2006). Although Souiden et al. (2006) proposed

four dimensions of corporate branding focusing on customers’perceptions; these

dimensions are not comprehensive enough. The dimensions of corporate branding

proposed by Souiden et al. (2006) and this study are presented in Table 2-4. The

definitions of six dimensions of corporate branding are discussed as follows.

(35)

each dimension is discussed as follows.

2.4.1.1 Vision, Culture, and Image of Corporate Branding

Hatch et al. (2003) regarded corporate branding as underpinned processes linking

three components including strategic vision, organizational culture, and corporate

images. Strategic vision refers to the central idea embedded in top managers may

make the organization understand what to achieve in the future. Organizational

culture refers to the internal values, beliefs, and basic assumptions that may

communicate the meanings of organizational culture to organizational members.

Corporate image refers to overall impression perceived by internal and external

stakeholders. Based on Hatch et al. (2003), this study defines the first dimension of

corporate branding (i.e., vision, culture, and image of corporate brand) as an

organizational tool implemented by an organization to transmit vision, belief, value,

and norm of the corporate brand toward internal and external stakeholders through

creating organizational climate or multiple channels contributing to the image and

reputation of the corporate brand.

2.4.1.2 Interactions with Multiple Stakeholders

Leitch et al. (2003) regarded corporate branding as the outcome of an interactive

process with multiple stakeholders. In the multiple relationships, an organization is

(36)

corporate brand. Therefore, an organization may transmit brand values toward

multiple stakeholders through various kinds of interactive processes, such as formal

meeting, advertising and first-line employees’interaction with customers (Harris et al.,

2001). Based on perspectives of scholars (e.g., Leitch et al., 2003; Harris et al., 2001;

Knox et al., 2003), this study defines the second dimension of corporate branding, and

the interactions with multiple stakeholders, as the systematical process implemented

by an organization to interact with internal stakeholders (e.g., managers, teams, and

employees) and external stakeholders (e.g., customers, suppliers, and government) to

enhance brand performance, such as brand image, brand reputation, and brand equity.

2.4.1.3 Leadership of Corporate Branding

In order to develop a strong corporate brand, managers may make appropriate

corporate branding decisions which can help an organization to develop identities of

the corporate brand and to build brand reputation (Kay, 2006). Managers who conduct

corporate branding at multiple levels of the organization are required to interact with

multiple stakeholder audiences (Knox et al., 2003). That is why the successful leaders

of corporate branding are regarded as integrating forces that integrate the structures of

corporate identity, and mediate the relationship between corporate branding structures

and organizational members (Vallaster et al., 2006). According to the perspectives of

(37)

third dimension, leadership of corporate branding, as the implements that managers

not only formulate corporate strategy and clear brand objectives which can be

followed by organizational members, but also adjust the content of products and

services to enhance corporate brand values based on the information from internal

stakeholders (e.g., employees) and external stakeholder (e.g., customers) (Vallaster et

al., 2006).

2.4.1.4 Departmental Coordination

Coordination of internal resources (e.g., functional capabilities, and

communication capabilities) may help an organization to create a coherent brand

identity and a favorable brand reputation because of multidimensional nature of

corporate branding (de Chernatony, 1999). In fact, organizational members who are in

different functional backgrounds can have different perceptions of corporate branding;

however, congruent perceptions of corporate branding play an important role in the

successful management of corporate branding (Harris et al., 2001). As argued by

Hatch et al. (2003), the integrated effort of HR, communication and marketing

departments bring the corporate activities into corporate branding, therefore,

functional coordination could contribute to the success of corporate branding.

According to perspectives of scholars (de Chernatony, 1999; Harris et al., 2001;

(38)

departmental coordination, as practices which are implemented by different

departments of an organization to frequently discuss and interchange information that

contribute to brand behavior of organizational members, brand image, and brand

commitment proposed by the organization.

2.4.1.5 HR Practices of Corporate Branding

Human resource management which aligns external corporate image and internal

employee identity may get different information from multiple stakeholders to

improve external image and reputation of the organization contributing to corporate

branding (Martin et al., 2005). Burmann et al. (2005) also contend that brand-centered

HRM may contribute to the generation of brand identity internalization which is

important to corporate branding. HR practices of corporate branding are adopted by

an organization to improve internal branding, and employees’brand behaviors that are

consistent with the external branding efforts (Aurand, Gorchels and Bishop, 2005).

That is, employees who are satisfied, motivated, empowered, and recognized via HR

practices of corporate branding may provide services with high quality which are

perceived by customers (Girod, 2005). As demonstrated by Aurand et al. (2005), HR

practices, which include selectivity of staffing, comprehensiveness of training,

developmental performance appraisal, externally equitable rewards, and individually

(39)

brand-centered strategies, revealing that brand-centered HR practices contribute to the

implementation of corporate branding. Based on the perspectives of scholars (Snell et

al.,1992; Martin et al., 2005; Burmann et al., 2005; Aurand et al., 2005; Girod, 2005),

this study defines the fifth dimension, HR practices of corporate branding, as

systematical practices implemented by an organization to make organizational

members produce positive brand attitudes and positive brand behaviors via

brand-oriented HR practices, such as brand-oriented selection, brand-oriented training,

brand-oriented evaluation, brand-oriented rewards, and brand-oriented compensation.

2.4.1.6 Communication of Corporate Branding

The effective communication of corporate branding which depends on the

coherence of expression via multiplicity of channels and news media can be directed

at multiple stakeholders to create a strong corporate brand in which image, reputation,

and commitment cultivated by the organization (Balmer, 2001; Kay, 2006). As argued

by Harris et al. (2001), communication of corporate branding contributes to the

formation of congruent perceptions toward the corporate brand because organizational

members with similar perceptions are more likely to have similar experiences,

perspectives, and values that help managers, teams, and employees communicate

easily. Therefore, communications plays an important role in the implementation of

(40)

2001; Kay, 2006), this study defines the sixth dimension, communication of corporate

branding, as communication practices implemented by an organization to transmit

brand values to internal stakeholders (e.g., employee) and external stakeholders (e.g.,

customers) through formal channels (e.g., meeting) or informal channels (e.g.,

interactions between employees). The effects of communication are assessed

regularly.

2.5 The Definition of Brand Psychological Ownership

Psychological ownership is defined as “a state of the mind in which individuals

feel as though the target of ownership (material or immaterial) or a piece of it is

‘theirs’”(Pierce et al., 2001, p. 299). As for the organization, psychological ownership is regarded as the state in which employees feel ownership and experience

possessively toward the organization (Chi et al., 2008). Van Dyne et al. (2004) defines

psychological ownership as a cognitive-affective construct that individuals develop

feelings of ownership toward targets that are substantial or non-substantial, referring

to tangible or intangible objects, such as subgroups, ideas, people, and artistic

creations. The cognitive components of psychological ownership reflect employees’

beliefs, thoughts, and awareness considering the target of ownership and the affective

components of psychological ownership reflect the pleasure produced by feelings of

(41)

Extended from previous research (e.g., Pierce et al., 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2004;

Chi et al., 2008; Pierce et al., 2009; Avey et al., 2009), this study defines brand

psychological ownership as the state in which organizational members feel ownership

and possessive experience toward the corporate brand. This study argues that brand

psychological ownership specifies brand-related psychological state in which

organizational members (e.g., managers, teams, and employees) feel ownership and

experience possessively toward the corporate brand. That is, brand psychological

ownership could make organizational members produce positive brand cognitions and

brand attitudes, such as feelings of ownership toward corporate brand, altruistic spirit

toward brand-related activities. Also, we contend that employees with brand

psychological ownership may produce positive attitudes toward the corporate brand,

identify them according to the corporate brand, feel they are effective in brand-related

activities, and would like to defend corporate brand.

2.6 Key Concepts of Organizational Psychological Ownership and Brand

Psychological Ownership

Both organizational psychological ownership and brand psychological ownership

may contribute to the relationship between the organization and organizational

members. It is necessary for researchers to explore the differences between

(42)

Employees with organizational psychological ownership may regard themselves as

the owner of the organization (Pierce et al., 2001; Wagner, Parker and Christiansen,

2003) and further produce a psychological contract that strengthens the relation

between employees and an organization, making employees willingly to express

extra-role behaviors (Rousseau, 1989). As argued by Pierce et al. (2001),

organizational psychological ownership is produced by three roots which include

having a place or home, feelings of efficacy and effectance, and self-identity. The first

root, having a place or home, can satisfy employees’sense of belonging which makes

employees invest as organizational members and feel they are different from

individuals of other group (McMillan and Chavis, 1986). Employees may develop

individual spaces which make them hold favorable attitudes and closely interact with

other colleagues via these differences including languages and symbols, such as

corporate brands (Ehrlich and Graeven, 1971). The second root, feelings of efficacy

and effectance, makes employees feel they are effective, important and valuable in the

organization, and then produce sense of mattering (Masterson and Stamper, 2003).

Employees with organizational psychological ownership may feel they are effective

and important by the organization (McMillan et al., 1986). The third root, self-identity,

makes employees identify themselves with the organization to understand their

(43)

employees with psychological ownership are more willing to invest themselves in the

organization and participate in job decision making (Pierce et al., 2001; Van Dyne et

al., 2004). Drawing on the perspectives of Pierce et al. (2001), this study argues that

brand psychological ownership is produced by three roots including sense of

belonging toward the corporate brand (e.g., employees feel they are closely linked

with the corporate brand), efficacy and effectance of the corporate brand (e.g.,

employees feel effective in brand-related activities), and corporate brand image

extension (e.g., employees hope their images are consistent with the image of the

corporate brand). Compare to organizational psychological ownership which focuses

on the organization, brand psychological ownership is regarded as the construct that

focuses on the corporate brand.

Employees with organizational psychological ownership have three traits which

include attitudes, self-concept, and sense of responsibility (Van Dyne et al., 2004).

The first trait, attitude, makes employees have positive feelings toward tangible and

intangible targets (e.g., corporate brand), and then produce positive attitude toward

the target (Van Dyne et al., 2004; Nuttin, 1987). The second trait, self-concept, makes

organizational members view tangible and intangible targets as their extensions (Van

Dyne et al., 2004; Dittmar, 1992). Therefore, possessions of tangible and intangible

(44)

trait, sense of responsibility, can trigger a sense of responsibility for tangible and

intangible targets and make organizational members more willing to protect or defend

their ownership rights (Furby, 1978; Van Dyne et al., 2004). Drawing on the

perspectives of Van Dyne et al. (2004), this study argues that organizational members

with brand psychological ownership can produce traits including positive attitude (e.g.,

employees defend the corporate brand when others criticize it), accountability (e.g.,

employees feel responsible for the enhance of corporate brand equity) and

identification (e.g., employees identify beliefs, values, and norms of the corporate

brand proposed by senior managers). The comparisons between organizational

psychological ownership and brand psychological ownership are presented in Table

2-5.

Table 2-5 Comparison between Organizational Psychological Ownership and Brand Psychological Ownership

Constructs Roots and traits Sources

1. Three roots of psychological ownership include having a place or home, feelings of efficacy and effectance, and self-identity.

Pierce et al. (2001) Organizational

psychological ownership

2. Three traits of psychological ownership include attitudes, self-concept, and sense of responsibility.

Van Dyne et al. (2004)

Brand

1. Three roots of brand psychological ownership include sense of belonging toward the corporate brand, efficacy and effectance of the corporate brand, and corporate brand image extension.

2. Three traits of brand psychological ownership include positive attitude, accountability, and identification toward the corporate brand.

(45)

2.7 Brand Psychological Ownership, Brand Commitment, and Organizational

Commitment

Brand psychological ownership is different from brand commitment and

organizational commitment. As reported in Table 2-6, brand commitment is regarded

as employees’psychological attachment toward the brand, which makes them produce

brand altruistic spirit (Burmann et al., 2005). Three drivers of brand commitment

which include compliance, identification, and internalization influence their

willingness to display brand citizenship behavior (Burmann et al., 2005).

Organizational commitment is regarded as an attitude which makes employees

identify organizational goals and invest themselves in the organization (Mowday,

Steers, and Porter, 1979). Pierce et al. (2001) assert that organizational commitment,

which focuses on willingness of employees to stay in the organization, is different

from psychological ownership.

Table 2-6 Key Concepts of Brand Psychological Ownership, Brand Commitment and Organizational Commitment

Constructs Characteristics Sources

Brand psychological ownership Ownership and possessively experience toward the corporate brand.

Roots include a sense of belonging toward the corporate brand, efficacy and effectance of the corporate brand, and corporate brand image extension.

Traits include positive attitude, accountability, and identification toward the corporate brand.

(46)

Table 2-6 Key Concepts of Brand Psychological Ownership, Brand Commitment and Organizational Commitment (Continued)

Constructs Characteristics Sources

Brand commitment Psychological attachment toward the

brand.

Three drivers include compliance,

identification, and internalization.

Burmann et al.

(2005)

Organizational commitment Willingness of employees to stay in the organization.

Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979)

Pierce et al.

(2001)

Extending from Pierce et al. (2001) and Van Dyne et al. (2004), this study

contends that three roots of brand psychological ownership include sense of belonging

toward the corporate brand, efficacy and effectance of the corporate brand, and

corporate brand image extension. Three traits of brand psychological ownership

include positive attitude, accountability and identification. Based on scholars (e.g.,

Pierce et al., 2009; Avey et al., 2009), this study argues that brand psychological

ownership as the state in which organizational members feel ownership and

possessively experience toward the corporate brand, and then makes organizational

members produce positive brand cognitions and brand attitudes, thus producing brand

altruistic spirit. As for the consequences of organizational psychological ownership,

Vande Walle, Van Dyne, and Kostova (1995) demonstrated that psychological

(47)

brand altruistic spirit through brand commitment.

2.8 Dimensions of Psychological Ownership and Brand Psychological Ownership

Building on the concepts of territoriality, four dimensions of psychological

ownership proposed by Avey et al. (2009) include self-efficacy, accountability,

belongingness, and self-identity. Self-efficacy refers to employees’beliefs that they

can successfully implement a specific task assigned by an organization (Avey et al.,

2009). Accountability refers to the implicit or explicit expectation that organizational

members may be called on to justify their beliefs, feelings, and actions to others

(Lerner and Tetlock, 1999; Avey et al., 2009). Belongingness refers to the basic

human need for a place in which organizational members can be best understood as

the feeling that they belong to the organization (Pierce et al., 2001; Avey et al., 2009).

Self-identity refers to the component of psychological ownership that makes

organizational members establish, maintain, reproduce, and transform their

self-identity through interaction with tangible and intangible possessions (Pierce et al.

2001; Avey et al., 2009). Building on three traits of organizational psychological

ownership which include attitudes, self-concept, and sense of responsibility (Van

Dyne et al., 2004); this study argues that employees with brand psychological

ownership may have self-image extension. Based on perspectives of scholars (Pierce

(48)

2009), five dimensions of brand psychological ownership (BPO) proposed by this

study include self-efficacy of corporate brand, image extension of corporate brand,

belongingness of corporate brand, accountability of corporate brand, and

identification of corporate brand. The dimensions of psychological ownership and

brand psychological ownership are presented in Table 2-7.

Table 2-7 Dimensions of Psychological Ownership and Brand Psychological Ownership

Constructs Dimensions or traits Sources

Psychological ownership

Four dimensions include self-efficacy,

accountability, belongingness, and self-identity.

Avey et al. (2009)

Psychological ownership

Three traits of psychological ownership include attitudes, self-concept, and sense of responsibility.

Van Dyne et al. (2004)

Brand

Five dimensions include self-efficacy of

corporate brand, image extension of corporate

brand, belongingness of corporate brand,

accountability of corporate brand, and

identification of corporate brand.

This research

2.9 The Definitions of Dimensions of Brand Psychological Ownership

This study further defines five dimensions of brand psychological ownership; the

definition of each dimension is discussed as follows.

2.9.1 Self-efficacy of Corporate Brand

Pierce et al. (2001) defines feelings of efficacy and effectance as ownership and