Search results

Psychological ownership has been a topic of intense debate for several decades, especially in the digital era. In addition, as part of the digital public domain, virtual communities shape our digital lives. Unfortunately, few studies have examined the communication process in virtual communities from the perspective of psychological ownership. Moreover, information and organization are key aspects of virtual communities. This research aimed to explore the impact of psychological ownership on communication satisfaction from these two perspectives.

I collected 471 responses using a questionnaire. In terms of empirical methods, I developed a structural equation model (SEM) to examine the relationship between psychological ownership and communication satisfaction as well as the mechanism underlying this relationship – namely, information behavior. Specifically, I first examined the relationship between psychological ownership and information behavior. I then developed a comprehensive framework for the double-edged impact of psychological ownership in virtual communities on communication satisfaction.

I found that psychological ownership has a double-edged effect on communication satisfaction based on two types of information behavior in virtual communities. Specifically, organization-based psychological ownership (OPO) positively influences communication satisfaction through information exchange. In contrast, information-based psychological ownership (IPO) negatively impacts communication satisfaction through information-hiding.

The findings of this research demonstrate that psychological ownership has a double-edged effect on communication satisfaction. First, the findings of this study reveal the downsides of psychological ownership, which are not consistent with its beneficial role. Second, the negative effect of psychological ownership with regard to communication in virtual communities also helps explain communication failure in virtual communities. Finally, despite the downsides of psychological ownership in the context of a virtual community revealed by this study, this factor has an overall beneficial effect.

The purpose of this paper is to identify whether there is a lower willingness to report a crime if a victim must hand in their mobile phone as evidence. If that is the case, the research seeks to examine whether privacy concerns and lower willingness correlate with one another and thereby investigate whether privacy concerns could lead to fewer crimes being reported and resolved.

A mobile phone survey was distributed to 400 Swedish adults to identify their hypothetical willingness to report certain crimes with and without handing in their mobile phones as evidence. The results were then analysed using inferential statistics.

The result suggests that there is no meaningful correlation between privacy attitudes and willingness to report crime when the handover of a mobile phone is necessary. The results of this study however show a significant lower willingness to report crimes when the mobile phone must be handed in.

Because the chosen target group were Swedish adults, the research results may lack generalisability for other demographics. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test other demographics.

This paper’s contribution is the novel exploration of attitudes and behaviours regarding the combination of privacy, digital forensics, mobile phones and crime reportage. This research effort examined the problematic situation that can arise for victims of crime, the invasion of privacy when providing evidence by handing in a mobile phone to the police’s forensic unit for examination.

This study aims to adopt the microfoundation perspective to investigate undesirable knowledge rejection by individuals in organizations in the context of counterproductive knowledge behavior (CKB). The paper advances a conceptual framework of the conditions of knowledge rejection by individuals and their respective knowledge rejection behavior types.

This study reviews the limited literature on knowledge rejection and outline a set of antecedents leading to rejecting knowledge as well as a set of different types of knowledge rejection behaviors. This study reviews and synthesizes articles on knowledge rejection from a microfoundation perspective.

The proposed conceptual framework specifies four particular conditions for knowledge rejection and outlines four respective knowledge rejection behavior types resulting from these conditions. Recipients’ lack of capacity leads to ineptitude, lack of motivation leads to dismissal of knowledge, lack of alignment with the source leads to disruption and doubts about the validity of external knowledge lead to resistance. The authors treat these behaviors as variants of CKB, as they can hinder the productive use of knowledge resources in the organization.

Further investigation of both knowledge rejection causes and the resulting knowledge rejection behaviors will ensure a more thorough grasp of the relationships between them, both in terms of the inherent nature of these relationships and their dynamics that would likely be context-sensitive. Although this study focuses only on the individual level, future studies can conduct multi-level analyses of undesirable knowledge rejection, including team and organizational levels.

Practitioners can use the framework to identify, diagnose and manage knowledge rejection more meaningfully, accurately and purposefully in their organizations. This study offers valuable insights for managers facing undesirable knowledge rejection, and provides recommendations on how to address this behavior, improves the constructive use of knowledge resources and the effectiveness of knowledge processes in their organizations. Managers should be aware of undesirable knowledge rejection, its potential cost or concealed cost to their organizations and develop strategies to reduce or prevent it.

The paper contributes toward understanding the relatively neglected topic of knowledge rejection in the knowledge management field and offers a new way of conceptualizing the phenomenon. It proposes that there are two types of knowledge rejection – undesirable and desirable – and advances a more precise and up-to-date definition of undesirable knowledge rejection. Responding to calls for more research on CKBs, the study examines a hitherto unresearched behavior of knowledge rejection and provides a foundation for further study in this area.