DISSERTATION

Role of Psychological Ownership and Sense of Belonging

Chapter One: Introduction

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

Department of Psychology
[Name of University], [City], India

[Year of Submission]

Page 1
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview and Background of the Study

Higher education systems worldwide are increasingly confronted with a challenge

that strikes at the very purpose of academic institutions: a pervasive and growing

disengagement among enrolled students. This disengagement is not merely a surface-level

behavioural concern — it is a symptom of deeper psychological unrest. Students attend

classes without genuine participation, complete coursework without intellectual investment,

and, in alarming numbers, leave before earning a degree. The consequences are not only

individual — wasted potential, poor academic performance, reduced life opportunities — but

also institutional and societal. Educational systems lose credibility; economies lose talent;

communities lose leaders.

Across international contexts, researchers and institutional practitioners have sought

to identify what draws students into genuine engagement with their learning and what drives

them away. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the United States, for

example, has documented for two decades that a significant proportion of undergraduate

students report low levels of active and collaborative learning, limited interaction with

faculty outside the classroom, and insufficient sense of connection with their institution

(Kuh, 2009). In India, where the gross enrolment ratio in higher education crossed 27 percent

Page 2
in 2021–22 (All India Survey on Higher Education [AISHE], 2022), the expansion of access

has not been uniformly accompanied by improvements in the quality of the student

experience. The National Education Policy (NEP, 2020) itself candidly acknowledged the

need for a fundamental shift in pedagogical approach — away from rote learning and passive

instruction, toward student-centred, holistic, and experientially rich education.

Against this backdrop, the present study examines two psychological constructs that

have received substantial theoretical attention but remain underexplored in their combined

relationship to student engagement — particularly within the Indian higher education

context. The first is psychological ownership, a construct referring to the subjective sense

that something — an institution, a learning experience, a course of study — belongs to the

self, not in any legal or formal sense, but in a deeply felt, psychological one (Pierce, Kostova,

& Dirks, 2001). The second is sense of belonging, the degree to which students feel accepted,

valued, included, and personally significant within the academic community they inhabit

(Goodenow, 1993; Strayhorn, 2019). The central argument of this dissertation is that these

two constructs are not merely correlates of positive educational outcomes, but active

psychological mechanisms through which students are drawn into — or pushed away from

— meaningful engagement with their college education.

Student engagement itself, as defined in the foundational review by Fredricks,

Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004), is a multidimensional construct involving behavioural

participation (attending, completing tasks, participating in activities), emotional investment

(interest, enthusiasm, sense of connection with school), and cognitive engagement (strategic

thinking, self-regulation, deep investment in learning). Research has consistently

demonstrated that higher levels of engagement across these dimensions are associated with

Page 3
better academic achievement, lower dropout rates, and greater personal development during

the college years (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993). Understanding what

psychological conditions promote or inhibit engagement is therefore not merely an academic

exercise; it is a matter of direct consequence for educational policy and institutional practice.

The present study is designed to examine the role of psychological ownership and

sense of belonging in predicting student engagement among college students in India. In

doing so, it seeks to contribute to three bodies of literature: the theoretical literature on

psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2001, 2003), the empirical literature on sense of

belonging in higher education (Goodenow, 1993; Strayhorn, 2012, 2019; Baumeister &

Leary, 1995), and the broad and interdisciplinary research tradition on student engagement

(Fredricks et al., 2004; Kuh, 2009; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). By bringing these three

streams of research into dialogue with one another in the specific context of Indian higher

education, the study aims to generate knowledge that is both theoretically meaningful and

practically useful.

1.2 Student Engagement: Conceptual Foundations and Dimensions

The concept of student engagement has a history stretching back to Astin's (1984)

theory of student involvement, which proposed that the amount of physical and

psychological energy a student devotes to the academic experience is the single most

important determinant of what they gain from it. This seemingly intuitive idea was supported

by substantial empirical evidence and gave rise to a broad research programme examining

Page 4
what kinds of involvement matter most and under what institutional conditions they flourish.

Pace (1984) extended this framework by distinguishing between what institutions provide

and what students do with those provisions — introducing a note of student agency that

remains central to contemporary engagement research.

The three-dimensional model proposed by Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) in

their landmark Review of Educational Research article has become the most widely cited

conceptual framework in the engagement literature. They identified behavioural engagement

— encompassing participation in academic tasks, adherence to classroom norms, and

involvement in extracurricular activities — as the most externally observable dimension.

Emotional engagement, the second dimension, refers to students' affective responses to their

educational environment: the feelings of interest, enthusiasm, belonging, and identification

that shape whether learning is experienced as personally meaningful or merely obligatory.

Cognitive engagement, the third dimension, refers to students' psychological investment in

their own learning — their willingness to go beyond the surface requirements of a task, to

use deep-processing strategies, to persist in the face of difficulty, and to take intellectual

risks.

Fredricks et al. (2004) argued that these three dimensions are neither identical nor

fully independent. A student may demonstrate high behavioural engagement — perfect

attendance, every assignment submitted — while remaining emotionally and cognitively

disengaged, going through the motions with no genuine investment. Another student may

feel deeply emotionally connected to their institution but express this connection through

social activities rather than through sustained academic effort. Comprehensive engagement

requires all three dimensions to be operating simultaneously, and understanding what

Page 5
conditions support this integration is a central challenge for educational research and

practice.

Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2002), working from the

organisational psychology tradition, proposed an alternative conceptualisation of engagement

characterised by vigour (sustained energy and mental resilience in learning), dedication (a

sense of meaning, pride, and enthusiasm in one's studies), and absorption (the experience of

being fully concentrated and immersed in academic work). This framework, though

originally developed for the workplace, has been productively applied to students,

particularly in research on study engagement and academic burnout (Salmela-Aro &

Upadyaya, 2012).

Kuh (2009), speaking specifically to higher education, distinguished between

engagement as student behaviour — the effort students invest — and engagement as

institutional support — the practices and conditions that institutions provide to encourage

that investment. This dual focus is important: engagement does not emerge solely from

within students but is shaped by the environments they inhabit. Students who might, under

different conditions, invest deeply in their education may disengage when institutional

environments are indifferent to their needs, identities, or aspirations. This contextual

sensitivity of engagement is precisely what makes the examination of psychological

ownership and sense of belonging — two fundamentally contextual and relational constructs

— so relevant.

Page 6
1.3 Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Basis and Educational Significance

1.3.1 Origins and Core Theory

The concept of psychological ownership has roots that predate its formal theoretical

articulation. William James (1890), in his Principles of Psychology, observed that the

boundary between the self and what one calls 'mine' is porous — that possessions, places,

and relationships become extensions of the self in ways that have profound motivational

consequences. This insight, largely philosophical in James's treatment, was later taken up in

empirical social psychology and organisational behaviour, culminating in the theoretical

framework developed by Pierce and colleagues.

Pierce, Rubenfeld, and Morgan (1991) initially explored psychological ownership in

the context of employee stock ownership plans, motivated by a puzzling practical

observation: employees who were formal, legal co-owners of their organisations did not

always behave with the investment and care that ownership was supposed to foster. The

answer, they proposed, was that legal ownership and psychological ownership are distinct —

and that the latter, not the former, drives behaviour. A person may own something legally

without feeling any psychological attachment to it; conversely, they may develop a profound

sense of ownership over something they do not legally possess at all.

Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks (2001, 2003) elaborated this insight into a formal

theoretical framework. They defined psychological ownership as 'the state in which

individuals feel as though the target of ownership (a material or immaterial object) is theirs'

(Pierce et al., 2001, p. 299). The theory identifies three motivational roots — sometimes

called the 'whys' of ownership. The first is the need for efficacy and effectance: the

Page 7
fundamental human drive to feel capable of producing desired outcomes and to influence

one's environment. Ownership satisfies this need by giving individuals a domain over which

they can exercise control. The second is the need for self-identity: people use what they own

as a medium for expressing and communicating who they are. Possessions serve as 'me' in

the social world, extending the self beyond the boundaries of the physical body. The third

root is the need for 'a place to dwell' — a psychological home, a secure and familiar space

that provides continuity and belonging. Together, these three needs explain why the

experience of ownership is so motivationally powerful.

The theory also identifies three primary experiential routes through which

psychological ownership develops. Controlling the target refers to the experience of having

power, influence, and decision-making authority over an object or environment; as control

increases, feelings of ownership deepen. Coming to know the target intimately refers to the

development of deep familiarity through sustained interaction — understanding an

organisation's culture, history, and inner workings generates a sense of connection that feels

like ownership. Investing the self refers to the allocation of personal time, energy, creativity,

and cognitive resources; in a phenomenon sometimes likened to a psychological version of

the labour theory of value, what we pour ourselves into comes to feel like ours.

1.3.2 Psychological Ownership in Educational Settings

The application of psychological ownership theory to higher education is relatively

recent but has generated a consistent and coherent body of findings. Asatryan, Slevitch,

Larzelere, and Morosan (2013) applied Pierce et al.'s (2003) framework to students enrolled

Page 8
in hospitality management programmes across four universities in the United States and

Canada. Using structural equation modelling, they demonstrated that students' psychological

ownership of their educational programme — their felt sense that the programme was

genuinely theirs — was a significant positive predictor of both academic satisfaction and

institutional commitment. Crucially, their model identified sense of belonging as one of the

antecedents of psychological ownership, providing early empirical support for the theoretical

connection between these two constructs.

Research with Indian postgraduate students has extended this line of inquiry to a non-

Western context. Banker and Bhal (2020) found that psychological ownership of the

educational institution significantly predicted students' learning and development outcomes,

with engagement and commitment functioning as serial mediators of this relationship. This

finding is theoretically important: it suggests that psychological ownership does not produce

better outcomes directly, but does so by first fostering engagement — making engagement

the psychological mechanism through which ownership translates into academic growth.

Lee and Hannafin (2016), writing from a pedagogical standpoint, proposed an 'Own

it, Learn it, Share it' framework for student-centred learning environments, arguing that when

students are given genuine opportunities to exercise control and make meaningful choices

about their learning — to select topics, design projects, and determine how they demonstrate

understanding — they develop a sense of ownership over the learning process that deepens

engagement. This framework resonates with Pierce et al.'s (2001) theoretical emphasis on

control and self-investment as the primary routes to ownership.

Page 9
 Hasan and Subhani (2016) examined the relationship between on-campus student

engagement and institutional ownership among university students and found that students'

satisfaction with campus activities mediated the relationship between their engagement and

their sense of ownership of the institution. This mediation finding is of particular interest for

the present study, as it suggests a bidirectional or mutually reinforcing relationship between

engagement and ownership — a dynamic that warrants further investigation.

Taken together, this body of research supports the proposition that psychological

ownership is a psychologically meaningful and educationally consequential variable in the

college context. Students who develop a felt sense that their institution is genuinely theirs —

who experience control, deep knowing, and self-investment in relation to their educational

environment — are more likely to engage fully with that environment. The theoretical and

empirical foundation for examining psychological ownership as a predictor of student

engagement is therefore solid.

1.4 Sense of Belonging: Theoretical Basis and Educational Significance

1.4.1 Origins and Core Theory

The importance of belonging to human psychological well-being has been recognised

across theoretical traditions. Maslow (1943) positioned belonging — the need for love,

affection, and group membership — as one of the five fundamental human needs in his

motivational hierarchy, situated above physiological and safety needs but below the needs for

Page 10
esteem and self-actualisation. The implication was clear: until the need to belong is

adequately met, higher-order motivations, including the motivation for learning and

intellectual growth, will be constrained.

Baumeister and Leary (1995), in a widely influential paper published in

Psychological Bulletin, advanced what they termed the 'need to belong' hypothesis — the

proposition that human beings have a pervasive, evolved drive to form and maintain

meaningful, stable, and positive interpersonal relationships. Marshalling evidence from

social, clinical, developmental, and personality psychology, they argued that this need is not

a learned preference or a cultural artefact but a fundamental motivational force, the

frustration of which has serious consequences for cognitive functioning, emotional well-

being, and behavioural outcomes. They found that people in social relationships

characterised by stability, positivity, and mutual concern demonstrate markedly different

psychological profiles from those who feel socially excluded or disconnected — differences

that are evident not just in mood but in cognitive performance, health outcomes, and goal-

directed behaviour.

In the specific context of education, Goodenow (1993) was among the first to

operationalise sense of belonging for empirical study. She defined school belonging — in her

term, the 'psychological sense of school membership' — as 'students' sense of being accepted,

valued, included, and encouraged by others (teacher and peers) in the academic classroom

setting and of feeling oneself to be an important part of the life and activity of the class' (p.

25). Goodenow's (1993) definition is notable for its emphasis on both the relational

dimension (being accepted and valued by others) and the participatory dimension (feeling

Page 11
part of the life and activity of the class) — a dual emphasis that captures the social

embeddedness of belonging in educational settings.

Strayhorn (2012, 2019), in what has become the most comprehensive scholarly

treatment of belonging in higher education, proposed a nuanced theoretical framework

identifying several core propositions about how belonging operates in college contexts. He

argued that sense of belonging functions as a fundamental human need that becomes

especially salient during periods of social transition — such as the first year of college — and

that is experienced with particular intensity by students from historically marginalised

groups, whose sense of fit with institutional cultures cannot be assumed. Strayhorn (2019)

also emphasised that belonging is context-specific, temporal, and shaped by the quality of

interactions students have with peers, faculty, and institutional agents. It is not a stable trait

that students either have or lack but a dynamic experience that waxes and wanes in response

to the environments they navigate.

1.4.2 Sense of Belonging and Student Engagement

The relationship between sense of belonging and student engagement is supported by

a substantial and consistent body of empirical research. Osterman (2000), in an influential

review of the psychological literature on students' need for belonging, concluded that

belonging satisfaction is a direct antecedent of engagement: students who experience their

classroom as a community in which they matter, are known, and are cared for demonstrate

higher levels of participation, persistence, and academic investment than those who

experience their educational environment as indifferent or exclusionary.

Page 12
 Freeman, Anderman, and Jensen (2007) demonstrated, in a study of college freshmen,

that classroom-level sense of belonging — the feeling of being connected to peers and

respected by the instructor in a particular course — was a significant predictor of intrinsic

motivation and academic self-efficacy within that course. Their findings point to the

importance of the micro-context of the individual classroom in shaping belonging

experiences, and suggest that belonging is not only an institution-wide variable but one that

is actively constructed and reconstructed in each specific learning environment.

Walton and Cohen (2007, 2011) provided striking experimental evidence for the

causal role of belonging in academic outcomes. In a series of experimental studies with

college students, they demonstrated that brief interventions designed to bolster students'

sense of social belonging — by conveying that uncertainty about whether one belongs is

normal and temporary — produced lasting improvements in academic performance and well-

being, with effects that were particularly pronounced for students from groups that typically

face identity threat in academic environments. These findings not only establish belonging as

causally efficacious but also point to the potential for targeted institutional interventions to

improve engagement and outcomes among vulnerable student populations.

Hausmann, Schofield, and Woods (2007) found sense of belonging to be a significant

predictor of first-year students' intentions to persist in their studies, above and beyond the

effects of academic preparation and background variables. This finding resonates with Tinto's

(1993) foundational model of student departure, which identified academic and social

integration — both of which contribute to belonging — as the central psychological

mechanisms through which students decide whether to remain in or leave their institutions.

Page 13
 In the Indian context, research on belonging has been more limited, but available

evidence points in consistent directions. Studies have documented significant disparities in

belonging experiences across student groups differentiated by caste, gender, first-generation

status, and geographic background (Nair, 2015; Panda & Pandey, 2017). These disparities are

not trivial: they are associated with systematic differences in academic motivation,

engagement, and persistence. The cultivation of belonging among all students — and

particularly among those from groups that have historically been underrepresented or

marginalised in higher education — is therefore both an equity concern and an academic

effectiveness concern.

1.5 The Relationship Between Psychological Ownership and Sense of Belonging

Although psychological ownership and sense of belonging are conceptually distinct

constructs arising from different theoretical traditions, they share important common ground

and are theoretically linked in ways that merit careful examination. Both constructs are

concerned, at root, with the degree to which a person experiences a meaningful and personal

connection to a social environment — a connection that goes beyond mere physical presence

or formal membership. Both are motivationally consequential: each, in its own way, drives

investment in the environment to which the person feels connected. And both have been

identified as antecedents of positive academic and organisational outcomes including

satisfaction, commitment, persistence, and performance.

Page 14
 The theoretical connection between the two constructs is suggested by Pierce et al.'s

(2003) identification of 'having a place to dwell' as one of the motivational roots of

psychological ownership. This need — for a psychological home, a space of familiarity and

security — is closely related to Baumeister and Leary's (1995) need to belong. When

students find their place in an educational institution — when they feel at home there — they

are simultaneously satisfying the need to belong and creating the motivational foundation for

psychological ownership. The two needs are not identical, but they are mutually reinforcing:

belonging provides the relational soil in which ownership can grow.

Empirically, Asatryan et al. (2013) provided direct evidence of the relationship

between the two constructs, identifying sense of belonging as a significant antecedent of

psychological ownership in their structural equation model of student satisfaction and

commitment. Students who felt they belonged to their programme were more likely to

develop a felt sense of personal ownership over their educational experience — and this

ownership, in turn, predicted their commitment and satisfaction. This finding is consistent

with the theoretical logic: a student who is welcomed, valued, and included in a learning

community is better positioned to invest the self, exercise voice, and develop the deep

familiarity with the institution that are the experiential routes to psychological ownership.

For the purposes of the present study, both psychological ownership and sense of

belonging are treated as independent variables in the prediction of student engagement. The

theoretical relationship between the two constructs is acknowledged and examined, but the

primary focus of the research is on their joint predictive relationship with engagement. The

hypothesis that sense of belonging may function as an antecedent of psychological ownership

Page 15
— as suggested by Asatryan et al.'s (2013) findings — is a secondary theoretical interest that

the present study's data will allow to be explored.

1.6 Indian Higher Education: Contextual Considerations

Any examination of student engagement in Indian colleges must be situated within an

understanding of the particular features of the Indian higher education context — features

that are, in several respects, substantially different from those that have shaped the dominant

Western literature on the topic. India's higher education system is the largest in the world by

number of institutions, encompassing over 1,000 universities and more than 42,000 colleges

(AISHE, 2022). It serves a student population of extraordinary diversity — in terms of

linguistic background, caste, class, gender, religion, regional identity, and first-generation

status — and operates through a complex network of institutional types, ranging from

centrally funded institutions of national repute to newly established private colleges with

limited infrastructure.

The examination culture that pervades Indian higher education creates a distinctive

motivational landscape for students. When academic success is measured almost exclusively

through performance on terminal examinations, students' rational incentive is to orient their

efforts toward examination preparation rather than toward the broader intellectual and social

experience that research associates with genuine engagement. This can produce a form of

surface engagement — high on behavioural compliance (attending lectures, submitting

assignments, memorising content) but low on the cognitive and emotional investment that

Page 16
characterises deep learning. The NEP 2020's emphasis on competency-based assessment and

experiential learning represents an acknowledgement of this limitation and an aspiration

toward a different model — but institutional change of this magnitude is slow and uneven.

Faculty-student interaction is another dimension of the Indian higher education

context that deserves attention. Research consistently identifies the quality of out-of-class

interaction with faculty as one of the most powerful predictors of student engagement and

development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Yet in many Indian institutions, such

interaction is limited by large class sizes, heavy teaching loads on faculty, physical

infrastructure that does not facilitate informal contact, and cultural norms in which initiating

contact with a faculty member outside of class may feel presumptuous or inappropriate for

many students. The result is that many students move through their college years without

ever having a substantive intellectual conversation with a teacher — an experience that

research identifies as among the most transformative in college education.

The social pressures on Indian college students — many of whom carry the weight of

family expectations, community identity, and the knowledge that their own success or failure

will have consequences extending well beyond themselves — also shape the psychological

landscape in which engagement occurs. First-generation college students, in particular,

navigate the transition to higher education without the benefit of family members who can

explain what to expect, how to behave, and what opportunities to pursue. These students are

at elevated risk of experiencing poor belonging and disengagement, and they represent an

increasingly large proportion of the Indian college population as access expands.

Page 17
 Understanding student engagement in this context requires constructs that are

sensitive to the specific psychological experiences of Indian college students — their

relationship to their institutions, their sense of whether those institutions genuinely welcome

and value their presence, and the degree to which they feel their educational experience is

their own. Psychological ownership and sense of belonging, as this dissertation argues, are

precisely the constructs needed for this purpose.

1.7 Research Gaps Addressed by the Present Study

A careful review of the relevant literature reveals several specific gaps that the

present study is designed to address. First, while psychological ownership has been

extensively theorised and empirically examined in organisational settings, its application to

higher education remains limited. The few studies that have examined psychological

ownership in academic contexts have tended to focus on satisfaction and commitment as

outcomes, without treating student engagement — in its full multidimensional sense — as a

central dependent variable. This is a significant gap, given the centrality of engagement to the

broader literature on student success and the theoretical plausibility of ownership as an

engagement predictor.

Second, while sense of belonging has received greater attention in the higher

education literature, the majority of this research has been conducted in Western institutional

contexts, primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom. The social, cultural, and

institutional dynamics that shape belonging experiences in Indian colleges — including caste

Page 18
dynamics, linguistic heterogeneity, gender inequalities, and the specific challenges faced by

first-generation learners — have received relatively little empirical attention. A study

specifically designed to examine belonging in this context is therefore needed.

Third, and most critically, the combined examination of psychological ownership and

sense of belonging as joint predictors of student engagement has not been undertaken in a

systematic, empirically rigorous way in the Indian context. Most existing studies have treated

these variables independently, without attending to their interrelationship or to their

combined predictive power. By examining both constructs simultaneously, in relation to a

multidimensional conceptualisation of engagement and in the specific context of Indian

higher education, the present study makes a contribution that neither strand of the existing

literature, taken alone, could provide.

Fourth, there is a practical gap: educational institutions in India need evidence-based

guidance about what they can do to promote student engagement. While the theoretical

literature is suggestive, it does not, by itself, provide the kind of empirical evidence that can

inform institutional decisions about resource allocation, policy design, and pedagogical

practice. The present study aims to contribute to this evidence base.

1.8 Statement of the Problem

Despite substantial expansion of access to higher education in India, student

engagement — the degree to which college students are behaviourally, emotionally, and

cognitively invested in their educational experience — remains a significant and documented

Page 19
challenge. Research in Indian and international contexts has consistently demonstrated that

disengagement is associated with poor academic performance, reduced personal

development, and elevated dropout risk. Yet the psychological mechanisms underlying

engagement in the Indian college context remain inadequately understood. Specifically, the

roles of psychological ownership (the felt sense that one's institution, programme, and

learning are genuinely one's own) and sense of belonging (the experience of being accepted,

valued, and included within the academic community) as predictors of engagement have not

been systematically examined together. The present study is designed to address this gap.

1.9 Research Questions

The following research questions guide the present investigation:

RQ1: What are the levels of psychological ownership, sense of belonging, and

student engagement (behavioural, emotional, and cognitive) among college students in the

study sample?

RQ2: Is there a significant positive relationship between psychological ownership

and the dimensions of student engagement among college students?

RQ3: Is there a significant positive relationship between sense of belonging and the

dimensions of student engagement among college students?

Page 20
 RQ4: Do psychological ownership and sense of belonging together predict student

engagement, and what is the relative contribution of each predictor?

RQ5: Is there a significant relationship between psychological ownership and sense

of belonging among college students?

RQ6: Do selected demographic variables (gender, year of study, first-generation

college student status) moderate the relationships among the primary study variables?

1.10 Objectives of the Study

The present study has the following objectives:

1. To measure the levels of psychological ownership, sense of belonging, and student

engagement among college students.

2. To examine the bivariate relationships between psychological ownership, sense of

belonging, and the dimensions of student engagement.

3. To assess the predictive power of psychological ownership and sense of belonging

with respect to student engagement using multiple regression analysis.

4. To examine the relationship between psychological ownership and sense of

belonging.

Page 21
 5. To explore the moderating role of demographic variables in the relationships

among psychological ownership, sense of belonging, and student engagement.

1.11 Hypotheses

Based on the theoretical framework and review of empirical literature presented in

this chapter, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: Psychological ownership will be significantly and positively correlated with

student engagement (behavioural, emotional, and cognitive) among college students.

H2: Sense of belonging will be significantly and positively correlated with student

engagement (behavioural, emotional, and cognitive) among college students.

H3: Psychological ownership will be a significant positive predictor of student

engagement in a regression model.

H4: Sense of belonging will be a significant positive predictor of student engagement

in a regression model.

H5: Psychological ownership and sense of belonging together will account for

significant variance in student engagement scores, above and beyond either predictor alone.

Page 22
 H6: Psychological ownership and sense of belonging will be significantly and

positively correlated with each other among college students.

H7: The relationships among psychological ownership, sense of belonging, and

student engagement will differ significantly across gender, year of study, and first-generation

college student status.

1.12 Significance of the Study

The present study carries significance at both the theoretical and the applied level.

Theoretically, it extends the application of psychological ownership theory — a construct

developed primarily in organisational psychology — to the domain of higher education,

testing its relevance as a predictor of student engagement in a non-Western institutional

context. It also contributes to the sense of belonging literature in higher education by

examining belonging in the specific social and institutional context of Indian colleges, where

the dynamics that shape belonging experiences differ substantially from those that have

dominated Western research. By examining both constructs simultaneously, the study

advances theoretical understanding of how ownership and belonging are related to each other

and to engagement, and lays the groundwork for more integrative theoretical models of

student motivation in higher education.

Applied, the study provides evidence that can inform the work of institutional leaders,

faculty, student affairs practitioners, and policymakers who are concerned with improving

Page 23
the quality of the student experience and reducing disengagement and dropout. If

psychological ownership and sense of belonging are demonstrated to be significant predictors

of engagement, this finding provides a clear and actionable direction for institutional

intervention: design educational environments that give students greater voice and control

(thereby fostering ownership) and that actively signal inclusion, respect, and care for all

students (thereby fostering belonging). These are not abstract aspirations but concrete

institutional choices that can be made at the level of curriculum design, pedagogy, student

support services, and campus climate.

The study also speaks directly to the aspirations of the NEP 2020, which envisions a

fundamental transformation of Indian higher education toward student-centred, holistic, and

outcome-oriented learning. The psychological constructs examined in this study —

ownership, belonging, and engagement — are, in a real sense, the experiential correlates of

what student-centred education means in practice. Understanding them better is therefore not

peripheral to the policy agenda but central to it.

1.13 Scope and Delimitations

The present study is delimited to undergraduate college students enrolled in degree

programmes at recognised colleges and universities in [Name of State/Region], India. It

focuses exclusively on the three primary constructs of psychological ownership, sense of

belonging, and student engagement, and does not attempt to examine all possible antecedents

or outcomes of these variables. A cross-sectional survey design is employed; longitudinal

Page 24
investigation of how these constructs develop and interact over time is an important direction

for future research but falls beyond the scope of the present study. Quantitative methods are

used throughout; the addition of qualitative inquiry to enrich the interpretation of findings

would constitute a valuable extension of this work.

1.14 Organisation of the Dissertation

The dissertation is organised across five chapters. Chapter One has provided the

introduction — establishing the theoretical and empirical context, presenting the constructs

under investigation, identifying research gaps, and articulating the research questions,

objectives, and hypotheses. Chapter Two presents a comprehensive review of the literature

on psychological ownership, sense of belonging, and student engagement, covering both the

theoretical foundations and the empirical evidence relevant to the hypothesised relationships.

Chapter Three describes the methodology of the study, including research design, sample,

instruments, data collection procedures, and statistical analysis plan. Chapter Four reports the

results of the statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and

multiple regression. Chapter Five discusses the findings in relation to the theoretical

framework and prior research, draws conclusions, addresses practical implications,

acknowledges limitations, and identifies directions for future research.

1.15 Summary of the Chapter

Page 25
 This introductory chapter has situated the present dissertation within the context of

growing concern about student disengagement in higher education and has presented the

theoretical and empirical case for examining psychological ownership and sense of belonging

as predictors of student engagement among college students. Drawing on the foundational

theoretical contributions of Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks (2001, 2003) in the area of

psychological ownership, and on those of Goodenow (1993), Baumeister and Leary (1995),

and Strayhorn (2012, 2019) in the area of sense of belonging, the chapter has argued that

these two constructs are conceptually distinct but theoretically related, and that both are

expected to function as significant predictors of the multidimensional construct of student

engagement as conceptualised by Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004).

The chapter has also described the specific contextual features of Indian higher

education that make this study both timely and necessary — the expansion of access, the

persistent challenges of engagement and dropout, the examination culture, and the diverse

social composition of the student population. Seven specific research hypotheses have been

proposed and the significance, scope, and organisation of the study have been outlined. The

chapters that follow develop each of these elements in greater depth.

Page 26
 REFERENCES

All India Survey on Higher Education [AISHE]. (2022). All India survey on higher education

2021–22. Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of

India.

Asatryan, V. S., Slevitch, L., Larzelere, R., & Morosan, C. (2013). Effects of psychological

ownership on students' commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Education, 25(4), 193–204. [Link]

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.

Banker, S., & Bhal, K. T. (2020). Drivers of student learning and development: A serial

mediation approach. Higher Education, 79(5), 879–897.

[Link]

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),

497–529. [Link]

Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A

review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 163–183.

[Link]

Page 27
Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college

freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental

Education, 75(3), 203–220.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of

the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

[Link]

Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents:

Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79–

90. [Link]

PITS2310300113>[Link];2-X

Hasan, S. A., & Subhani, M. I. (2016). Relationship between on-campus student engagement

and student ownership of the institution. European Proceedings of Social and

Behavioural Sciences, 21, 369–378.

Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a

predictor of intentions to persist among African American and White first-year

college students. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839.

[Link]

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company.

Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical

foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20.

[Link]

Page 28
Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in

student-centred learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734. [Link]

9422-5

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–

396. [Link]

Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020.

Government of India.

Nair, P. K. (2015). Student engagement and institutional belonging in Indian higher

education: A study of first-generation learners. Journal of Educational Research and

Practice, 5(1), 113–129.

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students' need for belonging in the school community. Review of

Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367. [Link]

Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences. University of

California, Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute.

Panda, A., & Pandey, S. (2017). Sense of belonging and academic engagement in Indian

university students. Psychological Studies, 62(4), 358–367.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of

research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass.

Page 29
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological

ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310.

[Link]

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership:

Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1),

84–107. [Link]

Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. (1991). Employee ownership: A conceptual

model of process and effects. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 121–144.

[Link]

Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2012). The schoolwork engagement inventory: Energy,

dedication, and absorption (EDA). European Journal of Psychological Assessment,

28(1), 60–67. [Link]

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic

approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

[Link]

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of

teacher behaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581. [Link]

Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educational success

for all students. Routledge.

Page 30
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educational success

for all students (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd

ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession:

Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship

behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459.

[Link]

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and

achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.

[Link]

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves

academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451.

[Link]

Page 31