JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR 49, 252–276 (1996)

ARTICLE NO. 0043

Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the

Organization: An Examination of Construct Validity

NATALIE J. ALLEN AND JOHN P. MEYER

The University of Western Ontario

Within the past few years, several studies have used the Affective, Continuance,
and Normative Commitment Scales (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984,
1991) to assess organizational commitment. The purpose of this paper is to review
and evaluate the body of evidence relevant to the construct validity of these measures.
Although some empirical questions remain at issue, the overall results strongly support
the continued use of the scales in substantive research. q 1996 Academic Press, Inc.

Within the past several years, organizational commitment has emerged as

a central concept in the study of work attitudes and behavior (e.g., Mathieu &
Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Morrow, 1993; Reichers, 1985). This is
due in large part to the demonstrated links between organizational commit-
ment and two variables of considerable importance to the study of vocational
behavior: turnover intentions and actual turnover. More recently, commitment
has been linked to various other forms of work and nonwork behavior (e.g.,
Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, &
Jackson, 1989; Randall, Fedor, & Longenecker, 1990; Wahn, 1993). Finally,
there is evidence that the contribution of organizational commitment to these
variables is independent of that made by other work attitude constructs such
as job satisfaction (Morrow, 1993; Tett & Meyer, 1993).
Organizational commitment can be defined generally as a psychological
link between the employee and his or her organization that makes it less
likely that the employee will voluntarily leave the organization. Although
early work in the area was characterized by various, and often conflicting,
unidimensional views of the construct, organizational commitment is now
widely recognized as a multidimensional work attitude (see Becker, 1992;
Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; Meyer & Allen, 1984,

This research was supported by research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council. We thank Meridith Black for assistance in data collection and analysis, Wendy
Bichard for preparing the tables, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier
version of the article. Reprint requests should be addressed to Natalie J. Allen, Department of
Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada. fax: (519)
661-3961. e-mail: ALLEN@sscl.uwo.ca.

252
0001-8791/96 $18.00
Copyright q 1996 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 253

1991; Morrow, 1993; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Not surprisingly, some of
the conceptual changes in the study of organizational commitment have been
accompanied by efforts to refine the measurement of the commitment con-
struct.
One program of research in which conceptual and measurement work have
gone hand in hand has resulted in a three-component view of commitment
(Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991). According to this perspective,
the psychological linkage between employees and their organizations can take
three quite distinct forms, each of which is given a distinguishing label.
Affective commitment refers to identification with, involvement in, and emo-
tional attachment to the organization. Thus, employees with strong affective
commitment remain with the organization because they want to do so. Contin-
uance commitment refers to commitment based on the employee’s recognition
of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Employees with strong
continuance commitment, then, remain with the organization because they
have to do so. Finally, normative commitment refers to commitment based
on a sense of obligation to the organization. Employees with strong normative
commitment remain because they feel they ought to do so. As can be seen,
all three components of commitment have straightforward implications for
staying with (or leaving) an organization, but beyond that, are conceptually
quite different. Given these differences, commitment is most meaningfully
assessed using three separate measures. Two of the commitment measures
developed on the basis of this model were first used in published research
by Meyer and Allen (1984), and the third, by Allen and Meyer (1990). Since
then, the measures, referred to as the Affective, Continuance, and Normative
Commitment Scales, have been administered in several studies. Consequently,
there now exists a considerable body of evidence regarding the psychometric
properties of the measures and their relations with other organizational and
person variables.
In this paper, we examine the construct validity of the three commitment
scales by reviewing research in which they have been used. Following
Schwab’s (1980) recommendations concerning the validation of measures
used in organizational research, we begin by examining the reliability of the
three scales. This is followed by an examination of their factor structures.
Next we review the evidence concerning relations between the commitment
scales and other variables that are hypothesized, in the three-component model
(Meyer & Allen, 1991), to be antecedents and consequences of commitment.
These hypothesized relations provide a ‘‘nomological net’’ (Cronbach &
Meehl, 1955) to be used in the validation process. If the overall pattern of
relations obtained empirically is consistent with that proposed, it provides
evidence that the commitment scales are measuring the constructs as intended.
MEASURES OF AFFECTIVE, CONTINUANCE, AND NORMATIVE
COMMITMENT
The development of the Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commit-
ment Scales (ACS, CCS, and NCS, respectively) was based on the scale

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

254 ALLEN AND MEYER

construction principles outlined by Jackson (1970) and is described in detail

elsewhere (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Briefly, definitions of the three constructs
were used to develop an initial pool of items that was then administered to
an occupationally and organizationally heterogenous sample with a fairly
balanced gender representation. Items were selected for inclusion in the scales
on the basis of a series of decision rules that took into account the endorsement
proportions associated with each item, item–scale correlations, content redun-
dancy, and the desire to include both positively and negatively keyed items.
Each of the three scales resulting from this process comprises eight items.
Respondents indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each
item and scale scores are calculated by averaging across item responses.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLES

The data summarized in this paper are based on over 40 employee samples,
representing more than 16,000 employees from a wide variety of organizations
and occupations.2 In each sample, employees responded to at least one of the
three commitment measures described above. The Social Science Citation
Index, up to the middle of 1994, was used to locate each published article
that cited the research of direct relevance to the measures (i.e., Allen &
Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984; 1991). A manual search of these articles
was conducted to isolate those that reported primary research using the mea-
sures. A similar search was conducted using Dissertations Abstracts Interna-
tional. Finally, to locate unpublished work, other than that we were already
aware of, primary authors of published work were contacted and asked
whether they had done any other research using one or more of the commit-
ment measures. Where necessary, we also obtained from primary researchers
additional data that were not presented in the research reports, but that we
judged to be instructive for our purposes (e.g., reliabilities).

EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

As Schwab (1980) noted, several quite different kinds of evidence can be
used to evaluate the construct validity of a set of conceptually related mea-
sures. The following section is organized around the three forms of evidence
mentioned above: reliability of the measures, factor analytic results, and pat-
terns of correlations between the commitment measures and other variables.

Estimates of Reliability
Internal Consistency
Typically, the internal consistency of the measures has been estimated
using coefficient alpha. Reliabilities associated with each sample are shown

1
Shorter six-item versions of the measures have recently been developed (Meyer, Allen, &
Smith, 1993); these will be discussed later in the paper.
2
A description of all samples is available from the authors.

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 255

in Table 1. Median reliabilities, across both versions of the ACS, CCS, and
NCS are .85, .79, and .73, respectively, and with very few exceptions, all
reliability estimates exceed .70.
Test–Retest Reliability
Although most studies using the commitment measures have been cross-
sectional, some longitudinal data are available. Available test–retest reliabilities
are shown in Table 2. As can been seen, the duration between administrations
ranged from 7 weeks to 11 months and, in all but one study (Blau, Paul, & St.
John, 1993), longitudinal data were collected from organizational newcomers.
All the test–retest reliabilities are within an acceptable range and consistent
with those reported for comparable measures (e.g., the Organizational Com-
mitment Questionnaire; see Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). It will be
noted, however, that the lowest reliabilities are those involving commitment
measures taken on employees’ first day at the organization (Vandenberg &
Self, 1993). Employees may find it difficult to respond meaningfully to com-
mitment items when they have almost no experience with the organization.
Also noteworthy is that the higher reliabilities reported are those based on
data obtained during the latter part of the newcomers’ first year in the organi-
zation. This pattern is consistent with that found with other measures of
organizational attitudes (Vandenberg & Self, 1993) and may reflect something
about the stabilization of attitude that occurs as newcomers gain experience
with their organizations (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).
Factor Analytic Evidence
The factor structure of the commitment measures has been examined in
several studies using both exploratory and confirmatory analyses. Some analy-
ses included items from all three measures, while others included only ACS
and/or CCS items. Some analyses also included other work-related measures
along with organizational commitment. Space limitations do not allow the
full reporting of each analysis. Instead, we outline the overall pattern of
findings and address three specific issues: (1) relations among the commitment
measures and related measures, (2) the factor structure of the continuance
commitment measure, and (3) the stability of the factor structures across time.
Relations among the ACS, CCS, NCS, and Related Measures
Results of the exploratory analyses indicate that the items making up the
three commitment measures load on separate factors. Reilly and Orsak (1991),
for example, conducted their analysis on responses to the 24 commitment
items and the 7 items from Blau’s (1988) career commitment measure. They
reported the presence of four clearly defined factors, each representing one
of the four measures included in the analysis. Other exploratory factor analy-
ses have shown that: (a) the ACS items are distinct from related measures
assessing career, job, and work value constructs (Blau et al., 1993), (b) ACS
items are distinct from CCS items (McGee & Ford, 1987), (c) ACS and NCS

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

256 ALLEN AND MEYER

TABLE 1
Internal Consistency Reliabilities for Affective, Continuance,
and Normative Commitment Scales

Commitment measurea

ACS CCS NCS Reference/sample

.79 .79 .79 Allen & Lee (1993)*

Allen & Meyer (1990)
.87 .75 .79 Sample 1
.86 .82 .73 Sample 2
.82 .81 .74 Allen & Smith (1987)
— .84 — Aven (1988)
.80 (time 1) — — Blau, Paul, & St. John (1993)
.81 (time 2) — —
.89 — — Carson & Bedeian (1994)
.79 .69 .65 Cohen (1993)
.74–.87 .73–.81 .67–.78 Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda
(1994)b
.81 .69 .74 Finegan (1994)*
.86 .72 — Gellatly (1995)
.85 — — Greenberg (1994)
Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf
(1994)
.86 .79 .73 Sample 1
.84 .75 .75 Sample 2
.88 .81 — Jayne (1994)
.74 — — Jenkins (1993)
.85 — — Kelloway & Barling (1992)
.89 .85 — Konovsky & Cropanzano
(1991)
.86 .78 .67 Lee (1992)
.88 .81 .78 Lynn (1992)
.83 .84 .71 McDonald (1993)
.84 .75 — Magazine, Williams, &
Williams (in press)
.88 .70 — McGee & Ford (1987)
.82 .74 .83 Meyer, Allen, & Smith
(1993)*
.82 (1 month) .82 (1 month) — Meyer, Bobocel, & Allen
(1991)
.84 (6 months) .79 (6 months) —
.88 (11 months) .82 (11 months) —
.77 (1 month) .73 (1 month) .68 (1 month) Meyer, Irving, & Allen
(1993)
.83 (6 months) .74 (6 months) .69 (6 months)
.85 (12 months) .72 (12 months) .74 (12 months)
.74 .69 — Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly,
Goffin, & Jackson (1989)
.85 .71 — Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ
(1993)
.85 — .68 Morrison (1994)

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$1510 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 257

TABLE 1—Continued

Commitment measurea

ACS CCS NCS Reference/sample

.88 .83 .52 Randall, Fedor, &

Longenecker (1990)
.84 .80 .76 Reilly & Orsak (1991)
Shim & Steers (1994)
.87 .79 — Sample 1
.88 .81 — Sample 2
.90 .83 — Shore & Tetrick (1991)
.81 .74 .71 Somers (1993a; 1993b)
.76 (1 day) .75 (1 day) — Vandenberg & Self (1993)
.86 (3 months) .82 (3 months) —
.89 (6 months) .79 (6 months) —
— .83 — Wahn (1993)
.86 .81 — Whitener & Walz (1993)
.89 .76 — Withey (1988)

Note. ACS, Affective Commitment Scale; CCS, Continuance Commitment Scales; NCS, Nor-
mative Commitment Scale.
a
The three studies indicated with an asterisk used the six-item versions of the commitment
scales. All others used the original eight-item scales.
b
Research conducted by Dunham et al. (1994) included nine separate samples; reprinted here
are the range of reliabilities across these samples.

items load on the same factor, but are distinct from CCS items (Cohen,
1993), and (d) ACS, CCS, and NCS items load appropriately on three factors
(Allen & Lee, 1993).
Consistent with the above, results of confirmatory factor analyses demon-
strated that the ACS and CCS (Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990; Moorman,
Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Somers, 1993a), and the
ACS, CCS, and NCS (Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994; Hackett et al.,
1994; Lee, 1992; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993) load on separate factors.
Further, Shore and Tetrick (1991) provided evidence for the distinction be-
tween the ACS, the CCS, job satisfaction, and perceived organizational sup-
port. As expected, the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) and
the ACS were highly correlated. A similar pattern was observed in those
samples to whom Dunham et al. (1994) administered the OCQ; the OCQ
converged with the ACS but was distinct from the CCS and NCS. Also,
consistent with prediction, Aven (1988) found that CCS items did not load
on the same factor as items from either the OCQ or the Hrebiniak and Alutto
(1972) commitment measure.3 Finally, in a recent study of organizational and

3
Although the Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) measure has been described as a measure of cost-
based commitment, the evidence suggests that this is not the case (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Stebbins,
1970).

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

258 ALLEN AND MEYER

TABLE 2
Test–Retest Reliabilities for Commitment Measures

Reliabilities

Measure rt1t2 rt1t3 rt2t3 Timing of measures Reference

ACS .94 7 weeks apart (average Blau et al. (1993)

tenure Å 5.5 years)
ACS .68 .62 .78 1, 6, and 11 months Meyer et al. (1991)
post-entry
CCS .71 .63 .72
ACS .66 .61 .73 1, 6, and 12 months Meyer et al. (1993)
post entry
CCS .56 .58 .67
NCS .61 .62 .73
ACS .48 .38 .77 1 day and 3 and 6 months Vandenberg & Self
post entry (1993)
CCS .44 .44 .63

occupational commitment, Meyer et al. (1993) reported that the best fit to the
data was provided by a six-factor solution involving the three organizational
commitment measures and three parallel occupational commitment measures.4
These results not only provide further evidence of the distinction among the
three forms of commitment but also that the measures are sensitive to the
particular foci in question.
Dimensionality of the Continuance Commitment Scale
The findings of the factor analytic studies are less clear with regard to
whether or not one of the measures, the CCS, represents a unidimensional
construct. The dimensionality of this measure was examined first by McGee
and Ford (1987) who reported results from two exploratory factor analyses
of the same data set. In the first analysis, two factors were specified and the
results supported an ACS/CCS distinction. In the second, the number of
factors to be extracted was not specified. Three of the four factors produced
in this analysis were interpretable and supported a distinction between the
ACS and two ‘‘dimensions’’ of the CCS, ‘‘the first based on perceptions that
few employment alternatives exist and the second on high personal sacrifice
associated with leaving the organization’’ (McGee & Ford, 1987, p. 640).
Since McGee and Ford’s (1987) impactful study, the dimensionality of the
CCS has received scrutiny using confirmatory factor analysis (Hackett et al.,
1994; Dunham et al., 1994; Meyer et al., 1990; Somers, 1993a). At issue
here is whether the CCS measures a unitary commitment construct or two
separable commitment constructs, one that develops from the employee’s

4
This study used the six-item versions of the commitment measures.

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 259

recognition that alternatives are few (CCS:LoAlt) and the other from a recog-
nition that the employee’s investments in the organization would be sacrificed
if he or she left (CCS:HiSac).
Meyer et al. (1990) used confirmatory factor analysis to compare several
models describing the CCS data taken from three independent samples. Al-
though the one-factor model provided a good fit to the data, the best fit was
provided by an oblique two-factor model (CCS:LoAlt and CCS:HiSac items
as separate factors). Interestingly, however, an orthogonal two-factor model
provided a poor fit, suggesting that the two continuance commitment facets
are not independent. (The correlation between the two CCS factors was .817.)
More recently, Somers (1993a) used both the ACS and CCS and compared
a two-factor model (ACS, CCS) and a three-factor model (ACS, CCS:LoAlt,
CCS:HiSac). Again, although the fit indices associated with the model treating
the CCS as unidimensional were acceptably high, fit improved when two
continuance commitment factors were specified. Using only the CCS items,
Dunham et al. (1994) conducted separate confirmatory factor analyses on data
from six samples (and a multigroup analysis). They found consistent evidence
favoring a two-factor oblique model over both a one-factor model and a two-
factor orthogonal model. Finally, Hackett et al. (1994) applied confirmatory
factor analyses to all three commitment measures and compared the fit of
one-, three-, and four-factor models. They found that a four-factor model
provided the best fit to the data, again supporting a two-dimensional CCS
structure.
Overall, therefore, a model hypothesizing a two-dimensional CCS structure
clearly provides a better fit to the data than does a unidimensional model.
Across all studies, however, this superiority is modest, and the two factors
are highly related.
Finally, as important as the issue of relative fit is the question of whether
the two ‘‘subscales’’ of the CCS correlate differently with variables of interest.
Apparently, they are differentially related to the ACS (McGee & Ford, 1987;
Meyer et al., 1990). This has also been examined with respect to ‘‘conse-
quence’’ variables including job performance (Meyer et al., 1989; Hackett et
al., 1994), absenteeism (Hackett et al., 1994), turnover intention (Allen &
Lee, 1993; Somers, 1993b), and quality of nonwork life (Allen & Lee, 1993).
In all cases, the correlations found between the variables in question and one
subscale paralleled those found with the other subscale and with the total
CCS. Thus, although there appears to be evidence for two strongly related
continuance commitment factors, the practical implications of treating the
two factors separately have yet to be demonstrated.
Stability of Factor Structures over Time
We turn now to confirmatory factor analytic evidence relevant to the inter-
pretation of change, over time, in the commitment measures. Change in the
mean scores of self-report attitude measures are often considered evidence
of true change in those attitudes (i.e., what Golembiewski, Billingsley, &

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

260 ALLEN AND MEYER

Yeager, 1976, referred to as alpha change). Such change in mean scores,

however, may also be due to change in the factor structure of a measurement
instrument (gamma change) or to change in the metric being used from one
administration to another (beta change), or both. If gamma or beta change is
extensive, interpretation of mean score change is meaningless. If, however,
gamma or beta change is modest, it can be controlled in analyses designed
to detect alpha change.
Schmitt (1982; Schmitt, Pulakos, & Lieblein, 1984) demonstrated how
analysis of covariance structures (confirmatory factor analysis) can be used
to detect beta and gamma change in scores on self-report measures obtained
on different administrations. Recently, Vandenberg and Self (1993) used a
variation of this procedure to examine change in the organizational commit-
ment of newcomers to a large financial institution. They measured the commit-
ment of newcomers to the organization on three occasions: on the first day,
after 3 months, and after 6 months on the job. For both the ACS and CCS,
they argued that there was sufficient evidence for gamma and beta change to
question seriously the interpretation of change in mean scores over time.
Further, they reported that the factor structure of these two measures varied
across the three administrations. On the basis of these findings, Vandenberg
and Self questioned whether the constructs being measured by the ACS and
CCS are indeed stable, at least during the early period of employment.
More recently, Meyer and Gardner (1994) performed the same confirmatory
factor analytic procedures as Vandenberg and Self (1993) on data obtained
from employees on three occasions during their first year of employment (1,
6, and 12 months). They found minimal evidence of gamma and beta change.
Moreover, their analysis of the factor structure of the ACS and CCS across
administrations yielded the same results as those obtained in the studies
described above; a one-factor model provided a good fit to the data for the
ACS, whereas an oblique two-factor model provided a good fit to the data
for the CCS. Although these two studies differed in several ways, Meyer and
Gardner suggested that the most obvious explanation for the discrepant find-
ings is that Vandenberg and Self’s initial administration of the instrument
was on the first day of employment. This measure might best be seen as
propensity to become committed rather than commitment per se. Meyer and
Gardner argued that their findings suggest that the ACS and CCS are useful
instruments for the investigation of change in commitment during the early
employment period but cautioned that, given the conflicting evidence, it would
be wise to continue to test for gamma and beta change on a case-by-case
basis until sufficient evidence across studies indicates that this is no longer
necessary.
Summary
Three issues were addressed in this section. On the basis of factor analytic
research, it appears that, as expected, the three measures are distinguishable
from each other. Factor analyses also show that the CCS comprises two highly

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 261

related factors. The practical implications of this, however, are not clear
and require further research. Finally, the conflicting evidence regarding the
temporal stability of the ACS and CCS suggests that researchers examining
change in commitment among newcomers should test and, if necessary, con-
trol for beta and gamma change. We turn now to an examination of links
between the commitment measures and measures of other constructs.
Commitment and Its Relations to Other Constructs: A Nomological Net
As noted earlier, the three-component model of organizational commitment
(Meyer & Allen, 1991) provides a nomological net (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955)
that can be used to evaluate further the construct validity of the commitment
measures. These measures have been used to address a variety of research
questions. Thus, in most cases, the number of studies examining a particular
relation is not yet sufficient for meta-analytic review. Our objective, therefore,
was to examine the pattern of findings across studies. Evidence for construct
validity is provided to the extent that correlations between the commitment
measures and other variables parallel those outlined in the model.
In this section of the paper, we outline the general predictions that are of
relevance to particular sets of variables and examine the pattern of correlations
between the commitment measures and: (a) other attitude measures, (b) work-
related characteristics, (c) turnover intentions and turnover, (d) other work-
related behavior, and (e) nonwork variables.
Relations with Other Attitude Measures
Although the various work attitude constructs that have been discussed in
the literature have different foci (e.g., the job, the organization, the occupa-
tion), most are affective in nature. Consequently, we would expect some
convergence between the measures used to assess these constructs and the
measure of affective commitment to the organization. Despite this, affective
measures with foci other than the organization should be empirically discern-
ible from the ACS, while those that focus on emotional attachment to the
organization, such as the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, should
correlate strongly with the ACS. Though normative commitment is based on
obligation, not affect, it does appear to overlap somewhat with affective
commitment; thus, it is expected that NCS scores would be correlated mod-
estly with other affective measures (including the OCQ). Continuance com-
mitment, on the other hand, is considered to be affectively neutral: though
one may feel that the costs associated with leaving would be high, this, in
itself, does not necessarily generate positive or negative feelings toward the
domain in question. CCS scores, therefore, would be expected to share very
little variance with these other work attitude measures.
Shown in Table 3 are the correlations between the commitment measures
and other attitude measures. Several aspects of these data merit comment.
First, the strong relations between the OCQ and the ACS are entirely consis-
tent with expectation and provide evidence for convergent validity. Also

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

262 ALLEN AND MEYER

TABLE 3
Correlations between Commitment Measures and Other Attitude Measures

Commitment measure

Attitude measure ACS CCS NCS Reference/sample

OCQ .83* 0.02 .51* Allen & Meyer (1990)

.80* .06 .48* Cohen (1993)
.77–.87* .01–.23 .37* Dunham et al. (1994)a
Hackett et al. (1994)
.72* 0.11* .34* Sample 1
.71* 0.11 .44* Sample 2
.80* 0.06 .54* Lee (1992)
.89* .28* .53* Randall et al. (1990)
Job satisfaction Hackett et al. (1994)
.51* 0.11* .21* Sample 1
.64* 0.10 .37* Sample 2
.50* — — Jenkins (1993)
.59* 0.05 — Konovsky & Cropanzano (1991)
.51* 0.15* .29* Lee (1992)
.55* 0.11 0.02 Lynn (1992)
.64* .12* — Moorman et al. (1993)
.53* — .32* Morrison (1994)
.56* 0.12* — Withey (1988)
Job involvement .33* — — Blau et al. (1993)
.51* .07 .36* Cohen (1993)
Career commitment .52* — — Carson & Bedeian (1994)
.47* 0.10 .26* Cohen (1993)
Positive affect .32* 0.16 — Cropanzano et al. (1993)
.31* 0.11* .10* Reilly & Orsak (1991)b
Negative affect 0.18* .08 — Cropanzano et al. (1993)
0.17* .08 0.06 Reilly & Orsak (1991)

Note. OCQ, Organizational Commitment Questionnaire.

a
Reported here are ranges of correlations found across several samples in the Dunham et al.
(1994) research.
b
Correlations in the Reilly & Orsak (1991) study involved factor scores associated with the
three commitment measures rather than scale scores.
*p õ .05.

consistent with expectation is that these (affective) attitude measures correlate

moderately with the NCS and very little with the CCS. Thus, evidence for
discriminant validity is provided.
Second, the ACS correlates with measures reflecting affective reactions to
other foci (e.g., job satisfaction, career commitment). As there are many
reasons one could have similar feelings toward the organization and other
‘‘units’’ within it, this is not at all unexpected. Further, consistent with previ-

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 263

ous research (e.g., Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988; Mathieu, 1991), the magni-
tude of these correlations suggest that affective commitment to the organiza-
tion is related to, but distinguishable from, other work attitude variables.
Finally, recall the factor analytic results, described above; these provide clear
evidence that respondents distinguish between the ACS and commitment to
the career (Reilly & Orsak, 1991), career, job, and work values (Blau et al.,
1993), job satisfaction (Shore & Tetrick, 1991), and occupational commitment
(Meyer et al., 1993).
Third, as expected, the CCS and NCS correlate weakly with other attitude
measures; this provides further evidence of discriminant validity. Unfortu-
nately, however, there is nothing in these data to address the issue of conver-
gent validity. This is due, quite simply, to the fact that few comparable
measures exist. Although the Ritzer and Trice (1969) and Hrebiniak and
Alutto (1972) measures were purportedly developed to assess cost-based com-
mitment, their validity has been questioned (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Morrow,
1993; Stebbins, 1970). With respect to obligation-based (normative) commit-
ment, only one other such measure appears in the literature. To our knowledge,
this measure, developed by Wiener and Vardi (1980), has not been used in
conjunction with the NCS or the other two commitment measures.
Finally, two studies examined commitment and dispositional affect (Cro-
panzano, James & Konovsky, 1993; Reilly & Orsak, 1991). As would be
expected, the ACS was positively correlated with positive affect and nega-
tively correlated with negative affect. Of the four correlations involving the
CCS, however, only one was significant. This pattern is consistent with the
view of continuance commitment as an affectively neutral construct.
Relations with Work-Related Characteristics
Within the theoretical framework that guided the development of the com-
mitment measures, work experience variables are seen as ‘‘antecedents’’ of
commitment. Given that they describe such psychologically different orienta-
tions toward the organization, affective, continuance, and normative commit-
ment are expected to develop on the basis of quite different experiences
(Meyer & Allen, 1991). Specifically, affective commitment is expected to be
correlated with those work experiences in, and characteristics of, the organiza-
tion that make the employee feel ‘‘psychologically comfortable’’ (e.g., ap-
proachable managers, equitable treatment of employees) and that enhance his
or her sense of competence (e.g., challenging tasks, feedback). Continuance
commitment, on the other hand, purportedly develops on the basis of the
employee’s recognition of the investments he or she has made in the organiza-
tion (e.g., time and effort, pension contributions) and/or the lack of compara-
ble employment alternatives. In the case of normative commitment, experi-
ences within the specific organizational domain may be somewhat less influ-
ential than are other earlier experiences. Indeed, it is expected that normative
commitment develops on the basis of those socialization experiences in the
individual’s early life that encourage sustained commitment to one’s em-

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

264 ALLEN AND MEYER

ployer. This includes both family-based experiences concerning work (e.g.,

parents who stress loyalty to one’s organization) and culturally based experi-
ences (e.g., cultural sanctions against ‘‘job-hopping’’). Normative commit-
ment may also be increased, however, by those experiences within the organi-
zation that make employees feel that their employer is providing them with
more than they can easily reciprocate.
A wide variety of work-related experiences and perceptions, across several
studies, have been examined in conjunction with the ACS, the CCS, and, to
a lesser extent, the NCS. Findings involving these variables are summarized
in Table 4. First, it will be noted that many of the variables that have been
examined in conjunction with two or more commitment measures are differen-
tially related to those measures. This complements the factor analytic evi-
dence, described earlier, and provides additional evidence that the measures
assess three different constructs.
Second, the pattern of relations generally supports hypotheses about the
antecedents of the commitment constructs. The picture that emerges with
respect to the ACS is that it shares variance with variables that are consensu-
ally seen as ‘‘desirable’’ (e.g., supportive and dependable supervisors, chal-
lenging work, fair treatment). This is consistent with meta-analytic evidence
based on studies using the OCQ (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Wide-ranging
experiences have been examined. Procedural justice, for example, has been
assessed generally (Moorman et al., 1993) and with respect to specific issues
such as drug testing (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991) and pay (Lynn, 1992).
Many of these ‘‘desirable’’ variables are also correlated, albeit more modestly,
with NCS scores. Consistent with theoretical predictions, however, they typi-
cally do not correlate significantly with CCS scores. Thus, continuance com-
mitment cannot reasonably be seen as a negative reaction to poor work experi-
ences. Also consistent with predictions is the finding that, across most studies,
CCS scores are correlated with those experiences that ‘‘tie’’ individuals to
the organization, such as recognizing a paucity of alternatives or learning
organization-specific skills (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Lee, 1992; Withey, 1988).
Relations with Turnover Intentions and Turnover
Shown in Table 5 are the correlations between commitment measures and
both turnover intentions and actual employee turnover.
Turnover intention. Although the measure used to assess turnover intention
has varied across studies, it is related consistently to affective commitment.
Correlations range from 0.29 to 0.61 and all are significant. A similar pattern
(based on fewer samples) exists for normative commitment; correlations range
from 0.20 to 0.38 and all are significant. Correlations between continuance
commitment and turnover intentions are less consistent across studies, ranging
from .00 to 0.42. Nonetheless, of the correlations reported from nine indepen-
dent samples, six are significant and in the expected direction.
Turnover. The relation between commitment and actual turnover was exam-
ined in two studies. Somers (1993b) administered all three commitment mea-

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 TABLE 4
Correlations between Commitment Measures and Work-Related Characteristics

Commitment measure

Characteristic ACS CCS NCS Reference/sample

Organizational
support/leadership
Management receptiveness .48* 0.16* .20* Allen & Meyer (1990)
Organizational dependability .61* 0.04 .38* Allen & Meyer (1990)
Transformational leadership .39–.45* 0.03–.05.14*–.17* Bycio, Hackett, &
Allen (1995)a
Transactional leadership 0.22–.36* 0.06–.13* 0.07–.20*
Organizational dependability .56* 0.13* .47* Lee (1992)
Organizational support .64* 0.08 — Shore & Wayne
(1993)
Support from supervisors .43* 0.08 — Withey (1988)
Competence-related variables
Feedback .36* 0.18* .21* Allen & Meyer (1990)
Goal difficulty .56* 0.17* .25* Allen & Meyer (1990)
Job challenge .63* 0.14* .29* Allen & Meyer (1990)
Challenge .47* 0.13* .29* Lee (1992)
Feedback .38* 0.03 .29* Lee (1992)
Challenge .59* 0.16 .19* Meyer, Irving, & Allen
(1993)
Justice variables
Interactional .51* 0.10 — Gellatly (1995)
Procedural (lay-off) .08 — — Kelloway & Barling
(1992)
Distributive (lay-off) .20* — — Kelloway & Barling
(1992)
Procedural (drug-testing) .44* 0.09 — Konovsky &
Cropanzano (1991)
Distributive (pay) .39* 0.07 .00 Lynn (1992)
Procedural (pay) .52* 0.14* .25* Lynn (1992)
Procedural .50* .09* — Moorman et al. (1993)
Role-related variables
Role clarity .53* 0.11 .39* Allen & Meyer (1990)
Role ambiguity 0.48* .09 0.31* Lee (1992)
Employment alternatives
Perceived alternatives 0.13* 0.43* 0.08 Allen & Meyer (1990)
Perceived alternatives .09 0.28* 0.01 Lee (1992)
Availability of alternatives .03 .01 — Whitener & Walz
(unemployment rate) (1993)
Specificity/transferability
variables
Skills transferability .25* 0.20* .19* Allen & Meyer (1990)
Education transferability 0.02 0.12* .03 Lee (1992)
Skills transferability .13* 0.35* .08 Lee (1992)
Specificity of skills 0.07 .28* — Withey (1988)

a
Bycio et al. (1995) administered three measures of transformational leadership and two
measures of transactional leadership. Reported here are the ranges of correlations involving these
measures.
* p õ .05.

11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

266 ALLEN AND MEYER

TABLE 5
Correlations between Commitment Measures and Turnover Variables

Commitment Measures

Turnover variable ACS CCS NCS Reference

Turnover intention 0.41* 0.11* 0.38* Allen & Lee (1993)

0.60* — — Carson & Bedeian (1994)
0.45* 0.08 0.20* Cohen (1993)
0.42* 0.08* 0.24* Hackett et al. (1994)
0.35* — — Jenkins (1993)
0.33* — — Kelloway & Barling (1992)
.47* .00 — Konovsky & Cropanzano (1991)
0.29* 0.15* 0.32* Lee (1992)
0.49* 0.42* 0.24* McDonald (1993)
0.45* 0.02 0.34* Meyer, Allen, & Smith (1993)
0.61* 0.22* — Whitener & Walz (1993)
Intention to remain .39* .13* .32* Somer (1993b)a
Turnover 0.19* 0.07 0.17* Somers (1993b)
0.26* 0.16* — Whitener & Walz (1993)

a
Somers (1993b) correlated commitment scales with intentions to remain for 1, 2, and 5 years.
All nine correlations were significant (p õ .05). The mean correlations across the three intention
measures are reported here.
* p õ .05.

sures to a large sample of nurses and collected voluntary turnover data approx-
imately 1 year later. Turnover was significantly related to the ACS and the
NCS, but not the CCS. Whitener and Walz (1993) administered the ACS and
CCS to a sample of bank tellers 1 year prior to obtaining voluntary turnover
data and reported significant negative correlations between turnover and both
commitment measures.

Relations with Other Work-Related Behavior

While turnover is still an important outcome variable, it is now recognized
that not all turnover is dysfunctional (e.g., Dalton, Krackhardt, & Porter,
1981) and that what employees do while they are with the organization is as
important as, if not more important than, how long they stay. Looking beyond
employee retention, therefore, Meyer and Allen (1991) argued that the three
components of commitment could have quite different consequences for work-
related behavior. Indeed, an advantage of distinguishing among the compo-
nents of commitment lies not with their relative ability to predict turnover
but, instead, with their implications for on-the-job behavior.
First, Meyer and Allen (1991) hypothesized that while affective commit-
ment and normative commitment would be positively correlated with perfor-
mance, continuance commitment would be either unrelated, or negatively

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 267

related, to performance—except in cases where job retention was clearly

contingent on performance. It should be noted that normative commitment is
expected to have less influence on the quantity or quality of work and more
on the ‘‘tone’’ with which the work is carried out. For example, the felt
obligation associated with normative commitment may carry with it a resent-
ment toward the organization that pervades, but does not directly impede, the
performance of particular duties (e.g., those that the employee least enjoys).
Further, it was hypothesized that employees with strong affective commitment
would be more likely to engage in extra-role (Katz, 1964), or organizational
citizenship (Organ, 1988), behavior than those with weak affective commit-
ment. Normative commitment should also be related, albeit less strongly, to
such behavior. Given that extra-role behavior has no explicit implications for
job retention, we would expect continuance commitment to be either unrelated
or negatively related to it. Finally, it is expected that work attendance will
be positively associated with affective and normative commitment, but not
continuance commitment.
In summarizing the results of studies that have examined the behavioral
correlates of commitment (see Table 6), we distinguish between self-reports
and independent assessments of two types of work-related behavior, work
performance and absenteeism.
Work performance: self-report measures. Several researchers have exam-
ined citizenship, or extra-role, behavior. Such behaviors quite consistently
correlate positively with affective commitment, correlate less consistently
with normative commitment, and are either unrelated or negatively related to
continuance commitment (Allen & Smith, 1987; Lee, 1992; McDonald, 1993;
Meyer et al., 1993). An interesting approach to extra-role behavior was taken
recently by Morrison (1994) who argued that the boundary between extra-
role behavior and in-role behavior is unclear and, thus, may vary across
employees as a function of work attitudes. Morrison predicted, and found,
that employees with strong affective and normative commitment defined their
jobs more broadly (i.e., considered ‘‘extra-role’’ behavior to be in-role) and
were more likely to engage in these behaviors.
Commitment is also linked to the way employees respond to dissatisfaction
at work. Drawing on the work of Hirschman (1970) and Farrell (1983), Meyer
et al. (1993) examined three such responses: voice, loyalty, and neglect. Both
affective and normative commitment were positively related to willingness
to suggest improvements (voice) and to accept things as they were (loyalty)
and negatively related to passive withdrawal from the dissatisfying situation
(neglect). Interestingly, continuance commitment was positively related to
the neglect response. Somewhat related to this latter finding is Wahn’s (1993)
report that continuance commitment was positively related to employees’
overall estimates of the frequency with which they engaged in particular
unethical behaviors. This composite measure had two components. CCS
scores were unrelated to behaviors involving ‘‘serving one’s interests at the
expense of others’’ (p. 248) (e.g., passing on blame to a co-worker), but were

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

268 ALLEN AND MEYER

TABLE 6
Correlations between Commitment Measures and Performance Indicators

Commitment measure

Performance indicator ACS CCS NCS Reference/measure

Work performance
Self-report measures Allen & Smith (1987)
.25* 0.14* .07 Resourcefulness/
innovation
.12* 0.07 .16* Consideration for others
Lee (1992)
.46* 0.12* .32* Spontaneity
.27* 0.08 .20* Helping behavior
.29* .09 .23* Job performance
McDonald (1993)
.14* .00 0.12* Organizational citizenship
Meyer & Allen (1986)
.33* 0.13 .17 Extra-role behavior
Meyer, Allen, & Smith
(1993)
.23 0.04 .17* Voice
.41* 0.03 .40* Loyalty
0.38* .25* 0.23* Neglect
.10 0.06 .00 Helping others
.13* .08 .11* Use of time
.07 0.15* .14* Professional activity
Morrison (1994)a
.21*–.30* — .09–.22* Job breadth
.22*–.27* — .08–.24* Work behavior
Wahn (1993)
— .14* — Unethical behavior
Independent measures Hackett et al. (1994)
0.01 0.21* 0.16 Commendations
0.17 0.01 0.03 Complaints
0.15 0.00 0.18 Accidents/year
0.03 0.07 0.12 Incognito performance
rating
Konovsky & Cropanzano
(1991)
.28* 0.20* — Performance
Meyer et al. (1989)
.15 0.25* — Composite performance
23* 025* — Overall performance
23* 0.46* — Promotability
Moorman et al. (1993)a
.16*—.28* .05–.14* — Citizenship behavior
.16* .06 — In-role behavior
Shim & Steers (1994)
Sample 1
.31* 0.15* — Composite performance
.26* 0.17* — Overall performance

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$1510 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 269

TABLE 6—Continued

Commitment measure

Performance indicator ACS CCS NCS Reference/measure

Sample 2
.02 0.12 — Composite performance
.06 0.10 — Overall performance
Shore & Wayne (1993)
.22* 0.20* — Altruism
.14* 0.20* — Compliance
Absenteeism
Self-report measures MacDonald (1993)
.00 .10 .08 Frequency (No. incidents)
0.01 .07 .04 Total days absent
Meyer et al. (1993)
0.13* 0.05 0.15* Voluntary absences
.03 .03 .08 Total days absent
Independent measures Gellatly (1995)
0.18* .09 — Frequency (No. incidents)
0.14* .04 — Total days absent
Hackett et al. (1994)
0.22* .04 0.09 Culpable absences
0.07 .13 .14 Nonculpable absences
Somers (1993b)
0.07 .01 .02 Frequency (No. incidents)
0.15* .05 0.07 Annexed absences

a
Research conducted by Morrison (1994) and Moorman et al. (1993) involved several compa-
rable measures; reported here are the ranges of correlations across measures.
* p õ .05.

positively related to compliance with organizational requests (e.g., behavior

deemed ‘‘against the interests of the general public to protect your organiza-
tion’’, p. 249).
Work performance: independent measures. Findings from the studies in
which the focal persons’ behavior was assessed independently (e.g., by super-
visors) parallel closely those found with the self-report data. Specifically,
significant positive relations have been reported between employees’ ACS
scores and their supervisors’ ratings of their overall performance of in-role
behavior (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Meyer at al., 1989; Moorman et al.,
1993), potential for promotion (Meyer et al., 1989), and citizenship behavior
(Moorman et al., 1993; Shore & Wayne, 1993). In contrast, significant nega-
tive relations were reported between employees’ CCS scores and supervisory
ratings of citizenship (extra-role) behavior and job performance in some (Ko-
novsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Meyer at al., 1989, Shim & Steers, 1994;
Shore & Wayne, 1993), but not all (Moorman et al., 1993; Shim & Steers,
1994), samples.

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

270 ALLEN AND MEYER

This finding—that ACS scores are positively, and CCS scores negatively,
correlated with supervisory ratings—is interesting in light of the Shim and
Steers (1994) study. Only one of the two organizations they studied showed
this pattern. Follow-up interviews revealed that the organization in which
commitment was related to performance placed much more emphasis on
satisfying customers and continuous performance improvement. Shim and
Steers suggested that this emphasis may have provided, to employees, clear
directives about how best to express their commitment, something lacking in
the other organization. Although reasonable, this finding obviously requires
replication. Further, it is not clear why the observed management differences
between the organizations would moderate the links between continuance
commitment and performance.
Finally, Hackett et al. (1994) used a ‘‘trained incognito rater’’ to assess
the performance of bus drivers on a single occasion. This measure was not
correlated with any commitment measure, nor was the number of performance
complaints bus drivers had received since being hired. The number of com-
mendations drivers received over their tenure, however, was negatively related
to their CCS scores and, when the effects of control variables (age and tenure)
were removed, ACS scores were negatively correlated with the number of
accidents in which drivers had been involved.
Absenteeism: self-report measures. Meyer et al. (1993) reported significant,
albeit modest, negative correlations between self-reports of voluntary (avoid-
able) absenteeism and both affective and normative commitment. In neither
this study nor another (McDonald, 1993) was continuance commitment corre-
lated with self-reported absenteeism.
Absenteeism: independent measures. Absenteeism measures obtained from
actual personnel records have been examined in three recent commitment
studies. Significant negative correlations were reported between affective
commitment and total days absent over 12 months (Gellatly, 1995), frequency
of culpable absences over 5 years (Hackett et al., 1994), and frequency of
absences over 12 months in one study (Gellatly, 1995) but not another (Som-
ers, 1993b). Somers found that affective commitment correlated negatively
with the frequency, over 12 months, of annexed absences (absences on days
connected to a weekend or holiday). Neither continuance nor normative com-
mitment were significantly correlated with absenteeism in these studies.

Relations with Nonwork Variables

It has been suggested that commitment might have implications for aspects
of one’s life outside of work (Romzek, 1989). In a sample of police officers,
Allen and Lee (1993) showed that the Satisfaction with Nonwork Scale (Rom-
zek, 1989) was positively correlated with ACS scores, negatively correlated
with CCS scores, and unrelated to NCS scores.4 Although this research is in
its early stages, available data are at least consistent with the idea that affective
commitment has some positive consequences, and continuance commitment

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 271

some negative consequences, for how people perceive aspects of their lives
beyond those at work.
Finally, in a sample of working parents of young children, Jayne (1994)
found that employees who strongly identified with the ‘‘provider role’’ had
stronger continuance commitment than did those with weak identification
with this role. Affective commitment was unrelated to identification with the
provider role. This is consistent with the idea that continuance, but not af-
fective, commitment is based on perceived cost. Presumably, the perceived
costs associated with leaving ones’ organization would be greater for those
parents who felt they were the ‘‘provider’’ for their children.
Summary
In this above section, we presented wide-ranging evidence relevant to the
construct validity of the three commitment measures. In examining evidence
of this sort, one must be mindful of Schwab’s (1980) caution against overinter-
preting a single correlation and instead focus on patterns, across studies and
measures, that make theoretical sense. Fortunately, the breadth of samples
and variables examined allowed us to do this. The overall pattern of findings
produced by the research described here suggests that the three commitment
measures are distinguishable from other commonly used work attitude mea-
sures and relate to measures of ‘‘antecedent’’ and ‘‘consequence’’ variables
largely in accordance with theoretical prediction.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the study of work attitudes and behavior, the organizational
commitment construct has come to play an increasingly important role
(Morrow, 1993). Thus, it is critical that the construct validity of commonly
used measures of this construct are subjected to considerable scrutiny. The
purpose of this paper was to examine the substantial body of evidence
relevant to the construct validation of the Affective, Continuance, and
Normative Commitment Scales. These measures were developed on the
basis of a theoretical framework that integrated existing views of attitudinal
commitment and have been used in a wide variety of samples and settings.
Further, they have been critically examined, both empirically and concep-
tually, by a number of researchers (Cohen, 1993; Dunham et al., 1994;
Hackett et al., 1994; McGee & Ford, 1987; Vandenberg & Self, 1993).
Certainly, construct validation efforts have gone far beyond the ‘‘one-
time or limited term project’’ against which Schwab (1980) cautioned
organizational researchers and, instead, are represented by a large and
varied set of studies that provide much relevant data.
Taken together, the data reported here strongly suggest that the continued
use of the commitment measures in substantive research is justified. This
does not mean, of course, that all issues regarding the ACS, CCS, and NCS
are completely resolved or that continued scrutiny of the measures is not
warranted. Indeed, there are several issues that merit research attention.

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

272 ALLEN AND MEYER

One such issue involves the possibility that the Continuance Commitment
Scale actually consists of two subscales. Although, as indicated by Hackett
et al. (1994), ‘‘the preponderance of evidence is in support of a three-compo-
nent model of commitment’’ (p. 21), the factor analytic results cannot be
ignored. To be prudent, it is suggested that researchers first determine whether
the two sets of CCS items are differentially correlated with other variables
before reporting results based on the full CCS (Meyer et al., 1990). While
the evidence thus far suggests otherwise, there may be some antecedent or
consequence variables for which a different pattern exists.
The normative commitment construct also deserves considerably more at-
tention. Although affective and normative commitment have several common
correlates, factor analytic research has shown clearly that the latter is distin-
guishable from both affective and continuance commitment. Unfortunately,
few of the variables considered to be unique correlates of normative commit-
ment have been examined. This can be explained, in part, by the challenges
involved in collecting the relevant data. Hypothesized antecedents, for exam-
ple, include variables not typically examined in organizational research such
as one’s early familial and cultural socialization experiences. With respect to
consequences, it has been suggested (Meyer & Allen, 1991) that the unique
influence of normative commitment on work behavior may not be on the
quantity or quality of work performance, but on the ‘‘tone’’ with which work
is carried out. To our knowledge, no satisfactory measure of such a subtle
aspect of work behavior has been developed.
Another issue with respect to normative commitment involves its fairly
substantial correlation with affective commitment. In an effort to more clearly
tap into respondents’ own feelings of obligation to the organization, modifica-
tions were made recently to the NCS items. This work was also motivated
by a desire to shorten each of the three scales and to reduce the number of
negatively keyed items (cf. Magazine, Williams, & Williams, in press). The
resulting six-item versions of the measures were reported by Meyer et al.
(1993) and have been used in two subsequent studies. Interestingly, Meyer
and colleagues showed that self-reports of the ‘‘professional activity’’ (e.g.,
courses taken, involvement in professional associations) carried out by nurses
were positively related to the shorter NCS, negatively related to the CCS,
and unrelated to the ACS (see Table 6). While normative commitment to
one’s organization may carry with it the obligation to be involved, and remain
current, in one’s profession, it is unclear at this point whether this finding is
due to the use of a particularly appropriate NCS correlate or to the scale
revisions. In any case, the correlations between the revised versions of the
ACS and NCS parallel those found with the earlier versions, suggesting
that, although affective and normative commitment are clearly distinguishable
constructs (as demonstrated by numerous factor analyses), they may have
inherent psychological overlap. It simply may not be possible to feel a strong
obligation to an organization without also having (or developing) positive
emotional feelings for it. Beyond this, the revised scales appear to have

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 273

acceptable reliability and correlate as expected with other variables; clearly,

however, these shorter measures await further empirical scrutiny.
Another interesting issue involves the stability, over time, of the factor
structures of the measures. Although one study of newcomers reported evi-
dence of gamma and beta change in the ACS and CCS (Vandenberg & Self,
1993), more recent research (Meyer & Gardner, 1994) found minimal evi-
dence of this. Neither study should be accepted as the final word on this issue.
Instead, we would argue that investigators using the measures in longitudinal
research with newcomers should test for beta and gamma change until a
greater body of relevant evidence has accumulated.
Finally, it should be noted that only one of the studies described here was
conducted with employees outside North America (Lee, 1992). Although the
data from this Korean study provide no evidence that the measures are culture-
specific, considerably more comparative research is needed before any defini-
tive comments can be made about this issue.
Overall, there appears to be considerable evidence regarding the construct
validity of the three measures. Thus, we would argue that the ACS, CCS,
and NCS are appropriate measures of organizational commitment based on
emotional attachment, perceived costs, and feelings of obligation, respec-
tively. Nonetheless, construct validation is an ongoing process. As more data
are collected, it will be possible to update this narrative review with meta-
analyses examining the relations between the commitment measures and both
antecedent and consequence variables. The continued use of the measures
should contribute to this ongoing process as well as to substantive research
goals.
REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., & Lee, S. Y. (1993). [Work attitudes among police officers]. Unpublished data.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1–18.
Allen, N. J., & Smith, J. (1987, June). An investigation of ‘‘extra-role’’ behaviours within
organizations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Associa-
tion, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Aven, F. F. (1988). A methodological examination of the attitudinal and behavioral components
of organizational commitment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 3420A. (University
Microfilms No. 8902874).
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making?
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232–244.
Blau, G. (1988). Further exploring the meaning and measurement of career commitment. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 32, 284–297.
Blau, G., Paul, A., & St. John, N. (1993). On developing a general index of work commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 298–314.
Brooke, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validity of measures of job
satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 73, 139–145.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptual-
ization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
468–478.

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

274 ALLEN AND MEYER

Carson, K. D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Career commitment: Construction of a measure and
examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 237–262.
Cohen, A. (1993). On the discriminant validity of the Meyer and Allen (1984) measure of
organizational commitment: How does it fit with the work commitment construct? In N. S.
Bruning (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Administrative Science Association
of Canada: Organizational Behaviour, 14, 82–91.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor
of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595–606.
Dalton, D. R., Krackhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W. (1981). Functional turnover: An empirical
assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 716–721.
Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The
utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370–380.
Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidi-
mensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596–607.
Finegan, J. E. (1994). [Organizational commitment in the petrochemical industry]. Unpublished
data.
Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of a
causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 469–485.
Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change persistency in
human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 12, 133–157.
Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking
ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 288–297.
Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allen’s
(1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 79, 15–23.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations,
and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development
of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 555–573.
Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In C.D. Spielberger
(Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology, Volume 2, pp 61–96. New
York: Academic Press.
Jayne, M. (1994). Family role identification as a source of gender differences in the relationship
between parenthood and organizational commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Tulane University, New Orleans.
Jenkins, J. M. (1993). Self-monitoring and turnover: The impact of personality on intent to leave.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 83–91.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–
146.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (1992, June). Perceived justice, job insecurity and organizational
commitment: The case of lay off survivors. In G. Johns (Chair), Organizational commitment.
Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Quebec
City.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
698–707.
Lee, K. B. (1992). A study of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organiza-
tion. Unpublished master’s thesis, Sung Kyun Kwan University, Seoul, Korea.
Lynn, D. F. (1992). Incorporating the procedural/distributive dichotomy into the measurement
of pay satisfaction: A study of recently graduated engineers and full-time faculty members
of Ontario universities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 4371A.

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 275

Magazine, S. L., Williams, L. J., & Williams, M. L. (in press). A confirmatory factor analysis
examination of reverse coding effects in Meyer & Allen’s Affective and Continuance Com-
mitment Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of organizational
commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 607–618.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, F. D. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes
through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management
Journal, 35, 671–684.
McDonald, P. R. (1993). Individual-organizational value congruence: Operationalization and
consequents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London,
Canada.
McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment:
Reexamination of the Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 638–642.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the ‘‘side-bet theory’’ of organizational commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1986, June). Development and consequences of three components
of organizational commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Administrative
Sciences Association of Canada, Whistler, British Columbia.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to
the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged rela-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710–720.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 538–551.
Meyer, J. P., Bobocel, D. R., & Allen, N. J. (1991). Development of organizational commitment
during the first year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences.
Journal of Management, 17, 717–733.
Meyer, J. P., & Gardner, R. C. (1994, March). Assessment of change in organizational commit-
ment during the first year of employment: An application of confirmatory factor analysis.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Research Methods Division, Conference
on Causal Modelling, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Meyer, J. P., Irving, P. G., & Allen, N. J. (1993, August). Person x environment interaction in
the development of organizational commitment. Presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. H., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organiza-
tional commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152–156.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209–225.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance
of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee–organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB

276 ALLEN AND MEYER

The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Randall, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Longenecker, C. O. (1990). The behavioral expression of
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210–224.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy
of Management Review, 10, 465–476.
Reilly, N. P., & Orsak, C. L. (1991). A career stage analysis of career and organizational
commitment in nursing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 311–330.
Ritzer, G., & Trice, H. M. (1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker’s side-bet theory.
Social Forces, 47, 475–479.
Romzek, B. S. (1989). Personal consequences of employee commitment. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 32, 649–661.
Schmitt, N. (1982). The use of analysis of covariance structures to assess beta and gamma
change. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17, 343–358.
Schmitt, N., Pulakos, E. D., & Lieblein, A. (1984). Comparison of three techniques to assess
group-level beta and gamma change. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 249–260.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 2, 3–43.
Shim, W., & Steers, R. M. (1994). Mediating influences on the employee commitment-job perfor-
mance relationship. Unpublished manuscript.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the Survey of Perceived
Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637–643.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of
affective and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 774–780.
Somers, M. J. (1993a). A test of the relationship between affective and continuance commitment
using non-recursive models. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66,
185–192.
Somers, M. J. (1993b, August). A test of the relationship between organizational commitment
and employee retention and absenteeism using a three-component model of commitment.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Stebbins, R. A. (1970). On misunderstanding the concept of commitment: A theoretical clarifica-
tion. Social Forces, 48, 526–529.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention,
and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (1993). Assessing newcomers’ changing commitments to the
organization during the first 6 months of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 557–
568.
Wahn, J. (1993). Organizational dependence and the likelihood of complying with organizational
pressures to behave unethically. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 245–251.
Whitener, E. M., & Walz, P. M. (1993). Exchange theory determinants of affective and continu-
ance commitment and turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 265–281.
Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization and career commitments
at work outcomes—An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 26, 81–96.
Withey, M. (1988). Antecedents of value based and economic organizational commitment. In
S.L. McShane (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Administrative Science
Association of Canada: Organizational Behavior, 9, 124–133.

Received: November 21, 1994

AID JVB 1510 / 6306$$$$$1 11-07-96 23:04:48 jvbal AP: JVB