Apllication Methods
Explain why you selected the variables you did and provide evidence showing the relationships between these variables and job attitudes (i.e., justify your selections).
Select an instrument to measure each of the three variables you selected.
Explain why the instrument you selected is appropriate for measuring the antecedent variables you selected.
Provide an example item from the scale you selected and describe the scale anchors used to score the instrument.
Describe the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of the instrument
This week, you complete the second part of the Methods Section for your Final Project. This Methods Section will serve as a road map for measuring job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement. In your role as a consultant for Walden Sports, it is important to select appropriate variables and items to assess and to understand the psychometric properties of the instrument you select to measure those variables.
· Submit Part 2 of your Methods section.
· From the Job Attitudes Survey Codebook document located in this week’s Learning Resources, select three variables that you think will best predict job attitudes at Walden Sports.
Note: The document contains variables that have not been covered in this course, but research has shown that they predict job attitudes.
· Explain why you selected the variables you did and provide evidence showing the relationships between these variables and job attitudes (i.e., justify your selections).
· Select an instrument to measure each of the three variables you selected.
· Explain why the instrument you selected is appropriate for measuring the antecedent variables you selected.
· Provide an example item from the scale you selected and describe the scale anchors used to score the instrument.
· Describe the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of the instrument.
Submit your Assignment by Day 7.
Readings
· Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 491–509. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Clay-Warner, J., Reynolds, J., & Roman, P. (2005). Organizational justice and job satisfaction: A test of three competing models. Social Justice Research, 18(4),391–409. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader-member exchanges: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104–1120. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors’ perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 321–330. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., Podsakoff, N. P., Shaw, J. C., & Rich, B. L. (2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 157–167. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
· Stoner, J. S., & Gallagher, V. C. (2010). Who cares? The role of job involvement in psychological contract violation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1490–1514. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Journal of Applied Psychology 1993, Vol.78, No. 4,538-551 Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0021-9010/93/$3.00
Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization
John P. Meyer, Natalie J. Allen, and Catherine A. Smith
The authors tested the generalizability of J. P. Meyer and N. J. Allen’s (1991) 3-component model of organizational commitment to the domain of occupational commitment. Measures of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to occupation were developed and used to test hypothe- ses concerning their differential relations with antecedent and consequence variables. Confirma- tory factor analyses conducted on data collected from samples of student and registered nurses revealed that the 3 component measures of occupational commitment were distinguishable from one another and from measures of the 3 components of organizational commitment. Results of correlation and regression analyses were generally consistent with predictions made on the basis of the 3-component model and demonstrated that occupational and organizational commitment contribute independently to the prediction of professional activity and work behavior.
Although commitment has been a subject of interest for some time, the past decade has seen a steady increase in the attention given to studying it. Not only has the number of stud- ies directly concerned with the development and consequences of commitment increased dramatically, but also commitment is often included as a variable in studies where it is not the pri- mary focus of attention. Indeed, commitment has begun to rival job satisfaction in this regard. Commitment theory and research have also been the subjects of several critical reviews in recent years (e.g., Griffin & Bateman, 1986; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Morrow, 1983; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Reichers, 1985).
With the increased attention given to commitment, there have been many important developments in both theory and research. Two of these are of particular importance for the present research. First, it has become increasingly apparent that commitment is a complex and multifaceted construct. For many years theorists and researchers have been defining and operationalizing commitment in different ways, and, as a re- sult, it has been difficult to synthesize the results of the accu- mulating research. It is now acknowledged that commitment
John P. Meyer and Catherine A. Smith, Department of Psychology; Natalie J. Allen, Centre for Administrative and Information Studies; University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
This research was supported by research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (410-89-370) and from Imperial Oil.
We thank the School of Nursing at Queen’s University, the College of Nurses of Ontario, and the many student nurses and registered nurses who participated in this research. Particular appreciation is extended to Rita Maloney and Ena Howse, at Queen’s University, and to Marilyn Rewak, at the College of Nurses of Ontario, for their assistance in accessing the research participants. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Annette Chauvin, Alanna Leffley, Tram Nguyen, Joseph Tavares, and Sue Tessier in data collection and analysis.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, Social Science Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2.
can take different forms, and it is therefore imperative that researchers state clearly what form or forms of commitment they are interested in and that they ensure that the measures they use are appropriate for the intended purpose. Second, there has been a broadening of the domain within which com- mitment is studied. Some of the earliest and most influential work within the organizational behavior literature (e.g., Bu- chanan, 1974; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Steers, 1977) examined employees’ commitment to their employers, commonly referred to as orga- nizational commitment. More recently, there has been an in- crease in research examining commitment to unions (e.g., Full- agar & Barling, 1989; Gordon, Philpot, Burt, Thompson, & Spiller, 1980), employment (e.g., Jackson, Stafford, Banks, & Warr, 1983), professions (e.g., Aranya, Pollock, & Amernic, 1981; Morrow & Wirth, 1989), careers (e.g., Arnold, 1990; Blau, 1985,1988,1989), and so on.
Unfortunately, these two developments have taken place somewhat independently. Consequently, researchers examining commitment to entities other than employing organizations of- ten view commitment as a unidimensional construct (e.g., Ar- anya et al., 1981; Blau, 1985; Jackson et al., 1983). In cases in which commitment is considered multidimensional, the di- mensions tend to be domain specific. For example, the measure of union commitment developed by Gordon et al. (1980) was found to reflect four underlying dimensions: union loyalty, re- sponsibility to the union, willingness to work for the union, and belief in unionism. To date there has not been a systematic attempt to develop a multidimensional conceptualization of commitment that can be applied across domains. The develop- ment of such a conceptualization would help to foster commu- nication among researchers who are studying commitment within these various domains. This is particularly important as attention begins to focus on the impact of dual or multiple commitments (e.g., T. E. Becker, 1992; Darden, Hampton, & Howell, 1989; Gordon & Ladd, 1990; Reichers, 1986; Steffy & Jones, 1988).
We undertook this research to examine the generalizability
538
COMMITMENT TO ORGANIZATIONS AND OCCUPATIONS 539
of a three-component conceptualization of commitment that was developed by Meyer and Allen (1991) in the context of organizational commitment. In this initial effort, we were inter- ested in determining whether the three-component conceptual- ization could contribute to our understanding…
