Organizational Commitment, Turnover and Absenteeism: An Examination of Direct and

Interaction Effects
Author(s): Mark John Somers
Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 49-58
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488612
Accessed: 13-02-2018 02:54 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488612?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Organizational Behavior

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL. 16,49-58 (1995)

Organizational commitment, turnover a

absenteeism: an examination of direct and
interaction effects

MARK JOHN SOMERS

School of Industrial Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology and The Graduate School,
Rutgers-Newark

Summary A three component model of organizational commitment was used to study job with-
drawal intentions, turnover and absenteeism. Affective commitment emerged as the
most consistent predictor of these outcome variables and was the only view of commit-
ment related to turnover and to absenteeism. In contrast, normative commitment was
related only to withdrawal intentions while no direct effects for continuance commitment
were observed. Continuance commitment, however, interacted with affective commit-
ment in predicting job withdrawal intentions and absenteeism. The form of the interac-
tion was such that high sunk costs tempered relationships between affective commitment
and the relevant outcome variables.

Introduction

Several recent reviews and meta-analyses conducted on the topic of organizational commitment
indicate that although advances in theory and research are apparent, important issues remain
unresolved (cf. Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Randall, 1990). Clarification
of the meaning of this concept is one area where progress has been good; the confusion, character-
istic of early research about the definition of commitment (Steers, 1977), is no longer present.
This has largely been accomplished by acceptance of the notion that no one view of commitment
is fundamentally 'correct' (Meyer, Allen and Gellatly, 1990). A singular focus on a given view
of commitment is, thus, gradually being replaced with a multiple components model of commit-
ment.
A multiple components perspective includes three facets of commitment: affective, con-
tinuance, and normative (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Affective commitment is defined as an
emotional attachment to an organization characterized by acceptance of organizational values
and by willingness to remain with the organization (Mowday, Steers and Porter, 1982). It
coexists with two other components of commitment continuance and normative (Allen and
Meyer, 1990). Continuance commitment is derived from Becker's (1960) notion of 'side-bets',
and results from the perception of increasing sunk costs in an organization. Normative commit-

* Address for correspondence: School of Industrial Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ
07102 U.S.A.
Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA U.S.A.
in August, 1993. This research was partially supported by the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

CCC 0894-3796195/010049-10 Received 4 May 1993

? 1995 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 6 May 1994

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
50 M. J. SOMERS

ment is defined as a perceived duty to support the organization and its activities (Wiener,
1982).
Although more inclusive studies of commitment are needed to better understand commitment,
processes (Reichers, 1985), commitment research has not kept pace with a perspective that
includes multiple facets of the concept. One recent meta-analysis indicated that only 14 of
174 studies (8 per cent) included more than one component of commitment (Mathieu and
Zajac, 1990). A second meta-analysis of hypothesized consequences found that 34 of 40 studies
(85 per cent) focused exclusively on affective commitment, and that no studies of normative
commitment were available (Randall, 1990). Some recent work examining relationships between
several facets of commitment and job performance (Hackett, Bycio and Hausdorf, 1991; Meyer,
Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin and Jackson, 1989), turnover (Jaros, Jermier, Koehler and Sincich,
1993), and absenteeism (Hackett et al., 1991) has begun to address this problem.

Multiple views of commitment and work outcomes

Although there is general agreement that a more inclusive perspective on organizational commit-
ment is needed to advance research, studying commitment using more than one facet of the
construct is not without problems. Methodology is a concern in that multiple components
alter existing measurement models such that it is necessary to demonstrate not only that organiza-
tional commitment is distinct from other work attitudes (cf. Brooke, Russell and Price, 1988),
but also that each form of commitment is operationally distinct from the others. In addition,
the added complexity inherent in a multiple components model requires unambiguous specifica-
tion of relationships between each component of commitment and other variables of interest.

A three component measurement model

An ongoing program of instrumentation research has provided consistent evidence that affective,
continuance and normative commitment are operationally distinct. A series of studies have
established that Meyer and Allen's (1984) measures of affective and continuance have resolved
the confounding of these two variables at the operational level (Hackett et al., 1991; Meyer
and Allen, 1984; McGee and Ford, 1987; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Somers, 1993). Recent work
also indicates that their companion normative commitment scale is operationally distinct from
measures of affective and continuance commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Hackett et al.,
1991).

Hypothesized linkages between commitment and work outcomes

The (implicit) multivariate model inherent in a three component conceptualization of commit-

ment is reflective of a process that is more complex than one based on one 'prevailing' notion
of commitment. With respect to work outcomes, it becomes necessary to clearly specify relation-
ships between each view of commitment and outcome variables of interest. Analytical techniques,
in turn, must be adjusted to accommodate the research questions that are raised when commit-
ment is treated as a set of predictor variables (as opposed to a single predictor variable).
Meyer and Allen (1991) have proposed a model of organizational commitment that links
each component of commitment to specific work outcomes. Outcome variables include: employee
retention (turnover) and on-the-job behaviors (performance, absenteeism and citizenship). Based
on commitment theory and/or prior research findings, each facet of commitment is hypothesized

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 51

to be related to employee retention. Relationships between commitment and on-the-job behaviors

are more tenuous, but each facet of commitment is also thought to influence job performance,
absenteeism and citizenship.
The added complexity inherent in a three component model of commitment is also addressed.
Meyer and Allen (1991) note that 'the relationship between any component of commitment
and behavior will be complicated by the fact that all three components can exert independent
(and possibly interactive) effects on a particular behavior' (p. 74). They go on to note that
interaction effects are an important area for future research.

The study

Scope and purpose

This study is concerned with relationships between affective, continuance and normative commit-
ment, and employee retention and absenteeism. It is focused on two issues: (a) relationships
between each facet of commitment, and employee retention and employee absenteeism; and
(b) possible interaction effects among components of commitment.

Hypotheses

HI: Affective, continuance, and normative commitment are positively related to intent to
remain with the organization.

Employee retention has consistently been viewed as an important consequence of organiz-

ational commitment (Mowday et al. 1982). Research has focused predominately on affective
commitment (Randall, 1990), but interest in the role of continuance and normative commitment
in predicting turnover is increasing (cf. Hackett et al., 1991; Jaros et al., 1993). Following
Meyer and Allen's (1991) model of organizational commitment, each facet of commitment
is hypothesized to affect turnover intentions. More specifically, significant positive relationships
between each component of commitment and intention to stay are anticipated, after controlling
for intercorrelations among commitment variables.
Turnover intentions were included as an outcome variable because so doing provides a more
meaningful perspective on the employee withdrawal process than does including only turnover
behavior. Intent to remain appears to be more closely tied to work-related variables than is
actual turnover (which is influenced by other factors as well; cf. Peters and Sheridan, 1988;
Kirchenbaum and Weisberg, 1990). It seems useful, therefore, to examine if and how each
component of commitment affects one's desire to remain a member of the organization, as
a broader perspective on the process of employee withdrawal is gained (cf. Jaros et al., 1993).

H2. Affective, continuance and normative commitment are negatively related to turnover.

Hypothesis 2 follows directly from Meyer and Allen's (1991) model of commitment. A signifi-
cant negative relationship between each component of commitment and turnover is anticipated.

H3. Affective, continuance and normative commitment are negatively related to absenteeism.

Models of employee absenteeism have incorporated organizational commitment as an im-

mediate antecedent of attendance (cf. Brooke, 1986), but the focus has been solely on affective
commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991) have extended models of absenteeism by positing that
each component of commitment is negatively related to absenteeism. Hypothesis 3 represents
a test of this proposition.

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
52 M. J. SOMERS

H4: Affective, continuance and normative commitment interact in predicting employee reten-
tion and absenteeism.

The few studies exploring interactions among facets of commitment and work outcomes
indicate that interaction effects occur for some outcome variables (sacrifice for the organizat
Randall, Fedor and Longnecker, 1990), but not for others (job performance, Meyer et al.,
1989). A sufficient research base is not available to detect trends, but existing research is useful
in hypothesis generation.
It is noteworthy that the interaction effect reported by Randall et al. (1990) was between
normative and continuance commitment and took a form in which high levels of continuance
commitment tempered relationships between normative commitment and personal sacrifice.
This result is consistent with Meyer et al's (1990) finding that high levels of continuance commit-
ment lead to self-justified affective ties to the organization. The process is as follows: high
sunk costs lead to the feeling of being trapped in an organization which, in turn, leads to
perceptual distortions in the level of affective commitment to justify one's continued organiz-
ational membership. Although Meyer et al.'s (1990) results pertained specifically to affective
commitment, there is no reason to preclude self-justified normative commitment as well.
It is also noteworthy that Randall et al. (1990) found no evidence of a significant three-way
interaction between affective, continuance and normative commitment. Consequently, based
on empirical findings and on the self-justification process, it is hypothesized that continuance
commitment interacts with affective commitment, and that continuance commitment interacts
with normative commitment in predicting employee retention and absenteeism.

Method

Sample

The sample was drawn from a large, urban hospital located in the Northeastern United States,
and was comprised of 422 staff nurses. The mean age of the sample was 32 years. It was
92 per cent female and 67 per cent white. As a result of missing data, effective sample sizes
were 388 for the analyses of intent to remain and turnover and 303 for absenteeism (using
listwise deletion).

Measures

Affective, continuance and normative commitment

Affective, continuance and normative commitment were measured with Allen and Meyer's (1990)
eight-item scales (a = 0.81, 0.74 and 0.71 respectively).

Job withdrawal intentions

Intent to retain organizational membership was assessed with Bluedorn's (1982) scale (a =
0.88).

Turnover
Turnover data were collected from personnel records approximately 12 months after initial
administration of a survey of work attitudes. All incidences of turnover were voluntary. The
turnover rate for this sample was 17 per cent.

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 53

Absenteeism
Absenteeism data were also taken from personnel records. Two measures of absenteeism were
used: total and annexed absences. Total absences refer to the number (i.e. frequency) of absences
during a 12-month period. Annexed absences refer to the number of absences attached to
weekend and holiday periods for the same 12-month interval. Absences were annualized for
those respondents for whom at least six months of absenteeism data were available. Both mea-
sures of absence were based on frequencies, which relative to time lost measures, are less suscept-
ible to skewness and leptokurotisis (Hammer and Landau, 1981). Distinctions between voluntary
and involuntary absences were not made.

Statistical analyses
Regression models including two-way interaction terms comprised of the various facets of com-
mitment were built with hierarchical procedures (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) for intent to remain
and absenteeism. In order to reduce multicolinearity among the interaction terms, all analyses
were conducted with centered predictor variables (cf. Aiken and West, 1991). Relationships
between commitment and turnover were explored using logistic regression and non-centered
predictors.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables

Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among all study variables are summarized
in Table 1. Correlations among the behavioral criterion variables (turnover and absenteeism)
are low, suggesting that they are best treated independently rather than as indicative of a 'progres-
sion of psychological withdrawal'. Although absenteeism data is subject to deviations from
normality, skewness statistics for our total and annexed absences measures (0.50 and 1.03,
respectively) indicated that non-normality is not a serious problem for these data.

Regression and logistic regression analyses: direct effects

Affective commitment was the most consistent predictor of the outcome variables, and was
the sole predictor of turnover and of absenteeism (annexed absences). Explained variance was
relatively low for turnover and absenteeism (R2 indicated that commitment explained no more
than 5 per cent of the variance in either of these variables). Results were more encouraging
for intent to remain. Both affective and normative commitment predicted intent to remain
with the organization (fI = 0.34 and 0.17 respectively, p < 0.01) explaining approximately
22 per cent of the variance in this criterion variable.
Goodness of fit statistics for logistic regression analyses indicated that a model with main
effects only (see Table 2 for -2 LL statistics) was most appropriate for these data (Pearson
X2 = 410.54; p > 0.05 for direct effects; cf. Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989). To facilitate interp
tation, an ordinary least squares analysis was also conducted. Results were similar to those
for logistic regression fly'ss for affective, continuance and normative commitment were -0.08,
p < 0.05; -0.03; -0.06 respectively; adjusted R2 for main effects = 0.038,p < 0.05; no significant
interaction effects emerged). It should be kept in mind, however, that all of the OLS estimates
are biased, and that they should be interpreted with caution.
Taken as a set, these findings provide partial support for hypotheses 1, 2, and 3.

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
54 M. J. SOMERS

Regression and logistic regression analyses. interaction effects

As indicated in Table 2, higher-order effects were also evident. Significant two-way interactions
between affective and continuance commitment were observed for annexed absences (A R2=
0.013; F change = 3.60; p < 0.05) and for intent to remain (A R2 = 0.014; F change = 6.39;
p < 0.01), providing support for hypothesis 4. These interactions are plotted in Figure 1 using
procedures described by Aiken and West (1991). The pattern for both interactions is similar
with moderate to high levels of continuance commitment tempering relationships between affec-
tive commitment and the respective criterion variables.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables

Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Affective commitment 2.73 0.64 1.00

2. Continuance commitment 2.87 0.63 0.13* 1.00
3. Normative commitment 2.73 0.56 0.58t 0.19t 1.00
4. Total absences 4.48 2.34 -0.06 0.01 0.02 1.00
5. Annexed absences 1.78 1.48 -0.15* -0.04 -0.07 0.62t 1.00
6. Intent to remain 4.42 1.65 0.46t 0.12* 0.39t -0.05 -0.15* 1.00
7. Turnover 0.17 0.35 -0.24t 0.11* -0.25t -0.06 0.06 -0.31t 1.00

*p < 0.05; tp < 0.01.

Table 2. Regression and logistic regression analyses for commitment, turnover and absenteeism

Employee retention Absenteeism

Intent to Total Annexed
remain Turnover absences absences
15 B -2LL J8 15
Block 1 357.65
Affectivecommitment 0.34* -0.56t -0.12 -0.16t
Continuance commitment 0.08 -0.20 0.01 -0.03
Normative commitment 0.17* -0.45 0.08 0.03

Adjusted R2 0.224* 0.008 0.27t

Block 2 355.95
AC xCC -.OIt 0.36 0.12 0.17t
AC x NC -0.01 0.35 0.04 -0.01
CC x NC -0.01 0.44 0.01 -0.09

Adjusted R2 0.238* 0.019 0.040t

*p < 0.01; tp < 0.05.-2LL =-2 log likelih

the logistic regression analysis of turnover w

Discussion

After a long period in which commitment research was focused almost exclusively on affective
attachment to organizations, a new perspective based on a multiple components model of com-
mitment is emerging. The purpose of this study was to examine linkages between commitment
and its hypothesized consequences using a three component model of commitment. Our results

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 55

2.45

2.25-

C 2.05-

CD

< 1.85-

1.65-
- 1 65 1 High CC

1.45- Moderate CC

Low CC
1.25-
-la 0 +10
Affective C

5.8-

5.4- Low CC
Moderate CC

,4.2

3.4

3-
-lay 0 +lo
Affective Comm

Figure 1. Plots of interactions between affective and continuance commitment for annexed absences and
intent to remain

indicated the emphasis on affective commitment evident in most prior studies was not entirely
misplaced. Affective commitment emerged as the sole predictor of turnover and absenteeism
and, in conjunction with normative commitment, was positively related to intent to remain.
It should be noted that statistically significant relationships were modest; a pattern consistent
with prior research (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Randall, 1990). Consequently, there seems to

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
56 M. J. SOMERS

be little evidence that the modest relationships between commitment and outcome variables
characteristic of prior research result from an overly restricted model of commitment; our find-
ings suggest that continuance and normative add little explained variance to turnover or to
absenteeism. In this regard, Randall (1990) has suggested that the level of interest in organiz-
ational commitment is not commensurate with its ability to predict work outcomes. Our findings
are consistent with the notion that commitment has a limited rather than a pervasive effect
on employee retention and absenteeism, and suggest that a general research strategy for future
studies might be to identify those conditions under which commitment is (and is not) predictive
of work outcomes. The significant interaction effects observed here provide some support for
this view.
It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that relationships between facets of commitment,
and turnover and absenteeism are identical. Consistent non-significant relationships between
commitment (regardless of facet) and turnover are well documented (Randall, 1990), but there
is some confusion about how facets of commitment are related to absenteeism. Specifically,
Hackett et al. (1991) reported a significant negative relationship between normative commitment
and absenteeism, while we found that only affective commitment was related to absenteeism.
Additional studies of the commitment - absenteeism relationship, thus, seem desirable.
Normative commitment was also the only other facet of commitment related to any of our
criterion variables; a significant negative relationship with job withdrawal intentions was
observed. This finding is interesting in that it provides some evidence that duty-based attachment
affects job withdrawal intentions, but contradictions are also apparent in the recent literature.
Jaros et al. (1993) reported that affective and continuance commitment were related to withdrawal
intentions, but that normative commitment was not. Patterns of relationships between facets
of commitment and job withdrawal intentions appear to be another area for future research.
Continuing along these lines, Jenkins (1993) found that relationships between intent to remain
and (affective) commitment were stronger for individuals with less of a propensity to self-monitor
behavior. Self-monitoring, thus, seems useful in clarifying relationships between commitment
and job withdrawal intentions.
In addition to direct effects, two interaction effects were observed: continuance commitment
interacted with affective commitment in predicting (annexed) absences and intent to remain.
In both cases, interactions took the same form - high levels of continuance commitment tem-
pered relationships between affective commitment and intent to remain and affective commitment
and annexed absences. Much of this 'tempering' effect was observed at comparatively low levels
of affective commitment (-1 a) for both intent to remain and for absenteeism.
Self-justification appears to be the most plausible explanation for these findings. The self-
justification hypothesis as applied to commitment is based on the notion that limited mobility
stemming from high sunk costs is rationalized with perceived increased affective (and possibly
normative) attachment to organizations to diminish feelings that one is 'stuck' (Meyer et al.,
1990). That is, high levels of continuance commitment can 'spillover' and affect one's level
of emotional attachment to an organization such that a portion of the affective ties are based
on rationalization, and not on genuine affection for the organization. It should be noted, how-
ever, that the interaction effects reported here are consistent with Meyer et al.'s (1990) results
from latent variable models in that effect sizes were small. Nonetheless, interactions are useful
in understanding the nature of commitment, and are an area for future studies (cf. Meyer
and Allen, 1991).
Finally, it should also be noted that several cautions are in order in interpreting our findings.
To begin with, we were not able to classify absences as voluntary or involuntary. Had this
distinction been made, our results might have been different. In addition, some of the 'explained

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 57

variance' in job withdrawal intentions might have been due to common method variance, as
both commitment and intent to remain were measured with Likert-type scales.

References

Aiken, L. and West, S. (1991). Multiple Regression; Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage, Newbury
Park, Ca.
Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990). 'The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization', Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Becker, H. (1960). 'Notes on the concept of commitment', American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-42.
Bluedorn, A. (1982). 'The theories of turnover: causes, effects and meaning'. In: Barcharach, S. (Ed.)
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, Ct.
Brooke, P. (1986). 'Beyond the Steers and Rhodes' model of absenteeism', Academy of Management
Review, 11, 345-361.
Brooke, P., Russell, D. and Price, J. (1988). Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, job
involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 139-145.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sci-
ences, Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum,
Hammer, T. and Landau, J. (1981). 'Methodological issues in the use of absence data', Journal of Applied
Psychology, 66, 574-581.
Hackett, R., Bycio, P. and Hausdorf, P. (1991). 'Further assessments of a three component model of
organizational commitment', Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 212-216.
Hosmer, D. and Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied Logistic Regression, Wiley, New York.
Jaros, S., Jermier, J., Koehler, J. and Sincich, T. (1993). 'Effects of continuance, affective and moral
commitment on the withdrawal process: an evaluation of eight structural equation models', Academy
of Management Journal, 36, 951-995.
Jenkins, J. (1993). 'Self-monitoring and turnover: impact of personality on the intent to leave', Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 14, 83-91.
Kirchenbaum, A. and Weisberg, J. (1990). 'Predicting worker turnover: an assessment of intent on actual
separations', Human Relations, 43, 829-847.
Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990). 'A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and conse-
quences of organizational commitment', Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
McGee, G. and Ford, R. (1987). 'Two (or more) dimensions of organizational commitment: reexamination
of the affective and continuance commitment scales', Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638-641.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1984). 'Testing the "side-bet" theory organizational commitment: reexamination
of the continuance and affective scales', Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1991). 'A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment',
Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J., Paunonen, S., Gellatly, I., Goffin, I. and Jackson, D. (1989). 'Organizational commitment
and job performance: it's the nature of the commitment that counts', Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 152-156.
Meyer, J., Allen, N. and Gellatly, I. (1990). 'Affective and continuance commitment to the organization:
evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations', Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 75, 710-720.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1982). Employee Organization Linkages, Academic Press, New
York.
Peters, L. and Sheridan, J. (1988). 'Turnover research methodology: a critique of traditional designs
and a suggested survival model alternative', Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
JAI Press, Greenwich, Ct.
Randall, D. (1990). 'The consequences of organizational commitment: methodological investigation', Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361-378.
Randall, D., Fedor, D. and Longnecker, C. (1990). 'The behavioral expression of organizational commit-
ment', Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210-224.
Reichers, A. (1985). 'A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment', Academy of Man-
agement Review, 10, 465-476.

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
58 M. J. SOMERS

Somers, M. (1993). 'An examination of the relationship between affective and continuance commitment
using nonrecursive models', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 185-192.
Steers, R. (1977). 'Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment', Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 22, 46-56.
Wiener, Y. (1982). 'Commitment in organizations: a normative view', Academy of Management Review,
7, 418-428.

This content downloaded from 202.43.93.7 on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:54:19 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms