The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of an organizational commitment survey developed by O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) who conceptualized organizational commitment in terms of three distinct, measurable dimensions: (a) internalization, (b) identification, and (c) compliance. Data from 100 employees were subjected to two-factor and three-factor oblique solutions. Results of factor analyses and tests of reliabilities did not support O'Reilly and Chatman's three-factor theory of organizational commitment. The two-factor solution yielded a better fit of the data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Kagan, J. (1958). The concept of identification. Psychological Review, 65, 296-305.
2.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
3.
Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet" theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
4.
Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 486-500.
5.
Mowday, R. T. , Steers, R. M., and Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 224-247.
6.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
O'Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
8.
Penley, L. E. and Gould, S. A. (1988). Etzioni's model of organizational involvement: A perspective for understanding commitment to organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 43-59.
9.
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428.
