Journal of Applied Psychology

1993, Vol. 78, No. 5, 774-780

Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0021-90IO/93/S3.00

Commitment and Employee Behavior: Comparison of Affective
Commitment and Continuance Commitment With Perceived
Organizational Support
Lynn McFarlane Shore and Sandy J. Wayne
The social exchange view of commitment (R. Eisenberger, R. Huntington, S. Hutchison, & D. Sowa,
1986) suggests that employees' perceptions of the organization's commitment to them (perceived
organizational support, or POS) creates feelings of obligation to the employer, which enhances employees' work behavior. The authors addressed the question of whether POS or the more traditional
commitment concepts of affective commitment (AC) and continuance commitment (CC) were better
predictors of employee behavior (organizational citizenship and impression management). Participants were 383 employees and their managers. Although results showed that both AC and POS were
positively related to organizational citizenship and that CC was negatively related to organizational
citizenship, POS was the best predictor. These findings support the social exchange view that POS
creates feelings of obligation that contribute to citizenship behaviors. In addition, CC was unrelated,
whereas AC and POS were positively correlated, with some impression management behaviors.

Much literature has examined the notion of organizational
commitment, and many conceptualizations and measures have
been proposed and tested (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Meyer and Allen have extensively researched two types of commitment, called affective commitment and continuance commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990;
Meyer & Allen, 1984). Affective commitment is denned as "an
affective or emotional attachment to the organization such that
the strongly committed individual identifies with, is involved
in, and enjoys membership in, the organization" (Allen &
Meyer, 1990, p. 2). Continuance commitment is "a tendency to
'engage in consistent lines of activity' (Becker, 1960, p. 33) based
on the individual's recognition of the 'costs' (or lost side bets)
associated with discontinuing the activity" (Allen & Meyer,
1990, p. 3). Much evidence has been accrued on the distinctiveness of Meyer and Allen's (1984) Affective Commitment Scale
(ACS) and Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS; Allen &
Meyer, 1990; McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly,
1990) and on the differential relationships each has with antecedents and outcomes (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Paunonen,
Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989; Shore & Barksdale, 1991).
Although affective and continuance commitment represent
employee commitment to the organization, recent work by
Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) has sug-

gested the value of studying the organization's commitment to
the employee. Eisenberger et al. suggested that employees' perceptions of the organization's commitment to them, referred to
as perceived organizational support (POS), are based on employees' global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their wellbeing. Using a social exchange framework, Eisenberger and his
colleagues argued that employees who perceive a high level of
organizational support are more likely to feel an obligation to
"repay" the organization in terms of affective commitment
(Eisenberger et al., 1986) and work-related behavior (Blau,
1964; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Eisenberger etal., 1986).
Although POS is a commitment concept, it represents a departure from the traditional approach of studying employee
commitment to the organization, raising the question of
whether employer commitment, or POS, provides a unique and
valuable contribution to the literature. A recent confirmatory
factor analysis by Shore and Tetrick (1991) indicated that the
ACS, the CCS, and the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986) are distinct measures. However,
before the present study, research has not compared employee
commitment with employer commitment (i.e., POS) to determine the potentially unique explanation of behavior provided
by POS relative to the well-established concepts of affective
commitment and continuance commitment.
In a recent meta-analysis, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) presented evidence on the links between organizational commitment and a number of critical in-role behaviors, including performance, absence, lateness, and turnover. However, commitment may also be important in explaining behaviors that are
not formally rewarded or sanctioned by the organization, referred to as nonrole behaviors. As with in-role behaviors, nonrole behaviors can contribute to or detract from organizational
effectiveness (Borman & Motowidlo, in press), so that under-

Lynn McFarlane Shore, Department of Management and W. T.
Beebe Institute of Personnel and Employment Relations, Georgia State
University; Sandy J. Wayne, Department of Management, University of
Illinois at Chicago.
We gratefully acknowledge Kevin Barksdale for his assistance in data
collection and preparation and Rodger Griffeth, Tom Lee, K. M.
Kacmar, and Janet Szumal for their helpful reviews of earlier drafts of
the article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynn
McFarlane Shore, Department of Management, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4014, Atlanta, Georgia 30302-4014.
774

That is. 1990). 1982). were positively related to OCB. whereas continuance commitment will be positively associated with IM. Because prior empirical research has not examined the relationship between continuance commitment and nonrole behaviors. "Employees who want to belong to the organization (affective commitment) might be more likely than those who need to belong (continuance commitment). employees with high levels of POS may have less of a need to use IM because they are already receiving desirable rewards in terms of support from the organization. Wortman & Linsenmeier. 1982) or may consist of doing favors or complimenting the supervisor (e. OCB includes behaviors that an individual chooses to offer or withhold without concern for immediate formal rewards or sanctions. We predicted that employees with a strong affective commitment would have less of a need to promote themselves because their emotional attachment to the organization is. the relationship between POS and work behavior.. Thus. useful for creating and maintaining a positive impression on others. the employee engages in behaviors that would help guarantee continued employment. conscientiousness in carrying out conventional job responsibilities. Wiener. when an employee's primary tie to the organization is need based (continuance commitment). 1991) and continuance commitment has been found to result in lower job performance (Meyer et al. 1986). such an employee is not likely to exert extra effort on behalf of the organization. 1983. Second. This suggests that there would be a positive relationship between continuance commitment and IM. although POS is likely to be related to affective and continuance commitment. Organ. which are conceptually similar to affective commitment. a question arises about whether or not this type of commitment should be linked with OCB. 1990). we predicted that employees with a strong affective commitment and high levels of POS would be less likely to use IM. Rather. This raises the question about whether POS may be necessary for understanding employee behavior. A common theme in the literature is that the use of IM is influenced by a need to defend or promote oneself to avoid punishment or to receive a desirable reward (Liden & Mitchell. Hypothesis 1: Affective commitment and POS will be positively associated with OCB.. . IM may consist of behaviors whereby the employee alters or manipulates information given to the supervisor for his or her performance to be viewed more positively than it should be (e. as suggested by Meyer and Allen (1991). commitment may be particularly important in predicting nonrole behaviors (Scholl. Similarly. but perhaps weakly. From a theoretical perspective. On the one hand. 1989). We did expect a relationship between continuance commitment and OCB for two reasons. resulting in lower job satisfaction (Gandz & Murray. Basically. is based on a social exchange framework. the impressions that others form of them (Jones & Pittman. whereas continuance commitment will be negatively associated with OCB. because in-role behaviors tend to be correlated with OCB (Williams & Anderson. Several empirical studies have suggested that the relationship between commitment and OCB depends on the type of commitment examined. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is extrarole behavior that is generally not considered a required duty of the job or part of a traditional job description (Bateman & Organ. Therefore. because affective and continuance commitment may be outcomes of organizational support and thus may be more closely linked to employee behavior. Impression management (IM) consists of behaviors that employees may use to influence others' attributions for their be- 775 havior and. Williams and Anderson (1991) failed to replicate these findings. whereas continuance commitment reflects feel- . unlike the conceptualizations for affective commitment and continuance commitment. 1990). we expected that there would be a negative relationship between continuance commitment and OCB. We therefore expected that POS would be positively associated with OCB. 1990) whereas the latter has been shown to detract from organizational effectiveness by.g. for example. in an effort to protect their job security. affective commitment may increase OCB and decrease IM because it is the right and moral way to behave (Wiener. to exert effort on behalf of the organization" (pp. Meyer and Allen (1991) have suggested that. 1981. employees with high continuance commitment may engage in IM behaviors to appear as though they are supportive of the organization. In addition. However.g. and innovation on behalf of the organization (Eisenberger et al. Furthermore. . these studies suggest that affective commitment will be positively. related to OCB. (1990) found that POS was positively related to expressed affective and calculative involvements in the organization. Eisenberger et al. 73-74).. Thus. O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) found that identification and internalization. On the other hand. such as organizational citizenship and impression management. by itself. First. 1991). However. 1982). Theoretical and empirical research does not seem to support this proposition (Shore & Tetrick. 1977). although perceptions of organizational support obligate employees to support organizational goals as repayment. 1980) or creating bias in performance ratings (Wayne & Ferris. thus. Hypothesis 2: Affective commitment and POS will be negatively associated with IM. A number of views have been put forth in the literature that are relevant for comparing affective commitment and continuance commitment with POS in terms of the ability to predict employee behavior. the social exchange framework that underlies POS suggests that these perceptions create feelings of obligation that serve to increase behaviors that support organizational goals. Eisenberger and his colleagues found that POS was related to absenteeism (Eisenberger et al. they found that internalization and identification were not significantly associated with OCB..COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR standing how commitment relates to these types of behaviors would be a valuable contribution to the literature. This inconsistency of results may be because O'Reilly and Chatman used self-reports of OCB whereas Williams and Anderson gathered OCB information from managers. Caldwell & O'Reilly. 1988). these forms of commitment are not redundant with POS. nonetheless. 1982).. this perspective assumes that the influence of organizational support on employee behavior is solely through affective and continuance commitment. affective and continuance commitment do not generate these same feelings of obligation. We chose to include these two nonrole behaviors in our study because the former has been viewed as enhancing organizational functioning (Organ.

Hypothesis 3: POS will explain additional variance in OCB and IM beyond the explanation provided by affective commitment and continuance commitment. Means. and a preaddressed return envelope. Three hundred eighty-three employees (305 men and 78 women) and 231 supervisors (198 men and 33 women) completed surveys. Organ. Supervisors reported how often their subordinates had engaged in a particular IM behavior on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). whereas continuance commitment was negatively correlated with these same scales. The Cronbach alpha estimates for the three scales were .82 for continuance commitment.5%) rated more than 2 employees. Although some supervisors rated more than 1 employee (18%). OCB items were factor analyzed separately from IM items. Weuseda 17-itemscaledevelopedbyEisenbergeretal. POS accounted for a significant portion of unique variance in OCB beyond that provided by affective commitment (for altruism. and the average age of the supervisors was 48. and POS. computer answer sheets.071 employees were contacted by mail and asked to participate in a longitudinal study of employee attitudes that involved completing four surveys over a 2-year period. The participants held a variety of job positions. the Altruism scale consisted of 7 items and the Compliance scale consisted of 9 items. Procedure The measures used in this study were included in a larger organizational survey.68. OCB. The pattern of correlations for OCB provided support for Hypothesis 1. An initial analysis with two factors designated a priori included all IM and OCB items for both Survey 1 and Survey 2 (separately). Supervisors described their employees' OCB and IM behavior. Results Before testing the hypotheses. we conducted a series of principal-component factor analyses using varimax rotation for the IM and OCB scales. study did so in the present sample (1 item loaded on the altruism factor and the other item loaded on the compliance factor). The average age of the employees was 43.01. WAYNE ings of being stuck (Shore & Barksdale. Affective commitment and continuance commitment were assessed with 16 items developed by Meyer and Allen (1984). A/?2 = . In addition. very few supervisors (6. The data used in the present study came from the second and third survey administrations. and the return rate for their supervisors was 73%. The Cronbach alpha estimate was . p < . such as mechanic. Method Subjects Participants were 276 pairs of employees and their direct supervisors working in a large multinational firm headquartered in the southeastern United States. The second scale was called supervisory awareness because these items reflected employee attempts to communicate and display efforts and accomplishments to the manager. although 2 items that did not load clearly on either factor in the Smith et al. The Cronbach alpha estimates were . Given the vastly different conceptualizations linking these three constructs and employee behavior. contained items that described employees doing favors for the supervisor. and intercorrelations among the variables are shown in Table 2. An exploratory principal-component analysis with varimax rotation for the 12 IM items yielded three factors (for both Surveys 1 and 2). Continuance commitment was not significantly related to any of the IM behaviors. IM behavior.043. We modified the 24-item Wayne and Ferris (1990) Impression Management Scale. is referred to as Survey 2. This factor structure was quite similar to the Compliance and Altruism subscales generated by Smith et al. Scale anchors ranged from 1 (disagree completely) to 5 (agree completely). supervisory favor was positively correlated with both affective commitment and POS. The employee data we used were collected 6 months before the supervisor data (note that the surveys administered at these two times were virtually identical. The Cronbach alpha estimates were . the first survey.95. to measure supervisory reports of IM behavior. subsequent analyses indicated that the remaining 12 items loaded on a separate factor from the OCB items.88 for affective commitment and . affective commitment and POS were positively correlated with both compliance and altruism. Thus. (1983). Results of hierarchical regression analyses are shown in Table 3. we expected that POS would provide additional explanation of work behavior beyond that provided by affective and continuance commitment. for compliance. Scale anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As we predicted.) The surveys were mailed to participants along with a cover letter. p < . secretary. AJ?2 = . 1991). which was developed for employee selfreports of IM behavior. and accountant. Forty-one percent of the employees contacted agreed to participate and were thus sent surveys.42 years. standard deviations.88 for altruism and . The scale measures two dimensions of OCB: altruism (7 items) and compliance (9 items). is referred to as Sur- vey 1 and the second survey.62 years. with two factors designated a priori. POS.(1986) to measure POS. We expected that affective commitment and POS would be negatively related to IM behaviors whereas continuance commitment would show a positive relationship with IM behaviors. The third scale. none of the commitment measures predicted manipulation behaviors.87 for compliance. and .01) . so that predictor and criterion data were collected at both survey administrations). We assessed OCB with a 16-item scale developed by Smith. Measures Employees reported their levels of affective commitment. producing three IM scales (see Table 1). Results showed that 12 of the IM items were loading on a factor with OCB items.032. A random stratified sample (by age and tenure) of 1. . manager data. called supervisory favors. and supervisory awareness was positively correlated with POS. Hypothesis 2 was not supported by our results. continuance commitment. and Near (1983). respectively.89. Furthermore. (Hereinafter. leading to lower OCB and greater IM. When these 12 items were eliminated. Results pertaining to OCB strongly supported Hypothesis 3.71.776 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND SANDY J. The first scale was called manipulation because items reflected direct attempts by the employee to manipulate the manager's perception of his or her work quality and effort. Affective and continuance commitment. The return rate for employees who agreed to participate was 90%. Scale anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). employee data. The factor structure of the scale measuring supervisor reports of employee IM behavior was replicated with a separate sample of 193 supervisors working in a large firm located in the southwestern United States. in our study.

Favors *p<. 4.04 -.73 -.90 0.36 . . 12. POS did not account for unique variance in IM beyond that provided by aifective commitment.31 . Altruism 5.028. Create the impression that he or she is a "good" person to you. we found mixed support for Hypothesis 3.10 .90 . A/?2 = .69 1.85 .12 .24 .08 11. A/{2 = . Offer to do something for you which he or she is not required to do.29* -. 1 0.06 -. Item 10 was retained despite loading on two factors because the reliability of the supervisory awareness scale dropped significantly and because this item appeared to be conceptually consistent with the other items in this scale. 2.46 .14* . POS did account for unique variance beyond continuance commitment in two of the IM scales (for supervisory awareness.90 3.36 .07 3.1 40.20* -.89 15.04 .37* — . even when he or she is not solely responsible.22 .57 .08 . Boldfaced values indicate factors with the strongest loadings. and continuance commitment (for altruism.60 -. and Intercorrelations Among the Attitudes and Employee Behaviors Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 M SD Survey 1 1.96 0.1 .7 64.36* — 3. that is.68 Survey 2 4. Let you know that he or she tries to do a good job in his or her work.10 .04 .70 -. Factor 3 represents the supervisory favors scale. 8.40 . A/?2 = .88 .01 .29 .88 .22 . for compliance. Manipulation 7 Awareness 8.22* . Continuance commitment 3.83 . p < .04 .2 .11 .89 0. 9.54 .81 1. Make you aware of his or her accomplishments.88 1.02 . Try to make a negative event that he or she is responsible for not appear as severe as it actually is to you. Work hard when he or she knows the results will be seen by you.74 .00 .08 .31 .2 53. Eigenvalue % variance explained Cumulative % variance explained -. Try to let you think that he or she is responsible for the positive events that occur in your work group.74 .77 . In contrast.09 1.08 .20 . Work later than the regular hours in order to make a good impression.50 .2 63.09 .13 . Perceived organizational support .09 .71 .081.9 . for IM.5 To what extent does the employee: 1 . Factor 2 represents the supervisory awareness scale.80 .78 .04 .42 .01 .58 13.84 .16 .01. 3. Try to make a positive event that he or she is responsible for appear better than it actually is. Try to take responsibility for positive events.51 .01). Atf2 = . Do personal favors for you.3 .25 .05 .06 1.08 .20* . 6.16* 3.08 .86 1. Affective commitment 2.01). 5. 7. Play up the value of a positive event that he or she has taken credit for to you.021. 11.46 37.13 .09 . Compliance 6.73 . he or she did it as a personal favor for you.14* -.89 . affective commitment and POS were positively related to both compliance and altruism whereas continuance Table 2 Means.30* .74 0.48* .16 .COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR 777 Table 1 Factor Analysis of Impression Management Items Survey 2 factors Survey 1 factors 1 2 3 1 2 3 . p < .81 40. p < .27 4.08 — .09 .09 -.12 .08 .63* -.57 .05.04 . Factor 1 represents the manipulation scale.72 2.05 .18 -.78 .78 . However.11 .40 0.2 37.40 0.23* -.64* — -.17* 3. Discussion As predicted.62 0.6 Note. Standard Deviations.046. for supervisory favors.02 .05.11 . p < .8 52.15* .16 .12 .15 .23 10.32* .85 .17 4.9? 0.

dfe = 1 and 270—with the exception of compliance. Wil- liams & Anderson.65* Model 3 1.090 26.82" .59" F(3.03 -.032 . POS 2. in which they found that OCB was not influenced by affective commitment but was influenced by the fairness of overall organizational treatment.04 .081 24.033 7.000 0.06* .37 Model 2 -.002 .15 .002 0.01 . CC 2. Clearly. AC = affective commitment.12 .006 1. 1986.043 1.084 8.020 .046 13.000 0. Thus.78* Note. Our pattern of results may also help to explain a previous inconsistency in the literature (O'Reilly & Chatman.23" .268) F(3.00 -.06 . Furthermore.02 .11 .122 12. so that when a significant correlation is found between affective commitment and OCB this may reflect a common cause (i.18" . where dfs = 2 and 268.52 .038 10.052 .08 .91" .02 .23" .033 . Therefore.002 .022 6.27** .001 0.05 13.002 0.09 .18" . POS .72" .02 .18** . **/><.121 .09 . because neither O'Reilly and Chatman nor Williams and Anderson included POS in their study designs.15 0.47 -.29" 1.77" 12.17 .022 . The results of our study indicate the importance of POS as a determinant of employee behavior.15 .06 . POS) rather than a causal link. Eisenberger et al.06 .005 1.51* Model 4 .084 .81" . However.18" .091 .33" . affective commitment.02 .084 . AC 2.026 7. POS 2.25** . WAYNE Table 3 Results of Regression Analyses Citizenship Altruism Step & variable 2 ft R Impression management Compliance 2 AR 2 AF R AR 2 Manipulation 2 0 AF R 2 AR Awareness AF 0 2 R AR 2 Favors AF 0 2.121 .013 3.09 fl 2 AF Model 1 1. (1986) suggested that perceived support is influenced by various aspects of an employee's treatment by the organization.004 1.05 . AC Overall F .15 .06* .02 .23" -.17" . the regression results suggest that POS may be a better predictor of employee citizenship behaviors than either affective commitment or continuance commitment.06 0. 267) F(3.004 0. For all AF tests.29 3.29" . *p<. over time. In contrast. Over time.09 .02 -. such as the organization's likely reactions to.090 26. 268) Variable -.032 .55" .052 14.007 2. 1986) and OCB. CC = continuance commitment.022 2.76" .. POS = perceived organizational support.021 5.15 .15 . and one variable was entered on each step.74" -.24" 12.21" .58* 9.15 .07 .00 .002 0.58 .41" 13.e. reciprocate and reduce the imbalance in the relationship by engaging in citizenship behaviors. for example.028 .08 .38" 5.21" -. affectively committed employees who engage in OCB may perceive the overall exchange as unfair if the organization does not reciprocate by providing support.026 7.032 .57" 18.11 .000 0.00 .81" .022 .000 0. a critical issue is what influences employees' perceptions of organizational support. may be inadequate for sustaining employees' citizenship behaviors.052 14. CC Overall F .022 . CC.031 9. Model 5—which displays the results of simultaneous entry of AC.022 .01 .44 0. 1991) linking affective commitment and OCB.16" -. This is quite consistent with Organ's (1990) perspective that social exchange theory provides a stronger conceptual framework for understanding OCB than does organizational commitment. the present results suggest that employee behavior that goes beyond role requirements is most likely to be elicited when the employee feels obligated to repay the organization for support received.01" . Thus. POS has been found to predict both affective commitment (Eisenberger et al.18" .000 0. performance.00 .25" .040 11. Indirect support for this contention was shown in Williams and Anderson's study.032 9. Models I through 4 utilized hierarchical regression.02 .002 0.001 0. additional research is needed to determine whether the present pattern of relationships exists across other settings and also to examine the notion of common cause.25" .17" .048 . the employee's mistakes.26" -.76** .29" -. it was not possible to determine conclusively whether POS influenced the differential results.18" . POS -.05 .09* F(3.27" .42" .01 4. suggestions.01.009 .778 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND SANDY J.002 . which is based on emotional attachment and identification with the goals of the organization.05 3..43 .052 .05.84" -.84* . 268) F(3.000 0.002 .041 .43 -. but was provided for potentially interested readers. For models 1 -4.022 6.028 7.29 . employees who feel that they are supported by the organization may. and POS—was not directly relevant to the hypotheses. .091 .05 -.11 3.74 4. commitment was negatively related to these same constructs. where dfs = 1 and 269. 268) Model 5 AC CC POS Overall F . dfo = 2 and 269 for the overall Ftests—with the exception of compliance.00 7.000 .04 -.15 .36 .04 .33 -.

. C.. This may explain the somewhat small amounts of variance accounted for in these behaviors by the three commitment measures. and consequences of organizational commitment. additional research is needed to explore the individual and situational factors that may influence perceptions of organizational support. and normative commitment to the organization.779 COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR and illnesses. be viewed by supervisors as an appropriate work behavior. McGee. This result was particularly interesting given that both side bet theory (Becker.. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee "citizenship. 1960) and social exchange theory (Blau. One limitation of our results was the rather low correlations between employee attitudes and managerial reports of IM and OCB. NJ: Erlbaum. Schmitt & W. V. This approach allows for a greater understanding of the underlying reason for the relationship between commitment and behavior. H. 108.. Whereas altruism involves prosocial gestures toward others in the organization (e. (1980). Perceived organizational support. Bateman. J. Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 1986). Borman. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents.. Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales. Responses to failure: The effects of choice and responsibility on impression management. C. whereas employees operating under a social exchange would engage in OCB despite no immediate reward... This pattern implies that communicating accomplishments may not represent employee attempts to manage impressions for self-serving purposes. Hillsdale. M. they do suggest the need for including additional variables. 72. G. Journal of Applied Psychology. Fasolo. E. 51-59. (1964). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. J. (1982). 26. Suls (Ed. Finally. 121-136. Altruism and supervisory favors have some conceptual similarity in that they may both involve some degree of self-sacrifice.. Meyer. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. 69. such as affective and continuance commitment. Caldwell. This pattern of results suggests that employees who are bound by economic exchanges (i. 13. doing favors for the supervisor may be less of an attempt to impress the supervisor than a consequence of having positive feelings about the organization. 23. 63. & Davis-LaMastro. 25. It is important to note that employees who perceived high levels of organizational support were more likely to engage in supervisory awareness behavior. Future research should further explore the role that social exchange plays in the development of commitment and extrarole behaviors. (1990). C. Eisenberger. The experience of workplace politics. & Meyer. In particular. J. D. One of our most important conclusions is that POS explained a significant proportion of the variance in OCB beyond affective commitment and that these perceptions appear to better predict OCB than does affective commitment. However. rather than emotional attachment. Another interesting finding was that continuance commitment provided additional explanation of OCB over and above that provided by POS. the relative importance of these factors has not been explored. W. P. (1990). the hypotheses of interest were tested longitudinally and included responses from both employees and supervisors. Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. New \brk: Wiley. such as employee ideology (Eisenberger et al. 231-262). Journal of Applied Psychology.. R.e. In N. Blau. (1984). Thus. side bet theory) are least likely to be good citizens whereas those who are bound by social exchanges are most likely to be good citizens. Hutchison. 71. D. we studied the relationship between the outcome variables and three different forms of commitment. In J. Jones. C. P. M. & Organ. C. N. J. R. 638-641. 237-251. 1-18..). & Pittman... (1960). Borman (Eds. J. & Zajac. Personnel selection. W. V. are clearly warranted. & Sowa. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Although there are limitations of this study. commitment. The measurement and antecedents of affective. to help better explain employee behavior. & Murray. These results suggest that employees who feel bound to their employing organization because of an accumulation of side bets are less inclined to engage in extrarole behaviors that support organizational goals. J. S. S..). employees operating under an economic exchange would engage in OCB only if the behavior was directly rewarded. our results showed that continuance commitment was associated with lower levels of OCB. may be the basis for citizenship behaviors. In addition. (1982). Huntington. correlates." Academy of Management Journal. S... That is. Eisenberger. in fact. there are also a number of strengths. additional studies that compare perceptions of organizational support with more extensively researched commitment constructs. 572-587. T. Furthermore. new employees. or supervisor. 75.. E. N. Gandz. P. 1989). supervisory favors represent prosocial behaviors that specifically benefit the supervisor. Borman & Motowidlo. 1964) are based on the notion of exchange. continuance. Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. An implication of these results is that it is important to examine various forms of IM because managerial perceptions of these tactics may vary. & O'Reilly. R. Academy of Management Journal. & Motowidlo. Future research should replicate the present study and should also include information on employee perceptions of the manager to further explore these relationships. P. R. consistent with prior research on job performance (Meyer et al. R. Mathieu. and innovation. Although these results were fairly typical of studies linking employee attitudes and behaviors. T. Psychological Bulletin.g. 171-194. in press). American Journal of Sociology. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence. D. (1988).29). & Allen. V. Another possible explanation for these results may be that some forms of IM may have less to do with feelings about the employing organization than with feelings about the manager. S. Journal of Applied Psychology. . Exchange and power in social life. W. Consequently. (in press). (1983). both affective commitment and POS were positively associated with supervisory favors. 32-42. J. D. Testing the "side-bet theory" of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Liden. & Mitchell. and this form of IM was positively related to altruism (r = . (1990). (1987). but may. 372-378. Another limitation was the fairly low occurrence of IM behaviors. 500-507. T. co-workers. R. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 587-595. Becker. & Ford. In addition. Notes on the concept of commitment. this study extended prior research by focusing on two outcomes rarely examined in relationship to commitment: OCB and IM.. 66.. References Allen. (1986). Academy of Management Review. Furthermore. Academy of Management Journal. This suggests that feelings of obligation.

Journal of Applied Psychology. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. & Anderson. C. 601 -617. C. J. J. 152-156. 1993 Accepted January 15. Journal of Applied Psychology.61-89. K. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Wortman. Clair. agreement to participate in the APA convention is now presumed to convey permission for the presentation to be audiotaped if selected for taping.1993. R. 637-643. Salancik (Eds. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance. W. San Diego.). T. G.. Wayne. D. V.. D. Porter. N. 12. Shore. Meyer. S. 492-499. Wiener. Human Resource Management Review. 1993 • 1994 APA Convention "Call for Programs" The "Call for Programs" for the 1994 APA annual convention appears in the September issue of the APA Monitor. Commitment in organizations: A normative view. As a reminder. A longitudinal assessment of the antecedents of affective and continuance commitment. Additional copies of the "Call" are available from the APA Convention Office. 7. R. 76. & Jackson. & Near. P.. (1977). L. R. R. L. R. New directions in organizational behavior (pp. Williams. Meyer.. (1991). P. Shore. Organ. S. Research in Organizational Behavior. Interpersonal attraction and techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology. 589-599.. M. WAYNE Meyer.. Goffin. E.. and internalization on prosocial behavior. 17. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. J. (1991). Paper presented at the Academy of Management conference. & Tetrick. Y. identification. (1989). J.. J. Journal of Management. Organ. R. and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. 68. 6. affect. 487499. and turnover. W. L. 113-178). S. & Steers.. 653-663.. 43-72. Allen. & Ferris. (1982). J. The 1994 convention will be held in Los Angeles. & Gellatly. M. M. J. W. Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. O'Reilly. August). & Allen. (1986). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. A construct validity study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. 710-720. . effective in September. N. The deadline for submission of program and presentation proposals is December 3. Miami. Mowday. P. Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment. D.. California. & Linsenmeier.780 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND SANDY J. Any speaker or participant who does not wish his or her presentation to be audiotaped must notify the person submitting the program either at the time the invitation is extended or before the December 3 deadline for proposal submission.. (1990). (1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. R. A. (1991). Smith. L. 75. In B. (1982). E.. Journal of Applied Psychology. P. Scholl. J. N. 7. I. CA: Academic Press. Staw & G. W. D. W. & Chatman. Journal of Applied Psychology. I. R. from August 12 through August 16. Received May 28. 71. Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review. Gellatly. Paunonen. & Barksdale. A. (1990).. (1983). absenteeism. Academy of Management Review. L. J. C.. 74. Influence tactics.. 418-428. 75. (1981). Chicago: St. (1990). B.. FL. 1992 Revision received January 11. Journal of Applied Psychology. J.