Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2000), 73, 137–147 Printed in Great Britain 137

Ó 2000 The British Psychological Society

Foci and correlates of organizational

identiŽ cation

Daan van Knippenberg

University of Amsterdam, The Netherland s

Els C. M. van Schie

Ministry of Social AVairs, The Hague, The Netherland s

Adopting the social identity perspective on organizational identiŽ cation proposed

by Ashforth and Mael (1989), the present study tested two hypotheses concerning
the importance of work-group identiŽ cation (WID) relative to organizational
identiŽ cation (OID). WID was predicted to be stronger than OID as well as more
predictive of organizational attitudes and behaviour. Data about employees’ WID,
OID, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job involvement, and job motivation
from two samples (N = 76 and N = 163) supported these predictions. We
conclude that our understanding of organizational attitudes and behaviour has
much to gain by an open eye for the multiple foci of identiŽ cation that are
associated with organizational membership, and that managerial practice may
beneŽ t from an increased focus on the work group.

As the threats to employee loyalty embodied by organizational mergers, take-overs,

and restructuring have become part of everyday organizational life, the ability to
elicit a certain level of identiŽ cation with the organization has become increasingly
important to the well-being of both organizations and their members. A sense of
organizational identiŽ cation may prevent employees from becoming alienated and
may be an important precondition for general feelings of job satisfaction.
Moreover, members that identify with an organization may be more likely to remain
with the organization and to expend eV ort on behalf of the organization (Dutton,
Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Yet, despite the fact that the importance of
organizational identiŽ cation has long been recognized (e.g. Brown, 1969; Hall &
Schneider, 1972; Lee, 1971; Rotondi, 1975), to date there appears to be some
controversy regarding the theoretical position of the organizational identiŽ cation
concept.
In an attempt to remedy this, Ashforth and Mael (1989; Mael & Ashforth,
1992; Mael & Tetrick, 1992) propose a reconceptualization of organizational
*Requests for reprints should be addressed to Daan van Knippenberg, University of Amsterdam, Department
of Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: ao– vanKnippenberg@
macmail.psy.uva.nl).
138 Daan van Knippenberg and Els C. M. van Schie
identiŽ cation based on social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
According to this theory, social identity, ‘that part of an individual’s self-concept
which derives from his [or her] knowledge of his [or her] membership of a group
(or groups) together with the value and the emotional signiŽ cance attached to the
membership’ (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63), derives from social identiŽ cation. Through
identiŽ cation, individuals deŽ ne themselves as members of social categories and
ascribe characteristics that are typical of these categories to themselves. As a result,
identiŽ cation leads individuals to perceive themselves not only in terms of
idiosyncratic characteristics that diV erentiate them from other individuals, but also
in terms of the characteristics they share with other members of their in-groups.
This conception of the self as a group member provides a basis for the perceptual,
attitudinal, and behavioural eV ects of group membership. The more one conceives
of oneself in terms of the membership of a group, that is, the more one identiŽ es
with the group, the more one’s attitudes and behaviour are governed by this group
membership. Thus, social identiŽ cation a V ects the self-concept as well as attitudes
and behaviour (see Deaux, 1996; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; for comprehensive
reviews of the social identiŽ cation literature).
Ashforth and Mael propose that organizational identiŽ cation is a speciŽ c form of
social identiŽ cation, and that, to the extent that an individual identiŽ es with an
organization, the organization provides the individual with a sense of identity.
Thus, organizational identiŽ cation provides a basis for organizational attitudes and
behaviour just as social identiŽ cation provides a basis for attitudes and behaviour.
This essentially underlies organizational identiŽ cation’s potential beneŽ cial eV ects
on organizational functioning. The more an individual identiŽ es with an organiz-
ation, the more likely he or she is to take the organization’s perspective and to act
in the organization’s best interest (Dutton et al., 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992).
Aside from oV ering an explanation of organizational identiŽ cation’s potential
beneŽ cial eV ects, Ashforth and Mael’s reconceptualization introduces a clear and
conceptually distinct cognitive (i.e. self-deŽ nitional) aspect to organizational
identiŽ cation (i.e. organizational identiŽ cation as providing a partial answer to the
question ‘who am I?’; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This self-deŽ nitional aspect of social
identiŽ cation with the organization distinguishes it from organizational commit-
ment and from prior conceptualizations of organizational identiŽ cation as a part of
commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) or a basis of
commitment (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).
Theories of social identiŽ cation suggest a number of factors that may aV ect
organizational identiŽ cation. First, social identity theory proposes that, through
identiŽ cation, the group’s standing re ects on the self. As a consequence, because
people desire a positive self-image (Tajfel, 1978), people tend to identify more with
high status groups (Ellemers, 1993) and organizations (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).
The relative size of a group is also a major determinant of identiŽ cation. This
follows from Brewer’s (1991, 1993) proposition that people aim for optimal
distinctiveness, balancing the desires for membership in social categories (inclusive-
ness) and individual distinctiveness (exclusiveness). Because identiŽ cation with
large-sized groups implies sameness with a large number of other people, identiŽ -
cation with relatively large groups forms a threat to individual distinctiveness.
 Organizational identiŽcation 139
IdentiŽ cation with smaller groups on the other hand may provide a suYcient level
of distinctiveness, whereas at the same time it fulŽ ls a need for inclusiveness. As a
consequence, people are more likely to identify with relatively small groups (Brewer,
1991). One other important determinant of identiŽ cation is similarity between the
individual and the group. People are more likely to identify with a group the more
similar they are to the group, because identiŽ cation is based on the categorization of
the self as similar to others within the category (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987). This holds for similarity to the people in the group as well as for
similarity between the group’s activities and the individual’s preferences. Regarding
the latter, for instance, Mael and Ashforth (1995) found in a study of US Army
recruits that recruits’ identiŽ cation with the army was positively related to a
preference for outdoor activities (i.e. activities typical of army work—framed
diV erently, this may be regarded as a positive relationship between person–
organization Ž t and organizational identiŽ cation; cf. Mael & Ashforth, 1995).
In addition, the Mael and Ashforth (1995) study also suggested that some people
are dispositionally more inclined to identify with groups and organizations out of
a general preference for group attachments. Finally, social identiŽ cation is
context-dependent (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987). Both the
presence of (members of) other groups (e.g. opposite sex for gender identity)
and the extent to which individuals are approached on the basis of their group
membership (e.g. police oYcers tend to be approached on the basis of their
group membership, i.e. as a police oYcer rather than as an individual person)
may render a speciŽ c group membership salient and thus identiŽ cation with that
group more likely.

Foci of organizational identiŽ cation

The focus of the abundance of studies on organizational commitment and the more
limited number of studies on organizational identiŽ cation tends to be on
identiŽ cation with and commitment to the organization as a whole (see e.g.
Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Morrow, 1993; for reviews). Yet,
it would be an oversimpliŽ cation to depict an organization as a single indivisible
entity, without acknowledging that organizations are also networks of groups that
may elicit feelings of identiŽ cation in themselves. Indeed, the fact that organiz-
ational commitment may have multiple foci is explicitly recognized by Reichers
(1985) who argues that divisions, departments, work units, and more informal
groups within the organization may be just as likely foci of commitment as the
organization as a whole (see also Becker, 1992; Becker & Billings, 1993; Zaccaro &
Dobbins, 1989), and Ashforth and Mael (1989) put forward similar notions
regarding the multiple foci of organizational identiŽ cation. The observation that
organizations provide their members with multiple group memberships (i.e. one
may simultaneously be a member of the organization as a whole, of a department
within the organization, and of a within-department work-group), and that all these
memberships oV er potential foci of identiŽ cation, gives rise to the question of
which of these are the more important foci of identiŽ cation. As we will argue
140 Daan van Knippenberg and Els C. M. van Schie
below, despite the fact that organizational research tends to focus on attachment to
the organization as a whole, a number of considerations suggest that work-group
identiŽ cation will generally be both stronger and more predictive of organizational
attitudes and behaviour.
Why should we expect work-group identiŽ cation to be stronger than organiz-
ational identiŽ cation? First, work-groups should be the more likely focus of
identiŽ cation because work-groups are more or less by deŽ nition smaller than the
encompassing organization. This follows directly from Brewer’s (1991) proposition
that people are more likely to identify with relatively small groups, because
identiŽ cation with large-sized groups embodies a threat to individual distinctive-
ness. Secondly, individuals will generally have more in common with their
work-groups than with the organization as a whole in terms of the actual work and
in terms of common work-related fate and history. Even though work-group
composition may greatly aV ect the degree of perceived similarity between individual
and group, this generally higher degree of similarity is likely to lead to higher levels
of identiŽ cation, because people are more likely to identify with a group the more
similar the group is to themselves (Turner et al., 1987). In addition, as Moreland and
Levine (in press) note, the fact that people spend most of their organizational life
in their work-groups renders their own work-group familiar and attractive
(Moreland & Beach, 1992), which will also lead to relatively high levels of
identiŽ cation. Furthermore, the average organizational context is likely to focus
employees on their subgroup membership rather than membership in the organiz-
ation as a whole, because most employees are both more likely to encounter
(members of) other subgroups within the organization than (members of) other
organizations and more likely to be approached in terms of their subgroup
membership rather than in terms of their membership in the organization as a
whole (Kramer, 1991).1 On the basis of these considerations, we may predict that
identiŽ cation will be stronger with the own work-group than with the organization
as a whole (Hypothesis 1).
The more strongly an individual identiŽ es with a certain group, the more he or
she is likely to think and act in terms of this group membership (cf. Hogg &
Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1978). Thus, because it is the strength of one’s identiŽ cation
that partially mediates the eV ects of group membership on attitudes and behaviour,
we may predict, on the basis of the expectation that work-group identiŽ cation is
stronger than organizational identiŽ cation, that work-group identiŽ cation is more
strongly related to organizational attitudes and behaviour than identiŽ cation with
the organization as a whole. The present study tested this prediction by assessing
four variables that may be expected to be related to organizational identiŽ cations.
SpeciŽ cally identiŽ cation should be negatively related to turnover intentions,
because employees that identify strongly should value their work group and
organizational membership more and hence should be less willing to leave
1
This is notwithstanding the fact that in other situations, i.e. outside the organization, contact with others (e.g.
family and friends) may focus the individual more on membership in the organization as a whole (cf. Dutton et al.,
1994). Even so, most interactions referring to work-related identities are likely to take place within the
organizational context. Hence, overall, context eV ects should focus the individual primarily on within-organization
subgroup membership.
 Organizational identiŽcation 141
the work-group and the organization (cf. Mael & Ashforth, 1995). Because
identiŽ cation instigates one to take the group’s or organization’s point of view,
identiŽ cation should also be related to the willingness to expend eV ort on the
work-group’s and organization’s behalf (cf. Dutton et al., 1994). Therefore, we may
expect that feelings of identiŽ cation are positively related to employees’ job
motivation and job involvement. In addition, identiŽ cation leads individuals to
ascribe group-deŽ ning characteristics to themselves (self-stereotyping; Turner et al.,
1987). Thus, through identiŽ cation, ‘the job’ becomes in a sense part of the self.
Although this will be far from suYcient to lead to job satisfaction in itself, it may
be expected to add to feelings of job satisfaction because people tend to evaluate
attitude objects associated with the self positively (cf. Beggan, 1992). Thus, to
summarize, since we hypothesized that work-group identiŽ cation is stronger than
identiŽ cation with the organization as a whole, we predict that work-group
identiŽ cation is more strongly related to turnover intentions, job motivation, job
involvement, and job satisfaction than identiŽ cation with the organization as a
whole (Hypothesis 2).

Method
Data relevant to the above hypotheses were collected in two surveys, the Ž rst of a local government,
the second of a university. Both surveys assessed identiŽ cation with the organization as a whole,
identiŽ cation with own work-group, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. The second also
incorporated measures of job involvement and job motivation.2

Sample 1
Sample 1 was derived from a mail survey of a division of a local Dutch government. Questionnaires
were mailed to all 210 employees at their home address, with a follow-up 3 weeks later. A total of
76 usable questionnaires was returned. Fifty-four per cent of the respondents were male, 46%
female, and 75% of respondents were between 31 and 50 years of age. Consultation of the
organization’s management indicated that the sample was comparable to the overall population in
these respects.
The part of the survey relevant to the present purposes assessed organizational identiŽ cation with
a Dutch translation of Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) organizational identiŽ cation scale and work-group
identiŽ cation with a modiŽ ed version of the same scale. The Mael and Ashforth scale consists of items
like ‘When someone criticizes (name of organization), it feels like a personal insult’ and ‘When I talk
about this organization, I usually say ‘‘we’’ rather than ‘‘they’’ ’. The scale has been shown to be
reliable (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Mael & Tetrick, 1992) and empirically distinguishable from the most
widely used organizational commitment measure (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, OCQ; see
Mael & Tetrick, 1992). Respondents Ž lled out two versions of this scale that were only diV erent in the
target of identiŽ cation the items referred to: to assess identiŽ cation with the organization as a whole
(OID), the items referred to the organization’s name, to assess identiŽ cation with own work-group
(WID), the items referred to ‘my work-group’ (e.g. ‘When someone criticizes my work-group, it feels
like a personal insult’). Job satisfaction was measured with the BrayŽ eld and Rothe (1951) job
satisfaction scale and turnover intentions were assessed by a 3-item scale adapted from Mobley (1977)

2
Because of space limitations—data for Sample 1 were gathered in the course of a rather extensive health
survey—job motivation and job involvement could not be assessed in Sample 1.
142 Daan van Knippenberg and Els C. M. van Schie
by van Breukelen (1991). Table 1, left-hand side, provides descriptive statistics and correlations for
Sample 1.

Sample 2
Sample 2 was derived from a mail survey of a Dutch university faculty. Questionnaires were
mailed to all 603 employees at their oYce address, with a follow-up 3 weeks later. A total of
163 usable questionnaires were obtained. Forty-four per cent of the respondents were male, 56%
female, and the mean age of respondents was 40.57 (SD = 8.93). Comparison with demographic data
obtained from another source indicated that the sample was representative of the population in these
respects.
OID, WID, job satisfaction and turnover intentions were assessed with the same measures
employed in Sample 1. In addition, job motivation was measured with Hackman & Lawler’s (1971)
internal motivation scale and job involvement was measured with a 6-item scale with statements such
as ‘I feel involved in my work’ and ‘I am always prepared to do my best’ (responses on 5-point
agree–disagree scales). Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the second sample are displayed
in Table 1, right-hand side.

Results
To assess whether the OID and WID scales did indeed measure two diV erent
identiŽ cations rather than one single identiŽ cation, for Sample 2 we entered the
items comprising the two measures in a principal component analysis (PCA) with
OBLIMIN rotation (Sample 1 was deemed too small for a meaningful analysis).
The PCA yielded two factors, which accounted for 56.1% of the variance. All
except one of the items loaded above .50 on the intended factor, and there were no
cross-loadings of .35 or higher. One item had a loading of .36 on the intended
factor and .20 on the other. To maximize comparability with other studies, this item
was retained (note that, if anything, this works against our hypotheses). Thus,
although not perfect, results support the conclusion that the WID and OID scales
assess diV erent constructs rather than one single identiŽ cation. This conclusion is
corroborated by the intercorrelations between WID and OID (see Table 1). WID
and OID were uncorrelated in Sample 1 and not particularly strongly related in
Sample 2.
Our Ž rst prediction was that WID would be stronger than OID. This turned out
to be the case, both in Sample 1 (t(75) = 9.66, p < .0001; see Table 1 for means) and
in Sample 2 (t(158) = 11.94, p < .0001; M WID = 3.48, SD = .82; M OID = 2.65,
SD = .80; means for this analysis diV er slightly from those presented in Table 1 due
to missing values). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
WID was not only expected to be stronger than OID, but also to be more
strongly related to job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job involvement, and job
motivation. Inspection of the intercorrelations displayed in Table 1 showed that
this was indeed the case. In Sample 1, WID was signiŽ cantly related to job
satisfaction whereas OID was not (WID and OID were equally unrelated to
turnover intentions, which, in itself, does not support our predictions). In Sample
2, WID was more strongly related to job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job
involvement, and job motivation than OID. Thus, the pattern of correlations
Table 1. Descriptives and correlations, Samples 1 and 2

Sample 1 Sample 2
M SD N 1 2 3 4 M SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6

WID 3.60 0.70 76 (.73) 3.49 0.82 161 (.83)

OID 2.52 0.73 76 .07 (.82) 2.65 0.80 159 .41*** (.83)
Job satisfaction 4.03 0.66 74 .26* .03 (.87) 4.04 0.72 158 .45*** .18* (.92)
Turnover intention 2.08 0.89 74 .05 2 .07 2 .41*** (.80) 2.38 1.09 162 2 .24** 2 .14 2 .51*** (.77)
Job involvement 4.16 0.67 162 .46*** .27** .71*** 2 .36*** (.72)
Job motivation 4.25 0.59 160 .30*** .15 .32*** 2 .18* .41*** (.86)
Organizational identiŽcation

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001.

Note. Scores are on 5-point scales, with higher scores indicating higher identiŽ cation, satisfaction, etc. CoeYcients alpha for each scale are given in parentheses on the diagonal.
WID=identiŽ cation with own work-group; OID=identiŽ cation with the organization as a whole.
143
144 Daan van Knippenberg and Els C. M. van Schie
supported Hypothesis 2. To put Hypothesis 2 to a more explicit test, we conducted
two additional analyses. First, we conducted one-sided t tests for dependent r s
(Cohen & Cohen, 1983) to determine whether WID was more strongly related to
satisfaction, motivation, involvement, and turnover intentions than OID. For
Sample 1, no signiŽ cant diV erences were found, which for satisfaction might be
attributable to low statistical power. For Sample 2, WID was more strongly related
to job satisfaction (t(151) = 3.39, p < .001), job involvement (t(155) = 2.44, p < .01),
and job motivation (t(154) = 1.92, p < .05) than OID, whereas no signiŽ cant
diV erence was found for turnover intentions. Secondly, we aimed to assess whether
a focus on WID has anything to add to the more conventional focus on OID in
terms of predictive power. To this end, we conducted, for each sample and
criterion variable, a hierarchical regression analysis in which OID was entered Ž rst
and WID second. Results of these analyses indicate that for each criterion, WID
added signiŽ cantly to a prediction based on OID alone (R2 change for the second
step: job satisfaction, Sample 1: .07, p < .05, Sample 2: .17, p < .001; turnover
intentions, Sample 1: .00, n.s., Sample 2: .04, p < .05; job involvement: .16, p < .001;
job motivation: .07, p < .001). Thus, on the basis of these results, we may
conclude that, in comparison with OID, WID is the more important correlate
of job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job involvement, and job motivation
(cf. Hypothesis 2).

Discussion
Before focusing on the conclusions that may be drawn from these Ž ndings, we
brie y discuss what should not be concluded on the basis of the present study. First,
despite the fact that we adopted a data analysis strategy (regression analysis) that
might suggest that WID and OID are seen as causes of satisfaction, turnover,
involvement, and motivation, the present study makes no claims regarding
causality. Indeed, aside from the fact that it is impossible to base conclusions
concerning causality on cross-sectional studies like the one reported here, theor-
etical considerations suggest that organizational identiŽ cations and job-related
variables like for instance job satisfaction mutually a V ect each other. Secondly,
since all variables were assessed with the same questionnaire, common method
variance may have in ated relationships. Hence, some care is in order where
conclusions regarding the ‘absolute’ importance of organizational identiŽ cation are
concerned (i.e. as opposed to the importance of WID relative to OID), and more
deŽ nite conclusions should await future research employing a more diverse set of
data gathering methods (e.g. measuring actual turnover).
Despite these limitations, some important conclusions may be based on the
present Ž ndings. Of primary importance is the fact that the present study
demonstrates that other foci of identiŽ cation may be more important in day-to-day
organizational life than the organization as a whole. The Ž nding that WID was both
stronger than OID and more strongly related to organizational attitudes demon-
strates that a sole focus on the organization as a whole may result in serious
oversights in the study of organizational behaviour. A look at the results of the
 Organizational identiŽcation 145
correlational and regression analyses shows that if we had only taken the more
common focus on identiŽ cation with the organization as a whole, this would have
resulted in an underestimation of the importance of feelings of identiŽ cation in the
present samples. Thus, our Ž ndings strongly suggest that our understanding of
organizational attitudes and behaviour has much to gain by an open eye for the
multiple foci of identiŽ cation that are associated with organizational membership
(see also Becker, 1992).
On the more practical side, the Ž nding that WID was the stronger correlate of
job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job involvement, and job motivation suggests
that attempts to improve an organization’s identiŽ cation-eliciting abilities in the
hope of achieving beneŽ cial eV ects on organizational attitudes and behaviour
might be more eV ective when directed at the work-group level than at the
organizational level. In fact, identiŽ cation-enhancing interventions may also be a
lot easier to implement at the work-group level (e.g. team building) than at the
organizational level. Thus, the practice of management as well as organization
research may beneŽ t from an increased focus on the work-group. Yet, in this
regard, a word of caution is in order. Although WID might be more important in
determining organizational attitudes and behaviour, dominance of WID over OID
may have some less beneŽ cial eV ects as well. A strong focus on own work-group
might elicit feelings of competition or even hostility between diV erent work-
groups (cf. Kramer, 1991), which may be detrimental to the organization’s
functioning (although a sense of competition might also boost performance).
Another potential negative e V ect of strong feelings of identiŽ cation with the
own work-group might be its e V ect on within-organization mobility: high
work-group identiŽ cation may render employees unwilling to transfer to another
work-group, and, when forced to do so, unmotivated to work within their
new work-group. Moreover, if work-group norms and organizational norms diV er
substantially, work-group identiŽ cation may be detrimental to the organization’s
functioning, because identiŽ cation with a social category tends to result in
conformity to the category’s norms (Turner et al., 1987; see e.g. Blau, 1995, for an
example of the potential negative eV ects of work-group norms). Thus, although
WID may be more important than OID in determining organizational attitudes
and behaviour, we should not conclude that high levels of WID are always to the
organization’s advantage.
Finally, although WID clearly dominated OID in the present study, and the
variables studied were chosen because of their importance to organizational
behaviour and their prevalence in organizational behaviour research, we should not
conclude that WID will always be stronger than OID, nor that WID will be more
strongly related to all organizational attitudes and behaviours. There may be
individual diV erences (cf. Becker & Billings, 1993) or inter-organizational diV er-
ences (cf. Ashforth & Mael, 1989) in the extent to which the one identiŽ cation
prevails over the other, and although most attitudes and behaviours may primarily
a V ect or be aV ected by WID, others might predominantly a V ect or be aV ected by
OID (cf. Becker & Billings, 1993; Zaccaro & Dobbins, 1989). Future research
pursuing these possibilities may deepen our understanding of the dynamics of
organization-based identiŽ cations.
146 Daan van Knippenberg and Els C. M. van Schie
Acknowledgements
We thank Paul Spector, Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Barbara van Knippenberg, and two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.

References
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of aV ective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Acad emy of Management
Review, 14, 20–39.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of
Management Journal, 35, 232–244.
Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). ProŽ les of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, 177–190.
Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception. The mere ownership eV ect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229–237.
Blau, G. (1995). In uence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examination. Acad emy
of Management Journal, 38, 1483–1496.
BrayŽ eld, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41,
201–205.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and diV erent at the same time. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg,
& D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). New York: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Brown, M. E. (1969). IdentiŽ cation and some conditions of organizational involvement. Ad ministrative
Science Quarterly, 14, 346–355.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deaux, K. (1996). Social identiŽ cation. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology.
Hand book of basic principles (pp. 777–798). New York: Guilford.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identiŽ cation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
Ellemers, N. (1993). The in uence of socio-structural variables on identity enhancement strategies.
European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27–57.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 55, 259–286.
Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1972). Correlates of organizational identiŽ cation as a function of career
pattern and organizational type. Ad ministrative Science Quarterly, 17, 340–350.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identiŽ cations: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group
processes. London: Routledge.
Kramer, R. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas. In L. L. Cummings & B. M.
Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, 191–228). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identiŽ cation. Acad emy of Management Journal,
14, 213–226.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identiŽ cation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identiŽ cation, and
turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309–333.
Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identiŽ cation. Ed ucational and
Psychological Measurement, 52, 813–824.
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.
 Organizational identiŽcation 147
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240.
Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure eV ects in the classroom: The development of aYnity
among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 255–276.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (in press). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In
M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Ad vances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI 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., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The
eV ects of compliance, identiŽ cation, and internalization on prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Acad emy of
Management Review, 10, 465–476.
Rotondi, T. (1975). Organizational identiŽ cation: Issues and implications. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 13, 95–109.
Tajfel, H. (1978). DiVerentiation between social groups. Stud ies in the social psychology of intergroup relations.
London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel
& W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Red iscovering the social
group. A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
van Breukelen, J. W. M. (1991). Personeelsverloop in organisaties. Unpublished dissertation, Leiden
University.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Contrasting group and organizational commitment: Evidence
for diV erences among multilevel attachments. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 267–273.

Received 21 January 1998; revised version received 18 December 1998