Journal of Applied Psychology

1990, Vol. 75, No. 6, 710-720

Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

OC2I-9C10/90/$00.75

Affective and Continuance Commitment to the Organization: Evaluation of

Measures and Analysis of Concurrent and Time-Lagged Relations
John E Meyer

Natalie J. Allen and Ian R. Gellatly

Department of Psychology
University of Western Ontario, Canada

Centre for Administrative and Information Studies

University of Western Ontario, Canada

The factor structure of the Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales (ACS and CCS; Meyer
& Alien, 1984), as well as the causal links between affective and continuance commitment, were
examined. Data were obtained from 2 employee samples on a single occasion and from a sample of
new employees on 3 occasions during their first year of employment. Confirmatory factor analyses
revealed that (a) the ACS and CCS measure different constructs and (b) the CCS can be divided into
2 highly related subscales reflecting costs associated with leaving the organization (lack of alternatives and personal sacrifice). Tests of nonrecursive causal models with cross-sectional data revealed that (a) affective commitment had a negative effect on the alternatives component of continuance commitment in all samples and (b) both components of continuance commitment had a
positive effect on affective commitment for established employees. Analyses of the longitudinal
data revealed only a weak, negative, time-lagged effect of the alternatives component on affective
commitment.

cost of doing otherwise. Meyer and Allen used the terms affective commitment and continuance commitment, respectively, to
characterize these two views of the construct and noted that,
although both views reflect a link between the employee and
the organization that decreases the likelihood of turnover, the
nature of the link is quite different. Employees with a strong
affective commitment remain with the organization because
they want to, whereas those with strong continuance commitment remain because they need to. The antecedents and consequences (other than remaining) of these two forms of commitment are, therefore, also likely to be quite different.
To test these hypotheses, Meyer and Allen (1984; Allen &
Meyer, 1990) developed the Affective Commitment Scale and
the Continuance Commitment Scale (ACS and CCS, respectively). These eight-item self-report measures were found to be
reliable and to yield scores that are relatively independent. Studies in which these scales were used have shown that, as predicted, affective and continuance commitment are differentially related to variables purported to be their antecedents (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Aven, 1988; Withey, 1988) and consequences
(Allen & Smith, 1987; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Coffin, &
Jackson, 1989). For example, Allen and Meyer (1990) found
that affective commitment was best predicted by work experiences that promote feelings of comfort in the organization (e.g.,
organizational dependability) and personal competence (e.g.,
job challenge). Continuance commitment, on the other hand,
correlated more highly with measures of potential loss (e.g.,
pension benefits) and lack of alternatives. Meyer et al. (1989)
found that affective commitment correlated positively and continuance commitment, negatively, with supervisor ratings of
job performance and promotability.
Factor analyses of the ACS and CCS were performed in two
recent studies. Allen and Meyer (1990, Study 1) found that all
items loaded appropriately on two factors. McGee and Ford
(1987) found that, although all but two of the CCS Hems loaded

There have been repeated calls recently for clarification of

the definition and measurement of organizational commitment (e.g., McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer* Allen, 1984; Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1982; Reichers, 1985). Several distinct views of
commitment have evolved and become well established over
the years, making it unlikely that any one approach will dominate and be unanimously accepted as the correct definition of
commitment. It is important, therefore, that the various approaches be identified, their differences highlighted, and,
where necessary, their differential links to other variables of
interest (e.g., job performance) established.
In this vein, Meyer and Allen (1984, in press; Allen & Meyer,
1990) noted the distinction between two popular views of commitment, one provided by Porter and his associates (e.g., Porter,
Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Mowday et al, 1982) and the
other by Becker (1960). According to Porter et al. (1974, p. 604),
commitment is "the strength of an individual's identification
with and involvement in a particular organization." Becker
(1960) described commitment as the tendency to engage in
"consistent lines of activity" (p. 33) because of the perceived

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 37th Annual

Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans,
August 1989.
This research was supported by Grant 410-89-0370 from the Social
Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and by a grant
from Imperial Oil Ltd.
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Patricia Lee, Alanna
Leffley, and Joannah Smith in data collection and management, and
we thank Robert Gardner for his advice on data analysis and three
anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John
P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, Social Science Centre, University
of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2.

710

AFFECTIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT

appropriately when two factors were extracted, when the number of factors was not specified a priori, four orthogonal factors
emerged. The four-factor solution included an affective commitment factor, two continuance commitment factors, and a
fourth factor that was not interpreted. The continuance commitment factors, each denned by three CCS items, were labelled Low Perceived Alternatives and High Personal Sacrifice
to reflect the specific source of the cost associated with leaving.
McGee and Ford (1987) also found that when they created
three-item subscales of the CCS (i.e., CCLoAlt and CCHiSac),
these subscales correlated significantly with one another (r =
.37, p < .001) and correlated significantly, but in opposite directions, with the ACS. The CCLoAlt subscale correlated negatively (r = - .21, p< .001) with the ACS, whereas the CCHiSac
subscale correlated positively if = .34, p < .001). Like Meyer and
Allen (1984), McGee and Ford found that when the full CCS
was correlated with the ACS, the correlation was near zero.
Although the results of these factor-analytic studies support
the hypothesis that affective and continuance commitment are
relatively distinct constructs, they conflict with respect to the
factor structure of the CCS. Whereas Allen and Meyer (1990)
interpreted their findings as evidence that the CCS measures a
unitary construct, McGee and Ford (1987) concluded that (a)
the CCS measures two distinguishable constructs and (b) the
high-personal-sacrifice component best reflects "side-bet commitment" as described by Becker (1960).
There is reason to be cautious in accepting either of these
interpretations. First, the analytic procedures used i n both studies were exploratory rather than confirmatory. Although
McGee and Ford (1987) obtained two different solutions, they
were not explicit about the criteria used in accepting one over
the other. Second, neither factor structure has been shown to
replicate consistently across different employee samples. Finally, examination of the items that define the two continuance
commitment factors obtained by McGee and Ford suggests that
the factors do not reflect low perceived alternatives and high
personal sacrifice as clearly as McGee and Ford implied. For
example, although agreement with the CC:LoAlt item "Right
now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as
much as desire" could imply a lack of alternatives, it could just
as easily reflect other perceived costs. Similarly, agreement with
the CCHiSac item "It would be hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to" could reflect personal
sacrifice, but it might also indicate difficulty finding a comparable alternative.
In the present study, we examined the factor structure of the
ACS and CCS by applying confirmatory factor analyses to data
obtained from three different samples of employees. With confirmatory factor analysis, it is possible to evaluate the fit of
models generated to reflect the factor structures proposed by
Allen and Meyer (1990) and McGee and Ford (1987). By applying these analyses to data from d ifferent samples, it is also possible to evaluate the generalizability of factor models.
A second purpose of this study was to examine the causal
relation(s) between affective and continuance commitment.
Though McGee and Ford (1987) acknowledged that the procedures they used precluded a causal explanation, they speculated
about the psychological process that might account for the positive correlation between affective commitment and the CCHi-

711

Sac subscale. Following Steers and Porter (1983), they suggested that dissonance-reduction or self-justification processes
may be involved. Steers and Porter proposed that individuals
who feel bound to remain with an organization "typically engage in some form of psychological bolstering in which they
attempt to rationalize or self-justify their situation" (p. 428).
There are at least two reasons for being cautious in accepting
McGee and Ford's (1987) explanation. First, if dissonance-reduction or self-justification processes do operate as a consequence of being bound by the threat of personal sacrifice, as
McGee and Ford suggested, it is not clear why being bound to
an organization by lack of alternatives does not have the same
effect. Second, there are other plausible explanations for the
positive correlation between the ACS and the CCHiSac subscale. It is possible, for example, that the conditions that contribute to the development of affective commitment (e.g, organizational dependability, job challenge) are the very factors that
would be sacrificed if the employee were to leave. Affective
commitment, therefore, might be antecedent to continuance
commitment. The implications of this explanation for organizations' attempts to foster commitment in their employees are
quite different from those following from McGee and Ford's
explanation. Clearly, therefore, there is a need to determine
whether the differential relations between affective commitment and the two components of continuance commitment
observed by McGee and Ford are robust, and, if so, to explain
these relations.
In this study, we examined the nature of the relation between
affective and continuance commitment by applying linear
structural-relations analyses to both cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Although there is disagreement about the utility
of detecting causal effects with cross-sectional data (cf. James,
Mulaik, & Brett, 1982, and Gollob & Reichardt, 1987), we
chose to conduct such analyses with the rationale that thoughts
about one's affective attachment to an organization might have
immediate implications for thoughts about the influence of
costs on the decision to stay and vice versa. Indeed, responding
to questions about affect and cost might produce effects such as
those described above. For example, responding to questions
concerning the personal sacrifice that would result from leaving an organization could influence responses to questions
concerning attachment to the organization and vice versa. This
does not mean, however, that any effects observed are merely
artifactual. To the contrary, we expect that being prompted by a
set of questions to think about one's feelings about the organization and reasons for staying is no different from being
prompted by any other naturally occurring event (e.g, being
offered another job; having a particularly good or bad day at
work). Our objective in testing causal effects with cross-sectional data was to examine how thoughts relevant to one form
of commitment might influence or be influenced by those relevant to another form.
In summary, the need to clarify the distinctions among the
various conceptualizations of commitment is well recognized.
Initial efforts by Meyer and Allen (1984; Allen & Meyer, 1990)
to distinguish and measure commitment as conceptualized by
Porter (Porter et al., 1974; Mowday et aj, 1982) and Becker
(1960) have been helpful in this regard. Recent research using
the ACS and CCS, however, has yielded conflicting results with

712

J. MEYER, N. ALLEN, AND I. GELLATLY

regard to the factor structure of the CCS and relations among

the constructs. The purpose of the present research was twofold. First, we examined further the factor structure of the ACS
and CCS by applying confirmatory analyses to data from three
different employee samples. Second, we examined the nature
of the relation between affective and continuance commitment
by applying structural-relations analyses to both cross-sectional and longitudinal data.

Method
Subjects and Procedure
Data were collected from three samples of employees. For the first
two samples, commitment was measured on a single occasion; for the
third, commitment was measured for the same employees on three
separate occasions.
Cross-sectional data. In the firet of two cross-sectional studies (Sample 1), data were collected from full-time, nonunionized employees in
three organizations: a retail department store, a hospital, and a university library. In total, 634 questionnaires were delivered to the participating organizations for distribution. Of these, 337 (53.2%) were completed and returned. The majority of respondents were women (80.2%),
the average age was 38 years, and average tenure was 8.86 years. Because of missing data, the sample size was reduced to a maximum of
319 for analyses reported here.
In the second study (Sample 2), data were collected from 292 fulltime employees (79 men, 213 women) in several organizations, including a university (n = 142), a community college (n - 32), a petroleum
company (n = 28), a hospital (n = 24), the administrative office of a
union ( = 10), and a clothing company (n = 8). In addition, 54 questionnaires were completed by part-time university students employed
in a variety of organizations. The average age of respondents was 37
years, and average tenure in the organization was 8 years. Again because of missing data, the sample size for analyses reported here was
reduced to 274.
Longitudinal data. Participants in thisstudy (Sample 3) were university graduates who had recently accepted full-time jobs with a number
of different companies. Students who were involved in the on-campus
recruitment program at the University of Western Ontario from 1983
to 1986 were asked if they would participate in a longitudinal study of
work attitudes. Of those who qualified (by virtue of having accepted
full-time jobs), almost all agreed to participate. Of the 308 individuals
who completed and returned pre-entry questionnaires, 123 (40%) were
women, 279 (90%) were between the ages of 21 and 25 years, all had
undergraduate degrees, and 28 had graduate degrees. Post-entry questionnaires were sent to participants after approximately 1, 6, and 11
months on the job. Questionnaires with usable data were returned by
276, 247, and 210 individuals, respectively. Because of missing data,
the sample size for some analyses was reduced (actual sample sizes are
reported with the results of these analyses).

Measures
Commitment. Commitment was measured with the ACS and CCS,
used in research by Meyer and Allen (1984; Allen & Meyer, 1990) and
McGee and Ford (1987). Responses were made on 7-point scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree(7). (See McGee & Ford,
1987, or Allen & Meyer, 1990, for the ACS and CCS items.)
Predictors of commitment. For analyses undertaken to examine the
causal links between affective and continuance commitment in crosssectional data, it was necessary to include predictors of both forms of
commitment in the causal model. Such predictor measures were available for two of the three samples (Samples 1 and 3). Two measures each

were selected as predictors of affective and continuance commitment.

Criteria for selection were that the variables correlate more highly with
the form of commitment they were intended to predict than with the
other form and that the predictors of affective commitment not be
highly correlated with the predictors of continuance commitment. For
Sample 1, two-item measures of job challenge and organizational dependability were selected as predictors of affective commitment, and
single-item measures of the extent to which pension benefits would be
lost and of the availability of alternative employment were selected as
predictors of continuance commitment and its components. (See Allen
& Meyer, 1990, Study 2, for correlations among the predictor and commitment variables).
Predictors of affective commitment selected in Sample 3 were a 14item measure of job scope and a two-item measure of confirmation of
pre-entry expectations. Single-item measures of the availability of alternative employment and of the extent to which time and effort would
be wasted if the individual were to leave the organization were selected
as predictors of continuance commitment and its components. The
predictors of continuance commitment were included on the 6- and
11-month questionnaires for each of the graduating classes surveyed
but were included on the 1 -month questionnaire only for thosestudents
who graduated in 1985 or 1986. Analyses involving the latter measures,
therefore, were based on a smaller sample (n = 142).

Data Analysis
Both the factor structure of the commitment scales and the structural relations among the resultant factors were examined with LISREL
vi (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986). In each of the analyses reported here,
maximum likelihood parameter estimates were obtained by applying
LISREL to the appropriate covariance matrix. Although USREL permits
the simultaneous testing of both a measurement model (i.e., a model
specifying the relations of observed variables to their posited underlying constructs) and a structural-relations model (i.e., a model specifying the causal relations among the latent constructs), Anderson and
Gerbing (1988) recommended using a "two-step approach" to avoid
interpretational confounding (cf. Burt, 1976). Following this advice,
we first conducted multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses to ensure an adequate measurement model. We then examined the structural relations among the latent constructs.
Confirmatory factor analysis. Multiple-group confirmatory factor
analyses were performed to assess the factor structure of the CCS
alone, as well as of the CCS in combination with the ACS. In analyses
involving the CCS only, measurement models were developed to correspond to the single-factor structure proposed by Allen and Meyer
(1990) and to correspond to variations of the two-factor structure suggested by McGee and Ford (1987). In the model corresponding most
closely to the structure obtained by McGee and Ford, two orthogonal
factors were specified. (Although McGee & Ford reported a correlation of .37 between the subscale raw scores, they used an orthogonal
[varimax] rotation in their factor analysis.) We also tested an oblique
two-factor model. Moreover, because the findings of Allen and Meyer
and McGee and Ford conflict with regard to the inclusion of two of the
original CCS items, we tested all three models with both an eight- and a
six-item version of the CCS. Assignment of the two extra items in the
eight-item scale to the CQLoAlt and CCiHiSac subscales was based on
the wording of the items. The item "I am not afraid of what might
happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up" was
considered to reflect a concern with the availability of alternatives,
whereas the item "It wouldn't be too costly for me to leave my organization in the near future" was considered to reflect personal sacrifice
(reverse keyed).
The models examined in analyses of the CCS and ACS together
included variations of the two-factor structure reported by Allen and

AFFECTIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT

Meyer (1990) and a three-factor structure based on McGee and Ford's
(1987) findings. These models are described in more detail in the Results section.
By applying confirmatory factor analyses to several samples simultaneously in multiple-group analyses (see JBreskog & Sorbom, 1986), we
were able not only to compare the appropriateness of the factor structures but also to assess whether the factor-structure and parameter
estimates were invariant across samples. Because testing invariance
across samples requires sample independence, only one of the three
sets of measures obtained from Sample 3 (i.e., those obtained after 1
month on the job) were included in these analyses.
Hypotheses of invariance across samples can take several forms,
which vary in their degree of restrvctiveness (see Bollen, 1989). The
least restrictive hypothesis (Hforln) tested was that the factor model
providing the best fit would be the same for each group. We also tested
two more restrictive hypotheses: (a) that the coefficients linking the
latent variables to the observed variables would be the same for each
group (i.e., H A : the lambda matrices are invariant) and (b) that in addition to (a), covariances among the latent factors would be equal across
groups (i.e, H M : the lambda and phi matrices are invariant).
To test the appropriateness of the various factor models and the
hypotheses of invariance, we examined several indexes of fit. When
LISREL vi is used to perform multiple-group analyses, it provides a
chi-square value that reflects a weighted combination of fit for all
groups. A significant chi-square value indicates an inability to reproduce the original covariance matrices from the model being tested.
Unfortunately, with large samples, chi-square values may be significant even for appropriate models (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Therefore,
although reported, chi-square values were not used in this study to
evaluate models. They were used, however, in the computation of incremental fit indexes.
LISREL VI also provides a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) for each sample
included in a multiple-group analysis. The GFI approaches a value of
1.00 as fit increases. Marsh, Balla, and McDonald (1988) recently demonstrated, however, that the GFI varies with sample size, which reduces its value for cross-sample comparisons. Moreover, increases in
the GFI can always be attained by increasing the number of parameters to be estimated (until the model is just identified). For this reason,
we also computed the nonnormed fit index (NNFI) as described by
Tucker and Lewis (1973) and Bentler and Bonett (1980). The NNFI
permits comparison of fit for nested models. As applied in the multiple-group factor analyses performed in this study, the fit (i.e., chisquare/degrees of freedom ratio) for each model is compared to that for
a null model (i.e., a model specifying zero covariances and sample-invariant variances). Larger values indicate a better fit, and values below
.90 generally indicate that the model can be improved substantially
(Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Marsh et al. (1989) found that the NNFI was
one of few fit indexes that was relatively insensitive to variation in
sample size. Moreover, because degrees of freedom are included in the
computation of the NNFI, models with a greater number of parameters to be estimated will yield a higher NNFI only if they produce a
substantial reduction in chi-square. All else equal, therefore, more parsimonious models will yield higher NNFI values.
Structural-relations analyses. We conducted analyses to detect both
short-term and long-term effects of the different forms of commitment
on one another. To detect short-term effects, we developed and tested
nonrecursive models with cross-sectional data. (See Anderson [1978]
for a discussion of nonrecursive models and Schmitt & Bedeian [1982}
and Maruyama & McGarvey [1980] for applications). Because this
analysis requires the use of predictor variables, it was performed with
data from only those samples for which such variables were available
(i.e., Samples 1 and 3). The general model tested is presented in Figure
I. Because the predictors used in these analyses were selected on the
basis of known correlations, these analyses cannot be considered confirmatory.

713

As can be seen from the model in Figure 1, causal paths were specified from the predictor variables to the appropriate commitment variable and in both directions between the commitment variables. Of
particular interest in this study were the parameter estimates for the
paths between the commitment constructs (i.e., ft and 2). If only one
of the two paths is significant, it suggests that the causal effect is unidirectional. If both paths are significant, reciprocal causal effects are
indicated.
The data matrix used as input for these analyses included covariances among the commitment items and the raw predictor scores.
Thus, although latent commitment variables were created in these analyses, the predictor item and scale scores were treated as perfectly reliable measures of the underlying constructs. (The measurement models
for the predictors were not of interest in this study)
To examine long-term effects of continuance commitment on affective commitment, and vice versa, we also tested cross-lagged models
with longitudinal data. (See Rogosa [1980] for a discussion of timelagged regression analyses and Bateman & Strasser [1984] and Meyer
& Allen [1988] for applications using least squares analyses of raw
scores.) Although our analyses involved an evaluation of both the measurement and structural models, for simplicity we present only the
structural model in Figure 2. In this model, affective commitment and
continuance commitment assessed on one occasion are hypothesized
to exert an influence on the same measures obtained subsequently. The
influence of Time 1 measures on Time 3 measures are presumed to be
mediated completely by the Time 2 measures. Of particular interest in
this study were the parameter estimates for the paths reflecting the
time-lagged effects of one commitment construct on the other (i.e., y3,
jt, ft, and ft).
Although the use of latent variables in these structural-relations analyses requires the simultaneous estimation of parameters for both the
measurement and structural models, Anderson and Gerbing (1988)
noted that "interpretational confounding is minimized by prior separate estimation of the measurement model because no constraints are
placed on the structural parameters that relate the estimated constructs to one another" (p. 418). Moreover, the goodness of fit of the
structural model can be tested independent of the goodness of fit of
the measurement model with the relative normed-fit index (RNFI;
described by Mulaik, James, Van Alstine, Lind, & Stilwell, 1989). The
contribution of specific causal paths to the fit of the model can also be
assessed using chi-square difference tests (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).

Results
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
The fit indexes for the null models and the three measurement models examined for the six- and eight-item versions of
the CCS are reported in Table 1. Because there was evidence to
support the most restrictive hypothesis tested (i.e, HM), only
the fit values obtained under these restrictions are presented.
As can be seen, although the one-factor model provided a reasonably good fit, the fit of the oblique two-factor model was
better (chi-square difference = 56.21, p < .01, for the six-item
scale, and 59.49, p < .01, for the eight-item scale). The orthogonal two-factor model provided a poor fit, indicating that the
alternatives and personal-sacrifice components of continuance
commitment are not independent. Indeed, the standardized
phi coefficient reflecting the covariance of the two factors in
the oblique solution was .791 for the six-item models and . 817
for the eight-item models, indicating that the factors are highly
related. Although these phi coefficients are standardized, they
are not correlations. In multiple-group analyses, LISREL "scales

714

J. MEYER, N. ALLEN, AND I. GELLATLY

Predictor A

Predictor B

1.00
1.00

Predictor C

Predictor D

Figure 1. Nonrecursive model. (Predictors A through D are job challenge, organizational dependability,
loss of pension, and available alternatives, respectively, for Sample 1, and confirmed expectations, job
scope, available alternatives, and wasted time and effort, respectively, for Sample 3. The indicator variables labelled Al through A8 and Cl through C8 refer to the items on the Affective Commitment Scale and
Continuance Commitment Scale, respectively. For analyses involving a component of continuance commitment, only a subset of the indicator variables Cl through C8 was used, and the appropriate component
label [alternatives or personal sacrifice] can be substituted in the model.)

the latent variables so that a weighted average of their eovariance matrix is a correlation matrix, thereby retaining a scale
common to all groups" (Joreskog & Sb'rbom, 1989, p. 266, emphasis in original).
Raw-score correlations between the four-item subscales
ranged from .62 to .73, p < .01, across the three samples, and
the correlations between the three-item subscales ranged from
.54 to .68, p < .01. Finally, because the fit of the oblique two-factor solution for the eight-item models was comparable to that
for the six-item model, there is no need to discard the items
identified by McGee and Ford (1987) as problematic. (Because
the models were not nested, it was not possible to compare the
fit of the six- and eight-item models directly)
Given the results of the preceding analyses, we included all
eight CCS items and allowed the continuance commitment factors to correlate when we evaluated measurement models involving the CCS and ACS items together. Four models were
considered: a one-factor model, an orthogonal two-factor
model corresponding to the structure reported by Allen and
Meyer (1990), an oblique two-factor model, and an oblique
three-factor model corresponding to that obtained by McGee
and Ford (1987), with the modifications described above.
The fit indexes for these four models under three sets of restrictive assumptions (i.e, H fcrm , H A , and H w ) are reported in
Table 2. The one-factor model provided a very poor fit, indicat-

ing that affective and continuance commitment are distinct

constructs. Although the fit for all models generally decreased
as the hypotheses of invariance became more restrictive, the
oblique three-factor solution yielded the best fit for all three
hypotheses. The difference in chi-square between the two- and
three-factor models was significant (p < .05) for all three hypotheses. Because the NNFI for this model did not change
when the lambda matrix was forced to be invariant but decreased when the phi matrices were held constant, the results of
the test of HA were selected for presentation in Tables 3 and 4.
In the interest of space, only the common lambda matrix (Table
3) and the phi matrices (i.e, variances and covariances of the
latent variables) for each sample (Table 4) are presented.
Although the three-factor model with invariant pattern was
the best of the models considered, the NNFI values indicate
that still further model fitting would be reasonable. Because
such model fitting would be ad hoc rather than confirmatory,
we stopped fitting with a model that was rather restricted and
parsimonious. The somewhat low NNFI values imply that further refinement of the factor structure of the ACS and CCS
might be a fruitful avenue for future research.
Linear Structural-Relations Analyses
Because the results of the confirmatory factor analyses suggest that there are two distinguishable, albeit highly related,

715

AFFECTIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT

Figure 2. Time-lagged model. (Only the structural model is presented here. For analyses involving a
component of continuance commitment, the appropriate component label can be substituted in the
model.)

dimensions underlying the CCS, the structural-relations analyses were performed on the subscales rather than on the full
scale. Separate analyses were performed for the two subscales,
however, to avoid problems of colinearity.
Nonrecursive models within occasion of measurement. Standardized parameter estimates for each of the nonrecursive models are reported in Table 5. In the interest of space, parameter
estimates for the measurement model are not included. For
each of the models tested, the RNFI (Mulaik et al, 1989) exceeded .980, indicating a good fit of the structural model.
When continuance commitment was defined by the four alternatives items, affective commitment had a significant effect

on continuance commitment in all cases. The effect of alternatives-based commitment on affective commitment was significant only for Sample 1. Note that affective commitment exerted
a negative effect on the alternatives component of continuance
commitment, whereas the reciprocal effect, where significant,
was positive.
A somewhat different pattern emerged when continuance
commitment was defined only by the personal-sacrifice items.
Affective commitment had no significant effect on sacrificebased commitment, and the latter had a significant positive
effect on affective commitment only in Sample 1.
Time-lagged analysis of longitudinal data. Standardized pa-

Table 1
Tests oflmariance in Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses
of the Six- and Eight-Item Continuance Commitment Scales
GF1

Model

Sample 1

df

Sample 2

Sample 3

NNF1

.516
.968
.865
.979

.597
.921
.898
.951

.861
.576
.920

.514
.965
.881
.972

.549
.925
.893
.949

.888
.648
.932

Six-item scale
Null model
1 factor
2 orthogonal factors
2 oblique factors

1,389.76
165.36
425.27
109.15

57
39
39
38

.556
.923
.883
.951

Eight-item scale
Null model
1 factor
2 orthogonal factors
2 oblique factors

1,812.99
221.87
534.44
162.38

100
76
76
75

.517
.924
.887
.948

Note. GFI = goodness of fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index. The NNFI was not applicable to the null
model.

716

J. MEYER, N. ALLEN, AND I. GELLATLY

Table 2
Tests oflnvariance in Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses
of the Affective

and Continuance Commitment Scales

GFI

Hypothesis/model

x1

df

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Null model
Hfm,
1 factor
2 orthogonal factors
2 oblique factors
3 oblique factors
H,
1 factor
2 orthogonal factors
2 oblique factors
3 oblique factors

4,733.42

392

.418

.470

.503

2,335.57
844.64
840.89
696.27

312
312
309
303

.639
.885
.886
.904

.633
.901
.901
.921

.665
.879
.880
.899

.414
.846
.845
.883

2,393.48
927.82
925.47
754.32

342
340
337
329

.638
.876
.877
.903

.628
.889
.889
.911

.662
.865
.865
.889

.458
.844
.842
.883

1 factor
2 orthogonal factors
2 oblique factors
3 oblique factors

2,434.63
971.05
970.61
818.97

344
344
343
341

.643
.867
.868
.892

.629
.888
.888
.908

.649
.860
.859
.878

.45!
.835
.835
.873

NNFI

Note. GFI = goodness of fit index. NNFI = nonnormed fit index. The NNFI was not applicable to the null
model.

mitment constructs over time were all quite high. Only one

rameter estimates (structural model only) for the time-lagged

model are reported in Table 6. For both components of continu-

significant time-lagged relation between different commit-

ance commitment the fit of the structural model was very good
(RNFI > .980). Parameters reflecting the stability of the corn-

ment constructs was observed. The alternatives component of

continuance commitment assessed at 1 month was negatively,
albeit weakly, related to affective commitment at 6 months.

Table 3
Standardized Parameter Estimates for the

Discussion

Oblique Three-Factor Model

This research was conducted in response to calls for greater

Invariant lambda matrix

Item
ACS1
ACS2
ACS3
ACS4
ACS5
ACS6
ACS7
ACS8
CCS1"
CCS3"
CCS4"
CCS8
CCS2b
CCS5b
CCS6b
CCS7

Factor 1
(ACS)
.305
.340
.366
.226
.140
0.764
1.020
0.694

Factor 2
(CCLoAlt)

Factor 3
(CCHiSac)

1.289
1.372
1.310
1.019

clarity in the conceptualization and measurement of organizational commitment. The results of our confirmatory factor analyses of data obtained from several samples provide support
both for the distinction between affective and continuance
commitment and for the utility of the ACS and CCS (Allen &
Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984) in future commitment research.
Evidence was found to support McGee and Ford's (1987) contention that the CCS reflects two dimensions. Confirmatory
factor analyses performed on the CCS alone, and analyses of
the CCS together with the ACS, revealed that a model dividing
the CCS into two oblique factors provided the best fit to the
data. Across samples, however, analyses revealed considerable
covariance between the two continuance commitment factors.

1.172
1.428
1.400
0.962

Note. See McGee & Ford (1987) for items corresponding to these item
numbers. ACS = Affective Commitment Scale; CCS = Continuance
Commitment Scale; CGLoAlt = Continuance Commitment: Low Perceived Alternatives subscale; CCHiSac = Continuance Commitment:
High Personal Sacrifice subscale. Dashes indicate values that were
fixed at zero.
* Items included in McGee & Ford's CCLoAlt subscale. b Items included in McGee & Ford's CCHiSac subscale.

It appears from our results, therefore, that all eight items of the
CCS reflect a common underlying theme, namely, cost associated with leaving an organization. Two sources of this cost,
lack of alternatives and personal sacrifice (e.g., loss of side bets),
seem to be sufficiently well represented by items in the scale
that, when permitted, they define separate but highly related
factors.
McGee and Ford (1987) noted that the CCHiSac (personal
sacrifice) subscale corresponds most closely to Becker's (1960)
definition of commitment and questioned whether commitment based on a lack of alternatives should be considered

AFFECTIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT

717

Table 4
Standardized Parameter Estimates Reflecting Variances and Covariance of the Latent
Commitment Hiriables in the Oblique Three-Factor Solution
Sample 1
Factor

1
2
3

Factor 1 Factor 2
1.343'
-0.189*
0.260'

0.847*
0.828*

Sample 2
Factor 3

1.226*

Factor 1 Factor 2
1.052*
-0.091
0.298*

1.090*
0.919*

Sample 3
Factor 3

1.000*

Factor 1 Factor 2
0.553*
-0.163*
0.084

1.088*
0.714*

Factor 3

0.739*

Note. Factor 1 reflects affective commitment, and Factors 2 and 3 reflect the alternatives and personalsacrifice components of continuance commitment, respectively.

within the "side-bet view" (p. 640). We believe that it should, for
reasons suggested by Becker (1960):

then, justifies the inclusion of items assessing perceived alternatives in a measure of continuance (side-bet) commitment and
explains, in part, why the CCLoAlt and CCHiSac subscales are
so highly correlated.
In confirmatory factor analyses of the ACS and CCS together, we found some evidence consistent with McGee and
Ford's (1987) contention that the two components of continuance commitment are differentially related to affective commitment. The negative association between the alternatives
component and affective commitment was significant in two of
the three samples. In contrast, the link with the personal-sacrifice component was significantly positive in two of three samples. This suggests that the nature of the costs that tie employees to an organization may have implications for their affective

Side bets constraining behavior also come into existence through

the process of individual adjustments to social positions. A person
may so alter his pattern of activity in the process of conforming to
the requirements for one social position that he unfits himself
for other positions he might have access to. {p. 37; emphasis in
original)
As employees adjust to their roles in an organization, they may
gradually change their perceptions of what is an acceptable alternative. In some cases, this redefinition could result in a much
smaller set of alternatives. As the number of alternatives judged
acceptable decreases, the potential for loss increases. This,

Table 5
Standardized Parameter Estimates for Nonrecursive Models
Sample 3
Sample 1
(#=301)
Parameter CCLoAlt
4,
*3

*5
*6

7i
72
73
74

0,
02

fl
*\

1 month
(N= 142)

6 months

(N = 245)

1 1 months
(N = 203)

CCHiSac CCLoAlt CCHiSac CCLoAlt CCHiSac CCLoAlt CCHiSac

.467*
-.066
.180*
-.107
.140*
-.114

.467*
-.066
.180*
-.107
.140*
-.114

.565*
-.147
-.178*
-.080
-.143
-.133

.565*
-.147
-.178*
-.080
-.143
-.133

.665*
.027
-.040
.071
-.201*
-.144

.665*
.027
-.040
.071
-.201*
-.144

.733*
-.037
.021
-.026
-.013
-.029

.733*
-.037
.021
-.026
-.013
-.029

.472*
.454*
-.507*
.251*

.439*
.430*
-.404*
.224*

.434*
.347*
-.442*
.331*

.425*
.346*
-.445*
.203*

.512*
.312*
-.475*
.124

.494*
.291*
-.494*
.067

.300*
.499*
-.337*
.201*

.311*
.504*
-.401*
.194*

-.401*
.189*

-.042
.183*

-.304*
.093

-.080
.175

-.405*
.120

.069
-.008

-.381*
-.006

.178
-.092

.462*
.695*

.406*
.785*

.569*
.615*

.525*
.761*

.522*
.639*

.480*
.742*

.437*
.699*

.446*
.794*

Note. Only parameters relevant to the structural model are included here. See Figure 1 for the variables and
paths to which parameter estimates apply. Components of continuance commitment (CC) were created by
including only relevant items (see Table 3) in the analyses. CCLoAlt = Low Perceived Alternatives subscale; CCHiSac = High Personal Sacrifice subscale.
* p < .05.

718

J. MEYER, N. ALLEN, AND I. GELLATLY

Table 6
Standardized Parameter Estimates for the Time-Lagged Model
Parameter

CCiLoAlt

CCrHiSac

*,

-.228*

.113

Ti

.746*
.901*
-.016
-.148*

.793*
.832*
-.011
-.106

.849*
.867*
-.061
-.047

.864*
.921*
.045
.014

.370*
.194*
.255*
.215

.379*
.310*
.253*
.152

72

"Is
74

0,
Hi
/},
A

I/-,
*2
\h
*4

particularly advisable for researchers who are interested in examining the specific causes or consequences of alternativesbased or sacrifice-based commitment.
In our examination of the structural relations among the
commitment constructs, the most consistent finding to emerge
from analyses of short-term effects was a significant negative

Note. Sample size for these analyses was 142. Only parameters relevant
to the structural model are included here. See Figure 2 for the variables
and paths to which parameterestimalesapply. Componentsofcontinuance commitment were created by including only relevant items (see
Table 3) in the analyses. CGLoAlt = Continuance Commitment: Low
Perceived Alternatives subscale; COHiSac = Continuance Commitment: High Personal Sacrifice subscale.
* p < .05.

attachment to that organization. We addressed this possibility

more directly in our analyses of the causal links between affective and continuance commitment.
Before addressing the results of the structural-relations analyses, we need to discuss the implications of the results of the
confirmatory factor analyses for future use of the CCS. It would
seem advisable on the basis of our findings, and those of
McGee and Ford (1987), to consider the CCS as consisting of
two related subscales, at least for preliminary analyses of the
data. If these analyses do not provide evidence for differential

path from affective commitment to the alternatives component

of continuance commitment. Those who expressed greater affective commitment were less likely to report being tied to the
organization because of a lack of alternatives. We also found
that the alternatives and personal-sacrifice components had a
positive effect on affective commitment in Sample 1. Respondents who indicated that it would be costly to leave theorganization reported feel ing more affective attachment to the organization.
These findings must of course be interpreted with caution.
At best, they provide evidence consistent with a particular theoretical model (Rentier & Bonett, 1980; James et al., 1982). Moreover, the parameter estimates obtained in these analyses can be
interpreted only in the context of the variables included in the
model. Finally, differences observed in the findings of the
cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses may reflect methodological artifact. For example, if the effects observed in the
cross-sectional analyses are attributable to priming or consistency (or both) associated with simultaneous measurement, this
could explain their failure to replicate in the longitudinal analyses. With this in mind, it is interesting to speculate on substantive explanations for, and implications of, these findings as a
source of hypotheses for future research.
First, we might consider why strong affective commitment
leads to the perception that the employee is not tied to the
organization by a lack of alternatives. One possibility is that
those who are affectively committed actually perceive themselves as having more alternatives. (Note that there is a difference between beliefs about the extent to which alternatives exist
and the extent to which the individual is tied to the organization as a result. Continuance commitment reflects the latter but

relations with the alternatives and personal-sacrifice compo-

is likely to be influenced by the former.) However, if people who

nents, there is just cause for combining the subscales. Indeed,

the covariance between the factors observed in this study and
the evidence for internal consistency of the full scale provided
in earlier research suggest that use of full CCS scores is justi-

are affectively committed do perceive themselves as having

more alternatives, then the perceived-alternatives variable included as a predictor in our analyses ought to be linked to

fied. Meyer et al. (1989) used this approach when examining

path was included between perceived alternatives and affective

affective commitment. We found that it was not. That is, when a

the relation between commitment and job performance. In this

commitment in the model presented in Figure 1, the parameter

case, the two subscales yielded very similar correlations and

were therefore combined.

estimates were not significant for any of the samples. Another

possible explanation for the negative effect, therefore, is that
workers who are affectively committed to their organization are

In the initial construction of the CCS, the emphasis was on

assessing the recognition of costs associated with leaving the
organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984). Al-

more likely than those who are not so committed to ignore or

deny the fact that they are tied to the organization because of a

though lack of alternatives and personal sacrifice were consid-

lack of alternatives.

ered sufficiently important costs to be the focus of some items,

as noted earlier, other items have a less specific focus. The fact

Interestingly, being affectively committed did not have a similar influence on employees' perceptions of the extent to which

that these items were divided between the subscales because

they are more easily interpreted from either an alternatives or
personal-sacrifice perspective may be partly responsible for the

they would have to make sacrifices if they were to leave the

organization. From a dissonance-reduction perspective, it
might be argued that the belief that one is attached to an organi-

high correlation between the subscales. It might be possible to

reduce the correlation between the continuance commitment

zation is less consistent with the belief that it is the only alternative than it is with the belief that leaving would require personal

subscales by eliminating these items or by writing additional

items to tap these dimensions or by doing both. This might be

affective commitment on the personal-sacrifice component,

sacrifice. In fact, one might have expected a positive effect of

AFFECTIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT

indicating that severing a desirable relationship would itself be

costly. The fact that such an effect was not obtained suggests
that individuals' responses to the personal-sacrifice items of
the CCS were made from an economic rather than an affective
perspective.
The fact that personal sacrifice had a positive effect on affective commitment in one sample is in accord with McGee and
Ford's (1987) suggestion (based on the theoretical work of
Steers & Porter, 1983) that the accumulation of investments
that bind an individual to an organization can lead, through a
process of self-justification or dissonance reduction, to the development of an affective attachment to the organization. Continuance commitment based on lack of alternatives was found
to have a similar effect on affective commitment in the same
sample. Interestingly, the sample for which these effects were
observed was that with the longest tenure. The absence of effects for first-year employees might indicate that the belief that
one is continuing employment because of a lack of alternatives
or avoidance of personal sacrifice is not sufficiently disturbing
to induce dissonance-reduction processes in these individuals.
It is noteworthy that, in Sample I , affective commitment had
a significant negative effect on continuance commitment,
whereas continuance commitment exerted a significant positive effect on affective commitment. Because this combination
of effects did not replicate, it is not clear whether this was a
chance occurrence or something unique to employees with
longer tenure. It is interesting to consider, however, what such a
finding might mean should it be replicated in future research
with similar samples. As we suggested earlier, the negative effect of affective commitment on alternatives-based commitment may reflect a tendency for employees with an affective
attachment to the organization to ignore or deny that lack of
alternatives is a factor in their decision to stay. However, where
lack of alternatives is a more obvious factor (e.g., for older employees), employees may need to convince themselves that this
is not the only reason for staying and investing their time and
effort in the organization. This would explain the positive effect
of the alternatives component of continuance commitment on
affective commitment.
The short-term effects of the different forms of commitment
on one another, when they were found, were relatively modest.
It is clearly not the case that feeling affective commitment necessarily leads to a reduction of continuance commitment or that
experiencing continuance commitment necessarily enhances
affective commitment. As described by Meyer and Allen (1984,
in press; Allen & Meyer, 1990), affective and continuance commitment reflect largely independent psychological states. It is
quite possible for an individual to experience both an affective
attachment to an organization and an awareness of the costs
associated with leaving without one state having an effect on
the other.
Our attempt to examine long-term effects of affective and
continuance commitment on one another involved the repeated
measurement of commitment during the first year of employment. Only one significant effect was observed. The alternatives component of continuance commitment measured at 1
month exerted a significant negative effect on affective commitment at 6 months. This suggests that individuals who entered an organization recognizing that they had few alternatives

719

became less affectively committed to that organization after

several months on the job. This effect is in the direction opposite to that obtained in the within-time analyses for Sample 1.
The difference might be explained by the fact that the two
findings were obtained with quite different samples of employees (established employees in the within-time analysis and new
employees in the longitudinal analysis). Indeed, no within-occasion effect was observed in any of the analyses involving the
newcomer sample. Even so, it is not inconceivable that recognition of a lack of alternatives could lead to enhancement of affective commitment in the short run (through dissonance reduction) yet lead to deterioration in affective attachment over time.
An employee who attempts to rationalize his or her decision to
remain as affect-based may eventually realize that there is no
logical basis for such an attachment; at that point, affective
commitment may begin to decline.
There are several reasons to be cautious when interpreting
the results of the time-lagged analyses. First, the one observed
effect did not replicate in the 6- to 11-month lag. That is, the
alternatives component of continuance commitment, measured at 6 months, did not significantly affect affective commitment at 11 months. Although the effect might be unique to the
early post-entry period, this will have to be demonstrated
through replication. Similarly, the absence of time-lagged effects of affective commitment on continuance commitment
and its components, or of the personal-sacrifice component of
continuance commitment on affective commitment, may be
sample-specific or reflect an inappropriate choice of time lag.
Although we have argued elsewhere that the early period of
employment may be optimal for identifying causal effects in
the development of affective commitment (Meyer & Allen,
1987,1988), this may not be the case for detecting effects of, or
on, continuance commitment. Continuance commitment, particularly that based on accumulated investments, may simply
not be sufficiently developed in the early years of employment
to exert much of an effect on affective commitment. Similarly, it
may be too early for affective commitment to influence perceptions of sacrifice associated with leaving. At this time, there is
no theoretical basis on which to make predictions concerning
the optimal point in an employee's career, and the optimal time
between measures, for detection of causal effects. The present
findings may provide a starting point for research examining
different stages of tenure and different time lags.
In summary, our findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating that affective and continuance commitment are quite distinct constructs. Moreover, they suggest that
there are two distinguishable sources of cost-based commitment reflected in the CCS. Our attempt to identify causal links
between affective commitment and the two components of continuance commitment suggested that the differential correlations observed in the confirmatory factor analyses may reflect
differences in the direction of influence. That is, the negative
correlation between affective commitment and the alternatives
component of continuance commitment appears to reflect a
negative influence of affective attachment on the tendency to
report being bound to the organization by a lack of available
alternatives. The positive correlation between affective commitment and the personal-sacrifice component may reflect a
positive influence of the recognition of cost on feelings of affec-

720

J. MEYER, N. ALLEN, AND I. GELLATLY

live attachment. Interestingly, both sets of effects are explainable from a dissonance-reduction, or self-justification, perspective.

References
Allen, N. I, & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedentsof
affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,1-18.
Allen, N. J., & Smith, J. (1987, June). An investigation of "extra-role"
behaviours within organizations. Paper presented at the 48th Annual
Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver,
British Columbia.
Anderson, J. C, &Gerbing, D. W(1988). Structural equation modeling
in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103. 411-423.
Anderson, J. G. (1978). Causal models in educational research: Nonrecursive models. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 81-97.
Aven, F. F. (1988). A methodological examination of theattitudinaland
behavioral components of organizational commitment. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 40, 3420A. (University Microfilms No.
8902874)
Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the
antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95-112.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American
Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-42.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness
of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin,
88, 588-606.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York: Wiley.
Burt, R. S. (1976). Interpretational confounding of unobserved variables in structural equation models. Sociological Measures and Research, 5, 3-52.
Gollob, H. F, & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in
causal models. Child Development, 58, 80-92.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis:
Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISKEL: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variable*,
and least squares methods (4th ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Joreskog, K.. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 User's Guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Marsh, H. W, Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. (1988). Goodness-of-fit
indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size.
Psychological Bulletin. 103, 391-410.
Maruyama, G., & McGarvey, B. (1980). Evaluating causal models: An
application of maximum likelihood analysisof structural equations.
Psychological Bulletin, 87, 502-512.

McGee, G. W, & Ford, R. C. (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. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of
organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J (1987). A longitudinal analysis of the early
development and consequences of organizational commitment. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19,199-215.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1988). Links between work experience and
organizational commitment during the first year of employment: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 195209.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (in press). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management
Review.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V, Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson,
D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's
the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,152-156.
Mowday, R. T, Porter, L. W, & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and
turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, N. B., Lind, S., &Stilwell, C. D.
(1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation
models. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 430-445.
Porter, L. W, Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T, & Boulian, P. V (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among
psychiatric technicians. Journal oj Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476.
Rogosa, D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlations. Psychological Bulletin, SS, 245-258.
Schmitt, N., & Bedeian, A. G. (1982). A comparison of LISREL and
two-stage least squares analysis of a hypothesized life-job satisfaction reciprocal relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology. 6 7, 806817.
Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W (1983). Employee commitment to organizations. In R. M. Steers & L. W Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work
behavior (pp. 441-451). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38,1-10.
Withey, M. (1988). Antecedentsof value based and economic organizational commitment. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Administrative Sciences Association of CanadaOrganizational Behaviour Division, 9,124-133.
Received November 1,1989
Revision received May 29,1990
Accepted May 31,1990