European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 16, Issue 2, pp.

125138
N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe:
EJPA 16 (2),
Multiple
2000
Dimensions
Hogrefe & of
Huber
Commitment
Publishers

A Four-Dimensional Model of
Organizational Commitment
among Belgian Employees*
Nathalie Delobbe and Christian Vandenberghe
Universit Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Keywords: Organizational commitment, internalization, compliance, affective and continuance commitment.
Summary: We conducted a study to examine the reliability and validity of four dimensions of organizational
commitment. Using two samples from various organizations in Belgium (Ns = 216 and 201), we investigated
internalization, compliance, and affective and continuance commitment as dimensions of employee commitment to the organization. Confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL showed that the four factors were reasonably
distinct. However, the scales are in need of further refinement because (a) internalization and affective commitment are strongly correlated with each other and display similar relationships with major criterion variables
(e. g., met expectations, job satisfaction, and intent to leave); (b) the compliance scale shows weak reliability
and needs to be expanded. The implications of these results for future research are discussed.
Over the past decade, organizational commitment (OC)
has become a topic of increasing importance in industrial/organizational psychology. Generally defined as a
psychological link between the employee and his/her organization, OC has been found to be related to major
work outcomes, namely, turnover intention and actual
turnover (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Indeed, employees
who are strongly committed to their organization are less
likely to leave. Moreover, the understanding of employee withdrawal has been enhanced by the emergence of
multidimensional conceptualizations of commitment.
That is, researchers have identified distinctive dimensions within the construct of OC, which is now conceived as a psychological state subsuming separate components (Meyer & Allen, 1997). In subsequent sections,
we provide definitions of commonly accepted commitment dimensions and examine how they can be integrated into overarching models of employee attachment to
organizations. Then, we propose an empirical test of
these competing models of employee commitment within a French-speaking context. Because most commitment studies have to date been conducted in North America, this study should enhance our understanding of com-

mitment processes in other cultures. Finally, we also examine how commitment dimensions relate to a set of
criterion variables.

Four Dimensions of Commitment

to the Organization
Among current conceptualizations, two primary dimensions of OC can be distinguished. The first dimension
has been labelled attitudinal commitment, whereas the
second is referred to as calculative commitment
(Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). This distinction is consistent
with Etzionis (1961) contention that the bond between
the individual and the organization is rooted in either
moral or economic considerations. It also parallels
March and Simons (1958) distinction between the motivation to produce and the motivation to participate,
which results respectively in value attachment and instrumental commitment to the organization (Mayer &
Schoorman, 1992, 1998).

* The original data upon which this paper is based are available at http://www.hhpub.com/journals/ejpa
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

126

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

Internalization and Affective Commitment

The concept of attitudinal commitment traces back to the
work of Porter and colleagues (Mowday, Steers, & Porter,
1979; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). These
authors defined commitment as the relative strength of an
individuals identification with and involvement in a particular organization, which is characterized by three factors: a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organizations goals and values; b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and c) a
strong desire to maintain membership in the organization
(Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, p. 27). For measuring
this construct, Porter et al. (1974) developed the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). In the mid1980s, Meyer and Allen (1984) proposed a similar definition of OC, which they conceived as affective in
nature. They defined it as the employees emotional attachment to the organization. Affectively committed employees identify with, are involved in, and enjoy membership in the organization such that they stay with it because
they want to (Allen & Meyer, 1990, 1996; Meyer,
Bobocel, & Allen, 1991; Meyer & Allen, 1991). In a similar vein, Mayer and Schoorman (1992, 1998) defined
value commitment as an affective orientation toward
the organization. This is consistent with Meyer and Allens view of affective commitment.
Aside from the obvious similarities between these definitions, Porter et al.s definition of commitment differs
from Meyer and Allens and Mayer and Schoormans in
that it subsumes both the individuals identification to the
organization and his/her acceptance of organizational
values. In fact, the acceptance of organizational values
refers to the notion of internalization, a construct that
might differ from identification. This view is emphasized
in Kelmans (1958) work on bases for attitudinal change.
Kelman argues that identification results from a desire of
affiliation with the organizations members and the acceptance of its influence. On the other hand, internalization refers to the attachment to the organizations goals
based on a perceived congruence between the individuals values and those of the organization. As suggested
by OReilly and Chatman (1986), internalization may
represent a different form of commitment that might not
underlie Meyer and Allens affective commitment and
Mayer and Schoormans value commitment. The question that we raise here is whether internalization and
identification are distinguishable dimensions of commitment. In order to clarify this issue, we will test whether
OReilly and Chatmans (1986) measure of internalization is empirically distinguishable from Allen and
Meyers (1990) measure of affective commitment. The
latter basically reflects feelings of identification to the
organization.
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Compliance and Continuance

Commitment
The second primary dimension of commitment is conceived as calculative in nature. In this view, commitment
involves a rational comparison between the costs and
benefits associated with staying in or leaving the company (Lee & Mitchel, 1994). This dimension was popularized by Beckers side-bet theory, which defined commitment as a tendency to engage in consistent lines of activity (Becker, 1960, p. 33) based on the individuals
recognition of the costs associated with discontinuing
the activity. In this sense, individuals become tied to the
organization because they have voluntarily or involuntarily invested in the organization (e. g., pension plans)
so that they cannot afford to leave (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990). This calculative orientation was labelled continuance commitment by Meyer and Allen (1984) and Mayer
and Schoorman (1992, 1998).
A somewhat different aspect of calculative commitment is illustrated by Kelmans (1958) notion of compliance. According to Kelman (1958, p. 496), compliance occurs when an individual adopts the induced behavior [e. g., providing quality services to clients, staying
with ones company] not because he believes in its content but because he expects to achieve a favorable consequence. In other words, compliance results from the
expectation of rewards associated with the target behavior. However, contrary to continuance commitment,
compliance does not imply increased investments in the
organization over time. Thus, the difference between
continuance commitment and compliance lies in the nature of the calculative process (i. e., accrued investments
vs. expectations of rewards). We will test this possibility
by examining whether Allen and Meyers (1990) scale of
continuance commitment is distinguishable from
OReilly and Chatmans (1986) scale of compliance.

Empirical Evidence
A primary purpose of this study is to examine the factorial structure of a four-factor model of commitment derived from the previous discussion. More specifically,
we were interested in testing whether internalization, affective commitment (identification), continuance commitment (side-bets), and compliance represent distinctive dimensions of OC.
A main concern is whether OC splits into two primary
dimensions, attitudinal commitment (including internalization and affective commitment) vs. calculative commitment (merging continuance commitment and compliance), or whether it could be conceived as four-dimen-

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

sional. We are not aware of any published work providing

evidence for the discriminant validity of the four OC dimensions discussed above. Thus far, evidence suggests
however that affective commitment and continuance
commitment are empirically distinguishable (Allen &
Meyer, 1996; Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994; Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; McGee & Ford, 1987;
Somers, 1993) and correlate differentially with key organizational outcomes such as intent to leave and turnover
(Allen & Meyer, 1996; Cohen, 1993; Hackett et al., 1994;
Jaros, 1997) and performance (Allen & Meyer, 1996;
Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989).
Some studies questioned the discriminant validity of
internalization- and identification-based commitment.
For example, using OReilly and Chatmans (1986) measure of commitment, Caldwell, Chatman, and OReilly
(1990) as well as Sutton and Harrison (1993) reported
identification and internalization scales to fall down into
a single factor. In contrast, using confirmatory factor analysis, Vandenberg, Self, and Seo (1994) showed that these
scales, albeit strongly correlated, can be represented by
separate factors. The issue of independence among internalization and identification scales thus requires more
empirical work before firm conclusions can be reached.
Finally, the distinction among compliance and continuance commitment remains a neglected issue in the literature, though some authors tend to equate these constructs (e. g., Lee & Mitchell, 1994). Thus far, evidence
suggests that OReilly and Chatmans (1986) scale of
compliance is problematic in terms of reliability and factorial structure (e. g., Sutton & Harrison, 1993; Vandenberg et al., 1994). A contribution of this study will be to
assess the structure of compliance and continuance commitment, using confirmatory factor analysis.

Correlates of Commitment
Dimensions
In order to test further the discriminant validity of the
four commitment scales, we will examine whether the
four OC dimensions correlate differentially with some
specific variables. Based on a review of the target literature, we propose below a set of hypotheses concerning
these differential linkages.

127

meta-analytic study (1990) reported positive correlations

between tenure and affective commitment, and between
tenure and continuance commitment. However, the reasons for these positive correlations differ for affective
and continuance commitment. Tenure is expected to increase continuance commitment through accrued investments (e. g., skills specialization and pension plans). In
contrast, the positive correlation between tenure and affective commitment would reflect either the opportunities received to better ones position over time (Hackett
et al., 1994), or the fact that employees with low affective
commitment choose to leave the organization in early
employment (Dunham et al., 1994).
Thus far, the relationship between tenure and compliance- and internalization-based commitment has received little attention. However, OReilly and Chatman
(1986) showed that compliance was negatively related to
tenure and that internalization was unrelated to it.
Research findings thus suggest the following hypothesis:
H1: Affective commitment (identification) and continuance commitment are positively related to tenure,
whereas compliance is negatively related to it.

Employment Contract and Level of

Education
Specific antecedents of continuance commitment would
be the nature of the employment contract (short vs. long
term) and the level of education. Employees with a shortterm contract would not be expected to have sunk costs
as much as those with a long-term one. Likewise, employees with a high level of education would have more
employment opportunities because of a higher demand
for their skills (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997; Mayer & Schoorman, 1998; Somers, 1993).
So, employees with a low level of education should be
more committed on a continuance basis.
This leads to the following hypotheses:
H2: Employees with a long-term contract display
higher levels of continuance commitment
H3: Level of education is negatively related to continuance commitment such that low-skilled employees
feel more committed on a continuance basis.

Tenure

Met Expectations

Organizational tenure is one of the most frequently cited

correlates of OC. Several investigations (Dunham et al.,
1994; Hackett et al., 1994; Meyer & Allen, 1991;
OReilly & Chatman, 1986) and Mathieu and Zajacs

The extent to which employees expectations about their

work and organization are met or confirmed is a positive
predictor of their subsequent affective commitment to
the organization (Ko et al., 1997; Meyer & Allen, 1988).
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

128

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

On the contrary, if their expectations are disconfirmed,

individuals become less affectively committed to the organization. This met-expectations hypothesis has received strong support in a recent meta-analysis (Wanous,
Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992). Note, however, that
the notion of met expectations implies that it is the discrepancy between work experiences and what the individual expects that influences affective commitment
(Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Although no previous study has examined the links
between internalization and compliance, and met expectations, one can reasonably hypothesize that met expectations facilitate internalization. Indeed, the fact that expectations are met can be operationalized as the relative
similarity of values between the individual and the organization (Meyer, Irving, & Allen, 1998), a phenomenon
that is critical in the development of internalization (Kelman, 1958). In contrast, neither continuance commitment (Meyer et al., 1998) nor compliance should relate
to met expectations because these psychological states
involve calculative processes, which do not imply a similarity of values nor emotional ties between the individual and the organization.
This leads to the following hypothesis:

al., 1994; Jaros, 1997). Notably, negative relationships

involving intent to quit were found for affective commitment (Allen & Meyer; 1996; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990)
and continuance commitment (Hackett et al., 1994;
Whitener & Walz, 1993). However, although both affective and continuance commitment presumably increase
the likelihood that an individual will remain with an organization, the reason for doing so is different. Employees with a strong affective commitment stay because
they want to, whereas those who have a strong continuance commitment remain because they have to (Meyer
& Allen, 1991).
Similarly, internalization has been found to correlate
negatively with intent to leave, while compliance has
been reported to relate positively to it (Becker, 1992;
OReilly & Chatman; 1986). It is worth noting that continuance commitment and compliance have opposite
consequences in terms of intentions to quit. This may add
to their discriminant validity.
The previous discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H6: Internalization, affective commitment (identification), and continuance commitment correlate negatively, and compliance positively, with intent to leave.

H4: Internalization and affective commitment (identification) are positively related to met expectations.

Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a strong attitudinal correlate of affective commitment. This relationship has been observed
using both the OCQ (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday
et al., 1979) and Meyer and Allens affective commitment scale (Allen & Meyer, 1996). In contrast, continuance commitment has been found to be either uncorrelated or weakly correlated to job satisfaction (Allen &
Meyer, 1996). On the other hand, Becker (1992) reported
compliance to correlate negatively and internalization
positively, with job satisfaction. As a whole, these results
suggest that job satisfaction correlates positively with
commitment components that are emotionally oriented.
Consequently, the following hypothesis can be drawn:
H5: Job satisfaction is positively related to internalization and affective commitment (identification), and
negatively related to compliance.

Intent to Leave
Intent to leave and actual turnover are widely studied
consequences of commitment (Cohen, 1993; Hackett et
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Purpose of the Study

In this study, we assessed the factor structure of the four
OC dimensions using well-established measures of these
constructs (see below). We used confirmatory factor
analysis to analyze the data from two independent samples of subjects. We analyzed further the discriminant
validity of the scales by examining their correlations
with organizational tenure, employment contract, level
of education, met expectations, job satisfaction, and intent to leave. These analyses allowed for testing our research hypotheses.

Method
Samples and Procedure
The study was conducted in Belgium. Data were collected in the context of a larger survey. Demographic characteristics were substantially different for the two samples of the study because data were collected for different
research purposes. However, these contrasted characteristics allowed us to test the generalizability of findings
across the two samples. All questionnaires were mailed

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

directly to the respondents. Participants received the assurance that data would be handled confidentially. Completed questionnaires were sent back to the researchers
office. A remainder was sent to nonrespondents after 2
weeks.
Sample 1
The first sample included 216 employees newly hired in
25 different firms from a variety of industries. The response rate was 57%. The tenure of respondents averaged 3.39 months (median = 3.00), with a minimum of
1 month and a maximum of 6 months. The average age
of respondents was 26.15 years and 44% were female.
Of the respondents, 55% held a master degree, 38% were
undergraduates, whereas 7% held a college degree.
Sample 2
The second sample included 201 new recruits (a 44%
response rate) from four Belgian banks. They held commercial positions within their company. Their average
tenure was 17.02 months (median = 16.00), with a minimum of 2 months and a maximum of 54 months. The
average age of respondents was 26.18 years. Thirty-eight
percent of respondents were female, 51% were graduates
in applied economics, 22% were graduates in other disciplines, 14% were undergraduates in applied economics, and 13% were undergraduates in other disciplines.

129

which employees perceived a fit between the characteristics of their job and their own expectations (cf. Meyer
& Allen, 1997). Note that the met expectations measure
was collected from Sample 1 only.
Job satisfaction was assessed through four items, two
of which were borrowed from OReilly and Caldwell
(1981), the others being built for this study. Respondents
indicated, for instance, how satisfied they were with their
job and the extent to which they would prefer another,
more ideal job.
Intent to leave was captured using two items. Respondents indicated the likelihood of their working for the
organization within the next three years and how frequently they thought of quitting their job. This variable
was measured for Sample 2 only.
Demographic Data
Tenure was a continuous variable and measured in
months. Employment contract was categorized as longor short-term (from 1 to 3), depending on the time span
of the contract. Note that this variable was reported for
Sample 1 only. Level of education was an ordinal variable, with a higher score indicating a higher level of
education or more marketable skills.
Except for demographic data, a 6-point Likert scale
was used for all survey items.

Analyses
Measures

Commitment

As we used mostly scales developed in English, we had

to translate them into French. In order to minimize crosslanguage discrepancies, we asked three French-English
bilinguals to translate the items independently. This procedure resulted in only a few discrepancies across translations (less than 5%). These difficulties were solved
through a discussion among the translators.

Confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL 8 (Jreskog &

Srbom, 1993) was used for analyzing commitment data. More specifically, we calculated a covariance matrix
of observed indicators that was then used as input for
estimating competing models of commitment (through
maximum likelihood). First, we assessed a one-factor
model, with all indicators loading on a single commitment construct. This model corresponds to the idea that
commitment is unidimensional or that data are affected
by a common method (data were collected from a single
source and at a single point in time). The second model
was a two-factor (oblique) structure, with internalization
and affective commitment capturing a single construct,
and compliance and continuance commitment defining
another one. This model refers to the conceptualization
of commitment as either attitudinal or calculative. Another two-factor oblique model was also tested, which
constrained continuance commitment, compliance, and
internalization to form a single factor, and affective commitment to be independent. Next, two three-factor
(oblique) solutions were analyzed: one in which affective commitment and internalization collapsed and com-

Commitment
Affective and continuance commitment were measured
using seven and six items, respectively, resulting from a
French validation of Meyer and Allens scales (Vandenberghe, 1996). Internalization (four items) and compliance scales (four items) were translated from OReilly
and Chatmans (1986) scales.
Met expectations were measured using a four-item
scale, two of them being taken from Feldman (1976), the
others being developed specifically for this study (e. g.,
In some ways, I feel like this is not the right type of work
for me, or Im not the right type of person for this job
reverse keyed). This measure emphasizes the extent to

EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

130

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

pliance and continuance commitment were independent,

and another one in which affective commitment and internalization were independent but compliance and continuance commitment were combined. Finally, the original four-factor (oblique) model was evaluated. A null
model that constrained all indicators to be orthogonal
was included as a baseline for comparison purposes.
All models were assessed using a 2 test. A significant
value for this test indicates that the model differs from
perfect fit. Several other fit indices were also calculated.
These indices were the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the
nonnormed-fit index (NNFI; Bentler, 1990) and the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990). Normally, values
above .90 indicate good fit. In addition to these indices,
we used Browne and Cudecks (1989) root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA). The RMSEA provides a test of the null hypothesis of close fit and has been
recommended as the best fit index, especially for testing
models with numerous degrees of freedom (MacCallum,
Browne, & Sugawara, 1996; MacCallum & Hong,
1997), which was the case here. For the RMSEA, values
of .05 and below signal excellent fit. Finally, we computed the 2/df ratio for the models. It is admitted that a ratio
between 1 and 3 is indicative of good fit (Carmines &
McIver, 1981).
We used a nested sequence approach for comparing
the relative fit of theoretical models (Bentler & Bonett,
1980). According to this procedure, a series of nested
models was assessed (i. e., moving from one- to four-factor solutions). The difference between two models within
the sequence was evaluated using a 2 difference test.
When this test is significant, the less constrained model
is considered to be an improvement over the more constrained one. A look into the practical difference between
the models can also be achieved by comparing the values
of fit indices. This comparison indicates how sizeable
and meaningful this difference might be.

Relationships with Criterion Measures

Correlational analyses were used to measure how each
commitment component related to criteria included in
the two surveys. When necessary, we compared the size
of correlations between variables. This was achieved by
using Cohen and Cohens (1983, p. 56) formula for comparing the size of dependent correlations.

Results
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Internal consistency coefficients, measured through
Cronbachs , for commitment dimensions are reasonably good for internalization (.80 and .80), affective
commitment (.82 and .86), and continuance commitment
(.70 and .72). In contrast, compliance displays very weak
reliabilities (.36 and .47). The latter may indicate that the
compliance scale is a poor operationalization of the construct. Note that a similar finding has been reported in
previous research (Sutton & Harrison, 1994; Vandenberg
et al., 1994).
We first fitted the four-factor model of commitment in
each sample, using the 21-item covariance matrix. In
both cases, model fit was moderate: 2 (183, N = 185) =
327.25, GFI = .85, NNFI = .86, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .07
for Sample 1, and 2 (183, N = 184) = 330.71, GFI = .85,
NNFI = .88, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .07 for Sample 2. The
inspection of factor loadings revealed that two items
from the compliance scale displayed a weak loading in
at least one sample. Item COMP2 had loadings of .25 and
.03 in Sample 1 and 2 respectively, whereas the loadings
for COMP4 were .04 and .40. This might be one reason
why -coefficients were so poor for this scale. Because
these items were a source of unreliability, we deleted
them and reconducted the analyses (using a 19-item co-

Table 1. Overall fit indices for the four commitment scales.

Model

Sample 1
2
df

GFI

Null model
1303.89 171 .40
One-factor
444.62 152 .77
Two-factor obliquea
375.45 151 .82
Two-factor obliqueb
437.91 151 .77
Three-factor obliquec 298.98 149 .85
Three-factor obliqued 355.52 149 .83
Four-factor oblique
275.95 146 .86

NNFI

CFI

RMSEA

Sample 2
2
df

GFI

NNFI

CFI

RMSEA

NA
.71
.78
.71
.85
.79
.87

NA
.74
.80
.75
.87
.82
.89

.19
.10
.09
.10
.07
.09
.07

1524.64
507.42
403.48
488.50
311.62
357.55
255.67

.35
.73
.80
.74
.84
.82
.87

NA
.70
.79
.72
.86
.82
.91

NA
.74
.81
.75
.88
.85
.92

.21
.11
.10
.11
.08
.09
.06

171
152
151
151
149
149
146

Notes. Sample 1: N = 191, sample 2: N = 185, based on listwise deletion of missing data. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; NNFI = nonnormed
fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NA = not applicable. aAffective commitment
and internalization versus continuance commitment and compliance, bAffective commitment versus internalization, continuance commitment and compliance, cAffective commitment and internalization, continuance commitment, and compliance, dContinuance commitment and compliance, affective commitment, and internalization.
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

variance matrix). The -coefficients for this shortened

compliance scale improved to .53 in Sample 1 and .56 in
Sample 2. The 19-item covariance matrices that we used
for analyzing commitment models are provided in Appendixes A and B.
The results of confirmatory factor analyses are reported in Table 1. Results are quite comparable across the
two samples, which adds to their generalizability. In an
absolute sense, the four-factor oblique model receives
the strongest support from the analyses. This model outperforms all other models in the nested sequence, and

131

notably the three-factor model in which internalization

and affective commitment are combined [ 2 (3, N =
191) = 23.03, p < .001 for Sample 1; 2 (3, N = 185) =
55.45, p < .001 for Sample 2], and the three-factor model
with compliance and continuance commitment combined [ 2 (3, N = 191) = 79.57, p < .001 for Sample 1;
2 (3, N = 185) = 101.88, p < .001 for Sample 2]. The
differences among fit indices between the four-factor
model and the three-factor representations are also sizeable from a practical point of view (i. e., from .01 to .08
in Sample 1 and from .03 to .09 in Sample 2). Differences

Table 2. Factor loadings of the commitment items for the four-factor oblique model.
Item

Identification (Affective Commitment)

ID1. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.
ID2. I feel emotionally attached to this organization.
ID3. I feel like part of the family at my organization.
ID4. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.
ID5. I really feel as if this organizations problems are my own.
ID6. This organization doesnt have a great deal of personal meaning
for me (R).
ID7. I would be unhappy to spend the rest of my career with this
organization (R).

Affective
Continuance Internalization Compliance
Commitment Commitment
S1
S2
S1
S2
S1
S2
S1
S2
.80
.81
.70
.35
.58

.87
.80
.77
.69
.64

.63

.65

.55

.47

Continuance Commitment
CC1. I feel that I have enough options to consider leaving this
organization (R).
CC2. One of the few consequences of leaving this organization would
be the scarcity of available alternatives.
CC3. I am afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having
another one lined up.
CC4. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization
is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice
another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here.
CC5. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity
as much as desire.
CC6. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now,
even if I wanted to.
Internalization
INT1. My attachment to this organization is primarily based on the
similarity of my values and those represented by the organization.
INT2. The reason I prefer this organization to others is because of what it
stands for, its values.
INT3. Since joining this organization, my personal values and those of the
organization have become more similar.
INT4. If the values of this organization were different, I would not be as
attached to this organization.

.50

.73

.49

.70

.64

.52

.44

.55

.44

.43

.63

.43

.72

.86

.74

.75

.71

.68

.68

.59

Compliance
COMP1. Unless Im rewarded for it in some way, I see no reason to expend
extra effort on behalf of this organization.
COMP3. My private views about this organization are different than those
I express publicly.

.54

.67

.65

.61

Notes. S1: sample1, S2: sample2. Factor loadings are based on completely standardized solution results.
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

132

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

of this size are generally considered to be important (Widaman, 1985). Although, for the four-factor model, the
GFI and NNFI values in Sample 1 and that of the GFI in
Sample 2 are below the .90 benchmark, the corresponding CFI values are either very close or above the .90
level. Moreover, the RMSEA for the four-factor model
yields acceptable values in both Sample 1 (.07) and Sample 2 (.06). Finally, the 2/df ratio for this model is also
good in both Sample 1 (1.89) and Sample 2 (1.75).
Table 2 provides the factor loadings for the four-factor
model within the two samples. A close inspection of
these loadings reveals that most of them are significant
and above .40. An exception is the affective commitment
item 4, which has a loading of .35 in Sample 1 (cf. Table
2). It is worth noting that the compliance items also have
good loadings. In fact, the average variance that the compliance construct explains in its indicators averages 36%
in Sample 1 and 41% in Sample 2, which is acceptable
compared to the proportions of variance accounted for
by internalization (51% and 53%), affective commitment (42% and 50%), and continuance commitment
(28% and 33%) in their own indicators.
Table 3 displays the intercorrelations (estimated by
LISREL) among the four commitment factors across the
two samples. Although all correlations are significantly
different from unity (cf. Anderson & Gerbing, 1988),
some of these are quite high. Indeed, internalization and
affective commitment are correlated between .86 and .89
whereas compliance is also strongly related (though negatively) to affective commitment (.74 and .76). These
findings suggest that affective commitment and internalTable 3. Factor intercorrelations for the four-factor modela.
Factor

1. Affective Commitment
2. Continuance Commitment
3. Internalization
4. Compliance

.01
.89
.74

.04

.13
.10

.86
.22

.57

.76
.09
.48

Notes. aValues below the diagonal are from the sample 1 (N =

191). Values above the diagonal are from sample 2 (N = 185).
Intercorrelations are based on the confirmatory factor analysis of
the 19 items.

ization partly tap the same content domain and that compliance, as it is operationalized, partly reflects the reverse
of affective commitment. Further examination of the discriminant validity of these scales is provided below
through the inspection of their relationships with criterion
variables.

Relationships with Criterion Variables

Table 4 provides the correlations between commitment
dimensions and criterion measures. As can be seen, tenure is positively correlated with continuance commitment in Sample 1 but uncorrelated with it in Sample 2.
Affective commitment and compliance were unrelated to
tenure in either sample. On the whole, these results lend
only partial support for Hypothesis 1.
Results from Table 4 also indicate that continuance
commitment is negatively related to employment status
(data from Sample 1). That is, those employees with a
long-term labor contract are more committed on a continuance basis than those with a short-term one. In other
words, long-term employment increases the costs of
leaving. Hypothesis 2 is thus confirmed. Continuance
commitment is also negatively associated with level of
education but only in Sample 2. The reason for the discrepancy between Sample 1 and 2 may be that the nature
of education levels was different across the two samples,
which may result in differences in skills transferability.
Hypothesis 3 is thus partly supported.
Affective commitment and internalization are positively associated with met expectations (cf. Table 4,
Sample 1). This provides support for Hypothesis 4. Note
that the correlation involving affective commitment and
met expectations is significantly higher than that involving internalization and met expectations (t = 2.19, p <
.05). Internalization and affective commitment also correlate significantly and positively with job satisfaction in
both samples (cf. Table 4). Here, too, the correlation involving affective commitment was higher than that involving internalization (t = 3.98, p < .01 in Sample 1; t =
6.09, p < .01 in Sample 2). On the other hand, compliance

Table 4. Observed correlations among variables in the two samplesa.

Variable

Sample 1
Tenure Edu- Contract
cation

Met expectations

Satisfaction

Sample 2
Tenure Education

Satisfaction

Intent
to leave

Affective commitment
Continuance commitment
Internalization
Compliance

.06
.23**
.07
.02

.66***
.11
.52***
.45***

.63***
.15*
.47***
.37***

.09
.11
.11
.07

.70***
.00
.48***
.58***

.66***
.11
.48***
.53***

.27*** .00
.13
.27***
.14*
.01
.14*
.10

.03
.48***
.11
.02

Note. Sample 1: N = 216, Sample 2: N = 201. Contract ranges from 1 = long-term contract to 3 = short-term contract; education ranges
from 1 to 3 in Sample 1, and from 1 to 4 in Sample 2, a higher score indicating more marketable skills. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

is negatively and significantly tied to satisfaction in both

samples. These results provide thus strong support for
Hypothesis 5.
Finally, Table 4 also displays the correlations involving intent to leave (data for Sample 2). Affective commitment and internalization are negatively associated
with that variable, whereas compliance is positively related to it. In contrast, continuance commitment is unrelated to intent to leave. Except for continuance commitment, these findings are consistent with Hypothesis 6. It
is worth of noting that the observed correlation involving
affective commitment is higher than that involving internalization (t = 4.06, p < .01).

Discussion
This study examined the validity of four dimensions of
OC within a French-speaking context. Its contribution
lies in the simultaneous consideration of four widely
studied dimensions of commitment within a single design. The strength of our study also resides in the validation of a model that has originally been investigated in
English-speaking countries. Thus, it provides preliminary evidence for the cross-cultural validity of OC (Randall, 1993). Further, we examined how the four commitment dimensions related to important criterion measures.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The confirmatory factor analysis of commitment items
supported the superiority of the four-factor model over
alternative models. That is, internalization, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and compliance were
found to be empirically distinguishable. In absolute terms,
the fit of the four-factor model was good: the CFI values,
especially, were close or above the .90 threshold for good
fit, and the 2/df ratios were below 2, indicating a reasonably good fit (Carmines & McIver, 1981). Moreover, each
latent construct accounted for substantial construct variance in its indicators. However, two issues concerning the
four-factor model warrant some discussion. These relate
to the content validity of the compliance scale and substantial overlap between internalization and affective
commitment. We discuss these issues below.
First, concerning the compliance scale, one should
note that two items displayed low loadings in the initial
four-factor solution; they were thus deleted. The deletion
of COMP2 and COMP4 from the compliance scale increased the percentage of construct variance from 21%
to 36% in Sample 1 and from 25% to 41% in Sample 2

133

(the complete results of the initial four-factor solution are

available upon request). However, one should remain
cautious about the content validity of the compliance
scale. Indeed, the -coefficients for the shortened scale
were still low (.53 in Sample 1 and .56 in Sample 2); and
despite a clear distinction between compliance and continuance commitment in our analyses, the meaning of the
compliance construct is still imprecise in our view and
would require more work in the future. This conclusion
has also been raised by users of the English scales (Sutton & Harrison, 1994; Vandenberg et al., 1994). We also
think that new items should be generated for this scale in
order to improve the coverage of the construct.
Second, affective commitment and internalization
were highly correlated in both samples (cf. Table 3). This
indicates that there is substantial overlap between the
dimensions. Further refinement of these scales is thus in
order. For example, some items could be reformulated to
better capture the notion of identification (affective commitment) vs. internalization, based on more precise definitions of these components (cf. Schwab, 1980). Alternatively, the reason for the high correlation observed
between internalization and affective commitment may
be related to the scope of the constructs. Internalization
seems to be conceived and operationalized more narrowly than affective commitment. Internalization reflects an
attachment derived from a perceived similarity of values
between the individual and the organization whereas affective commitment refers to a more generalized emotional attachment to the organization (Jaros, 1997,
p. 332).
To summarize, the confirmatory factor analysis of
commitment scales yields support for the four-factor
model but also suggests that additional work is warranted
to improve the measurement and validity of the four
commitment dimensions.

Relationships with Criterion Variables

Most hypotheses concerning the linkages within the
commitment nomological net were confirmed. The relationships between commitment dimensions and criterion
variables can be used for further assessment of their discriminant validity. Of primary importance, affective
commitment and internalization are significantly associated with met expectations in Sample 1, with intent to
leave in Sample 2, and with job satisfaction in both samples. This suggests that these commitment dimensions
share a common pattern of relationships with criterion
measures. However, to the extent that all correlations
involving affective commitment were higher than those
involving internalization (see Results section), the forEJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

134

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

mer should be regarded as more predictive than the latter.

The fact that affective commitment is more strongly associated with criterion variables is a sign that this construct is better viewed as a generalized emotional bond
between the individual and the organization. This larger
scope may indeed enhance the predictive validity of affective commitment.
An inspection of the pattern of substantive relationships involving compliance vs. continuance commitment reveals major differences. Continuance commitment was significantly associated with tenure in Sample
1 and with level of education in both samples, while
compliance was unrelated to these variables. Tenure and
education are traditionally regarded as surrogates for the
accrued investments made by the employee through ongoing membership. It is not surprising that these variables are positively correlated with continuance commitment since the costs of departure are a central component
of this construct (Jaros, 1997). The fact that compliance
does not correlate with tenure and education indicates
that it does not tap into the conceptual domain of continuance commitment.
Interestingly, compliance is associated with variables
that are uncorrelated with continuance commitment. Indeed, compliance correlates negatively with met expectations in Sample 1, positively with education in Sample
1 and intent to leave in Sample 2, and negatively with job
satisfaction in both samples. Nonetheless, the strong and
negative correlation between compliance and affective
commitment may account for the significant links between compliance and education, met expectations, satisfaction, and intent to leave. In other words, compliance
may be associated with these variables because of its
shared variance with affective commitment. We checked
this possibility by computing partial correlations between compliance and the above-mentioned criteria,
controlling for affective commitment. All partial correlations were indeed considerably reduced but some were
still significant (r = .00, ns, for the correlation involving
education; r = .18, p < .01, for the correlation with met
expectations; r = .07, ns, and .27, p < .001, for satisfaction; and r = .22, p < .001, for intent to leave).
To summarize, the analysis of substantive relationships involving commitment dimensions provides additional evidence that affective commitment and internalization correlate in the same direction with important
criterion measures. However, affective commitment has
superior predictive utility given its stronger relationships
with criterion variables. Compliance and continuance
commitment have distinct patterns of relationships with
criterion measures. However, the relevance of compliance for predicting major organizational outcomes is
partly due to its shared variance with affective commitment.
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Limitations and Future Directions

One limitation of this study is that it assessed the commitment states of employees at a single point in time
using self-report measures of criterion variables. Future
research in French-speaking countries could assess the
generalizability of the current findings using longitudinal designs and external criteria, such as supervisor-rated
performance or extra-role behavior. Further, causal relationships could not be examined within the present design. Thus, one should be cautious in interpreting the
present data. Future research could examine causal relationships among commitment constructs using a longitudinal design (Steyer, Ferring, & Schmitt, 1992). For
example, it may be that the four dimensions of commitment develop at different moments during employment.
Identification may develop first as a response to met
expectations (Meyer et al., 1998) or job challenge
(Meyer & Allen, 1997). Then, internalization may occur,
to the extent that the values of employees and organizations become more similar over time (OReilly & Chatman, 1986). Finally, continuance commitment may be
important in late career stages since investments tend to
accrue with continued membership. Relatedly, changes
in the structure of the four commitment dimensions over
time might be relevant to investigate in the future (cf.
Vandenberg & Self, 1993). Finally, the interaction
among commitment dimensions in predicting major organizational outcomes can provide additional insights
into the development of OC over time (Jaros, 1997; Somers, 1995).
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.

References
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to
the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
118.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: An examination of
construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252
276.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423.
Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 3242.
Becker, T.E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal,

35, 232244.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606.
Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation
indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445455.
Caldwell, D.F., Chatman, J., & OReilly, C.A. (1990). Building
organizational commitment: A multi-firm study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 245261.
Carmines, E.G., & McIver, J.P. (1981). Analyzing models with
unobservable variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta
(Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. (pp. 65115). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Cohen, A. (1993). Organizational commitment and turnover: A
meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1140
1157.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., & Castaneda, M.B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The utility of an integrative definition.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370380.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.
Feldman, D.C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433452.
Hackett, R.D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P.A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allens (1991) three-component model of
organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79, 1523.
Jaros, S.J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen (1991) threecomponent model of organizational commitment and turnover
intention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319337.
Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago,
IL: Scientific Software International.
Kelman, H.C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 2, 5160.
Ko, J-W., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1997). Assessment of
Meyer and Allens three component model of organizational
commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 961973.
Lee, T.W., & Mitchell, T.R. (1994). Organizational attachment:
Attitudes and actions. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational
behavior: The state of the science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996).
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130149.
MacCallum, R.C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 32, 193210.
March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York:
Wiley.
Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis
of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171194.

135

Mayer, R.C., & Schoorman, F.D. (1992). Predicting participation

and production outcomes through a two-dimensional model of
organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 671684.
Mayer, R.C., & Schoorman, F.D. (1998). Differentiating antecedents of organizational commitment: A test of March and Simons model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 1528.
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, 638642.
Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J., & Holahan, P.J. (1994). A review of
current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational
behavior and human resources management research. Journal
of Management, 20, 439464.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1988). Links between work experiences
and organizational commitment during the first year of employment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 61, 195209.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the side-bet theory of
organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372378.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 6989.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace:
Theory, research, and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J.P., Bobocel, D.R., & Allen, N.J. (1991). Development of
organizational commitment during the first year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences.
Journal of Management, 17, 717733.
Meyer, J.P., Irving, P.G., & Allen, N.J. (1998). Examination of the
combined effects of work values and early work experiences
on organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 2952.
Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R., Goffin, R.D., & Jackson, D.N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: Its the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74, 152156.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
OReilly, C.A., & Caldwell, D.F. (1981). The commitment and job
tenure of new employees: Some evidence of postdecisional
justification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 597616.
OReilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance,
identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492499.
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, 603609.
Randall, D.M. (1993). Cross-cultural research on organizational
commitment: A review and application of Hofstedes Value
Survey Module. Journal of Business Research, 26, 91110.
Schwab, D.P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 343.
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

136

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

Somers, M.J. (1993). A test of the relationship between affective

and continuance commitment using non-recursive models.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66,
185192.
Somers, M.J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover, and
absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction effects.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 4958.
Steyer, R., Ferring, D., & Schmitt, M.J. (1992). States and traits
in psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 7998.
Sutton, C.D., & Harrison, A.W. (1993). Validity assessment of
compliance, identification, and internalization as dimensions
of organizational commitment. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 217223.
Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, turnover intentions, and turnover: Path analyses
based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46,
259293.
Vandenberg, R.J., & Self, R.M. (1993). Assessing newcomerschanging commitments to the organization during the first
6 months of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 557
568.
Vandenberg, R.J., Self, R.M., & Seo, J.H. (1994). A critical examination of the internalization, identification, and compliance
commitment measures. Journal of Management, 20, 123140.
Vandenberghe, C. (1996). Assessing organizational commitment

EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

in a Belgian context: Evidence for the three-dimensional model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 371386.
Wanous, J.P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S.L., & Davis, K.S. (1992).
The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and
behaviors: Areview and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288297.
Widaman, K.F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure
models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 9, 126.
Whitener, E.M., & Walz, P.M. (1993). Exchange theory determinants of affective and continuance commitment and turnover.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 265281.

Nathalie Delobbe
Universit catholique de Louvain
Psychology Department
Place cardinal Mercier 10
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgium
Fax +32 10 473774
E-mail delobbe@ergo.ucl.ac.be

137

Appendix A. Covariance matrix and means for commitment items in Sample 1.

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe: Multiple Dimensions of Commitment

Appendix B. Covariance matrix and means for commitment items in Sample 2.

138

EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers