姝 Academy of Management Review

2010, Vol. 35, No. 2, 226–245.

COMMITMENT AND MOTIVATION AT WORK:

THE RELEVANCE OF EMPLOYEE IDENTITY
AND REGULATORY FOCUS
RUSSELL E. JOHNSON
CHU-HSIANG (DAISY) CHANG
University of South Florida

LIU-QIN YANG
Portland State University

We present a model that distinguishes among different types of commitments by

crossing self-identity levels (collective, relational, and individual) with regulatory foci
(promotion and prevention). This model is important because it specifies the ways in
which convergent and discriminant validity exist among different types of commit-
ment and because it accounts for commitment to multiple constituents (e.g., commit-
ment to one’s organization and supervisor). We conclude by discussing implications
of our model and proposing directions for future research.

The commitment that employees have toward
their organization and its constituents is a cru-
cial work attitude. Commitment levels relate to
numerous criteria, such as task and contextual
performance, satisfaction, cognitive with-
drawal, and turnover (e.g., Cooper-Hamik &
Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer
& Allen, 1996; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, &
Topolnytsky, 2002). In addition to identifying its
consequences, much work has been devoted to
understanding the dimensionality of commit-
ment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Not surpris-
ingly, different reasons underlie why employees
are committed—for example, they may identify
with goals espoused by the organization, or they
may value the job security tied to their member-
ship. However, researchers sometimes encoun-
ter difficulties when attempting to distinguish
among different forms of commitment. For exam-
ple, some forms (e.g., affective and normative com-
mitment) share similar relationships with criteria,
while the dimensionality of others (e.g., continu-
ance commitment) is debated (e.g., Hackett, Bycio,
& Hausdorf, 1994; Jaros, 2007; Meyer et al., 2002).
Although these debates began over twenty years
ago (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1984; Mowday, Steers, &
Porter, 1979), they have persisted.
We are indebted to former associate editor Loriann Rob-
erson and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-
ments and feedback.
226
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
Our thesis is that consideration of motivation-
based individual differences can resolve im-
passes concerning the convergent and discrimi-
nant validity among different forms of
commitment. Previously, demographic vari-
ables, such as age and gender, were examined
with respect to commitment, but results were
discouraging (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002). Beyond
demographics, few studies have examined other
individual differences that potentially impact
commitment. Only self-efficacy and locus of con-
trol have been studied consistently (e.g., Kinicki
& Vecchio, 1994; O’Neill & Mone, 1998), yet they
have weak relationships with commitment. Re-
searchers have therefore adhered to the view
that individual differences have little bearing
on commitment at work (e.g., Irving & Meyer,
1994; Meyer, Bobocel, & Allen, 1991). This view is
slowly changing, however, as commitment
scholars have begun to pay more attention to
motivation-based variables (e.g., Meyer, Becker,
& Vandenberghe, 2004; Meyer & Herscovitch,
2001). Because commitment is a motivational
phenomenon— one that involves self-regulatory
processes like identification, internalization,
and compliance (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986)—
motivation-based individual differences ought
to be considered.
We propose that chronic self-identity and reg-
ulatory focus are two motivation-based vari-
ables that clarify differences among different
types of commitment. To this end, we present a
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang
model that specifies how commitment, identity,
and regulatory focus are interrelated. We also
discuss implications of this model for commit-
ment theory and practice. This undertaking is
important for several reasons. First, we identify
two individual-difference variables that impact
the development of commitment. Although com-
mitment has been linked to self-identity, the fo-
cus has been exclusively on the collective level
(e.g., Meyer et al., 2004). We extend this idea by
proposing that other identity levels (e.g., rela-
tional) are applicable as well. With respect to
regulatory focus, it has not been linked to com-
mitment. Second, identity and regulatory focus
can be used to address debates regarding the
discriminant validity of affective and normative
commitment and the dimensionality of continu-
ance commitment, which continue to plague the
commitment literature (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002).
Third, our model extends beyond organizational
commitment by showing how identity and reg-
ulatory focus foster commitment to other foci
(e.g., commitment to work teams and supervi-
sors). Adopting a multifoci view of commitment
is important given the recent rise of attention to
foci other than the organization (Becker, Billings,
Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996; Vandenberghe, Bentein,
& Stinglhamber, 2004). Before introducing our
model, we first review commitment, self-iden-
tity, and regulatory focus.
COMMITMENT, IDENTITY, AND REGULATORY
FOCUS
Commitment
In work settings commitment refers to a per-
ceived psychological bond that employees have
with some target associated with their job, often
a social entity (Klein, Molloy, & Cooper, in
press). Commitment to social entities like orga-
nizations and supervisors is commonly concep-
tualized as a multidimensional construct con-
sisting of multiple forms (Allen & Meyer, 1990;
Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993; Meyer &
Herscovitch, 2001; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).
One form is affective commitment (AC), which
entails an acceptance and internalization of the
other party’s goals and values, a willingness to
exert effort on that party’s behalf, and a strong
emotional attachment to that party (Allen &
Meyer, 1990; Mowday et al., 1979). Self-deter-
mined motivations form the basis for this com-
227
mitment (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Meyer et al., 2004),
reflecting autonomous propensities to engage in
goal-directed behaviors because they are be-
lieved to be important in and of themselves
(Deci & Ryan, 1985). These goal-directed behav-
iors are not performed solely because of exter-
nal controls and influences (e.g., monetary bo-
nuses)— hence the label self-determined.
Results of a longitudinal study conducted by
Gagné and Koestner (2002) verified that self-
determined motivations predicted AC.
As shown in Table 1, specific self-determined
motivations that underlie AC are identification
and internalization (Becker et al., 1996). Accord-
ing to Deci and Ryan (1985) and O’Reilly and
Chatman (1986), identification reflects a desire
for affiliation, which causes actors to align their
self-identity with the target party and behave in
ways that are consistent with the party’s expec-
tations because the actors accept the merits of
such behaviors. Internalization occurs when ac-
tors’ values and goals become congruent with
those of the target party because actors have
integrated them into their self-concepts (Pratt,
1998). Although identification and internaliza-
tion are separate, they are highly correlated be-
cause of their self-determined nature (e.g., Cald-
well, Chatman, & O’Reilly, 1990; O’Reilly,
Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Action based on
self-determined motivations produces favorable
achievement levels in performance domains be-
cause people typically put forth greater effort
when they are intrinsically motivated (Deci &
Ryan, 1985), which explains why AC has stron-
ger relationships with task performance and cit-
izenship behaviors than do other forms of com-
mitment (Meyer et al., 2002). Not only is effort
higher for employees with strong AC, but their
personal goals also overlap with company
goals, which produces higher levels of perfor-
mance as well.
A second form is normative commitment (NC),
which entails perceived obligations to maintain
employment memberships and relationships. In
exchange for employment, employees feel com-
pelled to reciprocate with loyalty and commit-
ment that derive from morality and value-driven
principles based on reciprocity norms and so-
cialization practices (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
NC has traditionally received less attention
than the other commitments because its sepa-
rateness from AC has been questioned (e.g., Ko,
Price, & Mueller, 1997). In a meta-analysis Meyer
228 Academy of Management Review April

TABLE 1
Motivations Associated with Commitment at Work

Commitment

Few Sacrificed
Construct Definition Affective Normative Alternatives Investments

Basic motivations
Internalization Adopting the values and goals of another person or ⻫
group and acting according to them because the
values and goals have been integrated into the
self. These actions are mostly self-determined.
Identification Acting in ways that are consistent with another ⻫
person’s or social group’s expectations because
the actions are seen as constructive. These
actions are mostly self-determined.
Introjection Acting in order to reduce feelings of guilt and to ⻫
boost self-esteem by fulfilling prescriptive
“oughts” and “shoulds.” These actions are
somewhat self-determined.
Compliance Acting in order to satisfy external constraints (e.g., ⻫ ⻫
acquiring rewards, avoiding punishment). These
actions are not self-determined.
Self-identify levels
Collective Self-definitions are based on group membership, ⻫ ⻫
and behaviors are motivated by group norms and
goals. Self-worth is contingent on successfully
fulfilling the group role.
Relational Self-definitions are based on dyadic partnerships, ⻫ ⻫
and behaviors are motivated by the partner’s role
expectations. Self-worth is contingent on
fulfilling the partner’s role expectations.
Individual Self-definitions are based on personal uniqueness, ⻫ ⻫
and behaviors are motivated by personal goals
and welfare. Self-worth is contingent on personal
success.
Regulatory foci
Promotion Approach-oriented motivation that is focused on ⻫ ⻫
achieving gains and setting ideal goals.
Prevention Avoidance-oriented motivation that is focused on ⻫ ⻫
preventing losses and setting feared and ought
goals.

Note: Few alternatives and sacrificed investments are dimensions of continuance commitment.

et al. (2002) reported that NC and AC were highly
correlated (␳s up to .77, depending on the scale
used) and that they had similar relationships
with other variables.
While NC and AC appear similar, they are
distinguishable in three ways. First, NC is less
organization specific than AC because employ-
ees’ levels of NC are influenced more by cultural
socialization and general beliefs about employ-
ment than by actual experiences within a par-
ticular company (Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman,
2000; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Wasti, 2003). In con-
trast, AC derives from the support and fairness
employees are exposed to while at work (Meyer
et al., 2002). NC often exists prior to joining an
organization, whereas AC emerges following
entry (Cohen, 2007). Although this idea has not
been tested, we suspect that employee levels of
NC are more stable across organizations than
AC. Second, different motivations underlie AC
and NC (Johnson & Chang, 2007). Whereas iden-
tification and internalization characterize AC,
introjection characterizes NC (Gagné & Deci,
2005). According to Deci and Ryan (1985), in-
trojection is in operation whenever people fulfill
obligations in order to reduce feelings of guilt
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang
and anxiety. Felt obligations and emotional ex-
periences like guilt are internal constraints on
behavior, which are distinct from external con-
straints (e.g., monetary rewards). An example of
introjection is contingent self-worth (Gagné &
Deci, 2005), such as when employees remain at
their work organization because they subscribe
to the idiom “good people are loyal.” Introjection
is less self-determined than identification and
internalization, and, thus, compared to AC, NC
has weaker relationships with desirable behav-
iors like work attendance and task performance
(Meyer et al., 2002). Third, NC and AC also differ
in that they are uniquely related to specific reg-
ulatory foci (Johnson & Chang, 2007), an idea
that we expand on later.
A third form of commitment is continuance
commitment (CC), which involves appraisals of
personal investments tied to one’s current em-
ployment and the availability of employment
alternatives (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Employees
with strong CC maintain their current employ-
ment because it provides them with desirable
personal outcomes that they are unwilling to
forego or because they perceive a lack of em-
ployment opportunities elsewhere. CC evolved
from Becker’s (1960) side-bet theory, which posits
that employees maintain membership with their
organization as a way to preserve accumulated
side-bets (e.g., pension). This extrinsic form of
commitment derives from instrumental princi-
ples that are based on compliance (O’Reilly &
Chatman, 1986). Compliance entails behaviors
that are initiated and maintained in order to
satisfy external constraints, such as obtaining a
reward or avoiding a loss (Becker et al., 1996).
Because CC derives primarily from external
constraints (i.e., rewards and punishments de-
livered by nonself sources), this form of commit-
ment is not self-determined (Gagné & Deci,
2005). It is, however, important to note that while
the perceived bond underlying employees’ CC
to the other party is not self-determined (i.e., it
exists as a means to other ends), the ends them-
selves may be intrinsically desirable (e.g., op-
portunities for personal growth) and valued for
reasons other than compliance-based motiva-
tions (e.g., using work bonuses to satisfy famil-
ial obligations). Furthermore, while CC and NC
both entail behavioral constraints, NC is char-
acterized by internal constraints (e.g., felt obli-
gations) rather than external ones. CC therefore
has weak or negative relationships with desir-
229
able job behaviors (e.g., attendance, citizenship
behaviors; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al.,
2002) because its underlying compliance moti-
vation is less self-determined than identifica-
tion, internalization, and introjection (Deci &
Ryan, 1985).
Scholars have debated the dimensionality of
CC (Hackett et al., 1994; Jaros, 2007; Meyer et al.,
2002). At issue is whether this form of commit-
ment reflects one dimension or two. While CC is
associated with instrumental concerns, it can be
divided into sacrificed investments and few al-
ternatives. Sacrificed investiments is compli-
ance out of fear of losing investments in the
targeted entity that have been accrued. Few al-
ternatives is compliance due to the inability to
locate more desirable employment opportuni-
ties elsewhere. This multidimensional perspec-
tive has received empirical support. For exam-
ple, empirical findings indicate the presence of
two CC dimensions (e.g., Blau, 2003; Groff,
Granger, Taing, Jackson, & Johnson, 2008; Hack-
ett et al., 1994; McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer, Allen,
& Gellatly, 1990; Vandenberghe et al., 2007), and
meta-analytic results suggest that these dimen-
sions have differential relationships (e.g., sacri-
ficed investments is a stronger predictor of with-
drawal cognitions than is few alternatives;
Meyer et al., 2002). We subscribe to the view that
CC is multidimensional, and the model we
present supports this stance.
Overall, different motivations underlie each
form of commitment. These motivations are
summarized in Table 1. In short, employees with
AC, NC, and CC stay with their current organi-
zation because they want to, ought to, and need
to, respectively (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Next we
discuss two individual-difference variables—
chronic self-identity and chronic regulatory
focus—that we believe are precursors to the dif-
ferent forms of commitment.
Chronic Self-Identity
People’s self-concepts are extensive autobio-
graphical knowledge structures that imbue in-
formation with meaning, organize memory, in-
form perceptions of themselves and others, and
regulate cognition and behavior (Lord & Brown,
2004; Markus & Wurf, 1987; Oyserman, 2001).
While the self-concept is akin to a storage bin
that houses all self-relevant knowledge, goals,
and attitudes, it has been proposed by some that
230 Academy of Management Review
this bin may comprise multiple identity levels
(e.g., collective, relational, and individual;
Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Brickson, 2000; Lord &
Brown, 2004). The extent to which each level is
activated (which corresponds to its importance)
varies across people. The baseline, “on-aver-
age” activation of the individual, relational, and
collective levels represents a person’s chronic
identity, a traitlike phenomenon (Johnson,
Selenta, & Lord, 2006; Selenta & Lord, 2005).1 We
describe three commonly studied identity levels
here and summarize them in Table 1.
The collective level involves self-definition
based on group memberships (Brewer & Gard-
ner, 1996; Jackson et al., 2006). At this level peo-
ple are motivated by the norms and goals es-
poused by the groups they belong to. These
shared goals and norms typically enhance the
welfare of the group, but that is not always the
case (e.g., group norms may prescribe devotion
to an individual leader). People with collective
identities identify with and internalize their
group’s goals and norms, and they are moti-
vated to fulfill their responsibilities as group
members. The self-worth of people with collec-
tive identities is heavily dependent on the suc-
cess and relative social standing of the groups
they belong to, as well as the successful perfor-
mance of their assigned group roles. When
chronic collective identity is strong, group-
referenced information (e.g., how supportive and
fair one’s company is) is especially salient
(Johnson et al., 2006). Collective identity is sim-
ilar to social identity (Hogg, 2006) and collectiv-
ism (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 2001) in that each
of these constructs reflects a general tendency
to define oneself in terms of the characteristics
of particular social groups (Hogg & Terry, 2000;
Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).
1
Although our focus is on chronic (or trait) self-identity
levels, a person’s self-identity levels may sometimes shift in
response to strong situational cues. Such state-level activa-
tion is known as the working self-concept (Markus & Wurf,
1987). However, it is important to consider chronic self-
identity because many aspects of work and work settings
are enduring phenomena, as exemplified by research on
organizational cultures and climates (e.g., O’Reilly & Chat-
man, 1996; Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003). In stable situ-
ations employees’ chronic self-identities are critical for
guiding cognition and behavior. There are several examples
of empirical research involving employees’ chronic identi-
ties (e.g., Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006;
Johnson & Chang, 2006; Johnson & Jackson, in press).
April
The relational level refers to the extent to
which people define themselves in terms of dy-
adic connections with specific persons
(Andersen & Chen, 2002). At this level self-worth
is based on reflected appraisals from significant
others (Kinch, 1963) such that esteem is en-
hanced by having high-quality relationships
and satisfied partners. This occurs because peo-
ple’s own identities are intertwined with those
of their partners, and, thus, self-worth is contin-
gent on their partners’ well-being. Sources of
motivation at the relational level include serv-
ing the welfare of dyadic partners and fulfilling
their role expectations and obligations. People
with chronic relational identities are focused on
relationship development and maintenance,
which are accomplished by internalizing the
values and goals of their dyad partners.
Relational identity is unique in that it derives
from personalized interactions between dyads,
whereas collective identity emerges from the
incorporation of more abstract values and
norms prototypical of the group (Ashforth, Har-
rison, & Corley, 2008; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). In
work settings high-quality leader-member ex-
change (LMX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) exempli-
fies the characteristics associated with a dyad-
focused relational identity (e.g., trust, fulfilling
partner’s role expectations). While relational
and collective identities may sometimes over-
lap, they are distinct levels owing to different
referent targets. For example, team members
may identify with their team’s objectives and
values (i.e., collective identity) yet not define
themselves based on relationships with specific
teammates (i.e., relational identity).
Third, the individual level involves self-
definitions based on one’s sense of uniqueness,
where self-worth is derived from being differ-
ent—and better—than others (Brewer & Gard-
ner, 1996). At this level people are motivated by
personal values and pursuits that maximize
their own welfare, which is similar to the cul-
tural value of individualism (Hofstede, 2001;
Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis, 2001). In work
contexts self-beneficial outcomes, such as pay
and career development opportunities, are sa-
lient for employees with strong individual iden-
tities. Note that the concerns of these employees
are not limited solely to instrumental interests,
since socioemotional outcomes like recognition,
respect, and power are also important. In gen-
eral, any incentive or punisher, tangible or oth-
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang
erwise, that has direct implications for the self
and can serve as a reference for comparison
with others is important to employees with
strong chronic individual identities.
Two aspects of self-identity should be noted.
First, different attitudes and behaviors are asso-
ciated with different chronic identity levels. For
example, as we argue later, individual, rela-
tional, and collective identities give rise to dif-
ferent forms of commitment. As another exam-
ple, Ybarra and Trafimow (1998) found that
people with strong individual identities base
their behavior on personal attitudes, whereas
those with strong collective identities act in ac-
cordance with group norms. Johnson and col-
leagues (2006) found that this finding extends to
work contexts since employees with strong indi-
vidual, relational, and collective identities
place greater emphasis on the fairness of out-
comes, interpersonal interactions, and group
procedures, respectively.
Second, chronic identity levels are relatively
independent (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Lord &
Brown, 2004). That is, having a strong identity at
one level does not preclude individuals from
having strong identities at other levels. For ex-
ample, while minority group members (e.g., ex-
patriates) may identify with the work organiza-
tion they belong to or with their country of
origin— both of which reflect a strong collective
identity—they may also see themselves as
unique from others owing to their minority sta-
tus—which reflects a strong individual identity
(Kampmeier & Simon, 2001; Simon & Kampmeier,
2001). Empirical findings support the relative in-
dependence of the identity levels (e.g., Johnson
& Chang, 2006; Kashima & Hardie, 2000; Selenta
& Lord, 2005), and, thus, it is important to exam-
ine the effects of each identity level on commit-
ment. To date, commitment scholars have fo-
cused almost exclusively on the collective level.
In addition to self-identity, regulatory focus,
which we discuss below, is an individual differ-
ence that also contributes to commitment.
Chronic Regulatory Focus
Higgins’ (1997, 1998) regulatory focus theory
proposes that there are two goal-striving orien-
tations. One is a promotion focus, which is con-
cerned with gains, ideals, and accomplish-
ments. It is driven by a need for growth and
development and is characterized by setting
231
ideal and hoped-for goals (Carver & Scheier,
1998). The second orientation is a prevention
focus, which is concerned with duties, obliga-
tions, and security. This focus is driven by the
need to protect oneself from psychological harm
and failure, which is done by avoiding adverse
circumstances and setting ought and feared
goals (Carver & Scheier, 1998). Ought goals are
standards that exist when actors feel com-
pelled to set goals out of a sense of duty or
obligation to others (e.g., an employee follows
his or her supervisor’s instructions because of
a belief that the supervisor deserves his or her
loyalty). Feared goals are mental representa-
tions of undesirable, to-be-avoided states (e.g.,
an employee maintains employment so as not
to lose his or her pension). The regulatory foci
are summarized in Table 1.
Three aspects of regulatory focus should be
noted. First, regulatory focus has been exam-
ined both as a chronic individual-difference
variable (e.g., Higgins et al., 2001; Higgins, Shah,
& Friedman, 1997) and as a temporary, situation-
ally induced state (e.g., Johnson & Chang, 2008a;
Shah & Higgins, 1997). Chronic regulatory foci
have also been observed at work. For example,
Johnson and Chang (2008b) reported high test-
retest reliabilities for employee self-ratings of
their promotion and prevention foci over a two-
month period (the average rxx was .75). Our model
concerns chronic regulatory focus levels because
we suspect they have more enduring effects on
stable attitudes like commitment than do momen-
tary shifts in regulatory focus states.
Second, different attitudes and behaviors are
associated with different regulatory foci (Brock-
ner & Higgins, 2001). As we will discuss shortly,
promotion and prevention foci relate to different
forms of commitment at work. Also, regulatory
foci have unique effects on task performance
because they evoke different goal-striving strat-
egies. A prevention focus is associated with a
concern for avoiding mistakes, because errors
are seen as costly and ominous. Such a concern
causes prevention-focused individuals to work
slowly and to be overly diligent. Promotion-
focused employees, on the other hand, adopt an
eagerness strategy that emphasizes speed be-
cause they are more concerned with goal com-
pletion than accuracy (Förster, Higgins, & Bi-
anco, 2003). Promotion focus tends to have
stronger, favorable effects on task performance,
because pursuing approach goals specifies the
232 Academy of Management Review
conditions necessary for success, whereas
avoidance goals merely specify what should not
be done (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Johnson &
Chang, 2008b). Lacking a clear direction for ap-
proaching their task goals, prevention-focused
individuals may find themselves taking ineffi-
cient or erroneous routes.
Third, promotion and prevention foci are inde-
pendent dimensions (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Thus,
it is possible for one person to have high levels
in one focus, both foci, or neither focus. For exam-
ple, people who are high in both avoid the misfor-
tunes of feared goals by approaching successes
tied to their ideal goals. People who are low in
both foci will appear amotivated. Empirical evi-
dence supports their orthogonal nature (e.g., Hig-
gins et al., 2001; Johnson & Chang, 2008b; Wallace
& Chen, 2006), so it is necessary to examine pro-
motion and prevention foci separately.
Furthermore, identity levels and regulatory
foci are independent from each other. Identity
level influences the target or beneficiary of mo-
tivation, which may be one’s self, partner, or
group. Regulatory focus influences the nature of
motivation, whether the target is benefited by
evading negative consequences or accomplish-
ing something positive. For example, employees
with strong collective identities may act in the
best interests of their group because they want
to (promotion focus) or because they feel obliged
to (prevention focus). The independence of iden-
tity levels and regulatory foci is consistent with
Schwartz’s (1992) values theory, which organizes
ten basic values into two orthogonal axes, one
varying from promotion to prevention values
and the other from collectivistic to individualis-
tic values. Researchers (e.g., Bardi, Calogero, &
Mullen, 2008; Bardi & Schwartz, 2003) have found
that promotion values (e.g., stimulation) and
prevention values (e.g., tradition) have negligi-
ble correlations with collectivistic values (e.g.,
universalism) and individualistic values (e.g.,
achievement). Below we discuss how unique
combinations of identity and regulatory focus
cultivate different commitments.
A MOTIVATION-BASED MODEL OF
COMMITMENT
In this section we introduce our motivation-
based model of commitment and provide theo-
retical and empirical evidence to support its
propositions. Our model is illustrated in Figure
April
1. Consistent with Reichers’ (1985) proposal, em-
ployees can be committed to any number of con-
stituents. However, for ease of presentation we
discuss commitment to one’s organization and
supervisor when referring to the group and part-
ner levels, respectively (keeping in mind that
the model can be extended to other targets such
as one’s occupation and coworkers). It should
also be noted that our coverage of chronic self-
identity levels and regulatory foci is limited pri-
marily to work-related targets such that commit-
ment in work contexts is most likely to be
influenced when the sources of identification
and regulation are work related as well (e.g.,
supervisors in the case of relational identity
or monetary bonuses in the case of promotion
focus).
Group-Based Commitment
A strong collective identity leads employees
to define themselves and others in terms of the
groups they belong to (Jackson et al., 2006; John-
son & Chang, 2006), which dovetails with
O’Reilly and Chatman’s (1986) notion of identifi-
cation. The collective level also determines the
standards that employees use to guide their ac-
tions, which are the social norms, values, and
goals endorsed by the companies the employees
belong to. Adopting and abiding by shared
norms and goals parallels the process of inter-
nalization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Collec-
tive-oriented employees also experience a felt
obligation to behave in ways consistent with
group prototypes. Indeed, favorable self-evalu-
ations at the collective level involve affirmative
responses to questions like “Am I successfully
fulfilling the roles and responsibilities pre-
scribed by my group membership?” and “Are my
groups successful?” Failure to successfully en-
act one’s roles leads to anxiety and guilt—two
aversive states that people attempt to avoid
(Fiske, 2004). Acting in ways so as to minimize
feelings of anxiety and guilt reflects introjection
(Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Based on the reasoning above, we expect that
unique associations exist between collective
identity and both AC and NC. We hold this ex-
pectation because the psychological mecha-
nisms that coincide with a collective identity
(identification, internalization, and introjection;
Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Jackson et al., 2006) con-
tribute to the development of both AC (identifi-
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang 233

FIGURE 1
Motivation-Based Model of Work Commitment

Affective
commitment
(group)

Intrinsic
motivation Affective
commitment
(partner)
Identification
and
internalization

Normative
commitment
(group)

Collective
identity
Normative
commitment
(partner)

Introjection Relational
identity

Continuance Continuance
commitment commitment
– few – sacrificed
alternatives investments
(self) (self) Individual
Compliance identity

Extrinsic Promotion Prevention

motivation focus focus

cation and internalization) and NC (introjection;
Becker et al., 1996; Gagné & Koestner, 2002;
Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; O’Reilly & Chatman,
1986). Some initial support exists for these iden-
tity-commitment linkages. For example, Meyer
et al. (2004) have suggested that group identities
are a basis for AC, and Johnson and Chang
(2006) have found that employees’ chronic collec-
tive identities are positively related to their AC.
Similarly, employees with chronic collective
identities perceive themselves as being obliged
to maintain membership in salient social
groups, including work organizations, which
parallels the felt obligations characterized by
NC (Johnson & Chang, 2007). The fact that col-
lective identity is relevant for both AC and NC
234 Academy of Management Review
may also account for the high correlations re-
ported between these two forms of commitment
(Ko et al., 1997; Meyer et al., 2002).
Proposition 1: Collective self-identity
contributes to the development of
AC and NC to a group (e.g., one’s
organization).
If collective identity contributes to both AC
and NC, then a reasonable question to ask is
“How are AC and NC distinguishable?” The key
to answering this question is chronic regulatory
focus. The psychological mechanisms underly-
ing AC (i.e., identification and internalization)
and NC (i.e., introjection) involve qualitatively
different motivation orientations. With respect
to identification and internalization, they lead to
commitment based on desire—the desire to af-
filiate with others, the desire to adopt their val-
ues and goals (which are seen as attractive
ends), and the desire to contribute to their suc-
cess. In other words, identification and internal-
ization entail approach-oriented gains, ideals,
and accomplishments, which are characteristic
of a promotion focus. Although there is little
empirical research examining associations be-
tween commitment and regulatory focus, some
evidence exists. For example, Johnson and
Chang (2008b) and Markovits, Ullrich, van Dick,
and Davis (2008) reported a significant positive
correlation between employees’ promotion focus
and AC but a nonsignificant correlation be-
tween prevention focus and AC (the authors did
not measure NC).
On the other hand, NC and its associated in-
trojection motivations are derived from obliga-
tion, indebtedness, and reciprocity (Allen &
Meyer, 1990; Gellatly, Meyer, & Luchak, 2006).
Acting from duty and obligation is analogous to
pursuing ought goals, which are characteristic
of a prevention focus (Carver & Scheier, 1998;
Higgins, 1997, 1998). Employees with strong NC
remain with their organization in order to avoid
the anxiety they would experience were they to
fall short of their ought goals. Consistent with
these predictions, research findings suggest
that identification and internalization are asso-
ciated with promotion-oriented motivation,
whereas introjection is associated with preven-
tion-oriented motivation (Brockner & Higgins,
2001; Elliot, Sheldon, & Church, 1997; Higgins,
1987; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Thus, at the collec-
tive identity level chronic promotion and pre-
April
vention foci cultivate AC and NC, respectively,
to work organizations and other groups.
Proposition 2: Collective self-identity
interacts with regulatory focus when
contributing to the development of AC
and NC to a group. Specifically, col-
lective self-identity contributes to (a)
AC when employees have strong (ver-
sus weak) promotion foci and (b) NC
when employees have strong (versus
weak) prevention foci.
Whether employees develop AC, NC, or both
may also depend on the level at which their
collective identities exist. When the self is de-
fined at the level of the organization or lower,
commitment is likely influenced by personal ex-
periences as an organizational member, as well
as by norms, values, and support provided by
the organization and its constituents (Meyer et
al., 2002). Knowledge of these norms and goals
provides employees with standards for thinking
and behaving, which can be integrated to form
ideal and ought goals. As mentioned earlier,
pursuing ideal goals and ought goals reflects
AC and NC, respectively. Thus, both forms of
commitment are equally likely to develop when
employees identify with specific organizations.
Conversely, when employees identify with so-
cial referents at higher levels (e.g., occupational
or societal), they are more likely to develop NC.
At these levels social groups often impose work-
related norms that constrain employees’ behav-
iors (e.g., professional ethics, moral codes, and
culturally appropriate etiquette). Because these
prescriptive norms are not organization specific,
they extend to interactions with all organiza-
tions. For example, employees from societies
where life-long employment practices are the
norm view employee-employer relationships as
long-term commitments that are paid back with
high morale and satisfaction (Ouchi, 1981). In-
stead of identifying with and internalizing spe-
cific organizational values and goals, employ-
ees with self-definitions at levels that transcend
a single company obey organization-nonspe-
cific rules, which parallels NC (Cohen, 2007;
Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
In sum, developing AC requires that employ-
ees align their own values and goals with those
of a specific workgroup. This is accomplished
via internalization and identification, which are
aspects of collective identities. Employees who
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang
define themselves at levels higher than a single
work organization are less likely to develop AC
because they do not internalize the goals, values,
and norms of a specific organization. These em-
ployees are instead guided by general rules that
encompass obligations to employers, which taps
into the introjection motivation underlying NC.
Proposition 3: Collective self-identities
that target groups at levels higher
than a single organization (e.g., na-
tional culture) contribute to the devel-
opment of NC to organizations and
groups within organizations.
Partner-Based Commitment
Similar to collective identity, relational iden-
tity is also relevant for AC and NC. However,
instead of an organization or work team, rela-
tional identity contributes to commitment to a
specific person. As mentioned earlier, employ-
ees with relational identities define themselves
in terms of their dyad partners (Andersen &
Chen, 2002; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Not only are
dyad partners included in their self-definitions
(identification) but employees with chronic rela-
tional identities also view their partners’ goals
and welfare as their own (internalization) and
feel obligated to fulfill the role expectations
held by their partners (introjection; Gardner,
Gabriel, & Hochschild, 2002). Because chronic
relational identity coincides with identification,
internalization, and introjection motivations
that target dyadic partners, this identity is ex-
pected to cultivate AC and NC toward those
partners.
One possible target for employees’ relational
identity is supervisors, who are likely candi-
dates because of their status and visibility. Re-
search findings suggest that employees do in-
deed develop commitment toward supervisors,
which has effects distinguishable from the ef-
fects of commitment toward other social entities
(e.g., Becker et al., 1996; Clugston et al., 2000;
Siders, George, & Dharwadkar, 2001; Stinglham-
ber, Bentein, & Vandenberghe, 2002; Stinglham-
ber & Vandenberghe, 2003; Vandenberghe et al.,
2004). While we are unaware of research that
has specifically examined associations between
relational identity and partner-based commit-
ment, some evidence can be extrapolated from
existing research. For example, behaviors signify-
235
ing identification, internalization, and introjection
(e.g., showing interpersonal concern, fulfilling ob-
ligations) are believed to enhance the bonds be-
tween employees and their supervisors, as mea-
sured by LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In fact,
Chang and Johnson (in press) found that supervi-
sors who reported having strong relational identi-
ties tended to have subordinates who reported
high-quality LMX.
Proposition 4: Relational self-identity
contributes to the development of AC
and NC to a specific person (e.g., one’s
supervisor).
While employees with chronic relational iden-
tities are naturally inclined to form strong at-
tachments to their supervisors, the underlying
motivational mechanisms differ depending on
regulatory focus. Paralleling our theorizing pre-
sented in the previous section, we propose that
the coupling of relational identity with a promo-
tion focus causes employees to develop AC to
their supervisors. Relationship-oriented employ-
ees with strong promotion foci view the welfare
of their dyadic partners as ideal goals, which
are given top priority and used as standards for
self-evaluation. Existing literature concerning
commitment in intimate relationships supports
the formulation of AC for people who have
strong relational identities and promotion foci
(Frank & Brandstätter, 2002; Strachman & Gable,
2006a). When a promotion focus is salient in
social domains, people try to establish mean-
ingful bonds, enhance intimacy, and create
common growth and development experiences
with their partners (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006).
These people also identify with their partners
and view themselves and their relationships
through their partners’ eyes, contributing to the
development of AC (Frank & Brandstätter, 2002).
Different mechanisms drive intentions to for-
mulate close relationships with specific others
for relationship-oriented employees who have
chronic prevention foci. These employees are
sensitive to the role expectations communicated
by their supervisors, as well as general social
norms for dyadic exchanges, which are trans-
lated into ought goals that employees feel
obliged to fulfill. Relationship-oriented employ-
ees with prevention foci believe that high-
quality relationships require them to not fall
short in their relationship duties (Frank & Brand-
stätter, 2002). If they do, they will experience
236 Academy of Management Review
guilt and anxiety—two prevention-focused emo-
tions (Brockner & Higgins, 2001)— owing to
threats of social embarrassment and rejection
when their partners are disappointed (Strach-
man & Gable, 2006a). 2 The combination of
chronic relational identity and a prevention fo-
cus therefore fosters NC toward one’s partners.
In support of this idea, Frank and Brandstätter
(2002) confirmed that prevention-focused people
in romantic relationships develop commitment
to relationship partners based on a sense of
responsibility and shame avoidance. A strong
prevention focus also prompts individuals to
avoid disagreements with others and to remain
committed to their partners out of fear of the
embarrassment, rejection, or isolation they
would experience were the relationship to fail
(Elliot et al., 2006).
In sum, chronic relational identity is related to
the development of commitment to a specific
person, such as a supervisor or coworker. When
they also have a promotion focus, relationship-
oriented employees work toward their ideal
goal of enhancing the quality of dyadic ex-
changes, which reflects AC (Strachman &
Gable, 2006a). Relationship-oriented employees
with chronic prevention foci are instead moti-
vated to regulate their behavior so that they
avoid feared goals (e.g., upsetting their part-
ners) and achieve ought goals (e.g., fulfilling
obligations to their partners), which reflects NC
(Strachman & Gable, 2006b).
Proposition 5: Relational self-identity
interacts with regulatory focus when
contributing to the development of AC
and NC to a specific person. Specifi-
cally, relational self-identity contrib-
utes to (a) AC when employees have
strong (versus weak) promotion foci
and (b) NC when employees have
strong (versus weak) prevention foci.
Self-Based Commitment
While collective and relational self-identities
align employees’ self-definitions and goals with
those of external social entities, the motivations
2
It is important to note that NC and CC also entail emo-
tional processing, similar to AC. The exact nature of emo-
tional responses, however, depends on the specific regula-
tory focus underlying each commitment.
April
that accompany a chronic individual identity
are decidedly personal. Employees with individ-
ual identities see themselves as separate from
others, and they pursue self-interested goals
that service their own well-being (Brewer &
Gardner, 1996). According to Triandis, individu-
alism is associated with “competition, self-
reliance, emotional distance from in-groups,
and hedonism” (2001: 38). In organizational set-
tings individual-oriented employees behave in
ways that help them obtain valued economic
and socioemotional rewards and prevent the
loss of investments they have already accrued.
These behaviors, which satisfy external con-
straints for obtaining rewards or avoiding pun-
ishment, reflect the psychological mechanism of
compliance (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986)—an ex-
trinsic form of motivation that underlies CC
(Gagné & Deci, 2005; Meyer et al., 2004).
Employees with strong CC maintain their or-
ganizational membership so long as valued re-
wards are forthcoming, existing investments are
secure, and more advantageous employer-
employee exchanges are unavailable else-
where at another company. Unlike their counter-
parts with collective and relational identities,
individual-oriented employees tend not to per-
form behaviors that benefit the welfare of exter-
nal social entities unless doing so carries some
personal incentive. Only when overlap exists
between the goals of employees and other con-
stituents will behaviors resulting from individ-
ual, relational, and collective identities appear
similar. We therefore propose that employees
with chronic individual identities, who seek in-
centives that enhance personal well-being and
exemplify their uniqueness, will form extrin-
sic-based attachments to their work organiza-
tions. In support of this idea, Johnson and
Chang (2006) observed a positive correlation
between employees’ chronic individual iden-
tity and their CC.
Proposition 6: Individual self-identity
contributes to the development of CC.
Compliance-based attachment does, how-
ever, manifest in different ways at work. The
exact nature of employees’ CC is, we believe,
influenced by regulatory focus. As discussed
earlier, CC consists of two distinct types: (1) few
alternatives and (2) sacrificed investments (e.g.,
McGee & Ford, 1987). Few alternatives is com-
mitment owing to the fact that employees are
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang
unable to locate more desirable employment
elsewhere. The search for more desirable em-
ployment elsewhere represents a potential gain,
and the realization that such employment does
not exist is a nongain. According to Higgins
(1997), interpreting the environment in terms of
gains and nongains reflects a chronic promotion
focus, which should therefore lead individual-
oriented employees to base their CC on the
availability of desirable employment opportuni-
ties. When no such opportunities exist, these
employees comply with organizational norms
and standards in order to maintain their current
employment.
In contrast, the sacrificed investments dimen-
sion of CC derives from the fear of losing eco-
nomic and socioemotional incentives that are
coupled with an employee’s organizational
membership (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Because
these incentives (e.g., health care coverage, sta-
tus) are already in the possession of employees,
they are potential losses that would be incurred
if the employees forfeited their organizational
membership. To avoid these potential losses,
employees maintain their current employment
by complying with organizational norms and
standards. Acting in ways to avoid losses re-
flects a chronic prevention focus (Higgins, 1997).
Because individual-oriented employees with
chronic prevention foci view personal invest-
ments as being at risk, we suspect that they will
base their CC on the costs associated with leav-
ing their organization. Commitment based on
costs is synonymous with the sacrificed invest-
ments dimension of CC.
In sum, individual identity cultivates CC, and
promotion and prevention foci lead to CC based
on few alternatives and sacrificed investments,
respectively. For employees with individual
identities, a chronic promotion focus results in
compliance that exists so long as the employees
are unable to improve their circumstances by
leaving (a nongain). A chronic prevention focus
gives rise to compliance that exists insofar as
employees are unwilling to absorb the costs as-
sociated with leaving (a loss). In line with our
reasoning, Markovits et al. (2008) found that both
promotion and prevention foci were positively
related to CC (the authors did not distinguish
between the few alternatives and sacrificed in-
vestments dimensions of CC).
237
Proposition 7: Individual self-identity
interacts with regulatory focus when
contributing to the development of
CC. Specifically, individual self-iden-
tity contributes to (a) CC–few alterna-
tives when employees have strong
(versus weak) promotion foci and (b)
CC–sacrificed investments when em-
ployees have strong (versus weak) pre-
vention foci.
Interactions of Self-Identity and Regulatory
Focus with Situational Antecedents of
Commitment
The previous propositions specified direct and
interactive effects of self-identity and regulatory
focus on commitment. However, identity and
regulatory focus may also impact commitment
via their interactions with situational anteced-
ents of AC, NC, and CC. Work organizations are
cornucopias of information, requiring employ-
ees to separate relevant from irrelevant infor-
mation. Because humans are limited informa-
tion processors faced with time and resource
constraints, employees cannot consider all of
the information that is available to them (Simon,
1957). Instead, social and personal factors deter-
mine what information employees will use to
construct their subjective realities (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978). We propose that chronic self-
identity and regulatory focus are two personal
factors that increase the salience of contextual
information (Higgins, 1997; Lord & Brown, 2004).
By salience we mean employees are more likely
to perceive, encode, recall, and use such infor-
mation. Self-identity and regulatory focus there-
fore moderate the effects of contextual informa-
tion on commitment.
With respect to self-identity, a strong collec-
tive identity increases the salience of informa-
tion pertaining to social groups, such as how
supportive and fair a company is (Hogg, 2006;
Lord & Brown, 2004). For example, Johnson and
Chang (2008a) found that perceived organization-
al support had stronger favorable effects on AC
toward the company when employees had
strong versus weak collective identities. While
the authors only examined organizational com-
mitment, we expect that these effects will gen-
eralize to other group-based foci (e.g., perceived
team support will have stronger effects on AC
toward teams when employees have strong ver-
238 Academy of Management Review
sus weak collective identities). Likewise, infor-
mation involving dyadic relationships and ex-
change partners is salient when relational
identity is strong (Andersen & Chen, 2002). For
example, Johnson et al. (2006) found that fair
interpersonal treatment from supervisors had
stronger favorable effects on LMX for employees
with strong versus weak relational identities (as
mentioned earlier, LMX is a form of employee-
supervisor attachment). Finally, personal-
referenced information is salient when individ-
ual identity is strong (Lord & Brown, 2004;
Triandis, 2001). In support of this idea, Johnson
and Chang (2008a) found that employees’ satis-
faction with their own pay and benefits had
stronger favorable effects on CC toward their
company when the employees had strong ver-
sus weak individual identities.
We suspect that regulatory focus also moder-
ates the salience of contextual information that
informs employees’ commitment levels, which is
consistent with Higgins’ (2000) theory of regulatory
fit. This theory suggests that the salience and
value of information are higher when the informa-
tion matches a person’s regulatory focus, an effect
that may extend to commitment. Information per-
taining to gains, ideals, and accomplishments is
salient for people who have strong promotion foci
(Higgins, 1997), and this information should there-
fore have a larger impact on people’s commitment
levels. For example, visionary statements describ-
ing ideal states that are communicated by charis-
matic leaders should have stronger effects on em-
ployees’ AC when they have strong versus weak
promotion foci. In contrast, information pertain-
ing to obligations and security is salient for peo-
ple who have strong prevention foci (Higgins,
1997). For example, news of an impending layoff
should have stronger effects on employees’ CC-
perceived sacrifice when the employees have
strong versus weak prevention foci.
In addition, more complex interactions are
also possible when antecedents have properties
that pertain both to self-identity (i.e., they refer-
ence groups, dyads, or the self) and to regulatory
focus (i.e., they reference ideal, ought, or feared
states). For example, achieving group-based
ideal goals (e.g., becoming a Forbes 500 com-
pany) will be particularly salient for employees
with strong collective identities and promotion
foci, thus contributing greatly to their organiza-
tion-based AC. In contrast, the organization-
based NC of collective-oriented employees with
April
strong prevention foci will be cultivated when
group-based ought goals are achieved (e.g., a
company that fulfills its corporate social respon-
sibilities). We expect similar interactive effects
for promotion- and prevention-oriented informa-
tion referencing the self and dyads when employ-
ees have strong individual and relational identi-
ties, respectively. Depicted in Figure 2 is an
example interaction showing the impact of sup-
portive supervisor behaviors on employees’ affec-
tive supervisor commitment when the moderating
effects of relational identity and promotion focus
are considered. Because supportive supervisor be-
haviors are social gains originating from a dyadic
partner, their effects on commitment will be max-
imized when strong relational identities are
paired with strong promotion foci.
In sum, we expect not only that self-identity and
regulatory focus will interact with one another
when commitment is developing but that these
individual differences may also interact with sit-
uational antecedents of commitment. Based on
this reasoning, we propose the following.
Proposition 8: Effects of situational an-
tecedents on commitment are jointly
moderated by self-identity and regu-
latory focus such that (a) group- and
dyad-referenced antecedents involv-
ing gains have the greatest effects on
AC when strong collective and rela-
tional identities, respectively, are
paired with strong promotion foci; (b)
group- and dyad-referenced anteced-
ents involving losses have the greatest
effects on NC when strong collective
and relational identities, respectively,
are paired with strong prevention foci;
(c) individual-referenced antecedents
involving gains have the greatest ef-
fects on CC–few alternatives when
strong individual identities are paired
with strong promotion foci; and (d) in-
dividual-referenced antecedents in-
volving losses have the greatest ef-
fects on CC–sacrificed investments
when strong individual identities are
paired with strong prevention foci.
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The model we present here offers important
theoretical insights by suggesting that identity
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang
FIGURE 2
Self-Identity by Regulatory Focus by Situational Antecedent Three-Way Interaction
High
Affective
commitment
to one’s
supervisor
Low
Low
Supportive supervisor behavior
and regulatory focus are motivation-based indi-
vidual differences that contribute to employee
commitment. Although it has been concluded
that individual differences have little relevance
for understanding commitment (e.g., Irving &
Meyer, 1994; Meyer et al., 1991), we believe oth-
erwise. We therefore encourage future research
employing longitudinal designs that examine
the causal effects of identity and regulatory fo-
cus on commitment, which would permit direct
tests of the propositions. Below we present other
implications suggested by our model.
Dimensionality of Commitment
Our model, which is consistent with a four-
factor conceptualization of commitment, clari-
fies the convergent and discriminant validity
among different commitments. For example, AC
and NC are positively correlated because both
derive from collective identities, yet they di-
verge because the former involves a promotion
focus whereas the latter involves a prevention
focus. This is consistent with the findings of
Gellatly et al. (2006), who noted that employees
with low AC but high NC show an indebted
239
Strong relational identity,
strong promotion focus
Strong relational identity,
weak promotion focus
OR
Weak relational identity,
strong promotion focus
Weak relational identity,
weak promotion focus
High
obligation to their organization—a prevention-
oriented and duty-bound profile of commitment.
Similarly, Lee, Carswell, and Allen (2000) ob-
served moderate correlations of occupational
commitment with AC and NC directed toward
organizations, which were all weakly related to
CC. These findings are consistent with our
model because occupational commitment and
organization-based AC and NC all involve a
collective identity, whereas CC derives from an
individual identity.
Perhaps most telling are the weakest correla-
tions observed among certain forms of commit-
ment. If our model is accurate, commitments
that share a common identity level or regulatory
focus (e.g., AC and NC share an interdependent
identity while AC and CC–few alternatives
share a promotion focus) should correlate with
one another, more so than commitments without
overlapping motivations (e.g., AC and CC–
sacrificed investments or NC and CC–few alter-
natives). Consistent with this idea, Meyer et al.’s
(2002) meta-analytic estimates indicate that the
weakest relationships are between NC and CC–
few alternatives (␳ ⫽ ⫺.02) and AC and CC–
sacrificed investments (␳ ⫽ .06), both nonsignif-
240 Academy of Management Review
icant. These correlations are in stark contrast to
ones between commitments that are matched on
identity (␳ ⫽ .63 between AC and NC and ␳ ⫽ .86
between the two CC dimensions), both signifi-
cant. While weaker, correlations between com-
mitments matched on regulatory focus are also
significant (␳ ⫽ ⫺.24 between AC and CC–few
alternatives and ␳ ⫽ ⫺.16 between NC and CC–
sacrificed investments). These findings suggest
that commitments sharing a common identity
level may be more closely aligned than those
sharing a common regulatory focus.
Our model also provides guidelines for scale
development and validation so that items pre-
serve the meaningful commonality across the
four commitments while maximizing the differ-
ences between them. For example, while items
for both AC and NC should emphasize a shared
collective orientation, they can be differenti-
ated by diverging promotion and prevention
foci. An understanding of commitment-based
motivations also enables researchers to select
correlates that exploit the differences between
commitments in order to demonstrate dis-
criminant validity. For example, we expect
that NC has strong relationships with preven-
tion-oriented variables (e.g., negative affect,
safety performance), whereas promotion-
oriented variables (e.g., extraversion, sales
volume) may relate strongly to AC. Consider-
ing the unique motivations that underlie dif-
ferent commitments may be particularly help-
ful for distinguishing between AC and NC,
which has, to date, been a discouraging en-
deavor (Meyer et al., 2002).
Relative Importance of Different Commitments
Our model is helpful in that it may provide
insight into the relative importance of different
forms and foci of commitment. For example,
when examined separately, AC toward organi-
zations and AC toward supervisors are both sig-
nificant predictors of employee outcomes like
turnover (Stinglhamber et al., 2002; Stinglham-
ber & Vandenberghe, 2003). However, findings
have been equivocal with respect to which one
has the greatest impact on employee with-
drawal. Some researchers have found that su-
pervisor-based AC is the dominant predictor of
turnover, possibly because supervisors are more
proximal to employees than organizations
(Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). However,
April
it has also been suggested that organization-
based AC is the dominant predictor of turnover
because of correspondence between the attitude
and target (Stinglhamber et al., 2002).
One way these conflicting findings might be
reconciled is by considering employee identity.
Similar to our logic underlying Proposition 8
(i.e., interactions between identity and commit-
ment antecedents), the relative strength of em-
ployees’ chronic collective and relational iden-
tities may moderate the importance of different
commitments for predicting behavior. If so, then
organization-based AC would predict turnover
best for employees with strong collective iden-
tities, whereas supervisor-based AC would pre-
dict turnover best for employees with strong
relational identities. Regulatory focus may
have similar moderating effects (e.g., CC–few
alternatives and CC–sacrificed investments
would predict turnover best when promotion
and prevention foci, respectively, were
strong). Knowing which commitment is most
influential for employees is crucial because
different commitment targets sometimes have
competing values and behavioral expecta-
tions (Reichers, 1985). Future research ought to
examine individual differences when compar-
ing the relative importance of different forms
and foci of commitment.
Understanding Person-Environment (P-E) Fit
Our model is informative for the P-E fit litera-
ture by highlighting the importance of employee
identity and regulatory focus when evaluating
fit. Research has consistently demonstrated that
when organizational values and goals are con-
gruent with those of employees, this supplemen-
tary fit has favorable effects on organization-
based AC (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, &
Johnson, 2005). However, apart from organiza-
tion-based AC, other commitment forms and foci
have received little attention as outcomes of P-E
fit. Our model provides a theoretical framework
for anticipating how P-E fit cultivates different
commitments. For example, if employees with
chronic relational identities and promotion foci
work under supervisors who hold high-quality
interpersonal relationships as ideal goals, then
the resulting fit in these circumstances may
strengthen employees’ supervisor-based AC.
Similarly, employees’ tendency to develop CC–
sacrificed investments may be enhanced by P-E
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang
fit if the employees have chronic individual
identities and prevention promotion foci, as well
as work environments where personal welfare
and security are highly valued.
An array of commitments may develop de-
pending on the dynamics of P-E fit, which is
captured in part by the motivation-based indi-
vidual differences included in our model. Future
research might explore how different identity
levels or regulatory foci overlap with particular
organizational values (e.g., Johnson & Jackson,
in press) and how this (mis)fit affects different
forms and foci of commitment.
Commitment Profiles and Interactions
A final implication pertains to how commit-
ment data are analyzed. Because chronic self-
identity levels are orthogonal, employees can
have high levels in all, some, or none of collec-
tive, relational, and individual identities. Simi-
larly, employees can have high levels in both
regulatory foci, just one focus, or neither focus.
Thus, it is possible for employees to develop any
combination of commitments shown in Figure 1.
For example, an employee may have strong
group- and partner-based AC and CC–few alter-
natives, whereas his or her colleague may only
develop strong group-based NC.
For this reason, when examining the motiva-
tion-based individual differences that give rise
to commitment, future studies should apply a
criterion pattern approach (see Davison & Dav-
enport, 2002). Such an approach involves consid-
ering multiple predictors in tandem in order to
create profiles for predicting commitment levels.
Furthermore, when commitment is specified as
a predictor, AC, NC, and CC should be mea-
sured and examined as a set because unique
motivations are associated with each commit-
ment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Approaches
for examining multiple commitments include
moderated regression and profile analysis
(Johnson, Groff, & Taing, in press). Fortunately,
researchers have begun to examine commit-
ment profiles (Gellatly et al., 2006; Herscovitch &
Meyer, 2002; Markovits, Davis, & van Dick, 2007;
Sinclair, Tucker, Cullen, & Wright, 2005; Wasti,
2005) and interactions (Jaros, 1997; Meyer,
Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989;
Randall, Fedor, & Longenecker, 1990; Somers,
1995), a trend that we hope continues.
241
CONCLUSION
In response to organizational scholars’ (e.g.,
Meyer et al., 2004) call for more research explor-
ing the intersection of employee commitment
with motivation, we proposed a model that high-
lights the motivations underlying different types
of commitment. As shown in Figure 1, various
forms of commitment can be distinguished by
considering different combinations of employee
self-identity and regulatory focus. Understand-
ing these motivations is important because they
account for the similarities and differences that
have been observed among AC, NC, and CC.
Our model is also useful in that it can be used to
predict the nature of attachment that an em-
ployee develops toward his or her work organi-
zation and the constituents within it. We pre-
sented preliminary empirical evidence for these
linkages among commitment, self-identity, and
regulatory focus (e.g., Frank & Bandstätter, 2002;
Johnson & Chang, 2006; Meyer et al., 2004), and
we hope that our model helps guide future re-
search in this area.
REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and ante-
cedents of affective, continuance, and normative com-
mitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63: 1–18.
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. 2002. The relational self: An
interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Re-
view, 109: 619 – 645.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identifi-
cation in organizations: An examination of four funda-
mental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325–374.
Bardi, A., Calogero, R., & Mullen, B. 2008. A new archival
approach to the study of values and value-behavior
relations: Validation of the value lexicon. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93: 483– 497.
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. 2003. Values and behaviors:
Strength and structure of relations. Personality and So-
cial Psychology Bulletin, 29: 1207–1220.
Becker, H. S. 1960. Notes on the concept of commitment.
American Journal of Sociology, 66: 32– 40.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L.
1996. Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implica-
tions for job performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 39: 464 – 482.
Blau, G. 2003. Testing for a four-dimensional structure of
occupational commitment. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76: 469 – 488.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this “we”? Levels
242 Academy of Management Review
of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 83–93.
Brickson, S. 2000. The impact of identity orientation on indi-
vidual and organizational outcomes in demographically
diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25:
82–101.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. 2001. Regulatory focus theory:
Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86:
35– 66.
Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. 1990.
Building organizational commitment: A multi-form
study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 245–261.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1998. On the self-regulation of
behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, C.-H., & Johnson, R. E. In press. Not all leader-
member exchanges are created equal: Importance of
leader relational identity level. Leadership Quarterly.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. 2000. Does
cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of
commitment? Journal of Management, 26: 5-30.
Cohen, A. 2007. Commitment before and after: An evaluation
and reconceptualization of organizational commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 17: 336 –354.
Cooper-Hamik, A., & Viswesvaran, C. 2005. The construct of
work commitment: Testing an integrative framework.
Psychological Bulletin, 131: 241–259.
Davison, M. L., & Davenport, E. C., Jr. 2002. Identifying crite-
rion-related patterns of predictor scores using multiple
regression. Psychological Methods, 7: 468 – 484.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum
Press.
Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. 2006. Approach and
avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 378 –391.
Elliot, A. J., Sheldon, K. M., & Church, M. A. 1997. Avoidance
personal goals and subjective well-being. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23: 915–927.
Fiske, S. T. 2004. Social beings: A core motives approach to
social psychology. New York: Wiley.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, A. T. 2003. Speed/accuracy
decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or sep-
arate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 90: 148 –164.
Frank, E., & Brandstättter, V. 2002. Approach versus avoid-
ance: Different types of commitment in intimate rela-
tionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82: 208 –221.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and
work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26:
331–362.
Gagné, M., & Koestner, R. 2002. Self-determination theory as
a framework for understanding organizational commit-
ment. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Society for
April
Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference,
Toronto.
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. 2002. When you
and I are “we,” you are not threatening: The role of
self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 82: 239 –251.
Gellatly, I. R., Meyer, J. P., & Luchak, A. A. 2006. Combined
effects of the three commitment components on focal
and discretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and Her-
scovitch’s propositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
69: 331–345.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based ap-
proach to leadership: Development of leader-member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Ap-
plying a multi-level multi-domain approach. Leadership
Quarterly, 6: 219 –247.
Groff, K., Granger, B., Taing, M., Jackson, E., & Johnson, R. E.
2008. Exploring continuance commitment: A multidimen-
sional approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. 1994. Further as-
sessments of Meyer and Allen’s (1990) three component
model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79: 15–23.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. 2002. Commitment to organi-
zational change: Extension of a three-component model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 474 – 487.
Higgins, E. T. 1987. Self-discrepancy theory: A theory relating
self and affect. Psychological Review, 94: 319 –340.
Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American
Psychologist, 52: 1280 –1300.
Higgins, E. T. 1998. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory
focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 30: 1– 46.
Higgins, E. T. 2000. Making a good decision: Value from fit.
American Psychologist, 55: 1217–1230.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C.,
Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. 2001. Achievement orienta-
tions from subjective histories of success: Promotion
pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of So-
cial Psychology, 31: 3–23.
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J. Y., & Friedman, R. 1997. Emotional
responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory
focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72: 515–525.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing val-
ues, behaviors, institutions and organizations across na-
tions (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Hogg, M. A. 2006. Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.),
Contemporary social psychological theories: 111–136.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social identity and self-
categorization processes in organizational contexts.
Academy of Management Review, 25: 121–140.
Irving, G. P., & Meyer, J. P. 1994. Reexamination of the met-
expectations hypothesis: A longitudinal analysis. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 79: 937–949.
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang
Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan,
C. P. 2006. Psychological collectivism: A measurement
validation and linkage to group member performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 884 – 899.
Jaros, S. J. 1997. An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991)
three-component model of organizational commitment
and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
51: 319 –337.
Jaros, S. J. 2007. Measurement issues in the Meyer and Allen
model of organizational commitment. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Philadelphia.
Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. 1993.
Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment
on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight struc-
tural equation models. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 36: 951–995.
Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C.-H. 2006. “I” is to continuance as
“we” is to affective: The relevance of the self-concept for
organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27: 549 –570.
Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C.-H. 2007. Integrating organization-
al commitment with self-concept and regulatory focus: A
four-factor model. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Conference, New York.
Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C.-H. 2008a. Relationships between
organizational commitment and its antecedents: Em-
ployee self-concept matters. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 38: 513–541.
Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C.-H. 2008b. Development and val-
idation of a work-based regulatory focus scale. Paper
presented at the 23rd Annual Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology Conference, San Francisco.
Johnson, R. E., Groff, K. W., & Taing, M. U. In press. Nature of
the interactions among organizational commitments:
Complementary, competitive, or synergistic? British
Journal of Management.
Johnson, R. E., & Jackson, E. M. In press. Appeal of organiza-
tional values is in the eye of the beholder: The moder-
ating role of employee identity. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology.
Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. 2006. When organi-
zational justice and the self-concept meet: Conse-
quences for the organization and its members. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99:
175–201.
Kampmeier, C., & Simon, B. 2001. Individuality and group
formation: The role of independence and differentiation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 448 –
462.
Kashima, E. S., & Hardie, E. A. 2000. The development and
validation of the relational, individual and collective
self-aspects (RIC) scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 3: 19 – 48.
Kinch, J. W. 1963. A formalized theory of the self-concept.
American Journal of Sociology, 68: 481– 486.
Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. 1994. Influences on the quality
243
of supervisor-subordinate relations: The role of time-
pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of con-
trol. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 75– 82.
Klein, H. J., Molloy, J. C., & Cooper, J. T. In press. Conceptual
foundations: Construct definitions and theoretical rep-
resentations of workplace commitment. In H. J. Klein,
T. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organiza-
tions: Accumulated wisdom and new directions. London:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Ko, J.-W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. 1997. Assessment of
Meyer and Allen’s three-component model of organiza-
tional commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82: 961–973.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005.
Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-
analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-
group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology,
58: 281–342.
Lee, K., Carswell, J. J., & Allen, N. J. 2000. A meta-analytic
review of occupational commitment: Relations with per-
son- and work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 85: 799 – 811.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. 2004. Leadership processes and
follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Markovits, Y., Davis, A. J., & van Dick, R. 2007. Organizational
commitment profiles and job satisfaction among Greek
private and public sector employees. International Jour-
nal of Cross Cultural Management, 7: 77–99.
Markovits, Y., Ullrich, J., van Dick, R., & Davis, A. J. 2008.
Regulatory foci and organizational commitment. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 73: 485– 489.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. 1987. The dynamic self-concept: A
social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 38: 299 –337.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1990. A review and meta-
analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and conse-
quences of organizational commitment. Psychological
Bulletin, 108: 171–194.
McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. 1987. Two (or more?) dimensions
of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the af-
fective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72: 638 – 642.
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. 1996. Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: An exami-
nation of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 49: 252–276.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. 1997. Commitment in the workplace:
Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. 1990. Affective and
continuance commitment to the organization: Evalua-
tion of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-
244 Academy of Management Review
lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 710 –
720.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. 2004. Employee
commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and
integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89:
991–1007.
Meyer, J. P., Bobocel, D. R., & Allen, N. J. 1991. Development of
organizational commitment during the first year of em-
ployment: A longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry
influences. Journal of Management, 17: 717–733.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. 2001. Commitment in the work-
place: Toward a general model. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 11: 299 –326.
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.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L.
2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment
to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, cor-
relates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 61: 20 –52.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. 1979. The mea-
surement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vo-
cational Behavior, 14: 224 –227.
O’Neill, B. S., & Mone, M. A. 1998. Investigating equity sen-
sitivity as a moderator of relations between self-efficacy
and workplace attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83: 805– 816.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational com-
mitment and psychological attachment: The effects of
compliance, identification, and internalization on proso-
cial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 492–
499.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Chatman, J. A. 1996. Culture as social
control: Corporations, culture and commitment. Re-
search in Organizational Behavior, 18: 157–200.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. 1991.
People and organizational culture: A profile comparison
approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy
of Management Journal, 34: 487–516.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. 2003. Organiza-
tional culture and climate. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen,
& R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psy-
chology. Volume 12: I/O psychology: 565–594. New York:
Wiley.
Ouchi, W. G. 1981. Theory Z: How American business can
meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Oyserman, D. 2001. Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser &
N. Schwarz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychol-
ogy: Intraindividual processes: 499 –517. Oxford: Black-
well.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoreti-
cal assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bul-
letin, 128: 3–73.
April
Pratt, M. 1998. To be or not to be? Central questions in
organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C.
Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory
through conversations: 171–207. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Randall, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Longenecker, C. O. 1990. The
behavioral expression of organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36: 210 –224.
Reichers, A. E. 1985. A review and reconceptualization of
organizational commitment. Academy of Management
Review, 10: 465– 476.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information pro-
cessing approach to job attitudes and task design. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224 –253.
Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure
of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in
20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 25: 1– 65.
Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. 2005. Development of the levels of
self-concept scale: Measuring the individual, relational,
and collective levels. Working paper, University of
Akron, Akron, OH.
Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. 1997. Expectancy ⫻ value effects:
Regulatory focus as a determinant of magnitude and
direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73: 447– 458.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. 1998. Not all personal goals are
personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled rea-
sons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 546 –557.
Siders, M. A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. 2001. The rela-
tionship of internal and external commitment foci to
objective performance measures. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 44: 570 –579.
Simon, B., & Kampmeier, C. 2001. Revisiting the individual
self: Toward a social psychological theory of the indi-
vidual self and the collective self. In C. Sedikides & M. B.
Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective
self: 199 –218. New York: Psychology Press.
Simon, H. A. 1957. Models of man: Social and rational. New
York: Wiley.
Sinclair, R. R., Tucker, J. S., Cullen, J. C., & Wright, C. 2005.
Performance differences among four organizational
commitment profiles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90:
1280 –1287.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2007. Relational identity and
identification: Defining ourselves through work rela-
tionships. Academy of Management Review, 32: 9 –32.
Somers, M. J. 1995. Organizational commitment, turnover and
absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction
effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 49 –58.
Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. 2002. Ex-
tension of the three-component model of commitment to
five foci: Development of measures and substantive test.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18: 123–
138.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. 2003. Organizations
2010 Johnson, Chang, and Yang 245

and supervisors as sources of support and targets of
commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 24: 251–270.
Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. 2006a. Approach and avoidance
relationship commitment. Motivation and Emotion, 30:
117–126.
Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. 2006b. What you want (and do
not want) affects what you see (and do not see): Avoid-
ance social goals and social events. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 1446 –1458.
Triandis, H. C. 2001. Individualism-collectivism and person-
ality. Journal of Personality, 69: 907–924.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., Michon, R., Chebat, J., Trem-
blay, M., & Fils, J. 2007. An examination of the role of
perceived support and employee commitment in em-
ployee-customer encounters. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 92: 1177–1187.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. 2004. Af-
fective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and
work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vo-
cational Behavior, 64: 47–71.
Wallace, C., & Chen, G. 2006. A multilevel integration of
personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance.
Personnel Psychology, 59: 529 –557.
Wasti, S. A. 2003. Organizational commitment, turnover in-
tentions and the influence of cultural values. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76: 303–
321.
Wasti, S. A. 2005. Commitment profiles: Combinations of
organizational commitment forms and job outcomes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67: 290 –308.
Ybarra, O., & Trafimow, D. 1998. How priming the private self
or collective self affects the relative weights of attitudes
and subjective norms. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 24: 362–370.

Russell E. Johnson (rjohnson@cas.usf.edu) is an assistant professor of industrial and

organizational psychology at the University of South Florida. He received his Ph.D.
from the University of Akron. His research examines the role of motivation-based
processes and variables that underlie employee attitudes and behavior.

Chu-Hsiang (Daisy) Chang (cchang@health.usf.edu) is an assistant professor in the

Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the University of South
Florida. She received her Ph.D. in industrial and organizational psychology from the
University of Akron. Her research interests include organizational commitment, lead-
ership, employee motivation, and occupational stress and workplace violence.

Liu-Qin Yang (liuqinyang@gmail.com) is an assistant professor in the Department of

Psychology at Portland State University. She received her Ph.D. in industrial and
organizational psychology from the University of South Florida. Her research interests
include occupational stress, motivation, and workplace aggression and safety.
Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.