Social identities and commitments atwork: toward an integrative model

JOHN P. MEYER1*, THOMAS E. BECKER2 AND ROLF VAN DICK3

1Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada2Department of Business Administration, College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware,Newark, Delaware, U.S.A.3Institute of Psychology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitat Frankfurt, Kettenhofweg 128, 60054Frankfurt, Germany and Aston Business School, Aston University, Work Organizational PsychologyGroup, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, U.K.

Summary Although social identities and work-related commitment are important aspects of employeeattachment, distinctions between and relations among the two have not been clearly articu-lated. In this conceptual piece, we propose that identity and commitment are distinguishable interms of their essential meaning, foci of attachment, mindsets, volitionality, and behavioralimplications. We further suggest that situated and deep structure social identities aredifferentially antecedent to exchange-based and value-based commitments, and that commit-ment mediates, at least partially, the effects of identities on motivation and work behavior.Finally, we consider the implications of multiple identities for employees in different kinds ofcollectives (nested and cross-cutting). Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Interest in employee attachment has ebbed and flowed over the last several decades, due in part to

shifting views of the workforce as a fixed cost that can be expanded and contracted to meet bottom-line

objectives, or as a valued resource that can provide competitive advantage. Throughout this period a

considerable amount of theory and research has been generated in an attempt to understand the nature,

development, and consequences of employee bonds. Although attachment is partly a function of

personal development and personality (Ainsworth, 1989; Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1997),

our focus here is on attachments driven by organizational phenomena. More specifically, our concern is

with two aspects of attachment, employee identity and commitment. Both concepts have been studied

from a variety of perspectives and are acknowledged to be complex and multifaceted (e.g., Becker,

1992; Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Van Dick, 2001). Moreover,

both have been subjects of interest across disciplines (e.g., sociology, psychology, management

science) with emphasis on different social foci, situational antecedents, and behavioral implications.

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.383

*Correspondence to: John P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2,Canada. E-mail: meyer@uwo.ca

Contract/grant sponsor: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 26 January 2006

Unfortunately, there has been little agreement with regard to the distinctions between social

identities and commitment, and the nature of relations among them. For example, identification has

been argued to be synonymous with commitment (e.g., Ellemers & Rink, 2005; Miller, Allen, Casey, &

Johnson, 2000), a greater whole of which commitment is a part (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-

Volpe, 2004; Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004), or an antecedent of commitment (e.g., Ashforth &

Mael, 1989; Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004; Pratt, 1998). We believe this state of affairs

reflects the fact that much of the theoretical and empirical work concerning social identities and

commitment has been conducted independently, with little attempt at integration. Both literatures are

relevant to our understanding of employee attachment and there is arguably much to be learned by

combining the accumulated knowledge from the two. Thus, our two major goals are to clarify the

difference in meaning between social identity and commitment and to explain the specific ways the two

concepts are linked.

Distinguishing Social Identities and Commitment

Commitment is a force that binds an individual to a target (social or non-social) and to a course of

action of relevance to that target. This definition recognizes that individuals may become

psychologically connected to social foci such as organizations, work groups, and supervisors

(Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996; Bishop & Scott, 2000; Siders, George, & Dharwadkar,

2001), as well as to other foci such as jobs, goals, and organizational programs or change initiatives

(Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, & DeShon, 2001; Herscovitch &Meyer, 2002; Morrow, 1993). It

also reflects that an individual’s bond with a target commits the person to behaviors pertinent to that

target (see Becker & Kernan, 2003, Meyer et al., 2004; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001, for further

explanation of these relations), and implies that commitment can vary in degree. For purposes of

comparison with social identities, we focus here on commitment as it pertains to social targets (e.g.,

organizations), and restrict our discussion to within-target comparisons (i.e., where the identity and

commitment involves the same collective). In a later section, we expand the discussion to include the

relationship between commitment and identity across collectives.

The nature of the link between commitments to foci and action has been demonstrated to vary as a

function of certain mindsets that accompany one’s commitment. AsMeyer and Allen (1997) explained,

employees may maintain an attachment to a given target because they want to (affective commitment),

because they feel they should (normative commitment), or because they have too much to lose by

severing the connection (continuance commitment). Although the implications of these mindsets for

behavior are complex, the general finding is that affective commitment has relatively strong, positive

relations with desirable workplace behaviors such as attendance, citizenship behaviors, and job

performance; normative commitment has weaker positive relations with these behaviors, and

continuance commitment has negligible or negative relations with these behaviors (Meyer, Stanley,

Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).

Although social identities have been defined in many ways, the common element in these definitions

is inclusion of group membership as part of one’s self-concept (Riketta, 2005). Thus, having a salient

social identity involves seeing oneself as part of a larger whole (Rousseau, 1998; Tajfel, 1978). Because

they can belong to multiple groups or collectives, including an organization, division, and work team,

employees can form multiple social identities, one or more of which might be prominent at any given

time (Ashmore et al., 2004; Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004, 2005). Furthermore, social

identities are comprised of cognitive, evaluative, and emotional components (Van Dick, 2001). More

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

666 J. P. MEYER ET AL.

specifically, the mindset associated with a social identity can include a cognitive awareness of

membership in a collective, an evaluation of the collective and self as a member, and an emotional

reaction to that evaluation (Cameron, 2004; Harris & Cameron, 2005; Jackson, 2002). Social identities

also have behavioral implications. For example, social identification has been associated with in-group

favoritism, stereotyping, and openness to social influence, all of which can have implications for intra-

and intergroup dynamics (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Blanton, Christie, & Dye, 2002; Hogg & Terry,

2000).

Social identities can be situation specific or stable and deep seeded. For example, Rousseau (1998)

has suggested that a situated identity arises when situational cues signal that an individual shares

interests with a collective (see also Riketta, Van Dick, & Rousseau, in press). Consequently, it is

dependent on those cues and maintains only as long as the cues persist. In contrast, a deep structure

identity involves the alteration of one’s self-concept to incorporate characteristics (e.g., preferences,

values) of the collective. Once developed, deep structure identities tend to be more enduring and less

cue dependent.

Table 1 summarizes the differences between social identities and commitment based on the

foregoing discussion. Both are complex multifaceted concepts characterized by mindsets (cognitive

and affective) linking the individual to a collective and having implications for behavior of relevance to

that collective. However, there are also important differences. First, whereas the essence of a social

identity involves the definition of self in terms of association with a collective (e.g., group,

organization), the sine qua non of commitment is the binding of a person to a target and course of

action. Notice that simply including association with a collective as part of one’s self concept does not

in itself mean that one feels psychologically bound to the collective or to courses of action relevant to

that collective. Second, a social identity inherently has to do with social foci—other people, groups,

and larger collectives. However, as discussed earlier, commitment can also occur to non-social foci

such as jobs, goals, and courses of action.

Perhaps the most important psychological difference involves the contents of the accompanying

mindsets. For a social identity, the mindset reflects a sense of self and one’s similarity to a collective or

its members. This sense of self includes an awareness of shared characteristics (e.g., values), an

evaluation of these characteristics, and positive or negative affect (e.g., pride, shame) associated with

this evaluation. For commitment, the mindset reflects a force that binds an individual to a course of

action of relevance to a target (e.g., collective, goal). The cognitive elements of this mindset include the

terms of the commitment (e.g., maintaining membership, meeting objectives) (Brown, 1996) and the

basis for the commitment (e.g., value-congruence, obligation, perceived cost) (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

The affective elements vary as a function of the cognitive elements, and can include degrees of

happiness-sadness (affective commitment), security-anxiety (continuance commitment), and pride-

guilt (normative commitment).

Table 1. Differences between social identity and commitment

Dimensions of comparison Social identity Commitment

Essence Definition of self reflectingassociation with a collective

Binding to target and course of action

Types of foci Social Social and non-socialNature of mindsets Reactions to membership:

evaluation and cognitive awareness;emotional reactions to membership

Reasons for maintaining relationshipwith target: terms and bases ofcommitment; related emotional reactions

Behavioral implications Less conscious; consequences lessrelevant to overall group functioning(e.g., retention, job performance)

More conscious; consequences morerelevant to overall group functioning(e.g., retention, performance)

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 667

A final distinction is in the nature of the behavioral consequences of social identity and commitment.

In the broader social identity literature, identities are seen to be of most direct relevance to activities

pertaining to intra- and inter-group relations (e.g., stereotyping, in-group favoritism). Moreover,

regulation of these activities appears to be largely non-conscious (Bargh & Ferguson, 2000; Tajfel,

Flament, Billig, & Bundy, 1971). Although identity-driven behaviors can have important implications

for group functioning, such as the retention and performance of group members (Ashforth & Mael,

1989; Riketta, 2005), the latter outcomes are not specifically recognized as consequences of identity

formation in social identity theory. Rather, they have been introduced as potential benefits of

identification by theorists and researchers specifically interested in organizational identities. As we

explain below, the effects of organizational identification on employee retention and performance are

likely to be indirect. In contrast, by definition, commitments bind an individual to a course of action of

relevance to a particular target, and the course of action specified within a commitment is usually

intended to benefit the target. For example, early definitions of organizational commitment made

specific reference to behavioral implications such as retention and job performance (see Mowday,

Porter, & Steers, 1982). More recently, it has been noted that workplace commitments in general

include explicit or implicit terms that guide target-relevant behavior (Brown, 1996; Meyer &

Herscovitch, 2001). The establishment of these terms, whether self-initiated or externally influenced,

seems to be a conscious process (Meyer et al., 2004). Therefore, social identities and commitment

differ both in terms of degree of conscious regulation of behavior and the immediate relevance of that

behavior to the effective functioning of a target.

An Integrative Process Model

As we noted at the outset, theory development and research pertaining to social identities and

commitment have been conducted in relative isolation with only passing reference to one another.

Consequently, our attempt at integration requires that we speculate on relations that have not yet been

established empirically. In these cases, we offer testable propositions that we hope will guide and be

supported in future research. Figure 1 provides a visual summary of the relevant variables and relations

described below. As we argued above, we begin with the assertion that identity and commitment are

distinguishable in terms of the dimensions contained in Table 1. Although there is some empirical

evidence consistent with this assumption (e.g., Harris & Cameron, 2005; Mael & Tetrick, 1992; Van

Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006), the evidence is sparse. Therefore, we offer as our first proposition,

Proposition 1: Social identity and commitment are distinguishable constructs. First and foremost,

they differ in their core meaning, with social identity referring to the inclusion of group membership

as part of one’s self-concept, and commitment referring to the binding of the individual to a target

and a course of action of relevance to that target. Consequently, they also differ in terms of relevant

foci, characteristic mindsets, volitionality, and behavioral implications (see Table 1).

If commitment and identity are distinguishable but related concepts, we need to consider how they

are related. Although there are a variety of perspectives on this issue, cogent arguments have been made

that possessing a social identity is often a precursor to developing commitment to the corresponding

collective. For example, Ashforth and Mael (1989) reasoned that identifying with an organization

enhances commitment to it because feelings of belongingness and vicarious experiences with respect to

the organization create an emotional bond. Following O’Reilly and Chatman (1986), Becker (1992)

argued that seeking self-defining relationships with other individuals or groups often involves adopting

certain attitudes, including commitment, with respect to those individuals or groups. Similar arguments

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

668 J. P. MEYER ET AL.

have been made by others (e.g., Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Pratt, 1998). Moreover, there is some

empirical evidence consistent with the notion that social identities are antecedents to commitment

(Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Van Vugt & Hart, 2004). Hence,

Proposition 2: Identifying with a collective can lead to the development of a commitment to that

collective.

The specific terms of the commitment that develop will depend on the target of the identity and the

psychological contract that is formed. Brown (1996) argued that the typical terms of a commitment

include continued membership (e.g., in a team or organization), goal directed action (e.g., effort to

achieve a leader’s vision of a team’s objectives), and concern for people (e.g., personal support for team

members). Therefore, a commitment can include any or all of these terms, and these terms determine

the behavior to which the individual becomes bound.

Finally, we qualify this proposition by noting that identification with a collective is not a necessary

condition of commitment because individuals can make commitments without identifying with

the corresponding target. For example, employees can commit to a consistent course of action due to

sunk costs or a perceived lack of alternatives (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997; Staw & Ross, 1987). Further,

it is possible for commitment to have a reciprocal influence on identity, as when a person’s growing

bond with his or her teammates results in team membership playing a larger role in the person’s self-

concept (Meyer et al., 2004). Thus, a more complete explanation of this proposition requires

elaboration of the relevant processes.

Social identities and situational facilitators

As we have already noted, an individual’s social identity includes cognitive, emotional, and evaluative

components, and can take one of two basic forms: situated or deep structure. Rousseau (1998) argued

Figure 1. An integrative process model of identity and commitment

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 669

that situated identities might be characteristic of temporary or marginal employees in today’s

workplace. For these people, the situational cues maintaining the identity with the organization might

include the employment contract, uniforms, and common interests (e.g., customer service). Such

identities are likely to have a limited duration, extinguishing with the disappearance of social cues. In

some cases, situated identities can develop into deep-structure identities. The latter include recognition

of shared values and mutual respect and are therefore longer lasting and less dependent on situational

cues. Deep structure identities are more common among core or long-term employees, and can

continue even after employees leave the company. Further, as we discuss below, deep structure and

situated identities may have different patterns of relations with commitment and behavior.

We propose that both situated and deep structure identities include cognitive, emotional, and

evaluative elements, though these elements are likely to differ in content and strength. In particular,

situated identities are likely to be interest-based whereas deep structure identities are more value-based.

That is, consistent with Pratt’s (1998) notion of ‘identification through affinity’, situated identity is

likely to develop and be maintained in order to ensure good interpersonal relations and a mutually

beneficial exchange. In contrast, deep structure identity is analogous to Pratt’s ‘identification through

emulation’ in which the individual gradually comes to internalize the characteristics (e.g., values) of a

group as his or her own. At this point, the values of the individual and group are aligned so that activities

intended to promote the values of one also benefit the other. Consistent with this distinction, we expect

that deep structure identities will be more readily accessible, evoke stronger emotions, and be evaluated

more positively than situated identities. There may be many other differences as well, but there is little

basis for speculation at this time. Therefore, for now, we offer the following:

Proposition 3: Social identities can take one of two basic forms, situated or deep structure, both of

which include cognitive, emotional, and evaluative elements.

We turn now to a discussion of the development, evolution, and maintenance of social identities. This

topic is broad and highly complex but, fortunately, there have been a number of comprehensive reviews

of the identity literature that summarize key issues (Ashmore et al., 2004; Ellemers et al., 2004;

Haslam, 2004; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005). We draw upon these reviews to identify essential elements

and to focus our analysis on those of particular relevance to the current objectives.

As we noted above, there have been numerous studies demonstrating the minimal conditions

necessary for the development of a social identity (Brown, 1978; Tajfel et al., 1971). These studies

suggest that social identities develop initially when situational cues make two or more social categories

salient, leading the individual to make a comparison that results in self-categorization. These initial

identities are cue sensitive and subject to change as different categories become salient. Consequently,

the resulting identity can be considered situated. Therefore, we propose that an identity that results

from initial social comparison and self-categorization processes will be relatively unstable and cue

dependent.

Proposition 4: Situations that introduce category salience and lead to social comparison and self-

categorization will, in the first instance, contribute to the development of a situated identity.

Rousseau (1998) argued that situated identities are necessary but not sufficient for the development

of deep structure identities. She identified a number of factors that can contribute to the transition from

situated to deep structure collective identity (cf. Riketta et al., in press). These factors correspond to

many of the elements discussed by other identity theorists and researchers. For present purposes, we

consider these to be ‘situational facilitators.’ The factors discussed here and presented in Figure 1 are

not exhaustive. Rather, they are representative of the factors identified by Rousseau and discussed more

generally in the identity literature (Haslam, 2004) as relevant to the establishment of longer-term social

identities.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

670 J. P. MEYER ET AL.

Before we identify specific facilitating factors, it is important to consider why social identities

develop. At a fundamental level, individuals’ social identities are meant to satisfy important needs and

values, including self-esteem, security, and belongingness (Pratt, 1998; Tajfel, 1978). That is,

individuals want to feel good about themselves, and one way many people attempt to do this is to

associate with collectives that are held in high regard by themselves and/or others. Human beings also

value a sense of security against threats to their interests and well-being. This security can often be

provided by associating with others who share their interests and care about their well being. Finally, it

is well documented that many people have a strong need to relate to, and be accepted by, others

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). For such individuals, identifying with a collective can help to provide a

sense of belongingness.

It is the desire to satisfy these needs that makes people sensitive to the cues that contribute to the

development and maintenance of a situated identity. However, because these needs are persistent, it

seems natural that people will prefer stable deep structure identities to transitory situated identities.

Therefore, the factors that facilitate the transition from situated to deep structure identities should be

those that contribute to, or signal the likelihood of, long-term need satisfaction. These factors should

include, but not be restricted to, stability (tenure) in the relationship, status, common fate, and

impermeability. That is, the longer an individual remains a member of a collective, the more confident

he or she typically becomes that other members share his or her interests and values. The higher the

status of the collective, the more positive the individual can feel about him- or herself through

association. Sharing a common fate (e.g., experiencing mutual rewards or threats) with other members

should increase confidence that others will provide support to the individual when needed. Finally, the

less permeable the group (i.e., the more difficult it is to enter or leave), the more stable the membership

is likely to be. Therefore, impermeability should increase confidence in the long-term satisfaction of

the individual’s needs. Thus, we offer the following proposition.

Proposition 5: The transition from situated identity to deep structure identity is facilitated by factors

(e.g., stability, status, common fate, and impermeability) that contribute to the perceptions that

membership in the collective will satisfy basic needs for self-esteem, security, and belonging.

Identity, identity-relevant outcomes, and commitment

One of the earliest observations in research on social identities was that identifying with even arbitrarily

formed groups could promote in-group favoritism (Tajfel et al., 1971). Subsequent research has

discovered other important implications, including behavioral involvement, intra- and intergroup

relations, and susceptibility to group influence (see Ashmore et al., 2004; Haslam, 2004). For present

purposes, we refer to these as ‘identity-relevant outcomes.’ We consider them outcomes because they

require that an identity, even if short-lived, has been established. However, we do not believe that the

influence is unidirectional. Rather, it is likely that individuals who behave in a way that favors the in-

group, or in other ways that signal their membership and involvement in the group, can contribute to the

maintenance and strength of the corresponding situated or deep structure identity.

Note that in Figure 1 we do not include commitment to the collective among the identity-relevant

outcomes. This is because identification with a target can, but need not, lead to the development of

commitment to the target. Unlike the other identity-relevant outcomes included in the figure,

commitments are likely to be largely volitional and can be made in the absence of a social identity. For

example, a contract employee can make a commitment to stay with an organization for a set period of

time, and to perform a set of prescribed duties, without including membership in that organization as

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 671

part of his or her self concept. For these reasons, we treat commitment as distinct from other shorter-

term and more automatic consequences of identity formation.

As we noted earlier, commitment is a force that binds an individual to a target and a course of action

relevant to the target. Commitment is multidimensional in that the mindset can take different forms. To

date, most discussions of the link between social identities and commitment have focused on one of its

dimensions, affective commitment (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer &

Herscovitch, 2001; Pratt, 1998). This is also the only link that has been well established empirically

(e.g., Gautam, Van Dick, & Wagner, 2004; Mael & Tetrick, 1992; Riketta, 2005). However, recent

developments in commitment and social identity theory provide reason to speculate beyond this simple

association. To elaborate, consider once again the different forms that identity and commitment can

take.

According to Rousseau (1998), situated identities are interest-based and cue dependent, whereas

deep structure identities involve the internalization of characteristics of the collective into one’s self-

concept. Although situated identities can be fleeting, as in the study of minimal groups, they can have

longer-term implications under conditions where the relevant situational cues are more lasting. Such is

the case for employees whose relationship with an organization has a limited or uncertain time frame.

In this case, the cue that maintains the identity could be a ‘transactional contract’ (Rousseau, 1995) that

links the interests of the employee with the interests of the organization, thereby creating a mutual,

albeit time-bound, dependence. Under these conditions, situated identity might contribute to the

development of continuance commitment. That is, the employee identifies him- or herself as a member

of the organization and recognizes that fulfillment of his or her self-interests is dependent upon

continued membership and compliance with any other stipulations built into the terms of the contract.

Over time, situated identities can develop into deep structure identities through the internalization or

emulation of characteristics of the collective into one’s self concept (Kelman, 1958; Pratt, 1998). When

this happens, membership in the collective becomes an integral part of the individual’s self-concept.

Internalization and shared values have been shown to be a basis of employee commitment (Becker &

Billings, 1993; Becker, Randall, & Riegel, 1995), and recent meta-analytic investigations have reported

fairly strong and consistent relations between value congruence and employee affective commitment to

the organization (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).

Therefore, one would expect deep structure identities based on the sharing of values to promote

affective commitment.

The link between social identity and normative commitment is less clear. However, recent research

findings provide some basis for speculation. Of particular relevance are two recent studies conducted to

test Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) propositions concerning the behaviors associated with different

‘commitment profiles.’ Gellatly, Meyer, and Luchak (in press) assigned employees to eight profile

groups based on their pattern of scores (above or below the median) on affective, normative, and

continuance commitment. They found that the behaviors associated with strong normative

commitment varied depending on whether it was accompanied by strong affective commitment or

strong continuance commitment. For example, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was above

the sample average for those with strong affective and normative commitment, but below the average

for those with strong continuance and normative commitment. Wasti (2005) used cluster analysis to

create commitment profile groups and also found evidence that normative commitment combines with

affective commitment for some employees and with continuance commitment for others. Although the

difference was not significant, the observed level of OCB was greater for the former than it was for the

latter.

In light of these findings, Gellatly et al. (in press) suggested that normative commitment might have

‘two faces,’ one reflecting a ‘moral imperative,’ (i.e., perceived obligation to strive toward valued

outcomes) and the other an ‘indebted obligation’ (i.e., perceived obligation to meet others’

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

672 J. P. MEYER ET AL.

expectations.) As corroborating evidence for the idea that obligations can be experienced differently,

Gellatly et al. noted recent findings in social psychology demonstrating that beliefs about what one

‘should’ do relate differently to actual behavior depending on whether the person also ‘wants’ to engage

in that activity (Berg, Janoff-Bulman, & Cotter, 2001; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). That is, individuals

were more likely to follow through on social obligations (e.g., forgoing time with friends to attend a

family function) when they personally felt that it was the right thing to do than when they merely felt

pressured to fulfill others’ expectations. This distinction parallels that discussed in the ethics literature,

where some theorists have suggested that high integrity individuals want to do what they should do,

while those with less integrity may not (Becker, 1998).

A final argument in support of the dual nature of normative commitment is provided by the

psychological contracts literature. Here it has been argued that both transactional and relational

contracts involve mutual obligations, but that the behavioral consequences of these contracts are quite

different (Rousseau, 1989; Rousseau & Parks, 1993). Therefore, although there is a need for further

empirical validation of the dual nature of normative commitment, we believe that there may be a benefit

to distinguishing between two basic forms of commitment within our integrative model. The first,

which we refer to as value-based commitment, includes affective commitment and that aspect of

normative commitment that reflects obligation to achieve valued outcomes. The second, which we call

exchange-based commitment, includes continuance commitment and that aspect of normative

commitment that reflects an obligation to meet other’s expectations. Accordingly, we offer the

following propositions.

Proposition 6: Individuals with a situated collective identity are more likely than those with a deep

structure collective identity to develop an exchange-based commitment to the collective.

Proposition 7: Individuals with a deep structure collective identity are more likely than those with a

situated collective identity to develop a value-based commitment to the collective.

As we noted earlier, there are factors other than social identity that can cause individuals to make

commitments, and that determine the nature of the commitment. For example, an individual can

develop a commitment to a particular goal or cause without identifying with any collective associated

with the objective (see Meyer et al., 2004). Nevertheless, we expect that many important commitments

that people make will be based at least in part on situated or deep structure identities with respect to

some collective.

Commitment, motivation, and work behavior

As shown in Figure 1, our model concludes with links between commitment and work motivation and

behavior. In summarizing these connections we draw upon the observations and arguments made by

Meyer et al. (2004) in the context of their theoretical integration of commitment and motivation.

Among other things, these authors argued that employees with a strong affective commitment to a

collective (e.g., organization) experience greater autonomy in self-regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985;

Ryan & Deci, 2000) and that this, in turn, leads to greater willingness to exert effort, particularly on

complex or ambiguous tasks where employee discretion is required. In contrast, employees with strong

continuance commitment experience a greater feeling of being controlled, and therefore restrict their

effort to those things absolutely required of them. Employees with a strong normative commitment fall

between these two extremes.

We acknowledge these links between commitment, motivation, and work behavior, and propose that

value-based commitment contributes to perceptions of autonomous self-regulation and high levels of

discretionary and non-discretionary work activities. In contrast, we suggest that exchange-based

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 673

commitment contributes to a sense of external regulation that can lead to high level of non-

discretionary behaviors, such as in-role performance. However, exchange-based commitment and

external regulation should have little impact on discretionary tasks. By including motivation and

behavior in this integrative model, we also acknowledge the belief among identity theorists that social

identities have implications for behaviors beyond the immediate identity-relevant outcomes described

earlier. However, we propose that the effect of one’s social identity on task motivation and work

behavior will be at least partially mediated by its effect on commitment to the collective.

Proposition 8: The impact of an employee’s social identity on motivation and behavior relevant to

the collective is mediated, at least in part, by its effect on commitment to the collective.

Finally, although we believe that identities are important antecedents of commitment, motivation,

and behavior, we acknowledge that there may be reciprocal influences of behavior on social identities.

For example, according to Bandura’s (1991) social cognitive theory of self-regulation, we learn about

ourselves in part through observing our own behavior. Therefore, engaging in positive discretionary

behavior directed toward a collective might be interpreted as indicating that the collective is important

to the person, thereby leading to an increase in deep structure identity. In contrast, restricting one’s

activities to non-discretionary task performance might help to maintain one’s perception that

membership in a collective is conditional (i.e., situated). Therefore,

Proposition 9: Engaging in only non-discretionary behavior towards a target creates or enhances

situated identity with respect to that target.

Proposition 10: Engaging in positive discretionary behavior towards a target creates or enhances

deep structure identity with respect to that target.

Identities and commitments involving multiple foci

To this point, we have focused on the distinction and relation between identities and commitment as

they pertain to a common collective. However, as we noted earlier, employees can identify with and

commit to many different work-relevant foci. In this section we consider how identities are influenced

when there are multiple collectives, and how multiple identities might combine to influence

commitments and behavior. Full treatment of the issues raised by these questions goes well beyond the

space available. Therefore, we limit our discussion by focusing on relatively stable identities and two

general forms of relations among foci: nested and cross-cutting.

Among the work-relevant foci that might typically engender important and stable identities are

organizations, functional divisions, work teams, professions, and unions. Our earlier discussion is

relevant to the development and consequences of identities involving any or all of these foci. However,

what determines the relative strength of these identities and how do they relate to one another? Ellemers

and Rink (2005) described two basic configurations of multiple identities. The first involves nested

collectives (Lawler, 1992) where membership in one (e.g., work team) requires membership in the

other (e.g., organization). Although the same forces operate to strengthen identities at all levels of

inclusion, in most cases the forces are stronger or more salient at the lower (more proximal) levels and,

therefore, identities tend to be stronger at these levels (Becker et al., 1996; Riketta & Van Dick, 2005).

For example, employees come into more regular contact with members of their work group than they

do with ‘representatives’ of the organization and therefore the distinctiveness and meaningfulness of

their association with the work group is likely to be stronger than that with the organization.

The second configuration described by Ellemers and Rink (2005) is cross-cutting. Unlike nested

collectives, there are no necessary dependencies in cross-cutting identities and therefore employees can

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

674 J. P. MEYER ET AL.

find themselves having to make choices. For example, employees can identify with their profession, the

organization in which they work, or both. Moreover, these identities can have reinforcing or diluting

effects. For example, when goals, values, and norms are compatible, employees might identify most

with, and show the greatest favoritism toward, others who share the same profession and work in their

own department (Hernes, 1997). However, when goals, values, and norms are incompatible, the

strength of an employee’s identity with one could undermine identification with the other (as in

organizations with antagonistic union-management relations).

Ellemers and Rink (2005) described the implications of nested and cross-cutting (reinforcing and

diluting) identities on commitments to the relevant collectives. However, the focus of their discussion

was on implications for affective commitment. As noted earlier, this is not surprising given that

affective commitment has generally received the most attention in both the commitment and social

identity literatures. In light of the evidence provided by Ellemers and Rink and the logic outlined in the

development of our previous propositions, we offer the following propositions concerning the impact

of multiple identities on affective commitment.

Proposition 11: Individuals with multiple identities in nested collectives identify most strongly with

the lower-level collective and develop stronger value-based commitment to that collective and its

goals than they do to the higher-level collective.

Proposition 12: Individuals with multiple identities in cross-cutting collectives develop value-based

commitment to the collective and its goals in proportion to the strength of their identity vis-a-vis

these collectives. When identities are reinforcing, employees experience value-based commitment

to both collectives. When identities are diluting, employees develop a stronger value-based

commitment to that collective with which they come to identify most strongly.

When considering other forms of commitment, things become more complicated. Space does not

permit a detailed analysis of the many possibilities that can result when the potential for multiple foci,

multiple configurations, and multiple forms of commitment is realized. Instead, we provide illustrative

examples to serve as a guide for future theory development and research. To begin, in nested

collectives, membership at a lower level (e.g., work team) requires membership in the higher-level

collective. Therefore, employees who develop a deep structure identity with a work teammight see loss

of membership as a cost of leaving the organization. This could contribute to the development of

continuance commitment to the organization. However, the direction of influence could be the

opposite. For example, an individual who identifies with and values membership in a prestigious

organization might be willing to take an assignment in a division or workgroup merely to remain an

employee of the organization. Consequently, identifying with the lower-level collective might be

considered situated and could lead to a feeling of normative commitment, continuance commitment, or

both.

Turning now to cross-cutting foci, we have already seen that multiple identities can be considered

reinforcing or diluting and that this has implications for the individual’s affective commitment to the

collectives. Although dependencies are less salient in cross-cutting collectives than in nested

collectives, they can exist. For example, consider an employee whose involvement in a profession

requires that he or she work for a particular organization (e.g., the nurse working in the only hospital in

town). If conditions in the organization are not sufficient to engender a deep structure identity and

affective commitment, identification with and commitment to the profession can lead to the

development of continuance commitment to the organization. In another case, employees whose

associations with one group affords them opportunities they would not otherwise have to become

members of another highly valued group might develop strong normative commitment to the first

group. Such would be the case for an individual who landed a job in a prestigious organization as a

result of his or her involvement in a public service group. He or she might remain a member of the

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 675

service group partially out of obligation stemming from the opportunity it provided (e.g., ‘I owe them

too much to leave’).

Although there are many more possibilities than we have described here, the key point is that the

nature and strength of one’s identification with a specific collective can influence the nature of the

commitment to other collectives. Therefore, we offer the following proposition.

Proposition 13:When individuals have multiple identities involving dependencies, a deep structure

identity and value-based commitment to one collective can contribute to the development of a

situated identity and exchange-based commitment to another.

Discussion and Implications

Our objective was to bring together two extensive bodies of work, one dealing with social identity and

the other with employee commitment. Although it was impossible to do justice to either literature given

their complexity, it is our hope that our model will offer direction for future research and stimulate

communication between theorists and researchers within the two areas. We believe that those with

interest in workplace commitment have much to learn from the identity literature, and vice versa.

Therefore we conclude by outlining some of the ways that commitment and identity theories might

benefit from our integrative framework, and the boundary conditions of this framework.

Commitment theory can benefit in several ways from an expanded understanding of the role that

collective identities can play in the development of commitment. First, recognizing that identities can

take different forms varying in content and level of involvement (e.g., situated and deep-structure)

raises the possibility that a collective identity can contribute to the development of more than just

affective commitment. Employees with situated identities, perhaps because their relationship with a

collective (e.g., organization) is temporary or conditional, might be inclined to focus primarily on the

short-term benefits of their relationship with the collective. If so, any commitments theymake are likely

to be exchange-based rather than value-based. Although exchange-based commitments can be useful in

that they increase the predictability of future behavior, the terms of exchanged-based commitments

must be specified clearly. Unlike value-based commitments, exchange-based commitments bind the

individual only to the focal (non-discretionary) behaviors defined within the terms of the commitment.

Second, by acknowledging that employees can develop multiple identities, we hope to raise

awareness of the role played by identity in the formation of commitment to all work-relevant foci.

Although some work has been conducted on this topic (e.g., Becker, 1992; Becker et al., 1996), much

attention continues to be focused on commitment to organizations (Meyer et al., 2002). As more

researchers expand their interest to commitment to supervisors, work teams, occupations, and other

work-relevant foci (e.g., Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000; Stinglhamber, Bentein, &

Vandenberghe, 2002), it is essential for them to consider how identities pertaining to these foci

might help to explain both the nature and strength of employee commitments.

Third, we hope to alert commitment researchers to the possibility that commitment to a specific

collective (e.g., organization) might be influenced by identities with other, possibly multiple, foci (e.g.,

profession, team, union). Further, it is important to remember that the influence can be positive or

negative. For example, individuals who identify with their professions might develop strong

commitments to organizations that reinforce and provide opportunities for free expression of the values

of the profession. That same strong professional identity could prevent or weaken value-based

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

676 J. P. MEYER ET AL.

commitment with the organization if employees see the values of the profession and organization as

being in conflict.

Identity theorists can also benefit from our integrative model because it helps to clarify the links

between identification and important behavioral outcomes, including retention, job performance, and

organizational citizenship. We focused here on clarifying the links between social identities

and commitments, but also acknowledged the links between commitment and employee motivation

and work behaviors. The Meyer et al. (2004) model of commitment and motivation picks up where our

model ends and, together, the two provide an elaborate description of the mechanisms that might be

involved in the connection between workplace identities and behaviors. Both models are grounded in

established theory and research, but also introduce propositions to be tested in future research.

We believe that other theories might also benefit from our model. In general, any theory of

organizational behavior that includes identity or commitment as process or outcome variables can

benefit from clarification of the distinction and relationship between the two. For example, theory and

research pertaining to charismatic or transformational leadership (Bass, 1998; Conger & Kanungo,

1998; House & Shamir, 1993) commonly views identification with, or commitment to, the leader, work

group, or organizations as outcomes in their own right, or as mechanisms by which leadership

influences follower behavior. However, little attention is given to the complexities of identity and

commitment and the relationship between them. Our model suggests that leadership directed at

building strong identification with a collective is likely to affect commitment indirectly, and that the

nature and focus of the commitment will depend on whether the identity is with the leader him/herself,

a workgroup, or the organization. Kark and Shamir (2002) recently argued that transformational

leadership could foster identification with the leader or a collective depending on whether it focuses

attention on the dyadic relationship or a broader collective goal. If this is the case, then these leadership

behaviors might have corresponding effects on commitments to these foci. Our model can serve as a

guide to leadership theorists and researchers as they examine these indirect effects on commitment. It

could also serve as an important guide to theorists and researchers interested in direct effects of

leadership on commitment (cf. Meyer et al., 2004).

Of course, all theories have boundary conditions. Two that we believe are particularly relevant to our

framework are extreme identification tendencies and the effects of bases of commitment other than

identification. A person who is extraordinarily individualistic, or who has an attachment disorder, may

form a loose, situated identity as a result of the demands of social context. However, due to his or her

unique condition, even in the presence of situational facilitators he or she may not develop a deep

structure identity. On the other hand, a person whose self-esteem depends almost entirely on

membership in high-status collectives may automatically commit to such a collective once the

corresponding identity is formed. In this case, the distinction between identity and commitment would

be blurred. Regarding the bases of commitment, variables other than identification can have powerful

effects on commitment to social foci and goal commitment. Examples are value congruence,

socialization, and personal investments (Meyer et al., 2004). When one or more of these bases of

commitment have more potent effects than identification, the direct and indirect effects of identification

on commitment and behavior may be ‘washed out’—i.e., diminished or eliminated. Thus, these other

bases of commitment would serve as boundary conditions to identity effects.

The value of our model for theory development in any of the forgoing domains, and for the practical

application of these theories, will depend on the extent of boundary conditions and the validity of our

propositions. Therefore, we hope that researchers will take up the challenge and test these propositions

and examine the boundary conditions. In so doing, it is important to give careful consideration to the

nature of the measures used. Measures of identity and commitment should reflect the essence of

the constructs as they are defined. This might require the refinement of existing measures or the

development of new ones. To illustrate, in his recent meta-analysis, Riketta (2005) found that

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 677

the strength of the relation between organizational identity and affective organizational commitment

varied as a function of the measures used. Differences in relations with other variables also varied as a

function of the measure, particularly the measure of identification. More specifically, correlations

between organizational identification and affective commitment were greater in studies using the

Organizational Identification Questionnaire (OIQ; Cheney, 1983) than in those using (Mael’s, 1989;

Mael & Tetrick, 1992) scale. Relations between identification and other variables (e.g., job satisfaction,

turnover intention) were also more similar to correlations for affective commitment in studies using the

OIQ. Riketta argued that this might be due to the fact that development of the OIQ was based on a very

broad conceptualization of identification (i.e., Patchen, 1970). In contrast, Mael’s measure was based

on a narrower definition and consequently has less item overlap with the Organizational Commitment

Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) and the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS;

Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993).

Because they were based on definitions of commitment that included identification as part of the

construct, the ACS and OCQ may also measure a broader construct than that reflected in our definition.

Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) recently argued that there might be a need for refinement of existing

measures of organizational commitment, and that measures developed in the future to assess

commitments to other foci should be based on sound definitions that clearly reflect the nature (e.g.,

mindsets) and terms of the commitment as it pertains to the target of interest. Therefore, we encourage

researchers interested in testing the propositions presented here to pay careful attention to the selection

or development of the measures they use.

Finally, although they may only be realized once our propositions have been fully tested, we believe

that our integrative model has important implications for human resource management. For instance,

our model suggests that the nature of identity and commitment might be different for contractual,

temporary, or marginal employees than it is for full-time core employees. It might be difficult for the

former to develop anything more than a situated identity and an exchange-based commitment to the

organization. As noted above, situated identity and exchange-based commitment can have benefits for

the organization as long as the organization’s expectations for these employees (i.e., the terms of their

commitment) can be clearly specified. However, given the uncertainties of the modern workplace, it is

possible that even contract or temporary employees will be empowered to make decisions (e.g., how to

respond to a customer’s complaint). Exchange-based commitment might not be sufficient to ensure that

employees consider the organization’s best interest in making such decisions. If developing a strong

affective commitment to the organization is not possible (e.g., due to the need to maintain flexibility in

the employment relationship), it is possible that employers can achieve the desired behaviors from

contractual or temporary employees by selecting for or helping to establish a deep structure identity and

value-based commitment to another collective (e.g., occupation, clientele) with similar goals and

values.

More generally, our model, in combination with the model of commitment and motivation proposed

by Meyer et al. (2004), helps to explain two key forms of employee attachment and their links to self-

regulatory processes, motivation, and behavior. This explanation, if correct, holds the potential for

generating additional insights into the effects of antecedents of attachment. Among these are

transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998), perceived-organizational support (Rhoades &

Eisenberger, 2002), organizational justice (Blader & Tyler, 2005; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), and

high-involvement work practices (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995). Ultimately, a valid model of employee

identities and commitments would allow behavioral scientists to trace the impact of these antecedents

through the chain of mechanisms contained in the model to important behaviors, including retention,

performance, and citizenship. The effects of even more distal factors, such as specific human resource

practices, could be followed through to their ultimate ends usingmodels such as ours. It is often difficult

or impossible to demonstrate the impact of such practices on employee behavior, let alone the

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

678 J. P. MEYER ET AL.

organization’s bottom line. However, if clear connections can be established between specific HR

practices and identification or commitment, it would become possible to better understand and predict

how these practices influence individual and organizational effectiveness (Meyer & Smith, 2000).

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Denise Rousseau for her comments on an earlier version of this paper. We

also thank FredMael, Michael Pratt, Lynne Shore, and Bob Vandenberg for stimulating comments. The

first author was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of

Canada.

Author biographies

John P. Meyer received his PhD in personality and social psychology at the University of Western

Ontario, where he is now a professor and chair of the graduate program in industrial-organizational

psychology. His research interests include work place commitments, work motivation, organizational

justice, leadership, and organizational change.

Thomas E. Becker earned is PhD in 1990 in industrial-organizational psychology at the Ohio State

University, and is now an associate professor in the department of business administration at the

University of Delaware. His primary research interests are employee commitment, integrity, motiv-

ation, and job performance.

Rolf Van Dick received his PhD in 1999 in social psychology at the Philipps University in Marburg,

Germany. He is now chair of social psychology at Goethe Universitat Frankfurt, Germany and also

hold’s a part time chair at Aston University in Birmingham, UK. Rolf’s primary research is on

individuals’ attachment to organizational groups and social identity processes in organizations. Rolf is

associate editor of the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709–716.Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normativecommitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 670–687.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,14, 20–39.

Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity:Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 679

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 50, 248–287.

Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes.Psychological Bulletin, 126, 925–945.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, educational, and military impact. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as afundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy ofManagement Journal, 35, 232–244.

Becker, T. E. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy of ManagementReview, 23, 154–161.

Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 14, 177–190.

Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. W. (1996). Foci and bases of commitment: Implicationsfor performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464–482.

Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. W. (1997). Validity of three attachment style scales:Exploratory and confirmatory evidence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 477–493.

Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-role and extra-role performance. Human Performance, 16, 327–348.

Becker, T. E., Randall, D. M., & Riegel, C. D. (1995). The multidimensional view of commitment and the theory ofreasoned action: A comparative evaluation. Journal of Management, 21, 617–638.

Berg, M. B., Janoff-Bulman, R., & Cotter, J. (2001). Perceiving value in obligations and goals: Wanting to do whatshould be done. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 982–995.

Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteems asdistinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577.

Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directedteam environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 439–450.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects of fairness? InJ. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.),Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 329–354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Blanton, H., Christie, C., & Dye, M. (2002). Social identity versus reference frame comparisons: The moderatingrole of stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 252–267.

Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying the existing constructtypology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230–251.

Brown, R. J. (1978). Divided we fall: An analysis of relations between sections of a factory workforce. In H. Tajfel(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 395–429). New York: Academic Press.

Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239–262.Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study oforganizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342–362.

Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci ofcommitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5–30.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effec-tiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:Plenum.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identityperspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478.

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and groupself-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371–389.

Ellemers, N., & Rink, F. (2005). Identity in work groups: The beneficial and detrimental consequences of multipleidentities and group norms for collaboration and group performance. Advances in Group Processes, 22, 1–41.

Foreman, P., &Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations.OrganizationScience, 13, 618–637.

Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and organizational commitment:Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 301–315.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

680 J. P. MEYER ET AL.

Gellatly, I. R., Meyer, J. P., & Luchak, A. A. (in press). Combined effects of the three components of commitmenton focal and discretionary behavior: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch’s propositions. Journal of VocationalBehavior.

Harris, G. E., & Cameron, J. E. (2005). Multiple dimensions of organizational identification and commitment aspredictors of turnover intentions and psychological well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37,159–169.

Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts,controversies and contributions. In G. P. Hodgkinson, & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial andorganizational psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 39–118). Chichester: Wiley.

Hernes, H. (1997). Cross-cutting identifications in organizations. In S. A. Sachman (Ed.), Cultural complexity inorganizations: Inherent contrasts and contradictions (pp. 343–366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-componentmodel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts.Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories.In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81–107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, andcorporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672.

Jackson, J. W. (2002). Intergroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification andperceived intergroup conflict. Self and Identity, 1, 11–33.

Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collectiveselves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational andcharismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 67091 ). Amsterdam: JAI Press.

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journalof Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of goalcommitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,85, 32–55.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor ofemployee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: Ameta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 58, 281–342.

Lawler, E. J. (1992). Affective attachment to nested groups: A choice-process theory. American SociologicalReview, 57, 327–339.

Mael, F. (1989). Organizational identification: Construct redefinition and a field application with organizationalalumni. (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 5050.

Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 52, 813–824.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. HumanResource Management Review, 1, 61–89.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and testof a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551.

Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptualanalysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human ResourceManagement Review, 11, 299–326.

Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). Human resource management practices and organizational commitment: Testof a mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 319–331.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normativecommitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 681

Miller, V. D., Allen, M., Casey, M. K., & Johnson, J. R. (2000). Reconsidering the organizational identificationquestionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 626–658.

Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment,absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

O’Reilly, C. A. III. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effectsof compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,492–499.

Patchen, M. (1970). Participation, achievement, and involvement on the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten, & P. C.Godgrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 698–714.

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.

Riketta, M., & Van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of thestrength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment. Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 67, 490–510.

Riketta, M., Van Dick, R., & Rousseau, D. M. (in press). Employee attachment in the short and long run:Antecedents and consequences of situated and deep-structure identification. Zeitschrift fur Personalpsychologie.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities andRights Journal, 2, 121–139.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwrittenagreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,217–233.

Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in Organiz-ational Behavior, 15, 1–43.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, socialdevelopment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlledreasons 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 relationship of internal and external commitment foci toobjective job performance measures. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 580–590.

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1987). Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. In L. L.Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 39–78). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of the three-component model ofcommitment to five foci: Development of measures and substantive test. European Journal of PsychologicalAssessment, 18, 123–138.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiationbetween social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London: AcademicPress.

Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. P. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior.European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.

Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from social andorganizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 265–283.

Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization oforganizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 77, 171–191.

Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2005). Categroy salience and organizational identification.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 273–285.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

682 J. P. MEYER ET AL.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 571–584 (this issue).

Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 86, 585–598.

Verquer, M. L., Beehr, R. A., &Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization firand work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473–489.

Wasti, S. A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 290–308.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 27, 665–683 (2006)

SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND COMMITMENTS AT WORK 683