The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment.
Open accessAbstract
This article offers a conceptual critique of the three-component model (TCM) of organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990) and proposes a reconceptualization based on standard attitude theory. The authors use the attitude-behavior model by Eagly and Chaiken (1993) to demonstrate that the TCM combines fundamentally different attitudinal phenomena. They argue that general organizational commitment can best be understood as an attitude regarding the organization, while normative and continuance commitment are attitudes regarding specific forms of behavior (i.e., staying or leaving). The conceptual analysis shows that the TCM fails to qualify as general model of organizational commitment but instead represents a specific model for predicting turnover. The authors suggest that the use of the TCM be restricted to this purpose and that Eagly and Chaiken's model be adopted as a generic commitment model template from which a range of models for predicting specific organizational behaviors can be extracted. Finally, they discuss the definition and measurement of the organizational commitment attitude. Covering the affective, cognitive, and behavioral facets of this attitude helps to enhance construct validity and to differentiate the construct from other constructs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800302 · Cited by 22,355
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990) · Journal of Occupational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x · Cited by 11,650
A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z · Cited by 11,049
Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States.
Tullock, G., & Hirschman, A. O. (1970) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.2307/2325604 · Cited by 10,904
The measurement of organizational commitment
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1 · Cited by 8,752
PSYCHOLOGICAL, EMPOWERMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: DIMENSIONS, MEASUREMENT AND VALIDATION.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256865 · Cited by 7,383
Chakravarti, D., Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151869 · Cited by 7,141
Cited by
Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change.
Judge, T. A., Weiss, H. M., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Hulin, C. L. (2017) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000181 · Cited by 698
Reviewing employee turnover: Focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion.
Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0027983 · Cited by 608
Sport involvement: A conceptual and empirical analysis
Beaton, A. A., Funk, D. C., Ridinger, L., & Jordan, J. (2011) · Sport Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.smr.2010.07.002 · Cited by 275
The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach.
Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034751 · Cited by 269
Perreira, T. A., Morin, A. J. S., Hebert, M., Gillet, N., Houle, S. A., & Berta, W. (2018) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2017.12.004 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 70-83
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W1508145568
- Cited by
- 707
- References
- 103
- FWCI
- 49.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.70
- The paper
- Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.70
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
