The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review.
Open accessAbstract
Organizational identification has been argued to have a unique value in explaining individual attitudes and behaviors in organizations, as it involves the essential definition of entities (i.e., individual and organizational identities). This review seeks meta-analytic evidence of the argument by examining how this identity-relevant construct functions in the nexus of attitudinal/behavioral constructs. The findings show that, first, organizational identification is significantly associated with key attitudes (job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment) and behaviors (in-role performance and extra-role performance) in organizations. Second, in the classic psychological model of attitude-behavior relations (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), organizational identification is positioned as a basis from which general sets of those attitudes and behaviors are engendered; organizational identification has a direct effect on general behavior above and beyond the effect of general attitude. Third, the effects of organizational identification are moderated by national culture, a higher-level social context wherein the organization is embedded, such that the effects are stronger in a collectivistic culture than in an individualistic culture. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings and future research directions are discussed.
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
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224 · Cited by 21,995
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467 · cited 1×
“As a dominant psychological approach to identity and identification, social identity theory explains how individuals construct their self-concepts from the identity of the collectives they belong to (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1985).”
BackgroundBorenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“Second, the issue of publication bias, defined as the selective publication of studies that have statistically significant findings, has been an important issue for psychological science for at least three decades (e.g., Ferguson & Brannick, 2012; Rosenthal, 1979, 1995).”
BackgroundA Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291170 · Cited by 7,330 · cited 1×
“We used five model fit indices—chi-square ( 2), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; also known as the non-normed fit index, Tucker & Lewis, 1973), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR)—to investigate the…”
MethodMathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.108.2.171 · Cited by 6,449
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630002600307 · Cited by 5,897
Cited by
Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & Lepine, J. A. (2017) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12185 · Cited by 532
Mao, Y., He, J., Morrison, A. M., & Andres Coca-Stefaniak, J. (2021) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1770706 · Cited by 367
What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research.
Stanley, T. D., Carter, E. C., & Doucouliagos, H. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000169 · Cited by 307
Steffens, N. K., Munt, K. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2021) · Organizational Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/2041386620962569 · Cited by 267
Suspicion in the workplace: Organizational conspiracy theories and work‐related outcomes
Douglas, K. M., & Leite, A. C. (2017) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12212 · Cited by 132
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, E.-S., Park, T.-Y., & Koo, B.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 141
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1049-1080
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W1718882817
- Cited by
- 636
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 48.27
- 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: Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/bul0000012
- The paper
- Lee, E.-S., Park, T.-Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000012
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.
