Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,051

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

FOCI AND BASES OF COMMITMENT: ARE THEY DISTINCTIONS WORTH MAKING?

Becker, T. E.·1992·Academy of Management Journal

Abstract

This study examined the contribution of two concepts to the conventional view of commitment: foci of commitment, the individuals and groups to whom an employee is attached, and bases of commitment, the motives engendering attachment. Commitment to top management, supervisor, and work group were important determinants of job satisfaction, intent-to quit, and prosocial organizational behaviors over and above commitment to an organization. Compliance, identification, and internalization as bases of commitment were unique determinants above and beyond commitment to the foci.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/256481

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Becker, T. E.
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Published
1992-03-01
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
232-244
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
OpenAlex
W2031558695
Cited by
1,051
References
0
FWCI
16.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.