Jwrnal of Applied Pa

hology 1987. vol. '2, No. 4,

ö8-642
Cwyright 1987 by the American Asociatim, Inc.
0021-9010/87/300.75

(or More?) Dimensions of Organizational Commitment:

Reexamination of the Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales
Gail W. McGee and Robert C. Ford
Department of Management, University of Alabama at Birmingham

TWO distinct views of commitment have developed, one that regards it as

attitudinal and the other as behavioral. Meyer and Allen (1984) acknowledged the importance
of both approaches (labeling them affective and continuance commitment) and developed

scales for measuring each. The present study reexamined some psychometric properties of
these scales. The affective commitment scale appeared to be unidimensional and had good
internal consistency reliability. For the continuance commitment scale, however, two distinct
dimensions identified. The first reflected commitment based on few existing employment
alternatives, and the second reflected commitment based on personal sacrifice assœiated with
leaving the organization. Affective commitment was correlated significantly and negatively
with the first dimension (low alternatives) and significantly and positively with the second
dimension (high personal sacrifice). Recommendations for future use

of these scales are discussed.
In recent years many studies have focused on the concept
of organizational commitment. One literature review
(Reichers, 1985) identified 1 1 studies treating commitment
as an independent variable and more than 20 viewing it as a
dependent variable. Despite so much attention, the concept
itself (and, therefore, its measurement) is not thoroughly
understood.
 TWO of commitment have dominated the literature. The
first sees commitment as affective or attitudinal. The
individual identifies with the organization and, therefore, is
committed to maintain membership in order to pursue its
goals. This approach typically has been operationalized with
a scale develwed by Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (
1974).
A quite different view of organizational commitment
known as the "side-bet theory" evolved from the work of
Becker (1960), who regarded commitment as behavioral
rather than attitudinal. According to this view, the individual
is bound to the organization through extraneous interests
(e.g., pensions, seniority) rather than favorable affect toward
the organization. Behavioral commitment usually has been
operationalized with scales developed by Ritzer and Trice
(1969) and modified by Hrebiniak and Alutto ( 1972).
Meyer and Allen (1984), who labeled these two views as
affective and continuance commitment, suggested that they
have been confounded in previous studies. Meyer and Allen
stated that "the measure used to test Becker's side-bet theory
of commitment is saturated with affective commitment and,
as such, does not allow the theory to be tested appropriately"
(p.
purpose of this study was to reexamine some psychometric
of the Meyer and Allen scales.
Method
Subjects and Procedure
Questionnaires were mailed to 997 faculty from 4-year colleges
and universities in the United States and Canada whose names were
selected randomly from the National Faculty Directory ( 1984).
Twenty-six sub jects could not be contacted because of retirement,
relocation, or death. Of the remaining 971 subjects, 350 responded
for a return rate of 36%. According to Locke, Fitzpatrick, and White
(1983), this percentage is within the normal range for faculty
surveys. Comparing respondents with nonrespondents on available
demographic characteristics indicated no major differences.
Measures
Affective commitment was measured using Meyer and Allen's (
1984) eight-item Affective Commitment Scale (ACS). Continuance
commitment also was measured using an eight-item Continuance
Commitment Scale (CCS) constructed by Meyer and Allen. In two
samples, Meyer and Allen reported internal consistency reliability
estimates (Cronbach's alpha) of .88 and .84 for the ACS and .73 and
.74 for the CCS.

We wish to thank the editor for his helpful suggestions on an Results

earlier draft of this article. We also gratefully acknowledge the
comments of two anonymous reviewers.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Gail W. McGee, Department of Management, University of
Alabama at Birmingham, University Station, Birmingham,
Alabama 35294.
378). They developed and tested alternative scales to
measure both affective and continuance commitment. The
638
TWO (OR MORE?) DIMENSIONS OF COMMITMENT
Demographic Data
Subjects represented a broad range of ages, disciplinary
areas, geographic regions, institutional sizes, and
organizational tenure. Ages ranged from 27 years to 71 years
(M age = 48). Tenure ranged from 1 to 40 years; average
tenure was 14.5 years. Demographic characteristics of our
subjects were compared
639

Table 1
Factor Analysis of 16 Organizational Commitment Items: Two-Factor Solution
Factor

Factor 1 Factor
item 2
ACSI: I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. .899 -
.221
ACS2: I do not feel "emotionally attached" to this organization. .832 -
.139
ACS3: This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. .818 -
.09
ACS4: I do not feel like "part ofthefamily" at this organization. .707 -
.162
ACS5: I would be very hapw to spend the rest of my career with this organization. .662 .146
 ACS6: I enjoy discussing my with outside it. .618 -
.045
I really feel as ifthis organization 's problems are my own. .557
ACS8: I think [ could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this .419 .133
one.
ccsl•. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as -.139 .624
desire.
ccs2•. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable o personal sacrifice—
another organization may not match the overall benefits I have. .247 .618 ccs3: feel I have too few cptions to consider leaving
this organimtion. .1 10 .586 CCS4: One ofthe few negtive consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of
available alternatives. -.196 .548 ccs5: It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.
.385 .534 ccs6: Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organizaüon now. .289
.518 ccs7: It wouldn't be too costly for me to leave my organization in the near future. .167 .198 ccs8: I am
not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up. -.07] .164

Oo Note. ACS = Affective Commitment Scale. CCS = Continuance Commitment Scale. Items presented in random order in the questionnaire;
reverse-worded items were reverse scored prior to data analyses. Table 2
Factor Analysis of16 Organizational Commitment
Oo Items: Four-Factor Solution

with corresponding national data from the Fact Bookfor Factor

Academic Administrators (Anderson, 198 1 Seventy-eight Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
percent ofour subjects were men (73% nationally), and 75% .894 .085
ACS I -.224
were associate or full professors (50% nationally). Twenty
ACS3 .835 -.019 .082 .007
percent of our subjects were in the social sciences (20%
ACS2 .832 -.130 .096 -.005
nationally), 13% in the physical sciences (13% nationally),
ACS4 .706 -.154 .070 -.054
6% in engineering (8% nationally), 22% in the humanities
ACS6 -.058 .235 .051
(25% nationally), 10% in the biological sciences (7% .92
nationally), 8% in business (5% nationally), and 1 1% in ACS5 .572 -.052 .409
education (13% nationally). Eleven percent of our subjects ACS? .537 .008 .164 -.053
were from other areas (e.g., social work, home economics). ACS8 .333 .333 .081
Our subjects, then, appeared to adequately represent the U.S. -.159 .689 .058 .002
population ofcotlege and university faculty.
ccs4
ccs3 -.084 .686 .099 .130
O —. 166 .580 .241 .089
Psychometric Properties ofthe Commitment Scales .129 .177 .670 .018
ccs6
Dimensionality of the scales. The 16 items comprising the ccss .241 .221 .631
O two scales were factor analyzed using maximum likelihood
ccs2 .152 .475 .086
estimation followed by varimax rotation. Two factor analyses were
performed: the first specifying two factors (as suggested by Meyer & ccs7 .117 -.015 .157 .980
Allen, 1984) and the second forcing no specific number of factors.
The results of these analyses are shown in Tables Note. ACS = Affective Commitment Scale. CCS = Continuance
Commitment Scale. Item numbers correspond to numbas shown in
In the two-factor solution the eight ACS items loaded on Table I. Highest loadings are underscored.
640 GAIL W. McGEE AND ROBERT C. FORD
the first factor. Six of the eight continuance-commitment Table 3
items loaded strongly on the second factor. These results Interscale Correlations For AJëctiye and
generally supported the scale dimensionality suggested by Continuance Commitment
Meyer and Allen (1984), although two CCS items did not
have acceptable loadings.
The second analysis yielded four factors, three of which
Affective
were interpretable. Seven of the eight affective-commitment
Commitm
items clearly loaded on the first factor. Examination of the
ent (8
item wording for the second and third factors revealed that
items)
the three items that constituted the second factor reflected
2. Continuance
the role of available alternatives in the decision to remain on
Commitment
one's job; the items loading on the third factor reflected
personal sacrifice that would result from leaving the (8 items) .08
organization. Meyer and Allen
 3. Continuance Commitment:
Low alternatives
(3 items)
4. Conti nuance Commitment:
High
(3 items) .37*
oO
(1984) stated that they experimentally manipulated
subjects' perceptions of continuance commitment "by
information about the investments (side bets) the individual had acO
o cumulated and the extent to which he perceived alternatives to his
present job" (p. 374). Meyer and Allen actually described the two
different aspects or dimensions of commitment reby the second and
third factors in the present study.
Reliabilities of the scales. The factor analyses suggested
deleting two CCS items and recomputing the remaining six
items as two subscales. Internal consistency reliability
estimates (Cronbach's alpha) were calculated for the
following four scales:
(a) the original ACS, (b) the original CCS, (c) the new
subscale (Low Perceived [CC:LowAlt]), and (d)
new subscale CCS (High Personal Sacrifice [C.C•.HiSac]).
Reliability coefficients for these scales were .88, .70, .72,
and .71, respectively. Because the two new CC subscales
contained only three items each, the internal consistency
reliability estimates of .72 and .71 were quite acceptable. In
fact, they were slightly higher than the internal consistency
estimate for the original CCS, despite its greater number of
items. The of additional items for each subscale
might improve their reliabilities and bring them into line
with the ACS.
Correlations among commitment scales. Correlations
among the ACS, CCS, CC:HiSac, and CC:LoAlt subscales are shown O
o in Table 3. In one sample, Meyer and Allen (1984) reported a
correlation between the ACS and CCS of —.01 ; in a second sample,
the correlation was .25, which was reported to be insignificant. The
correlation of between the ACS and CCS in our study supports their
finding. However, examination of the subscale correlations suggests
a different conclusion. Affective commitment was significantly and
negatively related to CC:LowAlt, but and positively
related to CC:HiSac. Employees who were more emotionally
committed were significantly less likely to remain because of a
perceived lack of alternatives, but significantly more likely to
perceive great personal sacrifice related to leaving. The apparent
lack of asociation between the ACS and CCS occurred because the
correlations between the ACS and the two subscales were
approximately equal in magnitude but (mosite in sign.
Discussion
This study lends substantial support to the conceptual distinction
between affective and continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen,
1984; Reichers, 1985; Steers & Porter, 1983). Furthermore, the study
provides additional evidence for the usefulness of the commitment
scales by Meyer and Allen. However, our results
suggest some caution when using the scales.
The ACS, as by Meyer and Allen ( 1984), had good internal
consistency reliability and was unidimensional. The CCS,
however, was not unitary. It consisted of two unique
components: the first based on perceptions that few
employment alternatives exist and the second on high
personal sacrifice associated with leaving the organization.
The second subscale, CC: HiSac, appears to more closely
parallel the side-bet view of commitment, as described
originally by Becker (1960). Some people may indeed
remain with an organization simply because they perceive
no alternatives, but we believe that this reflects a quite
different form of "commitment" than either the affective or
side-bet view. Thus, it might be useful in the future to
develop further this two-pronged approach to behavioral
commitment. The development of additional items, similar
to those that constitute CC:HiSac, could strengthen and
refine the scale, making it more useful for testing the side-
bet theory of commitment. Similarly, a greater
understanding of organizational continuity based on a lack
of alternatives could gained by developing additional items
for the CC:LoAlt scale.
Meyer and Allen ( 1984) reported that continuance
commitment and affective commitment were unrelated. In
contrast, we found that the two CC subscales were
significantly, though differentially, related to affective
commitment* Steers and Porter (1983) stated that the
"commitment process may be viewed as a self-reinforcing
cycle in which attitudes and behaviors are reciprocally
related" (p. 449). Additionally, they suggested that
individuals who feel bound to an organization (through side
bets or sunk costs) ". . . typically engage in some form of
psychological bolstering in which they attempt to
rationalize or self-justify their situation. . . ." (p. 428). Thus,
a high degree of behavioral commitment could produce
affective commitment through a process of dissonance
reduction. Our results do not explain the nature of the
association, but they do suggest that affective and
continuance commitment may not operate totally
independently of one another.
If future studies offer additional confirmation of the
multidimensional nature of organizational commitment,
the ability to clarify the contradictory and inconclusive
relations between commitment and its antecedents and
consequents will be considerably improved. The additional
insight gained through this study into the dimensionality of
the construct ht»efully will be a useful step toward this
clarification.
References
Anderson, C. J. (1981 ). Fact bookfor academic administrators:
198182. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment,
American Journal ofSociology, 66, 32—42.
 TWO (OR MORE?) DIMENSIONS OF COMMITMENT 641
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (k 972). Personal and role-related psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,
factots in the development of organizational commitment. 603— 609.
Administraziw Science Quarterly, 17, 555—572. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and ræonceptualization of
Locke, E. A., Fitzpatrick, W., & White, F. M. (1983). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy ofManagement Review,
role clarity among university and college faculty. The Review of Higher 10, 465—476.
Education. 6, 343—365. Ritzer, G., & Trice, H. M. (1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker's
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of side-bet theory. Social Fbrces, 47.475-479.
organizational commitment: Some methodological Steers, R. M. , & Porter, L. W. (1983). Employee commitment to
considerations. Journal ofApplied Psythology, 69, 372—378. organizations. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter, Motivation and work
National Faculty Directory: 1985 ( 1984). (15th ed.; Vols. 1-3). behavior (pp. 441—451). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Detroit, Ml: Gale.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Received December 16, 1985
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among Revision received February 16, 1987
Accepted January 26, 1987 •

Instructions to Authors
Articles submitted for publication in the Journal ofApplied P»chology are evaluated
according to the following criteria: (a) significance ofcontribution, (b) technical adequacy,
(c) appropriateness for the journal, and (d) clarity of presentation. In addition, articles must
be clearly written in concise and unambiguous They must be logically organized,
progressing from a statement of problem or purpose, through analysis of evidence, to
conclusions and implications.
Authors should prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the
American P.»zhological Association (3rd ed.). Articles not prepared according to the
guidelines of the Manual will not be reviewed. All manuscripts must include an abstract of
I OO- 150 words typed on a separate sheet of paper. Typing instructions (all copy must be
double-spaced) and instructions on preparing tables, figures, references, metrics, and
abstracts appear in the Manual. Also, al] manuscripts are subject to editing for sexist
language.
Authors can refer to recent issues of the journal for approximate length of regular
articles. (Four double-spaced manuscript pages equal one printed page.) A few longer
articles of special significance are occasionally published as monographs. Short Notes
feature brief reports on studies such as those involving some methodological contribution
or important replication.
APA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent
consideration by two or more journals. APA policy also prohibits duplicate publication,
that is, publication ofa manuscript that has already been published in whole or in substantial
part in another journal. Also, authors of manuscripts submitted to APA journals are
expected to have available their raw data throughout the editorial review process and for
at least 5 years after the date of publication.
Authors will be required to state in writing that they have complied with APA ethical
standards in the treatment oftheir sample, human or animal, or to describe the details of
treatment. (A copy of the APA Ethical Principles may be obtained from the APA Ethics
Office, 1200 17th street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.)
Anonymous reviews are optional, and authors who wish anonymous reviews must
specifically request them when submitting their manuscripts. Each copy ofa manuscript to
be anonymously reviewed should include a separate title page with authors' names and
affiliations, and these should not appear anywhere else on the manuscript. Footnotes that
identify the authors should be typed on a separate page. Authors should make every effort
to see that the manuscript itself contains no clues to their identities.
Manuscripts should be submitted in quadruplicate and all the copies should be clear,
readable, and on paper of good quality. A dot matrix or unusual typeface is acceptable only
if it is clear and legible. Authors should keep a copy of the manuscript to guard against
loss. Mail manuscripts to the Editor, Robert Guion, Department of Psychology, Bowling
Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403.