Journal of Applied Psychology1984, Vol 69. No 3, 372-378

Copyright 1984 by theAmerican Psychological Association, Inc

Testing the "Side-Bet Theory" of Organizational Commitment:Some Methodological Considerations

John P. Meyer and Natalie J. AllenThe University of Western Ontario

According to the side-bet theory of organizational commitment, commitment (re-ferred to here as continuance commitment) increases with the accumulation ofside bets or investments. Two studies were conducted to demonstrate that both theinstruments used to measure commitment (viz , Ritzer-Tnce, R-T, and Hrebimak-Alutto, H-A, scales) and the side-bet indexes (viz., age and tenure) used in previoustests of this theory are inappropriate for that purpose In Study 1 subjects readscenarios in which an employee was described as being high or low in continuancecommitment and high or low m affective commitment (i.e., emotional attachment)and responded to several commitment instruments as they felt the employee wouldrespond. As expected, the continuance commitment manipulation accounted fora relatively small portion of the variance in the R-T and H-A scale scores, whereasthe affective commitment manipulation accounted for a substantially larger portionThe continuance manipulation did, however, account for large a portion of thevariance in scores on an author-developed continuance commitment scale (CCS).In Study 2, 130 employees from several administrative departments of a largeuniversity completed the same commitment instruments. As predicted, the R-Tand H-A scales correlated significantly with measures of affective commitment butnot with the CCS. Also as predicted, age and tenure correlated with the R-T andH-A scales and with the affective commitment measures but not with the CCS.The results are discussed in terms of their implications for future investigation ofthe side-bet theory.

Considerable attention has been given toexamining the relationships between employeecommitment to the organization and severalorganizational and employee characteristicsIn this research, commitment has been con-ceptualized in a variety of ways (see Mowday,Porter, & Steers, 1982). One of the views ofcommitment that has been the focus of anumber of studies is Becker's (1960) side-bettheory. Several of these studies have been in-terpreted as providing some support for thetheory (Alutto, Hrebiniak, & Alonso, 1973;Hrebiniak, 1974; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972;Shoemaker, Snizek, & Bryant, 1977; Stevens,Beyer, & Trice, 1978). Others have been lesssupportive or have provided contradictory ev-idence (Aranya & Jacobson, 1975; Ritzer &Trice, 1969). Because of certain methodolog-

This research was supported by a grant from ImperialOil Limited to the first author

Requests for reprints should be sent to John P Meyer,Department of Psychology, The University of Western On-tario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

ical problems, however, it is questionablewhether these studies can in fact be consideredadequate tests of the theory. In this article, analternative interpretation of the findings is of-fered and the results of two studies designedto test the competing interpretations are re-ported.

Becker (1960) described commitment, ingeneral, as a disposition to engage in "consis-tent lines of activity" (p. 33) as a result of theaccumulation of "side bets"1 that would belost if the activity were discontinued. Whenused to explain commitment to the organi-zation, the consistent line of activity refers tomaintaining membership (i.e., employment)in the organization. The term side bet has been

1 An individual is considered to have made a side betwhen his or her "decision with regard to some particularline of action has consequences for other interests or ac-tivities not necessarily related to it" (p. 35). Becker usesthe example of the man who bets a friend that he will notpay more than his first offer for a house To pay more,then, would result in a substantial loss, the possibility ofwhich commits him to his initial bid

372

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 373

applied quite loosely in this context. Generally,it has been used to refer to anything of valuethe individual has invested (e.g., time, effort,money) that would be lost or deemed worthlessat some perceived cost to the individual if heor she were to leave the organization. Suchinvestments might include contributions tononvested pension plans, development of or-ganization-specific skills or status, use of or-ganizational benefits such as reduced mortgagerates, and so on. The perceived cost of leavingmay be exacerbated by a perceived lack ofalternatives to replace or make up for the fore-gone investments. At any rate, it is the threatof loss that commits the person to the orga-nization.

This and similar views of commitment canbe labelled "continuance commitment" (i.e.,commitment to continue a certain line of ac-tion). Continuance commitment is generallybelieved to develop on the basis of an "eco-nomic rationale" (Stevens et al., 1978, p. 381).Clearly, however, this is not the only way toview commitment. Other investigators (Buch-anan, 1974, Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1976;Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974;Steers, 1977) conceptualize commitment asan affective or emotional orientation to an en-tity, in this case, the organization. We will referto this as "affective commitment." Affectivelycommitted employees remain with the orga-nization "for its own sake, apart from its purelyinstrumental worth" (Buchanan, 1974, p.533). The importance of this distinction willbecome apparent in the proposed reinterpre-tation of the findings. It should be noted thatthese two forms of commitment are concep-tualized here as being independent. That is,the extent to which one is affectively com-mitted does not affect the degree of continu-ance commitment and vice versa.

To date, the basic strategy in testing Becker'sside-bet theory has been to demonstrate thatcommitment increases as the number or sizeof side bets increases. The measure of com-mitment used in this research was originallydevised by Ritzer and Trice (1969) and latermodified by other investigators (Alutto et al.,1973; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). These in-struments will be referred to as the Ritzer andTrice Scale (R-TS) and the Hrebiniak andAlutto Scale (H-AS), respectively. Both in-struments require respondents to indicate the

likelihood that they would leave their orga-nization given various inducements to do so.The Ritzer and Trice version included in-ducements of no increase, a slight increase,or a large increase in five job features: pay,status, responsibility, job freedom, and op-portunity to get ahead. In the modified andshortened version, the inducement conditionswere reduced to slight increases in four jobfeatures: pay, status, job freedom, and co-worker friendliness (see Alutto et al., 1973,and Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972, for rationale).

Because side bets can be made in a varietyof ways, as discussed above, it was necessaryfor researchers examining Becker's theory tofind a general mdex of the number and/or sizeof side bets. Ritzer and Trice (1969) reasonedthat side bets should accumulate over timeand that, age, therefore, should be the "bestsingle indicator" (p. 476) of actions taken tostake something of value in the employing or-ganization. Consequently, studies typicallyhave been interpreted as supporting or notsupporting Becker's side-bet theory on the basisof the strength of the relationship betweenscores on the R-TS or H-AS and age, or arelated variable, tenure in the organization.

It is these correlations that are subject toalternative interpretation. Rather than (or inaddition to) indicating that older employeesbecome increasingly "locked in" or continu-ance committed, the correlations may reflectan increase in affective commitment (i.e., at-tachment to the organization) with increasingage and experience. If so, the results would beconsistent with previous research in which age(e.g., Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Steers, 1977)and tenure (e.g., Porter et al., 1974; Welsch& La Van, 1981) have been found to correlatepositively with scores on the OrganizationalCommitment Questionnaire (OCQ). TheOCQ was developed by Porter and bis asso-ciates (e.g., Porter et al., 1974; Porter et al.,1976; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) as ameasure of organizational commitment, whichthey defined as "(1) a strong belief in and ac-ceptance of the organization's goals and values;(2) a willingness to exert considerable efforton behalf of the organization; and (3) a strongdesire to maintain membership in the orga-nization" (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 226). Thiscorresponds closely to what was referred toabove as affective commitment.

374 JOHN P MEYER AND NATALIE J. ALLEN

This alternative explanation is based on twobasic assumptions that need to be tested. First,it is argued that the R-TS and H-AS measureaffective rather than continuance commit-ment. The logic for this becomes apparentfrom an examination of the measure. Re-spondents are asked whether they wouldchange organizations given various induce-ments (e.g., pay, status) that by their very na-ture might eliminate or reduce the threat oflosing valued investments and provide a viablealternative to their current job and organi-zation. Why would employees remain underthese conditions? One explanation is that theyare affectively committed. Second, it is arguedthat age and tenure are not particularly goodindexes of accumulated investments. Even ifinvestments do increase with age and tenure(and one can think of various examples wherethe relationship might be reversed), they arecertainly confounded with other age-relatedvariables. It cannot be taken for granted,therefore, that correlations with age and tenurereflect a relationship with accumulated in-vestments.

Two studies were conducted to test thesecompeting interpretations of the findings. InStudy 1, students were presented with scenar-ios describing employees who were high orlow in continuance commitment and high orlow in affective commitment. After readingthese scenarios, the subjects responded to sev-eral measures of commitment as they believedthe employee in the scenario would respond.The commitment measures included the R-TS and H-AS, the OCQ, and two author-de-veloped measures, one assessing continuancecommitment (CCS) and the other affectivecommitment (ACS). The scale scores shouldbe influenced by the continuance and affectivecommitment manipulations to the extent thatthey measure continuance and affective com-mitment, respectively. The effect of the ma-nipulation on scale scores then can be takenas an index of construct (convergent and dis-criminant) validity.

In Study 2, these same measures were ad-ministered to a sample of full-time employees.The author-developed CCS and ACS were in-cluded as indexes of the two types of com-mitment and were correlated with the re-maining measures and with age and tenure.If the R-TS and H-AS measure continuance

commitment, and if age and tenure are ap-propriate indexes of accumulated side bets,each should correlate significantly with theCCS but not (necessarily) with the ACS.

Study 1

Method

DesignThe study was conducted as a 2 X 2 between-subjects

design The factors were continuance commitment (highor low) and affective commitment (high or low)

SubjectsThe subjects were 64 male and female introductory

psychology students who volunteered to participate in thestudy as part of a course requirement

MaterialsFour scenarios were written, one for each experimental

condition Continuance commitment was manipulated byproviding information about the investments (side bets)the individual had accumulated and the extent to whichhe perceived alternatives to his present job In the high-continuance-commitment condition, the individual wasdescribed as having worked for the organization for 12years, as having spent considerable time training, as havingacquired largely organization-specific skills and experience,and as recognizing that few other organizations would beinterested in an individual with his particular backgroundIn the low-continuance-commitment condition, the in-dividual was described as having worked for the organi-zation for 2 years, as having spent little bme in training,as having acquired fairly general skills and experiences,and as recognizing the availability of opportunities in sev-eral other organizations

Affective commitment was manipulated by describingconditions as providing or not providing a sense of personalcomfort and personal importance—conditions similar tothose found in previous research (Buchanan, 1974, Steers,1977) to promote affective commitment. In the high-af-fective-commitment condition, the employee was describedas feeling very comfortable with supervisors and coworkers,as being fairly treated, as receiving assignments that wereclearly denned and challenging, and as feeling very mucha "part of the organization." In the low-affective-com-mitment conditions, the employee was described as feelinguncomfortable with coworkers and supervisors, as believinghe was treated unfairly at times, as receiving assignmentsthat were neither clearly denned nor challenging, and asnot feeling at all a part of the organization

Commitment MeasuresRitzer-Tnce and Hrebiniak-Alutto Scales Both the

15-item Ritzer and Trice (1969) and the 4-item Hrebiniakand Alutto (1972) scales were included on the question-naire. Items common to both scales were presented onlyonce The index uses a 3-pomt response format. Respon-

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 375

Table 1Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Commitment Measures Study 1

Commitmentmeasure

ACS

CCS

OCQ

R-TS

H-AS

Low-Low

2 38.58

3.52.81

2.5072

1.53.26

1.2537

Experimental

Low-High

24195

4 84.88

3 02.82

151.28

1.25.33

condition*

High-Low

5 23.60

3 94.85

4.96.66

1.94.26

20055

High-High

5.5679

5.181 185.37

.59221

.29241

47

Note Responses to the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS), Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS), and OrganizationalCommitment Questionnaire (OCQ) items were made on 7-pomt scales Responses to the Ritzer-Tnce Scale (R-TS)and Hrebmiak-Alutto Scale (HR-S) items were made on 3-pomt scales Total scores were computed by averaging acrossitems* Conditions are labeled with affect level first and continuance level second

dents indicate the likelihood that they would leave theirorganization given each inducement [definitely would [1],uncertain [2], definitely would not [3])

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire This 15-ltem measure was developed by Porter and his associates(Porter et al., 1974; Porter et al., 1976, Mowday et al,1979) to assess an affective orientation to the organization,as described earlier. The OCQ uses a 7-point Likert-typeresponse format (strongly disagree to strongly agree) Ithas been used widely in research and has been shown tohave acceptable psychometric properties (see Mowday etal., 1979).

Affective Commitment Scale This 8-rtem measure wasdeveloped by the authors using the construct approach toscale construction (see Jackson, 1970) to assess commit-ment characterized by positive feelings of identificationwith, attachment to, and involvement in, the work or-ganization The ACS uses a 7-pomt Likert-type responseformat (strongly disagree to strongly agree) and includesitems such as. "This organization has a great deal of per-sonal meaning for me" and "I do not feel 'emotionallyattached' to this organization" (reversed)

When administered to a previous sample, this measurewas shown to have acceptable reliability (coefficientalpha = .87) and to correlate highly with the OCQ (r =.78)

Continuance Commitment Scale This 8-item measure,also developed by the authors, assesses the extent to whichemployees feel committed to their organizations by virtueof the costs that they feel are associated with leaving (e.g.,investments and/or lack of attractive alternatives) As such,the CCS is considered a measure of organizational com-mitment of the sort Becker describes. The measure usesa 7-point response format (strongly disagree to stronglyagree). It was found, in a previous sample, to have ac-ceptable reliability (coefficient alpha = .77) Moreover, itwas found to be uncorrelated with the two affective mea-sures, the OCQ (r = - .06) and the ACS (r = .01) Sampleitems in this scale include "It would be very hard for meto leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to"

and "It would not be too costly for me to leave my or-ganization in the near future" (reversed)

Procedure

All subjects were tested in one session. Subjects wereassigned to conditions through the random distributionof the experimental booklets The booklets included in-structions asking subjects to read the scenario and thento respond to the accompanying questionnaires as theyfelt the individual m the scenario would respond. Theseinstructions were repeated verbally by the experimenterfollowing which the subjects completed the assignment.On completion, subjects were given written feedback de-scribing the purpose of the study and providing backgroundinformation about organizational commitment

Results and Discussion

Analyses of Variance

Two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAS) wereperformed on the commitment measures todetermine the effects of the affective and con-tinuance commitment manipulations. The cellmeans and standard deviations are reportedin Table 1. As expected, only the continuancecommitment manipulation had an effect onthe CCS, F(\, 58) = 27.95, p < .001, and onlythe affective commitment manipulation hadan effect on the ACS, F(l, 60) = 259.25, p <.001. This, then, provides some evidence forthe convergent and discriminant validity ofthe two scales.

Examination of the effects of the manipu-lation on the R-TS and H-AS revealed sig-

376 JOHN P MEYER AND NATALIE J ALLEN

Table 2Correlations Between the Commitment MeasuresStudy 1

Measure

ACSCCSOCQR-TSH-AS

ACS

.88

CCS

.25

.73

OCQ

.86"*32*

.93

R-TS

.72**

.29*6 8 ".90

H-AS

. 7 3 "33*7 0 ". 9 0 ".89

Note Internal consistencies (coefficient alphas) are pre-sented on the diagonal ACS = Affective CommitmentScale, CCS = Continuance Commitment Scale, OCQ =Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, R-TS =Ritzer-Tnce Scale, H-AS = Hrebimak-Alutto Scale*p<.05 • • / ; < . 0 0 1

nificant main effects of affective commitmenton both, F(l, 57) = 65.07, p < .001, andF{1, 59) = 76.09, p < .001, respectively, aswell as a significant Affective Commitment XContinuance Commitment interaction for theR-TS, F(l, 57) = 4.57, p < .05. These findingsare consistent with the view that these scalesreflect primarily affective commitment ratherthan continuance commitment.

Finally, the OCQ, which was considered ameasure of affective commitment, was influ-enced by the affective commitment manipu-lation as expected, F(l, 59) = 187.60, p <.001, although there was also a much smallerbut significant effect of continuance commit-ment, F(l, 59) = 6.88, p < .05.

Correlations Between Measures

The correlations among the various scalescores are reported in Table 2 along with thescale reliabilities. Consistent with the resultsof the ANOVAS, the OCQ, R-TS, and H-AS allcorrelated significantly (p < .001) with oneanother and with the ACS. They also correlatedsignificantly (p < .05) with the CCS, althoughthe relationships were considerably weaker.The CCS and ACS did not correlate signifi-cantly.

The results of both sets of analyses are con-sistent with the view that the R-TS and H-AS, like the OCQ, largely tap affective com-mitment to the organization. The obviouslimitation of this study is its nonparticipativenature. Study 2 was conducted to investigatethe relationships between the commitment

measures with a sample of employees express-ing their own feelings about their organization.The relationships between commitment, asassessed by the various measures, and age andtenure were also examined. The ACS and CCS,which were shown in Study 1 to have con-vergent and discriminant validity, were usedas the indexes of affective and continuancecommitment, respectively.

Study 2

Method

Subjects

Data were collected from a sample of full-time em-ployees, at various job levels, in four administrative de-partments in a large Canadian university Questionnaireswere distributed to all employees m these departmentsOf the 229 questionnaires distributed, a total of 130 werecompleted and returned (a 56 7% response rate) All re-sponses were made anonymously

MeasuresCommitment The commitment measures were the

same as those used in Study 1Age Respondents were asked to indicate whether they

were under 30, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, or over 50 years of ageTenure Respondents were asked to indicate how long

they had been working for their current organization lessthan 5 years, 5 to 9 years, 10 to 19 years, 20 to 30 years,or more than 30 years

Results and Discussion

Correlations Between theCommitment Measures

The means and standard deviations for thecommitment measures are reported in Table3 The scale reliabilities and correlations be-tween the scales are presented in Table 4. Asexpected, the R-TS and H-AS correlated sig-nificantly with the ACS and OCQ but not withthe CCS. Neither the ACS nor the OCQ cor-related significantly with the CCS.

Correlations With Age and Tenure

Correlations between age and tenure andthe four commitment measures are reportedin Table 5. It will be noted that, as in previousresearch, age and tenure correlate positivelywith the R-TS and H-AS. They also correlatedpositively with the ACS and OCQ but did notcorrelate significantly with the CCS.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 377

Table 3Means and Standard Deviations for CommitmentMeasures Study 2

Table 5Correlations of Commitment Measures With Ageand Tenure Study 2

Measure

ACSCCSOCQR-TSH-AS

M

4 184.365002 152.32

SD

1231.11104

39.59

Measure

ACSCCSOCQR-TSH-AS

Age

.31**-.04

.28**

.21

.32**

Tenure

.37**

.06

.26*27*3 7 "

Note Responses to the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS),Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS), and Organiza-tional Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) items were madeon 7-point scales Responses to the Ritzer-Tnce Scale (R-TS) and Hrebimak-Alutto Scale (H-AS) items were madeon 3-point scales Total scores were computed by averagingacross items

General Discussion

Taken together, these results provide evi-dence that the instruments used m tests of theside-bet theory may not be measuring com-mitment as Becker conceptualized it. In Beck-er's view, individuals become committed to acourse of action because the costs associatedwith behaving otherwise are too high, not be-cause they have an affective attachment to theobject of their commitment. The fact that theRitzer and Trice (1969) and Hrebiniak andAlutto (1972) scales were found to (a) be af-fected primarily by the affective rather thanthe continuance commitment manipulation inStudy 1 and (b) correlate more strongly withmeasures of affective commitment than witha measure of continuance commitment in both

Table 4Correlations Between the Commitment MeasuresStudy 2

Measure

ACSCCSOCQR-TSH-AS

ACS

.84

CCS

-.01.74

OCQ

78*-.06

.89

R-TS

.50*- 0 3

50*.87

H-AS

54*-.03

.54*

.90*

.85

Note Internal consistencies (coefficient alphas) are pre-sented on the diagonal ACS = Affective CommitmentScale, CCS = Continuance Commitment Scale, OCQ =Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, R-TS =Ritzer-Tnce Scale, H-AS = Hrebimak-Alutto Scale* p < . 0 0 1 .

Note ACS = Affective Commitment Scale, CCS = Con-tinuance Commitment Scale, OCQ = OrganizationalCommitment Questionnaire, R-TS = Ritzer-Tnce Scale,H-AS = Hrebimak-Alutto Scale* p < .05 ** p< 001

studies suggests that they may not be appro-priate for use in testing Becker's theory. Thisis not to suggest that the theory is incorrect.It does seem reasonable that the number andmagnitude of one's investments in a particularactivity decrease the likelihood that the activitywill be discontinued. Indeed, the impact ofinvestments on the development of commit-ment has been demonstrated recently in a va-riety of domains (Farrell & Rusbult, 1981;Rusbult, 1980). In order to test the validity ofthe side-bet theory, however, a commitmentmeasure must be used that is congruent withBecker's conceptualization.

The results presented above also raise somequestions about the usefulness of both age andtenure as side bet indicators. If, as Ritzer andTrice (1969) suggest, side bets increase withage and tenure, these variables should correlatesignificantly with the continuance Commit-ment Scale. These correlations, however, werenegligible Why might this be the case? Cer-tainly it seems reasonable to suggest that somecosts associated with leaving will increase overtime (for example, nonvested pension plancontributions, seniority privileges, organiza-tion-specific training). Others, however, mayactually decrease. Younger employees, for ex-ample, may be particularly sensitive to the factthat, with less work experience, they often havefewer job opportunities. As they obtain moreexperience, however, alternate employmentopportunities may increase, thus decreasingthe magnitude of one important cost associatedwith leaving—that of having no other job.

Given that some side bets may increase,while others may decrease over time, using age

378 JOHN P. MEYER AND NATALIE J. ALLEN

and tenure as indexes seems less appropriatethan directly obtaining employees' perceptionsof the size and importance of investments theyhave made. This type of strategy would beconsistent with Becker's theory. He suggeststhat side bets will not influence commitmentunless the individual is aware that they havebeen made. Moreover, they must be perceivedas sizeable enough that the individual "findshimself unwilling to lose them" (1960, p. 38).

Although they did not correlate with thecontinuance Commitment Scale, both age andtenure were significantly correlated with theaffective measures, adding to a substantialbody of literature suggesting that employeeswho are older and who have been employedlonger with a particular organization have astronger affective commitment to it (e.g., Porteret al., 1974; Steers, 1977) and are more satisfiedwith their jobs (e.g., Hunt & Saul, 1975; Quinn& Shepard, 1974). As Salancik (1977) pointsout, these relationships can be given variousinterpretations. It may be, for example, thatthese employees have received more rewardsfrom the organization (e.g., are in better po-sitions), that they represent a self-selectedgroup, or that they have "justified" to them-selves their long service to the organization bydeciding they like it.

In summary, the results of the present studysuggest that the measure used to test Becker'sside-bet theory of commitment is saturatedwith affective commitment and, as such, doesnot allow the theory to be tested appropriately.Furthermore, they suggest that researchers ex-amining this conceptualization of commit-ment should use measures that more directlyassess individuals' perceptions regarding thenumber and magnitude of the side bets theyhave made.

ReferencesAlutto, J. A., Hrebimak, L G , & Alonso, R. C (1973)

On operationahzing the concept of commitment. SocialForces, 51. 448-454

Arnold, H J., & Feldman, D C (1982) A multivanateanalysis of the determinants of job turnover Journal ofApplied Psychology, 67, 350-360

Aranya, N., & Jacobson, D (1975). An empirical studyof theories of organizational and occupational com-mitment. Journal of Social Psychology, 97, 15-22

Becker, H S (1960) Notes on the concept of commitmentAmerican Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-42

Buchanan, B (1974) Building organizational commitmentThe socialization of managers in work organizationsAdministrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546

Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E (1981). Exchange variablesas predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, andturnover The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, andinvestments Organizational Behavior and Human Per-formance. 27, 78-95

Hrebimak, L G (1974) Effects of job level and partici-pation on employee attitudes and perceptions of influ-ence Academy of Management Journal, 17, 649-662

Hrebmiak, L G , & Alutto, J A (1972) Personal androle-related factors in the development of organizationalcommitment Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 555-573

Hunt,J W., & Saul, P N (1975) The relationship of age,tenure, and job satisfaction in males and females Acad-emy of Management Journal, 18, 690-702

Jackson, D. N, (1970). A sequential system for personalityscale development In C D. Spielberger (Ed), Currenttopics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 2, pp61-96) New York Academic Press.

Mowday, R T, Porter, L W., & Steers, R M (1982)Employee-organization linkages The psychology ofcommitment, absenteeism, and turnover New\brk Ac-ademic Press

Mowday, R T, Steers, R M , & Porter, L W. (1979) Themeasurement of organizational commitment Journalof Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247

Porter, L. W, Crampon, W J , & Smith, F J (1976).Organizational commitment and managerial turnoverOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15,87-98

Porter, L W, Steers, R M , Mowday, R T., & Bouhan,P V (1974) Organizational commitment, job satisfac-tion, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609

Quinn, R P,&Shepard, L J (1974) The 1972-73qualityof employment survey Ann Arbor Institute for SocialResearch, University of Michigan

Ritzer, G., & Trice, H M (1969) An empirical study ofHoward Becker's side-bet theory Social Forces, 47, 475-479

Rusbult, C E. (1980) Commitment and satisfaction inromantic associations- A test of the investment modelJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, ill-lid.

Salancik, G R (1977) Commitment and the control oforganizational behavior and belief In B M Staw &G R Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizationalbehavior (pp 1-54) Chicago St. Clair Press

Shoemaker, D J , Snizek, W E., & Bryant, C. D (1977)Toward a further clarification of Becker's side-bet hy-pothesis as applied to organizational and occupationalcommitment Social Forces, 56, 598-603

Steers, R M (1977) Antecedents and outcomes oforganizational commitment. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 22, 46-56

Stevens, J M., Beyer, J. M , & Trice, H M (1978) As-sessing personal, role and organizational predictors ofmanagerial commitment Academy of ManagementJournal. 21, 380-396

Welsch, H P , & LaVan, H. (1981) Inter-relaUonshipsbetween organizational commitment and job charac-teristics, job satisfaction, professional behavior, and or-ganizational climate. Human Relations, 34, 1079-1089

Received December 1, 1983 •