Organizational commitment Organizational commitment and turnover: Clarifying the and turnover: Clarifying the

role of perceived sacrifices and role of perceived sacrifices and employment alternativesemployment alternatives

Christian VandenbergheChristian VandenbergheHEC MontréalHEC Montréal

The Three-Component ModelThe Three-Component Model

Affective commitment (AC): « employees’ Affective commitment (AC): « employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization » and involvement in the organization »

Normative commitment (NC): « feeling of Normative commitment (NC): « feeling of obligation to continue employment »obligation to continue employment »

Continuance commitment (CC): « refers to Continuance commitment (CC): « refers to an awareness of the costs associated with an awareness of the costs associated with leaving »leaving »

Meyer & Allen (1991, p. 67)Meyer & Allen (1991, p. 67)

The Three-Component Model The Three-Component Model (cont’d)(cont’d)

The commonalities among the components The commonalities among the components are that (a) they characterize the employee’s are that (a) they characterize the employee’s relationship with the organization and (b) relationship with the organization and (b) have implications for the decision to have implications for the decision to stay/leave the organizationstay/leave the organization

Meyer & Allen (1991, p. 67)Meyer & Allen (1991, p. 67)

The Three-Component Model The Three-Component Model (cont’d)(cont’d)

In an attempt to extend the model, Meyer In an attempt to extend the model, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) stated thatand Herscovitch (2001) stated that– « commitment is a force that binds an « commitment is a force that binds an

individual to a course of action to one or more individual to a course of action to one or more targets » (p. 301)targets » (p. 301)

– « the mind-set accompanying commitment can « the mind-set accompanying commitment can take varying forms including take varying forms including desire desire [AC], [AC], perceived cost perceived cost [CC], or [CC], or obligationobligation [NC] to [NC] to continue a course of action » (p. 308)continue a course of action » (p. 308)

The Three-Component Model The Three-Component Model (cont’d)(cont’d)

The mind-sets of The mind-sets of desiredesire and and obligationobligation seem to fit in nicely seem to fit in nicely the conceptual domain of AC and NC, respectivelythe conceptual domain of AC and NC, respectively

In contrast, the mind-set of In contrast, the mind-set of perceived cost perceived cost doesn’t seem to doesn’t seem to be captured appropriately by the current measure of CC:be captured appropriately by the current measure of CC:– Evidence has been reported that CC subsumes two sub-Evidence has been reported that CC subsumes two sub-

components, one reflecting « the role of available components, one reflecting « the role of available alternatives in the decision to remain on one’s job » alternatives in the decision to remain on one’s job » (LA) and the other referring to the « personal sacrifice (LA) and the other referring to the « personal sacrifice that would result from leaving the organization » (HS) that would result from leaving the organization » (HS) (McGee & Ford, 1987, p. 639) (McGee & Ford, 1987, p. 639)

– Only HS seems to fit the notion of Only HS seems to fit the notion of perceived costperceived cost associated with commitmentassociated with commitment

Development MechanismsDevelopment Mechanisms

AC develops as a result of experiences that AC develops as a result of experiences that reflect reflect social exchange processessocial exchange processes between between the organization and the employee (e.g., the organization and the employee (e.g., POS and favorable job conditions)POS and favorable job conditions)

NC develops as a result of the NC develops as a result of the organization’s eliciting employees’ organization’s eliciting employees’ norm of norm of reciprocityreciprocity or of creating a feeling of debt or of creating a feeling of debt (e.g., POS, promotion opportunities, salary (e.g., POS, promotion opportunities, salary efforts)efforts)

Development Mechanisms (cont’d)Development Mechanisms (cont’d)

CC develops as a result of the CC develops as a result of the investmentsinvestments ((side-betsside-bets) made voluntarily or not in the ) made voluntarily or not in the organizationorganization

HS (HS (costcost) should be explained by ) should be explained by passivepassive investments (e.g., captured by proxy measures investments (e.g., captured by proxy measures such as job tenure, salary level, and fringe such as job tenure, salary level, and fringe benefits) and benefits) and activeactive investments (personal investments (personal efforts on the job that create a cost in case of efforts on the job that create a cost in case of leaving: leaving: psychological empowermentpsychological empowerment) )

Development Mechanisms (cont’d)Development Mechanisms (cont’d)

LA should develop as a result of the lack of LA should develop as a result of the lack of transferability of employees’ skills to other transferability of employees’ skills to other organizationsorganizations

Also, because LA is perceptual, it should be Also, because LA is perceptual, it should be influenced by personality traits that reflect a influenced by personality traits that reflect a lack of confidence in one’s knowledge, skills, lack of confidence in one’s knowledge, skills, and abilities (e.g., high external locus of and abilities (e.g., high external locus of control) or that induce a pessimistic view of control) or that induce a pessimistic view of the future (e.g., low positive affectivity) the future (e.g., low positive affectivity)

Organizational Commitment and Organizational Commitment and TurnoverTurnover

Each component is supposed to reduce the Each component is supposed to reduce the likelihood of turnover but for different reasons likelihood of turnover but for different reasons (Meyer & Allen, 1991)(Meyer & Allen, 1991)

However, within CC, only HS may be seen as a However, within CC, only HS may be seen as a form of attitudinal commitment form of attitudinal commitment

Although LA has been recently treated as an Although LA has been recently treated as an antecedent to HS (Powell & Meyer, 200antecedent to HS (Powell & Meyer, 20044), it may ), it may also play a moderating role in the commitment-also play a moderating role in the commitment-turnover relationshipturnover relationship

Interaction Effects on Intended Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnoverand Actual Turnover

SomersSomers ( (JOOPJOOP, 1995, 1995):):– Test of the threeTest of the three-component model of organizational -component model of organizational

commitment within a sample of nurses from a large commitment within a sample of nurses from a large hospital in the U.S.hospital in the U.S.

– AC positively predicted the intention to remain AC positively predicted the intention to remain (concurrent measure) and was negatively associated with (concurrent measure) and was negatively associated with voluntary turnover measured one year later; NC voluntary turnover measured one year later; NC positively associated with intent to remain; no effect of positively associated with intent to remain; no effect of CC CC

– Interaction between CC and AC for intent to stay: At low Interaction between CC and AC for intent to stay: At low levels of CC, AC was more strongly associated with levels of CC, AC was more strongly associated with intent to stay; no interaction effect for actual turnover intent to stay; no interaction effect for actual turnover

Interaction Effects on Intended Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnover (cont’d)and Actual Turnover (cont’d)

JarosJaros ( (JVBJVB, 1997, 1997):):– Test of the threeTest of the three-component model of organizational -component model of organizational

commitment in two samples:commitment in two samples: engineers and technicians from an aerospace firmengineers and technicians from an aerospace firm part-time university students (turnover intentions measured at part-time university students (turnover intentions measured at

Time 1 and Time 2 (2-month lag)Time 1 and Time 2 (2-month lag)

– Analysis based on the three components: AC predicted Analysis based on the three components: AC predicted (negatively) turnover intentions in the two samples, (negatively) turnover intentions in the two samples, concurrently and longitudinally, no effect of NC nor of concurrently and longitudinally, no effect of NC nor of CC CC

– Analysis based on HS/LA distinction: Results were the Analysis based on HS/LA distinction: Results were the same except that HS was also a negative predictor of same except that HS was also a negative predictor of turnover intentions but only concurrentlyturnover intentions but only concurrently

Interaction Effects on Intended Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnover (cont’d)and Actual Turnover (cont’d)

JarosJaros ( (JVBJVB, 1997, 1997):):– In the analysis based on the three components: In the analysis based on the three components:

Interaction between CC and NC for the Interaction between CC and NC for the University sample at Time 1 such that the University sample at Time 1 such that the highest levels of turnover intentions were highest levels of turnover intentions were displayed by those with low CC and NC (no displayed by those with low CC and NC (no difference among the other subgroups)difference among the other subgroups)

– Interaction effects not tested within the HS/LA Interaction effects not tested within the HS/LA distinctiondistinction

Interaction Effects on Intended Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnover (cont’d)and Actual Turnover (cont’d)

Cheng & StockdaleCheng & Stockdale ( (JVBJVB, in press, in press):):– Test of the threeTest of the three-component model of -component model of

organizational commitment in Chinaorganizational commitment in China– AC, NC, and CC negatively associated with AC, NC, and CC negatively associated with

turnover intentionsturnover intentions– At low levels of NC, CC was more strongly At low levels of NC, CC was more strongly

(negatively) associated with turnover intentions(negatively) associated with turnover intentions

Interaction Effects on Intended Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnover (cont’d)and Actual Turnover (cont’d)

Snape & Redman (Snape & Redman (JAPJAP, , 2003):2003):– Test of Test of aa three three-component model of -component model of

occupational commitment among British HRM occupational commitment among British HRM professionalsprofessionals

– AC and CC negatively associated with turnover AC and CC negatively associated with turnover cognitions, no main effect of NCcognitions, no main effect of NC

– At low levels of CC, NC was negatively At low levels of CC, NC was negatively associated with turnover cognitionsassociated with turnover cognitions

Summary of this researchSummary of this research

CC involved in all interaction effects found CC involved in all interaction effects found in the prediction of intented turnoverin the prediction of intented turnover

No interaction found in the prediction of No interaction found in the prediction of actual turnover (Somers, 1995)actual turnover (Somers, 1995)

No study has investigated the moderating No study has investigated the moderating role of CC subcomponents in the prediction role of CC subcomponents in the prediction of actual turnoverof actual turnover

Shortcomings of past researchShortcomings of past research

Methodological weaknesses in the Methodological weaknesses in the measurement of CCmeasurement of CC

Lack of conceptual unity within the CC Lack of conceptual unity within the CC domaindomain

Measurement ProblemsMeasurement Problems

Measures of HS and LA have sometimes been weakly Measures of HS and LA have sometimes been weakly reliable (e.g., .57-.59 in Somers, 1995)reliable (e.g., .57-.59 in Somers, 1995)

Number of items has not been constant (e.g., 3 items Number of items has not been constant (e.g., 3 items in McGee & Ford, 1987, but 4 items in Meyer, Allen, in McGee & Ford, 1987, but 4 items in Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990)& Gellatly, 1990)

Ambiguity of the core meaning captured by the itemsAmbiguity of the core meaning captured by the items Disagreement among researchers concerning factor Disagreement among researchers concerning factor

compositioncomposition Some items contaminated by content pertaining to the Some items contaminated by content pertaining to the

other dimensions (e.g., desire, « I wanted to », etc.)other dimensions (e.g., desire, « I wanted to », etc.)

Measurement Problems (Cont’d)Measurement Problems (Cont’d)

McGee & Ford (1987)

Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly

(1990)

Dunham, Grübe, & Castaneda

(1994)

Magazine, Williams, &

Williams (1996) 1. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up

excluded

LA

HS

LA

2. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to

HS

HS

HS

LA

3. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now.

HS

HS

HS

HS

4. It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave my organization now.

excluded

HS

HS

HS

5. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire

LA

LA

LA

LA

6. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization

LA

LA

LA

LA

7. One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives

LA

LA

LA

LA

8. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice – another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here

HS

HS

LA

HS

Revised Measure of CCRevised Measure of CC(Meyer, Barak, & Vandenberghe, 1996)(Meyer, Barak, & Vandenberghe, 1996)

1. I would not leave this organization because of1. I would not leave this organization because ofwhat I would stand to losewhat I would stand to lose HSHS2. For me personally, the costs of leaving this2. For me personally, the costs of leaving thisorganization would be far greater than the benefitsorganization would be far greater than the benefits    HSHS3. I continue to work for this organization because3. I continue to work for this organization becauseI don't believe another organization could offer meI don't believe another organization could offer methe benefits I have herethe benefits I have here HSHS   4. I have no choice but to stay with this organization4. I have no choice but to stay with this organization LALA5. I stay with this organization because I can't see5. I stay with this organization because I can't seewhere else I could workwhere else I could work LALA6. I feel that I have too few options to consider6. I feel that I have too few options to consider

leaving this organizationleaving this organization LALA

Lack of Conceptual UnityLack of Conceptual Unity The notion of perceived sacrificeThe notion of perceived sacrifice

– is attitudinal in nature because it represents a link between oneself and the is attitudinal in nature because it represents a link between oneself and the organizationorganization

– turns the attention of employees towards the benefits received within the turns the attention of employees towards the benefits received within the organization rather than toward the (lack of) opportunities in the external organization rather than toward the (lack of) opportunities in the external environmentenvironment

– can be due to can be due to passivepassive as well as as well as activeactive investments into the organization investments into the organization The notion of perceived lack of employment alternativesThe notion of perceived lack of employment alternatives

– turns the attention of employees only towards the external environmentturns the attention of employees only towards the external environment– due to its perceptual nature, may be exacerbated by some personality traitsdue to its perceptual nature, may be exacerbated by some personality traits

The different reasons represent the mindsets of The different reasons represent the mindsets of desire desire (AC), (AC), perceived obligationperceived obligation (NC), and (NC), and perceived costperceived cost (CC) (Meyer & (CC) (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001)Herscovitch, 2001)

Prediction of TurnoverPrediction of Turnover

AC is thought to remain a strong negative AC is thought to remain a strong negative predictor of turnoverpredictor of turnover

NC less likely to be related to turnover NC less likely to be related to turnover when AC is controlled forwhen AC is controlled for

HS shoud reduce the likelihood of turnover HS shoud reduce the likelihood of turnover (due to sacrifices associated with leaving)(due to sacrifices associated with leaving)

Prediction of Turnover (cont’d)Prediction of Turnover (cont’d)

LA:LA:– may create a feeling of entrapment which may interfere may create a feeling of entrapment which may interfere

with the influence of the other componentswith the influence of the other components

– when combined with a when combined with a perceived obligationperceived obligation to stay, this to stay, this feeling may create an unbearable debt for employees, feeling may create an unbearable debt for employees, resulting in a sense of panic, which actually could resulting in a sense of panic, which actually could further the decision to actively search for a new jobfurther the decision to actively search for a new job

– consequently: NC may actually increase the likelihood consequently: NC may actually increase the likelihood

of turnover of turnover under conditions of high LAunder conditions of high LA

Samples and ProcedureSamples and Procedure

Sample 1Sample 1: 199 University Alumni with antecedents to : 199 University Alumni with antecedents to commitment measured at Time 1 and commitment commitment measured at Time 1 and commitment measured 6 months later. measured 6 months later.

Sample 2Sample 2: 147 employees from 3 private companies : 147 employees from 3 private companies (antecedents and commitment measured at one point in (antecedents and commitment measured at one point in time)time)

Sample 3Sample 3: 277 Industrial Engineering Alumni with : 277 Industrial Engineering Alumni with commitment measured at Time 1 and turnover data commitment measured at Time 1 and turnover data collected 1 year latercollected 1 year later

Sample 4Sample 4: 442 University Alumni with commitment : 442 University Alumni with commitment measured at Time 1 and turnover data collected 6 months measured at Time 1 and turnover data collected 6 months laterlater

MeasuresMeasures

Antecedents (Sample 1):Antecedents (Sample 1): job tenure, POS (8 items; job tenure, POS (8 items; .90), .90), promotion opportunities (2 items; promotion opportunities (2 items; .89), salary efforts (4 .89), salary efforts (4 items, items, .76), salary level (2 items; .76), salary level (2 items; .64), skill .64), skill transferability (3 items; transferability (3 items; .90), external locus of control (8 .90), external locus of control (8 items; items; .86), positive affectivity (10 items; .86), positive affectivity (10 items; .79).79)

Antecedents (Sample 2):Antecedents (Sample 2): self-competence (5 items; self-competence (5 items; .91), .91), self-determination (5 items; self-determination (5 items; .89), sens of impact (5 items; .89), sens of impact (5 items; .92), self-meaning (5 items; .92), self-meaning (5 items; .95).95)

Commitment (Samples 1-4):Commitment (Samples 1-4): AC (6 items; AC (6 items; .84), NC (6 .84), NC (6 items; items; .92), HS (3 items; .92), HS (3 items; .75-.82), LA (3 items; .75-.82), LA (3 items; .77-.79).77-.79)

Turnover (Samples 3-4): Turnover (Samples 3-4): 1=Stay; 2=Leave1=Stay; 2=Leave (1 year, Sample 3; (1 year, Sample 3; 6 mo., Sample 4) 6 mo., Sample 4)

CFA Results for Commitment CFA Results for Commitment ModelsModels

Sample 1Sample 1 (df) NNFI CFI RMSEA(df) NNFI CFI RMSEA

Three factors 462.62 (132) .80 .83 .11Three factors 462.62 (132) .80 .83 .11

Four factors 277.58 (129) .91 .92 .07Four factors 277.58 (129) .91 .92 .07

Sample 2Sample 2Three factors 355.98 (132) .78 .81 .11Three factors 355.98 (132) .78 .81 .11

Four factors 226.65 (129) .90 .92 .07Four factors 226.65 (129) .90 .92 .07

Sample 3Sample 3Three factors 435.94 (132) .85 .87 .10Three factors 435.94 (132) .85 .87 .10Four factors 240.54 (129) .94 .95 .06Four factors 240.54 (129) .94 .95 .06

Sample 4Sample 4Three factors 598.27 (132) .83 .85 .10Three factors 598.27 (132) .83 .85 .10

Four factors 308.60 (129) .93 .94 .06Four factors 308.60 (129) .93 .94 .06

CFA Results for Commitment CFA Results for Commitment Models (AC)Models (AC)

S1 S2 S3 S4S1 S2 S3 S4

1. I really feel that I belong in this company1. I really feel that I belong in this company .81 .73 .84 .83 .81 .73 .84 .83

2. This organization has a great deal of personal2. This organization has a great deal of personal

meaning for memeaning for me .89 .86 .78 .77.89 .86 .78 .77

3. I am proud to belong to this company3. I am proud to belong to this company .75 .73 .70 .79.75 .73 .70 .79

4. I do not feel emotionally attached4. I do not feel emotionally attached

to this organization (R)to this organization (R) .58 .32 .62 .34.58 .32 .62 .34

5. I do not feel like part of the family5. I do not feel like part of the family

at my organization (R)at my organization (R) .52 .26 .58 .46 .52 .26 .58 .46

6. I really feel as if this organization's problems6. I really feel as if this organization's problems

are my ownare my own .60 .47 .55 .54 .60 .47 .55 .54

CFA Results for Commitment CFA Results for Commitment Models (NC)Models (NC)

S1 S2 S3 S4S1 S2 S3 S47. It would not be morally right for me to leave7. It would not be morally right for me to leavethis company nowthis company now .89 .85 .89 .87 .89 .85 .89 .878. It would not be right to leave my current organization8. It would not be right to leave my current organizationnow, even if it were to my advantagenow, even if it were to my advantage .87 .90 .83 .82 .87 .90 .83 .829. I think I would be guilty if I left my current9. I think I would be guilty if I left my currentorganization noworganization now .82 .84 .83 .76 .82 .84 .83 .7610. I would violate a trust if I left my current10. I would violate a trust if I left my currentorganization noworganization now .76 .75 .78 .86 .76 .75 .78 .8611. If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere,11. If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere,I would not feel it was right to leave my organizationI would not feel it was right to leave my organization .83 .73 .88 .71 .83 .73 .88 .7112. I would not leave my organization right now,12. I would not leave my organization right now,because I have a sense of obligation to certain peoplebecause I have a sense of obligation to certain peoplewho work therewho work there .69 .75 .66 .90 .69 .75 .66 .90

CFA Results for Commitment CFA Results for Commitment Models (HS)Models (HS)

S1 S2 S3 S4S1 S2 S3 S4

13. I would not leave this organization13. I would not leave this organizationbecause of what I would stand to losebecause of what I would stand to lose .88 .89 .87 .84 .88 .89 .87 .84 14. For me personally, the costs of leaving14. For me personally, the costs of leavingthis organization would be far greater thanthis organization would be far greater thanthe benefitsthe benefits .83 .79 .63 .72 .83 .79 .63 .72  15. I continue to work for this organization15. I continue to work for this organizationbecause I don't believe another organizationbecause I don't believe another organizationcould offer me the benefits I have herecould offer me the benefits I have here .61 .52 .63 .61 .52 .63  .66  .66

CFA Results for Commitment CFA Results for Commitment Models (LA)Models (LA)

S1 S2 S3 S4S1 S2 S3 S4

16. I have no choice but to stay with this16. I have no choice but to stay with thisorganizationorganization .72 .59 .73 .78 .72 .59 .73 .7817. I stay with this organization because17. I stay with this organization becauseI can't see where else I could workI can't see where else I could work .84 .86 .82 .87 .84 .86 .82 .8718. I feel that I have too few options to18. I feel that I have too few options toconsider leaving this organizationconsider leaving this organization .71 .74 .66 .73 .71 .74 .66 .73

Correlations among Commitment Correlations among Commitment Latent VariablesLatent Variables

1 21 2 3 4 3 4

1. AC (1. AC (.84).84)

2. NC .38 – .56 (.92) 2. NC .38 – .56 (.92)

3. HS .24 – .47 .13 – .37 (.75-.82)3. HS .24 – .47 .13 – .37 (.75-.82)

4. LA -.18 – -.30 -.07 – -.21 .10 – .34 (.77-.79)4. LA -.18 – -.30 -.07 – -.21 .10 – .34 (.77-.79)

Correlations between hypothesized Correlations between hypothesized antecedents and commitment componentsantecedents and commitment components

ACAC NCNC HSHS LALA

Job tenureJob tenure .10.10 .09.09 .19**.19** .07 .07

POSPOS .40***.40*** .36***.36*** .09 -.25***.09 -.25***

Promotion opportunitiesPromotion opportunities .21**.21** .24***.24*** .12 -.17*.12 -.17*

Salary effortsSalary efforts .22**.22** .24***.24*** .20** -.03.20** -.03

Salary levelSalary level .13.13 .07.07 .19** -.01.19** -.01

Skill transferabilitySkill transferability -.00 -.09 -.06 -.29*** -.00 -.09 -.06 -.29***

External locus of control External locus of control -.19** -.10 -.19** -.10 .06.06 .41***.41***

Positive affectivityPositive affectivity .09.09 .01 -.12 -.31***.01 -.12 -.31***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Correlations betweenCorrelations betweenAntecedents and Commitment (Sample 2)Antecedents and Commitment (Sample 2)

ACAC NCNC HSHS LALASelf-competenceSelf-competence .15.15 .05 -.07 -.16*.05 -.07 -.16*

Self-determinationSelf-determination .32***.32*** .33***.33*** .16* .16* -.28***-.28***

Sense of impactSense of impact .31***.31*** .37***.37*** .23** -.16.23** -.16

Self-meaningSelf-meaning .52***.52*** .39***.39*** .29*** -.16.29*** -.16

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Regresssion of CommitmentRegresssion of CommitmentAntecedents on HS (Sample 2)Antecedents on HS (Sample 2)

Step 1Step 1: : RR2 2 = .11***= .11***ACAC .18 .18NCNC .20* .20*Step 2Step 2: : RR2 2 = .06*= .06*Self-competenceSelf-competence -.19*-.19*Self-determinationSelf-determination -.03-.03Sense of impactSense of impact .12 .12Self-meaningSelf-meaning .21* .21*

*p < .05; ***p < .001*p < .05; ***p < .001

Commitment and Turnover:Commitment and Turnover:Logistic Regression Results (Sample 3)Logistic Regression Results (Sample 3)

BB WaldWald Exp (B)Exp (B)Step 1Step 1: Demographics: DemographicsStep 2Step 2::ACAC -.81 9.06** -.81 9.06** .45 .45NC -.04 NC -.04 .03 .03 .96 .96HSHS -.78 -.78 11.43*** .46 11.43*** .46LALA -.22 -.22 .53 .80 .53 .80Step 3Step 3::AC x LAAC x LA -.66 -.66 3.65 .52 3.65 .52NC x LANC x LA .68 .68 4.67* 1.97 4.67* 1.97HS x LAHS x LA -.17 -.17 .36 .85 .36 .85

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Commitment and Turnover:Commitment and Turnover:Subgroup Analysis for Sample 3Subgroup Analysis for Sample 3

BB WaldWald Exp Exp (B)(B)

Low LA SubgroupLow LA SubgroupACAC -.48 2.81 -.48 2.81 .62 .62NC -.44 NC -.44 3.20 .64 3.20 .64HSHS -.50 -.50 3.47 .61 3.47 .61

High LA SubgroupHigh LA SubgroupACAC -1.43 7.49** -1.43 7.49** .24 .24NC .77 NC .77 4.18* 4.18* 2.16 2.16HSHS -1.20 -1.20 8.96** .30 8.96** .30

*p < .05; **p < .01*p < .05; **p < .01

Commitment and Turnover:Commitment and Turnover:Logistic Regression Results (Sample 4)Logistic Regression Results (Sample 4)

BB WaldWald Exp (B)Exp (B)Step 1Step 1: Demographics: DemographicsStep 2Step 2::ACAC .32 1.68 1.37 .32 1.68 1.37NC -.09 NC -.09 .20 .20 .92 .92HSHS -.62 -.62 7.75** .54 7.75** .54LALA .04 .04 .03 1.04 .03 1.04Step 3Step 3::AC x LAAC x LA .03 .03 .01 1.03 .01 1.03NC x LANC x LA .45 .45 4.95* 1.56 4.95* 1.56HS x LAHS x LA -.03 -.03 .02 .97 .02 .97

*p < .05; **p < .01*p < .05; **p < .01

Commitment and Turnover:Commitment and Turnover:Subgroup Analysis for Sample 4Subgroup Analysis for Sample 4

BB WaldWald Exp (B)Exp (B)Low LA SubgroupLow LA Subgroup

ACAC .32 1.08 .32 1.08 1.37 1.37NC -.45 NC -.45 3.22 .64 3.22 .64HSHS -.74 -.74 6.90** .48 6.90** .48

High LA SubgroupHigh LA SubgroupACAC .03 .01 .03 .01 1.03 1.03NC .58 NC .58 4.70* 4.70* 1.79 1.79HSHS -.52 -.52 2.30 .59 2.30 .59

*p < .05; **p < .01*p < .05; **p < .01

ConclusionsConclusions

HS and LA are worth distinguishing within HS and LA are worth distinguishing within the three-component modelthe three-component model

AC and HS reduce the likelihood of AC and HS reduce the likelihood of turnover, NC has no effect (nor LA)turnover, NC has no effect (nor LA)

However, at high levels of LA, NC actually However, at high levels of LA, NC actually increases turnover increases turnover