Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

Group & Organization
Management
http://gom.sagepub.com/
The Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and

Affective Commitment: A Social Identity Perspective
Graldine Marique, Florence Stinglhamber, Donatienne Desmette, Gatane
Caesens and Fabrice De Zanet
Group & Organization Management 2013 38: 68 originally published online 13
September 2012
DOI: 10.1177/1059601112457200
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Group & Organization Management can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://gom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/68.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Feb 4, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 13, 2012
What is This?
Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014
57200
tion ManagementMarique et al.

s) 2012
GOM38110.1177/1059601112457200Gro
The Relationship
Between Perceived
Organizational
Support and Affective
Commitment: A Social
Identity Perspective
Group & Organization Management

38(1) 68100
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601112457200
http://gom.sagepub.com
Graldine Marique1, Florence Stinglhamber1,

Donatienne Desmette1, Gatane Caesens1,
and Fabrice De Zanet2
Abstract
The present research examines how the social identity perspective contributes to a better understanding of the relationships between perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and employees performance at work.
Using a sample of 253 employees from an engineering company, Study 1 found
that organizational identification partially mediates the relationship between
perceived organizational support and affective commitment. The results of
Study 1 also indicated that the relationship between perceived organizational
support and organizational identification is moderated by organizational prestige. In Study 2, using a sample of 179 postal employees, the authors replicated
the mediating role of organizational identification in the relationship between
perceived organizational support and affective commitment and found that
affective commitment mediates the relationship between organizational identification and supervisors ratings of extra-role performance.
1
Universit catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Universit de Lige, Lige, Belgium
Corresponding Author:
Graldine Marique, Universit catholique de Louvain, Institute of Psychological Sciences, Place
Cardinal Mercier 10 bte L3.05.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Email: geraldine.marique@uclouvain.be
69
Marique et al.
Keywords
perceived organizational support, affective organizational commitment,
organizational identification, organizational prestige, performance
Since Allen and Meyers (1990) work, organizational commitment has generated a great deal of interest among researchers. Indeed, research has shown
that committed employees display more positive attitudes and behaviors at
work (e.g., satisfaction, performance) than noncommitted employees (e.g.,
Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky,
2002). More precisely, the affective dimension of commitment (i.e., affective
organizational commitment) was found to have the strongest relationships with
several organization- and employee-relevant outcomes (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002).
Given its consequences for both employees and organizations, a better understanding of the determinants of affective organizational commitment was of
utmost importance. Numerous studies have thus been devoted to the antecedents
of affective organizational commitment (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002; Rhoades,
Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004).
Among these antecedents, perceived organizational support was found to have
the strongest positive relationship with affective organizational commitment
(Meyer et al., 2002) and is therefore considered as one of its most important
determinants.
Over the past decades, the dominant approach has been to conceptualize the
relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment in terms of social exchange processes. Based on the norm
of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), organizational support theory holds that perceived organizational support increases affective organizational commitment
by creating an obligation to care about the organizations welfare and to help it
to reach its goals (Rhoades et al., 2001). Empirical evidence has supported the
view that reciprocity and social exchange processes lie at the core of this relationship (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001).
However, some scholars have suggested that some aspects of the
employeeemployer relationship might be better understood in terms of selfdefinition and self-categorization and not in terms of reciprocity and exchange
(e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006).
Because perceived organizational support enhances feelings of self-worth and
esteem, an analysis in terms of social identity perspective would thus be necessary to complement the social exchange perspective in order to fully understand its impact on affective organizational commitment (Rhoades et al., 2001).
Despite these theoretical propositions, empirical research has not examined how
70
Group & Organization Management 38(1)
social identity processes play a role in the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment.
Filling this gap, the objective of the present research is to empirically investigate how the social identity processes may provide a new insight into this
relationship. More precisely, we examine how two specific variables rooted in
the social identity theory, that is, organizational identification and organizational prestige, contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between
perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment.
Furthermore, we examine how these mechanisms related to the social identity theory and underlying the perceived organizational supportaffective
organizational commitment relationship extend to the prediction of employees performance at work. Two studies have been conducted to examine the
hypotheses that were proposed in the present research. Figure 1 provides with
an overview of our conceptual model. The theoretical framework and specific
assumptions examined in our research are presented below.
The Relationship Between Perceived

Organizational Support and Affective
Organizational Commitment
Affective organizational commitment refers to an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p.
67). Affective organizational commitment has been shown to be related to a
broad range of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes such as job satisfaction,
in-role and extra-role performance, absenteeism, turnover intentions, and effective turnover (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer et al., 2002).
Concerning its antecedents, perceived organizational support (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) has been proposed as a key predictor of
affective organizational commitment. Perceived organizational support is
defined as the extent to which employees believe that their organization values
their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Although they both focus on the connection between an individual employee
and the organization (Bishop, Scott, Goldsby, & Cropanzano, 2005), there is
evidence at the theoretical and the empirical level that affective organizational
commitment and perceived organizational support are distinct constructs. Indeed,
it has been argued that organizational commitment reflects an attitude of
employees toward the organization whereas perceived organizational support
reflects employees perceptions about the organization's attitude toward them
(Shore & Tetrick, 1991). Accordingly, numerous studies have shown that
71
Marique et al.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Note. * Assessed from supervisor
affective organizational commitment and perceived organizational support are

empirically distinguishable yet strongly related (e.g., Bishop et al., 2005).
Evidence for a positive relationship between perceived organizational
support and affective organizational commitment has been found in numerous studies (e.g., Bishop et al., 2005; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro,
1990; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Wayne, 1993). More precisely,
Rhoades and her colleagues (2001) have shown, using a cross-lagged panel
design, that perceived organizational support was positively related to changes
in affective organizational commitment over time, whereas the reverse was
not true, supporting the antecedence of perceived organizational support on
affective organizational commitment.
The relationship between perceived organizational support and affective
organizational commitment has been primarily explained in terms of social
exchange (Lee & Peccei, 2007). Based on the reciprocity norm (Gouldner,
1960), the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) holds that social life is regulated by social exchange processes. Social exchange theory posits that when
an individual does something in favor of another individual, the other individual
is expected to return the favor. In opposition to economic exchanges, which are
related to financial and tangible aspects, social exchanges are often associated
to socioemotional aspects of the relationship (Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, &
Barksdale, 2006). The terms of the exchange are therefore generally unclear and
mainly based on trust (Blau, 1964). In line with this view, organizational support theory holds that perceived organizational support would increase affective
72
organizational commitment by creating a felt obligation to care about the

organizations welfare and to help it to reach its goals (Rhoades et al., 2001).
Indeed, Rhoades and her colleagues argued that the norm of reciprocity
encourages employees to reciprocate the organizations caring. Consequently,
affective commitment toward the organization helps employees to maintain a
positive self-image by avoiding the stigmatization related to the violation of
the norm of reciprocity (Rhoades et al., 2001). Accordingly, Eisenberger et al.
(2001) have demonstrated that employees felt obligation toward the organization mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support
and affective organizational commitment. However, their results indicated
that felt obligation acts as a partial mediator in the perceived organizational
supportaffective organizational commitment relationship, raising the question of other potential mechanisms involved in this relationship.
The Mediating Role of Organizational

Identification in the Relationship Between
Perceived Organizational Support and Affective
Organizational Commitment
Although most of the empirical studies on the perceived organizational
supportaffective organizational commitment relationship have been based
on the social exchange perspective (e.g., Rhoades et al., 2001), several
researchers argued that other mechanisms should be considered when explaining this relationship (e.g., Lee & Peccei, 2007). In line with this view, Rhoades
and her colleagues argued that perceived organizational support would also
increase affective commitment by fulfilling needs for esteem, approval, and
affiliation, leading to the incorporation of organizational membership and
role status into social identity (p. 825). Social identity theory (Tajfel &
Turner, 1985; Turner, 1985) holds that individuals classify themselves and
others into different social categories to define and locate themselves in a
given environment. Because individuals are motivated to maintain or enhance
their self-esteem, they tend to identify with groups who are perceived positively (Tajfel & Turner, 1985; Turner, 1985) and act in a way supporting these
groups (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). In line with
this view, several authors have suggested that, in meeting socioemotional
needs, perceived organizational support enhances the attractiveness of the
organization and, therefore, increases the likelihood of employees organizational identification (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Sluss, Klimchak,
& Holmes, 2008). In a similar vein, Bell and Menguc (2002) have argued
73
Marique et al.
that high levels of organizational support build employees organizational

identification during the socialization process. Accordingly, several studies
have reported a positive relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification (e.g., Bell & Menguc, 2002; Edwards
& Peccei, 2010; Sluss et al., 2008). Organizational identification is defined
as the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization,
where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the organization(s) in
which he or she is a member (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104).
Notwithstanding its conceptual similarities with affective organizational
commitment, organizational identification was found to be distinguishable
from this form of commitment both at the theoretical (e.g., Meyer, Becker,
& van Dick, 2006) and the empirical level (e.g., Gautam, van Dick, &
Wagner, 2004; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006).
Despite the recent interest in the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification, no study has investigated the
role played by organizational identification in the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment. Yet
several scholars have proposed that the individuals self-categorization as a
member of the organization (i.e., organizational identification) represents a
necessary first step toward the development of an emotional attachment
toward the organization (i.e., affective organizational commitment) (e.g.,
Meyer et al., 2006). This view is in line with Ashforth and Mael (1989) who
argued that organizational identification is a perceptual cognitive construct
that can enhance support for and commitment to the organization (p. 26).
In a similar vein, Meyer, Becker, and Vandenberghe (2004) have suggested
that organizational identification fosters affective commitment toward the
organization. Finally, Becker and his colleagues (Becker, 1992; Meyer et al.,
2006) have proposed that identification with a group often involves the adoption of attitudes, including commitment, directed toward this group.
Accordingly, group identification was found to predict group commitment in
Ellemers, Spears, and Doosjes (1997) experimental studies. These results
were replicated in field studies conducted by Bergami and Bagozzi (2000)
and Marique and Stinglhamber (2011), who showed that organizational identification influences affective organizational commitment and not the reverse.
Although the antecedence of organizational identification on affective organizational commitment has not been strictly demonstrated in organizational
settings (i.e., using longitudinal designs with repeated measures of organizational identification and affective organizational commitment), we deem it
reasonable to consider organizational identification as a determinant of affective
organizational commitment. Therefore, in agreement with this theoretical
74
and empirical evidence, we posited that organizational identification is a relevant mechanism to explain the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 1: Organizational identification will mediate the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment.
The Moderating Role of Organizational

Prestige in the Relationship Between Perceived
Organizational Support and Organizational
Identification
Because individuals are motivated to maintain or enhance their self-image
(Tajfel & Turner, 1985; Turner, 1985), they are more likely to identify with
organizations that are perceived to be prestigious in order to maintain or
enhance their self-esteem (Fuller, Hester, Barnett, Frey, Relyea, & Beu, 2006).
Indeed, employees use the status or social standing of their organization to
assess their self-worth (Fuller, Hester et al., 2006; Tyler, 1999). Consequently,
employees identification with a prestigious organization allows them to
enhance their self-esteem and meets their need for self-enhancement (Fuller,
Hester et al., 2006). In agreement with this view, organizational prestige has
been considered as one of the key determinants of organizational identification (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Smidts, Pruyn, &
van Riel, 2001) and numerous studies have shown its positive relationship
with organizational identification (e.g., Fuller, Hester et al., 2006; Mael &
Ashforth, 1992; Smidts et al., 2001). Organizational prestige (also called
perceived external prestige) refers to how an employee thinks outsiders
view his or her organization (and thus him- or herself as a member thereof)
(Smidts et al., 2001, p. 1052).
However, the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) holds that
both employees perceptions of the status of their organization (i.e., organizational prestige) and employees perceptions of their own status within this
organization are likely to affect their identification with the organization.
Yet employees perceptions of their own status within the organization may
be conceptualized in terms of perceived organizational support since, precisely, perceived organizational support informs employees about their value
and their informal status in the organization (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber,
2011; Sluss et al., 2008). Though, to the best of our knowledge, only one
75
Marique et al.
study has investigated simultaneously the effects of perceived organizational

support and organizational prestige on organizational identification (Fuller,
Hester et al., 2006), and no study has examined the possible interaction
among them.
According to the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), both
organizational prestige and perceived organizational support should enhance
employees organizational identification because they make different contributions to the employees sense of self. Tyler and Blader argued that the status of the group (i.e., organizational prestige) reflects the categorical self and
is related to the motivation to enhance or maintain a positive social identity
whereas the status of the individual within the group (i.e., perceived organizational support) reflects the reputational self and is related to the motivation
to enhance or maintain a positive personal identity.
However, several authors have argued that being a supportive organization
also contributes to the overall positive image of the organization (e.g., van
Knippenberg, van Dick, & Tavares, 2007) and may consequently inform
employees about the status of their organization too. In line with this view,
some empirical research showed that perceived organizational support informs
employees about both their own status within the organization and the status
of the organization (e.g., Fuller, Hester et al., 2006; Guerrero & Herrbach,
2009). Therefore, perceived organizational support would allow employees to
enhance or maintain a positive personal and social identity.
On the basis of this, we argued in this research that perceived organizational support and organizational prestige interact in the prediction of employees organizational identification. More precisely, we assumed that either a
high perceived organizational support or a high prestige should lead employees to strongly identify themselves with their organization, whatever the level
on the other predicting variable is. Having said this, Tyler and Blader (2002)
have shown that employees are more strongly influenced by their own evaluation of the status of their organization as opposed to evaluations based on
external references. Therefore, to the extent that organizational prestige is an
evaluation based on external perceptions about the status of the organization
(Smidts et al., 2001) and given that perceived organizational support informs
employees about both their own status within their organization and the status of their organization (Smidts et al., 2001), we expected that the organizational identification level is the highest when perceived organizational
support is high. Finally, the combination of a low perceived organizational
support with a low organizational prestige should produce the lowest level of
organizational identification. In sum, the pattern of the interaction should
show that the relationship between perceived organizational support and
76
organizational identification is weaker for employees perceiving a high organizational prestige.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification is moderated by organizational prestige.
The Mediating Role of Affective Organizational

Commitment in the Relationship Between
Organizational Identification and Performance
Both organizational identification and affective organizational commitment
were previously found to be related to in-role and extra-role performance (e.g.,
Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005; Riketta & van Dick, 2005; van Dick,
Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006). Unfortunately, no research has investigated
simultaneously the impact of organizational identification and affective organizational commitment on in-role and extra-role performance. Yet, according
to Meyer and his colleagues (2006), the effect of organizational identification
on employees performance is likely to be more indirect than the effect of
affective organizational commitment. Indeed, they argued that, by definition,
commitment binds the individual to a course of action of relevance to a particular target and tends to be beneficial for this target. In a similar vein, Cheney
and Tompkins (1987) suggested that identification is the appropriation of
identity and commitment is the binding to action (p. 8). Finally, Bergami and
Bagozzi (2000) argued that organizational identification has to be considered
as the cognitive basis for performance whereas affective organizational commitment provides the motivational force for performance. Accordingly, they
found that affective organizational commitment mediates the effect of organizational identification on organizational citizenship behaviors. Therefore, in
line with this theoretical and empirical evidence, we posited that organizational
identification has an effect on performance (i.e., in-role and extra-role performance) by enhancing affective organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 3a: Affective organizational commitment will mediate the
relationship between organizational identification and in-role performance.
Hypothesis 3b: Affective organizational commitment will mediate the
relationship between organizational identification and extra-role
performance.
77
Marique et al.
Study 1
Study 1 was designed to examine Hypothesis 1, which holds that the relationship
between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment was mediated by organizational identification. We also examined
Hypothesis 2, which holds that organizational prestige moderates the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification.
Method
Sample and Procedure. We surveyed 1,000 employees from an international engineering company of the private sector, located in Belgium. This
company provides IT consultancy to private and public companies. A total
of 253 employees returned usable questionnaires (response rate = 25.3%);
56.9% were male, 17.4 % were female, and 25.7 % did not respond to the
question. The average age of participants was 40.26 years (SD = 11.62)
and average organizational tenure was 10.62 years (SD = 12.35). Overall,
5.1% of the respondents worked in administration, 37.5 % in sales and
marketing, 28.9 % in project management, and 28.5 % did not respond to
the question. The questionnaires were given out via an email providing a
link to the electronic survey. In addition, in this email all participants were
guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. One week
after the initial mailing, a reminder was sent by the head of the HR department to all employees to encourage participation. A second reminder was
sent 1 week after the first reminder. An examination of the characteristics
of the initial sample indicates that participants are representative of the
initial sample in terms of gender, age, organizational tenure, and occupational categories.
Measures. Because the study was conducted in a French- and Dutch-speaking
context, all measures were translated from English using the standard
translation-back-translation procedure recommended by Brislin (1980). A
5-point Likert-type scale was used to measure respondents level of agreement with each item (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Perceived organizational support. Due to limited space in the survey, employees perception of organizational support has been measured using the four
highest loading items of the shorter eight-item version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger et al., 1986). A sample
item is, [organization name] really cares about me.
Organizational prestige. We assessed organizational prestige using two
items from Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar (2003; for example, I find [organization name] a prestigious place to work) and one item was specifically
78
constructed for this study (i.e., I think that [organization name] is generally
considered as a prestigious employer).
Organizational identification. To assess organizational identification, we
relied on the six-item scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). A sample item is, When I talk about [organization name], I usually say we rather
than they.
Affective organizational commitment.The revised six-item scale of Meyer
et al. (1993) was used to measure affective organizational commitment.
However, several authors have previously underlined the overlap between
organizational identification and affective organizational commitment at the
measurement level (e.g., Riketta, 2005). More precisely, they argued that an
item of the Affective Commitment Scale (i.e., I really feel as if [organization
name]s problems are my own) taps into the organizational identification
construct (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Riketta & van Dick,
2009). Therefore, based on Conway and Lances (2010) recommendation, we
dropped this item to prevent an artifactual inflation of the relationship
between organizational identification and affective organizational commitment. A sample item is, I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career
with [organization name].
Control variable. Following Beckers recommendations, we carefully
examined the relationships between potential control variables and the dependent variables of our model (i.e., the mediator or the outcome variable). We
found that age and organizational tenure display a significant correlation with
organizational identification (r = .18, p < .05 and r = .27, p < .001, respectively). Given the potential redundancy and the high correlation (r = .63,
p < .001) between age and organizational tenure, a preliminary analysis was
conducted prior to the test of the hypotheses to avoid the inclusion of impotent control variables (Becker, 2005). Organizational identification was
regressed on age and organizational tenure, and the results indicated that age
was no longer a significant predictor of organizational identification when
controlling for organizational tenure. We therefore decided not to include age
as a control variable in the subsequent analyses. Only organizational tenure
was thus introduced as an additional exogenous variable predicting organizational identification. Affective organizational commitment being unrelated to
all demographic variables, no control variable was included as a predictor of
this variable in the structural model.
Results
Data analyses were conducted using the Lisrel package (Jreskog & Srbom,
1993). Following Anderson and Gerbings (1988) recommendations, data were
79
Marique et al.
analyzed following a two-stage process. First, we assessed the measurement

model to evaluate the discriminant validity of the variables included in this
research. Second, we assessed the hypothesized structural relationships among
latent variables using the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach.
Discriminant Validity. We examined the distinctiveness between perceived
organizational support, organizational prestige, organizational identification,
and affective organizational commitment via a sequence of 10 nested models.
Fit indices for measurement models are displayed in Table 1. As can be seen,
the four-factor model fitted the data well and the more constrained models
displayed significant decrements in fit as compared with the four-factor
model. All the items loaded reliably on their predicted factors, with standardized loadings ranging from .53 to .79 for perceived organizational support,
.73 to .85 for organizational prestige, .61 to .79 for organizational identification, and .52 to .79 for affective organizational commitment. Following
Anderson and Gerbings (1988) recommendations, the discriminant validity
of the constructs was further assessed by performing confirmatory factor
analyses on the different constructs, taking them two by two. Indeed, according to these authors, a non-significant value for one pair of factors can be
obfuscated by being tested with several pairs that have significant values
(p. 416). As expected, results indicated a lower chi-square for the less constrained model for each pair of variables, providing evidence of the discriminant validity of the variables included in our model.
Relationships Among Variables. Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations among variables are presented in Table 2. Surprisingly, organizational tenure was found to display a significant and negative
relationship with organizational identification. This result will be addressed
later in the article, in light of the results of Study 2, which shows a similar pattern of correlations.
Test of Hypotheses. We tested a SEM in which perceived organizational
support, organizational prestige, and their interaction were related to organizational identification, which in turn led to affective organizational commitment. Since we are dealing with latent constructs, we used indicators for the
main effects as well as the interaction term. Following Marsh, Wen, and Haus
(2004) approach, each indicator used to create the interaction term (i.e., the
indicators of perceived organizational support and organizational prestige)
was centered to lessen multicollinearity. Second, on the basis of preliminary
confirmatory factor analysis, we reduced to 3 the number of indicators for
perceived organizational support using the partial disaggregation method
described by Bagozzi and Edwards (1998). We then constructed indicators
for the latent interaction term by multiplying the highest-loading indicator of
80
Table 1. Study 1: Confirmatory Factor Analyses Fit Indices for Measurement

Models
2
Model
1.Four-factor model
2.Three-factor model (OI and AC = 1
factor)
3.Three-factor model (POS and OP = 1
factor)
4.Three-factor model (POS and AC = 1
factor)
5.Three-factor model (POS and OI = 1
factor)
6.Three-factor model (OI and OP = 1
factor)
7.Three-factor model (AC and OP = 1
factor)
8.Two-factor model (OI, AC and OP = 1
factor)
9.Two-factor model (POS and OP = 1
factor, OI and AC = 1 factor)
10. One-factor model
df
2 (df)
NNFI CFI RMSEA
292.31 129
432.50 132 140.19 (3)***
.97
.94
.97
.95
.07
.10
440.11 132 147.80 (3)***
.94
.95
.10
415.59 132 123.28 (3)***
.94
.95
.09
472.34 132 180.03 (3)***
.94
.95
.10
606.11 132 313.80 (3)***
.92
.93
.12
530.60 132 238.29 (3)***
.93
.94
.11
689.12 134 396.81 (5)***
.90
.92
.13
580.00 134 287.69 (5)***
.92
.93
.11
778.68 135 486.37 (6)***
.89
.90
.14
Note. N = 253. OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment; POS =

perceived organizational support; OP = organizational prestige; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI =
comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
***p < .001.
perceived organizational support with the highest-loading indicator of organizational prestige. This procedure was followed for each subsequent pair of
indicators. Indirect effects were assessed using the bootstrapping method
(Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). According to MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002) and MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams (2004), bootstrapping should be preferred to
other techniques such as the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982, 1986) because it maintains control over the Type 1 error and does not imply the normality of the
data (see also Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
As indicated in Table 3, the hypothesized model accurately explained the
data. However, as indicated by the chi-square difference test, the fit of the
alternative Model 1, which adds a path between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment, was significantly superior to
the fit of the hypothesized model. The alternative Model 1 was thus retained
as the best depiction of the data. Standardized parameter estimates for the
alternative Model 1 are displayed in Figure 2, and the effects of organizational
81
Marique et al.
Table 2. Study 1: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Variables
Variable
SD
1 2
1.Gender
.01 .00
2.Age
40.26 11.62
.63***
3. Organizational tenure 10.62 12.35
4.Perceived
2.81 0.74
organizational support
5. Organizational prestige 2.90 0.70
6.Organizational
3.41 0.70
identification
7.Affective organizational 3.02 0.73
commitment
.03
.10
.03
.01
.11 .11 .18* .05
.24*** .14* .27*** .04
(.79) .55*** .53*** .54***
(.84)
.46*** .51***
(.84)
.58***
(.80)
Note. N = 253. Gender was coded 1 = Male, 2 = Female. Alpha coefficients are reported on the
diagonal.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.
tenure are described in the text. Organizational tenure was not significantly
related to organizational identification ( = .09, ns). Controlling for organizational tenure, perceived organizational support was found to be positively
related to organizational identification ( = .49, p < .001), which in turn had
a significant and positive effect on affective organizational commitment
( = .49, p < .001).
As predicted by Hypothesis 1, the indirect effect of perceived organizational support on affective organizational commitment was significant (indirect effect = .21; BCa 95% CI = [.14, .29]. Perceived organizational support
was also found to be directly related to affective organizational commitment
( = .36, p < .001), indicating that organizational identification partially
mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and
affective organizational commitment.
Although organizational prestige was not significantly related to organizational identification ( = .17, ns), the interactive influence of perceived organizational support and organizational prestige on organizational identification
was significant ( = .16, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 2. To examine the
interactive effect of perceived organizational support and organizational
prestige on organizational identification, lines representing the relationship
between perceived organizational support and organizational identification
were plotted at high and low level of organizational prestige (plus and minus
1 SD). As shown in Figure 3, the relationship between perceived organizational
support and organizational identification was significant when organizational
82
Table 3. Study 1: Fit Indices for Structural Models

Model
Hypothesized
df NNFI CFI RMSEA
2 (df)
374.56 179 .96
.96
.07
Alternative 1 (path added

361.11 178 .96
between POS and AC)
360.41 177 .96
between OP and AC)
361.04 177 .96
between POSxOP and AC)
.97
.06
.97
.06
0.70 (1)
.97
.06
0.07 (1)
Model comparison
13.45 (1)*** Hypothesized vs.

Alternative 1
Alternative 1 vs.
Alternative 2
Alternative 1 vs.
Alternative 3
Note. N = 253. POS = perceived organizational support; AC = affective organizational commitment; OP =

organizational prestige; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation.
***p < .001.
Figure 2. Completely standardized path coefficients for the alternative Model 1

(for the sake of clarity, only structural relationships are shown)
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
prestige was high, t(247) = 14.89, p < .001, and when organizational prestige
was low, t(247) = 27.95, p < .001. The slopes were also significantly different
from each other, t(247) = 2.74, p < .001, which indicated that the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification is stronger when organizational prestige is low. Finally, the results of the
83
Marique et al.
JohnsonNeyman technique (Johnson & Neyman, 1936; also Aiken & West,
1991) indicated that organizational prestige has no impact on employees
organizational identification at a high level of perceived organizational support (p > .05). In contrast, when perceived organizational support is low,
organizational prestige has a strong influence on employees organizational
identification (p < .01).
We conducted ancillary analyses to explore whether the interactive effect
of perceived organizational support and organizational prestige on organizational identification carried over to affective organizational commitment.
Interestingly, we found that organizational identification mediated the interactive effect of perceived organizational support and organizational prestige
on affective organizational commitment. More precisely, the test of conditional indirect effect (Preacher et al., 2007) showed that the indirect effect of
perceived organizational support on affective organizational commitment via
organizational identification was significant both when organizational prestige was high (indirect effect = .11, BCa 95% CI = [.05, .18]) and when organizational prestige was low (indirect effect = .21, BCa 95% CI = [.13, .31]).
These findings suggested that organizational identification mediated the
interactive effect of perceived organizational support and organizational
prestige on affective organizational commitment both at high and low level
of organizational prestige.
Study 2
Study 2 was designed to assess the generalizability of the results obtained in
Study 1 regarding the mediating role of organizational identification in the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational
commitment (Hypothesis 1). Moreover, we examined the extent to which the
relationship between organizational identification and performance was mediated by affective organizational commitment (Hypotheses 3a and 3b). In order to
rely on an objective measure of performance, supervisors were asked to assess
their employees in-role and extra-role performance. As part of a larger survey, the
measures used for the present study could only represent a very limited number of
items due to limited space. Organizational prestige was therefore not measured
and, consequently, Hypothesis 2 could not be tested again in this study.
Method
Sample and Procedure. We surveyed 450 employees from the Belgian postal
service company composed of 30,000 employees. A total of 179 employees
84
Figure 3. Organizational identification as a function of perceived organizational

support at low (minus 1 SD) and high (plus 1 SD) levels of organizational prestige
returned usable questionnaires (response rate = 39.78%). The majority of the

sample participants were male (78.2%), and the average age of the participants was 42.46 years (SD = 10.09). On average, respondents were employed
by this company for 17.43 years (SD = 10.11). Each employee received an
envelope including the printed questionnaire. The questionnaire was accompanied by a letter explaining the study procedure, the importance of employees participation, and providing guarantee that their responses would be kept
confidential. Three days after the initial distribution of the printed questionnaires, a reminder was sent by the researcher to each of the 450 employees to
encourage them to take part in the survey. An examination of the characteristics of the final sample provides evidence that participants were representative of the initial sample in terms of gender, age, and organizational tenure.
Measures. As the study was conducted in a French-speaking context, all

measures were translated using the standard translation-back-translation
procedure (Brislin, 1980). Respondents rated their agreement with each
item using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree).
Perceived organizational support. We measured employees perception of
organizational support using the shorter eight-item version of the Survey of
Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger et al., 1986).
85
Marique et al.
Organizational identification and affective organizational commitment. We

used the same scales as in Study 1.
In-role performance. Supervisor evaluated subordinates in-role performance using the five-item scale of Williams and Anderson (1991). A sample
item is, This employee fulfills responsibilities specified in his or her job
description.
Extra-role performance. Supervisor evaluated subordinates extra-role performance on the four forms of organizational spontaneity described by
George and Brief (1992), which are assessable by the supervisor (i.e., helping
coworkers, protecting the organization, making constructive suggestions, and
developing oneself). One item was taken from Eisenberger et al. (2001); a
second item was taken from van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994); and
three items were taken from Eisenberger et al. (2010). A sample item is, This
employee continues to look for new ways to improve the effectiveness of his/
her work.
Control variable. Following Beckers (2005) recommendations and in keeping with Study 1, we introduced organizational tenure (i.e., the sole demographic variable displaying a significant correlation with one of the dependent
variables of our model) as an additional exogenous variable predicting affective organizational commitment.
Results
Discriminant Validity. The distinctiveness between perceived organizational
support, organizational identification, affective organizational commitment,
and in-role and extra-role performance was assessed through the comparison
of 10 nested models. Fit indices for measurement models are reported in
Table 4. The results indicated that the five-factor model fitted the data well
and was significantly superior to all more constrained models. All the items
loaded reliably on their predicted factors, with standardized loadings ranging
from .53 to .79 for perceived organizational support, .51 to .79 for organizational
identification, .50 to .85 for affective organizational commitment, .57 to .93
for in-role performance, and .77 to .87 for extra-role performance. As in
Study 1, the discriminant validity of the constructs was also tested by taking
the constructs by pairs and results indicated a lower chi-square for the less
constrained model for each pair of variables.
Relationships Among Variables. Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations among variables are displayed in Table 5. Surprisingly, as it was the case with organizational identification in Study 1, a
86
Table 4. Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analyses Fit Indices for Measurement

Models
2
Model
1.Five-factor model
2.Four-factor model (OI and AC =
1 factor)
3.Four-factor model (POS and AC =
1 factor)
4.Four-factor model (POS and OI =
1 factor)
5.Four-factor model (AC and IRP =
1 factor)
6.Four-factor model (AC and ERP =
1 factor)
7.Four-factor model (IRP and ERP =
1 factor)
8.Three-factor model (POS, OI, and
AC = 1 factor)
5.Three-factor model (AC, IRP, and
ERP = 1 factor)
8.Two-factor model (POS, OI, and
AC = 1 factor; IRP and ERP = 1
factor)
10. One-factor model
df
2 (df)
NNFI CFI RMSEA
771.88 367
943.01 371
171.13 (4)***
.92
.90
.93
.91
.08
.09
936.71 371
164.83 (4)***
.89
.90
.09
1079.42 371
307.54 (4)***
.89
.90
.10
1657.85 371
885.97 (4)***
.80
.81
.14
1195.80 371
423.92 (4)***
.86
.87
.11
1445.76 371
673.88 (4)***
.85
.87
.13
1182.27 374
410.39 (7)***
.87
.88
.11
1820.60 374 1048.72 (7)***
.79
.80
.15
1850.00 376 1078.12 (9)***
.80
.81
.15
3367.51 377 2595.63 (10)***
.64
.67
.21
Note. N = 179. OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment; POS =

perceived organizational support; IRP = in-role performance; ERP = extra-role performance; NNFI =
nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
***p < .001.
significant negative relationship was found between organizational tenure

and affective organizational commitment. Although organizational tenure has
been found to be positively correlated with organizational identification and
affective organizational commitment in several previous studies (e.g., Meyer
et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005), there is some evidence suggesting that organizational tenure might have a negative effect on these variables (e.g., Beck &
Wilson, 2000; Lok & Crawford, 2001). More generally, longer tenure was
found to be related to less favorable perceptions of the organization in several
previous research (e.g., English, Morrison, & Chalon, 2010).
Test of Hypotheses. Table 6 displays fit indices for the hypothesized structural model and five alternative models. As indicated in Table 6, the hypothesized model accurately explained the data. However, like in Study 1, the fit
87
Marique et al.
Table 5. Study 2: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Variables
Variable
1.Gender
2.Age
3. Organizational tenure
4.Perceived
organizational support
5.Organizational
identification
6.Affective organizational
commitment
7. Extra-role performance
8. In-role performance
SD
.18* .22**
.01 .01
42.46 10.09
.79*** .01 .03

17.43 10.11
.05 .02
2.90 0.71
(.84) .47***
3.15 0.79
(.82)
3.27 0.79
3.61 0.63
4.45 0.52
.11
.13 .02
.13 .14 .02
.16* .14 .04
.50*** .15* .17*
.46***
.04 .02
(.81)
.15* .04
(.89) .54***
(.90)
Note. N = 179. Gender was coded 1 = Male, 2 = Female. Alpha coefficients are reported on the diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
of the alternative Model 1, which adds a path between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment, was significantly
better than the fit of the hypothesized model. We thus retained the alternative
Model 1. Standardized parameter estimates for the alternative Model 1 are
shown in Figure 4. For the sake of clarity, the effects of organizational tenure
are described in the text. Organizational tenure was not significantly related
to affective organizational commitment ( = .14, ns). Controlling for organizational tenure, the results showed that perceived organizational support was
positively associated to organizational identification ( = .52, p < .001),
which in turn has a significant and positive effect on affective organizational
commitment ( = .23, p < .05). The indirect effect of perceived organizational
support on affective organizational commitment was significant (indirect
effect = .16, BCa 95% CI = [.07, .26]), supporting Hypothesis 1. As in Study
1, perceived organizational support was also found to be directly related to
affective organizational commitment ( = .39, p < .001). Affective organizational commitment was found to have a positive impact on extra-role performance ( = .22, p < .05) but not on in-role performance ( = .10, ns), yielding
no support to Hypothesis 3a. The indirect effect of organizational identification on extra-role performance through affective organizational commitment
was significant (indirect effect = .06, BCa 95% CI = [.01, .14]). These findings suggested that affective organizational commitment mediated the effect
of organizational identification on extra-role performance, which supports
Hypothesis 3b.
88
Table 6. Study 2: Fit Indices for Structural Models

2
Model
df NNFI CFI RMSEA
2 (df)
Hypothesized
870.44 400
.90
.91
.08

between POS and AC)
between OI and ERP)
between OI and IRP)
between POS and ERP)
between POS and IRP)
846.09 399
.91
.92
.08
844.94 398
.91
.92
.08
1.15 (1)
845.70 398
.91
.92
.08
0.39 (1)
844.15 398
.91
.92
.08
1.94 (1)
845.37 398
.91
.92
.08
0.72 (1)
Model comparison
24.35 (1)*** Hypothesized vs.

Alternative 1
Alternative 1 vs.
Alternative 2
Alternative 1 vs.
Alternative 3
Alternative 1 vs.
Alternative 4
Alternative 1 vs.
Alternative 5
Note. N = 179. POS = perceived organizational support; AC = affective organizational commitment; OI =

organizational identification; ERP = extra-role performance; IRP = in-role performance; NNFI = nonnormed
fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
***p < .001.
Figure 4. Completely standardized path coefficients for the alternative Model 1

(for the sake of clarity, only structural relationships are shown)
*p < .05. ***p < .001.
Discussion
The aim of the present research was to examine how the social identity
perspective provides a new insight into the relationships between perceived
organizational support, affective organizational commitment, and finally,
89
Marique et al.
employees performance at work. Our research extends previous studies by

providing evidence that (a) organizational identification is a key mechanism in the relationship between perceived organizational support and
affective organizational commitment, (b) organizational prestige moderates the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification, and (c) affective organizational commitment is a
more proximal determinant of employees performance than organizational
identification is.
More precisely, we found in two studies that the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment was
partially mediated by organizational identification. By doing so, the present
research demonstrates the relevance of the identification process in the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment. Indeed, although identification has been suggested as an
important mechanism in the relationship between perceived organizational
support and affective organizational commitment (Rhoades et al., 2001), this
relationship has been primarily studied in terms of social exchange (e.g.,
Eisenberger et al., 2001), regardless of the identification process. Yet, as suggested by Rhoades et al., our findings showed that perceived organizational
support increases organizational identification, which in turn leads to an
increased affective organizational commitment. These results are in line with
the findings of Lee and Peccei (2007), who argued that felt obligation only
partially mediates the relationship between perceived organizational support
and affective organizational commitment and that socioemotional factors may
also explain this relationship. Moreover, research has shown that the strength
of the relationship between perceived organizational support and affective
organizational commitment via felt obligation depends on employees
exchange ideology (Eisenberger et al., 2001). More the employees apply the
reciprocity norm to their relationship with the organization, the more a high
perceived organizational support will lead them to show greater felt obligation
and a subsequent stronger affective commitment. Organizational identification
could therefore be considered as an alternative mechanism explaining a strong
relationship between perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment in the absence of a strong exchange ideology among
employees. Overall, our results represent a promising first step toward a better
understanding of the relationship between perceived organizational support
and affective organizational commitment. Future research should investigate
the role played by social identity processes in the relationships between other
social exchange variables and others attitudes and behaviors at work such as
job satisfaction, withdrawal behaviors, or well-being at work.
90
In addition, the results of Study 1 showed that the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification was moderated
by organizational prestige. Precisely, the pattern of the interaction indicates that,
at a high level of perceived organizational support, employees are very likely to
strongly identify themselves with their organization, whatever their perception
of organizational prestige. On the contrary, when employees perceive little support from their organization, organizational prestige has a strong influence on
their organizational identification. In this case, a high organizational prestige
induces a fairly high level of organizational identification, even though this level
is significantly lower than that obtained when perceived organizational support
is high. These findings are in agreement with Tyler and Blader (2002), who
found that employees are more strongly influenced by their own evaluation of
the status of their organization as compared to evaluations based on external
references. They are also in line with Fuller, Marler, Hester, Frey, and Relyeas
(2006) assumption that individuals perception that their organization is held in
high regard by others affects their organizational identification only when they
need to enhance their self-esteem (i.e., when they perceived low organizational
support). By showing that organizational prestige influences organizational
identification only when employees perceived little support from their organization, the present research greatly contributes to the existing literature. It raises
indeed the question on the relative importance of contextual factors such as
organizational prestige or organizational distinctiveness in the prediction of
organizational identification when individuals needs are satisfied by their own
evaluations of the organization. Our results also showed that the interactive
effect of perceived organizational support and organizational prestige on organizational identification carried over to affective organizational commitment both
at high and low level of organizational prestige. These results extend the findings in some prior studies (e.g., Carmeli, Gilat, & Weisberg, 2006), in which
organizational identification was found to mediate the impact of organizational
prestige on affective organizational commitment.
Finally, Study 2 demonstrated that the effect of organizational identification on extra-role performance was fully mediated by affective organizational
commitment. This result is in agreement with previous studies that found that
affective organizational commitment was a more proximal determinant of
attitudes and behaviors at work than organizational identification was (e.g.,
Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Marique & Stinglhamber, 2011). However, the
relationship between affective organizational commitment and in-role performance was not significant, indicating that affective organizational commitment is related to extra-role performance but not to in-role performance.
These results are in line with Restubog, Bordia, and Tang (2006) and Williams
91
Marique et al.
and Anderson (1991), who argued that in-role performance is not affected by
employees emotional attachment to their organization because employees
are expected to meet requirements of their job, independently of their relationship with their organization. On the contrary, extra-role performance consists of discretionary behaviors and is more likely to be influenced by the
employeeemployer relationship. In the same vein, van Knippenberg (2000)
argued that extra-role performance is more under volitional control and, consequently, more likely to be influenced by organizational identification or
commitment than in-role performance is. Indeed, according to van
Knippenberg, extra-role performance is less contingent on employees skills,
ability, or resources than in-role performance is. He also argued that extrarole performance is more likely to be influenced by the employeeemployer
relationship to the extent that it is contingent on group-oriented motivations
while in-role performance is more likely to benefit the self (i.e., in terms of
performance evaluation). At the empirical level, the results of Vandewalle,
van Dyne, and Kostova (1995) corroborate our findings by showing that
affective organizational commitment was significantly and positively correlated with extra-role performance whereas the correlation between affective
organizational commitment and in-role performance was not significant.
Limitations and Perspectives for Future Research

Several limitations of this research should be acknowledged. First, the crosssectional nature of the research design did not allow us to make any inference
of causality on the hypothesized links between variables included in our studies.
Future research should therefore examine the relationships among these variables using longitudinal designs with repeated measurements. A second potential limitation is the use of self-reported measures, which may have exposed our
results to the common method bias. However, the use of self-reported measures
seems the most accurate way in regard to the main purpose of our research,
which was to examine employees perceptions. Moreover, the Harmans singlefactor test indicated that a one-factor solution provides a poor fit to the data
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Finally, as showed by
Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira (2010), common method variance might lead to an
attenuation of the interaction effect. Therefore, finding a significant interaction
in our first study provides strong evidence that an interaction exists. As a whole,
this evidence suggests that common method bias was not a major weakness of
our research. Finally, both studies have been conducted in Belgium. Therefore,
in order to avoid an underestimation of the impact of deeply rooted societal
norms (Hofstede, 2001), it would be helpful to replicate this research in other
countries. Just as social exchange processes and reciprocity rules are more or
92
less important depending on cultures (e.g., Whitener, 2006), the extent to which
employees identify with their organization and the impact of organizational
identification on work-related attitudes and behaviors have been found to vary
across cultures (e.g., Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998). It would therefore be
interesting to examine the generalizability of our findings across cultures.
In addition, future research would greatly benefit by examining other moderators in the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification, such as socioemotional needs. Indeed, Eisenberger
and Stinglhamber (2011) argued that perceived organizational support, in fulfilling socioemotional needs, will increase the attractiveness of the organization and may result in stronger organizational identification. Furthermore,
Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Lynch (1998) showed in their research that
the relationship between perceived organizational support and police patrol
officers performance increased with the officers needs for esteem, affiliation,
approval, and emotional support. These findings suggest that future research
should investigate further how such socioemotional needs can affect the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational identification, which in turn has positive effects on affective organizational commitment
and its related outcomes (i.e., extra-role performance).
Finally, research has shown that employees can develop strong relationships not only with their organization but also with other organizational targets such as their supervisor or their workgroup and, consequently, exert
extra-effort toward these targets (e.g., Becker, 1992; Christ, van Dick,
Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2003; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). Future research
should therefore investigate whether the relationships found in the present
studies may be extended to other organizational entities.
Practical Implications
Our findings indicate that perceptions of organizational support lead employees to integrate the organization in their self-concept with positive implications
for their emotional attachment to this company and, finally, an increased extrarole performance. These results thus suggested that organizations would
greatly benefit from having employees who perceive high organizational support. Such perceptions can be enhanced via diverse human resources practices
such as maintaining open channels of communications and providing employees with resources they need (i.e., equipment, training, information, or supplies) or with more job security (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011).
Our results also indicate that, in case of low organizational support, managers can develop a higher organizational identification among employees by
strengthening the prestigious reputation of their company. Managers should
93
Marique et al.
develop human resources practices that inform employees that their organization is highly valued and regarded by outsiders. For instance, Fuller,
Hester et al. (2006) have shown that organizational visibility and the promotion of the organizations success in terms of organizational performance
are two key antecedents of organizational prestige. Moreover, they suggested that organizational image may be fostered via both internal and
external communications. Corporate communications campaigns or socialization programs stressing organizations accomplishments (i.e., awards,
certifications) are therefore some means that organizations may use to
enhance perceptions of organizational prestige among their employees
(Fuller, Hester et al., 2006).
In conclusion, the present research indicates that organizational identification plays a pivotal role in the relationship between employees perceptions
of organizational support and their emotional attachment toward the organization. Our findings also show the importance of organizational prestige as a
determinant of organizational identification when perceived organizational
support is low. Finally, our results indicate that employees extra-role performance is influenced by employees organizational identification via their
attachment toward the organization whereas employees in-role performance
is not influenced by the employeeemployer relationship.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This work was supported by a grant from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific
Research, awarded to Graldine Marique
References
Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group:
Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms
as predictors of worker turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 1027-1039. doi:10.1177/01461672982410001
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, Sage.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
94
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
411-423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 288-297. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.83.2.288
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39. doi:10.2307/258189
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87.
Beck, K., & Wilson, C. (2000). Development of affective organizational commitment: A cross-sequential examination of change with tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 114-136. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1712
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244. doi:10.2307/256481
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational
Research Methods, 8, 274-289. doi:10.1177/1094428105278021
Bell, S. J., & Menguc, B. (2002). The employee-organization relationship, organizational citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality. Journal of Retailing, 78,
131-146. doi:10.1016/s0022-4359(02)00069-6
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555-577. doi:10.1348/
014466600164633
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., Goldsby, M. G., & Cropanzano, R. (2005). A construct
validity study of commitment and perceived support variables: A multifoci
approach across different team environments. Group & Organization Management, 30, 153-180. doi:10.1177/1059601102355772
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In
H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp.
398-444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Perceived external prestige, organizational identification and affective commitment: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 92-104.
Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Coming to terms with organizational identification and commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 1-15.
Christ, O., van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers
go the extra mile: Foci of organisational identification as determinants of
95
Marique et al.
different forms of organisational citizenship behaviour among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 329-341. doi:10.1348/
000709903322275867
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors
regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business
Psychology, 25, 325-334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. (2010). Perceived organizational support, organizational
identification, and employee outcomes: Testing a simultaneous multifoci model.
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 17-26. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000007
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational
support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 51-59. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:10.1037//00219010.71.3.500
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., GonzalezMorales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-member exchange
and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisors
organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1085-1103.
doi:10.1037/a0020858
Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: APA Books.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: Ingroup identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus
individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617-626.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.617
English, B., Morrison, D., & Chalon, C. (2010). Moderator effects of organizational tenure on the relationship between psychological climate and affective commitment. Journal of Management Development, 29, 394-408. doi:10.1108/02621711011039187
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived
external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59, 815-846. doi:10.1177/0018726706067148
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L., Hester, K., Frey, L., & Relyea, C. (2006). Construed external image and organizational identification: A test of the moderating influence of
need for self-esteem. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 701-716. doi:10.3200/
socp.146.6.701-716
96
Gautam, T., van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and
organizational commitment: Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 301-315. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00150.x
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis
of the mood at work organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.310
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Guerrero, S., & Herrbach, O. (2009). Manager organizational commitment: A question of support or image? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 1536-1553. doi:10.1080/09585190902983496
Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 986-1001. doi:10.1177/
0013164403258403
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their
applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1,
57-93.
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago,
IL: Scientific Software International.
Lee, J., & Peccei, R. (2007). Perceived organizational support and affective commitment: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem in the context of
job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 661-685. doi:10.1002/
job.431
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the
mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 594-613.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V.
(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable
effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the
indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 103-123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202
Marique, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Identification to proximal targets and affective
organizational commitment: The mediating role of organizational identification.
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 107-117. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000040
97
Marique et al.
Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z. L., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent
interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275-300. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.3.275
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (Eds.). (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.78.4.538
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and
motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991-1007. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments
at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
665-683. doi:10.1002/job.383
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61,
20-52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature
and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating
indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42, 185-227.
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2006). Effects of psychological contract
breach on performance of IT employees: The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 299-306.
doi:10.1348/096317905x53183
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review
of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714. doi:10.1037//00219010.87.4.698
98
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 825-836. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005
Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A metaanalytic comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67,
490-510. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.06.001
Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. (2009). Commitments place in the literature.
In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations:
Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 69-95). New York, NY: Routledge.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity of the survey of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637-643.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.637
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic
exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 837-867.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774-780.
doi:10.1037//0021-9010.78.5.774
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression
models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research
Methods, 13, 456-476. doi:10.1177/1094428109351241
Sluss, D. M., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J. J. (2008). Perceived organizational
support as a mediator between relational exchange and organizational
identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 457-464. doi:10.1016/
j.jvb.2008.09.001
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee
communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1051-1062. doi:10.2307/3069448
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312).
Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in
covariance structure models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.
In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.,
pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
99
Marique et al.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive

theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol.
2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (pp. 201-247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2002). Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we
be better than others to feel good about ourselves? Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 89, 813-838. doi:10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00031-6
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 7, 349-361. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0704_07
van Dick, R., Grojean, M. W., Christ, O., & Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra
mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17, 283-301. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8551.2006.00520.x
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357-371.
doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00020
van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 571-584. doi:10.1002/job.359
van Knippenberg, D., van Dick, R., & Tavares, S. (2007). Social identity and social
exchange: Identification, support, and withdrawal from the job. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 37, 457-477. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00168.x
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to
the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47-71. doi:10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00029-0
Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An
empirical examination of its consequences. Group & Organization Management,
20, 210-226. doi:10.1177/1059601195202008
Whitener, E. (2006). International human resource management, fairness and trust:
An organizational support theory framework. In In G. K. Stahl & I. Bjrkman
(Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management
(pp. 488-501). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601-617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305
100
Bios
Graldine Marique is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Industrial and Organizational
Psychology at the Psychological Sciences Research Institute (IPSY) of the Catholic
University of Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). Her doctoral research mainly
focuses on the distinction and the relationship between organizational identification
and commitment.
Florence Stinglhamber is Professor of Organizational Psychology and Human
Resource Management in the Psychology Department at the Catholic University of
Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). With regard to her research, she is member of
the Psychological Sciences Research Institute (IPSY) at the same university. Her
research interests include perceived organizational support, employees identification
and commitment in the workplace, perceived justice and trust, leadership and managerial skills, and employer branding.
Donatienne Desmette is Professor of Work and Social Psychology at the Catholic
University of Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). With regard to her research, she
is member of the Psychological Sciences Research Institute (IPSY) and the
Interdisciplinary Research Centre on Work, State, and Society (CIRTES) at the same
university. Her research interests include aging and age discrimination at work, social
diversity at work, and minorities integration.
Gatane Caesens is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Industrial and Organizational
Psychology at the Psychological Sciences Research Institute (IPSY) of the Catholic
University of Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). Her doctoral research mainly
focuses on perceived organizational support and its consequences for both employees
and employers.
Fabrice De Zanet received his Ph.D. in Management Sciences from the HEC
Management School of the University of Liege (Lige, Belgium). He is currently
Assistant Professor at the HEC Management School of the University of Liege. His
research interests include leadership, trust, cooperation and organizational control.

Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Relationship Perceived Organizational Support and Commitment

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Group & Organization

The Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and

>> Version of Record - Feb 4, 2013

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

tion ManagementMarique et al.

Group & Organization Management

Graldine Marique1, Florence Stinglhamber1,

Universit catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Group & Organization Management 38(1)

The Relationship Between Perceived

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Note. * Assessed from supervisor

affective organizational commitment and perceived organizational support are

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Group & Organization Management 38(1)

organizational commitment by creating a felt obligation to care about the

The Mediating Role of Organizational

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

that high levels of organizational support build employees organizational

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Group & Organization Management 38(1)

The Moderating Role of Organizational

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

study has investigated simultaneously the effects of perceived organizational

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Group & Organization Management 38(1)

organizational identification is weaker for employees perceiving a high organizational prestige.

The Mediating Role of Affective Organizational

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Group & Organization Management 38(1)

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

analyzed following a two-stage process. First, we assessed the measurement

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Group & Organization Management 38(1)

Table 1. Study 1: Confirmatory Factor Analyses Fit Indices for Measurement

NNFI CFI RMSEA

432.50 132 140.19 (3)***

440.11 132 147.80 (3)***

415.59 132 123.28 (3)***

472.34 132 180.03 (3)***

606.11 132 313.80 (3)***

530.60 132 238.29 (3)***

689.12 134 396.81 (5)***

580.00 134 287.69 (5)***

778.68 135 486.37 (6)***

Note. N = 253. OI = organizational identification; AC = affective organizational commitment; POS =

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Group & Organization Management 38(1)

Table 3. Study 1: Fit Indices for Structural Models

df NNFI CFI RMSEA

374.56 179 .96

Alternative 1 (path added

13.45 (1)*** Hypothesized vs.

Note. N = 253. POS = perceived organizational support; AC = affective organizational commitment; OP =

Figure 2. Completely standardized path coefficients for the alternative Model 1

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by elvis pinedo on October 18, 2014

Group & Organization Management 38(1)

Figure 3. Organizational identification as a function of perceived organizational