APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2003, 52 (4), 533 554

The Inuence of Cultural Values on

Antecedents of Organisational Commitment:
An Individual-Level Analysis

Blackwell
Oxford,
Applied
APPS

0269-994X
October
0
1
4
52
Original
ANTECEDENTS
Wasti
00
International
UK
Psychology:
Article
2003
Publishing
Association
OF an
Ltd
ORGANISATIONAL
International
for Applied
Review
Psychology,
COMMITMENT
2003

S. Arzu Wasti*
Sabanc University, stanbul, Turkey

On sest demand dans cette recherche si les valeurs culturelles que sont
lindividualisme et le collectivisme values au niveau individuel avaient un
impact sur le poids des diffrents facteurs de limplication organisationnelle.
Il est apparu que la satisfaction due au travail et lavancement tait le
dterminant primaire de limplication affective et normative des salaris qui
adhrent lindividualisme. Pour ceux qui sorientent ver des valeurs collectivistes, tre satisfait du suprieur tait le facteur essentiel de limplication,
devant la satisfaction relative au travail et la promotion. Des rsultats
analogues ont t obtenus pour limplication long terme. Bien que certains
des antcdents de limplication organisationnelle soient commun aux deux
groupes, lorientation vers la tche ou vers les relations varie avec les individus
relevant dorientations culturelles diffrentes.
This study investigated whether cultural values of individualism and collectivism measured at the individual level inuence the salience of different
antecedents of organisational commitment. The ndings indicated that satisfaction with work and promotion are the primary determinants of affective
and normative commitment for employees who endorse individualist values.
For employees with collectivist values, satisfaction with supervisor was found
to be an important commitment antecedent over and above satisfaction
with work and promotion. Similar results were obtained for continuance
commitment. The results indicate that although some antecedents of organisational commitment are common across the two groups, the emphasis placed
on task versus relationships differs across individuals with varying cultural
orientations.

* Address for correspondence: S. Arzu Wasti, Sabanc University, The Graduate School of
Management, Orhanl 34956 Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey. Email: awasti@sabanciuniv.edu.tr
The data collection for this study was greatly facilitated by the travel grants of Institute
of Labor and Industrial Relations and the Ofce of International Studies, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The author also wishes to thank Chris Robert for his helpful
comments.
An earlier draft of this manuscript was presented at the Sixth International Western Academy
of Management Conference, Shizuoka, Japan, 2000.
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

534

WASTI

INTRODUCTION
There has been a growing interest in cross-cultural organisational commitment in recent decades. In this stream of research, several studies have
primarily sought to test the generalisability of the measures, antecedents,
and outcomes of commitment identied in the North American context (e.g.
Ko, Price, & Muller, 1997; Luthans, McCaul, & Dodd, 1985; Vandenberghe,
1996). Other studies have investigated the inuence of culture more explicitly
and have proposed culture-specic (emic) antecedents as well as culturally
salient antecedents of commitment (e.g. Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Palich,
Hom, & Griffeth, 1995; Redding, Norman, & Schlander, 1994). In one of
the empirical studies in the latter group, Palich et al. (1995) investigated
whether culture moderated the relationship between affective commitment
and a number of well-documented antecedents, namely, role clarity, job
scope, participative management, and extrinsic rewards. Their results
showed that not only were the antecedents strong predictors of affective
commitment for each cultural group, but also there were no signicant
cultural moderation effects. While the authors concluded that American
theories and practices might not be as culture-bound as cultural relativists
claim them to be, they pointed out a number of limitations with their investigation. For one thing, the authors used a unidimensional operationalisation of the commitment construct (affective commitment). Perhaps more
importantly, Palich et al. (1995) noted that their data were analysed at the
national level and suggested that future validations might use individual
scores as it has been shown that individuals cultural values differ within
national cultures (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988).
The purpose of the present investigation is to contribute to a better
understanding of the inuence of culture on the antecedents of organisation
commitment. First, the current study investigates the relative importance of
various sources of commitment in predicting organisational commitment
for individualistic and collectivistic individuals. Earley and Mosakowski
(1995) argued that individual-level analysis has the advantage of directly
connecting the hypothesised aspect of culture to other constructs in the
nomological network as it measures the relative degree of value endorsement (extent of sharedness) rather than aggregation according to nationality,
which presumes that all cultural members are sharing a given perspective
equally and identically. The present individual-level study was conducted in
a single country, namely Turkey. Turkey, poised between Europe and the
Middle East with a population of 65 million, can best be characterised as in
transition from a rural, agricultural, patriarchal society to an increasingly
urbanised, industrialised, egalitarian one. However, these dramatic changes
are not experienced equally momentously in every segment of the society
or in every aspect of social functioning and it is common to nd a duality
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

535

of both traditional and modern values and attitudes within and among
individuals.
Second, in this study organisational commitment is treated as a multidimensional construct and in addition to affective commitment, normative
and continuance commitment are also investigated. Although affective
commitment is the most investigated and undisputed form of commitment,
recent studies have validated other forms of commitment (e.g. Allen &
Meyer, 1990; Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; OReilly & Chatman, 1986). For
example, in one of the more comprehensive and recent conceptualisations
of organisational commitment, Allen and Meyer (1990) have proposed a
three-component model of organisational commitment. The affective
component of organisational commitment refers to employees emotional
attachment to, identication with, and involvement in the organisation.
Employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with
the organisation because they want to do so. The continuance component
refers to commitment based on the costs that employees associate with
leaving the organisation. Employees whose primary link to the organisation
is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so.
Finally, the normative component refers to employees feelings of obligation
to remain with the organisation. Employees with a high level of normative
commitment feel they ought to remain with the organisation. Meyer and
Allen (1991) argued that it is more appropriate to consider affective, continuance, and normative commitment to be components, rather than types,
of commitment as an employees relationship with an organisation might
reect varying degrees of all three. Thus, one of the aims of this study is to
explore the inuence of cultural values on these other types of commitment
as well. Although the Palich et al. (1995) study investigated all four cultural
dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1980), the current study will test only
hypotheses regarding the effect of individualism and collectivism. Indeed,
this dimension has been considered to be most relevant to organisational
commitment (Allen, Miller, & Nath, 1988; Hofstede, 1980; Redding et al.,
1994). In the following section, these cultural dimensions are presented
briey and the hypotheses of the study are presented.

INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM: IMPLICATIONS FOR

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT
Of Hofstedes four dimensions, individualism and collectivism are undoubtedly the most investigated cultural syndromes (see Triandis, 1995).
The essential difference between individualism and collectivism is with
respect to the concept of self. In individualist cultures, the denition of the
self is independent whereas in collectivist cultures, the denition of the self is
interdependent (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). What follows
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

536

WASTI

is that, in collectivist societies, personal and ingroup goals are usually

closely aligned. In individualistic cultures, on the other hand, the pursuit of
individual goals may or may not be consistent with ingroup goals, and in
cases of incompatibility, personal goals have priority (Triandis et al., 1988).
Individuals will often drop out of groups if membership becomes a burden
or inhibits the attainment of individual goals.
Though most work has been cross-cultural, there is considerable evidence
to suggest that a distinction between collectivists and individualists may
exist within cultures in the form of an individual difference (Hui & Triandis,
1986; Triandis, 1995; Wagner, 1995) and that the above outlined dening
attributes of individualism and collectivism exist at the individual level
(Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995). At the individual level,
individualism and collectivism are manifest in the degree to which individuals endorse values, attitudes, or norms consistent with notions such as
independence and uniqueness versus those suggestive of interdependence
and subservience to the wishes of the group. When individualism and
collectivism are measured at the individual level, they are called allocentrism
and idiocentrism, respectively (Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985;
Smith & Bond, 1999). Hence, cultures which are labeled collectivist or
individualistic are simply cultures in which the majority of individuals
have the corresponding collectivistic or individualistic difference (Hui &
Triandis, 1986). This suggests that even though overall trends may exist
within cultures towards one dimension or the other, there still may be
variance within a culture, which could predict changes in dependent variables
of interest.
The differing emphasis on self versus group goals manifested in the cultural syndromes of individualism and collectivism arguably has implications
for the nature of the employee attachment to the organisation. In fact,
Hofstede (1980) proposed that whereas members of collectivist cultures are
people-oriented in organisational settings, individualists are task-oriented.
Hofstede further argued that in individualist cultures, employees might
establish an exchange or a calculative relationship with their organisation
while people in collectivist societies might view their relationship to have
moral elements. Along the same lines, Boyacigiller and Adler (1991) postulated that employees from collectivist cultures commit to rms due to their
ties with colleagues or supervisors whereas employees from individualist
cultures may be attracted to the job content or the promotion plan. Moreover, since members of individualist societies value competition and rely on
material gains to track personal success (Triandis et al., 1988), Palich et al.
(1995) argued that extrinsic personal rewards will generate more commitment in employees who embrace individualist values to a greater extent.
Similar arguments were set forth by Pelled and Xin (1997) who proposed
that collectivist employees would differ from individualist employees in their
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

537

greater desire to associate with coworkers as well as their lesser concern

about personal progress.
The commitment antecedents of interest to the present investigation were
the well-documented job satisfaction antecedents. As the reviews by Allen
and Meyer (1996) and Meyer and Allen (1997) show, several studies have
conrmed the relationship between positive work experiences and affective
commitment. Yet, as the previous discussion implies, different aspects of job
satisfaction may be more salient for individuals who hold different cultural
values. In other words, differences in the cultural values of individualism
and collectivism can be argued to inuence the relative importance of
various facets of job satisfaction in predicting organisational commitment.
Specically, the following hypotheses were proposed:
H1: For idiocentrics, satisfaction with work itself, pay, and promotion opportunities will be better predictors of affective commitment than satisfaction
with coworkers and supervisor.
H2: For allocentrics, satisfaction with coworkers and supervisor will be better
predictors of affective commitment than satisfaction with work itself, pay, and
promotion opportunities.

As mentioned previously, another purpose of the current investigation

was to explore the implications of cultural values for other forms of
commitment. Previous cross-cultural studies have typically operationalised
organisational commitment as affective commitment and consequently,
the antecedents of interest have been shown to be associated primarily
with affective commitment across cultural contexts (e.g. Near, 1989). However,
the salient antecedents of affective commitment may also have implications
for other components of commitment for different cultural groups. For
instance, the previous discussion on collectivism alluded to the fact that
people with collectivist values tend to behave according to the norms of
their ingroup, and the obligations and duties that are designed to maintain
social harmony among the members of the ingroup. In other words, they
maintain normative or obligatory relationships. It has been argued that this
relationship orientation may also be reected in the employeremployee
bond, and that collectivists might feel a normative attachment to their
organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Redding et al., 1994). Thus, it can be
hypothesised that for collectivists the salient antecedents of affective
commitment will also reect in higher levels of normative commitment. It
should be noted that although normative commitment is theorised to
develop from distinct antecedents such as personal norms, previous studies
have documented a positive relationship between affective commitment
antecedents and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1996). In line with
the arguments regarding affective commitment and the emphasis on strong
social ties and obligations for individuals who hold collectivist values, it is
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

538

WASTI

expected that satisfaction with coworkers and supervisor will also be the
primary sources of normative commitment for allocentrics.
Whereas relationships have a normative or a moral component in
collectivist cultures, social behavior in individualist cultures is guided by
attitudes, personal needs, principles of exchange, rights, and contracts
(Triandis, 1995). Thus, it is not likely that satisfaction with the various
aspects of the job will result in feelings of obligation for idiocentrics. However, the satisfactory aspects of the job can be argued to increase levels of
continuance commitment for idiocentrics, as they perceive their relationship to be primarily a calculative attachment. Based on these arguments, the
following hypotheses were advanced:
H3: For allocentrics, satisfaction with coworkers and supervisor will be better
predictors of normative commitment than satisfaction with work itself, pay,
and promotion.
H4: For idiocentrics, satisfaction with work itself, pay, and promotion opportunities will be better predictors of continuance commitment than satisfaction
with coworkers and supervisor.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

Twelve hundred questionnaires were distributed and 914 usable surveys
from 46 organisations located in four major cities in Turkey were returned.
The sample comprised 404 females (45.3%) and 487 males (54.7%). The
modal age category was 2529 years; 72 per cent of the sample was between
the ages 20 to 34. The respondents were also quite educated: 57.1 per cent
of the respondents had at least a Bachelor degree, 11.1 per cent had received
degrees from vocational colleges or had completed two years of college,
and 26 per cent of the respondents were high school graduates. Only
5.8 per cent had education below high school. Almost half of the respondents
were single (47.3%), and the other half were married (49.8%); 3 per cent were
divorced or separated. The respondents held a variety of occupations. Most
of them were ofce workers (32.5%). Blue-collar workers constituted only
8.5 per cent of the sample; 10.6 per cent of the respondents were technicians,
19.5 per cent were supervisors, 14.8 per cent were professionals, and nally
14.1 per cent were managers. The modal tenure category was 15 years (44.7).

Measurement
Data were collected through a questionnaire in Turkish. The author translated the English questionnaires into Turkish and two bilingual academicians
back-translated the instruments. The items that had discrepancies were
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

539

corrected and back-translated once again. The nal versions, which were
reviewed by all translators, were in substantial agreement.
Organisational Commitment. The three components of organisational
commitment were measured with the six-item scales by Meyer, Allen, and
Smith (1993) as well as the emic (culture-specic) items. The emic items were
chosen from an item pool that was generated through in-depth interviews
with 83 Turkish employees from various organisations and pilot tested with
a sample of 351 Turkish public sector employees. Affective commitment is
composed of items that refer to the emotional attachment of the individual
to his/her organisation (e.g. This organisation has a great deal of personal
meaning for me). Continuance commitment items, on the other hand,
reect a need to stay with the organisation due to costs associated with
leaving (e.g. If I decided to leave this organisation, too much of my life
would be disrupted). The normative commitment scale consists of items that
tap into feelings of obligation to sustain membership (e.g. Even if it were
to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organisation).
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured by the abbreviated
(9-item) Work, Supervisor, Coworker, Pay, and Promotion satisfaction
scales of the Job Description Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) as
revised by Roznowski (1989). The JDI presents statements or adjectives that
refer to the various aspects of the work itself (e.g. challenging), supervisor
(e.g. bad), coworker (e.g. lazy), pay (e.g. fair), and promotion opportunities
(e.g. merit-based) and uses a response scale composed of three options (Yes,
?, No). Higher scores on each scale reect higher satisfaction. The Satisfaction
with Work, Supervisor, and Coworker scales had been subjected to a rigorous
test of measurement equivalence in previous research and were found
to display very satisfactory psychometric properties in Turkish (Wasti,
Bergman, Glomb, & Drasgow, 2000). The Satisfaction with Pay and
Promotion scales that were administered in Turkish for the rst time were
initially pilot tested, and item-scale analysis and conrmatory factor analysis
conducted on both pilot data as well as nal administration were found to
be satisfactory.
AllocentrismIdiocentrism. INDCOL (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, &
Gelfand, 1995) was used to measure allocentrism and idiocentrism. INDCOL
is composed of 32 items that constitute four 8-item subscales, namely Horizontal
Individualism (HI), Vertical Individualism (VI), Horizontal Collectivism
(HC), and Vertical Collectivism (VC). Triandis and Gelfand (1998) have
shown that the individualism and collectivism constructs can be categorised
as horizontal (emphasising equality) or vertical (emphasising hierarchy).
Vertical collectivism reects subordination of personal interests to the
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

540

WASTI

interests of the ingroup; this construct parallels a more recent conceptualisation by Kagtbas (1997) who has labeled this aspect of collectivism
as normative collectivism. Vertical individualism, on the other hand, is
characterised by the acceptance of competition and the pursuit of individual goals. The horizontal collectivism and individualism scales measure
interdependence versus independence, or relatedness versus separateness
(Kagtbas, 1997).
Most items were identical to those in the original scale; however, based
on pilot test results some items were rewritten in order to make them easier
to translate. For example, as there is no exact translation for the word
privacy in Turkish, the original item I like my privacy was rewritten to
mean I enjoy being by myself. Similarly, instead of the original item
When I succeed it is because of my abilities, a new item I prefer to make
my own decisions rather than consulting others was included. Also, additional items were borrowed from another version of the INDCOL used in
previous research to increase reliability.

RESULTS

Item and Scale Analyses

Before proceeding with testing the hypotheses, the psychometric properties
of the emic-etic commitment scales as well as the INDCOL were examined in
detail. Initially, reliability analysis was carried out on each scale and any item
that had negative inter-item correlations with other items on that subscale
or a low (less than .25) corrected item-total correlation was dropped. As a
second step, correlations between each item and other subscale scores were
obtained. Only the items that had a higher corrected item-total correlation with
their own subscale than with the other subscales were retained. Item and scale
analyses conducted on the INDCOL revealed that a number of items had
negative inter-item correlations or low corrected item-total correlations.
These items were items from the original scale which were the most difcult
to translate into Turkish, and it is possible that suboptimal translations created
the problem. Accordingly, these items were eliminated from further analyses.
The new Horizontal Individualism items had high corrected item-total
correlations.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Next, for the scales created or revised for this study conrmatory factor
analyses were conducted using LISREL 8 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993).
In particular, to address the debate regarding the dimensionality of continuance commitment (Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994; Hackett, Bycio,
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

541

TABLE 1
Goodness-of-fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analyses for
Organisational Commitment Scale
Model
1-factor
2-factor (Affective-normative;
Continuance commitmentLack of alternatives )
3-factor (Affective; Normative;
Continuance commitmentLack of alternatives)
4-factor (Affective, Continuance;
Normative; Lack of alternatives)

df

2/df

GFI AGFI NNFI SRMSR

865 822.32 54 15.23

865 685.78 53 12.94

.82
.85

.74
.78

.78
.81

.09
.079

865 255.42 51

5.01

.95

.92

.94

.054

865 135.66 48

2.83

.97

.96

.97

.027

Note: GFI = Goodness-of-t index; AGFI = Adjusted goodness-of-t index;

NNFI = Non-normed t index; SRMSR= Standardised root mean square residual.

& Hausdorf, 1994; McGee & Ford, 1987), the t of a three-factor model
(affective commitment, normative commitment, continuance commitment)
was compared with the t of a four-factor model where continuance
commitment was broken down into two factors, namely high perceived costs
associated with leaving (HPC) and perceived lack of alternatives (PLA).
As presented in Table 1, the results of the conrmatory analysis indicated
that the four-factor model t the data best ( 2/df ratio = 2.83, GFI = .97,
AGFI = .96, NNFI = .97, SRMSR = .027), and the improvement in t
over the three-factor model was signicant (2(3, N = 865) = 119.76,
p < .001). For the four-factor solution all items loaded satisfactorily on
their respective factors, and modications indices did not suggest signicant improvement in t if any parameters were freed. Given these results as
well as the recent argument by Ko et al. (1997), who stated that lack of
alternatives should be treated as an antecedent to continuance commitment
rather than a component of commitment, the hypotheses were tested using
continuance commitment operationalised as high perceived costs associated
with leaving.
Next, conrmatory factor analysis was carried out for the INDCOL.
Again, several alternative models were tested (a two-factor individualism
and collectivism model, a two-factor horizontal and vertical model, a threefactor collectivism-vertical individualism-horizontal individualism, a threefactor individualism-vertical collectivism-horizontal collectivism, and a
four-factor horizontal collectivism, vertical collectivism, horizontal individualism, and vertical individualism model). Table 2 indicates that the four-factor
model ts the data best (2/df ratio = 4.22, GFI = .88, AGFI = .86, NNFI = .68,
SRMSR = .068) and the improvement over the three-factor collectivism-vertical
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

542

WASTI
TABLE 2
Goodness-of-fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analyses for INDCOL

Model
2-factor (HorizontalVertical)
2-factor (IndividualismCollectivism)
3-factor (IndividualismHorizontal CollectivismVertical Collectivism)
3-factor (CollectivismHorizontal IndividualismVertical Individualism)
4-factor (Horizontal
Individualism-Vertical
Individualism-Horizontal
Collectivism-Vertical
Collectivism)

df

2/df

GFI

AGFI

NNFI

SRMSR

882

1186.59

53

22.39

.80

.70

.28

.16

882

614.76

53

11.60

.88

.83

.64

.086

882

447.03

51

8.77

.92

.87

.74

.077

882

486.65

51

9.54

.91

.86

.71

.072

882

298.77

48

6.22

.94

.91

.82

.057

Note: GFI = Goodness-of-t index; AGFI = Adjusted goodness-of-t index;

NNFI = Non-normed t index; SRMSR= Standardised root mean square residual.

individualism-horizontal individualism model is signicant ( 2(3,N = 882) =

187.88, p < .001). The means, standard deviations, coefcient alphas, and
the intercorrelations of the nal versions of the scales measures are provided
in Table 3.

Regression Analysis
In order to test the differing bases of organisational commitment, the
allocentrics and the idiocentrics in the Turkish sample had to be identied. Allocentrics were dened as the individuals who had scored above
the median in the Horizontal Collectivism and below the median in the
Horizontal Individualism scales. Likewise, idiocentrics were dened as the
individuals who had scored below the median in the Horizontal Collectivism
and above the median in the Horizontal Individualism scales. This selection
criterion resulted in a sample of 198 allocentrics and 247 idiocentrics. The
choice of horizontal dimensions of allocentrism and idiocentrism was made
primarily for statistical reasons. Although horizontal allocentrism and
horizontal idiocentrism were unrelated to each other and positively related
to vertical allocentrism and vertical idiocentrism respectively, the latter
two scales (vertical allocentrism and vertical idiocentrism) were positively
correlated. Thus, it appeared that with the current sample, there was more
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

Variables
1. Affective
commitment
2. Normative
commitment
3. Continuance
commitment
4. Satisfaction
with work
5. Satisfaction
with coworkers
6. Satisfaction
with supervisor
7. Satisfaction
with pay
8. Satisfaction
with promotion
9. Horizontal
Individualism
10. Horizontal
Collectivism
11. Vertical
Individualism
12. Vertical
Collectivism

# of items

Mean

SD

Alpha

4.50

.45

.83

10

4.29

.36

.87

.70***

4.10

.57

.77

.43***

.63***

1.75

.33

.84

.50***

.39***

.15***

2.22

.24

.85

.27***

.23***

.09**

.30***

2.07

.26

.86

.32***

.24***

.05

.35***

.43***

1.29

.37

.84

.27***

.18***

.04

.28***

.21***

.21***

.94

.32

.90

.32***

.28***

.09**

.41***

.22***

.31***

4.99

.62

.63

.14***

5.77

.35

.68

.29***

.35***

.20***

.12***

4.79

1.04

.64

.16***

.20***

.15***

.08*

.01

4.18

.71

.67

.15***

.36***

.39***

.02

.02

.09**

.02

.07*

.06
.19***

.01

10

.34***
.07*

.05

.003

.05

.05

.04

.03

.04

.23***

.20***

.08*

.05

.03

.11***

.38***

.09*

11

.19***

543

Note: The response scales for organisational commitment, individualism, and collectivism range from 1 to 7; and for job satisfaction scales the range is from 0 to 3.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
The sample size varies from N = 801 to 890 after pairwise deletion.

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Variables

544

WASTI

evidence for the construct validity of the horizontal scales.1 Also, exploratory
factor analysis conducted on the INDCOL revealed horizontal collectivism
to be the rst and horizontal individualism to be the second factor suggesting
that these dimensions were the important ones for Turkish people. This is an
interesting nding, as it supports Kagtbass (1997) proposition that it is the
normative collectivism dimension that weakens with changing lifestyles towards modernity. Considering that this is a young, urban, highly educated sample,
it is not surprising to nd relational collectivism to be the dening attribute.
Next, regression analyses were completed for the allocentrics and idiocentrics separately, using education, tenure, and the ownership of the
organisation (0/1 variable coding the employees organisation as completely
domestic or with foreign capital) as control variables and the ve job
satisfaction variables as independent variables. The regression results are
provided in Tables 4 to 6.
Table 4 shows the results of the separate regression analyses with affective
commitment as the dependent variable. For idiocentrics, satisfaction with
work itself and promotion opportunities were the only signicant predictors
of affective commitment. For allocentrics, satisfaction with supervisor
explained further variance over and above satisfaction with work itself and
promotion opportunities in predicting affective commitment. These results
partially conrm the rst and the second hypotheses. Although satisfaction
with pay did not account for any signicant variance, it appears that for
idiocentrics the relational aspects of job satisfaction are relatively unimportant in determining affective commitment to the organisation. For allocentrics
on the other hand, satisfaction with supervisor is signicantly related to
affective commitment. Contrary to expectations, however, satisfaction with
coworkers does not explain affective commitment whereas satisfaction with
work itself and promotion opportunities do.
Based on the propositions that collectivism might be associated with a
moral involvement with the organisation whereas individualism might
involve a costbenet or a calculative attachment to the organisation, the
regression analyses were repeated with normative and continuance commitment as dependent variables, respectively. For exploratory purposes, the
analyses were run for both groups each time. In other words, normative
commitment was regressed onto the job satisfaction variables for idiocentrics and continuance commitment was regressed onto the job satisfaction
variables for allocentrics and the results are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
1
Although there is a pervasive tendency to treat individualism and collectivism as polar opposites, recent theoretical and empirical work suggests that these dimensions are independent and
may coexist in individuals or groups at the same time in different situations or with different target
groups or toward different interactional goals (see Kagtbas, 1997). Therefore, the pattern of
correlations obtained for the horizontal scales was found to be in line with theoretical expectations.

International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

545

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

TABLE 4
Predicting Affective Commitment for Idiocentrics and Allocentrics
Independent Variables
Control variables
Education
Ownership (0 = Domestic; 1 = Foreign)
Tenure

Idiocentrics

Allocentrics

.093
(.581)
.058
( 1.163)
.092
(.850)

.052
(.321)
.178**
( 3.481)
.249***
(1.86)

Job satisfaction variables

Satisfaction with work itself

.326***
(.400)
.084
(.114)
.061
(.079)
.045
(.058)
.206**
(.249)

Satisfaction with coworkers

Satisfaction with supervisor
Satisfaction with pay
Satisfaction with promotion opportunities
R2
N (after listwise deletion)

.275
217

.323***
(.427)
.041
( .064)
.157*
(.206)
.019
( .022)
.255**
(.288)
.377
165

Note: Standardised regression coefcients are listed on the top line, unstandardised regression coefcients
are listed in parentheses.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Table 5 shows the results obtained for the analyses with normative
commitment as the dependent variable. Again, the results provide moderate
support for Hypothesis 3. For allocentrics, similar to the results obtained for
affective commitment, satisfaction with work itself, promotion opportunities,
and supervisor signicantly predicted normative commitment. Interestingly,
however, whereas satisfaction with supervisor had the lowest beta weight in
accounting for affective commitment, for normative commitment, satisfaction
with supervisor has the highest beta weight, closely followed by satisfaction
with work itself and then satisfaction with promotion opportunities. It
was suggested that satisfaction with various aspects of the job would not
predict normative commitment for idiocentrics; yet, the exploratory analysis
indicates that satisfaction with work itself is positively related to feelings of
obligation for idiocentrics.
For continuance commitment, operationalised as perceived costs associated with leaving, the results indicate that after control variables are taken
into account, satisfaction with work itself is the only predictor of continuance
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

546

WASTI
TABLE 5
Predicting Normative Commitment for Idiocentrics and Allocentrics

Independent Variables
Control variables
Education
Ownership (0 = Domestic; 1 = Foreign)
Tenure
Job satisfaction variables
Satisfaction with work itself
Satisfaction with coworkers
Satisfaction with supervisor
Satisfaction with pay
Satisfaction with promotion opportunities
R2
N (after listwise deletion)

Idiocentrics

.16*
( 1.23)
.164*
( 4.096)
.016
(.183)

.329***
(.501)
.065
(.109)
.044
( .069)
.055
(.086)
.136
(.205)
.252
217

Allocentrics

.25***
( 1.919)
.207**
( 5.003)
.217**
(2.007)

.214**
(.352)
.061
( .118)
.217**
(.353)
.062
(.092)
.151*
(.214)
.343
164

Note: Standardised regression coefcients are listed on the top line, unstandardised regression coefcients
are listed in parentheses.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

commitment for idiocentrics (see Table 6). Again, these results provide partial
support for Hypothesis 4. The exploratory analysis run with the allocentrics
reveals that the sole predictor of continuance commitment is satisfaction
with supervisor. It appears that for idiocentrics the satisfaction derived from
the task constitutes the most signicant cost associated with leaving an
organisation whereas for allocentrics, the relational costs count more.2

A series of moderated regression analyses that included allocentrism, idiocentrism, and

each facet of job satisfaction as well as the interactions with allocentrism and idiocentrism also
supported these results. Idiocentrism signicantly moderated the relations between satisfaction
with work, pay, and promotion with affective commitment and the relations between satisfaction
with work and pay with continuance commitment. Specically, the interaction coefcients were
signicantly positive, suggesting that satisfaction with work, pay, and promotion were
stronger predictors of affective and continuance commitment for individuals high in idiocentrism. Likewise, allocentrism signicantly moderated the relationship between satisfaction with
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

547

TABLE 6
Predicting Continuance Commitment for Idiocentrics and Allocentrics
Independent Variables

Idiocentrics

Allocentrics

.156*
( .85)
.108
( 1.898)
.201**
(1.618)

.265***
( 1.371)
.142
( 2.317)
.326***
(2.041)

Control variables
Education
Ownership (0 = Domestic; 1 = Foreign)
Tenure
Job satisfaction variables
Satisfaction with work itself

.192*
(.206)
.086
(.102)
.096
(.108)
.045
(.05)
.129
(.137)

Satisfaction with coworkers

Satisfaction with supervisor
Satisfaction with pay
Satisfaction with promotion opportunities
R2
N (after listwise deletion)

.148
217

.092
(.101)
.06
( .077)
.18*
(.198)
.018
( .018)
.024
( .022)
.205
165

Note: Standardised regression coefcients are listed on the top line, unstandardised regression coefcients
are listed in parentheses.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

DISCUSSION
The current results substantiate some of the major propositions regarding
the inuence of the cultural values of individualism and collectivism on the
development of organisational commitment. In particular, the present test
reveals some consistent differences across allocentrics and idiocentrics. The
ndings also shed light on some of the common sources of commitment

supervisor with affective and normative commitment, respectively. Again, the interaction
coefcients were positive, indicating that satisfaction with supervisor was a stronger predictor
of affective and normative commitment for individuals high on allocentrism. Disconrming the
hypothesis, but consistent with previous analysis, allocentrism did not have a moderating effect
on the satisfaction with coworker-commitment relationships. Allocentrism was found to be
moderating the relation between satisfaction with work and affective commitment similar to
the previous analysis; interestingly, however, it was also a strong moderator for the satisfaction
with pay and affective commitment relationship.
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

548

WASTI

across individuals with differing cultural values. These ndings and their
implications are discussed below.
The regression analysis revealed that for people who endorse individualist
values task and career-related positive work experiences are the primary
determinants of emotional attachment to the organisation. Satisfaction with
relations at the workplace does not predict commitment for employees with
individualistic values. Similarly, it appears that for idiocentrics satisfaction with
the job content is the sole satisfaction-related predictor of perceived costs of
quitting. However, it should be noted that when the effects of other job satisfaction variables were controlled, satisfaction with current pay did not play a
signicant role in predicting any type of organisational commitment. In congruence with these results, moderated regression analysis also revealed that
for employees who held more idiocentric values, satisfaction with work, pay,
and promotion were stronger predictors of affective and, except for promotion,
continuance commitment. Indeed, idiocentrism did not moderate any of the
satisfaction with supervisor and coworker to commitment relationships.
Unlike idiocentrics, for individuals who endorse collectivist values,
satisfaction with supervisor is an important determinant of organisational
attachment. This is especially true for normative commitment. The moral or
normative nature of the employeremployee bond in collectivist cultures may
be due to this personal component of the relationship with the organisation.
Moderated regression analyses also revealed that allocentrism consistently
moderated the relation between supervisor satisfaction with affective and
normative commitment such that these relations were stronger for individuals
high on allocentrism. However, satisfaction with coworkers was not predictive of organisational commitment. Similar results have been obtained by
Ko et al. (1997) who found supervisor support to be strongly correlated with
affective and normative commitment, but reported that coworker support
was not signicantly related to either commitment component. Finally, it
should be noted that relational positive aspects of the job are not the sole
motivators for allocentrics. Satisfaction with the work itself and promotion
opportunities were also found to be important in determining affective as
well as normative attachment to the organisation.
The only signicant contributor in predicting continuance commitment
for allocentrics was satisfaction with supervisor. It seems that for allocentrics the disruption of personal relations constitutes the most important
impediment to quitting. This is an intriguing nding as it implies that in
contrast to the North American literature, which has typically treated sidebets as consisting of material or monetary investment in the organisation
(Cohen & Lowenberg, 1990), there may be culture-specic side-bets that are
considered to be more important obstacles to quitting. For instance, Atsumi
(1979) suggested that the extended time spent with colleagues and workrelated people in Japan is instrumental in the exchange of background
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

549

information (e.g. who is doing what in what connection, who has what kind
of relationship with whom, etc.) necessary for efcient job performance.
These tsukiai (obligatory personal) relationships are a critical asset inside
and outside the company. Atsumi claims that the real reason for not changing
companies is not that the Japanese employees feel obliged to the group or
loyal to the company, but rather they cannot sacrice the tsukiai relationships that they have painfully cultivated with their fellow workers and other
work-related people. The present ndings seem to be consistent with this
argument. In this case, however, among personal relations established at the
workplace, it appears that the supervisor plays a more important role in
explaining organisational attachment than do coworkers. It can be argued
that although satisfaction with coworkers is a desirable aspect of the work
environment, it nevertheless is less important than the role a supervisor plays.
Finally, although no hypotheses were advanced, the regression analyses
revealed some interesting ndings regarding the control variables. Tenure
was a signicant predictor for all three types of organisational commitment
for allocentrics whereas for idiocentrics, tenure only predicted continuance
commitment. For idiocentrics, it appears that over time the perceived costs
of leaving accumulate, as opposed to allocentrics who in addition to perceiving higher costs associated with leaving, feel more emotionally attached
and normatively committed to the organisation. This may be due to the
differing relationship orientation associated with these cultural syndromes.
The long-term relationship orientation of the collectivists may result in
deeper attachment to the organisation over time; for idiocentrics, it may
only involve accumulation of seniority-related benets or similar concerns.
Another interesting nding was that for allocentrics, working for organisations with foreign capital was negatively associated with affective and
normative commitment to the organisation; for idiocentrics, such a relation
was true only for normative commitment. Managing dual commitment to
company and country indeed is an issue that multinationals face (Gregersen
& Black, 1992). Perhaps individuals who endorse collectivist values may
resent working for a foreign organisation more than idiocentrics, who are
primarily concerned with maximising their self-interest. Although the current
data do not allow further inquiry, future research looking into the inuence
of cultural values on different components of attachment to multinational
organisations might be very informative.

Limitations and Future Research Implications

To evaluate the ndings and the contribution of the current investigation,
the limitations of the research design must be taken into account. Since all
the variables were measured at the same time and from the same person,
concern over the effects of common method variance was warranted. To
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

550

WASTI

curtail this potential problem, the scales in the actual survey were ordered
so that the dependent variable of interest (organisational commitment) did
not precede the independent variables of job satisfaction (Podsakoff &
Organ, 1986). Further, to provide a test of whether such a problem existed,
four unrelated items on leadership were inserted among the INDCOL
items. The results indicated that the variables of interest did not systematically correlate with these items. A related limitation is that it is not possible
to infer causality due to the cross-sectional nature of the data. Future
research that utilises longitudinal designs with appropriate time lags would
contribute greatly.
The present study might also have certain limitations due to the fact that
the data were collected in a single country, raising questions regarding the
generalisability of the ndings. Triandis (1995) argues that allocentrics,
by denition, are individuals who believe, feel, and act very much like
collectivists do around the world and likewise idiocentrics are people who
act the way individualists do around the world. Thus, in every culture we
get the full distribution of both types and the generalisations (e.g. Turkey
is a collectivist culture) reect comparative statistical tendencies. Based
on these arguments, one would make a case for the generalisability of the
present results. However, it should be noted that the present results depict
ndings regarding allocentrics and idiocentrics in Turkey, which can be
considered a predominantly collectivist country (Schwartz, 1994). Futhermore, as Kagtbas (1997) notes, although in developing countries like
Turkey increasing urbanisation decreases intergenerational material interdependence, close emotional bonds are still prevalent in interpersonal
relations. Therefore, it is important to address whether this particular
context has any implications for the results. There is some evidence, albeit
at the level of organisational culture, that whereas allocentrics adjust their
behavior in an attempt to t into the cultural context they are in, idiocentrics do not show such a concern (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). This would
suggest that although the current ndings may replicate for idiocentrics in
individualist contexts, allocentrics in individualistic contexts might adopt
their priorities to t the situation. In other words, although the arguments
advanced in the current study would be expected to hold in other cultural
contexts, the context itself might moderate the present ndings, especially
for allocentrics. However, this argument is speculative and as such, it is
believed that replication at the individual level in multiple cultural contexts
would be very informative.

CONCLUSIONS
Considering the increasing diversity within industrialised countries such as
the United States as well as the augmenting globalisation of business in
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

551

general, these ndings have important implications. In line with the ndings
reported by Palich et al. (1995), the results of the current investigation
conrm that some sources of organisational commitment do not appear to
be culture-bound. Irrespective of cultural values, employees emotional and
normative attachment to the organisation can be enhanced by providing
them with challenging, fullling jobs as well as fair and regular promotion
opportunities. This nding is largely parallel to Nears (1989) comparative
study of Japanese and American employees, and also supported by studies
of commitment antecedents which have shown the antecedents identied
in the North American context to be valid in more collectivist contexts (e.g.
Ko et al., 1997; Sommer, Bae, & Luthans, 1996). However, there are aspects of
the job that differentially affect employees with diverse cultural inclinations.
Unlike employees with individualistic values, employees with collectivist values
place greater importance on their relationship with their supervisor. Whereas
idiocentric employees may prefer to keep their work life distinct from their
personal life, allocentric employees might prefer to have a more personal or
paternalistic sort of relation with their supervisor. Indeed, there is supportive
cross-cultural evidence regarding this point, as a study by Lincoln, Hanada,
and Olson (1981) showed that Japanese and Japanese American workers
valued organisational paternalism more than their US counterparts.
In fact, the importance of satisfaction with supervisor for allocentric
employees brings about another important issue that has been of growing
interest for organisational commitment researchers, namely the issue of
foci of commitment (Becker, 1992; Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert,
1996). People who hold collectivist values might be more inclined to feel
commitment to specic foci in the organisation, whereas employees with
individualist values might express attachment to the organisation as a
whole. This is a testable hypothesis that merits further investigation. Further
research along these lines as well replications of the current ndings with
samples from other countries will greatly contribute to our understanding
of the inuence of cultural values on organisational commitment.

REFERENCES
Allen, D.B., Miller, E.D., & Nath, R. (1988). North America. In R. Nath (Ed.),
Comparative management (pp. 23 54). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
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, 118.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment
to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 49, 252276.
Atsumi, R. (1979). TsukiaiObligatory personal relationships of Japanese whitecollar company employees. Human Organization, 38, 6370.
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

552

WASTI

Becker, T.E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth
making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232244.
Becker, T.E., Billings, R.S., Eveleth, D.M., & Gilbert, N.L. (1996). Foci and bases
of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464 482.
Boyacigiller, N.A., & Adler, N.J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational
science in a global context. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 262290.
Chatman, J.A., & Barsade, S.G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40, 423 443.
Cohen, A., & Lowenberg, G. (1990). A re-examination of the side-bet theory as
applied to organization commitment: A meta-analysis. Human Relations, 43,
1015 1050.
Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., & Castaneda, M.B. (1994). Organizational commitment:
The utility of an integrative denition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370380.
Earley, P.C., & Mosakowski, E. (1995). A framework for understanding experimental research in an international and intercultural context. In B.J. Punnett &
O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook of international management research (pp. 83114).
London: Blackwell.
Gregersen, H.B., & Black, J.S. (1992). Antecedents of commitment to the parent
company and commitment to the local operation for American personnel on
international assignment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 6590.
Hackett, R.D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P.A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer
and Allens (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 15 23.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hui, C.H., & Triandis, H.C. (1986). Individualismcollectivism: A study of crosscultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225248.
Jreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago:
Scientic International Software.
Kagtbas, . (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J.W. Berry, M.H. Segall,
& . Kagtbas (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd edn., Vol. 3,
pp. 2 49). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ko, J.W., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allens
three-component model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82, 961 973.
Lincoln, J.R., Hanada, M., & Olson, J. (1981). Cultural orientations and individual
reactions to organizations: A study of employees of Japanese-owned rms.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 93115.
Luthans, F., McCaul, H.S., & Dodd, N.G. (1985). Organizational commitment: A
comparison of American, Japanese, and Korean employees. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 213 219.
McGee, G.W., & Ford, R.C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational
commitment: Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment
scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638 642.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224253.
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

553

Mayer, R.C., & Schoorman, F.D. (1992). Predicting participation and production
outcomes through a two-dimensional model of organization commitment.
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 671 684.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1, 6189.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research
and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 538 551.
Near, J.P. (1989). Organizational commitment among Japanese and US workers.
Organization Studies, 10, 281300.
OReilly, C.A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: The effect of compliance, identication and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492499.
Palich, L.E., Hom, P.W., & Griffeth, R.W. (1995). Managing in the international
context: Testing the cultural generality of sources of commitment to multinational
enterprises. Journal of Management, 21, 671 690.
Pelled, L.H., & Xin, K.R. (1997). Work values and their human resource implications: A theoretical comparison of China, Mexico, and the United States. Journal
of Applied Management Studies, 6, 185 198.
Podsakoff, P.M., & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531544.
Redding, S.G., Norman, A., & Schlander, A. (1994). The nature of individual attachment to the organization: A review of East Asian variations. In H.C. Triandis,
M. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (2nd edn., Vol. 4, pp. 648 688). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Roznowski, M. (1989). An examination of the measurement properties of the Job
Description Index with experimental items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
805 814.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions
of values. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, . Kagtbas, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85119).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M.J. (1995). Horizontal
and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and
measurement renement. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative
Social Science, 29, 240275.
Smith, P.B., & Bond, M.H. (1999). Social psychology across cultures. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in
work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sommer, S.M., Bae, S-H., & Luthans, F. (1996). Organizational commitment across
cultures: The impact of antecedents on Korean employees. Human Relations, 49,
977993.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.

554

WASTI

Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M.J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on selfingroup relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323338.
Triandis, H.C., Chan, D.K.-S., Bhawuk, D.P.S., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J.B.P. (1995).
Multimethod probes of allocentrism and idiocentrism. International Journal of
Psychology, 30, 461 480.
Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal
and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 118 128.
Triandis, H.C., Leung, K., Villareal, M., & Clack, F.L. (1985). Allocentric vs. idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research
in Personality, 19, 395 415.
Vandenberghe, C. (1996). Assessing organisational commitment in a Belgian
context: Evidence for the three-dimensional model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 371386.
Wagner, J.A. III (1995). Studies of individualism collectivism: Effects on cooperation
in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152172.
Wasti, S.A., Bergman, M.E., Glomb, T.M., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Test of the crosscultural generalizability of a model of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 766 778.

International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003.