Journal of Vocational Behavior 61, 20–52 (2002)
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to
the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents,
Correlates, and Consequences
John P. Meyer, David J. Stanley, Lynne Herscovitch, and Laryssa Topolnytsky
University of Western Ontario
The authors conducted meta-analyses to assess (a) relations among affective, continu-
ance, and normative commitment to the organization and (b) relations between the three
forms of commitment and variables identified as their antecedents, correlates, and conse-
quences in Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three-Component Model. They found that the three
forms of commitment are related yet distinguishable from one another as well as from job
satisfaction, job involvement, and occupational commitment. Affective and continuance
commitment generally correlated as expected with their hypothesized antecedent variables;
no unique antecedents of normative commitment were identified. Also, as expected, all three
forms of commitment related negatively to withdrawal cognition and turnover, and affective
commitment had the strongest and most favorable correlations with organization-relevant
(attendance, performance, and organizational citizenship behavior) and employee-relevant
(stress and work–family conflict) outcomes. Normative commitment was also associated
with desirable outcomes, albeit not as strongly. Continuance commitment was unrelated, or
related negatively, to these outcomes. Comparisons of studies conducted within and outside
North America revealed considerable similarity yet suggested that more systematic primary
research concerning cultural differences is warranted. C
©
2002 Elsevier Science (USA)
Key Words: meta-analysis; affective, continuance, and normative organizational com-
mitment; work conditions; turnover; organizational behavior.
It has been a decade since Mathieu and Zajac (1990) conducted meta-analyses
of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.
At that time, researchers were making a distinction between two forms of commit-
ment: attitudinal (e.g., Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) and calculative (e.g.,
Becker, 1960). Mathieu and Zajac (1990) included form of commitment as a
potential moderator in their analyses and found some differences. They questioned,
however, whether existing instruments could be appropriately categorized as
This research was supported by a grant to the first author from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada. The contributions of the first two authors were equal. Earlier versions of
the meta-analyses reported here were presented at the 1999 and 2000 annual conferences of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology held in Atlanta, GA, and New Orleans, LA, respectively.
The authors thank Mark Savickas for his assistance in the editorial process and all of the individuals
whose research was included in these meta-analyses.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to John P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, University
of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada. E-mail: meyer@uwo.ca.
20
0001-8791/02 $35.00
C© 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)
All rights reserved.

COMMITMENT META-ANALYSIS 21
measures of attitudinal or calculative commitment. Moreover, they noted that
researchers were beginning to identify other forms of commitment, but there
were too few studies available to consider these within the moderator
analyses.
During the 1990s, organizational commitment continued to be a major focus
of research. There was also considerable attention given to theory development.
It is now well recognized, for example, that commitment is a multidimensional
construct and that the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of commitment
vary across dimensions. The purpose of the current meta-analytic investigation
was to estimate and compare the strength of true correlations between variables
identified in Meyer and Allen’s (1991, 1997; see also Allen & Meyer, 1990)
Three-Component Model of organizational commitment. This model overlaps
considerably with other multidimensional conceptualizations (e.g., Jaros, Jermier,
Koehler, & Sincich, 1993; Mayer & Schoorman, 1992). However, because there
are some important differences in the measures derived from these multidimen-
sional models (see Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), we concentrated only on re-
search using the Affective (ACS), Continuance (CCS), and Normative (NCS)
Commitment Scales (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993), which
were constructed specifically to evaluate the Three-Component Model. We pro-
vide a brief overview of the model below, followed by a summary of our
objectives.
Meyer and Allen’s Three-Component Model of Commitment
Meyer and Allen (1984) initially proposed that a distinction be made between
affective and continuance commitment, with affective commitment denoting an
emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization
and continuance commitment denoting the perceived costs associated with leaving
the organization. Allen and Meyer (1990) later suggested a third distinguishable
component of commitment, normative commitment, which reflects a perceived
obligation to remain in the organization. Figure 1 presents a summary of the
hypothesized links between the three components of commitment and variables
considered to be their antecedents, correlates, and consequences (for more detail,
see Meyer & Allen, 1991, 1997).
On the left side of Fig. 1, we identify the general categories of variables hypoth-
esized to be involved in the development of affective, continuance, and normative
commitment. On the right side of the figure are variables considered to be con-
sequences of commitment. An important rationale for the development of the
Three-Component Model was the belief that, although all three forms of com-
mitment relate negatively to turnover, they relate differently to measures of other
work-relevant behaviors (e.g., attendance, in-role performance, organizational cit-
izenship behavior [OCB]). More specifically, affective commitment is expected
to have the strongest positive relation, followed by normative commitment; con-
tinuance commitment is expected to be unrelated, or related negatively, to these
desirable work behaviors.