Affective organizational commitment, self‐concept, and work performance: A social comparison perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using two studies and four samples, we introduce new forms of assimilative and contrastive affective organizational commitment (AOC) from a social comparison perspective and examine their distinctiveness from traditional AOC. We further explore the interplay among assimilative and contrastive AOCs and the self‐concept in predicting specific performance outcomes. Study 1 used two samples ( N s = 181 and 655) aimed at developing the measures of assimilative and contrastive AOC and found them to be distinct from traditional AC. Study 2 tested the idea that the self‐concept (collective vs. individual) would influence how strongly assimilative versus contrastive AOC would predict helping behavior versus task proficiency as performance outcomes. Using two samples (Sample 1 N = 192; Sample 2 N = 246) with multisource data from subordinates and supervisors, Study 2 found that controlling for traditional AOC, the relationship between assimilative AOC and employee helping behavior was stronger and positive at high levels of the collective self‐concept (Sample 1) and that the relationship between contrastive AOC and employee task proficiency was marginally stronger and positive at high levels of the individual self‐concept (Sample 2). Our findings bear implications for theory and practice and present openings for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".