《社会心理学》课程教学资源（文献资料）attitude&stereotype——Identifying Organizational Identification as a Basis for Attitudes and Behaviors - A Meta-Analytic Review

0V aa.3m1ss品a5流n2i Identifying Organizational Identification as a Basis for Attitudes and Behaviors:A Meta-Analytic Review V UaPa ational identification has be ns.as it inv lves the ess ae,individhaland )and b ndividel Kyfitu-bhaviorioremet-y opa rgan zations:Haslam.2004:Hogg Terrv. 2000).organiza &van Schie.2000).Recognizing its importance.a large amount o often been highlighted as central because it involves the very relates.However,merel evidence of the implications of organizationa ntifi 108 Tae. Park.O Ajzen.1975;Glasn fn.2006).a y:B KA like to thank In-Sue Oh (in-role perf the A emy o dcxtra-olepcrfomancc inall me ors tha d th attitudes/behaviors vary across different national cultural contexts 04

Identifying Organizational Identification as a Basis for Attitudes and Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review Eun-Suk Lee Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Tae-Youn Park Vanderbilt University Bonjin Koo Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Organizational identification has been argued to have a unique value in explaining individual attitudes and behaviors in organizations, as it involves the essential definition of entities (i.e., individual and organizational identities). This review seeks meta-analytic evidence of the argument by examining how this identity-relevant construct functions in the nexus of attitudinal/behavioral constructs. The findings show that, first, organizational identification is significantly associated with key attitudes (job involve￾ment, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment) and behaviors (in-role performance and extra-role performance) in organizations. Second, in the classic psychological model of attitude–behavior relations (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), organizational identification is positioned as a basis from which general sets of those attitudes and behaviors are engendered; organizational identification has a direct effect on general behavior above and beyond the effect of general attitude. Third, the effects of organizational identification are moderated by national culture, a higher-level social context wherein the organization is embedded, such that the effects are stronger in a collectivistic culture than in an individualistic culture. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings and future research direc￾tions are discussed. Keywords: organizational identification, attitude–behavior relations, culture, meta-analysis Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000012.supp Every entity needs to have a fundamental sense of identity— “Who am I?” or “Who are we?”—to appropriately and meaning￾fully relate to others and surrounding social contexts (Gioia, 1998; Jenkins, 2008). In a salient social domain in modern society (i.e., organizations; Haslam, 2004; Hogg & Terry, 2000), organizational identification reflects this sense of identity by capturing a psycho￾logical state wherein one defines one’s self by the same attributes that one believes define one’s organization (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Pratt, 1998). Organizational identification has often been highlighted as central because it involves the very essential definition of entities (i.e., individual and organizational identities), constituting a fundamental subtext based on which attitudes and behaviors in organizations are developed (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000; Hogg & Terry, 2001; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). Recognizing its importance, a large amount of research has revealed numerous correlates of organizational iden￾tification, and several qualitative reviews (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Pratt, 1998; van Dick, 2004) and a meta-analysis (Riketta, 2005) summarized those cor￾relates. However, merely accumulating correlates does not neces￾sarily offer evidence of the unique value of this identity-relevant construct (Ashforth et al., 2008). This study thus aims to provide systematic evidence of the implications of organizational identifi￾cation by positioning it in the framework of attitude–behavior relations (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Bentler & Speckart, 1981; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Glasman & Albarracín, 2006), a classic theoretical lens in the psychology literature. By comparing alter￾native structural models, we examine how organizational identifi￾cation functions in relation to work attitudes (job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment) and behav￾iors (in-role performance and extra-role performance), finally pro￾viding meta-analytic evidence that organizational identification uniquely affects behaviors in organizations, above and beyond the effects of attitudes. In doing so, we further extend the literature by examining whether and how the effects of organizational identification on attitudes/behaviors vary across different national cultural contexts. This article was published Online First May 18, 2015. Eun-Suk Lee, KAIST College of Business, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology; Tae-Youn Park, Owen Graduate School of Man￾agement, Vanderbilt University; Bonjin Koo, KAIST College of Business, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Eun-Suk Lee and Tae-Youn Park contributed equally to this work. We would like to thank Dolores Albarracín and the two anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved the quality of our arguments. We would also like to thank In-Sue Oh and the participants in the Academy of Management Annual Meeting and in the Organization/Strategy Seminar at KAIST College of Business for their insights and comments on drafts of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eun-Suk Lee, KAIST College of Business, 85 Hoegi-ro Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-722, Korea. E-mail: eunsuk@business.kaist.ac.kr This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Psychological Bulletin © 2015 American Psychological Association 2015, Vol. 141, No. 5, 1049 –1080 0033-2909/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000012 1049

1050 LEE.PARK.AND KOO Attitudinal Outcomes nization (Raker Carson Car 2009;Erez Earle 3),but n s on job involvem nt.job satisfaction. ture (Brooke.Russell.Price.1988:Newman&Harrison.2008: inputs in shaping individual attitudes ar (Ge Job involve ingonwhether the nation o the"degree to which an employee psych cally rel culture.wherein the organiz rhe job an is em ng an e uative state that )In this stud we thus seek for meta-analytic evi- tment with,and positiv I how r ture derat es the relations es.We believe that our consideration of national culturewill ally contribu to th ation efrects a compre picture of organizationa vidual tends t The Effects of Organizational Identification 979 .In this vein, s h ed in thei e proposed sa dominant Tajfel of th of the Hack the Oldham.1980).Along the e line of rea (1978)defined social identity as"that part of an individual's c his en individual and organization (van Knippenb nal significan hed to that me ship”(p.63. usly mean buting to the achievement of the organization' vpical traits and thus de nalize their self-c .1995: urner.Hogg.Oakes.Reicher. olved in their job reviousstudies indeed h Hassan 2010:van Kni bergvan Schie.2000).We ocial domain orga xpect that organiza 2004 ootsindividasinh izational identification likely to enha ce an indi have as espo 105 me to es.goa actively inf ation to e ce their self-concept through the ry bet blurred. of the individua anization(Ashforth et.p.333).is likely to hav thus they are inclined to seel ttitudes and take netit the 98 Haslam Ellemers 2005:Pratt 1998:van Knippenber 2000 Their positive when a Google emplovee describes hersel f as cr atisfaction is dev from one's inte of the fcel tha organizational identification,and she is likely to think zation (van Dick et al 2004a).In ac and among p ic,se al p ual's work attitudes and behaviors are shaped by organiza- one's job an Dick. van knip ional identification erg.F 2008:van Knippenberg

Researchers have noted that the cultural value system espoused in a certain national context has critical implications for the effects of identity/identification in the organization (Baker, Carson, & Car￾son, 2009; Erez & Earley, 1993), but no cumulative evidence, to our knowledge, exists in the literature. Building upon the notion from cross-cultural research that national culture provides consid￾erable inputs in shaping individual attitudes and behaviors (Gel￾fand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010), we expect that the effects of organizational identification will vary depending on whether the national culture, wherein the organiza￾tional setting is embedded, concurrently values pursuing an iden￾tity overlap between an individual and a social collective (i.e., organization). In this study, we thus seek for meta-analytic evi￾dence of how national culture moderates the relations between organizational identification and its attitudinal/behavioral out￾comes. We believe that our consideration of national culture will substantially contribute to the organization identification literature by providing a comprehensive picture of organizational identifi￾cation effects. The Effects of Organizational Identification As a dominant psychological approach to identity and iden￾tification, social identity theory explains how individuals con￾struct their self-concepts from the identity of the collectives they belong to (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Tajfel (1978) defined social identity as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his member￾ship of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (p. 63). Social identities are shared by members and accentuate mem￾bers’ perceived similarity. Members share the group’s proto￾typical traits, and thus depersonalize their self-concepts (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Weth￾erell, 1987); through this process of categorizing the self into a more inclusive social entity, “I becomes we” (Brewer, 1991, p. 476). As a salient social domain in modern society, organizations provide a significant social identity (Haslam, 2004; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Organizational identification thus roots individuals in the organization, leading organizational attributes such as espoused values, goals, and norms to become salient and self-defining for individuals; through organizational identification, the identity boundary between individual and organization becomes blurred. In turn, an organizationally identified employee, as a “microcosm of the organization” (Ashforth et al., 2008, p. 333), is likely to have attitudes and take actions that benefit the whole organization rather than benefitting individual self-interest (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Pratt, 1998; van Knippenberg, 2000). To illustrate, when a Google employee describes herself as cre￾ative and innovative which are the attributes she ascribes to the Google organization (i.e., categorizing herself as a “Googler”), it reflects her organizational identification, and she is likely to think, feel, and behave in ways that are expected among prototypical Googlers. Below, we detail the theoretical rationales for how an individual’s work attitudes and behaviors are shaped by organiza￾tional identification. Attitudinal Outcomes Researchers have noted that organizational identification has significant impacts on individual attitudes in organizations. We focus on job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organi￾zational commitment, the three classic work attitudes in the liter￾ature (Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988; Newman & Harrison, 2008; Newman, Joseph, & Hulin, 2010). Job involvement and job satisfaction. Job involvement re￾fers to the “degree to which an employee psychologically relates to his or her job and to the work performed therein” (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005, p. 244), and job satisfaction refers to an “evaluative state that expresses contentment with, and positive feelings about, one’s job” (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012, p. 347). These two job attitude constructs are distinguishable in that job involvement reflects a cognitive belief state related to one’s job, while job satisfaction reflects an emotional state of liking the job that one performs (Brooke et al., 1988; Mathieu & Farr, 1991). Job involvement literature suggests that an individual tends to be more cognitively connected to one’s job when the job is perceived to be fulfilling one’s psychological needs (Kanungo, 1979, 1982). In this vein, researchers have proposed that individ￾uals become more involved in their jobs when the jobs are de￾signed to provide a sense of the meaningfulness—the sense that one’s contribution significantly influences the overall effective￾ness of the organization (Brown, 1996; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Along the same line of reasoning, individuals with high organizational identification are more likely to find their jobs meaningful because, with identity merging be￾tween individual and organization (van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006) or depersonalization (Brewer, 1991; Hogg et al., 1995), they are likely to sense that fulfilling their individual jobs simultane￾ously means contributing to the achievement of the organization’s objectives and missions. Accordingly, strong identifiers are more likely to be psychologically connected to or involved in their jobs, and several previous studies indeed have shown that organizational identification is positively associated with job involvement (e.g., Hassan, 2010; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). We thus expect that organizational identification will increase job involve￾ment. Organizational identification is also likely to enhance an indi￾vidual’s emotional response to one’s job. Individuals have a basic need to view themselves positively (Allport, 1955; Steele, 1988) and actively pursue information to enhance their self-concepts (Baumeister & Jones, 1978; Tesser, 1988). For individuals with high organizational identification, the identities of the individual and the organization overlap, and thus they are inclined to seek positive aspects of their organization to attain a positive self￾concept (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Dutton et al., 1994; Pratt, 1998). Their positive evaluation of the organization is, in turn, likely to lead them to feel satisfied with their jobs because job satisfaction is developed from one’s interpretation of the job circumstances (Brief, 1998) and strong identifiers tend to feel that they perform their jobs within the favorable job circumstance—the organization (van Dick et al., 2004a). In accordance with this logic, several previous studies have found that identification with the organization is positively related to the feeling of satisfaction with one’s job (e.g., van Dick et al., 2004a; van Dick, van Knip￾penberg, Kerschreiter, Hertel, & Wieseke, 2008; van Knippenberg This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1050 LEE, PARK, AND KOO

THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 105 &van Schie.2000).Hence. (Farrell Oczkow wski,2012:Homburg.Wieseke,&Hoyer.2009). we expect tha Affec n indi al's I bond xtra-role performane avioral out f the ation's value ary actions that are he nd goals (Judge K verMueller,2012).Affective ation b se both n individual's psychologi att 200 such as employee voic Van Dy 005 tion (O'Rei 1986 Rikett nd orga ons based on the perception of social xch tio pan in the al member 2008dw ide 1998 2008).Strong identifiers thus are likely to p sted that it is re e to examine affective orga assistin others expe identi en& ping the zation.they build mot with and en h &W 2006).In sum.th on.wh ed to it (B i&n 2006)Pr Meyer.Becker van Dic (Christ.va t is "the binding to (Chen 1087. Mo Hekman 2012 van Dick et a (Me tal.2006 Me ational ider .2011).we expect that te that orgar nalidcnt increase affective organiz roharitud Behavioral Outcomes or fur (Cham s.Piliavin-&Caller as well as ttitudes in organization 2000.nog nare more like goals (i.e heir (Biddle Bank.S 1987 r identit benet 00510. 20o0ofaproteprage o organi nal identification is to .83).is1ik ly to lead them to exhibit beh viors that white 1999) 9 an Knippenberg 1988 ro onal oals and those efforts translate into their intrinsic teven after the effects of attitud have ed for tivation to perform well in their ir have indicated that 0 000:van Knip van Schie.2000).For in ated from th ose of attitude ow th strong O'Reil Callan,2006) make cho es tha 1986:Riketta van Dick.2005).Thi activities that critically contribute to organizational effectiveness ences (Harrison.Newman.Roth.2006:Judge Kammeyer

& van Schie, 2000). Hence, we expect that organizational identi￾fication will increase job satisfaction. Affective organizational commitment. Affective organiza￾tional commitment refers to an individual’s psychological bond with the organization constructed through an affective attachment to the organization and internalization of the organization’s values and goals (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Affective organi￾zational commitment bears a similarity to organizational identifi￾cation because both regard an individual’s psychological attach￾ment to the organization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). However, commitment refers to a more general attitude constructed based on the perception of social exchange between individual and organization, two separate psychological entities; thus, it does not contain a self-defining nature, which is central in the concept of identification, thereby not reflecting psychological oneness (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) between individ￾ual and organizational identities (Ashforth et al., 2008; Cole & Bruch, 2006; Klein, Molloy, & Brinsfield, 2012; Pratt, 1998; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). Accordingly, researchers have suggested that it is reasonable to examine affective organizational commitment as an attitudinal outcome of organizational identifi￾cation; as individuals develop a sense of oneness or identification with the organization, they build emotional bonds with and en￾gagement in the organization, which leads them to be more com￾mitted to it (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Meyer, Becker, & Van￾denberghe, 2004; Meyer, Becker, & van Dick, 2006). In other words, identification is “the appropriation of identity” and com￾mitment is “the binding to action” (Cheney & Tompkins, 1987, p. 9), which implies that possessing a social identity (i.e., identifica￾tion) is a basis or a precursor for developing commitment to the corresponding collective (Meyer et al., 2006; Meyer & Hersco￾vitch, 2001). In accordance with the empirical evidence supporting this theoretical view (e.g., Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Marique & Stinglhamber, 2011), we expect that organizational identification will increase affective organizational commitment. Behavioral Outcomes Previous research suggests that organizational identification also influences behaviors as well as attitudes in organizations. In-role performance. Individuals with high organizational identification are more likely to contribute to collective goals (i.e., organizational goals) by taking actions that benefit the whole organization (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005). One way of reifying behavioral responses to organizational identification is to success￾fully enact in-role behaviors that are required by formal job de￾scriptions, directly serving the goals of the organization (Foote, 1951; van Knippenberg, 2000). Put differently, strong identifiers are likely to exert substantial individual efforts for the sake of organizational goals, and those efforts translate into their intrinsic motivation to perform well in their individual jobs, resulting in enhanced job performance (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; van Knip￾penberg, 2000; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). For instance, studies show that strong identifiers tend to share information and communicate with coworkers (Grice, Gallois, Jones, Paulsen, & Callan, 2006) and make choices that serve the organization’s strategic interests (Bartel, 2001; Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). Also, strong identifiers are more likely to engage in customer-oriented activities that critically contribute to organizational effectiveness (Farrell & Oczkowski, 2012; Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009). Based on all of this reasoning and evidence, we expect that organizational identification will increase in-role performance. Extra-role performance. Another notable behavioral out￾come of organizational identification is extra-role performance— discretionary actions that are beyond formal job descriptions and not directly recognized by an organization’s formal reward system (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bach￾rach, 2000) such as employee voice behaviors (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; Organ, 1997). For strong identifiers, voluntarily helping the orga￾nization achieve its goal (e.g., adhering to informal company rules, attending company meetings that are not mandatory) is important because the organization’s goal is theirs as well. In addition, for strong identifiers, other organizational members who comprise a significant part of their perceptions of what the organization is provide substantial meanings for their self-definitions (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007, 2008). Strong identifiers thus are likely to perceive that helping other organizational members through extra-role be￾haviors (e.g., willingly assisting others experiencing work-related problems, spending time helping newcomers) parallels helping themselves (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; van Dick, Gro￾jean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006). In sum, through organizational identification, they become good organizational citizens (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; van Dick et al., 2006). Previous studies have offered strong empirical support for this reasoning (Christ, van Dick, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2003; Dukerich et al., 2002; John￾son, Morgeson, & Hekman, 2012; van Dick et al., 2006), and therefore we expect that organizational identification will increase extra-role performance. Uniqueness of organizational identification’s effects on behaviors. Those theoretical and empirical notions of the link between organizational identification and in-role/extra-role perfor￾mance indicate that organizational identification influences behav￾iors not necessarily through attitudes. Some researchers have spe￾cifically argued that, different from attitudes which primarily capture relatively instrumental, ephemeral, or short-term motiva￾tors of behavior, identity and identification constitute relatively long-term or fundamental motivators (Charng, Piliavin, & Callero, 1988; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Sparks, 2000). In organizational settings, thus, when individuals identify with the organization, their identity label (Biddle, Bank, & Slavings, 1987) or identity standard (Stets & Burke, 2000) of a prototypical organizational member, as “agent or cause of behavior” (Burke & Reitzes, 1981, p. 83), is likely to lead them to exhibit behaviors that are favored in the specific organizational context (Terry & Hogg, 1996; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). In accordance with this notion, several empirical studies (e.g., Biddle et al., 1987; Charng et al., 1988) have shown that the effects of identity/identification on behaviors persist even after the effects of attitudes have been accounted for. However, other researchers have indicated that the effects of organizational identification on behaviors are not uniquely differ￾entiated from those of attitudes because organizational identifica￾tion conceptually overlaps with other attitude constructs—affec￾tive organizational commitment in particular (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). This alternative per￾spective comes from the notion that work attitudes are generally defined as cognitive and emotional evaluations of work experi￾ences (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Judge & Kammeyer￾This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 1051

1052 LEE.PARK.AND KOO n and emotional ede 1983-Johns 2006-Rabl avasinghe Gerhant Kuhlmann ds.2005 which in turn influence the attitudes and behaviors o ording to the co e(Ajzer heec20i2ntemcnteaa8enealafamsd which conotes a broad ehaviors will be moderated by national culture:when pu the individual-organization withth ahighe Iviors bro Hofstede (1.201)proposed five value dim 即ccwemoeganoidenificaionandot rientation uncertainty-ayoida r-distance and m ment,job sat tion,affective com have particular implications regarding ication (Baker et al.,2009:Clugston.Howell.Dorfman.2000) and extra-ro ormance (Mode in Figur ration. ichpeci o which the r not only indirectly- -through general attitud indiv culture prioritizes in a collectivistic cultural yalu makes less distir e as a Moderator of Organizational dividual and collectiv Effect t is defined in an independent way with an e Cor a more nding of the attitudinal/ nique traits ach individual is likely to tity.In contrast.ina curesef-cncti ultur and norms shared and tra tted ned in an interdependent way with substar ilinnuencesoi of the m 180)thar o value attitudes and behavio to th esponses in the given context.A ording to culture- cial collectives to which they belong (Erez&Earley. 1993

Mueller, 2012) and organizational identification also involves evaluation of work experiences—an individual’s cognitive belief in and emotional attachment to the organizational membership (Ashforth et al., 2008; Edwards, 2005; Harquail, 1998). We test the validity of those two perspectives by formulating two alternative meta-analytic path models. According to the com￾patibility principle (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), atti￾tudes lead to behaviors only when the measures of attitudes and behaviors are matched in their action, target, context, and time. Invoking this principle, researchers (Harrison et al., 2006; New￾man et al., 2010) have shown that a general set of attitudes (i.e., a higher-order aggregate of work attitudes which connotes a broad evaluation of work experiences) provides maximal explanatory power when predicting a general set of behaviors (i.e., a higher￾order aggregate of work behaviors broadly deemed effective in organizations) compared with when predicting each specific be￾havior separately. Accordingly, if there is a considerable concep￾tual overlap between organizational identification and other atti￾tude constructs, a latent variable of general attitude encompassing job involvement, job satisfaction, affective organizational commit￾ment, and organizational identification will be maximally predic￾tive of a latent variable of general behavior which includes in-role performance and extra-role performance (Model 1 in Figure 1). However, if organizational identification is a unique construct that is distinctive from other attitude constructs, the other path model (Model 2 in Figure 2) that specifies organizational identification as a separate variable which functions as a basis influencing general behavior not only indirectly—through general attitude—but also directly—above and beyond the effect of general attitude—will have higher explanatory power than Model 1. National Culture as a Moderator of Organizational Identification Effects For a more comprehensive understanding of the attitudinal/ behavioral effects of organizational identification, we further ex￾amine the moderator of these effects: national culture. National culture shapes core values and norms shared and transmitted within the specific national context, thus providing the “collective programming of the mind” (Hofstede, 1984, p. 389) that controls individuals’ responses in the given context. According to culture– fit theory (Aycan, Kanungo, & Sinha, 1999; Kanungo & Jaeger, 1990), national culture, as a social context at the higher level, manifests its cultural value system in, and hence constraining, organizational policies and practices (Erez & Earley, 1993; Hof￾stede, 1983; Johns, 2006; Rabl, Jayasinghe, Gerhart, & Kühlmann, 2014), which in turn influence the attitudes and behaviors of individuals embedded in these layers of contexts (Gelfand et al., 2007; Taras et al., 2010). In this sense, by noting that “the validity of [management] theories may stop at national borders” (p. 82), Hofstede (1993) argued that national culture is a significant bound￾ary condition of the phenomena around organizations and the individuals within them. Building on those previous notions, we expect that the effects of organizational identification on attitudes/ behaviors will be moderated by national culture; when pursuing the individual–organization identity connection is aligned with the cultural value system espoused in a specific national context, the organizational identification effects will be strengthened. Hofstede (1980, 2001) proposed five value dimensions that characterize cultural variability: individualism/collectivism, time￾orientation, uncertainty-avoidance, power-distance, and masculin￾ity/femininity. Among those five, previous theoretical and empir￾ical considerations have suggested that the first three dimensions may have particular implications regarding organizational identi￾fication (Baker et al., 2009; Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000). Therefore, we take these three dimensions—individualism/collec￾tivism, time-orientation, and uncertainty-avoidance—into consid￾eration. Regarding individualism/collectivism, research shows that cul￾tures differ in the extent to which they highlight an individual’s connectedness to collectives; individualistic culture prioritizes in￾dividual goals over the goals of collectives (e.g., an organization), whereas a collectivistic cultural value system makes less distinc￾tion between individual and collective goals (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Triandis, 1995). Accordingly, in an individualistic culture, self-concept is defined in an independent way with an emphasis on an individual’s unique traits, and thus each individual is likely to value their independence in thinking, feeling, and acting as a unique entity. In contrast, in a collectivistic culture, self-concept is defined in an interdependent way with substantial influences of others in one’s social relationships, and thus individuals are likely to value attitudes and behaviors organized with reference to the social collectives to which they belong (Erez & Earley, 1993; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In this vein, defining one’s self in terms of the organization, a significant social collective in modern Figure 1. Model 1: Organizational identification as a component of general attitude. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1052 LEE, PARK, AND KOO

THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 1053 Figure2.Model 2:Organizational idenificationsa basis for general attitude and behavio Zationalidcnti6 ect that c ared wit a low uncer int -avoidance cultur hat psy loecelconnectionoteoregamizationismorennc thos in an individualistic culture (Felfe.Yan.&Six. orts the rationale for defining of the stable 200 entity-the organization time-orientation Method It. Literature Search ent.or n uture thinking.In a short-term-oriented cultu we sarched the EBSCO.JSTOR.PROQUEST.ISI Webof d identification or identiry in combination with organia ntext may value long-term relation hi witl ll qualitative and quantitative reviev ider ct that in mong publications hat had lignment with the cultural value em that highly regards i 1989:Dutton et al 1994:Macl Ashfonh 992 19y98 Uncertainty-avoidand e reflects a society's enduran for amb c.g. ological Bulletin. Appl n an un Or D table enviror nents (Hofstede,1980).and thus are les vior.Or to find As a means of maintaining their present environments and posi

society, is more congruent with the collectivistic than with the individualistic value system. Accordingly, we expect that organi￾zational identification will have more salient effects on the work attitudes/behaviors of individuals in a collectivistic than in an individualistic culture. Supporting this, empirical evidence shows that psychological connection to the organization is more influen￾tial on work behaviors such as OCBs for those in a collectivistic culture than those in an individualistic culture (Felfe, Yan, & Six, 2008; Wasti, 2003). The other two dimensions, time-orientation and uncertainty￾avoidance, are a less salient focus of empirical investigation, but they have implications for the effects of organizational identifica￾tion. Time-orientation of a culture reflects a preference for past, present, or future thinking. In a short-term-oriented culture, indi￾viduals tend to pursue quick results and have weak propensities to save for the future. In a long-term-oriented culture, however, individuals exhibit a strong propensity to save and endure in attaining results (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Bond, 1988). In terms of employment relationships, individuals in a short-term￾oriented cultural context are likely to seek immediate benefits by moving across organizations, whereas those in a long-term￾oriented cultural context may value long-term relationships with employing organizations, focusing on future achievements (Baker et al., 2009; Schalk & Soeters, 2008). Thus, we expect that in a long-term-oriented culture, having a deep psychological connec￾tion to an organization through organizational identification, in alignment with the cultural value system that highly regards long￾term employment relationships, will have greater effects on work attitudes and behaviors than in a short-term-oriented culture. Uncertainty-avoidance reflects a society’s endurance for ambi￾guity and uncertainty. In an uncertainty-avoidance cultural con￾text, individuals feel threatened by ambiguous situations and un￾predictable environments (Hofstede, 1980), and thus are less inclined to leave their organizations to pursue job security and stabilized rules/values (Chew & Putti, 1995; Clugston et al., 2000). As a means of maintaining their present environments and posi￾tions, individuals in this context are likely to feel a sense of obligation to and identification with their current employer and pursue long tenure to minimize potential anxiety and loss (Baker & Carson, 2011; Schalk & Soeters, 2008). Based on this logic, we expect that, compared with a low uncertainty-avoidance culture, the organizational identification effects will be more salient in a high uncertainty-avoidance culture where the cultural value system supports the rationale for defining one’s self in terms of the stable social entity—the organization. Method Literature Search We employed multiple search strategies to identify all relevant English-written articles published before or during April, 2014. First, we searched the EBSCO, JSTOR, PROQUEST, ISI Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar databases using the keyword identification or identity in combination with organiza￾tion or company and other keywords such as membership and categorization. Second, we looked through the reference sections of all qualitative and quantitative reviews on organizational iden￾tification (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2008; Edwards, 2005; Riketta, 2005). Third, using the cited reference search offered by the ISI Web of Knowledge, we searched among publications that had cited important articles in the field (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Pratt, 1998; Riketta, 2005). Fourth, we searched online for journals with organizational identification studies still in press (e.g., Psychological Bulletin, Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science, Admin￾istrative Science Quarterly, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, International Journal of Human Resource Management). Finally, in an attempt to find unpublished manuscripts, we contacted authors who had recently Figure 2. Model 2: Organizational identification as a basis for general attitude and behavior. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 1053

1054 LEE.PARK.AND KOO c-mail list service such as the HR(hum n resou quately measuring the self-defining nature of identification.In ist and the( 18 arti Inclusion Criteria and Sample cluded is in the supplemental materia ly ex types of identi tion (e of the corelation were noni nt bec they wer samp Thus whe d ween orga 191.Pp.63-64).Fifty onindependent Third,the study hado ort the were interested in th relations bet al id h as ic perfo other tha eha 05: Fishbein, Fourth the study had 1006 we using is the Mae ed multiple melations from study if they and saks 0 inal art e by Ash nultiple correlation were Ma meo ation from on tudy.th ot viola ampl ind this app ident This sc includes ation.we t elation Gie the 1d- of th is the The funnel plot t that sel circles that d of sample and his or her the mean effect size,with smaller variability as the We present more formal publication bias aire:Cheney 1983)ho er the operationalization of iden Coding of Studies t Questi naire (Mo outcome,national

published in the area of organizational identification, and we also announced a call for unpublished manuscripts on organizational researchers’ e-mail list service such as the HR (human resources) Listserv and the OB (organizational behavior) Listserv. Those combined efforts yielded 341 published articles and 16 unpub￾lished manuscripts and dissertations. Inclusion Criteria and Sample To be included in the meta-analysis, a study had to satisfy the following four criteria. First, the study had to address an organi￾zational identification issue, not other types of identification is￾sues, such as occupational identification, professional identifica￾tion, and subgroup/team identification (e.g., Täuber & Sassenberg, 2012; Wann, Waddill, Polk, & Weaver, 2011). Second, the study had to be an empirical one that reported correlations between organizational identification and individual-level outcome vari￾ables. We thus excluded theory or review papers and empirical papers that used qualitative methods because they lacked the necessary information on the correlations between organizational identification and outcomes. Ninety-one articles were excluded for those two reasons. Third, the study had to report the correlation(s) between organizational identification and its attitudinal and/or behavioral outcome(s). Therefore, studies were excluded when they only include correlations between organizational identifica￾tion and its antecedents (e.g., organizational prestige, perceived organizational support) or correlations between organizational identification and its outcomes other than attitudinal or behavioral ones (e.g., emotion, burnout, turnover intention). In this process, 99 articles were excluded. Fourth, the study had to measure orga￾nizational identification using the scales that emphasize an indi￾vidual’s oneness perception or the self-defining nature of identi￾fication. A representative example is the Mael scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). This scale has long been known to measure the oneness perception of organizational identification, partly because of its association with the seminal article by Ashforth and Mael (1989), and thus has been the most widely used in the organiza￾tional identification literature (Haslam, 2004). The Mael scale includes items such as “When someone criticizes [name of orga￾nization], it feels like a personal insult,” and “When I talk about [name of organization], I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they.’” The scale developed by van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, and Christ (2004b) has also been widely used, as it contains the self-defining nature of identification. This scale includes items such as “I identify myself as a member of [name of organization],” and “Being a member of [name of organization] reflects my personal￾ity well.” Another exemplifying scale is the graphical Venn dia￾gram scale which measures organizational identification as the degree of overlap between two circles that denote a respondent’s own identity and his or her organization’s identity (e.g., Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). The studies included in our analysis, in which organizational identification was measured using the scales other than the Mael scale, are listed in Table 1. In some organizational identification scales (e.g., the Organizational Identification Ques￾tionnaire; Cheney, 1983), however, the operationalization of iden￾tification is similar to that of commitment, and thus they are not clearly distinguishable from organizational commitment scales such as the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) and the Affective Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Accordingly, we excluded studies using the identification scales similar to commitment scales, thus not adequately measuring the self-defining nature of identification. In this process, 18 articles were excluded from our meta-analysis. Table 1 also presents the list of those excluded studies. After applying all the inclusion criteria, we obtained an initial data set of 149 organizational identification– outcome correlations from 114 studies in 86 articles. The Appendix provides a summary of the studies and samples used in the meta-analysis, and the complete list of articles that were considered but ultimately ex￾cluded is in the online supplemental material. To calculate the overall correlation, we coded all possible zero￾order correlations from each study. Of the coded correlations, some of the correlations were nonindependent because they were computed from the same sample. Thus, when correlations were based on multiple measures of the same criterion in the same sample, such as intrinsic satisfaction and extrinsic satisfaction in Becker’s (1992) study, we combined the multiple measures into a composite using the composite formulas (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981, pp. 163–164). Fifty nonindependent correlations were combined for this reason. Yet, many studies still yielded more than one relevant correla￾tion because we were interested in the relations between organi￾zational identification and several different types of individual outcomes, such as job satisfaction, affective organizational com￾mitment, and in-role performance. In such cases, adopting the approach used in the previous meta-analysis studies (e.g., Albar￾racín et al., 2005; Albarracín, Johnson, Fishbein, & Muellerleile, 2001; Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Durantini, Albarracín, Mitchell, Earl, & Gillette, 2006), we allowed more than one correlation per study to be included in our final sample; that is, even after combining correlations for reasons of independence, we still used multiple correlations from one study if they concerned different types of outcomes—job satisfaction and in-role perfor￾mance in Ashforth, Sluss, and Saks’ (2007) study, for example. Although multiple correlations were used from one study, we ensured that, in the analysis of the correlation between organiza￾tional identification and each specific outcome, we use only one correlation from one study, thus not violating the sample indepen￾dence assumption (Cooper & Hedges, 1994). However, in the meta-analysis of the overall correlation between organizational identification and all outcomes, this approach could still violate the independence assumption. Hence, when we analyze this overall correlation, we used one correlation (i.e., the composite correla￾tion) per study. Table 2 shows the stem-and-leaf display of the 114 independent correlations, and Figure 3 shows the funnel plot of the correlations. The funnel plot provides initial evidence that selec￾tion or publication bias is unlikely to be present because the distribution of sample is symmetrical and the form of a funnel centers on the mean effect size, with smaller variability as the sample size increases. We present more formal publication bias tests below. Coding of Studies The studies were coded independently by two coders for corre￾lation, sample size, reliability estimates, type of organizational identification outcome, national culture, and study characteristics (e.g., data structure, publication status). The initial intercoder This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1054 LEE, PARK, AND KOO

THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 105S Table1 Inclusion Decisions for the Studies Not Using the Mael Scale Organizational identification scale type Study Measure sourc Nedeveloped scales ince the Mael Samples I to 7 t201 2007 de L2010) Hofacker (2011 Salesiaiartooganizaionadcoammimean henev (1983 bel (1983) 00 201 Tyagi w ha199399 199 Not a ailab o in-role performanc cture. pt0a2000. hen's 0D1 Disa s were d into extra- ole per the stud ntually resulted in an intercoder agreemen mal iob de mple we oded varia ance.customer es of organizational identificatio nance citize voice chavior.and and affective orga commitment.Beho ral ou Appendix ucts of cal re in-role performance and extra-role performance using several dif- fected by the self-serving bias (e.gBorman.99:Spector,1994)

agreement rates were high, ranging from 98% to 100% for the coding of job involvement, job satisfaction, affective organiza￾tional commitment, extra-role performance, national culture, data structure, and publication status. The initial intercoder agreement was somewhat lower for the coding of in-role performance (Co￾hen’s .92, p  .001). Disagreements between raters were resolved by discussing coding criteria and further examination of the studies, which eventually resulted in an intercoder agreement rate of 100% for all coded information. Outcomes of organizational identification. Two categories were used to code the outcomes of organizational identification: attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Attitudinal outcomes were coded using three subcategories: job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment. Behavioral outcomes were coded using two subcategories: in-role performance and extra-role performance. Some studies measured the constructs of in-role performance and extra-role performance using several dif￾ferent variable names. In such cases, we classified the variables into in-role and extra-role behaviors based on their definitions; performance behaviors were classified into in-role performance when they were required by formal job descriptions, directly serving the goals of the organization (van Knippenberg, 2000), while performance behaviors were classified into extra-role per￾formance when they concerned discretionary actions beyond for￾mal job descriptions (Podsakoff et al., 2000). For example, we coded variables such as productivity, job performance, customer￾oriented service behavior, and work effort into in-role perfor￾mance, and coded variables such as organizational citizenship behavior, helping behavior, voice behavior, and safety perfor￾mance into extra-role performance. We report all of our classifi￾cation information in the Appendix. In addition, we coded the rater of performance variables because several researchers noted that self-reported measures can be af￾fected by the self-serving bias (e.g., Borman, 1991; Spector, 1994). Table 1 Inclusion Decisions for the Studies Not Using the Mael Scale Organizational identification scale type Study Measure source Inclusion decision Newly developed scales since the Mael scale Gümüs et al. (2012) van Dick et al. (2004b) Included Michel et al. (2010) van Dick et al. (2004b) Included van Dick et al. (2004a) van Dick et al. (2004b) Included van Dick et al. (2006) Samples 1 to 7 van Dick et al. (2004b) Included van Dick et al. (2007) van Dick et al. (2004b) Included van Dick et al. (2008) van Dick et al. (2004b) Included Smidts et al. (2001) Smidts et al. (2001) Included Walumbwa et al. (2009) Smidts et al. (2001) Included Walumbwa et al. (2011) Smidts et al. (2001) Included Zhao et al. (2014) Smidts et al. (2001) Included Edwards & Peccei (2010) Edwards & Peccei (2007) Included Fuchs & Edwards (2012) Edwards & Peccei (2007) Included Peters et al. (2010) Doosje et al. (1995) Included Richter et al. (2006) Doosje et al. (1995) Included Norman et al. (2010) Avey et al. (2008) Included Christ et al. (2003) Christ et al. (2003) Included Johnson et al. (2012) Johnson et al. (2012) Included Stoner & Gallagher (2011) Stoner, Perrewé, & Hofacker (2011) Included Amiot et al. (2006) Terry & Hogg (1996) Included Hassan (2010) Tyler & Blader (2000) Included Graphical scales Bartel (2001) Bergami & Bagozzi (2000) Included Korschun et al. (2011) Bergami & Bagozzi (2000) Included Mayfield & Taber (2010) Shamir & Kark (2004) Included Wolfe (2007) Shamir & Kark (2004) Included Scales similar to organizational commitment scales Balfour & Wechsler (1991) Cheney (1983) Excluded Gautam et al. (2004) Cheney (1983) Excluded Ishii (2012) Cheney (1983) Excluded Johnson et al. (1996) Cheney (1983) Excluded Sass & Canary (1991) Cheney (1983) Excluded Scott et al. (1999) Cheney (1983) Excluded van Dick et al. (2006) Sample 10 Cheney (1983) Excluded Wolf (2009) Cheney (1983) Excluded Gould & Werbel (1983) Patchen (1970) Excluded Popoola (2005) Patchen (1970) Excluded Rotondi (1975) Patchen (1970) Excluded Jetten et al. (2002) Allen & Meyer (1996) Excluded Olkkonen & Lipponen (2006) Allen & Meyer (1990) Excluded O’Reilly & Chatman (1986) O’Reilly & Chatman (1986) Excluded Leavitt et al. (2011) O’Reilly & Chatman (1986) Excluded Kolodinsky et al. (2008) Efraty et al. (1991) Excluded Millward & Brewerton (1999) Millward & Brewerton (1999) Excluded Tyagi & Wotruba (1993) Not available Excluded This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 1055

1056 LEE.PARK.AND KOO 心 and Leaf Display Correlations (r) organizational identification literature,we coded Stem Leaf 8 Meta-Analysis Procedure 23 elations 456 之k的 utcomes into self-reported "reported,and lata-ba &Russell.2000).Carpenter.Berry. itystimate based o the estim s from other studies in our Schm 4).The artifac of al id 82 and s of the cri ation (OCB-O).folowin the ob satist mmance:and mean 79 and standard deviation 09 geneity amons Canada,Ger amp all an Aus nd Japan.to in the set of rue popuati ifving the location d to each study the 2010)three and the United Study characteristics.We coded two aspects of study for addit hory mo ructure.for example ethod variance (Podsakoff,MacKenzie,Lee,&Podsakoff omes),and panel data (correlations between average org onal identi 24 6 publication of studies that have statisti ally significant find ings,has been an important issue for psychological science for a Figure3.Funnel plot of independent (

We distinguished in-role performance outcomes into self-reported, other-reported, and data-based. Similarly, we distinguished extra￾role performance outcomes into self-reported and other-reported (Allen, Barnard, Rush, & Russell, 2000; Carpenter, Berry, & Houston, 2014). No study in our sample measured extra-role performance based on objective data. Moreover, we also distin￾guished extra-role performance by target: organizational citizen￾ship behavior toward individuals (OCB-I) and toward the organi￾zation (OCB-O), following the previous notion of the distinctive characteristics of the two (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009; Williams & Anderson, 1991). National culture. We coded national culture using the values provided by Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010), as de Wit, Greer, and Jehn (2012) did in their meta-analysis. We first iden￾tified the geographical location in which the study was conducted. Example countries included in our study are the United States, Canada, Germany, China, France, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Pakistan, Australia, and Japan, to list a few (see the Appendix for all of the country information). After iden￾tifying the geographical locations, we assigned to each study the associated values of Hofstede et al.’s (2010) three cultural value dimensions: individualism/collectivism, long-term/short-term ori￾entation, and uncertainty-avoidance. For example, the United States was coded 91 for individualism, 29 for long-term￾orientation, and 46 for uncertainty-avoidance. The same dimen￾sions were coded 20, 118, and 30, respectively, for studies con￾ducted in China. Study characteristics. We coded two aspects of study char￾acteristics for additional exploratory moderator analyses. First, several researchers (e.g., Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001) have noted that data structure, for example cross-sectional versus longitudinal, can influence correlations; cross-sectional data may present higher correlations than longitudinal data because of com￾mon method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Thus, we coded data structure into three types: cross￾sectional data (concurrent measures of organizational identifica￾tion and its outcomes), longitudinal data (time separation between the measurement of organizational identification and its out￾comes), and panel data (correlations between average organiza￾tional identification across times and average outcomes across times). Second, the issue of publication bias, defined as the selec￾tive publication of studies that have statistically significant find￾ings, has been an important issue for psychological science for at least three decades (e.g., Ferguson & Brannick, 2012; Rosenthal, 1979, 1995). To investigate whether publication bias exists in the organizational identification literature, we coded publication status into two categories: studies published in academic journals versus unpublished manuscripts and dissertations. Meta-Analysis Procedure All the correlations were first corrected for measurement error in the independent and dependent variables. We used the internal consistency coefficients reported in the respective study as the reliability estimates. When reliability estimates were available, we divided individual effect sizes by the square root of the reliability estimates of the two correlated variables, as recommended by Hunter and Schmidt (2004). Among the initial sample of 149 correlations, 12 correlations (8%) did not have the reliability estimate information for the organizational identification variable and 36 correlations (24%) did not have the reliability estimate information for the outcome variables. For studies that did not report a reliability estimate, we assigned them the average reliabil￾ity estimate based on the estimates from other studies in our sample (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). The artifact distribution of the reliability of organizational identification was a mean of .82 with a standard deviation of .07. The artifact distributions of the crite￾rion variables’ reliabilities were mean .77 and standard deviation .11 for job involvement; mean .80 and standard deviation .09 for job satisfaction; mean .83 and standard deviation .05 for affective organizational commitment; mean .77 and standard deviation .11 for in-role performance; and mean .79 and standard deviation .09 for extra-role performance. We calculated meta-analytic correlations using a random effects model (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) to consider heterogeneity among the studies. The random effects model assumes that sampling error plus variability in the population of the correlations (unique dif￾ferences in the set of true population correlations) caused the variability among the organizational identification– outcome cor￾relations. As an estimate of variability, we calculated 95% confi￾dence intervals and 80% credibility intervals. A 95% confidence interval excluding zero indicates that one can be 95% confident Table 2 Stem and Leaf Display of 114 Correlations (r) Stem Leaf .1 .0 5,4 .0 1,2,3,3,3,4,5,5,5,5,6,8,8,9,9,9 .1 1,2,3,4,5,5,6,8,8,8,8,9,9 .2 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,7,7,7,8,8,9,9,9,9,9 .3 0,0,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,6,6,6,6,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,9 .4 0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8,8,8,8,9,9 .5 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8 .6 1,3,5,6,6 .7 3 .8 Figure 3. Funnel plot of 114 independent correlations (r). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1056 LEE, PARK, AND KOO

THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 1057 maximem erass truc correlation dimerent moor thus.a The second panel of Table 3presents the tests of the correlations onal ide s repored ar of-fit statistic showed that the correlati (0aD=17.96.p01 nable to a 35.95%C[32.39 ing two indices:the O-s i 95%C44.54 f Table 3 present the 003)The whether a statistically signif ficant level of variability exists in 200 =.64.95%C[55.72 o in observed effec The fourth set of resul in Table 3 reports the tests of the g The that the Compared ith the tatistic.the Fis known to he mes were signif ded (Bo aling of 9).However.the F should on 2002 the meta-analytic 95C36. 09 ince (p omes on deling (MASEM:Vi ran One 1995)to tes and in-role performance was ed n.t n and its out mes.we com obiective data .19.95%CI [.03.34D).The relation Lipsey and Wilson (2001). highe wh en-rated n (45.9s Results Relations Between Organizational Identification 103.p1).In additio we also examin and Outcomes performace yarCB-n OCB- that they were ot signficantly differe) vailable correlati The fifth panel of Table 3 shows how the organizational T-LI ding on d nd antly moderate the (02)-209.0 gani7a dence interval did o %C[37,.45.Hou ver.the showed arge ce:the 158713.P)This indicates that the We used MASEM (Viswesvaran &On 1995)to test how naybas mod nizational identification and outcomes. MASEM analysis.we first constructed the matrix of meta-

that the average true correlation is different from zero; thus, a maximum of 2.5% are larger than the upper bound of the interval and fewer than 2.5% are smaller than the lower bound. A credi￾bility interval indicates whether the correlations reported are gen￾eralizable to other samples. For example, an 80% credibility in￾terval excluding zero indicates that at least 80% of the correlations reported are different from zero. In addition, we conducted homo￾geneity analysis (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001), which tests whether it is reasonable to assume that all effect sizes are estimating the same population mean, using two indices: the Q-statistic, which indi￾cates the level of variance across study results relative to the sampling error variance (Hedges & Olkin, 1985), and the I-squared (I 2 ) statistic, another indicator of homogeneity statistic (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003). The Q-statistic indicates whether a statistically significant level of variability exists in correlations across studies, by calculating the categorical model results for the between-groups goodness-of-fit statistic (QB) and the within-group goodness-of-fit statistic (QW; Field, 2001; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The I 2 indicates the ratio of true heterogeneity to total variation in observed effect sizes, which ranges from 0% to 100% with higher values indicat￾ing greater heterogeneity of effect sizes and higher likelihood of moderators. Compared with the Q-statistic, the I 2 is known to be less affected by the scaling of the measures or the number of the studies included (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). However, the I 2 should also be interpreted with caution because it depends on the size of individual studies (Higgins & Thompson, 2002). Finally, we created a correlation matrix using the meta-analytic correlations and conducted fixed-effect meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995) to test our hypothesized path models (in Figures 1 and 2). In addition, to test the moderating effect of national culture on the relations between organizational identification and its outcomes, we con￾ducted a random-effects weighted least square (WLS) regression analysis using the meta-regression SPSS syntax developed by Lipsey and Wilson (2001). Results Relations Between Organizational Identification and Outcomes Table 3 presents the analysis of the relations between organiza￾tional identification and its attitudinal/behavioral outcomes using the available correlations. The top panel of Table 3 reports the meta-analysis results using all available independent correlations (k 114; N 36,526). The average corrected correlation between organiza￾tional identification and all attitudinal/behavioral outcomes across all studies was positive ˆ .41), and the 95% confi￾dence interval did not include zero (95% CI [.37, .45]). How￾ever, the corrected correlation showed large variance; the ho￾mogeneity of effect size tests was significant across the analyses (QW 1587.13, p  .01). This indicates that the use of a random effects model is justifiable. It also indicates that moderators may be present for the associations between orga￾nizational identification and outcomes. The second panel of Table 3 presents the tests of the correlations between organizational identification and outcomes by outcome type: attitudinal outcomes and behavioral outcomes. The between￾groups goodness-of-fit statistic QB showed that the correlations between organizational identification and outcomes were signifi￾cantly different across outcome types (QB(1) 17.96, p  .01). Specifically, the results revealed that the size of the correlation between organizational identification and behavioral outcomes ˆ .35, 95% CI [.32, .39]) was smaller than that between organizational identification and attitudinal outcomes ˆ .49, 95% CI [.44, .54]). The third and fourth panels of Table 3 present the organizational identification correlations with detailed outcomes within each out￾come type. The third set of results in Table 3 shows that organi￾zational identification was significantly and positively related to job involvement ˆ .50, 95% CI [.39, .62]), job satisfaction ˆ .45, 95% CI [.40, .50]), and affective organizational commitment ˆ .64, 95% CI [.55, .72]). The fourth set of results in Table 3 reports the tests of the relations between organizational identification and behavioral out￾comes. The QB indicates that the correlations between organiza￾tional identification and behavioral outcomes were significantly different across performance types (QB(1) 19.64, p  .01). Specifically, the correlation between organizational identification and in-role performance was significant and positive ˆ .27, 95% CI [.20, .34]) and was smaller than the correlation between organizational identification and extra-role performance ˆ .42, 95% CI [.36, .48]). We further classified both performance out￾comes based on the rater of performance. The relation between organizational identification and in-role performance was rela￾tively high when in-role performance was self-rated ˆ .33, 95% CI [.23, .38]) and low when in-role performance was rated based on objective data ˆ .19, 95% CI [.03, .34]). The relation between organizational identification and extra-role performance was higher when extra-role performance was measured using self-rated measures ˆ .48, 95% CI [.43, .52]) than when it was measured using other-rated measures ˆ .29, 95% CI [.18, .39]) and the difference between the two was statistically significant (QB(1) 10.38, p  .01). In addition, we also examined whether the relation between organizational identification and extra-role performance differed by target—OCB-I and OCB-O—and the results showed that they were not significantly different (QB(1) 2.02, ns). The fifth panel of Table 3 shows how the organizational identification– outcome correlations change depending on data structure—the study design used to collect the data. The results indicated that data structure did not significantly moderate the relations between organizational identification and its outcomes (QB(2) 2.09, ns). Positioning of Organizational Identification in General Attitude–Behavior Relations We used MASEM (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995) to test how organizational identification functions in the nomological net￾work of attitudinal and behavioral variables. To conduct the MASEM analysis, we first constructed the matrix of meta￾This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. THE EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 1057

1058 LEE.PARK.AND KOO Variable kN7SD,方SD。95%C 80%CVPQ。 Q All outcon ndent correlation 1436.52634214121【37.4114.69193% 17.96 1587.1 oral ou 的出智治做监 13.97 tisfaction nalcommitment oral outcome 4113,87022132726【20.341[-.0660127% 19.64 e performance by rate 266 L18.66] 10.38- 9器”品88保刻傲绸 4 202 4胸器格名9路纷制 2.09 70 g站R4竖烟版 ations from independent samples:N=total sample size for all studies combined:=sample-size weiehted mean ower ithin group:OCB-Io lity in alytic com in this row may not be Is less 3.but we decided to repo this for informational purposes D<01 SEM tical,wecalculated the harmonic mean of the tion andecvo ults show that Model 1 did not fit the dat M analyses (Viswesvaran&Ones 995 .CF the arithn e it a uch less weight to al identification as a bas cker-Lewis inde TLI;also known as the non-normed fit index,Tucker&Lewis ttitude and general beh havior (Model 2 in Figure 2).When Mode han 90.an RMSEA less than or equal to .08.and an SRMR ally used in sem to com sted models estimated than1(Kline,2005 Reise,&Kim,2007 ison of tw ition ty in the attitude 673.42).As 2 fit the data

analytic correlations among all of the study variables (see Table 4). We then entered this meta-analytic correlation matrix into an SEM analysis using AMOS (Version 18; Arbuckle, 2009). As the sample sizes across the various cells of the matrix were not identical, we calculated the harmonic mean of the sample sizes and used it for the SEM analyses (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). The harmonic mean is a more conservative parameter estimate than the arithmetic mean because it assigns much less weight to large sample sizes. We used five model fit indices—chi-square (2 ), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; also known as the non-normed fit index, Tucker & Lewis, 1973), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR)—to investigate the viability of the structural models. Desirable model fit is associated with a CFI greater than .90, a TLI greater than .90, an RMSEA less than or equal to .08, and an SRMR less than .10 (Kline, 2005). Table 5 presents the comparison of two alternative models that position organizational identification differently in the attitude– behavior relations. First, we tested the model of organizational identification as a component of general attitude that treats orga￾nizational identification as constituting a general set of attitudes along with other types of attitudes (job involvement, job satisfac￾tion, and affective organizational commitment; Model 1 in Figure 1). The MASEM results show that Model 1 did not fit the data particularly well (2 [8] 647.42, CFI .95, TLI .90, RMSEA .11, SRMR .04). Next, we tested the model of organizational identification as a basis for general attitude and behavior that treats organizational identification not as a part of general attitude but as an independent predictor of both general attitude and general behavior (Model 2 in Figure 2). When Model 2 was estimated, all of the fit indices reached acceptable levels (2 [7] 344.21, CFI .97, TLI .94, RMSEA .08, SRMR .03). In addition, to further compare the two models, we utilized Akaike’s information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1974), which is generally used in SEM to compare non-nested models estimated using the same data (Henson, Reise, & Kim, 2007; Kline, 2005). The AIC for Model 2 (372.21) was smaller than that for Model 1 (673.42). As a lower AIC value indicates a better fit, this result indicates that Model 2 fit the data better than Model 1. Table 3 Meta-Analysis of Bivariate Relations Between Organizational Identification and Outcome Variables Variable kNr SDr ˆ SD 95% CI 80% CV I 2 QB QW All outcomes All independent correlations 114 36,526 .34 .21 .41 .21 [.37, .45] [.14, .69] 93% 1587.13 Outcome type 17.96 150.78 Attitudinal outcomes 55 18,084 .41 .14 .49 .22 [.44, .54] [.25, .73] 0% 46.90 Behavioral outcomes 94 43,754 .29 .19 .35 .19 [.32, .39] [.11, .60] 10% 103.88 Attitudinal outcomes 13.97 55.71 Job involvement 6 3,939 .41 .12 .50 .15 [.39, .62] [.31, .69] 42% 8.68 Job satisfaction 37 11,216 .37 .12 .45 .18 [.40, .50] [.22, .68] 0% 32.25 Affective organizational commitment 12 2,929 .52 .14 .64 .17 [.55, .72] [.42, .86] 26% 14.77 Behavioral outcomes 19.64 94.29 In-role performance 41 13,870 .22 .13 .27 .26 [.20, .34] [.06, .60] 27% 39.78 In-role performance by rater 2.66 40.43 Self-rated 20 8,468 .27 .13 .33 .18 [.23, .38] [.13, .53] 14% 22.16 Other-rated 16 3,315 .18 .16 .23 .16 [.14, .31] [.03, .43] 5% 15.83 Data-based 5 2,087 .09 .13 .19 .18 [.03, .34] [.04, .42] 0% 2.44 Extra-role performance 53 14,459 .35 .15 .42 .22 [.36, .48] [.18, .66] 5% 54.52 Extra-role performance by rater 10.38 48.75 Self-rated 39 9,928 .38 .12 .48 .19 [.43, .52] [.27, .68] 0% 34.66 Other-rated 9 1,753 .24 .12 .29 .15 [.18, .39] [.08, .49] 21% 14.09 Extra-role performance by target 2.02 22.94 OCB-I 5 927 .23 .18 .27 .20 [.09, .45] [.01, .53] 0% 1.34 OCB-O 18 4,089 .34 .17 .42 .21 [.32, .51] [.15, .69] 21% 21.60 Study characteristics Data structure 2.09 149.41 Cross-sectional 138 59,419 .34 .12 .41 .23 [.38, .45] [.16, .67] 0% 140.33 Longitudinal 10 2,275 .26 .16 .32 .19 [.19, .44] [.05, .58] 0% 9.08 Panela 1 144 .36 .17 .39 .21 [.01, .79] [.13, .65] — — Publication status .70 149.67 Academic journal articles 140 44,188 .34 .12 .41 .24 [.38, .44] [.15, .67] 3% 143.56 Unpublished manuscripts/dissertations 9 2,225 .29 .18 .35 .21 [.22, .48] [.09, .61] 0% 6.12 Note. k number of correlations from independent samples; N total sample size for all studies combined; r sample-size weighted mean correlation; SDr sample-size weighted observed standard deviation of correlation; ˆ mean true-score correlation corrected for measurement error in both predictor and criterion measures; SD standard deviation of the true-score correlation corrected for measurement error in both predictor and criterion measures; 95% CI lower and upper limits of 95% confidence interval; 80% CV lower and upper limits of 80% credibility interval; I 2 homogeneity statistic; QB homogeneity statistic Q between groups; QW homogeneity statistic Q within group; OCB-I organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals; OCB-O organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization. a The meta-analytic correlation in this row may not be meaningful because k is less than 3, but we decided to report this for informational purposes. p  .01. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1058 LEE, PARK, AND KOO