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naire (Mo outcome,national published in the area of organizational identification, and we also announced a call for unpublished manuscripts on organizational researchers’ e-mail list service such as the HR (human resources) Listserv and the OB (organizational behavior) Listserv.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