Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment Scale

Abstract

The Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment (ANC) scale, developed by Meyer and Allen (1997), is a foundational measure in industrial and organizational psychology used to assess an employee’s psychological bond to an organization. The scale is structured around a three-component model of organizational commitment. Specifically, it differentiates between affective commitment (emotional attachment and identification), normative commitment (feelings of obligation to remain), and continuance commitment (awareness of the costs associated with leaving).

While originally designed for organizational settings, the measures have also been successfully applied to describe commitment to an occupation or profession by substituting the profession name in place of organization in the items (Coleman, Irving, & Cooper, 1999; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). The original measures consisted of eight items per commitment type, which Meyer and Allen (1997) later revised to a more efficient six-item structure for each component, providing both original and revised versions for researchers.

Keywords

Organizational commitment, Affective commitment, Normative commitment, Continuance commitment, Employee retention, Job performance, Organizational psychology, Meyer and Allen, Three-component model.

Authors

John P. Meyer, Natalie J. Allen

Purpose

The primary purpose of the ANC scale is to operationalize and measure the multi-dimensional nature of an employee’s psychological attachment to their workplace. It provides researchers and practitioners with specific scores across three distinct yet related dimensions of commitment. This differentiation allows for a more nuanced understanding of why employees choose to remain with an organization—whether due to desire (affective), duty (normative), or necessity (continuance).

By assessing these three components separately, the scale is highly valuable for predicting specific organizational outcomes such as job performance, absenteeism, and turnover. Furthermore, the adaptability of the scale allows it to be used in studies of professional commitment beyond the scope of a single employing organization.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Organizational Commitment, which is defined by Meyer and Allen’s seminal three-component model.

• Affective Commitment (AC): This component reflects the employee’s positive emotional bond, identification with, and involvement in the organization. Employees with high AC stay because they want to.

• Normative Commitment (NC): This component reflects a feeling of obligation to remain with the organization, often stemming from internalized beliefs about loyalty or socialized pressures resulting from organizational socialization. Employees with high NC stay because they feel they ought to.

• Continuance Commitment (CC): This component relates to the perceived costs that employees associate with leaving the organization. These costs can be economic, social, or psychological. Employees with high CC stay because they need to. Notably, continuance commitment is often measured using two distinct subscales: commitment based on high sacrifices required to leave, and commitment based on the perceived lack of alternative employment options.

Validity

Extensive psychometric evaluation supports the structural and discriminant validity of the ANC scale across multiple samples.

Structural Validity: Multisample confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), conducted by researchers including Hackett et al. (1994) and Dunham et al. (1994), consistently demonstrated strong support for the hypothesized three-component model, confirming that affective commitment, normative commitment, and continuance commitment are empirically distinct dimensions.

Discriminant Validity: Cohen (1999) used confirmatory analysis to establish discriminate validity, showing that the three commitment components were empirically distinct from related constructs such as job involvement, career commitment, work involvement, and the Protestant work ethic (Cohen, 1996). Furthermore, Somers (1995) found that affective commitment and normative commitment both correlated positively with turnover, whereas continuance commitment correlated negatively with employee turnover, providing evidence of differential predictive validity.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the ANC scale has been consistently demonstrated across numerous studies and samples, indicating high reliability for the subscales:

• The Coefficient alpha values for the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS) generally ranged from .77 to .88.

• For the Normative Commitment Scale (NCS), Coefficient alpha values ranged from .65 to .86.

• The Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS) demonstrated Coefficient alpha values ranging from .69 to .84 (Allen & Meyer, 1990a; Cohen, 1996, 1999; Meyer & Allen, 1997, among others).

These reliability ranges confirm that the scales generally meet or exceed standard thresholds for internal consistency in psychological measures, supporting their widespread use in research.

Factor Analysis

Factor analytic procedures have been instrumental in refining the structural understanding of organizational commitment, particularly concerning the continuance component.

Initial confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the distinct three-component structure. However, subsequent detailed analysis showed that a model in which continuance commitment was divided into two subscales fit the data better than models that treated it as a single, unitary eight-item scale. This split revealed two distinct factors underlying the decision to stay due to necessity:

1. Limited Alternatives: Measuring commitment due to the availability of limited alternatives in the job market.

2. High Sacrifices: Measuring commitment due to the high personal and professional sacrifices required to leave the organization.

Meyer and colleagues (1991) suggest utilizing these two continuance commitment subscales separately unless empirical testing demonstrates that they do not exhibit differential relationships with relevant outcome variables, in which case combining them into a single eight-item scale might be appropriate.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Inventory

Format: Paper-and-Pencil or Digital Administration

Language Available: English (Original), widely translated into numerous languages.

Population Group: Employees, professionals, and organizational members.

Age Group: Adult (working population).

Population Details: Applicable across various industries and organizational levels, used globally in organizational psychology research.

Test Methodology: Responses are collected using a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

Keywords

Employee loyalty, Job involvement, Turnover prediction, Meyer and Allen, Organizational socialization, Psychological attachment, High sacrifice, Limited alternatives.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1997 (Publication of the consolidated model and revised scale items)

Permissions and Fees: The scale items were published in the book Commitment in the Workplace (1997), copyrighted by Sage Publications, Inc. Commercial or consulting use of the scale may require formal permission from the copyright holder.

Reference’s

• Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Copyright © 1997 by Sage Publications, Inc. Items were taken from Table A-1, pp. 118-119. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc.

• Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990a). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.

• Cohen, A. (1996). Boundaries of the three-component model of organizational commitment: An application in the Israeli context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(4), 365-384.

• Cohen, A. (1999). Relationships among five commitment scales: A comparison across different organizational types. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 271-285.

• Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 15-23.

• Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(1), 49-58.

Items of the Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment scale

Employee responses are obtained on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

Original and revised affective commitment items:

Items denoted with (R) are reversed scored. Items denoted with (RS) are those included in the revised affective commitment measure.

1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization (RS)

2. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside of it

3. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own (RS)

4. I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one

5. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization (R) (RS)

6. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization (R) (RS)

7. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me (RS)

8. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my (R) (RS)

Original normative commitment items:

Items denoted with (R) are reversed scored.

1. I think that people these days move from company to company too often

2. I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization (R)

3. Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me (R)

4. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain

5. If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my organization

6. I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organization

7. Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of their careers

8. I do not think that wanting to be a “company man” or “company woman” is sensible anymore (R)

Revised normative commitment items:

Items denoted with (R) are reversed scored.

1. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer (R)

2. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now

3. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now

4. This organization deserves my loyalty

5. I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it

6. I owe a great deal to this organization

Original and revised continuance commitment items:

Items denoted with (R) are reversed scored. Items denoted with (RS) are those included in the revised affective commitment measure.

(High sacrifice subscale)

1. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up (R)

2. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even ifl wanted to (RS)

3. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now (RS)

4. It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave my organization right now (R)

(Lack of alternative subscale)

5. Right now staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire (RS)

6. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization (RS)

7. One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives (RS)

8. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice-another organization may not match the overall benefits that I have here (RS)