Journal of Applied Psychology1986, Vol. 71, No. 3,492-499Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0021-9010/86/$00.75Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effectsof Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial BehaviorCharles O'Reilly III and Jennifer ChatmanUniversity of California, BerkeleyPrevious research on organizational commitment has typically not focused on the underlying dimen-sions of psychological attachment to the organization. Results of two studies using university em-ployees (N = 82) and students (N = 162) suggest that psychological attachment may be predicatedon compliance, identification, and internalization (e.g., Kelman, 19S8). Identification and internal-ization are positively related to prosocial behaviors and negatively related to turnover. Internalizationis predictive of financial donations to a fund-raising campaign. Overall, the results suggest the im-portance of clearly specifying the underlying dimensions of commitment using notions of psycholog-ical attachment and the various forms such attachment can take.In the past decade, the construct of organizational commit-ment has occupied a prominent place in organizational behav-ior research (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Salancik, 1977;Staw & Ross, 1978). Unfortunately, as Morrow (1983, p. 486)has pointed out, "the growth in commitment related conceptshas not been accompanied by a careful segmentation of com-mitment's theoretical domain in terms of intended meaning ofeach concept or the concepts' relationships among each other."By her count, there are over 25 commitment-related conceptsand measures. Staw (1977), for instance, has noted that thevalue of commitment as a separate construct distinct fromother psychological concepts such as motivation, involvement,or behavioral intention remains to be demonstrated. What isneeded are theoretical and operational definitions that clearlydifferentiate commitment and its components from other re-lated constructs (Gould, 1979; Kanungo, 1979; Scholl, 1981;Wiener, 1982).This lack of consensus is manifested in a remarkable varia-tion in how commitment is denned and measured. In addition,different terms have been used to describe the same basic phe-nomenon. Porter and his colleagues (Mowday, Steers, & Porter,1979; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974), for instance,have defined commitment as "the strength of an individual'sidentification with and involvement in a particular organiza-tion" (Porter et al., 1974, p. 604). Their measurement includedassessments of motivation, intent to remain, and identificationwith the values of the organization. Identification and involve-ment have also been seen by other researchers as the basis forpsychological attachment (e.g., Brown, 1969; Hall & Schneider,1972; Lee, 1971; Sheldon, 1971). Buchanan (1974, p. 533) sawcommitment as "a partisan, affective attachment to the goalsThe authors wish to thank the Berkeley-IBM Joint Utilities Studyfor support in the data collection effort, and Harold Angle for helpfulcomments on an earlier version of the manuscript.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toCharles O'Reilly III, School of Business Administration, University ofCalifornia, 350 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, California 94720.and values of an organization, to one's role in relation to thegoals and values, and to the organization for its own sake, apartfrom its purely instrumental worth [italics added]." Others havemade a similar point and differentiated a type of attachmentbased on calculative involvement or an exchange of behaviorfor specific extrinsic rewards from a moral attachment whereinvolvement is predicated on a congruence of values (Becker,1960; Etzioni, 1961; Gould, 1979; Hall, Schneider, & Nygren,1970;Kidron, 1978; Meyer & Allen, 1984).Although numerous differences in the approach to commit-ment research exist, a central theme that continues to appear isthe individual's psychological attachment to an organization—the psychological bond linking the individual and the organiza-tion. Although the term commitment is broadly used to refer toantecedents and consequences, as well as the process of becom-ing attached and the state of attachment itself, it is the psycho-logical attachment that seems to be the construct of commoninterest. The lack of consensus in previous research can be at-tributed, in part, to a failure to differentiate carefully amongthe antecedents and consequences of commitment on the onehand, and the basis for attachment on the other. For instance,some investigations have explored the processes through whichone becomes committed (e.g., Galanter, 1980; Salancik, 1977;Staw & Ross, 1978) or the impact of individual and organiza-tional influences on this process (Angle & Perry, 1983; Steers,1977). Other studies have explored the consequences of com-mitment manifested in attitudes and behaviors such as proxim-ity seeking and long tenure (Horn, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979;Rusbult&Farrell, 1983; Werbel& Gould, 1984), expressions ofpositive affect and loyalty (Kanter, 1972; O'Reilly & Caldwell,1980), motivation and involvement (Mowday et al., 1982;Scholl, 1981), and behaviors such as performance and obedi-ence to organizational policies (Angle & Perry, 1981; Galanter,1980).But what is the basis for one's psychological attachment to anorganization? One important mechanism in the developmentof psychological attachment is the process of identification (e.g.,Bowlby, 1982; Sanford, 1955; Stoke, 1950; Tolman, 1943).From this perspective, attachment to an individual, object,492ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTACHMENT493group, or organization results from identification with the atti-tudes, values, or goals of the model; that is, some of the attri-butes, motives, or characteristics of the model are accepted bythe individual and become incorporated into the cognitive re-sponse set of the individual (Kagan, 1958). The degree to whichan individual identifies with a model can, of course, vary, as canthe reasons for this attachment and manifestations of it. Thus,although organizational commitment has often been used in aglobal way to encompass antecedents, processes, and conse-quences of attachment, for purposes of this study, organiza-tional commitment is conceived of as the psychological attach-ment felt by the person for the organization; it will reflect thedegree to which the individual internalizes or adopts character-istics or