A person‐centered approach to commitment research: Theory, research, and methodology

• Author: John P. Meyer,Alexandre J.S. Morin
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2085
• Date: 01 May 2016
• Published date: 01 May 2016

A person-centered approach to commitment

research: Theory, research, and methodology

JOHN P. MEYER

1

*

†

AND ALEXANDRE J.S. MORIN

2†

1

Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

2

Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield, Australia

Summary There has been a recent increase in the application of person-centered research strategies in the investigation

of workplace commitments. To date, research has focused primarily on the identification, within a population,

of subgroups presenting different cross-sectional or longitudinal configurations of commitment mindsets

(affective, normative, and continuance) and/or targets (e.g., organization, occupation, and supervisor), but

other applications are possible. In an effort to promote a substantive methodological synergy, we begin by

explaining why some aspects of commitment theory are best tested using a person-centered approach. We

then summarize the results of existing research and suggest applications to other research questions. Next,

we turn our attention to methodological issues, including strategies for identifying the best profile structure,

testing for consistency across samples, time, culture, and so on, and incorporating other variables in the models

to test theory regarding profile development, consequences, and change trajectories. We conclude with a

discussion of the practical implications of taking a person-centered approach to the study of commitment as

a complement to the more traditionalvariable-centered approach. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons,Ltd.

Keywords: commitment; mindsets; targets; person centered; profiles; mixture models

There has been a recent increase in the use of person-centered research strategies in the study of workplace commit-

ments (Meyer, Stanley, & Vandenberg, 2013), and in organizational research more generally (Wang & Hanges,

2011; Zyphur, 2009). The person-centered approach differs from the more traditional variable-centered approach

in several ways (Meyer, Stanley et al., 2013; Morin, Morizot, Boudrias, & Madore, 2011). Notably, the variable-

centered approach assumes that all individuals from a sample are drawn from a single population and that a single

set of averaged parameters can be estimated. The person-centered approach relaxes this assumption and considers

the possibility that the sample might in fact reflect multiple subpopulations characterized by different sets of

parameters. The objective, therefore, is to identify potential subpopulations presenting differentiated configurations

(or profiles) with regard to a system of variables. Additional benefits of the person-centered approach are that

(a) individuals are treated in a more holistic fashion by focusing on a system of variables taken in combination rather

than in isolation and (b) it allows for the detection of complex interactions among variables that would be difficult to

detect or interpret using a variable-centered approach. Thus, although not a replacement for the variable-centered

approach, the person-centered approach takes a complementary perspective that appears well suited to testing some

aspects of commitment theory.

To date, the person-centered approach has been used most often to examine how the commitment mindsets identified

in Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model (TCM)—affective, normative, and continuance—combine to form

profiles (e.g., Gellatly, Cowden, & Cummings, 2014; Meyer, Stanley, & Parfyonova, 2012; Stanley, Vandenberghe,

Vandenberg, & Bentein, 2013; Wasti, 2005). It has also been used to investigate how commitments to different targets

(e.g., organization, occupation, and supervisor) combine (e.g., Becker & Billings, 1993; Morin, Morizot et al., 2011).

*Correspondence to: John P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2. E-mail:

meyer@uwo.ca

†

John P. Meyer and Alexandre J.S. Morin contributed equally to this article, and both should be considered first authors.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 27 February 2015

Revised 08 December 2015, Accepted 14 December 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 584–612 (2016)

Published online 22 January 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2085

Special Issue Article

Most recently, research has been conducted to identify mindset profiles to dual targets, including the organization and

occupation (Morin, Meyer, McInerney, Marsh, & Ganotice, 2015; Tsoumbris & Xenikou, 2010) and organization and

supervisor (Meyer, Morin, & Vandenberghe, 2015). There is now sufficient research, particularly as it pertains to

mindset profiles of organizational commitment, to take stock of how well it supports theory and/or suggests needs for

revision. However, it also provides an opportunity to evaluate how well the strategy is being applied, how it might

be improved, and key areas for future research. Thus, our objective is to work toward a substantive methodological

synergy (Marsh & Hau, 2007) by drawing attention to the ways important substantive (and practical) issues pertaining

to workplace commitments can be addressed using the most recent advances in person-centered analytic strategies.

In doing so, we advance previous reviews and critiques of the person-centered approach to commitment research

(Meyer, L. Stanley, et al., 2012; Meyer, Stanley et al., 2013) in several ways.

From a substantive perspective, we provide an updated review of person-centered commitment studies, including

new mindset studies exploring profile consistency across samples (Meyer, Kam, Bremmer, & Goldenberg, 2013)

and over time (Kam, Morin, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2016) as well as profile studies involving multiple mindsets

to dual targets (Meyer et al., 2015; Morin, Meyer et al., 2015; Tsoumbris & Xenikou, 2010). We also introduce a

new labeling scheme to aid in the interpretation and comparison of mindset profile studies and to facilitate integra-

tion of findings and advancement of theory. Unlike the labeling schemes currently being used, our scheme acknowl-

edges variation not only in profile shape but also in elevation and scatter (Cronbach & Glesser, 1953). Finally, we

discuss how the person-centered approach can be used similarly to test and advance theory pertaining to multiple

workplace “bonds,”including commitment, as described by Klein, Molloy, and Brinsfield (2012), and commitments

to multiple targets (e.g., Johnson, Chang, & Yang, 2010; Meyer & Allen, 1997).

On the methodological side, we advance the previous treatment by Meyer, Stanley, et al. (2013) to include a

broader discussion of the generalized structural equation modeling (GSEM) framework (Muthén, 2002; Skrondal

& Rabe-Hesketh, 2004) as it applies to person-centered research, including advanced analytic procedures that can

be applied to longitudinal data to address the nature, prediction, and implications of profile changes. Finally, in

addition to providing guidelines for person-centered analyses, we articulate a novel strategy for evaluating the

consistency of profile solutions across samples and/or over time. We conclude with a discussion of the practical

implications of taking a person-centered approach to the study of commitment.

Substantive Issues in Person-centered Research

Commitment mindsets

As noted earlier, the person-centered approach has been applied most widely in the investigation of the organiza-

tional commitment mindsets identified in the TCM (Meyer & Allen, 1991). According to the TCM, employee com-

mitment to an organization can be experienced as an emotional attachment to, and involvement in, the organization

(affective commitment: AC), a sense of obligation to the organization (normative commitment: NC), or an aware-

ness of the costs associated with leaving the organization (continuance commitment: CC). Although most tests of

the TCM focused on the development and/or consequences of individual “commitment mindsets,”implicit in the

theory is the notion that each mindset can be experienced to varying degrees. Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) elab-

orated on this notion by identifying eight potential profiles reflecting varying combinations of high and low scores

on AC, NC, and CC and offering propositions concerning the development and consequences of these profiles.

Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) stated their propositions concerning the combined influence of the commitment

mindsets on behavior in such a way that they could be tested using both variable-centered and person-centered

approaches. However, using a variable-centered approach requires the detection of three-way interactions among

AC, NC, and CC. Such interactions are difficult to detect and assume that the effects are linear (Marsh, Hau,

Wen, Nagengast, & Morin, 2013; McClelland & Judd, 1993). To our knowledge, only one published study has

PERSON-CENTERED COMMITMENT RESEARCH 585

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 584–612 (2016)

DOI: 10.1002/job