![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Commitment to change has been subject to several qualitative reviews in recent years. As a response to an associated lack of consensus in construct definition, Herscovitch and Meyer introduced a three-component model demonstrating affective commitment to change (i.e., ACC), normative commitment to change (i.e., NCC) and continuance commitment to change (i.e., CCC). Given the growing literature on organizational change, the aim of this paper is to take stock of a decade of research that uses Herscovitch and Meyer’s instrument to measure these three components. To determine the tool’s discriminant validity we conducted meta-analyses evaluating the strength of relations among ACC, NCC and CCC; the relations among the three components and behavioural support for change; and the moderating role of North American context versus non-North American context in shaping these relationships. Findings based on data collected from 17 studies indicate notable differences in the strength of relationships among ACC–NCC, ACC–CCC and NCC–CCC. Also the pattern of the correlations among the three components and behavioural support reveals interesting extensions and insights for further research into the robustness of this model, and on hitherto under-acknowledged discrepancies in behavioural support for commitment to change research.