Cognitive and Affective Identification in Organizational Settings Michael D. Johnson Frederick P. Morgeson Michigan State University Slides and paper available online at

Social Identification Development of the Construct Tajfel (1972) Both cognitive and affective dimensions “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” Turner (1982) Social identities are an integral part of the cognitive structure of the self-concept Ashforth & Mael (1989)

Social Identification Dimensions Cognitive “When a person’s self-concept contains the same attributes as those in the perceived organizational identity, we define this cognitive connection as organizational identification” (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994) Our definition: The thoughts or beliefs regarding the extent to which individuals define themselves on the basis of a social referent Affective Positive feelings about one’s membership, including pride, enthusiasm, and a sense of affiliation or “belongingness” with others (Albert et al., 1998) Our definition: the feelings individuals experience about themselves in relation to the social referent and the value they place on that social identity

Social Identification Measurement Most existing measures are cognitive in nature “I am very interested in what others think about my organization” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) Some include affective items (e.g., “I am glad to be a member of this company,” Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998) Many existing measures are target-specific “If a story in the media criticized the organization, I would feel embarrassed” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) “In my work group, there is a lot of team spirit among the members” (Riordan & Weatherly, 1999)

Study 1 Measure Development ItemAffective identification Cognitive identification I feel happy to be a student in the university I am proud to be a student in the university It feels good to be a student in the university If I were forced to leave the university, I would be very disappointed My self-identity is based in part on my membership in the university My membership in the university is very important to my sense of who I am My sense of self overlaps with the identity of the university If the university were criticized, it would influence how I thought about myself Eigenvalue % of variance

Study 2 Antecedents, Attitudes, & Outcomes Situational Determinants Target image Tenure with target Individual Differences Extraversion Neuroticism Cognitive ability Cognitive and affective identification Antecedents Commitment Satisfaction Attitudes Organizational citizenship behavior Involvement Behavioral Outcomes

Study 2 Hypotheses H1: Perceptions of organizational prestige are positively related to both cognitive and affective identification H2: Extraversion is positively related to both cognitive and affective identification H3: Agreeableness is (a) positively related to affective identification, but (b) unrelated to cognitive identification H4: Neuroticism is (a) positively related to cognitive identification, but (b) negatively related to affective identification H5: Cognitive ability is (a) negatively related to cognitive identification, but (b) unrelated to affective identification

Study 2 Hypotheses H6: Cognitive and affective identification are positively related to, and independently predict, organizational commitment H7: Cognitive and affective identification are positively related to, and independently predict, organizational satisfaction H8: Cognitive and affective identification are positively related to, and independently predict, organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational involvement behaviors Research Question: To what extent do the new cognitive and affective identification measures predict related attitudes and behavioral outcomes as well as the Mael measure?

Study 2 Results: Antecedents CorrelationsCognitive IDAffective IDMael ID Prestige.15**.41**.21** Extraversion.08.21**.20** Agreeableness * Neuroticism.15** Cognitive ability-.19** * RegressionCognitive IDAffective IDMael ID Prestige.13*.39**.20** Extraversion.05.12* Agreeableness Neuroticism.16** Cognitive ability-.17** * R2R

Study 2 Results: Attitudes and Outcomes CorrelationsCognitive IDAffective IDMael ID Commitment.47**.70**.63** Satisfaction.25**.54**.36** OCB.28**.36**.39** Org involvement.17**.18**.20** Prof development.16**.15**.21** RegressionCommitmentSatisfactionOCBsOrg involveProf develop Cognitive ID.21**.03.16**.11** Affective ID.62**.53**.29**.14**.10* R2R

Study 3 Field Validation CorrelationsDepartmentUniversity Cognitive IDAffective IDCognitive IDAffective ID Tenure Extraversion.05.19*.11.22** Agreeableness-.22** **-.07 Neuroticism.21**-.22**.17*-.09 Satisfaction.13.65**.06.34** Identification dimensions correlated.44 with the university as target, but only.24 with department as target Neuroticism again showed a positive relationship with cognitive identification, but also the expected negative relationship with affective identification Satisfaction was again predicted only by affective identification (both with the department and with the university)

Discussion Contributions Empirical separation of social identification into cognitive and affective dimensions Nomological network Limitations Common method variance University samples Cross-sectional data Future research Differential effects on the two dimensions Multiple social identities (Johnson et al., in press) Non-attitudinal outcomes Longitudinal research