In my paper, I am only testing the effects of affective commitment and normative commitment but not continuous commitment. I keep having a problem in my paper when I am creating a hypothesis. Can I combine it or do I have to keep them separate?
For example,
Training specificity will moderate the relationship between organizational commitment and intention to remain, such that the positive relationship between organisational commitment and intention to remain will be weakened for those given general training relative to those who are given specific and combination training
OR
Training specificity will moderate the relationship between affective organisational commitment and intention to intention to remain, such that the positive relationship between affective organisational commitment and intention to remain will be weakened for those given general training relative to those who are given specific and combination training
and
Training specificity will moderate the relationship between normative organisational commitment and intention to intention to remain, such that the positive relationship between normative organisational commitment and intention to remain will be weakened for those given general training relative to those who are given specific and combination training
Thank you.
How are you characterizing or defining these three kinds of commitment? The normative can be regarded as having an affective aspect or the affective can be regarded as having a normative aspect. If these notions have specific stipulated or technical senses in the literature you need to be explicit about that. Also, what more is there to organizational/continuous commitment in addition to the normative or affective? That needs to be made explicit too, and a case made for choosing to ignore it if that's what you want to do.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Organizational Psychology
- Training