Validation of a Measure of Perceived Union Support - CiteSeerX

Copyright 1994 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-9010/94/S3.00

Journal of Applied Psychology 1994, Vol. 79, No. 6, 971-977

Validation of a Measure of Perceived Union Support Lynn McFarlane Shore, Lois E. Tetrick, Robert R. Sinclair, and Lucy A. Newton Research on union member attitudes has focused chiefly on union commitment and union instrumentality, which has provided a limited view of the relationship of the union with its members. In this study a confirmatory factor analysis was done to evaluate the construct validity of a measure of perceived union support by examining its distinctiveness from union commitment and union instrumentality. A total of 287 members of a large telecommunications local in the Midwest completed a survey of union member attitudes. Results showed that perceived union support was a unidimensional scale that was distinct from union loyalty and union instrumentality. However, all three of these constructs were correlated, suggesting the need for future research to examine potential causal linkages.

Until recently, very few studies in the applied psychology or management literatures have focused on members' attitudes toward and perceptions of their unions. Starting with Gordon and his colleagues' pioneering work on union commitment (Gordon, Philpot, Burt, Thompson, & Spiller, 1980), a number of empirical (e.g., Fukami & Larson, 1984; Fullagar & Barling, 1989; Tetrick, Thacker, & Fields, 1989; Thacker, Fields, & Tetrick, 1989) and conceptual articles (Gallagher & Clark, 1989; Newton & Shore, 1992) have begun to appear on the topic of union member attitudes. The majority of these studies have focused on union commitment and, to a lesser extent, union instrumentality (Fullagar & Barling, 1989). This is in stark contrast to the research on attitudes of employees toward their employers, which includes a wide array of concepts and measures, many of which provide valuable insights into the nature of the employment relationship. This suggests the need for additional concepts and measures for understanding the nature of the relationship between the union and its members. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to provide construct validity evidence for a measure of perceived union support. Drawing from Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa's (1986) concept of perceived organizational support, perceived union support is based on members' global beliefs concerning the extent to which the union values their contributions and cares about their well-being. As such, perceived union support reflects the extent to which members view the union as being committed to them. The organizational commitment literature focusing on the

Lynn McFarlane Shore, Department of Management and W. T. Beebe Institute of Personnel and Employment Relations, Georgia State University; Lois E. Tetrick and Robert R. Sinclair, Department of Psychology, Wayne State University; Lucy A. Newton, School of Business, Berry College. We gratefully acknowledge Jay Egan and Shelly Lubbinge for their assistance in survey development and administration, J. J. Hill for data collection and preparation, and Kevin Barksdale for file development and merging. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynn McFarlane Shore, Department of Management, P.O. Box 4014, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302-4014.

971

relationship between the employee and his or her employing organization provides a basis for making predictions about attitudes toward the union. Like other writers in the union attitude area (e.g., Gordon et al., 1980), we are assuming that the relationship between individuals and organizations is a fundamental process, so that the literature on perceived organizational support is relevant to making predictions about perceived union support. Thus, we first review the literature on perceived organizational support. Then we discuss the research on union instrumentality and union commitment and link these concepts with perceived union support. We chose these two union attachment measures for comparison purposes in the present study because they have been researched fairly extensively (Newton & Shore, 1992), raising the question as to whether perceived union support is distinct from these well-established concepts. Perceived organizational support (and hence perceived union support as well) is based on a social exchange framework (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Blau (1964) described social exchange in the following way: "An individual who supplies rewarding services to another obligates him. To discharge this obligation, the second must furnish benefits to the first in turn" (p. 89). Unlike economic exchange, social exchange "involves unspecified obligations, the fulfillment of which depends on trust because it cannot be enforced in the absence of a binding contract" (p. 113). Thus, Eisenberger et al. (1986) argued that perceptions of organizational support create feelings of obligation that can be met by increased organizational commitment or by behaviors that support the goals of the organization. Empirical studies have found support for both of these links. First, several studies have found moderate to strong relationships between perceived organizational support and a number of different measures of organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Shore & Wayne, 1993). Second, perceived organizational support has been found to be associated with lower levels of absence (Eisenberger et al., 1986), conscientiousness in carrying out conventional job responsibilities, and innovation on behalf of the organization (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). In addition, Shore and Wayne (1993) found perceived organizational support to better predict subsequent organizational citizenship behavior, as well as some

972

SHORE, TETRICK, SINCLAIR, AND NEWTON

types of impression management behavior, than did either affective or continuance commitment. These results suggest the value of the social exchange framework underlying perceived support for explaining relationships between organizations and their members. Perceived union support also is based on social exchange; however, in this case the exchange relationship is between the union and its members. Exchange as an explanatory framework is not new to the industrial relations literature. Economic exchange underlies the notion of union instrumentality, which is denned as a cognitive assessment of the costs and benefits associated with union membership (Newton & Shore, 1992). Because both perceived union support and union instrumentality are based on exchange relationships, it is possible that they are redundant concepts. However, like Blau (1964), we view economic exchange and social exchange as fundamentally different processes. Whereas the former exchange is explicit and typically part of the contract negotiation process (e.g., improved benefits and working conditions for union membership), the latter type of exchange is based on give and take relationships where fulfillment of the exchange by each party is subjectively inferred (e.g., union concern for members for greater union participation). Thus, we will compare union instrumentality with perceived union support to determine the extent to which these concepts are distinct. Perceived union support and union commitment are both commitment concepts and therefore are conceptually linked. Gordon et al. (1980) defined union commitment as a desire to remain a member of the union, a willingness to put forth effort on behalf of the union, and a belief in and acceptance of the goals of the union. Gordon et al. developed a measure of Union Commitment and, based on an exploratory factor analysis, concluded that commitment was best represented by four underlying factors. The first factor was called Loyalty to the Union, because it reflected pride in being a union member and a realization of the benefits of membership in the union. Responsibility to the Union, the second factor, consisted of items focusing on the member's willingness to fulfill obligations pertaining to the protection of interests of the union. Willingness to Work for the Union was the third factor and consisted of items reflecting members' willingness to do extra work for the union. The fourth factor was called Belief in Unionism because it focused on the member's ideological beliefs in unionism. Although a number of exploratory factor analytic studies attempted to replicate Gordon et al.'s original factor structure with mixed results (Fullagar, 1986; Ladd, Gordon, Beauvais, & Morgan, 1982), two studies that used confirmatory factor analysis found support for the four factors of union commitment proposed by Gordon et al. (Thacker et al., 1989; Tetrick et al., 1989). Given that there are four subscales (consisting of the four factors) for union commitment, this raises the question as to whether some of the elements of union commitment might be less distinct from perceived union support than others. Although we expect all four subscales to be correlated with perceived union support, we predict that perceived union support will be distinct from union commitment for a number of reasons. First, although both perceived union support and union commitment reflect the nature of the relationship between the

union and the member, the former concept reflects member perceptions of the union's commitment to them whereas the latter represents members' reports of their commitment to the union. Second, Shore and Tetrick (1991) used confirmatory factor analysis to determine the distinctiveness of perceived organizational support from two measures of organizational commitment (affective and continuance commitment) and found that these three constructs were distinct. Thus, assuming that inferences can be drawn from the organizational commitment literature to the union commitment literature, we expect that perceived union support would be distinct from union commitment. Method

Sample All 1,050 members of a large telecommunications local in the midwestern United States were sent an attitude survey. A total of 287 completed surveys were returned (27% return rate). Although relatively low, this response rate is not uncommon in union attitude studies (see for example Fullagar, 1986). In addition, the gender composition of the sample (40% men and 60% women) was quite similar to that of the membership (44% men and 56% women), suggesting some support for the representativeness of the sample. The average age of the members responding to the survey was 42.5 years, with the youngest participant being 18 and the oldest 64. On average, the participants had worked for the company 18 years and in their present jobs 11.4 years. Forty-seven percent of the participants reported having had some college education, 35% indicated that they had completed high school, and 12% indicated that they had college degrees or some graduate work.

Measures and Procedure A cover letter printed on union stationery and signed by the local president and the first and second authors of this study, a survey questionnaire, and a computer-readable answer sheet were mailed to each participant. The cover letter stressed that participation was completely voluntary and that responses would be kept confidential. Two weeks after the survey administration, a reminder postcard was sent to all members who had not returned the survey. In addition, the union posted reminder notices at the work site. Included in the survey were measures of a variety of union attitudes, including Perceived Union Support, Union Commitment, and Union Instrumentality. The measure of Perceived Union Support used was adapted from an abridged version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support, a measure of perceived employer commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1986), as reported in Shore and Tetrick (1991). The 15 items, as modified, are shown in Table 1. The response scale for these items ranged from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree) and the coefficient alpha estimate of internal consistency was .96. The four dimensions of Union Commitment were assessed with 22 items of the Gordon et al. (1980) scale as reported in Tetrick et al. (1989), and again using a 5-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The 10-item Union Loyalty dimension had a coefficient alpha of .89; the 6-item Responsibility for the Union subscale had an alpha of .76, the 3-item Willingness to Work for the Union subscale had a coefficient alpha of .82, and the 3-item Belief in Unionism subscale had an alpha of .71. Union Instrumentality was measured by adapting existing measures (e.g., DeCotiis & LeLouarn, 1981; Fullagar & Barling, 1989) and by asking members to indicate the impact of the Local Union on 12 conditions of the employment relationship (e.g., wages, safety and health, company profitability, and job satisfaction).

973

PERCEIVED UNION SUPPORT

Table 1 Items and Standardized Item Loadings for Perceived Union Support Scale Item

X

My Local values my contribution to its well being. The Local fails to appreciate any extra effort frpm me. (r) The Local strongly considers my goals and values. My Local would ignore any complaint from me. (r) My Union Local disregards my best interests when it makes decisions that affect me. (r) Help is available from my Local when I have a problem. My Union Local really cares about my well being. My Local is willing to extend itself in order for me to perform my job to the best of my ability. My Local is willing to help me when I need a special favor. My Local cares about my general satisfaction at work. If given the opportunity, my Local would take advantage of me. (r) My Local shows very little concern for me. (r) My Local cares about my opinions. My Local takes pride in my accomplishments at work. My Local tries to make my job as interesting as possible.

.646 .395 .715 .666 .717 .675 .815 .547 .518 .659 .834 .831 .648 .463 .399

Note, (r) = reverse scored. Consistent with the conceptual work of Newton and Shore (1992), which suggested that union instrumentality can be conceptualized as ranging from positive (the union improves benefits and working conditions) to negative (the union harms benefits and working conditions), the response scale ranged from one (a very negative impact) to five (a very positive impact). The coefficient alpha estimate of internal consistency across the 12 issues was .92.

Analysis The analyses were conducted in two stages to examine the construct validity of perceived union support, union instrumentality, union loyalty, responsibility for the union, willingness to work for the union, and belief in unionism. First, the dimensionality of each scale (perceived union support, union instrumentality, and union commitment) was assessed separately using item-level confirmatory factor analysis based on the normed fit index (NFI) and the parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) as described in Mulaik et al. (1989). Once it was demonstrated that the items were congeneric measures of the underlying constructs tapped by the scale, that is, the items for a given dimension represented a single factor (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1979, 1989), three composite, "short-forms" of the scales were computed to serve as indicators of the higher order constructs of interest (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Each individual item for a dimension was randomly assigned to one of the three item parcels for each construct and then the items in each parcel were averaged to form the manifest indicator. This procedure is deemed to enhance the reliability of each indicator over single items while reducing the number of parameters to be estimated, given the number of participants in the study and maintaining a congeneric measurement model (Reuterberg & Gustafsson, 1992). Once the indicators were formed, the covariance matrix among the multiple indicators was computed and submitted to confirmatory factor analysis. Discriminant validity among the constructs was assessed by comparing the NFI and PNFI among nested models in which perceived union support and union instrumentality were collapsed into one factor and an alternative model in which perceived union support and union loyalty were collapsed into one factor.

Results Prior to examining the discriminant validity of union commitment (UC), perceived union support (US), and union in-

strumentality (UI), it was necessary to assess the unidimensionality of each scale separately. Dimensionality of Perceived Union Support As shown in Table 2, the one-factor model of the Perceived Union Support scale adequately accounted for the covariance among the item responses (NFI = .912, PNFI = .782). All factor loadings, as shown in Table 1, were significant, with / values greater than 2.00. The 15 individual items were then randomly assigned to form three composite indicators based on 5 items each of perceived union support for subsequent analyses. Dimensionality of Union Commitment Scales Several studies have addressed the dimensionality of Gordon et al.'s (1980) Union Commitment scale, and it was not our intent to revisit this issue here. The four-factor model consisting of Union Loyalty, Responsibility for the Union, Willingness to Work for the Union, and Belief in Unionism adequately accounted for the data (NFI = .854, PNFI = .750, as shown in Table 2). All factor loadings were significant, with t values greater than 2.00. However, given that all four dimensions of union commitment were strongly related to one another, two additional models were estimated, a one-factor model and a two-factor model. The one-factor model did not adequately account for the covariance among the item responses (NFI = .762, PNFI = .689). Similarly, a two-factor model comparable to the structure proposed by Friedman and Harvey (1986), in which items measuring Loyalty and Belief loaded on one factor and items measuring Willingness to Work for the Union and Responsibility for the Union loaded on a second factor was estimated. This two-factor model did not adequately account for the covariance among the item responses (NFI = .764, PNFI = .688). Therefore, the four dimensions of union commitment were retained for subsequent analyses. Items from the Union Loyalty and Responsibility for the Union subscales each were

974

SHORE, TETRICK, SINCLAIR, AND NEWTON

Table 2 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Individual Scales

x2

df

GFI

AGFI

RMSR

NFI

PNFI

304.64 3452.46

90 105

.874 .166

.833 .047

.026 .465

.912

.782

709.41 704.15 436.46 2982.27

203 208 203 231

.799 .800 .872 .257

.757 .757 .840 .186

.069 .069 .057 .356

.762 .764 .854

.689 .688 .750

396.02 330.95 1963.86

54 53 66

.817 .830 .285

.736 .750 .155

.055 .054 .325

.798 .831

.653 .667

Model Union support 1 factor Null model Union commitment 1 factor 2 factor 4 factor Null model Union instrumentality 1 factor 2 factor Null model

Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSR = root-mean-square residual; NFI = normed fit index; PNFI = parsimonious normed fit index.

randomly assigned within each dimension to form three indicators for each dimension for use in subsequent analyses. Because there were only three items for the Willingness to Work for the Union and Belief in Unionism subscales, it was necessary to retain single item indicators for these two dimensions in subsequent analyses.

Dimensionality of Perceived Union Instrumentality A single factor model of the perceived union instrumentality items was fit to the item covariance matrix, resulting in a NFI of .798 and a PNFI of .653 (see Table 2). All factor loadings were significant, with / values greater than 2.00. Examination of the modification indices of the theta delta matrix representing the unique variances among the items suggested that the fit could be improved. To develop an alternative model, six scholars in industrial relations examined the 12 issues included in the items and proposed a two-factor model. The first factor reflected traditional, collective bargaining issues (wages, benefits, job security, promotions, work hours, and health and safety) and the second factor reflected less traditional areas of collective bargaining (employee productivity, working conditions, treatment of employees, employee-management relations, job satisfaction, and company profitability). This two-factor model represented a significant improvement in fit and adequately accounted for the data (NFI = .831, PNFI = .667). Again, all factor loadings were significant, with t values greater than 2.00.

Discrimination Among UC, US, and UI The covariance matrix among the indicators of the four dimensions of union commitment, perceived union support, and perceived union instrumentality was computed and submitted to further confirmatory factor analyses to assess the discriminant validity of the measures. (Note that the covariance matrix among the indicators is not included due to space considerations; however, it is available from the authors.) The initial model estimated retained all 7 factors and yielded a NFI of .923

and a PNFI of .738 as shown in Table 3, indicating that the seven-factor model adequately accounted for the data. All the estimated factor loadings were significant, with t values greater than 2.00. However, as shown in Table 4, some of the correlations among the latent variables were very high (i.e., the correlation between the two instrumentality factors was .83, and the correlation between perceived union support and union loyalty was .87), suggesting that some of the factors might be redundant and might not demonstrate sufficient discriminant validity. Given the strong correlation between the two factors of union instrumentality when examining the dimensionality of the scale, a six-factor model was estimated collapsing the two factors of union instrumentality. This six-factor model resulted in a x2(174, N = 287) = 439.46; AX2(6, N = 287) = 70.36, p < .05. The NFI dropped to .908 and the PNFI increased to .752, indicating that this was a more parsimonious model that adequately accounted for the data. Therefore, although the itemlevel confirmatory factor analysis of the union instrumentality measure suggested that the two factors should be retained, it was concluded that the two factors of perceived union instrumentality were not distinguishable when the other variables were included in the analyses. To test the discriminant validity of perceived union support from union instrumentality and union commitment, two additional models were estimated. First, a five-factor model was estimated in which the indicators of perceived union support loaded on the same factor as the indicators of union instrumentality. This resulted in a significant increase in chi-square, AX2(5, N = 287) = 391.91, p < .05, with the NFI and PNFI dropping to .826 and .704, respectively. This indicates that perceived union support is not equivalent to perceived union instrumentality, although they are significantly related to each other (r = .77). The second model estimated also was a five-factor model; however, in this model the indicators of perceived union support and the indicators of union loyalty were constrained to load on the same factor. Union loyalty, as a dimension of union commitment, was chosen because it has been purported to be most

975

PERCEIVED UNION SUPPORT

Table3 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Perceived Union Support, Union Instrumentality, and the Four Dimensions of Union Commitment Model

X2

df

GF1

AGF1

RMSR

NFI

PNFI

7 factors8 6 factors" 5 factors0 5 factors" 1 factor Null Model

369.10 439.46 832.37 680.81 1498.70 4775.63

168

.894 .876 .741 .793 .589 .185

.854 .836 .666 .733 .498 .104

.038 .037 .046 .040 .079 .314

.923 .908 .826 .857 .686

.738 .752 .704 .731 .617

174

179 179 189 210

Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSR = root-mean-square residual; NFI = normed fit index; PNFI = parsimonious normed fit index. "Union loyalty, responsibility for the union, willingness to work for the union, belief in unionism, perceived union support, and two factors of perceived union instrumentality. b Collapses the two factors of union instrumentality into one factor. c Collapses perceived union support and union instrumentality into one factor. " Collapses perceived union support and union loyalty into one factor.

increase in chi-square of 80.34 with 5 df(p < .05), indicating that the relations were not equal as a group. Further tests indicated that there were no significant differences between the correlations of union support with the two instrumentality factors (rs = .72 and .75, respectively) and the correlations of union loyalty with the two instrumentality factors (rs = .68 and .69, respectively); addition of the corresponding equality constraints resulted in a chi-square of 5.35 with 2 df(p > .05). However, there were significant differences in the relation between union loyalty and the other three dimensions of union commitment (r = .65 with Responsibility, .73 with Willingness, and .80 with Belief) and the relation between union support and these same three dimensions of union commitment (r = .51 with Responsibility, .57 with Willingness, and .56 with Belief); addition of equality constraints resulted in an increase in chi-square of 73.70 with 3 df(p < .05). Therefore, although perceived union support and union loyalty were equally related to instrumentality, union loyalty was more strongly related to the other dimensions of union commitment than was union support.

closely aligned with affective commitment (Kelloway & Barling, 1993; Tetrick, 1989) and the correlation between union loyalty and union support from the seven-factor model was .87, the highest correlation among the seven dimensions in that model. This five-factor model produced a x2(179, N = 287) = 680.81, and resulted in a significant increase in chi-square over the sixfactor model, AX2(5, N = 287) = 241.35, p < .01, and declines in the NFI and PNFI to .857 and .731, respectively. The decrement in fit was not as large when collapsing perceived union support and union loyalty as when perceived union support and union instrumentality were collapsed onto one factor; however, examination of the pattern of fit indices supports the six-factor model as the best fitting, most parsimonious model tested. The results of the tests of these nested models support the discriminant validity of perceived union support from union loyalty and instrumentality. Further evidence of discriminant validity is found by examining the correlations of union support and union loyalty with the other variables as shown in Table 4. Although perceived union support was strongly related to union loyalty (r = .87), a comparison of union support and union loyalty showed there were differential relations with the other variables. Setting equality constraints between union support and union loyalty in relation to each of the remaining five variables resulted in an

Discussion The major purpose of this study was to assess the construct validity of the Union Support scale by assessing the distinctive-

Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among the Four Dimensions of Union Commitment, Perceived Union Support, and Perceived Union Instrumentality Factor

M

SD

1. Union loyalty 2. Responsibility for the union 3. Willingness to work for the union 4. Belief in unionism 5. Perceived union support 6. Union instrumentality 1 7. Union instrumentality 2

3.32 3.55 2.94 3.24 3.26 3.68 3.47

.72 .63

.89 .65

.88 .83 .96 .68 .73

.73 .80 .87 .68 .69

.76 .51 .67 .51 .33 .41

.82 .56 .57 .43 .49

.71 .56 .46 .48

.96 .72 .75

.83 .83

Note. All correlations are significant at the .001 level; coefficient alpha estimates of internal consistency are given in bold on the diagonal.

.88

976

SHORE, TETRICK, SINCLAIR, AND NEWTON

ness of perceived union support relative to union commitment and union instrumentality. The results supported the construct validity of this scale by showing that perceived union support was distinct from union loyalty (a facet of union commitment) and union instrumentality. In addition, we found perceived union support to be unidimensional and to be highly reliable. Thus, the evidence clearly supports the Union Support scale as a good measure of perceived union support. We found mixed evidence on the dimensionality of the union instrumentality measure. When evaluated independently, union instrumentality appeared to consist of two highly correlated factors. However, when we tested the model with all the union attitude measures concurrently, union instrumentality appeared to be unidimensional. This lack of a clear factor structure suggests potential problems with the union instrumentality scale. One possibility is that some of the questions asked might not fit with members' notions of the issues of most concern to the union. For example, job satisfaction and company profitability are issues that have been traditionally viewed as the domain of the employer rather than the union. An instrumentality measure that focuses on the more traditional collective bargaining issues (e.g., wages, benefits, and job security) might produce a clearer factor structure. Another reason why the union instrumentality measure may have been somewhat problematic in the present study is that this concept was initially designed and used to understand union certification voting behavior (DeCotiis & LeLouarn, 1981; Fiorito & Greer, 1982; Heneman & Sandver, 1983; Klandermans, 1986; Premack & Hunter, 1988; Zalesny, 1985). Although instrumentality has also been used more recently in studies of current members (e.g., Fullagar & Barling, 1989), it may be that union instrumentality is more meaningful to members when they are considering bringing in a union than when a union is already in place. When looking at the attitudes of present union members, it might be more appropriate to ask members about their perceptions of union effectiveness rather than the instrumentality of the union. On the other hand, a number of studies in the organizational commitment literature suggest that calculative forms of attachment are related to a number of important outcome variables, such as performance and citizenship (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989; Shore & Wayne, 1993). Thus, further work is clearly needed on union instrumentality to better understand this type of unionmember exchange. An issue when comparing union instrumentality and union support is that whereas the former construct is based on economic exchange, the latter is based on social exchange. The traditional approach taken in the industrial relations literature has been predicated on the assumption that member attachment to the union is primarily calculative, or economically based. However, the present results suggest that members also assess the social exchange relationship between themselves and the union. Consistent with this view, Zalesny (1985) proposed that as a member's economic benefits increase, the non-economic aspects of the job become more salient and the importance of the affective relationship increases. Thus, future research is needed that compares union instrumentality and perceived union support to determine which form of exchange is most representa-

tive of the way in which new and tenured members view their relationship with the union. Our results pertaining to union commitment suggest a number of conclusions. First, as did previous researchers (Gordon et al., 1980; Thacker et al., 1989; Tetrick et al., 1989), we found evidence that the four dimensions of union commitment were highly correlated, but distinct. In addition, all four dimensions were distinguishable from union instrumentality and union support. This pattern of results was quite consistent with research by Shore and Tetrick (1991), who found perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and continuance commitment to be distinct constructs. Similarly, as with Eisenberger et al.'s (1986) research on the employer-employee relationship, we found union loyalty to be highly related to perceived union support (r = .87). This similar pattern for union and organizational attitudes suggests that conclusions about these constructs may generalize from the organizational domain to the union domain, providing further support of their robustness. Second, although union instrumentality is thought to underlie union loyalty (Gordon et al., 1980), our confirmatory factor analysis results suggested that these constructs are distinct. Further evidence for the distinctiveness of these constructs was shown by the pattern of correlations whereby (a) instrumentality was similarly related to loyalty and perceived union support and (b) loyalty was more strongly related to union support than to instrumentality. This pattern of results raises questions as to how union instrumentality, union support, and union loyalty are related, particularly in light of prior literature linking loyalty and instrumentality (Fullagar & Barling, 1989; Gordon et al., 1980). Perhaps union instrumentality provides the basis for the development of union loyalty in new members (Newton & Shore, 1992), but once membership is established, union support underlies both union loyalty and union instrumentality. Another possibility is that both social (union support) and economic (instrumentality) exchanges with the union encourage loyalty among union members, though the present results suggest that social exchange may be more important for current members of the union. Additional research is clearly needed that further explores the relationships among union support, commitment, and instrumentality. This study has a number of implications. Theoretically, there is somewhat limited research examining the perceived relationship between members and their union. Most of the industrial relations research on union attitudes has focused on factors that predict voting in favor of the union during the certification process (DeCotiis & LeLouarn, 1981; Fiorito & Greer, 1982; Heneman & Sandver, 1983; Klandermans, 1986; Premack & Hunter, 1988; Zalesny, 1985), providing limited knowledge about current union members. Although the management and industrial/organizational psychology literatures have focused on current union members, the majority of studies have examined union commitment or dual commitment (i.e., commitment to the company and the union concurrently). In light of the literature showing that different forms of commitment (e.g., perceived organizational support, affective and continuance commitment) are differentially related to a variety of important organizational outcomes (e.g., job performance and organizational citizenship behavior), it is critical that the same sort of

PERCEIVED UNION SUPPORT

conceptual development occur in the union setting. The present study provides the first step toward achieving that goal. In addition, the dramatic decline of unions in the past decade (Farber, 1990) signifies the importance of better understanding the nature of the relationships that occur between members and their unions. The present study suggests that members who do not perceive the union as supportive will also be less committed. Because union viability depends on member commitment and participation, the present study of perceived union support provides initial information for addressing these union concerns. Future research should link perceived union support, union instrumentality, and union commitment with participation in union activities to further develop the literature on relationships between members and unions. In conclusion, this study suggests that perceived union support, union commitment, and union instrumentality are distinct but related constructs. This was an important first step in establishing the construct validity of perceived union support. Several studies are needed to build on the present findings. Development of conceptualizations that help explicate the underlying basis for perceived union support is particularly needed. In addition, work that compares union support, commitment, and instrumentality in terms of how these constructs relate to one another as well as potential links with important outcomes such as union participation would contribute to the literature. Finally, most of the literature on union attitudes has been somewhat narrow in scope. The present study suggests the importance of more fully exploring the nature of the relationship between members and their union. References Anderson, J. C, & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. DeCotiis, T. A., & LeLouarn, J. (1981). A predictive study of voting behavior in a representation election using union instrumentality and work perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 103-118. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. Farber, H. S. (1990). The decline of unionization in the United States: What can be learned from recent experience? Journal of Labor Economics, 8, 75-105. Fiorito, J., & Greer, C. (1982). Determinants of U. S. unionism: Past research and future needs. Industrial Relations, 21, 1-19. Friedman, L., & Harvey, R. J. (1986). Factors of union commitment: The case for a lower dimensionality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 371-376. Fukami, C. V., & Larson, E. W. (1984). Commitment to company and union: Parallel models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 367-371. Fullagar, C. (1986). A factor analytic study on the validity of a union commitment scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 129-136. Fullagar, C., & Barling, J. (1989). A longitudinal test of a model of the

977

antecedents and consequences of union loyalty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,213-227. Gallagher, D. C., & Clark, P. F. (1989). Research on union commitment: Implications for labor. Labor Studies Journal, 14, 52-71. Gordon, M. E., Philpot, J. W, Hurt, R. E., Thompson, C. A., & Spiller, W. E. (1980). Commitment to the union: Development of a measure and an examination of its correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 479-499. Heneman, H. G., & Sandver, M. H. (1983). Predicting the outcome of union certification elections: A review of the literature. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36, 537-559. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models. New York: University Press of America. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS. Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (1993). Members' participation in local union activities: Measurement, prediction, and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 262-279. Klandermans, B. (1986). Psychology and trade union participation: Joining, acting, quitting. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 189-204. Ladd, R. T, Gordon, M. E., Beauvais, L., & Morgan, R. L. (1982). Union commitment: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 640-644. Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Coffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 432-454. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stillwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445. Newton, L. A., & Shore, L. M. (1992). A model of union membership: Instrumentality, commitment, and opposition. Academy of Management Review, 17, 275-298. Premack, S. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1988). Individual unionization decisions. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 223-234. Reuterberg, S., & Gustafsson, J. (1992). Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability: Testing measurement model assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 795-811. Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637-643. Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: A comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774-780. Tetrick, L. E. (1989, June). Relations among the four dimensions of union commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Tetrick, L. E., Thacker, J. W., & Fields, M. W. (1989). Evidence for the stability of the four dimensions of the commitment to the union scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 819-822. Thacker, J. W., Fields, M. W., & Tetrick, L. E. (1989). The dimensionality of the Union Commitment Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 228-232. Zalesny, M. D. (1985). Comparison of economic and noneconomic factors in predicting faculty vote preference in a union representation election. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 243-256.

Received September 27, 1993 Revision received April 26, 1994 Accepted April 28, 1994 •