1990
DOI: 10.5465/ambpp.1990.4980406
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Developing Act Frequency Measures of Organizational Behaviors.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, the acts that were best able to differentiate were those that were in the top quartile of the Cooper et al (1990) prototypicality study, that is, the most prototypical loyalty acts. Of the 10 most prototypical acts, all are clearly active in nature (and three comprised the active loyalty measure in Study 1) and all differentiated between high-and low-loyalty target persons (Table III).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…In particular, the acts that were best able to differentiate were those that were in the top quartile of the Cooper et al (1990) prototypicality study, that is, the most prototypical loyalty acts. Of the 10 most prototypical acts, all are clearly active in nature (and three comprised the active loyalty measure in Study 1) and all differentiated between high-and low-loyalty target persons (Table III).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This distinction was first raised by Farrell (1983) in categorizing the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect responses, but it may also prove useful in interpreting loyalty. The distinction between active and passive is also evident when the items studied by Cooper et al (1990) are examined. That is, a key difference between the prototypical loyalty items and the Farrell loyalty items is that the former are active while the latter are passive.…”
Section: Summary Of the Loyalty Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations