Abstract

This dissertation investigates the conceptual and operational definitions of organizational identification (OID) across primary studies included in meta-analyses, with a focus on identifying the prevalence and impact of jingle and jangle fallacies. Using a systematic literature review, definitions were analyzed and coded. Cluster analysis revealed significant inconsistencies between how OID is defined and measured, exposing widespread jingle fallacies—where distinct constructs are labeled the same—and jangle fallacies—where similar constructs are labeled differently. Meta-analytic techniques further demonstrated that conceptual and operational clusters labeled as “OID” vary in their relationships with three key outcomes of interest: specifically, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. Notably, measures intended for OID were often applied to professional or team identification with minimal adaptation, contributing to theoretical fragmentation and construct confusion. These definitional inconsistencies compromise construct validity, hinder cumulative research, and may misguide organizational interventions. The study underscores the critical need for clearer construct definitions, improved alignment between theory and measurement, and more consistent reporting practices in both research and applied settings. The findings offer a roadmap for scholars and practitioners to mitigate logical fallacies and promote greater conceptual clarity and methodological rigor in the study of identification in organizational contexts.

Date of publication

2025

Document Type

Dissertation

Language

english

Persistent identifier

http://hdl.handle.net/10950/4867

Committee members

Kim Nimon, Greg Wang, Julie Gedro

Degree

PhD in Human Resource Development

Download

Share

COinS