thesis.final

Social Exchange and Value Congruence 1

Running Head: Social Exchange and Value Congruence

Interactive effects of perceived organizational support and person-organization fit on

citizenship behaviors and turnover intentions

Selin Işıl Özcan

Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany,

Rudolf Kerschreiter

Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany

Dieter Frey

Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany

Author Notes

We are grateful to Terrie Jarvis, Yeliz Özbay and Müfide Gülsün for their help in the collection

of data used in this article. We also thank Nika Yugay for her advice on data analysis strategies

Joana Walter, Ayleen Frete and Cynthia Marie Brown for their very helpful comments and

suggestions on the earlier versions of this manuscript. Address correspondence to: Rudolf

Kerschreiter, Institute of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Leopoldstr.

13, 80802 Munich, Germany, Phone: 0049 89 2180 2274, email: [email protected]

Date of Submission: June 2009

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

Past research has focused on the differential relationships of perceived organizational support

(POS) and person organization fit (P-O fit) with attitudes and behavior. However, no

systematic effort has been undertaken yet to explore interactive effects between POS and P-O

fit to predict job withdrawal and extra-role behaviors. The relationship of support with

citizenship behaviors is proposed to be stronger for those experiencing high P-O fit. On the

other hand, the relationship of support with withdrawal is proposed to be weaker for those

experiencing high P-O fit. These hypotheses were tested and supported with 282 participants

from one German and two Turkish companies.

Key words: Perceived organizational support (POS), person-organization fit (P-O fit), value

congruence, citizenship behaviors, turnover intentions.


Interactive effects of perceived organizational support and person-organization fit on

citizenship behaviors and turnover intentions

Psychologists have shown widespread interest in the role of exchange processes in

organizations (Gould, 1979; Rousseau, 1990; Witt, 1992; Witt & Broach, 1993). A dominant

framework underpinning much of the research in this area is social exchange theory. Social

exchange theory is based on the norm of reciprocity, which obligates people to respond

positively to favorable treatment received from others (Gouldner, 1960). According to

Levinson (1965), people tend to ascribe traits or qualities to organizations through a process of

"personification" for a variety of reasons. In line with the norm of reciprocity, the employees

have a sense of indebtedness to the personified organization when they receive a favorable

treatment by the organization (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986).

Accordingly, employees are motivated to compensate beneficial treatment by showing a range

of positive employee attitudes and behaviors at work such as job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, various forms of citizenship and discretionary behavior, attendance and intentions

to stay (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Consistent with this view, Eisenberger et al. (1986) developed the Perceived

Organizational Support (POS) construct, in which employees form a general perception

concerning the degree to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their

well-being. On the basis of the organization’s personification, the favourable and unfavourable

treatment is seen by the employees as an indication that the organization favours or disfavours

them (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

In addition to creating a felt obligation by the employees, POS might fulfil

socioemotional needs, leading workers to incorporate organizational membership and role

status into their social identity (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Furthermore, POS might

strengthen employees’ beliefs that they are more recognized and rewarded by their organization


because of their increased performance. As a result, these processes might have favourable

outcomes both for employees, such as increased satisfaction and positive mood, and for the

organization, such as increased affective commitment and performance and reduced turnover

(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Other than perceived organizational support, work behaviors of the employees are mainly

affacted by the fit with their organizations. This important concept which has received

extensive conceptual development and empirical investigation over the last two decades is

known as the Person-Organization Fit (P-O Fit). P-O fit theory is based on two basic

assumptions: firstly, human behavior is a function of the person and the environment; secondly,

the person and the environment need to be compatible (Kristof, 1996). Kristof (1996, p. 4–5)

defined P-O fit as ‘the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when at

least (a) one entity provides what the other needs, (b) they share similar fundamental

characteristics, or (c) both’. This definition points out the two most investigated types of fit

between the individual and the organization: complementary (providing what is needed) and

supplementary (similarity of characteristics) fit (Kristof, 1996). Complementary fit occurs

when individuals’ characteristics fill a gap in the current environment, or vice versa. On the

other hand, supplementary fit exists when the individual and the environment are similar.

An alternative model was proposed by Schneider (1987) to explain how organizations

tend toward homogeneity with regard to employee type. In particular, Attraction – Selection –

Attrition (ASA) theory has been investigated as an explanatory framework for P-O fit. The ASA

model outlines a framework of a mechanism which is based on mutual adaptation between the

person and the organization. People are attracted to organizations that have values similar to

their own (attraction), and organizations select people who share their values (selection).

Finally, individuals who do not fit the organization will leave voluntarily or be asked to leave

(attrition). The outcome of these three processes determines the types of employees in an


organization. Schneider (1987) pointed out that “the people make the place” and argued that

over time forces within an organization operate to attract, select and retain an increasingly

homogeneous group of employees. In other words, structure, process, and culture are the

outcome of the people in an organization, not the cause of the behavior of the organization.

Most research confirms Schneider’s ASA model (Bretz, Ash, & Dreher, 1989; Cable & Judge,

1994, 1997; Edwards & Cooper, 1990; Van Vianen, 2000; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith,

1995; De Cooman, De Gieter, Pepermans, Hermans, Du Bois, Caers, & Jegers, 2009).

These two dimensions of the P-O fit were used by organizational researchers to explain

workplace attitudes and behaviors (Fuller, Hester, Barnett, Frey, Relyea, & Beu, 2006;

O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Ostroff, Shin, & Kinicki, 2005). Meta-analyses of P-O

fit and outcomes revealed a significant relationship with work attitudes such as intentions to

quit, job satisfaction and organizational commitment and with behaviors such as organizational

citizenship, turnover, and performance (e.g. Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristof-Brown,

Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).

In the present study, we will firstly outline the perceived organizational support and the

person-organization fit concepts on the relationship between the individual and the

organization, particularly on job withdrawal and extra-role behavior. Then, we will explore the

interaction of social exchange and person-organization fit processes in predicting job

withdrawal and employee extra-role behavior.

Perceived organizational support (POS) and organizational behavior

On the basis of the reciprocity norm, individuals who perceive that their organization

values their contributions and cares about their well-being are obligated to increase their extra-

role performance (Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 1999). These positive emotional associations

and the feeling of obligation to support the organization lead employees to invest more in their

organization by showing increased performance and extra-role behaviors. In addition, POS was


found to be positively related to affective organizational commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo, &

Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997), help given to

co-workers (Shore & Wayne, 1993; Wayne et al., 1997; Witt, 1991), and constructive

proposals for improving the operations of the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1990).

Furthermore, Rhoades and Eisenberger’s (2002) meta-analysis on POS

included 20 performance studies and indicated that POS is highly related to

performance (e.g., Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Shore & Wayne,

1993). According to this meta-analysis, the relation between POS and extra-

role performance, activities that aid the organization but are not explicitly

required of employees, was stronger than the relation between POS and

performance of standard job activities (in-role performance). Further studies

support the conclusion that there is a positive relation between POS and

extra-role performance (Byrne & Hochwarter, 2006; Wayne, Shore,

Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002).

The relation between POS and turnover intentions is of particular interest because POS

has been found to be strongly associated with turnover intentions (Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron,

1994; Wayne, et al., 1997). In their meta-analysis, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found a

mean corrected correlation of -.51 between POS and turnover intentions, and a mean corrected

correlation of -.11 between POS and turnover behavior. The decision of the employees to

continue or to quit their job depends on the satisfaction level of the employees with this “give

and take” in the relationship between employee and organization. As Robinson and Rousseau

(1994) pointed out, this relationship based on reciprocity can be seen as a psychological

contract between the individual and organization. When the individuals are satisfied with the

degree of that relationship, they will be motivated to continue, and the organization may expect

individuals’ active involvement in the job. However, when individuals perceive that the


benefits received from the other party in the relationship as too low in comparison to one’s own

input in the relationship, they are more likely to leave their employers (Robinson & Rousseau,

1994) or show withdrawal behaviors, such as absenteeism, tardiness, and non-work activities

on the job (e.g., private e-mails, social talk) (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000).

In addition, POS motivates individuals that can potentially increase their instances of

positive mood at work. The studies indicate that such positive emotional associations with the

organization itself increase affective commitment (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, &

Rhoades, 2001) and decrease turnover intentions (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). The study of

Rhoades, Eisenberger and Armeli (2001) confirmed this linkage empirically, finding that the

POS effect on turnover was fully mediated through affective commitment.

Person-organization fit and organizational behavior

As in recent years, increasing attention has been devoted to understanding P-O fit, the

concept has been defined in a variety of ways including value congruence, goal congruence,

needs-supplies fit, and demands-abilities fit (Kristof, 1996; Munchinksy & Monahan, 1987).

However, value congruence (Kraimer, 1997), which involves the similarity between

organizational values and those of the organization’s employees, is the most frequently

assessed dimension of P-O fit (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006). Consistent to this, some researchers

pointed out that value congruence had a slightly stronger impact on turnover than other

dimensions of fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). Thus, in the

present study we were primarily interested in the values component and specifically the level of

congruence between the values of employees and their employing organization and the relation

of value congruence to turnover intentions and extra-role behavior.

The concept of value congruence is important to organizations because

it suggests that if peoples’ values fit well with an organization, individuals

are likely to exhibit more positive attitudes and behaviors and are less


likely to leave (Chatman, 1989; Kristof-Brown, 2000). This relation is

supported by the meta-analysis Verquer et al. (2003) who found that employees with

high levels of congruence on these value dimensions reported higher levels of job and

organizational satisfactions and organizational commitment. Furthermore, these employees

reported lower turnover intentions.

Consistent with Schneider's (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model, studies

supported that individuals are more likely to choose organizations with values that match their

own values (Cable & Judge, 1996; Judge & Bretz, 1992; Judge & Cable, 1997), be selected by

organizations with whom their values match (Cable & Judge, 1997; Kristof-Brown, 2000), and

are more likely to show withdrawal behavior if their values do not match (Cable & Parsons,

2001; Chatman, 1991; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).

In addition, employees with low value congruence are less likely to achieve high levels of

intrinsic career success. According to Erdogan, Kraimer & Liden (2004), this intrinsic

motivation is based on three mechanisms. Firstly, individuals who have different values from

the organization's values will have different standards for guiding actions and interpreting

situational events (Rokeach, 1968). Therefore, they experience difficulty in communicating and

cooperating with other organizational members (Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Kalliath,

Bluedorn, & Strube, 1999) which cause lower job satisfaction (Locke, 1976). For the same

reason, those individuals will face some problems in achieving personal career goals (Arthur &

Rousseau, 1996). Secondly, those employees with low value congruence are more likely to

experience cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). According to cognitive dissonance theory,

individuals feel dissatisfaction with their experiences when they behave in ways that are

inconsistent with their beliefs or values. Therefore, employees with low value congruence may

perceive cognitive dissonance and experience feelings of alienation, resentment, and

dissatisfaction (Argyris, 1957). Finally, those individuals are less likely to show identification


to their organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Cable & DeRue, 2002; Dutton, Dukerich, &

Harquail, 1994; Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970). Organizational identification allows

individuals to feel a sense of belonging and share in the organization's successes and failures

(Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Masterson & Stamper, 2003). Research has found that employees

who identify with the organization tend to show more extra-role behavior (Bell & Menguc,

2002; Feather & Rauter, 2004; Van Dick, Van Knippenberg, Kerschreiter, Hertel, & Wieseke,

2008) and lower turnover intentions (Harris & Cameron, 2005; Mignonac, Herrbach, &

Guerrero, 2006; Riketta, 2005).

The present study

Both turnover intentions and extra-role behaviors have been explained by social exchange

theory and P-O fit theory, but they use different processes to underlie those outcomes. The

social exchange perspective expounds the withdrawal from the job as a result of dissatisfaction

with the exchange relationship between the individual and his or her exchange partner. On the

contrary, when individual perceive more support from their organization they feel an obligation

toward the organization and, as a result of the reciprocity feeling, they refrain from withdrawal

and show extra-role behaviors and higher performance. The P-O fit theory, however, argues

that people with high value congruence are likely to exhibit more positive

attitudes and behaviors and they are less likely to leave because they are

highly identified with their organization, intrinsically motivated and less

likely to experience cognitive dissonance. In addition, people with low value

congruence might face difficulties following standards for guiding actions and

interpreting situational events which might cause low job performance, goal achievements and

job satisfaction (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). We do not see these two perspectives to be

contrary, but quite the opposite; we regard P-O fit as an alternative source of support which can


help employees cope with the challenges of low POS. Therefore, our main aim is to explain

how these processes relate to each other in determining organizational behavior.

Although these two processes are not contradictory, they have different antecedents.

Thus, they can work out differently. Positive evaluations of social exchange relationships

depend on the satisfaction level of the employees with the reciprocity in the relationship

between employee and organization (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). According to the

organizational support theory of Eisenberger et al. (1986), POS increases when three general

forms of perceived favourable treatment (fairness, supervisor support and organizational

rewards and job conditions) are received from the organization.

On the other hand, P-O fit is based on the context-dependent perceptions of similarity

between organizational values and those of the organization’s employees (Kristof, 1996). In

general, value congruence is a very stable concept which can change very slowly. According to

the ASA framework (Schneider, 1987), the attraction-selection-attrition processes lead

organizations toward homogeneity with regard to employee type (Dickson, Resick, &

Goldstein, 2008). In the last part of that process (attrition), the individual stays or leaves the

organization depending on his or her original values. On the contrary, following socialization

theory, the individual might adapt his or her values depending on the organizational

environment (Chatman, Wong, & Joyce, 2008).

We expect that P-O fit may compensate for the negative implications of low POS for

turnover intentions and extra-role behavior by encouraging people to identify more with their

companies and experience less cognitive dissonance. Although employees with low POS are

less likely to identify with the organization, through P-O fit, they may still feel like they share

common values and characteristics with their organization. Because of the consistency with

their beliefs and values, those individuals feel satisfied with their experiences. Hence, they will


display more interaction and collaboration with other organizational members and will show

less withdrawal behaviors. Accordingly, we propose that:

Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between perceived organizational support (POS)

and citizenship behaviors will be stronger for those experiencing high person-organization fit

(P-O fit) and weaker for those experiencing low person-organization fit (P-O fit).

Hypothesis 2: The negative relationship between perceived organizational support (POS)

and turnover will be stronger for those experiencing low person-organization fit (P-O fit) and

weaker for those experiencing high person-organization fit (P-O fit) (see Figure 1).

Method

Sample and procedure

282 respondents from three organizations completed our survey. The sample of

organizations was taken from various industries, including insurance, financial and IT. Two of

the companies were Turkish companies located in Istanbul, and the third company was the

headquarters of a German company located in Munich. The collection process was anonymous

and participation was voluntary. Of the 373 employees who received the questionnaire, we

obtained 295 responses, equivalent to a response rate of about 79 percent. The number of

usable questionnaires was 282. The mean age of respondents was 34 years (46 respondents did

not indicate their age) and 61% of the sample was male (20 respondents did not indicate their

gender). Among participants, 19% were supervisors (21 respondents did not indicate if they

were a supervisor or not). Participants were employed on average 7.0 years (31 respondents did

not indicate their organizational tenure) in their current companies and have been working on

their current positions an average of 4.1 years (34 respondents did not indicate their job tenure).

Questionnaire

POS was assessed, following Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997), with

the five items of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support that loaded highest in the


Eisenberger et al. (1997) study. Items included “My organization really cares about my well-

being,” and “My organization shows little concern for me” (reverse-scored; see Appendix 1 for

the complete scale). Coefficient alpha of this scale was .86.

Person–organization fit was measured with a 3-item scale used by Cable and DeRue

(2002). Items included “My personal values match my organization’s values and culture,” and

“My organization’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life”

(see Appendix 1 for the complete scale). Coefficient alpha of this scale was .92.

Citizenship behaviors were assessed with the 7 items used by Coleman and Borman

(2000) to measure the motivation and cooperation level of the individuals. Items included “I

give encouragement when I am approached by others who are experiencing adversity or

setbacks,” and “I can generally be persuaded to sacrifice own personal interests for the good of

the team” (see Appendix 1 for the complete scale). Coefficient alpha of this scale was .87

Turnover intentions were assessed by a 3-item scale used by Van Dick, Christ,

Stellmacher, Wagner, Ahlswede, Grubba, Hauptmeier, Höhfeld, Moltzen, and Tissington

(2004). Items included “I frequently think of quitting,” “I often study job offers in the daily

press,” and “A job with a similar salary in another company would be an interesting alternative

to my present job.” Coefficient alpha was .79.

Responses to all items were assessed on 5-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =

strongly agree). Higher scores on the composite measures indicate higher perceived support,

person-organization fit, and turnover intentions, etc. Table 1 provides intercorrelations and

descriptive statistics for each scale. All materials were presented in Turkish for the Turkish

employees and in English for the employees in the German company because of the

multicultural sample.

Control Variables


We also controlled our sample for employees’ gender, age, and organizational tenure with

the organization. Participants were asked to indicate their gender. Responses were coded 1 for

male and 2 for female. Organizational tenure was calculated in years by asking the respondent

to indicate the year they began with the business with their current company and subtracting

this from the year of the survey (2009).

Results

We conducted hierarchical regression analyses to test our hypotheses. In Step 1, we

entered supervisor support and person-organization fit, and in Step 2, we entered the

interactions between supervisor support and person-organization fit. Following Aiken and West

(1991), we standardized the predictor variables before computing the interaction terms and

entered the standardized scores. The results are presented in Table 2.

As expected, both perceived organizational support and person-organization fit were

related negatively to turnover intentions and positively to citizenship behaviors. Of most

importance to the present discussion, the interaction of perceived organizational support and

person-organization fit was significant both for turnover intentions and citizenship behaviors.

Following Aiken and West (1991), we tested the simple slopes for respondents with higher

person-organization fit (i.e., 1 SD above the mean) and respondents with lower person-

organization fit (i.e., 1 SD below the mean) to determine the nature of the Perceived

Organizational Support X Person-Organization Fit interaction. In line with our hypothesis,

perceived organizational support was strongly and positively related to citizenship behaviors

for respondents with higher person-organization fit (b = .14 , p < .001), while the relationship

between perceived organizational support and citizenship behaviors was weaker for employees

who have lower person-organization fit (b = -.05, p < .05; see Figure 2). As we expected,

perceived organizational support was strongly and negatively related to turnover intentions for


respondents with lower person-organization fit (b = -.32, p < .001), while the relationship

between perceived organizational support and turnover intentions was weaker for employees

who have higher person-organization fit (b = -.10, p < .05; see Figure 2).1,2

General Discussion

We predicted that both the felt obligation to reciprocate induced by organizational

support and the value congruence established with the organization would introduce a

psychological threshold against job withdrawal but would aggravate extra-role behavior of the

individuals. Furthermore, we argued that evaluations of the extra-role behaviors in a social

exchange relationship would be less influential for those individuals whose values are less

congruent with the values of their organization. On the contrary, turnover intensions in that

social exchange relationship would be more influential for those individuals with low value

congruence. Based on that, we predicted that evaluations of support and value congruence

would interact in predicting job withdrawal and citizenship behaviors.

Both our hypotheses were supported. Perceived organizational support and P-O fit were

positively related to citizenship behaviors and negatively related to withdrawal. In addition,

value congruence buffered the impact of support on extra-role behaviors and withdrawal. As

we predicted, the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and extra-role

behaviors was stronger for those experiencing high P-O fit and weaker for those experiencing

low P-O fit. On the other hand, we discovered that the POS-turnover relationship was stronger

under conditions of low P-O fit than under conditions of high P-O fit. When individuals have

more value congruence with their companies, POS become a less important predictor of

turnover. POS becomes significantly more important when value congruence is nearly absent.

Employees may then seek out support from the organization itself, thereby making POS more

relevant for turnover decision-making.


Our study constitutes an attempt to examine the boundary conditions of POS. Our

findings may explain some of the weak relationships between POS and turnover intentions and

extra-role behaviors in prior research (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) by showing that the

strength of the relations between POS-turnover intentions and POS-citizenship behaviors varies

based on the degree of the individual’s value congruence with the organization. In other words,

under conditions of high P-O fit, it is possible to underestimate the relationship between POS

and turnover intentions. In contrast, we can underestimate the relationship between POS and

extra-role behaviors only under conditions of low P-O fit.

Limitations and directions for future research

A couple of limitations of the study deserve noting. First of all, there is the potential for

common method variance given the self report nature of our data. However, some problems of

common method variance are reduced with the type of our interaction hypotheses and the use

of hierarchical regression analyses. Since the individual predictors were already controlled in

the first step of the analysis, common method variation cannot artificially increase interaction

effects in regression analyses (McClelland & Judd, 1993). Future studies might investigate the

interactive effect of POS and P-O fit also with respect to behavioral indices such as in-role

performance that is assessed with supervisory or peer ratings.

A second limitation is that the cross-sectional design of the study does not provide a test

of causality. For the same reason we could not obtain an account for the variability of value

congruence over time.

Third, our use of a Turkish sample and an international sample (from the German

organization) may have implications for our results. Riordan and Vandenberg (1994) argued

that back translation procedures may not be sufficient to ensure construct equivalence. There

can be factor structure differences and conceptualization differences across countries which are

potential causes of construct inequality. In addition, our sample from the German company


consists of employees from various countries who are able to speak perfect English although

they are non-native speakers. This can be one of the disadvantages of the sample filling out the

English version of the questionnaire. Fourth, although our sample was composed of individuals

from different cultures, we did not use any measures to compare those cultural differences.

Thus, a follow-up research using those measures would be worthwhile.

In addition, because our sample was from 3 different sectors and work settings, we had

difficulty to obtain significant results for each sample. For the further research, more

participants from several sectors can be investigated to see the differences according to various

work settings.

Lastly, although we studied the possible moderator effect of P-O fit on the POS-turnover

intentions and extra-role behavior relationship, this relationship could be analyzed differently.

For further research, it can be suggested to look for evidence that the moderation effect of POS

on the relationship between the P-O fit and various behavioral outcomes such as performance,

organizational identification, job satisfaction and organizational commitment exists.

Practical implications

Our study offers important practical implications for organizations. Previous research

suggested that perceived organizational support is related to citizenship behaviors and

employee turnover intentions. Given this finding, organizations may decide to give more

support to their employees. Research in traditional (i.e., non-virtual) work contexts suggests

that contact with the organization and exposure to organizational ceremonies, symbols and

rituals are positively related to the degree of individuals’ identification with the organizations

(e.g., Dutton et al., 1994). These factors can trigger employees’ extra-role behaviors and soften

their turnover intentions. However, virtual workers may have less exposure to these specific

features of organizational life; there may be other cues that virtual workers are exposed to that

suggest that they are part of their organization such as value congruence with their


organizations. In conclusion, given the importance of this fact, virtual organizations in

particular should consider selecting those individuals who have higher matches with the values

of the organization. We believe the increasing number of virtual workers and their importance

to the “new economy” emphasize the importance of our findings.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

New York: Sage.

Argyris, C. (1957). The individual and organization: Some problems of mutual adjustment.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 1-24.

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career as a new employment

principle. In Arthur M. G., Rousseau D. M. (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new

employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 3-20). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Ashforth, B., & Mael F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Bell, S. J., & Menguc, B. (2002). The employee-organization relationship, organizational

citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality. Journal of Retailing, 78, 131–146.

Bretz, R. D., Jr., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place? An

examination of the attraction – selection – attrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology,

42, 561 – 581.

Byrne, Z. S., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). I get by with a little help from my friends: The

interaction of chronic pain and organizational support on performance. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 2006, 215-227.


Cable D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit

perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person –

organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317 – 348.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and

organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67,

294-311.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person – organization fit and

organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546 – 561.

Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit.

Personnel Psychology, 54, 1-23.

Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-

organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in

public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation:

Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 423-443.

Chatman, J. A., Wong, E. M., & Joyce, C. (2008). When do people make the place?

Considering the interactionist foundations of the attraction–selection– attrition model.

In B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Exploring dynamic linkages between

individuals and organizations (pp. 63–86). New York: Psychology Press.

Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the

citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25 – 44.


De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Hermans, S., Du Bois, C., Caers, R., & Jegers,

M. (2009). Person–organization fit: Testing socialization and attraction–selection–

attrition hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 102–107.

Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Goldstein, H. (2008). Seeking explanations in people not in

the results of their behavior: Twenty-plus years of the attraction–selection–attrition

model. In B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Exploring dynamic linkages

between individuals and organizations (pp. 5–36). New York: Psychology Press.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C.V. (1994). Organizational images and member

identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.

Edwards, J. R., & Cooper, C. L. (1990). The person – environment fit approach to stress:

Recurring problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

11, 293 – 307.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation

of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational

support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,

82, 812–820.

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.

Feather, N. T., & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviors in relation to job

status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and

work values. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 77, 81-94.


Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived external

prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification

process. Human Relations, 59, 815-846.

Gould, S. (1979). An equity-exchange model of organizational involvement. Academy of

Management Review, 4, 53-62.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and

correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for

the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.

Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. (1994). Expatriate managers and the psychological

contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 617–626.

Hall, D. T., Schneider B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational

identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-190.

Harris, G. E., & Cameron, J. E. (2005). Multiple dimensions of organizational identification

and commitment as predictors of turnover intentions and psychological well-being.

Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37, 159–169.

Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between

person–organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,

389–399.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77, 261-271.

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and

organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.


Kalliath, T. J., Bluedorn, A. C., & Strube, M. J. (1999). A test of value congruence effects.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1175-1198.

Kraimer, M. L. (1997). Organizational Goals and Values: A Socialization Model. Human

Resource Management Review, 7, 425–448.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,

measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.

Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters'

perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643-

671.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R., & Johnson, E. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit

at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-

supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.

Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions

of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454–

470.

Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370–390.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette MD (Ed.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand

McNally.

Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: inferior

versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,

467–483.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from Day 1: Biodata, organizational identification,

and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309–333.


Masterson, S. S., & Stamper, C. L. (2003). Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate

framework representing the employee-organization relationship. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 24, 473-490.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajack, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,

correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,

108, 171–194.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and

moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.

Mignonac, K., Herrbach, O., & Guerrero, S. (2006). The interactive effects of perceived

external prestige and need for organizational identification on turnover intentions.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 477-493

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational

support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational

citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person environment congruence.

Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

31, 268–277.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a

profile comparison approach to assessing person–organization fit. Academy of

Management Journal, 34, 487–516.

Ostroff, C., Shin, Y., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Multiple perspectives of congruence:

Relationships between value congruence and employee attitudes. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 591–623.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the

literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.


Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:

The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,

86, 825–836.

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 66, 358–384.

Riordan, C. M., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994). A central question in cross-cultural research: Do

employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent

manner? Journal of Management, 20, 643-671.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the

exception, but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A

study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389-400.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships

between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes.

Personnel Psychology, 50, 395-426.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.

Personnel Psychology, 48, 747 – 773.

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: Comparison of

affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774–780.


Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., Hauptmeier,

M., Höhfeld, C., Moltzen, K., & Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I stay or should I go?

Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction.

British Journal of Management, 15, 351-360,

Van Dick, R., Van Knippenberg, D., Kerschreiter, R., Hertel, G., & Wieseke, J. (2008).

Interactive effects of work group and organizational identification on job satisfaction

and extra-role behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 388-399.

Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). Person – organization fit: The match between newcomers’ and

recruiters’ preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53, 113 –

149.

Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between

person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473–

489.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment

and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590–598.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and

leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management

Journal, 40, 82–111.

Witt, L. A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes–organizational

citizenship behaviors relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1490–

1501.

Witt, L. A. (1992). Exchange ideology as a moderator of the relationships between importance

of participation in decision-making and job attitudes. Human Relations, 45, 73-85.


Witt, L. A., & Broach, D. (1993). Exchange ideology as a moderator of the procedural justice-

satisfaction relationship. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 97-103.

Footnotes

1The effects of all interaction terms remained significant when controlling for gender and

tenure. However, the interaction results were affected for both of the regression analyses when

age was included in the regressions (see Table 3 and 4).

2 For the first company (German company), both our hypotheses were supported (see

Table 6, Figure 3 in Appendix 2). When we controlled for age, gender and organizational

tenure, the effect of the interaction term remained significant for our second hypothesis but not

for our first hypothesis (see Table 7 in Appendix 2). Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and

scale intercorrelations are presented in Table 5 in Appendix 2.

For the second company (Turkish company 1), we could only support our second

hypothesis (see Table 9, Figure 4 in Appendix 2). When we controlled for age, gender and

organizational tenure, the effect of the interaction term remained significant (see Table 10 in

Appendix 2). Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and scale intercorrelations are presented in

Table 8 in Appendix 2.

For the third company (Turkish company 2), we could not find any significant results for

either of the hypothesis, neither with control variables (see Table 12 in Appendix 2) nor

without control variables (see Table 13, Figure 5 in Appendix 2). Descriptive statistics,

reliabilities, and scale intercorrelations are presented in Table 11 in Appendix 2.

The insignificant result of the moderating role of P-O fit can be explained with the

missing data when we controlled for age, gender and organizational tenure. Because of the high

level of missing data for the control variables, we faced the power problem which could

possibly impede to obtain significant results for our interaction analysis.


Table 1

Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Scale Intercorrelations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Sex 1.39 .49 -

2 Age 34.35 7.31 -.03 -

3 Tenure 7.04 6.24 .08 .75** -

4 POS 3.10 .95 -.17** -.30** -.40** .86

5 P-O fit 3.33 .96 -.04 -.19** -.22** .57** .92

6 Turnover intentions 1.78 .92 .01 .03 -.07 -.32** -.37** .79

7 Citizenship behaviors 4.08 .58 .02 .13 -.03 .25** .36** - .24** .87

Notes.

N = 282

Sex: 1=male, 2=female

Cronbach’s Alphas in diagonal;

* p < .05, ** p < .01


Table 2

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis with only company as a control variable

Citizenship behaviors Turnover intentions

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Variable B SE B B SE B B SE B B SE B

Company -.02 .04 -.03 .04 -.27** .06 -.28** .06

POS .04 .04 .03 .04 -.19** .06 -.21** .06

P-O Fit .18** .04 .20** .04 -.26** .06 -.24** .06

POS x P-O Fit .08* .03 .11* .05

Notes.

N = 280, Sex: 1=male, 2=female

* p < .05, ** p < .01


Table 3

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis with control variables (company, gender and

tenure)




Company -.07 .05 -.07 .05 -.23** .08 -.24** .08

Sex .04 .07 .05 .07 -.11 .11 -.09 .11

Tenure .00 .00 .00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00

POS .05 .05 .05 .05 -.22** .07 -.22** .07

P-O Fit .19** .04 .22** .04 -.27** .06 -.24** .06

POS x P-O Fit .08* .04 .11* .05

Notes.


* p < .05, ** p < .01


Table 4

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis with control variables (company, gender, age and

tenure)




Company -.06 .06 -.06 .06 -.23** .08 -.24** .08

Sex .08 .08 .08 .08 -.06 .11 -.05 .11

Age .03** .01 .03** .01 .01 .01 .01 .01

Tenure -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00

POS .05 .05 .05 .05 -.23** .07 -.23** .07

P-O Fit .20** .04 .22** .05 -.26** .07 -.23** .07

POS x P-O Fit .07 .04 .10 .06

Notes.


* p < .05, ** p < .01


Figure Captions

Figure 1. Hypotheses: The proposed moderating role of P-O fit on the relationships

of POS and citizenship behaviors and POS and turnover intentions.

Person-organization fit

Perceived Turnover intentionsOrganizational Support Citizenship behaviors

Panel B)Panel A)


Figure 2. Citizenship behaviors and turnover intentions as a function of perceived

organizational support and person organization fit.

3

4

5

low POS high POS

citiz

ensh

ip b

ehav

iors

low P-O Fit

high P-O Fit

1

2

3

4

low POS high POS

Turn

over

inte

ntio

ns

low P-O Fit

high P-O Fit


Appendix 1: Measures of Perceived Organizational Support and Person-Organization Fit and

Citizenship Behaviors

Perceived Organizational Support

My organization is willing to help me if I need a special favor.

My organization strongly considers my goals and values.

My organization shows little concern for me.

My organization really cares about my well-being.

My organization cares about my opinions.

Person-Organization Fit

My personal values match my organization’s values and culture.

My organization’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in my life.

The things that I value in my life are very similar to those which my organization values.

Citizenship Behaviors

I can generally be persuaded to consider others’ ideas.

I can generally be persuaded to accept others’ leadership when appropriate.

I can generally be persuaded to sacrifice own personal interests for the good of the team.

I cooperate with others by informing others of events or requirements that are likely to affect

them.

I motivate others by applauding their achievements and successes.

I give encouragement when I am approached by others who are experiencing adversity or setbacks.

I motivate others by showing confidence in their ability to succeed.


Appendix 2: Results individual for the companies

Company 1: German company

Table 5


M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Sex 1.52 .50 -

2 Age 31.67 7.42 -.14 -

3 Tenure 4.13 4.51 -.18 .69** -

4 POS 3.09 .86 -.25* -.20 -.14 .86

5 P-O fit 3.26 .84 -.12 -.13 -.07 .52** .92

6 Turnover intentions 2.06 .98 -.00 .17 .07 -.37** -.39** .79

7 Citizenship behaviors 4.11 .44 .05 .41 .23* .00 .04 .00 .77

Notes.



* p < .05, ** p < .01

Of the 85 participants, we obtained 84 responses for gender (response rate = 98.8); 82

responses for age (response rate = 96.5) and 85 responses for organizational tenure (response

rate= 100). Of the 115 employees who received the questionnaire, we obtained 89 responses,

equivalent to a response rate of about 77 percent. The number of usable questionnaires was 85.

The questionnaires were distributed by one of the authors and the filled questionnaires

were sent in a closed envelope to the same person via internal post. The name of the sender was

not mentioned on the envelope; therefore the procedure was completely anonymous.


Table 6

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis




POS -.01 .06 .01 .06 -.25* .13 -.21 .12

P-O Fit .03 .07 .11 .07 -.29* .13 -.13 .14

POS x P-O Fit .17* .06 .34** .13

Notes.


* p < .05, ** p < .01


Table 7

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis with control variables (gender, age and tenure)




Sex .13 .10 .13 .10 -.17 .21 -.17 .20

Age .03** .01 .03** .01 .01 .02 -.01 .02

Tenure -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00 .00 .00

POS .04 .06 .05 .06 -.27 .13 -.24 .13

P-O Fit .05 .06 .11 .07 -.32* .13 -.15 .15

POS x P-O Fit .11 .07 .33* .15

Notes.


* p < .05, ** p < .01

Panel B)Panel A)




3

4

5

low POS high POS

citiz

ensh

ip b

ehav

iors

low P-O Fit

high P-O Fit

1

2

3

4

low POS high POS

Turn

over

inte

ntio

ns

low P-O Fithigh P-O Fit

Company 2: Turkish company (1)


Table 8


M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Sex 1.18 .38 -

2 Age 30.53 5.48 -.12 -

3 Tenure 2.25 1.37 -.15 .65** -

4 POS 3.59 .83 .18 -.07 -.01 .85

5 P-O fit 3.76 .86 .31 .00 .02 .51** .90

6 Turnover intentions 1.62 .77 -.10 .13 .09 -.48** -.50** .77

7 Citizenship behaviors 4.14 .52 .18 .24 .14 .42** .52** -.35** .85

Notes.



* p < .05, ** p < .01



rate= 68.4). Of the 113 employees who received the questionnaire, we obtained 103 responses,


The questionnaires were distributed by the Human Resources department of the

participant company. The filled questionnaires were returned anonymously to a closed box

which was provided by the Human Resources department.

Table 9






POS .12* .06 .08 .06 -.27** .09 -.38** .09

P-O Fit .24** .06 .21** .06 -.29** .09 -.38** .08

POS x P-O Fit .11 .06 .27** .08

Notes.


* p < .05, ** p < .01

Table 10






Sex .02 .15 .02 .15 .22 .24 .24 .23

Age .03 .01 .03 .01 .00 .02 .01 .02

Tenure .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01

POS .17* .08 .14 .09 -.33** .12 -.44** .13

P-O Fit .32** .07 .30** .08 -.25* .12 -.35** .12

POS x P-O Fit .05 .08 .24* .11

Notes.


* p < .05, ** p < .01

Panel B)Panel A)




3

4

5

low POS high POS

citiz

ensh

ip b

ehav

oirs


1

2

3

4

low POS high POS

Turn

over

inte

ntio

ns

low P-O Fit

high P-O Fit


Company 2: Turkish company (2)

Table 11


M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Sex 1.45 .50 -

2 Age 39.12 5.40 -.04 -

3 Tenure 12.78 4.93 .15 .69** -

4 POS 2.62 .90 -.09 -.07 -.26* .77

5 P-O fit 2.96 .98 .03 .07 .07 .48** .92

6 Turnover intentions 1.69 .95 -.03 -.07 -.12 -.21* -.31** .81

7 Citizenship behaviors 4.00 .72 -.06 .08 -.04 .22* .38** -.35** .92

Notes.



* p < .05, ** p < .01



rate = 100). Of the 150 employees who received the questionnaire, we obtained 105 responses,


The questionnaires were distributed by the manager of the Administrative Affairs

department of the participant company. The filled questionnaires were sent in a closed

envelope to the same person via internal post. The name of the sender was not mentioned on

the envelope; therefore the procedure was completely anonymous.


Table 12





POS .05 .08 .05 .08 -.10 .11 -.10 .11

P-O Fit .25** .08 .24** .09 -.24* .10 -.22 .12

POS x P-O Fit -.02 .07 .03 .09

Notes.


* p < .05, ** p < .01


Table 13





Sex -.07 .15 -.08 .15 -.04 .18 -.03 .19

Age .02 .02 .02 .02 -.00 .02 -.00 .02

Tenure -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00

POS .01 .10 .01 .10 -.15 .12 -.15 .12

P-O Fit .27** .08 .25* .10 -.24* .10 -.22 .12

POS x P-O Fit -.04 .08 .03 .10

Notes.


* p < .05, ** p < .01

Panel B)Panel A)




3

4

5

low POS high POS

citiz

ensh

ip b

ehav

iors


1

2

3

4

low POS high POS

Turn

over

inte

ntio

ns

low P-O Fit

high P-O Fit


Appendix 3: Plagiarism Statement

I, Selin Işıl Özcan, hereby confirm that I completed this Master's thesis independently, that I

have not heretofore presented this thesis to another department or university, and that I have

listed all references used, and have given credit to all additional sources of assistance.

____________________________ ________________________ Selin Işıl Özcan Date

Documents

thesis.final