Question

求高手翻译以下一段英文 不要百度直译

Since the model was made, there has been conceptual critique to what the model is trying to achieve. Specifically from three psychologists, Omar Solinger, Woody Olffen, and Robert Roe. To date, the three-component conceptual model has been regarded as the leading model for organizational commitment because it ties together three aspects of earlier commitment research (Becker, 2005; Buchanan, 2005; Kanter, 1968; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Salancik, 2004; Weiner, 2004; Weiner & Vardi, 2005). However, a collection of studies have shown that the model is not consistent with empirical findings. Solinger, Olffen, and Roe use a later model by Alice Eagly and Shelly Chaiken, Attitude-behavior Model (2004), to present that TCM combines different attitude phenomena. They have come to the conclusion that TCM is a model is for predicting turnover. In a sense the model describes why people should stay with the organization whether it is because they want to, need to, or ought to. The model appears to mix together an attitude toward a target, that being the organization, with an attitude toward a behavior, which is leaving or staying. They believe the studies should return to the original understanding of organizational commitment as an attitude toward the organization and measure it accordingly. Although the TCM is a good way to predict turnover, these psychologists do not believe it should be the general model. Because Eagly and Chaiken's model is so general, it seems that the TCM can be described as a specific subdivision of their model when looking at a general sense of organizational commitment. It becomes clear that affective commitment equals an attitude toward a target, while continuance and normative commitment are representing different concepts referring to anticipated behavioral outcomes, specifically staying or leaving. This observation backs up their conclusion that organizational commitment is perceived by TCM as combining different target attitudes and behavioral attitudes, which they believe to be both confusing and logically incorrect. The attitude-behavioral model can demonstrate explanations for something that would seem contradictory in the TCM. That is that affective commitment has stronger associations with relevant behavior and a wider range of behaviors, compared to normative and continuance commitment. Attitude toward a target (the organization) is obviously applicable to a wider range of behaviors than an attitude toward a specific behavior (staying). After their research, Sollinger, Olffen, and Roe believe Eagly and Chaiken's attitude-behavior model from 1993 would be a good alternative model to look at as a general organizational commitment predictor because of its approach at organizational commitment as a singular construct, which in turn would help predicting various behaviors beyond turnover.

Answer 1

由于这个模型,已经有概念上的批判,这种模型试图达到的目标。具体从三个心理学家,奥马尔,伍迪Olffen Solinger,罗伯特鱼子。迄今为止,三分量的概念模型一直被视为对组织承诺的主要模型,因为它联系在一起的三个方面研究早些时候承诺(贝克尔,2005;布坎南,2005;坎特,1968;马修&亚茨,1990;Mowday,波特,& 1982;Salancik引导,2004;维纳,2004;维纳&瓦迪,2005)。然而,一个收集的研究表明,该模型与实证结果不一致。Solinger,Olffen,鱼子使用后模型的追随者和雪莉Chaiken爱丽丝,态度行为模型(2004年),到现在,中医结合不同态度的现象。他们得出的结论是,中医是一个模型是预测营业额。在某种意义上,该模型描述了为什么人们应该留在该组织是否因为他们想,需要,或者应该。这个模型看来混合一个态度目标,被组织,一个态度,一个行为,是离开还是留下。他们相信研究应当回归到原始的理解组织承诺作为一种态度和措施进行相应的组织。尽管中医是一个好的方法来预测营业额,这些心理学家不相信它应该是一般的模型。因为追随者和Chaiken的模型是如此一般,看来,中医可以被描述为一个特定的细分的模型在查看一个一般意义上的组织承诺。它变得清晰,感情承诺等于一个态度,一个目标,而持续承诺和规范承诺代表不同的概念是指预期行为的结果,特别是住或离开。这个观察备份他们的结论,组织承诺是被中医作为结合不同目标的态度和行为的态度,他们认为既令人困惑和逻辑错误。的态度行为模型可以证明的解释似乎是矛盾的东西,在中医。这是感情承诺有关联的强度和相关行为和更大范围的行为,而规范和继续承诺。态度目标(组织)显然是适用于更大范围的行为不是一个态度特定行为(住)。在他们的研究,Sollinger,Olffen,鱼子相信追随者和Chaiken的态度行为模型从1993年将是一个不错的选择模型来看看作为一个通用的组织承诺预测由于其方法在组织承诺作为一个奇异的构造,这反过来将有助于预测各种行为超出营业额。

Answer 2

确实划不来的，奖励太少，别人连复制到百度都嫌麻烦

追问

这段我已经舍弃了 我要把这个问题关掉了 所以也不存在划不来的问题了。。

Answer 3

这么多，才这点财富，太坑人了吧