VJRL A 717552
VJRL A 717552
VJRL A 717552
Copyright
C 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
AMBER JAMIL
International Islamic University Islamabad
USMAN RAJA
Brock University
WENDY DARR
Department of National Defence, Canada
491
492 The Journal of Psychology
performance (e.g., Bunderson, 2001; Conway & Briner, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro &
Kessler, 2000; Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino,
2002; McLean-Parks & Kidder, 1994; Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004). Bulk of
the research has either used the terms interchangeably in relation to outcomes or
focused on one of these constructs in relation to outcomes. Examinations of the
relationship between these two conceptually distinct constructs are relatively rare
(Dulac, Coyle-Shapiro, Henderson, & Wayne, 2008). Antecedents of perceived
breach and felt violation include employee personality, contract types, perceived
organizational politics, perceived justice, perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; DelCampo, 2007; Du-
lac et al., 2008; Robinson & Morrison, 2000; Rosen, Chang, Johnson, & Levy,
2009; Raja et al., 2004).
Burnout is an important work related outcome, which is defined as emotional,
mental, and physical exhaustion (Pines & Aronson, 1988) stemming from work-
place stressors. According to researchers burnout occurs when an employee has
too few positive and too many negative features in one’s work environment (Kan-
ner, Kafry, & Pines, 1978). It is important to understand the source of burnout and
to deal with this problem because burnout can be potentially costly and damaging
due to its consequences (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). Past research clearly indi-
cates that although job stress, strain, and burnout are strongly positively correlated,
they are conceptually and empirically distinct constructs (Maslach, 1993; Maslach
& Leiter, 2008). Moreover, burnout has largely been treated as an outcome of ex-
posure to chronic stress at work (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Jamal & Baba, 2000;
Maslach, 1993; Maslach & Leiter, 2008).
Although burnout has become a construct of central importance in the Organi-
zational Behavior (OB) literature, with a few exceptions (Cantisano, Dominguez,
& Garcia, 2007; Chambel & Oliveira-Cruz, 2010), there has been little empirical
inquiry into the relationship between perceived breach, felt violation and burnout.
Typical antecedents of burnout include factors such as lack of social support,
lack of feedback, lack of participation in decision making, lack of organizational
trust, lack of mutual working relationships, and work or role overload (Brookings,
Bolton, Brown, & McEvoy, 1985; Caplan, 1974; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cordes
& Dougherty, 1993; Fimian & Blanton, 1987; Laschinger, Shamian, & Thomson,
2001; Maslach & Jackson, 1984; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Schwab &
Iwanicki, 1982). When examined as an antecedent, burnout has been commonly
linked to absenteeism (Iverson, Olekans, & Erwin, 1998) and turnover (Wright &
Cropanzano, 1998). Maslach et al. (2001) highlighted a growing attention to the
role of context in influencing burnout. They specifically mentioned psychological
contracts, the violation of which can act as a stressor for the individual, because
it disrupts norms of reciprocity and increases gaps between individuals and their
environments.
Moreover, psychological contract has been referred by a number of authors
as employees’ individualistic understanding and assessment of their employment
Jamil, Raja, & Darr 493
deal (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Turnley & Feldman, 1998). The research literature
on psychological contract suggests that there is value in studying the distinct
elements of the psychological contract (e.g., transactional and relational types)
separately (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Raja et al., 2004). The distinction
between transactional and relational contract type has important implications not
only for employees’ perception that their psychological contract has been breached
but also for the way in which employees react to this perception (Robinson, Kraatz,
& Rousseau, 1994; Morrison & Robinson, 1997).
Lambert, Edwards, and Cable (2003) suggested that the concept of psycho-
logical contract breach requires theoretical and empirical expansion. They further
argued that employee reactions to the breach of a psychological contract may differ
for transactional and relational contract types. In addition, Hui, Lee, and Rousseau
(2004) suggested that research examining the influence of different contract forms
on employee responses is limited. The handful of studies that have explored these
relationships have done so by comparing findings across samples from North
America and other countries. For example, Lee, Pillutla, and Law (2000) found
a stronger relationship between relational contract type and employee behavior
in Hong Kong compared to the United States. While the moderating influence
of the type of psychological contract on associations between perceived breach,
felt violation, and burnout remain to be examined, another gap in the psycho-
logical contract literature is its focus on North American and European samples.
As cognitive and motivational schemas play an important role in shaping one’s
psychological contract and resulting outcomes (Thomas, Au, & Ravlin, 2003),
the context within which this and related constructs are examined is of utmost
relevance.
Although Rousseau and Schalk (2000) called for the need to examine psycho-
logical contracts in non-western contexts, Dulac et al. (2008) noted that empirical
examinations on the topic have failed to pay adequate attention to the broader
context. Consistent with other efforts such as Raja, Johns, and Bilgrami’s (2011)
examination of interactive effects of felt violation and personality on outcomes in
Pakistan, Restubog, Bordia, and Tang’s (2007) examination of perceived breach in
a Philippine sample of employees, and Kickul, Lester, and Belgio’s (2004) cross-
cultural comparison of perceived breach and intrinsic/extrinsic outcomes across
North American and Hong Kong Chinese samples, the present study examines
psychological contracts, perceived breach, felt violation, and burnout in a sample
of employees in Pakistan. The potential moderating influence of this particular
cultural context is examined in an exploratory manner.
The examination of cultural milieu, which has remained underexplored in psy-
chological contract research because of a focus on North American samples, could
offer some insight into its potential moderating influence on this phenomenon.
For example, Rousseau (1995) suggested that shared or normative psychologi-
cal contracts can develop as a function of group membership (Rousseau, 1995).
494 The Journal of Psychology
For example, nurses have been thought to generally develop relational contracts
(e.g., Purvis & Cropley, 2003), whereas transactional contracts are often associ-
ated with casual workers (e.g., Nelson & Tonks, 2007). Consequently, contract
formation can also be influenced by group membership pertaining to national
culture.
Referring to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (2001), Pakistan scores high on
power distance (PD), masculinity (MAS) and uncertainty avoidance (UA), and
low on individualism (IDV). In other words, individuals within Pakistan are likely
to accept a high degree of power differential between authorities and subordi-
nates, and value success and achievement. Moreover, they tend to react adversely
to uncertainty, and are collectivistic in nature, exhibiting strong loyalty to one’s
in-group (e.g., family, work team). Given the phenomenon of interest in this study
(i.e., psychological contracts), the dimensions of power distance and uncertainty
avoidance bear most contextual relevance in addition to collectivism. The combi-
nation of PD and UA, for example, results in situations where leaders have ultimate
power and authority, and rules, laws and regulations are developed to reinforce
such leadership (Hofstede, 2001). Such a context can put to test the strength of
an individual’s loyalty to a target in-group. Although Hofstede’s (2001) cultural
dimensions are often discussed at the national level, he suggests that organiza-
tional members within a particular nation can be expected to have similar values.
As Rousseau and Schalk (2000) discussed, employee expectations and interpre-
tation of employment promises are derived from the societal setting in which
employment takes place. Consequently, it is possible that cultural orientation can
influence the formation of contracts.
Therefore this research study has a number of objectives. The first objective of
this study is to examine the influence of perceived psychological contract breach on
feelings of violation and burnout. The second objective of this study is to examine
the role of felt violation as a mediator between perceived psychological contract
breach and burnout. The third objective of this study is to examine the moderating
role of psychological contract types in the perceived psychological contract breach-
felt violation and felt violation-burnout relationships. The last objective of this
study is to examine in an exploratory manner the potential moderating impact of
cultural context on these relationships.
The norm of reciprocity results in the exchange of these benefits, which sug-
gests that individuals in an exchange relationship are obligated to return favors
that have been provided by others in the path of exchanges with the purpose of
strengthening interpersonal relationships (Gouldner, 1960). Psychological con-
tract breach takes place when an employee fulfills his or her obligations but does
not receive expected outcomes from the organization in return (Morrison & Robin-
son, 1997; Rousseau, 1995). These discrepancies characterize a disparity in the
social exchange relationship between the employee and employer (Suazo, 2009;
Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1995).
Furthermore, from the perspective of equity theory (Adams, 1965), an em-
ployee is motivated to re-establish equilibrium in the social exchange relationship
by various means including negative attitudes and behaviors. Employees can re-
spond to this state of imbalance by either altering their own or organization’s
obligations (Robinson et al., 1994). Whenever employees perceive a breach of
psychological contract by the organization, employees lose trust in the organiza-
tion and feel that they have been deceived and mistreated by the organization,
which in turn causes employees to be less motivated and to behave in ways that is
not in the best interest of the organization (e.g., Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2006;
Rousseau, 1989, 1995; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Zhao et al.,
2007).
Therefore, in accordance with the predictions of social exchange theory and
equity theory, the empirical research on the outcomes of psychological contract
breach has revealed a negative relationship between psychological contract breach
and a variety of workplace attitudes and behavior (Suazo, 2009).When employees
perceive a breach in their psychological contract, it decreases their perceptions
of predictability and control (Shore & Tetrick, 1994; Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987).
These in turn are important to the maintenance of well-being. For example, Con-
way and Briner (2002) found that broken promises had a strong relationship with
negative emotional reactions such as depression and anxiety. As a result, this lack
of predictability and control may cause employees to experience stress and strain
(Maslach et al., 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994; Sutton, 1990). Moreover, Gakovic
and Tetrick (2003) reported that the fulfillment of organizational obligations was
a significant predictor of emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction. Consistent
with mainstream research, we suggest that perceived breach of the psychological
contract is likely to generate burnout, because it destroys the belief of reciprocity
which is critical for maintaining the well-being of employees (Maslach et al.,
2001).
attitudes and behaviors (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Suazo, Turnley, & Mai-
Dalton, 2005). According to the affective events theory which explains the role
of felt violation as a mediator (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Zhao et al., 2007),
employees’ experiences at work lead to affective reactions which in turn influ-
ence attitudes and behavior. Therefore, violation “represents a mental state of
readiness for action” (Morrison & Robinson, 1997, p. 231). Furthermore, Zajonc
(1998) suggested that cognitions and emotions shape and are shaped by each
other.
The cognitive-motivational relational theory of emotion by Lazarus’s (1991a,
1991b) further supports the speculation that violation will mediate the relationship
between perceived psychological contract breach and employee affective and
attitude-based reactions. The importance of this theory lies in its two-step process
where cognition is followed by emotion. The first step is known as “cognitive
appraisal” where an individual goes through an assessment process to evaluate
the importance of events for their own well-being. The second-step “emotional
response” is dependent upon the first-step cognitive appraisal, which according
to Lazarus (1991a) is a critical step as emotions cannot occur without a thorough
process preceding them.
Dulac et al. (2008) extended this theory in the perspective of the psychological
contracts and suggested that perceived psychological contract breach takes place
when an employee cognitively evaluates that his or her organization has failed
to fulfill its promises and how the employee comprehend that breach in terms of
his or her own well-being lead to the feelings of violation. Moreover they argued
that when an individual evaluates the behavior of others, it will influence their
affective responses towards that behavior, thereby influencing their consequent
attitudes toward the other (Dulac et al., 2008).
Many studies have shown that feelings of violation act as a mediator in the
relationship between perceived breach and job attitudes and behaviors (Bordia,
Restubog, & Tang, 2008; Dulac et al., 2008; Raja et al., 2004; Suazo et al., 2005;
Suazo, 2009; Zhao et al., 2007). Moreover, felt violation is positively related to
many correlates of burnout such as job stress, job satisfaction and job performance
(McLean-Parks & Kidder, 1994; Raja et al., 2004; Robinson & Morrison, 1995;
Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Employees who perceive that their organization has
failed to fulfill most important obligations will experience feelings of violation,
which in turn are most likely to affect their well-being and manifest into burnout.
Therefore, we suggest the following hypotheses:
psychological contract, but also for the way in which the employee reacts to
this perceived breach (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson et al., 1994). Lam-
bert et al. (2003) argued that employee reactions to the breach of a psychological
contract may differ for transactional and relational contract types. We expect that
contract type would act as a moderator in the perceived breach-felt violation and
felt violation-burnout relationships.
Morrison and Robinson (1997) argued that the translation of perceived breach
into feelings of violation depends on the salience of the unfulfilled promise. It is
likely that denial of a more clearly defined economic inducement will lead to
feelings of violation as compared to breach of a less defined socio-emotional
term. As transactional contract elements have an objective, verifiable and event-
focused nature (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau & McLean-Parks, 1993;
Rousseau, 1989, 1995), employees are expected to indulge in a clear comparison
process of promised and delivered monetizable inducements (Montes & Irving,
2008). If they detect a breach of any such promised inducement, it will readily
translate into violation as they are more concerned with economic exchange in the
relationship. For example, if an employee has perceived a promise of high pay, it is
a fairly uncomplicated process to assess whether that promise was fulfilled or not
(Montes & Irving, 2008). Therefore, breach of high transactional contracts is more
likely to cause feelings of violation as compared to breach of low transactional
contracts where terms of economic exchange might not be as clear with respect to
time and rewards.
Although recent research (Raja et al., 2011) shows that employees with a
relational contract are more likely to show reduced performance, lower satisfac-
tion, and higher intentions to quit once they feel violated, we believe the opposite
would happen in case of breach to violation link. We believe that perceived breach
being more cognitive and calculative (Morrison & Robinson, 1997) is less likely
to evoke feelings of violation among those who form deep relationship with the
organization. Montes and Irving (2008) argued that since relational inducements
tend to be less concrete as compared to transactional inducements, promises may
not be the most salient referent when employees make judgments regarding re-
lational delivered inducements. Employees with a relational contract type focus
on terms that are socio-economic in nature, which provide a basis for a long term
quality relationship rather than pure economic exchange for a defined term. They
can delay gratitude and forgo material benefit over a short term for a lasting and
quality relationship (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Raja et al., 2004). Therefore, it
is expected that people with a high relational contract type will have a futuristic
relationship-oriented approach, and hence every perception of breach would not
readily translate into feelings of violation for them.
Method
degrees. Respondents had average tenure with their current organization of 7.68
(SD = 9.54) years, with an average of 10.32 (SD = 9.72) years of total work
experience.
Psychological Contract Type. A 20-Item Psychological Contract Inventory
developed by Rousseau (2000) was used to measure the two psychological contract
types under investigation in this study. This measure used a 5-point Likert scale
which ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) where high scores
indicated high levels of the construct in question. Containing 10 items each, the
transactional and relational contract sub-scales included items such as “provides
short-term employment” and “provides secure employment,” respectively. The
alpha reliability for this measure has ranged between .70 and .90 in past research
(e.g., Hui et al., 2004; Uen, Chien, & Yen, 2009).
Perceived Breach. A 5-item scale developed by Robinson and Morrison
(2000) was used to assess perceived psychological contract breach. This measure
obtained employees’ perceptions of how well their organization had fulfilled their
obligations on a five-point Likert scale which ranged from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5). A sample item included “My employer has broken
many of its promises to me even though I’ve upheld my side of the deal.” Past
research has demonstrated that this instrument has adequate levels of reliability.
For example Robinson and Morrison (2000) reported reliability of .92, Raja et al.
(2004) reported .79 and Dulac et al. (2008) reported reliability of .95 for this
measure.
Feelings of Violation. A four-item scale developed by Robinson and Morrison
(2000) was used to assess feelings of violation. This measure is different from
the breach measure, also developed by Robinson and Morrison (2000). While
perceived breach has a cognitive assessment of contract fulfillment, feelings of
violation captured strong affective and emotional reaction expressed by anger,
frustration and betrayal in response to broken promises. An example of a sample
item is, “I feel betrayed by my organization.” Respondent’s feelings of violation
were measured using a 5-point Likert scale which ranged from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5). Robinson and Morrison (2000) reported that the 4 item
scale has good reliability and validity (i.e., α = 0.92). Similarly, the reliability of
this measure has ranged from .80 to .90 in other studies (e.g., Bordia et al., 2008;
Dulac et al., 2008; Raja et al., 2004).
Burnout. A 21-Item measure developed by Pines and Aronson (1988) was
used to assess burnout. This is a frequently used measure that gives an overall score
of burnout. Examples of items asked how often the respondent had experienced
certain states such as “being emotionally exhausted” or “can’t take it anymore”.
A seven-point Likert scale (1 = never; 2 = once in a while; 3 = rarely; 4 =
sometimes; 5 = often; 6 = usually; 7 = always) was used to measure the extent
to which respondents experienced burnout. Weisberg (1994) reported a reliability
of .89 for this measure.
Jamil, Raja, & Darr 503
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Results
Test of Hypotheses
An independent samples t-test revealed a significant difference between av-
erage scores on the transactional and relational contract sub-scale (t = –13.08,
df = 360, p < .001), with scores being higher on relational contract. The ratio of
relational contract to transactional contract scores was 1.27. In addition, estimates
504 The Journal of Psychology
Model 1
Step 1
Controls .06∗∗ .11∗∗
Step 2
Perceived Breach .40∗∗ .15∗∗ .37∗∗ .13∗∗
Model 2
Step 1
Controls .11∗∗
Step 2
Felt Violation .33∗∗ .10∗∗
Step 3
Perceived Breach .28∗∗ .06∗∗
Model 1
Step 1
Controls .06∗∗
Step 2
Perceived Breach .37∗∗
Transactional contract .23∗∗
(TC)
Relational contract –.01 .20∗∗
(RC)
Step 3
Perceived Breach × TC –.18∗∗
Perceived Breach × RC –.02 .03∗∗
Model 2
Step 1
Controls .11∗∗
Step 2
Felt Violation .19∗∗
Transactional Contract .08∗
(TC)
Relational Contract –.27∗∗ .23∗∗
(RC)
Step 3
Felt Violation × TC .08∗
Felt Violation × RC –.12∗∗ .02∗∗
Table 3 shows that for burnout, both the felt violation × transactional contract
term (β = .08, p < .05) and the felt violation × relational contract term (β = –.12,
p < .01) were significant. Figure 2 shows the felt violation-burnout relationship
to be stronger when transactional contract is high. Figure 3 indicates that the
felt violation-burnout relationship was weaker when relational contract was high.
These results confirmed hypothesis 7 and 8.
In exploring some of the proposed influences of cultural context, as suggested,
this sample tended to score higher on relational contract type. A positive perceived
breach-felt violation association was supported as in hypothesis 2 and the findings
were similar to reported in past research conducted in Western contexts. For
example, the obtained association between perceived breach and felt violation (r
= .41) appears to be towards the lower end of the perceived breach-felt violation
associations reported in Zhao et al.’s (2007) meta-analysis, but still within the 95%
confidence interval values (.41 and .62) reported by Zhao and colleagues.
In summary, results of the study suggested that perceived breach had a sig-
nificant positive relationship with felt violation and both were related to burnout
(confirming hypotheses 2 and 3). Feelings of violation partially mediated the
relationship between perceived breach and burnout, partially confirming hypoth-
esis 4. Although transactional contract type moderated the perceived breach-felt
violation relationship, the effect was not in hypothesized direction and hence hy-
pothesis 5 was not confirmed. Relational contract did not moderate the perceived
Jamil, Raja, & Darr 507
Discussion
are not uncommon in studies conducted in similar contexts (e.g., Chen et al., 2002;
Raja et al., 2011; Suliman, 2003).
Despite its limitations, this examination highlights the potential influence of
cultural context on psychological contracts, by articulating the theoretical influ-
ences of cultural dimensions such as uncertainty avoidance and power distance.
Moreover, it examines both perceived breach and felt violation, the latter of which
has received much less research attention (Zhao et al.’s meta-analysis contained
only 11 studies that measured both constructs). In addition, this study exam-
ines burnout in the context of psychological contracts, broadening the job-person
paradigm within which burnout has typically been examined (Maslach et al.,
2001). Moreover, this research presents avenues for future research. In terms of
culture, the direct examination of uncertainty avoidance and power distance are
likely to provide more insight into the moderating potential of these cultural orien-
tations. In addition, future research should focus on conducting more longitudinal
studies in this domain. In particular, the relationships between perceived breach,
felt violation, and outcomes warrant further attention to determine causality.
NOTE
1.The results of factor loadings can be obtained from the first author.
AUTHOR NOTES
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Aldred, C. (2000). Stress claims spur litigation. Business Insurance, 34, 23–25.
Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychologi-
cal contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491–
509.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When Employees Strike Back: Inves-
tigating Mediating Mechanisms Between Psychological Contract Breach and Workplace
Deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1104–1117.
Brookings, J. B., Bolton, B., Brown, C. E., & McEvoy, A. (1985). Self-reported job
burnout among female human service professionals. Journal of Occupational Behavior,
6, 143–150.
Buch, K., & Aldridge, J. (1991). O. D. under conditions of organization decline. Organi-
zation Development Journal, 9, 1–5.
Bunderson, J. S. (2001). How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of pro-
fessional employees: Doctors’ responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22, 717–741.
Butt, A. N., & Choi, J. N. (2006). The effects of cognitive appraisal and emotion on social
motive and negotiation behavior: The critical role of agency of negotiator emotion.
Human Performance, 19(4), 305–325.
Butt, A. N., Choi, J. N., & Jaeger, A. (2005). The effects of self-emotion, counterpart
emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: A comparison of individual-
level and dyad-level dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 681–
704.
Cantisano, G. T., Dominguez, J. F. M., & Garcia, J. L. C. (2007). Social comparison and
perceived breach of psychological contract: Their effects on burnout in a multigroup
analysis. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 122–130.
Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health: Lectures on concept
development. New York: Behavioral Publications.
Chambel, M. J., & Oliveira-Cruz, F. (2010). Breach of psychological contract and the
development of burnout and engagement: A longitudinal study among soldiers on a
peacekeeping mission. Military Psychology, 22, 110–127.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational
commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 339–356.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psycho-
logical contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
287–302.
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A Review and an Integration of Research on
Job Burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621–657.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the
lens of social exchange. In: J. A. M., Coyle-Shapiro, L. M., Shore, S. M., Taylor, & L.,
Tetrick (Eds.), The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual
Perspectives (pp. 5–28). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
512 The Journal of Psychology
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., Law, K. S. (2000). Power-distance, gender, and organizational justice.
Journal of Management, 26, 685–704.
Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not see-
ing eye to eye: differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attribu-
tions for psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 39–
56.
Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multi-dimensional perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C.
Maslach, C. & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory
and research (pp. 19–32). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984). Burnout in organizational settings. In S. Oskamp
(Ed.), Applied social psychology annual: Applications in organizational settings (Vol. 5,
pp. 133–153). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 498–512.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review Psy-
chology, 52, 397–422.
McLean-Parks, J., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). Till death us do part . . . : Changing work relation-
ships in the 1990s. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational
behavior (pp. 112–133). New York: Wiley.
Montes, S. D., & Irving, P. G. (2008). Disentangling the Effects of Promised and Delivered
Inducements: Relational and Transactional Contract Elements and the Mediating Role
of Trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1367–1381.
Morrison, E. W. & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of
how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22,
226–256.
Nelson, L., & Tonks, G. (2007). Violations of the psychological contract: Experiences of a
group of casual workers. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 15,
22–36.
Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career Burnout: Causes and Cures. New York: The Free
Press.
Purvis, L. J., & Cropley, M. (2003). The psychological contracts of National Health Service
nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 11, 107–120.
Raja, U., & Johns, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-
role performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. Human Relations, 63, 981–
1005.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Bilgrami, S. (2011). Negative consequences of felt violations: The
deeper the relationship, the stronger the reaction. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 60, 397–420.
Raja, U., Johns, G. & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The Impact of Personality on Psychological
Contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350–367.
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioural outcomes of psychological
contract breach in a non-western culture: The moderating role of equity sensitivity. British
Journal of Management, 18, 376–386.
Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of psychological contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 574–599.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect
of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
16, 289–298.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract
breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
525–546.
514 The Journal of Psychology
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and
the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
137–152.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.
Rosen, C. C., Chang, C., Johnson, R. E., & Levy, P. E. (2009). Perceptions of the organi-
zational context and psychological contract breach: Assessing competing perspectives.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108 (2), 202–217.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written
and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Rousseau, D. M. (2000). Psychological contract inventory: Technical report (Tech. Rep.
No. 2). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise, and mutuality: The building blocks of the
psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
511–541.
Rousseau, D. M., & McLean-Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organiza-
tions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 1–43.
Rousseau, D. M., & Schalk, R. (2000). Psychological Contracts in Employment: Cross-
national Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwab, R. L., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1982). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and teacher
burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 60–74.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory frame-
work in the employment relationship. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends
in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 91–109). New York, NY: Wiley.
Suazo, M. M. (2009). The mediating role of psychological contract violation on the relations
between psychological contract breach and work-related attitudes and behaviors. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 24, 136–160.
Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H. & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (2005). The role of perceived viola-
tion in determining employees’ reactions to psychological contract breach. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 24–36.
Suliman, A. M. (2003). Self and supervisor ratings of performance. Evidence from an
individualistic culture. Employee Relations, 25, 371–388.
Sutton, R. I. (1990). Organizational decline process: A social psychological perspective.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 205–253.
Tetrick, L. E., & LaRocco, J. M. (1987). Understanding, prediction, and control as mod-
erators of the relationships between perceived stress, satisfaction, and psychological
wellbeing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 538–543.
Thomas, D. C., Au, K., & Ravlin, E. C. (2003). Cultural variation and the psychological
contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 451–471.
Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact
of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29, 187–212.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate
restructuring. Human Resource Management, 37, 71–83.
Uen, J., Chien, M. S., & Yen, Y. (2009). The Mediating Effects of Psychological Contracts
on the Relationship Between Human Resource Systems and Role Behaviors: A Multilevel
Analysis. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 215–223.
Weisberg, J. (1994). Measuring Workers’ Burnout and Intention to Leave. International
Journal of Manpower, 15(1), 4–14.
Jamil, Raja, & Darr 515
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion
of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask “why” questions, and the heuristics of
attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 650–663.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job
performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486–493.
Yang, K. S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In T. Y. Lin, W. S.
Tseng, & E. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health (pp. 19–39). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Zajonc, R. B. (1998). Emotions. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook
of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 591–632). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological
contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60,
647–680.