Research on trust in buyer–supplier relationships has tended to focus on the performance outcomes of a trusting relationship, as well as the processes that serve to build trust. Largely absent from the buyer–supplier literature is an in‐depth examination of activities that break down trust, and the resulting effect on supplier trust in the buyer. The authors propose and test a model that evaluates psychological contract violations between a buyer and a supplier as a mediating variable of the effect of unethical activities on trust within a partnership. Survey data was collected from 110 tier one suppliers of major corporations in the state of Ohio. Our results show how a supplier's perception of a violation of the psychological contract either partially mediates or fully mediates the relationship between the buyers unethical activity and the suppliers trust in that buyer. We discuss how suppliers may demonstrate bounded ethicality when they overlook perceived unethical behaviors by the buyer.

A psychological contract defines the perceived reciprocal obligations that characterize a relationship between an individual and organizational entity. Breach of a psychological contract can negatively affect work behaviors and attitudinal perceptions, and may also elicit an emotional response (violation) which can help to explain these negative consequences. This research focuses on the role of psychological contracts in a supply chain setting. We explore when and how three conditions of psychological contract breach – attribute, severity, and timing – negatively impact outcomes, and assess the mediating role of psychological contract violation in this relationship. To evaluate our hypotheses, we employ a laboratory experiment in which participants assume the role of a purchasing manager. We impose various breach factors and observe their relative impact on the decision‐making behavior and fairness perceptions of the participant. We show that while the breach factors significantly impact task behavior, these relationships are not explained by psychological contract violation. However, violation is useful in explaining, in part, the results pertaining to fairness perceptions.

In our previous reports we have specified the empirical structure of patients' and therapists' experiences in psychotherapeutic sessions. The present report explores the structure of experience within the therapeutic dyad -- conjoint experience. Seven factors were derived from the reports of 28 patient-therapist pairs. One factor reflected the therapist's approach to his role as a help-giver, and another reflected the patient's approach to her role. Other patterns showed convergent perceptions, while still others showed conjoint experiential processes -- inter-experience. Determinants of these experiences were sought among the personal and social characteristics of the participants. Several clinically suggestive patterns of determinants emerged.