Causal explanations of psychological contract breach characteristics.

Abstract

Cassar and Briner (2005)

It is your fault! How blame attributions of breach predict employees’ reactions

“…Our study makes several theoretical contributions. First, we extend our knowledge about attributions of psychological contract breach, answering a call from several researchers (e.g., Cassar et al, 2013). Past research highlighted the importance of the interpretation and attribution process after a psychological contract breach (e.g., Morrison and Robinson, 1997), but failed to provide empirical evidence for the relationship between attributions and individuals' attitudes and behaviors.…”

“…Reneging is also named as the true contract breach (Lo and Aryee, 2003) that occurs when individuals blame the organization for the event (i.e., blame attributions to the organization). Lastly, disruption suggests that the psychological contract breach is a result of external factors that are beyond organizations' control (Cassar et al, 2013). Moreover, as an unintentional action externally triggered, individuals will tolerate and not blame, at least totally, the organization for the breach.…”

“…These studies have examined several aspects of the attribution process, namely: the role of reneging and incongruence in the psychological contract breach -violation relationship (Robinson and Morrison, 2000); the difference of attributions between supervisors and employees (Lester et al, 2002); the justification for violation in the managers' reactions (i.e., voice, exit, silence and neglect; Turnley and Feldman, 1999); and the attributions of breaches in pay and relationship dimensions of contract (Turnley et al, 2003). More recently, Cassar et al (2013) examined the causal explanations for different forms of psychological contract breach (e.g., delay and magnitude) and explored the links between those explanations and employees' reactions, such as voice, exit, silence, and neglect. However, none of them were associated with these responses.…”

Perceived Organizational Support and Psychological Employment Contract Breach: A Proposed Model on the Mediating Effect of Trust

“…In addition, in [42] stated that psychological contract breach has various constituents which are as follows: Delay in fulfilling promises made on the part of employer or organization, providing or delivering below what was promised between employer and employee, providing promises differently from the initial type or form of stated agreement, unfairness where what individual receives is seeming as being fewer than or dissimilar from what others in the same positions are getting which signifies discrimination among employee, and reciprocal inequality where an individual observes that their input outweighs what the employer is providing them in return as compensation for job done, generating to different views of the initial terms of employment contract by which an employee was hired.…”

Fulfillment of the employee psychological contract in a healthcare system: Does it drive employee engagement and reduce turnover intention?

“…Experiences of breach make individuals more mindful as they seek to control future negative consequences through a process of renegotiation (Cassar, Buttigieg, & Briner, 2013). As Turnley, Bolino, Lester, and Bloodgood (2003, p. 192) noted, "how an employee chooses to respond to getting less than promised is likely to be determined by both the magnitude of the discrepancy and by the individual's attribution regarding why the discrepancy occurred.…”