Making the Customer-Brand Relationship Sustainable: The Different Effects of Psychological Contract Breach Types on Customer Citizenship Behaviours

Abstract

Customer citizenship behaviours are important for a sustainable customer-brand relationship, yet little is known about the effect of psychological contract breach on citizenship behaviours. From the perspective of psychological contract theory, this research examined the impact of psychological contract breaches on customer citizenship behaviours through the mediating mechanism of psychological contract violation in the customer-brand relationship. Experiments were used to assess the effect of two types of psychological contract breaches on customer citizenship behaviours. The results show that the negative effect of a relational contract breach differs between the dimensions of citizenship behaviours. A relational contract breach has direct and indirect negative effects on recommendation behaviours and helping behaviours, but it does not affect voice behaviours. A transactional contract breach directly and negatively influences recommendation behaviours, but it has no effect on voice behaviours. A transactional contract breach indirectly increases helping behaviours through psychological contract violation. Psychological contract violation partially mediates the effect of a transactional contract breach on customer recommendation behaviours and fully mediates the effect of a relational contract breach on helping behaviours. These findings generate managerial implications for firms aiming to maintain sustainable customer-brand relationships.

Innovative Resources, Promotion Focus and Responsible Innovation: The Moderating Roles of Adaptive Governance

“…From Figure 2, we can see that CMIN / DF is 2.6 < 5; GFI, AGFI, CFI, IFI and NFI are all greater than 0.9; PGFI is 0.64 > 0.5; RMSEA is 0.064 < 0.08; RMR is 0.022 < 0.05. The results show that the fitting degree of the model is good [81]. From Figure 2, we can see that CMIN/DF is 2.6 < 5; GFI, AGFI, CFI, IFI and NFI are all greater than 0.9; PGFI is 0.64 > 0.5; RMSEA is 0.064 < 0.08; RMR is 0.022 < 0.05.…”

“…From Figure 2, we can see that CMIN/DF is 2.6 < 5; GFI, AGFI, CFI, IFI and NFI are all greater than 0.9; PGFI is 0.64 > 0.5; RMSEA is 0.064 < 0.08; RMR is 0.022 < 0.05. The results show that the fitting degree of the model is good [81].…”

The effects of a psychological brand contract breach on customers' dysfunctional behavior toward a brand

“…We define a psychological brand contract as customers' beliefs about the terms of the mutual exchange agreement between customers and brands. Customers form perceptions about the promises made by a brand through the brand's advertisements, and believe the brand will fulfill its promises in exchange for customers' resources such as loyalty, payment and trust (Guo et al, 2017;Liu et al, 2020;Montgomery et al, 2018). An important attribute of the psychological brand contract is that it is inherently perceptual and subjective.…”

“…perceptions about the promises that the brand has made to customers in return for their patronage), thereby extending the literature on the outcome of psychological contract breaches and violations. Most psychological contract research in customer service settings has focused on the effects of psychological contract breaches on customer satisfaction (Malhotra et al, 2017;Zhao et al, 2020), customer trust (Goles et al, 2009;Hill et al, 2009;Malhotra et al, 2017), customer commitment (Kingshott, 2006), customer loyalty (Bi, 2019;Malhotra et al, 2017;Pavlou and Gefen, 2005) and customer citizenship behavior (Liu et al, 2020).…”

“…Dysfunctional customer behavior toward a brand [1] denotes the intentional and thoughtful actions of customers who cause harm to the brand (K€ ahr et al, 2016). When customers perceive that a brand has failed to fulfill its promises and obligations, which is called a psychological brand contract breach (Liu et al, 2020), such behavior occurs. This has not been adequately studied in the literature.…”