Skip to main content
Log in

Broken Promises: Equity Sensitivity as a Moderator Between Psychological Contract Breach and Employee Attitudes and Behavior

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the moderating role of equity sensitivity in determining the relationship between psychological contract breach and employees' attitudes and behaviors. Entitled individuals were expected to have greater increases in negative affect toward their organization and greater decreases in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior than benevolent individuals following a breach of extrinsic outcomes (i.e., pay, benefits). Conversely, benevolents were expected to respond more negatively than their entitled counterparts following a breach of intrinsic outcomes (i.e., autonomy, growth). Results supported most of the study's propositions. Practical implications as well as directions for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J., & Vazzana, G. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail vs. snailmail. Marketing Research, 8, 30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G., (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J.R. (1975). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis, C. Cammann (Ed.), Assessing Organizational Change (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelli, P. (1999). The new deal at work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(2), 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A.L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dommeyer, C., & Moriarty, E. (2000). Comparing two forms of an e-mail survey: Embedded vs. attached. International Journal of Market Research, 42(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M.A. (1998). Twenty-first century organizations: Business firms, business schools, and the academy. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 218–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huseman, R., Hatfield, J., & Miles, E. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12, 222–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huseman, R., Hatfield, J., & Miles, E. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, D.T., & Scott, C.D. (1998). Rekindling work commitment and effectiveness through a new work contract. In M.K. Gowling, J.D. Kraft, & J.C. Quick (Eds.), The new organizational reality: Downsizing, restructuring, and revitalization (pp. 185–205). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL VIII: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kickul, J. (In press). When organizations break their promises: Employee reactions to unfair processes and treatment. Journal of Business Ethics.

  • King, W., & Miles, E. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, W., & Miles, E., & Day, D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 301–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacNeil, I.R. (1985). Relational contract: Why we do what we do. Wisconsin Law Review, 483–525.

  • Marsh, H.W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37(4), 429–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, E., Hatfield, J., & Huseman, R. (1989). The equity sensitivity construct: Potential implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15, 581–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, E., Hatfield, J., & Huseman, R. (1994). Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 585–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, R.H., & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E.W., & Robinson, S.L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philips, J.M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 673–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Changing the obligations and the psychological contract. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 437–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S.L., & Morrison, E.W. (1995). Psychological contracts and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of unfulfilled obligations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S.L., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roehling, M.V. (1996, August). Critical issues in the conceptualization of the psychological contract construct. Paper presented at the meeting of Academy of Management, Cincinnati.

  • Rousseau, D.M. (1998). The 'Problem' of the psychological contract considered. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 665–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D.M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D.M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals in organizations. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, 1–43. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D.M., & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1998). Assessing psychological contract: Issues, alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J.P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology, Autumn, 577–600.

  • Shore, L.M., & Barksdale, K. (1998). Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employment relationship: A social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 731–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, L.F., & Tetrick, L.E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. Trends in Organizational Behavior, 1, 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P.E. (1981). Research designs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. Northridge, CA: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tse, A.C.B. (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed, and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: e-mail vs. mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40(4), 353–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Towards a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kickul, J., Lester, S.W. Broken Promises: Equity Sensitivity as a Moderator Between Psychological Contract Breach and Employee Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology 16, 191–217 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011105132252

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011105132252

Navigation