The Moderating Role of Locus of Causality in the Relationship Between Source of Information and Psychological Contract Breach Perceptions

The individual–organization relationship: The psychological contract.

“…The quality of post-job-entry experiences with supervisors also predicts violation (Sutton & Griffin, 2004), consistent with prior research demonstrating that critical incidents involving supervisors are the most salient source of information to newcomers (Gundry & Rousseau, 1994). Hermida, Luchman, Brooks-Shesler, and Tetrick (2009) also reported that socialization experiences, social networking, and related employee efforts to seek out information were predictive of contract breach. More specifically, information-seeking from organizational agents was negatively related to breach, while informationseeking from peers was positively related to it.…”

An event‐based approach to psychological contracts: The importance of examining everyday broken and fulfilled promises as discrete events

“…By answering calls in the literature to identify the psychological processes underlying psychological contracts (e.g., Coyle‐Shapiro et al, 2019; Rousseau et al, 2018), our research highlights the importance of attribution and appraisal processes for discrete psychological contract events (i.e., experiencing a broken or a fulfilled promise). While previous research has indicated that attributions of external causality can be influential for generalized psychological contract perceptions (e.g., Hermida & Luchman, 2013; Morrison & Robinson, 1997), our findings indicate that attributions may operate differently for everyday discrete psychological contract events. More precisely, attributions for everyday discrete events are consistent with self‐serving biases, such that individuals are more likely to blame the other party in a dyadic relationship for negative events but to take credit for positive events (e.g., Sedikides et al, 1998).…”

“…More precisely, attribution theories highlight that people are motivated to understand the cause of events (e.g., Weiner, 1986). While the psychological contract literature has shown that attributions can inform generalized perceptions of psychological contract fulfillment (e.g., Morrison & Robinson, 1997), these attributions are typically captured as global impressions across many events and focus on whether the organization is generally perceived to be responsible for breaches (e.g., Conway & Briner, 2002a; Hermida & Luchman, 2013). However, Weiner (1986) established that people typically assess several attribution dimensions to determine the causality of an event: locus of causality (“was the event caused by me or something/someone external to me?”), controllability (“was the event under the other party's control?”), and stability (“is this likely to happen repeatedly or is this an ongoing matter?”).…”

The Effects of Conflict on Co-Worker Close Relationship: A Potential Mediator Between Conflict and Organizational Outcomes

“…Thus, relationship conflict also has a negative and statistically significant effect on relational capital. To test the moderation effect of task type on the task conflict and relational capital relationship (H3), it was applied the moderation analysis by following the traditional way (Baron & Kenny, 1986;Hermida & Luchman, 2013). To analyse the traditional forms of moderation, a three-step process is required.…”