usman raja

THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY ON PSYCHOLOGICALCONTRACTS

USMAN RAJAGARY JOHNS

FILOTHEOS NTALIANISConcordia University

This research examined the relationship between employee personality and psycho-logical contract type, perceptions of contract breach, and feelings of contract violation.In general, personality characteristics (extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism,self-esteem, equity sensitivity, and locus of control) were related to reported contracttype. They also tended to predict perceptions of contract breach and to moderate therelationship between those perceptions and feelings of contract violation. Both con-tract type and feelings of violation were associated with job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment, and intentions to quit.

Recent years have seen a renewal of interest intwo phenomena with histories of research in organ-izational behavior—personality, and psychologicalcontracts. In this article, we examine the relation-ship between these two phenomena to address im-portant research omissions in both domains.

Despite renewed interest in personality, spurredin part by convergence among researchers on theutility of the five-factor model of personality (Gold-berg, 1990), and despite growing evidence of asso-ciations between personality and work attitudesand behavior (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge &Bono, 2001), the exact mechanisms by which per-sonality affects organizational behavior have notbeen well specified. This is a serious omission inlight of the fact that the failure to specify the mech-anisms linking particular personality traits or di-mensions to criteria was in part responsible for theearlier demise of research on personality in theworkplace (Hough & Schneider, 1996). At the sametime, despite growing agreement among research-ers that psychological contracts are personal andidiosyncratic (Rousseau, 1989), research has notsystematically examined dispositional contributorsto contracts. This omission is curious, given thatsuch contracts are self-constructed. In what fol-lows, we offer theoretical arguments that predict

what kinds of contracts people with certain person-ality traits will establish, as well as the likelihoodthat they will perceive contract breaches and reportfeelings of violation. In addition, we consider howcontract type and violation are associated with im-portant personal and organizational outcomes.

Psychological contracts are defined as a person’sperceptions and expectations about the mutual ob-ligations in an employment exchange relationship(Rousseau, 1989). Transactional contracts areshort-term, have a purely economic or materialisticfocus, and entail limited involvement by both par-ties. Relational contracts are long-term and broad,as they are not restricted to purely economic ex-change but also include terms for loyalty in ex-change for security or growth in an organization(Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau & McLeanParks, 1993). Concepts that have attracted attentionin research on psychological contracts include per-ceived breach and felt violation. According to Mor-rison and Robinson, “Perceived breach refers to thecognition that one’s organization has failed to meetone or more obligations within one’s psychologicalcontract in a manner commensurate with one’scontributions . . . perceived breach represents acognitive assessment of contract fulfillment that isbased on an employee’s perception of what eachparty has promised and provided to the other”(1997: 230). Violation, however, refers to emotionaldistress and feelings of betrayal, anger, and wrong-ful harm arising from the realization that one’s or-ganization has not fulfilled a highly salient promise(Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1989). Thisdistinction clearly signifies breach as the productof a more deliberate and cognitive search aimed atmonitoring how well one’s psychological contract

This research was supported by grant 00-ER-0506 fromQuebec’s Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs etl’Aide a la Recherche and grants 410-99-1491, 410-2003-0630, and 410-2003-1014 from the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada. The first authoralso received support from the International Council forCanadian Studies under their Canadian CommonwealthScholarship and Fellowship Program.

� Academy of Management Journal2004, Vol. 47, No. 3, 350–367.

350

is being upheld by one’s organization. Violation is,on the other hand, a deep emotional response thatis more affective and a result of blaming one’s or-ganization for a broken promise. Other things beingequal, a more serious breach should lead to stron-ger feelings of violation. However, it is our conten-tion that personality will influence the propensityboth to detect breach and to respond to breach withfeelings of violation.

PERSONALITY, CONTRACTS, AND OUTCOMES

Relating Contract Types, Perceived Breach, andViolation to Personality

Personality might affect psychological contractdynamics through three processes: choice, con-strual, and enactment. Choice refers to job-seekingbehavior and is most pertinent to the type of con-tract sought after or negotiated. The motivationalimplications of personality are most relevant topreferences for contract type. Construal refers toperceptions of contract type, breach, and violation.The cognitive and affective implications of person-ality are most relevant to construal. Rousseau(1989) has stressed the highly personal, idiosyn-cratic, self-constructed nature of psychologicalcontracts. These characteristics suggest that thereare few external constraints on construal, thus al-lowing for the influence of personality (cf. Mischel,1968). Finally, enactment refers to the impact ofpersonality on organization behavior and attitudes.Such behavior and attitudes might influence thecontract terms offered by an employer or the mod-ification of a contract over time. We chose person-ality variables for study and framed hypothesesmainly on the basis of their relevance for choiceand construal. In the discussion section, we spec-ulate about the role of enactment in the interpreta-tion of our results.

Given our belief that personality might affect or-ganizational behavior in part through its impact oncontracting, we chose personality variables with ademonstrated history of relevance to behavior inorganizations. We began with the “Big Five” modelof personality (Goldberg, 1990), which has had con-siderable impact on thinking about organizationalbehavior (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge,Heller, & Mount, 2002). Below, we offer specificlogic for inclusion of the Big Five variables neurot-icism, extraversion, and conscientiousness. Weomitted from consideration the Big Five dimensionknown as openness to experience in view of itscontroversial structure, limited research history,and generally weak relevance to organizational be-havior (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997). Because of

their preference for close relationships and theircooperative good nature, we predicted that individ-uals high on the Big Five trait agreeableness wouldreport relational contracts and be less prone to ex-periencing breach and violation. However, we wereunable to establish a reliable level of measurementfor agreeableness (� � .43) and thus omitted it fromour predictions and analyses.

For exploratory purposes, we were also inter-ested in incorporating a few narrower, more spe-cific traits. We developed a list of such traits andeliminated those that were closely associated withparticular Big Five dimensions or with each other.Equity sensitivity was retained in light of the prom-issory aspect of psychological contracts and previ-ous conjecture concerning its relevance to contract-ing (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Self-esteem wasincorporated because its implications for self-con-fidence and vigilance respectively pertain to con-tract formation and maintenance. Similarly, locusof control was chosen because its relevance forsensitivity to future events and vigilance respec-tively pertain to contract formation and mainte-nance. Narrower traits considered relevant but notmeasured owing to conceptual overlap includednegative affectivity, which is highly correlated withthe Big Five neuroticism dimension (Watson &Clark, 1997), and generalized self-efficacy, which ishighly correlated with self-esteem (e.g., Judge,Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998).

Neuroticism. Neuroticism is a widely researchedpersonality trait from the Big Five. It is associatedwith emotional instability, mistrust, anxiety, self-pity, and lack of psychological adjustment (Gold-berg, 1990; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick,1999). Neurotics are limited in social skills andavoid situations that demand taking control (Judge,Locke, & Durham, 1997).

There is a negative correlation between neuroti-cism and job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1999; Judge,Heller, & Mount, 2002), extrinsic career success(Judge et al., 1999), job complexity (Judge, Bono, &Locke, 2000), and performance (Barrick & Mount,1991) over a wide variety of jobs. High anxiety, animportant facet of neuroticism, is negatively relatedto performance on complex tasks (Spector, 1982).The characteristics associated with neuroticismsuggest that such individuals will not engage inrelationships that require long-term commitmentson their part and demand high social skills, trust inothers, and initiative. They will form psychologicalcontracts that are short-term and purely economic,involving exchanges for specific aspects of perfor-mance that do not demand high initiative and con-fidence.

On the one hand, the low trust of neurotics in

2004 351Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis

others suggests that they would expect breach tooccur. On the other hand, neurotics are not ex-pected to be active information seekers monitoringhow well their psychological contracts are beingmaintained, because such processes can lead to thediscovery of psychologically disquieting informa-tion. Also, being an affect-related trait, neuroticismis more likely to influence an individual’s emo-tional response (violation) than to influence per-ceived breach, which is more cognitive (Morrison &Robinson, 1997). We therefore suggest that:

Hypothesis 1a. Neurotics will tend to formtransactional contracts.

Hypothesis 1b. Neuroticism will be negativelyrelated to perceived breach.

Extraversion. Extroverts are highly social, talk-ative, energetic, enthusiastic, assertive, and ambi-tious (Costa & McCrae, 1992). They have high de-sire for material gain, status, recognition, andpower (Costa & McCrae, 1988). The assertive com-ponent of extraversion is associated with a desirefor increased salary and status (Cattell, 1981). Ex-traversion is also positively related to performance(Barrick & Mount, 1991) and job satisfaction (Judgeet al., 2002). Although extroverts actively seek eco-nomic rewards in exchange relationships, they willtend to form long-term psychological contracts.The reason is that short-term, purely economic con-tracts are very limited and restrictive. Such psycho-logical contracts cannot offer opportunities forgaining desired status, power, or recognition thatrequire central positions in social networks (Krack-hardt, 1990). We argue that extroverts will formrelational contracts with more emphasis on mate-rialistic terms and opportunities for gain in theirexchange relationships. Being highly assertive, en-ergetic, ambitious, and susceptible to materialisticinfluence, extroverts will be very vigilant in moni-toring how well their contracts are being fulfilledby their organization. Using their high social skills,they will actively seek information to ensure thatthe organization does not deny them opportunityfor gain in the short or the long term.

Hypothesis 2a. Extroverts will tend to establishrelational contracts.

Hypothesis 2b. Extraversion will be positivelyrelated to perceived breach.

Conscientiousness. Individuals with high con-scientiousness are methodical, dependable, andrisk averse (Goldberg, 1990). They tend to exhibithigh performance and to be satisfied with their jobs(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge et al., 1999, 2002).People rating high on this trait exhibit motivation

for achievement, and they are more concerned withtask accomplishment than with economic rewards(Stewart, 1996). We argue that conscientious peo-ple will tend to form long-term employment ex-change relationships. They will try to choose anenvironment in which they have greater opportu-nities for achievement and success, even thoughthey might have to delay gratification for futuregrowth opportunities. Although conscientious peo-ple will form relational contracts, they will be veryactive in monitoring how well their contracts arebeing maintained. Being risk averse, they will ac-tively seek information regarding their exchangerelationships with organizations so that they do notface any unpleasant surprises. Also, their desire forgrowth and success will stimulate vigilance tomonitor their psychological contracts. We thereforepropose:

Hypothesis 3a. Employees with high conscien-tiousness will tend to form relational contracts.

Hypothesis 3b. High conscientiousness will bepositively related to perceived breach.

Equity sensitivity. Proposed by Huseman, Hat-field, and Miles (1987), equity sensitivity is a per-sonality variable that explains individual differ-ences in reactions to inequity (O’Neil & Mone,1998). Persons high in equity sensitivity are outcome-oriented, wanting more than others for a given levelof inputs (Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). On the otherhand, those low in equity sensitivity pay more atten-tion to their inputs and are less sensitive to equityissues in exchange relationships (Huseman et al.,1987; Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). Miles, Hatfield, andHuseman (1994) found that people high in equitysensitivity place importance on tangible extrinsicoutcomes such as pay, status, and fringe benefits.Employees with low equity sensitivity placed impor-tance on intangible intrinsic outcomes such as a senseof accomplishment, making use of one’s abilities, andfeelings of personal worth. Equity sensitivity is neg-atively related to job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment and positively related to intentions toquit (O’Neil & Mone, 1998). Equity sensitivity is alsoassociated with a poor work ethic and low socialresponsibility (Mudrack, Mason, & Stepanski, 1999).

In light of the above, we expect that people highin equity sensitivity will form transactional con-tracts. Being focused on pay, status, and materialgain, they will form contracts that provide clearopportunity for these. Being very sensitive to eq-uity issues, they will place less importance on re-lationships than on extrinsic gains. As they exhibitlow social responsibility and tend to sacrifice thework ethic to make gains (Mudrack et al., 1999),

352 JuneAcademy of Management Journal

they will not form long-term psychological con-tracts that may require delay of gratification and/orthe exhibition of high social responsibility in theirorganizations. Similarly, being highly concernedwith equity issues, they will be very vigilant inmonitoring the maintenance of their psychologicalcontracts. We therefore propose the following twohypotheses:

Hypothesis 4a. People high in equity sensitivitywill tend to form transactional contracts.

Hypothesis 4b. Equity sensitivity will be posi-tively related to perceived breach.

Locus of control. Locus of control is a variablereflecting how people perceive the strength of thelink between their own actions and the outcomes ofthose actions (Rotter, 1966). People with internalloci of control (“internals”), as compared to thosewith external loci of control (“externals”), believemore strongly that outcomes (such as rewards) areunder their own control (Rotter, 1966; Spector,1982). Externals are less likely to perceive a rela-tionship between their inputs or efforts and out-comes. They attribute success or failure to factorsbeyond their own control, such as chance or pow-erful others. Internal locus of control is positivelyrelated to affective commitment (Meyer, Stanley,Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) and job satisfac-tion (Judge & Bono, 2001).

Compared to internals, externals find jobs thatare less well suited to them (Judge et al., 2000), areless satisfied and motivated, and exhibit lower jobperformance (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al.,2000). Externals show low alertness and are notsensitive to information related to future situationsand outcomes (Miller, Kets De Vries, & Toulouse,1982; Phares, 1976; Spector, 1982). Paying littleattention to future situations, externals will be lessconcerned with long-term relationships. They willform contracts that offer them accessible short-termgains rather than future opportunities fraught withuncertainty. As opposed to internals, who are bet-ter adjusted in their jobs, externals will form psy-chological contracts that allow maximization of theshort-term outcomes of their inputs. They will notvigilantly monitor their exchange environment, asthey believe outcomes to be under the control offactors such as influential others or luck.

Hypothesis 5a. Externals will tend to formtransactional psychological contracts.

Hypothesis 5b. External locus of control will benegatively related to perceived breach.

Self-esteem. Self-esteem, which refers to thevalue one puts on the self, has been termed the

evaluative component of the self-concept (Rosen-berg, 1979). People high in self-esteem value them-selves, exhibit confidence, and opt for occupationsthat match their abilities and self-perceived traits(Judge et al., 1997, 2000; Tharenou, 1979). Self-esteem is positively related to job satisfaction, taskmotivation, and job performance (Erez & Judge,2001; Judge & Bono, 2001). Individuals with highself-esteem tend to have a desire for achievementand are highly competitive (Brockner, 1988). Beingstrong performers and having a desire for growth,achievement, and success, they will form psycho-logical contracts that promise such opportunities.The preference for growth and achievement is un-likely to be fulfilled through a purely economic,short-term relationship. It calls for a long-term re-lationship in which economic terms are accompa-nied by factors such as status and prestige beinglinked to high performance. Also, as they choosejobs that match their abilities and personalities(Judge et al., 2000), they will be well adjusted intheir jobs, considering them to provide maximumopportunities for success. Therefore, individualswith high self-esteem will form long-term contractsthat are somewhat balanced in terms of relation-ship and performance/rewards criteria. Their highconfidence and perceptions of high self-worth willmake them active and vigilant in monitoring infor-mation pertinent to exchange relationships. In or-der to maintain their positive self-concepts, theywill exhibit high alertness to ensure that their psy-chological contracts are being properly maintainedand they are receiving what is expected from theirorganizations.

Hypothesis 6a. People high in self-esteem willtend to form relational contracts.

Hypothesis 6b. Self-esteem will be positivelyrelated to perceived breach.

Contract Type and Personal and OrganizationalOutcomes

Theory provides good grounds for expecting thatrelational contracts will facilitate positive personaland organizational outcomes better than transac-tional contracts will (Rousseau, 1995; Rousseau &McLean Parks, 1993). Indeed, relational contractshave been shown to relate positively (and transac-tional contracts, negatively) to job commitment, or-ganizational commitment, and expected job tenure(Millward & Hopkins, 1998; Rousseau, 1990). How-ever, most other evidence bearing on the differen-tial outcomes of these contract types is indirect(e.g., Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Shore &


Barksdale, 1998). In light of such limited but sug-gestive evidence, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 7a. Relational contracts will benegatively related to intentions to quit and pos-itively related to job satisfaction and affectivecommitment.

Hypothesis 7b. Transactional contracts will bepositively related to intentions to quit and neg-atively related to job satisfaction and affectivecommitment.

Perceived Breach, Violation, and Outcomes

Perceived breach signals an imbalance in the so-cial exchange process in which an employee doesnot receive expected outcomes from an organiza-tion for fulfilling his or her obligations (Morrison &Robinson, 1997). To address this imbalance, em-ployees have the options of altering either theirown or the organization’s obligations (Robinson etal., 1994). Available theory and some empiricalevidence justify a positive relationship betweenperceived breach and undesirable outcomes suchas intentions to quit and actual turnover (Bunder-son, 2001; Robinson, 1996). Similarly, literaturesupports the idea of a negative relationship be-tween perceived breach and desirable outcomessuch as job satisfaction, organizational commit-ment, and performance (Bunderson, 2001; Robin-son & Morrison, 2000).

Hypothesis 8. Perceived breach will lead tohigher intentions to quit and lower job satisfac-tion and affective commitment.

Violation describes the feelings of anger, distress,injustice, and mistrust arising from the realizationthat one’s organization has failed to fulfill its obli-gations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau,1989). Whether perceived breach is converted intofeelings of violation depends on the size and sa-lience of the promise or expectation the organiza-tion failed to fulfill (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).Violation therefore is one of the mechanismsthrough which perceived breach is translated intooutcomes such as intentions to quit, low job satis-faction, and low organizational commitment. Em-ployees who realize that their organization hasfailed to provide them something that they not onlydeserved, but that is also important to them, expe-rience feelings of anger, mistrust, and betrayal.These feelings in turn make the employees dissat-isfied, less committed to the organization, andlikely to quit.

Hypothesis 9a. Perceived breach will be posi-tively related to violation.

Hypothesis 9b. Violation will mediate the rela-tionship between perceived breach and inten-tions to quit, job satisfaction, and affectivecommitment.

Robinson and Morrison (2000) showed that attri-butions and fairness perceptions interacted withperceived breach to predict violation. We antici-pated that personality would serve a similar mod-erator function. Personality explains how peoplediffer in their social interactions, reactions to per-ceived injustice, and attachment of importance tovarious extrinsic and intrinsic outcomes. Conscien-tious people are more concerned with task accom-plishment than with rewards (Stewart, 1996). Theyare willing to forego immediate extrinsic rewardsfor future success (Goldberg, 1990). These peopleare not expected to readily convert the realizationof every unmet promise into feelings of violation.In order to maintain healthy relationships withtheir employers and have optimal opportunities forgrowth and achievement, they will tend to focusmore on their inputs in order to give their best.People with high self-esteem tend to be good per-formers and to choose professions that best fit theirabilities and strengths (Judge et al., 1997, 2000;Tharenou, 1979). Being well adjusted, they willtrust their organizations and not show emotionalreactions to every breach they detect. Similarly,externals are less likely to feel violated becausethey attribute success and failure more to factorssuch as chance (Spector, 1982). They will neitherbe too excited over a success nor be too surprised ifsome of their expectations are not met. Extrovertswill not exhibit very strong emotional reactions toany detected breaches to conserve their relation-ships with their employers and maintain socialreputation.

People high in neuroticism are anxious, lacktrust, and perceive failures in life (Judge et al.,1999). They are expected to show stronger affectivereactions to a perceived breach, once detected, thanthose who are low in neuroticism. Skarlicki, Folger,and Tesluk’s (1999) finding that negative affectiv-ity, which is very closely related to neuroticism(Watson & Clark, 1997), moderated the relationshipbetween perceptions of fairness and retaliatory be-haviors extends some support to this idea. Simi-larly, people high in equity sensitivity want moreoutcomes for a given level of inputs than do refer-ent others (Huseman et al., 1987). They also viewthe world as unfair, and a small breach can makethem feel that they have been treated unjustly. Be-ing highly sensitive to equity issues, and focusing


more on outcomes than on inputs, people high inequity sensitivity are more likely to experiencefeelings of violation than are those who are lessconcerned with outcomes and who focus more ontheir own inputs (such as internals). We thereforesuggest that personality will interact with breach inpredicting violation.

Hypothesis 10. Personality will moderate thepositive relationship between breach and vio-lation in such a way that the relationship willbe stronger for people high in equity sensitivityand neuroticism and weaker for persons highin extraversion, conscientiousness, external lo-cus of control, and self-esteem.

METHODS

Sample and Procedure

The sample consisted of employees working infive well-established private and public sector or-ganizations located in Pakistan. The research sitesincluded a branch of a private sector bank, a fertil-izer processing and production company, an engi-neering firm, a research lab of a semiautonomousgovernment research organization, and the headoffice of a large multinational consumer productsorganization. Research access was gained throughpersonal and professional contacts of the first au-thor who made these organizational units availablefor sampling.

Surveys were distributed to employees workingin secretarial, clerical, or higher-level positionsthrough designated, trained people in their respec-tive organizational units. A cover letter explainingthe purpose and scope of the study assured respon-dents of strict anonymity and that participation inthe study was voluntary. Of the 300 surveys dis-tributed, 45 went to the bank (responses, 31; re-sponse rate, 68%), 100 to the fertilizer company(responses, 66; response rate, 66%), 45 to the engi-neering company (responses, 30; response rate,66%), 30 to the research lab (responses, 21; re-sponse rate, 70%), and 80 went to the head office ofthe multinational company (responses, 49; re-sponse rate, 61%). Overall, from the 300 question-naires distributed, we received 197 usable re-sponses, representing a response rate of 66 percent.

The respondents had a mean age of 38.81 years(s.d. � 9.86), and 94 percent were male. Meantenure with the organization was 12.25 years (s.d.� 9.50). Education levels ranged from high schoolcompletion to receiving a Ph.D., with 10.2 percentof the respondents having a high school certificateand the remaining 89.8 percent having college oruniversity education. Although respondents occu-

pied diverse occupational levels, ranging from cler-ical and secretarial staff to upper management,most of the sample (76%) occupied junior andmiddle-level managerial, professional, and techni-cal positions. To partially check for sampling bias,we compared the mean age of our respondents withthe corresponding organizational means for the fer-tilizer (37.1 vs. 38.7, t � 1.26, n.s.) and multina-tional (37.4 vs. 39.5, t � 1.16, n.s.) companies. Aclose correspondence was observed in both cases.

Measures

All measures were obtained from a “self-report”questionnaire. Unless otherwise noted, a responsescale anchored by 1, “strongly disagree,” and 5,“strongly agree,” was used, and high variablescores denote high levels of the construct in ques-tion. In Pakistan, English is taught as a major, com-pulsory subject beginning in grade school and isthe medium of instruction for all university educa-tion. Except for entry-level jobs in which almost noeducation is required, every person employed inPakistan can at least read and understand English.Thus, given the sampling frame, we did not have totranslate the questionnaire into the native lan-guage.

Neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientious-ness. Neuroticism, extraversion, and conscien-tiousness were measured with 36 items (12 itemseach) taken from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory(NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-FFIwas derived from the revised NEO Personality In-ventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and is an exten-sively validated and used measure of the Big Fivepersonality dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 1988).Examples of items include “I often feel inferior toothers,” for neuroticism; “I like to have a lot ofpeople around me,” for extraversion; and “I ampretty good about pacing myself so as to get thingsdone on time,” for conscientiousness. Alpha reli-abilities were .72 for neuroticism, .62 for extraver-sion, and .77 for conscientiousness.

Equity sensitivity. Equity sensitivity was mea-sured with the 16-item Equity Preference Question-naire (EPQ) developed by Sauley and Bedeian(2000). They presented construct validity evidenceand argued that their measure does not have prob-lems endemic to earlier measures (e.g., see Miles etal., 1994). Items such as “I prefer to do as little aspossible at work while getting as much as I canfrom my employer” tap high equity sensitivity, oran orientation toward outcomes. Items such as “Ifeel obligated to do more than I am paid to do atwork” reflect low equity sensitivity, or orientationtoward inputs. Scores on items reflecting low eq-


uity sensitivity were reverse-coded so that a highscore on the scale reflected high equity sensitivity.The reliability of the EPQ measure was .75.

Locus of control. We assessed locus of controlwith Spector’s (1988) Work Locus of Control Scale(WLCS). The WLCS is a 16-item measure designedto capture employees’ beliefs about their controlover their organizational outcomes (Spector, 1988).Eight items each are worded to reflect external ver-sus internal locus of control. An example of anexternally worded item is “It takes a lot of luck tobe an outstanding employee on most jobs.” Con-versely, “On most jobs, people can pretty muchaccomplish whatever they set out to accomplish” isan example of an internally worded item. Scores forinternally worded items were reversed so that ahigh score reflected high external locus of control.The WLCS demonstrated an internal consistencyreliability of .63.

Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured with theeight-item Rosenberg Global Self-Esteem Scale(Rosenberg, 1965), an instrument that capturesoverall perceptions of self-appreciation and self-worth. “I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least onan equal plane with others” is a sample item. Theinternal consistency reliability for this scale was.70.

Given that we measured 76 personality itemswith 197 respondents, we assessed the discrimi-nant validity of the six personality traits followingprocedures recommended by Anderson and Gerb-ing (1998). This assessment involved 15 confirma-tory analyses assessing the discriminant validity ofeach pair of traits in which a constrained model (asingle-factor model or a two-factor model with aperfect correlation of one) was compared with anunrestricted two-factor model. Discriminant valid-ity was achieved for all personality variables, as thechi-squares in all the comparisons were signifi-cantly lower (p � .001) for the unconstrainedmodels.

Psychological contract. The reported psycholog-ical contract was initially measured with the 31-item Psychological Contract Scale developed byMillward and Hopkins (1998). Two dimensions,comprising relational (11 items) and transactional(20 items) contracts, underpin the instrument. Prin-cipal axis factor analysis forcing two factors did notexactly replicate the Millward and Hopkins (1998)solution. Five items did not “load” on either factor.In addition, a number of Millward and Hopkins’stransactional items (items that their own focusgroup had designated as relational) cross-loaded orloaded negatively onto our relational factor. Weconsidered this instability unhelpful for future re-search and thus trimmed the measure so as to retain

only the items that had replicated loading patternsin both studies. In doing so, we retained 9 of their11 relational items and 9 of their 20 transactionalitems. These items were among those also retainedin a factor analysis of contract terms by Irving,Cawsey, and Cruikshank (2002). The shortened 18-item scale revealed a clear two-factor solution thataccounted for 36.4 percent of the variance (see theAppendix), with coefficient alphas of .79 for rela-tional contract and .72 for transactional contract.To examine the validity of our shortened scale, weadministered both it and the contract items (10relational, 8 transactional) from Rousseau’s (2000)Psychological Contract Inventory to an indepen-dent sample of 103 employees attending university-sponsored employee development programs in Pa-kistan. Our derived measures of transactional andrelational contracts correlated .71 and .59 with therespective Rousseau measures, thus providing evi-dence for convergent validity.

Perceived breach. A five-item measure devel-oped by Robinson and Morrison (2000) was used toassess perceived contract breach. It captured em-ployees’ perceptions of how well their employingorganizations had fulfilled their obligations tothem. Robinson and Morrison (2000) argued thatthis measure was consistent with current psycho-logical contracts literature in which breach isviewed as an overall estimation of employer-keptpromises (Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 1989). Itemsfor perceived breach included “My employer hasbroken many of its promises to me even though I’veupheld my side of the deal.” The perceived con-tract breach scale demonstrated an internal consis-tency reliability of .79.

Feelings of violation. Feelings of violation wereassessed with a four-item measure developed byRobinson and Morrison (2000). While breach has acognitive focus, violation is meant to capture affec-tive reactions in the context of a contract. Respon-dents were asked to indicate how much they agreedwith statements such as “I feel extremely frustratedby how I have been treated by my organization.”Coefficient alpha for feelings of violation was .81.

The high correlation between perceived breachand violation (r � .72) and the relative newness ofthe scales warranted caution in using them. Wetherefore performed a confirmatory factor analysisto see if perceived breach and violation were dis-tinct constructs. Results revealed that a two-factormodel (�2 � 68.43, df � 26, CFI � .94, GFI � .93,AGFI � .88, RMSEA � .09) fitted the data slightlybetter than a single-factor model (�2 � 76.20, df �27, CFI � .92, GFI � .92, AGFI � .86, RMSEA �.10), and the difference in chi-squares was signifi-cant (��2 � 7.77, df � 1, p � .01), Similar tests


supported the discriminability of the contract typesfrom breach and violation.

Outcomes. Intentions to leave the organizationwere measured with a three-item scale extractedfrom the Michigan Organizational AssessmentQuestionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &Klesh, 1982). Items included “I will probably lookfor a new job in the next year.” The coefficientalpha for the scale was .83. Affective commitmentwas measured with the eight-item scale developedby Allen and Meyer (1990). Items included “I enjoydiscussing my organization with people outside it.”For this scale, the coefficient alpha was .82. Jobsatisfaction was measured with Hoppock’s (1935)scale, which comprises four multiple-choice ques-tions, each of which offers seven answer options.For example, for the question “Which one of thefollowing shows how much of the time you feelsatisfied with your job?” response options rangefrom 1, “never,” to 7, “all the time.” The reliabilitycoefficient was .75. Confirmatory factor analysesrevealed that a three-factor model best fitted theoutcome data (�2 � 152.71, df � 87, CFI � .94,GFI � .90, AGFI � .87, RMSEA � .06), providingevidence for discriminant validity.

Control variables. Age, tenure with the em-ployer, occupational level, and organization wereused as control variables. Age and tenure wereincluded because contract dynamics may changeover the course of an individual’s career. Occupa-tional level was measured by reported job title andjob grade. We coded jobs in such a way that higher

numbers corresponded to higher occupational lev-els. Thus, the lowest number (1) corresponded tothe clerical and secretarial level, and the highestnumber (5) was assigned to upper management.One-way analyses of variance were conducted tocompare occupational levels on breach, violation,relational contract, transactional contract, job satis-faction, affective commitment, and intentions toquit. These tests revealed that there were differ-ences in contract type (F � 3.26, p � .01) andviolation (F � 4.79, p � .001) across occupationallevels, with higher levels reporting more relationalcontracts and less violation. Thus, we controlledfor occupational level in regression analyses. Also,one-way analyses of variance were performed onthese same variables across organizations. Signifi-cant differences were observed for affective com-mitment (F � 6.77, p � .001) and job satisfaction(F � 5.07, p � .001), and post hoc tests indicatedthat they were due to the tendency for the bankemployees to be somewhat more committed andsatisfied than the balance of the sample. To con-serve degrees of freedom, we formed a dummy-coded variable (1 � “bank,” 0 � “other organiza-tion”) to serve as a control variable.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and corre-lations among the variables. All correlations above.14 in magnitude are significant at p � .05, andthose above .17 are significant at p � .01. The mean

TABLE 1Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilitiesa, b

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Age 38.81 9.862. Tenure 12.25 9.50 .803. Organization type 0.16 0.37 .26 .514. Occupational level 3.31 0.82 .31 .14 �.045. Neuroticism 2.65 0.52 .13 .14 .13 �.02 (.72)6. Extraversion 3.47 0.42 �.07 .01 .15 �.04�.33 (.62)7. Conscientiousness 3.98 0.46 .09 .10 .16 .06�.37 .36 (.77)8. Equity sensitivity 2.25 0.45 �.08 .03 �.07 �.29 .36 �.27 �.47 (.75)9. Locus of control 2.73 0.37 .07 .10 .01 �.16 .27 �.27 �.18 .41 (.63)

10. Self-esteem 3.93 0.48 .00 �.04 .03 .21�.49 .35 .45 �.53 �.36 (.70)11. Relational contracts 3.74 0.52 .29 .35 .24 .16�.26 .20 .40 �.36 �.31 .32 (.79)12. Transactional

contracts2.61 0.53 .08 .12 .07 �.11 .25 �.25 �.18 .48 .31 �.35 �.15 (.72)

13. Perceived breach 2.63 0.74 �.10 �.11 �.03 �.11 .21 �.13 �.22 .31 .38 �.25 �.45 .22 (.79)14. Violation 2.22 0.77 �.07 �.08 �.08 �.21 .20 �.08 �.18 .39 .29 �.27 �.45 .42 .72 (.81)15. Intentions to quit 2.46 0.92 �.28 �.31 �.17 �.08 .11 �.05 �.17 .26 .17 �.12 �.57 .26 .48 .62 (.83)16. Affective commitment 3.45 0.63 .38 .42 .35 .15�.13 .18 .32 �.43 �.20 .25 .65 �.37 �.49 �.55 �.66 (.82)17. Job satisfaction 5.33 0.85 .38 .48 .31 .05�.16 .17 .36 �.25 �.17 .29 .57 �.18 �.30 �.33 �.49 .67 (.75)

a n � 197; alpha reliabilities are given in parentheses. For organization type, 1, “bank”; 0, “other organization.” Occupational levelranges from 1, “clerical and secretarial,” to 5, “upper management.”

b For correlations greater than or equal to .14, p � .05; for correlations greater than or equal to .17, p � .01.


for transactional contract type was 2.61, and thatfor relational contract was 3.74. The correlationbetween the two contract types was �.15. Themean for perceived breach was 2.63 (s.d. � 0.74)and for violation it was 2.22 (s.d. � 0.77). Thesevalues are consistent with research by Robinsonand Morrison (2000), who reported means of 2.63(s.d. � 0.95) for perceived breach and of 2.05 (s.d.� 0.95) for feelings of violation in a sample ofrecent U.S. MBA graduates. Robinson and Morri-son (2000) reported a correlation of .68 betweenperceived breach and violation, and in the currentstudy this value was .72.

The bivariate associations shown in the correla-tion matrix indicate provisional support for all“main effect” hypotheses dealing with personalityand contract type, contract type and outcomes,breach and outcomes, and breach and violation.However, several hypotheses concerning personal-ity and breach were not supported: 1b, 2b, 3b, 5b,and 6b.

Regression Analyses

We performed several hierarchical regressionanalyses to formally test the hypotheses. In all theregressions, age, tenure, occupational level, and or-ganization type were entered as control variables inthe first step. Because this exploratory study in-cluded a range of broad and narrow personalitytraits, a legitimate question arose as to how to an-alyze the data. In most cases, we conducted sepa-rate regression analyses for the broader Big Fivepersonality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, andconscientiousness and the more specific, focusedtraits of equity sensitivity, locus of control, andself-esteem. This analytic technique respected thebasic taxonomic level of the personality variables(Hough & Schneider, 1996), and it was also consis-tent with their typical treatment in the literature.For example, the Big Five variables or a subset ofthem are frequently analyzed simultaneously,while the same has applied to the more focusedvariables under consideration here (e.g., Sauley &Bedeian, 2000). Also, separate analyses corre-sponded more closely to the theoretical thinkingthat guided the development of the specific hy-potheses. That is, the hypotheses were guided byresearch devoted to explicating the nature of theindividual traits rather than possible higher-orderamalgamations of them (cf. Judge, Bono, Ilies, &Gerhardt, 2002). For instance, our treatment of lo-cus of control owes at least as much to its implica-tions for environmental scanning and informationprocessing as it does to its possible higher-orderself-evaluative properties, such as core self-evalua-

tions (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001).Nevertheless, we later report three analyses thatassess the simultaneous impact of the broaderand narrower traits thought to represent core self-evaluations.

Relational contracts. The hypotheses predictthat extraversion, conscientiousness, and self-esteem will be positively related to relational con-tracts. To test these predictions, we regressed con-tract type on the Big Five traits and then on thenarrower traits (see Table 2). Conscientiousness(� � .27, p � .001) was a significant predictor ofrelational contract type, supporting Hypothesis 3a.However, extraversion was not related to relationalcontract type, disconfirming Hypothesis 2a. For thenarrow traits, a significant positive relationship be-tween self-esteem (� � .15, p � .05) and relationalcontracts confirmed Hypothesis 6a. Though not hy-pothesized, a negative relationship with relationalcontracts was found for neuroticism (� � � .20, p �.007), external locus of control (� � �.21, p � .003),and equity sensitivity (� � �.20, p � .01).

Transactional contracts. The hypotheses predictthat neuroticism, equity sensitivity, and externallocus of control will be positively related to trans-actional contracts. As shown in Table 2, neuroti-cism (� � .15, p � .06) was related (with marginalsignificance) to transactional contracts, supportingHypothesis 1a. Of the narrower traits, equity sensi-tivity (� � .37, p � .001) showed a significant,positive association with transactional contracts,but locus of control did not. These findings supportHypothesis 4a but fail to support Hypothesis 5a.Though not hypothesized, a negative relationshipemerged for extraversion and transactional con-tracts (� � � .18, p � .01)

Perceived breach. The hypotheses predict thatall six personality variables will be associated withperceptions of breach. Results presented in Table 2show that of the Big Five variables, neuroticism(marginally, at � � .14, p � .08) and conscientious-ness (� � �.17, p � .04) were related to perceivedbreach, but in directions contrary to those pre-dicted in Hypotheses 1b and 3b. Extraversion wasnot significantly related to perceived breach, andhence no support was found for Hypothesis 2b.Among the narrow traits, external locus of control(� � .34, p � .001) was a significant predictor ofperceived breach but in a direction opposite to thatpredicted in Hypothesis 5b. No significant relation-ship was found for either equity sensitivity or self-esteem to support the predictions in Hypotheses 4band 6b.

Three of the traits we studied, neuroticism, locusof control, and self-esteem, have been incorporatedin the higher-order construct core self-evaluations


(Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001). In orderto address the concerns of one reviewer about pos-sible overlap among these traits, we regressed thetwo contract types and breach on the three traitssimultaneously. For relational contracts and per-ceived breach, all results were similar in direction,magnitude, and significance to those reported ear-lier. For transactional contracts, neuroticism wasno longer a significant predictor, as expected fromHypothesis 1a. However, in this supplementaryanalysis external locus of control was positivelyrelated to transactional contracts (� � .16, p � .03),providing support for Hypothesis 5a.

Violation. Violation was regressed on breach andthe control variables. Results presented in Table 2show that breach significantly predicted violation(� � .70, p � .001), lending support to Hypothesis 9a.

Outcomes. We performed regression analyses totest contract type, perceived breach, and violationas predictors of the outcome variables intentions toquit, affective commitment, and job satisfaction.Regressing each of the three outcome variables onthe two contract types simultaneously and on per-ceived breach and violation resulted in nine regres-sion equations. Results are presented in the upperportion of Table 3.

Relational contracts were negatively related to

intentions to quit (� � �.53, p � .001) and posi-tively related to affective commitment (� � .49, p �.001) and job satisfaction (� � .43, p � .001). Trans-actional contracts were positively related to inten-tions to quit (� � .18, p � .003) and negativelyrelated to affective commitment (� � �.32, p �.001) and job satisfaction (� � �.19, p � .001).These results provide support for Hypotheses 7aand 7b. As predicted in Hypothesis 8, perceivedbreach was significantly related to intentions toquit (� � .44, p � .001), affective commitment (� ��.45, p � .001), and job satisfaction (� � �.27, p �.001). Similarly, violation was a significant predic-tor of intentions to quit (� � .60, p � .001), affectivecommitment (� � � .53, p � .001), and job satis-faction (� � �.35, p � .001).

Moderator and mediator analyses. Moderatedregression analysis was used to examine the inter-active effects of breach and personality traits onviolation. Controlling for extent of breach, this testexamined the propensity of those with particularpersonality traits to react more strongly in terms ofviolation. First, control variables were entered intothe model. In the second step, we entered person-ality variables along with breach to predict viola-tion. Then, in the last step, the interaction termsbetween breach and personality were entered.

TABLE 2Results of Regression Analyses for Transactional and Relational Contracts, Breach, and Violationa

Predictors

Relational Transactional Breach Violation

� R2 �R2 � R2 �R2 � R2 �R2 � R2 �R2

Big Five personality traitsStep 1

Control variables .15 .03 .02 .04Step 2

Neuroticism �.20** .15† .14† .18*Extraversion .01 �.18** �.02 .03Conscientiousness .27*** .30 .15*** �.07 .12 .09*** �.17* .09 .07** �.12 .10 .06**

Narrow traitsStep 1

Control variables .15 .03 .02 .04Step 2

Equity sensitivity �.20** .37*** .12 .25**Locus of control �.21** .09 .34*** .17*Self-esteem .15* .32 .17*** �.13 .25 .22*** �.07 .20 .18*** �.05 .17 .13***

Perceived breachStep 1

Control variables .04Step 2

Perceived breach .70*** .52 .48***

a n � 197; control variables were age, tenure, organization, and occupational level.† p � .10* p � .05

** p � .01*** p � .001


Altogether, two regression equations (involvingthe two sets of personality traits) yielded two sig-nificant (one marginally so) interactions. The re-sults, presented in Table 4, show that interactionterms for equity sensitivity (� � .77, p � .07) and

external locus of control (� � �1.34, p � .009) hadeffects on violation indicating that perceivedbreach had a stronger, positive relationship forhigher values of equity sensitivity and lower valuesof external locus of control. In other words, people

TABLE 3Results of Regression Analyses for Outcomesa

Predictors

Intentions to Quit Affective Commitment Job Satisfaction

� R2 �R2 � R2 �R2 � R2 �R2

Main effects: Contract type

Step 1Control variables .11 .23 .23

Step 2Relational �.53*** .49*** .43***Transactional .18*** .41 .30*** �.32*** .59 .36*** �.19*** .45 .22***

Main effects: Perceivedbreach


Step 2Perceived breach .44*** .30 .19*** �.45*** .43 .20*** �.27*** .30 .07***

Mediation: Violation


Step 2Violation .60*** .46 .35*** �.53*** .50 .27*** �.35*** .35 .12***

Step 3Perceived breach .04 .46 .001 �.15* .51 .01* �.05 .35 .001

Main effects: Personality


Step 2Six personality traits .20 .09** .38 .15*** .37 .14***

Mediation: Contracts


Step 2Contract types .41 .30*** .59 .36*** .45 .22***

Step 3Six personality traits .44 .02 .61 .02 .48 .03

a n � 197; control variables are age, tenure, organization type, and occupational level.* p � .05

** p � .01*** p � .001


who were sensitive to equity issues were prone toconvert breach into feelings of violation, as werethose who were more internal. These results lendpartial support to Hypothesis 10, which predictssignificant interactions for all personality variables.

Hypothesis 9b states that violation will mediatethe relationship between breach and the three out-comes. Results of regressions shown in Tables 2and 3 reveal breach as a significant predictor ofviolation as well as of the three outcome variables.In order to check for the mediation effects of viola-tion, we regressed the three outcome variables onbreach and violation together. As shown in thelower portion of Table 3, with violation in theequation, considerable reduction in the effect sizeof perceived breach was observed for intentions toquit (from � � .44, p � .001 to � � .04, p � .65),affective commitment (from � � �.45, p � .001 to� � �.15, p � .04), and job satisfaction (from � ��.27, p � .001 to � � �.05, p � .55). These resultsconfirm Hypothesis 9b, indicating that the negativeoutcomes of breach are substantially a function ofthe degree of felt violation.

We decided to perform two more sets of analysesto test for additional mediation effects. One analy-sis was conducted to assess whether contract typemediated the relationship between personality andthe outcomes, and the other was to test whetherperceived breach mediated the relationship be-tween personality and violation. In these tests, weemployed all six personality variables as a block.As shown in the lower portion of Table 3, withcontract type controlled, the variance explained bypersonality was reduced from .09 (F � 3.24, p �.05) to .02 (F � 1.18, n.s.) for intentions to quit;from .15 (F � 7.27, p � .05) to .02 (F � 1.11, n.s.) foraffective commitment; and from .14 (F � 6.43, p �.05) to .03 (F � 1.56, n.s.) for job satisfaction. Thereduced variance supported the mediating role ofcontract type in the personality-outcome relation-ship. Similarly, results in the lower portion of Ta-ble 4 show that, with perceived breach controlled,the variance in violation explained by personalitydecreased from .14 (F � 5.10, p � .001) to .03 (F �1.74, n.s.), again providing evidence for mediation.

Summary of Results

To summarize our results, Hypotheses 1a, 4a,and 5a respectively predict a positive relationshipbetween transactional contracts and neuroticism,equity sensitivity, and external locus of control.Although Hypotheses 1a and 4a were confirmed,we found no support for Hypothesis 5a, as locus ofcontrol was not related to reports of a transactionalcontract. Hypotheses 2a, 3a, and 6a respectively

TABLE 4Results of Moderator and Mediator Regression

Analyses for Violationa

Predictors

Violation

� R2 �R2

Moderator analyses

Big Five traitsStep 1

Control variables .04

Step 2Neuroticism 0.08Extraversion 0.05Conscientiousness �0.01Perceived breach 0.69*** .53 .49***

Step 3Breach � neuroticism 0.38Breach � extraversion �0.10Breach � conscientiousness 0.17 .54 .01

Narrow traitsStep 1


Step 2Equity sensitivity 0.17**Locus of control �0.06Self-esteem 0.00Perceived breach 0.68*** .55 .50***

Step 3Breach � equity sensitivity 0.77†

Breach � locus of control �1.34**Breach � self-esteem �0.13 .57 .02*

Mediator analyses

Main effects: PersonalityStep 1


Step 2:Six personality traits .18 .14***

Mediation: Perceived breach

Step 1Control variables .04

Step 2Perceived breach 0.70*** .53 .48***

Step 3Six personality traits .55 .03

a n � 197; control variables are age, tenure, organization type,and occupational level.

† p � .10* p � .05

** p � .01*** p � .001


predict a positive relationship between relationalcontracts and extraversion, conscientiousness, andself-esteem. Results confirmed Hypotheses 3a and6a but failed to support the predicted associationbetween extraversion and relational contracts.

Hypotheses 1b, 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b, and 6b predictrelationships between personality traits and per-ceived breach. No relationship existed betweenperceived breach and extraversion, equity sensitiv-ity, and self-esteem. Thus, Hypotheses 2b, 4b, and6b were not supported. Although neuroticism, con-scientiousness, and locus of control were signifi-cantly related to perceived breach (neuroticism wasmarginally so), the directions were opposite tothose predicted in Hypotheses 1b, 3b, and 5b. Un-expectedly, individuals with high neuroticism, lowconscientiousness, and high external locus of con-trol were the most likely to perceive breach.

Hypothesis 7a proposes relationships betweenrelational contracts and the outcomes. This hypoth-esis was supported in all respects, as relationalcontracts were negatively related to intentions toquit and positively related to job satisfaction andaffective commitment. Similarly, full support wasobserved for Hypothesis 7b, which predicts thattransactional contracts will be positively related tointentions to quit and negatively related to job sat-isfaction and affective commitment.

Breach was positively related to feelings of vio-lation and intentions to quit and negatively relatedto satisfaction and commitment, thus supportingHypotheses 8 and 9a. Violation mediated the rela-tionship between perceived breach and all out-comes, supporting Hypothesis 9b. Hypothesis 10proposes that all six personality traits will moder-ate the relationship between perceived breach andfelt violation. It was partially supported, in thatmoderator effects in the predicted direction werefound for equity sensitivity and locus of control.

DISCUSSION

In general, we found reasonably good support formany of the hypotheses. In particular, four of thesix predictions concerning personality and contracttype were confirmed, with “equity sensitives” andneurotics reporting transactional contracts, whilepeople with high conscientiousness and self-esteem reported relational contracts. Although nosupport was found for the prediction that extro-verts would form relational contracts, extraversionwas negatively associated with transactional con-tract terms. In addition, consistent support was ob-tained for the favorable impact of a relational con-tract on job satisfaction, affective commitment, andintentions to quit and the unfavorable impact of a

transactional contract and breach of contract onthese same outcomes. Some support was found forthe prediction that personality would moderate thetranslation of breach into violation—as predicted,equity sensitives were more inclined, and externalswere less inclined, to respond to breach with feel-ings of violation.

The data did not bear out our hypotheses con-cerning the personality predictors of perceivedbreach. In particular, extraversion, equity sensitiv-ity, and self-esteem were unrelated to breach. Moreworrisome, neuroticism was positively related tobreach (at p � .08), as was external locus of control,while conscientiousness was negatively related tobreach, all directionally counter to expectations.The hypothesized relationships were predicated onMorrison and Robinson’s (1997) portrayal of breachas an essentially cognitive estimation. Thus, ourpredictions were based on the implications of thevarious personality dimensions for vigilance andinformation processing. If breach is a “hotter” con-struct than the cool calculation Morrison and Rob-inson described, our findings make sense, on thebasis of the more emotive implications of the stud-ied traits. For instance, neurotic personalities oftenlack trust, and such individuals might be inclinedto see breach more easily than the less neurotic.

There are, however, two other plausible reasonsfor our results for breach. First, it is possible thatbreach and violation are more easily separable con-cepts for employees new to their jobs (cf. Rousseau,2001) than for our sample, whose members aver-aged over 12 years of tenure. New employees aremore likely have explicitly reasoned contractsbased on fresh pre-employment expectations andare more likely to respond to breach queries as ifthey were filling out a checklist. On the other hand,when seasoned employees are queried aboutbreach, they may aggregate instances over consid-erable time, on the basis of the salience of theseinstances, which is surely a function of felt viola-tion. In this case, the personality correlates ofbreach and violation would be similar. Conceptu-ally, this argument implies a breach by tenureinteraction when violation is being predicted, aninteraction that we could not support with the cur-rent data. Second, our breach hypotheses werefounded on the expected impact of personality onthe perception or detection of breach, not on itsactual occurrence. However, conscientious indi-viduals might have engaged in more careful anddiligent job search, thus reducing the probability ofbreach. Also, organizations might be less likely tobreach the contracts of satisfied, productive em-ployees. Thus, the salutary consequences of consci-entiousness, low neuroticism, internality, and self-


esteem for both satisfaction and performance(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judgeet al., 2002) might account for our findings thatneurotics and externals perceived breach but theconscientious did not, as well as for our null find-ings for self-esteem. This pattern of findings sug-gests a reciprocal relationship between breach andrelated organizational behavior, and it illustratesthe role of enactment—the conversion of personal-ity into job behavior and attitudes.

We believe that this study contributes to bothresearch on personality and research on contracts.In the domain of personality, the study joins asmall but growing body of research that opens theblack box to explain how personality affects or-ganizational behavior. Barrick, Stewart, and Pi-otrowski (2002) showed how motivation mediatedthe relationship between personality and job per-formance, and Judge and his colleagues (1998) il-lustrated how perceptions of core job characteris-tics mediated the relationship between personalityand job satisfaction. We contribute to this stream ofresearch by showing that contract dynamics alsomediate the relationship between personality andpersonal and organizational outcomes. From thestandpoint of contracts research, we contribute ev-idence that suggests an explanation for one of themost interesting phenomena in organizational be-havior—how employees facing ostensibly identicaljob conditions self-construct either disappointingor rewarding relationships with their employers. Atentative explanation is that personality influencescontract terms, breach perception, and feelings ofviolation.

Three aspects of our research warrant caution ininterpretation. First, we interpreted our findingsconcerning personality and contract type in termsof employee choice and construal of contracts.However, one of our reviewers suggested that con-scientious individuals and those with high self-esteem might be offered more encompassing andenduring relational contract terms because of theirproclivity for high performance and job satisfac-tion. Conversely, more dispensable externals andneurotics might be held to less committing transac-tional contracts. This explanation, which is basedon enactment, while complementary to ours, illus-trates the need to view contracts dynamically.

Second, our use of cross-sectional data dictatedthat we examine two essentially parallel models,one pertaining to contract type (personality3 con-tract 3 outcomes) and the other to contract breach(personality 3 breach 3 outcomes). However,breach was moderately related to both relationalcontracts (r � �.45) and transactional contracts(r � .22), and Robinson and her coauthors (1994)

reported that breach led to a shift from relational totransactional contracts. This background raisedquestions about how much independent informa-tion our results contained. Thus, we retested ourhypotheses pertaining to personality and contracttype, controlling for breach. In all cases, the resultsparalleled those for the uncontrolled tests. Simi-larly, controlling for breach did not materially af-fect any of the reported relationships between con-tract type and outcomes. All in all, these resultsindicate that there is utility in discriminating be-tween breach and contract type. However, they donot obviate the need for process-oriented longitu-dinal designs that better capture the true dynamicsof personality, contract type, breach, and violationover time.

A third concern was the potential for commonmethod variance, since all variables were measuredin the same questionnaire. However, self-reportsare the conventional way to assess both personalityand aspects of psychological contracts. Althoughresearchers have sometimes used observers or clin-ical interviews to assess personality, such tacticsare rare and hard to execute in the workplace. Ini-tially, we intended to separate the measurement ofpersonality in time from that of the other variables,but our firsthand experience at the research sitesconvinced us that doing this would badly damageour response rates. Nevertheless, several factorsmitigate some concern about common method vari-ance. First, having people describe themselves ingeneral and then report their work experienceswould seem much less prone to common methodvariance than having people both describe andevaluate their work in the same questionnaire. Inour study, the link between breach or violation andwork outcomes would seem to be most prone tocommon method variance, but this link was not themajor focus of the research, and it has been dem-onstrated through use of independent methods(Kickul, 2001). Also, we proposed and found someevidence for the operation of personality as a mod-erator of the effects of breach on violation, andmethod variance, if present, would work againstthe detection of moderators. Finally, Judge and co-authors (1998) found similar patterns of correla-tions between personality and satisfaction (life andjob) even when predictor and criteria were mea-sured with independent methods. Thus, all in all,we are confident that our primary findings con-cerning personality were not seriously affected bycommon method variance.

Conducting the reported study in Pakistan was adecision predicated on access to the research sites.In planning the study, we considered but did notfind any reason to expect that our predictions,


based on Western research, would not apply inPakistan. Having conducted the study, we had nospecific experiences that violated this expectation.However, it is possible that the marginal reliabili-ties for extraversion and locus of control and theunacceptable reliability for agreeableness partly re-flect subtleties of linguistic comprehension or cul-tural values. For example, our questionnaire ad-ministrators reported more than one query aboutthe colloquial NEO item “I am not a worrier.” Also,the negative implication of not being agreeable in acollective culture might have prompted sociallydesirable responses among some employees. Wewere unable to find normative personality data forPakistan to illuminate these conjectures.

Like the samples used in most extant research onpsychological contracts, our sample consistedmostly of managers, professionals, and technicalpeople, an occupational elite with similar if notidentical education and training across cultures.Below this elite, transactional contract dynamicsmight dominate, especially in less economicallydeveloped countries. Studying these occupationsin Pakistan resulted in a sample that was almosttotally male. However, the implications of this pre-dominance of men are unclear given that very littleresearch has examined the impact of gender oncontract matters (Millward & Brewerton, 2000). Wecan only observe that the Pakistan locale and themostly male sample did not appear to constrainvariance in reported contract type, perceivedbreach, or experienced violation (cf. Johns, 1991).

Two suggestions for future research pertain toorganizational context. Except for the implicationthat contract breaches might have occurred, contex-tual factors were not examined in this exploratorystudy. Clearly, a person by situation perspectivewould further illuminate the conditions underwhich personality might be more or less relevant tocontract dynamics. For example, people with par-ticular personality traits might be more susceptibleto the breach of particular contract terms or to themanner in which a breach occurred (for instance, toperceived degree of procedural justice). Time isfrequently a surrogate for changes in context(Johns, 2001), and the role of time also merits scru-tiny. In exploratory analyses, we found significanttenure by personality interactions in predictingbreach for four of the six studied traits (extraver-sion, equity sensitivity, self-esteem, and locus ofcontrol). In each case, the relationship between per-sonality and perceived breach was weaker for em-ployees with lower tenure. This pattern of findingsraises the possibility that newer employees face“strong situations” (Mischel, 1968) that constrainthe impact of personality on perceived breach. On

the other hand, long-tenured employees might haveexperienced a series of contractual ambiguities thatstimulate “eye of the beholder” effects, shaped bypersonality.

A third suggestion for future research that wouldalso address the relevance of time concerns ourearlier contention that personality might affect con-tract dynamics via choice of employment, percep-tual construal of one’s contract, or personality-related attitudes and behaviors enacted on a job.Longitudinally, this formulation implies a se-quence—choice, construal, enactment, construal—that merits attention. Particularly interesting is thepossibility that certain personality traits are differ-entially relevant to the various events in this con-tract cycle. More basically, the impact of enactmentmerits future attention, since extant contract theoryis mainly silent on how work behavior and atti-tudes on the part of employees affect changes incontracts over time. Although contracts may in-deed be “psychological” (that is, construed), per-sonality has been shown to affect important workattitudes and behaviors that should influence theactual terms offered by an employer.

To conclude, a number of authors have musedabout the likely importance of individual differ-ences in matters concerning psychological con-tracts. We have provided some tentative empiricalevidence for the merits of this idea. At the sametime, we have illustrated that contractual mecha-nisms are one likely path by which personalityaffects organizational behavior.

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement andantecedents of affective, continuance and normativecommitment to the organization. Journal of Occu-pational Psychology, 63: 1–18.

Anderson, I. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1998. Structural equa-tion modeling in practice: A review and a recom-mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,103: 411–423.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. 2002.Personality and job performance: Test of the medi-ating effects of motivation among sales representa-tives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 43–51.

Barrick, R. M., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five per-sonality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1–26.

Brockner, J. 1988. Self-esteem at work: Research, the-ory, and practice. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Bunderson, J. S. 2001. How work ideologies shape thepsychological contracts of professional employees:Doctors’ responses to perceived breach. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 22: 717–741.


Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. 1983.Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organiza-tional members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler III, P.H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organi-zational change: A guide to methods, measures,and practices: 71–138, New York: Wiley.

Cattell, R. B. 1981. Where next in human motivationresearch? Some possible crucial experiments. In R.Lynn & H. J. Eysenck (Eds.), Dimensions of person-ality: Papers in honor of H. J. Eysenck: 53–77. NewYork: Pergamon.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1988. Personality in adult-hood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reportsand spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inven-tory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54: 853–863.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO Per-sonality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventoryprofessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological As-sessment Resources.

Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1270–1279.

Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative “description of per-sonality”: The Big Five factor structure. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216–1229.

Hoppock, R. 1935. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper &Row.

Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. 1996. Personality traits,taxonomies, and applications in organizations. InK. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and be-havior in organizations: 31–88. San Francisco: Jos-sey-Bass.

Huseman, C. R., Hatfield, D. J., & Miles, W. E. 1987. Anew perspective on equity theory: The equity sensi-tivity construct. Academy of Management Review,12: 222–234.

Irving, G. P., Cawsey, T. I., & Cruikshank, R. 2002. Orga-nizational commitment profiles: Implications forturnover intentions and psychological contracts. InC. Sue-Chan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 30th AnnualConference of the Administrative Sciences Associ-ation of Canada: 21–30.

Johns, G. 1991. Substantive and methdological con-straints on behavior and attitudes in organizationalresearch. Organizational Behavior and Human De-cision Processes, 49: 80– 104.

Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, 22: 31–42.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of coreself-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 80–92.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. 2000. Personalityand job satisfaction: The mediating role of job char-acteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 237–249.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. 2002.Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quan-titative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:765–780.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. 2002. Five-factormodel of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-anal-ysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 530–541.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, J. C., & BarrickR. M. 1999. The Big Five personality traits, generalmental ability, and career success across the lifespan. Personnel Psychology, 52: 621–652.

Judge, T. A., Locke, A. E., & Durham, C. C. 1997. Thedispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core eval-uations approach. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol.19: 151–188. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N.1998. Dispositional effects on job and life satisfac-tion: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 83: 17–34.

Kickul, J. 2001. When organizations break their promises:Employee reactions to unfair processes and treat-ment. Journal of Business Ethics, 29: 289–307.

Krackhardt, D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape:Structure, cognition, and powering organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342–369.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa P. T., 1997. Conceptions andcorrelates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan,J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality psychology: 825–847. San Diego: Aca-demic Press.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topol-nytsky, L. 2002. Affective, continuance, and norma-tive commitment to the organization: A meta-analy-sis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61: 20–52.

Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. 1994.Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 15: 585–596.

Miller, D., Kets De Vries, M. F. R., & Toulouse, J. M. 1982.Top executive locus of control, and its relationshipto strategy-making, structure, and environment.Academy of Management Journal, 25: 237–253.

Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. M. 2000. Psychologicalcontracts: Employee relations for the twenty-firstcentury? In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.),International review of industrial and organiza-tional psychology, vol. 15: 1–62. Chichester, En-gland: Wiley.

Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. J. 1998. Organizationalcommitment and the psychological contract. Journalof Social and Applied Psychology, 28: 16–31.


Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. NewYork: Wiley.

Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employ-ees feel betrayed: A model of how psychologicalcontract violation develops. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 22: 226–256.

Mudrack, P. E., Mason, E. S., & Stepanski, K. M. 1999.Equity sensitivity and business ethics. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 72:539–560.

O’Neil, B. S., & Mone, M. A. 1998. Investigating equitysensitivity as a moderator of relations between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83: 805–816.

Phares, E. 1976. Locus of control in personality. Morris-town, NJ: General Learning Press.

Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psycholog-ical contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:574–599.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 2000. The develop-ment of psychological contract breach and violation:A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 21: 525–546.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994.Changing obligations and the psychological contract:A longitudinal study. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37: 137–152.

Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, M. 1979. Conceiving the self. New York:Basic Books.

Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalized expectations for internalvs. external reinforcement. Psychological Mono-graphs, 80 (whole no. 609).

Rousseau, D. M. 1989. Psychological and implied con-tracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilitiesand Rights Journal, 2: 121–139.

Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in or-ganizations: Understanding written and unwrittenagreements. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M. 2000. Psychological contract inventory.Technical report no. 2000–02, Heinz School of Pub-lic Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon Uni-versity, Pittsburgh.

Rousseau, D. M. 2001. Schema, promise and mutuality:The building blocks of the psychological contract.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 74: 511–541.

Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. 1993. The contractsof individuals and organizations. In L. L. Cummings& B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior, vol. 15: 1–47. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. 2000. Equity sensitivity:Construction of a measure and examination of itspsychometric properties. Journal of Management,26: 885–910.

Shore, L. M., & Barksdale, K. 1998. Examining degree ofbalance and level of obligation in the employmentrelationship: A social exchange approach. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 19: 731–744.

Skarlicki, P. D., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. 1999. Personalityas moderator in the relationship between fairnessand retaliation. Academy of Management Journal,42: 100–108.

Spector, P. 1982. Behavior in organizations as a functionof employees’ locus of control. Psychological Bulle-tin, 91: 482–497.

Spector, P. 1988. Development of the work locus of con-trol scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61:335–340.

Stewart, G. L. 1996. Reward structure as a moderator ofthe relationship between extraversion and sales per-formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 619–627.

Tharenou, P. 1979. Employee self-esteem: A review ofthe literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15:316–346.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. 1997. Extraversion and itspositive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S.Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology:767–793. San Diego: Academic Press.


Usman Raja ([email protected]) is a Ph.D. candi-date in the John Molson School of Business, ConcordiaUniversity, Montreal. He received his MBA from theInternational Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan.His research interests include personality, psychologicalcontracts, job design, and organizational justice.

Gary Johns ([email protected]) holds the Concor-dia University Research Chair in Management in the JohnMolson School of Business, Concordia University, Mon-treal. He received his Ph.D. in industrial-organizational

psychology from Wayne State University. His researchinterests include personality, absenteeism, self-servingbehavior, research methodology, and the impact of con-text on organizational behavior.

Filotheos Ntalianis ([email protected]) is aPh.D. candidate in the John Molson School of Business,Concordia University, Montreal. He received his M.Sc. ineconomics from Florida Atlantic University. His researchinterests include psychological contracts, personality,and religiosity.

APPENDIXResults of Factor Analysisa

Psychological Contract ItemsFactor

Loadings

Transactional contracts (� � .72)I work only the hours set out in my contract and no more. .61My commitment to this organization is defined by my contract. .59My loyalty to the organization is contract specific. .51I prefer to work a strictly defined set of working hours. .51I only carry out what is necessary to get the job done. .47I do not identify with the organization’s goals. .45I work to achieve the purely short-term goals of my job. .41My job means more to me than just a means of paying the bills. (reverse-coded) .35It is important to be flexible and to work irregular hours if necessary. (reverse-coded) .33

Relational contracts (� � .79)I expect to grow in this organization. .71I feel part of a team in this organization. .71I have a reasonable chance of promotion if I work hard. .67To me working for this organization is like being a member of a family. .56The organization develops/rewards employees who work hard and exert themselves. .55I expect to gain promotion in this company with length of service and effort to achieve goals. .47I feel this company reciprocates the effort put in by its employees. .47My career path in the organization is clearly mapped out. .43I am motivated to contribute 100% to this company in return for future employment benefits. .41

a These items are from Millward and Hopkins (1998).


usman raja

Documents