The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of Psychological Contract Breach on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Insights from the Group Value Model
Abstract
Research on psychological contract breach has referenced social exchange as its dominant theoretical foundation. In this study, we draw insights from the group value model as a theoretical extension to explain employees' negative responses to psychological contract breach. According to the group value model, fair treatment by group members communicates symbolic messages about the relationship between the organization and the employee, and has implications for whether employees can take pride in their organizational membership. When people are treated unfairly, they lose trust in the organization and dis‐identify from the group. This in turn results in less willingness on the part of the employees to engage in organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs). We tested these relationships across three studies. In Study 1, we conducted a longitudinal test of the role of trust as a mediator between breach and organizational identification. In Studies 2 (cross‐sectional) and 3 (longitudinal), we tested the complete model in which we examined the role of trust and identification in mediating the link between breach and OCBs. All three studies provided support for the mediated model. Furthermore, as predicted by the group value model, the hypothesized relationships emerged in response to relational but not transactional contract breaches. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,866
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
Exchange and Power in Social Life
Blau, P. M. (2017) · doi:10.4324/9780203792643 · Cited by 15,923
Exchange and Power in Social Life.
Bierstedt, R., & Blau, P. M. (1965) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091154 · Cited by 13,624
Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models
Sobel, M. E. (1982) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/270723 · Cited by 12,810
The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092623 · Cited by 12,001
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · Cited by 10,274
Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 · Cited by 10,068
Cited by
At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312439327 · Cited by 886
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0030687 · Cited by 368
Self-citationWhy do employees worry about their jobs? A meta-analytic review of predictors of job insecurity.
Keim, A. C., Landis, R. S., Pierce, C. A., & Earnest, D. R. (2014) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0036743 · Cited by 324
Metadata
- Authors
- Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-11-18
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1377-1400
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W1987989636
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 68
- FWCI
- 20.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of Psychological Contract Breach on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Insights from the Group Value Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00792.x
- The paper
- Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008). Effects of Psychological Contract Breach on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Insights from the Group Value Model. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00792.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.