 

A
w 0);; gr :1
. ~=. my
. .aggeééu-w

$.39!" ‘ \.
‘~ 4'1 > e!
ﬁtsggz'

 

 

 

:«4 «4- 1:41!“ 53‘ ékuﬁiéds:
'3'
«21*

AH-

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE EFFECT OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES ON PEER HELPING BEHAVIOR AFTER A
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH

presented by

MORGAN R. MILNER

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Management

 

 

kw \l-pk Ewe.

 

Major Professor’s Signature

June 22, 2004

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

l PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DﬁlEéDIgE 0 ‘2 DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

rufﬁ§ EM???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuo.p65-p.15

 

 

 

THE EFFECT OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES ON PEER
HELPING BEHAVIOR
AFTER A PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH

By

Morgan R. Milner

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Management

2004

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES ON PEER
HELPING BEHAVIOR
AFTER A PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH

By

Morgan R. Milner

This dissertation explored the phenomenon of peer helping in the context of a

psychological contract breach. The speciﬁc research question addressed is the effect of
impression management techniques on peer helping behavior after a breach of
psychological contract. I utilized Rousseau’s (1995) framework to examine impression
management strategies related to substitution and credible explanations to explore two
types of impression management strategies —- acquisitive ingratiation and protective
accounts. I incorporated the construct of forbearance to assess transgression-related
motivations during the peer breach event.

An experiment conducted with upper level undergraduate students (n = 136)
revealed that individuals exposed to a breach develop attributions of intentionality that
are speciﬁc to the cues related to the breach event. Furthermore, results suggest that
attributions of intentionality inﬂuence subsequent forbearance motivations directed
towards the offender. Results do not support a relationship between forbearance and
helping. Furthermore, results do not support the notion that impression management
strategies signiﬁcantly affect relationships between breach type, forbearance, and helping

behaviors.

However, several post hoc ﬁndings are notable. Speciﬁcally, results suggest
perceived attributions of intentionality inﬂuenced aggregate forbearance as well as the
individual facets of retaliation, avoidance, and goodwill. When examined individually,
retaliation inﬂuenced peer related helping. Post hoc analysis also revealed that acquisitive
impression management (ingratiation) moderated the relationship between attributions of
intentionality and retaliation. Finally, acquisitive impression management (ingratiation)
signiﬁcantly impacted helping. Speciﬁcally, favor-doing behaviors offered by the
offender were positively related to subsequent peer related helping offered by the injured
peer. This suggests a notion of reciprocity that, according to this sample data, had a
signiﬁcant inﬂuence on helping.

The discussion contains theoretical and practical implications of this research as
well as an outlook regarding ﬁxture directions of topics covered in this dissertation. Given
the increase of reliance on team and interpersonal structures within organizational
settings, I suggest that peer perceptions and motivations (particularly in the context of

psychological contract breach) are increasingly important areas of research focus.

Abba, in the Name of Jesus — the Author and Finisher of my faith — Thank you. 1?-

To Lula, my sweet.

“And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear: for the
battle is the Lord’s...” 1 Samuel 17:47

“And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew nigh to meet David,
that David hasted, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.” v. 48

 

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my utmost thanks to those who have had an inﬂuence in
helping me ﬁnish the course of this degree. Since all things are ﬁrst authored in the Spirit,
I ﬁrst thank my spiritual parents, Pastor and Sister Phillip E. and Patricia A. Owens — the
Prophet and Prophetess. Without the spiritual training and foundation you have provided,
I would never have completed God’s will for this portion of my life. Thank you.

For my formal training I am especially grateful to Linn Van Dyne, my advisor
and chair of this dissertation. You were the driving force for the discipline and rigor
needed to make a theoretical contribution to the ﬁeld. Thank you for the years of working
with me on this project and your guidance starting early in my program. You have done
more than you realize - thank you. I also wish to express sincere thanks to my
dissertation committee members — Don Conlon, Georgia Chao, and Mark Roehling.
Thank you for your feedback and guidance in many areas.

Heartfelt thanks to those who have supported me for many, many years - Dr.
Ernest Betts — your advice got me into this; Vern Mason — thanks for so much, from
undergrad to GMI to ﬁnishing this thing out; Phil Bostick from B3 on; and Chad
Waucaush for surprise strength always right when needed. Thank you for those who have
lent their ﬁnancial support and expertise: Naomi Milner — Mom, thanks for all those
years, and so much more; Lamont and Brenda Milner - thanks Dad; Dcn. B. and Min. B.
Hawkins - thanks Deac; Steven Goebel - thanks for my ﬁrst deals; Greg Drake — the best
in the business; Mark Kerrins — for great ideas; Keith Williams in OFA; C. Trent Stevens;

and the Ph.D. Project.

So many others have supported me and are in my heart as I offer thanks: Randy
Brewer; Larry Bellinger; Dan Ilgen; Dave Hofrnann; Murray Edwards; the Lear Career
Center; Rollins Alexander; Stephen, Kelly, and Chris; and all the Saints of God.

Finally, I would like to thank My Sweet. Thank you, dear Wife for holding on
with me, for waiting and going through, and hoping until the end. Thank you for my
children, who will vaguely remember these times and who will recover quickly from my
shooing them away while writing. Thank you for beans and rice. Thank you so much. ‘

The best is yet to come.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Theoretical Model 5
Contributions of Dissertation ..................... to
Outline of Dissertation ................................ - 13
CHAPTER 1
BREACH OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT ........................................................... 14
Deﬁnition and Importance of Psychological Contracts 14
The Exchange Nature of Psychological Contracts 16
Breach of Psychological Contract — Reneging and Incongruence 17
Psychological Contract Breach and Helping l9
Perceived Attributions of Intentionality 22
Forbearance 25
Changing the Reactions to Breach - The role of Impression Management 27
Acquisitive impression management 30
Ingratiation. 30
Protective impression management 34
Timing of Acquisitive and Protective Strategies 36
Social accounts 38
CHAPTER 2
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 42
Psychological Contract Breach, Attribution of Intent, and Forbearance 43
The Moderating Effect of Acquisitive Impression Management 50
Forbearance and Helping. 56
The Moderating Effect of Protective Impression Management 59
The Mediating role of Forbearance 66
CHAPTER 3
METHOD .......................................................................................................................... 69
Research Design ..................................................... _ - -- 69
Power Analysis .......................................................... 69
Subjects ....... - 70
Experiment ............. 7O
Task 71
Procedure ......................................................................... - ..... 72
Manipulation of Breach Type .......................... - ........... -. -77
Manipulation of Acquisitive IM — Ingratiation .................................................... 79
Manipulation of Protective lM - Accounts ..................... -80
Measures .. ..... 82
Attribution of Intentionality .................................................................... 82
Forbearance _ -- - _ . 82
Helping - - ........................... 83
Control Variables .................................................................................................................................. 83
Manipulation Checks ................................................................................................................................. 85

vii

Acquisitive IM - Ingratiation ................................................................................................................. 85

Protective 1M - Accounts ....................................................................................................................... 86
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 87
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 90
Dimensionality of Measures ...................................................................................................................... 90
Attribution of Intentionality ................................................................................................................... 90
Forbearance ........................................................................................................................................... 90
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................................. 91
Manipulation Checks ................................................................................................................................. 91
Tests of Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................... 94
Psychological Contract Breach, Attribution of Intent, and Forbearance (HI-2) ................................... 94
The Moderating Effect of Acquisitive Impression Management (H3) .................................................. 94
Forbearance and Helping (H4) .............................................................................................................. 94
Moderating Effect of Protective Impression Management (HS) ........................................................... 94
Mediating Role of Forbearance (H6) ..................................................................................................... 95
Post Hoe Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 95
Attribution of Intentionality and Retaliation, Avoidance, and Goodwill ............................................... 96
The Moderating Effect of Acquisitive Impression Management ........................................................... 97
Retaliation, Avoidance, Goodwill on Helping ....................................................................................... 98
The Moderating Effect of Protective Impression Management ............................................................. 99
Acquisitive Impression Management (Ingratiation) and Helping ........................................................ 100
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 102
Discussion of Empirical Results .............................................................................................................. 104
Theoretical Implications .......................................................................................................................... l 10
Practical Implications .............................................................................................................................. 11 1
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 1 l7
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 1 19
Appendix A: Tables ................................................................................................................................. 119
Appendix B: Experimental Materials ...................................................................................................... 133
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 153

viii

LIST OF TABLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach’s Alpha, and Correlations .................... 119
TABLE 2
Hierarchical Regression Results for Breach Type on Perceived Attributions of Intentionality, Intentionality
on Forbearance, and Forbearance on Helping 121
TABLE 3
Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results for Attributions of Intentionality, Acquisitive 1M Ingratiation,
and Forbearance . 122
TABLE 4
Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results for Forbearance, Protective IM Accounts, and Helping ........ 123
TABLE 5
Hierarchical Regression Results for Forbearance Mediation between Attributions of Intentionality and
Helping ' 125
TABLE 6
Post Hoc Hierarchical Regression Results for Perceived Attribution of Intentionality on Retaliation,
Avoidance,
and Goodwill - --. ..... ..... - 126
TABLE 7
Post Hoc Hierarchical Regression Results for Retaliation, Avoidance, and Goodwill on Helping ............. 127
TABLE 8
Post Hoc Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results for Attributions of Intentionality,
Acquisitive IM Ingratiation, and Retaliation, Avoidance, and Goodwill .- 128
TABLE 9
Post Hoc Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results for Retaliation, Avoidance, and Goodwill, Protective
[M Accounts, and Helping 129
TABLE 10
Post Hoc Hierarchical Regression Results for Acquisitive [M Main Effect on Helping
and Interaction between Breach Type, Acquisitive IM and Helping‘ 131
TABLE 11
Attribution of Intentionality Factor Analysis - - 132
TABLE 12

 

Forbearance Factor Analysis ...................................................... -- - . -- 133

Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:

Figure 9:

LIST OF FIGURES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Model ............... 9
Breach Distinction 23
Ingratiation Categorization -- ..... 31
Account Differentiation ........... 39
Ingratiation Moderation Graph ................................ 56
Social Accounts Moderation Graph 65
Condition Table 69
Post Hoc Ingratiation Moderation Graph 98
Simpliﬁed Interaction Model 100
Figure 10: Simpliﬁed Model Interaction Graph 101

 

INTRODUCTION

Research on individual perceptions within organizations places an overwhelming
emphasis on negative processes and outcomes. Research in popular areas such as justice
and psychological contracts provide insights into the negative outcomes associated with
unexpected or unsatisfactory perceptions. For example, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) link
perceptions of justice to retaliatiOn in the workplace. Robinson (1996) shows that
perceived breach of the psychological contract is negatively related to subsequent trust,
civic virtue behaviors, performance, and intentions to remain with the organization, while
positively related to turnover. This dissertation'describes a process by which a potentially
negative event, such as breach of psychological contract, is transformed into a positive
behavior, such as helping.

Globally, I am interested in the relationship between breach of obligations and
peer helping behaviors. The speciﬁc question this dissertation seeks to answer is the
effect of type of psychological contract breach on an injured peer’s attributions and the
inﬂuence of four different impression. management techniques on the same peer’s
motivations and behaviors. Hence, this dissertation examines breach of obligations and
subsequent responses in the context of psychological contract theory. I examine
behaviors offered by the offending peer from an impression management framework. My
speciﬁc outcome of interest is helping — a volitional behavior that peers engage in within
organizations for both the individual target’s and the organization’s beneﬁt. I examine

helping directed towards an individual peer.

I focus on helping for two reasons. First, helping is an afﬁliative and promotive
behavior, which includes cooperative acts intended for the beneﬁt of another individual
(Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). As such, helping is a positive behavior
that individuals engage in within organizations. Secondly, recent research shows that
there is a general negative relationship between psychological contract breach and
helping (Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003).

I am interested in evaluating what factors transform the potentially negative event
of psychological contract breach by a peer into helping behaviors directed towards the
offending peer. This focus on peer relationships and helping is increasingly important, as
organizations continue to utilize peer to peer interactions to accomplish tasks within work
groups and teams. The psychological contract framework I adopt is also relevant as
exchange related obligations develop during interdependent interactions (Rousseau,
1995). As interactions increase within organizations, the occurrence of obligation failures
will also increase. Psychological contract theory provides a theoretical framework that I
adopt to examine this phenomenon.

Psychological contracts refer to the set of beliefs held by an individual regarding
the terms and conditions of reciprocal exchange between that individual and another
party (Rousseau, 1989). The psychological contract is comprised of obligations which
form the terms by which reciprocal exchange will occur (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). A
second feature of the psychological contract is that the perceived obligations are formed
from a conveyed communication of future intent (Rousseau, 1989). Conveyance of an
obligation, or intent, of future reciprocation can occur via a variety of means — written

communication via e-mail or an organizational memo, verbal interactions that are either

casual or formal, and even through organizational policies and practices (Rousseau &
McLean Parks, 1993). A third feature of the psychological contract is that it varies along
dimensions of time and speciﬁcity (Rousseau, 1995). Transactional contracts possess
speciﬁc, short-term, and measurable obligations and entail limited involvement of the
parties. Relational contracts possess broad, open-ended and long-tenn obligations and
entail the exchange of measurable elements, as well as less quantiﬁable, socio-emotional
elements (such as support) (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). In Chapter 2, I forward
arguments related to the transactional/ relational nature of obligations in the context of
impression management behaviors. The ﬁnal feature of the psychological contract is the
inherent potential of contract breach - a phenomenon that I explore further in this study.
As deﬁned, the psychological contract is speciﬁcally made up of the individual’s
perceptions regarding organizational obligations due as well as personal inducements
obligated by the organization (Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002). Given this
deﬁnition, the vast majority of psychological contract research focuses on an employee’s
reciprocal beliefs in relation to his or her employing organization. In terms of
psychological contract fulﬁllment, an organizational agent is important in the
development and subsequent fulﬁllment (or failure) of contractual obligations. For
example, Sims (1994) suggests that the recruitment process is potentially responsible for
perceived breach of psychological contract of newcomers, as recruiters present jobs in
favorable and unrealistic terms in order to attract and hire employees. In this example,
the recruiter serves as a speciﬁc agent of the organization and perceived breach occurs as

a result of the conveyed obligations or actions of an organizational representative.

This discussion regarding psychological contracts, though commonly constrained
to individual-organization relationships, can also apply to a smaller entity — such as a
work group. Work groups tend to have many of the same characteristics as organizations,
albeit on a smaller scale. They have multiple members, a certain degree of
interdependence, and speciﬁc goals pursued by the collective members (I-Iackman, 1987).
Based on deﬁnition, the psychological contract can be applied to reciprocal obligations
existing between an individual member and his work group. As in the case with the
traditional conceptualization, an individual holds perceptions regarding obligations of the
work group, and in turn what he is obligated to contribute to the group. Also, consistent
with the conceptualization of psychological Contracts, multiple agents can potentially
effect the exchange relationship. Whereas in the traditional conceptualization, agents
consist of supervisors, recruiters, or fellow employees, when conceptualizing
psychological contracts within a work group, agents are primarily peers. Just as
organizational agents are instrumental in a breach of psychological contract, contractual
obligations may be breached by a work group peer.

The research on psychological. contract breach provides a clear relationship
between contract breach and attitudes and behaviors targeted towards the organization
(i.e.Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Robinson & Morrison, 1995, 2000; Robinson
& Rousseau, 1994 and others). However, in lieu of the traditional conceptualization of
psychological contracts, the notion of psychological contracts between speciﬁc
individuals within the organization is gaining attention. Rousseau & Tijoriwala (1998)
suggest that individuals may hold multiple psychological contracts with individual

members within the organization. Extending this, Coyle-Shapiro (2002) suggest that an

employee may hold one psychological contract with his or her manager concerning job
speciﬁc obligations and another psychological contract with the broader organization
regarding general conditions of the exchange relationship.

The organizational literature shows an emerging focus on attitudes and behaviors
targeted towards individuals as a result of fulﬁllment or failure to fulﬁll psychological
contracts. For example, a recent study examined fulﬁllment of psychological contract on
citizenship behaviors directed towards the organization and citizenship behaviors
directed towards peers (Turnley et al., 2003). The results indicate that the relationship
between psychological contract fulﬁllment and individual directed behavior is supported.
In this study, I extend the notion of psychological contracts between speciﬁc individuals
in an organizational setting. Speciﬁcally, I focus on the relationship between

psychological contract breach and the citizenship behavior of peer directed helping.

Theoretical Model

Psychological contract breach occurs when one member perceives that the other
member of the contract has not fulﬁlled the obligations contained within the contract.
Morrison and Robinson (1997), in presenting a theoretical model of the development of
psychological contract breach and violation, suggest that breach is the result of either an
incongruence situation or a reneging situation. lncongruence refers to a situation when
one member of the psychological contract believes that they have fulﬁlled the contract,
whereas the other member perceives a failure in fulﬁllment of the contractual terms.
lncongruence is caused by divergent schemata (the members hold different perceptions,

interpretations, and memories of the conveyed obligations), ambiguity, and/or

communication shortfalls (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Reneging refers to a breach that
results from a member’s unwillingness to fulﬁll the contract. In the case of reneging, the
member, for opportunistic reasons, intentionally fails to fulﬁll the obligations contained
within the contract. This difference between the two types of breach has important
implications that I develop and examine in this dissertation.

Individuals exposed to negative outcomes, surprise events, or unanticipated
consequences tend to engage in an attributional process to understand the nature of the
situation experienced (Weiner, 1985). In relation to breach of psychological contract,
individuals seek to understand why the breach has occurred. The attribution process
which follows a psychological contract breach can shape both the individual’s overall
perception of the event, as well as the intensity of reactions experienced aﬁer the breach
(Rousseau, 1995; Turnley et al., 2003). Contract breach attributed to intentional disregard
of obligations (i.e. reneging) is likely to result in stronger reactions than breach attributed
to misunderstandings (or incongruence) (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). This relationship
is supported in the conﬂict literature which suggests that intentional acts of harm result in
more anger and retribution than unintentional acts (Betancourt & Blair, 1992; Thomas &
Pondy, 1977). Moreover, research suggests that emotions derived from attributions
inﬂuence motivations and behavior (Weiner, 1985). I explore the relationship between
attribution of intentionality and peer motivations (i.e. forbearance) and helping behavior
following the breach.

The study of transgression-related motivations is gaining attention with
organizational researchers. McCullough, F incham, & Tsang (2003) offer the term

forbearance to describe the motivations of an injured individual following a

transgression, such as breach of psychological contract. Forbearance is comprised of
three speciﬁc motivations: a) the reduced motivation to seek revenge, b) the reduced
motivation to avoid an offender, and c) the motivation to engage in benevolence towards
the offender (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002). These
motivations inherent within forbearance inﬂuence behaviors directed towards the
offender (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). In this dissertation, I utilize
Weiner’s attribution-motivation-behavior framework to predict the relationship between
attributions of intentionality and forbearance. In the discussion of this relationship, I
suggest that forbearance inﬂuences behavior — in this case, helping behavior directed
towards the offending peer.

Rousseau (1995) suggests that individuals contributing to a contract breach may
employ strategies designed to a) minimize the actual loss incurred and b) minimize or
alter the perception of these losses. The strategies suggested include offering remediation
(or substitution) for obligations and offering credible explanations (or accounts) for
failing to provide obligations. In this dissertation, I liken Rousseau’s (1995) strategies to
impression management behavior and explore the effects of impression management’s
ability to inﬂuence outcomes associated with contract breach between two peers. In my
study, I explore impression management techniques at two different points in the contract
breach event. First, I contrast two acquisitive (Arkin, 1981) impression management
strategies as substitutes for contract fulﬁllment. Acquisitive impression management
strategies are proactive strategies elicited to present a positive image of the self. As such,
an offender offers these proactive strategies, (such as ﬂattery and favor-doing), early in

the breach event, as an initial attempt to substitute for original obligations. Later, I

contrast two protective (Arkin, 1981) impression management strategies utilized after the
occurrence of breach. Protective impression management strategies (such as apologies
and excuses) are reactive strategies which seek to minimize the negative outcomes
associated with a predicament generating event, such as failing to fulﬁll obligations of a
psychological contract.

This chronological distinction of 1M behaviors is clariﬁed theoretically in
Benoit’s (1995) ﬁve-stage model of the social account development. According to
Benoit, ﬁrst, an offense occurs, followed by a challenge, reproach, or request for remedy
by the injured party. Thirdly, the account itself is offered. The ﬁnal stages consist of an
evaluation and acceptance of the account (Benoit, 1995). I adopt the conceptual temporal
sequence offered by Benoit (1995) as well as the contrasting nature of proactive
(acquisitive) and reactive (protective) impression management strategies offered by
Arkin (1981) to examine acquisitive IM strategies early in the breach event and
protective IM strategies later in the breach event. My focus is the comparison of speciﬁc
techniques within strategies (i.e. favor-doing vs. ﬂattery; apologies vs. excuses). This
distinction is present in the theoretical model for this dissertation.

To summarize, I explore the effects of impression management techniques on
peer helping behavior after a breach of psychological contract. My research model is

presented on the following page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

333% Memohiosek
a: an
Amazon? 5&3:
3:383, noumumewﬁ.
3: oZBBoE S: o>Emeo<
m: m:
c: o cozmaxmsoos
w Q AV AV M . a:
E 33 A e: commemoﬁom I maoﬂzﬁg A meats:
NI .3
33083 «AUNOum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$0858
Eomwﬂonothmm mo £085 a Ban 8323 wears: Loom co moswgoﬂ #:0809282 Samoan: mo Beebe 05 2a a;
28:...on £933.3—

 

EooE sucmomom x 23mm

Contributions of Dissertation

I expect this dissertation to make several important contributions in relation to the
theoretical understanding of psychological contracts. First, the vast majority of
psychological contract research concerns employee reactions to the organization
following a breach. Recent research is only beginning to examine the relationship
between breach and outcomes directed towards individuals (Turnley et al., 2003).
Although breach of the psychological contract between peers is a dilemma that is faced
by employees in the workplace, relatively little research has addressed this topic in
particular. By examining psychological contract breach between two peers, I extend the
psychological contract literature to a different level and, more importantly, provide
arguments regarding the relationship between psychological contract breach and
individual-targeted behaviors. This is a unique contribution for the ﬁeld. In addition, the
growing reliance on group structures within the workplace indicates that peer perceptions
are an increasingly important area of research focus (Ilgen, 1999).

Another contribution of this dissertation concerns the outcomes associated with
contract breach. Previous research demonstrates that a breach of psychological contract is
negatively related to behaviors such as OCB (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison,
1995). However, researchers have not explored the processes that contribute to the
restoration of relationship following a breach. For example, what behaviors and
individual characteristics reduce motivations to react negatively to a breach?
Furthermore, are there behaviors that an offender may offer to replace negative
motivations with positive, conciliatory motivations in an injured peer? This dissertation

explores two speciﬁc impression management processes and how the actions and words

10

of an offending peer inﬂuence attribution (intentionality), motivation (forbearance), and
behavior (helping) directed towards the offender following a breach. While Rousseau
(1995) suggests that offenders may employ strategies to minimize the effects of contract
breach, research to date has emphasized protective IM responses while the examination
of the effects of compensatory behaviors and their relationship to breach outcomes
remains unexplored. I explore the notion of peer compensatory behavior, in the form of
acquisitive impression management, in an attempt to substitute, or placate, the injured
peer when the original contractual obligations are not fulﬁlled.

I also offer a contribution in terms of behavioral outcomes. Previous
psychological contract research programs poss'ess a general focus on employee attitudes.
Only recently have studies examined employee behaviors as a result of contract breach.
Turnley, Bolino et a1. (2003) attempt to minimize this gap in research by examining a
combination of employee self-report and supervisor perceptions of behavior. I extend this
notion by examining actual behaviors subsequent to a breach. By minimizing reliance on
self-reported intentions of behavior, this dissertation adds empirical strength to the
psychological contract research.

. There is a lack of empirical research evaluating offender behaviors designed to
restore relationships following transgression events in the workplace. Recent work in the
area of forgiveness in both social settings (Ellard, 1999; Takaku, 2001; Takaku, Weiner,
& Ohbuchi, 2001) and organizational settings (Bradﬁeld & Aquino, 1999) offers a
growing theoretical foundation to study restoration following transgression. McCullough
and colleagues (2003) draw upon forgiveness research to present the term forbearance,

which is comprised of three speciﬁc motivations following a transgression (i.e. breach).

ll

The concepts of forgiveness (in general) and forbearance (speciﬁcally) are both novel and
interesting. As such, theories and constructs related to forgiveness offer promising
opportunity for examination. In addition, the notions of forgiveness and forbearance are
conceptually related to restoration of damaged peer relationships (McCullough et al.,
2003). As such, I utilize forbearance as an important aspect in my theoretical model. I
suggest that examining forbearance is important to the understanding of how positive
peer directed motivations and helping behaviors are restored following a breach. This
dissertation offers a unique contribution in this sense.

Finally, Robinson & Morrison (2000), Rousseau (1995), and most recently,
Turnley and colleagues (2003) have suggested that attributions regarding the cause of
psychological contract breach inﬂuence reaction intensity. Speciﬁcally, attributional
determinations of intentionality related to contract breach may inﬂuence reactions to
breach. The research examining this relationship is new and growing. Robinson &
Morrison (2000) utilized self-report data from currently employed MBAs to show that
attributions of breach type inﬂuenced the intensity of contract breach perceptions and
subsequent feelings of betrayal. Turnley, Bolino, Lester, and Bloodgood (2003) utilize a
combination of self-report and supervisor evaluations of MBA employees to show that
attributions of breach type inﬂuenced the number of observed OCB’s the employee
engaged in. I extend this line of research by examining breach type, attributions of
intentionality, and subsequent motivations (forbearance), and behavior (helping) in a peer

COIIICXI.

12

Outline of Dissertation

This dissertation proposal is presented in ﬁve chapters. Chapter 1 contains the
literature review. In the literature review, I present theoretical and empirical research as it
relates speciﬁcally to my research question. Psychological contract theory provides the
foundation of this review. I also present literature related to impression management.
Chapter 2 contains the development of hypotheses. In this section, I deﬁne constructs,
state relationships, and offer literature to support my arguments. Each hypothesis follows
this development. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology of the experiment I have designed
to test my predictions, including research design, task description, manipulation of
variables, measures, data analysis techniques,’ and power analysis. Chapter 4 describes
the results of this research study. I offer detail for each of the hypothesized relationships
predicted in the model. In addition, I provide detail of post hoc analyses performed.
Finally, in Chapter 5, I provide a discussion of the research project and results. Chapter 5
is organized to include discussion of empirical results, discussion of theoretical and
practical implications, and consideration of limitations and future directions. Appendices

including tables and research materials are included at the end of this dissertation.

l3

CHAPTER 1

BREACH OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT

In the current chapter, I review the literature on psychological contracts, with a
speciﬁc focus on breach of the psychological contract. Secondly, I discuss the role of
psychological contracts in relation to attributions, motivations (forbearance), and helping
behaviors. Finally, I introduce the conceptualization of impression management and its

relationship to contract breach and helping behaviors.

Deﬁnition and Importance of Psychological Contracts

The nature of organizations is such that individuals interact and engage in
exchanges. Psychological contract theory offers a framework for examining the
obligations related to exchanges between individuals. As stated, a psychological contract
is a set of beliefs regarding the conditions of reciprocal exchange between two parties
(Rousseau, 1989). Psychological contracts develop generally from two sources: an
individual’s interactions with other members of the organization, and the individual’s
perception of the culture of the organization (Turnley & F eldman, 1999b). For example,
within an organization that encourages and emphasizes peer interactions, an individual
who interacts with peers in a work related capacity is likely to hold a salient
psychological contract that outlines the terms of such interactions.

Psychological contracts are subjective in nature, and exist at the individual level,
where the individual is the holder and interpreter of the contract terms (Rousseau &

McLean Parks, 1993). Though the term “contract” implies a written, agreed upon set of

14

terms, psychological contracts may be unwritten and are likely to consist of a variety of
agreed upon obligations held by the 1 parties involved (Sims, 1994). Psychological
contracts are also characterized by individual perceptions, individual interpretation and
sense making, and individual emotions (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). The core of
the psychological contract involves an exchange relationship, and this relationship is
described as being “ongoing with indeﬁnite parameters” (Van Dyne, Graham, &
Dienesch, 1994:769).

Recent research establishes the psychological contract as a key antecedent to
important outcomes related to individuals within organizations. Researchers have found
that the upholding of the psychological contract is positively related to intentions to
remain with an organization (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999) and higher reported job
satisfaction (Larwood, Wright, Desrochers, & Dahir, 1998). Shore and Barksdale (1998)
found that psychological contract fulﬁllment was related to perceived organizational
support and affective commitment. In the case of contract breach, researchers have found
a relationship resulting in lowered reported satisfaction with the organization, after
controlling for job satisfaction (Porter, Pearce, Tripoli, & Lewis, 1998). Other
researchers have theorized that psychological contract fulﬁllment is related to motivation
and organizational citizenship (Guest, 1998; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998) as well as
organization-directed attitudes (such as organizational identiﬁcation and commitment)
(McLean Parks, Kidder, & Gallagher, 1998). These studies, as well as others that I
outline in more detail, indicate the importance and growing interest of psychological

contracts within organizations.

15

The Exchange Nature of Psychological Contracts

The notion of reciprocation is particularly salient within the theoretical foundation
of the psychological contract. Reciprocity refers to the cultural norm that people should
help those who have helped them and should also not injure those who have helped them
(Gouldner, 1960). Precisely, the norm of reciprocity suggests that a recipient of an
inducement is indebted to the giver until some form of repayment is made. The
psychological contract, in which an individual possesses a perception of the mutual
obligations deﬁning a relationship, is inherently comprised of an exchange relationship
(Robinson et al., 1994). Employees, as they enter into a relationship with employers,
perceive the obligation to provide effort and time towards a quality work outcome (such
as units produced), and in return they expect to receive an equitable beneﬁt. Expectations
of beneﬁts may include speciﬁc contractual agreements, such as wage beneﬁts or
pensions, but are also likely to include non-speciﬁc ‘perceived’ contractual beneﬁts, such
as promotions (Cappelli, 1999) or training and development (Martin, Staines, & Pate,
1998). Nevertheless, whether or not the obligation resulting from an individual’s
inducements is officially agreed upon, or even understood by the other party, the
individual providing the inducements expects the contract to be fulﬁlled.

Rousseau (1994) labels agreements that hold reciprocity as a central norm “social
contracts”. These contracts exist when an individual provides a contribution and in turn,
expects reciprocation in some form. This deﬁnition of social contract is explored
comprehensively in the theory of social exchange (Blau, 1964). Rousseau (1994) offers a
typology to organize types of psychological contracts. This 2 x 2 model classiﬁes

contracts based on time frame (duration) and performance requirements (speciﬁcity).

16

Relatively short-term contracts that have low ambiguity and highly speciﬁed exchange
terms are labeled transactional contracts. In contrast, longer-termed contracts that are
ambiguous and have exchange terms that are not clearly speciﬁed are called relational
contracts. The other types of contracts include transitional contracts, which are short term
and unspeciﬁed, and balanced contracts, which are long term and speciﬁed. Later, I draw
upon Rousseau’s (1994) categorization of transactional and relational contracts as I
develop hypotheses related to impression management strategies and their substitution

effect for breach of psychological contract.

Breach of Psychological Contract - Renegin‘g and lncongruence

The psychological contract speciﬁes the social exchanges (Blau, 1964) that exists
between an individual and another party. Voluntary actions form the makeup of these
exchanges and each party engages in actions with the understanding that reciprocation
follows inducements (Blau, 1964). However, a breach of psychological contract refers to
the cognition by an injured peer that an offender failed to fulﬁll one or more obligations
within this contract (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). There is
a distinction between psychological contract breach and psychological contract violation.
Whereas breach refers to the cognition that an offender failed to meet obligations,
violation refers to the emotional and affective state that follows the cognition of breach
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997). I adopt the conceptualization of breach of psychological
contract in this dissertation. When I utilize the term violation, 1 am referring speciﬁcally
to the emotions and affective states that follow a breach of contract.

In their model presenting the dynamics of psychological contract breach, ,

Morrison & Robinson (1997) differentiate two types of breach. The ﬁrst, reneging,

l7

occurs when a party recognizes that a reciprocal obligation exists, but knowingly fails to
follow through on that obligation. The second factor, incongruence, refers to a situation
where two individuals have a difference in perceptions related to obligation fulﬁllment
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997). In the reneging context, the offending peer consciously
chooses not to fulﬁll the obligation as a result of personal opportunism. For example, if a
peer agreed to perform a task for a co-worker, and then subsequently did not honor the
performance of the task because of a personal scheduling conﬂict, the offending peer has
engaged in reneging. In contrast, in the incongruence context, the offending peer
sincerely believes that he or she has fulﬁlled the conveyed obligation comprising the
contract, while the injured peer perceives that the obligation remains unfulﬁlled. Given
the task example, if the offending peer actually performed a task, but performed a
tangential task as opposed to the critical task, (or performed the task for the wrong ~client,
etc.), the failure to fulﬁl the obligation was the result of incongruence, or
misunderstanding. Regardless, whether the breach results from reneging or incongruence,
the injured peer perceives that the psychological contract has been broken. The difference
between reneging and incongruence. breach, and it’s inﬂuence on attributions of
intentionality is explored further in this study.

The breach of psychological contracts is common. Robinson and Rousseau (1994)
examined a sample of MBA graduates and found that nearly 55% believed that their
employers had broken some aspect of their psychological contract. Outcomes to a breach
in psychological contract have important interpersonal and organizational implications.
Breach of the psychological contract promotes mistrust, negative feelings, and attrition

(Robinson & Rousseau, 1994) and changes the way people behave in subsequent

18

interactions (Rousseau, 1995). Robinson and Rousseau (1994) also found that occurrence
of psychological contract breach was positively related to ttunover and negatively related
to trust, satisfaction, and intention to remain with the organization.

The majority of prior research on psychological contract breach focuses on
employee attitudes. I focus on individual attributions, forbearance and helping behavior
following a breach of perceived obligations. Several recent empirical studies have
supported the relationship between psychological contract breach and individual
behaviors. Turnley and Feldman (1999b) adopted Hirschman’s (1970) exit, voice,
loyalty, and neglect framework in their examination of employee responses to perceived
psychological contract breach. Positive relatibnships with exit, voice, and neglect and
negative relationships with employee loyalty were supported. In a longitudinal study of
MBA graduates, Robinson et a1 (1994) examine employee behaviors in relation to
psychological contract breach. The study found that breach of psychological contract
resulted in a decrease in behaviors from the employee. Speciﬁcally, psychological
contract breach was negatively associated with working extra hours and volunteering to
do non—required tasks on the job. In addition, breach was negatively associated with
providing advance notice if taking a job elsewhere, protection of proprietary information,
and spending a minimum of two years in the organization. Inherent in these ﬁndings is
the suggestion that organizational citizenship behaviors, such as volunteering to do non-

required tasks, is impacted by a breach of psychological contract.

Psychological Contract Breach and Helping
Helping, as a type of organizational citizenship behavior, is discretionary, devoid

of explicit reward, and designed to promote organizational functioning (Organ, 1988).

19

More speciﬁcally, helping is afﬁliative and promotive behavior, consisting of acts of
consideration that are cooperative and intended for the beneﬁt of another, which serves to
build and preserve the relationship (Van Dyne et al., 1995; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

The theoretical association between psychological contracts and citizenship
behavior is introduced by Rousseau & McLean Parks (1993) and is extended by Van
Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks (1995). The authors suggest that employee
behaviors, such as citizenship, may reﬂect the condition and standing of the employee-
employer relationship - including contract fulﬁllment by each party. In addition, the
authors propose that ﬁrlﬁllment of psychological contracts may inﬂuence citizenship
behaviors whereas breach of the contract would lower employee contributions.

The relationship between breach and employee contributions is examined and
supported in at least four empirical studies. Robinson & Morrison (1995) employed a
survey methodology to examine the effects psychological contract breach on self reported
OCB’s in a sample of MBA alumni. In this longitudinal study, the authors found that
when employees felt that their employers had failed to fulﬁl employment obligations at
Time 2, they were less likely to self report civic virtue behaviors at Time 3. In a similar
longitudinal study, Robinson (1996), again utilizing self report measures, found that
perceived breach of psychological contract was negatively related to self report civic
virtue behaviors.

While these studies help identify an empirical relationship between perceived
psychological contract breach and self report organizational citizenship behaviors, they
harbor limitations on two dimensions. First, both of the studies outlined above rely on

self-report measures to test the relationships. Secondly, the research focuses on the

20

speciﬁc citizenship behavior of civic virtue, and doesn’t expand into the evaluation of
more traditional citizenship behaviors, such as helping.

Two recent studies on the impact of psychological contract fulﬁllment on
organizational citizenship behaviors are examples of an attempt to overcome these
shortcomings. Van Dyne & Aug (1998) utilized both self reports and peer reports of
organizational citizenship behaviors related to strength of the psychological contract held
by employees. In the study, the authors distinguish between regular employees and
contingent workers. Peers assessed the organizational citizenship behavior of individuals
who were members of their work groups. Results suggest that contingent workers held a
weak psychological contract with the organization (i.e. possessed fewer expectations of
the organization than regular employees). Furthermore, the results showed that contingent
workers exhibited less organizational citizenship behaviors than regular employees (Van
Dyne & Ang, 1998). Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood (2003) utilize employee self
report, as well as supervisor evaluation, to explore supervisor observed employee OCB
behaviors associated with employee perceptions of psychological contract fulﬁllment.
The authors distinguish between citizenship behaviors directed towards the organization
(such as civic virtue) and citizenship behaviors directed towards other individuals (such
as helping). Results conﬁrm previous research which suggests that contract fulﬁllment is
positively related to citizenship behaviors directed towards the organization. More
interestingly, the authors found empirical evidence that contract fulﬁllment is also
positively related to citizenship behaviors directed towards colleagues.

Traditionally, psychological contract research harbors a focus on employee

attitudes. Furthermore, the few studies that have utilized observer perceptions of OCB

21

have focused on behaviors directed towards the organization. The Turnley et al. (2003)
study provides evidence of the relationship between perceived psychological contract
breach and behaviors directed towards peers. This dissertation expands upon this notion
by examining the effect of psychological contract breach by a peer, and the effect on

subsequent peer directed helping behaviors.

Perceived Attributions of Intentionality

The extant attribution literature describes the process by which an individual
seeks to ascribe a causal explanation to an event such as a breach of psychological
contract (Martinko, 1995). When exposed to, an unfavorable or unexpected outcome,
people tend to search for explanations that will enable them to determine the reasons for
that outcome (Wong & Weiner, 1981). Weick (1995) describes these psychological
processes that follow an unanticipated, and oftentimes undesired, event (such as a
contract breach) as “sense-making”. Wiener (1986) offers an attribution theory of
motivation and emotion, which suggests causal attributions inﬂuence subsequent
affective reactions and behaviors. In the attributional theory of motivation, Weiner
identiﬁes several dimensions of causality, the most popular of which are controllability,
stability, and locus (Weiner, 1985). However, Weiner also presents a dimension labeled
intentionality, which is deﬁned as the perceived motivational state of an individual
engaging in an action (Weiner, 1985).

I narrow my focus to the attribution of intentionality in the context of
psychological contract breach for the following reasons. When a breach of psychological
contract occurs, the injured victim’s attributions regarding the reason for the breach play

a role in how that victim responds (Rousseau, 1995). For example, Rousseau (1995)

22

suggests that injured victims evaluate both the willingness and the ability of the offender
to ﬁrlﬁll (or not fulﬁll) contractual obligations. With ability held constant, (i.e. the
offender possessed the ability to fulﬁll the contract), willingness becomes the distinction
between reneging breach and incongruence breach. In a reneging breach, the offender is
perceived as able yet unwilling to fulﬁll the obligations. In an incongruence breach, the
offender is perceived as both able and willing to fulﬁll the obligations of the contract
(Rousseau, 1995). The following ﬁgure adds clarity to the distinction.

Figure 2: Breach Distinction

 

Willingness Ability
to Fulfill Obligations to Fulfill Obligations
lncongruence Willing Able
Reneging Unwilling Able

 

 

 

Attribution of intentionality refers to an individual’s assessment of whether or not '
an offender was motivated to engage , in speciﬁc actions and whether the resulting
outcomes were desired by the offender (Weiner, 1986). More speciﬁcally, attribution of
intentionality is concerned with seeking to explain the motivation of the event - i.e. the
willingness of the offender’s actions.

Rousseau’s (1995) conceptualization of ability attribution is related to the
controllability dimension of Weiner’s (1986) attribution model. Controllability refers to
the extent to which a cause is seen as being under the volitional control of the offender.
Rousseau offers the term disruption to describe contract failures that occur when

circumstances render the offender unable to fulﬁll contractual obligations. For example,

23

if a peer agreed to work a shift for a co-worker, and then was involved in an accident and
injured prior to working the shift, then a disruption has occurred and subsequent observer
attributions of controllability would be low. While disruption is a form of psychological
contract failure, I limit this dissertation to reneging and incongruence breaches, which
hold controllability present and constant and vary only in terms of intentionality.
Whereas controllability is conceived as the presence or absence of the ability to cause an
event, intentionality is conceived as the presence or absence of the motivation, or
willingness, to cause an event (Betancourt & Blair, 1992).

Psychological contract theory does not offer any theoretical relationships between
breach and attributions of stability or locus dimensions. However, this may be a
limitation based upon the lack of examination of psychological contract breach between
peers. It is plausible that in certain contexts, such as long term relationships, attributions
of locus and stability may play a role in subsequent motivations and behaviors. However,
my research question is focused on how the type of breach inﬂuences immediate
attributions in ﬁxed, short-term interactions between two peers.

Psychological contract theory offers a theoretical foundation related to breach
type and attributions of intentionality. While other factors may inﬂuence attributions of
locus or stability, I do not expect breach type in particular to have a direct inﬂuence on
such attributions. For example, in both reneging and incongruence breach contexts, the
injured peer perceives that obligations have not been fulﬁlled. The subsequent attribution
process is not expected to determine whether or not the offender was the person who
breached obligations (locus). In addition, since the original contractual obligations were

broken, and my research question does not explore the establishment of subsequent

24

psychological contracts with the offender, the type of breach is not expected to have a
relevant inﬂuence on perceptions that the offender will breach future obligations
(stability). As such, I do not include stability or locus dimensions in this dissertation.
Instead, I focus on how type of psychological contract breach inﬂuences attributions of

intentionality.

Forbearance

Forbearance is deﬁned as the state of toleration possessed by an injured individual
towards a transgressor (McCullough et al., 2003). Forbearance is comprised of three
speciﬁc motivations: a) the reduced motivation to seek revenge, b) the reduced
motivation to avoid an offender, and c) the motivation to engage in benevolence towards
the offender (McCullough et al., 2003; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002). Hence, forbearance
describes an injured individual’s motivations, whereas the higher the forbearance, the
more tolerance the injured peer possesses towards the offender.

Forbearance originates from the growing literature on forgiveness. Forgiveness is
conceptualized as the set of motivational changes whereby an individual becomes less
motivated to retaliate against an offender, less motivated to avoid an offender, and
increasingly motivated by goodwill towards an offender over time (McCullough et al.,
1997). Inherent within the conceptualization of forgiveness is the notion of prosocial
change - whereas individual responses towards a transgressor become more positive and
less negative over time (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000). This change in
motivations implies the transition from one state to another over time, and the study of

forgiveness is gaining attention as a temporally inﬂuenced construct. Comparatively,

25

forbearance refers to the initial reaction an individual experiences following a
transgression (such as breach), and hence is not temporally dynamic. For example, in a
recent study, McCullough, F incham, and Tsang (2003) examined forgiveness from a
longitudinal perspective. The authors suggest that the process of forgiveness contains
multiple parameters, which consist of the following: forbearance — the initial degree to
which an injured individual tolerates a transgression; trend forgiveness - the extent to
which an individual forgives an offender over time since the initial reaction; and
temporary forgiveness — a term describing temporary deviations from the forgiveness
trend (McCullough et al., 2003). I will elaborate on the notion of forbearance and its
relationship to antecedents and outcomes within the domain of psychological contract
breach.

Several aspects of transgression inﬂuence forbearance - including characteristics
of the transgression, characteristics of the injured individual, and characteristics of the
offender (McCullough et al., 2003). For example, McCullough and colleagues (2003)
examined forbearance following transgression in undergraduate psychology students at a
large state university. Results show that transgression characteristics that inﬂuence
forbearance include offense severity (the more severe, the less forbearance) and
attributions of responsibility (the more intentional and responsible the offender’s actions,
the less forbearance). Other studies show that forbearance motivations inﬂuence
subsequent behavior. For example, McCullough, Worthington and Rachal (1997)
examine forbearance and self-report behaviors in undergraduate students. The study
prompted students to recall an interpersonal offense committed against them. Students

then completed forbearance and behavioral items related to their motivations and actions

26

towards the offender after the transgression. Results show that higher levels of
forbearance were related to higher levels of conciliatory behavior (deﬁned as making
amends, and taking steps towards reconciliation). Conversely, lower levels of forbearance
were related to higher levels of avoidance behavior directed towards the offender (i.e.
keeping distance and withdrawing from the offender) (McCullough et al., 1997).

Drawing on the forgiveness research to frame my arguments, I utilize
McCullough et al.’s (2003) conceptualization of forbearance to discuss immediate, short-
term motivations related to psychological contract breach by a peer. I suggest that
forbearance is inﬂuenced by attributions of intentionality and in turn, I predict that
forbearance inﬂuences helping behaviors directed towards the offender. In addition, I
develop arguments positioning forbearance as a mediator between attributions of

intentionality and helping behaviors.

Changing the Reactions to Breach - The role of Impression Management

Breaches of psychological contracts are potentially injurious, and may even be
willful. As such, individuals in breach may employ strategies designed to a) minimize the
actual loss incurred and b) minimize or alter the perception of these losses (Rousseau,
1995). Rousseau (1995) theorizes that two strategies may be employed to accomplish this
goal — remediation (or substitutes) and credible explanations (or accounts). In this
dissertation, I relate Rousseau’s conceptualization of remediation (Rousseau, 1995) to
acquisitive impression management (ingratiation) (Arkin, 1981), and Rousseau’s
conceptualization of credible explanations (Rousseau, 1995) to protective impression

management (accounts) (Arkin, 1981). In this section I ﬁrst deﬁne remediation and

27

credible explanations and I follow with an introduction and overview of both acquisitive
and protective impression management techniques.

Rousseau’s ﬁrst strategy, called remediation refers to offering a substitute of one
outcome for another outcome. For example, within a work group, instead of attending an
agreed upon meeting, a group member may attempt to minimize subsequent negative
outcomes by performing favors or by offering compliments and praise to the other group
members. Rousseau suggests that substitution is a form of contract keeping, although the
substitute may not be as strong as the original contract inducement. The substitution is
offered in an attempt to honor the psychological contract, even though the original terms
cannot (or will not) be met. As such, the goal 'of the remediation strategy is to provide a
substitute to the contractual terms and hence reduce the negative outcomes of contract
breach by reducing the perceived contract breach. If the remedies are successful, then the
contract is breached to a lesser extent than if remedies were not provided.

The second strategy that Rousseau suggests may minimize negative outcomes of
breach is the offering of credible explanations. When a breach occurs, information, in the
form of causal accounts (Bies & Shapiro, 1993), may help shape attributions before,
during, and after the experience of contract discrepancy (pg. 127). The attribution theory
of motivation and emotion (Weiner, 1986) suggests that attributional dimensions, such as
perceived responsibility, inﬂuence subsequent affect and behaviors. By explaining
themselves in a manner that makes them seem less responsible, violators may minimize
the negative outcomes associated with the breach of contract. I draw upon this
conceptualization offered by Rousseau to suggest that impression management behaviors

can be utilized in either strategy. Speciﬁcally, I relate remediation (Rousseau, 1995) with

28

acquisitive impression management (Arkin, 1981) and credible explanations (Rousseau,
1995) with protective impression management (Arkin, 1981).

Impression management theory suggests that a basic human motive is to be seen
by others in a favorable manner and to avoid being viewed negatively (Rosenfeld,
Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995a). In discussing impression management strategies, I adopt
Arkin’s (1981) seminal terminology of acquisitive and protective impression
management. Acquisitive impression management strategies are proactive strategies
utilized to project a favorable view of the self to others (Arkin, 1981). Protective
impression management strategies are reactive strategies utilized to defend the self
against a negative view ﬁom others (Arkin, 1981). While these conceptualizations are
similar, acquisitive and protective impression management strategies differ in that
acquisitive strategies are proactive, while protective strategies are reactive.

Tedischi and Melburg (1984) offered a similar taxonomy of impression
management behaviors on assertive and defensive dimensions. Assertive impression
management includes behaviors such as ingratiation and intimidation, while defensive
impression management includes behaviors such as apologies, excuses, and justiﬁcations.
For this dissertation, I distinguish between proactive (i.e. assertive) and reactive (i.e.
defensive) impression management. The use of the acquisitive and protective labels
allows for parsimonious classiﬁcation of impression management styles. In the following
section, I expand upon speciﬁc acquisitive and protective impression management
strategies and offer examples of theoretical and empirical literature for each category of
strategies. In addition, I draw upon the speciﬁc deﬁnitions and theory to narrow my

selection of impression management behaviors evaluated in this research project.

29

Acguisitive impression management

Acquisitve impression management strategies include behaviors labeled
ingratiation, self-promotion, intimidation, exempliﬁcation, and supplication (Rosenfeld,
Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995b). Ingratiation refers to a set of acquisitive impression
management tactics undertaken with the goal of making the person liked and more
attractive to others (Rosenfeld et al., 1995b). Self-promotion is a strategy utilized by
individuals who want to project themselves as being competent in ability or skill
dimensions (Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1986). Intimidation is a strategy utilized by
individuals to gain social power and inﬂuence by demanding that their will be obeyed to
avoid negative consequences (Arkin & Sheppard, 1989). Exempliﬁcation is a strategy
utilized to manage impressions of integrity, self-sacriﬁce, and moral worthiness (Jones &
Pittman, 1982). Finally, supplication refers to the strategy in which an individual
advertises and exploits their own weakness in an attempt to inﬂuence others. Although all
of these acquisitive strategies are interesting and important, given my interest in
psychological contracts which are based upon exchange and the norm of reciprocity, I
draw upon the norm of reciprocity to argue that ingratiation is the most relevant to my
domain of peer psychological contract breach.

Ingr_atiation.

Used successfully, ingratiation is found to generate liking and feelings of good
will, counter stereotypes and stigmatization, re-categorize the ingratiator from an outsider
to a liked insider, and activate norms of reciprocity (Allison & Herlocker, 1994). Jones,
Gergen, and Jones (1963) draw upon Heider’s (1946) ‘Person-Other-External’ (P-O-X)

notational system of interpersonal interaction to categorize ingratiatory behaviors. This

30

categorization consists of four speciﬁc behaviors - self-presentation, other-enhancement,
favor-doing, and opinion conformity. The Heider (1946) notational system suggests that
in any given interpersonal interaction, three elements can serve as the reference for
communication — the person communicating (P), the other who is receiving the
communication (0), or an object or event external to the relationship (X). Hence, the
person speaking (P) can communicate to another (0) about their own personal
characteristics (self-disclosure), about the other’s characteristics (other-appraisal), or
about some event external to the relationship. Jones et al. suggest that different tactics of
ingratiation are involved with each referent item in the P-O-X formation. To increase
liking and attractiveness, an ingratiator can thus focus on themself, the other person, or an
external event as the referent to accomplish their ingratiatory goals. For example, if the
targeted other (0) is to be used as the referent, then the ingratiator may compliment and
convey admiration to the targeted other about attributes the target possesses. This
technique of ingratiation is labeled other-enhancement (Jones et al., 1963), and the goal is
for the ingratiator to invoke a reciprocation of liking from the target. Each of the types of
ingratiation —— self-presentation, other-enhancement, favor-doing, and opinion conformity

- can be categorized based on Heider’s system. See Figure 3 for additional clariﬁcation.

Figge 3: Ingr_atiation Cgtegorization

 

Referent Target: Person (Sell) - P Other (Receiver) — 0 External Event - X

 

 

Ingratiation Strategy: Self-Presentation Other-Enhancement (Flattery) Opinion Conformity
F avor—Doing

 

 

 

 

 

Self-presentation is utilized when the ingratiator verbally describes attributes

about him/ herself that are potentially attractive to the target other (Kumar & Beyerlein,

31

1991). This strategy of self-presentation utilizes the Person (P) as the referent. When the
targeted other (0) is the referent, two ingratiation strategies are encompassed — other-
enhancement and favor-doing. Jones et a1. (1963) state that other-enhancement strategy
. includes the use of ﬂattery and compliments by the ingratiator to increase liking from the
other. By offering compliments, the ingratiator attempts to portray that he or she ﬁnds the
target attractive in some manner. In turn, the targeted other reciprocates by liking the
ingratiator (i.e. Ralston & Elsass, 1989). Favor-doing, is employed when the ingratiator
displays behaviors in the form of favors to a targeted other, in an attempt to increase
liking. Favor doing helps the ingratiator adopt an identity as being one who is helpful,
friendly, and considerate (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984), which are characteristics likely
considered attractive to the target. In addition, favor-doing generates a sense of obligation
and goodwill, that stimulates a reciprocation of liking (Jones, 1964). Finally, opinion
conformity is a form of ingratiation where the ingratiator attempts to maximize liking by
invoking an attraction based on perceived similarity. The ingratiator engages in opinion
conformity by expressing opinions and ideas about external objects or events (X) that are
consistent with another person’s attitudes and values.

. The goal of this dissertation is to understand the effects of impression
management techniques on peer helping behavior following a breach of psychological
contract. While all of the strategies of acquisitive impression management outlined may
be examined, I limit my focus to two of the four acquisitive strategies — other
enhancement (hereafter referred to as ﬂattery) and favor-doing — for the following
reasons. As discussed Rousseau (1995), suggests that the injurious nature of

psychological contract breaches prompts individuals responsible for the breach to engage

in strategies designed to offset actual losses incurred and/or to change the perception of
these losses. Remediation is one such strategy that is designed to target the actual losses
incurred. By substituting one outcome for another, the offending peer attempts to appease
the injured observer, and hence minimize the subsequent affective or behavioral
outcomes associated with contract breach. In relation to acquisitive impression
management strategies, I draw upon the norm of reciprocity to suggest that ﬂattery and
favor-doing are best paralleled with the conception of substitution, while opinion
conformity and self-presentation are not.

The norm of reciprocity is inherent in psychological contracts, where an
individual performs inducements in exchange for perceived obligations from another
party (Rousseau, 1995). By drawing upon the norm of reciprocity, both favor-doing and
ﬂattery strategies target the other (0) and attempt to offer behaviors that substitute for the
original obligations established in the formation of the psychological contract. For
example, an individual engaging in favor-doing may perform a favor for a peer, with the
intent that the peer will reciprocate with either 1) a favor in return, or 2) increased liking.
Similarly, an individual providing compliments and ﬂattery to a peer may do so with the
intent. of garnishing a future reciprocation from the peer, either in the form of a behavior,
such as sharing resources, or an attitude, such as increased liking.

Previous theory supports the notion of reciprocity for both strategies. For
example, theorists suggest favor-doing instills liking and a feeling of indebtedness, both
of which can be utilized as a form of social inﬂuence and to procure reciprocation
(Cialdini, 1993; Jones, 1964). For ﬂattery, Ralston and Elsass (1989) suggest that

individuals tend to reciprocate ﬂattery behaviors by liking those who like, who praise,

33

and who give positive evaluations to them. Hence, an individual who cannot (or will not)
adhere to the original obligations of a psychological contract may offer favor-doing or
ﬂattery strategies as substitutes for the original obligations. Granted, the potential
offender is not providing the agreed upon obligations, however the offender is providing
inducements nonetheless. Whether the substitution behaviors take the form of providing
favors, or showering praise and compliments on the potential victim, the offender hopes
that their behavior induces enough of a remedy to invoke positive outcomes (such as
forbearance), in light of a breach. Later, in Chapter 2, I develop arguments to suggest that
the comparative effectiveness of favor-doing and ﬂattery strategies vary.

While favor-doing and ﬂattery both draw upon the norm of reciprocity, the other
acquisitive ingratiation strategies — opinion conformity and self-enhancement — tend to
rely more upon norms of sirnilarity-attraction than norms of reciprocation. As stated,
opinion conformity utilizes an external referent object or event (X). Self-enhancement
utilizes the Person (P) as a referent. Both strategies attempt to increase liking by invoking
a sense of similarity between the person and a targeted other. Conversely, the favor-
doing and ﬂattery strategies each use the targeted other (0) as the referent. As such, I
consider ﬂattery and favor-doing to be more theoretically interesting and relevant in
relation to breach of the psychological contract, where a targeted other (0) is offered
substitutions to previously held obligations.

Protective impression management

Individuals that ﬁnd themselves in a predicament oftentimes attempt to utilize

strategies that minimize the negative outcomes associated with the predicament at hand.

A predicament is deﬁned as any event that detracts from an individual’s character,

34

conduct, skills or motives (Schlenker, 1980). Snyder, Higgins, & Stucky (1983) offer a
typology of predicament generating behaviors which includes 1) doing something that
shouldn’t be done, 2) not doing something that should be done, 3) doing things badly, and
, 4) being caught “red-handed”. The authors suggest that engaging in one or more of these
behaviors would lead to a predicament and that if unmanaged, this predicament causes
observers to view the offender negatively. In addition to negative views of their
character, the offender may face real and unwanted behaviors from others including
sanctions, punishments, or the denial of future beneﬁts or rewards (Rosenfeld et al.,
1995b).

Strategies employed by individuals in predicament situations are collectively
labeled remedial tactics and refer to social accounts (Schlenker, 1980), or protective
impression management (Arkin, 1981). Protective impression management tactics (i.e.
social accounts), include strategies such as excuse offering, apologies, denials, and
justiﬁcations. These account strategies attempt to manage the predicament and thus
minimize the potentially negative repercussions that predicaments generate. For example,
an offending peer who fails to provide agreed upon obligations — as in the sense of a
psychological contract breach — may ﬁnd themselves in a predicament, since they failed
to do something that should have been done. Upon recognizing that a predicament exists,
the offending peer may subsequently offer an apology or an excuse, in the hope that such
behavior would minimize negative outcomes of this predicament. This conceptualization
of predicament circumstance and subsequent protective impression management is
similar to Rousseau’s (1994) conceptualization of psychological contract breach and the

subsequent offering of explanations. Because the breach of a psychological contract will

35

likely cause one or more parties to experience a predicament, the offering of social
accounts may be a strategy utilized to minimize repercussions.
Mg of Acquisitive and Protective Straﬁgies

At this point I will make a distinction regarding the timing of acquisitive versus
protective impression management strategies. Impression management behaviors can be
loosely categorized as proactive — an attempt to enhance one’s social standing with
individuals, or as reactive - a response to threats to one’s social identity, personal
identity, well-being, or reputation (Arkin, 1981). More speciﬁcally, acquisitive
impression management refers to the instance when a person presents an image of the self
that is the most favorable possible in order to foster social approval (Arkin, 1981; Arkin
& Sheppard, 1989). Conversely, protective impression management is characterized by
behavior intended to avoid social disapproval. The difference between the two strategies
involves the underlying motives held by an actor in response to perceived social risk
(Arkin, 1981).

When social risk is perceived as being low, the motive to proactively seek social
approval is the underlying basis for acquisitive impression management. Here, an
individual adopts a reward orientation — an orientation where the focus is on potential
gains (Geen, Beatty, & Arkin, 1984). Conversely, when social risk is perceived as being
high, the motive to avoid social disapproval is the basis for protective impression
management styles (Arkin & Sheppard, 1989). In the protective management style, the
individual adopts a cost orientation -— where the individual motives are based on attention
to potential losses (Geen et al., 1984). For example, in the case of a psychological

contract, an offender may engage in acquisitive impression management techniques up

36

until a point where the offender becomes aware that the other person perceives a breach
of contract. Perhaps the offender was unaware that speciﬁc aspects of the obligation were
not fulﬁlled. Or perhaps the offender believed that proactive behaviors on their behalf
would mitigate the perception of contract breach altogether. Whatever the underpinnings,
prior to the perceived breach (and subsequent effects on motivations), the social risk
perceived by the offender is moderate to low. However, once the offender becomes aware
that the other person perceives a contract breach, social risk is elevated to a high level
and the motive to avoid social disapproval takes precedent. In the face of threatening
social interactions, individuals tend to embrace protective impression management styles
(Arkin & Sheppard, 1989).

From a timing perspective, this suggests that acquisitive impression management
is especially likely early in the breach event, where social risk is low, while protective
impression management is likely later in the breach event when social risk becomes
elevated. It is important to clarify that it is the offender’s awareness that the victim
perceives a breach that determines a change in perceived social risk and subsequent
impression management motives in the offender. I introduce the concept of offender
perceptions and motivations here to clarify the theoretical distinction between acquisitive
and protective strategies and the timing thereof. For this dissertation, I focus on
attributions and behaviors of the injured peer speciﬁcally, and as such do not examine
offending peer’s motivations and how they inﬂuence selection of impression

management strategies.

37

Social accounts

Remedial tactics (hereafter referred to as social accounts) that follow
predicaments attempt to minimize negative outcomes in one of four ways: by neutralizing
the negative impression, by reducing the negative impression, by redeﬁning the
impression as positive, or by negating the negative impression (Giacalone & Rosenfeld,
1984). Social accounts are classiﬁed in a typology consisting of apology, excuse,
justiﬁcation, and denial (Schlenker, 1985; Schoenbach, 1990). Itoi, Ohbuchi, and F ukuno
(1996) differentiate accounts based on the offender’s acknowledgement of three cognitive
criteria: causal association, outcome harmfulness, and personal responsibility. This

differentiation is displayed in Figure 4 (Itoi et al., 1996).

38

Figure 4: Account Differentiartion

 

Admit that one has caused the outcome?
YES NO
Admit that the outcome was negative?
YES NO

I

Admit that one is responsible?

 

 

YES NO
I i v v
APOLOGY EXCUSE JUSTIFICATION DENIAL

 

 

 

In the case of a breach of psychological contract by a speciﬁc offending peer, I
narrow my examination of account strategies to two speciﬁc social accounts: apology and
excuse. The logic behind this selection is based on the nature of my research question -
the effects of impression management on peer helping following a breach. The injured
peer will clearly be able to determine that a speciﬁc peer offender failed to fulﬁll the
terms of the contract. As such, denial is a less likely account option in this setting.
Moreover, conﬂict studies have suggested that strategies such as justiﬁcation and denial
either escalate conﬂicts or are ineffective in conﬂict resolution (Wall & Nolan, 1986).
Also, Cody & Braaten (1992) suggest that in interpersonal settings, individuals perceive
apologies and excuses as more polite and more effective in resolving disputes and
avoiding conﬂict than justiﬁcations and denials. Given these factors, two account options
remain for examination — apology and excuse. The nature of my research interest,

coupled with the theoretical classiﬁcation presented by Itoi et a1 (1996), supports a

selection of apology and excuse as account types for examination. These account
strategies of apology and excuse and their relationship to important outcomes are outlined
below.

Excuse offering is designed to reduce negative outcomes such as feelings of
injustice and retaliatory behaviors. Crant & Bateman (1993) demonstrated that excuses
effectively reduce the assignment of blame, and hence, avoid decreased reward
allocations and negative impressions related to performance outcomes. Shapiro (1991)
found that excuses offered in response to predicaments related to deceit helped reduce
negative reactions in observers, including perceptions of injustice, feelings of
disapproval, and intent to engage in punitiVe behavior. Likewise, Bies, Shapiro, &
Cummings (1988) examined external accounts provided by a supervisor in response to a
denial of subordinate’s request and found that excuses reduced feelings of anger, reduced
perceptions of procedural injustice, reduced feelings of disapproval, and fostered fewer
complaints by subordinates to higher-ups in the organization.

There is empirical support suggesting that apologies are also an effective strategy
employed to minimize negative reactions to a predicament. In an early study examining
the reaction of children, Darby and Schlenker (1982) found that subjects judged offenders
less liable to punishment if the offender offered an apology for their behavior. More
recent organizational studies have found that apology is related to increased levels of
sympathy, decreased levels of anger, reduced expectancy for a repeat of transgression,
enhanced positive behavioral judgements, and increased forgiveness (Weiner, Graham,
Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991). Ohbuchi, Kameda et a1. (1989) examined victim’s responses

to apologies by harm doers and found that apologies were directly related to more

40

favorable, impression of the offender, more positive affect from the victim, and less
victim aggression towards the offender. Two recent studies (Takaku, 2001; Takaku et al.,
2001) show that apologies are related to positive affect and forgiveness.

In Chapter 2, I develop arguments to suggest that excuses and apologies vary in
their ability to transform a potentially negative predicament (i.e. psychological contract
breach) into a positive behavioral outcome (i.e. peer helping behavior directed towards

the offender).

41

CHAPTER 2

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

To recap, this dissertation examines the relationship between psychological
contract breach, impression management techniques, and helping behavior. Speciﬁcally,
the particular question of interest examines the effects of four different impression
management techniques on peer helping behavior after a breach of psychological
contract. Throughout this dissertation, I use the term “injured peer” to identify the
individual who experiences the breach of psychological contract. The term “offending
peer” is used to designate the individual who is identiﬁed with the speciﬁc breach
behavior.

In this chapter, I offer hypotheses for the effects of psychological contract breach
and impression management techniques in relation to attributions, forbearance, and
helping behaviors of an injured peer. I propose that the type of psychological contract
breach inﬂuences perceived attributions of intentionality in an injured peer. I propose that
the attribution of intentionality inﬂuences motivations in the injured peer - speciﬁcally,
forbearance, which includes facets of revenge, avoidance, and benevolence motivations. I
argue further that acquisitive impression management (ingratiation) techniques moderate
the relationship between attributions of intentionality and forbearance. I continue by
suggesting that forbearance motivations inﬂuence helping behaviors in an injured peer.
Further, I argue that protective impression management (accounts) moderate the

relationship between forbearance and helping. Finally, I suggest that forbearance

42

motivations mediate the relationship between attributions of intentionality and helping

and I offer a test of the mediation model in this dissertation.

Psychological Contract Breach, Attribution of Intent, and Forbearance

The breach of a psychological contract results from one of two conditions —
reneging or incongruence (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). In a reneging breach, an
offender recognizes contractual obligations, but knowingly fails to fulﬁll these
obligations. In an incongruence breach, an offender attempts to fulﬁll contractual
obligations, but fails to do so because perceptions of obligation fulﬁllment differ between
the contract holders. Both reneging and incongruence breach of psychological contract
cause the injured peer to perceive that contractual obligations have been broken. The type
of breach, as explained below, inﬂuences the perceptions of the injured peer.

When an offender fails to reciprocate an obligation, as in the case of a
psychological contract breach, the injured peer engages in the attribution process which
in ttu'n, inﬂuences subsequent behaviors. Speciﬁcally, according to Rousseau’s (1995)
conceptualization of psychological contract breach, the injured individual engages in
attributions of intentionality.

Several theoretical (i.e. Morrison & Robinson, 1997) and empirical (Robinson &
Morrison, 2000; Turnley et al., 2003) publications support the notion that psychological
contract breach invokes the attributional process. Morrison and Robinson (1997) and
Rousseau (1995) state that when the reciprocal obligations comprising a psychological
contract are not fulﬁlled, the injured individual’s attributions regarding the reason for the

breach inﬂuence subsequent reactions. Previous research suggests that at the broadest

43

level, individuals likely view a breach of contract on the dimension of intentionality —
either intentional or unintentional (Turnley & F eldman, 1999a). A recent study utilizing
employed MBA students supports the occurrence of attributions of intent following
psychological contract breach (Turnley et al., 2003). Speciﬁcally, Turnley et al. (2003)
found that in an incongruence situation, where an individual perceives unfulﬁlled
obligations while receiving information indicating that the offender believes he or she has
fulﬁlled obligations, injured individuals were most likely to attribute the breach to an
unintentional misunderstanding between the observer and the offender. Individuals in the
Turnley et a1. (2003) study responded to the statement ‘There was an honest
misunderstanding between myself and the organization regarding what the organization
would provide’ to acknowledge incongruence. Conversely, in a reneging situation, where
an individual perceives unfulﬁlled obligations while also perceiving that the offending
actor had the ability to keep its commitments, observers were more likely to attribute the
breach to an intentional choice by the offending actor to not keep the obligation.
Individuals in the study responded to the statement ‘The organization could have kept its
promise, but it chose not to’ to acknowledge reneging.

, Attribution theorists offer an explanation for the causal relationship between an
offender’s action and subsequent injured individual’s attributions. As established,
attribution theory suggests that following a negative or unexpected outcome, an
attributional process is invoked to determine a cause for the event (Weiner, 1985). This
attributional search presents a theoretical relationship between the observed effects of an

act and the subsequent attribution of intent. Weiner suggests that while there may be an

44

inﬁnite number of causal ascriptions referenced by the individual in attributional search,
only a small number from the vast array are salient (Weiner, 1985).

The saliency of the causal ascription is determined by stimuli, such as personal
expectations or informational cues (Kelley & Michela, 1980; Weiner, 1985). Hence, the
effect is attributed to the causal cues that are most salient in the perceptual ﬁeld at the
time the effect is observed (Kelley & Michela, 1980). These cues represent information
that is observed by the injured individual. Ossorio and Davis (1968) offer an organization
for the cues which lead to the attribution of intent. The authors suggest that attribution of
intentionality is related to the injured observer’s a) knowledge that the offender is
engaging in a behavior that he or she has a motive for, b) that the offender has knowledge
of the offending action, c) that the offender engaged in overt actions to complete the
offending action, and d) that the offender’s engagement in the offending action was not
accidental but instead required physical or mental engagement. Once an offending act
occurs, such as the breach of a psychological contract, the injured individual sees cues,
related to the preceding categories (a,b,c,d), and infers an intention (Maselli & Altrocchi,
1969). I draw upon this ascription process outlined in attribution theory to predict the
relationship between psychological breach type and attribution of intentionality.

After the primary realization that a negative event has occurred, an offended
individual engages in an attribution process in which cues from the offender are
evaluated and responses invoked (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). This set of cues shapes
the injured observer’s attribution of intent. Hence, perceived cues, such as willingness to
meet obligations, plays an important role in the attribution of intent (Turnley et al., 2003).

I combine attribution theory and the theoretical deﬁnitions of reneging and incongruence

45

(i.e. Morrison & Robinson, 1997) to suggest that offenders engaging in a speciﬁc breach
type will provide cues, which in turn inﬂuence an injured peer’s attribution of intent. For
example, an offender that engages in a reneging breach may convey cues that suggest the
offender a) had knowledge of the obligation, b) had knowledge that their actions, or lack
thereof, would breach the obligation, c) overtly failed to fulﬁll the obligation, and d) this
failure to fulﬁll the obligation was the result of a conscious decision. These cues follow
the framework as offered by Ossorio and Davis (1968). Conversely, an offender that
engages in an incongruence breach may convey cues that suggest a) the offender did not
have complete knowledge of the obligation, b) the offender did not have knowledge that
their actions would breach the obligation, c) the offender attempted to fulﬁll the
obligation, and d) the failure to fulﬁll the obligation was accidental.

To add more clarity to my conceptualization of psychological contract breach
between two peers, consider an example where a peer agrees to complete a task for
another peer. A reneging breach of this contract may include the following cues: the
offender did not complete the task as agreed, but instead was observed working on other
tasks more directly relevant to the offender. Conversely, an incongruence breach may
include the following cues: the offender worked on and completed a task, but utilized
assumptions from an incorrect data set. These simple cues provide information on all four
areas of inference as outlined above. In this dissertation, I predict that in the reneging
condition, the cues will elicit a higher attribution of intentionality than the cues in the
incongruence condition. To clarify, behavioral cues associated with reneging convey an

intention to breach obligations. Hence, I predict that the type of psychological contract

46

breach inﬂuences an observer’s attribution of intentionality, such that reneging breach

results in higher perceptions of intentionality than incongruence breach.

H1: Reneging breach leads to higher perceived attributions of intentionality
than incongruence breach.

Attribution of intent is particularly important in relation to reactions to breach of
psychological contract. One such reaction to a personal transgression, such as a breach of
contractual obligations between peers, is forbearance (McCullough et al., 2003).
Forbearance is comprised of three speciﬁc motivations, whereas high forbearance
following a transgression may be characterized as an injured peer possessing lower
motivations to seek revenge and avoid an offender, and higher motivations of
benevolence towards the offender (McCullough et al., 2003; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002).
In the context of a psychological contract breach, I seek to determine what factors result
in higher levels of forbearance in an injured peer.

I draw upon psychological contract and attribution literature to suggest that
attributions of intentionality inﬂuence levels of forbearance. By utilizing Weiner’s (1985)
attribution theory of motivation, I predict that attributions of intentionality inﬂuence
forbearance levels in an injured peer. Speciﬁcally, attributions of intentionality will
inﬂuence an injured peer’s motivation to avoid, motivation to seek revenge, and
motivation to engage in benevolence towards an offender. In a subsequent section, I
introduce acquisitive impression management (ingratiation) strategies, and I predict how
these strategies moderate the relationship between attributions of intentionality and

forbearance.

47

As previously outlined, breach of psychological contract invokes an individual’s
attribution process. The psychological contract breach is categorized as an unanticipated
and unpleasant event that is both a violation of the norm of reciprocity (Rousseau, 1995)
as well as an event likely to be perceived as an injustice or offense (Morrison and
Robinson, 1997). The attributional process seeks to explain or understand speciﬁc
characteristics (such as the intentionality) deﬁning the event. The resulting attributions
shape the individual’s motivations and subsequent behaviors (W einer, 1986; Weiner,
1985)

A recent study shows a relationship between attributional processes and
motivations associated with forbearance. Mccullough and colleagues (2003) conducted a
recent examination of attributions of responsibility (a combination of controllability and
intentionality attributions) and their relationship to avoidance, revenge, and benevolence
motivations. In a cross-sectional examination of 73 undergraduate psychology students,
the authors found a signiﬁcant, negative relationship between attributions of
responsibility (which includes measures of intentionality) and benevolence motivations,
and a signiﬁcant positive relationship between attributions and avoidance motivations. In
other words, when an injured individual perceived that the offender was both responsible
and intentional in their actions, the injured individual possessed higher motivations to
avoid the offender and lower motivations to engage in goodwill towards the offender than
when the individual formed low responsibility attributions. The relationship between
attributions and revenge was marginally positive.

So how does the attribution process following breach inﬂuence motivations?

Perhaps the speciﬁc attributions induce emotions, which then inﬂuence motivations and

48

behaviors. Weiner’s attribution theory of motivation and emotion (Weiner, 1986; Weiner,
1985) suggests that attributions inﬂuence motivations by invoking emotions.
Psychological contract theory also suggests that an individual’s perception (i.e.
attribution) of psychological contract breach can influence aﬁ’ective outcomes, such as
anger (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Ortany, Clore, and Collins, (1988) state that
emotions can be evaluated through reactions triggered by cognitive analysis (i.e.
attributions) related to a given situation.

In relation to attributions of intentionality, previous research shows that acts
perceived as highly intentional invoke more negative reactions from injured individuals.
For example, Turnley et al., (2003) in a study of supervisor-subordinate dyads found that
intentionality attributions related to psychological breach inﬂuenced work performance
and organizational citizenship behaviors such that when employees attributed higher
levels of breach intentionality, both work performance and OCB behaviors were
signiﬁcantly decreased. In another example, Robinson & Morrison (2000) add
clariﬁcation to the relationship between the attributional process and feelings related to
violation. Speciﬁcally, in a study of MBA managers spanning 18 months, Robinson and
Morrison found that breach attributed to reneging resulted in more intense feelings of
violation in individuals than breach attributed to misunderstandings (or incongruence).
Finally, I cite a study which found that intentional acts of harm provoke more retaliation
than unintentional acts of harm. The study consisted of forty eight male undergraduate
students who were exposed to shocks whose intensity was supposedly set by an opponent
(Greenwell & Dengerink, 1973). In the treatment conditions, the shock intensity

remained constant. However, a light indicating the intensity amount set by the opponent

49

was varied. The authors found that perceived intent of an opponent was more important
than actual physical attack in instigating retaliation.

Morrison and Robinson (1997) propose that an individual’s intensity of reaction
to a breach of contract is directly related to the attribution of that breach. By drawing
upon the causal logic implied in Weiner’s attribution-emotion-motivation sequence, I
predict that attributions of intentionality inﬂuence forbearance levels in an injured peer
such that lower perceived intentionality results in higher levels of forbearance. For
example, if an injured peer perceives cues that suggest the offender attempted to fulﬁll
obligations and perceives low attributions of intentionality, then I predict that the injured
peer will be more likely to forbear the transgression. In other words, the injured peer will
possess low levels of motivation to retaliate against the offender, low levels of motivation

to avoid the offender and higher levels of motivations to engage in benevolence towards

the offender.

Hypothesis 2: The lower the attribution of intentionality, the higher the
forbearance.

The Moderating Effect of Acquisitive Impression Management

Acquisitive impression management strategies refer to proactive attempts by an
individual to present a positive image of themselves to others to elicit social approval
(Arkin, 1981; Shepperd & Arkin, 1990). While this approach to impression management
contains several tactics (i.e. ingratiation, self-promotion, intimidation, exempliﬁcation,
and supplication), as explained in Chapter 1, I limit my focus to acquisitive impression

management ingratiation (hereafter referred to as simply ingratiation) in this dissertation.

50

Two theoretical domains (drawn ﬁom the ingratiation literature and the
psychological contract literature) provide insight into the interaction between attribution
of intentionality and ingratiation. Accordingly, I expand upon the causal logic utilized in
Hypothesis 2 to predict that ingratiation moderates the relationship between attributions
of intentionality and forbearance.

First, I draw upon the ingratiation literature to show that intentionality attributions
interact with ingratiation strategies to inﬂuence subsequent motivations. For example,
Jones (1964) states that an individual’s assessment regarding the intent of another’s
ingratiatory behavior inﬂuences attraction in a positive circumstance, and reprisal in the
case of a negative circumstance (i.e. “boomerang effect”). A study by Crant (1996) may
indirectly suggest that attributions of intentionality and impression management share a
moderated relationship in inﬂuencing observer reactions. In a scenario based experiment
which manipulated an actor’s use of impression management tactics, Crant found that
observer reactions to the actor’s success or failure in a task was moderated by the
impression management tactic. While intentionality was not measured directly, the author
found that when impression management tactics were congruent with performance (for
example, self-handicapping coupled with failure) a more favorable impression was
formed than when tactics were not congruent with performance (Crant, 1996). Although
not measured, perhaps an underlying attribution of intentionality moderated the
relationship between impression management and evaluations of the actor.

Other empirical research suggests that attributions of behavior (political versus
citizenship behaviors) affect subsequent rewards (Eastman, 1994). For example, Eastman

(1994) conducted a study in which 91 master’s level students responded to behavior logs

51

of a ﬁctional employee. The author found that while behaviors were similar, the
supervisory response to an employee was moderated by whether the supervisor attributed
the behavior to ingratiation or citizenship. When behaviors were attributed to citizenship,
employees received greater rewards than when behavior was attributed to ingratiation
(Eastman, 1994). In sum, these theoretical works (i.e. Jones, 1964) and empirical studies
suggest that attribution of intentionality and impression management techniques interact
to inﬂuence motivations.

I now turn to psychological contract theory to discuss the explicit nature of this
relationship and to formalize my hypothesis. When one party fails to fulﬁll the
obligations of a psychological contract, the breach of contract is particularly salient to the
injured party. In a situation such as this, it is likely that the offender will attempt to offset
the inequity of' exchange. Rousseau (1995) suggests that several strategies may be
employed to reduce the experience of violation following a psychological contract
breach. The term violation includes the injured individual’s feelings, including emotions
such as anger or disappointment (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). By targeting the actual
losses incurred as a result of contract breach, an offender may successfully mitigate the
negative feelings associated with the breach (Rousseau, 1995). Rousseau calls this
strategy remediation and it entails offering a substitute for the original obligations in the
psychological contract.

The notion of reducing losses is particularly important in relation to the
remediation strategy. Losses can signify any negative outcome that occurs as a result of
contract breach. For example, an employee may take pride in having an unblemished

project management record. If this employee enters into an agreement with a peer to

52

complete certain tasks, and then the peer subsequently does not complete the tasks as
agreed, then the employee may suffer a loss due to the breach of obligations on behalf of
the offending peer. If the injured employee is not disciplined for the incomplete task, then
perhaps the only loss incurred is the loss of pride associated with a blemished project
management record. Losses within organizations can take many forms and can include
tangible value, such as money, or it may include intangible value, such as prestige or
symbolic signiﬁcance (Rousseau, 1995).

Rousseau (1995) offers a concept referred to as comparable value in relation to
the remediation strategy. Rousseau suggests the importance of substitutes having
comparable value in relation to the original contract obligations when attempting to
mitigate negative effects of breach. Rousseau states:

Reliance losses often will not result in termination of the contract
if remediation of comparable value is offered. Because contracts
are designed to reduce the reliance losses parties incur, living up to
the contract may not necessarily always involve delivering its
speciﬁc terms. A sales trainee offered one territory at hire may
believe her deal is being kept when, due to a market decline, she is
given another equally attractive territory. The issue here is

comparable value between what is promised and what is delivered.
[Rousseau, 1995, p. 121]-

_ I compare the ingratiatory behaviors of favor-doing and ﬂattery to Rousseau’s
(1995) conceptualization of transactional and relational contracts to suggest that
ingratiation behaviors vary in their comparative value as substitutes to original
psychological contract obligations. Rousseau conceptualizes transactional contracts as
explicit, closed-ended agreements regarding identiﬁable inducements and obligations.
Conversely, relational contracts consist of dynamic, open-ended relations that may
include both written and unwritten terms related to inducements and obligations

(Rousseau, 1995). Within acquisitive impression management ingratiation tactics, I

suggest that the ingratiatory behaviors of favor-doing and ﬂattery can be related to
transactional and relational exchanges respectively. Favor-doing includes identiﬁable and
explicit behaviors. For example, if a peer were to loan another peer $5 as a favor, the
obligation of the recipient would be to 1) return the $5 at a later time, and 2) lend $5 to
the original peer at a later time of need. Conversely, ﬂattery includes relationship
oriented behaviors as opposed to transaction oriented behaviors. For example, if a peer
compliments another peer on a job well done and on personal characteristics esteemed by
the ingratiator, the ingratiator is eliciting some open-ended future response ﬁom the peer
(such as liking) that is both nondescript and dynamic.

I suggest that transactional behaviors” (such as favor-doing) are more eﬂecﬁve
substitutes (i.e. have greater comparative value) for contractual obligations than relational
behaviors (such as ﬂattery). The logic is as follows. The explicit nature of transactional
exchange allows for easy comparison of inducements with the original obligations, while
fulﬁllment of the exchange is more salient to the parties involved. In comparison, the
informal inducements encompassed within relational exchange are less salient, less
tangible, and do not allow for easy comparison with original contractual obligations.
Consider the case where an offender offers an extra, tangible action (i.e. favor) in light of
fulﬁllment of the original contractual obligations. Though the injured peer perceives the
lack of fulﬁllment of the original obligations, the comparative value of the favor may
reduce negative emotions and subsequent motivations associated with the breach.
Furthermore, this substitution effect is more likely when the substitute is tangible and
comparable to the original obligations, as may be the case with a favor. Conversely, when

an offender attempts to offer a relational behavior (such as ﬂattery) as a substitute, the

54

injured peer is less likely to perceive the offender’s action as a salient substitute. Hence,
the relational substitute fails to minimize the negative affect and subsequent motivations
associated with the breach of obligations.

Drawing upon Rousseau’s (1995) distinction between transactional and relational
exchange, coupled with Weiner’s (1995) attribution-affect-motivation framework, I
predict that the type of ingratiation behavior moderates the relationship between
attribution of intentionality and forbearance and that this effect is more pronounced as
attributions of intentionality decrease. I suggest that transactional behavior, such as favor-
doing, is more likely to change the relationship between attribution of intentionality and
forbearance because they are tangible, and thus more easily viewed as a substitute than
relational behavior, such as ﬂattery. In the case where the intentionality of the offender’s
breach is perceived as low, I expect the substitution behavior of favor-doing is more
effective in changing the relationship between attribution of intentionality and
forbearance than the substitution of ﬂattery. However, in the case where the
intentionality of the offender’s breach is perceived as high, I expect that neither type of
ingratiation behavior substitutes the obligations for the injured peer and therefore the
relationship between attributions of intentionality and forbearance is not changed. Hence,
I predict that ingratiatory favor-doing (a transactional exchange) results in higher levels
of forbearance when attributions of intentionality are low than does flattery (a relational

exchange).

55

Figure 5: Ingratiation ModeLation Grgph

High

 

 

Favor-Doing
Forbearance

-------- Other-Enhancing

 

 

 

 

 

Low

 

Low High
Attribution of

Intentionality

In Hypothesis 2, I predicted that lower attribution of intentionality leads to higher
levels of forbearance. In my current hypothesis, I argue that favor.doing has a greater
‘comparative value’ than ﬂattery. In other words, favor-doing is transactional in nature
and will result in stronger feelings of exchange than relational other-enhancing behaviors
such as ﬂattery. These stronger feelings of exchange likely result in a more successful
substitution of contractual obligations. Hence, when an offending peer offers favor-doing
as a substitution strategy, the interaction between favor-doing and low attribution of
intentionality is predicted to result in higher forbearance. Conversely, I expect that
neither favor-doing, nor ﬂattery will result in higher forbearance when attribution of
intentionality is high.

H3: The relationship between Attribution of Intentionality and Forbearance

will be moderated by Acquisitive Impression Management Ingratiation
type, such that the relationship is stronger for favor-doing than for ﬂattery.

Forbearance and Helping
I continue with Weiner’s (1986) conceptualization of affect-motivation—behavior

to suggest that forbearance motivations inﬂuence helping behaviors. Given the

56

conceptualization of both helping (Van Dyne et al., 1995; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)
and forbearance (McCullough et a1, 2003), I expect that higher levels of forbearance lead
to higher levels of helping.

Two studies on forbearance lend support to my prediction. McCullough,
Worthington, and Rachal (1997) conducted two studies on forbearance and self-report of
conciliatory behaviors (making amends, showing concern, expressing love, etc.). In the
ﬁrst study, 239 undergraduate students provided accounts of an interpersonal offense
experienced in the past. Participants recalled a speciﬁc hurtful interpersonal experience
and then completed forbearance and self-report measures of conciliatory behaviors. In the
second study, 134 undergraduate students from a different university population provided
accounts and completed similar measures. In both studies, the researchers found a
signiﬁcant and positive relationship between forbearance and conciliatory behavior
performed by the injured respondent (conceptualized as attempting to make amends,
showing concern, expressing love, etc).

While the authors of previous forbearance research acknowledge that forbearance
consists of three facets of motivation, previous research which utilizes forbearance as a
predictor employ the construct as a composite (i.e. an average of the facets) (McCullough
et al., 1997). From a composite perspective, and consistent with past research, I suggest
that a positive relationship exists between forbearance and helping within an
organizational context between peers. Speciﬁcally, I predict that forbearance is positively
related to helping such that higher levels of forbearance lead to higher levels of helping

behavior directed towards the offending peer.

57

I ﬁnd the notion that forbearance motivations consist of three facets interesting.
Recent research on forbearance acknowledges the multi-faceted nature of the construct
and explores the relationship of antecedents to each facet (McCullough et al., 2003). For
example, in a study utilizing personal stories from undergraduate psychology students,
McCullough and colleagues (2003) showed that transgression severity is signiﬁcantly and
positively related to revenge motivations, but only marginally and positively related to
avoidance motivations and not signiﬁcantly related to benevolence motivations.
Conversely, attribution of responsibility was signiﬁcantly and negatively related to
benevolence motivations while possessing only a marginally negative relationship to
avoidance motivations and no relationship to" revenge motivations (McCullough et al.,
2003)

As McCullough’s research suggests, different antecedents affect different facets
of forbearance motivations. While not yet explored, it is conceptually feasible that the
speciﬁc facets of forbearance also affect outcomes (such as helping) differently.
Intuitively, I propose that low motivations of avoidance and revenge are not sufﬁcient to
invoke higher levels of helping. In addition, to low motivation to avoid or retaliate, there
must also be high levels of benevolence motivations to facilitate helping, especially when
directed towards an offending peer. While my hypothesis takes the form of the general,
composite forbearance construct, I intend to examine the dimensionality of forbearance. I
am interested in exploring whether forbearance functions as a latent or as an aggregate
construct in my data and whether the three facets have the same relationship with my
independent variable (i.e. perceived attributions of intentionality) and dependent variable

(i.e. helping).

58

Hypothesis 4: The higher the forbearance, the higher the helping.

The Moderating Effect of Protective Impression Management

Recall that Rousseau (1995) offered two strategies designed to change the
meaning of loss associated with the breach of the psychological contract. The ﬁrst
strategy, remediation, involves substituting one outcome for another in an attempt to keep
the contract. I explored this strategy in my discussion of acquisitive impression
management behaviors. The second potential strategy in the event of a contact breach
involves the use off credible explanations (Rousseau, 1995). By conveying information
to the victims of a psychological contract breach, the offending peer attempts to alter the
meaning of the breach in such a manner that subsequent negative behaviors associated
with a breach are reduced.

Protective impression management refers to reactive and defensive strategies
utilized by an individual to defend the self against a negative view from others (Arkin,
1981; Shepperd & Arkin, 1990). In this section, I explore protective impression
management strategies — which involve the offering of social accounts (i.e. excuses and
A apologies). I argue that social accounts offered by an offending peer moderate the
relationship between forbearance and helping.

I adopt two assumptions in the formation of this moderated relationship. The ﬁrst
assumption concerns the timing of the protective impression management account. Arkin
(1981) labels protective impression management as a strategy utilized to avoid social
disapproval. From a timing perspective, an offender adopts a protective impression

management strategy when perceived social risk is elevated. In relation to psychological

59

contract breach, an offender is likely to adopt the protective strategy after the perceived
violation has occurred. This timing distinction is also suggested by Benoit’s (1995)
model of account development where the offering of social account (i.e. protective
impression management) occurs after an offense and challenge from the injured party.
Hence, I position protective impression management strategies after the development of
the injured peer’s attributions and motivations related to breach.

The second assumption that I adopt is that protective impression management
strategies moderate the relationship between forbearance and helping through the causal ’
mechanism of empathy. Empathy, in the most general sense, is deﬁned as the reaction of
one individual to the observed experiences of another (Davis, 1983). I adopt the
assumption that the observed experiences of another may be provided in the form of a
verbal account of circumstances.

To summarize, in this section, I formulate my prediction that protective
impression management tactics, in the form of social accounts offered after initial
attributions and motivations of the injured peer, moderate the relationship between
forbearance and helping.

. Protective impression management tactics (i.e. social accounts), include strategies
such as excuse offering, apologies, denials, and justiﬁcations (Rosenfeld et al., 1995b).
Excuse and apology accounts are most relevant in a situation where a negative outcome is
present and where the source of the outcome is attributable to a speciﬁc individual.
Excuses are social accounts that attempt to minimize the link between an offender and an
undesirable behavior or outcome (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). The account giver

attempts to reduce personal responsibility by shifting causal attributions from internal

60

elements of identity to external elements. For example, an employee who fails to show up
for work may offer the excuse that his or her car broke down on the way to work, leaving
them stranded on an isolated roadway. Here, responsibility is placed upon the automobile
instead of an internal characteristic of the employee.

The attribution theory of motivation (Weiner, 1986), which suggests that
properties of perceived causality include locus, controllability, and stability, helps
identify dimensions that an excuse may attempt to manipulate. In the sense that excuses
attempt to manipulate perceived causality, the excuse behavior can be classiﬁed along the
dimensions of causality outlined in the Weiner’s attribution theory. In other words,
excuses can be identiﬁed as possessing properties that are internal versus external to the
offender, controllable versus not controllable by the offender, and stable versus unstable
over time (Weiner, 1992). Research suggests that when compared to true causes, the
greatest difference between the true cause and the excuse is on the dimension of
controllability (Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, & Verette, 1987). In other words, when an
offender attempts to engage in damage control by way of excuse giving, the dimension
that is most likely to be emphasized (and altered) is the dimension of controllability.
Weiner and colleagues (1987; 1991) also found that some excuses that did not attempt to
shift perceptions to a locus external to the offender (such as missing a report because I
was sick) were effective as long as the cause was determined to be uncontrollable. In this
research study, I utilize Weiner’s (1992) conceptualization of excuse and focus on
controllability as the key aspect of the excuse account.

When referring to the relationship between excuses and attributions of

controllability, I am careful to distinguish between controllability and intentionality.

61

Controllability is conceived as the presence or absence of ability related to an event,
whereas intentionality is conceived as the presence or absence of motivation, or
willingness, related to an event (Betancourt & Blair, 1992). For example, consider the
case of a peer who agreed to complete a task for a co-worker, and then failed to complete
the task. Afterwards, the offending peer offered an excuse to the injured peer by stating
that a family member became ill and needed unexpected, attentive care. In this example,
shifting causality to an external source (i.e. a sick family member) reduces attributions of
controllability. However, intentionality is not affected by the excuse, as the offending
peer intentionally chose to tend to his or her sick relative as opposed to completing the
task. I adhere to this distinction in this study to avoid the confounding of attributions of
intentionality as related to breach and forbearance with the effects of controllability
related to excuse accounts.

Whereas excuses attempt to absolve an offender of responsibility, apologies are
admissions of responsibility and blarneworthiness coupled with an expressed regret for
undesirable events (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). Schlenker and Darby (1981) outline the
components of an effective apology and as such offer some insight into the operative
mechanism of apologies. The authors suggest that effective apologies consist of at least
four elements: 1) an expression of remorse, 2) an offer of restitution or redress, 3) a
statement of self-castigation, and 4) a request for forgiveness. These factors combined are
known as a ‘full-blown’ apology, and are found to be most satisfying following
transgressions (Holtgraves, 1989). For my examination of psychological contract breach,

I adopt this notion of ﬁrll-blown apology as the second social account strategy.

62

While excuse accounts attempt to reduce attributions of responsibility (Schlenker
& Weigold, 1992), apology accounts rely more directly on remedial processes to invoke
empathetic response. For example, Ohbuchi, Kameda, and Agarie (1989) suggest that
apology accounts convey any one of the following messages to the victim: a) accepting
responsibility and reducing the victim’s feelings of self-blame, lb) conveying respect for
the victim, c) altering inferences by separating the offender’s character from the
offender’s actions, and d) accepting disgrace and a form of self-inﬂicted punishment.
These messages conveyed in the form of an apology may heighten the injured peer’s
awareness that the offender is experiencing guilt and emotional distress due to his or her
harmﬁrl actions (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994) which in turn may promote
empathic feelings towards the offender (McCullough et al., 1997; Ohbuchi etal., 1989).

There are numerous studies suggesting the effectiveness of both excuses and
apologies. This seems to imply that an offender may choose from either strategy to
manage negative outcomes related to a predicament. However, the effectiveness of
apologies and excuses on outcomes is not universal. This distinction is supported in a
study of the effects of subordinate impression management on managerial responses
following an incident of poor performance (Wood & Mitchell, 1981). The authors found
that while excuses resulted in lower attributions of responsibility by the observer, no such
effect on attributions was present in relation to the apology account. Indeed, Wood and
Mitchell refrained from offering hypotheses regarding the relationship between the effect
of apologies on attributions because “there is no logical or empirical base for arguing that

apologies will have an effect” on attributions (p. 360).

63

Two additional studies attest to the distinction between apology and excuse
accounts. (Felson & Ribner, 1981) examined the prison sentencing terms of male
incarcerates in New York State correctional facilities. By examining court and committal
documentation, the authors found that when offenders denied responsibility (i.e. offered
excuses), they received longer sentences than when the offenders showed penitence. In a
more recent study, Crant (1996) showed dissimilar results. In this study, the author
exposed accountant supervisors to a scenario-based experiment in which an offender
performed poorly on an organizational audit. Unlike in the inmate study, Crant’s (1996)
results suggest that external accounts, such as excuses, led to more positive impressions
of the oﬁender than did internal accounts, such as apologies. These studies, while very
different methodologically, attest to the varying effectiveness of excuse and apology
accounts in different situations.

Recall that forbearance is deﬁned as the state of toleration related to a
transgression (McCullough et al., 2003). I expect that protective impression management
accounts moderate the relationship between forbearance and helping and that this
moderation is particularly important when forbearance is low and an apology is offered.
For example, when an injured peer has high attributions of intentionality related to
another peer’s breach of obligations, the injured peer is expected to possess low levels of
forbearance towards the offender. Consequentially, in the absence of a protective account
offered by the offender, subsequent offender directed helping by the injured peer is
expected to be low. However, if the offending peer offers an apology to the injured peer,
then theoretically, the apology will invoke feelings of empathy within the injured peer.

As stated previously, empathy is deﬁned as an other-oriented emotional response

64

congruent with the welfare of another person (Batson, 1991). Conceptually, empathic
feelings may interact with forbearance motivations to inﬂuence behaviors.

Hogan (1973) captures the potential inﬂuence of empathic feelings by describing
empathic arousal as a “social sensitivity” and that creates “a sense of duty” and an
“increased sensitivity” to the needs of others which, in turn, inﬂuences behavior (Hogan,
1973:pg. 222). Hence, when forbearance is low and an apology is offered, I expect the
apology to change the relationship between forbearance and helping, such that the
relationship is mitigated. In other words, I predict that when an offender oﬁ‘ers an
apology account and injured peer forbearance is low, the relationship between
forbearance and helping changes, whereas " offender directed helping by the peer
increases. Furthermore, I suggest that apologies are more effective than excuses at
changing the forbearance — helping relationship when forbearance is low. The following
diagram displays the nature of this relationship.

Figtge 6: Social Accom Modegtion Grgph

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High
//"’7’
/ /
/ / / Apology
Helping / /
/ / -------- Excuse
/
. /
Low
Low High
Forbearance

Since high levels of forbearance indicate high tolerance, I do not predict apologies

or excuses to make a difference in helping when forbearance is high

65

H5: The relationship between Forbearance and Helping is moderated by
Protective Impression Management Accounts type, such that the
relationship is weaker for apology than for excuse.

The Mediating role of Forbearance

To position forbearance as a mediator between attributions of intentionality and
helping, I once again reference Weiner’s (1995) attributional theory of motivation and
emotion. Weiner outlines a model in which attributions inﬂuence psychological
consequences (such as affect and motivation) which in turn inﬂuence behavioral
consequences (such as helping). Throughout ,this dissertation, I have argued that
attributions of intentionality inﬂuence forbearance (Hypothesis 2) and that forbearance
inﬂuences helping behaviors (Hypothesis 4). ' Now, I draw upon various studies to 1)
show that there is a general negative relationship between attributions of intentionality
and helping, and 2) to suggest that forbearance mediates the relationship between
attributions of intentionality and helping.

Schroeder and colleagues suggest three mechanisms are responsible for the
initiation of helping behaviors: 1) learning processes, 2) emotion processes, and 3) social
and personal value standards (Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio, & Piliavin, 1995). Extending
past research which has emphasized the role of anger, I focus on forbearance as the key
causal mechanism linking attributions and helping. For example, previous research
suggests that attributions inﬂuence emotions (such as anger) and that anger is negatively
related to helping. Weiner (1980b) exposed psychology undergraduate students to a
scenario to examine subsequent helping intentions. The scenario described an event in
which a student asked the participant to borrow class notes, citing various reasons for
their need, such as having gone to the beach versus having had an eye difﬁculty. Results

suggested that the higher the anger experienced by respondents, the less likely those

66

respondents were to offer help to the student in need. In a similar series of scenario
studies Weiner (1980a) found that the negative relationship between anger and helping
was consistent and robust.

While most of the research cited outlines the negative relationship between high
attributions of intentionality and helping (via anger), I am interested in exploring how
helping behavior is facilitated following a psychological contract breach (via
forbearance). In general, I expect that lower attributions of intentionality and higher
levels of forbearance result in higher levels of helping. This is novel, since in most
instances a breach of obligations would implicitly result in no helping at all. For example,
in the case where an injured peer attributes low levels of intentionality to an oﬁ‘ender
following a breach, previous attributional research suggests that negative affect (such as
anger) is lower than if attributions of intentionality are high. However, this does not
imply that the injured peer will be pleased and eager to help, as it must be acknowledged
that either type of breach (reneging or incongruence) will likely result in consequences
that the injured peer did not anticipate (Rousseau, 1995). Given the empirical evidence
that outlines the negative causal relationship between anger and helping, it is improbable
to think that loWer levels of anger alone result in higher levels of helping following a
breach. Instead, I extend the previous attribution-motivation-behavior research to suggest
that the relationship between attributions of intentionality and helping is best
conceptualized with forbearance as a mediator. Since forbearance is comprised of a
collection of motivations (i.e. low retaliation, low avoidance, increased benevolence) that

may inﬂuence helping behavior, the causal chain of attribution of intentionality-

67

forbearance-helping ﬁts well within Weiner’s (1985) attribution-modvation-behavior
sequence.

I propose that forbearance mediates the relationship between attributions of
intentionality and helping based on the argument that without positive, afﬁliative
motivations directed towards the offender, helping will not occur. Given that helping is
conceptualized as afﬁliative and promotive behavior, (Van Dyne et al., 1995; Van Dyne
& LePine, 1998), I expect that forbearance motivations are a necessary mediation
between attributions associated with a breach and helping. Extending the previous
attribution literature, which focused on the mediating role of high and low anger between
attributions and reduced helping, I examine the mediating role of high and low
forbearance and increased helping. While the causal mechanism between attributions of
intentionality and decreased helping is explained by anger mediation in prior attribution
research (i.e. Weiner, 1980a, 1980b), I argue that the causal mechanism between
attributions of intentionality and increased helping is explained by the mediating role of
low motivation to retaliate, low motivation to avoid, and high motivation of benevolence
(i.e. forbearance). Hence, I predict that forbearance mediates the relationship between
attribution of intentionality and helping behaviors following a psychological contract
breach by one peer to another.

Hypothesis 6: Forbearance mediates the relationship between attributions of
intentionality and helping.

68

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Research Design

This research employs a 2x2x2 fully crossed factorial design. I manipulated three
variables with two levels each: type of breach (reneging vs incongruence breach), type of
acquisitive impression management behavior (ﬂattery vs favor-doing), and type of
protective impression management behavior (apology vs excuse account). Each subject
was exposed to one level of each independent variable in a between subjects design.

F_igure 7: Condition Table

 

 

Breach Type Renegig Incon ence
Acquisitive IM Flattery F avor-Doing Flattery Favor-Doing
(Ingratiation)

 

Protective IM Excuse Apology Excuse Apology Excuse Apology Excuse Apology
(Accounts)
Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Power Analysis

The use of multiple regression analysis allowed me to utilize the f 2 statistic as an
index of effect size to estimate the sample size needed by my study (Cohen & Cohen,
1983). I referenced a set of studies that have similar methodology as my study to obtain
an idea of my desired f 2 statistic. Schmidt and Weiner (1988) performed a set of
experiments examining the relationship between perceived controllability and helping
with a resulting f 2 ranging between .08 and .11. Cohen (1977) suggests that effect sizes
of 01-08 are small, 09-24 are medium, and .25 or greater are large. By setting my

minimum effect size that I wish to detect at .08, signiﬁcance level at .05, and my power

69

level to .80, the sample size required for this study was 140. In a 2x2x2 study such as
this, with 8 cells, the ﬁnal sample resulted in 17 subjects per cell.
Subjects

I collected data from students enrolled in an undergraduate Management course at
Michigan State University (a large mid-western state university). This study was one of
three research projects that students could select to participate in for research credit.
Students signed up to participate by accessing a scheduling system provided on the
Michigan State University web based server.

Based on my power analysis, I recruited 140 students to participate in the study.
Four students were not used in the ﬁnal analysis for the following reasons: two students
reﬁrsed to switch tasks with their partner, thus failing to establish a psychological
contract. One student completed the partner’s tasks, but did not complete his own tasks,
thus invalidating his participation. One student indicated that a peer informed her of the
experimental procedures and her ﬁnal data were not used.

Of the 136 participants, 59% (n=80) were male and 41% (n=56) were female. The
average age of the participants was 21.5 and the average amount of work experience was
5.4 years. Although there were signiﬁcantly more male than females in this study (x2 (df=l)
= 4.24, p < .05), I control for gender in my analysis, so I do not expect this difference to
affect my results.

Experiment

Participants assumed the role of an assistant human resource manager in a large

manufacturing ﬁrm. Participants engaged in “inbox” responsibilities including

calculating performance evaluations for employees, as well as administration tasks

70

related to the employee merit bonuses (see task below). Participants were instructed that
their organization’s culture encourages employees to help one another when the workload
increases. To foster interaction between peers, participants were told that there is one
other assistant manager in their department, with whom responsibilities may be shared.
However, participants were also instructed that their performance is based solely upon
their own successful and accurate completion of the merit allocation and bonus
calculations. The merit allocation task consisted of assigning a performance evaluation
and a subsequent merit allocation for organizational employees. The bonus calculation
task consisted of allocating a quarterly bonus based upon predetermined evaluation

scores. I expound on the tasks in more detail below.

Ia_s_lg

For the task, I adopted a merit bonus activity previously . utilized in
interdependence experiments (Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993). The activity calls
for participants to recommend merit increase amounts on the basis of written descriptions
of employees. The employees are rated on the factors of effort, ability, performance, and
ﬁiendliness on a 3-point scale (1 = low, 2 = average, 3 = high). After rating the
employees, the participants reference a merit pay grid (supplied) to determine the
percentage of merit increase.

Merit gllocation task. The merit task entails the complete evaluation and merit
allocation sequence for employees being reviewed this month. For example, participants

were required to read employee descriptions, perform the evaluation on the four factors,

71

reference the merit pay grid, and allocate the ﬁnal merit percentage amount. This entire
sequence is referred to as the merit allocation task.

Bonus calculation task. The bonus task is a shortened form of the merit task. In
the bonus task, participants were provided with a list of employees and predetermined
evaluation ratings based on quarterly recommendations ﬁom each division. The
participant was then required to reference the bonus grid and indicate the bonus
percentage. To increase the participants’ engagement in this task, a calculation was
added. The calculation required the participant to multiply the bonus percentage by a base
of 5,000 to determine the actual cash bonus amount. This truncated version of the merit
task with the added calculation is referred to as the bonus calculation task. I utilized the
bonus calculation tasks at speciﬁed times in the experiment to establish the psychological

contract and to measure helping (see below).

Procedure

Eight participants were scheduled for each experimental session. Participants had
the ﬂexibility to sign up for any session that was convenient for them. Each session was
randomly assigned to an experimental condition, so that one condition was executed per
session. Each participant was exposed to the experimental condition established for that
particular session.

The experiment was conducted at the Lear Career Services Center on Michigan
State University’s campus. The Lear Center, built in 2000, is a state-of-the-art career
center that provides a professional setting where corporate recruiters interview students
interested in jobs and internships. The Center consists of a variety of facilities, including

conference rooms and individual breakout/interview offices. The breakout offices are

72

equipped to resemble a small version of an executive office, including modern desks,
leather furniture, contemporary art and accessories, and multi-line telephones. As such,
this location was ideally suited for this experiment where participants assumed the roles
of assistant human resource managers. The breakout ofﬁces allowed me to place each
participant in their own ofﬁce where they were exposed to the experimental conditions in
privacy and without exposure to other participants.

At the assigned experimental time, participants met in a central conference room
in the Lear Center for a brieﬁng. After the brieﬁng, I implemented the experimental
process. Throughout the experiment, I adopt the role of the participants’ supervisor
(Terry). Hence, reference to the supervisor (or Terry) refers to the experimenter as the
actor. I provide a step by step detail of the brieﬁng and experimental process below.

1. Participant arrival, consent, and completion of Demographic Survey (Survey 1)
2. Participants introduced to organization, roles and tasks - Practice tasks completed
3. Participants instructed that they will work with one other person in the room

4. Participants introduced to each other/ Icebreaker conducted

5. Participants are assigned to their individual offices

6. Supervisor passed out note cards, business journals, and role packets

7. Supervisor passed out Merit/ Bonus Rounds 1 and 2

8. Participants began work on Merit/ Bonus Round 1

9. Supervisor forwarded note from “peer” asking participant to switch bonus tasks
10. Supervisor instructed participants to complete remainder of Round 1 and 2 tasks

1 1. Supervisor collected Merit! Bonus Rounds 1 and 2 from participants to review, and
forwarded the Resume Task

12. Participants completed Resume Task

73

13. Supervisor provides participants with feedback on Merit/Bonus tasks for Rounds 1
and 2 (Manipulation of psychological contract breach). Supervisor asks participant
to complete survey 2A related to the feedback (Measures Attributions of
Intentionality)

14. Supervisor forwards Article Task and indicates the feedback survey (i.e. Survey
2A) has a second part that will be forwarded shortly.

15. Supervisor returns with second part of feedback survey (i.e. survey ZB) while

9 “

simultaneously forwarding a note from the participant s peer” (Manipulation of
Acquisitive IM — ingratiation). Supervisor waits until the participant reads the note,
then asks the participant to complete the second half of the feedback survey (survey
ZB measures Forbearance) and the remainder of the Article Task. Supervisor
collects Resume task and survey 2A while leaving.
16. Supervisor returns to collect survey 2B and Article task. Supervisor forwards “peer”
note to participant (Manipulation of Protective IM — accounts). Supervisor passes
out Merit/ Bonus Rounds 3 and 4.
17. Participants complete Merit/Bonus Round 3
18. Supervisor forwards ﬁnal survey (Survey 3) and indicates that after completing
their tasks and the ﬁnal survey, the participant is free to leave. Supervisor then
forwards ﬁnal note from “peer” and the “peer’s” ﬁnal bonus calculation tasks.
19. Participants complete Merit/Bonus Round 4 (Measures helping)
20. Participants complete ﬁnal Survey 3
After signing the consent form, participants were asked to complete the
Demographic Survey. Participants were told that the simulation is designed to evaluate
the accuracy of managerial decision making in organizations. I then provided a brief
background of the organizational setting and the role that the participants were to adopt.
Next, I explained the two types of tasks that participants would encounter in the
experiment — the merit allocation task and the bonus calculation task. To ensure that

participants understood the expectations and the task logistics, we collectively completed

several sample merit allocation and bonus calculation tasks.

74

Participants were then informed that assistant managers would work in pairs and
that they would be paired up with one other person in the room. I explained that
responsibilities for assistant managers are divided such that one manager is responsible
for employees whose last names begin with A - M and the other manager is responsible
for employees whose last names begin with N - Z. As such, participants were led to
believe that the number of merit and bonus tasks varied between individuals. Participants
were then instructed that if the workload became heavy, they may collaborate with their
partner. However, participants were reminded that performance was based on their
individual responsibilities.

In sum, there were four rounds of merit allocation and bonus calculation tasks.
Each round represented a division within the organization. Hence, Round 1 represented
Division 1 - Marketing and so on. In addition, there were other tasks that each assistant
HR manager was required to complete. Speciﬁcally, each assistant manager was asked to
complete a resume review task and an article review/ recommendation task.

Once all questions were answered, participants performed an icebreaker, which
consisted of learning the names and something unique about each ~ of the other
participants. After the icebreaker, participants were assigned to their individual ofﬁces,
separate from one another, to complete their tasks. ’

Once each participant was in their individual ofﬁce, I presented each participant
with their role packets. Each role packet included additional detail on the company,
managerial role, and their peer’s responsibilities, as well as an organizational chart and
the merit and bonus grids needed for the tasks. The packet also contained a memo ﬁom

the supervisor, which re-emphasized the purpose of the tasks as well as the helping

75

culture contained within the organization. Each participant received role packets with
identical information. In addition to the role packets, I forwarded to each participant note
cards (to communicate with their partner) and a business journal (to explore in the event
that tasks were completed faster than assigned).

After each participant received the introductory materials, I forwarded the Merit/
Bonus Rounds 1 and 2. Participants were instructed to begin Round 1 and to wait until I
returned to clarify questions before beginning Round 2. When I returned, I asked the
participant if he or she had any questions. I then indicated that the participant’s partner
asked me to forward a note to them. The note, designed to establish the psychological
contract, read as follows.

Hi, I have a lot of Marketing merit allocations and it

doesn’t look like I’ll be able to ﬁnish my Marketing

bonuses for N-Z. [f you can do my Marketing bonuses, I ’11

do your Sales division bonus calculations for A-M. Deal?
Pass them to Terry. Thanks.

The confederate’s bonus calculation sheet for Division 1 was forwarded to the
participant with the note. The participant accepted the agreement by forwarding their own
bonus calculations (A-M) to the experimenter, and by receiving their partner’s N-Z bonus
calculation sheet. I performed this for each participant in the above manner. Though
participants believed they were interacting with their peer, each participant was exposed
to the same controlled condition. I then instructed the participants to complete the
remainder of the merit/bonus tasks.

After completion of Rounds 1 and 2, I collected the tasks for review. During this

time, participants were instructed to review a resume and answer questions related to the

resume content. This task was designed to add a space of time in between the completion

76

of Merit/Bonus Round 2 and the introduction of the breach manipulation. After three to
ﬁve minutes, I returned to forward a feedback note to each participant with the
explanation that I wrote some feedback up for the employee’s ﬁle. Each participant
received the same note, which introduced the breach manipulation.
Manipulation of Breach Type
Breach type was manipulated by providing participants with information
regarding their peer’s failure to ﬁrlﬁll the obligations of the psychological contract. In
each condition, the participant, who was responsible for bonus allocations for employees
A-M, held the understanding that their peer would complete their Division 2 (A-M)
bonus calculations.
In the reneging condition, the participant received information that their partner
did not complete the agreed upon tasks. Two informational factors were provided to
increase the likelihood that the breach was attributed to a willﬁrl decision not to ﬁrlﬁll
obligations (i.e. reneging). First, the participant was exposed to information that their
partner did not work at all on the agreed upon tasks. Secondly, the participant received
information that their partner completedhis or her own tasks and spent the remainder of
time speaking on the phone.
In the reneging condition the note says:
SUPER VISORY WARNING
You did n_o£ complete the Division 2 Sales bonus
calculations as assigned.
In fact, it looks as though you did not even attempt to
complete the bonus calculations for Sales Division
employees A-M. This is unacceptable, especially since I
heard your partner talking on the phone after completing

their own N-Z calculations. Not completing the A-M bonus
calculations is a problem. Therefore, I must give you an

77

oﬂicial warning since you are the manager who is
ultimately responsible for employees A-M.
Terry.

In the incongruence condition, the participant received information that their
partner completed the tasks as agreed, but utilized the wrong allocation table. In addition,
the participant received information that the tasks were completed thoroughly, albeit
incorrectly. The information was provided to increase the likelihood that the participant
attributed the breach to a misunderstanding, or incongruence.

In the incongruence condition the note says:

SUPER VISOR Y WARNING

Your Division 2 Sales bonuses were not completed
accurately.

Although your partner completed your work, the Merit
Table was used instead of the Bonus table. Thus, although
your partner turned in your work, the incorrect table
resulted in significant errors. Therefore, I must give you an

oﬂicial warning since you are the manager who is
ultimately responsible for employees A-M.

Terry.
I coded reneging = 1 and incongruence = 2 in my data analysis.

. Aﬁer the participant read the warning, I asked the participant if he or she
understood what happened. After conﬁrming that the participant understood, I forwarded
Survey 2A, designed to measure attributions of intentionality. I stated that whenever
negative feedback was given to an employee, we ask that employees ﬁll out a survey
related to the incident for their ﬁle. I also forwarded the Article task to the participant and

instructed that it should be completed after the survey. Finally, I told the participant that

78

there was a second part to the feedback survey, but that I had to get it out of a ﬁle and I
would be back shortly to forward it to them. _

When I returned with second part of feedback survey (i.e. survey 2B), I also
forwarded a note from the participant’s “peer”. This note was designed to manipulate
Acquisitive IM — ingratiation, which I explain further below.

Manipulation of Acquisitive IM — Ingiptiation

The acquisitive IM manipulation occurred after the participant responded to
Survey 2A, which measured attributions of intentionalility. As with all notes, I, acting as
the supervisor, forwarded the note seemingly from the participant’s peer. In this instance,
the note contained the manipulation of acquisitive impression management strategy.

In the ﬂattery condition the note said:

Hey, thanks for doing my Division 1 bonus calculations for
me. You must have had lots of work experience - you seem
really good at detail work. Anyway, just wanted to send you
a note that it's great working with you on this project. It's
not oﬂen that you work with people you can count on based
on their actions.

In the favor-doing condition, the note says:

Thanks for doing my Division 1 bonus calculations for me.
Say - I noticed that my Division 3 merit allocations are
light. So to do you a favor, asked Terry for your Division 3
bonuses to do them for you. So don ’t worry about your
Division 3 bonuses, I’ll take care of them as a favor to you.

In addition to the note, for the favor-doing condition, I informed the participant

that their peer asked for their task early, that I’forwarded the tasks to their peer, that I

collected the task and double checked the work, and that the task was veriﬁed complete

and accurate. In this manner, I was able to assure the participant that their partner already

79

performed the favor for them and that I veriﬁed the completion and accuracy. I code
ﬂattery = 1 and favor-doing = 2 in my data analysis.

After the ingratiation manipulation, I instructed the participant to complete the
second half of the feedback survey (survey 2B) which measured Forbearance. I collected
the Resume task and survey 2A while leaving.

After participants completed Survey 2B, I forwarded each participant another note
from the offending peer. The note introduced the protective impression management
account manipulation.

Manipulation of Protective IM - Accounts

As in the other instances, the account manipulation was executed in the form of a
note from the participant’s peer. The note contained language either in the form of an
excuse or in the form of an apology. I utilized an excuse designed speciﬁcally to reduce
responsibility as outlined by Weiner (1995) and my apology contained an expression of
remorse, offer of restitution, statement of self-castigation (I feel awful and terribly
guilty), and a request for forgiveness, as outlined in Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan
(2001)

. In the excuse condition, the note said:

Hey, our supervisor gave me feedback about the bonus
calculations for Division 2 Sales. I have an explanation,
and it wasn ’t my fault. I was expecting a call ﬁom a
recruiter regarding a job offer sometime today and when I
saw that the recruiter’s number was on my cell phone, I
just couldn’t miss that call. Taking the call prevented me
ﬁom completing your allocations. I just wanted to explain
so you knew what happened.

This excuse follows a format intended to deny responsibility by appealing to

uncontrollable external factors.

80

For the apology condition, the note followed the format similar to that used by
Takaku (2001) and reads as follows:
Our supervisor gave me feedback about the bonus
calculations for Division 2 Sales. I apologize for letting
you down. I am so sorry. It is entirely my fault. I feel awful
and terribly guilty. I must have caused you a lot of

aggravation. Please don ’t hold this against me. If there is
any way I can make up for this, I will!

I code apology = 1 and excuse = 2 for my data analysis.

Aﬁer participants read the notes from their peer, I forwarded Merit! Bonus
Rounds 3 and 4. During the completion of these ﬁnal rounds, I returned to forward the
ﬁnal note from the participant’s peer. This ﬁnal note is a request for help and reads as
follows.

Me again,

I have a huge number of Division 4 merit allocation tasks.
I ’m not sure how long it will take me to ﬁnish these and my
bonus calculation tasks (there’s no way I’ll be able to ﬁnish
them all). If you can do some or all of my bonus
calculations, it would help me greatly. Even if you do as
many as you can, any that you get done correctly will help.

In addition to the note, the “peer’s” Division 4 bonus calculation sheet was
forwarded to the participant. Aﬁer participants read the request for help, I instructed them
to complete the division 4 task round. I also instructed the participant that any work they
chose to do (or not do) for their partner would be forwarded back to their partner after the
participant left. Finally, participants were told that after they ﬁnish their individual
responsibilities for the round, they may complete the ﬁnal survey and leave. I collected
all materials upon completion and departure of the participant.

Helping was measured by the number of Division 4 bonus allocation tasks the

participant accurately completed for their partner.

81

Measures
Attribution of Intentionalig

I utilized eight items derived from three sources to measure attributions of
intentionality. I drew upon the attribution literature (Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, &
Verette, 1987) as well as the psychological contract literature (McCullough et al., 2003;
Robinson & Morrison, 2000) for the items in this dissertation. Items measured the degree
to which the participant attributed the breach of psychological contract on the dimension
of intentionality. The participant was asked to respond to items such as (“From my
perspective, my partner purposefully misled the” and “I think my partner avoided my
tasks intentionally”). All items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). The surveys I utilized in this experiment are available in
the Appendix.
Forbearance

To measure forbearance, I utilized the Transgression-Related Interpersonal
Motivations Inventory (TRIM) (McCullough et al., 1998) combined with Mcullough and
Hoyt’s (2002) benevolence scale. The TRIM and the Benevolence scales are used to
measure the three motivations associated with breach (i.e. retaliation, avoidance, and
benevolence) (McCullough et al., 2003). The TRIM consists of 12 items, ﬁve measuring
retaliation motivations and seven measuring avoidance motivations. The Benevolence
scale consists of 7 items. Previous research suggest that the TRIM sub-scales yield an
internal consistency (alpha) of .86 and .93 (McCullough et al., 1998). The Benevolence

scale yielded an internal consistency (alpha) of .85 in past research (McCullough & Hoyt,

82

 

Pm“?

 

2002). Examples of items measuring retaliation motivations include (“I feel like making
my partner pay for what he/she did” and “I have a desire to get even”). Avoidance items
include (“I intend to work as if my partner is not around” and “I intend to avoid my
partner”). Benevolence items include (“I want to put the incident aside so we can resume
our relationship” and “Even though his/her actions offended me, I have goodwill for my
partner”). Items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 ‘ =
Strongly Agree).
flaming

Helping was measured behaviorally in the following manner. The variable was
derived by calculating the number of Division 4 bonus calculation tasks the participant
completed for the offending peer in the ﬁnal round. The response could range from 0 (i.e.
the participant did not complete any bonus tasks) to 30 (the participant completed the
maximum number of bonus tasks available). This measure of helping provided a
behavioral response from the participant. Furthermore, since participants were allowed to
leave once they complete their own tasks, the participant experienced a real opportunity
cost to engage in helping with the completion of their peer’s tasks.
Control Variables

I controlled for the demographics of age, gender, and work experience. In
addition, 1 controlled for the perceived severity of offense and perceived sincerity of
account for the following reasons. Previous research suggests that severity of offense
may be a factor in the acceptance of social accounts, whereas severe outcomes make
people less likely to honor the explanations offered by offenders (Shapiro, Buttner, &

Barry, 1994). While my manipulation was designed to generate an outcome of moderate

83

offense, severity of offense was measured for control. Severity of offense was adapted
from a measure used by Bradﬁeld & Aquino (1999). Participants were asked to respond
to the following: ("How would you rate the seriousness of the offense you experienced?”)
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all serious, 5 = Extremely serious). I also included a
transgression severity measure used by McCullough, Fincham, and Tsang (2003) -
(“How damaging was the offense to you?”) rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all
damaging, 5 = Extremely damaging). Research suggests that perceived sincerity of an
account inﬂuences the account effectiveness (Baron, 1988). I controlled for account
sincerity with two items derived from Baron’s (1988) measure of sincerity - (“I think my
partner’s account of what happened was honest”) and (“I believe me partner’s
explanation of what happened was sincere”). Items were scored on a seven-point Likert
scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree).

Since recent research suggests that forgiveness related outcomes may be
inﬂuenced by individual differences (Brown, 2003), 1 controlled for the tendency to
forgive. I adopted the Tendency To Forgive Scale (TTF) (Brown, 2003) which consists of
four items designed to capture the individual differences in the tendency to release
experiences related to an offense or to harbor such experiences. The items include the
following: (“In general, when someone hurts my feelings, I tend to get over it quickly”;
“In general, if someone wrongs me, I often think about it a lot afterward.” (R); “I have a
tendency to harbor grudges” (R); and “When people let me down, my typical approach is
just to forgive and forget”). Items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale (1 =

Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree).

84

Finally, since psychological contracts are perceptual, I ensured whether
individuals perceived a breach of contract, and if so, whether it was perceived as reneging
or as incongruence breach. Hence, I included a control for perception of psychological
breach and for perception of breach type. Items include the following: (“To what extent
have your obligations been met regarding what you thought you would get ﬁom your
partner?” and “My partner did what he/she told me he/she would do, but did it
incorrectly”).

Manipulation Checks
Acquisitive IM - Ingratiation

I utilized speciﬁc aspects of the' Measuring Ingratiatory Behaviors in
Organizational Settings (MIBOS) scale (Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991) to check the
impression management manipulation. I focused speciﬁcally on ﬂattery and favor-
rendering behaviors. Participants were asked to indicate to what extent their peer engaged
in the following behaviors:

F lattery

From your perspective, to what extent do you agree that your partner...

1. Made me feel that I helped in a unique way
2. Told me they think highly of me

. 3. Communicated that they admired qualities about me
4. Complirnented me on my behavior ‘

Favor Rendering
1. Did a favor for me
2. Went out of their way to help me
3. Volunteered to help me in matters outside of their primary responsibilities
4. Did extra work to help me with my work
Items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly

Agree).

85

Protective IM - Accounts

The apology manipulation was checked by asking the participants to respond to
the following: “My partner apologized for the problem”. Items were scored on a seven-
point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) (McCullough et al., 1997).
In addition, the following questions were also asked on the 7-point scale as outlined
above: “My partner was pm for the breach”, “My partner offered to make something up
to me”, “My partner felt bad for the offense”, and “My partner asked for my
forgiveness”. These questions follow the format of the components of an apology
(Schlenker & Darby, 1981). I checked the excuse manipulation by asking the participants
to respond to the following: “My partner’ gave me a reason for breaking their
commitment”. Items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7
= Strongly Agree). In addition, the following questions were also asked on the 7-point
scale as outlined above: “My partner claimed that the offense occurred because of
uncontrollable events”, “My partner provided an excuse”, and “My partner claimed that
the offense occurred due to extenuating circumstances”. These questions follow the
characteristics of excuses as deﬁned in previous research (Schlenker, 1980).

. To test the manipulations in my study, I conducted a series of one-way Anova
tests. Manipulations were evaluated as successﬁrl if the means of each condition were
signiﬁcantly different when compared to each other. Results show that perceptions of
subjects in the reneging breach condition ( x = 5.72) were signiﬁcantly different than
perceptions of subjects in the incongruence breach ( x = 2.89) (F = 139.2, p < .00). To
interpret, a higher mean implies that subjects perceived that their partner did not fulﬁll

any obligations, while a lower mean implies that subjects perceived that their partner

86

attempted to ﬁrlﬁll obligations but did so incorrectly. Subjects in the ﬂattery condition
indicated a higher perception of ﬂattery behaviors (x = 5.23) than subjects in the favor
condition (i.e. x = 3.48) (F = 21.56, p < .00). Conversely, subjects in the favor condition
indicated a higher perception of favor behaviors (x = 4.19) than subjects in the ﬂattery
condition (x = 2.51) (F = 15.40, p < .00). Finally, subjects in the apology condition
indicated higher perceptions of apology characteristics (it = 5.61) and lower perceptions
of excuse characteristics (x = 3.0) than subjects in the excuse condition (i = 3.87, i =
5.40) (F = 59.36, p < .00) and (F = 106.02, p < .00). Given these analyses, the data

suggests that the three manipulations worked in the direction intended.

Data Analysis

Since my dependent variable of helping was conceptualized and measured as a
continuous variable, I utilized ordinary least squares regression to test my hypotheses.
The process of ordinary least squares regression consists of analyzing data hierarchically;
control variables ﬁrst, followed by main effects, which are subsequently followed by
interaction effects (the product terms). An F-test of the change in total variance explained
(R2) determines the signiﬁcance of each set entered. I examined individual betas and t
values to interpret speciﬁc hypotheses. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha, and
correlations of all variables are presented in Table 1.

To test whether breach type inﬂuenced perceived attributions of intentionality

(HI), I performed the following hierarchical regression. Demographic and control

variables were entered in steps one and two and the breach manipulations (coded l for

Reneging, 2 for lncongruence) were entered in the third step. To test whether attributions

of intentionality inﬂuenced forbearance (H2), I entered demographic and control

87

 

 

variables into steps one and two and regressed intentionality attributions onto forbearance
in step three.

. To test the interaction effects of acquisitive impression management ingratiation
and perceived attributions of intentionality on forbearance (H3), I entered the
demographic and control variables in steps one and two. I followed Aiken and West’s
(1991) recommendations on preparing data for interaction analysis. To reduce multi-
collinearity, I centered the independent variables of my interaction around zero. This was
accomplished by subtracting each value from its respective mean. The correlations
among the variables were not affected by this centering process (Aiken & West, 1991).
Hence, in step three I entered the centered main effects of attribution of intentionality and
ingratiation (coded 1 for ﬂattery, 2 for favor-doing), and in step four I entered the
interaction term, which was the product of the two centered main effect variables.

To test whether forbearance inﬂuenced helping (H4), I entered demographic and
control variables into stepsone and two and forbearance values into the third step. To test
for the joint effects of forbearance and protective impression management accounts on
helping (H5), I entered the demographic and control variables in steps one and two, the
centered forbearance and protective IM account (coded l for apology, 2 for excuse)
values in step three, and the product of two centered terms (forbearance x account) in step
four.

To test whether forbearance mediated the relationship between perceived
attributions of intentionality and helping (H6), I utilized hierarchical regression analysis.
I employed the steps outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) in the test of a mediation

model. First, I explored the independent variable’s (attributions of intentionality)

88

inﬂuence on the dependent variable (helping). Second, I examined the independent
variable’s (attributions of intentionality) inﬂuence on the mediating variable
(forbearance). This was accomplished in the test of Hypothesis 2. Third, I examined
whether the mediating variable (forbearance) inﬂuenced the DV (helping) when
controlling for the independent variable (attributions of intentionality). Hence, in the
hierarchical analysis (see Table 5), I entered demographic and control variables in steps
one and two, and regressed perceived attributiOns of intentionality onto helping in step
three. I entered the mediator (forbearance) in step four (aﬁer the independent variable
(i.e. perceived attributions of intentionality) was controlled in step three). Finally, I
attempted to show that the effect of the IV on the DV shrinks upon the addition of the
mediator to the model. I included a separate regression where demographic and control
variables were entered into steps one and two and both the IV and the mediator (i.e.
attributions of intentionality and forbearance) were entered into step three and regressed
onto helping.

To formally assess the mediation of forbearance, I utilized information from the
aforementioned regressions to conduct a Sobel test (Sobel, 1982). To interpret, a ﬁll]
mediation occurs if the beta for attributions of intentionality is signiﬁcant when regressed
upon helping alone and not signiﬁcant when regressed upon helping with forbearance. A
partial mediation occurs if the beta for attributions of intentionality is signiﬁcant when
regressed upon helping alone and signiﬁcant, but signiﬁcantly less in magnitude, when
regressed upon helping with forbearance.

Each analysis described above is presented in Chapter 4 — Results, and includes

tables with R2, Change in R2, Change in F, Adjusted R2 and Beta-weights.

89

 

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Dimensionality of Measures
Attribution of Intentionplitv

I utilized eight items combined from the attribution and psychological contract
literature to measure attributions of intentionality. A principal components factor analysis
(Table 11) with varimax rotation of the 8 items yielded three factors accounting for 80%
of the variance. The ﬁrst factor contained 5 items (items 1-3 and 7-8) with primary factor
loadings of .65 to .90. The second factor consisted of two items (items 5 and 6; primary
loadings .89 to .90) that ask the participant to provide judgements on their partner’s
comprehension of the obligations and tasks. These items are not related to the other
items, which ask the participant speciﬁcally about intent. Hence, these two items were
discarded. The third factor consisted of the following item: “In my opinion, the
incomplete tasks are my partner’s fault” (primary loading .94). Since this item inquires
about perceived responsibility, as opposed to intentionality, I have dropped the item ﬁ'om
the intentionality measure. The ﬁnal attribution of intentionality measure consists of the 5
items loading on the ﬁrst factor in the analysis [eigenfactor value = 3.91]. Reliability
analysis on the 5 item measure yields an or = .90.
Forbearance

To test the dimensionality of the forbearance measure, I conducted a principal
components factor analysis (Table 12) with varimax rotation. I obtained a three-factor

solution that explained 70% of the total variance. The item factor loadings are consistent

90

with the conceptualization of the three facets of forbearance. Items related to retaliation,
avoidance, and goodwill loaded onto individual factors (primary loadings .48 to .85, .65
to .81, and .64 to .81 respectively). Goodwill (Factor 1) had a maximum crossloading of
.41 (item #1 with Factor 2). Avoidance (Factor 2) had a maximum crossloading of .41
(item #4 with Factor 1 and Factor 3). Retaliation (Factor 3) had a maximum crossloading
of .32 (item #5 with Factor 2).

Initial concern arose over Retaliation item #5’s primary loading of .49 and
crossloading of .32. However, comparative analysis with and without the item did not
have an impact on results. As such, I retain all of the items offered in the original
forbearance measure. Reliability analysis for each factor individually yielded alphas
within the acceptable threshold: retaliation or = .84; avoidance or = .92; and goodwill CI =
.92.

While evidence suggests that the forbearance items result in three factors, I adhere
to previous conceptualizations of forbearance as an aggregate factor (i.e. McCullough et
al., 1998). Reliability analysis of the combined items yield an internal consistency (alpha)
of .94. The internal consistency results of both the combined forbearance measure and the
individual components are consistent with levels yielded in previous research which used

the same items (McCullough et al., 1998; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002).

Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 contains the descriptives, inter-item correlations and Cronbach’s alpha for
each of the variables I examined in hypotheses as well as the variables of retaliation,

avoidance, and goodwill.

91

A brief analysis of the relationships between control variables shows both
expected and unique results. For example, as I would expect, participant age is positively
correlated with work experience (r = .31, p < .01). Participant gender was not
signiﬁcantly related to the participant’s individual tendency to forgive, however the
gender was related to perceived severity of breach (r = .214, p < .05). This suggests that
females in this study perceived the breach by their peer as more severe than the males’
perception of the breach.

In terms of my hypothesized relationships, I expected breach type to be related to
attributions of intentionality. As expected this relationship was fairly strong (r = -.66, p <
.01) and suggests that reneging breach was" closely related to higher attributions of
' intentionality. The anticipated relationship between attribution of intentionality and
forbearance is also evident (r = -.55, p < .01). The negative relationship suggests that
higher levels of perceived intentionality are related to lower levels of forbearance.

While I expected forbearance to have a signiﬁcant relationship to helping, the
results suggest that this was not the case (r = .01). A brief examination of the components
of forbearance provides more detail. Of , the three facets of forbearance, only retaliation
seems to have a marginally signiﬁcant relationship with helping (r = -.16, p < .10). This
is notable for two reasons. First, the presence of a signiﬁcant relationship with one of the
facets of forbearance and not the others lends support to the notion that the facets are
individual and unique. Secondly, the relationships suggest that within the context of peer
helping, certain facets of the forbearance conceptualization are more important than

others.

92

Although not hypothesized, there are several other relationships of note.
Perceived attribution of intentionality was signiﬁcantly related to all three facets of
forbearance: retaliation (r = .50, p < .01); avoidance (r = .49, p < .01); and goodwill (r = -
.43, p < .01). In addition, tendency to forgive is positively correlated to goodwill (r = .28,
p < .01). This is the ﬁrst indication in this dissertation that an individual difference is
related to a speciﬁc facet of forbearance.

Perceptions that were controlled for also had signiﬁcant relationships with the
forbearance facets. Perceived severity of breach was signiﬁcantly related to the
“negative” motivations of forbearance - retaliation (r = .15, p < .10) and avoidance (r =
.20, p < .05) — but shares no such relationship with goodwill. Perceived sincerity of
account has a relationship with the composite forbearanCe (r = .23, p < .01), as well as
with all three facets — retaliation (r = -.l7, p < .10), avoidance (r = -.21, p < .05), and
goodwill (r = .22, p < .05).

Finally, the only other variable that has a signiﬁcant relationship with the
dependent variable of helping is acquisitive impression management — ingratiation (r =
.19, p < .05). This is unexpected, since my hypothesized model positions ingratiation in a
more distal relationship to helping — by moderating the relationship between attributions
of intentionality and forbearance. I explore this relationship between acquisitive
impression management (ingratiation) and helping in more detail in the post hoc analysis

section.

93

Tests of Hypotheses
Psychological Contract Breach. Attribution of Intent. and Forbearance (HI-2)

I proposed that reneging breach leads to higher perceived attributions of
intentionality than incongruence breach (HI). Results in Table 2 support this hypothesis.
Breach type (coded 1 for reneging and 2 for incongruence) signiﬁcantly inﬂuences
attributions of intentionality (AF = 87.1, B = -.61, p < .01) whereas reneging breach leads
to higher attributions of intentionality.

H2 predicted that the lower the attribution of intentionality, the higher the
forbearance. This hypothesis was supported (AF = 44.6, B = -.51, p < .01). Results are

shown in Table 2.

The Moderating Effect of Acquisitive Impression Manpgement (H3)

In Hypothesis 3, I predicted that the relationship between attribution of
intentionality and forbearance would be moderated by acquisitive impression
management (ingratiation). Results in Table 3 show that while the overall model is
signiﬁcant (F = 8.80, p < .01), the step containing the interaction term in not signiﬁcant

(AF = 1.85, [3 = -.10, p > .10). Hence, H3 is not supported by the data.

Forbeprance and Helping (H4)

I predicted that the higher the forbearance, the higher the helping (H4). Results
outlined in Table 2 do not support this hypothesis (AF = 0.39, B = .06, p > .10).
Moderating Effect of Protective Irrprression Management (H5)

In a second moderated relationship, I proposed that the relationship between

forbearance and helping is moderated by protective impression management accounts

94

type. Results in Table 4 show that this relationship was not supported (AF = 0.04, B = .02,

p>.10).

Mediating Role of Forbearance (H6)

In my ﬁnal hypothesis, I predicted that forbearance would mediate the
relationship between attributions of intentionality and helping (H6). Prior regression
results for H4 did not support a relationship between forbearance and helping. In
addition, results presented in Table 5 do not support a relationship between attributions of
intentionality and helping (AF = 0.20, B = -.04, p > .10). Hence, the mediated relationship

proposed is not supported.

Post Hoc Analysis

Previous research in forbearance as a predictor variable is conducted with the
aggregate forbearance construct (McCullough et al., 2003). However, as stated,
forbearance is conceptualized as consisting of three distinct motivations (i.e. retaliation,
avoidance, and goodwill) (McCullough & Hoyt, 2002). Data collection in this
dissertation allowed for the separation and analysis of the forbearance construct on the
dimensions of retaliation, avoidance, and goodwill. My post hoc analysis evaluates my
original hypotheses that contained forbearance in closer detail by utilizing the facets of
the forbearance construct.

McCullough, Fincham, and Tsang (2003) conducted a recent study exploring
temporal changes in forbearance and its components. The authors label the facets of

retaliation, avoidance, and goodwill “transgression-related interpersonal motivations”

95

(TRIMs). When evaluating descriptive statistics of these motivations, the authors keep
the distinction between negative TRIMs (i.e. retaliation and avoidance) and positive
TRIMs (i.e. goodwill). Hence, low levels of retaliation and avoidance (negative TRIMs)
indicate higher forbearance (and vice versa) while high and low levels of goodwill (i.e. a
positive TRIM) indicate higher and lower levels of forbearance respectively. Unless
otherwise noted, I utilize the same variable directions in my post hoc analysis.

My ﬁrst set of analyses examines the relationship between perceived attribution
of intentionality and retaliation, avoidance, and goodwill separately (compare to
Hypothesis 2). I then examine the interaction between perceived attributions of
intentionality and acquisitive impression management (ingratiation) on the facets of
forbearance (comparable to Hypothesis 3). My third set of analyses explores the
relationship between each forbearance facet and helping (i.e. post hoc of Hypothesis 4).
Finally, I explore the interaction between each forbearance facet and protective
impression management (accounts) on helping (comparable to Hypothesis 5).

In addition to the relationships involving the forbearance facets, there is one
additional relationship that I explore in this post hoc analysis. The positive and signiﬁcant
correlation between acquisitive impression management ingratiation and helping is both
unexpected and potentially interesting. A series of analyses involving this relationship is

explored and presented.

Attribution of Intentionality and Retaliation, Avoidance, and Goodwill

Hypothesis 2 predicted a negative relationship between attributions of
intentionality and forbearance and was supported. Post hoc analysis on the relationship

between attributions of intentionality and each facet of forbearance shows similar

96

signiﬁcant relationships between intentionality and each component (Table 6). Perceived
attribution of intentionality is signiﬁcant and positively related to retaliation (AF = 34.3,
B = .47, p < .01) as well as to avoidance (AP = 27.9, [3 = .42, p < .01). Conversely,
attribution of intentionality is signiﬁcant and negatively related to goodwill (AP = 29, B =
-.43, p < .01). Hence, the relationship between attribution of intentionality and

forbearance is fully supported on each facet. It is also interesting to note that the beta

weights for each of these relationships are about the same.

The Moderating Effect of Acguisitive Impression Management

 

Results for Hypothesis 3, which predicted the moderated relationship between
attributions of intentionality, acquisitive impression management (ingratiation), and
forbearance, was not signiﬁcant. However, examination of this relationship with each
facet individually does yield a result (Table 8). The interaction between attribution of
intentionality and ingratiation on retaliation is signiﬁcant (AP = 5.24, [3 = .17, p < .05).
However, no relationship was found between the interaction term and avoidance (AP =
2.13, B = .11, p > .10) or goodwill (AF =10.14, B = .09, p > .10). A graph ofthe
relationship between the interaction term and retaliation is presented in Figure 8. Recall
that low levels of retaliation are equivalent to higher levels of forbearance, hence values
on the Y-axis have been reversed to offer a better comparison to the original Hypothesis

3 interaction.

97

F1gt_1_r_e 8: Post Hoc Inggatiation Moderation Graph

 

Attribution of Intentionality
Low High

 

+ Favor
+ Flattery

 

 

 

Retaliation

 

 

 

 

Whereas in my hypothesis, I predicted the relationship between intentionality and
ingratiation on forbearance would be stronger for favor-doing than for ﬂattery,
particularly when attributions of intentionality were low (see Figure 5). However, when
examining the relationship between attributions of intentionality and ingratiation on the
facet of retaliation, the data suggests almost the inverse. Here, the relationship is stronger

for ﬂattery when attributions of intentionality are high.

Retaliation, Avoidance, Goodwill on Helping
Hypothesis 4 predicted the relationship between forbearance and helping. In my

initial analysis, the variable of helping was conceptualized as a continuous variable.
However, subsequent analysis of the helping item revealed that although the range of

helping was 0 to 30 and the mean was 19, the median of the variable was 29. In addition,

98

about 50% of individuals who participated, helped at a level of 30. This suggests that
helping, in this case, could be conceptualized as a dichotomous variable.

I In a subsequent analysis, I coded helping as a dichotomous variable, representing
full helping (l) or partial/no helping (0). Logistic regression analysis was performed to
test the relationship between forbearance and helping. Again, data did not support this
relationship ([3 = .17, p > .10). I employ the continuous conceptualization of helping in
my subsequent post hoc analysis.

While the aggregate form of forbearance was not signiﬁcantly related to helping,
analysis using the individual facets does yield results of a main effect relationship (Table
7). Results suggest that retaliation has a negative effect on helping (AF =2.71, B = -.15, p
< .10). Since my original prediction between forbearance and helping was directional, I
utilize one-tailed test criteria to suggest that this relationship between retaliation and
helping is signiﬁcant. Examination of avoidance on helping (AP = 0.01, B = .01, p > .10)
does not yield signiﬁcant effects. Surprisingly, the relationship between goodwill and

helping is also not signiﬁcant (AF = 0.10, B = .03, p > .10).

The Moderating Effect of Protective Impression Management

 

Table 9 presents the results of the interaction between each facet of forbearance
and protective impression management accounts on helping. None of the relationships

were signiﬁcant.

99

Acquigitive Impression Management (nggatiation) and Helping

The correlation between acquisitive impression management and helping was
unexpected. Hence, I conducted two post hoc analyses to explore this relationship ﬁrrther.
First, I explored the main effects of acquisitive IM on helping. Table 10 shows that this
relationship is signiﬁcant using a one tailed test (AF = 3.58, B = .17, p < .10). However,
the overall model is not signiﬁcant (F = 1.15, p > .10).

The second analysis I performed was to test a simpliﬁed model (Figure 9).

Figye 9: Simpliﬁed Interaction Model

 

Breach
Reneging
Vs
lncongruence

 

 

 

 

 

Results presented in Table 10 suggest that while the overall model is not
signiﬁcant (F = 1.24, p > .10), the interaction between breach type and acquisitive
impression management ingratiation is signiﬁcant (AF = 3.60, B = .71, p < .10) using a

one-tailed test. Figure 10 shows the form of this interaction.

l

 

Helping

 

 

 

Acquisitive IM
Ingratiation

F lottery

Vs

F avor-doing

 

 

100

 

Fi 10: Sim liﬁed Model Interaction‘Gra h

 

 

 

3.5
3

/
2 /

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a
.2 / + F lattery
g 1 5 I. + Favor

1 /

0.5
O .
Reneging lncongruence
Breach Type

 

 

 

The form of this interaction suggests that ingratiation moderates the relationship
between breach type and helping such that the relationship is stronger for favor-doing
than it is for ﬂattery in incongruence breaches. In the next chapter, I discuss the

implications of my empirical results in more detail.

10]

CHAPTERS

DISCUSSION

This dissertation explored the phenomenon of peer helping in the context of a
psychological contract breach. The speciﬁc research question that I address is the effects
of impression management techniques on peer helping behavior after a breach of
psychological contract. I utilized Rousseau’s (1995) framework to examine impression
management strategies related to substitution and credible explanations to explore two
types of impression management strategies - acquisitive ingratiation and protective
accounts, respectively. I incorporated the novel construct of forbearance to assess
transgression related motivations during the peer breach context.

An experiment conducted with upper level undergraduate students revealed
several interesting relationships. First, I found that individuals exposed to a breach
develop attributions of intentionality that are speciﬁc to the cues related to the breach
event. Furthermore, I found that attributions of intentionality inﬂuence subsequent
forbearance motivations directed towards the offender. This means that the attribution
process that follows a negative event, such as a breach of psychological contract,
inﬂuences an aggregate measure of peer related transgression motivations.

In addition to the formal hypotheses that were supported, several post hoc
ﬁndings are notable. For example, perceived attributions of intentionality not only
inﬂuence aggregate forbearance, but the individual facets of retaliation, avoidance, and
goodwill are impacted as well. In addition, when examined individually, I found that one

facet of forbearance, namely retaliation, inﬂuenced peer related helping. Finally, post hoc

102

analysis also revealed that acquisitive impression management (ingratiation) moderated
the relationship between attributions of intentionality and retaliation.

The formal hypotheses that were not supported in the model also reveal a
particularly interesting ﬁnding. The failure to ﬁnd support for the moderating effect of
protective impression management accounts on the relationship between forbearance and
helping (particularly in the post hoc analysis) hints at the robust nature of transgression
related motivations. Furthermore, the lack of impact also suggests the ineffectiveness of
utilizing account strategies in the context of a psychological contract breach between
peers.

Finally, an unanticipated relationship was highlighted in the results of the
experiment. Acquisitive impression management (Ingratiation) signiﬁcantly impacted
helping. Speciﬁcally, favor-doing behaviors offered by the offender were positively
related to subsequent peer related helping offered by the injured peer. This suggests a
notion of reciprocity that, according to this sample data, had a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on
helping, regardless of breach type.

The remainder of this chapter will provide more detail regarding these ﬁndings
and offer my interpretation of the results. Following the discussion of empirical results, I
will discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this research. Finally, I offer my
assessment of the limitations of this research and an outlook regarding future directions
that can help enhance the theoretical and empirical understanding of topics covered in

this dissertation.

103

Discussion of Empirical Results

I proposed that the type of psychological contract breach would relate to
attributions of intentionality. Consistent with prior research (Robinson & Morrison, 2000;
Turnley et al., 2003), reneging breach is related to higher perceptions (attributions) of
intentionality whereas incongruence breach is related to lower. attributions of
intentionality. While previous research has established this relationship in terms of the
individual’s perception of the organization’s failure to fulﬁll the contract, this dissertation
applies the perceptions and attributions of breach to individual’s perceptions of peer
contract failure. This is important, as it strengthens the argument in the traditional
psychological contract literature that an injured employee may attribute a breach to
speciﬁc individuals within the organization.

The data also shed insight on another point of interest regarding breach type and
perceptions. The deﬁnition of psychological contract type is such that confusion may
arise over whether a breach is the result of the intent of the offender or the perception of
the injured individual. For example, if an offender intends to breach, but the injured peer
perceives that the offender intended to keep obligations, researchers would have a
challenging time categorizing the breach as either reneging or incongruence. One
possible reconciliation for this dilemma is to characterize breach by the speciﬁc cues that
the breach provides. Turnley et al. (2003) suggested that individual attributions regarding
psychological contract breach are based on the perception of unfulﬁlled obligations and
the perception of either ability or inability to fulﬁll obligations. In this dissertation,
individuals were asked to perceive both unfulﬁlled obligations and willingness to fulﬁll

the obligations. Manipulation checks and controls utilized in this study showed that the

104

cues associated with each breach type successfully inﬂuenced perceptions of unfulﬁlled
obligations and willingness (or lack thereof) to fulﬁll the obligations. Hence, in this
study, the breach type, with its deﬁnitive cues, signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced attributions of
intentionality. In light of these data, I suggest that one way to deﬁne breach type is by the
nature (i.e. cues) of the breach. Measures of subsequent attributions of intentionality in
this study are consistent with this conceptualization.

One additional note regarding Hypothesis 1 is the proximity of the measurement
(i.e. attributions of intentionality) to the manipulation (breach type). The nature of the
manipulation was such that cues were provided that, in essence, manipulated the
perceived intention of the breach. As such, Hypothesis 1 is akin to a manipulation check.

In my second hypothesis, I predicted that attributions of intentionality would
inﬂuence forbearance. This relationship is supported in the study. This is consistent with
previous research that suggests that acts perceived as highly intentional invoke more
negative reactions from injured individuals (T urnley et al., 2003). However, closer
examination of the post hoc data and the individual facets of retaliation, avoidance, and
goodwill suggests that lower levels of perceived intentionality also inﬂuence positive
reactions — such as goodwill. This is important. Most research in psychological contract
breach focuses on negative reactions and outcomes. Consistent with the previous line of
research, high attributions of intentionality were associated with higher levels of negative
transgression related interpersonal motivations (TRIMs) such as retaliation and
avoidance. However, this study is unique in that it suggests the inverse relationship also

exists in the context of breach and attributions of injured peers. Speciﬁcally, lower

105

perceived attribution of intentionality was related to higher levels of positive TRIMs — in
this case, goodwill.

My third hypothesis regarding the moderating effect of ingratiation on the
relationship of attributions of intentionality and forbearance was not supported. However,
post hoc analysis does support a different relationship in terms of speciﬁc facets of
forbearance. Speciﬁcally, acquisitive impression management (ingratiation) moderated
the relationship between attributions of intentionality and forbearance such that when
attributions of intentionality were high, the relationship was stronger. for ﬂattery than it
was for favor-doing. This suggests that when perceptions of intentionally are high,
engaging in ﬂattery actually increases an inj ure’d peer’s motivation to retaliate against the
offender. This is an important ﬁnding, since individual’s who engage in this type of
strategy as a remedy may do more harm than good in a breach context.

The other implication of interest in the post hoc ﬁndings for Hypothesis 3 is the
signiﬁcant effect on the retaliation facet of forbearance, but no effects on the avoidance
and goodwill facets. This suggests that the facets are unique and are inﬂuenced variably
by antecedents. This ﬁnding offers additional support regarding the multi-dirnensionality
of theforbearance construct.

While my prediction regarding forbearance and helping (H4) was not supported,
an analysis of the facets of forbearance did provide signiﬁcant results. Here again,
retaliation was the single motivation of importance in the relationship - as higher levels
of retaliation were related to lower levels of helping. As stated, this lends support to the
multidirnensionality of the forbearance construct. Furthermore, the relationship between

the facet most expected to inﬂuence helping (i.e. goodwill) was not signiﬁcant. This may

106

 

imply that some forbearance facets are dominant while others are submissive in relation
to each other. Or this may simply imply that some motivations have a stronger effect than
others. In other words, in the context of breach between peers, negative motivations may
be more likely to elicit behavior than positive motivations. This is a unique assertion, and
one that should be examined more thoroughly in the context of contract failures between
peers.

The predictions contained in Hypothesis 5 were not supported. Interestingly,
protective impression management accounts did not moderate the relationship between
the facets of forbearance and helping. There are several implications from the results of
these relationships, of which I will outline two. First, and perhaps most reconcilable, is
the notion that protective impression management accounts are ineffective in their ability
to change relationships related to helping in the context of a psychological contract
breach. This is notable, sinCe theorists have identiﬁed social accounts speciﬁcally as a
strategy to minimize or altar the perceptions of contract breach (Rousseau, 1995). This
study offers one of the ﬁrst tests of Rousseau’s conceptualization of the social accounts
strategy within the context of breach between peers. The fact that the relationship was not
supported indicates that this conceptualization should be explored further, and clariﬁed.

To speculate on why the relationship was not supported in this research, I return
to Rousseau’s process by which the social accounts are implied to operate. Recall that
Rousseau suggested that social accounts may minimize the negative perception of losses
associated with psychological contract breach. If so, one of two explanations is implied
by a lack of effect on helping in this study. First, it may be that social accounts in fact do

not alter the negative perception of losses following a breach. Secondly, and perhaps

107

more interesting, is the notion that social accounts do indeed alter the perception of
losses, but that this alteration in loss perception is not enough to change the relationship
between established motivations and subsequent behavior.

This second, and more complex, explanation for the lack of results involves the
notion robustness of transgression related interpersonal motivations. It may be that once
formed, forbearance motivations are highly salient and robust, and subsequent attempts to
.change the relationship between these motivations and subsequent outcomes are
ineffective. This concept is implicitly supported by a recent study on forbearance as
measured over time (McCullough et al., 2003). In their study, the authors found that
negative TRIMs (i.e. retaliation and avoidanCe) were highest when measured directly
after a transgression and that these motivations towards a transgressor decreased
signiﬁcantly over time. In my study, I measured forbearance immediately after the
transgression occurred. This aspect, coupled with McCullough’s ﬁndings may point
towards what I’ll call an “intensity window” in which impression management attempts
are ineffective in inﬂuencing the relationship between forbearance motivations and
subsequent outcomes. This should be explored further.

. The mediation model between attribution of intentionality and forbearance on
helping was not supported (H6). Subsequent analysis with retaliation as the mediator also
failed to ﬁnd support for this relationship, as retaliation did not have a signiﬁcant effect
on helping when controlling for attributions of intentionality. One explanation for the
lack of mediated relationship is the overall weakness in the relationship between
forbearance and helping. The data in this study have shown that overall forbearance is not

significantly related to helping, and of the facets, only retaliation is signiﬁcant. I have

108

discussed several explanations for this above, but perhaps the unstated explanation is that
in the context of psychological contract breach between peers, other constructs besides
forbearance are important. Perhaps emotions, such as anger or empathy play a more
important role in relation to helping than do interpersonal motivations such as
forbearance. This is a possibility that might be examined by looking at emotions and
motivations in tandem.

Finally, the positive relationship between ingratiation and helping should be
acknowledged. At its simplest form, the relationship suggests that in the context of peer
interactions, reciprocity is the determining factor of engaging in helping behavior (Blau,
1964; Gouldner, 1960). This is notable, espebially since the main effect suggests that
favor-doing positively inﬂuences helping, even when controlling for breach type. This
means that despite the intention of a psychological contract breach (i.e. reneging or
incongruence), an injured peer will engage in helping behavior if the offender ﬁrst
provides a task related favor. This lends support to the inﬂuence of transactional
substitutes to original psychological contract obligations, albeit in a more simpliﬁed
relationship than that predicted in my hypotheses.

, The other ﬁnding of interest related to ingratiation is the manner in which type of
ingratiation changes the relationship between breach type and helping. The interaction
shows that ingratiation moderates the relationship between breach type and helping such
that in the incongruence context, the relationship is stronger for favor-doing than it is for
ﬂattery. This further suggests that favor-doing may serve as a substitute, or remedy, for -
original contract obligations in incongruence breach events. This interpretation supports

Rousseau’s (1995) conceptualization of remediation.

109

Theoretical Implications

Several theoretical implications can be derived from this study and the
interpretations offered above. First, this study extends psychological contract research by
examining breach of contract in the context of transactions between two peers. Several
outcomes of interest were supported by the study in this context, most notably, the
relationship between peer breach and peer directed motivations. While the relationships
between peer directed motivations and helping were partially supported in post hoc
analysis, the implication of unexplored outcomes related to breach between peers
remains.

Extending psychological contract theory to peer to peer relationships implies that
the theory should be examined further in this and other contexts. For example, while
previous research on psychological theory has outlined a set of organizationally directed
outcomes related to breach, we do not have a full understanding of peer directed, or
group directed, outcomes following breach.

Much of the psychological contract research focuses on employee attitudes
following a breach of psychological contract. This dissertation extends psychological
contract theory by exploring a speciﬁc behavior - helping - related to contract breach.
The lack of support for the relationships I proposed in my model helps broaden our
understanding of the processes involved (and not involved) in peer directed helping
following a breach. Hence, further exploration of behavioral outcomes, especially peer
directed outcomes, within the context of psychological contract breach is warranted.

Rousseau (1995) offered a theoretical discussion regarding how offenders may

minimize the negative effects of psychological contract breach. I explored this theoretical

110

 

 

notion by applying impression management techniques to the contract breach event. In
doing so, I attempted to formalize and test the theoretical relationships implied in
Rousseau’s discussion. The results (and lack thereof) suggest that the theoretical notions
of remediation and credible explanations are underdeveloped. This presents a unique
opportunity to offer ﬁrrther theoretical contribution to an important area of psychological
contract theory.

v Finally, the concept of forbearance is novel and relevant, particularly in the
context of transgressions between peers. I extend the forbearance research by applying
the construct in the context of psychological contract breach between peers. The
signiﬁcant relationship between attributions of intentionality and forbearance adds a
theoretical contribution by identifying a psychological antecedent to forbearance
motivations. The lack of results with the behavioral outcome of helping offers the
opportunity to specify a behavior that forbearance does not immediately inﬂuence.
Furthermore, I extended the conceptualization of forbearance by examining the speciﬁc
facets that comprise forbearance in the context of a breach of contract between peers. The
unique inﬂuence that retaliation possessed over helping behaviors, in the absence of
inﬂuence from avoidance and goodwill, helps support the notion that forbearance is a
multi-dimensional construct. Additional empirical research to examine the dimensionality

and nomological aspects of each facet of forbearance is necessary.
Practical Implications

From a practical perspective, several outcomes in this dissertation can be utilized

to inform organizational members on considerations and prescriptions. First, both

111

organizations and individuals should be aware of the processes that are involved in
psychological contract breach. Speciﬁcally, the notion that a breach will emit cues
regarding the intentionality of the breach is particularly important. Individuals who
perceive that an obligation can not (or will not) be fulﬁlled, can attempt to either manage
the breach cues or to prepare for resulting outcomes related to attributions of
intentionality.

One of the ways that an offender can prepare for breach is to be aware of
behavioral prescriptions that may effectively substitute for the failure of obligations
originally contained in the contract. This study suggests that favor-doing, to a certain
extent, offers a remedy to unfulﬁlled obligations, albeit the mechanism is based more on
reciprocity than true substitution. Hence, an individual can offer to put in extra work on a
peer’s project after fumbling a task in which performance was expected.

Perhaps just as helpful is the understanding that other behaviors are ineffective, or
even detrimental following a breach. Organizations can train their employees on
prescriptions to avoid, such as ﬂattery impression management, in the event of a breach
between individuals. While it is not advised that organizations discourage the use of
accounts, such as apologies, it may be helpful to communicate to agents that providing
social accounts will not serve as a panacea in the event of a transgression. This is
becoming more evident recently as account after account is played out in the press
regarding holding individuals responsible legally and ﬁnancially for transgressions within
organizations. Providing excuses, as in the case of Dick Grasso, formerly of the NYSE
(Thomas, 2004), or saying sorry, as in the case of George Tenet and the CIA (Shenon &

Lichtblau, 2004), is not enough to remedy the breach anymore.

112

Limitations

There are three general limitations to this study that I would like to address and
several smaller limitations. The general limitations include the sample, the experimental
nature of the study, and the distal nature of the helping measure employed in the study.
The smaller limitations follow the discussion of these general limitations.

First, the sample I utilized for this study consisted on undergraduate students at a
large Midwestern university. There are several limitations that are associated with the
utilization of such a sample. First, the participants were generally young with limited
work experience. This may limit the amount” of experience that the participants could
draw upon when determining how to respond to circumstances like a breach of contract
between peers. Consequently, the variance analyzed with this sample may or may not
reﬂect the type of variance I would experience with a more professional sample. This
limits the generalizability of the ﬁndings in this study to broad applications in practice.
However, since the primary goal of this dissertation was to understand the theoretical
relationships between constructs related to my phenomenon of interest, the reduction in
external validity due to sample demographics has limited impact.

. The second limitation regarding this research project was the lab-related nature of
the experiment. Although great effort was taken to simulate a professional interaction and
breach between peers (for example, utilization of the Lear Career Center), the reality is
that participants voluntarily signed up to engage in a “research project”. Hence, one could
question the participant’s acceptance of the setting, peer relationship, and breach events.
However, a variety of manipulation checks, as well as random exit interviews, indicated

that participants accepted the manipulations and that they were unable to accurately

113

indicate the true construct of interest (i.e. helping) once the study was completed. This
suggests that the research experiment was not transparent and that attributions,
motivations, and behaviors measured in the experiment were genuine.

The ﬁnal limitation is the distal nature of the helping construct in the model. Only
one antecedent to helping (i.e. forbearance) was theoretically analyzed in my research
model. The lack of relationship between forbearance and helping meant that my
behavioral outcome associated with breach between two peers was not predicted. While
post hoc analyses provided some explanation of the variance in helping behaviors, much
remains unexplained.

Two steps could be utilized to improve 'upon this limitation. First, in future studies
of this phenomenon, additional data on constructs that are more proximal can be
collected. For example, various affect related constructs, such as anger or empathy, which
have been utilized in previous helping research (Weiner, 1980a, 1980b, 1995) may be
employed. In addition, individual differences, such as personality (Barrick & Mount,
1991) or equity sensitivity (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987), may offer additional
explanation into helping behaviors following a breach of contract in the peer context.

. Second, the operationalization of helping may be expanded to include other
behaviors. For example, in the execution of this experiment, I collected qualitative data in
the form of notes that participants wrote to their “peer”. In several cases, the notes
contained statements in the form of encouragement and exhortation. In other cases, the
notes contained statements chastening the offender and admonishing the offender to stay
focused and pay attention to detail. Perhaps these statements, intended to increase the

productivity of the peer, are another method of conceptualizing peer directed helping. A

114

future research project that applies a theoretical process to categorize the statements
found in such qualitative data may offer an additional opportunity to further explore the
relationships offered in this dissertation.

Finally, there are several smaller limitations that I would like to address. First, in
deﬁning the psychological contract, I attempted to steer clear of the distinction between
obligations and expectations. For this dissertation, I adopted the obligation
conceptualization as Rousseau (1995) and Morrison and Robinson (1997) deﬁne it.
However, one of my measurement tools contained two items with the term
“expectations” as opposed to “obligations” (Survey 2A, Items 2 and 3). This was an
unintended oversight. Second, it is feasible that the account provided by the offending
peer inﬂuenced subsequent perceptions of intentionality in the injured peer. These revised
perceptions of intentionality may have had an inﬂuence on subsequent forbearance or
helping outcomes. To control for such possibilities, attribution of intentionality should
have been measured a second time, following the protective account. However,
attributions of intentionality were only measured once. This is a limitation. A third
limitation is related to the distinction between the operationalization of the ingratiation
treatments. Close examination of the treatments suggests that the favor treatment is
categorized as a task oriented inducement, whereas the ﬂattery treatment is categorized as
a relationship oriented inducement. While both treatments were ingratiatory in nature, the
difference between the task and relationship orientation may have created unintended and
unmeasured variance. Future operationalizations of ingratiation should be designed to
make the treatments consistent. Finally, there appears to be spurious effects in two

measures in the study. First, it appears that a ceiling effect is present in the helping

115

measure. Conversely, it appears that a ﬂoor eﬁect is present in the severity measure. This
suggests that the ﬁnal helping measure may have beneﬁted ﬁ‘om an increased number of
items for subjects to complete. It also suggests that the outcomes related to the breach
could have been more severe or pertinent to the subjects. While these are relatively
simple ﬁxes for future research of this nature, this aspect is a limitation in the present

research.

Future Directions

The novel nature of this dissertation allows for a variety of future explorations, of
which I will brieﬂy outline. First, I would like to extend the analysis of my proposed
model (and hypotheses) in a ﬁeld setting. I cannot rule out the relationships that were not
supported unless further examination is conducted in the ﬁeld (at least with a different
sample). In addition, supplementary measures should be included to measure constructs
related to emotion and additional behavioral outcomes related to peer to peer breach.

The construct of forbearance, and its implied multi-dimensionality offers a variety
of future directions that I could pursue. For example, we still do not have a full
understanding of the antecedents that affect forbearance. Identifying attributions of
intentionality as a signiﬁcant antecedent was a good ﬁrst step towards understanding the
nomological network of this growing construct. In addition, the lack of signiﬁcant results
in relation to helping causes me to question exactly what type of behaviors peer directed
motivations inﬂuence. This is an area that requires further exploration. The multi-
dimensionality of forbearance is another area that should be explored in the near future.

In particular, researchers should pursue a greater understanding of how the facets of

116

 

retaliation, avoidance, and goodwill interact with, or offset one another in relation to
outcomes. This is an unexplored area and offers the potential for signiﬁcant contributions
to the growing forgiveness and forbearance literature.

Finally, my results related to the type of psychological breach (i.e. reneging vs.
incongruence) is just the beginning of a potential research stream examining this
phenomenon. For example, I speciﬁcally narrowed my examination to a breach
characterized by failure to fulﬁl transactional obligations. However, the outcomes
associated with a breach of relational obligations may yield stronger, or even unique
results. I am interested in exploring this further, in addition to the remedial strategies of
impression management. Whereas reciprocal strategies, such as favor-doing, were
somewhat effective as remedy to breach in a transactional context, it would be interesting
to note whether the same holds true in a relational breach context. Perhaps more
intriguing is examination of whether social accounts (which are inherently relational in
nature) serve as more successful remedies than they did in the transactional context

studied in this dissertation.

Conclusion

' The results of this dissertation provide insight into the relationship between type
of breach and subsequent attributions and motivations in the context of peer relationships.
The results also provided additional support for the multi-dimensionality of the growing
construct of forbearance. The unexpected relationship between acquisitive impression
management accounts and helping shed some insight into the impact of reciprocity
following a transactional breach between two peers. Finally, the unsupported hypotheses

raised some interesting questions about the true impact of peer directed forbearance

117

motivations on helping behaviors. Other questions that were raised include the notion of
robustness of peer directed motivations and the ineffectiveness of social accounts to
inﬂuence the relationships of these motivations once formed. The increase of reliance on
team and interpersonal structures within organizational settings indicates that peer
perceptions and motivations (particularly in the context of psychological contract breach)

are increasingly important areas of research focus.

118

 

 

8:me u N .3293. u _ o
asap-83m u N 583E n _ c
00523505 u N .wﬁwoaom u _ o
Ban—om u N .038 u _ a

Enema“. 05 no 98 wasn—n $63.55 a

 

 

 

on— r- a

8. No: 3. 3.- Na. co. ac. S. N.N_ v.2 maﬁa: .2
2.58.5

:VN. n..- .NN. .wcc .wN. S. no. 3. and n6 53950 .2
ENG. :oN. LN: EN. 2.- S. 8.- S. v: 9N ooﬁE¢>< .3
tan-.- saeN. .Sr 2. 2.- 2. 2. 8.. m: 9N Eta—Sum .m—
icm. :aNr :MN. 5.- EN. 3.. 8.- we. cad m6. con—nausea .N_
:8.- ..a. :3..- 2. 8. :. 8. e. a; 3 8:88:25 828.8 .:
25:33—

8. 8. 3.- No. 3.- 8. 8. 8.- and 3 03583303885 .2
8.- 8.- 2. E.- 8. ,. :.- 8. 8.- and 2 scousﬁasgoéasaé .8
-- 2.- S. 8.- 8. 2.- 1:.- mo: 36 2 9:085? 3.? .w
82.2.5232

-- Ncr EN. 3.- 3. 3.- No. and c6 58.5 On 320805 N

8.- 8.- 8. 2.. 8. m2 S. 8:85 “583. 838.8 a

-- N_.- E. No. LN. 36 hm bto>om 08830 nozoeom .m

:5 8.- 8. S. 2: 3. 0:92 012.85% .v

:.m. 3. 8d an EC oceanoaxm are? .m

2.. En «.8 a? .~

and E . 1850 .—

no—nﬂ_._a> 3.5—2.0

m n c w v m N _ 68 :82 33353

 

. «5:29.30 can .232 9:23:95 inuncam 333.889 3 mam—4:.
83:8 u< £3.25“.

many—ﬁlm??-

119

omnoxm u N .3295 u _ o
gnaw-.85..“ u N 50sz n 2 u
cocoa—805 -I- N .wﬁwoaom n _ o
0388 u N .29.: u _ a

.2836 05 .8 Pa mung—a Exams—55..

 

 

2: u a

- 3. 3.- 2.- 2. «or 3.- .2. N.N_ v.2 wan—om .2
2.88:0

a3 ::.- :3- :8. :9..- :. 8. 8.8 2 ___388 .2
a3 :8. :8- :8... 2.- 8.. z._ 3 8:862 .3

$8 :8.- .. :8. 8.- 8 m: 3 88:33. .2

$3 .33.- 2. N3. cad n.n 85.825 .NH

83 cc. 3.- 3.. N.m 2.2282885 @928qu .2

gateway—

-- co. and n2 .350oo<§o>_88o£ .2

8.8 2 223335 E 333.3 .8

and 2 05853 on»... .w

38.23.52

23 ed 585 On 32833 6

m2 5. €83 §58< 8385.. .0

@ad mum bto>om 050050 UoZouhom .m

3.— mé o>_w._om 2 .3532. .v

8N tn EC 85:35 x83 .m

.5 SN ow< .N

and v.2 ace—=50 .—

8—QQT—ﬂx’ _O-_u——OU

 

2 2 3 .m— N- _ 2 2 3 .2; =32 moEmta>

€238 _ 33:.

120

 

F1

 

222. V 22 a...
3:03.805 -I- N $39.52 N 2 a

32303-522 2232982325..“ 93 3:02:00 £228...w

cﬁvg+ WQVQ.

 

 

 

 

 

3m: 3... e: s... :35 :3: e: s... .505 :5: E. g... .335
me. «~— 3833 .2225 um. «22 2.82.223 .2330 an. «m 2.83.225 2.230
:83. .2 <
on... -.2 < 2N. «m < 32.5 ..-2 <
8. a: < 52382885 mm. -2 <
2mn.u& eo- oogoﬁom 3.. 2 m..- .3 322.5252 22030202 2.. S.- ..2222- 2280-5
«new «23m masm
v2.2 am < cihaé h Q ping-n h <
n:- -2 < 2. «m < 2. «a <
8. .2085 0.2 2.323.292 .. LN.- aoaBm 0.2 338.52 EN. non-km 02 25383.2
Nc. aim-8.2 9 29:030-2- L.2- Saw-8.2 3 20:02:20 .2. 8. 0399.2 8 20:02:20.2- 1
+2. brooﬁm 2.328.292 .. .mN. brooﬁm 2.320892 .. .Nm: broosm 333-292 u
N2.- .0138 223202032 2.. bto>om 233382 . no. btu>om 22028.62
N new a 85 m 9%
rm... .2 < a; .2 < 5.2 .2 <
S- -2 < S. «m < n:- «m <
8. 95 233 8.- 9m. “.83 8. .5 V83
S. &< 3.- 09.. 8. ow<
S. 32:50 no. .5260 N2. 5950
2 noam 2 22on 2 22on
a a a
maﬁa: cons-33.8.2 222280222222
mo2nntn> 86225.5 new $223.52 88222022 new no 282225252“: 82.23:; 290222222 3%
2538-82
.3. 2:3 .u .2 $8525: 9:9»:

no 3:232:92 2:... .32—2322282 :c 3223.23.52.22 5223838.: .22. 2823.22.53: 2823-32 .3 22.2.2. 2223.5 3.2 8:632 23289332 .32-29:23!

N mam—(.2.

TABLE 3

Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results for Attributions of Intentionality, Acquisitive IM
Ingratiation, and Forbearance

 

 

 

(Hypothesis 3)‘
Step Predictor Variables Forbearance
B
Step 1
Gender .08
Age -.04
Work EXP -.08 H
A R2 .02 -.
A F 0.72
Step 2 . .7.- -
Perceived Severity -.12
Perceived Sincerity .23"
Tendency to Forgive .17 "
Perceived PC Breach ' -.24"“"
A R’ .18
A F 6.87“
Step 3
. . . . b -.51"
Attribution of Intentionality
. . . . . b c -.06
Acquismve IM Ingratiation ’ 22
1 .
A R 22.65“
A F
Step 4
Attribution of Intentionality x Acquisitive IM .510 (p = .18)
Ingratiation
2 .01
A R 1.85
A F
. .37
Overall adjusted R2 8.80“

Overall Fun, 124)

 

a Table contents are standardized beta-weights.
b O .
Vanable lS centered

c 1 = Flattery, 2 = F avor-doing
"p<.01 ’p<.05 Tp<.10

 

122

 

 

 

TABLE 4
Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results for Forbearance, Protective 1M Accounts, and Helping
(Hypothesis 5)ll
Step Predictor Variables Helping
B
Step 1
Gender .01
Age .07
Work Exp .05
A R2 .01 .. ..
A F 0.37
Step 2
Perceived Severity -. 12 __ ..
Perceived Sincerity . .15 T
Tendency to Forgive .02
Perceived PC Breach .01
A n2 .03
A F 1.14
Step 3
Forbearanceb .07 (p=.49)
Protective 1M Accounts b ’ c ‘04 (P = ~54)
A R2 .01
A F 031 (p = -74)
Step 4
Forbearance x Protective [M Accounts .02
A R1 .00
AF 004 @=JM)
Overall ad'usted R2 .03
’ 0.62 (p=.79)

Overall Fun, 12‘)

 

 

' Table contents are standardized beta-weights.
b Variable is centered
c 1 = Excuse, 2 = Apology

"p<.01 *p<.05 Tp<.10

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. v a a. 3. v a _. S. v a 1. $563.83 332353“ 93 22:8 038. a
AWF.“& “0.6 $2 .avrﬂ =20>° Anbfunc mwAv Av: ivy..— =who>o
S. «a 8.3:... .2225 S. a: 8.2:; 5:25
ASE: an... m <
8. «a <
WC. 023.3098...—
v new
are a. m <
8. "m < .n S... a <
$0.03 8. vegan Go I3 .5. «~— <
and“: nor $3.338:— «o 80:333. 3... $38353— .wo mucusebﬁ.
m 9% m new
2; m < :4 m <
8. - a: < 8. "a 4
8. £035 Um cozoﬂom 8. 53.5 On 333.8;
mo. ”EM—o..— 8 .8838. Na. o>_w..om o. 553$.
.3 _ . broosm 338th .F _. 3.825 333qu
2.- bto>om 338.85— 2.. bto>om 3383,.
a new N new
9nd m < and r.— <
s. a: < s. "a <
3. 9a £25 3. 3m are?
S. n}. S. n»...
NO. .5950 NO. .5950
_ new _ gem
a a
madam moan> .2235 new madam 8§E> 3335 new
.6 saggy:

uni-o: can 3:253:85 he nae..=£.5< :3an 25332 35:33...— .Su 3.33— 53853— 39229.3:

m Eda—«Q.

124

 

 

 

 

FEII’
2V?- SJA. Eva:
3:303:83 GONE-893$ 0.8 3:02:00 2th a
:ﬁ: S. e: =55 :3.» c: em :55 :8: a: e... .520
an. N: 3.3:... .325 an. a: 33:: =55 w... a: 3.3.... .505
1.1:.QN am < iia.hN r..— < tin?” am <
m: N: < m: .m < a. N: <
£38235 $3.252:— £22525
:3..- :o 8:352 82020: :9. mo =83§< 83020.: 2.2.. an 8:332 8235.:
m 35 m new m 9%
:2: m < :2: m < :35 m <
3. a: < 5. «~— < 3. «~— <
8.- :82: on 8:35: .. :3. =82: on 8:83.. :8. :82: on Essen:
:am. 9.58: 8 5.830% _ _.- “Em-8m 3 5:38... 8.- 0390.: 9 3:35:-
:m~. brag 8:020: : 3.. €85 838.»: .5 .- 3:85 3385..
S.- bto>om 338.5,— 2. 3.82% vozoeom o_. bto>om 333.5:
N 35 N 9% N new
3.. r.— < em... a < 3.. n— <
8. a: < 8. a: < 3. a: <
8. ea :25 :. ax: :2: 8. 9:. :2:
3.- nm< 3.- ow< 2. nw<
5.. been: a.- 528 8.- 32...:
_ new _ new 2%
a , n a
5380 8_£E> .2062: new 8.562 333.9 8:62: new 83.33. 83%; 3.38: new

 

 

 

.3 3852:: 8 225:8
5.5.590 :5 .3::2e>< £23.53— :e 3:393:35 u: 53:55:: 3309.3 :8 8.33— .3385»: 33:29.3: 8: :8.—

c HAM—ﬁn.

125

 

cﬁVm+

 

may-Va...

~c.VQ 2..

3383.83 3323.88 8.8 $858 83“... a

 

 

. :6 G: in .3505 . 2.6 G: in =95>O .I 2..— 32 5r.— =Eo>O
as "5 S. «a 8.3:... :35 an u& 8. "a 8.3:: .385 8a :3 8. "a 8.2.8.. .326
.n e—é “— < .I S. h < .H nhﬁ h <
5 5 8. "a < Sm La 8. . "a < a: e + S. "a <
8. £32.80 3. oo§_o>< +2.- nova—88x
m new m 9% m 9%
n—.— ..m < .2.— ..m < :2 h <
8. R < 8. «~— < 8. «a <
8. .885 Um 28288.2 8. :88m on 2838292 S. .885 on 3388.2
S. 83392 8 3.828.2- No. “Em-8m 8 5898.2. Nc. ozwhom 8 5.898.2-
+2. £885 3388A +2. broosm 2833.3:— +2. .3885 28288“.
2.- bra-gum 338852 2.- £83m 2838292 2.- 352% 3388a
N 93m N mam N .2on
5:: r.— < rm... h < 5.: m <
S. «m < S. «a < S. a: <
8. 9m. 8.83 8. Sm x33 3. 98 “.33
8. 08¢. 8. ow< S. om<
S. .8280 S. .8280 8. 82:80
_ new 2 new _ new
a a n
was: 8§E> wagon 3323> magi

Steam new

 

83828.5 mam

 

moﬁatu> 88:85 .2on

 

a? 3852:: 8 939.38
”5&0: .3 £5.80 3:. 62.3.93 52.3.83— ..8 2:8: logo-.91 .838282 8: .3.—

b mum—«Q.

126

TABLE 8

Post Hoc Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results for Attributions of Intentionality, Acquisitive

IM Ingratiation, and Retaliation, Avoidance, and Goodwill

 

 

(Compare to Hypothesis 3)‘
Step Predictor Variables Retaliation Avoidance Goodwill
13 B 13
Step 1
Gender -.07 -.01 .161'
Age .12 -.04 -.04 [i
Work Exp .09 .11 .02 I
A R2 .04 .01 .03 Q:
A F 1.65 0.50 1.29 i
3
Step 2 r
Perceived Severity .10 .13 -.01 1
Perceived Sincerity -, 151' -21" 23st
Tendency to Forgive -.06 " -. ll .28"
Perceived PC Breach .23" .28" -.09
A R2 .10 .17 .15
A F 3.84”” 6.80“" 5.70**
Step 3 .
Attribution of Intentionality b .47" .42“ -.43"
Acquisitive IM Ingratiation b ’ ° .06 .07 .03
A R2 .19 .15 .16
A F 17.44“ 14.32“ 14.47“
Step 4
Attribution of Intentionality x .17“ .1 l (p =.15) .09 (p =,71)
Acquisitive IM Ingratiation
A 1?.2 .03 .01 .00
A F 5.24* 2.13 ~ 0.14
Overall adjusted R2 .30 .30 .29
Overall Fun. 114) 6089** 6064** 6.17**

 

 

a Table contents are standardized beta-weights.

b Variable is centered
c 1 = Flattery, 2 = F avor-Doing

**p<.01 *p<.05

Tp<J0

127

 

TABLE 9

Post Hoe Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results for Retaliation, Avoidance, and Goodwill,
Protective 1M Accounts, and Helping

 

 

(Compare to Hypothesis 5).
Step Predictor Variables Helping Helping Helping
I3 B 5
Step 1
Gender .04 .01 .01
Age .09 .07 .07
Work Exp .05 .05 .05
A R2 .01 .01 .01
A F 0.37 0.37 0.37
Step 2
Perceived Severity -.11 -.11 -.ll
Perceived Sincerity .lST .151' .151“
Tendency to Forgive .02 .02 .02
Perceived PC Breach .01 -.01 -.01
A R2 .03 .03 .03
A F 1.14 1.14 1.14
Step 3
‘Retaﬁation/Avoidance/Goodwill --16T .00 .04
. b c -.05 -.03 -.04
Protective IM Account ' .02 .00 .00
A R2 1.49 0.01 0.14
A F
Step 4 _ .02 (p=.84) -.11 (p=.74) .26 (p=.69)
Retaliation/Avoidance/Goodmll .00 .00 .00
x Account 0.04 0.1 l 0.16
A 12.1 .
A F .01 .03 .05
0.87 (p=.57) 0.58 (p=.83) 0.60 (p=.81)
Overall adjusted R2
Overall F(10.124)

 

a Table contents are standardized beta-weights.

b Variable is centered
c l = Excuse, 2 = Apology

"p<.01 *p<.05 Tp<.10

128

 

 

 

S. v a .P 3. v a _. 8. v A : nines”... 3.52% .5 35:8 2.3 .
9N I5 VNA 6: gm =Eo>O an Lg 2..— 513% .3530
S. «~— 33523 5:25 8. «m 633:3 =Eo>O
8a m <
Gena . 8. «m <
E. 83:55 x 25. :85
v 9%
as." m <
8. a: < 3.». .._ <
E. 83.2»:— E 22:384.. 691: 8. «a <
8.- 25 585 t _. SEE? s: 2:332
m new m 8a
«a... .. k < we... r.— <
8. «~— < 8. «a <
S. soap—m Um voZoBom 8. £895 Um vozoeom
mc. 02me 3 hone—ugh me. ozwcom 8 5:35P
+3. brooam uozoocom t: . 518:5 33023
S .- bto>om 333:5 2 .. bto>om 338.8.—
N new a new
en... a < and m <
5. «~— < 3. «~— <
3. 9“m 0:25 3. ea 0.33
8. 09.. 8. ow<
S. 8250 S. 6980
_ 92m _ 2on
a n
uni—o: 83ata> 8882.— 35 wan—om mo_nata> 88:35 35

 

 

W520: can

5: 02.533. 69¢. 523.5 .8952. 5:223:— 93 «Ea—o: .3 30am 5:: 3: 9535534 .3.— 3_=8~— 539.53— .329.82: 3: .8.—

a— Him—<5

129

TABLE 11

Attribution of Intentionality Factor Analysis

 

Component 1
Eigenvalue: 3.9
°/o Variance: 48.9

Component 2
Eigenvalue: 1.5
°/o Variance: 18.6

Component 3
Eigenvalue: 1.0
% Variance: 12.9

 

Item 1

I think my partner
avoided my tasks
intentionally

.901

.092

.127

 

Item 2

From my
perspective, my
partner

purposefully
misled me

.885

.086

.192

 

Item 3

My partner broke
our agreement on

purpose

.850

.001

.253

 

Item 8(R)

I think my partner
intended to
complete my tasks

.844

.264

-.159

 

Item 7 (R)

In my opinion, my
partner broke our
agreement
accidentally

.652

.366

-.241

 

Item 5(R)

My partner must
have
misunderstood the
details of our
obligations

.087

.899

-.241

 

Item 6(R)

I think my partner
was not clear
regarding the task
to be completed

.179

.894

.070

 

Item 4

 

 

In my opinion, the
incomplete tasks
are my partner’s
fault

 

.118

 

.059

 

.944

 

130

 

 

 

TABLE 12

Forbearance Factor Analysis

 

Component 1
Eigenvalue: 9.9
% Variance: 51.9

Component 2
Eigenvalue: 2.0
% Variance: 10.4

Component 3
Eigenvalue: 1.4
% Variance: 7.3

 

Goodwill 3 (R)

I want us to bury
the hatchet and
move forward
with our
professional
relationship

.813

.284

.089

 

Goodwill 4 (R)

Despite the my
partner’s actions, I
intend to give up
my resentment

.798

.089

.355

 

Goodwill 2 (R)

Despite what my
partner did, I want
us to have a
positive
relationship again

.790

.357

.116

 

Goodwill 7 (R)

I resolve my anger
so I can work on
restoring the
relationship with
my partner

.777 -.

.346

.057

 

Goodwill 6 (R)

I forgive my
partner for what
they have clone

.753

.261

.245

 

Goodwill 5 (R)

I want to put the
incident aside so
we can resume
our relationshiL

.722

.319

.223

 

Goodwill l (R)

Even though
his/her actions
offended me, 1
have goodwill for
my partner

.413

.164

 

Avoidance 1

I intend to keep as
much distance
between us as
possible.

.285

.813

.277

 

Avoidance 7

I intended to
withdraw ﬁ'om
my partner

.295

.789

.258

 

Avoidance 5

I intend to avoid
my partner

.345

.757

.24 l

 

Avoidance 6

I intend to cut off
the relationship
with my partner

.382

.743

.223

 

Avoidance 3

I don’t trust my
partner

.175

.682

.171

 

Avoidance 2

 

 

I intend to work
as if my partner is
not around

 

.379

 

 

.662

 

.129

 

131

 

TABLE 12 (Cont’d)

 

Avoidance 4

I would ﬁnd it
difﬁcult to act
warmly toward my
partner

.406

.648

.403

 

Retaliation 1

I feel like making
my partner pay for
what he/she did

.133

.114

.854

 

Retaliation 4

I have a desire to
get even.

.256

.089

.826

 

Retaliation 2

I wish something
negative would
happen to him/her

.032

.403

.736

 

Retaliation 3

I want my partner
to get what he/she
deserves.

.183

.332

.714

 

Retaliation 5

 

 

I want to see my
partner disciplined

 

.245

 

.320

 

.488

 

132

 

 

Appendix B: Experimental Materials
Consent Form

Demographic Survey

Role Information Sheet
Organizational Chart

Memo — Performance Evaluations
Task Cover Sheet

Merit and Quarterly Bonus Grids
Merit and Bonus Calculation Tasks
Resume Task

Article Task

Measurement Surveys

Exit Survey

Task Distribution Grid

133

 

CONSENT FORM

The purpose of this study is to increase our understanding of decision making in
work organizations. If you choose to participate in this study, you will be asked to
complete an HR inbox exercise. This will take you approximately 120 minutes. You are
ﬂee to decline to answer any questions, or terminate your participation at any time. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. In addition, we will
protect the conﬁdentiality of your responses. We will use a coding system that identiﬁes
your responses only by an id code number and does not associate your responses with
your name. Only members of the research team will have access to this data which will
be kept in a locked ﬁle and destroyed after ﬁve years. Your responses will not be shared
with anyone else and will only be reported in summary reports along with the data ﬁom
others. The report will not include any information that will allow anyone to identify you
or any of your individual responses. Participating in this study will provide you with
credit toward the Management 325 research participation course requirement. As
explained in your syllabus, there are other research options or you could write a review
paper.

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact Morgan R.
Milner at (517) 353-6913; milnermo@msu.edu or Linn Van Dyne in the Management
Department, Michigan State University, at (517) 432-3512 or at vandyne@msu.edu. If
you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if
you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Chair of University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (U CRIHS) by phone (517-355-2180), fax (517-432-4503), email
(ucrihs@msu.edu), or regular mail (202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824).

 

CONSENT STATEMENT:

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

Participant’s Name (Please print):

 

Participant’s Signature:

 

Course and Section Number: Date:

 

134

ROLE INFORMATION

Instruction: In the next two hours, you will adopt the role of an Assistant HR Manager in a large
consumer products organization. Please read the following information closely in order to
understand your role in this company. Please refer to the organizational chart (attached) to
understand your position in this company.

Company Background

Public Mills is a large company that manufactures and distributes a wide range of consumer
products. Public Mills currently has approximately 15,000 employees located in the central office
as well as various satellite locations around the United States. You were hired in the central ofﬁce
a few years ago and are now an Assistant HR Manager supporting human resource functions of
various divisions within Public Mills.

Public Mills has a culture that promotes participation and cooperation between its employees.
You like this culture and the friendly atmosphere that it facilitates. Your job as an Assistant
Manager is your opportunity to make an impact in this organization.

Responsibilities
As an assistant manager specializing in human resources support, your primary responsibilities
include the following:

1. Providing HR services to the divisions you support.

2. Supporting your department with its primary human resource functions.

3 Conducting standardized performance evaluations and merit increase recommendations for
divisions you support.

4. Performing bonus calculations for divisions you support.

You report to Terry Hall, who is the senior manager over your department. Your supervisor
regards you as an employee who is both thorough and competent in the work you perform. To
date, you have never received a warning from your supervisor due to errors or a failure to
complete assigned tasks.

Public Mills has four product line divisions that receives support from the HR department. These
divisions are Marketing, _S§e_s, gay, and Engineering. Each division conducts performance
evaluations on employees during the month of their hire date anniversary. To standardize the
merit increase process for the corporation, Public Mills has centralized the recommendation
process to the HR department. One of your monthly responsibilities is to review these
performance evaluations and recommend a merit increase percentage.

Each division has forwarded evaluations for the employees who received an evaluation this
month. You will support these divisions by reviewing the performance evaluations and
calculating their merit increase percentages. This month, you have 1_4 employees that you will
complete the merit calculation process for. The number of employees other assistant managers
will review ranges from 8 to 24. This task is known as the merit allocation task.

 

In addition, certain divisions have identiﬁed key employees who will be awarded a quarterly
bonus. The divisions have provided the names and employment data for these bonus-targeted
employees. You are asked to help allocate bonus percentage amounts to these employees. This
task is known as the bonus calculation task.

135

 

 

 

 

There is one other Assistant Manager in your department who will work with you to complete the
merit increase recommendations and bonus calculations for the divisions that you support. To
divide the work, we have assigned you employees with last names beginning with w. Your
partner has been assigned employees with last names beginning with 131. Although this method
may result in unequal workload distribution, we expect that you and your partner will work
together to meet departmental goals.

136

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.8532 as dog
62am $528.32 I 82¢.sz
2.5 828.5 05 Mo noun

5 N-Z 893.qu 353:9

KHZH~H<A~ “30>

Awéooswam as dam
6.2% $328.32 I “anemia
on: 632m 22 Lo :08 5
2-< 893—280 ton—mam :05

ENE g 30>

8226525 moEEEonzm manEonzm moEEERSm 8:26.525 83:6 asm moEEEonsm 83:6..on 3226525 3226525

 

[\Z\Z\/_\/_\ [sexes/3%

 

T92 .me<_ T92 .me<_ Tms. .28.; T92 .ume_ T922331— T92 awn/\— T92 .me< 92 .me<_ T92 2mm<_ E2 Emma‘—

 

 

 

FIL W

 

 

 

_ A ri_il_

 

  
   

959292
92 .6Emm

owm 83m
92 ._o_com .92 8:35

   

Emuﬁmi mo_>

   

850 .9288
EmEmmi

   
 

mow—“.0 ._<m_._.zmo - .02. .w._.=_2 22ng
.5210 ._<ZO_._.<N_Z<0mO

m: mocmci
92 5:8 92 5E8

 

137

 

 

Memo  

To: Assistant Managers
From: Terry Hall, Senior Manager HR
cc: Vice President ' E-a

Re: Performance Evaluations & Divisional Support

 

 

p
As you know, it is time to perform the monthly performance evaluations for the Public Mills employees. l

You are responsible for summarizing evaluations for employees in the divisions you support and
assigning a merit percentage value for each of these employees. Employee descriptions are contained
in your packets, as well as the merit grid materials that you need to calculate the merit percentages.

This quarter, several divisions have identified individuals who will receive a bonus incentive. As you
know, we centralized the bonus allocation process to maintain consistency within the organization. We
will provide support to these departments by completing the percentage allocation for the bonus-
targeted employees. These bonus calculation tasks are assigned to each assistant manager to
complete. One assistant manager will perform the calculations on names ending AM, the other
assistant manager will perform the calculations on names ending N-Z. All we ask that you do is
reference the bonus grids and indicate the bonus percentage amount. Be sure to use the bonus grid,
and not the merit grid, when allocating the bonuses.

 

You will perform evaluations and bonus calculations for 4 divisions.
Remember, Public Mills, Inc. encourages cooperation. Because divisions vary in size, the workloads

may be uneven at times. However, we expect that all assistant managers will value the cooperative
culture we have here at Public Mills and will work together to accomplish goals.

Terry

138

 

TASK COVER SHEET

Across the four divisions that you support, 14 employees are eligible for merit increase
this month. Thus, you need to complete 14 merit allocations.

In addition, you are asked to complete the bonus percentage calculations for four separate
divisions. You are responsible for employees whose last names begin with A to M.

Your merit allocation tasks and division bonus tasks will be provided to you in four
rounds. Each division has a separate budget review meeting with the Controller, so we
have grouped your tasks by division.

INSTRUCTIONS for MERIT TASK

For many employees, their annual pay raise is the most important feedback that they
receive from their organization. In the following exercise, you will rate employees based
on four factors — Effort, Ability, Performance, and Friendliness. You will then determine
the merit increases for each of these employees. Please evaluate each employee in the
divisions you support separately on each of the four factors. The information is
straightforward and is not intended to trick or mislead you.

Follow these steps:
1. Rate each employee on each of the four factors
2. Add the ratings together to arrive at a total rating for each employee
3. Reference the MERIT grid and match the
a) total employee rating, and the
b) current pay quartile, to arrive at the
c) merit increase percentage
4. Record your answers on the form and move on to the next employee.

INSTRUCTIONS for BONUS TASK

Several divisions have identiﬁed individuals for quarterly bonus incentives at this time. We
centralized the bonus calculation process to maintain consistency within the organization, so
you are asked to complete the bonus calculation for the employees in the divisions you
support. These bonus calculation tasks are assigned to each assistant manager to complete.
You are assigned to perform the allocations on names ending A-M. Your partner is assigned
to perform the calculation on names ending N-Z. Please reference the bonus grids and indicate
the bonus percentage amount for each employee. Be sure to use the bonus gg'd, and not the
merit grid, when allocating the bonuses.

Follow these steps:
1. Reference the BONUS grid and match the
a) total employee rating, and the
b) current pay quartile, to arrive at the
c) bonus percentage
2. Multiply the bonus percentage by 5,000
. Record your answers on the form and move on to the next employee

b)

I39

 

 

 

Memo

To: Assistant Managers
From Terry Hall, Senior Manager HR
cc: Vrce President

Ra: Resume Recommendations - —

 

The following resume was forwarded to me for review. Since this applicant is interested in an HR
position, I would like your input regarding the employability of this individual.

 

 

Please review the attached resume and provide your thoughts and feedback as requested below. Any
number of thoughts and ideas that you ean share would be helpful.

Thanks!
Terry

Do you think this applicant is qualiﬁed for the job? YES NO Why or why not?
1.

 

2.

 

 

3.

 

4.

 

1.

 

What additional information should we get to conﬁrm your recommendation?
1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

 

 

 

140

 

Jess M. Whitberg

2141 N. Aurelius Road

 

Hope, MI 48842
517/ 694.5529
CAREER OBJECTIVE
To obtain a position in human resources that utilizes my communication skills, advising experience, and
coordination training.

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT SKILLS

Assisted employees in development of career goals

Planned cultural, intellectual, & social programs for employees

Advised employees in social and career areas

Fostered intellectual, emotional, and social growth of employees through direct interaction
Scheduled community speakers to discuss druyalcohol/smoking prevention and identity
Implemented incentive based achievement program to motivate employees

ADMINISTRATIVE AND ADVISING SKILLS

Involved in planning committee for Retention Program

Coordinated advising for 15 employees

Played a major role in deciding which employees are downsized from the organization
Processed administrative transactions

Assisted in the development and implementation of training curriculum

Recruited over 75 volunteers for special project

Supervised and coordinated activities for all-night projects

Collaborated with non-proﬁt organizations and local business community

Held advisory role for employees

Coordinated registration and transportation for employee business trips

WORK EXPERIENCE
Employee Specialist, Human Resource Division - Michigan Employment Corp (Jun 98- Present)
Program Counselor, HGH Program - Michigan Employment Action (Jun 97 — Aug 97)
Intern, Young Men’s Christian Association; Haslett, MI (Jan 97 — Apr 97)
Research Scholar, McNair/ SROP Research Program - MSU (Jun 96 — Oct 96)
Minority Aide, Ofﬁce of Minority Student Affairs — MSU (Aug 94 - May 96)

EDUCATION
Michigan State University
Masters Degree Candidate, Human Resources (Expected Degree: May 2004)
Bachelor of Arts, Business (May, 1997)
GPA: 3.1/4.0

ACTIVITIES & ACHEIVENIENTS
Member - MSU Faculty and Staﬁ‘ Association 1998 - Present
Academic Excellence Certiﬁcate - Ohio State University, 1994
Intercollegiate Athletics 1991 — 1994

141

Memo

To: Assistant Managers
From: Terry Hall, Senior Manager HR
cc: Vice President

Re: Performance Review Article and Recommendations

 

I found an article in a recent publication that is directly related to standardized rating systems. As you
know, we have adopted some elements of standardized rating systems, and have the opportunity to
continue moving towards greater standardization.

I would like to get your input on this relevant issue. l'rri'looking for ideas on how to make our evaluation
process better. Please read the attached article and provide your thoughts and feedback as requested
below. Any number of thoughts and ideas that you ean share would be helpful.

Thanks!
Terry

After reading the article, what are some ways that you think we ean avoid the problems related to
standardized performance reviews?

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

2.

 

Please generate a list of new ideas to help make the evaluation process at Public Mills more efﬁcient
1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

 

 

 

142

Judgment Day: It's survival of the ﬁttest as companies tighten

the screws on employee performance reviews
Kim Clark. US. News & World Report. Washington: Jan 13, 2003. pg. 31.32

Of all the nerVe-racking, stomach-churning days of the work year, only one is scheduled in advance:
performance review day. The consolation used to be that it didn't matter much. Ifyour boss checked
"exceeds expectations," you might get a 6 percent raise. "Needs improvemen " might get you just 2 percent.
No big deal.

Grab your antacid: It's a big deal now. Companies, desperate to eke out ever more returns on their human
capital, are using computers to turn every day into rating day. And they are turning every customer,
subordinate, and peer into a rater. Most important, the companies have raised the stakes in a go-slow
economy. Increasingly, top ratings are rewarded with eye-opening goodies like 30 percent bonuses. And in
nearly two thirds of all companies, a subpar rating can mean a pink slip.

One of the biggest and most controversial trends: changing who does the ratings. The traditional method of
having only a boss rate an employee has been criticized for almost 2,000 years. A third- century Chinese
philosopher complained that one civil service evaluator "seldom rates men according to their merits but
always according to his likes and dislikes." And modern-day research conﬁrms what every employee
knows: A boss who happens to be in a bad mood gives employees harsher ratings. Studies also show that
managers' subconscious stereotypes about race, age, physical attractiveness, and other characteristics affect
their ratings. " '

In an attempt at greater fairness, companies began trying out "360 degree" appraisals in the 19905. Today,
one ﬁfth of all employers build such well-rounded appraisals with comments from customers, subordinates,
and peers as well as bosses. Michael Lieberman, vice president of marketing for Synygy, a Philadelphia-
area ﬁrm that sells rating systems to other companies, likes what Boo-degree appraisals do for his ﬁrm. At
previous employers, he noticed lots of ofﬁce politics as workers tried to ingratiate themselves with the one
or two managers who controlled their careers. "But there is very little politicking here," he says, "You had
better treat people with respect,” because anyone can submit a rating on any employee.

Companies are also changing how frequently they rate workers. The old once-a-year rating often really
only covered the previous three months, since studies have found most people tend to forget events further
back in time. But now, using computer programs similar to those that track telephone operators' minute-to-
minute performance, companies are reviewing performance of all kinds of workers much more frequently.
Health insurers and retailers are experimenting with monitoring systems that can appraise claims
processors' and salespeople's daily performance, and hand out bonuses or warnings as often as every
month. And Seagate Technology last year started requiring high-level executives and engineers to ﬁll out
computer forms reporting on their progress toward company goals each week.

Today, one third of all employers use such rankings on at least some of their staff, more than double the
l997 level. And fully two thirds of all US. companies use performance as at least one factor when deciding
whom to lay off. Dick Grote, a former GE executive who has helped dozens of companies install forced
ranking systems, says executives like them because they are the fairest and easiest way to downsize. "The
alternative is retaining people who are less competent" and promoting people who aren't stars, he says.

The lawsuits aren't slowing down the rate of change, however. Instead, employers are making more
changes to jury-proof their appraisals by backing up ratings with evidence and objective data. "The use of
data really helps avoid litigation," says Linda Martin, a Seattle-based appraisal expert for Towers, Perrin.
She says clients are increasingly asking for help "calibrating" ratings across departments so that employees
who might be rated A in one department aren't given C's in another. These kinds of changes not only
prevent lawsuits but also make appraisals fairer and more accurate, she says. Nobody likes litigation, of
course. But the result, in this case, could be a little more fairness and a little less stress in the workplace.
More companies are following GE in ranking employees, rewarding the best while forcing the lowest to
improve or leave.

143

 

 

 

SURVEY 1
Please complete the following:

Gender (Circle One): M F
Age:

Work Experience (In Years):

In the following section, please read the statements provided and respond by circling the number

which best describes your thoughts.

 

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Slightly
Disagree

Neutral

Slightly
Agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

 

1. I prefer highly 1
challenging work
that taxes my
skills and
abilities

3

5

7

 

2. l have a high 1
tolerance for
mentally
demandig work

 

3. I prefer work 1
that gives a great
amount of
feedback as to
how I am doing

 

4. I prefer work 1
that regularly
requires the
learning of new
skills

 

5. I prefer work 1
that requires me
to develop my
own methods,
procedures,
goals, and
schedules

 

6. I prefer work 1
that has a great
amount of
variety in duties
and
regonsibilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

144

 

 

Survey 1 (Cont’d)

 

1.

In general, when
someone hurts
my feelings I
tend to get over
it quickly

Strongly
Disagree
1

Disagree

Slightly
Disagree
3

Neutral

Slightly
Agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

 

2.

In general, if
someone wrongs
me, I often think
about it a lot
afterward

 

3.

4.

I have a
tendency to
harbor d es

 

When people let
me down, my
typical approach
is just to forgive
and forgg

 

I can pretty
much determine
what will happen
in my life.

 

When I get what
I want, it's
usually because I
worked hard for
it.

 

 

 

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Slightly
Disagree

Neutral

Slightly
Agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

 

—
o

I have a high
tolerance for
routine work

 

I prefer to work
on one task at a
time

 

S”

I have a high
tolerance for
repetitive work

 

 

P

I prefer work
that is easy to
learn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

 

 

 

SURVEY 2A

During the completion of your tasks as an assistant manager, you received a WARNING regarding the
failure to complete a set of tasks as assigned. Please think about this incident and read the statements
provided and respond by circling the number which best describes your thoughts.

1. Who do you think was responsible for the I was responsible ' My partner was
warning that you received? (Circle One) responsrble

 

Not at all Slightly Moderately Satisfactoril)’ Extremely
Met Met Met Met Well Met
1 2 3 4 S

 

1. To what extent have your
expectations been met 1 2 3 4 5
regarding what you thought you
would get ﬁ'om your partner?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Have your expectations of what 1 2 3 4 5
you thought your partner would
do been met?

Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1. My partner did 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not do what
he/she told me
he/she would do.

2. My partner did 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
what he/she told
me he/she would
do, but did it
incorrectly.

1. How would you rate the Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
seriousness of your partner’s Serious Serious Serious Serious Serious
actions? 1 . 2 3 4 5

2. How damaging were your Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
partner’s actions to you? Damaging Damaging Damaging Damaging Damaging

l 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1. I think my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
partner avoided
my tasks
intentionally

2. From my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
perspective, my
partner
purposefully
misled me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

Survey 2A (Cont’d)

 

3.

My partner broke
our agreement on

P11312059

 

In my opinion,
the incomplete
tasks are my

partner’s fault

 

 

My partner must
have
misunderstood
the details of our
obligations

 

I think my
partner was not
clear regarding
the task to be
completed

 

In my opinion,
my partner broke
our agreement
accidentally

 

 

I think my
partner intended
to complete my
tasks

 

 

 

 

147

 

 

 

 

 

 

SURVEY 213

You received a WARNING during the course of working with a partner to complete your tasks.
Imagine you were to work with this person in the future. Answer the following questions

based on if you were to work with this person in the future.

 

If I were to work with
this person in the

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Slightly
Disagree

Neutral

Slightly
Agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

 

ﬁtture...
l .

I feel like making
my partner pay for
what he/she did

I

3

5

7

 

I wish something
negative would
happen to
him/her.

 

I want my partner
to get what he/she
deserves.

 

4.

I have a desire to
get even.

 

5.

I want to see my
partner
disciplined.

 

 

I intend to keep as
much distance
between us as
possible.

 

I intend to work
as if my partner is
not around.

 

I don’t trust my
partner

 

I would ﬁnd it
diﬂicult to act
warmly toward
my partner

 

I'intend to avoid
my partner

 

I intend to cutoff
the relationship
with my partner

 

I intended to
withdraw from
my partner.

 

 

 

Even though
his/her actions
offended me, I
have goodwill for
my partner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

148

 

Survey 2B (Cont’d)

 

2. Despite what my
partner did, I want
us to have a
positive
relationshi a ain

 

3. I want us to bury
the hatchet and
move forward with
our professional

relationship

 

4. Despite the my
partner’s actions, I
intend to give up

my resentment

 

5. I want to put the
incident aside so
we can resume our

relationship

 

6. I forgive my
parhrer for what

they have done

 

7. I resolve my anger
so I can work on
restoring the

relationship with
m artner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think about your role
as an assistant manager
and provide responses

to the following

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Slightly
Disagree

Neutral

Slightly
Agree

Agree

Strong
Agree

 

l. I make good
decisions and solve

problems well

 

2. I provide other
people with the
help or advice they
need to do their
work

 

3. I provide other
people with
materials, tools, or
supplies which
they need to do
their work.

 

4. I provide other
people with
information they
need to do their
work.

 

5. I provide support

services which
other people need
to do their work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

 

SURVEY 3

During the experiment, your partner may have passed you a note after you completed
his/her Division 1 bonus allocations. Think speciﬁcally about the note directed to you

after you helped them on Division 1. Please think about that note and answer the

following questions.

 

From your
perspective, to what
extent do you agree
that your partner

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Slightly
Disagree

Neutral

Slightly
Agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

 

1. Made me feel that
I helped in a
unique way

 

2. Told me they
think highly of me

 

3. Communicated
that they admired
qualities about me

 

4. Complimented me
on my behavior

 

 

Did a favor for me

N

t).

O’\

\l

 

Nu—

Went our of their
way to help me

 

3. Volunteered to
help me in matters
outside of their
primary
responsibilities

 

4. Did extra work to
help me with my
work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During the experiment, your partner may. have passed you a note following the negative
feedback that you received ﬁom your supervisor. Think speciﬁcally about the note
directed to you after you received negative feedback. Please think about that note and

answer the following questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. My partner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
apologized for the
problem
2. My partner was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sorry for the
breach
3. My partner
offered to make 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
something up to
me

 

150

 

 

Survey 3 (Cont’d)

 

4.

My partner felt
bad for the
offense

 

My partner asked
for my
Miveness

 

 

My partner gave
me a reason for
breaking their
commitment

 

My partner
claimed that the
offense occurred
because of
uncontrollable
events

 

My partner
provided an
excuse

 

 

My partner
claimed that the
offense occurred
due to extenuating
circumstances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree

Disserg

Slightly

Neutral Slightly Agree

Aee

Strongly
Agree

 

I think my
partner’s account
of what happened
was honest

I

2

Disagree
3

4

S

6

7

 

 

I believe my
partner’s
explanation of
what happened
was sincere

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

 

 

TASK DISTRIBUTION GRID

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of Merit No. of Bonus No. of Tasks M No. of Tasks Lg
Tasks Task Confederate Confederate
Round #1 — Marketing 3 10 8" -
Round #2 - Sales 4 - - ' 14"
Round #3 — R&D 4 10"“ - -
Round #4 - Engineering 3 10 30 -

 

 

 

 

* At the start of Round 1, the confederate sends a note for help and the Bonus Task sheet for employees
N-Z to the participant.

** In exchange for helping in Round 1, the participant forwards their Bonus Task sheet for employees A-

M to the confederate. This formalizes the psychological contract.

*" The participant does not receive a Bonus Task sheet for employees A-M in the favor condition

 

 

REFERENCES

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
San Francisco: Sage Publications.

Allison, S. T., & Herlocker, C. E. (1994). Constructing impression in demographically

diverse organizational settings: A group categorization analysis. American Behavioral
Scientist, 3 7, 637-652.

Arkin, R (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression
management and social psychological research (pp. 31 1-333). New York: Academic
Press.

Arkin, R., & Sheppard, B. H. (1989). Self-presentation styles in organizations. In R. A.
Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds), Impression management in the organization (pp. 125-
139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baron, R. A. (1988). Attributions and organizational conﬂict: The mediating role of

apparent sincerity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 111-
127.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in
Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1 173-1182.

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

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer.
Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt. an interpersonal
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243-267.

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies. Albany, N.Y.: State University
of New York Press.

Betancourt, H., & Blair, 1. (1992). A cognition (attribution)-emotion model of violence in
conﬂict situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 343 -350.

Bies, R. J ., & Shapiro, D. I. (1993). lnteractional fairness judgements: the inﬂuence of
causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.

153

Bies, R. J ., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing
organizational conﬂict: Is it enough to say it's not my fault. Communication Research,
15(4), 381-399.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bradﬁeld, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender
likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25(5),
607-631.

Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring Individual Differences in the Tendency to Forgive:
Construct Validity and Links with Depression. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29(6), 759-771.

Cappelli, P. (1999). The New Deal at work: Managing the market driven workforce.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Cavanaugh, M., & Noe, R. (1999). Antecedents and consequencesof relational

components of the new psychological contractJJournal of Organizational Behavior,
20(3), 323-340.

Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Inﬂuence: the psychology of persuasion. New York: William
Morrow and Company, Inc.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. (2002). The organization '5' perspective on the employment exchange.
Paper presented at the Employment Relationship workshop, Houston, TX.

Crant, J. M. (1996). Doing more harm than good: When is impression management likely
to evoke a negative response? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), 1454-1471.

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1993). Assignment of credit and blame for performance
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 7-27.

Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children's reactions to apologies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 742-753. 1

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-
126.

Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to
ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal,
37,1379-1391.

Ellard, K. (1999). An Equity theory analysis of the impact of forgiveness and retribution
on transgressor compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 864-872.

154

F elson, R. B., & Ribner, S. A. (1981). An attributional approach to accounts and
sanctions for criminal violence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(2), 137-142.

Geen, R G., Beatty, W. W., & Arkin, R. (1984). Human Motivation: Physiological,
behavioral, and social approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1984). The effect of perceived planning and propriety
on the effectiveness of leadership accounts. Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 217-
224.

Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1986). Self-presentation and self-promotion in an
organizational setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 321-326.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25,
165-167.

Greenwell, J ., & Dengerink, H. A. (1973). The role of perceived versus actual attack in
human physical aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(1), 66-71.

Guest, D. (1998). Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 649-664.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-
112.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in ﬁrms,
organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hogan, R. (1973). Moral conduct and character. Psychological Bulletin, 79(4), 217-232.

Holtgraves. (1989). The function and form of remedial moves. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 8.

Huseman, R., Hatﬁeld, J ., & Miles, E. (1987). A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The
equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222-234.

Ilgerr, D. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. The American
Psychologist, 54(2), 129-139.

Itoi, T., Ohbuchi, K., & Fukuno, M. (1996). A cross-sultural study of preference of

accounts: Relationship closeness, harm severity, and motive of acccount making. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 26(10), 913-934.

155

 

Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.

Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J ., & Jones, R. (1963). Tactics of ingratiation among leaders and
subordinates in a status hierarchy. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied,
77(3).

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of self-presentation. In J.
Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (V 01. 1, pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kelley, H., & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 31, 457-501.

Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for
measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76(5), 619-627.

Larwood, L., Wright, t., Desrochers, S., & Dahir, V. (1998). Etending latent role and
psychological contract theories to predict intent to turnover and politics in business
organizations. Group and Organizational Management, 23(2), 100-123.

Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not seeing eye
to eye: Differences in superviosr and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for
psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 39-56.

Martin, G., Staines, H., & Pate, J. (1998). Linking job security and career development in
a new psychological contract. Human Resource Management Journal, 8(3), 20-40.

Martinko, M. J. (1995). Attribution theory: An organizational perspective. Delray Beach,
Florida: St. Lucie Press.

Maselli, M. D., & Altrocchi, J. (1969). Attribution of Intent. Psychological Bulletin,
71(6), 445-454.

McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, Forbearance, and
Time: The termporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 540-557.

McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression-Related motivational
dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1 1), 1556-1573.

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of
forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough & K. I.

156

Pargament & C. E. Thoresen (Eds), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1-
14). New York: Guilford Press.

McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J ., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., &
Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships II: Theoretical

elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6),
1 5 86- 1 603.

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving
in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321-336.

McLean Parks, J ., Kidder, D., & Gallagher, D. (1998). Fitting square pegs into round
holes: mapping the domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological
contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 697-730.

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.

Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as agression control: It's role in
mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(2), 219-227.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Ortany, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The Cognitive structure of emotions.
Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ossorio, P. G., & Davis, K. E. (1968). The self, intentionality, and reactions to
evaluations. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds), Self in society. New York: Wiley.

Porter, L., Pearce, J. L., Tripoli, A., & Lewis, K. (1998). Differential perceptions of
employers' inducements: Implications for psychological contracts. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 769-782.

Ralston, D. A., & Elsass, P. M. (1989). Ingratiation and impression management in the
organization. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds), Impression management in the
organization (pp. 235-249). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574-599.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the

psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 3 7, 137-
152.

157

 

2i

 

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological Contracts and OCB - the
Effect of Unfulﬁlled Obligations on Civic Virtue Behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16(3), 289-298.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract
breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 , 525-
546.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the Psychological Contract - Not
the Exception but the Norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259.

Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995a). Impression Management. In
N. Nicholson (Ed.), Blackwell Dictionary of organizational behavior. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers.

Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995b). Impression management in
organizations: theory, measurement, practice. New York: Routledge.

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

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

Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and
organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational
behavior (V 01. 15, pp. 1-43).

Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues,
alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1 9, 679-695.

Saavedra, R., Earley, P., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence 1n task-
perforrning groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61-72.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and
interpersonal relations. Monterey, Calif: Brooks/ Cole.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identiﬁcation. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self
and social life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social'predicaments.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 271-278.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression
regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43 , 133-168.

158

Schoenbach, P. (1990). Account episodes: The management of escalation of conﬂict.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology
of helping and altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shapiro, D. 1., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance
their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58,
346-368.

Shapiro, D. L. (1991). The effects of explanations on negative reactions to deceit.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 614-630.

Shenon, P., & Lichtblau, E. (2004, April 15, 2004). Threats and Responses: The
Overview; Sept. 11 Panel Cites C.I.A. For Failures in Terror Case. New York Times, pp.
A - 1.

Shepperd, J. A., & Arkin, R. (1990). Shyness and self-presentation. In W. R. Crozier
(Ed.), Shyness and Embarrassment (pp. 286-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Shore, L., & 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.

Sims, R. (1994). Human resource management's role in clarifying the new psychological
contract. Human Resource Management, 33(3), 373-382.

Skarlicki, D., & F olger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.

Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses: Masquerades in search of
grace. New York: Wiley.

Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal
forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. Journal of
Social Psychology, 141(4), 494-508.

Takaku, S., Weiner, B., & Ohbuchi, K. (2001). A cross-cultural examination of the
effects of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 20(1), 144-166.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and inﬂuence in the
organization. Research in Sociology of Organizations, 3, 31-58.

159

Thomas, K. W., & Pondy, L. R. (1977). Toward an "Intent" model of conﬂict
management among principal parties. Human Relations, 3 0(12), 1089-1102.

Thomas, L. (2004, April 15, 2004). Suit Against Grasso Is Said to Be Near. New York
Times, pp. C-l.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of
psychological contract ﬁilﬁllment on the performance of in-role and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187-206.

Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999a). A discrepancy model of psychological
contract violations. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 367-3 86.

Turnley, W. H., & F eldman, D. C. (1999b). The impact of psychological contract
violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52(7), 895-922.

Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent
workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 692-703.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-Role behaviors: In
pursuit of construct and deﬁnitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (V 01. 17, pp. 215-
285)

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:
construct redeﬁnition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,
37(4), 765-802.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence
of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119.

Wall, V. D., & Nolan, L. L. (1986). Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conﬂict in
task-oriented groups. Human Relations, 39, 1033-1052.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Weiner. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.

Weiner, B. (1980a). A Cognitive (Attribution) - Emotion - Action model of motivated

behavior: An analysis of judgements of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(2), 186-200.

160

Weiner, B. (1980b). May I borrow your class notes? An Attributional analysis of
judgements of help giving in an achievement-related context. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72(5), 676-681. '

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributinoal theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgements of responsibility. New York: The Guilford Press.

Weiner, B., Arrrirkhan, J ., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis
of excuse giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 316-324.

Weiner, B., Figueroa-Munoz, A., & Kakihara, C. (1991). The goals of excuses and
communication strategies related to causal perceptions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 1 7, 4-13.

Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, 0., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and
forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 281-312.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical
discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In
L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 18).

Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask 'why' and the heuristics of
attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650—663.

Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1981). Manager behavior in a social context: The impact

of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 356-378.

161

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

111111111111I‘lllzlllllllllllllilljllll