Responses to broken promises: Does personality matter?

Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293 www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Responses to broken promises: Does personality matter? Violet T. Ho,a,* Laurie R. Weingart,b and Denise M. Rousseauc a

b

Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA c Heinz School of Public Policy and Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Received 18 June 2003 Available online 14 November 2003

Abstract This paper examined the effects of personality traits on individualsÕ reactions to broken promises. We studied the effects of Neuroticism and Agreeableness on emotive and cognitive responses to breach and investigated whether these effects varied across different types (economic vs. social) and severity (high vs. low) of breach. We collected data from a scenariobased experiment with 119 undergraduate participants. Neuroticism was found to influence emotive and cognitive responses, whereas Agreeableness influenced emotive responses. Agreeableness also interacted with the type and severity of breach to differentially predict individualsÕ responses to breach. Ó 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Promises; Psychological contracts; Breach; Personality

1. Introduction The psychological contract is defined as individual beliefs regarding the terms of the exchange agreement between individuals and their organization (Rousseau, *

Corresponding author. Fax: +65-6792-4217. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V.T. Ho), [email protected] (L.R. Weingart), [email protected] (D.M. Rousseau). 0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.08.001

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

277

1995), and the fundamental notion underlying the psychological contract is the element of promise, given that a psychological contract is formed when a contracting party perceives that the other has made a promise to do (or not to do) something. Psychological contract breach, in turn, occurs when promises are broken, specifically when one party to the contract fails to meet his or her obligations to the other (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). A key feature of the psychological contract is its subjective nature (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998), arising from the fact that the psychological contract consists of the individualÕs own beliefs of what the promises involve. This implies that individual perceptions play an important role in determining what the psychological contract is, whether the contract has been breached, and how the individual will respond to a perceived breach. In other words, psychological contract and breach are individual-specific constructs that are influenced by individual characteristics and differences, generally represented by oneÕs personality traits. This study examined the effects of personality on individualsÕ responses to breach. The role of personality in shaping breach responses seems obvious. The psychological contract has been conceptualized as arising from unconscious thought processes, something that ‘‘the parties to the relationship may not themselves be even dimly aware’’ (Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl, & Solley, 1962, p. 21). Given that psychological contract-related perceptions are more a function of automatic rather than deliberate mental processing, this suggests that personality traits, being intrinsic and elemental in nature, play a part in shaping such perceptions. In fact, prior research has acknowledged the role of individual traits on psychological contract perceptions and breach. For example, Rousseau (1995) examined the role of selfcontrol, whereas Morrison and Robinson (1997) explored the functions of selfesteem and equity-sensitivity in the violation process. Nonetheless, research has been mainly in the form of theoretical propositions, with a dearth of empirical studies examining how individual characteristics affect individualsÕ perceptions of and reactions to breach. The present research contributes to extant psychological contract literature by addressing two research questions: (1) what are the effects of personality traits on individualsÕ responses to breach? and (2) will such effects vary across different types of breach situation?

2. Conceptual background and hypotheses Responses to broken promises or breach can take many forms, such as anger toward the other party, decreased trust in that person (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), and decreased interactions with him or her. Responses to breach can be grouped into three general categories: emotive, cognitive, and behavioral. The present research focused on the psychological (i.e., cognitive and emotive) rather than behavioral responses because these are the more proximate reactions to breach. Emotive responses refer to the feelings that arise due to the breach, and could include responses such as distress or hostility. Cognitive responses refer to attitudes and perceptions resulting from the breach, and incorporate responses such as decreased liking for the other party and intentions to change future actions. In this study, we

278

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

examine cognitive responses that deal specifically with the other party who broke the promise. The rich body of personality research sheds light on how personality traits might influence individualsÕ emotive and cognitive responses to breach. Researchers have largely reached consensus on a five-factor model of the basic underlying dimensions of personality. Called the Big Five (Goldberg, 1981), the five-factor approach has proven robust across a variety of situations, cultures, and age groups (McCrae & Costa, 1986a, 1987). The set of Big Five traits consists of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Two of these traits, Neuroticism and Agreeableness, are expected to influence responses to breach. Neuroticism captures the extent to which an individual is vulnerable to stress (Costa & Widiger, 1994), which is important in that the occurrence of a breach can be perceived as a stress-inducing event. Moreover, Neuroticism measures the degree to which one is self-conscious and prone to social anxiety (Costa & Widiger, 1994), a facet that is crucial in helping to distinguish whether an economic or social breach will have a greater impact on an individual. Agreeableness captures the interpersonal dimension of personality, and refers to an individualÕs preference for interpersonal interactions, which can range from compassion to antagonism (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Given that the psychological contract is an agreement made between two parties, there is also an inherent interpersonal element to it, and conceivably, Agreeableness may play a part in determining how an individual reacts to a breach committed by another. In addition, Agreeableness embodies the value that one places on interpersonal relations and social exchanges, and may indicate whether some individuals are more likely to be affected by social breach than economic breach. As for the remaining three traits, despite their general usefulness in predicting varied attitudes and behaviors, there is either a lack of theoretical and empirical evidence to link them to emotive and cognitive breach responses, or a lack of conceptual basis to suggest that they might have differential effects on individualsÕ responses to the two types of breach. For example, Conscientiousness is defined in terms of goal-directed behavior (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and thus deals not so much with emotions or cognition, but primarily with behavior. Likewise, Openness to Experience deals with oneÕs appreciation and pursuit of new activities, ideas, and interests, and is not particularly informative with regard to oneÕs responses to broken promises. Finally, although Extraversion, like Agreeableness, deals with interpersonal aspects of oneÕs personality (Costa & Widiger, 1994), it focuses on oneÕs sociability and liking for others (and not so much on being liked by others or forgiving them), and there is no strong basis to expect oneÕs liking for others to be different between social and economic types of breach. Nonetheless, we include these three traits in the study in order to ascertain that they indeed have no effect on breach responses. 2.1. Neuroticism Neuroticism is described as a chronic level of emotional maladjustment and instability, and individuals who are high in Neuroticism are more prone to psychological

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

279

distress, more anxious, and more likely to experience anger (Costa & McCrae, 1992). People who score high in this scale tend to focus more on threatening or negative stimuli (Rogers & Revelle, 1998), and such selective attention to negative information is in turn attributed to the anxiety facet (MacLeod & Mathews, 1988). In other words, anxious individuals have a greater tendency to pay attention to negative aspects of a situation, thereby experiencing stronger reactions and greater sensitivity to negative events (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Gross, Sutton, & Ketelaar, 1998; Suls, Martin, & David, 1998). This is consistent with EysenckÕs (1967) definition of Neuroticism, whereby the trait is considered a dimension of emotional responsiveness. Extending the above findings to the current study, we expect that people who are high in Neuroticism will not only focus on the more negative aspects of a broken promise, but will also be more strongly and negatively affected by these events. H1a. Higher levels of Neuroticism relate to stronger negative emotive responses to broken promises. With regard to cognitive responses toward the other party, personality research has demonstrated that people who score high in Neuroticism are more dependent on others. Langston and Sykes (1997), adopting a cognitive approach, found that Neuroticism related positively to the belief that one needs help and is dependent on others for assistance and support. At the same time, people high in Neuroticism also tend to engage in more self-blame and are more accepting of personal responsibility when coping with stressful situations (McCrae & Costa, 1986b; OÕBrien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Considering that psychological contract breach is a potentially stress-inducing event, we expect that people who are high in Neuroticism will respond to breach by assuming responsibility and blame for the breach. Consequently, they are more likely to internalize the cause of breach to themselves and attribute less blame and negative attitudes to the other party, while continuing to perceive themselves as being dependent on the other party. H1b. Higher levels of Neuroticism relate to less negative cognitive responses to the other party. One major issue that has received considerable debate over the years is whether situational factors have a greater effect on individuals and their behavior, or whether dispositional tendencies inherent in people are more dominant. While some studies have documented the role of situational forces on attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; Mischel, 1968), others have found support for the situational argument (e.g., George, 1992; House, Shane, & Herold, 1996; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986). Subsequent developments in research, however, have integrated both arguments and adopted an interactionist perspective, acknowledging that the issue is not so much whether situational or dispositional factors have a greater influence on individuals; rather, the focus is on understanding how both individual and situational forces can interact to predict attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Monson, Hesley, & Chernick, 1982). In the

280

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

current context, this perspective suggests that in addition to examining the effects of personality on breach responses, we should also examine the moderating role of situational factors. One situational factor that is particularly relevant to the concept of psychological contracts relates to the nature of promise and the type of breach. Psychological contracts have been typically classified into two categories: transactional and relational (e.g., MacNeil, 1985; Rousseau, 1995; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). Transactional contracts are typified as focusing on the short-term, monetizable aspects of an exchange, whereas relational contracts emphasize more of the open-ended, emotional aspects. In turn, when these respective psychological contracts are breached, the ensuing breach will take one of the two forms: Economic or Social. In an economic breach, the individual suffers an economic or monetary loss as a result of the breach or broken promise. In a social breach, the individual experiences social embarrassment or suffers a loss of face or reputation consequent to the broken promise. Whether a breach is economic or social will affect the strength of the relationship between personality traits and breach responses. One facet of Neuroticism is self-consciousness, which encompasses feelings of shame and embarrassment. People who are high on this facet tend to be sensitive to ridicule and prone to feelings of inferiority, and are more susceptible to social anxiety and easily disturbed by awkward social situations (Costa & Widiger, 1994). Given that social breach specifically exposes one to such uncomfortable social circumstances, it is likely that individuals who are high in Neuroticism will be more distraught by such a breach than by an economic one. Thus, they are likely to respond more negatively to a social rather than an economic breach, because the former entails social embarrassment to which neurotic individuals are particularly sensitive. H2a. The positive relation between Neuroticism and negative emotive responses is stronger for a social breach than for an economic breach. H2b. The positive relation between Neuroticism and cognitive responses is weaker for a social breach than for an economic breach. 2.2. Agreeableness Agreeableness refers to an individualÕs preference for interpersonal interactions and consists of six facets of straightforwardness, trust in others, altruism, compliance to others, modesty, and tendermindedness (i.e., sympathy and concern for others) (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). Agreeable people value their interpersonal relationships and are characterized as being more motivated to maintain positive relations with others. Also, they experience less angry hostility and negative affect (Watson & Clark, 1992), as corroborated by Graziano and colleagues, who found that people who are high in Agreeableness are better at emotional self-regulation, including the regulation of anger and other negative emotions (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). Taken together, these findings suggest that in the event of a psychological

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

281

contract breach, agreeable people will not experience as strong a negative emotive response as will less agreeable people. H3a. Higher levels of Agreeableness relate to weaker negative emotive responses to broken promises. One facet of Agreeableness is trust, and research demonstrates that people who are agreeable tend to be more trusting of others, displaying a greater willingness to think of others as being honest and well-intentioned (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This tendency to perceive others along more positive dimensions is consistent with the finding that people are inclined to shape their perceptions of others to suit their disposition (Suls et al., 1998). Specifically, research adopting the person-environment fit perspective propagated by Lewin (1935) demonstrates that people actively create or construct perceptions of others so that these perceptions are congruent with their own characteristics, and agreeable people will ‘‘generate positive perceptions and attributions to otherwise-provocative behavior’’ (Graziano et al., 1996, p. 821). Thus, in order to maintain congruence between their agreeable nature and their perceptions of others, people who are high in Agreeableness are more likely to develop less negative perceptions of the other party. H3b. Higher levels of Agreeableness relate to less negative cognitive responses to the other party. As with Neuroticism, the effects of Agreeableness on breach responses are also expected to vary depending on the type of breach that occurs. People who are more agreeable place greater importance on relationships and the social aspects of any exchange, such that they believe that it is important to be liked (Langston & Sykes, 1997). Thus, agreeable people are more averse to situations in which their relationships with others are jeopardized, such as when others view them in a negative light or even terminate the relationship with them. Such situations are likely to arise in the instance of a social breach, an event that involves social embarrassment and potentially causes others to view an individual more negatively or even decrease their liking for that individual. Hence, given that a social breach is more likely to jeopardize oneÕs relationship with others than an economic breach, we expect that agreeable people will be less tolerant and react more strongly when the broken promise is of a social nature. H4a. The negative relation between Agreeableness and negative emotive responses is weaker for a social breach than for an economic breach. H4b. The positive relation between Agreeableness and cognitive responses is weaker for a social breach than for an economic breach. Finally, we include the level of severity of breach as a boundary condition in this study. Prior research has found that personality traits are better at predicting

282

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

attitudes and behaviors in weak situations than in strong ones. Weak situations are characterized by low and ambiguous situational cues that do not provide sufficient structure to guide individualsÕ attitudes and behavior (e.g., losing one dollar to a soda machine), whereas strong situations are those that contain salient and strong cues to guide action (e.g., losing $10,000 to a con artist) (Mischel, 1977; Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1973). Because of the strength of situational cues in the latter, the cause of behavior shifts ‘‘from a dispositional locus to a situational one’’ (Snyder & Ickes, 1985, p. 904), and hence personality traits do not predict attitudes and behavior as well in strong situations as in weak situations. Consequently, we expect that the effects of personality on breach responses will vary depending on the whether the breach is low in severity (i.e., weak situation) or high (i.e., strong situation), and we include this boundary condition to take into consideration this possibility.

3. Method We conducted a scenario-based experiment to test the above hypotheses. The scenario method is ideal for examining subjective reactions to events and procedures (Lind & Tyler, 1988). The use of scenarios also avoids any potential ethical problems associated with manipulating the actual experience of broken promises (Greenberg & Folger, 1988). Finally, the use of scenarios provides better control of critical information necessary to introduce breach. 3.1. Participants, procedures, and manipulation Participants comprised 161 undergraduate students enrolled in either a required Marketing or Organizational Behavior course. Participation was voluntary and the students earned one course credit when they attended the experiment. The average age of the participants was 20.4 years, and 36% were female. Four weeks before the experiment, we distributed personality questionnaires to the students in their respective classes. Students were required to return the completed questionnaires 3 weeks before the experiment, so as to reduce any priming effects that may occur if they had completed it immediately before the experiment itself. In addition, students were not aware that the personality questionnaires related to the current experiment, but instead, were informed that completing the questionnaires was part of the requirement for signing up for the subject pool. A total of 149 usable questionnaires were returned (93% response rate); of these respondents, 119 attended the experimental session (80%). During the experiment, participants read four scenarios that manipulated perceptions of broken promises along two dimensions: the type of broken promise (Economic vs. Social) and the severity of broken promise (High vs. Low); this resulted in a 2
2 design. To create a sense of mundane realism in the participants, scenarios were developed in the context of the participant working as a Research Assistant for a Ph.D. student (the employer), who broke his promise to the participant. The

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

283

category of Economic breach dealt with the employer breaking his promise to pay the participant $10 (low breach) or $100 (high breach) for the Research Assistantship. For Social breach, the employer was described as breaking his promise of not disclosing the participantÕs performance errors to other people, and revealed the participantÕs mistakes to one (low breach) or five (high breach) of the participantÕs friends. For consistency, the employer was always male across the scenarios. We pilot-tested the four scenarios to check for the effectiveness of the manipulations, as well as for clarity and realism, and made minor changes based on the tests. We presented the final scenarios to the participants in random order, so as to reduce any ordering effects that could occur. After reading each scenario, participants responded to a series of questions measuring their responses, and on completion of all four scenarios, they were debriefed and given a candy bar before being dismissed. 3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Personality traits To measure the participantsÕ Big Five personality traits, we used the NEO-FFI, which consists of 12-item scales for each of the five personality dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This instrument is popular given its shorter length, and has been widely used and validated in personality research (e.g., Caldwell & Burger, 1997; Morrison, 1997; Sadowski & Cogburn, 1997). Participants responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), and CronbachÕs a for the five personality traits are as follows: Neuroticism a ¼ 0:77; Extraversion a ¼ 0:74; Openness to Experience a ¼ 0:70; Agreeableness a ¼ 0:76; Conscientiousness a ¼ 0:82. 3.2.2. Emotive responses to broken promises The most pertinent negative emotive responses to breach entail those of anger, distress and frustration. The relevant items are derived from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scales developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988). We chose the four descriptors that fall into the content categories of Distress and Anger, and participants indicated, on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely), the extent to which they felt (1) distressed; (2) upset; (3) hostile; and (4) irritable. In addition, we supplemented these descriptors with five items that relate specifically to frustration and disappointment emotions. Participants used the same 5-point scale to indicate the extent to which they felt (1) frustrated; (2) angry; (3) agitated; (4) resentful; and (5) bitter. CronbachÕs a was 0.94. 3.2.3. Cognitive responses to broken promises We focused on cognitive responses relating to participantsÕ perceptions of the other party who broke the promise. We used two variables to measure these perceptions, namely the participantsÕ level of trust in the other party, and the attributions they made toward the other party. To measure trust, we adopted six items used by Robinson and Rousseau (1994), which capture the different bases of trust identified by Gabarro and Athos (1976). The six items, rated on a 5-point scale from 1

284

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), consist of (1) I am not sure I fully trust (the other party) (reverse-scored); (2) (The other party) is open and upfront with me; (3) I believe (the other party) has high integrity; (4) In general, I believe (the other partyÕs) motives and intentions are good; (5) (The other party) is not always honest and truthful (reverse-scored); and (6) I donÕt think (the other party) treats me fairly (reverse-scored). The other partyÕs name used in each scenario was inserted in the parentheses. A high score on this variable represents a high level of trust; CronbachÕs a was 0.80. To measure the attributions that participants made toward the other party, we used the following two items: (1) The fact that. . . I was not paid (for Economic breach)/my friend(s) knew about my mistake (for Social breach). . . was caused by (the other party); and (2) I think (the other party) deliberately. . . withheld the pay from me (for Economic breach)/told my friend(s) about my mistake (for Social breach). These two items, respectively, captured participantsÕ perceptions about the causality and intentionality of the breach, two characteristics underlying attributions (Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, & Verette, 1987). Participants indicated their perceptions on a similar 5-point scale as above, such that the higher the score, the more negative the attributions. The correlation coefficient of the two items was .60. 3.2.4. Manipulation checks The scenarios were designed to manipulate the participantsÕ perceptions of broken promises, and we included two manipulation checks for each scenario. The first question asked whether the other party broke his promise to the participant (Yes/No) and the second question measured the severity of the broken promise on a 5-point scale, ranging from ‘‘very slight or not at all’’ to ‘‘extremely severe.’’ 3.2.5. Control variables Demographic variables of the participants were measured, namely their gender, age, national origin, and length of stay in the United States, and whether they had worked as a Research Assistant.

4. Results 4.1. Manipulation checks For the first manipulation check, at least 95% of the participants accurately perceived that the other party broke his promise. To test whether they perceived a difference in the type and severity of the breach, we conducted a 2 (type of broken promise)
2 (severity of broken promise) repeated measures factorial analysis. Results revealed that participants perceived a high level of breach (M ¼ 4:28, SD ¼ 0:05) to be more severe than a low level of breach (M ¼ 3:48, SD ¼ 0:07), F ¼ 212:68, p < :01, indicating that the manipulation was effective. Also, Economic breach (M ¼ 4:08, SD ¼ :07) was perceived to be more severe than Social breach (M ¼ 3:68, SD ¼ :07), F ¼ 25:58, p < :01.

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

285

4.2. Analyses After screening the data for outliers (of which there were none), we analyzed the data using a general linear model (GLM) repeated-measures procedure. The two manipulations (Type of broken promise and Severity of broken promise) were treated as within-subjects factors, and the control variables and personality traits as covariates. The interactions of each of the personality traits with the two manipulations were also tested. These analyses tested for the variance accounted for by within-subjects effects (resulting from the two breach factors) and between-subjects effects (resulting from the control variables and personality traits). As this study focused on the effects of personality, we were also interested in estimating the effect sizes of each of the personality traits on the relevant dependent variables. However, the GLM repeated-measures procedure described above does not provide estimates of the effect sizes of covariates. Consequently, prior to using the GLM procedure, we conducted regression analyses to arrive at the effect sizes of personality traits (and control variables) on the relevant dependent variables. For this set of regression analyses, we followed the procedures recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983, p. 438) to estimate the effect sizes. Specifically, we averaged each participantÕs scores on the relevant dependent variable across the four scenarios, and regressed this mean score on the control variables first. Those variables that were significant were retained in subsequent analyses. We then included the personality variables as independent variables in the regression analysis to arrive at the effect sizes. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations of the control variables, personality traits and averaged dependent variables. 4.3. Emotive responses to broken promises As seen in Table 2, between-subjects analyses revealed that Neuroticism related positively with Negative Emotions (t ¼ 2:31, p < :05), providing support for H1a. That is, people higher in Neuroticism reported stronger negative emotive responses to broken promises. Agreeableness had a significant negative relation with Negative Emotions (t ¼ 3:05, p < :01), consistent with H3a. We also conducted within-subjects analyses to test the interaction effects proposed in H2a and H4a (Table 3). As hypothesized in H2a, the effect of Neuroticism on Negative Emotions was stronger for social breach than economic breach, although this interaction effect was marginally significant (F ¼ 3:13, p ¼ :08). We did not find support for H4a on the interaction effects between Agreeableness and type of breach. Overall, for the Negative Emotions outcome, we found support for H1a and H3a, and marginal support for H2a. 4.4. Cognitive responses toward the other party To measure respondentsÕ attitudes toward the other party who broke the promise, we used the variables of Trust and Attribution to Other. For the variable of Trust, no between-subjects main effect was found for the hypothesized personality traits, thereby providing no support for H1b and H3b. Nonetheless, the within-subjects analyses yielded some significant results. First, Agreeableness had a significant interaction with

286

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. a

b

Gender Age Countryc Length of stay in US Experience as R.A.d Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Negative emotions Trust Attribution to other

Mean

SD

a

1

2

3

4

0.64 20.40 0.57 15.83 0.14 1.76 2.62 2.45 2.44 2.62 3.73 1.98 3.92

0.48 0.95 0.50 6.66 0.35 0.57 0.48 0.51 0.52 0.57 0.76 0.48 0.64

— — — — — 0.77 0.74 0.70 0.76 0.82 0.94 0.80 0.60

0.06 0.12 0.03 )0.10 )0.05 )0.12 )0.02 )0.15 )0.19 0.11 )0.08 0.14

0.07 0.08 0.79 0.10 0.04 0.07 )0.17 )0.21 )0.14 )0.00 0.10 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.13 )0.01 0.05 )0.13 0.12 0.24 )0.11 0.05 0.03 0.12 0.05 0.04

5

6

0.06 )0.01 )0.04 0.03 )0.24 )0.02 )0.02 )0.03

)0.27 )0.07 0.11 )0.09 0.16 0.10 0.70 0.12 )0.04 0.22 0.05 )0.12 0.06 )0.09 0.12 )0.29 0.20 )0.05

Responses to broken promises are computed by taking the average scores across the four scenarios. Gender is dummy-coded as 1 for Male, 0 for Female. c Country of origin is dummy-coded as 1 if US, 0 if otherwise. d Experience as R.A. is dummy-coded as 1 if Yes, 0 if No. * p < :05. ** p < :01. b

7

8

9

10

)0.06 )0.27 )0.09 0.06 0.07 )0.04 )0.01

11

12

)0.42 0.24 )0.43

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations of control variables, personality traits and responses to broken promisesa

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

287

Table 2 Between-subjects effects on responses to broken promisesa Independent variables

b

Gender Age Country of originc Length of stay in US Experience as R.A.d Neuroticism Agreeableness Extraversion Openness Conscientiousness R2 F

Emotive responses

Cognitive responses

Negative emotions

Trust

Attribution to other

— )0.09 — 0.24 — 0.20 )0.26 0.08 )0.12 )0.08 0.20 4.41

— — — — — 0.07 0.05 )0.06 0.13 0.11 0.04 0.91

— — — — — )0.28 )0.10 0.15 )0.07 )0.10 0.12 3.22

a

Values represent standardized b coefficients; control variables were entered in the initial step, and those that were not significant were excluded from subsequent analyses, N ¼ 119. b Gender is dummy-coded as 1 for Male, 0 for Female. c Country is dummy-coded as 1 if US, 0 if otherwise. d Experience as R.A. is dummy-coded as 1 if Yes, 0 if No. * p < :05. ** p < :01. Table 3 Within-subjects effects on responses to broken promisesa Source

Emotive responses

Cognitive responses

Negative emotions

Trust

Attribution to other

Type of broken promise Severity of broken promise Type  Severity of broken promise Type  Neuroticism Severity  Neuroticism Type  Severity  Neuroticism Type  Agreeableness Severity  Agreeableness Type  Severity  Agreeableness Type  Extraversion Severity  Extraversion Type  Severity  Extraversion Type  Openness Severity  Openness Type  Severity  Openness Type  Conscientiousness Severity  Conscientiousness Type  Severity  Conscientiousness

0.47 2.89 0.14 3.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.89 2.51 0.58 2.16 0.03 0.16 0.34 1.25 0.70 3.97 0.91

1.72 34.05 0.01 0.97 0.94 0.65 4.25 0.00 4.22 0.14 1.18 0.01 0.02 3.16 0.63 0.74 3.31 1.78

20.13 12.72 1.80 0.40 2.48 1.20 0.44 0.30 0.63 0.52 0.00 0.01 0.40 0.13 0.02 0.17 0.90 0.03

a Values represent F statistic; control variables were not significant at p < :05 and are excluded from the table, N ¼ 119. * p < :05. ** p < :01.

288

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

the type of broken promise as predicted in H4b (F ¼ 4:25, p < :05). Specifically, the relation between Agreeableness and Trust was positive in the case of an Economic breach (b ¼ 0:14, p < :05) but less pronounced for a Social breach (b ¼ :03, ns). In addition, there was also a significant three-way interaction among Agreeableness, type of broken promise, and the severity of broken promise (F ¼ 4:22, p < :05). In the instance of Economic breach, the strength of the relation between Agreeableness and Trust was similar regardless of the level of severity (for high breach, b ¼ 0:14, ns; for low breach, b ¼ 0.15, ns). However, for Social breach, the strength of the relation differed between high level (b ¼ :02, ns) and low level of severity (b ¼ :09, ns). For the dependent variable of Attribution to Other, we found a strong negative relationship between Neuroticism and Attribution, consistent with H1b (t ¼ 3:14, p < :01). The remaining hypotheses pertaining to Attribution as a dependent variable were not supported. Overall, this set of analyses provides support for H1b and H4b, but not for H2b and H3b. Finally, it is worth noting that the three other personality traits did not exhibit any between- or within-subjects effects (excepting an interaction between Conscientiousness and type of breach), providing support for the expected null effects relating to these three traits. 5. Discussion This study examined the effects of personality on emotive and cognitive responses to broken promises, contingent on the type and severity of breach. Consistent with some of the hypotheses, the results reveal that certain personality traits relate to responses to broken promises. The findings indicated that such personality effects vary depending on the type and severity of breach. Our basic proposition is that in the instance when promises are broken, different people will interpret and react to the breach in different ways, since psychological contract and breach exist fundamentally in the eyes of the beholder. As expected, we found that individuals who are high in Neuroticism tend to experience more negative emotions pursuant to a breach, but make less negative attributions about the party who breached the contract. Likewise, agreeable people tend to experience less negative emotions when a breach occurs, but their trust in the other party diminishes in the event of a social breach. The findings suggest that personality not only affects peopleÕs responses to breach, but also determines their perceptions of the seriousness of the breach. Specifically, the finding that Agreeableness had no main effect on cognitive responses must be interpreted in light of the interaction effect between Agreeableness and the type of broken promise. The fact that Agreeableness displayed a significant positive relation with trust only in the Economic breach situation and not so in the Social breach condition offers support for this argument. People who are high in Agreeableness tend to value the social aspects of their relationships and are concerned about whether other people like them (Langston & Sykes, 1997). Consequently, it is not surprising that if someone jeopardizes their relationships with others and causes others to like them less, they will view the perpetrator less positively and be less tolerant of such a breach, than if the breach were of an economic nature.

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

289

An unexpected finding was the three-way interaction between Agreeableness, type, and severity of breach, whereby the effect of Agreeableness on trust varied between a severe vs. a non-severe social breach. Although this was not predicted, it is nonetheless consistent with the above finding that agreeable people are less tolerant of a social breach. What is particularly interesting is that Agreeableness displayed the expected positive effect on trust when the breach is non-severe (or low), but exhibited a considerably weaker effect when the breach is severe. This result suggests that Agreeableness has an impact only when there is ambiguity as to how one should react (given that the breach is not severe after all), and is consistent with the proposition that personality traits predict behavior better in weak situations that are unstructured and that lack salient cues to guide individualsÕ actions (Mischel, 1977; Snyder & Ickes, 1985). In those situations, personality traits are given free rein to influence oneÕs reaction. However, in a strong situation whereby the breach is so severe that almost anyone, agreeable or otherwise, will react in a similar way, any personality effects will likely be overwhelmed by such strong situational cues. It is also interesting to note that these interaction effects only occurred for cognitive responses (specifically, trust), whereas emotive responses only exhibited the main effects of personality. This finding could possibly be explained by the fact that the negative emotions examined here were more basic and instinctual, and thus the influence of personality traits was more spontaneous in nature. In contrast, cognitive responses, as the term suggests, require more cognitive processing and are less spontaneous. During that cognitive process, individuals are more likely and have more opportunity to consider the situational factors at play (i.e., the type or severity of breach). As a result, these factors are more likely to exert a moderating effect on the role of personality on cognitive responses, as demonstrated in this study. Overall, the findings in this study highlight the conditional influence of personality on responses to broken promises, and more generally, support the interactionist approach to personality research (Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Mischel, 1977; Monson et al., 1982), which proposes that the effects of personality on attitudes and behavior will be contingent on the presence or absence of situational factors. This study also bolsters the argument that not all forms of contract breach will elicit uniform responses from all individuals. Rather, the personality trait of Agreeableness determines not only how individuals cognitively react to a breach, but also how they perceive the seriousness of the breach to be. Consistent with RousseauÕs (1995) proposition, the resulting size of loss as perceived by the individual moderates his or her response to broken promises, such that the individual will be tolerant of breaches that result in minor or unimportant losses, but will react more aversely to breaches that are perceived to result in major or consequential losses to them. In turn, individualsÕ perceptions of whether a broken promise is consequential or otherwise are related, at least in part, to the personality trait of Agreeableness. 5.1. Potential limitations and future research Scenario-based experiments and other forms of laboratory simulations have been described as lacking in mundane realism and being more conservative with regard to

290

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

hypothesis-testing (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Hence, it is possible that we did not find significant effects on some breach responses for these reasons. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the scenarios in this study were framed in the context of student-related activities that are familiar and plausible to occur to the participants, hence increasing the validity of the scenarios (Greenberg & Eskew, 1993). Another concern regarding scenario-based experiments deals with the occurrence of common method bias arising from the use of self-reports. Nonetheless, the likelihood of this is mitigated by the fact that the independent and dependent variables were measured at two different points in time. In addition, participants were not aware that the personality questionnaires, which were administered at least 4 weeks before the actual experiment, related to the current study, thereby diminishing the likelihood of common method bias. This study examined peopleÕs emotive and cognitive responses to breach, and does not address the behavioral responses that could result. Given that behavioral responses are likely to be driven by emotive and cognitive responses, we chose to focus on the latter two responses as a first step. Moreover, it is not possible to measure behavioral responses in scenario-based experiments, nor is it viable to identify all potential behavioral responses for inclusion in the scenarios. Nonetheless, this is an important issue that warrants examination, and we encourage future research to address this topic. This study is the first of its kind to empirically examine the effects of personality in the area of psychological contract research. Our purpose was to test theories that predict the effects of personality on breach responses, rather than to generalize the findings to the real world. Consequently, the lack of external validity in this study, and in experiments in general, does not nullify the findings demonstrated here (Mook, 1983). Nonetheless, an extension of this study into a field setting is desirable, not only because it would provide corroboration of the results, but also because it would offer external validity by generalizing the results into the field. Furthermore, this study was restricted to the examination of two types of broken promises, which by no means cover the range of possible types of broken promises. Alternatives include the loss of personal development opportunities (e.g., not providing training as promised), the decline of family life (e.g., having employees work weekends), or even the impairment of physical health (e.g., not providing medical benefits). Future research can widen the scope of broken promises as well as the types of personality traits investigated (e.g., locus of control; Machiavellianism). In addition, the effects of personality on elements of the psychological contract, such as perceptions of promises and benefits received, have yet to be explored. Having established that personality does indeed matter in influencing responses to broken promises and breach, we expect that future research will further refine the role of personality in the realm of psychological contracts. 5.2. Implications This study demonstrated that personality traits influence individualsÕ responses to broken promises. An implication for psychological contract research is that it

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

291

is unlikely that two individuals will attach the same importance to a particular psychological contract element or promise. Personality traits constitute one factor that influences the value that different people place on different contract terms, as well as their subsequent reactions to a breach of those terms. Consequently, researchers should take into account such individual differences in perceptions and values attached to psychological contract elements, and consider the possibility that the same breach event could have considerable impact on one individual and less on another. Beyond the context of psychological contract breach, this study also offers suggestions for contract formation and change, particularly in view of recent trends toward organizational restructuring and change. When a change is implemented in an organization, it is unlikely that it will be interpreted in the same way by all employees, much less result in uniform responses from all the employees. Consequently, employers who wish to make improvements to the psychological contract should focus their efforts on revising those contract elements or promises that are perceived as important to an employee. This will allow employers to derive the most out of the change implementation, as well as provide employees with benefits that are important to them. Likewise, if a psychological contract breach is inevitable, employers could try to minimize adverse reactions by changing the contract terms that are deemed less important to the employee. For example, an employer who has to cut back on promises made to an employee high in Agreeableness could focus on changing the economic rather than the social aspects of the contract. Also, employers could offer more support to those employees who would be more strongly affected by a breach, such as by providing more detailed justifications and social support to people who are high in Agreeableness in the event of a social or relational breach.

6. Conclusion Overall, this study demonstrated that Neuroticism and Agreeableness affect peopleÕs emotive and cognitive responses to broken promises, and that these responses vary depending on the gravity of the broken promises, a factor which in turn is influenced by personality traits. Hence, given the significance of personality traits in shaping oneÕs responses to broken promises, employers may find it beneficial to pay attention to these personality traits and use them as a tool to effectively manage the psychological contract. In general, it will also be worthwhile for research to investigate this issue and further develop the role of personality in shaping the psychological contract and related outcomes.

References Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449–469.

292

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890–902. Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1997). Personality and social influence strategies in the workplace. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1003–1012. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual for the NEO-PI R and NEO-FFI. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385–400. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Gabarro, J. J., & Athos, J. (1976). Interpersonal relations and communications. New York: Prentice-Hall. George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence. Journal of Management, 18, 185–213. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–825). New York: Academic Press. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820–835. Greenberg, J., & Eskew, D. E. (1993). The role of role playing in organizational research. Journal of Management, 19, 221–241. Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1988). Controversial issues in social research methods. New York: SpringerVerlag. Gross, J. J., Sutton, S. K., & Ketelaar, T. (1998). Relations between affect and personality: Support for the affect-level and affective-reactivity views. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 279–288. House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21, 203–224. Langston, C. A., & Sykes, W. E. (1997). Beliefs and the Big Five: Cognitive bases of broad individual differences in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 141–165. Levinson, H., Price, C. R., Munden, K. J., Mandl, H. J., & Solley, C. M. (1962). Men, management and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press. MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988). Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 653–670. MacNeil, I. R. (1985). Relational contract: What we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law Review, 483–525. Magnusson, D., & Endler, N. S. (1977). Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986a). Clinical assessment can benefit from recent advances in personality psychology. American Psychologist, 41, 1001–1002. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986b). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385–405. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of a five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.

V.T. Ho et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (2004) 276–293

293

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E., & Zeiss, A. R. (1973). Selective attention to the self: Situational and dispositional determinants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 129–142. Monson, T. C., Hesley, J. W., & Chernick, L. (1982). Specifying when personality traits can and cannot predict behavior: An alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict single-act criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 385–399. Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379–387. Morrison, K. A. (1997). Personality correlates of the five-factor model for a sample of business owners/ managers: Associations with scores on self-monitoring, type A behavior, locus of control, and subjective well-being. Psychological Reports, 80, 255–272. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226–256. OÕBrien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problem-, emotion-, and relationshipfocused coping: The role of the big five personality factors. Journal of Personality, 64, 775–813. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–599. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259. Rogers, G. M., & Revelle, W. (1998). Personality, mood, and the evaluation of affective and neutral word pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1592–1605. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 1–43. Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives and types of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679–696. Sadowski, C. J., & Cogburn, H. E. (1997). Need for cognition in the Big Five factor structure. Journal of Psychology, 131, 307–312. Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 883–947). New York: Random House. Staw, B., Bell, N., & Clausen, J. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56–77. Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit and its limits: Agreeableness, neuroticism, and emotional reactivity to interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 88–98. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: General and specific facets of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 441–476. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737–774. Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a na€ıve theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 316–324.