The psychological contracts of violation victims: A post‐violation model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Organizations may fail to keep their commitments to their employees, at times leading to psychological contract violation. Although many victims of violation remain with their employer despite such adverse experiences, little research exists on their responses in the aftermath of violation. This paper develops a post‐violation model to explain systematically how violation victims respond to and cope with violation and the effects this process has on their subsequent psychological contract. Central to post‐violation are the victims' beliefs regarding the likelihood of violation resolution and the factors affecting it. The model specifies how the victim engages in a self‐regulation process that results in an array of potential psychological contract outcomes. Possible outcomes include reactivation of the original pre‐violation contract, the formation of a new contract that may be more or less attractive than the original, or a state of dissolution wherein the victim fails to form a functional psychological contract with the employer. The research and practical implications of this model are discussed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it