Disentangling the effects of promised and delivered inducements: Relational and transactional contract elements and the mediating role of trust.
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
Psychological contracts contain both relational and transactional elements, each of which is associated with unique characteristics. In the present research, the authors drew on these distinct qualities to develop and test hypotheses regarding differential employee reactions to underfulfillment, fulfillment, and overfulfillment of relational and transactional promises. Further, the authors extended their test of the theoretical distinctions between relational and transactional contracts by assessing the relevance of trust as a key underlying mechanism of relational and transactional psychological contract breach effects. Participants in this 3-wave longitudinal study included 342 full-time temporary employees. In support of existing theoretical distinctions, results indicated that employees reacted differently to varying levels of fulfillment of their relational and transactional contracts and that trust is a more central mechanism of relational, as opposed to transactional, psychological contract breach effects. These findings underscore L.S. Lambert, J. R. Edwards, and D. M. Cable's (2003) recent recommendation that the traditional conceptualization and study of psychological contract breach requires expansion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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