Let's get cynical about this! Recursive relationships between psychological contract breach and counterproductive work behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although counterproductive work behaviour towards the organization ( CWB ‐O) or supervisors ( CWB ‐S) is commonly treated as a reaction to psychological contract breach ( PCB ), we propose that the PCB ‐ CWB relationship is recursive and that CWB may increase the likelihood to perceive PCB through its effects on self‐esteem and subsequently on organizational cynicism. By estimating a two‐level time‐lagged mediation model on daily data from 103 US employees (904 observations), we found evidence for this hypothesized chain of events. These findings demonstrate that PCB and CWB happen with reference to past perceptions of PCB and/or CWB and future anticipations of PCB and/or CWB . We discuss suggestions for future research and novel practical implications in preventing further escalation. Practitioner points When employees perceive that their organization has breached its obligations, employees are likely to retaliate by engaging in acts of CWB‐O and CWB‐S. Employees are likely to suffer from reduced self‐esteem and increased cynicism when they have engaged in CWB‐S following a PC breach. When employees become more cynical, they are more likely to perceive future PC breaches. Based on the reciprocal nature of our findings, this study highlights the need to update existing theories, as well as indicates the need for swift interventions in the aftermath of PC breach and enactment of CWB.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".