Perceived identity threat and organizational cynicism in the recursive relationship between psychological contract breach and counterproductive work behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counterproductive work behavior toward the organization (CWB-O) or supervisor (CWB-S) is commonly treated as a consequence of psychological contract breach (PCB). However, drawing from Self-Consistency Theory, the authors in this article argue that the PCB-CWB relationship is recursive through two mediating mechanisms: self-identity threat and organizational cynicism. Furthermore, the authors predict that the relationship between feelings of violation and CWB-O (or CWB-S) would depend on the extent to which the victim attributed blame to the organization (or supervisor). Using weekly and daily survey data, the study found that identity threat was a stronger mediator for recursive CWB-PCB relationships. Moreover, it was found that PCB related positively to violation feelings, which in turn related positively to CWB-O and CWB-S over time. As predicted, the former was moderated by organizational blame attributions, whereas the latter was moderated by supervisor blame attributions. The authors discuss the theoretical implications and propose novel practical implications based on these reciprocal findings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".