Does attachment anxiety accentuate the effect of perceived contract breach on counterproductive work behaviors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Applying belongingness and attachment theories, we explore the association between employees' perception of psychological contract breach and counterproductive work behaviors, while also considering the mediating effect of workplace ostracism and the moderating role of attachment styles (i.e., attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance). Time‐lagged data from full‐time personnel working in telecommunications and transportation sectors in North America were collected at three different time points with an interval of 3 weeks between each wave. A total of 272 responses from the three measurement points were retained for our analysis. In support of what was hypothesized, our study's findings show that perception of contract breach fueled workplace deviance through the anticipated effect of workplace ostracism. Furthermore, and in line with what we assumed, the mediating effect of workplace ostracism was reinforced by employees' fear of rejection and abandonment in relationships (i.e., attachment anxiety). The role of attachment avoidance, however, was not found to moderate the indirect effect, contrary to our expectations. In conclusion, embedded in belongingness and attachment theorizing, this study offers empirical evidence of how workplace ostracism is a crucial mechanism that helps to explain the indirect effect through which psychological contract breach triggers counterproductive work behaviors. Furthermore, our findings illustrate how this relationship is conditional on attachment anxiety observed in employees.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".