Navigating the Maze of Psychological Contract Breach with Swift Informational Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although scholars and practitioners argue that organizations should provide justice information in the aftermath of a psychological contract breach (PC breach) to prevent or reduce violation feelings, it remains unclear whether that information should be provided within a few hours, days, or weeks following a PC breach. We estimated a 2-level time-lagged regression model on experience sampling data from 76 (226 observations), 70 (213 observations), and 70 (344 observations) employees with different intervals to test the durability of the moderating role of informational justice on the PC breach-violation feelings relationship. We found that justice information should be provided in close temporal proximity (i.e., within the same day; Study 1) of PC breach to reduce violation feelings. In contrast, neither justice information provided the day (Study 2) or week (Study 3) after a PC breach successfully moderated the PC breach-violation feelings relationship. The current paper underscores the importance of being informationally just in close temporal proximity to a PC breach in line with resolution velocity as an indicator of the effectiveness of the recovery process. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of these 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 | 0.014 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".