psychological contract development during organizational

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.205

Psychological contract development duringorganizational socialization: adaptation toreality and the role of reciprocity

ANS DE VOS1*, DIRK BUYENS2 AND RENE SCHALK3

1Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Gent, Belgium2Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School and Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and BusinessAdministration, Gent, Belgium3Policy and Organization Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Summary Based on the theoretical framework of newcomer sensemaking this study examines factorsassociated with changes in newcomers’ psychological contract perceptions during the socia-lization process. More specifically, two mechanisms are addressed that could explain changesin newcomers’ perceptions of the promises they have exchanged with their employer: (1) uni-lateral adaptation of perceived promises to reality and (2) adaptation of perceived promises asa function of the reciprocity norm. To test our hypotheses, a four-wave longitudinal studyamong 333 new hires has been conducted, covering the first year of their employment relation-ship. Results show that changes in newcomers’ perceptions of the promises they have made totheir employer are affected by their perceptions of their own contributions as well as by theirperceptions of inducements received from their employer. Changes in newcomers’ percep-tions of employer promises are affected by their perceptions of employer inducementsreceived, but the impact of perceived employee contributions is less clear. The data providelimited support for the idea that the adaptation of perceived promises to perceived induce-ments and contributions occurs to a stronger extent during the encounter stage than duringthe acquisition stage of socialization. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

The psychological contract has been viewed as a relevant construct to explain important employee

attitudes and behaviors like commitment, turnover, and organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g.,

Conway & Briner, 2000; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002; Robinson & Morrison, 1995;

Turnley & Feldman, 1999, 2000). Psychological contracts are defined as the beliefs individuals hold

regarding the terms and conditions of the exchange agreement between themselves and their organiza-

tions (Rousseau, 1989). Most prior research has focused on employees’ perceptions of and responses

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 20 April 2003

* Correspondence to: Ans de Vos, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Bellevue 6, 9050 Gent, Belgium.E-mail: [email protected]

to psychological contract breach (e.g., Conway & Briner, 2002; Lester et al., 2002; Robinson &

Morrison, 1995, 2000; Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003). These findings, which relate

to the aftermath of the psychological contract, call for research into its formation (Rousseau, 2001).

However, the process of psychological contract formation remains theoretically underdeveloped

and has received limited empirical attention, with two exceptions (Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau,

1994; Thomas & Anderson, 1998). Both studies found that during the socialization process new-

comers came to perceive that their employers owed them more. In addition, Robinson et al. (1994)

found that newcomers came to perceive that they owed less to their employers. These findings support

the idea that newcomers change their psychological contract perceptions based on the reality they

encounter after entry. However, both studies only focused on changes in the mean level of newcomers’

psychological contract perceptions without investigating the factors associated with these changes

over time.

The main objective of this study, then, is to gain a better understanding of the process of psycho-

logical contract formation by examining the factors associated with changes in newcomers’ psycho-

logical contracts during socialization. Specifically, this study advances theory development on

psychological contract formation in three ways.

First, this is the first study to investigate psychological contract formation as a sensemaking process

taking place during organizational socialization (Louis, 1980). Central to the conceptualization of the

psychological contract is that it is a perceptual cognition which exists ‘in the eye of the beholder’

(Rousseau, 1989). This makes it especially relevant to study psychological contract formation from

a sensemaking perspective. Starting from the sensemaking framework this study examines how

changes in newcomers’ perceived promises are associated with their interpretations of experiences

encountered after organizational entry. Based on this sensemaking framework we investigate the role

of two principles: (1) unilateral adaptation of perceived promises to perceptions of reality and (2)

changes in perceived promises as a function of the reciprocity norm.

Second, this study relates the process of psychological contract formation to the socialization pro-

cess. The socialization period is generally considered as an important stage in the formation of

employees’ psychological contracts (e.g., Anderson & Thomas, 1996; Nelson et al., 1991; Rousseau,

1995; Shore & Tetrick, 1994; Thomas & Anderson, 1998). Socialization research has shown that dur-

ing this period sensemaking plays an important role in the adjustment of the newcomer to the organi-

zation, especially during the first months after entry (Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).

Therefore the present research examines how sensemaking processes about the psychological contract

operate during both socialization stages (encounter and acquisition).

Third, this study takes into account newcomers’ perceptions of both parties’ promises and actions

(employer and employee). To date most research has focused exclusively on employer inducements,

although reciprocity between employer inducements and employee contributions is considered to be a

defining element of the psychological contract (Millward & Brewerton, 2000; Rousseau, 1995). Tak-

ing into account newcomers’ perceptions of both parties’ promises and actions makes it possible to

examine how both are dynamically interrelated over time.

This study also makes a methodological contribution by using a longitudinal research design

involving multiple data collection waves. This is the only way in which the factors explaining

changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts over time can adequately be captured. The psycholo-

gical contract is widely assumed to reflect an exchange process (Millward & Brewerton, 2000;

Rousseau, 1995; Shore & Tetrick, 1994). By using four data collection waves it becomes possible to

track variations over time and to empirically assess reciprocity between employer inducements

and employee contributions. Also, by using theoretically relevant time spans between data collec-

tions it is possible to study hypotheses about the adaptation process during different socialization

stages.

538 A. DE VOS ET AL.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 24, 537–559 (2003)

Theory

Psychological contract formation as a sensemaking process

The period of organizational entry and socialization is characterized by sensemaking processesthrough which newcomers come to understand, interpret, and respond to their new environment(Louis, 1980). Sensemaking refers to cognitive processes that individuals employ in organizationalsettings to cope with surprise and novelty (Louis, 1980). These sensemaking processes are seen as cri-tical to the development of attitudes and behaviors that enable newcomers to function effectivelywithin their new work environment (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Saks& Ashforth, 1997). Sensemaking helps newcomers to bring their expectations in line with reality,thereby reducing feelings of unmet expectations or broken promises (Louis, 1980).

The sensemaking process is viewed as a cycle of events occurring over time (Louis, 1980). Thiscycle begins before entry, when future employees form unconscious and conscious anticipationsand assumptions about their future employment relationship. After entry, newcomers experienceevents that may trigger a process through which prior expectations are changed and predictions aboutfuture experiences are revised (Louis, 1980). These retrospective interpretation processes thus involvean active change of expectations and assumptions based on actual experiences (Meyer, Bobocel, &Allen, 1991; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). The updated anticipations and revised assumptions are analo-gous to changes in cognitive schemas. A schema is defined as a cognitive structure that representsorganized knowledge about a person or situation (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Schemas typically affectthe perception of incoming information, the retrieval of stored information, and inferences based onthat information (Fiske & Taylor, 1984).

The description of sensemaking as a process through which newcomers actively form and changetheir cognitive schemas makes it relevant to apply this to psychological contract formation. The psy-chological contract is conceived as a cognitive schema that individuals hold about the terms of theiremployment relationship. It consists of individuals’ beliefs about what is expected to occur in the orga-nization and what is expected of the individual in return (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Shore & Tetrick,1994). The psychological contract is a perceptual cognition defined at the level of the individual. Thismeans that it is the perception of reality, not reality as such, which is the central focus of psychologicalcontract research (Rousseau, 1989, 1995; Schalk & Freese, 1997). What’s important in this concep-tualization is that the perceiver is conceived as an active constructor of reality (Robinson, 1996). Thismeans that employees actively make sense of their psychological contract based upon their experi-ences within the organization (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994).

This relates psychological contract formation to newcomer sensemaking. At entry, most newcomershave only limited or incomplete information about the terms of their employment relationship(Rousseau, 2001). This motivates newcomers to actively interpret their initial experiences as a basisfor predicting future events and for changing their expectations, thereby making their psychologicalcontract schema more complete. This in turn should help them to reduce uncertainty and make theirexperiences in their new work setting more predictable (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). This sensemakingprocess implies that perceptions of promises are adapted based upon newcomers’ interpretations oftheir experiences in the work setting (Rousseau, 2001). These experiences relate to the contractualbehavior of both parties to the employment relationship, i.e. the inducements provided by the employerand the contributions made by the employee.

Patterns of change in newcomers’ perceived promises

Newcomers’ psychological contracts are comprised of beliefs about the inducements they have beenpromised by their employer (e.g., career opportunities, financial rewards, an interesting job content)

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT 539


and the contributions they have promised to make in return (e.g., performance, extra-role behavior, flex-

ibility, loyalty). To understand the patterns of change in newcomers’ perceived promises it is important

to consider both parties’ contributions (see Figure 1). Based on sensemaking theory we expect that the

adaptation of perceived promises to the interpretation of experiences can occur both unilaterally and

reciprocally. Unilateral adaptation implies that newcomers change their perceptions of promises made

by one party (themselves or their employer) based on their interpretation of the contributions made by

that party. Reciprocal adaptation means that newcomers change their perceptions of promises made by

one party based on their interpretation of the contributions made by the other party.

For example, newcomers could change their perceptions of employer promises about career oppor-

tunities (1) as a function of their evaluation of the career development opportunities their employer

actually offers or (2) as a function of their evaluation of the contributions they make to their employer.

The former principle refers to the unilateral adaptation of perceived promises to evaluations of reality,

while the latter reflects changes in perceived promises as a function of the reciprocity norm. Both prin-

ciples are complementary in the sense that they both explain why newcomers change their psycholo-

gical contract perceptions as a consequence of their interpretations of their experiences within the

work setting. This means that, in order to fully understand psychological contract formation as a sen-

semaking process, we have to focus on newcomers’ perceptions of promises made by both parties

(employer and employee) and on their evaluations of the contributions made by both parties.

Unilateral adaptation of perceived promises to interpretations of experiences

Unilateral adaptation of perceived promises to interpretations of experiences implies that newcomers

change their perceptions of promises conveyed by one party (themselves or their employer) as a con-

sequence of their interpretations of that party’s actions. These actions are an important source of feed-

back to the newcomer about his or her anticipations because they are a source of feedback about

whether original perceptions of promises in fact need revision (Rousseau, 2001). First, organizational

actions inform newcomers about the commitments the organization is willing to make. For example,

the amount of training a newcomer receives can inform him or her about the extent to which the orga-

nization makes commitments relating to learning and development. Newcomers who expect to receive

a lot of training might increase their initial level of perceived employer promises about learning and

development after entry. Inversely, newcomers who expect to receive insufficient training might

Figure 1. The role of unilateral and reciprocal adaptation in explaining changes in newcomers’ psychologicalcontract perceptions



decrease their initial level of perceived promises. Sensemaking of employer promises thus implies

that, depending on their interpretations of organizational actions after entry, newcomers change the

level of their initial perceptions of promises conveyed by their employer.

Hypothesis 1: The greater the perception of employer inducements received, the greater the

employer promises are perceived to be over time.

The same reasoning holds for promises about employee contributions. Newcomers entering an orga-

nization take on a set of tasks and must learn how to perform these tasks. They must also learn the level

of commitment they have to show to their employer in different areas like performance level, flexibil-

ity, loyalty, or ethical behavior. These commitments may be different from what they initially believed

to have promised their employer, i.e., the promises reflected in their initial psychological contract

schema. For example, newcomers can initially believe to have promised a high level of flexibility

in working hours. After entry they might experience that they are actually showing a rather low level

of flexibility. Based upon this self-evaluation they could decrease the level of perceived promises about

flexibility. Thus, perceived employee promises are adapted to newcomers’ interpretations of their

actual contributions within the work environment.

Hypothesis 2: The greater the perception of employee contributions made, the greater the employee

promises are perceived to be over time.

Reciprocal adaptation of perceived promises to interpretations of experiences

Adaptation of perceived employer and employee promises can also occur reciprocally, based upon the

newcomer’s interpretation of the other party’s actions in the work setting. For example, organizational

actions not only inform newcomers about the promises the organization is willing to make (thereby

affecting changes in perceived employer promises) but also about the promises the newcomer should

make in return (thereby affecting changes in perceived employee promises).

The latter relates sensemaking to the conceptualization of psychological contract formation as an

exchange process unfolding between employer and employee. Psychological contract theory is based

upon exchange theory. It expands the reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) to include employees’ beliefs

about the reciprocal employer and employee obligations being part of their employment deal

(Rousseau, 1995). Basic to the norm of reciprocity is that one party’s receipt of a benefit obligates

him or her to return a payment. Continued receipt and payment over time is likely to create an increas-

ing number and diversity of obligations between the parties to the exchange relationship (Blau, 1964;

Homans, 1961). The reason for this escalation is that individuals strive to create imbalance in their

exchange relationships to avoid becoming indebted to the other party (Blau, 1964).

Previous longitudinal research has provided evidence for the role of the reciprocity norm in explain-

ing psychological contract outcomes like organizational citizenship behavior, performance, and inten-

tions to stay (e.g. Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995). While these studies directly focused

on outcome variables, our study illuminates intervening processes by focusing on the relationship

between newcomers’ interpretations of their experiences and changes in perceived promises. We

expect that, in order to retain balance, newcomers will change their perceptions of what they have

promised their employer (e.g., about loyalty or performance) as a function of their evaluations of

the inducements received from their employer. This means that a greater perception of employer indu-

cements will be related to a greater perception of employee promises over time.

Hypothesis 3: The greater the perception of employer inducements received, the greater the

employee promises are perceived to be over time.



Until now the reciprocity norm has mainly been studied in one direction, i.e., in explaining changes in

employee outcomes as a function of employer inducements. To fully assess reciprocity in psycholo-

gical contract formation it is necessary to investigate the bidirectional influence between newcomer

and organization (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). Employees, in making contributions, are confer-

ring a benefit to their employer. Following exchange theory, this creates an obligation for the employer

to reciprocate (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). Thus, in order to restore balance, newcomers with a

greater perception of their own contributions will increase their perceptions of what their employer has

promised them (e.g., in terms of career opportunities or financial rewards).

Hypothesis 4: The greater the perception of employee contributions made, the greater the employer

promises are perceived to be over time.

Psychological contract formation during different socialization stages

The need for sensemaking will be greatest when uncertainty is high (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Shore &

Tetrick, 1994). Schemas are most likely to change when people are motivated to make the cognitive

effort change requires. Socialization research suggests that it is mainly during the encounter stage of

socialization, i.e., the first months after entry, that newcomers actively test their anticipations against

the reality of their new work experiences. During this period, differences between anticipations and

experiences become apparent and contribute to a ‘reality shock’ (Louis, 1980; Schein, 1978). Coping

with such differences through active sensemaking and adaptation of expectations is central during this

period (Morrison, 1993a, 1993b). Relating this to psychological contract formation means that this is

the period during which perceived promises are most likely to change as a consequence of newcomers’

interpretations of their experiences.

The individual’s adjustment to the organization further occurs during the sixth to twelfth month after

entry, i.e., the acquisition stage of socialization (Louis, 1980; Schein, 1978). During this period new-

comers become better acquainted with their new employment setting. As a more stable cognitive

schema about the employment relationship develops, uncertainty about the new employment relation-

ship is reduced and active sensemaking processes decrease (Anderson & Thomas, 1996; Louis, 1980;

Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Schein, 1978). Therefore we expect that during this period newcomers’ experi-

ences will become less likely to affect changes in their perceived promises.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between newcomers’ interpretations of experiences and changes in

perceived employer and employee promises will be stronger during the encounter stage than during

the acquisition stage of socialization.

Organizational Context

SampleThe sample consisted of full-time employees with a permanent employment contract, working for

six large, privately owned firms in Belgium. These firms represent four industries (telecommunica-

tion, electronics, consulting, and financial services) and they are all part of international groups. All

firms consisted of several business units spread over the country. This means that there was both



Method

Sample and procedure

The respondent population for this study consisted of 975 newcomers from six large private firms in

Belgium. These firms represent four industries (telecommunication, electronics, consulting, and finan-

cial services). In each of these organizations, all newcomers who had been hired with a permanent

employment contract were contacted and invited to participate in the study. In four of the firms

employees were informed about the study during the orientation training. In the other two firms, which

had no formal orientation training for newcomers, they were informed by the recruitment specialist

when signing their contract. Participation in the study was voluntary. Confidentiality of responses

was formally guaranteed by the researchers and by the organization. Written surveys were used to col-

lect data at four points in time: 2 weeks after entry (T1) and then 3 months (T2), 6 months (T3), and 12

months (T4) after entry. These intervals were based on socialization literature research suggesting that

3, 6, and 12 months are meaningful intervals in the socialization process (Bauer et al., 1998; Morrison,

1993a, 1993b).

All questionnaires were sent by mail to potential respondents, together with a letter providing clari-

fications about the research and a pre-stamped return envelope addressed to the researchers. 720 new-

comers filled out the first questionnaire, representing a 74 per cent response rate. The final sample

consisted of 333 participants. These represent 34 per cent of the originally contacted sample and

46 per cent of the respondents at T1. Mean age of respondents was 26.96 years (SD¼ 5.77) and

35 per cent were female. For 40.2 per cent of the respondents, this was their first job. Comparison of

newcomers who participated in the full study with those who stopped their participation on demographic

characteristics and study variables did not show significant differences as a function of subject dropout.

between- and within-firm variability in location and specific activity of respondents. The fact that

these were all large organizations may have affected the type of promises made to newcomers, the

socialization activities employed, and the more general HR practices put in place in order to realize

these promises. It may also have played a role in determining newcomers’ expectations towards

their employment relationship. All respondents had a high school or college degree. They were

all hired for clerical or white-collar jobs: 28 per cent were hired for a job as consultant, 22 per cent

for an ICT job, 17 per cent for a job in logistics and production, and 16 per cent for a job in sales and

marketing.

Time frameWhen T1 and T2 data were collected (fall 2000 and winter 2001), the economic conditions in Bel-

gium were very favorable. At that time, a major concern for employers was their ability to attract

qualified job candidates in a very tight labor market. This was especially the case for the industries

and professional groups involved in our study. Consequently, the companies involved in our study

were promising attractive inducements to their future employees. However, during the study period

(T3 and T4 data collections) the economic situation had changed, which made it difficult for these

organizations to deliver all of the inducements promised. At the same time these employers prob-

ably increased their expectations towards employees’ contributions (e.g., their flexibility or produc-

tivity). These economic changes might have affected the changes in mean level of respondents’

perceived promises and experiences.



Measures

Perceived promises were assessed at T1, T3, and T4. Perceived inducements and contributions were

assessed at T2, T3, and T4. Commensurate measures were used for assessing perceived promises and

perceived inducements and contributions. For employer inducements 19 items were used, tapping five

content dimensions of the psychological contract (career development, job content, social atmosphere,

financial rewards, work-life balance). For employee contributions, 19 items focusing on five content

dimensions were selected (in- and extra-role behavior, flexibility, ethical behavior, loyalty, employ-

ability). These items and the content dimensions to which they refer were selected based upon previous

work by Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler (1998, 2000), Freese and Schalk (1996), Guest and Conway (1997,

1998), Herriot et al. (1997), and Rousseau (1990, 1998). The items used to measure each content

dimension are presented in the Appendix.

Perceived employer promises were assessed at T1 by asking respondents to indicate the extent to

which their employer had made promises to them—implicitly or explicitly—about each of the 19

inducements listed. At T3 and T4 the instruction was slightly changed in order to assess respondents’

perceptions of employer promises at that point in time: ‘Now that you have several months of experi-

ence in your new job, please indicate to which extent, based upon the knowledge you have now, you

currently believe that the items listed are promises your employer has made to you.’ Answers were

given on a five-point scale ranging from ‘not promised at all’ to ‘promised to a very great extent’.

Perceived employee promises were assessed using the same five-point response scale. At T1 respon-

dents were asked to indicate the extent to which they had made promises to their employer—implicitly

or explicitly—about each of the 19 contributions listed. At T3 and T4 the instruction was changed in

the same way as for perceived employer promises, in order to measure respondents’ perceptions of

employee promises at the time of the data collection.

Perceived employer inducements: at each time point respondents’ perceptions of the inducements

they received from their employer were assessed by asking them to indicate the extent to which they

believed their employer actually offered them each of the 19 inducements listed. A five-point response

scale was used, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘to a very great extent’.

Perceived employee contributions were assessed using the same five-point response scales. At each

time point respondents indicated the extent to which they believed they actually offered each of the 19

employee contributions to their employer.

Results

Table 1 reports the correlations between the psychological contract measures together with the alpha

coefficients for the scales. All scales showed sufficient to high reliabilities at each time point, with only

a few exceptions. At T1 Cronbach’s alpha of the scales measuring perceived employer promises about

financial rewards and work-life balance were lower than 0.70 (0.63 and 0.66 respectively). This was

also the case for perceived employee promises about flexibility (0.63). At T2 the alpha for perceived

employee contributions relating to ethical behavior was 0.66. All other alphas were higher than 0.70.

Because these scales had not been used previously, it was important to demonstrate their construct

validity. This was done through four sets of confirmatory factor analyses on T3 data, conducted with

AMOS 4.1 (Arbucle, 1999). We assessed the validity of the five-dimensional model for perceived

employer promises, perceived employer inducements, perceived employee promises, and perceived

employee contributions. The five-dimensional models always indicated a good fit. Inspection of the



Tab

le1

.C

orr

elat

ion

sa

12

34

56

78

91

01

11

21

31

41

51

61

71

81

92

02

12

22

32

42

52

62

72

82

93

0

T1

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

pro

mis

es

1.

Car

eer

(0.8

4)

2.

Job

0.3

9(0

.75

)

3.

So

cial

0.1

60

.32

(0.8

7)

4.

Fin

anci

al0

.35

0.3

10

.26

(0.6

3)

5.

Pri

vate

life

0.0

90

.17

0.3

20

.33

(0.6

6)

T1

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

pro

mis

es

6.

Ro

leb

ehav

ior

0.1

50

.27

0.5

30

.21

0.2

0(0

.84

)

7.

Fle

xib

ilit

y0

.17

0.2

10

.23

0.2

20

.12

0.4

5(0

.63

)

8.

Lo

yal

ty0

.06

0.1

00

.31

0.1

80

.18

0.3

90

.45

(0.7

6)

9.

Eth

ics

0.1

50

.17

0.3

60

.18

0.2

20

.55

0.3

50

.35

(0.7

7)

10

.E

mp

loy

abil

ity

0.0

70

.06

0.2

00

.08

0.1

50

.40

0.4

80

.47

0.3

8(0

.78

)

T2

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

indu

cem

ents

11

.C

aree

r0

.44

0.2

90

.21

0.3

10

.12

0.1

80

.18

0.1

90

.20

0.0

8(0

.86

)

12

.Jo

b0

.17

0.4

00

.18

0.1

90

.13

0.1

40

.14

0.1

20

.14

0.0

40

.52

(0.8

6)

13

.S

oci

al0

.13

0.0

60

.32

0.1

30

.16

0.1

20

.08

0.1

70

.14

0.0

60

.32

0.3

5(0

.86

)

14

.F

inan

cial

0.1

60

.20

0.2

20

.41

0.2

20

.21

0.2

10

.23

0.1

70

.13

0.4

40

.34

0.1

9(0

.73

)

15

.P

riva

teli

fe0

.10

0.0

90

.15

0.1

20

.45

0.0

50

.04

0.1

30

.06

0.0

90

.16

0.2

00

.32

0.2

3(0

.74

)

T2

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s

16

.R

ole

beh

avio

r0

.06

0.0

80

.18

0.1

30

.08

0.2

00

.08

0.1

30

.15

0.0

70

.18

0.3

20

.44

0.1

80

.23

(0.8

6)

17.

Fle

xib

ilit

y0.0

60.1

5�

0.0

20

.06�

0.0

80

.11

0.3

70

.07

0.0

70

.12

0.1

40

.23

0.0

00

.18

�0

.07

0.2

6(0

.70

)

18

.L

oy

alty

0.1

20

.10

0.1

40

.13

0.0

70

.14

0.0

90

.25

0.1

40

.10

0.2

40

.29

0.2

20

.21

0.2

10

.22

0.1

8(0

.76

)

19

.E

thic

s0

.11

0.1

30

.13

0.1

50

.04

0.1

60

.07

0.1

20

.24

0.1

20

.16

0.1

70

.20

0.1

20

.17

0.4

80

.23

0.3

6(0

.66

)

20

.E

mp

loy

abil

ity

0.0

20

.03

0.0

20

.01

0.1

20

.15

0.1

30

.17

0.1

40

.45

0.0

60

.02

�0

.03

0.1

70

.14

0.1

40

.22

0.1

40

.12

(0.7

5)

T3

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

pro

mis

es

21

.C

aree

r0

.55

0.1

90

.11

0.2

80

.02

0.1

20

.10

0.1

20

.12

0.0

60

.40

0.1

60

.14

0.1

80

.04

0.1

00

.07

0.1

20

.11

0.0

3(0

.85

)

22

.Jo

b0

.24

0.5

30

.23

0.1

90

.13

0.2

80

.22

0.1

10

.15

0.1

00

.18

0.4

00

.09

0.1

90

.12

0.1

80

.20

0.1

50

.15

0.1

00

.42

(0.7

4)

23

.S

oci

al0

.08

0.1

80

.63

0.1

80

.26

0.4

30

.25

0.2

30

.29

0.1

50

.15

0.0

90

.30

0.1

70

.11

0.1

70

.01

0.0

20

.11

0.0

10

.23

0.4

4(0

.89

)

24

.F

inan

cial

0.2

60

.20

0.2

10

.57

0.2

10

.19

0.2

30

.18

0.1

30

.01

0.2

20

.10

0.0

80

.41

0.1

30

.07

0.0

60

.06

0.0

40

.04

0.4

20

.33

0.3

2(0

.72

)

25

.P

riva

teli

fe0

.13

0.1

60

.26

0.2

20

.61

0.2

40

.11

0.1

80

.24

0.1

40

.14

0.1

10

.19

0.2

00

.41

0.1

0�

0.0

80.0

00.0

30.1

40.1

80

.34

0.4

70.4

2(0

.77)

T3

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

pro

mis

es

26

.R

ole

beh

avio

r0

.13

0.2

10

.42

0.2

10

.23

0.5

90

.37

0.3

70

.42

0.2

70

.22

0.2

00

.26

0.2

40

.12

0.3

40

.10

0.0

70

.23

0.0

60

.20

0.4

20

.60

0.2

60

.41

(0.7

5)

27

.F

lex

ibil

ity

0.1

10

.19

0.2

00

.20

0.1

20

.32

0.6

40

.33

0.2

40

.33

0.1

80

.19

0.1

20

.21

0.0

60

.06

0.4

40

.11

0.0

70

.17

0.1

10

.23

0.2

70

.26

0.2

20

.47

(0.7

0)

28

.L

oy

alty

0.0

60

.16

0.2

40

.25

0.2

30

.35

0.3

60

.60

0.2

90

.34

0.1

40

.12

0.2

10

.20

0.1

20

.11

0.1

60

.17

0.1

20

.17

0.0

60

.13

0.2

70

.19

0.2

60

.41

0.5

2(0

.88

)

Continues



Tab

le1

.C

on

tin

ued

12

34

56

78

91

01

11

21

31

41

51

61

71

81

92

02

12

22

32

42

52

62

72

82

93

0

29

.E

thic

s0

.19

0.1

60

.32

0.2

10

.28

0.4

20

.30

0.3

20

.63

0.2

30

.26

0.1

90

.24

0.1

70

.11

0.2

20

.07

0.1

30

.30

0.0

30

.19

0.2

40

.35

0.2

10

.37

0.5

40

.35

0.3

7(0

.79

)

30

.E

mp

loy

abil

ity

0.0

80

.09

0.1

00

.17

0.2

40

.24

0.3

30

.31

0.2

50

.56

0.1

50

.09

0.0

80

.18

0.1

30

.09

0.1

70

.11

0.1

30

.46

0.1

50

.18

0.1

90

.17

0.3

20

.33

0.5

40

.51

0.3

3(0

.74)

T3

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts

31

.C

aree

r0

.29

0.2

00

.20

0.2

30

.09

0.2

10

.24

0.2

00

.22

0.1

00

.39

0.2

50

.26

0.2

80

.01

0.1

80

.11

0.1

10

.06

0.1

30

.36

0.2

30

.20

0.2

60

.13

0.2

90

.26

0.2

20

.27

0.2

0

32

.Jo

b0

.15

0.4

30

.13

0.1

70

.13

0.1

50

.20

0.1

20

.17

0.0

30

.27

0.5

60

.24

0.2

60

.17

0.2

40

.20

0.2

30

.13

0.0

60

.16

0.5

00

.22

0.1

70

.21

0.2

70

.18

0.1

60

.22

0.1

2

33

.S

oci

al0

.14

0.0

90

.26

0.1

10

.20

0.1

50

.11

0.1

40

.15

0.0

40

.20

0.2

00

.66

0.1

50

.22

0.3

3�

0.0

40

.13

0.1

2�

0.0

20

.17

0.1

90

.36

0.1

50

.29

0.3

50

.13

0.1

80

.30

0.0

9

34

.F

inan

cial

0.1

60

.18

0.2

00

.39

0.1

50

.17

0.2

90

.24

0.1

60

.07

0.3

00

.25

0.2

70

.51

0.1

30

.16

0.1

50

.13

0.0

20

.05

0.2

00

.16

0.2

40

.46

0.2

30

.27

0.3

50

.27

0.2

40

.22

35

.P

rivat

eli

fe0

.06

0.0

70

.03

0.0

60

.42

0.0

10

.01

0.0

2�

0.0

10

.05

0.0

70

.06

0.1

80

.12

0.5

80

.15

�0

.12

0.0

90

.07

0.1

30

.07

0.1

50

.15

0.1

70

.55

0.1

40

.07

0.1

10

.15

0.2

2

T3

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s

36

.R

ole

beh

avio

r0

.12

0.1

20

.20

0.1

10

.12

0.3

00

.13

0.1

30

.23

0.1

20

.14

0.2

10

.35

0.0

90

.14

0.6

00

.12

0.1

90

.33

0.1

10

.18

0.2

60

.28

0.1

40

.20

0.4

70

.16

0.1

80

.31

0.1

2

37

.F

lex

ibil

ity

0.0

90

.17

�0

.02

0.0

5�

0.0

70

.05

0.3

80

.11

0.0

70

.15

0.1

40

.22

0.0

40

.12�

0.1

10

.12

0.6

90

.20

0.1

30

.23

0.0

60

.17

0.0

20

.09

�0

.05

0.1

30

.52

0.2

00

.10

0.2

6

38

.L

oy

alty

0.1

30

.11

0.0

50

.11

0.1

30

.07

0.1

30

.25

0.1

20

.18

0.1

00

.17

0.1

40

.16

0.1

40

.19

0.2

10

.45

0.2

50

.22

0.1

20

.18

0.1

00

.13

0.1

50

.13

0.2

00

.42

0.2

00.3

0

39

.E

thic

s0

.12

0.1

00

.13

0.0

80

.07

0.1

70

.10

0.1

50

.31

0.1

60

.11

0.1

50

.15

0.0

30

.11

0.3

50

.11

0.2

70

.51

0.0

80

.10

0.1

30

.15

0.0

60

.12

0.2

80

.11

0.1

70

.47

0.1

6

40

.E

mp

loy

abil

ity

0.1

20

.03

�0

.03

0.0

40

.13

0.0

30

.15

0.1

30

.16

0.4

50

.02

0.0

50

.01

0.1

20

.09

0.1

00

.14

0.1

60

.10

0.6

60

.08

0.0

60

.02

0.0

60

.12

0.0

40

.23

0.2

20

.13

0.5

4

T4

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

pro

mis

es

41

.C

aree

r0

.53

0.2

20

.11

0.2

20

.01

0.1

40

.15

0.0

80

.14�

0.0

10

.32

0.0

90

.07

0.1

30

.07

0.1

10

.13

0.0

50

.18

0.0

00

.59

0.2

90

.10

0.3

00

.13

0.1

40

.11

0.0

50

.16

0.0

2

42

.Jo

b0

.25

0.4

90

.23

0.2

30

.10

0.2

90

.27

0.0

90

.19

0.0

60

.19

0.3

30

.07

0.2

10

.09

0.1

50

.25

0.1

30

.18

0.0

00

.33

0.6

20

.30

0.3

00

.17

0.3

20

.27

0.0

80

.24

0.0

9

43

.S

oci

al0

.15

0.2

30

.56

0.2

10

.20

0.4

20

.27

0.2

20

.32

0.1

20

.22

0.1

30

.26

0.2

00

.15

0.1

7�

0.0

10

.08

0.1

40

.02

0.1

90

.31

0.6

80

.28

0.3

30

.46

0.3

10

.27

0.3

80

.12

44

.F

inan

cial

0.2

20

.17

0.1

60

.45

0.1

10

.22

0.2

50

.11

0.1

20

.07

0.1

80

.11

0.0

40

.34

0.1

40

.14

0.2

20

.07

0.1

00

.10

0.2

70

.25

0.1

80

.61

0.2

20

.19

0.2

40

.15

0.1

60

.11

45

.P

rivat

eli

fe0

.12

0.1

00

.24

0.2

20

.54

0.2

50

.14

0.1

60

.26

0.1

50

.14

0.1

10

.12

0.2

50

.48

0.0

8�

0.0

10

.07

0.1

20

.16

0.1

60

.22

0.3

70

.33

0.6

80

.29

0.2

30

.22

0.3

20

.29

T4

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

pro

mis

es

46

.R

ole

beh

avio

r0

.15

0.2

00

.38

0.2

00

.17

0.5

60

.36

0.2

90

.46

0.2

60

.16

0.1

00

.14

0.2

10

.16

0.2

70

.11

0.0

90

.21

0.1

40

.22

0.3

80

.49

0.3

20

.33

0.6

40

.37

0.3

10

.42

0.2

4

47

.F

lex

ibil

ity

0.0

80

.22

0.1

40

.16

0.0

80

.33

0.6

10

.30

0.2

40

.34

0.1

50

.16

0.0

70

.21

0.1

10

.13

0.4

50

.13

0.0

90

.24

0.0

70

.26

0.2

40

.30

0.1

70

.35

0.7

10

.40

0.2

20.4

1

48

.L

oy

alty

0.0

00

.14

0.1

70

.13

0.1

80

.34

0.3

50

.60

0.2

60

.34

0.1

10

.08

0.1

40

.12

0.1

60

.09

0.1

10

.14

0.0

80

.12

0.0

20

.12

0.2

30

.20

0.2

30

.34

0.4

00

.64

0.2

80.3

0

49

.E

thic

s0

.17

0.1

30

.23

0.2

00

.19

0.3

60

.24

0.2

80

.62

0.2

30

.26

0.1

90

.15

0.2

00

.12

0.2

10

.07

0.1

10

.31

0.0

70

.22

0.2

60

.25

0.2

40

.28

0.3

70

.22

0.2

60

.65

0.2

1

50

.E

mp

loy

abil

ity

0.0

10

.13

0.0

60

.03

0.1

60

.25

0.3

20

.21

0.1

50

.56

0.0

40

.05

0.0

30

.16

0.1

50

.09

0.1

60

.04

0.0

80

.45

0.0

70

.16

0.1

40

.10

0.2

30

.23

0.4

20

.30

0.1

60.6

1

T4

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts

51

.C

aree

r0

.26

0.2

70

.16

0.1

90

.03

0.2

60

.19

0.1

50

.15

0.0

60

.36

0.2

30

.18

0.2

30

.01

0.1

20

.17

0.0

50

.12

�0

.03

0.3

20

.24

0.1

30

.17

0.0

40

.21

0.2

20

.13

0.1

80

.13

52

.Jo

b0

.10

0.3

90

.12

0.1

60

.10

0.2

00

.16

0.1

00

.11

0.0

70

.25

0.5

10

.23

0.2

40

.18

0.1

90

.17

0.1

70

.13

�0

.01

0.1

60

.45

0.1

50

.13

0.1

20

.25

0.2

20

.11

0.2

10

.08

53

.S

oci

al0

.09

0.0

70

.29

0.1

60

.11

0.2

10

.13

0.1

40

.19

0.0

50

.22

0.1

80

.60

0.0

60

.20

0.2

5�

0.0

20

.08

0.1

0�

0.0

90

.20

0.1

80

.34

0.1

90

.21

0.3

00

.15

0.1

50

.31

0.0

7

54

.F

inan

cial

0.0

90

.15

0.1

60

.30

0.1

10

.21

0.2

00

.19

0.1

30

.07

0.2

50

.25

0.1

80

.47

0.1

70

.14

0.1

10

.13

0.0

70

.05

0.1

60

.17

0.0

70

.31

0.1

30

.17

0.2

30

.22

0.2

20

.15

55

.P

rivat

eli

fe0

.02

0.0

40

.04

0.0

70

.35

0.0

70

.01

0.0

50

.04

0.0

80

.05

0.0

40

.12

0.1

10

.58

0.1

0�

0.1

30

.11

0.1

40

.12

0.0

70

.11

0.1

20

.16

0.4

60

.13

0.0

30

.07

0.1

80

.16

T4

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s

56

.R

ole

beh

avio

r0

.11

0.1

00

.17

0.1

30

.11

0.2

80

.10

0.1

20

.20

0.0

30

.16

0.2

10

.29

0.0

80

.17

0.5

10

.07

0.1

20

.29

�0

.02

0.2

10

.23

0.1

90

.18

0.1

70

.39

0.1

30

.09

0.3

3�

0.0

2

Continues



Tab

le1

.C

on

tin

ued

12

34

56

78

91

01

11

21

31

41

51

61

71

81

92

02

12

22

32

42

52

62

72

82

93

0

57

.F

lex

ibil

ity

0.1

20

.18

�0

.06

0.0

5�

0.0

80

.03

0.3

40

.04

0.0

30

.13

0.1

30

.18

0.0

40

.06�

0.1

10

.16

0.5

90

.16

0.1

40

.17

0.0

70

.14�

0.0

40

.12

�0

.05

0.1

00

.48

0.1

70

.12

0.1

8

58

.L

oy

alty

0.0

10

.03

�0

.02

0.1

00

.07

0.0

80

.15

0.2

50

.07

0.1

50

.16

0.1

90

.14

0.1

60

.16

0.1

00

.11

0.4

30

.23

0.0

50

.10

0.1

40

.10

0.1

50

.15

0.1

50

.24

0.3

70

.20

0.2

4

59

.E

thic

s0

.07

0.0

80

.08

0.0

80

.06

0.1

60

.08

0.1

40

.27

0.1

20

.15

0.2

00

.10

0.0

70

.12

0.3

00

.05

0.2

60

.44

0.0

10

.12

0.2

20

.09

0.1

40

.16

0.2

30

.08

0.1

00

.44

0.0

7

60

.E

mp

loy

abil

ity

�0

.03

0.0

4�

0.0

8�

0.0

30

.08

0.0

80

.17

0.1

00

.05

0.4

4�

0.0

30

.01

�0

.05

0.0

20

.04

0.0

70

.14

0.0

40

.08

0.5

50

.02

0.0

1�

0.0

20

.05

0.1

30

.03

0.2

30

.22

0.0

80

.49

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

T3

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

indu

cem

ents

31

.C

aree

r(0

.85

)

32

.Jo

b0

.48

(0.8

6)

33

.S

oci

al0

.31

0.4

1(0

.90

)

34

.F

inan

cial

0.5

00

.35

0.2

5(0

.78

)

35

.P

riva

teli

fe0

.08

0.2

50

.33

0.2

1(0

.80

)

T3

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s

36

.R

ole

beh

avio

r0

.22

0.3

00

.45

0.1

10

.21

(0.8

2)

37

.F

lex

ibil

ity

0.1

80

.26

0.0

30

.19�

0.0

80

.24

(0.6

3)

38

.L

oy

alty

0.1

60

.30

0.2

30

.16

0.1

70

.26

0.2

6(0

.85

)

39

.E

thic

s0

.09

0.1

80

.17

0.0

20

.14

0.5

20

.14

0.3

8(0

.72

)

40

.E

mp

loy

abil

ity

0.1

80

.10

0.0

00

.12

0.1

70

.15

0.3

30

.28

0.1

7(0

.79

)

T4

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

pro

mis

es

41

.C

aree

r0

.26

0.0

90

.09

0.1

70

.04

0.1

60

.11

0.1

10

.10�

0.0

2(0

.84

)

42

.Jo

b0

.23

0.4

10

.15

0.2

30

.07

0.2

90

.27

0.1

10

.22

0.0

10

.48

(0.7

8)

43

.S

oci

al0

.19

0.1

70

.29

0.2

10

.10

0.2

70

.00

0.1

10

.18

0.0

00

.20

0.4

1(0

.91

)

44

.F

inan

cial

0.1

40

.09

0.0

40

.36

0.0

60

.17

0.2

10

.13

0.0

70

.14

0.4

00

.45

0.3

2(0

.73

)

45

.P

riva

teli

fe0

.07

0.1

60

.18

0.1

50

.46

0.1

40

.00

0.1

60

.17

0.1

80

.15

0.2

80

.42

0.4

2(0

.74

)

T4

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

pro

mis

es

46

.R

ole

beh

avio

r0

.31

0.2

20

.24

0.2

40

.13

0.4

00

.04

0.1

30

.30

0.0

50

.24

0.3

90

.60

0.2

90

.35

(0.8

6)

47

.F

lex

ibil

ity

0.2

90

.20

0.0

70

.35

0.0

80

.18

0.4

80

.18

0.1

20

.25

0.1

90

.30

0.3

10

.32

0.2

70

.48

(0.7

0)

48

.L

oy

alty

0.1

70

.12

0.1

40

.27

0.1

00

.15

0.1

40

.31

0.0

90

.18

0.0

50

.11

0.2

60

.17

0.2

30

.31

0.4

6(0

.88

)

49

.E

thic

s0

.23

0.1

50

.18

0.1

80

.11

0.2

90

.00

0.1

30

.46

0.1

40

.19

0.2

90

.36

0.2

30

.30

0.5

70

.29

0.2

9(0

.81

)

50

.E

mp

loy

abil

ity

0.1

60

.08

0.0

40

.17

0.1

80

.09

0.2

20

.19

0.0

80

.50

0.0

50

.15

0.1

80

.15

0.3

00

.30

0.5

30

.44

0.2

5(0

.78

)

T4

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

indu

cem

ents

51

.C

aree

r0

.48

0.2

50

.14

0.3

80

.00

0.1

40

.14

0.1

20

.11

0.0

40

.33

0.2

80

.13

0.1

80

.02

0.2

20

.21

0.2

00

.25

0.1

6(0

.85

)

52

.Jo

b0

.30

0.5

80

.20

0.3

00

.20

0.2

40

.22

0.1

40

.19

0.0

50

.14

0.4

80

.19

0.1

70

.17

0.2

20

.19

0.1

30

.20

0.0

70

.51

(0.8

2)

53

.S

oci

al0

.21

0.2

10

.60

0.2

10

.15

0.3

50

.04

0.0

60

.19�

0.0

20

.13

0.1

80

.36

0.1

20

.18

0.3

00

.17

0.2

00

.26

0.0

40

.28

0.3

8(0

.88

)

Continues



Tab

le1

.C

on

tin

ued

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

54

.F

inan

cial

0.2

90

.24

0.0

80

.56

0.1

10

.14

0.1

40

.12

0.1

10

.12

0.1

50

.20

0.1

50

.43

0.2

20

.15

0.2

00

.21

0.2

50

.17

0.5

30

.39

0.2

2(0

.76

)

55

.P

riva

teli

fe0

.00

0.1

50

.21

0.0

50

.64

0.1

4�

0.0

70

.07

0.2

40

.10

0.0

40

.15

0.1

50

.18

0.5

90

.17

0.0

80

.09

0.1

60

.15

0.0

20

.29

0.2

50

.23

(0.8

4)

T4

Per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s

56

.R

ole

beh

avio

r0

.19

0.2

20

.37

0.0

90

.13

0.6

40

.09

0.1

10

.46

0.0

10

.22

0.3

20

.29

0.1

70

.20

0.4

30

.14

0.0

90

.32

0.0

00

.18

0.3

80

.50

0.1

10

.24

(0.8

3)

57

.F

lex

ibil

ity

0.1

40

.21

0.0

40

.15�

0.0

20

.23

0.7

50

.17

0.1

00

.25

0.1

60

.23

0.0

30

.22

0.0

10

.10

0.5

20

.12

0.0

70

.21

0.1

70

.26

0.1

00

.16

�0

.01

0.2

5(0

.71

)

58

.L

oy

alty

0.1

40

.17

0.1

20

.17

0.1

70

.20

0.2

20

.47

0.2

00

.16

0.0

70

.11

0.1

10

.07

0.1

10

.14

0.2

20

.40

0.2

00

.18

0.1

90

.29

0.2

50

.20

0.1

50

.27

0.3

0(0

.87

)

59

.E

thic

s0

.11

0.1

80

.17

0.0

70

.19

0.4

00

.09

0.2

00

.61

0.1

00

.15

0.2

60

.13

0.1

20

.18

0.2

70

.13

0.1

20

.50

0.0

80

.17

0.3

20

.27

0.1

60

.25

0.5

60

.23

0.3

9(0

.76

)

60

.E

mp

loy

abil

ity

0.0

90

.00

0.0

00

.06

0.1

60

.10

0.2

70

.19

0.1

00

.60

0.0

00

.08

0.0

70

.08

0.1

60

.12

0.2

90

.24

0.1

40

.59

0.0

30

.03�

0.0

10

.08

0.1

50

.07

0.3

00

.21

0.1

4(0

.79

)

aN¼

33

3.

En

trie

so

nth

ed

iag

on

alar

eC

ronb

ach

’sal

phas

.C

orr

elat

ion

s>

0.1

1,p<

0.0

5;

corr

elat

ions>

0.1

4,p<

0.0

1;

corr

elat

ions>

0.1

9,p<

0.0

01

.



measurement models showed that with only a few exceptions standardized factor loadings were always

higher than 0.50, providing evidence for convergent validity (Kline, 1998). The average variance

explained by each content dimension was always larger than the squared latent correlations between

dimensions, which provides evidence for the discriminant validity of our scales (Fornell & Larcker,

1981). Correlations between dimensions never exceeded 0.85, suggesting that no bivariate multicolli-

nearity exists between scales (Kline, 1998). The detailed results from these analyses are available from

the first author on request. Descriptive statistics for all scales are reported in Table 2.

Hypotheses 1–4 were tested using hierarchical regression analyses, following the procedure for the

analysis of residual change models (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). For each content dimension, we assessed

the relationship between perceived inducements or contributions and changes in perceived promises by

controlling for the value of perceived promises at the appropriate earlier point in time. A significant

increase in R2 at the second step indicates that perceived inducements/contributions are related to a

change in perceived promises. Analyses focused on changes in both socialization stages separately.

Changes during the encounter stage were assessed using T3 perceived promises as the dependent vari-

able. Changes during the acquisition stage were assessed using T4 perceived promises as the dependent

variables. To assess Hypotheses 3 and 4 the predictor variable was a mean score across the five content

dimensions of inducements (H3) and contributions (H4). The results for changes in perceived employer

promises (H1 and H3) are reported in Table 3. Table 4 reports the results for changes in perceived

employee promises (H2 and H4). Hypothesis 5 was tested by conducting paired-samples t-tests compar-

ing the average change in explained variance across content dimensions during both socialization stages.

Relationship between perceived inducements and changes in perceivedemployer promises

Hypothesis 1 proposed that the greater newcomers’ perceptions of employer inducements received, the

greater their perception of employer promises over time. During the encounter stage significant

increases in R2 were obtained for perceived promises about the five dimensions of employer induce-

ments, which were due to the perception of inducements received. Thus, a greater perception of

inducements received at T2 was related to a positive change in perceived promises from T1 to T3.

The strongest results were for perceived employer promises relating to job content. Respondents’

Table 2. Descriptives (mean scores and standard deviations) for variables included in the study

Perceived promises Perception of actual experiences

T1 T3 T4 T2 T3 T4

Employer inducementsCareer development 3.87 (0.86) 3.83 (0.79) 3.89 (0.77) 3.55 (0.78) 3.17 (0.90) 3.18 (0.81)Job content 3.71 (0.71) 3.74 (0.59) 3.81 (0.59) 3.80 (0.71) 3.75 (0.75) 3.73 (0.67)Social atmosphere 3.39 (0.89) 3.50 (0.84) 3.48 (0.87) 4.00 (0.68) 3.93 (0.74) 3.87 (0.72)Financial rewards 3.19 (0.73) 3.09 (0.77) 3.21 (0.76) 2.86 (0.80) 2.73 (0.88) 2.83 (0.81)Work-life balance 3.27 (0.81) 3.33 (0.83) 3.42 (0.79) 3.78 (0.71) 3.67 (0.81) 3.77 (0.78)

Employee contributionsIn- and extra-role behavior 3.66 (0.80) 3.76 (0.73) 3.81 (0.69) 4.15 (0.45) 4.18 (0.47) 4.22 (0.48)Flexibility 2.61 (0.82) 2.74 (0.82) 2.75 (0.81) 3.29 (0.87) 3.24 (0.85) 3.32 (0.90)Ethical behavior 3.83 (0.90) 3.87 (0.84) 3.96 (0.78) 4.39 (0.50) 4.33 (0.52) 4.34 (0.54)Loyalty 2.15 (1.03) 2.42 (1.17) 2.36 (1.12) 3.93 (1.02) 3.83 (1.11) 3.66 (1.10)Employability 2.78 (1.16) 2.83 (1.06) 2.76 (1.10) 3.18 (1.16) 3.09 (1.20) 3.10 (1.16)



Tab

le3

.H

iera

rch

ical

reg

ress

ion

anal

yse

so

fch

ang

ein

per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

pro

mis

es

Ou

tco

me

Pre

dic

tor:

per

ceiv

edO

utc

om

eP

red

icto

r:p

erce

ived

emp

loy

erin

du

cem

ents

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

Ad

j.R

2F

�R

2�F

Ad

j.R

2F

�R

2�F

Perceived

employerpromises

T3

Perceived

employerpromises

T3

Car

eer

dev

elo

pm

ent

Car

eer

dev

elo

pm

ent

T1

emp

loy

erp

rom

ises

0.3

52

28

.62

**

T1

emp

loy

erp

rom

ises

0.3

52

28

.11

**

T2

emp

loy

erin

du

cem

ents

0.3

71

25

.79

**

0.0

21

5.2

9*

*T

2em

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s0

.35

11

5.6

8*

*0

.00

2.4

7Jo

bco

nte

nt

Job

con

ten

tT

1em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.29

17

5.8

0*

*T

1em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.29

17

5.8

0*

*T

2em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.33

10

4.7

3*

*0

.04

24

.15

**

T2

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.3

21

02

.32

**

0.0

32

0.7

4*

*S

oci

alat

mo

sph

ere

So

cial

atm

osp

her

eT

1em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.41

29

4.5

2*

*T

1em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.40

29

4.5

2*

*T

2em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.42

15

8.7

3*

*0

.02

13

.99

**

T2

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.4

01

47

.61

**

0.0

00

.82

Fin

anci

alre

war

ds

Fin

anci

alre

war

ds

T1

emp

loy

erp

rom

ises

0.3

52

27

.37

**

T1

emp

loy

erp

rom

ises

0.3

52

29

.72

**

T2

emp

loy

erin

du

cem

ents

0.3

81

30

.85

**

0.0

32

2.7

6*

*T

2em

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s0

.35

11

4.6

0*

*0

.00

0.0

2W

ork

-lif

eb

alan

ceW

ork

-lif

eb

alan

ceT

1em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.37

24

8.2

6*

*0

.03

19

.21

**

T1

emp

loy

erp

rom

ises

0.3

72

48

.26

**

T2

emp

loy

erin

du

cem

ents

0.3

91

39

.00

**

T2

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.3

71

24

.01

**

0.0

00

.22

Perceived

employerpromises

T4

Perceived

employerpromises

T4

Car

eer

dev

elo

pm

ent

Car

eer

dev

elo

pm

ent

T3

emp

loy

erp

rom

ises

0.3

51

95

.92

**

T3

emp

loy

erp

rom

ises

0.3

51

96

.14

**

T4

emp

loy

erin

du

cem

ents

0.3

69

9.6

2*

*0

.01

2.7

6T

4em

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s0

.35

99

.22

**

0.0

01

.84

Job

con

ten

tJo

bco

nte

nt

T3

emp

loy

erp

rom

ises

0.3

82

23

.58

**

T3

emp

loy

erp

rom

ises

0.3

82

23

.58

**

T4

emp

loy

erin

du

cem

ents

0.3

91

15

.59

**

0.0

15

.06

*T

4em

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s0

.40

11

9.3

6*

*0

.02

9.7

0*

*S

oci

alat

mo

sph

ere

So

cial

atm

osp

her

eT

3em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.47

31

3.6

0*

*T

3em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.47

31

3.6

8*

*T

4em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.47

15

7.3

9*

*0

.00

1.1

0T

4em

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s0

.47

15

7.9

7*

*0

.00

1.7

1F

inan

cial

rew

ard

sF

inan

cial

rew

ard

sT

3em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.38

21

7.6

3*

*T

3em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.37

21

7.6

3*

*T

4em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.39

11

2.1

5*

*0

.01

4.5

3*

T4

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.3

91

17

.15

**

0.0

21

0.7

4W

ork

-lif

eb

alan

ceW

ork

-lif

eb

alan

ceT

3em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.46

31

5.3

2*

*T

3em

plo

yer

pro

mis

es0

.47

31

5.2

1*

*T

4em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.47

16

0.7

4*

*0

.01

3.7

3*

T4

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.4

81

62

.17

**

0.0

15

.25

*

Note

:T

3o

utc

om

esre

fer

toch

ang

esin

per

ceiv

edp

rom

ises

du

ring

the

enco

unte

rst

age;

T4

ou

tco

mes

refe

rto

chan

ges

inp

erce

ived

pro

mis

esd

uri

ng

the

acqu

isit

ion

stag

e.R

esult

sfo

rth

eim

pac

to

fp

erce

ived

emp

loyer

ind

uce

men

ts(a

dap

tati

on

pri

nci

ple

)ar

eo

nth

ele

ft;

resu

lts

for

the

imp

act

of

per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s(r

ecip

roci

typ

rin

cip

le)

are

on

the

rig

ht.

*p<

0.0

5;

**p<

0.0

1.



Tab

le4

.H

iera

rch

ical

reg

ress

ion

anal

yse

so

fch

ang

ein

per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

pro

mis

es

Ou

tco

me

Pre

dic

tor:

per

ceiv

edO

utc

om

eP

red

icto

r:P

erce

ived

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

emp

loy

erin

du

cem

ents

Ad

j.R

2F

�R

2�F

Ad

j.R

2F

�R

2�F

Perceived

employeepromises

T3

Perceived

employeepromises

T3

In-

and

extr

a-ro

leb

ehav

ior

In-

and

extr

a-ro

leb

ehav

ior

T1

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.3

72

51

.43

**

T1

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.3

72

51

.43

**

T2

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.4

21

59

.31

**

0.0

64

2.7

6*

*T

2em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.41

15

0.7

1**

0.0

43

1.9

1*

*F

lex

ibil

ity

Fle

xib

ilit

yT

1em

plo

yee

pro

mis

es0

.41

30

2.5

2**

T1

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.4

13

02

.52

**

T2

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.4

71

86

.23

**

0.0

54

1.4

7*

*T

2em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.42

15

8.4

0**

0.0

18

.80

**

Lo

yal

tyL

oy

alty

T1

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.3

72

46

.42

**

T1

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.3

72

54

.58

**

T2

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.3

71

24

.28

**

0.0

01

.72

T2

emp

loy

erin

du

cem

ents

0.3

81

32

.82

**

0.0

17

.30

**

Eth

ical

beh

avio

rE

thic

alb

ehav

ior

T1

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.4

02

87

.28

**

T1

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.4

02

87

.81

**

T2

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.4

31

61

.23

**

0.0

32

1.1

2*

*T

2em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.44

16

7.5

9**

0.0

42

8.7

3*

*E

mp

loy

abil

ity

Em

plo

yab

ilit

yT

1em

plo

yee

pro

mis

es0

.32

20

0.3

5**

T1

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.3

22

05

.24

**

T2

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.3

81

32

.33

**

0.0

64

3.9

0*

*T

2em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.34

11

2.4

7**

0.0

21

3.6

3*

*

Perceived

employeepromises

T4

Perceived

employeepromises

T4

In-

and

extr

a-ro

leb

ehav

ior

In-

and

extr

a-ro

leb

ehav

ior

T3

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.4

12

47

.05

**

T3

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.4

12

47

.05

**

T4

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.4

31

31

.07

**

0.0

29

.33

**

T4

emp

loy

erin

du

cem

ents

0.4

21

28

.21

**

0.0

15

.95

*F

lex

ibil

ity

Fle

xib

ilit

yT

3em

plo

yee

pro

mis

es0

.50

36

1.0

8**

T3

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.5

03

63

.45

**

T4

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.5

21

94

.28

**

0.0

21

4.1

7*

*T

4em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.51

18

5.8

5**

0.0

14

.60

*L

oy

alty

Lo

yal

tyT

3em

plo

yee

pro

mis

es0

.40

23

5.9

4**

T3

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.4

02

47

.07

**

T4

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.4

11

21

.42

**

0.0

14

.53

*T

4em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.41

12

7.1

3**

0.0

14

.67

*E

thic

alb

ehav

ior

Eth

ical

beh

avio

rT

3em

plo

yee

pro

mis

es0

.42

26

2.2

4**

T3

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.4

22

62

.24

**

T4

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.4

51

45

.25

**

0.0

31

6.7

3T

4em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.42

13

0.7

6**

0.0

00

.01

Em

plo

yab

ilit

yE

mp

loy

abil

ity

T3

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.3

72

03

.15

**

T3

emp

loy

eep

rom

ises

0.3

72

14

.55

**

T4

emp

loy

eeco

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

0.4

11

18

.29

**

0.0

42

1.4

9*

*T

4em

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts0

.37

10

7.5

3**

0.0

00

.70

Note

:T

3o

utc

om

esre

fer

toch

ang

esin

per

ceiv

edp

rom

ises

du

rin

gth

een

cou

nte

rst

age;

T4

ou

tco

mes

refe

rto

chan

ges

inp

erce

ived

pro

mis

esd

uri

ng

the

acqu

isit

ion

stag

e.R

esu

lts

for

the

imp

act

of

per

ceiv

edem

plo

yee

con

trib

uti

on

s(a

dap

tati

on

pri

nci

ple

)ar

eo

nth

ele

ft;

resu

lts

for

the

imp

act

of

per

ceiv

edem

plo

yer

ind

uce

men

ts(r

ecip

roci

typ

rin

cip

le)

are

on

the

rig

ht.

*p<

0.0

5;

**p<

0.0

1.



perceptions of inducements received relating to their job content explained 4 per cent of the variance of

the change in perceived promises about their job content (�F¼ 24.15, p< 0.001).

During the acquisition stage the perception of inducements received at T3 was related to a significant

increase in explained amount of the variance in perceived promises about job content (�R2¼ 0.01,

�F¼ 5.06, p< 0.05), financial rewards (�R2¼ 0.01, �F¼ 4.53, p< 0.05), and work-life balance

(�R2¼ 0.01, �F¼ 3.73, p< 0.05). Together these results provide support for Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 5 proposed that the relationship between perceived inducements and changes in per-

ceived employer promises would be stronger during the encounter stage than during the acquisition

stage. For the five dimensions of employer inducements, the average change in explained amount of

variance in perceived promises due to the perception of employer inducements received was signifi-

cantly greater during the encounter stage than during the acquisition stage (mean difference¼ 0.02

(SD¼ 0.007), t(4)¼ 6.325, p< 0.01). This supports Hypothesis 5.

Relationship between perceived contributions and changes in perceivedemployee promises

Hypothesis 2 proposed that the greater newcomers’ perceptions of contributions made, the greater their

perception of employee promises over time. During the encounter stage perceived contributions were

significantly related to a positive change in perceived promises about employee contributions from T1

to T3. Between 3 per cent and 6 per cent of the variance of the change in perceived promises about in-

and extra-role behavior, flexibility, ethical behavior, and employability was accounted for by respon-

dents’ perceptions of their contributions. Only changes in perceived promises about loyalty were not

significantly explained by respondents’ perceptions of their contributions.

During the acquisition stage perceived contributions significantly explained changes in respon-

dents’ perceived promises about all five dimensions of employee contributions. The amount of

explained variance was between 1 per cent for loyalty and 4 per cent for employability.

Hypothesis 5 proposed that the relationship between perceived contributions and changes in perceived

employee promises would be stronger during the encounter stage than during the acquisition stage. How-

ever, results of the paired-samples t-tests show that the average change in explained amount of variance

in perceived employee promises due to the perception of employee contributions did not differ signifi-

cantly between both socialization stages (mean difference¼ 0.016, SD¼ 0.021, t(4)¼ 1.725, p> 0.05).

Relationship between perceived employer inducements and changesin perceived employee promises

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the greater newcomers’ perceptions of inducements received, the greater

their perception of employee promises over time. During the encounter stage changes in the five

dimensions of perceived employee promises are significantly explained by respondents’ perceptions

of employer inducements received. Thus, a greater perception of inducements received at T2 is related

to a positive change from T1 to T3 in perceived employee promises about in- and extra-role behavior,

flexibility, loyalty, ethical behavior, and employability. The amount of variance of the change in per-

ceived employee promises accounted for by perceived employer inducements is between 1 per cent

(loyalty and flexibility) and 4 per cent (in- and extra-role behavior and ethical behavior).

During the acquisition stage perceived inducements at T3 significantly explain changes in

perceived employee promises about flexibility, in- and extra-role behavior and loyalty. For

changes in perceived promises about ethical behavior and employability the amount of variance

explained by perceived employer inducements is not significant.



Results of the paired-samples t-tests show that the average change in explained amount of variance in

perceived employee promises due to the perception of employer inducements did not differ significantly

between both socialization stages. (Mean difference¼�0.004, SD¼ 0.011, t(4)¼�0.704, p> 0.05).

Thus Hypothesis 5 is not supported when we compare the strength of the relationship between per-

ceived inducements and changes in perceived employee promises during both socialization stages.

Relationship between perceived contributions and changes in perceivedemployer promises

Hypothesis 4 proposed that the greater newcomers’ perceptions of contributions made, the greater

their perception of employer promises over time. During the encounter stage, only changes in per-

ceived promises about job content are significantly explained by perceived employee contributions.

During the acquisition stage significant increases in R2 are obtained for perceived employer promises

about job content, financial rewards and work-life balance, which were due to respondents’ percep-

tions of their own contributions. The amount of variance of the change in perceived employer promises

accounted for by perceived employee contributions is 1 per cent for work-life balance and 2 per cent

for job content and financial rewards. These results thus partially support Hypothesis 4.

Results of the paired-samples t-tests show that the average change in explained amount of variance

in perceived promises due to the perception of contributions made did not differ significantly between

both socialization stages (mean difference¼ 0.018, SD¼ 0.018, t(4)¼ 2.250, p> 0.05). Thus,

Hypothesis 5 is not supported when we compare the strength of the relationship between perceived

contributions and changes in perceived employer promises during both socialization stages.

Discussion

This study used the conceptual framework of newcomer sensemaking to study the factors associated

with changes in newcomers’ perceived promises during the encounter and acquisition stage of socia-

lization. It provides a theoretical framework and empirical assessment of some basic processes by

which newcomers change their psychological contract perceptions after entry. First, this study offers

a theoretical framework for understanding changes in the mean level of newcomers’ psychological

contracts as these have been found in earlier research (Robinson et al., 1994; Thomas & Anderson,

1998). Second, this study empirically assessed some of the theoretical propositions regarding the

dynamics of psychological contract formation (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994). Based

on existing empirical work and theoretical models this study addressed psychological contract forma-

tion as a sensemaking process occurring during the socialization period. In general our results support

the idea that during the socialization process newcomers actively make sense of promises based on

their interpretations of experiences encountered in the work setting. More specifically, our results pro-

vide evidence for the occurrence of a unilateral and a reciprocal adaptation process.

First, unilateral adaptation refers to changes in perceived promises conveyed by one party based on

the interpretation of that party’s actions. As expected, newcomers changed their perceptions of what

their employer had promised them based on their perceptions of the employer inducements actually

received. They also changed their perceptions of what they had promised their employer based on their

perceptions of what they actually contributed to their employer. This implies that newcomers use

their experiences within the work environment as feedback about their initial expectations and that they

are flexible in adapting their initial expectations based upon this feedback. The evidence for unilateral



adaptation of perceived promises provides a first empirical confirmation of the importance of sensemak-

ing processes after organizational entry put forward in existing theoretical models on psychological

contract formation (Rousseau, 1995, 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994). It is also a first concrete application

of Louis’s (1980) sensemaking theory within psychological contract research. Our findings highlight

the importance for organizations to pay attention to newcomers’ first experiences within their new

employment relationship. Active communication about what employees can expect and what is

expected of them could enhance changes in perceived promises that are in line with organizational

objectives.

Second, we proposed that newcomers would also change their perceptions of promises based upon

their interpretations of the other party’s actions in the work setting, i.e., reciprocal adaptation. As

expected, a greater level of perceived employer inducements received was associated with a greater

level of perceived employee promises over time. Thus, newcomers not only adapt their promises based

on their perceptions of what they contribute to the organization, but also as a function of their percep-

tion of the inducements they receive from their employer. This supports the validity of the norm of

reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) as a central element in explaining the dynamics of the psychological con-

tract. It supports the notion of the psychological contract as an exchange construct (Rousseau, 1995;

Shore & Tetrick, 1994). It confirms earlier findings on the role of reciprocity in explaining the relation-

ship between psychological contract evaluations and employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Conway

& Briner, 2002; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Turnley et al., 2003). Our results extend

this research by demonstrating that reciprocity also operates during the stage of psychological contract

formation and that it explains changes in newcomers’ psychological contract perceptions. Moreover,

our findings show that it is important for future researchers to take into account both employee con-

tributions and employer inducements when studying the dynamics of psychological contract changes.

This is an important extension of prior research, which has focused almost exclusively on the employer

obligations comprised in the psychological contract.

Contrary to our expectations, newcomers’ perceptions of employee contributions were only related

to changes in perceived employer promises about job content. This suggests that the reciprocity prin-

ciple does not operate to the same extent in both directions. An explanation could be that the relation-

ship between perceived employee contributions and perceived employer promises is curvilinear. For

newcomers with greater perceptions of contributions made, this perception might be associated with

greater levels of perceived employer promises over time, while for those with lower perceptions of

their own contributions this might not be associated with lower perceptions of employer promises over

time. This interpretation is in line with the proposition that individuals’ cognitive schemas about what

they are entitled to receive from their employer are more stable than schemas about their own contri-

butions (Heath, Knez, & Camerer, 1993).

We proposed that the adaptation of perceived promises to interpretations of experiences would

mainly occur during the encounter stage of socialization, i.e., the first months after entry. We expected

that during this period newcomers would experience a stronger need for sensemaking in order to

reduce uncertainty about the terms of their employment relationship. However, this hypothesis was

only partially confirmed by our data. In line with our expectations, we found that the unilateral adapta-

tion of perceived employer promises to the perception of employer inducements received was stronger

during the encounter than during the acquisition stage of socialization. This implies that the first

months after entry are important for employers in order to ‘set the stage’ for what newcomers can

realistically expect. Thus, employers should not postpone the exchange of information about their

inducements to a later stage of the employment relationship because at that time employees might have

become less flexible in adapting their initial expectations.

In contrast, the unilateral adaptation of perceived employee promises to perceived employee con-

tributions continued during both socialization stages. This suggests that newcomers allow themselves



more time to adapt their promises about their own contributions. A possible explanation is that

employees are more flexible in changing their perceptions of their own promises than in changing their

perceptions of their employer’s promises because the latter are more likely to become perceived as

‘entitlements’ (Heath et al., 1993). Alternatively it is possible that newcomers are more motivated

to adapt their perceptions of their own promises in order to avoid negative self-evaluations, a psycho-

logical process which is not restricted to the initial stages of an employment relationship.

Contrary to our expectations, the reciprocal adaptation of perceived promises to interpretations of

experiences occurred to the same extent during both socialization stages. This finding suggests that

reciprocity, as a central principle explaining the dynamics of the psychological contract, does not only

operate during the initial months after entry. It suggests that the dynamic relationship between employ-

ees’ perceptions of both parties’ promises and contributions is not restricted to the first months after

entry. The latter is in line with previous findings about the role of reciprocity in explaining employee

attitudes and behaviors (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison,

1995; Turnley et al., 2003).

Together our findings show that during the first year after entry newcomers’ interpretations of their

experiences within the work setting are associated with changes in their perceptions of the terms of

their employment deal. This implies that newcomers’ psychological contracts are not formed once and

for all at the time they enter the organization. They evolve and are periodically revised as a result of

sense made of experiences encountered after entry.

These results highlight several potential implications for employers. They imply that employers

should pay more attention to managing newcomers’ beliefs regarding the promises they have

exchanged with their new organization. The relationship between organizational actions and changes

in newcomers’ perceptions of both employer and employee promises indicates that it is important for

employers to be aware of the impact of their human resource policies on employees’ expectations and

on their intended contributions. In addition the results suggest that employers can manage employees’

perceptions of their own promises directly by providing them concrete information and feedback about

their own contributions within the work setting.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

When interpreting our results a number of limitations should be kept in mind, which need further atten-

tion in future research. First, despite its many advantages we are aware that a longitudinal research

design is not without problems such as testing effects, selection, and mortality of subjects (Cook &

Campbell, 1979). For example, it is possible that over time subjects became weary of completing mul-

tiple surveys or that their responses became biased by communicating about the survey topics with

other respondents. Our analyses are only based on those respondents who participated in the full study,

and, by implication, those who stayed with the organization during the study period. This limits the

generalizability of our findings.

Second, the results of our study should be considered in view of the characteristics of our research

sample. This consisted of well-educated, relatively young and inexperienced newcomers from six large

profit firms. Although exploratory analyses showed no significant impact of age, experience, hierarch-

ical level, and organizational membership, replication of our study is important in order to assess

whether the relationships we have found also hold within different research populations.

Third, in our study we only focused on newcomers, without considering the organizational view-

point. In order to more fully understand changes in psychological contract perceptions it is necessary



for future research to include the employer perspective. Related to this is the use of self-reports for

assessing both dependent and independent variables. Since we were primarily interested in newco-

mers’ perceptions and subjective evaluations of their employment relationship, the use of self-report

data is justified. However, this justification does not eliminate the problems of common method var-

iance due to single-source bias, which might have inflated the magnitude of the relationships found.

Although the likelihood of common method bias was somewhat reduced by measuring independent

and dependent variables at different points in time and by focusing only on the change portions of

psychological contract perceptions, future research should supplement self-report measures with data

from supervisors, peers, or both. The use of self-report measures also might have caused socially desir-

able responses, certainly when measuring employees’ evaluations of their own contributions. There-

fore our results ask for further validation from research using multiple sources.

Fourth, future research should complement the current findings by assessing more objective factors

contributing to changes in newcomers’ psychological contract perceptions. Examples are a change of

supervisor or the type of socialization activities put in place by the organization.

Finally, individual factors such as exchange ideology, personality, and values could play a role in

explaining changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts. Including these type of factors is also a

suggestion for future research.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the findings of this study contribute substantially to the research on psychological con-

tracts. To date the majority of research has focused exclusively on the consequences of psychological

contracts. In contrast, this study focused on the important but neglected issue of psychological contract

formation. Departing from the framework of newcomer sensemaking, it provided a theoretical outline

and empirical account of the factors associated with changes in newcomers’ perceived promises. The

results show that it is important to view the psychological contract as a dynamic set of expectations

which, at least during the socialization process, are affected by newcomers’ interpretations of their

experiences after entry. While earlier research has shown that psychological contracts are dynamic

and evolving during the socialization period (Robinson et al., 1994; Thomas & Anderson, 1998),

our study takes these earlier findings one step further by illuminating the intervening processes that

contribute to observed changes. These findings suggest interesting and useful implications for future

research and for organizational practice.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Guest Editor, Lynn Shore, and the three anonymous reviewers for

their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Author biographies

Ans De Vos is Assistant Professor in the HRM Centre of Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School,

the autonomous management school associated with the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Gent



University in Belgium. She received her PhD from the Faculty of Economics and Business Adminis-

tration of Gent University. Her current research interests include the psychological contract, newcomer

socialization, and career management.

Dirk Buyens is Professor in Human Resource Management at the Faculty of Economics and Business

Administration of Gent University in Belgium. He is also Academic Dean and Professor at the HRM

Centre of Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School. He earned his PhD in Industrial and Organiza-

tional Psychology from Gent University. His research interests include career management, e-HRM,

and employer branding.

Rene Schalk is Professor in the Department of Policy and Organization Studies, Tilburg University,

the Netherlands. He earned his PhD in Social and Organizational Psychology from Nijmegen Univer-

sity. His research focuses on complexity and dynamics in organizations, with a special focus on the

psychological contract, international differences, and policy and aging. He is a consulting editor for the

Journal of Organizational Behavior, editorial board member of the Journal of Managerial Psychology,

and co-editor of the book Psychological Contracts in Employment: Cross-national Perspectives.

References

Anderson, N., & Thomas, H. D. C. (1996). Work group socialization. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of workgroups (pp. 423–450). Chichester: Wiley.

Arbucle, J. L. (1999). AMOS 4.1. Chicaco, IL: SmallWaters.Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E., & Callister, R. (1998). Organizational socialization: a review and directions for future

research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 149–214).Stamford, CO: JAI Press.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral science (2nd

edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Conway, N., & Briner, R. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological contract breach and

exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 287–302.Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for the behavioral sciences.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Kessler, I. (1998). The psychological contract in the UK public sector: employer and

employee obligations and contract fulfillment. In Academy of Management Proceedings, San Diego, August.Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Exploring employee reciprocity through the lens of the psychological

contract. Paper presented at the 15th annual conference of the Society of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, New Orleans, LA, 14–16 April.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Fornell, C., & Larcker, F. D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and

measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.Freese, C., & Schalk, R. (1996). Implications of differences in psychological contracts for human resource

management. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 501–509.Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25,

161–178.Guest, D., & Conway, N. (1997). Employee motivation and the psychological contract (Issues in People

Management No. 21). London: Institute of Personnel and Development.Guest, D., & Conway, N. (1998). Fairness at work and the psychological contract (Issues in People Management).

London: Institute of Personnel and Development.Heath, C., Knez, M., & Camerer, C. (1993). The strategic management of the entitlement process in the

employment relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 75–93.Herriot, P., Manning, W. E. G., & Kidd, J. M. (1997). The content of the psychological contract. British Journal ofManagement, 8, 151–162.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.



Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not seeing eye to eye: differences in

supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 23, 39–56.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: what newcomers experience and how they cope in unfamiliarorganisational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.

Meyer, J., Bobocel, R., & Allen, N. (1991). Development of organizational commutment during the first year ofemployment: a longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences. Journal of Management, 17(4), 717–733.

Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. M. (2000). Psychological contracts: employee relations for the twenty-firstcentury? In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizationalpsychology (Vol. 15, pp. 1–62). Chichester: Wiley.

Morrison, E. (1993a). A longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173–183.

Morrison, E. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academyof Management Journal, 36, 557–589.

Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. C., & Joplin, J. R. (1991). Psychological contracting and newcomer socialization. Journalof Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 55–72.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,574–599.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: alongitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137–152.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: the effect of unfulfilled obligationson civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289–298.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: alongitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525–546.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities andRights Journal, 2, 121–139.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: a study ofpsychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389–400.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwrittenagreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M. (1998). The psychological contract inventory. Technical Report, CCER, Heinz School of PublicPolicy, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: the building blocks of the psychological contract.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 511–541.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: making sense of the past and present as aprologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234–279.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.

Schalk, R., & Freese, L. (1997). New facets of commitment in response to organizational change: research trendsand the Dutch experience. In C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 4,pp. 107–123). New York: Wiley.

Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employmentrelationship. In C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 91–109).New York: Wiley.

Thomas, H. D. C., & Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts during organizationalsocialization: a study of British recruits entering the British Army. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,745–767.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contractfulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29,187–206.

Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty,and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895–922.

Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: unmetexpectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 25–42.



Appendix: Items Used to Measure Psychological Contract ContentDimensions

Employer inducements

Career development Opportunities for promotionOpportunities for career development within the organizationOpportunities to grow

Job content A job in which you can make decisions by yourselfOpportunities to show what you can doA job with responsibilitiesOpportunities to use your skills and capacities

Social atmosphere A good atmosphere at workPositive relationships between colleaguesA good mutual cooperationA good communication among colleagues

Financial rewards Financial rewards for exceptional performanceWage increases based on your performanceAn attractive pay and benefits packageRegular benefits and extras

Work-life balance Respect for your personal situationOpportunities for flexible working hours depending on your personal needsThe opportunity to decide for yourself when you take your vacationA flexible attitude concerning the correspondence between your workand private life

Employee contributions

In and extra-role behavior Work fast and efficientlyCooperate well with your colleaguesAssist your colleagues in their workDeliver qualitative workShare information with your colleaguesGet along with your colleagues

Flexibility Work extra hours to get your job doneTake work home regularlyVolunteer to do tasks that are strictly no part of your job if necessaryWork during the weekend if necessary

Ethical behavior Protect confidential information about the companyUse the organization’s properties honestlyUse the resources you receive from the organization honestly(materials, budgets)Follow the policies and norms of the organization

Loyalty Accept no job offers you receive from other organizationsNot immediately look for a job elsewhereRemain with this organization for at least some years

Employability Participate in training courses outside your working hoursTake personal initiative to attend additional training courses



psychological contract development during organizational

Documents