Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association

2008, Vol. 93, No. 5, 1104 1117 0021-9010/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1104

When Employees Strike Back: Investigating Mediating Mechanisms

Between Psychological Contract Breach and Workplace Deviance

Prashant Bordia Simon Lloyd D. Restubog

University of South Australia University of New South Wales

Robert L. Tang
De La SalleCollege of Saint Benilde

In this article, psychological contract breach, revenge, and workplace deviance are brought together to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

identify the cognitive, affective, and motivational underpinnings of workplace deviance. On the basis of
S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennetts (1997) model of workplace deviance, the authors proposed that breach
(a cognitive appraisal) and violation (an affective response) initiate revenge seeking. Motivated by
revenge, employees then engage in workplace deviance. Three studies tested these ideas. All of the
studies supported the hypothesized relationships. In addition, self-control was found to be a moderator
of the relationship between revenge cognitions and deviant acts; the relationship was weaker for people
high in self-control.

Keywords: feelings of violation, psychological contract breach, revenge, self-control, workplace devi-
ance

Workplace deviance has been defined as voluntary behavior that
violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the
well-being of an organization, its members, or both (Robinson &
Bennett, 1995, p. 556). There are three key elements of this definition.
First, deviant behaviors are volitional and motivated, not accidental.
Second, these behaviors are deviant, in that they violate the norms of
the dominant administrative coalition (Robinson & Bennett, 1997,
p. 6). Third, some of these behaviors (referred to as organizational
deviance) can be targeted at and therefore are harmful to the organi-
zation, and some (referred to as interpersonal deviance) can be tar-
geted at other individuals at work.
Several theoretical perspectives have been used to examine
workplace deviance. From the standpoint of equity and justice
theories, deviant behavior is considered an intentional act moti-
vated by the need to restore equity or seek retributive justice
(Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Greenberg, 1990). For exam-
Prashant Bordia, School of Management, University of South Australia;
Simon Lloyd D. Restubog, Australian School of Business, University of
New South Wales; Robert L. Tang, School of Management and Informa-
tion Technology, De La SalleCollege of Saint Benilde.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 66th Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, Georgia, August 2006.
We thank Elizabeth George, Maria Kraimer, and Carol Kulik for their
comments on the manuscript of this article and Cheri Ostroff for advice on
the statistical analysis. We are grateful to Miguel Alfonso Abesamis, Eloisa
Charmaine Bolinao, Kristina Cera, Geronimo Dimaano, Parker Ong, Mary
Ann Parina, and Anne Margrette Siendo for assistance in data collection
and Peter Lemuel Cayayan for logistical support and data entry.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Pra-
shant Bordia, School of Management, University of South Australia,
GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia. E-mail:
prashant.bordia@unisa.edu.au
ple, Aquino et al. (1999) found that interactional justice was
negatively related to organizational deviance and that distributive
and interactional justice were negatively related to interpersonal
deviance. From a social exchange perspective, an unfavorable or
unsupportive work environment may be reciprocated with work-
place deviance (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004).
Indeed, Colbert et al. found that perception of a supportive work
environment was negatively related to organizational as well as
interpersonal deviance. Finally, several dispositional characteris-
tics are related to workplace deviance (e.g., conscientiousness,
agreeableness, and emotional stability; Colbert et al., 2004).
Although prior research explicitly measured the situational and
dispositional antecedents of workplace deviance, an empirical
examination of the mediating affective and motivational processes
(e.g., the need to restore equity or seek retribution) was lacking
(Griffin & Lopez, 2005; OLeary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996;
Robinson & Bennett, 1997). In the research reported here, we
looked at the role of psychological contract breach as an anteced-
ent to deviant behaviors. In addition, we tested the mediating role
of affect (feelings of violation) and motivational intent (revenge)
in the breach deviance relationship. Specifically, we predicted a
chain of mediation as follows: breach, violation, revenge, devi-
ance. Moreover, given the importance of dispositional variables in
moderating the behavioral manifestations of antisocial and aggres-
sive behavior in the workplace (Douglas & Martinko, 2001), we
tested the effects of self-control in moderating the relationship
between revenge motivations and workplace deviance.
This article makes several contributions to the literature. In it,
we bring together the literatures on psychological contract breach
and violation, organizational revenge, workplace deviance, and
individual differences to develop a framework that addresses two
critical questions. First, what is the process by which psycholog-
ical contract breach leads to deviant behavior? Although empirical

1104
 CONTRACT BREACH, REVENGE, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE
research has made considerable gains in identifying the situational
and dispositional antecedents of deviance, the role of motivational
intent underlying deviance has been ignored (Griffin & Lopez,
2005), even though intentionality is a defining characteristic of
workplace deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Indeed, this is
the case with much of the research on negative behaviors in
organizations. In a review of this literature, Griffin and Lopez
(2005) concluded that in virtually all cases, researchers studying
bad behaviors have focused almost exclusively on the behaviors
themselves . . . [and] there have been few detailed discussions and
virtually no in-depth analyses of why individuals elect to pursue
[these] behaviors (p. 995). The test of the mediating processes
between breach and deviance therefore fills a major gap in the
literature; a test of mediators contributes to our understanding of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
how and why breach leads to deviance. From a theoretical stand-
point, focusing solely on the overt behavior can be misleading, as
an ostensibly harmful act might have pro-social intent (as demon-
strated by pro-social rule breaking; Morrison, 2006). Moreover, an
understanding of the intent underlying deviant behavior is impor-
tant for gauging the threat to organizational well-being. By exam-
ining the role of revenge seeking, we explicitly test for motiva-
tional underpinnings of deviant behaviors.
Similarly, an empirical analysis of motivational intent is missing
from the psychological contract breach literature (Coyle-Shapiro
& Conway, 2004). The harmful effects of breach are explained by
social exchange theory (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004; Rous-
seau, 1995); the employer employee relationship is governed by
the rules of social exchange, and when the organization is per-
ceived to break a promise, employees reciprocate by hurting or-
ganizational interests (e.g., withholding effort, engaging in anti-
citizenship behaviors, and exiting the organization). However, the
mediating mechanisms that demonstrate exchange-based motiva-
tional intent (e.g., retaliation for perceived harm) are usually not
measured. Our proposed model extends research on consequences
of psychological contract breach by demonstrating that revenge
can be an outcome of breach and can provide the motivational
intent in the relationship between breach and workplace deviance.
Further, the theoretical work on psychological contracts distin-
guishes between perceptions of contract breach (a cognitive as-
sessment) and feelings of violation (an affective reaction that
follows from a perception of contract breach; Robinson & Morri-
son, 2000). However, the mediating role of feelings of violation
between perceptions of breach and outcomes has received limited
attention. In particular, the relationship of violation with facet
measures of contract breach (i.e., breach of transactional and
relational inducements) has never been tested. Although Robinson
and Morrison provided an empirical test of their theoretical model
(i.e., relationship between psychological contract breach and feel-
ings of violation), they did not discuss the consequences of feel-
ings of violations, aside from the emotional response of violation
itself.
We address a second question: What factors constrain the en-
actment of deviance? From a practical standpoint, the identifica-
tion of the series of cognitions and emotions elicited by the
experience of breachand ending in deviant behaviorswill en-
hance our understanding of the stepwise process by which the
experience of broken promises results in deviant behaviors; inter-
ventions can then be developed at each of these steps to curtail the
enactment of deviance. In addition, personality characteristics can
1105
limit the translation of revenge motivations into workplace devi-
ance. However, there is a lack of research on dispositional char-
acteristics that constrain the likelihood of revenge seeking (Brad-
field & Aquino, 1999). Self-control, as a dispositional variable,
serves as a self-regulatory mechanism that holds people back from
reacting to provocations in aggressive ways (Brown, Westbrook,
& Challagalla, 2005). This article examines the direct effect of
self-control, as well as the interactive effect of self-control and
revenge, in the prediction of workplace deviance.
We tested the proposed relationships in a programmatic series of
three studies conducted with working adults as participants. Study
1 involved a longitudinal test of the relationship between employee
reports of psychological contract breach at Time 1 and workplace
deviance obtained from employee records at Time 2 (20 months
later). Study 2 is a survey study in which we used a facet measure
of contract breach (i.e., transactional and relational dimensions of
the psychological contract) and tested the mediating roles of feel-
ings of violation and revenge seeking in the prediction of organi-
zational workplace deviance (i.e., deviant acts directed toward the
organization). Study 3 is a survey study in which we replicated the
mediating roles of violation and revenge cognitions in the predic-
tion of organizational and interpersonal workplace deviance (i.e.,
deviant acts directed toward coworkers). In addition, we tested the
moderating role of self-control in the relationship between revenge
cognitions and the two types of workplace deviance. Research on
workplace deviance has largely relied on self-report methodology
and cross-sectional designs (Fox & Spector, 2005). Fox and Spec-
tor have strongly encouraged researchers to search for creative
means to study these types of behaviors. We obtained deviance
data from organizational records in Study 1 and from supervisor
reports in Studies 2 and 3. Finally, we took steps to minimize
common method variance and strengthen internal validity. For
example, self-reports of breach, violations, and revenge cognitions
might be influenced by social desirability motives. To test for these
effects, we measured social desirability and incorporated it in the
data analysis.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
Our approach is based on the model of workplace deviance
proposed by Robinson and Bennett (1997). According to this
model, deviance is instigated by provocations in the workplace,
such as unfair or poor working conditions and injustice. These
workplace instigators lead to cognitions of disparity (i.e., an as-
sessment that the situation is lacking in what was expected) and an
emotional reaction of outrage. These cognitions and emotional
reactions instigate motivations to restore the disparity (instrumen-
tal motivation) or to vent the feelings of outrage (expressive
motivation). The two motivations are closely intertwined, and the
same deviant behavior can fulfill both motivations. Finally, not
every impulse to engage in deviance is acted upon; constraints
such as fear of punishment or internalized norms against deviance
act to suppress the impulse.
In our proposed model, the breach of psychological contract acts
as a provocation for deviance. Perceptions of breach represent
cognitions of disparity (i.e., a perceived mismatch between what
was promised by the organization vs. what was received). These
cognitions lead to feelings of violation (i.e., feelings of betrayal,
frustration, and anger in response to the breach) and represent the
 1106 BORDIA, RESTUBOG, AND TANG
outrage element of the workplace deviance model (Robinson &
Bennett, 1997). These cognitions and emotions develop into a need
for revenge. Revenge fulfills both instrumental and expressive
motivations; the aim of revenge is to vent the frustration, redress
the imbalance in the exchange relationship, and punish the orga-
nization for the breach. The revenge motivation leads to deviant
behaviors. Finally, the personality variable of self-control acts as a
constraint and moderates the relationship between revenge and
deviant behaviors (i.e., the relationship between revenge and de-
viance will be stronger for people low in self-control). In the
following sections, we review the literature on each of the key
variables and formally propose the hypotheses.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychological Contract Breach and Feelings of Violation
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
A psychological contract consists of a set of beliefs involving
terms and exchange agreement between the employee and his or
her employing organization (Rousseau, 1995). An important at-
tribute of the psychological contract is that it is inherently percep-
tual and exists in the eye of the beholder (Rousseau, 1995, p. 6).
In other words, all employees have their own perceived under-
standing of the reciprocal obligations that exist between them-
selves and the organization. Psychological contracts can be clas-
sified into two dimensions: transactional and relational (Rousseau,
1995). The transactional dimension, characterized as inflexible and
short term, includes organizational benefits, competitive wages,
and merit pay based on current performance. Conversely, the
relational dimension is contingent on less specific exchanges and
a long-term relationship with the organization and includes career
growth opportunities, training and development, and support from
supervisors (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). The distinction be-
tween the transactional and relational dimensions of the psycho-
logical contract has been empirically demonstrated (Restubog &
Bordia, 2006; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley, Bolino,
Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003).
Psychological contract breach takes place when one party in a
relationship perceives that the other party has neglected to fulfill
what has been committed or promised (Rousseau, 1995). As pre-
dicted by social exchange theory, employees respond to a breach
of psychological contract by the organization in a variety of
negative ways (Rousseau, 1995; Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, &
Bravo, 2007). Employee perceptions of breach of the organiza-
tional psychological contract are negatively related to job satisfac-
tion (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), organizational citizenship be-
haviors (Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2006, 2007; Robinson &
Morrison, 1995), trust (Robinson, 1996), and employee perfor-
mance (Restubog et al., 2006; Turnley et al., 2003). Along similar
lines, breach is positively related to anticitizenship behaviors
(Kickul, Neuman, Parker, & Finkl, 2001), absenteeism (Deery,
Iverson, & Walsh, 2006), and intentions to leave the organization
(Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). On the basis of these studies, we
made the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Psychological contract breach will be posi-
tively related to workplace deviance.
In research literature of the mid-1990s, the term violation was
used interchangeably with breach (both implying perception of
broken promises; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Robinson & Rous-
seau, 1994). To improve the definitional clarity, Morrison and
Robinson (1997) distinguished between psychological contract
breach and feelings of violation accompanied by strong emotions.
Psychological contract breach, a cognitive appraisal, emanates
from the employees perception that there is a discrepancy be-
tween what was promised versus what was actually delivered.
Violation refers to the affective reaction that follows from this
cognitive appraisal of breach. It consists of various emotions
resulting from the fact that expected outcomes did not eventuate
(e.g., disappointment and frustration) andat a deeper level
feelings of betrayal, anger, and bitterness due to broken promises
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson & Morrison, 2000). In
addition, Morrison and Robinson argued that violation would
mediate the relationship between perceptions of breach and attitu-
dinal and behavioral outcomes. The mediating role of violation can
be explained using affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano,
1996; Zhao et al., 2007), which argues that experiences at work
evoke affective reactions that, in turn, influence attitudes and
behaviors. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that feelings of
violation serve as an intermediary variable that links contract
breach and work attitudes (Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004; Zhao et
al., 2007). Contract breach elicits these negative work attitudes
(i.e., reduced affective commitment and job satisfaction and in-
creased turnover intentions) as a result of the strong sense of
violation experienced. In the context of the current research, we
predicted that violation would mediate the relationship between
breach and revenge. In the next section, we introduce the revenge
literature and formally propose the hypotheses linking breach,
violation, and revenge.
Revenge in an Organizational Context
Revenge can be defined as an effort by the victim of harm to
inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party
judged responsible for causing the harm (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies,
2001, p. 53). What makes aggressive actions revengeful is the
intention to retaliate or reciprocate perceived harm by harming in
return. There has been growing interest in investigating revenge
dynamics in an organizational context. Research has focused on
individual differences (e.g., negative reciprocity norm endorse-
ment, Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, & Rohdieck, 2004; agreeable-
ness, Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999) and organizational ante-
cedents (e.g., injustice, violation of promises, loss of status or
power, Bies & Tripp, 2001; interpersonal offense, Aquino et al.,
2001) that contribute to revenge seeking.
Revenge may be used to restore equity or remedy perceived
harm (Bies & Tripp, 2001). Bies, Tripp, and Kramer (1996)
proposed that revenge may unfold through several stages. First,
sparking events (Bies et al., 1996, p. 20), such as perceived
injustice or victimization, may trigger the need for revenge. These
events are characterized by broken promises or violated norms and
expectations and may involve hurt esteem or social identity. These
events lead to feelings of anger and thoughts of revenge and
constitute a heating up phase in which strong emotions accom-
panied by thoughts of revenge are experienced (Bies et al., 1996,
p. 21). Finally, people may react in various ways (Tripp & Bies,
1997). Some may choose to forgive or do nothing. Fear of retal-
iation may hold some back from seeking revenge. Motivated by
 CONTRACT BREACH, REVENGE, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE
the need to seek revenge, some may act in ways to harm the
wrongdoer.
Revenge acts are generally considered to be a thought-out,
calculated, and considered course of action, often preceded by
ruminations that may involve fantasies of hurting or causing
harm to the wrongdoer (Bies et al., 1996; Bradfield & Aquino,
1999). These revenge cognitions represent the motivational intent
and precede the enactment of harmful behaviors directed at the
target of revenge (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999). In our model,
revenge is treated as a motivational antecedent (operationalized in
the form of revenge cognitions); workplace deviance results from
revenge cognitions. We argued that psychological contract breach
and the associated feelings of anger and betrayal (i.e., violation)
would lead to thoughts of revenge. These revenge cognitions occur
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
prior to the enactment of deviant behaviors (Bradfield & Aquino,
1999).
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between psychological con-
tract breach and revenge cognitions is mediated by feelings of
violation.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between feelings of violation
and workplace deviant behaviors is mediated by revenge
cognitions.
Dispositional Constraints on Workplace Deviance: Direct
and Moderating Effects of Self-Control
Workplace deviance is influenced by situational as well as
dispositional factors (Colbert et al., 2004; Douglas & Martinko,
2001; Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Dispositional factors may have a
direct effect on workplace deviance. For example, Douglas and
Martinko found that a combination of individual difference mea-
sures (e.g., trait anger, attribution style, and self-control) accounted
for 62% of variance in self-reported workplace aggression. Dis-
positional variables may also moderate the relationship between
situational factors and workplace deviance (Colbert et al., 2004).
For example, Skarlicki et al. (1999) found that negative affectivity
interacted with perceptions of distributive and interactional justice
in the prediction of retaliatory behaviors. When situational factors
instigate deviant behaviors, dispositional factors may amplify this
effect (as in the case of trait anger; Hepworth & Towler, 2004) or
attenuate this effect (as in the case of self-control; Brown et al.,
2005). There is a growing literature on the relationship between
self-control and aggressive or harmful behaviors in the workplace.
However, the role of self-control in inhibiting the enactment of
revenge intentions has not been investigated. In this study, we
considered both direct and moderating effects of self-control on
workplace deviance.
Self-control refers to the level of an individuals restraint from
indulging in negative action tendencies that might further compli-
cate or damage the situation (Brown et al., 2005, p. 794). Self-
control has been referred to as freedom from impulsivity (Sar-
chione, Cuttler, Muchinsky, & Nelson-Gray, 1998, p. 905) and has
been found to be negatively related to a range of dysfunctional
behaviors in the workplace (Marcus & Schuler, 2004). According
to the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990),
criminal behavior is largely a result of low self-control in the
perpetrators of crime (including counterproductive behaviors at
1107
work; Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Moreover, people low in self-
control are more likely to react to situational triggers with criminal
acts (i.e., self-control would moderate the relationship between
triggers and hostile reactions). On the basis of this characteriza-
tion, we expected self-control would have direct and moderating
effects in the context of workplace deviance. Indeed, there is
research evidence for both types of effects (Douglas & Martinko,
2001; Hepworth & Towler, 2004). For example, Sarchione et al.
(1998) found that police officers who engaged in dysfunctional
behavior (including insubordination, use of excessive force and
racial slurs toward the public, and sexual misconduct) were sig-
nificantly lower in self-control in comparison with a control group
of police officers who did not engage in dysfunctional behaviors.
On the basis of this research, we expected that self-control would
be negatively related to workplace deviance (i.e., there would be a
direct effect).
Hypothesis 4: Self-control will be negatively related to work-
place deviant behaviors.
Self-control has been found to attenuate (moderate) the adverse
effects of negative emotions on work performance (Brown et al.,
2005; Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Therefore, we expected that
self-control would keep people from acting on revenge cognitions.
The relationship between revenge cognitions and workplace devi-
ance would be stronger for people low in self-control, compared
with people high in self-control (i.e., there would be a moderating
effect).
Hypothesis 5: Self-control will moderate the relationship be-
tween revenge cognitions and workplace deviant behaviors.
There will be a stronger positive relationship between re-
venge cognitions and workplace deviant behaviors for those
employees with low levels of self-control than for employees
with high levels of self-control.
Study 1
In this study, we examined the direct relationship between
psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. Much of
the research linking deviance and its antecedents has been cross-
sectional in nature (Fox & Spector, 2005). This fact brings into
question the causal direction of relationships. For example, a
conclusion that perceptions of injustice lead to workplace deviance
is open to an alternative explanation that the perceived (i.e.,
self-reported) injustice may be a justification or rationalization by
employees who are engaged in deviant acts.1 In light of this
limitation of existing research, we conducted a longitudinal study.
We measured perceptions of psychological contract breach at
Time 1 and collected data on workplace deviance, in the form of
workplace offenses committed by the employees, at Time 2 (20
months after the Time 1 data collection).
Method
Participants and Procedure
The study was conducted in a public-sector organization in the
Philippines. At Time 1, surveys were distributed to 300 employees
1
We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this comment.
 1108 BORDIA, RESTUBOG, AND TANG
during a training session. The content of the training was not in any
way related to the current study. The questionnaires were prepared
in English because this language is spoken by a vast majority of
the Filipino population, especially in its educated social strata
(Bernardo, 2004). Simon Lloyd D. Restubog read the accompany-
ing instructions and ensured anonymity and confidentiality. All
participants were invited to participate, and 215 participants chose
to participate in the Time 1 survey (response rate 71.67%). At
Time 2, 20 months after Time 1 data collection, we obtained actual
workplace deviant behaviors for those participants who gave con-
sent for us to access to their personnel records. The result was a
matched sample of 153. To assess response bias, we conducted a
series of t tests. There were no significant differences across all
demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, and tenure) between
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
those employees who participated in the data collection for Time
1 and Time 2. Approximately 68% of the sample was female
(7.8% failed to report their gender). This gender distribution is
congruent with findings of the Asian Development Bank (2004)
that a large proportion of Philippine government employees are
women. The largest group of participants (57.2%) was 4150 years
old, and average organizational tenure was 21.39 years. To main-
tain confidentiality, an independent person matched the informa-
tion from the employees personnel records with the survey re-
sponse using control numbers. Neither the organizational
representatives nor the research team had access to both pieces of
information.
Measures
Psychological contract breach. Perceptions of psychological
contract breach were assessed with the five-item scale (7-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 Strongly Disagree to 7 Strongly
Agree) developed by Robinson and Morrison (2000), as it provides
an overall assessment of the extent to which the employees
psychological contract has been fulfilled. Example items include
Almost all the promises made by my employer during recruitment
have been kept so far and So far my employer has done an
excellent job of fulfilling its promises to me. This scale yielded a
reliability coefficient of .74.
Workplace deviance. We assessed workplace deviance by
drawing on archival personnel records pertaining to the number of
workplace offenses committed by the employees in a period span-
ning 3 months at Time 2 (20 months after the Time 1 measurement
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alpha, and Intercorrelations of Variables (Study 1)
Variable M SD
1. Gender 0.74 0.44
2. Age 6.49 1.37
3. Tenure 21.38 7.12
4. Psychological contract breach
(Time 1) 3.57 1.03
5. Minor offenses (Time 2) 0.76 0.80
6. Major offenses (Time 2) 0.40 0.60
Note. n 153. Gender is coded as 0 male and 1 female. Age is coded as 1 less than 20 years, 2 2125 years, 3 26 30 years, 4 3135
years, 5 36 40 years, 6 41 45 years, 7 46 50 years, 8 above 50 years. Tenure was measured by an open-ended question: How long have you
been working for this organization (in years)? Alpha reliabilities are along the diagonal. na not available.
p .05. p .001.
of psychological contract breach). These offenses are an appropri-
ate operationalization of workplace deviance, because they repre-
sent acts considered counternormative and harmful to the organi-
zations interest by the management (referred to as the dominant
administrative coalition by Robinson & Bennett, 1997, p. 6). The
organization classified these offenses into two types: major offense
and minor offense. An independent person matched survey re-
sponses with the frequency of major and minor offenses (we did
not have access to the exact form of offense). A major offense was
one that warranted a suspension or dismissal. Examples included
negligence resulting in damage of organizational property/
equipment/facilities; unauthorized use of office materials, equip-
ment, facilities, or resources for personal or commercial purposes;
and tampering with ones own or someone elses log-in record/
punch card or allowing someone else to tamper with ones log-in
record/punch card. In contrast, a minor offense was one that
warranted a sanction of reprimand, verbal admonition, or warning.
Examples of minor offenses included willful disrespect of cowork-
ers, superiors, or visitors/clients (e.g., making vicious remarks
intended to offend or annoy the person addressed) during office
hours and/or within the organizational environment; leaving the
workplace during office hours without permission from the super-
visor; reading a newspaper/magazine/book; watching television;
and browsing over the Internet during official work hours.
Control variables. Demographic variables that are likely to
influence the study results were measured and controlled for in the
subsequent analysis. Gender was controlled because there is evi-
dence to suggest that men tend to exhibit overt angry reactions
more frequently than do women (Spielberger, 1996). Age and
tenure were controlled because older employees are less likely to
engage in negative and disruptive behaviors than are younger
employees. This proposition is supported by the social emotional
selectivity theory, which suggests that aging is often accompanied
by an increased emotional maturity that may lessen the tendency to
react negatively to distressing situations (Carstensen, 1992).
Results and Discussion
The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for
the study variables are displayed in Table 1. Zero-order correla-
tions were all in the expected direction. A check for multivariate
outliers using Mahalanobis distance scores (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1996) identified two cases as outliers. Removing these cases did
1 2 3 4 5 6
.16
.15 .70
.13 .18 .11 (.74)
.01 .01 .03 .38 na
.09 .10 .06 .41 .39 na
 CONTRACT BREACH, REVENGE, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE 1109

not change the results, so we have retained the cases in the
following analyses. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were
performed separately for the two types of offenses (i.e., major and
minor). Results (see Table 2) showed that psychological contract
breach was positively related to both minor offenses ( .44, p
.001) and major offenses ( .49, p .001), over and above the
effects of the demographic variables. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was
supported. These findings are consistent with those of previous
studies that reported negative organizational outcomes of psycho-
logical contract breach (Deery et al., 2006; Kickul et al., 2001). In
addition, the use of archival records and the association of breach
and deviance over time strengthened our confidence in this rela-
tionship. As the relationship between the antecedent (breach) and
dependent variable (deviance) was demonstrated by Study 1, the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tained an assurance of confidentiality. Furthermore, participants
were assured that no one in the organization would see their
individual survey responses. The survey kit contained two forms:
a self-report form and a supervisor rating form. The self-report
questionnaire assessed the facet measures of the psychological
contract, feelings of violation, and revenge cognitions, and the
supervisor rating form contained the measure of organizational
workplace deviance. We requested that participants ask their su-
pervisors to complete the enclosed supervisor rating form and
return it to the research team in a sealed envelope. To ensure the
integrity of the supervisor ratings, we requested that supervisors
sign across the flap of the sealed envelope that contained the rating
form. To allow matching of the data collected, we requested that

each participant fill in an anonymous code for the self-survey and

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

subsequent studies tested the role of the mediators (violation and supervisory form.
revenge seeking).

Study 2 Measures

Method Unless otherwise specified, all study variables were measured

with a 7-point Likert type scale (1 strongly disagree to 7
Participants and Procedure strongly agree). The variables were measured with previously
established scales. Items were coded such that the higher the score,
Sales personnel and their direct supervisors from a large phar-
the greater the response to the focal constructs.
maceutical organization in the Philippines participated in this
Psychological contract breach. This measure assessed the ex-
study. Surveys were distributed to a total of 350 staff, and 207 staff
tent of breach on transactional and relational dimensions. Partici-
completed the surveys (response rate 59.14%). Sixty-one su-
pants were presented with a list of obligations or commitments
pervisors completed behavioral ratings that resulted in 168
generally made by employers/organizations to their employees
matched surveys. Only the matched surveys were included in the
(Restubog & Bordia, 2006; Robinson & Morrison, 1995) and were
analysis. Supervisors evaluated an average of 2.75 subordinates.
instructed to rate the extent to which each commitment was ful-
Of the 168 participants, 51.8% were males. Almost half (48.2%) of
filled by their employer on a 7-point Likert scale (1 Not fulfilled
the participants were in the 26- to 30-year-old age group. Approx-
imately 82% of the participants had worked for their organization at all to 7 Extremely fulfilled). All items were reverse scored so
for 15 years. they would operate as an index of psychological contract breach.
Survey kits were distributed to staff via the human resource Seven items measured breach in transactional obligations (e.g.,
department and were prefaced by a letter that outlined the objec- high salary, health care benefits, regularity of pay raises), and nine
tives of the research, discussed voluntary participation, and con- items assessed breach in relational obligations (e.g., professional
guidance in carrying out ones job, opportunities for training and
development, support and understanding regarding personal con-
Table 2 cerns). Cronbachs alphas were .86 and .91 for transactional and
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables relational breach, respectively.
Predicting Archival Records of Workplace Deviant Behaviors Feelings of violation. We used a four-item measure developed
(Study 1) by Robinson and Morrison (2000) to assess the emotional experi-
ence of anger, frustration, and betrayal associated with broken
Minor offenses Major offenses
promises. Example items are I feel that the organization has
(Time 2) (Time 2)
violated the contract between us and I feel betrayed by the
Adjusted Adjusted organization. Alpha reliability for the scale was .85.
Variable R2 R2 R2 R2 Revenge cognitions. Four items taken from Bradfield and
Aquino (1999) assessed thoughts of revenge. A sample item is
Step 1
Gender .00 .14 Im going to get even. The scale yielded a coefficient alpha of
Age .03 .07 .90.
Tenure .03 .00 .02 .00 Workplace deviance. We used the eight-item measure devel-
Step 2 oped by Aquino et al. (1999) to assess workplace deviance directed
Gender .07 .07
Age .09 .06 at the organization. Example items are intentionally arrived late
Tenure .05 .04 for work and took undeserved breaks to avoid work. Supervi-
Psychological sors were requested to provide an assessment of the frequency with
contract breach which their employees demonstrated deviant behaviors (1 Never
(Time 1) .44 .15 .18 .49 .22 .22
to 5 More than 20 times). The reliability coefficient of the
Note. n 153. eight-item scale was .65. Supervisor and peer ratings have previ-

p .01. p .001. ously been used to measure anticitizenship behaviors (Kickul et
 1110 BORDIA, RESTUBOG, AND TANG

al., 2001) and organizational retaliatory behaviors (Skarlicki &
Folger, 1997), respectively.
Control variables. We measured demographic characteristics
of age, gender, and tenure. Given that self-report measures of
feelings of violation, revenge cognitions, and workplace deviant
behaviors are vulnerable to self-report bias, we controlled for the
effects of social desirability and assessed social desirability using
the short version of the CrowneMarlowe Social Desirability
Scale. The scale consists of 10 items that describe desirable and
undesirable behaviors. It serves as a measure of impression man-
agement and can be used to determine the extent to which test
scores have been influenced by the desire of the individual to
present a positive image of his or her character (Crowne & Mar-
lowe, 1960). Previous research has revealed strong correlations
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
0 and 1, and values closer to 1 represent a good fitting model. A
value of .08 or less for RMSEA is indicative of a good fit.
Measurement Model
The hypothesized measurement model had a weak fit with the
observed data, 2(454, N 168) 931, p .001, 2/df 2.05,
CFI .84, TLI .82, RMSEA .08. Several items in the breach
measure pertained to common dimensions (three items each on
pay, benefits, and supervision relationships). We created parcels of
items that derived from a common dimension. Parceling leads to a
better variables-to-sample-size ratio and is justified when it is
conducted on theoretically justifiable categories (Little, Cunning-

ham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). In the measure of transactional

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

between the short version and the 33-item version of the scale
(Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972). In this study, the coefficient alpha was
.61. Previous studies have found reliability estimates that are
comparable with our findings; for example, reliability estimates
obtained from male university students, female university students,
and a combination of student and nonstudent samples were .70,
.66, and .59, respectively (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972).
Results
The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for
the study variables are displayed in Table 3. Zero-order correla-
tions were all in the expected direction. None of the demographic
characteristics were related to the study variables. We undertook a
two-step procedure (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) using AMOS
(analysis of moment structure) to examine the hypothesized rela-
tionships. In the first step, we estimated a full measurement model
with all the manifest indicators to establish the factor structure of
the variables in the model (i.e., psychological contract breach,
feelings of violation, revenge cognitions, and supervisor-rated
deviant behaviors directed toward the organization). The second
step involved testing the hypothesized structural model. We used
several fit indices to assess the adequacy of the model (Byrne,
2001), namely, chi-square, the comparative fit index (CFI), the
TuckerLewis index (TLI), and the root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA). Values for the TLI and CFI are between
breach, we combined items related to pay (high salary, pay based
on level of performance, regularity of pay raises) and benefits
(health care benefits, retirement benefits, overall benefits). In the
measure of relational breach, we combined items referring to
supervision relationships (feedback about performance, support
and understanding regarding personal concerns, professional guid-
ance in carrying out ones job). We also dropped one item from
workplace deviance that did not load significantly on the latent
construct (called in sick when he/she was not really ill). These
modifications led to a substantial improvement of the measure-
ment model, as indicated by the various fit indices, 2(265, N
168) 422.39, p .001, 2/df 1.59, CFI .92, TLI .91,
RMSEA .06. The standardized path estimates of the manifest
indicators (range .24 .97) were all statistically significant. We
also compared the final measurement model with alternative mod-
els comprising one, two, three, and four factors. The five-factor
model had the best fit.
Structural Model
Consistent with Anderson and Gerbings (1988) recommenda-
tions for examining nested models, we compared two competing
models, a fully mediated structural model and a partially mediated
structural model. The hypothesized mediated model (Model A)
had a good fit, 2(271, N 168) 426.96, p .001, 2/df
1.58, CFI .92, TLI .92, RMSEA .06. All the predicted

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Intercorrelations of Variables (Study 2)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 0.48 0.50

2. Age 2.77 0.72 .18
3. Tenure 2.10 0.40 .09 .28
4. Social desirability 7.77 1.92 .03 .02 .13 (.61)
5. Transactional breach 3.96 0.78 .15 .05 .13 .24 (.86)
6. Relational breach 3.73 0.70 .11 .12 .09 .24 .69 (.91)
7. Feelings of violation 2.20 1.08 .03 .07 .10 .23 .21 .27 (.85)
8. Revenge cognitions 2.05 1.24 .02 .03 .01 .13 .12 .16 .36 (.90)
9. Organizational deviance 1.17 0.22 .06 .02 .02 .17 .09 .02 .25 .38 (.65)

Note. n 168. Gender is coded as 0 male and 1 female. Age is coded as 1 less than 20 years, 2 2125 years, 3 26 30 years, 4 3135
years, 5 36 40 years, 6 41 45 years, 7 46 50 years, 8 above 50 years. Tenure is coded as 1 less than 1 year, 2 15 years, 3 6 10 years,
4 1115 years, 5 16 20 years, 6 2125 years, 7 26 30 years. Alpha reliabilities are along the diagonal.

p .05. p .01. p .001.
 CONTRACT BREACH, REVENGE, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE
paths were significant at p .001, with the exception of the path
linking transactional breach and feelings of violation. To examine
the partially mediated structural model (Model B), we added four
additional paths representing direct effects: (a) a path linking
relational breach and revenge cognitions; (b) a path linking trans-
actional breach and organizational deviance; (c) a path linking
relational breach and organizational deviance; and (d) a path
linking feelings of violation and organizational deviance. Results
showed that these additional paths were nonsignificant. The fit
indices of the partially mediated model (Model B) were 2(269,
N 168) 423.53, p .001, 2/df 1.58, CFI .92, TLI .91,
RMSEA .06. Results of the chi-square difference test suggest
that this model did not substantively improve the fit compared with
Model A, diff
2
(2) 3.43, ns. Thus, the partially mediated struc-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tural model was not supported. Finally, we undertook the Sobel
test (Sobel, 1982) to formally assess the significance of the pro-
posed mediators. Results revealed that all indirect paths were
significant (i.e., z 1.99, p .05, for the path linking relational
breach and revenge cognitions through violation; z 2.75, p
.01, for the path linking feelings of violation and organizational
deviance through revenge cognitions). After the removal of the
nonsignificant paths, the model had adequate overall fit, 2(271,
N 168) 426.96, p .001, 2/df 1.58, CFI .92, TLI .92,
RMSEA .06.
We tested another alternative model (Model C), in which social
desirability and demographic variables were included in the struc-
tural model. The overall model had an average fit, 2(319, N
168) 509.65, p .001, 2/df 1.60, CFI .91, TLI .90,
RMSEA .06. Results of the chi-square difference test suggested
that the hypothesized structural model (Model A) had better fit
than did this alternative model (Model C), diff
2
(48) 82.69, p
.001. Figure 1 presents the final model (Model A) with the stan-
dardized estimates.
Discussion
Overall, the results provide support for the hypotheses. Feelings
of violation mediated the relationship between relational contract
breach and revenge cognitions. It is interesting that transactional
breach was not related to feelings of violation. These findings are
consistent with previous research that has found stronger effects
for breach of relational contract compared with transactional con-
tract for some outcome variables (Restubog & Bordia, 2006;
Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Turnley et al., 2003). For example, in
a qualitative study, Herriot, Manning, and Kidd (1997) found that
Transactional
breach
.39***
.75***
Feelings of
violation
.30***
Relational
breach
Figure 1. Final structural model in Study 2 (n 168).
1111
the relational component of the psychological contract was more
frequently mentioned than was the transactional component and
therefore seemed more important. Similarly, a recent meta-
analysis (Zhao et al., 2007) revealed that the relationship between
relational breach and job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and
organizational citizenship behaviors was stronger than was the
relationship between transactional breach and these variables.
Revenge cognitions mediated the relationship between feelings
of violation and organizational deviance. These findings imply that
when promises to employees are broken, the employees are likely
to feel violated and, in turn, to contemplate revenge and carry it out
in the form of organizational deviance. Thus, our findings dem-
onstrate the motivational underpinnings of organizational devi-
ance. However, we did not test whether the revenge motivation
leads to workplace deviance directed at coworkers (interpersonal
deviance). Study 3 extended the model to include interpersonal
deviance and also tested the direct and moderating role of self-
control.
Although our hypothesized model was supported, note the ab-
sence of a correlation between breach and organizational deviance.
This absence could result from distal mediation (i.e., the predictor
and the criterion variables are conceptually or temporally far apart
and are likely to be only weakly correlated; Shrout & Bolger,
2002), as there is a long chain of mediators between breach and
deviance. Indeed, similar absence of direct relationship has been
noted in other models that involve mediators between breach and
outcomes, such as family undermining (Hoobler & Brass, 2006)
and absenteeism (Deery et al., 2006). A second possibility is that
facet-based measures of breach, such as the ones used in this study,
have weaker relationships with outcomes than do global measures
of breach (Zhao et al., 2007). The facet measures may not com-
prehensively capture the experience of breach for every respon-
dent. For some respondents, the facets may not be highly relevant,
and, for others, significant facets may be underrepresented (Cross-
ley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007). Therefore, global measures
are likely to be better at capturing the respondents assessments of
breach. In Study 3, reported below, we used a global measure of
breach.
Study 3
In this study, we extended the previous study by including both
organizational and interpersonal deviance. Given that the breach of
psychological contract is an organization-level transgression, we
might expect that revenge would be directed at the organization in
.51***
Revenge Organizational
cognitions deviance
p .001.
 1112 BORDIA, RESTUBOG, AND TANG
the form of organizational deviance. However, we argued that both
the organization and coworkers could be targeted. There are two
lines of argument to support this prediction. First, deviance could
be directed at other coworkers who are thought to be aligned to the
management and therefore represent the transgressor; harming
coworkers could be perceived as a way of getting back at the
organization. Second, there is evidence to suggest that aggression
can be displaced from the original foci to other targets (Marcus-
Newhall, Pederson, Carlson, & Miller, 2000), particularly when
the original transgressor is intangible, not available, or more pow-
erful and likely to be feared. In the context of psychological
contract breach, it might not be clear who is responsible for the
original promises or for the subsequent breach (Hoobler & Brass,
2006). Moreover, an employee would be fearful of blatantly tar-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
geting the organization with acts of aggression. In such circum-
stances, coworkers and subordinates might be more available and
easier targets. Therefore, we expected that our model would apply
to both organizational and interpersonal deviance.
Study 3 built on Study 2 in two additional ways. First, we
examined the role of self-control as a moderator of the relationship
between revenge cognitions and workplace deviant behaviors.
Second, in Study 2 we utilized a facet-based measure of psycho-
logical contract breach. In Study 3, we used a global assessment of
breach, in which participants were asked to provide an overall
evaluation of the extent to which their organization had fulfilled its
promises to them.
Method
Participants and Procedure
A survey was administered to 250 employees of a large com-
mercial bank in the Philippines, and 204 employees completed the
survey (response rate 81.6%). Fifty-nine supervisors completed
behavioral ratings that resulted in 187 matched surveys. On aver-
age, supervisors evaluated 2.79 subordinates. Of the participants,
58% were female, 80% were between 21 and 30 years of age, and
87% had been working for their organization for 15 years.
Items in the survey were prepared in English. Each participant
completed the self-reported questionnaire and passed on the be-
havioral rating scale to his or her immediate supervisor. Partici-
pation in the survey was voluntary, and all participants were
assured of the confidentiality of their responses. Completed survey
forms were returned directly to Robert L. Tang in sealed and
preaddressed envelopes. The self- and supervisor ratings were
matched with a respondent-generated code (placed on both the
self-report and the supervisor questionnaire).
Measures
Participants responded using a 7-point Likert scale (1
Strongly Disagree to 7 Strongly Agree). The study variables
were measured with previously established scales. However, due
to survey length constraints posed by the participating organiza-
tion, we had to shorten some of the measures.
Psychological contract breach. We used the five-item global
psychological contract breach measure developed by Robinson
and Morrison (2000) in this study ( .81).
Feelings of violation. As in Study 2, feelings of violation were
assessed with the four-item scale ( .95) developed by Robinson
and Morrison (2000).
Revenge cognitions. As in Study 2, revenge cognitions (
.89) were assessed with the measure taken from Bradfield and
Aquino (1999).
Self-control. Self-control was assessed with five items devel-
oped by Scott (1965).2 In this study, the scale for self-control
yielded a reliability coefficient of .87.
Workplace deviance. Workplace deviance was assessed along
two dimensions on the basis of previous conceptualizations (orga-
nizational workplace deviance and interpersonal workplace devi-
ance; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Nine items (i.e., five items
measuring organizational deviance and four items assessing inter-
personal deviance)3 with the highest factor loadings on their re-
spective factors were taken from Aquino et al. (1999). As in Study
2, immediate supervisors were instructed to rate the frequency with
which their employees engaged in workplace deviant behaviors.
Example items for interpersonal deviance include This employee
made an obscene comment or gesture at a coworker and This
employee teased a coworker in front of other employees. Cron-
bachs alphas for scales for organizational and interpersonal devi-
ance were .87 and .90, respectively.
Control variables. As in Studies 1 and 2, we measured demo-
graphic characteristics of age, gender, and tenure. In addition,
social desirability bias was assessed with the short version of the
CrowneMarlowe Social Desirability Scale ( .77; Strahan &
Gerbasi, 1972).
Results
The means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliability
coefficients for all measures are shown in Table 4. Zero-order
correlations were all moderate in size. The pattern of correlations
was in the predicted direction. Age and tenure were negatively
correlated with revenge cognitions. We include the demographic
variables and social desirability in the analysis reported below.
Before testing the hypothesized relationships, we conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis on the study variables (psychological
contract breach, violation, revenge cognitions, interpersonal devi-
ance, organizational deviance, and self-control). Initial analysis of
our proposed model in this sample suggested that our hypothesized
model had a moderate fit with the observed data, 2(284, N
2
We examined whether the shortened 5-item measure of self-control
used in the present study was equivalent with the full measure. To achieve
this objective, we administered the 10-item scale (full scale) to an inde-
pendent sample of 160 government employees in the Philippines. Bivariate
correlations indicated that the shortened and complete versions were highly
correlated (r .89, p .001).
3
To examine whether the shortened measure of organizational and
interpersonal deviance dimensions used in the present study were equiva-
lent with the full scale, we administered the (complete) 16-item scale used
by Aquino et al. (1999) to an independent sample of 267 full-time em-
ployees enrolled in a part-time MBA program in the Philippines. Bivariate
correlations suggest that the shortened and complete versions were highly
correlated (short and long versions of organizational deviance scales, r
.93, p .001; short and long versions of the interpersonal deviance scales,
r .90, p .001).
 CONTRACT BREACH, REVENGE, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE 1113

Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Intercorrelations of Variables (Study 3)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Gender 0.58 0.50

2. Age 2.78 1.21 .20
3. Tenure 1.79 1.06 .26 .58
4. Social desirability 5.39 2.69 .01 .14 .08 (.77)
5. Psychological contract breach 3.61 1.32 .03 .00 .02 .37 (.81)
6. Feelings of violation 2.76 1.58 .06 .02 .05 .31 .53 (.95)
7. Revenge cognitions 2.82 1.65 .12 .23 .15 .30 .20 .42 (.89)
8. Self-control 4.48 1.28 .03 .07 .02 .44 .29 .15 .21 (.87)
9. Organizational deviance 1.54 0.71 .03 .00 .00 .10 .19 .19 .21 .22 (.87)
10. Interpersonal deviance 2.22 1.46 .06 .10 .04 .51 .16 .31 .43 .35 .19 (.90)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. n 187. Gender is coded as 0 male and 1 female. Age is coded as 1 less than 20 years, 2 2125 years, 3 26 30 years, 4 3135
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

years, 5 36 40 years, 6 41 45 years, 7 46 50 years, 8 above 50 years. Tenure is coded as 1 less than 1 year, 2 15 years, 3 6 10 years,
4 1115 years, 5 16 20 years, 6 2125 years, 7 26 30 years. Alpha reliabilities are along the diagonal.

p .05. p .01. p .001.

187) 693.17, p .001, 2/df 2.44, CFI .89, TLI .87,
RMSEA .088. One item from the psychological contract breach
measure (My employer has broken many of its promises to me
even though Ive upheld my side of the deal) had highly corre-
lated error terms with the latent factor feelings of violation and
with the item I have not received everything promised to me in
exchange for my contributions. Removal of this item led to a
substantial improvement in fit, 2(260, N 187) 515.15, p
.001, 2/df 1.98, CFI .93, TLI .92, RMSEA .073. All the
manifest indicators were statistically significant. We compared this
six-factor measurement model to eight different measurement
models, each with a different configuration of factors. The six-
factor measurement model had the best fit.
We tested the predicted model using path analysis that included
a multiplicative term to test for the interaction between self-control
and revenge cognitions (see Figure 2). Because age and social
desirability were related to some of the study variables, we in-
cluded these variables in the path model. The path between age and
revenge cognitions was significant and was therefore retained.
Similarly, social desirability was related to breach, revenge cog-
nitions, and interpersonal deviance; these paths were retained.
Figure 3 presents the final path model with the standardized path
estimates. The final path model had a very good fit, as indicated by
the various fit indices, 2(23, N 187) 32.46, ns, 2/df 1.41,
CFI .97, TLI .95, RMSEA .047. All the paths were
statistically significant.
To examine a partially mediated path model, we added three
direct paths: (a) a path linking psychological contract breach and
revenge cognitions, (b) a path linking feelings of violation and
organizational deviance, and (c) a path linking feelings of violation
and interpersonal deviance. However, all these direct paths were
nonsignificant. A Sobel test showed that the indirect effect of
psychological contract breach to revenge cognitions via feelings of
violation (z 4.39, p .001) was significant. Similarly, the
indirect effects of feelings of violation to organizational deviance
(z 2.15, p .05) and interpersonal deviance (z 3.7, p .01)
via revenge cognitions were significant. Overall, we found support
for the mediated model.
Further examination of the path model showed that self-control
and the product term (Revenge Cognitions Self-Control) signif-
icantly predicted both types of deviant behaviors. To aid interpre-
tation, we plotted the slopes for high (one standard deviation above

Social .45***
Age Self - control
desirability
- .15*
- .38***
-.17*
Interpersonal
- .38*** - .22*
.27*** deviance

Psychological
Feelings of Revenge
contract
violation cognitions
breach
.15*
.53*** .37*** - .21**

- .14*
Organizational
Self - control
deviance
x
Revenge cognitions - .19**
Interaction Term

Figure 2. Final path model in Study 3 (n 187). p .05. p .01. p .001.
 1114
2.5
Low self-control High self-control
Supervisor-rated organizational
2.0
deviance
1.5
1.0
Low
Revenge cognitions
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Figure 3. Interactive relationship between revenge cognitions and self-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
control in predicting supervisor-rated organizational deviance.
the mean) and low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels
of self-control for each type of deviant behavior. With organiza-
tional deviance as the outcome variable, the slope for high self-
control was not significant, t(177) .20, ns. However, the slope
for low self-control was statistically significant, t(177) 3.30, p
.001. Figure 3 shows that there is a stronger positive association
between revenge cognitions and organizational deviance for em-
ployees with low levels of self-control than for employees with
high levels of self-control. As with organizational deviance, the
simple slope of revenge cognitions on interpersonal deviance was
significant for low self-control, t(177) 4.52, p .001, but not
for high self-control, t(177) 1.29, ns. Figure 4 suggests that there
is a stronger positive relationship between revenge cognitions and
interpersonal deviance for employees with low levels of self-
control than for employees with high levels of self-control. Over-
all, Hypotheses 4 and 5 were supported.
Discussion
Once again, these results supported predicted relationships. Us-
ing a global measure of contract breach, we found that violation
mediated the relationship between breach and revenge cognitions
(Hypothesis 2). Also, revenge cognitions mediated the relationship
between violation and interpersonal and organizational deviance
(Hypothesis 3). As predicted, self-control had a role that was direct
(Hypothesis 4) and moderating (Hypothesis 5). People high in
self-control were less likely to engage in organizational and inter-
personal deviant acts. Also, high self-control seems to have kept
people from acting on the revenge cognitions. This finding adds to
the growing literature on the role of individual differences, and
self-control in particular, in minimizing harmful behavior in an
organizational context (Douglas & Martinko, 2001).
General Discussion
Our aim in this article was to study the cognitive, affective, and
motivational antecedents and dispositional buffers of workplace
deviance. In doing so, we strove to connect various streams of
research in organizational behavior: psychological contracts, feel-
ings of violation, workplace revenge, self-control, and workplace
deviance. Our proposed model and the associated hypotheses were
largely supported.
BORDIA, RESTUBOG, AND TANG
Theoretical Implications
This article extends the research on the harmful consequences of
psychological contract breach in several important ways. First, we
provide strong empirical evidence for the relationship between
breach and deviant behaviors, including a longitudinal relationship
and multiple operationalizations of deviance (employee records
and supervisor ratings). Second, by relating breach and violation to
revenge cognitions, we have demonstrated that breach results in
motivated deviant acts aimed at harming the organization. There is
a great deal of evidence for the harmful consequences of breach
High (Kickul et al., 2001; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Restubog et al.,
2007; Turnley et al., 2003), but the motivational processes that link
contract breach and negative outcomes are rarely explored. To our
knowledge, this is the first study to measure and test the role of
revenge seeking as a consequence of contract breach.
Although there is a great deal of research on the consequences
of contract breach, there is limited work on violation as an affec-
tive response to breach and as a mediator between breach and
outcomes. Our results demonstrate that a cognitive assessment of
breach results in feelings of violation. Violation in turn leads to
thoughts of revenge and workplace deviance. These findings sup-
port the theoretical propositions of Morrison and Robinson (1997)
and can be interpreted in light of recent work on emotions that has
argued that emotions mediate the relationship between workplace
events and resulting attitudes and behaviors (Judge, Scott, & Ilies,
2006).
The identification of revenge as an antecedent of workplace
deviance makes an important contribution to the wider literature
on negative, retaliatory, and counterproductive behaviors in the
workplace. Although research has identified workplace anteced-
ents to negative behaviors (e.g., injustice), many of the motiva-
tional underpinnings, such as reciprocity (the need to retaliate,
seek revenge, or restore equity), are left unmeasured. There is a
range of complex motivations underlying ostensibly deviant be-
haviors (Griffin & Lopez, 2005), and a behavior that appears
counternormative and detrimental to the organization may actually
be driven by good intentions (Morrison, 2006). This article has
drawn attention to one motivationrevenge underlying deviant
behaviors. We recommend that future empirical research that links
workplace antecedents (e.g., injustice, breach of psychological
contract) and consequences (e.g., job performance, citizenship,
5.0
Low self-control High self-control
Supervisor-rated interpersonal
4.5
4.0
deviance
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Low High
Revenge cognitions
Figure 4. Interactive relationship between revenge cognitions and self-
control in predicting supervisor-rated interpersonal deviance.
 CONTRACT BREACH, REVENGE, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE
deviant or withdrawal behaviors) incorporate the motivational
intent driving the behavioral consequences.
An important line of future research would be on constraints that
limit the likelihood of revenge cognitions being acted out as
deviant behaviors. Results from Study 3 showed that self-control
acted as a buffer between revenge cognitions and both organiza-
tional and interpersonal deviance. Other personality variables,
such as negative reciprocity (Eisenberger et al., 2004) and trait
anger (Spielberger, 1996), may strengthen the association between
revenge and deviance. In addition to personality variables, contex-
tual variables, such as formal structures, informal norms, or com-
mitment to other referents in the organization (e.g., supervisor or
work team), may constrain the enactment of workplace deviance
(Robinson & Bennett, 1997).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
By linking revenge with workplace deviance, we have taken the
stance that revenge has negative consequences for organizational
interests. However, we acknowledge that revenge is not always
bad and indeed may have constructive outcomes for individuals
and workplaces (Tripp & Bies, 1997). For example, revenge may
stop abusive or bullying behaviors, restore justice, and boost
self-esteem of the revenge seeker (Tripp & Bies, 1997). Moreover,
revenge is not the only response to transgressions. People do
choose to forgive. There is evidence to suggest that these responses
are dynamic (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003). For exam-
ple, a person might contemplate revenge soon after perceived
victimization but forgive the transgressor over time. Longitudinal
research will allow exploration of the temporal progression of
revenge and forgiveness in the workplace.
Limitations
A major limitation of Studies 2 and 3 is the cross-sectional
design. Although we have taken steps to minimize common
method variance (by the use of supervisor reports and by control-
ling for social desirability), we cannot draw causal inferences from
data collected via a cross-sectional design. Measures of social
desirability and organizational deviance had low internal consis-
tency in Study 2. Also, the mean levels of revenge cognitions
(Study 2, M 2.05, Study 3, M 2.82, on 7-point scales) and
workplace deviance (Study 2, M organizational deviance 1.17;
Study 3, M organizational deviance 1.54; M interpersonal de-
viance 2.22, on 7-point scales) are low. However, previous
literature has reported similar means for revenge cognition (on
5-point scales, 1.85 in Bradfield & Aquino, 1999; 1.21 in Aquino
et al., 2001) and for workplace deviance (M organizational devi-
ance 1.30 in Aquino et al., 1999, and 1.81 in Dunlop & Lee,
2004; M interpersonal deviance 1.42 in Aquino et al., 1999, and
1.87 in Dunlop & Lee, 2004). These cognitions and behaviors may
have low incidence or low visibility, and respondents are likely to
be reluctant to report them. However, their impact is considerable,
and they therefore require continued research attention.
Practical Implications
The findings of this research have practical implications for the
management of workplace deviance as well as for employee psy-
chological contracts. We have identified a chain of cognitions and
emotions that combine to provide the motivational intent for
deviance. This sequence suggests various points at which inter-
1115
ventions can be targeted. At the startto prevent this process from
initiating organizations should strive to fulfill the psychological
contract. However, given the competitive pressures confronting
most organizations and the resulting incidence of organizational
change, it may not be possible to fulfill every promise made to a
job incumbent (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau, 1995). In
such circumstances, organizations should strive to reduce the feel-
ings of violation by providing adequate explanation for the causes
of breach and redressing the loss to the employee by other means
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Further, organizations should strive
to reduce the conversion of feelings of violation into motivation to
seek revenge by providing other means of expressing the frustra-
tion and anger. For example, the expression and disclosure of these
feelings to a supportive supervisor may provide a more construc-
tive coping mechanism (Grandey, 2000). Revenge can be a coun-
terproductive way of coping with perceived transgressions, as it
can lead to further retaliation and an escalation of conflict (Brad-
field & Aquino, 1999). The moderating role of self-control sug-
gests that better self-regulation of emotional and cognitive reac-
tions can help in curbing the devastating consequences of revenge
seeking. Thus, self-control could be a desirable trait in the context
of employee selection (OLeary-Kelly et al., 1996). In addition,
training in regulation of emotions and negative ruminations may
help employees and organizations better manage the consequences
of breach.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411 423.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs,
negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and
empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 10731091.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to
personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and
offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 5259.
Asian Development Bank. (2004). ADB country gender assessment: Phil-
ippines. Manila, Philippines: Author.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 360.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2004). McKinleys questionable bequest: Over 100
years of English in Philippine education. World Englishes, 23, 1731.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2001). A passion for justice: The rationality and
morality of revenge. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace:
From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 197208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). At the breaking point:
Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A.
Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations
(pp. 18 36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and
offender likeableness on revenge and forgiveness in the workplace.
Journal of Management, 25, 607 631.
Brown, S. P., Westbrook, R. A., & Challagalla, G. (2005). Good cope, bad
cope: Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies following a critical
negative work event. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 792798.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood:
Support for socio-emotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7,
331338.
 1116 BORDIA, RESTUBOG, AND TANG
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R.
(2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work
situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
599 609.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship
through the lens of social exchange. In J. A. M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M.
Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relation-
ship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 528).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007).
Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration
into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 10311042.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
349 354.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. (2006). Toward a better
understanding of psychological contract breach: A study of customer
service employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 166 175.
Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual
differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 547559.
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational
citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do
spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 67 80.
Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes
the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm
endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 789 799.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive work behavior:
Investigations of actors and targets. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Grandey, A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to
conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 5, 95110.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment ineq-
uity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
561568.
Griffin, R. W., & Lopez, Y. P. (2005). Bad behavior in organizations: A
review and typology for future research. Journal of Management, 31,
988 1105.
Hepworth, W., & Towler, A. (2004). The effects of individual differences
and charistmatic leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology, 9, 176 185.
Herriot, P., Manning, W. E., & Kidd, J. M. (1997). The content of the
psychological contract. British Journal of Management, 8, 151162.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family
undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 11251133.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and
workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 126 138.
Kickul, J., Neuman, G., Parker, C., & Finkl, J. (2001). Settling the score:
The role of organizational justice in the relationship between psycho-
logical contract breach and anti-citizenship behavior. Employee Respon-
sibilities and Rights Journal, 13, 7793.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002).
To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits.
Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151173.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive be-
havior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 647 660.
Marcus-Newhall, A., Pederson, W., Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (2000).
Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 670 689.
McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness,
forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related
interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 84, 540 557.
Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation on pro-social
rule-breaking. Journal of Management, 32, 528.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel be-
trayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 226 256.
OLeary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-
motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 225253.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on
psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350
367.
Restubog, S. L. D., & Bordia, P. (2006). Workplace familism and psycho-
logical contract breach in the Philippines. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 55, 563585.
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2006). Effects of psycho-
logical contract breach on performance of IT employees: The mediating
role of affective commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 79, 299 306.
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioral outcomes
of psychological contract breach in a non-western culture: The moder-
ating role of equity sensitivity. British Journal of Management, 18,
376 386.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of psychological contract. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574 599.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 555572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its defini-
tion, its manifestations, and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki & R. J. Bies
(Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 327). Greenwich,
CT: JAI.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and
OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289 298.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psycho-
logical contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 525546.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological
contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 245259.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Un-
derstanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Sarchione, C. D., Cuttler, M. J., Muchinsky, P. M., & Nelson-Gray, R. O.
(1998). Prediction of dysfunctional job behaviors among law enforce-
ment officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 904 912.
Scott, W. A. (1965). Values and organizations: A study of fraternities and
sororities. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7, 422 445.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The
roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 434 443.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator
in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 42, 100 108.
 CONTRACT BREACH, REVENGE, AND WORKPLACE DEVIANCE 1117

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in
structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290 312.
Spielberger, C. D. (1996). StateTrait Anger Expression Inventory, re-
search edition: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess-
ment Resources.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the
MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 28, 191193.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd
ed.). New York: Harper Collins College.
Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (1997). Whats good about revenge: The
avengers perspective. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard
(Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 145160).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of
in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Manage-
ment, 29, 187206.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of
affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18,
174.
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact
of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647 680.
Received June 20, 2006
Revision received March 12, 2008

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). Accepted March 17, 2008
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!