Journal of Applied Psychology © 2016 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 101, No. 8, 1067–1081 0021-9010/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000115

Examining the Effects of Turnover Intentions on Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors and Deviance Behaviors: A Psychological
Contract Approach

Ke Michael Mai Aleksander P. J. Ellis

National University of Singapore University of Arizona

Jessica Siegel Christian Christopher O. L. H. Porter

University of North Carolina Indiana University
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.

Although turnover intentions are considered the most proximal antecedent of organizational exit, there
is often temporal separation between thinking about leaving and actual exit. Using field data from 2
diverse samples of working adults, we explore a causal model of the effects of turnover intentions on
employee behavior while they remain with the organization, focusing specifically on organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and deviance behaviors (DBs). Utilizing expectancy theory as an explan-
atory framework, we argue that turnover intentions result in high levels of transactional contract
orientation and low levels of relational contract orientation, which in turn lead to a decrease in the
incidence of OCBs and an increase in the incidence of DBs. We first used a pilot study to investigate the
direction of causality between turnover intentions and psychological contract orientations. Then, in Study
1, we tested our mediated model using a sample of employees from a large drug retailing chain. In Study
2, we expanded our model by arguing that the mediated effects are much stronger when the organization
is deemed responsible for potential exit. We then tested our full model using a sample of employees from
a large state-owned telecommunications corporation in China. Across both studies, results were generally
consistent and supportive of our hypotheses. We discuss the implications of our findings for future
theory, research, and practice regarding the management of both the turnover process and discretionary
behaviors at work.

Keywords: turnover intentions, psychological contracts, citizenship behaviors, deviance behaviors

Turnover continues to garner attention from practitioners and
scholars alike who recognize the significant costs associated with
employee exit (Hom, 2011). Costs following employee exit are
multifaceted and include recruiting and training replacements (Al-
len, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010) as well as dealing with increased
accident rates (Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005) and poor customer
service (Hancock, Allen, Bosco, McDaniel, & Pierce, 2013).
These issues are particularly problematic in certain industries such
as retail, where turnover rates reach almost 50% annually (Young,
2004).
This article was published Online First April 14, 2016.
Ke Michael Mai, Department of Management & Organisation, NUS
Business School, National University of Singapore; Aleksander P. J. Ellis,
Department of Management and Organizations, University of Arizona;
Jessica Siegel Christian, Department of Organizational Behavior, Kenan–
Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina; Christopher
O. L. H. Porter, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University.
This research was supported by funding from the Center for Leadership
Ethics at the Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ke Mi-
chael Mai, Department of Management & Organisation, NUS Business
School, National University of Singapore, Mochtar Riady Building, 15
Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore 119245. E-mail: kemike.mai@gmail.com
Not surprisingly, researchers have focused efforts on predicting
turnover, often using intent to leave as the criterion (see Hom,
Mitchell, Lee, & Griffeth, 2012). However, as Hom and Kinicki
(2001) and Lee and Mitchell (1994) recognize, there are many
intervening factors between the formation of turnover intentions
and actual exit. For example, when employment opportunities are
scarce, employees have few options besides remaining with their
current employer. We argue that this has significant implications
for organizations while employees stay.
Turnover intentions represent a significant cognitive shift for
employees as they begin to detach from the organization (Burris,
Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008). Their ‘relationship’ with the organiza-
tion changes, which may alter the way employees view discretion-
ary behaviors that “shape the organizational, social, and psycho-
logical context” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997, p. 100) but are
“outside the rubric of task performance” (Dalal, 2005, p. 1241).
These types of behaviors are important as they can enhance orga-
nizational functioning (e.g., Organ, 1988) or damage an organiza-
tion’s legitimate interests (e.g., Sackett & DeVore, 2001).
There is some evidence linking turnover intentions with discre-
tionary behaviors at work. For example, studies have reported a
negative relationship between turnover intentions and organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors (OCBs; e.g., Aryee & Chay, 2001;
Burris et al., 2008), defined as “performance that supports the

1067
 1068 MAI, ELLIS, CHRISTIAN, AND PORTER
social and psychological environment in which task performance
takes place” (Organ, 1997, p. 95), and a positive relationship
between turnover intentions and deviance behaviors (DBs; e.g.,
Greenbaum, Mawritz, Mayer, & Priesemuth, 2013; Richards &
Schat, 2011), defined as behaviors that are voluntary, violate
organizational norms, and threaten the well-being of the organi-
zation and/or its members (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Robinson
& Bennett, 1995). However, the majority of the aforementioned
studies were cross-sectional in nature and turnover intentions were
typically examined as an outcome variable (see Burris et al., 2008,
as a notable exception). We believe, as do Hom et al. (2012), that
the issue would benefit from closer scrutiny to determine the
process by which turnover intentions impact employee behavior.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Therefore, the purpose of this manuscript is to build on past
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cross-sectional research to develop a causal model linking turnover
intentions and discretionary behaviors at work.
Based on expectancy theory, we believe that turnover intentions
affect the strength of employees’ psychological contract orienta-
tions, or the set of beliefs they hold regarding their relationship
with their organizations (Rousseau, 1995). Psychological contract
orientations can be transactional, or short-term and economic in
nature, and relational, or long-term and socioemotional in nature
(e.g., Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998). We argue that turnover in-
tentions motivate employees to hold strong transactional, and weak
relational, psychological contract orientations because the value
assigned to each type of contract changes when employees begin
to detach from the organization. This then translates into less of a
willingness to engage in OCBs and more of a willingness to
engage in DBs (see Figure 1).
In Study 1, we test the mediated model described above. Then,
in Study 2, we replicate and build upon our original mediated
model. Although we expect that turnover intentions will affect
psychological contract orientations, we recognize that an employ-
ee’s reasons for leaving can vary widely, potentially influencing
effect sizes. Given our focus on relational and transactional con-
tract orientations and the fact that we are interested in the potential
reasons for leaving, we argue that distinguishing whether or not the
organization is seen as responsible represents a relevant and pow-
erful approach. Specifically, we suggest that the effects of turnover
intentions on psychological contract orientations are significantly
strengthened when the organization is perceived as bearing pri-
mary responsibility. As a result, our mediated model is moderated
by perceived organizational responsibility, such that psychological
contract orientation is more likely to mediate the effects of turn-
Figure 1. Hypothesized model. OCBs ⫽ organizational citizenship behaviors; DBs ⫽ deviance behaviors.
over intentions on OCBs and DBs when the organization is seen as
responsible for the potential exit.
The current research makes four important contributions to the
turnover literature. First, unlike previous work (e.g., Holtom,
Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly, 2008; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, &
Meglino, 1979), we focus on turnover intentions as a predictor
rather than an outcome, and suggest that there are implications
(and costs) to turnover intentions beyond organizational exit. Sec-
ond, we utilize expectancy theory as an explanatory framework to
build a model that better explicates the process, highlighting the
role of psychological contract orientations. This extends past work
that has been primarily atheoretical and correlational in nature and
adds to our understanding of the implications associated with
thinking about leaving. Third, we build on the psychological
contracts and turnover literature, which has primarily focused on
the effects of contract violations on turnover (e.g., Turnley &
Feldman, 1999), by suggesting that psychological contract orien-
tations may add to the multifaceted role of psychological contracts
in the turnover process. Finally, we add to the turnover literature
by capturing employees’ potential reason for organizational exit,
emphasizing the role of perceived organizational responsibility.
Turnover Intentions and Psychological Contracts
A psychological contract represents an employee’s perception
of a reciprocal obligation between themselves and the organization
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1995). Psychological
contracts contain transactional and relational components and em-
ployees can orient to one or both components. Transactional con-
tract orientations focus on “specific, short-term, and monetizable
obligations entailing limited involvement of the parties” (Morrison
& Robinson, 1997, p. 229). Employees with strong transactional
contract orientations focus on economic exchange, where obliga-
tions are clearly defined and employees presume immediate com-
pensation for their contributions.
Relational contract orientations focus on “broad, open-ended,
and long-term obligations . . . based on the exchange of not only
monetizable elements (e.g., pay for service) but also socioemo-
tional elements such as loyalty and support” (Morrison & Robin-
son, 1997, p. 229). A strong relational contract orientation focuses
more on social exchange and is less instrumental in nature (Mill-
ward & Hopkins, 1998). Social exchange relationships involve
interdependencies between parties that are not necessarily based
on specific economic obligations (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
 TURNOVER INTENTIONS, OCBS, AND DEVIANCE BEHAVIORS
Employees can (and do) hold both types of contract orientations,
as, conceptually, each focuses on different components of the
employment relationship (Millward & Hopkins, 1998). Although
research has found that measures of relational and transactional
contract orientation are significantly related to one another (e.g.,
Alcover, Martínez-Íñigo, & Chambel, 2012; Millward & Hopkins,
1998), they are conceptually and empirically distinct (e.g., Alcover
et al., 2012; Dabos & Rousseau, 2004).
According to Shore and Tetrick (1994), employees who look to
build their career with an organization are more likely to establish
extensive, relational relationships with their organization, whereas
employees with shorter term goals are more likely to prefer rela-
tionships based on economic exchange. As a result, we believe that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the two types of psychological contract orientations will be af-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
fected when an individual thinks about leaving the organization.
Our arguments are based on expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964),
which suggests that an employee’s intended effort will be based on
three factors: (a) valence, or the attractiveness of an outcome; (b)
instrumentality, or the probability that performance will result in
desired rewards; and (c) expectancy, or the probability that effort
will lead to the desired performance level. We argue that valence
and instrumentality perceptions are particularly relevant in the
relationship between turnover intentions and psychological con-
tract orientations. Combined, valence and instrumentality deter-
mine the value of a certain course of action (Diefendorff &
Chandler, 2011).
Regarding relational contracts, loyalty, support, affiliation, and
long-term connections typically represent needs that are high in
valence (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, for employees who are
thinking about leaving, these types of outcomes are no longer as
important. In addition, relational contracts are based on the long-
term social exchange of economic and socioemotional outcomes
such as development and advancement opportunities, promotions,
and pay raises (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). For employees
thinking about leaving the organization, the probability that they
will reap rewards gleaned from long-term relationships is signifi-
cantly reduced. It is unclear whether the relationships they estab-
lish will pay off before they exit the organization, no matter how
well they perform. Given low levels of valence and instrumental-
ity, the value of relational contracts will be minimal and employees
will likely choose to orient away from relational obligations. This
argument is in line with research on psychological attachment in
the workplace. Psychologically attached employees feel a need to
reciprocate, in accordance with a social exchange perceptive, with
the entity that created these feelings (Meyer & Allen, 1991). On
the other hand, psychological detachment, which has been equated
with high turnover intentions (e.g., Burris et al., 2008), creates a
separation between employees and their engagement in the orga-
nization.
Regarding transactional contracts, it makes rational sense for
employees who are thinking about leaving to shift attention, re-
sources, and effort toward short-term obligations, which represent
a more likely pathway leading to desired rewards and away from
long-term obligations. Employees have a natural preference for a
sure gain versus a gamble because they perceive that the expected
utility is higher (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). In other words,
valence and instrumentality will be perceived to be much higher
with transactional rather than relational contract obligations and
employees will direct their energy toward the higher-value target.
1069
In sum, based on our arguments, employees who intend to leave
will evidence strengthened concerns over contracts that are trans-
actional in nature and weakened concerns over contracts that are
relational in nature.
A number of studies offer empirical support for our conceptual
arguments. Chambel and Castanheira (2007), utilizing a sample of
temporary workers from two organizations, found that when work-
ers preferred their temporary status and had no motivation to
develop a more long-term relationship with the organization, they
held a stronger economic and weaker socioemotional relationship
with the organization. Rousseau (1990) surveyed a group of former
MBA students entering organizations and found that psychological
contracts were largely determined by the type of relationships
these employees expected to have with their organizations. Those
who viewed their job as simply a stepping stone to another job
developed strong transactional contracts with the organization.
Those who were interested in a long-term relationship with the
organization developed strong relational contracts. Further support
comes from Millward and Hopkins (1998), who found that em-
ployees with permanent employment contracts held strong rela-
tional contracts whereas employees with temporary employment
contracts held strong transactional contracts with the organization.
Others provide more direct, albeit cross-sectional, support, finding
that turnover intentions are negatively related to relational contract
orientation and positively related to transactional contract orienta-
tion (Alcover et al., 2012; Christian & Ellis, 2014).
Therefore, based on the arguments above and the available
evidence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1: Turnover intentions will (a) negatively affect
relational psychological contract orientation and (b) positively
affect transactional psychological contract orientation.
Psychological Contracts, OCBs, and Deviance
Employees’ focus on relational and transactional contract ori-
entations will then be reflected in the degree to which they engage
in discretionary behaviors, specifically OCBs and DBs. OCBs
represent “performance that supports the social and psychological
environment in which task performance takes place” (Organ, 1997,
p. 95). Employees feel a relational obligation to engage in OCBs
because their actions will benefit their coworkers and the organi-
zation (Lavelle et al., 2009). Because relational contracts are
embedded in webs of social concerns and focus on interpersonal
relationships (Rousseau & Parks, 1993), Rousseau (1995, 2004)
argued that a strong relational contract orientation leads employees
to engage in OCBs. When employees have positive relationships
within their organization, they follow the norm of reciprocity
whereby individuals are motivated to respond to others in kind
(Gouldner, 1960). Often these types of reciprocal exchange rela-
tionships develop into a self-reinforcing cycle (Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005). This idea has been consistently supported by
research demonstrating the positive effects of social exchange
relationships on OCBs (e.g., Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch,
1994) and by Van Dyne and Ang (1998), who found a strong
positive relationship between relational psychological contract ori-
entation and the incidence of OCBs among a sample of service
employees in Singapore.
Employees with a strong transactional contract orientation, on
the other hand, tend to engage in behavior that is in alignment with
 1070 MAI, ELLIS, CHRISTIAN, AND PORTER
the terms of the contract. Transactional contracts signal that em-
ployees keep their relationships with their organizations at arms’
length (Rousseau, 2004). Employees focus primarily on clearly
defined expectations, reducing the likelihood that they will engage
in discretionary behaviors that result in little to no immediate
economic returns. Research supports these arguments. For exam-
ple, transactional contract orientation was negatively related to the
number of unpaid extra hours worked per week among a sample of
UK service employees (Millward & Hopkins, 1998).
DBs refers to behaviors that are voluntary and violate normative
behavior, such as damaging company property or acting rudely to
coworkers (e.g., Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Like OCBs, DBs are
discretionary and the link between deviant acts and the potential
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
loss of valued financial incentives is often unclear. However,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
unlike OCBs which benefit the organization, DBs harm the orga-
nization (Dalal, 2005). We argue that a strong relational contract
orientation will reduce the incidence of DBs. According to social
bonding theory (see Aday, 1990), the strength of an employee’s
bond with other actors or entities constrains their behavioral op-
tions. When employees are ‘close to’ their coworkers and their
organization, become intimately involved with organizational ac-
tivities, and risk losing established relationships due to negative
sanctions, they are less likely to engage in DBs (Hirschi, 1969;
Hollinger, 1986).
Similar conclusions can be reached using Jones’s (1991) ethical
decision making model, which suggests that unethical behavior is
determined largely by the moral intensity of the issue. According
to Jones, moral intensity is driven by proximity, which refers to
“the feeling of nearness (social, cultural, psychological, or physi-
cal) that the moral agent has for victims (beneficiaries) of the evil
(beneficial) act in question” (p. 376). A number of studies have
supported the influence of proximity on unethical behavior, going
back to the classic Milgram (1974) studies that showed how
psychological distance can increase participants’ willingness to
inflict physical pain. For example, Chiou, Huang, and Lee (2005)
found that perceived proximity to a band reduced consumers’
willingness to purchase pirated music. Although unethical behav-
ior and deviance behaviors are not interchangeable constructs (see
Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010), the conceptual argu-
ments inherent in Jones’ theory cross the two domains. In support,
Luksyte, Spitzmueller, and Maynard (2011) reported a significant
negative correlation between relational contract orientation and
deviance.
Although Luksyte et al. (2011) reported a nonsignificant (albeit
positive) correlation between transactional contract orientation and
deviance, our arguments suggest that transactional contract orien-
tation may also predict DBs. Employees with a strong transactional
contract orientation likely focus exclusively on explicit obligations
to their organizations. The only valued outcomes are those that are
clearly defined, and there is less constraint on how they might
otherwise act. These employees also have a very short-term per-
spective in terms of their relationships and are less concerned with
sanctions or punishments that may not occur for some time (e.g.,
receiving a verbal warning for showing up late to work).
In sum, we have argued that turnover intentions will affect the
strength of relational and transactional contract orientations, which
will then affect the incidence of OCBs and DBs at work, leading
to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Relational psychological contract orientation
will mediate the effects of turnover intentions on the incidence
of (a) OCBs and (b) DBs. Specifically, turnover intentions are
expected to negatively relate to relational psychological con-
tract orientation, which is in turn expected to positively relate
to OCBs and negatively relate to DBs.
Hypothesis 3: Transactional psychological contract orienta-
tion will mediate the effects of turnover intentions on the
incidence of (a) OCBs and (b) DBs. Specifically, turnover
intentions are expected to positively relate to transactional
psychological contract orientation, which is in turn expected
to negatively relate to OCBs and positively relate to DBs.
Pilot Study
Before testing our causal model, we utilized a separate sample
to test possible bidirectional effects between employees’ turnover
intentions and psychological contract orientation using a longitu-
dinal, cross-lagged panel design. Participants completed the same
measures—turnover intentions and psychological contracts—at
two separate points in time, which allowed us to test the causal
effects of each variable on the other while controlling for existing
levels of either variable (see Colquitt & Rodell, 2011).
Method
Procedure and participants. To generate cross-lagged data,
we recruited participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(mTurk; see Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Of the 200
individuals who completed the survey at Time 1, 133 (67%)
responded at Time 2 (one month later). According to demographic
data collected at Time 1, participants (59% male; mean age ⫽
33.21 years [SD ⫽ 9.78]; 77% full-time employees) came from a
diverse set of occupations and were employed in a variety of
industries including sales and services (33.8%), administrative
specialization (5.5%), business and finance (16.9%), computer
related (16.4%), and education (9.5%). Respondents at Time 2 and
nonrespondents did not significantly differ in terms of turnover
intentions, F(1,199) ⫽ .00, ns1; relational psychological contract
orientation, F(1,199) ⫽ 1.34, ns; transactional psychological con-
tract orientation, F(1,199) ⫽ .01, ns; age, F(1,199) ⫽ 2.83, ns; sex,
F(1,199) ⫽ 2.64, ns; or tenure, F(1,199) ⫽ .95, ns—all of which were
measured at Time 1.
Measures. Turnover intentions were measured using a five
item scale developed by Colarelli (1984) and adapted by Chen,
Ployhart, Thomas, Anderson, and Bliese (2011) on a 5-point Likert
scale. The same scale is also used in Study 2.2 Cronbach’s alpha
was .96 for both Time 1 and Time 2. The two types of psycho-
logical contracts were measured using an abbreviated 18-item
1
In all studies, p values above .05 were treated as nonsignificant.
2
The measure of turnover intentions utilized in the Pilot Study and
Study 2 has been used frequently in the literature (e.g., Chen et al., 2011;
Schaubroeck, May, & Brown, 1994). We recognize that the measure may
capture both thoughts of quitting and turnover intentions. However, based
on meta-analytic evidence (Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth,
1992) which found that measures of thoughts of quitting strongly relate to
measures of turnover intentions (corrected mean r ⫽ .69), we aggregated
the items into one measure of turnover intentions.
 TURNOVER INTENTIONS, OCBS, AND DEVIANCE BEHAVIORS
version originally developed by Millward and Hopkins (1998) and
adapted by Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis (2004) on 5-point Likert
scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree). The same
scales are also used in Studies 1 and 2. Cronbach’s alpha was .86
(Time 1) and .87 (Time 2) for transactional contract orientation
and .94 (Time 1) and .93 (Time 2) for relational contract orienta-
tion.
Analysis strategy. Cross-lagged structural equation modeling
(SEM) with Mplus version 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012) was
used to test causal order. We followed a two-step procedure. First,
we tested measurement equivalence across time for turnover in-
tentions and the two types of psychological contracts to ensure the
meaning of the constructs did not change across time. We then
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
examined the structural model.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Time 1 synchronous correlations were modeled by allowing the
exogenous latent variables to covary. Time 2 synchronous corre-
lations were modeled by allowing the disturbance terms for the
endogenous latent variables to covary. Each Time 1 latent variable
had a causal effect on its Time 2 counterpart, and Time 1 turnover
intentions had a cross-lagged effect on Time 2 psychological
contracts, and vice versa. Following recommendations (e.g.,
Epitropaki & Martin, 2005), we controlled for stability effects.
Cross-lagged effects can then be used to draw inferences about
causal direction.
Given our focus on relationships between latent variables, we
used item parcels to reduce the sample-size-to-parameter ratio and
produce more reliable latent variables by reducing random errors
associated with individual items, both of which help to generate
stable estimates in the structural model (Little, Cunningham, Sha-
har, & Widaman, 2002). Following Landis, Beal, and Tesluk
(2000), we randomly assigned items to parcels as this yields
comparable fit to more complex methods. Model fit was assessed
using the comparative fit index (CFI) and standardized root-mean-
square residual (SRMR). CFI values .95 or above and SRMR
values lower than .10 indicate satisfactory model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999).
Results
Measurement equivalence. We followed the approach sug-
gested by Vandenberg and Lance (2000), and conducted multi-
group confirmatory analysis to examine the measurement equiva-
lence of turnover intentions and both types of psychological
contract orientations across two different points in time. We first
conducted an omnibus test for equality of covariance matrices in
which the variances and covariances among the turnover intention
items were constrained to be identical across the two different time
points. The model provided a good fit to the data, ␹2(45) ⫽
2738.06, p ⬍ .01; SRMR ⫽ .05; CFI ⫽ .95, indicating a lack of
measurement variance for turnover intentions. This also precluded
additional tests for measurement invariance (ME/I; Vandenberg &
Lance, 2000). The omnibus tests for both relational and transac-
tional contract orientation measures showed good model fit,
␹2(153) ⫽ 3081.97, p ⬍ .01; SRMR ⫽ .05; CFI ⫽ .95 for
relational contract orientation and ␹2(153) ⫽ 1936.09, p ⬍ .01;
SRMR ⫽ .07; CFI ⫽ .94 for transactional contract orientation.
These results indicate a lack of measurement variance for each of
the two psychological contract orientations. Overall, the ME/I tests
indicate that the meaning of the three constructs stayed the same
1071
across time, allowing us to examine relationships between our
variables of interest.
Structural model. The cross-lagged structural model pro-
vided a satisfactory model fit to the data, ␹2(120) ⫽ 2841.46,
p ⬍ .01; SRMR ⫽ .08; CFI ⫽ .95; AIC ⫽ 5441.23. After
controlling for the stability of turnover intentions (␤ ⫽ .99, p ⬍
.01), relational contract orientation (␤ ⫽ .73, p ⬍ .01), and
transactional contract orientation (␤ ⫽ .75, p ⬍ .01), neither of
the lagged effects of Time 1 relational contract orientation (␤ ⫽
.04, ns) or Time 1 transactional contract orientation (␤ ⫽ ⫺.07,
ns) on Time 2 turnover intentions were significant. The lagged
effect of Time 1 turnover intentions on both relational contract
orientation (␤ ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .05) and transactional contract ori-
entation (␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, p ⬍ .01) were significant. Therefore, our
results supported the proposition that turnover intentions pre-
dict psychological contract orientation and allowed us to more
confidently move forward with a test of our causal model.
Study 1
Method
Sample description. The sample consisted of 60 employees
from a large drug retailing chain. Nineteen store locations in the
Southwestern United States participated. Eighty-five percent of the
sample were female, and 56% were White. Mean age was 43.18
years (SD ⫽ 13.41), and average tenure was approximately 8 years
(SD ⫽ 4.38).
Procedure. We obtained support from the two district man-
agers who oversaw the 19 locations and who encouraged employ-
ees to participate. Employees were introduced to the study in the
following ways: (a) paper postings on bulletin boards in break
rooms and (b) an announcement made by the store managers.
Employees were told that they could get a check for $30 for
completing three surveys (approximately 30 min total) over the
course of several weeks (this was significantly higher than the
typical hourly wage of approximately $10 an hour). The employ-
ees were also told that all data would be kept completely confi-
dential and would not be shared with their employer or manager.
Data were collected using paper and pencil versions of the surveys
that were hand delivered to each store. Employees had 48 hours to
fill out each survey and mail them using prepaid return envelopes.
At Time 1, the first survey (measuring turnover intentions and
the control variables) was distributed. Two weeks later, at Time 2,
the second survey (measuring relational and transactional contract
orientation) was distributed. Two weeks after receiving the second
survey, at Time 3, the third survey (measuring OCBs and DBs)
was distributed. The spacing of the surveys was done in order to
reduce potential common methods effects (see Podsakoff, MacK-
enzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Employees’ personal e-mail ad-
dresses and dates of birth were collected to match the data over
time. In terms of response rate, 94 employees completed Survey 1,
67 employees completed Survey 2, and 60 employees completed
all three surveys (for a total response rate of approximately 30%;
response rate was similar across locations). Respondents at Time 2
and nonrespondents did not significantly differ in terms of turn-
over intentions, F(1,93) ⫽ 1.04, ns; age, F(1,93) ⫽ 1.05, ns; sex,
F(1,93) ⫽ 2.95, ns; or tenure, F(1,93) ⫽ .83, ns—all of which were
measured at Time 1. Respondents at Time 3 and nonrespondents
 1072 MAI, ELLIS, CHRISTIAN, AND PORTER
did not significantly differ in terms of relational contract orienta-
tion, F(1,65) ⫽ .01, ns, or transactional contract orientation,
F(1,65) ⫽ .39, ns, which were measured at Time 2.
Measures
Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were measured us-
ing a two-item scale developed by Hom, Griffeth, and Sellaro
(1984) and adapted by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez
(2001). Items were “How strongly do you feel about leaving the
organization within the next 12 months?” and “How likely is it that
you will leave the organization in the next 12 months?” Respon-
dents used 5-point scales (1 ⫽ not at all strongly to 5 ⫽ very
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
strongly and 1 ⫽ not at all likely to 5 ⫽ very likely, respectively).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Relational and transactional psychological contract
orientation. The two types of psychological contracts were mea-
sured using an abbreviated 18-item version originally developed
by Millward and Hopkins (1998) and adapted by Raja et al. (2004).
Raja et al. (2004) found that the measure correlates highly with
other measures of contract orientation. Sample items included “I
work only the hours set out in my contract and no more” and “My
loyalty to the organization is contract specific” (transactional) and
“To me working for this organization is like being a member of a
family” and “I feel this company reciprocates the effort put in by
its employees” (relational). Respondents used a 5-point Likert
scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree).
OCBs. We measured OCBs using Podsakoff and MacKen-
zie’s (1994) 14-item Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale
focused on the last two weeks at work. Sample items included “I
am willing to give my time to help coworkers who have work-
related problems” and “I attend functions that are not required but
help the company image.” Respondents used a 5-point Likert scale
(1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree).
DBs. DBs were measured using the 19-item version of Ben-
nett and Robinson’s (2000) scale. Respondents rated how often
they had engaged in a list of behaviors in the past two weeks from
1 (never) to 5 (often). Following Lee and Allen’s (2002) recom-
mendation, we dropped two items that exhibited zero variance (all
participants responded “never”): “Falsified a receipt to get reim-
bursed for more money than you spent on business expenses” and
“Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job.”3
Control variables. Sex, negative affect, and tenure were mea-
sured as control variables. Sex has been shown to relate to DBs
(e.g., Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Negative affect in the
workplace has been shown to relate to DBs (e.g., Dalal, 2005). We
utilized the 10-item negative affectivity scale from the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
1988). Respondents used 5-point scales (1 ⫽ very slightly or not at
all to 5 ⫽ very much) to indicate how they generally felt at work
using 10 adjectives that describe negative affect (e.g., afraid,
ashamed, scared). Tenure was also included because contract dy-
namics can change over the course of an individual’s career (e.g.,
Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994).
Analysis strategy. Although we developed our model at the
individual level of analysis, each employee was embedded in one
store and each store was embedded in one of two districts, calling
into question whether the individual-level data are independent.
Therefore, following McClean, Burris, and Detert (2013), we
employed multilevel analyses to explicitly model the nonindepen-
dence resulting from district (n ⫽ 2) and location (n ⫽ 19)
groupings. We found that the between-store and between-district
variance was not significantly different from zero, indicating that
the variance attributable to each higher level did not explain a
significant amount of variance in our individual-level outcome
variables. We therefore used ordinary least squares (OLS) regres-
sion to test our hypotheses (Gelman & Hill, 2007).4
Results
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and internal consistency re-
liabilities (coefficient alphas) are provided in Table 1. Before
testing our hypotheses, we assessed the discriminant validity of our
measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). To
deal with the relatively small sample size, we relied on the rec-
ommendations of Marsh and Hau (1999) and used item parcels,
which are less likely to be influenced by idiosyncratic wording and
method effects associated with individual items and are more
likely to meet the typical assumptions of normality in maximum-
likelihood approaches to CFA. Each latent variable, besides turn-
over intentions, used three item parcels. Results indicated that the
hypothesized five-factor model fit the data reasonably well, with
␹2(df ⫽ 67) ⫽ 112.20, p ⬍ .01; CFI ⫽ .92, SRMR ⫽ .09.
Furthermore, the hypothesized five-factor model also fit the data
better than the best fitting four-factor model, with situational
constraints and negative affect loading on one factor, ⌬␹2(4) ⫽
17.34, p ⬍ .01; the best fitting three-factor model, ⌬␹2(7) ⫽ 64.14,
p ⬍ .01; the best fitting two-factor model, ⌬␹2(9) ⫽ 82.82, p ⬍
.01; and a one-factor model, ⌬␹2(10) ⫽ 139.66, p ⬍ .01.
Test of hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 predicted that turnover in-
tentions would negatively affect relational contract orientation and
positively affect transactional contract orientation. After entering
the control variables, results from regression analyses indicated
that turnover intentions significantly predicted relational contract
orientation (B ⫽ ⫺.40, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .01, Cohen’s f2 ⫽ .45) and
transactional contract orientation (B ⫽ .26, SE ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .01,
Cohen’s f2 ⫽ .64). Thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported.
We should note that these results are also included in our tests of
indirect effects in Table 2.
To test our mediation hypotheses, we adopted Preacher and
Hayes’s (2004, 2008) bootstrapping application with 10,000 resa-
mples as recommended by MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams
(2004). Table 2 presents the regression coefficients of both indirect
and direct paths, as well as the 95% confidence interval (CI)
around the indirect effect for each test of mediation. Effects are
considered significant when the bootstrapped 95% CI around the
indirect effect does not contain zero.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that relational contract orientation would
mediate the effects of turnover intentions on the incidence of (a)
OCBs and (b) DBs. Results supported the significance of the
indirect effect of turnover intentions on OCBs, 95% CI
[⫺.30, ⫺.06], and DBs, 95% CI [.01, .10], through relational
3
The results remained the same with all items included.
4
Additionally, due to the relatively small sample size, we conducted an
outlier test based on the casewise statistics (i.e., standardized scores of
residuals and Mahalanobis distances; Ben-Gal, 2005) to ensure that ob-
served effects were not due to outliers or influential cases, and no such
cases were detected.
 TURNOVER INTENTIONS, OCBS, AND DEVIANCE BEHAVIORS 1073

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study 1

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Sex (T1) 0.15 0.36 —

2. Job tenure (T1) 94.62 88.76 ⫺.32ⴱ —
3. Negative affect (T1) 1.45 0.56 ⫺.13 ⫺.04 (.87)
4. Turnover intentions (T1) 2.24 1.26 ⫺.26ⴱ ⫺.19 .54ⴱⴱ (.86)
5. Transactional contract orientation (T2) 2.53 0.75 .01 ⫺.05 .48ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ (.86)
6. Relational contract orientation (T2) 3.54 0.93 .12 ⫺.03 ⫺.49ⴱⴱ ⫺.61ⴱⴱ ⫺.60ⴱⴱ (.94)
7. OCBs (T3) 3.79 0.56 ⫺.04 ⫺.14 ⫺.21 ⫺.15 ⫺.37ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱ (.84)
8. DBs (T3) 1.19 0.27 .03 .03 .37ⴱⴱ .25 .48ⴱⴱ ⫺.48ⴱⴱ ⫺.56ⴱⴱ (.84)
Note. N ⫽ 60. Internal consistency reliabilities (coefficients alphas) are on the diagonal. For sex, 1 ⫽ male; 0 ⫽ female. OCBs ⫽ organizational
citizenship behaviors; DBs ⫽ deviance behaviors; T1 ⫽ Time 1; T2 ⫽ Time 2; T3 ⫽ Time 3.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

contract orientation, with significant increases in explained vari-
ance, ⌬R2 ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .01 and ⌬R2 ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .01, respectively.
Therefore, Hypotheses 2a and 2b were both supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that transactional contract orientation
would mediate the effects of turnover intentions on the incidence
of (a) OCBs and (b) DBs. Results supported the significance of the
indirect effect of turnover intentions on OCBs, 95% CI
[⫺.20, ⫺.01], and DBs, 95% CI [.01, .09], through transactional
contract orientation, with significant increases in explained vari-
ance, ⌬R2 ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .05 and ⌬R2 ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .01, respectively.
Therefore, Hypotheses 3a and 3b were supported.5
Discussion
Based on the results of Study 1 (in conjunction with the Pilot
Study), our mediated model linking turnover intentions, OCBs,
and DBs through relational and transactional psychological con-
tract orientations was supported. Employees who were thinking
about leaving the organization evidenced a weaker relational ori-
entation and a stronger transactional orientation, which then re-
sulted in less OCBs and more DBs. Clearly there are important
implications regarding turnover intentions beyond organizational
exit and Study 1 helps to build an initial causal model depicting the
effects of turnover intentions on OCBs and DBs. In Study 2, we
replicate and extend our original mediated model.
Study 2
Our first three hypotheses remain unchanged. However, Study 2
expands our original model by examining perceived organizational
responsibility as a moderator of the effects of turnover intentions
on psychological contract orientations.
The Role of Perceived Organizational Responsibility
Although scholars have historically tended to focus on attitudes
and alternatives as the primary reasons for organizational exit, the
last two decades of theory and research on turnover has been
greatly influenced by Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) unfolding model
of turnover. The model highlights the significant role of shocks, or
jarring events, in the turnover decision-making process. Building
on the unfolding model, Maertz and colleagues (Maertz & Cam-
pion, 2004; Maertz & Griffeth, 2004) developed a taxonomy of
eight motivational forces that determine why people stay or leave,
including alternative and contractual forces.
However, given the fact that we are interested in predicting the
discretionary behavior of employees who continue to remain with
their organizations, previous classification schemes developed by
Maertz, Lee, Mitchell, and others are less applicable. Instead, we
are interested in the hypothetical, perceived causes of potential
employee exit. That is, if employees were to leave their organiza-
tion, what would be the primary driving force? Lee and Mitchell
(1994) argued that people are acutely aware of the reason behind
a potential change in employment, particularly as a large portion
experience a specific shock (Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel, &
Hill, 1999). We suggest that turnover intentions have the potential
to be much more problematic when the organization is deemed
responsible.
We adopt the perspective of Salancik and Meindl (1984), who
examined whether CEOs blamed their firms’ performances on
factors that were under the organization’s control. Like Salancik
and Meindl, we believe that employees can view their organiza-
tions as responsible for pushing them out when, for example, they
believe that they receive inadequate pay or endure an abusive
supervisor. Or, employees can absolve the organization of any
modicum of responsibility when, for example, an employee grad-
uates from a Ph.D. program or discovers they are pregnant - both
of which may represent reasons for leaving an employer. This clear
demarcation between factors that the organization is perceived to
be and not to be responsible for can have significant ramifications
in terms of the relationship between turnover intentions and psy-
chological contract orientations. If an employee perceives that the
organization is not responsible for the potential reason for their
departure, they are less apt to blame the organization (Morrison &
Robinson, 1997), reducing the potential impact of turnover inten-
tions on psychological contract orientations. Beliefs about their
relationship with their organization are less likely to change when
the cause is not believed to be under the organization’s control. If,
5
In both Study 1 and 2, we sought to further verify causal ordering by
examining turnover intentions as a mediator of the effects of relational and
transactional contract orientation on OCBs and DBs. None of the indirect
effects reached significance, further supporting contract orientation as a
mediator of the effects of turnover intentions on OCBs and DBs. Full
results are available from the first author upon request.
 1074 MAI, ELLIS, CHRISTIAN, AND PORTER

Table 2
Results Regarding Hypothesized Indirect Effects for Studies 1 and 2

Study 1a Study 2b
RCO TCO RCO TCO
D.V. mediator OCBs DBs OCBs DBs OCBs DBs OCBs DBs

Indirect effect
Bootstrap estimate (a ⫻ b path) ⫺.15 .05 ⫺.07 .03 ⫺.05 .12 ⫺.12 .12
Bootstrap SE .06 .02 .05 .02 .06 .05 .06 .05
LL 95% CI ⫺.30 .01 ⫺.20 .01 ⫺.17 .03 ⫺.26 .04
UL 95% CI ⫺.06 .10 ⫺.01 .09 .06 .22 ⫺.02 .22
Direct effect
I.V. on mediator (a path) ⫺.40ⴱⴱ ⫺.40ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ ⫺.64ⴱⴱ ⫺.64ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ
Mediator on D.V. (b path) .37ⴱⴱ ⫺.11ⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .07 ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.34ⴱ .31ⴱⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

I.V. on D.V. (c= path) .09 ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.01 ⫺.17 ⫺.05 ⫺.09 ⫺.05
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. N ⫽ 60 for Study 1; N ⫽ 130 for Study 2. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size ⫽ 10,000. I.V. ⫽ independent
variable; D.V. ⫽ dependent variable; OCBs ⫽ organizational citizenship behaviors; DBs ⫽ deviance behaviors; RCO ⫽ relational contract orientation;
TCO ⫽ transactional contract orientation; LL ⫽ lower limit; CI ⫽ confidence interval; UL ⫽ upper limit.
a
Sex, tenure, and negative affect were used as control variables in Study 1. b Sex, tenure, employment type, negative affect, and organizational
commitment were used as control variables in Study 2.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

for example, family issues force an employee to exit the organi-
zation, he or she would be less likely to dissolve socioemotional
ties in favor of more economic concerns. This also has implica-
tions for the mediational role of psychological contract orientation
in the relationship between turnover intentions, OCBs, and DBs.
Our arguments are derived partly from the justice literature,
where this idea has been translated into research focusing on
accountability and whether or not an entity is deemed responsible
for an event (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). When responsibility is
placed on the entity, employees’ reactions can be quite severe as
they sever their relationship and look to restore perceptions of
fairness through retaliation against the entity (Skarlicki & Folger,
1997; Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999).
In sum, the above arguments lead us to the following set of
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4: The indirect effect of turnover intentions on the
incidence of (a) OCBs and (b) DBs, as mediated by relational
psychological contract orientation, will be strongest when the
organization is perceived to be responsible for potential exit.
Hypothesis 5: The indirect effect of turnover intentions on the
incidence of (a) OCBs and (b) DBs, as mediated by transac-
tional psychological contract orientation, will be strongest
when the organization is perceived to be responsible for
potential exit.
Method
Sample description and procedure. Sample 2 consisted of a
final sample of 130 employees of a large state-owned telecommu-
nications corporation. Fifteen branch offices located in Southeast
China participated. After receiving consent from the district man-
ager who oversaw all branch offices in that area, we developed and
administered separate questionnaires to employees and their direct
supervisors at two time points. Each employee was invited to
complete an online survey containing items tapping turnover in-
tentions, perceived organizational responsibility, psychological
contract orientations, and demographic information at Time 1.
Direct supervisors provided the rating of OCBs and DBs for each
subordinate two weeks later at Time 2. To increase respondent
candidness and reduce their evaluation apprehension, we ensured
the confidentiality of individual responses. The opportunity to
participate in our study was first announced, and then surveys were
distributed via e-mail.
A total of 149 employees responded to the survey and 41 direct
supervisors provided ratings at Time 2 (response rates of 74.5% and
95.6%, respectively). Employees’ and supervisors’ cell phone num-
bers were collected and matched by HR, enabling us to create 130
matched data points. Participants were all marketing and sales per-
sonnel. Seventy-nine percent of the participants were female, mean
age was 31.6 years (SD ⫽ 5.68), and average tenure was 6.4 years.6
Measures. All the materials were presented in Chinese. Two
independent billingual researchers translated the items from Eng-
lish into Chinese and then back-translated the items into English
(Brislin, 1986). Turnover intentions were measured using the same
scale from the Pilot Study. Relational and transactional contract
orientations were measured using the same scales as in Study 1
and the Pilot Study.
OCBs. OCBs during the past two weeks were measured
using Williams and Anderson’s (1991) 14-item scale. Sample
items included “I go out of my way to help new employees” and
“I adhere to informal rules devised to maintain order.” Re-
sponses were provided on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ strongly
disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree). The same measure has also
been used in previous research in China (e.g., Lam, Liang,
Ashford, & Lee, 2015).
6
For Study 2, we collected a second sample of data from 177 working
adults with full-time or part-time jobs in the United States using Amazon
Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Three surveys completed at 2-week intervals
measured turnover intentions and perceived organizational responsibility
(Survey 1), psychological contract orientations (Survey 2), and OCBs and
DBs (Survey 3). Results were consistent with our hypotheses. Results are
available from the first author upon request.
 TURNOVER INTENTIONS, OCBS, AND DEVIANCE BEHAVIORS
DBs. We again used Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) work-
place deviance measure to assess the incidence of DBs over the
past two weeks. After consulting with senior managers, four
items were eliminated from the original 19-item scale because
they were inapplicable (i.e., “Taken property from work with-
out permission,” “Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on
the job,” “Dragged out work in order to get overtime,” and
“Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you
spent on business expenses”). In addition, based on managers’
suggestions, we added two items (i.e., “Surfed non-work related
websites” and “Intentionally missed assigned deadlines”) to
help the measure better fit the sample. A 5-point scale was
adopted (1 ⫽ never to 5 ⫽ often).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Perceived organizational responsibility. We utilized a mea-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sure of perceived organizational responsibility by adapting items
from previous research (e.g., Burton, Taylor, & Barber, 2014;
Jackson & LePine, 2003) and created a 3-item scale to assess
participants’ perceptions of organizational responsibility. Partici-
pants indicated to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the
following statements:
If I were to leave this company, (a) my organization would have
caused me to think about turnover, (b) my turnover would be due to
something about my organization, (c) the cause of my turnover would
be something my organization can control.
A 5-point Likert-type response scale was adopted (1 ⫽ strongly
disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree). We averaged the three items to
form a composite measure (with higher numbers indicating higher
perceived organizational responsibility).
We ran a CFA with all the variables rated by employees (turn-
over intentions, transactional and relational contract orientation,
and perceived organizational responsibility). Supporting the dis-
criminant validity of the scales we adopted, a four-factor model
with all items loading on the appropriate construct fit the data
reasonably well, with ␹2(df ⫽ 293, N ⫽ 149) ⫽ 535.36, p ⬍ .01,
RMSEA ⫽ .07, SRMR ⫽ .07, CFI ⫽ .92. Moreover, the four-
factor model fit the data significantly better than competing mod-
els, including a one-factor solution with all items loading on a
single factor, ⌬␹2(6) ⫽ 2057.84, p ⬍ .01, a two-factor solution
with turnover intentions and perceived organizational responsibil-
ity loading on one factor and the two types of psychological
contract orientations loading on the other factor, ⌬␹2(5) ⫽ 498.53,
p ⬍ .01, a two-factor solution with all items except the ones that
measure perceived organizational responsibility loading on the
same factor, ⌬␹2(5) ⫽ 1853.22, p ⬍ .01, and a three-factor
solution with transactional and relational contract orientation load-
ing on the same factor, ⌬␹2 (3) ⫽ 292.16, p ⬍ .01.
Control variables. We again controlled for sex, negative af-
fect over the past two weeks, and tenure using the same scales as
reported in Study 1 and Sample 1. In addition, we also controlled
for organizational commitment because it can strongly affect turn-
over intentions (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky,
2002). We utilized the 4-item scale developed by Klein, Cooper,
Molloy, and Swanson (2014). Sample items included “How com-
mitted are you to this organization?” and “To what extent do you
care about this organization?” Respondents used 5-point scales
(1 ⫽ not at all to 5 ⫽ extremely).
1075
Results
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and internal consistency re-
liabilities (coefficient alphas) are provided in Table 3.7,8
Hypothesis 1 predicted that turnover intentions would (a) neg-
atively affect relational psychological contract orientation and (b)
positively affect transactional psychological contract orientation,
respectively. After entering the control variables, results from
regression analyses indicated that turnover intentions significantly
predicted relational contract orientation (B ⫽ ⫺.64, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍
.01, Cohen’s f2 ⫽ .45) and transactional contract orientation (B ⫽
.37, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .01, Cohen’s f2 ⫽ .45), supporting Hypothesis
1a and 1b.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that relational psychological contract
orientation would mediate the effects of turnover intentions on the
incidence of (a) OCBs and (b) DBs. The results of the bootstrap-
ping analysis (with 10,000 iterations) supported the significance of
the indirect effect of turnover intentions on DBs, 95% CI [.03, .22],
through relational contract orientation. However, results indicated
that the indirect effect of turnover intentions on OCBs, through
relational contract orientation, was not significant as the 95%
confidence intervals included zero, (⫺.17, .06). Thus, Hypothesis
2 was partially supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that transactional psychological contract
orientation would mediate the effects of turnover intentions on the
incidence of (a) OCBs and (b) DBs. Results indicated that the
indirect effect of turnover intentions on OCBs, through transac-
tional contract orientation, was also significant, 95% CI
[⫺.25, ⫺.02]. Results again supported the significance of the
indirect effect of turnover intentions on DBs, 95% CI [.04, .22],
through transactional contract orientation. Therefore, Hypothesis 3
was supported.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that the indirect effect of turnover in-
tentions on the incidence of (a) OCBs and (b) DBs, as mediated by
relational psychological contract orientation, would be strongest
when the organization was deemed responsible for potential exit.
To test moderated mediation we used Model 7 in SPSS PROCESS
(Hayes, 2013). After entering the controls and direct effects, the
interaction between turnover intentions and perceived organiza-
tional responsibility significantly affected transactional contract
orientation (B ⫽ ⫺.21, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .05) and transactional
contract orientation (B ⫽ .14, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .05), with significant
increases in explained variance, ⌬R2 ⫽ .02, p ⬍ .05 and ⌬R2 ⫽
.02, p ⬍ .05, respectively. As shown in Figure 2, both slopes of the
effect of turnover intentions on relational contract orientation were
significant, but the effect was larger when the organization was
deemed responsible for potential exit, simple slope ⫽ ⫺.81, SE ⫽
.13 t ⫽ ⫺6.41, p ⬍ .01, than when it was not, simple
slope ⫽ ⫺.51, SE ⫽ .11, t ⫽ ⫺4.41, p ⬍ .01, as indicated by a
7
Similar to Study 1, although each employee was embedded in a branch
office, we found that the between-office variance was not significantly
different from zero, and therefore used ordinary least squares (OLS)
regression to test our hypotheses.
8
Although turnover intentions were not significantly correlated with
OCBs or DBs in either study, the relationship between turnover intentions
and OCBs (r ⫽ ⫺.15) was similar to the average correlation coefficient
reported in a recent meta-analysis (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, &
Blume, 2009). We believe that the difference in significance is primarily a
result of sample size, which is an even more paramount issue with DBs.
 1076 MAI, ELLIS, CHRISTIAN, AND PORTER

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study 2

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

1. Sex 0.21 0.41 —

2. Job tenure 6.36 4.49 ⫺.04 —
3. Negative affect 1.71 0.51 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 (.82)
4. Organizational commitment 4.09 0.85 ⫺.06 .16 ⫺.30ⴱⴱ (.95)
5. Turnover intentions 1.96 0.73 ⫺.13 ⫺.16 .49ⴱⴱ ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.90)
6. Perceived organizational responsibility 2.94 0.71 ⫺.17ⴱ .02 .11 ⫺.06 .08 (.86)
7. Transactional contract orientation 2.48 0.54 .04 ⫺.11 .17 ⫺.22ⴱ .46ⴱⴱ .17 (.82)
8. Relational contract orientation 3.39 0.94 .02 .00 ⫺.39ⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱ ⫺.62ⴱⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.55ⴱⴱ (.96)
9. OCBs 3.82 0.71 ⫺.04 ⫺.06 ⫺.01 .04 ⫺.15 .08 ⫺.27ⴱⴱ .14 (.93)
10. DBs 1.58 0.52 .01 .00 ⫺.06 ⫺.08 .06 ⫺.09 .28ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱ ⫺.56ⴱⴱ (.90)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. N ⫽ 130. Internal consistency reliabilities (coefficients alphas) are on the diagonal. For sex, 0 ⫽ female; 1 ⫽ male. OCBs ⫽ organizational
citizenship behaviors; DBs ⫽ deviance behaviors.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

significant interaction (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Simi-
larly, as shown in Figure 3, the effect of turnover intentions on
transactional contract orientation was larger when the organization
was deemed responsible for potential exit, simple slope ⫽ .48,
SE ⫽ .09, t ⫽ 5.47, p ⬍ .01, than when it was not, simple slope ⫽
.29, SE ⫽ .08, t ⫽ 3.57, p ⬍ .01.
Evidence of moderated mediation exists if the estimates of the
indirect effects transmitted through the mediator variable are sig-
nificantly different across levels of the moderator variable as
indicated by a significant interaction (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes,
2007). Therefore, using PROCESS (Hayes, 2013), we further
estimated the conditional indirect effect of turnover intentions on
OCBs and DBs through relational contract orientation when the
organization was and was not deemed responsible for potential exit
using unstandardized coefficients and bootstrapping with 10,000
resamples to place 95% confidence intervals around estimates of
the indirect effects. Results indicated a significant interactive ef-
fect between turnover intentions and perceived organizational re-
sponsibility on relational contract orientation, t ⫽ ⫺2.08, p ⬍ .05.
Results showed that the indirect effect of turnover intentions on
DBs through relational contract orientation was significantly stron-
ger when the organization was deemed responsible for potential
exit, coefficient ⫽ .15, Boot SE ⫽ .06, 95% CI [.04, .28], than
when it was not, coefficient ⫽ .09, Boot SE ⫽ .04, 95% CI [.02,
.19]. However, results indicated that the indirect effect of turnover
intentions on OCBs through relational contract orientation was not
significant when the organization was deemed responsible for
potential exit, coefficient ⫽ ⫺.06, Boot SE ⫽ .07, 95% CI [⫺.20,
.07], or when it was not, coefficient ⫽ ⫺.04, Boot SE ⫽ .05, 95%
CI [⫺.14, .05]. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that the indirect effect of turnover
intentions on the incidence of (a) OCBs and (b) DBs, as
mediated by transactional psychological contract orientation,
would be strongest when the organization was deemed respon-
sible for potential exit. Results indicated a significant interac-
tive effect between turnover intentions and perceived organiza-
tional responsibility on transactional contract orientation, t ⫽
2.00, p ⬍ .05. Results showed that the indirect effect of turn-
over intentions on OCB through transactional contract orienta-
tion was significantly stronger when the organization was
deemed responsible for potential exit, coefficient ⫽ ⫺.16, Boot
SE ⫽ .08, 95% CI [.34, ⫺.02], than when it was not, coeffi-
cient ⫽ ⫺.10, Boot SE ⫽ .05, 95% CI [⫺.22, ⫺.02]. The
indirect effect of turnover intentions on DBs through transac-
tional contract orientation was significantly stronger when the
organization was deemed responsible for potential exit, coeffi-
cient ⫽ .15, Boot SE ⫽ .06, 95% CI [.04, .28], than when it was
not, coefficient ⫽ .09, Boot SE ⫽ .04, 95% CI [.03, .19]. Thus,
Hypotheses 5 was supported.

4.5
Relational Psychological Contract

Low Perceived
4 Organizational Responsibility

3.5 High Preceived

Orientation

Organizational Responsibility
3

2.5

1.5

1
Low High
Turnover Intentions

Figure 2. The effects of the interaction between turnover intentions and perceived organizational responsibility
on on relational psychological contract orientation (Study 2).
 TURNOVER INTENTIONS, OCBS, AND DEVIANCE BEHAVIORS
4.5
Transactional Psychological Contract
4 Organizational Responsibility
3.5
Orientation
3
2.5
1.5
1
Low
Turnover Intentions
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.
Figure 3. The effects of the interaction between turnover intentions and perceived organizational responsibility
on transactional psychological contract orientation (Study 2).
General Discussion
Scholars have amassed an impressive amount of research fo-
cused on predicting turnover (see Hom, 2011), due to its signifi-
cant and multifaceted costs (e.g., Cascio, 2000). However, our
central thesis is that, for companies and industries with high
turnover rates (e.g., retail; Cascio, 2006), problems can arise while
employees think about leaving but still remain with the organiza-
tion. This is particularly the case in settings in which turnover rates
likely fail to accurately capture, and may severely underestimate,
the number of employees who are thinking of leaving the organi-
zation at a given point in time. Problems occur because, although
turnover intentions may signal the beginning of the end of an
employment relationship, there are a number of situations in which
the desire to leave an organization does not actually lead to
immediate exit. For example, limited job mobility represents an
obvious situational constraint that might prevent those who desire
to leave an organization from actually doing so. Indeed, turnover
intentions are only moderately related to actual turnover, clearly
indicating that intentions to leave an organization do not equate to
leaving (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000).
To better understand the problems associated with staying while
thinking about leaving, we built and tested a causal model linking
turnover intentions with transactional and relational contract ori-
entations, which were then expected to influence the incidence of
OCBs and DBs. Using expectancy theory as our explanatory
framework, we argued that when employees are thinking about
leaving, they are motivated to focus more attention on short-term
economic and instrumental exchanges and less attention on longer-
term social exchange relationships, resulting in a strong transac-
tional contract orientation and a weak relational contract orienta-
tion, which then affect discretionary behaviors at work by
increasing DBs and decreasing OCBs. Results were largely con-
sistent with our arguments. However, the effects of turnover in-
tentions on psychological contract orientation differed depending
on perceived organizational responsibility for potential exit. We
found that these effects were much stronger when turnover inten-
tions were thought to be caused by issues under the organization’s
control. As a result, the mediated effects of turnover intentions on
OCBs and DBs through psychological contract orientation primar-
ily occurred when the organization was deemed responsible for
potential exit.
1077
Low Perceived
High Preceived
Organizational Responsibility
High
Our results add to the turnover literature in several ways. First,
by focusing on behaviors other than actual turnover, our research
represents an attempt to conceptualize turnover decision processes
as the dynamic processes that scholars have long discussed, but to
date, have yet to fully explore (Hom, 2011). Our study unpacks the
relationship between turnover intentions, OCBs, and DBs, which
had been identified primarily in cross-sectional research, and
builds a causal model depicting how turnover intentions alter the
behavior of employees.
Second, we expand the role of psychological contract theory in
the turnover process. Research has typically focused on contract
violations and how such events may precipitate turnover intentions
and employee exit (see Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo,
2007). However, based on our results (particularly our Pilot
Study), psychological contract orientation seems to more accu-
rately represent an outcome rather than a predictor of turnover
intentions and determines whether employees will engage in OCBs
and DBs. Interestingly, this suggests that employees may emotion-
ally distance themselves from others at work when they believe
that their employment tenure is limited. In line with cognitive
dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), employees may attempt to
reconcile the incompatible nature of being a member of an orga-
nization and thinking about leaving by changing the psychological
contracts they value.
However, in Study 2, we did not find support for relational
contract orientation as a mediator of the relationship between
turnover intentions and OCBs, because relational contract orien-
tation did not significantly affect OCBs. Our results, or lack
thereof, may reflect the fact that “the prevailing paradigms for
collective economic and social arrangements differ substantially in
[the United States and China]” (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004, p.
243). Specifically, researchers argue that, in China, OCBs are not
as heavily driven by social exchange relationships. Rather, em-
ployees tend to engage in OCBs based on their perceived role
within the organization (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997). As we noted
earlier, relational contracts are more indicative of social exchange
relationships than transactional contracts (Millward & Hopkins,
1998), which may have accounted for the discrepancy in results
between the United States and China samples. Future research
could examine moderators such as traditionality, which “reflects
the hierarchical nature of Chinese society based on the principles
 1078 MAI, ELLIS, CHRISTIAN, AND PORTER
of wu-lun” (Farh et al., 1997, p. 425). For employees with less
traditional values, the effects of relational contract orientation on
OCBs may be much stronger.
Third, we developed a unique approach to examining the potential
cause of exit and our results suggest that distinguishing between
causes that are perceived to be or not to be the organization’s respon-
sibility can significantly impact the behavior of employees thinking
about leaving. However, it would be interesting for future research to
expand our findings by adding subclassifications based on, for exam-
ple, whether or not the cause is expected to remain stable over time.
We would expect that the mediated effects of turnover intentions on
OCBs and DBs would be strongest when the organization is deemed
responsible and the situation is unlikely to change in the future.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Finally, researchers point out that there are often benefits to turn-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
over, particularly if marginal performers leave (Maertz & Campion,
1998). Our results suggest that, even for employees whom the orga-
nization might want to let go, there are negative consequences to the
turnover process that need to be carefully managed.
For organizations, our results suggest that there are reasons for
reducing turnover intentions beyond organizational exit; reasons that
have far-reaching financial implications. One method of reducing
turnover intentions is by promoting job embeddedness, which cap-
tures the informal and formal links to others in the organization or
community, perceived sacrifice of benefits lost by exit, and fit with
the job and organization (Mitchell & Lee, 2001). Increased job em-
beddedness can be accomplished through efforts in recruitment, se-
lection, socialization, and other HR activities (see Hom, 2011). For
example, as described by Eberly, Holtom, Lee, and Mitchell (2009),
NRG systems in Vermont rewards its employees for purchasing
“green” technology (e.g., Toyota Priuses) up to $2,300 a year. Or,
managers can use peer referrals to hire employees with previously
established ties to the organization. Another method may involve
closely monitoring job attitudes such as satisfaction and commitment
through the use of validated measures. However, these recommenda-
tions are contingent upon data indicating (perhaps through exit inter-
views) that employees are leaving for reasons that are perceived to be
under the organization’s control. If the organization is not deemed
responsible, our results suggest that variance in turnover intentions is
less likely to affect OCBs and DBs.
If it is difficult to reduce turnover intentions, organizations can, by
understanding the psychological contract orientation of employees,
focus on more heavy-handed techniques through the use of explicit
rewards and punishments. For example, research has shown that
disciplining deviant behavior in a visible manner is one of the best
methods of reducing such behavior in the future (Kish-Gephart et al.,
2010). Our results suggest that immediate disciplinary actions may be
particularly important in organizations and industries with high turn-
over rates because such actions focus on the short-term economic or
transactional contract held by employees.
We would note that, despite the strength of our design across
multiple samples and sources, we cannot completely rule out alterna-
tive causal interpretations. We do not deny that there could be cyclical
effects where contract orientations affect turnover intentions (Alcover
et al., 2012), particularly when a breach occurs (e.g., Zhao et al.,
2007), but we believe there is sufficient conceptual and empirical
evidence suggesting that turnover intentions can influence both rela-
tional and transactional contract orientations held by employees. As
we noted (see Footnote 5), we empirically tested whether turnover
intentions mediated the effects of psychological contract orientation
on OCBs and DBs. No significant indirect effects were found, sug-
gesting that our hypothesized causal ordering is appropriate. Further-
more, despite controlling for organizational commitment in our
model, we cannot completely rule-out the influence of other attitudi-
nal or perceptual variables, such as job satisfaction and perceived
organizational support. Controlling for multiple attitudinal variables
may reduce effect sizes.
Finally, we utilized expectancy theory as an explanatory frame-
work to better explicate the relationship between turnover intentions
and psychological contract orientations. We note that we did not
directly measure any of the components of expectancy theory; an
issue that bears investigation in future research. One approach could
be to identify several behavioral alternatives that reflect relational and
transactional contract orientations and then have employees rate the
motivational force, or the multiplicative function of expectancy and
valence, of each option (see Tubbs, Boehne, & Dahl, 1993). Although
there are issues with testing expectancy judgments using a between-
person approach (see Diefendorff & Chandler, 2011), we would
expect that turnover intentions would influence the level of motiva-
tional force attached to certain behavioral options, which would then
affect the strength of employees’ psychological contract orientations.
Conclusion
Our study offers a unique perspective on turnover in organizations
by developing a model depicting how turnover intentions affect em-
ployees’ behavior before they leave. Employees who are thinking
about leaving tend to hold strong transactional contract orientations
and weak relational contract orientations, which leads to decreased
OCBs and increased DBs. This is particularly problematic when the
organization is perceived to be responsible for potential exit. Results
from two studies consistently supported our hypotheses, suggesting
that turnover intentions can be problematic for organizations not only
in terms of replacement costs, but also in terms of stimulating the
wrong kind of behavior among employees; findings that have impli-
cations for scholars and practitioners alike.
References
Aday, D. P. (1990). Social control at the margins: Toward a general
understanding of deviance. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Alcover, C. M., Martínez-Íñigo, D., & Chambel, M. J. (2012). Perceptions
of employment relations and permanence in the organization: Mediating
effects of affective commitment in relations of psychological contract
and intention to quit. Psychological Reports, 110, 839 – 853. http://dx
.doi.org/10.2466/01.07.21.PR0.110.3.839-853
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent:
Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. The Academy
of Management Perspectives, 24, 48 – 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
AMP.2010.51827775
Aryee, S., & Chay, Y. W. (2001). Workplace justice, citizenship behavior,
and turnover intentions in a union context: Examining the mediating role
of perceived union support and union instrumentality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 154 –160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1
.154
Ben-Gal, I. (2005). Outlier detection. In O. Z. Maimon & L. Rockach
(Eds.), Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook: A complete
guide for practitioners and researchers (pp. 131–146). New York, NY:
Kluwer Academic. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25465-X_7
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 –360.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
 TURNOVER INTENTIONS, OCBS, AND DEVIANCE BEHAVIORS
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and con-
textual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research.
Human Performance, 10, 99 –109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327043hup1002_3
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instrument.
In W. Lonner & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural re-
search (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechan-
ical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Per-
spectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1745691610393980
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before
leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detach-
ment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 912–922. http://dx
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Burton, J. P., Taylor, S. G., & Barber, L. K. (2014). Understanding internal,
external, and relational attributions for abusive supervision. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 35, 871– 891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job
.1939
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of
Management Executive, 14, 81–90.
Cascio, W. F. (2006). Decency means more than “Always Low Prices”: A
comparison of Costco to Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 20, 26 –37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP
.2006.21903478
Chambel, M. J., & Castanheira, F. (2007). They don’t want to be tempo-
raries: Similarities between temps and core workers. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 28, 943–959. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.471
Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D.
(2011). The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relation-
ships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy
of Management Journal, 54, 159 –181. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ
.2011.59215089
Chiou, J.-S., Huang, C., & Lee, H. (2005). The antecedents of music piracy
attitudes and intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 161–174. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-5263-6
Christian, J. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2014). The crucial role of turnover
intentions in transforming moral disengagement into deviant behavior at
work. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 193–208. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s10551-013-1631-4
Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating pro-
cesses in realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
633– 642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.633
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness:
A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 54, 1183–1206. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2007.0572
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874 –900. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in the
psychological contracts of employees and employers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 52–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.52
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organi-
zational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
Diefendorff, J. M., & Chandler, M. M. (2011). Motivating employees. In
S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 65–135). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Eberly, M. B., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2009). Control
voluntary turnover by understanding its causes. In E. Locke (Ed.),
Handbook of principles of organization behavior (2nd ed., pp. 123–142).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
1079
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal
study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member
exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
659 – 676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural
analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese
society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421– 444. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/2393733
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizen-
ship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science,
15, 241–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0051
Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as account-
ability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organi-
zational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multi-
level/hierarchical models. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2092623
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., & Priesemuth, M.
(2013). To act out, to withdraw, or to constructively resist? Employee
reactions to supervisor abuse of customers and the moderating role of
employee moral identity. Human Relations, 66, 925–950. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0018726713482992
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of
antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator
tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of
Management, 26, 463– 488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920
630002600305
Hancock, J., Allen, D., Bosco, F., McDaniel, K., & Pierce, C. (2013).
Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm per-
formance. Journal of Management, 39, 573– 603. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0149206311424943
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and
employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7, 53–75. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/01639625.1986.9967695
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008).
Turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of
the present, and a venture into the future. The Academy of Management
Annals, 2, 231–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211552
Hom, P. W. (2011). Organizational exit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 67–117). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W.
(1992). A meta-analytical structural equation analysis of a model of
employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 890 –909. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.890
Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., & Sellaro, C. L. (1984). The validity of
Mobley’s (1977). model of employee turnover. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 34, 141–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-
5073(84)90001-1
Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of
how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 975–987. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069441
Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012).
Reviewing employee turnover: Focusing on proximal withdrawal states
 1080 MAI, ELLIS, CHRISTIAN, AND PORTER
and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 831– 858. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027983
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Jackson, C. L., & LePine, J. A. (2003). Peer responses to a team’s weakest
link: A test and extension of LePine and Van Dyne’s model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 459 – 475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.88.3.459
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organiza-
tions: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16,
366 –395.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017103
Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014). The
assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 222–238. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0034751
Lam, C. F., Liang, J., Ashford, S. J., & Lee, C. (2015). Job insecurity and
organizational citizenship behavior: Exploring curvilinear and moder-
ated relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 499 –510. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038659
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of
approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation mod-
els. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186 –207. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/109442810032003
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B.,
Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009). Commitment, procedural fairness, and
organizational citizenship behavior: A multifoci analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 337–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job
.518
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and
workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.87.1.131
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The
unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 19, 51– 89.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L., & Hill, J. W.
(1999). Theoretical development and extension of the unfolding model
of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 450 – 462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257015
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, 151–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15328007SEM0902_1
Luksyte, A., Spitzmueller, C., & Maynard, D. C. (2011). Why do over-
qualified incumbents deviate? Examining multiple mediators. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 279 –296. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0022709
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99 –128. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (1998). 25 years of voluntary turnover
research: A review and critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(Vol. 13, pp. 49 – 83). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Profiles in quitting: Integrating
process and content turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal,
47, 566 –582. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159602
Maertz, C. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and
voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for re-
search. Journal of Management, 30, 667– 683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jm.2004.04.001
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis: Strategies
for small sample sizes. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small
sample research (pp. 251–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2013). When does voice lead
to exit? It depends on leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 56,
525–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0041
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization
of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review,
1, 61– 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002).
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization:
A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 –52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001
.1842
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. J. (1998). Psychological contracts, organi-
zational and job commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,
1530 –1556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01689.x
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M.
(2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121. http://dx
.doi.org/10.2307/3069391
Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2001). The unfolding model of voluntary
turnover and embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of
attachment. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organi-
zational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 189 –246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23006-8
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. (1979).
Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.86.3.493
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.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct
clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009).
Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational cit-
izenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
122–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013079
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. JMR: Journal of Marketing
Research, 31, 351–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3152222
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools
for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel
modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behav-
ioral Statistics, 31, 437– 448. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/10769
986031004437
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Re-
 TURNOVER INTENTIONS, OCBS, AND DEVIANCE BEHAVIORS
search Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. http://dx.doi
.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple me-
diator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879 – 891. http://dx.doi
.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing mod-
erated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Mul-
tivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00273170701341316
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on
psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350 –
367. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159586
Richards, D. A., & Schat, A. C. H. (2011). Attachment at (not to) work:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Applying attachment theory to explain individual behavior in organiza-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 169 –182. http://dx.doi.org/10
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.1037/a0020372
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 555–572. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256693
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing
obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 37, 137–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
256773
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do:
The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658 – 672. http://dx.doi.org/10
.2307/256963
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their
employer’s obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 11, 389 – 400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job
.4030110506
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Un-
derstanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contracts in the workplace: Under-
standing the ties that motivate. The Academy of Management Executive,
18, 120 –127. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.2004.12689213
Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and
organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 1– 43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological
contracts: Issues, alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 679 – 695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(1998)19:1⫹⬍679::AID-JOB971⬎3.0.CO;2-N
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
American Psychologist, 55, 68 –78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.55.1.68
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at
work. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 145–164). London, England: Sage.
Salancik, G. R., & Meindl, J. R. (1984). Corporate attributions as strategic
illusions of management control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29,
238 –254. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393176
Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice
explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field
1081
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 455– 460. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.455
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualiza-
tions of the relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 50 – 68. http://dx
.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993112
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an
explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. L. Cooper
& D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp.
91–109). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.82.3.434
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256877
Tubbs, M. E., Boehne, D. M., & Dahl, J. G. (1993). Expectancy, valence,
and motivational force functions in goal-setting research: An empirical
test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 361–373. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0021-9010.78.3.361
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological
contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations,
52, 895–922. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679905200703
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981, January 30). The framing of deci-
sions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453– 458. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recom-
mendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 3, 4 –70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of
contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41,
692–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256965
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and val-
idation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765– 802. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/256600
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601– 617. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/014920639101700305
Young, R. (Producer). (2004). Is Wal-Mart good for America? In Frontline
[Television series]. Washington, DC: WGBH Educational Foundations.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x
Received August 27, 2014
Revision received March 11, 2016
Accepted March 19, 2016 䡲