The more I want, the less I have left to give: The moderating role of psychological entitlement on the relationship between psychological contract violation, depressive mood states, and citizenship behavior

• Author: Regina M. Taylor,Manuela Priesemuth
• Published date: 01 October 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2080
• Date: 01 October 2016

The more I want, the less I have left to give: The

moderating role of psychological entitlement on the

relationship between psychological contract

violation, depressive mood states, and citizenship

behavior

MANUELA PRIESEMUTH

1

*AND REGINA M. TAYLOR

2

1

Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

2

Marketing & Management Department, Heider College of Business, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.

Summary Research has emphasized the negative effects of organizations’broken promises and failed obligations on

employee attitudes and behaviors. However, not all employees respond in the same manner. This paper

integrates research on psychological contracts and psychological entitlement to examine how individuals with

exceedingly high demands and expectations react to a perceived letdown by the organization. Drawing on

conservation of resources theory, we argue that a psychological contract violation is associated with employee

depressive mood states, which, in turn, influence the amount of citizenship behavior displayed. We further

posit that psychological entitlement moderates the link between contract violation and depressive mood

states. Using Hayes’PROCESS macro to assess a moderated mediation model, findings from a multi-

source field study support our predictions. This research contributes to the work on psychological contracts

and psychological entitlement on multiple fronts. Suggestions for future research and practical implications

for managers are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: psychological contract violation; entitlement; depressive moods; citizenship behavior

Psychological contract research (Rousseau, 1989) suggests that employees in organizations are driven by a perceived

exchange agreement between themselves and their employer. More specifically, individuals hold beliefs about what

the organizationis obligated to provide to them as well as how well theorganization fulfills those obligations (Levinson,

Price, Munden, Mandl,& Solley, 1962; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993).If subordinates perceive that the organiza-

tion meets or exceeds their expectations, they experience positive emotions and reciprocate by engaging in favorable

deeds. On the contrary, if employees feel that their organization does not uphold its obligations and fails to deliver

on promises, strong negative emotional responses are invoked, which in turn prompt destructive behavioral reactions

(Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007).

However, not all employees respond in the same fashion to broken promises. A limited stream of research demon-

strates that individual differences impact the way employees react to such contract violations (e.g., Orvis, Dudley, &

Cortina, 2008; Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004; Turnley & Feldman, 1999). For example, Raja, Johns, and Bilgrami

(2011) found that personality traits (i.e., Big Five) influenced the extent to which employees responded to perceived

letdowns. Similarly, Chiu and Peng (2008) demonstrated that those individuals who possessed a stronger hostile

attribution bias were more prone to engage in workplace deviance as a result of a contract breach.

As prior work has called for further exploration of individual differences on perceptions of psychological contract

violations (Zhao et al., 2007), one goal of this study is to extend this emerging line of research. We do so by focusing

*Correspondence to: Manuela Priesemuth, Lazaridis School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West,

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. E-mail: mpriesemuth@wlu.ca

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 04 April 2014

Revised 07 November 2015, Accepted 30 November 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 967–982 (2016)

Published online 5 January 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2080

Research Article

on a distinct employee trait that has received increased attention within the management literature and organizations

over the past few years, workers’sense of psychological entitlement.

Entitled employees have a propensity to hold very high opinions of themselves and arrive at their jobs with

exceedingly high demands and expectations (Crampton & Hodge, 2009; De Hauw & De Vos, 2010). Furthermore,

it has been argued that these people believe they are more deserving than others, while wanting to have their expec-

tations met and surpassed at all times (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004; De Hauw & De Vos,

2010; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). Considering that highly entitled employees place such increased demands and

expectations on their employers, it seems pertinent to integrate research on psychological contracts and entitlement

(e.g., Byrne, Miller, & Pitts, 2010; De Hauw & De Vos, 2010; Hess & Jepson, 2009; Lub et al., 2012) to examine

how those individuals respond to failed obligations by the company.

Drawing on conservation of resources theory (COR, Hobfoll, 1989), we propose that a contract violatio n drains and

depletes workers, eliciting depressive mood states, which consequently relate to a neglect of important performance-

related behaviors at work. Here, we look to employee citizenship behavior as indicative of such activities that might

suffer when employees feel depressed after perceiving a broken agreement. We further posit that these negative

reactions are likely felt more harshly by individuals who possess a stronger sense of entitlement. Precisely, employees

who have inflated perceptions of the self and feel that they are especially deserving of good treatment (Harvey &

Harris, 2010) are more prone to fall into stronger depressive mood states as a result of the violation.

In all, we propose a moderated mediation model (Preacher, Ruckers, & Hayes, 2007), suggesting that the unfa-

vorable consequences derived from a psychological contract violation tend to intensify for highly entitled workers.

Doing so, our research contributes to the respective literatures in multiple ways. First, we add to the growing body of

literature that examines individual differences, specifically that of psychological entitlement, and its influence on the

way employees experience violations of psychological contracts. Second, we add to the psychological contract

literature by showing that depressive mood states present a mechanism by which psychological contract violations

impact citizenship behaviors. Finally, we answer the call of researchers to investigate correlates of psychological

entitlement (Major, 1994) and provide insights as to whether this type of employee reacts more strongly to negative

events in the workplace.

We first discuss the relationship between psychological contract violation, employee depressive mood states, and

citizenship behavior, before describing how psychological entitlement influences these relationships.

The Relationship between Psychological Contract Violation, Depressive Mood

States, and Citizenship Behavior

The role of psychological contracts within organizations has been a topic for organizational researchers over the past

two decades and has been noted in the literature as an important framework for understanding the employment

relationship (Shore et al., 2004; Taylor & Tekeleab, 2004). These contracts are developed and executed through

interactions between an employee and agents of the organization such as supervisors, human resource personnel,

and recruiters (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). Despite the interaction with individual agents within organizations,

researchers note, “in the employee’s mind the contract exists between him or her and the organization”(Robinson

& Morrison, 1995, p. 290).

The fulfillment of obligations in this perceived contract is the main premise in psychological contract research

(Rousseau, 1989). That is, when an employee feels as if the organization has “failed to fulfill promised obligations”

(Robinson & Rousseau, 1994, p. 247), a psychological contract breach has occurred, which consequently triggers a

strong emotional reaction felt as a violation (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). More specifically, such violations have

generally been characterized by feelings such as betrayal, letdown, disappointment, frustration, anger, and resent-

ment (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1989). Subsequently, these contract violation experiences drive

employees’attitudinal and behavioral reactions, some of which include mistrust of the organization, low job

968 M. PRIESEMUTH AND R. M. TAYLOR

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 967–982 (2016)

DOI: 10.1002/job