Johansen, S.M., Von, T.K. (2012). An investigation into psychological contracts, career and the intention to leave. International Career Development, 17 (5), 1 – 20. vi Tomprou, M., Rousseau, D.M., Griep, Y. (2016, Aug. The consequences of a psychological offence and its impact on the solution. Conference at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA. This study has broadened the traditional role of psychological contract theory from employer-employee to student/school for pharmacies. While further studies are required, this study provides some evidence of the reliability and validity of the proposed measure. The results also indicate that some pharmacy students perceive psychological breaches of contracts by their respective institutions, implying the need for future research to help in understanding and following ancestors. The current psychological offence measure is a first step in understanding this important construction and its measurement in the educational environment.
Suazo, M.M., Stone-Romero, E.F. (2011). Implications of psychological offences: a perceived prospect of organizational assistance. Journal of Managerial Pscyhology, 26 (5), 366 – 382. The concept of psychological contract is traditionally applied in an employment context and refers to workers` subjective beliefs about the organization`s obligations towards them.7 According to Mr. Rousseau, “when an individual perceives that the contributions he or she perceives compel the organization to reciprocity (or vice versa), a psychological contract appears … it is the individual`s belief in an obligation of reciprocity that makes the treaty. 8 These assumed obligations may be implied or explicitly stated by the Organization. Each person develops a unique psychological contract, based on their own understanding of the reciprocal obligations between the employee and the organization.9 The measure did not specifically interview students about psychological breaches of the contract, but asked them to indicate the amount of each item they had received from their school/university of pharmacy in relation to what had been promised to them.
A bit like Turnley and Feldman,18, a 5-point scale of 1 – “Get a lot more than promised” to 5 – “Get a lot less than promised.” Therefore, the higher the score, the greater the extent of the psychological offence. The analysis of the exploratory factors of the psychological offence measure was carried out using main analyses of the components, which resulted in seven factors, which led to a 26-point revision. Based on a sample size of 339 students, the proposed 7-factor measurement model was tested with an analysis of confirmation factors. In general, the results supported the hypothetical model. The final scale of 23 points showed both reliability and validity. Some students took some aspects of the psychological contract that exists with their pharmacy school were injured. Since the breach of perceived contracts affects the attitudes and behaviour of the insulted party, the offender would benefit from knowing when these offences occur. With regard to employment, Robinson and Rousseau define a psychological breach of contract as “the perception of a person that his organization has not complied with the promised commitments.” 15 Rousseau indicates that not all cases of non-compliance with the organization are interpreted as psychological offences10. The manner in which the person interprets this breach of contract rule10.16 and/or to what extent the employee focuses on the discrepancy17 ultimately determines whether the employee believes that there has been a psychological offence.