IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v168y2023ics0148296323005829.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is strong more vulnerable? An empirical investigation of psychological contract formation, violation, and customer reactions

Author

Listed:
  • Su, Lishan
  • Laczniak, Russell N.
  • Walker, Doug
  • Raju, Sekar

Abstract

The authors combine the psychological contract theory with the cognitive appraisal theory of emotions to systematically examine how psychological contract breach affects customer reactions to service failures. In service encounters, customers may perceive a discrepancy between what the brand has promised and what they have received, leading to breach that could potentially evoke feelings of violation and result in retaliatory behaviors. Two online scenario-based experiments reveal that 1) breach and subsequent feelings of betrayal mediate the impact of the strength of psychological contracts on anger in response to service failures, and that 2) breach, betrayal, and anger mediate the impacts of the strength of psychological contracts on partner quality inferences and negative word-of-mouth communication intentions, with the effects being moderated by the reason for the failure (customer fault versus brand fault). These results indicate that managing psychological contracts can help mitigate negative reactions to service failures.

Suggested Citation

  • Su, Lishan & Laczniak, Russell N. & Walker, Doug & Raju, Sekar, 2023. "Is strong more vulnerable? An empirical investigation of psychological contract formation, violation, and customer reactions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:168:y:2023:i:c:s0148296323005829
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296323005829
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114223?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:168:y:2023:i:c:s0148296323005829. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.