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

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 organization is obligated to provide to them as well as how well the organization fulfills those obligations (Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl, & Solley, 1962; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). If subordinates perceive that the organization 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 demonstrates 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 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 expectations 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 violation 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 unfavorable 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 resentment (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 satisfaction, low affective commitment, and high intentions to quit (Arshad & Sparrow, 2010; Knights & Kennedy, 2005; Rigotti, 2009).

Researchers have also shown that broken promises and feelings of betrayal trigger more intense emotional reactions that even imply a deterioration of a person's health and well-being (Conway & Briner, 2002; Jamil, Raja, & Darr, 2013; Lapointe, Vandenberghe, & Boudrias, 2013; Robbins, Ford, & Tetrick, 2012; Kalimo, Taris, & Schaufeli, 2003; Penhaligon, Louis, & Restubog, 2013; Shani & Pizam, 2009; Vearing & Mak, 2007). For example, Conway and Briner (2002) looked to depression as a way to assess strong negative daily moods as a response to a perceived broken contract. Because our interest lies in examining such strong emotive reactions individuals, especially those with a high sense of entitlement, incur as a result of a contract violation, we follow recent work and turn to employee depressive mood states as an indicator of these intense responses. However, moving beyond prior research, we theorize that depressive mood states present the mechanism by which psychological contract violations impact employee behavior.

“Depression can be conceptualized as a mood state, a syndrome or a disorder” (Parker, Wilhelm, & Asghari, 1998, p. 10). In this paper, we focus on depression as a mood state. Depressive mood states are described as mild to moderate depressive mood experiences, which commonly appear in people faced with negative events (e.g., Parker et al., 1998; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). These depressive mood states include feelings such as sadness, anxiety, irritability, apathy, a loss of interest, and lack of energy. People in such states of depression do not all experience the same symptoms. The severity, frequency, and duration of symptoms vary depending on the individual and his or her particular experience (National Institute of Mental Health, 2011). However, on average, given its milder symptoms, depressive mood states are likely more short term in nature compared with a long-lasting clinical depression.

Conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) sheds light on why employees may suffer from depressive mood states after experiencing negative work events such as unmet expectations. Hobfoll (1989) defines resources as “those objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual” (p. 516) and that are needed by individuals to maintain appropriate behavior at work. In turn, when these resources are threatened or lost, employees experience stress (Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993), which can further translate into states of burnout (Lapointe et al., 2013) or depression (Byrne et al., 2014).

Given the perceived discrepancy between subordinates' investments and organizational returns, research has emphasized that a psychological contract violation presents a resource loss to individuals (e.g., Kiazad, Seibert, & Kraimer, 2014; Lapointe et al., 2013) and as such can lead to poor emotional well-being on the part of the employee. In particular, broken promises and failed obligations deplete and drain subordinates, leaving them exhausted and depressed (Hobfoll, 2001; Kessler, Turner, & House, 1988), as well as unable to perform their job duties in a suitable manner. Essentially, employees who experience depletion and states of depression likely enter into a “defensive posture” (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) and are focused on conserving their remaining resources (Byrne et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), thereby avoiding tasks that would further drain their assets. In other words, because employees may not possess the resources to go above and beyond in the organization, they may choose to neglect tasks that are more discretionary in nature (Chiu & Tsai, 2006; Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003; Kiazad et al., 2014).

One such behavior that employees may forfeit when experiencing depressive mood states is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Citizenship behavior refers to voluntary behavior, not formally recognized by the reward system of the organization (Organ, 1988). Actions that reflect OCB can be directed toward other members in the department and include assisting others with important work duties as well as lending a helping hand to those who have been absent or are new to the company. Considering these extra-role activities that indicate subordinates go above and beyond for other individuals in the company, OCB has been characterized as an important performance behavior that significantly contributes to the overall effectiveness of the work unit and organization (Organ, 1988). However, because of its discretionary nature, it is common for employees to withdraw or withhold such helping behavior when deemed appropriate (Chen, Tsui, & Zhong, 2008; Arshad & Sparrow, 2010; Moorman, 1991; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002; Zhao et al., 2007). Given that depleted and depressed employees have little resources to spare and assist other colleagues, it is not surprising that depressive mood states have been associated with a decrease in citizenship behavior (e.g., Cheung & Cheung, 2013; Chiu & Tsai, 2006; Cropanzano et al., 2003; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2011; Ng & Feldman, 2012; Zhang, Walumbwa, Aryee, & Chen, 2013).

In sum, COR suggests that a loss of resources (e.g., a violation of one's psychological contract) is positively related to poor employee emotional health (e.g., depressive mood states). In turn, these strong emotional states prompt the individual to avoid further resource losses (Byrne et al., 2014) and therefore refrain from engaging in extra-role behaviors. This leads us to formulate the following hypotheses:

The Moderating Role of Psychological Entitlement

Integrating research on psychological contract violations and psychological entitlement, we posit that the aforementioned relationships vary depending on employees' level of psychological entitlement. Defined as a stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others (Campbell et al., 2004), psychological entitlement has been of great concern for managers (Harvey & Harris, 2010). This is because supervisors and companies are faced with employees who hold a stable tendency toward highly favorable self-perceptions and a tendency to feel deserving of high levels of praise and reward, regardless of actual performance levels (Campbell et al., 2004; Naumann, Minsky, & Sturman, 2002; Snow, Kern, & Curlette, 2001). Furthermore, highly entitled employees have an inflated sense of their own performance (Campbell et al., 2004; Harvey & Martinko, 2009), expecting a certain level of performance recognition. Finally, these subordinates feel that they deserve to be treated better than other members of the organization (Campbell et al., 2004; Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004) because in their mind they are more worthy than other employees.

We argue that this greater feeling of deservingness will influence the way employees respond to a perceived psychological contract violation. Recall that COR suggests that a psychological contract violation is associated with depressive mood states in employees. Given that entitled individuals have self-inflated perceptions, making them feel they are more deserving of praise and rewards, we propose that the relationship between psychological contract violations and subordinate depressive moods is stronger for highly entitled individuals. This may happen because employees' heightened sense of deservingness and extensive focus on the self influence the way these employees experience the contract violation. More specifically, entitled employees may see the discrepancy between what they feel they are owed and what they actually receive in return from the organization as disproportionally large (Exline et al., 2004). This, in turn, intensifies the perceptions regarding lost and wasted resources, prompting even stronger emotional reactions (e.g., irritability, intense sadness, and anxiety) to a broken agreement.

Furthermore, not only do entitled employees possess self-inflated views about themselves, their abilities, and work, they might also be more self-centered in general (Campbell et al., 2004; Exline et al., 2004). Therefore, a psychological contract violation presents more than just failed obligations and unmet expectations to them. In fact, these individuals may view the violation as a personal attack from the organization and its superiors, which would also trigger more intense feelings of stress, depletion, and subsequent depressive mood states.

Beyond the argument that entitled individuals experience broken promises and unfulfilled obligations (and thus resource losses) more harshly than those who show lower levels of this trait, research also suggests that entitled subordinates possess lower levels of emotional stability (e.g., Campbell et al., 2004). Not only may this impact the way individuals experience the letdowns, such that they are prone to feel victimized and hence feel the violation more deeply (Raja et al., 2011), they may also have more difficulties coping with the unmet expectations. Being unable to deal with the perceived wrongdoing can further drain and deplete people, augmenting the likelihood of depressive mood states as a result of the psychological contract violation.

Taken together, we posit that psychological entitlement influences the relationship between a perceived contract violation and employee depressive moods. In particular, employees' exceeding demands, self-inflated views, and sense of deservingness may impact the way these subordinates experience the broken agreement and resource losses, making them more likely to feel stronger emotional backlashes (sadness or irritability) to the perceived betrayal. In addition, entitled individuals may have difficulties coping with the contact violation, leaving them further drained and more prone to suffering depressive mood states as a consequence. Hence, we state the following.

We have argued that psychological contract violations influence depressive mood states in employees (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we proposed that depressive mood states act as the mediator by which such broken promises link to employee citizenship behavior (Hypothesis 2). Then, we posited that psychological entitlement presents an important moderator of the relationship between psychological contract violations and depressive mood states (Hypothesis 3). These relationships reveal a moderated mediation model as displayed in Figure 1. To capture all relationships of this moderated mediation model fully, we formulate an additional hypothesis indicating the conditional indirect effect of one's broken promises and unmet expectations (psychological contract violation) on employee citizenship behaviors through depressive mood states, such that the impact is most pronounced for employees who have a greater sense of entitlement.

Methods

Results

The means, standard deviations, zero-order correlations, and internal consistency for the measures used in the study are reported in Table 1. The internal consistency reliabilities were above .70 as recommended by Churchill (1979) and Nunnally (1978).

Prior to testing the hypotheses, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis, utilizing a maximum-likelihood estimation in lisrel 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). We tested a model consisting of the following latent factors: psychological contract violation, depressive mood states, psychological entitlement, and OCB. Results indicated the four-factor model had an acceptable fit to the data (χ² = 1658.18, df = 773, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.066, CFI = 0.91; NNFI = 0.91) (Bentler, 1990; Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996).

We further compared the four-factor model with a three-factor model, in which we collapsed the moderating variable (entitlement) and mediating variable (depressive mood states) onto a single latent factor. Finally, we compared the four-factor model with a one-factor model, in which all items loaded onto a single factor. Chi-squared difference tests showed the four-factor model yielded a significantly better fit than the three-factor model (χ²_difference = 843.41, df = 3, p < .001) and the one-factor model (χ²_difference = 3274.66, df = 6, p < .001).

Following Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), we mean-centered the variables before utilizing the PROCESS macro outlined by Hayes (2013) to assess all relationships in our moderated mediation model.

PROCESS is an advanced regression-based approach focusing on moderated mediation models and conditional indirect effect testing via bootstrapping. It is used to test hypotheses about the contingent nature of the mechanisms by which an independent variable exerts its influence on a dependent variable (Hayes, 2012). Conditional process analysis combines mediation and moderation analysis and “focuses on the estimation and interpretation of the conditional nature (the moderation component) of the indirect and/or direct effects (the mediation component of X on Y in a causal system)” (Hayes, 2013, p. 10). In our model, we examine the impact of psychological contract violation on OCB through depressive mood states (i.e., the how). We also examine whether this effect is moderated by the extent to which an employee is psychologically entitled (i.e., when). We further ask under what circumstances (e.g., different levels of the moderator) is the effect of psychological contract violation on OCB via depressive mood states larger or smaller.

To fully assess a moderated mediation model, the approach of conditional indirect effects testing in conjunction with bootstrapping procedures (e.g., PROCESS) is typically used instead of Baron and Kenny's (1986) traditional multistep method. This is because Baron and Kenny's approach requires researchers to estimate each of the pathways in a model to determine if they meet certain statistical criteria. Furthermore, to test indirect effects, scholars often refer to the Sobel (1982) test. A problem arises because Baron and Kenny's approach and the Sobel test assume a normal sampling distribution of indirect effects, which is often not the case. In other words, the distribution of product terms (ab) is often skewed (Hayes, 2009) and hence violates the underlying assumption. PROCESS does not assume normal distribution and accounts for asymmetries in a sampling distribution by employing a bootstrapping procedure. There, confidence intervals of the indirect effects are generated from the bootstrapped sampling distribution. In turn, these confidence intervals are then used for subsequent hypothesis testing.

All regression results are displayed in Table 2. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, psychological contract violation is positively related to employee depressive mood states (B = 0.14, p < .01). Hypothesis 2 predicted that depressive mood states mediate the relationship between psychological contract violation and citizenship behavior. Results of PROCESS's simple mediation analyses also revealed support for this assertion. As can be seen in Table 2, the indirect effect of psychological contract violation on citizenship behaviors through depressive mood states is significant as evidenced by a 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval that does not include zero [−0.045, −0.001] (Hayes, 2012).

Hypothesis 3 predicted that psychological entitlement would moderate the relationship between psychological contract violation and depressive mood states, such that the relationship is stronger for individuals with a higher sense of entitlement. Results also revealed that the interaction is significant (B = 0.10, p < .05). To assess the nature of the interaction effect, we plotted the outcome one standard deviation above and below the mean (Aiken & West, 1991). Figure 2 shows the resulting graph. Consistent with our prediction, the relationship between a psychological contract violation and depressive mood states is stronger for entitled employees. Simple slope analyses show further support for such effect indicating that the slope at high levels of entitlement was significantly different from zero (simple slope test: B = 0.23, p < .01), whereas the slope for low levels of entitlement was not (simple slope test: B = 0.05, p = .96).

Hypothesis 4 predicted that psychological contract violations are related to OCB through indirect effects such that the relationship between psychological contract violation and employee citizenship behavior will be moderated by psychological entitlement and mediated by depressive mood states. Preacher et al. (2007) note that evidence of moderated mediation exists if the estimates of the indirect effects transmitted through the mediator variable are significantly different across levels of the moderator variable.

The PROCESS output revealed conditional indirect effects of psychological contract violation on OCB (through depressive mood states) at three values of psychological entitlement. Findings demonstrate that the conditional indirect effects of psychological contract violation on citizenship behavior via depressive mood states were significant at higher levels of the moderator. That is, both confidence intervals did not contain zero for moderate and high levels of the moderator (moderate entitlement, CI [−0.044, −0.001]; high entitlement, CI [−0.071, −0.002]), suggesting that the indirect effect of psychological entitlement on helping behavior via depressive mood states is stronger when individuals possess a heightened sense of entitlement (Table 2). The findings are further supported by the overall index of moderated mediation, which is also significant, such that the confidence intervals do not contain zero (CI [−0.036, −0.001]). Overall, we received further support for depressive mood states as a mediator (Hypothesis 2), yet the extent of the mediation effect, the impact of a perceived psychological contract violation on citizenship behavior through these negative mood states, varies depending on the level of psychological entitlement. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is also supported.

Discussion

Ample research has shown that broken promises and unmet expectations, in the form of psychological contract violations, have detrimental consequences for employees and organizations (Conway & Briner, 2002; Suazo, 2009). However, not all subordinates react in the same destructive fashion. Considering some employees' high demands and expectations, researchers and practitioners have equally wondered how their sense of entitlement may impact their reactions to what the company owes them (Fisk, 2010). Here, we explored this question and examined how those who have an inflated sense of the self respond if they feel like their organization has let them down.

Drawing on COR (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), results show that a psychological contract violation significantly relates to employee depressive mood states and that this relationship is stronger for those individuals who are highly entitled. That is, we find that individuals with a strong sense of psychological entitlement are more likely to experience depressive states after a perceived psychological contract violation by the organization. We argued that this is because the individual feels as if the organization owes them more simply because of who they are (Campbell et al., 2004). In turn, if these individuals perceive the organization failed to uphold certain obligations, they tend to experience stronger signs of a depressed mood.

Beyond the moderating effects of psychological entitlement, we also find that depressive mood states likely present a mediating mechanism by which a psychological contract violation impacts citizenship behavior, and this relationship also varies depending on the employees' sense of entitlement. The latter suggests the existence of a conditional indirect effect of psychological contract violation on citizenship behavior through states of depression, such that this relationship is stronger for highly entitled workers.

By demonstrating that psychologically entitled individuals are prone to react more strongly when faced with violations from an organization, this study extends research in both areas of psychological contract violation and entitlement. First, our work adds to the growing stream of research that examines individual differences within psychological contract research. Zhao et al. (2007) suggested that individual difference measures present important avenues for future research that would further inform the literature and extend theory. Here, we answer this call and show that not all employees respond to broken agreements in the same manner. More specifically, we show that psychological entitlement presents a trait that can make matters much worse for employees and organizations, leaving them more likely to be in depressed moods and disengaged from their work.

Our findings further contribute to the psychological contract literature by showing that depressive mood states mediate the relationship between a violation and employee citizenship behavior. Even though research has demonstrated that psychological contract breaches can elicit strong emotional reactions and health-related concerns (Kessler et al., 1988), prior work has not explicitly theorized about and examined mood states of depression as a mediating mechanism. We do so here and therefore enrich the literature by providing another process that explains subordinates' reactions to psychological contract violations.

Given that research on entitlement is still in its infancy, this study also adds to this growing body of literature. Scholars have long called for investigating the correlates of entitlement on organizational factors (e.g., Major, 1994) to build and broaden the nomological net. We extend work on entitlement by emphasizing its importance in the psychological contract violation process. Furthermore, considering that broken promises reflect negative events in the workplace, we underline that entitlement presents a central variable in research areas that mirror unfavorable employee treatment on the job including unfairness or supervisor abuse (e.g., Wheeler, Halbesleben, & Whitman, 2013) and should therefore be considered by future research.

This and other findings in this current study are especially important for human resource managers and offer several practical implications for management and organizations. Considering the negative effects of psychological entitlement on employee processes and behaviors, it seems important for managers to be (1) aware who of and if their employees possess a certain sense of entitlement and (2) manage their expectations in a distinct manner to avoid intense emotional and behavioral backlashes. Specifically, supervisors may be able to manage highly psychologically entitled individuals by setting clear policies and procedures for organizational practices and being sure to communicate early and often when changes will be implemented. Additionally, researchers have suggested that human resources managers could implement socialization practices such as expectation-lowering procedures and realistic job previews (Fisk, 2010). These practices may help control some of the negative effects associated with psychological entitlement and unmet expectations.

Conclusion

Given recent calls in the psychological contract and entitlement literatures, our paper examines the reactions entitled employees have to a psychological contract violation. Findings show that workers with a higher sense of entitlement likely experience stronger emotional reactions and depressive moods after being confronted with broken promises and unmet expectations. This increased negativity around the entitled employee has further consequences for performance-related behaviors. By emphasizing the negative effects entitled workers pose to the self and the organizations, our study contributes to research on psychological contracts and psychological entitlement.