From top gun to the daily grind: contextualizing psychological contract breach for military pilots

ABSTRACT

This study expands our understanding of employee reactions to psychological contract (PC) breach by contextualizing the relationship between PC breach and feelings of violation in a European military setting through the study of strong commitment to specific career goals, high managerial turnover, lack of clarity about the perceived responsibility and controllability of PC breach, as well as aviation restrictions. Based on interviews with 41 pilots, we found that two factors – passion for job and professional commitment – which have not been a strong focus in extant research, play critical roles in the processes involved in employee PC breach reactions. We further contribute to the literature by demonstrating when, why, and where perceptions of PC breach influence exit, loyalty, voice, and neglect reactions in a military setting (e.g., we found that certain reactions, such as neglect, are restricted due to the potential safety consequences of said reactions). This research charts new directions for psychological contract research in which more attention is placed on the context within which psychological contract processes develop and change. We provide insights to practitioners and discuss implications, limitations, and future research directions.     

The effect of group status on children's hierarchy-reinforcing beliefs

Members of advantaged groups are more likely than members of disadvantaged groups to think, feel, and behave in ways that reinforce their group's position within the hierarchy. This study examined how children's status within a group-based hierarchy shapes their beliefs about the hierarchy and the groups that comprise it in ways that reinforce the hierarchy. To do this, we randomly assigned children (4–8 years; N = 123; 75 female, 48 male; 21 Asian, 9 Black, 21 Latino/a, 1 Middle-Eastern/North-African, 14 multiracial, 41 White, 16 not-specified) to novel groups that differed in social status (advantaged, disadvantaged, neutral third-party) and assessed their beliefs about the hierarchy. Across five separate assessments, advantaged-group children were more likely to judge the hierarchy to be fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and were more likely to hold biased intergroup attitudes and exclude disadvantaged group members. In addition, with age, children in both the advantaged- and disadvantaged-groups became more likely to see membership in their own group as inherited, while at the same time expecting group-relevant behaviors to be determined more by the environment. With age, children also judged the hierarchy to be more unfair and expected the hierarchy to generalize across contexts. These findings provide novel insights into how children's position within hierarchies can contribute to the formation of hierarchy-reinforcing beliefs.

Research Highlights

• A total of 123 4–8-year-olds were assigned to advantaged, disadvantaged, and third-party groups within a hierarchy and were assessed on seven hierarchy-reinforcing beliefs about the hierarchy.
• Advantaged children were more likely to say the hierarchy was fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and to hold intergroup biases favoring advantaged group members.
• With age, advantaged- and disadvantaged-group children held more essentialist beliefs about membership in their own group, but not the behaviors associated with their group.
• Results suggest that advantaged group status can shape how children perceive and respond to the hierarchies they are embedded within.