1_Negative Aspects of Social Exchange_VALIDATION_UNIDIMEN

7/28/2019 1_Negative Aspects of Social Exchange_VALIDATION_UNIDIMEN

1/34

http://gom.sagepub.com/Management

Group & Organization

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/34/6/665The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1059601109350987

2009 34: 665Group & Organization ManagementRay Gibney, Thomas J. Zagenczyk and Marick F. Masters

Perceived Organizational ObstructionThe Negative Aspects of Social Exchange: An Introduction to

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group & Organization ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/34/6/665.refs.htmlCitations:

by guest on February 13, 2011gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/content/34/6/665http://gom.sagepub.com/content/34/6/665http://www.sagepublications.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/34/6/665.refs.htmlhttp://gom.sagepub.com/content/34/6/665.refs.htmlhttp://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/content/34/6/665.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/content/34/6/665http://gom.sagepub.com/


2/34

Group & Organization Management

34(6) 665697

2009 SAGE Publications

DOI: 10.1177/1059601109350987http://gom.sagepub.com

The Negative Aspects

of Social Exchange:

An Introduction to

Perceived Organizational

Obstruction

Ray Gibney,1

Thomas J. Zagenczyk,2

and Marick F. Masters3

Abstract

The authors introduce the concept of perceived organizational obstruction(POO) to fill a theoretical gap in the social exchange literature. They draw

on four different samples of employees working in various organizationsto: (a) generate items to measure POO, (b) assess the psychometricproperties of the POO scale, (c) replicate the factor structure and otherpsychometric properties of the scale, (d) assess the discriminant validity withrespect to existing measures of the employeremployee relationship, and(e) determine whether POO explains additional variance beyond existingconstructs (perceived organizational support, psycholosgical contract breach,organizational politics, procedural justice, and organizational frustration)

in the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect framework. The results of this studyindicate that the POO scale is internally consistent and unidimensional,demonstrates discriminant validity with respect to existing employeremployee relationship constructs, and explains additional variance in the exit,voice, loyalty, and neglect framework.

1The Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg, Middletown, PA, USA2Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA3

Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ray Gibney, The Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike,

Middletown, PA 17057, USA

Email: [email protected]

http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/


3/34

666 Group & Organization Management 34(6)

Keywords

social exchange, negative reciprocity, perceived organizational support,

perceived organizational obstruction, psychological contract breach

Research on the employeeorganization relationship is dominated by social

exchange theory (Stinglhamber, De Cremer, & Mercken, 2006). This per-

spective views the employee and the organization as exchange partners: The

organization provides employees material and social rewards in exchange for

their work effort and loyalty (e.g., Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, &

Sowa, 1986). Empirical research indicates that employees who perceive sup-

portive relationships with the organization have favorable attitudes and

engage in positive extra-role behaviors that help it to succeed, whereas

employees are unlikely to hold favorable attitudes or exceed minimum job

requirements when organizational treatment is negative or neutral (Rhoades &

Eisenberger, 2002). Yet current social exchange research assumes that neu-

tral (or unsupportive) and negative relationships are the same. We question

this assumption and explore whether unsupportive relationships represent

cases where employees simply perceive that they are not supported by the

organization or are perceived negative relationships. Intuitively and theo-retically, it makes sense that employees would respond to these different

circumstances in different ways. For instance, Eby, Butts, Lockwood, and

Simon (2004) suggest that negative relational experiences should not be con-

ceptualized simply as a deviation from the positive, but (rather) a phenomenon

that also composes the totality of relational experience (p. 415). Despite this,

studies of negative behavior . . . have been the exception (Baruch, 2005, p. 361)

in management and organizational psychologyand little research has explored

the organization as a source of negative treatment.Based on this information, we contend that a theoretical gap exists within

the organizational literature on social exchange theory. Gouldners (1960)

discussion of the reciprocity norm provides a theoretical rationale for the

examination of negative employeremployee relationships. Gouldner con-

tends that the positive reciprocity norm dictates that individuals return help

from others, whereas the negative reciprocity norm requires that individuals

harm others who harm them. Accordingly, constructs such as organizational

frustration, psychological contract breach, and organizational politics addressdysfunctional aspects of the employeremployee relationship. Yet these con-

structs do not consider the organization to be the source of the negative

treatment. This is a critical oversight, as Blaus (1964) conception of social

exchange theory suggests that individuals will harm those who have harmed

them. Similarly, the sourcetarget perspective (Hershcovis et al., 2007) draws

http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/http://gom.sagepub.com/


4/34

Gibney et al. 667

on the reciprocity norm and social exchange theory to argue that employees

engage in negative behaviors as a response to negative treatment and direct

these negative behaviors at the source of negative treatment. Conversely,employees who believe that treatment provided by the organization is nega-

tive should reciprocate by behaving in a manner that harms the organization.

Organizations, from this perspective, would be the root cause of employee

misbehavior (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Thus, we believe it is critical to enlarge

the social exchange perspective of the employeremployee relationship and

employee misbehavior to incorporate the organization as the source of harm

and negative treatment. Accordingly, we explore whether employees per-

ceive that their organizations obstruct them or make it more difficult for them

to achieve their personal and professional goals and, subsequently, whether

employees differentiate between perceptions of obstruction and perceptions

of (low) support.

To answer this question, we introduce the perceived organizational obstruc-

tion (POO) construct. POO is defined as an employees belief that the organization

obstructs, hinders or interferes with the accomplishment of his or her goals and is

a detriment to his or her well-being. We believe that POO, which considers the

organization to be a source of negative treatment, fills the gap that exists in

employeremployee social exchange literature. Before empirically testing rela-tionships such as POO predicting employee misbehavior, we must (a) provide a

reliable and valid scale for measuring obstruction, (b) verify that employees dis-

tinguish POO from related constructs, and (c) determine if POO adds to the

organizational literature by explaining additional variance beyond existing

constructs. To accomplish this, we first briefly review research on the employer

employee relationship and describe POO. In Study 1, we develop items for the

POO scale. In Studies 2 and 3, we purify the items and replicate the results

employing two different samples of employees working for a wide variety oforganizations. In the fourth study, we test whether or not employees differentiate

between POO and related measures of the employeremployee relationship.

Finally, we examine whether or not POO explains additional variance beyond

psychological contract breach, perceived organizational support (POS), proce-

dural justice, organizational frustration, and organizational politics in the exit,

voice, loyalty, and neglect (EVLN) framework to employee dissatisfaction. We

chose this framework because of its use in prior research with the related con-

structs (see Table 1 for a summary of all hypotheses).

The EmployerEmployee Relationship and POO

We rely on several streams of research to build our argument that employees

believe the organization is a source of harm and obstruction. These streams



5/34


Table 1. Summary of Hypotheses

Hypothesis

Identifier

1

2a

2b

2c

2d

2e

3a

3b

3c

3d

Hypothesis

Employees perceive their organization to be asource of harm and obstruction.

Employees distinguish between perceptions ofobstruction and perceptions of organizationalfrustration.

Employees distinguish between perceptions ofobstruction and perceptions of perceptions oforganizational support.

Employees distinguish between perceptions ofobstruction and perceptions of psychologicalcontract breach.

Employees distinguish between perceptions ofobstruction and perceptions of procedural justice.

Employees distinguish between perceptions ofobstruction and perceptions of organizationalpolitics.

Perceived organizational obstruction is positively

related to exit intentions and explains additionalvariance beyond perceived organizational support,psychological contract breach, organizationalpolitics, procedural justice, and organizationalfrustration.

Perceived organizational obstruction is positivelyrelated to voice behaviors and explains additionalvariance beyond perceived organizational support,psychological contract breach, organizationalpolitics, procedural justice, and organizationalfrustration.

Perceived organizational obstruction is negativelyrelated to loyalty and explains additional variancebeyond perceived organizational support,psychological contract breach, organizationalpolitics, procedural justice, and organizationalfrustration.

Perceived organizational obstruction is positivelyrelated to job neglect and explains additional

variance beyond perceived organizational support,psychological contract breach, organizationalpolitics, procedural justice, and organizationalfrustration.

Support?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes



6/34

Gibney et al. 669

underpin the salience of the employeremployee relationship: social

exchange theory, the personification of the organization, and employees

formulation of beliefs about the treatment received from the organization.These theoretical perspectives form the basis for extending the social

exchange framework.

Researchers have long recognized that organizations are an important

source of material and socioemotional support for employees (Mayo, 1945).

Although early views of the employeeorganization relationship focused

exclusively on economic exchanges, subsequent perspectives considered

the organization to be an important source of socioemotional resources for

employees as well. Employees derive esteem from organizational member-

ship to overcome anomie (Mayo, 1945), which often leads them to attribute

humanlike characteristics to organizations (Levinson, 1965). Eisenberger

et al. (1986) advanced the literature by proposing that employees develop a

belief regarding the extent to which the organization provides support for

them. They argued that the positive reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) obli-

gated employees to support the organization in return for the organizations

commitment to them, which is conceptualized as POS. POS is based on

employees expectation that in order to determine the organizations will-

ingness to reward work effort and meet needs for praise and approval,employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organi-

zation values their contributions and cares about their well-being

(Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501). Together, Levinson (1965) and Eisenberger

et al. (1986) demonstrate that employees (a) personify organizations and

(b) form global beliefs regarding the extent to which treatment received

from the organization is perceived to be supportive.

Thus, employees develop global perceptions regarding the extent to

which organizational treatment is perceived to be positive (Eisenbergeret al., 1986). Following this logic, Skarlicki and Folger (2004) noted

that although many inanimate objects do not logically qualify as culpa-

ble actors, people nonetheless often treat personifications . . . as

transgressors and deem them accountable for negative outcomes (p. 375).

Skarlicki and Folgers (2004) statement, with consideration of Levinson

(1965), suggests that employees will hold the organization responsible for

this negative treatment and harm. As such, we hypothesize that employ-

ees have this perception and look to develop a scale that captures thisperception.

Hypothesis 1: Employees perceive their organization to be a source of

harm and obstruction.



7/34


Domain Specification and Item Generation

Domain Specification

The first step in scale development is to clearly establish the domain of the con-

struct, which stems from its definition (Churchill, 1979). POO is defined as an

employees belief that the organization obstructs, hinders or interferes with the

accomplishment of his or her goals and is a detriment to his or her well-being.

POO is based on employees perception of their relationship with the

organizationnot their interpretations of their relationships within the organi-

zation. Research consistently indicates that employees distinguish between their

relationships within the organization and with the organization (Brandes,

Dharwadkar, & Wheatley, 2004; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Stinglhamber

et al., 2006). In other words, POO describes employees beliefs regarding whether

or not treatment that they believe stems from the organization is negative. Although

employees may have bad experiences at work, such as an argument with a

coworker, such instances will not influence perceptions of organizational obstruc-

tion unless the organization is deemed responsible for the negative interaction.

POO will likely vary among employees depending on their interpretations

of treatment received from the organization. Employees may achieve per-

sonal and/or professional goals and still perceive that they are obstructed bythe organizationif employees believe that treatment provided by the orga-

nization makes the process more difficult. We do expect, however, that employees

will react more strongly when they perceive organizational obstruction and fail

to fulfill their goals as a result. Although POO may appear multidimensional

because it incorporates elements of hindrance and harm, we suggest (and

explicitly test the notion) that it is unidimensional.

In summary, POO (a) is a perception, (b) is driven by employee beliefs

that the organization hinders their goal attainment and harms them, (c) isaffected only by treatment employees attribute to the organization itself,

(d) need not necessarily result from frustrated goal attainment but instead

may occur when organizations make the processes associated with achieving

a goal more difficult, and (e) occupies a single conceptual space.

Study 1: Item Generation

We used both inductive and deductive methods to generate items to measurethe constructs domain. A deductive approach derives items from the concep-

tual space outlined in the definition (Hinkin, 1998). We borrowed from the

existing organizational frustration literature to derive items that can be classified

into two categories: (a) obstruction of personal goals and (b) obstruction of

task performance (Spector, 1978).



8/34

Gibney et al. 671

An inductive approach requires that researchers have respondents

describe situations involving the construct in question, categorize responses

into key themes, establish interrater reliability, and generate items based onthe responses (e.g., Hinkin, 1998). Accordingly, we administered a question-

naire to 70 MBA students with work experience enrolled in an organizational

behavior course at a large university in the eastern United States. Students

responded to two randomized open-ended questions: (a) describe situations

in which your organization supported you, and (b) describe situations in

which your organization obstructed your goal attainment and acted in manner

detrimental to your well-being.

Results

Because 90% (n= 63) of the respondents could identify obstruction during

their work history, the surveys provided initial support for Hypothesis 1 and

the existence of the POO construct. We classified the responses to the survey

into four categories: (a) obstruction of personal goals (19 scenarios),

(b) obstruction of professional goals (33 scenarios), (c) detrimental/harmful

treatment (11 scenarios), and (d) instances where obstruction was not per-

ceived by the respondent (7 scenarios). When respondents describeddifficulty associated with gaining a promotion as a result of actions of their

organization (e.g., [my organization] created a new director position

within my department and did not allow opportunities to interview for all

qualified candidatesR23, 11 years work experience), we categorized this

as an obstruction of professional goals. We classified instances in which the

organization made it difficult to gain an education as an obstruction of a

personal goal (company changed tuition reimbursement from no cap to

being capped . . . which changes my educational plansR37, 14 yearswork experience). Finally, detrimental actions by the organization included

situations where the organization harmed an individuals psychological

well-being (I felt as if the organization acted detrimentally. They had a

racist management who targeted minorities when dealing with loss preven-

tion. As a minority, I felt this was wrong and disrespectfulR32, 6 years

work experience).

To establish interrater reliability, a researcher not involved in the develop-

ment of the initial typology classified each of the responses into one of the fourcategories. These classifications were compared with those of the first author and

differed on nine responses yielding an interrater reliability of .87. After some

discussion, the researchers reached agreement on the classification of all

responses. Sixteen items in total were generated to measure POO (see Table 2

for a list of the items). Our item generation methods yielded items that



9/34


assessed interference with (a) task performance, (b) personal goals, (c) pro-

fessional goals, and (d) acting in a manner detrimental to well-being.

Study 2: Item Purification

We used multiple techniques (internal consistency, homogeneity, and factor

structure) to purify the items. Consistent with past research in scale development,

Table 2. Factor Analyses of Items

Study 2

Item (Original Item Number) Initial Final Study 3

My organization hinders the .77attainment of my personal goals. (POO1)

My organization hinders the attainment .77of my professional goals. (POO2)

My organization interferes with the .83accomplishment of my personal goals. (POO3)

My organization interferes with the .82

accomplishment of my professional goals. (POO4)My organization obstructs the realization .83

of my personal goals. (POO5)My organization obstructs the realization of my .84 .82 .72

professional goals. (POO6)My organization is a detriment to my well-being. .74 .76 .81

(POO7)The organization gets in the way of my performance. .73 .79 .81

(POO8)

The company blocks my personal goals. (POO9) .85 .89 .81My health suffers because I work for this company. .56(POO10)

When I think about going to work, I feel sick. (POO11) .61My organization likes to see me suffer. (POO12) .64The organization makes me jump through hoops .67

for no apparent reason. (POO13)I think the organization makes my work more difficult .57

than necessary. (POO14)My goal attainment is thwarted by the .87 .91 .87

organization. (POO15)The organization frustrates me. (POO16) .76

Note: POO = perceived organizational obstruction. Figures in boldface indicate items retainedfor further analysis.



10/34

Gibney et al. 673

we measured internal consistency with Cronbachs alpha, homogeneity with

mean interitem correlations, and factor structure with principal components

factor analysis (Briggs & Cheek, 1986). We used a confirmatory factor analy-sis (CFA) technique because we have theoretical justification for a single-factor

structure of POO. CFA is appropriate when there is theoretical justification for

the number of factors to be expected (Gorsuch, 1997).

Method

We collected data from several different sources for Study 2: 19 faculty/staff

from a business school in the eastern United States, 76 employed part-time

MBA students from the same business school (all were different than those

surveyed in Study 1), and 7 employees from the payroll and human resources

information systems departments of a health care company. Respondents

completed the 16-item POO survey using a 7-point Likert-type scale with

endpoints of Strongly Disagree and Strongly Agree and a midpoint of

Neither Agree/Disagree.

ResultsWe found that the POO scale had an acceptable level of internal consistency

(Cronbachs a= .95) based on Nunnallys (1978) suggested criterion of .7.

Factor loadings from the CFA are presented in Table 2. To retain an item, we

required a minimum factor loading of .71 because at least half of the variance

in responses is because of the underlying construct at that loading (Fornell &

Larcker, 1981; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). Based on this criterion, we

dropped five items from the scale.

To assess item redundancy, we calculated the mean interitem correlationsfor the 11 retained items. We found that this correlation was .64, which sug-

gests that some items were redundant (Briggs & Cheek, 1986). We further

examined our items and found that the four items assessing obstruction of

personal goals demonstrated relatively high interitem correlations as did

three items that pertained to professional goal obstruction. We retained the

highest loading item from each group. In addition, based on the feedback

from other researchers experienced in scale development, we dropped one

item because it was inconsistent with the intended domain of POO.We conducted a final CFA on the remaining five items (see Table 2),

which explained approximately 70% of the variance. The Cronbachs alpha

for the five-item measure was .89 and interitem correlations ranged between

.42 and .77. These results indicate that the POO scale is internally consistent



11/34


and homogenous. In addition, the length of our scale is appropriate as most

scales should contain between four and six items (Hinkin, 1998). The item

wording is consistent with past employeremployee relationship researchbecause the items focus on the company or organization (Coyle-Shapiro &

Shore, 2007). We reviewed the items and found that each of the domains sug-

gested by the open-ended survey and literature review was represented by

one item.

Study 3: Replication of Findings

and Reliability Analysis

Method

We replicated the Study 2 results in Study 3. Each of 96 students enrolled in

an undergraduate business course in a Midwestern U.S. university was pro-

vided with three surveys and envelopes. The students were instructed to have

full-time employees older than 18 years complete the surveys and return the

completed surveys sealed in the provided envelope to the second author for

minimal extra credit. Students were advised that a random selection of respon-

dents would be contacted to verify the respondents participation. All contactedrespondents confirmed that they had completed the survey. We received a

total of 199 surveys out of a possible 288 surveys for a response rate of 69%.

Respondents were 51% male and approximately 95% Caucasian. The average

age of respondents was approximately 32 years; mean job tenure was slightly

more than 5 years and 39% of respondents identified themselves as managers

or supervisors. Job titles included nurse, accountant, teacher, receptionist,

office manager, and plant manager.

Results

We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with an extraction criterion of

eigenvalues greater than one. EFA was used because the number of factors

produced in an EFA may be different than those in a CFA. Thus, an EFA that

replicates the factor structure produced in a CFA provides additional evi-

dence of the factor structure. Our analysis revealed that the items loaded on

a single factor with loadings exceeding .71 (see Table 2), indicating that thePOO scale is unidimensional. We found an acceptable Cronbachs alpha for

the five-item scale (.86). The interitem correlations ranged between .46 and

.65 with a mean interitem correlation of .56. Responses did not suffer from

range restriction.



12/34

Gibney et al. 675

Employee responses to the open-ended items used in the scale develop-

ment process suggest that protected class membership (e.g., non-White)

might be associated with perceptions of obstruction. We therefore tested forthese differences in responses. We performed 2 one-way ANOVAs (analysis

of variance) to determine if different protected classes perceived different

levels of obstruction. Both ANOVAs indicated no significant difference

based on being female (vs. male) and non-White (vs. White).

Validity Assessment and Additional Variance

Our fourth study examines whether or not employees distinguish between

POO and: (a) organizational frustration, (b) POS, (c) psychological con-

tract breach, (d) procedural justice, and (e) organizational politics. We also

assess whether POO explains additional variance beyond these related con-

structs. Understanding whether POO explains additional variance in these

outcomes is critical because if it does not there is little value in the new

construct.

We chose to empirically differentiate POO from organizational frustra-

tion, because the constructs are conceptually linked in that they explain

negative events at work. However, POO and organizational frustration theo-retically differ in several important ways. The first distinction is their focus:

POO focuses on the organization itself as a source of obstructive and detri-

mental treatment, whereas organizational frustration considers a multitude

of sources of employee frustration including customers, the weather, lack of

time, and characteristics of the physical work environment (Fox & Spector,

1999; Spector, 1975). Second, POO represents an employees belief about

treatment provided by the organization, whereas employees feel organiza-

tional frustration as a result of events that occur within the organization,regardless of whether they are caused by the organization. In other words,

POO, by definition, is an employees perception of the actions of the orga-

nization, whereas organizational frustration is experiential (Fox & Spector,

1999) and captures an emotional state that results from events that occur

within the organization (Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002). A third

distinction between POO and organizational frustration deals with goal

attainment. Failure to achieve a goal is a necessary condition for frustration

(Spector, 1978). In contrast, POO is an employees perception of whether ornot the organization makes it more difficult for them to achieve a goal,

regardless of whether or not the goal is achieved. An employee could attain

a goal but recognize that the organization made it more difficult to do so.

Thus, we hypothesize the following:



13/34


Hypothesis 2a: Employees distinguish between perceptions of obstruc-

tion and perceptions of organizational frustration.

POS, psychological contracts, and procedural justice are also frequently

described as frameworks for assessing social exchange relationships that

exist between employer and employee (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003; Coyle-

Shapiro & Conway, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2002). As mentioned previously,

POS measures employees global beliefs regarding the benevolent nature of

the organization or employees perceptions of the extent to which the

organization is committed to them (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Although both

POS and POO derive from social exchange theory and describe the employer

employee relationship, we suggest that these constructs have an orthogonal

relationship. For instance, your university could provide educational benefits

for your children (support) or it may not (lack of support). However, the

university could implement a policy that any student who receives this

educational benefit could only attend the satellite campus located on the other

end of the state causing the student to live away from home (obstruction).

In this final scenario, the university is being both supportive (providing

the benefit) and also creating a situation that could be construed as obstructive

(causing the student to live away from home). Thus, we hypothesize thefollowing:

Hypothesis 2b: Employees distinguish between perceptions of obstruc-

tion and perceptions of organizational support.

Psychological contract theory takes a different approach to the employer

employee relationship: its focus is on employees beliefs regarding the

mutual obligations that are perceived to exist between the employee and theemployer and predicts that employees will respond positively when promises

on the part of the organization are fulfilled and negatively when they are

breached (Rousseau, 1995). The current conceptualization of psychological

contract breach acknowledges that breach can occur not only for deficient

inducements, but also for excess inducements, meaning that the employee

has received more inducements than promised (Schurer Lambert, Edwards,

& Cable, 2003, p. 896). Thus, breach can occur from excessively positive

treatment, whereas POO is because of negative treatment. Psychologicalcontract breach also differs from POO because it considers only obligations

that employees believe they are owed by the organization, whereas POO

captures any organizational actions deemed to be detrimental regardless of

whether or not employees believe that the organization was obligated to



14/34

Gibney et al. 677

behave differently. Furthermore, psychological contracts do not consider

whether or not breach is actually perceived to be obstructive to employees.

We therefore hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2c: Employees distinguish between perceptions of obstruc-

tion and perceptions of psychological contract breach.

Examples of POO provided during the scale development process are

suggestive of procedural justice perceptions;1 as such, we chose to distinguish

POO from perceptions of procedural justice. Procedural justice perceptions

research takes a third approach to the employeremployee relationship in that

it focuses on employees perceptions of the fairness of the decision-making

process employed by the organization (Cropanzano et al., 2002). Similarly to

POS, POO is orthogonal to procedural justice perceptions. An employee can

perceive the policies and procedurals to be unfair but gain from the injustice.

This gain may facilitate the employees goals and be seen as helpful. For

example, a White male employee could perceive that promotion procedures

are unfair because they discriminate against female and non-Caucasian

employees. The male employee may receive a desired promotion ahead of a

female employee who is held back by the organizations policies andprocedures. In this instance, the male employee might perceive the policies

are procedurally unjust but not perceive that the organization has harmed or

hindered him. In support of this view, recent research found that respondents

do distinguish between fairness and discrimination perceptions (Foley,

Han-Yue, & Wong, 2005). We hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2d: Employees distinguish between perceptions of obstruc-

tion and perceptions of procedural justice.

We also chose to distinguish POO from organizational politics, defined as

employees subjective beliefs regarding the extent to which the work environment

is influenced by coworkers and supervisors engaging in self-serving behavior

(Gandz & Murray, 1980), because politics is generally regarded as a negative

perception of the organization. POO differs from organizational politics in

terms of who is performing actions that may be construed as negative or

positive. In the case of obstruction, the organization is behaving in a negativemanner, whereas in politics, supervisors and coworkers are widely regarded as

the sources of negative treatment. The organizational politics literature does not

anthropomorphize the organization, that is, it is not considered an actor. As

such, we hypothesize the following:



15/34


Hypothesis 2e: Employees distinguish between perceptions of obstruc-

tion and perceptions of organizational politics.

Study 4: Validation Study

Sample and Procedures

Consistent with procedures used in published research studies (Gettman &

Gelfand, 2007; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), we recruited respondents using

Zoomerang, an organization that maintains an opt-in database of approximately

2.5 million individuals willing to complete surveys for minimal compensation,

for survey dissemination in Study 4. We created an online survey. Zoomerang

then sent the URL that linked to the survey to 1200 participants randomly selected

from the database. The sample was selected to ensure that it was approximate to

the 2006 demographic makeup of the United States (http://www.census

.gov/). The actual sample differed slightly from the requested sample. For

example, we had a larger sample of non-Caucasian respondents (30%) than the

national average (25%). We received completed surveys from 739 respondents

for a response rate of 61.6%. Respondents were not sent follow-up emails.

Respondents were 50.8% female, 70% Caucasian, and 34.2% managed orsupervised employees. The age of respondents ranged between 19 and 65 years

with a median of 39. Mean organization tenure was 7.1 years. Respondents

were employed in jobs including customer service representative, administra-

tive assistant, corporate recruiter, assistant vice president, and CFO.

Churchill (1979) suggests that the same responses should not be used to

assess validity and test hypotheses. Therefore, we used a hold-out sample of

300 respondents to assess whether respondents distinguish between POO and

the aforementioned related constructs. We chose to use a sample size of 300because it meets the most stringent of the suggested sample sizes for an

instrument containing 26 items (Flynn & Pearcy, 2001; Nunnally, 1978).

To assign respondents to the hold-out sample for use in the factor analysis,

cases were assigned a single digit number between 0 and 9 using a random

number generator. The first 300 cases with a digit between 0 and 4 were

assigned to the factor analysis subsample, whereas the remaining responses

(N= 439) were assigned to the regression subsample. The subsample used for

assessing discriminant validity was 48% female and 75.7% Caucasian. Withrespect to education level, 50.3% of respondents held a bachelors or mas-

ters degree. Approximately 35.8% of respondents managed or supervised

employees. Respondents age in the subsample ranged between 19 and 65

years with a median of 40.0, whereas organization tenure was 6.8 years.



16/34

Gibney et al. 679

Measures

The response format for all scales consisted of a 7-point Likert-type scalewith endpoints of 1 =Strongly Disagree to 7 =Strongly Agree and a midpoint

of 4 =Neither Agree/Disagree.

Perceived organizational obstruction. POO was measured with the scale pre-

viously described.

Perceived organizational support. Eisenberger et al. (1986) developed a 36-

item measure of POS. Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhoades

(2001) used a 6-item measure of POS with reported reliability of .77. We used

this scale to measure POS.

Psychological contract breach. Psychological contract breach has been ass-

essed using a five-item measure in prior research (Robinson & Morrison,

1995). In that study, the reported reliability was .92. We selected items with

path loadings that exceeded .71, which resulted in a four-item scale.

Organizational politics. Kacmar and Ferris (1991) developed the percep-

tions of organizational politics scale based on Gandz and Murrays (1980)

definition of politics. Although the scale contains 12 items and consists of

three dimensions, Kacmar and colleagues have recently begun to measure

politics using a single dimension of the scaleGoing Along to Get Ahead(e.g., Zivnuska, Kacmar, Witt, Carlson, & Bratton, 2004), a four-item scale

with a reliability coefficient of .70. This subscale focuses on the organization

and is therefore a more stringent test for comparison with the POO scale.

Procedural justice. Procedural justice was measured using the four of the six

items of the procedural justice scale (Ang, Van Dyne, & Begley, 2003). Items

were selected based on the organization being the focal actor (Employees

are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions was not included). The

reported reliability of the six-item scale was .83.Organizational frustration. We measured organizational frustration with a

three-item scale developed by Peters, OConnor, and Rudolf (1980) based on

perceived situational constraints within the organization. These authors

reported a reliability of.76.

We used Anderson and Gerbings (1988) two-step model assessment pro-

cess. Before assessing the structural model, we assessed the measurement

model by evaluating the path loadings of items to the appropriate construct

individually as well as the correlated error terms. None of the items exhibitedcorrelated error terms, but some items did not reach the .71 criterion. Accord-

ingly, we removed one item from each of the psychological contract breach,

POS, and organizational politics scales from further analyses. This ensured

that all scales used in the analysis were reliable.



17/34


Results

After rescoring reverse-coded items, we created a separate index measure forthe six constructs by averaging responses on the applicable items. Table 3

contains the means, reliability coefficients, and the bivariate correlations

between the indices. We assessed the discriminant validity of the constructs

using the bivariate correlations. We used a criterion of .6 for construct redun-

dancy (Morrow, 1983). The correlations between POO and the other

constructs suggest that POO is distinct from related constructs. Our ANOVAs

regarding protected classes again indicated no significant gender and racial

differences.

We also used structural equation modeling (SEM; LISREL 8.7) to assess

the discriminant validity of the constructs. All models were calculated using

the covariance matrix and maximum-likelihood estimation. Fornell and

Larcker (1981) argued that the average variance extracted (AVE) can be

compared with squared bivariate correlations as an indication of discriminant

validity. When the square root of the AVE for each construct is greater than

the bivariate correlation in the associated row and column, there is evidence

of discriminant validity (Gefen & Straub, 2005). The square root of the AVE

for POO was calculated to be .82 using Fornell and Larckers (1981) equa-tion. It is greater in magnitude than the correlation between POO and: POS

(-.56), organizational frustration (.56), psychological contract breach (.49),

procedural justice (-.52), and organizational politics (.48). POO is less

strongly correlated to the related constructs than POS. The results support the

conclusion that POO is distinct from the related constructs.

Finally, consistent with past research (e.g., Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006),

we conducted chi-square difference tests to examine discriminant validity

(Bentler & Bonett, 1980; James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1992). We created a base-line model by assigning all measures to a single latent construct. Next, a

two-factor model was created by removing one constructs items from the

base model, creating a second latent construct and assigning the items we had

removed from the first construct to that latent construct. Specifically, the

three organizational politics items were removed from the combined con-

struct. An organizational politics latent construct was created, and the three

organizational politics items were associated with the organizational politics

latent construct. This process was repeated until we had a six-factor modelcontaining psychological contract breach, POS, organizational politics, pro-

cedural justice, organizational frustration, and POO.

Results of chi-square difference tests (see Table 4) suggest that our con-

structs were distinct from one another and that common method bias did not



18/34

681

Table3.

Descript

ive

Stat

istics

for

Val

idatio

nan

dRegress

ion

Samples

Correlat

ions

Mean

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Psyc

hologica

l

3.40(3

.33)

.97(.9

8)

-.7

4

.60

-.6

3

.52

.49

contract

breach

Perceive

d

4.53(4

.50)

-.7

2

.95(95)

-.7

5

.7

8

-.5

3

-.56

organ

izat

ional

support

Organ

izat

iona

l

3.80(3

.80)

.62

-.7

6

.86(.8

7)

-.7

8

.45

.48

politics

Proce

dural

4.06

-.6

2

.74

-.7

9

.88(.9

0)

-.5

6

-.52

just

ice

Organ

izat

iona

l

4.12(4

.08)

.48

-.5

2

.47

-.5

0

.83(.8

3)

.56

frustrat

ion

Perceive

d

3.34(3

.23)

.48

-.5

4

.44

-.4

4

.49

.90(.9

1)

organ

izat

ional

obstruction

Exit

3.71

.53

-.5

9

.49

-.5

3

.51

.57

.88

Voice

4.12

.41

-.4

2

.41

-.4

7

.45

.47

.57

.83

Loya

lty

4.35

-.5

1

.64

-.5

7

.6

3

-.3

3

-.41

-.4

6

-.2

5

.6

5

Neg

lect

3.40

.39

-.4

2

.39

-.3

7

.44

.56

.60

.37

-.3

3

.79

Note:Regress

ion

subsample

isbelow

diagonal.N

=439.

Allcorrelat

ionsaresig

nificantat.0

01.C

ronbac

hsalp

haispresente

don

diagona

l(in

boldface

).

Val

idat

ionsu

bsam

ple

isabovethe

diagona

l.



19/34


influence our results. When a single latent construct most accurately fits the

data, there is evidence of common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

Jeong-Yeon, & Podsakoff, 2003). Podsakoff et al. (2003) state it [single-factor test] is a diagnostic technique for assessing the extent to which common

method variance may be a problem (p. 889). In our data, items loaded onto

the appropriate factors and the six-factor model fit the data better than a single-

factor model.

Fit indices are also presented in Table 4. We used multiple fit measures

because no single measure of fit is unanimously accepted (Bolino & Turnley,

1999). Specifically, we report the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) and the normed fit (NFI), the nonnormed fit (NNFI), comparative

fit (CFI), incremental fit (IFI), relative fit (RFI), and root mean square resid-

ual (SRMR) indices. The RMSEA and SRMR are less than .08 and all the

remaining fit indices (NFI, NNFI, ICI, CFI, and RFI) exceed .90. In total, the

fit indices indicate that the six-factor model provides the best fit, which is

described, conservatively, as reasonable based on current criteria (Lance,

Butts, & Michels, 2006; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004).

We reviewed the path loadings from the six-factor model because different

results may be obtained at the item and construct levels of analysis (Andrews

& Kacmar, 2001). All path loadings exceed .71 and did not cross-load onmultiple constructs. In sum, the correlation analysis, chi-square difference

tests, and path analysis support the hypotheses that employees distinguish

between perceptions of obstruction and (a) perceptions of organizational frus-

tration (Hypothesis 2a), (b) perceptions of organizational support (Hypothesis

2b), (c) perceptions of psychological contract breach (Hypothesis 2c), (d) per-

ceptions of procedural justice (Hypothesis 2d), and (e) perceptions of

organizational politics (Hypothesis 2e). The overall pattern of results suggests

that that POO is related to, but distinct from, existing constructs.

Additional Variance: Exit, Voice, Loyalty,

and Neglect (EVLN)

Although establishing that a new construct is distinct from existing con-

structs is a necessary condition in developing a new scale, it is also important

to show that the new construct explains additional variance in outcomes, over

and above that explained by existing constructs. Indeed, Cropanzano et al.(2002) suggest that if variables predict different criteria, then they should be

viewed as separate constructs, even if they are empirically correlated (p. 327).

Accordingly, we tested whether POO evidences a distinct pattern of relation-

ships with common outcome variables.



20/34

Gibney et al. 683

The EVLN framework has been argued to provide a systematic frame-

work for understanding employee reactions to dissatisfying job experiences

(Turnley & Feldman, 1999). The EVLN framework makes for an idealtest of the explanatory power of the POO construct because this framework

has been used in understanding reactions to some of the related constructs

(Turnley & Feldman, 1999; Vigoda, 2001). Our main hypothesis for this

section is that POO will explain variance beyond POS, breach, politics,

procedural justice, and organizational frustration in exit, voice, loyalty, and

neglect.

To understand the totality of social exchange relationships, both positive

and negative aspects need to be analyzed. Thus, inclusion of both positiveand negative aspects of social exchange should have greater predictive abil-

ity (i.e., explain increasing amounts of variance in the consequences of social

exchange relationships). For example, POO, a negative social exchange rela-

tionship, should explain additional variance beyond the social exchange

Table 4. Chi-Square Difference Tests

c2 Dc2

(Degrees (D DegreesModel of Freedom) of Freedom) RMSEA NFI NNFI CFI IFI RFI SRMR

One 3197.76 (230) .21 .64 .63 .66 .66 .60 .10factor

Two 3045.26 (229) 152.5 (1) .20 .66 .64 .68 .68 .62 .10factor

Three 2806.65 (227) 238.61 (2) .20 .69 .68 .71 .71 .65 .10factor

Four 2006.44 (224) 800.21 (3) .16 .80 .81 .83 .83 .78 .09factor

Five 1706.40 (220) 300.04 (4) .15 .83 .83 .86 .86 .81 .09factor

Six 509.31 (215) 1197.09 (5) .07 .92 .94 .95 .95 .91 .05factor

Note: All models are significant at p< .05. Models: One factor = all items to one construct;Two factor = organizational politics and all other items to one construct; Three factor =organizational politics, procedural justice, and all other items to one construct; Four factor =organizational politics, procedural justice, psychological contract breach, and all other items toone construct; Five factor = organizational politics, procedural justice, psychological contractbreach, organizational frustration, and all other items to one construct; Six factor = organizationalpolitics, procedural justice, psychological contract breach, organizational frustration, perceivedorganizational support, and perceived organizational obstruction to one construct. RMSEA =root mean square error of approximation; NFI = normed fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fitindex; CFI = comparative fit index, IFI = incremental fit index, RFI = relative fit index; andSRMR = root mean square residual index.



21/34


concepts of psychological contracts (a neutral relationship), POS (a positive

relationship), and procedural justice (a positive relationship).

POO should also explain additional variance beyond organizational poli-tics and frustration because it is a negative relationship with the organization

instead of negative relationships within the organization. Ng and Sorensens

(2008) meta-analysis suggests that it is inappropriate to assume that individuals

react in the same fashion to all sources of support. In a similar manner, we

argue that negative relationships with the organization are different than neg-

ative relationships in the organization and that negative relationships are not

the divergence from positive relationships. Therefore, the inclusion of a neg-

ative relationship with the organization should explain additional variance

beyond the existing constructs of POS, psychological contract breach, proce-

dural justice, organizational frustration, and organizational politics.

Hypotheses Development

Exit. Farrell (1983) suggests that exit behaviors include movements within

(e.g., transferring between jobs) and across organizational boundaries (e.g.,

termination of employment) as well as cognitive activities preceding these

movements (e.g., thinking of transferring). According to social exchange theory,individuals assess the value and costs of their social exchange relationships.

When the costs exceed the benefits of being in the relationship, individuals

will end the relationship (Emerson, 1976). According to expectancy theory,

individuals place a value on obtaining goals (Kudisch, Fortunato, & Smith,

2006). When an exchange partner obstructs the attainment of ones goals, the

costs of being in that relationship are increased. These increased costs may

outweigh the benefits of remaining in the relationship and cause individuals

to terminate the relationship. Therefore, when employees believe that theirassociation with the organization is detrimental to their well-being and

hinders the attainment of their goals, they are more likely to leave the

organization.

Hypothesis 3a: Perceived organizational obstruction is positively

related to exit intentions and explains additional variance beyond

perceived organizational support, psychological contract breach,

organizational politics, procedural justice, and organizational

frustration.

Voice. Voice behaviors describe employee attempts to change a situation

instead of leaving the situation (Hirschman, 1970) and include activities such



22/34

Gibney et al. 685

as engaging supervisors and coworkers in discussions about problems in the

workplace (Rusbult, Zembrodt. & Gunn, 1982). Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, and

Mainous (1988) discussed voice activities such as having discussions withsupervisors and coworkers about problems, suggesting solutions to problems,

or actively attempting to solve the problems. Complaining, a voice behavior,

is actively articulating displeasure with the work environment. In discussing

problems or sharing stories with coworkers and supervisors (McCarthy,

2008), employees may seek advice on ways to overcome these obstacles

(Gibbons, 2004; Zhou & George, 2001).

Perceptions of obstruction will most likely be construed by employees as

problematic. Accordingly, employees may discuss obstruction with cowork-

ers and supervisors. In organizations, advice and friendship relationships

are the most frequently occurring types of relationships (Gibbons, 2004;

Krackhardt, 1990). Employees share information and knowledge related to

the completion of their work (Ibarra, 1993) and learn appropriate job behav-

iors (Zagenczyk, Gibney, Murrell, & Boss, 2008) through advice ties. In

addition to providing a friendly, sympathetic ear, coworkers may provide

suggestions on ways to overcome a dissatisfying environment (Zhou &

George, 2001). Employees may look to coworkers for advice on methods to

overcome the perceived roadblocks (Gibbons, 2004). Therefore, employeeswill engage in more voice behaviors, such as discussing problems with

coworkers and supervisors, in response to POO.

Hypothesis 3b: POO is positively related to voice behaviors and

explains additional variance beyond POS, psychological contract

breach, organizational politics, procedural justice, and organizational

frustration.

Loyalty. Farrell (1983) and Hirschman (1970) view loyalty as suffering in

silence, whereas Vigoda (2001) defines loyalty as trusting the organization to

do the right thing and supporting the organization. Turnley and Feldman

(1999) argued that defending the organization against criticism is a behavioral

manifestation of loyalty. Although research consistently finds that values

influence attitudes and behaviors (Cohen & Keren, 2008), Rusbult et al.

(1988) suggest that loyalty is behaviorally manifested in the performance of

organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).According to cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), employees

attempt to resolve inconsistencies between beliefs and behaviors by adjust-

ing their cognitions or changing their behaviors. Defending an organization

that is perceived as providing negative treatment should increase cognitive



23/34


dissonance. Thus, employees can either cease defending the organization or

reassess their perception of organizational obstruction. When employees

perceive organizational obstruction, they will be less likely to defend theorganization to outsiders and patiently wait until problems are corrected.

Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3c: POO is negatively related to loyalty and explains

additional variance beyond perceived organizational support, psy-

chological contract breach, organizational politics, procedural jus-

tice, and organizational frustration.

Neglect. Neglect is characterized by reduced effort and interest in work

(Vigoda, 2001). Neglect may be evidenced by using company time to perform

personal business instead of working on company business (Rusbult et al.,

1988). These behaviors have also been described as retaliatory behaviors

directed at the organization (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Skarlicki & Folger,

1997; Vardi & Weitz, 2004).

According to Gouldners (1960) conceptualization of the negative norm

of reciprocity, employees return harmful treatment to the source of that harm.

Thus, when the organization is perceived to be a source of obstruction,employees will seek to get back at the organization by putting little effort

into their in-role performance or not performing job tasks at all (Bennett &

Robinson, 2000; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Vardi & Weitz, 2004).

Hypothesis 3d: POO is positively related to job neglect and explains

additional variance beyond POS, psychological contract breach, orga-

nizational politics, procedural justice, and organizational frustration.

Sample and Measures

Respondents in the subsample used for this analysis (n= 439) were 53.2%

female and 66.1% Caucasian; 44.8% held a bachelors or masters degree and

33.3 % of respondents managed or supervised employees. Respondents age

ranged between 19 and 65 years with a mean of 39.59. Mean organization

tenure was 7.31 years. Because of scale length, we selected three items from

each of the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect scales developed by Rusbult et al.(1988). We modified the items slightly so that they were less context specific.

Exit. The three items used were I often think about quitting, I have

recently spent time looking for a new job, and I have seriously considering

transferring from my job. In Rusbult et al. (1988), the reported reliabilities

for the exit scale ranged between .76 and .97.



24/34

Gibney et al. 687

Voice. The three items we used were I want to change the way in which

things are done here, I have made several attempts to change the working

conditions here, and I want to talk things over with my coworkers to gettheir help in changing the working conditions. Rusbult et al. (1988) reported

reliabilities that ranged between .45 and .77 for this scale.

Loyalty. The three items used were I say good things about the organization

even when other people criticize it, I will wait patiently for the organization to

improve, and The people in charge of this company generally know what

theyre doing. The reported reliabilities of the loyalty scale ranged between .56

and .75 in the three studies reported in Rusbult et al. (1988).

Neglect. The three items included were Now and then there are workdays

where I just dont put much effort into my work, I have quit caring about

my job and will allow conditions to get worse and worse, and I feel like

putting less effort into my work. In Rusbult et al. (1988), the reported reli-

abilities of the neglect scale ranged between .69 and .82.

Analysis and Results

After rescoring reverse-coded items, we created a separate index measure for

the constructs by averaging responses on the applicable items. Table 3 containsthe means, reliability coefficients, and the bivariate correlations between the

indices. Our ANOVAs regarding protected classes again indicated no signifi-

cant gender or racial differences.

The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical multiple regression anal-

ysis. In the first step of the regression analysis, the control variables

(including the existing constructs we described earlier) were entered into

the regression equation. During the second step, POO was entered into the

regression equation. We used this procedure for all four dependent vari-ables (exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect). The regression results are presented

in Table 5.

Exit. Hypothesis 3a predicted that POO would be positively related to exit

intentions and explain additional variance in exit intentions beyond POS,

psychological contract breach, organizational politics, procedural justice,

and organizational frustration. POO positively predicted exit (b= .29; p


25/34

688

Table5.

Hiera

rchica

lRegress

ion

Results

Depen

dent

Var

iable

Pre

dictors

Exit

Voice

L

oya

lty

Ne

glect

Step

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

Contro

lvar

iables

Psyc

hological

contract

breach

.1

4*

.10

.12*

.09

-.0

4

-.0

3

.10

.05

Perceive

dorg

anizat

iona

l

-.2

9***

-.2

1**

.00

.07

.39***

.36***

-.1

2

.00

support

Organ

izat

ional

po

litics

-.0

4

.04

-.01

-.0

1

.00

.00

.10

.09

Proce

duraljust

ice

-.1

4*

-.1

4*

-.27

***

-.2

7***

.35***

.35***

.00

-.0

1

Organ

izat

ional

frustration

.2

4***

.16***

.26***

.19***

.06

.08

.28***

.17***

AdjustedR2

.4

2***

.29***

.46***

.24***

Step

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

Indepen

dentva

riab

le

Perceive

dorg

anizat

iona

l

.29***

.26***

-.0

9*

.42***

obstruction

R2change

.05***

.04***

.01*

.11***

Fva

lue

(mo

del)

64.8

6***

36.8

2***

64.6

0***

40.8

1***

Effectsize

.10

.06

.01

.18

Observe

dpower

forthead

dition

1.00

1.00

0.56

1.00

ofperceive

do

rgan

izat

iona

l

obstructionto

themo

dela

a.O

bserve

dpow

ero

fmo

delspresente

dinthe

secondstep

(a=

.05,

fivepredictors,N=

439,

ando

bserve

dR

2)

*p

Documents

1_Negative Aspects of Social Exchange_VALIDATION_UNIDIMEN