CONSEQUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH: THE MODERATING ROLE OF ADVERSITY QUOTIENT, PROFESSIONAL TRAINING AND TENURE

Pao-Ling Chin Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, 69, Sec 2, Jian-Kuo N. Rd., Taipei City 10433, Taiwan ROC Department of Insurance and Finance Management, Chihlee Institute of Technology, 313, Sec 1, Wun-Hua Rd., Banciao City, Taipei County 22050, Taiwan ROC paoling@mail.chihlee.edu.tw Min-Li Hung Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, 69, Sec 2, Jian-Kuo N. Rd., Taipei City 10433, Taiwan ROC mindy_hung1966@yahoo.com.tw ABSTRACT Insurance companies face fierce competitions within their respective markets in Taiwan and insurance companies all find any ways to increase the efficiency and reduce cost to ensure their success in the market. Reducing turnover rate is one of the key strategies organizations take. The purpose of this paper is to explore how individuals differ in their intent to quit such as psychological contract breach. More specifically, we propose that relationships between psychological contract breach and the intent to quit are moderated by Adversity Quotient (AQ), professional training and tenure. The results of the study show that the higher psychological contract fulfillment, the lower intent to leave and the relationship between psychological contract breach and intent to quit is moderated by AQ. Because the psychological contract fulfillment is multidimensional, we also examine the moderating role of AQ, professional training and tenure across multiple components of the contract. And, the results also state that AQ is all significantly negatively moderated the intent to quit while the relational, transactional and training/development contract are fulfilled. However, the moderate role of professional training and tenure in selling experience are not the significant on the relationship between psychological contract breach and intent to quit. Practical and managerial suggestions are also provided. KeywordsPsychological contract fulfillment, Intent to quit, Adversity Quotient (AQ) INTRODUCTION Although there are thousands of new insurance agents enrolled into the life insurance association, the turnover rate for insurance agent is above 50% every year in Taiwan. Due to low qualifications required, insurance agent is one of the choices for freshmen as their first job in Taiwan. Selling insurance products are not easy due to fierce competition in insurance sector, as there are 30 life insurance companies in Taiwan.
1

To any service companies such as insurance companies, people are the most important asset. Therefore, it is essential for insurance companies to recruit qualified sales and retain them as longer as possible to reduce to costs of recruitment and trainings and enhance effectiveness of human resource activities. Therefore, it is valuable to manage employees intent to quit reduce the actual turnover rate. It is an emerging research topic to understand the intent to quit of employee from psychological contract breach. The renewed interest in the concept of the psychological contract has come to the fore in attempts to describe, understand and predict the consequences of changes occurring in the employment relationship. Therefore, this study tests the relationship between psychological contract and intent to quit of insurance agents in Taiwan. The data from insurance association shows, in recent 5 years, the insurance sales turnover rate of 30% life insurance companies is higher than 50%. One of the reasons causing high exit rate is the difficulties of the job nature of insurance sales. It is commonly agreed that the job difficulties of insurance agent in Taiwan. As Darymple & Cron (1998) and McManus & Kelly (1999) state that life insurance sales easily receive rejection from customers and their works are with high frustrations. Psychological contract and Adversity Quotient are both constructs of psychology. To our knowledge, there is no researches test the moderate effects of Adversity Quotient on the relationship between psychological contract breach and intent to quit to insurance sales. It is reasonable to think that, while one feels their psychological contract with organizations are violated, those who have greater AQ would have greater abilities to face the frustration and then reduces the intent to quit. The psychological contract researches emerged from 1990. Research directions can be generally classified as (1) how psychological contract be formed (Rousseau, 1990); (2) how psychological contract is broken (Schalk & Freese, 1997; Thomas & Anderson, 1998); and (3) the psychological contract breach (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Turnely & Feldman, 2000). Previous empirical researches showed that psychological contract breaches would negatively affect employees job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), organizational citizen behavior (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), contract behavior (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000) and performance (Robinson, 1996). Research on psychological contract breach has focused on organizational circumstances that have created changes in the employment relationship, but not concerning the impact of individual differences. It has been argued that a rapidly changing work environment has altered the nature of the psychological contract. To remain competitive, it is important that managers understand how individual difference variables impact employee responses to the breach of psychological contract. Raja, Johns and Ntalianis (2004) examined the moderating role of Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, equity sensitivity, self-esteem and locus of control in the relationship between breach and outcomes. This study take a first stem toward understanding these reactions by examining the moderating role of Adversity Quotient, professional training and tenure on the relationship between psychological contract breach and intent to quit.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES The concept of Psychological Contract was first used by Argyris (1960) and has been developed further by the works of many researchers like Levinson et al. (1962), Schein (1980), and most recently by Rousseau (1989; 1995; 2000). Psychological contract is an implicit exchange relationship between the employer and the employees encompassing mutual expectations and obligation of each party towards the other. According to Rousseau (1989), psychological contract is promise based and over time, takes the form of a schema which is relatively stable. A schema is defined as a cognitive structure that represents organized knowledge about a given stimulus a person or situation as well as rules that direct information processing (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Schema refers to an individuals beliefs, frames of references, perceptions, values and concepts. Schema provides a base that serves as a guide to an individual for information collection, assimilation, interpretation, actions, and expectations, thereby simplifying cognitive processes by which people make sense of events and situation in which they may find themselves (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Schemas typically influence the perception of incoming information, retrieval of stored information, and inferences based on that. It is commonly believed by researchers that psychological contract is an individuals belief about the term and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement with an employer a belief that some form of promises have been made and that the terms are accepted by all involved. By these observations, psychological contract becomes an unwritten set of expectations between everyone in an organization and unlike a written contract, is of dynamic in nature. Although the contract is unwritten, it may have significant effect on employee behavior on the job, employee morale, performance and desire to leave the job. Rousseau (1995) also suggested that psychological contract depends on the employees understanding of the explicit and implicit promises regarding the exchange of employee contributions (such as efforts, loyalty and ability) and organizational inducements (such as pay, promotion, job security). Types of Psychological Contract Two major types of psychological contracts have been evaluated: relational and transactional (e.g. Rousseau 1990, 1995; Herriot, Manning & Kidd 1997; Anderson & Schalk 1998; Millward & Hopkins 1998; Millward & Brewerton 1999). Relational contracts characterize beliefs about obligations based on exchanges of socioemotional factors (e.g. loyalty and support) rather than purely monetary issues. Akin to the traditional working 'partnership' between employee and employer, a relationaltype relationship can engender feelings of affective involvement or attachment in the employee, and can commit the employer to providing more than purely remunerative support to the individual with investments like training, personal and career development, and provision of job security. Transactional contracts, by contrast, centre on short-term monetary agreements with little close involvement of the parties. Employees are more concerned with compensation and personal benefit than with being good organizational citizens. Rousseau and McLean Parks (1993) argue that these contract types differ with respect to focus, time-frame, stability, scope and tangibility. Relational contracts tend to describe perceived obligations that are emotional and intrinsic in nature, whilst transactional contracts describe obligations
3

that are economic and extrinsic. Relational contracts are seen to have an open-ended, indefinite duration whilst the time frame for transactional contracts is more specific and short-term. Consequently, transactional contracts are also said to be static whilst relational contracts are dynamic and evolving. In addition, the scope of relational contracts is more general and pervasive, subject to clarification and modification as circumstances evolve. Relational contracts are, therefore, more subjective and less tangible in comparison to transactional contracts. Millward and Herriot (2000) point out, however, that the transactional-relational divide is not necessarily an exclusive one. They suggest that the exchange relationship is better characterized as containing varying degrees of both relational and transactional elements. In other words, individuals are not one versus the other and can instead have elements of both types in their own individual psychological contract (see also Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau 1994). In addition to transactional or relational contract, Kickul and Lester (2001) further identify training as one category of psychological contract to respect the need of training for modern enterprises. Training contract is associated with continuing professional training, opportunities for personal growth, and career guidance. Psychological Contract Breach Psychological contract is more subjective than a legal contract and has been distinguished from the broader construct of expectations. The promissory expectations in a psychological contract are only those expectations that emanate from perceived implicit or explicit promises by employers (Robinson, 1996, p. 575). The psychological contract breach is defined as the employees perception regarding the extent to which the organization has failed to fulfill its promises or obligations (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Although the term breach and violation is used commonly in psychological contract researches and not easily distinguished, we define the violation as an outcome of breach as researchers thought breach is the cognitive evaluation (Morrison and Robinson, 1997) and then violation is the emotional and affective state that may follow from the breach cognition. According to Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski and Bravo (2007), there are commonly three ways breach has been measured which are composite measure, global measure and weighted measure. Composite measure differs from the other measures in that it refers to various content items of the psychological contract (e.g., high pay, training, and job security) and asks respondents how much the organization has fulfilled its obligation or promise on each item. The global measure does not refer to any specific content item but directly assesses subjects overall perceptions of how much the organization fulfilled or failed to fulfill its obligations or promises. And, the weighted measure is similar to the composite measure in that it uses a number of content-specific items of the psychological contract and asks respondents their perceptions of breach in these contents. However, it also asks subjects to indicate the importance on each of the content items. Each raw breach score is multiplied by the respective perceived importance score and then summed or averaged to yield a weighted breach score. Prior research suggests that an organization's failure to honor its promises (psychological contract breach) often has a negative impact on employee attitudes (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003; Rousseau, 1995). In addition to the negative effect on employee attitudes, prior research also suggests that psychological contract breach may negatively impact employee behaviors (Kickul, Neuman, Parker, & Finkl, 2001; Robinson & Morrison, 1995). In general, social exchange theory has been used to
4

understand the relationship between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1995; Turnley et al., 2003). Social exchange theory posits that employees are motivated to seek a fair and balanced relationship between themselves and their organization (Homans, 1961). Psychological contract breach occurs when employees perceive a discrepancy between what they were promised and what they receive from the organization (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1995). Such discrepancies represent an imbalance in the social exchange relationship and have been characterized as a type of distributive injustice (Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992). In order to restore balance to the exchange relationship after psychological contract breach occurs, employees are often motivated to reduce their commitment to the organization or to contribute less to the organization in terms of in-role or extra-role performance (Turnley et al., 2003). Indeed, prior research consistently suggests psychological contract breach negatively influences employees' attitudes toward their organizations and toward their jobs (e.g., Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). For example, Robinson (1996) found that psychological contract breach leads employees to believe that the organization does not care about their well-being and that the organization cannot be trusted to honor its obligations. Likewise, Robinson and Rousseau (1994) and Tekleab et al. (2005) found that psychological contract breach was negatively related to job satisfaction. Moreover, prior research has suggested that psychological contract breach is negatively related to employee affective commitment (Bunderson, 2001; Lester et al., 2002; Raja et al., 2004) and positively related to employees' intent to quit (Bunderson, 2001; Raja et al., 2004). In particular, prior research has suggested that instances of psychological contract breach are likely to make employees question whether remaining in the employment relationship will be mutually beneficial (Turnley & Feldman, 1999). In some instances, employees are likely to perceive the imbalance to be so great or the chance of future mistreatment to be high enough that they decide to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, psychological contract breach is likely to be positively related to employees' intent to quit. Turnover intentions reflect the subjective probability that an individual will leave his or her organization within a certain period of time. Similar to other employee reactions, turnover intentions can serve as an indicator of the extent of ones psychological attachment to the organization. As opposed to actual turnover, the turnover intention variable is not dichotomous. In addition, it is less constrained by exogenous factors (such as availability of an alternative job) and thus more accurately reflects ones attitude toward the organization. Intent to quit is a common response to negative events with work (Lum, Kervin, Clark, Reid,& Sirola, 1998). The breach of psychological contract also impact job satisfaction and organization commitment (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Turnley and Feldman (1999) state that the intent to quit for employee would positively related to the breach of psychological contract. Thus, psychological contract breach, as a negative event for employees, can increase their tendency to leave. That is, the higher psychological contract fulfilled the lower intent to quit for employees.

Hypothesis 1: The greater perceived psychological contract fulfillment, the lower possibility of intent to quit. Hypothesis 1a: The greater perceived transactional psychological contract fulfillment, the lower possibility of intent to quit. Hypothesis 1b: The greater perceived relational psychological contract fulfillment, the lower possibility of intent to quit. Hypothesis 1c: The greater perceived training psychological contract fulfillment, the lower possibility of intent to quit. Differing Reactions to Contract Breach: The role of Adversity Quotient According to Morrison and Robinson (1997), perceived contract breach presents a cognitive assessment of contract fulfillment that is based on an employees perception of what each party has promised and provided to the other. Furthermore, the psychological contract is defined as individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organizations (Rousseau, 1995). Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski and Bravo (2007) found considerable heterogeneity for the consequences of psychological contract breach which moderating variables help to explain the heterogeneity. Recently, more studies focus on understanding how different cognition or perception affects the relationship. For example, Kickual and Lester (2001) found the equity sensitivity would cause different reactions to contract breach. One's individual difference influences the way they see and interpret the world around them and much research has focused on this linkage. Griffin (2001) attempted to examine how an individual 'disposition' could predict work reactions. Griffins study demonstrated (on the individual level) that work affect, negative work affect, job satisfaction were all significantly predicted by neuroticism and extraversion; furthering the belief that personality traits can influence perceptual work outcomes. Perhaps the most compelling work in this area is that of Scheck & Kinicki (2000) who identify the importance of 'primary appraisal' in coping with organizational acquisitions. This work develops a model that deals with an individual assessment of such a situation and hinges itself upon this idea of primary appraisal. Primary appraisal is influenced by many individual differences, including personality traits, and is the mechanism through which an individual formulates their opinion about a particular situation. More, personality may influence detection of breach, attributions of the cause and the behavioral responses selected to restore balance in the exchange. Raja et al. (2004) examined the moderating role of Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, equity sensitivity, self-esteem and locus of control in the relationship between breach and outcomes. Based on these studies, this study continues explore more recognition and individual variables to understand the moderate effects. The impact of Adversity Quotient is studied in this research to see the different reaction to psychological contract breach. Adversity Quotient, or AQ, is the science of human resilience and becomes one important items of sales training in modern enterprises. According to Stoltz (1997), people who successfully apply AQ perform optimally in the face of adversitythe
6

challenges, big and small, that confront us each day. In fact, they not only learn from these challenges, but they also respond to them better and faster. For businesses and other organizations, a high-AQ workforce translates to increased capacity, productivity, and innovation, as well as lower attrition and higher morale. Stoltz (1997) further indicates that ones AQ, the ability to prevail in the face of adversity, is comprised of four interrelated constructs CORE. These CORE include perceived control over the adversity; perceived ownership of the outcome of the adversity (regardless of its cause); perceived range or scope of the adversity (i.e., how far the adversity bleeds into other areas of ones life); and finally perceived endurance of the adversity (i.e., how long the adversity lasts). Clearly, the constructs of psychological contract and Adversity Quotient are both related to employee personal belief. To our knowledge, there is no researches test the moderate effects of Adversity Quotient on the relationship between psychological contract breach and intent to quit to insurance sales. It is reasonable to address that, while one feels their psychological contract with organizations are violated, those who have greater AQ would have greater abilities to face the frustration of sensing the psychological contract breached and then reduces the intent to quit. Hypothesis 2: Adversity Quotient will moderate the relationship between perceived psychological contract fulfillment and intent to quit. Hypothesis 2.1: Adversity Quotient will moderate the relationship between perceived transactional psychological contract fulfillment and intent to quit. Hypothesis 2.2: Adversity Quotient will moderate the relationship between perceived relational psychological contract fulfillment and intent to quit. Hypothesis 2.3: Adversity Quotient will moderate the relationship between perceived training psychological contract fulfillment and intent to quit. As selling insurance products requiring lots of professional product knowledge of insurance, if one graduated from business school, these professional or academic trainings about business would help employee stay in the present job while their psychological contract is violated. Previous work has found that breach perceptions and employee attitudes to be significantly related to demographic and position variables (Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 1995) such as tenure. Therefore, this study also tests the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3: Professional Training will moderate the relationship between perceived psychological contract fulfillment and intent to quit. Hypothesis 4: Tenure in selling insurance products will moderate the relationship between perceived psychological contract fulfillment and intent to quit. METHOD A total of 553 insurance agents from one of leading insurance agent companies participated in this research. 62.75 percent of the respondents were male and 37.25%

were female. 74% respondents are married. And, 41% respondents are within 30-40 years old. Overview and Procedure All information was generated from insurance agents. All participants were told that we are conducting research to better understand the relationship that an employee has with his/her organization. The employees were told that all answers would be kept confidential and would not affect their employment with their employees and/or organization in any way. In addition, they were informed that participant in this research project was voluntary and they could, at any time, decide to not to participate. Measures 1. Psychological Contract Fulfillment Participants were asked to indicate those obligations that organization has promised to them. This set of twenty items was adapted from Kickual and Lester (2001) and includes the following promises: competitive salary, health care benefits, adequate equipment to perform job, challenging and interesting work, and increasing responsibilities. They were informed that this set of obligations may have been communicated to them explicitly (verbally or in writing) or implicitly (simply implied through other statements or behaviors). After specifying the promises that their organization had made to them, respondents were asked to indicate how well their organizations have fulfilled each of those promises. Participants indicated the extent to which their employer fulfilled each of the marked promises. They rated these promises using a five-point Likert scale (1=not at all fulfilled; 5=very fulfilled). All rated items were then reverse coded in order to represent psychological contract breach. According to Kickual and Lester (2001), the first factor (7 items) measures intrinsic promises related to employee freedom and participation as well as having increased responsibilities which can be labeled relational contract; the second factor (7 items) is organizational rewards, and it assesses the extrinsic promises of competitive salary, job security, and flexibility in scheduling work, and measures a variety of extrinsic benefits related to health care, retirement, vacation and education. Finally, the third factor (6 items) measures growth and development for personal growth, career guidance and mentoring. 2. Adversity Quotient Adversity quotient, an important variable of the present study is relatively a new concept and few studies have been conducted on it. The researcher has gathered related review and has presented it in this section. Since, the researcher could not locate any study on adversity quotient in India (and this is to the best of her knowledge), no Indian studies for this variable have been presented. Completing the AQ Profile requires only 8 to 10 minutes. It measures AQ and its four CORE dimensions Control, Ownership, Reach, and Endurance that relate to a persons perception of adversity. Control measures the degree of control that a person perceives he/she has over adverse events. It is a strong gauge of resilience and health.
8

Ownership measures the extent to which a person holds himself or herself accountable for improving a situation. It is a strong gauge of accountability and likelihood to take action. Reach is the perception of how large or far-reaching events will be. It is a strong gauge of perspective, burden, and stress level. Endurance is the perception of time over which good or bad events and their consequences will last or endure. It is a strong gauge of hope or optimism. This is a ready made tool. It is a self- rating questionnaire designed to measure an individuals style of responding to adverse situations. The ARP describes fourteen scenarios, only ten of which are actually scored. Each scenario is followed by four questions, each answered on a 5-point bipolar scale. Each of the four answers is scored on a different scale. There are, therefore, four scales of ten questions each. The sum of the four scores gives the persons adversity quotient. The four scales of AQ are control, ownership, reach and endurance. Although these scales may be intercorrelated, they measure very different aspects of AQ. Scores on each scale of the ARP can range from 10 to 50, and AQ scores can range from 40 to 200. 3. Intent to Quit Employee intentions to leave their organizations were assessed using Mobley (1978) four-item scale. Respondents indicated whether each item was characteristic of this work-related attitude on a five point Likert-type scale anchored by (1) Strongly Disagree and (5) strongly Agree. A Cronbach's alpha of .73 was obtained for this measure. 4. Professional Training and Tenure in Insurance Industry Participants were asked if they are graduated from business school to identify they receive comprehensive professional training about commercial knowledge. And, participants were asked to report their experience in insurance industries which are (1) below 1 years, (2) 1-3 years, (3) 3-5 years and (4) above 5 years. 5. Other Variables This study included control variables that could influence many of the attitudes examined in this study. Previous work has found that breach perceptions and employee attitudes to be significantly related to demographic and position variables (Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 1995). Thus, individual age was included as control variables.

RESULT
The means, standard deviations, zero-order inter-correlations, and internal consistency for the measures used in the study are reported in Table 1. Consistency reliabilities were above .70 as recommended by Churchill (1979) and Nunnally (1978) except for training/development contract is .55. According to Table 1, 3 dimensions of psychological contract fulfillment, relational contract, transactional contract and training/development are all significantly negatively related to intent to quit.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Internal Consistency Reliabilities

Variables 1. Relational Contract 2. Transactional Contract 3. Training and Development Contract 4. Psychological Contract 5. Adversity Quotient 6. Intent to Quit Mean 4.01 3.81 4.27 4.02 134.61 2.61 SD .60 .76 .63 .59 19.25 .71 1 (.85) 2 .666*** (.87) 3 .694*** .659*** (.55) 4 .878*** .894*** .878*** (.94) 5 .192*** .109*** .144*** .163*** (.87) 6 -.181*** -.159*** -.193*** -.197*** -.074*** (.73)

Note: N=553. Internal consistency reliabilities are provided along the diagonal in parentheses. ***p<.001 **P<.01 *P<.05

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test all three hypotheses. The control variables, main effects, and second-order interaction terms were entered as the predictors in three steps into the regression equation. Table 2 displays the standardized regression coefficient ( ; when the control variables, main effects, and two-way interactions have all been entered into the regression model) and the incremental variance accounted for ( R2) between the first step (control variables) and the second step (main effects) and between the second step and the final step (two-way interaction). Table 2 states the results of the predictors on negative affect toward intent to quit are negatively correlated for each of the psychological contract dimensions, relational contract, transactional contract and training/department contract, were significant [Model 2 : = -.173, p<.001 (relational contract); = -.151, p<.001 (transactional contract); = -.184, p<.001 (training and development contract); and = -.189, p<.001 (overall psychological contract); Model 3 : = -.160, p<.001 (relational contract); = -.136, p<.01 (transactional contract); = -.177, p<.001 (training and development contract); and = -.169, p<.001 (overall psychological contract)]. Therefore, hypotheses 1, 1a, 1b and 1c are significantly supported. Overall, in examining the second hypothesis where the relationship between psychological contract breach and intent to quit is predicted to be moderated by Adversity Quotient, the interaction term for each of the psychological contract dimensions, relational contract, transactional contract and training/department contract, were significant ( = -.154, p<.001 (relational contract); = -.156, p<.001 (transactional contract); = -.158, p<.001 (training and development contract); and = -.161, p<.001 (overall psychological contract). Therefore, hypotheses 2, 2a, 2b and 2c are significantly supported. Table 2 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Result for Dimensions of Psychological Contact Predicting Intent to Quit
Model 1 Step1 Age -.055 Intent to Quit Model 2 -.045 Model 3 -.046

10

Step 2 Relational Contract (RC) Adversity Quotient (AQ) Step 3 RCXAQ R2 F Adj. R2 R2 change F Change Step1 Age Step 2 Transactional Contract (TC) Adversity Quotient (AQ) Step 3 TCXAQ R2 F Adj. R2 R2 change F Change Step1 Age Step 2 Training / Development Contract (TDC) Adversity Quotient (AQ) Step 3 TDCXAQ R2 F Adj. R2 R2 change F Change Step1 Age Step 2 Psychological Contract Adversity Quotient (AQ) Step 3 PCXAQ R2 F Adj. R2 R2 change F Change

-.173*** -.037 .003 1.632 .001 .003 -.053 .037 6.882*** .031 .034 9.482*** -.040 -.151*** -.053 .003 1.562 .001 .003 -.054 .030 5.610** .025 .027 7.615** -.043 -.184*** -.044 .003 1.614 .001 .003 1.611 -.054 .041 7.840*** .036 .038 10.923*** -.041 -.189*** -.040 .003 1.611 .001 .003 1.611 .042 8.092*** .037 .039 11.302***

-.160*** -.022 -.154*** .060 8.624*** .053 .023 13.382*** -.043 -.136** -.044*** -.156*** .054 7.749*** .047 .024 13.771*** -.044 -.177*** -.049 -.158*** .066 9.634*** .059 .025 14.441*** -.044 -.169*** -.036 -.161*** .061 9.9842*** .061 .026 15.041***

Note: N=533. is the standardized regression coefficient from the full regression equation with all predictor variables. The increments for variables entered at the R2 significance levels are based on the F rests for that specific step. ***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05

This study also examined the whether relationship between psychological contract fulfillment and intent to quit is predicted to be moderated by professional training, the interaction term for the psychological contract, was not significant ( = .060, p<.242). Detail data is presented in Table 3. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was rejected. As for the forth hypothesis, concerning the moderating effects of tenure in selling experience on the relationship between psychological contract fulfillment and intent to quit, the interaction terms for psychological contract was not significant ( = -.213, p<.25). Therefore, hypothesis 4 was rejected (Table 3).
11

Table 3 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Result for Professional Training and Tenure Predicting Intent to Quit
Intent to Quit Modle 2 -.049 -.200*** .016 .003 1.814 0.002 0.003 1.1814 -.054 .044 11.424*** 0.039 0.041 11.424*** -.022 -.188*** -.079 0.003 1.611 0.001 0.003 1.611 0.041 7.753*** 0.035 0.038 10.795***

Modle 1 Step1 Age Step 2 Psychological Contract (PC) Professional Training Step 3 PC X Professional Training R2 F Adj. R2 R2 change F Change Step1 Age Step 2 Psychological Contract (PC) Tenure Step 3 PC X Tenure R2 F Adj. R2 R2 change F Change
Note: N=533. ***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05

Modle 3 -.051 .165** .014 .060 .046 1.375 0.039 0.002 1.375 -.022 -.313 -.256 -.213 0.043 6.195*** 0.036 0.003 1.500

-.058

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore how individuals differ in their reactions to psychological contract breach. Researchers have not yet investigated how a psychological contract breach can interact with the Adversity Quotient construct to influence an employee's attitudes and behavior. Given that individuals vary in their sensitivity to handling frustrations, it is important to incorporate this construct to determine the strength of the emotional reactions that follow a contract breach or fulfillment. We use the fulfillment of psychological contract to test the hypothesis. Results revealed that Adversity Quotient can influence how an employee feels and responds to unfulfilled organizational promises in multiple areas of the psychological contracts which are dimensions of relational, transactional and training and development. This finding reinforces the importance of understanding individual differences as employees may have different belief or take different actions while they feel their psychological contracts with the organization are violated. Researches on psychological contract breach have focused on organizational circumstances that have created changes in the employment relationship. This study is significant to find that the individual differences vary the reaction while employee fell their psychological contract with the organization is breached. Therefore, future
12

research and managerial practices should, in additional, continue to focus on employee perceptions of the organizations promises and fulfillment of such promise, selection of right candidates who have higher AQ and retaining good staffs is very important to help employee reduce their intent to quit while the psychological contract is breached. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Several limitations and suggestions can be considered for futures. A major limitation of this study is that samples are from the single insurance agent company which not considers if different organizations climates would impact the relationship between organizational contract breach and intent to quit. Therefore, it is suggested to include different types of samples into the study. This study uses self-reported outcomes instead of other-reported outcomes. We draw the conclusion from testing the single moderator; it is also suggested to test multiple moderating effects as they may be confounded. It is also suggested further whether AQ will moderate consequences such as organizational commitment, organizational citizen behavior and in-role behavior while the psychological contract breach. REFERENCES Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage. Anderson, N., & Schalk, R. 1998. The psychological contract in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 637-647 Argyris, C. 1960. Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood, Dorsey Press. Bunderson, J. 2001. How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of professional employees: doctors' responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 717-741. Churchill, G.A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16(2), 64-73. Coyle-Shapiro, J. & Kessler, I. 2000. Consequences of the psychological contract for the employment relationship. The Journal of Management Studies. 37(7), 903930. Dalrymple, D. J., & Cron, W. L. 1998. Sales management: Concepts and cases. NY: John Wiley & Sons. Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. 1984. Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Gakovic, A., & Tetrick, L. 2003. Psychological contract breach as a source of strain for employees. Journal of Business & Psychology, 18(2), 235-246. Griffin, M. 2001. Dispositions and work reactions: A multilevel approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1142-1151. Herriot, P., Manning, W., & Kidd, J. 1997. The content of the psychological contract. British Journal of Management, 8(2), 151 Homans, G. C. 1961. The humanities and the social sciences; joint concern with "individual" and values the arts distinct from social science distinctions of social status. The American Behavioral Scientist (pre-1986). 4 (8), 3-4 Kickul, J., & Lester, S. W. 2001. Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology. 16(2), 191-217. Kickul, J., Neuman, G., Parker, C., & Finkl, J. 2001. Settling the score: The role of
13

organizational justice in the relationship between psychological contract breach and anticitizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 13(2), 77-93. Lester, S., Turnley, W., Bloodgood, J., & Bolino, M. 2002. Not seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23(1), 3956. Levinson, H. P., Price, C., Munden, K., Mandl, H., & Solley, C. 1962. Men, management, and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F., & Sirola, W. 1998. Explaining nursing turnover intent: Job satisfaction, pay satisfaction or organizational. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 305. McManus, M. A., & Kelly, M. L.1999. Personality measures and biodata: Evidence regarding their increment predictive value in the life insurance industry. Personnel Psychology. 52(1), 137-148. Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. 1999. Contractors and their psychological contracts. British Journal of Management. 10(3):253-274 Millward, L. J., & Herriot, P. 2000. The psychological contract in the UK, in Psychological Contracts: Cross-National Perspectives, eds. D.M. Rousseau & R. Schalk, Sage, London, pp. 23149. Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. 1998. Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(16), 1530-1556. Mobley, W. H. 1977. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology. 62(2), 237-240. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. 1997.When employees feel betrayed : A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review. 22, 226-256 Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. 2004. The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal. 47. 350-367 Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly. 41(4), 574-599. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. 1995. Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 16(3), 289-298. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Changing obligation and the psychological contract : A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal. 37(1), 137152. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psychological contract : Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 15(3), 245259. Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Changing obligations and the psychological contract : A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal. 37(1), 137-152. Rousseau, D.M. 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139. Rousseau, D. M. 1990. New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations : A study of psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 11(5), 389-400. Rousseau, D.M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding
14

written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rousseau, D.M. 2000. Psychological contracts in the United States: Diversity, individualism, and associability in marketplace. In Rousseau DM, Schalk R (Eds.), Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 250-282). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. M. 1993. The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour. 15, 1-43. Schalk, R., & Freese, C. 1997. New facets of commitment in response to organizational change: Research trends and the Dutch experience. Trends in Organizational Behavior. 4(1), 107-123. Scheck, C., & Kinicki, A. 2000. Identifying the antecedents of coping with an organizational acquisition: A structural assessment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(6), 627. Schein, E. H. 1980.Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Stoltz, P. G. 1997. Adversity quotientTurning obstacles into opportunities. John Wily & Sons, New York. Tekleab, A., Bartol, K., & Liu, W. 2005. Is it pay levels or pay raises that matter to fairness and turnover?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(8), 899-921 Thomas, H., & Anderson, N. 1998. Changes in newcomers' psychological contracts during organizational socialization: A study of recruits entering the British army. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 19, 745-767. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 1999. The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations. 52(7), 895922. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 2000. Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations : Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21(1), 25-42. Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. 2003. The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management. 29(2), 187-201. Zhao, H., Wayne, S., Glibkowski, B., & Bravo, J. 2007. The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A Meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647-680.

15