Edited by Yannick Griep and Cary Cooper
Chapter 3: Psychological contracts: time for some conceptual clarity
Construct clarity refers to the precision of a construct’s conceptual definition and the extent to which that definition is consistently adopted in the literature. Construct ambiguity makes it difficult to understand how particular findings fit relative to others in the literature, impeding the ability to understand fully the phenomenon in question. This has negative implications both for scholarly advancement and for practice. In this chapter, the author identifies and addresses problems of construct ambiguity in the study of psychological contracts. The author’s assessment suggests that construct ambiguity has interfered with the coherence of this literature. For example, the term ‘psychological contract’ has represented distinct constructs (i.e., the jingle fallacy), and different terms (e.g., ‘breach’, ‘violation’) have represented the same concept (i.e., jangle fallacy). The author discusses recent efforts to strengthen construct clarity in the study of psychological contracts and suggests next steps to further build a coherent literature.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.