Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 465472

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Newcomer psychological contracts and employee socialization activities:

Does perceived balance in obligations matter? q
Stephanie C. Payne a,*, Satoris S. Culbertson b, Wendy R. Boswell c, Eric J. Barger d
a

Texas A&M University, Department of Psychology, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4235, USA
Kansas State University, Department of Psychology, 492 Bluemont Hall, 1100 Mid-Campus Drive, Manhattan, KS 66506-5302, USA
Texas A&M University, Department of Management, Mays Business School, College Station, TX 77843-4221, USA
d
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 9509 Key West Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
b
c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 20 June 2008
Available online 13 September 2008

Keywords:
Psychological contracts
Newcomers
Socialization activities
Obligations
Balance

a b s t r a c t
We sought to determine the extent to which ones beliefs about the relationship between
an employee and an organization at the start of employment inuence subsequent socialization activities. The balance of employee exchange relationships, employee perceptions
of both their own obligations and the employers obligations, were collected from 120
newcomers in a public sector organization on the rst day of employment and again three
months later. We found the relationship between employee obligations and two socialization activities (time with mentor and time spent in training) depended on the employees
perceptions of what the employer owed the employee, such that employees in unbalanced
relationships tended to engage in more socialization activities than employees in balanced
relationships.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In an effort to understand changing relationships between employees and their employers (Roehling, Cavanaugh,
Moynihan, & Boswell, 2000), researchers have studied employees perceptions of the nature of that relationship. This body
of research has referred to the employment relationship as a psychological contract (e.g., Rousseau, 1989), an exchange
relationship (Shore & Barksdale, 1998), and/or an employeeorganization relationship (Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli,
1997). Central to psychological contract theory is the existence of a link, in the mind of the employee, between the provision
of certain levels of effort to the organization in exchange for particular rewards or considerations (Rousseau, 1995). Every
employee holds a highly subjective view of reality regarding the terms of an exchange agreement between him or herself
and the organization (Rousseau, 1995). The terms of the psychological contract are thus formed from a combination of
individual and organizational inuences and serve to direct an individuals activities and behaviors within the organization
(Rousseau, 1989). The degree of balance that is perceived between the employees obligations and employers obligations has
important implications for both the employee and the organization (Shore & Barksdale, 1998). In this study, we extend
research on the balance within psychological contracts to employee socialization.

q
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY, April
2007. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Brian Payne and Matthew Pariyothorn for their assistance with data collection and to Michael
Wesson for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 979 845 4727.
E-mail addresses: spayne@psych.tamu.edu (S.C. Payne), satoris@ksu.edu (S.S. Culbertson), wboswell@tamu.edu (W.R. Boswell), Eric.Barger@nra.org
(E.J. Barger).

0001-8791/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.003

466

S.C. Payne et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 465472

We chose to examine socialization activities in relationship to perceived obligations because of the crucial role such activities play in an employees adjustment to a new organization (e.g., Haueter, Macan, & Winter, 2003) as well as the relationships such activities have with key outcomes, including person-job t, job satisfaction, intentions to remain with the
organization, and overall job performance (e.g., Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina,
2007).
2. Psychological contracts
Researchers have attempted to operationalize expectations in employment relationships by examining the employees
psychological contract, or their beliefs about the terms and conditions of the exchange relationship between themselves
and the organization (Rousseau, 1989). Most of this research has focused on the employees perception of the employers obligations (Rousseau, 1995, 2001). However, more recent research has incorporated the employees perception of both the employer and the employees obligations (e.g., Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006).
The interaction between the employers obligations and the employees obligations captures the degree of balance or
mutuality between these obligations. Thus in a balanced relationship, both the employer and the employee are perceived
to have similar levels of obligation (i.e., both high or both low). In an unbalanced relationship, one party is perceived to
be more obligated than the other.
Social exchange theory and equity theory also offer some insight on the issue of balance and unbalance. Social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964) posits that employees seek balance in social exchanges and avoid states of indebtedness. According to
Adams (1963) equity theory, individuals seek equity, and thus balance in their relationships. Based on these theories, balance in exchange relationships is expected and preferred (cf. Dabos & Rousseau, 2004); therefore, most relationships are
likely to be balanced, and unbalanced relationships are likely to be temporary (Shore & Barksdale, 1998). Certain unbalanced
relationships, however, are likely to occur. For example, employees are likely to seek to maximize prot from the exchange
(Homans, 1958) such that they receive more than they contribute; that is, employer obligations are higher than employee
obligations. Nevertheless, Adams (1963) argued that individuals have a basic desire to reduce feelings of inequity when they
occur, and therefore these unbalanced relationships are likely to be short-lived.
Since balanced relationships are preferred and most desirable (Blau, 1964), employees in balanced relationships are more
likely to report positive organizational attitudes than employees in unbalanced relationships. Using a typology approach in
which employee and employer obligations were each dichotomized into high and low obligations creating a 2  2 framework, Shore and Barksdale (1998) found some support for this in that mutual high obligation relationships associated with
the highest levels of affective commitment and lowest level of turnover intentions compared to the three other combinations
of employee and employer obligations. Similarly and consistent with the idea of seeking balance or prot, Tsui et al. (1997)
found that mutual high obligation relationships (balanced) and employee under-obligation relationships (i.e., the employer
is perceived to be more obligated than the employee) related to higher levels of task and contextual performance and affective commitment than the two other exchange relationships. Thus, a balanced relationship of mutual high obligations has
been consistently associated with the most favorable levels of attitudes and behaviors. Tsui et al.s ndings that employee
under-obligation relationships were also associated with favorable outcomes suggest that perceptions of high levels of employer obligations may contribute to these positive responses. We seek to extend these ndings to the socialization context
and specically, how perceptions of obligations inuence an employees socialization activities.
It is important to note that the balance in psychological contracts can concern a balance in the expected obligations
employees and employers have for one another or in the actual fulllment of those obligations. As discussed thus far, the
balance has been in regards to how expectations of obligations. Alternatively, considerable research has examined the role
of violations in the development and maintenance of psychological contracts (e.g., De Vos, Buyens, & Schalk, 2003; Robinson,
Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Sutton & Grifn, 2004), highlighting the point that balance can also exist in terms of actual fulllment of obligations, with balanced relationships being those in which the employee and the employer equally fulll their
obligations with one another. In this study, we examine newcomer perceptions on the rst day of employment; therefore, we
focus on balance of expected obligations rather than fulllment. It is this balance (or unbalance) in perceived obligations that
we posit will drive the engagement of socialization activities. We elaborate on the link between balance and socialization in
the following section.
3. Balanced exchanges and socialization
The process of adjusting to a new organization is one of uncertainty reduction (e.g., Berger, 1979) and an effort to increase
predictability about interactions that newcomers will have with others in the organization (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). The
adjustment process is believed to be inuenced by both the newcomer and the organization (Reichers, 1987); thus socialization is the result of the interaction of formal organizational tactics and individual employee proactive behavior (e.g., information seeking). Employees can take a proactive role in the socialization process or passively let information come to them.
Socialization research has shown that proactive employees socialize more quickly and reap more benets than reactive
employees do (Finkelstein, Kulas, & Dages, 2003; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003. Early socialization activities (e.g.,
information seeking) are believed to shape the psychological contract (Nelson, Quick, & Joplin, 1991; Rousseau, 2001),

S.C. Payne et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 465472

467

and empirical research supports the inuence of knowledge acquired during socialization on changes in newcomers psychological contracts (Thomas & Anderson, 1998). Although these early experiences may help shape psychological contracts,
employees also bring with them expectations for the employment relationship (Rousseau, 1995) that help to direct their initial reactions and behaviors.
In this study, we examine how newcomers perceptions of employment relationships (in some ways preconceived notions
and ideas) impact the socialization process. In particular, we examine socialization activities including attendance at social
events, time with mentors, and time in training (see Chatman, 1991) during the rst three months of employment. Whereas
some of these activities are more formally encouraged for employees (e.g., training), other activities are more discretionary
(e.g., social events).
Engaging in socialization activities may be a means for employees to fulll some obligations to an employer. Therefore,
employees in relationships in which they feel highly obligated to the organization are likely to seek to fulll these obligations
by engaging in more socialization activities than employees who perceive low levels of employee obligations. This assertion
is supported to some extent by prior research (e.g., Robinson & Morrison, 1995) that found psychological contract obligations
to relate positively to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Organ, 1988; Organ, 1997).
Hypothesis 1: Employees who perceive high rather than low levels of employee obligations are more likely to (a) attend
social events, (b) spend time with a mentor, and (c) spend time in training.
Whereas employee perceptions of employee obligations are expected to have a direct effect on socialization activities, the
perceived level of employer obligations relative to the perceived level of employee obligations (degree of balance) is also
likely to play a role in this relationship. When employees perceive an imbalance in the form of the employer owing them
more than they owe the employer, they may be less proactive about engaging in socialization activities in order to equalize
perceived obligations. In other words, engaging in such activities when the employer owes the employee more would actually exacerbate the imbalance. Rather than restoring balance, these actions would increase the employers debt to the employee. Thus, in line with the notion that individuals seek balance in their relationships, as supported by social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964) and equity theory (Adams, 1963), individuals would be less likely to engage in socialization activities
when they have a high perception of employer obligations relative to their own obligations.
This reduction in proactive socialization activities when the imbalance is in the form of the employers obligations being
greater than the employees obligations is not unlike the ndings reported by Shore and Barksdale (1998). In particular, these
researchers found that in situations in which employers obligations exceeded employees obligations, there were more negative employee outcomes (e.g., higher turnover intentions, lower affective commitment). Accordingly, we expect employee
perceptions of employee and employer obligations to interact when predicting socialization activities, such that when the
employers obligations are perceived to be stronger than the employees, the employee is less likely to engage in socialization
activities.
Hypothesis 2: Employer obligations moderate the positive relationship between employee obligations and (a) attendance
at social events, (b) time with a mentor, and (c) time in training.

4. Method
4.1. Procedure and participants
This study was comprised of two time periods, with two 1520 min online surveys administered during the employees
rst day of employment and after three months of employment. Three months were chosen as the time period because the
majority of newcomer adjustment and socialization occurs in the rst few months of employment (Ashforth & Saks, 1996;
Morrison, 1993a; Morrison, 1993b), and because the rst three months has been identied by some as a critical time period
for transitioning into a new role (e.g., Watkins, 2003).
New employees to a public sector organization located in the Southwestern United States completed the initial survey on
the rst day of employment during their newcomer orientation at the organization. Participation in the study was voluntary.
To increase participation, the researchers were given time alone with employees during the orientation where they explained the general purpose of the study and ensured the responses would remain condential. Follow-up surveys were
administered on the employees three-month anniversary dates. To increase response rates, employees were sent an email
from a member of the organizations human resources department reminding them that the researchers would be contacting
them. Then, on their three-month anniversary date, employees were sent a link to the follow-up survey. A reminder email
was sent two weeks later to participants who did not complete the follow-up survey.
Study participants represented an array of jobs at this organization (e.g., 30% administrative, 28% professional trainers,
17% clerical, 11% technical). The number of participants who responded in Time 1 (T1) was 132 out of 141 available newcomers (94% response rate) and the number participating in Time 2 (T2) was 120 (out of 128four people were no longer
employed; 94% response rate). Thus, the nal sample consisted of 120 newcomers; 60% were male and approximately 88%

468

S.C. Payne et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 465472

were Caucasian, 3% were African American, and 8% were Hispanic. Participants ages ranged from 20 to 63, with an average
age of 39 years (SD = 10.39). The average starting salary for our sample was $41,451 (SD = $15,800). This demographic makeup was representative of the organization as a whole.
4.2. Measures
4.2.1. Psychological contracts
We assessed employee perceptions of the employers and the employees obligations at T1 using Rousseaus, 1998 Psychological Contracts Inventory. It consists of 18 items measuring employees view of the extent that the organization has obligated itself to provide to them such things as job security, stable pay, career development, and support and 17 items
assessing the extent that they are obligated to provide things like hard work, loyalty, and continued employment with
the organization. Response choices ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (great extent).
4.2.2. Socialization activities
At T2, we used three items from Chatman (1991) to measure how much time in the rst three months the employee spent
engaging in activities aimed at newcomer socialization. These socialization activities included company-sponsored social
and recreational events, mentoring, and training. The three open-ended items were, Approximately how many companysponsored social or recreational events did you attend in the past three months?, Approximately how much time (number
of hours) did you spend with a mentor in the past three months? and Approximately how many hours did you spend in
formal training over the past three months? The organization did not have a formal mentoring program, thus mentoring
relationships were voluntary and informal. Respondents were not asked to differentiate between required and voluntary
training in their response to the training question, however, our human resource contact informed us that the majority of
training classes were optional.
4.2.3. Control variables
We examined demographic variables (sex, age, and ethnicity) and the Big Five personality variables as potential covariates. Respondents self-reported the demographic variables on the T1 survey. We measured the Big Five at T1 with Sauciers
(2002) mini-modular markers.
5. Results
Table 1 depicts descriptive statistics, correlations, and coefcient alphas for the variables. The number of socialization
events participants reported engaging in ranged from 0 to 5 (M = 1.30, SD = 1.19). The reported total time spent with ones
mentor ranged from 0 to 500 h (M = 63.55, SD = 105.61). The total time that participants reported they spent in training ranged from 0 to 400 h (M = 37.21, SD = 58.35). Consistent with Beckers (2005) recommendations, we controlled for any demographic and personality variables that were signicantly related to the dependent variables. The only signicant relationship
that emerged was between extraversion and time with mentor.
Hypothesis 1: proposed a main effect for employee obligations on socialization activities. Contrary to expectation,
employee obligations did not have a signicant effect on any of the socialization activities, failing to support
Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2: proposed a signicant interaction between employee and employer obligations on socialization activities
and outcomes such that imbalanced relationships in which the employer was perceived to owe more than the employee
would yield the least socialization activities. Signicant interactions emerged for two of the socialization activities: time
with mentor (b = 2.27, p < 0.05) and time in training (b = 1.95, p < 0.05). The interaction between employer and

Table 1
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability estimates

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Sex (1 = female)
Age
Extraversion
Employer obligations
Employee obligations
Social events
Time with mentor
Time in training

SD

0.40
39.41
3.70
3.82
4.18
1.30
63.55
37.21

0.49
10.39
.52
0.65
0.56
1.19
105.61
58.35

Note. Reliabilities (coefcient alphas) are on the diagonal.

*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

2
0.02
0.03
0.14
0.05
0.02
0.13
0.12

0.12
0.19*
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.05

0.21*
0.18
0.05
0.20*
0.07

(0.96)
0.54**
0.07
0.10
0.07

(0.92)
0.04
0.06
0.11

.02
.07

0.46**

469

S.C. Payne et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 465472

employee obligations on time with mentor revealed signicant disparities in socialization between employees who perceive low levels of employee obligations but medium or high obligations for the employer as compared to low employer
obligations (see Table 2, Fig. 1). Contrary to predictions, however, employees with higher employer obligations than
employee obligations (low employee and high employer) reported spending the most time with their mentor. Interestingly, when employee obligations are high, the level of the employer obligations did not seem to matter for spending time
with a mentor. When employer obligations were low, the level of employee obligations did not seem to matter as they
tend to spend relatively few hours with a mentor.
The interaction for time in training was a bit different, although the slope of the line for high employer obligations was
quite similar to the one predicting time with mentor (see Fig. 2). Contrary to expectations, employees who perceived the
employer owed them more than they owed reported the most time in training. The inuence of employee obligations tended
to reverse the effects of employer obligations on training time, such that the more employee obligations the more time spent
in training unless employer obligations were high, in which case the more employee obligations the less time spent in training. Thus, although there were signicant interactions between employee and employer obligations on the amount of time
spent with a mentor and the amount of time spent in training, they were not in the expected direction.
6. Discussion
Although neither of the hypotheses in this study was supported, some interesting and theoretically and practically useful
ndings emerged. Specically, our results provided evidence for an interaction effect, revealing that the relationship between employee obligations and two socialization activities (time with mentor and time in training) depended on the perceived level of employer obligations. Employees reported spending more time with an informal mentor when they perceived

Table 2
Employee and employer obligations predicting socialization activities
Social events
B
1. Extraversion
2. Employer obligations
Employee Obligations
3. Employer  employee
obligations

0.13
0.00
0.31

0.20
0.23
0.28

Time with mentor

DR2

b
0.07
0.00
1.12

0.01
0.01

R2
0.01
0.02

SE

39.60*
23.64
-33.26
55.82*

18.53
17.56
20.68
23.82

Time in training
b
0.20
0.15
0.17
2.27

DR2

R2

0.04*
0.02

0.04
0.06

0.04

0.11

SE
1.47
10.31
26.70*

9.89
11.61
13.64

p < .05.

Hours with Mentor

SE

160

Low Employer
Obligations (-1SD)

140

Mean Employer
Obligations

120

High Employer
Obligations (+1SD)

100
80
60
40
20
0
Low (-1SD)

Mean

High (+1SD)

Employee Obligations
Fig. 1. Interaction between employee obligations and employer obligations on time with mentor.

DR2

b
0.02
0.10
1.95

R2

0.01
0.03

0.01
*

0.04

470

S.C. Payne et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 465472

60
55
50

Hours in Training

45
40
35
Low Employer
Obligations (-1SD)
Mean Employer
Obligations
High Employer
Obligations (+1SD)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Low (-1SD)

Mean

High (+1SD)

Employee Obligations
Fig. 2. Interaction between employee obligations and employer obligations on time in training.

an imbalance between employee and employer obligations, specically when they perceived the employer had a higher level
of obligations than they did. Similarly, employees in unbalanced exchanges yielded the most time in training. However, contrary to time spent with a mentor, both imbalanced relationships (low employee and high employer as well as high employee and low employer obligations) yielded high levels of training.
There are several explanations for the interactions counter to our hypotheses. First, although we posited that proactive
socialization would be less likely for individuals who perceived their employer as owing them more because it would exacerbate the already unbalanced relationship, it appears that individuals may have actually been attempting to rectify that
imbalance by equalizing the obligations. It could be that rather than viewing this behavior as something that increased
the employers debt to the employee, the action may have been seen as one that either lowered the employers obligations
or raised the employees obligations. That is, it could be that obligations for one (e.g., the employer) do not increase when the
other (e.g., the employee) does something additional Thus, the degree of imbalance may be seen as decreasing, rather than
increasing.
An additional explanation concerns the balance of obligations versus fulllments. As noted earlier, because organizational
newcomers have not had a chance to fulll (or violate) their obligations, nor has the organization had a chance to fulll (or
violate) its obligations, we posited that it is the balance (or imbalance) in perceived obligations that inuences the extent to
which employees engage in proactive socialization. Our results, however, suggest that this may not be the case. Rather,
employees may have started off by engaging in a certain amount of socialization activities based on their perceived obligations (as reported at T1). Over the course of the three months between the initial assessment of contracts and report of
socialization activities, however, the employees (and employer) may have had the opportunity to fulll (or violate) the terms
of that contract. These fulllments (or violations) may have inuenced the psychological contract and thus the continued
engagement in socialization activities.
A third explanation for the counterintuitive interactions, particularly in the case of the time in training, concerns the issue
of the extent to which the socialization activities were mandatory or voluntary. For example, the fact that both imbalanced
relationships (low employee and high employer as well as high employee and low employer obligations) yielded high levels
of training might reect the point that the time spent in training is not entirely discretionary. This nding may suggest that
training and the resultant skill acquisition is viewed by employees as something benecial for them personally, as well as for
the organization. Thus employees may view training as an opportunity to reciprocate to the organization (in the case when
the employee was under-obligated) and gain from the organization (in the case when the employee was over-obligated).
This explanation, however, does not explain why less time was spent in training when the perceived employer and employee
obligations were both high. More research is clearly needed in order to better understand these effects.
One contribution of this study is measuring the employees perceptions of both his or her own obligations and the
employers obligations. This approach allowed us to examine the nature of the exchange relationship more completely
and better understand the extent to which the employees perceived balance between the two parties obligations plays a
role in employee socialization. Our ndings revealed that indeed it is the interactive effect of a newcomers perception of
the employers as well as his or her own obligations that is likely to inuence an employees engagement in socialization
activities (i.e., time with mentor and training). Also, by keeping the measures of employee and employer obligations

S.C. Payne et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 465472

471

continuous, we avoided some of the limitations (e.g., sample-specic results) associated with categorical data based on cluster analysis (cf., Tetrick, 2004).
Although our data were collected at two points in time, assessing psychological contracts separately from socialization
activities, we only measured psychological contracts at T1. It is unlikely that the employees perceptions are completely stable. Thus, future research should measure psychological contracts at multiple time intervals to reveal if, when, and how
these relationships may be changing. Social exchange theory suggests that people seek balanced relationships (Blau,
1964), thus unbalanced relationships should become balanced over time. Further, our measure of psychological contracts
focused more on the content of employee and employer obligations (i.e., specic expectations) rather than the processes
(i.e., mechanisms by which the relationship is developed and maintained; Tetrick, 2004), which some researcher are beginning to more directly assess (e.g., Shore et al., 2006).
Our study is also limited by a relatively small sample size that may have limited our power to detect signicant relationships. On the other hand, despite a small sample, we obtained several signicant results, including interaction effects. We
also found these relationships after controlling for signicantly related individual differences. Though we included extraversion as a control variable, future research could more directly examine the role of proactive personality, which has been
shown to relate to newcomer adjustment (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003), as well as other individual differences
(cf. Saks et al., 2007).
There are many tactics that individuals can use to help them socialize into their new surroundings. The current study focused on three activities in particular: attendance at social events, time with mentors, and time in training (see Chatman,
1991). Future researchers may consider examining alternate socialization activities (e.g., information seeking from peers
and coworkers) to determine the extent balanced (vs. unbalanced) psychological contracts (whether obligations or actual
fulllments) inuence engagement in various socialization activities.
Finally, we assessed our follow-up measures of socialization activities with single items after only three months.
Although, as we noted, the majority of newcomer adjustment and socialization occurs in the rst few months of employment
(Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Morrison, 1993a; Morrison, 1993b), and the rst three months has been identied as a critical time
period for determining success or failure in a new role (Watkins, 2003), future research should examine additional measures
of socialization activity as employees become more comfortable within the organization, more opportunities for socialization arise, and/or perceptions of obligations change. Using single-item measures of the socialization activities prevented
us from being able to assess the reliability of these measures, and although similar measures have been used in past research
(e.g., Thomas & Anderson, 1998), objective measures of time with a mentor as well as time in training would have been superior to our self-report measures,
In summary, we sought to answer the question: To what extent do newcomer psychological contracts predict employee
socialization activities? Our results showed that the relationship between employee obligations and two socialization activities (time with mentor and time in training) depended on the employees perceptions of what the employer owed the employee, and specically, that employees engaged in the most activities when they perceived an imbalance in these
perceptions. Thus, this study demonstrates the value of examining newcomer psychological contracts (perceptions of both
employee and employer obligations) when predicting socialization activities.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67, 422436.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149178.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. T., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review
of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707721.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations.
Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274289.
Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair
(Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 122144). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (rger and Calabrese 1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of
interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99112.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting rms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36,
459484.
Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees and employers. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 5272.
De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organizational socialization: Adaptation to reality and the role of
reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 537559.
Finkelstein, L. M., Kulas, J. T., & Dages, K. D. (2003). Age differences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17, 473502.
Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of newcomer socialization: Construct validation of a multidimensional scale. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63, 2039.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597606.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to
adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779794.
Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173183.
Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557589.
Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. C., & Joplin, J. R. (1991). Psychological contracting and newcomer socialization: An attachment theory foundation. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 6(7), 5572.

472

S.C. Payne et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 465472

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 8597.
Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278287.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 137152.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfullled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16, 289298.
Roehling, M. V., Cavanaugh, M. A., Moynihan, L. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2000). The nature of the new employment relationship(s): A content analysis of the
practitioner and academic literatures. Human Resource Management, 39, 305320.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 2, 121139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). The problem of the psychological contract considered. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 665671.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74, 511541.
Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 70, 413446.
Saucier, G. (2002). Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 131.
Shore, L. M., & Barksdale, K. (1998). Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employment relationship: A social exchange approach. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 19, 731744.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 837867.
Sutton, G., & Grifn, M. A. (2004). Integrating expectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: A longitudinal study of new professionals.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 493514.
Tetrick, L. E. (2004). Understanding the employment relationship: Implications for measurement and research design. In J. A. M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore,
M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 312331). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Thomas, H. D. C., & Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers psychological contracts during organizational socialization: A study of recruits entering the
British Army. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 745767.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, L. W., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in
employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40, 10891121.
Watkins, M. D. (2003). The rst 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at all levels. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.