574944
research-article2015

GOMXXX10.1177/1059601115574944Group & Organization ManagementSherman and Morley

Article

On the Formation of
the Psychological
Contract: A Schema
Theory Perspective

Group & Organization Management
2015, Vol. 40(2) 160­–192
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601115574944
gom.sagepub.com

Ultan P. Sherman1 and Michael J. Morley2

Abstract
While much is known about the consequences of the psychological contract,
comparatively less is understood about how the contract is actually formed
in the first instance. We argue that a closer examination of the fundamental
building blocks of the psychological contract will facilitate a better
understanding of how it should be effectively managed. Based on its cognitive
underpinnings, we make the case for the development of a schema theory
perspective on the contract formation process. Specifically, we explore how
previous employment experiences and both individual and organizational

sources of contract-related information differentially influence the formation
of the emerging psychological contract in the new firm. Arising from this, we
advance several linked propositions to direct future research in this area.
Finally, we discuss the methodological challenges facing researchers seeking
to access employee–employer schemata and propose how some of these
may be addressed.
Keywords
psychological contract formation, review, schema theory, cognitive,
methodology

1University
2University

College Cork, Ireland
of Limerick, Ireland

Corresponding Author:
Ultan P. Sherman, School of Management and Marketing, University College Cork, Cork,
Ireland.
Email:


Sherman and Morley

161

The psychological contract represents a central, if sometimes contested, paradigm in the analysis and understanding of exchange relationships. With its
roots in the work of the psychiatrist Karl Menninger, who, in his 1958 book
Theory of Psychoanalytic Technique, observed that an understanding in the
form of an unwritten contract developed between the interaction of the therapist and patient during treatment, the term psychological work contract was

subsequently used by Argyris (1960) to describe the relationship between
employee and organization and the ensuing effect each party has on the other.
Building on this idea, Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl, and Solley (1962)
refer to the psychological work contract as “a series of mutual expectations
of which the parties to the relationship may not themselves be even dimly
aware but which nonetheless govern their relationship to each other” (p. 21).
Subsequent work by Schein (1965, 1980) also centers on these mutual expectations which operate “at all times between every member of an organization
and the various managers and others in that organization” (Schein, 1980,
p. 22). Since the 1990s, the psychological contract has acquired construct
status resulting in a wave of theoretical and empirical work and a critiquing
and maturing of the concept (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 1998; Cullinane
& Dundon, 2006; De Vos, De Stobbeleir, & Meganck, 2009; Millward &
Hopkins, 1998; Robinson, 1996; Schalk & Freese, 1997; Shore & Tetrick,
1994; Tomprou & Nikolaou, 2011; Turnley & Feldman, 2000).
Despite widespread research conducted on the dynamics of the contract
itself (Conway & Briner, 2005), there are significant gaps in our knowledge
around that actual formation process of the contract, which has largely been
ignored in the extant literature. Indeed, relatively little is still known about
how it is created. A number of reasons may be advanced as to why the formation process merits further investigation. First, a closer examination of how
the psychological contract is constructed will facilitate an understanding of
how it should be managed and developed. Previous research suggests that at
organizational entry, the new hire holds a rudimentary psychological contract
that becomes more elaborate throughout their tenure with the organization
(e.g., De Vos, Buyens, & Schalk, 2005; Rousseau, 2001; Shore & Tetrick,
1994). An assessment of this preliminary understanding of the exchange
agreement can serve as a solid foundation to manage the relationship over
time as it allows the employer to predict, in part at least, employee behavior
throughout their stay in the organization. Second, prior research has shown
that a number of individual and organizational outcomes are associated with
fulfillment (e.g., organizational citizenship; Turnley, Bolino, Lester, &

Bloodgood, 2004) or breach and violation (e.g., knowledge guarding where
individuals fail to combine and exchange their knowledge with others; Bal,
Chiaburu, & Diaz, 2011) of the psychological contract. The suggestion here


162

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

is that by addressing the psychological contract in its formation stage, the
employer can increase (or decrease) the likelihood of desired (or undesired)
outcomes such as organizational commitment and perceived person–environment fit (Morley, 2007; Sturges & Guest, 2001).
Those studies that have examined the initial stages of the psychological
contract have provided insights relating to antecedents of the contract itself,
newcomer socialization, and the employee’s understanding of the obligations
of both parties. Researchers have characterized the formation process as a
period of information seeking (e.g., Rousseau, 1995; Thomas & Anderson,
1998). Both organizational and individual factors influence the creation of
the psychological contract. Although relatively few studies have investigated
the influence of organizational factors in shaping the psychological contract,
expressions of organizational policy (e.g., Rousseau, 1995), recruitment
activities (e.g., Shore & Tetrick, 1994), and coworkers (e.g., Tomprou &
Nikolaou, 2011) are examples of sources of work-related information that are
likely to affect the formation process. By contrast, the role that individual
factors play in the process has received comparatively more attention in the
literature. A number of studies suggest that individual factors not only influence how work information is interpreted but also determine what the
employee is seeking from the employer. For example, “work values” predict
information-seeking behaviors (e.g., De Vos et al., 2005), “conscientiousness” predicts a preference for a relational psychological contract (e.g., Raja,
Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004), and “careerism” has been found to be associated
with opportunities for development (Rousseau, 1990) and intention to leave

(Hamilton & von Treuer, 2012). Studies such as these support the idea that
individual predispositions influence how employees view their relationship
with the employer as well as how they act within the framework of that relationship (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000).
Understanding how both parties “view” this relationship calls important
attention to the conceptual lenses used to explore the psychological contract
itself. A number of competing frameworks have been advanced, each offering
different insights on the contract’s dynamics. Thus, social exchange theories
have been proposed by a number of researchers as a useful exploratory tool
(e.g., Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003;
Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994). These studies highlight how the relationship between the employee and employer influences which obligations
are exchanged (and not exchanged). Indeed, the social/economic divide
inherent in exchange theory has informed the relational/transactional divide
often explored in psychological contract research (Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, &
Barksdale, 2006). A number of researchers have used “sense-making” theory
to help assess the psychological contract (e.g., Chaudhry, Wayne, & Schalk,


Sherman and Morley

163

2009; De Vos & Freese, 2011; Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Again, these
studies enrich our understanding of how employees interpret and respond to
important episodes within the development of the psychological contract.
They also highlight the cognitive processing inherent in contract dynamics
(Tomprou & Nikolaou, 2011). The other prominent cognitive framework put
forward in the literature is “schema theory.” Arguably, schema theory is
implied in Rousseau’s (1990) reconceptualization of the psychological contract, relocating it in the mind of the employee. Schema theory is a potentially
useful theoretical lens to assess the dynamics of the psychological contract as
it highlights how information is used when two parties are forming an agreement. Apart from Rousseau’s (2001) theoretical work, we have very little

knowledge of how the psychological contract as schema functions (Taylor &
Tekleab, 2004). As a result, we contend that there is a need for a deeper
exploration of the cognitive underpinnings of the psychological contract. To
facilitate this exploration, we argue that schema theory represents an appropriate point of departure to open new potential lines of enquiry in the following three areas:
1.
2.
3.

The shaping role of pre-employment experiences on the content
dimensions of the psychological contract;
The extent to which information emanating from organizational processes and agents differentially shapes the formation of the psychological contract; and
The value in accessing the individual’s schema in facilitating a better
understanding of the psychological contract formation process.

From our perspective, the field would benefit from these lines of enquiry
in two particular ways: First, it would contribute to our understanding of the
specific terms of the psychological contract present during organizational
entry (i.e., content dimensions) by identifying employee and employer obligations that have not received much attention in previous studies; second, it
holds the prospect of offering further insights into how the psychological
contract is likely to function and develop over time as the schema filters
information as is required (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Both of these areas
have been identified by a number of researchers as underdeveloped areas
within the literature (e.g., Conway & Briner, 2005; Coyle-Shapiro & Parzefall,
2008; Rousseau, 2001).
We contend that schema theory as a theoretical framework can add breadth
to our knowledge of the psychological contract formation process. How previous employment experiences and sources of contract information shape the contract formation process can be better understood by considering psychological


164


Group & Organization Management 40(2)

research on schemata. The remainder of our article is structured around a discussion of the three potential contributions schema theory can make to understand
the psychological contract formation process (listed above). A number of propositions are set down to help direct future research in this area.

Section 1: Pre-Employment Experiences and
Psychological Contract Content
A schema is a mental model of conceptually related “elements” which directs
how new information is organized (Stein, 1992). Depending on the meaning
or significance of this information, it is either assimilated into existing knowledge structures and the schema remains the same or the schema changes and
is reconstructed. Either way, the schema provides individuals with a knowledge base that serves as a guide for the interpretation of information, actions,
and expectations, thereby simplifying the process by which people make
sense of events and situations (Bartlett, 1932; Lord & Foti, 1986; Engle &
Lord, 1997). Rousseau (2001) asserts that how people make sense of these
lower base elements creates a higher level of meaning. For example, the concept of “wedding” is a schema developed by experience. The wedding
schema organizes and gives meaning to certain wedding features such as
rings (more appropriate than a bracelet for this occasion) and rice (confetti
rather than food). In this example, the rings and rice are the elements present
in the wedding schema. Within the context of the psychological contract, the
elements at the lower level of abstraction represent the content dimensions.
How these elements are interpreted reveals what the individual believes
about the association between the employee and employer in terms of whether
it is governed more by a transactional or relational exchange. Therefore, it is
important to explore these base elements at organizational entry given that
they influence interpretations of the new psychological contract.
The content dimensions refer to the specific terms that constitute the perceived exchange relationship (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998). They encompass an employee’s perception of the contributions he or she feels obligated
to make to the organization and the inducements he or she believes the organization is obligated to provide in return. For example, an employee may be
willing to take on extra work but only in return for future promotion opportunities. The content of the psychological contract has received considerable
attention in the literature (e.g., Herriot, Manning, & Kidd, 1997; Robinson
et al., 1994; Rousseau, 1990). However, relatively few of these studies explicitly address the content at organizational entry (e.g., De Vos et al., 2009;

Robinson et al., 1994). We do know however that the employee holds a rudimentary psychological contract in place at the beginning of their employment


Sherman and Morley

165

which Anderson and Thomas (1996) describe as an “imperfect schema.” This
schema serves an important function at organizational entry for the new
employee, guiding them through the early stages of the socialization process.
It acts as a useful reference against which all future interactions with both the
employer and the work group are assessed.
By its very nature, this anticipatory psychological contract is subjective,
so the point at which it is first constructed depends entirely on the employee’s
career history. Herriot (1989) argues that an employee’s experience in previous organizations shapes their understanding of the new employment relationship. With this in mind, the foundations of the anticipatory psychological
contract of an experienced employee are likely to have been in construction
for many years. The inexperienced employee, on the contrary, will develop a
schema largely based on information gleaned from their new organization
given that they have little prior organizational experience on which to rely.
Thus, veteran employees tend to have more content dimensions in their psychological contract than novice employees (Rousseau, 2001), based on their
level of work experience. Veterans also have more accurate schemata than
novices, and their anticipatory psychological contract will align more closely
with organizational reality (Rousseau, 2001). Of course, not every employee
will be motivated to perfect their pre-employment schema. New recruits on
temporary, short-term contracts will be very aware of the specific terms of
their relationship with the employer given the clearly defined nature of their
employment contract. In these circumstances, the anticipatory psychological
contract will be basic but unambiguous and will guide the newcomer’s interaction with the employer.
By categorizing new recruits into novices and veterans, Rousseau (1995,
2001) calls attention to the significance of experience as an antecedent of the

psychological contract. Indeed, it is the acquisition of new experiences that
drives schema development. The novice employee lacks work experience
and has little or no history in a work environment. Accordingly, their schema
is basic and is more predisposed to be reconstructed. Therefore, the information provided by the organization during the early stages of employment
takes on great significance for the novice recruit (Bauer & Green, 1998). The
veteran, however, has considerable work experience and significant history
in a work environment. For this reason, the structure of the schema and how
it processes new information are different for these employees. Expertise
facilitates the inclusion of new information into old knowledge structures.
Veterans with substantial expertise regarding their employment relationship
are likely to have well-developed psychological contracts containing many
elements. These schemata are often more difficult to change because ultimately their structure is sophisticated enough to assimilate new information.


166

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

Indeed, Dokko, Wilk, and Rothbard (2009) find that performance levels of
veteran employees with prior related work experience deteriorated because
of the rigidities of their existing schemata. The suggestion here is that veterans can be too inflexible with new work practices. Rousseau (2001) argues
that veterans are less open to change than novices. Novices however, have
formed rudimentary schemata at organizational entry with fewer elements.
As such, novices are more open to change during this period, and their schemata are likely to become more similar to those already inside the organization (Morrison, 1993; Thomas & Anderson, 1998). This line of enquiry
indicates that level of experience may play an important role in how the
schema functions when the psychological contract is being created.
However, previous work experience is much more than just a measure of
time (Dokko et al., 2009). Rousseau (2001) highlights how new recruits can
differ markedly in terms of their work history. Therefore, the “type” of experience a new employee has undergone is likely to influence perceptions of the
new deal with the organization. However, we still do not know whether previous work experiences give rise to specific content dimensions of the psychological contract. Evidence from the literature suggests this is likely to be

the case.
The two most relevant types of experience examined in the psychological
contract literature are arguably, “violation” and “fulfillment.” Violation refers
to the belief that the other party has not upheld their side of the agreement.
Fulfillment refers to the belief that the other party has upheld their side of the
agreement (Rousseau, 1995). The vast majority of this type of research takes
the form of “in-role” studies (e.g., Cassar & Briner, 2011; Johnson &
O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994) investigating both parties’ contributions to the exchange. In contrast, we have a considerably
weaker understanding of how previous experiences of psychological contract
fulfillment or violation shape the new psychological contract. The evidence
is largely inconsistent. Therefore, for the purposes of this article, it is useful
to dichotomize psychological contract experience as “psychological contract
violation” or “psychological contract fulfillment” (see Figure 1). Similarly,
employees can voluntarily leave their employment (i.e., for a better opportunity in a new organization), or they can experience involuntary job loss
through being made redundant. Using these two categorization processes, we
propose three distinct types of new recruits: (a) the laid-off employee (violation and involuntary), (b) the employee who left voluntarily as a result of
psychological contract violation (violation and voluntary), and (c) the
employee who left voluntarily but whose psychological contract was fulfilled
(fulfillment and voluntary). It is likely that each of these employees would
hold very different pre-employment schemata upon organizational entry. By


167

Sherman and Morley

Likelihood of
symmetrical
InformaƟon


Human
Resource
Procedures

Likelihood of
asymmetrical
InformaƟon

Key

Human Resource
Manuals

Human Resource Processes
Supervisor/
Mentor
Work Group

OrganizaƟonal Agents

Previous Psychological Contract
ViolaƟon
New
Contract -Related
InformaƟon

Voluntary Exit

Previous Psychological Contract
Fulfilment


New
Psychological
Contract
Content
Dimensions

Job Embeddedness in Previous Role
Links

Sources of
InformaƟon

Involuntary Exit

Fit

Sacrifice

Psychological Contract
as Schema

Figure 1.  A schema-based framework for understanding the psychological
contract formation process.

understanding their unique work experiences, we can make predictions about
the content of their new psychological contract.

Psychological Contract Violation and Involuntary Job Loss
A number of studies suggest that employees who experience job loss and

downsizing revise their career expectations (e.g., Csoka, 1995; Shore &
Tetrick, 1994). A recent study by Eilam-Shamir and Yaakobi (2014) finds that
employees who had negative experiences (e.g., layoffs) in previous roles
were more likely to hold transactional expectations of their future employer
than those who had not experienced difficulties. However, it is worth pointing out that this study speculates on the notional idea of a future employer. In
one of the few studies investigating the relationship between previous work
experiences and the psychological contract with the current employer,
Cavanaugh and Noe (1999) find no relationship between involuntary job loss
and psychological contract content. These two studies reflect the uncertainty
in the field. We are still unsure to what extent negative experiences in a previous role shape the content of the psychological contract with the new
employer. Schema theory would suggest that a negative experience in a


168

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

previous role is likely to affect expectations of the employee in the new role.
Indeed, Eilam-Shamir and Yaakobi find that new employees who have
recently been laid-off are less willing to enter into a broader relationship with
future organizations. Accordingly, we propose that this type of employee will
be more tentative in their expectations of the new employer and what they
will be willing to contribute in return.
Proposition P1a: New employees whose previous psychological contract
experience is characterized by violation and involuntary job loss will
report fewer content dimensions in the emerging psychological contract
than their counterparts with no such experiences.
Guest (2004) argues that loyalty and job security are no longer staples of
the contemporary employment relationship given the economic uncertainty
of the past quarter century. However, not every employee will experience

downsizing in their career. It is likely that an employee with a relatively settled work history will hold different expectations of a new employer in comparison with an employee with a turbulent career path. Previous studies
suggest that employees generalize from particular experiences in one organization to another (Andersson & Bateman, 1997). Specifically, the schema
representing negative work experiences will influence perceptions of the new
employment relationship. Therefore, we argue that these employees will be
less likely to expect job security in their new role and will feel under no obligation to remain loyal to the organization.
Proposition P1b: New employees whose previous psychological contract
experience is characterized by violation and involuntary job loss will be
less likely to report obligations relating to job security and loyalty in the
emerging psychological contract than their counterparts with no such
experiences.

Psychological Contract Violation and Voluntary Job Loss
Of course, it would be impractical to address every reason behind an employee
voluntarily exiting an organization for the purposes of this article. Going
back to the early work of March and Simon (1958), there are a multiplicity of
reasons as to why employees voluntarily leave an organization, encapsulating
perceived ease and desirability of movement, inducements, and extraorganizational alternatives perceived by the individual. The motivation
behind the move is likely to become the chief concern of the new psychological contract. For example, an employee who leaves an organization as a result


Sherman and Morley

169

of perceived lack of promotional opportunities in the organization is likely to
pay particular attention to issues concerning advancement and career development in the new organization. However, Pugh, Skarlicki, and Passell
(2003) find that violation by one’s previous employer can lead to anxiety and
cynicism that the new employer will also renege on the deal. From a schema
perspective, this finding suggests that experiences of violation become
embedded in the schema and influence expectations of the new employment

relationship, even with voluntary departures. With this in mind, we build on
the work of Pugh and his colleagues that mistrust of the new employer will
lead to specific psychological contract content dimensions. We propose that,
in light of the low levels of trust, these employees are more likely to create a
psychological contract with the employer where employee performance is
highly contingent on employer contributions (Rousseau, 2000). Specifically,
they will expect high pay in return for good performance. However, they will
also be willing to work above and beyond the agreed terms but only in
exchange for development and advancement opportunities.
Proposition P1c: New employees whose previous psychological contract
experience is characterized by violation and voluntary job loss will be
more likely to report employer obligations relating to pay and development opportunities in exchange for employee obligations relating to performance and extra role behavior in the emerging psychological contract
than their counterparts with no such experiences.

Psychological Contract Fulfillment and Voluntary Job Loss
While research has demonstrated that psychological contract violation is
typical in most exchange arrangements (e.g., Robinson & Rousseau, 1994),
not every employee will experience psychological contract violation. Some
employee departures can be attributed to external factors such as family
responsibilities, ill-health, and so on. From a psychological contract perspective, therefore, the perception may be that the employer is fulfilling their side
of the agreement, but due to factors external to the terms of the contract, the
employee voluntarily leaves the organization. Again, there are myriad reasons behind a voluntary exit. For our purposes here, we focus on that aspect
of the literature dealing with why people stay. “Job embeddedness” is a relatively new concept in the management field and may offer a way forward to
explain the research problem. It refers to the extent to which employees are
“connected” to an organization (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez,
2001). These authors propose a tri-dimensional view of job embeddedness


170


Group & Organization Management 40(2)

with each dimension explaining why employees choose to stay with an organization. We will use this framework to assess the new psychological contract
created by employees who voluntarily leave the organization even though
their old psychological contract was being fulfilled.
Mitchell and coauthors (2001) label these three dimensions as follows:
links (links to other people, teams, and groups), fit (perception of their fit with
their job, organization, and community), and sacrifice (what they say they
would have to sacrifice if they left their job). With regard to links, the research
suggests that family links (Abelson, 1987), leisure pursuits (Cohen, 1985),
and community links (Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004) are
all reasons as to why employees stay with an organization. In terms of fit,
research indicates that identification with the organization and attachments to
particular regions for cultural or religious reasons also predict tenure with the
organization (Mitchell et al., 2001). Finally, regarding sacrifice, research
suggests that the more an employee believes they are sacrificing in departing
the organization, the more difficult it is to actually leave (Shaw, Delery,
Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998). While comparable salary and benefits may be found
relatively easily in new employments, the loss of established relationships
with colleagues, ownership of challenging roles, the sense of having proven
your worth to the organization and therefore improving advancement opportunities, and so on, are often much more difficult to recapture. All of these
studies identify the prominent reasons why employees stay with organizations and what would be lost upon organizational exit. The dynamics of
schema tell us that new employees are motivated to achieve similar experiences that align with the established schema (Rousseau, 2001; Shore &
Tetrick, 1994).
The literature on job embeddedness discerns between “on-the-job” and
“off-the-job” embeddedness. This distinction is useful for our purposes in
advancing new propositions. First, on-the-job embeddedness refers to the
extent to which the employee is connected to the organization in terms of
links with employees, managers, and other stakeholders; a fit with both the
organization and the job itself; and the sacrifice of these relationships when

exiting the organization. From what we know about how the schema functions, we predict that an employee who voluntarily leaves a job where the
psychological contract was fulfilled will seek to recreate a similar arrangement in the new organization. Research on schema suggests employees who
voluntarily leave the organization, though their psychological contract was
fulfilled, are motivated to recreate the positive aspects of their previous job in
their new employment (Lord & Foti, 1986). This finding would then suggest
a certain replication of content dimensions in the new psychological contract.
Specifically, they will look to the employer to help them establish new work


Sherman and Morley

171

relationships, ensure they work on interesting and challenging tasks, and are
given early opportunities for advancement. In return, they will be more likely
to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (Hulin, 2002).
Proposition P1d: New employees whose previous psychological contract
experience is characterized by fulfillment and voluntary job loss will be
more likely to report employer obligations relating to network building,
job content, early opportunities for promotion, and employee obligations
relating to organizational citizenship in the emerging psychological contract in the new organization than their counterparts with no such
experiences.
Off-the-job embeddedness refers to the extent to which the employee is
connected to the wider community in terms of links with friends, family,
services, and so on, a fit with the institutional environment (e.g., religious
practices if changing country), and the sacrifice of these connections and all
they entail when exiting the organization. While these aspects of job embeddedness are outside the control of the employer, it is likely that the employee
will expect the new employer to help reestablish these connections with the
wider community. Therefore, we propose these employees will expect from
the employer a healthy work–life balance to facilitate the building of new

connections and networks as a means of developing a broader social circle. In
return, they will feel obliged to be flexible with their time and to engage with
their colleagues.
Proposition P1e: New employees whose previous psychological contract
experience is characterized by fulfillment and voluntary job loss will be
more likely to report employer obligations relating to network building
and work–life balance and employee obligations relating to flexibility and
team engagement in the emerging psychological contract in the new organization than their counterparts with no such experiences.

Section 2: Sources of Information and
Psychological Contract Formation
A number of researchers have called for a more expansive view of antecedents considered relevant to the psychological contract (e.g., Tomprou &
Nikolaou, 2011). The antecedents of schemata (e.g., previous experiences)
are fundamental to the psychological contract formation process. As
explained, the research broadly divides the factors that shape the psychological contract into two categories: (a) individual and (b) organizational.


172

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

The individual antecedents of the psychological contract have received
comparatively more attention in the literature than organizational factors
(e.g., De Vos et al., 2005; De Vos et al., 2009; Purvis & Cropley, 2003;
Robinson et al., 1994; Rousseau, 1990, 1995, 2001; Shore & Tetrick, 1994;
Thomas & Anderson, 1998; Tomprou & Nikolaou, 2011). There are potentially an infinite number of individual characteristics that affect upon the
contract itself (Conway & Briner, 2005). These studies illustrate how individual factors dictate the content of the psychological contract. They also
highlight how personal characteristics influence contract-related information-seeking behaviors. Indeed, individual factors serve to create the
schema through which individuals interpret their work environment (James
& James, 1989). As mentioned above, employees use schemata in very

goal-oriented ways, and they search for information to “fix” an incomplete
schema. People automatically process and ignore information depending on
its perceived value in attaining a goal (Stein, 1992). Rousseau (1995) argues
that this selective perception and processing of information as a function of
personal motivations influences employees’ perceptions of their psychological contracts. Therefore, individuals tend to seek out and focus on information that confirms prior cognition represented in their schemata, and
they tend to avoid or ignore information that disconfirms them (Ashford &
Cummings, 1983; Lord, 2000). This research illuminates the manner by
which individual characteristics influence how the schema functions and, in
turn, how it affects the interpretation of psychological contract-related
information.
While individual antecedents influence how the psychological contract is
constructed, equally important to our understanding of this process is the role
of organizational factors. To date, researchers have largely ignored how different sources of information shape the formation process. The few studies
that actually examine this relationship propose the organization influences
employees’ psychological contracts through messages conveyed by multiple
agents, organizational actions, and expressions of organizational policy (e.g.,
handbooks; Rousseau, 1995). Signaling theory highlights that individuals
may receive both formal and informal organizational messages which can
result in information asymmetry. While this can happen throughout the entire
lifecycle of their tenure with the organization, it is especially critical during
the recruitment phase (Suazo, Martinez, & Sandoval, 2009). While we
acknowledge that occasionally it can be difficult to distinguish between individual and organizational sources of information (e.g., a recruiter), for the
purposes of this article, we are broadly categorizing these sources of contract-related information into two specific groups: (a) human resource processes and (b) organizational agents.


Sherman and Morley

173

Human Resource Processes

The organization is the chief source of information for a new employee
(Shore & Tetrick, 1994). Several scholars stress the importance of human
resource practices as one of the major factors through which employees come
to understand the terms of their employment relationship (e.g., Grant, 1999;
Guzzo & Noonan, 1994). A number of key human resource processes are
likely to influence the formation of the psychological contract. The literature
often refers to these processes as “administrative contract makers” (Rousseau
& Wade-Benzoni, 1994).
First, human resource planning activities such as advertising the position,
recruitment, and selection practices, and so on, are all thought to communicate important pieces of contract-related information. That is, they all presumably tell the new employee something significant about the forthcoming
employment relationship. Early psychological contract researchers such as
Kotter (1973) and Schein (1980) have both described how employees and
organizations exchange their expectations regarding the employment relationship during the recruitment and selection stage. This is an important episode in the contracting process as it often represents the first meeting between
both parties. Second, much of the literature on the formation of the psychological contract points to the early stages of organizational entry as critical to
the creation process (e.g., De Vos et al., 2009; Thomas & Anderson, 1998).
The formal processes associated with employee induction such as health and
safety training, site tours, and so on, are all sources of codified, symmetrical
information to which the new employee turns when making sense of the
employment relationship (Guest & Conway, 1997). Often, literature accompanying these processes is consulted by the new recruit such as handbooks,
flyers, and so on. These expressions of organization policy serve as useful
references when forming early psychological contract expectations culminating in what researchers have referred to as the “anticipatory psychological
contract” (e.g., Anderson & Thomas, 1996; De Vos et al., 2009). It is useful
to think of this psychological contract as an imperfect schema which is “perfected” over time through the acquisition of new experiences inside the
organization.
Characteristic to all these sources of information is the fact that they are
more or less controlled by the organization, in the sense that the organization
can dictate the content of messages communicated to the new recruit from
these various sources (Conway & Briner, 2005). By and large, the human
resource function is responsible for the codification and communication of
the various human resource processes and procedures rolled out for new

recruits. Therefore, information provided at the beginning of employment


174

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

can be broadly sourced back to this unit. For example, a new recruit who
reads the employee handbook about the health and safety culture of the organization will also be able to see artifacts of this culture on the site tour (e.g.,
safety equipment, protective clothing worn by staff). In this example, the
organization decides what the new recruit is supposed to read and see at the
beginning of employment. For this reason, it seems likely that there would be
relative symmetry and consistency in the information transmitted from this
unit to the new employee. Rousseau (2001) argues that consistent, explicit
information emanating from clear sources allows the new employee to better
understand the employment relationship.
However, even when drawing on these symmetrical sources of information, not every employee will be motivated to make the effort to perfect their
pre-employment schema. Employees on temporary or short-term contracts
often create a psychological contract based on specific, clearly defined terms
(Dabos & Rousseau, 2004). They are less likely to be concerned with establishing interpersonal relationships as a means of understanding organizational reality (Millward & Hopkins, 1998). For these employees, it is
extremely important that the contract-related information acquired is clear
and consistent from the very beginning given the finite nature of their employment relationship. It seems likely that information gathered from the various
human resource processes will take on additional significance for temporary
employees and that they will rely heavily on these sources to create the psychological contract. The employment contract is likely to be one such important information source designed by the human resource function. The
employment contract explicitly sets out the specific terms and conditions of
the job (Conway & Briner, 2005). Temporary workers are likely to pay particular attention to it when creating the psychological contract. We propose,
therefore, that contract-related information stemming from human resource
processes will be more consistent than other sources such as from supervisors
or mentors and that symmetry would exist between the terms of the psychological contract and the employment contract, respectively, for temporary
employees.

Proposition P2a: Contract-related information stemming from human
resource processes will be more consistent, clear, explicit, and symmetrical than any other information source.
Proposition P2b: The content of the psychological contract of temporary
employees will more closely resemble the content of the employment contract when compared with the psychological contract of permanent
employees.


Sherman and Morley

175

Organizational Agents
Beyond human resource processes, there are many agents active in the
exchange of contract-related information. In this respect, supervisors and
coworkers are primary organizational agents who transmit messages to the
employees at organizational entry (Shore & Tetrick, 1994). Our understanding of how these various agents influence the creation of the psychological
contract is varied. Rousseau (1995) argues that information originating from
agents of the organization is often less reliable and less trustworthy, and the
signals communicated to employees via these agents can be asymmetrical. In
terms of the supervisor, studies demonstrate that employees’ evaluations of
the quality of the exchange relationship with their supervisor have an impact
on their assessment of the psychological contract (Lewis-McClear & Taylor,
1998). Similarly, Morrison and Robinson (1997) state that a high-quality
leader–member exchange relationship facilitates communication between an
employee and his or her supervisor, thereby reducing the probability of the
perception of contract breach by the employee. Newcomers’ psychological
contracts will also be affected by coworkers through direct communication or
by monitoring what these coworkers receive, and how they are treated by the
organization. Louis (1990) proposed that coworkers provide information and
cues which enable newcomers to cope with surprises, interpret events, and

develop attitudes, opinions, and norms. In this way, “organizational insiders”
help in the socialization and acculturation of newcomers into the organization
(Morrison, 1993).
These studies call attention to the sources of information used by the
employee in the psychological contract formation process. The suggestion here
is that each agent may communicate different messages to the employee arising
from cognitive biases and other dispositional characteristics, albeit that some
sources are perceived as more reliable than others (e.g., Lipton, 1977; Treadway
& McCloskey, 1987). For example, an obligation to work overtime is a typical
dimension in many psychological contracts. However, it is important to know
how this was communicated to the employee. Often, how the information is
communicated is just as significant as the content of the message (Guest &
Conway, 2002). Perhaps the recruiter, as a means of presenting a positive image
of the terms of employment, withheld this important piece of information from
the employee, who, in turn, only learned about the overtime commitments from
a tenured colleague. Such a scenario could have implications for the employment relationship in terms of trust between both parties.
Another important reason explaining the potentially inconsistent and variable messages communicated by agents of the organization may be the influence of affect caused by psychological contract fulfillment or violation. A


176

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

number of studies lend support to an association between the psychological
contract and employee affect (e.g., Conway & Briner, 2002; Morrison &
Robinson, 1997; Tomprou & Nikolaou, 2011). It follows that organizational
agents’ perceptions of the psychological contract would color the information
they pass on to new employees, leading to the formation of an inaccurate
schema. Research has shown that new recruits rate the work group, mentors,
and supervisors as both the most available and helpful sources of information

during the early period of their employment, even more useful than formal
induction procedures (Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983; Nelson & Quick,
1991). However, different agents are liable to pass on asymmetrical messages
to the new employee depending on the current state of their psychological
contract with the organization. Here, we draw on the two most prominent
agents to frame our discussion of the propositions we suggest should be
explored, namely, supervisors/mentors and the work group.
Supervisors/mentors.  Often, it is difficult to know who represents the organization within the context of the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995). If
one were to ask an employee with whom do they have a psychological contract, responses may include the human resource manager, the owner of the
organization, or the supervisor, for example. In addition, new recruits are
often assigned a mentor at the beginning of employment in an effort to guide
and shape them throughout the early stages of their tenure with the organization. Consequently, mentors can be seen as buffers to the relationship between
the employee and the organization (Dabos & Rousseau, 2004). While not
always the case, mentors are often the formally appointed supervisors responsible for the newcomer’s performance. In this type of arrangement, the supervisor may be viewed as a proxy for the organization and therefore would have
a more significant influence on the psychological contract created.
Indeed, supervisors in the role of the employer are the main sources of
contract-related information to a new recruit (Conway & Briner, 2005). After
all, the information exchanged between both parties is the foundation of psychological contracting. Nonetheless, though often perceived as the employer,
supervisors are themselves employees. The supervisor too has an employer.
This dual role raises interesting questions as to how it influences the relationship with the new recruit. First, as an employee, a supervisor who perceives
their psychological contract as unfulfilled is likely to report negative feelings
toward the organization. At the same time, as an employer, they also have a
duty of care over new employees on their team. Do feelings of frustration or
anger with the organization, for example, cloud their relationship with the
employee? Schema theory suggests that supervisors would hold two distinct
schemata: one schema representing their role as an employee and another


Sherman and Morley


177

schema representing their role as employer, thus separating their various
responsibilities (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). However, within the context of the
psychological contract, these boundaries are likely to be blurred, particularly
if different emotional reactions are distorting their understanding of their role
in the organization. Indeed, a number of researchers identify role conflict as
a source of negative affect in organizations (e.g., Morris & Feldman, 1996;
Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987).
While most supervisors are constrained by organization policies, union
agreements, and other organizational factors when exchanging information
with the employee, it seems reasonable to argue that the state of their own
psychological contracts at that time would have some bearing on messages
sent to the employee. Rousseau (2001) uses the example from the academic
environment of how information communicated by the dean at organizational
entry would influence role expectations of newly recruited faculty members.
However, we extend this argument by positioning the dean as an employee of
the university, just like new faculty members. If the dean was in, for example,
a long dispute with the university, would they be able to impart an objective
view of the university to new recruits? The dynamics of schema theory suggest that this would be unlikely. Therefore, in the role of employee, a supervisor’s psychological contract with the organization is likely to influence the
messages they share with the supervisee.
Proposition P2c: The fulfillment or violation of the supervisor’s psychological contract with the organization will influence the content of contract-related information they share with the new recruit.
The employer’s perspective on the psychological contract remains an
underdeveloped area within the literature despite numerous calls from
researchers for it to be given more attention (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro, 2002;
Guest, 1998; Rousseau, 1995). In the earlier section, we explained how previous psychological contract experiences become integrated into the schema
and influence perceptions of the new employment relationship. It is likely
that the same pattern will be evident if we examine the employer’s previous
psychological contract experiences—that is, their perception of past employees’ contributions to the psychological contract. Imagine a scenario where a
supervisor, in the role as employer, had a poor relationship with the last new

recruit to the organization due to perceived lack of effort on the employee’s
behalf. If this perceived indolence constitutes a violation of the psychological
contract, then research on schema suggests that future interactions with new
recruits will be guided by the established schema. While each employee–
employer relationship is unique, supervisors will look to avoid mistakes or


178

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

difficulties of the past. They may revise what they expect from the employee
and what they are willing to give in return (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999). It follows that, in the role of employer, the supervisor’s psychological contract
experiences with previous newcomers will influence the contract-related
information they share with current new recruits.
Proposition P2d: A supervisor’s previous psychological contract experiences with new recruits will influence the content of contract-related
information they share with the current new recruit.
Work group.  Research on employee socialization points to the role of the work
group in shaping a new recruit’s introduction into the organization (e.g., Feldman, 1976; Perrot et al., 2014). Extending this idea further, Ostroff and
Kozlowski (1992) recommend that members of the work group should be
trained to impart appropriate information to newcomers. When there is general agreement across the psychological contracts of coworkers, a normative
contract is said to exist (Nicholson & Johns, 1985; Rousseau, 1995). A normative contract refers to the beliefs concerning the terms of employment shared
by a work group. In this instance, information regarding the relationship
between the organization and the work group would be communicated in a
consistent way given the broad symmetry across the respective psychological
contracts. However, fulfillment or violation of each member’s psychological
contract is likely to undermine the strength of the normative contract, giving
rise to different types of emotions influencing the information-sharing process. Indeed, Allen (1996) highlights how the work group’s relationship with
the organization evokes different emotional reactions among its members.
In line with cognitive appraisal theory, Garcia-Prieto, Bellard, and

Schneider (2003) assert that individual perceptions of the same event can
give rise to different affective reactions. It follows that perceptions of the
relationship with the organization, the psychological contract, will arouse
varying emotional reactions in each of the members of the work group.
When sharing contract-related information with newcomers, it is likely that
colleagues’ affective experiences with the employer will influence this process. For example, if one member of the work group perceived their psychological contract with the employer as fulfilled, then they more likely to
present a positive picture of organizational life to the newcomer due to the
positive emotions that fulfillment evokes. However, what happens if a different colleague perceives their psychological contract as violated? Are
they more likely to present a negative view of the employer? Psychological
contract theory and schema theory suggest this is likely to be the case. The
newcomer is then confronted with two very different “stories” of the


Sherman and Morley

179

employer. The resulting dissonance will no doubt, create difficulties when
forming their psychological contract.
The general point here is that members of a work group each have their
own psychological contract with the employer. Their experiences within this
arrangement will arouse certain affective responses, which, in turn, will
influence the contract-related information they are expected to pass on to the
new recruit. In an overall sense, the contract-related information shared with
new recruits by members of the work group will be inconsistent as a result of
their different psychological contract experiences.
Proposition P2e: The fulfillment or violation of each work group member’s psychological contract with the organization will influence the content of contract-related information they share with the new recruit.

Section 3: Accessing and Measuring the Schema
Viewing the psychological contract as schema calls attention to its cognitive

foundations and helps us to understand how new employees make sense of
the employment relationship. However, adopting this theoretical approach
presents several methodological challenges to researchers. In this last section, we discuss some of these challenges in light of the propositions set out
in the sections above, and we offer some potential solutions to these methodological dilemmas.
To explore the propositions set forth in Section 1, researchers will be
required to have access to the employees’ experiences in previous organizations. In the majority of psychological contract studies, the employee’s
“story” is rarely fully captured. The content dimensions are presented to the
participant, and they are then asked to respond to each obligation using rating scales (e.g., Bal, De Lange, Zacher, & Van der Heijden, 2013; De Vos
et al., 2009). However, a number of scholars have questioned the merits of
this approach (e.g., Freese & Schalk, 2008) as it may run counter to the
dynamics of psychological contract theory. By responding to set criteria, the
participant is not given the opportunity to communicate their own unique
experience of the employment relationship. Indeed, no one list can function
for every context and all people (Morandin & Bergami, 2014). As previously
explained, a schema is idiosyncratic, highly unique, and is the product of
past experience. With this in mind, it is unlikely that the survey approach
will elicit the particularities of each individual’s experience, instead outlining dimensions that only loosely reflect this experience. Therefore, adopting
different measurement techniques is necessary to tap into the nuances of the
individual’s psychological contract story.


180

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

Eliciting the content dimensions from each party is a more methodologically appropriate technique as it captures the subjective nature of the psychological contract as schema (Herriot et al., 1997). It allows the participant to
articulate their own understanding of the exchange agreement with the other
party. This approach is also likely to broaden the range of content dimensions
assessed in a study. As outlined in the introduction to this article, a number of
the propositions set forth explicate specific obligations rarely examined in

previous studies (e.g., network building, team engagement), and future studies exploring these domain areas may assist in building our knowledge of
psychological contracts. A number of psychological contract measures dominate the field (e.g., Rousseau, 2000), with the majority of researchers adopting or tweaking these tools to suit the needs of the study. This, in part at least,
limits the potential for new content dimensions being uncovered (Freese &
Schalk, 2008). Therefore, we contend that eliciting content dimensions that
more closely represent the specificities of the exchange relationship is an
important step in psychological contract research.
Nonetheless, accessing and measuring schemata are difficult. Rousseau
(2001) highlights that a schema may not be entirely conscious to the individual and that the processing of new information occurs automatically.
Therefore, simply asking the individual to describe the content of the psychological contract in an interview, for instance, does not adhere to the definitional stipulations in place. Similarly, Cossette and Audet (1992) highlight
the potential subjectivity of the researcher in trying to capture the cognitive
organization of the schema. They argue that representations of schema
often constitute the researcher’s interpretation of the participant’s understanding of a subjective experience. How closely this resembles the true
nature of the schema is, therefore, open to question. A number of different
methodologies attempting to tap into the subjective nature of the psychological contract have been used in previous studies. The critical incident
technique is an example of one such method advocated by researchers to
elicit the content of the psychological contract (e.g., Nadin & Williams,
2012; Parzefall & Coyle-Shapiro, 2011). In this approach, the participants
are asked to identify behaviors believed to be central to the employment
relationship, thus illustrating their individual understanding of the exchange
agreement. Depending on the nature of their employment history, as well as
their current work arrangement, an employee may be more or less likely to
identify certain behaviors. The rationale behind this approach is that a
broader range of behaviors/obligations can be identified given the individuals’ different work experiences. Much more work using this methodology is
needed, however, to properly assess its value to psychological contract
research.


Sherman and Morley

181


Similarly, we suggest that the repertory grid technique may be an alternative way of eliciting the content dimensions. This approach attempts to quantitatively measure an individual’s understanding of the world (represented by
“elements”) through identifying the “constructs” used in the process (Kelly,
1955). For the purposes of analyzing the psychological contract, the elements
are the content dimensions, and each one will be uniquely understood by the
participant. For example, an employer obligation concerning development
opportunities may be understood as “important” or “realistic” by a worker
looking to increase their employability. Of course, each participant will identify different elements and will use different constructs to make sense of their
inherent meaning. Therefore, its big advantage over other methodologies is
that the data elicited are idiosyncratic and largely unbiased. However, this
approach requires the participant to be fully conscious of the schema held,
which, as explained above, may not always be the case. The general methodological argument here is that elicitation of schema elements is, in theory,
more scientifically appropriate when trying to better understand the idiosyncratic nature of the psychological contract but is difficult to achieve from a
practical standpoint.
How the dynamics of the psychological contract influence affective outcomes is also an underdeveloped area of research. Many of the propositions
put forward in the first section of our article require a method that successfully explores this relationship. A number of researchers support the “diary
method” as a suitable means of capturing affective reactions to psychological
contract breach or fulfillment (e.g., Conway & Briner, 2002; Tomprou &
Nikolaou, 2011). Indeed, Conway and Briner (2002) assert that this technique
allows researchers to better comprehend the “lived” experience of the psychological contract. This approach may help future researchers determine the
different reactions to breach and fulfillment, which, in turn, will allow them
to predict psychological contract expectations in new work arrangements.
Fulfillment and violation will evoke different affective reactions in different
employees, depending on a range of variables. An in-depth exploration of this
relationship looks beyond the limited survey approach and again may tell us
something more insightful about the dynamics of the psychological
contract.
The propositions set forth in the second section above are designed to
provoke more research into how sources of contract-related information
shape the psychological contract. As outlined, much of the research from the

socialization and related fields point to a number of different sources that
shape the early stages of the employment relationship (Bauer & Erdogan,
2010). However, how each source directly affects the formation of the psychological contract is unclear. For example, a supervisor telling a new


182

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

employee that weekend work is a rarity but a coworker telling him that it is a
regular occurrence will be confusing to the newcomer. Depending on their
work experience, employees may pay more or less attention to a particular
source of information. Therefore, explicitly measuring which sources are referenced in the formation process and also the information transmitted by each
source in terms of how symmetrical or asymmetrical it is should reveal new
insights into how the contract is created. In terms of the human resource process sources, it should be relatively feasible to trace certain pieces of information back to particular processes. Exploring the source of an employer
obligation relating to bonus pay with the participant will reveal how their
schema processed new information at organizational entry. In doing so, it will
allow researchers to better understand the origin of specific content dimensions. It will also enable the organization to get a better grasp of the effectiveness of their information channels during the early period of socialization.
Finally, with respect to organizational agent sources, as outlined above, it
is crucial that any measure of previous psychological contract experiences
must capture the “story” of these experiences. Research indicates that
employees overstate their own contributions to the psychological contract
and underestimate the employer’s contributions (De Jong, Schalk, & De
Cuyper, 2009). Perhaps employers fall victim to the same bias when assessing their exchange relationship with previous employees, thus influencing
their relationship with new employees. Again, this argument requires much
more attention in future research. By accessing the various agents’ schemata,
we can better establish the likely content of messages shared with new
recruits, therefore, better explaining how previous psychological contract
experiences shape the information-sharing process.
A potential solution to the difficulties capturing and representing the psychological contract as schema may be to use “cognitive maps.” Cognitive

maps provide important information concerning aspects of a broad terrain
(Fiol & Huff, 1992). In the wider management field, they have been used to
represent the mental models of decision making (Clarke & Mackaness, 2001;
Morandin & Bergami, 2014), strategy formulation (Hodgkinson & Clarke,
2007), and leadership and organizational change (Ndofor, Priem, Rathburn,
& Dhir, 2009), for example. Within the context of the employment relationship, they can help explain each party’s mental model of the exchange
relationship. As a heuristic, we present a rudimentary map of the psychological contract as schema in Figure 2.
The map itself represents how the schema processes information at organizational entry in light of the reliability of the source and also how this
information is interpreted against previous psychological contract experiences. We selected “opportunities for promotion” as a unit of information


183

Sherman and Morley

Ignore it

No

What is
the source?

OpportuniƟes for
PromoƟon
No

Is the source
credible? Is the informaƟon
symmetrical with other
sources?


Yes

Is this relevant
to me?

It’s the reason I
leŌ my last job

Yes

Assimilated into schema.
Dimension of new
Psychological Contract

PercepƟon that employer
will fulfil obligaƟon

Key
New Contract-related
InformaƟon

Figure 2.  A cognitive map of the psychological contract as schema.

often signaled to employees. As discussed already, certain employees would
ignore this piece of information. For example, an employee working on a
2-month contract would recognize that such information is not relevant to
their work arrangement. The schema of newly recruited staff on permanent
contracts, however, would process this information differently. Their diverse
psychological contract histories and perceptions of the current relationship

with the organization would determine how this unit of information is assimilated into the psychological contract. It is worth highlighting that this figure
aims to illustrate how just one piece of contract-related information may be
filtered by the schema. There is potentially unlimited information available to
the new recruit at the beginning of employment. Related to this is the notion
that veteran employees who have worked for a number of organizations in
their career will have highly complex schema structures when they join the
organization.
There are methodological concerns about representing schemata as cognitive maps (Hodgkinson & Healey, 2008). First, Cossette and Audet (1992)
warn of the danger of the researcher’s involvement in drawing up the map
itself. While the mapper draws the map, the elements within it must represent


184

Group & Organization Management 40(2)

the thought process of the individual alone. The success of this approach is,
therefore, dependent on the participant articulating their thoughts. Second,
Fiol and Huff (1992) highlight that cognition can be represented in a variety
of different ways and that a singular form of map prevents a deeper exploration of schematic thinking. Cognitive maps, therefore, cannot be considered
a perfect model of cognition. It is better to view them as a visual aid in comprehending the researcher’s understanding of selective elements of an individual’s thoughts (Eden, 1992). These issues notwithstanding, the potential
of such mapping in helping us to explore the cognitive underpinnings of the
psychological contract does merit further investigation.

Conclusion
We contend that schema theory has the potential to offer fresh insights into
how the psychological contract is created and that its deployment as a theoretical lens will add breadth to what is an underdeveloped area within the
literature. In calling attention to the potential value of schema theory, we
propose a research agenda to advance exploration of the psychological contract formation process. This domain aspect of psychological contract
research is underdeveloped, and we believe that a sharper focus on it offers

the prospect of opening up new and potentially fruitful lines of enquiry.
Specifically, how positive or negative experiences in previous organizations or with previous employees influence expectations of the other party in
the new organization is a key research issue. Experience is the driving force
of schema development, so it is a legitimate antecedent of the psychological
contract. If researchers can capture the unique experiences embedded in the
schema, they will be in a position to provide new insights into the creation of
the psychological contract. In addition, a more robust examination of sources
of contract-related information is integral to strengthening our grasp of the
formation process. Human resource process sources are perhaps more likely
to signal clear and consistent information to the new recruit. However, how
useful and accurate this information is remains unclear. Similarly, agent
sources of information are liable to be influenced by individual biases, affective experiences, and their own psychological contract histories when sharing
information with new employees. How each source is used during the formation process is also uncertain. This particular area of research has received
very little attention in the literature, which is surprising given its prospective
importance to the construction of the psychological contract. Though challenging, the methodological difficulties in accessing schemata should not
deter researchers from attempting to access the cognitive foundations of the
psychological contract. Exploring the intricacies of previous experiences and