See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235412261

Testing a Psychological Contract Measure in a Swiss Employment Context

Article  in  Swiss Journal of Psychology · January 2009

DOI: 10.1024/1421-0185.68.4.177

CITATIONS READS

18 867

4 authors, including:

Sabine Raeder Alice Inauen

ETH Zurich Genossenschaft Migros Ostschweiz
51 PUBLICATIONS   599 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gudela Grote
ETH Zurich
219 PUBLICATIONS   2,867 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Schweizer Human Relations Barometer View project

Participation in work-oriented society under conditions of increasing work flexibility: Does a less continuity-oriented personal identity help ? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sabine Raeder on 25 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Swiss Journal of Psychology, 68 (4), 2009, 177–188

Sw issJ. Psychol.S.68
Raeder et al.:by
(4) © 2009 SwVerlag
iss Psychological
Hans Huber,Co ntract AG,
Hogrefe Measure
Bern

Original Communication

Testing a Psychological Contract

Measure in a Swiss Employment
Context
Sabine Raeder1, Anette Wittekind2, Alice Inauen3, and Gudela Grote4
1University of Oslo & ETH Zurich, 2Hewitt Associates, 3University of Zurich & ETH Zurich, 4ETH Zurich

Abstract. In this study, we validated a questionnaire measuring psychological contracts in a Swiss employment context. We argue that
this measure sufficiently considers the characteristics of a stable employment situation and meets the criteria for the validity of psycho-
logical contract measures. The sample consisted of the employees of two firms and portfolio workers. An item and scale analysis was
conducted and the dimensionality of the instrument was tested by means of confirmatory factor analyses. Finally, the instrument consists
of three factors measuring employee expectations and employer inducements as well as two factors measuring employer expectations
and employee contributions. Validity was evaluated by comparing groups with different employment status and by hierarchical regression
analyses predicting intention to quit and performance.

Keywords: psychological contract, validation, questionnaire, employment contract

Introduction Various instruments have been developed for measur-

The impact of psychological contracts on employee be-
havior has been investigated in an increasing number of
studies showing that the psychological contract is an im-
portant aspect of the employment relationship (e.g.,
Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2003; Robinson, 1996; Turn-
ley & Feldman, 2000). The psychological contract is de-
fined as mutual promises, obligations, and expectations,
such as job security or support for employability, which
exist between employee and employer, and which are not
part of the legal employment contract (see Rousseau,
1989; Schein, 1970). Most instruments that measure the
psychological contract were developed in the United
States (e.g., Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994) or in
the UK (e.g., Millward & Hopkins, 1998). In this paper,
we argue that psychological contract measures could give
better consideration to the characteristics of a stable em-
ployment situation, which is typical for Switzerland and
other European countries (e.g., Austria), and that they
should meet the criteria of content and construct validity
(see Freese & Schalk, 2008). We then present a measure
we developed in a research project in Switzerland by re-
vising and extending an existing instrument (Grote &
Raeder, 2003; Raeder & Grote, 2004). We report the psy-
chometric properties and the validity of the measure,
which was tested in a sample of employees of two firms
and portfolio workers.
ing the psychological contract, but consensus on a stand-
ard instrument has yet to be found (see Freese & Schalk,
2008). Most of the instruments focusing on psychological
contract contents differentiate between the relational and
the transactional component (e.g., Millward & Hopkins,
1998; Robinson et al., 1994) as introduced by Rousseau
(1989). The relational component captures long-term em-
ployment relationships, socio-emotional aspects of the ex-
change relationship between employee and employer, and
support for employees in their career, whereas the trans-
actional component focuses on short-term employment re-
lationships and the exchange of tangible benefits. Measur-
ing relational and transactional aspects represents an effi-
cient way of distinguishing psychological contracts by
their contents. However, the structure of the relational-
transactional scale has not been consistently proven em-
pirically. For example, Robinson et al. (1994) established
the relational-transactional distinction in the first mea-
surement wave of their longitudinal study, but could not
reproduce the allocation of items in the second measure-
ment wave. It can be assumed that not even short-term
employment relationships are restricted to the exchange
of intangible benefits (see Macneil, 1978), so that the clear
pattern of transactional psychological contracts does not
apply. Raja, Johns, and Ntalianis (2004) were also unable
to reproduce the allocation of transactional and relational
items of psychological contract contents of the question-

DOI 10.1024/1421-0185.68.4.177 Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
178 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure
naire by Millward and Hopkins (1998), perhaps because
the questionnaire was developed in the UK but tested in
Pakistan. The measure proves to be sensitive to cultural
differences in employment systems. The relational-trans-
actional distinction presumably provides an appropriate
research framework for employment systems in the Unit-
ed States and the UK, where the measures were devel-
oped.
The employment system in Central European countries
like Switzerland differs from that in the United States and
the UK with respect to structural and legal aspects, such as
the rules for the termination of employment contracts. Pre-
sumably, these differences cannot be captured fully by the
relational-transactional distinction. In Switzerland, in
2006, 2% of employees had temporary contracts with a du-
ration of less than 6 months and 5% with a duration of less
than 3 years (Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 2007),
whereas in the UK in 2007, 6% of employees had tempo-
rary contracts (Eurostat, 2008). In the United States, 7% of
employees with temporary contracts were reported in 2005,
consisting of 4% contingent workers, 1% temporary help
agency workers, and 2% on-call workers (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2008a). In Switzerland, long-term employment
relationships are still the standard, with 85% of all employ-
ees having tenure of more than 1 year and 53% of more
than 5 years (Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 2007). In
comparison, in the UK in 2002, 79% employees had tenure
of more than 1 year and 44% had tenure of more than 5
years (Office for National Statistics, 2002), and in the Unit-
ed States, in 2008, 77% employees had tenure of more than
1 year and 47% had tenure of more than 5 years (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2008b). The statistics indicate that the
Swiss employment system, compared to that in the UK and
the United States, is characterized by fewer temporary con-
tracts and longer tenure. Long-term employment relation-
ships still prevail in Switzerland because employers at-
tempt to keep employees’ knowledge in the company (see
Arvanitis, 2003). Although Swiss labor laws allow employ-
ers to make employees redundant for economic reasons,
employers’ social responsibility is traditionally high (e.g.,
Eberhardt, Winistörfer, & Merz, 2005). Thus, the notion of
relational contracts applies to the majority of employment
relationships, while that of transactional contracts applies
only to a small number of employment relationships.
We assume that a broad spectrum of contracts exists be-
tween the entirely relational and the entirely transactional
psychological contracts, characterized by various patterns
of contract contents. More differentiation especially with
respect to the relational component of a psychological con-
tract measure is needed to better capture the specific terms
in a rather stable employment context. We therefore pur-
sued the strategy of distinguishing factors of contract con-
tent by differentiating aspects in more detail. In agreement
with earlier measures (e.g., Millward & Brewerton, 1999),
we assume that psychological contracts differ along certain
dimensions according to employment relationships. For ex-
ample, loyalty is more relevant in long-term employment
Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
relationships, whereas employability is more important for
skilled employees who change jobs regularly.
Generally, a psychological contract questionnaire
should meet the criteria for content and construct validity
(Freese & Schalk, 2008). The items of a measure must be
developed on the basis of a theory or empirical results and
so that their origin is traceable. The measure should con-
sider employer and employee obligations, and the psycho-
metric properties must be assessed with regard to the target
sample. A questionnaire should therefore apply to different
kinds of employment relationships, such as temporary em-
ployment and multiple employment relationships, and it
should be sensitive to different work arrangements.
So far, two studies have applied instruments that distin-
guish between dimensions of psychological contracts
(De Vos, Buyens, & Schalk, 2003; Raeder & Grote, 2004).
Both studies focused on the perspective of employees and
regarded four components of psychological contracts in a
similar manner. While De Vos et al. analyzed employer
promises and inducements as well as employee promises
and contributions, Raeder and Grote analyzed employer in-
ducements and expectations as well as employee expecta-
tions and contributions. De Vos et al. distinguished between
the dimensions career development, job content, social at-
mosphere, financial rewards, and work-life balance regard-
ing employer promises and inducements; and between the
dimensions in- and extra-role behavior, flexibility, ethical
behavior, loyalty, and employability regarding employee
promises and contributions. Grote and Raeder (analysis of
the full sample in Grote & Raeder, 2003; analysis of a par-
tial sample in Raeder & Grote, 2004) asked employees to
indicate their expectations and perceived employer induce-
ments on the dimensions of security and retention, learning
opportunities, and support for career development. Fur-
thermore, they analyzed employee contributions and em-
ployer expectations as perceived by the employee on the
dimensions of loyalty and performance, responsibility for
career and skills, and flexibility. In a sample of firms in
Switzerland, psychological contract contents varied ac-
cording to the firms’ strategy of flexible working. Thus, the
measure appropriately captured antecedents found in the
employment situation.
Many items of the instruments of De Vos et al. (2003)
and Raeder and Grote (2004) are similar, but are grouped
according to different factors and weighted differently. Un-
like De Vos et al.’s questionnaire, Raeder and Grote’s ques-
tionnaire does not cover financial rewards or work-life bal-
ance apart from working flexibly as employees wish. Fur-
thermore, Raeder and Grote (2005) analyzed dimensions
of contract contents in more detail by means of interviews
with managers and human resource managers. They argued
that, in addition to the dimensions discussed above, it
would be important to consider information about organi-
zational decisions and participation in decision making.
The analysis highlights the fact that neither instrument cov-
ers all relevant aspects, and that their structure might still
be improved.
 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure
In this study, we revised and extended the questionnaire
of Raeder and Grote (2004), as it was developed in a Swiss
employment context and it was shown that it distinguishes
psychological contracts according to antecedents of the
employment situation. The revision allowed us to add as-
pects (e.g., financial rewards, participation) not included
before. Consequently, the dimensions of contents refer to
security, loyalty, learning, and career development, flexi-
bility, and participation. Moreover, we kept the terms “ex-
pectations,” “inducements,” and “contributions” as cho-
sen by Raeder and Grote because they fit the Swiss lin-
guistic context. In contrast, “promises,” as used by De Vos
et al. (2003), are considered relevant in a personal inter-
action. The term “obligations” is close to that used in a
legal contract, and in Switzerland it is considered a re-
spected norm to fulfill obligations. The term “expecta-
tions,” also used by Sels, Janssens, and van den Brande
(2004), expresses that something is considered reasonable
or due to the employment partners based on experiences
in the employment relationship and therefore captures the
idea of an implicit contract (see Freese & Schalk, 2008).
Hence, the meaning of the German term “expectations”
comes closest to that English term “obligations.” To dis-
tinguish between “expectations” and “met expectations”
(e.g., Turnley & Feldman, 2000), participants were to fo-
cus on the specific employment relationship and not to
consider expectations they had before entering the job.
Revising this questionnaire allowed us to comply with
the criteria of validity set up by Freese and Schalk (2008).
Because of the revision, we were able to add aspects based
on a qualitative analysis of interviews and to ensure that
relevant aspects were covered. In the empirical study pre-
sented in this paper, we tested the questionnaire in a sam-
ple of different employment relationships and report the
psychometric properties.
As argued above, a psychological contract measure
should allow researchers to differentiate between psycho-
logical contracts with respect to antecedents in the em-
ployment situation. Previous studies showed that psycho-
logical contracts depend on the terms of the employment
contract, measured mostly as duration of contract and
number of contractual working hours. Van Dyne and Ang
(1998) found that contingent workers have fewer expec-
tations of their employers than do permanent employees.
Millward and Brewerton (1999) observed significant dif-
ferences between employees and contractors in that con-
tractors held more transactional psychological contracts
than employees. Permanent contractors had significantly
more relational contracts than temporary contractors did.
In the European PSYCONES project (Isaksson, 2005),
permanent employees reported a greater number of prom-
ises made by the employer and by themselves, but tempo-
rary employees were more likely to report fulfillment of
the psychological contract. The studies reveal that em-
ployees with a standard work arrangement reported more
expectations, more relational contracts, and more promis-
es made by the employer. A psychological contract instru-
Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
179
ment should therefore allow us to distinguish between
groups of employees characterized by the terms of their
employment contract. Based on the studies’ results, we
assume that employees with long-term employment rela-
tionships and full-time contracts receive higher induce-
ments and have higher expectations, and that they contrib-
ute more and are expected to contribute more except for
taking over responsibility for their own career.
Previous research on psychological contracts showed
the relevance of psychological contracts for outcomes
such as commitment, intention to quit, performance, and
organizational citizenship behavior. To analyze the crite-
rion validity of the instrument, we therefore tested the re-
lationship between the psychological contract and the out-
comes intention to quit and performance. Without distin-
guishing between dimensions of contract content,
Robinson and Rousseau (1994), Turnley and Feldman
(2000) as well as Flood, Turner, Ramamoorthy, and Pear-
son (2001) showed that intention to quit is positively af-
fected by the employers’ fulfillment of obligations or
promises. Lo and Aryee (2003) found a negative effect of
the breach of the psychological contract on intention to
quit, whereas Robinson (1996) observed a positive effect
on intention to remain. Turnley, Bolino, Lester, and
Bloodgood (2003), Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler (2003) as
well as De Cuyper and De Witte (2006) found a positive
influence of fulfillment of the psychological contract on
employee performance. The breach of the psychological
contract had a negative impact on performance (Johnson
& O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2006;
Robinson, 1996). However, Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood,
and Bolino (2002) did not report that a breach had an im-
pact on performance. In accordance with these studies, we
assumed that greater fulfillment of the psychological con-
tract enhances employee performance and reduces the in-
tention to quit. Following the studies of Robinson and
Rousseau, Flood et al., Turnley et al., and Coyle-Shapiro
and Kessler, we used inducements provided by the em-
ployer as a predictor.
Method
Participants
To consider different employment situations, the question-
naire was tested in three samples in Switzerland. The first
sample consisted of 287 employees of a logistics firm
mainly offering permanent contracts on a full-time or part-
time basis. The second sample comprised 82 employees of
a temporary employment agency who were working for a
limited period of time for the agency, although they were
employed with a permanent contract, something typical for
Switzerland. The third sample contained 138 portfolio
workers who had more than one job at a time, and who
were either employed or self-employed (Fraser & Gold,
180 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure
2001). Their employment contracts were either permanent
or temporary.
The management of Company 1 asked employees at sev-
en sites to fill out the questionnaire during working time.
This procedure resulted in a return rate of 96% and 287
completed questionnaires. The sample consisted of 94
women and 187 men; 6 participants did not indicate their
gender. The respondents were aged 29 to 61 years (M =
42.42, SD = 9.93). Only 15 respondents had a university or
college degree. The respondents had a contract for between
10% and 100% of a full-time equivalent with 10% equal to
about a 4-h work week and 100% equal to about a 40-h
work week (M = 89.54, SD = 19.55). Tenure ranged from
2 to 43 years (M = 19.13, SD = 10.90). Eight respondents
were employed on a temporary basis.
The management of Company 2 provided the addresses
of 800 employees in three geographical regions to which
the questionnaire could be sent. The 81 respondents ac-
counted for a return rate of about 10%. The sample consist-
ed of 33 women and 48 men. The respondents were aged
28 to 65 years (M = 34.93, SD = 11.58); 18 participants had
a university or college degree. The respondents had a con-
tract for between 10% and 100% of a full-time equivalent
(M = 84.45, SD = 27.76). Tenure was between 0 and 12
years (M = 1.23, SD = 1.76).
We contacted portfolio workers via organizations offer-
ing temporary employment, based on information on the
internet or personal relations. The final sample consisted
of 148 portfolio workers who held at least two jobs with
either employed or self-employed status, resulting in a re-
sponse rate of 40%; 71 portfolio workers were women, 74
men, and 3 provided no information regarding their gen-
der. The respondents were aged 20 to 62 (M = 41.92, SD =
9.95). They were educated to an above-average level, and
98 participants had a university or college degree. The
portfolio workers completed the psychological contract
questionnaire for each of the two employment relation-
ships unless they were self-employed. Thus, 78 respon-
dents who were simultaneously employed and self-em-
ployed provided only information on the psychological
contract pertaining to their employment. A total of 60 re-
spondents employed in two jobs provided information on
two psychological contracts, but only one set of psycho-
logical contract data was included in the analysis to avoid
underestimating standard errors from dependent observa-
tions (see Hox, 2002). We selected the data set pertaining
to the employment relationship that better resembled a
standard employment relationship (i.e., more working
hours, permanent contract). The data of 10 portfolio work-
ers were not included in the analysis as they had no em-
ployer and did not provide data on psychological con-
tracts. In the employment contract chosen for analysis, the
portfolio workers had a contract for between 10% and
100% of a full-time equivalent (M = 53.55, SD = 17.94)
and 24 portfolio workers were employed on a temporary
basis. Thus, 6% of the sample of employees had a tempo-
rary employment contract.
Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
Measures
Development of the Psychological Contract
Measure
To distinguish between different factors pertaining to psy-
chological contract content, we revised and extended the
psychological contract questionnaire developed by Grote
and Raeder (2003), which comprised employee expecta-
tions and employer inducements with regard to security
and retention, learning opportunities, and support for career
development as well as employer expectations and em-
ployee contributions with regard to loyalty and perfor-
mance, responsibility for career and skill development,
flexibility (of employees). Based on a qualitative analysis
of interviews with 64 managers and human resource man-
agers of 14 firms (Raeder & Grote, 2005), we evaluated
whether the questionnaire contained all relevant dimen-
sions of the psychological contract. We then decided to add
the factors flexibility (provided by the employer) and par-
ticipation, and to merge the factors learning opportunities
and support for career development. The factor flexibility
(provided by the employer) was added to improve the par-
allel structure as such a factor already existed for employer
expectations. The items were developed from Reilly’s
(1998) dimensions of flexibility which were also found in
the results of the interviews we conducted. The factor par-
ticipation was newly constructed, reflecting the continuum
of participation as presented by Dachler and Wilpert
(1978); the wording was based on interview results. The
factors learning opportunities and support for career devel-
opment were combined into one factor to obtain a parallel
structure for employee and employer expectations. The re-
sults of the interviews highlighted that firms rarely distin-
guish between the two forms of support as they support
employees to increase their performance in the firm and do
not aim to foster individual development. To improve the
reliability of the scales, we reformulated the items contain-
ing the terms “employability” and “loyalty” as participants
might not have a clear idea about these constructs. The item
“support for employability” was replaced by the two items
“wide range of skills” and “apply skills in a variety of con-
texts,” and an alternative for the item “employability” was
found in “responsibility for skill development.” The item
“loyalty” was replaced by the three items “identification
with the company,” “protect the employer’s reputation,”
and “intention to stay.” The item “specialized skills” was
changed to “skills,” because having specialized skills and
being employable is contradictory, although both items
originally loaded on the same factor. The revised version
of the questionnaire comprised the factors: security and re-
tention, support for career and skill development, flexibil-
ity (provided by the employer), participation, loyalty and
performance, responsibility for career and skill develop-
ment, and flexibility (of employees) (see Table 2).
In the introduction part of the questionnaire, the respon-
dents were asked to focus on expectations they derived
 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure 181

Table 1
Comparison of psychological contract factor structures resulting from multiple sample analyses
Structure χ² df χ²/df SRMR CFI RMSEA RMSEA CI
Employee/portfolio worker expectations
1-factor 744.29 231 3.22 .091 .82 .067 .061–.072
2-factor 679.39 228 2.98 .089 .84 .063 .057–.068
3-factor 628.52 222 2.83 .089 .86 .060 .055–.066
3-factor (equal factor loadings) 681.67 244 2.79 .100 .85 .060 .054–.065
Employer inducements perceived by employees/portfolio workers
1-factor 735.61 231 3.18 .060 .84 .066 .061–.071
3-factor 543.29 222 2.45 .063 .90 .054 .048–.059
3-factor (equal factor loadings) 612.95 244 2.51 .080 .88 .055 .049–.060
Employer expectations perceived by employees/portfolio workers
1-factor 197.78 42 4.71 .123 .83 .086 .074–.098
2-factor 97.52 39 2.50 .062 .94 .055 .041–.068
2-factor (equal factor loadings) 130.27 49 2.66 .085 .91 .057 .046–.070
Employee/portfolio worker contributions
1-factor 210.35 42 5.01 .117 .74 .089 .078–.102
2-factor 119.43 39 3.06 .075 .88 .064 .051–.077
2-factor (equal factor loadings) 142.14 49 2.90 .095 .86 .062 .050–.073
Note. All χ² values are significant at p < .001. SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA =
root-mean-square error of approximation.

from conversations with their supervisors, from observa-
tions, or from events or incidents that had happened in the
firm. Respondents were requested to indicate their employ-
er’s contributions and their own contributions with respect
to their expectations and the employer’s expectations (see
questionnaire in the Appendix). Expectations were intro-
duced by “I expect from my employer . . .” followed by a
list of items. Contributions were introduced by “My em-
ployer provides me with . . .” followed by the same list of
items. After “My employer expects of me . . .” and “I con-
tribute toward the company . . .,” participants were asked
to respond to the second list of items. Responses were given
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree).
Dependent Variables and Control Variables
Intention to quit was measured with two items from Guest
and Conway (2001). Internal consistency was .68 for all
samples. A sample item reads as follows: “How often dur-
ing the past year have you seriously considered leaving the
organization?” Responses were given on a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Performance
was measured with the scale perceived efficiency from the
Maslach Burnout Inventory (General Survey; Schaufeli,
Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996) comprising 6 items. In-
ternal consistency was .73 for all samples. A sample item
reads as follows: “At my work, I feel confident that I am
effective at getting things done.” Responses were given on
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Control variables comprised gender, age, number of job
changes in participants’ careers, and contractual work
hours measured as a percentage of a full-time equivalent
with 100% equal to about a 40-h work week.
Results
Item and Scale Analysis
Because the structure of the revised instrument remained
close to the questionnaire of Grote and Raeder (2003), we
started the analysis with an item and scale analysis, and
excluded items with low discriminatory power in more
than one sample. To avoid difference values (see Edwards,
1994), employee expectations and employer inducements
as perceived by the employee, on the one hand, and em-
ployee contributions and employer expectations as per-
ceived by the employee, on the other hand, were analyzed
separately. In order to have parallel scales for expectations
and inducements or contributions, items were dropped
from both scales. Items low in discriminatory power in a
single sample were retained, assuming that this was caused
by characteristics of the sample (e.g., employee/portfolio
workers’ expectations of job security). The items locational
flexibility, temporal flexibility, flexible compensation, in-
tention to stay, skills, and acceptance of uncertainty as well
as the factor flexibility (employee expectations and em-
ployer inducements) were therefore excluded from further
analysis (due to space limitations, the table containing the

Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
182 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure
Table 2
Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) of psychological contract scales
Scales Employee/portfolio worker expectations
C1 C2
Security and retention .70 .76
Support for career and skill development .85 .84
Participation .70 .76
Employer expectations perceived by
employees/portfolio workers
C1 C2
Loyalty and performance .80 .82
Responsibility for career and skill development .78 .59
Note. C1 = Employees of Company 1: Permanent contracts (N = 287), C2 = Employees of Company 2: Employment services firm (N = 81),
PW = Portfolio workers (N = 138).
item and scale analysis could not be included here, but can
be downloaded under DOI:10.3929/ethz-a-005861388).
We computed the internal consistency for the psycho-
logical contract scales separately for the three samples.
The flexibility scale (employee contributions) in all sam-
ples yielded internal consistencies below .50, so both flex-
ibility factors measuring employer expectations and em-
ployee contributions were excluded from further analysis.
Scales were retained where Cronbach’s α differed for em-
ployees and portfolio workers as we assumed that differ-
ences were caused by differences in employment relation-
ships. The scales security and retention (portfolio worker
expectations) and responsibility for career and skill devel-
opment (employer expectations) had an internal consisten-
cy below .60 in the sample of portfolio workers, but were
retained because internal consistencies were acceptable in
the other samples. The scale responsibility for career and
skill development (employee/portfolio worker contribu-
tions) showing internal consistencies between .55 and .65
was retained to keep the parallel structure. It reached the
threshold of .50 as recommended by Lienert and Raatz
(1994). The reliability of each scale varied in the three
samples indicating that the scales measured the psycho-
logical contract for the respective groups to different de-
grees of quality. Finally, the internal consistency of the
scales reached values of .55 to .91. Most of the scales
showed acceptable values of .70 to .80 (see Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994), and some had very good values of .80
to .90 (see Table 2).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Four sets of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted
with the program AMOS 7 for each component of the psy-
chological contract (see Table 1). In order to account for
the clustered sample consisting of employees of two firms
and the portfolio workers, we computed multiple-group
analyses. We used maximum likelihood estimation with the
raw data as input. To prevent listwise deletion, missing data
Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
Employer contributions perceived by
employees/portfolio workers
PW C1 C2 PW
.55 .72 .77 .70
.76 .86 .91 .83
.78 .74 .84 .78
Employee/portfolio worker
contributions
PW C1 C2 PW
.70 .72 .70 .72
.71 .63 .55 .65
that accounted for less than 5% of the data was replaced
using the expectation maximization method (see Tabach-
nick & Fidell, 2007). One-factor, two-factor, and three-fac-
tor models as well as models with equal-factor loadings
across samples were compared. In the two-factor model
concerning the components employee expectations and
perceived employer contributions security, retention, and
participation were merged into one factor due to reasons
of contents.
Following the recommendations of Bühner (2006) and
Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, and Müller (2003),
goodness of fit was evaluated using the indices χ²/df-ratio,
SRMR (standardized root mean square residual), CFI
(comparative fit index), RMSEA (root-mean square error
of approximation), and RMSEA confidence interval. A
χ²/df-ratio below 2 indicates good fit and a ratio below 3
acceptable fit. Therefore, the three-factor models for em-
ployee expectations and perceived employer contribu-
tions, and the two-factor models for perceived employer
expectations and employee contributions, all showed ac-
ceptable fit, with only one model slightly above this
threshold. The SRMR values were between .05 and .10,
indicating acceptable fit. The CFI values were between
.86 and .94, thus slightly below the threshold of .95, which
indicates acceptable fit. RMSEA values below .05 indi-
cate good fit and values between .05 and .08 acceptable
fit. The three-factor and two-factor models showed ac-
ceptable fit, with values between .05 and .06. The indices
demonstrated that the components employee expectations
and perceived employer contributions were best repre-
sented by the three-factor models distinguishing between
the factors security and retention, support for career and
skill development and participation. The components em-
ployer expectations and employee contributions were best
represented by the two-factor models with the factors loy-
alty and performance and responsibility for career and
skill development. The models with equal factor loadings
were acceptable, but not significantly better than the free-
ly estimated models. The factor loadings differed consid-
erably depending on subsample indicating that, although
 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure 183

Table 3
Comparison of groups of employees (employees of Company 1 and 2 as well as portfolio workers)
Psychological contract scales C1 C2 PW Significant
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F Partial η2 differences

Security and retention (employee expectation) 4.02 (.71) 3.91 (.86) 4.16 (.69) 3.11* .012
Security and retention (employer inducement) 3.07 (.78) 3.17 (1.00) 3.62 (.86) 20.613*** .076 C1, C2 < PW
Support for career and skill development (em- 3.88 (.79) 3.73 (.91) 3.75 (.74) 1.91 .008
ployee expectation)
Support for career and skill development (employ- 3.02 (.82) 2.85 (1.11) 3.33 (.81) 9.15*** .035 C1, C2 < PW
er inducement)
Participation (employee expectation) 3.74 (.92) 3.40 (1.13) 3.77 (1.04) 4.36* .017 C2 < C1, PW
Participation (employer inducement) 2.67 (.88) 2.49 (1.17) 3.06 (1.11) 10.61*** .040 C1, C2 < PW
Loyalty and performance (employer expectation) 4.33 (.66) 4.19 (.77) 4.46 (.53) 4.68* .018 C2 < PW
Loyalty and performance (employee contribution) 4.30 (.58) 4.34 (.65) 4.41 (.58) 1.47 .006
Responsibility for career and skill development 3.56 (.98) 3.78 (1.19) 4.02 (1.04) 8.01*** .031 C1 < C2
(employer expectation)
Responsibility for career and skill development 3.57 (1.03) 3.04 (1.33) 3.31 (1.15) 9.51*** .036 PW < C1
(employee contribution)
Note. C1 = Employees of Company 1, C2 = Employees of Company 2, PW = Portfolio workers. Bonferroni posthoc tests were applied to test
differences between groups of employees. *p < .05, ***p < .001.

the model could be fit to all subsamples, the respondents
from different groups perceived the structure of their psy-
chological contract differently (due to space limitations,
the table containing the factor loadings could not be in-
cluded here, but can be downloaded from DOI:10.3929/
ethz-a-005861388).
Differences Between Known Groups
Construct validity of the psychological contract measure
was examined according to the known groups approach
(see Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) by computing differences
between groups of employees represented by the three sam-
ples. We assumed that the instrument discriminates be-
tween samples due to differences in the employment con-
tract. The results of the multivariate analysis of variance
indicated that groups of employees differ with respect to
the psychological contract scales, F(20, 988) = 6.88, p <
.001, Wilks’ λ = .77, partial η2 = .122. Significant differ-
ences existed on all scales except for the scales measuring
support for career and skill development (employee expec-
tations) and loyalty and performance (employee contribu-
tions). Results mainly differentiated between portfolio
workers and employees of companies, but the direction of
differences was not as expected for all dimensions (see Ta-
ble 3). Because of permanent contracts and high tenure, we
had expected that employer inducements in Company 1
would exceed inducements provided to portfolio workers,
but portfolio workers reported the highest employer in-
ducements. The relatively low inducements in Company 2
confirmed our assumptions. This was also the case for the
relatively low loyalty and performance and higher respon-
sibility for career and skill development for employees in
Company 2. However, the relatively high employee contri-
butions in responsibility for career and skill development
in Company 1 was not expected. Effect sizes of significant
differences in scales varied between .012 and .076. The
overall measure as well as the scale security and retention
(employer inducements) showed large effect sizes, while
the scales support for career and skill development (em-
ployer inducements), participation (employer induce-
ments), responsibility for career and skill development
(employer expectations and employee contributions) had
small to medium effect sizes (see Cohen, 1988). The effect
sizes of the scales participation (employee expectations)
and loyalty and performance (employer expectations) were
small.
Results of Regression Analyses
We computed hierarchical regression analyses predicting
intention to quit and performance by employer induce-
ments. The fulfillment of the psychological contract mea-
sured as employer inducements yielded a significant con-
tribution for explaining both outcomes (see Table 4). The
employer inducements security and retention and sup-
port for career and skill development were negatively re-
lated to intention to quit and positively related to perfor-
mance. The inducement participation negatively affected
performance. The change in R2 of .09 for predicting in-
tention to quit and of .07 for predicting performance in-
dicate that the psychological contract variables explained
9% and 7% of the variation, respectively. The assumption
that employer inducements have a negative influence on
intention to quit and a positive influence on performance
is thus confirmed.

Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
184 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure

Table 4
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting intention to quit and performance
Dependent variables
Intention to quit Performance
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
β β β β
Control variables
Gender (0 = female, 1 = male) –.07 –.05 .08 .08
Age –.22*** –.23*** .13** .14**
Number of job changes .21*** .18*** .10* .12**
Working hours .25*** .22*** .06 .09
Company a (dummy variable: 1 = Company 1) .02 .02 –.02 –.02
Company b (dummy variable: 1 = portfolio worker) –.01 .06 –.02 –.06
Independent variables
Security and retention (employer inducement) –.20** .14*
Support for career and skill development (employer –.15** .26***
inducement)
Participation (employer inducement) –.01 –.14*
F 14.41*** 15.46*** 3.00** 6.66***
Adjusted R2 .14*** .23*** .02** .09***
2
R change .09*** .07***
Note. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

dated the psychological contract scales and applied them

Discussion
We set out to validate an instrument measuring psycholog-
ical contracts in a Swiss employment context. The results
of the confirmatory factor analyses highlighted that distin-
guishing the different factors according to content im-
proved the quality of the instrument. We obtained factors
with very good internal consistencies such as support for
career and skill development, participation and loyalty and
performance. The values for the factor security and reten-
tion were still acceptable. The internal consistencies for the
factors measuring responsibility for career and skill devel-
opment were not satisfying for all samples and therefore
should be improved in future research. The two factors
measuring flexibility provided by employee and employer
had to be eliminated because of low discriminatory power
and low internal consistency. The final structure of the in-
strument distinguishes the aspects security and retention,
support for career and skill development and participation
with regard to employee expectations and employer in-
ducements. Furthermore, the instrument contains the di-
mensions loyalty and performance and responsibility for
career and skill development. We conclude that different
dimensions of psychological contracts should be distin-
guished as also suggested by De Vos et al. (2003), as this
is preferable to collapsing all aspects of the psychological
contract into one or two dimensions (e.g., De Cuyper & De
Witte, 2006; Robinson et al., 1994). Our instrument dif-
fered from that of De Vos et al. in that we tested and vali-
in a Swiss employment context.
The instrument proved to be sensitive to the terms of the
employment contract such as the duration of the contract
and the number of working hours. The questionnaire mea-
sured differences between groups, but some results di-
verged from our assumptions. Portfolio workers in partic-
ular showed the highest employer inducements, but were
expected to be provided with lower inducements because
they have more than one job. Their responsibility for career
and skill development was also lower than that of the em-
ployees in Company 1, although it was assumed to be a
prerequisite for such a work arrangement. The employees
of Company 1, however, reported on average the highest
responsibility for career and skills. With regard to the em-
ployees of Company 2, the low inducements confirmed our
assumptions because employees were working for a limited
period of time for the employer. This also applies to the
lower loyalty and performance and higher employer expec-
tation of responsibility for career and skills. Very few stud-
ies have investigated psychological contracts in complex
work arrangements such as portfolio working. Thus, no
comparisons can be provided for interpreting these results.
It can be assumed that the work arrangements of portfolio
workers are more stable than expected and that this fact is
reflected in their assessment of the psychological contract.
Employer inducements predicted intention to quit and
performance as expected. The variation explained by em-
ployer inducements in predicting intention to quit and per-
formance amounted to 9% and 7%, respectively, and was
rather small, albeit comparable to values in previous stud-

Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure
ies. Turnley and Feldman (2000) reported an R2 change of
.25 for predicting intention to quit. Robinson (1996) found
an R2 change of .12 for the effect of breach on intention to
remain, which is slightly larger than our change in R2. Ac-
cording to Turnley et al. (2003), fulfillment of the psycho-
logical contract has an impact on performance resulting in
a change in R2 of .16. Robinson (1996) found a very small
but significant influence of fulfillment of the psychological
contract on performance (R2 change of .03). Because our
change in R2 lies between the values provided by Turnley
et al. and Robinson, we regard the variation explained by
employer inducements as satisfying. It can be assumed that
both outcomes depend more on context factors or other as-
pects of the employment relationship. Alternatives on the
labor market contingent on age and qualification might be
more relevant for intention to quit and leadership or the
level of salary might influence performance.
The questionnaire fulfilled the criteria for psychological
contract measures set up by Freese and Schalk (2008). The
items originate from an earlier version of the questionnaire
and interviews; the source of the instrument is therefore
traceable. The interview analysis allowed us to ensure that
the measure contains the relevant dimensions. Further-
more, the measure assesses mutual perceptions of the psy-
chological contract investigating employer and employee
expectations. It not only elicits the satisfaction of employ-
ees with inducements, but allows for a comparison of ex-
pectations and inducements. Finally, the psychometric
properties of the measure were tested in relation to target
samples and reported in this paper.
Although the instrument fits the employment situation
in Switzerland well, its application should not be confined
to this country. We recommend using it in other European
countries with a comparable employment structure (e.g.,
Austria), that is, wherever long-term employment relation-
ships, high employment security, and a limited amount of
temporary employment prevail. Because of the structure of
the dimensions of contents, we assume that the instrument
is easily adapted to different employment conditions, but
recommend testing it before applying it.
One limitation of our study is that neither factor measur-
ing flexibility as provided by employees and by employers
functioned as planned. The flexibility factor (employee ex-
pectations and employer inducements) was derived from a
theoretical model based on firm flexibility (Reilly, 1998),
but employees and portfolio workers might consider differ-
ent dimensions when thinking of flexibility. Financial flex-
ibility in particular could be more closely connected to ob-
taining rewards for performance than to being flexible.
The instrument proved to have limited capacity to adapt
to highly different employment relationships, as it showed
poorer fit with the psychological contracts of portfolio
workers than with those of the companies’ employees. We
assume that differences occur because portfolio workers do
not rely on one employment relationship and therefore as-
sess particular items in a different way. Furthermore, our
sample of portfolio workers had an above-average level of
Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
185
education, which is typical for such work arrangements, as
population surveys in North America have shown (Ami-
rault, 1997). This might also cause differences in response
patterns. We suggest putting more effort into eliciting the
characteristic structure of portfolio workers’ psychological
contracts to increase the capacity of the instrument to mea-
sure nonstandard work arrangements.
For the time being, there is too little information avail-
able about complex work arrangements to fully interpret
the differences between the employees’ and portfolio
workers’ results. However, portfolio workers are a group
of workers who merit attention for future studies that aim
to learn about their work arrangement, their motivation,
and the consequences of their employment situation for or-
ganizational behavior.
Although the questionnaire’s properties proved to be sat-
isfactory, some scales could still be improved. We recom-
mend collecting and testing new items for both factors on
flexibility. To make the questionnaire more efficient, the
scales support for career and skill development as well as
loyalty and performance could be shortened by retaining
the items which most appropriately capture the concept of
the scale. The internal consistency of the scale responsibil-
ity for career and skill development could be enhanced by
adding new items. Furthermore, it would be worthwhile
comparing this measure to another psychological contract
measure. To our knowledge, a comparison of measures has
not yet been reported.
So far, the questionnaire has been tested only with self-
report data obtained by surveys of employees. Considering
the concept of psychological contracts, which focuses on
the employers’ and the employees’ perspective, it would
be sensible to compare employees’ and employers’ data as
suggested by an increasing number of studies (e.g., Dabos
& Rousseau, 2004; Lester et al., 2002). We plan to conduct
such an analysis with the psychological contract data ob-
tained from line managers and HR managers in firms in our
larger study.
This instrument can be used for diagnosing the employ-
ment relationship in companies. Applied in an employee
survey, it provides feedback about whether the employer
inducements are considered reasonable and helps supervi-
sors and human resource managers focus on specific as-
pects of the psychological contract for managing the em-
ployment relationship. The data published in this paper can
serve as a benchmark. The comparison shows whether the
employees of a firm share the focus on long-term and stable
employment relationships and thus also score highest in
security and retention, participation and loyalty and perfor-
mance like the respondents in this study.
Author Notes
This research was funded by the Swiss National Science
Foundation (Grant No. 100012-101803).
186 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure
References
Amirault, T. (1997). Characteristics of multiple jobholders, 1995.
Monthly Labor Review, 120(3), 9–15.
Arvanitis, S. (2003). Numerical and functional labor flexibility at
firm level: Are there any implications for performance and in-
novation? (Working Papers No. 80). Zurich: Swiss Institute for
Business Cycle Research, ETH Zurich.
Bühner, M. (2006). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkon-
struktion [Introduction to test and questionnaire construction].
München: Pearson.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008a). News: Contingent and alter-
native employment arrangement, February 2005. Retrieved
November 12, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/bls/news-
rels.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008b). News: Employee tenure in
2008. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.bls.
gov/bls/newsrels.htm
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2003). The employment relation-
ship in the UK public sector: A psychological contract perspec-
tive. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
13, 213–230.
Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psy-
chological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Dabos, G.E., & Rousseau, D.M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity
in the psychological contracts of employees and employers.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 52–72.
Dachler, H.P., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and
boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evalu-
ation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 1–39.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006). The impact of job insecu-
rity and contract type on attitudes, well-being and behavioral
reports: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Oc-
cupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 395–409.
De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological con-
tract development during organizational socialization: Adap-
tation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 24, 537–559.
Eberhardt, D., Winistörfer, H., & Merz, R. (2005, November).
Erfolgsfaktoren: Nachhaltigkeit und soziale Verantwortung.
Die praktische Ausgestaltung bei ABB Schweiz [Success fac-
tors: Sustainability and social responsibility. Their practical
implementation at ABB Switzerland]. HR Today, 24–25.
Edwards, J.R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational
behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.
Eurostat. (2008). Labor Market Latest Trends: 2nd quarter 2008
data. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://epp.euro-
stat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_455726
04 &_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Flood, P.C., Turner, T., Ramamoorthy, N., & Pearson, J. (2001).
Causes and consequences of psychological contracts among
knowledge workers in the high technology and financial ser-
vices industries. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 12, 1152–1165.
Fraser, J., & Gold, M. (2001). “Portfolio workers”: Autonomy
and control among freelance translators. Work, Employment &
Society, 15, 679–697.
Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
Freese, C., & Schalk, R. (2008). How to measure the psycholog-
ical contract? A critical criteria-based review of measures.
South African Journal of Psychology, 38, 269–286.
Grote, G., & Raeder, S. (2003). Berufliche Identität in Wechsel-
wirkung mit den Anforderungen von Arbeitsflexibilisierung
und kontinuierlicher Bildung: Schlussbericht zum Projekt
3043–57298 im Rahmen des Nationalen Forschungsprograms
NFP 43 “Bildung und Beschäftigung” [Vocational identity in
interaction with the requirements of workplace flexibility and
life-long learning: Final report on Project 3043–57298 of the
National Research Program NRP 43 “Education and occupa-
tion”]. Zürich: Institut für Arbeitspsychologie der ETH Zürich.
DOI: 10.3929/ethz-a-004614754
Guest, D.E., & Conway, N. (2001). Organizational change and
the psychological contract. London: CIPD.
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Isaksson, K. (2005). Psychological contracts across employment
situations (Final Scientific Report). Sweden: National Institute
of Working Life. Retrieved January 20, 2006, from http://
www.uv.es/~psycon
Johnson, J.L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (2003). The effects of psy-
chological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not
all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior, 24, 627–647.
Lester, S.W., Turnley, W.H., Bloodgood, J.M., & Bolino, M.C.
(2002). Not seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and
subordinate perceptions of and attributes for psychological
contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
39–56.
Lienert, G.A., & Raatz, U. (1994). Testaufbau und Testanalyse
[Test construction and test analysis]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Lo, S., & Aryee, S. (2003). Psychological contract breach in Chi-
nese context: An integrative approach. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 40, 1005–1020.
Macneil, I.R. (1978). Contracts: Adjustment of long-term economic
relations under classical, neoclassical, and relational contract law.
Northwestern University Law Review, 72, 854–905.
Millward, L.J., & Brewerton, P.M. (1999). Contractors and their
psychological contract. British Journal of Management, 10,
253–274.
Millward, L.J., & Hopkins, L.J. (1998). Psychological contracts,
organizational and job commitment. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28, 1530–1556.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Office for National Statistics. (2002). Length of service of employ-
ees, 2002. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.
statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=6284
Raeder, S., & Grote, G. (2004). Fairness als Voraussetzung für
die Tragfähigkeit psychologischer Verträge [Fairness as pre-
requisite for the sustainability of psychological contracts]. In
G. Schreyögg, P. Conrad, & J. Sydow (Eds.), Managementfor-
schung, Band 14. Gerechtigkeit und Management [Manage-
ment research, Vol. 14, Fairness and Management] (pp. 139–
174). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Raeder, S., & Grote, G. (2005). Eigenverantwortung als Element
eines neuen psychologischen Vertrages [Self-responsibility as
an element of a new psychological contract]. Gruppendynamik
und Organizationsberatung: Zeitschrift für angewandte So-
zialpsychologie, 36, 207–219.
 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalanis, F. (2004). The impact of person-
ality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 350–367.
Reilly, P.A. (1998). Balancing flexibility: Meeting the interests of
employer and employee. European Journal of Work and Or-
ganizational Psychology, 7, 7–22.
Restubog, S.L.D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R.L. (2006). Effects of psy-
chological contract breach on performance of IT employees:
The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of Oc-
cupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 299–306.
Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological con-
tract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–599.
Robinson, S.L., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the psycho-
logical contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.
Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Chang-
ing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal
study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137–152.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in
organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
2, 121–139.
Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E.
(1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory: General Survey. In C.
Maslach, S.E. Jackson, & M.P. Leiter (Eds.), The Maslach
Burnout Inventory: Test manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists Press.
Schein, E.H. (1970). Organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003).
Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of sig-
nificance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods
of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.
Appendix
Items of the Swiss Psychological Contract Questionnaire (Translated Version)
The following items are rated twice with the instructions:
1. I expect . . . from my employer.
2. My employer provides me with . . .
Items:
– Loyalty
– Opportunities for identification
– Job security
– To promote a positive organizational culture
– Interesting work
– Opportunities for responsibility in the work task
– Opportunity to change the field of activity within the
company
– Opportunities for promotion
– A career in the company
– Support in developing a wide range of skills
– Opportunities to apply my skills in a variety of contexts
– Information about important decisions
Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
187
Sels, L., Jansens, M., & van den Brande, I. (2004). Assessing the
nature of psychological contracts: A validation of six dimen-
sions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 461–488.
Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2007). Swiss Labor Force Sur-
vey: Employed persons broken down by kind of contract, ten-
ure and working time (1991–2006). Neuchâtel: Swiss Federal
Statistical Office. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://
www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/03/02/blank/
data/03.html
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate sta-
tistics (5 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Turnley, W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2000). Re-examining the effects
of psychological contract violations: Unmet expectations and
job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Be-
havior, 21, 25–42.
Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., & Bloodgood, J.M.
(2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on
the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship be-
haviors. Journal of Management, 29, 187–206.
Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship be-
havior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 41, 692–703.
Sabine Raeder
University of Oslo
Department of Psychology
P.O. Box 1094 Blindern
NO - 0317 Oslo
sabine.raeder@psykologi.uio.no
sraeder@ethz.ch
– Involvement in decision making
– Participation in decision making
The following items are rated twice with the instructions:
1. I contribute toward the company . . .
2. My employer expects . . . from me.
Items:
– Identification with the work task
– Achievement orientation
– Responsibility in the work task
– Identification with the company
– To protect the employer’s reputation vis-à-vis third par-
ties
– Participation in professional training without employer
support
– To develop my knowledge and my occupational experi-
ence autonomously
 188 S. Raeder et al.: Swiss Psychological Contract Measure

Items des Fragebogens zum psychologischen Vertrag (deutschsprachige Version)

– Die folgenden Items werden zweimal mit je unterschied- – Einbezug in organisatorische Entscheidungen
lichen Leitfragen ausgefüllt: – Möglichkeiten der Mitbestimmung bei betrieblichen
1. Ich erwarte von meinem Arbeitgeber . . . Entscheidungen
2. Mein Arbeitgeber bietet mir . . .
Die folgenden Items werden zweimal mit je unterschiedli-
Items: chen Leitfragen ausgefüllt:
– Loyalität 1. Ich biete meinem Arbeitgeber . . .
– Identifikationsmöglichkeiten 2. Mein Arbeitgeber erwartet von mir . . .
– Arbeitsplatzsicherheit
– Gestaltung einer förderlichen Unternehmenskultur
Items:
– Interessante Arbeitsinhalte
– Möglichkeiten, Eigenverantwortung zu übernehmen – Identifikation mit der Arbeitstätigkeit
– Möglichkeit, innerhalb des Unternehmens das Arbeits- – Ziel- und Leistungsorientierung
gebiet zu wechseln – Eigenverantwortung in der Arbeitstätigkeit
– Aufstiegsmöglichkeiten – Identifikation mit dem Arbeitgeber
– Entwicklungsperspektive im Unternehmen – Das Ansehen des Arbeitgebers nach außen zu wahren
– Förderung und Entwicklung einer breiten Palette von – Teilnahme an Weiterbildungsaktivitäten ohne Unterstüt-
Fähigkeiten zung des Arbeitgebers
– Möglichkeiten, meine Fähigkeiten vielfältig einzusetzen – Selbstständige Weiterentwicklung meines Wissens und
– Informationen über wichtige Entscheidungen meiner beruflichen Erfahrung

Swiss J. Psychol. 68 (4) © 2009 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

View publication stats