Table 1 Core constructs and outcome... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Core constructs and outcome levels in the recursive dual-contract process model

Construct	Definition	Principal level	Function and conceptual distinction
Formal contractual architecture	Explicit governance arrangements allocating authority, incentives, accountability, monitoring rights, and decision responsibilities	Organizational and governance-system	Establishes formal control and coordination while generating cues about expected conduct
Relational governance signals	Actions, communications, and interaction patterns through which actors interpret how formal governance arrangements will be enacted	Event, individual, and dyadic	Convey relational meaning but do not automatically create perceived obligations
Promissory interpretation	The judgment that a governance cue communicates a credible reciprocal commitment rather than information, preference, or aspiration alone	Individual	Converts selected governance signals into psychologically binding obligations
Psychological contract expectations	Beliefs that another governance party owes particular conduct concerning autonomy, support, candor, accountability, fairness, or stewardship	Individual	Provide the reference standard against which later conduct is evaluated
Contract alignment	Perceived correspondence between psychological contract expectations and observed governance conduct	Individual and dyadic	Creates the basis for fulfillment appraisal and relational reinforcement
Contract misalignment	Perceived discrepancy between psychological contract expectations and observed governance conduct	Individual and dyadic	Creates the possibility of renegotiation or breach appraisal but is not itself a breach
Fulfillment appraisal	Cognitive judgment that a perceived obligation has been met, appropriately revised, or exceeded	Individual	Reinforces trust, cooperation, and relationship maintenance
Breach appraisal	Cognitive judgment that another party has failed to fulfill a perceived obligation	Individual	Depends on discrepancy salience, attribution, fairness, and prior trust
Psychological contract violation	Emotional response to an appraised breach, including betrayal, anger, resentment, or disappointment	Individual	Intensifies behavioral responses and increases the likelihood of relational escalation
Governance responses	Actions arising from fulfillment, breach, or violation, including information sharing, voice, monitoring, withdrawal, symbolic compliance, renegotiation, and repair	Dyadic and board-level	Translate individual appraisals into interaction patterns and collective governance action
Relationship maintenance and repair	Continued ability to cooperate, monitor, contest, exchange information, and recalibrate expectations without relational breakdown	Dyadic and board-level	Represents a maintained or restored relational condition, not the absence of disagreement
Governance deterioration	Progressive erosion of trust, information exchange, cooperation, and perceived relational legitimacy	Dyadic and board-level	Intermediate process through which breach can spread and become collectively consequential
Governance-system failure	Material impairment of oversight, advice, accountability, strategic coordination, or credible communication	Board and organizational	Final system-level outcome, distinct from individual distrust or isolated behavioral reactions

Construct	Definition	Principal level	Function and conceptual distinction
Formal contractual architecture	Explicit governance arrangements allocating authority, incentives, accountability, monitoring rights, and decision responsibilities	Organizational and governance-system	Establishes formal control and coordination while generating cues about expected conduct
Relational governance signals	Actions, communications, and interaction patterns through which actors interpret how formal governance arrangements will be enacted	Event, individual, and dyadic	Convey relational meaning but do not automatically create perceived obligations
Promissory interpretation	The judgment that a governance cue communicates a credible reciprocal commitment rather than information, preference, or aspiration alone	Individual	Converts selected governance signals into psychologically binding obligations
Psychological contract expectations	Beliefs that another governance party owes particular conduct concerning autonomy, support, candor, accountability, fairness, or stewardship	Individual	Provide the reference standard against which later conduct is evaluated
Contract alignment	Perceived correspondence between psychological contract expectations and observed governance conduct	Individual and dyadic	Creates the basis for fulfillment appraisal and relational reinforcement
Contract misalignment	Perceived discrepancy between psychological contract expectations and observed governance conduct	Individual and dyadic	Creates the possibility of renegotiation or breach appraisal but is not itself a breach
Fulfillment appraisal	Cognitive judgment that a perceived obligation has been met, appropriately revised, or exceeded	Individual	Reinforces trust, cooperation, and relationship maintenance
Breach appraisal	Cognitive judgment that another party has failed to fulfill a perceived obligation	Individual	Depends on discrepancy salience, attribution, fairness, and prior trust
Psychological contract violation	Emotional response to an appraised breach, including betrayal, anger, resentment, or disappointment	Individual	Intensifies behavioral responses and increases the likelihood of relational escalation
Governance responses	Actions arising from fulfillment, breach, or violation, including information sharing, voice, monitoring, withdrawal, symbolic compliance, renegotiation, and repair	Dyadic and board-level	Translate individual appraisals into interaction patterns and collective governance action
Relationship maintenance and repair	Continued ability to cooperate, monitor, contest, exchange information, and recalibrate expectations without relational breakdown	Dyadic and board-level	Represents a maintained or restored relational condition, not the absence of disagreement
Governance deterioration	Progressive erosion of trust, information exchange, cooperation, and perceived relational legitimacy	Dyadic and board-level	Intermediate process through which breach can spread and become collectively consequential
Governance-system failure	Material impairment of oversight, advice, accountability, strategic coordination, or credible communication	Board and organizational	Final system-level outcome, distinct from individual distrust or isolated behavioral reactions