Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in China: Investigating Generalizability and Instrumentality Chun Hui The Chinese University of Hong Kong Cynthia Lee Northeastern University Denise M. Rousseau Carnegie Mellon University This study examined the generalizability of psychological contract forms observed in the West (D. M. Rousseau, 2000) to China. Using 2 independent samples, results confirmed the generalizability of 3 psychological contract forms: transactional, relational, and balanced. This study also examined the nature of relationships of psychological contracts with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In particular, this study explored the role of instrumentality as a mediating psychological process. The authors found evidence that instrumentality mediates the relationship of relational and balanced forms with OCB; however, the transactional contract form is directly related to OCB. The authors discuss the implications of these results for the meaning of psychological contracts and OCB in China and raise issues for future research. There is little research on the nature and form of employment relationships in the developing world or among traditional societ- ies. It is an empirical question whether it is possible to study in a meaningful way worker– employer relationships in such societies using approaches derived from more developed countries. This study examined the generalizability of psychological contract as- sessment to China and the possible mechanisms through which a worker’s psychological contract may affect his or her contributions to the employer. The term psychological contract was first intro- duced in the 1960s to characterize mutual expectations between the employer and employee (Argyris, 1960; Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl, & Solley, 1962; Schein, 1965). Since then it has developed into a construct characterizing the employment relation- ship, based on the beliefs employees or employers hold regarding their exchange relationship. Psychological contracts, both in terms of their content and the degree to which they are fulfilled, impact many employment outcomes, including workers retention, turn- over, and contributions to the employer (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Turnley & Feldman, 1999). Despite increased attention to the study of the psychological contract in North America, Europe, and Asia (Rousseau & Schalk, 2000), scholars have focused almost entirely on highly industrial- ized, developed countries. Societal differences raise issues regard- ing generalizability of the psychological contract construct. As the prototype of business in the developed world, North American businesspeople typically rely on rules and legal protection to enforce contracts (Pearce, 2001). In contrast, little is known about how commitments or obligations by employers made to employees function in nations marked by what Chang (1976) has termed a system of people. For example, the traditional Chinese business sector that characterizes much of modern communist China is known for its reliance on human, rather than legal, factors when conducting business and managing employees. In China, the ab- sence of a strong regard for legal contracts in employer– employee relationship suggests that such an exchange relationship may de- pend on psychological, social, and interpersonal mechanisms rather than formalisms arising from law. The psychological contract construct can help explore these mechanisms by providing a basis for comparing rule- and people- based systems. This construct permits us to examine how the parties interpret and respond to the exchange relationship that constitutes employment. Both rule- and people-based systems en- tail the creation of obligations between employee and employer, one through formal and implied agreements and the other through relationships. Evidence that psychological contracts function sim- ilarly in both systems would support the use of psychological contract assessments in evaluating the generalizable (often referred to as etic) as well as local (or emic) bases of contemporary employment. Chun Hui, Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; Cynthia Lee, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University; Denise M. Rousseau, Heinz School of Public Policy and Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University. This research was supported by Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, Grant CUHK6197/98H awarded to Chun Hui and Denise M. Rousseau and by Carnegie Bosch Institute support awarded to Denise M. Rousseau. Author names are alphabetically arranged. All three authors contributed equally. We thank Cathy Senderling for editing the manuscript and Carole McCoy for word processing. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cynthia Lee, 304 Hayden Hall, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail: c.lee@neu.edu Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association 2004, Vol. 89, No. 2, 311–321 0021-9010/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.311 311