Antecedents and consequences of relational components of the new psychological contract MARCIE A. CAVANAUGH 1 AND RAYMOND A. NOE 2 * 1 School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, U.S.A. 2 Department of Management, Michigan State University, U.S.A. Summary The literature regarding the new psychological contract suggests that the traditional paternalistic employer±employee relationship in U.S. companies has eroded. We investi- gated the relationship between relational components of the new psychological contract (personal responsibility for career development, commitment to type of work, and expectations of job insecurity), work experiences (involuntary job loss, organizational change, voluntary job change, and violation of obligations), and work outcomes (job satisfaction, participation in development activities, and intention to remain with the employer). We hypothesized that managerial and professional employees' level of agreement with relational components of the new psychological contract would mediate the relationship between their work experiences and work outcomes. In partial support of the model, we found that level of agreement with relational components of the new psychological contract mediated the relationship between work experiences and intention to remain with the employer and job satisfaction. Contrary to the model, no relationship was found among work experiences, level of agreement with relational components of the new psychological contract, and participation in development activities. Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction The psychological contract represents the employee's and employer's beliefs or perceptions regarding the terms of the employment relationship (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). The psycho- logical contract may include beliefs or perceptions regarding performance requirements, job security, training, compensation, and career management issues. These beliefs or perceptions need not agree for employees and employers to believe a contract exists (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). Psychological contracts dier on the basis of the degree to which they are transactional versus relational in nature (see Morrison and Robinson, 1997). The transactional component is * Correspondence to: Raymond A. Noe, Department of Management, Michigan State University, N475 North Business Complex, East Lansing, MI 48824-1122, U.S.A. Tel (517) 432-3510. Fax: (517) 432-1111. E-mail:noer@pilot.msu.edu. The authors would like to thank Mark Roehling and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. CCC 0894±3796/99/030323±18$17.50 Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 21 May 1997 Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav. 20, 323±340 (1999)