“Psychological contract breach and withdrawal behavior: Mediating role of psychological ownership of job and organization in Nepal”

Employees cannot benefit more from formal and legal relationships alone, and a framework for addressing their psychological aspects at the workplace is essential. Therefore, this study aims to gauge the direct effect of psychological contract breaches on employee withdrawal behaviors and ownerships and the mediating role of ownerships in the relationship between psychological contract breaches and withdrawal behaviors in Nepal. This study adopted the cross-sectional survey to gather the perceptional data on a 5-point Likert scale from the 701 staff members working in the Nepali travel and tourism business. The hypotheses were tested via the positivist research philosophy and deductive reasoning approach aligning with the social exchange and equity theories. The study used structural equation modeling for data screening and analysis. The current study revealed a positive impact of psychological contract breach on predicting psychological-withdrawal behavior (B = .22, p < .001) and physical-withdrawal behavior (B = .18, p < .001) and a negative impact of psychological contract breach on job-based ownership (B = –.15, p < .001) and organization-based ownership (B = –.19, p < .001). Job-based ownership mediated the relationship between psychological contract breach and psychological-withdrawal behavior (B = .08, p < .001) and between psychological contract breach and physical-withdrawal behavior (B = .06, p < .001). Finally, organization-based ownership mediated the relationship between psychological contract breach and psychological-withdrawal behavior (B = .02, p < .01) and between psychological contract breach and physical-withdrawal behavior (B = .05, p < .001).

Psychological contract breach and withdrawal behavior: Mediating role of psychological ownership of job and organization in Nepal

INTRODUCTION
One of the most crucial foundations of organizational behavior studies has been the influence of employee behavior on the effectiveness and output of companies. Employees and conduct are vital determinants of service excellence, economic edge, corporate effectiveness, and production (Shapira-Lishchinsky & Even-Zohar, 2011). Formal and legal bindings are insufficient to have a better result for the organization's employees. Consideration and intervention in psychological aspects of employees' behavior in workplace settings are essential. Therefore, there is a need to integrate employees' psychological contract breach, psychological job-based ownership, organization-based ownership, psychological-withdrawal behavior, and physical-withdrawal behavior in a model.
Although substantial empirical progress has been achieved in comprehending the impact of psychological contract breaches on em-ployees and organizational outcomes, more attention must be given to the integrative association of employees' psychological contract breach, ownership with job and organization, and withdrawal behavior. Moreover, the psychological contract is a dynamic structure generated, maintained, disturbed, and mended through time (Hansen & Griep, 2016) and across the culture. Accordingly, psychological ownership is situational and represents the person's current standing concerning the existing company (Mayhew et al., 2007). It indicates that the studies in one context cannot be generalized in another. Most of the studies regarding psychological contract breaches and their consequences were conducted in the context of industrialized nations. In addition, no research was done concerning Nepal. Therefore, fresher studies in a different context are always demanding for practicing managers and theoreticians.
Withdrawal behavior mainly reflects the form of physical and psychological behavior. Absenteeism is a problematic and unexcused behavior that has become a significant field of study in organizations (Hansen et al., 2019). Though measuring the exact amount of cost caused due to the employees' withdrawal behaviors is difficult, most organizations and, ultimately, every nation suffer from such expenses. Therefore, managers and theoreticians constantly search for the sources of employees' withdrawal behavior from different perspectives.
It is common for workers to believe that their company has not sufficiently met their psychological expectations (Robinson & Morrison, 2000), resulting in the employees' dysfunctional behavior. In the literature on the psychological aspect of employees at the workplace, psychological job-based ownership and organization-based ownership are crucial factors. According to Pierce et al. (2001), psychological experiences of ownership at work might lead to favorable consequences on attitudes and behaviors. Hence, this study proposes a new model that an employee's psychological job-based and organization-based ownership might work as an adhesive in the connection between psychological contract breach and withdrawal behavior.
Nepal has a well-established perception that Bhunsun (Bhattarai, 2021) is crucial to employees' careers. Bhansun "affects the course of decision-making for one's advantage through political leaders, union leaders, or any other prominent individual" (Bhattarai & Budhathoki, 2023, p. 397). Nepalese people believe that Bhunsun is necessary to get a job, deploy in a proper place, have a promotion, and make every step of the career. In such a context, employees might think their unwritten contract might not be fulfilled from their formal procedure. Hence, psychological contract breaches may exist significantly. Moreover, considering a particular environment is essential for creating and testing ideas since context-specific cultures may vary.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Recently, there has been growing interest in psychological aspects in the literature on employees' workplace behavior. Researchers' interests are drawn to employees' psychological contract breaches and their consequences for employees and organizations. This study reviews the impact of psychological contract breach on psychological-withdrawal and physical-withdrawal behaviors directly and indirectly through psychological job-based and organizationbased ownership.
The psychological contract, which regulates how the employer-employee trade relationship will develop in the present and the future, can be described as a constant exchange of mutual duties resulting from verbal and implied pledges among the employee and the employer (Rousseau, 2001 Moreover, violation of the contract results in affective reactions, effort reduction, and behavioral involvement. According to the social exchange theory of Blau (1964), an employer and a company have responsibilities to one another. This theory is an effective method for analyzing the sentiments and actions of workers. It operates under the premise that a com-pany's commitment to its employees, as shown by its concern and care, will compel staff to respond by advancing the employer's well-being.
According to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), participants in employment relationships mutually benefit one another by exchanging physical or immaterial advantages. This employment connection adheres to the fairness standard. According to the mutual standard, when someone receives good treatment from one party, they must do the same for that party (Gouldner, 1960). Additionally, this holds if one party is treated poorly by the other. In other words, if someone treats employees poorly and they perceive it, they may mishandle employers in return or misbehave (Huang et al., 2016). Employees with psychological contract breach may think (Blau, 1964) that they are not regarded kindly by their company, which could cause bad attitudes and negative behaviors in the form of detachment in the organization and job (i.e., feeling of less ownership).
Additionally, when a psychological contract breach is implemented, staff members may exhibit behaviors such as losing interest in their job (Spindler, 1994) and thinking that a company lacks ethics (Zhao et al., 2007). Likewise, Deery et al. (2006), Kickul (2001), Song and Lee (2020), and Turnley and Feldman (2000) tested that psychological contract breach may result in unplanned absences, anti-citizenship behavior, work withdrawal behavior, as well as a decline in work performance while in the post. These theoretical arguments and empirical evidence suggest that psychological contract breach is an inevitable negative aspect of any organization, and its impact is detrimental to employees and the organization. Hence, a proposition might be postulated regarding its positive effect on employees' psychological-withdrawal and physical-withdrawal behavior and adverse impact on psychological job-based and organization-based ownership. Where withdrawal behavior refers to employees who wish to distance themselves from their jobs, a company may behave in psychic or bodily ways. It is counter-productive to work behavior (Farrell & Petersen, 1984). Likewise, psychological ownership is a sense of possession unrelated to official or legal ownership claims (Mayhew et al., 2007). Researchers have recognized psychological ownership as job-based and organization-based ownership as different. Psychological organizationbased ownership examines how connected and pos-sessive a person feels about a company (Mayhew et al., 2007). Psychological job-based ownership pertains to people's sentiments of ownership toward their specific employment.
Likewise, the effect of psychological job-based ownership and organization-based ownership on psychological-withdrawal behavior and physical-withdrawal behavior can be explained by connecting with the equity theory of Adams (1963). The theory assumes employees expect a fair balance between their inputs and outcomes. When employees perceive an imbalance between inputs and outputs, they try to adjust either inputs or outcomes to maintain a reasonable balance. In the case of psychological ownership and withdrawal behavior, if employees perceive they are not accomplishing psychological job-based ownership and organization-based ownership as outcomes, they lower the inputs exhibiting withdrawal behavior to maintain a perceived fair balance between inputs and outputs. With the essence of this theory, if workers experience a sense of psychic control over their employment, one might anticipate that they will enjoy or be content with them. Numerous beneficial outcomes, including work success ( Hence, as proposed by social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), an increase in employees' psychological contract breach lowers their psychological job-based ownership and organization-based ownership as a reciprocal response strategy of employees at the workplace. Moreover, as suggested by equity theory (Adams, 1963), decreased psychological ownership (both job-based and organization-based) cause to increase in psychological-withdrawal and physicalwithdrawal behavior to ensure the perceived equity of inputs to the organization and its outcomes.
Consequently, this study considers the integrating underpinning of the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), equity theory (Adams, 1963), and empirical evidence to deal association of psychological contract breach, job-based ownership, organization-based ownership, psychologicalwithdrawal behavior, and physical-withdrawal behavior. Thus, this paper aims to assess the direct impact of psychological contract breach on (i) job-based ownership and organization-based ownership and (ii) psychological-withdrawal behavior and physical-withdrawal behavior. Furthermore, the study seeks to measure the mediating role of psychological job-based and organization-based ownership in the relationship between (iii) psychological contract breach and psychological-withdrawal behavior and (iv) psychological contract breach and physicalwithdrawal behavior. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed to gauge above stated aims: H1a: Psychological contract breach positively impacts psychological-withdrawal behavior.
H2a: Psychological contract breach positively impacts psychological job-based ownership.
H2b: Psychological contract breach positively impacts psychological organization-based ownership.
H3a: Psychological job-based ownership mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and psychological-withdrawal behavior.
H3b: Psychological job-based ownership mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and physical-withdrawal behavior.
H4a: Psychological organization-based ownership mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and psychologicalwithdrawal behavior.
H4b: Psychological organization-based ownership mediates the relationship between psychological contract breach and physical-withdrawal behavior.

Measures
Robinson and Morrison (2000) developed the psychological contract breach measure used in this investigation. Their five items were rephrased for the ease of respondents in the study context. Employee ratings of how well the organization met its obligations to the workforce served as the construct's yardstick. A five-point Likert-type scale was used to collect responses, with one (1) denoting strongly disagree and five (5) denoting strongly agree. The sample item is: "The organization has broken many of its promises to me even though I have upheld my side of the deal." The overall construct reliability in the present investigation remained at .90.
Psychological job-based ownership and organization-based ownership were measured by the five and seven items measures, respectively. These measures were initially developed by Pierce et al. (1992) and rephrased in this study for the ease of respondents. A five-point Likert-type scale was used to collect responses, with one (1) denoting strongly disagree and five (5) denoting strongly agree. Sample items of the ownership with the organization are, "I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for this organization" and "I sense that this is my company." Likewise, sample items of the ownership with the job are "I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for this job" and "I sense that this job is my job." This paper measured the composite reliability of the ownership with organization and ownership with the job as .85 and .90.
Eight items were used to gauge psychological-withdrawal behavior and four were used to estimate physical-withdrawal behavior. Both measures were developed by Lehman and Simpson (1992). Sample items of the psychological-withdrawal behavior are, "How often have you put less effort into the job than you should have?" and "How often have you chatted with coworkers about nonwork topics?" Likewise, sample items of the physical-withdrawal behavior are: "How often have you taken longer lunch or rest break than allowed?" and "How often have you left work early without permission?" A five-point Likert-type scale, from never (one) to very frequently (five), was used to gauge the respondents' responses to each statement. This paper measured the composite reliability of psychological-withdrawal and physical-withdrawal behavior as .94 and .84.

Questionnaire administration and data collection
A set of questionnaires (cross-sectional and perceptual) containing 29 items was distributed. All the questionnaires were asked on a Likert-type fivepoint scale except for demographic information.
Questionnaires were distributed to the personnel engaged in Nepali travel and tour companies. Generally, these organizations adopt an organic organizational structure; therefore, psychological aspects at the workplace is more meaningful than written standards (e.g., rules, regulation, or job contracts). Attention was paid to covering the different natures of employees in a survey.
Nine hundred questionnaires were distributed to employees working in travel and tour companies in Kathmandu city with assistance from the head of the human resources department of the concerned company. Seven hundred and twenty-three questionnaires were returned within one week of the given time. After the purification of data, 701 responses were retained for further analysis.

Common method variance
Inflated correlations between variables are an example of common method variance (CMV), which occurs when information is gathered using a self-reported questionnaire (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Since it may report wrong information to accept (or reject) the hypothesis, two remedial procedures were adopted while developing the questionnaire to reduce common method bias, as Podsakoff et al. (2003) recommended. Firstly, six statements (rep-resenting two from each construct) were reverse scored with rephrasing negative words to lessen the impact of any biases in response patterns. Secondly, opinions measuring different variables were mixed up for responders not to be able to identify the related variables of a particular statement. Following these tactics, a one-factor test of Harman was computed to determine if there was CMV. One factor test revealed that 32.15% variation was explained by a first single factor within the threshold of 50% of Cho and Lee (2012). This indicates that this study is not seriously affected by the problems of CMV, and the data are acceptable for further analysis.

Reliability and validity
Agreeing with Peterson and Kim (2013), to measure the reliability, this study considers the composite reliability (CR) (instead of Cronbach's Alpha) as it best fits in structural equation modeling. As depicted in Table 1, the composite reliability of all the constructs was above the limit of .60 (Awang, 2015). Likewise, the average variance extracted (AVE) was more than the .50 cutoff (Awang, 2015). Hence, the measures of the current study ensured reliability.
The AVE of all the constructs is higher than Hair et al.'s (2010) criterion (i.e., .50), as shown in Table  1. Moreover, another threshold, the statistical significance of each item in a measurement model, was established (Awang, 2015). Therefore, the current study's measures ensured convergent validity. Likewise, the predictor factors had a correlation coefficient lower than the .85 cutoff point of Awang (2015 Note: *** indicates the significance of the correlation coefficient at a .001 level. The parent thesis value represents the AVE's square root. JBO -job-based ownership; OBO -organization-based ownership.

Measurement models
AMOS version 24 was used to construct a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to assess the measurement model fit. First, the respective five latent constructs for each of the 29 statements were loaded. Two of the 29 statements were sequentially removed from the measurement model because they loaded below .60 in their respective latent constructs (Awang, 2015). Both released statements were from a construct of organization-based withdrawal behavior. Then, using modification indices, three error terms within each latent construct that displayed a covariance error term larger than .30 were correlated and established as a free parameter estimate. In addition, 32 replies causing a high outlier rate were discarded. As a result, an excellent model fit index was attained, as shown in Table 2.
Hu and Bentler (1999) advocated combining various indicators (rather than an absolute one) to acquire the optimum model fit index. They recommend using the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) together to ensure a proper fit between the measurement data and the model. As depicted in Table 2, the Chi-square Mean/Degree of Freedom (CMIN/DF) was 2.81. Similarly, CFI was .96, SRMR was .05, RMSEA was .05, and PClose was .35. All these indicators were better than the cutoff criteria (Gaskin & Lim, 2016) for the excellent model, i.e., 1 to 3 (CMID/DF), more significant than .95 (CFI), less than .08 (SRMR), less than .06 (RMSEA), and .05 (PClose). So, the information has reached an appropriate stage for inferential statistics. Figure 1 shows the predictive path of the tested model in this study which was extracted from the latent path model (Bhattarai, 2022). It was calculated from the primary data by applying structural equation modeling with latent variables. Figure 1 depicted that hypotheses measuring direct effect are accepted. Firstly, the impact of psychological contract breach on predicting psychological-withdrawal behavior is significant (B = .22, p < .001) and positive, supporting hypothesis 1a. Secondly, the coefficient of psychological contract breach to indicate physical-withdrawal behavior is significant (B = .18, p < .001) and positive, confirming hypothesis 1b. Thirdly, the effect of psychological contract breach on psychological job-based ownership is statistically considerable (B = -.15, p < .001) and negative, accepting hypothesis 2a. Fourthly, an association of psychological contract breach to predict psychological organization-based ownership is significant (B = -.19, p < .001) and negative, confirming hypothesis 2b.

RESULTS
Moreover, as shown in Figure 1, the impact of ownership with the job (B = -.50, p < .001) and ownership with the organization (B = -.10, p <. 001) on predicting psychological-withdrawal behavior is negative and significant. Similarly, the effect of ownership with the job (B = -.37, p < .001) and ownership with the organization (B = -.24, p <. 001) on predicting physical-withdrawal behavior is negative and significant. Therefore, a mediation requirement was achieved, as the paradigm proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). Table 3 depicts the indirect effect size of different variables. As shown in Table 3, all the indirect effects are statistically significant, as hypothesized. Firstly, the impact of psychological contract breach on psychological-withdrawal behavior through psychological job-based ownership is significant (B = .08, p <. 01), confirming hypothesis 3a. Secondly, the effect of psychological contract breach on physical-withdrawal behavior through psychological job-based ownership is significant (B = .06, p <. 01), support-

DISCUSSION
This study tested whether employees' psychological contract breach positively impacts their psychological-withdrawal and physical-withdrawal behavior. This means if employees feel a breach of their psychological contract, this enhances both psychological and physical withdrawal behavior. The analysis revealed that employees' psychological contract breach negatively impacts their psychological job-based and organization-based ownership. It indicates that employees feel more ownership of their job and organization if their psychological contract is fulfilled. The results showed that psychological contract breach has negative aspects, and its impacts are detrimental to employees' attitudinal behavior. These findings are consistent with the essence of the social exchange theory of Blau (1964), which states that the parties (here, employer and employees) provide each other with tangible or ethereal advantages in an exchange relationship. This exchange relationship between employer and employees adheres to the reciprocity standard. According to the reciprocal norm, it is necessary to reciprocate favorably when a person receives favorable treatment from one party. This concept also holds if one party learns unfavorable information from the other.
Workers who feel an organization is not meeting their psychological expectations do not feel psychological job-based ownership and organization-based ownership. Moreover, in not fulfilling the employer's psychological expectation, they tend to exhibit withdrawal behavior psychologically and physically. These behaviors are the employees' strategies to have the give-and-take condition for the breaching psychological contract by the employer. Regarding the impact of psychological contract Note: *** indicates the significance of the regression coefficient at the .001 level, extracted from the latent path model.   (2000) support the finding of the current study. These studies tested psychological contract breach as a negative aspect at the workplace, which triggered discretionary absenteeism, anti-citizenship behavior, work withdrawal behavior, and decreased in-role job performance.
Moreover, the current study confirmed that employees' perceived psychological job-based ownership and organization-based ownership mediate the relationship between psychological contract breach and psychological-withdrawal behavior and psychological contract breach and physical-withdrawal behavior. In other words, increased psychological contract breaches reduce psychological job-based and organization-based ownership. That reduced psychological job-based and organization-based ownership individually forces psychological-withdrawal and physical-withdrawal behavior to increase. The result indicates that when employees do not perceive fulfillment of their unwritten expectations from the organization, they feel less job-and organization-based ownership. Again, such feeling of less psychological job-based and organization-based ownership causes them to exhibit withdrawal behaviors psychologically and physically. Hence, the impact of psychological contract breach on psychological-withdrawal and physical-withdrawal behavior goes directly and indirectly through psychological job-based and organization-based ownership. The study's results support the theoretical integration of the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and equity theory (Adams, 1963 This study revealed a new result regarding the mediating effect of psychological job-based and organization-based ownership in the relationship between psychological contract breach and withdrawal behaviors, connecting the social exchange (Blau, 1964) and equity theories (Adams, 1963). This was derived from the cross-sectional perceptual data in the Nepalese context. Therefore, the theory can be more generalized if further study is carried out in different contexts triangulating cross-sectional, experimental, and longitudinal studies. Likewise, the root of psychological contract breach -withdrawal behavior through psychological ownership -might be affected by other factors, for example, the punishment system of the organization, employees' situations, or the unemployment rate in the country. Therefore, future studies will be more beneficial if they consider these aspects.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This study aimed to create a model that gauges the direct impact of psychological contract breach on psychological-withdrawal behavior, physical-withdrawal behavior, psychological job-based ownership, and psychological organization-based ownership. It also measured the mediating role of psychological job-based and organization-based ownership in the relationship between (a) psychological contract breach and psychological-withdrawal behavior and (b) psychological contract breach and physical-withdrawal behavior.
Based on the tested model, psychological contract breach is a detrimental factor. It triggers the employees' psychological and physical-withdrawal behavior and deactivates the feeling of job-and organization-based ownership. Moreover, psychological contract breach affects psychological-withdrawal and physical-withdrawal behavior indirectly through both psychological job-based and organization-based ownership. Employees' sense of breach of unwritten contract suppresses their feeling of job-and organization-based ownership. Again, such feeling causes an upsurge in their psychological and physical withdrawal behavior. Withdrawal behavior is a severe problem for organizations and employees themselves.
Considering the tested model, practicing managers can minimize their employees' psychological and physical-withdrawal behavior by fulfilling their unwritten expectations. Likewise, the new model can be a foundation for further studies to measure the different aspects of sources and roots of employees' deviant behaviors (e.g., withdrawal behavior) from the perspective of employees' psychological aspects.