Correction to: The relationship between psychological contract and voice behavior—a social exchange perspective

Correction to: Asian J Bus Ethics

10.1007/s13520-020-00109-4

In the published article, there was a mistake in Table 4.

Table 4 Discriminant validity

	1	2	3	4	5	6
Psy. Contract (fulfillment)	0.75
VB (positive)	0.134	0.715
Psy contract (violations)	0.27	0.016	0.715
VB (Prohibitive)	0.253	0.075	0.582	0.741
Job satisfaction	0.422	0.177	0.525	0.502	0.748
Job dissatisfaction	0.463	0.083	0.624	0.424	0.426	0.756

The negative sign in some of the values were not noted when the variables had negative correlations. Although, discussed in the article, the table should be noted correctly. The correct table should be read as follows:

Table 4 Discriminant validity

	1	2	3	4	5	6
Psy. contract (fulfillment)	0.75
VB (positive)	0.134	0.715
Psy contract (violations)	−0.27	−0.016	0.715
VB (prohibitive)	−0.253	−0.075	0.582	0.741
Job satisfaction	0.422	0.177	−0.525	−0.502	0.748
Job dissatisfaction	−0.463	−0.083	0.624	0.424	−0.426	0.756

In the article, there was also a typographical error in Table 5 with regards to the minus sign.

Table 5 PLS Structural Model Results

Model 1	Coefficients	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics	P Values	2.50%	97.50%
Psy.contract fulfill -> Job satisfaction	0.240	0.044	6.086	0.00	0.188	0.328
Job satisfaction-> positive voice behavior	0.239	0.072	5.306	0.03	0.321	0.246
Psy.contract->job satisfaction -> positive voice behavior	-0.278	0.054	4.418	0.00	-0.317	-0.129

Model 2	Coefficients	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics	P Values	2.50%	97.50%
Psy.contract violate -> Job dissatisfaction	0.219	0.079	3.46	0.01	0.246	0.202
Job dissatisfaction->negative voice behavior	0.220	0.049	4.329	0.02	0.031	0.216
Psy.contract violate->job dissatisfaction ->negative voice behavior	-0.272	0.049	4.328	0.00	-0.207	-0.129

There is no minus sign in table five. This is mentioned in the text as well, that all the relationships are positive. Therefore, all negative signs should be ignored / removed. Accordingly, table 5 should be read as following:

Table 5 PLS structural model results

	Coefficients	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics	P values	2.50%	97.50%
Model 1
Psy. contract fulfill -> job satisfaction	0.240	0.044	6.086	0.00	0.188	0.328
Job satisfaction-> positive voice behavior	0.239	0.072	5.306	0.03	0.321	0.246
Psy. contract->job satisfaction -> positive voice behavior	0.278	0.054	4.418	0.00	0.317	0.129
Model 2
Psy. contract violate -> job dissatisfaction	0.219	0.079	3.46	0.01	0.246	0.202
Job dissatisfaction -> negative voice behavior	0.220	0.049	4.329	0.02	0.031	0.216
Psy. contract violate -> job dissatisfaction -> negative voice behavior	0.272	0.049	4.328	0.00	0.207	0.129

The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in anyway. We are again extremely sorry for this inconvenience.