Correction to: The relationship between psychological contract and voice behavior—a social exchange perspective (Asian Journal of Business Ethics, (2020), 9, 2, (257-274), 10.1007/s13520-020-00109-4)

In the published article, there was a mistake in Table 4. Table 4 Discriminant validity (Table presented.) 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 (Table presented.) 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 (Table presented.) (Table presented.) 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 (Table presented.) 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.