Promises are positioned centrally in the study of psychological contract breach and are argued to distinguish psychological contracts from related constructs, such as employee expectations. However, because the effects of promises and delivered inducements are confounded in most research, the role of promises in perceptions of, and reactions to, breach remains unclear. If promises are not an important determinant of employee perceptions, emotions, and behavioral intentions, this would suggest that the psychological contract breach construct might lack utility. To assess the unique role of promises, the authors manipulated promises and delivered inducements separately in hypothetical scenarios in Studies 1 (558 undergraduates) and 2 (441 employees), and they measured them separately (longitudinally) in Study 3 (383 employees). The authors' results indicate that breach perceptions do not represent a discrepancy between what employees believe they were promised and were given. In fact, breach perceptions can exist in the absence of promises. Further, promises play a negligible role in predicting feelings of violation and behavioral intentions. Contrary to the extant literature, the authors' findings suggest that promises may matter little; employees are concerned primarily with what the organization delivers.