A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct

Author(s): Richard C. Huseman, John D. Hatfield and Edward W. Miles

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 222-234
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258531 .
Accessed: 29/08/2013 12:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Accidemy of Management Review, 1987, Vol. 12, No. 2, 222-234.

A New Perspective
on Equity Theory:
The Equity Sensitivity Construct
RICHARDC. HUSEMAN
JOHND. HATFIELD
EDWARDW. MILES
University of Georgia

Equity theory proposes that individuals who perceive themselves as

either underrewarded or overrewarded will experience distress, and
that this distress leads to efforts to restore equity. This paper describes
a new construct, equity sensitivity, and proposes that reactions to
equitylinequity are a function of an individual's preferences for differ-
ent outcome/input ratios. The construct is delineated through a series
of propositions, and implications for equity research in organizations
are discussed.

Equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965) draws from The theory's distress prediction (Proposition 3
exchange, dissonance, and social comparison above) is based upon the assumption that indi-
theories in making predictions about how indi- viduals are equally sensitive to equity; that is,
viduals manage their relationships with others. the general preference is that outcome/input ra-
Four propositions capture the objectives of the tios be equal to that of the comparison other.
theory: This premise has been termed the "norm of
1. Individualsevaluate their relationshipswith equity" (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978;Walster, Walster,
others by assessing the ratio of their out- & Berscheid, 1978), and both laboratory studies
comes from and inputs to the relationship (e.g., Austin & Walster, 1974; Messe, Dawson, &
against the outcome/inputratioof a compari-
son other. Lane, 1973; Radinsky, 1969) and field research
(e.g., Finn & Lee, 1972; Goodman, 1974; Telly,
2. If the outcome/input ratios of the individual
and comparison other are perceived to be French, & Scott, 1971) show support for the norm.
unequal, then inequity exists. Yet, research into reward allocations (i.e., how
3. The greater the inequity the individual per- individuals distribute outcomes among receivers)
ceives (in the form of either overreward or has identified other norms that appear to contra-
underreward),the more distress the individ- dict the norm of equity. Leventhal (1976), for
ual feels. example, suggested three distribution rules that
4. The greater the distress an individual feels, an individual might employ when allocating out-
the harder he or she will work to restore comes to others: (a) the contribution (equity) rule,
equity and, thus, reduce the distress. Eq- where others are rewarded outcomes in propor-
uity restorationtechniques include altering
or cognitively distortinginputs or outcomes, tion to their inputs; (b) the needs rule, where
acting on or changing the comparisonother, others are rewarded based upon their legitimate
or terminating the relationship. needs, and (c) the equality rule, where others

222

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
receive equal outcomes irrespective of their indi- derstanding individual differences in reactions
vidual inputs. These distribution rules, as Mow- to inequity. This paper sets forth a new construct,
day (1983) indicated, suggest that different norms equity sensitivity, that, as a personality variable,
govern the allocation of rewards. Also, a num- potentially can explain individual differences in
ber of studies (e.g., Shapiro, 1975;Reis & Gruzen, reactions to inequity. Relationships between eq-
1976; Greenberg, 1978) have shown that alloca- uity sensitivity and individual reactions to ineq-
tors do not universally adhere to the equity norm uity in organizations are proposed, and sugges-
when distributing outcomes to others. Thus, evi- tions about how this construct can potentially
dence suggests that the norm of equity has im- improve the utility of equity theory are offered.
portant exceptions, at least in terms of how one
allocates to others. The Equity Sensitivity Construct
Despite the absence of research into norms
that receivers employ when evaluating their own As indicated, research on individual differ-
outcomes, research on individual differences also ences suggests that a number of demographic
suggests exceptions to the norm of equity. These and psychological variables affect how individu-
exceptions include both demographic variables als allocate to themselves and/or others, as well
such as sex (Austin & McGinn, 1977; Callahan- as how they react to inequitable treatment. With
Levy, & Messe, 1979; Major, McFarlin, & Gag- few exceptions (e.g., The Protestant Work Ethic),
non, 1984), age (Hook & Cook, 1979), and na- these variables are conceptually independent of
tionality (Gergen, Morse, & Gergen, 1980;Weick, equity itself. The equity sensitivity construct pro-
Bougon, & Maruyama, 1976), and personality posed here relates directly to equity theory and
traits such as the Protestant Work Ethic (Green- suggests that individuals react in consistent but
burg, 1979),Machiavellianism (Blumstein & Wein- individually different ways to both perceived eq-
stein, 1969), and interpersonal orientation (Swap uity and inequity because they have different
& Rubin, 1983). Plus, as Major and Deaux (1982) preferences for (i.e., are differentially sensitive
indicated in their review of individual differenc- to) equity. Figure 1 presents a continuum of these
es in justice behavior (i.e., reward distributions preferences with three classes of individuals rep-
and reactions to injustice), the effects of individ- resented along the continuum: (a) Benevolents,
ual differences also vary according to whether those who prefer their outcome/input ratios to be
experimental subjects are allocating outcomes less than the outcome/input ratios of the compari-
to themselves and/or others, or whether they are son other; (b) Equity Sensitives, those who, con-
simply reacting to inequitable treatment from forming to the traditional norm of equity, prefer
others. their outcome/input ratios to equal those of com-
The notion of individual differences in regard parison others; and (c) Entitleds, those who pre-
to equity has received little systematic attention fer their outcome/input ratios to exceed the com-
in the organizational behavior literature. In fact, parison other's.
two reviews of equity theory (Miner, 1980; Mow-
day, 1983) have underscored the value of exam- Benevolents
ining individual differences in equity research. The conceptual roots of benevolence can be
Yet Major and Deaux (1982) concluded that much traced to the psychology of individuals by Alfred
of this research is "scattershot" and "opportun- Adler (Adler, 1935; Ansbacher & Ansbacher,
istic" (p. 44), relying heavily on easily identifi- 1956; Rychlak, 1973), who typed individuals by
able demographic variables and involving ex their reactions to others in interpersonal relation-
post facto reasoning from results. Of special sig- ships. Salient among Adler's types is the "socially
nificance is the absence of any theoretical frame- useful," the individual who "thinks more of giv-
work or paradigm for conceptualizing and un- ing than receiving" (Rychlak, 1973, p. 116) and is

223

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 o o 0 0 0 0

I < I I I I >7

P 0 P 0 P 0

Benevolents Equity Entitleds

Sensitives

P = Person
0 = Comparison other

NOTE: The equity formulas shown in Figure 1 are simple adaptations of Adams' original formula. Other equity researchers
(e.g., Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1976) revised his formula, and considerable controversy exists in the equity literature (cf.,
Moschetti, 1979; Romer, 1977; Samuel, 1978; Singh, 1983) about how equity formulas should be constructed. The formulas
presented here can be readily altered to complement other perspectives.

Figure 1. The equity sensitivity continuum.

'prepared for cooperation and contribution" altruistically; that is, by experiencing others'
(Mosak, 1959, p. 194). Although psychologists are needs vicariously, they are sufficiently effectively
ambivalent about the actual existence of altru- aroused to sacrifice their own interests for those
ism (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1983), it is suggested of others. Unfortunately, much of the research
here that Benevolents show altruistic tendencies into altruism is short-term oriented, focusing on
because they give while expecting little in return. temporary or transient relationships such as those
In fact, the Figure 1 formula depicting Bene- between bystanders and others who need their
volents' equity preferences is quite similar to Hat- assistance (Huesmann & Levinger, 1976; Krebs,
field and Sprecher's (1983) equity formula for al- 1970). Thus, while the altruism literature largely
truistic helping relationships. neglects longer term relationships such as that
Several sources of benevolent preferences which an employee might have with his or her
exist. First, as Weick et al. (1976) suggested in organization, it appears reasonable that a Be-
explaining differences in outcome/input ratio nevolent might perceive real or imagined em-
preferences between Dutch and American stu- ployer needs and, thus, be inclined to empha-
dents, a Calvinistic heritage would promote the size own inputs over outcomes.
personal philosophy of high inputs for self with Third, but less consistent with Adler's percep-
little regard for outcomes. Such a personal phi- tion of an "ideal" type, Merton, Merton, and Bar-
losophy is analogous to Rushton's (1980) sugges- ber (1983)proposed that altruistic behavior repre-
tion that social responsibility (as opposed to eq- sents little more than "disguised self-interest" (p.
uity or reciprocity) is a potential motivating force 15). Thus, a Benevolent's preference for lower
for altruistic behavior. outcome/input ratios than the comparison other's
Second, a number of writers (e.g., Rosenhan, might emanate either from a need for social ap-
1978; Rushton, 1980; Wispe, 1968) contended that proval (Blau, 1964) or a desire to enhance one's
empathic arousal motivates individuals to act self-image (Homans, 1961). Blumstein and Wein-

224

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
stein (1969), for example, found that subjects high (Coles, 1977a, p. 85). Greenberg and Westcott
in need for approval claimed less credit for them- (1983) extended Coles' concept of entitlement to
selves when confronted by inequitable claims the general population; they described Entitleds
from a partner. Thus, whether Benevolents' pref- as having high thresholds for feeling indebted:
erences for lower outcome/input ratios accrue "Whatever aid [outcomes] they receive is their
for selfish or unselfish reasons is, as it is in the due, and therefore they feel little or no obliga-
case of altruists, unclear. tion to reciprocate. They exist in a world where
Generally, then, Benevolents are givers. Their all but one are debtors" (p. 105).
contentment derives from perceptions that their Adlerian psychology also provides the concep-
outcome/input ratios are less than the compari- tual basis for entitlement. In sharp contrast to
son other's. Distress occurs for Benevolents ei- Adler's socially useful (Benevolent) individual,
ther when the two ratios (P and 0) are equal or the "getting type":
when the Benevolent's ratio is greater. Exploitsand manipulates life and others by ac-
tively or passively putting others into his service.
Equity Sensitives He tends to view life as unfair for denying him
Equity Sensitive individuals represent the tra- thatto which he is entitled.He may employ charm,
shyness, temper, or intimidation as methods of
ditional equity theory model, and thus, require operation. He is insatiable in his getting (Mosak,
little description. Briefly, they subscribe to the 1971,p. 78).
norm of equity and feel distress when either
Mosak (1959) identified several factors that ap-
overrewarded or underrewarded. Equity Sensi-
pear to promote development of an Entitled
tives are most content when their outcome/input
orientation: (a) post-World War IIcultural values
ratios equal those of the comparison other.
that have changed from getting ahead by doing
Equity Sensitives feel "distress" when under-
to getting ahead without doing; (b) overly per-
rewarded and guilt when overrewarded. This is
missive childrearing practices which encourage
the only group that experiences both of these
children, especially the youngest, the ill, the
feelings. Benevolents are satisfied when under-
handicapped, or the only child to get; and (c)
rewarded and experience guilt when either
our "age of anxiety" (which has not changed
equitably- or overrewarded. Entitleds are satis-
dramatically since the late 1950s) where, given
fied when overrewarded and feel "distress" when
uncertainties in the future, we are encouraged
under- or equitably-rewarded.
to "get as much as we can before the hydrogen
Equity Sensitives may score higher than Be-
bomb falls" (p. 194).
nevolents or Entitleds on Swap and Rubin's (1983)
Therefore, Entitleds are getters: They subscribe
Interpersonal Orientation scale. If a person is
to the exploitative equity relationship described
oriented toward a focus on the other party in a
by Hatfield and Sprecher (1983), where their own
relationship, then he/she should be more con-
outcome/input ratios exceed those of compari-
cerned with an equitable relationship than a per-
son others. Distress would occur if they were not
son who scores low on interpersonal orientation.
"getting a better deal" than their comparison
Entitleds other.
The label "Entitled" is taken from Coles' de- Sources of
scription (1977a, 1977b), which used the term to
General Equity Preferences
describe the affluent child who "has much, but
wants and expects more, all assumed to be his The different general preferences for equity
or hers by right-at once a psychological and among Benevolents, Equity Sensitives, and Enti-
material inheritance the world will provide" tleds can be traced to more specific preferences

225

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
that are delineated through three sets of proposi- H/H, L/L, and H/L (where H signifies High and L
tions; each set of propositions builds upon its signifies Low), Benevolents will select the first
predecessor. alternative (LiH); Entitleds, the last alternative
Proposition1A: Benevolents prefer situations (H/L); and Equity Sensitives, either H/H or L/L.
of high inputs for self com- Weick et al.'s (1976) findings provide additional
pared to low inputs for self. data here. When Dutch students were asked to
Proposition1iB: Entitleds prefer situations of choose between LJH and other outcome/input
high outcomes for self com- ratios, in four of six cases they chose L/H, the
pared to low outcomes for preference posited for Benevolents. American
self. students, on the other hand, opted for H/L in six
In part, these two propositions are adapted of six situations where H/L ratios were compared
from the findings of Weick et al.'s (1976) study of against other outcome/input ratios. Again, it can-
American versus Dutch students' preferences for not be presumed that the Dutch subjects epito-
different forms of equity. Obviously, not all Dutch mize the conceptualization of Benevolents pre-
students in their sample subscribed to Calvinis- sented here, or that the American students were
tic values, and not all of the American subjects Entitleds. But the findings of Weick et al. showed
were "getting" types. Yet, several of Weick et preference differences between two groups
al. 's findings are instructive. First, Dutch students, whose cultural dissimilarities are analogous to
when confronted with situations where they could the distinctions shown here.
choose between high and low inputs for self, The present authors' prediction for Equity Sen-
selected high inputs for self in six of ten situations. sitives extends the norm of equity to situations of
Such selections appear congruent not only with equity for self. Although Weick et al.'s subjects
the Calvinistic emphasis on high inputs for self, chose equity for self (H/H or LUL)in only two of
but also with both the giving and contributing eleven possible cases, it is proposed that Equity
orientation characteristic of Adler's socially use- Sensitives will first search for situations where
ful type and the needs for social approval and outcomes and inputs are equal, then assess that
self-image enhancement. Second, American outcome/input ratio against the comparison
students, in ten situations where choices between other.
high and low outcomes for self were required, Thus, Propositions lA, lB, 2A, 2B, and 2C posit
opted for high outcomes in eight of those ten that Benevolents prefer high inputs that exceed
situations. These preferences are consistent with outcomes; Entitleds, high outcomes that exceed
the Entitled's orientation toward "getting" and inputs; and Equity Sensitives, outcomes that
may at least partially reflect cultural values that, equal inputs. The following propositions, by in-
according to Mosak (1959), are sources of en- troducing the comparison other and building
titlement. Following from the first set of propo- upon Propositions 1 and Propositions 2, represent
sitions: a general conceptualization of equity sensitivity:
Proposition2A: Benevolents prefer that their
own inputs exceed their own Proposition3A: Benevolents prefer that their
outcomes. outcome/input ratios be less
than that of the comparison
Proposition2B: Entitledsprefer that theirown other's.
outcomes exceed their own
inputs. Proposition3B: Entitledsprefer that their out-
come/input ratios exceed that
Proposition20: Equity Sensitives prefer that of the comparison other's.
their own inputs equal their
own outcomes. Proposition3C: Equity Sensitives prefer that
their outcome/input ratios be
These propositions specify that, when given equal to that of the compari-
the choice among the outcome/input ratios of IJH, son other's.

226

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 These propositions assume that all three To illustrate this process, Figure 2 contains all
classes of individuals employ a comparison other possible combinations of hypothetical high and
to assess the existence of equity. As Pritchard low outcomes for both Person (P) and compari-
(1969) indicated, individuals may use an inter- son other (0). Proposition IA specifies that a Be-
nal standard, as opposed to some external com- nevolent would firstseek situations involving high
parison other, when determining equity. Obvious- inputs for self (Blocks A and B in Figure 2). Fol-
ly, they might employ an internal standard as lowing Proposition 2A, the Benevolent then
well as comparisons to others (Goodman, 1974). would opt for Block A, where inputs are high
However, neither Pritchard nor Goodman offered and outcomes are low. Finally, Proposition 3A
empirical support for these positions. Clearly, identifies what is termed the Benevolent's first
this is an empirical question that future research order preferences (marked with a "1" in paren-
should address. The position presented here, theses)-high inputs and low outcomes for self,
consistent with Pritchard (1969) and as reflected the ratio of which is less than the comparison
in earlier propositions, is that individuals use other's outcome/input ratio. Therefore, first order
internal standards first, then they use a com- preferences are those situations consistent with
parison other. all three propositions. Second order preferences

P 0
Block O/I O/I Preference

L/H H/H BEN (1)

L/H LL BEN (1)
A IJH H/L BEN (1)
IJH LJH EQS (2)

H/H H/H EQS (1)

H/H L/L EQS(1)
B H/H H/L BEN (2)
H/H L/H ENT (2)

L/L H/H EQS (1)

L/L LJL EQS (1)
C L/L H/L BEN (2)
L/L L/H ENT (2)

H/L H/H ENT(1)

H/L L/L ENT(1)
D H/L H/L EQS (2)
H/L L/H ENT (1)

P = Person; 0 = Other.
BEN = Benevolent's Preference; ENT = Entitled's Preference; EQS = Equity Sensitive's Preference.
(1) = First Order Preference; (2) = Second Order Preference

Figure 2. Equity preferences for benevolents, entitles, and equity sensitive.

227

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(2) are situations where the Benevolent's out- Equity Sensitivity
come/input ratio is inconsistent with his or her in Organizations
desired outcome/input ratio for self (Propositions
1A and 2A). However, the Benevolent's ratio is The equity sensitivity construct poses a num-
nevertheless smaller than the comparison other's ber of implications for equity research in organi-
(Proposition 3A). Only one of the three proposi- zations. Three general propositions describing
tions is satisfied. posited relationships between perceptions of eq-
Entitleds, on the other hand, would show first uity and an important organizational outcome
order preferences in Block D, where outcomes job satisfaction-for Benevolents, Equity Sensi-
would exceed inputs for self. The two second tives, and Entitleds are presented. Then the rela-
order preferences for Entitleds, labeled ENT (2), tionship between equity sensitivity and an indi-
do not reflect situations where the Entitleds' out- vidual's perceptions of ambiguous job inputs and
comes exceed their own inputs; however, out- outcomes is discussed.
come/input ratios for self are higher than the com-
Equity Sensitivity and
parison other's. Finally, Equity Sensitives would
Organizational Outcomes
opt first for the four combinations labeled EQS
(1) in Blocks B and C and then would opt for the Equity research has examined the impact of
two combinations in Blocks A and D where perceived equity/inequity on a number of organi-
outcome/input ratios for Person and Other are zational outcome variables, including quantity
equal. and/or quality of work (Andrews, 1967; Good-
Generally, it is proposed that not all individu- man & Friedman, 1968; Valenzi & Andrews,
als adhere to the norm of equity. As shown in 1971); turnover (Carrell & Dittrich, 1976; Telly,
the research on individual differences, reactions French, & Scott, 1971); absenteeism (Carrell &
to inequity appear to vary along with certain Dittrich, 1976); and job satisfaction (Farr, 1976;
demographic and personality variables. The eq- Jenkins & Lawler, 1981; Pritchard, Dunnette, &
uity sensitivity construct is a parsimonious expla- Jorgenson, 1972). A major implication of equity
nation for consistent reactions to equity/inequity sensitivity for equity research in organizations is
because it identifies the individual preferences suggested by developing three further proposi-
for equity according to Benevolent, Entitled, or tions concerning the relationship between eq-
Equity Sensitive orientations. uity and job satisfaction for Benevolents, Equity
Further, it is proposed that Benevolents, Entit- Sensitives, and Entitleds.
leds, and Equity Sensitives first look for situa- Equity theory proposes that, as a result of the
tions that match their own internal standards of distress of either overreward or underreward,
equity (Pritchard, 1969). If these situations also inequitably rewarded individuals should experi-
are congruent with their preferences vis d vis ence lower levels of job satisfaction than equita-
the comparison other, then equity exists, as does bly rewarded individuals (Adams, 1965; Locke,
contentment. Some degree of distress occurs 1976; Pritchard et al., 1972). Adams (1965) also
when outcome/input ratios for self are not consis- argued that the threshold for inequity presuma-
tent with internal standards, but this distress is bly would be higher for overrewarded indi-
at least partially ameliorated if outcome/input viduals, who might rationalize their overreward
ratios for self and other are congruent with gen- as "good fortune" without the attendant distress.
eral equity preferences. The highest degree of Thus, following general equity theory predic-
distress occurs when neither outcome/input ra- tions, it is expected that the relationship between
tios for self nor assessment of these ratios against perceptions of equity and job satisfaction will be
the comparison other's is consistent with the inverted and u-shaped, similar to that shown for
individual's preferences. Equity Sensitives in Figure 3. Underrewarded

228

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HIGH

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

S
N / -p/ / .

F //
A /-
//

Benevolents

Equity Sensitives--

LOW ~~~~~~~Entitleds
-- - -

I .. 1. I I
UNDERREWARDED EQUiTABLY OVERREWARDED
REWARDED

EQUITYPERCEPTIONS

Figure 3. Predicted job satisfaction levels for equity sensitivity orientations.

individuals should report low satisfaction levels; Proposition4: A negative, linear relationship
equitably rewarded individuals, high satisfac- should exist between Bene-
tion; and overrewarded individuals, low to mod- volents' perceptions of equity
and job satisfaction.
erate satisfaction.
Figure 3 incorporates the equity sensitivity con- As the solid line in Figure 3 shows, it is expected
struct into the standard equity theory prediction, that Benevolents would report higher levels of job
with the following proposed: satisfaction when they are underrewarded than

229

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
when they are either equitably rewarded or over- Examples of predictions based on expansions
rewarded. of quality and quantity of work research (e.g.,
Proposition5: An inverted u-shaped rela- Andrews, 1967; Valenzi & Andrews, 1971) in-
tionshipshould exist between clude:
EquitySensitives' perceptions 1. On a piece-rate system, Entitledsconsistently
of equity and job satisfaction. will produce at a high level, but the quality of
their work will be consistently low.
As indicated earlier, Equity Sensitives are pre- 2. Under the equitably-rewarded condition on a
dicted to follow the traditional equity model. piece-rate system, Benevolentswill produce the
Thus, as in Figure 3, they should experience the highest quality work.
highest levels of satisfaction when equitably re- 3. On a salary or wage, Benevolents will pro-
warded. duce consistent quality and quantity under all
three reward conditions.
Proposition6: A positive, linear relationship 4. For Benevolents, absenteeism and turnover
should existbetween Entitleds' will be consistent regardless of reward level;
perceptions of equity and job Entitleds will have the highest absenteeism
satisfaction. and turnover in the equitably-rewarded con-
dition.
This proposition not only reflects the Entitled's
Thus, it is proposed that equity sensitivity will
preference for overreward, but also suggests a
moderate relationships between perceptions of
potential link between expectancy theory and
equity and organizational outcomes. However,
equity theory. As Pritchard et al. (1972) noted,
demonstrating the validity of a variable as a mod-
equity theory's prediction of lower satisfaction in
erator variable is a difficult process. Large sam-
the overrewarded condition runs counter to Por-
ple sizes are necessary (Schmidt & Hunter, 1982;
ter and Lawler's (1968) expectancy theory predic-
Zedeck, 1971). Also, the strict definition that a
tion of a linear relationship between rewards
moderator variable is "found to be linearly un-
and satisfaction. To the extent that Entitleds' sat-
correlated with both the predictor variable and
isfaction levels covary with level of reward as
the criterion variable. . ." (Ghiselli, Campbell,
shown in Figure 3, a nexus between expectancy
& Zedeck, 1981, p. 478) makes the prediction that
and equity theory predictions is possible.
equity sensitivity is a moderator variable a rather
Obviously, propositions similar to those out-
tenuous prediction. However, if its validity as a
lined for job satisfaction can be constructed for
moderator variable is demonstrated, this would
relationships between equity sensitivity and other
have significant potential for reducing unex-
behavioral and attitudinal variables such as
plained variance in equity research in organiza-
absenteeism, quantity and quality of work, and
tions.
organizational commitment. In reviews of empiri-
cal research both Campbell and Pritchard (1976)
and Mowday (1983) indicated mixed results from Equity Sensitivity and Ambiguous
attempts to confirm equity theory's predictions Job Elements
for quantity and quality of work. Campbell and The equity sensitivity construct also appears
Pritchard (1976, p. 107) summarized this research relevant to how individuals actually perceive in-
by saying there is "a small effect in the predicted puts and outcomes. As Pritchard (1969), Camp-
direction, but it frequently falls short of statistical bell and Pritchard (1976), and others noted, one
significance." Such consistent, but nonsignificant problem in equity research is the extent to which
results often can be attributed to low statistical individuals view specific job elements as inputs
power. An alternative explanation is the exis- or outcomes: One individual might perceive
tence of a moderator variable. The present au- "doing challenging work" as an outcome, while
thors believe that equity sensitivity is such a var- another might view this job element as an input.
iable. Tornow (1970, 1971) addressed this problem by

230

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
developing a 24-item instrument comprised of norm of equity. Instead, individuals react consis-
ambiguous elements (e.g., "making many de- tently to specific, but different, preferences they
cisions," "knowing one's job well") and adminis- have for the balance between their outcome/in-
tering it to 80 or 90 subjects from Pritchard et al.'s put ratios and that of a comparison other. Bene-
(1972) study. Responses to his instrument allowed volents prefer that their outcome/input ratios be
Tornow to classify subjects into two groups: (a) less than the comparison other's; Equity Sensi-
Type I, who perceive ambiguous elements as tives, who adhere to the norm of equity, prefer
inputs, and (b) Type 0, who view these same balanced outcome/input ratios; and Entitleds pre-
elements as outcomes. Reanalyzing the Pritch- fer that their outcome/input ratios exceed the
ard et al. data, Tornow found that differences in comparison other's. Furthermore, these general
perceptions of and reactions to inequity were preferences for equity can be traced to internal
attributable to an individual's input or outcome standards that characterize the Benevolent as
orientation. emphasizing own inputs exceeding own out-
Clearly, whether individuals view ambiguous comes; the Entitled, own outcomes exceeding
job elements as outcomes or inputs would di- own inputs; and the Equity Sensitive, own out-
rectly affect their perceived outcome/input ratios. comes equaling own inputs.
An individual who sees ambiguous job elements As an individual difference variable, equity
as outcomes is likely to compensate by provid- sensitivity is proposed to moderate relationships
ing greater inputs. Individuals who view these between an individual's perceptions of equity
same elements as inputs will have higher expec- and organizational outcomes such as job satis-
tations regarding deserved outcomes. Therefore, faction, quantity and quality of work, absentee-
different individuals in identical situations could ism, and turnover. The construct also provides a
have different expectations of appropriate levels framework to explain how individuals perceive
of inputs and outcomes. A useful area for future ambiguous job elements, a problem that has re-
research is the extent to which Benevolents and ceived far too little attention in research on or-
Entitleds view ambiguous job elements as in- ganizational behavior. Given the psychologically
puts or outcomes. It could be hypothesized that, based conceptual basis that has been used to
like Tornow's Type 0 individuals, Benevolents develop the notion of equity sensitivity, the con-
are more likely to perceive ambiguous elements struct should be related to other personality
as outcomes; Entitleds are more likely to per- variables, such as need for approval.
ceive them as inputs, like Tornow's Type I indi- One final but important issue is the extent to
viduals. Such perceptions would more readily which equity sensitivity is a state or a trait. If it is
satisfy a Benevolent's preference that inputs ex- a state, then an individual's propensity toward
ceed outcomes and the Entitled's preference that Benevolence, for example, would vary with
outcomes exceed inputs. The extent to which Be- changes in the situation (e.g., a Benevolent in
nevolents and Entitleds perceive ambiguous ele- one job might show Entitled preferences in a
ments as inputs or outcomes for the comparison later job). If it is a stable trait, then Benevolence
other appears promising as well. For example, would persist from one job to the next. Obviously,
it might be discovered that Entitleds, while view- this is an empirical question; yet, it is the suspi-
ing "doing complex work" as an input for self, cion of the present authors that it is a trait. As the
categorize that same element as an outcome for previous discussion of the sources of Benevolent,
others. Equity Sensitive, and Entitled preferences sug-
gests, these preferences represent values ema-
Conclusion nating from both cultural (e.g., the Calvinistic
The equity sensitivity construct suggests that heritage) and individual psychological (e.g.,
individuals do not conform consistently to the altruism) areas. Thus, changes in these prefer-

231

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ences presumably would occur rarely and only may simply be identifying different alternative
as the consequences of grossly significant states of the same trait. The initial prediction of
changes in the situation. the present authors is the latter. But in either
This suspicion that equity sensitivity is a trait case, the construct has important implications
also is tempered by the possibility that individu- for how individuals react to the perceptions of
als may show different preferences during differ- equity in the workplace. Investigation of equity
ent life contexts. For example, individuals might sensitivity should increase the accuracy of pre-
exhibit Entitled preferences at work, but consis- diction of behavioral and attitudinal outcomes.
tently Benevolent preferences in their relation- This increased accuracy should enhance the util-
ship with their spouse. This implies that either ity of equity theory as a framework for under-
different distinct traits exist or that researchers standing and predicting organizational behavior.

References
Adams, J. S. (1963) Toward an understanding of inequity. Coles, R. (1977a) Privileged ones. Boston: Little, Brown.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.
Coles, R. (1977b, Sept.) The children of affluence. Atlantic
Adams, J. S. (1965)Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz Monthly, pp. 52-66.
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Farr, J. L. (1976) Incentive schedules, productivity, and satis-
faction in work groups: A laboratory study. Organizational
Adler, A. (1935) The fundamental views of individual psy-
Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 159-170.
chology. International Journal of Individual Psychology,
1(1), 5-8. Finn, F. H., & Lee, S. M. (1972) Salary equity: Its determina-
tion, analysis, and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Andrews, I. R. (1967) Wage inequity and job performance:
ogy, 56, 283-292.
An experimental study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
51, 39-45. Gergen, K. J., Morse, S. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1980) Behavior
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.) (1956) The indi- exchange in a cross-cultural perspective. In H. C. Triandis
vidual psychology of Alfred Adler. New York: Basic Books. & R. W. Breslin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychol-
ogy (Vol. 5, pp. 121-154). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Austin, W., & McGinn, N. C. (1977) Sex differences in choice
of distribution rules. Journal of Personality, 45, 379-394. Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981) Mea-
surement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Fran-
Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1974) Participants' reactions to
cisco: Freeman.
equity with the world. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 10, 528-548. Goodman, P. S. (1974) An examination of referents used in
Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New the evaluation of pay. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Performance, 12, 170-195.
York: Wiley.
Blumstein, P. W., & Weinstein, E. A. (1969) The redress of Goodman, P. S., & Friedman, A. (1968) An examination of
the effect of wage inequity in the hourly condition. Organi-
distributive justice. American Journal of Sociology, 74,
408-418. zational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 340-352.

Callahan-Levy, C. M., & Mess6, L. A. (1979) Sex differences Greenberg, J. (1978) Allocator-recipient similarity and the
in the allocation of pay. Journal of Personality and Social equitable division of rewards. Social Psychology, 41,
Psychology, 37, 433-446. 337-341.

Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976) Motivation theory in Greenberg, J. (1979) Protestant ethic endorsement and the
industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dun- fairness of equity inputs. Journal of Research in Personal-
nette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psy- ity, 13, 81-90.
chology (pp. 63-130). Chicago: Rand McNally. Greenberg, J. S., & Westcott, D. R. (1983) Indebtedness as a
Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1976) Employee perceptions of mediator of reactions to aid. In J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler, &
fair treatment. Personnel Journal, 55, 523-524. B. M. De Paulo (Eds.), New directions in helping (Vol. 1,
pp. 85-112). New York: Academic Press.
Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1978) Equity theory: The re-
cent literature, methodological considerations and new Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1983) Equity theory and recipi-
directions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 202-210. ent reactions to aid. In J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler, & B. M.

232

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DePaulo (Eds.), New directions in helping (Vol. 1, pp. Mowday, R. T. (1983) Equity theory predictions of behavior in
113-141). New York: Academic Press. organizations. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motiva-
tion and work behavior (3rd ed., pp. 91-113). New York:
Homans, G. C. (1961) Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
McGraw-Hill.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. III.(1968) Managerial attitudes
Hook, J. G., & Cook, T. D. (1979) Equity theory and the cogni-
and performance. Homewood, IL:Irwin.
tive ability of children. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 429-445.
Pritchard, R. D. (1969) Equity theory: A review and critique.
Huesmann, L. R., & Levinger, G. (1976)Incremental exchange
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4,
theory: A formal model for progression in dyadic social
176-211.
interaction. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 191-230). Pritchard, R. D., Dunnette, M. D., & Jorgenson, D. 0. (1972)
New York: Academic Press. Effects of perceptions of equity and inequity on worker
performance and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Lawler, E. E. HI (1981) Impact of em- ogy, 56, 75-94.
ployee participation in pay plan development. Organiza-
Radinsky, T. L. (1969) Equity and inequity as a source of
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 111-128.
reward and punishment. Psychonomic Science, 15, 293-
Krebs, D. (1970) Altruism-an example of the concept and a 295.
review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 258-302. Reis, H. J., & Gruzen, J. (1976) On mediating equity, equality
and self-interest: The role of self-preservation in social
Leventhal, G. S. (1976) Fairness in social relationships.
exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12,
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
487-503.
Locke, E. A. (1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction.
Romer, D. (1977) Limitations in the equity-theory approach:
In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organi-
Toward a resolution of the "negative-inputs" controversy.
zational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand Mc-
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 228-231.
Nally.
Rosenhan, D. L. (1978) Toward resolving the altruism para-
Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982) Individual differences in justice
dox: Affect, self-reinforcement and cognition. In L.G. Wispe
behavior. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity
(Ed.), Altruism, sympathy, and helping (pp. 101-114). New
and justice in social behavior (pp. 43-76). New York: Aca-
York: Academic Press.
demic Press.
Rushton, J. P. (1980) Altruism, socialization, and society. En-
Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984) Overworked
glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in
personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Rychlak, J. F. (1973) Introduction to personality and psycho-
Psychology, 47, 1399-1412. therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Merton, V., Merton, K., & Barber, E. (1983) Client ambiva- Samuel, W. (1978) Toward a simple but useful equity theory:
lence in professional relationships: The problem of seek- A comment on the Romer article. Personality and Social
ing help from strangers. In B. M. De Paulo, A. Nadler, & Psychology Bulletin, 4, 135-138.
J. D. Fisher (Eds.), New directions in helping (Vol. 2, pp. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1982) Two pitfalls in assessing
13-44). New York: Academic Press. fairness of selection tests using the regression model.
Mess6, L. A., Dawson, J. E., & Lane, I. M. (1973) Equity as a Personnel Psychology, 35, 601-607.
mediator of the effect of reward level on behavior in the
Shapiro, E. G. (1975) Effect of expectation of future interac-
prisoner's dilemma game. Journal of Personality and So- tion on reward allocations in dyads: Equity or equality.
cial Psychology, 26, 60-65. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 873-880.
Miner, J. B. (1980) Theories of organizational behavior.
Singh, R. (1983) Leadership style and reward allocation: Does
Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press. least preference co-worker scale measure task and rela-
Mosak, H. H. (1959) The getting type, a parsimonious social tion orientation? Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
interpretation of the oral character. Journal of Individual formance, 32, 178-197.
Psychology, 15, 193-198.
Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1983) Measurement of interper-
Mosak, H. H. (1971) Lifestyle. In A. G. Mikelly (Ed.), Tech- sonal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
niques for behavior change (pp. 77-81). Springfield, IL: chology, 44, 208-219.
Thomas.
Telly, C. S., French, W. L., & Scott, W. G. (1971) The relation-
Moschetti, G. J. (1979) Calculating equity: Ordinal and ratio ship of inequity to turnover among hourly workers. Admin-
criteria. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 172-176. istrative Science Quarterly, 16, 164-171.

233

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Tornow, W. M. (1970) Differential perception of ambiguous Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp.
job characteristics as inputs or outcomes moderating ineq- 1-42). New York: Academic Press.
uity reduction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer- Walster, E., Walster, G., & Berscheid, E. (1978) Equity: The-
sity of Minnesota. ory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tornow, W. M. (1971) The development and application of Weick, K. E., Bougon, M. G., & Maruyama, G. (1976) The
an input-outcome moderator test on the perception and equity context. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
reduction of inequity. Organizational Behavior and Hu- formance, 15, 32-65.
man Performance, 6, 614-638.
Wispe, L. G. (1968) Sympathy and empathy. In D. L. Sills
Valenzi, E. R., & Andrews, I. R. (1971) Effect of hourly over- (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol.
pay and underpay inequity when tested with a new induc- 15, pp. 415-420). New York: Macmillan.
tion procedure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 22-27.
Zedeck, S. (1971) Problems with the use of moderator vari-
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1976)New direc- ables. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 295-310.
tions in equity research. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.),

Richard C. Huseman is Professor and Chairman of

the Department of Management, College of Business
Administration, University of Georgia.
John D. Hatfield is Associate Professor and Director of
Ph.D. Programs in the Department of Management,
College of Business Administration, University of
Georgia.
Edward W. Miles is a doctoral candidate in the Depart-
ment of Management, College of Business Administra-
tion, University of Georgia.
Address correspondence to Richard C. Huseman,
Chairman, Department of Management, College of
Business Administration, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA 30602.

234

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:11:07 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions