|
Article Excerpt
Equity theory (Adams, 1965) proposes that individuals evaluate the fairness of their situation relative to that of others by assessing the ratio of their own outcomes (e.g., salaries, rewards) to inputs (e.g., effort, skill) in comparison to the corresponding ratios of referent others (e.g., co-workers). If the outcome/input ratios of individuals and their referent others are not equal, then inequity (i.e., over-reward or under-reward) is said to exist, and individuals may use cognitive (e.g., alter perceptions of referent others' inputs or outcomes) or behavioral (e.g., increasing or decreasing inputs) approaches to resolve the inequity. However, individuals subjected to the same inequitable situations often respond in different ways, suggesting that there may be individual differences in sensitivity to inequity.
Research on a construct called equity sensitivity (Huseman et al., 1985, 1987; Miles et al., 1989) has provided empirical evidence that individuals have different tolerances for the level of equity associated with any given situation. Specifically, research suggests that individuals are differentially sensitive to disparities in outcome/input ratios between themselves and their referents, which helps to explain why there are differences in reactions among individuals to the same inequitable situations. This is in contrast to Adams' (1965) original theory, which posited a universal preference among individuals for equity. Huseman et al. (1985, 1987) and Miles et al. (1989) have proposed that differences in sensitivity to equity lie on a continuum, ranging from benevolent to equity sensitive to entitled. Originally, these researchers described benevolent individuals as those who prefer their outcome/input ratios to be less than the ratios of their referents. Equity sensitives were described as individuals who prefer their outcome/ input ratios to be equal to the ratios of comparison others, and who experience distress when either under- or over-rewarded, as proposed in Adams' original theory. Last, entitleds were described as individuals who experience distress when their outcome/input ratios do not exceed the ratios of their referents.
More recently, King et al. (1993) have suggested that benevolents have a greater tolerance for, but not preference for, under-reward, whereas entitleds are more focused on the outcomes they receive than on the inputs they contribute, and thus are more tolerant of over-reward and less tolerant of under-reward. Hence, benevolents might be perceived as altruistic or "givers" who focus primarily on their inputs to work, and entitleds as "getters" who focus primarily on the outcomes that they receive from work (Huseman et al., 1987; King et al., 1993). The Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI), developed by Huseman et al. (1985, 1987), has been used in numerous studies to investigate individuals' preferences for outcomes versus inputs in a general work situation. The ESI places individuals on a continuum, from benevolent to equity sensitive to entitled. The instrument is a forced-distribution scale consisting of five pairs of statements, where one statement in each pair reflects a benevolent preference and the other reflects an entitlement preference. All items begin with the phrase, "In any organization that I might work for:" and an example item is as follows:
It would be more important for me to:
A. Get from the organization.--
B. Give to the organization.--
Individuals are instructed to indicate their agreement with each item by distributing 10 points between the paired statements. Theoretically, an entitled person would give the majority of the 10 points to the entitlement statement, a benevolent person would give the majority of the 10 points to the benevolent statement, and an equity sensitive person would give approximately five points to each statement. The ESI is scored on a continuum from to 50 points in the direction of benevolence, such that high scores represent benevolence, middle scores represent equity sensitivity, and low scores represent entitlement.
Our concern with the ESI as the primary and current measure of the equity sensitivity construct is the use of this forced-distribution format. Because the scale format forces individuals to allocate a set number of points between benevolent and entitlement statements, benevolence and entitlement will always be perfectly negatively correlated in this measurement system. Consequently, benevolence and entitlement are measured by the ESI as opposite ends of the same continuum, and thus the current measurement system represents equity sensitivity as a unidimensional construct. We see this forced unidimensionality as a potential limitation in the measurement system. For instance, it is conceivable that equity sensitivity might be a multidimensional construct. Specifically, benevolence and entitlement might serve as two separate dimensions of a single construct, and might be only moderately correlated or even uncorrelated, as has been hypothesized and empirically demonstrated for other psychological constructs (e.g., explicit and implicit aggression, see Bing et al. (2007); positive and negative affect, see Green et al. (1993)).
In the following sections we first describe our proposed multidimensional model of equity sensitivity, with a discussion of how this model might enhance the prediction of relevant organizational criteria. We then describe how the original ESI might be changed to a single-stimulus format that allows this measurement system to capture the multidimensional nature of the equity sensitivity construct. We subsequently provide an empirical test of this new model of equity sensitivity, and conclude by discussing the implications of this new model for research involving organizational outcomes.
A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL OF EQUITY SENSITIVITY
Given that Adams' (1965) equity theory addressed inputs and outcomes as separate parts of a ratio, it seems theoretically sound that individuals might have different orientations toward these two separate parts of the ratio. Insofar as benevolent and entitled persons focus on different aspects of the equity ratio (i.e., benevolents focus more on their inputs, whereas entitleds focus more on outcomes (see Huseman et al., 1987; King et al., 1993)), it is possible that the equity sensitivity construct consists of two separate dimensions, a benevolence or input-focused dimension and an entitlement or outcome-focused dimension. From this perspective, rather than being one end of a single continuum of equity sensitivity, a benevolent orientation instead might be the result of combining a high degree of input focus with a low degree of outcome focus. Alternatively, an entitled orientation might result from the opposite condition, a low degree of input focus combined with a high degree of outcome focus. Equity sensitives, focusing on the reciprocity of the exchange, would tend to have a high input focus and a high outcome focus. Figure I displays this proposed multidimensional model of equity sensitivity.
As the model shows, the vertical axis represents a continuum of input focus, from low to high. The horizontal axis represents a continuum of outcome focus, from low to high. Although crossing these two continua would generate a large number of cells representing various combinations, for the sake of simplicity and clarity a 2 x 2 prototypical representation is presented. The high-input, low-outcome focus would result in a benevolent prototype, which is located in the upper left-hand cell. In the lower right-hand cell is an entitled prototype, resulting from a low-input, high-outcome focus. In this model, prototypical equity sensitivity would arise from a high degree of focus on both inputs and outcomes, and this combination is located in the upper right-hand cell. These three prototypes are hypothesized to behave as they have been described by previous researchers (e.g., Huseman et al., 1987; King et al., 1993), with benevolents...
|
