Equity Sensitivity, The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equit

Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points

on Perceptions of Equity

Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equity

Cameron Brown

Supervisor: Thomas Evans

A report presented to the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, towards the degree of Bachelor of Science with Honours in Psychology

April 2016


on Perceptions of Equity Contents

Abstract 3

1. Introduction 41.1 Equity Theory 41.2 Equity Sensitivity 51.3 Measuring Equity Sensitivity 61.4 Reference Points 81.5 Personality and Equity Sensitivity 101.6 The Present Study 11

2. Method 122.1 Design 122.2 Participants 122.3 Materials 13

2.3.1 Neo PI-R 132.3.2 Equity Sensitivity Instrument 132.3.3 Equity Preference Questionnaire 14

2.4 Procedure 14

3. Results 163.1 Descriptive Statistics 163.2 Equity Sensitivity and Demographics 163.3 EPQ and Personality 183.4 ESI and Personality 193.5 Reference Points 20

4. Discussion 224.1 Findings 224.2 Equity Sensitivity and Personality 234.3 Reference Points 264.4 Limitations 274.5 Future Work and Concluding Remarks 29

5. References 31

6. Appendices 346.1 Measures 346.2 Participant Information Sheet 396.3 Consent Form 416.4 Debrief 426.5 Gatekeeper Letter 436.6 Ethical Approval 44



Abstract

Introduction

There has been limited research into one aspect of Adams (1963, 1965) Equity Theory in the last

decade, an individual’s sensitivity to inequities between their inputs and outputs in the workplace.

Equity sensitivity has previously been related to three personality ‘classifications’ (Huseman, Hatfield

and Miles 1987), but has not been investigated in terms of the leading personality theory, the Five

Factor Model (McCrae and Costa 1987). The present study will also examine how individuals use

other people as reference points to deduce fairness of their own equity.

Method

Relationships were explored by correlational analysis of data from 97 participants (39 male, 68

female), with the majority being part-time employees (86), selected on the basis they were

employed in the UK in small retail stores. Data was collected using a battery of measures including

tests of equity sensitivity (ESI and EPQ) and personality (NEO PI-R).

Results

Both conscientiousness (positively) and extraversion (negatively) personality traits significantly

correlated with EPQ equity sensitivity scores but there was no significant relationship between any

of the ‘Big 5’ traits and ESI equity sensitivity scores. ESI scores did however show a significant

increase in equity scores when a participant used a co-worker as a reference point as oppose to a

brother or a friend.

Discussion

The results from the present study suggest there are significant relationships between Big 5

personality traits and equity sensitivity however the causation of specific sub-traits and their

influence on equity sensitivity could not be inferred. The hypothesis for the preference of individuals

to use co-workers as reference points was supported, in line with the work of Dornstein (1988). The


on Perceptions of Equity results here brings solid information to the retail sector that could be used by management and also

creates an interesting platform for future work around the concept of personality and equity theory.

1. Introduction

Motivation in the workplace refers to the psychological influences that direct an individual’s

behaviour in an organisation, a person’s level of effort and persistence in the face of obstacles (Jones

and George 2004:36). The amount of effort and consistency differs across occupational

environments and more importantly, across individuals. Work-place behaviour can be influenced by

a vast array of factors from salary to non-monetary rewards like praise and maintaining team

reputation. While the idea of motivation may seem fairly simple, many models and theories discuss

differing interpretations and explanations of motivation within employees, suggesting the

complexities of the notion. Managers must learn and understand how motivation can effect

members of their organisation and how it can be used to increase performance and understanding

in their staff.

1.1 Equity Theory

John Stacey Adams’ (1963, 1965) Equity Theory recognises that motivation can be affected through

an individual's perception of fair treatment in the workplace. This treatment can be concerned with

multiple factors like wage and working environment. In simplest terms, equity theory suggests that

when individuals feel insufficiently rewarded, internal tension occurs and individuals will be

motivated to take action to restore equity, often in the form of decreased production (Miles,

Hatfield and Huseman 1994). Within the context of the theory, equity in itself is defined as a type of

justice based on merit or contribution (Gergen, Greenburg and Willis 1980:44). This is much

narrower than the everyday use of the word, and was previously used interchangeably with

‘outcomes’ however it has now seen the transition to mean the balance of both inputs and outputs

(Adams 1965:336).


on Perceptions of Equity It is important to note that it is not just what employees get in return that is key, it is the

perceived balance between the inputs and outputs of their job that is important. When compared to

others, individuals want to be compensated fairly for their contributions in the workplace, they

ideally want the outcomes they experience to match their inputs (Gill and Stone 2010).

Equity Theory proposes that a person's motivation is based on this opinion of what he or she

considers to be fair when compared to others (Robinson, Perryman and Hayday 2004). A person's

beliefs in regards to what is fair therefore, can affect their motivation, attitudes and behaviours,

such as feelings towards fellow employees or relationship with superiors (Spector 2008; Sankey

1999). Equity theory helps explain why highly paid workers may go on strike and why millionaire

athletes feel that they are underpaid or don't feel they make enough money. This is entirely due to

the comparisons made by individuals and more importantly what aspects they use in those

comparisons. A key example of this are footballers on multi-million pound-a-year contract

demanding more money as they feel they are worth more to their team, or they are bothered by a

team mate earning more but working less for it. The main explanation involves how the individual in

question perceives their equity scenario in terms of those around them (Butler 2007), in this

example the footballer feels unrest due to his equity in relation to his team mates. Adams' Equity

Theory model incorporates influences and comparisons of other people's situations like colleagues

and friends, in forming a comparative view and awareness of Equity, which generally presents as a

sense of what is fair.

1.2 Equity Sensitivity

There is a very important factor in the constructs of equity and motivation, an individual’s specific

tolerance for the inequity of the inputs and outputs of their job. This concept, labelled equity

sensitivity by Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1985) describes how different people have varying

preferences to equity and thus react differently to perceived equity and inequity (Huseman, Hatfield

and Miles 1987). Equity sensitivity quickly became an established construct with the implementation


on Perceptions of Equity of measures emerging in the field (Huseman, Hatfield and Miles 1987; Sauley and Bedeian 2000). By

the 1990’s the idea of equity sensitivity came hand in hand with Adams Equity Theory, with research

straining to find relationships between the sensitivity of an individual to inequities and their

performance in the workplace (Buss 1995).

Research into Equity Theory had previously presumed a consistency of tolerance across

individuals, thus assuming that we have similar preferences for different inputs and outputs (Sauley

and Bedeian 2000). These presumptions were however, originally challenged by Vecchio (1981) who

suggested that sensitivity to equity elicited individual responses to any perceived inequity. The

factors that differ across individuals though, factors that influence someone’s sensitivity to inequity,

were not fully investigated. A few years later, Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987) identified three

different categories of individuals that differ with respect to their preference for equity. They

outlined: (a) Benevolents, givers, who prefer to give more in inputs than they receive in outputs; (b)

Equity Sensitives, balanced individuals, who prefer balanced, proportionate levels of inputs and

outputs; and (c) Entitleds, takers, who prefer their outputs to outweigh their inputs.

These classifications have since been redefined with more meaning given to equity

sensitivity, for example, King, Miles and Day (1993) explain that Benevolents do not prefer to give

more in inputs than they receive in outputs, they simply have a greater tolerance for inequity.

Therefore Entitleds are individuals that are more sensitive to inequities in their inputs and outputs,

as suggested by the outcomes of the original study by Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987). The

implication of these refinements give more onus to the previously scarcely researched area of equity

sensitivity and subsequent articles look to give more meaning to the construct, as well as the factors

that influence it.

1.3 Measuring Equity Sensitivity

Many occupational psychologists have constructed experiment with the aim to provide a sound and

reliable method of measuring equity sensitivity. To provide evidence of the uniqueness of the


on Perceptions of Equity measure, researchers commonly highlight the overlap of their measures to others that exist in the

field (King and Miles 1994). It is assumed that a successful measure will overlap with other measures

in terms of the psychological constructs, whilst also refraining from being too duplicative. In

constructing their own measure, King and Miles (1994) used similar ideology to establish its

uniqueness. The Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) was built to include widely supported aspects

from previous research in the area, including notions of self-esteem (Rosenberg 1965),

organisational commitment (Porter and Smith 1970) and job satisfaction (Smith, Kendal and Hulin

1969). The ESI also included demographic variables, like age, sex and education, to attempt to

observe correlations with equity sensitivity. No grounds for this type of investigation pre-existed

however, this then created a certain level of uniqueness for the measure.

More recently, Sauley and Bedeian (2000) developed the Equity Preference Questionnaire

(EPQ), intended to improve upon previous measures. Unlike King and Miles’ (1994) Equity Sensitivity

Instrument, the EPQ was designed using systematic item-development procedures intended to gain

an unbiased understanding of the relationships between equity sensitivity and other theoretically

relevant constructs. Sauley and Bedeian (2000) criticised the ESI’s simplicity in its five-item form and

looked to make their measure more psychometrically flexible, including 16 items. After a series of six

studies designed to test its validity and test-retest reliability, they concluded that the EPQ was

psychometrically sound. Two validity assessments developed its construct validity, a laboratory

experiment provided support for its ecological validity and a test-retest reliability study provided

empirical evidence for the consistency of its items. An area for concern however is the limited range

of variables, meaning there is little that can be manipulated in any experiment. Previous equity

research has typically used job-related satisfaction but there is little variety to determine multiple

relationships when there is a narrow range of variables.

The two measures of equity sensitivity discussed here are, still to this day, the most

empirically supported in psychological research. Jeon (2011) discusses the merits of measuring

equity sensitivity and credits the content of both the ESI and EPQ but suggest that there are still


on Perceptions of Equity some issues with the lack of development since the early 2000’s. For example, the items of the ESI

appear to measure self-interest versus helping an individual’s employer (Shore and Strauss 2008).

While the EPQ looked to improve on the validity of the ESI, it does have some limitations itself.

Foote and Harmon (2006) found significantly lower Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for the EPQ than

the ESI, meaning there can be questions over its ability to truly measure equity sensitivity. While

there have been stout criticisms of the two most prevelant measures of equity sensitivity, both the

ESI and the EPQ are the forerunners in a fairly shallow area of research. Current consensus appears

to promote the use of the above measures.

1.4 Reference Points

Individuals evaluate their equity with others by assessing the proportion of the outputs they receive

from their employer and the inputs they supply against that of specific others. This comparison

other, or reference point (Adams 1965), may be a co-worker, a peer working for a similar company

or even a member of family. This is further to the point that Equity Theory is more complex than just

evaluating the effort versus reward, it is also about the crucial factor of comparisons with referent

others.

The actual sense of fairness or unfairness then, does not come to a conclusion until the

assessment of all relevant situations from referent others has been taken into account. Importantly

it is the ratio of referent others input/output relationship that is key rather than the actual quantity

of rewards (Weick 1966). For example, a financial executive earning £80,000 a year can still feel

unfairly compensated when using a teacher who earns £40,000 a year as a referent other. This is

why individuals can use a large variety of other people as reference points, and are not limited to co-

workers, regardless of factors such as wage and working condition.

Equity Theory works within an individual in two ways, firstly the ratio of inputs and outputs

of the individual are assessed, then that ratio is compared to other people the individual finds

relevant. The fact that this is present in two separate processes is an important aspect of the theory


on Perceptions of Equity as it displays the direction of the evaluation by the individual. While there is a significant pool of

knowledge with regards to reference points in Equity Theory, there has been a very limited depth of

research into this area of the theory. It has been hypothesised that this lack of empirical research is

because referencing is essentially an idiosyncratic process (Berkowitz and Walster 1976), or perhaps

it is due to the belief that pay comparisons are guided by consensual norms of reward distribution

(Adams 1963). These views however, are not shared amongst specialists in the field, with many

suggesting that there are various social factors that affect the choice of referent others (Hyman and

Singer 1968; Butler 2007; Miles 1987).

While there have been a few studies looking empirically at reference points with regards to

Equity Theory, there has been many questions raised over their limitations. For example some

studies have been conducted with referent individuals being the sole focus point (Patchen 1961;

Goodman 1974), however there were some issues with the participant’s state of mind. The results

seemed to have been impacted by the fact participants were expecting rewards going into the study,

meaning this may have caused the reported unrest rather than actual imbalance of inputs and

outputs. In fact in many cases, measurement of pay comparisons have only been intended to reveal

patterns in specific contexts. This rigid focus of some methodologies often lack the internal validity

meaning the results are of little relevance to pay comparisons involving referent others and thus not

contributing to the theory.

Dornstein (1988) however did look at reference points as central to his investigation and

found enhanced sensitivity to the average earnings of fellow employees rather than an individual in

particular. This does carry important implications to the theory, firstly that in the sample or

industrial workers, fellow co-workers were used as references rather than people outside their

organisation. Secondly, it was found that a lack of upward social mobility in an individual caused

them to seek those dissimilar to themselves as reference points. However there was no insight

provided into the various types of individuals used as referent others, nor the frequency with which

they are used by individuals.



1.5 Personality and Equity Sensitivity

Since Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987) developed the trio of personality types and their relation

to equity sensitivity, there has been next to no research into this particular branch of Equity Theory,

leading it to be an intriguing next step for the theoretical background. The current standing with

regards to personality in terms of individual differences and equity sensitivity does not extend

beyond the three personality types outlined by Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987). In their article,

they discusses Entitleds, Benevolents and Equity Sensitives and how each type reacts differently to

inequities in their job as mentioned above. Whilst each of these three different orientations of

personality have different ‘traits’, for example Benevolents are ‘givers’, there has been no link to

fully supported personality research, namely the Five Factor Model (McCrae and Costa 1987).

Linking the aspect of equity sensitivity to a well-established personality model can be extremely

useful when evaluating relationships with individual differences and equity. This is mainly due to

personality traits representing fairly consistent patterns of behaviour, including motivation, so the

exploration of personality alongside equity sensitivity represents serious value.

The ‘Big Five’ approach to personality is widely regarded as the most empirically supported

and accredited in the field of social psychology and has been found to be consistent across more

than 50 different cultures. It has also been suggested that this approach fits into our biological and

evolutionary social structure (Buss 1995) which can all but confirm the Five-Factor Model as the

most valid personality theory. Because of this it is surprising that no research to date as attempted

to strategically relate the Big Five theory to that of Equity Theory. Ideally this would replace the

notion of Entitleds, Benevolents and Equity Sensitives, as this classification system could possibly

represent a zeitgeist within the field, as personality research has evolved to further incorporate the


on Perceptions of Equity occupational sector (Bradley-Geist and Landis 2012; Molleman and Broekhuis 2012). Because of this

it seems that personality research has grown to almost ‘overtake’ the research involving equity

theory, something that could be compensated for in the near future.

Any research that could transition previous models of personality types and equity to one

that incorporates the Five Factor Model would be invaluable to the field. As discussed above the

implementation of personality to Equity Theory would bring many benefits, potentially further

validating aspects of the model. It could then lead to the linking of other theories as there would be

sound psychological constructs that could relate different aspects together, considering the Five

Factor Model has been applied to so many other outlays of psychology. Therefor the study

presented here could create a platform from which to launch future research into this blossoming

field.

1.6 The Present Study

The study here aims to test the sensitivity of individuals to any inequity between the inputs and

outputs in their job. The objective is to test whether equity sensitivity is meaningfully related to any

of the ‘Big Five’ personality facets. It will also look to examine how people look at others as

references when calculating their equity compared to others. Most importantly, it will look to

examine who people use as reference points, be it a co-worker or family member, and how this is

also associated with a person’s equity sensitivity. Finally, the study will examine if there are any

significant relationships between various demographic factors (e.g. age, contract type) and equity

sensitivity.

The personality aspect of this research is exploratory, as to discover the relationship

between the big five and equity sensitivity, there is no prediction as to which personality types these

will be as there is little to no research into this area. It is however. hypothesised that to support

previous research in the area (Dornstein 1988), the results will highlight that individuals are likely to


on Perceptions of Equity use co-workers as reference points, in that participant’s equity sensitivity scores will be higher when

using a co-worker as a reference point.

2. Method

2.1 Design

A cross sectional, within-participants design was used, using a multi-section questionnaire which was

administered to participants in their place of work. The study was designed to test equity sensitivity

as the dependent variable whilst variables were manipulated in each section of the experiment. To

investigate who individual’s use as reference points, the referent other (sibling, friend or co-worker)

is manipulated as the independent variable, with participants asked to imagine a scenario where

different people were used as referent others, and equity sensitivity is the dependent variable. A

correlational design was used to ascertain relationships between Big Five personality types and

equity sensitivity. Finally various demographic information like age, gender and location were used

as independent variables with again, equity sensitivity used as the dependent variable.

2.2 Participants

The study was conducted in accordance with both British Psychological Society (BPS) and Health and

Care Professions Council (HCPC) guidelines, and the relevant Coventry University ethical procedures.

Participants were recruited from Tesco Express retail stores in the UK, with participants required to

be over 18 years of age.

97 participants were successfully recruited, 39 males and 68 females, ages ranged from 18

to 62 (mean of 34.34 years), with no cases of participants asking to withdrawal. Of those participants

11 were full-time employees (five male and 6 female) and 86 part-time (33 male and 53 female). 55

participants were recruited from towns and cities around the county of Hampshire (Andover,

Winchester and Basingstoke), while the remaining 42 were recruited in Coventry. There was no


on Perceptions of Equity incentive for participation, monetary or otherwise, but participants were thanked for their

contribution to the undergraduate research project.

2.3 Materials

Participants in the study were presented with the set of questionnaires in one sitting. The battery

included three established psychometric instruments used in relevant journal articles in recent

years. Each of the instruments are discussed in detail below. As well as these measures, included in

the battery of questionnaires were ‘equity scenarios’ used to deduce the type of people individuals

use as reference points (see appendix 6.1).

2.3.1 NEO-PI-R

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa and McCrae 1985) has been updated many times in

the last few decades, most recently published in 2010. It is a concise measure of the five major

domains of personality as well the six traits or facets that define each domain, and is internationally

recognised as the ‘gold standard’ for personality assessment (Lord 2007). The shortened, revised

version used in the present study consists of 50 items, 10 for each of the five factors in the Big Five

(McCrae and Costa 1987) model of personality. The items are rated on a likert scale from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and contains statements like ‘I often feel blue’ and ‘I feel comfortable

around people’. The validity of this measure has been discussed at length in personality research

(Young and Schinka 2001) with its reliability repeatedly praised (Schinka, Kinder and Kramer 1997;

Morey and Lanier 1998), supporting its use in the present study.

2.3.2 Equity Sensitivity Instrument

As mentioned above, the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) was originally designed by King and

Miles (1994) in an attempt to construct a measure that was accurate and reliable in testing an


on Perceptions of Equity individual’s equity sensitivity. The experiment conducted in tandem with the development of the

measure gave sound support to the ESI in both construct validity and correlations with previous

measures. The Equity Sensitivity Instrument is slightly different from the majority of measures, in

that the participant is given five statements, for example ‘It would be more important for me to…’,

and for each one they must allocate 10 ‘points’ between two answers. An example of this is to

allocate points between ‘help others’ and ‘watch out for my own good’, to deduce equity sensitivity.

2.3.3 Equity Preference Questionnaire

The Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian 2000) was developed to find a spiritual

successor to the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, using its theoretical basis as a starting point whilst

attempting to advance the area. As discusses previously, it was developed and rigorously tested in

six separate experiments and was concluded to have strong construct validity and reliability. It

consists of 16 items like ‘when I am at my job, I think of ways to get out of work’ and ‘I am most

satisfied at work when I have to do as little as possible’ and is scored on a seven-point likert scale.

2.4 Procedure

The study was conducted in line with Coventry University ethical procedures only after ethical

approval had been granted (appendix 6.6). Before administering participants with the battery of

questionnaires, they were presented with a participant information sheet (appendix 6.2) and were

required to sign a consent form (appendix 6.3). Data collection was conducted in person, with the

researcher travelling to different Tesco Express stores in the areas mentioned above, and after

receiving permission from the store manager to administer questionnaires via a gatekeeper form

(appendix 6.5), staff members were asked if they would like take part in the study. Participants were

informed of the anonymity of their participation along with their right to withdraw in the

documentation provided.


on Perceptions of Equity Participants were then presented with the battery of questions, beginning with initial

demographic information like age and gender, which included all necessary instructions for the

completion of the task. Participants were then asked to fill in the Equity Preference Questionnaire

(Sauley and Bedeian 2000) to observe a baseline equity sensitivity score. After this, they were asked

to ready one of three equity scenarios to prime the participant into imagining themselves using one

of three types of individuals (a sibling, a friend or a co-worker) as reference points. These scenarios

were each followed by a copy of the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (King and Miles 1994) to discover

how sensitive each participant would be to an inequity with that individual. The NEO PI-R personality

test (Costa and McCrae 1985) was split into three sections and placed throughout the battery of

tests to avoid the fatigue of completing in one sitting. No time limit was imposed on participants and

after completion of the tests, usually taking around 20 minutes, participants were thanked for

contributing to the research and give a debrief sheet (appendix 6.4) explaining the purpose of the

study.



3. Results

3.1 Descriptive Statistics

After screening of the data, there were no data cases that needed to be excluded from analysis. The

97 participants ranged from 3 months to 21 years of service (mean of 6.18 years of service). These

figures along with type of contract (full or part time) can be found in tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Age and Length of ServiceDemographic Criteria Mean (Years) Standard Deviation

Age 34.34 12.31Length of Service 6.18 5.10

Table 2: Demographic Differences between Males and FemalesMale Female

Age (Years) 32.08 35.86Length of Service (Years) 4.93 7.03

Type of Contract Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time5 34 6 52

3.2 Equity Sensitivity and Demographics

Prior to analysis of Equity Preference Questionnaire scores, tests for normality were conducted, with

a histogram showing the data to be normally distributed (figure 1) and suggesting no major issues

with outliers (mean = 31.77, 5% trimmed mean = 31.67). Correlational analysis was conducted on

EPQ scores to look for relationships with the demographic information presented above. There was

no correlation observed between EPQ and many of the demographic variables; sex, location, length

of service and type of contract. In fact there was only one significant correlation observed, with just


on Perceptions of Equity age being slightly negatively correlated with equity sensitivity measured by the Equity Preference

Questionnaire (r = -0.246, p < 0.02). All of the Pearson correlation statistics are noted below in table

3.

Figure 1: Histogram for normal distribution of EPQ scores)

Table 3: Correlation statistics for EPQ scores and demographic information

Age Sex LocationLength of

ServiceContract Type

Pearson

Correlation-0.246 0.100 0.019 -0.184 0.073

2-Tail

Significance

0.015 0.331 0.856 0.071 0.475


on Perceptions of Equity Level

3.3 EPQ and Personality

After appropriate screening, another correlational analysis was conducted, this time on the

relationship between equity sensitivity (measured by the EPQ) and individual scores on the five

aspects of the NEO PI-R personality test. The Cronbach’s Alpha value (also included in table 4) for the

five personality measures of the NEO PI-R ranged from 0.83 to 0.93 suggesting high internal

reliability of the scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha score for the EPQ however was slightly lower at 0.76,

implying it is a slightly weaker measure than the NEO PI-R. A significantly large correlation between

equity sensitivity and conscientiousness, was found (r = 0.523, p < 0.01). As well as this, another

significant relationship was found, with equity sensitivity and extraversion found to negatively

correlate (r = -0.459, p < 0.01). The full correlation matrix can be found in table 4.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Big 5 and EPQ

MeanStandard Deviatio

n

Equity Sensitivit

y

Openness

Consc.

Extra.Agree

.

Cronbach

Alpha

Equity Sensitivity31.77

35.118 - - - - - .76

Openness 34.96

94.157 .080 - - - - .86

Conscientiousnes

s

34.48

44.946 .523a .183 - - - .93

Extraversion 32.91

75.053 -.459a .087 -.168 - - .84


on Perceptions of Equity Agreeableness 35.21

73.492 -.042 .008 -.012 .002 - .81

Neuroticism 23.87

63.377 .095 .123 .095 .087 .143 .83

a: Correlation is significant at the p<0.01 level

3.4 ESI and Personality

After analysis of personality and EPQ equity sensitivity scores, a correlational analysis of personality

and Equity Sensitivity Instrument scores was conducted. A mean ESI value for each participant was

calculated using the three ESI values, one each per participant in each reference point condition

(brother, co-worker and friend). The descriptive statistics for the mean ESI score calculated are

presented below in table 5. The Cronbach Alpha score was notably lower than that of the EPQ

suggesting that it has a lower construct validity than that of its newer counterpart.

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Mean ESI ScoresMean Score Standard Deviation Cronbach Alpha

Mean ESI 26.36 1.89 0.67

Contradictory to the analysis of EPQ scores, no significant correlations were found between Equity

Sensitivity, when measured by the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, and personality scores on the NEO

PI-R. The full matrices are outlined in table 6.



Table 6: Correlations Between Big 5 and ESIEquity

Sensitivity

Openness Consc. Extra. Agree.

Equity Sensitivity - - - - -Openness .067 - - - -

Conscientiousness -.065 .183 - - -Extraversion .018 .087 -.168 - -

Agreeableness -.059 .008 -.012 .002 -Neuroticism -.117 .123 .095 .087 .143


A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to compare equity sensitivity

scores, measured by the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, when using different reference points; a

friend, brother or co-worker. The means and standard deviations are presented in table 7. There was

significant effect for the co-worker condition, Wilk’s Lambda = 0.46, F (2, 95) = 55.03, p < 0.001.

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for equity sensitivity using different reference pointsReference Point Mean Standard

DeviationFriend 26.58 3.34

Brother 24.02 3.47Co-Worker 28.49 2.43


on Perceptions of Equity The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was 0.02. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey test

indicated that the mean score for the co-worker condition was significantly different from the

brother condition. The friend condition did not differ significantly from either brother or co-worker

condition.

4. Discussion


on Perceptions of Equity 4.1 Findings

The main objective of this research was to test equity sensitivity, the construct from Adam’s (1963,

1965) Equity Theory, against the five main personality types of the Five Factor Model (McCrae and

Costa 1987). No hypothesis was made in terms of relationships between personality and higher

scores on the equity sensitivity measure, Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian

2000). It was found however that participants that scored higher on conscientiousness, also scored

higher on equity sensitivity, suggesting that more self-disciplined and controlled individuals may

actually be more sensitive to inequities in the inputs and outputs of their working life. In addition to

this, it was found that those who scored higher on extraversion scored lower on equity sensitivity,

possibly suggesting that people who are more outgoing may actually be less sensitive to inequities

that others. These results potentially mean that retail workers who are of a more careful and

considerate nature may feel more unrest towards to imbalance inputs and outputs, and

subsequently those who are more forward may be less concerned with equity and thus take less

notice of inequities in their workplace.

There were however, no correlations found between equity sensitivity and personality traits

when Equity Sensitivity Instrument (King and Miles 1994) scores were used in place of the EPQ. This

can suggest one of two things; firstly that the significant results found using EPQ scores could be

interpreted as a type 1 error, i.e. a false positive, or secondly, the ESI may not be a reliable measure

of equity sensitivity leading to a type 2 error.

Another focus of the study was to see how sensitive different individuals were to inequities

while using different types of people as reference points. It was predicted that in line with the

research of Dornstein (1988), individuals would use people as similar to them as possible a reference

points, usually co-workers. This was indeed the case as displayed by the results, with equity

sensitivity scores being significantly higher on the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (King and Miles 1994)

when a co-worker was being used as the referent other, than in the brother condition. In terms of

Equity Theory then, this supports the idea that if an individual feels that a co-worker has a better


on Perceptions of Equity relationship of inputs to outputs, they will feel more unrest than if they used someone else as a

reference point.

Another aim of the present study was to assess the equity sensitivity of individuals in retail

employees in the UK, attempting to uncover relationships with demographic information. It was

found that of all the demographic criteria the study investigated (age, sex, location and length of

service), only age negatively related with equity sensitivity albeit a very weak correlation, as

measured by the Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian 2000). While there was no

relationship hypothesised for demographics and equity sensitive, the result seem to suggest that

younger participants are slightly more equity sensitive, although this correlation was not statistically

significant at the most stringent level highlighted above.

4.2 Equity Sensitivity and Personality

The attempt to explore potential relationships between equity sensitivity and personality is the key

focal point of this study, with this idea being almost completely unexplored in psychological

literature. The main background of personality research in terms of equity theory has not been

drastically changed since Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987) when they proposed that there were

three categories people fall into, Benevolents, Entitleds and Equity Sensitives, with each reacting

differently to job inequities.

The results shown here do seem to shed some light onto the influence of personality on

equity sensitivity, in fact finding two fairly strong correlations, firstly that of equity sensitively being

positively related to conscientiousness using the Equity Preference Questionnaire measure.

Conscientiousness is outlined as the tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully and aim for

achievement against expectations (John, Robins and Pervin 2008), but here it was the personality

type that scored highest on equity sensitivity. The six sub-facets that encompass conscientiousness

according to the NEO PI-R scale (Costa and McCrae 1985) are competence, order, dutifulness,

achievement-striving, self-discipline and deliberation, and the definition of these sectors make the


on Perceptions of Equity conclusions of this study even more surprising. Dutifulness is in fact defined as the ‘emphasis placed

on importance of fulfilling moral obligations’ (University of Freiburg 2007) which suggests it is odd

that this personality type appeared most sensitive inequities. Cheng and Ickes (2009) discussed how

the trait of conscientiousness had ties with high levels of motivation irrelevant of external or internal

factors, though not specified to the workplace, suggesting it may be a surprise that this trait was

correlated with equity sensitivity. While this research only begins to uncover the role of personality

in equity sensitivity, this seems an unlikely outcome and should certainly be explored by further

research.

The other correlation that was found to be significant in the statistical analysis process was

the negative relationship between higher extraversion and scoring higher on Sauley and Bedeian’s

(2000) Equity Preference Questionnaire. One of the criteria for extraversion is the ‘tendency to

experience positive emotions’ (University of Freiburg 2007), meaning individuals may have an

inherent disposition to feel positive about inequities in their job. If this is true then this could provide

a possible explanation for ‘extraverts’, labelled so by the NEO PI-R, scoring lower on equity

sensitivity measures. Once again, comparing the norms suggested by Lord (2007) with the results of

the present study, the norm mean score for extraversion (33.29) was just 0.37 higher than that of

the mean found above (32.92) supporting the results here.

One concern however is the lack of any significant correlation between personality and

equity sensitivity according to the other measure used in this study, the Equity Sensitivity Instrument

(King and Miles 1994). As discussed above, one potential cause of this is the validity of the ESI as a

measure or equity sensitivity, a point that has been suggested in previous literature (Sauley and

Bedeian’s 2000; Shore and Strauss 2008). Jeon (2011) credited its simple nature, mentioning how its

minimalistic form is beneficial to participants when used multiple times in a single battery of

questions. However it has been noted that the weighting of each item carries too much influence on

participant’s final score due to its simplicity (Bagozzi and Yi 1990). While shortcomings of the ESI

seems the most likely explanation for contradictory results between measures, there is an argument


on Perceptions of Equity for the possibility of a false positive from the Equity Preference Questionnaire. Items of the EPQ

have been noted to elicit some feelings of injustice within participants (Colquitt Noe and Jackson

2002) which could raise issues of internal validity of the measure. This could have contributed to the

significant results with the items of the EPQ mistaking perceived injustice for high sensitivity to

inequities (Akan, Allen and White 2009). Despite this though, the EPQ has consistently gained

support from equity sensitivity researchers (Colquitt 2004; Jeon 2011) suggesting the weaknesses of

the ESI contributed to the contradictory results.

Implications

Prior to the conducting of the study, the results were anticipated to help aid the recruitment

process, especially in retail, as it was hypothesised that specific personality traits or types would

significantly emerge as relating to equity sensitivity. While the results did in fact display correlations

between conscientiousness (Positive) and extraversion (negative), the conclusions were not entirely

expected. It does however open the door for further research in the topic, providing strong rationale

for future investigations into personality and equity sensitivity.

Extraversion was found to negatively correlate with equity sensitivity, with lower scores on

the EPQ measure of equity sensitivity relating to higher scores on extraversion. This relationship

could be very useful in altering recruitment strategies in order to maximise harmony in the

workplace. It would be prudent for an organisation to exclusively hired individuals who are less

sensitive to any potential inequities in their job, something that could increase production and

reduce staff turnover. While current psychometric tests are not entirely reliable in predicting future

job performance (Mariani and Allen 2014), with additional information like which personality types

are less equity sensitive could create a huge upturn in successful recruitment for the retail sector or

at least how managers interpret the idea and importance of equity sensitivity.

The interpretations of the results here suggest changes in the way equity and equity

sensitivity is handled in the workplace with regards to members of staff. The knowledge of equity in


on Perceptions of Equity upper or middle management in a retail chain can be implemented in two ways. Firstly it can be

used by ‘higher-ups’ to further inform decisions regarding pay changes and shift structure, whether

in the form of bonuses or longer breaks in a shift. The information interpreted from equity research,

not just related to personality, could be crucial in the implementation of company-wide procedures,

for instance increased bonuses for increased output from a member of staff to decrease any

apparent inequities. Secondly and most practically, in-store management can use this knowledge to

communicate with and manage their staff effectively to not only prevent inequities, but also discuss

with staff how they feel about their inequities. This is even more useful when the relationships with

personality are taken into account, as management could possibly treat individuals differently

dependent on their personality traits. These two points, while interesting to discuss would not be

certain to be successful without more information on the subject, furthering the case for continued

research into the area.


It was concluded that after being asked to put themselves in a scenario where a co-worker had a

better equity scenario than themselves, individuals scored significantly higher on equity sensitivity

(using the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, King and Miles 1994). This supports the previous research in

the area (Goodman 1974; Dornstein 1988) in that people are more sensitive to using co-workers as

reference points to assess their own equity. Despite other studies in the area suggesting similar

outcomes, the importance of co-workers in Equity Theory has been seriously understated. The

results here shows the influence that different types of people have on an individual’s equity

sensitivity, and the fact equity sensitivity scores were higher in the co-worker condition gives some

insight into who people use as reference points, not just how they affect equity sensitivity.

Implications


on Perceptions of Equity Who people use as their reference point is a key aspect of Adams’ (1963, 1965) Equity Theory, with

many suggesting it is the main factor that leads an individual to feel unrest due to the relationship of

their inputs and outputs (Butler 2007). The knowledge that co-workers are in fact the main source of

reference points amongst employees in retail then, could be crucial in ensuring unrest among staff is

kept to a minimum. It is worth noting that, management aside, all employees of the retail stores

where participants were recruited are paid at exactly the same hourly rate. As discussed previously,

pay is considered the most important outcome in the equity relationship (Vecchio 1981), but it is

also important to understand that the consistent pay across staff means that it will mainly be the

inputs of others that cause unrest due to sensitivity to inequities.

As discussed previously, the results from equity research can be extremely beneficial to

management within retail. The results presented here could assist managers as to how to deal with

potential unrest in the workplace due to inequities, from an Equity Theory standpoint with respect

to reference points. The preference for the use of co-workers by retail staff as referent others in the

study gives management a crucial insight into the workings of equity and can thus improve their

ability to treat staff. For example ensuring those that work hard in their job are praised more than

those that are not as effective can increase the standing of equity as viewed by others. Ensuring

individuals are not over or under rewarded will communicate proportionate equity amongst the staff

so when they use a co-worker as a reference, they have a fair representation of inputs and outputs.

4.4 Limitations

While the present study yielded positive and statistically significant results, there were some issues

with the methodology that could affect the applicability of the conclusions. Firstly, due to the cross-

sectional nature of the study, even though significant correlations were found, causation could not

be attributed. As discusses previously, while a correlation was found between conscientiousness and

equity sensitivity, it was not discovered which of the traits that conscientiousness encompasses is


on Perceptions of Equity the most influential on sensitivity scores. This would be a key area for development should the field

progress in this direction as each personality trait contains ‘sub-traits’ (Poropat 2009) each of which

would more than likely have its own individual influences towards equity sensitivity.

Secondly, the nature of the multi-section questionnaire is also an issue, the main problem is

the length of the measures participants were required to complete. The questionnaire in total took

around 20 to 30 minutes to complete in most cases, and although different measures were arranged

as to decrease the fatigue of continued answering, many participants opted to complete it whilst on

their break during their shift at work. Typically, staff in retail get just 15 or 30 minutes break during

shifts upwards of six hours long, and completing a questionnaire during their break may not be in

their best interest. Because of this, towards the end of their completion of the study, participants

may not be as immersed in the measures as the study requires, and subsequently be less invested in

the equity scenarios, leading to the emergence of extraneous variables. This in turn questions the

reliability of the study’s results, meaning the conclusions may not be as applicable as first thought.

Again concerning the nature of the equity scenarios, participants were asked to imagine

themselves in a particular situation where another person they know (A friend, co-worker or sibling)

had a significantly better equity situation than themselves. This was used to elicit a sense of unrest

in the participant so they can measured for their sensitivity to this inequity. The main issue with this

though, is ensuring the participants are fully engrossed in the scenario to effectively measure equity

sensitivity. This may not be the most effective way to prime an individual to use a particular person

as a reference point and thus questions the reliability of the scenarios as a tool in this experiment.

While it has been suggested that using scenarios in quantitative research is a good way to measure a

variable without creating self-esteem issues within participants (Dunette 1976:71), it will never be as

effective as measuring a naturally occurring variable.

One final thing to consider is the reliability of the two measures of equity sensitivity, the

Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian 2000) and the Equity Sensitivity Instrument

(King and Miles 1994). While these two measures are at the forefront of research into Equity Theory,


on Perceptions of Equity they are not without imperfections. For example, Shore and Strauss (2008) suggested that the items

of the ESI seem to favour the observations of self-interest versus helping the employer which is a

serious over-simplification of Equity Theory. Also Jeon (2011) discusses how much the field of equity

sensitivity has changed in the years since the last measure, the EPQ, was devised, more than 15

years ago. Government laws concerning pay secrecy and minimum wage have changed significantly

in the last few years, something that has failed to be picked up by the theory. Since 2010, an

employer cannot prevent individuals from disclosing their pay details to colleagues, meaning that

previous ideas of equity may no longer be relevant as pay levels are now more apparent in the work

place. As will be discussed below, new measures are always required for a field to advance, and the

lack of new measures may have had a negative effect on the present study.

4.5 Future Work and Concluding Remarks

The obvious future direction for all research involving questionnaires, not just occupational

psychology and Equity Theory, is the development of new and reliable measures. As discussed in the

previous section, the last major development in terms of measures was Sauley and Bedeian’s (2000)

Equity Preference Questionnaire, which was itself based on the even older Equity Sensitivity

Instrument (King and Miles 1994). Since their conception, many articles have evaluated its

effectiveness, concluding they have some problematic issues (Jeon 2011: Shore and Strauss 2008).

These range from the narrow scope of the measure to ambiguous items meaning there is a serious

gap in the literature for a new measure. The research presented here included personality to deduce

relationships with equity sensitivity, perhaps suggesting that the Five factor Model (McCrae and

Costa 1987), could be used in parallel with any new measure that graces the field.

In terms of personality then, the research here has suggested some serious correlations

between personality types and an individual’s sensitivity to inequities, creating a key path for the

next direction of research in the area. Finding more correlations with personality types can lead to


on Perceptions of Equity more and more advanced screening techniques for employers to use in the recruitment process and

give managers the information they need to help maximise the effectiveness of their staff. Therefore

continuing the scarce, almost non-existent research of personality and Equity Theory is key to the

retail sector. One potential direction is to further analyse the personality of research employees, but

also break down the traits they possess and how that links to sensitivity. Analysing relationships

between the sub-facets of personality traits and equity sensitivity will help attribute causation of the

individual traits but more importantly, support the findings in the present study, that traits of the Big

5 significantly influence an individual’s equity sensitivity.

The current study explored the concept of equity sensitivity, an aspect of Equity Theory (Adams

1963, 1965), and its relationship with various factors that differ across individuals. It also looked to

investigate who people use as reference points to determine if they are treated unfairly and how

that also relates to an individual’s equity sensitivity. It was found that both conscientiousness

(positively) and extraversion (negatively) personality traits significantly correlated with equity

sensitivity, suggesting that personality is indeed an important factor in Equity Theory. Also, in line

with the work of Dornstein (1988), it was found that people scored higher on equity sensitivity when

using co-workers as reference points.

While there were some serious limitations of the study outlined, the results definitely

suggest there is strong rationale for investigations of equity sensitivity and factors like personality.

The study provided strong background for future research in the theory, and it is strongly suggested

that the link between equity sensitivity and personality is investigated further.

5. References


on Perceptions of Equity Adams, J.S. (1963) ‘Toward an Understanding of Inequity.’ Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 67 (5) 422-436

Adams, J.S. (1965) ‘Inequity in Social Exchange’. Advanced Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 335-343

Akan, O.H., Allen, R.S. and White, C.S. (2009) ‘Equity Sensitivity and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in a Team Environment.’ Small Group Research, 40, 94-112

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1990) ‘Assessing Method Variance in Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices: The Case of Self-Reported Affect and Perceptions at Work.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 547-560

Berkowitz, L., and Walster, E. (1976) Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction. New York: Academic Press

Bradley-Geist, J.C. and Landis, R.S. (2012) ‘Homogeneity of Personality in Occupations and Organizations: A Comparison of Alternative Statistical Tests.’ Journal of Business and Psychology, 27 (2), 149-159

Buss, D.M. (1995) ‘Evolutionary Psychology: A New Paradigm for Psychological Science.’ Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-31

Butler, C.K. (2007) ‘Prospect Theory and Coercive Bargaining.’ Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51 (2), 227-250

Cheng, W., and Ickes, W. (2009) ‘Conscientiousness and Self-Motivation as Mutually Compensatory Predictors of University-Level GPA.’ Personality and Individual Differences, 47 (8), 817-822

Colquitt, J.A. (2004) ‘Does the Justice of the One Interact with the Justice of the Many? Reactions to Procedural Justice in Teams.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 633-646

Colquitt, J.A., Noe, R.A. and Jackson, C.L. (2002) ‘Justice in Teams: Antecedents and Consequences of Procedural Justice Climate.’ Personnel Psychology, 55 83-110

Costa, P.T., and McCrae, R.R. (1985) The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources

Dornstein, M. (1988) ‘Wage Reference Groups and Their Determinants: A Study of Blue-Collar and White-Collar Employees in Israel.’ Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 221-235

Dunnette, M.D. (1976) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally

Gergen, K.J., Greenburg, M.S., and Willis, R.H. (1980) Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press

Gill, D. and Stone, R. (2010) Fairness and Desert in Tournaments. Games and Economic Behaviour, 69, 346-364

Gogia, P. (2010) Equity theory of motivation. Available from <http://www.businessihub.com/equity-theory-of-motivation/> [12th January 2016]

Goodman, P.S. (1974) ‘An Examination of Referents Used in the Evaluation of Pay.’ Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 12, 170-195

Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1985) ‘Test for Individual Perceptions of Job Equity: Some Preliminary Findings.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055-1064


on Perceptions of Equity Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1987) ‘A New perspective on Equity Theory: The

Equity Sensitivity Construct.’ Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234

Hyman, H.H., and Singer, E. (1968) Readings in Reference Group Theory. New York: Free Press

Jeon, G. (2011) ‘Equity Sensitivity Versus Equity Preference: Validating a New Viewpoint on Equity Sensitivity.’ Unpublished Masters Thesis. Illinois: University of Illinois.

John, O.P., Robins, R.W., and Pervin, L.A., (2008) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford Press.

Jones, J.R. and George, G.M. (2004) Contemporary Management. Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill

King, W.C., and Miles, E.W. (1994) ‘The Measurement of Equity Sensitivity.’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133-142

King, W.C., Miles, E.W., and Day, D.D. (1993) ‘A Test and Refinement of the Equity Sensitivity Construct.’ Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14, 301-317

Lord, W. (2007) NEO PI-R: A Guide to Interpretation and Feedback in a Work Context. Oxford: Hogrefe

Mariani, B., and Allen, L.R. (2014) ‘Development of Psychometric Testing of the Mariani Nursing Career Satisfaction Scale.’ Journal of Nursing Measurement, 22, 135-44

McCrae, R.R., and Costa, P.T. (1987) ‘Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90

Miles, E.W., Hatfield, J.D., and Huseman, R.C. (1994) ‘Equity Sensitivity and Outcome Importance.’ Journal of organizational Behaviour, 15, 585-596

Molleman, E. and Broekhuis, M. (2012) ‘How Working in Cross-Functional Teams Relates to Core Attributes of Professional Occupations and the Moderating role of Personality.’ Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 16 (1), 50-67

Morey, L.C. and Lanier, V W. (1998) ‘Operating Characteristics of Six Response Distortion Indicators for the Personality Assessment Inventory.’ Assessment, 5, 203–214

Patchen, M. (1961) The Choice of Wage Comparisons. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Poropat, A.E. (2009) ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Five-Factor Model or Personality and Academic Performance.’ Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322-338

Porter, L.W., and Smith, E.J. (1970) The Ethology of Organizational Commitment. Unpublished Paper, University of California

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., and Hayday, S. (2004) The Drivers of Employment Engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies

Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and Adolescent Self-Image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Sankey, C.D. (1999) Assessing the Employment Exchanges of Business Educators in Arizona. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Arizona State University.

Sauley, K.S., and Bedeian, A.G. (2000) ‘Equity Sensitivity: Construction of a Measure and Examination of its Psychometric Properties.’ Journal of Management, 25 (5), 885-910

Schinka, J., Kinder, B. and Kremer, T. (1997) ‘Research Validity Scales for the NEO–PI–R: Development and Initial Validation.’ Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127–138


on Perceptions of Equity Shore, T.H., and Strauss, J. (2008) ‘Measurement of Equity Sensitivity: A Comparison of the Equity

Sensitivity Instrument and Equity Preference Questionnaire.’ Psychological Reports, 102, 64-78

Smith, P.C., Kendal, L.M., and Hulin, C.L. (1969) The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally

Spector, P.E. (2008) Industrial and Organizational Behaviour (Fifth Edition), New Jersey: Wiley

University of Freiburg (2007) NEO Personality Inventory – Revised. available from <http://www.unifr.ch/ztd/HTS/inftest/WEB-Informationssystem/en/4en001/d590668ef5a34f17908121d3edf2d1dc/hb.htm> [11th March 2016]

Vecchio, R.P. (1981) ‘An Individual-Differences Interpretation of the Conflicting Predictions Generated by Equity Theory and Expectancy Theory.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 470- 481.

Weick, K.E. (1966) ‘The Concept of Equity in the Perception of Pay.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 414-439

Young, M.S. and Schinka, J.A. (2001) ‘Research Validity Scales for the Neo-PI-R: Additional Evidence for Reliability and Validity.’ Journal of Personality and Assessment, 76 (3), 412-420

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the 97 participants of this study for sparing 30 minutes of their day as well as all the managers that allowed me access to members of staff, and Thomas Evans for the crucial academic support.

6. Appendices


on Perceptions of Equity 6.1 Measures

Neo-PI-R

Please fill in these questions about yourself honestly. Tick the corresponding box depending on how much you agree with the statements ranging from 1 (strongly unlike you) to 5 (strongly like you)

1Strongly unlike

you

2 3 4 5 Strongly like you

I often feel blueI rarely get irritatedI dislike myselfI seldom feel blueI feel comfortable with myselfI have frequent mood swingsI am not easily bothered by thingsI panic EasilyI am very pleased with myself

I feel comfortable around peopleI have little to sayI make friends easilyI keep in the backgroundI am skilled in handling social situationsI would describe my experiences as dullI am the life of the partyI don’t like to draw attention to myselfI know how to captivate an audienceI don’t talk a lot

I believe in the importance of artI am not interested in abstract ideasI have a vivid imaginationI do not like artI tend to vote for liberal political candidatesI avoid philosophical discussionsI carry the conversation to a higher levelI do not enjoy going to art museumsI enjoy hearing new ideasI tend to vote for conservative political candidates

I have a good word for everyoneI have a sharp tongueI believe that others have good intentionsI cut others to piecesI respect othersI suspect hidden motives in others


on Perceptions of Equity I accept people as they areI get back at othersI make people feel at easeI insult people

I am always preparedI waste my timeI pay attention to detailsI find it difficult to get down to workI get chores done right awayI do just enough work to get byI carry out my plansI don’t see think things throughI make plans and stick to themI shrink my duties

Equity Preference Questionnaire


on Perceptions of Equity Please fill in these questions about yourself honestly. Tick the corresponding box depending on how much you agree with the statements ranging from 1 (strongly unlike you) to 7 (strongly like you)

1Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5 6 7StronglyAgree

1. I prefer to do as little as possible at work while getting as much as I can from my employer2. I am most satisfied at work when I have to do as little as possible3. When I am at my job, I think of ways to get out of work4. If I could get away with it, I would try to work just a little bit slower than the boss expects5. It is really satisfying to me when I can get something for nothing at work6. It is the smart employee who gets as much as he/she can while giving as little as possible in return7. Employees who are more concerned about what they can get from their employer rather than what they can give to their employer are the wise ones8. When I have completed my task for the day, I help out other employees who have yet to complete their tasks9. Even if I received low wages and poor benefits from my employer, I would still try to do my best at my job10. If I had to work hard all day at my job, I would probably quit11. I feel obligated to do more than I am paid to do at work12. Al work, my greatest concern is whether or not I am doing the best job I can13. A job which requires me to be busy during the day is better than a job which allows me a lot of loafing,14. At work, I feel uneasy when there is little work for me to do15. I would become very dissatisfied with my job if I had little or no work to do16. It is better to have a job with duties and responsibilities than a job with few duties and responsibilities


on Perceptions of Equity Equity Sensitivity Instrument

These questions ask what you would like your relationship to be with any organization for which you might work. On each question, allocate 10 points between the two choices (choice A and choice B) by giving the most points to the choice that is most like you and the fewest points to the choice that is least like you. You can use zeros if you'd like but both answers must add up to 10.

In any organisation I might work for:

1. It would be more important for me to:

A. Get from the organization

B. Give to the organization

2. It would be more important for me to:

A. Help others

B Watch out for my own good

3. I would be more concerned about:

A. What I received from the organisation

B. What I contributed to the organisation

4. The hard work I would do should:

A. Benefit the organization

B. Benefit me

5. My personal philosophy in dealing with the organization would be:

A. If I don't look out for myself, nobody else will

B. It's better for me to give than to receive



Equity Reward Scenarios

Please read the following scenario and try and imagine yourself in this situation. Then answer the questionnaire below whilst considering how you would feel in the situation outlined below.

Scenario A: You and your close friend are both students. Both of you are in your second year at university and are both excellent students, and anxious to earn extra money to support yourselves. Professor Martin, a sociologist, hires you and your friend to transcribe some interviews he has conducted for a project. You and your friend transcribe about 4 interviews per day.

After you finished a long day’s work of transcribing in which you transcribed 6 interviews, you talk with your friend about how your day went. Your friend tells you they also transcribed 6 interviews and they were paid £35 for their days work. You look at the money you were given by Professor Martin and find he only gave you £20.

Scenario B: You have recently been working at a local pub to gain a little extra income whilst studying at college. Three evenings a week you work a six hour shift until 1am, cleaning tables and serving drinks from behind the bar. Your brother works at a different pub owned by a different company a few miles away and works similar shifts doing the same job.

You visit your brother at the weekend and discuss your respective jobs. You talk about a time when you have worked particularly hard and he says that he doesn’t mind because he gets a decent wage. When you ask, he says he gets £7.50 an hour while you only get £5 where you work

Scenario C: You have been working in a part-time retail job at a corner shop whilst studying at university for about a year. It is a good source of extra income to support you during your studies as you only do eight hours per week.

During a particularly stressful day you have a chat with your co-worker, also a student who’s been working there for a similar length of time. They ask you how much you get paid and you tell them, £5.20 an hour. They seem shocked


on Perceptions of Equity and tell you that they actually get £7.80 an hour, even though they do the same amount of work as you.

6.2 Participant Information Sheet

Study into Personality and Employment Aspects

What is the purpose of the study? The study is designed to gain an insight into the

relationship between personality and various employment factors. You will be asked about

your views on certain situations and how you feel about them in relation to yourself and

also asked to complete a short personality test.

Why have I been approached? You have been approached to participate as you are over 18

and are currently employed by Tesco in the UK. This project is completely voluntary.

Do I have to take part? Participation is completely voluntary so you do not have to take

part. If you wish, you may withdraw from the study up to two weeks after data collection by

emailing the researcher ([email protected]) quoting your participant number

which can be found at the top of your questionnaire pack. If you withdraw, all your data will

be permanently deleted and not included in the final results. There are no consequences of

withdrawing and no reason is required.

What will happen to me if I take part? Participation is through a questionnaire that should

take roughly 30 minutes to complete, and will be based upon your perceptions and

experience of working with for Tesco.

What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part? No possible disadvantages of

participation have been identified. If you feel uncomfortable or distressed you are welcome

to stop filling in the questionnaire at any time, and to withdraw or to contact the researcher

([email protected]), who will be able to assist.

What are the possible benefits of taking part? You will have a chance to provide insight into

how personality relates to opinions on working benefits.

mailto:[email protected]




What if something goes wrong? No anticipated risks were identified; however participants

are welcome to stop the questionnaire at any time or to contact the researcher with any

issues that may arise. If you have any complaints regarding your experience of participating

in this study, you may the supervisor, Thomas Evans (ab6443@ coventry.ac.uk).

What will happen to the data I contribute? The results from your questionnaire will be

analysed by the researcher then stored in a locked draw, accessible only by the researcher.

The data will be analysed by the researcher and will be stored on a password protected

laptop for 3 years, when it will be permanently deleted. Your consent form will be stored by

the University for 5 years before being destroyed.

Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential? You will only be identifiable by your

participant number. This will ensure anonymity, and allow data to be deleted if you

withdraw.

What will happen to the results of the research study? The results will be used in the

researcher’s final year university project with the eventual aim of being published in peer

reviewed academic journals. Your data will be destroyed three years after date of your

participation.

Who is organising and funding the research? This research has been organised by Cameron

Brown, a student at Coventry University and supervised by lecturer Thomas Evans.

Who has reviewed the study? This study has been reviewed and approved by Coventry

University’s Health and Life Science Department Ethics Committee.

Contact for further information:

Researcher: Cameron Brown – brownc46@uni,coventry.ac.uk

Supervisor: Thomas Evans – ab6443@ coventry.ac.uk




on Perceptions of Equity Applied Research Chair: Professor Ian Marshall – [email protected]

6.3 Consent Form

Study into Personality and Employment Aspects

The purpose of the study is to gain an insight into the relationship between personality and

various employment factors. The results will be the focal point of a final year dissertation

project for the Psychology course at Coventry University. You will be asked about your views

on certain situations and how you feel about them in relation to yourself and also asked to

complete a short personality test.

Please tick each box if you agree with the statements. If you are at all confused or unsure please contact the researcher (Cameron Brown), by emailing [email protected]

I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet and

have had all questions answered.

I understand my participation is voluntary and that any data I

provide will be anonymous and confidential

I understand that I am free to withdraw from this study now,

during or up to two weeks today without cause or repercussion

I understand I have to email the researcher with my student ID

within two weeks from today if I wish to withdraw from the study

I agree to take part in this research project



on Perceptions of Equity Signed _______________________

Date _______ - ______ - _______

6.4 Debrief Sheet

Firstly, Thank you for participating in this study, your contribution is invaluable to the

project.

The study aims to test the sensitivity to inequities of pay and how different personality traits

are associated with the sensitivity to these inequities. The results you have given will

hopefully give a serious contribution as to how we look at pay structure and help

organisations in screening for possible candidates.

The measures you completed were used to ascertain a baseline of how you feel about the

benefits at your job, or your equity sensitivity (Huseman, Hatfield and Miles 1987). Then you

completed the same questions again only this time after reading an imaginary scenario, this

was to measure equity sensitivity in different situations. Finally you completed a short

personality test to allow testing for personality traits of the Big 5 (Costa and McCrae 1985)

model of personality and how they relate to various outcomes.

If you have questions or would like to know more you should email Cameron Brown at

[email protected]. If you wish to withdraw your data from the study, you can

email this address quoting your participant number within two weeks of participation. You

do not need to state a reason and there will be no repercussions on your part.

References



on Perceptions of Equity Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources

Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. & Miles, E.W. (1987) ‘A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct.’ The Academy of Management Review 12 (2), 222-234

6.5 Gatekeeper Letter

Faculty of Health and Life SciencesDepartment of PsychologyCoventry UniversityCameron Brown, Undergraduate,Email: [email protected]: Thomas Evans

Dear Manager,

As part of my degree I am doing a research project to assess the relationship between personality and attitudes to certain aspects of an individual’s job. The outcomes of this experiment hope to seriously contribute to how companies screen for new employees, potentially revolutionising the application progress.

I am writing to ask if you would consider allowing me to use a sample of employees from your store to participate in the study. The study will consist of a pack of questionnaires that should take no longer than 30 minutes for each person to complete. The questionnaire does not need to be completed during working hours.

I have produced an information sheet for your employees, which outlines what participants will be required to do as a part of my study.

Ideally I would be looking to conduct this research between December and January and anticipate a final total of 120 participants, so any I can recruit from your store will be extremely helpful.

The main point, is to ensure that this study has as little of an impact on the running of your store as possible. As a Tesco Express employee myself, I know how important every minute of the day is.

I would be very grateful if you could let me know if this proposal is feasible and meets with your approval. If you are happy to support this crucial research, please let me know as soon as possible

Kind regards,

Cameron Brown




6.6 Ethical Approval

Evaluation of the ethics of the proposal:

All ethical issues have been addressed, proceed with good ethics.

Anonymous - 15 Dec 2015 08:28 PM

Evaluation of the participant information sheet and consent form:

no issues, recommendations have been met.

Anonymous - 15 Dec 2015 08:28 PM

Equity Sensitivity, The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equit

Documents

Transcript of Equity Sensitivity, The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equit