mag-rm

   
     

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllflllllllll

1293 00702

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University '

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF
A MEASURE OF PERCEIVED EQUITY

presented by

Peter D. Machungwa

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of. Ants_degree in lsxchology.

Major professor

Date / 0130 /75’
/ /

0-7 639

 

 

 

 

 

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF
A MEASURE OF PERCEIVED EQUITY

By

Peter D. Machungwa

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1978

ABSTRACT

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF
A MEASURE OF PERCEIVED EQUITY

BY

Peter D. Machungwa

While equity theory explains some work related behavior, research-
ers in organizations have faced measurement problems. These include
the absence of standardized measures of amount of perceived equity-in-
equity, and the lack and/or unreliability of records for such criterion
behaviors as employee performance, tardiness and absenteeism.

Questionnaire instruments measuring perceived equity and attitude
towards tardiness, absenteeism and performance were developed. Using
240 employees representing six occupational groups, perceived equity
was related to employee attitudes towards performance, absenteeism and
tardiness. For construct validation purposes, the instruments were
correlated with measures of job satisfaction, need achievement and locus
of control.

Results indicated a positive relationship between perceived equity
and advocation of punishment for tardiness, absenteeism and poor per—
formance for high-ranked but not low-ranked occupations. Equity was
also positively related to job satisfaction and internal locus of con—
trol.

Implications of findings for organizations are discussed and direc-

tions for future research are suggested.

IN MEMORY OF MY MOTHER

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout the duration of this research project, I received sup-
port, help and encouragement from a number of people. I am very grate-
ful to Dr. James Tolliver who served on my committee before he left
Michigan State University. Dr. Tolliver provided me with useful tips
at the time I conceived ideas for this project and during construction
of the Perceived Equity Measure questionnaire. I feel particularly in-
debted to Dr. Neal Schmitt (chairman of my committee) for his help.

Dr. Schmitt's advice, guidance, encouragement and practical suggestions
throughout the duration of this research and particularly when it seemed
impossible for me to collect my data proved invaluable. I am grateful
to Dr. Lawrence Messe’ whose useful suggestions and familiarity with the
equity research area made a significant contribution to the successful
completion of this research. I would also like to thank Dr. Lawrence
Foster who, despite being a latecomer to my committee, made helpful
comments and suggestions.

Further thanks go to my research assistant Pamela Vogel for her
assistance in collecting and preparing data for analysis. Other thanks
go to my girlfriend Judi Sue Sweezer whose help and emotional support I
could not have done without. Finally, I feel indebted, as I always will,
to my mother (late) and my father who worked so hard to see me get to

where I am.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION ....................... ... .......... . .............. 1

Equity Theory and Research in Work Related Social Exchanges. 4

Need for a Measure of Perceived Equity ...................... 8
Equity and the Need for Achievement ......................... 10
Equity and Job Satisfaction........ ....... ... ........... .... 12
Equity and Internal-External Locus of Control ..... .......... 13
METHOD ......................................................... 16
Subjects .................................................... 16
Procedure..... .............................................. 16
Research Instruments and Variables .......................... 18
The Perceived Equity Measure ........................ . ....... 19
Need for Achievement Scale................. ..... ..... ....... 20
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) - Short Form ..... 21
Abbreviated ll-Item Rotter I-E Scale (Valecha, 1972) ........ 21

Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong Doing (MEATWD).... 23

Data Analysis ............................................... 23
RESULTS.... .................................................... 23
DISCUSSION....... ..... ... ............ .......................... 32
CONCLUSION............... ....... . ........ .......... ........... . 37
APPENDIX.. ..................................................... 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......... . ......................................... 44

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page
TABLE 1: Reliabilities (internal consistency) of the Scales
used in the Study...‘0.00.0.00.........OOOOOCOOOOOOI ..... 24

TABLE 2: Product Moment Correlations Computed Among the
Variables Based on all Occupational Groups in the Study.. 25

TABLE 3: Summary of Product Moment Correlations Among Variables
with Sample Categorized by Occupation..................... 28

TABLE 4: Summary of univariate F-tests for the effects of sex,
occupation, and sex by occupation with secretaries and
clerks excluded from the analysis......................... 29

TABLE 5: F-tests from one-way ANOVA for the effect of occupa-
tional group with secretaries and clerks included in the
analys1SOOOOOOO...O....O.........OOOOOOOIO......OOOOOOOOI. 31

TABLE 62 Mean and Standard Deviation scores of the sample cate-
gorized by occupational group and by sex.................. 32

INTRODUCTION

Since Adams (1963, 1965) formulated equity theory, numerous re-
search studies have been conducted to test the predictions of the theory.
Clearly evident from these studies is the absence of standardized in—
struments for measuring the amount of equity or inequity individuals
perceive in work situations (see Adams and Freedman, 1976). Another
weakness of equity theory research is that indicated by Tornow (1971);
that research on the theory has not looked at the effects of personality
variables on the perception and/or resolution of inequity. Notable, too,
in the literature on the equity concept, is a tendency to treat the
equity framework as a theory of job satisfaction (e.g., Wexley and Yukl,
1977; Lawler, 1973; and Vroom, 1965). While there is little doubt that
job satisfaction and equity are closely related concepts, research has
not indicated they are identical constructs. And a practical problem
faced by equity theory researchers in organizational field settings is
one of criteria measurement. Too often, records for such employee work
behaviors as performance, absenteeism and tardiness that researchers
use as criteria are absent and/or unreliable.

In a 1963 paper, Adams presented a theory of work motivation based
on Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance. Adams suggested
that in work situations individuals contribute their education, intelli-
gence, training, experience, skill, seniority, age, sex, status, ethnic
background, and the effort expended on the task. In return for these

inputs, individuals receive from the job situation outcomes like pay,

1

2
rewards intrinsic to the job, seniority benefits, fringe benefits, job
status and other benefits. Whether or not each one of the above inputs
and outcomes are considered relevant and are actually applied in a given
situation depends on the individual's perception. According to Adams,
equity exists when a person perceives that his outcomes-inputs ratio is
equal to the outcomes-inputs ratio of a comparison other. The comparison
other is another person in a similar situation; for instance, a co-worker.
When a person notices that his outcomes-inputs ratio disagrees with the
outcomes-inputs ratio of a comparison other, then he feels inequity.
There is some evidence to show that past outcomes-inputs ratio of an
individual may induce present feelings of inequity, Pritchard et a1.
(1970). This suggests that sometimes an individual's previous outcomes-
inputs ratio may serve as the basis of comparison.

The concept of comparison other has lately been expanded. Goodman
(1974, 1977) argued that individuals use multiple referents; other, self,
and system: other referenced comparisons concern matching outcome-in-
put ratios to those of others within or outside the organization. Self—
referenced comparisons involve the comparison of a person's current
situation with some past situation experienced by the individual. And
lastly, systemereferenced comparisons concern matching what the indivi-
dual had been promised with what is actually present.

In his later formulation, Adams (1965) pointed out that equity
theory is a general conceptual framework of social exchange and is not
limited to work situations alone. He presented a mathematical formula-

tion as follows: If .02 0 then equity is perceived as the ratios

=._§
I I
p a
are seen to be equal. But if 0 0 or O O , then inequity is
..B <._§ ._E<=_§
I I I I
P a p z

3
felt since the ratios are perceived unequal.

The presence of inequity creates tension in the person and the amount
of this tension is proportional to the magnitude of inequity felt. To
eliminate the tension, the individual will be motivated to remove or re-
duce the inequity. The strength of this motivation increases with the
magnitude of the inequity perceived. The inequity is removed or re-
duced by increasing or decreasing inputs or outcomes depending on whether
these were lower or higher relative to those of comparison other. The
person may also leave the field, change comparison other, cognitively
distort his inputs or outcomes or distort those of comparison other. or
force comparison other out of the situation. When choosing a method to
reduce inequity the person attempts to maximize valued outcomes and
minimize increasing inputs that are costly to change. The person resists
cognitive distortions of inputs central to his self-concept and is un-
willing to alter cognitions about his outcomes. But the person will be
less resistant to changing comparison other's inputs and outcomes. The
person leaves the field only under high magnitudes of inequity that
cannot be resolved by other methods. At lower levels of inequity ab-
senteeism may occur as a means to resolve feelings of inequity.

Internal-external locus of control (Rotter, 1966) is a construct
which, like equity, has been shown to have considerable influence on
the work experience of individuals (see Valecha, 1972; Andrisani and
Nestel, 1976). In order to fully understand the human aspect of the
work environment, it is necessary to relate constructs like equity and
locus of control and other work related variables which have a collective
and/or independent impact on the work environment.

This study is an attempt to develop a standardized measure of per-

ceived equity in work situations. The relationship between this

4

measure of perceived equity and organizational employee attitudes towards
tardiness, absenteeism, and performance is assessed. In addition, the
relationship between perception and resolution of inequity and the per—
sonality variable of need for achievement is investigated. Finally, the
link between locus of control, job satisfaction, and equity is explored.
Equity Theory and Research in Work Related Social Exchanges

Perhaps because equity theory was first formulated with a focus on
work related situations, initial research from which the theory drew sup-
port almost exclusively dealt with human interactions in work or simulated
work situations. But more recently, however, researchers have applied
the equity framework to other areas of human interactions as well
(Walster et. a1., 1973). Walster et. al., have revised and extended
Adams' original formulation and presented it as a general theory of
social behavior. Equity theory has been used to explain behavior of
parties to exploitative, helping and intimate relationships. But be-
cause the literature from non-work social exchange situations is not
directly relevant to the questions being addressed in this paper, it will
not be reviewed. The interested reader is advised to see the excellent
summary by Walster, Bersheid and Walster (1973). Instead we turn to
equity theory research in work related situations.

As earlier indicated, initial research on the equity norm concen-
trated on testing the theory's predictions in human interactions in
work settings. It does not seem necessary to review all the literature
on equity theory predictions. Excellent summaries of these studies can
be found in Adams (1965), Lawler (1968), Opsahl and Dunnette (1966),
Pritchard (1969), Weick and Nesset (1969) and, Goodman and Friedman
(1971), Carrell and Dittrich (1978). Instead, only a brief summary of

some of the most significant findings from equity theory research will

be outlined here.

Many laboratory-type studies focused on resolution of inequity and
performance (Goodman and Friedman, 1971). In most of these studies the
researcher hired persons for part-time work and paid them more or less
than the going rate to induce inequity, or paid them more or less than
the going rate and told them their qualifications were lower than a come
parison other receiving the same pay. The pay is usually on hourly or
piece rate basis and the dependent variable has been measured by number
and quality of units of work completed and attitudinal responses of
subjects to questionnaires administered at the end of the "employment".

One of the four basic hypotheses tested in these studies is that
overpaid hourly subjects will produce more than equitably paid subjects
to resolve inequity. Even though research findings on this hypothesis
are somewhat mixed, better controlled studies have supported the hypo-
thesis (Adams and Rosenbaum, 1962; Arrowood, 1961; Goodman and Friedman,
1969; Pritchard et. a1., 1970). Another hypothesis tested is that over-
paid piece-rate subjects produce work of a higher quality but lower
quantity than equitably paid subjects. Data from studies testing this
hypothesis has been generally confirmatory of equity theory (Adams and
Rosenbaum, 1969; Adams, 1963b; Adams and Jacobsen, 1964; Goodman and
Friedman, 1969; Wood and Lawler, 1970). The third hypothesis tested
is that underpaid—hourly subjects decrease inputs to achieve equity.
Although this hypothesis received some empirical support, too few studies
have been conducted on this hypothesis to reach a definitive confirma-
tion of the hypothesis (Goodman and Friedman, 1971). Another hypothesis
tested is that underpaid piece rate subjects produce a greater quantity
of work but of lower quality than equitably paid controls. Although

only a few studies have been conducted with underpaid piece rate subjects

6

equity theory has received support (Andrews, 1967; Lawler and
O'Gara, 1967).

A comparatively few number of studies focused on inequity resolu-
tion strategies not based on performance. These studies found that a
person allocates outcomes to himself and comparison other in a manner
proportional to their respective inputs. As might be expected, not all
studies conducted to test equity theory predictions yielded supportive
results. However, most of the studies with non-confirmatory findings
had methodological weaknesses, e.g., see Goodman and Friedman (1971).

As research on Adams' equity concept continues to grow and expand
into many areas of social interaction, more recent evidence indicates
there are important applications in social behavior involving monetary
exchanges. The equity conceptual framework has profitable instrumental
application in work situations. Maintaining equitable allocations in
work settings elicites and maintains high performance, as Leventhal (1976)
observes. He points out that equitable allocations of resources and re-
wards reinforce the behaviors of the more productive workers and ensures
they have greatest access to essential resources. Equitable allocations
also deliver low reinforcement to low performers thereby forcing them to
perform better or dissatisfying them so much that they eventually quit
and this upgrades overall quality of performance. Support for this
line of thought was also found by Clark (1958) who studied labor
efficiency in supermarkets where inequity was present among some workers.
His results were that labor costs were much higher in supermarkets where
inequity existed than where little or no inequity was perceived present.

Sometimes overpayment inequity may be intentionally produced to
maximize productivity for a short period of time. This instrumental use

of inequity may, however, destroy an organization's capacity to operate

7
profitably in the long run (Leventhal, 1976).

Another piece of evidence strongly militating for continued use of
equity theory principles in work situations is the view expressed by
Deutsch (1975), that in cooperative relations in which economic produc-
tion is the primary goal, equity rather than equality or need, is the
basis for distributive justice between or among the participants.

Most of the studies that we reviewed which tested equity theory
required that the researcher induce feelings of equity or inequity among
subjects to observe its resolution. This is often difficult to do in
natural organizational environments. Consequently, all but a small
number of field studies on the equity norm have been laboratory studies
(see Lawler, 1968; Pritchard, 1969; Goodman and Friedman, 1971; and
Carrell and Dittrich, 1978).

A novel and interesting approach to studying equity/inequity and its
resolution in natural organizational settings would be to look at the
relationship between amount of perceived equity or inequity and organi-
zational members' attitudes toward tardiness, poor performance and absen-
teeism. This approach seems theoretically sound since it can be expected
that the magnitude of equity or inequity present can affect organizational
members' attitudes towards these job aspects. Practically, such an
approach allows for an indirect investigation of the link between the
concept of equity on one hand and performance, tardiness and absenteeism
on the other by avoiding the measurement problems associated with these
criteria.

On the basis of equity theory predictions and the literature dis-
cussed, it can be expected that organizational members perceiving equity
would view absenteeism, tardiness, and poor performance negatively while

those members perceiving inequity would view the three job aspects less

negatively. The present study will examine the relationship between

8
perceived equity and employee attitude toward poor performance, absen-
teeism, and tardiness.

Need for a Measure of Perceived Equity

 

Despite an enormous body of research literature, equity theory is
conspicuous in its lack of well developed standard measures. Researchers
have had to construct their own tools to measure perceived equity and/or
its resolution each time. In work situations, researchers have measured
perceived equity mostly through inequity resolution strategies like in-
creases or decreases in performance and/or quality of performance. In
addition, perceived equity has been measured directly through subject
responses to attitudinal questionnaires administered after completion of
task or simulated task; Adams and Rosenbaum, (1962); Arrowood, (1961);
Goodman and Friedman, (1969); Pritchard et. a1., (1970); Wood and Lawler,
(1970); Tornow, (1971); etc. In some studies turnover has been used as
an indicator of perceived equity/inequity, Telly, French, and Scott,
(1971); Dansereau, Cashman and Graen (1973); Finn and Lee, (1972); Planz,
(1970); and Valenzi and Andrews, (1971).

In his investigation of moderators of inequity perception and re—
solution Tornow (1971) constructed what he called the Tornow Input Out—
put Checklist (TIOC) which he used to classify individuals into those
perceiving ambiguous job elements as inputs and those perceiving such
elements as outcomes. This instrument does not measure perceived equity,
however, though individuals classified into one of the two categories
will perceive more, or less equity in a situation. In a study aimed at
the examination of various operational definitions of job satisfaction,
Wanous and Lawler (1972) contended that one of the measures in their
questionnaire was measuring perceived equity in a job situation. They

wrote: "First, an individual can ask himself if his present job provides

9
equitable outcomes...for the inputs it requires. This is an equity com-
parison and can be measured by the discrepancy between a Should Be item
and Is now item..." (p. 97). Part of their questionnaire asked workers
to rate on a seven-point scale how much of 23 characteristics (including
self-esteem, opportunity for growth, pay) was present on their job and
how much they (workers) believed there should be. Though the worker
responding to this questionnaire may not compare outcomes-inputs ratio
to that of comparison other but base it on his previous outcomes-inputs
ratio or merely on what he believes he ought to get for his inputs, the
Should Be Is Now discrepancy is an indication of perceived equity. How-
ever, the Should Be Is Now discrepancy measure is only a small component
of a large questionnaire designed to measure and define the broader and
rather elusive concept of job satisfaction.

More recently, a 31—item questionnaire designed to measure perceived
equity was developed by Dittrich and Carrell (1976). The limitation of
this instrument is that it relies solely on the individual's..." own
internally derived standard for comparison..." (Carrell, 1978, p. 111)
to determine equity. Literature already reviewed clearly show that
multiple referents are used in equity considerations. These referents
include a comparison other (Adams, 1963, 1965), a person's past outcome-
input ratio (Pritchard et. a1., 1970), an outcome-input ratio unique to
the individual, and what had been promised compared to what currently
obtains (Godman, 1974, 1977). Because of this theoretical weakness of
the Dittrich-Carrell instrument, the vacuum for standardized measures
of equity continues to exist.

It is clear from this brief review of the tools and techniques em-
ployed to measure perceived equity/inequity in a given situation, that

standard measures of perceived equity are still lacking. Stressing the

10
need for the development of such measures, Adams and Friedman (1976)
wrote:

Development in any science is contingent, in part, upon precise

measurement of variables. Equity theory is no longer at the stage

of establishing basic functional relationships. Some research
effort must be devoted now to measurement, not only in order that
the theory might better be tested and refined, but so that it
might be confidently applied to social problems. Concern for
social justice has never been keener and more pervasive, and
equity theory has obvious relevance to possible solutions. Yet,
it is doubtful that theorists could contribute more than general
principles...An important reason is that we cannot measure with
precision the magnitude of existing social injustice...A priority,
then, is the development of psychometric technology for the

measurement of the components of inequity. (p. 53).

Considering the diversity of areas of human social interaction to
which equity theory has successfully been applied as an explanatory
concept, it is not possible to develop a single tool that can measure
perceived equity in all these areas. For instance, a measure of per-
ceived equity in intimate relationships will be different from that used
in a work situation. Because of the important applications the equity
framework has in work settings (which have been discussed earlier) and
because of the author's leaning of interests towards this area, one of
the purposes of this study is to develop a measure of perceived equity
in a given organizational work situation. This choice is not meant to
imply that this author does not value the importance of equity theory
application in non—business work settings. Rather, it is hoped that
the development of the measure will serve as an impetus to developing

similar measures in other fields of social interactions.

Equity and the Need for Achievement

 

Most researchers on equity theory have adopted a nomothetic approach
and attempted to test the theory's predictions in terms of how the
average individual would react in an equitable or inequitable social

exchange situation. Individual differences appear not to be considered.

ll
Pointing this out, Tornow (1971) wrote that the general weakness of
equity theory was its failure to consider the effect of individual dif-
ference variables on perceived equity. Tornow supported his criticism
by demonstrating that whether or not individuals perceived ambiguous
job elements (like responsibility, challenge, task complexity) as inputs
or outputs moderated perception and resolution of inequity. Another
study that showed individual difference effects on equity perception and
inequity resolution was that of Glass (1964). In a study where subjects'
self-esteem was experimentally raised by providing "authoritative" in-
formation on subjects' personalities, high self-esteem subjects justified
their harmful actions (by derogating their victims) more than did low
self-esteem subjects. Other individual difference variables moderating
inequity perception and resolution were demonstrated in a study by Blumstein
and Weinstein (1969). These two researchers observed that persons high
on a trait called Machiavellianism (defined as "the orientation toward
manipulation of one's fellow man as a means of achieving personal goals",
{p. 410}) were opportunistic in allocation of rewards. These individuals
tried to get as much reward for themselves as possible even when they
contributed less than others. Individuals with high need for social
approval, on the contrary, claimed less reward for themselves than their
inputs merited in an effort to avoid their partners seeing them as
greedy.

An individual difference variable of high significance in work
situations--due to the importance of high performance in these situa-
tions--is need for achievement. The person with high need for achieve-
ment is intrinsically motivated to perform highly on tasks of medium
difficulty and where feedback is available. Such a person derives

more pleasure from task accomplishment and frustration from failure than

12
a person with low need for achievement. There is some evidence suggesting
that need for achievement can affect inequity perception and resolution.
Penner (1967) found that high performers were more likely to be dis-
satisfied with pay; that high inputs appeared to lead to feelings of
inequity. Klein and Maher (1966) observed that college graduates were
more likely to be dissatisfied with pay than non—college graduates when
education was used as an input. While high academic qualifications and
high performance do not necessarily indicate high need for achievement,
it can reasonably be assumed that they do in fact imply some need for
achievement.

It appears plausible that persons with high need for achievement
and consequently high performance, though this may not necessarily be
the case, would perceive more disadvantageous inequity than persons with
low need for achievement. Another purpose of this study, therefore, is
to investigate the effect of need for achievement on perception of equity.
This will be done by relating scores on a measure of need for achieve—
ment-~the need for achievement subscale of the EPPS-—and scores on the
Perceived Equity Measure (PEM). Persons scoring high on the achieve-
ment scale would be expected to perceive more inequity on PEM. Indivi-
duals scoring low on the need achievement scale would be expected to
perceive less inequity.

Equity and Job Satisfaction

 

A concept whose relationship with performance in work organizations
continues to be rather elusive is job satisfaction. Studies to establish
the link between job satisfaction and performance have often yielded
contradictory findings. Since the classical Hawthorne studies in the
thirties and the resultant human relations approach to increasing

productivity, many contended that satisfaction led to high performance.

13
Other researchers have found that it is good performance that leads to
satisfaction because of the rewards that are contingent upon Perfor-
mance; for example, Vroom (1964), Lawler and Porter (1967). One clear
thing, however, is that whatever the nature of the link between satis-
faction and performance, organizations always prefer satisfied to dis-
satisfied workers. Perception of equity should be an important ingre-
dient of job satisfaction, in fact, some researchers have viewed equity
as a theory of job satisfaction, e.g., Lawler (1973), Vroom (1964) and
Wexley and Yukl (1977). However, it must be emphasized here that
whereas job satisfaction lacks a clear relationship with performance,
equity considerations have a direct effect on performance, at least as
demonstrated in previously cited laboratory studieS. So if an instru-
ment to measure perceived equity is developed, the instrument would not
just constitute another measure of job satisfaction. A measure of
perceived equity/inequity would enable organizations to change employees'
performance by establishing equity when this is found to be lacking.
Further, such a measure would enable the investigation of the strength
and extent of the relationship between job satisfaction and equity.

On the basis of the literature just presented, it can be expected
that measured job satisfaction will be closely related to perceived
equity yet not so closely related to justify treating the two concepts
as one and the same.

Equity and Internal-External Locus of Control

 

According to Rotter (1966), internal-external locus of control re-
fers to the degree to which a person perceives success and failure as
being either contingent on personal actions and initiative or on factors
unrelated to one's actions and initiative. At one end of the scale are

highly internal persons who perceive effort to be largely instrumental

14

in meeting with success or failure. The opposite end of the continuum
represents individuals who view failure and success as unrelated to their
efforts and initiative.

Although voluminous research literature exists (see Lefcourt, 1973
and Joe, 1971) on the internal-external construct and despite the con-
structs' important implications for work situations, research on it has
paid little attention to the relationship between Locus of Control and
work experience variables (Andrisani and Nestel, 1976). Only recently
have some attempts been made to relate the internal-external framework
to work—related variables. Valecha (1972) using an all male sample found
that for whites, internality was positively related to high status occupa-
tions and high knowledge about the world of work—-that is, occupants of
high status positions and people who scored high on an occupational
information test scored high on internality. Valecha further observed
that internal whites with low levels of education (12 years or less) made
better progress on the job than externals. In a longitudinal study to
relate internal-external control to work experience, Andrisani and
Nestel (1976) utilizing an all male sample concluded that internal-ex-
ternal control has influence on the success of individuals in the world
of work. They had observed that internals experienced more advancement
on seven of ten dimensions that included annual earnings, hourly earn—
ings, occupational attainment, job satisfaction and perceived financial
progress. They also concluded from their data that while internality
or externality is considered a stable personality variable, success at
one's job enhances a shift from external to internal control.

Since internal-external locus of control influences an employee's
job outcomes like occupational attainment, hourly and annual earnings,

perceived financial progress and job satisfaction, it can be expected

15
that locus of control will have some impact on the perception of equity.
Incnr quest to fully understand the work scene, it is important to ex-
amine the relationships among variables that collectively or independently
impact on the work scene. This study will, therefore, explore the re-
lationship between equity and internal-external locus of control. As
there is no basis to speculate as to the nature of the relationship be-
tween the two constructs, no apriori hypothesis will be advanced.

It is important to note, too, that the two studies (Valecha, 1972;
and Andrisani and Nestel, 1976) which related internality-externality
to work experience variables used all male samples. The present study
will use males as well as females to inquire into the link between in-
ternal-external control and the job-related variables of equity, job
satisfaction, need for achievement, and worker attitudes towards tardi-
ness, absenteeism and performance.

Based on the research evidence presented, three hypotheses will be
tested in this study:

Hypothesis 1: Employees perceiving equity will view absenteeism,

 

tardiness and poor performance as serious offenses while those perceiving
inequity will view these three job factors as not being serious offenses.
In other words, there will be a significant correlation between percep-
tions of equity and perceptions of the seriousness of absenteeism,
tardiness and poor performance.

Hypothesis 2: Employees with a high need for achievement will

 

perceive more inequity than those with low need for achievement while
those with low achievement need will perceive more equity than indivi-
duals with high need for achievement. Thus a negative correlation
between equity and need for achievement is predicted.

Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction will be positively and significantly

 

correlated with perceived equity but the correlation will be of such

16

low magnitude that equity and job satisfaction cannot be considered
identical constructs.
METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were 240 full time male and female employees of a large
state university in Michigan. These employees who were drawn from all
the university's academic and service departments consisted of 72 secre-
taries, 34 clerks, 42 technicians, laboratory and research assistants,
43 supervisors, 35 managers, and 14 janitors. Except for the janitors,
subjects were randomly selected from among all employees in their par-
ticular work group using the listings in the university's faculty and
staff directory. Janitors, not listed in the directory, were chosen in
such a manner as to represent as many departments as possible in their
sample.
Procedure

Five questionnaire measures - the Perceived Equity Measure (PEM),
the Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong Doing (MEATWD), the need
for achievement subscale from Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the
abbreviated Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Valecha,
1972) and the short form version of the Minnesota Satisfaction Question-
naire (Weiss et. a1., 1967) - comprised the main research instruments.
The PEM and MEATWD had been constructed and pretested by the author
(see Section on Instruments). The three other scales were chosen on
the basis of their appropriateness for the study and demonstrated
validity and reliability in field research.

For purposes of making the total questionnaire--consisting of
five measures--appear short, and because the need for achievement scale

and the Rotter Internal-External scale both use a forced choice format,

17
these two measures were combined by arranging items from the two scales
in alternating sequence. The resultant combined scale (need for
achievement and Internal—External control) was for convenience named
the Need Preference Survey. Except for the Machungwa Employee Attitude
Towards Wrong Doing Scale which was labelled as the "MEATWD Survey", the
Perceived Equity Measure and the Short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire were properly identified by their full names, (see the
Appendix).

The combined five-measures questionnaire was mailed to 540 employees
of a large midwest state university. These employees, drawn from all
academic and supportive service departments of the university were asked
in a cover letter to fill out the questionnaire and send it back in an
enclosed postage paid return envelope. The letter which emphasized
anonymity of respondents explained that the questionnaire survey was
being conducted by a student as part of his graduate work.

The 540 employees belong to five of six work categories that had
been chosen for the study. The six categories of janitor, clerk, sec—
retary, technician/research and laboratory assistant, supervisor and
manager were picked for the following reasons: First, these job posi-
tions are very common to most industrial work organizations. Thus
comparisons of findings can be easily made if this study is repeated
in any other work organization. Secondly, the use of job positions
that vary so much in status, power, pay and benefits offered will en-
able interesting group comparisons. And from a purely practical point
of view, employees in the chosen work categories deal with some amount
of paperwork (with the exception of janitors) and are more likely to

respond to a rather long mail questionnaire.

18

The sample itself was chosen after carefully studying the listings
in the university's faculty and staff directory. It had been decided to
sample randomly from among all the employees listed in each of five of
the six chosen job categories (janitors were not listed in the directory).
The size sampled in each category reflects consideration of the number
of employees in that work group and the likelihood that employees may
have quit or changed jobs since the directory had been printed about a
year before. Care was taken to ensure that all departments were re—
presented in the subsamples where possible. Proceeding on the basis of
the above considerations, names of 150 secretaries, 100 clerks, 100
technicians/research and laboratory assistants, 115 supervisors, and 75
managers were listed from the directory. Questionnaires were then mailed
to these people.

The janitors, officially designated as custodians, presented a
special problem. Being unlisted in the directory, these people could not
be reached by mail. Hence it was decided to deliver questionnaires
personally to these employees when they reported for work in the evenings
in various buildings. Attempts were made to distribute questionnaires
in such a way as to include janitors from as many departments as possible.
Due to the very high rate of refusal to participate among these employees
and difficulties in finding them (they move and work in different parts
of the building) only 47 questionnaires were personally delivered.
Research Instruments and‘Variables1

The major variable of interest in this study is the amount of

equity as measured on the perceived equity measure.

 

1A copy of the research instruments used in the study is shown in the
Appendix.

The Perceived Equity Measure (PEM)

The PEM is a 20 item pencil and paper instrument that can be group
administered to workers in work settings. It has a reliability of .87
and measures the amount of equity employees perceive on their job situa-
tion. On the PEM the individual's basis for comparison include co—
workers in similar jobs, workers in other departments and/or other or-
ganizations, and the individual's unique psychological standard--what
amount of each job factor he/she thinks should be present. Statements
on the instrument seek the individual's perceived equity about pay,
promotion, job autonomy and nature of job itself, fringe benefits, super-
vision and treatment by supervisors.

Respondents indicate their agreement or disagreement with each
statement on a five-point scale by checking "strongly agree", "agree”,
"not sure", "disagree" or "strongly disagree". The respondent's total
score is found by adding up scores on all 20 items. The higher the
total score, the greater the amount of equity perceived; the lower the
score, the greater the magnitude of inequity perceived.

Construction of PEM

 

Initially 42 items were selected out of the total number of 60
constructed. These 42 were administered to a randomly selected sample
of 60 employees of Michigan State University. This sample consisted of
20 janitors, 20 secretaries and 20 professors. It had been originally
intended to subdivide the PEM into five subscales: pay, promotion, job
itself and autonomy, fringe benefits, and supervision and treatment.
But a factor and reliability analysis of the data showed no evidence
of the existence of these subscales. Items with very low internal
consistency were dropped from the scale so that only 20 items were re—

tained in the instrument.

19

20

Administered together with the original 42 item scale was one item
(asked only to the professors within the sample) which was meant to get
an indication of the validity of the scale. This item asked the pro-
fessors in the sample to respond "yes" or "no" to the question:
"Recently there has been a move to unionize faculty members at MSU.
Do you favor such a move?" It was reasoned that those who refused
unionization can be assumed to perceive more equity than those who
favored unionization. The dichotomous responses to the unionization
question were correlated with the total scores on the retained 20 items.
A nonsignificant but positive relationship (r = .247, p = .12) was ob-
tained. Despite the low correlation, it is important to note that the
relationship is reasonably large and in the predicted direction.

Need for Achievement Scale

 

There are not many paper and pencil measures of the need for
achievement suitable for use in organizational work situations which have
demonstrated validity and reliability. The need for achievement sub-
scale from the EPPS, however, is one that has been said to have promise
with regard to validity (McKee, 1972). The scale consists of 15 pairs
of statements. Only one statement in each pair is indicative of need for
achievement. Since the scale is ipsatively scored, the individual's
score on this subscale is the toad number of achievement-related items
be or she chooses out of a possible total of 15.

On the scale used in this study, four (non-scoring) filler state-
ments were included. This brought the number of statements to 19. The
statements of this scale were combined with those from the internal—
external locus of control. The resulting combined instrument was named

the Need Preference Survey.

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) - Short Form

This pencil and paper instrument consists of 20 items which
measure intrinsic, extrinsic and general job satisfaction. The 20 items
are a subset of the long version of the M80 which has 100 items. On the
short form, as on the long version, respondents are asked to indicate
their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a given job aspect on a five
point scale. Scoring on the scale is done in such a way that a high
score means very satisfied while a low score indicates dissatisfaction.

According to Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist, the 20-item ver—
sion has internal consistency reliability ranging from .77 to .92 for
samples of engineers, machinists, toy and electrical assembly workers.
Construct validity of the instrument has been demonstrated in studies of
occupational differences in job satisfaction, and in studies relating
satisfaction and satisfactoriness as specified by the theory of work
adjustment (Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist, 1967).

Abbreviated ll-item Rotter I-E Scale (Valecha, 1972)

 

This pencil and paper scale measures internal and external locus
of control as described by Rotter (1966). The scale has 11 pairs of
statements (one pair being a non-scoring filler) which Valecha (1972)
selected from the original 29-item Rotter I-E scale. Valecha chose the
11 items on basis of their being more general, adult-oriented and work
related. Like the 29-item Rotter scale, the abbreviated version uses a
forced choice format and scores can range from zero for the most internal
to ten for the most external.

Although Valecha (1972) slightly modified the scoring to allow for
a more graduated distinction between internality and externality, and
although he did not report data on the scale's reliability, his study
with a sample of 4330 males demonstrated convergent validity for the

instrument.
21

22

In the present study, the scoring format of the original Rotter
I-E scale was used. However, the scoring was reversed so that a high
score meant high internality and a low score meant high externality.

As earlier indicated, items from this scale were combined with
those from the need for achievement scale to form the "Need Preference
Survey". (In the appendix, Locus of control items are numbered even
from 2 through 20 under the Need Preference Survey questionnaire).

The main dependent variable in this study is the attitude towards
tardiness, absenteeism and performance as measured on the questionnaire
described below:

Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong Doing (MEATWD)

The MEATWD is a 24-item pencil and paper scale designed for group
or individual administration in work settings. The scale was constructed
by the author specifically for this study and it measures attitudes of
employees towards tardiness, absenteeism and poor performance on their
jobs. Respondents show agreement or disagreement to the attitude state-
ments on a five point scale ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly
Disagree".

Responses are scored in such a way that respondents who view
employee tardiness, absenteeism and poor performance as serious offenses
(deserving some type of punishment) get a high score. Respondents who
feel that tardiness, absenteeism and poor performance are only minor
misdeeds which should be pardoned get a low score. Although there is
yet no data on the MEATWD's validity, a close examination of the items
shows them to have good face and content validity. When the scale was
administered to 80 senior and junior undergraduate students taking a
management class and who indicated that they had a part or full time

job, a reliability (coefficient alpha) of .82 was obtained. A factor

23
analysis of the data showed that the scale was unidimensional.

Other Variables

 

Information on respondents' sex and job position was also collected.

Data Analysis

 

Pearson product moment correlations were computed among the five
scales. Correlations between sex and scores on each scale were also
computed. The sample was divided into the six occupational categories and
correlations among the five scales, and between sex and the scales were
computed separately for each occupational group.

Multivariate analysis of variance (Cohen and Burns, 1977) was per-
formed to simultaneously test the effect of sex and occupational group
on the five dependent measures. As two of the occupation groups (clerks
and secretaries) consisted of only female employees, they were excluded
from this analysis since multivariate analysis of variance cannot be per-
formed with blank cells.

One way analysis of variance (in which the clerks and secretaries
were included) was conducted to test for the effect of occupational group
on scores on the dependent measures. Post hoc comparisons of means
(Scheffe, 1959) for the six occupational categories from the five scales
were subsequently performed to check for any significant differences in
means.

Reliability analysis (internal consistency) of the scales was also
performed.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents reliabilities obtained from the study for the five
scales. These results indicate that the two new scales, the Perceived
Equity Measure (PEM) and the Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong

Doing (MEATWD) have high reliability. Coefficient alpha for PEM and

24
the MEATWD was .89 and .86 respectively. On Splitting the sample into
occupational groups, reliability for the PEM ranges from .86 for tech—
nicians to .90 for janitors and secretaries. 0n the MEATWD, reliability
ranges from .76 for technicians to .88 for managers. The Minnesota
Satisfaction questionnaire showed the highest reliability while the
two ipsatively scored scales (need for achievement and locus of control)

showed rather low internal consistency.

Table 1

Reliabilities (internal consistency) of the Scales
Used in the Study

 

 

All Secre- Tech- Super- Man- Jan-

Groups taries Clerks nicians visors agers itors
PEM .89 .90 .88 .86 .87 .89 .90
MEATWD .86 .83 .85 .76 .81 .88 .86
NACH .56 .62 .54 .60 .46 .60 .55
LOCONT .65 .69 .67 .38 .60 .72 .31
MSQy, .90 .92 .87 .90 .90 .79 .93
Note: Abbreviated scale names are: PEM - Perceived Equity Measure,

MEATWD - Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong Doing, NACH - Need
for Achievement Scale, LOCONT - Internal-External Locus of Control, and
MSQ - Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Examination of relationships among the five variables shows that the
hypothesis that there will be a positive significant correlation between
perceived equity and attitudes towards wrong doing has not been supported
(see Table 2). In fact, a negative though very low and nonsignificant

correlation has been obtained between perceived equity and attitudes

towards wrong doing (r = -.022).

Table 2

Product Moment Correlations Computed Among the Variables
Based on all Occupational Groups in the Study

 

 

(N=240)

sex PEM MEATWD NACH LOCONT MSQ
sax 1.00
PEM - .143* 1.00
MEATWD - .242* -.022 1.00
NACH - .089 .100 .05 1.00
LOCONT - .205* .236* —.094 .108* 1.00
MSQ_V - .124* .424* -.028 -.011 .235* 1.00
*p < .05

Note: Abbreviated scale names are: PEM - Perceived Equity Measure,
MEATWD - Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong Doing, NACH - Need
for Achievement Scale, LOCONT - Internal-External Locus of Control, and
MSQ - Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.

The second hypothesis that need for achievement will be negatively
related to perceived equity was also unconfirmed. The relationship ob-
served between the two variables is low and nonsignificant but positive,
r = .10. It is interesting to note, however, that the relationship be-
tween need for achievement and job satisfaction is negative--in the ex-
pected direction. Nevertheless, the correlation, r = 0.011 is very low
and nonsignificant.

The third hypothesis stated that perceived equity will have a
positive and significant relationship with job satisfaction but a rela-
tionship sufficiently weak to justify treating equity and job satisfac-
tion as different though related constructs. This hypothesis has been
supported. The relationship obtained, r = .424, which gives a corre-

lation of .473 on correcting for attenuation is positive and signifi-

cant; however, the low magnitude of this relationship cannot justify
25

26
considering equity and job satisfaction as identical constructs.

Sex was related to the five variables examined. The analyses re-
vealed that females perceived significantly less equity and job satis-
faction and had lower internal locus of control than males. Women also
showed significantly less willingness to punish tardiness, absenteeism
and poor performance. Finally, the results indicate that women have a
lower need for achievement than men though the difference was nonsigni-
ficant. Since two occupational categories in the study were made up of
female subjects only, these correlations between sex and the five scales
may be confounded with an occupational group effect. Results from multi-
variate and one way analyses of variance (presented on pages 29-32)
deal with this problem.

From Table 2, it can be seen that persons high on internality per—
ceive more equity, r = .236 and show more job satisfaction, r = .235
than persons high on externality. Need for achievement had a very low
but positive relationship with locus of control.

To allow further examination of the relationship among the variables,
the sample was divided into occupational groups. Correlations among the
variables are presented in Table 3.

Although the hypothesis that employees perceiving equity will view
absenteeism, tardiness, and poor performance as serious offenses was
not confirmed for the whole sample, the hypothesis has been supported
for supervisors (r - .27, p_< .05) and managers (r = .359, p_< .05) as
can be seen from Table 3 (d) and 3 (e). The relationship between the
two variables for the other four groups varies from an almost zero
correlation for clerks and technicians to a negative correlation for

secretaries and janitors.

27

To discount the possibility that the correlations between equity and
attitudes towards wrong doing for managers and supervisors might be due
to chance fluctuation from those of the rest of the sample, the Box (1950)
test as described by Winer (1971) was performed. Box's test checks the
equality and symmetry of covariance matrices and yields a statistic
(and corresponding degrees of freedom) with a sampling distribution
approximated by the chi square distribution. Results from this test,
X2(9O) = 142.05, p_< .05, confirmed that correlations between the two
variables obtained for managers and supervisors were not due to chance
variation from those of the rest of the sample. That is, managers
and supervisors who perceive equity feel significantly more strongly
than secretaries, clerks and technicians that tardiness, absenteeism and
poor performance must be penalized.

The second hypothesis that employees with high need for achievement
will perceive less equity than those with low achievement need has not
been supported even with the sample categorized into occupations. The
nonsignificant correlations between equity and need for achievement range
from a low positive for managers and technicians, near zero for secre-
taries and supervisors to a low negative for clerks and janitors.

Finally, the proposition that equity and job satisfaction will have
a significant positive relationship has received support from all occupa-
tional groups studied. Correlations range from .40 for clerks to .49
for managers. These correlations are sufficiently low to question the
notion that equity and job satisfaction are one and the same construct.

An observation of interest from Table 3 is that managers show a
very low negative and nonsignificant correlation (r - .03) between locus
of control and job satisfaction while correlations between the two vari-

ables for the whole sample was positive and highly significant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.H w~m. co. so. was. so.
o.H ha. mo.I Ho.I ~H.I
o.H «so. mm.s m~.I
o.H .NH.I Hm.u
o.H SH.I
o.Hl
Amy muoudflwfi
o.H «an. Ho.u om. .«os. a~.u,
o.a «me. mH.I «Hm. HN.I
o.H so.I mo. oo.-
o.H IAN. amm.x
c.H ~o.I
1 o.H
Amy muona>uomom
o.H mo. ~o.u ma. woe.
o.H mo. ma. ma.
o.H No. mfl.u
o.a «o.
o.“
o.H
cm: azouoa mo<z nze<mz 2mm xmm
Apv mxuuao

mm

.muwmccofiumwso coauummmfiumm muommccw: I Om:
mam .Houucoo mo msooq HmcumuxMIHmcumucH I 920004 .mamum ucwEm>mfizu< yam @002 I mo<z .mcwon wcouz mpumzou
ovaufiuu< ommoaafim mswosnomz I 939<mz .musmmwz zufiaum pm>amuumm I 2mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"mum moan: wamum voumw>muon< "meoz
.3. X.
%
o.H «0.- so.. INM. «as. so. am:
o.H Hoe. NH. «an. mo.I azoooq
o.H ma. ON. 50.- mo<z
o.H «on. so. Assam:
o.H «om.u 2mm
o.H xmm
on muowacoz
o.H ma. aN.I mc.w .«Na. Ha. om:
o.H no.- no. em. ~o.- azouog
o.” no. Nu. mo.- =o<z
o; 8. 2.- SEE
o.H oo.- 2mm
o.“ xmm
on mflflHUfiGSOOH

o.H won. coo. ng.. was. om:
o.H so. wo~.- .amN. azooog
o.H so. me. mo<z
o.H mo.I pagan:
0.” 2mm
o.H xum

am: 288 8% Saws :2 x3

Adv muwumuuuuum

aowuoazuuo mp vo~«uowoumo oamswm saws moanmaum> wooa< naowuuaouuoo pause: uusvoum mo annaszm

m. ma non.

29

To test for the effects of occupational group and possible inter-
actions between sex and occupational group on the five scales, multi-
variate analysis of variance was performed. Results from this analysis
show nonsignificant effects for sex, and sex by occupation interaction:
multivariate F values for sex, and sex by occupation are F (5, 120) = 1.41,
E.) .23 and F (15, 331) = 1.26, p > .22 respectively. The multivariate
F value for the effect of occupation was significant, F (15, 331) = 2.69,
p_< .0007. These results are further illustrated by univariate F-tests

which are reported in Table 4.

Table 4
Summary of univariate F-tests for the effects of sex, occupation. and

sex by occupation with secretaries and clerks excluded from the analysis.

 

 

Source .Df .PEM MEATWD NACH LOCONT MSQ

Sex 1, 124 3.5 1.61 .89 1.45 .60
(585.6) (150.5) (6.3) (7.3) (69.7)

Occupation 3, 124 4.67* 3.12* 2.17 .77 1.22
(781.5) (291.4) (15.3) (3.7) (141.6)

Sex X

Occupation 3, 124 .90 1.9 .92 .35 1.22
(150.8) (181.7) (6.5) (1.7) (141.0)

*p < .05

Note: Abbreviated scale names are: PEM - Perceived Equity Measure,
MEATWD - Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong Doing, NACH - Need
for Achievement Scale, LOCONT - Internal-External Locus of Control, and
MSQ - Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Mean squares are in
brackets below corresponding F's.

There are no significant differences due to sex on the five
measures. This means that there are no real differences in scores on
the five scales attributable to sex for technicians, supervisors, mana-

gers and janitors from this sample. It will be recalled that correlations

between sex and the five scales (see Table 2) had indicated males to

30

have greater equity, more job satisfaction and higher internal control
than females. Men also showed more willingness to punish absenteeism,
tardiness and poor performance than women. In fact a look at the over-
all mean scores of the two sexes presented in Table 6 seem to support
this view. But the fact that the MANOVA tests do not support this con-
clusion seems to indicate that occupational rather than sex effects ac—
count for these differences. These two apparently conflicting find-
ings are explained by the fact that two of the six occupational groups
(secretaries and clerks) were uni-sex. So what appears as sex differ—
ences might really be differences due to occupation. However, since the
MANOVA analysis which disconfirmed differences due to sex did not in-
clude secretaries and clerks, it is not possible to tell from these
data whether differences reflected in the correlations between sex and
the five scales (see Table 2) are due to sex or occupational group
effect.

Occupational Differences: The univariate F values reach significance

 

on the PEM and MEATWD scales (see Table 4) flmroccupational group

effect. That is, significant differences are present among occupational
groups on perceived equity and attitude towards wrong doing. To further
examine these occupational group differences and also to include clerks

and secretaries in this examination, a one-way analysis of variance was

conducted. Results from this analysis are presented in Table 5.

Results reported in Table 5 indicate that significant occupational
group differences exist on three of the five scales. Group differences
are present in perception of equity, attitudes towards wrong doing and
on internal-external locus of control. No significant differences are

observed in need for achievement and job satisfaction.

Table 5
F-tests from one-way ANOVA for the effect of occupational group

with secretaries and clerks included in the analysis

 

2955 grew. wwmm

Between 5 3.51* 6.10* 1.79 3.71* 1.69
(167.2) (101.6) (7.2) (5.3) (183.9)

Within 234

Total 239

f2 .05.

Note: Abbreviated scale names are: PEM - Perceived Equity Measure,
MEATWD - Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong Doing, NACH - Need
for Achievement Scale, LOCONT - Internal-External Locus of Control, and
MSQ - Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Mean squares are in
parenthesis below with F values.

Post hoc comparison of occupational group means (see Table 6)
showed that managers perceive significantly more equity (2}: .05) than
secretaries and janitors while supervisors perceive more equity than
janitors. These results are significant at p_< .05.

Comparison of means on the MEATWD indicated managers and super-
visors have significantly higher mean scores (p_< .05) than secretaries,
clerks and janitors. That is to say, managers and supervisors feel
more strongly than secretaries, clerks and janitors that absenteeism,
tardiness and poor performance should be punished.

Other significant differences in means were found on the internal-
external locus of control scale. Here, janitors showed more internality
than secretaries and clerks (p < .05). Differences between other

occupational groups were nonsignificant.

31

 

Mean

Table 6

by occupational group and by sex

and Standard Deviation scores of the sample categorized

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x
3 n PEM mm NACH LOCONT MSQ
Secre-
taries F 72 62.6 (12.9) 60.4 (8.9) 9.2 (2.8) 4.8 (2.4) 71.9 (16.1)
Clerks F 34 63.1 (12.8) 61.7 (10.3) 8.7 (2.6) 4.5 (2.4) 69.5 (16.8)
Techni-
cians M 20 64.4 (11.7) 72.2 (8.1) 9.5 (2.7) 5.8 (2.1) 71.1 (13.8)
F 22 63.3 (14.9) 73.9 (7.8) 8.8 (2.8) 5.8 (1.9) 74.7 (11.1)
M&F 42 64.3 (13.3) 66.5 (8.9) 9.2 (2.7) 5.8 (2.0) 72.9 (12.5)
Super-
visors M 22 65.2 (11.9) 69.5 (9.9) 9.7 (2.4) 5.9 (2.1) 77.7 (8.4)
F 21 64.8 (14.1) 75.3 (7.3) 9.3 (1.9) 4.9 (2.5) 72.6 (12.7)
M&F 43 65.0 (12.8) 70.7 (9.8) 9.5 (2.1) 5.4 (2.3) 75.2 (10.9)
Manag-
ers M 31 71.6 (11.0) 72.5 (11.6) 10.3 (2.8) 5.9 (2.5) 77.8 (7.7)
F 4 58.5 (13.2) 74.0 (9.0) 9.8 (1.7) 5.5 (1.9) 78.7 (7.3)
M&F 35 71.1 (11.9) 71.3 (12.7) 10.2 (2.7) 5.9 (2.4) 77.9 (7.6)
Jani-
tors M 9 55.7 (14.9) 78.0 (12.5) 7.3 (3.7) 6.7 (1.9) 73.3 (6.6)
F 5 50.8 (16.0) 85.6 (10.7) 9.4 (3.7) 6.2 (1.9) 75.0 (18.9)
M&F 14 53.9 (14.9) 61.0 (15.1) 8.1 (3.7) 6.5 (1.9) 73.9 (11.8)
All
Groups M 82 66.6 (12.6) 78.8 (10.0) 9.6 (2.8) 5.9 (2.2) 75.7 (9.9)
F 158 62.6 (13.4) 73.4 (10.8) 9.1 (2.6) 4.9 (2.4) 72.1 (15.1)
Note: Abbreviated scale names are: PEM - Perceived Equity Measure,

MEATWD - Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong Doing, NACH - Need
for Achievement Scale, LOCONT — Internal-External Locus of Control, and
MSQ - Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.
to the mean.

DISQUSSION

SD's are in parenthesis next

The hypothesis that employees perceiving equity on their jobs will

be negatively disposed towards absenteeism, tardiness and poor perfor-

mance has been supported for the two higher professional groups in the

sample.

That is, managers and supervisors believe that tardiness, ab-

senteeism and poor performance must be punished.

interesting but not surprising.

This finding is

Perhaps because managers and supervi—

sors are not so easily subjected to punishment for some absenteeism,

32

 

33
tardiness and some poor performance--performance is difficult to measure,
and tardiness and attendance records are hardly kept at these levels--
these employees feel some type of "immunity" from punishment. Neverthe-
less, they advocate some punishment when the same offenses are committed
by those they lead.

It is not difficult to understand why perceived equity was not re-
lated to advocation of punishment for absenteeism, tardiness and poor
performance among clerks, secretaries and technicians. Because lower
level employees are more easily subjected to disciplinary action for
absenteeism, tardiness, and poor performance, it seems reasonable that
they would advocate pardoning rather than punishing the offenses. This
reason also accounts for the lower mean scores of janitors, clerks,
secretaries and technicians on the MEATWD scale compared to manager's
and supervisors. However, it is difficult to explain the negative but
nonsignificant relationship (r = -.17) between perceived equity and
attitudes towards wrong doing obtained for janitors. It is important to
note, too, that employee attitudes towards wrong doing correlated nearly
zero (r a .02) with job satisfaction across the six occupational groups.
Only managers in the sample show a positive significant correlation be-
tween job satisfaction and advocation of punishment for tardiness,
absenteeism and poor performance. Supervisors have a positive but non-
significant relation of .20. All other groups have low nonsignificant
correlations--close to zero for janitors, clerks, secretaries and tech—
nicians.

It would seem, therefore, that in the comparatively lower level
positions of janitor, clerk, secretary and technician, neither the amount
of equity nor job satisfaction appear to be determining factors in

whether employees feel that worker wrong doing deserves punishment or

34
ought to be excused. On the basis of this finding, it can be said that
organizations need to provide more than equitable conditions and job
satisfaction for their employees at these levels to create the "right"
worker attitudes towards tardiness, absenteeism and below par perfor-
mance. At the higher positions of manager and supervisor, organiza-
tions must provide conditions that lead to perception of equity and
feelings of job satisfaction since equitable conditions and job satis-
faction appear to influence attitudes towards tardiness, absenteeism and
poor performance. This is particularly important because it may be that
subordinates soon learn their bosses' attitudes towards important issues
on the job. And knowledge by subordinates that their bosses strongly
advocate punishment for some offenses may act as a deterrent towards
commission of such offenses.

As predicted, the relationship between perceived equity and job
satisfaction is positive and significant (r = .424, p_< .05) but is of
so low a magnitude that equity and job satisfaction cannot be considered
identical constructs. On categorizing the sample by occupation, cor-
relations between the two constructs range from .402 for clerks to .493
for managers. Considering that the Perceived Equity Measure and the
Minnesota Satisfaction questionnaire showed such high reliabilities
(coefficient alphas of .89 and .90 respectively) correcting for un-
reliability in the two instruments only raises the correlation between
the two variables to .473 over the whole sample. The failure of this
study to obtain a stronger relationship between equity and job satis-
faction, therefore, cannot be attributed to unreliability of the
measuring devices. We must conclude that there is no empirical justi-
fication for the view held by some that equity and job satisfaction are

one and the same construct.

35

The hypothesis that need for achievement will have a significant
negative correlation with perceived equity received no support from this
study. Contrary to predictions, a positive but nonsignificant relation-
ship (r = .10) was observed for the two variables over the entire sample.
Grouping the sample by occupation revealed near zero correlations for
secretaries and supervisors. The two variables have positive but non-
significant correlations for managers (r = .20) and technicians (r = .22),
while clerks and janitors have negative but nonsignificant relationships,
—.19 and -.33 respectively. It is difficult to account for these un-
systematic patterns of correlations between need for achievement and
perceived equity. The low internal consistency r = .56 obtained for
the need achievement scale perhaps explains in part this strange pattern
of correlations. But it seems from this sample that need for achieve-
ment does not appear to enter into considerations of equity in any sy—
stematic manner. More research utilizing a more reliable need for
achievement scale is necessary to reach some definitive conclusion re—
garding the nature of the relationship between equity and need for achieve-
ment.

Internal locus of control was found by Andrisani and Nestel (1976)
to be related to job satisfaction, occupational attainment, hourly and
yearly earnings, and perceived financial progress. Results from the
present study are in line with the Andrisani and Nestel findings. A
significant positive relationship between job satisfaction and intern-
ality (r - .235, p_< .05) was observed. Perceived equity shows a
relationship of about the same magnitude with internal locus of control
(r = .24, p_< .05). These results suggest that persons tending to be-
lieve themselves in control of much of their destiny perceive more fair-

ness and enjoy more satisfaction on the job than their colleagues with

36
external locus of control. Perhaps because the high internals perceive
themselves to have some control over, and have some input into their
eventual outcomes, they feel more equitable and satisfied with their
jobs. On the other hand, employees who believe themselves "pushed
around" and powerless to meaningfully affect their own outcomes on the
job are more likely to feel inequitable and dissatisfied with their job
situations.

Analysis of differences of group means show amount of perceived
equity and job satisfaction is greater for the higher occupational
groups of manager and supervisor compared to janitors, clerks and secre-
taries. Technicians tend to fall in between. Although not all dif—
ferences among group means on equity and job satisfaction are significant,
these results provide clear support for findings from a large body of
research literature which has consistently reported higher professional
groups showing more satisfaction than lower professional groups (see
Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson and Capwell, 1957).

The occupational groups did not show any significant differences
in need for achievement. Nevertheless, managers and supervisors had
higher mean scores than the other groups with the janitors scoring the
lowest. Due to the low reliability of the need for achievement scale,
no definitive conclusion can be reached regarding occupational group
differences in need for achievement from this study. More research is
necessary to establish these differences.

One interesting result is that janitors show a significantly higher
mean on internality than clerks and secretaries. Differences among
other groups were nonsignificant. An explanation for this might be that
janitors (at the university studied) work at night with little presence

of bosses; so they work more independently and perhaps perceive them-

selves to have a lot of control on the job. Such a situation would

37
lead these employees to shifting towards more internal control over a
long period--a person may shift towards internal or external control
over a long period of time depending on experiences (see Andrisani and
Nestel, 1976). It must be noted, however, that since the janitors con-
sisted of both men and women while secretaries and clerks were composed
of females only, this result may be confounded with a sex effect.

Sex correlated negatively with all five scales in the survey (see
Table 2). This means that females had lower mean scores than males on
all the questionnaires. The correlations between sex and perceived
equity, employee attitudes towards wrong doing, locus of control, and job
satisfaction are statistically significant. This means that women per-
ceived less equity than men and felt that tardiness, absenteeism and poor
performance were not as serious offenses as the men thought. Further,
women showed less internal control and had lower job satisfactions than
men. But as these results were not confirmed by multivariate analysis
of variance performed on the four groups that had both men and women
in them, these findings are confounded by occupational group effects.
As indicated earlier, we cannot tell therefore whether the observed
differences are due to sex or occupational group. However, mean scores
of the two sexes (see Table 6) show men to have higher means than women
on all five scales in the survey. Hence, relying solely on these mean
scores and without making any reference to the statistical significance
of the findings, we can state that males show more equity, greater job
satisfaction and higher internal locus of control and regard tardiness,
absenteeism and poor performance more seriously than women.

CONCLUSION

 

Two research instruments, one measuring amount of equity perceived

by employees and another measuring employee attitudes towards wrong

38
doing in organizational work situations have been developed. Both
questionnaires are short, easy and quick to administer to individuals
or groups in work settings. The questionnaires are easy to score and
obtained scores are easy to understand and interpret.

The Perceived Equity Measure (PEM) has high internal consistency,

r = .89. When the sample is categorized by occupation, the instrument's
reliability ranges from .86 for technicians to .90 for secretaries and
janitors. The fact that PEM showaia significant positive correlation
with job satisfaction is a good indication of its validity. Occupational
group differences obtained among the six groups studied (more equity

for higher occupational positions and less equity for the lower positions)
further attests to the instrument's validity. Further empirical

validity is demonstrated by the confirmation of a predicted relationship
between PEM and the MEATWD for managers and supervisors even though this
relationship was not found for clerks, janitors, secretaries and techni-
cians. In addition, PEM shows good convergent and discriminant

validity; it correlates positively and negatively with variables which
correlate positively and negatively with job satisfaction, respectively
(see Table 2).

The Machungwa Employee Attitude Towards Wrong Doing (MEATWD) has
good internal consistency; ranging from .76 for technicians to .88 for
managers. Over the whole sample, the scale has a reliability of .86.
This instrument has good face and content validity. The fact that a
predicted relationship between the MEATWD and PEM was confirmed for high
level occupation employees and the observation that high level occupational
groups advocate punishment for absenteeism, tardiness and poor perfor—
mance more than the low level occupational groups is an encouraging
sign of the MEATWD's empirical validity. However, since predicted re-

lationships between PEM and MEATWD were not found for low level

39
occupational groups, further research is necessary to establish the
MEATWD's validity.

Besides developing the PEM and MEATWD, the present research effort
has related in one study of the constructs of equity, achievement need,
locus of control and job satisfaction. In addition, a new indirect
approach to linking employee tardiness, absenteeism and performance to
other work related variables through measuring employee attitudes has
been introduced. The sample for the study was carefully chosen to in-
clude occupational groups most common in industrial organizations and
which vary widely in status, pay, responsibilities and educational
backgrounds.

The research presented here is not free of limitations, however.
First, all measures used in the survey are perceptual and based on
questionnaire responses; this might lead to Spuriously high correlations
among variables. A second limitation (common to all mail surveys) is
that there was some self selection process among questionnaire respondents.
Of 580 questionnaires mailed including 47 hand-delivered to janitors,
only 240 or about 41% were completed and returned. One can only
speculate as to what motivated those who responded and those who never
did. If the respondents are those perceiving some equity and enjoying
some job satisfaction and the nonresponding employees are unhappy in
their jobs or vice versa, then the findings of this study would be in-
valid. Finally, sizes of some occupational groups were too small com-
pared to other groups in the study: there were 14 janitors in comparison
to 72 secretaries in the sample.

Despite these limitations, this study is not without significance.
The demonstrated relationship between perceived equity and attitudes

of high level occupation employees towards withdrawal behavior and

40
performance should stress further the need for organizations to provide
equitable work conditions to these employees. Further, our findings should
put to rest the intuitive appeal enjoyed by the notion that job satis-
faction and equity are identical constructs. The indirect approach
(introduced here) to measuring worker performance, tardiness and absen—
teeism through employee attitudes appears promising. Because of
measurement problems assoicated with performance, tardiness and absen-
teeism in organizations, the need for further development of this method
cannot be overstated. As a first step, an attempt must be made to re-
late employee attitudes towards wrong doing with actual incidents of
employee wrong doing. Finally, the perceived equity measure needs to
be validated against behavioral measures such as actual tardiness,

absenteeism, performance and other work related criteria.

APPENDIX

.IIqu In u—oozI duo: aI Iguaa Iuooa IIIIIoo IuIIIo o5: III>o~IIu

.QIIooxI Ia euoosI Iso
no I: .u—Iooa uoqluouuoa you IIoIIIu coon II; Iohonalo II II mood I4

.IIIIIII IA uuooao uIIIAI nouIa ecu IIoIIIu soon sou: Iooao—IIE

.nIquIa
I IoquII ouooso IIo—uooquou I.uoI«>uII:I I .I«Io_~ou uoI Iouuoz <

.voIaouI
I: a—oosj ~ .auoa you Iqu nououqu Ion IoIIIu soon I I>I£ a II uso— I<

.eosouoao IA uoI v—ooao duo: uI I—«az I—IuIIuII IIIIIoo IuII3 o5) IIIAouoln
.hIao Ia Iquaa I Ia IIIo uIIIaI IIan uIau uIIu u
.IIIquo IooquI I no: Iu duo: II qu33 II¢u AIIIIoI II«uII3

.Iosoaeoo Ia uoI
o—oogo IsI no I: uIIIaI nouoa sou IoIIII soon I II; Iosuoa I II noon II

.vouuu Ia uuooaI III.u IIII Iqu nuIs moo: on IIoo o3: IquIos
.IoIIIu uII Ion IIIaoII Ia uoI Inaogo duo: uI IIIIIuoquI noon
.vquu Ia vuoogo duos Iona uIIIAI Iouuo III o6: IIInouolu
.III: on all to: loan uIIInI Iu o...- IIouII

.VIIIIII Ia uuooso
IsI so I: .uuoa «I III— nououuuo Iou IIoIIIu soon II: onuo: I an

.IIIIIII
In ouooao sue» Iquooa ooqloouuoa Ion IIoIIIu soon III: Iquuo: «—

.uIIu I Ia IhI‘
no IIAIII I you duo: Iona uoIIAI I: on IIIounI Ia uuooso Ioououoln

.III—u Ia vasogI Iquo suuoos duo: oz) Ioosousun

.IIIIIII Ia Inaoso moo: won Iqu IIuIIqI an. I u—Io Iu ogz Iouououo II
.uououII I I>.Iqu vuooao Imus) I Ia Iooo unuoos Ixuoa oga IIoAII
.vIquIII IA I—IogI IIIuonsuI ma IouIIuoIIaI ~IoouIIooo

.vosouoos Ia v—oogo duos II nouoqqu IuI— uIIouIIooo

.IIIIIII Ia vuaosI Imus: I Ia IoIo xuuoos IluoquI o3: ononslo II
.IIIIIII Ia v—ooso goo: Iouu IIIIAI hunIIouIIooo III oz: IuIahoa
.IIIIIII Ia v~oo£I duo: uou IuI— IIoo unquoqIIooo oga Ioouonolu

.uIIIIquI Isa oa uIII ~ Ina»: uIIIIquI I and: IquI

I

no. .uIIIIquI aooo on III: Iowa Isa Io IIoogo so» IIAIII Isa Ian»:

III-Iona v

IquIIuv unuoouum n IIII uo: n

Iqu< u
IquI unnoouum —

.vu

.MN
.NN

.nN

.ON
.o~
.uu
.sn

.n~

.—

u—uoouuo so» a. .IuIIIuI

.ao—Ia I—III Isa .IuII uIIIIquIowv no uIIIIIanI woo» Iquueou IIII—L .aoq I53 :0
IIIIIhoquI III IIuIIuIIIeI .IIIIuoIIu uoooI IuIIIIquI no quu I Iu Iago:

rubuam 93h<ux

.II a IIsu IuoI quI qu so.

Iago .Iuoo I—IoII uIsuo .m—uau non no IIIIII IIII Isa III: I: snoogu~< .cN
.IIuI IIosuIII II IuII IIII Ian «I so» IuoIoII duct «uqu holoIou Isa
non IIII Ia» nouov I—IoII Ioauo III» duo: sou uIeng goal so: quuII oz III. .o~
.hIIUoo uIsuoII
coo guano: I I. can ..g. us.. an. a .9 cannot. cue. u>aa asao: . III. .c.
.IIIsIoo
Iggy I. II a IIau IquIa IIuIIIu III II n II sou—«AI II III o3: IanII III. .5—
.uoo no so» IIaI— I:
nosuoaz Io IIIIIII uoououIIII Ian Iona qu so» uIIIuIqu Ian aoq II :o III. .0—
.AII Inol qu
IuIIquIIIv uIsao Ia IIIaoqslo .Iunqxo IIII Isa I>I£ I: Inoogu coon III. .m—
.uIIIIoo Iago I« III: — IIsu Icon uuogu oi on so; Ia AII
I no IIII III: II n II wouuuaI II III o3) IouoIIIoo IIguo uI I—IoII III. .en
.II—II AII
nguus I III vuoogo n .auoa u III; so: III InuuaI eon bl nquosuaooo .m—
.1uI£ II III) ~ anaoau II>I II
IuIqu IngIs III» quuIa son Iqu no InIoII nguo IuIqu nooqpuoaoo u: .m—
.oo I use. uaon ..oz. III.
o9 hose so: uooaI uII IuoI III: II a IIau quouI III" InIoII hogan .-
.III Inouoa vIuoIouI .III
IIIA III: Iago: u III; Iago soauoa III aoIIIoo IIauoII Ion soauoa u an .cn
.aon quqluI I In hIIIIoI uIsuoII you IIauoa u u« III-«a Ia v—III AII A: .o
.uIIIuIIIII ml Iu
III: I: IIsu quuIIIa Inouuu quuIa III: IuIIquIIIe uIsuo Iu Ioouonoln III. .0
.IIuIIUoo uoauo I« .3qu quoIouI III IquI Jon I 5!— I-IoII II! .s
.0“ no. uueIuo II Iago goo
IIov IquohIIII ml us; go“ Iusu nouoe Inmooo uoauo IIau IIeuIs zoo: — III. .e
.aon ml o9 ou II n so; Ia hII Iona“; I III: snoogo u Iquuxo ml 3.“: .III .m
.III IIII Ia» qu as; con Inga .Iuoo I—IoII quuo III» IIIII: goo: u III. .q
.aon ....n.- -
Iu uoIaloo nosuoII you eIauoa u uu Iu-uIIIa Iuouuu IquIa qu o—Io: — III. .9

.oe n Ioau IIouououv IuoI IJII III uIsu III:3
Icon III: II a II IonuuaI II III oaa .IIoIoI Iago In IanII Iosoo .«
.II IuouIa vIuoIouI Ia .III
._a-aoue -.a .03. ...og.o sag. Sea In a. so...ao goal I: I guaogz_« .~
.uIIIIquI Isa ou III: — quua uIIIIquI I sou) IIIuI uuuooqu son a. .IuIIIII
Ion .uIIIIquI goII ou «III Iqu III II IIooso Ion III-II Isa Ian»:

Iqu< «
IIInI unuoouum n

IIIIIIua c
IIII go: a
.zo—Ia I~III Isa nouoo uIIIIquoouu Io goal
IIIIII Izo» Iquuoou IIIIua .aoq uaoh oIoAI IuIIIIquI no qun I In zo-In

IIIIIIuv A—ooouua a

 

uu=u<nz nausea au>.uueu.

 

I-II. IIII=\I ‘dU‘U ‘0—5
.zo—Ia IoIaI IququuIII Isa Ia III noon IaIu—II¢ 1II I-u-u non noon onus: IIII—m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII III III In III on Innn n I
.III InIoII Iusuo IIII IIIIII IIInII oI oI InaI II on Innn n I .nn
.II n IIII IIIIIIIon IIIn III o3: InIoII IIIIo Ina: on Iann n I
.InIIIIIII n IIIIIIII In IIIA mII> ml oI on Ixnn n < .nn
.Icnncu .n «In.
ml IonIIIInI III II>o noIIIoI :quII III: I.IoI n IIII noon n IIInIIIom I
.uInoI III ml In II oI IIIIIII III: I .IN
.quII In soon I IInIIIIoI IIoI III: I II>IIIII munnsu nIIn n I
.IonIIInnInIIII no InInu
Io .IonIIIuoII .aon IloI In munIosnoI IIInIuoIII I I; on Isnn Inaol n < .an
.Inn— ml In InoI IIIIIoIIn
II ImInI soon Io IIIIsI IIII IIInnIa on II Ion InanIIoIln In In I
.II on IIIIII
IIsI IIInII III Iooo IIIIInnIn InIInn III: I IIII nIIn n IIInI mII: I .on
.IIIInIII IIIIInI Io IIIInoIII II on Innn n .IIIInIloI I II .In>III III: I
.mIna Io nIpII IIIII I IunII oI Ixnn Inooa n < .mn
.IIIII nnI Io
.IIIInIIn .IIIIIoInn .munnnAI no JIIn no InIIII III III IIIIIIonInI III: I
.IIIo Icon
III ma IIIIInIa III II on IIIIII IIAI IIInII III III III noon III In I .on
.IIInnIn sun: IIII I III: II IIIIIoIII oI IIIInII ml Iunn n I
.IIonnI
III nnnnn uInInIvII II IInInoIII IIIsIo «III IJIII :InnIIoIII on Iann n I .nn
.:xIIn: II Iona» IIII II In mnnIII IIIgh I
.IIInIIIII: nIIIIInIII ma
IInnoIIIoI III II>nn InIII :Ingz oI IIIIII III IInnIII I.IoI InIoII III: I .In
.oI mn—IIIII
mIgu III: ma IoIIIIInIIIIoI oI mogu ma: ma InIoII IIIIn on Ixnn n n
.Iuna
mInIInnnnI IoIa InIoII IIIIo IIII IIInaoII III IInIIII IbnoI on Iann n I .nn
.In gun: oI ou IInIIoI Io Inuunn
II: noon .munnnAI Ion: IIIIIII IInII IaunI III oI on InIoII uInIIIo I
.IIInu IIInI IaunI III
In II on snooII maIIn II: o3: Io IIIIIII Iouno IIoA III IA II IIIu o3: < .«n
..Inauoeonun ac: IIoI o. «III I I
.IIJIIIIIII IIInaI In nImIIIIIII II on Innn n I .nn

N.»

 

.InoI I uInIInnn ma II on III: IInIII nnIa II IIIn Igunl I: IIInI mIIx a
.xIan Inna oI oI uInIIoI Io InIInn II: III: n III) .InIIIu IIII ml In I .On

 

.08 08., H II 0‘ '6' 0.60 Cu Ud‘. 0‘ OH Clad u C

.IIoqu
III nnnmI IInInIIII II IInIuoIII IIIIIo IIII IaIII IInnIIoIII oI Iann n < .o

 

.un IIoaI II III man Innunn Isa
goal III In IIIII III .IIIoI In InIoII Ion III ma III In InIoa InIh

II II
II

.IIonInIII IIIIIII>on In IIIIInuIn II III: III IIInInI IuIII>I Ian

 

.IInIIII II IIson III IInIouI nInIIII nnIu on Ixnn n

.III InIoII IIIIo IIII IIIIII IuInaI II II InaI In on Innn n .m

‘

 

.IInI III.»
III II IIInI IannI II» In uInIA Io mnInII IIIIIII non Ioou I uInIIIu n

.In sun: oI on
nonauoI Io InIInn II: Joan .sIoI III: no IIIIII I In IIIIIII I uInIoIIn < .e

 

.In IInIInIIA IIonIa IIIIInI III IIInIIqu JIoa ml I>I£ oI Iann n I

.IonIIInnInIIII no InInm
Io .IonIIIuoII .aoq IIoI In mInIIIIII IIInIuoIII I II on Iann Inaoz n < .n

 

.IuInIImIIa nIIIIInIII ma IIIIIInuIn
III IIIIII Inosu song: on IIIIII III IInnIII I.IoI IIIIIIII III: I

«0.30.603 Id IUCOQQUI OH HGIHBQ Oh. IHOJUIUU 0.8“ .09“ 0‘5 ‘ .0

 

.II no IIIIIIII In III: II II III IIonuIIIIIIn Ionnon on Idnn n I

.anna
mInIInnunI III; InIoII IIIIo IIII IIInaoIm III IInIIII Ionoo oI Iann n I .n

 

.IInII I: III: Io:
IIIIII oI IIInI-oIIIII IIIIII IIIno Aquz I.nIIIn>nIIn II .mnIIIIIIIon:= I

.InIoI Ina» In IoIIIII moan IIIIIII III III InIoII III nIon III In I .N

 

.IIIIInnnIInI IIIII no .InIIIIoI gonna-IIII on Ixnn Inso: n n

.IIIIIIIuIn II n song: In
IIInIoII IIonII> IIoaI Iguzoau III: III IIIIn III: III IInn on Iann n I .n

.I II < IIaunI JIIII .In
IIsh .InIa JIII Ion IIIIIIIIII III III no III mnIo JIIII on IIII Ia IIIInm

.IIIIIa IuInnIIn IIom IIanIIIII

song) III Io IIIIIA Innn Iom IIIIIIIII III IIInIuI n\~ JIII IIIII I III—I

on IIJII III Io» .nIIn IoI mIl Io mII Iom song: In ImIz IzoII III .Innn IoI
mII Io Isnn Iom I-Inau IIoaI IIIIIIIIII no IInII mIInsu no IInn I In IInII

 

un>l=u HUIHKth-m anus

Ion III lIIu III n IIIIIInnIIIIII II IInnIII IIh
Ian IIII I IInII III III n IInIII IIh

IIIII IIII IInI IIInI III IIIIIIIIII ml III IIh
IIInInIIII IInIIII III

Ion III IInII II IIIIIII III ml mII II IIIIII IIh
IIIIIIIn III ml III II IIIIIII III

Ion InII II IIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIII IIh

II I III: «I IIIIII III III mII m:

IInIIIII IIIn III III IInunnII mIIIIII mII III
IInInnnII ml no III IIIII IIII IInIIIIII II II IIIIII IIh
II II III: InIIII nnII II IIIIII IIh

InIIII IIIII III IIInII II II IIIIII IIh
IIIImInIII mIIIII III IIInIIII IIn ml mII IIh

IInnInIIIInI .III a
IIIIInIIIInI I IInIInIII n
II.I¢_IIII_I III IInIInIII IIIInIz n IInIInIII mII> _

.II
.In
.In
.nn
.In

IIIInIIIII ml IIInIII II I.III IIII IIInII II II InII IInII
IIInInIII IInIII In IIInIIIIII ml II IIIIIIIIII IIh

III InI IIIIIII IIII ml mII IIh

IInIIIlII III In :mIIIIloI: II II IIIIII IIF

IInI II IInI IIII IIInII IIIIIIunI II II IIIIII IIh

III III II IIInI III: II IIIIII IIh

IlnI III nnI mIII IIII II InII IInII

III-II

.n

I I I “8‘. ‘8“ N 8.. .d .‘u-H I‘OH “5.053 I. 8

.IIIIIIIII III II IIII n IInII IInuInIII III» III IIm un

InIIIII III .IIIIIIIII IIII II IIII IInn III II IIIIII III IIIIII III IInI:

IIIIIII-IIII II.» n
so.........: I IIIIuII-m N
IIIIIIIIIIII Io: IIIIIIIII I-IIIII n I.II.I.-. .II» I

«Ian II II IIIIII InII IInI I II IInIInIII II: .u—IIIIIm III
mums-8:. SEIhuuhII Spawn-2H: we IO 59— HIE—m

 

 

.IInI II nIIII IIIII I IInII II IInn InIII n I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.IIIInInI
II IIIIn IIIII III IIIIIII no IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIII II IInn n I .II
.III InIIII IIIII IIII IIIIII IIInII II II InII II II IInn I I
.III—II I II—II
II IIIIII III IIInIIInIIIII III In IIIIIIn III II III II II IInn n I .aw
.IIIIIIIIII IIInII In nIuIIIIIII II II Ian- I I
.IIInnIu IInI IIII n IIII II IIIIIIIII II IIIInIu ml IInn n I .IN
.nnII Ion IIIInuunI I IIII IIII n IIII mII II I—II II II IInn n I
.IInIIIInI IIInI I In InIIn nIIInInIIn IIIIIII III IIIIIII II Ian. I I .II
.IIIIIIIII n IIIIIIII In IIII mII> II II II Isnn I I
.33.: II 3 I12 2. 3 9.: I I .3
.IIII II IIIIIIII III IIII IInI II IIInII IIIIII II Isnn n I
.II-I II IIIII IIIII I IInII II IInn InIII — I .II
.III IInIIIII III no IIIIIII IInIIIIIII IInI II IInn n I
.IIIIInInIInI IIIII II IInIIIIII IInnIIIIII II IInn InIII n I .IN
..IIII.I:9 I Ian Ian I. sung IIo: a. «II. I I
.nnII Ion IIIInuunI I IIII IIII I IIII III II InII II II IInn I I .nu

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, S.J. Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1963, 61, 5, 422-436.

 

Adams, S.J. Inequity in social exchange in Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W.
(Eds.). Motivation and work behavior. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Adams, S.J., & Rosenbaum, W.B. The relationship of worker productivity
to cognitive dissonance about wage inequities. Journal of Applied
Psychology, l962,_fl§, 161—164.

 

 

Adams, S.J., & Freedman, S. Equity theory revisited: Comments and
Annotated bibliography in Berkowitz, L., & Walster, E. (Eds.).
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 9, 43-90. New
York, Academic Press.

Adams, J.S. Wage inequities, productivity and work quality. Industrial
Relations, 1963b, a, 9-16.

 

Adams, J.S., & Jacobsen, P.R. Effects of wage inequities on quality of
work. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964,.62, 19-25.

Andrews, I.R. Wage inequity and job performance: An experimental
study. Journal ongpplied Psychology, 1967, 2;, 39-45.

 

Andrisani, P.J., & Nestel, G. Internal-external control as contributory
to and outcome of work experience. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1976, 6;, 2, 156-165.

 

Arrowood, A.J. Some effects on productivity of justified and unjustified
reward under public and private conditions. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1969.

Blumstein, P.W., & Weinstein, E.A. American Journal of Sociology, 1969,
1&9 408-418.

 

Box, G.E.P., Problems in the Analysis of Growth and Mean Curves.
Biometrics, 1950, 6, 362-389.

 

Carlsmith, J.M., & Gross, A.E. Some effects of guilt on compliance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, ll, 232-239.

 

Carrell, M.R., & Dittrich, J.E. Equity theory: The recent literature,
methodological considerations, and new directions. Academy of
Management Review, l978,_§, 2, 202-210.

 

 

44

45

Carrell, M.R. A longitudinal field assessment of employee perceptions
of equitable treatment. Orgpnizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 1978, 21, 108-118.

 

Clark, J.V. A preliminary investigation of some unconscious assumptions
affecting labor efficiency in eight supermarkets. Unpublished,
doctoral disseration, Harvard University, 1958.

Cohen, E., 8 Burns, P. SPSS-MANOVA Multivariate Analysis of Variance and
Covariance. Evanston, Illinois. Northwestern University Document
No. 413 (Revised A), 1977.

 

Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. Instrumentality theory and
equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relation-
ship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 19, 184-200.

 

 

Deutsch, M. Equity, equality and need: What determines which value
will be used as a basis of distributive justice. Journal of
Social Issues, 1975, g;, 3, 137-149.

 

Dittrich, J.E., & Carrell, M.R. Dimensions of organizational fairness
as predictors of job satisfaction, absence and turnover. Academy
of Management Proceedings, 36th Annual Meeting, Kansas City, 1976.

Finn, R.H., & Lee, S.M. Salary equity: Its determination, analysis,
and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 22, 283-292.

 

Glass, D.C. Changes in liking as a means of reducing cognitive dis-
crepancies between self-esteem and aggression. Journal of
Personality, 1964, 22, 531-549.

 

 

Goodman, P.S., & Friedman, A. An examination of Adams' theory of in-
equity. Administrative Science Qparterly, 1971, 16, 271-288.

 

Goodman, P.S. Social comparison processes in organization in Straw,
B.M., & Salancik, G.R. (Eds.). New Directions in Organizational
Behavior, Chicago, St. Clair Press, 1977.

 

Goodman, P.S., & Friedman, A. An examination of quantity and quality of
performance under conditions of over payment in piece rate.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 365-374.

 

Herzberg, F., Mausner, E., Peterson, R.O., & Capwell, D.F. Job
Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion. Pittsburg: Psychological
Services of Pittsburgh, 1957.

 

Joe, V.C. Review of the internal-external control construct of a per-
sonality variable. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 619-640.

 

Klein, S.M., & Maher, J.R. Education level and satisfaction with pay.
Personnel Psychology, 1966, 19, 195-208.

 

Lawler, E.E., III. equity theory as a predictor of productivity and
work quality. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 19, 496-610.

 

46

Lawler, E.E., III. Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, Brooks/
Cole Publishing Company, 1973.

 

Lawler, E.E., III., & Porter, L.W. The effect of performance on job
satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 1967, Z, 23.

 

Lefcourt, H.M. Recent developments in the study of locus of control.
In Maher, B.A. (Ed.). Progress in Experimental Personalipy Research,
1972,-6, New York, Academic Press, 1-39.

 

Leventhal, G.W. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and
organizations. In Berkowitz, L., & Walster, E. (Eds.). Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 2, 91-313.

 

McKee, M.G. Review of EPPS in Euros, Seventh Mental Measurements Year-
book, Gryphom Press, New Jersey, 1972.

 

Opsahl, R.L., & Dunnette, M.D. The role of compensation in industrial
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 1966,.99: 94-118.

 

Penner, D. A study of causes and consequences of salary satisfaction.
Crotonville, N.Y. General Electric Behavior Research Service, 1967.

 

Planz, C.A. Perceived equity and its relation to attrition among early
career male teachers in selected schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of New York at Buffalo, 1970.

Pritchard, R.D., Jorgenson, D.0., & Dunnette, M.D. The effects of per-
ception of equity and inequity on worker performance and satisfac-
tion. Working paper, Purdue University, 1970.

Pritchard, R.D. Equity theory: A review and critique, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 176-211.

 

 

Rotter, J.E. Generalized expectancies of inter-external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, (1 whole No. 609).

 

Scheffe’, B.A. The Analysis of Variance, N.Y., Wiley, 1959.

Telly, 0.8., French, W.L., & Scott, W.G. The relationship of inequity
to turnover among hourly workers. Administrative Science Quarterly,
1971:.l9» 164-172.

Tornow, W.W. The development and application of an input-outcome
moderator test on perception and reduction of inequity. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 614-638.

 

Valecha, G.R. Construct validation of internal-external locus of
control as measured by an abbreviated 11-item I-E scale. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1972.

Valenzi, E.R., & Andrews, I.R. Effect of hourly overpay and underpay
inequity when tested with a new induction procedure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 22-27.

 

 

47
Vroom, V.H. Work and motivation, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
Walster, E., Bersheid, E., & Walster, G.W. New directions inequity

research, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973:.9’
248-253.

 

Wanous, J.P., & Lawler, E.E. Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 95-106.

 

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in voca-
tional rehabilitation: 1967, xxii, bulletin 45.

Wexley, K.N., & Yukl, C.A. Organizational Behavior and Personnel
Psychology, Homewood, Richard Irwin Inc., 1977.

 

Winer, B.J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (2nd Ed.),
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.

iiTillimm“