OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. THE INFLUENCE OF SEEP-INTEREST 0N RIMARD DISTRIBUTE“ DECISIQIS By Terrace D. Fullerton A DISSERI'ATICN Suhnitted to Michgim State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree HJCI‘OR OF PHIUBOPHY Department of Psychology 1979 ABSTRACT THE DIF’LUENCE OF SHE-INTEREST ON REWARD DISTRIBUI‘ Tm DECISIONS By Terrence D. Fullerton The present research investigated the role that self-interest plays in determining peOple's differential use of norms and differmtial attention to potential inputs when they make reward distribution decisions. The two major theoretical positions in the area of reward distribution, the equality norm and the equity norm, make diff- erent predictions concerning the manner in which individuals distribute rewards. The equality norm states that peOple should ignore individuals' differences in task inputs and divide the rewards equally. In contrast, the equity norm prescribes that an allocator should reward individuals in proportion to their perceived task inputs. The equity prescription, however, is moderated by the first corollary of equity theory: individuals who perceive they can maximize their rewards by behaving equitably, do so; when they perceive they can maximize their rewards by behaving inequitably, they do so. Recent investi - gations suggests that allocators may selectively weigh the norms and inputs in their reward distribution that justify self- nmtimizing allocations. Thus, I hypothesized that subjects' , especially males ' , ratings will change fran one task to the other so that their evaluations of the importance of norms and inputs Terrence D . Fullerton promote self- interest . In order to determine if allocators' reward distribution decisions were affected by self-interest, a two part study was conducted. Male (N = 137) and female (N = 165) subjects worked with other participants on two different functionally inter- dependent tasks. A subject worked with a partner on the first task, which was either a jig-saw puzzle constructim or essay writing task, allocated the money, and rated the importance of selected norms and inputs. later that same subject worked with a different partner on the other task, allocated the money, and rated the importance of the same norms and inputs. To Joan and Matthew ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my co«chairman, Dr. Lawrence A. Messe’ and Dr. William D. Crano, for their guidance, encouragement. and friendship. They made significant contributions to this research and my professional development. I would also like to thank the other members of my dissertation committee, Drs. Eileen Thompson and Neal Schmitt, for their thought provoking suggestions and encouragement. Thanks must also go to Barbara Watts, John Sivacek, Roger Buldain and an army of undergraduate research assistants who are too numerous to list. Finally, I would like to express appreciation to my wife, Joan, for her understanding and typing assistance and to Matthew for the happiness he brought us. ii P__age_ LIST OF TABLES ....................... iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ------------------- 1 II. WEED ---------------------- 16 Overview of the Study ------------ 16 Subjects ------------------- 16 Design -------------------- 16 Procedures Utilized to Heighten Realism and Control- 17 Overview of the Brainstorming portion of the Study .. 19 Procedure ------------------- 20 Overview of the Puzzle Portion oi: the Study- - 22 Procedure ------------------- 23 III. RESULTS --------------------- 26 IV. DISCUSSION .................... 45 APPENDIX A. SUGGESTED TOPICS ---------------- 65 APPENDIX B. BRAINSI‘ORD’IING POSTSESSION QJFSTIOMQAIRE ----- 67 APPENDIX C. PlZZLE POSTSESSION QUESTIONNAIRE -------- 74 REFEREICE NOTES ----------------------- 61 LISTS OF REFERENCES --------------------- 62 LISTS OF TABLES Table Page 1. Means and F Ratios of Norms Relevant to Performance on Puzzle Task and Time Worked on Brainstorming 29 Task Simple Interactions ---------------- Means and F Ratios of Norms Relevant to Performance on Puzzle Task and Time Worked on Brainstorming Task Simple Interactions for Males -------------- 30 Means and F Ratios Relevant to Ratings of the Inputs on 34 the Puzzle and Brainstorming Tasks ------------ Means and F Ratios of Inputs Relevant to Performance on Puzzle Task and Time Worked on Brainstorming Task 35 Simple Interactions ------------------- Means and F Ratios of Inputs Relevant to Performance on Puzzle Task and Time Worked on Brainstorming Task 37 Simple Interactions for mes ............. Summary of Analysis of Variance for the Nine Repeated Measures (Analysis II) ---------------------- 39 iv CHAPTER I unaudxmian The just distribution of rewards among individuals in social systems has been the subject of a considerable amount of theorizing and research (cf.. Leventhal, 1976; Adams and Freedman, 1976; Berkowitz and Walster, 1976; Lerner, 1975). Despite this theoretical and empirical attention, however, researchers have yet to explore fully certain key issues in the area of distributive justice. Thus, the purpose of this experiment was to refine the theoretical perspectives con- cerning the role that self-interest plays in determining people's differential use of norms and differential attention to potential inputs when they make reward distribution deci- sions. Adams (1965) proposes that the distribution of valued outcomes is based upon dimensions of evaluation (i.e., in— puts), including quantity of output, quality of output, effort, time spent, seniority, skill, level of education, level of need, age, and sex. The relationships between the dimensions of evaluation and the allocated outcomes specify distribution rules. Although Deutsch (1975) notes that there are a variety of possible distribution rules, Piaget argued that distributive justice can be reduced primarily to the ideas of equality and equity. Leventhal, Popp, and Sawyer (I973), Sampson (1975) and others appear to adopt Piaget's position that an individual who distributes rewards to another person (i.e., an allocator) follows one of two norms of fairness--equa1ity or equity. The equality norm states that an allocator should ignore differences in the member's task inputs and divide the rewards equally. On the other hand, the equity norm prescribes that an allocator should reward individuals in proportion to their perceived task inputs. This prescription, however, is moderated by the first proposition of equity theory (cf. Walster, Ber- scheid, & Walster, 1976): individuals try to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs in a bargaining situation. Moreover, the first corollary of equity theory states that individuals who perceive they can maximize their rewards by behaving equitably, do so; when they perceive they can maxi- mize their rewards by behaving inequitably, they do so (Walster, Berscheid, and Walster, 1976). With the exception of Fullerton, Messe’, and Vallacher (note 1) and Fullerton (1978), most research on reward dis- tribution has examined reward distribution behavior under minimal social conditions (Cf- Adams & Freedman, 1976). Typically, in most past studies individuals worked as a team on a task, such as multiplication of a series of num- bers, answering multiple choice knowledge questions, proof- reading, or essay writing, that required little, if any, sharing of their resources or coordination of activities. Thus, the typical research paradigm fails to attend to the manner in which reward distribution operates in social sys- tems with functionally interdependent members. Social psychologists investigating reward distribution have devoted most of their attention to the effects of the norm of equity (cf. Adams & Freedman, 1976) and to a lesser extent, the norm of equality (cf. Deutsch, 1975; Leventhal, 1976; Sampson, 1975). Recently, however, some theorists (Lerner, 1974 a, b; Leventhal, 1976) have suggested that an allocator may follow a number of alternative allocation rules. For example, an allocator may follow equity or equality as discussed above or she or he may follow the rule of altruism and distribute rewards and resources to the re- cipients with the greatest need; or the allocator might follow the rule of reciprocity and distribute rewards to re- ciprocate recipients' past favors and services. Thus, if one of the participants had the greatest need, had the best performance, and had allocated a large reward to the alloca- tor in the past, the allocator could follow a combination of norms and allocate a higher reward to that person. However, if the different allocation rules favor different reward distributions the allocator could utilize any one of the rules, or some weighted combination of norms, when making the reward distribution decision. Thus, if one participant had the best performance but another had more need, an allocator may weight the norms equally and allocate a simi- lar reward to both participants. This suggests that in situations of conflicting rules of justice, although a social system typically favors some allocation rule, the allocator can decide which rule or weighted combination of rules he or she will follow. It could be that the allocator's deci- sion to use a norm or combination of norms is influenced by self-interest because no consensus exists concerning what norm is most ”appropriate". Recent investigations suggest that subjects‘ self- interest affected the extent to which they divided the re- ward in accordance with member's performance (Leventhal, Weiss, & Long, 1969; Leventhal & Anderson, 1970) or divided the reward equally (Lane & Coon, 1972). For example, the results of Leventhal, Weiss, and Long (1969) showed that over rewarded subjects were less likely than under rewarded subjects to restore an equitable balance between inputs and outcomes. Similarly, subjects with inferior inputs took half of the reward (not less as equity dictates) and under- estimated their partner's inputs (Leventhal and Anderson, 1970). Leventhal and Anderson (1970) suggest that these allocators took half of the reward because of self-interest and distorted their partner's performance to protect their self-esteem. The results of a study by Reis and Gruzen (1976) provide further indirect support for the hypothesized influence of self-interest on reward allocation decisions. Male subjects gave themselves more reward than either equity or equality would prescribe, when their reward distribution decisions were completely private. The results of research by Lane and Coon (1972) and Leventhal and Anderson suggest that male children who are superior performers violate the 5 norm of equality to maximize their rewards. Thus alloca— tors may selectively weigh the norms in their reward alloca- tion decisions according to the extent to which they help to maximize their outcomes. The extent to which an alloca- tor changes these weights in different input situations to maximize her or his rewards would be a direct indication of the degree to which self—interest affected these reward distribution decisions. The typical manner by which the norm used is determined in equity and equality research, however, masks the alloca- tor's use of more than one norm. Typically this research examines the amount of rewards allocated in one situation only and infers from that amount the norm that was used. If the allocator takes more or less (depending on the input level) than 50% of the reward she or he is presumed to be using the norm of equity. On the other hand, if the alloca- tor allocates 50% of the reward, regardless of the potenti- ally "relevant input", he or she is presumed to be using the norm of equality. However, if the allocator is using another input or weighted sum of inputs rather than just the input that the experimenter links to the reward, the comparison of amounts of reward to the "experimenter's relevant input" may not present the total reward distribu— tion decision. The difficulty of determining whether an allocator is following the norm of equity or the norm of equality (or some combination of both) is demonstrated by a comparison of the results and interpretations of studies by Lane and Coon (1972) and Leventhal and Anderson (1970). Lane and Coon asserted that their findings indicated their preschool children subjects tended to follow the norm of equality. They found that boys and girls with inferior performance divided the rewards equally because they were following the norm of equality, while boys with superior performance violated the norm of equality to further their self-interest (i.e., in order to maximize their own share of the reward). Leventhal and Anderson obtained similar results for a com- parable group of children. However, they concluded that some of their results--i.e., boys with superior performance self-allocated more than half of the reward-~suggest the boys were attempting to distribute rewards equitably, while other results--i.e., boys and girls with inferior perfor- mance divided rewards equally--suggested that subjects violated the norm of equity to further their self-interest because they did not want to accept less than half of the reward. Generally, and specifically in these two particular studies, the norm is inferred from the proportion of out- comes the allocator retains. Thus, the interpretations of norms used from the comparison of the experimenter's rele- vant input and the amount of reward allocated may not be accurate. Theoretically, the equity and equality norms, under some circumstances, would have opposing effects on the alloca- tor's decisions, but in other circumstances would dictate the same allocation response and thus have mutually suppor- tive effects. In some studies (Lane and Messe’, 1971, 1972) the task inputs were equal and, therefore, equity and equality dictated the same response-~the equal division of the reward. However, in these studies the norm used was determined by the amount of money allocated, and therefore, whether subjects used both or either norm could not be determined (Leventhal, Popp, & Sawyer, 1973). Thus, with the exception of Fullerton (1978) and studies offering post hoc explanations of results that do not fit completely either equity or equality predictions the utilization of more than one norm has not been directly examined. When an allocator does not divide the reward according to either exact equity or equality predictions, the research- er typically explains that both norms are providing a compromise response that to some extent satisfies both norms. In Leventhal, Michaels, and Sanford's (1972) first experiment the result of their manipulation of conflict pre- vention suggested that allocators who are instructed to pre- vent conflict will give more reward to the worst performer, and less to the best, while allocators who are told to dis- regard potential conflict allocated in accordance with equity predictions (and their previous allocation). Later, Leventhal (1976) speculated that this reward difference pro-‘ bably was a compromise between the opposing demands of equity and equality . The results of Fullerton (1978) directly support the allocator's theorized use of more than one norm when distributing rewards. As predicted, subjects rated more than one norm as important to their reward distribution decision, and these ratings, in combination (via multiple regression), accurately predicted behavior. The results of the ratings of norms suggested that peo- ple differentially weigh the importance of norms on their reward allocation decisions and different weightings cor- responded with different reward allocations. Thus, it is possible for allocators to weigh as important norms that arouse incompatible response tendencies in them; under such circumstances, allocators must reconcile these competing forces by a compromise response which partially satisfies each response. This interpretation is consistent with the results of many equity and equality studies in which sub- jects allocated rewards in a manner that did not exactly fit either equity or equality predictions (e.g., Lane & Coon, 1972; Leventhal & Anderson, 1970; Leventhal, Michaels, & Sanford, 1972). In the present research, the hypothesized use of more than one norm was examined in two different reward alloca- tion situations. In this study a procedure was used that replicated and extended my past work (i.e., Fullerton, 1978). Subjects were asked to rate the importance of four norms (equity, equality, altruism, and consideration) on their de- cision to distribute rewards in two different reward alloca- tion situations. These four norms are of theoretical relevance and were evaluated both by examining both the sub- jects' ratings of their importance and actual monetary dis- tributions. Equity. An equitable response is one in which a per- son divides the rewards according to differences between participants in levels of their (perceiver—defined) relevant input(s). Equality. An equality response minimizes the difference in reward regarless of differences of relevant inputs. Altruism. An altruistic response is one in which a person maximizes the amount of reward that the other person obtains. Consideration. A considerate response is one which indicates compliance with co-workers' expectation. Although the majority of research concerning reward distribution concentrates on equity (see, e.g., the review by Adams & Freedman, 1976), one key element, the perception of inputs, to date has not been adequately examined. A relationship is equitable when a person (either one of the participants or an outside observer) perceives that all the participants are receiving equal relative outcomes from the relationship (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973). Adams (1965) suggests that a difficulty in the evaluation of re- lationships as equitable or not is that the perception of one person, A, of his or her rewards, costs, and invest- ments are not necessarily identical with another person's perception of A's situation (and vice versa). Inputs are 10 defined as "what a person perceives is his contribution to the exchange, for which he expects a just return" (Walster & Walster, 1975, p. 21) -- "Justice” requires that everyone receives outcomes proportional to his or her relevant inputs. Equity theory is imprecise concerning the specifica- tion of what are potentially relevant inputs (Lerner, 1975). Is the relevant input (a) duration of work, (b) effort ex- pended, (c) skill, (d) quantity of work, (e) quality of in- puts, and/or (f) the number of decisions one was required to make? Adams (1963) suggests there are two conceptually distinct characteristics of inputs, recognition and rele- vance. Either party to the exchange or both may recognize the existence of the attribute (i.e., sex, age, effort, time spent, work units completed) in the possessor; if either does, the attribute has the potentiality of being an input. Whether an attribute having the potential of being an input is an input is dependent on the person's (either party or both) perception of its relevance to the exchange. In addition, perception of a relationship as equitable depends on the person's assessment of the relevance (recognition and relevance) and the valug of the participant's inputs (and outcomes). Therefore, even if all members agree on what the relevant investments are, they may still weigh their own and other's inputs (and outcomes) differently. Adams (1965) states that the allocator who is evaluating recipients' inputs often gives weights to different aspects of their task behavior. In addition, Leventhal and Michaels (1969) propose that the allocator attributes to a member a weighted sum of behaviors (for example, effort, quantity of performance, and duration of performance). Typically, relevant inputs have been assumed to be the set of inputs that the experimenter attempted to link to reward. This set has included performance (Leventhal & Anderson, 1970; Reis & Gruzen, 1976; Lerner, 1974; Leventhal & Lane, 1970; Leventhal, 1976), time (Lane & Messe’, 1971, 1972; Lane, Messe’ & Phillips, 1971), difficulty of the task (Adams, 1961), quality of work (Leventhal & Michaels, 1969), or quantity and quality of work (Lane & Messe’, 1971). Both Walster et a1. (1973) and Adams and Freedman (1976) state that different persons --i.e., participants, "objective" outside observers (such as experimenters)--are likely to cal— culate inputs and outputs differently, and, therefore, the perception of the extent of the equitableness of a relation- ship can differ depending on who the perceiver is and his or her role. Although the differential weighing of inputs is an ele- ment of Adams' (1965) theory, this proposition has only recently been directly examined empirically. However, there is some earier work that bears indirectly on this issue. For example, Zaleznik, Christensen, and Roethlisberger (1958) tested some equity predictions concerning reward and investments in an industrial setting. They compared an individual's pay (reward) to his or her rank in five social 12 status factors--investments--(seniority, sex, age, educa- tion, and ethnicity). These authors proposed that respon- dents would sum the five equally weighted inputs, but their data analyses did not substantiate this prediction. The lack of support for their hypothesis could indicate that inputs as diverse as seniority, sex, age, education, and ethnicity are not weighted equally or that a nonlinear, non- compensating model or combination of models is needed (Ein- horn, 1971). Leventhal, Popp and Sawyer (1973) found that there was a disparity between relative inputs (pegs placed) and the manner in which subjects' distributed rewards, suggesting that they did not conform to the norm of equity precisely. They speculated that this deviation could be due to the norm of equality also influencing the subjects' allocation responses. They, also, speculated that the allocators may have taken into account other facets of a recepients' task behavior when evaluating work inputs. This post hoc explana- tion is congruent with the results of Leventhal and Lane (1970), which show that females with superior performance were less likely than females with inferior performance to indicate that they had taken into account performance—-the "experimenter's relevant input" --when dividing rewards. The results of Fullerton (1978) directly support the proposition that allocators examine different inputs and their combination when allocating rewards. As predicted, subjects who divided the rewards so that the superior 13 performer received more rated success at the task--i.e., puzzle pieces placed, the input linked to the reward and on which team members varied--as the most important input on their reward distribution decision; on the other hand, subjects who divided the rewards equally rated time spent --an input on which team members did not vary-~as the most important input. Thus, the results suggest that some sub- jects perceived not only pieces placed (the experimenter's relevant input) but also time spent, and need as relevant inputs. In addition, the results suggest that allocators differentially weighed the importance of inputs on reward distribution decisions, as theorized by Adams (1965) and Walster and Walster (1975). The differential weighting of inputs also supports Leventhal's (1976) theorizing concerning the confluence of norms. Thus, one purpose of the present study was to explore subjects' ratings of the importance of various norms and potential inputs across different task contexts. The equity norm prescribes that an allocator should reward individuals in proportion with their perceived task inputs. The research has generally supported the equity model (see, e.g., the review by Adams & Freedman, 1976). However, numerous studies have found that males and females apply reward distribution rules differently as a function of relative performance (Lane &‘Messe’, 1971; Messe’ & Lichtman, note 2; Leventhal & Lane, 1970; Leventhal, 1975). 14 Studies of reward allocation have consistently found that female allocators pay themselves less than do males and less than equity theory predicts (Lane & Messe’, 1971; Leventhal & Lane, 1970; Mikula, 1974). Results also suggest that females make fewer self-maximizing allocation (Lane & Messe’, 1971). Katz and Messe’ (note 3) state that females tend not to behave in ways that are to their economic advan- tage. Thus, the present study investigated the allocation of females and males in two different situations. Time and performance inputs were independently manipulated (to appear to be superior, equal, or inferior to that of a coworker) to determine if male and female allocators differentially weigh norms to maximize their own rewards when paying themselves and that coworker. Thus, another purpose of the study was to explore the patterns of ratings and changes in ratings across tasks to determine if male and females differential weigh the impor— tance of norms and potential inputs. The major purpose of the present study, however, was to explore the previously hypothesized role of self-interest in reward allocation decisions. Hypotheses The basic purpose of this research was to explore the influence of self-interest on allocators' weightings of norms. Previous research suggests that allocators will weigh the importance of several norms in their reward dis- tribution decisions. I predicted that subjects' ratings of the importance of various norms and potential inputs will differ across different task contexts. Previous research indicates that males and females dif- ferentially weigh norms. In addition, results of Lane and Messe’ (1971) suggest that females make fewer self-maximizing allocations. Specifically, I hypothesized that the patterns of ratings and changes in ratings across tasks will differ for males and females. It was predicted that allocators will selectively weigh the importance of norms and inputs to maximize their self- interest. By manipulating the input levels of performance and time in two different nonrelated reward distribution situations, changes in norm and potential input weighings could be assessed. Specifically, I hypothesized that sub- jects', especially males', ratings will change such that they will evaluate norm and inputs in ways that promote their self-interest. 16 CHAPTER II Method Overview of the Study Male and female subjects worked with other participants on two different functionally interdependent tasks. A subject worked with a partner on the first task, which was either a jigsaw puzzle construction or essay writing (brain- storming) task, allocated the money, and rated the impor- tance of selected norms and inputs. Later that samg sub- ject worked with a different partner on the other task, allocated the money, and rated the importance of the same norms and inputs. The experimenter used different tasks, different experimenters and confederates, and some different standardized scales as part of the post-experimental ques- tionnaire in an attempt to have subjects perceive the two tasks as separate studies that had some common features. Subjects Subjects were 137 male and 165 female undergraduates at Michigan State University. Subjects participated in the study for pay. Design A 2x2x2x2x2 factorial design was used in this study. By pre-arrangement, the confederate in the portion of the 17 study using a writing task (brainstroming) either worked twice as long (subject inferior time inputs) or half as long (subject superior time inputs) as the subjects did. Also by prearrangement, the confederate in the portion using a puzzle task (puzzle) either placed twice as many pieces in the puzzle (subject inferior performance inputs) or half aSmmny (subject superior performance inputs) as the subject did. The experiment also varied (for reasons of control) order of task presentation (either puzzle then brainstorm- ing or brainstorming then puzzle) and the order of total rewards available to a work dyad for performing a given task (either $4.50 than $4.00 or $4.00 then $4.50). Thus, the 2x2x2x2x2 factorial represents the combination of puzzle performance inputs, brainstorming time inputs, order of task presentation, order of money presentation, and sex of the subject. The crossing of performance inputs and time inputs provide the test of the self-interest hypotheses. The major dependent measures were the amount of money allocated and the ratings of importance of norms and inputs. Procedures Utilized to Heighten Realism and Control I wanted the subjects to perceive that they had parti- cipated in two unrelated experiments and had real co- workers for both tasks. In an attempt to accomplish this, the two "studies" (i.e., the puzzle task and the brain- storming task) (a) were conducted in different experimental settings located approximately one-half a mile from each 18 other, (b) employed different groups of experimenters and confederates, (c) presented allocators with somewhat dif- ferent amounts of team reward, and (d) had subjects com- plete somewhat different post experimental questionnaires. The setting for one part of the study was a large briefing room with 10 partial cubicles which provided only a visual barrier. The other setting was a small briefing room (less than one-third of the size of the room described above) with four soundproof cubicles. A different group of experimen- ters and confederates conducted each portion of the study. One task was a writing (brainstorming) task, while the other was a spatial ability (puzzle) task. After one part the team received $4.00, after the other $4.50. (As noted above, the experiment controlled for the order of money presentation.) Each of the post-session questionnaires had as the first measure the same nine dependent variables. This measure was presented to subjects as a standard questionnaire that was commonly used nationally in most "industrial simulation research". The booklets, however, also contained several different instruments. One post- experimental booklet (puzzle) contained work value scales (i.e., Gullahorn's Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire), the other contained primarily locus of control scales (i.e., Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale). The post experimental questionnaires are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively. In addition, the experimenter 19 conducted sessions in which all the participants both allocators and co-workers were real subjects. In these sessions, the allocators were randomnly chosen and their co-workers received the amount that they actually were allocated. Only the allocators' responses, however, were analyzed. These sessions were instituted as an attempt to counteract possible rumors, (a) that there was no co-worker and (b) parts of the studies were "fixed". Overview of the Brainstorming Portion of the Study Male and female subjects worked on a functionally interdependent writing task with another participant (actually a confederate) whose sex was not specified. In this task, participants were led to believe that their time inputs differed, but their (quality of) performance inputs were equal. One participant wrote statements for or against 16 topics for 50 minutes. The other participant arrived 25 minutes after the first and wrote statements agreeing or disagreeing with the first participant's statements on the first eight topics. At the end of the work session, subjects allocated the money, rated the im- portance of selected norms and inputs and reported their guesses of the sex of their partner. Setting, Task and Materials A large experimental room with 10 cubicles and a common briefing area was used. The cubicles provided a visual barrier but only a partial sound barrier. 20 The experimental booklet was composed of two packets each containing eight campus related topics (e.g., should alcoholic beverages be allowed in dorms?, should professors instead of graduate students teach classes?, should triple roomingin dorms be abolished?). The list of topics is presented in Appendix A. A three item post-experimental questionnaire was used. One item assessed the importance of effort, time spent, partner's expectation of how rewards should be allocated, and performance on reward allocation. The final item measured the subject's perception of the sex of his or her partner. (Appendix B presents the Time post-experimental questionnaire). Procedure A male and a female experimenter informed the partici- pants that they would be assisting in the development of a questionnaire by working on a writing task. The exper- imenters explained that one member of each team would work on the task 50 minutes, the other 25 minutes. In the sub- ject inferior (SI) condition the confederate partners were the first group of participants and worked 50 minutes; the subjects arrived 25 minutes later and worked 25 minutes. In the subject superior (SS) condition the subjects were the first group of participants; the confederate partners arrived 25 minutes later. Sometimes subjects were the participants in both the 50 and 25 minute work groups, in which case, only the subjects in the pre-arranged time 21 condition (SS/SI) allocated the money. Initially, the first group of participants was seated in the main portion of the room. The experimenters ex- plained that their task was to respond with as many pro and/or con statements to the 16 campus related topics as they could. This group was told to spend approximately three minutes on each of the topics and to let their ideas flow freely without stopping to evaluate them. The experi- menters told the first group of participants that their partners would be arriving in 25 minutes and would be agree- ing and/or disagreeing with their statements concerning the first eight topics. The experimenters stated that since the tasks were of equal difficulty, each team would be paid according to the total amount of time the team worked, and that after the work period was over, one member of each team would be randomly selected to allocate the earn- ings of the team. After receiving the preliminary instruc- tions the particiapnts were led to the cubicles and told to commence work. After 25 minutes the second group of participants arrived. This group was told that their partners already had been working on a writing task for 25 minutes. The experimenters explained that their task was to agree and/ or disagree with their partners' statements concerning the first eight topics and to state why. They were also told that they should spend apprxoimately three minutes per topic, that since both tasks were equally important, their team pay would be determined by the total amount of time 22 their team worked, and one member of each team would allo- cate the earnings of the team. After the second group of participants were led to cubicles, the experimenters went to the cubicles of the first group, picked up their statements on the first eight topics, and took them to their partners. For the next 25 minutes the first group worked on the second packet of topics and their partners agreed and/or disagreed to the statements concerning the first eight t0pics. After 25 minutes all the statements were collected and one of the subjects was asked to shuffle a stack of "I divide" and ”partner divides" cards. Another partici- pant (confederate) was asked to choose a card and the confederate said ”partner (subject) divides”. Each subject was given an envelope containing money, asked to keep the amount he or she deserved, and asked to put the amount ofzmmey the partner deserved in an envelope marked ”part- ner During the money division the confederates supposedly were completing a post-experimental questionnaire. After the money allocation, the confederates received the partner envelope and the subjects completed a post-experimental questionnaire. Then, after individual debriefings the session was terminated. Overview of the Puzzle Portion of the Study Male and female subjects attempted to finish a func- tionally interdpendent jig-saw puzzle task with another participant (actually a confederate) whose sex was not specified. The subject and confederate in each dyad alter- nated working on the task for six four minute periods. Thus, in this task participants' performances differed but their time inputs were equal. At the end of the work session, subjects recorded their teamksinputs, allocated the money, rated the importance of selected norms and in- puts, and reported their perception of the sex of their partner. Task and materials In a 2-person team, the subject and confederate indi- vidually worked to place 80 (40 per team member) preselected pieces of a BOO-piece jig-saw puzzle; 220 pieces were al- ready correctly positioned in the puzzle. The three item post—experimental questionnaire pre- viously described was used. (Appendix C presents the Pieces post-experimental questionnaire). Procedure At each experimental session a male and female exper— imenter tested four, six, or eight participants. The subjects were told that the study simulates conditions found in industry. Participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to test the difference between face-to-face and non-face-to-face working conditions. However, all participants then were told that they had been assigned to the non-face-to-face condition. The experimenters further expkfined that while each subject 24 would know that he or she was paired with one of other participants, no one would ever know Which one. The sub- jects were briefed in groups composed of equal numbers of males and females to emphasize that each was paired with a real person, but the identity and sex of each partner would remain unknown. The experimenters explained that the members of a pair would work on the same puzzle, the dyad would receive a monetary reward for its work, and also that after the work period was over one of the members of each dyad would be selected by chance to allocate the earnings of that pair. After receiving the preliminary instructions the subjects were led to cubicles. At this point, the experi- menters gave the subjects the puzzles along with the 40 pieces that had been allocated to them as their task. After four minutes the experimenters took the puzzles to the confederates. Each confederate recorded the subject's performance and, depending on the performance condition, placed a predetermined number of pieces in the puzzle. After exactly four minutes the experimenters returned the puzzles to the subjects. On turns two and three the con- federate continued to place one-half or twice as many pieces as the subjects, as dictated by the condition. The puzzles were collected after 24 minutes and the subjects were told that they have been randomly selected to be a team recorder. The experimenters informed them 25 that as the team recorders they would complete the confident— ial team reports, which consisted of the following informa- tion: C . d. time each member worked pieces completed by each member the pair's earnings each member of the pair's individual earnings The experimenters gave the subject the information that they need for the first three items. Then, the sub- jects were handed three envelopes--one marked "my pay", a second marked "other's pay”, a third marked "confidential team report”--and an amount of money in bills and coins. Subjects were requested to divide the money and record on the team report how they divided it. After they had chosen a division, a three-item questionnaire was administered. Then, after a debriefing the session was terminated. 26 CHAPTER III Results Analyses I Unweighted means analysis of variance and planned com- parisons were performed on two sets of repeated measures. The dependent variables of these analyses were (1) subjects' ratings of the importance of the performance and time in- puts and (2) their ratings of the importance of the equity and equality norms on their reward allocation decisions (repeated measures). As noted above, the tests of the hy- potheses were repeated measures of a subject's ratings in two different situations. Therefore, only the data of sub- jects who completed the measures on both questionnaires (85 males and 83 females) were analyzed. The independent variables were sex of the subject, performance input on the puzzle task, and the time input on the brainstorming task. Thus, a 2(sex of subject) x 2(performance input) x 2(time input) with two repeated measures -- the importance of equity and quality for reward allocation decisions made for the two tasks-~ana1ysis of variance was performed. A parallel analysis explored subjects' ratings of performance and time as inputs in their reward allocations for the two tasks. A precondition of performing these 2x2x2x2x2 27 (including the double repeated measures) ANOVAS was the absence of consistent order of money and order of tasks effects. The results of the second analyses indicated that this requirement was satisfied. Analyses II Separate 2x2x2x2x2x2 unweighted means analyses of variance was performed on the nine dependent variables. The independent variables were sex of subject, performance input on the puzzle task, time input on the brainstorming task, order of task presentation, order of money presen- tation, and task from which data were derived (a puzzle or brainstorming repeated measure). The nine measures were the percentage of the total team pay that the participants' self-allocated and participants' ratings of the importance of different norms and inputs on their reward distribution decisions. Tests of the hypotheses Self-interest. The underlying premise of this research was that the participants' self-interest would influence their ratings of the importance of selected norms and selected inputs on their reward allocation decisions. Specifically, subjects were asked to rate the impor- tance of four rules: contribution, same pay to each per- son, helping the person with the larger need, and partner's expectation of how the pay will be divided, they might have used in deciding how to divide the reward between themselves and co-workers. All norms and inputs were 28 rated on a seven point scale which ranged from 0 (not at all important) to 6 (very important). The major hypothesis was that some of the allocators would rate the norms in order to maximize their rewards. Specifically, it was predicted that workers would rateethe equity norm as more important on the task they had superior inputs, but would rate the equality norm more important when they had inferior inputs. This rating change would enable the participants to self-allocate a larger share of the reward across the different input levels than if they used only one norm. Thus, from the hypothesis, a four-way interaction, performance input x time input x task x norm ratings, was expected. The results of analysis I, however, revealed a significant five-way interaction, performance input x time input x task x rating x sex of the subject, F = (1,159)=5.86, p <.017, with sex of subject being the additional independent variable. Thus, as speculated, the results indicated differential ratings of norms by female and male allocators. Analysis of simple effects indicated that the predicted four-way interaction was significant for males but not for females, F (1,159)=11.894, p<.001 and F (1,159)=.289, p<.59 respectively. I predicted that allocators would rate the importance of equality higher when their co-workers outperformed them than when they outperformed their co-workers. Conversely, higher ratings of the importance of equity were predicted when the alloca- tors outperformed their co-workers. To test* this hypothesis, 29 comparisonsas a function of input levels on the puzzle and brainstorming tasks were performed on the allocators' ratings of the importance of equity and equality on their reward distribution decisions. Because these means are the most crucial comparisons, the cell means and F ratios for the predicted four-way interaction and the male signi- ficant four-way interaction are presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Table 1 Means and F Ratios of Norms Relevant to Performance on Puzzha Task and Time Worked (Performance) on Brainstorming Task Simple Interactions Task Performance Equity F Equality F Rating Rating Puzzle Superior 4.5 1.97 4.25 3,1 Brainstorming Superior 5 3.62 Puzzle Superior 4.77 .06 3.43 3,5 Brainstorming Inferior 4.86 4-1 Puzzle Inferior 4.98 .72 3.48 .05 Brainstorming Superior 5.28 3.55 Puzzle Inferior 5.1 3.7 Brainstorming Inferior 5.12 '005 3.68 “005 Table 1 indicates that the hypothesis was partially sup- ported. The ratings of equality in one mixed input situa- tion (i.e., superior inputs on puzzle task and inferior inputs on the brainstorming task) indicated that, as pre- dicted, participants who were outperformed rated equality as more important than when they outperformed their co- workers, but this difference was only marginally significant 30 F (1,159)=3.5, p<,07. There were no significant findings for the other three mixed input situations. This pattern of results was similar for the comparison of the male four-way interaction with the addition of a significant rating change for the equality measure for allocators who had superior inputs on both tasks, F (1,159) =8.94, p<.005. This result indicates that males rated equality higher on the puzzle task than on the brainstorm- ing task. The cell means and F ratios for males are pre- sented in Table 2. Table 2 Means and F Ratios of Norms Relevant to Performance on Puzzle Task and Time Worked (Perfromance) on Brainstorming Task Simple Interactions for Males Task Performance Equity F Equality F Rating Rating Puzzle Superior 4.54 82 4.41 8 94 Brainstorming Superior 5 ' 2.91 ' Puzzle Superior 5.2 25 3.15 3 22 Brainstorming Inferior 4.95 ' 4.05 ' Puzzle Inferior 5.55 80 3.15 25 Brainstorming Superior 5.1 ' 3.4 ‘ Puzzle Inferior 5.1 25 3.5 09 Brainstorming Inferior 5.35 ' 3.65 ° These results provide partial support for the hypothesis. The results indicated that males rated higher the impor- tance of the equality norm in the situation where their self-interest would be promoted (i.e., a person with in- ferior inputs would receive more of the reward if equal 31 pay to participants was important in the reward decision). To further explore the influence of self-interest on norm ratings, the significant results of the unweighted means ANOVA for each of the selected norms are presented below. A number of significant effects emerged from analysis 11- The 2x2x2x2x2x2 ANOVA was performed separately on the ratings of the equity, altruism, consideration, and equality norms. Overall, they revealed that males tended to rate norms as important that maximize their own rewards, while, females rated as important norms that would minimize their own rewards. Similarly, females rated equity as more important and equity as less important on their reward de- cision than males did. There was a significant performance input x order of task x sex of subject interaction for equality, F (1,135)= 5.15, p<.025. For the initial task, female subjects who outperformed their partner on the puzzle task rated same pay to each member (equality) as more important (Mé4.56) than females who were outperformed (M?3.5), E (1,135)=6.78, p<.01. Females who outperformed their partners also rated equality as more important (Mf4.56) than males who out- performed their partners (Me3.56), F(1,135)=5.9, p<.02. In addition, for subjects whose team received $4.50 on the firSt task, females rated same more important (Me4.2) than males (Me2.9), F(l,135)=7.22, p<.01. Similarly, sex of subject interacted with order of money for the equity measure, {(1,135)-5.51, p<.02. For subjects who received 32 $4.00 for the first task, males rated equity more important (Me5.31) than did females (M54.62), F(1,135)=9.45, p