Management Research 2005, 3(1), 7-26. The Love of Money and Pay Satisfaction 1 FROM INCOME TO PAY SATISFACTION: THE LOVE OF MONEY AND PAY EQUITY COMPARISON AS MEDIATORS AND CULTURE (THE US AND SPAIN) AND GENDER AS MODERATORS Thomas Li-Ping Tang Roberto Luna-Arocas Toto Sutarso The final version of this paper was published in: Tang, T. L. P., Luna-Arocas, R. & Sutarso, T. (2005) From income to pay satisfaction: The love of money and pay equity comparison as mediators and culture (The US and Spain) and Gender as Moderators. Management Research, 3(1), 7-26. ABSTRACT This study examined a mediating model of income and pay satisfaction with a direct path (income → pay satisfaction) and an indirect path with two mediators (income → the love of money → pay equity comparison → pay satisfaction). Results of the whole sample showed that the indirect path was significant and the direct path was insignificant. When the indirect path was eliminated, income contributed positively to pay satisfaction. We then tested the model across two moderators: culture (the United States versus Spain) and gender. This study provides the following theoretical and empirical contributions: the direct relationship between income and pay satisfaction depends on the indirect path and the extent to which (1) income enhances the love of money and (2) the love of money is applied to evaluate pay equity comparison satisfaction. If both conditions exist, income leads to pay dissatisfaction. If the second condition does not exist, income does not lead to pay dissatisfaction. Pay satisfaction depends on (1) one’s love of money and (2) how one compares. The role of the love of money in pay satisfaction is “not” universal across cultures and gender. ----------- Keywords: Administration, Benefits, Comparison, Direct indirect path, Equity, External, Faculty, Gender, Income, Internal, Love of Money, Mediator and Moderator variables, Motivator, Pay Satisfaction, Raises, Spain, Structural Equation Model (SEM), Success, USA
32
Embed
2005_Management Research: From Income to Pay Satisfaction
From income to pay satisfaction: The love of money and pay equity comparison as mediators and culture (The US and Spain) and Gender as Moderators. Management Research 2005
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Management Research 2005, 3(1), 7-26. The Love of Money and Pay Satisfaction 1
FROM INCOME TO PAY SATISFACTION: THE LOVE OF MONEY AND PAY EQUITY COMPARISON AS MEDIATORS AND
CULTURE (THE US AND SPAIN) AND GENDER AS MODERATORS
Thomas Li-Ping Tang
Roberto Luna-Arocas
Toto Sutarso
The final version of this paper was published in:
Tang, T. L. P., Luna-Arocas, R. & Sutarso, T. (2005) From income to pay satisfaction: The
love of money and pay equity comparison as mediators and culture (The US and Spain)
and Gender as Moderators. Management Research, 3(1), 7-26.
ABSTRACT
This study examined a mediating model of income and pay satisfaction with a direct path
(income → pay satisfaction) and an indirect path with two mediators (income → the love of
money → pay equity comparison → pay satisfaction). Results of the whole sample showed that
the indirect path was significant and the direct path was insignificant. When the indirect path was
eliminated, income contributed positively to pay satisfaction. We then tested the model across
two moderators: culture (the United States versus Spain) and gender. This study provides the
following theoretical and empirical contributions: the direct relationship between income and
pay satisfaction depends on the indirect path and the extent to which (1) income enhances the
love of money and (2) the love of money is applied to evaluate pay equity comparison
satisfaction. If both conditions exist, income leads to pay dissatisfaction. If the second condition
does not exist, income does not lead to pay dissatisfaction. Pay satisfaction depends on (1) one’s
love of money and (2) how one compares. The role of the love of money in pay satisfaction is
“not” universal across cultures and gender.
-----------
Keywords: Administration, Benefits, Comparison, Direct indirect path, Equity, External, Faculty,
Gender, Income, Internal, Love of Money, Mediator and Moderator variables, Motivator, Pay
Satisfaction, Raises, Spain, Structural Equation Model (SEM), Success, USA
Management Research 2005, 3(1), 7-26. The Love of Money and Pay Satisfaction 2
FROM INCOME TO PAY SATISFACTION: THE LOVE OF MONEY AND
PAY EQUITY COMPARISON AS MEDIATORS AND CULTURE
(THE US AND SPAIN) AND GENDER AS MODERATORS
Money is the instrument of commerce and the measure of value. Managers around the
world use money to attract, retain, and motivate employees in organizations (Milkovich &
Newman, 2005). The meaning of money, however, is in the eye of the beholder. There is a
spirited debate regarding money as a motivator (e.g., Gupta & Shaw, 1998; Locke, Feren,
McCaleb, Shaw, & Denny, 1980) or as a hygiene factor (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1959; Kohn, 1998; Pfeffer, 1998)1. Organizations in the world market are increasingly interested
in reducing labor costs and increasing worker productivity and profits. Managers and researchers
are interested in employee pay satisfaction because pay dissatisfaction has “numerous
undesirable consequences” (Heneman & Judge, 2000: 77) such as turnover, low commitment,
and unethical behavior (e.g., Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Tang & Chiu, 2003).
The two most widely known models of pay satisfaction are the equity model (Adams,
1963) and the discrepancy model (Lawler, 1971). The equity model suggests that pay satisfaction
depends on the comparison of the person’s outcome-input ratio to the outcome-input ratio of a
comparison other. A greater similarity of the ratios will lead to higher pay satisfaction. The
discrepancy model examines the difference between individuals’ perceptions of the amounts of
pay that they should receive and what individuals do receive. A smaller (or larger) discrepancy
will lead to higher pay satisfaction (or pay dissatisfaction).
In the pay satisfaction literature, “one construct that should not be overlooked is the
meaning of money” (Barber & Bretz, 2000: 45). The meaning of money can be perceived as the
frame of reference in which people examine their everyday lives (Tang, 1992). For example,
high Love-of-Money employees have high voluntary turnover regardless of their intrinsic job
satisfaction. That study reveals the importance of including the love of money in turnover
research in that researchers can use the love of money to predict voluntary turnover (Tang, Kim,
& Tang, 2000). More recently, Tang, Luna-Arocas, Sutarso, and Tang (2004) have found that the
love of money is a moderator and also a mediator of the income-pay satisfaction relationship.
Following this rationale, we assert that the objective money (self-reported income), subjective
values related to money (i.e., the love of money), and pay equity comparison will play an
important role in studying pay satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The topic is ripe for reexamination.
This study examines not only the income and pay satisfaction relationship but also the
role of two mediators, the love of money and pay equity comparison, in the income-pay
satisfaction relationship using a sample of university professors in the US and Spain. Our
research questions are listed below: In general, is income related to pay satisfaction? When does
income lead to pay satisfaction or dissatisfaction? Why is income not related to pay satisfaction
in some situations? Does the love of money enhance our understanding of the income-pay
satisfaction (dissatisfaction) relationship? What roles do the two mediators (the love of money
and pay equity comparison) play in the income-pay satisfaction relationship? Does the inclusion
of the love of money improve beyond the equity comparison? Are there cross culture (the US vs.
Spain) and gender (male vs. female) differences in the income-pay satisfaction relationship?
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
The major purpose of this study is to propose a model of income and pay satisfaction (or
dissatisfaction) based on existing literature that involves two mediators: the love of money (e.g.,
Management Research 2005, 3(1), 7-26. The Love of Money and Pay Satisfaction 3
Barber & Bretz, 2000; Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2004) and pay equity comparison
(Adams, 1963). More specifically, we will examine a direct path (Income Pay Satisfaction)
and an indirect path with two mediators (Income the Love of Money Pay Equity
Comparison Pay Satisfaction) simultaneously using structural equation modeling (SEM)
(Figure 1). We will compare our model with the equity model (Income Pay Equity
Comparison Pay Satisfaction). We, then, test the model across two moderators: culture (the
US vs. Spain) and gender (male vs. female). We trust that our model offers contributions beyond
existing theories and recent studies in the literature (e.g., Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2004)
and provides a much deeper understanding of the income-pay satisfaction relationship.
Let us introduce the model first. The direct path (Income Pay Satisfaction, Figure 1,
Path 1) has been examined in many studies and is not new. Income can be defined as one’s
annual salary. Pay satisfaction is multidimensional and can be defined by Pay Level, Raises,
Benefits, and Pay Administration (Heneman & Judge, 2000). Pay level refers to the average of
the array of rates paid by an employer. Raises typically reflect additional pay offered to
employees above and beyond the employees’ previous pay level. Raises may represent the cost
of living adjustment, employee characteristics (e.g., age, performance rating, position in salary
grade), and supervisor’s own salary increase. Benefits are that part of the total compensation
package, other than pay for time worked, provided to employees (e.g., life insurance, pension,
workers’ compensation, vacation). Pay administration deals with consistency, communication,
and administration of pay policies in an organization. The literature suggests that there is a strong
pay level-pay satisfaction relationship (Heneman & Judge, 2000). In this study, we assert that
this direct path depends on the indirect path examined in Figure 1.
------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------------------------
Theoretical and empirical contributions. Our first value-added theoretical and empirical
contribution is that we examine the direct path (Path 1) (Heneman & Judge, 2000) and the
indirect path (Paths 2, 3, and 4) simultaneously using structural equation modeling (SEM). This
allows researchers to examine both paths and also the impact of the indirect path on the direct
path and vice versa. Researchers can identify what, how, why, and when income causes pay
satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) directly or indirectly.
Second, the indirect path has four variables (Income the Love of Money Pay Equity
Comparison Pay Satisfaction), i.e., two mediators (the Love of Money and Pay Equity
Comparison) and three separate paths. Each variable will be defined later. More specifically, the
Income to the Love of Money path (Path 2) reflects one’s subjective perception of one’s
objective income. The Love of Money to Pay Equity Comparison path (Path 3) deals with the
extent to which one’s love of money (i.e., internal and subjective standard) will be used to judge
and evaluate Pay Equity Comparison using internal and external referents (cf. Tversky &
Kahneman, 1981). Pay Equity Comparison, in turn, will be related to Pay Satisfaction (Path 4).
Recently, Tang et al. (2004) have examined the love of money as a mediator of the
income-pay satisfaction relationship using the multiple regression approach. They have not
examined the love of money as a mediator (i.e., Income the Love of Money Pay
Satisfaction) using the structural equation modeling (SEM). Our present study differs from Tang
et al.’s (2004) study by adding a new variable, the Pay Equity Comparison, to the model as the
second mediator of the income-pay satisfaction relationship. Due to the inclusion of this variable,
Management Research 2005, 3(1), 7-26. The Love of Money and Pay Satisfaction 4
we can compare our model with the equity model (Paths 5, 4, and 1, without the Love of
Money). Tang et al. (2004) performed neither these procedures nor the SEM techniques.
Third, we investigate the model across cultures (the US vs. Spain) and gender (males vs.
females) simultaneously in two separate Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses (MGCFAs)
and treat culture and gender as two moderators. These additional analyses help researchers
identify the boundaries of the model: who (male vs. female), where (the US vs. Spain), and when
(i.e., the significance of the indirect path will have an impact on the significance of the direct
path in different situations). That is, our model enables us to identify what, how, and why as well
as who, where, and when people do (or do not) experience pay satisfaction. The use of SEM does
allow us accomplishing all these goals, but multiple regression method (cf. Tang et al., 2004)
does not. We assert that the love of money is a deeply-rooted value that will play an important
and critical role in forming and judging other work-related attitudes and behaviors. We will
introduce the Love of Money first.
The Love of Money
Definition. The first question a scientific investigator must ask is not “How can I
measure it?” but rather, “What is it” (Locke, 1969: 334)? Research (e.g., Luna-Arocas & Tang,
2004; Tang & Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2004) suggests that the love of money can be defined (1)
as a measure of one’s values, wants (Locke, 1969), or desires of money (Sloan, 2002) and (2) as
the meaning of money (Barber & Bretz, 2000), the importance of money (Mitchell & Mickel,
1999), and one’s own personal attitudes toward money, i.e., an individual difference variable.
We examine the love of money in the context of the income-pay satisfaction relationship.
Why is it relevant? First, the love of money (an unobservable construct) has been used in
everyday lay expressions and in popular literature. The love of money is the root of evil. Those
who want to be “rich” are falling into temptation (Tang & Chiu, 2003). Very little empirical
research has examined this construct.
Second, the adaptation of Euro on January 1, 2002 in 12 European Union (EU) countries
(305 million people), the expansion of the EU from 15 to 25 countries in 2004 that creates an
economic superpower (415 million people and a 9 trillion dollar economy), the provisions of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), China’s accession to WTO, and other
economic developments have integrated the world economy into a single, huge free market
economy. These changes enhance the flow of money, human resources, technology, and products
and services across borders that, in turn, significantly increase the importance of money in the US
and around the world. For example, in 1978, Jurgensen found that men ranked pay the fifth and
women ranked pay the seventh in importance, among 10 items. Pay was the most important factor
for others. In 1990, among 11 work goals, pay has been ranked the second in importance in the
US and Britain and the first in Germany (Harpaz, 1990). Money, in the context of global market,
has become more important than ever in attracting, retaining, and motivating employees. We will
select the US (North America) and Spain (EU) and examine the cross-cultural differences in the
role of money (income) and the love of money in pay satisfaction.
What does it mean theoretically and empirically? Tang and Chiu (2003) examine the
Love of Money using Factors Rich, Motivator, Important, and Success. Factor Rich (the
affective component) reflects that most people want to be rich and have a lot of money. In one
study, rich people were seen, in the US at the time, as relatively healthy, happy, and well
adjusted, while the poor were seen as maladjusted and unhappy. Rich is better than poor. Factor
Motivator (the behavioral component) taps on the notion that money is a motivator (Gupta &
Management Research 2005, 3(1), 7-26. The Love of Money and Pay Satisfaction 5
Shaw, 1998; Kohn, 1993). Regarding improving performance in organizations, “no other
incentive or motivational technique comes even close to money” (Locke et al., 1980: 381).
Factor Important (a cognitive component) stresses that money is important (Mitchell & Mickel,
1999). As mentioned, pay has been ranked the second in importance in the US and the UK and
the first in Germany (Harpaz, 1990). Factor Success is based on the notion that “in America,
money is how we keep score” and “income is used to judge success” (Rubenstein, 1981: 34).
Some people have “an obsession with money as a sign of success” (Furnham & Argyle, 1998:
148). Tang and Chiu (2003) found that the love of money is significantly and positively related
to unethical behaviors in organizations (i.e., Evil), whereas income (money) is not. Thus, “the
love of money is the root of evil”, but money is not. Tang and his associates (2003) tested a
three-factor Love of Money Scale (LOMS) (Rich, Motivator, and Important) and established
measurement invariance across 22 out of 26 geopolitical entities in five continents (N = 5,341)
with different languages, cultures, and religions.
In this study, we will employ Factors Success, Motivator (Tang & Chiu, 2003), and
Equity (Luna-Arocas & Tang, 2004). Factor Equity is important to pay satisfaction because the
value of a given reward is not absolute but is relative to other rewards with which it is compared
(Adams, 1963). What is fair or just is open to interpretation. Factor Equity involves individual
equity and internal equity (Milkovich & Newman, 2005).
Individual equity refers to the notion that given the same job duties and responsibilities,
individuals with higher quality and quantity of performance should be paid more than those
without. Not everyone is equally interested in individual equity. Research suggests that “males,
white-collar employees, high performers, achievement-oriented employees, and those who
already work under a merit plan” prefer merit pay (Heneman, 1992: 98) because they have the
opportunity to make more money in the system.
Internal equity deals with the pay dispersion at different levels of the organization’s
hierarchy. Men with high Love of Money tend to favor “equity” (pay based on merit) and have a
larger top/bottom pay differential in an organizational hierarchy than men with low Love of
Money (Tang, Furnham, & Davis, 2000). Women favor “equality” (equal pay) and have a small
pay differential, i.e., a small amount of pay dispersion between managers and employees. The
love of money may help us understand, predict, and control pay satisfaction.
Pay Equity Comparison
Our second mediator assesses the adequacy of their reward through a process of social
comparison, i.e., external competitiveness (Milkovich & Newman, 2005). In order to attract,
retain, and motivate employees and stay competitive, managers pay their employees more than
or equal to their competitors in the labor market. Pay referents (e.g., Bordia & Blau, 1998;
Summers & DeNisi, 1990) are defined as someone inside or outside the focal organization. This
study examines internal and external referents to evaluate pay fairness. Internal referents are
defined as other people within the department and the university. External referents are defined
as other people in comparable universities and in the labor market. In the labor market,
accounting (management) professors, for example, may use certified public accountant, CPA
(human resources manager) in business and industry as external referents.
In the US, university presidents and faculty in Research Universities have higher income
than those in Doctoral Granting I Institutions and Liberal Arts Colleges (Tang & Tang, 2003).
The pay structures are not exactly the same across public institutions and are based on
institutional characteristics and market-related variables. The popular press provides many
Management Research 2005, 3(1), 7-26. The Love of Money and Pay Satisfaction 6
anecdotal examples of external referents (e.g., Tang, Luk, & Chiu, 2000). The anecdotal
examples of Michael Eisner, Bill Gates, and Michael Dell are more salient to some Americans,
while the case of Amancio Ortega, Inditex Group, however, will be more salient to some Spanish
people. People with low concern for money are less likely to compare themselves with external
referents, rich people, in particular. We assert that high Love-of-Money individuals and male
employees will be interested in external competitiveness (Heneman, 1992).
A Model of Pay Satisfaction
Income to Pay Satisfaction. “The consistency of the pay level-pay satisfaction
relationship is probably the most robust (though hardly surprising) finding regarding the causes
of pay satisfaction” (Heneman & Judge, 2000: 71). Actual pay level (income) is consistently and
positively related to pay satisfaction. The magnitude of the relationship varies from study to
study, with correlations ranging from .13 to .46. It makes intuitive sense that the higher the pay
level (income), the higher the pay satisfaction. It is easy to understand the relationships of pay
level and pay satisfaction because both are dealing with the same domain, i.e., pay. This is not
new. Following these suggestions, we will test this robust finding in Hypothesis 1a (Path 1,
Income Pay Satisfaction), when the indirect path is not considered in our model.
Hypothesis 1a: Income will be positively related to Pay Satisfaction (Path 1 only).
In this study, we assert that this direct path depends on the indirect path (see Figure 1).
We will defy the widely known facts and examine both the direct path and the indirect path using
structural equation modeling (SEM). One of the major advantages of using SEM is that we can
examine the direct and the indirect paths simultaneously. The indirect path may alter the strength
of the direct path that may create the complete mediation model (the direct path does not exist)
or the partial mediation model (both the direct and indirect paths exist).
Our theoretical and empirical contributions of this study are related to this mediating
effect. Tang and Chiu (2003) have found a significant and negative path between the Love of
Money and Pay Satisfaction (-.27) for Hong Kong professionals. That provides some clues for
our study. Pay satisfaction depends on (1) one’s love of money and (2) how one compares. We
assert that the Income to Pay Satisfaction path (the direct path) may be influenced by the indirect
path (Income the Love of Money Pay Equity Comparison Pay Satisfaction). If one
considers the Love of Money very important and uses the Love of Money as a frame of reference
when comparing their pay with the referents, then, the Income to Pay Satisfaction path may be
negative. Without comparison, one does not know whether one should be happy or sad.
Unfavorable comparisons will make one upset about one’s pay. A significant (the Love of
Money Pay Equity Comparison) path will lead to a negative direct path (Income Pay
Satisfaction). If one does not use the Love of Money as a frame of reference to compare, then,
one feels neutral or positive about one’s pay. This is the key element of our model. On the basis
of the above discussion, the income to pay satisfaction path is quite complex and may depend on
the indirect path (discussed below) in our model. Please also see our additional discussion
regarding culture and gender. Therefore, we will present our Hypothesis 1b tentatively here.
Hypothesis 1b: The Income to Pay Satisfaction relationship (Path 1) depends on the
indirect path. Income will not be positively related to Pay Satisfaction, when Paths 2, 3,
and 4 are examined simultaneously in the model.
Management Research 2005, 3(1), 7-26. The Love of Money and Pay Satisfaction 7
Income to the Love of Money. This path reflects one’s “subjective” evaluation of one’s
“objective” income. Some say: Rich or poor is a state of mind and can be perceived from financial
and psychological perspectives. Professors do not have the highest value toward money and are
financially poor, compared to investment bankers. This may vary from one person to the next.
According to needs theories, unsatisfied needs are motivators, but satisfied needs are not
(Maslow, 1970). Higher income is related to lower marginal utility of money (Brandstatter &
Brandstatter, 1996). The rising tide lifts all boats. Money changes almost everything. As income
increases, some people may adjust their standard of living, expectations, tastes/preferences,
consumption, and the “frame of reference” up to a point (Tang 1992; Tversky & Kahneman,
1981). Then, money may decrease its value or utility: Money assumes decreasing importance as a
person advanced in the organizational hierarchy (Harpaz, 1990). From a global perspective, as
nations get richer, increases in wealth are associated with diminishing increases in well-being
(Ahuvia & Friedman, 1998). Within nations, increased income is associated with well-being
primarily for the poor; once the poverty threshold is crossed, increased income matters little for
happiness (Diener & Oishi, 2000). At the individual level, there is a strong negative path between
Income and the Love of Money (-.27) among highly paid Hong Kong professionals whose income
(US$47,502) was higher than the GDP per Capita ($25,100) (Tang & Chiu, 2003). They may be
rich both financially and psychologically. Satisfied needs (high income) may lead to low love of
money (a negative path between the two variables).
On the other hand, people who have experienced financial hardship tend to be obsessed
with money (Lim & Teo, 1997): The more money they have, the more they want, up to a point.
(Laboratory rats and squirrels hoard foods after experiencing hunger because they do not want to
be hungry again. Poor children overestimate the size of coins (money). After being poor, they
need more money to feel secure.) In a sample of full-time regular employees (not professors) in
the US, the Income to the Love of Money path was significant and positive for African-
Americans (.34) and females (.40) but insignificant for Caucasians (.02) and males (-.15) (Tang
& Tang, 2002). African-Americans ($32,073.15) and women ($32,400.58) tended to have lower
income than Caucasians ($37,180.73) and men ($38,287.97), respectively, in that sample. These
employees change their jobs 2.65 times in their 14.24-year career. Leavers usually receive pay at
the market value on their new jobs and about 20 percent pay increases. It pays to quit. The
significant and positive path for African-Americans and females may reveal their significant
desire to have more money (due to low income compared to others). They may feel poor
financially and psychologically. This creates a positive path. Caucasians and males (financially
adequate and psychologically adequate or rich) have an insignificant path in this sample of non-
teaching full-time employees.
We assert that the sign (positive, neutral (insignificant), or negative) of the path (Income
the Love of Money) depends on the specific sample under study, the objective measure of
money (self-reported income), and the subjective interpretation (the love of money) of the
objective measure (income), and other related demographic variables (e.g., sex and race). It varies
from one sample to the next. In this study, we will examine university professors. Professors, in
general, are “notoriously underpaid” in our society compared to other comparable jobs in business
and industry (Bok, 1993). Many professors do not change jobs after receiving tenure (i.e., risk
averse) that may lead to pay compression (pay lower than the market). If they are underpaid,
obsessed with money, and seek job mobility and more money (i.e., poor both financially and
psychologically), a positive path may exist. This is similar to African-Americans and females,
Management Research 2005, 3(1), 7-26. The Love of Money and Pay Satisfaction 8
examined by Tang and Tang (2002). We assert that Americans and male professors may fall into
this category.
However, if they are relatively satisfied with the teaching profession even if they are
underpaid and do not want to change jobs and seek more money (i.e., financially poor but
psychologically adequate or rich), then, there is no relationship between the two (cf. Caucasians
and males). This argument may be applicable to females and Spanish professors in this study. For
specific groups of people in this study, see additional discussion on culture, institutional
characteristics, and gender differences. We will offer a general prediction for professors below:
Hypothesis 2: Income will be positively related to the Love of Money for professors.
The Love of Money to Pay Equity Comparison. Equity theory suggests that satisfaction
depends on the comparison of one’s output/input ratio with that of others, where the discrepancy
model focuses on the difference in pay between expectation and reality (Rice, Phillips, &
McFarlin, 1990). We argue that people may use the love of money as their “frame of reference”
in comparing their income with that of others, i.e., the framing effect (Tversky & Kahneman,
1981). On the one hand, if money is not important to them, they will pay very little attention to
it. An insignificant path is expected. On the other hand, if money is important to them, they may
pay more attention to and are constantly aware of others’ pay in the society (Pfeffer & Langton,
1993). In general, a positive path is expected.
Hypothesis 3: The Love of Money will be positively related to Pay Equity Comparison.
Pay Equity Comparison to Pay Satisfaction. Satisfaction with internal and external
referents and satisfaction with pay level, raises, benefits, and administration reflect the similar
domains of pay satisfaction. Research suggests that pay equity comparison satisfaction predicts