Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equity Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equity Cameron Brown Supervisor: Thomas Evans A report presented to the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, towards the degree of Bachelor of Science with Honours in Psychology April 2016
44
Embed
Equity Sensitivity, The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equit
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
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equity
Cameron Brown
Supervisor: Thomas Evans
A report presented to the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, towards the degree of Bachelor of Science with Honours in Psychology
April 2016
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity Contents
Abstract 3
1. Introduction 41.1 Equity Theory 41.2 Equity Sensitivity 51.3 Measuring Equity Sensitivity 61.4 Reference Points 81.5 Personality and Equity Sensitivity 101.6 The Present Study 11
A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to compare equity sensitivity
scores, measured by the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, when using different reference points; a
friend, brother or co-worker. The means and standard deviations are presented in table 7. There was
significant effect for the co-worker condition, Wilk’s Lambda = 0.46, F (2, 95) = 55.03, p < 0.001.
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for equity sensitivity using different reference pointsReference Point Mean Standard
DeviationFriend 26.58 3.34
Brother 24.02 3.47Co-Worker 28.49 2.43
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was 0.02. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey test
indicated that the mean score for the co-worker condition was significantly different from the
brother condition. The friend condition did not differ significantly from either brother or co-worker
condition.
4. Discussion
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity 4.1 Findings
The main objective of this research was to test equity sensitivity, the construct from Adam’s (1963,
1965) Equity Theory, against the five main personality types of the Five Factor Model (McCrae and
Costa 1987). No hypothesis was made in terms of relationships between personality and higher
scores on the equity sensitivity measure, Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian
2000). It was found however that participants that scored higher on conscientiousness, also scored
higher on equity sensitivity, suggesting that more self-disciplined and controlled individuals may
actually be more sensitive to inequities in the inputs and outputs of their working life. In addition to
this, it was found that those who scored higher on extraversion scored lower on equity sensitivity,
possibly suggesting that people who are more outgoing may actually be less sensitive to inequities
that others. These results potentially mean that retail workers who are of a more careful and
considerate nature may feel more unrest towards to imbalance inputs and outputs, and
subsequently those who are more forward may be less concerned with equity and thus take less
notice of inequities in their workplace.
There were however, no correlations found between equity sensitivity and personality traits
when Equity Sensitivity Instrument (King and Miles 1994) scores were used in place of the EPQ. This
can suggest one of two things; firstly that the significant results found using EPQ scores could be
interpreted as a type 1 error, i.e. a false positive, or secondly, the ESI may not be a reliable measure
of equity sensitivity leading to a type 2 error.
Another focus of the study was to see how sensitive different individuals were to inequities
while using different types of people as reference points. It was predicted that in line with the
research of Dornstein (1988), individuals would use people as similar to them as possible a reference
points, usually co-workers. This was indeed the case as displayed by the results, with equity
sensitivity scores being significantly higher on the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (King and Miles 1994)
when a co-worker was being used as the referent other, than in the brother condition. In terms of
Equity Theory then, this supports the idea that if an individual feels that a co-worker has a better
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity relationship of inputs to outputs, they will feel more unrest than if they used someone else as a
reference point.
Another aim of the present study was to assess the equity sensitivity of individuals in retail
employees in the UK, attempting to uncover relationships with demographic information. It was
found that of all the demographic criteria the study investigated (age, sex, location and length of
service), only age negatively related with equity sensitivity albeit a very weak correlation, as
measured by the Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian 2000). While there was no
relationship hypothesised for demographics and equity sensitive, the result seem to suggest that
younger participants are slightly more equity sensitive, although this correlation was not statistically
significant at the most stringent level highlighted above.
4.2 Equity Sensitivity and Personality
The attempt to explore potential relationships between equity sensitivity and personality is the key
focal point of this study, with this idea being almost completely unexplored in psychological
literature. The main background of personality research in terms of equity theory has not been
drastically changed since Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987) when they proposed that there were
three categories people fall into, Benevolents, Entitleds and Equity Sensitives, with each reacting
differently to job inequities.
The results shown here do seem to shed some light onto the influence of personality on
equity sensitivity, in fact finding two fairly strong correlations, firstly that of equity sensitively being
positively related to conscientiousness using the Equity Preference Questionnaire measure.
Conscientiousness is outlined as the tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully and aim for
achievement against expectations (John, Robins and Pervin 2008), but here it was the personality
type that scored highest on equity sensitivity. The six sub-facets that encompass conscientiousness
according to the NEO PI-R scale (Costa and McCrae 1985) are competence, order, dutifulness,
achievement-striving, self-discipline and deliberation, and the definition of these sectors make the
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity conclusions of this study even more surprising. Dutifulness is in fact defined as the ‘emphasis placed
on importance of fulfilling moral obligations’ (University of Freiburg 2007) which suggests it is odd
that this personality type appeared most sensitive inequities. Cheng and Ickes (2009) discussed how
the trait of conscientiousness had ties with high levels of motivation irrelevant of external or internal
factors, though not specified to the workplace, suggesting it may be a surprise that this trait was
correlated with equity sensitivity. While this research only begins to uncover the role of personality
in equity sensitivity, this seems an unlikely outcome and should certainly be explored by further
research.
The other correlation that was found to be significant in the statistical analysis process was
the negative relationship between higher extraversion and scoring higher on Sauley and Bedeian’s
(2000) Equity Preference Questionnaire. One of the criteria for extraversion is the ‘tendency to
experience positive emotions’ (University of Freiburg 2007), meaning individuals may have an
inherent disposition to feel positive about inequities in their job. If this is true then this could provide
a possible explanation for ‘extraverts’, labelled so by the NEO PI-R, scoring lower on equity
sensitivity measures. Once again, comparing the norms suggested by Lord (2007) with the results of
the present study, the norm mean score for extraversion (33.29) was just 0.37 higher than that of
the mean found above (32.92) supporting the results here.
One concern however is the lack of any significant correlation between personality and
equity sensitivity according to the other measure used in this study, the Equity Sensitivity Instrument
(King and Miles 1994). As discussed above, one potential cause of this is the validity of the ESI as a
measure or equity sensitivity, a point that has been suggested in previous literature (Sauley and
Bedeian’s 2000; Shore and Strauss 2008). Jeon (2011) credited its simple nature, mentioning how its
minimalistic form is beneficial to participants when used multiple times in a single battery of
questions. However it has been noted that the weighting of each item carries too much influence on
participant’s final score due to its simplicity (Bagozzi and Yi 1990). While shortcomings of the ESI
seems the most likely explanation for contradictory results between measures, there is an argument
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity for the possibility of a false positive from the Equity Preference Questionnaire. Items of the EPQ
have been noted to elicit some feelings of injustice within participants (Colquitt Noe and Jackson
2002) which could raise issues of internal validity of the measure. This could have contributed to the
significant results with the items of the EPQ mistaking perceived injustice for high sensitivity to
inequities (Akan, Allen and White 2009). Despite this though, the EPQ has consistently gained
support from equity sensitivity researchers (Colquitt 2004; Jeon 2011) suggesting the weaknesses of
the ESI contributed to the contradictory results.
Implications
Prior to the conducting of the study, the results were anticipated to help aid the recruitment
process, especially in retail, as it was hypothesised that specific personality traits or types would
significantly emerge as relating to equity sensitivity. While the results did in fact display correlations
between conscientiousness (Positive) and extraversion (negative), the conclusions were not entirely
expected. It does however open the door for further research in the topic, providing strong rationale
for future investigations into personality and equity sensitivity.
Extraversion was found to negatively correlate with equity sensitivity, with lower scores on
the EPQ measure of equity sensitivity relating to higher scores on extraversion. This relationship
could be very useful in altering recruitment strategies in order to maximise harmony in the
workplace. It would be prudent for an organisation to exclusively hired individuals who are less
sensitive to any potential inequities in their job, something that could increase production and
reduce staff turnover. While current psychometric tests are not entirely reliable in predicting future
job performance (Mariani and Allen 2014), with additional information like which personality types
are less equity sensitive could create a huge upturn in successful recruitment for the retail sector or
at least how managers interpret the idea and importance of equity sensitivity.
The interpretations of the results here suggest changes in the way equity and equity
sensitivity is handled in the workplace with regards to members of staff. The knowledge of equity in
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity upper or middle management in a retail chain can be implemented in two ways. Firstly it can be
used by ‘higher-ups’ to further inform decisions regarding pay changes and shift structure, whether
in the form of bonuses or longer breaks in a shift. The information interpreted from equity research,
not just related to personality, could be crucial in the implementation of company-wide procedures,
for instance increased bonuses for increased output from a member of staff to decrease any
apparent inequities. Secondly and most practically, in-store management can use this knowledge to
communicate with and manage their staff effectively to not only prevent inequities, but also discuss
with staff how they feel about their inequities. This is even more useful when the relationships with
personality are taken into account, as management could possibly treat individuals differently
dependent on their personality traits. These two points, while interesting to discuss would not be
certain to be successful without more information on the subject, furthering the case for continued
research into the area.
4.3 Reference Points
It was concluded that after being asked to put themselves in a scenario where a co-worker had a
better equity scenario than themselves, individuals scored significantly higher on equity sensitivity
(using the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, King and Miles 1994). This supports the previous research in
the area (Goodman 1974; Dornstein 1988) in that people are more sensitive to using co-workers as
reference points to assess their own equity. Despite other studies in the area suggesting similar
outcomes, the importance of co-workers in Equity Theory has been seriously understated. The
results here shows the influence that different types of people have on an individual’s equity
sensitivity, and the fact equity sensitivity scores were higher in the co-worker condition gives some
insight into who people use as reference points, not just how they affect equity sensitivity.
Implications
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity Who people use as their reference point is a key aspect of Adams’ (1963, 1965) Equity Theory, with
many suggesting it is the main factor that leads an individual to feel unrest due to the relationship of
their inputs and outputs (Butler 2007). The knowledge that co-workers are in fact the main source of
reference points amongst employees in retail then, could be crucial in ensuring unrest among staff is
kept to a minimum. It is worth noting that, management aside, all employees of the retail stores
where participants were recruited are paid at exactly the same hourly rate. As discussed previously,
pay is considered the most important outcome in the equity relationship (Vecchio 1981), but it is
also important to understand that the consistent pay across staff means that it will mainly be the
inputs of others that cause unrest due to sensitivity to inequities.
As discussed previously, the results from equity research can be extremely beneficial to
management within retail. The results presented here could assist managers as to how to deal with
potential unrest in the workplace due to inequities, from an Equity Theory standpoint with respect
to reference points. The preference for the use of co-workers by retail staff as referent others in the
study gives management a crucial insight into the workings of equity and can thus improve their
ability to treat staff. For example ensuring those that work hard in their job are praised more than
those that are not as effective can increase the standing of equity as viewed by others. Ensuring
individuals are not over or under rewarded will communicate proportionate equity amongst the staff
so when they use a co-worker as a reference, they have a fair representation of inputs and outputs.
4.4 Limitations
While the present study yielded positive and statistically significant results, there were some issues
with the methodology that could affect the applicability of the conclusions. Firstly, due to the cross-
sectional nature of the study, even though significant correlations were found, causation could not
be attributed. As discusses previously, while a correlation was found between conscientiousness and
equity sensitivity, it was not discovered which of the traits that conscientiousness encompasses is
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity the most influential on sensitivity scores. This would be a key area for development should the field
progress in this direction as each personality trait contains ‘sub-traits’ (Poropat 2009) each of which
would more than likely have its own individual influences towards equity sensitivity.
Secondly, the nature of the multi-section questionnaire is also an issue, the main problem is
the length of the measures participants were required to complete. The questionnaire in total took
around 20 to 30 minutes to complete in most cases, and although different measures were arranged
as to decrease the fatigue of continued answering, many participants opted to complete it whilst on
their break during their shift at work. Typically, staff in retail get just 15 or 30 minutes break during
shifts upwards of six hours long, and completing a questionnaire during their break may not be in
their best interest. Because of this, towards the end of their completion of the study, participants
may not be as immersed in the measures as the study requires, and subsequently be less invested in
the equity scenarios, leading to the emergence of extraneous variables. This in turn questions the
reliability of the study’s results, meaning the conclusions may not be as applicable as first thought.
Again concerning the nature of the equity scenarios, participants were asked to imagine
themselves in a particular situation where another person they know (A friend, co-worker or sibling)
had a significantly better equity situation than themselves. This was used to elicit a sense of unrest
in the participant so they can measured for their sensitivity to this inequity. The main issue with this
though, is ensuring the participants are fully engrossed in the scenario to effectively measure equity
sensitivity. This may not be the most effective way to prime an individual to use a particular person
as a reference point and thus questions the reliability of the scenarios as a tool in this experiment.
While it has been suggested that using scenarios in quantitative research is a good way to measure a
variable without creating self-esteem issues within participants (Dunette 1976:71), it will never be as
effective as measuring a naturally occurring variable.
One final thing to consider is the reliability of the two measures of equity sensitivity, the
Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian 2000) and the Equity Sensitivity Instrument
(King and Miles 1994). While these two measures are at the forefront of research into Equity Theory,
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity they are not without imperfections. For example, Shore and Strauss (2008) suggested that the items
of the ESI seem to favour the observations of self-interest versus helping the employer which is a
serious over-simplification of Equity Theory. Also Jeon (2011) discusses how much the field of equity
sensitivity has changed in the years since the last measure, the EPQ, was devised, more than 15
years ago. Government laws concerning pay secrecy and minimum wage have changed significantly
in the last few years, something that has failed to be picked up by the theory. Since 2010, an
employer cannot prevent individuals from disclosing their pay details to colleagues, meaning that
previous ideas of equity may no longer be relevant as pay levels are now more apparent in the work
place. As will be discussed below, new measures are always required for a field to advance, and the
lack of new measures may have had a negative effect on the present study.
4.5 Future Work and Concluding Remarks
The obvious future direction for all research involving questionnaires, not just occupational
psychology and Equity Theory, is the development of new and reliable measures. As discussed in the
previous section, the last major development in terms of measures was Sauley and Bedeian’s (2000)
Equity Preference Questionnaire, which was itself based on the even older Equity Sensitivity
Instrument (King and Miles 1994). Since their conception, many articles have evaluated its
effectiveness, concluding they have some problematic issues (Jeon 2011: Shore and Strauss 2008).
These range from the narrow scope of the measure to ambiguous items meaning there is a serious
gap in the literature for a new measure. The research presented here included personality to deduce
relationships with equity sensitivity, perhaps suggesting that the Five factor Model (McCrae and
Costa 1987), could be used in parallel with any new measure that graces the field.
In terms of personality then, the research here has suggested some serious correlations
between personality types and an individual’s sensitivity to inequities, creating a key path for the
next direction of research in the area. Finding more correlations with personality types can lead to
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity more and more advanced screening techniques for employers to use in the recruitment process and
give managers the information they need to help maximise the effectiveness of their staff. Therefore
continuing the scarce, almost non-existent research of personality and Equity Theory is key to the
retail sector. One potential direction is to further analyse the personality of research employees, but
also break down the traits they possess and how that links to sensitivity. Analysing relationships
between the sub-facets of personality traits and equity sensitivity will help attribute causation of the
individual traits but more importantly, support the findings in the present study, that traits of the Big
5 significantly influence an individual’s equity sensitivity.
The current study explored the concept of equity sensitivity, an aspect of Equity Theory (Adams
1963, 1965), and its relationship with various factors that differ across individuals. It also looked to
investigate who people use as reference points to determine if they are treated unfairly and how
that also relates to an individual’s equity sensitivity. It was found that both conscientiousness
(positively) and extraversion (negatively) personality traits significantly correlated with equity
sensitivity, suggesting that personality is indeed an important factor in Equity Theory. Also, in line
with the work of Dornstein (1988), it was found that people scored higher on equity sensitivity when
using co-workers as reference points.
While there were some serious limitations of the study outlined, the results definitely
suggest there is strong rationale for investigations of equity sensitivity and factors like personality.
The study provided strong background for future research in the theory, and it is strongly suggested
that the link between equity sensitivity and personality is investigated further.
5. References
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity Adams, J.S. (1963) ‘Toward an Understanding of Inequity.’ Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67 (5) 422-436
Adams, J.S. (1965) ‘Inequity in Social Exchange’. Advanced Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 335-343
Akan, O.H., Allen, R.S. and White, C.S. (2009) ‘Equity Sensitivity and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in a Team Environment.’ Small Group Research, 40, 94-112
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1990) ‘Assessing Method Variance in Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices: The Case of Self-Reported Affect and Perceptions at Work.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 547-560
Berkowitz, L., and Walster, E. (1976) Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction. New York: Academic Press
Bradley-Geist, J.C. and Landis, R.S. (2012) ‘Homogeneity of Personality in Occupations and Organizations: A Comparison of Alternative Statistical Tests.’ Journal of Business and Psychology, 27 (2), 149-159
Buss, D.M. (1995) ‘Evolutionary Psychology: A New Paradigm for Psychological Science.’ Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-31
Butler, C.K. (2007) ‘Prospect Theory and Coercive Bargaining.’ Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51 (2), 227-250
Cheng, W., and Ickes, W. (2009) ‘Conscientiousness and Self-Motivation as Mutually Compensatory Predictors of University-Level GPA.’ Personality and Individual Differences, 47 (8), 817-822
Colquitt, J.A. (2004) ‘Does the Justice of the One Interact with the Justice of the Many? Reactions to Procedural Justice in Teams.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 633-646
Colquitt, J.A., Noe, R.A. and Jackson, C.L. (2002) ‘Justice in Teams: Antecedents and Consequences of Procedural Justice Climate.’ Personnel Psychology, 55 83-110
Costa, P.T., and McCrae, R.R. (1985) The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources
Dornstein, M. (1988) ‘Wage Reference Groups and Their Determinants: A Study of Blue-Collar and White-Collar Employees in Israel.’ Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 221-235
Dunnette, M.D. (1976) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally
Gergen, K.J., Greenburg, M.S., and Willis, R.H. (1980) Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press
Gill, D. and Stone, R. (2010) Fairness and Desert in Tournaments. Games and Economic Behaviour, 69, 346-364
Gogia, P. (2010) Equity theory of motivation. Available from <http://www.businessihub.com/equity-theory-of-motivation/> [12th January 2016]
Goodman, P.S. (1974) ‘An Examination of Referents Used in the Evaluation of Pay.’ Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 12, 170-195
Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1985) ‘Test for Individual Perceptions of Job Equity: Some Preliminary Findings.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055-1064
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1987) ‘A New perspective on Equity Theory: The
Equity Sensitivity Construct.’ Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234
Hyman, H.H., and Singer, E. (1968) Readings in Reference Group Theory. New York: Free Press
Jeon, G. (2011) ‘Equity Sensitivity Versus Equity Preference: Validating a New Viewpoint on Equity Sensitivity.’ Unpublished Masters Thesis. Illinois: University of Illinois.
John, O.P., Robins, R.W., and Pervin, L.A., (2008) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford Press.
Jones, J.R. and George, G.M. (2004) Contemporary Management. Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill
King, W.C., and Miles, E.W. (1994) ‘The Measurement of Equity Sensitivity.’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133-142
King, W.C., Miles, E.W., and Day, D.D. (1993) ‘A Test and Refinement of the Equity Sensitivity Construct.’ Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14, 301-317
Lord, W. (2007) NEO PI-R: A Guide to Interpretation and Feedback in a Work Context. Oxford: Hogrefe
Mariani, B., and Allen, L.R. (2014) ‘Development of Psychometric Testing of the Mariani Nursing Career Satisfaction Scale.’ Journal of Nursing Measurement, 22, 135-44
McCrae, R.R., and Costa, P.T. (1987) ‘Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90
Miles, E.W., Hatfield, J.D., and Huseman, R.C. (1994) ‘Equity Sensitivity and Outcome Importance.’ Journal of organizational Behaviour, 15, 585-596
Molleman, E. and Broekhuis, M. (2012) ‘How Working in Cross-Functional Teams Relates to Core Attributes of Professional Occupations and the Moderating role of Personality.’ Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 16 (1), 50-67
Morey, L.C. and Lanier, V W. (1998) ‘Operating Characteristics of Six Response Distortion Indicators for the Personality Assessment Inventory.’ Assessment, 5, 203–214
Patchen, M. (1961) The Choice of Wage Comparisons. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Poropat, A.E. (2009) ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Five-Factor Model or Personality and Academic Performance.’ Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322-338
Porter, L.W., and Smith, E.J. (1970) The Ethology of Organizational Commitment. Unpublished Paper, University of California
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., and Hayday, S. (2004) The Drivers of Employment Engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies
Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and Adolescent Self-Image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press
Sankey, C.D. (1999) Assessing the Employment Exchanges of Business Educators in Arizona. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Arizona State University.
Sauley, K.S., and Bedeian, A.G. (2000) ‘Equity Sensitivity: Construction of a Measure and Examination of its Psychometric Properties.’ Journal of Management, 25 (5), 885-910
Schinka, J., Kinder, B. and Kremer, T. (1997) ‘Research Validity Scales for the NEO–PI–R: Development and Initial Validation.’ Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127–138
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity Shore, T.H., and Strauss, J. (2008) ‘Measurement of Equity Sensitivity: A Comparison of the Equity
Sensitivity Instrument and Equity Preference Questionnaire.’ Psychological Reports, 102, 64-78
Smith, P.C., Kendal, L.M., and Hulin, C.L. (1969) The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally
Spector, P.E. (2008) Industrial and Organizational Behaviour (Fifth Edition), New Jersey: Wiley
University of Freiburg (2007) NEO Personality Inventory – Revised. available from <http://www.unifr.ch/ztd/HTS/inftest/WEB-Informationssystem/en/4en001/d590668ef5a34f17908121d3edf2d1dc/hb.htm> [11th March 2016]
Vecchio, R.P. (1981) ‘An Individual-Differences Interpretation of the Conflicting Predictions Generated by Equity Theory and Expectancy Theory.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 470- 481.
Weick, K.E. (1966) ‘The Concept of Equity in the Perception of Pay.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 414-439
Young, M.S. and Schinka, J.A. (2001) ‘Research Validity Scales for the Neo-PI-R: Additional Evidence for Reliability and Validity.’ Journal of Personality and Assessment, 76 (3), 412-420
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the 97 participants of this study for sparing 30 minutes of their day as well as all the managers that allowed me access to members of staff, and Thomas Evans for the crucial academic support.
6. Appendices
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity 6.1 Measures
Neo-PI-R
Please fill in these questions about yourself honestly. Tick the corresponding box depending on how much you agree with the statements ranging from 1 (strongly unlike you) to 5 (strongly like you)
1Strongly unlike
you
2 3 4 5 Strongly like you
I often feel blueI rarely get irritatedI dislike myselfI seldom feel blueI feel comfortable with myselfI have frequent mood swingsI am not easily bothered by thingsI panic EasilyI am very pleased with myself
I feel comfortable around peopleI have little to sayI make friends easilyI keep in the backgroundI am skilled in handling social situationsI would describe my experiences as dullI am the life of the partyI don’t like to draw attention to myselfI know how to captivate an audienceI don’t talk a lot
I believe in the importance of artI am not interested in abstract ideasI have a vivid imaginationI do not like artI tend to vote for liberal political candidatesI avoid philosophical discussionsI carry the conversation to a higher levelI do not enjoy going to art museumsI enjoy hearing new ideasI tend to vote for conservative political candidates
I have a good word for everyoneI have a sharp tongueI believe that others have good intentionsI cut others to piecesI respect othersI suspect hidden motives in others
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity I accept people as they areI get back at othersI make people feel at easeI insult people
I am always preparedI waste my timeI pay attention to detailsI find it difficult to get down to workI get chores done right awayI do just enough work to get byI carry out my plansI don’t see think things throughI make plans and stick to themI shrink my duties
Equity Preference Questionnaire
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity Please fill in these questions about yourself honestly. Tick the corresponding box depending on how much you agree with the statements ranging from 1 (strongly unlike you) to 7 (strongly like you)
1Strongly Disagree
2 3 4 5 6 7StronglyAgree
1. I prefer to do as little as possible at work while getting as much as I can from my employer2. I am most satisfied at work when I have to do as little as possible3. When I am at my job, I think of ways to get out of work4. If I could get away with it, I would try to work just a little bit slower than the boss expects5. It is really satisfying to me when I can get something for nothing at work6. It is the smart employee who gets as much as he/she can while giving as little as possible in return7. Employees who are more concerned about what they can get from their employer rather than what they can give to their employer are the wise ones8. When I have completed my task for the day, I help out other employees who have yet to complete their tasks9. Even if I received low wages and poor benefits from my employer, I would still try to do my best at my job10. If I had to work hard all day at my job, I would probably quit11. I feel obligated to do more than I am paid to do at work12. Al work, my greatest concern is whether or not I am doing the best job I can13. A job which requires me to be busy during the day is better than a job which allows me a lot of loafing,14. At work, I feel uneasy when there is little work for me to do15. I would become very dissatisfied with my job if I had little or no work to do16. It is better to have a job with duties and responsibilities than a job with few duties and responsibilities
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity Equity Sensitivity Instrument
These questions ask what you would like your relationship to be with any organization for which you might work. On each question, allocate 10 points between the two choices (choice A and choice B) by giving the most points to the choice that is most like you and the fewest points to the choice that is least like you. You can use zeros if you'd like but both answers must add up to 10.
In any organisation I might work for:
1. It would be more important for me to:
A. Get from the organization
B. Give to the organization
2. It would be more important for me to:
A. Help others
B Watch out for my own good
3. I would be more concerned about:
A. What I received from the organisation
B. What I contributed to the organisation
4. The hard work I would do should:
A. Benefit the organization
B. Benefit me
5. My personal philosophy in dealing with the organization would be:
A. If I don't look out for myself, nobody else will
B. It's better for me to give than to receive
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity
Equity Reward Scenarios
Please read the following scenario and try and imagine yourself in this situation. Then answer the questionnaire below whilst considering how you would feel in the situation outlined below.
Scenario A: You and your close friend are both students. Both of you are in your second year at university and are both excellent students, and anxious to earn extra money to support yourselves. Professor Martin, a sociologist, hires you and your friend to transcribe some interviews he has conducted for a project. You and your friend transcribe about 4 interviews per day.
After you finished a long day’s work of transcribing in which you transcribed 6 interviews, you talk with your friend about how your day went. Your friend tells you they also transcribed 6 interviews and they were paid £35 for their days work. You look at the money you were given by Professor Martin and find he only gave you £20.
Scenario B: You have recently been working at a local pub to gain a little extra income whilst studying at college. Three evenings a week you work a six hour shift until 1am, cleaning tables and serving drinks from behind the bar. Your brother works at a different pub owned by a different company a few miles away and works similar shifts doing the same job.
You visit your brother at the weekend and discuss your respective jobs. You talk about a time when you have worked particularly hard and he says that he doesn’t mind because he gets a decent wage. When you ask, he says he gets £7.50 an hour while you only get £5 where you work
Scenario C: You have been working in a part-time retail job at a corner shop whilst studying at university for about a year. It is a good source of extra income to support you during your studies as you only do eight hours per week.
During a particularly stressful day you have a chat with your co-worker, also a student who’s been working there for a similar length of time. They ask you how much you get paid and you tell them, £5.20 an hour. They seem shocked
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity and tell you that they actually get £7.80 an hour, even though they do the same amount of work as you.
6.2 Participant Information Sheet
Study into Personality and Employment Aspects
What is the purpose of the study? The study is designed to gain an insight into the
relationship between personality and various employment factors. You will be asked about
your views on certain situations and how you feel about them in relation to yourself and
also asked to complete a short personality test.
Why have I been approached? You have been approached to participate as you are over 18
and are currently employed by Tesco in the UK. This project is completely voluntary.
Do I have to take part? Participation is completely voluntary so you do not have to take
part. If you wish, you may withdraw from the study up to two weeks after data collection by
emailing the researcher ([email protected]) quoting your participant number
which can be found at the top of your questionnaire pack. If you withdraw, all your data will
be permanently deleted and not included in the final results. There are no consequences of
withdrawing and no reason is required.
What will happen to me if I take part? Participation is through a questionnaire that should
take roughly 30 minutes to complete, and will be based upon your perceptions and
experience of working with for Tesco.
What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part? No possible disadvantages of
participation have been identified. If you feel uncomfortable or distressed you are welcome
to stop filling in the questionnaire at any time, and to withdraw or to contact the researcher
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity Applied Research Chair: Professor Ian Marshall – [email protected]
6.3 Consent Form
Study into Personality and Employment Aspects
The purpose of the study is to gain an insight into the relationship between personality and
various employment factors. The results will be the focal point of a final year dissertation
project for the Psychology course at Coventry University. You will be asked about your views
on certain situations and how you feel about them in relation to yourself and also asked to
complete a short personality test.
Please tick each box if you agree with the statements. If you are at all confused or unsure please contact the researcher (Cameron Brown), by emailing [email protected]
I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet and
have had all questions answered.
I understand my participation is voluntary and that any data I
provide will be anonymous and confidential
I understand that I am free to withdraw from this study now,
during or up to two weeks today without cause or repercussion
I understand I have to email the researcher with my student ID
within two weeks from today if I wish to withdraw from the study
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources
Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. & Miles, E.W. (1987) ‘A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct.’ The Academy of Management Review 12 (2), 222-234
6.5 Gatekeeper Letter
Faculty of Health and Life SciencesDepartment of PsychologyCoventry UniversityCameron Brown, Undergraduate,Email: [email protected]: Thomas Evans
Dear Manager,
As part of my degree I am doing a research project to assess the relationship between personality and attitudes to certain aspects of an individual’s job. The outcomes of this experiment hope to seriously contribute to how companies screen for new employees, potentially revolutionising the application progress.
I am writing to ask if you would consider allowing me to use a sample of employees from your store to participate in the study. The study will consist of a pack of questionnaires that should take no longer than 30 minutes for each person to complete. The questionnaire does not need to be completed during working hours.
I have produced an information sheet for your employees, which outlines what participants will be required to do as a part of my study.
Ideally I would be looking to conduct this research between December and January and anticipate a final total of 120 participants, so any I can recruit from your store will be extremely helpful.
The main point, is to ensure that this study has as little of an impact on the running of your store as possible. As a Tesco Express employee myself, I know how important every minute of the day is.
I would be very grateful if you could let me know if this proposal is feasible and meets with your approval. If you are happy to support this crucial research, please let me know as soon as possible