Determinants of perceived fairness in reward allocation A multidimensional investigation

KEN-ICHIRO TANAKA

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.32.10

Determinants of perceived fairness in reward allocation

A multidimensional investigation

KEN-ICHIRO TANAKA

Author information

Keywords: reward allocation, equality, equity, fairness, multidimensional investigation

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1990 Volume 32 Issue 1 Pages 10-18

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.32.10

Details

Published: February 26, 1990 Received: August 31, 1988 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: May 13, 1989 Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : The present study examined multidimensional determinants of fairness ill reward allocation. Subjects were presented with a hypothetical scenario of reward allocation and were asked to rate their perception of fairness in terms of either equity or equality allocation. Data were subjected to factor analysis and three factors were obtained in the equity condition and two in the equality condition. These results suggested that the features of equity and equality allocations are organized differently in this situation. Results also indicated that the “cooperative-competitive” dimension proposed by Deutsch should not be a single bipolar dimension but rather, as far as the perception of fairness is concerned, two separate unipolar dimensions. Further analysis by t-tests revealed that “task characteristics”, as well as other features of allocations, contributed significantly to the rating of fairness. On the basis of these results, a hypothetical schema was constructed to account for perceived fairness in reward allocation.
Right : The present study examined multidimensional determinants of fairness in reward allocation. Subjects were presented with a hypothetical scenario of reward allocation and were asked to rate their perception of fairness in terms of either equity or equality allocation. Data were subjected to factor analysis and three factors were obtained in the equity condition and two in the equality condition. These results suggested that the features of equity and equality allocations are organized differently in this situation. Results also indicated that the “cooperativecompetitive” dimension proposed by Deutsch should not be a single bipolar dimension but rather, as far as the perception of fairness is concerned, two separate unipolar dimensions. Further analysis by t-tests revealed that “task characteristics”, as well as other features of allocations, contributed significantly to the rating of fairness. On the basis of these results, a hypothetical schema was constructed to account for perceived fairness in reward allocation.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AFFILIATION Details: Wrong :
1) Department of Psychology, College of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University

Right :
1) Department of Psychology, College of Humanities and Sciences,. Nihon University

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : Adams, J. S. 1965 Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 267-299.
Austin, W. 1977 Equity theory and social comparison process. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. New York: Wiley. Pp. 279-305.
Brockner, J., & O'Malley, M. N. 1987 Reward allocation and self-esteem: The role of modeling and equity restoration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 844-850.
Deutsch, M. 1975 Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
Deutsch, M. 1986 Cooperation, conflict, and justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen & J. Greenberg (Eds.), justice in social relations. New York: Plenum. Pp. 3-18.
Greenberg, J., & Cohen, R. L. 1982 Why justice? Normative and instrumental interpretations. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 437-469.
Kubota, Y. 1979 Some critical discussions on equity theory: Mainly about the problem of quantification of equity-inequity. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 153-159. (In Japanese)
Kukita, J., & Kano, S. 1984 Effects of the attentional focuses upon the choice of the reward allocation principles in dyads: Impression management versus situational norm. Bulletin of Faculty of Education, Kyushu University, 29, 121-127. (In Japanese with English abstract)
Leventhal, G. S. 1976 The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 91-131.
Larwood, L., Levine, R., Shaw, R., & Hurwitz, S. 1979 Relation of objective and subjective inputs to exchange preference for equity or equality reward allocation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 60-72.
Matsuzaki, M., Aikawa, A., & Ueno, T. 1980 The effects of expectation of future interaction on reward allocation: The role of the allocation partner's presence. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 51, 120-127. (In Japanese with English abstract)
Okuda, H. 1986 Similarity of allocation and interpersonal attraction under cooperative and competitive conditions. Japanese Psychological Research, 28, 139-148.
Reis, H. T. 1984 The multidimensionality of justice. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social Psychology perspectives. New York: Plenum. Pp. 25- 61.
Sampson, E. E. 1975 On justice as equality. Journal of Social Issuer, 34, 45-61.
Saito, Y., & Sasaki, K. 1987 Situational characteristics as the determinants of adopting distributive principles. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 79-87. (In Japanese with English abstract)
Shapiro, E. G. 1975 Effects of expectations of future interaction on reward allocations in dyads: Equity or equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 873-880.
Tanaka, K. 1988 Multidimensional study on the determinants of reward allocation behaviors. Manuscript submitted for publication (Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology).

Right : Adams, J. S. 1965 Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol.2. New York: Academic Press. Pp.267-299.
Austin, W. 1977 Equity theory and social comparison process. In J. M. Suls&R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. New York: Wiley. Pp.279-305.
Brockner, J., &O'Malley, M. N. 1987 Reward allocation and self-esteem: The role of modeling and equity restoration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 844-850.
Deutsch, M. 1975 Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
Deutsch, M. 1986 Cooperation, conflict, and justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen&J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations. New York: Plenum. Pp.3-18.
Greenberg, J., &Cohen, R. L. 1982 Why justice? Normative and instrumental interpretations. In J. Greenberg&R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior. New York: Academic Press. Pp.437-469.
Kubota, Y. 1979 Some critical discussions on equity theory: Mainly about the problem of quantification of equity-inequity. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 153-159.(In Japanese)
Kukita, J., &Kano, S. 1984 Effects of the attentional focuses upon the choice of the reward allocation principles in dyads: Impression management versus situational norm. Bulletin of Faculty of Education, Kyushu University, 29, 121-127.
Leventhal, G. S. 1976 The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz&E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol.9. New York: Academic Press. Pp.91-131.
Larwood, L., Levine, R., Shaw, R., &Hurwitz, S. 1979 Relation of objective and subjective inputs to exchange for equity or equality reward allocation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 60-72.
Matsuzaki, M., Aikawa, A., &Ueno, T. 1980 The effects of expectation of future interaction on reward allocation: The role of the allocation partner's presence. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 51, 120-127.(In Japanese with English abstract)
Okuda, H. 1986 Similarity of allocation and interpersonal attraction under cooperative and competitive conditions. Japanese Psychological Research, 28, 139-148.
Reis, H. T. 1984 The multidimensionality of justice. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social Psychology perspectives. New York: Plenum. Pp.25-61.
Sampson, E. E. 1975 On justice as equality. Journal of Social issuer, 34, 45-61.
Saito, Y., &Sasaki, K. 1987 Situational characteristics as the determinants of adopting distributive principles. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 79-87.(In Japanese with English abstract)
Shapiro, E. G. 1975 Effects of expectations of future interaction on reward allocations in dyads: Equity or equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 873-880.
Tanaka, K. 1988 Multidimensional study on the determinants of reward allocation behaviors. Manuscript submitted for publication (Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology).

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : The present study examined multidimensional determinants of fairness in reward allocation. Subjects were presented with a hypothetical scenario of reward allocation and were asked to rate their perception of fairness in terms of either equity or equality allocation. Data were subjected to factor analysis and three factors were obtained in the equity condition and two in the equality condition. These results suggested that the features of equity and equality allocations are organized differently in this situation. Results also indicated that the “cooperativecompetitive” dimension proposed by Deutsch should not be a single bipolar dimension but rather, as far as the perception of fairness is concerned, two separate unipolar dimensions. Further analysis by t-tests revealed that “task characteristics”, as well as other features of allocations, contributed significantly to the rating of fairness. On the basis of these results, a hypothetical schema was constructed to account for perceived fairness in reward allocation.
Right : The present study examined multidimensional determinants of fairness in reward allocation. Subjects were presented with a hypothetical scenario of reward allocation and were asked to rate their perception of fairness in terms of either equity or equality allocation. Data were subjected to factor analysis and three factors were obtained in the equity condition and two in the equality condition. These results suggested that the features of equity and equality allocations are organized differently in this situation. Results also indicated that the “cooperative-competitive” dimension proposed by Deutsch should not be a single bipolar dimension but rather, as far as the perception of fairness is concerned, two separate unipolar dimensions. Further analysis by t-tests revealed that “task characteristics”, as well as other features of allocations, contributed significantly to the rating of fairness. On the basis of these results, a hypothetical schema was constructed to account for perceived fairness in reward allocation.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AFFILIATION Details: Wrong :
1) Department of Psychology, College of Humanities and Sciences,. Nihon University

Right :
1) Department of Psychology, College of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : Adams, J. S. 1965 Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol.2. New York: Academic Press. Pp.267-299.
Austin, W. 1977 Equity theory and social comparison process. In J. M. Suls&R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. New York: Wiley. Pp.279-305.
Brockner, J., &O'Malley, M. N. 1987 Reward allocation and self-esteem: The role of modeling and equity restoration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 844-850.
Deutsch, M. 1975 Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
Deutsch, M. 1986 Cooperation, conflict, and justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen&J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations. New York: Plenum. Pp.3-18.
Greenberg, J., &Cohen, R. L. 1982 Why justice? Normative and instrumental interpretations. In J. Greenberg&R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior. New York: Academic Press. Pp.437-469.
Kubota, Y. 1979 Some critical discussions on equity theory: Mainly about the problem of quantification of equity-inequity. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 153-159.(In Japanese)
Kukita, J., &Kano, S. 1984 Effects of the attentional focuses upon the choice of the reward allocation principles in dyads: Impression management versus situational norm. Bulletin of Faculty of Education, Kyushu University, 29, 121-127.
Leventhal, G. S. 1976 The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz&E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol.9. New York: Academic Press. Pp.91-131.
Larwood, L., Levine, R., Shaw, R., &Hurwitz, S. 1979 Relation of objective and subjective inputs to exchange for equity or equality reward allocation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 60-72.
Matsuzaki, M., Aikawa, A., &Ueno, T. 1980 The effects of expectation of future interaction on reward allocation: The role of the allocation partner's presence. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 51, 120-127.(In Japanese with English abstract)
Okuda, H. 1986 Similarity of allocation and interpersonal attraction under cooperative and competitive conditions. Japanese Psychological Research, 28, 139-148.
Reis, H. T. 1984 The multidimensionality of justice. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social Psychology perspectives. New York: Plenum. Pp.25-61.
Sampson, E. E. 1975 On justice as equality. Journal of Social issuer, 34, 45-61.
Saito, Y., &Sasaki, K. 1987 Situational characteristics as the determinants of adopting distributive principles. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 79-87.(In Japanese with English abstract)
Shapiro, E. G. 1975 Effects of expectations of future interaction on reward allocations in dyads: Equity or equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 873-880.
Tanaka, K. 1988 Multidimensional study on the determinants of reward allocation behaviors. Manuscript submitted for publication (Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology).

Right : Adams, J. S. 1965 Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol.2. New York: Academic Press. Pp.267-299.
Austin, W. 1977 Equity theory and social comparison process. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. New York: Wiley. Pp.279-305.
Brockner, J., & O'Malley, M. N. 1987 Reward allocation and self-esteem: The role of modeling and equity restoration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 844-850.
Deutsch, M. 1975 Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
Deutsch, M. 1986 Cooperation, conflict, and justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations. New York: Plenum. Pp.3-18.
Greenberg, J., & Cohen, R. L. 1982 Why justice? Normative and instrumental interpretations. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior. New York: Academic Press. Pp.437-469.
Kubota, Y. 1979 Some critical discussions on equity theory: Mainly about the problem of quantification of equity-inequity. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 153-159.(In Japanese)
Kukita, J., & Kano, S. 1984 Effects of the attentional focuses upon the choice of the reward allocation principles in dyads: Impression management versus situational norm. Bulletin of Faculty of Education, Kyushu University, 29, 121-127.(In Japanese with English abstract)
Leventhal, G. S. 1976 The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol.9. New York: Academic Press. Pp.91-131.
Larwood, L., Levine, R., Shaw, R., & Hurwitz, S. 1979 Relation of objective and subjective inputs to exchange preference for equity or equality reward allocation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 60-72.
Matsuzaki, M., Aikawa, A., & Ueno, T. 1980 The effects of expectation of future interaction on reward allocation: The role of the allocation partner's presence. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 51, 120-127.(In Japanese with English abstract)
Okuda, H. 1986 Similarity of allocation and interpersonal attraction under cooperative and competitive conditions. Japanese Psychological Research, 28, 139-148.
Reis, H. T. 1984 The multidimensionality of justice. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social Psychology perspectives. New York: Plenum. Pp.25-61.
Sampson, E. E. 1975 On justice as equality. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 45-61.
Saito, Y., & Sasaki, K. 1987 Situational characteristics as the determinants of adopting distributive principles. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 79-87.(In Japanese with English abstract)
Shapiro, E. G. 1975 Effects of expectations of future interaction on reward allocations in dyads: Equity or equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 873-880.
Tanaka, K. 1988 Multidimensional study on the determinants of reward allocation behaviors. Manuscript submitted for publication (Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology).

Abstract

The present study examined multidimensional determinants of fairness in reward allocation. Subjects were presented with a hypothetical scenario of reward allocation and were asked to rate their perception of fairness in terms of either equity or equality allocation. Data were subjected to factor analysis and three factors were obtained in the equity condition and two in the equality condition. These results suggested that the features of equity and equality allocations are organized differently in this situation. Results also indicated that the “cooperative-competitive” dimension proposed by Deutsch should not be a single bipolar dimension but rather, as far as the perception of fairness is concerned, two separate unipolar dimensions. Further analysis by t-tests revealed that “task characteristics”, as well as other features of allocations, contributed significantly to the rating of fairness. On the basis of these results, a hypothetical schema was constructed to account for perceived fairness in reward allocation.

Corresponding author

Correction information