Although equity theory originated in an organizational behavior context, most formulas purporting to be correct mathematical definitions of equity have evolved from other disciplines. This article reviews and compares proposed equity formulas and assesses their appropriateness for organizational behavior applications. A series of situational, definitional, and utility criteria are developed throughout the text. Because of its soundness as a mathematical definition of equity and because of its superior process for integrating multiple inputs and outcomes, the Farkas-Anderson (1979) equity summation formula is recommended as most appropriate for organization behavior research applications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ADAMS, J. S.
(1963) “Toward an understanding of inequity.”J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology67: 422-436.
2.
ADAMS, J. S.
(1965) “Inequity in social exchange,” pp. 267-299 in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
3.
ADAMS, J. S.
and S. FREEDMAN (1975) “Equity theory revisited: comments and annotated bibliography.” In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.
4.
ADAMS, J. S.
and W. B. ROSENBAUM (1962) “The relationship of worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage inequities.”J. of Applied Psychology46: 161-164.
5.
ALESSIO, N. H.
(1976) “Equity judgments as information integration.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology33: 291-299.
6.
ANDERSON, N. H.
(1976) “How functional measurement can yield validated interval scales of mental quantities.”J. of Applied Psychology61: 677-692.
7.
ANDERSON, N. H.
(1978a) “Cognitive algebra: integration theory applied to social attribution.” In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Cognitive Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press.
8.
ANDERSON, N. H.
(1978b) “Progress in cognitive algebra.” in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Cognitive Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press.
9.
ANDERSON, N. H.
and A. J. FARKAS (1975) “Integration theory applied to models of inequity.”Personality and Social Psychology Bull.1: 588-591.
10.
FARKAS, A. J.
and N. H. ANDERSON (1979) “Multidimensional input in equity theory.”J. of Applied Psychology37: 879-896.
11.
FESTINGER, L.
(1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
12.
HARRIS, R. J.
(1976) “Handling negative inputs: on the plausible equity formulae.”J. of Experimental Social Psychology12: 194-209.
13.
HARRIS, R. J.
(1980) “Equity judgments in hypothetical, four-person partnerships.”J. of Experimental Social Psychology16: 96-115.
14.
HARRIS, R. J.
, D. M. MESSICK, and K. P. SENTIS (1981) “Proportionality, linearity, and parameter consistency: Messick and Sentis reconsidered.”J. of Experimental Social Psychology191(17): 210-225.
15.
HOMANS, G. C.
(1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
16.
HUPPERTZ, J. W.
(1978) “On the possibility of the existence and measurement of negative inputs in social exchange.”Personality and Social Psychology Bull.4: 469-472.
17.
MESSICK, D. M.
and K. P. SENTIS (1979) “Fairness and preference.”J. of Experimental Social Psychology15: 418-434.
18.
MOSCHETTI, G. J.
(1979) “Calculating equity: ordinal and ratio criteria.”Social Psychology Q.42: 172-176.
19.
MOSCHETTI, G. J.
(1982) “Calculating equity revisited: a reply to Alessio.”Social Psychology Q.45: 125-126.
20.
PATCHEN, M.
(1961) The Choice of Wage Comparisons. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
ROSS, W. D.
[ed.] (1966) The Works of Aristotle (Vol. 9). London: Oxford Univ. Press.
22.
SAMUEL, W.
(1976a) “In further support of the Adams ratio: a reply to Dr. G. William Walster.”Personality and Social Psychology Bull.2: 45-46.
23.
SAMUEL, W.
(1976b) “Suggested amendments to `new directions in equity research.' ”Personality and Social Psychology Bull.2: 36-39.
24.
SAMUEL, W.
(1978) “Toward a simple but useful equity theory: a comment on the Romer article.”Personality and Social Psychology Bull.4: 135-138.
25.
SAYLES, L. R.
(1958) Behavior of Industrial Work Groups: Prediction and Control. New York: John Wiley.
26.
SINGH, R.
(1983) “Leadership style and reward allocation: does least preferred co-worker scale measure task and relation orientation?”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance32: 178-197.
27.
WALSTER, G. W.
(1975) “The Walster et al. (1973) equity formula: a correction.”Representative Research in Social Psychology6: 65-67.
28.
WALSTER, G. W.
(1976) “Reply to Dr. William Samuel: suggested amendments to new directions in equity research.”Personality and Social Psychology Bull.2: 40-44.
29.
WALSTER, E.
, E. BERSCHEID, and G. W. WALSTER (1973) “New directions in equity research.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology25: 151-176.
30.
WALSTER, E.
and G. W. WALSTER (1975) “Equity and social justice.”J. of Social Issues31: 21-43.
31.
ZUCKERMAN, M.
(1975) “A comment on the equity formula by Walster, Berscheid, and Walster.”Representative Research in Social Psychology6: 63-64.
