No abstract

For 880 persons in management and professional positions mean satisfaction for those classified as Benevolent, Equity Sensitive, and Entitled when under-equitably of over-rewarded showed main effects of sensitivity to equity and perceptions of equity, but no interactions. Further work is suggested.

No abstract

One recent approach that holds promise for building a conceptual framework for a psychological individual difference variable in equity theory is Equity Sensitivity (Huseman, Hatfield and Miles, 1987). Huseman et al. identify three types of individuals — Benevolents, Equity Sensitives, Entitleds. As originally defined, these three groups vary in their desire for outcomes (e.g. pay) in a relationship. The purpose of this study is to test whether the three groups — Benevolents, Equity Sensitives, and Entitleds — vary in the importance they place on categories of outcomes. Hypotheses are tested regarding importance placed on extrinsic tangible, extrinsic intangible, and intrinsic work outcomes. The sample include 2617 employees from the banking and public utility industries. Results show that the three groups vary in the importance they place on extrinsic tangible and intrinsic outcomes, but not on the importance placed on extrinsic intangible outcomes.

This paper presents and empirically tests five hypotheses concerning Equity Sensitivity, a new construct proposed by Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles (1985, 1987). Equity Sensitivity proposes that not all individuals conform to the norm of equity. Huseman, et al. have proposed three Equity Sensitivity groupsBenevolents, Equity Sensitives, and Entitleds. The findings show that Benevolents are inclined to work harder for less pay than Equity Sensitives or Entitleds. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.