Judgments concerning Zero Inputs in Equity Situations

Wagstaff, Graham F.; Bowles, Robin; Hughes, D.; Rogers, B.; Turner, Sophie; Perfect, Timothy J.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9922995

Cited by 3 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The equity or proportionality principle of distributive justice minimally requires that outcomes or receipts should be an increasing function of inputs or contributions; that is, the greater the contribution an individual makes, the more he or she should receive (Harris, 1976;Moschetti, 1979;Walster, Berscheid and Walster, 1973;Walster, Walster and Berscheid, 1978;Wagstaff and Perfect, 1992). However, there has been considerable disagreement as to the formula that best describes the concept of equity (Harris, 1976(Harris, , 1980Harris, Messick and Sentis, 1981;Farkus and Anderson, 1976;Wagstaff and Perfect, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there has been considerable disagreement as to the formula that best describes the concept of equity (Harris, 1976(Harris, , 1980Harris, Messick and Sentis, 1981;Farkus and Anderson, 1976;Wagstaff and Perfect, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A major difficulty has been devising a formula that will deal adequately with negative and zero inputs (Harris, 1976;Romer, 1977;Samuel, 1978;Wagstaff and Addressee for correspondence: Graham F. Wagstaff, Department of Psychology, Eleanor Rathbone Building, P.O. Box 147, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L37 UBX, U.K. We would like to thank T. P. Ho for his help in data collection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Box 147, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L37 UBX, U.K. We would like to thank T. P. Ho for his help in data collection. Perfect, 1992). For example, the formulae of Adams (1965), Anderson (1976) and Walster et al (1978) cannot cope with negative andor zero values (for details see, Hams, 1976;Wagstaff and Perfect, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perfect, 1992). For example, the formulae of Adams (1965), Anderson (1976) and Walster et al (1978) cannot cope with negative andor zero values (for details see, Hams, 1976;Wagstaff and Perfect, 1992). Hams (1980), however, has attempted to overcome this difficulty by representing equity in terms of the general linear equation Oi = aIi + ra (where 0 are the outcomes and I are the inputs for individuals i in a relationship, a is a constant >O for a particular situation, and r, is a constant for all contributors).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Equality ratio equity, general linear equity and framing effects in judgments of allocation divisions

Wagstaff

Huggins

Perfect

1996

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is argued here that there is not necessarily a contradiction between the general linear and equal ratio approaches to equity, and the two may be integrated to make more precise predictions. It was hypothesized that, (a) equity is best represented by a limited equal ratio rule; (b) the more a linear distribution systematically deviates from equal inputloutcome ratios, the more unfair it will be judged, but (c) subjects will prefer a distribution that accords with a general linear formula in certain cases where an equal ratio distribution of available outcomes would actually infringe a preeminent or established equal ratio distribution.Four studies are presented, the results of which seem broadly to support these ideas. However, the results also suggest that equity judgments can be strongly influenced by framing effects.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Equality ratio equity, general linear equity and framing effects in judgments of allocation divisions

Wagstaff

Huggins

Perfect

1996

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Equity, justice, and altruism

Wagstaff

1998

Curr Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is overpunishment fairer than underpunishment? Perceptions of deviations from equity

Wagstaff

Preece

1997

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thrce studies are presented which test hypothtscs derived from Equity Theory, Prospect Theory and the principle of Diminishing Marginal Value with regard to preferences for overpunishment and underpunishment in the assignment of penalties to offences of varying severity. The f i t two studies showed that, with dimerent subject sarnpl~s offenas, and kinds of punishments subjects indicated a marked preference for overpunishment rather than underpunishment. when both over punishment and underpunishment deviated from idcal, or equitable, punishment to the same degree. However, the effect was only apparent for serious offences. A third study showed that the overpunishment preference for a serious offence existed even when the overpunishment deviated 30% more from ideal punishment than underpunishment, but again no preferena was shown'for the less serious offence. As the results cannot be readily explained in terms of any of the three explanatory principles. a possible explanation in terms of concept of negative reciprocity is advanced.

show abstract

Judgments concerning Zero Inputs in Equity Situations

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Equality ratio equity, general linear equity and framing effects in judgments of allocation divisions

Equality ratio equity, general linear equity and framing effects in judgments of allocation divisions

Equity, justice, and altruism

Is overpunishment fairer than underpunishment? Perceptions of deviations from equity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About