Zapf, D. and Einarsen, S. (2003), “Individual antecedents of bullying: victims and perpetrators”,

88 Zapf, D. and Einarsen, S. (2003), “Individual antecedents of bullying: victims and perpetrators”,

in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 165-84.

Zapf, D., Knorz, C. and Kulla, M. (1996), “On the relationship between mobbing factors and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 215-37.

Corresponding author Nikola Djurkovic can be contacted at: n.djurkovic@latrobe.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP 21,2

Measuring equity sensitivity

David A. Foote and Susan Harmon

Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA

Abstract

Received June 2004 Purpose – To examine the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) and the Equity Preference Revised December 2005

Questionnaire (EPQ) in a single study in order to see how the two measures are related, as well as how Accepted December 2005

they relate to other variables, in an effort to identify which scale constitutes a better measure of the equity sensitivity construct.

Design/methodology/approach – Using a self-report questionnaire with two samples, 164 students and 186 non-students, we analyzed the convergent and discriminant validity of the ESI and the EPQ with established measures of Machiavellianism and Positive Affect/Negative Affect. Additionally, the study examined the factor structures of the ESI and the EPQ.

Findings – The summated ESI and EPQ scales showed little correlation with each other. Factor analysis of the scales revealed that the EPQ was multidimensional, while the ESI was unidimensional. Mixed findings among factor correlations precluded a definitive assessment of convergent or discriminant validity for the two scales. Many studies limit their investigation to a single population – either students or the general population – yet this study found significant differences in students’ scores when compared to non-students’ scores.

Research limitations/implications – This study uses a single self-administered survey with two samples to examine equity sensitivity; as such, it suffers from the same potential for mono-method bias as have previous studies on this topic. Differences between student and non-student responses raise serious concerns; is the difference an artifact of flawed scales, is it indicative of a trait that is situational or that may evolve over time and experience, or is it the result of an anomalous sample? Additional research is needed to tease apart these issues.

Originality/value – This study highlights the differences between two scales purported to measure the same construct. The multidimensionality of the EPQ together with the lack of substantial correlation with the ESI lead one to conclude that the EPQ, while originally proposed to remedy problems with the ESI, has serious weaknesses itself. There is a critical need for further research on how to best measure this important construct.

Keywords Equity theory, Sensitivity analysis, Measurement testing and instruments, Questionnaires Paper type Research paper

Introduction Huseman et al. (1985; 1987) developed the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) as a measure of the individual differences in the way people view situations of inequity. The scale contains five pairs of statements, and respondents are asked to allocate ten points between the two statements for each pair. Points are then summed for the statements that reflect a “benevolent” point of view. Greenberg (1990) argued that the ESI did not measure equity sensitivity, but rather some unstated external situational factors. Recently, citing concerns about the ESI’s scoring procedure and use of cut scores, Sauley and Bedeian (2000) developed a 16-item Likert-type scale of their own

Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 21 No. 2, 2006

that they called the Equity Preference Questionnaire (EPQ). Despite these

pp. 90-108

controversies, researchers have continued to use the ESI in their examination of the

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946

equity sensitivity construct (e.g. Mintu-Wimsatt, 2003; Allen and White, 2002; Wheeler,

DOI 10.1108/02683940610650721

2002; Kickul and Lester, 2001).

Measuring regarding the measurement of equity sensitivity. Although support for the validity of equity sensitivity

Concerns about the development and content of the ESI raise important questions

both the ESI and the EPQ has been reported (Sauley and Bedeian, 2000; Huseman et al., 1985; 1987), both appear to have their own troublesome issues. Because of the potentially substantial impact of equity perceptions on other important variables such as justice, job satisfaction, commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, turnover, and other individual and organizational outcomes, we believe it is critical to examine

the validity of the two existing scales and to improve our understanding of the dimensionality of equity sensitivity before any further meaningful research in this area can occur. Our purpose in this study is to begin that process by examining the ESI and the EPQ in a single study in order to get an initial indication of whether or not they seem to measure the same construct, and how they relate to other variables within the same study and for the same sample population. To do so, we consider both the convergent validity and the discriminant validity of the two measures. Furthermore, we assess the usefulness of the two measures in light of the issues that have been raised, and the implications of our own findings. We begin with a discussion of the development of the equity sensitivity construct and the two measures that are currently in use.

Equity theory and equity sensitivity Adams’ (1965) equity theory, a precursor of equity sensitivity, offers a fairly simplistic view of social exchange in which people:

tend to seek equitable relationships;

compare their own outcomes and inputs to the perceived outcomes and inputs of others;

experience distress when they perceive themselves to be in a situation of inequity; and

attempt to restore equity in those situations. According to this theory, people share a universal preference that their outcome/input

ratio be equal to that of a comparison other. Furthermore, distress occurs regardless of whether the inequity results from being over-rewarded (the individual’s outcomes are higher in relation to inputs than the comparison other’s) or under-rewarded (the individual’s outcomes are lower in relation to inputs than the comparison other’s).

While some individuals view certain elements as inputs, others may view those same elements as outcomes (Tornow, 1971), resulting in differing perceptions of what constitutes equity and inequity. Other individual factors such as social and religious values, intelligence, and gender also influence equity perceptions (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978). Building on these and other studies suggesting that individuals differ in their assessment of what constitutes equity and inequity, Huseman et al. (1985; 1987) developed the concept of equity sensitivity as a more complex way of explaining the dynamics of equity perceptions. They expanded on Adams’ (1965) equity theory by suggesting that perceived inequity results in feelings of either distress or guilt, depending on the nature of the inequity and the equity preference of the individual in question.

JMP

As originally set forth, Huseman et al. (1985; 1987) posited that individuals

experience situations of inequity in three ways. Equity sensitives exhibit classical equity theory responses in that they seek a balance of inputs to outcomes and net outcomes equivalent to referent others. However, entitleds desire that their outcomes exceed their inputs and that their net outcomes exceed those of referent others, and benevolents prefer that their inputs exceed their outcomes and that the net outcomes of