Equity Sensitivity, The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equit

Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and Reference Points
on Perceptions of Equity
Equity Sensitivity: The Influences of Personality and
Reference Points on Perceptions of Equity
Cameron Brown
Supervisor: Thomas Evans
A report presented to the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry
University, towards the degree of Bachelor of Science with Honours in
Psychology
April 2016

Contents
Abstract 3
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Equity Theory 4
1.2 Equity Sensitivity 5
1.3 Measuring Equity Sensitivity 6
1.4 Reference Points 8
1.5 Personality and Equity Sensitivity 10
1.6 The Present Study 11
2. Method 12
2.1 Design 12
2.2 Participants 12
2.3 Materials 13
2.3.1 Neo PI-R 13
2.3.2 Equity Sensitivity Instrument 13
2.3.3 Equity Preference Questionnaire 14
2.4 Procedure 14
3. Results 16
3.1 Descriptive Statistics 16
3.2 Equity Sensitivity and Demographics 16
3.3 EPQ and Personality 18
3.4 ESI and Personality 19
4. Discussion 22
4.1 Findings 22
4.2 Equity Sensitivity and Personality 23
4.4 Limitations 27
4.5 Future Work and Concluding Remarks 29
5. References 31
6. Appendices 34
6.1 Measures 34
6.2 Participant Information Sheet 39
6.3 Consent Form 41
6.4 Debrief 42
6.5 Gatekeeper Letter 43
6.6 Ethical Approval 44

Abstract
Introduction
There has been limited research into one aspect of Adams (1963, 1965) Equity Theory in the last
decade, an individual’s sensitivity to inequities between their inputs and outputs in the workplace.
Equity sensitivity has previously been related to three personality ‘classifications’ (Huseman, Hatfield
and Miles 1987), but has not been investigated in terms of the leading personality theory, the Five
Factor Model (McCrae and Costa 1987). The present study will also examine how individuals use
other people as reference points to deduce fairness of their own equity.
Method
Relationships were explored by correlational analysis of data from 97 participants (39 male, 68
female), with the majority being part-time employees (86), selected on the basis they were
employed in the UK in small retail stores. Data was collected using a battery of measures including
tests of equity sensitivity (ESI and EPQ) and personality (NEO PI-R).
Results
Both conscientiousness (positively) and extraversion (negatively) personality traits significantly
correlated with EPQ equity sensitivity scores but there was no significant relationship between any
of the ‘Big 5’ traits and ESI equity sensitivity scores. ESI scores did however show a significant
increase in equity scores when a participant used a co-worker as a reference point as oppose to a
brother or a friend.
Discussion
The results from the present study suggest there are significant relationships between Big 5
personality traits and equity sensitivity however the causation of specific sub-traits and their
influence on equity sensitivity could not be inferred. The hypothesis for the preference of individuals
to use co-workers as reference points was supported, in line with the work of Dornstein (1988). The

results here brings solid information to the retail sector that could be used by management and also
creates an interesting platform for future work around the concept of personality and equity theory.
1. Introduction
Motivation in the workplace refers to the psychological influences that direct an individual’s
behaviour in an organisation, a person’s level of effort and persistence in the face of obstacles (Jones
and George 2004:36). The amount of effort and consistency differs across occupational
environments and more importantly, across individuals. Work-place behaviour can be influenced by
a vast array of factors from salary to non-monetary rewards like praise and maintaining team
reputation. While the idea of motivation may seem fairly simple, many models and theories discuss
differing interpretations and explanations of motivation within employees, suggesting the
complexities of the notion. Managers must learn and understand how motivation can effect
members of their organisation and how it can be used to increase performance and understanding
in their staff.
1.1 Equity Theory
John Stacey Adams’ (1963, 1965) Equity Theory recognises that motivation can be affected through
an individual's perception of fair treatment in the workplace. This treatment can be concerned with
multiple factors like wage and working environment. In simplest terms, equity theory suggests that
when individuals feel insufficiently rewarded, internal tension occurs and individuals will be
motivated to take action to restore equity, often in the form of decreased production (Miles,
Hatfield and Huseman 1994). Within the context of the theory, equity in itself is defined as a type of
justice based on merit or contribution (Gergen, Greenburg and Willis 1980:44). This is much
narrower than the everyday use of the word, and was previously used interchangeably with
‘outcomes’ however it has now seen the transition to mean the balance of both inputs and outputs
(Adams 1965:336).

It is important to note that it is not just what employees get in return that is key, it is the
perceived balance between the inputs and outputs of their job that is important. When compared to
others, individuals want to be compensated fairly for their contributions in the workplace, they
ideally want the outcomes they experience to match their inputs (Gill and Stone 2010).
Equity Theory proposes that a person's motivation is based on this opinion of what he or she
considers to be fair when compared to others (Robinson, Perryman and Hayday 2004). A person's
beliefs in regards to what is fair therefore, can affect their motivation, attitudes and behaviours,
such as feelings towards fellow employees or relationship with superiors (Spector 2008; Sankey
1999). Equity theory helps explain why highly paid workers may go on strike and why millionaire
athletes feel that they are underpaid or don't feel they make enough money. This is entirely due to
the comparisons made by individuals and more importantly what aspects they use in those
comparisons. A key example of this are footballers on multi-million pound-a-year contract
demanding more money as they feel they are worth more to their team, or they are bothered by a
team mate earning more but working less for it. The main explanation involves how the individual in
question perceives their equity scenario in terms of those around them (Butler 2007), in this
example the footballer feels unrest due to his equity in relation to his team mates. Adams' Equity
Theory model incorporates influences and comparisons of other people's situations like colleagues
and friends, in forming a comparative view and awareness of Equity, which generally presents as a
sense of what is fair.
1.2 Equity Sensitivity
There is a very important factor in the constructs of equity and motivation, an individual’s specific
tolerance for the inequity of the inputs and outputs of their job. This concept, labelled equity
sensitivity by Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1985) describes how different people have varying
preferences to equity and thus react differently to perceived equity and inequity (Huseman, Hatfield
and Miles 1987). Equity sensitivity quickly became an established construct with the implementation

of measures emerging in the field (Huseman, Hatfield and Miles 1987; Sauley and Bedeian 2000). By
the 1990’s the idea of equity sensitivity came hand in hand with Adams Equity Theory, with research
straining to find relationships between the sensitivity of an individual to inequities and their
performance in the workplace (Buss 1995).
Research into Equity Theory had previously presumed a consistency of tolerance across
individuals, thus assuming that we have similar preferences for different inputs and outputs (Sauley
and Bedeian 2000). These presumptions were however, originally challenged by Vecchio (1981) who
suggested that sensitivity to equity elicited individual responses to any perceived inequity. The
factors that differ across individuals though, factors that influence someone’s sensitivity to inequity,
were not fully investigated. A few years later, Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987) identified three
different categories of individuals that differ with respect to their preference for equity. They
outlined: (a) Benevolents, givers, who prefer to give more in inputs than they receive in outputs; (b)
Equity Sensitives, balanced individuals, who prefer balanced, proportionate levels of inputs and
outputs; and (c) Entitleds, takers, who prefer their outputs to outweigh their inputs.
These classifications have since been redefined with more meaning given to equity
sensitivity, for example, King, Miles and Day (1993) explain that Benevolents do not prefer to give
more in inputs than they receive in outputs, they simply have a greater tolerance for inequity.
Therefore Entitleds are individuals that are more sensitive to inequities in their inputs and outputs,
as suggested by the outcomes of the original study by Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987). The
implication of these refinements give more onus to the previously scarcely researched area of equity
sensitivity and subsequent articles look to give more meaning to the construct, as well as the factors
that influence it.
1.3 Measuring Equity Sensitivity
Many occupational psychologists have constructed experiment with the aim to provide a sound and
reliable method of measuring equity sensitivity. To provide evidence of the uniqueness of the

measure, researchers commonly highlight the overlap of their measures to others that exist in the
field (King and Miles 1994). It is assumed that a successful measure will overlap with other measures
in terms of the psychological constructs, whilst also refraining from being too duplicative. In
constructing their own measure, King and Miles (1994) used similar ideology to establish its
uniqueness. The Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) was built to include widely supported aspects
from previous research in the area, including notions of self-esteem (Rosenberg 1965),
organisational commitment (Porter and Smith 1970) and job satisfaction (Smith, Kendal and Hulin
1969). The ESI also included demographic variables, like age, sex and education, to attempt to
observe correlations with equity sensitivity. No grounds for this type of investigation pre-existed
however, this then created a certain level of uniqueness for the measure.
More recently, Sauley and Bedeian (2000) developed the Equity Preference Questionnaire
(EPQ), intended to improve upon previous measures. Unlike King and Miles’ (1994) Equity Sensitivity
Instrument, the EPQ was designed using systematic item-development procedures intended to gain
an unbiased understanding of the relationships between equity sensitivity and other theoretically
relevant constructs. Sauley and Bedeian (2000) criticised the ESI’s simplicity in its five-item form and
looked to make their measure more psychometrically flexible, including 16 items. After a series of six
studies designed to test its validity and test-retest reliability, they concluded that the EPQ was
psychometrically sound. Two validity assessments developed its construct validity, a laboratory
experiment provided support for its ecological validity and a test-retest reliability study provided
empirical evidence for the consistency of its items. An area for concern however is the limited range
of variables, meaning there is little that can be manipulated in any experiment. Previous equity
research has typically used job-related satisfaction but there is little variety to determine multiple
relationships when there is a narrow range of variables.
The two measures of equity sensitivity discussed here are, still to this day, the most
empirically supported in psychological research. Jeon (2011) discusses the merits of measuring
equity sensitivity and credits the content of both the ESI and EPQ but suggest that there are still

some issues with the lack of development since the early 2000’s. For example, the items of the ESI
appear to measure self-interest versus helping an individual’s employer (Shore and Strauss 2008).
While the EPQ looked to improve on the validity of the ESI, it does have some limitations itself.
Foote and Harmon (2006) found significantly lower Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for the EPQ than
the ESI, meaning there can be questions over its ability to truly measure equity sensitivity. While
there have been stout criticisms of the two most prevelant measures of equity sensitivity, both the
ESI and the EPQ are the forerunners in a fairly shallow area of research. Current consensus appears
to promote the use of the above measures.
1.4 Reference Points
Individuals evaluate their equity with others by assessing the proportion of the outputs they receive
from their employer and the inputs they supply against that of specific others. This comparison
other, or reference point (Adams 1965), may be a co-worker, a peer working for a similar company
or even a member of family. This is further to the point that Equity Theory is more complex than just
evaluating the effort versus reward, it is also about the crucial factor of comparisons with referent
others.
The actual sense of fairness or unfairness then, does not come to a conclusion until the
assessment of all relevant situations from referent others has been taken into account. Importantly
it is the ratio of referent others input/output relationship that is key rather than the actual quantity
of rewards (Weick 1966). For example, a financial executive earning £80,000 a year can still feel
unfairly compensated when using a teacher who earns £40,000 a year as a referent other. This is
why individuals can use a large variety of other people as reference points, and are not limited to co-
workers, regardless of factors such as wage and working condition.
Equity Theory works within an individual in two ways, firstly the ratio of inputs and outputs
of the individual are assessed, then that ratio is compared to other people the individual finds
relevant. The fact that this is present in two separate processes is an important aspect of the theory

as it displays the direction of the evaluation by the individual. While there is a significant pool of
knowledge with regards to reference points in Equity Theory, there has been a very limited depth of
research into this area of the theory. It has been hypothesised that this lack of empirical research is
because referencing is essentially an idiosyncratic process (Berkowitz and Walster 1976), or perhaps
it is due to the belief that pay comparisons are guided by consensual norms of reward distribution
(Adams 1963). These views however, are not shared amongst specialists in the field, with many
suggesting that there are various social factors that affect the choice of referent others (Hyman and
Singer 1968; Butler 2007; Miles 1987).
While there have been a few studies looking empirically at reference points with regards to
Equity Theory, there has been many questions raised over their limitations. For example some
studies have been conducted with referent individuals being the sole focus point (Patchen 1961;
Goodman 1974), however there were some issues with the participant’s state of mind. The results
seemed to have been impacted by the fact participants were expecting rewards going into the study,
meaning this may have caused the reported unrest rather than actual imbalance of inputs and
outputs. In fact in many cases, measurement of pay comparisons have only been intended to reveal
patterns in specific contexts. This rigid focus of some methodologies often lack the internal validity
meaning the results are of little relevance to pay comparisons involving referent others and thus not
contributing to the theory.
Dornstein (1988) however did look at reference points as central to his investigation and
found enhanced sensitivity to the average earnings of fellow employees rather than an individual in
particular. This does carry important implications to the theory, firstly that in the sample or
industrial workers, fellow co-workers were used as references rather than people outside their
organisation. Secondly, it was found that a lack of upward social mobility in an individual caused
them to seek those dissimilar to themselves as reference points. However there was no insight
provided into the various types of individuals used as referent others, nor the frequency with which
they are used by individuals.

1.5 Personality and Equity Sensitivity
Since Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987) developed the trio of personality types and their relation
to equity sensitivity, there has been next to no research into this particular branch of Equity Theory,
leading it to be an intriguing next step for the theoretical background. The current standing with
regards to personality in terms of individual differences and equity sensitivity does not extend
beyond the three personality types outlined by Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987). In their article,
they discusses Entitleds, Benevolents and Equity Sensitives and how each type reacts differently to
inequities in their job as mentioned above. Whilst each of these three different orientations of
personality have different ‘traits’, for example Benevolents are ‘givers’, there has been no link to
fully supported personality research, namely the Five Factor Model (McCrae and Costa 1987).
Linking the aspect of equity sensitivity to a well-established personality model can be extremely
useful when evaluating relationships with individual differences and equity. This is mainly due to
personality traits representing fairly consistent patterns of behaviour, including motivation, so the
exploration of personality alongside equity sensitivity represents serious value.
The ‘Big Five’ approach to personality is widely regarded as the most empirically supported
and accredited in the field of social psychology and has been found to be consistent across more
than 50 different cultures. It has also been suggested that this approach fits into our biological and
evolutionary social structure (Buss 1995) which can all but confirm the Five-Factor Model as the
most valid personality theory. Because of this it is surprising that no research to date as attempted
to strategically relate the Big Five theory to that of Equity Theory. Ideally this would replace the
notion of Entitleds, Benevolents and Equity Sensitives, as this classification system could possibly
represent a zeitgeist within the field, as personality research has evolved to further incorporate the

occupational sector (Bradley-Geist and Landis 2012; Molleman and Broekhuis 2012). Because of this
it seems that personality research has grown to almost ‘overtake’ the research involving equity
theory, something that could be compensated for in the near future.
Any research that could transition previous models of personality types and equity to one
that incorporates the Five Factor Model would be invaluable to the field. As discussed above the
implementation of personality to Equity Theory would bring many benefits, potentially further
validating aspects of the model. It could then lead to the linking of other theories as there would be
sound psychological constructs that could relate different aspects together, considering the Five
Factor Model has been applied to so many other outlays of psychology. Therefor the study
presented here could create a platform from which to launch future research into this blossoming
field.
1.6 The Present Study
The study here aims to test the sensitivity of individuals to any inequity between the inputs and
outputs in their job. The objective is to test whether equity sensitivity is meaningfully related to any
of the ‘Big Five’ personality facets. It will also look to examine how people look at others as
references when calculating their equity compared to others. Most importantly, it will look to
examine who people use as reference points, be it a co-worker or family member, and how this is
also associated with a person’s equity sensitivity. Finally, the study will examine if there are any
significant relationships between various demographic factors (e.g. age, contract type) and equity
sensitivity.
The personality aspect of this research is exploratory, as to discover the relationship
between the big five and equity sensitivity, there is no prediction as to which personality types these
will be as there is little to no research into this area. It is however. hypothesised that to support
previous research in the area (Dornstein 1988), the results will highlight that individuals are likely to

use co-workers as reference points, in that participant’s equity sensitivity scores will be higher when
using a co-worker as a reference point.
2. Method
2.1 Design
A cross sectional, within-participants design was used, using a multi-section questionnaire which was
administered to participants in their place of work. The study was designed to test equity sensitivity
as the dependent variable whilst variables were manipulated in each section of the experiment. To
investigate who individual’s use as reference points, the referent other (sibling, friend or co-worker)
is manipulated as the independent variable, with participants asked to imagine a scenario where
different people were used as referent others, and equity sensitivity is the dependent variable. A
correlational design was used to ascertain relationships between Big Five personality types and
equity sensitivity. Finally various demographic information like age, gender and location were used
as independent variables with again, equity sensitivity used as the dependent variable.
2.2 Participants
The study was conducted in accordance with both British Psychological Society (BPS) and Health and
Care Professions Council (HCPC) guidelines, and the relevant Coventry University ethical procedures.
Participants were recruited from Tesco Express retail stores in the UK, with participants required to
be over 18 years of age.
97 participants were successfully recruited, 39 males and 68 females, ages ranged from 18
to 62 (mean of 34.34 years), with no cases of participants asking to withdrawal. Of those participants
11 were full-time employees (five male and 6 female) and 86 part-time (33 male and 53 female). 55
participants were recruited from towns and cities around the county of Hampshire (Andover,
Winchester and Basingstoke), while the remaining 42 were recruited in Coventry. There was no

incentive for participation, monetary or otherwise, but participants were thanked for their
contribution to the undergraduate research project.
2.3 Materials
Participants in the study were presented with the set of questionnaires in one sitting. The battery
included three established psychometric instruments used in relevant journal articles in recent
years. Each of the instruments are discussed in detail below. As well as these measures, included in
the battery of questionnaires were ‘equity scenarios’ used to deduce the type of people individuals
use as reference points (see appendix 6.1).
2.3.1 NEO-PI-R
The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa and McCrae 1985) has been updated many times in
the last few decades, most recently published in 2010. It is a concise measure of the five major
domains of personality as well the six traits or facets that define each domain, and is internationally
recognised as the ‘gold standard’ for personality assessment (Lord 2007). The shortened, revised
version used in the present study consists of 50 items, 10 for each of the five factors in the Big Five
(McCrae and Costa 1987) model of personality. The items are rated on a likert scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and contains statements like ‘I often feel blue’ and ‘I feel comfortable
around people’. The validity of this measure has been discussed at length in personality research
(Young and Schinka 2001) with its reliability repeatedly praised (Schinka, Kinder and Kramer 1997;
Morey and Lanier 1998), supporting its use in the present study.
2.3.2 Equity Sensitivity Instrument
As mentioned above, the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) was originally designed by King and
Miles (1994) in an attempt to construct a measure that was accurate and reliable in testing an

individual’s equity sensitivity. The experiment conducted in tandem with the development of the
measure gave sound support to the ESI in both construct validity and correlations with previous
measures. The Equity Sensitivity Instrument is slightly different from the majority of measures, in
that the participant is given five statements, for example ‘It would be more important for me to…’,
and for each one they must allocate 10 ‘points’ between two answers. An example of this is to
allocate points between ‘help others’ and ‘watch out for my own good’, to deduce equity sensitivity.
2.3.3 Equity Preference Questionnaire
The Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian 2000) was developed to find a spiritual
successor to the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, using its theoretical basis as a starting point whilst
attempting to advance the area. As discusses previously, it was developed and rigorously tested in
six separate experiments and was concluded to have strong construct validity and reliability. It
consists of 16 items like ‘when I am at my job, I think of ways to get out of work’ and ‘I am most
satisfied at work when I have to do as little as possible’ and is scored on a seven-point likert scale.
2.4 Procedure
The study was conducted in line with Coventry University ethical procedures only after ethical
approval had been granted (appendix 6.6). Before administering participants with the battery of
questionnaires, they were presented with a participant information sheet (appendix 6.2) and were
required to sign a consent form (appendix 6.3). Data collection was conducted in person, with the
researcher travelling to different Tesco Express stores in the areas mentioned above, and after
receiving permission from the store manager to administer questionnaires via a gatekeeper form
(appendix 6.5), staff members were asked if they would like take part in the study. Participants were
informed of the anonymity of their participation along with their right to withdraw in the
documentation provided.

Participants were then presented with the battery of questions, beginning with initial
demographic information like age and gender, which included all necessary instructions for the
completion of the task. Participants were then asked to fill in the Equity Preference Questionnaire
(Sauley and Bedeian 2000) to observe a baseline equity sensitivity score. After this, they were asked
to ready one of three equity scenarios to prime the participant into imagining themselves using one
of three types of individuals (a sibling, a friend or a co-worker) as reference points. These scenarios
were each followed by a copy of the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (King and Miles 1994) to discover
how sensitive each participant would be to an inequity with that individual. The NEO PI-R personality
test (Costa and McCrae 1985) was split into three sections and placed throughout the battery of
tests to avoid the fatigue of completing in one sitting. No time limit was imposed on participants and
after completion of the tests, usually taking around 20 minutes, participants were thanked for
contributing to the research and give a debrief sheet (appendix 6.4) explaining the purpose of the
study.

3. Results
3.1 Descriptive Statistics
After screening of the data, there were no data cases that needed to be excluded from analysis. The
97 participants ranged from 3 months to 21 years of service (mean of 6.18 years of service). These
figures along with type of contract (full or part time) can be found in tables 1 and 2.
Table 1: Age and Length of Service
Demographic Criteria Mean (Years) Standard Deviation
Age 34.34 12.31
Length of Service 6.18 5.10
Table 2: Demographic Differences between Males and Females
Male Female
Age (Years) 32.08 35.86
Length of Service (Years) 4.93 7.03
Type of Contract Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time
5 34 6 52
3.2 Equity Sensitivity and Demographics
Prior to analysis of Equity Preference Questionnaire scores, tests for normality were conducted, with
a histogram showing the data to be normally distributed (figure 1) and suggesting no major issues
with outliers (mean = 31.77, 5% trimmed mean = 31.67). Correlational analysis was conducted on
EPQ scores to look for relationships with the demographic information presented above. There was
no correlation observed between EPQ and many of the demographic variables; sex, location, length
of service and type of contract. In fact there was only one significant correlation observed, with just

age being slightly negatively correlated with equity sensitivity measured by the Equity Preference
Questionnaire (r = -0.246, p < 0.02). All of the Pearson correlation statistics are noted below in table
3.
Figure 1: Histogram for normal distribution of EPQ scores)
Table 3: Correlation statistics for EPQ scores and demographic information
Age Sex Location
Length of
Service
Contract Type
Pearson
Correlation
-0.246 0.100 0.019 -0.184 0.073
2-Tail
Significance
0.015 0.331 0.856 0.071 0.475

Level
3.3 EPQ and Personality
After appropriate screening, another correlational analysis was conducted, this time on the
relationship between equity sensitivity (measured by the EPQ) and individual scores on the five
aspects of the NEO PI-R personality test. The Cronbach’s Alpha value (also included in table 4) for the
five personality measures of the NEO PI-R ranged from 0.83 to 0.93 suggesting high internal
reliability of the scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha score for the EPQ however was slightly lower at 0.76,
implying it is a slightly weaker measure than the NEO PI-R. A significantly large correlation between
equity sensitivity and conscientiousness, was found (r = 0.523, p < 0.01). As well as this, another
significant relationship was found, with equity sensitivity and extraversion found to negatively
correlate (r = -0.459, p < 0.01). The full correlation matrix can be found in table 4.
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with Big 5 and EPQ
Mean
Standard
Deviatio
n
Equity
Sensitivit
y
Opennes
s
Consc
.
Extra.
Agree
.
Cronbac
h
Alpha
Equity Sensitivity
31.77
3
5.118 - - - - - .76
Openness 34.96
9
4.157 .080 - - - - .86
Conscientiousnes
s
34.48
4
4.946 .523a
.183 - - - .93
Extraversion 32.91
7
5.053 -.459a
.087 -.168 - - .84

Agreeableness 35.21
7
3.492 -.042 .008 -.012 .002 - .81
Neuroticism 23.87
6
3.377 .095 .123 .095 .087 .143 .83
a: Correlation is significant at the p<0.01 level
3.4 ESI and Personality
After analysis of personality and EPQ equity sensitivity scores, a correlational analysis of personality
and Equity Sensitivity Instrument scores was conducted. A mean ESI value for each participant was
calculated using the three ESI values, one each per participant in each reference point condition
(brother, co-worker and friend). The descriptive statistics for the mean ESI score calculated are
presented below in table 5. The Cronbach Alpha score was notably lower than that of the EPQ
suggesting that it has a lower construct validity than that of its newer counterpart.
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Mean ESI Scores
Mean Score Standard Deviation Cronbach Alpha
Mean ESI 26.36 1.89 0.67
Contradictory to the analysis of EPQ scores, no significant correlations were found between Equity
Sensitivity, when measured by the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, and personality scores on the NEO
PI-R. The full matrices are outlined in table 6.

Table 6: Correlations Between Big 5 and ESI
Equity
Sensitivity
Openness Consc. Extra. Agree.
Equity Sensitivity - - - - -
Openness .067 - - - -
Conscientiousness -.065 .183 - - -
Extraversion .018 .087 -.168 - -
Agreeableness -.059 .008 -.012 .002 -
Neuroticism -.117 .123 .095 .087 .143
A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to compare equity sensitivity
scores, measured by the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, when using different reference points; a
friend, brother or co-worker. The means and standard deviations are presented in table 7. There was
significant effect for the co-worker condition, Wilk’s Lambda = 0.46, F (2, 95) = 55.03, p < 0.001.
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for equity sensitivity using different reference points
Reference Point Mean Standard
Deviation
Friend 26.58 3.34
Brother 24.02 3.47
Co-Worker 28.49 2.43

The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was 0.02. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey test
indicated that the mean score for the co-worker condition was significantly different from the
brother condition. The friend condition did not differ significantly from either brother or co-worker
condition.
4. Discussion

4.1 Findings
The main objective of this research was to test equity sensitivity, the construct from Adam’s (1963,
1965) Equity Theory, against the five main personality types of the Five Factor Model (McCrae and
Costa 1987). No hypothesis was made in terms of relationships between personality and higher
scores on the equity sensitivity measure, Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian
2000). It was found however that participants that scored higher on conscientiousness, also scored
higher on equity sensitivity, suggesting that more self-disciplined and controlled individuals may
actually be more sensitive to inequities in the inputs and outputs of their working life. In addition to
this, it was found that those who scored higher on extraversion scored lower on equity sensitivity,
possibly suggesting that people who are more outgoing may actually be less sensitive to inequities
that others. These results potentially mean that retail workers who are of a more careful and
considerate nature may feel more unrest towards to imbalance inputs and outputs, and
subsequently those who are more forward may be less concerned with equity and thus take less
notice of inequities in their workplace.
There were however, no correlations found between equity sensitivity and personality traits
when Equity Sensitivity Instrument (King and Miles 1994) scores were used in place of the EPQ. This
can suggest one of two things; firstly that the significant results found using EPQ scores could be
interpreted as a type 1 error, i.e. a false positive, or secondly, the ESI may not be a reliable measure
of equity sensitivity leading to a type 2 error.
Another focus of the study was to see how sensitive different individuals were to inequities
while using different types of people as reference points. It was predicted that in line with the
research of Dornstein (1988), individuals would use people as similar to them as possible a reference
points, usually co-workers. This was indeed the case as displayed by the results, with equity
sensitivity scores being significantly higher on the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (King and Miles 1994)
when a co-worker was being used as the referent other, than in the brother condition. In terms of
Equity Theory then, this supports the idea that if an individual feels that a co-worker has a better

relationship of inputs to outputs, they will feel more unrest than if they used someone else as a
reference point.
Another aim of the present study was to assess the equity sensitivity of individuals in retail
employees in the UK, attempting to uncover relationships with demographic information. It was
found that of all the demographic criteria the study investigated (age, sex, location and length of
service), only age negatively related with equity sensitivity albeit a very weak correlation, as
measured by the Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian 2000). While there was no
relationship hypothesised for demographics and equity sensitive, the result seem to suggest that
younger participants are slightly more equity sensitive, although this correlation was not statistically
significant at the most stringent level highlighted above.
4.2 Equity Sensitivity and Personality
The attempt to explore potential relationships between equity sensitivity and personality is the key
focal point of this study, with this idea being almost completely unexplored in psychological
literature. The main background of personality research in terms of equity theory has not been
drastically changed since Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1987) when they proposed that there were
three categories people fall into, Benevolents, Entitleds and Equity Sensitives, with each reacting
differently to job inequities.
The results shown here do seem to shed some light onto the influence of personality on
equity sensitivity, in fact finding two fairly strong correlations, firstly that of equity sensitively being
positively related to conscientiousness using the Equity Preference Questionnaire measure.
Conscientiousness is outlined as the tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully and aim for
achievement against expectations (John, Robins and Pervin 2008), but here it was the personality
type that scored highest on equity sensitivity. The six sub-facets that encompass conscientiousness
according to the NEO PI-R scale (Costa and McCrae 1985) are competence, order, dutifulness,
achievement-striving, self-discipline and deliberation, and the definition of these sectors make the

conclusions of this study even more surprising. Dutifulness is in fact defined as the ‘emphasis placed
on importance of fulfilling moral obligations’ (University of Freiburg 2007) which suggests it is odd
that this personality type appeared most sensitive inequities. Cheng and Ickes (2009) discussed how
the trait of conscientiousness had ties with high levels of motivation irrelevant of external or internal
factors, though not specified to the workplace, suggesting it may be a surprise that this trait was
correlated with equity sensitivity. While this research only begins to uncover the role of personality
in equity sensitivity, this seems an unlikely outcome and should certainly be explored by further
research.
The other correlation that was found to be significant in the statistical analysis process was
the negative relationship between higher extraversion and scoring higher on Sauley and Bedeian’s
(2000) Equity Preference Questionnaire. One of the criteria for extraversion is the ‘tendency to
experience positive emotions’ (University of Freiburg 2007), meaning individuals may have an
inherent disposition to feel positive about inequities in their job. If this is true then this could provide
a possible explanation for ‘extraverts’, labelled so by the NEO PI-R, scoring lower on equity
sensitivity measures. Once again, comparing the norms suggested by Lord (2007) with the results of
the present study, the norm mean score for extraversion (33.29) was just 0.37 higher than that of
the mean found above (32.92) supporting the results here.
One concern however is the lack of any significant correlation between personality and
equity sensitivity according to the other measure used in this study, the Equity Sensitivity Instrument
(King and Miles 1994). As discussed above, one potential cause of this is the validity of the ESI as a
measure or equity sensitivity, a point that has been suggested in previous literature (Sauley and
Bedeian’s 2000; Shore and Strauss 2008). Jeon (2011) credited its simple nature, mentioning how its
minimalistic form is beneficial to participants when used multiple times in a single battery of
questions. However it has been noted that the weighting of each item carries too much influence on
participant’s final score due to its simplicity (Bagozzi and Yi 1990). While shortcomings of the ESI
seems the most likely explanation for contradictory results between measures, there is an argument

for the possibility of a false positive from the Equity Preference Questionnaire. Items of the EPQ
have been noted to elicit some feelings of injustice within participants (Colquitt Noe and Jackson
2002) which could raise issues of internal validity of the measure. This could have contributed to the
significant results with the items of the EPQ mistaking perceived injustice for high sensitivity to
inequities (Akan, Allen and White 2009). Despite this though, the EPQ has consistently gained
support from equity sensitivity researchers (Colquitt 2004; Jeon 2011) suggesting the weaknesses of
the ESI contributed to the contradictory results.
Implications
Prior to the conducting of the study, the results were anticipated to help aid the recruitment
process, especially in retail, as it was hypothesised that specific personality traits or types would
significantly emerge as relating to equity sensitivity. While the results did in fact display correlations
between conscientiousness (Positive) and extraversion (negative), the conclusions were not entirely
expected. It does however open the door for further research in the topic, providing strong rationale
for future investigations into personality and equity sensitivity.
Extraversion was found to negatively correlate with equity sensitivity, with lower scores on
the EPQ measure of equity sensitivity relating to higher scores on extraversion. This relationship
could be very useful in altering recruitment strategies in order to maximise harmony in the
workplace. It would be prudent for an organisation to exclusively hired individuals who are less
sensitive to any potential inequities in their job, something that could increase production and
reduce staff turnover. While current psychometric tests are not entirely reliable in predicting future
job performance (Mariani and Allen 2014), with additional information like which personality types
are less equity sensitive could create a huge upturn in successful recruitment for the retail sector or
at least how managers interpret the idea and importance of equity sensitivity.
The interpretations of the results here suggest changes in the way equity and equity
sensitivity is handled in the workplace with regards to members of staff. The knowledge of equity in

upper or middle management in a retail chain can be implemented in two ways. Firstly it can be
used by ‘higher-ups’ to further inform decisions regarding pay changes and shift structure, whether
in the form of bonuses or longer breaks in a shift. The information interpreted from equity research,
not just related to personality, could be crucial in the implementation of company-wide procedures,
for instance increased bonuses for increased output from a member of staff to decrease any
apparent inequities. Secondly and most practically, in-store management can use this knowledge to
communicate with and manage their staff effectively to not only prevent inequities, but also discuss
with staff how they feel about their inequities. This is even more useful when the relationships with
personality are taken into account, as management could possibly treat individuals differently
dependent on their personality traits. These two points, while interesting to discuss would not be
certain to be successful without more information on the subject, furthering the case for continued
research into the area.
It was concluded that after being asked to put themselves in a scenario where a co-worker had a
better equity scenario than themselves, individuals scored significantly higher on equity sensitivity
(using the Equity Sensitivity Instrument, King and Miles 1994). This supports the previous research in
the area (Goodman 1974; Dornstein 1988) in that people are more sensitive to using co-workers as
reference points to assess their own equity. Despite other studies in the area suggesting similar
outcomes, the importance of co-workers in Equity Theory has been seriously understated. The
results here shows the influence that different types of people have on an individual’s equity
sensitivity, and the fact equity sensitivity scores were higher in the co-worker condition gives some
insight into who people use as reference points, not just how they affect equity sensitivity.
Implications

Who people use as their reference point is a key aspect of Adams’ (1963, 1965) Equity Theory, with
many suggesting it is the main factor that leads an individual to feel unrest due to the relationship of
their inputs and outputs (Butler 2007). The knowledge that co-workers are in fact the main source of
reference points amongst employees in retail then, could be crucial in ensuring unrest among staff is
kept to a minimum. It is worth noting that, management aside, all employees of the retail stores
where participants were recruited are paid at exactly the same hourly rate. As discussed previously,
pay is considered the most important outcome in the equity relationship (Vecchio 1981), but it is
also important to understand that the consistent pay across staff means that it will mainly be the
inputs of others that cause unrest due to sensitivity to inequities.
As discussed previously, the results from equity research can be extremely beneficial to
management within retail. The results presented here could assist managers as to how to deal with
potential unrest in the workplace due to inequities, from an Equity Theory standpoint with respect
to reference points. The preference for the use of co-workers by retail staff as referent others in the
study gives management a crucial insight into the workings of equity and can thus improve their
ability to treat staff. For example ensuring those that work hard in their job are praised more than
those that are not as effective can increase the standing of equity as viewed by others. Ensuring
individuals are not over or under rewarded will communicate proportionate equity amongst the staff
so when they use a co-worker as a reference, they have a fair representation of inputs and outputs.
4.4 Limitations
While the present study yielded positive and statistically significant results, there were some issues
with the methodology that could affect the applicability of the conclusions. Firstly, due to the cross-
sectional nature of the study, even though significant correlations were found, causation could not
be attributed. As discusses previously, while a correlation was found between conscientiousness and
equity sensitivity, it was not discovered which of the traits that conscientiousness encompasses is

the most influential on sensitivity scores. This would be a key area for development should the field
progress in this direction as each personality trait contains ‘sub-traits’ (Poropat 2009) each of which
would more than likely have its own individual influences towards equity sensitivity.
Secondly, the nature of the multi-section questionnaire is also an issue, the main problem is
the length of the measures participants were required to complete. The questionnaire in total took
around 20 to 30 minutes to complete in most cases, and although different measures were arranged
as to decrease the fatigue of continued answering, many participants opted to complete it whilst on
their break during their shift at work. Typically, staff in retail get just 15 or 30 minutes break during
shifts upwards of six hours long, and completing a questionnaire during their break may not be in
their best interest. Because of this, towards the end of their completion of the study, participants
may not be as immersed in the measures as the study requires, and subsequently be less invested in
the equity scenarios, leading to the emergence of extraneous variables. This in turn questions the
reliability of the study’s results, meaning the conclusions may not be as applicable as first thought.
Again concerning the nature of the equity scenarios, participants were asked to imagine
themselves in a particular situation where another person they know (A friend, co-worker or sibling)
had a significantly better equity situation than themselves. This was used to elicit a sense of unrest
in the participant so they can measured for their sensitivity to this inequity. The main issue with this
though, is ensuring the participants are fully engrossed in the scenario to effectively measure equity
sensitivity. This may not be the most effective way to prime an individual to use a particular person
as a reference point and thus questions the reliability of the scenarios as a tool in this experiment.
While it has been suggested that using scenarios in quantitative research is a good way to measure a
variable without creating self-esteem issues within participants (Dunette 1976:71), it will never be as
effective as measuring a naturally occurring variable.
One final thing to consider is the reliability of the two measures of equity sensitivity, the
Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley and Bedeian 2000) and the Equity Sensitivity Instrument
(King and Miles 1994). While these two measures are at the forefront of research into Equity Theory,

they are not without imperfections. For example, Shore and Strauss (2008) suggested that the items
of the ESI seem to favour the observations of self-interest versus helping the employer which is a
serious over-simplification of Equity Theory. Also Jeon (2011) discusses how much the field of equity
sensitivity has changed in the years since the last measure, the EPQ, was devised, more than 15
years ago. Government laws concerning pay secrecy and minimum wage have changed significantly
in the last few years, something that has failed to be picked up by the theory. Since 2010, an
employer cannot prevent individuals from disclosing their pay details to colleagues, meaning that
previous ideas of equity may no longer be relevant as pay levels are now more apparent in the work
place. As will be discussed below, new measures are always required for a field to advance, and the
lack of new measures may have had a negative effect on the present study.
4.5 Future Work and Concluding Remarks
The obvious future direction for all research involving questionnaires, not just occupational
psychology and Equity Theory, is the development of new and reliable measures. As discussed in the
previous section, the last major development in terms of measures was Sauley and Bedeian’s (2000)
Equity Preference Questionnaire, which was itself based on the even older Equity Sensitivity
Instrument (King and Miles 1994). Since their conception, many articles have evaluated its
effectiveness, concluding they have some problematic issues (Jeon 2011: Shore and Strauss 2008).
These range from the narrow scope of the measure to ambiguous items meaning there is a serious
gap in the literature for a new measure. The research presented here included personality to deduce
relationships with equity sensitivity, perhaps suggesting that the Five factor Model (McCrae and
Costa 1987), could be used in parallel with any new measure that graces the field.
In terms of personality then, the research here has suggested some serious correlations
between personality types and an individual’s sensitivity to inequities, creating a key path for the
next direction of research in the area. Finding more correlations with personality types can lead to

more and more advanced screening techniques for employers to use in the recruitment process and
give managers the information they need to help maximise the effectiveness of their staff. Therefore
continuing the scarce, almost non-existent research of personality and Equity Theory is key to the
retail sector. One potential direction is to further analyse the personality of research employees, but
also break down the traits they possess and how that links to sensitivity. Analysing relationships
between the sub-facets of personality traits and equity sensitivity will help attribute causation of the
individual traits but more importantly, support the findings in the present study, that traits of the Big
5 significantly influence an individual’s equity sensitivity.
The current study explored the concept of equity sensitivity, an aspect of Equity Theory (Adams
1963, 1965), and its relationship with various factors that differ across individuals. It also looked to
investigate who people use as reference points to determine if they are treated unfairly and how
that also relates to an individual’s equity sensitivity. It was found that both conscientiousness
(positively) and extraversion (negatively) personality traits significantly correlated with equity
sensitivity, suggesting that personality is indeed an important factor in Equity Theory. Also, in line
with the work of Dornstein (1988), it was found that people scored higher on equity sensitivity when
using co-workers as reference points.
While there were some serious limitations of the study outlined, the results definitely
suggest there is strong rationale for investigations of equity sensitivity and factors like personality.
The study provided strong background for future research in the theory, and it is strongly suggested
that the link between equity sensitivity and personality is investigated further.
5. References

Adams, J.S. (1963) ‘Toward an Understanding of Inequity.’ Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67 (5) 422-436
Adams, J.S. (1965) ‘Inequity in Social Exchange’. Advanced Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 335-
343
Akan, O.H., Allen, R.S. and White, C.S. (2009) ‘Equity Sensitivity and Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour in a Team Environment.’ Small Group Research, 40, 94-112
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1990) ‘Assessing Method Variance in Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices: The
Case of Self-Reported Affect and Perceptions at Work.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 547-
560
Berkowitz, L., and Walster, E. (1976) Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction.
New York: Academic Press
Bradley-Geist, J.C. and Landis, R.S. (2012) ‘Homogeneity of Personality in Occupations and
Organizations: A Comparison of Alternative Statistical Tests.’ Journal of Business and
Psychology, 27 (2), 149-159
Buss, D.M. (1995) ‘Evolutionary Psychology: A New Paradigm for Psychological Science.’
Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-31
Butler, C.K. (2007) ‘Prospect Theory and Coercive Bargaining.’ Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51 (2),
227-250
Cheng, W., and Ickes, W. (2009) ‘Conscientiousness and Self-Motivation as Mutually Compensatory
Predictors of University-Level GPA.’ Personality and Individual Differences, 47 (8), 817-822
Colquitt, J.A. (2004) ‘Does the Justice of the One Interact with the Justice of the Many? Reactions to
Procedural Justice in Teams.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 633-646
Colquitt, J.A., Noe, R.A. and Jackson, C.L. (2002) ‘Justice in Teams: Antecedents and Consequences of
Procedural Justice Climate.’ Personnel Psychology, 55 83-110
Costa, P.T., and McCrae, R.R. (1985) The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Florida: Psychological
Assessment Resources
Dornstein, M. (1988) ‘Wage Reference Groups and Their Determinants: A Study of Blue-Collar and
White-Collar Employees in Israel.’ Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 221-235
Dunnette, M.D. (1976) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand-
McNally
Gergen, K.J., Greenburg, M.S., and Willis, R.H. (1980) Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and
Research. New York: Plenum Press
Gill, D. and Stone, R. (2010) Fairness and Desert in Tournaments. Games and Economic Behaviour,
69, 346-364
Gogia, P. (2010) Equity theory of motivation. Available from <http://www.businessihub.com/equity-
theory-of-motivation/> [12th
January 2016]
Goodman, P.S. (1974) ‘An Examination of Referents Used in the Evaluation of Pay.’ Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance, 12, 170-195
Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1985) ‘Test for Individual Perceptions of Job Equity:
Some Preliminary Findings.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055-1064

Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., and Miles, E.W. (1987) ‘A New perspective on Equity Theory: The
Equity Sensitivity Construct.’ Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234
Hyman, H.H., and Singer, E. (1968) Readings in Reference Group Theory. New York: Free Press
Jeon, G. (2011) ‘Equity Sensitivity Versus Equity Preference: Validating a New Viewpoint on Equity
Sensitivity.’ Unpublished Masters Thesis. Illinois: University of Illinois.
John, O.P., Robins, R.W., and Pervin, L.A., (2008) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New
York: Guilford Press.
Jones, J.R. and George, G.M. (2004) Contemporary Management. Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill
King, W.C., and Miles, E.W. (1994) ‘The Measurement of Equity Sensitivity.’ Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133-142
King, W.C., Miles, E.W., and Day, D.D. (1993) ‘A Test and Refinement of the Equity Sensitivity
Construct.’ Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14, 301-317
Lord, W. (2007) NEO PI-R: A Guide to Interpretation and Feedback in a Work Context. Oxford:
Hogrefe
Mariani, B., and Allen, L.R. (2014) ‘Development of Psychometric Testing of the Mariani Nursing
Career Satisfaction Scale.’ Journal of Nursing Measurement, 22, 135-44
McCrae, R.R., and Costa, P.T. (1987) ‘Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across
Instruments and Observers.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90
Miles, E.W., Hatfield, J.D., and Huseman, R.C. (1994) ‘Equity Sensitivity and Outcome Importance.’
Journal of organizational Behaviour, 15, 585-596
Molleman, E. and Broekhuis, M. (2012) ‘How Working in Cross-Functional Teams Relates to Core
Attributes of Professional Occupations and the Moderating role of Personality.’ Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 16 (1), 50-67
Morey, L.C. and Lanier, V W. (1998) ‘Operating Characteristics of Six Response Distortion Indicators
for the Personality Assessment Inventory.’ Assessment, 5, 203–214
Patchen, M. (1961) The Choice of Wage Comparisons. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Poropat, A.E. (2009) ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Five-Factor Model or Personality and Academic
Performance.’ Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322-338
Porter, L.W., and Smith, E.J. (1970) The Ethology of Organizational Commitment. Unpublished Paper,
University of California
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., and Hayday, S. (2004) The Drivers of Employment Engagement. Brighton:
Institute for Employment Studies
Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and Adolescent Self-Image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press
Sankey, C.D. (1999) Assessing the Employment Exchanges of Business Educators in Arizona.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Arizona State University.
Sauley, K.S., and Bedeian, A.G. (2000) ‘Equity Sensitivity: Construction of a Measure and Examination
of its Psychometric Properties.’ Journal of Management, 25 (5), 885-910
Schinka, J., Kinder, B. and Kremer, T. (1997) ‘Research Validity Scales for the NEO–PI–R:
Development and Initial Validation.’ Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127–138

Shore, T.H., and Strauss, J. (2008) ‘Measurement of Equity Sensitivity: A Comparison of the Equity
Sensitivity Instrument and Equity Preference Questionnaire.’ Psychological Reports, 102, 64-78
Smith, P.C., Kendal, L.M., and Hulin, C.L. (1969) The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and
Retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally
Spector, P.E. (2008) Industrial and Organizational Behaviour (Fifth Edition), New Jersey: Wiley
University of Freiburg (2007) NEO Personality Inventory – Revised. available from
<http://www.unifr.ch/ztd/HTS/inftest/WEB-
Informationssystem/en/4en001/d590668ef5a34f17908121d3edf2d1dc/hb.htm> [11th
March
2016]
Vecchio, R.P. (1981) ‘An Individual-Differences Interpretation of the Conflicting Predictions
Generated by Equity Theory and Expectancy Theory.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 470-
481.
Weick, K.E. (1966) ‘The Concept of Equity in the Perception of Pay.’ Administrative Science
Quarterly, 11, 414-439
Young, M.S. and Schinka, J.A. (2001) ‘Research Validity Scales for the Neo-PI-R: Additional Evidence
for Reliability and Validity.’ Journal of Personality and Assessment, 76 (3), 412-420
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the 97 participants of this study for sparing 30 minutes of their day as well as all the
managers that allowed me access to members of staff, and Thomas Evans for the crucial academic
support.
6. Appendices

6.1 Measures
Neo-PI-R
Please fill in these questions about yourself honestly. Tick the corresponding box depending on how
much you agree with the statements ranging from 1 (strongly unlike you) to 5 (strongly like you)
1
Strongly
unlike
you
2 3 4 5
Strongly
like you
I often feel blue
I rarely get irritated
I dislike myself
I seldom feel blue
I feel comfortable with myself
I have frequent mood swings
I am not easily bothered by things
I panic Easily
I am very pleased with myself
I feel comfortable around people
I have little to say
I make friends easily
I keep in the background
I am skilled in handling social situations
I would describe my experiences as dull
I am the life of the party
I don’t like to draw attention to myself
I know how to captivate an audience
I don’t talk a lot
I believe in the importance of art
I am not interested in abstract ideas
I have a vivid imagination
I do not like art
I tend to vote for liberal political candidates
I avoid philosophical discussions
I carry the conversation to a higher level
I do not enjoy going to art museums
I enjoy hearing new ideas
I tend to vote for conservative political candidates
I have a good word for everyone
I have a sharp tongue
I believe that others have good intentions
I cut others to pieces
I respect others
I suspect hidden motives in others

I accept people as they are
I get back at others
I make people feel at ease
I insult people
I am always prepared
I waste my time
I pay attention to details
I find it difficult to get down to work
I get chores done right away
I do just enough work to get by
I carry out my plans
I don’t see think things through
I make plans and stick to them
I shrink my duties
Equity Preference Questionnaire

Please fill in these questions about yourself honestly. Tick the corresponding box depending on how
much you agree with the statements ranging from 1 (strongly unlike you) to 7 (strongly like you)
1
Strongly
Disagree
2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Agree
1. I prefer to do as little as possible at work while
getting as much as I can from my employer
2. I am most satisfied at work when I have to do as
little as possible
3. When I am at my job, I think of ways to get out of
work
4. If I could get away with it, I would try to work just
a little bit slower than the boss expects
5. It is really satisfying to me when I can get
something for nothing at work
6. It is the smart employee who gets as much as
he/she can while giving as little as possible in return
7. Employees who are more concerned about what
they can get from their employer rather than what
they can give to their employer are the wise ones
8. When I have completed my task for the day, I help
out other employees who have yet to complete their
tasks
9. Even if I received low wages and poor benefits
from my employer, I would still try to do my best at
my job
10. If I had to work hard all day at my job, I would
probably quit
11. I feel obligated to do more than I am paid to do
at work
12. Al work, my greatest concern is whether or not I
am doing the best job I can
13. A job which requires me to be busy during the
day is better than a job which allows me a lot of
loafing,
14. At work, I feel uneasy when there is little work
for me to do
15. I would become very dissatisfied with my job if I
had little or no work to do
16. It is better to have a job with duties and
responsibilities than a job with few duties and
responsibilities

Equity Sensitivity Instrument
These questions ask what you would like your relationship to be with any organization for which you
might work. On each question, allocate 10 points between the two choices (choice A and choice B)
by giving the most points to the choice that is most like you and the fewest points to the choice that
is least like you. You can use zeros if you'd like but both answers must add up to 10.
In any organisation I might work for:
1. It would be more important for me to:
A. Get from the organization
B. Give to the organization
2. It would be more important for me to:
A. Help others
B Watch out for my own good
3. I would be more concerned about:
A. What I received from the organisation
B. What I contributed to the organisation
4. The hard work I would do should:
A. Benefit the organization
B. Benefit me
5. My personal philosophy in dealing with the organization would be:
A. If I don't look out for myself, nobody else will
B. It's better for me to give than to receive

Equity Reward Scenarios
Please read the following scenario and try and imagine yourself in this
situation. Then answer the questionnaire below whilst considering how you
would feel in the situation outlined below.
Scenario A: You and your close friend are both students. Both of you are in
your second year at university and are both excellent students, and anxious to
earn extra money to support yourselves. Professor Martin, a sociologist, hires
you and your friend to transcribe some interviews he has conducted for a
project. You and your friend transcribe about 4 interviews per day.
After you finished a long day’s work of transcribing in which you transcribed 6
interviews, you talk with your friend about how your day went. Your friend
tells you they also transcribed 6 interviews and they were paid £35 for their
days work. You look at the money you were given by Professor Martin and find
he only gave you £20.
Scenario B: You have recently been working at a local pub to gain a little extra
income whilst studying at college. Three evenings a week you work a six hour
shift until 1am, cleaning tables and serving drinks from behind the bar. Your
brother works at a different pub owned by a different company a few miles
away and works similar shifts doing the same job.
You visit your brother at the weekend and discuss your respective jobs. You
talk about a time when you have worked particularly hard and he says that he
doesn’t mind because he gets a decent wage. When you ask, he says he gets
£7.50 an hour while you only get £5 where you work
Scenario C: You have been working in a part-time retail job at a corner shop
whilst studying at university for about a year. It is a good source of extra
income to support you during your studies as you only do eight hours per
week.
During a particularly stressful day you have a chat with your co-worker, also a
student who’s been working there for a similar length of time. They ask you
how much you get paid and you tell them, £5.20 an hour. They seem shocked

and tell you that they actually get £7.80 an hour, even though they do the
same amount of work as you.
6.2 Participant Information Sheet
Study into Personality and Employment Aspects
What is the purpose of the study? The study is designed to gain an insight into the
relationship between personality and various employment factors. You will be asked about
your views on certain situations and how you feel about them in relation to yourself and
also asked to complete a short personality test.
Why have I been approached? You have been approached to participate as you are over 18
and are currently employed by Tesco in the UK. This project is completely voluntary.
Do I have to take part? Participation is completely voluntary so you do not have to take
part. If you wish, you may withdraw from the study up to two weeks after data collection by
emailing the researcher (brownc46@uni.coventry.ac.uk) quoting your participant number
which can be found at the top of your questionnaire pack. If you withdraw, all your data will
be permanently deleted and not included in the final results. There are no consequences of
withdrawing and no reason is required.
What will happen to me if I take part? Participation is through a questionnaire that should
take roughly 30 minutes to complete, and will be based upon your perceptions and
experience of working with for Tesco.
What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part? No possible disadvantages of
participation have been identified. If you feel uncomfortable or distressed you are welcome
to stop filling in the questionnaire at any time, and to withdraw or to contact the researcher
(brownc46@uni.coventry.ac.uk), who will be able to assist.
What are the possible benefits of taking part? You will have a chance to provide insight into
how personality relates to opinions on working benefits.

What if something goes wrong? No anticipated risks were identified; however participants
are welcome to stop the questionnaire at any time or to contact the researcher with any
issues that may arise. If you have any complaints regarding your experience of participating
in this study, you may the supervisor, Thomas Evans (ab6443@ coventry.ac.uk).
What will happen to the data I contribute? The results from your questionnaire will be
analysed by the researcher then stored in a locked draw, accessible only by the researcher.
The data will be analysed by the researcher and will be stored on a password protected
laptop for 3 years, when it will be permanently deleted. Your consent form will be stored by
the University for 5 years before being destroyed.
Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential? You will only be identifiable by your
participant number. This will ensure anonymity, and allow data to be deleted if you
withdraw.
What will happen to the results of the research study? The results will be used in the
researcher’s final year university project with the eventual aim of being published in peer
reviewed academic journals. Your data will be destroyed three years after date of your
participation.
Who is organising and funding the research? This research has been organised by Cameron
Brown, a student at Coventry University and supervised by lecturer Thomas Evans.
Who has reviewed the study? This study has been reviewed and approved by Coventry
University’s Health and Life Science Department Ethics Committee.
Contact for further information:
Researcher: Cameron Brown – brownc46@uni,coventry.ac.uk
Supervisor: Thomas Evans – ab6443@ coventry.ac.uk

Applied Research Chair: Professor Ian Marshall – i.marshall@coventry.ac.uk
6.3 Consent Form
Study into Personality and Employment Aspects
The purpose of the study is to gain an insight into the relationship between personality and
various employment factors. The results will be the focal point of a final year dissertation
project for the Psychology course at Coventry University. You will be asked about your views
on certain situations and how you feel about them in relation to yourself and also asked to
complete a short personality test.
Please tick each box if you agree with the statements. If you are at all confused or unsure
please contact the researcher (Cameron Brown), by emailing brownc46@uni.coventry.ac.uk
I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet and
have had all questions answered.
I understand my participation is voluntary and that any data I
provide will be anonymous and confidential
I understand that I am free to withdraw from this study now,
during or up to two weeks today without cause or repercussion
I understand I have to email the researcher with my student ID
within two weeks from today if I wish to withdraw from the study
I agree to take part in this research project

Signed _______________________
Date _______ - ______ - _______
6.4 Debrief Sheet
Firstly, Thank you for participating in this study, your contribution is invaluable to the
project.
The study aims to test the sensitivity to inequities of pay and how different personality traits
are associated with the sensitivity to these inequities. The results you have given will
hopefully give a serious contribution as to how we look at pay structure and help
organisations in screening for possible candidates.
The measures you completed were used to ascertain a baseline of how you feel about the
benefits at your job, or your equity sensitivity (Huseman, Hatfield and Miles 1987). Then you
completed the same questions again only this time after reading an imaginary scenario, this
was to measure equity sensitivity in different situations. Finally you completed a short
personality test to allow testing for personality traits of the Big 5 (Costa and McCrae 1985)
model of personality and how they relate to various outcomes.
If you have questions or would like to know more you should email Cameron Brown at
brownc46@uni.coventry.ac.uk. If you wish to withdraw your data from the study, you can
email this address quoting your participant number within two weeks of participation. You
do not need to state a reason and there will be no repercussions on your part.
References

Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources
Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. & Miles, E.W. (1987) ‘A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The
Equity Sensitivity Construct.’ The Academy of Management Review 12 (2), 222-234
6.5 Gatekeeper Letter
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
Department of Psychology
Coventry University
Cameron Brown, Undergraduate,
Email: brown46@uni.coventry.ac.uk
07757610743
Supervisor: Thomas Evans
Dear Manager,
As part of my degree I am doing a research project to assess the relationship between personality
and attitudes to certain aspects of an individual’s job. The outcomes of this experiment hope to
seriously contribute to how companies screen for new employees, potentially revolutionising the
application progress.
I am writing to ask if you would consider allowing me to use a sample of employees from your store
to participate in the study. The study will consist of a pack of questionnaires that should take no
longer than 30 minutes for each person to complete. The questionnaire does not need to be
completed during working hours.
I have produced an information sheet for your employees, which outlines what participants will be
required to do as a part of my study.
Ideally I would be looking to conduct this research between December and January and anticipate a
final total of 120 participants, so any I can recruit from your store will be extremely helpful.
The main point, is to ensure that this study has as little of an impact on the running of your store as
possible. As a Tesco Express employee myself, I know how important every minute of the day is.
I would be very grateful if you could let me know if this proposal is feasible and meets with your
approval. If you are happy to support this crucial research, please let me know as soon as possible
Kind regards,
Cameron Brown

6.6 Ethical Approval
Evaluation of the ethics of the proposal:
All ethical issues have been addressed, proceed with good ethics.
Anonymous - 15 Dec 2015 08:28 PM
Evaluation of the participant information sheet and consent form:
no issues, recommendations have been met.
Anonymous - 15 Dec 2015 08:28 PM

Equity Sensitivity, The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equit

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Equity Sensitivity, The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equit

Similar to Equity Sensitivity, The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equit (20)

Equity Sensitivity, The Influences of Personality and Reference Points on Perceptions of Equit