Situational determinants of reward allocation: The equity–equality equilibrium model

Hysom, Stuart J.; Fişek, M. Hamit

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.02.002

Cited by 30 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there has been much empirical support for the processes and assumptions outlined in RET in both collective task (Fisek & Hysom, 2004;Hogue & Yoder, 2003;Wagner, 1995Wagner, , 2000 and evaluative settings (Dilks et al, 2015;Fisek & Hysom, 2008;Hysom & Fisek, 2011;Melamed, 2011) we argue that in its current form RET may be too constraining for two reasons. First, the current operationalization of rewards includes only positive goal objects such as money, titles, and medals.…”

Section: Extending Ret: Allocations Of Negative Rewards Via Status Cuesmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…However, recent EST research has found that status generalization processes can occur in any evaluative setting that creates pressures for individuals to assess expectations in a relative manner (Erickson 1998). Several RET studies take place in these settings and empirically support the main assumptions of the theory (Dilks et al, 2015;Fisek & Hysom, 2008;Hysom & Fisek, 2011;Melamed, 2011).…”

Section: Status Characteristics Provide Information About Reward Expementioning

confidence: 91%

“…Performance expectations are beliefs about the abilities and task competency of oneself and others while valued status expectations are "anticipations of the status positions to be held by self and others" (Berger & Webster, 2006, p. 269). Relevant to the current research, are reward expectations -"implicit, shared, normative anticipations about who 'will and ought to' get what" (Hysom & Fisek, 2011, p. 1269. The Reward Expectations Theory branch of EST, argues that in situations where differential rewards such as money or medals are to be allocated as a part of a collective task or upon completion of one (Fisek & Wagner, 2003), individuals will form reward expectations for themselves and others to determine these distributions (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Wagner, 1985, 1998.…”

Section: Reward Expectations Theorymentioning

confidence: 94%

“…money, medals) or symbolic rewards (e.g. honors, privileges, valued positions, titles, certificates) that are available for allocation (Berger et al, , 1998Hysom & Fisek, 2011). Categorical referential structures link goal objects to diffuse characteristics, thus determining reward expectations based on "who you are.…”

Section: Status Characteristics Provide Information About Reward Expementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here rewards are based on "what you have done" and generally assume that those who succeed at tasks should receive more rewards than people who fail at them. These referential structures become salient only when individuals' performances are evaluated (Hysom & Fisek, 2011).…”

Section: Status Characteristics Provide Information About Reward Expementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessing the Impact of Status Information Conveyance on the Distribution of Negative Rewards: A Preliminary Test and Model

Dilks¹,

McGrimmon²,

Thye³

2017

Advances in Group Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo determine the role of status information conveyance in a negative reward allocation setting. MethodologyUsing previously published experimental data we test the relative effects of status information conveyed by expressive and indicative status cues on the allocation of a negative reward. Further, we construct an alternative graph theoretic model of expectation advantage which is also tested to determine its model fit relative to the classic model of Reward Expectations Theory. FindingsResults provide strong support for the conclusion that status information conveyed by expressive status cues influences reward allocations more than information conveyed by indicative cues. We also find evidence that our alternative graph theoretic model of expectation advantage improves model fit. OriginalityThis research is the first to test the relative impact of expressive versus indicative status cues on the allocation of negative rewards and shows that status characteristics can have differential impacts on these allocations contingent on how characteristics are conveyed. Furthermore, the research suggests a graph theoretic model that allows for this differentiation based on information conveyance and provides empirical support for its structure in a negative reward allocation environment. Research limitationsFuture research is required to validate the results in positive reward situations. Social implicationsThe results show that an individual's expectations are altered by varying the manner in which status information is presented thereby influencing the construction and maintenance of status hierarchies and the inequalities those structures generate. Thus, this research has implications for any group or evaluative task where status processes are relevant.

show abstract

Section: Extending Ret: Allocations Of Negative Rewards Via Status Cuesmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Status Characteristics Provide Information About Reward Expementioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Reward Expectations Theorymentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Status Characteristics Provide Information About Reward Expementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Status Characteristics Provide Information About Reward Expementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing the Impact of Status Information Conveyance on the Distribution of Negative Rewards: A Preliminary Test and Model

Dilks¹,

McGrimmon²,

Thye³

2017

Advances in Group Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A novel bias in managers' allocation of bonuses to teams: Emphasis on team size instead of team contribution

Bai

Feng

Pinto

et al. 2023

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How should managers supervising multiple teams allocate bonuses—based on each team's size or based on each team's contribution? According to the commonly accepted equity norm for allocating rewards, managers should distribute bonuses based on the relative contributions of the team. In contrast, we propose that managers are instead distracted by the number of employees in each team and neglect team contribution highlighted in the equity norm. Pilot Studies 1 and 2 confirmed that in both individual‐ and team‐based bonus allocation situations, people preferred and actually allocated rewards according to the equity norm rather than the equality norm or the need norm when only contribution was manipulated. However, Study 1, a laboratory experiment, revealed that individuals assigned to the role of a manager allocated more bonuses to the larger team even though the two teams' actual work output (in terms of the number of units of work completed) was nearly identical. Study 2 replicated the key findings of Study 1 using a sample of managers supervising teams in organizations. Study 3 developed an information nudge—highlighting the team contribution—that reduced this bias. Together, these studies indicate a novel team‐size bias that creeps in when managers allocate rewards to multiple teams and document an information nudge to reduce this bias.

show abstract

How Do People React to (In)Equality and (In)Justice? A Psychological Approach

Pretsch

2020

Equality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Situational determinants of reward allocation: The equity–equality equilibrium model

Cited by 30 publications

References 41 publications

Assessing the Impact of Status Information Conveyance on the Distribution of Negative Rewards: A Preliminary Test and Model

Assessing the Impact of Status Information Conveyance on the Distribution of Negative Rewards: A Preliminary Test and Model

A novel bias in managers' allocation of bonuses to teams: Emphasis on team size instead of team contribution

How Do People React to (In)Equality and (In)Justice? A Psychological Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About