Download File Article Summary: The following matrix is used to categorize different types of employee engagement:
Received Aug 14; Accepted Oct The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract This study investigates how induced relative status affects satisfaction with different relative payoffs.
We find that participants with lower status are more satisfied with disadvantageous payoff inequalities than equal or higher status participants.
In contrast, when receiving an advantageous payoff, status does not affect satisfaction.
Our findings suggest that relative social status has important implications for the acceptance of income inequalities. But how do people arrive at valuations of income? According to previous literature, two main factors influence this evaluation process: Self-serving preferences and fairness considerations e.
Self-serving preferences are based on what pleases people and what they evaluate positively, as for example a salary increase Messick and Sentis,; van den Bos et al. Fairness considerations, on the other hand, take into account the outcomes of other people, as for example a colleague's salary Adams, ; Fehr and Schmidt, ; Falk and Fischbacher, I may prefer a higher to a lower salary, but at the same time consider it unfair to receive more than my colleague who does the same job.
In this case, a self-serving preference for money collides with beliefs about what is fair and right: Satisfaction with a salary increase is affected positively because more money is preferred to less money, but it is also affected negatively, because it is considered unfair to receive more than a colleague van den Bos et al.
If we consider an example in which my colleague and not I would receive a salary increase although we do the same work, I might regard the situation as both non-self-serving and unfair.
Thus, there would be two sources of negative affect which both reduce my satisfaction with this outcome van den Bos et al. A number of studies show that, accordingly, satisfaction with advantageous inequity i. In line with this, when both my colleague and I would receive a salary increase for the same work, I should be more satisfied than in either of the two aforementioned examples: I receive money and the monetary allocation is fair e.
So far, only a few studies have investigated the influence of social context, such as the relationship to the person with whom the income comparison takes place Loewenstein et al.
In friendly relationships, people disliked receiving a higher payoff than their opponent.
When the relationship was antagonistic, people did not care about the payoff of their opponent, as long as it was less than or equal to their own. Results by Peters et al.
In their study, people were less satisfied with advantageous inequity when their opponent was a close friend compared to a stranger. This suggests that people take social context into account when rating one's satisfaction, with fairness considerations playing a bigger role when the relationship with the other person is positive.
An important component of social context that only few studies have considered is social status; although it is suggested to play a crucial role in distributive justice Lind and Tyler, ; Ellemers et al. Social status has been shown to influence, for example, an individual's engagement in pro- and anti-social behavior Piff et al.
Several studies have further shown that status is strongly associated with increased economic benefits and entitlements.
Adams Js Inequity In Social Exchange Adv Exp Soc Psychol 62 not haul the water. Consequently, no one fetches water though everybody is thirsty. On the man's side of the exchange are his education, intelligence, experi- INEQUITY IN SOCIAL EXCHANGE ence, training, skill, seniority, age, sex, ethnic background, social status, and, o course, the effort he expends on the job. The following theories were applied to explain the concept of talent retention and organization performance; first was the equity theory of motivation as advanced by Adams ().The theory is related to the potential rewards that are promised to an individual.
For example, high status participants have been found to receive higher outcomes in bargaining games Ball and Eckel, ; Ball et al. However, little is known about how relative status affects satisfaction with payoff allocations.Adams, J.S. () Inequity in Social Exchange.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, On the man's side of the exchange are his education, intelligence, experi- INEQUITY IN SOCIAL EXCHANGE ence, training, skill, seniority, age, sex, ethnic background, social status, and, o course, the effort he expends on the job.
() "Inequity in Social Exchange" in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Attitudes toward Social and Consumer Issues" in J.C. Olson lausannecongress2018.comTY IN SOCIAL EXCHANGE that the better-educated men had higher levels of aspiration, partly based on what would be realistic status expectations in .Adams, J.
S. (). Inequity in social exchange. Free Essays on Adams j s Inequity In Social Exchange Adv Exp Soc Psychol 62 Get help with your writing. 1 through 30 Essays on Adams j s Inequity In Social Exchange Adv Exp Soc Psychol 62 Adams j s Inequity In Social Exchange Adv Exp Soc Psychol 62 .
Teoría de la equidad laboralDe Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre La teoría de la equidad es una teoría creada por John Stacey Adams e Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Adams Js Inequity In Social Exchange Adv Exp Soc Psychol 62 not haul the water.
Consequently, no one fetches water though everybody is thirsty.