Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). Academic Press.
Summary
Relative deprivation is the phenomenon that occurs when a person feels deprivation relative to their referent. Another person, with a different referent, though in the same situation, might not feel deprived (see Festinger’s social comparison processes). Distributive justice occurs when a person, involved in exchange with another person, feels that the ratio of their inputs to their outputs is equal to the ratio of their partner’s inputs to their partner’s outputs.
\[\begin{aligned} \frac {\text{A's rewards less A's costs}} {\text{A's investments}} = \frac {\text{B's rewards less B's costs}} {\text{B's investments}} \end{aligned}\]It is important to note the subjective element inherent in distributive justice. If one party recognizes an input (e.g., an MBA) , and the other party does not recognize that input as a positive outcome to them (e.g., “I just need someone to flip burgers for $10 an hour”), feelings of injustice will arise. Additionally, both incomes and outcomes can be either positive or negative. If the aforementioned ratios are not equal, the result is inequity.
If a person feels that they are being treated unjustly, they will attempt to seek justice. They might do this by altering their inputs (e.g., a worker who thinks that they are underpaid versus a coworker that they perceive as an equal might reduce their work output, thereby bringing the ratios into balance). Referencing the previous equation, this is equivalent to changing their denominator. Alternatively, they might alter their outputs. In the previously mentioned scenario, one method of altering outputs might be seeking a raise (changing their numerator). A person might cognitively distort their inputs and outputs. One of the examples from the paper involves reframing situations. For example, instead of thinking that one will never be able to buy an Aston Martin, a person could focus on the fact that their income covers all the necessities and allows for a few luxuries. Facing injustice, a worker might just quit. They might instead attempt to act on another (e.g., they could try and get their higher paid coworker to quit). This can be conceptualized as trying to influence the right side of the equation. Similar to Festinger’s previously cited theory, a person could simply change their referent to one that is closer to their own situation (thereby imputing less injustice). This involves substituting in an entirely new right half of the equation.
The paper concludes with a number of propositions, which are now quoted verbatim…
”(a) Person will maximize positively valent outcomes and the valence of outcomes.”
“(b) He will minimize increasing inputs that are effortful and costly to change.”
“(c) He will resist real and cognitive changes in inputs that are central to his self-concept and to his self-esteem. To the extent that any of Person’s outcomes are related to his self-concept and to his self-esteem, this proposition is extended to cover his outcomes.”
“(d) He will be more resistant to changing cognitions about his own outcomes and inputs than to changing his cognitions about Other’s outcomes and inputs.”
“(e) Leaving the field will be resorted to only when the magnitude of inequity experienced is high and other means of reducing it are unavailable. Partial withdrawal, such as absenteeism, will occur more frequently and under conditions of lower inequity.”
“(f) Person will be highly resistant to changing the object of his comparisons, Other, once it has stabilized over time and, in effect, has become an anchor.”
Application
Understanding that the equation can be balanced in a number of ways is crucial to a manager’s role. As stated elsewhere, an employee that is asking for a raise might instead accept lessened responsibilities. This also highlights the importance of controlling salient referents for employees.
Comments powered by Disqus.