Equity Sensitivity and Organizational Outcomes: Incremental Validity over Big Five Personality Traits
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24837/pru.v19i2.494Keywords:
equity sensitivity, Big Five, counterroductive work behaviors, organizational justice, incremental validityAbstract
One individual difference that emerged over the years is equity sensitivity. It was posited that this construct may be a central factor in predicting work outcomes in reactions to inequity. However, its conceptual overlap with already established dimensions of personality has been insufficiently taken into consideration so far. The present study examines the incremental validity of equity sensitivity in predicting counterproductive work behaviors and perception of organizational justice over the Big Five personality traits. The study sample consisted of 223 Romanian working adults. Results showed that, although equity sensitivity had a significant relationship with counterproductive work behaviors after controlling for the Big five personality traits, its incremental validity was small, with little practical utility. Moreover, the incremental validity of equity sensitivity in predicting justice dimension above the Big-Five personality dimensions was not supported. Theoretical and practical implications of equity sensitivity for personnel selection are discussed.
Downloads
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397-438.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 286–295.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424.
Bing, M. N., & Burroughs, S. M. (2001). The predictive and interactive effects of equity sensitivity in teamwork-oriented organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 271–290.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A study on the 5-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(5), 515-524.
Bourdage, J. S., Goupal, A., Neilson, T., Lukacik, E.-R., & Lee, N. (2018). Personality, equity sensitivity, and discretionary workplace behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 144–150.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.).. New York: The Guilford Press.
Chang, S.J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
Grant, A. M. (2013). Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. New York: Viking
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct‐irrelevant variance in high‐stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17-27.
Hough, L. M., & Furnham, A. (2003). Use of personality variables in work settings. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12(pp. 131–169). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
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.
Iliescu, D., Popa, M., & Dimache, R. (2015). Adaptarea românească a Setului Internaţional de Itemi de Personalitate: IPIP-Ro. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 13(1), 83–112.
Judge, T. A., Klinger, R., Simon, L. S., & Yang, I. W. F. (2008). The contributions of personality
to organizational behavior and psychology: Findings, criticisms, and future research directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1982–2000.
Kickul, J., Gundry, L. K., & Posig, M. (2005). Does Trust Matter? The Relationship Between Equity Sensitivity and Perceived Organizational Justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 205–218.
King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(4), 301-317.
Lee, E. (2013). Big Five Personality Traits and Equity Sensitivity and Transformational Leadership. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(2), 164–167.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & de Vries, R. E. (2005). Predicting Workplace Delinquency and Integrity with the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of Personality Structure. Human Performance, 18(2), 179–197.
Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. (2013). Measurement invariance of big-five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and la dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1994-1220.
Marsh, H. W., Scalas, L. F., & Nagengast, B. (2010). Longitudinal tests of competing factor structures for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: traits, ephemeral artifacts, and stable response styles. Psychological assessment, 22(2), 366-381.
Mäthner, E., & Lanwehr, R. (2017). Givers, takers and matchers – Reciprocity styles and their contribution to organizational behaviour. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 48, 5-13.
Miller, B. K. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the equity preference questionnaire. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(4), 328–347.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 679-703.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. URL http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/.
Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Predictors used for personnel selection: An overview of constructs, methods and techniques. In N. Anderson & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational psychology (pp. 165–199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity Sensitivity: Construction of a Measure and Examination of Its Psychometric Properties. Journal of Management, 26(5), 885–910.
Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are Organizational Justice Effects Bounded by Individual Differences? An Examination of Equity Sensitivity, Exchange Ideology, and the Big Five. Group & Organization Management, 32(3), 290–325.
Shore, T. H., & Strauss, J. (2008). Measurement of Equity Sensitivity: A Comparison of the Equity Sensitivity Instrument and Equity Preference Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 102(1), 64–78.
Soper, D.S. (2018). Effect Size Calculator for Hierarchical Multiple Regression [Software]. Retrieved from https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=13
Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781–790.
Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S. (2017). Testing and controlling for common method variance: A review of available methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4(2), 142- 168.
Törnroos, M., Elovainio, M., Hintsa, T., Hintsanen, M., Pulkki-Råback, L., Jokela, M., Lehtimäki, T., Raitakari, O. T., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2019). Personality traits and perceptions of organisational justice. International Journal of Psychology, 54(3), 414–422.
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Göritz, A. (2014). Give, match, or take: A new personality construct predicts resource and information sharing. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 11–16.
Woodley, H. J. R., & Allen, N. J. (2014). The dark side of equity sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 103–108.
Woodley, H. J. R., Bourdage, J. S., Ogunfowora, B., & Nguyen, B. (2016). Examining Equity Sensitivity: An Investigation Using the Big Five and HEXACO Models of Personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-15.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Psihologia Resurselor Umane
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal,it also allows for use of the work for non-commercial purposes and if others remix, transform or build upon the works found in this journal they must distribute the contributions under the same licence as the original.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See: The Effect of Open Access).
