Article Review Assignment #1 Cheryl Cheong

1a) The variables are the rate of employee theft, ratings of payment fairness, the pay cut, and explanations for the pay cut (adequate and inadequate).

Ratings of payment fairness (pay basis and pay equity) are essentially the inequity perceptions of the workers. They will be measured by the self-report scores.

Rate of employee theft would be the percentage of inventory that is unaccounted for by known waste, sales, use in conduct of business or normal depreciation.

Explanations for the pay cut were conditions where the basis for the decision is explained and justified. An adequate explanation would be one that clearly accounted for the pay cut towards employees by assuring them that decision makers were sensitive to their viewpoints and made the decision based on adequate information. The explanation had to show that the decision was made without bias and applied consistently, and communicated honestly to the employees while treating them with respect. An inadequate explanation would be one where the basis for the pay cut was not clearly described, and no expression of apology or remorse was shown towards the employees.

The pay cut is a temporary pay reduction for employees of selected manufacturing plants that would last for only ten weeks.

b) The measured variables are the rate of employee theft, and ratings of payment fairness. The manipulated variables include the pay cut, and the types of explanations (adequate and inadequate) for the pay cut.

c) The adequate explanation variable is at the individual level of analysis.

d) Pay equity was measured using a self-report questionnaire of four items, three of which are anchored with a 5-point unidirectional scale ranging from (1) not at all, to (2) slightly, to (3) moderately, to (4) highly, and to (5) extremely. The fourth item was anchored on a 5-point bidirectional scale, where the responses to first three points of the scale were combined with the unidirectional scales for the other items.

e) The pay equity measure was reliable. The coefficient alpha value of 0.84 reflected high internal consistency. This means that the four items are correlated and measure the same thing pay equity.

2a) In an experiment, participants are randomly assigned to the treatment groups, which also include a control group. In a quasi-experiment, there is a control group but no random assignment of participants. In a non-experiment, both the control group and random assignment are absent.

b) Greenbergs (1990) study was a quasi-experimental design.

c) While the plants are owned by the same parent company, they were located in different sections of the Midwest. Also, there was no random assignment of individuals to conditions across the research sites. Thus, the author wanted to establish an equivalence of characteristics across the sites to preclude the assumption of equivalence that random assignment offers.

d) The three criteria for inferring causation include:1. Independent variable (X) is related to the dependent variable (Y).2. X precedes Y.3. Confounds that could account for the relationship between X and Y must be eliminated.

e) Greenberg did not fulfill the first criteria, as there is no correlation established between adequate pay cut explanation and pay equity. While he measured the interaction effect for the pay equity measure between each payment group (which includes the adequate pay cut explanation group), that was to obtain the mean scores of pay equity. There was no correlation between the two variables that was reported that could have indicated the relationship between the two.

Greenberg satisfied the second criteria of X preceding Y by using a longitudinal design. He obtained the mean score for pay equity in the adequate explanation group at three different timings - before the pay cut; during the pay cut (when the adequate explanation had been given); and after the pay cut had been removed. Since the pay equity scores at the three different timings relate to each other under the adequate pay cut explanation condition, the precedence within the two variables has been established.

However, Greenberg did not satisfy the third criterion. There are many confounds that could have accounted for the relationship between the two variables. Plant A might have a group norm against stealing, hence the difference in the perceived pay equity. It would not have been due to the use of the adequate pay cut explanation condition. There was no statistical control such as multiple regression which could remove variance due to third variables.

f) Greenbergs treatment is limited. Firstly, the assignment of the three plants to their various conditions was non random. Plant C was deliberately assigned to the control condition and there is the possibility of the lack of manipulation being responsible for the results. Furthermore, individuals were not randomly assigned to the three conditions across the different plants. The quasi-experimental design of the study makes it impossible to rule out confounds that an experimental design would have eliminated. As such, there are many third variables that have been left out of the study. They include the different norms against stealing, differential acceptance of the company managements promise that the pay cut would be temporary, and the credibility of the source of information of the pay cut.

g) Three possible threats to internal validity of this study include mortality, selection, and testing.Firstly, there was a high attrition rate in plant B during the pay-reduction period, a much higher proportion than in any other circumstance. It could easily be assumed as support for the notion that resigning is an extreme form of reaction to underpayment inequity. However, it could have been that the participants who resigned had already stolen company property before leaving.

Secondly, there was the selection threat. The treatment group and control group could have differed even before the study began as the control group was selected in a nonrandom way. There could have been norms against stealing in plant A (as mentioned above in part d) that led to the results collected.

Thirdly, there was the threat of testing. The questionnaire measures were administered biweekly so participants were measured on the same variable multiple times. The later measures of pay basis and pay equity could have been affected by memory of earlier responses or increased sensitivity.

3a) The equity equation is .Equity theory is a social exchange theory that tries to explain how employees weigh and balance what is invested and received from their employment relationship. The equity equation involves outcomes that are cognitive representations of rewards received from their work relationship and these representations may or may not be tangible. A few examples of outputs would be salary, pension, and annual leave (Adams & Freedman, 1976). Inputs are things that the employee brings to work and views as a job-relevant input. It could include work commitment and hours worked. The individuals ratio of inputs-to-outcomes is measured against the ratio of other workers around the individual. The perception of fairness only occurs if the ratios are perceived as equivalent. Only then would there be a state of equity. If the ratios are perceived as unequal, there would be a state of inequity.

b) Underpayment inequity is a state of inequity where the employees ratio of inputs-to-outcomes is lower than their perceived ratio of a comparative standard.

c) The 5 strategies employees use are:1. Increasing their outcomes2. Reducing their inputs3. Cognitive reevaluations4. Changing the comparative standard5. Leaving the field

The first strategy could be approaching their supervisor and asking for a pay rise to compensate for the higher work effort (input). This could include employee theft, where the theft is viewed as an addition to wages an increase to outcome- that they are entitled to.

The second strategy is decreasing the amount of effort put into their work tasks so that the ratio of inputs-to-outcomes becomes equal to the rest of the workers.

The third strategy involves cognitively reevaluating and adjusting their perception of the value of their input-to-outcome ratios such that equity is restored.

The fourth strategy is to choose a different worker to compare ratios such that their own ratio is perceived more favorably.

The fifth strategy is to leave the field in search of a more equitable exchange. This could involve resignation or simply a psychological withdrawal from the organization such that the employee participates with minimal effort and commitment.

d) One hypothesis would be, adequate explanations is negatively related to feelings of inequity that accompanied the pay cut (Greenberg, 1990, p 562, 2nd full paragraph).

4a)

b) Given that the null hypothesis is true, the probability of committing the Type I error where the null hypothesis is rejected when it is actually true is 0.1%. If p-value of the sample is less than 0.1%, the null hypothesis is rejected.

c) The statistical power would be greater. Statistical power is the probability of detecting true effects, in other words, correctly rejecting the null hypothesis. Hence, statistical power = 1 Type II error (since Type II error is the rejecting the null hypothesis when there is a true population effect).

5) Using nonprobability sampling means that equal representation is not ensured; hence the external validity of his results would be lowered. The inferences drawn from his sample do not generalize well to the population.

6a) Yes. The correlation between pay basis and pay equity was equal to .07 and has no significant correlation. Since r=0.07 is less than 1.0, there is discriminant validity between the two measures

b) This is good for the construct validity. Having discriminant validity between the two measures means that each measure is measuring the construct that it is supposed to measure. In this case, it means that the pay basis measure is measuring the validity of the payment-group variable and the pay equity measure is measuring the differences in perceived payment equity. The strong correspondence between the measures and the constructs being manipulated shows that there is construct validity in the study.

c) Common method variance (CMV) is the source of bias in the correlation between two variables when both are measured via self-report. The relationship between pay basis and pay equity is definitely vulnerable to CMV. Humans are not analytical instruments and will not produce completely accurate information. There are many biases that could affect the ratings such as internal mood states. One source of bias would be the suspiciousness of employee theft being studied, hence leading to employees giving inaccurate self-reports that would show them in a positive light.

References:Adams, J., & Freedman, S. (1976). Equity theory revisited: Comments and annotated bibliography. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9(9), 43-90. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60058-1

1