GENDER, EQUITY, AND JOB SATISFACTION RECONSIDERED

INTRODUCTION

Much of both internal and external research
on FAA employee job satisfaction has been based
on the explicit assumptions that: (a) satisfaction
is a potential determinant of absenteeism, turn-
over, in-role job performance (i.e.. behaviors
specified in the job description), and extra-role
behaviors (i.e., discretionary helping behaviors
intended to aid the organization), and (b) the
primary antecedents of job attitudes are within
management's ability to influence (Angle &
Perry. 1983). Accompanying the latter assump-
Uon has been a notion that managers should
perhaps employ different strategies to promote
isfaction among men and women, because
organizational issues are supposedly differen-
tially relevant to men and women in the devel-
opment of their job satisfaction.

It should be noted that support for different
management Strategies is not universal. Bruning
and Snyder (1983) correctly pointed out that
different strategies may be useful when gender
differences exist but may lead to discrimination
when they do not. Toward examining the utility
of such strategies for agency managers, the
present study investigated possible gender dif-
ferences in the relationship between equity
perceptions and feelings of job satisfaction among
FAA personnel. Following Deaux (i985), the
non-biologically based male-female differences
examined here will be discussed in terms of
gender rather than sex differences.

Experimental research testing the tenets of
equity theory (Adams,1963) kas primarily
focused on two areas of justice behaviors, name-
ly reward allocation and reactions to injustice
(Major & Deaux, 1982). Studies investigating
the former have involved a decision by subjects
as to how to distribute rewards based on infor-
mation about the level of effort of others in the
study. The typical finding is that the equity norm
guides the decision (Greenberg & Cohen, 1982).
In other words, rewards are consistent with the
levels of effort given and inpyt made by the
subjects. Studies examining reactions to injustice
have assessed cognitive. affective. and behavioral

responses to equity (i-e.. fairness), and inequity
(Le., unfairness). Results of these studies indicate
that people are less satisfied with and are more
motivated to redress inequitable conditions than
equitable ones (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid,
1978). The bottom line of work in this area is
that perceptions of equity (fairness) have led to
favorable outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, citi-
zenship behaviors), and perceptions of inequity
(unfairness) have led to unfavorable outcomes
(e.g., job dissatisfaction, lack of organizational
commitment).

Although equity theory has served as a para-
digm applying to most individuals in most situa-
tions, empirical research (see Major & Deaux,
1982) suggests that gender may affect the utility
of equity thcory in explaining organizational be-
haviors. Studies have indicated that men are
more likely than women to distribute outcomes to
individuals in direct proportion to their input
(Kahn, 1972; Lane & Messe, 1971; Leventhal &
Lane, 1970). Indeed, the trend has been that men
use the equity norm, while women use the
equality norm (ie., distributing resources equally
without regard to individual efforts). Studies have
provided various explanations of this gender
difference. Some evidence suggests that men and
women may differ in their interaction goals, with
women striving for interpersonal or social suc-
cess and men striving for exploitative, competi-
tive success (see, for example, Kahn, O°Leary,
Krulewitz, & Lamm, 1980). Furthermore, while
men may tend to identify effort and skill as
relevant inputs, women may tend to identify
participation as more relevant (Walster & Wals-
ter, 1975). Kahn, Nelson, and Gaeddert (1980)
argued that gender differences will most likely be
found when situational demands are ambiguous
or weak and that men and women will attempt to
change the situation to be consistent with their
interpersonal orientation. It should be noted that
circumstances such as the public nature of the
allocation (Kidder, Bellettirie, & Cohn, 1977)
and anticipation of future interaction with the
partner (Shapiro, 1975) may minimize these
tendencies; these situations are present in the
workplace. Nevertheless, identification of this
gender difference has brought about consider-



argument that the choice of equity or equality
wil be based on whether the individuals see
others as unique individuals or as role players,
it is possible that co-workers were seen by both
genders as role players or occupants of their
formal positions. Thus, equity may have been
salient ia the development of job satisfaction for
both men and women. Moreover, Bem’s (1985)
gender schema model suggests that persons with
well developed sex-typed schema are nore likely
to assess thei: social environment in gender-
related ways. Ii is possible that the FAA
populations tapped in the present samples may
have had less well-developed sex-typed schemas
than the college-age subject populations often
tapped in previous equity studies.

A decade ago, Kahn, Nelson, and Gaeddert
(1980, p. 748) argued that “much of the research
on reward allocations has over-estimated the
extent of sex differences.” In studies of allocation
behavior, men and women have responded differ-
ently to the same situation (Kidder, Beliettirie, &
Cohn, 1977) and similarly to different situations
(Kahn, Nelson, & Gaeddert, 1980). Such results
suggest a lack of clarity on this issue and that not
all relevant variables have been identified. As
noted by Freedman and Phillips (1988), studies
on gender differences in motivation and work
values have failed to demonstrate that gender is
the actual factor underlying observed differ-
ences. Indeed, Beutell and Brenner (1986) noted
that the trend is toward similarity, rather than
dissimilarity, in work values. Feingold’s (1988)
study of standardized aptitude tests given between
1947 and 1980 revealed a decline in gender
differences, which suggests that gender
differences in cognitive abililies may now be
nonexistent. Perhaps gender differences in
organizational behavior also may now be less
significant than previously observed or thought.
With the focus on controlling for variables such
as organizational-level and supervisory status, we
have become more sophisticated in examining the
complexity of individual differences in the pre-
diction of work behaviors. Unfortunately, studies
that focus on gender and ignore other possible
individual-level variables continue to be conduc-
ted.

AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Further research may be needed to explore
possible gender differences in the equity-job
satisfaction relationship. To explicitly identify the
actual consequences (and whether or not they are
meaningful) of the very small differences
reported here: (a) do men and women develop
feelings of jvb satisfaction using different

processes, (b) do these differences have
implications for work behaviors, and so forth.
Although the results of the meta-analysis suggest
that there were no actual differences in the
present study, it is possible that other measures
of the constructs described here may have yielded
gender differences. Thus, research is reeded to
not only investigate possible gender differences
but also consider the antecedents ard implications
of these differences.

Furthermore, future designs should explore
alternative explanations of observed gender
differences. For example, research is needed on
the identification of comparison-cihers and
possible differences in perceptions of cumpari-
son others as unique individuals versus role play~
ers. Among married personnel, breadwinner
status (i.e., whether or not the person’s income
is the primary income for the family unit) may
account for some of the variance in the slight
gender differences (see Witt, 1988). For ex-
ample, equity, particularly pay ecuity, may be
more salient in the development of job satisfi
tion for individuals who are the family breadwin-
ners. Non-breadwinners, on whose income the
family does not depend, may be more likely to
consider intrinsic factors (e.g. satisfaction with
work tasks) in developing their feelings of job
satisfaction.

Lab studies using artificial organizational
systems or fieid studies using non-essential social
organizations (i.e., clubs or social groups) that
do not directly atfect one’s ability to make a
living may have limited external validity. Fur-
thermore, meta-analyses should be employed to
assess the influence of measurement artifacts
when examining these issues across studies.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
OF RESULTS

The data suggest that equity is an important
component of job satisfaction among the FAA
personnel sampled in the present study. In other
words, agency employees perceiving fairness in
pay and promotions were more likely to feel
satisfied with their jobs than employees perceiv-
ing less fairness or unfairness. This suggests that
supervisors and managers should explain person-
nel outcomes and, when appropriate, emphasize
the fairness of those outcomes and the procedures
leading to those outcomes. Supervisor articulation
of how personnel decisions are made is important
(see, for example, Bies, 1987). As equity is one
component of job satisfaction, employees who
have access to information about personnel
decisions and how they are made are more likely


you with your organization as a place to wor
and (j)” How satisfied are you with the manage-
ment of your organization?” They also com-
pleted a I-item measure, "Overall, how satisfied
are you with your job?" (1988: M = 3.60: SD
= 1.16: 1990: M = 3.57; SD = 1.18).

The rationale for using both total scores of
multiple facet items of job satisfaction as well as
one global item stems from evidence suggesting
that: (a) specific satisfaction measures “better
tetlect changes in relevant situational factors
because of the more precise referent” (Gerhart,
1982, p. 371). (b) responses to a global item
(Le. an ixem that dees nat specify with regard to
what referent the rater is to express his/her job
satisfaction) may more likely reflect individual
ditterences than are responses to specific items
{see Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), and (c) single
items may not be as unreliable as previously
thought (Scarpello & Campbell, 1983). In other
words, the use of total facet and global measures
provided the opportunity to examine gender
differences operating in response to both
comext-specific and context-free cues.

Equity

Employees completing the ASCD_ project
surveys completed 2 items used in previous
Federal Government surveys (Office of Person-
nel Management, 1979) presented on a 5-point
Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 =
strongly agree} in which the employees indi-
cated their agreement with these items: (a) "Con-
sidering my skills and the effort I put into my
work, [ am satisfied with my pay” (M = 3.19:
SD = 1.09), and (b) “Promotions here depend
on how well a person performs his or her job"
(M = 2.93; SD = 1.13). Employees responding
to the 1988 or 1990 JSS completed 2 items on a
5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all; 5 = to
avery great extent): (a2) "To what extent does the
FAA pay well, compared to other places?”
(1988: M = 2.91; SD = .98; 1990: M = 2.84:
SD = .98) and (b} "To what extent are promo-
tions in your organization given to those who are
best qualified?” (1988: M = 2.67; SD = 1.09:
1990: M = 2.59; SD = 1.12).

3 itehaaiaa mea:

we

RESULTS

Correlations between perceived equity levels
and job satisfaction scores were computed. As
shown in Table 1, the general pattern of the
coefficients suggests that perceptions of equity
were positively and significantly related to job
Satisfaction. To test the hypothesis that the
correlation would be higher among men, cor-
relations were computed separately for men and
women. Differences in the correlations were then
assessed by Fisher Z transformation. As also
shown in Table 1, the relationships between the
equity and job satisfaction scales were essentially
the same among men and women. Where statis-
tically significant differences existed. the correla-
tions between pay equity scores and satisfaction
scores were slightly higher among men than
among women in four Sets of coefficients. How-
ever, there were significant differences between
men and women in the ASCD project in the rela-
Uonship between promotional equity scores and
total facet satisfaction scores. Promotional equity
scores were more strongly related to total facet
job satisfaction scores among women than men.

The large sizes and number of the samples
measured in the present study inflated the proba-
bility of finding statistically significant gender
differences. Therefore. we employed the Hunter
and Schmidt (1990) meta-analysis proce-dure to
review the effect sizes (i.e., the sizes of the
correlation coefficients) of the relationships
between the measures of equity perceptions and
job satisfaction. The average correlations were
weighted based on each sample size. The stand-
ard deviations (SDc) for the mean correlations
were corrected for the artifact of sampling error
and were used to estimate credibility intervals.
The credibility interval was calculated and
applied as one indicator of the existence of
potential moderators of the relationship between
equity and job satisfaction (Whitener, 1990). The
standard errors of the mean correlations were
calculated using the formula (Schmidt, Hunter, &
Raju 1988) for effects based on heterogeneous
subpopulations. The estimations of the standard
errors were not calculated using the assumption



able research interest and concern for implica-
tions in work groups and in supervisor-
subordinate interactions. For example, men might
be more likely than women to focus on
performance of their subordinates in making
promotion decisions.

Brockner and Adsit (1986) noted an impor-
tant, but untested, implication that the equity
norm is more salient for men than women. They
argued that men’s satisfaction with an exchange
relationship should be influenced by the presence
or absence of equity more so than women’s
satistaction. Testing this supposition, they con-
ducted a study of 51 persons in 3 clubs, 1 of
which was comprised of all women (N = 14),
another was mainly comprised of men (N of men
= 16; N of women = 4), and the third had 10
men and 7 women. They reported that the
equity-satisfaction relationship was considerably
stronger among men than among women, The
relationship was especially strong among men in
the primarily male group and weak for women in
the all female group.

The Brockner and Adsit (1986) finding has
an important implication for organizational
theory, namely that equity perceptions may be
more salient in the development of job satisfac-
tion among men than it is among women. This
gender difference may be important in the
management of men and women personnel. The
purpose of the present study was to attempt to
extend the findings reported by Brockner and
Adsit (1986) to data collected from FAA person-
nel while using different measures of job satistac-
tion and perceived equity. Replication of their
findings would suggest a need for further
research in this area and the possible utility of
different strategies tor managing men and women
for purposes of promoting job satisfaction with a
focus on equity-related issues and antecedents.
Results showing no practical gender differences,
however, would favor caution in considering
such strategies. Thus. the present study tested
the hypothesis that gender would moderate the
relationship between perceived equity and job
satisfaction. Specifically, we hypothesized that
the equity-satisfaction correlation would be
higher for men than for women.

METHOD

Subjects and Procedure

The attitudes of FAA employees were mea-
sured as part of a multi-year evaluation of the
Airway Science Curriculum Demonstration
(ASCD) Project surveys (N of men = 7518; N
of women = 1343), the 1988 Job Satisfaction
Survey JSS) (N of men = 4001; N of women
= 1008), and the 1990 JSS (N of men = 3739:
N of women = 1045). Data coliection pro-
cedures for the ASCD project (Broach. 1989)
and JSS projects have been described elsewhere
(see Myers, Schroeder, VanDeventer, & Collins,
1988).

MEASURES

Job Satisfaction

Employees completing the ASCD project
surveys responded to items used in previous
Federal Government surveys (Office of Personnel
Management, 1979) presented on a 5-point
Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree wu 5 =
strongly agree; 3 = neutral). The employees
indicated the extent of their agreement with 5
facet items (M = 17.59; SD = 2.98): (a) “Allin
all, I am satisfied with my pay." (b) “I am
satisfied with the chances of getting a promo-
tion,” (c) “I am satisfied with the amount of job
security I have," (d) “All in all, I am satisfied
with my work group,” and (e) “I am satisfied
with the respect J get from the people I work
with,” as well as with a global. 1-item measure,
"In general. J am satisfied with my job" (M =
3.93: SD = .75). Employees responding to the
1988 and 1990 JSS*s completed 10 items on a
5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very dissatisfied to
5 = very satisfied; 1988: M = 33.97; SD =
7.38; 1990: M = 33.58: SD = 7.6): (a) "How
satisfied are you with your pay?" (b) “How
satisfied are you with your benefits?” (c) “How
satisfied are you with your retirement system?"
(d) “How satisfied are you with your physical
working conditions?” (e) "How satisfied are you
with your job -- the kind of work that you do?”
(f) “How satisfied are you with your work
group?” (g) “How satisfied are you with the
quality of feedback you receive from your super-
visor?" (h) “How satistied are you with your
immediate supervisor?” (i) "How satisfied are



of homogeneous subpopulations, because the
corrected standard deviatioas ranged from .099
tu .107, and also the large sample sizes would
have produced standard errors of the effect size
of less than .01.

As shown in Table 2, the credibility intervals
did not include the zero value, an indication that
no significant moderators vere probable across
these studies. Confidence intervals indicated that
the mean correlations were significantly different
from zero vased on standard errors ranging
between .020 and .031. These are conservative
estimates of the effect size at the lower point of
the confidence interval because (a) the formula
used for the standard error was based on the
assumption that men and women comprised
heterogenous populations and (b) the correlations
Were not adjusted urward to correct for
Measurement error {umesiability) in the equity
and job satisfaction measures.

For all 24 correlations. representing rela-
Uonships across 3 samples, the gender groups, 2
different equity measures. and the 2 job satisfac-
tion measures, the weighted mean correlation was
.37 with a confidence interval of .33 to .41.
When gender was analyzed as a potential moder-
ator of the equity-satistaction relationship, results
indicated that the weighted mean correlations
were very similar (.37( for men and .366 for
women), as were the respective credibility and
confidence intervals.

CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION
“ OF RESULTS

Consistent with previous research, equity
accounted for a significant amount of the var-
jance in job sat'sfaction, However, for the most
part, the data suggested few practical gender
differences in the relationships. Indeed. the
results of the meta-analysis suggest that the dif-
ferences observed in the present study may have

zen the result of sampling error. Thus, extend-
ing the literature, these data suggest no gender
differences in the  equity-job — satisfaction
relationship. Why are the present data incon-
sistent with the results reported by Brockner and
Adsit (1986)? Answers may come trom the
identification of conceptual differences between
the present and previous research, previous ex-
planations of gender differences in allocations to
the self. or pussibie differences between the
present and previously measured samples.

Conceptual differences between the present
study and the Brockner and Adsit (1986) study
may explain differences in the results. In the

latter study, satisfaction with an exchange rela-
tionship wes the criterion of interest, not job
Satisfaction. In addition, Brockner and Adsit
(1986) operationalized equity as: (a) the dif-
ference between the other’s perceived outcome
and inputs and (b) the difference between one’s
own outcome and inputs. In the present study,
equity was operationalized in more global ratings
of fairness of different aspects of the individuals’
respective organizations. The comparison others
{i.e., individuals against whom people compare
their situations), on which equity formulations
were to be based, were not as explicitly
identified by Brockner and Adsit (1986). Thus.
individuals” comparison others may have varied
significantly, as may have internal standards.
However, job — satisfaction reflects the
employee’s satisfaction with his/her exchange
relationship with the organization (see Organ,
1988). it is conceptually consistent to expect
replication with the Brockner and Adsit findings.
In light of the results presented here, it may be
that their results reflect Type I error.

Another answer may lie in the utility of
previous and perhaps outdated explanations of
gender differences in allocations to the self, of
which there have been several. First, some early
researchers suggested that women have had lower
adaptation levels for their pay; they become
adjusted to lower pay levels (Smith, Kendall, &
Hulin, 1969) and lower pay expectations (Sauser
& York, 1978) than men because of past wage
discrimination. Second, others (Berger, Zelditch,
Anderson, & Cohen, 1972: Chesler & Goodman.
1976; Major, McFarlin, & Gagnon, 1984) ar-
gued that women’s lower standards (which
reduced the salience of equity considerations)
resulted from a tendency for women to compare
their out-comes with women rather to those of
men, who were typically paid more (Treiman &
Hartmann, 1981). A third argument suggested
that gender differences in internal pay standards
stemmed from women’s valuing money fess
(Crosby, 1982) and interpersonai relationships
more (Kahn, O'Leary, Krulewitz, & Lamm,
1980). Major and Deaux (1982) offered a fourth
perspective: because women devalued their inputs
relative to men, they tended to underreward their
work. Fifth, Cailahan-Levy and Messe (1979)
argued that women perceived less of a connection
between their work and pay as the result of
sex-role socialization. The utility of these argu-
ments may be somewhat less than in the past,
because of a narrowing of gender differences at
work in recent years {e.g., Beutell & Brenner,
1986).

Alternatively, in line with Lerner’s (1977)


Se

PB92-149012

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Techaical tefermaation Service



Greenverg, J., & Cohen, R. L. (1982). Equity
and juscice in social behavior. New York:
Academic Press.

Hendrix, W. H. (1979). Organizaticnal assess-
ment indices of effectiveness. dir Force
Humen Resources Laboratory Technical
Report #79-49, Brooks AFB, Texas.

Hunter, E. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (199--.. Merh-
ods of meta-analysis:Correcting -vror and
bias in research findings. Newiury Park,
Cus: Sage.

Kahn, A. (1972). Reactions to the generosity or
stinginess of an intelligent or stupid work
partner: A test of equity theory in a direct
exchange ielationship. Jeurnal of Persorlity
and Social Psychology, 21, 116-123.

Kahn, A., Nelson, R. E., & Gaeddert, W. P.
(1980). Sex of subject and sex composition
of the group as Ceterminants of reward al-
locations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 737-750.

Kahn, A., O’Leary, V., Krulewitz, J. E.,
Lamm, H. (1980). Equity and equality: Male
and female means to a just end. Basic and
Applied Suciat Psychology, 1, 173-197.

Keller, R. © . (1986). Predictors of the per-
formance of project groups in R&D organiza-
tions. Academy of Management Journal, 29,
715-725.

Kidder, L. G., Bellettirie, G., & Cohn, E. S.
(1977). Secret ambitions and public perfor-
mances: The effects of anonymity on reward
allocations made by men and women. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 13,
70-80.

Lane, I. M., & Messe, L. A. (1971). Equity and
the distribution of rewards. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 20, 1-17.

Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some
hypothesis as to its origins and forms. Jour-
nal of Personality, 45, i-52.

Leventhal, G. S., & Lane, D. W. (1970). Sex,
age, and equity behaxior. Journal ef Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 15, 312-316.

Major. B.. & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual
differences in justice behavior. In J. Green-
berg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Bquity cad justice
in social behavior (pp. 43-/6). New York:
Academic Press

Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D.
(1984}. Overworked and underpaid: On the
nature of gender differences in personal
entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 1399-1412.

Myers, J. G., Schroeder, D. J., VanDevenier,
A., & Collins, W. E. 1988. /988 FAA job
Satisfaction survey: Nationai report. Washing-
ton, D. C.: FAA Office of Aviation Medi-
cine.

Office of Personnel Management. (1979). Fed-
eral employee attitudes: Phase 1: Baseline
survey 1979. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: The good soldier syndrome. Lex-
ington, MA: Lexington Books.

Sauser, W. 1.. & York, M. (1978). Sex dif-
terences in job satisfaction: A re-examination.
Personnel Psychology, 31, 537-547.

Scarpello, V., & Campbc‘l, J. P. (1983). Job
satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Person-
nel Psychology, 36, 577-600.

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J.E., & Raju, N. S.
(1988). Validity generalization and situational
specificity: A second look at the 75% rule and
Fisher’s Z transformation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 665-672.

Schnake, M. E. (1983). An empirical assess-
ment of the effects of affective response in the
measurement of organizational climate. Per-
sonnei Psychology, 36, 791-807.

Scholi, R. W., Cooper, E. A., & McKenna, !.
F. (1987). Referent selection in determining
equity perceptions: Differential effects on
behavior and cttitudinal outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 40, 113-124.

Shapiro, E. G. (1975). Effect of expectations of
future interaction on reward allocation in
dyads: Eauity or equality. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 31. 73-880.



stied with their ir jobs -

if the intorma-

are
limited by individual- level dispositions that may
filter their perceptions of the objective situation.

The data and results reported here suggest
that caution should be used when assuming
gender differences in the equity-job satisfaction
relationship. In other words, the data presented
here do not support the notion that different
management strategies should be employed for
men and women for the purposes of increasing
job saiistaction via equity among FAA person-
nel. Extrapolating from the present data, the use
of such strategies may lead to inappropriate
management practices. However, additional
research is needed to examine whether other
issues (@.g.. communication strategies) would
support the implementation of different manage-
ment strategies.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding
of equity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 422-436.

Ajzen, 1., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-
behavior relationships: A theoretical analysis
and review of empirical research.
Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.

Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1983). Organi-
zational commitment: Individual and
organizational influences. Work and
Occupations, 10, 123-146.

Bem, S. J. (1985). Androgyny and gender sche-
ma theory. A conceptual and empirical in-

tegration. In T. B. Sonderegga (Ed.).
Nebraska symposium on motivation:
Psychology and gender (pp. 179-226)

Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska.

Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Jr., Anderson. B., &
Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of
distributive justice: A status value reformula-
tion. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, Jr., and B.
Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in
progress (Vol. 2, pp. 119-146). Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.

Beutell, N. J., & Brenner, O. C. (1986). Sex
differences in work values. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 28, 29-41.

Bies. R. J. (1987). Beyond “voice”
fluence of decision-maker just
sincerity on procedural jairness j
Representative Research in Sociai Psychology,
17, 3-14.

Broach, D. (1989). Airway science curriculum
demonstration project: Second summative
evaluaiion report. (Final report to the Office
of Training and Higher Education). Okla-
homa City, OK: Human Resources Research
Division, Civil Aeromedical Institute.

Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. (1986). The moderat-
ing effect of sex on the equity-satisfaction
relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 585-590.

Bruning, N. S.. & Snyder, R. A. (1983). Sex
and position as predictors of organizational
commitment. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 26, 485-491.

Callahan-Levy, C. M., & Messe, L. A. (1979).
Sex differences in the allocation of pay.
Journai of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 37, 433-446.

Chesler, P., & Goodman. E. J. (1976). Women,
money, and power. NY: Morrow.

Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and
working women. NY: Oxford University.

Deaux, K.(1985). Sex and gender. Annual Re-
view of Psychology, 36, 49-8!.

Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differ-
ences are disappearing. American Psycholo-
gist, 43, 95-103.

Freedman, S$. M., & Phillips. J. S. (1988). The
changing nature of research on women at
work. Journal of Management, 14, 231251.

Gerhart. B. (1987). How important are dis
tonal factors as determinants xb satisfac-
tion? Impiications for job design and other
Personnel programs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 366-373.

Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural
injustice in payment distributions: Do the
means justify the ends? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 55-61.

$
3
;



TABLE I: Differential Correlations Between Eyuity and Sausfaction Measures By Gender

Job satisfaction measure correlated with perceptions of pay equity

All Men Women Z p

Sample: Airway science N=7518 N= 1343

Total job satisfaction 44 A4 44 0.00 ns
l-item job satisfaction 32 32 .26 2.21 05
Sample: 1988 JSS N= 4001 N=1008

Total job satisfaction 2 43 36 2.06 05
l-item job satisfaction 26 27 223 1.21 ns
Sample: 1990 JSS N=3739 N= 1045

Total job satisfaction 42 43 37 2.04 05
l-item job satisfaction 27 29 22 2.14 OS

Job satisfaction measure correlated with perceptions of promotion equity

All Men Women Z p<

Sample: Airway science

Total job satis 30 4.45 Oi
{-item job satisfaction 24 1.10 ns
Sample: 1988 JSS

Total job satisfaction -53 0.39 ns
l-item job satisfaction 40 1.32 ns
Sample: 1990 JSS

Total job satisfaction 58 1.35 ns
l-item job satisfaction 42 1.05 ns

Note: BéCause of the sample Sizes, all coefficients were statistically signiticant.

TABLE 2: Meta-analysis of Relationship Between Equity Perceptions and Satisfaction Measures

Group K r SDe Credibility SE Contidence
interval interval
Total 24 369 099 Vw 57 020 23 w 4h
Men 12.377 097 8 to 56 028 32 to 43
Women 12.366 107 1S to 58 .031 30 ws 43
K = number of correlations: r = weighted mean corre! vorrested Standard
on of correlation coefficients: SE = standard error of the w elation based on the

assumption that moderators were present.

4s



Technical Report Documentation Page

To Ranort No. 2 3

| DOT/FAA/AM-92/9 PB92- 149912

He 1 so

- Title ang Subtle 75. Report Deve

?
GENDER, EQUITY, AND JOB SATISFACTION RECONSIDERED February 1992

TS) Petomng Ore

8. Performing Orgen.se%07 Revert Vo.

recy

LL. A, Witt, Ph.D. and Lendell G. Nye

5 Name and Address PIO. Work Unit No. ‘TRAIS?

9. Performing Organ

Tl. Contract ar Gren* No.

| PB. 0. Box 25082
| Oklahoma City, OK 73125

13. Type of Report ond Pe-roc Covered

i
i
FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute HN
i
4
j
1

12. Sponsoring Agency Name ond Address.
Office of Aivation Medicine
Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D.C. 20591

a ee

15. Supplementery Notes

This work was performed under Task AM-C—92-HRR-122.

16.” Abstract

situations, empirical research suggests that gender md

affect the utility of equity theory in explaining

interactions. Brockner and Adsit (1986) noted an important but untested implication that the equity norm

relationship should be influenced by the presence or absence of equity more so than women’s

implication for organizational theory, namely that equity perceptions may be more salient among men
than women in the development of job satisfaction. Replication of their findings would suggest a need

women for purposes of promoting job satisfaction with a focus on equity-related issues and antecedents.
Contrary results, however, would suggest a need for caution in considering such sirategies. The present
study tested the hypothesis that the equity-satisfaction relationship would be higher for men than for

hypothesis. However. the results reinforced the importance of equity as a correlate of job satisfaction.

Although equity theory has served as a theoretical framework applying to most individuals in most
organizational behaviors. Studies have indicated that men are more likely than women to distribute
outcomes to individuals in direct proportion to their input. This gender difference has brought about
considerable research interest and concern for implications in work groups and in supervisor-subordinate
is more salient for men than it is for women. They argued that men’s satisfaction with an exchange
satisfaction. They reported data indicating that the equity-satisfaction relationship was considerably

stronger among men than among women. The Brockner and Adsit (1986) finding has an important

for further research in this area and a possible utility of different strategies for managing men and

women. Meta-analyses conducted on data collected from FAA personnel failed to confirm the

Equity, Job Satisfaction, ' Document is available to the public
through the National Te cal
information Service, Springfield,

| Virginia 22161

Gender Differences, Job Attitudes

| 17. Key Words : 18. Distr buen Stotement
1
I
|
t
!

19. Security Classif, fof ths report, P20 Securnty Classif. ‘of this page < 2t- No, of Pages | 72. Price

Unclassified Unclassified

1
t i

we

Form DOT F 1700.7 2~72 Reproduction of completed page cuthorized



NOTICE

the sponsorship of

ange. The United States Government

assumes no Llabiliry for the contents or use thereof.

wna Moet,

: of Transportation in the interest of

gee


DOT/FAA/AM-92/9 Ge nder, Equity, and

Office of Aviation Medicine

som D.C. 20591 Job Satisfaction

LA. Wit
Lendell G. Nve

Civil Aeromedical Instinaie
Federal Aviation Administration
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

February 1992

Final Report

This document is available ro the public
through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

U.S. Department
of Transportation

Federal Aviation
Administration

REPRODUCED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRINGFIELD. VA 22161



Smith, P. C.. Kendall, L. M.. & Hulin, C. L.
(1969). The measurement of work and saris-
faction in work and retirement. Chicago,
Rand-MeNally.

Trieman. D. J.. & Hartmann, H. I. (1981).
Women. work, and wages: Equal pay for jobs
of equal value. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.

Walster. E. H., Walster, G. W. (1975). Equity
and social justice. Journal of Social Issues,
31, 21-43.

Walster, E. H., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid,
E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Whitener, E, M. (1990). Confusion of confi-
dence imervals and credibility intervals in
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 75, 315-321.

Witt, L. A. (1988). Breadwinner vs. non-
breadwinner differences in married women’s
job satisfaction and perceptions of
organizational climate. Human Relations, 41,
483-491.

*U.S.GP0:1992-661-063/40028