Cultural Differences in the Effects of Inequity on Coworker Friendships

Full text

Human Communication. A Publication of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 82 – 102
Cultural Differences in the Effects of Inequity on Coworker Friendships
Catherine Y. Kingsley Westerman
KINGSL17@msu.edu
Tel. (517) 355-3329
Hee Sun Park
heesun@msu.edu
Tel. (517) 355-3480
Hye-Eun Lee
leehyeeu@msu.edu
Tel. (517) 353-0887
Department of Communication
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Fax (517) 432-1192
Catherine Y. Kingsley (M.A., Michigan State University, 2004) and Hye-Eun Lee (M.A.,
Michigan State University, 2005) are doctoral students in the department of Communication at
Michigan State University, where Hee Sun Park (Ph.D., University of California at Santa
Barbara, 2003) is an assistant professor. For correspondence, please contact the first author,
Catherine Y. Kingsley at KINGSL17@msu.edu.

Inequity and coworker friendship 83
Abstract
Americans and Koreans were compared on their responses to inequity. Whether they
would be likely to do nothing or terminate the relationship was of interest, along with their level
of satisfaction with different types of inequity. Koreans showed a greater reduction in
satisfaction in relationships with inequity in the social dimension than did Americans. Koreans
and Americans were similar in their satisfaction reduction with inequity in the task dimension.
Culture interacted with type of inequity such that Koreans showed a greater decrease in
satisfaction in overrewarding relationships than Americans but Koreans’ and Americans’
decrease in satisfaction did not differ for underrewarding relationships. In addition, Americans
had less intent to do nothing (i.e., more intent to do something) about the relationship with
inequity in the task dimension than Koreans whereas no difference was found between Koreans
and Americans for social dimension. Koreans had greater intent to do nothing (i.e., less intent to
do something) than Americans when underrewarded, but no difference was evident between
Koreans and Americans when overrewarded. Willingness to terminate was not strongly
endorsed by any participant.

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 84
Cultural differences in the effects of inequity on coworker friendship
Imagine two individuals, Susan in the U.S. and Young Hee in Korea. Each has to work
with her respective coworkers at her respective company on projects requiring multiple
personnel. A universal organizational issue is the conflict between overachievers and individuals
who cannot complete their work on time, are unavailable, or cannot complete quality work.
Differences in ability or motivation often lead to the problem of inequity in coworker
relationships and friendships, or in blended friendships, which involve interaction both at work
and outside of work (Bridge & Baxter, 1992). The responses to inequity may differ across
culture, as a function of the type of inequity, and as a function of the dimension in which the
inequity lies (task vs. social). Susan and Young Hee may respond differently to their coworkers
depending on whether they are overachievers or slackers, their culture, and whether they
experience inequity at work or outside of work.
The current research examines cultural differences in responses to two inequity types
(overbenefit [i.e., overreward] and underbenefit [i.e., underreward]) in the task versus social
dimensions of a coworker friendship. Central to our interest in blended friendships in the U.S.
and Korea is the question of how members of the relationships will respond in the face of
inequity. What will Susan and Young Hee do in the face of inequity in their blended friendships?
Will each choose to live with the inequity (i.e., do nothing) or terminate the relationship? How
satisfied will they be with the equitable versus the inequitable friendships? This study focuses on
less common responses to inequity in blended friendships: termination of the relationship, doing
nothing, relational satisfaction of members of inequitable blended friendships.
Suggestions of answers to the above questions can be gleaned from literature on the
differences between U.S. and Korean cultures, cross-cultural research on equity, and the basic
tenets of Equity Theory. The following sections provide a brief review of these areas and
advance hypotheses and research questions.
Comparison of U.S. and Korean Cultures
Confucianism, a philosophy of human nature considering proper human relationships as
the basis of society, has had a profound impact on Korea (Yum, 2000). Confucianism is said to
influence the culture of Korean workplaces as well (Chen & Chung, 1994; Kim, 1994). In
Korean workplaces, individual goals and achievements are not valued as much as group goals
and interpersonal harmony. Workers with strong social networks are valued over those with
strong individual abilities (Yoon & Lim, 1999); loyalty, group belonging, and fellowship in the
workplace are also highly valued. In addition, Korean managers and workers hold strong beliefs
in organizational paternalism and solidarity (Kim, 1994). Spending time together outside work
for drinking or other social activities is very common in Korean workplaces. In sum, Korean
workplaces attempt to create a family-style climate and motivate their employees to behave as a
family. This includes both providing social support for and maintaining interpersonal harmony
with coworkers (Kim & Min, 1999).
Although Korea is usually considered to have cultural characteristics of collectivism,
cross-cultural research does not always show Korea as collectivistic and America as
individualistic. A meta-analysis has shown that Koreans are less individualistic than Americans,
but not necessarily more collectivistic (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Further,
economic crises and Westernization in Korea have caused changes that may indicate Koreans
will behave similarly to Americans. They may become more interested in individual goals, as
Americans are. Also, they may accept use of the equity norm in their workplaces. For example,
pay-for-performance systems (equity-based) have been well received in Korean workplaces

Inequity and coworker friendship 85
(Chang, 2003). Further, as the individual performance of Korean workers becomes more
important for careers in Korea, these workers may also become more interested in receiving
rewards proportional to their effort (Lee, 1998-99). When previously compared, Koreans and
Americans have displayed rather small differences (e.g., Gudykunst et al., 1996; Leung & Park,
1986). Given that Korean workplace culture seems to be evolving, previous comparisons may no
longer be completely accurate.
Evidently, neither researchers nor their data agree upon characteristics of the Korean
workplace. In a recent study, preferred information-seeking strategies of Koreans did not differ
much from those of Americans (e.g., Shin, Park, & Han, 2004). However, compared to
Americans, Koreans were more concerned with behavioral outcomes that can affect others and
other people’s expectations (e.g., Park & Levine, 1999). In sum, it is not easy to give a cookie-
cutter description of these two cultures as completely similar or different; each has its own
evolving “personality,” and both bear investigation.
Equity, Culture, and Relationship Dimension
Little research has been done to examine cultural differences in responses to inequity in
relationships. The majority of research examining cultural differences in equity has focused on
comparing equity versus equality as a preferred reward allocation rule. In other words, most
cross-cultural research have investigated (in)equity as an outcome, rather than as a cause for
relational outcomes. Past research does not shed much light on how Koreans and Americans
would react to overreward and underreward situations. Furthermore, cross-cultural research
findings on equity (and/or equality) as a reward allocation rule have been equivocal with regard
to cultural differences in preference for the equity norm in different relationship dimensions.
It has been suggested that adherence to the equity norm can vary with the types of goals
(the goals of economic productivity versus pleasant social relations, Deutsch, 1975; Katz &
Kahn, 1978) and relationship types (ingroup vs. outgroup members, Leung, 1988) that people
prioritize. When the equality norm is used for reward allocation, the focus is on equal
distribution of rewards, regardless of each individual’s input amount. If, for example, regardless
of the fact that Jane contributed 20 % and John 80 %, both Jane and John receive 50% of the
output, the equality rule is being used. With the equity norm, however, to create equity, the
amount of reward must be proportional to the amount contributed and that proportion must be
equal across partners. According to an equity orientation, in the previous example Jane was
being overrewarded and John was being underrewarded. If the equity rule was used to create an
equitable distribution, Jane would receive 20% of the output and John would receive 80% of the
output, creating a ratio of 1:1 for each member of the team.
In situations focused on productivity, both Koreans and Americans were more likely to
endorse the equity rule, but in situations focused on social maintenance (harmony), both were
more likely to prefer the equality rule (Leung & Park, 1986). In the U.S., where people are
considered individualistic and economically oriented (rather than attuned to social harmony),
equality, rather than equity, is a preferred allocation rule in some situations. Specifically, in
situations involving high interdependence and solidarity goals, Americans prefer the equality
rule (Chen, Meindl, & Hui, 1998). Further, those Americans higher in collectivism have less
positive preferences for the equity rule (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998). Endorsement of a given
allocation rule (equity/equality) clearly is not completely correlated with culture.
Understandably, strict adherence to the equity rule might seem less agreeable among
friends, where it might be more palatable to maintain relationships than to make sure the effort to
reward ratio is just right. On the other hand, for different types of relationships, it may seem

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 86
more prudent to ensure that each person receives an amount equivalent to what he or she put in
(equity). Leung (1988) indicates that people in collectivistic cultures use the equality rule for in-
group members and the equity rule for out-group members. Hui, Triandis, and Yee (1991) found
that high-performing Chinese participants were more likely to use the equality rule with their
friends than their coworkers, and low-performing participants were more likely to use the equity
rule, allocating rewards proportionally. Leung and Bond (1984) found that Chinese participants
preferred an allocator who used the equality rule with friends (in-group members). In addition,
Koreans rated individuals using the equality principle as more likable, friendlier, and warmer
than did Americans (Leung & Park, 1986). These findings seem to indicate that Koreans may be
less concerned with an equitable ratio of inputs and outputs in social relationships than in task
relationships.
Generally speaking, people respond differently to overreward and underreward whether
the inequity occurs in social relationships (Sprecher, 1992) or task relationships (Leventhal &
Bergman, 1969). How those responses differ as a function of social and task dimensions and in
different cultures remains to be seen. Empirical evidence on cross-cultural differences in reward
allocation in a group setting suggests that the effect of culture on responses to inequity does not
seem to be a function of task and social aspects of inequity. For example, for both social and task
situations, Hong Kong Chinese preferred equal reward distribution more strongly than
Americans did (Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982) and in another study, people from the U.S., Korea,
and Japan showed a similar pattern in their preferences for giving rewards (Kim, Park, & Suzuki,
1990). In general, the expected cultural differences in responses to social and task contributions
were not observed. However, overall, Koreans were more generous with giving social rewards
(i.e., willingness to extend the relationship to other situations such as friendship, working
partners in other projects, etc.) than were Americans (Kim et al., 1990).
Responses to Inequity
Relational satisfaction. Walster, Berscheid, and Walster (1973) define an equitable
relationship as one in which either the participant or an outside observer perceives all
participants to have equal relative outcomes. Equal relative outcomes occur when the relational
partners possess equal ratios of inputs to outcomes. Both inputs (e.g. assets, liabilities) and
outputs (e.g., rewards, costs) can be positive or negative. Underreward occurs when a participant
in the relationship contributes less than his or her partner while receiving equal or more rewards;
overreward occurs when a participant in the relationship contributes more than his or her partner
while receiving equal or fewer rewards.
Responses to each type of inequity may differ, given the different connotations of being
advantaged versus disadvantaged in a relationship. In some studies, underreward was positively
related to relationship uncertainty and dissatisfaction, while overreward was not (e.g., Dainton,
2003; Sprecher, 2001). Hegtvedt (1990) found that overrewarded subjects were the least
distressed, followed by equitably treated subjects, and finally underrewarded subjects, who
experienced the most distress. This indicates a difference in the strength of experienced distress
between underrewarded and overrewarded subjects.
Despite this difference, either type of inequity creates discomfort in those experiencing it
(Walster et al., 1973), so it seems likely that satisfaction would be impacted by inequity.
Previous research has shown that inequity is negatively related to satisfaction in various
relationships. For example, inequitably treated individuals, compared to those treated equitably,
have less satisfaction in close friendships (Medvene, Teal, & Slavich, 2000), dating relationships
(Dainton, 2003; Sprecher, 2001), marriage (Utne, Hatfield, Traupmann, & Greenberger, 1984;

Inequity and coworker friendship 87
Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990), and parental relationships with children (Vogl-Bauer, Kalbfleisch,
& Beatty, 1999). Thus, when experiencing inequity in coworker friendship, it is expected that
people will show less satisfaction than when the friendship is equitable. For the two types of
inequity, overreward versus underreward, the amount of decrease in satisfaction from equitable
relationship to inequitable relationship may differ. Assuming an association of underreward with
disadvantage and overreward with advantage, a greater decrease in relationship satisfaction may
be observed for underreward than for overreward. Thus, the first hypothesis predicts the effects
of two types of inequity on relationship satisfaction with a coworker friend.
H1: When comparing equitable and inequitable relationships, people will show a greater
decrease in satisfaction for underreward than for overreward.
It is questioned if Koreans and Americans would react differently to inequity in task
versus social dimensions. According to Oyserman et al. (2002), Koreans are less individualistic
than Americans. If we assume that Americans are very individualistic in the workplace, we may
speculate that Koreans would be more comfortable with inequity in the task dimension than
Americans, who expect a winner-take-all attitude in the workplace. Considering westernization
and the increasing emphasis on individual achievement in Korean workplaces (Chang, 2003;
Lee, 1998-99), however, Koreans may not differ much from Americans. Similarly, for the social
dimension of a coworker friendship, Koreans and Americans may or may not differ, as the rules
of social interaction in the two cultures might be more or less similar than different. Thus, the
following research questions are posed:
RQ 1: Will Koreans and Americans differ in satisfaction level change for overreward
versus underreward relationships?
RQ 2: Will Koreans’ and Americans’ satisfaction level change for inequity (overreward
vs. underreward) vary with the relationship dimension (task vs. social) in which
inequity occurs?
Intent to Do Nothing and Willingness to Terminate
Equity theory says inequity in relationships means discomfort for those in the
relationship. This discomfort may result in various restoration attempts, including taking action,
psychological restoration of equity, terminating the relationship (Walster et al., 1973), or doing
nothing (Sprecher, 1992). Relationship termination and doing nothing about the inequity are two
of the more extreme ways of dealing with inequity.
Doing nothing is the opposite of terminating; it involves simply ignoring the inequity and
continuing the relationship. Because most people would try to restore equity in some way, even
if it is not physically evident (they may psychologically resolve inequity), it is expected that in
an equitable relationship, people have higher intention to do nothing, while in inequitable
relationships, people have lower intention to do nothing. Further, people’s intention to do
nothing may vary with inequity types. That is, people’ intention to do nothing may differ
between overreward and underreward. Given that Korean workplaces encourage a family
atmosphere of social support, Koreans may be likely to overlook some inequity and do nothing.
However, the changes in Korean workplaces (e.g., Westernization, more emphasis on
individuals) lead to a less clear conclusion: Koreans may respond similarly to Americans.
Koreans’ versus Americans’ intentions cannot be easily predicted here. Thus, research questions
are advanced.
RQ 3: Comparing equitable and inequitable relationships, will Koreans and Americans
differ in the amount of change in intent to do nothing about overrewarding versus
underrewarding relationships?

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 88
RQ 4: Will Koreans’ and Americans’ changes in intent to do nothing about inequitable
relationships (overreward vs. underreward) vary with the relationship dimension
(task vs. social) in which inequity occurs?
Inequitably treated partners are less likely to engage in relationship maintenance than
equitably treated partners (Canary & Stafford, 1992, 1993, 2001; Dainton, 2003; Messman,
Canary, & Hause, 2000; Vogl-Bauer et al., 1999). That is, those in inequitable situations may be
less interested in continuing their relationships (termination). Regarding cultural differences on
willingness to terminate inequitable relationships, once again research questions, rather than
hypotheses, are advanced. The Korean “family” orientation leads us to believe that Koreans
would be less likely to terminate, but the Korean workplace can also be individually focused,
making predictions difficult.
RQ 5: Comparing equitable and inequitable relationships, will Koreans and Americans
differ in their willingness to terminate overreward versus underreward
relationships?
RQ 6: Will Koreans’ and Americans’ willingness to terminate inequitable relationships
(overreward vs. underreward) vary with the relationship dimension (task vs. social)
in which inequity occurs?
Method
Participants
The U.S. sample consisted of 341 participants including 288 undergraduates and 53
working adults. The sample included 39.6 % males, 58.4 % females, and 2.1 % who did not
indicate their sex. Of the 341 participants, 78.6 % were Caucasian, 7.5 % were African-
American, 3.6 % were Asian American, 2.7 % were Hispanic, 0.9 % were Pacific Islander, 0.3 %
were Native American, 2.4 % were Mixed, and 2.1 % were other ethnicities (fifteen did not
indicate an ethnicity). Ages ranged from 18 to 62 years old (M = 24.48, SD = 8.31), with 57.3 %
of the participants between the ages of 20 and 22. Nine participants did not denote their ages.
When asked if they have a person who they identify as both a friend and coworker, in other
words, a blended friend, 80.1 % of the 341 participants indicated that they did.
The Korean sample was collected in Korea and included 145 undergraduate students and
136 employed adults.1 Here, ages ranged from 19 to 59 years old (M = 28.1, SD = 7.56), and
more females (n = 169) than males (n = 104) participated (8 neglected to denote their gender).
Of 172 participants who answered a question about whether they had a blended friend, 84.88 %
indicated that they did.
Design. The design was a 2 (national culture: U.S. and Korea) × 2 (equity level:
underreward and overreward) × 2 (relationship dimension: inequity in task and social
dimensions). The questionnaires were originally written in English. Four Koreans fluent in
English translated the vignettes and scales for the current study directly from the original
instruments. Another several Koreans checked the translated version for its fluency and semantic
meaning in Korean.
Participants from each culture received the questionnaires in their native language. All
subjects initially received an equitable vignette followed by scales to establish a baseline for their
responses to an equitable relationship. Following that was an inequitable (either overreward or
1 Because many Korean undergraduate students do not have as much working experiences as U.S. undergraduate
students, a greater number of Korean employed adults, compared to U.S. employed adults, were recruited to
substantiate similarity between the Korean and U.S. samples for the topic (i.e., coworker friendship) of the current
study.

Inequity and coworker friendship 89
underreward, not both) vignette, which was also followed by various scales. In total, each
participant responded to two vignettes, with the equitable version first, followed by an
inequitable depiction of the blended friendship. Each vignette described a relationship between
the participant and a fictional, gender-neutral friend (Chris in the English version and Junghyun
in the Korean version), who were portrayed as organizational peers. English versions of all
vignettes are listed in Appendix A.
Equity was manipulated in three ways: by setting up the participant to receive less benefit
than Chris (Junghyun in Korean version), more benefit than Chris or about the same benefit as
Chris. In the underrewarded condition, participants read a vignette containing this sentence:
“However, sometimes Chris can’t seem to get Chris’ part done and you end up doing the entire
report. You never complain about helping Chris, but simply do the report and move on.” In the
overrewarded condition, the vignette included, “However, sometimes you can’t seem to get your
part done and Chris ends up doing the entire report. Chris never complains about helping you,
but simply does the report and moves on.”
Relationship dimension was manipulated by setting the inequity in either the task
dimension (e.g., projects in which the work was unevenly distributed) or in the social dimension
(e.g., unequal sharing of the driving responsibilities for a shared hobby outside of work). The
social dimension manipulation included this section: “Outside of work, you and Chris rollerblade
together. You often spend weekends rollerblading together, and you also do other things
together, like going out for a drink after work.” The task dimension manipulation included this
section: “At work, you and Chris must jointly come up with a monthly budget report for your
company’s supply closet. You are supposed to do an inventory of everything in the supply closet
and Chris is supposed to do the math to figure out what needs to be replaced and how much the
replacements will cost.” Relationship dimension was held constant across the equitable and
inequitable vignettes given to each participant, so that a participant may have received Social-
Equitable, Social-Overreward but not Task-Equitable, Social-Underreward.
Procedure. Undergraduate student participants completed the questionnaire in their
regularly scheduled class times and working adults completed the questionnaire either in their
workplaces or their homes. Undergraduate students received class or extra credit in exchange for
their participation; working adults were thanked, but received no other compensation.
Instructors collected undergraduate students’ completed questionnaires and gave them to one of
the researchers (personally or by mail) and working adults mailed their completed
questionnaires to the researchers.
Measurement
Participants read the equitable version of the vignettes and then completed scales for
satisfaction with the equitable relationship. The satisfaction scale as well as scales for intent to
do nothing and willingness to terminate all followed the inequitable vignette. Scales measuring
realism and fairness of the vignettes were administered following both inequitable and equitable
vignettes. All scales were a Likert-type format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). All items and their reliabilities are listed in Table 1. Table 2 shows correlations among
satisfaction with the inequitable relationships, intent to do nothing about the inequitable
relationships, and willingness to terminate the inequitable relationships.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted separately for American and Korean
samples for each scale. Items that did not contribute to unidimensionality of their relevant scales
were removed as indicated in Table 1. Manipulations checks were completed on perceptions of
realism and fairness of the vignettes for both data sets.

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 90
Table 1: Measurement Items and Reliabilities.
U.S. Korea
vignettes
Equitable .91 .91
Inequitable .84 .86
Realism
1. A friendship like this could develop in real life.
2. It is possible to have a coworker like Chris.
3. I can imagine being in a friendship like this one.
4. The relationship with Chris could happen in real life.
Equitable .81 .72
Underreward
.83 .75
Fairness
1. Chris is taking advantage of me.
2. I am getting more benefits from the relationship.*
3. Chris and I both get a similar amount of benefits from
the relationship.*
4. I am taking advantage of Chris.
5. Chris is getting more benefits from the relationship.*
Overreward .82 .71
Equitable .85 .73
Inequitable .79 .69
Satisfaction
1. I am very satisfied with this relationship.
2. This relationship is good compared to most.
3. Given the situation described, I would wish I hadn’t
gotten in this relationship.* (recoded)
4. This relationship meets my expectations for a
friendship.
5. I care for Chris very much.*
6. There are no problems in this relationship.‡ (recoded)
Inequitable .89 .70
Do Nothing
1. I would not change anything about this relationship
2. I would let the relationship ride as is for a while.
3. I would wait and see what happens.
4. I would leave it alone.**
5. Confrontation is not worth the risk.**
Inequitable .84 .77
Termination
1. I would end the friendship.
2. I would stop working with Chris
3. I would quit my job.
4. I would ask for a transfer.
5. I would stop spending time with Chris outside of
work.†
† omitted from US survey (inequitable)
‡omitted from US survey (both)
* omitted from Korean survey (both)
** omitted from Korean survey (equitable)

Inequity and coworker friendship 91
Table 2: Correlations among satisfaction with, preference for doing nothing about, and
willingness to terminate the inequitable relationships.
Culture Inequity Type Relational
Dimension
Satisfaction Doing Nothing
US Underreward Social Doing Nothing
.62**
Termination -.35** -.04
Task Doing Nothing
.45**
Termination -.25* .11
Overreward Social Doing Nothing
.55**
Termination -.03 .28**
Task Doing Nothing
.52**
Termination .14 .22
Korea Underreward Social Doing Nothing
.35**
Termination -.17 .06
Task Doing Nothing
.38**
Termination -.03 .33**
Overreward Social Doing Nothing
.45**
Termination -.05 .16
Task Doing Nothing
.24*
Termination .38** .48**
** p < .01, * p < .05
Manipulation Check
Realism. A one-sample t-test was performed to test participants’ perceptions of the
vignettes’ realism. The comparison value was 4, or the midpoint of the scale. The test of the
scale following the equitable vignette (M = 6.10, SD = 0.97) was significant, t (334) = 39.63, p <
.01, η2 = .82. The test for the scale following the underreward vignette (M = 5.48, SD = 1.08)
was also significant, t (170) = 17.90, p < .01, η2 = .65, as was the test for the scale following the
overreward vignette (M = 5.14, SD = 1.20), t (162) = 12.06, p < .01, η2 = .47, indicating all
vignettes were realistic for the U.S. sample. The realism of the two vignettes was compared
using a paired-samples t-test. Although both scales tested as quite realistic, the scale following
the equitable vignette was significantly more realistic than the scale following the inequitable
vignette (M = 5.31, SD = 1.15), t (333) = 13.01, p < .01, η2 = .34.
Koreans viewed both vignettes as realistic as well. The test of the scale following the
equitable vignette (M = 5.79, SD = 1.09) was significant, t (277) = 27.34, p < .01, η2 = .73. The
overreward vignette (M = 4.65, SD = 1.47) was perceived to be realistic, t (143) = 5.27, p < .01,
η2 = .16 and the underreward vignette (M = 5.12, SD = 1.09) was also perceived to be realistic, t
(131) = 11.75, p < .01, η2 = .51. A paired-sample t-test was performed to compare the realism of
the two vignettes. Like the Americans, Koreans saw the equitable vignette as more realistic than
the inequitable vignette (M = 4.87, SD = 1.32), t (275) = 11.84, p < .01, η2 = .34.
Fairness. For the U.S. sample, paired-sample t-tests compared the fairness of the
vignettes. The equitable vignette (M = 5.81, SD = .93) was more fair than the underreward
vignette (M = 2.37,SD = .98), t (170) = 29.84, p < .01, η2 = .84. and than the overreward vignette.
Degrees of freedom range from 61 to 87. (M = 2.29, SD = 1.23), t (163) = 27.52, p < .01, η2 =
.82. When compared, the underreward and overreward vignettes were not significantly different,
t (333) = .609, p = .54, η2 = .00.

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 92
The fairness of the vignettes in the Korean data was also compared using paired-sample t-
tests. The equitable vignette (M = 5.54, SD = 1.00) was more fair than the underreward vignette
(M = 3.04, SD = 1.14), t (131) = 17.87, p < .01, η2 = .71 and the overreward vignette (M = 3.10,
SD = 1.24), t (143) = 19.86, p < .01, η2 = .73. When compared with the overreward vignette, the
underreward vignette was not significantly different, t (274) = -.44, p = .66, η2 = .00.2
Comparisons of U.S. and Korea. U.S. participants perceived the equitable situation to be
more realistic (M = 6.10, SD = 0.97) than Korean participants did (M = 5.79, SD = 1.09), t (611)
= 3.74, p < .01, η2 = .02. U.S. participants also perceived the overreward vignette to be more
realistic (M = 5.14, SD = 1.20) than Korean participants did (M = 4.65, SD = 1.47), t (305) =
3.21, p < .01, η2 = .03. For underreward, there was also a significant difference between U.S. (M
= 5.48, SD = 1.08) and Korean participants (M = 5.12, SD = 1.09), t (301) = 2.83, p < .01, η2 =
.03.
Korean participants (M = 5.54, SD = 1.00) perceived the equitable situation to be less fair
than U.S. participants (M = 5.81, SD = 0.93), t (611) = 3.50, p < .01, η2 = .04. However, Korean
participants (M = 3.10, SD = 1.24) also perceived the overreward situation to be more fair than
did U.S. participants (M = 2.29, SD = 1.23), t (306) = -5.72, p < .01, η2 = .10. Korean
participants (M = 3.04, SD = 1.14) and American participants (M = 2.37, SD = 0.98) did not
perceive the underrewarded situation differently, t (301) = -5.47, p < .01, η2 = .09. It seems that
the fineness of fairness judgments differs between Korean and American participants in some
cases.
Results
Overview
To test the hypothesis and the research questions, a three-way ANOVA was conducted
for each dependent variable (change in satisfaction, intent to do nothing, willingness to
terminate). The hypothesis expected a main effect for type of inequity on change in satisfaction
such that satisfaction would decrease more in the case of underreward than overreward. The six
research questions all queried how Americans and Koreans would differ on type of inequity
(underreward/overreward) and friendship dimension (task/social). In other words, the research
questions focused on two- and three-way interaction effects among the factors.
Relationship Satisfaction
A 2 (relationship dimension: social and task) × 2 (inequity type: underreward and
overreward) × 2 (national culture: U.S. and Korea) ANOVA was conducted on reduction in
satisfaction with the relationship when equity level changes. All three main effects were
2 One-sample t-tests were performed to test perceptions of fairness of the vignettes. The comparison value
was 4, or the midpoint of the scale; higher than four would indicate the vignette was fair, while lower than four
would indicate it was unfair. U.S. participants viewed the equitable vignette as fair (M = 5.81, SD = 0.93), t (334) =
35.69, p < .01, η2 = .79. The inequitable vignettes were viewed as unfair. Following the inequitable vignette, the
underreward scale scores (M = 2.37, SD = 0.98) were significantly lower than the midpoint, t (170) = –21.78, p <
.01, η2 = .74, and the overreward scale scores (M = 2.29, SD = 1.23) were also significantly lower than the
midpoint, t (163) = –17.83, p < .01, η2 = .66. When a paired-sample t-test was performed to compare the fairness of
the equitable and the inequitable vignettes, the equitable vignette tested as more fair than the inequitable vignette, t
(334) = 40.45, p < .01, η2 = .83.
Koreans also viewed the equitable vignette as fair and the inequitable vignettes as unfair. The scores of the equitable
vignette (M = 5.54, SD = 1.00) were significantly higher than the midpoint, t (277) = 25.71, p < .01, η2 = .70.
Following the inequitable vignette, the underreward scale scores (M = 3.04, SD = 1.14) were significantly lower
than the midpoint, t (131) = –9.68, p < .01, η2 = .42, and the overreward scale scores (M = 3.10, SD = 1.24) were
also significantly lower than the midpoint, t (143) = –8.70, p < .01, η2 = .35. A paired-sample t-test showed that the
equitable vignette was more fair than the inequitable vignette, t (275) = 26.68, p < .01, η2 = .72.

Inequity and coworker friendship 93
statistically significant. Pertaining to the hypothesis, the ANOVA revealed a greater reduction in
satisfaction in an underreward situation (M = 1.96, SD = 1.44) than in an overreward situation (M
= 1.44, SD = 1.48), F (1, 599) = 21.46, p < .01, η2 = .03. The data were consistent with the
hypothesis, which predicted a greater reduction in an underreward than an overreward situation.
See table 3 for equity level means and standard deviations. For relationship dimensions, a greater
reduction in satisfaction was observed in the social dimension (M = 2.04, SD = 1.59) than in the
task dimension (M = 1.34, SD = 1.26), F (1, 599) = 43.22, p < .001, η2 = .06. For culture, a
greater reduction in satisfaction was observed among Koreans (M = 1.89, SD = 1.58) than among
Americans (M = 1.55, SD = 1.39), F (1, 599) = 8.02, p < .01, η2 = .01. See Table 4 for
relationship dimension means and standard deviations. These main effects were, however,
qualified by interactions.
Table 3: Means of Satisfaction for Equity Level and Culture.
Underrewarded relationship Overrewarded relationship
Culture
Satisfaction with
equity
Satisfaction with
inequity
Satisfaction with
equity
Satisfaction with
inequity
Korea 4.91
(1.02)
2.92
(1.00)
4.82
(1.15)
3.01
(1.16)
U.S. 5.19
(0.91)
3.25
(1.05)
5.12
(0.93)
4.00
(1.12)
Standard deviations are reported in parentheses.
Table 4.
Means of Satisfaction for Relationship Dimension and Culture.
Social dimension Task dimension
Culture
Satisfaction with
equity
Satisfaction with
inequity
Satisfaction with
equity
Satisfaction with
inequity
Korea 5.25
(1.17)
2.73
(1.14)
4.42
(0.79)
3.24
(0.94)
U.S. 5.24
(0.93)
3.63
(1.14)
5.06
(0.90)
3.60
(1.16)
Standard deviations are reported in parentheses.
Interactions. Addressing RQ1, significant interaction effects were observed for inequity
type and culture, F (1, 599) = 6.78, p < .001, η2 = .01. Post-hoc comparisons of cell means
indicate that the smallest reduction in relationship satisfaction was observed among Americans
for underreward situations. More specifically, Americans (Md = –1.13) had lower reduction in
satisfaction than Koreans (Md = –1.79) for overrewarding relationships, whereas Koreans (Md =
–2.00) and Americans (Md = –1.94) did not significantly differ for underrewarding relationships.
The interaction was also significant for relationship dimensions and culture, F (1, 599) = 29.64, p
< .001, η2 = .04. Post-hoc comparisons of cell means indicate that the greatest reduction in
relationship satisfaction was observed among Koreans for the social dimension of their blended
friendship. More specifically, when inequity occurred, Koreans showed a greater reduction in
satisfaction in the social dimension (Md = –2.53) than in the task dimension (Md = –1.17),
whereas Americans showed a similar level of reduction in satisfaction for both social (Md = –

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 94
1.62) and task (Md = –1.48) dimensions. Other interactions were not statistically significant. The
interaction effects were not significant for relationship dimensions and inequity types, F (1, 599)
= 1.38, p = .24, η2 = .002 nor (as queried in RQ2) for relationship dimensions, inequity types,
and culture, F (1, 599) = 0.97, p = .33, η2 = .001.
Intent to Do Nothing about the Inequity
A 2 (relationship dimension: social and task) × 2 (inequity type: underreward and
overreward) × 2 (culture: U.S. and Korea) ANOVA was conducted on intent to do nothing about
the inequity. There was no significant main effect for relationship dimension, F (1, 603) = 3.68,
p = .06, η2 = .006. Intent to do nothing was not necessarily greater for the social dimension (M =
3.21, SD = 1.20) than for the task dimension (M = 2.99, SD = 1.23). For inequity type, however,
there was a significant main effect, F (1, 603) = 9.67, p < .01, η2 = .02. A greater intent to do
nothing was observed among the underrewarded (M = 3.24, SD = 1.12) than among the
overrewarded (M = 2.97, SD = 1.29). There was also a significant main effect for culture, F (1,
603) = 19.42, p < .01, η2 = .03. A greater intent to do nothing was observed among Koreans (M =
3.33, SD = 1.11) than among Americans (M = 2.92, SD = 1.28). When compared to the scale
middle point, however, the mean score of Koreans on intent to do nothing (M = 3.33, SD = 1.11)
was significantly lower than 4, t (276) = –10.17, p < .01, η2 = .27. Thus, the interpretation of the
findings for intent to do nothing requires caution; comparisons can be made about social versus
task dimension, overreward versus underreward, and Koreans versus Americans, while keeping
in mind that across all these conditions the participants on the average disagreed with doing
nothing about the inequitable relationships. If disagreement with doing nothing about the
inequitable relationship indicates intention to do something about the relationship, the finding
may be interpreted as greater intention to do something about the inequitable relationship when
inequity occurs among the overrewarded rather than among the underrewarded, and among
Americans rather than among Koreans.
To address RQ3, a significant interaction effect was observed for inequity types and
culture, F (1, 603) = 10.54, p < .01, η2 = .02. The cultural difference was observed for
underreward situations, but not for overreward situations. Koreans were more likely to intend to
do nothing about the underrewarded relationship (M = 3.64, SD = .90) than about the
overrewarded relationship (M = 3.03, SD = 1.20), while Americans had the same level of intent
to do nothing for the underrewarded (M = 2.93, SD = 1.18) and overrewarded (M = 2.92, SD =
1.37) relationships. Relationship dimension and culture also interacted, producing a significant
interaction effect, F (1, 603) = 9.39, p < .01, η2 = .02. Post hoc comparisons showed that
Americans (M = 2.68, SD = 1.28) and Koreans (M = 3.38, SD = 1.04) differed significantly in
their reduction in intent to do nothing about the relationship with inequity in the task dimension,
while no significant difference was observed between Koreans (M = 3.27, SD = 1.16) and
Americans (M = 3.16, SD = 1.23) for the social dimension. The interaction between relationship
dimension and inequity type was not significant, F (1, 603) = 0.02, p = .88, η2 = .00. The
interaction among relationship dimension, inequity type, and culture, as queried in RQ4, was
also not significant, F (1, 603) = 0.26, p = .61, η2 = .00.
Willingness to Terminate the Relationship
A 2 (relationship dimension: social and task) × 2 (inequity type: underreward and
overreward) × 2 (culture: U.S. and Korea) ANOVA was conducted on willingness to terminate
the relationship. There was a non-significant main effect for relationship dimension, F (1, 603) =
0.09, p = .77, η2 = .00. However, there was a significant main effect for inequity type, F (1, 603)
= 23.19, p < .01, η2 = .03, such that underrewarded individuals (M = 2.76, SD = 1.19) were more

Inequity and coworker friendship 95
willing to terminate the relationship than overrewarded individuals (M = 2.34, SD = 1.19). There
was also a significant main effect for culture, F (1, 603) = 66.38, p < .001, η2 = .09. Koreans (M
= 2.95, SD = 1.20) were more willing than Americans (M = 2.21, SD = 1.10) to terminate their
inequitable relationship. This finding should be interpreted cautiously because all means were
lower than the mid point (4) of the 7-point scale, indicating most participants disagreed with
termination as a solution to the inequity problem. This main effect was also qualified by
interaction effects.
There was a significant interaction effect for relationship dimension and inequity type, F
(1, 603) = 5.00, p < .05, η2 = .01. In the social situation, underrewarded (M = 2.64, SD = 1.18)
and overrewarded individuals (M = 2.43, SD = 1.32) did not differ, while in the task situation,
underrewarded individuals (M = 2.89, SD = 1.18) were more willing to terminate than
overrewarded individuals (M = 2.24, SD = 1.02). As an answer to RQ5, the interaction between
inequity type and culture was not significant, F (1, 603) = 0.14, p = .71, η2 = .00. The interaction
among relationship dimension, inequity type, and culture, as addressed in RQ6 was also not
significant, F (1, 603) = 0.19, p = .66, η2 = .00. Finally, the interaction was not significant for
relationship dimension and culture, F (1, 603) = 2.49, p = .12, η2 = .004.
Discussion
The current study investigated cultural differences in responses to inequity in different
settings. Previous cross-cultural research on equity has focused on choices between equity and
equality principles in reward allocation. This study focuses on the changes in members’
satisfaction with equitable versus underrewarding or overrewarding relationships, and members’
tendencies to do nothing about inequity or terminate an inequitable relationship. The likely
responses of Susan to her American coworkers and Young Hee to her Korean coworkers are
discussed in the next sections. Results summaries and implications follow for change in
satisfaction from equitable to inequitable relationships, intent to do nothing about an inequitable
relationship, and willingness to terminate an inequitable relationship.
Change in Relationship Satisfaction
In general, satisfaction did decrease between the equitable situation and both types of
inequitable situations. The cross-cultural differences in satisfaction decrease were observed only
for overreward, but not for underreward. The Koreans’ satisfaction decreased more than the
Americans’ when they were overrewarded. In other words, Koreans were less satisfied than
Americans with being overrewarded. Another way of examining the interaction pattern indicates
that Koreans’ satisfaction decrease level did not differ for underreward and for overreward, while
Americans’ satisfaction decreased to a greater extent for underreward than for overreward.
Previous findings with American participants have shown that while inequity can generate
discomfort, people are more uncomfortable with being underrewarded than with being
overrewarded (Hegtvedt, 1990). The current research shows that such findings may not
generalize to people in other cultures. For Koreans, being overrewarded may indicate relational
disharmony as much as being underrewarded does.
Overall, a greater reduction in satisfaction occurred in the social dimension than the task
dimension. Compared to Americans, Koreans had greater reduction in satisfaction with
inequitable relationships in the social dimension. Americans’ and Koreans’ reduction in
satisfaction did not differ with inequity in the task dimension, however. Alternate interpretation
would suggest that while Americans’ satisfaction decrease level did not differ between the social
dimension and the task dimension, Koreans’ satisfaction decreased to a greater extent for social
dimension than for task dimension.

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 96
The cultural difference in the social dimension of inequitable relationship may indicate that
Koreans and Americans may have different expectations about upholding interpersonal harmony
in friendships. Americans may not have been as dissatisfied in the social dimension because their
expectations for people to maintain interpersonal harmony were not as high as the Koreans’. On
the other hand, the lack of cultural difference in the task dimension may be explained by the
previous research findings indicating that the Korean workplace has indeed become more
Westernized and expectant of proportional rewards (Lee, 1998-99), such that both Americans
and Koreans had similar views on conduct in the task dimension of the coworker relationship.
An additional consideration toward this point is universally accepted behaviors in organizations
across cultures. Unlike interpersonal or social interactions, behaviors related to tasks in
organizations are more likely to be determined by economic criteria (Smith & Bond, 1999).
Accordingly, cultural differences may be less in the task dimension than the social dimension.
As for the relationship between satisfaction level with inequity and intention to do nothing
about inequity, overall, the finding shows that the more satisfied individuals were, the more
likely they were to do nothing. This makes intuitive sense because when individuals are satisfied
with a relationship, there is no need to do anything.
Intent to Do Nothing about the Inequity
For doing nothing about the inequity, the participants’ overall intention was lower than
the scale midpoint, 4, which may indicate that the participants did not necessarily prefer doing
nothing about the inequity. Broadly interpreted, this may also indicate that they intended to do
something about the inequity. For the moderating role of culture in the relationship between
inequity types and intent to do nothing, the findings showed that Americans had weaker intent to
do nothing (i.e., stronger intent to do something) about the relationship with inequity in the task
dimension than Koreans, whereas no cultural difference was found for the social dimension. This
result might be explained by their different cultural orientations. American culture is
characterized by individualism which highly values personal achievement (Oyserman et al.,
2002). If inequity occurs in the task dimension, it will negatively influence personal achievement
in the workplace. It may be more acceptable for Americans to cause a fuss by doing something
about inequity. Accordingly, Americans may have more motivation to do something and feel
justified in doing something to restore the equity in their relationship with coworkers.
With an overrewarding relationship, Koreans and Americans did not differ in their intent
to do nothing. On the other hand, Koreans had greater intent to do nothing than Americans in an
underrewarding relationship. Alternatively, Americans, compared to Koreans, had stronger intent
to do something about the underrewarding relationship. Koreans’ greater intent to do nothing
about underreward may indicate that for Koreans doing something in an underreward situation
could disrupt the social harmony, while for Americans, the need for social harmony is not as
prominent. Although Koreans showed a greater decrease in satisfaction (i.e., internal feeling) for
underreward than for overreward, they may be less likely to do something overt about
underreward than about overreward. Considering that Korean people emphasize indirect
communication and rely on the other party’s sensitivity and ability to capture the under-the-
surface meaning and to understand implicit meaning (Yum, 2000), Koreans may be more likely
to do nothing in spite of the decrease in satisfaction. Americans, who rely more on direct and
candid communication to get what they need, may not be shy about “rocking the boat” when
they are being underrewarded.
Finally, in the task dimension, Koreans’ intent to do nothing was positively correlated
with willingness to terminate in both over- and underrewarding relationships. For Americans

Inequity and coworker friendship 97
overrewarded in the social dimension, intent to do nothing was positively correlated with
willingness to terminate. The positive correlation between intention to do nothing and
willingness to terminate may indicate that doing nothing may underlie one of various ways to
terminate the relationship: simply letting it end without confrontation. The positive correlation
occurring in the task dimensions for Koreans also shows cultural differences in how people
handle inequity in social versus task dimensions.
Willingness to terminate the relationship
Most of the participants did not seem to endorse termination as a solution to the problem
of inequity. This finding may be interpreted as willingness to continue the inequitable
relationships. Despite this, when compared, underrewarded individuals were more willing than
overrewarded individuals to terminate their relationships. This bore out more specifically in a
task situation, where underrewarded individuals were more willing to terminate than
overrewarded individuals. There was no difference in the social setting. This may indicate people
are more comfortable ending a work relationship than a social relationship, keeping in mind that
no participant seemed very likely to terminate the relationship.
For the relationship between satisfaction level with inequitable relationships and
willingness to terminate inequitable relationships, it was found that when underrewarded in both
social and task dimensions, Americans were less likely to terminate when they were more
satisfied. Overrewarded Koreans in the task dimension were more likely to terminate the more
satisfied they were. This may be due to Koreans’ inner conflict paralleling the disparate
descriptions of their workplaces. They may recognize the benefits of being overrewarded, yet
also feel the need to maintain harmonious relationships and not look selfish. They may also feel
some guilt at being overrewarded, as suggested by Walster et al. (1973).
Future Directions and Limitations
This study was limited by the use of vignettes. These may not have allowed for the most
realistic responses. However, this approach is recommended as a way of dealing with equity
questions in cross-cultural settings (Leung & Bond, 1984) in part because it allows for control of
the magnitude of the inequity. Because inequity is in the eye of the beholder, it was necessary to
create a similar inequitable situation so that participants were responding to similar levels of
inequity rather than widely disparate personal experiences of inequity (e.g., broken romantic
relationship vs. borrowing a stapler too often).
The measurement used for willingness to terminate the relationship was effective, but it
did not provide us with information as to what would cause people to terminate an inequitable
relationship. In the future, it would be interesting to use open-ended questioning to find out what
strength or type of inequity would cause people to terminate their relationships.
Conclusion
Considering both the increasing amount of time spent in the workplace and the increase
in cross-cultural makeup of organizations, (Evans, 2000; Fullerton, 1997; Johnston & Packer,
1987), it is increasingly likely for people from different cultures to interact within organizations,
forming interpersonal relationships (e.g., friendship). Susan and Young Hee may eventually run
into each other in the same workplace and have to figure out how to interact. These relationships
may take on multiple dimensions, involving both task and social aspects, and increasing the
difficulties of dealing with inequities as they occur. Increasing the knowledge base about these
types of relationships can aid organizations and their members in their day-to-day operations.

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 98
Appendix A. Vignettes (English Version)
Equitable - Task
You and Chris are both friends and coworkers. You work in identical positions in the
same department of the same company. Not only do you work together, you are also friends
outside of the workplace.
At work, you and Chris must jointly come up with a monthly budget report for your
company’s supply closet. You are supposed to do an inventory of everything in the supply closet
and Chris is supposed to do the math to figure out what needs to be replaced and how much the
replacements will cost. This arrangement seems to work out fine. You do your part and Chris
does Chris’s part.
Underreward - Task
You and Chris are both friends and coworkers. You work in identical positions in the
same department of the same company. Not only do you work together, you are also friends
outside of the workplace.
At work, you and Chris must jointly come up with a monthly budget report for your
company’s supply closet. You are supposed to do an inventory of everything in the supply closet
and Chris is supposed to do the math to figure out what needs to be replaced and how much the
replacements will cost. However, sometimes Chris can’t seem to get Chris’ part done and you
end up doing the entire report. You never complain about helping Chris, but simply do the report
and move on.
Overreward - Task
You and Chris are both friends and coworkers. You work in identical positions in the
same department of the same company. Not only do you work together, you are also friends
outside of the workplace.
At work, you and Chris must jointly come up with a monthly budget report for your
company’s supply closet. You are supposed to do an inventory of everything in the supply closet
and Chris is supposed to do the math to figure out what needs to be replaced and how much the
replacements will cost. However, sometimes you can’t seem to get your part done and Chris ends
up doing the entire report. Chris never complains about helping you, but simply does the report
and moves on.
Equitable – Social*
You and Chris are both friends and coworkers. You work in identical positions in the
same department of the same company. Not only do you work together, you are also friends
outside of the workplace.
Outside of work, you and Chris rollerblade together. You often spend time on the
weekends rollerblading just for fun and you also do other things together, like going out for a
drink after work. You take turns picking each other up to go to the park, which is halfway
between your houses. By the same token, you both take turns bringing water and snacks for after
your workout.
Overreward – Social*
You and Chris are both friends and coworkers. You work in identical positions in the
same department of the same company. Not only do you work together, you are also friends
outside of the workplace.
Outside of work, you and Chris rollerblade together. You often spend time on the
weekends rollerblading just for fun and you also do other things together, like going out for a
drink after work. You often ask Chris to pick you up and drive to a park that is closer to your

Inequity and coworker friendship 99
house, even though it’s quite far out of Chris’s way and Chris has to drive through a lot of traffic
to get there. Not only that, but you usually depend on Chris to bring water and snacks for after
your workout.
Underreward – Social*
You and Chris are both friends and coworkers. You work in identical positions in the
same department of the same company. Not only do you work together, you are also friends
outside of the workplace.
Outside of work, you and Chris rollerblade together. You often spend time on the
weekends rollerblading just for fun and you also do other things together, like going out for a
drink after work. Chris often asks you to drive and go to a park that is near Chris’s house, even
though it’s quite far out of your way and you have to drive through a lot of traffic to get there.
Not only that, but Chris usually depends on you to bring water and snacks for after the workout.
*For the social dimension vignettes in the Korean version, “mountain-climbing” was substituted
for “rollerblading” in the English version, because “rollerblading” is far less common than
“mountain-climbing” in Korea.

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 100
References
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. C. (1982). How does cultural collectivism operate?: The
impact of task and maintenance contributions on reward distribution. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 13, 186-200.
Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates. Western
Journal of Communication, 56, 200-225.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage.
Communication Monographs, 59, 243-267.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1993). Preservation of relational characteristics: Maintenance
strategies, equity, and locus of control. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal
communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 237-259). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (2001). Equity in the preservation of personal relationships. In J. H.
Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and
enhancement (pp. 133-151). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Chang, E. (2003). Composite effects of extrinsic motivation on work effort: Case of Korean
employees. Journal of World Business, 38, 70-79.
Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., & Hui. H. (1998). Deciding on equity or parity: A test of situational,
cultural, and individual factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 115-129.
Chen, G-M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational communication.
Communication Quarterly, 42, 93-105.
Dainton, M. (2003). Equity and uncertainty in relational maintenance. Western Journal of
Communication, 67, 164-186.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the
basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
Evans, M. (2000, May). Foreign workers key to U.S. labor supply. Industry Week, 9, 68.
Fullerton, H. N., Jr. (1997). Labor Force 2006: Slowing down and changing composition.
Monthly Labor Review, 120, 23-38.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.
(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and
individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication
Research, 22, 510-543.
Hegtvedt, K. A. (1990). The Effects of Relationship Structure on Emotional Responses to
Inequity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 214-228.
Hui, C. H., Triandis, H. C., & Yee, C. (1991). Cultural differences in reward allocation: Is
collectivism the explanation? British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 145-157.
Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. E. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st
century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. (2nd. Ed.) New York:
Wiley.
Kim, K. I., Park. H-J., & Suzuki, N. (1990). Reward allocations in the United States, Japan, and
Korea: A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Academy of
Management Journal, 33, 188-198.
Kim, U. M. (1994). Significance of paternalism and communalism in the occupational welfare
system of Korean firms: A national survey. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Ç. Kâğitçibaşi, S-

Inequity and coworker friendship 101
H. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and
applications (pp. 251-266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, M. U., & Min, H. G. (1999). Psychological contract: Its contents and negative effects on
organizational commitment, intention to turn over and perceived fairness. Korean
Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 155-180.
Lee, H-C. (1998-99). Transformation of employment practices in Korean businesses.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 28, 26-39.
Leung, K. (1988). Theoretical advances in justice behavior: Some cross-cultural inputs. In M. H.
Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 218-220). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793-804.
Leung, K., & Park, H-J. (1986). Effects of interactional goal on choice of allocation rules: A
cross-national study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 3, 111-
120.
Leventhal, G. S., & Bergman, J. T. (1969). Self-depriving behavior as a response to unprofitable
inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 153-171.
Medvene, L. J., Teal, C. R., & Slavich, S. (2000). Including the other in self: Implications for
judgments of equity and satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 19, 396-419.
Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the
use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 17, 67-94.
Oyserman, D. Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Park, H. S., & Levine, T. R. (1999). The Theory of Reasoned Action and self-construals:
Evidence from three cultures. Communication Monographs, 66, 199-218.
Ramamoorthy, N., & Carroll, S. J. (1998). Individualism/collectivism orientations and reactions
toward alternative human resource management practices. Human Relations, 51, 571-
588.
Shin, Y. J., Park, H. S., & Han, S. S. (2004). Relationship between information seeking tactics
and sense of workplace community: Evidence from Korean workplaces. Unpublished
Manuscript. Michigan State University.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1999). Social psychology across cultures. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Sprecher, S. (1992). How men and women expect to feel and behave in response to inequity in
close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 57-69.
Sprecher, S. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with
satisfaction, commitment, and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 599-613.
Utne, M. K., Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., & Greenberger, D. (1984). Equity, marital satisfaction,
and stability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 323-332.
Van Yperen, N. W., & Buunk, B. P. (1990). A longitudinal study of equity and satisfaction in
intimate relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 287-309.

Catherine Y. Kingley Westerman, Hee San Park & Hye-Eun Lee 102
Vogl-Bauer, S., Kalbfleisch, P. J., & Beatty, M. J. (1999). Perceived equity, satisfaction, and
relational maintenance strategies in parent-adolescent dyads. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 28, 27-49.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G.W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151-176.
Yoon, J., & Lim, J-C. (1999). Organizational support in the workplace: The case of Korean
hospital employees. Human Relations, 52, 923-945.
Yum, J. O. (2000). The impact of Confucianism on intercultural relationships and
communication patterns in East Asia. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.),
Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 63-73). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.