ArticlePDF Available

Equity Preference, Inputs to Social Exchange and Job Satisfaction in an Academic Institution

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The study focused on equity preference, inputs to social exchange and job satisfaction in the context of an academic institution. It has been conducted considering the scarcity of studies within the locale that may be used as basis on how to improve job satisfaction with attention to employees' equity preference. It presents the profile of the participants in terms of the aforementioned variables, explored on the probable existence of significant associations, confirmed whether observations can be inferred of the population and ascertained whether equity preference predicts inputs to social exchange and job satisfaction. Exploratory analysis among fifty-three samples revealed that benevolence is the dominant equity preference, inputs to social exchange is very high, there is no dissatisfaction as to hygiene factors and there is satisfaction in terms of motivating factors. A significant relationship between equity preference and inputs to social exchange is observed to be directly proportional with moderate strength. The benevolent also tends to have higher median compared to the equity sensitive. Linear regression analysis also shows that equity preference is a predictor of inputs to social exchange whereby an increase in the former is expected to have an increase in the log-odds of the latter. Given these findings, organizations may introduce profiling of applicants' equity preference in the recruitment process as it is likely to contribute to organizational productivity. Furthermore, decisions to improve satisfaction of employees should be based on the results of a valid and reliable instrument that measures job satisfaction. Key words: equity preference; job satisfaction; social exchange
Content may be subject to copyright.
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Equity Preference, Inputs to Social Exchange and Job Satisfaction
in an Academic Institution
Paolo G. Hilado
ABSTRACT
The study focused on equity preference, inputs to social exchange and job satisfaction in the
context of an academic institution. It has been conducted considering the scarcity of studies within
the locale that may be used as basis on how to improve job satisfaction with attention to employees’
equity preference. It presents the profile of the participants in terms of the aforementioned
variables, explored on the probable existence of significant associations, confirmed whether
observations can be inferred of the population and ascertained whether equity preference predicts
inputs to social exchange and job satisfaction. Exploratory analysis among fifty-three samples
revealed that benevolence is the dominant equity preference, inputs to social exchange is very
high, there is no dissatisfaction as to hygiene factors and there is satisfaction in terms of motivating
factors. A significant relationship between equity preference and inputs to social exchange is
observed to be directly proportional with moderate strength. The benevolent also tends to have
higher median compared to the equity sensitive. Linear regression analysis also shows that equity
preference is a predictor of inputs to social exchange whereby an increase in the former is expected
to have an increase in the log-odds of the latter. Given these findings, organizations may introduce
profiling of applicants’ equity preference in the recruitment process as it is likely to contribute to
organizational productivity. Furthermore, decisions to improve satisfaction of employees should
be based on the results of a valid and reliable instrument that measures job satisfaction.
Key words: equity preference; job satisfaction; social exchange
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Introduction
The 14th Dalai Lama once said that the world has, since recent years, become
materialistic and mankind has been driven by an insatiable desire for power and possession. In a
condition wherein man is influenced with the mindset that earthly possessions could bring
happiness and satisfaction, one must also consider that these are fleeting and often last only for a
couple of weeks after procurement (Weidman and Dunn, 2015).
Such observation is deemed to be universal. As such, keeping the workforce happy and
satisfied has always been of interest in management. Informed that the aforementioned leads to
motivation which is a key toward effectiveness (Dobre, 2013); most organizations have devised a
mechanism to keep tabs on the satisfaction of their employees. The challenge however lies on the
fact that satisfaction is subjective as one’s preferences for equity, expectations and even needs
differ from others. Cognizant of the uniqueness of individuals and the factors that contribute to
their satisfaction, it is crucial for the management to continue introducing strategies that help
address these differences and keep most, if not all, of their employees satisfied.
The need to continuously ensure the satisfaction of employees has usually been popular
among management enthusiasts as shown in the numbers of published researches on these topics.
However, they are often conducted abroad and there is a scarcity of such within the locale. It has
also been observed that most of these studies assume that individuals perceive the different
constructs for job satisfaction of equal priority. Most of those accomplished studies that explore
the patterns between job satisfaction and equity preferences considered the equity sensitivity
index as the instrument to measure the latter. As such, application and relevance of foreign
research may be different from the selected institution considering the difference in the profile of
its constituents and the approach in measuring job satisfaction. Another point of inquiry which
this study aims to elucidate is whether changes will be noted in the patterns of association
between job satisfaction, equity preference and inputs to social exchange if the equity preference
questionnaire is to be used instead of the equity sensitivity index. These queries paved way for
this research with the intent to provide further studies on job satisfaction and equity preference in
the context of an academic institution. Specifically, it is aimed to describe the profile of the
participants as to equity preference, inputs to social exchange and job satisfaction in terms of
hygiene and motivating factors; determine interrelationship among equity preference, inputs to
social exchange and job satisfaction; assess whether equity preference is a predictor of inputs to
social exchange and job satisfaction; and develop a valid and reliable instrument that measures
job satisfaction of employees to be used as a part of the annual surveys conducted by the
institution. As such, it is expected to benefit the administration giving them the capacity to
measure job satisfaction and have better understanding of equity preference which may be
considered even during the process of recruitment. It also benefits the employees as the
integration of an annual survey on job satisfaction becomes another means to inform
management of their perceived adequacies and inadequacies. Findings of this study may also
serve as reference for future researchers who wish to further explore the same phenomena.
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Framework of the Study
This study considers an understanding of equity preference anchored on the equity theory
by Adams (1963) which purports that people strive towards an equitable distribution of inputs
and outcomes in an exchange situation. Depending on the delivery of work inputs and one’s
expected outcomes, an individual may be considered as Entitled, Benevolent or Equity Sensitive.
According to Huseman et al. (1987), the Entitled refers to a person who feels that he or she is
worth the extra compensation whereas the Benevolent refers to an individual who readily accepts
a condition where he or she provides more inputs than the outcomes being received.
Furthermore, the same author puts it that an Equity Sensitive individual would refer to one who
has a preference for an equal status in inputs and outputs in the work environment. The study of
Kuhlman and Marshello (1975) shares the same perspective, pointing out that individuals with
perceived high status were likely to aim for higher outcomes. Relatively, individuals who
perceive the opposite were likely to expect lower outcomes. In a scenario where these expected
outcomes are not adequately met, Shore and Strauss (2006) puts it that individuals with
perceived high-status resort to a competitive response whereby the choice of defecting is
imminent. On the other hand, the opposite tend to have a cooperative response resulting to
having a feeling of adequacy in the receipt of an abundant resource. Despite the differences in
the characteristics of each type of equity preference, a common understanding is that an
individual tries to restore equity by means of a change in inputs from self upon changes in the
receipt of expected outcomes.
A variety of setting involves exchange as it is an essential part of modern society.
Oftentimes an exchange situation constitutes elements of inputs and outputs which include
goods, services, communication and gestures. In the work setting, inputs would include variables
such as time rendered for job, effort, skill or ability, flexibility, integrity, commitment, reliability,
educational attainment, hard work, determination, enthusiasm and trust in immediate superiors
(Adams, 1963). On the other hand, Zigarmi et al (2011) inform us that expected outcomes from
work includes organizational relationship and job factors. Organizational factors involve
collaboration, performance expectations, and growth, procedural and distributive justice relating
to rewards, pay and benefits. Furthermore, relationship factors concern with connectedness
among colleagues and leader whereas job factors include autonomy, finding meaning in work,
feedback mechanism, and workload balance and task variation. All of which are included in
either the hygiene or motivating factors as presented in Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory which
pertains to the aforementioned as factors that can contribute to job dissatisfaction or absence of
which and job satisfaction or no satisfaction respectively. Hygiene factors refer to those that can
lead to conditions of either dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction on the part of individuals whereas
motivating factors giving rise to having satisfaction or no satisfaction. Although many researches
that have been conducted show that certain hygiene factors also led to satisfaction of workers
and better productivity, it can be noted that these findings were data gathered from small a
sample size. On the other hand, many recent researches that have been conducted also show that
the two factor theory remains relevant to today’s workers. Of the many, one research to note was
that conducted by Bassett-Jones (2005) of the Oxford Brookes Business School in the UK which
garnered 3,200 responses. The findings of the study present that while financial inducements can
prompt employees to contribute ideas, the numbers involved were significantly less than those
who are motivated through a desire to contribute to organizational success. Furthermore, recent
study of Chu and Kuo (2015) of Shu Te University in Taiwan reinforces the same findings when
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
the researchers conducted it among 154 schools in Kaohsiung City wherein 550 survey
instruments were disseminated with a target sample of at least 385. As such, the concepts
presented in the aforesaid theory were considered as crucial elements to achieve job satisfaction
which is defined by Spector (1997) as the extent to which people like or dislike their jobs.
More on Job Satisfaction, Locke (1976) first posited that when it comes to employee
satisfaction, the process can be considered complex since the importance of job satisfaction
facets differ for each individual. This was open to a variety of further studies whose findings
contradict the need to weigh items in job satisfaction in terms of perceived importance. However,
through the years, a lot of studies support the idea presented by Locke. For example, a the study
of McFarlin and Rice (1992) showed that workers who viewed job facet as having high
importance were more satisfied with a small perceived have-want discrepancy and more
dissatisfied with a large discrepancy than workers who viewed the facet as having low
importance. A study of Wallin (2002) showed that an improved job satisfaction will result only
when managers or companies provided employees with the desired amounts of job facets
deemed important by their employees. Furthermore, it showed that a reduced gap between what
employees have and what they want led to an increase in satisfaction. More of the relevance of
Locke’s idea, a study conducted by Tatsuse and Sekine (2011) shows that these facets have great
contribution to job satisfaction. They added that even though the facets contribution to job
satisfaction may differ among occupations, facets involving the employees’ interest, skills
involved at work and how they get to use their abilities showed robust association with job
satisfaction regardless of occupation. A recent study of Lepold et al (2018) also supports the idea
that facets are key to measuring job satisfaction. Their study findings present the importance of
measuring the different facets of job satisfaction as this provides a more precise understanding of
job satisfaction both for research or management related purposes. As such, the prioritization of
the different facets of job satisfaction was considered in the process of determining job
satisfaction levels for this study.
In relation to the aforementioned theories and the relevant concepts, further exploration into the
phenomena of interest specifically Equity Preference, Inputs to Social Exchange and Job
Satisfaction may pose a probable existence of an association between each of the
aforementioned. Given such condition, inferences were considered to determine if such
observation holds true for the larger group at the same time predict the adjustments in the inputs
to social exchange and level of satisfaction for a specified equity preference. It considers an
equalitarian purview of systems relationships whereby the interdependence of the aforesaid
components and their interaction are given an emphasis thus providing a better understanding of
the desired results which involves better job satisfaction or absence of dissatisfaction (Sharma,
1990). It is upon these presets that the schematic diagram of the study is based.
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Figure 1.Schematic diagram that presents the framework on the relationship among Equity
Preference, Inputs to Social Exchange and Job Satisfaction
Null Hypotheses
1. There are no significant associations among equity preference, inputs to social exchange
and job satisfaction.
2. There is no significant difference in job satisfaction level in terms of hygiene and
motivating factors when the participants are grouped by equity preference.
3. There is no significant difference in job satisfaction level in terms of hygiene and
motivating factors when the participants are grouped according to inputs to social
exchange.
4. Equity preference is not a significant predictor of inputs to social exchange.
5. Equity preference is not a significant predictor of job satisfaction level with specifics to
hygiene and motivating factors.
Methodology
This study on equity preference, inputs to social exchange and job satisfaction utilized a
correlational research design. It explores the probable existence of significant associations
among the aforementioned variables taking into account their direction and strength.
Relationships that exist were further subjected to predictive analysis to determine unit point
change in one variable as changes were introduced in the other.
Permanent faculty members of a selected school employed during academic year 2014 –
2015 were the participants for this study. Per record of the Human Resource Management and
Development Office, there were a total of 61 faculty members who meet the desired criteria for
the study. Given a population of sixty-one (61) permanent faculty members, Slovin’s Formula
was utilized to compute the desired sample size with a 95% level of confidence. The desired
sample size is at fifty three (53); the participants were selected via simple random sampling. The
EQUITY PREFERENCE
INPUTS TO SOCIAL
EXCHANGE
JOB SATISFACTION
HYGIENE MOTIVATING
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
list for randomly selected participants was generated via the randomizer function of a statistical
package.
The standardized Equity Preference Questionnaire developed by Sauley and Bedeian
(2000) has been utilized with permission for this study. The aforementioned collects information
regarding an individual’s equity sensitivity, a construct directly related to the equity theory of
Adams, which suggests that individuals react in consistent but individually different ways to both
perceived equity and inequity because they have different preferences for equity. The
questionnaire provides the profiling of the respondents as to whether they are considered as
benevolent, equity sensitive or entitled. The summation of scores in the Equity Preference
Questionnaire was interpreted using the guide provided by Sauley and Bedeian (2004). With 16
items on a 5-point Likert Scale, the lowest probable score is 16 whereas the highest at 80. The
summation of scores is interpreted as follow:
Levels Range
Entitled 16 – 37 points
Equity Sensitive 38 – 58 points
Benevolent 59 – 80 points
A questionnaire has been developed to collect data regarding the participants’ inputs to social
exchange. The aforementioned measures an individual’s perception as to the extent to which the
selected variables (which he / she possess or give) contribute to the job. It is aimed at collecting
information pertinent to job inputs which is an important variable in the equity formula
associated with the work of John Stacey Adams. The questionnaire on inputs to social exchange
is a 12-item questionnaire on a 5-point Likert Scale. The interpretation of the computed means is
as follow:
Levels Range
Very Low 1.00 – 1.80
Low 1.81 – 2.60
Medium 2.61 – 3.40
High 3.41 – 4.20
Very High 4.21 – 5.00
The questionnaire developed to collect data pertaining to job satisfaction includes items
from authors such as Annen et al (2005), Astrauskaitė et al (2010), Ololube (2006), Scarpello
and Vandenberg (1987) and Stoetzer (2010). The aforementioned questionnaire has two (2)
sections. Section A includes items related to Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory. It is utilized to
determine the extent to which the hygiene and motivating factors have an impact on one’s job
satisfaction. Section B determines the aspects relevant to Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory
considered having greater importance by the respondents. This is in line with Locke’s findings
that job satisfaction is achieved when factors, perceived as important by the individual, are
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
addressed. Data extracted from this questionnaire will be utilized in the assignment of weights
for each aspect, thereby, giving higher weights for aspects considered more important as
compared to others based on how the individual perceives it. The questionnaire on Job
Satisfaction is a 47-item questionnaire with a five-point Likert Scale for responses. Of the 47
items, 23 of which were items for the Hygiene Factors were as 24 items were for the Motivating
Factors. The interpretation of the computed weighted means is as follows:
Hygiene Factors
Levels Range
Dissatisfaction 1.00 – 3.00
No Dissatisfaction 3.01 – 5.00
Motivating Factors
Levels Range
No Satisfaction 1.00 – 3.00
Satisfaction 3.01 – 5.00
As to the validity of the instruments used for the study, the Equity Preference
Questionnaire (EPQ) developed by Sauley and Bedeian (2000) is a standardized research
instrument being utilized in terms of profiling individuals as to whether they are considered as
entitled, equity sensitive and benevolent. The preference for the use of EPQ over Equity
Sensitivity Index (ESI) to categorize individuals based on sensitivity equity difference is
anchored on the study conducted by Shore (2004) in which convergent and content validity was
greater for the Equity Preference Questionnaire. Furthermore, Equity sensitivity measured via
EPQ is positively correlated with locus of control. External locus of control is associated with
greater sensitivity and is consistent with the proposition that those considered Benevolent are
more focused on what they can give in an exchange relationship, whereas the Entitled ones are
more concerned with what they can receive (Sauley and Bedeian, 2000). In addition, the study
of the aforementioned presents that Equity sensitivity measured via EPQ is significantly
correlated with Machiavellianism thus pointing out that the Entitled are reported to have more
Machiavellian tendencies, as described in the research of Blumstein and Weinstein (1969) than
did the Benevolent ones. On the other hand, the developed questionnaire aimed to measure the
inputs to social exchange and job satisfaction was subjected to Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio
(1969). Considering twenty five (25) subject matter experts (SMEs), a minimum CVR value of
0.37 was required to consider the validity of the items for each construct. For the questionnaire
on social exchange, twelve items made it through the minimum CVR value whereas six others
were excluded due to CVR values lower than the minimum. These twelve items having CVR
values higher than the minimum for 25 SMEs were included in the questionnaire. As to job
satisfaction, separate CVR computations were conducted for items belonging to Hygiene and
Motivating Factors. Having the same set of SMEs (25) the minimum CVR value of 0.37 is
required to validate the items. Of the 32 items for the Hygiene factors garnered from
aforementioned authors, 23 were included in the questionnaire whereas nine were excluded due
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
to low CVR scores. On the part of the 35 items for Motivating factors, 24 items were included in
questionnaire whereas those with low CVR score, eleven in total, were excluded.
The reliability of the instruments used for this study were also ascertained. The Equity
Preference Questionnaire (EPQ) is a standardized research instrument. In an internal consistency
test conducted by Shore (2004), its reliability coefficient with Cronbach’s alpha is at 0.86 which
is interpreted as good (George and Mallery, 2003). The aforementioned questionnaire has a
slightly higher alpha coefficient compared to the Equity Sensitivity Index (0.85) thus the
preference for EPQ. As to the developed questionnaires, the instrument that measures inputs to
social exchange has been tested for internal consistency having Cronbach’s alpha as its
coefficient. An alpha coefficient of 0.93 shows that the questionnaire elicits consistency thus
interpreted as excellent (George and Mallery, 2003). Considering that the questionnaire for job
satisfaction has also been developed for the purpose of this study, it has also been subjected to
reliability testing using internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha as its coefficient. There were
two computations for coefficient alpha representing the constructs in place: Hygiene and
Motivating Factors. The alpha coefficients computed for the job satisfaction questionnaire were
0.93 and 0.94 respectively and both are interpreted as Excellent (George and Mallery, 2003).
This indicates that the items included in the Hygiene and Motivating factors can elicit responses
consistent with the actual conditions of the participants.
The following tools for data analysis were used to address the objectives of the study.
The mean was utilized as measure for central tendency for datasets that assume normal
distribution. These include equity preference scores and job satisfaction for both hygiene and
motivating factors. As to measuring the central tendency for the scores in inputs to social
exchange, the median was used considering that the dataset is skewed. The frequency and
percentage were utilized in order to determine the profile of the participants in terms of equity
sensitivity, inputs to social exchange and job satisfaction. As to exploring the probable existence
of significant associations among the aforementioned variables the Kendall’s tau test for
correlations was utilized for any variable tested for correlation with inputs to social exchange
given that the data set does not meet the assumption for normality. As to exploring the existence
of significant correlations between equity preference scores and job satisfaction, the Pearson
Product Moment Correlation was used. In the conduct of inferential analysis, Mann Whitney U
test was utilized to determine whether a significant difference exists in inputs to social exchange
when the participants were grouped according to their equity preference. As to determining
whether a significant difference exists in their job satisfaction, in terms of hygiene and
motivating factors, when grouped according to the same variable the independent t-test was used.
On the other hand, One-way Analysis of Variance was utilized to determine whether a
significant difference exists on job satisfaction when grouped according to their inputs to social
exchange. In ascertaining whether equity preference is a predictor for inputs to social exchange
and level of job satisfaction, the linear regression model was utilized.
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Results and Discussion
In the process of doing an exploratory analysis on the variables of interest for the study,
the variables were measured and utilized to establish the profile of the participants. Table 1
presents the Equity Preference, Inputs to Social Exchange and Job Satisfaction when taken as a
whole. In terms of Equity Preference, it can be observed that, as a whole, the group is mostly
composed of the benevolent (x
̅ = 62.28). Among the participants, the lowest recorded Equity
Preference Score was that of an equity sensitive individual at 42 whereas the highest recorded
score for the benevolent is at 79. It can also be noted that among the participants none of them
were entitled. As to the Inputs to Social Exchange, the median was used as the measure of
central tendency considering a skewed dataset. The Inputs to Social Exchange of the participants
is observed to be very high given a median of 4.42. Job Satisfaction was measured in terms of
the Hygiene Factors and the Motivating Factors with consideration of the participants’
prioritization of the identified factors. As shown in the computed means for the table presented
below, hygiene and motivating factors were adequately met evidenced by no dissatisfactions (x
̅ =
3.62) and satisfaction (x
̅= 3.77) respectively. The lowest mean recorded for hygiene factors was
that of a dissatisfied individual (x
̅=2.29) whereas the highest is at 4.87. As to motivating factors,
the lowest mean is at 2.29 whereas the highest is perfect at 5.00.
Table 1
Equity Preference, Inputs to Social Exchange and Job Satisfaction as a Whole
Variables n Minimum Maximum Statistic SD Interpretation
Equity Preference 53 42 79 Mean = 62.28 8.47 Benevolent
Input to Social
Exchange
53 1.5 5 Median = 4.42 ----- Very High
Hygiene Factors 53 2.29 4.87 Weighted Mean = 3.62 .56 No Dissatisfaction
Motivating
Factors
53 2.64 5 Weighted Mean = 3.77 .55 Satisfaction
The profile of the participants in terms of the variables of interest for the study is
presented in Table 2. When grouped according to their equity preferences it can be observed that
15 (28.3%) were equity sensitive whereas 38 (71.7%) were benevolent. A dominance of the
benevolent in the selected academe indicates that faculty members were likely to have greater
tolerance for under-reward rather than preference over it (King, 1993). Given a condition where
there is a breach in extrinsic outcomes, the benevolent ones still possess a positive attitude
towards their work compared to others (Kickul, 2001). In addition, they are considered to be
givers rather than expect returns to be equal to or greater than their contributions; they are
focused more on the inputs rather than the outcomes (Huseman, 1990). This is further supported
by the Inputs to Social Exchange profiling which shows that 31 (58.5%) of the faculty had very
high inputs whereas an isolated case (1.9%) falls on very low. As to job satisfaction, profiling on
their hygiene factors show that 46 (86.8%) had no dissatisfaction. In addition, the profile of their
motivating factors show that 50 (94.3%) were satisfied. The aforementioned findings showcase
the character of teachers as individuals having a positive attitude towards their job in any given
condition even those in which they are faced with challenges (OECD, 2009). The use of such
instruments allow an organization to have a profiling of their employees in terms of equity
preference and job satisfaction. With equity preference profiling, management is given an idea
on employees’ expectations for rewards and threshold for under rewards. Given the pros and
cons for each type of equity preference, this can be utilized during the recruitment process so as
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
to hire individuals whose type of equity preference suits the capacity of the organization.
Cognizant of the importance of job satisfaction, the instrument developed via this study allows
organizations to measure the aforementioned. As such, programs introduced to improve job
satisfaction can be designed in a way that it is tailor-fit to the needs of the employees thus
addressing either motivating or hygiene factors.
Table 2
Profile in Equity Preference, Inputs to Social Exchange and Job Satisfaction
An exploratory analysis using Kendall’s Tau was conducted to determine the probable existence
of a significant relationship among Equity Preference, Inputs to Social Exchange and Job
Satisfaction. Results in Table 3 show that Equity Preference Scores have a significant correlation
with Inputs to Social Exchange (T [53] = 0.33, p < 0.05). The aforesaid correlation is directly
proportional with a moderate strength of correlation (Cohen, 1993) thus pointing out that
participants who have high Equity Preference Scores are likely to have high Inputs to Social
Exchange as well. This is consistent with the findings of Huseman et al (1990) concerning the
benevolent that tend to have lower outcome and input ratio or those who prefer to give more
compared to what they receive. Furthermore, they are also likely to significantly contribute
towards the higher level of growth for the organization (Rai, 2004). As such, organizations on a
tight budget may as well prefer to recruit benevolent individuals. Considering that such equity
preference have better tolerance for under-rewards, the benevolent are expected to continuously
provide higher inputs to social exchange despite conditions where there is lesser inputs coming
from the company. The findings on the exploratory analysis using Pearson Correlation also show
that there is no significant relationship between variables such as Equity Preference and Job
Satisfaction for both Hygiene and Motivating Factors (p > 0.05). This reflects the findings of
Khalifa and Truong (2010) on the inexistence of a significant relationship between perceptions
of equity and job satisfaction in terms of hygiene factors. The result is also consistent with the
findings of Roedder(2001) which points out that equity preference is not associated with job
satisfaction be it task or pay related. The same can also be observed between Inputs to Social
Exchange and the Hygiene and Motivating Factors for Job Satisfaction (p > 0.05). Although
Variables Levels Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
Equity
Preference
Equity Sensitive 15 28.3 28.3
Benevolent 38 71.7 100.0
Total 53 100.0 -----
Inputs Social
Exchange
Very Low 1 1.9 1.9
High 21 39.6 41.5
Very High 31 58.5 100.0
Total 53 100.0 -----
Job Satisfaction
Hygiene Factors
Dissatisfaction 7 13.2 13.2
No Dissatisfaction 46 86.8 100.0
Total 53 100.0 -----
Job Satisfaction
Motivating
Factors
No Satisfaction 3 5.7 5.7
Satisfaction 50 94.3 100.0
Total 53 100.0 -----
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
different findings of recent studies show a relationship between Equity Preference and Job
Satisfaction, whereby the benevolent feel greater level of overall job satisfaction over the
entitled, it is to be noted that this study was conducted in an organization where only the
benevolent and equity sensitive exists given the profile of the participants.
Table 3
Exploratory Analysis on Equity Preference, Inputs to Social Exchange and Job Satisfaction
Statistic Variables n Correlation
Coefficient p - value Decision
Kendall's tau b Equity Preference and
Inputs to Social
Exchange
53 .330 .001 Reject H0
Pearson
Correlation
Equity Preference and
Hygiene Factors of Job
Satisfaction
53 .015 .917 Fail to Reject H0
Pearson
Correlation
Equity Preference and
Motivating Factors of
Job Satisfaction
53 .106 .449 Fail to Reject H0
Kendall's tau b Inputs to Social
Exchange and Hygiene
Factors of Job
Satisfaction
53 .029 .769 Fail to Reject H0
Kendall's tau b Inputs to Social
Exchange and
Motivating Factors of
Job Satisfaction
53 .074 .450 Fail to Reject H0
Considering the study of the sample, an inferential analysis was conducted to determine
whether observation in measured variables also holds true for the population. As shown in the
next Table, a significant difference exists in the inputs to social exchange among the participants
when they are grouped in accordance to their equity preference using Mann-Whitney. It can be
observed that the Benevolent (Mdn = 4.54) had higher inputs to social exchange as compared to
the Equity Sensitive (Mdn = 4.00), U=176, p < 0.05. Furthermore, the same observation is more
likely to be noted of the population at 95% level of confidence indicating that the difference in
the inputs to social exchange is not simply attributed to chance but rather due to the equity
preference of the participants. This finding is consistent with the study of Miles et al. (1994)
indicating that, apart from the notion that they are givers (Huseman, 1990), they are more
concerned with their performance compared to others. Furthermore, this supports the results of
the study of King et al. (1993) that the benevolent possesses an exchange ideology that is
focused more on the inputs that they provide. Similar findings can also be noted in the study of
Roedder (2001) that an individual’s equity preference poses significant additive effects on
productivity. With the presented arguments, this supports the study of Sauley and Bedeian
(2000) that the Equity Preference Questionnaire appears to be a psychometrically sound
instrument in terms of determining equity preference of individuals as those who were
categorized as benevolent using the said instrument tend to provide more inputs compared to the
equity sensitive group.
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Table 4
Inferential Analysis on Inputs to Social Exchange when Grouped by Equity Preference
EQUITY PREFERENCE n Median U Z p-value Decision
Equity Sensitive 15 4.00 176 -2.16 .031 Reject H0
Benevolent 38 4.54
Inferential analysis was also conducted to determine whether a significant difference
exists in job satisfaction, in terms of hygiene and motivating factors, when the participants were
grouped according to equity preference. Results in Table 5 show that there is no significant
difference in job satisfaction for both Hygiene (t[51] = -.539, p > 0.05) and Motivating (t[51] =
.142, p >0.05) factors when participants were grouped by equity preference using Independent t-
test. It can be noted that the observation derived from the aforementioned may not be the same
when another sampling would be conducted and that the difference in job satisfaction, be it
hygiene or motivating factors, is attributed to chance and not to equity preference. Although
observation from the computed means may hold true for the current sample, it may not be the
same for the population.
Table 5
Inferential Analysis on Job Satisfaction when Grouped by Equity Preference
Job
Satisfaction Equity Preference n Mean SD t df p-value Decision
Hygiene
Factors
Equity Sensitive 15 3.55 .60 -0.53 51 .59 Fail to Reject H0
Benevolent 38 3.64 .55
Motivating
Factors
Equity Sensitive 15 3.59 .55 -1.49 51 .14 Fail to Reject H0
Benevolent 38 3.83 .53
As presented on Table 6, the same result holds true when looking into the existence of a
possible significant difference in job satisfaction levels, hygiene and motivating factors, when
grouped according to inputs to social exchange. There is no significant difference in job
satisfaction for both Hygiene (F [52] = 2.634, p > 0.05) and Motivating (F [52] = 1.174, p >0.05)
factors when participants were grouped by inputs to social exchange using ANOVA. The
computed means presented in Table 5 may be inconclusive as the observation is due to chance on
the selection of elements for the sample and not necessarily due to equity preference.
Observations made on the computed means of the current sample may not hold true for the
population.
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Table 6
Inferential Analysis on Inputs to Social Exchange when Grouped by Equity Preference
Job
Satisfaction
Inputs to
Social
Exchange
n Mean SD F df p-value Decision
Hygiene
Factors
Very Low 1 4.84 ----- 2.63 52 .082 Fail to Reject H0
High 21 3.55 .50
Very High 31 3.62 .58
Total 53 3.62 .56
Motivating
Factors
Very Low 1 4.42 ----- 1.17 52 .317 Fail to Reject H0
High 21 3.68 .45
Very High 31 3.81 .60
Total 53 3.77 .55
Predictive Analysis was made given the results of the exploratory analysis, whereby
Equity Preference assumes a positive correlation with Inputs to Social Exchange, together with
the results of the Inferential Analysis which presents a significant difference in the Inputs to
Social Exchange of the participants when grouped by Equity Preference. Furthermore, such was
undertaken as results from the aforementioned analysis were consistent with the findings of a
multitude of studies which present the benevolent as givers (Huseman et al, 1990), significant
contributors to organizational growth (Rai, 2004), performance oriented (Miles et al, 1994) and
as individuals that give more importance on inputs (King et al, 1993). Table 7 presents the
results of the linear regression model for the scores of the participants in the Equity Preference
Questionnaire and the computed mean in the 5-point Likert Scale Questionnaire for Inputs to
Social Exchange. As shown in the aforementioned table, Equity Preference explained 24% of the
variance (R2 = .24, F [1, 55] = 15.76, p < 0.05). It was found that Equity Preference significantly
predicted Inputs to Social Exchange (β = 0.49, p < 0.05). As such, it can be observed that Inputs
to Social Exchange increase by 2.02 units for every one point increase in the Equity Preference
Score. Organizations are likely to experience better productivity with a team mostly composed of
individuals that assume the characteristics of the benevolent. It will be to the advantage of the
organization to develop strategies on how to keep the benevolent that are effective in their job
functions. Although King (1993) has put it that they are more capable of tolerating under-reward,
there is no room for complacency in the organization’s provision of working conditions that is
competitive with others as perception of inequity depends on one’s comparison of others
(Mahoney, 2013).
Table 7
Predictive Analysis on the Equity Preference and Inputs to Social Exchange
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
R2 F t p-
value Decision
B
Std.
Erro
r
Beta
(Constant) -40.82 31.99 ------ .24 15.76 -1.28 .21 ------
Equity
Preference
(Scores)
2.02 .51 .486 3.97 .00 Reject H0
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Conclusion
The findings of the study present the profile of the participants in terms of the variables
which include equity preference, inputs to social exchange and job satisfaction. It can be
observed that, as a whole, the mean equity preference among the participants using the Equity
Preference Questionnaire is categorized as benevolent. In addition, the median on inputs to social
exchange is interpreted as very high whereas weighted means on job satisfaction present that
there is no dissatisfaction for the hygiene factors and presence of satisfaction in terms of the
motivating factors.
Exploratory analysis between the aforesaid variables revealed a significant correlation between
Equity Preference and Inputs to Social Exchange. Specifically, the benevolent were likely to
contribute more to the organization compared to the equity sensitive. This was supported by the
results in the inferential analysis whereby higher Inputs to Social Exchange is evident among the
benevolent compared to those who are equity sensitive, the difference of which is statistically
significant. It also showed Equity Preference as a significant predictor of Inputs to Social
Exchange pointing out that a one point increase in the former is expected to have a specified unit
increase in the latter A consistency in the findings of this study and those of the previous
researches concerning the characteristics of the benevolent further supports the idea that the
Equity Preference Questionnaire (EPQ) developed by Sauley and Bedeian appears to be a
psychometrically sound instrument in profiling individuals. As the EPQ categorizes individuals
with high Equity Preference Scores as benevolent, in return, the same group of individuals was
observed to have higher inputs to social exchange. In this study, however, the equity preference
profile at the selected higher education institution only includes the benevolent and the equity
sensitive and that none of the participants were categorized as entitled.
The findings of the study also show that there is no significant association between equity
preference and job satisfaction in terms of both the hygiene and motivating factors. The same is
true between Inputs to Social Exchange and Job Satisfaction as association is not significant.
At the same time, job satisfaction levels, either in Hygiene or Motivating factors, did not differ
significantly among the benevolent and the equity sensitive. It also showed that when grouped
according to Inputs to Social Exchange, Job Satisfaction levels for both hygiene and motivating
factors did not differ significantly. Despite the aforementioned findings, this study developed a
valid and reliable instrument which seems to adequately measure job satisfaction anchored on
the theory of Herzberg, giving emphasis on the need to adequately meet the Hygiene and
Motivating factors. It also gives an emphasis on Locke’s notion that the process for measuring
job satisfaction is a complex process thus the need to have the individuals prioritize the different
work facets.
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Recommendations
In line with findings of this study, it is recommended that organizations may consider
developing a mechanism in the recruitment process that enables them to determine an
individual’s equity preference. Although many studies reveal that the Equity Preference
Questionnaire (EPQ) seem to be a psychometrically valid instrument to measure the Equity
Preference of individuals, organizations may opt to explore other valid and reliable instruments
that they may utilize together with EPQ when establishing the profile of applicants. Knowing
the equity preference of individuals and acting on it accordingly may be contributory toward
furthering organizational productivity.
Regular evaluation of employees’ job satisfaction using a valid and reliable instrument is
also a must for every organization. Being informed on one’s adequacy and inadequacy in
fulfilling employees’ expectations concerning the different job facets is valuable in developing
strategies that keeps them and further improves their performance. With the continued
competition in the pursuit for capable and loyal employees, it is a necessity for every
organization to regularly benchmark on working conditions to ensure that employees’
expectations in the different job facets are adequately met especially those which they give
higher priority as perceptions of equity or inequity are affected by comparison with others.
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
References
Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of abnormal and social
psychology.
Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). “Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power?”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 24 Issue: 10,
Blumstein, P. W. & Weinstein, E. A. (1969).The redress of distributive injustice. American
Journal of Sociology. Vol 74, No 4.
Chu, H. & Kuo, T. (2015). Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory in Educational Settings in
Taiwan, The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 11, Num.1.
Dobre, O. (2013). Employee motivation and organizational performance, Review of Applied
Socio-Economic Research, Vol. 5, Issue 1.
George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference.
11.0. update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Husemen, R.C.,Hatfield, J.D. & Miles, E.W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: the
equity sensitivity construct, The Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222-234.
Khalifa, M. and Truong, Q. (2010). The Relationship between Employee Perceptions of Equity
and Job Satisfaction in the Egyptian Private Universities, Eurasian Journal of Business
and Economics, Vol. 3, No. 5
Kickul, J. and Scott, L. (2001). Broken Promises: Equity Sensitivity as a Moderator between
Psychological Contract Breach and Employee Attitudes and Behavior, Journal of Business
and Psychology, Vol.16, Issue 2.
King, W. & Hinson, T. (1994). The Influence of Sex and Equity Sensitivity on Relationship
Preferences, Assessment of Opponent, and Outcomes in a Negotiation
Experiment.Journal of Management 20: 605-624.
Kuhlman, D. & Marshello, A. (1975). Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of
programmed strategy effects in prisoner’s dilemma, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 5.
Lepold, A., Tanzer, N., Bregenzer, A., Jimenez, P. (2018). The Efficient Measurement of Job
Satisfaction: Facet-Items versus Facet Scales, International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 15, 1362
Locke, E. (1975). Personnel attitudes and motivation, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 26.
McFarlin, D. & Rice, R. (1992). The role of facet importance as a moderator in job satisfaction
processes, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, Issue 1.
This research paper is published in Ad Sapientiam: A Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Research Journal
of Colegio San Agustin – Bacolod Volume XI Series of 2018 with National Copyright ISSN 2012-290x
Miles, E. W., Huseman, R. C., & Hatfield, J. D. (1994).Equity sensitivity and outcome
importance.Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, Issue 7.
OECD (2009). Teaching Practices, Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes, Creating Effective Teaching
and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS
Ololube, N. (2006). Teachers Job Satisfaction and Motivation for School Effectiveness: An
assessment, Evaluative Report.
Rai, S. (2004). Motivators at Work: An Equity Sensitivity Perspective, International Journal of
Management Practices and Contemporary Thoughts.
Roedder, W. (2001). How Equity Sensitivity Affects Attitudes and Behaviors.Bell and Howell
Information and Learning Company.
Sauley, K.S. & Bedeian, A.G. (2000). Early sensitivity: Construction of a measure and
examination of its psychometric properties, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, Issue 5.
Scarpello, V., Vandenberg, R. (1987). The satisfaction with my supervisor scale: Its utility for
research and practical applications, Journal of Management, Vol. 13, Issue 3.
Sharma, C.L. (1990). Systems Theory and Organisational Management, Indian Journal of Public
Administration, Volume: 36 issue: 2.
Shore, T.H. (2004). Equity sensitivity theory: Do we all want more than we deserve? Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19, Issue 7.
Shore, T. & Strauss, J. (2008). Measurement of Equity Sensitivity: A Comparison of the Equity
Sensitivity Instrument and Equity Preference Questionnaire, Psychological Reports, Vol.
102, Issue 1.
Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.
Stoetzer, U. (2010). Interpersonal relationships at work, Sage Publications.
Tatsuse, T. & Sekine, M. (2011). Explaining global job satisfaction by facets of job satisfaction:
the Japanese civil servants study, Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 16(2):
133–137.
Wallin, J. (2002). Facet importance and job satisfaction: another look at Locke’s value theory,
Master’s Theses, 2382.
Weidman, A. & Dunn, E. (2015). The Unsung Benefits of Material Things: Material Purchases
Provide More Frequent Momentary Happiness than Experiential Purchase, Social
Psychology and Personality Science.
Zigarmi, D., Houson, D., Witt, D., Diehl, J. (2010). Employee Work Passion, The Ken
Blanchard Companies.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The measurement of job satisfaction as a central dimension for workplace health and well-being is crucial to set suitable health- and performance-enhancing management decisions. Measuring different facets of job satisfaction leads to a more precise understanding about job satisfaction in research as well as to more specific interventions in companies. This study examines the measurement of job satisfaction with facet scales (multiple-items for one facet) and facet-items (one item for one facet). Facet-items are a cost-effective and fast way to measure job satisfaction in facets, whereas facet scales are more detailed and provide further information. Results from 788 bank employees showed that facet-items of job satisfaction were significantly correlated with the corresponding facet scales and had high factor loadings within the appropriate factor. Furthermore, the same correlational pattern between facet scales and external criteria was found for facet-items and external criteria (identification with the company, work engagement, stress, resources). The findings support the usage of facet-items in companies and in research where cost- and time-effectiveness is imperative and the usage of facet scales where an even deeper understanding of job satisfaction is needed. In practice, the usage of efficient measurements is evident, especially in the upcoming field of eHealth tools.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – This paper seeks to examine the issue of whether Herzberg's two-factor motivation theory still resonates nearly 50 years after it was first posited. The objective is to assess whether or not Herzberg's contentious seminal studies on motivation at work still hold true today. Design/methodology/approach – The arena in which the theory is investigated is work-based suggestion schemes, and the question considered is “What motivates employees to contribute ideas?” The paper begins by revisiting the literatures that form the basis of motivation theory and, in particular, the furore surrounding the work of Fredrick Herzberg. Findings – The results are derived from a survey providing over 3,200 responses. They suggest that money and recognition do not appear to be primary sources of motivation in stimulating employees to contribute ideas. In line with Herzberg's predictions, factors associated with intrinsic satisfaction play a more important part. Originality/value – The paper demonstrates that, despite the criticism, Herzberg's two-factor theory still has utility nearly 50 years after it was first developed.
Article
Examined the impact of 3 programed strategies (tit-for-tat, 100% cooperation, and 100% defection) on cooperation level in the prisoner's dilemma game as a function of the S's motivational orientation (cooperative, competitive, or individualistic). Motivational orientation was assessed on the basis of each S's choices across four classes of decomposed games. Following this assessment, Ss played 30 trials of prisoner's dilemma in matrix form against one of the above-mentioned strategies. Ss were 167 undergraduates. Results show that (a) cooperatively oriented Ss cooperated with a tit-for-tat and a 100% cooperative strategy, but defected against a 100% defecting strategy; (b) competitive Ss defected against all 3 strategies; and (c) individualistic Ss defected against both 100% cooperative and 100% defective strategies, but they cooperated with a tit-for-tat strategy. It is concluded that the outcomes of a prisoner's dilemma have affectively different meanings (i.e., values) for Ss of differing orientations, and that Ss of all 3 orientations adopt strategies that effectively maximize their particular type of reward in the game. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
Article
Although research suggests that people derive more happiness from buying life experiences than material objects, almost no studies have examined how people actually feel while consuming real-world experiential and material purchases. In the present research, we provided the first examination of people’s momentary happiness while consuming these purchases. Participants were randomly assigned to spend C$20 on a material versus experiential purchase (Study 1) or to report a material versus experiential gift they received at Christmas (Study 2); participants in both studies reported their momentary happiness regarding these purchases over 2 weeks, using daily-diary (Study 1) and experience-sampling (Study 2) methodologies. Results suggest that material and experiential purchases deliver happiness in two distinct flavors: Material purchases provide more frequent momentary happiness over time, whereas experiential purchases provide more intense momentary happiness on individual occasions.
Article
Equity theory proposes that individuals who perceive themselves as either underrewarded or overrewarded will experience distress, and that this distress leads to efforts to restore equity. This paper describes a new construct, equity sensitivity, and proposes that reactions to equity/inequity are a function of an individual's preferences for different outcome/input ratios. The construct is delineated through a series of propositions, and implications for equity research in organizations are discussed.
Article
Distributive injustice was experimentally induced in a dyad where a stooge claimed a share of credit incommensurate with his contribution to a joint task. Redressive behavior on part of subjects was of two kinds-involving the allocation of rewards in a subsequent work session, and the granting of esteem to the other person. With some exception, the tendency was for beneficiaries of injustice to be more extreme in redress than were its victims. Females, individuals high in Machiavellianism, and those high in Need for Approval did not redress in reward allocation when victimized. Those low in Machiavellianism redressed more when they were victims.
Article
Predictions from equity sensitivity theory is reported by Huseman et al. were tested in a laboratory setting. As predicted, Benevolent individuals reported the highest pay satisfaction, perceived pay fairness, and lowest turnover intentions. Contrary to expectations, Entitled individuals did not report lower overall pay satisfaction, perceived pay fairness or higher turnover intentions than Equity Sensitive individuals. All three equity sensitivity groups preferred being over-rewarded to being equitably rewarded, and were relatively distressed when under-rewarded. The predicted interaction between equity sensitivity and reward level was not significant. Implications for the management of employees were discussed.
Article
Despite suffering from content ambiguity, a sample-specific scoring procedure, and the inappropriate use of cut scores, the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1985) has been the primary measure used in equity sensitivity research. The purpose of the present undertaking was to propose and evaluate a new measure of equity sensitivity based on systematic item-development procedures that are crucial in both constructing a reliable and content-valid measure and for gaining an unbiased understanding of the nomological network linking equity sensitivity to other theoretically relevant constructs. The design and evaluation of the 16-item Equity Preference Questionnaire (EPQ) occurred in six studies. Two pilot studies were initially conducted to purify the EPQ and assess its reliability. Two validity assessment studies were then undertaken to examine the EPQ’s construct validity. A laboratory experiment was performed next to determine the EPQ’s validity for predicting satisfaction with different reward conditions. Finally, a test-retest reliability study was conducted to provide evidence regarding the consistency of the measurements yielded by the EPQ across time. Possible study limitations aside, the EPQ seems to be both psychometrically sound and useful for advancing equity sensitivity research. Various areas in equity sensitivity research that merit further examination are also addressed.