Equity v. equality: the role of gender and disclosure of allocation on individual reward allocation decisions

Abstract

Research on reward allocations has consistently found differences in the manner in which men and women allocate rewards between themselves and others (Kahn, O'Leary, Krulewitz, & Lamm, 1980; Major & Adams, 1984; Major & Deaux, 1982). Overall, the research seems to suggest that when asked to divide a reward between themselves and a partner, men tend to use the equity norm to allocate rewards; whereas, women tend to use the equality norm to allocate rewards. However, a number of studies have been conducted which seem to demonstrate that a variety of situational g factors mediate the gender of allocator effects such as input level of the allocator and his/her co-workers, gender of the co-worker, expectancy of future interaction with the co-worker, and type of reward allocation.

The purpose of the present research was two-fold: (1) to examine individual differences influencing an allocator's choice of an allocation strategy, such as how anticipation of future interaction with the recipients of an allocation decision would influence an allocator's reward allocation; and (2) whether a person‘s self-esteem level might impact on how an individual might allocate a reward.

In general, the results of the current research suggest that previously observed differences between men's and women's allocations may not reflect true underlying differences between the gender; in terms of their preferences for allocation strategies. Allocation strategies appeared to vary as a function of the gender and input levels of the recipients of the reward and whether the type of allocation decision was a joint or independent situation. Both men and women tended to allocate rewards either equitably or using a compromise between equity and equality. Self-esteem was also found to influence the amount of the reward men and women allocated to the high performer and to themselves. Unfortunately, disclosure of allocation was not found to have a major effect upon how subjects allocated rewards. Several alternative explanations for these results are discussed.