This article consists of four sections: The first section elucidates a general theory of social behavior—equity theory. Equity theory consists of four propositions designed to predict when individuals will perceive that they are justly treated and how they will react when they find themselves enmeshed in unjust relationships. The second section summarizes the extensive research that has been conducted to lest equity theory. The third section points out the ways in which equity theory interlocks with other major social psychological theories. The final section hints at some ways in which equity theory can be applied to understanding social problems. THE THEORETICAL FORMULATION The proposition that individuals seek for themselves maximum reward at minimum cost is hardly startling. Theories in a wide variety of disciplines rest on the assumption that "Man is selfish." Psychologists believe that behavior can be shaped by the careful application of reinforcement s. Economists assume that individuals will purchase desired products at the lowest available price. Moral philosophers conclude that the ideal society can only be one which insures the "greatest good for the greatest number." Politicians contend that "Every man has his price." Equity theory, too, rests on the assumption that man is selfish. Thus, our first proposition states: Proposition I: Individuals will try to maximize their outcomes (where outcomes equal rewards minus costs). If everyone were unrestrained in his attempts to get what he wanted, everyone would suffer. Every man would attempt to monopolize community resources; every man would be continually confronted by rivals bent on reclaiming these resources. Only by working out a compromise can the group avoid continual warfare and maximize collective reward. This fact is acknowledged in Proposition II A:

New directions in equity research.

The scope of research on interorganizational exchange behavior in the marketing channels literature has been very limited, in part because of an incomplete conceptual framework. What is urgently ne...

Interorganizational Exchange Behavior in Marketing Channels: A Broadened Perspective:

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.

/pdf/a-new-perspective-on-equity-theory-the-equity-sensitivity-w4f6pf64e5.pdf

A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct

In this paper we review prior theory and empirical evidence relevant to the personality characteristics that differentiate charismatic leaders from noncharismatic leaders. We conclude from this review that charismatic leaders in present day complex organizations fit the stereotypical image of supportive, sensitive, nurturing, and considerate leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, rather than the traditional stereotype of aggressive, demanding, dominant and critical leaders such as Jim Jones or Field Marshall George Montgomery. We then present a review of research relevant to four traits that theoretically differentiate personalized (self-aggrandizing, non-egalitarian, and exploitive) charismatic leaders from socialized (collectively oriented, egalitarian, and nonexploitive) charismatic leaders. We conclude that the personality traits of the need for power, power inhibition, Machiavellianism, authoritarianism, narcissism, self esteem and locus of control are traits that are likely to differentiate personalized from socialized charismatic leaders.

Personality and charismatic leadership

A new form of relational exchange, commonly referred to as the “just-in-time” (JIT) exchange relationship, has been adopted and implemented by many original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and suppl...

Just-In-Time Exchange Relationships in Industrial Markets:

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.

Philip W. Blumstein

Papers

The Redress of Distributive Injustice.

Interpersonal strategies under conditions of gain or loss1