Evaluations of One’s Own and Others’ Financial Rewards
The Role of Trait Positive Affectivity
Abstract
Previous research indicates that trait positive affectivity (PA) directly and indirectly influences individuals’ evaluations of reward sizes. However, research shows conflicting results on the direction of PA’s moderating influence. Furthermore, past studies fail to differentiate evaluations of one’s own rewards versus rewards for others, which is particularly important as reward systems are designed from a third-person perspective. Our experimental design confirms PA’s direct and moderating effects on the evaluation of one’s own rewards, finding stronger positive relationship for small-to-moderate rewards but weaker positive relationship for moderate-to-large rewards. These evaluation processes further show that individuals high (low) in PA perceive their own rewards as being larger (smaller) than rewards for others. The discussion addresses the implications for designing reward systems in organizations.
References
1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.
(2009). Large stakes and big mistakes. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 451–469.
(1998). Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 1–32.
(1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 779–801.
(2005). The role of negative affectivity in pay-at-risk reactions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 382–388.
(2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221.
(2007). Sorting and incentive effects of pay for performance: An experimental investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 387–405.
(1999). Positive affectivity and accuracy in social network perceptions. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 285–306.
(2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 393–399.
(2007). Exposing pay secrecy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 55–71.
(2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 448–474.
(2005). Pay satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 613–640.
(2002). The influence of positive affect on the components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1055–1067.
(2003). Are political economists selfish and indoctrinated? Evidence from a natural experiment. Economic Inquiry, 41, 448–462.
(2003). Modern statistical methods for handling missing repeated measurements in obesity trial data: Beyond LOCF. Obesity Reviews, 4, 175–184.
(2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 791–810.
(1970). The psychological basis of neuroticism and extraversion. Behavioral Research Therapy, 8, 249–266.
(2008). Analysis of cluster-randomized experiments: A comparison of alternative estimation approaches. Political Analysis, 16, 138–152.
(1969). Correlates of employee evaluations of pay increases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 481–489.
(1978). The effect of feeling good on a helping task that is incompatible with good mood. Social Psychology, 41, 346–349.
(2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 157–167.
(2002). A review and analysis of the policy-capturing methodology in organizational research: Guidelines for research and practice. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 337–361.
(2007). Methods for the behavioral, educational, and social sciences: An R package. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 979–984.
(2003). Trust in supervisors and acceptance of remuneration systems. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 2, 182–192.
(1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.
(2002). Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1162–1175.
(1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.
(1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
(2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, 239–249.
(1987). Guilt following transgression: An attribution of responsibility approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 247–256.
(2009). Motivating, testing, and publishing curvilinear effects in management research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26, 187–193.
(1997). A drop in the bucket: When is a pay raise a pay raise? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 117–137.
(1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.
(1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19.
(2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
(1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164.
(2004). A meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 815–848.
(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.
(1999). Positive and negative affect, signal sensitivity, and pay satisfaction. Journal of Management, 25, 189–206.
(2003). Reaction to merit pay increases: A longitudinal test of a signal sensitivity perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 538–544.
(1996). Negative self-concept: Specificity to depressive symptoms and relation to positive and negative affectivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 120–127.
(2001). On the plasticity of self-defense. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 66–69.
(2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227–242.
(2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235–244.
(1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
(2010). Promoting work motivation in organizations: Should employee involvement in organizational leadership become a new tool in the organizational psychologist’s kit? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 154–171.
(