JOHN STACY ADAMS’ EQUITY THEORY AND

FRITZ HEIDER’S ATTRIBUTION THEORY

ANTONIO, SOPHIA
ARJONA, KAREN JOYCE
CARACA, MARIA VIRGINIA
HERNANDEZ, DANIELLE THERESE
PIAMONTE, ROMMELEEN KHRYSS
SILVA, PRINCESS

MGT 131 - X

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Subject
Introduction to Human Resource and Behaviors in Organizations

SEPTEMBER 2019

1
 EQUITY THEORY

BACKGROUND OF THE PROPONENT

John Stacy Adams (1925 - 1984) was an American Psychologist born in Brussels, Belgium in 1925.
He graduated in University of Mississippi and University of North Carolina and served in the US Army and
later on became the Deputy Chief Attitude on Research in the US Army. In 1963, a Workplace and
Behavioral Psychologist, John Stacy Adams introduced the Equity Theory. This theory emphasizes the
tendency of people to compare themselves to their colleagues. He explained the connection between
employee’s behavior towards other’s rewards and how employees think they are treated within the
organization.

MAIN PROPOSITIONS OR COMPONENTS OF THE THEORY

Adams’ Equity Theory revolves around the balance between the effort that employees put into
their work and the rewards that they receive in return. Similar to Maslow’s and Herzberg’s theory of
motivation, the theory focuses on the idea of employees’ work compensation and workplace fairness, and
it greatly affects employees’ work motivation. The theory proposes that employees tend to loss
motivation when their input is far greater than the outputs they receive. Adams’ Equity theory mainly
compose of two things: the input and output in the workplace.

EQUITY INPUT = OUTPUT

POSITIVE INEQUITY INPUT < OUTPUT
NEGATIVE INEQUITY INPUT > OUTPUT

The input referred to by Adams in his theory includes all the value that employees contribute to
in their work. Inputs are typically those of the loyalty, social skills, experience, knowledge, skills and effort.
While output includes the financial and intrinsic rewards, benefits, and praise. The ratio between inputs
and outputs determines the happiness and motivation of the employees. It is best when employee’s input
is fairly recognized and rewarded. Employee’s tend to be happier and continues to provide the same
amount of effort, and sometimes improve. However, when employee feel that their input is greater than
the what is rewarded to them, they tend feel demotivated to do their jobs.

The unfairness within the workplace can create a negative atmosphere for the employees. The
comparison between the outputs given to different individuals create the sense of unfair treatment
because employees feel that what they receive is far less than what they worked for. Employees create
their own sense of fairness which affect the balance in the workplace. This proves that equity is not solely
dependent on the input-output ratio but also the comparison that the employees do.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF EQUITY THEORY

The equity theory helps reduce exploitation of employees in the workforce. The company should
be fair with their employees whose work are the same not only in monetary terms but also in work

2
conditioning terms. That being said, it would be a source of motivation for the employees resulting a more
efficient and effective in the workforce. Because employees are given equal amount and allocation of
rewards, the relationship of each employee would be better.

Applying the equity theory in a workplace results to higher achievement levels of employees. It
also increases the retention rate of each employee as they feel they would have a bright future in the
company. Diversity is another strength of a company that are functioning equitably. This results to a
workforce with employees that have more experiences and perspectives. According to Johnson (2017), “a
company’s intellectual capital gains depth and breadth through diversity”.

Equity theory may have some limitations as well. There is difference in the perspectives of a
company and employee. An employee might think he or she is under-rewarded compared to his or her
co-workers, but a company might see it as being more efficient and effective. Because humans have
different personalities, it is difficult to have an exact comparison of employees. Another limitation of the
equity theory is that all other factors are ignored. An example would be an employee leaving his or her
company that follows the equity theory and accepts a better offer of a competitor company.

Some employees would want to be noticed by their employers. They have high performance
records and want to be assigned to a more complex and higher level of tasks or responsibilities. But having
a workplace equity, it means that all employees perform the same without any variation. With this, the
organizational structure will be flatter and there will be no elevated roles, duties or responsibilities. No
leader will direct decision-making which can stall business operations. With no distinct roles in the
workforce, all employees will be compensated equally without basing their wage on their jobs’ value thus,
resulting to financial insolvency.

APPLICATIONS OF EQUITY THEORY

Equity in Management

1. Since Equity Theory deals with the relationship between the perception of fairness and worker
motivation, employers can structure their business workplaces to reward people according to
their contributions. This is due to the fact that employees want to receive as much as possible an
equal reward based on the inputs they give.
2. Employees tend to compare their input-output ratio with their co-workers so it is important for
managers to communicate job requirements clearly and establish fair and consistent performance
objectives for all employees.
3. If cuts need to be made due to economic conditions, employers should distribute the decreases
throughout the company.
4. Recognition of employee’s efforts, skills, and loyalty helps build a worker’s sense of achievement
therefore making him feel more secure about his future with the company.
5. For some people, even the smallest indication of negative disparity between their situations is
already enough to cause massive disappointments resulting in demotivation or even hostility. This
also explains why giving one person a promotion or pay-raise can have a demotivating effect on
others especially when they think they also deserve such recognition.

3
Equity in Relationships

Equity Theory can also be seen and applied in relationships, be it filial or intimate. A person who
feels like his/her partner is giving more than what he/she does may try to compensate by living up to it
and exerting more effort. In worst case scenarios, it may induce guilt or make the person feel invaluable
in the relationship which may result to conflicts. On the other hand, if a person feels like he/she is receiving
less than what he/she deserves, dissatisfaction may arise which may also lead to breakups.

This also happens in relationships between parents and their children. Due to lack of time for their
family because of work, parents try to make up for it by treating them to vacations, amusements, or by
giving gifts. This may be their way to save themselves from emotional guilt trip.

ATTRIBUTION THEORY

BACKGROUND OF THE PROPONENT

In 1958, Fritz Heider, a well-known psychologist in Vienna Austria, published a book called “The
Psychology of Interpersonal Relations”. It became his most famous work and remained as his most
significant contribution to the field of social psychology. Before the publication, he earned his Ph.D from
University of Graz at the age of 24 for his innovates study and his work called “Thing and Medium”. Later
on, he moved to Berlin and worked in a Psychology institution together with a few great psychologists
whose works contributed on the attribution theory. Becoming a giant in his field, his book had a great

4
impact on the readers and it continues up to the 21st century. In his book, wide-ranging analysis of the
conceptual framework and the psychological processes that undergird human social perception were
written. He provided an explanation on how individuals interpret events and how this relates to their
thinking and behavior. With the way people attach and assume meanings to other’s behavior in the daily
life, the developed theory based on this attribution was created and was called the Attribution theory.
This theory is deeply rooted to the works of Bernard Weiner (1974) and further developed by Harold Kelly,
Edward E. Jones, and Keith Davis (1965).

MAIN PROPOSITIONS/ COMPONENTS OF THE THEORY

Heider’s Attribution Theory

According to Heider, how a person understands the event and how the event is related to the
person’s thinking process and their behavior. It is the conceptual framework within social psychology
dealing with common sense explanations of behavior or what he calls the “Naïve Psychology”. Attribution
theory tends to explain certain basic question of individuals “How others do and what they do”. A person
interprets with themselves “why others do something which may cause attribute of one’s behavior.
Through life, people gradually construct explanations of why people behave in certain ways. Most of our
attributions are driven by our emotional and motivational impulses. Fritz Heider classified the attribution
theory into two types as Internal Attribution and External Attribution.

In Internal attribution, when a person is motivating for a certain action and questioned about it,
the person needs to explain the reason for the question or action. A person always wants to show him as
much as positive. Internal attributions are driven by motives and emotional attitudes of an individual.

On the other hand, in External Attribution, a person wants to understand the world through
events which happens around him and a person seeks reason for that particular event by using external
events.

A three-stage process underlies an attribution (1) the person must perceive or observe the
behavior, (2) the person must believe that the behavior was intentionally performed, and (3) then the
person must determine if they believe the other person was forced to perform the behavior (in which
case the cause is attributed to the situation) or not (in which case the cause is attributed to the person).

5
Weiner’s Attribution Theory

Weiner focused his attribution theory on achievement. He identified ability, effort, task
difficulty, and luck as the most important factors affecting attributions for achievement.

Attributions are classified along three causal dimensions: locus of control, stability, and controllability.
The locus of control dimension has two poles: internal vs. external locus of control. The stability
dimension captures whether causes change over time or not. For instance, ability can be classified as
stable, internal cause, and effort classifies as unstable and internal. Controllability contrasts one can
control, such as skill/efficacy, from causes one cannot control, such as aptitude, mood, others’ actions,
and luck.

Weiner’s attribution theory model

Dispositional vs Situational Attribution

1. Dispositional Attribution
Dispositional attribution assigns the cause of behavior to some internal characteristic of a person,
rather than to outside forces.

When we explain the behavior of others we look for enduring internal attributions, such as personality
traits. This is known as the fundamental attribution error.

For example, we attribute the behavior of a person to their personality, motives or beliefs.

6
 2. Situational Attribution
The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some situation or event outside a person's control
rather than to some internal characteristic.

When we try to explain our own behavior, we tend to make external attributions, such as situational
or environment features.

Jones & Davis Correspondent Inference Theory

Jones and Davis (1965) thought that people pay particular attention to intentional behavior (as
opposed to accidental or unthinking behavior).

Jones and Davis’ theory helps us understand the process of making an internal attribution. They
say that we tend to do this when we see a correspondence between motive and behavior. For example,
when we see a correspondence between someone behaving in a friendly way and being a friendly person.

Dispositional (i.e., internal) attributions provide us with information from which we can make
predictions about a person’s future behavior. The correspondent inference theory describes the
conditions under which we make dispositional attributes to the behavior we perceive as intentional.

Davis used the term correspondent inference to refer to an occasion when an observer infers that
a person’s behavior matches or corresponds with their personality. It is an alternative term to
dispositional attribution.

So, what leads us to make a correspondent inference? Jones and Davis say we draw on five sources of
information:

1. Choice: If a behavior is freely chosen it is believed to be due to internal (dispositional) factors.

2. Accidental vs. Intentional Behavior: Behavior that is intentional is likely to be attributed to the
person’s personality, and behavior which is accidental is likely to be attributed to situation /
external causes.

3. Social Desirability: Behaviors low in sociable desirability (non-conforming) lead us to make

(internal) dispositional inferences more than socially undesirable behaviors. For example, if you
observe a person getting on a bus and sitting on the floor instead of one of the seats. This behavior

7
 has low social desirability (non-conforming) and is likely to correspond with the personality of the
individual.

4. Hedonistic Relevance: If the other person’s behavior appears to be directly intended to benefit
or harm us.

5. Personalism: If the other person’s behavior appears to be intended to have an impact on us, we
assume that it is “personal”, and not just a by-product of the situation we are both in.

Kelley's Covariation Model

Kelley’s (1967) covariation model is the best-known attribution theory. He developed a logical
model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some characteristic (dispositional)
of the person or the environment (situational).

The term covariation simply means that a person has information from multiple observations, at
different times and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its causes.

He argues that in trying to discover the causes of behavior people act like scientists. More specifically
they take into account three kinds of evidence.

 Consensus: the extent to which other people behave in the same way in a similar situation. E.g.,
Alison smokes a cigarette when she goes out for a meal with her friend. If her friend smokes, her
behavior is high in consensus. If only Alison smokes, it is low.

 Distinctiveness: the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in similar situations. If
Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, her behavior is high in distinctiveness. If she
smokes at any time or place, distinctiveness is low.

 Consistency: the extent to which the person behaves like every time the situation occurs. If Alison
only smokes when she is out with friends, consistency is high. If she only smokes on one special
occasion, consistency is low.

According to Kelley we fall back on past experience and look for either:

1) Multiple necessary causes. For example, we see an athlete win a marathon, and we reason that she
must be very fit, highly motivated, have trained hard etc., and that she must have all of these to win

8
2) Multiple sufficient causes. For example, we see an athlete fail a drug test, and we reason that she may
be trying to cheat, or have taken a banned substance by accident or been tricked into taking it by her
coach. Any one reason would be sufficient.

Kelley's Covariation Model

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE THEORY

Despite the expansive and diverse domains and questions to which Attribution Theory has been
applied, the theory is not without its problems, and Attribution Theory has received its share of critical
review (e.g., Newcombe & Rutter, 1982; Semin, 1980). There are many criteria by which theories can
be evaluated. We focus here on (a) explanatory power, (b) scope and generality, (c) conditionship
specification, and (d) verifiability or falsifiability to show some of the strengths and limitations of
Attribution Theory (Spitzberg, 2001).

1. Explanatory power refers to the most essential requirement of any theory: how well does it
explain, or make sense of, phenomena? It is a near paradox that a theory explaining how
people explain is itself required to be a good explanation. Attribution theories have the
advantage of making good intuitive sense, developed as they were to account for laypersons
as naïve scientists (Heider, 1958). Most of the dimensions and principles of attribution
theories are recognizable immediately in everyday interactions.

9
2. Scope and generality refer to the breadth of phenomena and contexts in which a theory
applies. A theory that only applies to a particular time, place, or behavior is narrow in scope
and not very generalizable. Attribution Theory was developed originally as a universal theory
of human sense-making, but research has limited its scope. Most research investigates
contexts in which conscious attributional efforts are most likely: contexts involving actual or
potential negative consequences and violations of expectations. For example, researchers
have centered on shyness, loneliness, conflict, relationship satisfaction, accounts, abuse,
anger, shame, achievement motivation, moral responsibility, and relationship breakups.
Attributions may or may not work the same way in other contexts where the importance of
making attributions is less necessary. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that
attributional thought processes may be culturally moderated to some extent.
3. Conditionship specification refers to the extent to which a theory articulates clearly the
nature of the relationship among its concepts. Even some of the original theorists claim some
strict parameters for the theory. For example, Heider’s (1958) original propositions were quite
formulaic. Weiner (2004) claimed boldly that “there are three, and indeed only three,
underlying causal properties that have cross-situational generality… locus, stability, and
controllability” (p. 17). Bradbury and Fincham (1990) summarized their extensive review as
indicating that “the dimensions of locus, stability, control, and globality are necessary and
sufficient for assessing causal attributions in marriage” (p. 17). Yet, their own coding of
research results indicates that many studies find no or only partial support for these
dimensions. The fact is that, almost 50 years after its inception, it is still not entirely clear how
much the results of Attribution Theory support these condition specifications. This raises a
significant question of the verifiability and falsifiability of this theory.
4. Verifiability is the extent to which evidence in support of a theory can be generated through
observation and investigation.
5. Falsifiability is the extent to which evidence that contradicts a theory can be generated
through observation and investigation. Consider the following proposition: all conflicts are
blamed on the partner more than on self. A verification strategy would take any evidence that
conflicts tend to be blamed on the partner more than on the self as evidence in support of
the proposition. In contrast, a falsification strategy would take any evidence that it sometimes
does not happen as evidence that the proposition is incorrect and must be modified or
replaced.

10
APPLICABILITY/ APPLICATIONS OF THE THEORY
Weiner’s theory has been applied in different domains such as education, law, clinical psychology,
and the mental health. Weiner (1980) states: “Causal attributions determine affective reactions to success
and failure. For example, one is not likely to experience pride in success, or feelings of competence, when
receiving an ‘A’ from a teacher who gives only that grade, or when defeating a tennis player who always
loses…On the other hand, an ‘A’ from a teacher who gives few high grades or a victory over a highly-rated
tennis player following a great deal of practice generates great positive affect.” People usually associate
failure with effort difficulty of the task and success with abilities. This leads to the fall of self-esteem of an
individual. If a person fails in a certain task, he/she will automatically think that he/she is incompetent in
that area. Attribution theory is a key in health care especially in the mental health care aspect. It is also
applied in career development with regards to the reason behind the failure to receive promotions in
companies.

11
REFERENCES
EQUITY THEORY
Johnson, S. (2017). "The Advantages of Equity in the Workplace." Work - Chron.com,

http://work.chron.com/advantages-equity-workplace-2635.html. Accessed 07 September 2019.

Mayhew, R. (2016). "The Disadvantages of Equity in the Workplace." Small Business - Chron.com,

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-equity-workplace-11499.html. Accessed 07
September 2019.

Parikh, V. (2019). Advantages and Disadvantages of Equity Theory of Motivation. Retrieved from

https://www.letslearnfinance.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-equity-theory-of-
motivation.html. Accessed 07 September 2019.

Mulder, P. (2018). Adams Equity Theory. Retrieved [09 September 2019] from ToolsHero:

https://www.toolshero.com/psychology/theories-of-motivation/adams-equity-theory/

Redmond, B. (2016). Equity Theory. Retrieved [09 September 2019] from

https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/5.+Equity+Theory?fbclid=IwAR32cuW7wer-
J7Iw6gp0AkCptI1xxb9k8aSiJtWkTihnGvgxZUXxiKlcXvQ

ATTRIBUTION THEORY
Culatta, Richard (2019). Attribution Theory (B. Weiner). Retrieved September 8, 2019.
https://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/attribution-
theory/?fbclid=IwAR2Q6UhEyvFpgPHtDs9ZL_0gl6eHcnO8SnoG5hlImkL_Ms2YnhMBq6_svl0

Zellner, Matt (2018). Atrributions Theory. Retrieved September 8, 2019.

https://thork.people.uic.edu/fair/attributions.pdf

McLeod, Saul (2012). Attributions Theory. Retrieved September 8, 2019.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-
theory.html#targetText=Heider%20(1958)%20believed%20that%20people,themes%20that%20othe
rs%20took%20up.

12