Journal of Applied Psychology In the public domain

1992, Vol. 77, No. 6, 910-917

Gender and the Relationship Between Perceived Fairness

of Pay or Promotion and Job Satisfaction
L. Alan Witt and Lendell G. Nye
Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aeromedical Institute
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Brockner and Adsit (1986) found that satisfaction with an exchange relationship was more strongly
related to perceptions of equity among men than women. Kahn (1972) reported that men were
more likely than women to distribute outcomes to individuals in direct proportion to their input.
We evaluated potential gender differences among 12,979 personnel in 30 different organizational
systems in (a) correlations between fairness and job satisfaction scores and (b) standardized group
differences in the perceived amounts of pay and promotion fairness and expressed levels of facet
and global job satisfaction. The fairness-satisfaction relationship was not higher for men, and there
were no practical differences in fairness perceptions and job satisfaction between men and women.

Much of the research on employee job satisfaction has been
based on the explicit assumptions that (a) job satisfaction is a
potential determinant of absenteeism, turnover, in-role job per-
formance, and extra-role behaviors and (b) the primary anteced-
ents of job attitudes are within management's ability to influ-
ence. Accompanying the latter assumption has been a notion
that managers should perhaps employ different strategies to
promote job satisfaction among women and men because orga-
nizational issues are supposedly differentially salient to men
and women in the development of their job satisfaction. Brun-
ing and Snyder (1983) pointed out that different management
strategies may be useful when gender differences exist but may
lead to discrimination when they do not. In the present study,
we investigated possible gender differences in the levels of, and
relationships between, perceptions of fairness of pay and pro-
motion and feelings of job satisfaction among men and women
working in several different organizations. As did Deaux
(1985), we discuss non-biologically based differences between
men and women in terms of gender rather than sex.
After reviewing 21 studies of gender differences in job satis-
faction, Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell (1957, p. 13)
suggested that "studies comparing men and women in job satis-
faction do not lead to any simple conclusions about such differ-
ences." Little has changed over the years. Despite differential
opportunities and pay inequity (Crosby, 1982), relationships be-
tween gender and job satisfaction have been inconsistent (cf.
An earlier version of this article was presented as a poster at the
Sixth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, April 26,1991, St. Louis.
We gratefully acknowledge (a) the significant suggestions made by
Larry Roth on an earlier draft of this article, (b) the helpful comments
made by two anonymous reviewers, Carolyn Dollar, Jennifer Myers,
and Dave Schroeder on earlier drafts of this article, and (c) the produc-
tion assistance of Chan M. Hellman.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to L.
Alan Witt, Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aeromedical Insti-
tute (AAM-522), P. Q Box 25082, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125.
910
Mottaz, 1986). Some researchers have reported no gender dif-
ferences in overall job satisfaction (Fry & Greenfeld, 1980;
Sauser & York, 1978; D. B. Smith & Plant, 1982; Weaver, 1980),
whereas others have reported relationships between job satisfac-
tion and gender (DArcy, Syrotiuk, & Siddique, 1984; Forgionne
& Peelers, 1982; Hulin & Smith, 1965; Mannheim, 1983;
Murray & Atkinson, 1981; Shapiro & Stern, 1975; P. C. Smith,
Kendall, & Hulin, 1969; Stockford & Kunze, 1950; Varca,
Shaffer, & McCauley, 1983; Weaver, 1974).
Why would individuals receiving less pay and differential
opportunities not be less satisfied with their jobs? This question
is at the heart of what is called the "paradox of the contented
working woman" (Jackson, 1989). In their review of the litera-
ture on gender and job values, Nieva and Gutek (1981) con-
cluded that women value pay and promotions less and interper-
sonal relationships more than men do. However, subsequent
research conducted among men and women in similar occupa-
tions indicated no gender differences in valuing money
(Crosby, 1982; Golding, Resnick, & Crosby, 1983; Harris &
Earle, 1986). This issue has practical significance; namely, if
women value money less than men do, then money-related
issues may have less salience for women. For example, per-
ceived fairness of pay and promotion may be of less importance
in the development of job satisfaction for women.
Experimental research testing equity theory predictions
(Adams, 1963) has primarily focused on two areas of distribu-
tive justice behaviors—reward allocation and reactions to in-
justice (Major & Deaux, 1982). Studies of reward allocation as a
function of effort generally support equity theory predictions
that individuals make allocations on the basis of perceptions of
others' efforts (Greenberg & Cohen, 1982). Studies examining
reactions to injustice indicate that, consistent with equity
theory predictions, people are less satisfied with, and are more
motivated to change, inequitable conditions than equitable
conditions (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). However, em-
pirical research (cf. Major & Deaux, 1982) suggests that gender
may moderate reactions to inequity (unfairness). Men are more
likely than women to distribute outcomes to individuals in
 PERCEIVED FAIRNESS AND JOB SATISFACTION
direct proportion to their input (Kahn, 1972; Lane & Messe,
1971; Leventhal & Lane, 1970), whereas women are more likely
to use the equality norm. Some research suggests that men and
women may differ in their interaction goals, with women striv-
ing for interpersonal or social success and men striving for ex-
ploitive, competitive success (e.g., Kahn, O'Leary, Krulewitz, &
Lamm, 1980). However, more recent studies have found that
women allocate more generously than men even when they are
matched in terms of valuing interpersonal success (Major &
Adams, 1983; Swap & Rubin, 1983). It also has been argued that
whereas men may tend to identify effort and skill as relevant
inputs, women may tend to identify participation as more rele-
vant (Walster & Walster, 1975).
Kahn, Nelson, and Gaeddert (1980) argued that gender dif-
ferences most likely occur when situational demands are ambig-
uous or weak. In such circumstances, men and women may
attempt to modify such situations according to their interper-
sonal orientation. Such a gender difference would have impli-
cations in work groups and in supervisor-subordinate interac-
tions. For example, female managers may be using the equality
norm when assigning work tasks and appraising performance,
and male managers may be using the equity norm.
Brockner and Adsit (1986) noted that an important but un-
tested implication of a greater salience of the equity norm for
men is that men's satisfaction with an exchange relationship
may be influenced more by the presence or absence of equity
than is women's satisfaction. This is consistent with Nieva and
Gutek's (1981) literature review suggesting that women value
pay and promotions less than men do. Testing this notion,
Brockner and Adsit (1986) conducted a study of 51 persons in
three clubs, one of which comprised 14 women, another of
which mainly comprised men (16 men and 4 women), and the
third of which comprised 10 men and 7 women. Brockner and
Adsit reported that the equity-satisfaction relationship was con-
siderably stronger among men than among women. The rela-
tionship was pronounced among men in the mostly male group
and especially weak for the group composed only of women.
Brockner and Adsit's (1986) finding has an important impli-
cation for organizational theory, namely, that fairness percep-
tions may be more salient in the development of job satisfaction
among men than among women. The conceptual link between
satisfaction with an exchange relationship (as studied by
Brockner and Adsit) and job satisfaction (as studied here) is that
job satisfaction may reflect the individual's affective response
to the exchange relationship between the individual and the
organization. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate
Brockner and Adsit's (1986) findings across a variety of work
organizations and different measures of job satisfaction and
perceived fairness. We tested the hypotheses that (a) gender
would moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and
the perceived fairness of pay and promotion and (b) the levels of
positive perceptions of fairness and expressions of job satisfac-
tion would be higher for men. Confirmation would provide
some support for the argument that differential management
strategies might be necessary and justifiable. However, a failure
to find gender differences would be consistent with research
indicating no gender differences in such areas as valuing pay
(e.g., Harris & Earle, 1986).
911
Method
Subjects
A number of populations were sampled. AH subjects voluntarily re-
sponded by mail to organizational surveys. The sample sizes and per-
centages reflecting the response rates for each organization are pre-
sented in Table 1. Sample 1 comprised employees (357 staff, 244 fac-
ulty, and 128 administrators) of Western Illinois University, measured
in 1987. Sample 2 consisted of workers at a military research and devel-
opment laboratory in the southwestern United States, measured in
1988. Sample 3 comprised employees at a small printing plant in the
midwestern United States, measured in 1989. Sample 4 consisted of the
nonmedical employees of a small hospital in the midwestern United
States, measured in 1989. Sample 5 comprised school teachers in a
rural school district in the midwestern United States, measured in
1987. Sample 6 consisted of workers at a tool factory in the Serbian
region of Yugoslavia, measured in 1988.
AH remaining samples were taken from populations of employees of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Sample 7 comprised
flight service specialists participating in an FAA training program and
was measured in 1989 (Broach, 1989). Sample 8 consisted of air traffic
controllers employed in airport towers who were participating in the
same FAA training program. Sample 9 comprised controllers em-
ployed in en route air traffic control centers who were also participat-
ing in the same FAA training program. Samples 10-19 and 20-30 con-
sisted of FAA employees who participated in the 1988 (Myers,
Schroeder, Van Deventer, & Collins, 1988) and 1990 (Myers, Witt, &
Schroeder, 1991) FA A Job Satisfaction Survey administrations, respec-
tively. Employees participating in these surveys were placed in their
respective FAA organizations, which are listed in Table 1. The division
of FAA personnel into separate organizations reflects not only the
structure of the FAA and its separate management systems but also the
very different tasks performed and different cultures of these various
organizations under the FAA umbrella.
Measures
Job satisfaction. Responses to multiple facet items of job satisfac-
tion and to one global item were assessed in all but two of the samples.
The rationale for this strategy stemmed from evidence suggesting that
(a) specific satisfaction measures "better reflect changes in relevant
situational factors because of the more precise referent" (Gerhart,
1987, p. 371); (b) responses to a global item (i.e., an item that does not
specify with regard to what referent the rater is to express his or her job
satisfaction) may more likely reflect individual differences than re-
sponses to specific items (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977); and (c) single items
may not be as unreliable as previously thought (Scarpello & Campbell,
1983). Thus, the use of total facet and global measures provided the
opportunity to examine gender differences operating in response to
both context-specific and context-free cues.
Three items were presented on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to subjects in Sample 1: (a) "I am
satisfied with my work," (b) "I am satisfied with my pay" and (c) "I am
satisfied with my job overall." The sum of these items comprised the
total facet score, and the third item constituted the global score.
Subjects in Sample 2 indicated on 16 items the extent to which they
were satisfied (1 = very dissatisfied, 7 = very satisfied) with (a) "the
fringe benefits you receive" (Schnake, 1983), (b) "the amount of free-
dom you have on your job," (c) "the chances you have to accomplish
something worthwhile" (Schnake, 1983), (d) "your family's attitude to-
ward your job" (Hendrix, 1979), (e) "the chances you have to take part
in making decisions" (Schnake, 1983), (f) "the first work assignment
you received upon arrival here," (g) "the physical layout of your work
station," (h) "the quality of technical equipment that you use" (Keller,
912 L. ALAN WITT AND LENDELL G. NYE

Table 1
Sample Sizes and Response Rates
Response
No. of rate
Sample respondents (%)

1: 1987, university employees 729 40.95

2: 1988, military research workers 76 83.33
3: 1989, printers 55 52.38
4: 1989, nonmedical hospital employees 75 48.88
5: 1987, schoolteachers 65 60.19
6: 1988, Serbian tool factory workers 134 67.00
7: 1989, FAA flight service specialists 159 —
8: 1989, FAA tower and terminal air traffic controllers 797 —
9: 1989, FAA en route air traffic controllers 903 —
10: 1988, FAA accounting staff 53 63.86
11: 1988, FAA air traffic controllers 2,290 69.16
12: 1988, FAA aircraft certification staff 110 57.56
13: 1988, FAA airport workers 49 71.73
14: 1988, FAA airway facilities workers 1,204 71.04
15: 1988, FAA flight standards staff 522 81.92
16: 1988, FAA human resources management staff 76 69.14
17: 1988, FAA logistics staff 203 60.47
18: 1988, FAA computer operations staff 95 52.20
19: 1988, FAA secruity staff 49 64.94
20: 1990, FAA accounting staff 53 84.71
21: 1990, FAA air traffic controllers 2,868 67.00
22: 1990, FAA aircraft certification staff 94 43.00
23: 1990, FAA airport workers 55 48.00
24: 1 990, FAA airway facilities workers 1,270 73.50
25: 1990, FAA aviation standards staff 95 54.60
26: 1990, FAA flight standards staff 521 69.30
27: 1990, FAA human resources management staff 94 48.87
28: 1990, FAA logistics staff 178 64.07
29: 1990, FAA computer operations staff 58 33.47
30: 1990, FAA security staff 58 73.08
Note. FAA = Federal Aviation Administration. Response rates for Samples 7,8, and 9 were not determined.

1986), (i) "the friendliness of the people you work with" (Schnake,
1983), (j) "the chances you have to learn new things" (Schnake, 1983),
(k) "the amount of pay you get" (Schnake, 1983), (1) "the way you are
treated by the people you work with" (Schnake, 1983), (m) "the amount
of job security you have" (Schnake, 1983), (n) "the work itself (what you
do)," (o) "the local area (weather, things to do, community size, etc.)"
(Hendrix, 1979), and (p) "your job as a whole" (Hendrix, 1979). The
sum of these items comprised the total facet score, and the last item
constituted the global score.
Subjects in Samples 3 and 4 completed the following items presented
on a 7-point, Likert-type scale (1 = extremely dissatisfied, 1 = extremely
satisfied) and taken from the Job Content Satisfaction section of Hack-
man and Oldham's (1974,1980) Job Diagnostic Survey: (a) "the amount
of job security I have," (b) "the amount of pay and fringe benefits I
receive," (c) "the amount of personal growth and development I get in
doing my job," (d) "the people I talk to and work with on my job," (e)
"the feeing of worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job,"
(f) "the chance to get to know other people while on the job," (g) "the
amount of support and guidance I receive from my supervisor," (h)
"the amount of independent thought and action I can exercise in my
job," (i) "how secure things look for me in the future here," (j) "the
chance to help other people while at work," (k) "the amount of chal-
lenge in my job" and (1) "the overall quality of supervision I receive in
my work."' The total score on these items comprised the total facet
score. An additional item from Hackman and Oldham's scale, "my job
overall," constituted the global score.
Subjects in Sample 5 completed the validated (McNichols, Stahl, &
Manley, 1978) version of Hoppock's (1935) four-item job satisfaction
scale. No item was used as a global measure.
Subjects in Sample 6 completed five items presented with 7-point
Likert-type scales (-3 = strongly disagree, 3 = strongly agree): (a) "I am
very satisfied with my pay," (b) "I am very satisfied with my supervi-
sor," (c) "I am dissatisfied with my co-workers" (reverse scored), (d) "I
am satisfied with the opportunities for promotion at this factory" and
(e) "I am very happy doing the work that I do." No item was used as a
global measure. Items were printed in Serbian.
Subjects in Samples 7,8, and 9 completed five items used in previous
federal government surveys (Office of Personnel Management, 1979),2
presented on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree) on which the employees indicated their agreement with
(a) "All in all, I am satisfied with my pay," (b) "I am satisfied with the
chances of getting a promotion," (c) "I am satisfied with the amount of
job security I have," and (d) "All in all, I am satisfied with my work
group." The sum of these items comprised the total facet score. An
additional item, "In general, I am satisfied with my job" comprised
the global score.
' From The Job Diagnostic Survey: An Instrument for the Diagnosis
of Jobs and Evaluation of Job Redesign Projects (Tech. Rep. 4) by J. R.
Hackman and G. R. Oldham, 1974, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Copyright held by authors. Reprinted with permission.
2
From Federal Employee Attitudes: Phase 1. Baseline Survey 1979
(pp. 12-19) by the Office of Personnel Management, 1979, Washing-
ton, DC: US. Government Printing Office. In the public domain.
 PERCEIVED FAIRNESS AND JOB SATISFACTION
In Samples 10-30, subjects were asked to complete the following
items presented on a 5-point, Likert-type scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 5 =
very satisfied): (a) "Overall, how satisfied are you with your pay?" (b)
"Overall, how satisfied are you with your benefits?" (c) "Overall, how
satisfied are you with your retirement system?" (d) "In general, how
satisfied are you with your job—the kind of work you do?" (e) "How
satisfied are you with your physical working conditions (e.g., space,
noise, light, heat, privacy)?" (f) "Overall, how satisfied are you with
your work group?" (g) "How satisfied are you with the quality of feed-
back you receive from your supervisor?" (h) "In general, how satisfied
are you with your supervisor?" (i) "Overall, how satisfied are you with
your organization as a place to work?" and (j) "Overall, how satisfied
are you with the management of your organization?". The sum of these
items comprised the total facet score. An additional item, "Overall,
how satisfied are you with your job?" comprised the global score.
Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach's alphas for the facet scales
are available on request.
Fairness. Subjects in Sample 1 completed Scholl, Cooper, and
McKenna's (1987) pay equity scale <pt = .92). Subjects in Sample 2 com-
pleted an item presented on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree), "My pay is fair." Subjects in Samples 3 and
4 completed one item taken from the Job Content Satisfaction section
of Hackman and Oldham's (1974,1980) Job Diagnostic Survey, "the
degree to which I am fairly paid for what I contribute to this organiza-
tion." Subjects in Sample 5 completed two items presented on a 5-
point, Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), "The
pay increases and promotions that teachers receive here are based on
what the teacher puts into his/her work," and "Pay raises are based on
whom you know" (reverse scored). Subjects in Sample 6 completed two
items printed in Serbian and presented on a 7-point Likert-type scale
(—3 = strongly disagree, 3 = strongly agree): (a) "The promotions that
workers receive here are based on what the worker puts into his/her
work," and (b) "Promotions are based on whom you know" (reverse
scored). FAA subjects completed items assessing both pay and promo-
tion fairness. Subjects in Samples 7,8, and 9 completed two items used
in previous federal government surveys (Office of Personnel Manage-
ment, 1979) presented on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree, 5 = strongly agree) on which the employees indicated their agree-
ment with (a) "Considering my skills and the effort I put into my work, I
am satisfied with my pay" and (b) "Promotions or unscheduled pay
increases here depend on how well a person performs his or her job."
Subjects in Samples 10-30 completed two items on a 5-point Likert-
type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a very great extent): (a) "To what extent
does the FAA pay well, compared to other places?" and (b) "To what
extent are promotions in your organization given to those who are best
qualified?" Means and standard deviations are available on request.
Procedure
We used meta-analysis procedures (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) to eval-
uate gender differences in (a) correlation coefficients between job satis-
faction and fairness scores and (b) levels of fairness and job satisfaction
as operationalized in standardized group differences (^statistic) in the
perceived amounts of pay fairness and promotion fairness and the
expressed levels of both facet and global job satisfaction. We used the
meta-analytic approach because of the many different measures
within our study. Our primary objectives were to estimate the magni-
tudes of the effect sizes, in terms of both rand d for men and women,
and to examine how generalizable the results were across the organiza-
tions.
Initially, analyses were performed for each of the four sets of fair-
ness-job satisfaction associations, and then the correlation coeffi-
cients were grouped into subsets based on gender. The procedures
comprised three steps: First, the observed correlations were weighted
913
by sample size and averaged (r). Second, the observed variances of the
correlations were calculated and corrected for the variance expected
due to sampling error. A 90% lower credibility value (LCV), the point
above which 90% of correlations were found, was determined from the
corrected standard deviation (SDC). Third, standard errors for the
mean of the sample-size-weighted correlations were calculated with
Schmidt, Hunter, and Raju's (1988) formulas and used to create confi-
dence intervals (CI) as estimates of the accuracy and magnitude of each
mean correlation. An LCV that does not include zero has been inter-
preted (Whitener, 1990) as indicating that an effect was generalizable
across studies, in which case there were no important moderator influ-
ences and the mean correlation represented the population effect size
(the homogeneous case). With homogeneous studies, the formula for
calculating the standard error, which was used to form the confidence
interval, accounts only for sampling error (Schmidt et al., 1988). In
contrast, for analyses in which moderators are indicated (the heteroge-
neous case), the formula for the standard error reflects both sampling
error and residual variance after sampling error has been removed. For
this study, confidence intervals around the mean of the sample-size-
weighted correlations were calculated with both formulas because the
observed variances of correlations were corrected only for the artifact
of sampling error. Thus, the corrected standard deviations were overes-
timates of the true variances because we did not correct for other
artifacts, such as measurement error in the job satisfaction and fairness
constructs.
The value of d for each of the organizations was calculated by sub-
tracting the mean of a measure (e.g., perceived promotion fairness) for
women from the mean of that measure for men in the same organiza-
tion and then dividing the difference by the within-group standard
deviation. Thus, positive d values represent higher perceived fairness
or job satisfaction for men in an organization. The mean of the gender
group differences across all organizations (d), based on sample-size-
weighted effects, was calculated for each of the fairness and job satisfac-
tion measures. The observed variance of each J was corrected for sam-
pling error. A 95% credibility interval was constructed around each
effect size as an indication of the generalizability of gender group
differences across the organizations in this study. The practical signifi-
cance of the magnitude of each effect size was evaluated with the "bino-
mial effect size display" (BESD; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982) and Cohen's
(1977) categories of effect sizes: .20 = small, .50 = medium, and .80 =
large.
Results
Inconsistent with the first hypothesis, for each type of fair-
ness and job satisfaction relationship, the observed mean corre-
lations (Table 2) across work organizations were very similar for
men and women: pay fairness with facet satisfaction (for men,
r= .44 and for women, r = .39), pay fairness with global job
satisfaction (for men, r = .29 and for women, r = .23), promotion
fairness with facet satisfaction (for men, r = .54 and for women,
r = .59), and promotion fairness with global job satisfaction (for
men, r = .42 and for women, r = .45). Although more variance
was indicated across sets of correlation coefficients than was
accounted for by sampling error variance, the LCVs for all rela-
tionships were well above zero, which indicated considerable
consistency across organizations. The confidence intervals for
the accuracy of the correlations between each of the fairness-
job satisfaction measures were significantly different from zero
and overlapped for the subsets based on gender. This last result
was found both when the standard error was calculated with
the formula for the homogeneous case and when the formula
for the heterogeneous case was applied.
914 L. ALAN WITT AND LENDELL G. NYE

Table 2
Meta-Analysis of Relationships Between Fairness Perceptions and Job Satisfaction Measures
Relationship/ Observed
group K n r Range variance 5£>c LCV CI, CI2
Pay fairness and
facet satisfaction
Total 56 12,780 .45 -.14 to .74 .004 .04 .37 .41 -.45 .40-.46
Men 28 10,179 .44 .10 to .74 .003 .03 .40 .42-.46 .41 -.47
Women 28 2,601 .39 -.14 to .68 .009 .03 .35 .3S-.43 .34-.44
Pay fairness and
global job satisfaction
Total 56 12,780 .28 -.16 to .74 .007 .06 .20 .26-.30 .27-3 1
Men 28 10,179 .29 -.04 to .58 .003 .02 .26 .27-.31 .26-.32
Women 28 2,601 .23 -.16 to .74 .002 .10 .10 .19-.27 .15-.3I
Promotion fairness and
facet satisfaction
Total 52 12,053 .55 .20 to .81 .021 .14 .37 .53-.S7 .50-.60
Men 26 9,784 .54 .20 to .70 .022 .14 .36 .52-.S6 .47-.61
Women 26 2,269 .59 .29 to .81 .014 .09 .47 .5S-.62 .S3-.63
Promotion fairness and
global job satisfaction
Total 48 11,854 .43 .15 to .83 .011 .09 .31 .41 -.45 J9-.47
Men 24 9,658 .42 .15 to .66 .012 .10 .29 .40-.44 .36-.4S
Women 24 2,196 .45 .17 to .83 .008 .03 .41 .42-.4S .40-. 50
Note. K = number of correlations; n = sample size; r = mean of correlations weighted by sample size; SDC
= standard deviation of correlation coefficients corrected for sampling error; LCV = 90% lower credibility
value (the point above which 90% of corrected correlations are found); CI, = confidence interval calculated
with the formula for the standard error given the lack of important moderators (the homogeneous case);
CI2 = confidence interval calculated with the formula for the standard error based on both sampling error
and residual variance (the heterogeneous case).

Within gender subsets, some differences in variability were
found across organizations for three of the fairness-job satisfac-
tion associations. For pay fairness with global job satisfaction,
more variability was found for women (SDC = .10) than for men
(SDC = .02) across 28 organizations. However, for promotion
fairness with facet and global job satisfaction, more variability
was indicated for men (SDC = .14 and .10, respectively) than for
women (SDC = .09 and .03, respectively). The exception was the
association between pay fairness and facet satisfaction: SDC
equaled .03 for both men and women. These findings of nontri-
vial corrected variance in the subsets of correlations suggests
the possibility that unknown moderators differentially affected
the relationships between fairness perceptions and job satisfac-
tion for men and women.
As shown in Table 3, the results of the analysis of gender
group differences in perceptions of fairness and levels of ex-
pressed job satisfaction indicate that the men had lower posi-
tive perceptions of both pay and promotion fairness. However,
the gender group differences involving pay fairness (d= -.18)
and promotion fairness (d = -.17) were lower than Cohen's
(1977) criterion for a small effect size, namely, an absolute value
of .20. Furthermore, the lack of practical gender group differ-
ences on the two fairness measures was indicated by BESD
values, which estimated that only about 54% of the women had

Table 3
Gender Group Differences for Fairness Perceptions and Satisfaction
95%
Range BESD credibility
Measure K d ofd (Women) interval of d
Pay fairness 28 -.18 -.48 to .28 54.4% -.32 to -.04
Promotion fairness 26 -.17 -.49 to .55 54.1% -.31 to -.02
Facet job satisfaction 30 -.12 -.81 to .56 53.5% -.26 to .03
Global job satisfaction 28 -.03 -.53 to .50 50.9% -.11 to. 13
Note. The credibility interval is calculated from the observed variance of the effect sizes corrected for
sampling error. The negative effect sizes reflect less perceived fairness and job satisfaction reported by
men. The BESD is the estimated percentage ofwomen above the estimated population mean on a given
measure. K = number of group comparisons; d = mean effect size across organizations; BESD = bino-
mial effect size display.
 PERCEIVED FAIRNESS AND JOB SATISFACTION
positive perceptions at a level above the population means. The
gender group differences on the facet and global measures of
job satisfaction were even smaller (d= —.12 and d= —.03, re-
spectively). More variability was found for the d effect sizes
across organizations than would be expected due to sampling
error. Also, the corrected standard deviations were large com-
pared with the d values, as indicated by the credibility intervals,
which included zero for the job satisfaction measures and ap-
proached zero for fairness perceptions. This finding is incon-
gruent with the second hypothesis and suggests a lack of consis-
tency in the direction of the gender group differences and the
presence of potential moderating factors in fairness and job
satisfaction perceptions across the organizations in this study.
Discussion
Consistent with previous research, perceived fairness ac-
counted for a significant amount of the variance in job satisfac-
tion, and the data suggest no practical gender differences in the
relationships. Indeed, the results of the meta-analysis suggest
that the magnitude of the differences observed in the present
study were within what might be expected due to sampling
error. Thus, extending the literature, these data suggest no
gender differences in the fairness-job satisfaction relationship.
Similarly, there were no practical gender differences in the lev-
els of perceived fairness of promotions and pay or in feelings of
job satisfaction (single-item global and total facet scores).
Why are the present findings inconsistent with the results
reported by Brockner and Adsit (1986)? It is possible that the
significance, and particularly the magnitude, of the gender dif-
ferences reported by Brockner and Adsit reflect Type I error.
Indeed, laboratory studies using artificial organizational sys-
tems or field studies using nonessential social organizations
(i.e., clubs or social groups that do not directly affect one's abil-
ity to make a living) may have limited external validity. Alterna-
tively, answers to the question may come from the identifica-
tion of conceptual differences between the present and pre-
vious research, prior explanations of gender differences in
allocations to the self, or possible differences between the pres-
ent and previously measured samples.
Conceptual differences between the present study and
Brockner and Adsit's (1986) study may explain differences in
the results. In the latter study, satisfaction with an exchange
relationship was the criterion of interest, not job satisfaction. In
addition, Brockner and Adsit (1986) operationalized fairness in
equity terms: (a) the difference between the other's perceived
outcome and inputs, and (b) the difference between one's own
outcome and inputs. In the present study, fairness was opera-
tionalized in ratings of the fairness of pay and promotions, and
the comparison others on which fairness formulations were to
be based were not explicitly identified. Thus, the people with
whom the individuals in this study were comparing their situa-
tions may have varied significantly, as may have internal stan-
dards.
Another answer may lie in the utility of previous and perhaps
outdated explanations of gender differences in allocations to
the self, of which there have been several. First, some re-
searchers have suggested that women have lower adaptation
levels for their pay (P. C. Smith et al., 1969) and lower pay expec-
915
tations (Sauser & York, 1978) than men, perhaps because of
past wage discrimination. Second, others (Berger, Zelditch,
Anderson, & Cohen, 1972; Chesler & Goodman, 1976; Major,
McFarlin, & Gagnon, 1984) have argued that women's lower
standards (which reduce the salience of fairness considerations)
result from a tendency for women to compare their outcomes
with those of other women rather than to those of men, who are
typically paid more (Treiman & Hartmann, 1981). Alterna-
tively, the focus may not be on other women per se but rather on
others whose situations are more relevant; this notion is consis-
tent with studies indicating that people select comparison refer-
ents that permit assessment of outcomes (e.g., pay or status)
most salient to themselves (Miller, 1984; Wheeler & Koestner,
1984). A third argument suggests that gender differences in
internal pay standards stem from women's valuing money
(Crosby, 1982; Jackson, 1989) and interpersonal relationships
differently (Kahn, O'Leary, et al., 1980). Major and Deaux
(1982) offered a fourth perspective: Because women devalue
their inputs relative to men, they tend to underreward their
work. Fifth, Callahan-Levy and Messe (1979) argued that
women perceive less of a connection between their work and
pay as the result of sex role socialization. The utility of some of
these arguments may be somewhat less than in the past because
of a narrowing of gender differences at work in recent years
(e.g., Beutell & Brenner, 1986).
Alternatively, in line with Lerner's (1977) argument that the
choice of equity or equality is based on whether the individuals
see others as unique individuals or as role players, it is possible
that co-workers in the present study were seen by both genders
as role players or occupants of their formal positions. Thus,
fairness issues would have been salient in the development of
job satisfaction for both men and women. Moreover, Bern's
(1985) gender schema model suggests that persons with well-
developed sex-typed schemata are more likely to assess their
social environment in gender-related ways; it is possible that the
populations tapped in the present samples may have had less
focused sex-typed schemata than the college-age subject popula-
tions often tapped in previous equity studies.
A decade ago, Kahn, Nelson, and Gaeddert (1980, p. 748)
argued that "much of the research on reward allocations has
overestimated the extent of sex differences." In studies of allo-
cation behavior, men and women have responded differently to
the same situation (Kidder, Bellettirie, & Cohn, 1977) and simi-
larly to different situations (Kahn, Nelson, & Gaeddert, 1980).
Such results suggest a lack of clarity on this issue and that not
all relevant variables have been identified. As noted by Freed-
man and Phillips (1988), studies on gender differences in moti-
vation and work values have failed to demonstrate that gender
is the actual factor underlying observed differences. Indeed,
Beutell and Brenner (1986) noted that the trend is toward simi-
larity rather than dissimilarity in work values. Feingold's (1988)
study of standardized aptitude tests given between 1947 and
1980, which revealed a decline in gender differences, suggests
that gender differences in cognitive abilities may now be vir-
tually nonexistent. Perhaps gender differences in organiza-
tional behavior also may now be less significant than previously
observed or thought. On the other hand, the issue may not be
gender but rather some other structural or biographical vari-
able, such as "breadwinner" status (Witt, 1988). More generally,
916 L. ALAN WITT AND LENDELL G. NYE
one reviewer suggested that potential moderators of the rela-
tionship between fairness perceptions and job satisfaction
might include job status and organizational characteristics,
such as size or public versus private sector. In future studies, as
moderators are identified, it would be appropriate to deter-
mine whether gender creates a higher order interaction, that is,
whether a variable could significantly affect a fairness-job satis-
faction relationship for only one gender. Given the importance
of nondiscriminatory management practices and the concerns
underlying comparable worth (cf. Major, 1987, 1989), addi-
tional research is needed to carefully examine these issues.
Practical Implications
The results suggest that fairness is an important component
of job satisfaction among the personnel sampled in the present
study. In other words, employees perceiving fairness in pay and
promotions were more likely to feel satisfied with their jobs
than employees perceiving less fairness or unfairness. This sug-
gests the utility of supervisors' and managers' explaining and
discussing personnel outcomes and, when appropriate, empha-
sizing the fairness of those outcomes and the procedures lead-
ing to those outcomes. Supervisor articulation of how person-
nel decisions are made is important (Greenberg, Bies, & Eskew,
1991), although its eifects are influenced by the predisposi-
tional filters of employees. Because perceptions of fairness are
one component of job satisfaction, employees who have access
to information about personnel decisions and how they are
made are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs, if the infor-
mation reveals fair practices.
In addition, the results reported here suggest that caution
should be used when assuming gender differences in the fair-
ness-job satisfaction relationship. In other words, the data do
not support the notion that different management strategies
should be used for men and women when the objective is to
increase job satisfaction through fairness perceptions among
the personnel. Extrapolating from the present data, the use of
such strategies very likely would lead to inappropriate manage-
ment practices.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of equity. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relationships: A
theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Bern, S. J. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual
and empirical integration. In T. B. Sonderegga (Ed.), Nebraska Sym-
posium on Motivation: Psychology and gender (pp. 179-226). Lin-
coln: University of Nebraska.
Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Jr., Anderson, B., & Cohen, B. P. (1972). Struc-
tural aspects of distributive justice: A status value reformulation. In
J. Berger, M. Zelditch, Jr., & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories
in progress (Vol. 2, pp. 119-146). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Beutell, N. J., & Brenner, O. C. (1986). Sex differences in work values.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 29-41.
Broach, D. (1989). Airway Science Curriculum Demonstration Project:
Second summative evaluation report (Final report to the Office of
Training and Higher Education). Oklahoma City, OK: Civil Aero-
medica) Institute, Human Resources Research Division.
Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. (1986). The moderating effect of sex on the
equity-satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
585-590.
Bruning, N. S., & Snyder, R. A. (1983). Sex and position as predictors of
organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 26,
485-491.
Callahan-Levy, C. M., & Messe, L. A. (1979). Sex differences in the
allocation of pay. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
433-446.
Chesler, P., & Goodman, E. J. (1976). Women, money, and power. New
York: Morrow.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
New York: Academic Press.
Crosby, E (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York:
Oxford University Press.
DArcy, C., Syrotiuk, J., & Siddique, C. M. (1984). Perceived job attri-
butes, job satisfaction, and psychological distress: A comparison of
working men and women. Human Relations, 37, 603-611.
Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36,
49-81.
Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing.
American Psychologist, 43, 95-103.
Forgionne, G. A., & Peelers, V E. (1982). Differences in job motivation
and satisfaction among women and men managers. Human Rela-
tions, 35,101-118.
Freedman, S. M., & Phillips, J. S. (1988). The changing nature of re-
search on women at work. Journal of Management, 14, 231 -251.
Fry, L. W, & Greenfeld, S. (1980). An examination of attitudinal differ-
ences between policewomen and policemen. JournalofApplied Psy-
chology, 65,123-126.
Gerhart, B. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determi-
nants of job satisfaction? Implications for job design and other per-
sonnel programs. Journalof Applied Psychology, 72, 366-373.
Golding, J., Resnick, A., & Crosby, F (1983). Work satisfaction as a
function of gender and job status. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 7,
286-290.
Greenberg, J., Bies, R. J., & Eskew, D. E. (1991). Establishing fairness in
the eye of the beholder. In R. Giacalone (Ed.), Applied impression
management (pp. 111-132). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, J., &Cohen, R. L. (1982). Equity and justice in social behav-
ior. New York: Academic Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey:
An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and evaluation of job redesign
projects (Tech. Rep. 4). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Harris, C. T, & Earle, J. R. (1986). Gender and work values: Survey
findings from a working-class sample. Sex Roles, 15, 487-494.
Hendrix, W H. (1979). Organizational assessment indices of effective-
ness (AFHRL Tech. Rep. 79-49). Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. A., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job
attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychologi-
cal Services of Pittsburgh.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper & Row.
Hulin, C., & Smith, P. C. (1965). Sex differences in job satisfaction.
Journalof Applied Psychology, 49, 209-216.
Hunter, E. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis:
Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Jackson, L. A. (1989). Relative deprivation and the gender wage gap.
Journal of Social Issues, 45, 117-133.
Kahn, A. (1972). Reactions to the generosity or stinginess of an intelli-
gent or stupid work partner: A test of equity theory in a direct ex-
 PERCEIVED FAIRNESS AND JOB SATISFACTION
change relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
27,116-123.
Kahn, A., Nelson, R. E., & Gaeddert, W P. (1980). Sex of subject and
sex composition of the group as determinants of reward allocations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 737-750.
Kahn, A., O'Leary, V, Krulewitz, J. E., & Lamm, H. (1980). Equity and
equality: Men and women means to a just end. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 1,173-197.
Keller, R. T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in
R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29,715-725.
Kidder, L. G., Bellettirie, G, & Cohn, E. S. (1977). Secret ambitions and
public performances: The effects of anonymity on reward alloca-
tions made by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 13, 70-80.
Lane, I. M., & Messe, L. A. (1971). Equity and the distribution of
rewards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20,1-17.
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypothesis as to its
origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45,1-52.
Leventhal, G. S., & Lane, D. W (1970). Sex, age, and equity behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 312-316.
Major, B. (1987). Gender and the psychology of entitlement. In P.
Shaver&C. Hendrick(Eds),Reviewofpersonality and social psychol-
ogy: Sex and gender (Vol. 7, pp. 124-148). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Major, B. (1989). Gender differences in comparisons and entitlement:
Implications for comparable worth. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 99-
115.
Major, B., & Adams, J. B. (1983). The role of gender, interpersonal
orientation, and self-presentation in distributive justice behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 598-608.
Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behav-
ior. In J. Greenberg & R. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social
behavior (pp. 43-76). New York: Academic Press.
Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and un-
derpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitle-
ment. JournalofPersonality and Social Psychology, 47,1399-1412.
Mannheim, B. (1983). Men and women industrial workers: Job satisfac-
tion, work role centrality, and work place preference. WorkandOccu-
pations, 10, 413-436.
McNichols, C. W, Stahl, M. J., & Manley, T. R. (1978). A validation of
Hoppock's job satisfaction measure. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 21, 737-742.
Miller, C. T. (1984). Self-schema, gender, and social comparison: A
clarification of the related attributes hypothesis. Journalof Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 46,1222-1229.
Mottaz, C. (1986). Gender differences in work satisfaction, work-re-
lated rewards and values, and the determinants of work satisfaction.
Human Relations, 39, 359-378.
Murray, M. A., & Atkinson, T. (1981). Gender differences in correlates
of job satisfaction. Canadian Journalof Behavioral Sciences, 13,44-
52.
Myers, J. G, Schroeder, D. J., Van Deventer, A., & Collins, W E. (1988).
1988 FA A job satisfaction survey: National report. Washington, DC:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine.
Myers, J. G, Witt, L. A., & Schroeder, D. J. (1991). 1990FAA job satis-
faction survey: National report. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine.
Nieva, V F, & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychological
perspective. New York: Praeger.
Office of Personnel Management. (1979). Federal employee attitudes:
Phase 1. Baseline survey 1979. Washington, DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office.
917
Rosenthal, R. & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display
of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 74,166-169.
Sauser, W I, & York, M. (1978). Sex differences in job satisfaction: A
re-examination. Personnel Psychology, 31, 537-547.
Scarpello, V, & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts
there? Personnel Psychology, 36, 577-600.
Schmidt, K. L., Hunter, J. E., & Raju, N. S. (1988). Validity generaliza-
tion and situational specificity: A second look at the 75% rule and
Fisher's z transformation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 665-
672.
Schnake, M. E. (1983). An empirical assessment of the effects of affec-
tive response in the measurement of organizational climate. Person-
nel Psychology, 36, 791-807.
Scholl, R. W, Cooper, E. A., & McKenna, J. F. (1987). Referent selection
in determining equity perceptions: Differential effects on behavior
and attitudinal outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 40,113-124.
Shapiro, H. J., & Stern, L. W (1975). Job satisfaction—men and
women, professional and nonprofessional workers. Personnel Jour-
nal, 54, 388-389.
Smith, D. B., & Plant, W T. (1982). Sex differences in the job satisfac-
tion of university professors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6 7,249-
251.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satis-
faction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes.
Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Stockford, L. Q, & Kunze, K. R. (1950). Psychology and the pay check.
Personnel, 27,129-143.
Swap, W, & Rubin, J. Z. (1983). Measurement of interpersonal orienta-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 208-219.
Treiman, D. J., & Hartmann, H. I. (1981). Women, work, and wages:
Equal pay for jobs of equal value. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emy Press.
Varca, P. E., Shaffer, G. S., & McCauley, C. D. (1983). Sex differences in
job satisfaction reconsidered. Academy of Management Journal, 26,
348-353.
Walster, E. H., & Walster, G. W (1975). Equity and social justice. Jour-
nal of Social Issues, 31, 21-43.
Walster, E. H., Walster, G. W, & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory
and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Weaver, C. N. (1974). Correlates of job satisfaction: Some evidence
from the national surveys. Academy of Management Journal, 17,
373-375.
Weaver, C. N. (1980). Job satisfaction in the United States in the 1970's.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 364-367.
Wheeler, L., & Koestner, R. (1984). Performance evaluation: On
choosing to know the related attributes of others when we know their
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 263-
271.
Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibil-
ity intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,315-
321.
Witt, L. A. (1988). Breadwinner vs. non-breadwinner differences in
married women's job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational
climate. Human Relations, 41, 483-491.
Received January 2,1992
Revision received March 9,1992
Accepted March 11,1992 •