Cited by 87Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Distributive justice and pay satisfaction: A field test of an equity theory prediction

Sweeney, Paul D.·1990·Journal of Business and Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf01125243

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sweeney, P. D.
Affiliations
Marquette University (US)
Corresponding author
Sweeney, Paul D.
Venue
Journal of Business and Psychology
Published
1990
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
329-341
ISSN
  • 0889-3268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-353X
OpenAlex
W2034373767
Cited by
87
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Business and Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
distributive justice, equity theory, pay satisfaction, pay dissatisfaction, comparison standards, wage fairness, curvilinear relationship, fieldwork

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review