Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 866

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct

Huseman, Richard C., Hatfield, John D., Miles, Edward W.·1987·The Academy of Management Review

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/258531

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 866

Metadata

Authors
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W.
Venue
The Academy of Management Review
Published
1987-04
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
222
ISSN
0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081262187
Cited by
866
References
2
FWCI
7.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.