IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v41y2012i1p240-245.html

Comparing Direct and Indirect Measures of Just Rewards

Author

Listed:
  • Barry Markovsky
  • Kimmo Eriksson

Abstract

We offer the first comparison between “direct†and “indirect†methods for measuring perceptions of distributive justice in reward allocations. The direct method simply asks respondents what they would consider to be a fair salary for a particular person in a given set of circumstances. In contrast, the indirect method infers fair salaries from respondents’ judgments about the relative unfairness of hypothetical salaries. The particular indirect method that we will assess is a vignette survey technique pioneered by Jasso and Rossi (1977) and used in a number of more recent publications. The vignettes describe characteristics of a hypothetical employee, with the objective of deriving what respondents believe to be the just reward for that employee. Our experimental test suggests that the two methods yield incompatible results and that neither is immune to bias. The indirect method also suffers from a type of specification error that leads to untenable results. We conclude by suggesting directions for new research to gain a better understanding of these problems and, ultimately, to circumvent them.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Barry Markovsky & Kimmo Eriksson, 2012. "Comparing Direct and Indirect Measures of Just Rewards," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(1), pages 240-245, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:41:y:2012:i:1:p:240-245
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124112448361
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124112448361
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124112448361?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kimmo Eriksson & Brent Simpson, 2013. "Editorial Decisions May Perpetuate Belief in Invalid Research Findings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    2. Katrin Auspurg & Annette Jäckle, 2017. "First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette-Based Measurement," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 490-539, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:41:y:2012:i:1:p:240-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.