外文文献翻译译文
原文：
What should be done with equity theory?
羽绒服怎么洗最好
New approaches to study of fairness in social relationships Leventhal Gerald S. 1980
B Issues In Equity Theory
Three major problems with equity theory are considered. The first problem is that equity theory employs a unidimensional rather than multidimensional conception of fairness. The theory conceptualizes perceived justice solely in terms of a merit principle . The cond problem is that equity theory considers only the final distribution of reward. The procedures which generate that distribution are not examined. The focus is on fair distribution problems of fair procedure are ignored. The third problem is that equity theory tends to exaggerate the importance of fairness in social relationships. Concern for justice is only one motivational force among many that influences social perception and behavior , and it may often be a weaker force than others.
Other approaches to the study of fairness in social exchange share some of the problems with equity
theory. No single approach has solved them all. However, becau equity theory is so prominent . It is the focus of this critique.
Π. A Multidimensional Approach to Distributive Fairness.
A.The Unidimensional Approach of Equity Theory .
Equity theory employs a unidimensional concept of justice. The theory assumes that an individual judges the fairness of his own or others' re wards solely in terms of a merit principle. Fairness exists when rewards are in proportion to
8月17日>莲子银耳汤怎么做contributions. Undoubtedly, the theory is correct in assuming that an individual's perception of fairness is strongly affected by a contributions rule which dictates that persons with great contributions should receive higher outcomes. However, equity theory ignores the possible role of other standards of justice that influence perception of distributive fairness. In contrast , a number of theorists have recognized the need for a multidimensional concept of distributive fairness (e.g. Deutsch,1975; Komorita & Chertkoff,1973; Lerner,1974; Leventhal,1976a.b; Pruitt,1972; Sampson,1969) For example, the multidimensional approach of the justice judgement model (Leventhal,1976b) assume than an individual's judgments of fairness may be bad, not only on the
contributions rule, but also on a needs rule which dictates that persons with greater need should receive similar outcomes regardless of needs or contributions.
Terminology. Before examining the multidimensional approach to perceived fairness. It is necessary to consider the definition of the term equity . Most equity theory rearchers have equated the term with a type of justice bad on merit or contributions . But this definition is much narrower than that employed in everyday language. Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the term equity as "a free and reasonable conformity to accept standards of natural right ,law, and justice without prejudice, favoritism, or fraud and without rigor entailing undue hardship ." This definition is much broader than that typically preferred by equity rearchers. The dictionary definition of equity encompass a whole panoply of justice standards , not just one. Only a few social Pruitt. 1972) have favored such a broad u of the term. Clo inspection of the writings of equity theorists suggests they do sometimes u the term in a broad n, as well as the narrow. However, they do not differentiate between the two usages and many casually slide from one to the other. Perhaps this tendency is not surprising given the theory's u of a unidimensional concept of justice bad on merit. In the prent paper, becau of this ambiguity ,the practice shall be to avoid using the term equity . Instead, the terms fairness and justice are ud to refer to equity i
n the general n defined by Webster's . The term contributions rule refers to equity in the more narrow n of
justice that is bad on a matching of rewards to contributions. The term distributive fairness is also ud frequently in the pages. The phra refers to judgements of fair distribution, irrespective of whether the criterion of justice is bad on needs, equality, contributions, or a combination of the factors.
B. The Multidimensional Approach Of Justice Judgment Theory.
It has been noted that equity theory conceptualizes perceived fairness as a single dimension that defines justice in terms of the proprtionality between contributions and rewards. The justice judgment model (Leventhal,1976b ) comploys a multidimensional conception of justice that po a clear alternative to equity theory. Justice judgment theory assumes than an individual's perception of fairness is bad on justice rules. In the prent paper, which prents a revid and expanded form of the theory, a justice rule is defined as an individual's belief that a distribution of outcomes, or procedure for distributing outcomes, is fair and appropriate when it satisfies certain criterion . This definition presuppo two categories of justice rules, namely, distribution rules and procedural rules .
A distribution rule is defined as the individual's belief that it is fair and appropriate when rewards, punishments, or resources are distributed in accordance with certain criteria. A specific criterion might require the matching of rewards to contributions or matching reward to needs or dividing rewards equally. Thus, a contributions rule,needs rule, and equality rule are among the major distributive rules,that can influence an individual's perception of distributive fairness.
Procedural rules constitute the cond category of justice rules. A procedural rule is defined as an individual's belief that allocative procedures which satisfy certain criteria are fair and appropriate. Unfortunately , there few studies of the impact of procedural factors on perceived fairness. Relatively little is known about an individual's evaluation of procedural components of the social system that regulate the allocative process. Theoretical proposals about the specific criteria that define rules of fair procedure must therefore be quite speculative. Nevertheless, later in this paper six rules of fair procedure will be propod and discusd. However, for the moment, the
problem of procedural fairness is t aside, and the issue of distributive fairness is the main concern.
C. Judgements of Distributive Fairness.
A major tenet of the justice judgment model is that an individual applies distribution rules lectively
and follows different rules at different times. Thus, the individual's basic criteria for evaluating fairness may change with circumstances. In some situations, he or she may believe that one distribution rule is more relevant than others. In which ca that rule has greater impact on the evaluation of distributive fairness.
The model assumes a four-stage justice judgment quence by which an individual evaluates the fairness of his own or others' rewards and punishme nts . As described below, the four stages are weighting, preliminary estimation, rule combination, and outcome evaluation.
瘦脸针注意事项1.Weighting. In the weighting stage of the justice judgment quence, the individual decides which distribution rules are applicable and the relative importance of the rules. Rules of greater importance are assigned higher weight in the judgment quence and have greater impact on the perception of fairness.
沙雕小故事2. Preliminary Estimation. In the preliminary estimation stage, the individual estimates the amount and type of outcomes that receivers derve bad on each applicable rule. It is assumed that an individual us a parate information-processing subroutine (Anderson,1945)for each rule to estimate the receiver's dervingness bad on that rule. Conquently, If veral rules have been a
元旦主题ssigned high weight,veral information-processing subroutines will operate in parallel. Except In young children, the perceptual-cognitive skills involved in such judgment are probably well-practiced and automatic. Conquently, an individual can make veral nearly simultaneous estimates of dervingness bad on different distribution rules.
3.Rule Combination. In the rule-combination stage of the justice judgment quence, the individual combines the veral preliminary estimates to arrive at a final judgment of the receiver's dervingness.
耳机排行榜The events in this stage are summarized by the following rule-combination equation: Derved outcomes = WcDby contributions + WnDby needs +
WeDby equality + WoDby other rules .
In this equation, the letter W stands for the word weight and the letter D stands for the word dervingness. The terms Wc,Wn,We and Wo reprent, respectively, the weights of the contributions rule, needs rule, equality rule, and any other distribution rule that may influence the individual's perception of a recipient's dervingness. The terms Dby contributions, Dby needs, Dby equality, and Dby other rules reprent, respectively, an individual's preliminary estimates of recipien
t's dervingness bad on the contributions rule, needs rule, equality rule, and any other distribution rules that influence his or her judgments of distributive fairness. The rule-combination equation states that the relative impact of each preliminary estimate on a perceiver's judgments of dervingness depends on the relative weight of the justice rules.
Distribution rules with similar weight may have contradictory implications. For example, the needs rule and contributions rule would dictate opposite distributions of reward in the ca of a recipient with high need and low contributions. An individual usually deals with such contradictions by compromising between the oppos rules. A recipient with high need and low contributions may be evaluated as average in dervingness. Of cour, distribution rules are not always contradictory. For example, the needs rule and contributions rule would dictate similar distributions of reward in the ca of a recipient who is high in both contributions and need, o r low in both respects.
吃灵芝孢子粉有何禁忌A perceiver of ten evaluates the dervingness of veral recipients at a time. In some cas, he or she may judge them collectively and estimate the dervingness of an entire group of persons. In other cas, the individual us veral parallel versions of the rule-combination equation, one for each recipient who dervingness is under evaluation (Leventhal. 1976b)
4.Outcome Evaluation. In the outcome-evaluation stage, the final stage of the justice judgment quence, the individual asss the fairness of the receiver's outcomes. The individual has estimated what receivers ought to get and can now
