Social comparisons and pay evaluations: Preferences for same-sex and same-job wage comparisons
Social comparisons and pay evaluations: Preferences for same-sex and same-job wage comparisons
复制标题
社会比较和薪酬评估：对同性和同工工资比较的偏好
DOI：
10.1016/0022-1031(85)90038-1
复制
发表时间：
1985
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Blythe Forcey
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Major;Blythe Forcey
这项研究考察了女性和男性在评估薪酬公平性时的社会比较偏好。受试者被随机分配从事男性、女性或中性的工作，并被告知他们的工作将获得报酬。在完成工作并私下收到相同的报酬后，受试者对这三项工作中每一项的男性平均工资、女性平均工资和男女平均工资的偏好进行排序。尽管存在男女混合工资，但受试者更愿意在工资比较中最大化相似性，大多数人选择首先查看同性别和同工作群体的工资。无论工作分配的性别联系如何，受试者首先选择同工比较。工作的性别联系确实影响同性偏好；从事性别适宜和性别中立工作的受试者表现出明显偏好首先看到同性其他人的薪酬，而从事性别不适宜工作的受试者则没有。结果还表明，分配给女性工作的男性和女性都期望获得较低的工资，并认为他们获得的工资比分配给男性工作的人更公平。此外，女性认为她们应该比男性获得更少的工作报酬，无论她们的工作分配如何。讨论了这些结果对结果评估中性别差异的影响。
This research examined women's and men's social comparison preferences when evaluating the fairness of pay. Subjects were assigned randomly to work on a job described as masculine, feminine, or sex neutral and were told that they would be paid for their work. After working on the job and privately receiving identical payment, subjects rank ordered their preference for seeing the average male, average female, and average combined-sex wage paid in each of the three jobs. Despite the availability of the combined-sex wage, subjects preferred to maximize similarity in their wage comparisons, with the majority choosing to see the pay of a same-sex and same-job group first. Regardless of the sex linkage of their job assignment, subjects selected a same-job comparison first. Sex linkage of job did affect same-sex preferences; whereas subjects in sex-appropriate and sex-neutral jobs showed a significant preference for seeing the pay of same-sex others first, subjects in sex-inappropriate jobs did not. Results also indicated that both men and women assigned to the feminine job expected somewhat less pay and thought their obtained pay was more fair than did those assigned to the masculine job. Furthermore, women thought they deserved less pay for their work than did men, regardless of their job assignment. Implications of these results for gender differences in outcome evaluations are discussed.