Open Access
RAIRO-Oper. Res.
Volume 56, Number 5, September-October 2022
Page(s) 3711 - 3732
Published online 01 November 2022
  • J.S. Adams, Toward an understanding of inequity. J. Abnormal Soc. Psychol. 67 (1963) 422–436. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J.S. Adams, Inequity in social exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2 (1965) 267–299. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R.C. Huseman, J.D. Hatfield and E.W. Miles, A new perspective on equity theory: the equity sensitivity construct. Acad. Manage. Rev. 12 (1987) 222–234. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • P. Wijck, Evaluating income distributions. J. Econ. Psychol. 15 (1994) 173–190. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R.S. Lapidus and L. Pinkerton, Customer complaint situations: an equity theory perspective. Psychol. Market. 12 (1995) 105–122. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • S.E. Kaplan, P.M.J. Reckers and K.D. Reynolds, An application of attribution and equity theories to tax evasion behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 7 (1986) 461–476. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • C.K. Kim, Does fairness matter in tax reporting behavior? J. Econ. Psychol. 23 (2002) 771–785. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • C.K. Kim, J.H. Evans and D.V. Moser, Economic and equity effects on tax reporting decisions. Accounting Org. Soc. 30 (2005) 609–625. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • D.E. Douglas, T.P. Cronan and J.D. Behel, Equity perceptions as a deterrent to software piracy behavior. Inf. Manage. 44 (2007) 503–512. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J.C. Ryan, Old knowledge for new impacts: equity theory and workforce nationalization. J. Bus. Res. 69 (2016) 1587–1592. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • W.M. Lim, An equity theory perspective of online group buying. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 54 (2020) 101729. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Diamantopoulos, M. Matarazzo, M.G. Montanari and A. Petrychenko, The “Pricing Footprint” of country-of-origin: conceptualization and empirical assessment. J. Bus. Res. 135 (2021) 749–757. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • S.J. Adams and S. Freedman, Equity theory revisited: comments and annotated bibliography. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 9 (1976) 43–90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • V.J. Gates and N.L.J. Reinsch, Commentary: employee counseling, equity theory, and research opportunities. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 59 (2022) 148–157. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • D. Davlembayeva, S. Papagiannidis and E. Alamanos, Sharing economy platforms: an equity theory perspective on reciprocity and commitment. J. Bus. Res. 127 (2021) 151–166. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R. Folger, Emerging issues in the social psychology of justice, in Chapter book: The Sense of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives. Plenum Press, New York (1984) 3–24. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R. Folger, Rethinking equity theory: a referent cognations model, in Chapter book: Justice in Social Relations. Plenum Press, New York (1986) 145–162. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R.D. Pritchard, Equity theory: a review and critique. Organiz. Behav. Human Perform. 4 (1969) 176–211. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Graso, J. Camps, N. Strah and L. Brebels, Organizational justice enactment: an agent-focused review and path forward. J. Vocational Behav. 116 (2020) 103296. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • V.H. Vroom, Workand Motivation. Wiley, New York (1964). [Google Scholar]
  • G.C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace, New York, (1961). [Google Scholar]
  • E. Walster, E. Berscheid and G.W. Walster, New directions in equity research. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 9 (1976) 1–42. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • G.S. Leventhal, What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships, in Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg and R.H. Willis. Plenum, New York (1980) 27–55. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • G.S. Leventhal, J. Karuza and W.R. Fry, Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. Justice Soc. Interact. 3 (1980) 167–218. [Google Scholar]
  • J. Greenberg, A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Acad. Manage. Rev. 12 (1987) 9–22. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J. Thibaut, An experimental study of the cohesiveness of underprivileged groups. Human Relat. 3 (1950) 251–278. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • G.C. Homans, Status among clerical workers. Human Org. 12 (1953) 5–10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Ross, J. Thibaut and S. Evenbeck, Some determinants of the intensity of social protest. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 7 (1971) 401–418. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • E. Jaques, Measurement of Responsibility. Tavistock Publications, London (1956). [Google Scholar]
  • E. Jaques, Equitable Payment: A General Theory of Work, Differential Payment, and Individual Progress. Wiley, New York (1961). [Google Scholar]
  • J.S. Adams and W.B. Rosenbaum, The relationship of worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage inequities. J. Appl. Psychol. 46 (1962) 161–164. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J.S. Adams and P.R. Jacobsen, Effects of wage inequities on work quality. J. Abnormal Soc. Psychol. 69 (1964) 19–25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J.S. Greenberg and D.R. Westcott, Indebtedness as a mediator of reactions to aid, in New Directions in Helping, edited by J.D. Fisher, A. Nadler and B.M. De Paulo. Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York (1983) 85–112. [Google Scholar]
  • K.E. Weick, The concept of equity in the perception of pay. Administrative Sci. Q. 11 (1966) 414–439. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M.R. Carrell and J.E. Dittrich, Equity theory: the recent literature, methodological considerations and new directions. Acad. Manage. Rev. 3 (1978) 202–210. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Deutsch, Equity equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? J. Soc. Issues 31 (1975) 137–149. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • S.S. Komorita and J.M.A. Chertkoff, Bargaining theory of coalition formation. Psychol. Rev. 30 (1973) 149–162. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Lerner, Social psychology of justice and interpersonal attraction, in Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction, edited by T.L. Huston. Academic Press, New York (1974) 331–351. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • G.S. Leventhal, The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by L. Berkowitz and E. Walster. Vol. 9. Academic Press, New York (1976) 91–131. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • D.G. Pruitt, Methods for resolving differences of interest: a theoretical analysis. J. Soc. Issues 28 (1972) 133–154. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • E.E. Sampson, Studies of status congruence, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by L. Berkowitz. Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York (1969) 225–270. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (1978) 429–444. [Google Scholar]
  • T. Entani, Y. Maeda and H. Tanaka, Dual models of interval DEA and its extension to interval data. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 136 (2002) 32–45. [Google Scholar]
  • H. Arman and A. Hadi-Vencheh, Restricting the relative weights in data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Finance Econ. 26 (2021) 4127–4136. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • Y.H.B. Wong and J.E. Beasley, Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 41 (1990) 829–835. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R. Allen, A. Athanassopoulos, R.G. Dyson and E. Thanassoulis, Weights restrictions and value judgments in DEA: evolution, development and future directions. Ann. Oper. Res. 73 (1997) 13–34. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Y. Roll and B. Golany, Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA. Omega 21 (1993) 99–109. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R.G. Dyson and E. Thanassoulis, Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 39 (1988) 563–576. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J. Puig-Junoy, Partitioning input cost efficiency into its allocative and technical components: an empirical DEA application to hospitals. Soc.-Econ. Planning Sci. 34 (2000) 199–218. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Y.M. Wang and K.S. Chin, A new approach for the selection of advanced manufacturing technologies: DEA with double frontiers. Int. J. Prod. Res. 47 (2009) 6663–6679. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Y.M. Wang and Y. Luo, DEA efficiency assessment using ideal and anti-ideal decision making units. Appl. Math. Comput. 173 (2006) 902–915. [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • Y.M. Wang and J.B. Yang, Measuring the performance of decision making units using interval efficiencies. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 198 (2007) 253–267. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • H. Azizi, The interval efficiency based on the optimistic and pessimistic points of view. Appl. Math. Modell. 35 (2011) 2384–2393. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • P. Andersen and N.C. Peterson, A procedure for ranking efficient unit in DEA. Manage. Sci. 39 (1993) 1261–1294. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R.H. Finn and S.M. Lee, Salary equity: its determination, analysis, and correlates. J. Appl. Psychol. 56 (1972) 283–292. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • T.L. Radinsky, Equity and inequity as a source of reward and punishment. Psychonomic Sci. 15 (1969) 293–295. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • A.A. Wicker and G. Bushweiler, Perceived fairness and pleasantness of social exchange situations: two factorial studies of inequity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 15 (1970) 63–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • L.A. Messe, J.E. Dawson and I.M. Lane, Equity as a mediator of the effect of reward level on behavior in the prisoner’s dilemma game. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 26 (1973) 60–65. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • W. Austin and E. Walster, Reactions to confirmations and disconfirmations of expectancies of equity and inequity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 30 (1974) 208–216. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Zelditch, J. Berger, B. Anderson and B.J. Cohen, Equitable comparisons. Pac. Soc. Rev. 13 (1970) 19–26. [Google Scholar]
  • W.W. Tornow, The development and application of an input-outcome moderator test on the perception and reduction of inequity. Organiz. Behav. Human Perform. 6 (1971) 614–638. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J.P. Campbell and R.D. Pritchard, Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology, in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by M.D. Dunnette. Rand McNally, Chicago (1976) 63–130. [Google Scholar]
  • W.D. Cook and J. Zhu, Classifying inputs and outputs in DEA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 180 (2007) 692–699. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Amirteimoori and A. Emrouznejad, Flexible measures in production process: a DEA-based approach. RAIRO: Oper. Res. 45 (2011) 63–74. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • G. Tohidi and F. Matroud, A new non-oriented model for classifying flexible measures in DEA. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 68 (2017) 1019–1029. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • B. Ebrahimi and E. Hajizadeh, A novel DEA model for solving performance measurement problems with flexible measures: an application to Tehran Stock Exchange. Measurement 179 (2021) 109444. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • B. Major and K. Deaux, Individual differences in justice behavior, in Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, edited by J. Greenberg and R.L. Cohen. Academic Press, New York (1982) 43–76. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R. Heslin and B. Blake, Performance as a function of payment, commitment, and task interest. Psychonomic Sci. 15 (1969) 323–324. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J. Taynor and K. Deaux, When women are more deserving than men: equity, attribution, and perceived sex differences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 28 (1973) 360–367. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J. Taynor and K. Deaux, Equity and perceived sex differences: role behavior as defined by the task, the mode, and the actor. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32 (1975) 381–390. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Y. Wiener, The effects of “task-” and “ego-oriented” performance on 2 kinds of overcompensation inequity. Organiz. Behav. Human Perform. 5 (1970) 191–208. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • E. Yuchtman, Reward distribution and work-role attractiveness in the Kibbutz – reflections on equity theory. Am. Soc. Rev. 37 (1972) 581–595. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • B. Bass, Abilities, values, and concepts of equitable salary increases in exercise compensation. J. Appl. Psychol. 52 (1968) 299–303. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • J.R. Hinrichs, Correlates of employee evaluations of pay increases. J. Appl. Psychol. 53 (1969) 481–489. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • A. Zaleznik, C.R. Christensen and F.J. Roethlisberger, The Motivation, Productivity, and Satisfaction of Workers: A Prediction Study. Harvard University, Grad. Sch. Business Admin. (1958). [Google Scholar]
  • H. Halkos and K.N. Petrou, Treating undesirable outputs in DEA: a critical review. Econ. Anal. Policy 62 (2019) 97–104. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • S. Pathomsiri, A. Haghani, M. Dresner and R.J. Windle, Impact of undesirable outputs on the productivity of US airports. Transp. Res. Part E: Logistics Transp. Rev. 44 (2008) 235–259. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • F. He, Q. Zhang, J. Lei, W. Fu and X. Xu, Energy efficiency and productivity change of China’s iron and steel industry: accounting for undesirable outputs. Energy Policy 54 (2013) 204–213. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • P.J. Korhonen and M. Luptacik, Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: an extension of data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 154 (2003) 437–446. [Google Scholar]
  • E.G. Gomes and M.P.E. Lins, Modelling undesirable outputs with zero sum gains data envelopment analysis models. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 59 (2008) 616–623. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • G. Cheng and P.D. Zervopoulos, Estimating the technical efficiency of health care systems: a cross country comparison using the directional distance function. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238 (2014) 899–910. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • P.-C. Chen, M.-M. Yu, C.-C. Chang, S.-H. Hsu and S. Managi, The enhanced Russell-based directional distance measure with undesirable outputs: numerical example considering CO2 emissions. Omega 53 (2015) 30–40. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • E. Alfredsson, J. Mansson and P. Vikstrom, Internalising external environmental effects in efficiency analysis: the Swedish pulp and paper industry 2000–2007. Econ. Anal. Policy 51 (2016) 22–31. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • B. Golany and Y. Roll, An application procedure for DEA. Omega 17 (1989) 237–250. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • C.A.K. Lovell, J.T. Pastor and J.A. Turner, Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: a comparison of European and non-European countries. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 87 (1995) 507–518. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • H. Scheel, Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 132 (2001) 400–410. [Google Scholar]
  • L.M. Seiford and J. Zhu, Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 142 (2001) 16–20. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.