Methodological and conceptual issues in studying effort-reward fit

Abstract

Purpose. Research on effort-reward “imbalance” has gained popularity in the occupational health literature, and authors typically use effort-reward ratios to study this phenomenon. This article provides a methodological and theoretical critique of this literature, and suggestions on how future research can better study joint effects of efforts and reward. Design/methodology/approach. The authors conducted a simulation study, analyzed panel data, and surveyed the literature on the theoretical and methodological basis of the “imbalance” concept. Findings. The simulation study indicates that under many conditions the effort-reward ratio captures main effects of effort and reward and that effects also depend on the scaling of the variables. The panel data showed that when main effects and the interactions of effort and reward are entered simultaneously in a regression predicting mental and physical health, the significant effect of the effort-reward ratios disappears. The literature review reveals that psychological theories include more elaborate theoretical ideas on joint effects of effort and reward. Research implications. The results suggest that moderated multiple regression analyses are better suited to detect a misfit between effort and reward than effort-reward ratios. The authors also suggest to use the term effort-reward fit in future research. Originality/value. Methodologically and conceptually the authors showed that the effortreward ratio is not an appropriate approach because it confuses main effects with interaction effects. Furthermore, the concept of effort-reward imbalance is better substituted by a broader conceptualization of effort-reward fit that can be integrated with the existing literature on personenvironment fit. Recommendations for future research are provided.