3.4: Theories of romantic relationships - Equity theory

Question 1

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks)

Answer 1

Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship

Question 2

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.

Answer 2

Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another

Question 3

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both do what?

Answer 3

Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution

Question 4

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting

Answer 4

Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame

Question 5

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus,

Answer 5

Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship

Question 6

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity,

Answer 6

The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress

Question 7

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising

Answer 7

Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity

Question 8

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’

Answer 8

This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship

Question 9

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
How can this be done?

Answer 9

This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes

Question 10

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily

Answer 10

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable

Question 11

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone

Answer 11

If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios

Question 12

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may

Answer 12

People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship

Question 13

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

First AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 13

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET)

Question 14

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
Example

Answer 14

For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting

Question 15

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
What does this do?

Answer 15

This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET

Question 16

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

Second AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 16

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity

Question 17

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
Example

Answer 17

For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty

Question 18

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
What does this show?

Answer 18

This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction

Question 19

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

Third AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 19

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour

Question 20

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However,

Answer 20

However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships

Question 21

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
Why is this?

Answer 21

This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences

Question 22

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
Who is this supported by?

Answer 22

This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders

Question 23

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
What does this do?

Answer 23

This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally

Question 24

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally.
Who is this further supported by?

Answer 24

This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society

Question 25

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally.
This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society, doing what?

Answer 25

This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society, further undermining its universality across cultures

Question 26

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally.
This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society, further undermining its universality across cultures.
Therefore,

Answer 26

Therefore, equity theory is limited in its validity as it cannot account for cultural differences that exist, since it is culturally biased

Question 27

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally.
This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society, further undermining its universality across cultures.
Therefore, equity theory is limited in its validity as it cannot account for cultural differences that exist, since it is culturally biased.

Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 27

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory, like social exchange theory, still portrays people as selfish, because it portrays people as maintaining relationships only for their own selfish needs and this lacks face validity

Question 28

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally.
This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society, further undermining its universality across cultures.
Therefore, equity theory is limited in its validity as it cannot account for cultural differences that exist, since it is culturally biased.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory, like social exchange theory, still portrays people as selfish, because it portrays people as maintaining relationships only for their own selfish needs and this lacks face validity.
Why is this?

Answer 28

This is because many people if questioned would disagree with maintaining their relationship just for themselves

Question 29

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally.
This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society, further undermining its universality across cultures.
Therefore, equity theory is limited in its validity as it cannot account for cultural differences that exist, since it is culturally biased.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory, like social exchange theory, still portrays people as selfish, because it portrays people as maintaining relationships only for their own selfish needs and this lacks face validity.
This is because many people if questioned would disagree with maintaining their relationship just for themselves.

Answer 29

Many people invest heavily into the relationship so their partners can benefit and take little out, because they find selfless acts more rewarding by seeing their partners happy and equity theory isn’t able to fully explain this

Question 30

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally.
This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society, further undermining its universality across cultures.
Therefore, equity theory is limited in its validity as it cannot account for cultural differences that exist, since it is culturally biased.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory, like social exchange theory, still portrays people as selfish, because it portrays people as maintaining relationships only for their own selfish needs and this lacks face validity.
This is because many people if questioned would disagree with maintaining their relationship just for themselves.
Many people invest heavily into the relationship so their partners can benefit and take little out, because they find selfless acts more rewarding by seeing their partners happy and equity theory isn’t able to fully explain this.
As well as this,

Answer 30

As well as this, equity theory does not account for the role of ‘love’ and how this fits in, as it simply portrays romantic relationships maintained on the basis of a profit or loss scale using equity as the currency which we know is oversimplified

Question 31

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally.
This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society, further undermining its universality across cultures.
Therefore, equity theory is limited in its validity as it cannot account for cultural differences that exist, since it is culturally biased.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory, like social exchange theory, still portrays people as selfish, because it portrays people as maintaining relationships only for their own selfish needs and this lacks face validity.
This is because many people if questioned would disagree with maintaining their relationship just for themselves.
Many people invest heavily into the relationship so their partners can benefit and take little out, because they find selfless acts more rewarding by seeing their partners happy and equity theory isn’t able to fully explain this.
As well as this, equity theory does not account for the role of ‘love’ and how this fits in, as it simply portrays romantic relationships maintained on the basis of a profit or loss scale using equity as the currency which we know is oversimplified.
Example

Answer 31

For example, equity theory cannot explain why abusive relationships are maintained despite the huge cost to the sufferer who may remain with an abusive partner indefinitely or refuse to leave them, whereas Rusbult’s investment model, for instance, can

Question 32

Discuss the equity theory of romantic relationships (16 marks).
Equity theory is an economic theory of romantic relationships which, similar to social exchange theory, sees rewards and costs as important, but places a greater emphasis on the need for equity and fairness within the relationship.
Walster et al. (1978) proposed that what matters the most with equity (fairness) is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same as one another.
Equity theory proposes that under-benefiting or over-benefiting can both cause inequity within the relationship, leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution.
Those under-benefiting may feel anger, hostility and resentment, while the over-benefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort and shame.
Thus, satisfaction for both is determined by a perceived fairness by both partners relative to what they put into the relationship.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and distress.
Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity.
This is provided the ‘loser’ feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship.
This can be done by changing the amount put into the relationship (input), changing the amount taken out from the relationship (output) or changing their perception of inputs and outputs (perceived equity), so the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing actually changes.

Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable.
If someone puts in little, they may get little, while those who put in more may get more in return.
Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios.
People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is supporting research evidence for equity theory that includes studies of real-life relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently-married couples aged 16 to 45 years who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying and measured equity through the use of two self-report scales.
They found that couples who perceived their relationship as equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as under-benefiting or over-benefiting.
This confirms a central prediction of equity theory, increasing its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships compared to other theories such as SET.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of equity theory is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
For example, Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others, describing some partners as ‘benevolents,’ who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it and others are ‘entitleds,’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
This shows that equity is not a global feature of all romantic relationships, nor is it a universal law of social interaction.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures, because it’s a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
However, equity theory ignores the cultural differences of how other cultures operate when it comes to romantic relationships.
This is because equity theory is based on the values and customs of Western society which is an individualist culture and attempting to explain all relationships in this way, including cultures that are collectivist, is a form of beta bias, since it is attempting to minimise or ignore differences.
This is supported by Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007), who compared couples in individualist and collectivist cultures and found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners from collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were over-benefiting and this was true of both genders.
This challenges the notion that equity is a universal feature of all romantic relationships in all cultures, meaning that equity theory cannot be applied universally.
This is further supported by Moghaddam (1983), who found that US students preferred equity, while European students preferred equality, which suggests that equity theory only reflects the values of US society, further undermining its universality across cultures.
Therefore, equity theory is limited in its validity as it cannot account for cultural differences that exist, since it is culturally biased.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that equity theory, like social exchange theory, still portrays people as selfish, because it portrays people as maintaining relationships only for their own selfish needs and this lacks face validity.
This is because many people if questioned would disagree with maintaining their relationship just for themselves.
Many people invest heavily into the relationship so their partners can benefit and take little out, because they find selfless acts more rewarding by seeing their partners happy and equity theory isn’t able to fully explain this.
As well as this, equity theory does not account for the role of ‘love’ and how this fits in, as it simply portrays romantic relationships maintained on the basis of a profit or loss scale using equity as the currency which we know is oversimplified.
For example, equity theory cannot explain why abusive relationships are maintained despite the huge cost to the sufferer who may remain with an abusive partner indefinitely or refuse to leave them, whereas Rusbult’s investment model, for instance, can.

Answer 32

There are clearly more complex processes at work which equity theory cannot explain or address, which limits its universality further, as it is not a holistic explanation for all types of relationships