Lesson 6 - ToRR: Equity Theory

Question 1

What is Equity Theory?

Answer 1

It acknowledges rewards and costs in a relationship, but criticises SET. It believes that one persons benefits minus costs should equal the other persons benefits minus costs.

It focuses on fairness. One person may be under benefitting and they may feel resentment or anger, and the person who is over benefitting will feel guilt. The longer this feeling of unfairness goes on for, the more likely the couple will break up

Question 2

Equity or equality?

Answer 2

It is not about the number of rewards and costs, but rather about the balance between them; if a person puts a lot into a relationship and receives a lot, it will feel fair to them.

Question 3

Walster et al (1978)

Answer 3

1. Profit:
   Individuals try to maximise rewards and positive experiences in a relationship whilst also trying to minimize the costs. The aim is to try and make a profit
2. Distribution:
   Negotiation is needed in a relationship to ensure that fairness occurs in terms of the rewards and costs distributed e.g. negotiate chores or negotiate favours done for each other, so that the relationship will be successful. Compensations might occur e.g. one person does all of housework, but the other does all of the cooking and washing up, so it might be seen as fair.
3. Dissatisfaction:
   If the relationship is unfair or inequitable, it produces stress and dissatisfaction especially for the disadvantaged person.
4. Realignment:
   The disadvantaged person will try to restore equity in the relationship so it can continue and be successful

Question 4

Research examining Equity Theory

Answer 4

• Utne et al. (1984) used self-report scales to measure equity and satisfaction in recently married couples. The 118 participants were aged between 16 and 45, and had been together for 2 years or more before marrying. The study found that partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also more satisfied with them.
• Stafford and Canary (2006) studied over 200 married couples who completed questionnaires on equity and satisfaction. They were also asked how they maintained their relationship, like splitting chores or positive communication. They found that partners who felt the relationship was fair, followed by spouses who were over benefitting experienced the most satisfaction. Those who under benefitted felt the least.
• Animal studies. Brosnan and de Waal (2003) studied capuchin monkeys, and found that if moneys were denied a reward, a bunch of grapes, for playing a game, they became very angry. Therefore the idea of equity has applications in animals as well as humans.

Question 5

Strengths of Equity Theory

Answer 5

• Supported by Stafford and Canary (2006)
• Supported by Utne et al (1984)
• Supported by animal studies like Brosnan and de Waal (2003)

Question 6

Weaknesses of Equity Theory

Answer 6

• There is contradictory evidence, shown by Berg and McQuinn (1986), who conducted a longitudinal study of 38 dating couple and failed to find any increase in equity over time. However, they found that high self-disclosure and perceived equity were present at the start of some relationships and was a good indicator of future stability, and low equity at the start of the relationship in some was a predictor of a break-up. In other words, equity was either there or not at the beginning and does not develop over time.
• There are cultural differences not accounted for. Aumer-Ryan et al (2006) shows that equity is more important in western cultures than non western cultures. Both men and women in collectivist cultures claimed to be most satisfied with their relationships when they over-benefitted and it was not fair. Therefore this theory does not explain how relationships develop in all cultures
• Equity Theory aims to apply a universal law to all relationships. It is a nomothetic approach. However, Mills and Clarke (1982) argue that it is best to take an idiographic approach instead and assess the qualitative aspects of the relationship, as they argue that it is difficult to quantify the emotional costs/rewards of a relationship