Theories of romantic relationships: Equity theory Flashcards
who proposed equity theory?
Walster (1978)
what is equity theory?
It acknowledges the impact of rewards and costs on relationship satisfaction, but criticises social exchange theory for ignoring central role of equity- the perception partners have about whether the distribution of rewards and costs in the relationship is fair.
The role of equity
Equity means fairness. Walster states that what matters most with equity is that both partners’ level of profit is roughly the same. When there’s a lack of equity, then one partner over benefits and the other under benefits from the relationship causing dissatisfaction
Thus satisfaction is about perceived fairness.
how does an under benefitted partner feel?
anger, hostility, resentment, humiliation
how does an over benefitted partner feel?
guilt, discomfort, shame
Equity and equality
It’s the ratio of rewards and costs to each other that matter not the amount that matters. So if one partner puts a lot into a relationship but at the same time gets a lot out of it, then they are likely to feel satisfied. Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity, that rewards are distributed fairly between the partners. This inevitably involves making trade-offs.
Consequences of inequity
A partner who perceives inequity will become distressed and dissatisfied with the relationship this state of affairs continues for long enough. The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction.
- changes in perceived equity
- dealing with inequity
changes in perceived equity
What makes us most dissatisfied is a change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on.
dealing with inequity
The under benefitted partner is usually motivated to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe the relationship is salvageable and it is possible to do so. The more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they will work to restore equity – a behavioural outcome
There may be a cognitive change in which they will revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable even if nothing actually changes. What once was seen as a cost earlier in the relationship is now accepted as the norm.
Evaluation of equity theory (brief)
strength - evidence, Utne, however conflicting evidence
weakness - may not apply to all cultures
weakness - not all partners concerned about equity
strength of equity theory
there is evidence from studies of real world relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than SET. For example, Utne et al (1984) carried out a survey of 118 recently married couples, measuring equity with two self-report scales. Participants were aged between 16 and 45 and had been together for more than two years before marrying. The researchers found couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over benefitting or under benefitting. This study confirms that equity is a major concern of romantic couples and is linked with satisfaction, a central prediction of equity theory. However, Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that equity didn’t increase over time as predicted by the theory. Other variables such as self-disclosure were significantly more important. This undermines the validity of the equity theory because equity does not play the role in relationship satisfaction that is predicted.
weaknesses of equity theory
equity theory may not apply to all cultures. Aumer-Ryan et al (2007) found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction. Couples from individualist culture (US) considered their relationships to be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas couples in collectivist culture (Jamaica) were most satisfied when they were over benefitting. This was true of both men and women, so cannot be explained by gender differences. This suggests that the theory is limited because it only applies to some cultures.
not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity. Huseman et al (1987) suggest some people are less concerned about equity than the norm. Some partners are benevolents, who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it. Others are entitleds who believe they deserve to over benefit and accept it without feeling guilty. In both cases such individuals have less concern about equity than the theory predicts. This shows that a desire for equity varies from one individual to another and is not a universal feature of romantic relationships.
