Theories Of Romantic Relationships: Equity Theory Flashcards
Why do most people have a need for equity?
The social exchange theory suggests that partners seek equality or a balance between costs and benefits. In contrast Walster et al propose that equity is more important where partners’ level of profit should be roughly the same.
How does under-benefitting of over-benefitting lead to dissatisfaction?
The under-benefitted partner is likely to be the least satisfied and their feelings may be evident in anger and resentment. The over-benefitted partner may feel less dissatisfied but is still likely to feel discomfort and shame.
How is equity about the fairness of ratios?
It’s not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matters - it’s the ratio of the two to each other. For example, if one partner puts a lot into a relationship but at the same time gets a lot out of it, then that will seem fair enough.
How does the sense of equity impact negatively on relationships?
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction: equity theory predicts a strong positive correlation between the two. This applies to both the over-benefitted and under-benefitted partner.
How do changes in equity occur during a relationship?
At the start of a relationship it may feel perfectly natural to contribute more than you receive. If that situation carries on as the relationship develops and one person continues to put more into the relationship and get less out of it, them satisfaction with the relationship may fail.
When does equity have to be addressed?
The under-benefitted partner will work hard to make the relationship more equitable if they believe it is possible to do so and that the relationship is salvageable. The greater the inequity the more work is required to restore equity. The change could be cognitive rather than a behavioural one. For example the partner might revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable to them, even if nothing actually changes. If the perception of rewards and costs are revised the actual abuse can become accepted as the norm for that relationship, for example reframing ‘cruelty’ as a form of rough treatment for your own good.
Strength: has research support.
Utne et al found that newly-weds who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who considered themselves as over- or under-benefitted. So it would seem that profit is not the key issue in judging relationships, rather it is equity. This research supports the central predictions of equity theory supporting its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships.
Limitation: may not be valid in all cultures.
Aumer-Ryan et al found couples in an individualist culture linked satisfaction to equity but partners in a collectivist culture were most satisfied when they were over-benefitting. This was true of both men and women, suggesting it is a consistent social rather than gender-based difference. The assumption of the theory that equity is key to satisfying relationships in all cultures is not supported. The theory is limited in its ability to account for all romantic relationships.
Limitation: there are individual differences.
It has been suggested that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. Some partners are happy to contribute more than they get. Others believe they deserve to be over-benefitted and accept or without feeling distressed or guilty. This shows that far from being a universal characteristic, a desire for equity is subject to individual differences.
Limitation: may not apply to all relationships.
It has been suggested that there is a need to distinguish between types of relationship (e.g. Romantic ones and business ones). Studies show that equity does play a central role in some relationships (e.g. Casual friendships) but there is limited support for its importance in others. There is limited support for equity theory in terms of romantic relationships and it may be better at explaining other forms of relationships.
Limitation: satisfying relationships don’t become more equitable.
Berg and McQuinn found that equity did not increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples, as equity theory would predict. The theory does not distinguish between those relationships which ended and those that continued. Variables such as self-disclosure appeared to be more important. This is a strong criticism because it was based on real couples over time.
