theories of romantic relationships:equity theory Flashcards
(7 cards)
introduction
Equity theory is another economic theory which developed in response to a significant criticism of social exchange theory (SET). Maximising rewards and minimising costs are important, but SET fails to take into account the need most people have for balance rather than profit in a relationship.
the role of equity
The term equity’ means fairness. According to Elaine Walster and her colleagues (1978), What matters most with equity is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same. This is not the same as equality where costs and rewards have to be the same (i.e., ‘equal’) for each partner.
When there is a lack of equity, then one partner overbenefits and the other underbenefits from the relationship, and (according to equity theory) this is a recipe for dissatisfaction and unhappiness.
Both overbenefit and underbenefit are examples of inequity although it is the underbenefitted partner who is likely to feel the greatest dissatisfaction, in the form of anger, hostility, resentment and humiliation. The overbenefitted partner will likely feel guilt, discomfort and shame. Thus satisfaction is about perceived fairness.
equity and equality
According to equity theory, it’s not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matters, it’s the ratio of the two to each other. So if one partner puts a lot into the relationship but at the same time gets a lot out of it, then they are likely to feel satisfied.
For example, imagine a relationship in which one partner works night shifts and therefore cannot cook the children’s tea. A precisely equal distribution of domestic tasks would probably not be seen as fair by either partner. The equity in such a relationship may well come from the compensations that the night-shift partner could offer in other areas, or from the satisfactions that the other partner gains.
Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity, that rewards are distributed fairly (not necessarily equally) between the partners. This inevitably involves making trade-offs.
consequences of inequity
Problems arise when one partner puts a great deal into the relationship but gets little out of it.
A partner who perceives inequity will become distressed and dissatisfied with the relationship if this state of affairs continues for long enough. The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction - equity theory predicts a strong correlation between the two. This applies to both the overbenefitted and underbenefitted partner to the extent that they both perceive the inequity.
Changes in perceived equity -What makes us most dissatisfied is a change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on. For example, at the start of a relationship it may feel perfectly natural to contribute more than you receive. But if the relationship develops in such a way that you continue to put more into the relationship and get less out of it, this will not feel as satisfying as it did in the early days.
Dealing with inequity- How do romantic partners react to inequity? The underbenefitted partner is usually motivated to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible to do so and that the relationship is salvageable. The more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they will work to restore equity (another strong correlation).
On the other hand, another possible outcome is a cognitive rather than behavioural one. They will revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable to them, even if nothing actually changes. What was once seen as definitely a cost earlier in the relationship (untidiness, thoughtlessness, actual abuse) is now accepted as the norm.
strength-research support
One strength is evidence from studies of real-world relationships that confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than SET.
For example, Mary Utne et al. (1984) carried out a survey of 118 recently-married couples, measuring equity with two self-report scales.
The participants were aged between 16 and 45 years and had been together for more than two years before marrying. The researchers found that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenefitting
This study confirms that equity is a major concern of romantic couples and is linked with satisfaction, a central prediction of equity theory.
Counterpoint Equity may be a feature of satisfaction in relationships (as predicted by equity theory) but Daniel Berg and Kristen McQuinn (1986) found that equity did not increase over time, as would also be predicted by the theory. Nor did the researchers find that relationships which ended and those which continued differed in terms of equity, a further prediction of equity theory. Other variables (e.g. self-disclosure page 120) were significantly more important.
This undermines the validity of equity theory because equity does not play the role in relationship (dis)satisfaction that is predicted.
limitation-cultural limitations
One limitation is that equity theory may not apply to all cultures.
Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction. Couples from an individualist culture (US) considered their relationships to be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners in a collectivist culture (Jamaica) were most satisfied when they were overbenefitting. 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.
limitation-individual differences
Another limitation is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
Richard Huseman et al. (1987) suggest that some people are less concerned about equity than the ‘norm. They describe some partners as benevolents, who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it (underbenefit). Others are entitleds who believe they deserve to overbenefit and accept it without feeling distressed or 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.
