9.3.2 Equity Theory of Relationships

Equity Theory in Relationships

Equity Theory, developed by Hatfield, suggests that relationship satisfaction is highest when partners perceive fairness in their relationship, meaning each partner's profit (rewards minus costs) is equal.

Satisfaction occurs when both partners contribute and receive in proportion. Over benefited partners may feel guilt or shame, while under benefited partners may experience anger or resentment. The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction, prompting efforts to restore balance.

Equity and Equality

Equity Theory emphasises that it's not the absolute size of costs and rewards that matters, but the ratio between them. In successful relationships, rewards are distributed fairly, though not necessarily equally, which involves making trade-offs. Recognising inequity can present an opportunity to save or maintain the relationship by making adjustments. Relationships may go through phases of balance and imbalance, but prolonged imbalance can make it increasingly difficult to restore equity.

Walster identified four principles of equity in relationships:

1. Profit: Rewards are maximised, and costs are minimised.
2. Distribution: Trade-offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairness in the relationship.
3. Dissatisfaction: The greater the perceived unfairness, the greater the dissatisfaction.
4. Realignment: If restoring equity is possible, partners will attempt to realign the relationship.

Evaluation

Supporting Evidence for Equity Theory

Dainton's Research:

• Point: Dainton's study provides support for equity theory.
• Evidence: In a study of 219 individuals in romantic relationships, those who perceived inequity reported low relationship satisfaction but were motivated to return to an equitable state to maintain the relationship.
• Conclusion: This research supports equity theory by suggesting that inequity is associated with dissatisfaction, but realignment is possible, which can help maintain the relationship.

Further Supporting Evidence

Schafer and Keith's Study:

• Point: Schafer and Keith's research further supports equity theory.
• Evidence: They surveyed hundreds of married couples and found that during the child-rearing years, wives often felt under benefited due to an unfair division of domestic responsibilities, leading to lower marital satisfaction. However, during the honeymoon and empty nest stages, both partners felt the relationship was more equitable and reported higher satisfaction.
• Conclusion: This supports the idea that inequity is linked to dissatisfaction, but relationships can be realigned to restore equity and satisfaction.

Cultural Differences and Equity

Aumer-Ryan's Findings:

• Point: Equity theory assumes that the need for equity is universal, but Aumer-Ryan's research suggests cultural differences.
• Evidence: Aumer-Ryan found that couples in collectivist cultures were most satisfied when over benefiting, whereas those in individualist cultures preferred equity.
• Conclusion: This indicates that equity theory may be limited in its applicability across different cultures, as it cannot account for these cultural differences.

Individual Differences in Perceptions of Equity

Huseman et al.'s Research:

• Point: Not all partners are equally concerned with achieving equity in their relationships.
• Evidence: Huseman et al. proposed the idea of equity sensitivity, suggesting that people differ in their preference for equity. Some partners, called benevolents, are willing to give more than they receive, while others, known as entitleds, feel they deserve to over benefit without distress or guilt.
• Conclusion: This suggests that equity theory may not apply equally to all individuals, as different people have different levels of tolerance for inequity.

Contradictory Research Evidence

Clark and Mills' Research:

• Point: Some research contradicts the relevance of equity theory to romantic relationships.
• Evidence: Clark and Mills argue that equity is more relevant in friendships and business relationships than in romantic relationships, particularly in the early stages where concern for equity is less pronounced.
• Conclusion: This weakens the applicability of equity theory to romantic relationships, suggesting it may be more relevant to non-romantic relationships.

Further Criticisms

Berg and McQuinn's Findings:

• Point: Not all research supports the idea that inequity leads to dissatisfaction.
• Evidence: Berg and McQuinn conducted a longitudinal study and found that equity did not increase in relationships that ended, nor did it distinguish between relationships that ended and those that continued.
• Conclusion: This challenges the importance of equity theory as a predictor of relationship satisfaction.

Real-Life Application of Equity Theory

Schafer and Keith's Research in Practice:

• Point: Equity theory has practical applications in real-world settings.
• Evidence: Schafer and Keith's findings on how inequity leads to marital dissatisfaction can be used by marriage counsellors to identify and address sources of inequity within relationships.
• Conclusion: This demonstrates the practical value of equity theory, highlighting its usefulness in improving relationship satisfaction.