Theories of Romantic relationships: Equity theory

What is Equity Theory?

Proposed by Walster et al. (1978), Equity Theory suggests that relationship satisfaction comes from fairness (equity), not just the balance of rewards and costs like in Social Exchange Theory. Both partners should feel their level of profit (rewards - costs) is roughly equal.

How is equity different from equality?

• Equity = Fairness (the ratio of rewards to costs is balanced for both partners, even if not identical).

• Equality = Exact sameness in rewards and costs, which isn’t necessary for satisfaction in relationships.

What are the consequences of inequity in relationships?

• Underbenefitted partner: Feels anger, resentment, hostility, and humiliation.

• Overbenefitted partner: Feels guilt, discomfort, and shame.

How does perceived equity change over time?

At the start of a relationship, giving more than you receive may feel fine. But over time, if this imbalance continues, dissatisfaction increases as expectations shift.

How do partners deal with inequity?

• Behavioral adjustment: The underbenefitted partner tries to restore equity through negotiation or changes.

• Cognitive adjustment: They change their perception of what counts as a reward or cost to feel the relationship is fair, even if nothing changes (e.g., accepting flaws as normal).

What are the AO3 strengths of equity theory?

Research Support

• One strength is research evidence supporting equity theory over SET.

• Evidence: Utne et al. (1984) surveyed 118 recently married couples and found that those in equitable relationships were more satisfied.

• Explanation: This supports the idea that fairness, rather than just rewards and costs, determines relationship satisfaction.

• Elaboration: The findings suggest equity is a key factor in long-term romantic relationships.

• Link: This strengthens the validity of equity theory as an explanation for relationship satisfaction.

What are the AO3 limitations of equity theory?

Counterpoint to the supporting research

• Point: However, research suggests equity does not always increase relationship satisfaction over time.

• Evidence: Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that equity levels did not change as relationships progressed.

• Explanation: They also found no difference in equity between relationships that lasted and those that ended.

• Elaboration: Other factors, such as self-disclosure, were found to be more important for relationship satisfaction.

• Link: This challenges equity theory, as it suggests equity is not a decisive factor in long-term relationships.

Cultural Limitations

• Point: One limitation is that equity theory may not be universally applicable across cultures.

• Explain: Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) found that equity was linked to satisfaction in individualist cultures but not in collectivist cultures.

• Elaborate: In collectivist cultures, relationships were most satisfying when one partner overbenefitted.

• Link: This difference was observed in both men and women, ruling out gender as an explanation.

• Link: These findings suggest equity theory may only apply in some cultures, limiting its generalisability.

Individual Differences

• Point: Another limitation is that not all individuals prioritise equity in relationships.

• Evidence: Huseman et al. (1987) identified “benevolents” who are happy to underbenefit and “entitleds” who feel they deserve to overbenefit.

• Explanation: These personality types do not experience distress when relationships are inequitable.

• Elaboration: This suggests that the need for equity varies between individuals rather than being universal.

• Link: Equity theory may therefore lack flexibility in explaining different relationship dynamics.