Equity theory

What is equity theory ?

Extension of SET, economic model

Partners contempt if benefits roughly equal to costs = rels lacking in equity/fairness are dissatisfied

Unlike SET suggesting minimax principle, ET suggests partners concerned w fairness=achieved when feel gettin approx what they deserve and put in2 rel

Proposes winning formula : 1 partners benefits - costs = other partners benefits - costs —both partners Lvls of profits roughly same

Like SET costs and rewards v subjective

What does a lack of equity result in?

Unfairness

Underbenefitting = partner perceives put lot in but v little back=feel angry resentful humiliated

Overbenefiiting = partner perceives get more benefits out rel than what they put in =feels guilt and shame

=dissatifcation 4 both partners=overtime more unfairness=more likely 2 break up

Equity vs equality

Not size/amount of rewards and costs but ration of the 2 2 eachother

Eg partner puts a lot in but gets a lot out=fair, eg disabled partner can’t do chores= distribution of tasks seen as unfair but equity might come from compensation of disabled partner form other areas OR satisfaction gained from more active partners behaviour

Negotiations mark satisfactions rels=ensures equity comes from rewards distributed fairly NOT EQUALLY

Consequences of equity overtime

Strong postive correlation between inequity and dissatisfaction

Perception of equity changes overtime eg start of rel norm 2 contribute more than you receive =want 2 make rel work=if devs in way that u continue 2 put more in2 rel and get less out =feels less satisfying

Inequity occurs and doesn’t lead 2 rel breakdown= ways partners can deal

1. Behavioural level- underbeniftting partner could work harder 2 make rel more equitable and restore balance as long as rel feels salvageable

2. Cognitive level = revise perceptions of rewards and costs=rel feels more equitable than actually is eg abuse becomes the norm =feel less like costs = perception change

Research support

Utne et al 1984

Survey 118 recently married couples; measured equity w 2 self report scales

2gether 4 more than 2 yrs b4 marrying

Couples considering rel more equitable =more satisfied than those that saw themselves as over/under benefitting

Confirms ET true= increases validty as exp

Contradictory research

Berg and Mcquinn 1986

Longitudinal study on 38 dating couples

Didn’t find equity increased overtime but high level of SD and perceived equity in beginning of rel= strong predictor couple would stay 2gether

Low equity in beginning=strong predictor of breakup

=shows perceived fairness either present or not formbeginnning =doesny dev overtime=contradicts ET

=suggests other factors like SD may play more imp role than equity

Individual differences

Hussman et al 1987

Ppl less sensitive 2 equity in rels =prepared 2 give more = BENEVOLENTS

Opposite 2 this= ENTITLEDS=belive derseve 2 overbenfit and don’t feel guilty when do

Equity shown 2not b global feature of all romantic rels as how much someone’s decides 2 give in rel depends on personality and individual diffs

NOT UNIVERSAL LAW

Issues and debates

Mills and Clark 1982

ET proposes universal theory of rels= ‘ppl contempt in rel if benefits equal costs’

Mills and Clark argue not poss 2 asses equity in terms of loving relationships= most inpu emotional and unquantifiable =probs better to use IDIOGRAPHIC approach=focuses on qualitative experiences of individual rather than NOMOTHETIC approach=looks at generating universal laws