Theories of romantic relationships: Equity theory
Definition: an ‘economic theory’ developed as a criticism to social exchange theory, although
maximising rewards and limiting loss is good! SET fails to consider peoples need for a fair
balance with their partner, rather than profiting off them.
The role of equity: Walster (1978) says equity is fairness, and it is important for the profit and
loss of both partners to be roughly the same. According to equity theory, without fairness, one
partner over benefits whilst the other under benefits, likely to lead to un satisfaction/unhappiness
from the one under benefitting, and perhaps guilt and shame from the partner that over benefits.
Satisfaction = perceived fairness.
Consequences of Inequity: Equity theory predicts a strong correlation of satisfaction (or
dissatisfaction) and perceived equity for both those that under benefit and over benefit.
Changes in perceived equity Dealing with equity
What leaves us most dissatisfied is identifying a Behaviour change: by the under benefited may
decrease in the level of equity as the see them try harder to reach fair equity.
relationship progresses. Perceived equity may Perhaps end the relationship
seem fairer in the beginning, but less fair later. Cognitive change: Negotiate cost and reward,
change perception to accommodate ‘costs’ as
the norm (basically accepting to under benefit)
Evaluation of equity theory
There are individual differences in equity expectations. Huseman identified ‘benevolents’ who are
giving, and ‘entitleds’ who want to be over-rewarded. This suggests that equity theory is flawed, as it
assumes that everyone is searching for fairness in a relationship, though this may not be true.
(Developed) Furthermore, when considering cultural differences, Lott found that women in
collectivist cultures were more focussed on giving than receiving, suggesting equity theory must be
generalised with caution, and may not explain satisfaction in all types of romantic relationships.
Evidence from studies of real-world relationships can confirm that equity theory is a more valid
explanation than SET. Utne = survey on recently married couples (16-45 together at least 2 years
prior) measured equity. Found couples who considered relationship equitable were more satisfied
than those over benefitting or under. This suggests that equity is a major concern for romantic
relationships and links to satisfaction, supporting equity theory.
Counterpoint: Though equity may fore well be a feature of satisfaction, it has been found that equity
does not increase over time as the theory would suggest, that other features such as self-disclosure
come to be significantly more important in maintaining satisfaction, therefore the validity of the
equity theory is in doubt because its predictions are not supported by research.
The assumptions of equity theory are criticised. Clark and Mills argue that this only explains
exchange relationships, the ones that consistently assess their ‘profit and losses, though does not
explain communal relationships, one in which interaction is governed primarily by consideration of
the other’s needs and wishes regardless of the return. This can be applied to romantic relationships
as so suggests that equity theory is not a suitable explanation for this.
Definition: an ‘economic theory’ developed as a criticism to social exchange theory, although
maximising rewards and limiting loss is good! SET fails to consider peoples need for a fair
balance with their partner, rather than profiting off them.
The role of equity: Walster (1978) says equity is fairness, and it is important for the profit and
loss of both partners to be roughly the same. According to equity theory, without fairness, one
partner over benefits whilst the other under benefits, likely to lead to un satisfaction/unhappiness
from the one under benefitting, and perhaps guilt and shame from the partner that over benefits.
Satisfaction = perceived fairness.
Consequences of Inequity: Equity theory predicts a strong correlation of satisfaction (or
dissatisfaction) and perceived equity for both those that under benefit and over benefit.
Changes in perceived equity Dealing with equity
What leaves us most dissatisfied is identifying a Behaviour change: by the under benefited may
decrease in the level of equity as the see them try harder to reach fair equity.
relationship progresses. Perceived equity may Perhaps end the relationship
seem fairer in the beginning, but less fair later. Cognitive change: Negotiate cost and reward,
change perception to accommodate ‘costs’ as
the norm (basically accepting to under benefit)
Evaluation of equity theory
There are individual differences in equity expectations. Huseman identified ‘benevolents’ who are
giving, and ‘entitleds’ who want to be over-rewarded. This suggests that equity theory is flawed, as it
assumes that everyone is searching for fairness in a relationship, though this may not be true.
(Developed) Furthermore, when considering cultural differences, Lott found that women in
collectivist cultures were more focussed on giving than receiving, suggesting equity theory must be
generalised with caution, and may not explain satisfaction in all types of romantic relationships.
Evidence from studies of real-world relationships can confirm that equity theory is a more valid
explanation than SET. Utne = survey on recently married couples (16-45 together at least 2 years
prior) measured equity. Found couples who considered relationship equitable were more satisfied
than those over benefitting or under. This suggests that equity is a major concern for romantic
relationships and links to satisfaction, supporting equity theory.
Counterpoint: Though equity may fore well be a feature of satisfaction, it has been found that equity
does not increase over time as the theory would suggest, that other features such as self-disclosure
come to be significantly more important in maintaining satisfaction, therefore the validity of the
equity theory is in doubt because its predictions are not supported by research.
The assumptions of equity theory are criticised. Clark and Mills argue that this only explains
exchange relationships, the ones that consistently assess their ‘profit and losses, though does not
explain communal relationships, one in which interaction is governed primarily by consideration of
the other’s needs and wishes regardless of the return. This can be applied to romantic relationships
as so suggests that equity theory is not a suitable explanation for this.
