Equity Theory (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Equity Theory
Equity theory emerged as an economic approach to understanding romantic relationships, addressing what many saw as a gap in social exchange theory. While social exchange theory focuses purely on maximising rewards and minimising costs, equity theory argues that this misses something crucial: our need for fairness in relationships.
Unlike social exchange theory's narrow focus on individual reward maximisation, equity theory recognises that relationship satisfaction depends heavily on perceived fairness between partners, not just personal benefits.
Core principles of equity theory
Equity theory is an economic model that examines how relationships develop by considering both rewards and costs, but places particular emphasis on fairness. The theory challenges social exchange theory's narrow focus by highlighting that partners need to perceive that rewards and costs are distributed fairly between them.
The central premise is that relationship satisfaction depends not just on what we get from a relationship, but on whether we feel the distribution of benefits and burdens is just. According to Elaine Walster and colleagues (1978), what matters most is that both partners' profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly equivalent, creating a sense of fairness.
Key Principle: Relationship satisfaction depends on the perceived fairness of the reward-to-cost ratio between partners, not the absolute amounts each person gives or receives.
Understanding equity versus equality
Equity theory makes an important distinction between equity and equality. Equity refers to fairness in the relationship, while equality means identical levels of rewards and costs for each partner.
The theory suggests that it's the ratio between rewards and costs that matters, not their absolute amounts. For example, if one partner contributes significantly more to household tasks but receives proportionally more emotional support, the relationship may still feel equitable. This allows for different types of contributions while maintaining overall fairness.
Worked Example: Equity in Practice
Consider a relationship where one partner has a disability affecting their physical contributions. An equitable arrangement might involve:
Less physically active partner contributes:
- Emotional support and counselling
- Financial planning and management
- Social coordination and communication
More physically active partner contributes:
- Household maintenance and cleaning
- Physical caregiving tasks
- Manual labour and repairs
Result: Both partners feel their overall contributions and benefits balance out fairly, even though their specific contributions differ greatly.
Consequences of inequity
When relationships become unbalanced, problems arise for both partners, though they experience different types of distress:
Underbenefited partners (those putting in more than they receive) typically experience anger, hostility, resentment, and humiliation. These negative emotions intensify as the perceived inequity grows.
Overbenefited partners (those receiving more than they contribute) tend to feel guilt, discomfort, and shame, though their distress is usually less intense than that of underbenefited partners.
Responding to inequity
Partners respond to perceived unfairness in two main ways:
Behavioural responses: The disadvantaged partner may work harder to restore balance, provided they believe the relationship is salvageable and change is possible. The more unfair the situation feels, the more effort they'll put into restoring equity.
Cognitive responses: Alternatively, partners may adjust their perceptions of the relationship rather than changing behaviours. They might reframe previous costs as acceptable or normal, essentially convincing themselves that behaviours they once found unfair are actually reasonable.
Changes over time
Relationships naturally evolve, and what feels equitable may change. Early in a relationship, partners might happily give more than they receive, feeling satisfied by the emotional rewards. However, as relationships develop, the need for equity typically becomes more pronounced. If the balance doesn't adjust accordingly, satisfaction decreases.
Critical Point: The need for equity often increases as relationships mature. What feels acceptable in the early stages may become a source of resentment if not addressed over time.
Research support
Supporting evidence
Mary Utne and colleagues (1984) provided strong support for equity theory through their study of 118 recently married couples. These participants, aged 16-45 who had been together for over two years before marriage, completed self-report measures of equity. The researchers found that couples who perceived their relationships as equitable reported higher satisfaction than those who saw themselves as either overbenefited or underbenefited.
This research confirms equity theory's central prediction about the relationship between fairness and satisfaction, strengthening its validity as an explanation for romantic relationships.
Cultural variations
Katherine Aumer-Ryan and colleagues (2007) discovered important cultural differences in how equity affects relationship satisfaction. Their research compared couples from collectivist cultures (prioritising group needs) with those from individualist cultures (emphasising individual needs).
Research Finding: Cultural Differences in Equity
Individualist cultures (e.g., Western societies):
- Most satisfied when relationships felt equitable
- Both partners giving and receiving proportionally
Collectivist cultures (e.g., many Asian societies):
- Most satisfied when they were overbenefiting
- Receiving more than they contributed felt appropriate
Important note: This pattern applied to both men and women across cultures.
This finding challenges equity theory's assumption that the need for fairness is universal, indicating the theory may be culturally limited.
Individual differences
Huseman and colleagues (1987) identified personality differences in equity sensitivity. They distinguished between:
Benevolents: People comfortable contributing more than they receive, who don't feel distressed by giving extra to their relationships.
Entitleds: Individuals who believe they deserve to be overbenefited and accept this imbalance without guilt or discomfort.
These findings suggest that equity isn't equally important to everyone, contradicting the theory's claims about universal applicability.
Limitations and criticisms
Types of relationships
Margaret Clark and Judson Mills (2011) argued that equity theory applies differently across relationship types. Their research indicates that equity plays a central role in casual friendships, business relationships, and acquaintanceships, but its importance in romantic relationships is more questionable.
Key Limitation: Equity theory may not apply equally to all relationship types. The theory works better for:
- Casual friendships and acquaintanceships
- Business relationships
- Transactional relationships
But shows weaker effects in:
- Deep romantic relationships
- Family relationships
- Close emotional bonds
In casual friendships, people are less invested and more likely to end relationships that feel unfair quickly. However, romantic relationships often begin with partners wanting to give freely without expecting equivalent returns, as the emotional rewards feel sufficient. Equity becomes more important as relationships develop, but may never be the primary concern.
This suggests equity theory provides an incomplete explanation because it cannot account for why fairness matters more in some relationships than others.
Contradictory research
Daniel Berg and Kristen McQuinn's (1986) longitudinal study of dating couples failed to support key predictions of equity theory. They found that:
- Equity did not increase over time in satisfying relationships, contradicting the theory's predictions
- Equity could not distinguish between relationships that ended and those that continued
- Other factors, particularly self-disclosure, were more important predictors of relationship success
Major Challenge to the Theory: If equity truly determined relationship satisfaction, it should reliably predict which relationships succeed and which fail. Berg and McQuinn's research suggests that fairness may play a less central role in romantic relationships than equity theory claims.
Key Points to Remember:
- Equity theory emphasises fairness over equality - it's about proportional balance, not identical contributions
- Both overbenefited and underbenefited partners experience distress, though underbenefited partners typically feel worse
- Cultural background influences what feels fair - individualist cultures prioritise equity more than collectivist ones
- Individual differences matter - some people (benevolents) are naturally comfortable giving more than they receive
- The theory works better for some relationship types than others - casual relationships show stronger equity effects than romantic ones