Evaluation of Equity Theory
Psychology: AQA A Level, topic 9.2.4
Support for Equity Theory
There is significant support for equity theory from research studies, including studies of real life relationships. Research confirms that equity theory is a more valid explanation than social exchange theory (SET).
Utne et al. (1984)
- Utne et al. (1984) conducted a survey of 118 recently married couples (husbands and wives aged between 16 and 45 who had been together for more than two years before marrying).
- They measured equity with two self-report scales.
Utne et al. (1984) findings
- Utne et al. (1984) discovered that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over benefiting or under benefiting
- This confirms the main prediction of equity theory.
Criticisms of Equity Theory: Cultural and Individual Differences
Some researchers argue that equity theory does not account for individual differences and cannot be applied cross-culturally.
Challenges
- Equity theory assumes that equity is fundamental to all romantic relationships. But studies have found that this assumption is not universally applicable.
- Aumer-Ryan et al (2007), found views regarding equity and satisfaction are not identical between cultures.
Cultural differences
- This challenges equity theory because the theory claims that equity is a universal need in relationships.
- This means that the theory is limited because it cannot account for this cultural difference.
Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007)
- Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) compared couples in a collectivist culture with those in an individualistic culture.
- Couples from the individualistic culture considered their relationships to be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable.
- Partners in the collectivist culture were most satisfied when they were over benefiting.
- This was true of both men and women.
Huseman et al. (1987)
- Not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity.
- Huseman et al. (1987) suggested that some people are less sensitive to equity than others.
Findings
- They described some partners as benevolents (those who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it).
- Others they described as entitleds (those who believe they deserve to be over benefited and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty).
- This shows that equity is not necessarily a universal feature of all romantic relationships.
Criticisms of Equity Theory: Types of Relationships
Equity theory also seems to overlook the fact that many different types of relationship exist.
Clark and Mills (2011)
- Clark and Mills (2011) tried to untangle the sometimes confusing body of evidence that claims equity is an important feature of relationships.
- They concluded that there are many types of relationship that we should distinguish between, such as business and work relationships and acquaintance relationships.
Other studies
- Equity theory also claims that satisfying romantic relationships should become more equitable overtime.
- Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that equity did not increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples.
Longevity
- Equity theory also did not distinguish between those relationships which ended and those which continued.
- Other variables were found to be significantly more important, such as self-disclosure.
Test yourself on Evaluation of Equity Theory
What year did Utne et al. conduct their study?
Who found that equity is NOT necessarily a universal feature of all romantic relationships and instead classified some partners as benevolents and others as entitleds?
Berg and McQuinn (1986) found which variable to be significantly more important than equity?
Which year did Clark and Mills conclude that there are many types of relationship that equity theory fails to distinguish between?