Equity Theory

Equity Theory in Psychology

Relationships are complex. Two people may often want different things in a relationship, and multiple theories seek to examine what makes relationships successful. One such theory is equity theory. In psychology, what is the equity theory?

It is an extension from Walster et al. (1978) and Hatfield and Traupmann (1980), who developed the original equity theory from Adams (1965), stating that a partner would be unsatisfied if their relationship was over-benefited or under-benefited by either person.

The person who receives more benefits will feel guilt and shame whilst the other partner will feel dissatisfied and angry. The longer this lack of equity remains, the more likely the couple will break up.

Equity may also change over time.

Components of Equity Theory

Based on equity theory, how relationships form and develop depends on the distribution of costs and benefits. High benefits and low costs make a relationship more likely to succeed in the long term.

Equity theory suggests relationships are maintained depending on the realignment of any new or continuing costs and benefits. If something develops that may be considered too much of a cost compared to the benefits of being in the relationship, this can lead to acceptance or to dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfaction in a relationship can lead to a breakdown of the relationship due to inequity. Guilt may be a driving force for those who benefit from the relationship more, and resentment may build up for those relationships that cost more to maintain.

Fig. 2: Inequity in a relationship can cause dissatisfaction, leading to arguments and the breakdown of the relationship.

Equity Theory of Motivation

Equity theory was originally proposed as the equity theory of motivation by Adams in 1963 in relation to the workplace. He posited that workers desire equity between their commitment to a job and the results they receive. In essence, motivation is a sense of fairness.

Equity Theory Examples: Research Supporting Equity Theory

Utne et al. (1984) explored equity theory in intimate settings. They theorised that couples who believed the relationship was equitable would believe their marriages were more stable, and they would be more content. Using self-report scales, Utne et al. (1984) measured satisfaction and equity in 118 recently married couples. Each couple had already been together for at least two years before marriage, and the study reported that greater equity led to higher satisfaction.

Stafford and Canary (2006) studied relationship equity, maintenance, and satisfaction by giving over 200 married couples questionnaires. They found that partners who viewed their relationships as equitable were most satisfied, followed by those who over-benefitted. The least satisfied were those who felt they under-benefitted.

Brosnan and De Waal’s (2003) explored evolutionary reasons behind equity theory, identifying how when cooperation is required, individuals assess how their efforts are rewarded compared to others. Their research suggests the need for benefits in a relationship is evolutionary. The researchers studied capuchin monkeys and observed that when they were denied a reward (some grapes) for playing a game, when another monkey close by put no effort in and received a better reward, they became angry, suggesting an innate need for rewarding relationships.

Disadvantages of Equity Theory

Berg and McQuinn (1986) conducted a longitudinal study on 38 couples. Despite not finding that equity increased over time, they found a high level of self-disclosure (information sharing) at the start of a relationship. Low equity at the beginning of a relationship was also a sign of an eventual breakup. This finding contradicts equity theory’s claim that equity increases over time and is the cornerstone of a happy relationship.

Individual differences/subjectivity also contradict the equity theory. Hussman et al. (1987) explored individual differences in equity by conducting an experiment where two participants were asked to distribute money to different employees based on information on their performance given to them. According to Hussman et al. (1987), some people are less sensitive to inequity and are willing to give more in relationships (known as benevolents). Meanwhile, others are happy to take more (known as entitleds) and don’t feel the guilt equity theory suggests they should.

Sprecher (1992) suggests women feel more guilty when over-benefitting and more dissatisfied when under-benefitting, suggesting gender differences exist in the applicability of equity theory.

DeMaris et al. (1998) highlighted the subjective and objective nature of equity theory, similarly suggesting that women focus more on relationships and thus are more sensitive to injustices. They examined 1500 couples and found greater under-benefitting perceived by women led to higher risks of divorce.

Aumer-Ryan et al. (2006) revealed that equity is more important in western cultures, resulting in a cultural bias. They found that men and women from non-Western cultures (Jamaicans) were most satisfied when over-benefitting. Therefore, equity is not a universal hallmark of happy relationships as it cannot explain relationships in all cultures.

Equity theory attempts to establish a universal law about relationships without considering the costs and benefits of relationships that may be different for each couple.