Equity Theory

In the 11th century, St. Anselm of Canterbury argued that the will possesses two competing inclinations: an affection for what is to a person's own advantage and an affection for justice; the first inclination is stronger, but the second matters too. Equity Theory, too, posits that in personal relationships, two concerns stand out: first, how rewarding are people's societal, family, and work relationships? Second, how fair, just, and equitable are those relationships? According to Equity Theory (as postulated by Elaine Hatfield, G. William Walster, and Ellen Berscheid), people define a relationship as equitable when “the rewards they reap from a relationship are commensurate with their contributions to that relationship.” (In contrasting profit vs. equity, profit [i.e., rewards minus costs] is generally found to be a more important determinant of satisfaction than is equity.) According to the theory, couples feel most comfortable when their relationships are maximally profitable and they are getting exactly what they deserve from their relationships—no more and certainly no less. In this entry, we will discuss the logic behind Equity Theory, discuss techniques for assessing how equitable a relationship is, and discuss the consequences of fairness (or unfairness) in dating, newlywed, and longterm marital relationships.

During the past 25 years or so, social psychologists have become interested in the cognitive and emotional underpinnings of humanity's concern with social justice, fairness, and equity. Evolutionary theorists, for example, argue that for at least several million years, our ancestors engaged in complex social exchange. Thus, theorists contend, a concern with both reward and fairness is ancient and universal—“wired in” as part of the architecture of the human mind. Currently, most cross-cultural investigators, neuroscientists, primatologists, ethologists, and evolutionary psychologists generally agree that although social definitions of equity may vary, a concern with profit, fairness, and equity may, indeed, be common in the animal kingdom.

Equity Theory (as articulated by Hatfield and her colleagues) consists of four propositions:

• Proposition I: Men and women are “wired up” to try to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. (No surprise, then, that people are concerned with the rewards and punishments they receive in their close relationships.)
• Proposition II: Society, however, has a vested interest in persuading people to behave fairly and equitably. Groups will generally reward members who treat others equitably and punish those who treat others inequitably.
• Proposition III: Given societal pressures, people are most comfortable when they perceive that they are getting roughly what they deserve from life and love. If people feel overbenefited, they may experience pity, guilt, and shame; if underbenefited, they may experience anger, sadness, and resentment.
• Proposition IV: People in inequitable relationships will attempt to reduce their distress via a variety of techniques—by restoring psychological equity (convincing themselves that an inequitable relationship is indeed fair), by restoring actual equity, or by abandoning the relationship.

A wife who feels guilty about “cheating” on her husband may, for example, restore psychological equity by convincing herself that her husband has probably been cheating on her for years; her wayward behavior is simply a case of “tit for tat.” A woman who feels guilty about the fact that convention dictates that her poverty-stricken date ought to pay for dinner, concerts, and transportation may attempt to set things right by inviting him to dinner or pretending someone has given her free tickets to a play—thus restoring actual equity. Finally, a husband who feels with his wife it's all give (on his part) and all take (on hers) may elect to leave the marriage.

...