RELATIONSHIPS - The Equity Theory
- Created by: EmilyEther
- Created on: 16-01-19 15:03
View mindmap
- The Equity Theory
- General
- developed later after SET
- EQUITY - equal / fair
- introduced by Hatfield (1970)
- arguably, less simplistic theory than SET
- takes account of both people's perception BUT from one viewpoint
- before a couple had children -> rel is more likely to be equitable
- less equitable with children
- baby = priority
- some women may find it more rewarding - spend lots of time with child (rewarding)
- Evaluation (A03)
- builds on and less simplistic than SET
- takes account of both people's perception
- still portrays people as selfish
- close rels are too complex to allow for precise assessment of various rewards and costs
- equity seems more important to females- theory not applicable to both genders
- MOGHADDAM - argued there is no cross cultural evidence - US students prefered equity, but UK students prefered equality
- Perception of equity
- work out your profit and loss situation and then you work out their p + l situation and compare the 2 (is it equal)
- if equal (in profit / loss) -> maintain rel
- if you are better than them -> someone might still be unhappy
- guilt
- someone who likes to give
- if they are better than you -> breakdown begins
- being fair may have different significance at diff points
- older rel -> equity = not as important. Not thinking about profit as much.
- new rel -> equity is important in early days. In past, women may have gone along with inequity - protection, social expectations
- work out your profit and loss situation and then you work out their p + l situation and compare the 2 (is it equal)
- 4 stages of equity
- 1. Principle -> rewards = max, loss = min
- 2. Distribution -> trade-offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairness
- 3. Dissatisfaction -> greater the unfairness, greater the dissatisfaction
- 4. Realignment -> if restoring equity is possible, maintenance will continue with attempts to restore equity
- Research
- ARGYLE - people don't think about rewards and costs in close rels - equity is not a valid explanation of rel maintenance
- DAINTON - rels with perceived inequity had lower satisfaction but were motivated to restore it to normal
- YUM - rels across 6 cultures - little effect to equity theory -> theory has cross cultural evidence and can be generalised
- General
Similar Psychology resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made