Evaluation

• Strength: research support

  Utne et al. found that newly-weds who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who considered themselves as over- or under benefitting. So it would seem that profit is not the key issue in judging relationships, rather it is equity. This research supports the central predictions of equity theory supporting its validity as an explanation of romantic relationships
• Limitation: culturally relative

  Aumer-Ryan et al. found couples in an individualist culture linked satisfaction to equity but partners in a collectivist culture were more satisfied when they were over benefitting. This was true of both men and women, suggesting it is a consistent social rather than gender-based difference. The assumption of the theory is that equity is key to satisfying relationships in all cultures is not supported. The theory is limited in its ability to account for all romantic relationships
• Limitation: individual differences

  Huseman et al. suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. Some partners are happy to contribute more than they get (benevolents, underbenefitted). Others believe they deserve to be overbenefitted and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty (entitleds). This shows that far from being a universal characteristic, a desire for equity is subject to individual differences
• Limitation: may not apply to all relationships

  Clark and Mills suggest a need to distinguish between different types of relationship (e.g. romantic ones and business ones). Studies show that equity does play a central role in some relationships (e.g. casual friendships) but there is limited support for its importance in others. There is limited support for equity theory in terms of romantic relationships and it may be better at explaining other forms of relationships