Auer-Ryan et al (2007): couples in individualistic culture linked satisfaction to equity - partners in collectivistic cultures were most satisfied when they were over benefitting
True of both men and women - a consistent social rather than gender-biased difference
Assumption of the theory that equity is key to satisfying relationships in all cultures isn't supported - limited in its ability to account for all romantic relationships
Individual differences?
Huseman et al (87): some people are less sensitive to equity than others
Some partners are happy to contribute more than they get, (benevolent) others believe they deserve to be over benefitted and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty (entitled)
Shows – far from being a universal characteristic, a desire for equity is subject to individual differences
May not apply to all relationships?
Clark and Mills (2011) suggest – needs to distinguish between types of relationship
Studies shows – equity does play a central role in some rel.(casual friendships) , limited support for its importance in others
Limited support for equity theory – in terms of romantic rel, may be better at explaining other forms of rel.
Satisfying relationships don’t become more equitable?
Berg and McQuinn (86) – equity didn’t increase in their longitudinal study of couples, as equity theory would predict
Theory, doesn’t distinguish between those relationships which ended and those than continued, variables – SD appeared to be more important
Strong criticism – based on real couples studiesover time
Timing: research indicates that equity seems to be much more of a concern in short-term relationships or in the early stages of relationships - significance declines over time
Age: Moghaddam (98) - equity and SET are most applicable to young, western samples with high mobility, autonomy and who are in the early stages of relationships