Free Response Questions

Snippets From book

Chapter 9 When pertaining to Equity Theory

(Equity Theory: Evaluating Fairness)

Denise M. Polk

Introduction to Equity Theory

Most interpersonal relationships are built around trust, mutual respect, and genuine concern for the other person. Generally, people do not enter a relationship focused on fairness issues. However, concern about social justice is alive in all cultures and social structures because fairness in love and work remains a wise strategy (Hatfield et al., 2008). Most people of all different backgrounds are familiar with the “golden rule”—treat others as they would like to be treated. Furthermore, many people believe that if everyone subscribed to this rule, fairness would prevail, leading to perfectly satisfying relationships.

Whereas these ideas may be very intuitively appealing, they create some potential problems when people in relationships—whether it is a business relationship, a friendship, or a romance—experience difficulties. Difficulties may involve one person getting his or her way more often. In reality, sometimes people feel they put more into a relationship than they get out of it.

It takes effort to build, to maintain, and to repair relationships regardless of the type of relationship. Many people, both researchers and laypersons, are interested in what makes for satisfying relationships as well as what factors keep people together or drive them apart. A number of theories have been developed to help explain how people evaluate their relationships. One of them is equity theory.

Development of Equity Theory

Equity theory stems from economic principles. In fact, when John Stacy Adams first introduced the theory in 1963, he intended for it to serve as an explanation for the fairness of exchanges between employers and employees. Over the years, however, this theory has been expanded to understand dynamics within other types of relationships. Hatfield and Rapson (2012) noted that the initial interest in the topic area for Hatfield et al. (1978) was to settle the hotly debated topic among their friends about the nature of social justice and the role that reward and fairness played in intimate relationships. Walster, Walster, and Berscheid (1978) continued to refine and to adapt the theory to help people understand how people evaluate their interactions in other kinds of relationships. This type of research includes the harm-doer-victim relationship (Walster et al., 1973), helping relationships (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1983), collegial relationships (Buunk et al., 1993), friendships (Buunk & Prins, 1998; Messman et al., 2000), marital relationships (Cate et al., 1988), intergenerational relationships (Kalmijn, 2012) and same-sex relationships (Shechory & Ziv, 2007).

Considerable evidence exists that in love relationships, equity matters. For example, the more socially desirable people are (e.g., attractiveness), the more socially desirable they expect a potential partner to be, and people in equitable relationships are less likely to risk extramarital affairs (Hatfield et al., 2008). Thus, equity influences which partners people choose and how they navigate those relationships.

Description of Equity Theory

Justice theories developed by researchers such as Homans (1961, 1974), Adams (1963, 1965), and Blau (1964) serve as the basis for equity theory. The principle of distributive justice is at the core of equity, and it suggests that rewards should be distributed according to who provides the most inputs (Deutsch, 1985). Hatfield (formerly Walster) and her colleagues extended and refined the ideas presented in these earlier justice theories (e.g., Hatfield & Traupmann, 1981; Hatfield et al., 1979; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Today equity theory is widely used for helping people understand the way people develop, maintain, and dissolve interpersonal relationships. Equity theory asserts that although each relational partner may contribute different time and resources to the relationship, both parties feel they are receiving as much (although not always in same kind of resources) as they are contributing (Dainton & Gross, 2008; Lively et al., 2010).

Equity theory falls into a subcategory of theories often called exchange theories. These theories tend to view interactions between people as exchanges of goods and resources. Attractiveness, intelligence, love, understanding, encouragement, money, and taking care of domestic responsibilities are just a few of the many goods and resources that people exchange. These goods and resources can be defined as the ability, possession, or attribute that enables one person to reward or to punish another person (Scanzoni, 1979). The value of the resources that both people bring to the relationship is subjective and depends on the needs or desires of both parties. Essentially, “each person ‘pays’ a certain price in resources (or contributions) brought to the relationship, in order to acquire certain goods (or outcomes) in the form of needs met (Beckman-Brindley & Tavormina, 1978)” (Steil, 1994, p. 237). Thus, according to equity theory, each partner is entitled to rewards and costs in a relationship proportionally to the contributions each partner has made as well as the costs each partner has incurred (Adams, 1963). All this must be relative to the costs and rewards contributed and experienced by one’s partner.

Social exchange elements of relationships include two categories of theoretical variables (Sprecher, 2001b). The first set of variables involves distributive justice norms. These variables include inputs and outcomes for both partners. People determine fairness in their relationships by comparing input–outcome ratios. If inputs exceed outcomes or vice versa, the partner is either underbenefited or overbenefited. Imbalances in rewards and costs will cause people to attempt to equalize the reward-cost ratio. This is different from the equality principle which suggests that regardless of contributions or costs, both partners should share costs and benefits equally (Deutsch, 1975, 1985; Sampson, 1975).

Thibaut and Kelley (1959) outlined the second set of variables that fall under exchange theories in their interdependence theory. These variables also have been used in Rusbult’s (1980) investment model (Sprecher, 2001b). This second set includes additional variables of comparison level which is one’s general expectations about what s/he deserves and comparison level of alternatives which is expectations of rewards one could obtain from other sources. It also includes investments, defined as what a person gives to a relationship that cannot be retrieved if the relationship ended. Both equity theory and the investment model have been used as frameworks for predicting relational outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment, and stability. When viewing relational satisfaction via the investment model, the major prediction is that satisfaction increases when a person achieves more rewards and lower costs when accounting for the person’s comparison level. It is easy to see the similarities in exchange theories such as equity and interdependence theory/the investment model, but each theory maintains distinct ideas about how relationships operate and about what people ultimately regard as satisfying.

Equity is important because it affects many aspects of the relationship. Ultimately, people’s perceptions about equity and the amount of partner reciprocity involved frame people’s feelings, decisions, and actions toward their relational partners (Adams, 1965; Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994). The discovery of inequity often leads to a series of accusations and counteraccusations in which each relational partner claims to be the exploited party (DeMaris, 2010). Perceptions of relational inequity also are associated with negative relational outcomes such as distress, anger, and dissatisfaction (Hatfield et al., 2008).

Presently, equity research can be clustered into four major intellectual traditions which all examine the nature of social justice (Hatfield & Rapson, 2012). They include cultural theorists, who have attempted to find out the degree to which cultures differ in how much importance they attach to dating and marital equity (see Aumer-Ryan et al., 2007). The second group is evolutionary theorists (see Boyd et al., 2003), who contend that evolutionary processes have sculpted the body, the brain, psychological mechanisms, and behavior. The third group is neuroscientists who chart brain activity to understand the cognitive factors in moral dilemmas using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI; see Robertson et al., 2007). The final group includes primatologists (see Brosnan et al., 2005) whose social justice research may help make important links between animal concerns about fairness and human concerns about fairness (Hatfield & Rapson, 2012).

WHEN PERTAINING TO SELF ENCHANCEMENT

SNIPPET FROM THE BOOK

Chapter 7

(Social Comparison: Theory, Research, and Applications)

Jan Crusius, Katja Corcoran, and Thomas Mussweiler

Thus, social comparisons are typically portrayed as strategic processes, which are executed to satisfy certain motives or goals (Taylor et al., 1996). Specifically, social comparison is mostly understood as a purposeful psychological tool fulfilling fundamental needs like self-evaluation, self-enhancement, and self-improvement (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1990; Suls et al., 2002; J. V. Wood & Taylor, 1991). However, not all social comparisons appear to be such a deliberate and strategic process. On the contrary, as documented by a long history of experimental research on social comparisons (for a meta-analysis, see Gerber et al., 2018), comparisons can be forced upon people by the situation that they happen to be in. Furthermore, social comparisons may be conducted spontaneously and without intention (Gilbert et al., 1995; Mussweiler et al., 2004a). In this case, they might not be strategic means to fulfill a certain goal. Such spontaneous comparisons suggest additional reasons why people compare with others.

Taken together, there appear to exist several reasons why people compare themselves to others. On the one hand, people might want to satisfy important needs like self-evaluation, self-enhancement, and self-improvement (Festinger, 1954; Taylor & Lobel, 1989; Taylor et al., 1996; Wills, 1981). On the other hand, the reference to comparison standards might be necessary to communicate successfully with others (Huttenlocher & Higgins, 1971; Schwarz, 1994). Finally, social comparisons might be an efficient cognitive tool to gain self-knowledge without binding to many cognitive resources (Corcoran & Mussweiler, 2010; Mussweiler & Epstude, 2009).

Self-enhancement—the need to maintain a positive self-view—might instead lead to the selection of inferior standards. Wills (1981) postulates in his theory of downward comparisons that people seek such standard to boost their self-view with a favorable comparison. Because downward comparisons have the potential to protect or enhance one’s self-view, people with a threatened self-view should be especially prone to engage in them.

Social comparisons may provide valuable information to patients. However, they might also fulfill the need for self-enhancement. For example, in a classic study by Wood et al. (1985), the vast majority of a sample of breast cancer patients reported that they spontaneously compared downward to other cancer victims in order to cope. Independent of the severity of their condition, the women assumed that there were others who were worse off.

When Pertaining to Conformity

Chapter 2

(Toward an Affect Arousal Reactance Theory: Reactance Theory Revisited)

Derek Chadee and Mary Chadee

However, there is an inverse relationship between group attractiveness and gravitation to group position in conditions of high importance of freedom. The findings showed that a boomerang effect (i.e., reactance resistance) occurred privately and pushed behaviors toward public display of this effect in the high importance of freedom condition with pressure for conformity.

Brehm and Mann (1975) Examined the effect of group conformity pressure on public and private opinions with regard to reactance. Results displayed that if importance of freedom is relatively great to the individual, both private and public compliance decrease, as group attraction increases.

Scott and Quick (2012) Examined family communication patterns as a means of explaining how interpersonal talk influences peoples’ response to persuasive messages about organ donation using reactance theory. Family conformity orientation and family conversation orientation moderate the relationship between willingness to communicate with family about organ donation and psychological reactance.

Pertaining to Social Psychology

Chapter 1 (Theorizing Social Psychology)

Social psychology is relevant today as much as it was over a hundred years ago. But academics would argue that the impetus, and at the core, of any discipline is its theoretical foundation. The genesis to the maturity of social psychology from the early twentieth century to the second decade of the twenty-first century has seen the creation and development of numerous theories intended to conceptualize spheres of reality that were somewhat outside of the range of sociology or general psychology. Many of these theories still meaningfully contribute toward the research and theoretical expansion of the discipline.

Gordon Allport (1968) defined social psychology as “an attempt to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others.” As limited as definitions are, this definition of social psychology captured the dynamism, focus, and direction of the discipline. Important to an understanding of social psychological behavior is taking into consideration not only what is happening socially to the person but also what is occurring internally, including cognitively, to the individual, which, in turn, affects social behavior. From its genesis rooted in the work of William James’s Principles of Psychology to current development of the discipline, there has always been an emphasis on the individual within the social interaction paradigm. Theorization, therefore, in the discipline has fallen within this paradigm, which is now extended to include the neurological functioning of human beings within the social psychological context.

The early works on social psychology by the psychologist William McDougall (1908) and the sociologist Edward Ross (1908) weighted social behavior on instinctual or social factors, respectively. Later, Floyd Allport (1924) emphasized a behaviorist stimulus–response paradigm for the understanding of social psychological behavior. Theories of psychology and sociology during this early period seem to have been competing to understand a realm that had neither the theorization nor the research sophistication to claim discovery status. Much of the work undertaken in social psychology has been done within the discipline of psychology, with sociological social psychology contributions being relatively sparse. Notably, the discipline of sociology has contributed tremendously to the early development of the concept and theorization of self, especially via theories of symbolic interactionism, phenomenology, and, later, ethnomethodology. On the other hand, psychological social psychology’s contributions have been crucial to the genesis and development of both the pure and applied branches of the discipline.

Book Used

(2022). Theories in Social Psychology (2nd ed.). Wiley Global Research (STMS).  https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781119627944