Psychology
Equity Theory
Equity Theory is a psychological concept that focuses on the idea of fairness in social exchanges. It suggests that individuals strive to maintain a balance between their inputs (effort, contributions) and outcomes (rewards, benefits) in comparison to others. When perceived inequity occurs, individuals may experience distress and seek to restore fairness in their relationships or situations.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
9 Key excerpts on "Equity Theory"
- (Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Cuvillier Verlag(Publisher)
1.1.2. Equity Theory The Equity Theory (ET) was initially introduced by Adams (1965) and included four propositions referring to the mechanisms by which individuals evaluate their relationships. 'LHVHV :HUN LVW FRSULJKWJHVFKW]W XQG GDUI LQ NHLQHU )RUP YHUYLHOIlOWLJW ZHUGHQ QRFK DQ 'ULWWH ZHLWHUJHJHEHQ ZHUGHQ (V JLOW QXU IU GHQ SHUV|QOLFKHQ *HEUDXFK 6 First, individuals estimate their own inputs and outcomes within a relationship and compare them (by means of a SC) to the inputs and outcomes of their partner. Second, if the two ratios are perceived as not being in equilibrium, inequity occurs. Third, inequity induces tension and distress, proportionally to its magnitude. Finally, individuals try to reduce the stress and restore equity through various strategies, e.g. through a cognitive distortion of their own or their partner’s inputs/outputs, through efforts to change their own or their partner’s inputs/outputs, through replacing the comparison target or through dissolving the relationship. In other words, “Equity refers to the perceived balance in the partner’s contributions and outcomes” (Sprecher, 2001, p. 599) . In their attempt to categorize the exchanged resources (inputs and outputs) in a relationship, Rohmann and Bierhoff (2007) distinguished between partner-related and person-related re-sources. The former category includes inputs which are directed towards the partner, such as love, attention, tenderness, support, contributions to housework, childcare, paid work or social life. By contrast, person-related inputs refer to self-related personal characteristics, which are self-profitable in the first instance; namely attractiveness, social and interpersonal skills, intelligence, specific talents or social status. Thus, each partner brings particular unique capabilities into the relationship. Another conceptual differentiation has been made between over-benefiting and under-benefi-ting inequity (Donaghue & Fallon, 2003) .
eBook - PDFTheories of Intergroup Relations
International Social Psychological Perspectives
- Fathali M. Moghaddam, Donald M. Taylor(Authors)
- 1994(Publication Date)
- Praeger(Publisher)
Further, the focus on apparently calculable inputs and outcomes is consistent with the mechanistic view of human behavior often associated with behaviorist thinking. The idea that inequity is associated with psychological distress grows directly out of principles such as cognitive dissonance. Festinger (1957) conceived of dissonance as psychological distress that resulted from an incompatibility of cognitions, attitudes, or behaviors within the individual. Equity Theory 103 With equity the distress still lies within the person but arises out of dissonance in resource distribution between people. The fact that Equity Theory is rooted in principles that have already enjoyed a lengthy tradition in psychology no doubt partly explains its pervasive influence in main- stream social psychology. Having presented Equity Theory in summary form, we are now ready to formulate some of the interesting hypotheses that bear directly on intergroup relations. From Equity Theory it can be hypothesized that a group that receives less than it feels it deserves will experience distress— hardly a novel prediction. Of greater interest is the prediction that an overbenefited group will feel psychological distress and be motivated to restore equity. A number of experiments lend credence to this hypothesis (such as Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962). Prototypic of such experiments is one by Austin and Walster (1974). Their experiment addressed two important hypotheses relevant to the present context. First, it was hy- pothesized that persons who are given an equitable reward will be less distressed than persons who receive an inequitable reward (that is, persons who are either underrewarded or overrewarded). A second interesting hypothesis was that when persons are treated inequitably, they will experience less distress if they expected overreward or under- reward than if they did not.
eBook - PDFDisenchantment
Managing Motivation and Demotivation at Work
- Adrian Furnham, Luke Treglown(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Bloomsbury Business(Publisher)
A person’s sense of justice and fairness is based primarily on comparisons. It is less about how much people earn absolutely than how much they earn comparatively that determines their pay satisfaction. Hence issues with pay secrecy (see below). People who work together know better than anyone else their relative contributions to effort and outcome. Some people always ‘pitch up and pitch in’; others are much less happy to pull their own weight. The sense of a fair wage for a fair day’s work is very comparative. Equity Theory Equity Theory views motivation from the perspective of the comparisons people make among themselves. It proposes that employees are motivated to maintain fair, or ‘equitable’, relationships among themselves and to change those relationships that are unfair or ‘inequitable’. A SENSE OF FAIRNESS: PERCEIVED EQUITY AND INEQUITY 127 Equity is not the same as equality . People assume equal opportunity but differences in effort and ability. This is not an argument against equal pay for equal work, but rather the extent to which people really work equally hard. It has been argued and demonstrated that the top 10 per cent of workers in any group typically produce two- to four-times the output of the bottom 10 per cent. The question is whether to reward them equally or equitably in terms of their output. Equity Theory is concerned with people’s motivation to escape the negative feelings that result from being, or feeling that they are, treated unfairly. They engage in a continual process of social comparison . Equity Theory suggests that people make social comparisons between themselves and others with respect to two variables – outcomes (benefits, rewards) and inputs (effort, ability): 1 Outcomes refer to the things workers believe they and others get out of their jobs, including pay, fringe benefits or prestige. Some are more easy to compare than others: pay is, of course, the easiest.
eBook - ePub- Russell Cropanzano, Jordan H. Stein, Thierry Nadisic(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
2 are their respective inputs. In good Aristotelian fashion, each person gets what they are entitled to when two ratios agree. A noteworthy feature of Equity Theory is that outcomes are not evaluated in isolation. They are understood via a social comparison process (Austin, 1977). Objective identical results could be more or less fair depending upon the standard of comparison (Ambrose, Harland, & Kulik, 1991; Kulik & Ambrose, 1992).Equity Theory is a quintessentially “hot” model of human behavior; affective states serve an important mediating mechanism. An imbalance in the ratios triggers an unpleasant physical state. Walster, Berscheid, and Walster (1973, p. 153) explained as follows: “When individuals find themselves participating inequitable relationships, they become distressed. The more inequitable the relationship, the more distress individuals feel.” There is even evidence that inequity produces measurable physical activation. Markovsky (1988) took physiological assessments of laboratory subjects who either had or had not been rewarded fairly. When these groups were compared, Markovsky found that inequity produced an elevated galvanic skin response (GSR), indicative of somatic arousal. However, contrary to Markovsky’s predictions, the two groups showed no differences in heart rate.In any case, the affect that occurs when an inequity is experienced is presumed to be unpleasant. Since the feeling is distasteful, individuals are motivated to reduce it. As Mowday and Colwell put it (2003, p. 68): “Inequitable treatment causes tension or distress, and people are motivated to do something about it.” The unpleasant tension is reduced by restoring equality to the ratios. This can be accomplished by acting on any of the terms in the equation, and the responses can be behavioral or cognitive. This leads to a number of predictions. The most obvious finding has to do with under
eBook - PDF- Karen A. Hegtvedt, Jody Clay-Warner, Karen A. Hegtvedt, Jody Clay-Warner(Authors)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- Emerald Group Publishing Limited(Publisher)
Although some family scholars use Equity Theory as a starting point, more often than not the theory is relegated to a minor role or is all but ignored. Even those scholars who use Equity Theory as part of their theoretical frame too often ignore basic insights – for example, that overbenefiting also matters to emotional well-being. This oversight ultimately disadvantages family scholars’ analytic goals, which presumably include a desire to better understand how social processes (of which inequity is but one) operate within family life. By the same token, that family scholars do not rely on social psychological principles to the degree that we would prefer speaks not only to their seeming inattention to the work of social psychologists, but also to social psychologists’ failure to build bridges beyond what may be perceived by others as an increasingly insular community. These issues are not new. Over a decade has passed since we pointed to ‘‘an invisible wall’’ that separates social psychological research from research on the family ( Steelman & Powell, 1996 ). Since then, some cracks Inequity among Intimates 109 have appeared, particularly as family scholars interested in the division of household labor have paid increasing attention to social psychological principles of equity. These studies, granted, have focused only on the more rudimentary principles of Equity Theory; nonetheless they add to earlier cross-fertilizations, including inquiries into dating, mate selection, and marriage that have drawn heavily from social psychological-based studies of exchange. Despite these advances the potential for more discussion – and collaboration – between the two fields abounds. NOTES 1. We realize that the question of self-report data is an important one. See Simon and Nath (2004) for a detailed discussion of self-report data and social desirability within the GSS emotions module.
- Phil Gorman(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Individuals who want to have an unfair balance of inputs and outcomes in a relationship in their own favour. Equality The balance between what you put in and get out being exactly the same, rather than just fairly distributed, which is equity. Equity sensitive Individuals who want to have a fair balance of inputs and outcomes in their relationship. Equity Theory A theory of relationships that suggests that fairness is important for a satisfying relationship. Gender-role self-stereotyping Your own beliefs about your gender role conform to the traditional/common beliefs about it. Individualistic cultures Societies that are based on individual achievement and personal gain. Inequity What is put in and taken out by each partner isn’t fairly distributed. Inputs and outcomes The balance between how much you give to a relationship compared to how much you get out. Over-benefitting Getting significantly more out of a relationship than you put in. Priming A technique used in some experiments to provide people with a stimulus that gets them thinking about a particular topic, which they can then be tested on. Retrospective data Information that has been gathered about events that happened at some time in the past and may be difficult to accurately recall now. Social exchange theory A theory that suggests that people in a relationship attempt to minimise costs and maximise benefits. Under-benefitting Getting significantly less out of a relationship than you put in.Plenary: Exam-style questions and answers with advisory comments
Question 1.Explain what is meant by the term equity in relation to romantic relationships?[2 marks]Marks for this question: AO1 = 2Advice: In a question like this, it’s important to make sure you are making it clear how this relates to psychology, so it will probably require an example. There is no need to provide any analysis or evaluation as both marks are for AO1: Knowledge and understanding.
eBook - PDF- Paul A M Van Lange, Arie W Kruglanski, E Tory Higgins, Paul A M Van Lange, Arie W Kruglanski, E Tory Higgins, Author(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications Ltd(Publisher)
Equity Theory IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 211 conducted by scholars such as Rob Boyd (Boyd et al., 2003). They provide strong sup-port for the notion in Proposition II that groups will reward those who treat others fairly and punish those who do not, even at considerable cost to themselves. Later in this chapter, we will discuss some of the evidence from neuroscientists and primatologists rele-vant to their observations. Equity: fMRI research In recent years, neuroscientists have begun to investigate the cognitive factors (and brain processes) that are involved when men and women confront moral dilemmas. These concern such things as the nature of social justice and how a variety of competing moral claims – such as, “What’s more important: the claims of friendship or the demands of fairness and equity in a social exchange?” – are resolved. Robertson and her colleagues (2007), for example, presented men and women with several real-life moral dilem-mas. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques, they studied people’s brain activity as they pondered such dilemmas. The neuroscientists found that sensitivity to moral issues (in general) was associated with activation of the polar medial prefrontal cortex, dorsal posterior cingulated cortex, and posterior superior temporal sulcus (STS). They speculated that moral sensitivity is probably related to people’s ability to retrieve autobiographical memories and to take a social perspective. They also assessed whether sensitivity to social concerns as dis-tinguished from impartial justice involved different kinds of neural processing. They found that sensitivity to issues of justice (and social exchange) was associated with greater activation of the left intraparietal sulcus, whereas sensitivity to care issues was associ-ated with greater activation of the ventral posterior cingulate cortex, ventromedial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and the thala-mus.
- Robert G. Folger, Russell Cropanzano(Authors)
- 1998(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications, Inc(Publisher)
It was more than anyone else my age I knew made. Ha! I was rich. I loved my employer. My employer loved me. I was happy. Then the meeting ended. And I thought again . . . I decided, in the end, I had been taken for a ride, a view I still think is strictly correct, (pp. 201-203) We will use Adams's (1965) theory of inequity to explore both Lewis's initial and later reactions to his pay. Some Basics of InEquity Theory Adams (1965) couched his theory of inequity in the broader context of social exchange—that is, two-way transactions in which each side provides something to the other and, therefore, also receives something in return. Employees, for example, have an exchange relationship with employers. Em-ployees expend time and effort in working for employers; in the language of Equity and Distributive Justice as Outcome Fairness 3 equity, those are some of the contributions that employees make as their inputs to the exchange. In return, employers provide wages and other forms of compensation as some of the outcomes employees receive for working. Adams wanted to understand (a) when and why such exchanges might seem fair or unfair to employees (the antecedents of perceived inequity) a n d (b) what employees w h o felt unfairly treated might do (the consequences of perceived inequity). Antecedents of Perceived Inequity Discussion of inequity's antecedents calls for a slightly enlarged description of inputs. Despite sexist language, Adams's (1965) description still serves well: On the man's side of the exchange are his education, intelligence, experience, training, skill, seniority, age, sex, ethnic background, social status, and, of course, the effort he expends on the job. Under special circumstances other attributes will be relevant. These may be personal appearance or attractiveness, health, possession of certain tools, the characteristics of one's spouse, and so on.
eBook - PDF- Richard Ned Lebow(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
It shows what might happen, not what will happen. Most research ignores the interactional process and consequences of exchange relationships. Rather, it somewhat artificially explores what appears to go on in the heads of isolated indi- viduals. There is usually no communication, bargaining, or structuring of their relationship by those involved in exchanges or distributions. Many studies make arbitrary and questionable motivational assumptions. They assume, as noted, that people are selfish utility maximizers. They discount or entirely ignore as motives, not only justice, but other rewards, including those associated with maintaining good relationships. Many also make standard and questionable cognitive assumptions by treating individuals as fully rational in their information processing and decision making. 94 More fundamentally, researchers are often not at all clear in what they mean by justice. 95 They have not carefully parsed either equality or fairness; most assume they have obvious meanings. As frequently noted, I contend that equity and equality can each take two forms. Equity can mean the most to those who contribute the most, or to those who need it the most. Equality can also mean an equal distribution of what is at stake, or equal opportunity to compete for it. All the studies use only the first meaning of these concepts. I have not encountered research that The United States: Fairness vs. Equality 232 232 allows participants to define their own approaches or rules of distribu- tive justice. Of equal concern, the principles of equality and fairness have wider applications than the distribution of monetary rewards, which is what almost all studies focus on. I am interested in fairness and equality in the context of American society because I believe there are sharp differences within the population in preferences for these principles of justice and also of understandings of them.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
