Abstract
Considerable research has shown that perceptions of inequity in relationships are associated with distress and relationship dissatisfaction, thus providing support for equity theory’s predictions. The evidence, however, is based primarily on correlational data, making it difficult to determine causality. The reverse causal direction could also explain the correlational findings—dissatisfaction could lead to perceptions of inequity. This study employed experimental priming, in which participants wrote a narrative about a past situation in their relationship, either an underbenefiting situation, an overbenefiting situation, or an equity situation (randomly assigned). Participants who were primed to think about a past underbenefiting inequity reported more distress than those who were primed to think about a past overbenefiting inequity; those who were primed for equity were the least distressed. In addition, the equity/inequity prime affected participants’ score on a satisfaction scale completed in regard to their current relationship. Those who wrote about a past underbenefiting inequity reported lower relationship satisfaction than those who wrote about either an equity or an overbenefiting inequity. The results of this study suggest that making salient inequity situations from one’s relationship may have negative effects on the relationship.
In close relationships, people exchange a variety of resources, both tangible (e.g., money) and intangible (e.g., love), and often exchange one type of resource for another (Hatfield, Utne, & Traupmann, 1979). As they exchange diverse resources, partners and friends often strive to treat each other fairly by maintaining a balanced exchange of resources. At times, however, one or both partners may believe that the relationship has become imbalanced or unjust, with one partner contributing more and receiving less relative to the other. Equity theory (e.g., Hatfield & Rapson, 2012; Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994; Walster [Hatfield], Walster, & Berscheid, 1978) has been applied to understand the implications of such situations in close relationships. The theory states that perceived inequity, which refers to an imbalance in the partners’ inputs and outcomes in a relationship, creates distress for the partners, which can then adversely affect their overall relationship satisfaction. Underbenefiting inequity, which is the perception of contributing more but receiving less relative to one’s partner, is predicted to be more distressing than overbenefiting inequity, which is the perception of contributing less but receiving more relative to one’s partner (e.g., Hatfield & Rapson, 2012). The major purpose of this study was to use experimental primes, which have become popular in several areas of social psychology (e.g., Baldwin, 2007; Carnelley & Rowe, 2010), to examine whether equity/inequity has a causal effect on emotional affect and relationship satisfaction.
Correlational Evidence of the Effects of Equity/Inequity on Distress and Relationship Outcomes
Survey research conducted with dating and married individuals has provided support for predictions derived from equity theory. Individuals who report being underbenefited in their relationship experience the most distress, those who report equity experience the least distress (and the greatest contentment), and those who are overbenefited are found to be intermediate between these two groups in their emotional reactions (e.g., Guerrero, La Valley, & Farinelli, 2008; Kuijer, Buunk, Ybema, & Wobbes, 2002; Lively, Steelman, & Powell, 2010; Sprecher, 2001a). Research has also provided support for predictions that the distress experienced as a result of inequity strains the overall relationship and is associated with lower satisfaction and commitment (Sprecher, 2001a, 2001b) and the reduced likelihood of maintenance behaviors (e.g., Canary & Stafford, 1992). However, equity measured at one time has generally not been found to predict the likelihood that the relationship ends at a future time, particularly when the effects of equity are examined in multivariate analyses that include several other predictor variables (e.g., Berg & McQuinn, 1986; Felmlee, Sprecher, & Bassin, 1990; Joyner, 2009; Lujansky & Mikula, 1983).
A limitation of the literature on equity, however, is that most of the evidence in support of equity theory within the context of close relationships has come from cross-sectional studies (e.g., Guerrero et al., 2008). A few longitudinal studies (e.g., Grote & Clark, 2001) have been conducted, but taken as a collective, their results have been somewhat inconclusive. More specifically, only slight evidence has been found in longitudinal studies that perceptions of inequity measured at one time lead to a decrease in relationship quality at a later time, controlling for relationship quality at the first wave. For example, in a two-wave study conducted with a sample of mostly married individuals, Van Yperen and Buunk (1990) found that women’s perceived (global) inequity at Time 1 predicted their satisfaction at Time 2, but they did not find the same causal effect for men. In a three-wave longitudinal study of husbands and wives who were making the transition to parenthood, Grote and Clark (2001) found that inequity in division of labor at Time 2 was a predictor of an increase in conflict and a decrease in satisfaction by Time 3, although only for wives and the same effects were not found between Time 1 and Time 2. In a five-wave longitudinal study of dating couples, Sprecher (2001b) found for men only that Time 3 underbenefiting inequity predicted Time 4 satisfaction and commitment, but the same effects were not found between the other waves of the study, nor for women. Finally, in a longitudinal study of a large sample of women that focused on justice in regard to domestic work, Bodi, Mikula, and Riederer (2010) did not find any evidence, overall, that justice in household labor at one time predicted relationship satisfaction at a later time. However, among the women who experienced a decrease in the share of household labor between the waves of the study, perceived justice at Wave 1 was associated with Wave 2 relationship satisfaction.
Equity and Specific Emotions
Past empirical and theoretical work has considered not only the association between equity and a general measure of distress or relationship satisfaction but also how the association may depend on the specific emotional reaction. Equity theorists (e.g., Hatfield et al., 1979; Homans, 1974) have argued that guilt and anger are two emotions commonly experienced in response to inequity, with guilt the consequence of overbenefiting inequity and anger the consequence of underbenefiting inequity. Consistent support has been found that these specific emotions are experienced in response to underbenefiting versus overbenefiting inequity. However, both quantitative (e.g., Sprecher, 1986) and qualitative (e.g., Hochschild, 1989) research has also indicated that a variety of additional emotions are experienced in response to inequity. For example, Sprecher (1986) found that underbenefiting inequity was associated with anger, hate, resentment, hurt, frustration, and depression.
Does Equity/Inequity Have a Causal Effect? Experimental Evidence
As noted above, most of the evidence for the association between perceived inequity and distress (and relationship dissatisfaction) comes from cross-sectional studies, which do not permit conclusions about causal effects. Furthermore, the longitudinal research has been inconclusive, finding different effects even within the same study. The ideal method for determining causal relationships is the experimental design. Some studies, including the early studies that tested principles from equity theory, were experimental and investigated how people responded to underbenefiting and overbenefiting inequity situations (e.g., Austin & Walster [Hatfield], 1974). In general, the experimental research demonstrates causal support for equity theory predictions, that is, people became more distressed or reported that they would be more distressed in response to inequity situations than to equity situations. However, such experimental research was conducted almost exclusively in nonrelational contexts. For example, participants were inequitably treated by a stranger or confederate in the context of an experimental session (Austin & Walster [Hatfield], 1974; Study 2, Brebels, De Cremer, Sedikides, & Van Hiel, 2013; Walker, Latour, Lind, & Thibaut, 1974) or reacted to vignettes that described inequity situations between strangers (e.g., Hegtvedt, 1990).
In one exception, which involved a hypothetical relationship context, Sprecher (1992) asked participants to imagine themselves in a long-term relationship in which the exchange had become unbalanced; the manipulation was whether they thought of themselves as the underbenefited partner or the overbenefited partner. Participants expected to experience more distress to underbenefiting inequity than to overbenefiting inequity; furthermore, women reported more distress than men to underbenefiting inequity. In another exception, Kuijer, Buunk, and Ybema (2001) found that couples who were asked to read an interview about a hypothetical couple who was facing cancer expected the couple would experience more negative affect (i.e., guilt) when there was not an equal give-and-take of support and help versus when there was. However, past vignette-based research has been limited to a focus on manipulated hypothetical situations.
Purposes of This Study
In this study, participants were asked to engage in a writing task that primed the recall of one of the states of equity/inequity (underbenefiting inequity, overbenefiting inequity, or equity) in their own relationship or friendship. Although an actual situation of equity or inequity cannot be practically or ethically manipulated in real relationships, asking people to recall and write about a past situation, and manipulating the situation that they are asked to recall, incorporates the elegance of the experimental design. On completion of the writing task that constituted the experimental prime, the participants in this study responded to a set of items about the emotions (e.g., anger, guilt, happiness) that were elicited based on the situation. In a later section of the survey, participants completed a relationship satisfaction scale that asked about their current relationship satisfaction.
To examine evidence of a causal effect of the equity prime on distress, I first compare the three primed equity groups on overall distress (i.e., a composite of emotional reactions) reported to be experienced in response to recalling the particular equity situation. Consistent with equity theory (e.g., Walster [Hatfield] et al., 1978), I hypothesize that those who write a narrative about an equity will report less distress (i.e., more positive affect and less negative affect) relative to those who write about either an underbenefiting inequity or an overbenefiting inequity (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, I hypothesize (Hypothesis 2) that those who write about an underbenefiting inequity will report more distress in comparison to those who write about an overbenefiting inequity. I also compare the three equity-primed groups on the specific emotions that they report experiencing (Research Question 1). For example, consistent with equity theory (Walster [Hatfield] et al., 1978) and past research (e.g., Sprecher, 1986), anger will likely be the primary emotion experienced in response to underbenefiting inequity, whereas guilt will likely be the primary emotion experienced in response to overbenefiting inequity.
Second, I consider the possible causal role of the salience of equity/inequity on current relationship satisfaction. If equity has a causal role in contributing to relationship satisfaction, writing about a past inequity in one’s relationship should result in lower scores on a measure of current satisfaction than writing about an equity (Hypothesis 3); furthermore, writing about an underbenefiting inequity should lead to lower satisfaction scores than writing about an overbenefiting inequity (Hypothesis 4).
In examining the differences across the primed conditions, I consider whether relationship type (romantic vs. friendship) may moderate the effect of inequity on distress and relationship satisfaction. In general, past research on equity in close relationships has focused on romantic (dating or marital) relationships. Although some past research has shown that equity also plays a role in friendships (Mendelson & Kay, 2003; Messman, Canary, & Hause, 2000; Westerman, Park, & Lee, 2007), no research has compared the effects of equity in romantic versus friendship relationships. I also consider whether gender moderates the effect of equity on distress and relationship satisfaction. Some past research has found that women are more affected by inequities in their relationship than men (e.g., Baxter, 1986; Buunk & Van Yperen, 1991; DeMaris, 2007; Mikula, Riederer, & Bodi, 2012), although this has not been consistently found (e.g., Lively et al., 2010).
Method
Sample and Procedure
The sample for the analyses in this study (obtained from a larger sample) consisted of 297 students from a U.S. Midwestern University who completed the survey as an in-class activity, in several classroom settings, under anonymous and voluntary conditions. One hundred and four (35.0%) were males and 193 (65.0%) were females. The mean age of the participants was 21.25 (SD = 3.11). Of the total sample, 232 (78.1%) were White, 36 (12.1%) were Black, 20 (6.7%) were Hispanic/Latino, 4 (1.3%) were Asian, and 5 (1.7%) indicated “other” for their race.
In the directions to the survey, participants were told that if they were in a current dating, romantic, or marital relationship, they should think of that relationship as they answered the survey questions, but if they were not currently in such a relationship, they should think of a very close friend or best friend. One hundred and ninety (64.0%) completed the survey in regard to a romantic relationship and 107 (36.0%) completed the survey in regard to a friendship. The median length of the relationships was 30 months, although the friendships had a longer length than the romantic relationships (60median months vs. 24median months).
The Priming Manipulation
Participants were randomly assigned to describe one of several possible situations in their relationship/friendship. (Three of the situations are not a focus of this study; therefore, only the participants who were randomly assigned to write about an underbenefiting inequity, an overbenefiting inequity, or an equity situation were included in the analyses.) Below is a description of the underbenefiting inequity prime:
Please describe a time in your relationship (or friendship) in which you believe that you were exceptionally underbenefited in the relationship (or friendship). That is, you were contributing more and receiving less, relative to your partner/friend. This state of inequity may have lasted for days or weeks or longer, or it may have occurred in just one situation. Describe the experience (or situation) in as much detail as possible, including when this was in your relationship/friendship, what made you aware of the exceptional inequity, how you and your partner/friend behaved, and any emotions you, your partner/friend, or others felt as a consequence.
The overbenefiting prime directed the participants to think of a time when they believed they were exceptionally overbenefited in the relationship (or friendship) and that they were contributing less and receiving more relative to their partner/friend. The equity prime asked them to think of a time in their relationship (or friendship) during which they believed that the relationship/friendship was exceptionally equitable or fair, and they were both contributing and receiving to an equal proportion.
The participants were then given the remainder of the page to write their narrative, and were told that they could use the back of the page as well. Consistent with prior priming studies that involve the task of writing a narrative about a past situation (e.g., Morry, 2005), some participants chose not to write a narrative or did not follow their particular assigned directions. Therefore, each narrative was read by a minimum of two research assistants who judged whether the participants had written a narrative consistent with their assigned directions. Those participants who did not write anything or did not follow directions were not included in the analyses. Dropped from these analyses were 53 participants. Therefore, the sample was N = 297, as noted above (the original subsample assigned to the three equity conditions was N = 350). The number of participants in each condition after the eliminations was underbenefiting inequity (n = 96), overbenefiting inequity (n = 91), and equity (n = 110). 1
Emotional Responses to the Narrative
After the participants wrote a narrative, they were asked, “As you think about the situation above, how does this make you feel? To what degree do you feel the following emotions?” Four negative emotions (anger, guilt, frustration, and depression) and two positive emotions (happiness and satisfaction) were listed. These emotions have been frequently measured in prior equity research that has examined the impact of equity on distress (Sprecher, 2001a). Participants responded to each item on a 1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal response scale. An exploratory factor analysis yielded only one factor, with the four negative emotions loading positively and the two positive emotions loading negatively. A total distress index was created by first reverse scoring responses to the positive emotions and then calculating the mean response to the six emotions. The higher the score, the more distress that the participants experienced as a result of recalling the particular situation to which they were assigned. Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for the total distress index. The scores ranged from 1 to 4.5, and the mean was 2.27 (SD = 1.02).
Relationship Satisfaction
Five items from Rusbult’s (e.g., Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998) global items of satisfaction were used to measure current relationship satisfaction (e.g., “I am very satisfied with my relationship/friendship,” “My relationship/friendship is close to ideal”). Each item was followed by a 7-point response scale, anchored by 1 = do not agree at all; 4 = agree somewhat; and 7 = agree completely. In addition, three items adapted from Rusbult et al.’s (1998) commitment scale were included (e.g., “I am committed to maintaining my relationship/friendship”). The directions to this section stated “Please respond to the following items in terms of how you feel about your partner/friend, at this time, today.” Because a factor analysis of the five satisfaction items and the three commitment items yielded only one factor, the eight items were combined in a composite represented by the mean of the items, and will be referred to as relationship satisfaction in this study. Cronbach’s alpha was .93. The scores ranged from 1.63 to 7.00, with a scale mean of 5.79 (SD = 1.25).
Results
Effects of Primed Equity Versus Inequity on Emotional Reactions: Tests of Hypotheses 1 and 2 and Research Question 1
Hypothesis 1 predicted that participants who were experimentally primed to write about an inequity will experience greater overall distress than participants who were experimentally primed to write about an equity. To test this hypothesis, and also to examine whether gender and relationship type moderated the effects of equity/inequity on distress, a 3 (version of equity prime) × 2 (type of relationship) × 2 (gender of participant) analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the distress index as the dependent variable, was conducted. A highly significant main effect for version was found, F(2, 282) = 83.43, p < .001; partial η2 = .372. Main and interaction effects involving relationship type and gender were not significant. A follow-up one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni comparisons indicated that both of the inequity primed groups reported significantly more distress than the equity primed group (see row 1 of Table 1), and in support of Hypothesis 2, the underbenefiting inequity primed group reported more distress than the overbenefiting inequity primed group.
Overall Distress and Specific Emotions Experienced as a Result of Being Primed for Either.
Note. The overall F from a one-way analysis of variance was significant for each analysis (p < .001). Identical superscripts in each row indicate a significant difference based on Bonferroni tests. The exact N size for each condition varied somewhat based on missing data.
I also examined differences among the three equity primed groups on specific emotional reactions (Research Question 1). A one-way ANOVA indicated significant (p < .001) differences among the three groups for all six specific emotions (see Table 1). The underbenefiting inequity group experienced the greatest levels of anger and frustration, whereas the equity group experienced the lowest level. Happiness and satisfaction were experienced to the greatest degree by the equity group and to the least degree by the underbenefiting inequity group; the overbenefiting inequity group was intermediate. Also, consistent with equity theory, the overbenefiting inequity group experienced the greatest degree of guilt, whereas the lowest degree of guilt was experienced by the equity group. However, the equity group was significantly different only from the overbenefited inequity group. Both of the inequity groups experienced more depression than the equity group, but the two inequity groups did not differ from each other on this emotion.
In sum, the results indicated that the process of being primed about different equity situations generated emotional reactions consistent with equity theory’s predictions. The participants primed for inequity experienced more overall distress, and specifically more anger and frustration and less positive affect, than did the participants primed for equity.
Effects of Primed Equity Versus Inequity on Relationship Satisfaction: Tests of Hypotheses 3 and 4
As reported above, the participants reported a pattern of emotional reactions in response to the equity primes consistent with predictions of equity theory; however, the next test of equity theory’s prediction of the causal effect of equity on relationship outcomes was to examine whether the experimental prime of equity/inequity affected scores on a current relationship satisfaction scale. The predictions were that writing about an equity situation would result in higher scores on current relationship satisfaction than writing about either type of inequity (Hypothesis 3), and that writing about an underbenefiting inequity would result in a lower satisfaction score than writing about an overbenefiting inequity (Hypothesis 4). To test these predictions, a 3 (version of equity prime) × 2 (type of relationship) × 2 (gender of participant) ANOVA was conducted, with relationship satisfaction as the dependent variable. The main effect for the equity prime was significant, F(2, 284) = 3.70, p < .05, partial η2 = .025. The equity primed group had the highest mean (M = 6.00, SD = 1.07), followed by the overbenefiting inequity primed group (M = 5.72, SD = 1.30), and then the underbenefiting inequity primed group (M = 5.61, SD = 1.37). A follow-up Bonferroni test indicated that there was a near-significant (p < .07) difference between the underbenefiting group and the equity group. Relationship type and gender of participant did not moderate the effect (i.e., there were no significant interaction effects). In addition, the main effect of relationship type was not significant, although the main effect of gender was significant, F(1, 284) = 4.75, p < .05, partial η2 = .016. Women scored higher on relationship satisfaction (M = 5.88, SD = 1.19) than did men (M = 5.61, SD = 1.34).
In sum, the results testing the effect of primed equity versus inequity on relationship satisfaction provided support for the causal role predicted by equity theory that (in)equity affects (dis)satisfaction. The results did not, however, support the hypothesis that underbenefiting inequity would be more detrimental to relationship satisfaction than would overbenefiting inequity.
Discussion
Considerable prior correlational research has indicated support for equity theory’s (Walster [Hatfield] et al., 1978) predictions that inequity is associated with feeling distress and having lower relationship satisfaction. However, most of the prior studies have been nonexperimental, as discussed above. Correlational research does not indicate whether equity/inequity has a causal effect on relationship distress and relationship satisfaction. The findings from earlier studies could also be explained by the reverse causal direction—distress and feeling dissatisfied may lead to perceptions of inequity (Grote & Clark, 2001; Sprecher, 2001b). The unique contribution of the present study to the equity literature was that an experimental priming paradigm was used in a relationship context, in which participants recalled and described a past relationship event, with the particular event recalled randomly assigned. Although the priming paradigm has become popular in several areas of social psychology (e.g., Carnelley & Rowe, 2010), this was the first study, to my knowledge, that incorporated an experimental prime to examine the causal effect of equity/inequity on distress and relationship outcomes (e.g., satisfaction). The findings demonstrated that participants who wrote about a past equity or inequity situation in their relationship had emotional reactions to that situation that corresponded with predictions from equity theory (Hatfield et al., 1979; Hatfield & Rapson, 2012; Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994). More specifically, the participants who wrote about an underbenefiting inequity situation reported the greatest distress, and particularly more anger and frustration and less satisfaction and happiness. The group assigned to write about an equity situation experienced the least distress; and those who wrote about an overbenefiting inequity were intermediate. The one emotion experienced to a greater degree by the overbenefiting inequity group than by the other two groups was guilt, which is also consistent with equity theory.
Although it is perhaps not surprising that the participants who were primed for an underbenefiting or an overbenefiting inequity situation reported more negative emotions than those who had been primed for an equity situation, the major purpose of this study was to examine whether the priming manipulation would affect how the participants responded to a general relationship satisfaction scale. That is, does priming an inequity, by asking people to recall and write about a past inequity situation in their relationship, lead them to report less current satisfaction, relative to priming them about an equity situation? The results provided some support for this prediction. Scores on the satisfaction scale were lower for those who wrote about an inequity relative to those who wrote about an equity. Those who wrote about an underbenefiting inequity situation did not have significantly lower satisfaction scores than those who wrote about an overbenefiting inequity situation, however. Overall, the results support the causal direction between inequity and relationship satisfaction predicted by equity theory (Walster [Hatfield] et al., 1978).
Inequity situations are inevitable in long-term relationships. This study suggests that when such situations occur, negative emotions are experienced and can even be experienced again later when the situation is recalled and made salient. Furthermore, the salience of the inequity may, at least temporarily, reduce relationship satisfaction. These results are also consistent with other research, which indicates that a focus on exchange issues (i.e., keeping track of exchanges in the relationship) is associated with a reduction of satisfaction (e.g., Clark, Lemay, Graham, Pataki, & Finkel, 2010; Murstein & MacDonald, 1983).
Strengths and Weaknesses
The strength of this study is that it is the first study that primed a past equity/inequity situation in close relationships to examine the effect of the recall of a specific equity situation on distress and satisfaction. Primes (such as writing a particular narrative) allow the examination of causal effects for relationship phenomena that typically cannot be manipulated. The particular type of priming used in this study is referred to as a supraliminal priming (Carnelley & Rowe, 2010); it is explicit and requires people to recall specific past experiences. (The other type is subliminal and involves priming participants with words, objects, or phrases outside of their conscious awareness.) Because the priming was done through a narrative account of an actual past situation in an ongoing relationship, this study contributes to the equity literature by examining whether distress is experienced as a result of a specific inequity situation, or at least the recall of that situation. Prior research has generally tested predictions from equity theory with measures of equity and emotions assessed over the entire relationship or for a specified period of time (e.g., the past month). This study focused on the effects of a specific situation of equity/inequity in a relationship.
The priming aspect of the study, however, also has limitations. First, priming a situation is not the same as having the situation be experienced anew. If it were possible and ethical to manipulate an actual inequity situation in couples or friendship pairs, the experience might be more salient and engaging than simply writing about a past situation. A second limitation is that not all of the participants followed the directions and wrote an appropriate narrative. This limitation is not unique to this priming study (see, e.g., Morry, 2005). Although there were no differences found between those who wrote a narrative as directed and those who did not, on relationship satisfaction, length of relationship, and type of relationship (friendship vs. romantic relationship), nonetheless it is unknown why some participants chose not to write a narrative and whether their exclusion from the priming analyses may have biased the results in some unknown way (see Sakaluk, 2014).
I encourage future research that experimentally examines how equity/inequity affects relationships outcomes, including in research conducted with community samples of married participants, who are likely to have a greater variety of experiences to recall through a priming paradigm. Furthermore, I encourage research that examines, through an experimental paradigm, whether satisfaction and dissatisfaction in relationships lead to differential perceptions of equity/inequity. Although all of the participants in this study were responding about an existing romantic relationship or friendship, many relationships may not survive periods of inequity. Therefore, we need more research that understands how people react to inequities in their relationships and also what factors may buffer the negative consequences of inequity.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.