Equity theory | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 5
- 18 min read
Updated: 6 days ago
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
Equity theory explains relationship satisfaction in terms of fairness between partners. These Equity theory A-Level Psychology revision notes explore how people compare their contributions and outcomes with those of their partner, why equity is not the same as equality, and how perceived unfairness may affect a relationship. You will also compare equity theory with the rewards-and-costs approach and consider why fairness may explain relationship satisfaction more effectively than personal profit alone. Equity theory is one of the romantic relationship theories named in the AQA specification.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define equity theory as an explanation of romantic relationships.
Explain how partners compare their contributions and outcomes.
Distinguish equity from equality.
Explain under-benefiting and over-benefiting.
Apply equity theory to unfamiliar relationship scenarios.
Compare equity theory with social exchange theory.
Revision Notes 📚
Equity theory A-Level Psychology revision overview
Equity theory proposes that relationship satisfaction depends on whether the relationship is perceived as fair.
Partners consider:
What each person contributes to the relationship.
What each person receives from the relationship.
Whether the balance between contributions and outcomes is fair for both partners.
A relationship is equitable when each partner’s outcomes are proportionate to their contributions.
This does not mean that both partners must:
Perform exactly the same tasks.
Contribute the same amount of money.
Spend identical amounts of time on the relationship.
Receive precisely the same rewards.
Instead, the overall balance must feel fair.
The AQA mark scheme describes an equitable relationship as one in which neither partner over-benefits nor under-benefits and there is a fair balance between costs and rewards.
Contributions within a relationship
Contributions, sometimes described as inputs, are the resources a person puts into a relationship.
Possible contributions include:
Time.
Emotional support.
Affection.
Effort.
Money.
Practical work.
Household responsibilities.
Compromise.
Care during difficult periods.
Organising shared activities.
Contributions do not need to be material.
For example, one partner may contribute financially while the other contributes more time to practical responsibilities or emotional support.
The theory does not assume that every contribution has the same value. Partners may judge the importance of contributions differently.
Outcomes within a relationship
Outcomes are the benefits or rewards that a person receives from the relationship, considered alongside any associated costs.
Possible outcomes include:
Companionship.
Affection.
Emotional security.
Practical support.
Shared experiences.
Financial security.
Social approval.
Intimacy.
Feeling respected or valued.
Possible costs include:
Stress.
Arguments.
Lost opportunities.
Time demands.
Financial expense.
Reduced independence.
Equity theory considers whether the outcomes received by each partner are fair in relation to what each person contributes.
The equity principle
The central idea can be represented conceptually as:
Partner A’s outcomesPartner A’s contributions≈Partner B’s outcomesPartner B’s contributions\frac{\text{Partner A's outcomes}}{\text{Partner A's contributions}} \approx \frac{\text{Partner B's outcomes}}{\text{Partner B's contributions}}Partner A’s contributionsPartner A’s outcomes≈Partner B’s contributionsPartner B’s outcomes
The relationship is equitable when the partners’ outcome-to-contribution ratios are reasonably similar.
The symbol ≈\approx≈ means approximately equal. Equity theory does not require partners to calculate precise numerical scores during everyday life.
The equation represents a perceived comparison:
“Are the benefits I receive fair when compared with what I contribute, and is the same broadly true for my partner?”
A worked example of equity
Suppose Partner A’s outcomes are represented by a score of 121212, while their contributions are represented by a score of 666.
126=2\frac{12}{6} = 2612=2
Partner B’s outcomes are represented by a score of 888, while their contributions are represented by a score of 444.
84=2\frac{8}{4} = 248=2
The absolute amounts are different:
Partner A contributes more and receives more.
Partner B contributes less and receives less.
However, their ratios are the same.
2=22 = 22=2
The relationship would therefore be equitable according to the simplified example.
📌 Important: These numbers illustrate proportional fairness. AQA does not expect students to reduce real relationships to exact numerical calculations.
Equity is based on proportional fairness
Equity theory predicts that fairness is based on the relationship between contributions and outcomes.
Consider two partners:
Jamie works longer hours and contributes more money.
Morgan completes more household responsibilities and provides substantial emotional support.
Their contributions are different, but the relationship may still feel fair if both partners believe that the overall balance reflects what each contributes.
Equity is therefore about proportionality, not identical behaviour.
Equity and equality are not the same
Equality means that partners contribute or receive the same amount.
Equity means that each partner’s outcomes are fair in relation to their contributions.
Equality | Equity |
Focuses on identical amounts | Focuses on proportional fairness |
Each partner may contribute the same | Partners may contribute different things |
Each partner may receive the same | Outcomes reflect relative contributions |
Can exist without being fair | Can be fair without being identical |
An equitable but unequal relationship
Consider this example:
One partner works full time and contributes most of the household income. The other works fewer paid hours but completes more domestic tasks and provides childcare.
Their contributions are not equal because they contribute in different ways.
However, the relationship may be equitable if both partners believe:
Their contributions are valued.
Their rewards are fair.
Neither is being exploited.
The overall arrangement benefits both partners proportionately.
The relationship can therefore be unequal but equitable.
An equal but inequitable relationship
Now consider two partners who receive exactly the same financial and practical benefits.
However:
One partner devotes considerably more time and effort to the relationship.
The other contributes very little.
Their outcomes may be equal, but the balance is not equitable because one partner’s outcomes are much lower relative to their contributions.
Equality alone does not guarantee fairness.
Worked comparison: equality without equity
Suppose both partners receive outcomes represented by 101010.
Partner A contributes 555:
105=2\frac{10}{5} = 2510=2
Partner B contributes 101010:
1010=1\frac{10}{10} = 11010=1
Both partners receive equal outcomes, but their ratios differ.
2≠12 \neq 12=1
Partner B contributes twice as much but receives the same outcome. Partner B is therefore under-benefited relative to Partner A.
This illustrates why equity theory is concerned with proportionality rather than equal rewards.
Under-benefiting
A partner is under-benefited when they contribute more to the relationship, relative to their outcomes, than their partner does.
For example:
One partner performs most household responsibilities but receives little practical support.
One partner consistently provides emotional support, but their own emotional needs are ignored.
One partner makes substantial compromises while the other makes very few.
The under-benefited partner may experience:
Anger.
Resentment.
Frustration.
Dissatisfaction.
A sense of being exploited.
The stronger and more persistent the perceived inequity, the greater the predicted dissatisfaction.
Over-benefiting
A partner is over-benefited when they receive disproportionately high outcomes relative to their contributions.
For example:
One partner receives extensive emotional and practical support but provides little in return.
One partner benefits from shared resources while making few contributions.
One partner’s needs are consistently prioritised over the other’s.
At first, over-benefiting may appear desirable. However, equity theory predicts that the over-benefited partner may experience:
Guilt.
Discomfort.
Concern about unfairness.
Anxiety about the imbalance.
This prediction distinguishes equity theory from an explanation based entirely on personal profit.
Under-benefiting is generally expected to produce greater distress, but both forms of inequity may reduce relationship satisfaction.
Types of relationship balance
Relationship position | Description | Possible emotional response |
Equitably benefited | Contributions and outcomes are proportionately fair | Satisfaction and stability |
Under-benefited | A person contributes more relative to what they receive | Anger, resentment or dissatisfaction |
Over-benefited | A person receives more relative to what they contribute | Guilt or discomfort |
Perceived fairness matters
Equity is based on perception.
Two outside observers might describe a relationship as unequal, while the partners themselves consider it fair.
For example:
One person may value financial contributions highly.
Another may value emotional support more.
One partner may enjoy completing practical tasks.
A contribution that looks demanding to an outsider may not feel costly to the person making it.
The theory therefore focuses on whether partners perceive the relationship as equitable, rather than whether an external observer judges every contribution to be objectively equal.
How partners compare equity
A person may consider several questions:
What do I contribute to the relationship?
What outcomes do I receive?
What does my partner contribute?
What outcomes does my partner receive?
Is the balance between us fair?
A person does not necessarily conduct this comparison continuously or consciously.
Awareness of equity may become especially important when:
One partner’s responsibilities increase.
Rewards from the relationship decline.
A conflict draws attention to an imbalance.
One partner feels taken for granted.
The relationship changes significantly.
Restoring equity
If a relationship is perceived as inequitable, partners may attempt to restore fairness.
They could change their actual contributions or outcomes.
For example:
An under-benefited partner may reduce the amount they contribute.
An over-benefited partner may provide more support.
The partners may redistribute responsibilities.
One partner may receive greater recognition or appreciation.
The couple may renegotiate financial or practical arrangements.
Partners may also change how they interpret the relationship.
For example, someone might decide that:
Their partner’s emotional support is more valuable than they first realised.
Their own practical contribution is less demanding than they previously believed.
A temporary imbalance is reasonable because their partner is experiencing difficulties.
If equity cannot be restored, dissatisfaction may increase and relationship breakdown may become more likely.
The stages through which a relationship may then deteriorate are explored in the process of ending a relationship.
Temporary inequity
Not every short-term imbalance will damage a relationship.
For example:
One partner may contribute more while the other is unwell.
One person may take on additional responsibilities during an examination period.
One partner may provide more financial support after the other loses employment.
The relationship may remain equitable overall if:
The imbalance is temporary.
Both partners recognise the circumstances.
Support is expected to be reciprocal over time.
The arrangement is viewed as fair.
Equity is therefore best understood across the broader relationship rather than by examining one isolated event.
Applying equity theory to a scenario
Consider the following scenario:
Theo says, “I work longer hours, but Alex does nearly all the cooking and organises our finances. When I am stressed, Alex listens to me, and I try to support Alex in return. We contribute different things, but it feels balanced.”
A developed application would explain that:
Theo and Alex do not make identical contributions.
Theo contributes through paid work.
Alex contributes through cooking and financial organisation.
Both provide emotional support.
Their contributions and outcomes appear proportionately balanced.
Theo explicitly perceives the arrangement as fair.
The relationship is therefore equitable rather than necessarily equal.
AQA has previously credited application of equity theory where a scenario stated that partners’ contributions “balance out”.
Applying under-benefiting
Consider this scenario:
Naomi organises all shared activities, completes most household responsibilities and supports Erin through work problems. Naomi says that Erin rarely offers support in return.
Naomi may be under-benefited because:
Her contribution is high.
Her outcomes appear comparatively low.
Erin receives substantial support while contributing less.
Naomi may experience resentment and dissatisfaction.
The partners may need to redistribute responsibilities or increase Erin’s contribution to restore equity.
Applying over-benefiting
Now consider Erin’s perspective:
Erin recognises that Naomi contributes more and says, “I feel guilty because Naomi does everything for us.”
Erin appears over-benefited because:
She receives substantial rewards.
Her contribution is comparatively limited.
She recognises that the arrangement is unfair.
Her guilt is consistent with equity theory.
📌 Exam tip: Do not assume that only the under-benefited partner experiences distress. Equity theory predicts that over-benefiting can also produce discomfort.
Applying equity without using the word equality
A weak answer might say:
“Their relationship is equitable because they do the same amount.”
This confuses equity with equality.
A stronger answer would say:
“Their relationship is equitable because each partner’s outcomes are proportionate to their contributions, even though they contribute in different ways.”
Use the language of:
Fairness.
Proportionality.
Contributions.
Outcomes.
Under-benefiting.
Over-benefiting.
Comparing equity theory with social exchange theory
Equity theory developed from the same broad economic approach as calculating rewards and costs.
Both theories propose that partners evaluate what happens within their relationship.
However, they focus on different questions.
Social exchange theory | Equity theory |
“Am I receiving more rewards than costs?” | “Is the balance between my partner and me fair?” |
Focuses on personal profit | Focuses on proportional fairness |
Considers rewards, costs and relationship outcomes | Compares each partner’s contributions and outcomes |
Uses a comparison level | Uses a fairness comparison between partners |
Considers comparison with alternatives | Considers under-benefiting and over-benefiting |
A highly profitable relationship should be satisfying | A profitable but unfair relationship may still be dissatisfying |
Similarities between the two theories
Both social exchange theory and equity theory:
Use ideas from economic exchange.
Consider rewards and costs.
Propose that partners evaluate relationship outcomes.
Try to explain satisfaction and relationship maintenance.
Assume that relationship judgements are partly subjective.
Both theories could be applied to the same scenario, but they would emphasise different details.
The main difference
Social exchange theory focuses on whether an individual gains from the relationship.
Equity theory focuses on whether each partner’s gains are fair relative to their contributions.
Consider this example:
Jordan receives substantial emotional, financial and practical support while contributing very little.
Social exchange theory may predict that Jordan is satisfied because the relationship is highly rewarding and involves few costs.
Equity theory may predict discomfort because Jordan is over-benefited and recognises that the arrangement is unfair.
This is one of the clearest ways to compare the theories in an examination.
Comparison level versus equity comparison
Social exchange theory uses a comparison level, which is based on expectations about how rewarding a relationship should be.
Equity theory compares the outcomes and contributions of the two partners.
Comparison | Central question |
Comparison level | Does my relationship meet my expectations? |
Equity comparison | Is my outcome fair relative to my contribution and my partner’s position? |
A person could therefore have a relationship that exceeds their expectations but still feel dissatisfied because the arrangement is unfair.
Comparison with alternatives versus restoration of equity
Social exchange theory considers whether an alternative relationship or being single would provide a better outcome.
Equity theory focuses first on whether fairness can be restored within the existing relationship.
A partner who feels under-benefited might:
Reduce their contribution.
Ask their partner to contribute more.
Seek greater recognition.
Reinterpret the existing balance.
Leave if fairness cannot be restored.
An attractive alternative may still influence the final decision, but it is not the central principle of equity theory.
Equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model
Equity theory explains why perceived unfairness may reduce satisfaction.
It does not fully explain why someone might remain committed to a persistently inequitable relationship.
A person may stay because of:
Time already invested.
Emotional effort.
Shared possessions.
Mutual friends.
Children.
A lack of attractive alternatives.
These factors are examined in commitment, satisfaction and investment.
AQA mark schemes recognise Rusbult’s investment model as an extension or improvement on theories including social exchange theory and equity theory.
Evaluating equity theory
Strength: fairness may be more realistic than personal profit
Equity theory recognises that people may care about their partner’s outcomes as well as their own.
This improves on social exchange theory’s emphasis on maximising personal rewards.
Someone who receives a large number of benefits might still be dissatisfied if:
Their partner is being treated unfairly.
They feel guilty about contributing too little.
The imbalance conflicts with their expectations of a fair relationship.
Equity theory may therefore provide a more socially realistic account of relationship satisfaction.
Strength: it explains two forms of dissatisfaction
The theory distinguishes:
Dissatisfaction caused by under-benefiting.
Discomfort caused by over-benefiting.
This allows it to explain why receiving the greatest possible reward is not always satisfying.
It also produces more detailed predictions than simply stating that high rewards and low costs create satisfaction.
Strength: equity does not require identical contributions
By distinguishing equity from equality, the theory can be applied to relationships in which partners perform different roles.
One partner may contribute more financially while another contributes more practical or emotional support.
This makes the theory flexible enough to explain satisfaction in relationships that are not organised around identical responsibilities.
Limitation: fairness is difficult to measure objectively
Partners may disagree about:
How much each person contributes.
How valuable each contribution is.
Which outcomes are most important.
Whether an imbalance is temporary or permanent.
A researcher could ask partners to rate contributions and outcomes, but these ratings would remain subjective.
This makes it difficult to establish an objective measure of equity across different relationships.
Limitation: perceptions may change after satisfaction changes
Equity may cause satisfaction, but satisfaction may also affect perceptions of equity.
For example:
A satisfied partner may interpret an unequal arrangement positively.
A dissatisfied partner may begin to notice every imbalance.
Conflict may cause contributions that were previously accepted to appear unfair.
This creates a direction-of-causality problem.
Evidence that inequity and dissatisfaction occur together would not automatically prove that inequity caused the dissatisfaction.
Limitation: relationships involve more than exchange
Equity theory can make relationships sound like calculations of contribution and reward.
Partners may sometimes provide support without expecting a proportionate return because of:
Affection.
Loyalty.
Concern for a partner’s wellbeing.
A sense of commitment.
Shared identity.
The theory may therefore oversimplify relationships by interpreting caring behaviour mainly as part of an exchange.
Limitation: ideas about fairness may vary
People may hold different beliefs about what a fair relationship should look like.
These beliefs may be influenced by:
Personal values.
Previous experiences.
Social expectations.
Cultural norms.
Expectations about relationship roles.
An arrangement considered fair by one couple may be viewed as inequitable by another.
This limits the possibility of applying one universal standard of equity to every romantic relationship.
Limitation: inequitable relationships may continue
Equity theory predicts that persistent unfairness should produce dissatisfaction and motivate change.
However, a person may remain in an inequitable relationship because:
They have made substantial investments.
Better alternatives are unavailable.
The practical costs of leaving are high.
They expect the inequity to be temporary.
Other rewards compensate for the unfairness.
This suggests that equity cannot explain commitment by itself.
Rusbult’s investment model may provide a more complete explanation by including satisfaction, alternatives, investments and commitment.
Overall conclusion
Equity theory proposes that romantic relationships are most satisfying when partners perceive a fair balance between their contributions and outcomes.
Its central insight is that:
Fair does not necessarily mean equal.
Partners may contribute and receive different things while maintaining an equitable relationship. Conversely, equal outcomes may be unfair when one partner contributes much more.
Compared with social exchange theory, equity theory places less emphasis on personal profit and greater emphasis on proportional fairness. This may offer a more realistic explanation of satisfaction, although fairness is subjective and cannot fully explain why people remain committed to inequitable relationships.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Equity theory | The explanation that relationship satisfaction depends on a fair balance between each partner’s contributions and outcomes | Define the theory or apply it to a relationship scenario |
Equity | Proportional fairness between what each partner contributes and receives | Explain why a relationship can be fair without being equal |
Equality | An arrangement in which partners contribute or receive the same amount | Distinguish identical amounts from proportional fairness |
Contribution | Time, effort, support or other resources a person puts into a relationship | Identify what each partner gives in an application question |
Outcome | The rewards or benefits received from a relationship, considered alongside its costs | Identify what each partner gains |
Proportionality | The idea that outcomes should be fair relative to contributions | Explain the central principle of equity |
Under-benefited | Receiving less than is fair relative to one’s contribution and the partner’s position | Apply resentment or dissatisfaction to a scenario |
Over-benefited | Receiving more than is fair relative to one’s contribution and the partner’s position | Apply guilt or discomfort to a scenario |
Inequity | An unfair imbalance between the partners’ contributions and outcomes | Explain why satisfaction may decline |
Restoration of equity | Changing contributions, outcomes or perceptions to make a relationship seem fairer | Explain how partners might respond to inequity |
Personal profit | Receiving rewards that exceed the costs of a relationship | Compare equity theory with social exchange theory |
Comparison level | The expectation used to judge the outcome of a relationship | Distinguish social exchange theory from equity theory |
Investment | Resources connected to a relationship that may be lost if it ends | Explain why inequitable relationships may continue |
Commitment | The intention to maintain a relationship over time | Link equity theory with Rusbult’s investment model |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Look for words suggesting fairness or balance. In the 2022 relationship scenario, the phrase “it balances out” was an effective cue for applying equity theory. The mark scheme linked balance with neither partner under-benefiting nor over-benefiting.
Examiner hint: Use the precise theory indicated by the scenario. A “good deal” in which rewards exceed costs may indicate social exchange theory, while a fair balance between partners indicates equity theory.
Examiner hint: Apply several details from the stem. Strong responses explain what each partner contributes, what each receives and why the arrangement is fair or unfair.
Examiner hint: Do not merely repeat that a relationship is balanced. Explain the psychological meaning of the balance using contributions, outcomes, under-benefiting, over-benefiting and fairness.
Examiner hint: Follow the command word. The 2022 examiner report noted that equity theory was usually applied well, but some students wasted time by adding discussion when the question required application only.
Examiner hint: For an application-only question, do not add an evaluation paragraph unless it helps answer the command. Spend that time developing explicit links to the scenario.
Examiner hint: A strong comparison must discuss both theories. Do not describe equity theory fully and add one sentence saying that social exchange theory is different.
Examiner hint: When distinguishing equity from equality, include an example in which partners contribute different things but the overall balance remains fair.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Defining equity as both partners doing the same amount
Why this is incorrect:
That describes equality. Equity concerns whether outcomes are proportionate to contributions.
How to improve:
State that partners can make different contributions while still experiencing a fair relationship.
Mistake: Assuming an unequal relationship must be inequitable
Why this is incorrect:
Unequal contributions may be fair when outcomes reflect those contributions.
How to improve:
Compare the contribution-to-outcome balance for each partner rather than comparing absolute amounts.
Mistake: Assuming equal rewards always create fairness
Why this is incorrect:
Equal rewards may be unfair when one partner contributes substantially more.
How to improve:
Explain whether the outcomes are proportional to each person’s contribution.
Mistake: Discussing only the under-benefited partner
Why this is incorrect:
Equity theory predicts that over-benefiting can also create distress.
How to improve:
Explain resentment in the under-benefited partner and guilt or discomfort in the over-benefited partner.
Mistake: Confusing equity theory with social exchange theory
Why this is incorrect:
Social exchange theory focuses on personal rewards and costs. Equity theory focuses on fairness between partners.
How to improve:
Ask which question the person is considering:
“Am I getting a good outcome?” means social exchange theory.
“Is the outcome fair for both of us?” means equity theory.
Mistake: Treating all contributions as financial
Why this is incorrect:
Contributions can include emotional support, time, practical help and effort.
How to improve:
Look for material, emotional and practical contributions in the scenario.
Mistake: Claiming that over-benefiting must increase satisfaction
Why this is incorrect:
Although the person receives a favourable outcome, the unfairness may create guilt or discomfort.
How to improve:
Explain that equity theory values fairness rather than maximum personal profit.
Mistake: Assuming equity requires a permanent perfect balance
Why this is incorrect:
Temporary imbalances may be accepted when both partners view them as fair within the wider relationship.
How to improve:
Consider the relationship over time and whether the imbalance is recognised and accepted.
Mistake: Listing details without comparing the partners
Why this is incorrect:
Equity theory requires a relative comparison between each partner’s contributions and outcomes.
How to improve:
Use a comparison sentence:
“Partner A contributes more but also receives proportionately greater outcomes, so the relationship may remain equitable.”
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Questions
1. What is meant by equity in a romantic relationship?[2 marks]
Answer
Award up to two marks:
Equity means fairness in the relationship.
Each partner’s outcomes are proportionate to their contributions, so neither is unfairly under-benefited nor over-benefited.
2. Explain one difference between equity and equality.[3 marks]
Answer
Award up to three marks:
Equality means partners contribute or receive identical amounts.
Equity means that outcomes are fair relative to contributions.
Therefore, partners can contribute different amounts while the relationship remains equitable.
3. Which person is under-benefited and which is over-benefited in the following relationship? Explain your answer.
Ellis provides most of the emotional support, completes nearly all the household tasks and regularly changes plans to meet Robin’s needs. Robin receives this support but contributes very little in return.
[4 marks]
Answer
Award up to four marks:
Ellis is under-benefited.
Ellis makes substantial emotional, practical and personal contributions but receives little in return.
Robin is over-benefited.
Robin receives considerable support while making comparatively few contributions.
4. Alex and Morgan describe their relationship:
Alex says, “I earn more money and pay a larger share of our rent.”Morgan says, “That is true, but I work fewer paid hours and complete most of the household tasks. I also look after Alex when work becomes stressful.”Alex replies, “We contribute different things, but it feels fair.”
Explain how equity theory can be applied to Alex and Morgan’s relationship.[4 marks]
Answer
Award one mark for each developed application point, up to four marks.
Possible content:
Alex contributes more financially.
Morgan contributes more through household responsibilities.
Morgan also provides emotional support.
Their contributions are different rather than equal.
Alex perceives the overall arrangement as fair.
Their outcomes appear proportionate to their different contributions.
The relationship may therefore be equitable despite not being equal.
5. Two couples rate their contributions and outcomes on a scale from 1 to 12.
Couple | Partner | Outcomes | Contributions |
A | Partner 1 | 12 | 6 |
A | Partner 2 | 8 | 4 |
B | Partner 1 | 10 | 5 |
B | Partner 2 | 10 | 10 |
Identify which couple is more equitable. Explain your answer.[3 marks]
Answer
Award up to three marks:
Couple A is more equitable.
Both partners have an outcome-to-contribution ratio of 222.
In Couple B, the partners receive equal outcomes, but Partner 2 contributes more relative to those outcomes.
Couple B illustrates equality of outcomes without equity.
6. Explain two ways in which partners might attempt to restore equity in an inequitable relationship.[4 marks]
Answer
Award up to two marks for each developed method.
Possible answers include:
The under-benefited partner could reduce their contribution, making the balance fairer.
The over-benefited partner could increase their practical or emotional contribution.
Responsibilities or rewards could be redistributed.
Partners could reassess the value of contributions and recognise previously overlooked outcomes.
A partner might leave if equity cannot be restored.
7. Compare equity theory with social exchange theory as explanations of romantic relationships.[6 marks]
Answer
Award up to six marks for a clear comparison.
Possible content:
Both theories use rewards and costs to explain relationship judgements.
Both view relationships partly as exchanges.
Social exchange theory focuses on maximising personal rewards and minimising costs.
Equity theory focuses on proportional fairness between partners.
Social exchange theory uses the comparison level and comparison with alternatives.
Equity theory compares each partner’s contributions and outcomes.
Social exchange theory may predict satisfaction for an over-benefited partner.
Equity theory predicts that over-benefiting may cause guilt or discomfort.
Equity theory distinguishes fairness from equality.
Higher marks require direct comparison rather than two unrelated descriptions.
8. Discuss equity theory as an explanation of romantic relationships.[8 marks]
Answer
A strong response should include:
Knowledge and understanding
Equity as proportional fairness.
Contributions and outcomes.
The outcome-to-contribution comparison.
The distinction between equity and equality.
Under-benefiting.
Over-benefiting.
How inequity may be restored.
The effect of equity on satisfaction.
Evaluation
Equity may be more realistic than an exclusive focus on personal profit.
The theory explains distress in both under-benefited and over-benefited partners.
Fairness is subjective and difficult to measure.
Satisfaction may influence perceptions of equity, creating a causality problem.
Relationships may involve care and commitment rather than calculated exchange.
Fairness expectations may vary between people and cultural contexts.
Investment and commitment may explain why inequitable relationships continue.
Higher-level answers will use specialist terminology accurately, distinguish equity from equality and maintain a clear focus on whether equity theory successfully explains romantic relationship satisfaction.
Comments