(From mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap10/chap10h.htm )

A major line of research into the relationships between relational comparisons and feelings about close relationships has been developed from the principles of equity theory (Adams, 1965; Hatfield, Utne, & Traupmann, 1979; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). This approach has become particularly important with the growing recognition of the equality of men and women and the need for changes in attitudes toward the roles of men and women in private relationships as well as in the public sphere. Equity theory is derived from a principle of distributive justice that states that satisfaction with a relationship will be greatest when the benefit that each person receives from the relationship is in proportion to the amount contributed by him or her. Inequity is perceived when people believe that they are getting more from the relationship than they are putting into it (overbenefiting inequity) or when they believe that they are contributing more than they are receiving (underbenefiting inequity). That is, people are assumed to make judgments about the fairness of their relationships by comparing their input to outcome ratio with that of their partners. Equity theory also states that the perception of one's relationship as inequitable will produce distress and motivate efforts to restore equity.

Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, and Hay (1985) have argued that people are aware of equity issues within their close relationships and that these perceptions predict satisfaction with the relationships. Specifically, they argued that people who believe their relationships are equitable will have the highest level of satisfaction, followed by those who believe that they are overbenefited in comparison with their partners. The lowest levels of satisfaction are expected among people who believe they are underbenefited in comparison with their partners.

However, there is some controversy as to whether equity theory is an appropriate model for predicting satisfaction in close relationships (see Hatfield et al., 1979; Sprecher, 1986). There are two major arguments against its application. The first argument is based on the complex nature of close relationships, which makes precise assessment of the various contributions to and benefits from relationships extremely difficult. Some researchers have extended this argument and proposed that concern with fairness is inappropriate in the context of loving relationships where much of the input is emotional and thus essentially unquantifiable (Mills & Clark, 1982). Although this argument undoubtedly has merit, particularly if assessments of equity are intended to be precise, there are clearly both costs and benefits associated with close relationships, and to argue that the distribution of these costs and benefits between partners is not related to satisfaction with the relationship is to dismiss a potentially importa nt aspect of the dynamics of close relationships.

The second argument that equity theory cannot be applied validly to close relationships concerns the basic assumptions of the theory. The motivation behind striving for equity, according equity theory (Walster et al., 1978), is to maximize one's own outcomes in the long term. That is, in a situation or relationship in which individuals are interdependent and their outcomes linked, establishing equity as the model for interaction is the method by which individuals are most likely to benefit in the long term (Tajfel, 1984). Thus, equity theory was developed primarily as a model of distributive justice to be applied within social groups. A number of studies have shown that equity is not a strong predictor of satisfaction within close heterosexual relationships (Boldero, 1989; Gate, Lloyd, & Long, 1988). These findings may be interpreted as evidence against equity theory per se or its application in a context where emotional issues may be more important than justice issues. Alternatively, these findings may indic ate that men and women do not see themselves as members of the same social group. That is to say, their outcomes may not be linked in the way that is required for equity theory to be an appropriate model. People may compare their input/outcome ratio not with their partners but with their beliefs about the ratio they could expect to experience in another relationship (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998; Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). Thus, it may be that people tend to base their judgments about what they deserve from their relationships on their identification as a member of a particular sex rather than on their membership in a particular couple. Examination of this issue was the major goal of this study.

The most basic assumption underlying the application of equity theory to close relationships is that the partners see each other as relevant for comparison. If this is not the case, then other sources of social comparison may provide the bulk of the information used by people to evaluate their relationships. Buunk and Van Yperen (1991; see also Van Yperen and Buunk, 1991) found that people's assessments of their own relationships in comparison with those of other people they know of the same sex is a strong predictor of satisfaction with the relationships. In this type of social comparison, where the outcomes of individuals are not linked, people are expected to be most satisfied when they feel advantaged by the comparison (Festinger, 1954). Buunk and Van Yperen (1991) found that the more advantaged people consider themselves to be in comparison to same-sex others, the more satisfaction they report with their relationships.

These findings suggest that men and women tend to evaluate the fairness of exchanges within their close relationships by comparing their situations to those of other people of the same sex rather than by comparison with their partners. This finding is important given evidence that suggests that the roles of men and women in relationships are not congruent, and that, in general, women do significantly more of the work in their relationships than men do (Hoschchild & Machung, 1989). If evaluations of relationships are made primarily on the basis of within-sex comparisons, these roles are unlikely to be challenged and, while this remains the case, institutionalised injustices may continue to occur.

(From www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2003_March/ai_100630994/pg_1 )

Title: AN ARRANGEMENT OF MARRIAGES , Psychology Today, 00333107, Jan/Feb93, Vol. 26, Issue 1

Database: MasterFILE Premier

Section: FAMILY; News & Trends

Relationship Types

AN ARRANGEMENT OF MARRIAGES

TOLSTOY WASN'T EVEN half right. Happy couples are not all alike. Nor is every unhappy family unhappy in its own way.

If David H. Olson, Ph.D., is correct, there are seven basic types of marriage. In three of them, where happiness abounds, couples held together by the smooth working of most or all factors intrinsic to relationships - personality compatibility, communication, conflict resolution, and sexuality. In the other four, the marriage hinges more on external elements, leisure activities, religious attitudes, financial management, children, family and friends, and distress predominates.

Unfortunately, Olson finds, most people today live in distressed marriages. But his studies of over 15,000 couples point the way to happier futures for many.

Head of family social science at the University of Minnesota, Olson evaluated marital partners - both as individuals and the consensus between them - along the nine dimensions that previous studies had shown to be areas of trouble and conflict. He also looked at their global assessment of satisfaction, and their cohesion and adaptability. When he compiled all the data, families naturally clustered into seven distinct profiles.

Type 1 - Devitalized marriage: 40 percent of couples. There is pervasive unhappiness with all relationship dimensions and considerable instability. Both partners have considered divorce. They are critical of each other's personality. Their marriage is strictly utilitarian. They tend to be younger, married a shorter time, and have a lower income than other couples. Many are minorities. More of them come from divorced homes, and more of them were previously divorced themselves. They stay together for lack of alternatives.

Type 2 - Financially focused: 11 percent of couples. These couples have conflict and are unhappy in their communication and the way conflicts are resolved. They are dissatisfied with the personal characteristics of their partner, and there may be bitter personal attacks. Their careers come before the relationship, and money or financial rewards hold them together. Their single relationship strength is financial management. A high number of husbands and wives in such utilitarian relationships have considered divorce.

Type 3 - Conflicted: 14 percent. They are dissatisfied in many facets of the relationship - personality issues, communication, conflict resolution, and sexuality - and they may avoid or fail to settle issues between them. Instead, they focus on and gain satisfaction from outside experiences such as leisure, the children, religious life. But a high percentage of both partners have considered divorce.

Type 4 Traditional: 10 percent. They are moderately satisfied with many relationship elements, while their sexual relationship and the way they communicate are sources of distress. They are not as critical of each other's personality as Types 1, 2 and 3. Their strength lies in a satisfying religious life and good interaction with extended family and friends. The marriages are relatively stable. These couples tend to be older, married longer, white, and Protestant.

Type 5 - Balanced: 8 percent. They are moderately satisfied with most relationship areas, with real strengths in communication and problem-solving. The biggest problem is financial management. They have higher than average agreement on leisure, child-rearing, and sexuality. They place a high value on the nuclear family. Still, over a quarter have considered divorce.

Type 6 - Harmonious: 8 percent. They are highly satisfied with each other, the expression of affection, and their sexual life. But they are self-centered, viewing children as a burden and parenting as a source of distress. It may be that, when a problem develops in this family, it shows up in the child.

Type 7 - Vitalized: 9 percent. They are highly satisfied with almost every dimension of their relationship and get along well. They are personally integrated, have strong internal resources, and agree in most external areas. They develop difficulties but resolve them well. They are economically better off than most others, and tend to be older, married longer, white, Protestant. They tend to be in their first marriage and come from intact families.

There were a few surprises in the study. Even the best-adjusted couples are not immune to marital shakiness; nearly one in four wives in Type 7 marriages had at some point considered divorce. In fact, wives were generally less satisfied than husbands in all seven marriage types.

While recognizing the complexity of marriage relationships, the typology points to the specific strengths families can build upon in times of crisis. And it indicates weaknesses that need to be addressed if and when couples seek therapy.

ILLUSTRATIONS (3): (TRACY WALKER)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright of Psychology Today is the property of Sussex Publishers Inc. and its content may not be copied or e-mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder`s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use.

Source: Psychology Today, Jan/Feb93, Vol. 26 Issue 1, p22, 1p

Item: 9301060686

From: http://micro189.lib3.hawaii.edu:2101/citation.asp?tb=1&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_ug=sid+5EC9E986%2DCCEA%2D4D
03%2D8B0E%2D91A26868EE2F%40sessionmgr2+dbs+f5h+DFA4&_us=hd+False+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+
sm+ES+sl+%2D1+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00187288+2A05&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+f5hjnh+bt+TD+
+%22MRR%22+1314&_uso=st%5B2+%2D+st%5B1+%2D+st%5B0+%2Dtypes++of++marriage+tg%5B2+%2D
+tg%5B1+%2D+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Df5h+op%5B2+%2DAnd+op%5B1+%2DAnd+op%5B0+%2D+hd+
False+FB2E&cf=1&fn=11&rn=13

Here is an interesting article on how men and women express dominance with each other:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/communication/brandon.htm