E‘é’i "WWWHHHWlifilfflfillNililHllHJifuliIiifHI

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PERCEPTIONS 0F INEQUITY IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS:
Do Women and Men See Unfairness Differently?

presented by

Janice Elaine Butler

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

' . mmunication
Master in Arts degree m Co

 

 

W

J
china-professor

 

Date November 17, 1994

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOXbromovoflIl-chockouflunyourm

TOAVOIDFINESMunonorMmddoduo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU loAn mum Action/Emil OW Initiation
Maui-9.1

 

PERCEPTIONS OF INEQUITY IN ROMANTIC REIA'I'IONSHIPS:
DOWOMENANDMENSEEUNFAIRNESS DIFFERENTLY?

By
Janice Elaine Butler

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of Communication

1994

ABSTRACT

PERCEPTIONS OF INEQUITY IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS:
DOWOMENAND MENSEEUNFAIRNBS DIFFERENTLY?

By

Janice Elaine Butler

Previous research on equity has looked at the effects of being
overbenefited versus underbenefited on general populations. This
study seeks to determine whether men and women will perceive the
same inequitable situation differently, whether they experience
different amounts of distress as a result of perceived inequity, if the
direction of the inequity (underbenefited vs. overbenefited) affects
the amount of distress felt, and whether men and women will use
different strategies to restore equity.

Subjects were asked to report their perceptions of an
inequitable interpersonal situation. They were then asked to
identify any potential strategies they would use to restore equity in
the given situations.

Two significant findings were discovered. The first indicates
that women are more distressed than men when they are the
underbenefited partner. The second main effect indicates that
subjects are much more likely to experience distress under the

condition of underbenefited inequity.

Copyright by
JANICE ELAINE BUTLER
1994

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my father, Dale A. Butler. He has always
been there to witness my successess and console me when I have
failed. His love and support have, in many ways, made me the
woman I am today and this thesis would not have been possible
without his help and encouragement. I have learned more
important lessons from my father than any teacher or professor.
Thank you, Dad. I love you.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people to whom I am deeply indebted. First,
Dr. Steven A. McCornack who encouraged me to go to graduate
school in the first place, and then consistently provided moral and
academic support when I did. Also, Dr. Sandi W. Smith who
generously gave of her time, insight, knowledge, good humor, and
personal library.

Many thanks to my family who always support me, no matter
what I do. Special thanks to my sister Susan Butler for her
invaluable assistance in coding.

I am indebted to my friend, Debra Clawson, for generously
allowing me to use her beautiful home as a retreat.

Special thanks to Mary K. Casey for always being there when I
needed a friend. Thanks also to Cheri Medendorp, Karen Erlandson,
and all my fellow graduate students in the Department of

Communication who are not only colleagues, but friends as well.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables
Introduction
Literature Review
A. Equity Theory
B . Sex differences
Research Questions
Method

Results

Discussion and Conclusions

Appendices

A. Hypothetical Situations for Pretest
B . Overbenefited Questionnaire

C . Underbenefited Questionnaire

D . Measures of Perceived Inequity

and Distress

VIII. References

vii

13
18
22
26
30
34
37
41
45

46

LIST OF TABLES

1 Cell Means from ANOVA-Sex and Equity Type on Distress 27

vii

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the years since I began dating, I have had a number of
conversations with friends about romantic relationships. Many
times the discussions were about the magic of being in love. Often
the conversations revolved around pain and heartache. Usually
something in the situation "just isn't f ' ." Whatever the specific
topic, those conversations always seemed critical at the time. Any
time, any place, under any circumstances, love is important! Kelley
(1979, p. 2) said, "In its various manifestations in dating, marriage,
cohabition, and romantic liasons, the heterosexual dyad is probably
the single most important type of relationship in the life of the
individual and in the history of society. It occasions the greatest
satisfactions of life and also the greatest disappointments."

As an extension of Kelley's statement, I have observed that
when relationships are equitable among romantic partners, they
seem to be most satisfying. On the other hand, is seems that when
relationships are inequitable, they can be greatly disappointing.
Hence, the most vehement discussions I have had with my friends
seem to have occurred when the romantic relationship was
perceived as being unfair in some way.

These unscientific observations have led to a keen interest in
how men and women perceive inequity in their relationships, how
upset they become when they find themselves in inequitable
relationships, if being the overbenefited or underbenefited partner
affects how they react, and what they might do to restore their

relationship to an equitable state. These questions led to the study

2
that was conducted, and are discussed further in the sections to

follow.

First, a review of literature relating to equity theory and sex
differences will be presented. Following that are sections discussing
research questions asked, methods used in the study, results, and

discussion.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

In reviewing the background information on how perceptions
of inequity may differ between men and women, and how they might
react to any differences found, the literature fell into two basic
areas: equity theory, and sex differences. Each area will be covered

separately in this literature review.

Equity Theory

In the article entitled New Directions in Eguity Researeh,
Walster, Berscheid, and Walster (1973) elucidate and expand the
work of Adams (1965), Blau (1967), and Homans (1961), which
were earlier writings dealing with equity theory. The basic tenets of
this article were later expanded further into a book entitled EQILIDL
Theery and Research (Walster, Walster, and Berscheid, 1978a). The
majority of subsequent research is based on their writings.
Therefore, a detailed discussion of their work follows.

Equity theory, according to Walster, et a1. (1973, 1978a, p. 6),

is comprised of four basic propositions. These are:

3

Proposition 1: Individuals will try to maximize
their outcomes (where outcomes equal rewards minus
costs).

Proposition IIA: Groups can maximize collective
reward by evolving accepted systems for equitably
apportioning resources among members. Thus, groups
will evolve such systems of equity and will attempt to
induce members to accept and adhere to these systems.

Proposition IIB: Groups will generally reward
members who treat others equitably, and generally
punish (increase the costs for) members who treat
others inequitably.

Proposition III: When individuals find themselves
participating in inequitable relationships, they will
become distressed. The more inequitable the
relationship, the more distress individuals will feel.

Proposition IV: Individuals who discover they
are in an inequitable relationship will attempt to
eliminate their distress by restoring equity. The greater
the inequity that exists, the more distress they will feel,
and the harder they will try to restore equity.

The first proposition, stating that individuals will try to
maximize their outcomes, is based on the assumption that people
tend to be selfish (Walster, et al., 1978a, p. 7).

Proposition IIA, which states that groups maximize collective
rewards by evolving systems for equitable apportioning of
resources, is supported by Walster, et al. (1978a, p. 8) in their
discussion of people as being social creatures who are all anxious to
gain the good things in life. An example is given that, states if any
one person were allowed to pursue individual gains completely
unchecked, others would band together to take back resources.

Proposition IIB asserts that groups will generally reward
members who treat others equitably, and generally punish members

who treat others inequitably. Walster, et al. (1978a, p. 9) argue

4
that in order for a group to effectively influence individuals to

behave in an equitable way, they must make it more profitable for
them to behave equitably than inequitably.

Walster, et al. (1978a) do acknowledge that though all
societies create a system for the equitable distribution of resources,
there will be differences between societies in terms of what is
considered to be equitable.

Even though different societies develop diverse standards for
distributing resources, general principles and a formula for defining
an equitable relationship were proposed by Walster, et al. (1973, p.
152) and extended by Walster, et al. (1978a, p. 10). Following is the
formula used to calculate whether or not a relationship is equitable

(Walster, et al., 1973, p. 152) :

OA - 16. = 03 - 13
(IA) (113)

where outcomes (0A or 0B) are defined as "'the positive and
negative consequences that a scrutineer perceives a participant has
received in the course of his relationship with another'. The
participants outcomes, then, are equal to the rewards he obtains
from the relationship minus the costs that he incurs" (Walster, et
al., 1978a, p. 12). The net gain for each participant is calculated by
subtracting their inputs from their outcomes (Person A's net gain is
0A - IA; Person B's net gain is 03 ‘13). So, a person will be
overbenefited in a relationship when their outcomes are greater
than their inputs (Walster, et al., 1978a). Similarly, a person will be
underbenefited in a relationship when their outcomes are less than

their inputs.

The above formula is based on two fundamental principles: 1)
the nature of the person; and 2) the nature of the situation. The
first principle states that the more a person contributes to the
relationship, the more 3/ he should profit from it; the second
principle looks at relationships under varying circumstances --
namely when "times are good", when " times are 30-50" and when
"times are har " (Walster, et al., 1978a, p. 13).

S

are clarified as follows:

1.

Given the formula and general principles, who decides whether
or not a relationship is equitable? In the end, equity is in the eye of
the beholder.

Times are good: If person A is reaping a profit
from a relationship, it seems only fair that his
partner should reap some profit, too. (Of course,
the participants may deserve very different
amounts of profit.) For example, in good times, if
Person A, who has contributed slightly positive
Input, reaps a huge reward, his partner, who has
contributed a large negative Input, should reap
only the most minimal of profits.

Times are 50-50: Each person should get out of the
relationship just about what he puts into it.
Neither partner should reap a profit nor suffer a
loss.

Times are hard: If one person is suffering a loss
from the relationship, it seems only fair that his
partner should suffer some loss, too. (Of course,
participants may deserve very different amounts of
loss.) For example, in hard times, if Person A, who
has contributed a slightly positive Input, suffers a
large loss, his partner, who has contributed a large
negative Input, should suffer the most horrendous
of losses.

These situations

Each person's perception of how equitable a

6
relationship is will depend on how they assess the value and

relevance of the various participants' inputs and outcomes.
Partners, even after prolonged negotiation with one another, will not
always agree completely on the value and relevance of various
inputs and outcomes. If each partner does calculate inputs and
outcomes differently—and it is likely that they will--it is inevitable
that they will differ in their perceptions of whether or not a given
relationship is equitable (Walster, et al., 1973, p. 152)

Proposition III states that when individuals find themselves
participating in inequitable relationships, they will become
distressed. It further states that the more inequitable the
relationship, the more distress individuals will feel (Walster, et al.,
1973). In support of the contention that individuals feel distress in
inequitable relationships when they are the underbenefited party,
experiments by Walster, et al. (1970), Leventhal, et al. (1969),
Jacques (1961), and Thibaut (1950) are cited. Additionally, the
works of Jacques (1961), Adams and Rosenbaum (1962), Adams
(1963), and Leventhal, et al. (1969) are cited in support of the
contention that individuals will feel distress when they are the
overbenefited partner in a relationship.

The final proposition put forth by Walster, et al. states that
when individuals discover that they are in an inequitable
relationship they will attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring
equity. The greater the inequity that exists, the more distress they
will feel, and the harder they will try to restore equity (1973,
1978a). The authors contend that restoration of equity falls into

7
two categories: restoration of actual equity or restoration of

psychological equity.

A person can restore actual equity by appropriately changing
the inputs and/ or outcomes of either themselves or their partner
(Walster, et al., 1973, p. 154). For instance in a romantic
relationship if one partner finds out the other is being sexually
unfaithful, they could, theoretically, establish equity in four possible
ways by: 1) lowering his/her own inputs (e.g., refusing sexual
relations with the partner); 2) raise his/her own outcomes (e.g.,
also having an extramarital affair); 3) raise his/her partner's inputs
(e.g., request/ demand more frequent sexual relations from the
partner); and 4) lowering partner's outcomes (e.g., confronting the
partner and demanding that the extramarital affair end).

Psychological equity can be restored by distorting his/her
perception of self or partner's outcomes and inputs (Walster, et
al., 1973, p. 154). Using the same romantic relationship as an
example, four possible ways of restoring psychological equity are
given: 1) inputs can be minimized ("I don't please my partner
sexually, so it is only fair that they find someone who does); 2)
outcomes can be exaggerated ("my partner's affair takes the
pressure off me sexualIY"); 3) partner's inputs can be exaggerated
("my partner satisfies me completely, in every way, and I am
confortable with the current situation"); or 4) partner's outcomes
can be minimized ("the guilt my partner is experiencing as a result
of this infidelity is probably making him/ her miserable") (Walster,
et al., 1978a, pp. 18-19).

8
Walster, et al. (1973, 1978a) apply equity theory to four major

areas of human communication: business relationships, exploitative
relationships, helping relationships, and intimate relationships. For
the purposes of this thesis, only the application to intimate
relationships, and specifically romantic relationships, will be
discussed.

While attempting to define intimacy, Walster, et al. (1978a, pp.
145-146) recognized that intimate relationships are extremely
complex and different for every person. Even so, they conceptually
define intimates as "loving persons whose lives are deeply
entwined."

Citing a 1977 study done by Walster, Walster, and Traupmann
that looked at the perceptions of inputs, outcomes, and
equity/ inequity of dating couples, the authors report that the more
equitable a couple's relationship, the more content and happier they
were (Walster, et al., 1978a). In addition, it was found that the
partner who was receiving a great deal more than they deserved was
uncomfortable with the situation. They reported feeling less
content, less happy and much more guilty. Similarly, those who
were receiving a great deal less than they deserve also felt less
content, less happy, and much angrier (Walster, et al., 1978a, p.
178).

As stated earlier in Proposition 111, when inequity is perceived
attempts will be made to restore equity. In romantic relationships,
actual equity may be restored in one of the following ways: 1) the
partner who feels that s/he is contributing far more than his/her
fair share to the relationship will be likely to set things right by

9
demanding better treatment from his/ her partner; and 2) the

partner who knows s/ he is contributing less than his/ her fair share,
may reluctantly agree to provide the rewards that are requested
(Walster, et al., 1978a, p. 180).

Psychological equity, on the other hand, may be achieved by
the person closing their eyes to the problems and reassuring
themselves that "really, everything is in perfect order" (Walster, et
al., 1978a, p. 183).

The most extreme form of equity restoration in romantic
relationships is termination of the relationship, also termed " leaving
the field" (Walster, et al., 1978a, p. 184).

Though they concede that data is sparse, Walster, et al.
(1978a, p. 184) state that equity theory provides a convenient
standard for studying romantic relationships.

Perhaps in an attempt to rectify the scarcity of data in this
area, two specific studies testing the propositions put forth by
Walster, et al., were published in 1978. One, entitled W
W was conducted by Walster, Traupmann and
Walster. The experiment tested the hypothesis that in inequitable
relationships the underbenefited partner would be more likely to
engage in extramarital sex than the overbenefited partner. The
study found that, indeed, underbenefited men and women in
inequitable relationships had more extramarital affairs and began
their extramarital activities earlier than did overbenefited men and
women in inequitable relationships (Walster, et al., 1978b). The

second study, entitled W, was conducted by
Walster, Walster and Traupmann. The experiment proposed that "if

10
peOple feel they are getting less from a relationship than they

deserve, they feel entitled to 'call the shots' sexually" (Walster, et
al., 1978c, p. 82). Subjects completed a questionnaire that included
the Walster, et al. (1977) Global Measures of Participants' Inputs,
Outcomes, and Equity/Inequity and the Austin Measure of
Contentment/ Distress. Though they did find support for the
proposition that when individuals find themselves in inequitable
relationships they feel distress, the hypotheses were not confirmed.

In an article discussing alternative approaches to equity, Van
Avermaet, McClintock, and Moskowitz (1978) extend the ideas of
Adams (1965) and Walster, et al. (1973, 1976) (Van Avermaet, et
al., 1978, p. 422).

Ueleke, Miller, Giesen, and Miles (1983), in a study
hypothesizing that in response to hypothetical situations in which
marital inequity existed, subjects would respond with allocations of
inputs/ outcomes designed to restore equity (p. 5), results were
consistent with their predictions. They found that when subjects
were presented with descriptions of marital relationships where
inequity existed, the individuals would compensate for the inequity.
Specific ways that individuals would compensate their partner for
the inequity were not measured, however. Responses were coded as
either "equity resolving" or "non-equity resolving" (Ueleke, et al.,
1983, p. 6).

In a longitudinal study conducted by Van Yperen and Buunk,
the proposition that inequity is more likely to lead to dissatisfaction
in intimate relationships, as opposed to dissatisfaction leading to

inequity, was tested (1990). In presenting their findings, they state

1 1
that there was "some evidence that the association between the

perception of equity and relationship satisfaction might be
interpreted, albeit cautiously, as a cause and effect relationship.
Among women, the perception of equity appears to be a better
predictor of relationship satisfaction one year later than satisfaction
is a predictor of equity one year later. Inequity thus seems to
produce dissatisfaction with the relationship and not vice versa"
(Van Yperen and Buunk, 1990, p. 303). Van Yperen and Buunk
conclude that the results of this study point to the use of equity
theory in predicting satisfaction in intimate relationships as being
valid (1990).

Two studies by Sprecher (1986, 1992), dealing with inequity in
close relationships, in some ways resemble the present study. The
1986 study tested the hypotheses that perceived inequity (whether
the partner is overbenefited or underbenefited) is positively
associated with negative affect and negatively associated with
positive affect. Secondly, it was hypothesized that underbenefiting
inequity will be related to the positive and negative affect
experienced in the relationship to a greater degree than
overbenefiting inequity (Sprecher, 1986, p. 311). Sprecher reports
both hypotheses being supported. Most interestingly, she reports
that the underbenefiting situation creates stronger emotions in both
men and women than in the overbenefiting situation.

The 1992 study proposed the following hypotheses: 1) people
will expect to experience distress in response to an inequity
occurring in their close relationship; 2) peOple will be more

distressed in response to underbenefiting inequity; 3) people will

1 2
report being more likely to behave so as to restore equity than to do

nothing in response to inequity; 4) the more distress a person feels
the more likely they will be to engage in equity-restoring actions;
and 5) females will be more likely than males to expect to respond
to inequity by attempting to restore equity (Sprecher, 1992). She
reported support for the hypotheses that subjects expected to
become distressed when they were the underbenefited partner, and
that individuals will expect to restore equity to an inequitable
relationship. She did not, however, find support for the hypothesis
regarding gender differences in expectations about emotional
reactions to underbenefiting and overbenefiting inequity. She
states: "contrary to the prediction, women expected to become
significantly more distressed than men in response to
underbenefiting inequity. There was no gender difference on the
distress index for overbenefiting inequity" (Sprecher, 1992, p. 62).

So, for the purposes of the present study, the two most
important propositions put forth by Walster, et a1. (1973, 1978a)
are: Proposition III, which states that inequitable relationships will
cause distress and that the more inequitable the relationship, the
more distress an individual will feel; and Proposition N which says
that individuals who discover that they are in an inequitable
relationship will attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring
equity - the greater the inequity that exists, the more distress they
will feel, and the harder they will try to restore equity.

Also pertinent to this study is the concept that the net gain for
each participant is calculated by subtracting their inputs from their

outcomes. So, a person who is overbenefited is receiving outcomes

13
greater than their inputs, and a person who is underbenefited is

receiving outcomes that are less than their inputs. However, in the
final analysis, what is equitable in a relationship is defined by each
person individually, based on their perception of the value and
relevance of the various inputs and outcomes.

After reading the literature, and relevant research, regarding
equity theory, I began to wonder how individuals developed their
definitions of what is equitable. When I thought about the
conversations I have had with my friends, and the conversations
between men that I have overheard, I began to wonder if there are
some fundamental differences between men and women that cause
them, in a broad sense, to perceive inequity differently. This led to
a review of literature on human sex differences, which will be
discussed in the next section.

Sex Differences

As would be expected, much of the literature concerning
differences between men and women deals with the obvious
biological and physiological differences. Though there are myriad

books and articles on the subject, for a comprehensive discussion

see the text entitled A werlg ef differenee: Gender reles in

W by ER. Greenglass.
Also common in sex differences literature are the early

upbringing and socialization differences between male and female
children, commonly termed the "nature versus nurture" debate.
This work is discussed at length in texts by Stewart, Stewart,
Friedley, and Cooper (1990), Doyle and Paludi (1991), Ivy and
Backlund (1994), and Wood (1994).

. 14
While biological/ physiological and socialization differences

are certainly important building blocks in the varying ways men and
women respond to the world around them, more germane to this
particular work are differences in perceptions and ways of
communicating for men and women. This area of research will be

discussed more fully in the following pages.

In the text entitled Sex differenees in human eommunieatien
(Eakins and Eakins, 1978), four major ways that sex differences

account for differences in communication are discussed.

Paraphrasing the authors, these are:

1. Cultural elaboration. A number of sex differences
may be due to cultural elaboration of gender.
Because of the relative sameness of males and
females, human beings have gradually developed
an elaborate system of gender display. They have
worked out certain rituals and patterns of verbal
and nonverbal behavior that belong distinctively to
and mark each sex. An added facet of the cultural-
elaboration explanation is the argument that
females and males are socialized to different
stereotyped personality patterns in our society.
Females are supposedly brought up to be passive,
docile, self-effacing, and self-deprecating. Their
verbal and nonverbal gestures follow from a
personality patterned, elaborated, and embellished
by society. In the same way, males are socialized
to another pattern, and therefore their
communication follows from that personality.

2. Division of labor by sex. Our society relegates
certain work, activities, responsibilities, and
privileges to people on the basis of sex. Even with
women's recent political and economic progress
and the new attitudinal climates encouraged by the
women's movement, the belief persists that

15

childcare and home-related tasks are solely
"woman's work." There are, of course, some
specialized duties around the house (car repair,
outside home maintenance, and carpentry tasks)
relegated to males. These specializations
according to sex probably carry over into many
aspects of communication.

Male dominance. Another possible explanation for
sex differences in communication involves what
some refer to as the factor of male control.
According to this theory, communication takes
place in the cultural context of male dominance-
dominance that is built into the familial, economic,
political, religious, and legal structures of society.
This power structure and the relationship of
superior to subordinate can be seen in our
communication as well. Patterns of nonverbal
communication such as touching, smiling, and
staring, as well as verbal mechanisms including use
of expletitives, forms of address, explanation,
commands, and requests, all supposedly function
to reflect, establish, or maintain power
relationships.

Differing value systems. Individuals' value systems
may differ according to sex. Two value systems are
generally believed to exist in American society.
One, the dominant orientation, is supposedly
appropriate for those of higher rank, such as
American males. This system is characterized by
an emphasis on individual achievement,
independence, external evaluation, instrumental
behavior to overcome obstacles, and future time
orientation. The other is an alternate, or variant,
system said to be the perspective of females and
other persons of lower status. This system stresses
group identity, the importance of existence and
self-realization, harmony with the world, and a
present time orientation. These differing systems
may account for behavior differences between the
sexes. Males have been shown to be more
aggressive and domineering, to view the world as a

16

hostile environment from which one must forcibly
grasp success and reward. Females supposedly
have a more social orientation. They are
concerned with developing their interpersonal
skills, are more people-oriented, and are more
concerned with harmonious interpersonal
relations. They manifest greater dependency and
emphasize caring for and relating to others ( Eakins
and Eakins, 1978).

The authors continue the discussion in terms of how these
differing orientations may manifest themselves in ways that men and
women relate to one another. The point is made that males
generally initiate activity, are usually deferred to, put their own
interests first, and act directly to further their interests. Women, on
the other hand, keep themselves responsive to the male, sensitive to
his needs, tend to put their own interests second, and gain their own
ends in an indirect way (Eakins and Eakins, 1978).

Rubin, Peplau, and Hill (1981) proposed that in romantic
relationships men tend to fall in love more readily than women.
They also proposed that women tend to fall out of love more readily
than men. They found that women tend to be less likely to be swept
off their feet into a love relationship, are more likely to perceive the
problems in a relationship and terminate it if necessary, are better
able to get over their feelings of loss when a relationship ends, and
when rejected are better able to accomplish the transition from love
to friendship (Rubin, et al., 1981). As stated by the authors, the
data indicates that "women were less 'romantic' than men, more
cautious about entering into romantic relationships, more sensitive
to the problems of their relationships, more likely to compare their

relationships to alternatives, more likely to end a relationship that

17
seemed ill fated, and better able to cope with the rejection" (Rubin,

et al., 1981, p. 833).

In her book entitled Yen lust Den't Understend, Dr. Deborah
Tannen discusses different approaches men and women take in
"engaging the world" (1990). She states that men engage the world
" as an individual in a hierarchical social order in which he is either
one-up or one-down. In this world, conversations are negotiations
in which people try to achieve and maintain the upper hand if they
can, and protect themselves from others' attempts to put them
down and push them around. Life, then, is a contest, a struggle to
preserve independence and avoid failure" (pp. 24-25) Women, on
the other hand, approach the world " as an individual in a network of
connections. In this world, conversations are negotiations for
closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and
support, and to reach consensus. They try to protect themselves
from others' attempts to push them away. Life, then, is a
community, a struggle to preserve intimacy and avoid isolation.
Though there are hierarchies in this world too, they are hierarchies
more of friendship than of power and accomplishment" (Tannen,
1990, p. 25).

Dr. Tannen makes the case that because women speak and
hear a language of connection and intimacy, while the language men
speak and hear is of status and independence, communication
between the sexes can be considered cross-cultural -- instead of
different dialects they can be said to speak different genderlects
(1990). These differentiations are apparent from very early ages.

For instance, boys usually play outside, in large groups that are

18
hierarchically structured, at games having distinct winners and

losers. Girls, though, play in small groups or in pairs often at games
that do not have winners or losers. The center of a girl's social life
is her best friend, as opposed to a group of friends (Tannen, 1990).
Essentially, what I found is that men and women do
communicate very differently. From the four major ways sex
differences account for differences in communication put forth by
Eakins and Eakins (1978), to Dr. Tannen's work on genderlects, the
previous research seemed to indicate that men and women would

perceive inequity differently
III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As noted previously in the literature review, Walster et al.,
(1973, 1978a) argue that humans strive for equity in their romantic
relationships but due to the extremely individualistic perceptions of
what is equitable, inequity will occur. Equity, as discussed earlier,
occurs when outcomes are proportional to inputs. Outcomes are
consequences received by partners and may be positive (rewards)
or negative (costs). Inputs are contributions to the relationship that
partners believe should be rewarded. Inequity, then, occurs when
outcomes are disproportionate to inputs. Individual perceptions,
especially in terms of equity/inequity, are assessed by each
individual based on the value and relevance of various
inputs/ outcomes. Therefore, relational partners may (and probably
will) differ in their ideas of what is equitable.

19
Given the extent of work done in the area of equity theory, it

would seem that a clear idea of how men and women differ in their
perceptions of equity would be established. However, the empirical
studies reviewed did not differentiate between men and women. In
the area of sex differences, the idea put forth by Eakins and Eakins
(1978) regarding male dominance -- that communication takes
place in the cultural context of male dominance in familial,
economic, political, religious, and legal structures -- would suggest
that men and women would differ in their perceptions of what is,
and is not, equitable. Given that the issue has not been empirically
tested in the area of either equity theory or sex differences, the

following research question is asked:

Research Question 1: Given identical scenarios, do
men and women differ in their perceptions of how
inequitable the situation is?

Previous research has discussed the effects of inequity on
relationships, and specifically that inequity will cause distress,
whether the individual is overbenefited, or underbenefited. Further,
it is stated that the more inequity is perceived, the more distress will
be felt. Distress, for the purpose of this work, is conceptually
defined as "mental or physical strain imposed by pain, trouble,
worry, or the like" (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1974). A
person who is overbenefi ted in a relationship has rewards which
outweigh inputs. An underbenefi ted person in a relationship is the

person whose inputs outweigh the rewards they receive.

20
Much research supports the contention that individuals will

feel distress when they are in an inequitable relationship and the
amount of distress felt is determined by the amount of the inequity
perceived (Walster et al., 1970; Leventhal et al., 1969; Jacques,
1961; Thibaut, 1950; Adams and Rosenbaum, 1962; and Adams,
1963; Walster, et al., 1978; and Sprecher, 1986, 1992).
Interestingly, a potential explanation for the possibility that men
and women do differ is offered by Sprecher (1992): "because men
traditionally have had more powerful positions within the larger
hierarchical social structure, they may not become as distressed
(i.e., guilty) as women in response to receiving an unfair exchange
advantage, but may experience more distress (i.e., anger) in
response to receiving an unfair disadvantage" (p. 58). This
contention would seem to be supported by work done in the area of
sex differences. Dr. Tannen's discussion of men operating in a
constant hierarchical struggle, while women operate by creating
networks and connecting with others (1990) seems to support the
idea that men would be more competitive in their desire to have
equitable rewards. Women, on the other hand, might be expected to
willingly concede more often to create connection and intimacy.
Based on this argument, it would also be expected that men would
be much more distressed when they are the underbenefited partner
in a romantic relationship. Women would be expected to be more
distressed when they are the overbenefited partner. However, given
that the issue of whether men and women react differently with

regard to the amount of distress felt has not been empirically tested

2 1
in the area of either equity theory or sex differences, the following

research questions are asked:

W: When inequity is perceived. do
men and women differ in the amount of distress that
they experience?

Research Qgesg’on 3: Does the direction of the
inequity (overbenefited vs. underbenefited) differently

affect the amount of distress felt by men and women?

Finally, it has been suggested that when inequity is perceived,
and distress is felt, attempts will be made to restore equity. A study
done by Ueleke, et al. (1983) indicated that in response to
situations where inequity existed, subjects reported that they would
attempt to compensate for the inequity. However, this study did not
measure the specific action(s) a subject might take in order to
rectify the inequitable situation, but rather simply reported whether
they would or would not compensate. Sprecher (1992) also found
that subjects reported being more likely to restore equity rather
than do nothing. Sex differences literature would seem to suggest
that because men and women engage the world in different ways
(Tannen, 1990) they would be likely to use different strategies to
restore equity. The combination of empirical studies in equity
theory and the discussions of sex differences would indicate that
men and women would use different strategies. However, since no
empirical study found has specifically looked at this issue, the

following research question is asked:

22
Resegch Quesg‘en 4: Do men and women use

different communication strategies when attempting to
restore equity in inequitable situations?

In general the literature addresses, separately, equity theory
and its affect on human subjects, as well as differences between men
and women. However, the issue of sex differences in perceptions of
equity, amount of distress felt, whether being overbenefited or
underbenefited affects the amount of distress felt, or whether men
and women would use different strategies to restore equity has not
been empirically studied. Therefore, these research questions are

asked in order to explore the issue more fully.
IV. METHOD

Pretesting of Stimulus Situations

Prior to full data collection, a pretest was conducted in order
to examine different types of hypothetical situations created to
depict inequity. The situations were generated by the author based
on previous work in equity theory which also used hypothetical
situations (Ueleke, et al., 1983, Sprecher, 1992). Sixty subjects
(who were not participants in the full study) were asked to read and
rate one of three interpersonal situations: overbenefited,
underbenefited, or equitable. The situations contained the same
relational situations and information, the only change being the
manipulation of the direction of equity/ inequity. The intent was to
confirm through a manipulation check that subjects saw a

difference in terms of what is equitable and what is inequitable. The

23
pretest situations are attached as Appendix A. Subjects were

equally distributed across the three situations (20 respondents for
each situation). Analysis of pretest data confirmed that there was a
significant difference between the equitable situation and the two
inequitable situations. Standard score coefficient alpha is .98. The
mean for Group 1 (overbenefited) is 7.9; the mean for Group 2
(equitable) is 23.5; and the mean for Group 3 (underbenefited) is
10.4.

Main Study

Procedure

Participants were 138 female and 77 male college
undergraduates taking courses in the Department of Communication
at Michigan State University. Subject age ranged from 18 to 43
(M=21.9, SD=3.2) All subjects voluntarily participated in the
experiment.

Subjects in the main study were presented with one of the two
inequitable (overbenefited or underbenefited) questionnaires
described above. Distribution of the questionnaire was random.
Prior to reading the situation and completing the questionnaire,
subjects were instructed to put themselves in the position of the
partner in the relationship when reading the situation, even if they
felt that it was not typical of their own romantic relationships.
Subjects were then left to complete the questionnaire at their own
pace. Subjects in the study were evenly split across equity type
(N=107 for the underbenefited situation; N=108 in the
overbenefited situation). Sixty-four percent of the subjects were
female (N=138), and 36% were male (N=77).

Questionnaire Format

The instrument used in the full study began with one of the
two hypothetical situations depicting an inequitable romantic
relationship (either overbenefited or underbenefited) that were
previously tested. Each situation dealt with the same four relational
issues: commitment, spending time together, emotional support,
and physical affection. The situations differed only in the viewpoint
that was to be taken by the subject. In the overbenefited situation
the subject was asked to imagine themselves as receiving much
greater rewards than their partner. This was reversed for the
underbenefited situation--the subject was asked to imagine
themselves as giving a great deal to their partner. The subject was
then asked to complete semantic differential and Likert-type items
measuring both perceived inequity and distress, and an open-ended
question asking the subject what (if anything) they would do and/ or
say to resolve any unfairness they perceived in the situation. Lastly,
the subject was asked for demographic information that included
sex, age, and race (see Appendix B for the full text of the
overbenefited questionnaire and Appendix C for the full text of the
underbenefited questionnaire).

Independent Measures

The principle independent measures in this study were
respondent sex and equity type (underbenefited or overbenefited).
As mentioned previously, respondent sex was manipulated by
subjects reported sex in the demographic portion of the

questionnaire. Equity type was manipulated, as mentioned

24

25
previously, by presenting subjects with one of two hypothetical

situations that had been constructed by the author.
Dependent Measures

The principle dependent measures in this study were
perceived inequity, distress, and strategy type reported for
reconciling inequity. Perceived inequity was measured using
semantic differential questions, with answers ranging from one to
seven, one being inequitable and seven being equitable (see
Appendix D for specific items). Based on confirmatory factor
analysis, this scale proved to be unidimensional with a high
reliability. The standard score coefficient alpha for the perceived
inequity items is .909. Distress was measured using six of the seven
initial likert-type questions, with responses ranging from one to
seven on a "Completely Disagree" to " Completely Agree" scale (see
Appendix D for specific items). Based on confirmatory factor
analysis, this scale proved to be unidemensional with a high
reliability. The standard score coefficient alpha for distress is .871.
The open-ended question was coded separately to determine
strategies used by individuals to restore equity. All responses were
coded separately by two coders. The following seven strategies were
identified: 1) Discussion (state feelings to partner and/ or ask how
they feel in order to get more information); 2) Terminate (end the
relationship); 3) Compensate (acts that either give more to the
partner or allow the partner to give less; 4) Apologize (tell partner
sorry for what has happened); 5) Demand Compensation (specific
statements commanding the partner to give more or notifying

partner that they will give less); 6) Retaliate ("get even" with

26
partner); and 7) Justify (tell partner what happened is fair - either

self or partner deserved the outcome). Overall agreement between
coders was 86%. Further analyses using Cohen's Kappa to remove
any agreement due to chance showed .8 1 (Cohen, 1960).
Design
This study formed a 2x2 factorial design in which two levels of
inequity (overbenefited/underbenefited) were fully crossed with
two levels of sex (male/ female) and there were three principle

dependent measures.
V. RESULTS

Two significant main effects were found using a 2x2 analysis of
variance (distress and perceived inequity by sex and equity type).
The first significant, albeit small, main effect is for sex of subject on
distress (F = 4.920; df = 1; p < .01), indicating that women are more
distressed than men when they are the underbenefited partner. The
second main effect is for equity type on distress (F = 40.757; df - 1;
p < .01), which indicates that subjects are much more likely to
experience distress under the condition of underbenefited inequity
(see Table 1 for cell means). No other significant effects or
interactions were found. Means for semantic differential items
measuring perceived inequity (1-7 scale; 1 signifies inequitable end
of scale) were as follows: Imbalanced/ Balanced had a mean of 2.3;
Unfair/Fair had a mean of 2.7; Unequal/ Equal had a mean of 2.4;
and Uneven/ Even had a mean of 2.3; overall mean for measures of

perceived inequity is 2.4. Means for items measuring distress (1-7

27
scale; 7=high distress) were: item one had a mean of 5.0, item two

had a mean of 5.0, item three had a mean of 5.3, item four had a
mean of 4.6, item five had a mean of 4.7, and item six had a mean of

4.6. Overall mean for items measuring distress was 4.9.

 

 

 

Table 1
Cell Means frem ANOVA - SQ and Egg‘gg Tm en Disgess
Underbenefited Overbenefited
Women 5 .6 4.4
Men 5 .0 4.3

 

 

 

 

As illustrated in Table 1, women in the underbenefited
situation report more distress than men in the same underbenefited
situation. Also, both men and women report being more distressed
when they are the underbenefited partner than when they are the
overbenefited partner.

In terms of research question number one, which asked "Given
identical scenarios, do men and women differ in their perceptions of
how inequitable the situation is?," these findings suggest that men
and women do not differ in their perceptions of inequity. Both men
and women identified the same level of inequity across both
situation types.

Research question number two asks "When inequity is

perceived, do men and women differ in the amount of distress that

28
they experience?" and research question number three asks "Does

the direction of the inequity (overbenefited versus underbenefited)
differently affect the amount of distress felt by men and women?".
The argument put forth when the research question was proposed
contended that based on research by Sprecher (1992), men may not
become as distressed (i.e., guilty) as women in response to receiving
an unfair exchange advantage, but may experience more distress
(i.e., anger) in response to receiving an unfair disadvantage (p. 58).
This contention was supported by Dr. Tannen's discussion of men
being more competitive in their desire to have equitable rewards,
and women willingly conceding to create connection and intimacy.
Additionally, it was argued that it would be expected that men would
be much more distressed when they are the underbenefited partner
in a romantic relationship. Women would be expected to be more
distressed when they are the overbenefited partner. Quite the
opposite was found, however. Findings in this study show that
women were much more distressed than men when they were
unfairly disadvantaged (underbenefited) than were men. Women
were also slightly more distressed than men in the overbenefited
situation, but not significantly.

The fourth research question asks "Do men and women use
different communication strategies when attempting to restore
equity in inequitable situations?" It was argued based on previous
research by Ueleke, et al. (1983), and Sprecher (1992), that
subjects would be more likely to attempt to restore equity than do
nothing. It was also argued, based on sex differences literature, that

men and women would be likely to use different strategies to

29
restore equity. Results in this area are very interesting. In the

underbenefited situation, both men and women will use discussion
(Strategy 1) as a strategy to restore equity, but women are more
likely to discuss than men (57% of women, and 28% of men). In the
overbenefited situation, they also reported using discussion as a
strategy but to a much lesser degree (3696 of women, 1996 of men).
In the underbenefited situation, women are more likely to use
termination of the relationship as a strategy (23% of women, 1596 of
men). This finding supports the contention of Rubin, et al. (1981)
that women are more likely to terminate a relationship where
problems are perceived. The likelihood of terminating the
relationship when the subject is the overbenefited partner is lower
(15% of women, and 896 of men). As would be expected, there was
greater reporting of compensation (Strategy 3) in the overbenefited
situation (31% of women, and 14% of men) than in the
underbenefited situation (1 1% of women, 596 of men).

Chi-Square analyses of strategies used by sex and equity type
showed several significant differences on the use of strategies.
There was a significant difference in use of Strategy 1 (Discussion)
based on type of equity, x2(1)=22.156, p. < .000, indicating that
discussion was much more likely to be used in the underbenefited
situation. There was also a significant difference in the use of
Strategy 2 (Terminate) based on equity type, x2(1)=5.123, p. < .02,
indicating that termination is also more likely in the underbenefited
situation. Finally, there was a significant difference in the use of

Strategy 3 (Compensate) based on equity type, x2(1)=19.449, p. <

30
.000, indicating that persons in the overbenefited situation are more

likely to compensate than those who are underbenefited.
v1. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The primary findings of this study were that women are more
distressed than men when they are the underbenefited partner in a
romantic relationship, and that persons who are underbenefited in
their relationship are much more likely overall to experience
distress than those who are overbenefited.

The finding that women are more distressed than men when
they are the underbenefited partner in a romantic relationship, is
important because it does not follow either previous empirical
research in equity theory, or theoretical discussions on sex
differences. It was contended that men would experience more
distress when they are underbenefited due to their traditionally
more powerful positions within the higher social structure. It was
also argued that women would be expected to be more distressed
when they are the overbenefited partner because they, also, are
used to men being in more powerful positions and have been
socialized to be passive, docile, self-effacing, and self-deprecating
(Eakins and Eakins, 1978). A possible explanation for this finding
may be that the underpinnings of the previous arguments simply
aren't valid any longer. The piece by Eakins and Eakins that
discussed sex differences, and particularly the issue of male
dominance and women's self-effacing passivity, was written in 1978.

The role of women in society since the late 19705 has changed

3 1
dramatically. The students who completed this questionnaire were

primarily the children of people who were the driving force in many
of the changes in women's rights, and most were probably the
product of families where both parents worked outside the home,
and potentially where women thrived in positions of authority
(though this was not measured). If, in fact, the subjects were
brought up by persons who believed in a more positive role for
women in our society (or were themselves powerful women), the
issue was probably more salient, and, hence, they reported more
distress for women who were underbenefited.

Secondly, it was found that persons who are underbenefited
in their relationship are much more likely to experience distress
than those who are overbenefited. This was not surprising in light
of research previously done by Walster, et al. (1970), Leventhal, et
al. (1969), Jacques (1961), and Thibaut (1950). Aside from
empirical research, it also seems that, applying common sense,
being the overbenefited partner in a relationship would be
somewhat uncomfortable due to feelings of guilt, but being the
underbenefited partner in a relationship would be much more
distressing. Righteous anger at the unfair treatment of giving, with
no corresponding rewards, just seems more plausible than getting
angry because you are getting too much. The first proposition of
Walster, et al. (1973, 1978a) is that individuals will try to maximize
their outcomes. People tend to be selfish, and overall it is more
distressing to give more than you get in return, as opposed to

getting more than you deserve.

32
I think these results have practical implications for future

research in sex differences and perceptions of inequity in romantic
relationships. This was an exploratory study that broached, for the
first time, questions concerning whether or not men and women
respond in different ways to inequity. With results indicating the
opposite of what would be expected based on both empirical and
theoretical works, it seems clear that future studies are important
for a clearer picture of what is occurring. From a nonscientific
perspective, this seems to have implications for persons in the
general population who make changes in the way they communicate
with their partners based on works by authors such as Eakins and
Eakins and Dr. Tannen. If, in fact, the findings in this Study hold up
in future Studies, those people reading popular literature on sex
differences may be making life changes based on erroneous
information.

From a personal perspective, this work has made it clear to me
that my own observations of romantic relationships had merit.
Indeed, those relationships that are equitable are the most satisfying
for the participants. Likewise, those that are inequitable are the
most disappointing. Also, it was heartening to find that men and
women do not seem to see unfairness differently. This was
encouraging in the sense that restoring a relationship to an
equitable state from a common ground of understanding is much
easier than if both parties are at odds as to what the problem is.

As is the case with most questions asked, the answers led to
even more questions. Now I would like to look at why women are

more distressed than men at being underbenefited, and whether

33
men and women perceive things in the same way with regard to

issues other than equity. I would also like to do more in-depth
study on the communication strategies used by men and women and
under what circumstances each is used.

Finally, the knowledge that I received from this study will,
hopefully, help me the next time I get in a conversation with a friend

about romantic relationships!

VII. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Hypothetical Situations for Pretest

APPENDIX A

You and Chris have been dating each other exclusively for one year. This relationship is the
most serious you have ever had, and the longest lasting. Everything has been perfect and
seemed "right" - you have been in love. Over the past couple weeks, though, four separate
incidents occurred that have caused you to question your relationship. Specifically:

You are deeply committed to your relationship with Chris and assumed that Chris felt the
same way. You recently accepted a job locally for the sole purpose of allowing you and Chris
to be together. You start your new position in two weeks. One day last week, though, when
you were discussing your-plans for getting an apartment together in East Lansing after
graduation, Chris informed you that he/she is now seriously considering going to graduate
school in Hawaii.

Second, spending time together has never been a problem until lately when Chris has been
doing a lot of things without you. last night, even though you had an exam to study for,
you cleared your schedule in order to spend time with Chris. You even rented a video and
ordered a pizza. Chris then informed you that he/she already had plans with friends. When
you tried to make plans for tonight Chris was evasive and said that he/she would give you an
answer later today.

Third, you and Chris have always provided each other with a lot of emotional support.
When Chris was having trouble in Math 108 you spent your own study time tutoring Chris
and being supportive when things were going badly. Last week you took a very difficult
exam and didn't think you did very well on it. When you tried to talk about how badly you
felt, Chris seemed disinterested and preoccupied. While you were telling Chris your horror
story about the exam the phone rang. Chris picked it up and proceeded to talk to a friend
for approximately fifteen minutes about an upcoming concert and whether or not they were
going to try to get tickets.

Finally, you and Chris have always been physically affectionate. Whenever Chris has a bad
day you have volunteered to give a long, relaxing Shoulder rub to ease the tension and make
him/her feel better. 'IWo days ago you were working out and somehow strained the muscles
in your back. It was very painful so when you saw Chris that night you asked for a back rub
to try to ease the pain. Chris grudgingly rubbed your back for about one minute and then
went off to watch TV.

None of these incidents, if they had happened separately, would really bother you. But
because all of them have happened in the past two weeks you have begun to question how
much Chris really cares for you and the continuation of your relationship.

Now, think about your and Chris's relationship. In particular, think about what you and
Chris have each recently been giving to make the relationship work, and what you each have
been getting out of the relationship. Using the following scales, rate how balanced you think
this relationship is, in terms of what you each put into it and get out of it.

This relationship is:
imbalaaced l 2 3 4 5 6 7 flanged.
M l 2 3 4 S 6 7 Eat]:
pm 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 m
m l 2 3 4 S 6 7 fiv_e_n

34

36

You and Chris have been dating each other exclusively for one year. This relationship is the
most serious you have ever had, and the longest lasting. Everything has been perfect and
seemed ”right" - you are in love. Over the past couple weeks several events have occurred
that seem indicative your relationship with Chris. Specifically:

You and Chris are both deeply committed to your relationship. One day last week you and
Chris were discussing your plans for getting an apartment together in East Lansing after
graduation. You recently accepted a job locally for the sole purpose of allowing you and
Chris to be together. Although he/she would really like to attend graduate school in Hawaii,
Chris informed you that he/she is seriously considering going to graduate school here at
Michigan State so the two of you can be in the same city.

Spending time together has always been an important part of your relationship with Chris.
last night, even though you had an exam to study for, you cleared your schedule in order tn
spend time with Chris. You even rented a video and ordered a pizza. Chris thought that you
would want to spend some quiet time studying so had made plans to go out with friends.
When you told Chris that you had a pizza and a movie, Chris called his/ her friends and told
them that he/she would be spending the evening with you.

You and Chris have always provided each other with a lot of emotional support. When Chris
was having trouble in Math 108 you spent your own study time tutoring Chris and being
supportive when things were going badly. Last week you took a very difficult exam and
didn't think you did very well on it. When you told Chris how badly you felt, Chris was
sympathetic and comforting. Since Chris got a 4.0 in that class last semester, he/ she offered
to spend some extra time with you before the next exam to help you bring up your grade.

You and Chris have always been physically affectionate. Whenever Chris has a bad day you
have volunteered to give a long, relaxing shoulder rub to ease the tension and make him/ her
feel better. Two days ago you were working out and somehow strained the muscles in your
back. It was very painful so when you saw Chris that night you asked for a back rub to try
to ease the pain. Chris took special care to give you a very long back rub - making sure that
you were feeling better before he/ she stopped.

Now, think about your and Chris's relationship. In particular, think about what you and
Chris have each recently been giving to make the relationship work, and what you each have
been getting out of the relationship. Using the following scales, rate how balanced you think
this relau'onship is, in terms of what you each put into it and get out of it

This relationship is:
Imbalanged l 2 3 4 S 6 7 m
m; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lair
Unegeg l 2 3 4 5 6 7 59931
Uaeyen 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Eyen

APPENDIX B

Overbenefited Questionnaire

APPENDIX B

W
Department of Communication

Michigan State University

The purpose of this questionnaire is to examine your perceptions of behavior in an
interpersonal situation. DO NQ]: WRITE YOUR NAME OR ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE! All of the information that you provide us with will be kept
W. Therefore, please be as honest as you possibly can in responding to the
situation.

In the situation below, you will be faced with what many consider to be a "difficult"

communication situation. fleas! me situagon earetefly. When you have finished reading it,
complete the remainder of the questionnaire.

37

38

Interpersonal Relationship Situation

You and Chris have been dating each other exclusively for one year. This relationship is the
most serious you have ever had, and the longest lasting. Everything has been perfect and
seemed "right" — you have been in love. Over the past couple weeks, though, you know
that Chris has been bothered by four separate incidents that have occurred. Specifically:

You know that Chris is deeply committed to a relationship with you and has assumed that
you felt the same way. One day last week, though, Chris informed you that he/she recently
accepted a job locally for the sole purpose of allowing the two of you to be together. Chris
then started discussing plans for the two of you to get an apartment together in East Lansing,
after graduation. You informed Chris that you are now seriously considering going to
graduate school in Hawaii.

Second, spending time together has never been a problem until lately when you have been
doing a lot of things without Chris. last night, even though Chris had an exam to study for,
he/she cleared his/her schedule in order to spend time with you. Chris even rented a video
and ordered a pizza. You then told Chris that you already had plans with friends. When
Chris immediately tried to make plans for tonight you didn't want to deal with it so you
were evasive and said that you weren't sure what was going on and would give Chris an
answer later today.

Third, Chris has always provided you with a lot of emotional support. When you were
having trouble in Math 108 Chris spent his/her own study time tutoring you and being
supportive when things were going badly. last week Chris took a very difficult exam and
didn't think he/she did very well on it. When Chris tried to talk to you about how badly
he/she felt, you were disinterested and preoccupied. While Chris was telling the horror story
about the exam the phone rang. You picked it up and proceeded to talk to a friend for
approximately fifteen minutes about an upcoming concert and whether or not the two of
you are going to try to get tickets.

Finally, Chris has always been physically affectionate toward you. Whenever you have had a
bad day Chris has volunteered to give you a long, relaxing shoulder rub to ease the tension
and make you feel better. Two days ago Chris was working out and somehow strained the
muscles in his/her back. It was apparently very painful because when Chris saw you that
night, he/she asked you for a back rub to try to ease the pain. You really wanted to watch
. TV so you rubbed Chris' back for about one minute and then went off to catch your show.

None of these incidents, if they had happened separately, would really have bothered Chris.
But because all of them have happened in the past two weeks Chris has begun to question
how much you really care for him/ her and the continuation of your relationship.

39

1. Now, think about your and Chris's relationship. In particular, think about what you and
Chris have each recently been giving to make the relationship work, and what you each
have been getting out of the relationship. Using the following scales, rate how balanced
you think this relationship is, in terms of what you each put into it and get out of it.

This relationship is:
lmhalanced 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 Released
Unfair; l 2 3 4 5 6 7 m
ypeggg l 2 3 4 5 6 7 m
M l 2 3 4 S 6 7 m

Now, think about the situation that you have just read. For each of the items below, giggle
I.‘ umber _1- es re L‘ e; k row 11 C1 ou -34r"/d aquewt 1‘ t’. 'H‘! J;
ppesepstm'. Choose the answer that best describes your attitudes, beliefs, and opinions about

the situation.

2. I resent the fact that my relationship with Chris is so imbalanced.
Cemelsselx l 2 3 4 S 6 7 Qemnleielx
m Am
3. It makes me angry when I think about how unequal my relationship with Chris is.
mepletely l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely
Insane: Agree.
4. This relationship is unfair.
o l t I 2 3 4 5 6 7 M
2:22:32 Arne:
S. I am more emotionally invested in this relationship than Chris is.
ete I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Qmmylemly
mamas Agree
6. I am afraid that I will lose Chris if our relationship doesn't become more equal.
0 let I 2 3 4 5 6 7 meplefly
'sa ee ARE:
7. It is upsetting to realize that my relationship with Chris is so imbalanced.
Cemnletsly l 2 3 4 5 6 7 92mm!
Dining Am
8. I am giving as much as Chris is giving in this relationship.
Completely I 2 3 4 S 6 7 Completely

um Ante:

4O

9. Chris loves me as much as I love him/ her.
Qempletely l 2 3 4 S 6 7 gpmplemly
Diem Am
10. The unfairness of my relationship with Chris depresses me.
let 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 gmmpletely
Disagree Agree
1 1. Chris gets more out of our relationship than I do.
Cemelmlx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 genuinely
12122119 A8129;
12. Our relationship is fairly balanced and equal.
0 e e l 2 3 4 S 6 7 Qo_rpple§ely
Dim m
13. I am hurt by the fact that Chris and I are not giving equally to our relationship.
Completely l 2 3 4 5 6 7 My
12m A213:
14. I am giving as much as I am getting in this relationship.
0 tel l 2 3 4 S 6 7 gpmpletely
Dining Am:
15. It is very disturbing to me that my relationship with Chris is unfair.
et 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 gempjepely
mam ' Am

16. Now think about what you would actually do at this point in your relationship with
Chris. Please describe, in as much detail as possible, what (if anything) you would say
and/or what actions you would take to resolve any unfairness in this relationship:

 

 

 

 

 

 

17. I am (check one): __ Male _ Female

18. I am currently __ years old.

19. I am: _ Caucasian _ Asian/Pacific Islander
__ African-American __ Native American

_ Hispanic _ Other (please specify)

APPENDIX C

Underbenefited Questionnaire

APPENDIX C

W
Department of Communication

Michigan State University

The purpose of this questionnaire is to examine your perceptions of behavior in an
interpersonal situation. DO N O]: WRITE YOUR NAME OR ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE! All of the information that you provide us with will be kept
mm. Therefore, please be as honest as you possibly can in responding to the
situation.

In the situation below, you will be faced with what many consider to be a "difficult"

communication situation. WWW- When you have finished reading it,
complete the remainder of the questionnaire.

41

42

Interpersonal Relationship Situation

You and Chris have been dating each other exclusively for one year. This relationship is the
most serious you have ever had, and the longest lasting. Everything has been perfect and
seemed "right" - you have been in love. Over the past couple weeks, though, four separate
incidents occurred that have caused you to question your reladonship. Specifically:

You are deeply committed to your relationship with Chris and assumed that Chris felt the
same way. You recently accepted a job locally for the sole purpose of allowing you and Chris
to be together. You start your new position in two weeks. One day last week, though, when
you were discussing your plans for getting an apartment together in East Lansing after
graduation, Chris informed you that he/she is now seriously considering going to graduate
school in Hawaii.

Second, spending time together has never been a problem until lately when Chris has been
doing a lot Of things without you. last night, even though you had an exam to study for,
you cleared your schedule in order to spend time with Chris. You even rented a video and
ordered a pizza. Chris then informed you that he/she already had plans with friends. When
you tried to make plans for tonight Chris was evasive and said that he/she would give you an
answer later today.

Third, you and Chris have always provided each other with a lot of emotional support.
When Chris was having trouble in Math 108 you spent your own study time tutoring Chris
and being supportive when things were going badly. Last week you took a very difficult
exam and didn't think you did very well on it. When you tried to talk about how badly you
felt, Chris seemed disinterested and preoccupied. While you were telling Chris your horror
story about the exam the phone rang. Chris picked it up and proceeded to talk to a friend
for approximately fifteen minutes about an upconring concert and whether or not they were
going to try to get tickets.

Finally, you and Chris have aIWays been physically affectionate. Whenever Chris has a bad
day you have volunteered to give a long, relaxing shoulder rub to ease the tension and make
him/her feel better. No days ago you were working out and somehow strained the muscles
in your back. It was very painful so when you saw Chris that night you asked for a back rub
to try to ease the pain. Chris grudgingly rubbed your back for about one rrrinute and then
went off to watch TV.

None of these incidents, if they had happened separately, would really bother you. But
because all of them have happened in the past two weeks you have begun to question how
much Chris really cares for you and the continuation of your relationship.

43

I. Now, think about your and Chris's relationship. In particular, think about what you and
Chris have each recently been giving to make the relationship work, and what you each
have been getting out of the relationship. Using the following scales, rate how balanced
you think this relationship is, in terms of what you each put into it and get out of it.

This relationship is:
Imbalancg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W
unfair 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 m
111151931 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 figu_al
m 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 m

Now, think about the situation that you have just read. For each of the items below, giggle

.I' Ur be ,tat 0; ‘o ‘ ‘15 10W u r O -.'4L‘-1‘/!S-°41“w'rt‘ 2’- ‘n'r .1- 'S
presemeg. Choose the answer that best describes your attitudes, beliefs, and opinions about
‘ the situation.

2. I resent the fact that my relationship with Chris is so imbalanced.

921111219321! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9291mm
Dim Am
3. It makes me angry when I think about how unequal my relationship with Chris is.
Completely l 2 3 4 S 6 7 mm
12133213 Am
4. This relationship is unfair.
Completely l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely
Dianne A2139
5. I am more emotionally invested in this relationship than Chris is.
minimal! 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Seamlessly
msagpee Anne
6. I am afraid that I will lose Chris if our relationship doesn't become more equal.
ete l 2 3 4 S 6 7 Completely
m Agree
7. It is upsetting to realize that my relationship with Chris is so imbalanced.
ete l 2 3 4 S 6 7 Cpmpletgy
mm Am
8. I am giving as much as Chris is giving in this relau'onship.
Completely l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely

Digging Am

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.
19.

44

Chris loves me as much as I love him/ her.

Cemplegly 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Completely
Dim Ame
The unfairness of my relationship with Chris depresses me.
le l l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely
Disagree m
Chris gets more out of our relationship than I do.
92mm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely
Disagree Am
Our relationship is fairiy balanced and equal.
1 te 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lomplgely
Imam Agree
I am hurt by the fact that Chris and I are not giving equally to our relationship.
9mm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mm
m AEE
I am giving as much as I am getting in this relationship.
Completely 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Qamnletely
Disagree Agree
It is very disturbing to me that my relationship with Chris is unfair.
C l te 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Cpmpletely
Disagree Am

Now think about what you would actually do at this point in your relationship with
Chris. Please describe, in as much detail as possible, what (if anything) you would say
and/or what actions you would take to resolve any unfairness in this relationship:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am (check one): _ Male __ Female

1 am currently __ years old.

I am: _ Caucasian _ Asian/Pacific Islander
__ African-American __ Native American

__ Hispanic __ Other (please specify)

APPENDIX D

Measures Of Perceived Inequity and Distress

APPENDIX D

ITEMS USED TO MEASURE DISTRESS:

1 . I resent the fact that my relationship with Chris is so
imbalanced.

2. It makes me angry when I think about how unequal my
relationship with Chris is.

3 . It is upsetting to realize that my relationship with Chris is so
imbalanced.

4. The unfainess of my relationship with Chris depresses me.

5 . I am hurt by the fact that Chris and I are not giving equally to
our relationship.

6. It is very disturbing to me that my relationship with Chris is
unfair.

ITEMS USED TO MEASURE PERCEIVED INEQUITY:

Now think about your and Chris's relationship. In particular, think
about what you and Chris have each recently been giving to make
the relationship work, and what you each have been getting out of
the relationship. Using the following scales, rate how balanced you
think this relationship is, in terms of what you each put into it and
get out of it.

This relationship is:
flpalaacfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Balanged
lhrf__a_ir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 firm
Unequal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {ppm
mzyep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eve_n

45

VIII. REFERENCES

Cohen,J. (1960) E u ati n P h l i M m n ,;Q(1),
pp. 37-46.

Doyle J A., &Paludi M A (1991) W
eyperienee. Dubuque, IA. Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

Eakins, B. W., & Eakins, R. G. (1978). Sex differenees in hmap
cemmunieatien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Greenglass, E. R. (1982). Aw rld f ' en e' d rr 1e in
W. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.

Ivy.D K &Backlund P (1994) W
W New York: McGraw-

Kelley.H-H. (1979). W
p_r9_ces_s_e_s. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex
differences in romantic attachments. Sea Reles, 1(8), 821-
835.

Sprecher, S. (1986). The relation between inequity and emotions

in close relationships. S i P h 1 rl 512(4),
309-321.

Sprecher, S. (1992). How men and women expect to feel and
behave in response to inequity in close relationships. S_Oeial

P h 1 r1 , Sim), 57-69.

Stewart, L. P., Stewart, A. D., Friedley, S. A., & Cooper, P. J. (1990).
Cmm 'ctin -- en - -x- _ Sx .' ern - . n . x-
rele stereotypes. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick,
Publishers.

Tannen, D. (1990). Yea jest den't _u_ng1erstand. New York: William

Morrow.

46

47
Ueleke, W., Miller, D., Giesen, M., & Miles, S. (1983). Inequity
resolving behavior as a response to inequity in a hypothetical

marital relationship. P ch 10 erl ' f h
M: ZQ(3/4)r 4'80

Van Avermaet, E., McClintock, C., & Moskowitz, J. (1978).
Alternative approaches to equity: dissonance reduction pro-
social motivation and strategic accommodation. W

.IQIflQl of Smial Psfihelogy, §, 419-437.

Van Yperen, N. W., & Buunk, Bram P. (1990). A longitudinal study
Of equity and satisfaction in intimate relationships. Em
leurnal ef Sgyjal Psyehelegy, 2_Q, 287-309.

Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions
in equity research. [empal pf Persenflity ape Seeial
Psyehelegy, 25(2), 151-176.

Walster, E., Traupmann, J ., & Walster, G. W. (1978b). Equity and

extramarital sexuality. Archives pf Sex_ual Behavier, 1(2), 127-
142.

Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978a). Egm'ty; Theeg
anda'eseameh. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Walster, E. Walster, G. W., & Traupmann, J. (1978c). Equity and

premarital sex WWW
LU). 82- 92.

Webster's New World Dictionary (1974). Second College Edition.

Wood. J. T. (1994). W
gimme. Belrnont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

GENERAL REFERENCES

Benderly, B. L. (1987). The mm pf me mines: What ggmder
means apd doesn't meg. New York: Doubleday.

Breek, G. (1972). The effect of intimacy: Reciprocity or retreat?
British leurng pf Clinical Psyeholegy, ;, 135-142.

4s

Burgoon, J. K., Dillrnan, L., &Stern, L. (1993). Adaptation in dyadic
interaction: Defining and operationalizing patterns of

reciprocity and compensation When—Therm 3(4).
295-3 16.

Burgoon, J. K., Olney, C. A., & Coker, R. A. (1987). The effects of
communicator characteristics on patterns of reciprocity and

compensation. WW. 1_1_(3). 146-
165.

Capella, J. N. (1984). The relevance of teh microstructure of

interaction to relationship change. Jepmaleffieeialapd
Bersenal Relag'enships, 1, 239-264.

Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). CQmship. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Cline, R. J. W. (1989). The politics of intimacy: Costs and benefits
determining disclosure intimacy in male-female dyads.

0 f8 1 an Pr R 'nhi ,6,5-20.

Gaelick, L, Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. 8., Jr. (1985). Emotional

communication in close relationships. WARD!
ar_rd Smi al Psychelpgy, _9(5), 1246-1265.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1992). We. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Kaplan, A. G.,&Sedney, MA. (1980). P h 1 r 1 -
W. Boston: little. Brown and

Company.

Kellermann, K. (1992). Communication: Inherently strategic and

primarily automatic. Cemmm’eatien Menegraphs, 52, 288-
300.

Kenny, D. A. (1988). Interpersonal perception: A social relations

analysis. ournal fS ialan P r n Relati 11 hi 5_, 247-
261.

49
Lane, I. M. & Messe, L. A. (1971). Equity and the distribution of

rewards. fP P h 1,2Q(1),
1-17.

Leventhal, G. S., & Anderson, D. (1970). Self-interest and the
maintenance of equity. al f Per ' S i
Psychelegy, 25(1), 57-62.

Leventhal, G. S., & Michaels, J. W. (1969). Extending the equity
model: perception of inputs and allocation of reward as a
function of duration and quantity of performance. magi

P n ' S ' P hi ,_1_2(4),303-309.

Levinger, G. & Raush, H. L. (Eds.) (1977). W

W- Amherst: University
of Massachusetts Press.

lloyd, B., & Archer, J. (1976). W. New York:

Academic Press.

Lujansky, H., & Mikula, G. (1983). Can equity theory explain the
quality and the stability of romantic relationships? Brip' sh
fS i P h l , 22, 101-112.

McClintock, C. G., Kramer, R. M., &Keil, LJ. (1984). Equity and
social exchange in human relationships. Advaneesin

W .1_7 133-223

Michaels, J. W., Edwards, J. N., & Acock, A. C. (1984). Satisfaction
in intimate relationships as a function of inequality, inequity,
and outcomes. Speial Psmholpgy Merly, 4_7 (4), 347-357.

Montgomery,B. M., &Duck, S. (Eds.) (1991). Mg
W New York: The Guilford Press.

Morton, T. L. (1978). Intimacy and reciprocity of exchange: A

comparison of spouses and Strangers. lama] pf Personality
and Socim Psyehplpgy, 26(1), 72-81.

Nicholson, J. (1993). Men w m n H w ' eren
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

50
Pearson, J. C., Turner, L. H., & Todd-Mancillas, W. (1991). Ginger;

W, (second ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wrrr. C.
Brown Publishers.

Radinsky, T. I. (1969). Equity and inequity as a source of reward
and punishment. Psghenpmie Seiepee, 25(6), 293-295.

Roberto, K. A., & Scott, J. P. (1986). Friendships of older men and
women: Exchange patterns and satisfaction. W
Aging, 1(2), 103-109.

Roloff, M. E. (1981). Intemrspnm eemmunieap’pn; The seeial
W Beverly H1118: Sage.

Sabourin, T. C., Infante, D. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1993). Verbal
aggression in marriages: A comparison of violent, distressed
but nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. mamas;

Commpm'eap'on Reseamh, 20(2), 245-267.

Sillars, A. L., Pike, G. R., Jones, T. 8., & Murphy, M. A. (1984).
Communication and understanding in marriage. Human

Cemmlmieap'pn Reseapch, ma), 317-350.
Stockard. J., & Johnson. M. M. (1992). W

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Traupmann, J ., Peterson, R., Utne, M., & Hatfield, E. (1981).
Measuring equity in intimate relations. A Ii P l '
Memement. .5.(4). 467-480.

Wood, J. T. ( 1986). Different voices in relationship crises.
Amerieg Behavierm Seientis; 22( 3), 273-301.

MICHIGAN ST

1131!): mw(Illilur‘nijilllflgljllllf

 

29301