Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Social Justice in Love Relationships: Recent Developments

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In all societies, people are concerned with justice. “What’s fair is fair!” “She deserves better.” “It’s just not right.” “He can’t get away with that!” “It’s illegal.” “It’s unethical!” “It’s immoral” are fairly common laments. In the 11th century, St. Anselm of Canterbury (Anselem of Canterbury: The major works, 1998) argued that the will possesses two competing inclinations: an affection for what is to a person’s own advantage and an affection for justice; the first inclination is stronger, but the second matters, too. Equity theory, too, posits that in personal relationships, two concerns stand out: firstly, how rewarding are people’s societal, family, and work relationships? Secondly, how fair and equitable are those relationships? According to equity theory, people feel most comfortable when they are getting exactly what they deserve from their relationships—no more and certainly no less. In this article, we will begin by describing the classic equity paradigm and the supporting research. We will then recount the great debate that arose in the wake of the assertion that even in close, loving, intimate relationships, fairness matters. We will end by describing what scientists have learned in the past 35 years about the competing claims of altruism, reward, and fairness in love relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Equity theory was an attempt to integrate the insights of evolutionary, economic, and reinforcement theory in predicting men and women’s social behavior.

  2. Documentation for these contentions can be found in Hatfield et al. (1978).

  3. Given space constraints, we will not review all the theoretical perspectives utilized by all the many social psychologists who have contributed to this dialogue. Here, we will simply discuss the implications of their findings for the issues we have raised. Also, for the exact procedures utilized in this research, readers should see the original papers, as we have necessarily had to simplify.

References

  • Adams, G., Anderson, S. L., & Adonu, J. K. (2004). The cultural grounding of closeness and intimacy. In D. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), The handbook of closeness and intimacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amir, Y., & Sharon, I. (1987). Are social psychological laws cross-culturally valid? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 383–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anselm of Canterbury. (1998). Opera omnia. In B. Davies & G. Evans (Eds.), Anselem of Canterbury: The major works. New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work 1070 A.D.–1109 A.D.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumer-Ryan, K., Hatfield, E., & Frey, R. (2006). Equity in romantic relationships: an analysis across self-construal and culture. Unpublished manuscript. University of Texas, Austin, TX.

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (2004). Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Minding manners, being nice, and feeling good. In R. Sussman & A. Chapman (Eds.), The origins and nature of sociality (pp. 53–79). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, J. (1964). The adjustments of married mates. In H. T. Christensen (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 675–739). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F. (2006). At a crossroads of disciplines. Social Justice Research, 19, 218–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F., Schiff, H. C., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 1560, 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, B. P., & van Yperen, N. W. (1989). Social comparison, equality, and relationship satisfaction: Gender differences over a ten-year period. Social Justice Research, 3, 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S., & Wang, A. (2004). Understanding sexuality in close relationships from the social exchange perspective. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 203–234). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cate, R. M., Lloyd, S. A., & Henton, J. M. (1985). The effect of equity, equality, and reward level on the stability of students’ premarital relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 715–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cate, R. M., Lloyd, S. A., & Long, E. (1988). The role of rewards and fairness in developing premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 443–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. S. (1986). Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulations of communal and exchange relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 414–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. S., & Grote, N. K. (1998). Why aren’t indices of relationship costs always negatively related to indices of relationship quality? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 2–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 161–228). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, B. (1984). A test of equity theory for marital adjustment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 36–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douvan, E. (1974). Interpersonal relationships—some questions and observations. Paper presented at the Rausch Conference. Durham, NC: Duke University.

  • Dubner, S. J., & Levitt, S. D. (December 11, 2005). The economy of desire. The New York Times, pp. 38–40.

  • Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1952). On cooling the mark out: Some aspects of adaptation to failure. Psychiatry, 15, 451–463.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grote, N. K., & Clark, M. S. (1998). Distributive justice norms and family work: What is perceived as ideal, what is applied, and what predicts perceived fairness. Social Justice Research, 11, 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., Aronson, E., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). The importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Love, sex, and intimacy: Their psychology, biology, and history. New York: Harper/Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchener, L. (1963). Mother and wife [Recorded by The Invaders Steel Band]. On Air Mail Music: Steel Bands Caraibes [CD]. Boulogne, France: Playasound.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrance, K.-A., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinger, G. (1983). Development and change. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 315–359). New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, H. J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A 5-year follow up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 460–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R. (January 30, 2004). Social and personality psychology: Made in America. Presidential Address. Society for Personality and Social Psychology. 5th annual meeting. Austin, TX.

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsella, A. J. (1998). Toward a global psychology: Meeting the needs of a changing world. American Psychologist, 53, 1282–1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. W. (1985). Satisfaction with intimate exchange: Gender-role differences and the impact of equity, equality, and rewards. Sex Roles, 13, 597–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCall, M. M. (1966). Courtship as social exchange: Some historical comparisons. In B. Farber (Ed.), Kinship and family organization. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G. (1998). Division of household labor and perceived justice: A growing field of research. Social Justice Research, 11, 215–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G., Athenstaedt, U., Heschgl, S., & Heimgartner, A. (1998). Does injustice only depend on the point of view? European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 931–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J., Clark, M. S., Ford, T. E., & Johnson, M. (2004). Measurement of communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11, 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy-Berman, V., & Berman, J. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murstein, B. I., Cerreto, M., & MacDonald, M. G. (1977). A theory and investigation of the effect of exchange-orientation on marriage and friendship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 543–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. Chicago, IL: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, G. R. (1971). Families: Applications of social learning to family life. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlman, D., & Duck, S. (1986). Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblatt, P. C., & Cunningham, M. R. (1976). Sex differences in cross-cultural perspective. In B. Lloyd & J. Archer (Eds.), Exploring sex differences. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the investment model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanzoni, J. (1972). Sexual bargaining: Power politics in the American marriage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreurs, K. M. G., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Closeness, autonomy, equity, and relationship satisfaction in lesbian couples. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 577–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, I. (1971, September). Physical attractiveness and courtship. Sexual Behavior, 1, 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with satisfaction, commitment, and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 599–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (2003). Cognition and affect in cross-cultural relations. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd edn., pp. 127–142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storer, N. W. (1966). The social system of science. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1996). Friendship and the Banker’s paradox: Other pathways to the evolution of adaptations for altruism. Proceedings of the British Academy, 88, 119–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traupmann, J., & Hatfield, E. (1983). How important is marital fairness over the lifespan? International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 17, 89–101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Traupmann, J., Peterson, R., Utne, M., & Hatfield, E. (1981). Measuring equity in intimate relations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 467–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133–160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Yperen, N. W., & Buunk, B. P. (1990). A longitudinal study of equity and satisfaction in intimate relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 287–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walster, G. W. (1975). The Walster et al. (1973) equity formula: a correction. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 65–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1989). The communal/exchange distinction and some implications for understanding justice in families. Social Justice Research, 3, 77–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, K. I., Crawford, D. W., & Fischer, J. (1991). Equity and commitment in romance versus friendship. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, 2430 Campus Road, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA

    Elaine Hatfield

  2. Department of History, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA

    Richard L. Rapson

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Katherine Aumer-Ryan

Authors
  1. Elaine Hatfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard L. Rapson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine Aumer-Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine Hatfield.

Appendix I: A Multi-Factor Measure of Equity

Appendix I: A Multi-Factor Measure of Equity

Areas Involved in the Dating/Marital Give and Take

Personal Concerns

Social Grace

  1. 1.

    Social grace: Some people are sociable, friendly, relaxed in social settings. Others are not.

Intellect

  1. 2.

    Intelligence: Some people are intelligent and informed.

Appearance

  1. 3.

    Physical attractiveness: Some people are physically attractive.

  2. 4.

    Concern for physical appearance and health: Some people take care of their physical appearance and conditioning, through attention to such things as their clothing, cleanliness, exercise, and good eating habits.

Emotional Concerns

Liking and Loving

  1. 5.

    Liking: Some people like their partners and show it. Others do not.

  2. 6.

    Love: Some people feel and express love for their partners.

Understanding and Concern

  1. 7.

    Understanding and concern: Some people know their partner’s personal concerns and emotional needs and respond to them.

Acceptance

  1. 8.

    Accepting and encouraging role flexibility: Some people let their partners try out different roles occasionally, for example, letting their partner be a “baby” sometimes, a “mother,” a colleague or a friend, an aggressive as well as a passive lover, and so on.

Appreciation

  1. 9.

    Expressions of appreciation: Some people openly show appreciation for their partner’s contributions to the relationship—they don’t take their partner for granted.

Physical Affection

  1. 10.

    Showing affection: Some people are openly affectionate—touching, hugging, kissing.

Sex

  1. 11.

    Sexual pleasure: Some people participate in the sexual aspect of a relationship, working to make it mutually satisfying and fulfilling.

  2. 12.

    Sexual fidelity: Some people live up to (are “faithful” to) their agreements about extra-marital relations.

Security/Freedom

  1. 13.

    Commitment: Some people commit themselves to their partners and to the future of their relationship together.

  2. 14.

    Respecting partner’s need to be a free and independent person: Some people allow their partners to develop as an individual in the way that they choose: for example, they allow their partners freedom to go to school or not; to work at the kind of job or career they like; to pursue outside interests; to do things by themselves or with friends; to simply be alone sometimes.

Plans and Goals for the Future

  1. 15.

    Plans and goals for the future: Some people plan for and dream about their future together.

Day-to-Day Concerns

Day-to-Day Maintenance

  1. 16.

    Day-to-day maintenance: Some people contribute time and effort to household responsibilities such as grocery shopping, making dinner, cleaning, and car maintenance. Others do not.

Finances

  1. 17.

    Finances: Some people contribute income to the couple’s “joint account.”

Sociability

  1. 18.

    Easy-to-live-with: Some people are easy to live with on a day-to-day basis; that is, they have a sense of humor, aren’t too moody, don’t get drunk too often, and so on.

  2. 19.

    Companionship: Some people are good companions, who suggest interesting activities for both of them to do together, as well as going along with their partner’s ideas about what they might do for fun.

  3. 20.

    Conversation: Some people tell partners about their day’s events and what’s on their mind…and are also interested in hearing about their partners’ concerns and daily activities.

  4. 21.

    Fitting in: Some people are compatible with their partner’s friends and relatives; they like the friends and relatives, and the friends and relatives like them.

Decision Making

  1. 22.

    Decision Making: Some people take their fair share of the responsibility for making and carrying out of decisions that affect both partners.

Remembering Special Occasions

  1. 23.

    Remembering special occasions: Some people are thoughtful about sentimental things, such as remembering birthdays, your anniversary, and other special occasions.

Opportunities Gained and Lost

Opportunities Gained

  1. 24.

    Chance to be dating or married: Dating and marriage give many people the opportunity to partake of the many life experiences that depend upon dating or being married; for example, the chance to become a parent and even a grandparent, the chance to be included in “married couple” social events, and finally, having someone to count on in old age.

Opportunities Foregone

  1. 25.

    Opportunities foregone: Dating and marriage necessarily requires people to give up certain opportunities…in order to be in this relationship. The opportunities could have been other possible mates, a career, travel, etc.

Source: Hatfield et al. (1978), pp. 237–241.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hatfield, E., Rapson, R.L. & Aumer-Ryan, K. Social Justice in Love Relationships: Recent Developments. Soc Just Res 21, 413–431 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0080-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0080-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation