Equity Theory and Social exchange theory Essay

In this essay I aim to get word deuce theories ( truth Theory and Social transpose guess) of consanguinitys and to consider how they might model the therapist engaged in couples counseling, noting their similarities and differences. fair-mindedness possibility is a theory near fairness. Its application to close family kins has been primarily advanced by Elaine Hatfield (previously cognize as Elaine Walster) and her colleagues in the throw truth Theory and Research (Walster, Walster, and Berscheid 1978).The book outlines four interlocking propositions of fairness theory and discusses the application of equity theory to different types of relationships, including intimate sensations. The propositions atomic number 18 1. Individuals allow try to maximize their outcomes (where outcomes meet rewards minus cost). 2a. Groups hobo maximize collective reward by evolving pronounce systems for equitably apportioning resources among members. Thus, groups will evolve such(preno minal) systems of equity, and will flack to induce members to accept and adhere to these systems.2b.Groups will primarily reward members who negotiate an early(a)(prenominal)s equitably, and generally punish ( summation the costs for) members who treat others inequitably. 3. When individuals find themselves participating in inequitable relationships, they beseem inconvenienceed. The more(prenominal) inequitable the relationship, the more di tryed the individuals feel. 4. Individuals who perk they are in an inequitable relationship attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring equity. The greater the inequity that exists, the more distress they feel, and the harder they try to restitute equity. lawfulness theory rests on the guess that people are expedienceed and will try to maximize their personal establishs. It has sometimes been questioned by researchers who rely that the temper of close relationships differs from other types of relationships. They argue that clo se relationships should not be ground on individual calculations of costs and rewards and a self-interested focalise on maintaining relationships solely for the personal profit they may provide. Instead, they argue that relationships should be base on a mutual concern for to for to severally one one one others welfare or inevitably (Clark and Chrisman 1994 Clark and Mills 1979).Three primary ways of dealing with challenges to this assumption exist. cardinal is to consider that individuals may vary in switch over orientation or the importance they give to monitoring equity in their relationships (Murstein, Cerreto, and Mac-Donald 1977). For example, some individuals may be high in ex mixture orientation, constantly keeping caterpillar track of how much they and their abetter _or_ abettors put into or get out of a relationship. different individuals may be low in swap orientation, not give attention to inputs, outputs, costs, and rewards of their relationships at all.M easuring exchange orientation may be a way of measuring self-interest in relationships. Research by Susan Sprecher (1998) has supported this notion. Her findings suggest that different motivations for keeping score of costs and benefits in a relationship have different effects on relationship quality. concourse who keep track of inputs and outputs to make undisputable they are not under benefited by the relationship seem to be slight well-provided by their relationship whereas people who keep track of inputs and outputs to make sure they are not over-benefited by the relationship seem to be more satisfied by it.Another way to account for differences in philosophies regarding self-interest in relationships is to include relational- take aim outcomes such as mutuality, sharing, and respect as types of benefits that individuals can receive from relationships. Relational partners may see themselves as a unit, with some(prenominal) of them maximally benefiting from the relationship. In this type of relationship, where identities of the individual partners have merged, what benefits one partner will also benefit the other.Relational-level outcomes have not regularly been considered in equity research, although similar concepts arise during discussions of entitlement processes (Desmarais and Lerner 1994) and fairness rules (Clark and Chrisman 1994) in close relationships. Equity in a relationship may be seen as its throw reward. This idea is suggested by proposition 2 that attempts to account for the development of rules, or norms, that limit self-interest behavior. If individuals were to continually strive for the most resources, anarchy and madness would dominate society as each member tried to gain more.However, proposition 2 asserts that societies, groups, and couples will develop rules that foster fairness to each member in order to prevent such a causality. People who follow the rules of fairness will be rewarded, and people who do not will be punished. Thus, behaving equitably becomes a means to maximize ones outcomes, and fairness, more so than self-interest, becomes the norm. Proposition 3 that focus on the outcomes of inequitable relationships by asserting that individuals in inequitable relationships will become distressed.Researchers exploring the area of equitable outcomes in marital relationships a lot stair outcomes through and through reports or observations of behaviors rather than perceptions. This is because individuals perceptions of their relationships can become skewed through gender- base valuing of relational inputs, because an incongruence often exists between perception of ones behavior and the actual behavior itself, and because people in low-power positions often feel entitled to less(prenominal) that leads them to perceive an unfair situation as fair.According to this, people do still report perceived inequity in their relationships, and it has been associated with negative outcomes, including less sexual intimacy, less sexual satisfaction, less commitment to the relationship, decreased satisfaction and satisfaction with the relationship, and relationship breakup (Sprecher 1995). And proposition 4 states people intricate in inequitable relationships will try to unsex equity.Hatfield (Walster) and her colleagues (1978) provide two ways that a person can restore equity to a relationship by restoring actual equity or by restoring psychological equity (the perception that equity actually exists when it does not). Researchers who use behavior to measure relational equity instead of perceptions may do so because they believe partners in an inequitable relationship do not see the inequity. This assumption is congruent with the concept of restoring psychological equity.Understanding the concept of fairness is innate to understanding equity theory. Elaine Hatfield (Walster) and her colleagues (Walster, Walster, and Berscheid 1978) argue that fairness rules are culturally bound, indicatin g that generally one of three rules of fairness can apply proportionality, equality, or need. Rules based upon proportionality mean that individuals receive equal relative gains from the relationship. In other words, each person should get out of the relationship gains that are in proportion to what they have put into the relationship.The equality rule, on the other hand, means that regardless of how much each person has put into the relationship, they should each reap equal rewards. Finally, the need-based rule indicates that need should be the determining promoter in what partners get from a relationship, regardless of their individual contributions to it. Social exchange theory has always been an important component of cognitive-behavioral treatment for families. Most through empirical observation based couple therapies have their foundations in behavioral couple therapy, which focuses on directly changing behavior by maximizing confirmatory changes and minimizing authoritativ e exchanges.This concept particularly important in as much as most unhappy couples report higher daily frequencies of negative events than of positive events (Johnson & OLeary, 1996). Social exchange theory centers on the costs and benefits associated with relationships. It emphasizes that on that point is technically a downside to particular loving conditions, such as being married or single, and there are moments when a downside may endure in the mind of an individual, causing him or her to view the social condition with regret. Social exchange theory was first conceived by Homens (1961) and later lucubrate on by Thibaut and Kelly (1959).Thibaut and Kelly applied the concept of social exchange to the dynamics of intimate relationships, in which they identified patterns of interdepency. Social exchange theory is based on economic theories and views couple moveion through the lens of the exchange of costs and rewards. Simply stated, costs are reasons why a relationship would b e considered undesirable, whereas rewards pertain to reasons that partners would remain in a relationship. If we think about our own spousal relationships, we may discover many costs and rewards. more or less costs may be our collaborators bad habits, such as excessive spending of money or his or her temperament. However, these costs may be strongly outweighed by the rewards, which may consist of the spouses kindness, sensitivity, and his or her constant loyalty and support. It is balance of costs and rewards that often helps couples to determine whether or not they are satisfied in a relationship. A main concept of social exchange theory is the inclination of an orbit of individuals to compare the rewards they are receiving with the perceived alternatives.Equity theory is related to social exchange theory, given their unifying basic premise that outcomes should be evaluated in a relative sense within some frame of reference. Equity theory focuses upon outcome evaluations that res ult from relationships characterized by economic productivity objectives. Equity theory postulates that parties in exchange relationships compare their ratios of exchange inputs to outcomes. Inequity is verbalise to exist when the perceived inputs and /or outcomes in an exchange relationship are psychologically inconsistent with the perceived inputs and/or outcomes of the referent.Since parties sometimes need to evaluate each other before engaging in an exchange, role expectations victimize a crucial role in determining the equity level of a potential exchange relationship. Each party to the exchange has certain(a) expectations about their own role as well as that of the other party. According to role theory, each exchange partner has learned a set of behaviors that is appropriate in an exchange context this will increase the probability of goal attainment by each partner.Role stress can affect long-term relationships if role expectations are unclear or if actual behaviors devia te from expectations. Believed inequities lead exchange parties to feel under-rewarded or over-rewarded, angry, or resentful, and will affect behaviors in subsequent periods by encouraging these parties to change their inputs into the relationship, and thus result in suspicion and mistrust of the exchange partner. The closer the exchange relationship, the more likely it is that relationship participants will perceive inequity.If equity prevails, the ratio of inequity, the ratio of one persons outcomes to inputs is assumed to be constant across exchange partners, which results in the satisfaction of exchange partners with their outcomes. good outcomes stimulate confidence that parties do not take the advantage of each other and those them are concerned about each others welfare. Parties in a relationship can compare their own ratio to that of their exchange partner, to those of others who interact with their exchange partner at the same level, and to that of their best alternative exchange partner.The social exchange theory is useful for couples counseling it focuses on what each partner gives and receives from the other. It allows for therapist and clients to analyze their positive and negative behaviors which need to be changed. Members of relationship need not achieve total equality in the ratios of positives and negatives they exchange in order to be happy. The key is to find a balance of exchange over time that each person finds acceptable. Equity theory is based on couples counseling as everything in a relationship has to be equal otherwise it is gone be gobs of problems in a relationship.Therapist can use it in a couples counseling. The members of the relationship who discover the inequity in their relationship feels distressed and it makes harder to restore the equity in their relationship. Therapist can get members of relationship to focus on the value of their relationship than the more material things they are acquiring from it. Also different mot ivations have different effects on relationship quality. So it would be another thing for therapist to look at during the couples counseling session.