Abstract
Finally, Elaine Hatfield and Richard Rapson provide an overview of the contents of this volume wrapped into a lively account of some of the historical and theoretical ‘forerunners’ to resource theorizing. The “story” they are telling reminds us that justice theories and SRT are two developments in different directions, with a common origin in social exchange theory (and both finally merging in attempts at integration). Hatfield and Rapson discuss a few of the justice theories that were prominent in the 1950s to the 1970s with a special focus on Equity theory, including Morton Deutsch’s commentaries about the diverse views of justice that exist, Uriel and Edna Foa’s attempts to devise a taxonomy for the resources involved in social exchanges, and J. Stacy Adams’ attempts to predict how perceived injustices will be resolved. After some exciting peeks into the past and present, considering the advances that have occurred in the last 40+ years, Hatfield and Rapson speculate as to where we might expect scholarship to go in future years.
Although Foa and Foa’s social resource theory of social exchange has been widely recognized by scholars working in different disciplines, we tend to think that it has not been as influential as it arguably should have been, despite the fact that SRT addresses and has important implications for the study of interpersonal relationships and processes. This volume features chapters that break new grounds and point to exciting prospects, and it is our hope that colleagues in various disciplines who are interested in understanding human relations and social interaction will find SRT useful for their own research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Equity formulas used by previous researchers, from Aristotle to Stacy Adams, only yield meaningful results if A and B’s inputs and outcomes are entirely positive or entirely negative. In mixed cases, the formulas yield extremely peculiar results. This is simply a formula designed to transcend these limitations. See Walster (1975) for a discussion of the problems and the mathematical solutions. The superscript k simply “scales” equity problems (by multiplying all inputs and outcomes by a positive constant) such that the minimum of I IA I and I I B I is greater than or equal to 1.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965a). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 335–343.
Adams, J. S. (1965b). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299.
Adams, J. S., & Rosenbaum, W. B. (1962). The relationship of worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage inequities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 161–164.
Amir, Y., & Sharon, I. (1987). Are social psychological laws cross-culturally valid? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 383–470.
Anselm of Canterbury. (1998). Opera omnia. In B. Davies and G. Evans (Eds.), Anselem of Canterbury: The major works. New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1070 A.D.–1109 A. D.)
Aumer-Ryan, K., Hatfield, E., Frey, R. (2006). Equity in romantic relationships: An analysis across self-construal and culture. University of Texas, Austin. Unpublished manuscript.
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.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Borg, J. S., Hynes, C., Horn, J. V., Grafton, S., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2006). Consequences, action, and intention as factors in moral judgments: An fMRI investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 803–817.
Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S., & Richerson, P. J. (2003). The evolution of altruistic punishment. PNAS, 100, 3531–3535.
Brosnan, S. F. (2006). At a crossroads of disciplines. Journal of Social Justice, 19, 218–227.
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299.
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.
Buunk, B. P., & Van Ypern, N. W. (1989). Social comparison, equality, and relationship satisfaction: Gender differences over a ten-year period. Social Justice Research, 3, 157–180.
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Lorig, T. S., Norris, C. J., & Nusbaum, H. (2003). Just because you’re imaging the brain doesn’t mean you can stop using your head: A primer and set of first principles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 650–661.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cikara, M., Botvinick, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22, 306–313.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.
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.
Davies, N. (2001). Heart of Europe: The past in Poland’s present. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene: 30th anniversary edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1974). Awakening the sense of injustice. In M. Lerner & M. Ross (Eds.), The quest for justice: Myth, reality, ideal. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Waterloo, May, 1972. (pp. 19–42). Canada: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. New York: The Free Press.
Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures: A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al., 2002. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78–88.
Foa, U. G. (1971). Interpersonal and economic resources. Science, 171, 345–351.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York: Harper & Row.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. London: M. E. Sharpe.
Goldstein, J. S. (2011). Winning the war on war: The decline of armed conflict worldwide. New York: Dutton.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–32.
Hatfield Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2005). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Lanham: University Press of America.
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Aumer-Ryan, K. (2008). Social justice in love relationships: Recent developments. Social Justice Research, 21, 413–431.
Heilbroner, R. (1991). An inquiry into the human prospect: Looked at again for the 1990s. New York: W. W. Norton.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1988). The age of revolution: Europe, 1789–1848. New York: Vintage.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior and exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 62, 597–606.
Kershaw, I. (2002). Popular opinion and political dissent in the Third Reich: Bavaria 1933–1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kitchener, L. (1963). Mother and wife [Recorded by The Invaders Steel Band]. On Air Mail Music: Steel Bands Caraibes [CD]. Boulogne: Playasound.
Knafo, A., Schwartz, S. H., & Levine, R. V. (2009). Helping strangers is lower in embedded cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 875–879.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion (perspectives in social psychology). New York: Plenum.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange. Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1957). The principle of reciprocity. In L. A. Coser & B. Rosenberg (Eds.), Sociological theory: A book of readings (pp. 84–94). New York: Macmillan.
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melansian New Guinea. London: Routledge.
Mauss, M. (1925). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New York: Norton Library.
Movshon, J. A. (2006, February 5). Searching for the person in the brain. The New York Times. Week in Review, 155, 1–4.
Murphy-Berman, V., & Berman, J. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 157–170.
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.
Paloutzian, R. F., & Park, C. L. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. New York: Guilford.
Panksepp, J. (2007). Neurologizing the psychology of affects: How appraisal-based constructivism and basic emotion theory can coexist. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 281–312.
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: Viking.
Raine, A., & Yang, Y. (2006). Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 203–213.
Reis, D. L., Brackett, M. A., Shamosh, N. A., Kiehl, K. A., Salovey, P., & Gray, J. R. (2007). Emotional intelligence predicts individual differences in social exchange reasoning. NeuroImage, 35, 1385–1391.
Robertson, D., Snarey, J., Ousley, O., Harenski, K., Bowman, F. D., Gilkey, R., & Kilts, C. (2007). The neural processing of moral sensitivity to issues of justice and care. Neuropsychologia, 45, 755–766.
Rosenblatt, P. C., & Cunningham, M. R. (1976). Sex differences in cross-cultural perspective. In B. Lloyd & J. Archer (Eds.), Exploring sex differences (pp. 71–94). London: Academic.
Schama, S. (2002). A history of Britain III: The fate of Empire 1776–2001 (Vol. 3). New York: Hyperion.
Shweder, R. A., Mahapatra, M., & Miller, J. G. (1987). In J. Kagan & S. Lamb (Eds.), The emergence of morality in young children (pp. 1–83). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, M. (1974). Models in ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Toffler, A. (1984). Future shock. New York: Bantam.
Törnblom, K., & Kazemi, A. (2012). Advances in justice conflict conceptualization: A new integrative framework. In E. Kals & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts (pp. 21–52). Berlin: Springer.
Traupmann, J., Peterson, R., Utne, M., & Hatfield, E. (1981). Measuring equity in intimate relations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 467–480.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020.
Trivers, R. (1972). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–37.
Turner, J. H. (2007). Justice and emotions. Social Justice Research, 20, 288–311.
Walster, G. W. (1975). The Walster, et al. (1973) Equity formula: A correction. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 65–67.
Wargo, E. (2005). With the brain, is seeing believing? American Psychological Society, 18, 33.
Watson, K., & Platt, M. L. (2006). Fairness and the neurobiology of social cognition: Commentary on nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness’ by Sarah Brosnan. Social Justice Research, 19, 186–193.
Witvliet, C. V. O., Worthington, E. L., Root, L. M., Sato, A. F., Ludwig, T. E., & Exline, J. J. (2008). Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental psychophysiology analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 10–25.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix A
Appendix A
A Multi-factor Measure of Equity
Introduction: Explanation of Concepts
We’re interested in the give-and-take that goes on in a dating relationship or marriage. We’d like to ask you a few questions about the things you put into your relationship … and the kinds of things you get out of it. We know that most people don’t ordinarily keep careful track of exactly what they’re giving and getting from their dating relationships or marriages. They certainly don’t pull their relationship apart and think about the various aspects of their relationship, one by one. But in order for us to get some idea of what goes on in dating and marital relationships, we have to ask you and the other people we’re interviewing to spell out some of the give-and-take that naturally occurs.
Let us look at some of the critical areas in any dating relationship or marriage. Look over this list. [Hand respondent list.] We’d like to ask about you and your partner’s Personal Concerns, your Emotional Concerns, your Day-to-Day Concerns, and a little about the things the two of you feel you gain or lose – simply by dating or being married. We’d like you to read each item.
[Each item is read through, aloud if interviewer is used. After reading each item, Respondent is asked]:
Considering what you put into your dating relationship or marriage (in this area), compared to what you get out of it … and what your partner puts in compared to what he or she gets out of it, how does your dating relationship/marriage “stack up”?
-
+3: I am getting a much better deal than my partner.
-
+2: I am getting a somewhat better deal.
-
+1: I am getting a slightly better deal.
-
0: We are both getting an equally good or bad deal.
-
−1: My partner is getting a slightly better deal.
-
−2: My partner is getting a somewhat better deal.
-
−3: My partner is getting a much better deal than I am.
Areas Involved in the Dating/Marital Give-and-Take Personal Concerns
Social Grace
-
1.
Social Grace: Some people are sociable, friendly, relaxed in social settings. Others are not.
Intellect
-
2.
Intelligence: Some people are intelligent and informed.
Appearance
-
3.
Physical Attractiveness: Some people are physically attractive.
-
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
-
5.
Liking: Some people like their partners and show it. Others do not.
-
6.
Love: Some people feel and express love for their partners.
Understanding and Concern
-
7.
Understanding and Concern: Some people know their partner’s personal concerns and emotional needs and respond to them.
Acceptance
-
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
-
9.
Expressions of Appreciation: Some people openly show appreciation for their partner’s contributions to the relationship – they do not take their partner for granted.
Physical Affection:
-
10.
Showing Affection: Some people are openly affectionate – touching, hugging, kissing.
Sex
-
11.
Sexual Pleasure: Some people participate in the sexual aspect of a relationship, working to make it mutually satisfying and fulfilling.
-
12.
Sexual Fidelity: Some people live up to (are “faithful” to) their agreements about extramarital relations.
Security/Freedom
-
13.
Commitment: Some people commit themselves to their partners and to the future of their relationship together.
-
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
-
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
-
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:
-
17.
Finances: Some people contribute income to the couple’s “joint account.”
Sociability
-
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, are not too moody, do not get drunk too often, and so on.
-
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.
-
20.
Conversation: Some people tell partners about their day’s events and what is on their mind…and are also interested in hearing about their partners’ concerns and daily activities.
-
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:
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
To calculate a Total Index, the experimenter sums the respondents’ estimates of how Over-benefited, Equitably treated, or Under-benefited they are in each of the 25 areas and divides by 25.
If experimenters wish to weight the items by importance, they can simply go through the 25 items, one by one, and ask:
How important is this area to you?
-
8: Extremely important
-
7: Very important
-
6: Fairly important
-
5: Slightly important
-
4: Slightly unimportant
-
3: Fairly important
-
2: Very unimportant
-
1: Extremely unimportant
Then weight item by importance.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R.L. (2012). Where Do We Stand and Where Do We Need to Go?. In: Törnblom, K., Kazemi, A. (eds) Handbook of Social Resource Theory. Critical Issues in Social Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4174-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4175-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)