CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,649Social Power and Status DynamicsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

New directions in equity research.

Walster, Elaine, Berscheid, Ellen, Walster, G. William·1973·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/h0033967
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article consists of four sections: The first section elucidates a general theory of social behavior—equity theory. Equity theory consists of four propositions designed to predict when individuals will perceive that they are justly treated and how they will react when they find themselves enmeshed in unjust relationships. The second section summarizes the extensive research that has been conducted to lest equity theory. The third section points out the ways in which equity theory interlocks with other major social psychological theories. The final section hints at some ways in which equity theory can be applied to understanding social problems. THE THEORETICAL FORMULATION The proposition that individuals seek for themselves maximum reward at minimum cost is hardly startling. Theories in a wide variety of disciplines rest on the assumption that Man is Psychologists believe that behavior can be shaped by the careful application of reinforcement s. Economists assume that individuals will purchase desired products at the lowest available Moral philosophers conclude that the ideal society can only be one which insures the good for the greatest number. Politicians contend that man has his price. Equity theory, too, rests on the assumption that man is selfish. Thus, our first proposition states: Proposition I: Individuals will try to maximize their outcomes (where outcomes equal rewards minus costs). If everyone were unrestrained in his attempts to get what he wanted, everyone would suffer. Every man would attempt to monopolize community resources; every man would be continually confronted by rivals bent on reclaiming these resources. Only by working out a compromise can the group avoid continual warfare and maximize collective reward. This fact is acknowledged in Proposition II A:

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0033967

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Another possible reason for the low rate of apology is that apologizing comprises high psychological effort and risk for the person apologizing.

    “Another reason may be that apologizing comprises high psychological effort and risk for the person apologizing (Walster, Berscheid, and Walster 1973).”

    From A Meta-Analysis of Organizational Complaint Handling and Customer Responses (2011) · cites this paper as Walster, Berscheid, and Walster 1973

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin System (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
ORCID
Berscheid, Ellen
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1973-02
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
151-176
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/h0033967
OpenAlex
W2087661106
Cited by
1,649
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 64
FWCI
178.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
equity theory, social justice, perceived fairness, interpersonal relationships, social psychology theory, social problems, self-interest

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review