Global Measure of Equity and Multi-Trait Measure of Equity: Measuring Equity in Close Relationships

Abstract

The Global Measure of Equity and the Multi-Trait Measure of Equity are established instruments designed to quantify individuals’ perceptions of fairness and balance within their close romantic and marital relationships. These scales are fundamentally rooted in Equity Theory, which posits that relational comfort and satisfaction are maximized when partners perceive that the rewards they reap are proportional to the contributions they make. The Global Measure of Equity provides a rapid, single-item assessment of overall fairness, while the Multi-Trait Measure of Equity offers a more detailed, 25-item analysis across specific relational domains, including personal, emotional, and day-to-day concerns. Both scales utilize a 7-point Likert-type scale to classify respondents as either overbenefited, underbenefited, or equitably treated.

Keywords

Equity Theory, relationship equity, relational fairness, intimate relationships, marital satisfaction, dating relationships, overbenefited, underbenefited, Likert-type scale, social exchange.

Authors

Danielle M. Young, Elaine Hatfield

Purpose

The primary purpose of these measures is to empirically assess men’s and women’s perceptions of how fair and equitable their love and sexual relationships are. These instruments serve as critical tools for researchers testing predictions derived from Equity Theory, a key framework in social psychology.

The scales help determine the degree to which an individual believes they are receiving what they deserve from the relationship relative to their partner’s inputs and outcomes. This measurement is crucial because perceived inequity—whether positive (overbenefited) or negative (underbenefited)—is theorized to generate distress and instability in close relationships.

Construct

The central construct measured is perceived relational equity. Equity is defined within this context as the subjective judgment that one’s ratio of outcomes (rewards received) to inputs (contributions made) is equivalent to the partner’s ratio. The underlying theoretical framework is Equity Theory (Hatfield, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978).

The measures categorize respondents based on the fairness perception: those who rate their relationship positively are categorized as overbenefited, those who rate it negatively are categorized as underbenefited, and those who rate it as zero are categorized as equitably treated. The Multi-Trait measure further assesses fairness across 25 specific areas of relational give-and-take, providing a highly nuanced view of equity.

Validity

There is substantial evidence supporting the construct validity of the equity scales, demonstrating their correlation with other variables in ways predicted by theoretical and empirical work.

The Global Measure of Equity correlates positively and significantly with other measures of fairness and equity in intimate relationships, such as the Sprecher Global Equity Measure (correlations ranging from r = .45 to r = .73). These findings confirm that the Global Measure captures the intended construct of relational fairness.

Furthermore, validity is supported by the predictive power of the scales regarding relationship outcomes: Profitable and equitable dating relationships are consistently associated with high satisfaction, comfort, and stability. Conversely, inequity is reliably linked to relationship distress, guilt, anger, and anxiety. Couples in equitable relationships are also less likely to risk extramarital affairs and generally report more intense emotional connection, shared life experiences, and longer-lived relationships.

Reliability

Both measures demonstrate reasonable reliability, allowing for their continued use in psychological research.

Despite its brevity, the Global Measure of Equity possesses reasonable reliability and has been utilized effectively across a variety of relationship types (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Sprecher, 1986). The Multi-Trait Measure of Equity, being a larger and more comprehensive scale, demonstrated strong internal consistency during its development (Traupmann et al., 1981).

Specifically, the reliability coefficients for the Multi-Trait Measure, assessed using Cronbach’s α, were reported as .87 for the total inputs scale and .90 for the total outputs scales, indicating high internal reliability across the multi-faceted items.

Factor Analysis

Although a formal factor analysis structure is not explicitly detailed in the original source, the Multi-Trait Measure of Equity is organized into four distinct domains, which serve as latent factors representing different categories of relational inputs and outcomes.

• Personal Concerns: Attributes related to the individual partner (e.g., social grace, intelligence, appearance).
• Emotional Concerns: Aspects of emotional exchange and support (e.g., liking, love, understanding, affection, sexual fidelity).
• Day-to-Day Concerns: Practical contributions to the relationship and shared life (e.g., maintenance, finances, companionship).
• Opportunities Gained and Lost: The major life changes or sacrifices resulting from the relationship status (e.g., chance to be married, opportunities forgone).

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological Scale / Relationship Assessment

Format: Self-report Questionnaire (Can be administered individually or in groups.)

Language Available: English (Original research language)

Population Group: Adults in close relationships

Age Group: Not explicitly specified, but typically applicable to adults engaged in dating or marital relationships.

Population Details: Men and women assessing the fairness of their dating or marital relationships.

Test Methodology:

• Global Measure of Equity: Single item using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from +3 (I am getting a much better deal) to -3 (My partner is getting a much better deal than I am). Administration time is approximately 1 minute.
• Multi-Trait Measure of Equity: 25 items across four domains, each rated on the same 7-point Likert scale. Administration time is approximately 15 minutes, or 30 minutes if items are weighted by importance. Scoring involves calculating a Total Index by summing the respondent’s estimates across all 25 items and classifying them based on the resulting score (overbenefited, equitably treated, or underbenefited).

Keywords

Relational outcomes, marital relationships, social justice, relationship stability, fairness perception, internal consistency, psychological measurement, relationship satisfaction.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Elaine Hatfield, 2430 Campus Road, Honolulu, HI 96822

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational research and publication of the measures occurred primarily in 1981 (Traupmann, Peterson, Utne, & Hatfield). The scales are based on theoretical work dating back to 1975 (Walster). Permissions for use in academic research are typically granted by the primary authors, and correspondence should be directed to Elaine Hatfield. Specific fee information is not provided in the source material.

Reference’s

• 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.
• Canary, D., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243–267.
• Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Aumer-Ryan, K. (2007). Equity theory: Social justice in love relationships. Recent developments. Social Justice Research. New York: Springer.
• Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Pillemer, J., Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (2008). The importance of fairness and equity for the marital satisfaction of older women. Journal of Women and Aging, 20, 215–230.
• Sprecher, S. (1986). The relation between inequity and emotions in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 309–321.
• Sprecher, S. (1988). Investment model, equity, and social support determinants of relationship commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 318–328.
• Sprecher, S. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with satisfaction, commitment, and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 599–613.
• Traupmann, J. (1978). Equity in intimate relations: An interview of marriage. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
• Traupmann, J., Peterson, R., Utne, M., & Hatfield, E. (1981). Measuring equity in intimate relations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 467–480.
• Walster, G. W. (1975). The Walster et al. (1973) equity formula: A correction. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 65–67.

Items of the Global Measure of Equity and Multi-Trait Measure of Equity: Measuring Equity in Close Relationships

Technically, equity is defined by a complex formula (Traupmann et al., 1981; Walster, 1975). Respondents’ perceptions of the equitableness of their dating relationships or marriages are computed by entering their estimates of Inputs and Outcomes of Persons A and B (I , I , O , and O ) into the equity formula:

(O_A − I_A) = (O_B − I_B) (| I |)^KA (| I |)^KB

Respondents are classified as “overbenefited” if their relative gains exceed those of their partners. They are classified as “equitably treated” if their relative gains equal those of their partners, and as “underbenefited” if their relative gains fall short of those of their partners.

In practice, however, the equity of love relationships can reliably and validly be assessed with the use of two simple measures: the Global Measure of Equity and the Multi-Trait Measure of Equity.

Global Measure of Equity

Women were asked: Considering what you put into your dating relationship or marriage, compared to what you get out of it . . . and what your partner puts in, compared to what (s)he gets out of it . . . how does your dating relationship or marriage ‘stack up’?

Possible responses are:

+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.

On the basis of their answers, persons can be classified as overbenefited (receiving more than they deserve), equitably treated, or underbenefited (receiving less than they deserve).

Multi-Trait 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 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 don’t 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, aren’t too moody, don’t 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’s on their mind . . . and are also interested in hearing about their partner’s 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 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 Forgone

25. Opportunities Forgone: Dating and marriage necessarily require 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.

On the basis of their answers, persons can be classified as overbenefited (receiving more than they deserve), equitably treated, or underbenefited (receiving less than they deserve).

To calculate a Total Index, the experimenter sums the respondents’ estimates of how Overbenefited, Equitably treated, or Underbenefited 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 Unimportant 2 = Very Unimportant

1 = Extremely Unimportant

Then weight the item by importance.