Theory suggests that relationship inequity will be associated with less marital and personal distress among the more religious, and that this interaction effect will be stronger for women than men. Data are from 178 married couples experiencing the third trimester of pregnancy of their first biological child. Five outcome variables were assessed for each spouse: marital satisfaction, love, marital conflict, depression, and anxiety. Consistent with equity theory, perceived relative advantage was related in a nonmonotonic fashion to all outcomes, with increasing advantage predicting better outcomes up to the equity point, but worse outcomes afterwards. Sanctification of marriage appeared to be a more important moderator of inequity effects than general religiousness. In particular, relative advantage had weaker effects among higher sanctifiers. The influence of relative advantage was also conditioned by gender. Wives’ psychological well-being appeared to be more adversely affected than men’s because of considering oneself overbenefited in the relationship. Moreover, the interaction between sanctification and relative advantage was somewhat stronger for wives.
Adams, J.S. ( 1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
2.
Amato, P.R. ( 2004). Tension between institutional and individual views of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 959-965.
3.
Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. ( 1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. Burgess & T. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange and developing relationships (pp. 135-168). New York, NY: Academic Press.
4.
Buunk, B.P., & Van Yperen, N.W. (1991). Referential comparisons, relational comparisons, and exchange orientation: Their relation to marital satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 709-717.
5.
Cherlin, A.J. ( 2004). The deinstitutionalization ofAmerican marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848-861.
6.
DeMaris, A. ( 2007). The role of relationship inequity in marital disruption . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 177-195.
7.
DeMaris, A. (in press). The 20-year trajectory of marital quality in enduring marriages: Does equity matter?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships .
8.
DeMaris, A., & Longmore, M.A. (1996). Ideology, power, and equity: Testing competing explanations for the perception of fairness in household labor. Social Forces, 74, 1043-1071.
9.
Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. ( 1990). The dissolution of intimate relationships: A hazard model . Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 13-30.
10.
Frisco, M.L., & Williams, K. ( 2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51-73.
11.
Gager, C.T., & Sanchez, L. ( 2003). Two as one? Couples’ perceptions of time spent together, marital quality, and the risk of divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 21-50.
12.
Greene, W.H. ( 2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall .
13.
Grote, N.K., & Clark, M.S. ( 2001). Perceiving unfairness in the family: Cause or consequence of marital distress? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80, 281-293.
14.
Hansen, G.L. ( 1987). The effect of religiosity on factors predicting marital adjustment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 264-269.
15.
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R.L., & Aumer-Ryan, K. (2008). Social justice in love relationships: Recent developments. Social Justice Research , 21, 413-431.
16.
Hatfield, E., Utne, M.K., & Traupmann, J. ( 1978). Equity theory and intimate relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 99-133). New York, NY: Academic Press.
17.
Hatfield, E., Walster, G.W., & Berscheid, E. ( 1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
18.
Hochschild, A. (with Machung, A.). (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York, NY: Viking.
19.
Holmes, J.G., & Levinger, G. ( 1994). Paradoxical effects of closeness in relationships on perceptions of justice: An interdependence-theory perspective. In J. J. Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds.), Entitlement and the affectional bond (pp. 149-173). New York, NY: Plenum.
20.
Joyner, K. ( 2009). Justice and the fate of married and cohabiting couples . Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 61-76.
21.
Kerig, P.K. ( 1996). Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child adjustment: The Conflicts and Problem-Solving Scales. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 454-473.
22.
Kuijer, R.G., Buunk, B.P., & Ybema, J.F. ( 2001). Are equity concerns important in the intimate relationship when one partner of a couple has cancer? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 167-282.
23.
Lawrence, E., Cobb, R.J., Rothman, A.D., Rothman, M.T., & Bradbury, T.N. (2008). Marital satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology , 22, 41-50.
24.
Lennon, M.C., & Rosenfield, S. (1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 506-531.
25.
Longmore, M.A., & DeMaris, A. ( 1997). Perceived inequity and depression in intimate relationships: The moderating effect of self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly , 60, 172-184.
26.
Lujansky, H., & Mikula, G. ( 1983). Can equity theory explain the quality and the stability of romantic relationships? British Journal of Social Psychology , 22, 101-112.
27.
Mahoney, A. ( 2005). Religion and conflict in marital and parent-child relationships . Journal of Social Issues, 61, 689-706.
28.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K.I., & DeMaris, A. ( 2009). Couples viewing marriage and pregnancy through the lens of the sacred: A descriptive study. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 20, 1-45.
29.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K.I., Jewell, T., Swank, A.B., Scott, E., Emery, E., & Rye, M. ( 1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321-338.
30.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K.I., Murray-Swank, A., & Murray-Swank, N. (2003). Religion and the sanctification of family relationships. Review of Religious Research, 44, 220-236.
31.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K.I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A.B. ( 2001). Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parenting . Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 559-596.
32.
Miller, A.S., & Stark, R. ( 2002). Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved? American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1399-1423.
33.
Murray-Swank, A.B., Mahoney, A., & Pargament, K.I. (2005). Sanctification of parenting: Links to corporal punishment and parental warmth among biblically conservative and liberal mothers. Manuscript submitted for publication.
34.
Pargament, K.I., & Mahoney, A. ( 2005). Sacred matters: Sanctification as a vital topic for the psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 179-198.
35.
Radloff, L.S. ( 1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement , 1, 385-401.
36.
Schumm, W.R., Paff-Bergen, L.A., Hatch, R.C., Obiorah, J.M.C., Meens, L.D., & Bugaighis, M.A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381-387.
37.
Smith, H.L., Gager, C.T., & Morgan, S.P. ( 1998). Identifying underlying dimensions in spouses’ evaluations of fairness in the division of household labor. Social Science Research, 27, 305-327.
38.
Snowden, L.R., Schott, T.L., Awalt, S.J., & Gillis-Knox, J. (1988). Marital satisfaction in pregnancy: Stability and change. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 325-333.
39.
Sprecher, S. ( 1986). The relation between inequity and emotions in close relationships . Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 309-321.
40.
Sprecher, S. ( 1992). How men and women expect to feel and behave in response to inequity in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly , 55, 57-69.
41.
Sprecher, S. ( 2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with satisfaction, commitment, and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 599-613.
42.
Sweet, J.A., Bumpass, L.L., & Call, V. ( 1988). The design and content of the National Survey of Families and Households. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Center for Demography and Ecology.
43.
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.
44.
Vangelisti, A.L., & Daly, J.A. ( 1997). Gender differences in standards for romantic relationships . Personal Relationships, 4, 203-219.
45.
Veijola, J., Jokelainen, J., Laksy, K., Kantojarvi, L., Kokkonen, P., Jarvelin, M.R., & Joukamaa, M. ( 2003). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 in screening DSM-III-R Axis-I disorders. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 57, 119-123.
46.
Wilcox, W.B. ( 2004). Soft patriarchs, new men: How Christianity shapes fathers and husbands. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Wilcox, W.B., & Nock, S.L. ( 2006). What’s love got to do with it? Equality, equity, commitment and women’s marital quality. Social Forces , 84, 1321-1345.
48.
Wooldridge, J.M. ( 2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
