User:Jay4312/sandbox

While many studies have shown that having under benefiting or over benefitting positions in a relationship lead to negative emotions in said relationship, there are some differences in how these negative motions appear in males and females. Males typically experience only purely anger resulting from under benefitting relationships while women report more negative emotions in addition to anger such as sadness, frustration and depression. This corresponds with prior information showing women tend to respond to conflict with self-blame and depression while men become angry. In addition, in a relationship with an over benefitting position, the negative emotion of guilt is not the same for both genders as would be expected. While men in an over benefitted position were likely to feel guilty women in the same position were no more likely to experience guilt than any other women. This could be due to the relation of what over benefitting means for each gender. For men it usually meant they were receiving more emotional support while women received more material support. Overall results from research would show that there might be little negative emotions related to over benefitting from a relationship, especially for women, but equitable relationships have the most positive outcomes according to couples. It has also been theorized and exhibited that people only perceive situations as equitable if they think they are getting what they should out of them in any relationships. For example in business relationships women may have historically thought they were being treated fairly by employers because they expected anywhere they went to be paid less then men, or that women expected to have to have different roles than men and thus had completely different tasks and still found the relationships equitable. A relationship may not satisfy the literal or traditional understanding of equity but still evoke the feeling of equity. It is completely relegated to to individuals perception of their relationship along with their cultural conceptions of equity as to whether or not they experience negative or positive emotions regarding perceived equity.

Equity theory, along with much of psychology, has long been dominated by theories and research, which exclusively looked at white Western subjects. Western psychologists tried to make general theories applying to human interactions based upon their research despite the fact that they only had limited sample diversity and cultural representation. This was common critique throughout all of psychology continuing up until today due to much of the research being focused in western countries, often with many Caucasian participants. Concepts of what is fair and equitable have varied widely across time and cultures. Concepts of equity in relationships have been shown to vary among cultures and regions. Differences are observed largely when comparing ideas of equity in the relationships of individuals in largely individualistic, largely westernized, cultures, versus those in collectivistic cultures. Those in individualistic cultures found their relationships more rewarding if the perceived equity of the relationship was high. Meanwhile, those in collectivist cultures reported higher satisfaction when in relationships where the perceived equity was low more than a relationship high in equity, but only when the individual was the one benefiting from the low equity relationship. There is no conclusive evidence as to why this occurs, but theories point to the rates of financial and social independence of groups within the culture as likely contributors. Marriage in Jamaica, where part of the referenced study was conducted, is usually based around biological in-groups rather than romantic pairings so fairness in a marriage is not as important as equity in ones biological family. Previous research has indicated higher feelings of guilt in a less equitable relationship among Westerners than among Non-Western Cultures.