Relationship satisfaction in dating relationships and same-sex friendships: a comparison and integration of Equity Theory and Attachment Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has found support for Equity Theory and Attachment Theory in predicting relationship satisfaction. According to Equity Theory, individuals feel satisfied when they are engaged in equitable relationships, where the ratio of benefits to costs is the same across partners. On the other hand, Attachment Theory postulates that a secure attachment style predicts high relationship satisfaction. Although an extensive number of studies have supported these predictions, the present study was the first to compare or integrate Equity Theory and Attachment Theory in predicting relationship satisfaction. A total of 384 introductory psychology students completed questionnaires. Simultaneous multiple regression indicated that partner’s input and the avoidance dimension of attachment were the two largest predictors of relationship satisfaction among overall sample. Hypotheses regarding the relation between equity level and attachment styles were only partially supported. In addition, three proposed models for predicting satisfaction were tested. The first model, based on Equity Theory, showed that underbenefiting exchange orientation, communal orientation, and closeness predicted the level of equity, which in turn led to relationship satisfaction. The second model, based on Attachment Theory, indicated that attachment styles affected the level of self-disclosure leading to intimacy and closeness, which predicted satisfaction. The third model integrated the two theories and showed that attachment styles predicted equity, which influenced the level of self-disclosure. Self-disclosure influenced intimacy and closeness, which led to relationship satisfaction. The integrated model best predicted relationship satisfaction among the three proposed models. Finally, sex differences and differences between friendships and dating relationships were also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".