Distributive Justice in Family Relations

CLARA SABBAGH*
DEBORAH GOLDEN*

The aim of this paper is to highlight the important contribution of the lens of distributive
justice to an understanding of family relations. Existent justice research in the family
tends to focus on specific family relations: spouses, parents and young children, elderly
parents and adult children, with most research addressing the division of labor between
spouses. We seek to go beyond the specific family relations in order to highlight justice-re-
lated themes that are common across family relations. We elaborate upon three claims.
First, we show that while the ideal of equality underpins justice in contemporary Western
societies, actual distribution practices across family relations are characterized by persis-
tent inequality. Second, although the gap between the ideal of equality and unequal distri-
bution practices may create a sense of injustice among family members, we show why this
is not necessarily the case. Third, we elaborate upon the positive and negative consequences
that result from feelings of justice or injustice across family relations. We conclude by dis-
cussing the interweaving of love and justice in the family.

Keywords: Distributive justice; Family well being; Family relations; Marriage; Partners;
Children-parents; Adult children; Elderly parents

Fam Proc x:1–11, 2020

INTRODUCTION

T he family is commonly considered a domain that is organized according to love and

sentiment—values that are seen to be beyond and even opposed to considerations of
justice. Yet a cursory glance at everyday family lives (Whose turn is it to do the washing
up or to use the family car? Who is obliged to take care of an ailing parent and to what
extent? How much pocket money should we give the kids?) reveals that the distribution of
resources and feelings of justice or injustice that this evokes—"distributive justice"—are
an all-pervasive aspect of everyday family life. The family is thus a "sphere of justice" in
which valued resources are distributed among family members, including love itself (Wal-
zer, 1983).
The empirical study of distributive justice entails two intertwined lenses (Jasso, 1989;
Sabbagh & Schmitt, 2016). The first lens refers to people’s evaluations of the distribution
principles that they view as just for regulating the distribution of resources (Deutsch,
1985; Sabbagh, Dar, & Resh, 1994). Three major distribution principles have been identi-
fied: equality, need, and equity. Equality means that each recipient is entitled to receive
an equal share of the resource; need means that each recipient is entitled to receive a
share of the resource according to his or her needs; equity means that each recipient is

*Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Clara Sabbagh, Faculty of Education,
University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel. E-mail: csabbagh@edu.haifa.ac.il.
Authors have equal contribution to this paper. We thank Michal Mor for permission to make use of find-
ings from her master’s thesis.

1
Family Process, Vol. x, No. x, 2020 © 2020 Family Process Institute
doi: 10.1111/famp.12568
2 / FAMILY PROCESS

deserving of a share of the resource according to his or her effort, contribution, and ability.
The second lens on distributive justice refers to the subjective sense of injustice evoked by
a perceived gap between the distribution principles viewed as just and actual distribution
practices (Jasso, 1989). In other words, in the event that the actual distribution practice
does not fit the just distribution principle, then this may give rise to a sense of injustice.
For instance, where equality between husband and wife is deemed to be the just principle
of distribution, then a deviation from this principle is liable to evoke a sense of injustice.
The examination of the sense of distributive justice in the family is related to its conse-
quences (Jasso, 1989), such as well-being of family members, the quality of family relation-
ships, and the welfare of the family as a whole.
The overarching purpose of this paper is to highlight the contribution of the lens of dis-
tributive justice to an understanding of family relations. To this end, we do the following:
First, we place family justice in a broad context and show that while the ideal of equality
underpins justice in contemporary Western societies, as stated in normative-prescriptive,1
legal and cultural discourses, actual distribution practices across family relations are
characterized by persistent inequality. Second, we show that although the gap between
the ideal of equality and unequal distribution practices may create a sense of injustice
among family members, this is not necessarily the case. The sense of injustice created by
unequal distributions in the family may be tempered, or augmented, by social-psychologi-
cal mechanisms, such as social comparison and the approach adopted toward social
exchange. These, in turn, are shaped by institutional and socio-cultural factors. Third, we
pinpoint important types of positive and negative consequences that result from a sense of
perceived justice or injustice across family relations. In the concluding section, we reiter-
ate the importance of the prism of distributive justice for understanding family relations
and discuss the interweaving of love and justice.

EQUALITY AS A NORMATIVE IDEAL, INEQUALITY IN PRACTICE

Equal Distribution as an Ideal
In contemporary Western societies, the normative-prescriptive, legal and cultural ideal
underlying justice in the family is guided by the distribution principle of equality (Drake
& Lawrence, 2000). The notion that the social order should be underpinned and organized
accordingly can be dated to the French Revolution, in which equality was one of the three
principles of the new Republic (alongside liberty and fraternity). The Industrial Revolu-
tion, as well as the two World Wars of the 20th century, challenged traditional family roles
by paving the way for women’s employment and for the expansion of mass education (Dor-
ius, 2013). The United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a signifi-
cant milestone in the articulation of an egalitarian ideology in general, and for women and
children in particular. The process whereby the principle of equality has become legally
binding has been uneven, gradually encompassing various aspects of women’s lives includ-
ing politics (equal voting rights, rights to office), property (equal rights in inheritance),
education (equal educational opportunities), and employment (equal employment opportu-
nities, equal pay). The infiltration of the principle of equality into social–cultural norms
and expectations pertaining to the role of women in society is still ongoing. More recently,
the understanding of equality as a guiding principle of the social order has been increas-
ingly extended to children, as signified by the widespread adoption of the 1989 Convention
on the Rights of the Child.

1
Normative-prescriptive (philosophical)-oriented approaches aim at determining the “ought,” seeking
validation and justification of the principle(s) which should regulate resource distribution.

www.FamilyProcess.org
SABBAGH & GOLDEN / 3
The principle of equality—in both formal and informal aspects—has profound implica-
tions for relationships within the family, underpinning relations between spouses, par-
ents, and children, and elderly parents and adult children. As we shall see in the following
sections, actual distribution practices across family relations often deviate from the nor-
mative ideal of equality.

Inequality in Distribution Practices in Family Relations

The fact that love lies at the core of distribution within the family implies that the fam-
ily is itself a major generator of inequality. This inequality is twofold: inward-looking—
creating favoritism among different members of the family, or outward-looking—creating
boundaries between the family and the wider society, with preference granted by members
of the family to other family members in resource distribution (Walzer, 1983).
Spouses and the distribution of housework
Spurred on by fundamental changes in women’s lives, as well as by the feminist agenda,
the bulk of research into distributive justice in the family addresses the distribution of
housework between spouses (Dette-Hagenmeyer & Reichle, 2016). In line with family
members’ general justice preferences, spouses state their preference for an equal distribu-
tion of housework (Reichle, 1996; Steil, 1997). However, this ideal of equality is contra-
dicted by the everyday reality of women’s lives in which gender-based inequality is
enduring (Baxter, 2000).
The study of the distribution of housework evaluates inequality on the basis of various
parameters (Steil, 1997). The first parameter refers to how much time spouses invest in
the household and childcare. Research consistently shows that wives spend considerably
more time than husbands on routine household tasks. Even when wives work outside the
home for the same hours and at the same (or higher) salary as their spouses, this does not
fundamentally affect the division of tasks at home—a double load termed the "second
shift" (Hochschild, 1989). The second parameter addresses the question as to what house-
hold tasks are undertaken by the different partners. On the whole, research shows that
husbands carry out tasks that are more specific and more limited in time (e.g., repairs).
Women’s chores are routine and wide-reaching, including the overall responsibility for the
smooth running of the household (such as childcare, cleaning) (Kluwer & Mikula, 2003).
The third parameter evaluates the distribution of resources in terms of decision-making
and addresses the question as to which partner has a more significant say in decisions
affecting family life. Wives and husbands are perceived as holding different resources that
affect the relative weight and influence of each spouse in the "exchange bargaining" (Bax-
ter, Hewitt, & Haynes, 2008) in decisions affecting family matters. Since men often enjoy
higher levels of income than wives, they tend to have a more significant say in decision-
making regarding the purchase of property, financial decisions related to children’s educa-
tion, and/or exit from the marriage by divorce, including the terms of divorce (Aassve, Fuo-
chi, & Mencarini, 2014).
The distributive system implemented within the domain of the family is also outward-
looking, with implications for relations of inequality in the wider society. This is the case
in the sense that the distribution of a valued resource in the family, such as childcare and/
or housework, has an effect on income and career; this, in turn, may serve to reproduce or,
more rarely, to challenge existing gender hierarchies (Okin, 1989).
Parents and children
Research on distribution practices from parents to children suggests that, notwith-
standing the normative-prescriptive and legal guiding principle of equality, parents’

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2020

4 / FAMILY PROCESS

actual distribution practices often run counter to the principle of equality. Such unequal
distribution practices pertain to different resources ranging from the material (such as
money and food), the distribution of tasks (such as household chores), to emotional
resources (such as love and support).
Regarding the distribution of tangible resources, let us take the case of money. For
instance, financial support from parents to children may be unequal, as in the case of a
father who withholds financial support from his daughter while giving money regularly to
her younger brother or helping out her older brother to pay his mortgage (Mor, 2004).
Most existent research into pocket money does not frame this topic in terms of distributive
justice but rather in terms of the values that fit adult economic behavior—such as the
value of money and work—in different countries (Furnham, 2015). An exception is a study
by Feather (1991), which examined the distribution of pocket money among Australian
children from the perspective of parents. Findings indicated that pocket money was per-
ceived as a right in itself that was to be distributed unequally—according to age. Food is
another tangible resource that is distributed in the family to children by parents. Studies
show that the quantity and/or quality of food may be differentially distributed to children
of different ages, as well as to boys and girls, especially when resources are scarce (Ham-
mond, Hesterman, & Knaus, 2015). Studies carried out in India and Bangladesh, where
food is scarce, revealed food discrimination against young and female children (Gupta
et al., 2003).
Regarding the distribution of family’s household tasks, children express a preference
for an egalitarian distribution of housework among siblings (Thomson, 2007). However,
research on actual practices reveals unequal distribution practices along the lines of gen-
der, age, and culture. Studies address the unequal distribution of housework among chil-
dren and its role in preparing girls and boys for future adult roles concerning gender and
the division of labor within the household (Cunningham, 2001). Findings from studies in
East and South Asia reveal persistent inequality in son preference in the distribution of
housework (Gupta et al., 2003; Lin & Adser
a, 2013).
Finally, not only material resources are distributed among family members, but also
emotional resources. A relatively recent body of justice research among children and ado-
lescents in the family ascertains that inequality, in the form of “parental differential treat-
ment” among siblings is a common within-family distribution practice (Siennick, 2013;
Suitor, Gilligan, & Pillemer, 2013). Parents (mainly mothers) implement differential dis-
tribution of relational resources to their offspring, such as support, caregiving, and emo-
tional closeness. Differential distributions of emotional resources appear to persist across
the life-cycle—from early childhood through adulthood (Kowal, Krull, & Kramer, 2006;
Suitor et al., 2009), with continuing repercussions for the well-being of family members
and quality of family relations.
Elderly parents and adult children
The distributive justice lens also addresses intergenerational family relations in the
later stages of the family life-course, specifically between elderly parents and adult chil-
dren. These relations involve two dimensions. First, justice considerations affect how
elderly parents distribute resources among adult children (and grandchildren), such as
inheritance and other resources of financial value, as well as personal assets of symbolic
and emotional value (Drake & Lawrence, 2000; Stum, 1999). Second, considerations of jus-
tice affect how adults take care of their elderly parents (Grigoryeva, 2017). Although at
first glance, the distribution of resources between elderly parents and adult offspring
appears structurally similar to that between parents and children discussed above, this
different stage of the family course has unique features. At the earlier stages of the family
course, parents generally hold more resources than children, creating asymmetric

www.FamilyProcess.org
SABBAGH & GOLDEN / 5
relations between the generations. By contrast, at later stages, relations between elderly
parents and adult children may undergo a gradual shift. Parents may continue to provide
various forms of support for their adult children (including financial support and care for
grandchildren); they may also hold on to important assets such as money for future inheri-
tance. However, as parents age and become increasingly frail and dependent, it is adult
children who increasingly hold vital resources, including various forms of care and sup-
port, which they may distribute to, or withhold from their aging parents (Gans & Silver-
stein, 2006).
In contemporary Western society, inheritance transfers are legally defined in terms of
equality as a guiding distribution principle (Angel & Mudrazija, 2011). However, research
shows that in practice, inheritance may be implemented based on the differentiating dis-
tribution principles of equity and need. Inheritance may be divided according to the princi-
ple of equity—giving a larger share to children who have contributed more to elderly
parents’ welfare, or according to the principle of need—giving a larger share to children
perceived as in greater need (Drake & Lawrence, 2000). Also, the distribution of resources
to offspring may vary in relation to differing socio-cultural norms of filial obligation and
responsibility (Gans & Silverstein, 2006).
Regarding the distribution of resources from adult children to their elderly parents,
studies address the transfer of a range of resources (e.g., care, companionship, advice),
with particular focus on the factors affecting these transfers such as gender and ethnicity
(Killian & Ganong, 2002). Studies show that female members of the family (daughters and
daughters-in-law) tend to provide more caregiving to their elderly parents than men (Kil-
lian & Ganong, 2002). A recent study carried out in a nationally representative survey of
elderly Americans showed that eldercare varies not only by the gender of the offspring
extending the care, but also by the "gender of the siblings with whom caregiving is shared,
and by the gender of the parent to whom care is provided" (Grigoryeva, 2017, p. 136).

WHY INEQUALITY IS NOT NECESSARILY PERCEIVED AS UNJUST

The above overview showed that there is a discrepancy between the egalitarian justice
ideal and actual distribution practices that indicate different forms of inequalities across
family relations. While we suggested that in principle this discrepancy is liable to evoke a
sense of injustice, a crucial point is that the unequal distribution of resources within the
family relations may not necessarily be perceived as unjust. In other words, unequal dis-
tribution is not necessarily harmful or detrimental in and of itself; the critical factor is
whether inequality in the distribution of resources is perceived as just or as unjust. In the
following, we discuss two mechanisms that may temper or augment the sense of injustice
in the case of unequal distribution practices across family relations: social comparison pro-
cesses and the form of social exchange viewed as appropriate for family relations.

Social Comparison Processes

Social comparison theory suggests that individuals tend to evaluate themselves by com-
parison to others, particularly with others deemed similar. This approach presumes that a
comparison with others influences the view one may hold of one’s self; hence, unfavorable
comparisons may harm the perception of the self and one’s relations with others (Festin-
ger, 1954). In their seminal work on justice in the family, with particular focus on the divi-
sion of household tasks between spouses, Major (1993) and Thompson (1991) specified two
inter-related factors—both of which are shaped by institutional and socio-cultural con-
texts and evoke a sense of (in)justice. The first factor is a sense of entitlement—the percep-
tion that one is deserving (or undeserving) of individual rights and privileges arising out

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2020

6 / FAMILY PROCESS

of affiliation to a particular social category, such as gender or age. The second factor is
comparison standards—including comparison with the spouse, comparison within the
same social category (such as other wives), and comparison with other social categories
(such as husbands, neighbors). Findings in these studies showed that inequality in the
division of housework was evaluated as just when wives compared themselves to other
women, and unjust when they compared themselves to their male spouse or to other men
(Mikula, Schoebi, Jagoditsch, & Macher, 2009). Another illustration of these comparison
processes can be found in a young woman’s account of her sense of injustice in the family
where the unequal division of household labor affected expectations from herself and her
brothers—whereas her mother would make a point of serving food to her brothers when
they got home from school, she was expected to serve herself (Mor, 2004).
Within such processes of social comparison, negative feelings of injustice, and the
degree and intensity of distress may be further augmented by the "attribution of responsi-
bility" (Utne & Kidd, 1980). The resource distributor may be viewed as in control of, and
responsible for causing the experience of injustice. Conversely, the experience of injustice
may be seen to be beyond the control of the resource distributor but rather brought about
by external constraints. In a longitudinal study, Reichle (1996) found that when wives
believed that their husband intentionally did not wake up at night to help attend to the
first-born baby, with no attenuating circumstances, then the sense of injustice was aug-
mented and overtime was liable to lead to grounds for divorce. If he did not wake at night
to help because he was ill, then his lack of help was viewed as beyond his control and
hence not perceived as unjust by the wife.
Moreover, when wives compare themselves with a generalized "referential structure,"
(Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Wagner, 1983), namely an expected social norm regarding gen-
der roles determined by socio-cultural values in particular societies, they will evaluate
inequality as just or unjust according to culture-specific gendered roles (Jansen, Weber,
Kraaykamp, & Verbakel, 2016). For instance, a qualitative study by Zuo and Bian (2001)
among urban Chinese married couples suggested that the sense of (in)justice among Chi-
nese couples was not necessarily evoked by the magnitude of housework inequality or by
spouses’ "bargaining power," but rather by a failure to perform the culturally prescribed
gendered family roles, namely breadwinner and housekeeper respectively.
The importance of comparison in justifying (or challenging) within-family inequalities
is not restricted to relations between spouses. For instance, differential distributions by
parents to children have a wide range of (negative) consequences for children and for the
quality of parent–child and sibling relations (Loeser, Whiteman, & McHale, 2016), many
of them lasting over time (Siennick, 2013; Suitor et al., 2013). In the circumstances of par-
ental differential treatment, "siblings are an especially relevant point of reference, and
indeed the only direct comparison, for evaluations of parental treatment." (Siennick, 2013)
(p. 983). Building on Festinger’s (1954) classical theory of social comparison, Siennick
(2013) suggested that in certain conditions siblings may justify parental differential treat-
ment, based on criteria pertaining to age, gender, or needs.
In other words, parental differential treatment does not necessarily imply detrimental
family relationships but rather may be perceived as legitimate and hence just. Here too,
with reference to the "attribution of responsibility" described above, the recruitment of
comparison processes in justifying (or challenging) the unequal distribution of resources
in the family, or holding the parents responsible for unjustified inequalities, is evident
(Kowal & Kramer, 1997). The external attribution of responsibility in the context of par-
ent–children relation may serve to temper a young woman’s sense of injustice. For
instance, a daughter may repeatedly describe the difficult financial circumstances of her
family as a way of trying to explain (away) her father’s seeming unwillingness to provide
her with assistance (Mor, 2004).

www.FamilyProcess.org
SABBAGH & GOLDEN / 7
Equitable or Communal Exchange?
In addition to social comparison processes, whether or not the unequal distribution of
resources is perceived as just or unjust is also related to the form of social exchange that is
seen to be appropriate to family relations. One form of exchange, labeled "equitable
exchange"—from which the equity principle derives—views family relations in terms of
resources that are exchanged according to rational (self-interested) considerations in
specific social interactions. Accordingly, the "buy one get one" exchange is perceived as
"balanced" and hence just (Hatfield, Rapson, & Aumer-Ryan, 2008; Sprecher, 2001; Wal-
ster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). In this approach, inequality is justified by a preference
for the distribution principle of equity whereby resource distribution is proportional (and
hence unequal) to people’s inputs, or characteristics (Sabbagh et al., 1994). For instance,
that husbands do less housework than wives may be perceived as just because husbands
work more hours and earn more; the fact that a mother grants more pocket money to a
child who helps more at home than his siblings may be perceived as just; or an unequal
inheritance distribution may be justified in the case of a daughter living close to her father
and providing him with more care than her siblings.
But does the equitable exchange approach, and the type of (self-interested) relation-
ships this implies, fully explain family relations? (Deutsch, 1985). In their seminal work,
Clark and Jordan (2002) suggested that family relationships are also guided and regulated
by what they termed "communal norms" of giving and receiving resources, in which "peo-
ple feel a desire or obligation to be responsive to one another’s needs. . . people give benefits
in response to needs without expecting repayment." (Clark & Jordan, 2002) (p. 4). In this
approach, family members do not necessarily expect a conditional exchange of resources
in the short term, but rather expect that distributions between family members be guided
by each other’s needs and/or sense of commitment to each other’s welfare, over time. That
is, relationships within the family are viewed as distinctive insofar as they involve "family
members taking themselves to be part of a special relationship to particular others, acting
by affection, and sharing a concern with the long-term of the family as a whole" (Kleingeld
& Anderson, 2014) (p. 322). When the orientation is caring, and the well-being of individu-
als is of prime concern, the guiding principle is to give priority to those who are perceived
as less well-off and in greater need (Deutsch, 1985; Kellerhals, Montandon, & Ritschard,
1992). In the communal exchange approach, inequality in the distribution of differential
resources among family members in the short term may be justified by an unconditional,
long-term commitment to generalized exchange. For instance, communal exchange in
family relations is illustrated in an account by a young woman as she begins to think
about becoming a mother herself and is then able to view her parents’ (unequal) ways of
gendered distribution with greater understanding and compassion (Mor, 2004).
In sum, in the sphere of the family, equitable and communal norms of social exchange
may mutually inform each other and justify unequal distributions in family relations, with
their relative importance varying in different family circumstances (Clark & Jordan,
2002), as well as across different stages of the family life-course.

CONSEQUENCES OF PERCEIVED (IN)JUSTICE IN FAMILY RELATIONS

The study of distributive justice in family relations is important because a sense of (in)
justice concerning the distribution of resources has real effects on relationships among
family members. For instance, research into marriage and the distribution of housework
shows that a sense of justice between spouses is positively correlated to positive feelings of
well-being (Andrade & Mikula, 2014). Perceived justice between spouses is associated with
stability, a greater sense of caring, and a stronger sense of relationship satisfaction and
intimacy (DeMaris & Mahoney, 2017). By contrast, when spouses experience injustice,

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2020

8 / FAMILY PROCESS

their mental health may be affected, giving rise to tension and depression, particularly
among wives (Rovis, Jonkman, & Basic, 2016). Such negative experiences are liable to
accumulate over time, thus exacerbating their detrimental consequences (Grote & Clark,
2001). In the context of parent–children relations, adolescents and young adults report
more individual well-being and sibling intimacy when they experience less differential
treatment by their parents (Jensen, Whiteman, Fingerman, & Birditt, 2013). By contrast,
young respondents who experienced injustice concerning parental differential treatment
suffered from maladjustment, low levels of self-worth, risky behavior, conflict, and hostil-
ity toward siblings (Kowal & Kramer, 1997; Loeser et al., 2016; Siennick, 2013). Studies
on elderly parents and adult children family members showed that norms of filial obliga-
tion and responsibility have implications for the life satisfaction of family members across
generations (Xu & Chi, 2011). For instance, Taylor and Norris (2000) found that the sense
of injustice around the distribution of property, such as a farm, was detrimental to family
relationships, as was the transfer of "non-titled property," namely personal property of
sentimental value (Stum, 1999).

DISCUSSION
In this paper, we have outlined significant research findings on distributive justice in
specific family relations—between spouses, parents, and children, elderly parents, and
adult children. On this basis, we have drawn out shared justice themes that cut across
these relations. In line with McDowell et al. (2019) and Lebow (2019), we too propose that
family relations must be understood as a broad familial distributional system. Family
relations are an aggregated phenomenon, derived from the specific justice evaluations of
different family members, within and across the types of relationships that affect each
other; these, in turn, are shaped by institutional and socio-cultural, political factors
(Lebow, 2019).
The paper shows that inequality in family relations stands in opposition to a justice
ideal of equality, with discrepancies between the guiding principle of equality and de facto
inequality. Such discrepancies are often—though not always—perceived as unjust. More-
over, gender continues to be an organizing principle of distributive justice within the fam-
ily—creating and maintaining inequality within the family, with implications for
inequality beyond the family (Okin, 1989). We note that most empirical research on dis-
tributive justice in the family has been undertaken in Western societies. We also note the
relative lack of research on distributive justice in changing families, including divorced
parents, single parents, blended families, and same-sex parents (but see Brewster, 2016).
In these changing circumstances, future research into distributive justice in the family
will need to broaden the lens to take into account cultural and structural diversity (Sien-
nick, 2013).
There is a rich, ongoing tradition of engagement in issues of social justice on the part of
scholars and practitioners of family therapy. In his Introduction to the special section of
Family Process dedicated to "Social Justice in Family Therapy," Lebow (2019) reiterates
the importance of the focus on social justice as an ethical commitment that is supported by
empirical evidence. This evidence shows that fair and equitable exchanges foster family
well-being and better functioning. Moreover, such exchanges are informed by the broader
social systems in which families are embedded. As demonstrated in the special section, the
focus on social justice in the family stresses how power relations within society at large,
including privilege and oppression, impact on social justice in the family, as well as in
therapeutic settings (Anderson, McKenny, & Stevenson, 2019; McDowell et al., 2019; Wat-
son, 2019). Notwithstanding this rich tradition, "keeping social justice in focus remains a
work very much in progress" (Lebow, 2019, p. 5). We offer the lens of distributive justice

www.FamilyProcess.org
SABBAGH & GOLDEN / 9
as a contribution to this work in progress. While anchored in a distinct conceptual and
empirical tradition, the lens of distributive justice shares the overarching ethical commit-
ment to promoting social justice in the family. It acknowledges the deep and enduring
impact of a sense of (in)justice on the well-being of family members and on the quality of
family relations, within broader socio-cultural contexts.
Moreover, the lens of distributive justice may be useful in educational, preventative or
clinical interventions: First, it provides a coherent conceptual framing and a strong empir-
ical basis for understanding everyday experiences of injustice in the family (such as identi-
fying comparison processes or attribution of responsibility), and for encouraging the
awareness of justice-related concerns among family members (Parra-Cardona, 2019). Sec-
ond, it embeds everyday experiences in the family in broader social circumstances, thus
allowing for a fuller, contextualized understanding. Third, it facilitates an understanding
of the family in an holistic manner—it shows how the distribution of resources in one set
of relations reverberates in, and has an impact upon, the quality of other relations in the
family, as well as affecting relations over time. Thus, the prism of distributive justice may
serve as a useful platform for a personal, yet contextualized, reflective process on justice
in the family.

What’s Love Got to Do with It?

We opened our paper by noting the commonly held view according to which notions of
love and justice are deemed contradictory and, hence, cannot coexist in the sphere of the
family. This view of the contradiction between love and justice is adopted by those who
view the family as governed by sentiment and, hence, qualitatively different from other
spheres of social life in which justice is applicable. It is also adopted by (feminist) critics of
the family who suggest that the sentimental notion of the family has meant the disregard
of issues pertaining to justice and inequality in family relations (Kleingeld & Anderson,
2014; Okin, 1989). Certainly, in many instances—such as in the everyday act of a mother
taking care of her child—considerations of love may be distinct from a motive that strives
to do justice. It is clearly the case that justice is not the sole motive underpinning family
relations; rather, the distribution of resources among family members is also driven by
motives such as caring, compassion, and a sense of moral obligation (Kohli & Kunemund,
2003). Yet, as is apparent from our paper, justice too is a major driving force in family rela-
tions (Lerner & Clayton, 2011). Moreover, within the family, love and justice are not nec-
essarily contradictory but often coexist (Stum, 1999). Being loving and being just may be
two sides of the same coin—because one loves, one wants to be just; conversely—through
acts of justice, one expresses love and shows care. We thus concur with Kleingeld and
Anderson (2014) who propose that the pursuit of justice as a shared family concern is com-
patible with loving family relations and that the adoption of justice as a family value may
have beneficial effects on family life.

REFERENCES
Aassve, A., Fuochi, G., & Mencarini, L. (2014). Desperate housework: Relative resources, time availability, eco-
nomic dependency, and gender ideology across Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 35(8), 1000–1022. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0192513x14522248
Anderson, R. E., McKenny, M. C., & Stevenson, H. C. (2019). EMBR ace: Developing a racial socialization inter-
vention to reduce racial stress and enhance racial coping among Black Parents and Adolescents. Family Pro-
cess, 58(1), 53–67.
Andrade, C., & Mikula, G. (2014). Work-family conflict and perceived justice as mediators of outcomes of women’s
multiple workload. Marriage & Family Review, 50(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2013.879551
Angel, J. L., & Mudrazija, S. (2011). Aging, inheritance, and gift-giving. In R. H. Binstock & L. K. George (Eds.),
Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp. 163–173). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2020

10 / FAMILY PROCESS

Baxter, J. (2000). The joys and justice of housework. Sociology, 34(4), 609–631.
Baxter, J., Hewitt, B., & Haynes, M. (2008). Life course transitions and housework: Marriage, parenthood, and
time on housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/40056272
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Wagner, D. G. (1983). The formation of reward expectations in status
situations. In D. M. Messick & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Equity theory: Psychological and sociological perspectives
(pp. 127–168). New York, NY: Praeger.
Brewster, M. E. (2016). Lesbian women and household labor division: A systematic review of scholarly research
from 2000 to 2015. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 21, 1–23.
Clark, M. S., & Jordan, S. D. (2002). Adherence to communal norms: What it means, when it occurs, and some
thoughts on how it develops. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 95, 3–25.
Cunningham, M. (2001). The influence of parental attitudes and behaviors on children’s attitudes toward gender
and household labor in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 111–122.
DeMaris, A., & Mahoney, A. (2017). Equity dynamics in the perceived fairness of infant care. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 79(1), 261–276.
Dette-Hagenmeyer, D., & Reichle, B. (2016). Justice in the couple and the family. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt
(Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 333–348). New York, NY: Springer.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven, NJ: Yale University
Press.
Dorius, S. F. (2013). The rise and fall of worldwide education inequality from 1870 to 2010: Measurement and
trends. Sociology of Education, 86(2), 158–173.
Drake, D. G., & Lawrence, J. A. (2000). Equality and distributions of inheritance in families. Social Justice
Research, 13(3), 271–290.
Feather, N. T. (1991). Variables relating to the allocation of pocket money to children: Parental reasons and val-
ues. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 221–234.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Furnham, A. (2015). Young people’s understanding of society. New York and London: Routledge.
Gans, D., & Silverstein, M. (2006). Norms of filial responsibility for aging parents across time and generations.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 961–976.
Grigoryeva, A. (2017). Own gender, sibling’s gender, parent’s gender: The division of elderly parent care among
adult children. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 116–146.
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(2), 281–293.
Gupta, M. D., Zhenghua, J., Bohua, L., Zhenming, X., Chung, W., & Hwa-Ok, B. (2003). Why is son preference so
persistent in East and South Asia? A cross-country study of China, India and the Republic of Korea. The Jour-
nal of Development Studies, 40(2), 153–187.
Hammond, L.-L., Hesterman, S., & Knaus, M. (2015). What’s in your refrigerator? Children’s views on equality,
work, money and access to food. International Journal of Education and Culture, 47, 367–384.
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Aumer-Ryan, K. (2008). Social justice in love relationships: Recent developments.
Social Justice Research, 21(4), 413–431.
Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the evolution at home. New York, NY: Viking.
Jansen, L., Weber, T., Kraaykamp, G., & Verbakel, E. (2016). Perceived fairness of the division of household
labor: A comparative study in 29 countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 57(1–2), 53–68.
Jasso, G. (1989). The theory of the distributive-justice force in human affairs: Analyzing the three central ques-
tions. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress: New formulations (pp.
354–387). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jensen, A. C., Whiteman, S. D., Fingerman, K. L., & Birditt, K. S. (2013). “Life still isn’t fair”: Parental differen-
tial treatment of young adult siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 438–452.
Kellerhals, J., Montandon, C., & Ritschard, G. (1992). Social status, types of family interaction and educational
styles. European Journal of Sociology, 33, 308–325.
Killian, T., & Ganong, L. H. (2002). Ideology, context, and obligations to assist older persons. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 64(4), 1080–1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.01080.x
Kleingeld, P., & Anderson, J. (2014). Justice as a family value: How a commitment to fairness is compatible with
love. Hypatia, 29(2), 320–336.
Kluwer, E. S., & Mikula, G. (2003). Gender-related inequalities in the division of family work in close relation-
ships: A social psychological perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 185–216.
Kohli, M., & Kunemund, H. (2003). Intergenerational transfers in the family: What motivates giving? In M. Kohli
& H. Kunemund (Eds.), Global aging and challenges to families (pp. 123–142). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Kowal, A., & Kramer, L. (1997). Children’s understanding of parental differential treatment. Child Development,
68(1), 113–126.

www.FamilyProcess.org
SABBAGH & GOLDEN / 11
Kowal, A. K., Krull, J. L., & Kramer, L. (2006). Shared understanding of parental differential treatment in fami-
lies. Social Development, 15(2), 276–295.
Lebow, J. L. (2019). Social justice in family therapy. Family Process, 58(1), 3–8.
Lerner, M., & Clayton, S. (2011). Justice and self-Interest: Two fundamental motives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Lin, T.-C., & Adser
a, A. (2013). Son preference and children’s housework: The case of India. Population Research
and Policy Review, 32(4), 553–584.
Loeser, M. K., Whiteman, S. D., & McHale, S. M. (2016). Siblings’ perceptions of differential treatment, fairness,
and jealousy and adolescent adjustment: A moderated indirect effects Model. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 25(8), 2405–2414.
Major, B. (1993). Gender, entitlement, and the distribution of family labor. Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 141–
159.
McDowell, T., Knudson-Martin, C., & Bermudez, J. M. (2019). Third-order thinking in family therapy: Address-
ing social justice across family therapy practice. Family Process, 58(1), 9–22.
Mikula, G., Schoebi, D., Jagoditsch, S., & Macher, S. (2009). Roots and correlates of perceived injustice in the divi-
sion of family work. Personal Relationships, 16(4), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01239.x
Mor, M. (2004). Love, compassion and justice: Daughters’ sense of injustice regarding parents allocation of
resources to offspring. Haifa, Israel: University of Haifa, Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the require-
ments for the Master degree.
Okin, S. M. (1989). Justice, gender and the family. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Parra-Cardona, J. R. (2019). Healing through parenting: An intervention delivery and process of change model
developed with low-income Latina/o immigrant families. Family Process, 58(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/
famp.12429
Reichle, B. (1996). From is to ought and the kitchen sink: On the justice of distributions in close relationships. In
L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 103–135). New York, NY: Ple-
num.
Rovis, D., Jonkman, H., & Basic, J. (2016). A multilevel analysis of adverse family relations, school bonding and
risk behaviours among adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(2), 647–660.
Sabbagh, C., Dar, Y., & Resh, N. (1994). The structure of social justice judgments: A facet Approach. Social Psy-
chology Quarterly, 57(3), 244–261.
Sabbagh, C., & Schmitt, M. (Eds.) (2016). Handbook of social justice theory and research. New York, NY:
Springer.
Siennick, S. (2013). Still the favorite? Parents’ differential treatment of siblings entering young adulthood. Jour-
nal of Marriage and Family, 75(4), 981–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12048
Sprecher, S. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with satisfaction, commitment,
and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.
00599.x
Steil, J. M. (1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to the well-being of husbands and wives. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Stum, M. S. (1999). "I just want to be fair": Interpersonal justice in intergenerational transfers of non-titled prop-
erty. Family Relations, 48(2), 159–166.
Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M., & Pillemer, K. (2013). Continuity and change in mothers’ favoritism toward offspring
in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1229–1247.
Suitor, J. J., Sechrist, J., Plikuhn, M., Pardo, S. T., Gilligan, M., & Pillemer, K. (2009). The role of perceived
maternal favoritism in sibling relations in midlife. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(4), 1026–1038.
Taylor, J. E., & Norris, J. E. (2000). Sibling relationships, fairness, and conflict over transfer of the farm. Family
Relations, 49(3), 277–283.
Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Women’s sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12(2), 181–196.
Thomson, N. R. (2007). Justice in the home: Children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of the fair distribution of
household chores. Journal of Moral Education, 36(1), 19–36.
Utne, M. K., & Kidd, R. F. (1980). Equity and attribution. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp.
63–93). New York, NY: Springer.
Walster, E., Walster, W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Watson, M. F. (2019). Social justice and race in the United States: Key issues and challenges for couple and family
therapy. Family Process, 58(1), 23–33.
Xu, L., & Chi, I. (2011). Life satisfaction among rural Chinese grandparents: The roles of intergenerational family
relationship and support exchange with grandchildren. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20(1), 148–
159.
Zuo, J., & Bian, Y. (2001). Gendered resources, division of housework, and perceived fairness—A case in Urban
China. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 1122–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01122.x

Fam. Proc., Vol. x, xxxx, 2020