bs_bs_banner

Japanese Psychological Research doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5884.2012.00539.x

2013, Volume 55, No. 1, 3344

Sense of fairness in the division of labor in close

relationships: Procedure and gender role ideology
AKINOBU NAMEDA1* Ritsumeikan University

Abstract: The present study examined whether the procedures used in establishing
a couples division of labor and each partners gender role ideology have a significant
impact on the perception of fairness in the division of labor. The data collection
involved conducting a questionnaire survey of 181 Japanese participants who shared
basic household work and paid work. The results from a multiple regression analysis
presented a clear pattern of sex differences in the way and degree to which fairness
was perceived. In the model for women, the variables of the procedure and gender
role ideology had significant predictive power. In particular, the interactive communi-
cation procedure was a powerful predictor of womens sense of fairness. In contrast,
among men the perception of fairness in the division of labor did not have a significant
relation to the variables of the procedure and gender role ideology.
Key words: fairness, division of labor, gender role, procedural justice, gender
ideology.

Different family roles have generally been
determined based on gender. Looking at the
results from surveys conducted in several coun-
tries including Japan, men are responsible for
carrying out paid work, whereas women are
in charge of household work (Fuwa, 2004).
Although the percentage of mens contribution
in carrying out the housework has increased
slightly in recent years, women still perform at
least twice as much as household work as do
men (Coltrane, 2000; Ohno, Taya, & Kashiwagi,
2003). In spite of the fact that people seemingly
have an ideal picture of equally sharing
household work, in reality this practice is not
followed (Bartley, Blanton, & Gilliard, 2005;
Mikula, Freudenthaler, Brennacher-Kroll, &
Brunschko, 1997; Reichle & Gefke, 1998).
Over the last two decades, psychological
research on the division of household work has
focused on the linkage between perceived fair-
ness and the division of household work. Here,
the main issue has been why some women do
not perceive the objectively unfair division as
unfair. Despite womens increased participa-
tion in the paid workforce, couples continue to
perform a quantitatively unbalanced division of
household work (Blair, 1998). Even in dual-
earner couples, less than one-third of women
regard the unbalanced division as unfair
(Hawkins, Marshall, & Allen, 1998). According
to the review of Mikula (1998), the fact that
women do not have a strong sense of unfairness
is a challenge for researchers and is a motiva-
tion to conduct empirical research on the

*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Akinobu Nameda, Graduate School of
Letters, Ritsumeikan University, Toujiin-Kitamachi, Kita-ku, Kyoto 630-8577, Japan. (E-mail: lt106038@
ed.ritsumei.ac.jp)
1
I am very thankful for the help from Dr. John Dixon at Lancaster University (Currently Professor at Open
University) and Professor Tatsuya Sato at Ritsumeikan University. The constructive advice from their super-
vision inspired me in conducting the present study, completing the writing, and submitting this paper, which
is a part of the modified version of my Masters dissertation. I also would like to show my appreciations for
all the people who kindly participated in the survey and who gave comments to the present study.

2012 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Publishing Pty Ltd.

34 A. Nameda
perception of fairness in the division of house-
hold work. This question, which puzzles
researchers, remains a focus of discussion as a
paradox to be resolved (Dixon & Wetherell,
2004; Fuwa & Tsutsui, 2010).
Framework of distributive justice in the
context of the division of household work
One of the key perspectives to resolving this
puzzle is the distributive justice framework pro-
posed and advocated by Thompson (1991). The
distributive justice framework aims to under-
stand womens sense of fairness in the division
of household work (Thompson, 1991). In this
framework, the concepts of outcome value,
comparison referents, and justifications are
predicted to have significant influences on
womens perception of fairness. For example,
when a woman is content with performing the
housework itself, when she compares her own
performance with that of similar others, and
when there are reasonable excuses for her to
justify the housework she does, she would tend
to regard the division of household work as fair.
To date, several studies drawing on Thompsons
distributive justice framework have been con-
ducted, with evidence supporting the frame-
work (Blair & Johnson, 1992; Freudenthaler &
Mikula, 1998; Gager, 1998; Hawkins, Marshall,
& Meiners, 1995; Kluwer, Heesink, & Van de
Vliert, 2002; Mikula, Schoebi, Jagoditsch, &
Macher, 2009; for a review, see Nameda, 2011).
Although the significance of Thompsons
framework (1991) has been shown, two view-
points are lacking in the studies that have
endorsed the distributive justice framework.
First, the distributive justice framework is
meant to be a perspective which aims to under-
stand only womens sense of fairness. Consider-
ing that men and women share the division of
labor or roles in the family, the sense of fairness
of both men and women is worth investigating.
In order to understand that the roles in the
family are performed interactively by both men
and women, focusing on mens sense of fairness
and the division of labor is essential. Second,
although there are some exceptions (Kluwer
et al., 2002), the focus of the studies endorsing
the distributive justice framework is based on
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
only the perceived fairness in the division of
household work rather than the division of
labor that includes both household work
and paid work. However, paid work can be
regarded as a task that contributes to the
maintenance of the home and family, in addi-
tion to household chores such as preparing
meals (Ohno, Sugano, & Kashiwagi, 2001). In
summary, the present study focuses on the
interactive aspects of the division of labor that
include both household work and paid work
performed by both men and women.
Procedural justice perspective in the
context of the division of labor
Procedural justice is one of the theoretical per-
spectives that focuses on the more interactive
aspects of couples performing the division of
labor. Procedural justice theory suggests that if
people perceive the procedure in the decision-
making process as fair, then the outcome is also
regarded as fair (Tyler, 2001). In the context of
procedural justice research on the division of
labor, terms such as participation and treat-
ment with dignity and respect have been
investigated.
The notion of participation in the proce-
dural justice theory refers to whether people
have opportunities to express their opinions
and arguments (Tyler, 2000). If people cannot
participate in the decision-making process, they
will perceive that they have less control over
the process and regard the decision as unfair
(Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Kluwer et al. (2002)
examined this concept of participation, and
their study showed that for women, the more
opportunities they have to discuss the division
of labor, the more they tended to perceive the
division as fair. Some vignette studies (Reichle
& Gefke, 1998; Ui, 2005) have also stressed the
importance of a mutually decided allocation.
The notion of treatment with dignity and
respect refers to whether one is being cared
for by others (Tyler, 2000, 2001). In the context
of the division of labor, treatment with dignity
and respect can be described as the manner in
which each person in a close relationship cares
for the other during the communication. For
example, some studies have shown relations
 Fair procedure in the division of labor
between perceived fairness and caring behav-
iors, such as expressing appreciation (Blair &
Johnson, 1992; Goodnow, 1998; Hawkins et al.,
1998).
Although the concept of procedural justice
has received some attention in the research on
the division of labor (Mikula, 1998), that atten-
tion has been insufficient. More concretely,
although the importance of relevant issues,
such as voices, mutual decision-making, and
expression of appreciation has been indicated
(Hawkins et al., 1998; Kluwer et al., 2002), no
single survey has included them all. Moreover,
except for Kluwer et al. (2002) and Mikula et al.
(2009), no research in this area explored both
the male and female perspectives. Therefore,
the purpose of the present study is to examine
the relation between the perception of fairness
and the factors related to the overall process of
fair procedures regarding the division of labor
in both men and women.
In addition to the procedural and interactive
aspects of the division of labor, the present study
investigated whether peoples gender role ide-
ology was related to the perception of fairness.
Based on the findings that have been presented
on the relation between perceived fairness and
gender ideology (Greenstein, 1996; Mikula
et al., 1997), it was expected that if the division
was seen as following the gender role ideology
that an individual endorsed, that individual
would be more likely to perceive a sense of
fairness regarding the division of labor. Apart
from the procedure and gender role ideology,
some studies have shown sex differences
between men and women in terms of the percep-
tion of fairness regarding the division of labor
(Blair, 1998; Kluwer, 1998; Mikula et al., 1997).
Thus, the present study also examines the exist-
ence of sex differences and the impact of proce-
dure and gender ideology on the perception of
fairness in performing the division of labor.
Method
Participants and procedure
The survey participants were Japanese adults
who shared household work and paid work.
They were recruited from four prefectures
35
(Fukuoka, Kagawa, Kyoto, and Osaka) located
in western Japan. The questionnaire survey was
conducted from May to June 2008. A snowball
sampling method was used to recruit partici-
pants. In other words, collaborators helped to
distribute questionnaires, and the participants
were the collaborators acquaintances. A set of
questionnaires was given out to each partici-
pant individually, along with a return envelope.
The participants who received them were
instructed not to discuss the questionnaires
with their partners. The completed question-
naires were returned by mail or were collected
by the collaborators. Although 210 participants
completed the questionnaires, only 181 partici-
pants (107 men and 74 women) were used
for analysis, as 29 questionnaires were not
answered completely.
Characteristics of the participants
The data for the present study were derived
from a wide range of generations. The average
age was approximately 40 years for men and 46
years for women, and the ages ranged from 24
to 62 years for men and from 23 to 66 years for
women. In terms of education, 38.3% of the
men and 20.5% of the women had received a
university level education. Most of the partici-
pants in this study were currently married or
had been in the past, and at least 50% of the
participants had been sharing housework and
paid work for 10 years. More than 80% of the
participants had a child or children. The age of
the first child ranged from 0 to 36 years among
the men, and from 2 to 44 years among the
women. The participants for this study included
those who were involved with child-rearing as
well as those who were not. Approximately
98% of the men had a full-time job, whereas
approximately 50% of the women were
employed as full-time workers. All the male
participants worked outside the home. The
details of the participants characteristics are
shown in Table 1.
The division of labor shared by the
participants
The participants in the present study generally
performed the division of labor based on fixed
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
36 A. Nameda

Table 1 Characteristics of participants

Men (N = 107) Women (N = 74)

Mean age, (standard deviation) and range (years) 40.2 (0.9) 46.0 (11.0)
from 24 to 62 from 23 to 66
Education level (%)
Junior high school 0 2.7
High school 51.4 39.2
College 10.3 36.5
University (undergraduate) 34.6 18.9
University (postgraduate) 3.7 2.7
Percentage of married couples 97.2 91.8
Duration sharing the work roles in family (%)
Less than 1 year 6.7 8.2
From 1 to 5 years 17.1 5.5
From 5 to 10 years 24.8 11.0
More than 10 years 51.4 75.3
Percentage of couples having a child or children 85.7 84.9
Mean age of the first child (standard deviation) (years) 12.9 (9.7) 21.8 (10.0)
from 0 to 36 from 2 to 44
Working status (%)
Full-time (more than 8 h per day) 98.1 49.3
Part time (less than 4 h per day) 0.9 17.8
Not working outside the home 0 27.4
Other 0.9 5.5

Note. Numbers below 0.01 are rounded down.

gender roles: men working outside the home
and women working inside the home. Individu-
als rated the percentage of work that they
performed on each work task; the mean per-
centages are shown in Table 2. Women per-
ceived that they conducted more than 80% of
the basic household chores, whereas men,
except for dealing with garbage, perceived that
they conducted approximately 20% of the
household chores. For the garbage chore, men
perceived that they performed 44% of the work
and women perceived that they performed
71%. In certain relationships it appears that
dealing with garbage was a more gender-
neutral household chore. In contrast to the
basic household chores, the men were in charge
of 85% of the paid work according to the mens
perceptions, and the women were in charge of
23% according to the womens perceptions.
With regard to child-rearing, women perceived
that they performed more than 70% of teaching
discipline and playing with children, whereas
men perceived that they performed approxi-
mately 30% of these tasks. More than 80% of
the women took care of the tasks related to
their children according to the womens per-
ceptions, whereas men carried out approxi-
mately 20% of such tasks according to the
mens perceptions. In summary, the participants
in the present study perceived that basic house-
hold chores and child-rearing, that is, tasks that
were performed inside the home, were mostly
performed by the women, whereas the men
were generally in charge of paid work, that is,
tasks performed outside the home. This pattern
of sharing work tasks in the family, which was
practiced by the participants, followed the
gender pattern of the division of labor based on
fixed gender roles. This gender pattern of the
division of labor was in accord with Ohno et al.
(2001).
Measurement
Perception of procedures. In order to
measure the degree of perceived fairness of
procedures, we used a scale that was based on
procedural justice theory, focusing on issues

Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

 Fair procedure in the division of labor
Table 2 Mean percentage of the perceived
degree of the division of labor performed by
men (N = 107) and women (N = 74)
Men Women
Basic household chores
Meal preparation 17
Keeping daily necessaries 16
Washing clothes 20
Organizing washed clothes 20
Cleaning dining room 22
Cleaning toilet and bathroom 27
Dealing with garbage 44
Paid work
Earning money 85
Child-rearinga
Teaching discipline 32
Taking care of things around 21
children
Playing with children 29
Note. Numbers below 1% are rounded down.
a
In terms of child rearing, the participants included
91 men and 65 women.
such as participation and treatment with
dignity and respect (Tyler, 2000).
The scale used to measure the perception of
the procedures used in the division of labor
was an averaged scale labeled interactive
communication. Interactive communication
refers to the perception of the following:
opportunities to voice opinions, mutually
decided agreements, appreciation expressed
by the partner, and partners attitudes of lis-
tening with sympathy in the process of nego-
tiating and performing the division of labor.
The scale was comprised of nine items: we
both try to discuss the problem, we both
express our feelings, we both suggest pos-
sible solutions, my partner and I try to nego-
tiate things together as a couple, including
things like household core tasks, paid work
and child-rearing, how the tasks of house-
hold labor, paid work and childcare are
divided is an arrangement we decided on
together, I feel appreciated by my partner
for the tasks of household work, paid work
and childcare that I perform, my family
notices the work roles I do for them, my
partner is a good listener, and my partner
37
listens to me when I talk or complain
about family matters. The first three items
were derived from Kluwer et al. (2002), and
the other six items were derived from
minor modifications to Hawkins et al. (1998).
All items used a 7-point scale ranging from
88
92 1, Disagree, to 7, Agree. The higher
88 score represented the participants percep-
89 tions that both they and their partner joined
88 in the decision-making process of dividing
84 and performing work tasks for the family, and
71 their partner treated them in a respectful
manner. The Cronbachs alpha of this scale
23
was .923.
77
87 Gender ideology. To measure the partici-
pants views toward gender roles in the home,
74 the scales of gender division and mutual
participation developed by Ohno et al. (2003)
were used. These scales focused on gender
role attitudes only in the family situation.
The participants were asked to rate the scale
from 1, Disagree, to 7, Agree. The scale of
gender division consisted of the following
items: earning money is a responsibility of
men, the gender division, which is that men
work outside the home, while women work
inside the home, is convenient and good for
us, and whether the atmosphere in the home
is comfortable or not depends on the women
in the home. The scale of mutual participa-
tion included the following items: it is good
for us that one of us who can perform house-
hold work does it, and we do not necessarily
determine who does what and it is good for
us to share the household work and child-
rearing together as a couple. A person who
scored higher in gender division was
regarded as one who endorsed the more tra-
ditional gender ideology. A higher score in
mutual participation indicated that the
respondents had more egalitarian gender role
attitudes.
Perceived fairness. In order to measure a
sense of fairness regarding the division of
labor, a one-item global scale was used. A
problem of interpretation might occur in the
use of a one-item measurement if participants
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
38 A. Nameda

Table 3 Mean scores and standard deviations for each scale in the independent
samples t-test
Men Women
a
Perceived fairness 4.6 (1.0)*** 3.1 (1.0)***
Interactive communicationb 4.8 (1.0)* 4.3 (1.4)*
Gender divisionc 4.7 (1.1)** 4.2 (1.2)**
Mutual participationc 5.0 (1.3) 5.3 (1.1)

Note. Numbers below 0.01 are rounded down.

a
Perceived fairness scores greater than 4 indicate the perception of unfairness to partner, scores less than
4 indicate perception of unfairness to me, and scores equal to 4 indicate perceived fairness for both.
b
Higher scores in Interactive communication indicate the perception that the respondents had interactive
communication with their partner in performing the division.
c
Higher scores in Gender division indicate the endorsement of the more traditional gender ideology, and
higher scores in Mutual participation indicated that the respondents had more egalitarian gender role
attitudes.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

simply rated the degree of perceived fairness Results

(Mikula, 1998). Thus, a bipolar scale was used
to ask the participants to answer to whom and
to what degree the division of labor, including
both household and paid work, was consid-
ered fair or unfair (Kluwer et al., 2002). The
participants rated the scale from 1, very
unfair for me, via 4, fair for both, to 7, very
unfair for my partner. For this scale, a higher
score indicated that the participants perceived
the division as unfair for their partners,
whereas a lower score showed that they per-
ceived the division as unfair for themselves.
The closer the score was to the middle, the
more the participants perceived the division as
fair for both.
To enable the survey to be conducted in
Japan, the scales measuring the perception of
procedures and fairness were translated from
English into Japanese. In order to maintain the
original meaning of the questions and clarify
what they actually meant, the researcher, in the
process of translation, had discussions with and
was given feedback from an English scholar in
psychology, a Japanese scholar in psychology,
two Japanese postgraduate students in psychol-
ogy and a Japanese nonpsychology postgradu-
ate student who was fluent in English. To check
if each question was worded accurately, pilot
interviews with three participants were con-
ducted before the questionnaires were given
out.
In order to clarify the sex differences in the
participants responses to each variable, inde-
pendent sample t-tests were conducted. The
descriptive statistics, including the mean scores
and standard deviations of the scales, are shown
in Table 3. There was a significant difference
between the men and the women with regard to
perceived fairness, t(179) = 9.18, p < .001. A
clear gap existed between the mens and the
womens mean scores of perceived fairness.
Furthermore, as can be seen in Figure 1, if the
participants perceived unfairness, the men
tended to perceive the division as unfair for
their partner, whereas the women tended to
perceive the division as unfair for themselves.
Regarding the perception of the procedures
used in negotiating and performing the division
of labor, there was a statistically significant dif-
ference between the men and the women in
the perception of interactive communication,
t(179) = 2.28, p < .05. The men were more likely
to perceive that interactive communication was
performed in dividing the work roles in the
family. In examining the two aspects of gender
role ideology, the difference between the mean
scores of the men and the women on the gender
division measure was statistically signifi-
cant, t(179) = 2.79, p < .01. The men tended to
endorse a stronger ideology of traditional
gender roles than the women did. Both the men

Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

 Fair procedure in the division of labor 39

Table 4 Zero order correlations between scores of each scale among men (lower left in the
table) and women (upper right in the table)
Perception of Interactive Gender Mutual
fairness communication division participation

Perception of fairness .71** .27* -.20

Interactive communication -.01 .03 .03
Gender division -.01 -.16 -.27*
Mutual participation -.07 .27** -.31**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

and the women tended to agree with the Multiple regression analyses were conducted
concept of mutual participation. in order to clarify whether the perception of the
Zero order correlations, which describe how procedures used in the division of labor and
the scores of each scale are correlated with each gender role ideology predicted the perception
other, are shown in Table 4. For the correlations of fairness in the division of labor. More con-
among the men, there was no correlation cretely, perceived fairness was regressed onto
between perceived fairness and the other vari- the variables of interactive communication that
ables. The correlations among the women assessed the perception of procedure, and the
yielded contradictory results: the variables of variables of gender division and mutual partici-
interactive communication and gender division pation that assessed gender role ideology; sepa-
were correlated with perceived fairness. With rate analyses were conducted for men and
regard to the gender role ideology variables, women. The coefficients of standardized beta
there was a pattern of correlation that was and effect size in each variable are shown in
common for both the men and the women. Table 5.
Gender division was negatively correlated with In the model for men, there was no signifi-
mutual participation. This indicated that the cant variable predicting the perception of fair-
views of gender division are opposite to the ness. Moreover, the predictive power of this
views of mutual participation, and that the par- model was not significant (R2 = .01). In contrast,
ticipants who supported gender division tended in the model for women, all variables showed a
not to endorse mutual participation towards significant relation with perceived fairness. In
the roles in families. addition, the result of the multiple correlation
Percentage of the participants responding

50

40

30

20 Men

Women
10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scores
(1: very unfair for me, 4: fair for both, 7: very unfair for my partner)

Figure 1 Percentages of the participants responses by scores of perceived fairness in the division of labor.

Japanese Psychological Association 2012.

40
Table 5 Multiple regression analysis of perceived fairness for men and women
Mens model
Standardized b
Interactive communication .04
Gender division -.04
Mutual participation -.09
R2 .01
a
Effect size was calculated by dividing the unstandardized beta of the independent variable by the standard
deviation of the variable of perceived fairness.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
squared was high (R2 = .60), indicating that the
model for women strongly predicted the per-
ception of fairness.
One notable concrete characteristic of the
model for women was the significant relation
between perceived fairness and interactive
communication. According to the coefficient
of standardized beta (b = .71) and p-value
(p < .001), the relation between perceived
fairness and interactive communication was
strongly significant. The positive relation
between these variables indicates that the more
interactive the communication in performing
the division of labor, the more the shared
division was perceived as fair for themselves.
Therefore, interactive communication can be
regarded as a significant, powerful predictor of
womens perceived fairness.
For the gender role ideology variables,
although the predictive power was relatively
small, a statistically significant effect was found
for gender division (b = .20) and for mutual
participation (b = -.17). The gender division
variable was positively related to perceived
fairness. That is, participants who endorsed tra-
ditional gender roles tended to perceive the
division as fair. In contrast, the mutual decision-
making variable was negatively related to per-
ceived fairness. This indicated that participants
who believed in mutual sharing of the work
tasks were likely to perceive the division as
unfair for themselves.
Discussion
The present study aimed at understanding how
the procedural and interactive aspects of per-
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
A. Nameda
Womens model
a
Effect size Standardized b Effect sizea
.00 .71*** .48
-.03 .20* .16
-.06 -.17* -.15
.60
forming the division of labor as well as gender
role ideology are associated with the perceived
fairness of the division of labor. Our study dif-
fered from previous studies by investigating the
impact of the full range of procedural justice
issues from the perspective of both men and
women. The results of the present study
revealed that in performing the division of
labor, not only participation, such as express-
ing ones opinion, but also treatment with
dignity and respect, such as acknowledging
appreciation, is an important aspect of perceiv-
ing fairness. However, the importance of the
procedural and interactive aspects in perform-
ing the division of labor was only true for
women. Although the analyses were conducted
for both men and women, the mens sense of
fairness could not be explained by these vari-
ables. Given that there were these sex differ-
ences in the importance of procedural aspects
in the division of labor, we will discuss the data
for women and men separately. We will first
focus on the impact of procedure and gender
role ideology in womens sense of fairness, and
then we will focus on the reasons why the pro-
cedural and interactive aspects have no rel-
evance to the perceived fairness in mens sense
of fairness.
Procedure and ideology in womens sense
of fairness
The present studys findings showed that inter-
active communication in the process of per-
forming the division of labor, which reflected
participation and treatment with dignity and
respect in procedural justice theory (Tyler,
2000), has a significant impact on the womens
 Fair procedure in the division of labor
perceptions of fairness about this division. The
finding of the importance of interactive com-
munication builds on previous studies that
dealt with relevant issues of procedural justice
(Hawkins et al., 1998; Kluwer et al., 2002).
Similar to our findings, Kluwer et al. (2002)
found that when the womens opinions were
reflected in the decision-making procedure,
they tended to evaluate the division as fair.
Furthermore, Hawkins et al. (1998) discovered
that dual-earner wives perception of fairness
involved a mutual agreement in the negotiation
of dividing family work roles. As such, in
womens sense of fairness about the division of
labor, the procedural justice concepts of par-
ticipation and treatment with dignity and
respect play a significant part.
Gender role ideology is also a significant pre-
dictor of the womens perception of the fairness
of the division of labor. Our findings reveal that
for women an ideology of gender division is
positively related to their perception of fairness
in the division of labor. In contrast, the greater
the extent to which the women believed in an
ideology of mutual participation in the division
of labor, the greater they judged the division as
unfair. In other words, if women endorsed the
ideology of gender division and in practice per-
formed the division of labor based on fixed
gender roles, there was no gap between their
view and the actual division. As such, they per-
ceived their share of the work roles as fair.
However, if they held a belief in mutual partici-
pation in the division of labor, the fixed gender
pattern of sharing the division was regarded as
unfair for them. In summary, for the women,
gender role ideology influences the perception
of fairness. This finding is in accord with previ-
ous studies (Greenstein, 1996; Mikula et al.,
1997).
Sex differences in perceiving fairness
regarding the division of labor
The analyses conducted in the present study
demonstrated that, although the womens sense
of fairness was associated with the procedural
and interactive aspects of performing the divi-
sion of labor as well as their gender role ideol-
ogy beliefs, the mens sense of fairness was not
41
associated with those aspects. That is, the study
supports the position that sex differences exist
in the variables that are related to perceiving
fairness in the division of labor. Previous
studies have also reported sex differences in the
variables related to perceived fairness. Mikula
et al. (1997) found that there was a stronger
relation between the perception of fairness and
satisfaction for women than for men. Blair
(1998) reported that women in dual-earner
couples showed a greater feeling of unfairness
in household and paid work roles than did men.
Summarizing these findings, it is understand-
able that there are some sex differences in the
way and the degree to which fairness is per-
ceived. Nevertheless, the reason why there are
clear sex differences in perceiving fairness is
still in question.
One possible explanation as to why sex dif-
ferences emerged is that in perceiving fairness,
men by nature are outcome-oriented, whereas
women by nature are process-oriented. On the
one hand, on issues of social justice (Tyler,
2000, 2001) procedural justice research has not
supported sex differences in perceiving fair-
ness. On the other hand, some organizational
justice studies (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997)
have shown that the importance of procedural
and distributive justices is different for women
and men. Similar to the organizational justice
findings, both the current research and Kluwer
et al. (2002) found that although the evalua-
tion of procedures in performing the division
of labor significantly influences womens per-
ception of fairness, mens perception of the
procedures is not associated with their percep-
tion of fairness. There is accumulating evi-
dence that women ascribe more importance to
procedures.
Although it is possible to regard women as
being process-oriented by nature and men by
nature not sharing this orientation, there is
another possibility to explain the sex differ-
ence. In order to understand why men are
outcome-oriented and women tend to be
process-oriented, one possible answer is that
men are already sufficiently content with the
division of labor. Tyler (2001) argued that
people who maintain an advantaged position
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
42 A. Nameda
do not complain about the situation because
they are satisfied with their entitlement. This
suggests that people do not necessarily con-
sider the issue of fairness when they are satis-
fied with the outcome of the division. In the
present study, the results showed that when
the participants experienced feelings of unfair-
ness, men were likely to perceive the division
of labor as unfair for their partner, or in other
words, favorable for themselves, whereas
women tended to perceive the division as
unfair for themselves. Moreover, men per-
ceived a higher degree of performance in the
interactive communication than did women.
These findings suggest that a feeling of satis-
faction with the outcome can lead to a lack of
relation between mens sense of fairness and
the perception of procedures, such as interac-
tive communication, in performing the divi-
sion of labor.
It is also possible that the Japanese culture
influences the way and degree of perceiving
fairness when performing the division of labor.
Greenstein (2009) argues that in a country
such as Japan, where many people support and
practice fixed gender roles, the division of
household labor based on fixed gender roles
tends to be accepted. Similarly, the result of an
international survey showed that people in
countries where fixed gender roles were taken
for granted were likely to regard the division
of household labor based on fixed gender
roles as fair (Fuwa & Tsutsui, 2010). Based on
other practices of fixed gender roles, such as
communication styles (Hirayama & Kashi-
wagi, 2001, 2004) and child-rearing (Kikuchi &
Kashiwagi, 2007; Niwano, 2007), it seems that
the division of labor in Japanese society is
conducted on the basis of gender roles. It is
taken for granted that mens roles in family
and society are to work outside the home and
earn money, and men only need to pay atten-
tion to whether they are successfully perform-
ing paid work. Most of the men in the present
study were employed as full-time workers.
Hence, procedural aspects in performing the
division of labor, such as interactive commu-
nication, are not important to mens sense of
fairness.
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
Practical implication
The results from a Japanese survey showed that
more than 50% of the participants were against
the fixed gender roles that the husband is
expected to work outside the home, while the
wife is expected to take on domestic duties
(Gender Equality Bureau, Cabinet Office, &
Government of Japan, 2009). The expressed
opinions, however, are not or cannot be realized
in practice (Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Inter-
nal Affairs and Communications of Japan,
2006). On the one hand, based on the proce-
dural justice literature (Tyler, 2001), if people
are not content with the outcome of the divi-
sion of labor, they would perceive unfairness or
have other negative feelings toward the divi-
sion. On the other hand, as the present study
has found, interactive communication in per-
forming the division of labor tends to reduce
the perception of unfairness, or results in creat-
ing a perception of fairness for women. Thus,
the practical implication is to find and provide
the evidence to prevent conflicts or negative
feelings in performing the division of labor in a
close relationship.
Limitations
One of the limitations of the present study is
the partial use of the items in the scales. The
items used in the present study were on
the amount of division of labor, the interac-
tive aspect of procedure, gender ideology,
and feeling of fairness towards the division.
However, in understanding the sex difference
in the perception of fairness, it may also be
important to focus on the other dynamic
aspects of redressing the balance. For example,
it would be possible that even if a spouse per-
forms a quantitatively larger amount of the
roles in the family, as long as he or she manages
the household budget and has a feeling of
control over the division, it will be regarded as
fair. In another example, if a spouse takes less
responsibility in performing the division of
labor, and he or she has less freedom in arrang-
ing the home, it is possible that the division
become unfair to him or her. In further analysis,
it would be interesting to pay attention, not
only to the interactive aspect of the procedure,
 Fair procedure in the division of labor
but also the other dynamic psychological work
in a family or close relationship, such as the
feeling of control over or the degree of freedom
in performing the division of labor, in order to
gain a comprehensive understanding of the per-
ception of fairness in both spouses.
In terms of the limitation of the partial view-
points in scales, we also need to add the items
about the roles that men usually perform, such
as DIY or automobile. There is still the possi-
bility that men did not express their sense of
fairness or unfairness because only the amount
of and feelings about relatively womens
domains of roles in the division of labor were
asked in the questionnaire. In line with this, a
broader sense of the mens perspective needs to
be considered.
As the other limitation, we should mention
that the present study had the technical
problem of using a bipolar scale in measuring
the sense of fairness. The meaning of the scale
used in this study possibly differed between
men and women. As shown in the results
section, most of the men who perceived the
unfairness had a sense of unfairness for their
partner, whereas most of the women who per-
ceived the unfairness had a sense of unfairness
for themselves. In other words, the mens per-
ception of fairness measured in this study was
merely the fairness for their partner, and the
mens model barely considered the mens sense
of fairness for themselves. This can explain why
the mens model was not statistically significant
in the multiple regression analysis, and a sex
difference in perceiving fairness was conse-
quently found. Future studies should use scales
that measure the participants sense of fairness
for themselves, for their partner, and for both
themselves and their partner.
For future studies
The present study examined whether proce-
dural and interactive aspects of the division of
labor as well as gender role ideology influence
both womens and mens perception of fairness.
The variables examined in the present study,
however, were not significantly associated with
the mens perception of fairness. In order to
gain a clearer understanding of the procedural
43
and interactive aspects of performing the divi-
sion of labor, future research should describe
how couples interact with each other in per-
forming the division of labor. More research is
needed to explore the variables that impact
mens judgments of fairness and examine the
relations among the actual amounts of the
division, the perception of fairness, and the
procedures.
References
Bartley, S. J., Blanton, P. W., & Gilliard, J. L. (2005).
Husbands and wives in dual-earner marriages:
Decision-making, gender role attitudes, division
of household labor, and equity. Marriage and
Family Review, 37, 6994.
Blair, S. L. (1998). Work roles, domestic roles, and
marital quality: Perceptions of fairness among
dual-earner couples. Social Justice Research, 11,
313335.
Blair, S. L., & Johnson, M. P. (1992). Wives perception
of the fairness of the division of household
labour: The intersection of housework and ideol-
ogy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 570581.
Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor:
Modeling and measuring the social embedded-
ness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 62, 12081233.
Dixon, J., & Wetherell, M. (2004). On discourse and
dirty nappies: Gender, the division of household
labour and the social psychology of distributive
justice. Theory and Psychology, 14, 167189.
Freudenthaler, H. H., & Mikula, G. (1998). From
unfulfilled wants to the experience of injustice:
Womens sense of injustice regarding the lop-
sided division of household labor. Social Justice
Research, 11, 289312.
Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and
the division of household labor in 22 countries.
American Sociological Review, 69, 751767.
Fuwa, M., & Tsutsui, J. (2010). A cross-national com-
parison of the perceived fairness of the division
of household labor. Japanese Journal of Family
Sociology, 22, 5263. (In Japanese with English
abstract.)
Gager, C. T. (1998). The role of valued outcomes,
justifications, and comparison referents in per-
ceptions of fairness among dual-earner couples.
Journal of Family Issues, 19, 622648.
Gender Equality Bureau, Cabinet Office, Govern-
ment of Japan (2009). Public opinion poll on a
gender-equal society. <http://www.gender.go.jp/
english_contents/category/pub/pamphlet/
women-and-men11/pdf/1.pdf> (June 30, 2012).
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
44 A. Nameda
Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Beyond the overall balance:
The significance of particular tasks and proce-
dures for perceptions of fairness in distributions
of household work. Social Justice Research, 11,
359376.
Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Gender ideology and per-
ception of the fairness of the division of house-
hold labor: Effects on marital quality. Social
Forces, 74, 10291042.
Greenstein, T. N. (2009). National context, family sat-
isfaction, and fairness in the division of house-
hold labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71,
10391051.
Hawkins, A. J., Marshall, C. M., & Allen, S. M. (1998).
The orientation toward domestic labor question-
naire: Exploring dual-earner wives sense of fair-
ness about family work. Journal of Family
Psychology, 12, 244258.
Hawkins, A. J., Marshall, C. M., & Meiners, K. M.
(1995). Exploring wives sense of fairness about
family work: An initial test of the distributive
justice framework. Journal of Family Issues, 16,
693721.
Hirayama, J., & Kashiwagi, K. (2001). Attitudes
of married couples toward communication:
Husband/wife comparisons. Japanese Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 12, 216227. (In
Japanese with English abstract.)
Hirayama, J., & Kashiwagi, K. (2004). Communica-
tion patterns of married couples: Association
with couples occupational statuses and marital
ideals. Japanese Journal of Developmental Psy-
chology, 15, 89100. (In Japanese with English
abstract.)
Kikuchi, F., & Kashiwagi, K. (2007). Chichioya no
ikuji: Ikujikyuugyou wo totta chichioya tachi
[Fathers childcare: The fathers taking parental
leave]. Bulletin of the Faculty of Human Studies
at Bunkyo Gakuin University, 9, 189207. (In
Japanese, translated by the author of this article.)
Kluwer, E. S. (1998). Response to gender inequality in
the division of family work: The status quo effect.
Social Justice Research, 11, 337357.
Kluwer, E. S., Heesink, J. A. M., & Van de Vliert, E.
(2002). The division of labour across the transi-
tion to parenthood:A justice perspective. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 64, 930943.
Mikula, G. (1998). Division of household labor and
perceived justice: A growing field of research.
Social Justice Research, 11, 215241.
Mikula, G., Freudenthaler, H. H., Brennacher-Kroll,
S., & Brunschko, B. (1997). Division of labor in
student households: Gender inequality, per-
ceived justice, and satisfaction. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 19, 275289.
Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
Mikula, G., Schoebi, D., Jagoditsch, S., & Macher, S.
(2009). Roots and correlates of perceived injus-
tice in division of family work. Personal Relation-
ships, 16, 553574.
Nameda, A. (2011). Fairness in the division of family
work: Understanding the sense of entitlement in
interpersonal contexts. Japanese Journal of Law
and Psychology, 11, 5867. (In Japanese with
English abstract.)
Niwano, A. (2007). Fathers transitional process to
the child care role: The relation between the
role and the consciousness. Japanese Journal of
Family Sociology, 18, 103114. (In Japanese with
English abstract.)
Ohno, S., Sugano, Y., & Kashiwagi, K. (2001). The
division of household affairs and demographic
factors of the family. Human Developmental
Research, 16, 5368. (In Japanese with English
abstract.)
Ohno, S., Taya, Y., & Kashiwagi, K. (2003). Factors
relevant to mens involvement in household
labor. Human Developmental Research, 17,
5368. (In Japanese with English abstract.)
Reichle, B., & Gefke, M. (1998). Justice of conjugal
division of labor: You cant always get what you
want. Social Justice Research, 11, 271287.
Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications of Japan (2006). Survey on time
use and leisure activities. <http://www.stat.go.jp/
english/data/shakai/2006/pdf/jikan-a.pdf> (June
30, 2012).
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and
outcome: Gender differences in the assessment
of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
18, 8398.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice:
A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Womens sense
of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181
196.
Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and pro-
cedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35,
117125.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Social justice. In R. Brown & S. L.
Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social
psychology: Intergroup processes. Oxford: Black-
well Publishing, pp. 344364.
Ui, M. (2005). Female college students judgment cri-
teria for determining gender equality in the
workplace, domestic labor, and childrearing situ-
ations. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 21,
91101. (In Japanese with English abstract.)
(Received May 20, 2011; accepted May 12, 2012)