Page 35 - March April 2017 FTM

One later life family decision that can be
a source of conflict and have long-term implications for the quality of family relationships is inheritance. Regardless
of amount or scale, nearly every family engages in some form of the transfer of accumulated possessions and/or assets from one generation to the next. For
some families, this is a process marked
by love and respect, but for others, this process is at best awkward, and at worst a cause for extreme conflict and damaged relationships. Research has found that effective intergenerational communication about inheritance expectations is an effective way to mitigate potential conflict (Stum, 2011). However, discussions about inheritance are often difficult for family members to bring up. Inheritance is
tied to ideas of mortality and facing the eventuality that a loved one will eventually pass. It is also frequently related to conversations about money, which can be a hot-button topic for families.
At the heart of many family inheritance decisions is the motivation of “fairness” (Lerner & Mikula, 1994; Stum, 1999). While “being fair” sounds simple
and straightforward, in reality, it can
be quite complex and challenging
for family members. Fairness is a commonly misunderstood concept by family members and practitioners. By understanding key fairness concepts and research, family therapists can
help aging parents, adult children, siblings and other family members navigate the complexities of inheritance decisions. Clinical work with clients facing inheritance decisions can involve psycho-education, facilitation of discussions, and processing the impacts of this event on mental health and relationship dynamics. As a result, clients can experience increased opportunities for intergenerational continuity, relationship well-being, and avoid common pitfalls involved in inheritance.
Understanding “fairness”
Social justice theories provide
valuable insight for understanding the complexity of fairness in family systems (Lerner & Mikula, 1994). Therapists
need to understand fairness as a multidimensional concept that relates to a) decision outcomes, the distribution of “who gets what” resources; b) decision processes, the procedures involved in allocating resources; and
c) the interrelationships of decision processes and outcomes (Tyler, 2000). Understanding social justice theories can give therapists insight into clients’ definitions of fairness, and could provide language that might increase understanding among family members who possess different definitions.
Are decision outcomes fair?
Distributive justice theory concerns outcomes, or the distribution of resources that affect individual well- being (Deutsch, 1985). Individuals tend to favor selected principles, often referred to as decision rules to determine who gets what resources. Two overall decision rules have consistently been found
to guide most resource allocations— treating all involved the same (equally) or treating individuals differently (equitably). Family members may adhere to differing definitions of fairness, and assume similar definitions are held by other family members. Therapists can encourage family members to uncover, share, and understand unspoken and unwritten rules to distribute personal possessions and financial assets.
When fair means equal
Equality rules focus on everyone receiving the same outcome and de- emphasize differences among potential receivers. Family members who adhere to equality rules might assume that if family members all receive the same resources, claims of parents playing “favorites” or “this proves Dad always liked you best” are less likely to occur.
While dividing resources equally sounds straightforward, applying a “fair means equal” rule is not so simple. Not all types of resources can literally be divided equally and still maintain their value or usefulness. While money can easily be divided equally among family members, other types of resources can present practical challenges. Focusing
on “fair means equal value” may be impossible when the resources involved have a combination of financial and/
or emotional or social value, such as personal possession. Studies of families and inheritance provide examples of the common challenges families encounter when attempting equal divisions of emotionally-laden personal possessions (Stum, 1999). Consider this example:
My parents recently died within three months of each other. My sister, brother, and I have been going through the house and making decisions about who gets what. It’s gone pretty smoothly. There is only one item in the whole house that all three of us really want—the Winnie the Pooh book that Mom and Dad read to each of us when we were young. It has always been kept in the corner bookshelf in the living room. There’s simply no way to divide the book equally among the three of us. We’ve considered each having it for a year and rotating possession, but that seems really tedious over time.
In cases where equal value is impossible to determine, families often “equalize the chance or opportunity” to receive resources by randomly drawing names or numbers, and some use play money or a set number of marbles as a means of “bidding.”
When fair means being equitable
Decision rules focusing on “fair” as being equitable typically recognize
and acknowledge differences among potential family members as a basis
for dividing resources. Three major decision rules focusing on differences in contributions, needs, and an individual’s characteristics are commonly used to “equitably” allocate resources (Deutsch, 1985). Decision rules emphasizing contributions typically reward previous or expected contributions made to
the owner(s) such as gifts of money, possessions, love and support, or informal caregiving. Decision rules can also focus on distributing resources to family members on the basis of needs (such as financial, physical, emotional, or basic living). Selected personal characteristics or circumstances of family
MARCH / APRIL 2017 33