IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ll r “N LIBRARY [ Michigan State University n J ___ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A DESCRIPI‘IVE ANALYSIS OF STRONG EVANGELICAL FATHERS presented by Emerson Edwin Eggerichs Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degfwin Family ECO-logy Mari/J 214,7 W1 it‘ll? /Ma ajor professor Date mfit/n/Wr?h_ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0— 12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES relum on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 'FEB 5 6 I“? I 9 fl '. 22.0“" W I. e.” MSU I. An Affirmative ActlorVEquel'Opportunity Institution Em A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF STRONG EVANGELICAL FATHERS BY Emerson Edwin Eggerichs Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1992 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF STRONG EVANGELICAL FATHERS BY Emerson Edwin Eggerichs Jr. The major purpose of this inquiry was to investigate the fathering style of strong fathers as perceived by the strong father, his wife, and his adult child. The strong father was pre-selected. A comparison was made from the self reports of 42 family constellations of husband, wife and adult child to determine strong fathering styles. The "Fathering Style Inventory" instrument was utilized which consists of 21 scales or 138 items. A Likert scale was used. The scales were made up of four dimensions, twelve practices and five satisfactions. The four dimensions were: Involvement, Consistency, Awareness and Nurturance. The twelve practices were: Time Commitment to Children, Involvement in Discipline, Involvement in Education, Marital Interaction, Parental Discussion of Children, Dealing with Crisis, Showing Affection, Modeling, Financial Provider, Spiritual Development, Allowing Freedom of Expression, and Knowing My Child. The five satisfactions were: Satisfaction with your Childhood, Fathering Role, Support from Others, Leadership Abilities, and Verbal Relationship with Children. The statistical procedures used and reported were: the rank ordering of the means, the statistically significant differences on the Repeated Measures Design Analysis of Variance, the congruences inferred from the Repeated Measures that showed no statistically significant differences, the internal consistencies from the Cronbach’s Alpha, and the Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients showing the statistically significant differences that imply linear relationships not due to chance. It was hypothesized that there would be congruence between the strong fathers, mothers and adult children on the four dimensions, twelve practices and five satisfactions. The hypotheses were generally supported. A profile of the strong, evangelical fathers seemed to emerge. These strong fathers were: developmentally aware of the children; consistent in dealing with and relating to the children; listening attentively and caringly; modeling maturity and goodness; dealing with crisis knowledgeably and positively; and providing financially. “v They hear f'j'wnions 1m: 1 *‘ lute hone: ~' ‘- 90 my wife. m and chm. ‘2'. Q“ I vow» . "‘ We it 5:24;.» 'Wim, sue ., Copyright by 'shouldmnmnl mess JR. 1992 “I? three at: ‘ : 1.1!!! occasions in the ix.f.-A‘>;_tawto .- ’ z; a that I have. may; of"? . m - we .11 have out Md be line then to comma} .322- - DEDICATION To my parents, Emerson and Jay Eggerichs, who, through their encouragement and support, contributed significantly to the accomplishment of this academic goal. They have always been responsive to my needs and aspirations and for this, as well as many more things, I wish to honor them. To my wife, Sarah, who has not only been my lover- friend and cheerleader but has faithfully prayed for me that I would discern and do the will of Christ Jesus our Lord as it relates to this course of study, and many other areas. As our children mature, I clearly credit most everything to her mothering. Though I am committed to fathering, she is consumed with mothering. She is head and shoulders above me as a parent. I sing her praises. To my three children, Jonathan, David and Joy, who endured many occasions when "dad" was unavailable because he was studying the importance of fathers being involved! My prayer is that I have been and will be the kind of father they need — we all have our doubts at times! No greater joy could be mine then to someday learn that God heard my prayer. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Such an undertaking as this study obviously is the result of many people. To each I am very indebted. I wish to acknowledge first those members of my committee: my advisor, Dr. Margaret Bubolz, for her decade-long interest, investment, instruction and inspiration; Dr. Norm Bell, for his excellent counsel, lasting friendship, and penchant for effective and correct application; Dr. Dennis Keefe, for his positive, gracious and helpful contribution; and to Dr. Don Melcer, for his input and insight as he came on the committee toward the end. Deep appreciation to Ken Canfield, director of the National Center for Fathering, not only for his academic critiques and resourcefulness but for his vision to serve fathers. He is extraordinary. It is a privilege to be his friend and fellow-laborer on behalf of fathers. Special thanks to Dr. Raywin Huang who to me was "statistically significant" in that he gave many hours to running the data through the SPSS program. He helped me p. p. "immeasurably". I can say similar things about Dr. Ed Roeber. The leadership and congregation of East Lansing Trinity Church not only for their enthusiasm and prayers but their overwhelming endorsement of my studies. I also thank the leadership of Christian Service Brigade for their significant part in the initial stages. Last, but not least, a special thanks to Joann Blunt, my secretary, who deserves a degree in her own right for the many hours she labored on my behalf. She is truly a servant of Christ. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................................Vii CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM....................................1 Question of Interest ........................1 Importance of Study .........................1 Identification of Research Need .............6 Purpose of Study ............................6 Research Objectives ....................8 Research Hypotheses ....................9 Definitions ................................12 Theoretical Definitions................12 Generalizability of Study ..................20 Assumptions of Study .......................21 Limitations of Study .......................23 II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Dee.eeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeez4 Family Strengths: A Framework .............27 Family Strengths: Theories/Therapies.......31 Family Strengths in Family Theories ...32 Structural-Functionalism .........32 Institutionalism .................33 Symbolic—Interactionism ..........34 Psychoanalyticalism ..............36 Developmentalism .................37 Exchange Theory ..................38 Ecological System ................40 Judeo-Christian Perspective ......41 Family Strengths in Family Therapies ..42 Psychoanalytic Approach ..........42 Intergenerational Approach .......43 Systems Theory ...................44 Behavioral Approach ..............45 Family Strengths: Assumptions ..............45 Assumption: Strong Fathers ...........45 Syllogistic Argument ..................48 III. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...............49 iv Definition of Key Concepts .................49 Family ................................49 Congruence ............................52 Perceptions ...........................53 Research Needs .............................60 Family Strengths Research .............62 Fatherhood Research ...................66 IV. METHODS .....................................76 Research Design ............................76 Sampling Procedure .........................77 Data Collection ............................79 Description of the Study Sample ............80 Fathers ...............................80 Mothers ...............................81 Adult Children ........................82 Instrument Development Procedures ..........82 Examination of Literature .............85 Pretesting ............... ....... ......86 Description of Variables ...................87 Operational Definitions ....................87 Scoring ....................................89 Four Dimensions .......................89 Twelve Practices ......................89 Five Satisfactions ....................89 Statistical Methods ........................90 Descriptive Statistics ................90 Rank Ordering .........................90 Repeated Measures .....................91 Cronbach's Alpha ......................92 Pearson Correlation Coefficient .......93 Type I and Type II Errors .............94 Summary................................94 Data Analysis Procedures ...................95 V. RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS .....................96 Descriptive Data for Major Variables........96 Four Dimensions .......................96 Twelve Practices......................104 Five Satisfactions ...................122 Hypotheses Testing ........................128 VI. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, & RECOMMENDATIONS..136 Overview of the Study .....................l36 Major Conclusions .........................l36 Discussion of Findings ....................l37 Dimensions ................................142 Consistency ..........................142 Nurturance ...........................145 Awareness ............................148 V Involvement ..........................152 Practices .......... .......................158 Financial Provider....................158 Modeling .............................161 Dealing with Family Crisis ...........164 Involvement in Discipline ............167 Showing Affection ....................169 Marital Interaction ..................171 Knowing My Child .....................173 Parental Discussion ..................174 Freedom of Expression ................176 Involvement in Education .............178 Time Commitment to Children ..........181 Spiritual Development ................183 Satisfactions .............................189 Fathering Role .......................191 Leadership Abilities .................191 Verbal Relationship with Children ....193 Support from Others ..................196 Childhood ............................197 Limitations of Study ......................201 Recommendations ...........................203 Implications ..............................208 APPENDICES Appendix A Human Subjects Approval ..............211 Appendix B Strong Fathers’ Project Forms.........212 Appendix C Instruments ..........................213 Appendix D Scales and Items .....................241 Appendix E Tables ...............................244 LIST OF REFERENCES Ieeeeeeeeeeoeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezss vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Demographic Characteristics of Strong Fathers, Mothers and Adult children........................244 2. Descriptive Statistics for Strong Fathers’ Perceptions of Themselves ........................248 3. Descriptive Statistics for Mothers' Perceptions of Strong Fathers ...OOIIOOOOIOOIOOOOIOIUOOOOIII'0249 4. Descriptive Statistics for Adult Children's Perceptions of Strong Fathers ....................250 5. Rank Ordered Means Scores on the Scales for the Fathers, Mothers and Adult Children ..............251 6. Rank Ordered Means of the Items Within Each Scale .......................................252 7. Means of the Individual Items on the Dimensions for the Fathers, Mothers and Children ............258 8. Rank Ordered Means of the Items on the Dimensions for the Fathers, Mothers and Adult Children ......260 9. Rank Ordered Means and Written Items on the Dimensions 0......0.0-...0.0.0.0...IOOIQOIIIDIIOOOZGZ 10. Means of the Individual Items on the Practices for the Fathers, Mothers and Children ............265 11. Rank Ordered Means of the Items on the Practices for the Fathers, Mothers and Adult Children ......267 12. Rank Ordered Means and Written Items on the Practices ...IICOOOOOOOOOOCIOO...OOIOOIOOOOOIOOOOIZGQ 13. Means of the Items on the Satisfactions for the Fathers, Mothers, and Adult Children .............271 14. Rank Ordered Means of the Items on the Satisfactions for the Fathers, Mothers, and Adult Children .....272 15. Rank Ordered Means and Written Items on the satisfactions ..IIICIOO00.......I...I.OOO..OOOOO.I273 16. The Differences on the Scales Based On Repeated Measures o.ItoooooloollcoloooooocoooO-OlColo-Doo00274 vii 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The Differences on the Items Within the Dimensions Based on Repeated Measures ............275 The Differences on the Items Within the Practices Based on Repeated Measures .......................276 The Differences on the Items Within the Satisfactions Based on Repeated Measures ......................279 Cronbach’s Alpha Scores on the Dimensions, Practices, and Satisfactions 00......OI......IOCOOOOOOOOOCIOCZ80 Pearson Correlation Matrix, Chi-Square Statistic and Probabilities on Dimensions ......................281 Pearson Correlation Matrix, Chi-Square Statistic and Probabilities on Practices .......................282 Pearson Correlation Matrix, Chi-Square Statistic and Probabilities on Satisfactions ...................283 Alpha Reliability Scores on the Pretested Inventory ..IOCOIIOCOOOOOODIOUCOUIO......IOOOOOOCOZS4 viii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Question of Interest Is a descriptive analysis of strong fathers necessary? The "family strengths" and "fatherhood" research together with family theory and therapy assumptions, demonstrate the need of this inquiry. Importance of the study This study is significant because: First, the function of the father in the family is consequential. More and more research discloses the father as critical in the major developmental aspects of children. For example, the absence of the father contributes to the American white adolescent’s lower rating in responsibility and leadership. Bronfenbrenner (1970) indicates that father absence is a factor that affects low motivation in achievement, inability to postpone gratification, low self-esteem, vulnerability to group pressure, and juvenile delinquency. If the average father spends 37 seconds of meaningful time with his children per day (Nicholi, 1985), is it any wonder that such neglect is evidencing itself negatively in children? Again, consider the effects of father absence: * Inadequately learned sex roles (Tabor & Hoffman, 1987). * Lower self-worth (Parish & Taylor, 1979). * Less bonding with male role models (Rekers, 1983). 2 * Lower rates of adjustment and higher rates of psychopathology (Hamilton, 1977). * Lower intellectual performance (Hamilton, 1977). * More aggressiveness and rates of delinquency (Hamilton, 1977). * More drug use in male adolescents (Lieberman, 1974). The effects on children growing up in dysfunctional father-child relationships include the following: * Boys have a negative image of, and avoid contact with, adult males (Loeb, 1986). * Girls have lower adult intimacy satisfaction (Hingst et al, 1985). * Eating disorders among girls (Reed, 1985). * Lack of identification with parental value systems (Sampson, 1977). * More drug use by male and female adolescents (Brook et al., 1980; Frankel et al., 1975). * Higher rates of antisocial behavior (Hagglund et al., 1977). * Girls desire for power (Reid, 1986). As for father involvement, Lamb (1987:16) writes, “Children with highly involved fathers are characterized by increased cognitive competence, increased empathy, less sex-stereotyped beliefs, and a more internal locus of control (Pruett, 1983; Radin, 1982; Radin & Sagi, 1982; Sagi, 1982)." One could suggest that in case of involved fathers, the findings tend to be quite opposite to those of absent or dysfunctional fathers. Because the involved father influences definitely and positively, it is assumed in this analysis that strong or healthy fathers can influence even more. If this assumption is sound, then discovering what effective fathers are doing can provide more insight concerning 3 fathering styles that may contribute even more to child development. Second, from the exploratory and descriptive research gathered through the "Fathering Style Inventory" instrument (Canfield, Schum & Swihart, 1989), the data can describe to interested researchers what certain healthy functioning fathers have done as it relates to four dimensions, twelve practices and five satisfactions. linderstanding what strong fathers are doing in these Jrespective areas can contribute to the development of laetter research questions. The four dimensions related 1:0 fathering style are: involvement, consistency, inwareness and nurturance. The twelve practices related 1:0 fathering style are: time commitment to children, :lnvolvement in discipline, involvement in education, luarital interaction, parental discussion of children, dealing with crisis, showing affection, modeling, financial provider, spiritual development, allowing Ifreedom of expression, and knowing my child. The five Satisfactions related to fathering style are: Satisfaction with your childhood, satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction with support from others, Satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction With verbal relationship with children (Appendix D). Third, fathering issues are culturally relevant. Some suggest the 1990's is the decade of the dad and that +‘ 4 a growing hunger for father attention has become apparent in the West. Certainly increasing research indicates this, not to mention such popular works as Bill Cosby's Egthgzhggg (1984). The emphasis in this study on what strong fathers are doing that makes them "successful" can provide additional insight to those fathers who want to know more. Fourth, there is a need in family research for more study related not only to fathers in general but to ssubgroups of fathers from various cultural contexts. Izesearchers are saying, "There is a need for empirical estudies of all kinds of fathers" (Robinson, 1986:52) and "Subgroups must be identified" (Hanson & Bozett, 1985:445). Parke (1985) writes, "Fathers... are highly variable in their enactment of their roles... but only recently have we come to recognize this diversity in the fathering enterprise. Recognition of this diversity leads to research that can document... the differences across fathers... (T)his recognition has helped undermine some of the myths and stereotypes that have guided earlier work on fathers. These explorations into variations in fathering are important..." (p.9). One such subgroup is the father within the evangelical culture. Such a study contributes to our ‘Understanding of one of the larger fathering environments. The total American population consists of 18 to 40 percent evangelicals (Gallup, 1989). Though religious persuasions naturally vary in America in that Americans "continue to be among the most religious people % 5 in the world" (D’Antonio & Aldous, 1983:8), even so most are within the Judeo-Christian framework and within that worldview eighty million could be Evangelicals. George Gallup writes, "Perhaps no religious group has had more publicity in the past decade and a half than Evangelical or Born—Again Christians... Evangelicals are not a denomination per se; they can be found to some degree in virtually every denomination, yet their distinctive worldview clearly sets them apart from other religious groupings... Public opinion polls have tried several ways to define Evangelicals... One question asked Americans if they had had a ’born-again’ experience, or ’a turning point in your life when you committed yourself to Jesus Christ?’ Those saying yes ranged from 34 percent of the population in 1976 to 40 percent in 1984..." (Gallup, 1989:92,93). Also, because the evangelical sub—culture is fixed can family related matters, such an examination can laenefit this vast group crossing many denominations. Ifunter (1987), in his book Evangelicalism writes, "the family has long occupied hallowed ground in the Christian imagination. That the family is important within Evangelical Christianity... comes as no surprise. It occupies a central place in the Christian life and world view. What is curious, however, is that the significance of the family has achieved dimensions perhaps never before seen... the family has in recent times become a symbol to Evangelicals, a symbol of social stability and traditional moral virtue... the so-called traditional family has generated tremendous passion, and its survival in the modern world has become perhaps the highest priority on the Evangelical social agenda" (p.76). As for traditional fathers, according to Robinson (1986), "Only a handful of studies provide glimpses of traditional fathers (Heathe, 1978; Spence and Helmrick, +1 6 1978; Yankelovich, 1974)... The ’typical’ father is less clearly defined by research studies" (p.41). Identification of Research Need The following three points are unfolded in the Review of the Literature, Chapter 2. First, since "family strengths" research on the normal or healthy family has resulted in a valuable characterization of such families, the next natural step seems to be, in part, to study individuals within the strong families - in this case, the strong father. Second, since "fatherhood" research, as we shall ssee, calls for more baseline data, self—reports of ifathers, triadic perspectives on fathers, and fathering sstyles, then an appropriate course of action in "fatherhood" research seems to be, in part, to provide Such information. This strong father research contributes to this. Third, since family theory and therapy assume llealthy families, hidden within that assumption are llealthy fathers. This research, therefore, seeks to iProvide information about the healthy fathers which can Passibly assist in theory-building and therapy related to fathers. Purpose of the study The major purpose of this investigation is to discover and describe the congruence among and between +1 7 strong fathers, their wives, and their adult children concerning the fathering style of strong fathers. These fathers were identified by four individuals from the fathers’ local church according to these criteria: involved, consistent, aware, nurturing, and having an adult child. These four people did not consult with one another. (The method used to select these strong fathers is described in Chapter 4.) Relationships among the four dimensions, twelve lpractices and five satisfactions related to fathering :style will be examined. The four dimensions related to fathering style are: 1. Involvement. 2. Consistency. 3. Awareness. 4. Nurturance. The twelve practices related to fathering style are: 1. Time commitment to children 2. Involvement in discipline 3. Involvement in education 4. Marital interaction 5. Parental discussion of children. 6. Dealing with crisis 7. Showing affection 8. Modeling 9. Financial provider —‘ 8 10. Spiritual development 11. Allowing freedom of expression 12. Knowing my child. The five satisfactions related to fathering style are: 1. Satisfaction with your childhood. 2. Satisfaction with your fathering role. 3. Satisfaction with support from others. 4. Satisfaction with leadership abilities. 5. Satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. Research Objectives Derived from the purpose of this study, then, are tzhe following research objectives and questions: Objective 1: Determine if there is congruence lwetween fathers, mothers and adult children on the four dimensions . Question 1: Is there congruence between fathers and mothers on the four dimensions? Question 2: Is there congruence between fathers and adult children on the four dimensions? Question 3: Is there congruence between mothers and adult children on the four dimensions? Objective 2: Determine if there is congruence between fathers, mothers and adult children on the twelve practices. Question 4: Is there congruence between fathers and mothers on the twelve practices? —e. 9 Question 5: Is there congruence between fathers and adult children on the twelve practices? Question 6: Is there congruence between mothers and adult children on the twelve practices? Objective 3: Determine if there is congruence between fathers, mothers and adult children on the five satisfactions. Question 7: Is there congruence between fathers and mothers on the five satisfactions? Question 8: Is there congruence between fathers and adult children on the five satisfactions? Question 9: Is there congruence between mothers and adult children on the five satisfactions? Objective 4: Determine if there is agreement among t:he fathers, mothers and adult children on the four (iimensions, twelve practices, and five satisfactions. Question 10: Is there agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the four dimensions? Question 11: Is there agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the twelve practices? Question 12: Is there agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the five satisfactions? Research flypgtheses Derived from these research objectives are the following hypotheses. The first objective related to the four dimensions consists of three hypotheses: —.‘ 10 H1. There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and mothers’ reports on the four dimensions of awareness, involvement, nurturance and consistency. H2. There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on the four dimensions of awareness, involvement, nurturance and consistency. H3. There is congruence between the mothers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on the four dimensions of awareness, involvement, nurturance and consistency. The second objective related to the twelve practices consists of three hypotheses: H4. There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and mothers’ reports on the twelve practices of time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, involvement in education, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, dealing with crisis, showing affection, modeling, financial provider, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. H5. There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on the twelve practices of time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, involvement in education, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, dealing with crisis, showing affection, modeling, financial provider, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. H6. There is congruence between the mothers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on the twelve practices of time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, involvement in education, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, dealing with crisis, showing affection, modeling, financial provider, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. The third objective related to the five satisfactions consists of three hypotheses: —‘ 11 H7. There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and mothers’ reports on the five satisfactions of satisfaction with your childhood, satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. H8. There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on the five satisfactions of satisfaction with your childhood, satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. H9. There is congruence between the mothers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on the five satisfactions of satisfaction with your childhood, satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. The fourth objective related to the four dimensions, 1:welve practices and five satisfactions consists of three llypotheses: H10. There is agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the four dimensions of involvement, consistency, awareness, and nurturance. H11. There is agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the twelve practices of time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, involvement in education, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, dealing with crisis, showing affection, modeling, financial provider, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. H12. There is agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the five satisfactions of satisfaction with your childhood, satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction —1‘ 12 with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. Definitions This section includes theoretical definitions of terms that are pertinent to this study. Operational definitions are included in chapter 3 on methodology. Theoretical Definitions 1. Strength. Otto (1962) wrote, "The dictionary defines strength as the ’quality or state of being strong; ability to do or bear; solidity or toughness; that quality which tends to secure results’. The assumption can be made that ’the quality of strength’ is the end result of certain interacting components or factors which produce this quality. Family strength is, therefore, seen as the end product of a series of ever-changing factors or components. These components must be seen as fluid, interacting and related. They are not independent but interrelated, and variations in these abilities, capacities, or strengths occur throughout the life cycle of the family. The components are defined as ’strengths’ but with the recognition that as an aggregate, they result in ’Family Strength’" (p.78). The same definition can be applied to the strong father. Each dimension, factor and satisfaction can be an indication of a strength area. As an aggregate, they result in "Father Strength". A word is to be added about the concepts of functional, normal or healthy families. Not all families or individuals perform at optimal levels, putting them in the "strong" category. So in contrast to "strong", there are families and individuals who on a bell shaped curve, and the left section being pathological, are outside the dysfunctional section. But 13 this does not mean they are on the right side of the bell curve in the strong area. They can be in between and classified as functional, normal or healthy (Offer & Sabshin, 1974). 2. Father. The male parent and husband of the wife. 3. Mother. The female parent and wife of the father in this study. 4. Adult Child. Either a male or female offspring of one or both of the parents. The adult child could have been adopted but this is unknown. The ages range from 18 to over 40. 5. Evangelical or Fundamentalist. An Evangelical person is one who believes and_seeks to live "according to the Gospels or the teachings of the New Testament" and emphasizes "salvation by faith in the atonement of Jesus, and rejects the efficacy of the sacraments and good works alone" (E§2§£§£L§_E§!_EQELQ_21221 Po 502)- A fundamentalist is one who has "orthodox religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g. complete acceptance of the story of creation given in Genesis and rejection of the theory of evolution) and regarded as fundamental to the Christian faith" (W p- 586) . 6. Congruence. In the use of the statistical method of Repeated Measures Design of Variance congruence means the "Degree of agreement of family members on perceptions of 14 self and other" on the fathering style (Ezell, 1982). Congruence is inferred if the statistical results are above .05. In other words, if there are no statistically significant differences then there is agreement or congruence. A qualifying note about congruence is in order. What is perceived or reported at a point in time may not be at a subsequent time. For this study, then, on the one hand if there is consensus or congruence perhaps this reveals something most significant. On the other hand, it could also simply be consensus at a brief moment in history and if the survey were taken again, no such congruence would exist. 7. Four Dimensions. Dimensions are those broad concepts derived from the literature that the family experts deemed to best represent the fathering role. The practices, on the other hand, were derived from factorial analysis. The practices tend to be the result of quantitative analysis whereas the dimensions result from qualitative analysis. a. Involvement. Involvement is the level of participation of the father in his child’s life, according to Canfield, Schumm, & Swihart (1989). This could comprise playing or working with the child, frequenting the child’s activities, attending to to daily routines, or just being with the child in an unstructured 15 way. The father is engaged in the child’s life. Such a father is to be contrasted with the uninvolved, occasional or over-attached type. b. Consistency. This dimension depicts the constancy and predictability of the father. He sustains an adequate level of regularity, both in his personal attributes and his fathering patterns. People around him know what to anticipate from him. The steadfast and flexible father is to be compared to the inconsistent or rigid type (Canfield et al., 1989). c. Awareness. This dimension illustrates the father’s knowledge and understanding of his children and their world. He has facts about his child’s daily happenings, developmental needs, and traits. He knows what incidents are occurring in his child’s life. The aware or discerning father is to be contrasted to the unaware, vague, or intrusive type (Canfield et al., 1989). d. Nurturance. This aspect of fathering describes the extent to which the father is able to respond to the emotional needs of the child. This aspect measures how the necessary support of the child is given, by gauging if it allows the child to grow and be strengthened. It is reflected by the father's comforting, encouraging, affirming and listening. The nurturant and encouraging 16 father is to be contrasted with the unresponsive, reserved or smothering type (Canfield et al,1989). 8. Twelve Practices. As the individual items were evaluated during the early stages of the instrument’s development, up to seven times for most of the items, these clusters were obtained through factorial analysis. From the general literature and common sense these twelve practices as they related to fathering are theoretically defined in the following ways. a. Time Commitment to Children. Canfield, Schumm & Swihart (1989) indicate that a committed father allots time to be with his children. Spending time with is children is very important to him, and he deliberately schedules time to be with them. He is accessible to his children when they need him, and occasionally even relinquishes his own activities to be with them. b. Involvement in Discipline. A dedicated father establishes just and clear standards and limits for his children’s conduct. He is able to perceive when to discipline his children and knows fitting and effective ways for doing so (Canfield et al., 1989). c. Involvement in Education. A devoted father provides his children with the necessary tools for living. He takes an active role in their education and watches their progress. He helps his children in l7 cultivating personal strength and abilities (Canfield et al., 1989). d. Marital Interaction. A healthy relationship exists with his wife. He is able to communicate his feelings to his wife and understand her emotions. He spends time with her away from the children. He is conscious of her needs and is devoted to a stronger marriage, which provides security for his children (Canfield et al., 1989). e. Parental Discussion of Children. With his wife a father sincerely discusses his children’s needs. He is able to interact cooperatively with his wife to discover answers to the difficulties confronting the children. He listens attentively and backs his wife in her mother role. He is open-minded and responsive to her suggestions and support (Canfield et al., 1989). f. Dealing with Crisis. A father provides leadership when encountering difficulties. He can guide the family through conflicts while supporting the dignity of all. He looks for the positive during the crisis and responds maturely. He seeks to use these stresses to prepare the children for similar troubles (Canfield et al., 1989). g. Showing Affection. A father verbally and nonverbally communicates his affection. He informs them of the good job they have done and genuinely thanks them. 18 He hugs and gives pats on the back (Canfield et al., 1989). h. Modeling. A committed father exhibits behavior that he desires his children to emulate. He practices what he preaches. His kind and just example will help his children know the correct way to behave (Canfield et a1. , 1989) . i. Financial Provider. A father agrees to and accomplishes his role as supplier of the material needs of his offspring. He has a basic financial goal and plan for the future. His job contributes a steady income for family expenses (Canfield et al., 1989). j. Spiritual Development. A father influences and facilitates spiritual growth in his children. He does this by praying with them, reading the Bible with them, and actively leading them in participation in a local church or parish. He also openly discusses and applies spiritual concepts to daily living with his children (Canfield et al., 1989). k. Allowing Freedom of Expression. A father allows his children to voice their ideas and feelings. Open communication is encouraged by his calm responses to their expressions. When they make mistakes he controls his reactions, maintaining a sense of humor where appropriate (Canfield et al., 1989). 19 1. Knowing My Child. A father knows the unique traits of his children. The matters that concern them and influence them, he is aware of. He knows their friends, abilities and weekly activities (Canfield et al., 1989). 9. Five Satisfactions: Fathering satisfaction reflects the level of enjoyment or fulfillment that a father receives from performing his role as father. The following are indicators of the degree of satisfaction that a father is experiencing in his role (Canfield et al., 1989). The mother and adult child were to express their perception of the father's satisfactions. a. Satisfaction with Your Childhood. Fathers learn many of their fathering skills from their own parents. If a father had a satisfying childhood, it is very likely that his parents positively affected him and that he has a positive view of fathering. As a result, he is also likely to be satisfied in his own role as father (Canfield et al., 1989). b. Satisfaction with Your Fathering Role. This category is a global measure of fathering satisfaction. The measure is based on the father's general rating of his satisfaction as a father, as well as satisfaction with his relationship with his children, and his satisfaction with how they are growing up (Canfield et al., 1989). 20 c. Satisfaction with Support from Others. Being a good father is a very difficult task, and due to that difficulty, there are normally many failures along the way. Therefore, it is very critical that a father receives support and encouragement from others if he is to maintain a positive view of himself (Canfield et al., 1989). d. Satisfaction with Leadership Abilities. An important aspect of the father’s role is his ability to be a leader. Most fathers desire to be seen as a competent leader by their family members. If the father exhibits leadership skills and is recognized as a leader in his family, he will likely be more satisfied in his role as father (Canfield et al., 1989). e. Satisfaction with Verbal Relationship with Children. It has been said that communication is the single most important determinant of our relationships. Communication is important for everything from expressing intimacy to settling conflicts. Since the father’s relationships with his chhildren is critical to father satisfaction, verbal interaction is a key indicator of fathering satisfaction (Canfield et al., 1989). Generalizability of the Study The following indicate the general applications of the study. 21 First, since it is expected that most of the fathers will be white, Anglo-Aaxon, Protestant males, it can be concluded that the findings may represent a large proportion of this group. These are conservative Protestants or Evangelicals, which as reported, could number 80 million Americans. From the two hundred churches that will be contacted for this research, few will be black churches and none will be Catholic, Mormon or theologically liberal. The Christian Service Brigade, a men’s and boys’ organization who will contact strong fathers, is a conservative evangelical ministry serving corresponding churches. Second, fathers interested in learning from strong fathers can incorporate those factors contributing to fathering strengths. Most of the dimensions, practices and satisfactions are "non-religious" and the information gained can be applicable to many fathers. Assumptions of the Study The assumptions underlying this analysis are: l. Fathers can be accurately identified as strong by a quadrant of recommendations. 2. Respondents can reliably assess and report strong father’s performance on the four dimensions (involvement, consistency, awareness and nurture). 3. Respondents can reliably assess and report strong father’s performance on the twelve practices (time 22 commitment to children, involvement in discipline, involvement in education, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, dealing with crisis, showing affection, etc.). 4. Respondents can reliably assess and report strong father’s performance on the five satisfactions (satisfaction with your childhood, fathering role, support from others, leadership abilities, and verbal relationship with children). 5. Strong fathers, wives and adult children can respond without consulting with one another on the dimensions, practices and satisfactions. 6. The dimension, practice and satisfaction scales can yield numerical responses that can be analyzed as interval data though it is ordinal in nature. 7. The four dimensions (involvement, consistency, awareness and nurture) can be evaluated directly by asking individuals about various activities reflecting these dimensions. 8. The twelve practices (time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, involvement in education, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, dealing with crisis, showing affection, etc.) can be evaluated directly by asking individuals about various activities reflecting these practices. 23 9. The five satisfactions (satisfaction with your childhood, fathering role, support from others, leadership abilities, and verbal relationship with children) can be evaluated directly by asking individuals about various activities reflecting these satisfactions. 10. Self-report or perceptions of others reflect what is real to the respondent. Limitations of the Study The present investigation is limited to the evaluation of the strong fathers’, wives’ and adult children’s perceptions of fathering in 1) four dimensions, 2) twelve practices, and 3) five satisfactions. These perceptions are subjective and may not reflect what objectively happens. In the sample, these are intact families and do not include the single parent/father, divorced father, or family with youth only. The fathers, mothers and adult children are limited to the Evangelical worldview and they, along with their families, are primarily Caucasian. CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The concept of "father strengths" is based upon "a framework of family strengths" (Morgan, 1987; Otto, 1963, 1975). Such a framework posits that there are good or better ways of family living. Families can be healthy or healthier, non-dysfunctional or less pathological, or normal or better than abnormal. Otto (1962) writes, "Very often, teachers, social workers and members of other helping professions, as well as lay persons, describe a family as being a ’good’ family - or a ’strong’ family. Their comments might lead to the assumption that they had some specific ’good’ qualities or ’strengths’ in mind" (p.77). By implication the same is true of fathers. Thus, derived from the family strengths conceptual framework is the idea of "fathering strengths", which is the focus of this study. This conceptual framework of family strengths, according to some, implicitly or explictly influences those studying or working with families (Walsha, 1982). Seemingly, this family strengths conceptual framework crosses all major family theories and therapies (Gurman & Kniskern, 1981). One might suggest that the normal or healthy family perspective is the warp and woof of family theory and therapy. Does not the term "functional" (Offer & Sabshin, 1966) touch all schools of thought? Though dysfunction may be the focus of study, it is set against the backdrop 24 25 of such models as the companionship marriage (Burgess et al., 1963), the democratic family (Osborne, 1953), and the developmental family (Duvall, 1957). These are some of the ideals "against which family life and functioning are often assessed" (Constantine, 1983:725). Does not every model propose an ideal, for instance, like "cohesion and adaptability" in the Circumplex Model of Martial and Family Systems (Olson et a1, 1979)? Does not the word "dysfunctional" imply the "functional"? As Hill (1972:1) states in The Strengths of Black Families, "There is a tendency to forget that deviance, by definition, refers to departures from the norm." He means to say that there is a norm. There is either a qualitatively good or comparatively better way of living. Is not one to deduce as one reads the research on dysfunctional individuals and families that the authors assume that people can experience less inner and outer conflict and more stability and satisfaction in life provided certain principles are understood and applied from their particular framework? Though critiques have been written suggesting that certain models do not represent inherently or healthy family systems (Constantine, 1983), no one has suggested in this writer’s reading that there are absolutely no ideals in family living. And though ideals may differ, do not all assume within their paradigm that an adequate or even an 26 optimal family could exist? Though all do not precisely phrase it, is there not some kind of continuum of family health? For example, the Beavers Systems Model suggests a range: severely disturbed, borderline, midrange, adequate, optimal (Beavers & Voeller, 1983)? Do not most theorists and therapists envision people on some type of scale ranging from very dysfunctional to very functional? In all theory this writer believes family strengths is assumed. Chafetz (1978) writes, "Scientists, like everyone else, make a variety of assumptions about the world they study. Often they are unaware of the many assumptions which underpin their theories. It is, however, extremely important for theorists to be as self-conscious and explicit about their assumptions as humanly possible. Where they fail to make their own assumptions clear, it is important for readers to attempt to ferret out of their works the implicit assumptions" (p.33,34). Is not the family strength framework, and thus father strength, assumed in the major family theories and therapies? Each of the following three points will venture to ferret out the implicit assumptions about strong families and fathers from the theorists and therapists. 1) "Family strengths" is a conceptual framework; 2) this conceptual framework of family strengths crosses all major family theories and therapies; and 3) fathering strengths are assumed and/or asserted in the family strengths framework and the major family theories and therapies. 27 Family Strengths: A Framework What is the history of this conceptual framework? In 1963 Otto wrote, "To date, the writer has been unable to find a cohesive and detailed frame of reference of family strengths in the professional literature" (p.329). The only references he discovered were those of Pollack (1957) who, in "Design of a Model of Healthy Family Relationships as a Basis for Evaluative Research", set forth these ideas: 1. Spouses have willingness to give up satisfaction of their own needs for the satisfaction of the needs of the other; 2. interdependency and a certain amount of independency between the marriage partners; 3. positive feelings of the spouses for one another gain ascendency over their negative feelings for one another; 4. parents and children are involved in a ’give and take’ relationship; 5. parents help the child to emancipation when the child is ready; 6. the existence of healthy sibling relationships..." (p.369). Otto (1963) indicates that Young (1953) next addressed the family strength concept. In a paper that discussed "What Strong Family Life Means to Our Society" he listed five items that encouraged a successful marriage. In a later paper, Young indicated, according to Otto, that the most significant solitary need for the modern family was that of adaptability or having the ability to develop new resources to meet repeated crises for basic survival (Otto, 1963). On this concept, more recently the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family 28 Systems proposed by Olson, Sprenkle & Russel (1979) indicates the same thing. The earliest implicit reference Otto found concerning strengths was a round table discussion in 1942 that developed a definition concerning family resources. ”Family resources include the personal factors of mental and physical health, abilities, relationships, and morale of the family - as well as time, energy, money, equipment, and housing" (Otto, 1963). Analysis of writings from Otto’s ’family strengths’ studies resulted in perhaps the first details on family strengths obtained from families themselves and a framework that articulated specific family strengths (Morgan, 1987). Based on his observations at that time, Otto (1963) concluded that family strength consists of the following criteria: 1. The competence to provide for the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of a family. 2. The competence to be sensitive to the needs of the family members. 3. The competence to communicate effectively. 4. The competence to provide support, security and encouragement. 5. The ability to begin and maintain growth-producing relationships and experiences within and without the family. 6. The capacity to keep and create beneficial and responsible community relationships in the neighborhood, the school, town, local and state governments. 7. The aptitude to grow with and through children. 8. An capability for self-help, and the ability to accept help when appropriate. 9. An ability to perform family roles flexibly. 10. Mutual esteem for the individuality of family members. 29 11. The ability to use a crisis or seemingly injurious experience as a means of growth. 12. An interest for family unity, loyalty, and interfamily cooperation. To Otto (1963) this was the beginning of a conceptual framework on family strength. He wrote in response to his above statements: "1. A framework has been developed which can enable practioners to obtain a better and more comprehensive understanding of a family... 2. The construct of family strengths... can be useful in developing programs... 3. The framework... can be used therapeutically" (p. 336,337). All of this was based on an exhaustive search of the literature up to that time. Gabler & Otto (1964) write, "Eleven professional journals ... totalling 11,354 articles, were surveyed for definitions of family strengths. In addition, 64 books from these professions were reviewed.... A total of 515 items defining or describing family strengths were found in the total survey of the literature.... The factors defined by writers as family strengths were found to fall into 15 categories of family functioning: 1. Family as a Strength Within Itself (24%). 2. Strong Marriage (17%). 3. Strength as Parents (17%). 4. Parents Help Children to Develop (10%). 5. Relationships within the family. 6. Family Does Things Together. 7. Social and Economic Status Satisfactory. 8. Religious Beliefs. 9. Home Environment. 10. Activities in Community Affairs. 11. Education. 12. Capacity to Change. 13. Relationships with In-Laws. 14. Attitudes toward Sex. 15. Recognizing the Need For and Accepting Help" (p.221,222). 30 Unfortunately, to date there is no comprehensive development of the family strengths conceptual framework. Framo (1981) writes, "Little systematic work has been done on the so— called normal family... I am not aware of any family theoretician or family therapist who has developed a comprehensive theory of healthy marital or family functioning.... Most... have indirectly alluded to aspects of healthy functioning, largely in contrast to descriptions of pathological families and couples" (p.139). Hansen (1981) says, "We know little about the patterns of interaction that produce what in this culture would be called ’normal,’ ’healthy,’ or ’successful,’ family. Nor do we have much knowledge of the level of success families can attain... Yet such knowledge is vital and perhaps can be a guide toward achieving greater satisfaction in living for all families" (p.54). Walsh & Shapiro (1983) express, "...the study of exceptional health, which faces a number of difficulties above and beyond those involved in the study of pathology, has been neglected" (p.5). From therapy, in the introduction to the fiandbogk 9f £gm11y_1hg;apy, Gurman & Kniskern (1981) establish the healthy family as part of every major therapuetic model. Though not reported in a comprehensive fashion, it is part and parcel of the therapuetic approach to or model of marriage and the family. The authors, from various theories and therapies, were to describe "The Healthy or Well-Functioning Marriage or Family" (p. xv). They were "to describe within your theoretical framework how a healthy family/marriage operates, or what is indicative 31 of smooth operation" (p.xv). The following questions were to be answered: 1. How are roles defined within a healthy family/marriage? 2. How are problems solved? 3. What markers are characteristic of the family life- cycle? 4. Describe how a healthy family changes over time. 5. How is affection/sexuality handled? 6. What levels of intimacy and separateness are found? 7. How dependent or autonomous are family members? 8. Relationships with extended family. 9. Relationships with non-family members. Yet, not all believe the "family strengths" conceptual framework is a healthy idea (Jackson, 1967). Jackson writes, "As a student of the family for many years, I think it is safe to say that there is no such thing as a normal family any more than there is a normal individual" (p.28). But though Jackson is concerned about forcing people into cultural molds that may or may not be healthy for an individual family, Jackson would not deny that there can be better ways of living within each family. He shows that a different way for some could be the better way. Family Strengths: Theories / Therapies The following major theories and therapies evidence family strengths. Key theoreticians show their assumptions about family strengths in: Structural- functionalism, Institutionalism, Symbolic-Interactionism, Psychoanalyticalism, Developmentalism, Exchange theory, Ecological system’s theory, and the Judeo-Christian 32 Perspective. Various therapists also demonstrate their assumptions about family strengths in: Psychoanalytic and Object-Relations Approaches, Intergenerational Approaches, Systems Theory, and Behavioral Approaches. Family Srrengths in Family Theories In the review of the underlying assumptions of the fundamental theories of the family, the following reveals the connection between family strengths and family theories. The assumptions and/or assertions disclose that there is such a thing as a strong, healthy family, or at least a family that can become stronger, and healthier when certain principles are understood and implemented. Though there are differences of opinion within each major family theory, this writer maintains that there is a common belief that a family, and thus a father, can become healthier. The following addresses the basic assumptions concerning strengths or health in family theories. W Family strengths are evident in Structural Functionalism. McIntyre (1981) writes about "the assumptions... on which the framework is based. (1) Certain functional requirements must be satisfied if a society is to survive at a given level... (2) There are functional subsystems to meet these requirements... (3) 33 In every society the family performs at least one of these basic functions... (4) An individual family is a social system with functional requirements comparable to those of larger social systems." (p.63). Does this theory not point to an elementary, healthy model? When one reads about "functional requirements" one hears: criteria, guidelines, specifications or standards. According to this theory, if families do not fulfill at least basic functional requirements society cannot survive at a certain level. This forcefully suggests that a fit family can and should exist according to structural-functionalism. Law Family strengths is assumed in Institutionalism. An institution has been defined as "an organized system of practices and roles, developed about a value or a cluster of values, and the machinery designed to regulate and control the affected areas of behavior" (Kenkel, 1960:189). According to Koenig & Bayer (1981) a number of assumptions exist. "(1) Institutions (the family being the most basic institution) have developed in response to basic individual and social needs and change their form through continued group behavior and changing needs... (2) Institutions are necessary for social control... Family functions exist primarily for offspring." Also, a value that underlies this framework 34 is that "family stability is more important than happiness..." (p.84,85,89). Does this theory not point to a rudimentary, healthy model? When one reads about "basic individual... needs" or "family functions exist primarily for offspring", does this not suggest that a less than healthy family neglects the needs of its offspring? Does this not imply there can be an inadequate institution, one that is not "an organized system of practices and roles", one that is not "developed about a value or a cluster of values", and one that is not "designed to regulate and control behavior"? A suitable family within various cultures can and should meet needs, have an essential degree of organization, and have a broad design for regulation and control. W Family Strengths is assumed in Symbolic- Interactionism. Schvaneveldt (1981) says, "The interactional framework is a system for viewing the personal relationships between husband and wife and parents and children. The family is conceived as a unity of interacting personalities. By this is meant a living, changing, growing thing... Within the family each member occupies a position or positions to which a number of roles are assigned. The individual perceives norms or role expectations held individually or collectively by other family members for his attributes and behaviors" 35 (p.97). This theory has focused on the internal workings of families. Certain assumptions exist. "(1) Man lives in a symbolic as well as physical environment and is stimulated in social situations to act by symbols as well as by physical stimuli. One learns nearly all symbols through interaction with other people, specifically members of the family... (3) Man learns these by interacting with other persons. This is the process of socialization in which the individual learns the cultural and subcultural values and roles which he is to follow" (p.110). A healthy family, then, is one that experiences proper socialization within its culture. In fact, Schvaneveldt (1981) discusses certain concepts like the non-socialized person, adaptation and family integration. "The non-socialized person is one who does not present the performance that is called for in a given social situation. It is a person who has not internalized norms and values of group interaction to a degree sufficient for him to act and react in a socially described manner." Also, there can be a failure to adapt. Adaptation "is family... survival in a given cultural milieu. It refers to the process of adjusting to new or different conditions... is the process of acquiring fitness to live in a given environment." These definitions point to the assumption that a family can be healthy and strong in a 36 particular culture whereas if a family neglects these various items, maladaptation awaits them (p.107,108). This particular theory has begun to formulate various propositions which clearly show that in the minds of these theorists there is such a thing as a healthier family. The following are the results of the research of Burr et a1. (1979). "The greater the number of cultural symbols in an individual's repertoire, the greater the interpersonal competence." "The greater the ability to take the role of others, the greater the interpersonal competence." "The greater the repertoire of role skills, the greater the interpersonal competence." "The more complex the conceptions about the self, the greater the interpersonal competence." "The perceived quality of role enactment in a relationship influences the satisfaction ° individuals in the relationship have, and this is a positive, linear relationship" (p. 62-69). The list continues with many more propositions connoting strengths and health provided certain things happen. Wise Having been developed by Freud, this perspective is concerned with the subconscious, and consequently the treatment of personality malfunctions. The underlying assumptions, according to Bayer (1981), are "(1) No behavior is purely accidental and all behavior stems from 37 energy arising from the id. (2) Man is basically antisocial and the world into which he is born is basically hostile to his instinctual desires. (3) Repression is man’s lot and is also basic to the existence of society. (4) Personality is not inborn but is a product of the individual's earliest life experiences in the family" (p.160). Bayer also writes, "In the process of growth, the individual passes through various stages of psychosexual development, each of which is assimilated into the preceding stages and each of which involves new adaptations which must be achieved if one is to be adequately prepared for the later sequential stages" (p. 160,152). A healthy family, then, is one that consists of individuals who have properly passed through the various stages of psychosexual development and thus have adequately adapted to the social environment. This family has "achieved" the preparation necessary for each stage and carries on with efficiency and satisfaction. W Family strengths is assumed in Developmentalism. Rowe (1981) conveys that the family is a semi-closed system consisting of interacting individuals. "To unfreeze those interactional processes, the social time dimension was added to focus attention on the longitudinal career of the family system - 38 the family life cycle. The family member and the family as a unit, as they advance through the various stages of the family life cycle, confront certain role expectations which have been called developmental tasks. The better equipped a family is for each of its members to meet his developmental tasks, and the more closely the family accomplishes its group tasks, the more successful is the development of the family" (p.199). Clearly this theory insists that a family can be healthy and strong if equipped to accomplish the various developmental tasks. Those families that do not meet the tasks are ill- equipped or less than healthy. The classical work of Duvall (1957) assumes there_ will be greater health if the following are established and maintained. 1. An independent home. 2. Satisfying ways of getting and spending money. 3. Mutually acceptable patterns in the division of labor. 4. Continuity of satisfying sex relations. 5. Open system of intellectual and emotional communication. 6. Workable relations with relatives. 7. Ways of interacting with associates/ community organizations. 8. Competency in bearing and rearing children. 9. Workable philosophy of life. EXQHQDQ§_IDEQI¥ According to Nye (1979) there are basic assumptions underlying Exchange Theory within the Family. "(1) Humans are rational beings. Within the limitations of 39 the information that they possess and their ability to predict the future, they make the choices that will bring the most profit (most rewards/fewest costs). (2) Human beings are actors as well as reactors. They make decisions and initiate action rather than having them predetermined by their culture/milieu. (3) People must undergo costs in order to obtain rewards... (6) Those who receive what they feel they deserve feel satisfied, those who receive less feel anger, and those who receive more experience guilt. (7) Social life requires reciprocity" (p. 7) . From these assumptions we notice that a healthy person or family is one who is committed to reciprocity, i.e., one family member is not seeking to receive all the benefits and rewards at the expense of the other family members. For not only will he eventually experience guilt and dissatisfaction related to his family but his family will experience anger and dissatisfaction toward him. In other words, where unjust exchanges are taking place in a family, that family will be less healthy than in a family where reciprocity exists. Many propositions have been cultivated from these assumptions. For example, Nye proposes such things as, "6. The younger the youngest child, the more likely that the mother will experience guilt feelings when leaving the child... 15. The larger the number of children at home, the stronger the guilt feelings of mothers in taking employment... 4O 58. Categorically speaking, women experience poorer outcomes from sexual intercourse than men, that is, more costs and fewer rewards... 69. Wives whose husbands frequently communicate verbally with them are more likely to be satisfied with their marital relationships. 82. Couples who accidently conceive a child are less likely to have stable marriages" (p. 12- 28). These propositions and others indicate the clear assumption that one family can be healthier than another, and that certain families can be healthy. W In Family Ecological Theory, Bubolz & Sontag (in press) address the basic suppositions. "We start with the basic premise that the family in interaction with its enviornment constitutes an ecosystem. In an ecosystem the parts and wholes are interdependent... A second basic premise is that a family carries out physical- biological sustenance, economic maintenance, and psycho- social and nurturance functions for its members, for itself as a collectivity, and for the common good of society... A third premise is that of the interdependence of all peoples of the world with the resources of the earth; the world’s ecological health depends on decisions and actions taken not only by nations, but by individuals and families (Brown, Falvin, Postel, 1989)" (p. 15). Beyond these are core values of survival, human betterment, economic adequacy, justice, freedom, peacefulness and stewardship. 41 Again, an ideal is presented here for family living. Unquestionably, there is in the ecological framework an image of "health". MW Reiber (1981) in "Western Christian Conceptual Framework for Viewing the Family" states, "Christianity, like all religions, operates primarily within a particular value matrix. It is an organized value system. To work within this framework presupposes an acceptance of truth regarding the teaching and assumptions inherent within the system" (p.294). A series of assumptions exist. "1. Family as ordained by God. The family is ordained by God, planned and instituted by Him, for enrichment of personal life and the life of society. Thus, God’s place in its life cannot be ignored. 2. Family relations as symbols of relationships to God. 3. Family as the basic democracy. 4. Sacredness of the individual. 5. Monogamy as a divine institution. 6. Loyalty of spouses to each other. 7. ...Children owe... obedience and loyalty to... parents. 8. Sacredness of the family. 9. Limitation of sexual intercourse. 10. Uniqueness of family relationship" (p.303,304). The biblical view asserts there can and should be a strong, healthy family. God has designed the family, having commanded certain attitudes and actions. When those are obeyed in the strength He provides love, justice and mercy can be experienced. So then, the major family theories assume there should and could be a strong, healthy family in a 42 specific culture provided certain principles are enacted. A particular family can become stronger and healthier provided certain principles are understood and applied. Was Not only do the theorists in family research assume family and thus father strengths but family therapists do too. Certain therapists recognize the underlying assumptions in clinical settings. Froma Walsh, editor of WW5. contends, "assumptions about normal families explicitly and implicitly influence clinical assessment, treatment goals, therapeutic approaches, and research instruments. Where knowledge about normal family processess is limited, inferences tend to be derived from pathology-based models, prevalent social norms, and personal family experience" (Morgan, 1982). Basic theories of family therapy indicate a common belief that a family, and thus a father, can become healthier. Therapists from the following therapies are briefly highlighted: Psychoanalytic Approach, Intergenerational Approach, Systems Theory, and Behavioral Approach. W Family strengths is assumed in Psychoanalytical therapy. Skynner (1981), for example, in "An Open- Systems, Group-Analytic Approach to Family Therapy" says, "My views on the nature of healthy and unhealthy families are based on clinical and general experience, supplemented and corrected by research studies we have 43 available at the present time" (p.41). He uses the word "optimal" to describe the most healthy family, and communicates these in order of apparent importance. A few examples are: 5. Control flexible, by negotiation, within basic parent/child hierarchy (as contrasted with rigid, inflexible control and unchangeable rules). 6. Highly spontaneous interaction, with considerable humor and wit - ’three-ring circus, but all under control’ (as contrasted with rigid, stereotyped interaction). 7. High levels of initiative (as contrasted to passivity). 8. Uniqueness and difference encouraged and appreciated - liveliness, strong ’characters’ (as contrasted with bland, stereotyped, conformist types)" (p.45). The Timberlawn Study with Lewis, et al., 1976. as reported by Skynner (1981) reveals some of the following characteristics of healthy functioning: 1. Types of disorder: no evidence of psychiatric disorder; effective functioning. 2. Power structure: structured/flexible - strong, equal-powered parental coalition, but children consulted and decisions through negotiation. Clear hierarchy with mutual respect. 3. Differentiation: clear identity and intimacy - identities highly defined and secure, permitting also high levels of closeness and intimacy; high individual responsibility. 4. Communication: open, clear, direct, frank; lively and spontaneous; receptive and responsive (p.44,45). WW Framo (1981), for example, in "The Intergration of Marital Therapy with Sessions with Family of Origin", writes, "I have gleaned out of my various writings some 44 ideal principles of healthy or normal family and marital functioning" (p.139). 1. That parents each be well-differentiated, having developed a sense of self before separating from their families of origin. 2. Clear separation of generational boundaries within the family. The children should be free of the role of saving a parent or the parental marriage. 3. Realistic perceptions and expectations by parents of each other and of their children. 4. The loyalty to the family of procreation is greater than to the family of origin. 5. The spouses put themselves and each other before anyone else... (p.139). Wu Epstein & Bishop (1981), for example, in "Problem- Centered Systems Therapy of the Family" discusses the fact of family health in the areas of problem-sovling, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement and behavior control. Two such concepts are addressed more fully: Problem-Solving: "The problem-solving dimension is defined as a family’s ability to resolve problems to a level that maintains effective family functioning... At the healthy end of the dimension we conceptualize a family with few, if any, unresolved problems. When family members encounter a new problem situation, they approach the problem systematically and evaluate the outcome of their attempt to solve the problem.... At the very disturbed and of the dimension, families consistently deny or mislabel problems, have long- standing unresolved problems, and these problems generate much conflict within the family system" (p.455,458). Epstein and Bishop (1981) also write, Communication: "We define communication as how information is exchanged within a family. The focus is on verbal exchange... At the healthy end of the dimension, we conceptualize a family that communicates in a clear, concise and direct manner in both the instrumental and affective areas... At the very disturbed 45 end of the dimension, we conceptualize a family in which communication is consistently masked and indirect in both instrumental and affective areas" (p.458,460). W Jacobson (1981), for instance, in "Behavioral Marital Therapy", stresses the potential of successful marriages given certain principles are enacted that reinforce and thus modify behavior. The same belief in the behavioral approach has been applied to parent training in various ways. What this implies, obviously, is that there is a good or better of way of behaving. Jacobson makes the following points. 3. A successful marriage consists of "stability and satisfaction" (p.558). 4. "Reciprocity" is fundamental to a successful marriage (p.559), and must exist beyond the courtship period when the positive reinforcements are particularly high (p.561). This is the major tenet of behavioral therapy in that each person in the marriage must perceive the benefits outweighing the costs, and if this is the perception behavior will be modified to insure satisfaction and stability. 5. "A critical skill in determining a successful marriage is skill in conflict resolution" (p.559). Family Strengths: Assumptions WW From the above examples, this writer’s contention is that all family theories and therapies have a basic ideology about "father strengths". Each theory or therapy assumes or asserts the concept of a strong, healthy model of fathering within a particular culture, and thus by implication each theorist believes there can 46 and should be a strong, healthy father, or at least one who is nonpathological. Is not the assumption of all theorists and therapists that if families and thus fathers better understood certain postive and negative dynamics contained within their theories or therapies and were able to act on the positive and avoid the negative, these families and thus fathers would be better than they are? Is there not, in the minds of these family experts, an ideal family and thus father? Though some verbalize that one family or father is no better than another, but simply different, this thinking, upon deeper reflection, proves defective. Who would contend that incest, violence, neglect and hate are not problems but simply different types of family living or fathering? Most concede that they possess an ideal image of a healthy family and father. Interestingly, many theories surface because of a "problem". Something isn’t "right" and a theorist seeks to explain that behavior in order to eventually "help" families. (Interestingly, every dissertation begins with a "problem". Something needs to be solved. Something isn’t as "good" as it could be. A "better" way of approaching some issue can and should be found. Something is missing that needs addressing in order to make this world more stable and satisfying.) The simple 47 fact that theorists desire that people know their theories suggests they believe their evaluations can be benefical or contribute to a healthier family life. Thus, theorists value certain behaviors over others. Though there is debate about certain behaviors (extra- marital affairs or premarital sex), is there debate about a father’s committing incest with a three-year old daughter? Is there debate about a father beating up his offspring? Is there debate about a father neglecting basic survival needs of his children? Though there is and should be debate about the range of ingredients in a strong, healthy father, all theories assume there is such a thing as a father becoming stronger or more healthy than formerly. There are certain principles that, if enacted, can enrich fathering. Why else, in part, does one become a family theorist or therapist? Though no theorist or therapist wishes to establish a set of criteria that is so rigid that family members or a father are intimidated and guilt-ridden by having to be the perfect family or father, neither does a theorist or therapist believe that no concepts and principles exist which enlighten and enable families and fathers to experience a more secure and satisfying style of life. Is it not assumed that ignorance of certain findings can leave families in the dark as to healthy ways of living? There is such a thing 48 as family wellness and, conversely, family sickness. The same is true of fathers. So then, there is such a thing as a strong, healthy father in the minds of all theorists and therapists. Though they are prepared to argue such strengths could vary or differ from culture to culture, they would probably agree that there are some meta-theories or meta- therapies basic to all cultures, like the need to communicate or the need to cope with crisis (Stinnet, 1979). MW With a syllogistic argument in mind, the logic seems to be: 1) the "family strengths" conceptual framework is assumed and/or asserted in the major family theories and therapies; 2) the "family strengths" conceptual framework assumes and/or asserts "fathering strengths"; 3) therefore, the "fathering strengths" is assumed and/or asserted in the major family theories and therapies. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. The review of the literature is arranged to address the definitions of key concepts and research needs. Definition of key Concepts From a review of the literature, three key concepts are to be defined: family, congruence, and perception familx Who is the "family"? In the past, not uncommonly when some researchers discussed the "family" they were actually reporting the mother’s perception of the family. Though the mother was describing the whole family, resulting in many thinking the unit of analysis was the family, technically the unit of analysis was the mother’s perception (Salflios-Rothschild, 1969; Ezell, 1982). When the parent-child relationship was examined, it was the mother reporting on her relationship with her offspring, not the father. Belsky & Volling (1987:37) write, "For prior to the 1970’s, the study of parent- infant relations was synonymous with the study of mother..." When the father was examined, it was the mother’s report of the father. Beckett (1987:74) writes, "Too often the behavior and views of men as husbands and fathers have been ignored, inferred, or developed from women’s accounts (Safilios-Rothschild, 1969)." Further, 49 50 she indicates, "our understanding of paternal behavior has been observed by studying fathering within the same conceptual framework as mothering (Richards, 1982)". As of 1968 it was reported by Rosenthal & Keshet (1981:18), "Only one major study of American families in the past twenty years used direct interviews with fathers to investigate parental roles (Seeley, 1956). More frequently the data were gathered through interviews with wives and children (Miller & Swanson, 1958) or through analysis of literary works or popular media (Benson, 1968)." Fortunately, according to Beckett (1987:4), a period came in which a "purpose of father-centered research orientation was to give paternal accounts of family life a hearing and a place center-stage" which it had not had. Researchers began to accept the finding that one partner could not provide all the information that existed in a complex relationship (Salfilios-Rothschild, 1969). Not only was it discovered that one person’s perspective could be biased (Olson & Rabunsky, 1972) but partners could say one thing yet behave quite differently (Larson, 1974). Two reports on the same person or event could offset this bias to a greater degree. Researchers began to ask both the husband and wife to respond (White 8 Brinkerhoff, 1977, 1978). An aggregate method of reporting the differences between all husbands and all wives was used (Centers et al., 1971). Incongruence was reported between members of individual dyads more often A 7—1 51 (Davis, 1971; Ferber, 1955; Granbois & Wilett, 1970; Olson & Rabunsky, 1972; Salfilios-Rothschild, 1969; Scanzone, 1965; Turk & Bell, 1972; and Van Es & Shingi, 1972). Both aggregate and individual couple incongruence was increasingly called for (Olson & Rabunsky, 1972). Having said this, Lewis & O’Brien (1987) suggest the mother’s or anyone’s lone assessment has a worthy place. "In most studies in the 19703 and early 19808 there was an underlying rejection of the so-called mother- focused paradigm embedded in social scientific enquiry into familial relationships. It was noted that many conventional research practices tended to be centered on the mother. For instance, data about fathers were more than likely collected from mothers, who in turn were more often seen by investigators - fathers, like investigators, were out at work (Richards et al., 1977). Only slowly have we come to realize that this research procedure was important in itself" (p.4). A person’s perception is appropriate as long as it is understood that one person’s impression is being examined. Though it may not accurately reflect reality, it reflects that person’s reality, and this is valuable information in its own right. Today the objective tends to be ecological, that is, hearing from the whole family, when studying the father and family (Bozett & Hanson, 1991). In the past, triadic studies were not that common (Niemi, 1968; Larson, 1974; Acock & Bengtson, 1980; Ezell 1982). Not only were fathers excluded but children tended to be ignored (Feiring & Lewis, 1978). But most contemporary researchers recognize that if the family is being studied 52 then each member should be heard where that is possible (Larson, 1974). Gaining the reports of the father, mother and child can provide four angles on the individual family (Ezell, 1982). 1) the husband and wife aggregate, which reports the responses of all husbands compared to all wives (Centers et al., 1971; Condran 8 Bode, 1982); 2) husband and wife paired, which reports the responses of husband compared to the wife within the dyad (Booth 8 Welch, 1978; Davis, 1970; Douglas 8 Wind, 1978; Ferber, 1955; Granbois 8 Willett, 1970; Larson, 1974; Neal 8 Goat, 1976; Price-Bonham, 1976; Olson 8 Rabunsky, 1976; Safilios-Rothschild, 1969; Turk 8 Bell, 1972; Van Es 8 Shingi, 1972); 3) parent and child paired, which reports the responses of the parents compared to the child within the dyad (Cohen 8 Orum, 1972; Larson, 1974; Jacobsen, 1971; Turk 8 Bell, 1972); and 4) the triad, which reports the comparisons within the family unit (Acock 8 Bengston, 1980; Larson, 1972). QQDQIBEDQE What is congruence? It is the meaningful degree of agreement of family members on perceptions of a particular family concern. It is a shared belief. Ezell (1982) writes, "The majority of studies on ’congruence’ have considered... two dimensions of congruence: 1) agreement on interpretation of shared events and 2) 53 attitudinal agreement" (p. 25). In this research, congruence is the meaningful degree of agreement of family members on perceptions of self and others on fathering styles. Are there researchers who have related congruence of perceptions of family members (a triad of father, wife and adult child) to the fathering style of fathers in general or strong fathers in particular? This researcher has not found any. Congruence also is inferred in a difference sense when using Cronbach’s Alpha (1951). This statistical method suggests that the closer Alpha is to one, the greater the congruence would be among the three groups. This congruence, however, refers to internal consistency. That is, there could be a statistically significant difference between two or more groups yet Alpha is close to one. This means there is a consistent pattern of disagreement within each family unit. It could be suggested that there is congruence at the point of disagreement. Alpha is insensitive to statistically significant differences. It is only sensitive to internal consistency or internal patterns of responses. Meantime What studies on "perceptions" within the family unit related to fathers have been undertaken? In a review of the literature related to fathers’, mothers’ and/or 54 children’s perceptions of the father, mother, and/or children, the following group of studies, in the next several paragraphs, have been undertaken. These are studies that relate to the perceptions of the father in some fashion, whether, for example, this be directly in terms of his role, or indirectly in terms of his educational level and income. This review was undertaken to show where this present inquiry fills a research need. This particular research is accented in section C. below. It is one group perceived by three groups: Fathers', mothers’ and children’s perception of fathers. The research can be categorized under variations of the family unit consisting of father, mother and children. However, some of the research compares subgroups or types within fathers, mothers or children. For example, if the perceptions of fathers and mothers by two types of children are compared (i.e. abused and non- abused), then technically this would be two groups perceiving two other groups but we will simply be pointing out that in this case children are perceiving fathers and mothers. This could be one group of children or three types of children. Or, the children’s perception of fathers and mothers could actually be the sons’ and daughters’ perceptions; but this will be categorized simply as the children’s perceptions. Also, when such headings say "fathers’ perception of 55 fathers" this could either be the fathers’ perception of themselves or their view of fathers in general. The same with "children’s perception of children"; this could mean the children’s perception of themselves, of children in general, or of their siblings. I. One group perceived by 1,2 and 3 groups. A. One group perceived by one group - associated with fathers. 1. fathers’ perception of fathers (Nieto, 1990; Marsiglio, 1988) 2. mothers’ perception of fathers (Kurdek, 1986; Barnett et al., 1984; Stern, 1980) 3. children’s perception of fathers (Gottman, 1989; Clair 8 Genest, 1987; Saunders 8 Schuchts, 1987 Stinnett et al., 1980; Eversoll, 1979; Smith 8 Walters, 1978; Lang et al., 1976) 4. fathers’ perception of mothers 5. mothers’ perception of mothers 6. children’s perception of mothers (Rubenstein et al., 1979) 7. fathers’ perception of children (Greif, 1979) 8. mothers’ perception of children (Schilling et al., 1986) 9. children’s perception of children (Wiltfan, 1990; Pursell, 1981) B. One group perceived by two groups - associated with fathers. 1. fathers’ and mothers’ perception of fathers (Entwisle 8 Doering, 1988; Robinson et al., 1985; Ahrons, 1983; Shurka 8 Florian) 2. fathers’ and children’s perception of fathers 3. mothers’ and children’s perception of fathers 4. fathers’ and mothers’ perception of mothers 5. fathers’ and children’s perception of mothers 6. mothers’ and children’s perception of mothers 7. fathers’ and mothers’ perception of children (Stoneman et al., 1989; Coleman et al., 1989; Koban, 1983; Florian, 1983; Barnett, 1981; Bartz, 1978) 8. fathers’ and children’s perception of children 9. mothers’ and children’s perception of children C. One group perceived by three groups - associated with fathers. 56 1. fathers’, mothers’ and children’s perception of fathers (Note: this is the focus of the present study.) 2. fathers’, mothers’ and children’s perception of mothers 3. fathers’, mothers’ and children’s perception of children (Foxman et al., 1989; Sabo, 1988) II. Two groups perceived by 1, 2, and 3 groups. A. Two groups perceived by one group - associated with fathers. 1. fathers’ perception of fathers and mothers (Christmon, 1990) 2. fathers’ perception of fathers and children 3. fathers’ perception of mothers and children (Lewis et al., 1989) 4. mothers’ perception of mothers and fathers 5. mothers’ perception of mothers and children 6. mothers’ perception of fathers and children 7. children’s perception of children and fathers 8. children’s perception of children and mothers 9. children's perception of fathers and mothers (Adler et al, 1989; Rapoport 8 Yanay, 1989; Tashakkori 8 Thompson, 1989; Neugebauer, 1988; Sauer 8 Fine, 1988; Isaacs et al., 1987; Martin et al., 1987; McBroom, 1987; Morris, 1987; Richardson et al., 1984; Smith, 1984; Ambert 8 Saucier, 1983; Goldman 8 Goldman, 1983; Kroger, 1983; McBroom et al., 1983; Robinson et al., 1982; McDonald, 1982; Johnson et al., 1981; Shepard, 1980; Rosenthal, 1980; Kumagai, 1978; Scheck 8 Emerick, 1976; Smart 8 Smart, 1976; Chartier 8 Chartier, 1975; Bahr, 1974; Kayser, 1974; Smart 8 Smart, 1973) B. Two groups perceived by two groups - associated with fathers. 1. fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of fathers and mothers (Tinney, 1985; Pieszko, 1975) 2. fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of fathers and children 3. fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of mothers and children 4. fathers’ and children’s perception of fathers and mothers 5. fathers’ and children’s perception of fathers and children (Carlson 8 Iovini, 1985; Mackey, 1985; Robak 8 Clavan, 1975) 6. fathers’ and children’s perception of mothers and children 57 7. mothers’ and children’s perceptions of fathers and mothers 8. mothers’ and children’s perceptions of fathers and children 9. mothers’ and children’s perceptions of mothers and children C. Two groups perceived by three groups - associated with fathers. 1. fathers’, mothers’ and children’s perception of fathers and mothers (Schwarz, 1985). 2. fathers’, mothers’ and children’s perception of fathers and children 3. fathers, mothers’ and children’s perception of mothers and children III. Three groups perceived by 1,2, and 3 groups. A. Three groups perceived by one group - associated with fathers. 1. fathers’ perception of fathers, mothers, and children 2. mothers’ perception of mothers, fathers, and children 3. children’s perception of children, fathers, and mothers (Wiltfang 8 Scarbecz, 1990; Parish 8 Nunn, 1988; Rosenthal et al., 1988; Fine, 1986; Saucier 8 Ambert, 1986; Marjoribanks, 1985; Halprin, 1981; Steward et al., 1979; Dhammi et al., 1978; Lifshitz, 1978; Philipp 8 Orr, 1978; Jarmon, 1976; Liftshitz, 1976; Donnenwerth et al., 1973) B. Three groups perceived by two groups - associated with .fathers. 1. fathers’ and mothers’ perception of fathers, mothers and children 2. fathers’ and children’s perception of fathers, mothers and children 3. mothers’ and children’s perception of fathers, mothers and children C. Three groups perceived by three groups - associated with fathers. 1. Fathers’, mothers’ and children’s perception of fathers, mothers and children (Gecas 8 Schwalbe, 1986; Smith 8 Forehand, 1986; Smith 8 Foreman, 1986; Kotler 8 Chetwynd, 1980; Perkins 8 Kahan, 1979; Tagliacozzo 8 Piperno, 1978; Kotler 8 Salmon, 1978; 58 Alexander 8 Dibb, 1977; Harper et al., 1977; Keeley, 1976; Lerner 8 Knapp, 1975; Larson, 1975, 1974). In considering the concept of perception, numerous terms have arisen. Besides social perception, Paritee (1980) indicates that other expressions have been used to depict one person’s intention to understand others, e.g., person perception, social perception, social cognition, empathy, impression formation, and sensitivity to others. (Tagiure, 1969; Warr 8 Knapper, 1968; Sarbin et al, 1960). Are perceptions accurate? Allen (1974) indicates, "as Kelly (1941) points out, each of the two individuals entering into a marriage relationship has certain opinions concerning himself and his mate which may or may not coincide with objective fact. The important factor in determining their compatibility does not seem to be their actual relative positions on a continuum of personality traits but rather each partner’s perceptions and interpretations of their relative positions. It would seem logical, then, to study the importance of perceptions...As a number of investigators have pointed out, the objective state of affairs and a person's perception of that state of affairs may or may not be highly correlated..." (p.4). Can "reality" ever be known? Sullivan (1953) commented, "It would in fact be one of the great miracles of all time if our perception of another person were, in any greatly significant number of respects, accurate or exact" (p.167). Because of this difficulty in accurately perceiving, some argue that reality cannot be known and may not even exist. Not only do methodological problems make this a complicated undertaking but some in social 59 psychology deny the existence of reality (Cook, 1984). That only is real which is real to the person. Citing Larson (1974), family reality is "the way it is as seen through the eyes and experience of all family participants" (p.124). Is anything real? Cook (1984) boldly writes, "Archer and Akert and I consider emotional states, interpersonal relationships and personality traits to be sufficiently real to be distinguishable from people’s perceptions of them, and also that the accuracy of such perceptions is a real and important issue" (p.ix). Even so, when doing research on attitudes and behaviors of people, reality is inferred not proven (Cook, 1984). Those who are rating are providing a report of their perception. One cannot dogmatically contend that this is fact. The observers’ rating or the persons’ self-reports are inferred from observations. Though the results are inferences from self- perception and other perception, it is believed the inferences can accurately reflect what has happened. Ezell (1982) quoting Ferreira (1964) defines interpersonal perceptivity as "the ability to guess... accurately the mood, attitude and behavior of another individual or group" (p. 64). What do we know about perceptions from research? Flores (1986) says, 60 "To date, empirical comparisons of self-descriptions with those provided by others have yielded ambiguous results. Shrauger and Shoeneman’s (1979) review of the pertinent literature revealed that about half of the available studies found no significant correlations between self-ratings and ratings by others, whereas the other half either reported low significant correlations or mixed patterns. These reviewed studies included some that were methodologically weak, some where the ratings by others were from persons who might not have known the ratee well, and some that were conducted quite some time ago (1940’s and 1950’s) with samples that might have changed in the interim time... More recently, Harris (1980) reported a series of moderate correlations (averging .52) between self- ratings and ratings by knowledgeable peers of graduate students in clinical psychology and a related professional group" (p.1,2). This issue of knowing the ratee and having more than one rater needs highlighting. Flores (1986) records, "wylie (1974) pointed out how the generalizability of most prior studies was impaired by using raters unknown to the ratee, unspecified time spans, solo raters, and methods that only indirectly assessed the target’s personality characteristics and required much rater inference" (p.3). According to Thorndike 8 Hagen’s (1977) portrait of the ideal rater he/she is a "person who has a great deal of opportunity to observe the person being rated in those situations in which he would be likely to show the qualities on which ratings are desired" (p. 475). It seems reasonable to suggest that a father, mother and adult child within the same family would know one another sufficiently to rate the father fairly accurately. Research Needs From an evaluation of the "family strengths" research and the "fatherhood" research, exploration of 61 strong, normal or healthy fathers is needed. What Stinnett (1979a) once said about families is now true of fathers. "Admittedly we need information about the problems, but we also need a balanced view. We need more information about positive family models and what strong families are like. We need to learn how to strengthen families. We don’t learn how looking only at how it shouldn’t be done. We learn most effectively by examining how to do something correctly and studying a positive model. We have not had this positive model as much as we need in the area of family life" (p.5). As with fathers, we need insight into positive models, those who are functioning well. This research seeks to fill two gaps, (1) in family strengths research and (2) in fatherhood research. One, in the family strengths area, this study attempts to provide more specific analysis on fathering strengths. Because "family strengths" are a significant part of the family literature and because mother, father, or child strengths are a logical focus of family strengths research, but are neglected; therefore, a research gap in the "family strengths" analysis exists and study is now needed on specific "fathering strengths". Two, in the fathering research area, this study seeks to provide a) baseline research on fathers from intact families who are conventional fathers and which is descriptive of the experience of strong fathers; b) self- reports of fathers who are strong; c) a triadic perspective on fathers from the strong father himself, 62 his wife and his adult child and d) fathering styles’ research that is more comprehensive, looks at successful styles, lays the base for grandfathering styles and counters inaccurate ethnic stereotypes. W First, "family strengths" are a significant part of the family literature. This has become a major area of study. In fact, there have been two traditions within this literature. Morgan (1987) reported "Two research traditions have contributed to present knowledge of strong, healthy families - ’family strengths’ research, and ’healthy family’ or ’normal family’ research. Both research traditions have largely developed in parallel relation to each other" (p. 1). Over the last two to three decades, healthy, normal or strong families have been a research focus (Otto 1964; Hill 1971; Stinnet 1977; Kantor 8 Lehr 1975; Lewis, et al, 1976; Olson 8 McCubbin 1983). In the past, analyzing dysfunctional or pathological families was a primary concentration for family researchers (Otto 1962). Though this continues today, an added field is the non- pathological. More recently, families who reported themselves to be strong were surveyed by Stinnett (1985). "Over the past decade, they have studied 3000 families in the U.S. and abroad to discover what made their family life rewarding. From their research they have distilled the guiding principles 63 and rules of conduct that result in strong, lasting, vital, affectionate families" (introduction). For example, through this research six strengths were recognized: Commitment, Appreciation, Communication, Time Together, Coping With Crises and Stress, and Spiritual Wellness. Second, mother, father, or child strengths are a logical focus of family strengths research but have essentially been neglected. Because family strengths research attempts to look at those fundamental ingredients in families that make them healthy, one would think a similar attempt would have been made toward individual members. There does not seem to be any summary books or articles pertaining to child, mother or father strengths. Unlike literature and books entitled family strengths; EQ§1§1¥§.MQQ§1§ £21 Eamilx LIES (Stinnet, 1980), ugrmal Family Frgggssgs (Walsh, 1982) or mugmmwflmmm mnealmmuiesflxmmmmmmsmwurran. 1983), which provide portraits, no such overview in the literature are made of "Strong Mothers", "Strong Children" or "Strong Fathers". As for strong children, one does read about strong children coming from strong families in the book Srrgng Familyr_§;rgng_gnilg by Barry Bricklin (1970) but there is no in depth study of strong child characteristics. Certainly some are edging their way toward this. One 64 article concerning child strengths was written by Cogle (1979), "Children: An Untapped Resource for Building Family Strengths". She comments, "Have children and their potential contribution to household work been overlooked as a resource for building family strengths? Our research suggests that this may be the case... Children’s contributions in performing household tasks can also improve their skills and competencies for the world of work, distribute the family work load more equitably, contribute to the family’s ability to deal effectively with stress caused by time pressure, and promote satisfying and fulfilling interaction among family members." (Stinnet, 1979:275,285). In spite of this article, "child strengths" have not been portrayed in the literature, though the child development literature portrays the normal or healthy child. As for mothering strengths, this writer knows of no article or book that attempts to define the cardinal strengths of mothers in the same format as that of family strengths, though much attention has come to mothers and their characteristics (Sieve, 1989; Birns, 1988). No comprehensive assessment has come forth on fathering strengths. Interestingly, this writer has not yet come across any researcher who suggested that such a pursuit should be made. It appears unusual that no one is recommending in the literature, on the heels of family strength research, that father strengths within the family be studied in the same manner as Otto, Stinnett, Hill, etc. did toward families as a whole. What Otto 65 (1962) said about family strengths appropriately applies to father strengths. "One of the greatest challenges facing us today is to learn more about family strengths and how they can be fostered and developed. We need to learn more about how this tremendous potential and resource can be brought to bear to insure responsible family participation and leadership in relation to the crises and problems of our time" (p.80) Certainly there should be no assumption that family strengths are synonymous with father strengths. To suppose them to be indistinguishable is to repeat the mistake of past research that supposed that families consist of mother and child, and not fathers, or parents consist only of the mother (Belsky 8 Volling, 1987). Just as this assumption needed correcting, so does the thinking that equates fathering strengths with family strengths. Each family member contributes something unique to the family unit. Third, a research gap in the "family strengths" analysis exists toward fathering strengths and study is now needed on these specific qualities. In summary, because "family strengths" are a significant part of the family literature, and because mother, father, or child strengths are a logical focus of family strengths research but are neglected, therefore, a research gap in the family strengths analysis exists toward strong fathers. Inquiry is needed on these characteristics. 66 This study concentrates on fathering strengths as part of the family strengths research. EQEDQIDQQQ_B§§§§IQD First, let us look at the past research on fathering. Berman 8 Pedersen (1987) indicate that the topic of fathering was an ignored issue until the 1960’s. Lamb (1981) indicates that psychologists’ early research strategies overlooked the father. Cowan and Cowan write, "In his review of research on the role of the father, Nash (1965) pointed out that Carmichael’s (1954) comprehensive uanga1_gf_gn11g_F§yghglggy failed to list ’father’ in the index. As recently as 1975, Lamb described fathers as 'the forgotten contributors to child development’ (p.245). It has taken several decades of research to establish empirically that men can be competent caretakers of newborns (Lamb, 1975), that at least some are centrally involved in the rearing of their children (Pruett, 1983, 1984; Radin 8 Russell,1982), and that fathers have distinct positive effects on their children’s development (Lamb,1981). Fortunately, as Berman 8 Pedersen (1987) state, "After many years of neglect, research on fathers is proliferating" (p.1). Also, in the past, conclusions about fathers tended to be derived from research on mother-child dyads not father-child dyads. Beckett (1987:74) writes, "Too often the behavior and views of men as husbands and fathers 67 have been ignored, inferred, or developed from women’s accounts (Safilios-Rothschild,1969)." Further, Beckett (1987:74) expresses, "our understanding of paternal behavior has been observed by studying fathering within the same conceptual framework as mothering (Richards, 1982)." For this reason, she says, there came a period in which a "purpose of father-centered research orientation was to give paternal accounts of family life a hearing and a place centre-stage" which it had not had (p.4). As cited earlier, though, Lewis 8 O’Brien (1987) suggest this type of research from mothers alone has its place, up to a point. Still another point about the past, as stated earlier, is that conclusions about fathers tended to come from the mother’s report of the father, not the father’s self-report, the child’s report, or the fathers’, mothers’ and child’s report combined for a triadic view. This is definitely true in reference to strong fathers. In the past, also, conclusions about healthy fathers tended to be derived from the absent and dysfunctional father research, not from the examples of strong fathers. Absent fathers were first studied leading to conjectures as to what a good father is. The same thing happened with family research; the "normal family" model came out of research on the pathological. Second, a word about the present. Research on 68 fathers is entering the exploration of paternalism in various cultural contexts. There has also been the propensity in psychology and sociology to overlook the family context within which fathering behavior was being cultivated (Lewis, 1982). Lamb (1991), in an introduction to Iatherh99d_And_£anilie§_in_gultural Context. writes, "As Bronfenbrenner (1975,1979) lamented, academic psychologists of the 1950’s and 1960’s completely ignored the social (including family) context in which children were raised, and it is little wonder that fathers too were forgotten... Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective assumed a major corrective significance; by ridicule and logic, he demanded that social scientists recognize the extent to which behaviors and values were directly and indirectly influenced by aspects of the multiple contexts in which people, their families, and their communities were embedded" (p.x). Thus, the editors of Eathsrh999_And_£amiliea_in Cultural_£9ntext examine: religion and its impact on fatherhood, social class and fatherhood, implications for fathers of the legal changes, ethnicity and fatherhood, environment and fatherhood, cross-cultural perspectives on fatherhood, internal culture of the family and its effects on fatherhood, the effects of organizational culture on fatherhood, and other such contexts. There is a need in family research for more study related not only to fathers in general but subgroups of fathers from various cultural contexts. The ecological approach is becoming prominent. In the book, Dimgngigng 91_Fa;herhggd, the recommendation is made that "subgroups 69 must be identified" (p.445). (One such group is the evangelical culture.) Examination of various representations of fathers from assorted environments is a developing idea due to the present trend toward deeper and broader paternal analysis. Berman 8 Pedersen (1987) write that recent develop- ments in fatherhood research suggest that specific differences in fathering adaptations are receiving more attention. Fathering distinctives are the research need at this juncture. Third, a word about the future. Because of a research gap, fathering research is recommended from the literature in the following areas. Research is needed on fathers in general from intact families to derive baseline data for comparison. Fox (1985) asserts, "Good baseline data are needed. That is, research designs that include fathers in intact families for comparative purposes are needed. Some of the most valuable research in this area is of this type. The inclusion of intact-family controls in divorce- related research will obviously be of benefit to our understanding of fathering in general" (p.411.) Research is needed on the typical father since the househusband is more ideological than real. According to Radin (1982), there is hardly any evidence that an expanding number of men have chosen to become primary caregivers of working women. Such fathers are a rare phenomena. 70 About the "new father", Lewis 8 O’Brien (1987) observe, "The recent interest in male domesticity has been accentuated by the ideology of the ’new father’ ~- the man who is both highly nurturant towards his children and increasingly involved in their care and the housework. However.... Despite the wave of optimism driving contemporary accounts, the evidence for the existence of such a man is much less convincing... (p.1). Research is needed that is a descriptive analysis of the experiences of fathers. Lewis 8 O’Brien (1987) state, "Recent emphasis has shifted from the influence of the man upon the child’s development (Lamb 1976,1981) to... the personal experience of fatherhood itself (Beal 8 McGuire,1982; Hanson 8 Bozett,1985; Jackson, 1984; Lamb,1986; Lewis, C.,1986; Lewis 8 Salt,1986; McKee 8 O’Brien,1982)..." (p. 2) Research is needed that asks fathers directly; this could be done by male service organizations. Bradley (1985) maintains, "Another desperate need is to assess fathers independently. Very little of the present body of research asked the father’s viewpoint directly. Too much father data has been obtained from mothers, and too much information considered ’parent’ data has been collected only from mothers. Perhaps researchers can overcome this obstacle by contacting fathers... through male service organizations, even though these would incorporate another kind of bias." (p.190). Research is needed from various homogeneous samples or units among fathers. Giveans 8 Robinson (1985) state that further study include "expository research" (p.135) in various subcultures related to fathering. 71 Research is needed using triadic relationships consisting of father, mother and child. Pasley (1985) writes, "A study group sponsored by the Society for Research in Child Development recently discussed the weaknesses of research on remarriage and stepparenting... the members of this group identified other concerns as well: (1) failure to examine the dynamics of the various dyadic and triadic relationships in the family..." (p.297). Bradley (1985) says, "The primary weaknesses of the current literature include...the examination of fathers only, or, at best, father-child dyads, rather than entire family systems..."(p.163). Research is needed using triadic relationships consisting of father, mother and child from various homogeneous groups. Lutwin 8 Siperstein (1985) write that not only should the husband’s view be gained but "the perspective of the ... wives and children" (p.285). Berman 8 Pedersen (1987) write that the most recent advancement in research on fatherhood reveals that paternalism is being viewed within the context of other family members. Research is needed that provides a more comprehensive look at effective fathering styles. Beal 8 McGuire (1982) say, "There are at present no observational studies with fathers, testing them for effective fathering and questioning them about their own fathering experiences..." (p. 198). 72 Though studies exist which evaluate single concepts, like involvement (Sagi, 1982), more comprehensive observations of effective fathering styles have remained unexamined. Hanson (1985) recommends an evaluation of overall fathering practices. "The actual parenting behavior of fathers needs to be explored. Physical and psychological nurturing, parenting style, discipline and control, parent- child interaction patterns... are all potential areas to study in order to gain a more comprehensive knowledge base of fathering..." (p.387.) Hanson (1985) also suggests, "It would be worthwhile to identify characteristics of ’successful’ ... single-father families because most research to date has largely focused on negative and pathological features. Emphasis would be placed on the positive aspects... rather than on the negative... The results could be translated into goals and guidelines..." (p.388). Research is needed to confirm or counter stereotypical images of fathers. stereotyping can be a problem. For instance, what image do most have of the Latino fathers? Yet, Mirande (1991) found "from this review of recent literature on fatherhood in Latino culture it is clear... Latino fathers did not conform to traditional portrayals found in the literature. Rather than being cold distant figures, Latino fathers often appeared to be warm, nurturing, and companionable" (p.63). Mirande continues, "One of the reasons that ethnic minority families have been so misunderstood is that, in the past, researchers and practioners often lacked a true understanding or appreciation of the 73 subtlety and complexity of minority changes" (p.76). So then, from the "Fathering research" we learn that... 1. In the past... a. Fathers were ignored in early family research. b. Conclusions about fathers tended to be derived from research on mother-child dyads, not father- child dyads. c. Conclusions about fathers tended to come from the mother’s report of the father, not the father’s self-report, the child’s report, or all three combined for a triadic view. d. Conclusions about healthy fathers tended to be derived from the absent and dysfunctional father research, not from the examples of strong fathers. 2. At the present, research on fathers is entering the exploration of paternalism in various ecological contexts. 3. In the future, because of a research gap, fathering research is recommended along the following lines: a. Baseline research on fathers: 1. from intact families 2. who are conventional fathers. 3. that is descriptive of strong fathers b. More self-reports of fathers 1. from any father 74 2. from various homogeneous units/contexts c. A triadic perspective on fathers 1. from any triad 2. from homogeneous triads d. Fathering styles’ research 1. that is more comprehensive 2. that looks at successful styles 3. that counters inaccurate ethnic stereotypes Therefore, this research seeks to fill two gaps, one in family strengths research and one in fathering research. One, in the family strengths area, this study seeks to provide more specific analysis on fathering strengths. Because "family strengths" are a significant part of the family literature and because mother, father, or child strengths are a logical focus of family strengths research but are neglected; therefore, a research gap in the "family strengths" analysis exists and study is now needed on specific "fathering strengths". Two, in the fathering research area, this study seeks to provide a) baseline research on fathers from intact families who are conventional fathers and which is descriptive of the experience of strong fathers; b) self- reports of fathers who are strong and evangelical; c) a triadic perspective on fathers from the strong father, wife and adult child who are identified as or presumed 75 evangelicals; and d) fathering styles’ research that is more comprehensive, looks at successful styles, lays the base for grandfathering styles and counters inaccurate ethnic stereotypes of evangelical Christians. Strong fathers from the conservative Protestant church community have not been clearly identified and researched. This can now occur. The National Center on Fathering Research in Manhattan, Kansas has approximately 4000 research articles related in some way to fathering. The attention given to strong fathers is negligible, according to the Center. Insofar as strong evangelical fathers are concerned, it has not been addressed. CHAPTER IV METHODS This investigation was undertaken to determine the perceptions of fathering style by the father, mother and adult child. The information for this inquiry was gathered from across the United States. The family was the unit of analysis and consisted of a father, mother and adult child. A survey questionnaire was used to collect information from each father, mother and adult child. In this chapter the following areas are covered: (1) research design; (2) sampling, data collection and data analysis procedures; (3) the study sample; (4) instrument development and pretesting procedures; (5) the variables and definitions; and (6) statistical methods. Research Design The intention of this exploratory research was to make inquiry into the relationships between the strong father, mother and adult child regarding fathering style. The fathering style consisted of four dimensions, twelve practices and five satisfactions (Appendix D). The research method selected for this examination was survey questionnaire (Appendix C). The unit of analysis studied was the family consisting of the father, mother and adult child. The theoretical definitions of the variables are noted in Chapter I. 76 77 Sampling Procedure Over seven hundred churches across the United States were contacted through a men’s and boy’s organization named Christian Service Brigade, headquartered in Wheaton, Illinois. This organization consists of ten to fifteen thousand men volunteers who work with boys. Their motto declares, "Building men to serve Christ since 1937." These churches were white and averaged 200 in attendance. An invitation was extended to the volunteer leader in each church to participate in a strong fathers project (Appendix B). His responsibility was to contact three other people besides himself to make recommendations of strong fathers according to five criteria. A card was sent reminding him of this invitation. From the seven hundred churches contacted, the total number of names of fathers received was 3,253. As for having this organization involved, Bradley (1985) wrote, "Another desperate need is to assess fathers independently. Very little of the present body of research asked the father’s viewpoint directly. Too much father data has been obtained from mothers, and too much information considered ’parent’ data has been collected only from mothers. Perhaps researchers can overcome this obstacle by contacting fathers at their work place or through male service organizations, even though these would incorporate another kind of bias" (p. 190). Christian Service Brigade is one such male service organization. 78 These Christian Service Brigade volunteers asked three others to nominate up to ten men in each church who were viewed as strong fathers (Appendix B). Besides the volunteer himself, the pastor and two women from the church were asked to make nominations. It was assumed a male and female perspective provided a better balance in the selection. The criteria used to select each father were: 1. He is married and has at least one adult child. 2. He has been nurturing. 3. He has been involved. 4. He has been aware. 5. He has been consistent. Only those names were selected that were on all four lists. Eligibility was determined by the presence of the father’s name on all four lists of reviewers. This numbered 270 names of fathers on all four lists. In part, this approach followed that of two other well-known studies. In Otto’s (1962) sample, according to Morgan (1987), "All families were initially viewed as ’healthy, well-functioning, non-patient’ families" (p.3). According to Morgan (1987) the Stinnet "sample for the Oklahoma study of the Family Strengths Research Project was selected through the aid of Cooperative Extension home economists from all 77 Oklahoma counties (see Stinnett and Sauer, 1977; Stinnett,1979a; 1979b; 1983; Stinnett and DeFrain, 1986). The home economists were asked to recommend families in their county whom they perceived as ’strong’ within the requirements of the Oklahoma study: appear to be happy, fulfill each other’s needs, intact with both parents at home, at least one child 21 years or younger living at 79 home... Based on the home economists’ recommendations, questionnaires were sent to approximately 180 families. Questionnaires were included for both husband and wife. They were requested to complete the questionnaire separately and not to compare answers’ (Stinnett 8 Sauer, 1977). Only those families who rated themselves high on degree of marital happiness and parent-child satisfaction were included in the final sample" (p.6). In this case, it appears that a better job was done thus far than anyone in identifying strong, evangelical fathers. From the FSI a profile will be developed that describes the strong evangelical father. Data Collection Procedure The researcher was contacted by the two vice- presidents of Christian Service Brigade who had learned of the researcher’s strong father research interest. They made their organization available in any capacity that could be helpful in doing the study. Part of the mission statement for this organization entails strengthening fathers. The president and two vice- presidents made a commitment to contact the leading volunteers in their boys program in over 700 churches and to invite them to participate in "a special assignment." The materials sent to the chairman of each local program appear in Appendix B. These lay leaders were responsible for insuring that the various individuals were contacted. A 3 x 5 card was sent out after the letter, reminding the Brigade Chairman to make sure the four lists were collected and were 80 returned to Christian Service Brigade headquarters, placing the four lists in a self-addressed and stamped envelope. A questionnaire was then mailed to the fathers, mothers and adult children (Appendix C). Again, only those names were selected that were on all four lists. Two-hundred and seventy fathers were on the four sheets. Admittedly, these findings provide us with a good if not excellent description of strong evangelical fathers. After the lists were returned to Christian Service Brigade, the names and addresses of the 270 fathers, wives and adult children were compiled. A letter and questionnaire was then sent to these fathers, their wives and adult children. Three types of questionnaires existed, each designed for the particular group taking it. The content of the questions remained the same. These materials appear in Appendices B and C. Of the 270 families contacted, questionaires from 42 complete triads were received. Description of the Study Sample Table 1 (appendix E) presents demographic data on the sample. There are several features of particular interest within the sample. Fathers The average age of the strong fathers was 55, with the youngest being 40 and the oldest 75. All were white. 81 Educationally, 33% had a high school diploma, 29% a bachelor’s degree, 17% a master’s degree, 10% a technical degree, 7% associate degree, and 5% doctorates. The religious affiliation was 98% Protestant, and of that 52% were fundamentalist and 48% evangelical. The family income reported by fathers averaged $60,000 yearly, whereas the mother estimated it to be $55,000 and the adult child reported it to be $51,500. Also reported by the fathers, the mean of hours worked weekly was 42, which the mother also estimated and the adult child projected 43. As for the hours mothers worked outside the home, all three groups said 17 hours. On average fathers said they spent 8 hours weekly interacting with the children, whereas mothers said 7 and the adult children said 6. Ninety-eight percent of the fathers had been married only once, and that marriage averaged 32 years. 1191;111:125 The mothers had a mean age of 53, with the youngest being 37 and the oldest being 77. Forty-one were white with one Hispanic. Educationally, 42% had high school diplomas, 23% received bachelor’s degrees, 16% had technical degrees, 12% had associate degrees, and 2% had master’s degrees. Their religious affiliation was 93% Protestant with 60% classifying their religious orientation as evangelical and 36% as fundamentalist. 82 Milena The average age for the adult children was 27.1 years, with the youngest adult child being 19, and the oldest 43. Of the respondents, 100% were white. As for education, 52% had bachelor’s degrees, 26% had high school diplomas, 12% had master’s degrees, and nearly 10% had either a technical or associate degree. As for religious affiliation, 98% were Protestant; their religious orientation consisted of 59% evangelical and 38% fundamentalist. Instrument Development Procedures A questionnaire was created to evaluate fathering style. The questions were designed by Canfield, Schumm and Swihart (1988). Twenty-seven areas important to fathering were identified through an exhaustive search of the literature. 1. Showing Affection 2. Parental Discussion 3. Role Modeling 4. Dealing with Family Crisis 5. Involvement in Discipline 6. Spiritual Development 7. Knowing My child. 8. Involvement in Education 9. Wife’s Role 10. Parental Confidence 11. Marital Interaction 12. Male Identity 13. Involvement in Child’s Development 14. Time Committed to Children 15. Freedom of Expression 16. Verbal Interaction w/ Child 17. Relationship with Parents 18. Planning child’s Future 19. Child Care 20. Financial Provider 83 21. Role in Family Planning 22. Extended Family Activities 23. Job satisfaction/stress 24. Personal Goals/Hobbies 25. Expectations for Child 26. Seeking Outside Advice/Help 27. Involvement in Household Chores A series of questions was then prepared to measure each of these areas. Based on the ratings of the questions by the fathers and on statistical analysis, the twenty-seven areas were consolidated into twelve. These twelve became the Fathering Practices in the PFP or Personal Fathering Profile. The researchers then ventured to identify larger measures which covered all fathering practices, and another section was added for testing, referred to as the fathering dimensions. Thirdly, a series of questions was developed that sought to measure fathering satisfaction. The validity of the scales has been tested in a national representative sample (Canfield, Schumm, Swihart 8 Eggerichs, 1990). The Fathering Style Inventory was first administered to fathers in June 1988. Family data experts compiled 27 scales after a review of literature related to fathering (Canfield, Schumm, Swihart, 8 Eggerichs 1990). These scales were consistent with other items in other fathering scales in the literature. Using the Fathering Style Inventory (FSI), Canfield (1989) reported that over 2,066 religious fathers were 84 surveyed. Since this study in 1988, research efforts have aimed to establish the consistency and accuracy of the fathering profile. An additional 1000 fathers have been surveyed. The consistency of the instrument has been solidly verified using reliability statistics. The Cronbach’s Alpha, a measure of reliability, for each of the areas tested equals or exceeds the common standards for assessment instruments (Appendix E). The accuracy of the profile has been confirmed through factor analysis and through reviews of the instrument by other professionals in the field. The questions are divided into five sections: fathering dimensions, fathering practices, fathering satisfactions, demographics ("About You"), and open ended questions (see Appendix C). The first section contains sixty questions that measure four dimensions: involvement, consistency, awareness and nurturance. Five items, FD 16,28,34,38 and 60, pertain to Motivation which is not germane to this study. The second section includes sixty questions that measure twelve areas of fathering practice. These are very specific aspects of fathering, as opposed to the broader dimensions. They are: time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, involvement in education, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, dealing with crisis, showing affection, 85 modeling, financial provider, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. Although two of the practices, marital interaction and parental discussion of the children, may not be viewed as part of fathering practice, the researchers found that they have a strong impact on fathering. The third section involves eighteen questions which are designed to measure feelings of fathering satisfaction. The areas covered are: satisfaction with your childhood, satisfaction with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, satisfaction with fathering role, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. The fourth section pertains to demographics. This information provides the National Center for Fathering with additional data that enable further understanding of fathering. It also shows the differences in fathering practices that may be related to the father’s unique and situation. The fifth section is the set of open-ended questions which provide qualitative data. W The questionnaire was designed from a review of the literature. In the case of strong families, "The questions included were based upon what a review of the professional literature suggested might be related to family success or strength" (Morgan, 1987). In the case 86 of the instrument used on strong fathers, referred to as the Fathering Style Inventory (FSI), it too was based on the review of the literature that reflected ideals related to fathering. The research literature inspected for the formation of the survey consisted of a review of the fathering tests. Primary sources used to develop the questionnaire on fathering style, that is, questions pertaining to the four dimensions, to the twelve practices, and the five satisfactions related to fathering style were synthesized from other fathering tests (Kellerman, 1981). From such fathering tests and other resources the original 27 scales for the Fathering Style Inventory were designed. Pretesting Pretesting of the instrument was done by the National Center for Fathering by Canfield, Schumm and Swihart. Seven pretests and editions were done. The first survey asked over 200 questions of 27 areas that seemed significantly related. Of those 27, 12 were factored out as a result of factor analysis of the quantitative data. The four dimensions came from use of a Delphi technique. The leaders of the field were also asked for their feedback on these areas. As for the twelve practices, the standardized alpha reliability measure for each scale is in parenthesis. 87 These particular measures are based on a sample size of 3000 fathers. 1. Time Commitment to Children (.84) 2. Involvement in Discipline (.86) 3. Involvement in Education (.81) 4. Marital Interaction (.86) 5. Parental Discussion of Children (.87) 6. Dealing with Crisis (.87) 7. Showing Affection (.84) 8. Modeling (.89) 9. Financial Provider (.83). 10. Spiritual Development (.83) 11. Allowing Freedom of Expression (.82) 12. Knowing my Child (.85) The five satisfaction scales were derived from Schumm’s cumulative research pertaining to marital and parental satisfaction (James et al., 1985; Schumm et al., 1986a; Schumm et al., 1986b; McCollum et al., Schumm et al., 1986c; Schumm et al., 1988; Rho 8 Schumm, 1989). Description of Variables For this inquiry the whole questionnaire was used except the open-ended questions. The sections reported are the fathering dimensions (question 1-60), fathering practices (1-60), fathering satisfaction (1-18), and questions "about you" (1-22). The open-ended questions are not included in this report. See Appendix C for the survey used. Operational Definitions 1. Strong. In this case it is one who scores positively on all the scales. On the five dimensions, a positive score is 3.000 and above, on the twelve practices it is 3.000 and above, and on the five satisfactions it is 88 4.000 and above. Because these men have been preselected as strong fathers it is assumed their scores will be positive. 2. Father. Married, from an intact family with at least one adult child who was selected according to five criteria of a strong father by four people who were not to consult with one another. 3. Mother. Married to the father. 4. Adult Child. The legal and/or biological offspring of the father and mother. 5. Evangelical or Fundamentalist. One who identifies himself or herself as such. It is assumed that the theoretical or theological definitions are believed by this group. 6. Congruence. The degree of statistical agreement of the fathers’, wives’ and adult children’s perceptions of self or other on the four dimensions, twelve practices and five satisfactions as these relate to fathering style. 7. The Four Dimensions. See appendix D for the items which comprised each of the operational definitions. 8. The Twelve Practices. See appendix D for the operational definitions of the items. 9. The Five Satisfactions. See appendix D for the items comprising the operational definitions. 89 Scoring Learnimensions Concerning the fathering dimensions, the fathers, mothers and adult children were asked to mark a statement as mostly false (1), somewhat false (2), undecided (3), somewhat true (4) mostly true (5), or not applicable (6). Scoring was based on a range of one through five. mm With regard to the fathering practices the fathers, mothers and adult children were asked to mark a statement as very poor (1), poor (2), fair (3), good (4), very good (5), or not applicable (6). The score was based on the one to five range. BMW As for the fathering satisfaction, the fathers, mothers and adult children were asked to answer a question with extremely dissatisfied (1), very dissatisfied (2), somewhat dissatisfied (3), mixed (4), somewhat satisfied (5), very satisfied (6), and extremely satisfied (7). Scoring was based on a range of one through seven. The primary variable to be tested in each hypothesis is congruence. Congruence is the measurable degree of agreement. The intent is to determine whether there is congruence between the fathers, mothers and adult 90 children in the four dimensions, twelve practices and five satisfactions. Statistical Methods WW Descriptive statistics (means, medians, variances, S.D., S.E.) were used to portray the sample for fathers’, mothers’ and adult children’s perceptions on all the variables. These are presented in Tables 2,3, and 4 (see Appendix E). These are "statistical techniques used to condense and summarize quantitative data, for the purpose of converting a mass of numerical data into a form that may be more readily comprehended and discussed" (Theodorson 8 Theodorson, 1969:415). murdering Means for each scale were calculated by totalling the individual items within a particular scale and dividing these by the number of items. The range on the Likert scale is 1 to 5 on the dimensions and practices, and 1-7 on the satisfactions. This was done for all the respondents. The grand mean was determined along with the group means consisting of the fathers, mothers and adult children. These means were rank ordered from the highest scores to the lowest. Means were also calculated for individual items on each scael. Also included in the report is symmetry, the skewness and kurtosis are reported. 91 SW The statistically significant differences from the Repeated Measures Design Analysis of Variance reveals the differences between family members within the family units that are not due to chance or are below the .05 level. The differences between groups within families are reported both on the scales and items. From the Repeated Measures, that which is above .05 implies agreement. Congruence is inferred. The Null Hypothesis is desired in this sense. With repeated measures, if there is congruence it is within each family unit. Repeated Measures tells whether all family units are uniform. For example, if there is congruence it is between father, mother and adult child within the Jones family. The scores from each family unit, then, when used are a more accurate reporting of variance. Whereas a oneway or simple Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) totals the means of the fathers, mothers and adult children by groups and compares them, the Repeated Measures does this within the family unit. In other words, ANOVA is less accurate in that there is probably greater variance, whereas the Repeated Measures reduces this variance. Since the research objective overall is to profile the family unit’s perception of the strong fathers, this needs to be done family by family. Otherwise, there is 92 less certainty that the scores reflect what each individual family unit perceives. Totalling the means according to groups as opposed to family units has one advantage when rank ordering in that more respondents can be tabulated. When Repeated Measures are used the number of cases is reduced since each family unit must have father, mother and adult child. When rank ordering therefore the means of all the fathers, mothers, and adult children were used since there were more of them. This explains why some of the means, where reported from Repeated Measures, may differ from the rank ordered group means. QIQDDQESL§_Athi Cronbach’s Alpha (1951) reveals the internal consistency of the responses. The closer Alpha is to 1, the higher the internal consistency. If Alpha is .66 or above there is evidence of internal consistency. What is the difference between the Repeated Measures and Alpha insofar as congruence is concerned? Repeated Measures is a statistical procedure which determines congruence from the lack of any statistically significant differences. Alphas are more of an index showing the degree of internal consistency. What if there is a statistically significant difference on a scale and a high Alpha? Repeated Measures reveals the lack of congruence in the sense that there is 93 no agreement between groups but a high Alpha indicates internal consistency. Contradiction? No. There is consistent disagreement. For example, though the mothers scored 4.7’s and the fathers scored 3.7’s (revealing statistically significant differences), Alpha reveals consistency in the sense that there is a consistent pattern of difference within the family units. There is, so to speak, consistency about incongruence. What if there is no statistically significant difference from the Repeated Measures and there is high Alpha? There is a pattern of agreement or likeness that was highly consistent across all family units. Wigwam A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient, which can vary between 0.0 and +1.0 or between 0.0 and - 1.0, indicates the extent of relationship between two variables which allows performance on one variable to be predicted from another. In other words, a person’s score on variable x has some predictive power in estimating another person’s score on variable Y. A positive correlation coefficient indicates that one person who has a high score on variable x will find another person having a high score on variable Y and vice versa. As the correlation coefficient approaches +1.0 the accuracy of predicting Y from X or X from Y improves. If the value of r is: 94 1. zero or close to it, little or no linear relationship is assumed between the two variables. 2. +1 or -1, or approaching either, assumes a linear relationship (Nie et a1, 1975; Babbie, 1979; Ezel 1982). W In terms of the hypotheses, are the differences due to error? There could be two types of error. Type I error is rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. Type II error is failing to reject the null hypothesis when it is false. Prior to analysis, therefore, an acceptable level of error is to be established. In this research anything at or below .05 is considered statistically significant or not due to error. SBEESI! The statistical procedures of Rank Ordering of Means, Repeated Measures Design Analysis of Variance, Cronbach’s Alpha, and Pearson Correlation are used in profiling strong fathers. The following areas were reported in the next chapter: the rank ordering of the means, the tests of statistical significance of difference on the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance, the congruences inferred from the Repeated Measures that showed no statistically significant differences, the internal consistencies from the Cronbach’s Alphas, and the Pearson Correlations showing the statistically 95 significant differences that imply linear relationships not due to chance. Data Analysis Procedures The National Center for Fathering and this researcher utilized a 386, 33 megahertz IBM PC in analyzing the data. The SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was used for the computation (Nie et al, 1975; Hull & Nie, 1981). CHAPTER V RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS Three sections present the results of the data analysis: 1) descriptive data for major variables, 2) hypothesis testing, and 3) summary of results. Descriptive Data for Major variables The following information pertains to the four dimensions, twelve practices and five satisfactions. Four analyses are reported: the rank ordering of the means, differences statistically significant on the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance, Alphas reliability indices, and correlations coefficients. Each analysis will be reported for the dimensions, practices and satisfactions. (Tables are in Appendix E.) W 921121531192 Ranking. Ranking highest among all three groups on the dimensions (Table 5) was consistency (4.207). Six of the eleven items (Tables 6,8,9) were above 4.5000. The following were nearing the "mostly true" categorization: "My children know what to expect from me" (4.773), "I try not to vary much in the way that I deal with my children" (4.711), "How I relate to my children (does not) change often" (4.556), "I do not change much in the way I deal with my children" (4.595), "I am predictable in the way I 96 97 relate to my children" (4.602), and "I feel the way I deal with my children does not change much from day to day" (4.621). Differences. On this scale, between the groups within the family units the adult children (4.301) rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.043) than the fathers (4.060) rated themselves (Table 16). This is the only scale that evidenced such differences. One item, "What I do with my children does not change much from day to day" was ranked significantly higher (p=.030) by the adult children (4.667) about the fathers than the fathers (3.810) rated themselves (Table 17). Congruence. Congruence is inferred between two sets of groups since the probabilities were not below .05 from the repeated measures. That which is above .05 suggests agreement or congruity. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers within the family units and the adult children and mothers within the family units. Consistency had an Alpha of .7220 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was above .66. This reinforces the congruence found from the Repeated Measures between the fathers and mothers, and the mothers and adult children. But, also, because this Alpha is above .66 it is concluded that the statistically significant difference between the fathers 98 and adult children also evidenced a pattern of disagreement. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.541; p=.002), the fathers and children (r=.457; p=.013), and the mothers and children (r-.386; p=.038). See Table 21. HQIIBIQDQE Ranking. This dimension was second in rank order (Table 5). It was "somewhat true" that these fathers were nurturing (4.074). These fathers scored higher on the scale of nurturance than they did on awareness and involvement. Only consistency ranked higher on the dimensions. As this scale is observed (Tables 6,8,9), nurturance seems to have three sub-dimensions: listening (FD4,22,25,40,51), affirmation (FD6,9,15,43,55), and affection (F024,36,37). Nurturance consisted of 14 items. Five of the fourteen items pertained to listening, which surfaced as a clear sub-dimension. All five items on listening were above 4.3. That which is "mostly true" are the following: "I show my children that I care when they share a problem with me" (4.738), "I listen to my children when they talk to me" (4.704), "I pay attention to my children when they speak to me" (4.659), and "When my children are upset, I usually try to listen to them" (4.591). 99 Differences. On the dimension of nurturance there were no statistically significant differences from the repeated measures analysis of variance between groups within the family units (Table 16). Nothing was below the .05 level. Congruence. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 confidence interval on any of the repeated measures. That which is above .05 suggests agreement or congruity. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers within the family units, the fathers and adult children within the family units, and the adult children and mothers within the family units. Nurturance had an Alpha of .4821 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was below .66 which does not support the hypothesis to the extent expected. Though this detracts from the repeated measures finding that suggests there is congruence between fathers and mothers, fathers and adult children, and mothers and adult children within the family units, the repeated measures is the weightier statistic. Correlations. There is a relationship between the mothers and the adult children (r=.509 p=.004). See Table 21. 100 Ranking. The three groups positively ranked the strong fathers’ general awareness (Table 5) as "somewhat true" (3.988). The awareness dimension consisted of 16 items, 6 of which dealt with developmental concerns (Tables 6,8,9). This sub-dimension of developmental awareness ranked very high: "I know what my child needs in order to grow into a mature, responsible person" (4.677), "I have a good handle on how my child’s needs change as he/she grows up" (4.614), "I know what is reasonable to expect from my children for their age" (4.479), "I know how my child’s emotional needs change over time" (4.325), "I know my child’s growth needs" (4.323), and "I know how my children compare with other children developmentally" (4.262). Differences. On the scale there were no statistically significant differences between any of the groups (Table 16). However, two items evidenced probabilities less than .05 (Table 17). Between the fathers (4.719) and adult children (4.250) a significant difference (p=.012) was discovered on the statement: "I know when my child is upset about something". Though without significant differences, yet very close, the statements "I know when I’ve hurt my child’s feelings" (p=.059) and "I could identify most of my child’s recent disappointing experiences" (p=.051) also suggest 101 differences of opinions on this issue of the inner struggles of the children. Another issue is the strong fathers’ awareness of their children’s friends. As for the means among the 3 groups, they reported very positively on the fathers’ familiarity with the friends (4.548) and knowing the names of the best friends (4.426). Under the practice knowing my child, these fathers indicate they knew their children’s friends. However, the repeated measures showed the item, "I am familiar with my child’s friends" (FD18), as scoring significantly lower (p=.041) by the adult children (3.722) compared to the fathers (4.611). Congruence. That which is above .05 suggests agreement or congruence. From the repeated measures, there is congruence between the fathers and mothers, the fathers and adult children, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this dimension of awareness. Awareness had an Alpha of .6621 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was above .66. This Alpha suggests there is consistent agreement or likeness between groups within the family units on awareness. Correlations. There is a relationship between the mothers and the adult children (r=.646 p=.001). See Table 21. 102 Enrolment Ranking. The overall ranking of the scores by all three groups confirms that the fathers were positively involved (3.530), though this scale ranked lowest of the four dimensions (Table 5). Seven of the ten lowest items pertained to the scale of involvement (Tables 6,8,9). Specific clusters revealed areas that strong fathers rated lower than in other areas. One category of involvement is working together. As a cluster, the three groups rated working together lowest of any sub- dimension: "My child and I (seldom) have time to work together" (3.564), "I often work together with my child on a project" (3.712), "When my child is working, I like to be present" (3.610), and a component of working, "My children accompany me on errands" (3.856). The statement, "I frequently read stories to my child" received the lowest mean score (3.316) among all the items on the dimensions. The item "I (rarely) have time to play games with my children" (3.448) was the second lowest item on the dimensions. The items "I spend time playing with my child a couple times a week" (3.903) and "My child and I spend a lot of time together" (3.736) ranked near the lowest. Yet, the demographics reveal these fathers as spending 7 hours weekly with the children. What the strong fathers meant by "a lot of time" is relative to that figure. All 103 groups ranked quite high this statement, "I am involved in my child’s life" (4.603) as well as "I often discuss things with my child" (4.774) was rated high as an item of involvement. Extremes exist on this scale that cluster around certain concepts to be interpreted in the discussion section. Differences. On the scale there were no statistically significant differences between any of the groups within the families (Table 16). Three items showed differences from the repeated measures (Table 17). There was a statistically significant difference (p=.012) on the item, "When my child is working, I like to be present." The mothers (3.857) and the adult children (3.857) rated the fathers higher on this than did the fathers (3.000). The statement, "I frequently read stories to my child" was not only the lowest (3.316) but had significant differences (p=.016) between the fathers (4.000) and adult children (2.778), and the mothers (3.889) and adult children. And the item, "I often discuss things with my child" had significant differences (p=.024) between the mother (4.719) and the adult children (4.188). Congruence. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers, the fathers and adult children, 104 and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this dimension of involvement. Involvement had an Alpha of .5800 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was below .66 which does not support the hypothesis to the extent expected. Though this detracts from the repeated measures finding that suggests there is congruence between fathers and mothers, fathers and adult children, and mothers and adult children, the repeated measures is the weightier statistic. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and the mothers (r=.686 p=.010). See Table 21. W We: Ranking. This practice ranked highest (4.859) nearing a "very good" rating (Table 5). All four items were the top ranked of all practices (Tables 6,11,12): "Having a steady income" (4.911), "Providing for the basic needs of my family" (4.878), "Providing the majority of the family income" (4.808), and "Having job that provides adequate income for my family" (4.764). Differences. Analysis of financial provider indicated a difference between two groups (p=.006). There is incongruence between father’s report and mother’s report (Table 16). The mothers (4.950) rated the fathers higher on this scale than the fathers rated 105 themselves (4.747). Concerning one item (Table 18), "Having a job that provides adequate income for my family", the mothers rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.045) than the fathers rated themselves. But though the strong fathers felt significantly less positive about this practice than did the mothers, the fathers still ranked this highest. Their income level being over $50,000 suggests why they felt positive. Congruence. Because there was no statistically significant difference between the fathers and adult children, and the mothers and adult children within family units, these two sets of groups evidence congruence concerning the financial provider practice. The Alpha or internal consistency for this practice is .6525 (Table 20). Though there are statistically significant differences between the fathers and mothers, these differences were not consistent within the family units. Also, though there is congruence between the fathers and adult children, and the mothers and adult children, on this scale of financial provider, there is not the internal consistency that supports the hypothesis when establishing the line at .66. However, repeated measures indicates congruence and is the primary statistical method. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.338; p=.033) and the mothers and 106 adult children (r=.456; p=.003) in the scale of financial provider. See Table 22. Modeling Rankings. Next to financial provider, the modeling scale (Table 5) ranked highest (4.534). These strong fathers ranked very high on the following items (Tables 6,11,12): "Being a good example to my children" (4.606), "Being a mature role model to my children" (4.592), "Avoiding habits or actions that I do not want my children doing" (4.494), "Demonstrating emotional maturity to my children" (4.492), and "Modeling behavior that I want my children to perform" (4.474). In comparison to the mothers and adult children, the fathers ranked themselves lower, though positive, on all the items related to modeling. Strong fathers do not feel as positive about themselves as the other family members yet appear to perceive themselves as good models (4.281). Differences. Modeling showed significant differences within the family units (Table 16). The mothers (4.695) and the adult children (4.675) rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.000) than the fathers (4.271) rated themselves. Specifically, on the item (FP43) "Being a good example to my children" the mothers 107 ranked the fathers significantly higher (p=.027) than the fathers did (Table 18). Congruence. Because there was no statistically significant difference between the mothers and adult children within family units, these two groups evidence congruence concerning modeling. Alpha was .7893 (Table 20). Where there are statistically significant differences between groups within the family units and high Alphas there is high consistency on the differences within the family units. It might be said that there is a similar pattern within each family unit concerning the differences. In other words, though there is a less than .05 level between mothers and fathers, and adult children and fathers, this difference between groups showed a pattern of difference that was highly consistent. As well, there is a pattern of agreement between the mothers and adult children since Alpha is above .66. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.415; p=.013), the fathers and children (r=.157; p=.021), and the mothers and children (r=.611; p=.000). See Table 22. W Rankings. This scale (Table 5) was third highest (4.494). All four items scored very high (Tables 6,11,12): "Knowing what to do in a family crisis" 108 (4.486), "Handling a crisis in a mature manner" (4.513), "Being able to deal with crisis in a positive manner" (4.494), and "Being ’level-headed’ during a crisis" (4.454). Differences. The adult children (4.660) and mothers (4.590) rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.002) than the fathers (4.264) did (Table 16). Though the fathers rated significantly lower, they still rated themselves very high on this practice. Concerning certain items, "Knowing what to do in a family crisis" was rated significantly higher (p=.013) by the mothers and adult children than the fathers rated themselves. The mothers rated the fathers significantly higher than the fathers rated themselves on the item, "Being able to deal with crisis in a positive manner" (Table 18). Congruence. There is no statistically significant difference between the mothers and adult children on this scale; therefore, there is congruence. Within the family units there is a high Alpha (.7344) on dealing with family crisis (Table 20). There are statistically significant differences between the fathers and mothers, and the fathers and the adult children within the family units, using repeated measures, yet because a higher Alphas exists there is higher consistency on the differences within the family units. It might be said that there is a similar pattern 109 within each family unit concerning the differences. Between the adult children and mothers, where there is no statistical difference the higher Alpha indicates a pattern of agreement. In other words, though there is a less than .05 level between mothers and fathers, and adult children and fathers, this difference between groups showed a pattern of difference that was highly consistent. On the other hand, a pattern of agreement exists between the mothers and adult children since Alpha is above .66. Correlations. There are statistically significant correlations (Table 22) between the fathers and mothers (r=.515; p=.001), the fathers and children (r=.353; p=.035), and mothers and children (r=.437; p=.008). WW Ranking. This was the highest ranked practice (4.474) that on the repeated measures showed no statistically significant differences (Table 5). Though the scales of financial provider, modeling and dealing with family crisis ranked higher, each of these practices also showed statistically significant differences within family units. All fathers (4.441) ranked this second highest, only financial provider being higher. The total of four items received between a good and very good rating (Tables 6,11,12): "Setting limits for my children’s behavior" (4.536), "Being involved in the 110 discipline of my children" (4.455), "Correcting my children when they do something wrong" (4.416), and "Being responsible for disciplining my children" (4.373). Differences. On the scale of involvement in discipline scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). Congruence. That which is above .05 suggests agreement. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 from the repeated measures. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers within the family units, the fathers and adult children within the family units, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this practice of involvement in discipline. As a scale, involvement in discipline had an Alpha of .4617 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was below .66 which does not support the hypothesis to the extent expected. Though this diminishes the repeated measures finding that suggests there is congruence between fathers and mothers, fathers and adult children, and mothers and adult children within the family units, the repeated measures is still the weightier statistic. Correlations. There are no statistically significant correlations (Table 22). 111 W Rankings. The fathers were between good and very good (4.308) on this practice (Table 5). As one ranks the items within this practice, one observes two classifications (Tables 6,11,12). There are verbal aspects of affection (telling and thanking) which are higher, though not significantly so, than the physical aspects of affection (showing and touching). For instance, "Telling my children they have done a ’good job’ when they complete a task" (4.399) or "Sincerely thanking my children when they do something to help me or their mother" apparently for strong fathers is a measure easier to do than "Touching or hugging my child every day" (4.033). These fathers were viewed as "Having a close, intimate bond with my children" (4.328). Differences. On the showing affection scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). Congruence. That which is above .05 suggests agreement. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 from the repeated measures. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers, the fathers and adult children, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this practice of showing affection. 112 There was high internal consistency on Alpha, .8125 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was above .66. It is suggested that with this high Alpha there is high consistency of agreement or likeness between fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units concerning the showing of affection. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.687; p=.000), the fathers and children (r=.468; p-.003), and the mothers and children (r=.699; p=.000). See Table 22. W191! Ranking. This study found that marital interaction (Table 5) was rated between good and very good (4.250). The highest item was "Have a good relationship with my wife" (4.515), followed closely by, "Having a sexually fulfilling relationship with my wife" (4.480). The lowest item in the marital interaction was "Spending time with my wife away from the kids/children" (3.950). See Tables 6,11,12. Differences. On the marital interaction scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). On one item, the mothers (4.384) rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.033) than the 113 fathers (3.959) rated themselves on (FP28) "Spending time with my wife away from the children" (Table 18). Congruence. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 from the repeated measures. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers within the family units, the fathers and adult children within the family units, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this practice of marital interaction. Marital interaction had an Alpha of .7632 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was above .66. This Alpha suggests there is consistency of agreement between fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units concerning marital interaction. Correlations. There is a relationship between the mothers and adult children (r=.553 p=.001). See Table 22. While Ranking. These fathers (Table 5) were rated beyond "good" (4.112). They were better than "good" at knowing their children’s friends (4.439), gifts and talents (4.386), developmental abilities according to age (4.148), and plans and dreams (4.131). They were better than "fair" in knowing the issues their children were dealing with (3.933), their children’s weekly schedule 114 (3.893) , and their children’s heroes (3.629). See Tables 6,11,12. Differences. On the knowing my child scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). Congruence. Because nothing was below the .05 level, congruence is inferred. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers within the family units, the fathers and adult children within the family units, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this practice of knowing my child. The Alpha of the scale on knowing my child was .7185 (Table 20). The internal consistency between fathers, mothers, and adult children within the family units was above .66. This Alpha suggests consistency of agreement between fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units. Correlations. There is a relationship (Table 22) between the fathers and mothers (r=.647; p=.000), the fathers and children (r-.415; p=.013), and the mothers and children (r=.346; p=.042). W Ranking. These fathers were perceived as having "good" parental discussion relating to the children (4.096). See Table 5. Concerning the items (Tables 115 6,11,12), they were good at "Discussing my children’s development with my wife" (4.299) and "Discussing with my wife my children’s problems" (4.252). They were between fair and good at "Discussing goals for each child with my wife" (3.863), "Discussing my frustrations as a parent with my wife" (3.831). Differences. On the parental discussion scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). Congruence. Because nothing was below the .05 level, congruence is inferred. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers within the family units, the fathers and adult children within the family units, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this practice of parental discussion. The Alpha for this practice is .5981 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was below .66 which does not support the hypothesis to the extent expected. Though this reduces the impact of the repeated measures finding that suggests there is congruence between fathers and mothers, fathers and adult children, and mothers and adult children within the family units, the repeated measures is still the prevailing statistic. 116 Correlations. There is a relationship (Table 22) between the fathers and mothers (r=.453; p=.006). Wigs Rankings. The fathers were given a rating (Table 5) near "good" on freedom of expression (3.993). Ranking highest within this practice (Tables 6,11,12) were these two statements, "Being able to respond calmly when my children say hurtful things to me" (4.199) and "Allowing my children to disagree with me" (4.048). However, the statement "Responding calmly when my children do something with which I do not agree" received the lowest rating in this practice (3.812). Differences. On the freedom of expression scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). The statement "Responding calmly when my children do something with which I do not agree" was rated significantly higher by the mothers, above the fathers (Table 18). Congruence. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 from the repeated measures. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers within the family units, the fathers and adult children within the family units, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this practice of freedom of expression. 117 For the practice of freedom of expression, Alpha is .8191 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was above .66. This high Alpha suggests high consistency of agreement between fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units. Correlations. There is a relationship (Table 22) between the fathers and mothers (r=.784; p=.000), the fathers and children (r=.424; p=.016), and the mothers and children (r=.451; p=.010). Wagon Ranking. The three groups rated the fathers positively (3.971). See Table 5. On the individual item, "Taking an active role in my children’s education", all rated the strong fathers very high (4.454). Yet five of the fifteen lowest items on the fathering practices were related to specific educational involvements (Tables 6,11,12). An active role in education meant something other than helping to develop athletic skills (3.728), talking to their teachers about their progress (3.579), helping their children with their homework (3.710), having a specific plan to help their children grow (3.814), and teaching their children a skill (3.891). Though these fathers were rated positively, they were not viewed as active in these matters as compared to other practices. This active role may be associated with 118 helping the children understand what they were learning at school (4.107) and helping them develop their strengths and talents at school (4.167). Differences. Within the family units, the mothers (4.193) and adult children (4.128) significantly rated (p=.008) the fathers higher than the fathers rated themselves (3.776). See Table 16. On four items (Table 18), the adult children rated the fathers significantly higher than the fathers rated themselves: "Helping my children understand what they are learning at school" (p=.043); "Helping my children complete their homework" (p-.000); "Teaching my child a skill" (p=.028); and Talking with my children’s teachers about their progress" (p=.006). Congruence. Because there was no statistically significant difference between the mothers and adult children within family units, these two groups evidence congruence concerning this scale. As a scale, involvement in education had an Alpha of .8367 (Table 20). How can Alpha be high when there are differences between groups? There are statistically significant differences between the fathers and mothers, and the fathers and the adult children within the family units, using repeated measures, yet because a higher Alpha exists there is higher consistency on the differences within the family units. Between the adult 119 children and mothers, where there is no statistical difference the higher Alpha indicates a pattern of agreement. In other words, though there is a less than .05 level between mothers and fathers, and adult children and fathers, this difference between groups showed a pattern of difference that was highly consistent. On the other hand, a pattern of agreement exists between the mothers and adult children since Alpha is above .66. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.829; p=.000), the fathers and children (r=.599; p=.004), and the mothers and children (r-.500; p=.021). See Table 22. WW Ranking. Time commitment ranked second to the lowest (3.868), above spiritual development, yet, these fathers were still perceived positively by all three groups (Table 5). Concerning the various items, (Tables 6,11,12), "Scheduling time to spend time with my children" (3.641) and "Spending a lot of time with my children" (3.806) were not considered as high as other items. Two other items were viewed as "good": "Sacrificing some of my activities to spend time with my children" (4.064) and "Giving individual attention to each child everyday" (3.835). The question is: how much time did these fathers spend? The demographic section answered this. The 120 fathers said that they spent 8 hours weekly interacting with the children, the mothers said 7 hours, and the adult children said 6 hours. Probably the strong fathers interacted an hour a day, or more on the weekends. Differences. On the Time Commitment scale there were no statistically significant differences between fathers and mothers within the family, fathers and adult children within the family units, and mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). Congruence. Within the family units there was agreement about the Time Commitment of strong fathers. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 from the repeated measures. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers, the fathers and adult children, and the adult children and mothers within the family units. Alpha is .5993 for Time Commitment (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was below .66 which does not support the hypothesis to the extent expected. Though this lessens the impact of the repeated measures findings yet because the repeated measures is the stronger statistic the conclusion is that there is congruence between fathers and mothers, fathers and adult children, and mothers and adult children within the family units. 121 Correlations. There is a relationship (Table 22) between the fathers and mothers (r=.618 p=.000). Spiritual_nexelonment Rankings. Though the scores are positive (Table 5), these evangelical fathers were rated lowest on this practice by all three groups (3.842). In observing the rankings (Tables 6,11,12), two sub-groups surfaced: spiritual disciplines and spiritual communications. On the one hand, the spiritual disciplines of worshipping, reading the Bible and praying tended to rank the lowest of all fathering practices: "Having a family worship time" (3.224), "Reading the Bible with my family/ children often" (3.383) and "Praying with my children" (3.762). On the other hand, there seems to be a subgrouping called spiritual communications. Two of the highest ranked items were the statements, "Stressing the importance of Christian values" (4.568) and "Talking about spiritual things with my children" (4.367). The communication of Christian truth seems to be perceived by the mothers, adult children and fathers as something these strong fathers did between good to very good. Differences. On the Spiritual Development scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). 122 Congruence. That which is above .05 implies agreement. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 from the repeated measures. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers, the fathers and adult children, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this practice of Spiritual Development. Spiritual Development had an Alpha of .8753 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was above .66. This high Alpha strongly suggests that there is high consistency of agreement or likeness between fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units. Correlations. There is a relationship (Table 22) between the fathers and mothers (r=.772; p=.000), the fathers and children (r=.629; p=.004), and the mothers and children (r=.730; p=.000). W W Rankings. This was the highest ranked satisfaction scale at 5.807 (Table 5). These scores reflect a Likert scale of 7. The dimensions and practices reflect a scale of 5. As for the items (Tables 6,14,15), the two highest items within this scale were satisfaction "with the way your children are growing up" (6.167) and "with your relationship with your children" (5.945). Combined these 123 had a "very satisfied" classification. Lower than these was the fathers self rating, satisfaction "with yourself as a father" (5.309). Differences. On the Satisfaction with Your Fathering Role scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). Congruence. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 from the repeated measures. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers, the fathers and adult children, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this satisfaction scale. Alpha was .6959 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was above .66. The general conclusion is drawn that there is congruence of agreement or likeness between fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.546 p=.000), the fathers and children (r=.425; p=.006), and the mothers and children (r=.408; p=.008). See Table 23. Wailing Rankings. This scale (Table 5), Satisfaction With Leadership Abilities, was second highest (5.716). Concerning the items (Tables 6,14,15), these 3 groups 124 perceived that the fathers received respect (5.905) and recognition (5.690) as the family leader. They also were satisfied with their ability as the family leader (5.503). Differences. On the Satisfaction with Leadership Abilities scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). Congruence. Because nothing was below .05 congruence is inferred between the fathers and mothers, the fathers and adult children, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this satisfaction scale. Alpha is .6859 (Table 20). This Alpha suggests there is consistency of agreement between fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units. The internal consistency between groups within the family units was above .66. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.639 p=.000), and the fathers and children (r=.492; p=.003). See Table 23. WW Rankings. The three groups perceived the fathers as more than somewhat satisfied (Table 5) with the verbal interaction (5.442). Of the three items (Tables 6,14,15), they were most satisfied with how much their 125 children talked to them (5.587), followed closely by their satisfaction with their ability to talk to their children (5.563). They felt a measure less satisfied with their ability to express themselves (5.174). Differences. The satisfaction with verbal interaction scale showed no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). Nothing was below .05. Congruence. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers, the fathers and adult children, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this satisfaction scale. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 from the repeated measures. Alpha was .6639 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was above .66. This level of Alpha suggests there is congruence of agreement or likeness between fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units concerning their responses to this scale. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.554 p=.000), the fathers and children (r=.337; p=.015), and the mothers and children (r-.464; p=.002). See Table 23. W 126 Rankings. The perception was that fathers were a measure above "somewhat satisfied" (5.209) in terms of satisfaction with support (Table 5). In observing the items (Tables 6,14,15), the wife was rated highest in support (5.761), followed by the church (5.510), friends (5.008), other men (4.952), and closest living relatives (4.829). Differences. On the Satisfaction with Support From Others scale there were no statistically significant differences between the fathers, mothers and adult children within the family units (Table 16). Congruence. There is congruence between the fathers and mothers, the fathers and adult children, and the adult children and mothers within the family units on this satisfaction scale. Congruence is inferred from the finding that nothing was below .05 from the repeated measures. Alpha is .5653 (Table 20). The internal consistency between groups within the family units was below .66 which does not support the hypothesis to the extent expected. Though this reduces the impact of the repeated measures finding that suggests there is congruence between fathers and mothers, fathers and adult children, and mothers and adult children within the family units, the repeated measures is still the stronger statistical 127 procedure. Because there is nothing significantly different, congruence is still present. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.530 p=.001), and the mothers and children (r=.336; p=.048). See Table 23. thlflhggd Rankings. The Satisfaction With Your Childhood scale consisted of the lowest ratings of the 18 items (4.665) on a Likert Scale of 7 (Table 5). The following three were the lowest (Tables 6,14,15), being answered "mixed": "How satisfied were you with your relationship to your father while growing up?" (4.135), "How satisfied are you with the guidance you received from your parents while growing up? (4.468)" and "How satisfied were you with your childhood?" (4.770). The more positive rating dealt with the fathers’ mothers (5.286). Differences. On the scale (Table 16), the fathers (4.878) rated themselves significantly higher (p=.011) in Childhood Satisfaction than did the adult children (4.427). There were differences on two items (Table 19). The fathers (5.050) rated themselves significantly higher (p=.015) than the adult children (4.488) on the item (F81) "How satisfied were you with your childhood?" Also, the fathers (5.561) rated themselves significantly higher (p=.024) than the adult children (5.048) on the 128 item (F811) "How satisfied were you with your relationship to your mother growing up?" Congruence. Fathers and mothers, and mothers and adult children were congruent on this scale of Satisfaction with Your Childhood. Alpha was .8571 (Table 20): The statistically significant differences between the fathers and the adult children showed a similar pattern within each family unit concerning the differences. Between the fathers and mothers, and mothers and adult children there was internal consistency or a relatively high pattern of agreement. Correlations. There is a relationship between the fathers and mothers (r=.826 p=.000), the fathers and children (r=.727; p=.000), and the mothers and children (r-.702; p=.000). See Table 23. Hypotheses Testing Objective one was to determine if there is congruence between fathers, mothers and adult children on the four dimensions. The first research question asked: Is there congruence between fathers and mothers on the four dimensions? There is no statistically significant difference between the fathers’ reports and mothers’ reports as measured by the Repeated Measures (Table 16). Hypothesis 1 is supported: 129 H1. There is congruence between fathers’ report and mothers’ report on the four dimensions of awareness, involvement, nurturance and consistency. The second research question asked: Is there congruence between fathers and adult children on the four dimensions? As reported by the Repeated Measures (Table 16), there is no statistically significant difference between fathers’ report and adult children’s except with consistency. Hypothesis 2 is essentially supported: H2. There is congruence between fathers, report and the adult children’s report on three dimensions of awareness, involvement, and nurturance There is a statistically significant difference between fathers’ report and adult children’s report on consistency. Alpha is .7720 suggesting internal consistency of difference within the family units. The third research question asked: Is there congruence between mothers and adult children on the four dimensions? There is no statistically significant difference between the mothers’ report and the adult children’s report as indicated by the Repeated Measures (Table 16). Hypothesis 3 is supported: H3. There is congruence between mothers’ report and adult children’s report on the four dimensions of awareness, involvement, nurturance and consistency. Objective two was to determine if there is congruence between fathers, mothers and adult children on the twelve practices. 130 The fourth research question asked: Is there congruence between fathers and mothers on the twelve practices? Except for four of the twelve practices, (financial provider, modeling, dealing with family crisis and involvement in education) there is no statistically significant difference between fathers and mothers (Table 16). The hypothesis is generally supported: H4. There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and mothers’ reports on the eight practices of time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, showing affection, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. There are statistically significant differences between the fathers’ reports and mothers’ reports on modeling, dealing with family crisis, and involvement in education. Respectively, Alphas are .7893, .7344, and .8367 suggesting consistency of difference within the family units on these practices. There is a statistically significant difference between the fathers’ reports and mothers’ reports on financial provider. Alpha is .6525 suggesting lower internal consistency of difference. However, all three groups ranked this practice the highest of all practices suggesting meaningful congruence. The fifth research question asked: Is there congruence between fathers and adult children on the twelve practices? Except for three of the twelve practices, (modeling, dealing with family crisis, and involvement in education) there is no statistically 131 significant difference between fathers and adult children (Table 16). H5. Hypothesis 5 is generally supported: There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on nine practices of time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, showing affection, financial provider, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. There are statistically significant differences between the fathers’ reports and adult children’s reports on modeling, dealing with family crisis, and involvement in education. Respectively, Alphas are .7893, .7344, and .8367 suggesting consistency of difference within the family units on these practices. The sixth research question asked: Is there congruence between mothers and adult children on the twelve practices? There is no statistically significant difference between the mothers’ reports and adult children’s reports as measured by the Repeated Measures (Table 16). H6. Hypothesis 6 is supported: There is congruence between the mothers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on the twelve practices of time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, involvement in education, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, dealing with crisis, showing affection, modeling, financial provider, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. Objective three was to determine if there is congruence between fathers, mothers and adult children on the five satisfactions. 132 Research question seven asked: Is there congruence between fathers and mothers on the five satisfactions? There is no statistically significant difference between the fathers’ reports and mothers’ reports as measured by the Repeated Measures (Table 16). Hypothesis 7 is supported: H7. There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and mothers’ reports on the five satisfactions of satisfaction with your childhood, satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. Research question eight asked: Is there congruence between fathers and adult children on the five satisfactions? There is no statistically significant difference between the fathers’ reports and adult children’s reports as measured by the Repeated Measures except satisfaction with your childhood (Table 16). Hypothesis 8 is generally supported: H8. There is congruence between the fathers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on four satisfactions of satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. There is a statistical difference between the fathers’ reports and adult children’s report on the Satisfaction with your childhood. Alpha is .8571 suggesting consistency of difference within the family units. 133 Research question nine asked: Is there congruence between mothers and adult children on the five satisfactions? There is no statistically significant difference between the mothers’ reports and adult children’s reports as measured by the Repeated Measures (Table 16). Hypothesis 9 is supported: H9. There is congruence between the mothers’ reports and the adult children’s reports on the five satisfactions of satisfaction with your childhood, satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. Objective four was to determine if there is agreement among the fathers, mothers and adult children on the four dimensions, twelve practices, and five satisfactions. Research question ten asked: Is there agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the four dimensions? There is no statistically significant difference among the fathers, mothers and adult children as measured by the Repeated Measures except on consistency (Table 16). Hypothesis 10 is generally supported: H10. There is agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on three of the four dimensions of involvement, awareness, and nurturance. 134 Research question eleven asked: Is there agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the twelve practices? There is no statistically significant difference among the fathers, mothers and adult children as measured by the Repeated Measures except on financial provider, modeling, dealing with family crisis, and involvement in education (Table 16). Hypothesis 11 is generally supported. H11. There is agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the eight practices of time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, showing affection, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. Research question twelve asked: Is there agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on the five satisfactions? There is no statistically significant difference among the fathers, mothers and adult children as measured by the Repeated Measures except on satisfaction with your childhood (Table 16). Hypothesis 12 is supported: H12. There is agreement among the three family members (the strong father, wife and adult child within the specific family unit) on four satisfactions: satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. 135 summary From the use of the Repeated Measures Design Analysis of Variance there is an inferred congruence within the family units on a large number of the scales because nothing was below p=.05. On the fathering dimensions there is an inferred congruence on nurturance, awareness, and involvement. On the fathering practices there is an inferred congruence on time commitment to children, involvement in discipline, marital interaction, parental discussion of children, showing affection, spiritual development, allowing freedom of expression, and knowing my child. On the fathering satisfactions there is an implied congruence on satisfaction with your fathering role, satisfaction with support from others, satisfaction with leadership abilities, and satisfaction with verbal relationship with children. Because of the high Alphas, congruence is suggested where there are statistical differences in that this high degree of internal consistency suggests a pattern of response in each family unit that is similar to the next family unit. On the fathering dimensions there is an inferred congruence of difference on consistency. On the fathering practices there is an inferred congruence of difference on modeling, dealing with family crisis and involvement in education. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overview of the Study First, since "family strengths" research on the normal or healthy family resulted in a valuable characterization of such families, a next natural step was to study individuals within the strong families - in this case, the strong father. Second, since "fatherhood" research called for more baseline data, self-reports of fathers, triadic perspectives on fathers, and fathering styles, then an appropriate course of action in "fatherhood" research was to provide such information. Third, since family theory and therapy assumed healthy families, hidden within that assumption were healthy fathers. This research, therefore, sought to provide information about the healthy fathers which could assist in theory-building and therapy related to fathers. The major purpose of this investigation was to discover and describe the congruence among and between strong fathers, their wives, and their adult children concerning the fathering style of strong fathers. Major Conclusions A profile of the strong, evangelical fathers seemed to emerge. In strong fathering there is: awareness developmentally of the children, consistency in dealing with and relating to the children, listening attentively 136 137 and caringly, modeling maturity and goodness, dealing with crisis knowledgeably and positively, and providing financially. These conclusions will be explained in the following discussion. Discussion of Findings The findings from the dimensions, practices, and satisfactions as these relate to the literature are reported. Several key questions are interwoven throughout this discussion: What has been found that was expected from the literature? What was found that was not expected from the literature? What was not found that was expected from the literature? This research, it is suggested, contributes uniquely in profiling paternal attitudes and actions of strong fathers. The Fathering Style Inventory with its four dimensions, twelve practices, five satisfactions, demographics and open-ended questions is designed to profile fathers in a more thorough way. No other Fathering Style Inventory exists of this magnitude (Canfield et al, 1989), and certainly no profiling of strong, traditional fathers has been undertaken. Though specific fathering behaviors and beliefs have been investigated by others (Saunders 8 Schuchts, 1987; Entwisle 8 Doering, 1988), this research provides a more extensive, though not exhaustive, overview of successful paternalism. As indicated in the Review of the 138 Literature, this profiling of strong fathers augments fathering research and strong family studies in that such analysis has apparently not occurred. In the discussion that ensues the findings suggest a set of insights into strong fathering which could be the first profile on strong fathers. This study distinctively evaluates fathering from a triadic perspective. No other study makes fathering the sole focal point from the angle of the mothers, adult children and fathers themselves. Though scales on fathering exist, they take the point of view of one family member (Saunders 8 Schuchts, 1987) or two (Entwisle 8 Doering, 1988). Triadic studies that are done on the family include inventories and scales which fathers answer but the focus is on parent behavior not father behavior per se. Comparisons on the parents’ child-rearing behavior are drawn between mothers, fathers and children (Schwarz, 1985, Kroger, 1983). Results of one study found that aggregating ratings of multiple family members greatly increased the reliability of ratings which lead to the recommendation for continued use of children’s reports as a means of measuring childrearing behavior (Schwarz 8 Mearns). This study would support this and contributes, therefore, to the literature through a triadic study of fathering performances and perspectives. 139 This study is not only triadic in its approach but is retrospective. Former studies used a retrospective method to ascertain subjects’ perceptions of their fathers’ behavior and availability toward them as children. Manzitti reports the use of Siegelman and Roes (1978) Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire II to assess the father-child relationship during childhood and the Love-Reject Factor score was used to measure the subjects’ perceptions of paternal nurturance during childhood. In addition, Reuter and Biller’s (1973) Paternal Availability Scale measured the subjects’ perceptions of their fathers availability during childhood (Manzitti, 1979). This investigation asked for a retrospective perception of fathers for the purpose of profiling from three groups: fathers, mothers and adult children. This retrospective approach had not been done before with a scale specifically designed for profiling fathering. The method of selecting strong fathers prior to taking the survey, which involved four people independently choosing fathers they considered strong according to five criteria, has been somewhat validated in that these fathers scored very positively on the 138 items (Table 6). Taking only those names of the fathers on all four lists definitely increased the probability that these men were successful dads. A similar method 140 was used in the strong family research (Stinnet, 1985) and this inquiry supports such an approach. One longitudinal study found that husbands’ judgments of their own effectiveness and wives’ judgment of their husbands’ effectiveness as fathers declined from birth onward (Entwisle 8 Doering, 1988). Though in this present investigation no earlier study was done to determine if the fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions declined, this would seem unlikely in light of the positive scores on every scale. This present research among strong fathers reveals that in the later years fathers, mothers and adult children can judge men’s overall fathering effectiveness as positive. If there had been a decline, in the case of strong fathers, which is unknown, that decline did not lead to negative interpretations. Ecological theory views fathers and their environments as mutually shaping systems, each changing over time (Hanson, 1985). Such change need not be toward the negative, and if it is, it can change toward the positive. This inquiry into strong fathers found the retrospection of the fathers, mothers, and adult children to be positive of the fathers’ overall effectiveness. This could be predicted by family life cycle theory or developmentalism. The most turbulent period of a family’s life cycle tends to be during the adolescent 141 years (Pasley 8 Gecas, 1984) whereas the years with adult children are reported to be the most collegial and mutual (Hanson 8 Bozett). The older family tends to rate both their present relationships and past fathering more positively in that understanding tends to come with aging, particularly with children. One study revealed that relationships between fathers and sons involved many dimensions, changes over time, and sustained tensions, which typically remained unresolved until the sons were in their 30’s but which then became more positive (author left off abstract, 1991). These findings on strong fathers are in keeping with family life cycle theory and other findings. An interesting finding on the 12 Practices is that the mothers rated the fathers higher than the fathers rated themselves on all of the Fathering Practices (Table 5). Social desirability may have influenced this. The wives were not unaware of this high view. From the demographics section, in being asked to rate their husbands as fathers on a scale from 1 to 10, one being extremely poor and ten being extremely good, the wives gave the fathers an 8.8 rating (Table 1). Thirty-five percent gave a perfect 10. Though they knew the husbands were not perfect these wives felt these men were extremely good fathers. One study found that when fathers were highly participant mothers praised their 142 husbands’ parenting (Baruch 8 Barnett, 1986), which seems true in this investigation. Numerous studies have been done on various satisfactions among custodial fathers (Greif, 1987,1985; Risman, 1986; Ambert, 1982), non-custodial fathers (Koch 8 Lowery, 1984), new fathers (Feldman, 1983), fathers of autistic children (Milgram 8 Atzil, 1988), fathers of disabled children (Margalit et al, 1989), gay fathers (Robinson, 1982) and midlife fathers (Ulrich, 1989). Apparently, researchers have gravitated toward the study of satisfaction as it relates to stress (Pasley 8 Gecas, 1984). Certainly no research on strong fathers and general satisfactions has been pursued. This research is not concerned with satisfactions and stresses but with satisfactions related to childhood, fathering role, support from others, leadership abilities, and verbal relationships with children. These findings can contribute to our knowledge. Dimensions Consistency The following information is a significant clue to strong fathering. Ranking highest among all three groups (Table 5) on the dimensions was consistency (4.207). Six of the eleven items were above 4.5000 (Tables 6,8). The following were nearing the "mostly true" categorization: "My children know what to expect from me" (4.773), "I try 143 not to vary much in the way that I deal with my children" (4.711), "How I relate to my children (does not) change often" (4.556), "I do not change much in the way I deal with my children" (4.595), "I am predictable in the way I relate to my children" (4.602), and "I feel the way I deal with my children does not change much from day to day" (4.621). These strong fathers were consistently dealing with and relating to their children. In "dealing with" the children, this suggests predictability in handling or managing situations that arise in relationship to the children. In "relating" to the children, this suggests predictability of manner and mood. As one studies certain practices, which are discussed below, it can be suggested, if the high rank orders point in this direction, that this consistency was especially apparent in the way they modeled, dealt with family crisis, disciplined and showed affection. It would also appear that this consistency was rooted in a commitment to a set of principles or standards as evidenced by their stressing the importance of Christian values (4.568) and setting limits for behavior (4.536). Within the family units, though, significant differences (p=.043) were observed between the adult children and the fathers (Table 16). The adult children (4.301) scored the fathers higher than the fathers did 144 (4.060). Apparently, the fathers perceived themselves as less consistent in certain areas, being a measure harder on themselves. In a sense this difference is encouraging in that fathers can feel themselves less consistent, resulting in disappointment and guilt, yet the children do not always perceive it in the same way. One item on the consistency scale may suggest "boredom". The item, "What I do with my children does not change much from day to day", was scored by the adult children significantly higher (p=.030) than the fathers (Table 17). In other words, the fathers felt they were bringing a measure of variety whereas the children may have felt things were somewhat the same day after day. It is uncertain what was in the minds of the respondents when answering this. Were these strong fathers inflexible in the sense that they refused to make proper adjustments as the children grew? One dimension, awareness, to be discussed below, shows the strong fathers as developmentally aware. Without question the strong fathers were sensitive to necessary changes based on the development of the child. These dads changed according to the growth stages of the children. This developmental awareness is a characteristic of these evangelical, strong fathers. Though consistency is cited in psychoanalytical observations as an important feature of paternalism, 145 especially during adolescence (Furman, 1986), more detailed or research-based information on consistency by fathers has not been reported. This research appears to have provided new information on paternal consistency. Though consistency was deemed important by others (Furman, 1986), such importance was not weighed in light of other fathering issues. One unpublished work (Block) revealed the impact of consistency on children, especially adolescents, but no findings apparently exist on comparing and rating paternal consistency relative to other fathering practices and dimensions as this inquiry does. HBIEBIQDQQ This dimension was second in rank order (Table 5). It was "somewhat true" that these fathers were nurturing (4.074). These fathers scored higher on nurturance than they did on awareness and involvement. Only consistency ranked higher on the dimensions. As this scale is observed, nurturance seems to have three sub-dimensions: listening (4,22,25,40,51), affirmation (6,9,15,43,55), and affection (24,36,37). nurturance consisted of 14 items (Table 6). Of great interest is that 5 of these 14 pertained to listening, which surfaced as a clear sub-dimension. All five items on listening were above 4.3. Listening is a clue to fathering strengths (Table 9). That which is "mostly 146 true" are the following: "I show my children that I care when they share a problem with me" (4.738), "I listen to my children when they talk to me" (4.704), "I pay attention to my children when they speak to me" (4.659), and "When my children are upset, I usually try to listen to them" (4.591). That listening has been an interpersonal virtue, few would deny. But this research would not have predicted the high association between strong fathers and listening. This may be one of the richest findings in this study. Another investigation disclosed that middle class fathers show more empathy than do fathers from other classes (Kalliopuska, 1984) but empathy, given it involves listening, was not compared to other fathering qualities. This study by drawing comparisons has found listening rated extremely high when profiling strong fathers, and may reveal this to be a sub-dimension or a 'fathering practice of great significance for future research. The literature reports that nurturing is that quality both adults and older youth report as more needful in fathers (Eversoll, 1979). The literature also demonstrates that men are capable of forming intense reciprocal nurturing attachments (Pruett, 1983), and in some instances mutual affection is the basis for good relations with adult daughters (author left off abstract, 147 1991). One study found that fathers were turned to by 5th and 6th grade children more for affection and enhancement of worth than to grandparents, siblings, friends and teachers, and somewhat equally with mothers (Furman 8 Buhrmester, 1985). The present research indicates that some fathers can and do nurture; in this case strong evangelical fathers do. In light of the positive scores on nurturance, it can be an unfair assessment to say that traditional fathers are cold and distant (Fein, 1978). True, in terms of constantly telling the children of their love (3.881) or hugging (3.729), these fathers did not score as high, when compared to other aspects of nurturance, like listening and affirming. But that they scored positively in reference to affection is also true. Consequently, stereotypical thinking can be mistaken concerning various fathers within certain subcultures. For example, Mirande (1991) found that Latino fathers did not conform to traditional portrayals found in the literature. Rather than being cold, distant figures, Latino fathers often appeared to be warm, nurturing, and companionable. Mirande indicated that one reason for this misunderstanding is due to researchers and practioners lacking a true understanding or appreciation of the subculture. This research reveals that the perceptions of adult children, mothers and fathers about 148 strong evangelical fathers is that these men nurture. Their listening, affirmation and affection were regarded as positive. To be sure, fathers can be cold and distant. One study in Poland reported that the mothers perceived the fathers as showing more coldness than their 7th grade children reported (Jaworowska, 1981). In this inquiry, conversely, there was congruence not only between the mothers and adult children but within each family unit. Further, the mothers (4.115) rated the fathers a measure higher than did the adult children (3.998). Also, there is a significant relationship between the mothers and adult children (r=386; p=.038) related to the fathers’ nurturance (Table 20). Aflilfinfififi The three groups (Table 5) positively ranked the strong fathers general awareness as "somewhat true" (4.0343). That fathers can be aware of their children in various areas, even similar in their knowledge to that of the mothers, has been found in other research (Kilman 8 VUkeliCh, 1985; Miller, 1986; Pasley 8 Gecas, 1984). At the same time, fathers can feel they lack awareness ranging from health issues to how to teach children, with the number one concern being lack of awareness of the developmental landmarks of the children (Kilman 8 Vukelich, 1985). 149 One of the most intriguing findings among these strong fathers was a characteristic that stands out: their awareness of the child’s development (Table 6). The awareness dimension consisted of 16 items, 6 of which dealt with developmental concerns (Tables 6,9). Notice the high rankings on the following six: "I know what my child needs in order to grow into a mature, responsible person" (4.677), "I have a good handle on how my child’s needs change as he/she grows up" (4.614), "I know what is reasonable to expect from my children for their age" (4.479), "I know how my child’s emotional needs change over time" (4.325), "I know my child’s growth needs" (4.323), and "I know how my children compare with other children developmentally" (4.262). As mentioned, one study among fathers revealed that they lacked knowledge of the developmental landmarks in their children and deemed learning the developmental milestones as the most important feature to grasp (Kilman 8 Vukelich, 1985). To discover that strong fathers are perceived as successful in this area suggests that developmental awareness may be a clue to strong fathering. Yet, because these strong fathers were not rated as "mostly" aware on all 16 items and because significant differences on two items were discovered on the awareness dimension (Table 17), a closer look disclosed a specific 150 area of interest. Though the fathers rated positively on the scale (3.988), apparently, the strong fathers are less conscious and attentive to that which upsets the child. Between the adult children and the fathers a significant difference was discovered on the statement: "I know when my child is upset about something" (p=.012). Interestingly, the statement "I know when I’ve hurt my child’s feelings" (p=.059) and "I could identify most of my child’s recent disappointing experiences" (p=.051) came very close to being significantly different. Both statements reinforce the suggestion that strong fathers were not as aware of some of the inner struggles of their children. One study found that mothers were more aware than fathers of others’ feelings (Hertsgaard 8 Light, 1984), and though comparisons were not made with mothers in this study, these findings suggest fathers may not be as perceptive of the inward distresses as the rest of the family unit is or expects. These discoveries suggest that even strong fathers can be imperceptive of the emotional distresses coming to their children. The emotional pain of offspring can be overlooked by the best of fathers. These strong fathers may have compensated for some of this through their successful listening. This shortcoming, too, indicates that no father is perfect. Though this is not to justify 151 any wrongdoing, it portrays a view that implies fathering is more of a process than an achievement. Like in medicine, one is "practicing". The Fathering Practices implies this. Another issue that surfaced is the strong fathers’ awareness of their children’s friends. As for the means among the 3 groups, they reported very positively on the fathers’ familiarity with the friends (4.548) and knowing the names of the best friends (4.426). Under the practice of knowing my child, these fathers indicate they knew their children’s friends. One cross-cultural study of fathers and mothers found only 56% knew their children’s friends well, 35% slightly, and 9% did not know them (Tsolov, 1985). Mothers were found to be significantly more interested in their children’s friendship than the fathers. Because of the high rankings relative to other items and because all three groups reported under the scale of knowing my child that the strong fathers were good at knowing their children’s friends, it can be suggested that strong fathers tend to be interested in and aware of their children’s friends. However, the repeated measures showed the item, "I am familiar with my child’s friends" (FD18), as scoring significantly lower (p=.041) by the adult children (3.722) compared to the fathers (4.611). See Table 17. This would be expected between the children and fathers. 152 W The overall ranking of the scores by all three groups confirms that the fathers were positively involved (3.530). This is unlike one study in which university students reported on the behavior of their fathers when the students were 16. The fathers were viewed as hostilely detached whereas the mothers were the ones viewed as positively involved (Kroger, 1983). Though this research on strong fathers does not include a comparison with mothers, it could be argued that these fathers were viewed by the adult children (3.371) as positively involved, and definitely not hostilely detached. There were statistically significant differences on three items (Table 17). On the item "I often discuss things with my child" was rated higher (p=.024) by the mothers than by the adult children. The mothers felt more positive about this than did the children. Differences were observed on the item, "When my child is working, I like to be present." The mothers and the adult children rated the fathers higher (p=.012) on this than did the fathers. They may have interpreted the item to mean that the fathers saw themselves as supervisors who felt they needed to be present because of child irresponsibility. Whereas the fathers may have interpreted the comment "I like to be present" to mean 153 they enjoyed being present when the children worked which may not have been the case; thus they scored it lower. This may partially explain the variance in response. Also, differences were seen on the item "I frequently read stories to my child" with the fathers and mothers scoring significantly higher (p=.016) than did the adult children. The adult children (2.800) did not feel there was frequent reading. This statement also received the lowest mean score (3.316) among all the items on the dimensions. A possible explanation is that the mothers and fathers remembered the early years of reading whereas the adult children do not have that as part of their consciousness. Though the strong fathers were positively involved, this scale ranked lowest of the four dimensions (3.530). Seven of the ten lowest items pertained to involvement. This may be best explained by observing the individual items. Specific clusters revealed areas that strong fathers rated lower than in other areas. One category of involvement is working together. As a cluster, the three groups rated working together lowest of any sub- dimension. Three statements were lowest: "My child and I (seldom) have time to work together" (3.564), "I often work together with my child on a project" (3.712), "When my child is working, I like to be present" (3.610), and a 154 component of working, "My children accompany me on errands" (3.856). This sub-dimension of "working together" does not seem to be a focus in family studies. Perhaps the shift from an agricultural society makes this more of a moot point in fathering research. There is a mindset in some that the shift away from the farm has removed the positive effects of working together as a family. Though such activities can be, and no doubt were with many, avenues for building close-knit families, this research shows that fathers can be successful apart from working together with their children. This isn’t to suggest it is unimportant but that it did not surface as a vital link to strong paternalism. Seemingly, they did not play games to the extent expected. Because play is a focus in numerous studies (Russell 8 Russell, 1987), this finding is of interest. The item "I (rarely) have time to play games with my children" (3.448) was the second lowest item on the dimensions. Even the item, "I spend time playing with my child a couple times a week" (3.903) was low. "My child and I spend a lot of time together" (3.736) ranked near the lowest. Having said this, the demographics reveal these fathers as spending 7 hours weekly with the children. What the strong fathers meant by "a lot of time" is relative to that figure. Also, the conclusion 155 is not to be drawn that these fathers did not often interact joyfully with their children. One item shows they did. "My child and I often have fun together" (4.349) was rated higher. This isn’t to argue that playing is expendable but that there is more to fathering than playing. At the same time, having fun is important. Apparently, in the 7 hour block of time more "formal" playing was not participated in compared to other items yet there was fun. Perhaps these father were spontaneous with the children on a daily basis with a measure of lightheartedness and humor. Are strong fathers to be seen as uninvolved and that fathers can be told it doesn’t matter about involvement? Again, the ratings are positive though not as high as others. And further, all groups ranked quite high this statement, "I am involved in my child’s life" (4.603). How is this statement to be reconciled with the others? First, the fathers on average spent 7 hours weekly interacting with the children or on average an hour a day. Second, as mentioned, involvement has clusters. There seems to be the activity involvement on the one hand, and the verbal/ cognitive involvement on the other. Spending a lot of time together working, playing and reading is the activity cluster viewed lower than cognitive interaction. The statement, "I often discuss things with my child" (4.774) was rated high as an item 156 of involvement. Such cognitive interaction may pertain to problem-solving issues or family crisis, as will be seen in the discussion below under involvement in education and dealing with family crisis. One study found that father involvement was related to the child’s problem-solving behavior and that the time fathers spent was more related to sociocognitive type issues (Easterbrook 8 Goldberg, 1984). These strong fathers then were not as involved in working, playing and reading, though they did this, as compared to being involved in discussions. They tended to be more verbal/ cognitive than activity oriented. Probably the fathers remember their involvements more when the children were older which reflects the discussion of things, whereas when younger they tended to play and read more. Traditional fathers can be involved sufficiently to be strong effective fathers. These fathers were involved even though the mothers were in the home. Much is being researched on mothers’ work as a determinant for paternal involvement, suggesting that this can be a good thing for the father-child relationship (Russell, 1982). That mothers’ outside employment can predict fathers’ participation (Barnett 8 Baruch, 1987) there is little question. That mother’s employment is a better or good thing when it triggers father involvement is still in question (Lamb et al, 1985). It has been found that some 157 dual-career fathers increase their involvement with their children at the expense of harmonious marital relations (Crouter et al, 1987). Disharmony in marriage has been found to be a second order effect that can adversely effect the father-child relationship (Brody, 1986). Also, research has been done on fathers who have extensive involvement in primary care and the conclusions are drawn that they are closer to their children and thus have a more meaningful relationship (Russell, 1982). That househusband types can spend more time with their children is obvious but that it leads to a more meaningful relationship over the family life cycle has not been proven. These strong fathers did not spend 25 hours a week in caregiving yet they appear to have a close relationship with their offspring. Further, even if to some the prudent path to walk is that of becoming househusbands, findings related to employed men’s housework and child-care involvement reveal that there has been no significant convergence of men’s and women’s roles (Coverman 8 Sheley, 1986). For the traditionalists who wonder if a father can be meaningfully involved with his children, apart from working mothers or being househusbands, yet be the sole breadwinner, these strong fathers evidence that it can happen. The wives did not work full time outside the home but did work on average 17 hours weekly. 158 Practices The following twelve practices are discussed in order of their ranking. Wider This practice ranked highest (4.859) nearing a "very good" rating. Strong fathers are financial providers. As with the scales of modeling, dealing with family crisis and involvement in education, the scale of financial provider showed significant differences within each family unit (Table 16), as the repeated measures showed (p=.006). The mothers (4.950) ranked the fathers higher than the fathers did (4.747). Correlations reveal relationships between the fathers and mothers (p=.033) and the mothers and adult children (p=.003). But though the strong fathers felt significantly less positive about this practice than did the mothers, the fathers still ranked this highest. Their income level being over $50,000 suggests why they felt so positive. Other research indicates that fathers and other family members can feel quite positive about the income provider role of the father (Altergott, 1988). The level of income, however, is not an absolute determinant in contributing to the positive feelings about the financial provider role in that even in the lower classes this has been found (Barnett et al, 1984). Is this high ranking a clue to strong fathering? The 159 several thousand fathers who have taken the survey all ranked this as highest (Canfield et al, 1989). There seems to be no distinctive difference among strong fathers with reference to the scale of financial provider. This was expected. On the other hand, for those who assume if fathers are traditional providers that they will tend to be only this, in a one dimensional sense, and thus not involved nor nurturing, this research contradicts that notion. Other research has shown that while the provider role is the salient feature among fathers it is not the sole feature and, in fact, as the fathers’ ability to provide exists there is evidence this makes the execution of other fathering roles possible (Cazenave, 1979). This research on strong fathers seems to coincide with this. A question arises, do those fathers who provide well expand their fathering roles, or do those who desire to father well, make sure they can provide? Which comes first is not known, although some say economic provision is essential to all paternal modalities and styles (Cazenave, 1979) and participation (McAdoo, 1985). This researcher leans toward the belief that good fathers will become good providers. Not all fathers who provide are necessarily effective fathers. And studies on deserting fathers reveal that fathers who abandoned their fathering 160 roles tend to abdicate their financial role too (Synder, 1979). This isn’t to suggest, though, that job loss or unemployment among fathers or the deserving poor fathers reveals these are bad dads. And this isn’t to suggest that financial success has nothing to do with fathering since it does (Cazenave, 1979). And it isn’t to suggest that financial stress will have no ill-effect on fathers since it does (Marotz, 1988, Gordon, 1989). But it would appear in light of this research that if strong fathers cannot provide adequately due to economic hardship, they will not allow the stress to significantly change their fathering, though it will be less than what it could be. Though fathers in the face of economic loss can become irritable, pessimistic, less nurturant, and more punitive and arbitrary in their interactions (McLoyd, 1989), strong fathers from this research reveal that their strength in dealing with family crisis will probably seek to counter this. It is suggested that economic hardship can reveal the quality of a man’s character in relation to his children, and apparently these fathers evidenced this over the lifetime of the adult children and to the mothers. Certainly, other research (Robinson et al, 1985) indicates that some fathers from black lower class intact families functioned as effective fathers. Their 161 financial stresses did not undermine their fathering effectiveness and may have even evidenced it. This present inquiry confirms the self-image many fathers have of themselves as financial providers. Even contrary to the prevailing wisdom that black men from lower intact families have abdicated their provider role, both fathers and families see them as the main providers (Robinson et al, 1985). It seems either nature or nurture is keeping this financial provider role lodged in the psyche of husbands and fathers. Western Culture itself is expecting divorced fathers (Haskins et al, 1985) to be financial providers. With the clear recognition of the femininization of poverty, society is viewing fathers as abdicating a fundamental role. In 1984 it was estimated that divorced fathers should have paid 3.6 times as much as they actually paid, totalling $26.6 billion (Haskins et al, 1985). Even in dual earner families where husband and wife subscribe to a financial egalitarianism, fathers are not fulfilling tasks on the domestic front (Lupri, 1988). This suggests they still feel their primary and fundamental role is that of financial provider. Modeling Next to the scale of financial provider, this scale ranked highest (4.534). These strong fathers ranked very high on the following items: "Being a good example to my 162 children" (4.606), "Being a mature role model to my children" (4.592), "Avoiding habits or actions that I do not want my children doing" (4.494), "Demonstrating emotional maturity to my children" (4.492), and "Modeling behavior that I want my children to perform" (4.474). In the general rank ordering, the fathers ranked themselves lower, though positive, on all the items. Strong fathers do not feel as positive about themselves as the other family members yet appear to perceive themselves as good models (4.281). Modeling showed significant differences within the family units (Table 16). On the scale, the mothers (4.695) and the adult children (4.675) rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.000) than the fathers (4.271) rated themselves. Specifically, on the item (FP43) "Being a good example to my children" the mothers ranked the fathers significantly higher (p=.001) than the fathers. Also, the item "Modeling behavior that I want my children to perform" was ranked significantly higher (p=.016) by the mothers and adult children than by the fathers. On the item "Avoiding habits or actions that I do not want my children doing" the mothers rated fathers significantly higher (p=.037) than the fathers did themselves. As one considers the data and makes comparisons, reasonable speculations can be made about the types of 163 behavior being modeled. One, modeling consistency in dealing with and relating to the children, as earlier discussed, was happening. Two, in being consistent relationally, from the nurturance dimension it was realized that these fathers came across as good listeners. Three, these strong fathers showed how to deal with family crisis. When stress came to the family and a problem needed solving, these fathers portrayed something both in their demeanor and problem-solving skills that caught the attention of the family unit. Four, like most fathers, except those who have divorced or abandoned the family and are refusing to provide financial support, these fathers modeled the financial provider role. Five, as one observes marital interaction, a good relationship with the wives was visible. And six, from the open-ended question on contributing to Christian growth, the fathers were seen as models of authentic and intrinsic religiosity. From the data, then, it seems modeling is strong in consistency, listening, dealing with family crisis, financial provider, marital interaction and spiritual development which may provide insights into the successful secrets of the strong evangelical fathers. In the early years of paternal research, father absence was found to affect children’s cognitive and social development. Cross-cultural and cross-national 164 studies revealed that fathers who are absent are unable to serve as either positional or personal role models (Robin, 1979). For example, delinquent males were compared with non-delinquent males in terms of their perceptions of their fathers. Those insulated from delinquency had fathers who provided a stable model for emulation by his male offspring (Smith 8 Walters, 1978). Because these strong fathers ranked high as models, it is assumed that strong evangelical fathers are those fathers who model successfully, in part, due to their presence in the family, not absence. In other words, it appears fathers will not be as strong if they are absent. Social Learning theory suggests that if fathers are to be role models, they need to be present. W This scale was third highest. And, as with the scales of financial provider and modeling, the practice of dealing with family crisis showed significant differences within each family unit, as the repeated measures showed (Table 16). On this scale the adult children (4.660) and mothers (4.590) rated significantly higher (p=.002) the fathers than the fathers (4.264) did. Though the family units were positive about the fathers, the adult children and mothers were especially so. The adult children and mothers rated fathers significantly higher (p=.001) on the item "Knowing what to do in a 165 family crisis" than the fathers rated themselves. The mothers scored significantly higher (p=.013) than the fathers on the item "Being able to deal with crisis in a positive manner." The overall means on the scale of dealing with family crisis revealed that it rated in the top three, with financial provider and modeling. The following items scored very high: "Knowing what to do in a family crisis" (4.486), "Handling a crisis in a mature manner" (4.513), "Being able to deal with crisis in a positive manner" (4.494), and "Being ’level-headed’ during a crisis" (4.454). These fathers dealt with crisis knowledgeably, positively, maturely and calmly. Not all fathers deal with crisis in this manner. Fathers can respond with increased irritability and pessimism, and be less nurturant and more punitive and arbitrary in their interactions when serious stress comes (McLoyd, 1989). The general conclusion about family violence is that it tends to be a male problem suggesting that some fathers who interpret events as crises (McCubbin 8 Patterson, 1983) do not deal with these situations with a level-head. In studies comparing functional and dysfunctional families differences have been observed in the area of problem-solving strategies (Simon et al 1985) in that functional families solve problems more effectively. Dysfunctional families and 166 fathers do not strategize effectively to solve problems. One examination of adolescent females revealed that in comparison to mothers, fathers were perceived as standing up better under pressure (Hertsgaard 8 Light, 1984). In this study, it cannot be known if the adult children and mothers view fathers as better than mothers in dealing with family crisis but that these fathers were rated near "very good" by all three groups (4.5118) indicates a very positive view toward strong fathers under pressure. Such a strength would have been expected with strong fathers and was found. This practice may be one of the clues to strong fathers. As for these strong fathers, they scored significantly lower on this scale than the mothers and adult children. These findings suggest that if fathers intend to be strong fathers this does not mean they will always feel as good about their strengths as do other family members. For instance, they may not always feel as knowledgeable, positive or level-headed during crises as the family members feel about them. But this may also reveal an important truth about strong fathers in dealing with crisis. At such periods, they come across better than they inwardly feel. Unfortunately, some fathers come across poorly and seek to make themselves feel inwardly good. This inner world may be a clue to strong fathers, at least when dealing with crisis. 167 Another angle is offered on the mothers and adult children. Did they have significantly more positive feelings about these fathers because they viewed them under crises which the fathers did not interpret as crises? In the ABCX Model, C is the definition family members give to the "crisis" or event (McCubbin 8 Patterson, 1983) and this interpretation determines much of the stress. In other words, the fathers may have been mature, positive and level-headed due to the fact that to them there wasn’t a major problem. One study found fathers not reporting stress on certain family related issues which others might define as stress (Lewis, 1989). MW Involvement in discipline was the highest ranked practice on the repeated measures that showed no incongruence (4.289). Though the scales of financial provider, modeling and dealing with family crisis ranked higher, each of these practices also showed statistical differences within family units (Table 16). All fathers (4.441) ranked this second highest, only the practice of financial provider being higher. The four items that received between a good and very good rating were these statements: "Setting limits for my children’s behavior" (4.557), "Being involved in the discipline of my children" (4.455), "Correcting my children when they do 168 something wrong" (4.416), and "Being responsible for disciplining my children" (4.373). These fathers saw themselves as responsible for discipline, which meant setting limits and correcting the children when crossing these clearly established boundaries. Due to their consistency in dealing with the children, these fathers probably had a set of rules based on certain principles. Too, because these fathers were good listeners one would conclude that they probably got their facts straight before disciplining. On top of this, their awareness developmentally likely enabled them to distinguish between child irresponsibility and defiance. That fathers, mothers and particularly adult children saw fathers as responsible for discipline or enforcing the family rules is similar to another study which found a corresponding perception of adult children toward fathers (Kroger, 1983). One reason fathers seem to be the ones perceived as ultimately responsible for the discipline of the children may be that discipline is not as difficult for the male. When comparing single- father homes with single-mother homes discipline was not as big an issue to men (Hanson, 1985). Having said this, it may not have been as difficult because they felt it was less important. 169 Certainly in father present homes discipline problems were less than in father absent homes. One study found that father absent homes were more likely to demonstrate conduct problems than those from father present homes (Goldstein, 1984). Another study, on discipline issues, found that where there were mother- child conduct problems, improvement occurred, even a year later, in the father-involved families compared to father absent families (Webster, 1985). WI: Fathers were between good and very good at showing affection (4.308). As strong, traditional fathers, their affectionate words and ways come as no surprise. One study compared primary caregiving fathers, of infants, with traditional fathers and found fathers from traditional families were more likely to display affection (Hwang, 1986). The stereotypical perspective of the cold, distant, traditional father can be inappropriate. One study distinguished verbal expressions of warmth from nonverbal (Russell 8 Russell, 1989). As one ranks the items within this practice, one observes these two classifications. There are verbal aspects of affection (telling and thanking) which are higher, though not significantly so, than the physical aspects of affection (showing and touching). For instance, "Telling my 170 children they have done a ’good job’ when they complete a task" (4.399) apparently for strong fathers is a measure easier to do than "Touching or hugging my child every day" (4.033). One study found fathers differentiated their expression of physical affection on the basis of the sex of the child with more shown to the daughters than sons (Barber 8 Thomas, 1986); this study suggests a possible differentiating between verbal forms and physical forms of affection among strong fathers. The literature demonstrates that men are capable of forming intense reciprocal nurturing attachments (Pruett, 1983), and in some instances mutual affection is the basis for good relations with adult daughters (author left off abstract, 1991). One study found that 5th and 6th grade children turned to their fathers more for affection and enhancement of worth than to grandparents, siblings, friends and teachers, and somewhat equally with mothers (Furman 8 Buhrmester, 1985). That these strong fathers portray some of the same qualities was not unexpected. In studies explaining the differences between functional and dysfunctional families it has been observed that healthy families create a positive emotional climate (Simon et al, 1985). The positive scores on affection and nurturance strongly suggest these fathers created such an emotional climate. 171 haritaLIntenastion This study found that the scale of marital interaction was rated between good and very good (4.250). This practice does not relate directly to fathering but was included to determine not only the quality of the marriage among strong fathers but to enable inferences about marriage and fathering. It was expected, from the literature, that these strong fathers would have a relatively strong marriage. One study found that the quality and nature of the marital relationship was significantly related to all aspects of fathering (Feldman, 1983). Paternal competence was found to be related to characteristics of the marriage such as happiness, communication and sexual compatibility (Heath, 1976). Another study revealed that a satisfying and supportive marriage (Bristol et al, 1988) is associated with better childrearing practices and effectiveness. It is known that the marriage relationship has a second order effect on the parent-child relationship (Brook et al 1983). Other research indicated that greater marital harmony predicted more confidential parenting and a greater sense of control (Frank, 1986). To be sure, though the marital relationship is not the sole determinant influencing the children yet it continues to be associated with those influences (Hepburn, 1981). This research demonstrates that strong fathers had good 172 marriages. There definitely was no indication that these strong fathers had poor marriages. Of course, it does not answer the question: does a good marriage contribute to strong fathering or does strong fathering contribute to a good marriage? Both are probably true. The adult children definitely had a positive view of the marriage (4.226), which another study (Aquilino, 1986) also found, and had a positive view of the fathers attitudes and actions. Interestingly, in a cross- cultural study it was found that adult daughters found their fathers attractive based in part on their perceptions of the quality of the marital relationship (Onodera, 1984). This present research suggests a connection between how children feel about the marriage and their relationship with the fathers. The lowest item in the marital interaction was "Spending time with my wife away from the kids/children" (3.950). This could have been predicted in that marital interaction has been found to be reduced with the coming of children (White, 1983). Children make it more difficult to get away. A somewhat astonishing finding within the family units is that the mothers (4.365) rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.009) than the fathers (3.758) rated themselves on the item (FP28) "Spending time with my wife away from the children." See Table 18. One would have predicted the wives asserting 173 the fathers tendency to neglect spending time together as a couple. In this sample, these men were not only strong fathers but they were perceived by their wives as husbands who were between good and very good at spending time with them. In this research, because these men were selected for their fathering strengths and because there is a connection between marriage and fathering/parenting, it would be expected that marital interaction would score fairly high given the other fathering dimensions and practices were high. This was not contradicted. W131 These fathers were rated beyond "good" on the practice of knowing my child. They were better than "good" at knowing their children’s friends (4.439), gifts and talents (4.386), developmental abilities according to age (4.148), and plans and dreams (4.131). They were better than "fair" in knowing the issues their children were dealing with (3.933), their children’s weekly schedule (3.893) , and their children’s heroes (3.629). From other responses on the survey, a number of similarities are observed. First and foremost the findings and discussion under the scale of awareness would apply to the practice of knowing my child, to which reference can be made. Other research findings are cited there which parallel this practice. 174 As indicated before, developmental awareness of the children continues to rate high with strong fathers. All agreed these dads were good at knowing what the children were able to do for their age. Also cited earlier, under involvement in education, it was learned these fathers helped their children develop their talents at school. They did this because they first learned what their children’s talents and gifts were. These fathers, then, were in touch with developmental aspects: knowing where the children were developmentally, knowing the gifts and talents unique to their personality, and helping them develop that talent according to the place they were educationally. As cited earlier under awareness, apparently, the strong fathers are less conscious and attentive to that which upsets, hurts or disappoints the child. Here they rate lower on knowing the issues the children are dealing with (3.933). The inner world of the children as it relates to struggles, and not so much to plans and dreams, is something the strong fathers were not always aware of or knew to the extent of other items. WWW Other research does not seem to exist on this practice. The scales of marital interaction and parent- child interaction have been studied but the practice of parental discussion of the child has not appeared as a 175 primary objective. Therefore, what is unfolded on this practice provides new information on what strong fathers tend to discuss with their wives. "Discussing my children’s development with my wife" (4.299), suggests the special interest these strong fathers had in being knowledgeable about developmental facts and issues. The earlier suggestion that developmental awareness is a clue to strong fathers is reinforced and may be explained by this highest ranking item in this practice. It also could disclose the wives as a primary source of knowledge on the developmental concerns. An interesting point is that the mothers (4.220) rated the fathers higher on the scale of parental discussion relating to children than the fathers (3.946) or adult children (4.122), which wouldn’t have been predicted. One usually perceives the wives as those who wish for more communication and therefore would have ranked the fathers a measure lower. They did not. This may indicate that strong fathers tend to be strong husbands, which includes good communication skills. That these fathers listen extremely well has already been established. On the other hand, social desirability may have affected the wives’ answers in that they scored the fathers higher on every practice. The second highest item in this practice was "Discussing with my wife my children’s problems" (4.252). 176 This may not come under the practice of dealing with family crisis, but it suggests the problem-solver role the strong fathers fulfill. Seemingly, strong fathers discuss and deal with problems. The range on crisis and problems makes each distinct yet nonetheless connected. Strong fathers face difficulties whichever end of the spectrum. At the same time, ranking lowest in this practice was the item, "Discussing my frustrations as a parent with my wife" (3.831). Self-disclosure appears to be more difficult or less necessary than discussing development, problems and goals. In general, from therapy the interpretation is that men tend to be less self-revealing and these findings suggest this, though these strong fathers were not unexpressive. They were good at this discussion but better, apparently, at other types of discussions. Wagon Fathers were rated "good" (3.993) in terms of the scale of freedom of expression. Two sub-groups seem to emerge that may give a clue as to when strong fathers allowed the greatest freedom of expression and when they tended to disallow some expressions. If the children opposed the fathers’ person, these strong fathers tended to make allowance. But if the adult children opposed the fathers’ principles, these strong fathers tended to react. 177 Ranking highest within this practice were these two statements, "Being able to respond calmly when my children say hurtful things to me" (4.097) and "Allowing my children to disagree with me" (4.048). Notice the word "me". These fathers tended to forbear hurt or disagreement toward themselves. However, the statement "Responding calmly when my children do something with which I do not agree" received the lowest rating in this practice (3.812). Apparently, they were less calm when they felt their convictions were being compromised by the children. It seems then that strong fathers tended to be patient and calm if the children reacted to the fathers personally or made honest mistakes. But these fathers could be less than calm when principles were resisted or rejected. Encouragingly, about patience in the face of a child’s blunders, the adult children (4.357) rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.043) in terms of showing patience when they made mistakes than the fathers (3.893) did (Table 18). Whoever is correct, the fact exists, the adult children did not feel as negative about this as the fathers did and perhaps as the fathers felt the children felt, which can be encouraging to all fathers. That conflicts and disagreements exist in these strong father families is in keeping with one study of nonclinical mothers, fathers and early adolescent daughters (Smith 8 Forehand, 1986). The best of families 178 say hurtful things, have disagreements, make mistakes, and respond less than calmly. Conflicts exist in families (Hall 8 Rose, 1987; Hill 8 Holmbeck, 1987). But these strong fathers unlike some fathers with problems (Baer, 1983) tended to choose what to react to, suggesting self-control. If against their person, they choose to be somewhat patient; if against their principles, they could react. It is interesting that the adult children rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.043) on the item "Being patient with my children when they make a mistake" than did the fathers (Table 18). This speaks volumes about these fathers. Also, the mothers rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.046) on the item "Responding calmly when my children do something with which I do not agree" than the fathers rated themselves (Table 18). These fathers came across as more patient and calm in the eyes of the mothers and children than in their own eyes. W A substantial amount of research related to the education of children and the fathers presence or role has been reported (Forehand et al, 1986; Fry 8 Scher, 1984). This research assumed the truth of these findings. Unlike other research, therefore, this study pursued the types of involvements on the part of the strong fathers. Did these dads help with homework, talk 179 with the teachers, or have a specific plan to help the child? As the research was reviewed, no profile of what a father specifically does related to his child’s education was clearly presented. This scale offers a beginning concerning the types of things involved fathers do educationally. The three groups rated the fathers positively (3.971), though the dads did not perceive themselves as successful in this practice, it being near the bottom for them and significantly different from the mothers and adult children (Table 16). Yet interestingly, on the individual item, "Taking an active role in my children’s education", all rated the strong fathers very high (4.454). But what kind of active role was this? For example, five of the fifteen lowest items on the fathering practices were related to specific educational involvements. This may reveal that whatever an active role in education meant, it didn’t mean these things. In other words, Involvement in education meant something other than helping to develop athletic skills (3.728), talking to their teachers about their progress (3.579), helping their children with their homework (3.710), having a specific plan to help their children grow (3.814), and teaching their children a skill (3.891). These scores were pulled down by the fathers self-view in that on four items they ranked themselves significantly 180 lower than the adult children: "Helping my children understand what they are learning at school" (p=.043); "Helping my children complete their homework" (p=.000); "Teaching my child a skill" (p=.028); and Talking with my children’s teachers about their progress" (p=.006). These fathers did not feel these items were evidence of their active role in education, though the mothers and adult children felt more positive. Apparently, this active role pertained more to helping the children understand what they were learning at school (4.107), though a significant difference existed on this item as mentioned, and to helping them develop their strengths and talents at school (4.167). Seemingly, the active role consisted of being a helper, helping in two ways. One, they sought to help them understand something when they did not understand it. In other words, these fathers were educational problem- solvers when that need arose. Two, they sought to help them develop their strengths and talents. In light of their developmental awareness these fathers probably verbally encouraged the children and/or financially provided what they needed to develop. Because these were Christian fathers, a portion of them could have sent their children to Christian schools, which significantly expanded across this country in the 1970’s and 1980’s, 181 and thus their image of an active role could be that of financial provider. Iimeflmitmentflildren The practice of time commitment of strong fathers was positive (3.867) on this scale. As for items, "Scheduling time to spend time with my children" (3.641) and "Spending a lot of time with my children" (3.806) were not considered high relative to other items. However, the mothers (3.966) rated the fathers significantly higher (p=.019) on the item "Scheduling time to spend time with my children" than the fathers (3.379) scored themselves (Table 18). Two other items were viewed as "good": "Sacrificing some of my activities to spend time with my children" (4.064) and "Giving individual attention to each child everyday" (3.835). Though these strong fathers did not, from the perspective of the three evangelical groups, spend a lot of time, they gave daily attention to each child. Though they did not schedule time on their calendar, they sacrificed time in their schedule. The question is: how much time did these fathers spend? The debate between quantity and quality of time has been an intense one. To be an effective father how much time is required? Encouragingly, the demographic section answered the specific question about quantity of time. The fathers said 8 hours weekly interacting with 182 the children, the mothers said 7 hours, and the adult children said 6 hours. Probably the strong fathers averaged an hour a day interacting with the children. They did not view this as spending a lot of time and they did not schedule it. However, it meant giving individual attention and demanded that they sacrifice personal activities. This time commitment of 7 hours weekly may be a useful piece of information about effective fathering. The fact that the hourly interaction was discovered through the demographics brings out the importance of understanding the meaning of statements to the respondents. For example, how much is "a lot of time" to a strong father versus other fathers? Some fathers may consider an hour a day excessive or impossible whereas that was the norm for strong fathers. Interestingly, in one study 18 cultures were evaluated concerning the contact time of fathers with their children, and findings suggest that American fathers may be providing normative contact time and interaction (Mackey, 1985). But is normative sufficient if it is less than an hour a day? Certainly, this time allotment can help fathers who feel they lack time with their children (Hanson, 1985) to have some type of standard to which to compare themselves. As discussed under the scale of involvement, Lamb points out that one cannot assume that if mothers work 183 full time outside the home that fathers will spend more time with the children and therefore be better fathers (Lamb et al, 1985). The opposite cannot be assumed either that if fathers have wives who do not work full time these fathers will spend less time and be inadequate as dads. These strong fathers had wives who worked no more than 17 hours a week outside the home, these dads spent a lot of time with their children, and they were effective fathers. However, more research is needed on the type of time these strong fathers spent. §RII1§231_QQY§lQRm§n§ Within the family units there was congruence related to the scale of spiritual development and it was positive ((3.842). Such agreement is not always found when studying the religious component (Acock 8 Bengston, 1978). Though the scores are positive, these evangelical fathers were rated lowest on this practice by all three groups (3.842). An earlier unpublished study, using the Fathering Style Inventory, reported the same finding on evangelical fathers (Eggerichs, 1991). A comparison was made between three groups of evangelical fathers consisting of pastors, laymen, and strong fathers, and all three groups ranked this practice lowest. However, that such a practice is unimportant cannot be concluded. These three groups of evangelical fathers were asked to rate not only their effectiveness on the spiritual 184 development practice but were also asked to rate its importance. Though ranked lowest in performance, spiritual development ranked highest in importance. This practice was valued the most by the evangelical fathers. Obviously, the fathers felt the highest levels of dissonance in not doing that which they deemed most important. This highlights a notable point in this survey. The fathers, mothers and adult children were asked to rate the fathers’ practices but no request was made to rate importance. An error would be made if the conclusion was drawn that because strong fathers were rated low on a practice or dimension that they did not view this practice as important. In observing the findings, two sub-groups surfaced: spiritual disciplines and spiritual communications. The spiritual disciplines consisted of worshipping, praying and reading Scripture. The spiritual communications entailed the communication of Christian truth. On the one hand, the spiritual disciplines of worshipping, reading the Bible and praying tended to rank the lowest of all fathering practices: "Having a family worship time" (3.224), "Reading the Bible with my children often" (3.383) and "Praying with my children" (3.762). Probably, one reason is that over the family life cycle, these disciplines were not consistently 185 enacted due to the age of the children. What they did as a family when the children were preschoolers with regard to prayer and reading Scripture was probably more successful than when the children were teenagers with differing schedules. The study of evangelical fathers found age of the children to be a significant factor effecting fathering behaviors and attitudes (Eggerichs, 1991). This same study (Eggerichs, 1991) also revealed that spiritual disciplines in the evangelical subculture are very important and therefore there is a higher level of consciousness about irregular performance. In other words, evangelicals know quite well whether they are praying, reading and worshipping as a family on a regular basis and feel their inadequacies more sharply, which are reflected on this scale. Having said this, these strong fathers apparently were successful in spite of this. Evangelical fathers may need to be encouraged to realize that if they are not practicing these disciplines to the extent that they feel they should, this does not mean they are ineffective fathers. On the other hand, there seems to be a subgrouping called spiritual communications. Two of the highest ranked items were the statements, "Stressing the importance of Christian values" (4.6033) and "Talking about spiritual things with my children" (4.3440). The 186 communication of Christian truth seems to be perceived by the mothers, adult children and fathers as something these strong fathers did between good to very good. In a comparison between evangelical fathers and these and other strong evangelical fathers, Eggerichs (1991) found statistically significant differences in the area of spiritual development. The strong fathers more positively perceived their involvement in the spiritual cultivation of their children than the other evangelical fathers. That they were lower in certain spiritual disciplines is not to be interpreted to mean they were not contributing to their children’s Christian growth. From the open-ended questions from the survey, one question asked "What are some specific activities your father did to contribute to your Christian growth?" Of the 37 adult children who replied, the following are their unedited comments which add uncommon insight into this practice and which is included lest this lowest ranked practice be cited as an indication strong fathers are not contributing spiritually to their children. 1. He daily modeled a life committed to God by reading his Bible and praying. Decisions he made were bathed in prayer. 2. He took us to church, led in devotions, honest and stable. 3. My dad took the time to teach me and share experiences with me. He prayed with me and for me and set an example. 4. Family Night (read the Bible together), went to church together, prayed together daily. 5. Teaching me what TRUE wisdom really is! 187 6. Daily Bible reading and prayer, regular church attendance and leadership roles, Christian life lived out before me honestly. 7. Going to church, church camps, always available and open for suggestions, church skating parties. 8. Praying before meals, praying with us at night when we were young, teaching Sunday School 9. Family devotional time, modeled Christian values in his own life, encouraged me so much! 10. When I was in my early teens, my father and I read through and completed a Bible study book together. He encourages me to become involved in different activities at church. 11. He set an example by being very active in church. Encouraged us to have personal devotions, he did devotions with us when we were younger. He prays daily on his knees for his family before the family wakes us!! 12. He was a good example. Very loving. 13. Devotions, prayer, scripture memory, active church member, going to church with us 14. My father was involved in youth work when I was in that age group. 15. He was always very involved in church and its activities. He was very knowledgeable about the Bible. 16. Family prayer, all in church, family reading, devotions 17. Took me to church regularly, encouraged me to memorize scripture, had frequent family devotions, set an example by his own life. 18. His life style, encouraged and helped me in church activities, prayed with me, openly talked of spiritual things 19. He was an example through being a Sunday School Teacher, deacon, and along with mom providing hospitality to visitors 20. He prayed for me. He also was the head of our home spiritually and required me to go with him to church and Sunday School. 21. He was very committed to our local church and Christian school, he was committed to his daily devotions and led by example 22. Weekly church, invited people over constantly, discussed roles and gave us responsibility early 23. Devotions, active in church, went camping in God’s beautiful nature. 24. Read the Bible, lived his faith 25. Daily Biblical readings and prayer, focus in Christian holidays on religious meanings. Encourage Christian fellowship 188 26. He helped bring me to Christ. He helped me spiritually and emotionally by always talking about Christ and what it was to be Christian. 27. He is always praying for me and talking about God’s direction for my life. We also were active church "goers". 28. Most importantly, my father lived his Christian principles every day. We also made church attendance a priority in his life as well as mine. We shared a very special time - reading bible stories and memorizing verses every Saturday night. 29. Devotions with prayer every night. Constant reminding of God’s expectations and role in my life. Talked freely of theology and spiritual matters. 30. Talked where I was headed in life. 31. My fondest memory is of seeing him with his open Bible at 5 am - before he went out to milk the cows gygry morning. He never preached or even read to me. He lived Christianity and took me to church. 32. Read Bible AM faithfully to us. strong disciplinarian 33. Provide book for us to read, established a family devotion time, discussed Christian issues with us, modeled a daily quiet time. 34. Took me to church every time the doors were open; sent me to Christian schools - elementary, Jr. and Sr. High, and College. 35. Encouraged me and took me to church regularly 36. Encouraged involvement with youth groups and Christian camps. 37. Lived it. I learned by his example and consistency. Sent me to camps. Enforced standards in my life. These comments reveal not only why Canfield (1992) and Eggerichs (1991) found statistical differences between evangelical fathers and evangelical strong fathers on the spiritual development practice but also confirm that though these fathers were rated lower on this practice they still made a very positive contribution to their children’s spiritual growth. Concerning the responses to this open-ended question, 24 of the 37 adult children reported that their 189 fathers influenced them in some way related to the local church. Clark (1988) examined family and religious variables that affect transmission of religious values from parents to early teen sons and found that fathers influenced sons’ church attendance. These strong fathers appear to reinforce these findings. Because of the positive scores on this scale, these strong fathers recognized the reality of spiritual development (Mitchell, 1988). The non-application section was not marked. These fathers, confirmed by the mothers and adult children, acted in response to the spiritual component. No doubt these fathers viewed spiritual development as a child’s right (Collins, 1987; Grimley, 1982) within the home, and that prayer and other spiritual disciplines were related to spiritual development (Finney, 1985). An assumption could be made that these fathers believed that they could affect the frequency of prayer in their offspring by their own prayer life (Morgan, 1981). Most evangelical fathers would believe, and the open-ended responses from the adult children confirm this, that teens can care deeply about spiritual questioning and issues (Davis, 1986), feel positive about churchgoing, Bible reading and praying (Mark, 1982), and can see prayer as a coping strategy (Janssen, 1990). 190 Satisfactions W This was the highest ranking scale of the Satisfactions (5.807). The highest ranked item was the satisfaction "with the way your children are growing up" (6.167). The second highest was the satisfaction "with your relationship with your children" (5.945). These high scores would have been predicted not only because these were preselected as strong fathers with good families but also in light of the family life cycle theory. This sample consists of older and thus more mature people. As people age, the relationships typically become better and reflections tend to be more positive. The only exception to the theory that as time passes things get better is the period when children are adolescents. One study found parental satisfactions related to the age of the child, with the teen years being the most difficult and the younger children (0-5) being the best (Psley 8 Gecas, 1984). Parents with teens struggle with the issues of independence and lack of control. Dissatisfaction with the fathering role can be greatest in this time period. But with this sample, the children are grown or at the other end of the family life cycle where relationships tend to become more mature and the children tend to turn out better than expected. In 191 this case, the fathers knew first-hand they had been part of a success story and thus felt satisfied. This would have been predicted. Satisfaction with the fathering role scale would also have been predicted given the fathering performance was perceived as positive, and it was. The fathers were more than somewhat satisfied as a father (5.309). The results of one investigation indicate consistent relationships between fathers’ satisfaction scores and their own fathering behaviors (Goth-Owens, 1982). Conversely, generally, if fathers are dissatisfied with their fathering role, they will perceive their performance as less than positive. W Interestingly, this scale, satisfaction with leadership abilities was second highest (5.716). On specific items, these 3 groups perceived that the fathers received respect (5.905) and recognition (5.690) as the the family leader. They also were satisfied with their ability as the family leader (5.603). In fact, the adult children scored the fathers significantly higher (p=.012) on the item, "your ability to be the family leader", than the fathers did themselves (Table 19). It could be suggested that because they received respect and recognition they sought to lead ably and did. Ecological theory contends that there is a reciprocal influence. 192 It does not appear from the literature that the issue of satisfaction with one’s leadership abilities is a major consideration. This may be explained in part by the shying away by some from what is perceived as an inappropriate category: family leader. To some, suggesting sex roles and a division of labor is to be guilty of traditional sex bias (Goldman 8 Goldman, 1983). However, in one cross-national study in Australia, England, North America and Sweden, fathers were perceived overwhelmingly by their children as playing the authority] leadership roles in the family (Goldman 8 Goldman, 1983). These findings have been documented by Stephen Goldberg in his book Ih§_1neyirabiliry_gfi Farriarghy (1973), who shows the universal phenomenon of male leadership. This survey does not seek to determine if this role is appropriate, since others can do that, but assumes this role exists and seeks to discover what fathers, mothers and adult children feel about it. Whether this view changes in the decades ahead or not is not the debate at this point. What matters here is that this research contributes to the literature by showing that strong evangelical fathers do in fact perceive themselves, as well as their wives and adult children, as the family leaders. What is also important from this research is to realize that strong evangelical fathers who are viewed as family leaders are successful fathers. 193 The stereotyping of traditional fathers as autocrats is not justified from this inquiry. These strong fathers reveal that paternal leadership does not automatically lead to abuse or suppression of mothers and children. From the Christian tradition, leadership is to be Christlike which properly defined means servant- leadership. Such leadership exists for the sake of another’s needs and nourishes, supports and promotes another’s leadership abilities. A designated leader, who is first among equals, can create an atmosphere of egalitarianism. A designated leader can insure love and justice. Yerhal_Belaticashin_xith_the_£hildren The three groups perceived the fathers as more than somewhat satisfied with the verbal interaction (5.442). Satisfaction of the father with the verbal interaction with his children is not an area noticeably researched. Communication issues tend to be but not this matter of satisfaction. Part of the reason these strong fathers were satisfied with the verbal interaction with their children maybe their listening skills. As indicated, from the dimension of nurturance, listening seems to be a clue to fathering strengths. That which is "mostly true" are the following: "I show my children that I care when they share a problem with me" (4.738), "I listen to my 194 children when they talk to me" (4.704), "I pay attention to my children when they speak to me" (4.659), and "When my children are upset, I usually try to listen to them" (4.591). From this skill of listening, it is no surprise these fathers felt satisfaction with how much the children talk to them (5.587). Too, good listeners tend to be good communicators, thus they were satisfied with their ability to talk to their children (5.563) and express themselves (5.174), though this lower score on the last concept indicates they did not feel they were gifted communicators. Earlier it was pointed out that the statement, "I often discuss things with my child" (4.774) was rated high as an item of the involvement dimension. Such cognitive interaction may pertain to problem-solving issues or family crisis, as was seen in the discussion under the scales of involvement in education and dealing with family crisis. One study found that father involvement was related to the child’s problem-solving behavior and that the time fathers spent was more related to sociocognitive type issues (Easterbrook 8 Goldberg, 1984). These strong fathers tended to be involved in discussions, sometime more than play, etc. They tended to be more verbal/ cognitive than activity oriented. Apparently, this was satisfying to them. 195 Also, as reported earlier, there seems to be a subgrouping called spiritual communications. Two of the highest ranked items were the statements, "Stressing the importance of Christian values" (4.6033) and "Talking about spiritual things with my children" (4.3440). The communication of Christian truth seems to be perceived by the mothers, adult children and fathers as something these strong fathers did between good to very good. Interestingly, the open-ended comments found these phrases: discussed roles, discussed Christian issues, openly talked of spiritual things, always talked of Christ, talked about God’s direction of my life, talked freely of theology and spiritual matters, and talked about where I was headed in life. From these high scores under the verbal or interactive components of nurturance, involvement, and spiritual development, satisfaction with verbal interaction is better understood. It should not be concluded that these fathers were talking all the time. Nothing indicates this. The seven hours a week of interaction does not mean constant, serious dialogue but probably an attentiveness in the presence of the children. They were accessible because they were consciously available to interact. When they did speak they were generally satisfied with the verbal interaction. 196 W The perception was that fathers were a measure above "somewhat satisfied" (5.209) in terms of satisfaction with support. The wife was rated highest in support (5.761), followed by the church (5.510), friends (5.008), other men (4.952), and closest living relatives (4.829). Expressive support from one’s spouse was found to be the best predictor of quality of parenting for both mothers and fathers of disabled and nondisabled sons (Bristol et al, 1988). If this is true, the fact that the strong fathers were between somewhat and very satisfied (5.761) suggests that high spousal support is associated with the quality of fathering by these men. Marital interaction is a second order effect but one which has been shown to be correlated with the father- child relationship (Brook et al, 1983). In fact, a wife’s support appeared to be the most important variable in understanding expectant fathers’ health in that spousal support could be used to predict the health of the husband (Brown, 1986). The scale of social support from others has been significantly related to paternal involvement (Lamb 8 Elster, 1985). This research suggests support sources beyond the wives. The church, for these evangelical fathers, was a primary source not too far behind the wife. 197 9.111.198.9293 The satisfaction with your childhood scale (Likert 1 to 7) consisted of the lowest ratings of the 18 items (4.665). Relatively speaking, these fathers were not satisfied with their childhood (4.770) like they were satisfied with other issues. It seems the two lowest items may hint at what was mixed in terms of satisfaction: "How satisfied were you with your relationship to your father while growing up?" (4.135) and "How satisfied are you with the guidance you received from your parents while growing up? (4.468)" Their relationship with their fathers and their parental guidance was somewhat satisfying and somewhat dissatisfying. Interestingly, their relationship with their own father was mixed whereas another satisfaction scale, satisfaction with fathering role, revealed these fathers as very satisfied with their relationship to their own children. This is not in keeping with certain findings. One study showed that fathers reporting poor early parental contact were less positive toward their children (Nettelbladt et al, 1980). Another study found positive correlations between earlier problems of the adult son and his father, and later problems of the adult son and his son (Wang, 1973). From the present findings, it could be suggested that early parental contact, 198 particularly with the fathers, was poorer than hoped. Yet, unlike Nettelbladt’s findings, this strong fathers’ research shows very positive feelings with their relationship with their children (5.945). Also, another study of single-earner families found that fathers’ attitude toward the quality of fathering they received as youngsters was the most consistent predictor of father participation (Barnett 8 Baruch, 1987). How are these somewhat opposing findings reconciled? How can these strong fathers indicate there was very positive participation yet have mixed feelings toward their own fathers, which differs from certain other findings? These views are reconciled based on which type of father these men had and which way they decided to go as fathers. Social learning theory would predict Nettelbladt’s (1980) and Barnett 8 Baruch’s (1987) findings in that adult sons would tend to learn from their fathers’ behaviors. However, the compensatory view (Cowen 8 Cowen, 1987) would predict the findings of the strong fathers’ research in that certain fathers make a choice to be unlike their fathers given those fathers modeled unacceptable behavior and attitudes. Whichever way fathers might choose, it can be soundly argued that there is a definite link between paternal involvement and the fathers’ perception of their own fathers’ behavior 199 (Radin 8 Sagi, 1982) and this present work suggests such a connection exists. One study found fathers crediting their fathers as their primary role model but these paternal role models were reported by some to be negative and others as positive (Nydegger, 1973). On the one hand, social learning theory suggests that those sons who saw their fathers as the primary positive role model imitated them. On the other hand, the compensatory theory suggests that those sons who saw their fathers as the primary negative role model compensated for them. The strong fathers apparently chose to compensate in relationship to their fathers. An interesting finding (Table 16) is that the fathers (4.878) rated themselves significantly higher (p=.011) in childhood satisfaction than did the adult children (4.427). The children perceived the fathers as more dissatisfied. Possibly the messages the children receive from the fathers about their childhood tend to be more negative than the fathers feel. This may explain the differences on two items (Table 19). The fathers (5.050) rated themselves significantly higher (p=.015) than the adult children (4.488) on the item (FSl) "How satisfied were you with your childhood?" (Table 19). Also, the fathers were more than somewhat satisfied with the relationship with their mothers. The fathers (5.561) 200 rated themselves significantly higher (p=.024) than the adult children (5.050) on the item (F811) "How satisfied were you with your relationship to your mother growing up?" (Table 19). Fathers may need to evaluate the messages being sent to their offspring, given the perception of the adult children primary evolves through the fathers. The strong fathers were more satisfied with their relationship with their mothers (5.286) than with their fathers (4.135). One study found that the sons were more satisfied with their mothers than with their fathers (Robinson, 1982). But having drawn this comparison, the fathers still felt positively about the family of origin. In keeping with social learning theory, this suggests a reason why the relationship with the children was positive. Positive relationships with the family of origin would predict positive relationships with one’s own family. It should be noted that while the relationship with the mothers, in the family of origin of the fathers, was positive while growing up this does not predict the present relationship. The inventory is asking for a retrospective look and does not reflect the present condition. In some cases, the present relationships with the family of origin could be good or bad. This is unknown. One study found parenthood appearing to 201 decrease married men’s involvement and intimacy with their families of origin, particularly with their mothers (Fischer, 1983). At the same time, as one ages, developmentalism suggests a greater degree of acceptance and understanding can come in relationship to the family of origin. Limitations of the Study The present investigation is limited to the evaluation of the strong fathers’, wives’ and adult children’s perceptions of fathering in 1) four dimensions, 2) twelve practices, and 3) five satisfactions. These perceptions are subjective and may not reflect what objectively happens. Furthermore, in identifying the fathers as strong, this can bias the respondents to rate the fathers more positively. In the sample, these are intact families and do not include the single parent/father, divorced father, or family with youth only. Also, the fathers, mothers and adult children are limited to the Evangelical worldview and they, along with their families, are primarily Caucasian. Too, the sample is predominantly middle class with relatively high incomes. In addition, as people age, and reflect, their perceptions of the family relationships tend to be more positive. As adult children become parents they will probably tend to rate their own parents more positively. 202 Fathers may not be alike even if they appear to be. Therefore, to assume if one portrays these various qualities that one’s family will have equally positive perceptions is very presumptuous. Differences within the fathers, and families, could be quite significant which are not reflected in this inventory. Such limitations are suggested by survey design theories, adult-male development theories, and ecological and general systems. Children have their own characteristics and can be controlling of their environment. Children can affect fathers more than the fathers affect the children. In other words, these fathers may have been viewed as strong due to having compliant children. The children, not the fathers, contributed to the perception that the fathers were strong. They were successful fathers because they had obedient children. Such limitations are suggested by child developmental theories, gender and sex theories, symbolic-interactionism theories, psychoanalytical theories, and the Christian framework. Another limitation is that though fathers are similar, their environments may not be. Therefore, because certain fathers are applying the content of this inventory, there may environmental factors working against them that have nothing to do with their performance. Environmental factors could override fathering influences. Conversely, environment could 203 contribute to fathering success. For instance, these fathers were effective because of employment opportunities and financial stability. Such limitations are suggested from ecological and exchange theory. Recommendations for Future Research The following recommendations for future research are offered. Importance. Ask adult children, mothers and fathers to rate the importance of the dimensions and practices in their estimation. Awareness. Because the fathers scored positively on the dimension of awareness, was this due to the mothers’ awareness? In one study, mothers had more accurate expectations for normative development than fathers but more accurate fathers had spouses who were also more accurate (Stevens, 1988). Strong fathers should be studied to determine if they are aware because the mothers are aware. One investigation discovered that sons and daughters judged that their mothers knew them fairly well, but daughters judged that fathers did not know them so well (Youniss 8 Ketterlinus, 1987). Future research on strong fathers could include the reports from adult daughters and adult sons to detect if gender affects perceptions of paternal awareness. 204 Nurturance. Does social class among fathers determine emotional empathy toward the children? A closer look at the occupational types might reveal certain correlations between job level and nurturance. One study (Kalliopuska, 1984) found significant differences between social classes. Class 1 designated occupations requiring academic degrees; class 2 represented senior office workers, foremen, and small firm managers; and class 3 designated qualified professional and lower staff workers. Fathers of class 2 (middle class) were most empathetic. Other demographics could be evaluated on each dimension. One review indicated that in 20 of 39 independent published studies the fathers’ ratings of treatment of boys and girls differed significantly (Siegal, 1987). The male and female differences issue could be further explored among strong fathers. Involvement. Further study can be done to determine if the gender and age of the adult children in the earlier years affected their perception of paternal involvement. One study found fathers of sons were perceived as more involved with their children than were the fathers of daughters (Wilson, 1986). Another study discovered that father-child interactions were affected by both the age and gender of the child (Sacks, 1981). 205 Could the temperament of the children affect the paternal involvement? One study found that infant temperament was powerful enough to affect infant behavior and that infant behavior was powerful enough to affect parental behavior (Koller, 1980). Is there a particular type of temperament common to the adult children reporting in this research that may have contributed to the fathers involvement? That fathers affect children has been documented but how do children affect fathers? More research is being directed toward the characteristics of the children and how these contribute to parental responses. That these fathers were effective could be more of a tribute to the children than the parents. The inventory is convincing that these fathers are effective but to what extent was this contingent upon the children’s teachability, compliance and character? Satisfaction with Support. These strong fathers felt positively satisfied about the level of support received. A question is how much support do these fathers expect? Perhaps they are receiving very little but that is satisfying to them. To what extent do they feel support is necessary? When do strong fathers need support? One study found that when fathers are depressed and anxious they focused less than mothers on coping by seeking social support (Ventura, 1986). 206 Satisfaction with Role. To what extent is there satisfaction with the fathering role given there is success as financial provider? If a strong father is not providing financially, will this be a primary determinant of dissatisfaction? One study found a relationship between economic status and fathers’ role satisfaction (Risman, 1986). Occupation. Further study can be done to determine if strong fathers are involved due to their occupation. One study found professional and managerial fathers were reported to have been more positively involved with their daughters than were fathers holding clerical, sales, or skilled labor positions (Kroger, 1983). Perception. Because the mothers rated the fathers higher on every factor or the fathers rated themselves lower, what does this reveal about the perceptions of mothers and fathers about fathers? Are adult children the most perceptive resource for information concerning fathers? Ferreira (1964) reported that children can be more perceptive than adults, and husbands and wives can be equally perceptive. Is the first of these true in this study, and is the last untrue? Changes over time. It is recommended that a group of fathers be tracked over a twenty year period. For those who are classified in the later years as strong, a comparison could be made between their earlier and later 207 scores to determine if there is a decline in their fathering scores (Entwisle 8 Doering, 1988) or if the family life cycle affects perceptions of effectiveness. The teen years are the most negative for fathers (Pasley 8 Gecas, 1984) and the later years most positive. Spiritual Development. Church attendance or membership according to Hoge (1982) predicted childrens’ values more than did their parents’ values, indicating that socialization of values can take place in cultural subgroups more than in nuclear families. As indicated earlier in the discussion, because the open-ended question, "What are some specific activities your father did to contribute to your Christian growth?" found that 24 of the 37 adult children indicated that their fathers influenced them in some way related to the local church, further research could be done to determine what the strong fathers perceive to be the reasons they encouraged church attendance. Because these fathers are viewed as strong or good fathers, further study could be done in terms of the adult children’s view of God. One investigation was undertaken to determine if there was interdependence between the image of one’s father and the image of God (Krol, 1982). "Good" fathers were distinguished from "bad" fathers, who were alcoholics. Results indicated the following: (a) 88 with "good" fathers have 208 a significantly more positive picture of God than do 88 with "bad" fathers, (b) there is a very close correlation between the estimation of the image of God and the image of the real father in the case of 88 with "good" fathers, (c) boys with "bad" fathers have a more negative image of God than did girls with "bad" fathers, thus, boys, more than girls, relate the image of their real father with image of God. Time Commitment. Fathers in single-earner families spent significantly more time with sons than daughters (Crouter 8 Crowley, 1990). Studying the male and female differences among adult children is needed. Dealing with Crisis. Further investigation into the interpretation of family crisis between fathers and other family members would be of interest. In the ABCX Model, C is the definition family members give to the crisis (McCubbin 8 Patterson, 1983). Do strong fathers score high on this because they do well during an event which is a crisis to other family members but, not to them. Is there a male and female difference on this interpretation? Implications For family life educators and church leaders several implications exist. One, understanding the characteristics of strong fathers can be incorporated into preventive education, especially for younger 209 fathers. However, it cannot be assumed that having knowledge of the characteristics of strong fathers enables other men to become skilled in fathering. Knowledge and skill can be separate. Even so, educational objectives and methods can be designed to focus on strong fathers. Seminars, retreats and courses can be developed around the strong father profile. Fathers can be assisted in understanding the importance of being developmentally aware of the children, being consistent in dealing with and relating to the children, listening attentively and caringly, modeling maturity and goodness, dealing with crisis knowledgeably and positively, and providing financially. Helping fathers develop and deepen their skills along these lines can be richly benefical to fathers and ultimately to the children. Two, because children are the natural resources of the future, family life educators and church leaders should care enough to challenge fathers who are seriously violating some of these fathering strengths. Where counseling is possible this knowledge can be used to help men assess their fathering effectiveness. Ideally, the men will respond to a questionnaire to assess their own fathering, but if not, the family life educator or church leader might utilize the information in a face to face 210 exchange. Fathers can and should be challenged to make adjustments in their fathering roles. Three, these fathers demonstrate that fathering can be successful, even in a traditional setting. With the pressure on parents today to be responsible for their offspring, these findings bring insights that can guide and encourage not only traditional fathers but every parent regardless of circumstances. APPENDIX A Approval Letter from the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ,_——— UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH WOLVING w, uNSlNG . “(mucus . (”Mun HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRULS) 206 BERKEY HAL]. ($17) 353-9758 May 29, l990 IRB# 90-226 Emerson Eggerichs I895 Ridgewood East Lansing, MI 48823 Dear Mr. Eggerichs: RE: “ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVE FATHERING STYLES IRB# 90-226“ The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol has been reviewed by another committee member. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year. please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to May 29, l99|. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, Jo n k. Hudzik, PhD. C ir, UCRIHS JKH/sar cc: M. Bubolz MSU u so All-menu Anion/Equal Opponent, lender-o- 211 APPENDIX B Strong Fathers’ Project Forms ll BRIGADE Building men to serve Ch/ISI smce 1937 ‘lllnlllll August 10, 1990 Dear Brigade Chairman, I have a special assignment for you. It won't take much time at all. It won’t be a hassle, either. In fact, it will be a positive contribution to a very important study. The Strong Fa— thers Project is a national survey of mature Christian fathers to discover why they are successful. Christian Service Brigade is participating in this project because of our deep interest in ef- fective fathering. How can you help? By recommending men you know who fit the category of "strong father." There are some of these men in your church. The process for identifying these men is fairly simple. 1. Inside this larger envelope are four forms, each marked "Name 10 Strong Fathers in Your Church." One of these is for you to complete and send back to us. Use one of the postage-paid re- turn envelopes. 2. Give one form (plus return envelope) to your pastor or one of the pastoral staff (or one of the elders or deacons if your church is without a pastor). 3. Give the remaining two forms (plus return envelopes) to two women in your church. These women should not be either your wife or daughter. 4. All four people must return their recommendations to us no later than September 30, 1990. None of you should consult with each other. We will compare the four lists to see which individuals are recommended by all of you. These "strong fa— thers" will then receive a survey from the Strong Fathers Project. I will be extremely grateful if you do this assignment. The enclosed material tells you more about strong fathers. Feel free to call me if you have any questions about this assignment. 5' ely in Christ, C. Samuel Gr President P.S. Please note that one of our criteria for strong fathers in this study is that at least one of their children must be 18 years or older. Obviously, this will eliminate many younger fathers. For study purposes, we want to focus on men who have raised children into adulthood. Chusttan Service Brigade Box 150 Wheaten it 60189 708 665.0659 212 APPENDIX C Instruments WHY THE STRONG FATHERS PROJECT by Emerson Eggerichs, Jr. There is a lot of research on ‘absent fathers' and the negative consequences of divorce and Separation of the father from his children. But there is also a need to concentrate on fathers who are reported to be strong dads and discover what makes them effective. The Strong Fathers Project will try to discover what strong fathers are doing or have done that is resulting in effective parenting. Also, the results will be compared with a national random sam- pling by George Gallup and his associates who are administering the same survey instrument. Fathering issues are a growing concern in our culture. Whether through popular literature, such as Bill Costs book on fathering, or through academic research, the need for solid data is obvious. Therefore, the emphasis in this study of strong fathers will provide vital insights to all fathers. The National Center for Fathering in Manhat - tart Kansas has approximately 4,00) research articles related in some way to fathering. The Center has developed a Personal Fathering Profile that helps men discover their fathering strengths. One researcher says, 'Another desperate need is to assess fathers independently. Very little of the present body of research asked the father's viewpoint directly. Too much father data has been obtained from mothers, and too much information considered ‘parent' data has been collected only from mothers. Perhaps researchers can over- come this obstacle by contacting fathers...through male service organizations...‘ (Dimensions of Fatherhood. p. 190) Christian Service Brigade is such an organization that can assist us in contacting strong fathers. How do we identify a strong father? There are at least four dimensions. A strong father is involved with his chil- dren, aware of his or her needs, emotionally nurturing and consistent. Involved Involvement measures the level of participation of the father in his child's life. This could include playing or work- ing with the child, attending the child's activities, tending to daily routines or just spending unstructured time with the child. The father is engaged in the life of the child. The involved or engaged father is to be contrasted with the uninvolved, occasional or over-attached type. Aware This dimension represents the father's awareness, knowledge and understanding of his children and their world, He has information about his child's daily experiences, growth needs and characteristics. He knows what events are occurring in his child's life. The aware or discerning father is to be contrasted to the unaware, vague or intrusive type. ' Nunufing This aspect of fathering describes the extent to which the father is able to respond to the emotional needs of the child. This aspect measures how the necessary support of the child is fiver; by gauging if it allows the child to grow and be strengthened. It is reflected by the father’s comforting, encouraging, affirming and listening. The nurturant and encouraging father is to be contrasted with the unresponsive, reserved or smothering type. Consistent This dimension represents the consistency and predictability of the father. He maintains a certain level of regularity. both in his personal characteristics and his fathering habits. People around him know what to Cchcl from him. The consistent, steadfast and fleadble father is to be contrasted to the inconsistent or rigid type. This study will enable us to measure a strong father in each of these areas and understand what he does Rev. Emerson Eggerichs is pastor of East Lansing Trinity Church in East Lansing, Michigan, and (hurts the Strong Fathers Pm’Cfl He is alsoon the board of the National Center for Fathering. 213 Name of Your Church City and State NAME 10 STRONG FATHERS IN YOUR CHURCH Thanks for helping us with The Strong Fathers Project. We ask you to select up to 10 men from your church whom you c0nsider to be positive, effective dads. These men must be fathers who have set a positive example of involve- ment with their children, be consistent in their leadership, aware of their children's needs and provide spiritual l'IUflUl’C. 0 IMPORTANT CRITERIA: These men must be married and have at least one child, son or daughter, who is 18 years or older. They can be any men in your church, not necessarily those involved in the Brigade program. again. I. 2. 3. 4. Father's Name 214 Please do not consult with anyone else about the 10 Serng fathers you select. Complete this form on your own and send it to us using the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Our deadline for this is September 30, 1990. Thanks Father's Address City/State/Zip Wile's Name Adult Child's Name Address of Adult Child Father's Name Father's Address City/State/Zip Wile's Name Adult Child's Name Address of Adult Child Father's Name Father‘s Address City/StateIZip Wife's Name Adult Child's Name Address of Adult Child Father's Name Father's Address City/State/Zip Wile's Name Adult Child's Name Address of Adult Child 215 Dear Data Collector: Thank you for agreeing to help collect data for the National Survey of Fathering Practices. The Church is participating in this study to help us learn how men define their success as fathers, what things are important to them, and what they do in their role as fathers. The information will be used to identify strengths and possible weaknesses among fathersl tO highlight problem areas in family relationships, and to develop resources to help men become better fathers. Enclosed please find: 1) copies of the survey, 2) questions and answers about the survey, 3) a letter of introduction, and 4) a large postage—paid envelope to return the questionnaires. U1 your role as data collector, please follow these instructions carefully: 1. Before Sunday. June 12 read through the materials and become familiar with the content. If you have any questions, call me at 2. Contact the fathers who are going to participate. Ask them if they will be at church Sunday and will participate in the study. Keep going through the list until you have enough men who will participate. 3. Explain that participants will complete a questionnaire during Sunday School time, or some other time during the day- It will take 30—45 minutes. If they are teaching Sunday school, suggest that they have someone else sit with their class so they can participate. 4. Schedule a room for the fathers to complete the survey, or set up tables in a place where the fathers won’t be disturbed. S. OnlaSundav. June 12, make sure you tunm; pencils available to complete the survey. 6. Give each father a copy of the introductory letter and a questionnaire. Be available to answer any questions they have. 7. Ask each father to complete the questionnaire and return it to you. 8. Place each completed questionnaire ntthe postage-paid envelope and seal it. (Do not read any of the answers. This is a confidential survey.) 9. Oniflondav. Juneel3, mail the questuxumires to the researchers. We are on as tight schedule and must receive them en; soon as possible. 216 If you have any questions or problems with the data collection, pleaSe call at We greatly appreciate your help with the data collection for this important research. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, 217 A few weeks ago I asked for your help with the "Strong Fathers Project," a national survey to discover why some Christian fathers are successful in raising their children. I asked you to send us the names and addresses of 10 strong Christian fathers with at least one child 18 years old or older. Also, I asked you to request the same from a member of your church's pastoral staff and from £32_women in your church (neither your wife or daughter). None of these people should consult with each other. We need your responses by September 30. Thanks for (1) being sure you've sent your response; and (2) reminding each of the others to send theirs. Your help is very important to this prOJect. Thanks for doing your best. Sam Gray President Christian Service Brigade, Box 150, Wheaton, IL 60189 218 )ll‘xiutllnnnd l‘I...(~ . \Lu-IIAIIJD k‘) 0050) . '("L‘Dhoflc‘l‘l [‘JI (n 7' ll. " V ‘Y r A 3 9 3w :1 ‘2 ‘2‘ z. .0 4363‘ e .. \ April 2, 1991 64%“,60005‘ Dear Strong Father: You have been selected to respond to the enclosed “Personal Fathering Profile" survey and open-ended questions. You were selected because you have been identified as a “strong, involved, and motivated father“ by at least three members of your church. You can be part of a pioneering investigation into fathering! This is a unique study being conducted nationwide and your answers will be part of research that could have a tremendous impact on fathers and families. In addition to yourself, we are asking your wife and one adult child to fill out the questionnaire. Please do not consult with them. Your answers are confidential. Your names will not be associated with the results. No individual will be identified but will simply be part of the summarized report. The time necessary to finish the questionnaire is about forty minutes. Your participation is entirely voluntary. We believe your responses will help us better understand the role of fathering. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Instructions are contained within the questionnaire itself. Your candid and thoughtful responses will be most helpful. We hope that this will be a positive experience for you. If you have any questions concerning this survey, feel free to call the National Center for Fathering at (913) 776—4114. Please return the questionnaire to: RESEARCH, National Center for Fathering, 217 Southwind Place, Manhattan, Kansas 66502—3123. Thank-you for your time and cooperation. 219 o . ... . |,:.‘.'l'ru’l/.7. l'HH III, -1I|1 . I ' I . 6“?“ ”Ole V .. ‘7 s- . *- A a s 9 .- 2;; t2. =3? 5 1 0 42:? , 0+ - ’71,‘.(.“’.| \‘i\\U:\\ April 22., 1991 Dear Wife: Your husband has been selected to respond to the enclosed "Personal Fathering Profile" survey and open—ended questions. His selection is a result of being identified as a "strong, involved, and motivated father" by at least three members of your church. You can be part of a pioneering investigation into fathering! This is a unique study being conducted nationwide and your answers will be part of research that could have a tremendous impact on fathers and families. In addition to your husband, we are asking you and your adult child to fill out the questionnaire. Please do not consult with them. Your answers are confidential. Your names will not be associated with the results. No individual will be identified but will simply be part of the summarized report. The time necessary to finish the questionnaire is about forty minutes. Your participation is entirely voluntary. We believe your responses will help us better understand the role of fathering. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. instructions are contained within the questionnaire itself. Your candid and thoughtful responses will be most helpful. We hope that this will be a positive experience for you. If. you have any questions concerning this survey, feel free to call the National Center for Fathering at (913) 776-4114. Please return the questionnaire to: RESEARCH, National Center for Fathering, 217 Southwind Place, Manhattan, Kansas 66502-3123. Thank-you for your time and cooperation. 220 (’fiT El? F04) \/ ‘ ’7) av at 9 g; ‘2 E a ‘ - 0 A‘kl‘ . , . \‘C..- April 25 1991 """""“““\ Dear Adult Child: Your father has been selected to respond to the enclosed "Personal Fathering Profile" survey and open-ended questions. His selection is a result of being identified as a "strong, involved, and motivated father" by at least three members of your church. You can be part of a pioneering investigation into fathering! This is a unique study being conducted nationwide and your answers will be part of research that could have a tremendous impact on fathers and families. In addition to your dad, we are asking yOu and your mother to fill out the questionnaire. Please do not consult with them. Your answers are confidential. Your names will not be associated with the results. No individual will be identified but will simply be part of the summarized report. The time necessary to finish the questionnaire is about forty minutes. Your participation is entirely voluntary. We believe your responses will help us better understand the role of fathering. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. instructions are contained within the questionnaire itself. Your candid and thoughtful responses will be most helpful. We hOpe that this will be a positive experience for you. If you have any questions concerning this survey, feel free to call the National Center for Fathering at (913) 776-4114. Please return the questionnaire to: RESEARCH, National Center for Fathering, 217 Southwind Place, Manhattan, Kansas 665028123. Thank-you for your time and cooperation. 221 Follow rtrunr instruction received will. this survey or mail to: National Center for Fathering 217 Southwind Place Manhattan. KS 66502 222 .....1. s at” 2.... is, ..l..u » , .:. H 8 G 8 8 G I ...rl. .o 238 . 3...; .r 5371.3 ...) uryu ... .... _ 9.5 .0 u. 3.3.5 VJ. 2 .8 e G 6 8 ..., I 699686 I 53.15:... a. gills... .....5._2...a..o§. 1 1....u..ut....ia.2..eco.cdra..c9§§. 296960“ I wweeee I .E 3,.) ~3.oi..su15.6.:o£_ar.n. .. . i .26. 1:33.40 3.31.... 3.9.3 2.23 3666690 I @609 I 6:: Star. .92.; 1.5. ... 335.3 32...: .....u .33... to: 3.3. 290 @688 I wweeee I 0.4 ...on. .3, ......c..d.au.ES_3:aza 16.52“. 1 r..a.._r4a.c.0_2c.bfli ...:_rax 2989680 I 999609 I :azolsscoalucafioi 53:... 5 . o 439...... (7.. Suzette 3392:“. 2999699 I .rmxw @689 I E 835832;..- .69 5.22:.) 3 5:... (75015.8...:_23...4.u2 3:5 >5: 301 s I $850 .. , . I agaééfiao ..g ©@@@.é@| . “BEEO 59.2. ...666 @w WQ @ I . ,flmwnux O. We”. “YVGVGFGWGV ,..,.8 G I _. _ ‘ 3%ng ,, ‘ by, ..n@,.@md©fl..@_. w©©l $93.52... U 6. . ,9 .,w@..9,1@..@. b e u A _ $8 ...«QBmQMQ ‘89 I . 6 95.6”? we a .. sign; .. I ...a 6699. as... i. wwmao O .r. ‘. “6‘. “Newswehefl G 8 I 5955.2quz O ,. .. «9.7” £9 @2396 n9 9 I 33.8 . I 03ng DUMB DUMB B I as o “.032 .. .. .35.; a , .. 851 O c933 Wfimoumoana I ”95.3 0323 2.32 g $028 528 communc come 9 83me 39A ..8 vain 05 S a 835” 2920 Bmtuoaum or: c3780 "9330th 20% Sem< ~55: noon — up 2 638 E. $38.. 3.3: no» :83” ”5 93, so» an 3:3: )0: 3: “5393 2.23 5:28 .32 E90 3233 no» 852:» 05 at. so» u: 35:: sex T55: coo» . an 2 SE .550 Eob 8:83 3» comma 05 53 no» on 3:51 Box t5» 2 43 38:5 3“; 32: 32 5.3 2: a: 8:3: zoI tun—u. :25. as a :23 Box Eon 0:88 no» 82533 as 5.3 so» on 3:3: in: :05: voo- . Z 0. 33:2 3.3 :20: Bo» Got “:38 8h :89; 3 E595 05 SS, no» 5 Barn. aoI 658:5 .90» SS, aancoazfl 30» 85 so» 3» vacuum in: 3: 3.505 323 552: Box 2 qaaoazt :6» 8.5 no» on; 35:: 301 #3615 Box 2 :33: :95: 9 3.22 So» 5.) no» uh 3:3: kox :33. :23 ”9 B 2 ben— 32 5.3 a: an 8:3: :6: $23.. 33 . up 2 85:. Bob 0:3: no» :89: .0 E525 «5 55 so» ya 3.2:: 30: an: «532.— 9: 3.63... Box A.) 05 5..., 2; 2a vac—=2 3°: . . . 3: union :3; bad So» 8 mammary. .32 55 so» .90; v2.3.2 30x . "said a: 2:.) 55.355130.» 4:3 no» uh Ecru: ac: . 2.353: x28: :6» Eat 2.38. so» 6&3 3.505‘gd? so» 0.: 3:3: :6: . toss. 3%... X. 2 on; :6» 59a 9:32 no» conga .o .525 05 5.3 so» 0: 35.32.33,. . :05: q 3 :05: 55 so» 93 3:5: 3o: . Geog—nu 5o» 5.: no» to; 8:5: :6: . 853$ 5.52 $2.6 :35 as 553 $85.20 Box 55 a: £93 3:3: 32.. comm E Em 30> 352mm 26: 2 2.. 38m 9.36:2 or: 8 coma 2mm Z 0 HBO AthHrHAfl. m . ....uaéénannufiig .85. 86 58 s uscsmfim 5% 3 Egg :2 3.. . 3N comma .o 3:25 «5 83 so» 9: 3:5: so: .n g». E :05: u a :051 5? .6» 9: v2.3:— ao: .u s». E E @373 f, g {#59 E a .28©®@6@8l :8@®®®®9 28©®®®88 28©®®668 28666686 29999669 29999696 :eeeeeee 28999688 ¢e@eee@e éegeeeee geeeeeee G 9 9 G 6 6 6 IIIIIIII awn .- e ’5‘ £4 -XJ 7 k- ._ \» h". ,. .V‘ 225 r40». .12.... «511.. O 3233 O oping .96 0 «BBQ auflmoflomm m - v o It- 3 all 1’ OO 5 (DU) 1; 3?. 5.1., “5.11.. O “Sac: O 333 .uflm 0 $3.23 33208 m owed O £2 0 Row .30» 4:3 “9:4 0 $293 0 Sunny ham 0 33.3 ugugoé m 560m 0 52 O .xum Mn 3.9.11; 30x, “.0 .103 .65. 30.3: .95 was .53 due or; 3.: 33?. Z en .+3@ @66669@@ 3’ @ @@@@ee@@ 96%») 96:90») E{]@ @@@@@ “: i’ @ QQ@®@{”I Q .' k ‘QQQGQGQQ @e@@@e@@ .5 Q 35" Q . . .......oA G...) 09. @ room nfls .@ MW “SEQ 0 3C. @ “514 O BU MU, 2.933 O Q 9 F352? 0 Q 8 E35 @@ .25 @@ EEAU @@ Eanv @@ uuawfiwfiom % % aufimoflmuwu % W _ 8. Q a. aim Q Q E5 5 E5 3 3;. O on: O E mm E B m: x. a ~16» 53,. Q @ ...:ox 52> flmu @ 350 @@ €50 @@ 3383 O Q Q 3233 O Q Q .mBBu Q Q $23 Q Q . 3m 0 8 Q .35 O Q Q E «230 ...“.Q Q . .330 Q Q Emacs m % % Bases m %% E 5 E E 5 Q . .032 O ... . . 52 O . “5w Em “New .0? mt .III ¢u SH» 5.5 Q @ ti 23 a @ 933 O .Q «933 E E . 5% E5 Q .EéfiwRéw mfio @@ ......zwmfivgu .% .9 . E 62200 .ww .3. 22m m ....6 Q 3:206 m Q Q . Q Q . Q Q dam @@ fiflm %% .Kum .um/E 5m um? Nu H n . . nmztzcowlsow 50m< I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q 0 Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I mHu WWW mu _ww mg FE; $83 Luau 5.833 . uEd . 3:0 than Pa; 30» fits wagon: Mafia Nada sex can} .5 .3938 neon." 30x ”32 sex ”mean: .0 own Mari: on £30: EASNE 30$ .ON 396:: or: 12E 3.3a .ma 30> m“ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q Q . Q Q Q Q Q Q I ,QQ QQ. QQ. QQ..QQI . ea Hefls_....fie a. .....66 , . we a .. _ yméko.fl_w@.@ “..., 6.65.”...55.6.6-5.... ......88. ............,.e. e . aflwfléem. .8... 5.6.8.5.”...Em6.8. ...... .. 6.8 E ......66 .. ,. QEEHQEHQEQ.Q.E .. .QQQTQ Q Q Q . . . QQ .. ...EEEDU DEED mm Du . -.. 232% .2365... 3.6 3.5.55 , Ba .. 9.202 . 85¢ , 36¢ ...»..355.“ . .23.th .28 :5 3 «mm Boxidfivxmwwwuwvmmfi m5130353 .34 : n. ~23ng Ea Q. . .m EEK Q... .5. ma: 8 e . .c. Boutsgw .3 .. , .mh5.0.0.: . 8.5.0 0. Q.Q . . £50 . .32 O 6 ® . A .Ssoucapfow avg O . Q Q . . 8.3.29. 3:38am 0 .Q Q . “conmuau 5 «89,5 0 oz 0 3533a O Q Q . .UO .CUnUuQ 30> WH 5109 O nu> O :33 O 6 e. if; .9. a. 92 d: wcaiokm 033 90.5 Q Q . 23.5 mEoz Bo: EmBn 352 30» 33 .vH 20%dede B .30» 33% ~36 B 523 .MH 2qu a x33 no . 35:qu I 30% 5344. on 250: .39: 301 N. 226 uauurJS 30>. S no». 99:. 2.1.0.... 3933?. B mung. ”mun... .wm ”Bauafioo $952 Eton m quuuo 30>. Eur. 0,. 9.63 on v.33 ES mSS 8,3233 “moE US 2 ”an? 3 YUSS m 3 30>. Sm“ 352 :30 30% 0303 BoI A... III 0558 a mm 30..” 33 c9633 30>. 030.5 302 Am C358 m 3 30% 33 0.3.5 39A 030.6 Box 8 $053 m mm .2333 BE 30% 2:08 30: : «vac voom II umou N388“... ufion m on 8 madam; S 38 33 Sawme :8me 95 9d :33 8 04. mum 80m Minna MBon N 55 .OH 3 HEB uEum m CO cmccofifl S no» 83385 «HIE .33. was 30x 8 @5558 30». ..UMM .030... 6.1.... no». Sonm 8335,. mcfififim 805 2 C. a: mSEoEPS S $08 .30.». 890: mm; 5:...) 6002220 :3qu a can so» : : 35mg. -239. SW 3:930 335 Mm . 9402.850 ammzmHZmEO 335.:ou I mzofiflbo amozm.z$© 227 mEoi mESEE Ecoflmm 33% m mu??? L Z6 2‘5: 3 I25 3).... .08. istsovo { .88 8.3 8030.6 a one be 863 320 on :8 8.880 30 “303 o: .9. .0803. 08 33 5:0 280 63 6382. x2 3 .05: a n 06 286 2. :68. 2. 696 .5 «5.8 $3 9 63. 0: mm .808 3.8 on :8 3.280 .30 53 353300 u: .cm 3.280 30 0. c0383 3.3.9:. 0.1 2 303.6003 «3.900028 .33. “.280 30 .0 :08 C332 6300 or 2 20. «058: “a 0.. «Sou am 0. EB .8 Pa... 2 z 2 30230230 6:600:00 «.8 9. «Sassoon 2 0: 2 .3833 30 95 :36 on :8 :3 on. 8 3.8 $33 .8 306 or .2 683.8060 2 380 30 3a) “308. u: 2 .3: “.330 30 9 0020.6. 2 0: on 033.00 32.03 «.3880 30 .0 «063.2003 2 01 ON .358 a 2 038 an 3 3.328 .8 2888 c8303 0. 6...... 0: .mm .6205 a 00 2.80 .30 5.3 3.03 8:0 or .2 650 3320 3830 80 5.3 3:20. on 30: on .88 9 x39 .88 033 5.880 30 0. c033: £3 a: .2. .380 Co) 3830 80 «an .00 306 833542 ...A .280 30 8:308 .23 "308. 8.. .2 8.360... 38 3893 383.0 .30 0. 233 3883 ox .2 6336203 69 .832: ".280 30 a: 0. 6033.5 x8 .8 .3056 be, on 6303 s ..N ..usoue 3.03 0. 086 33 8023 630 69 60325 x2 .o~ 8.86 .30 0. 8:9» 33. 3026»: o: .2 .8005 «.820 .80 8.3 3:88 2 ox .2 .3033. «.880 30 can an on 363 308. o: .2 666 66 666 69 6 6 666 666 6666 666 “6666 6 6 666 666 6666 666 666 66 ====6666 6 6 666 666 6666 666 666 66 *6666 6 6 666 666 6666 666 666 66 =6666 6 6 666 666 6666 666 666 (39 6666 —"“-6666 6 6 666 666 6666 666 =_ _&l 3.: 6.3: ..l 35 ....5E0m . 6| 2226c: _. 6| :5 .3588 9| 3.. 6:... 6.206762 O uZEBfi» .203 s. a. . 323 6990 9 699999999 6999 99 6666 6 666666666 6666 66 6666 6 666666666 6666 66 6666 6 666666666 6666 66 6666 6 666666666 9999 @699 6 666 __ 3:: urges... .... :3: 220.33 32' 9 N. 3%» S nucqfi >6 2:: 6 ii an .5 3.3.. 25 gags-'6 .... :11... 38< 4:353. a: .304 #2.... r3: .5 slack? I. 51“ such . ~85 .... 1355. 2.5 .3333» '9 .04 $23 ‘95}... a: 8005 55% 31 5.3. 8x265: b.2825 lie :6; :0 .069 an: 3.. .35 2ch 1.. .... 5:13 :- giu.‘ 92: .uctoEom ll 6 3R tangk 3.133% 33.333 50> «talkie .... 3.5.53. cram xznox‘le 5.562% .5 \o 58 30:63 30.. 4180 “fig @205sz Q 6666me 229 7'55: .a .....u 2:: 06¢. Zguo \ 9 H 9 9 9 B 5an .5833 so .0. 281. 38% f 5.63.. m 9 ® 9 9 9 no 0.. 33> 3250 .0 399.88. E. “932$ a. m.” 9 G 9 9 9 93:3 So 8.? «8&8... m. .583.“ 9 9 9 9 9 9 .....o 8..., 08.... max: 9 396: “a .o 089 «535.... N. .83 o. as... 3.3.. W 9 no 9 .9 9 .2 3833 .30 03.6 rang c0099. 0. 22 «Sam 2 9 .9 9 9 9 9 98.4.3 .30 0. >528 288080 “3830800 0. 9 9 9 9 9 9 .838 us. 343 “.3833 :6 ”8303. 0 999999 08858380.»...5 m .9 9 9 9 9 9 .5038 32.8 a q. «Eh. «383: h 9 9 9 9 9 9 89.28“. Bo «3.9.93.6 .o.. «3.383. «9.0m o 9 9 9 9 9 9 .3633 .30 85 can .0 .2 . «9.833 .n 9 9 9 9 9 9 08 85 9830.33. ”38.2 2233 a «5.31 .... a. 8 ® 6 8 e as... 333: go 95 0.2m 2.. 3.63m m 9 9 9 9 9 9 .333 2: an» ..ooBEu Bo «8303.. N 9 9 9 9 9 9 .3625 Bo .0 98.938 98 9. 839,9. «Sum .. ...va _, . .__.. _ 2.3 8530.8 r .. .\ __. ”0.8:: .3333. :3. . 68.8 9 O 9 9 9 9 .. .. __ .3; oo. 2 «9.83. . «8.3 9 9 9 9 9 9 _U m. m 5.2 9 .63. .38 . «8.3 9 9 9 O 9 9 .. ... : .293 9 a. . «8.3 9 fl 9 9 9 9 H. _ .w 3&2..qu ., ._ . .. I. __ ... 9.! .8“. C; 85:» 35.6.9: .3 2.33.... .33 . .. ... . 9|.8q 9. 3&ch ...E. :3 .m 8%... at E. 3.8.. .... 2 __ 9|...C 3...... «..an §8< ...SE...: a: .83. ...... _. .. @1800 £3.32. 38.333 2. 5.3. .38.. a «ES 3 _M 9'88 b; , 9.3...“ «55:... a: \o 3.3. «£3.82Q a: \o 58 .... h. 9| 203.63 a: 3.2.2:. .30) .1523... 32. .330 .. mtO.Cum....Q 828$“. aw ozEmmeflm —£5.; .0 Eiu Illa... .85. .Etuo 8.0.4... .46 undue: a. coax 36; or. 00 9 9 9 9 9. 9 333 a 381....0 29.3 a 2.3 26 8.3 «93.. 08... 339 01 an 9 9 9 9 9 9 3.2.5 .30 o. 3.20.. ...a ...q. :3 on. 9 033605 2 a: .3 9 9 9 9 9 9 .83. 8.5, «3.03 8, Ba“. Bo 3396.. 8:0 ex .2 9 9 9 9 9 9 .33". 930.» ”.289 So .305 0.... on 9 9 9 9 9 9 .83. Son. 3.3 on .3. 3633 So 8 8.3.36 :6 39.8 o: .3 9 9 9 9 9 9 amino. ”Pa .0 .o. a wax: 2:6 v3 9933.. xi .vm 9 9 9 9 9 9 .88 80... 68.3 o. .33 305 3823 30 .2 9 9 9 9 9 9 x3 9 ad. 890 3.8 $33 .8 "you 3639 So 5.... :36 on :3 up... .3 9 9 9 9 9 9 .8» o. 3.2. o. 3.5 x232. on .33: o: 3823 Bo 3pm.) .2 9 9 9 9 9 9 x8 0. .26 89c and. on. 3:8 995 a: 3008 AI .0“ 9 9 Q 9 8 9 .3823 Bo a.) can 839 .288. ox .3 9 9 9 9 9 9 323.883. «5.3... «.3 «832m B :3 on. 8, “amazon: .3382 B o. 603 o: .3. 9 9 9 9 9 9 .5. 9 x3 82. 338 $9.3 .8 88 3633 Bo 85 88 on .33 .3. 9 9 9 9 9 9 .8208 03.388. .833. n 0.9 .68 o. .86 9 830 23a Bo .33 368. u: .3 9 9 9 9 9 9 .ou. 5.08 .8 382.3 So 80.. .393 0. 0389.8. 9. .33 ”308. 0.... .3 9 9 9 9 9 9 .835 x. o. 8.2 3 89.803 2 2.80 Bo 88$ .3. 9 9 9 9 9 9 .83 o. 2:89 o: 35 :5 3.63“. So 33 oz .9 9 9 9 9 9 9 323383.05“. 83:5 .080 8.3 .2888 3.230 Bo 30.. .308. ox .~« 9 9 9 9 9 9 .098 .96 .qu3 33.. 280089 “.28. :6 38 308. ox .v 9 9 9 9 9 9 __ 222.2... lea. = v 25 b.31l9 25 .3383 l 9 municrou 3283: I19 mZOEZmGé Q U§< on G. mu ® 6 8 8 2: .o 966 r on us 533% 3 9 6 G 6 8 G ”E 55 595. 2c mate 67. an 9 6 G 6 8 6 «9.48 Ga a 533 SS 33: as “8305. 2 933688 3&afioon8u up 383 5c: «BASES on H :33 3.53 “Bacon“; 3 999688 .__3”.uEquu3H .2 9 6 G 6 6 8 .nEotK o. 2: 353 on :8 5333 ”5.382 .0“ 9 6 G 6 9 G .363 Ho .0 33a 22s on: he “nausea .3. 9 0 G 6 6 6 43503 3. :60. 3233 x8 53 mag: mv @ 9 Q 6 8 G .08 85 max: 2 ”Ed mauocom so 9 G G 6 8 G .083 us 5. "Ed 3553 baud . 3:25 .3 9 G G 5 8 G 233;“: 3.33 A8 “530:2 “v 9 9 O 6 8 8 2er a “53.6 ..338432: mSum 3 G 3 Q 6 8 G .08 o. 2953 woo“ . 3:5 .3 9 6 G 6 G 6 2: 5.3 38 2339 .083 a «52: Ne .32.. Q 8 ® 8 8 0 .46 5.. 0889 3333 39.6.3 :5 no“ a «Six 3 G 6 G 6 8 8 .0689 €33 a «Six 3 9 6 G 6 0 8 622. SS 628 a 3 30.3328 ”a “93.320 .2 2 = _G_.I;oon bi 8'83 61:: .. EnEEou _ @‘boou _ also be. mUFuénH 072$.an @l .3333 a: 8333 A8 9 29 83: S “soak mm 9 9 G e 9 G 80.2 8.3 Dawson—3.. v00» . 23$ 2 9 6 Q 6 8 G .832. SS 98 .8 23m “5.23:0 cm @ 9 G 6 0 8 «3326 828 g 353 us 55 E33 “Sum mm 9 6 G 8 0 9 :6 C98 «8 o. oozes: 38:69 3:6 3 9 9 G 6 8 G 0539. had us .0 bcocs us u§§o& an e 9 G 6 8 8 n 839:3 ~ 5:3 :99 80m: « 80m 33 _ 08 “Sum“ an 9 6 G 6 8 G 55:6 85:8 . 9 35 5.5.. 3v 9 :2 “90m 2 e 0 G 6 9 8 as 9 838: «5303 .3 6 6 G 6 8 9 605m : mag“: E4 _ :23 ugrouq: 08 “8.on .3 Q 9 9 e 0 9 58:3 2: Ho: .33. 802 55 08.: «33% .3 9 9 G e 8 6 «no; «55083 on H can: 08 332.50 .2 9 6 G 6 9 9 Sci 8 9 9 G 6 9 9 E2 93 9 «85989 on H con; 08 3358 :233m .3 .08 55 335 2259 38. .922. .2 6 6 e 8 e e .93 88E *8 on; «9.2.3. .va 6 6 9 6 9 6 .62 55 85:8 9 «a 2:303 .2 9 6 G 6 9 8 an. 9 .309 22 23.8 . «sum .2 9 9 O 6 8 G .mavsoa E so: as, "9.535 .3 9 e G e 6 e 620 2b manna: 5 ucaoaok .2 9 6 G 6 8 G .22.; 3.8.: u 5 on 2 .23 mason! .2 Q 9 G e 8 O .802 55 623233 x8 "9.3629 .2 9 9 O 6 8 G 353 Ed among x6 Q2336 08 «9.90: E e 9 G 6 9 G 5305 x8 9 End 9 SE 09.3% a was: .2 Q 6 8 e 8 8 __ = .2833 S: I. § .uszEcu SKIS mmUEUénH 0§5 9:: .5‘5! .1 Div 25:... 8.. .290 B: ”8:69 o: 3836 05 :3 us 5.3 on 2 3:32 30x .5 8 Q 6 Q 6 8 G on: “539M 233 :5: ”a 9 uaaoazr “a 5.3 on 2a “3:33 .90: o G 9 6 Q 6 8 9 322.3 Us 55 a: 9 can. “a 5:, 3 a Bus: if .n e 9 6 ® 6 8 8 E8808 :33 Son 3:32 on 60%.: .o 6:08. on. 8.3 on 2 3:8: >6: .v 9 © 6 Q 6 0 6 Sue: woo“ . on o. :0» Soc 3282 on :89; .o .368. on. 55 3: 3:3: 30: a 9 6 9 e 8 8 G 295: a 2 .2833 8.5 on 2 3:3: Bo: .N G 9 8 Q 6 0 8 $9228 ”a as, 3 :a 3:3: Box .fl 8 9 6 G 6 8 G 393 853 6a a magma“ 6335 :2 . 60:00 8 9 O G 8 G a? 8. 2 M32: . :23 e e 6 e 6 e 2&2?“me :3. 9 83m :28 . Macy)» G 9 0 G O 9 03.3 9 ac . :23 8 @fi 8 6 8 : 355 Setfi l e 2.35 b: I 9 335 2.5%“ .I 6 2:: l 9 35.3.6 558% .I 0 2:536 t; I e 35:36 $535 I 6 E3: @5529: to “t3“ ”m 3.3 a: no 915: >5: «that so: ..EE: 3: in» :26 can .5 :EnEAnu a: 5:4. 53K u «E .5 .323 EH: 2: 52 8.x .... 3:33: :5) 3:22 32 :35 $20.59th zoFuEmH: m qumme n A A P3 to >5an 2.qu 0 v0 2 300 0 £83 an: O .. . use .56 £23; 0 850 O O . .. ”col 3on £2.35 0 «32 O O as): 3.3.0 23.8.2 0 32.538 0 O 50qu Stud 1223». O 33.35 0 O . 233.24. .83” 52 O 33:32.; O .0049“ .350 O 23.1. 0 Zoo! 232 O rconScoCo 30%;... .3? 32.348 "concave Ho _o>o_ 32 8n58u ~85 .o 522 .0 Box 9. .23 .m :25; .30» a .23 .v 9 9 9 9 9 9 A 9% 5% :5 .5 e e e e e e 26 O 9 9 9 6 9 9 355 5.2 o e e e e 9 a 33.8 0 9 9 9 6 9 9 5 o e e e e .25 e a 3.230 GGQGococaBox 9 9 «35:25 a .23 O 9 9 9 9 “o nun“. 9 9 as .n H8 3 .3 .N B5 420=ox 532 356% $8 9 $.56 3% Ex «.63 2. s :2 33.6 :33 :ctqogqqu a: 5&qu 20W Somfll 233 255; .... 3.3 3...: d: .SE‘J o R5352 99299.1. 13.. 302 “$38,. 30x nonhuman Son «368 v.63 .o 90:. IFS mu I...\. no“ lot. 25352 «2 S 9:33; 30% BuaBOVfiv a: 30x 33.x .X 552 v8“ a B 233; a; 29,. o“ 923 0:3 .359: mayo» a 9 u>.& no» 2303 3.52 36.5 mu 79:: 3,08? 5 «53 E0». E2 9.1 33230 95.83 3:2. 9. 29:2 80m FV «San 3a; 39A Boa 233; Box 30v 933 593 3:3 5 ,§ :ncoucdS .395“ 33 B 33 32038 =.< .6233 833 8‘. “3.2 3:66 33 95 22.: V0 33c 2: 2 «>228 on ”“5358 6.. 3:20 2:222 of Ban E3 maccmosc «530:2 9C. mzomeDO BaZmimao l 234 036$ wESENm 6:083 235 as: a 2 on WWW%.W% 0... 30...: up. $106.. on 33.9 08 33.00 >206 9 303 oI mm H M E .08 33. on :8 08 £2 26238 ”I 2 0 6 G 6 6 6 up. o. 8395 33293 “I 3 w, .6 6 6 6 6 3380338603183308 ABCuwuwwawwawm mm m 6 6 6 6 6 so. 358: v8 8 «90m .0» o. 8.8 .2 was r : «A H 6 6 6 6 6 33332th £802.88 “.8 9 «99835. 2 uI 2 m .6 6 6 6 6 8.3 38 or. :5 :3 ....8 8 538 353 6a “women“ 2 m 6 6 6 6 6 633598... Ba _ none ”306. ...I 2 “6.6666 .93x633>_o>9:uI on t 6 6 6 6 G 33.3 3.0.093 x8 .0 «563.3005. 2 3.. o.” 6 6 6 6 6 6 ...nt no on 35328 .2 :368 58033 oflowmgsaufi m 6 6 6 6 6 6 48.32“ a oo 08 5.5 3:03 3:0 3.. Z 6 6 6 6 6 6 83.6 3238 98 8.5 ”328 on 30: cm 6 6 6 6 6 6 88 9 fix: _ 8:3 08 9 comes: 23 u: .2 6 6 6 6 6 6 3:0 .02. 08 «3 .oc noon :5: x2 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 .08 8:368 .23 «308. «I .2 6 6 6 6 6 6 .8583 »8 :89; 08 o. 385 3328 ox .3 .330 03 6 6 6 6 6 6 x8 .3 o. as: A8 .2 .Buquau bowfixflmmwnm .3 6 6 6 6 6 6 .3903. x53 9 088 228 8023 H E: 38: x2 .2 6 6 6 6 6 6 .08 9 3:9” 33. 33:38 ox .2 6 6 6 6 6 6 .828 x8 8.5 :58: 2 or .2 6 6 6 6 6 6 .823.“ A8 SE «3 on non; «aofi or .2 9 6 J 3 6 u .335 4 ._ _(~ 6 .6 9.08: “a on 9 33808 «93 8. £356 28 ”I .2 _ .M m. 2 := GI 5.x x28: .... ; :_ 6|. :5 .2358 __ 6| 2293.5 a; ..umnczzou (.... 3: .2563 _. 6| 3: $3: m2 ~ EH WI .3322? 82 O m D U§E3 .8 88 o: 3un oo 88 .3383“: _ 85 .c :3 x8 3 383 08 308. 6a 309 or :03 on a 388 .8 08 35.8 a: “$5089 Soon 3:? 8a n com) ”306. 2.. asuuo. 335 on Sea a 03 38: :2 .08 3.333 o. 83 ..8 .349 r z 09. 8.5 38% .23 o. 3.8 38 .282 or 666:) 6 6 66 66 6 I! .88 o. is ~ con; 08 o. 383 u: . .26 .2656 a 23 832 a can? .306. 01 .08 5.3 358 8338.8 5:0 or d: 305 N r. $5.3 83o x8 32 no 0883 voou a “an ”I 293 8530 so a. «8.38“ .Sauxau xza . .350 43: 09 2 «Sufi» . 39>» x28 8 33. .38 . «093 .226 3 ac . «no.3 3.3:qu N'an'o'rsco'oéo'; 66. 6 6666666666 6666 6 6666666666666 6 6696 6 6666666666666 6666 6 6666666666666 6 6666 6 6666666666666 6 @999 9 6666666 )6 .3: 345635 3. =3: .5 31 8 c935 >5 :3 .6 cut. .1. .6 2.3: 0?: PEP. Soot ..EcSS. )2 3.3 38.... t3. .5 33.80% g .55. Suck . ~55 .... 33506. :3 .33 an. .5 :86 .51 :1 5.5 5.35.3 ..: :6.“ co rib. :9. ..< .345 E32; 2. .... 5:13 :- :5... 2 a «Hutch 2.55%. V1» So» ”3.53:3 a 3.5.5:. .3333. a: l. 6 3.: £32 .I 6 :5 .2368 I: 6 = 2228: I. 6 32m .3368 .I 6 32m $3: I: 6 u.c§§o\ a: \o in .a-tCuL Boa {.90 "$3: $05sz Q. ozammbflm 236 5933 be ..8 3.8: ucdam hp 6 Q 6 6 G .2 w 0 ® 6 8 8 on” 9 82d, 952:0 B 35:88. US 3533 3 08 83.. “Sign f M U. Q. 6. N. 9 ”G 53 ...fin 8x“ 0.. 8252.. we no “Eon “caucunm N” g 9 M U Q 6 8 G 359 Pfisn A: " ouna x353 309?. on 22 wcam ._ w. W mu 6 8 nu 08 on 05.58 200095 Megnuaofiun 0.. mu 6 0.x 6 8 G “63.6 9.2 Eda x8 wagoqz o 6 6 Q 6 8 8 822 SS, 3369 «Sum m @ 9 Q 6 G 8 39.28 03:8 a S 22.6 «969.1 s Q. 6 ® 6 8 6 96 “95936 5. 292098 «sum 0 9 9 Q 6 8 G 08 5.5 can go .9 a maécoam n @ O Q 6 8 6 :66 5.3 “530328 «3:53 . ~92: v 9 6 ® 6 9 8 5:0 98 5:: 29m 2: «33¢ m @ 6 Q 6 8 9 353 2: 33 a8 «9305* N @ 0 ® 6 Q 6 05.938 x8 5. 339,9 «Sum _ x: _ : _ _ W fi fi 288 85:0 6: x M. «3.5 .8035 33 . .380 9 0 e 8 8 6 .._ .3»: 09 2 «SEE . «cots @ 9 0 6 G 8 W“ . ._. Ea 3 ”Be .39 . :93 © 9 3 Q 6 6 Wm ___ T 293 9 2c . :93 9 H G 6 8 8 .V w” .m _H_, y. A___ 4 h.“ T _..____ __ _ 2&5qu ¥ ; ._ __ Ill \. __ _.__ : 2 _ 8 Sq b3. Eat 3.23905 to «£338 39‘ P. __ 1 : 1 8'68 83% >5 tam ”mm 33 3: :o nth PS: M :n _ Slim «:in 92% .553: a: :33 38.: t3“ ... : @lvooo .5 23.3953 3: Efqu Suck u «55 €3.83 .4 61.88 b; «552% 3 \o 33. «Snazfl £10 £8 E 33:. @I .3833 at :fJQ gaom :(uuuuuxn 30: ”BBQ ..mtOzumkNQ 898$ aw 028mm§fim OE 3:38: ...; con: 66:. 0.1 00 Q 9 ® 6 8 H x33 a 3E; Mo “.9400 a 0E 8:: mafia 2rd «dove 9.: on @ 9 Q 6 8 9. 0E 0,. 3:28 on :5 :3 05 9 £338th 2 oz ,3 9 8 Q 6 8 9 EE 5:: «c163 S ”8 330:: 5:0 ox n @ 9 ® 6 8 9 630 539» ft 305 ox on 9 6 © 6 8 G 3:. 302 3x: 3 :5 06 S 33:16 So :98 o: ,3 9 G G 6 8 8 550m? 063 .o .2 . nova“ _ can 583 NE an 9 0 Q 6 8 9 6293.3900323308: ,3 @6 Q 8 6 8 x3 9 x3 E0... 53: umSEU 6c 38 08 5.3 230 up :3 of. an 9 9 G 6 G 8 Sc 9 3:: o. 38 5:33 on .33: a: _ one,» .2 9 9 G 6 8 G is 0. So 80: 2.5: 05 fine baa o: 3008 2x .0“ @ 6 Q 6 8 G .08 5.5 can Boon» boa. ox 3. 9 9 Q 6 6 9 3352883. accuse “B 39393 ‘ E .33 05 a. 9.3555. .3389 on o. 39.: «I av @ 6 ® 6 8 8 x3 9 2c so: 52: ”“35 6a 38 38 5.5 33 on .33 .2 8 9 ® 6 9 8 .aocflzaoans 63:8 ... 95. 32» o. 820 S. 33 a .33 “308. o: .3. 9 6 G 6 6 G .0». .As 6. 06 Bob .898 9 033038 2 ~33 $08. ox .3. e 6 G 6 8 6 3033 on o. 35.. on .3903 En H 8E9 .3 9 6 Q 6 8 6 .82 9 389 .5 H .555 £3 ox .3 @ 9 3 e 6 8 $3883.33 56:5 350 55 2888 ~ 32 $65 or .wv @ 6 Q 6 6 6 0E: 35 $33 «38 .3308“. he 38 "308. ox .3. 9 9 Q 6 8 8 .83 5:, 60306 a San ~ can; 339 on :8 up. "Bonn o: .9. 9 6 Q 6 8 8 3.3023 9d :3 Eco a was .85: x2 .3 9 G 9 6 8 G 2223? 32 .l 9 = 25 .93: I 6 25 .2383. I. G 22295 I 6 3: 332:3 l. 6 umzzzxou mzommZmZQ o§8 _ on. “92”» SH @ 35:8 95:8 . B, 22.6 55 ion 2 03. ”Sam 3 @ us 9 830:.— ugonm On Q .083 : E352 Ea ~ :23 uqssuua: 08 «593+ .o~ 9 .5825 on: 80: :3. 802 8.} 08: «33am .mm 9 "no; “35082 00 ~ can; 08 aquuotou .Z 9 .802 8 9 62 93 9 wagon—on ow _ can; an mafia 3288m . as 5.5 ass :25“: 52. “an: ,2 9 ...: ESE *8 on; 25332 .2 9 SE 5.5 3.32.6 o. 08 «5.303 .mm @ .09 9 38E :2 9:58 a «9.0m .2 9 «8233 bu 802 55 “5.3320 .5 @ .uuco us ”Sumac .6 332.6% .0“ 8 «GE baud _ 5 cu o. .23 «gong .2 9 .802 5.5 608833.. x8 “3535 .2 9 .383 cu.- sung...“ in 333° ca .892; .2 9 .538» .3. 5 3:3 9 SE 9539 — nut—I .3 9 = £8.33 a: la. ‘0 N 88 bi l 9 @6669 69688 69698 @6660 69686 @6689 69680 69686 69688 69669 @6666 66086 66668 68686 69606 69668 09688 66688 63669 69686 @3686 93606 @6686 : _ 38 l e 33:2:3 mmUEUSw nH 0§512 «B 575 Z r cocmaa 301 w 8 @ .9 G 6 8 0 230806 x35. Eon 3:32 2.. 6092 .o Egon: 98 55 on: 00:32 so: u 8 @ 6 G 6 8 G 206: v00“ a 8 o. 808 80». 3:32 E :03335103 05 St: on: YES: 30: n G @ 9 no 8 e G 2055 a 2 22.83 SS. 323c32301 a G 99 G 6 8 e G @9 Q 688 __ = __ _C_I_C~ ”Egg $85an an 5.3 on 33 3:3: 301 _ E" [g 236 02330 .8 2 «Sufi. .3833“ 31c . 60:00 9 9 O G 6 8 6 an: 09 2 «3:: . use; 9 9 6 9 6 8 6 mNQEURM 2:8 9. 3:: :28 . :23 G G 6 G O 8 9 .033 s. a... . 39>» 9 9“ G 6 8 G 65:» 3:8.82: Eu Ea .5 :6) e 3».qu >5 :3 , nm “man a: E 323: >2: «is: n53 .ESEE: a: €33 :83 t3” .5. 35:835. 3: 55. .351 u «53 323 3:: SS 53 b\ 33?. h5u\ 3: EFE 32 :35 "g P525 3525 I. G 2.55 b: I a 35.8 .2258 I 6 2:: l G 23:36 .2323 I. 6 32543 b; I 8 35.3.6 xteufiu II 8 zoEuEmH: m qumerm 239 r i E i r Pd} no» :23 .53. 35: 21 36: Box a .3. ES 8 B ........ @3463 33.26 c. 256 33> .2 9 a a e t i e g g g 2 i @ e e a T352 6 e 8 8 9 G 9 9 a 3 mg 30x © @ 9 8V. 9 9 9 © 22 0393 6 9 9 Q 9 9 9 9 «530:2 .6 Q Q 9 .00 Q G 9 Q ..o [Ono 2.303 6 e 6 6 6 6 6 8 Ion noon 8 6 8 9 w W % W b.6393 6 e 8 9 a): no.» . 2. 92¢”.qu @ © @ © .0 ”WWW” lob-.11 fl baseman. D D D D 05 12 u msop 3.5.» 37:... 33:; ma “303”,.) DJ.— Am a 51‘ .o~ o. _ :30 :30 ’0‘ .9 0 Va a C S < B a“; 0 33m Sada A E maeAeg cjiamue “96 @a9 9 9 9 9 :500 9 9 9 9 9 9 9999 :3 98 6998 9999 655099 9999 9999 :st99 99 99 99 99 2.22099 99 99 9999 £12599 9999 6888 212386 8968 ad 99 88 .1836 83 86 Ge :5 : an 9 9 9 9 .sowatu...“ 9 9 9 9 9 9 an; .3 .2; ... o 2082 B DU 32: B B E wage a :60: :5: :50: 5 m . quJEux 289:0 9:92“. 3385 .0 x5 2 .2 A 3 z _, 59%; “in 23E @ Q 8 8 m .. “Ugo“ :50 O 9 9 9 9 9 O 9. : 8,093 to; O 9 9 9 9 9 O 999999 .. . 8295 325.3352 0 g 9 e G 9 O vototu Bo .vfiCflCm c003 .0 «80.6 0 w w w w % O . was} 930 u 9 .23 9369 d: «530% 6 6 Q G 8 O 2 M . 8 6 6 @ g «2.: .556 .caSU 3. mew % m a...) no» 5;! ex. .\35£ 30> .mH ......... 2556 can 3 306:2 .2 D r i 9 9 9 9 W % 20c} Luna % w 6 30x 6?.) fierce; @ © 9 w W «5332 ~5 33 G 9 8 9 9 .S 333 .30 {o} 9 9 9 6 6 9.89 vs 606 Box 6 6 6 8 .8 3?“ Son Eon x33 8 8 Q 8 9 wagon xcflb 3o «30; e G 6 mow @ 30:. .233 2.46 30; 9 9 w B g a z B a 283 Eu 3: 83 x33 95 c0 2 E] 9999999999 an r30; x56 305.0:31 95 c0 o 9999999999 999999999@ @eee@e@e@@ 8 oooflflum 2885 x15... 23:2 2.9 B233 {555 m A ~COOqQ1rqu .Cflaogo 30> h A A barium 1.35 3800 260300 0 Gavan :35 O ., . USO «£90 :23: O _ 550 O O , lucoz 2:30 {2:35 O 301 O O Lat: :55 23.8.2 0 3253.0 0 O ; 505.0 3.35 .3728». O aaun3>m O O .o3.o_o& 3.03m ...-«I O Enochuaam O 32% .35 O EBB O Eon: 2.3: O "conccuto «count $4 30532 Eon—26o yo 3": .32 cagv ~85 3 523 .0 Box a .23 .m 5&2 Box 9. ~23 .v 9 9 9 9 9 9 A $3 %% Swag eeee 99 26 O 9 9 9 9 9 9 322 :3 o e e a e e a 33.8 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 333 O G e e e UCOLQ 30% e e ocucuE/xg .o uni—a O 9 g © © ‘0 0&3 @ 9 gas .n DHD .3 a BS ...zo:o\ 522 c2236 58 9 :zcdu 32. 3\ «Sue x: S :Q 395 at: totqogqqu x: .5qu 20% 58¢ 240 Est 3 tin 3.5.1.82 29:90 .mrdofie 2.1. 343.5“ 526%“: Conga 2;... Bo: Sflnxw. $6.. mrzLUSS “E S :52 50> Co “8:0 25¢qu 39: 05 92 05),. 9. «M955! «2 5 EB uwfinoucu Comb“ 2.5 Eu 30I...%£E mafia“ fir. S 30 on «a :53 .30» co Soto 2538 $33 05 can 055 .v. \ $628 on 30> ..2 .aooE o. 2 x8... bnaoamcoo on 3338 203209 58.5 m. «Commence 39A 8 ”Saracen 3 ca on “45 39:63 05 .o qum 02 2.5.3 a. «533m 5355 59A 2 0305.80 0,. ma USS 30x 83332“ 2.23% 05 .o 069“ Pa :23 N‘ 33:03:00 305.“ ”aux on 33 33038 :4. .5338 333 L8 332 839d .33 93 8053 Ho 33c 05 8 2,223 on mctofie “8 .350 Econmz u5 Eon 3.3 303330 953822 2C. mzofimm: O mwQMiEO APPENDI X D Scales and Items 241 APPENDIX D Scales and Items Fathering Dimensions Awareness 1. I have a good handle on how my child‘s needs change as he/she grows up. 3. I know when my child has had a difficult day. 8. I know when my child is upset about something. 10. I do not know the names of my children's best Irrends. 13. I know what encourages my child the most. 17. I know when I've hurt my child's feelings. 18. I am familiar with my child's friends. 21 I t would be very difficult for me to list my child's strengths and weaknesses. I know what motivates my child. I know when my child is embarrassed. I could identify most of my Child's recent disappOIntlng experiences. 42. I know how my children compare with other children developmentally. I know how my child‘s emotional needs change over time. I know what is reasonable to expect from my children {or their age. I know what my child needs in order to grow into a mature, responsible person. 56. I know my child's growth needs. Involvement 2. I often discuss things with my child. 5. I rarely have time to play games with my Chlldfen. 7. My child and I often do things together. 11. My children accompany me on errands. 19. I frequently read stories to my child. 20. My child and I seldom have time to work together. 27. I often work together with my child on a project. 30. I am involved in my child's life. 39. My child and I often have fun together. 44. When my child is working I like to be present. 49. I rarely spend time with my children. 54. My child and I spend a lot of time together. 57. I often involve my child in working with me. 59. I spend time playing with my child a couple times a week. Nurturance 4. I listen to my children when they talk to me. 6. It is easy for me to encourage my child. 9. I praise my children for things they do well. 15. It is very hard for me to encourage my child. 22. I carefully listen to my children express their concerns. 24. I find that I do not hug my children very often. 25. I pay attention to my children when they speak to me. 29. I am understanding of my children's everyday defeats. 36. I express affection to my children. . 37. I constantly tell my children that I love them. 40. I show my children that I care when they share a problem with me. 43. I tell my children that they are special to me. 51. When my child/children is/are upset, I usually try to listen to them. 55. I point out qualities in my children that I like about them. Consistency 12. I do not have major shifts in my moods. 14. I try not to vary much in the way that I deal with my children. 26. How I relate with my children changes all the time/often. 32. I do not change much in the way that I deal with my children. 33. I am unchanging in my personality characteristics. 47. What I do with my children does not change much from day to day. 48. I tend to be somewhat unchanging in the way I practice fathering responsibilities. 50. My moods are pretty much the same from<flurto day. 242 ‘32. I feel that the way I deal with my children does not change mueh [Hun day to day. 53. My children know what to expect from me. 58' I am PICdictablc in the way that I relate to my Children. Fathering Practices Spiritual Development 3. Reading the Bible with my family/children often. 13. Praying with my children. 14. Stressing the importance of Christian values to my children 25. Talking about spiritual things with my children. 46. Having a family worship time in the home. Time Committed To Children 5. Spending a lot of time with my children. 12. Sacrificing some of my activities to spend time with my children. 34. Giving individual attention to each child every day. 47. Scheduling time to spend with my children. Involvement In Discipline 1. Being involved in the discipline of my children. 6. Being responsible for disciplining my children. 15. Setting limits for my children's behavior. 27. Correcting my children when they do something wrong. Marital Interaction 4. Having a sexually fulfilling relationship with my wife 8. Being romantic with my wife. 28. Spending time with my wife away from the kids/children 37. Having a good relationship with my wife. Involvement In Education 16. Having a specific plan to assist in my child's growth. 1?. Helping my children develop their strengths and talents at school 29. Helping my children understand what they are learning at school. 38. Taking an active role in my children's education. 48. Talking with my children's teachers about their progress. 51. Teaching my child a skill. 58. Helping my children develop athletic skills. 60. Helping my children complete their homework. Parental Discussion Relating To Children 18. Discussing my children's development with my wife. 21. Discussing with my wife my children's problems. 36. Discussing goals for each child with my wife. 39. Discussing my frustrations as a parent with my wife. Dealing With Family Crisis 7. Handling crisis in a mature manner. 19. Knowing what to do in a family crisis. 31. Being able to deal with crisis in a positive manner. 44. Being "level-headed“ during a crisis. Showing Affection 20. Touching or hugging my child every day. 26. Sincerely thanking my children when they do something to help me or their mother. 32. Telling my children they have done a "good )ob" when they complete a task. 30. Showing affection to my children. 42. Having a close, intimate bond with my children. 55. Telling my children I am proud of them. Financial Provider 33. Providing the majority of the family income. 40. Having a steady income. 41. Having a job that provides adequate income for my family. 49. Providing for the basic needs of my family. 243 10. Demonstrating emotional maturity to my children. 22. Being a mature role model to my children. 43. Being a good example to my children. 50. Modeling behavior that I want my children to perform. 56. Avoiding habits or actions that I do not want my children doing. Freedom Of Expression ll. Being able to respond calmly when my children say hurtful things to me 23. Allowing my children to disagree with me. 35. Being patient with my children when they make mistakes. 54. Not losing my temper with my children. 52. Responding calmly when my children do something with which I do "01 agree. Knowing My Child 2. Knowing my children's gifts and talents. 9. Knowing my children's plans and dreams. 24. Knowing who my children‘s friends are. 45. Knowing my children's weekly schedule. 53. Knowing the issues with which my children are dealing. 5?. Knowing my children's heroes. S9. Knowing what my children are able to do for their age Fathering Satisfaction Satisfaction With Your Childhood I. How satisfied were you with your childhood? 6. How satisfied were you with your relationship to your father while growing up? 11. How satisfied were you with your relaturmhip to your mother while growing up? 17. How satisfied are you with the gUidance you received from your parents while growing up? Satisfaction With Fathering Role 2. How satisfied are you with yourself as a father? 7. How satisfied are you with the way your children are growing up? 12. How satisfied are you with your relationship with your children? Satisfaction With Support From Others 3. How satisfied are you with the amount of support you receive from your wife to be a good father? 8. How satisfied are you with the amount of support you receive from friends to be a good father? 13. How satisfied are you with the amount of support you receive from your closest living relatives to be a good father? 16. How satisfied are you with the support you receive (rom other men to be a good father? 18. How satisfied are you with the support you receive through the church to be a good father? Satisfaction With Leadership Abilities 4. How satisfied are you with the amount of respect you receive from your family members? 9. How satisfied are you with your ability to be the family leader? 14. How satisfied are you with the recognition that you receive from yOur family as the family leader? Satisfaction With Verbal Relationship With Children 5. How satisfied are you with your ability to talk with your children? 10. How satisfied are you with your ability to express yourself to your children? 15. How satisfied are you with how much your children talk to you? APPENDIX E Tables Table 1. ital-i: :91. I: -. ‘ I = 0 __ _-i- -. !‘ : 40 1%.: W ‘Variable RATHEBS MQIHEBS ADHLI_£HILDBEN Mean/Range Mean/Range Mean/Range AGE 54.9 40-75 52.8 37-77 27.1 19-43 ETHNICITY % % % Black - - - White 100.0 97.6 100.0 Hispanic - 2.4 - Oriental - - - Native American - - - Other - - - EDUCATION % % % None — - - Grade School - 2.4 - High School 33.3 42.9 26.2 Technical Degree 9.5 16.7 4.8 Associate Degree 7.1 11.9 4.8 Bachelor’s Degree 28.6 23.8 52.4 Master's Degree 16.7 2.4 11.9 Doctorate 4.8 - - RELIGIOUS % % % AFFILIATION Protestant 97.6 92.9 97.6 Catholic - - - Jewish - - - None 2.4 - - Other - 4.8 2.4 RELIGIOUS % % % ORIENTATION Liberal - 2.4 - Fundamental 52.4 35.7 38.1 Evangelical 47.6 59.5 59.5 Charismatic - - - None - - - Other - 2.4 - INCOME Mean Mean Mean $60,000 $55,000 $51,500 244 $ 0 1-19,ooo 20-29,000 30-39,000 40-49,000 50-59,000 60-69,000 70-79,ooo 80-89,000 9o-99,ooo Over 100,000 Missing data nouns WORK/WK Mean Under 21 21-34 35-50 51-60 Over 60 HOURS WIFE WORKED Mean 0 1-20 21-34 35-50 Over 50 HOURS WKLY INTERACTING W/ CHILDREN Mean 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Over 2 0 NUMBER OF TIMES MARRIED 1 2 H P‘H \oa-b-ah-ocnhaq mtna:~\ounm\ouao 41.5 245 Hra W‘Jh’§‘d“§fin§~4 a ooooooooooofi UlN-fiGHUIUhNOQ 35.7 14.4 12.0 30.9 N p... \ObNQ‘DfimWO‘bNN oooooooooooofl mmepmmqmumnb 17.1 % 33.3 26.3 7.2 30.9 .0 100.0 YEARS MARRIED Mean 31.9 g 10-15 2.4 16-20 .0 21-25 19.1 26-30 16.7 31-35 28.6 36-40 12.0 Over 40 14.4 Missing data 7.1 CURRENT MARITAL STATUS % Single Married 100.0 Separated - Divorced - Widowed - Remarried - Living together - RATING FATHER - HOW HE SEES HIMSELF Mean 7.4 % 1 (extremely poor) 2.4 2 .- 3 .. 4 - 5 7.1 6 19.0 7 9.5 8 38.1 9 16.7 10 (extremely good) 4.8 Missing data 2.4 RATING FATHER - HOW WIFE SEES HIM Mean 7.8 % 1 (extremely poor) - 2 .- 3 2.4 4 2.4 5 4.8 246 32.0 2.4 .0 19.2 23.8 26.2 14.4 14.4 pp..- NbNJ‘D-hm N ...... hUGOGUI uh N.A. app umqwoau O O O O O O O ammoume 6 7.1 7 16.7 8 28.6 9 21.4 10 (extremely good) 14.3 RATING FATHER - HOW CHILD SEES HIM Mean 7.9 % 1 (extremely poor) - 2 - 3 2.4 4 .- 5 9.5 6 4.8 7 11.9 8 31.0 9 21.4 10 (extremely good) 16.7 RATING FATHER - HOW HIS FATHER SEES HIM Mean 7 . 7 % 1 (extremely poor) - 2 - 3 2.4 4 2.4 5 14.3 6 2.4 7 7.1 8 26.2 9 26.2 10 (extremely good) 9.5 Missing data 9.5 247 your-- 01me“) 0.... \IHUQIF Nb «>00 23.8 31.0 38.1 4.8 11.9 14.3 40.5 23.8 “UH mmhfihw o o o o o o Hqummfi NNH «Poona O O O O O O meowem 248 Table 2 - W W Variable Descriptive Statistics DIMENSIONS Consist 4.106 Nurture 4.105 Aware 4.111 Involve 3.606 PRACTICES FinProv 4.750 Model 4.281 FamCris 4.296 Discip 4.441 Affect 4.233 MarInt 4.086 KnowChd 4.012 ParDis 3.946 Express 3.828 Educate 3.792 Time 3.629 Spirit 3.743 SATISFACTIONS FathSat 5.762 LeadSat 5.722 VerbSat 5.508 SupSat 5.243 ChdSat 4.905 Mean Median 4.182 4.143 4.188 3.571 5.000 4.400 4.375 4.500 4.333 4.250 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 3.750 4.000 5.833 5.833 5.667 5.400 5.375 V .229 .169 .148 .205 .163 .345 .337 .258 .436 .555 .447 .688 .409 .443 .649 .752 .598 .601 .906 1.051 1.555 SD .478 .411 .385 .452 .724 .588 .581 .508 .660 .745 .669 .829 .640 .666 .806 .867 .773 .775 .952 1.025 1.247 Skewness Kurtosis Symmetry SE .079 -.544 .067 -2.799 .064 -1.724 .084 -.504 .403 -1.279 .097 -1.006 .094 -.577 .087 -.951 .104 -1.195 .126 -.891 .110 -1.004 .136 -1.319 .107 -.627 .116 -1.015 .140 -.755 .147 -.604 .119 -1.572 .120 -.688 .147 -1.114 .169 -1.084 .192 -.825 -1.020 11.511 5.006 -.189 .199 .990 -.616 .612 2.985 -.195 2.514 2.898 .806 .526 1.362 .088 5.250 .764 2.498 3.288 -.269 249 Skewness Kurtosis Table 3. I-‘ z ; ,. :' Strong_£athez§ Variable Descriptive Statistics WW1! Symmetry Mean Median V SD SE DIMENSIONS Consist 4.247 4.455 .229 .478 .077 -1.325 Nurture 4.133 4.286 .176 .419 .071 -2.106 Aware 4.006 4.188 .241 .491 .083 -1.646 Involve 3.615 3.750 .239 .489 .096 -1.132 PRACTICES FinProv 4.952 5.000 .062 .248 .038 -3.357 Model 4.698 4.800 .202 .450 .070 -1.648 FamCris 4.561 4.750 .390 .624 .098 -1.871 DiSCip 4.476 4.750 .618 .786 .123 -1.614 Affect 4.433 4.667 .427 .653 .101 -1.356 MarInt 4.438 4.750 .602 .776 .123 -2.096 KnowChd 4.220 4.286 .407 .638 .100 -.852 ParDis 4.220 4.500 .882 .939 .145 1.344 Express 4.088 4.200 .862 .928 .145 -1.336 Educate 4.085 4.125 .434 .659 .103 -.506 Time 4.037 4.250 .583 .764 .119 -.633 Spirit 3.985 4.200 .817 .904 .141 -.830 SATISFACTIONS FathSat 5.817 6.000 .549 .741 .114 -.984 LeadSat 5.723 6.000 .835 .914 .141 -1.564 VerbSat 5.492 5.667 1.015 1.007 .155 -.694 SupSat 5.213 6.750 1.312 1.145 .181 -.606 ChdSat 4.661 4.875 2.085 1.444 .223 -.622 .789 5.565 3.086 .588 15.053 1.715 3.959 2.156 2.063 5.010 .439 1.086 1.928 -.257 -.144 .212 1.095 4.016 -.211 .800 -.328 250 Table 4. 0359:1211!e_Statistiss_£or_Adult_£hildrean 2sr2entigne_9£_§;rgng_£atner§ Variable Descriptive Statistics Qentral_Ienden22_yariabilitx Symmetry Mean Median V SD SE DIMENSIONS Consist 4.268 4.364 .209 .457 .076 -1.727 Nurture 3.986 4.143 .208 .456 .072 -.979 Aware 3.849 3.938 .296 .544 .098 -1.817 Involve 3.371 3.464 .379 .616 .138 -.340 PRACTICES FinProv 4.875 5.000 .123 .350 .054 -3.211 Model 4.624 4.800 .276 .526 .082 -1.676 FamCris 4.625 5.000 .501 .708 .109 -2.476 Discip 4.506 4.750 .552 .743 .116 -1.691 Affect 4.258 4.500 .496 .704 .109 -.844 MarInt 4.226 4.500 .655 .809 .125 -1.763 KnowChd 4.105 4.286 .525 .724 .112 -1.401 ParDis 4.122 4.250 .760 .872 .136 -1.183 Express 4.065 4.400 .752 .867 .137 -1.014 Educate 4.037 4.375 .679 .824 .159 -.751 Time 3.935 4.250 .857 .926 .143 -1.078 Spirit 3.800 4.200 1.183 1.087 .222 -.651 SATISFACTIONS FathSat 5.841 6.000 .429 .655 .101 -1.311 LeadSat 5.722 6.000 .650 .806 .124 -1.084 VerbSat 5.325 5.333 .577 .760 .117 -.579 SupSat 5.171 6.50 1.136 1.066 .166 -.030 ChdSat 4.429 4.625 1.547 1.244 .192 -.675 Skewness Kurtosis 3.756 -.035 4.810 -1.078 10.550 2.303 6.598 2.849 -.507 3.503 1.528 2.474 .326 -.574 .180 -0935 4.027 2.164 .140 -.777 -.237 251 Table 5 . MW WW DIMENSIONS Fathers Mothers Ad. Child. Total Consist 4.106 4.247 4.268 4.207 Nurture 4.105 4.133 3.986 4.074 Aware 4.111 4.006 3.849 3.988 Involve 3.606 3.615 3.371 3.530 PRACTICES Fathers Mothers Adult Ch. Total FinProv 4.750 4.952 4.875 4.859 Model 4.281 4.698 4.624 4.534 FamCris 4.296 4.561 4.625 4.494 Discip 4.441 4.476 4.506 4.474 Affect 4.233 4.433 4.258 4.308 MarInt 4.086 4.438 4.226 4.250 KnowChd 4.012 4.220 4.105 4.112 ParDis 3.946 4.220 4.122 4.096 Express 3.828 4.088 4.065 3.993 Educate 3.792 4.085 4.037 3.971 Time 3.629 4.037 3.935 3.867 Spirit 3.743 3.985 3.800 3.842 SATISFACTIONS Fathers Mothers Adult Ch. Total FathSat 5.762 5.817 5.841 5.807 LeadSat 5.692 5.723 5.732 5.716 VerbSat 5.508 5.492 5.325 5.442 SupSat 5.243 5.213 5.171 5.209 ChdSat 4.905 4.661 4.429 4.665 Table 6. 52:19 1. a. Dimensions Involvement. 30. I am involved in my child's life (4.603). 2. I often discuss things with my child (4.474). 49. I rarely spend time with my children (4.359). 39. My child and I often have fun together (4.349). 7. My child and I often do things together (4.081). 57. I often involve my child in working with me (4.002). 59. I spend time playing with my child a couple times a week (3.903). 11. My children accompany me on errands (3.856). 54. My child and I spend a lot of time together (3.736). 27. I often work together with my child on a project (3.712). 44. When my child is working I like to be present (3.610). 20. My child and I seldom have time to work together (3.564). 5. I rarely have time to play games with my children (3.448). 19. I frequently read stories to my child (3.316). b. Consistency. C. 53. My children know what to expect from me 4.773 14. I try not to vary much in the way that I deal with my children 4.711 52. I feel that the way I deal with my children does not change much from day to day 4.621 58. I am predictable in the way that I relate to my children 4.602 32. I do not change much in the way that I deal with my children 4.595 26. How I relate with children changes all the time 4.556 50. My moods are pretty much the same from day to day 4.404 47. What I do with my children does not change much from day to day 4.366 33. I am unchanging in my personality characteristics 4.326 48. I tend to be somewhat unchanging in the way I practice fathering responsibilities 4.260 12. I do not have major shifts in my moods 4.234. Awareness. 253 46. I know what my child needs in order to grow into a mature, responsible person (4.677). 1. I have a good handle on how my child's needs change as he/she grows up (4.614). 18. I am familiar with my child's friends (4.548). 45. I know what is reasonable to expect from my children for their age (4.479). 21. It would be very difficult for me to list my child's strengths and weaknesses (4.472). 8. I know when my child is upset about something (4.453). 10. I do not know the names of my children's best friends (4.426). 31. I know when my child is embarrassed (4.327). 41. I know how my child's emotional needs change over time (4.325). 56. I know my child's growth needs (4.323). 3. I know when my child has had a difficult day (4.291). 17. I know when I've hurt my child's feelings (4.285). 42. I know how my children compare with other children developmentally (4.262). 23 I know what motivates my child (4.138). 13. I know what encourages my child the most (4.119). 35. I could identify most of my child's recent disappointing experiences (4.050). d. Nurturance. 40. I show my children that I care when they share a problem with me (4.738). 4. I listen to my children when they talk to me (4.704). 25. I pay attention to my children when they speak to me (4.659). 51. When my child is upset, I usually try to listen to them (4.591). 9. I praise my children for things they do well (4.579). 22. I carefully listen to my children express their concerns (4.376). 36. I express affection to my children (4.435). 55. I point out qualities in my children that I like about them (4.244). 43. I tell my children that they are special to me (4.414). 6. It is easy for me to encourage my child (4.254). 15. It is very hard for me to encourage my child (4.246). 29. I am understanding of my children’s everyday defeats (4.135). 37. I constantly tell my children that I love them (3.881). 254 24. I find that I do not hug my children very often (3.729). 2. Practices a. Time Commitment to Children 12. Sacrificing some of my activities to spend time with my children (4.064). 34. Giving individual attention to each child every day (3.335). 5. Spending a lot of time with my children (3.806). 47. Scheduling time to spend with my children (3.641). b. Involvement in Discipline 15. Setting limits for my children's behavior (4.536). 1. Being involved in the discipline of my children (4.455). 27. Correcting my children when they do something wrong (4.416). 6. Being responsible for disciplining my children (4.373). c. Involvement in Education 38. Taking an active role in my children's education (4.454). 17. Helping my children to develop strengths and talents (4.167). 29. Helping my children understand what they are learning at school (4.107). 51. Teaching my child a skill (3.891). 16. Having a specific plan to assist in my child's growth (3.814). 58. Helping my children develop athletic skills (3.728). 60. Helping my children complete their homework (3.710). 48. Talking with my children's teachers about their progress (3.579). d. Marital Interaction 37. Having a good relationship with my wife (4.515). 4. Having a sexually fulfilling relationship with my wife (4.480). 8. Being romantic with my wife (4.074). 28. Spending time with my wife away from the kids/children (3.950). e. Parental Discussion of Children. 18. Discussing my children's development with my wife (4.299). 255 21. Discussing with my wife my children's problems (4.252). 36. Discussing goals for each child with my wife (3.863). 39. Discussing my frustrations as a parent with my wife (3.831). f. Dealing with Crisis 7. Handling crisis in a mature manner (4.513). 31. Being able to deal with crisis in a positive manner (4.494). 19. Knowing what to do in a family crisis (4.486). 44. Being ’level-headed’ during a crisis (4.454). 9. Showing Affection 32. Telling my children they have done a 'good job' when they complete a task (4.399). 26. Sincerely thanking my children when they do something to help me or their mother (4.330). 42. Having a close, intimate bond with my children (4.328). 55. Telling my children I am proud of them (4.247). 30. Showing affection to my children (4.240). 20. Touching or hugging my child every day (4.033). h. Modeling 43. Being a good example to my children (4.606). 22. Being a mature role model to my children (4.592). 56. Avoiding habits or actions that I do not want my children doing (4.494). 10. Demonstrating emotional maturity to my children (4.492). 50. Modeling behavior that I want my children to perform (4.474). i. Financial Provider 40. Having a steady income (4.911). 49. Providing for the basic needs of my family (4.878). 33. Providing the majority of the family income (4.808). 41. Having a job that provides adequate income for my family (4.764). j. Spiritual Development 14. stressing the importance of Christian values to my children (4.568). 25. talking about spiritual things with my children (4.367). 13. praying with my children often (3.762). 3. reading the Bible with my children (3.383). 46. having a family worship time in the home (3.224). 256 k. Allowing Freedom of Expression 11. Being able to respond calmly when my children say hurtful things (4.097). 23. Allowing my children to disagree with me (4.048). 35. Being patient with my children when they make mistakes (4.047). 54. Not losing my temper with my children (3.928). 52. Responding calmly when my children do something with which I do not agree (3.812). 1. Knowing My Child. 24. Knowing who my children’s friends are (4.439). 2. Knowing my children's gifts and talents (4.386). 59. Knowing what my children are able to do for their age (4.148). 9. Knowing my children's plans and dreams (4.131). 53. Knowing the issues with which my children are dealing (3.933). 45. Knowing my children's weekly schedule (3.893). 57. Knowing my children’s heroes (3.629). Satisfactions Satisfaction with Your Childhood. 11. How satisfied were you with your relationship to your mother while growing up (5.286)? 1. How satisfied were you with your childhood (4.770)? 17. How satisfied are you with the guidance you received from your parents while growing up (4.468)? 6. How satisfied were you with your relationship to your father while growing up (4.135)? Satisfaction with Your Fathering Role. 7. How satisfied are you with the way your children are growing up (6.167)? 12. How satisfied are you with your relationship with your children (5.945)? 2. How satisfied are you with yourself as a father (5.309)? Satisfaction with Support from Others. 3. How satisfied are you with the amount of support you receive from your wife to be a good father (5.761)? 18. How satisfied are you with the support you receive through the church to be a good father (5.510)? 8. How satisfied are you with amount of support that you receive from your friends to be a good father (5.008)? 16. How satisfied are you with the support you receive from other men to be a good father (4.952)? 257 13. How satisfied are you with the amount of support you receive from your closest living relatives to be a good father (4.829)? d. Satisfaction with Leadership Abilities. 4. How satisfied are you with the amount of respect you receive from your family members (5.905)? 14. How satisfied are you with the recognition that you receive from your family as the family leader (5.690)? 9. How satisfied are you with your ability to be the family leader (5.603)? e. Satisfaction with Verbal Relationship with Children. 15. How satisfied are you with how much your children talk to you (5.587). 5. How satisfied are you with your ability to talk with your children (5.563)? 10. How satisfied are you with your ability to express yourself to your children (5.174)? 258 Table 7 - WWW Wilda}: FATHERS MOTHERS ADULT CHD TOTAL FD1 4.476 4.707 4.659 4.614 FD2 4.548 4.683 4.191 4.474 FD3 4.429 4.268 4.175 4.291 FD4 4.643 4.659 4.810 4.704 FD5 3.286 3.475 3.582 (Reversed) 3.448 FD6 4.119 4.429 4.214 4.254 FD7 4.119 4.220 3.905 4.081 FD8 4.762 4.405 4.191 4.453 FD9 4.571 4.595 4.571 4.579 FD10 4.429 4.325 4.524 (Reversed) 4.426 FD11 3.732 3.923 3.914 3.856 FD12 4.191 4.122 4.390 4.234 FD13 4.286 4.143 3.929 4.119 FD14 4.738 4.762 4.634 4.711 FD15 4.167 4.214 4.357 (Reversed) 4.246 FD16 4.143 4.429 4.595 (Reversed) 4.389 FD17 4.691 4.286 3.878 4.285 FD18 4.643 4.667 4.333 4.548 FD19 3.805 3.343 2.800 3.316 FD20 3.667 3.538 3.486 (Reversed) 3.564 FD21 4.488 4.548 4.381 (Reversed) 4.472 F022 4.429 4.317 4.381 4.376 FD23 4.146 4.293 3.976 4.138 FD24 3.714 3.878 3.595 3.729 FD25 4.667 4.548 4.762 4.659 FD26 4.405 4.667 4.595 (Reversed) 4.556 FD27 3.667 3.756 3.714 3.712 FD28 2.976 3.634 3.976 (Reversed) 3.529 FD29 4.048 4.381 3.975 4.135 FD30 4.500 4.738 4.571 4.603 FD31 4.524 4.310 4.146 4.327 FD32 4.476 4.810 4.500 4.595 FD33 4.119 4.429 4.429 4.326 FD34 4.190 4.381 4.634 (Reversed) 4.402 FD35 4.071 4.317 3.762 4.050 FD36 4.537 4.600 4.168 4.435 FD37 4.167 3.905 3.571 3.881 FD38 3.762 3.881 4.476 (Reversed) 4.040 FD39 4.476 4.357 4.214 4.349 FD40 4.619 4.881 4.714 4.738 FD41 4.513 4.342 4.119 4.325 FD42 4.436 4.268 4.081 4.262 FD43 4.590 4.439 4.214 4.414 FD44 3.513 3.568 3.750 3.610 FD45 4.564 4.300 4.575 4.479 FD46 4.692 4.750 4.590 4.677 FD47 3.974 4.475 4.650 4.366 FD48 FD49 FD50 FD51 F052 FD53 FD54 FD55 F056 FD57 FD58 FD59 FD60 4.105 4.308 4.333 4.641 4.474 4.821 3.897 4.333 4.436 4.077 4.539 4.211 4.368 4.366 4.537 4.366 4.561 4.781 4.781 3.775 4.400 4.459 4.051 4.659 3.938 4.585 259 4.310 4.231 4.512 4.571 4.610 4.714 3.537 4.000 4.075 3.879 4.610 3.560 4.282 (Reversed) (Reversed) 4.260 4.359 4.404 4.591 4.621 4.773 3.736 4.244 4.323 4.002 4.602 3.903 4.412 Table 8. . ”-.a FD53 FD40 FD14 FD4 FD46 FD25 FD52 FD30 FD58 FD32 FD51 FD9 FD26 FD18 FD45 FD2 FD21 FD8 FD36 FD10 FD43 FD60 FD50 FD34 FD16 FD22 FD47 FD49 FD39 FD31 FD33 FD41 FD56 FD3 FD17 FD42 FD48 FD6 FD15 FD55 FD12 FD23 FD29 FD13 FD7 FATHERS 4.821 4.619 4.738 4.643 4.692 4.667 4.474 4.476 4.500 4.539 4.476 4.641 4.571 4.405 4.643 4.564 4.548 4.488 4.762 4.537 4.429 4.590 4.368 4.333 4.190 4.143 4.429 3.974 4.308 4.476 4.524 4.119 4.513 4.436 4.429 4.691 4.436 4.105 4.119 4.167 4.333 4.191 4.146 4.048 4.286 4.119 MOTHERS 4.781 4.881 4.762 4.659 4.750 4.548 4.781 4.707 4.738 4.659 4.810 4.561 4.595 4.667 4.667 4.300 4.683 4.548 4.405 4.600 4.325 4.439 4.585 4.366 4.381 4.429 4.317 4.475 4.537 4.357 4.310 4.429 4.342 4.459 4.268 4.286 4.268 4.366 4.429 4.214 4.400 4.122 4.293 4.381 4.143 4.220 ADULT CHD 4.714 4.714 4.634 4.810 4.590 4.762 4.610 4.659 4.571 4.610 4.500 4.571 4.571 4.595 4.333 4.575 4.191 4.381 4.191 4.168 4.524 4.214 4.282 4.512 4.634 4.595 4.381 4.650 4.231 4.214 4.146 4.429 4.119 4.075 4.175 3.878 4.081 4.310 4.214 4.357 4.000 4.390 3.976 3.975 3.929 3.905 (Reversed) (Reversed) (Reversed) (Reversed) (Reversed) (Reversed) (Reversed) (Reversed) TOTAL 4.773 4.738 4.711 4.704 4.677 4.659 4.621 4.614 4.603 4.602 4.595 4.591 4.579 4.556 4.548 4.479 4.474 4.472 4.453 4.435 4.426 4.414 4.412 4.404 4.402 4.389 4.376 4.366 4.359 4.349 4.327 4.326 4.325 4.323 4.291 4.285 4.262 4.260 4.254 4.246 4.244 4.234 4.138 4.135 4.119 4.081 14) FD35 FD38 FD57 FD59 FD37 FD11 FD54 FD24 FD27 FD44 FD20 FD28 FD5 FD19 4.071 3.762 4.077 4.211 4.167 3.732 3.897 3.714 3.667 3.513 3.667 2.976 3.286 3.805 4.317 3.881 4.051 3.938 3.905 3.923 3.775 3.878 3.756 3.568 3.538 3.634 3.475 3.343 261 3.762 4.476 3.879 3.560 3.571 3.914 3.537 3.595 3.714 3.750 3.486 3.976 3.582 2.800 (Reversed) (Reversed) (Reversed) (Reversed) 4.050 4.040 4.002 3.903 3.881 3.856 3.736 3.729 3.712 3.610 3.564 3.529 3.448 3.316 54) 262 Table 9 - WW Dimensions. F053 F040 F014 F04 F046 F025 F052 F01 F030 F058 F032 F051 F09 F026 F018 F045 F02 F021 F08 F036 F010 F043 F060 F050 F034 F016 F022 4.773 (1) My children know what to expect from me. 4.738 (2) I show my children that I care when they share a problem with me. 4.711 (3) I try not to vary much in the way that I deal with my children. 4.704 (4) I listen to my children when they talk to me. 4.677 (5) I know what my child needs in order to grow into a mature, responsible person. 4.659 (6) I pay attention to my children when they speak to me. 4.621 (7) I feel that the way I deal with my children does not change much from day to day. 4.614 (8) I have a good handle on how my child’s needs change as he/she grows up. 4.603 (9) I am involved in my child's life. 4.602 (10) I am predictable in the way that I relate to my children. 4.595 (11) I do not change much in the way I deal with my children. 4.591 (12) When my children are upset, I usually try to listen to them. 4.579 (13) I praise my children for things they do well. 4.556 (14) How I relate with my children changes often (R) 4.548 (15) I am familiar with my children’s friends. 4.479 (16) I know what is reasonable to expect from my children for their age. 4.474 (17) I often discuss things with my child. 4.472 (18) It would be very difficult for me to list my child's strengths and weaknesses (R). 4.453 (19) I know when my child is upset about something. 4.435 (20) I express affection to my children. 4.426 (21) I do not know the names of my children's best friends. 4.414 (22) I carefully listen to my children express their concerns. 4.412 (23) I know what motivates my child. 4.404 (24) I find that I do not hug my children very often. 4.402 (25) I pay attention to my children when they speak to me. 4.389 (26) How I relate with my children changes often 4.376 (27) I often work together with my child on a project. F047 F049 F039 F031 F033 F041 F056 F03 F017 F042 F048 F06 F015 F055 F012 F023 F029 F013 F07 F035 F038 F057 F059 F037 F011 F054 F024 F027 F044 263 4.366 (28) I tend to condemn myself for mistakes I have made as a father. 4.359 (29) I an understanding of my children's everyday defeats. 4.349 (30) I am involved in my child's life. 4.327 (31) I know when my child is embarrassed. 4.326 (32) I do not change much in the way that I deal with my children. 4.325 (33) I am unchanging in my personality characteristics. 4.323 (34) It is hard for me to get going in my fathering role. 4.291 (35) I could identify most of my child's recent disappointing experiences. 4.285 (36) I express affection to my children. 4.262 (37) I constantly tell my children that I love them. 4.260 (38) I tend to delay doing the things I know I should do as a father. 4.254 (39) My child and I often have fun together. 4.246 (40) I show my children that I care when they share a problem with me. 4.244 (41) I know how my child's emotional needs change over time. 4.234 (42) I know how my children compare with other children developmentally. 4.138 (43) I tell my children that they are special to me. 4.135 (44) When my child is working, I like to be present. 4.119 (45) I know what is reasonable to expect from my children for their age. 4.081 (46) I know what my child needs in order to grow into a mature, responsible person. 4.050 (47) What I do with my children does not change much from day to day. 4.040 (48) I tend to be somewhat unchanging in the way I practice fathering responsibilities. 4.002 (49) I rarely spend time with my children. 3.903 (50) My moods are pretty much the same from day to day. 3.881 (51) them. 3.856 3.736 3.729 often. 3.712 (55) project. 3.610 (56) present. I constantly tell my children that I love (52) (53) (54) My children accompany me on errands. My child and I spend a lot of time together. I find that I do not hug my children very I often work together with my child on a When my child is working, I like to be 264 FD20 3.564 (57) My child and I seldom have time to work together (R). FD28 3.529 (58) I tend to condemn myself for mistakes I have made as a father (R). FD5 3.448 (59) I rarely have time to play games with my children (R). FD19 3.316 (60) I frequently read stories to my child. 265 Table 10 . W W FATHERS MOTHERS ADULT CH TOTAL FPl 4.500 4.450 4.415 4.455 FP2 4.359 4.561 4.238 4.386 FP3 3.270 3.450 3.429 3.383 FP4 4.342 4.550 4.548 4.480 FP5 3.632 4.049 3.738 3.806 FP6 4.405 4.250 4.463 4.373 FP7 4.359 4.512 4.667 4.513 FP8 3.974 4.200 4.048 4.074 FP9 4.103 4.171 4.119 4.131 FP10 4.342 4.610 4.524 4.492 FP11 3.919 4.270 4.103 4.097 FP12 3.947 4.220 4.024 4.064 FP13 3.744 4.000 3.542 3.762 FP14 4.487 4.805 4.405 4.568 FP15 4.378 4.675 4.550 4.536 FP16 3.769 4.024 3.650 3.814 FP17 4.049 4.405 4.048 4.167 FP18 4.225 4.476 4.195 4.299 FP19 4.200 4.690 4.571 4.486 FP20 4.146 4.167 3.786 4.033 FP21 4.171 4.381 4.205 4.252 FP22 4.300 4.738 4.738 4.592 FP23 3.976 4.167 4.000 4.048 FP24 4.268 4.548 4.500 4.439 FP25 4.293 4.452 4.357 4.367 FP26 4.244 4.429 4.317 4.330 FP27 4.366 4.405 4.476 4.416 FP28 3.700 4.268 3.881 3.950 FP29 3.923 4.220 4.179 4.107 FP30 4.268 4.357 4.095 4.240 FP31 4.268 4.595 4.619 4.494 FP32 4.244 4.476 4.476 4.399 FP33 4.756 4.929 4.738 4.808 FP34 3.639 3.816 4.050 3.835 FP35 3.879 4.049 4.214 4.047 FP36 3.744 4.000 3.846 3.863 FP37 4.425 4.690 4.429 4.515 FP38 4.350 4.561 4.450 4.454 FP39 3.825 3.878 3.789 3.831 FP4O 4.829 4.976 4.976 4.911 FP41 4.610 4.902 4.833 4.764 FP42 4.293 4.571 4.119 4.328 FP43 4.293 4.810 4.714 4.606 FP44 4.244 4.476 4.643 4.454 FP45 3.875 4.049 3.756 3.893 FP46 FP47 FP48 FP49 FP50 FP51 FP52 FP53 FP54 FP55 FP56 FP57 FP58 FP59 FP60 3.077 3.450 3.417 4.805 4.171 3.625 3.625 3.800 3.805 '4.098 4.220 3.537 3.600 4.049 3.474 3.191 3.805 3.625 4.952 4.667 3.927 3.929 4.048 3.881 4.357 4.667 3.744 3.902 4.195 3.615 266 3.405 3.667 3.694 4.927 4.585 4.122 3.881 3.952 4.098 4.286 4.595 3.605 3.683 4.200 4.042 3.224 3.641 3.579 4.878 4.474 3.891 3.812 3.933 3.928 4.247 4.494 3.629 3.728 4.148 3.710 Table 11- Eank_Qrdered_Meana_9f_the_Indixidual_lfems_gn_the 5: 0 9‘ 9‘: 901‘:-_!°. 4-- -' FATHERS MOTHERS ADULT cu TOTAL 9940 4.829 4.976 4.976 4.911 (1) 9949 4.805 4.952 4.927 4.878 (2) 9933 4.756 4.929 4.738 4.808 (3) 9941 4.610 4.903 4.833 4.764 (4) 9943 4.293 4.810 4.714 4.606 (5) 9922 4.300 4.738 4.738 4.592 (6) 9914 4.487 4.805 4.405 4.568 (7) 9915 4.378 4.675 4.550 4.536 (8) 9937 4.425 4.690 4.429 4.515 (9) 997 4.359 4.512 4.667 4.513 (10) 9956 4.220 4.667 4.595 4.494 (11) 9931 4.268 4.595 4.619 4.494 (12) 9910 4.342 4.610 4.524 4.492 (13) 9938 4.350 4.561 4.450 4.454 (14) 9919 4.200 4.690 4.571 4.486 (15) 991 4.500 4.450 4.415 4.455 (16) 994 4.342 4.550 4.548 4.480 (17) 9950 4.171 4.667 4.585 4.474 (18) 9944 4.244 4.476 4.643 4.454 (19) 9924 4.268 4.548 4.500 4.439 (20) 9927 4.366 4.405 4.476 4.416 (21) 996 4.405 4.250 4.463 4.373 (22) 9932 4.244 4.476 4.476 4.399 (23) 992 4.359 4.561 4.238 4.386 (24) 9925 4.293 4.452 4.357 4.367 (25) 9926 4.244 4.429 4.317 4.330 (26) 9942 4.293 4.571 4.119 4.328 (27) 9918 4.225 4.476 4.195 4.299 (28) 9921 4.171 4.381 4.205 4.252 (29) 9955 4.098 4.357 4.286 4.247 (30) 9930 4.268 4.357 4.095 4.240 (31) 9911 3.919 4.270 4.103 4.097 (32) 9959 4.049 4.195 4.200 4.148 (33) 9917 4.049 4.405 4.048 4.167 (34) 9929 3.923 4.220 4.179 4.107 (35) 999 4.103 4.171 4.119 4.131 (36) 998 3.974 4.200 4.048 4.074 (37) 9912 3.947 4.220 4.024 4.064 (38) 9935 3.879 4.049 4.214 4.047 (39) 9923 3.976 4.167 4.000 4.048 (40) 9920 4.146 4.167 3.786 4.033 (41) 9928 3.700 4.268 3.881 3.950 (42) FP36 3.744 4.000 3.846 3.863 (43) 9934 3.639 3.816 4.050 3.835 (44) 9953 3.800 4.048 3.952 3.933 (45) 9954 3.805 3.881 4.098 3.928 (46) FP45 FP51 FP39 FP16 FP60 FP52 FP5 FP58 FP13 FP57 FP47 FP48 FP3 FP46 3.875 3.625 3.825 3.769 3.474 3.625 3.632 3.600 3.744 3.537 3.450 3.417 3.270 3.077 4.049 3.927 3.878 4.024 3.615 3.929 4.049 3.952 4.000 3.905 3.857 3.683 3.512 3.191 268 3.756 4.122 3.789 3.650 4.042 3.881 3.738 3.738 3.542 3.833 3.833 4.024 3.429 3.405 3.893 3.891 3.831 3.814 3.710 3.812 3.806 3.763 3.762 3.758 3.713 3.708 3.404 3.224 Table 12. Erastiges 269 Bank_Qrdered_neans_and_flritten_ltem§_9n_tne FP4O FP49 FP33 FP41 FP43 FP22 FP14 FP15 FP37 FP7 FP56 FP31 FP10 FP38 FP19 FP1 FP4 FP50 FP44 FP24 FP27 FP6 FP32 FP2 FP25 FP26 FP42 FP18 FP21 FP55 FP30 4.935 (1) Having a steady income. 4.903 (2) Providing for the basic needs of my family 4.808 (3) Providing the majority of the family income 4.791 (4) Having a job that provides adequate income for my family. 4.606 4.592 4.565 to my 4.557 4.515 4.513 4.494 (10) (11) (5) Being a good example to my children. (6) Being a mature role model to my children. (7) Stressing the importance of Christian values children. (8) Setting limits for my children's behavior. (9) Having a good relationship with my wife. Handling a crisis in a mature manner. Avoiding habits or actions that I do not want my children doing. 4.494 (12) manner. 4.492 (13) children. 4.490 (14) education. 4.487 (15) 4.480 (16) children. 4.480 (17) Being able to deal with crisis in a positive Demonstrating emotional maturity to my Taking an active role in my children's Knowing what to do in a family crisis. Being involved in the discipline of my Having a sexually fulfilling relationship with my wife. 4.474 (18) perform. 4.454 (19) 4.439 (20) 4.416 (21) problems. 4.399 (22) 4.399 (23) 4.386 (24) 4.367 (25) children. 4.343 (26) Modeling behavior that I want my children to Being ”level-headed" during a crisis. Knowing who my children's friends are. Discussing with my wife my children's Being a mature role model to my children. Allowing my children to disagree with me. Knowing who my children’s friends are. Talking about spiritual things with my Sincerely thanking my children when they do something to help me or their mother. 4.328 (27) Correcting my children when they do something wrong. 4.313 (28) children. 4.295 (29) Spending time with my wife away from the Helping my children understand what they are learning in school. 4.247 (30) Showing affection to my children. 4.240 (31) Being able to deal with crisis in a positive manner. FP11 FP59 FP1? FP29 FP8 FP12 FP35 FP23 FP20 FP28 FP36 FP34 FP53 FP54 FP45 FP51 FP39 FP16 FP60 FP52 FPS FP58 FP13 FP57 FP47 FP48 FP3 FP46 270 4.199 (32) Telling my children they have done a "good job" when they complete a task. 4.191 (33) Providing the majority of the family income. 4.167 (34) Giving the individual attention to each child every day. 4.165 (35) Being patient with my children when they make mistakes. 4.131 wife. 4.074 4.064 education. 4.063 (36) (37) (38) (39) my wife. 4.048 4.033 (40) (41) Discussing goals for each child with my Having a good relationship with my wife. Taking an active role in my children's Discussing my frustrations as a parent with Having a steady income. Having a job that provides adequate income for my family. 3.964 (42) children. 3.945 3.935 3.933 3.928 3.927 3.923 (43) (44) (45) (45) (47) (48) Having a close, intimate bond with my Being a good example to my children. Being "level-headed" during a crisis. Knowing my children's weekly schedule. Having a family worship time in the home. Scheduling time to spend with my children. Talking with my children's teachers about their progress. (49) Providing for the basic needs of my family. 3.902 3.867 (50) Having a specific plan to assist in my child's growth. 3.840 (51) Helping my children complete their homework. 3.812 (52) Responding calmly when my children do something with which I do not agree. 3.806 3.763 3.762 3.758 3.713 3.708 (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) Spending a lot of time with my children. Helping my children develop athletic skills. Praying with my children. Knowing my children's heros. Scheduling time to spend with my children. Talking with my children's teachers about their progress. 3.404 3.224 (59) (60) Reading the Bible with my children often. Having a family worship time in the home. 271 Table 13. WW FATHERS MOTHERS ADULT CH TOTAL F81 5.071 4.738 4.500 4.770 F82 5.214 5.333 5.381 5.309 F83 5.927 5.571 5.786 5.761 F84 6.048 5.952 5.714 5.905 F85 5.595 5.643 5.452 5.563 F86 4.405 4.143 3.857 4.135 F87 6.143 6.143 6.214 6.167 F88 5.000 5.049 4.976 5.008 F89 5.333 5.619 5.857 5.603 F810 5.262 5.190 5.071 5.174 F811 5.571 5.238 5.048 5.286 F812 5.929 5.976 5.929 5.945 F813 5.024 4.756 4.707 4.829 F814 5.786 5.690 5.595 5.690 F815 5.667 5.643 5.452 5.587 F816 4.878 5.050 4.927 4.952 F817 4.571 4.524 4.310 4.468 F818 5.425 5.643 5.463 5.510 II 1 . Table 14. EaEk_Qrdered_uean§_9f_the_lndizidual_lfem§_Qn_Lhe i 5 ._ 'l‘ ' ._ l‘ ‘ 9' ‘ .3 .o. 1 4.... _ FATHERS MOTHERS ADULT cu TOTAL 9S7 6.143 6.143 6.214 6.167 (1) 9812 5.929 5.976 5.929 5.945 (2) 984 6.048 5.952 5.714 5.905 (3) 983 5.927 5.571 5.786 5.761 (4) 9814 5.786 5.690 5.595 5.690 (5) 989 5.333 5.619 5.857 5.603 (6) 9815 5.667 5.643 5.452 5.587 (7) 985 5.595 5.643 5.452 5.563 (8) 9818 5.425 5.643 5.463 5.510 (9) 982 5.214 5.333 5.381 5.309 (10) 9811 5.571 5.238 5.048 5.286 (11) 9810 5.262 5.190 5.071 5.174 (12) 988 5.000 5.049 4.976 5.008 (13) 9816 4.878 5.050 4.927 4.952 (14) 9813 5.024 4.756 4.707 4.829 (15) 981 5.071 4.738 4.500 4.770 (16) 9817 4.571 4.524 4.310 4.468 (17) 986 4.405 4.143 3.857 4.135 (18) Table 15. 273 WWW How satisfied are/were you ... F87 F812 F84 F83 F814 F89 F815 F85 F818 F82 F811 F810 F88 F816 F813 F81 F817 F86 6.167 (1) with the way your children are growing up? 5.945 (2) with your relationship with your children? . 5.905 (3) with the amount of respect you receive from family members? 5.761 (4) with the amount of support you receive from your wife to be a good father? 5.690 (5) with the recognition you receive from your family as the family leader? 5.603 (6) with your ability to be the family leader? 5.587 (7) with how much your children talk to you? 5.563 (8) with your ability to talk with your children? 5.510 (9) with the support you receive through the church to be a good father? 5.309 (10) with yourself as a father? 5.286 (11) with your relationship to your mother growing up? 5.174 (12) with your ability to express yourself to your children? 5.008 (13) with the amount of support you receive from friends to be a good father? 4.952 (14) with the support you receive from other men to be a good father? 4.829 (15) with the amount of support you receive from your closest living relatives to be a good father? 4.770 (16) with your childhood? 4.468 (17) with the guidance you received from your parents while growing up? 4.135 (18) with your relationship to your father growing up? Arr9-Hn 274 Table 16 - WWW (HQQEEI§§_ DIMENSIONS Fathers Mothers Ad Ch F p Tukey Consist 4.060 4.205 4.301 3.34 .043 C,F Nurture 4.171 4.115 3.998 1.81 .170 Aware 4.156 4.013 3.973 1.78 .181 Involve 3.561 3.736 3.368 2.25 .126 PRACTICES Fathers Mothers Ad Ch F p Tukey FinProv 4.747 4.950 4.863 5.40 .006 M,F Model 4.271 4.695 4.675 13.23 .000 M,F/ C,F FamCris 4.264 4.590 4.660 6.86 .002 M,F/ C,F Discip 4.289 4.461 4.547 0.93 .400 Affect 4.213 4.436 4.290 2.90 .061 MarInt 3.950 4.384 4.193 2.907 .062 KnowChd 4.025 4.234 4.086 1.54 .220 ParDis 3.950 4.143 4.150 0.82 .442 Express 3.813 4.000 4.113 2.06 .136 Educate 3.776 4.193 4.128 5.45 .008 M,F/ C,F Time 3.609 3.961 3.945 2.577 .084 Spirit 3.800 4.053 3.958 1.04 .363 SATISFACTIONS Fathers Mothers Ad Ch F p Tukey ChdSat 4.878 4.622 4.427 4.78 .011 F,C FathSat 5.740 5.789 5.862 .55 .576 SupSat 5.274 5.283 5.194 .665 .600 LeadSat 5.692 5.723 5.732 .051 .950 VerbSat 5.472 5.464 5.358 .38 .683 275 Table 17. The_Differen9e5.9n_the_ltem§_flifhin_the 8 Means F P Tukey F02 4.490 3.973 .024 M(4.7l9),C(4.188) I often discuss things with my child. F08 4.479 4.716 .012 F(4.719),C(4.250) I know when my child is upset about something. 9047 4.302 3.814 .030 C(4.667),F(3.810) What I do with my children does not change much from day to day. F018 4.278 3.511 .041 F(4.611),C(3.722) I am familiar with my child's friends. FD44 3.571 4.932 .012 M(3.857),F(3.000) C(3.857),F(3.000) When my child is working, I like to be present. F019 3.556 4.694 .016 F(4.000),C(2.778) M(3.889),C(2.778) I frequently read stories to my child. 276 Table 18. The_Differen2e9_9n_the_Items_Eithin_Eragtieee Baeed_gn_BeneaLed_uea§ures Means F P Tukey 9941 4.7396 3.252 .045 M(4.875),F(4.563) FP43 FP19 FP50 FP31 FP56 FP29 FP28 FP6O FP51 FP52 FP48 Having a job that provides adequate income for my family. 4.552 7.459 .001 M(4.724),F(4.241) C(4.690),F(4.24l) Being a good example to my children. 4.511 7.895 .001 M(4.700),F(4.200) C(4.633),F(4.200) Knowing what to do in a family crisis. 4.506 4.456 .016 M(4.655),F(4.172) C(4.690),9(4.172) Modeling behavior that I want my children to perform. 4.452 4.696 .013 M(4.643),F(4.214) Being able to deal with crisis in a positive manner. 4.431 3.546 .037 M(4.667),F(4.l67) Avoiding habits or actions that I do not want my children doing. 4.107 3.327 .043 C(4.357),F(3.893) Helping my children understand what they are learning at school. 4.0717 3.566 .009 M(4.3646),F(3.758) Spending time with my wife away from the children. 3.971 9.121 .000 C(4.43S),F(3.478) Helping my children complete their homework. 3.913 3.864 .028 Teaching my child a skill. C(4.l74),F(3.522) 3.792 3.286 .046 M(4.042),F(3.583) Responding calmly when my children do something with which I do not agree. 3.740 5.526 .006 C(4.094),F(3.375) Talking with my children’s teachers about their progress. FP47 277 3.701 4.280 .019 M(3.966),F(3.379) Scheduling time to spend with my children. 278 Table 19. Ine_Differen2e5_9n_the_ILems_flithin_§a&i§fassigns Based_9n_Beneated_Mea§ures Means F P Tukey 989 5.577 4.705 .012 C(5.854),F(5.293) How satisfied are you with your ability to be the family leader? 9811 5.276 3.908 .024 F(5.561),C(5.049) How satisfied were you with your relationship to your mother growing up? 981 4.748 4.459 .015 F(5.049),C(4.488) How satisfied were you with your childhood? 279 Table 20. QrgnbashL§_Alnha DIMENSIONS: Consist .7220 Nurture .4821 Aware .6621 Involve .5800 PRACTICES: FinProv .6525 Model .7893 FamCris .7344 Discip .4617 Affect .8125 MarInt .7632 KnowChd .7185 ParDis .5981 Express .8191 Educate .8367 Time .5993 Spirit .8753 SATISFACTIONS: ChdSat .8571 FathSat .6959 SupSat .5653 LeadSat .6859 VerbSat .6639 280 Table 21. WWWSLE 989W Correlation Probability Chi-square Awareness .005** Father/Mother .235 .280 Father/Child .300 .164 Mother/Child .646 .001** Involvement .070 Father/Mother .686 .010** Father/Child .176 .564 Mother/Child .236 .437 Nurturance .007** Father/Mother .227 .227 Father/Child .133 .483 Mother/Child .509 .004** Consistency .001** Father/Mother .541 .002** Father/Child .457 .013* Mother/Child .386 .038* * p. _<_ .05 u p. g .01 281 Table 22. 2earSOn_Q9rre1ati9n_Matrixl_§ni:§guare_Statisti§ and_2r9babilitie§_on_she_zrastiees Correlation Probability Chi-square Spiritual Development .000** Father/Mother .772 .000** Father/Child .629 .004** Mother/Child .730 .000** Time Commitment to Children .001** Father/Mother .618 .000** Father/Child .159 .385 Mother/Child .122 .464 Involvement in Discipline .358 Father/Mother .112 .543 Father/Child .296 .100 Mother/Child .042 .820 Marital Interaction .003** Father/Mother .290 .102 Father/Child .252 .157 Mother/Child .553 .001** Involvement in Education .000** Father/Mother .829 .000** Father/Child .599 .004** Mother/Child .500 .021* Parental Discussion Relating to Children .011** Father/Mother .453 .006** Father/Child .220 .205 Mother/Child .321 .060 Dealing with Family Crisis .000** Father/Mother .515 .001** Father/Child .353 .035* Mother/Child .437 .008** Showing Affection .000** Father/Mother .687 .000** Father/Child .468 .003** Mother/Child .699 .000** Financial Provider .003** Father/Mother .338 .033* Father/Child .284 .076 Mother/Child .456 .003** Modeling Father/Mother .415 Father/Child .157 Mother/Child .611 Freedom of Expression Father/Mother .784 Father/Child .424 Mother/Child .451 Knowing My Child Father/Mother .647 Father/Child .415 Mother/Child .346 * p. ,5 .05. u p. s .01. 282 .013* .021* .OOO** .000** .016* .010** .000** .013** .042* .000** .000** .000** Table 23. Eear§9n_Q9rrelasi9n_MaLrixl_§hi:§guare_§ta§ietig aad_Er9babilifies_gn_the_§ati§fastien§ Correlations Probabilities Chi-square Satisfaction with Your Childhood .000** Father/Mother .826 .000** Father/Child .727 .000** Mother/Child .702 .000** Satisfaction with Your Fathering Role .000** Father/Mother .546 .000** Father/Child .425 .006** Mother/Child .408 .008** Satisfaction with Support from Others .002** Father/Mother .530 .001** Father/Child .214 .217 Mother/Child .336 .048* Satisfaction with Leadership Abilities Father/Mother .639 .000** Father/Child .492 .003** Mother/Child .328 .109 Satisfaction w/ Verbal Relationship with Children .000** Father/Mother .554 .000** Father/Child .337 .015* Mother/Child .464 .002** * p. g .05. ** p. 5 .01. 284 Table 24. 4 age ’ 'as. _ 9 ‘9 on 9‘ '1‘ ‘7 '2 1 ‘1 01 VI # Of Minimum Maximum Scale Scnlg Questions Scale Scale Reliability Score Score Involvement 14 14.0 70.0 .84 Consistency 11 11.0 55.0 .79 Awareness 16 16.0 80.0 .85 3 Nurturance 14 14.0 70.0 .76 Modelingi 5.0 25.0 .83 Dealing With 4 4.0 20.0 .90 , Difficulties 1 Financial Provider 4.0 20.0 .86 Time Commitment to 4.0 20.0 .84 Children Showin Affection 6 6.0 30.0 .87 Allowing Freedom of 5.0 25.0 .82 Expression : Spiritual Development 5 5.0 24.0 .87 My Child 5.0 30.0 .85 5 Involvement in 8.0 40.0 .84 Education ( Involvement in 4 4.0 20.0 .85 ; Discipline Marital Interaction 4.0 20.0 .85 Parental Discussion of 4.0 20.0 .87 Children Your Childhood 4 4.0 28.0 .76 Other's Support 5 5.0 35.0 .75 ' verbal Interaction With 3 3.0 21.0 .85 i Children 3 Leadership j Fathering Role LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Acock, A. C. 8 Bengtson, V. L. (1978). On the relative influence of mothers and fathers: A covariance analysis of political and religious socialization. lenrnal ef Marriage.ana.fne Family. 10. 519-30. Acock, A. C., 8 Bengston, V.L. (1980). Socialization and attribution processes: Actual versus perceived similarity among parents and youth. gggrnal 9: Marriage and The Family. 42. 501-515. Adler, L., Davis, W., Ahmed, R., Mrinal, N., 8 Mukherji, B. (1989). The perception of mother-in-law and father-in-law in cross-cultural perspective. ggfernatienal lenrnal Of Green Teneiene. .12. 245- Ahrons, C. (1983). Predictors of paternal involvement postdivorce: mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions. lenrnal ef.nixeree. a. 55-69. Alexander, B., 8 Dibb, G. (1977). Interpersonal perception in addict families. family Process, ‘19, 17-28 e Allen, D. R. (1974). Congruence of parental perception, marital satisfaction and child adjustment. ' s' . Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Altergott, K. (1988). Work and family: Understanding men's role evaluation. Lifestyles, 2, 181-198. Ambert, A. M. (1983). Differences in children’s behavior toward custodial mothers and custodial fathers. lenrnal Of Marriage and the Family. 44. 73-86. Ambert, A., 8 Saucier, J. (1983). Adolescents' perception of their parents and parents' marital status. lenrnal ef.§eeial Eexenelegx. 1. 101-110. Aquilino, W.S. (1986). Children's perceptions of marital interaction. Child Study Journal, .15. 159- 172. 285 286 Babble. E- R- (1979). Ine.Eraeriee ef,§eeial Beeearen- Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Baer, P. E. (1983). Conflict management in the family: the impact of paternal hypertension. Adyanooo 1n €2§il¥ IDSEIXEDEIQDI Aeeeeenent. and IDEQIXI 14 151’ Bahr, S., Bowerman, C., Gecas, V. (1974). Adolescent perceptions of conjugal power. Soolal Eorooo, 52, 357-367. Barnett, R. (1981). Parental sex-role attitudes and child-rearing values. Sax Boloa, 1, 837-846. Barnett, B., Robinson, 1., Bailey, W., Smith, J. (1984). The status of husband/father as perceived by the wife/mother in the intact lower-class urban black family- Seeieleaieal.§9eetrnn. i. 421-441- Barber, B. K., 8 Thomas, D. L. (1986). Dimensions of fathers' and mothers' supportive behavior: The case for physical affection. Journal of Marriago,ano rho family. 13: 783-794- Barnett, R. D. 8 Baruch, G. K. (1986). Consequences of fathers' participation in family work: parents' role strain and well-being. Journal or Eargonallry ano Seeial Eexenelear. 51. 983-992. Barnett, R. D., 8 Baruch, G. K. (1987). Determinants of fathers' participation in family work. Journal at Marriage and the.£anilx. 42. 29-40. Barnhill, L.R., 8 and Longo, D. (1978). Fixation and regression in the family life cycle. Family Eroooao, ll, 469-478. Bartz, K., (1978). Selected childrearing tasks and problems of mothers and fathers. Eanlly Qooroinator, 21, 209-214. Bayer, A.E. (1981). The psychoanalytical frame of reference in family study. In Nye, F.I. 8 Berardo, F-M- - Emerging Qeneentnal Eranenerke in Eanilx Analyala, New York: Praeger Publishers. Beal, E. W., 8 McGuire (1982). Earnora: Bayonologloal Paranooriyaa, London: Junction Books. Beavers, W. R., 8 Voeller, M. N. (1983). Family models: 287 Comparing and contrasting the Olson Circumplex Model with the Beavers System Model. family Eroooaa, 22, 85-98. Beckett, K. (1987). The negotiation of fatherhood. Beaeeeeeine EetneIhQQQ= her Qheerxatiena en fathere aha the Modern Family. London: Sage- Belsky J., 8 Volling. (1987). Mothering, fathering, and marital interaction in the family triad during infancy. P. Berman 8 F.A. Pedersen (Eds.). ManLo to Earontnooo, Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Berman, P., 8 Pedersen, F.A. (1987). Introduction: A perspective on research concerning fatherhood. In P. Berman 8 F. A. Pedersen MERLE Iranairiona ro Paronrnoou, Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Berstein, B. (1982). Shouldn't low-income fathers support their children? Punlio lntoregt, £5. winter, 55-71. Birn. B- (1988). The Different.£aeee ef.Metherheed- New York: Plenum Press. Block, J. (1983). Parental consistency in child-rearing orientation and personality development. Unpublished paper. Booth, A., 8 Welch, S. (1978). Consensus and its correlates: A reassessment. Journal or Marriaga anu the Mill: 8.9: 23'320 Bozett, F. W., 8 Hanson, S.M.H. (1991). Earharnooo ano Eamiliee.in cultural tentext. New York. N-Y-: Springer Pub. Co. Bradley, R.H. (1985). Fathers and the school-age child. In S.M.H. Hanson, 8 F.W. Bozett (Eds.). Qinonaiona or Earnornoou, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Bricklin. B- (1970)- fitreng family. Streng thildi the Art.ef Herring.Tegether ta Derelen a Healthx thila. New York: Delaacorte Press. Bristol, M., Gallagher, J., 8 Schopler, E. (1988). Mothers and fathers of young developmentally disabled and nondisabled boys: Adaptation and spousal support. Dexelennental.Earehelegr. 24. 441-451. 288 Brody, G. H. (1986). Marital quality and mother-child and father-child interactions with school-aged children. Derelonnental Esxohologx. 22. 291-296- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Tug florlua of thilohood: nifil and Hefiefiefie New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Brook, J., Gordon, A., 8 Brook, D. (1980). Perceived paternal relationships, adolescent personality, and female marijuana use. lonrnal of Esreholoox. 195. 277-285. Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A.S., 8 Brook, D. W. (1983). Paternal correlates of adolescent marijuana use in the context of the mother-son and parental dyads. Genetie Bartholoox Monographs. loo. 197- 213. Brown, M. A. (1986). Social support, stress, and health: A comparison of expectant mothers and fathers. Norsing Besearoh. 35. 72-76- Bubolz, M.M., 8 Sontag, M.S. (In Press). Human ecology theory- In Sonreehook of Tamil! Theories and Methods: A.tontextnal Anoroaoh. P. Bose. W- Doherty. R. La Rossa, W. Schumm, 8 S. Steinmitz, (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press. Burgess, E., Locke, H. 8 Thomas, M. (1963). Ino_£amily; Tron Traditional to gonoanionshio. New York: Van Nostrand. Burr et al- (1979). tontennorarx Theories About the Family, 1, New York: Collier Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Canfield, K.R., Schumm, W., 8 Swihart, J. (1989). Father ing Style Inventory, Manhattan, Kansas: National Center for Fathering. Canfield, K. R., Schumm, W., 8 Swihart, J. (1989). The International and National survey of fathering practices. Unpublished manuscript, Manhattan, Kansas: National Center for Fathering. Canfield, K. R., Schumm, W., 8 Swihart, J. (1990). The factorial validity of brief satisfaction scales in surveys of Mormon, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Fathers. Borehologioal Resorts. 91. 1319-1322- Canfield, K. R. (In Press). Soyon fiaorors of firrong Earnora. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale Publishers. 289 Carlson, J., 8 Iovini, J. (1975). The transmission of racial attitudes from fathers to sons: A study of blacks and whites. ngoloaoanoo, 29, 233-237. Cazenave, N. A. (1979). Middle-income black fathers: An analysis of the provider role. family Qoordinator, 25, 583-593. Centers, R., Raven, B., 8 Rodrigues, A. (1971). Conjugal power structure: A re-examination. Amorioan aoeioloaieal Bexien. as. 431-440. ChafetZ. J-S- (1978). A.Eriner on the eonstruotion and Testing of Theories in aooioloax. Itasca. Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers. Chartier, J., 8 Chartier, M. (1975). Perceived parental communication and self-esteem: An exploratory study. Eestern season. 12. 26-31. Christmon, K. (1990). The unwed adolescent father’s perceptions of his family and of himself as a father. §§%lg and AJoleseent seeial Hork Journal. .1. 275- Clair, D., 8 Genest, M. (1987). Variables associated with the adjustment of offspring of alcoholic fathers. Journal of Stuaies on.Aleohol. la. 345- 355. Clark, C. (1988). The transmission of religious beliefs and practices from parents to firstborn early adolescent sons. Journal of Marriage ans the Eanilx. an, 463-72. Cogle, F. L. (1981). Children: An untapped resource for building family strengths. family firrongrna 1: Boots of floll;foing, Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Cohen, R. S., 8 Orum, A. M. (1972). Parent-child consesus on socioeconomic data obtained from sample surveYS- Buhlio ooinion Quarterly. as. 95-98- Coleman, M., Ganong, L., Clark, J., 8 Madsen, R. (1989). Parenting perceptions in rural and urban families: Is there a difference? {Journal of Marriage and the mm: a: 329-335“ Collins, J. R. (1987). The blind spot extended: Spirituality- Journal of.tolleoe Student Eersonnel. 25, 274-276. 290 Condran, J. G., 8 Bode, J.G. (1982). Rashomon, working wives, and famiy division of labor: Middletown. Journal of Marriage.ana the Family. 44. 421-426. Constantine, L. L. (1983). Dysfunction and failure in open family systems, I: Application of a unified theory- Journal of Marriage.ana the Tamils. 45. 725-738. Cook. M- (1984)- Issue In Eerson Eereention. London; New York: Methuen. Cosby, B. (1986). farnornoou. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Coverman, S., 8 Sheley, J. F. (1986). Change in men's housework and child-care time. Journal of Marriago ana the Eauilx. it. 413-422. Coven & Cowen- (1987). Menis.Transitions to Parenthood- Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum Associates. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Bayonomarrira, la, 297-334. Crouter, A. C., Perry, J. M., Huston, T. L., 8 McHale, S. M. (1987). Processes underlying father involvement in dual-earner and single-earner families. Dexelounental Bartholoor. 23. 431-40. Crouter, A. C., 8 Crowley, M. S. (1990). School-age children's time alone with fathers in single- and dual-earner families: Implications for the father- child relationship- Journal of Earlx Aeolesoenoe. 1g, 296-312. Curran. D- (1983). Traits of a healthx.£auilri.rifteen Traits tonnonlx Fauna in Healthy families 89 Those Who E215 flirn Imam. Minneapolis, Minn.: Winston Press. D'Antonio, W. 8 Aldous, J. (1983). Families and = tonfliet aha thanae in uoaern assists- Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Dare, C. (1979). Psychoanalysis and systems in family therapy- Journal of Tamil! Theranr. 1. 137-152. Davis, G. L. (1986). Spiritual direction: A model for adolescent catechists. Boligioualfduoation. 814 267-278. 291 Davis, H. L. (1970). Dimensions of marital roles in consumer decision-making. Journal of Marketing Researoh. a. 305-312- Dhammi, R., Sathyavathi, K., 8 Murthy, H. (1978). Perception of parents by modern youth. Indian Journal of tlinieal Bsxoholoax. .5. 123-129. Donnenwerth, G., Teichman, M., 8 Foa, U. (1973). Cognitive differentiation of self and parents in delinquent and non-delinquent girls. Bririan Journal of Sooial and tlinioal,2s¥oholosx. .12. 144-152- Douglas, S. P., 8 Wind, Y. (1978). Examining family roles and authority patterns: Two methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and the Fanilx. 49. 35-47. Duval, E. (1957). family Doyalonmanr. Chicago: Lippincott. Easterbrook, M. A., 8 Goldberg, W. A. (1984). Toddler development in the family: Impact of father involvement and parenting characteristics. thld Dexelonnent. 55. 740-752. Eggerichs, E.E. (1991). A comparison of three types of fathers within evangelicalism. Unpublished paper. Entwisle, D. R., 8 Doering, S. (1988). The emergent father role. fox Boloa, la, 119-141. Epstein, N. B., 8 Bishop, D. S. (1981). Problem- Centered systems therapy of the family. In A.S. Gurman, 8 D.P. Kniskern, (Eds.). fiandnook of family Inorapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Eversoll, D. (1979). A two generational view of fatherlng- family toorainator. 28. 503-08. Ezell, M. P. (1982). Family members' perceptions of household production in relationship to quality of life. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Fein, R. A. (1978). Research on fathering: Social policy and an emergent perspective. Journal of Sosial Issues. 34. 122-135. Feiring, 8 Lewis. (1978). The child as a member of the family system- Beharioral-fioienoe. 23. 225-233- 292 Feldman, S. S. (1983). Antecedents of Fathering. thld Derelounent. £1. 1528-36- Ferber, R. (1955). On the reliability of responses secured in sample surveys. Journal of tho Amerioan Statistioal.8ssooiation. so. 788-810- Ferreira, A. J. (1964). Interpersonal perceptivity among family members. Amarioan Journal of WI .15.! 64-70' Fine, M. (1986). Perceptions of stepparents: Variation in stereotypes as a function of current family structure. Journal of.uarriade and.the family. 48. 537-543. Finney, J. R. (1985). Empirical studies of Christian prayer: A review of the literature. Journal or 2512021991 and Theology. 11. 104-115. Fischer, L. R. (1983). Married men and their mothers. Journal of tonnaratire Tamil! Studies. 14. 393-402. Flores, N. M. (1986). Congruities and Differences of Self-and Peer-Based Ratings of Interpersonal Behavior in Small Groups. Thesis (M.A.) Michigan State University. Dept. of Psychology. Forehand, R., Long, N., Brody, G. H., 8 Fauber, R. (1986). Home predictors of young adolescents’ school behavior and academic performance. Qnild Dexeloonent. 51. 1528-1533. Fox, G. (1985). Noncustodial fathers. In S.M.H. Hanson, 8 F.W. Bozett (Eds.). Qimanoions of farnornood, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Foxman, E., Tansuhaj, P., 8 Ekstrom, K. (1989). Family members perceptions of adolescents’ influence in family decision making. Journal of gonaumar Researoh. 15. 432'491- Framo, J. L. (1981). The integration of marital therapy with sessions with family of origin. In A.S. Gurman, 8 D-P- Kniskern. (Eds.). handbook of Tanilx Theranx New York: Brunner/Mazel. Frank, S. (1986). Psychological predictors of parents’ sense of confidence and control versus child-focused gratificationS- Dexelonnental.Esxeholodx. 22. 348- 355. 293 Frankel, P., Behling, C., 8 Dix, T. (1975). The parents of drug users- Journal of college Student Personnel. in, 244-247. Fry, P. S., 8 Scher, A. (1984). The effects of father absence on children’s achievement motivation, ego- strength, and locus of control orientation: A five year longitutindal assessment. .Elltlfih Journal of Deyelonnental.Seychology. 2. 167-178- Furman, R. A. (1986). What nursery school teachers ask us about: Psychoanalytic consultations in preschools: The father-child relationship. Emoriona and Bonayior Monogranhs. S. 21-34- Furman, W., 8 Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Deyeloonental Barthology. 21. 1016-1024. Furstenberg, F. F., Morgan, S. P., 8 Allison, P. D. (1987). Paternal participation and children’s well- being after marital dissolution. Amorioan Sociological Beyiew. S2. 695-701- Gabler, J., 8 Otto, H. A. (1964). Conceputalization of "family strengths" in family life and other professional literature. Journal of narriaga and tho family, go, CHAPTER II. Gallup. G- (1989). The Eeonleis Religions American fairn in and 294a. New York: Macmillan; London: Collier Macmillan. Gecas, V., 8 Schwalbe, M. (1986). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem. Journal of Marriaga and rho familx. id. 37-46- Gieve, K. (1989). falanoing_Aors: on going a Mother- London: Virago. Giveans, D. L., 8 Robinson, M. K. (1985). Fathers and the preschool-age child. In S.M.H. Hanson, 8 F.W. Bozett (Eds.). Dimensions of fatherhood. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Goldberg. Stephen- The Ineyitahility of Eatriarchyl New York: Morrow. Goldman, J., 8 Goldman, R. (1983). Children’s perceptions of parents and their roles: A cross- national study in Australia, England, North America, 294 and Sweden. gar foloa, 2, 791-812. Goldstein, H. S. (1984). Parental composition, supervision, and conduct problems in youths 12 to 17 years old. Journal of the American Academy of child ESYchiatrY. 21. 679-684- Gordon, M. (1989). The family environment of sexual abuse: A comparison of natal and stepfather abuse. child Abuse and Neglect. 13. 121-130. Goth-Owens, T. L. (1982). Marital satisfaction, parenting satisfaction, and parenting behavior in early infancy- Infant.uental Health Journal. 3. 187-198. Gottman, J. (1989). Children of gay and lesbian parents. harriage.and Family Series. 11. 177-196- Granbois, D. H., 8 Willett, R. P. (1974). Equivalence of family role measures based on husband and wife data. Journal of Marriage and the Family. as. 123- 138. Greif, G. L. (1985). Practice with single fathers. Social Fork in Education. 1. 231-243- Greif, G. L. (1987). Single fathers and noncustodial mothers: The social worker’s helping role. Journal of Indecendent Social Fork. ‘1. 59-69- Grimley, L. K. (1982). The psychological rights of the child: Spiritual and moral development. yieynointa in Teaching and Learning. SS. 76-86. Gurman, A. S., 8 Kniskern, D. P. (1981). (Eds.) Handbook of family Tnarany. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Hagglund, T., 8 Pylkkanen, K. (1977). Deprivation in adolescent drug use. 8 ' :(fonnioa, 109- 117. Haley, J. (1973). gnoommon Tnorany. New York: W.W. Norton. Haley. J- (1976)- Eroblem Solying Thera9Y- San Fransico: Jossey-Bass. Hall, J. A., 8 Rose, 8. D. (1987). Evaluation of parent training in groups for parent-adolescent conflict. Social Torr Research and Abstracts. 21. 3-8. 295 Halperin, S. M. (1981). Family perceptions of abused children and their siblings. Journal of child Abuse and Neglect. 1. 107-115- Halperin, S.M. (1983). Family perceptions of abused children and their siblings. gnild Abuee and Neglect. 1, 107-115. Hamilton. M-. (1977). Fatherls Influence on.children- Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Hansen, C. (1981). Living in normal families. family EIQQSSS. 22. 53'75- Hanson, S. M. (1985). Father/child relationships: Beyond Kramer vs. Kramer. Marriage and.£amily Beyieg Win, 2. 135-150. Hanson, S. M. H., 8 Bozett, F.W. (1985). Dimenaione or farnornood. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Hanson, S. M. H. (1985). Single custodial fathers. In S.M.H. Hanson, 8 F.W. Bozett (Eds.), Qimanaiono of farnarnood, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Hanson, S. M., 8 Bozett, F. W. (no date recorded) Fatherhood: Development and contextual perspectives. Unpublished paper. Harper, J., Scoresby, A., Boyce, W. (1977). The logical levels of complementary symmetrical and parallel interaction classes in family dyads. family frooaaa, lo, 199-209. Harris, J. G. (1980). Nomovalidation and idiovalidation: A quest for the true personality profile. American Seychologist. SS. 729-744- Haskins, R., Schwartz J. B., Akin, J. S., 8 Dobelstein, A. W. (1985). How much child support can absent fathers pay? Policies Studies Journal. 201-222. Heath, D. H. (1976). Competent fathers: Their personalities and marriages. Human Deyelonmonr, lfil, 26-39. Hepburn, E. H. (1981). The father’s role in sexual socialization of adolescent females in an upper and upper-middle class population. Journal of Early AQQlSSQSDQS. 1. 53'59- 296 Hertsgaard, D., 8 Light, H. K. (1984). Adolescent females’ perceived parental sex-role attributes. .Esychological Escorts. SS. 253-254. Hess, R. D., 8 Handel, G. (1968). The family as a psychosocial organization. In Handel G., (Ed.), The Esychosocial Interior of the.£amily. London: Allen and Unwin. Hill, J. P., 8 Holmbeck, G. N. (1987). Disagreements about rules in families with seventh-grade girls and 22:30 M 9.: 1.911121 “3 AW: lg! 221- Hill. R-B. (1972). The Strengths of Slack Families. New York, New York: Emerson Hall Publishers. Hingst, A. G., Hyman, B. M., 8 Salmon, J. L. (1985). Male children of divorce grown up: Parental bonding, relationship satisfaction, commitment and sex role identification. Australian Journal of Sex. Marriage. and Eamilx. S. 15-32- Hoge, D. R. (1982). Transmission of religious and social values from parents to teenage children. Journal of narriage and the.£amily. 41. 569-80. Huang. C- P- (1986)- Derelonmental Seychology. 22. 749-751. Hull, C. H., & Nie, N. H. (1981). §£§§ Booker Guide: Beleauo 2. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hunter. J. D- (1987). Syangelicalisn: The coming gonerarion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Isaacs, M., Leon, G., 8 Kline, M. (1987). When is a parent out of the picture? Different custody, different perceptions. family froooaa, go, 101- 110. Jackson, D. D. (1967). The myth of normality. Madioal Qbinion and Beyiey. 3. 28-33. Jacobsen, R. B. (1971). An exploration of parental encouragement as an intervening variable in occupational-educational learning of children. Journal.of.harriage.and the.£amily. Si. 174-182. Jacobson, N. S. (1981). Behavioral marital therapy. In A. S. Gurman, 8 D. P. Kniskern, (Eds.). fiandnook of_family Inarany. New York: Brunner/Mazel. 297 James, D. E., Schumm, W. R., Kennedy, C. E., Grigsby, C., Shectman, K. L., 8 Nichlos, C. W. (1985). Characteristics of the Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale among two samples of married mothers. Rsychological Renorts. S1. 163-169. Janssen, J. (1990). A content analysis of the praying practices of Dutch youth. Journal for the £31191 2: WI 2.2: 99’1070 Jarmon, C. (1976). Education as a dimension of status incongruence between parents and the self perceptions of college student. Sociology of Education. 12. 218-222. Jaworowska, A. (1981). Parental behavior as perceived by parents and their children. folian Bayonologioal Bulletin. 12. 177-185- Johnson, M., Stockard, J., Rothbart, M., 8 Friedman, L. (1981). Sexual preference, feminism, and women’s perceptions of their parents. for Boloo, 1, 1-18. Kalliopuska, M. (1984). Empathy in adults and social class. Rsychological Reborts. SS. 132-134- Kantor, D., 8 Lehr, W. (1976). lnaide the family: Toward a.Theory.of Family Rrocess. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, (1975). Reprint ed., New York: Harper Colophon Books, Harper 8 Row, (1976). Kayser, B. (1974). Response bias in children’s reports of parental status characteristics. Sooiologioal E2925. 1. 61-75- Keeley, B. (1976). Generations in tension: Intergenerational differences and continuities in religion and religion-related behavior. Baylor of Religious Research. 11. 221-231. Kellerman. H- (1981)- Handbook.of Rsychodiagnostic Testing; Rersonality.Analysis and Resort.nriting~ New York: Grune 8 Stratton. Kelly, E. L. (1941). Marital compatibility as related to personality traits of husbands and wives as rated by self and Spouse- Journal of Social Seychology. 1;, 193-198. Kenkel. W-F- (1961). The Family in Rersnectiye. 2nd Ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 298 Kiliman, D. S., 8 vukelich, C. (1985). Mothers and fathers: Expectations for infants. family Relations. 15, 305-313. Koban, L. A., (1983). Parents in prison: A comparative analysis of the effects of incarceration on the families of men and women. Beaearon in Lax. beyiance and Social control. S. 171-183- Koch, M. A., 8 Lowery, C. R. (1984). Visitation and the noncustodial father. Journal of niyoroo, a, 47-65. Koenig, D., 8 Bayer, A. (1981). The institutional frame of reference in family study. In Nye, F.I. 8 BerardO. F-M- . Emerging concebtual Eraneuorhs in family Analyaia. New York: Praeger Publishers. Koller, T. J. (1980). The relationship of infant temperament to mother-infant and father-infant interaction. Unpublished dissertation. Illinois Institute of Technology. Kotler, T., 8 Chetwynd, J. (1980). Changes in family members during psychotherapy- Human Relations. 31. 101-110. Kotler, T., 8 Salmon, P. (1978). Representing interpersonal relations in families: Mutual evaluations. Human Bolariono, 21. 325-332. Kroger, J. (1983). University students’ perceptions of their parents’ child-rearing behavior. for Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. 1S. 115-125. Krol, J. (1982). Young people’ s image of father and its influence on their image of God. fooaniri Eilosoficsne Esychologia. .39. 73-103- Kumagai, F. (1978). Socialization of youth in Japan and the United states. Journal of comnaratiye Family Studies. 2. 335-346- Kurdek, L. (1986). Custodial mother’s perceptions of visitation and payment of child support by noncustodial fathers in families with low and high levels of preseparation interparent conflict. Journal of Abolied.beyelobmental Esychological. .1. 307-323. Lamb, M.E. (1975). Fathers: Forgotten contributors to child development. Human_nayalonmonr, 12, 245-266. 299 Lamb, M.E. (1981). The role of the father in child develonment- Fathers and child Seyelobnent: An Integratiye Queryieu. New York: J- Wiley- Lamb, M. E., 8 Elster, A. B. (1985). Adolescent mother- infant-father relationships. Qoyolonmenral Rsychology. 21. 768-773. Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., 8 Levine, J. A. (1985). Effects of paternal involvement on fathers and mothers. Marriage and Family Reyieu. 2. 67-83- Lamb, H-E- (1937)- The Eatheris Role; Abolied foranooriyoo. New York: J. Wiley. Lamb, M.E. (1991). Introduction. In F.W. Bozett, 8 S-H-H- Hanson (Eds.). fatherhood and Families in gonroxr, New York, N.Y.: Springer cultural Publishing Company. Lang, D., Papenfuhs, R., 8 Walters, J. (1980). Delinquent females’ of their fathers. family coordinator. 2S. 475-481. Larson, L. (1975). Multilevel family interpersonal perception of ideal marital roles: An exploratory study- Journal of eomnaratiye.Eamily.Studies. S. 223-237. Larson, L. E. (1974). System and subsystem perception of family roleS- Journal of Marriage and the Family. 35, 123-138. Lerner, R., 8 Knapp, J. (1975). Actual and perceived intrafamilial attitudes of late adolescents and their ParentS- Journal.of Youth and Adolescence. i. 17- 36. Lewis, F., Woods, N., Hough, E., 8 Bensley, L. (1989). The family’s functioning with chronic illness in the mother: The spouse’s perspective. fiooial foionoe and Medicine. 22. 1251'1259- Lewis, R. A. (1989). Stresses on fathers and family relationships related to rural youth leaving and returning home- family Relations. SS. 174-181- Lewis, C., 8 O’Brien, M. (1987). faaaaoaaing Fatherhood; Hen Sbseryations on fathers and the Modern Family. London: Sage- Lewis, J. M., Beavers, W.R., Gossett, J.T., 8 Phillips, 300 V-A- (1976)- No Single Thread; Rsychological Health in family Syotemo, New York: Brunner/Mazel. Lieberma, J. The drug adict and the "cop out" father. Adolescence. 2. 7'14- Lifshitz, M. (1976). Long range effects of father’s loss: The cognitive complexity of bereaved children and their school adjustment. fririon Journal of Medical Rsychology. 12. 189-197- Lifshitz, M. (1978). Girls’ identity formation as related to perception of parents. fiooial fenayior and Rersonality. S. 81-87- Loeb, L., (1986). Fathers and Sons: Some effects of prolonged custody litigation. fullerin of the American Academy of.Rsychiatry.and the Law. 14. 177-183. Lupri, E. (1988). Fathers in transition: The case of dual earner families in Canada. Zairaonrifr_ EuSoaialisationsforschung.End Eraiehungssosiologie. a, 281-297. Lutwin, D. R., 8 Siperstein, G. N. (1985). Househusband fathers. In S.M.H. Hanson, 8 F.W. Bozett (Eds.). Dimensions of fatherhood. Beverly H1118. Calif.: Sage Publications. MacGregor, R., Ritchie, A. M., Serrano, A. C. Schuster, F. P., McDanald, E. C., 8 Goolishian. H. A. (1964). Multible Imbact Thera92.with.Eamilies- New York: McGraw-Hill. Mackey, W. (1985). A cross-cultural perspective on perceptions of paternalistic deficiencies in the United States: The myth of the derelict daddy. for Roles. 12. 509-534. Manzitti, E. T. (1979). Aspects of the father-child relationship and father availability during childhood and sex-role development among college student from intact families. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Margalit, M., Leyser, Y., 8 Avraham, Y. (1989). Classification and validation of family climate subtypes in Kibbutz fathers of disabled and nondisabled children. Journal or annormal,gnild Rsychology- 11. 91-107- 301 Marjoribanks, K. (1985). Sibling and environmental correlates of adolescents’ perceptions of family environments: Ethnic group difference. fooial Biology. 12. 71-81. Mark, T. J. (1982). A study of religious attitudes, religious behavior, and religious cognition. Educational Studies. S. 209-216. Marotz, Baden, Ramona. (1988). Income, economic satisfaction, and stress in two-generational farm families. Lifootyloo, 2, 331-356. Marsiglio, W. (1988). Commitment to social fatherhood: Predicting adolescent males’ intentions to live with their child and partner. Journal of Marriage and the Family. .59. 427-441. Martin, D. (1985). Fathers and Adolescents. In S.M.H. Hanson, 8 F.W. Bozett (Eds.), Qimonoione or fatnornood, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Martin, M., Schumm, W., Bugaighis, M., Jurich, A., 8 Bollman, S. (1987). Family violence and adolescents’perceptions of outcomes of family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family. is. 165-171. McAdoo, J. L. (1985). A black perspective on the father’s role in child development. Marriage and family,Reyiey. 2. 117-133- McBroom, W., Hammer, G., 8 Bord, R. (1983). Parental status characteristics and self-placement of young adults. Youth and Society. 1S1 133-156- McBroom, W. (1987). Extending the contingent consistency model of the attitude-behavior relationship: Selected "other sources" of behavior. International Boylefl.of Modern Sociology. 11. 219-236- McCollum, E. E., Schumm, W.R., 8 Russell, C.S. (1988). Reliability and validity of the Kansas Family Life Satisfaction Scale in a predominately middle-aged sample. Rsychological Resorts. S2. 95-98- McCubbin, H. I., 8 Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX Model of adjustment and adaptation- Marriage and Family Reyiey. .S. 7- 37. 302 McDonald, G. (1982). Parental power perceptions in the family: The influence of adolescent characteristics. Youth and Society. 11. 3-31. McIntyre, J. (1981). The structure-functional approach to family study. In F.I. Nye, 8 F.M. Berardo, (Ede-). Emerging conceutual frameworks in family Analyoio. New York: Praeger Publishers. McLoyd, V. C. (1989). Socialization and development in a changing economy: The effects of paternal job and income loss on children. American fsychologist. 11. 293-302. Miller, S. A. (1986). Parents’ beliefs about their children’s cognitive abilities. Doyolonmontal Rsychology. 22. 276'234- Mirande, A. (1991). Ethnicity and fatherhood. In F.W. Bozett, 8 S.M.H. Hanson, (Eds.), fatnornood and families in cultural content. New York. N-Y.: Springer Publishing Company. Mirande, A. (1986). Chicano fathers: Response and adaptation to emergent roles. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Chicano Research. Mishler, E., 8 Waxler, N. (1968). lntoraotion in familioo, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Mitchell, C. E. (1988). Paralleling cognitive and moral development with spiritual development and denominational choice. foyonology Quarterly Journal of Human Sehayior. 2S. 1-9- Morgan, S. P. (1981). The intergenerational transmission of religious behavior: The effect of parents on their children’s frequency of prayer. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Morgan, E. A. (1987). Pioneer research on strong, healthy families. Washington D.C.: Family Research Council of America, Inc. Morris, M. (1987). Children’s perceptions of last- chance parents: Some implications of current trends toward late childbearing. enild flolfaro, to, 195- 205. Neal, A. G., 8 Groat, H. T. (1976). Consensus in the marital dyad: Couples’ perceptions of contraception, 303 communication and family life. Sociological focus. 2, 317-329. Nettelbladt, Per, Uddenberg, Nils, Englesson, 8 Irmelin. (1980). Father/Child relationship: Background factors in the father. Aota foyoniatrioa Scandinayica. S1. 29-42- Neugebauer, R. (1988). Divorce, custody, and visitation: The child’s point of view. Journal of Diyorce. 12. 153-168- Nicholi, Jr. A. (1985). In G. Rekers (Ed.). commitment to.family.in.fanily Building. Ventura. California: Regal Press. Nie, N. H. Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent. D H- (1975). Statistical uackage for the Social ficioncoe. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Nieto, D. S. (1990). The custodial single father: Who does he think he is? Journal of Qiyoroo, (ll, 27- 43. Nydegger, C. N. (1973). Timing of fatherhood: Role perception and socialization. Unpublished dissertation. Pennsylvania State University. Nye, F. I., Burr, W. R., Hill, R., 8 Reiss, I. L. (1979)- contenboray Theories.About the family. 2. New York: Free Press Publishers. Offer. D-. & Sabshin. M- (1966)- Normality; Theoretical and clinical consents of Mental Health. New York. Basic Books. Offer, D., 8 Sabshin, M. (1974). Normality; Theoretical and clinical concents of.Mental Health. ReV- ed- New York: Basic Books. Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D.H., 8 Russell, C.S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems I: cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. family frooooo, la, 3- 28. Olson, D. H., 8 McCubbin, H. I., 8 Associates. (1983). families: Hhat.Makes Them fork Beverly Hi118: Sage Publications. Olson, D. J., 8 Rabunsky, C. (1972). Validity of four 304 measures of family power. Journal of Marriage_and the EdmllY. 11. 224-235- Onodera, A. (1984). Attractiveness of father in his daughter’s view. Jacanese Journal.of.fsychology. 5;, 289-295. Osborne, L. (1953). Democracy begins at home. Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 192. Otto, H. A. (1962). What is a strong family? Marriage and family Liying. 77-80- Otto, H. A. (1963). Criteria for assessing family strength- family frocess. 2. 329-338- Otto, H. A. (1964). Personal and family strength research projects: Some implications for the therapist. Mental Hygiene, 52, 439-450. Otto, H. A. (1966). Treatment and family strengths. canadais.Mental Health. 14. 1-6- Otto, H. A. (1966). The minister and family strengths. Bdfitflldl fsychology. 11. 21-23- OttO. H- A- (1970)- (Ed-). The family in Search of a future. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts. ottO. H. A- (1975). .Use.of family Strength concerts Methods in family Life Education- Beverly Hills. California: Holistic Press. Parish, T., 8 Nunn, G. (1988). The importance of the family in forming life values and personal values. IQBIDQl 91 Rsychology. 122. 519-521. Parish, T. S., 8 Taylor, J. C. (1979). The impact of divorce and subsequent father absence on children’s adolescents’ self-concepts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. S. 427-432- Paritee, F. (1980). Family interactional patterns as related to interpersonal perceptual style. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Parke, R. D. (1985). Foreward. In S.M.H. Hanson,8 F-W- Bozett (Ede-). Dimensions of fatherhood. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Pasley, K., 8 Gecas, V. (1984). Stresses and 305 satisfactions of the parental role. foroonnol and cuidance Journal. S2. 400-404. Pasley, K. (1985). Stepfathers. In S.M.H. Hanson, 8 F.W. Bozett. (Eds.). Dimensions of.fatherhood. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Perkins, T., 8 Kahan, J. (1979). An empirical comparison of natural-father and stepfather family systems. family frocess. IS. 175-183- Philipp, R., 8 Orr, R. (1978). Family relations as perceived by emotionally disturbed and normal boys. Journal of Rersonality Assessment. 12. 121-127. Pieszko, H. (1975). The structure of role perception: A comparison of two methods of assessment. Social Sehayior and fersonality. S. 91-100. Pollack, O. (1957). Design of a model of healthy family relationships as a basis for evaluative research. Social Seryices Reyiey. .11. 369- 376. Price-Bonham, S. (1976). A comparison of weighted and unweighted decision-making scores. Journal of Marriage and the family. SS. 629-640. Pruett, K. D., (1983). Infants of primary nurturing fathers. Rsychoanalytic Study of the child. SS. 257-277. Radin, N., 8 Sagi, A. (1982). Childrearing fathers in intact families, II: Israel and USA. Morrill;falmor WI 2.3: 111-136- Rapoport, T., 8 Yancey, N. (1989). Adolescents’ complex representations of the maternal and paternal roles. International Journal of Sociology of the familY.12. 95- 112. Reed, G., 8 Sech, E. P. (1985). Bulimia: A conceptual model for group treatment. Journal or Nursing.and Mental Health Seryices. 2S. 16-22. Reiber, S. R. (1981). Western Christian conceptual framework for viewing the family. In Nye, F.I. 8 BerardO. F.M. . Emerging ccncectual.frameyorks.in family hnalyoio, New York: Praeger Publishers. Reid, J. C. (1986). The vital father: Symptoms of anorexia nervosa occurring in various illnesses as an expression of the father problem. Analytiohe 306 fsychologie. 11. 38-56. Rekers, G. (1983). Family correlates of male childhood gender disturbance. In D.H. Olson, 8 A. Markoff ifd22)° The Journal.of cenetic fsychology. 112. Rho, J.J., 8 Schumm, W.R. (1989). The factorial validity of brief satisfaction scales in a survey of 58 Korean-American interracial couples. Rsychological.Recorts. SS. 1347-1350. Richardson, R., Galambos, N., Schulenberg, J.E., 8 Petersen, A. (1984). Young adolescents’ perceptions of the family environment. Journal of Early Agglfiggfinggr 51 131-153- Riskin, J. (1976). "Non-labeled" family interaction: Preliminary report on a prospective study. family EIQQQEEI 15' 433-439- Riskin, J., 8 McCorkle, M.E. (1979). "Nontherapy" family research and change in families: A brief clinical research communication. family frocooo, lfi, 161-162. Risman, B. J., (1986). Can men "mother"? Life as a single father. family Bolationo, '15, 95-102. Robak, N., 8 Clavan, S. (1975). Perception of masculinity among males in two traditional family groups. Sociological Analysis. SS. 335-346. Robin, M. W. (1979). Life without father: A review of the literature. International Journal of croub Tensions. S. 169-194. Robinson, B., Skeen, P., Flake, H., 8 Herrman, M. (1982). Gay men’s and women’s perceptions of early family life and their relationships with parents. family Relations. S1. 79-83. Robinson, B. E. (1986). The noyoloning father: Roles in contemnorary Society. New York: Guilford Press. Robinson, 1., Bailey, W., Smith, J., 8 Barnett, B. (1985). Self-perception of the husband/father in the intact lower class black family. fhylon, AS. 136- 147. Rosenthal, D., Efklides, A., Demetriou, A. (1988). 307 Parental criticism and young adolescent self- disclosure: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Iouth and Adolescence. 11. 25-39. Rosenthal, D., 8 Hansen, J. (1980). Comparison of adolescents’ perceptions and behaviors in single and two parent families. Journal_of youth and Adolescence. S. 407-417. Rosenthal, K. M. 8 Keshat, H. F. (1981). fathore Hithout fartnore, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield Totowa. Rowe, G.P. (1981). The developmental conceptual framework of the study of the family. In Nye, F.T., 8 Berardo, F.M. in Emerging concectual frameyorks family Analyoio. New York: Praeger Publishers. Rubenstein, H., King, 8., London, E. (1979). Adolescent and postadolescent asthmatics’ perception of their mothers as overcontrolling in childhood. Adolescence. 11. 1'13- Russell, A., 8 Russell G. (1989). Warmth in mother- child and father-child relationships in middle childhood. British Journal of Deyelonmental fsychology. Z. 219'235- Russell, G. (1982). Highly participant Australian fathers: Some preliminary findings. Morrill_falmor Quarterly. 1. 137-156. Russell, G., 8 Russell, A. (1987). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood. childbeyelocment. SS. 1573-1585. Sabo, D. (1988). Psychosocial impacts of athletic participation on American women: facts and fables. Journal of Snort and Social Issues. 12. 1-2. 83- Sacks, J. Y. (1981). Father-child interaction as a function of age and gender of the child. Unpublished dissertation. New York: City University. Safilos-Rothschild, C. (1969). Family sociology or wives’ sociology: A cross-cultural examination of decision-making. Journal of Marriage and the family. 11, 290-301. Sampson, R. (1977). Transmission of values within a traditional family structure. family Therapy, A, 308 163-170. Sarbin, T. R., Taft, R., 8 Bailey, D. E. (1960). clinical Inferences and Recognitiye Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston. Saucier, J., 8 Ambert, A. (1986). Adolescents’ perception of self and of immediate enviornment by parental marital status: A controlled study. canadian Journal of fsychiatry. S1. 505-512. Sauer, L., 8 Fine, M. (1988). Parent-child relationships in stepparent families. Journal of family.fsychology. 1. 434-451. Saunders, B. E., 8 Schuchts, R. A. (1987). Assessing parent-child relationships: A report of normative scores and revalidation of two clinical scales. family frocess. SS. 373-381. Scanzoni, J. (1965). A note on the sufficiency of wife responses in family research. facific.§ociological Reyiey. S. 109-115. Scheck, D., 8 Emerick, R. (1976). The young male adolescent’s perception of early child-rearing behavior: The differential effects of socioeconomic status and family size. fiociomotry, 22, 39-52. Schilling, R., Kirkham, M., Snow, W., 8 Schinke, S. (1986). Single mothers with handicapped children: Different from their married counterparts? family Relationsl SS. 69-77. Schumm, W. R., McCollum, E. E., Bugaighis, M. A., Jurich, A. P., 8 Bollman, S. R. (1986). Characteristics of the Kansas Family Life Satisfaction Scale in a regional sample. fsychological Reports. SS. 975- 980. Schumm, W. R., Bugaighis, M. A., Bollman, S. R., 8 Jurich, A. P. (1986). Meaning and impact of family satisfaction upon subjective quality of life: Perceptions of fathers, mothers, and adolescents. In J.L. Hafstrom (Ed.). compendium of.cuality of Life Boooarch, Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Illinois, 57-70. Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obioriah, F. C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., 8 Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital 309 Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and tho EdnilY. SS. 381-337- Schumm, W. R., McCollum, E. E., Bugaighis, M. A., Jurich, A. P., Boliman, S. R., 8 Reitz, J. (1988). Differences between Anglo and Mexican-American family members on satisfaction with family life. Hionanic Journal of Sehayioral Sciences. 19. 39-53. Schvaneveldt, J. D. (1981). The interactional framework in the study of the family. In Nye, F. I. 8 Berardo, F. H. . Emerging conceptual frameyorks in family Analyeio. New York: Praeger Publishers. Schwarz, J. C. (1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors: A comparison of ratings by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. .thld Doyelonment, SS. 462-79. Schwarz, J. C., 8 Mearns, J., (no date recorded). Assessing childrearing behaviors with the parent behavior form: A comparison of ratings by mother, father, child and sibling. Unpublished paper. Shepard, W. (1980). Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters: Perceptions of young adults. for Roloo, a, 421-433. Shrauger, J. S. 8 Shoeneman, T. J. (1970). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept: through the 1°°kln9 91388 darkly. Eeyenclcgical Bulletin. 86. 549-573. Shurka, E., 8 Florian, V. (1983). A study of Israeli Jewish and Arab parental perceptions of their disabled children. Journal.of comparatiye family Studies. 11. 357-375- Siegel, M. (1987). Are sons and daughters treated more differently by fathers than by mothers? m: 1! 183-209- Simon, F. B. (1985). The Language of Family Therapy: A Systematic Vocabulary and Sourcebook. New York: Family Process Press. Simon, Stierlin, 8 Wynne (1985). Iho Language of family Therapy; A Systematic Yocabulary and Sourcebook Skynner, A. C. R. Hierarchy and shared-power. Handhook, 48. 310 Skynner. A- C- R. (1976). Systems.of family and Marital Eeychoztherapy, New York: Brunner/Mazel. Skynner, A. C. R. (1981). An open-systems, group analytic approach to family therapy. In A.S. Gurman, & D.P. Kniskern (Eds.). Handbook of family Therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Smart, R., 8 Smart, M. (1973). New Zealand preadolescents’ parent-peer orientation and parent perceptions compared with English and American. Journal of Marriage and the family. SS. 142-148. Smart, R. 8 Smart, M. (1976). Pre-adolescents’ perceptions of parents and their relations to a test of responses to moral dilemmas. §ocial Hohayior and fersonality. 1. 297-308. Smith, K., 8 Forehand, R. (1986). Parent-adolescent conflict: Comparison and prediction of the perceptions of mothers, fathers, and daughters. Journal of Early Adolescence. S. 353-367. Smith, R. M., 8 Walters, J. (1978). Delinquent and non- delinquent males’ perceptions of their fathers. WI 1.3.: 21-280 Smith, T. (1984). Sex and sibling structure: Interaction effects upon the accuracy of adolescent perceptions of parental orientations. Journal of Marriage and the family. 4S. 901-907. Snyder, L. M. (1979). The deserting, nonsupporting father: Scapegoat of family policy. The family coordinator. .ZS. 594-98. Stabenau, J. R., Tupin, J., Werner, M., 8 Pollin, W.A. (1965). A comparative study of families of schizophrenisc, delinquents, and normals. fsychiatry. as. 45-59. Stearns, P. (1991). Fatherhood in historical perspective: The role of social change in F.W. Bozett, 8 S.M.H. Hanson (Eds.). fatherhood and in cultural content. New York. N.Y.: Springer Publishing Company. Stern, E. E. (1980). Single mothers’ perceptions of the father role and of the effects of father absence on boys. Journal of.niyorcel 4. 77-84. Stern, E. E. (1980). Single mothers’ perceptions of the 311 father role and of the effects of father absence on boys. Journal of Diyorce. A. 77-84. Steward, M., Bryant, B., 8 Steward, B. (1979). Adolescent women’s developing identity: A study of self-definition in the context of family relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. S. 209-222. Stinnett, N. (Ed.). (1980). family Strongtho: Models for family Lite. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. stinnett. N. (Ed.). (1979b). building.family Strengths; for Action. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Stinnett, N. (1979a). Strengthening Families. family Rerspectiye. 1S. 3-9. Stinnett. N. (Ed.). (1981). family Strengths Si.Roots of Hell Being. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. stinnett. N. (1985). Secrets of Strong families. Boston: Little Brown. Stinnett, N., King, K., Rowe, G. (1980). Perception of fathers. Journal of.American Indian Education. 12. 19-23. Stoneman, 2., Brody, G., 8 Burke, M. (1989). Sibling temperaments and maternal and paternal perceptions of marital, family, and personal functioning. Journal of Marriage and.the family. S1. 99-113. Tagiure, R. (1969). Person perception. In G. Lindzey 8 E. Aronson (Eds.). The Handbook of Social paychology, 2, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Tagliacozzo, A., 8 Peperno, A. (1978). Study on the reciprocal attitudes of kibbutz adolescents and their parents. Sollettini.di fsicologia Applicata. 93- 102. Tashakkori, A., 8 Thompson, V. (1989). Sex and sex difference in reports of parental involvement in different interaction areas with Iranian adolescents. Journal of comparatiye family Studies. 22. 197-213. Teyber, E., 8 Hoffman, C. D. (1987). Missing fathers. Today. 21. 35'39- 312 Theodorson, G. A., 8 Theodorson, A. G. (1969). A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. New York. Crowell. Thorndike, R. L., 8 Hagen, E. P. (1977). Moaouromont and Eyaluation in fsychology and Education. (4th ed.), New York: Wiley. Tinney, M.A. (1985). Role perceptions in foster parent associations in British Columbia. child;floltaro, Si. 73-79. Tsolov, V. (1985). Do you know the friends of your children? fsikhologiia Sulgaria. 1S. 8-12. Turk, J. L., 8 Bell, N. W. (1972). Measuring power in families. Journal of Marriage and the family. Si. 741-749. Ulrich, D. L. (1989). Factors related to satisfaction with and adjustment to fatherhood at midlife. Dissertation Abstracts International. A; The Humanities and Social Sciences. 42. 2827A- Van Es, J. C., 8 Shingi, P. M. (1972). Measuring power in families. Journal of.Marriage and the family. as, 215-222. Ventura, J. N. (1986). Parent coping, a replication. Nursing Research. SS. 77-80. Walsh, R. N., & Shapiro, D.H. (1983). Beyond Health and : Explorations of Exceptional fsychological Holl;foing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Walsha, F. (1982). Normal family froceecoo. New York: Guilford Press. Wang, Pea, 8 Shian. (1976). Father-son relationship problems over three generations. National Dniyersity Journal of Sociology. .2. 63-90. Warr, P. B., 8 Knapper, C. (1968). The forgontign Qt Boonie and fyonto. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. Webster, S. C. (1985). The effects of father involvement in parent training for conduct problem children. Journal of child fsychology and fsychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 2d. 301-810- 1’. ‘ '- e 1' ° . '11‘ ‘ 9' iii- a! ”College Ed. (1957). Cleveland: World Pub. Co. 1.11'.-e 313 Westley, W. A., 8 Epstein, N. B. (1970). Ihe Silent Majority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. White, L. K., 8 Brinkerhoff, D. B. (1977). Measurement problems in family research: A critical note on unit analysis. International Journal of Sociology of.the family. 1. 171-179. White, L. K., 8 Brinkerhoff, D.B. (1978). Measuring dyadic properties: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Sociology of.the.family. S. 219-229. White, L. K. (1983). Determinants of spousal interaction: Marital structure or marital happiness. Journal of Marriage and the family. SS. 511-19. Williams, F. (1968). foasoning with Statistics; Simplied Examples in communications.Research. New York, Hold, Rinehart and Winston. Wilson, M. N. (1986). Perceived parental activity of mothers, fathers, and grandmothers in three- generaltional black families. Journal of flack REYEDQleQY. 12. 43'59. Wiltfang, G., 8 Scarbecz, M. (1990). Social class and adolescents’ self-esteem: Another look. §ocial fsychology_ Quarterly. SS. 174-183. wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept: A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments (Rev. ed.). l, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Youniss, J., 8 Ketterlinus, R. D. (1987). Communication and connectedness in mother- and father-adolescent relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1S. 265-280. nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES INWIWIIWHWIWIWWWIHII‘lWNIH‘I 31293007931730 ‘—