Fw— fl

 

LIBRARY
“lemon State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. ' 5 II
IINOV 0 5 2005 l

fiI—T ' I]

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
owns-m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT
ON FATHER-CHILD INTERACTIONS

By

Lisa Ann Pirsch

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Clinical Psychology

1990

("(4 /- :33”.

ABSTRACT

THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT
ON FATHER-CHILD INTERACTIONS

By
LisaAnn Pirsch

Research suggests that paternal participation in childrearing directly
enhances child development, and indirectly benefits children via a family
environment characterized by happier marriages and better parenting relationships
between mothers and fathers. However, as men become more involved in
fathering, many may experience interrole conflict, which may compromise the
marital relationship, the parenting alliance, and the overall quality of father-child
interactions.

This study used questionnaire and observational data from 56 families with
a 3-4 year old child to assess the usefulness of a path model proposing these
interrelationships. Results indicated that paternal involvement in childcare
predicted more positive parenting alliances between mothers and fathers.
Although fathers’ involvement in childcare and positive parenting alliances were
predicted to enhance father-child interactions, both predicted less positive father-
child interactions. Additionally, fathers’ commitments to both work and family
did not predict greater interrole conflict, and did not compromise overall marital

harmony or father-child interactions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I offer sincere thanks to the chairperson of my master’s committee, Susan
Frank, for her helpful advice, encouragement and involvement in this research.
I also thank Hiram Fitzgerald, Kristine Freeark, and Gary Stollak, for their

willingness to contribute to the development of the ideas expressed in this work.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................

CHAPTER 1 - Review of the Literature ........................................

Introduction .....................................................................
Changing Families, Changing Roles .........................................
The Benefits of Paternal Involvement in Family Work ....................
The Father-Child Relationship ............................................
Family Harmony: Marital Satisfaction and the Parenting Alliance . .
The Costs of Paternal Participation in Family Work .......................
Interrole Conflict ............................................................
Father’s Work Involvement ................................................
Family Harmony: Marital Satisfaction and the Parenting Alliance ..

Summary .........................................................................

CHAPTER 2 - Research Hypotheses ............................................

CHAPTER 3 - Method ............................................................

Subjects ..........................................................................
Procedures .......................................................................
Measures .........................................................................
Paternal Involvement .......................................................
Paternal Involvement In Work ............................................
Mothers’ Employment Status ..............................................
Fathers’ Work/Family Conflict ...........................................
Marital Harmony ............................................................
Quality of the Father-Child Interaction ..................................

CHAPTER 4 - Results ............................................................

Preliminary Analyses: Construction of the Outcome Variables ..........
Test of the Research Model ...................................................
Post Hoc Analyses ..............................................................

CHAPTER 5 - Discussion ........................................................ 51
APPENDICES

A. Involvement in Parenting Questionnaire ................................ 64

B. Family Tasks Questionnaire .............................................. 66

C. Involvement 'Wrth Work Questionnaire ................................ 72

D. Role Conflict Questionnaire ............................................. 75

E. The Family Experience Questionnaire .................................. 78

F. Dyadic Adjustment Scale ................................................. 91

G. Father-Child Interaction Coding Sheet ................................. 98

- -Father Variables ......................................................... 98

- -Child Variables .......................................................... 99

H. Definition of Behavioral Variables ...................................... 101

- -Father Variables ......................................................... 101

- -Child Variables .......................................................... 102

I. Behavioral Sample Coding Manual ..................................... 106

REFERENCES ..................................................................... 138

iv

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Frequencies for Father and Child Behavior Variables ........

Quality of Father-Child Interaction Scale:
Reliability Analysis/Item-Total Statistics .....................

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Predictor
and Criterion Variables: Predicted Model ....................

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Predictor
and Criterion Variables: Post-Hoc Model ....................

42

47

LIST OF FIGURES

Results for the Predicted Path Model ..........................
Results for the Post-Hoe Path Model ........ ' .................

Page
45

48

CHAPTER]

Review of the Literature

Introduction
In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1750) writes:

 

A father. . . has no right to be a father if he cannot fulfill a

father’s duties. Poverty, pressures of business, mistaken

social prejudices, none of these can excuse a man from his

duty. . . if a man of any natural feeling neglects these sacred

duties, he will repent it with bitter tears and will never be

comforted. . . .Is there any man so stupid that he cannot see

how all this hangs together? (p. 25)
Rousseau’s attitude towards fatherhood was a revolutionary one in 1750, and did
not receive widespread serious consideration again until the social revolution of
the 19603. The two centuries in between can be characterized by a fairly fixed
pattern of childrearing--that is, if a woman became a mother, she accepted a
recognized set of responsibilities and obligations that were different from the
responsibilities and obligations of the father. A father was obliged to contribute
financial support for his offspring, and a mother was expected to give up whatever
interfered with her availability to care for her child.

Most men and women in contemporary Western society have moved away
from strictly traditional roles assigned on the basis of gender. Although women
have historically been required to choose between parenthood and having another
occupation, today most women have abandoned that expectation, and believe
instead that they have the right to enjoy both. (For some families, the right to

concurrent motherhood and employment is less a privilege than an economic

necessity.) The changes in the roles of women (and for mothers particularly) have
prompted changes in women’s and men’s understanding of what fatherhood
entails. Although most couples identify the mother as the primary child caregiver,
Pleck (1977) reported a national survey indicating that the average American
working man is getting more involved in child care, especially when his wife is
also employed. Recent research demonstrates a new interest in fathering as a
fulfilling and useful role for men. Research suggests that paternal participation in
childrearing directly enhances the child’s cognitive (Pedersen, Rubenstein, &
Yarrow, 1973, 1979; Radin & Epstein, 1975; Radin, 1981), psychological (Reuter
& Biller, 1973; Baumrind & Black, 1967) and moral development (Rutherford &
Mussen, 1968). In addition to the direct effects paternal participation in
childrearing has on child development, research suggests indirect benefits as well.
Gronseth (1978) reports positive associations between paternal involvement in
childrearing (defined as both psychological investment and actual performance of
family work) and marital harmony. Easterbrooks and Emde (1988) report a
positive relationship between marital quality and positive parenting attitudes and
behaviors. Therefore, it seems fathers’ involvement in childrearing can benefit
children directly, and in addition, may benefit them indirectly via a family
environment reflecting happier marriages and better parenting relationships
between mothers and fathers.

Nevertheless, because most fathers maintain their traditional roles as full
participants in the paid labor force, they experience competing demands for their
time and energy. Thus, as men become more involved in fathering, many
experience role overload. Work versus family conflicts become salient for men

who cannot successfully integrate their competing roles. The difficulty inherent in

distributing a finite amount of personal resources between two distinct and
important life spheres may create or exacerbate marital tension, and increase
parenting stresses. These conflicts may engender a poorer marital relationship and
parenting alliance, which may in turn negatively affect the overall quality of
father-child interactions.

This research study will use cross-sectional data to assess the usefulness of

a model proposing this sequence of events.

Changing Families, Changing Roles

The topic of changing gender roles has received considerable research
attention, but more of this work concerns changes in women’s roles than in men’s.
There has been much more emphasis on the movement of women into the labor
force than on men’s movement into the domestic sphere (Coverrnan & Sheley,
1986); however, the 19803 have produced a dramatic increase in research
investigating paternal participation in childrearing and family work. The current
research interest in fathers’ participation in child care and household chores has
been ignited primarily by the massive entry of women, especially women with
children, into the paid labor force. Dual-earner families are becoming the norm
where they once were the exception, comprising 51.8% of families with children
under 6 in 1985, as compared to only 36.6% as recently as 1975 (U .S. Department
of Labor, 1985). And, as more married women with children work outside the
home and share the breadan responsibility, more married men reciprocate by
performing some of the child care and housework.

Research on the relationship between mothers’ employment status and
fathers’ actual participation in family work yields inconsistent findings (Hoffman,

1983; Russell & Radin, 1983). Family work, in this context, is comprised of

child-rearing and housework. Some experts have argued that the husbands of
employed women will tend to shoulder more of the child-care tasks but make few
changes in the amount of housework they perform (Hoffman, 1974). However,
several empirical studies employing diverse methodologies have found limited or
no parental sharing of child care even when mothers are employed. Regardless of
the child-care task investigated, and even in dual-career families, few instances of
total paternal or even shared responsibility for‘ child-care can be identified
(Ericksen, Yancey, & Ericksen, 1979; Gecas, 1976; St. John-Parsons, 1978).
Adults acknowledge that fathers should increase their participation in child-rearing
as their wives increase their employment responsibilities, but these attitudes do not
seem to be reflected in fathers’ actual behavior. We can conclude that regardless
of employment status or number of hours worked, mothers assume the major
responsibility for child-care tasks.

There is also controversy over whether the traditional division of
housework changes when the wife is employed. Most researchers agree that when
wives do not participate in the paid labor force, their husbands perform very few
household tasks, and those they do perform are traditional masculine jobs, e.g.,
yardwork, car repairs, moving furniture, and household maintenance (Robinson,
1977; Stafford, Backrnan, & DiBona, 1977). Employed wives decrease the
amount of time they spend on housework by half. However, while husbands of
employed women may slightly increase their contributions to housework (Beckett
& Smith, 1981) the increase is essentially negligible as the wives still spend three
to six times as many hours on housework as do their husbands (Carlson, 1984).

Clearly, men’s involvement in the traditional ”woman’s sphere” if occurring at all,

is lagging far behind women’s entry into the traditional ”man’s sphere” (Coverman
& Sheley, 1986).

Although fathers are significantly less involved with their children than
mothers, and rarely perform more than 25% of the total housework, some research
has focused on the factors common to fathers who do actively participate in family
work. Barnett and Baruch (1987) report that determinants of paternal
participation in family work include: mothers’ employment status (the number of
hours worked, flexibility of her work schedule, and overall job satisfaction),
family structure (how many children and of what ages), parental sex-role attitudes
(each parent’s beliefs regarding breadan and childrearing responsibilities),
and parental socialization (the quality of fathering each parent received when s/he
was a child). They report that in both dual-earner and traditional families, fathers
spend significantly less time with their children than mothers do, spend much less
time performing household and childcare tasks, and very rarely do fathers
consistently assume responsibility for any family work (that is, men may perform a
variety of family-oriented tasks, but rarely is the father consistently responsible
for remembering, planning or scheduling a certain task). However, a minority of
men reported higher levels of parental involvements, and the determinants of that
participation varied depending on the wives’ employment status. In dual-earner
families, wives’ work- related variables and sex- role attitudes were important
predictors of fathers’ participation. In single-earner families, fathers’ attitude
toward the quality of fathering they received as children was the most consistent
predictor (Barnett & Baruch, 1987). As the authors write:

For these two groups of fathers, maternal employment status serves

primarily to create the conditions under which other variables
emerge as significant predictors; maternal employment status thus

moderates or conditions the relationship between particular
determinants and particular forms of paternal involvement (p. 37).

So, in families with employed mothers, the number of hours the wife worked per
week was the strongest single predictor of fathers’ actual participation in family
work, perhaps reflecting involvement that is less voluntary and more controlled by
the wives’ employment-related needs (Radin, 1981). In addition, mothers’ liberal
attitudes towards men’s sex roles was a strong predictor of paternal participation,
whereas women with traditional sex-role attitudes were married to men who did
not participate actively in family work. These findings suggest that in dual-earner
families, men’s participation in the family sphere depends, at least in part, on the
wife’s attitudes and needs.

In families with nonemployed wives (that is, in the absence of external
constraints associated with wives’ employment) fathers who were dissatisfied with
the fathering they received as children tended to be more involved with their own
children than fathers who reported satisfaction. It appears that these fathers try to
compensate for perceived deprivation rather than imitate their fathers’ patterns
(Radin, 1981). Yet for both dual-earner and traditional families, neither men’s
sex- role attitudes nor work responsibilities were related to paternal participation:
this suggests that even liberal men and men with few work constraints may not
become actively involved in family work unless their wives desire their
involvement (Barnett & Baruch, 1987).

Women’s attitudes towards men’s participation in family work can
determine the extent and nature of paternal participation (Feldman, Nash, &
Aschenbrenner, 1983). The same studies that show a majority of men wanting to
be more involved in fatherhood also reveal that 60%-80% of women do not want

their husbands to be more involved than they currently are (Pleck, 1982; Quinn &

Staines, 1979). Lamb (1987) outlines several reasons for this attitude: wives may
feel that their husbands are incompetent; wives may experience conflict about
working and maintain a full homemaker role in order to reduce their own
intrapsychic discomfort; and/or wives are unwilling to' relinquish family work
because it represents their one arena of power and authority over their husbands.
Lamb notes that women’s attitudes towards paternal involvement have changed
very little over the last 15 years. He suggests that even among women who
welcome paternal involvement, their ambivalence creates ambiguous expectations
for men. Ambiguity in role expectations prevents men’s attitudinal changes from
becoming actual changes in behavior. Lamb suggests that as women’s
expectations for men’s attitudes and behavior. become more clear, men’s attitudes
and behavior will be more congruent, and paternal participation in family work

The Benefits of Paternal Involvement in Family Work

What are the potential outcomes of paternal involvement? Paternal
participation in family work benefit the father-child relationship in direct and
indirect ways. There is a growing body of literature examining the many positive
benefits that involved father's bring to their children. The active father not only
enhances his child’s cognitive, emotional and social development, but also builds a
relationship in which positive father-child interaction takes place. Additionally,
when fathers take on a major responsibility for caregiving, there may be greater
equality and satisfaction in the marital relationship. Furthermore, the parenting
relationship between mothers and fathers is likely to improve when both partners
display high commitment to their parent role. Thus, overall family harmony may

increase. The literature examining these phenomena will be reviewed separately.

The Father-Child Relationship

Because of the limited role fathers have historically taken in child-rearing,
research on the consequences of involved fathering is rare. Many studies address
the negative consequences of father absence (Radin, 1981; Biller, 1974, 1981;
Shinn, 1978; Hetherington, 1982) and from these studies one can infer the
importance of the father in the lives of his children. The studies that examine the
impact of involved, nurturing fathers acknowledge their formative role in the
development of children, and establish that a father’s involvement with children is
very meaningful to him (Fein, 1978; Greenberg & Morris, 1974) and has
significant psychological consequences for the child (Lamb, 1976).

A review of father-infant literature reveals that according to Freudian
theory, the father was no more than an occasional mother substitute. However,
attachment theory argues that the selection of an infant’s attachment figure would
be determined by the extent of an infant’s exposure to an adult and the adult’s
responsiveness to the infant’s needs. Lamb (1976) argues that although mothers
are the major attachment object for 70% of infants, the preference for mothers
over fathers fades during the infants’ second year. Research indicates that fathers
of newborns are active participants in the family triad and were as likely to
interact with the baby as was the mother (Parke & O’Leary, 1976). However, the
actual time fathers spend interacting with their infants on a daily basis ranges from
only 37.7 seconds (Rebelsky & Hanks, 1971) to 30 minutes (Pedersen, 1979).
Lewis (1982) recognizes that fathers do spend less time with their infants than do
mothers, but states that fathers can and do care well for their children when
required to do so. Comparisons of mothering and fathering behaviors reveal more

similarities than differences: both mothers and fathers can soothe infants in

distress, serve as attachment figures, and both sexes endorsed nurturing as a major
parenting responsibility. Differences in parenting styles include: mothers
verbalize and smile more than fathers (Pedersen, 1980), mothers engage in social
play while father's engage in vigorous motion play (Belsky, 1980), and that
mothers held infants more for caregiving and fathers held infants more for play
purposes (Lamb, 1977; Parke, 1980). At 3 months, Parke and Sawin (1980) found
some convergence in parent-infant interaction, indicating each parent adopted
some of his or her partner’s behaviors.

The toddler period is a particularly good time to assess father-child
relations. Toddlerhood is a time of reciprocal increased interest and interaction
between fathers and their children (Lamb, 1977). From a theoretical standpoint,
father-child interactions at this developmental period are especially important
because they decrease the symbiotic nature of the typical infant-mother
relationship, and provide a model for sex-role development. Assessments of the
quality of attachment, children’s affect, and toddler’s problem-solving suggest
that the quality and quantity of fathering impacts the very young child’s
development (Easterbrooks & Goldberg, 1984). Qualitative (attitudes, behavioral
sensitivity, nurturance) and quantitative (amount of time spent with child,
participation in caregiving) aspects of parenting are positively related to the
development of children for both mothers and fathers. Children of highly
involved fathers exhibit optimal task competence, and secure attachments within
the father-child dyad and beyond that relationship (Easterbrooks & Goldberg,
1984). Furthermore, Easterbrooks and Goldberg found that although both
qualitative and quantitative fathering characteristics are associated with healthy

child development, in general qualitative fathering characteristics are more salient.

10

In addition, father involvement was more strongly related than the mother’s
involvement to positive affect and optimal problem-solving; /rnothers’ parenting
characteristics were more highly associated with security of attachment/Goldberg
and Easterbrooks make clear the complex naure and interdependencies of
relationships within the family system, and conclude that/" sensitive fathering, like
sensitive mothering, is important for toddler development" (1984):/

For pre-school children, the fathering relationship continues to be ‘
important. Although the psychological literature suggests that mothers are the
most skilled parents, Frankel and Rollins (1983) report that fathers are not only as
skilled as mothers in roles of teacher and playmate to their young children, but
that they tend to use stylistically similar modes of interaction. Based on previous
research findings, it was expected that parents’ behaviors would vary as a function
of their own sex (Margolin & Patterson, 1975), but this expectation was not
supported. The major parental difference was found to depend on the type of task
in which the parent and child engaged: * mothers delivered more approval,
disapproval and general feedback to their child in a teaching task while fathers
delivered more in a play setting (Frankel & Rollins, 1983). Overall, the most
important variable that influences parent-child interactions is not a parental
variable, but appears to be the child’s sex. In general, parents of both sexes were
performance- and task-oriented with their sons (more controlling, more strategic,
and giving more feedback on behavior) and more cooperative with daughters.

The nature of parent-child relationships obviously changes as the child
develops. The physical care, play, and cognitive, social and emotional needs of
school-aged children differs markedly from those of infants, toddlers, and

preschool children. Control, achievement, and competition become salient issues

11

(Block, 1978), and verbal communication is a dominant feature of parent-child
interactions. Baumrind’s (1982) hypothesis that, overall, mothers will interact
more frequently with their children, be more directive and more dominant and
assertive than fathers has been supported by numerous studies (Patterson, 1982;
Russell & Russell, 1987). Mothers interact more frequeme with their children in
the context of caregiving and family management (Patterson, 1982; Russell &
Russell, 1987). Fathers’ interactions with their children occur more often within a
physical play context, but as the child grows older, physical play activities
decrease and verbal/social play increases (Russell & Russell, 1987). Fathers do not
appear to be more involved in cognitive or achievement-oriented interaction, nor
do they respond more positively than mothers to competitiveness and autonomous
achievement in their children. In general, fathers are no more firm, restrictive or
negative than mothers, although fathers do respond more negatively than mothers
to dependent child behaviors (especially for sons). Fathers and children engage in
more physical affection than do mother-child dyads (Bronstein, 1984; Russell &
Russell, 1987).

Despite these stylistic differences in parenting, few overall differences
were found in children’s responses to parents. Consistent with Lamb’s (1981)
attachment hypothesis, children show little difference in their affective reactions
to mothers versus fathers, despite the major differences in the qualitative and
quantitative aspects of mothering and fathering. In general, many fathers cultivate
positive relationships with their children, and although they do not appear to take
major responsibility for their day-to-day care, fathers make a significant
contribution to their child’s optimal development. Russell and Russell (1987) note

that as the child grows older caregiving demands become less important, and given

12

the strong positive affective quality of father-child relationships, fathers are in a
position to exert considerable influence on their children. For children of all ages,
fathers’ nurturance, warmth and closeness facilitate sex-role development,
emotional competence, and cognitive achievement (Radin, 1978, 1981, 1982).
Clearly, fathers’ involvement directly impacts children’s development from
infancy through adolescence and beyond. “

Family Harmony: Marital Satisfaction and the Parenting Alliance
In addition to directly enhancing a child’s cognitive, psychological and

sex-role development, paternal involvement affects children’s development

through a second, more indirect path: “a harmonious family environment
characterized by the marital satisfaction of both parents and a strong parenting
alliance. “Hawkins (1968) defines marital satisfaction as subjective feelings of
happiness experienced by a spouse when considering all aspects of marriage.
Marital satisfaction has been shown to decline sharply at the birth of the first child
(Belsky, Spanier, & Rovine, 1983) and tends to remain low unless parents restore
an acceptable degree of romance and leisure-time companionship with each other,
resolve the new set of stresses associated with child-rearing, and successfully
negotiate the transition to parenthood.

The parental role for men appears to be particularly subject to the
influences of marital satisfaction, and in turn, marital satisfaction (especially for
wives) tends to reflect the degree of paternal involvement and satisfaction in
childcare. Belsky et a1. (1983) hypothesize that even though the birth of children
creates far more work, the overwhelming responsibility for its management lies

with the women; husbands are not expected to greatly increase their contribution

to household functioning as a result of the addition of children to the family. But

13

given the time-consuming demands made by parenthood and the concurrent
stresses of maternal employment, time spent in joint leisure activities is sacrificed.
Belsky et al. suggest that time spent nurturing the marital relationship is lost unless
fathers participate in family work. According to Kingston and Nock (1986), time
shared in joint leisure activities is one key determinant of marital satisfaction in
dual-earner families. In this model, .marital satisfaction depends largely on
fathers’ willingness to shoulder a significant amount of childcare responsibilities.

Another plausible explanation for the link between paternal involvement
and marital satisfaction for both spouses is that sharing parental roles increases
common interests shared by each spouse, and prevents " growing apart” (Hoffman,
1983). Traditional families in which the husband involves himself solely in his job
and the wife invests herself completely in family work can lead to different
interests, outlooks, recreational preferences, and priorities (Campbell, Converse,
& Rodgers, 1976; Hoffman & Manis, 1978; Spanier, Lewis, & Cole, 1975) which
decreases marital satisfaction. Hoffman (1983) notes that although most couples
state that their children bring them closer together as spouses, the couples
reporting marital deterioration frequently explain that having children moved each
spouse into separate spheres, and that common interests and companionship
gradually eroded. When fathers maintain high level of involvement in their
children, the distinct spheres of employment and family life move closer together,
and marital satisfaction based on shared interests and mutual appreciation remains
high.

This explanation is consistent with other research noting the association
between marital satisfaction and paternal involvement and satisfaction in

childcare. Gronseth (1978) reports greater marital equality (i.e, evenly distributed

14

power in decision-making, both partners fulfilling the roles of economic provider
and parent) in families with highly involved fathers, and that greater equality leads
to greater marital satisfaction. His research links high levels of paternal
involvement with reduced family tension, reduced conflict, and greater marital
harmony for both husbands and wives. However, these couples generally
identified equalitarian marriage as a preferred lifestyle and both husbands and -
wives worked part-time and truly shared parenting responsibilities. Consequently,
it is likely that in this group, neither husbands nor wives experience intrapsychic
ambivalence about the mens’ involvement in family work. Under these relatively
unusual circumstances, paternal participation in family work is a clear determinant
of marital satisfaction.

Thus, there is some evidence supporting the belief that an important
correlate of marital satisfaction is patemal participation in family work. It seems
likely that when fathers participate more in family work, they ease the role
overload experienced by their wives. Sharing household and childcare
responsibilities reduces the strain on mothers (especially employed mothers) and
increases the common interests shared by both spouses. Paternal participation in
family work increases the fathers’ and mothers’ confidence in the fathers’ ability
to perform family work, which encourages men to maintain a high level of
involvement in fathering (Goldberg, 1977; lamb & Easterbrooks, 1981). In sum,
paternal involvement contributes to marital satisfaction and a family atmosphere
characterized by less conflict and more warmth,”and in this way indirectly benefits
the child.

Marital satisfaction is one component of overall family harmony: another

is the parenting alliance. Although a positive parenting alliance is correlated with

15

marital satisfaction, it is not the same construct (Frank, Jacobson, Hole,
Justkowski, & Huyck, 1986). A positive parenting alliance provides a resource on
which a parent can depend for affirmation and support; it enables parents to better
satisfy their child’s needs and meet the challenge of parenting more successfully.
Additionally, an effective parenting alliance buffers experiences of stress and
allows the parents and the family to be flexible in response to change (Frank,
Jacobson, & Hole, 1988). The parenting alliance “encompasses interactions that
pertain to child rearing. . . and consists of the capacity of a spouse to
acknowledge, respect, and value the parenting roles and tasks of the partner" . It
“plays a critical role in the continuous unfolding of the parenthood experience. It
performs a sustaining function for the individual partner as each responds
continuously to the developmental progression of the child" (Cohen & Weissman,
1984, p. 33).

The parenting alliance is likely to be affected by the degree to which
fathers are involved in parenting. Kotelchuck (1976) reports that fathers who are
highly invested in parenting, and prioritize their family roles over work
commitments, perceive themselves to be more skilled in child-care; consequently,
these men maintain an increased level of involvement and satisfaction in their roles
as fathers. Additionally, their spouses perceive them to be more skilled in child-
care, and report greater satisfaction with their husbands’ contributions to family
work (Parke, Hyrnel, Power, & Tinsley, 1980). Furthermore, it is likely that
more involved fathers understand and respect their partner’s caregiving role more,
and appreciate the inherent difficulties in parenting. Because the parenting
alliance stresses mutual satisfaction with one’s partner’s parenting abilities, and

the degree to which one respects one’s partner and shares parenting

16

responsibilities, fathers who are highly involved in parenting (and consequently
more likely to respect their wives, and be respected in that role by their wives)
may enjoy a stronger parenting alliance than men who are uninvolved in childcare.

Paternal involvement and a positive parenting alliance may be linked, but
they are not necessarily the same construct. Spouses define parenthood in a style
concordant with their individual needs, their needs as a couple, and the needs of
their family. (Fein, 1978). Defining the fathering role is easier when the husband
and wife are in agreement about the ideal extent of involvement, but it is the
agreement rather than an absolute degree of paternal involvement that fosters a
strong parenting alliance. However, high father involvement and a strong
parenting alliance tend to co-occur partly because as mothers’ employment
pressures increase, women require more involvement of their husbands at home.
In general, the father and mother negotiate the parenting alliance together, but
partly due to the strain of mothers’ double role as full-time wage-earner and
primary child caregiver, and also because of changing sex-role attitudes and
expectations associated with higher educational levels, it is likely that a stronger
parenting alliance would occur in the context of high levels of paternal
involvement and investment in childcare.

Researchers agree that positive marital and parenting relationships and
optimal child development are interrelated. In their review of marital and
parenting literatures, Easterbrooks and Emde (1988) note that marital quality and
parental competence are positively related, that marital conflict and increased
parental negativity toward children tend to co-occur (Johnson & Lobitz, 1974) and
that positive marital adjustment facilitates sensitive parenting and better child

adjustment. Mothers and fathers are more nurturant and responsive toward their

17

children when the interaction between parents is warm and supportive (Pedersen,
'Anderson, & Cain, 1980). Similarly, a positive parenting alliance increases
mothers’ satisfaction with parenthood, and improves the quality of mother-infant
interactions (Frodi, lamb, Frodi, Hwang, Forsstrom, & Corry, 1981; Owen,
Chase-Lansdale, & lamb, 1982). Additionally, sharing of positive affect between
parents and child was strongly related to the extent of parental agreement about
child discipline and control, more effective communication between family
members, and to marital harmony. In turn, marital harmony was strongly
associated with child compliance (Easterbrooks & Emde, 1988). For fathers,
marital adjustment was related to warmth and nurturance in their roles as parents,
and to a lack of negative affect associated with fathering. The authors
acknowledge that marital and parent-child relationships are interdependent in the
family system, and that some child characteristics (temperament, perinatal risk
status, gender) may encourage marital distress. However, they suggest that in
most cases, marital quality largely determines the family environment in which
children are reared, and is a primary factor in family happiness. Easterbrooks and
Emde argue that generally ”parents who have satisfying supportive marital
relationships will be more available to respond sensitively to the needs of their
child, and will provide a warmer affective climate in the home, and will constitute
more positive role models, thereby facilitating optimal child development.
Correspondingly, a negative or discordant marital relationship may be a source of
stress. . . rendering them less available for sensitive parent-child interactions"
(1988, p. 84). Floyd (1988) notes that both marital satisfaction and a positive
parenting alliance are associated with better overall family functioning, and we can

expect family harmony to contribute to the quality of father-child interactions.

18

Marital and parent-child relationships are interdependent, and a positive family
climate encourages optimal child development.

The Costs of Paternal Participation in Family Work

Although fathers’ involvement in family work can yield some direct and
indirect benefits, the consequences of increased father involvement may not all be
positive. As more men become involved fathers, the difficulties inherent in
simultaneously managing work and family roles emerge as a reality of
contemporary Western family life. The roles of worker, parent, and in most
cases, spouse, are interdependent in terms of time, energy and commitment
necessary for an adequate performance. Men and women attempting to perform
all three roles often experience role asynchrony (Voydanoff, 1980). This strain
can be due to overload (when the total activity required of one or more roles is
greater than an individual can handle comfortably or adequately) or to interference
(when expectations for an individual are contradictory or in conflict). As women
continue to ascribe importance to their participation in the paid labor force, as
family economic considerations necessitate a second income, and as men desire
more involvement in child care, new work and family cross- pressures will create
interrole conflict for men. Work versus family conflicts may decrease marital
satisfaction and erode the parenting alliance, and decreased family harmony may
compromise the benefits associated with high paternal involvement in family

work.

Interrole Conflict
Until the late 1970s, organizational research and family studies were

relatively distinct areas with little overlap. This reflected, and perpetuated, the

l9

myth of compartmentalization between family life and the world of paid
employment. Two or three decades ago, when most of our traditional ideas about
family and work were developed, employment rates for women were low, divorce
rates were low, household participation for men was low, and gender roles were
clearly defined (Orthner & Pittmen, 1986). Yet since the mid-19703, the two
major sources of psychological investment in adults’ lives have been in conflict.
Characteristics of the work environment contribute to family stress (Olson et al., '
1983), household task performance (Beck & Beck, 1979), marital companionship
(Orthner & Axelson, 1980), and overall marital quality (Clark et al., 1978).
Juggling the demands of competing life roles has become a common experience for
many American adults.

For women, work versus family conflicts have been extensively studied.
The emergence of widespread employment outside the home for mothers has
implications for the division of labor inside the home; however, most
investigations into the allocation of household labor and child care demonstrate
that wives retain the primary responsibilities for family work (Warner, 1986;
Seccombe, 1985). For single-earner families, resource theory has been used to
explain family role organization; resource theory suggests that the greater the
amount or value of resources contributed by a spouse, the greater is his/her power
within the relationship, and this power is then translated into the ability to avoid
unpleasant or demeaning tasks (such as housekeeping). Yet in dual-earner
families, many women who develop commitments to the paid labor force also
maintain primary responsibility for family work, and struggle with the difficulty
of fulfilling both roles. Resource theory suggests that because both spouses make

more comparable financial contributions to their family, we would expect both

20

spouses to share power more equally, and it seems likely that employed mothers
will use their power to reduce role strain: they may expect their husbands to
perform more family work. I

By expecting their husbands to perform more family work, women will
reduce the role strain they experience. However, when additional responsibilities
are shifted to men, it seems likely that men will experience some of the role
overload that women sought to reduce. Furthermore, some men have sincere
ambitions and commitments in both the work and family arenas simultaneously. It
is often assumed that highly valued roles will be given priority in the allocation of
time and energy; because only a limited amount of these resources is available,
high commitment to both career and family produces conflict and stress (Skinner,
1983; Price-Bonham & Murphy, 1980). Thus, there is some evidence that
suggests that for some men, becoming more involved in family work (either for
externally- or intemally-driven reasons) can create work versus family conflicts.

Work versus family conflicts for men are more difficult to examine than
for women. Few research studies examined the effect of role squeeze on men
because it is a relatively new phenomenon. Clark, Nye, and Gecas (1978)
examined husbands’ experiences of work versus family conflicts more closely, and
evaluated three alternative hypotheses: work-committed men perform family
duties either 1) less extensively, 2) less adequately, or 3) more efficiently. They
report data suggesting that husbands’ work time did not significantly reduce
participation in family work, and that wives’ marital satisfaction did not decrease
when husbands reported a high commitment to work. The authors explain that
when not occupied by work, men tended to ignore their own leisure pursuits,

friends, etc., in favor of their family commitments, and the high proportion of

21

non-work time spent on family tasks satisfied themselves and their spouses.
Additionally, wives of work-committed men had lower expectations for their
husbands’ participation at home. However, younger wives of work-involved
husbands report feeling dissatisfied and neglected; moreover, increased education
and employment among wives was strongly associated with higher family role
expectations for men. Clark, Nye, and Gecas conclude that as educational and
employment levels of women continue to increase, more women will have high
marital and family role. expectations for their husbands, and consequently more
will be dissatisfied with husbands who either cannot resolve interrole conflict or

who do so by maintaining commitments only to their jobs.

Fathers’ Involvement with Work

Although maternal employment and women’s experience of interrole
conflict receives attention in the research literature, the literature on men’s
employment and its impact on the family focuses on extreme examples, such as
extended unemployment or father absence. The dearth of studies examining how
time is allocated by husbands between their work and their families reflects three
dominant traditional ideologies: (1) men’s personal worth and masculinity are
defined primarily by occupational success; (2) asymmetrical boundaries exist for
men and women as they perform family and work roles; and (3) men make their
most important contribution to their families through success at work. These three
ideologies have downplayed the importance of men’s active involvement with their
families, and have precluded many men’s involvement as fathers.

Historically, men have taken their role of primary wage-earner seriously,
and today many adults continue to believe personal worth is inextricably linked to

professional success. This belief especially affects men. Economic success is

22

equated with power, influence, tangible symbols of wealth, prestige and status.
Adult males, especially married men and men with children, have traditionally had
little alternative to this definition of success for proving their worth and their
masculinity. According to this traditional conceptualization, physical strength and
sexual prowess are also symbols of masculinity, but the role of economic provider
is primary if the adult male wishes to be perceived as an adequate man (Brenton,
1966). In turn, stereotyped masculine characteristies such as aggressiveness,
competitiveness, and unemotionality increase the likelihood of occupational
success. Therefore, a reciprocal relationship is created between occupational
success and masculinity, and many men and women do not distinguish these two
phenomena. The qualities described as traditionally masculine are believed to be
incompatible with the tenderness and nurturing necessary to be a good parent, and
the pursuit of occupational success leaves little energy or time left for active
parenting. The popularity of this ideology demanded that men commit themselves
wholeheartedly to their careers, and ignore the costs that this commitment
necessitated. Consequently, little research has been done that explores the costs of
men’s primary role as worker and the impact that has on family functioning.

Some researchers suggest that high levels of commitment to the paid labor
force directly reduces the opportunities to participate in domestic roles (Aldous,
1969); popular literature characterizes husbands as men whose involvement in
work results in social and emotional neglect of their families. Blood and Wolfe
(1960) demonstrated that the degree of a husband’s household task participation
was inversely related to the extent of his work time. They concluded that being
the primary breadwinner and being an invested parent are partially incompatible

roles for men. Pleck (1977) conceptualizes the interdependence between work and

23

family roles in a model that describes the reciprocal interaction between these roles
for men and women; his theory is consistent with what Rapoport and Rapoport
(1965) originally speculated: the realms of work and family are closely
intertwined, and that one’s involvement with either sphere must affect
involvement with the other. Pleck makes the important observation that the
boundary between work and family has been, and continues to be, asymmetrically
permeable for males and females. He notes that for women, the demands of the
family role are permitted to intrude into the work role more than the work role is
allowed to interfere with family responsibilities, whereas for men, the opposite is
true.

It is obvious that women’s family obligations affect their professional
lives. Most research indicates that having children disrupts women’s established
work patterns (Martins & Roberts, 1984). Women experience economic losses
(missed promotions, training opportunities, and lower pay) as well as occupational
downgrading (taking jobs that are less financially or psychologically rewarding
because they allow women to fulfill domestic obligations) as they attempt to
combine employment and parenthood. Men have experienced none of these
penalties in the labor force because of their status as parents. Men do not lose
time from their careers because of the births of their children, as women do.
Generally men do not curtail their work hours to match their children’s school
schedules, as mothers might. In fact, while women deemphasize their employment
as the number of their children rises, men’s hours in paid labor reflects an opposite
pattern: they work longer hours (Young & ermott, 1973) and consequently,

have less time for parenting.

24

Asymmetrically permeable boundaries suggest that the constraints of a
man’s professional responsibilities may impede his ability to function fully as a
father, husband, and co-homemaker. Whereas women have sacrificed their
careers because of their status as mothers, men have restricted participation as
fathers and husbands in favor of their work obligations. Therefore, men have had
to show their concern for their family precisely by working long hours and
climbing the career ladder, although intense career involvement gradually erodes
marital and father-child relationships (Keniston, 1965). Research by Frank et al.
(1986) suggests that men reporting high occupational commitment display a
parenting style characterized as role-focused (i.e., the parent desires their child to
be a good citizen and a contributing member to society) rather than child-focused
(i.e., the parent enjoys and accepts the child for who s/he is). It seems likely that
a child-focused parent would enjoy a more emotionally intimate relationship with
their child than a role— focused parent; consequently, men (and women) may
achieve high occupational commitment at the expense of their relationship with
their children. In conclusion, intense commitment to occupational success can cost
men (and women) their psychological well-being. Brenton (1966) writes:

By depending so heavily on his breadwinning role to validate his

senseofhirnselfasaman, insteadofalsolettinghisrolesas

husband, father, and citizen of the community count as validating

sources, the American male treads on psychically dangerous ground.

It’s always dangerous to put all of one’s psychic eggs into one

basket (p. 194).

Although the work ethic remains strong in American culture, and men
continue to be judged in terms of their occupational success, there are indications
that today’s men are placing less emphasis on work achievement. Pleck and Lang

(1979) have summarized the findings of numerous research studies, and virtually

all agree that there is a clear bias toward men’s and women’s commitments to

25

family life. They conclude that "men’s family role is far more psychologically
significant to them than is their work role" (p. 1). As early as 1957, family roles
almost uniformly were rated more important than job roles by both men and
women (Douvan, 1978). So, men are reporting that they value their family life
more than their work, and that they derive their major life satisfactions from their
roles as husband and father. However, the shift away from work toward family
involvement may be an attitudinal one, with behavioral changes yet to follow.
Although Pleck and Lang (1979) argue that “men’s family behavior is beginning to
change, becoming increasingly congruent with the long-standing psychological
significance of the family in their lives” (p. 1), it appears that men still retain the
importance of their role as the farnily’s major economic provider. This suggests
that, although men may be increasing their involvement as husbands and fathers,
they have not yet decreased their intense commitments to breadwinning. Given a
finite amount of time and energy, this trend is likely to produce interrole conflicts,
which may significantly impact couples’ marital satisfaction and parenting

alliance.

Family Harmony: Marital Satisfaction and the Parenting Alliance

As some research has demonstrated, highly involved fathers can not only
enhance their relationships with their children, but also can strengthen marital and
parenting relationships with their partners. Yet, other researchers suggest that the
benefits associated with paternal participation can be negated by interrole conflict.
Work versus family conflicts place competing demands on women’s and men’s
time. In Gronseth’s (1978) study, paternal participation at home increased marital
satisfaction for both wives and husbands, but it is important to note that in

Gronseth’s sample, all parents worked part-time and shared parenting roles

26

equally. In contrast to his findings, Russell (1982) states that although 40% of
parents report an improved marital relationship as father participation in family
work increases, 50% of parents describe their marital relationships as suffering
because of increased tension, more conflict and too little time together as father
involvement in parenting increases. Because at least half of Russell’s families
were dual-earner couples, it is possible that the increase in marital tension he
reports is associated with role overload.

Ladewig and McGee ( 1986) emphasize that both husbands and wives report
that wives’ experience of role overload has a negative impact on her marital
satisfaction. Lamb, Pleck, and Levine (1978) review several studies examining
role overload and marital adjustment, and conclude that there is a relationship
between amount of family work for which employed women are responsible and
reported marital satisfaction (Bailyn, 1970), and that marital happiness increases in
proportion to paternal participation (Staines et al. , 1978). It appears that role
overload and marital happiness show an inverse relationship. Mothers who report
less marital satisfaction appeared more irritable and less nurturant with their
infants, and mothers who reported low parenting satisfaction engaged in more
negative vocalizations and expressions of negative affect as well (Goth-Owens,
Stollak, Messe, Peshkess, & Watts, 1982). It seems likely that role strain for
husbands would decrease marital satisfaction as it does for wives.

For women, the positive relationship between marital satisfaction and
paternal involvement in family work is clear. In contrast, some studies argue that
for men, marital dissatisfaction encourages men to participate in family work.
Goth—Owens, Stollak, Messe, Peshkess, and Watts (1982) report a consistent

inverse relationship between marital happiness and fathers’ involvement in

27

parenting. They suggest that the fathering role may depend on men’s satisfaction
with the spousal relationship, and that the most maritally satisfied men
demonstrate the least involvement with their infants. Although some maritally
unhappy men evidence higher rates of “inept“ fathering behavior (awkward
holding, inability to soothe child) others evidence more positive fathering behavior
(tender holding, responsive vocalizations, expressions of affect). Researchers
explain these results via a compensation hypothesis (Vincent, 1980): some men
who are dissatisfied with their marriages seek interpersonal gratification through
other dyadic family relationships, namely, the parent-child dyad. A second
explanation may be that men are unhappy in their spousal relationships in part
because of their high degree of involvement with their infants; this may reflect
levels of paternal involvement that are determined by the mother’s needs, yet
distress the father. The authors did not explore role overload as a possible factor
in this pattern. It seems plausible that role overload results in marital
dissatisfaction in men who are highly involved fathers, especially if the level of
their involvement in family work is determined by wives’ needs and if the men
have difficulty integrating their roles as breadwinner and parent.

Thus, paternal participation can enhance or detract from marital
satisfaction. Similarly, whether increased paternal participation enhances or
weakens the parenting alliance depends on the tensions and conflicts generated by
role sharing. Some research suggests that interrole conflict between couples
weakens their parenting alliance. Roles sharing brings the separated worlds of
work and family together, which can be problematic. The traditional allocation of
paid work to husbands and family work to wives decreases competition and

provides each parent with an arena of power and authority. As these domains

28

merge, couples must negotiate responsibility in both, and this can lead to conflict
and increased family tension. For men who do not enjoy active parenting, or who
resent their wives’ participation in the paid labor force it is likely that serious
conflicts will emerge. However, even for couples who genuinely desire equitable
role sharing, negotiating the daily decisions that comprise family life can produce
more frequent conflicts. If increased paternal participation creates family
conflict, weakens the parenting alliance and detracts from marital satisfaction,
overall family harmony will be compromised.

Summary

We have seen that families must balance their commitments to work in the
paid labor force and providing adequate care for their children. For women, who
function as the primary caregiver for most families, and who since the 19603 have
flooded the employment ranks, the work/family conflicts are pervasive. This
major social change has been the focus of much social science research in the
19703 and 19803. Because few men juggle a double load, less research has been
completed on work versus family conflicts for men.

However, as women move away from the traditional role of full-time
homemaker, more women expect their husbands to increase their participation in
family work. Additionally, as gender-based expectations for men gradually
become more flexible, men are more likely to become involved in active fathering.
Paternal participation in child care may be one important component that builds
the foundation for a strong parenting alliance and increases marital satisfaction.
These family factors can directly enhance father-child interactions, and indirectly

enhance father-child interactions via a harmonious family environment.

29

However, the cost of high levels of paternal involvement may be role
squeeze: men who maintain their traditional role as breadwinner and
simultaneously strengthen their commitment to their children may experience
significant work versus family conflicts. The stress created by role strain has been
correlated with marital dissatisfaction (i.e. , a role-strained man may believe that
he and his wife have little time left for marriage-enriching activities), so it is
possible that highly involved fathers who experience role conflicts will also
experience a decrease in marital satisfaction. In addition, some research suggests
that when couples experience interrole conflict, their parenting alliance may
weaken as well (i.e., a role-strained husband may perceive his wife as doing less
than her share of family work). Interrole conflict may reduce family harmony and

indirectly compromise the quality of father-child interactions.

CHAPTER 2
Research Hypotheses

The purpose of this research was to evaluate a model examining the
relationships between paternal involvement in childrearing, fathers’ work
involvement, work versus family conflicts, family harmony (the parenting alliance
and marital satisfaction) and the quality of father-child interaction. Coded
videotapes of father-child interaction were used to evaluate the quality of the
dyadic relationship; self - report measures were used to examine fathers’
involvement in childrearing, involvement in work, work versus family conflicts,
the parenting alliance and marital satisfaction. In testing the overall model, the
following hypotheses were explored:

1. Men who are more actively involved in fathering will interact with

their preschool children in more positive ways.

2. Paternal involvement enhances family harmony so that men who are
more involved in parenting will be part of more positive parenting
alliances, and will enjoy more positive marital relationships.

3. Family harmony is directly related to positive father-child
interactions. Therefore, paternal involvement indirectly affects the
father-child relationship via family harmony.

4. Many fathers who are highly involved in both parenting and work
may experience more conflict between their family and work roles

than men who do not report high involvement in both life spheres.

30

31

5. Work versus family conflict will have a negative effect on the quality
of the parenting alliance and on marital satisfaction, and hence will

directly compromise father-child interactions.

CHAPTER3

Method

Subjects
Data for this study was collected as part of a larger study of family factors

in children’s health. A total sample of 56 predominantly white, middle-class
families was recruited for this research project. All participants in this study were
recruited through a pediatrics clinic serving families of children currently between
3 and 4 years of age. Children were identified as potential subjects if they had no
other chronic illnesses besides otitis media, lived in intact families, had parents
who had completed high school, had at least one parent working full-time, and
had no more than 3 siblings. Families were not specifically selected for the
presence or absence of illness; rather, frequency of illness was treated as an
interval variable so that all subjects who met other criteria were eligible. Because
this research project required a substantial time commitment for families, each

family was compensated $75 following completion of all phases of the study.

Procedugs

Potential subjects were identified via computer printouts of patient names
and addresses, and contacted by letter and by telephone. Participants completed
an extensive battery of questionnaires assessing family functioning, parenting,
health attitudes and coping behaviors, and management of the competing demands
of work and family. Additionally, the child’s cognitive and language development

was assessed, and parent-child interactions were videotaped. Data were collected

32

33

at the subjects’ homes and at the Michigan State University Psychological Clinic,
where videotaped recordings of f rec-play and structured dyadic and triadic
interactions were made. Data were collected by a trained team of graduate and
undergraduate students, who were blind to the target child’s health status. For
each family, data collection was completed within three weeks.

Measures

These five constructs were measured: paternal involvement in childcare,
paternal involvement in work, mothers’ employment status, fathers’ work/ family
conflict, marital harmony (the quality of the parenting alliance and the marital

relationship), and the overall quality of the father-child interaction.

Paternal Involvement

Paternal involvement was assessed both attitudinally and behaviorally. The
Involvement in Parenting Questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed by
researchers for use in a study of the changing relationships between young adults
and their parents. Researchers using this measure report face validity as well as an
alpha value of .63 (Frank, Laman, & Huyck, 1983). The ”Involvement in
Parenting” questionnaire contains six items measuring attitudinal involvement in
childcare ("I try to spend as much time as possible with my children." "What’s
happening with my children has a lot to do with howl feel about my own life.")
Adults respond on a Likert scale in which 1 indicates strong disagreement and 4
equals strong agreement. Mean response for fathers equalled 3.3, with a standard
deviation of .42. The father’s report on this questionnaire yielded an involvement
score. In addition, the Family Tasks Questionnaire (Appendix B) contains four

items relevant to behavioral involvement in parenting ("Who takes care of the

34

children’s daily living needs as they arise?" ”Who provides the children with
support when they have problems?” "Who teaches values, ideas, and beliefs to the
children?" and ”Who expresses physical affection toward the children?").
Mothers’ and fathers’ reports on these four items were significantly correlated
with one another (r (54) = .47; p < .000) and the composite score for the two
parents on this measure was not significantly correlated with fathers’ attitudinal
involvement (r (55) = -.07; p < .59). Mean response for mothers’ equalled 2.5,
with a standard deviation of .05; mean response for fathers’ equalled 2.7, with a
standard deviation of .04. All three scores were transformed into z-scores and

combined into a single indicator of paternal involvement in childcare.

Paternal Involvement in Work

Paternal involvement in work was also measured both attitudinally and
behaviorally. The Involvement with Work Questionnaire (alpha = .74, Appendix
C) was developed for an earlier study on relationships between young adults and
their parents. It is a ten-item questionnaire to evaluate how involved an adult is in
his/her work role (”One of the most important things about me is how successful
or unsuccessful I am at work. " 'I think relatively little about work when I am not
on the job. ") This questionnaire yields a score reflecting fathers’ attitudes about
work. The mean score for men on this questionnaire was 2.3, with a standard
deviation of .43. Fathers’ scores on this questionnaire were combined with a
standardized score for the number of hours fathers spent at work. Fathers’ mean
number of hours per week spent at work ranged from 40-50. The correlation
between fathers’ attitudes about work and fathers’ time spent at work was .38 (p <
.008).

35

Mothers’ Employment Status

Mothers were asked how many hours per week they worked outside the
home in order to evaluate their employment status. For the purposes of this study,
mothers’ employment status was treated as an interval variable. Responses ranged
from zero hours per week (N=16) to 71 hours per week (N=l), and the mean range

of hours spent at work was 30-40 hours per week.

Fathers’ Work] Family Conflict

Interrole conflict was assessed by an eight item Role Conflict Questionnaire
(Appendix D) measuring the degree of conflict between fathers’ experience of the
obligations of work and family ("After work I come home too tired to do some of
the things I’d like to do.“ "My work schedule seldom conflicts with my family
life.” “My family accepts how often I am preoccupied with my work while I am
at home. "). The “Role Conflict Questionnaire” was based on the Quality of
Employment Survey (Quinn & Staines, 1978); Koppleman et a1. (1983) modified
this measure of role conflict based on research by Pleck (1980) and he reports
adequate validity and reliability on his altered version, with alpha coefficients
ranging from .80 to .89.

Marital Harmony

Family harmony was defined by the quality of the parenting alliance and
marital satisfaction as reported by mothers and fathers. One measure will be used
to assess the strength of the parenting alliance, and another to examine marital
satisfaction; these two scores will be combined into one rating of family harmony.
The quality of the parenting alliance was assessed by a 31 -item General Parenting
Alliance scale of the Family Experience Questionnaire (Frank, Jacobson, Hole,

36

Justkowski, & Huyck, 1986; Appendix E), measuring the overall strength and
effectiveness of the parenting alliance. Adults respond to items on a 4-point
Likert scale where 1 represents strong disagreement and 4 represents strong
agreement. The scale has high levels of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha >
.90), and good test-retest reliability (.86). High scores on this scale indicate that
respondents value their spouse’s parenting abilities ("My spouse has a good feel
for the kids and what they might need”), feel supported by the spouse (”My spouse
backs me up as a parent“), believe that parenting enhances their marital
relationship ("Parenting has brought my spouse and me closer together”), and
believe that the spouse assumes a fair share of the parenting responsibilities ("My
spouse makes too many demands on me as a parent (-)"). The mean score for
mothers on the General Parenting Alliance subscale was 3.0, with a standard
deviation of .33; the mean score for fathers equalled 3.3, with a standard
deviation of .32. Marital satisfaction was assessed by mothers’ and fathers’
ratings on the dyadic satisfaction subscale of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier
1976; Appendix F). In addition to the dyadic satisfaction scale (which assesses
overall satisfaction with the relationship and one’s commitment to it), the 32 -item
Dyadic Adjustment Scale evaluates three other components of dyadic adjustment:
dyadic consensus (agreement in important matters in the relationship), dyadic
cohesion (activities jointly undertaken) and affectional expression (encompassing
the physical, verbal and sexual expressions of affection). Content, criterion-
related, and construct validity for the Dyadic Adjustment Scale is high; the overall
scale yields a Cronbach’s alpha of .96. The alpha for the dyadic satisfaction
subscale is .77. Pearson correlation coefficients indicate that for these data,

mothers and fathers evaluate their parenting alliance similarly (r = .28, p. < .03)

37

and rate their marital satisfaction similarly (r = .64, p < .000). The mean score for
mothers’ marital satisfaction was 37, with a standard deviation of 6.9; fathers’
mean for marital satisfaction was 38, with a standard deviation of 5.5. Mothers’
and fathers’ reports on the General Parenting Alliance Scale and the dyadic
satisfaction scale were standardized and combined into a single indicator of marital
harmony.

Quality of the Father-Child Interaction

The overall quality of the father-child relationship was measured by
applying Belsky’s (unpublished, 1987) coding system to a 15-minute videotaped
interactions between a father and his child (Appendix G, Appendix H, and
Appendix I). A taped behavioral sample is comprised of three five-minute
segments: one child-directed play session, one father-directed play session, and
one clean-up session. The taped sessions were held in a playroom equipped with a
table, chairs for the parent and child, and various age-appropriate toys (a doctor’s
kit, waffle blocks, a puzzle, a truck carrying wooden animals, "Mr. Potato-
Head" , and/or crayons and paper). Throughout the session, the parent wore an
earphone allowing him to hear instructions from an experimenter who observed the
entire session from behind a one-way mirror. For the first five-minute interval,
parents were given the following directions: ”Nod if you can hear me. Tell
(child’s name) that slhe can play with any toy slhe wishes. Let (child’s name) play
any way slhe wants, and you follow his/her lead. " After five minutes passes,
parents were told: "Nod if you can still hear me. That was fine. Now tell (child’s
name) that it is your turn to choose the game. Keep (child’s name) playing your
game according to your rules. " The final five-minute segment required clean-up:

”Nod if you can hear me. That was fine. Now tell (child’s name) that we are

38

finished playing for now, and it is time to put the toys away. Tell your child you
want him/her to put all the toys away, and make sure slhe cleans up. "

These videotapes were coded according to Belsky’s (1987) scoring system
by a team of reliable coders. Two clinical psychology graduate students served as
primary coders, and a third clinical psychology graduate student assisted in
establishing and maintaining reliability. After thoroughly reviewing and
understanding the coding manual, categories, and behavioral examples of each
category, the team of coders discussed and coded single-minute intervals taken
from pilot tapes. When coders established reliability for each category at a
minimum of .70, they coded single-minute intervals from pilot tapes without
group discussion. Again, when coders achieved .70 reliability for each category,
coders then proceeded to code an entire pilot tape. When coders demonstrated
sustained reliability of .70 for each category over pilot tapes, coders began to code
actual data. Rater drift was prevented by periodic group accuracy checks: every
fifth tape was coded by both primary coders and reliability was calculated to
ensure maintained reliability of at least .70.

In deriving single scores reflecting the quality of the father-child
interactions, the unit of analysis was considered to be the dyad. An overall
”quality of father-child interaction" score was derived by assessing each code’s
contribution to the overall alpha: for all scores combined, codes yielding negative
item correlations were omitted, as were codes in which neither the item total
correlations nor the multiple correlations equaled .40. All categories satisfying

these criteria were used in calculating a single ”quality" score for each dyad.

CHAPTER 4
Results

Data analyses included three phases: preliminary analyses to operationalize
the outcome variables in the hypothesized path model; path analysis (or a series of
multiple regression analyses to test the proposed model) and finally, post-hoe

analyses to clarify observed relationships between variables.

Preliminagy Analyses: Construction of the Outcome Variables
An overall score for the quality of father-chfld interactions was based on

both the father’s and child’s behaviors. The Belsky scoring system includes 9
parent coding categories and 15 child coding categories. One parent behavior
coding category (Negative Affect) and two child behavior coding categories
(Degree of Distress and Strange Behaviors) were eliminated because these codes
demonstrated extremely low frequency of occurrence. Table 1 shows frequencies
for the remaining behavioral coding categories. Coding categories that reflect
more positive father behaviors (Positive Affect, Facilitates Self - Regulation) and
child behaviors (Mastery/Skill/Competence, Cognitive Sophistication, Positive
Affect, Verbal Interaction with Parent) were coded more frequently; conversely
coding categories that reflect more negative father behaviors (U ndermines Child’s
Functioning, Negative Feedback, Unresponsive/Unavailable/Undercontrolling,
Demands Self -Relevance) and child behaviors (Distancing from Parent,
Transgressions, Dependency/Need for Help) occurred very infrequently. All

remaining codes were transformed into z-scores. The z-scores for 11 codes

39

Table 1

quencies for Father and Child Behavior Variables.

 

Code Nne LM- 1.99 2.00-2.99 3.00-3.99 4.00-5.00

 

Father Variables
Undermines Child’s Functioning 52 0
Negative Feedback . 52 0
Positive Feedback 49 0
Positive Affect 0 22 29 1
”“E’A’é’flfli’t‘ilén’w 51 l o o
Facilitates Self -Regulation 1 42 9 O
Demands Self - Reliance 52 O 0 0
Intrusive/Overcoatrolling 49 3 0 0

Child Variables
Mastery/Skill/Compctence 0 4 38 ll
Cognitive Sophistication 4 41 8 0
Focused Attention!

Involvcrnem 0 l 17 35
Cooperation/Compliance 36 17 0 0
P05i36;?drtt:cb‘lle§u:imfium O 30 22 l
Distancing from Pater! 53 0 0 0
Negative Affect 48 4 l 0
Transgressions 54 0
Disobedience 48 0
Verbal Ines-action with Parent 0 29 21 3
Seeks Proximity to Parem 52 l 0 0
DepeMcncy/Need for Help 53 0 0 0
Organized Transitions 53 0

 

NOTE: All fromnncy scores are avenged across the total number of minutes for each father-child dyad.

41

(U nresponsive/U navailable/U ndercontrolling, Negative Feedback, Demands Self -
Reliance, Undermines Child Functioning, Parent Negative Affect, Intrusive/
Overcontrolling, Dependency/Need for Help, Distancing from Parent, Child
Negative Affect, Transgressions, and Disobedience) were reverse-scored (i.e.,
multiplied by -1) because they were presumably indicative of less positive
interactions. Of the remaining 21 coding categories, two parent behavior codes-
(U nresponsive/U navailable/U ndercontrolling and Undermines Child Functioning)
and one child behavior code (Seeks Proximity to Parent) demonstrated
considerable skew; to reduce skew extreme scores (>3 or < -3) were set equal to
+/ -3. Finally, a multiple correlation was computed and codes were eliminated
from scale construction if (a) for the code in question, both the item total
correlation and the multiple correlations were less than .40, or (b) the item total
correlation was negative. One parent behavior code (Intrusive/Overcontrolling)
and two child behavior codes (Dependency/Need for Help and Organized
Transitions) were discarded because the item total correlations were negative. One
child behavior code (Seeking Proximity to Parent) was discarded because the item
total correlation and multiple correlation coefficients were less than .40. (See
Table 2 for item-total correlations and multiple correlations.) The final scale
included seven codes for fathers’ behaviors (Positive Affect, Positive Feedback,
Negative Affective Feedback, Facilitates Self - Regulation, Demands Self -
Reliance, Undermines Child Functioning and Unresponsive/Unavailable/
Undercontrolling) and ten codes for child’s behaviors (Focused Attention/
Involvement, Cognitive Sophistication, Sense of Mastery/Skill/Competence,
Cooperation/Compliance, Verbal Interaction with Parent, Distancing from Parent,

Positive Affect/Enthusiasm/Comfortableness, Negative Affect, Transgressions,

42

Table 2

Qualifl of Father-Child Interaction Scale: Reliabifig/Analysis/Item-Total
Statistics.

 

 

0...... ism-w nastier
Father Variables
Undermines Child’s Functioning ' .37 .62
Negative Feedback .64 .81
Positive Feedback .22 .70
Positive Affect .54 .66
Unresponsive/Unavailablcl
Undercontrolling .17 .73
Facilitates Self - Regulation .06 .60
Demands Self-Reliance . 19 .42
lmrusive/Overcornolling -. 17 .41
Child Variable
Msstery/Skill/Compatence .69 .84
Cognitive Sophistication .42 .64
Focused Attention!
lnvolvcrnem .78 .75
Cooperation/Compliance .41 .39
Positive Affect/Enthusiasm
Comfortsbleness .66 .70
Distancing from Pater! .60 .83
Negative Affect .66 .85
Transgressions .24 .49
Disobedience .57 .83
Verbal Interaction with Parent .18 .62
Seeks Proximity to Parent .03 .16
Depodencleeed for Help - .18 .69

Organized Transitions -.10 .35

 

43

and Disobedience). The alpha for the overall scale measuring quality of father-
child interactions was .84. In addition, separate scales were computed for fathers’
behavior based on the seven codes (alpha = .65) and child behavior based on the
ten codes (alpha = .85). The correlation between the two scales was .43 (p < .01).

Test of the Research Model

The research model proposes a chain of interrelated factors that impact on
the quality of father-child relationships. Path analysis was used to determine the
adequacy of the predicted model in accounting for the variance in the quality of
father-child interactions. Each variable was regressed on the preceding variables
in the model. Quality of father-child interactions was regressed on family
harmony, and paternal involvement in childcare; marital harmony was regressed on
fathers’ interrole conflict, paternal involvement in childcare, and the interaction
between paternal involvement and ’ mothers’ employment status; and fathers’
interrole conflict was regressed on the interaction between fathers’ involvement in
work and paternal involvement in childcare. (In order to test the hypothesized
interactions, both main effects were also included in the regression analyses.)

Table 3 shows univariate correlations among the variables in the predicted
model. Figure 1 shows the path coefficients for the model, and the amount of
variance (indicated by the total R2) accounted for in each of the predicted
variables by each of the exogenous variables. None of the predicted relationships
were statistically significant. Moreover, including all antecedent variables in
predicting the quality of father-child interactions did not account for significantly
more variance than that associated with the two antecedent variables in the

predicted model.

Table 3

Pearson erelation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables; Predicted
Path Model.

 

 

CRITERION VARIABLES
Quality of
Family Role Father-Child
PREDICTOR VARIABLES Harmony Conflict Interactions
Mothers’ Employment Status - .08 - .06 -. 10
(55) (55) (5 3)
Fathers’ Partic. in Childcare .28* -.07 -.26
(56) (56) (5 3)
Fathers’ Work Involvement - .07 .38** .14
(5 6) (56) (5 3)
Family Harmony - - - .07 — .14
(56) (53)
Interrole Conflict - - - - - .05
(53)

 

Key: * p < .05
** p < .01

45

Figure 1. Predicted Path Model and the Total R2 (Explained Variance) for the
Predicted Model.

(1) Mothers’ Employment Status
X

Paternal Involvement

in Childcare \Oi
' (4) Family Harmony

7 A
.25 // -.08
(2) Paternal Involvement

in Childcare
\\ (6) Quality of

Father- Child

. Interaction
- .07
(3) Father’s Involvement "
in Work (5) Father’s Interrole
X - .03 Conflict
Paternal Involvement /
in Childcare

 

326.2,4 = .07 325.3 = .00 324.12; = .08

 

Post-Hoe Agglvseg

One possible explanation for the many nonsignificant relationships in the
predicted model is that the predictor and outcome variables were composite
variables: that is, variables were constructed by combining several scores into a
single indicator of interest. Inspection of a correlation matrix showing
relationships among the component parts of the predictor and outcome variables
suggested ways in which the strength of a number of the observed relationships in
the predicted model might be improved. This included (a) using the parenting
alliance score (averaged across mothers and fathers) alone as a measure of marital
harmony rather than the combined score based on both the parenting alliance and
marital satisfaction scales; and (b) using the father interaction scale alone as a
measure of the quality of the father’s interactions with his child rather than the
compound interaction variable based on the father’s and child’s behaviors
combined (i.e. , fathers’ behavior was viewed as mediating the relationship
between the parenting alliance and child’s behavior with the father). In addition,
the attitudinal measure of paternal involvement was not related to the composite
of mothers’ and fathers’ reports of fathers behavioral participation in child care (r
= - .03); and, it was behavioral involvement rather than attitudes that was
significantly related to other variables in the model. For this reason, paternal
involvement in the post-hoe model was measured by the behavioral variable alone.

Table 4 shows univariatc correlations among the variables used in the post-
hoc analyses. Path coefficients for the post-hoc model are shown in Figure 2.
Analyses following the incorporation of these changes demonstrated stronger links
between variables, but not necessarily in predicted directions. As can be seen in

Table 4, both fathers’ behavioral involvement in childcare and the parenting

47

Table 4

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables; Post-Hoc
Path Model.

 

 

CRITERION VARIABLES
Fathers’ Fathers’ Child’s
Partic. Behav. Behav.
in Parent with with
PREDICTOR VARIABLES Childcare Alliance Child Father
Mothers’ Employrnt. .27* .04 - .09 - . 13
Status (55) (S4) (51) (52)
Fathers’ Partic. in - - .44*** - .33* . -20
Childcare (55) (52) (5 3)
Parenting Alliance - - - - .-4l ** - .21
(51) (5 2)
Fathers’ Behav. - - - - - - .43"
with Child (52)

 

Key: *=p<.05
** =p < .01

*3‘ =P < .ml

48

Figure 2. Results for the Post-Hoc Path Model.

 

 

 

(l) Mothers’
Employment Status
(3) Parenting Alliance
. \ - .32*
\ / \\
\.27* ,/ .44*** \
‘J /,.’/ ‘V
(2) Paternal Participation (4) Fathers’
in Childcare- -Behavioral Behavior with
a Child
-.19 \
\.43**
\l
(5) Child’s
Behavior
with Father
322.1 = .07* 323.2 = .19*** 3.24.2.3 = .19M 325.4 = .18"
Key: * = .05
*" = .01

*** = .001

49

alliance are negatively related to the quality of father-child interactions.
However, when both variables are considered simultaneously, only the relationship
between the parenting alliance and quality of father-child interactions remains
statistically significant. Fathers’ behavioral involvement in childcare is not
directly related to the quality of the father’s behavior in relation to his child, nor
to the child’s behavior in relation to the father. However, the fathers’ behavioral
involvement in childcare indirectly affects the fathers’ behavior in relation to the
child via its effect on the parenting alliance. Hence, these data indicate a positive
relationship between fathers’ behavioral involvement in childcare and the
parenting alliance, and a m relationship between the parenting alliance and
the quality of fathers’ behavior with their children. In contrast to the parenting
alliance, marital satisfaction was unrelated on the one hand to paternal
involvement in childcare (r = .08) and on the other hand to the quality of father’s
interactions with the child (r = - .01). Moreover, neither the parenting alliance nor
marital satisfaction were directly related to the quality of the child’s behavior in
relation to the father, although the parenting alliance indirectly affected the
child’s behavior via it’s effect on the father’s behavior. One less critical change in
the model was that post-hoe inspection of the correlation matrix indicated a
positive relationship between mothers’ employment status and paternal
involvement. In addition, as the beta weights for the predicted model show, the
effect of the interaction between fathers’ involvement with work and fathers’
involvement in childrearing on fathers’ interrole conflict was nonsignificant.
However, fathers’ work involvement alone was significantly correlated with
fathers’ interrole conflict (r = .38, p < .01). Consequently, it appears that the

interaction term is less useful than a single measure of father’s work involvement

50

to demonstrate a relationship between father’s work involvement and their
interrole conflict. However, because interrole conflict demonstrates no significant
effect on either marital satisfaction or the parenting alliance, this piece of the
model can be eliminated because it appears to have had no effect on the outcome

variables of interest.

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adequacy of a model that
hypothesized relationships between paternal involvement in childrearing, fathers’
work involvement, mothers’ employment status, men’s interrole conflict, family
harmony, and the quality of father-child interaction. The hypotheses to be
explored included: (1) the relationship between paternal involvement in
childrearing and quality of father-chfld interaction; (2) the relationship between
paternal involvement in childrearing and overall family harmony; (3) the
relationship between family harmony and the quality of father-child interactions;
(4) the relationship between high levels of involvement with both work and family
life, and the implications for interrole conflict; and (5) the relationship between
interrole conflict and overall family harmony.

None of the relationships were supported by data from initial analyses of
the predicted model. One possible explanation for the nonsignificant relationships
is that the predictor and outcome variables were composite variables: that is,
variables were constructed by combining several scores into a more global
indicator of interest. Specifically, three composite variables were of special
interest: a) paternal involvement in childrearing, comprised of an attitudinal and a
behavioral component; b) family harmony, comprised of the parenting alliance and
marital satisfaction as reported by both partners; and c) overall father-child

interactions, comprised of fathers’ and children’s behavior. Although these three

51

52

constructs were originally defined as unitary, post-hoe analyses examined the
contributions of their components, and demonstrated the utility of using
component parts over the unitary variables. In fact, the behavioral measure of
fathers’ involvement in childcare (rather than the combined behavioral and
attitudinal measures) and the parenting alliance (rather than the combined
parenting alliance and marital satisfaction measures) proved to be significantly
related to father-child interactions (when defined by the fathers’ behavior alone).
To evaluate the quality of father-child interactions, the unit of analysis was
originally considered to be the dyad; however, it became apparent that fathers’
behavior was more affected by family variables than was children’s behavior, and
that children’s behavior appeared to be reactive to that of their fathers.

A major prediction in this research was that there would be a positive
relationship between paternal involvement in childcare and quality of the father-
child relationships: that is, men who are more actively involved in fathering
would interact with their preschool children in more positive ways. It seemed
likely that paternal involvement would foster warm and enjoyable father-child
interactions. This prediction was not supported by the data.

One possible explanation for the failure to find this is that as fathers
become more involved in their parenting role, fathers may become less playful and
more directive during interactions with their young children. Although many
researchers argue that fathers’ and mothers’ parenting styles are more similar than
dissimilar (Lamb, 1977; Parke, 1980), others contend that fathers’ and mothers’
parenting behavior differs significantly because the roles they perform with their
children differ significantly as well. According to Frankel and Rollins (1983)

mothers deliver more approval, disapproval and general feedback to their children

53

because they engage in more teaching and direct caregiving tasks; in contrast,
fathers engage in more play-oriented tasks that are recreational and nondirective.
Baumrind (1982), too, hypothesizes that mothers are more directive, more
dominant and more assertive than fathers because they interact more frequently
with their children as teachers and primary caregivers, and that fathers enjoy
relationships with their young children based largely on recreational activities
(especially physical play). Therefore, the negative relationship between paternal
involvement and positive father-cth interactions suggested by these data may
simply reflect a decrease in fathers’ "playmate” role and a simultaneous adoption
. of the role traditionally assumed primarily by mothers. Highly involved fathers
may simply be more directive, more dominant and more assertive. Thus, as fathers
become more involved with their children, play- and recreation-based activities
become less central to the father-child relationship and father-child interactions
may be perceived less positively. It is important to emphasize that although
father-child interactions may become less positive as paternal participation in
childcare increases, behaviors communicating negative affect occurred so rarely
that they were omitted from data analyses. Additionally, other negative factors
behaviors reflecting unresponsiveness, negativism, and demandingness occurred
only infrequently. This may be due, at least in part, to the fact that our
community sample of fathers is a relatively healthy group compared, for example,
to fathers selected from clinically-identified populations. Hence, as normal
fathers become more involved with their children, father-chfld interactions may
become less positive, but do not necessarily become more negative. Including

families that evidence greater distress might increase the frequency with which

54

negative behaviors occur but for this sample, fathers’ behavior is largely skewed in
a positive direction.

Paternal involvement in childcare was predicted not only to enhance
father-cth interactions but also to be associated with greater marital harmony
such that men who are more involved in parenting would be part of more positive
parenting alliances and would enjoy more positive marital relationships. As
predicted, paternal involvement in childcare, when defined in terms of parents’
reports of the fathers’ behaviors, had a significant and positive effect on the
parenting alliance. In fact, paternal involvement in childcare was highly
correlated with both fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of the parenting alliance (r
= .33, p < .01 and r = .45, p < .000, respectively), which suggests that as fathers
assume a more involved parenting role, they gain respect and appreciation from
their spouses, and in addition, value and appreciate their spouses’ parental abilities
more fully. These findings imply that paternal involvement is important to both
parents’ evaluation of their parenting relationship, and may reflect the phenomena
noted by Hoffman (1983): when fathers maintain a high level of involvement in
their children, spousal satisfaction based on shared interests and mutual
appreciation remains high.

Interestingly, although mothers’ reports of fathers’ actual contributions to
childcare are correlated with mothers’ and fathers’ report of a strong parenting
alliance, paternal involvement in childcare does not directly predict greater marital
satisfaction. Rather, a stronger and more positive parenting alliance is generally
associated with greater marital satisfaction, and hence mediates the relationship
between paternal involvement and marital satisfaction. In most cases, raising

children arouses parental conflicts that necessitate negotiation: areas of particular

55

difficulty for some parents include how to discipline, what expectations are for the
child’s behavior, to what extent parents assume instrumental and expressive roles,
etc. Whether and to what extent these conflicts are resolved will undoubtedly
affect eouples’ perceptions of their marital relationship. Thus, it is understandable
that the parenting alliance is particularly salient to the couples’ perceptions of their
overall dyadic satisfaction. Lamb and Easterbrooks (1981) suggest that when
fathers are actively involved in parenting, they reduce role strain felt by mothers,
which promotes a harmonious family atmosphere. These results are also consistent
with Gronseth’s (1978) hypothesis: there may be less marital conflict and
increased family harmony in families that evenly distribute child-rearing
responsibilities between spouses. This may be especially true for this sample: for
young couples, the parenting alliance and marital satisfaction are more clearly
differentiated subsystems, whereas in families with older children, the two
subsystems may demonstrate more overlap (Frank, Jacobson, & Hole, 1988).
Nevertheless, although men’s behavioral contribution to childcare does not
firefly affect either partner’s marital satisfaction, paternal involvement in
childcare enhances overall marital harmony via a strong and positive parenting
alliance.

The data from this research on the relationship between paternal
involvement in childcare and the parenting alliance are consistent with results
found in several previous studies. However, it was expected that one of the
benefits of a positive parenting alliance would be enhanced father-chfld
interactions: it seemed likely that, as Easterbrooks and Emde (1988) found, a

positive parenting relationship would foster more nurturant and responsive father-

56

child interactions. However, the data from this research reveal an inverse
relationship between the parenting alliance and positive father-cth interactions.

An inverse relationship between the parenting alliance and positive father-
child interactions can be understood via a "compensatory" explanation of family
interactions: Vincent (1980) reports that men who are dissatisfied with their
marriages seek interpersonal gratification through other dyadic family
relationships, namely, the parent-child dyad; he explains that family members may
compensate for the lack of interpersonal satisfaction in one dyadic relationship by
strengthening another dyadic relationship. Brody, Pillegrini, and Sigel (1986)
provide empirical support for what some family therapists (Minuchin, Rosman, &
Baker, 1978) propose: some parents become more involved in their relationship
with their children in an attempt to compensate for a marital situation that the
adult perceives as unfulfilling or disappointing. The compensation hypothesis also
explains, at least in part, the consistent inverse relationship between marital
happiness and fathers’ involvement in parenting found by Goth-Owens, Stollak,
Messe, Peshkess, and Watts (1982). It is possible that when fathers and mothers
enjoy a mutually satisfying spousal and parenting relationship, fathers experience
less of a need to find gratification via their child. In fact, meeting the needs of a
child may be experienced as an intrusion or a distraction from the gratifying
relationship between adults, and consequently result in less positive father-child
interactions (Belsky, 1979).

Another goal of this research study was to examine the relationships
between high levels of commitment to both work and family responsibilities and
the experience of interrole conflict. It was hypothesized that for many fathers,

high levels of involvement in both life spheres might result in the experience of

57

more conflict between their family and work roles. Data from the path model did
not support this hypothesis. Several explanations can account for this finding.

The experience of interrole conflict does not appear to depend on the
degree of actual involvement in parental responsibilities. Rather, correlational data
suggest that as men report a greater number of hours spent at work, they also
report more work versus family conflicts (r = .43, p < .002). This suggests that
for some men, it is when responsibilities at work exceed a certain threshold that
work and family commitments conflict and are not easily reconciled. Perhaps men
perceive their involvements in their families as more personally fulfilling and do
not experience increased involvement as engendering intrapsychic conflict. Or,
men may perceive their family involvement as more voluntary (that is, high levels
of paternal involvement in childcare is not socially normative or required) and
because highly committed fathers choose their level of involvement, they may not
perceive it as a source of interrole conflict. However, when work commitments
become too demanding, fathers do experience work versus family conflicts,
suggesting that some men want to prevent their work commitments from intruding
on their family life.

A related alternative explanation could account for the lack of reported
interrole conflict for men. For men who derive most of their life satisfaction from
their work and their families, and who consider other activities peripheral to their
overall happiness, role conflict may be avoided. Clark, Nye, and Gecas (1978)
argue that although work and family roles may compete for the time and energy of
many husbands, they are not mutually exclusive, and that interrole conflict can be
avoided if men perform their work and family duties more efficiently. Their

research found that when not occupied by work, men who are highly committed to

58

both work and family tended to ignore their own leisure pursuits in favor of family
commitments, and spent a high proportion of non-work time with their children
and spouses. Although this explanation could account for the lack of interrole
conflict reported by men highly committed to both work and family, it suggests
that some men may pay a high price to prevent role strain. In order to maintain a
high level of involvement in one’s work and family life, and to avoid experiencing
conflict between one’s roles in each sphere, men may eliminate many activities
that are not demanded of them: becoming ”more efficient“ may mean sacrificing
many activities that do not clearly fall into either sphere. Consequently, men may
cut activities that are personally satisfying and enjoyable (time with friends, time
spent engaging in hobbies, community involvement, etc.) from their time budget
in order to avoid the experience of interrole conflict.

Finally, it is conceivable that at least for some men, commitments to work
and family roles may be complementary (rather than compete with each other). It
seems reasonable that the personal characteristics encouraged by the working
world (for example, being aggressive, competitive, and stoic) are complemented
by those fostered by parenting (for example, being nurturant, comforting and
emotionally accessible). Rather than create a subjective experience of interrole
strain, many men reporting high levels of commitments to their jobs and their
families may experience psychological completion. Some men may maintain
strong commitments to both life spheres in order to maintain a personally fulfilling
balance.

It was predicted that the experience of interrole conflict would negatively
affect the quality of overall family harmony, and would thus indirectly

compromise father-child interactions. Data from this study do not support this

59

prediction. The experience of interrole conflict does not predict a less positive
parenting alliance or less marital happiness, and does not predict compromised
father-child interactions. It is not clear what consequences interrole conflict has
for fathers: the price they pay may be more intrapsychic or extra- familial as they
attempt to meet the competing demands of work and family. For example, failure
to find direct relationships between interrole conflict and either marital
satisfaction or the parenting alliance may be because this study failed to measure
mediating variables: specifically, the intrapsychic processes by which men cope
with interrole conflict may affect whether or not this conflict has a detrimental
effect on the spousal and parenting relationship. It is conceivable that if men are
unable to successfully resolve interrole conflicts and experience psychological
distress, this may undermine the marital relationships and/or parenting alliance.
Furthermore, this research does not examine whether and to what extent interrole
conflict affect men’s lives outside of their family relationships: perhaps men
protect their relationships with their spouses and children, but sacrifice leisure or
other personal interests in order to maintain satisfactory family relationships.
Lastly, post-hoe analyses revealed one additional relationship between
maternal employment and paternal involvement in childcare. Barnett and Baruch
(1987) report that in dual-earner families, wives’ work-related needs were
important predictors of fathers’ participation. Similarly, Radin ( 1981) reports that
in families with employed mothers, the number of hours the wife worked per week
was the strongest single predictor of fathers’ actual participation in family work,
perhaps reflecting involvement that is less voluntary and more controlled by the
wives’ employment- related needs. We too, found a positive relationship between

maternal employment and paternal involvement in childcare: apparently, mothers’

60

employment isa key determinant in predicting fathers’ involvement in the paternal
role.

In sum, data from post-hoe analyses verify that wives’ employment
predicts fathers’ increased behavioral contributions to childcare, which positively
affects both parents’ evaluation of the parenting alliance. Although fathers’
behavioral contributions to childcare and a positive parenting alliance were
predicted to affect father-child interactions in a positive way, it appears that both
of these predict less positive behaviors on the part of fathers interacting with their
preschool children. Finally, fathers’ commitments to both work and family do not
predict greater interrole conflict, and do not compromise overall marital harmony
or father-child interactions, as was originally hypothesized.

One difficulty in interpreting the findings in this research is that they are
based on cross-sectional data. While this research design makes it difficult to
draw conclusions about the directionality of the relationships under study, several
studies (Barnett & Baruch, 1987; Radin, 1981) examining familial antecedents and
consequences of paternal involvement in childcare suggest that mothers’
expectations and needs at least in part determine fathers’ behavior in fulfilling
family role responsibilities. Other research (Easterbrooks & Emde, 1988)
indicates that although the family environment is comprised of all of the
relationships among all family members, the family environment is most strongly
affected by the quality of the parents’ relationship: marital conflict and distress
typically strains parent-child relationships, and similarly, maritally satisfied
couples generally enjoy harmonious relationships with their children. However,
there is some research that provides evidence for the compensatory association

such as the one found in this study.

61

Other limitations arise as a result of the restricted sample used in this
study: all of our target children were 3 or 4 years old, from middle-class, intact
families that evidenced little or no psychopathology. Thus, it is important to
interpret these findings within the context of middle-class families in the
childbearing/early childhood years, and to acknowledge that data from more
distressed families (for example, selected from clinically-identified populations)
might yield different relationships between the variables examined in this study.
In addition, the effects of the child’s gender on these relationships could not be
examined in this study because the sample was too small to allow analyses
comparing families with boys to those with girls. Whether and to what extent the

child’s gender affects the relationships studied in this research is not known.

62

APPENDICES

63

APPENDIX A

AM

Involvement in Parenting Questionnaire

Think now about being a parent- -the things you do with and for all your children,
and the place parenting has in your life now. For each statement below, indicate
by circling the appropriate number whether you agree strongly, agree somewhat,
disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly.

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

1. Some of my most important
values come from parenting
my children. 1 2 3 4

2. I try to spend as much time
as possible with my
children. 1 2 3 4

3. One of the most important
things about me is how
successful or unsuccessful
I am as a father. 1 2 3 4

4. It doesn’t really bother
me when other things leave
me with less time to spend
with my children. 1 2 3 4

S. I think relatively little
about my children when
I’m not with them. 1 2 3 4

6. What’s happening with my
children has a lot to do
with howl feel about my
own life. 1 2 3 4

65

APPENDIX B

W

Family Tasks Questionnaire
Instructions
Circle the correct response for each of the following questions referring to your

family.

1. Who usually provides the family income?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

2. Who usually does the housekeeping?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

3. Who takes care of the children’s daily living needs as they arise?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

4. Who teaches values, ideas, and beliefs to the children?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife ‘ more than entirely
wife the same husband

10.

ll.

67

Who organizes and helps with family recreation?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

Who keeps in touch with relatives and takes care of kinship responsibilities?

. husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

Who does the yardwork and other maintenance?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

Who is the emotionally supportive partner in the marriage?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

Who provides the children with support when they have problems?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

Who expresses physical affection in the marriage?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

Who expresses physical affection toward the children?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

68

Who takes care of the budget?
husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

Who is responsible for the grocery shopping?

husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
' wife the same husband
Who prepares the family meals?
husband husband husband wife wife
entirely more than and wife more than entirely
wife the same husband

Would you like your spouse to spend Lens time working so that he or she
could spend more time with you and your children, even it is meant having
less money?

Yes No

VVrth regard to providing the family income, do you feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

With regard to the housekeeping, do you feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

69

With regard to taking care of the children’s daily living needs as they arise,
do you feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

With regard to teaching values, ideas, and beliefs to the children, do you
feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share ‘ share -

“With regard to organizing and helping with family recreation, do you feel
you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

“With regard to keeping in touch with relatives and taking care of kinship
responsibilities, do you feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

With regard to doing the yardwork and other maintenance, do you feel you
are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

With regard to emotional support in the marriage, do you feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

24.

26.

27.

28.

29.

70

With regard to supporting the children when they have problems, do you
feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

With regard to expressing physical affection in the marriage, do you feel you
are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

Mth regard to expressing physical affection towards the children, do you
feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

VVrth regard to taking care of the budget, do you feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

With regard to the grocery shopping, do you feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

With regard to preparing the family meals, do you feel you are doing:

much less less than your share more than much more
than your your share your share than your
share share

71

APPENDIX C

A dixC

Involvement with Work Questionnaire

Think now about your work- -regardless of how many house a week you work.
For each statement below, indicate by circling the apnronriate number whether
you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly.

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

1. I try to meet my obligations
at work but it’s not where I
look for personal fulfillment. 1 2 3 4

2. One of the most important
things about me is how
successful or unsuccessful
I am at work. 1 2 3 4

3. In my private thoughts
I’m often preoccupied
with my work. 1 2 3 4

4. Some of my most important
values come from my work. 1 2 3 4

5 . I think relatively little
about work when I am not
on the job. 1 2 3 4

6. It doesn’t really bother
me when other things pull
me away from my work. 1 2 3 4

7. My work does not provide

me with many of the things
I need in life. 1 2 3 4

72

10.

I try to devote as much
time as possible to my
work.

My experiences at work
tell me a lot about the
kind of person I really am.

People who worry about
their work should realize
there are more important
things in life

73

74

APPENDIX D

AM
Role Conflict Questionnaire

Instructions:

Each of the following statements ask you about your feelings toward work and
family. Read each statement carefully and circle:

"SA" if you strongly agree with the statement; "A" if you agree; 'D" if you

disagree; and ”SD” if you strongly disagree with the statement.

1. After work, I come home too tired to do some of the things I’d like to do.
SA A D SD

2. My job does not interfere with my being the kind of spouse or parent I’d like
to be.

SA A D SD

3. My work schedule seldom conflicts with my family life.
SA A D SD

4. The demands of my job make it difficult to be relaxed all the time at home.
SA A D SD

5. My family accepts how often I am preoccupied with my work while I am at
home.

SA A D SD
6. My work leaves me adequate time to spend with my family.
SA A D SD

7. Because my work is demanding, at times I am irritable at home.

SA A D SD

75

8.

76

On the job I have so much work to do that it takes away from my personal
interests.

SA A D SD

77

 

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

The Family Experiences Questionnaire

INSTRUCTIONS: Using the scale described below circle the letter(s) that
indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements.

SD = Strongly Disagree D = Disagree
A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree
Example item.
Ex: My spouseandIlrketoplay baseball SD @ A SA

The circle around the D shows that you DISAGREE with this statement. If
you STRONGLY DISAGREE you would circle the SD, if you AGREE you would
circle the A, and if you STRONGLY AGREE you would circle SA.

Now complete each of the following items in the same way:

1. Myspouseandlareaswell

adjusted as any two persons

in this world can be. SD D A SA
2. I often overreact when my

child misbehaves. SD D A SA
3. I live for my children. SD D A SA

4. Parenting has brought my
spouse and me closer together. SD D A SA

5 . My spouse tries to have the
last word in how we raise

our children. SD D A SA
6. I want my children to behave

in public so that people will

know that I am a good parent. SD D A SA

78

‘ufl

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

79

I know that I am doing a good
job as a parent.

Having children makes me
feel like I am contributing
to the future of society.

As a parent, I never stop
enjoying seeing the world
through my children’s eyes.

I try to give my children
direction but mostly I let
them grow by themselves.

Being a parent makes me feel
more important because I know
that I am the center of some-
one’s world.

My spouse and I understand each
other completely.

Being a parent turned out not
to be as difficult as I thought
it would be.

My spouse thinks that I am a
bad influence on the children.

Parenting has taught me not to
get too upset about little
frustrations.

Myspouseisagoodparent.

My spouse appreciates how hard
I work at being a good parent.

Knowing that my children will
carry on in my place is the most
important reward of being a
parent that I know.

My spouse backs me up as a
parent.

Being a parent makes me feel
drained and depleted.

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

80

My spouse and I feel we are
growing and maturing together
through our experiences as

parents.

Iintendtopush mychildrenin
order to make sure that they
achieve the things I never got
to do myself.

My spouse is willing to make
some personal sacrifices in
order to help with the parenting.

I am able to be consistent with
my children so that they do not
have to wonder what I am going
to do next.

My spouse tries to make sure I
get some time for myself away
from the children.

I am overly protective of my
children; it is better to be
safe than sorry.

I have the knowledge I need
to be a good parent.

When there is a crisis with the
children my spouse doesn’t help
me as much as I would like.

If my spouse has any faults I
am not aware of them.

I have learned that if my kids
need something important I can
rely on my spouse to help
provide it.

My spouse does not really enjoy
being alone with the children.

I get a feeling of pride from
watching my children accomplish
a goal that they are proud of.

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

41.

42.

43.

45.

81

After my spouse or I have
handled a difficult situation
with the children we discuss it
and try to figure out what we
could have done better.

I am a very strict parent.

I should have read more books on
parenting because I often feel
like I don’t know what I am doing.

My children are reflections of
myself.

My spouse likes to play with
the children, but then leaves
the dirty work to me.

I appreciate how much my spouse
tries to be a good parent.

My spouse completely understands
and syrnpathizes with my every
mood.

My children get on my nerves.

Every new thing I have learned
about my spouse has pleased me.

One of the things I like most
about being a parent is that my
childrenaresotuned intowhat
I do and say.

If I could do it over again I
would raise my children the same
way I am raising them now.

What I find most satisfying
about being a parent is showing
my children and difference
between right and wrong.

My spouse resents that I have
to give so much of my time to
the children.

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD
SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

:1;

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA
SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

82

I often worry that I am letting
my children down.

My spouse and I like to imagine
together what our children will
be like when they grow up.

My spouse makes me look like
the ”bad person" in the eyes
of our children.

My kids are always trying my
patients.

When the children are sick I
can turn to my spouse for

support.

What I most enjoy about being
a parent is watching my
children grow and change in
ways that I never imagined.

I see to it that my children
are only exposed to things that
I want them exposed to.

I am going to make sure that
my children accomplish the
things in life that are
important to me.

Whenever I start feeling com-
fortable as a parent something
goes wrong and the doubts start
all over again.

My spouse and I agree on our
ideas, guidelines, and rules for
raising our children.

My spouse forgets that kids are
kids, not little adults.

My spouse has a good feel for
the kids and what they might
need.

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

58.

59.

61.

62.

63.

65.

67.

68.

69.

70.

83

Because my children are a
part of me, I find it difficult
to let them be independent.

Iworrythatlamnotdoingthe
rightthingasaparent.

As a parent I really enjoy the
feeling that I am molding
another human being.

I did not know how much anger
I had inside of me until I
became a parent.

I like watching my children’s
personalities develop even
when they turn our differently
from what I expected.

My spouse and I do not agree
on when to punish and how
much to punish.

My spouse does not live up to
my idea of a good parent.

My spouse and I have conflicts
about how much we should do
for our children.

I have learned to accept that
I cannot shelter my children
from everything I do not like.

Parenting has given my spouse
and me a focus for the future.

I want my children to do the
same things I did when I
was a child.

WhenImakeamistakewiththe
kidsIcantalkitoverwith
my spouse.

I try not to box my children in
with too many rules.

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

My spouse helps out with the
parenting whenever possible.

No matter how hard I try, I
never seem to be a good enough

parent.

My spouse enjoys me both as a
parent and a lover.

When I get short with my children,
I usually can catch myself before
I do something I regret.

As a parent, I cannot seem to
do anything right in my spouse’s
eyes.

My spouse and I work closely
together as parents.

I get a great deal of pleasure
out of shaping and molding my
children so that they grow up
tobethekindofpeoplelwant
them to be.

My spouse makes too many demands
on me as a parent.

There are times when I do not
feel a great deal of love and
affection for my spouse.

I often worry that I don’t know
enough to be a good parent.

What I most enjoy about being
a parent is that my children
make it possible for me to get
a new perspective on the world
and myself.

I feel too ashamed about my
mishaps with the children to
talk them over with my spouse.

I want my children to be
interested in the things I was
interested in as a child.

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

85

Ihavetobeonguardwithmy
children all the time to keep
them from getting into trouble.

I get a thrill watching my
children discover new things all
by themselves.

I am afraid of my spouse’s anger
when I do something wrong with
the kids.

I often think my children would
be better off with one parent
(me) than with the both of us.

I do not feel that parenting is
as much of a sharing experience
with my spouse as I hoped it
would be.

Compared to most parents I know,
I seem to have less difficulty

disciplining my children.

I feel closer to my children
than to my spouse.

My spouse and I agree on how
much time we each should spend
with the children.

I often feel guilty about
neglecting my children.

My marital relationship is not
a perfect success.

One of the things I most enjoy
about parenting is seeing
myself in my child.

My spouse and I felt on each
others’ nerves when the
children are difficult or

act up.

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

96.

97.

98.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

86

I work hard at shaping my
children’s lives rather than
just letting them grow up as
they would.

I bite my lip when my spouse
disciplines the children because
if I say what I think it causes
too much tension.

I often feel torn between my
loyalties to my spouse and my
loyalties to my children.

I do not mind that being a
parent makes my life less
orderly.

Sometimes I feel like my spouse
is one of the children instead

of my partner.

I don’t think any couple could
live together with greater
harmony than my spouse and I.

My spouse overreacts when the
children act up.

My spouse pays too little
attention to the children.

I find it difficult to find the
right balance between discipline
and love in raising my children.

I don’t think anyone could
possibly be happier than my
spouseandlwhenwearewith
one another.

My spouse still wants to ”do
his or her own thing" instead
of being a responsible parent.

When I am around my children,
I usually find myself thinking
”Why do they have to be so
difficult?"

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

87

My spouse does not trust my
abilities as a parent.

I have some needs that are not
being met by my relationship
with my spouse.

Jugglm' g all the responsibilities
ofbeingaparentisoneofmy
talents.

There are times when my spouse
does things that make me happy.

If every person in the world
of the opposite sex had been
available and willing to marry
me, I could not have made a
better choice.

When my children show their
will, I make sure they know
who is boss.

I have never regretted my
relationship with my spouse
not even for a moment.

My spouse preaches alot about
how to be a good parent but
rarely puts it into practice.

When I tell my children to do
something, they will do it, no
'ifs", 'ands', or “buts".

Having children has helped me
to see positive qualities in my
spouse that I never noticed
before.

Parenting means a lot of
responsibilities and problems,
but I always feel that I can
cope with the difficulties that
come along.

My spouse has a lot of patience
with the children.

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

88

I often feel that I have no
control over my children.

My spouse sees parenting as
{[11 responsibility.

When my kids do something I do
not like I blow up first and
ask questions later.

I worry about the children’s
safety when they are alone
with my spouse.

My spouse expects too much
from the childlren.

 

My spouse is too self -centered
to be a good parent.

When there is a crisis with
the children, I know that I
will do what needs to be done.

I feel over-burdened as a parent
because my spouse is often too
involved with other things to
carry a fair share of the load.

My marriage could be happier
than it is.

WhenIfeelatmywitsendasa

parent my spouse gives me the
extra support I need.

I have learned to accept that
sometimes my kids will not do
what I want no matter how hard
I try.

My spouse and I often talk
together about what is best
for our children.

My spouse makes me feel that
I am the best possible parent
for our children.

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

133.

When my child misbehaves or
breaksaruleltryto findout
the reasons why.

89

SD

SA

90

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

Marital Perceptions Scale

For the following questions, please indicate HOW OFTEN you and your spouse
do the following things. (Place a check mark ( ,/ ) to indicate your answer.)

How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate?

Less Once Once

Than or or

Once a Twice Twice Once a More
Never Month n Month n Week D_ay Often

1. Have a stirnu-
lating exchange
of ideas

 

2. Laugh together

3. Calmly discuss
something

 

 

 

 

 

4. Work together
on a project

 

 

 

5. In general, how often do you think that things between you an your partner
are going well?

All the Most More
time of the often Occasionally Rarely Never
time than not

 

 

 

6. Do you confide in your mate?

All the Most More
time of the often Occasionally Rarely Never
time than not

 

91

92

7. How often do you and your mate "get on each others’ nerves?"

All the Most More
time of the often Occasionally Rarely Never
time than not

 

 

 

 

8. How often do you and your partner quarrel?

All the Most More
time of the often Occasionally Rarely Never
time than not

 

 

 

 

 

9. How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight?

All the Most More
time of the often Occasionally Rarely Never
time than not

 

 

 

 

10. Do you ever regret that you married? (or lived together)

All the Most More
time of the often Occasionally Rarely Never
time than not

 

 

 

 

 

11. How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation, or
terminating your relationship?

 

All the Most More
time of the often Occasionally Rarely Never
time than not
Almost

Every Every Occa-
Day Day sionally Rarely Never

12. Do you kiss your
mate?

 

13.

14.

93

Do you and your
mate engage in
outside interests
together?

 

The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in
your relationship. The middle point, "happy” , represents the degree of
happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes
the degree of happiness, all things considered, of your relationship.

 

 

 

Extremely Fairly A Little Happy Very Extremely Perfect
Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy Happy Happy

PLEASE GO ON TO 'THE NEXT PAGE.

94

MARITAL PERCEP'TIONS SCALE

15.

Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the
future of your relationship?

I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go
to almost any length to see that it does.

I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all
I can to see that it does.

I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my
fair share to see that it does.

It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can’t do
much more than I am doing now to help it succeed.

It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than
I am doing now to keep the relationship going.

My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I
can do to keep the relationship going.

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 our lmlc $5. -
£352 $552
6082

no 22529 .3 80:8 Bee—USE? 65 322. 38%.: 9.32m

 

9838“. c830

 

3:358 23
”$285 as: 233

 

9.3 2238:

 

28363 8.38 magi

 

become“ 30% 2:: .3 “55:2

 

usage 83:3
$55 23 :28» as?

 

«32-5 .5 3:0..&
55 uses. co 5?

 

a: co Sneeze

 

€222.2— coeoa .5 80:08
5580:5200

 

£5322 new

 

88cm

 

concote mo 80385085

 

E338 323.0%

 

c0560..— ooh MO 803a:

 

8&85
b80335

I..| 0. EMS... .5...
£22380

«85:: has. «585:

oo_.c.m<. . 1 our did
a??? at???
“85?.

.3:

K:
.0:
.m:
.3:

.9;

.NE
.2;

.2:
.mg
.52
.02
.mm—
.3:

an: 9.33:8 05 :0 So: :08 c8 Esta :5» 93 so» 5253 Soc—8&8?

.8230322 :05 E fieoEoocmSB 32 88.3 «82

96

These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes
disagree. Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were
problems in your relationship during the past few weeks. (Check yes or no).

149.
150.
151.
152.

Yes

No

Spending too much money.
Being too tired for sex.
Not showing love.

Not sharing household chores.

97

APPENDIX G

Anpe_ndix G

Father-Child Interaction Coding Sheet

 

 

 

 

ID Session 1 2 Coder

Date Coded

Minute CD FD CU
Father Variables:
A. Positive Affect l
B. Negative Affect l
C. Positive Feedback 1
D. Negative Affective Feedback 1
E. Labels Own Feelings 1
F. labels Child’s Feelings l
G. Facilitates Self -Regulation 1
H. Irrtrusive/Overcontrolling l
I. Unresponsive, Unavailable

Undercontrolling l

J. Demands Self -Reliant Behavior 1
K. Undermines Child Functioning 1
AA. Clean-Up Demands l

98

NNNNNNNN

NNNN

wuuuuuuw

mutate

#«li-h-h-li-hkk

##kh-

MMMMMMMUI

MMMM

W:

S"

tapas

assesses/Jane

Focused Attention/Involvement
Cognitive Sophistication

Sense of Mastery/Skill Competence
Organized Transitions

Positive/Affect/Enthusiasm/
Comfortableness

Negative Affect

Degree of Distress

Strange Behaviors
Transgressions

Verbal Interaction with Parent
Seeking Proximity to Parent
Distancing from Parent
Cooperation/Compliance
Disobedience
Dependency/Need for Help

BB. Clean-Up Success

NNNN

NNNNNNNNNNNN

MQQUUMUM

##&##h-§-§

MMMMUIMMM

100

APPENDIX H

Anmdix H

Coding Category Definitions and Examples

Father Variables:

A.

Positive Affect - The extent to which parent displays warmth, nurturance
and positive affection toward the child and enjoys interacting
with the child. (Example: 'Oooh, I like Mr. Potato Head!
Neat! ")

Negative Affect - The extent to which parent displays hostility, negative
affect, and displeasure/annoyances toward the child.
(Example: 'Oh for God’s sake!")

Positive Feedback - The extent to which parent, in response to the child’s
behavior, provides verbal/nonverbal contingent rewards and
praise to the child. (Example: ”I like the way you’re
cleaning up like a big girl. Thank you. ")

Negative Affective. Feedback - The extent to which parent, in response to
the child’s behavior, criticizes and/or demeans child’s
behavior with derogatory remarks or through nonverbal
means. (Example: “Can’t you do anything well? You never
really try. ')

labels Own Feelings - Parent identifies his feelings for child. (Example:
'I’m so proud of you! You did such a good job! ')

labels Child’s Feelings - Parents identifies what he thinks the child is
feeling. (Example: 'I know you’re angry, but it’s time to go
home now. ")

Facilitates Self - Regulation - The extent to which the parent facilitates
child’s ability to control self and actively and positively
engage the situation; coping, buffering. (Example: ”That
piece doesn’t want to fit, does it? What if you tried it over
on your side?")

101

102

H. Intrusive/Overcontrolling - The extent to which parental behavior is ill-
timed, intrusive, and excessively and inappropriately
controlling relative to what the child’s doing; parent’s
behavior lacks empathy or synchrony with the child’s
feelings, actions, or goals. (Example: "What color is this?
What is the shape? Where does it go? How about this one,
what color is it?")

I. UnresponsiveIUnavailablerndercontrolling - The extent to which the
parent makes no attempt to control or facilitate child’s
behavior when support, assistance or availability would be
helpful to the child. (Example: "It’s your drawing, you
figure it out. ")

J. Demands Self -Reliant Behavior - The extent to which the parent explicitly
or indirectly requires the child to function on his/her own; the
parent clearly and purposefully promotes autonomous
behavior. (Example: ”You get started and give it a try. I’ll
be with you in a second.")

K. Undermines Child Functioning - The extent to which the parent subtly or
overtly undermines the child’s optimal functioning; parent
serving own emotions and needs to the detriment of the
emotions and needs of the child. (Example: ”See what you
missed by crying? Now we’re not going to McDonalds: No,
it’s too late, now don’t you wish you had behaved better’l")

AA. Clean-Up Demands - The extent to which the parent makes reasonable,
versus excessively strict or excessively lenient, clean-up
demands. (Example: "It’s time to stop playing now. I want
you to put all the toys in their boxes and straighten up the
table. ") '

Child Variables:

L. Focused Attention/Involvement - The extent to which the child demonstrates
involvement in play activity or exploration; ranging from
aimless, random play to intense absorption in play. (Example:
I'I don’t want to play your game. I want to play doctor some
more. ")

M. Cognitive Sophistication - The extent of the child’s sophistication in play,
the level of play organization and complexity, and the
development of themes and imaginative play. (Example:
“My Mr. Potato Head can’t walk yet because he has no feet.
Give me some feet for him, and then he can walk over to your
Mr. Potato Head, and they can play. ')

103

Sense of Mastery/Skill/Competencc - The extent of the child’s confidence,
skill and independence with which slhe accomplishes the play
task. (Example: ”Guess what color the grass is going to be.
Not green. I want to make the grass blue because I like blue
most. ')

Organized Transitions - Child engages in focused play, breaks set, moves to
a new play activity and establishes a second focused activity.
(Example: child plays with doctor’s kit, then stops and begins
coloring.)

Positive Affect/Enthusiasm/Comfortableness - The extent to which the child
demonstrates spontaneous and zestful expressions of fun,
delight, and bubbliness. Child appears relaxed and easily
"lost" in play activities. (Example: “Daddy, you’re being
silly! (laughter) Now let me do that! ")

Negative Affect - The extent to which the child shows anger, dislike or
hostility; forcefully rejecting parent’s ideas or being
unreasonably demanding of parent or play materials.
(Example: "If you won’t let me win, I won’t play with you
anymore. ")

Degree of Distress - The extent to which the child cries, seems worried or
evidences fear. (Example: upon hearing loud thunder, child
freezes and says “What was that?")

Strange Behaviors - The extent to which the child shows unusual,
maladaptive behaviors (blank staring, frozen posture,
rocking, or strange gutteral sounds).

Transgressions - The extent to which the child contacts objects that have
been placed off -limits to him/her. (Example: ”Yes I can too
have the blocks. Like this. ')

Verbal Interaction with Parent - The extent to which the child engages in
persistent and extended talking with the parent.

Seeking Proximity to the Parent - The extent to which the child spends an
extended period of time in close physical proximity or seeking
physical contact with the parent. (Example: "Daddy, can’t I
sit on your lap?” )

Distancing from Parent - The extent to which the child actively tries to
increase distance from the parent. (Example: child leaves
room in order to avoid father’s directions to clean up.)

BB.

104

Cooperation/Compliance - The extent to which the child is fully and
enthusiastically compliant with specific instructions or
directions from parent. (Example: ”Right! I’ll try the
yellow before the blue. ')

Disobedience - The extent to which the child actively or passively refuses to
comply with a parent’s request; includes verbal and nonverbal
forms of noncompliance. (Example: "I won’t clean up and
you can’t make me. I hate this! ')

Dependency/Need for Help - The extent to which the child turns to parent
for help in order to complete a task. (Example: "I can’t do
this. Where does this piece go?") -

Clean-Up Success - The extent to which the child completes the clean-up
task.

105

APPENDIX I

A dix
Behavioral Sample Coding Manual

A. Positive Affect

This rating assesses the extent to which the parent displays warmth, nurturance,
and positive affection toward the child and enjoys interacting with the child, with
extent defined in terms of both frequency and intensity. Behaviors that evidence
such an orientation are numerous and diverse. Among others, they include kissing
and hugging the child, affectionately touching the child, and smiling and laughing
with the child as weu as being enthusiastically involved in what the child is saying
or doing. In comparison with the positive feedback rating, these behaviors do not
have to be contingent on child behavior. However, for positive affect to be coded
as feedback, the parent’s response must be specific to a very explicit child
behavior. The more general the situation that evokes the parents’ positive affect,
the more likely it is that it should be coded positive affect instead of positive
feedback. Positive affect that qualifies as positive feedback is not coded here.

1. No instances of warmth, affection or enjoyment are observed. Parent

is instructional or uninvolved. .

2. Parent is involved in what the child is doing, initiates talk with the
child.

3. Some instances of warmth, affection, and enjoyment are observed.
Parent enjoys the child and task, and shows mild enthusiasm.

4. Parent is involved and enthusiastic ('Wow, I like this! ")

5. Instances of warmth, affection and enjoyment are very frequent, or
intense. Exuberance.

NOTE: Code expressions of empathy (”That in hard, isn’t it?”) as warmth,
especially in the clean-up segment.

106

1*”:

107

B. Negative Affect

This rating assesses the extent to which the parent displays hostility, negative
affect, and displeasure or annoyance toward the child, with extent defined in terms
of both frequency and intensity. Behaviors that evidence such an orientation are
numerous and diverse. They include annoyed or scornful facial expressions and
posturing, aggressive handling of the child, explicitly negative or scornful vocal
tones, and clear, lack of enjoyment of the child in this situation. In comparison
with the negative feedback scale, the parent behaviors rated in this scale do not
have to be contingent upon the child’s behavior. Negative affect that qualifies as
negative feedback is not coded here.

1.
2.

NOTE:

No instances of hostility, negative affect, or displeasure are evident.

Parent’s facial expression, posturing, or tone of voice is negative.
However, there are no explicit negative messages.

Some subtle instances of hostility, negative affect, or
displeasure/annoyance occur, but there is no escalation in intensity or
loss of control.

Instances of hostility, negative affect, and displeasure are frequent
and/or intense.

Oftentirnes, a parent might laugh at the child and ridicule him/her, in a
way that should actually be scored between 1 and 2 on negative affect.
Yet, in that same minute, the parent might manifest positive affect
that is between 1 and 2 as well. In these instances we code both
positive and negative affect as l- -to balance them out- -since giving 2
to both or 1 to one and 2 to the other would not capture the situation
accurately.

108

C. Positive Feedback

This scale assesses the extent to which the parent provides contingent rewards and
praise to the child for his/her behavior via verbal and nonverbal means, with
extent defined in terms of both frequency and intensity of feedback. Statements
such as "that’s good” would thus be weighted less heavily in this rating than more
elaborate ones like "that’s terrific, you really worked hard at that and I’m proud of
you! " Other examples of positive feedback include statements like "You did a
good job" in response to cleaning up toys, or a pat on the back or clapping of
hands in response to the child’s accomplishments during free play or the teaching
task. Observer must be able to identify the contingency between the child and
parental behaviors in order to score this as feedback as opposed to positive affect.
The parent should be intentionally or explicitly providing a positive response to a
particular child action.

1. No positive feedback is observed.

2. Within any single minute parent says one to three times, ”that’s good”
or "very good” or "there you go" without elaborating on the feedback
and/or without special enthusiasm.

3. Parent gives 4-6 feedbacks of the type described in score #2, or fewer
than 4-6 but with special enthusiasm (eg., clapping hands, hugging
child, or elaborating on the feedback verbally).

4. Parent gives more than 4 feedbacks with enthusiasm (eg., clapping
hands, hugging child, or elaborating on the feedback verbally).

5. Positive feedback is frequent or intense and characterizes much of the
way the parent responds to child. To give a 5, it should seem as if
there is continuous positive feedback.

109

D. Negative Affective Feedback

This scale assesses the extent to which parent criticizes and/or demeans child’s
behavior with derogatory remarks or through some nonverbal message (eg. ,
disgusted facial expression, walking away) in response to child’s behavior. Extent
is defined both in terms of frequency and intensity of feedback, with statements
like ”that’s lousy" delivered in a neutral tone counted less heavily than if
communicated in a disgusted tone or embellished with additional commentary like
”Can’t you do anything well?" or "You never really try! " Negative feedback
during free play could involve derogatory statements about the child’s activity or
his/her unwillingness to do as the parent desires; during cleanup it could involve
comments indicating that the child is not trying or is putting things in the wrong
place, or during the teaching task it could involve comments that demean the
child’s efforts or products. To qualify as negative feedback, feedback must
contain an affective message, not simply an informational message (i.e. , ”That’s in
the wrong place”). Observer must be able to identify the contingency in order to
consider behavior as feedback rather than more general negative affect.

1. No negative affective feedback is observed.
2. Implicit negative feedback is observed: facial expression, movement

away, posture, or tone of voice is a negative affective response to
child behavior.

3. Some explicit negative affective feedback is observed: some sort of
even minimally derogatory verbal statements.

5 . Negative feedback is frequent or especially salient and characterizes
much of the way the parent responds to the child.

110

E. Labels Own Feelings

Parent identifies his/her feelings for her child. For example, ”I’m having fun with
this game”, or "I’m sorry that we have to go now, too”. Code as either present or
absent over the minute interval.

F. Labels Child’s Feelings

Parent identifies what slhe thinks the child is feeling. For example, "I know
you’re angry about it, but it is time to go home now." or ”You’re frustrated
aren’t you?" Code as present or absent over the minute interval.

111

G. Facilitates Self -Regulation

This scale assesses the extent to which the parent facilitates his/her child’s ability
to control self and actively and positively engage the situation, that is, provides
the "scaffolding“ which allows the child to direct/structure the play. Parents are
rated in terms of their ability to provide supportive assistance that facilitates the
child’s component functioning, with extent being defined in terms of the
frequency and intensity of parent’s behavior.

Examples:

---During the first few minutes of play P explains rules to C,
including clear precise instructions of what not to play with,
coupled with what C can play with; there is a rationale present as
well as an effort to engage C in legitimate activities. If C
transgresses, prohibition is delivered in a well-timed, clear, and
supportive manner. During play P provides supportive presence,
whether actively playing with C or watching C play yet "being
there” for C.

- - -the provision of rationales that offer information or appeal to
positive or neutral consequences in order to obtain compliance.
For example, the P’s rationale might indicate that some child
action will please the P, will be in accordance with a rule, or will
lead to pleasant outcomes. Rationales that provide information
might involve statements like "Why don’t you do x because
something interesting will happen; because it works that way, " or
the like.

- - -The manipulation of materials in a way that improves the C’s
chances for being successful, yet does not involve doing the task
or action for C. Such facilitative assistance may take the form of
giving verbal hints, repositioning a piece where C will see it
better, assisting C in doing something difficult by helping him/her
manipulate the piece-in essence, by provide a "scaffolding” for
C to use.-

- - -The provision of well-timed, but not too frequent or intrusive
directions, delivered in a pleasant or encouraging tone of voice
which points C in the ”right" direction. For example, in playing
with puzzles a P might suggest that turning a piece around will
make it fit the puzzle better.

112

- - -the provision of well-timed interventions that prevent C from
becoming overaroused and disorganized. Such facilitative
parenting may take the form of P "steering” or ”inducing” C away
from a potential frustration, but not before C him/herself has a
chance to cope, unless even one effort to cope is likely to
overwhelm C.

- - -assisting C in the expression of his/her feelings that supports the
child’s desire to express and control them, as when C want to talk
about separation during the reunion. Conversation or dialogue in
service of maintaining C’s organization. More generally
paraphrasing C’s feelings in ways that facilitate the organization
of C’s behavior and his/her coping is considered here.

The evaluation of the parent on this scale is not dependent upon the success
of the parent’s facilitative acts; thus this scale assesses only the parent’s skill,
effort, and intent. Also one never lowers score (except when considering a score
of 5) because of additional intrusive, unresponsive, or negative parental behavior.

Using the following definitions, it should be noted that if the parent sits
close to child and is attentive and available to him/her in situations other than
clean-up or the structured teaching tasks, the parent will receive a minimum score
of 3. As more specific facilitative behavior is displayed, the parent’s score will
increase appropriately.

1.

 

No evidence of facilitative behavior is observed. Parent does not pay
attention to child in free play; just orders and sits back observing in
clean up or appears uninterested in structured tasks.

During free play, echoing child’s comments or reflecting child’s
verbalizations. Repeating instructions in structured tasks when child
needs more. Just being attentive.

Some instances of facilitative behavior are observed. During
structured task, one or two instances beyond being attentive.

In structured task, three or more specific instances of facilitative
behavior beyond being attentive.

Instances of facilitative behavior are frequent or especially salient and
characterize much of the parent’s way of relating to the child. In
structured task, four or more instances, plus facilitation characterizes
P’s way of relating. There can be no scores above 1 on unresponsive
or intrusive for a parent to obtain a 5.

113

H. Intrusive/Overcontrolling

This scale assesses the extent to which parental behavior is ill- timed, intrusive,
and excessively and inappropriately controlling relative to what the child rs doing.
The parent’ 3 behavior may be ill— timed in the sense that it disrupts child’s own
goals and pursuits, or lacks empathy or synchrony with the child!’ s feelings and
action, respectively, and thus is psychologically intrusive. Intrusive behavior is
likely to be dictated by a parental agenda regarding what should be going on and
disregarding child behavior.

 

Examples:

- - -During the first few minutes of play P explains the rules to C in a
clear manner, but with the focus on what C can not play with.
The instructions may be given in a dictatorial fashion (eg. , "Don’t
let me catch you playing with this. ")

- - -During play P directs/structures play in a way that does not allow
C to explore and decide what to play with. P often tells C what to
play with or in some way decides what parent/child will play with
together, without regard to C’s wishes (eg., "We’re going to play
with this toy now” or ”Here, you play with these blocks now"). P
interrupts or distracts C’s own play or conversation.

- - -The provision of constant verbal directions that are not timed
according to what C is doing and leaves C with little room for
autonomous functioning.

---lntrusive manipulations of C’s body or materials to force C to
behave in a certain manner (eg., pushing C’ s arm back and forth
to'help' him/her do something).

--- "Quizzing' the child in an interfering way (”What color is that?
How about that? Who is that?” etc.)

---Interventions into C’s actions before C has a real chance for
mastery--not timed to C’s degree of coping, but rather to P’s
need to “get on with it.”

- - -Prolonging separation with extensive explanations that do not seem
to be necessary given C’s affective state.

114

- - -While child is pretending/participating in pretend with parent,
parent usurps control by trying to force in literal explanation
rather than going along with child’s nonliteralness.

No evidence of intrusiveness is observed.

One instance of unnecessarily dictatorial instructions or subtle
intrusions that don’t necessarily distract or upset child.

Some instances of intrusiveness are observed; two instances of verbal
intrusiveness or one physical intrusion. Parent markedly unresponsive
to child’s needs- -timing off.

Three or more instances that fit criteria for #3, or two instances that
seem especially salient.

Instances of intrusiveness are frequent or especially salient and
characterize much of the way the parent relates to the child.

115

I. Unresponsiveness/Uavailable/Undercontrolling

This scale assesses the extent to which the parent makes no attempt to either
control or to facilitate the child’s behavior at a time when support, assistance, or
availability would be helpful to the child. Indeed, under-control should be seen as
“doing nothing” , or token gestures made by the parent for the benefit of the
experimenter, but not the child.

Examples:

- - -During the first few minutes P does not deliver or delays delivering
the prohibition instructions.

- - -P does not attempt to engage C in any activity or makes a "token
gesture" for the benefit of the experimenter, during periods when
C could use some support, guidance, etc. P allows C to
direct/structure play activities but does not supply a supportive
presence for the child, when it is clear that the child could use
assistance. P may ignore bids for assistance from C, or mistarget
or misinterpret C’s cues, or make perfunctory attempts at aiding
C.

- - -P deliberately provides false information for his/her own ends (eg. ,
"Examiner will let you play with that box while I’m away. ")

- - -If C transgresses, P will not deliver the prohibition at all, or will
deliver it in a vague haphazard manner.

— - -P does not respond to child’s comments or questions.

1. N o evidence or undercontrol is observed.

3. Some instances of undercontrol are observed (eg. , does not respond to
child’s questions twice).

5. Instances of undercontrol are frequent and especially salient and
characterizes much of the parent’s way of relating to the child.

116

NOTE: When unavailability seems intended to avoid rewarding and
encouraging dependency, it is coded as demand for self - reliant
behavior and not as unavailability.

117

J. Demands Self-Reliant Behavior

This scale assesses the extent to- which the parent explicitly or indirectly requires
the child to be self - reliant, with extent defined in terms of the frequency and
intensity of the parent’s behavior. Indirect demands for self - reliance involve
actions that require the child to function on his or her own even though this intent
is not explicitly stated. But unresponsiveness on the part of the parent to bids by
the child should not be regarded as demands for self - reliant behavior unless it is
clear that the parent is purposefully promoting autonomous behavior.

Explicit and indirect demands for self reliant behavior may come in a variety of
forms, both verbal and nonverbal. Examples include statements which encourage
the child to do something on his/her own (eg., ”Go ahead, you try it yourself
first”), that limit the parent’s involvement and thereby place responsibility on the
child (eg., ”It’s not my job to do that” or “You get started, I’ll be with you in a
minute "), and actions that explicitly communicate the same message, as when a
parent puts a puzzle piece in the child’s hand for the child to use, or turns the child
around and directs him/her toward an activity, but doesn’t provide the
accompanying supporting information that would make it a facilitation.

1. No demands for self - reliant behavior are observed.
2 1-2 instances of demands for self - reliant behavior.
3 3—4 instances of demands are observed.
4.
5 Demands for self - reliant behavior are very frequent or highly salient.

118

K. Undermines Child Functioning

This scale assesses the extent to which the parent subtly or overtly undermines
his/her child’s optimal functioning. Underrnining behaviors are those that serve
the parent’s own emotions and needs to' the detriment of the emotions and needs of
the child. Oftentirnes, a behavior will be scored as both undercontrol and
undermining or both negative affective feedback and undermining, etc

Examples:

---Threatening the child with the promise of harm (eg., ”Examiner
will be mad at you if you don’t clean up")

- - -Giving the child conflicting messages, saying one thing and acting
in a contradictory way; reversing what s/he just told the child, etc.
Pay attention to affect/content of message discrepancies (eg. .,
parent say “Oh, great job here! " but m a derogatory tone of voice,
or parent half-jokingly says ”Oh you’ re so dumbl').

- - -Drawing attention to illusory danger or unpleasantness (cg. , "Don’t
worry, the camera won’t hurt you. ")

— - -Making empty taunts and scolding the child unnecessarily ("See
what you missed playing with because you just sat in the corner??
No, it’s too late now!” "We were going to go to McDonalds, but
since you won’t pick up, we’ll just forget it. ")

- - -Disapproving of the child him or herself, either overtly or subtly

(cg. ., "I don’ t like it when you cry. - -or disapproving of the
child’s real distress.)

- - -Being sarcastic with the child, using a sarcastic tone when
responding to something the child has said or done.

---Prolonging the separation for the parent’s rather than the child’s
sake (“Are you sure you’ll be okay/2")

- - -Behaving in an excessively rule-bound way during reunion; not
greeting the child and/or not responding to comments, questions,
or requests the child makes upon reunion.

NOTE:

9??!"

119

---Overtly expecting the child to fail (eg., "I don’t know if you can
do this one; I think it’s too hard for you. ") Pay attention to
parent’s affect and tone of voice. It’s important to distinguish
from ”This one is going to be difficult, " but said encouragingly.

- - -Devaluing the child’s performance (eg., "Oh, that was an easy one,
1 think. " Note a tone of voice that conveys derogatory message.

No instances of undermining are observed.

One instance of undermining is observed.

Some instances of undermining are observed.

Instances of undermining are frequent or especially salient.

Underrnining behaviors are counted across each episode. One instance
is scored a 2, two instances as a 3, and so forth. However, an
especially intense instance is scored extra.

120

L. Focused Attention/ Involvement

This scale assesses the extent to which the child involved hirnlhersclf in play
activities or exploration, defined in terms of duration and intensity. Factors to
consider in coding this scale are length of time in activity, apparent attention span
of child, evidence of focused involvement, and intensity of the child’s actions. A
child high on this scale would, for example, be completely absorbed in his/her
activity (eg., a puzzle) for the entire 60 second period. A child low on this scale
may look highly tentative in approaching toys, may wander aimlessly around
room, or may superficially and redundantly fidget with a toy (eg. , haphazardly
drops blocks into a bucket).

1.

C is almost entirely uninvolved with play activities. If there is
involvement, it is fleeting at best and that occurs infrequently. C may
show some brief signs of attention and focused activity, but C does not
engage in play. C is principally aimless. C fails to engage toys or
withdraws from play activities or engages toys in highly stereotypic or
rigid manner. C may fiddle with toys in superficial manner. C may
frequently stare aimlessly or wander or focus attention mainly on E. C
may appear to approach toys with marked tentativeness and never
warms up. Breaks away from structured tasks.

C may attend to toys and engage in some focused play activity but C
stops or gives up play experience within 60 second period. C may
show attentiveness to toys for entire 60 second period but level of
engagement is low and C is easily distractible and taken off task.
Interest is low.

C shows a mixture of focused but passing involvement with toys and
moments of involvement with other stimuli (eg., cupboards, camera,
etc.) or distractions. C is involved with toys but looks away
frequently (without engaging any other stimuli). C may engage in one
or two bouts of focused attention, lasting from 15-20 seconds, which
involve manipulation. “Check-ins" without play; breaking set with
something. C is fairly consistent in engagement with task, but may be
slightly distracted.

C is generally involved in exploration but there is a slight decline in
involvement over the 60-second period. C may show slow initial
involvement, but intensity builds over time. Beginning to show
pleasure, but is not vulnerable to distractions, either self - or other-
initiated.

NOTE:

121

5 . C shows intense involvement in exploration of toys throughout 60-
second period. C appears totally absorbed in toy activities and may
appear ready to continue beyond the free-play period. Often one
observed positive affect, real enthusiasm.

Rule for first minute. Score the attentiveness of the child to parent’s
instructions and explanations.

122

M. Cognitive Sophistication

This scale is designed to assess the child’s sophistication in play, and level of play
organization, defined in terms of intensity and duration. Factors to consider in
coding this scale include the development of themes, and amount of
imagination/pretense play, as well as the intensity and/or length of time in play
with one or more objects. Time, in and of itself, is not used to evaluate cognitive
sophistication; instead it is used as a gauge to evaluate increasing complexity of
either thematic playor combinatorial acts with an object. An example of a child
high on this scale would be the child who builds a road system with blocks, then
gets a toy car to drive on the road; or a child who starts playing with the iron by
ironing the table but verbalizing that slhe is ironing a tablecloth or some clothes.
This child might then get some of the dress-up clothes to iron. A child low on this
scale might simply stack the blocks with no obvious attempt to build something, or
repetitiously move the iron back and forth.

1. Play activities are typically primitive. C shows very little
consideration of objects’ unique properties. C may try everything
once but does nothing new or different, or C may return regularly to
repetitious acts with familiar objects. A l is given whenever the
highest level is ”functional” (eg. , pushing buttons on the phone,
hammering peg with hammer).

2. Play activities remain simple but repetitious acts are few and scattered.
Play activities may involve some attempt to combine objects in simple
ways (eg., put figures in airplane, arrange dishes on stove) make some
isolated substitutions (peg as nail) or verbal description or labelling of
objects and/or activities. A 2 is given whenever the highest level is
“functional relational“ (eg., putting puzzle together, figuring out
drill- -making it work- -or combining picture turning and button
pressing on phone, or putting puppet on hand, or stacking blocks.

3. Play activities typically involve combinatorial acts or substitutions. C
may engage in fleeting instances of pretense or imaginative play (eg. ,
putting a puppet on each hand or pushing car while making motor
sound).

4. Play activities involve sophisticated acts, combinations, or
experimentation with objects. C may put different toys together in a
new or interesting way. Repetition is minimal. C engages in fantasy
play or creative construction (”substitutions with pretend” , drawing a
picture).

123

Imaginative play is a notable or significant part of play experience. C
develops schemes or stories with objects as props or symbols and/or
constructs meaningful buildings, etc. Extended and coordinated
thematic development ("sequences of pretend").

124

N. Sense of Mastery/ Skill/ Competence

This scale assesses the mastery, skill or competence the child displays during
his/her play. The more confidently, independently, and successfully the child
performs the play tasks, the higher the child’s score. The more hesitant,
dependent, and unsuccessful the child is, the lower the score. Efficiency and
autonomy of functioning will be taken into account when making this rating.

1.

 

C does not initiate play activities and is totally dependent on the parent
to suggest things to do; or, child plays on his/her own but shows
virtuallly no initiative, and play is void of any challenge or risk-taking.

 

C initiates some activity, but is dependent upon parent for guidance
the majority of the time. In parent-directed activities, child expands
upon or shows enthusiasm for task, and responds in a capable manner.

There is a balance between dependence and autonomy in the child.
The child tries new things and initiates some activities on his/her own.
Some guidance from the parent is necessary, but only after the child
has made a reasonable effort to perform the task himself/herself.

Child takes initiative, attempts new or difficult tasks. Parent may be
involved, but child is an equal partner in the play. Child may have
some moments of frustration, but persists and accomplishes most tasks
on his/her own, and appears to be evaluating his/her own performance.
Or in parent-directed segment, trying to negotiate own ideas or
control, even if it doesn’t work.

Child’s play is highly autonomous. Child seeks challenges and takes
pride in figuring things out on his/her own. If parent is involved, it is
clear that the child is an equal if not dominant partner in the task; child
may give advice or suggestions to the parents. Negotiates with parent
to get own wants/ideas acted upon. Two or more instances, or
particularly skillful at negotiations.

125

O. Organized Transitions

This scale assesses whether the child has moved from One involved activity to
another, entirely on his/her own, with a period of no more than 45 seconds
between the two periods of focused activity. Focused activity will be defined as
relatively sophisticated play lasting 35 -40 seconds. The transition will be coded in
the episode (60-second time frame) in which coder judges the transition to another
activity occurred, as the actual transition will probably cross tirne-samples. If the
transition between two extended play bouts lasts longer than 45 seconds, it will not
quality as a transition, nor if it lasts less than 10-15 seconds.

Examples of transitions include when a child who is obviously involved in playing
with the talking telephone, stops, breaks set, and moves to the kitchen area where
slhe begins to cook a meal. Credit for transitions will be given to a child who
leaves the focused activity entirely to go get something and bring it back to
elaborate what slhe’s been doing. For example, a child might be busily playing

with the typewriter, stop, go over to the kitchen, pour himself/herself a cup of
coffee and bring it back to the typewriter and continue developing the pretense

play.
To summarize, the coder has to make three judgements:
l. The initial play episode was sufficiently extended.
2. The subsequent play episode was sufficiently extended.
3. The transition period between them lasted no less than 10 seconds and
more than 45 seconds.
At the point when all three judgements occur, the transition will then be coded as:
1. No organized transition observed.

2. Yes, at least one organized transition observed.

126

P. Positive Affect/Enthusiasm/Comfortablaaess

This scale assesses the enthusiasm and comfortableness of the child during the
session. Factors to consider why coding this scale include ease of movement,
relaxed posture of body, facial expressions, and/or behavior. A child high on this
' scale would be clearly having a good time, with spontaneous and zestful ‘
expressions of fun, delight, and bubbliness. The child would also appear very
relaxed, with a high degree of ease of movement. A child low on this scale would
look frozen or highly tentative, with stiff body movements, and distressed facial
expressions.

1.

C’s affect is completely flat. There is no enthusiasm, smiling, or
interest. Movement may be slow. C may look vacant or inhibited.
Vocalizations may have a flat, monotonic quality. Facial expression is
bland, child shows no evidence of having fun. C may seem bored.
Interaction with toys looks almost obligatory as opposed to desirable.
Interaction with toys will probably be characterized by repetitive
'nonthoughtful" simple manipulations of the items.

C’s affect is neutral. C looks comfortable, but by no means fully at
ease. His/her movements may be hesitant. Brief moments of fleeting
pleasure, maybe a smile or two and/or interested vocalizations.
Although C seems to be having some fun, coder isn’t convinced that
slhe would choose to come back if slhe had the choice.

Consistent enjoyment at a moderate level. C looks somewhat
purposeful, and expresses some interest and enjoyment during play.

Some animation and enthusiasm is apparent during play. Facial
expression shows interest and pleasure during the play. Smiles and
vocalizations clearly indicate C has fun with toys. C appears
comfortable and in charge. C looks secure. C typically appears
spontaneous in play, but a single brief sign of tentativeness may be
noted. Negative signs are non-existent.

C shows animation, bubbliness, or delight in interaction with toys with
significant intensity. Some evidence of peak excitement must be
present for this score. C obviously feels good about him/herself,
confident, secure, comfortable. C’s activities appear spontaneous and
zestful. S/he is clearly in control of the situation, enthusiastic, seems
glad to be here. C is likely to be laughing, smiling, moving easily, and
is "lost“ in his/her play.

127

Q. Negative Affect

This scale assesses the extent to which the child shows anger, dislike, or hostility
with extent defined in terms of frequency and intensity. Evidence of negativity
may take the form of forcefully rejecting parent’s ideas (verbally or behaviorally),
shaking head to indicate "no” , showing angry and resistant facial and postural
expressions, pouting, or being unreasonably demanding of parent or play
materials. It is important to note that negativity can be displayed in response to
the parent, the experimenter, or play materials. Negativity may occur in the
context of refusal to cooperate, and such behavior would be coded on this scale as
well as the disobedience scale. The way to distinguish between negativity and
disobedience is in being aware that negativity characterizes an affective tone of
behaving, including refusal to comply, whereas disobedience simply characterizes
refusal to comply irrespective of the affect or style displayed. Crying will be
coded as negativity unless the child has actually hurt himself/herself. Thus,
specific examples of negativity would be stomping feet, throwing toys, yelling 1n
unpleasant tones, kicking materials, making angry facial expressions, or breaking
toys. Negativistic behaviors directed towards persons would include shouting
"throwing a tantrum, crying or throwing an object. Finally, it must be
pointed out that positive affect may be present without influencing this score.

1. No evidence of negative affective expression is displayed.
2.
3. C displays some or modest evidence of negative affective expression.

This behavior should not escalate into an extensive display, i. e., they
are somewhat isolated behaviors.

5. C very frequently or markedly displays anger and/or hostility.

 

128

R. Degree of Distress

This scale is designed to assess the degree (if any) of distress of the child per 60
second interval, defined in terms of duration and intensity. Factors to consider
when coding this scale include facial expressions, vocalizations (cg. , crying,
moaning, or verbalizing feelings), body posture, and movements. A child high on
his scale would be crying intensely, appearing to be hysterically out of control, or
crying at a more moderate level, but for the entire 60 seconds. A child low on this
scale would show no signs of distress.

1.
2.

No distress.

Low level distress. C looks distressed but not crying; maybe a
whimper, maybe a quivering lip. Distressful facial expression but no
sound, eg., pouting. Of, if child says something with fear or distress
in the tone of his/her voice, but is not crying. Seems worried or
scared.

Moderate level. C is crying just below surface, but working to contain
it. C is upset, but working to modulate it, sniffing, whimpering. For
this score, C must vocalizc a sniff or cry at least once.

C begins to cry but without great intensity.

High level- -C is sobbing or shrieking, very upset.

129

S. Strange Behaviors

This code assesses whether or not any instance of strange behavior occurs during a
given 60 second interval. Strange behaviors may take a variety of forms:
engaging in motor arousal discharges (eg., fingerplay). rocking back and forth in
one place, blank staring and/or frozen posture, nonverbal, weird gutteral sounds,
picking nose or extended thumb sucking.

1. No instances of strange behavior observed.

2. At least one instance of strange behavior is observed.

130

T. Transgressions

This scale assesses the extent to which child contacts objects and materials that
have been placed off -limits to him/her. A child high on this scale will contact an
off -limits object for an extended period, touch several objects for a brief period,
or continuing maintaining contact with an object even after prohibition is given.
During clean up, sometimes parent “allows" child to play with off - limits items
either implicitly or explicitly. Unless parent clearly says it’s ok to play with it,
continue to code as if a transgression.

1. No transgression observed.

2. Brief momentary transgression (which terminates following
prohibition).

3. Two or more brief contacts or one contact lasting 15-30 seconds in
duration.

4. Extended transgression lasting 30 seconds or more; unresponsive to
prohibition.

5. Extended transgressions or attempts lasting the entire 60 minutes.

 

131

U. Verbal Interaction with Parent

This scale assesses the extent to which the child verbally interacts with the parent.
Extent is defined in terms of intensity and duration. The persistence of the child in
trying to establish verbal interaction is considered. A child high on verbal
interaction would persistently try to engage the parent in conversation, and failing
that, would continue to talk to the parent, or make a brief and fleeting comment.

1.
2.

No orientation to the parent.

Sound, acknowledgement (eg., a simple yes or no to parent’s
question).

Talks to parent, but only in terms of l or 2 brief statements or
questions. Talks to parent for less than half of minute.

More than 2 statements, talks to parent for more than half of minute.
Repeated, persistent, or extended talking with the parent.

132

V. Seeking Proximity to the Parent

This scale assesses the extent to which the child seeks proximity to the parent.
Extent is defined in terms of intensity and duration. A child high on physical
proximity to the parent would spend an extended period of time in close physical
proximity to the parent. A child low on this would spend no time actively seeking
to be close to the parent.

1.
2.
3.

NOTE:

Child seems to be comfortable with his/her proximity to the parent.

Child makes some attempts to be closer to the parent, but does not
show particularly clingy behavior.

Child seekstobe closetoparentand spendsmost ofthc time period in
actual physical contact with the parent.

Do not count if parent requests child to move closer to parent and
child complies. Do not count if child engages in game that requires
closer proximity between parent and child (eg., child uses stethescopc
to play doctor with parent) unless closer proximity was a reason why
child chose that toy or activity.

133

W. Distancing from Parent

This scale assesses the extent to which the child tries to increase the physical
distance between himself/herself and the parent. Extent is defined in terms of
intensity and duration. Factors to consider include physical space between the
parent and child, and persistence of child in trying to maintain or increase the
distance. A child high on distance from the parent would spend an extended period
of time far from the parent, and would not try to maintain contact either verbally
or through eye contact. Or, the child would retreat from the parent in anger or
distress. A child low on this scale would make no attempts to move away from the
parent.

p—a
O

No instances of moving away from the parent.

3. Child spends some time moving away from the pmnt, but child
maintains contact verbally or through eye contact.

5 . Child spends all of the time period moving away from the parent or
actively trying to increase distance from the parent. Child does not try
to maintain verbal contact with the parent, or engage the parent in any
way.

134

X. Cooperation/Compliance

This scale assesses the extent to which the child complies with the parent’s specific
instructions or directions, with extend defined in terms of both the frequency and
emotional intensity of cooperation. A statement which involves an uncnthusiastic
"ok, I’ll try that piece,” would be weighted less than one in which the child
eagerly responds ”Right! I should try the blue before the yellow! ". Compliant
and cooperative behavior may be evidenced in a number of ways, either verbal or
nonverbal. (Non-verbal directives include pointing, steering the child, etc.).
Examples include verbal and nonverbal responses to the parent’s questions,
statements, or nonverbal directives (cg. , picking up a particular colored block
when asked to do so, fetching a specific toy during clean-up). Focus on explicit
acts of child’s compliance to a parental request and not subtle cooperation.

I. No compliant or cooperative behavior is observed.

2. One or two instances of compliance is observed.

3. Some instances (3-5) of child compliance are observed, or child
complies in a neutral (as opposed to enthusiastic) manner (i.e. , child
acquiesces).

4. 3-5 instances of child compliance are observed, but child’s attitude is
mildly enthusiastic.

5. The child is fully cooperative and compliant with all of the parental
requests, or is enthusiastically cooperative if only one or two
opportunities arise.

 

135

Y. Disobedience

This scale measures the extent to which the child verbally refuses to comply with a
parent’s request (eg., 'I’m not going to do that“ or 'No, you can’t make me”) or
fails to comply through some nonverbal means (eg., shaking the head ”no“,
pushing self and/or toys away). Extent is defined both in terms of the frequency
and intensity of disobedience, with neutral statements such as "No, I don’t like
that“ weighted less heavily than an instance in which a child throws a toy and in a
frustrated! and disgusted tone remarks, "No I won’t, I hate this!" It is also
important to note that noncompliant and disobedient behaviors may be of a more
passive form, such as when the child ignores requests which clearly have been
heard or when the child verbally agrees to cooperate, yet fails to perform or
follow-through with the request.

 

1. No instances of noncompliance and disobedience are observed.
2. One or two instances of saying no, or ignoring parental requests.

3. 3 instances of low-level noncompliant and disobedient behavior is
observed.

5. The child strongly refuses to comply with parental requests or
directions, or is disobedient for most of the minute interval.

136

Z. Dependcy/ Need for Help

This rating assesses the extent to which the child turns to the parent for help in
order to complete a particular task (i.e. , clean up, structured activities), with
extent defined in terms of both frequency and intensity. Dependent behaviors
include verbal pleas for help such as ”Hold this for me" or "Where does this piece
go?” or statements explicitly asking for assistance, such as 'I can’t do it" . Other
relevant behaviors may be more subtle, yet still be evidence of dependency, such
as turning toward the parent and handing him/her the toy to put away during the
clean-up task.

1.
2.
3.

No dependency or need for help is observed.
Child asks for help once or twice.

3-5 instances are observed in which child evidences dependency or
needs help.

Instances of dependency or need for help are frequent or especially
salient.

137

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Aldous, J. (1969). Occupational characteristics and men’s role performance in the
family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 707-712.

Bailyn, L. (1970). Career and family orientations of husbands and wives in
relation to marital happiness. Human Relations, 23, 97-113.

Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. K. (1987). Determinants of fathers’ participation
in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 29-40.

Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1981). Fathers’ participation in the care of
their preschool children. Sex Roles, 7, 1043-1055.

Baruch, G. K. , & Barnett, R. (1986). Role quality, multiple role involvement
and psychological well-being in midlife women. Journal of Pcrsonalig and

Social P_sychology, 51, 537-585.

Baumrind, D. (1982). Are androgynous individuals more effective persons and
parents? Child Development, 53, 44-75.

Baumrind, D., & Black, L. (1967). Socialization practices associated with
dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development,
38, 291 -327.

Beck, R. A., & Beck, S. F. (1979). 1&1- and Leisure at Home. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

Beckett, J., & Smith, A. (1981). Work and family roles: egalitarian marriages in
black and white families. Social Service Review, 55, 314-326.

Belsky, J. A family analysis of parent influences on infant exploratory

competence. In F. Pcderson (Ed.), The father—infant relationship:

Observational studies in a family context. New York: Praeger Special
Studies, 1980.

Belsky, J. (1979). The interrelation of parental and spousal behavior during
infancy in traditional nuclear families: An exploratory analysis. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 749-755.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child
Development, 55, 83-96.

138

139

Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B. & Rovine, M. (1984). The Pennsylvania infant and
family development project, 1: Stability and change in mother- infant and
father- infant interaction in a family setting at one, three and nine months.

W ent55 692- 705

Belsky, J., Lang, M. & Huston, T. L. (1986). Sex typing and division of labor
as determinants of marital change across the transition to parenthood. Joupng

ofPersonality and Social whology, 50, 3, 517- 522.

Belsky, J, Spanier, G. B. & Rovine, M. (1983). Stability and change in
marriage across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 45, 3, 567-577.

Billcr, H. B. (1974). Paternal dgprivation; Family, school, sexuality and socim.
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Block, J. (1978). Another look at sex differentiation in the socialization
behaviors of mothers and fathers. In J. A. Sherman and F. L. Denmark (eds.)
Echology of Women: Future Directions of Research. New York:
Psychological Dimensions.

Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. (1960). Husbands and wives. New York, Free Press.
Brenton, M. The American Male. New York: Coward-McCann. 1966.

Bright, M. C., & Stockdale, D. F. (1984). Mothers’, fathers’ and preschool
children’s interactive behaviors in a play setting. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 144, 219-232.

Brody, G. H., Pcllegrini, A. D., & Sigel, I. E. (1986). Marital quality and
mother-child and father-child interactions with school-aged children.
Developmental Psychology, 22, 291-296.

Bronstein, P. (1984). Differences in mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors toward

children: A cross-cultural comparison. Developmth Echology, 20, 995 -
1003.

Bronstein, P., & Cowan, C. P. Fatherhood today; Men’s changing role in the
family. (1985). John erey and Sons, New York.

Campbell, A., Converse, P., & Rodgers, W. The gualig‘ of American life. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976. ,

Carlson, B. E. (1984). The father’s contribution to child care: Effects on

children’s perceptions of parental roles. American Journal Orthopgyphiatg,
54, 123-135.

Clark, R. A., Nye, F. 1., & Gecas, V. (1978). Husbands’ work involvement and
marital role performance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 9-20.

140

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1978). And daddy makes three: the father’s impact on
mother and young child. Child Dcvclopmgt, 49, 466-478.

Cohen, R. W., & Weissman, S. H. The parenting alliance. In R. S. Cohen, B. J.
Cohler, and S. H. Weissman (Eda) Parenthood' A Psvch0d_ynn_rr_1_ip
Mg. New York: Guilford, 1984.

Caveman, S., & Sheley, J. F. (1986). Change in men’s housework and child-
care time, 1965- 1975. Journnl of mnjnge and the Family, 48, 413-422.

Douvan, E. (1978). Family roles in a 20-year perspective. Economic mtlook
USA, 6, 60-63.

 

Easterbrooks, M. A., & Emde, R. N. (1988). Marital and parent-cth
relationships: The role of affect in the family system. In R. A. Hind and J.

Stevenson-Hind (Eds.)., Relationshim VVrthin Families; Mutual Influences
(pp. 83-103). New York, Oxford University Press.

Eriksen, J. A., Yancey, W. L., & Eriksen, E. P. (1979). The division of family
roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41: 301 -303.

Fein, R. (1978). “Consideration of men’s experiences and the birth of the first
child." In W. B. Miller and L. F. Newman (Eds.), The first child and family
fonnatipn. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Carolina Population Center.

Feldman, S. S., Nash, S. C., & Aschenbrenner, B. G. (1983). Antecedents of
fathering. Child Developrnent, 54, 1628-1636.

Floyd, F. Family functioning and family interactions with mentally retarded
children. Paper presented at IASSMD, Dublin, Ireland, 1988.

Frank, S., Jacobson, S., & Hole, C. B. (1988). The parenting alliance: Bridging
the relationship between marriage and parenting. Unpublished manuscript.

Frank, S., Jacobson, 8., Hole, C. B., Justkowski, R., & Huyck, M. (1986).
Psychological predictors of parents’ sense of confidence and control and self -

versus child-focused gratifications. Dnvelopmgntnl Psychology, 22, 3, 348-
355.

Frankel, M. T., & Rollins, H. A., Jr. (1983). Does mother know best? Mothers
and fathers interacting with preschool sons and daughters. Developmental
chhology, 19, 694-702.

Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. B., Frodi, M., Hwang, C. P., Forsstrom, B., & Corry,
T. (1982). Stability and change in parental attitudes following an infant’s
birth into traditional and nontraditional Swedish families. Scandinavian

Journal of Psychology, 23:53-62.

Gecas, V. (1976). The socialization and child care roles. In Role Structure and
Analfiis of the Family, F. Nye, (ed.), Beverly Hills: Sage.

141

Goldberg, R. J. Effects of family variables on allocation of time to child- -rea1ing
and developmental outcomes. Paper presented at the Society for research in
Child Development, Boston, 1977.

Goldberg, W. A. & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1984). Role of marital quality in
toddler development. Dcvelppgncntal MhOLogy, 20, 504-514.

Goldstein, H. S. (1983). Fathers’ absence and cognitive development of child
over a 3- to S-ycar period. Psychological Rgpprts, 52, 971 -976.

Goth-Owens, T. L., Stollak, G. B., Meese, L. A., Peshkess, I., & Watts, P.
.(1982). Marital satisfaction, parenting satisfaction, and parenting behavior in
early infancy. Infant Mental Health Jonrr_u;1_, 3, 3, 187 -198.

Greenberg, M., & Morris, N. (1974). Engrossment. The newborn’s impact upon
the father. American Journal of Orthopsychiatny, 44, 520-531.

Greenberger, B., & Goldberg, W. A. (1989). Work, parenting, and the
socialization of children. W, 25, 22- 35.

Gronseth, E. "Work sharing: A Norwegian example." In R. Rapoport and R. N.

Rapoport, (Eds.) Working couplgg, St. Lucia, Queensland: University of
Queensland Press, 1978.

Grossman, F. K., Pollack, W. S., & Golding, E. (1988). Fathers and children:
Predicting the quality and quantity of fathering. Developmental Psychology,
24, 82-91.

Hetherington, E. M. Children and divorce. In R. Henderson (Ed.) Parent-child

interactions; Thcogy, research and prosmgt. New York: Academic Press,
1981.

Hoffman, L. W. Increased fathering: Effects on mothers. In M. lamb and A.
Sagi (Eds. ) Fatnemood and Soci; Poligy. Hillsdalc,Erlbaum,1983.

Hoffman, L. W. (1974). Effects of maternal employment on the child- -A review
of the research. near/Way. 10. 204-228.

Hoffman, L. W. & Mania, J. D. “Influences of children on marital interaction
dparcntal satisfactions and dissatisfactions.” In R. Lerner and G. Spanier

(Eds.)C Child influences on marital and famin interaction; A life- 4m
mg. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

Johnson, J., & Lobitz, R., (1974). The personal and marital adjustment of
parents as related to observed child deviance and parent behaviors. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 2, 193-207.

Keniston, K. The uncommitted alienated youth in American society. New York:
Harcourt Brace and World, 1965.

142

Kingston, P. W., & Nock, S. L. (1987). Time together among dual-earner
couples. American Sociological Pcu'cw, 52, 391-400.

Kotelchuck, M. (1976). The infant’s relationship to the father: Experimental

evidence. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) flhg mle pf the father; in child development.
New York: erey.

Ladewig, B. H., & McGee, G. W. (1986). Occupational commitment, a
supportive family environment and marital adjustment: Development and
estimation of a model. Jounfl of Marriage gng the Family, 48, 821 -829.

Lamb, M. E. (1987). jljhc father’s role; Cross cultural Emmives. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey.

Lamb, M. E. (1977). The development of mother-infant and father-infant

attachments in the second year of life. Developmental Pychology, 13, 637-
648.

Iamb, M. E. (1976). The role of the fathe: in child development. New York:
VVrley Interscience.

Lamb, M. B., Pleck, J. H., andLevinc, J. A. Abiosocial perspective on paternal
behavior and involvement. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. , Rossi and L.
Sherrod (Eds.) Parent '
Chicago: Aldinc,1978.

Lamb, M. B., & Sagi, A. (1983). Fatherhood and family mlicy. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey.

Lamb, M. B., & Easterbrooks, M. A. Individual differences in parent sensitivity:
Some thoughts about origins, components and consequences. In M. Iarnb and
L. Sherrod (Eds.). Infant social cogm'tion. Hillsdalc, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Lewis, C. The observations of father-infant relationships: An ”attachment“ to
outmoded concepts. In L. McKee and M. O’Brien’s (Eds.), Ihg Eathcr
Figug. London: Tavistock, 1982.

Lewis, C., & O’Brien, M. (1987). Reassessing fatherhood; New observations on
fatherg and the modern {amily. Sage Publications: California.

Lewis, R. A., &. Sait, R. E. (1986). Men in families. Sage Publications:
California.

Margolin, G., & Patterson, G. R. (1975). Differential consequences provided by
mothers and fathers for their sons and daughters. mvelopmental Psychology,
1 1, 5 37 -538.

Minuchin, S., Rogman, B. L., & Baker, L. Psychgmatic families. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1978.

143

Orthner, D. K., & Axelson, L. (1980). The effects of wife employment on
marital sociability. Jounrnl of Commtive Family Studies. 11, 5331-545.

Orthner, D. K., & Pittman, J. F. (1986). Family contributions to work
commitment. Journal of Marringe and the Family, 48, 573-581.

Owne, M. T., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Lamb, M. E. (1982). Mothers’ and
fathers’ attitudes, maternal employment and the security of infant-parent
attachment. Unpublished manuscript.

 

Parke, R. D., Hymel, 8., Powers, T. G., & Tinsley, B. R. Fathers at risk: a
hospital-based model of intervention. In D. B. Sawin, R. C. Hawkins, L. 0.

Walker, and J. H. Partikoff (Eds.), Exmiom Infant (Vol. 4), New York:
BrunnerlMazel, 1980.

Parke, R. D., & Sawin, D. B. (1980). The family in early infancy: Social
interaction and attitudinal analysis. In F. A. Pcderscn (Ed.) The Father-Infant
Relationshi ' Obsc atio tudics in Famil Scttin . New York:
Praeger.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Cocngive Family Procgg. Eugene: Castalia.

Pcarlin, L. (1983). Role strains and personal stress. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.)
W New York: Academic

Pcarlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21.

Pcderscn, F. A. (1980). The Father-Infant Relationship; Observation Studies in
a Family Setting. New York: Praeger.

Pcderscn, F. A. (1979). Conceptualization of father influences in the infancy

period. In M. Lewis and L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), jihe child nng its family.
New York: Plenum.

Pcderscn, F. A., Anderson, B. J ., & Cain, R. L. Parent-infant and husband-wife
interactions observed at five months. In F. A. Pcderson (Ed.) The father-

infant relationship; Observational studies in the family setting. New York:
Praeger, 1980.

Pcderson, F. A., Rubenstein, R. L., & Yarrow, C. (1979). Infant development in
father-absent families. Jounfl of @etic mghology, 135, 51-61.

Pleck, J. H. (1977). The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417 -
427.

Pleck, J. H. (1979). Men’s family work: Three perspectives and some new data.
The Family Coordinator, 28, 481 -488.

144

Pleck, J. H., & Lang, L. (1979). Men’s family work: Three perspectives and
some new data. Family Coordinator, 28, 481-488.

Pleck, J. H. & Staines, G. L. (1983). Work schedules and work- -family conflict

in two- -earncr couples. In J. Aldous (Ed. ) Two mhechg; Qfe in dinn-
W Beverly Hills CA: Sage

Price- Bonharn, S. & Murphy, C. D. (1980). Dual- -career
Implications for the clinician. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42:
181 - 188.

Quinn, J., & Staines, G. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey:
Descriptive statistics with comparison data from the 1969-1970 and 1972- .
1973 surveys. Ann Arbor, MI. Survey Research Center.

Radin, N. Primary caregiving and role-sharing fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.)

Nontraditional families; Parenting and child development. Hillsdalc, N .J .:
Erlbaum, 1982.

Radin, N. (1981). Child-rearing fathers in intact families. Merrill Palmer
Quarterly, 27, 489-514.

Radin, N. (1981). "Wives of childrearing men.‘ Paper presented at a meeting of
the Society of Research in Child Development, Boston.

Radin, N. Childrearing fathers in intact families with preschoolers. Paper
presented to the American Psychological Association. Toronto, September,
197 8.

Radin, N., & Epstein, A. S. “Observed paternal behavior with preschool children:
Final report”. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan, School of Social
Work, 1975.

Rapoport, R., &Rapoport, R. (1965). Workandfamilyincontemporarysociety.
c iolo eview, 30, 381- 393.

Rebelsky, F., & Hanks, C. (1971). Fathers’ verbal interaction with infants in the
first three months of life. thlg Meloment, 42, 63-68.

Reuter, M. W. & Billcr, H. B. (1973). Perceived paternal nurturance,
availability and personal adjustment among college males. Jon 0

We! 40 339- 342

Ricks, S. S. (1985). Father-infant interactions: A review of empirical research.
aniiy Relntipns; 34, 505-511.

Robinson, J. (1977). How Americans use time; A social-mychological analfiis
of evcrvdgv behavior. Praeger, New York.

145

Rousseau, J. J. (1750). Emile. Everyman edition, trans. B. Foxley. E. P.
DuttonandCo.

 

Russell, G. (1978). The father role and its relations to masculinity, femininity
and androgyny. Child Develoment, 49, 1174-1181.

Russell, G., & Radin, N. (1983). "Increased paternal participation: The fathers’

perspective." In M. Lamb and A. Sayi (Eds.) Pathcmood and Socini Polig.
Hillsdalc, N.J.: Erlbaum.

 

Russell, G., & Russell, A. (1987). Mother-chfld and father-child relationships in
middle childhood. Child Qe_velopment, 58, 1573-1585.

Seccombe, K. (1986). The effects of occupational conditions upon the division of
household labor: An application of Kohn’s theory. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 48, 839-848.

Shinn, M. (1978). Father absence and children’s cognitive development.
Psychological Bulletin, 85, 295-324.

Spanier, G. B., Lewis, R. H., & Cole, C. L. (1975). Marital adjustment over the
family cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 263-275.

Spanier, G. B., & Thompson, L. (1982). A confirmatory analysis of the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage Ed the Family , 731 -741.

Stafford, R., Backman, E.,& DiBona, P. (1977). The division of labor among

cohabitating and married couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39,
43-57.

Staines, G. L. (1980). Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature
between work and nonwork. Humg Relations, 33, 111-129.

Staines, G. L., Pleck, J. H., Shepard, L. C., & O’Conner, P. C. (1978). Vlfrves’

employment status and marital adjustment. Psychology of Wome_ri Quarterly,
3, 90-129.

St. John-Parsons, D. (1978). Continuous dual-career families: a case study.
ngchology of Women Quarterly, 4, 256-260.

U. S. Department of Labor. (1985). The United Nations Decade for Women,
1976-1985: Employment in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau.

Vincent, J., Cook, N., & Mcsserley, I. (1980). A social learning analysis to
couples during the second postnatal month. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 8, 49-68.

146

Voydanoff, P. Work-family life cycles. Paper presented at the Workshop for
Theory Construction and Research Methodology. National Council on Family
Relationships, 1980.

N STRTE UNIV. LIBR

HICHIGR
ll!1|HIM!!!VII!"I!!!lllilllllllllllllHll ll!
31 93008914 1

2 ‘1

antes
”WI
:2