t

“f‘)
V

.

t. _

I .19. ;
3 I...
.112.

a.

s. r3

In? V
gum

72‘.
z

. 1

A V . .IO
4%.. V V , :9:
.1 V . ,2, is, V. g
t , ‘ V V . «11.56 r . r . V. d: -

Am. . . . V . V . V P..%..:;.. . V
. . ‘ V . , 5....“ J. ‘V r {I

. I . V . .v lira: , .u. ..

V . Tho: JV 1 .

a m:

x...
. .

 

A?

At...
:‘

V..n§...m.x
’- ,

Va a?

laszklfi.§.

.3. ma.

V 2 .r.

5.x: . 2 5 {WWW
V , ... 1.5%. -

Sffld

 

5.3.5,?
5 : uvl. u

 

201:!

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

FATHER ABSENCE AND CHILD
PROBLEMS IN JAMAICAN FAMILIES

presented by
Jennifer S. Durst
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

MHA degree in PiYChOIOQY

/ Mfl

Major professor

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN REI‘URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

05g gr, 2303

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11m Woes-p.“

 

FATHER ABSENCE AND CHILD PROBLEMS IN JAMAICAN FAMILIES
By

Jennifer S. Durst

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

2000

ABSTRACT
FATHER ABSENCE AND CHILD PROBLEMS IN JAMAICAN FAMILIES
By

Jennifer S. Durst

Father absence in the United States and other patrifocal societies has been linked
theoretically and empirically to many different child problem outcomes, including
delinquency, aggression, teenage pregnancy, and lower competency beliefs. Jamaica and
other Caribbean societies are more matrifocally based than that of the US. Thus, the role
of fathers in the lives of their children is de-emphasized in comparison to US. culture.
This de-emphasis may lead to different outcomes for Jamaican children who experience
father absence than has been shown in US. samples. This study examined the relation
between father absence and child problems in a Jamaican sample. No differences were
found between father-present and father-absent children on level of youth behavior
problems as reported by parents, teachers, and youth themselves. This finding suggests
that the cultural differences between Jamaican and Western societies may impact the

effect of father absence on children.

In memory of my grandfather, Lester L. Laser, who exemplified dedication, hard work,

generosity, love, and the character to which I aspire.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am glad to have the opportunity to express in writing my gratitude to my
committee members for their continued assistance and support. Dr. Joel Nigg provided
unequaled help and assurance with both the expression of ideas and procedural decisions.
Dr. Rick Deshon was extremely generous with his time, guidance, and, of course,
statistical expertise. They both earned my utmost respect as both professionals and
human beings.

Additionally, this thesis would not have been possible without Dr. Maureen
Samms-Vaughn, who graciously shared her data, which took her and her team a great
deal of time to collect. Her encouragement of my ideas was greatly appreciated.

Finally, I would like extend a special thank you to my lab mates and classmates,
Benjamin Addleson, Anat Barlev, John Bergeron, Valarie Francois-Bellas, Ioanna
Kalogiros, Mikhail Lyubanski, Cosette Orellana, Allison Schettini, and Sally Theran,
whose unwavering support as friends and colleagues made the completion of this project

a reality.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1
FATHER ABSENCE ................................................................................ 3
Theoretical Consideration of Father Absence ........................................... 3
Psychoanalytic Theory ............................................................ 3
Cognitive Theory .................................................................. 5
Essentialist and Evolutionary Theory ........................................... 6
Ecological Theories ............................................................... 8
Empirical Considerations of Father Absence ........................................... 9
Studies in the United States ...................................................... 9
Cross Cultural Studies ........................................................... 12
Father Absence in the Caribbean and Jamaica ........................................ 13
CHAPTER 2
POTENTIAL FACTORS IMPACTING THE EFFECT OF FATHER ABSENCE ...... 21
Economic Loss ............................................................................ 21
Family Relationships ..................................................................... 24
Gender of the Child ....................................................................... 26
Reason for the Absence .................................................................. 28
Contact with the Father ................................................................... 28
Reporter of the Child Symptoms ........................................................ 29
CHAPTER 3
SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 31
Goals of the Present Study ............................................................... 33
Research Question and Hypotheses ..................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4
METHOD ........................................................................................... 35
Sample ...................................................................................... 35
Measures .................................................................................... 36
Socioeconomic Questionnaire .................................................. 36
Socioeconomic Status ............................................................ 36
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale 11 ................................... 37
Jamaican Youth Checklist ....................................................... 37
Jamaican Youth Self Report .................................................... 37
Procedures .................................................................................. 38

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS ........................................................................................... 40
Preliminary Analyses ..................................................................... 40
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the FACES-II Measure .................. 40
Exploratory Principal Component Analysis of the F ACES-II Measure... 40
Examination of AN COVA Assumptions ...................................... 41
Examination of Proposed Covariates .......................................... 42
Primary Analyses of Father Status Groups ............................................. 43
Repeated Measures ANCOVA for Total Problem Scores .................. 43
Repeated Measures AN COVA for Intemalizing Problem Scores ......... 44
Repeated Measures AN COVA for Extemalizing Problem Scores. . . . 44
Repeated Measures AN COVAS for the Syndrome Scores .................. 45
Correlations between Parent and Youth Reports ............................. 46
Secondary Analyses for Reason for Father Absence Groups ........................ 47
Examination of ANCOVA Assumptions and Covariates ................... 47
AN COVAS for all Three Problem Types ...................................... 48
Summary of Results ....................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 52
Limitations of the Current Study ........................................................ 59
Implications for Future Research ........................................................ 61
Conclusion ................................................................................. 62
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 65
APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 77
Appendix A: Table 1 ...................................................................... 77
Appendix B: Table 2 ...................................................................... 78
Appendix C: Table 3 ...................................................................... 79
Appendix D: Figure 1 ..................................................................... 81
Appendix E: Table 4 ...................................................................... 82
Appendix F: Table 5 ...................................................................... 83
Appendix G: Figure 2 ..................................................................... 84
Appendix H: Table 6 ...................................................................... 85
Appendix I: Table 7 and Table 8 ........................................................ 86
Appendix J: Table 9 ........................................................... . ........... 87
Appendix K: Table 10 ..................................................................... 88
Appendix L: Table 11 ..................................................................... 90

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Percentages of Father Status and Gender Groups

Table 2 - Percentages of Sample at each Smith Scale SES Level

Table 3 - FACES-II Items and Component Loadings for the Jamaican Sample

Table 4 - Mean Levels for Total Problem Scores for each Father Status Group by Gender

Table 5 - Mean Levels for Intemalizing Problem Scores for each Father Status Group by
Gender

Table 6 - Mean Levels for Extemalizing Problem Scores for each Father Status Group by
Gender

Table 7 - Correlations for Parent and Youth Reports for the Three Problem Scores

Table 8 - Mean Differences between Youth and Parent Reports for the Three Problem
Types

Table 9 - Summary of Nonsignificant Results of Interest

Table 10 - Summary of Significant Results of Interest for Total Sample

Table 11 - Summary of Significant Results of Interest for Father-Absent Subjects

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Total Problem Scores of each Gender for both Reporters

Figure 2 - Extemalizing Problem Scores of each Gender for both Reporters

viii

INTRODUCTION

Given the wide cultural differences that exist among humans, it is conceivable
that the concept of a father may be different across societies and that the absence of a
father leads to variable outcomes for children in one society versus another. Yet in all
known cultures, the role of the father is recognized (Munroe & Munroe, 1992). In
addition, the traditional Western family structure, which includes the provider father and
homemaker mother, has generally been lauded by social scientists as the structure that
produces the most psychologically healthy children. The opposite belief is also held: that
families that deviate from this traditional structure are likely to produce negative effects
for children. However, there is little empirical evidence that ‘non-traditional’ families
characterized by maternal employment, extrafamilial childcare, and role reversal of
parents, lead to more deviant results for children (Lamb, 1999).

Yet, both psychological and biological theorists (e.g. Bereczkei & Csanaky, 1996;
Furman & F urman, 1989; Kirshner, 1992; Lewis, 1991) and empirical evidence (e.g.
Gulati & Singh, 1987; Hilton & Devall, 1998; Levai, Ackerman, Kaplan, & Hammock,
1995; McClanahan & Teitler, 1999; Srinivasan & Raman, 1987; Stanley, Weikel, &
Wilson, 1986) provide support for the claim that single parenthood and the lack of a
father are associated with negative child outcomes. Many empirical studies, however,
have been based upon work within western industrialized societies and white, middle-
class populations. According to ecological psychological theories (Bronfenbrenner,

1992), societal and cultural differences may impact the effects of father absence on

children. This impact may display itself directly by affecting the meaning a father has in

a child’s life and change the father absence-child outcome relationship.

CHAPTER 1

FATHER ABSENCE

Theoretical Considerations of Father Absence

 

Psychoa_nalvtic Theory

Different psychological theorists have implicated father absence in the possible
difficulties of children. Psychoanalytic theorists posit that young children in one-parent
families have difficulties during the phallic-narcissistic phase and subsequent problems
progressing to the oedipal stage. Difficulties progressing to or establishing oedipal
dominance can, in turn, affect superego formation. During their phallic phase, all
children wish to elicit parental appreciation that challenges their feelings of low self-
worth (Furman & F urman, 1989). In addition to this appreciation, the ego ideal model
provided by fathers can help to compensate children’s feelings of smallness and
helplessness (Kirshner, 1992). Yet, children from Single-parent households may feel an
urgency to maintain the pleasing relationship with their remaining parent, sometimes to
the detriment of their own desires. This maintenance may also interfere with children
utilizing their own resources or developing trusting, appreciative relationships with
others. These problems hinder their progression to the oedipal phase leaving children
with the more primitive personality characteristic of the phallic-narcissistic phase,
including lowered self-esteem, an avoidance of new challenges, and the tendency for
feelings to be easily hurt (Furman & Furman, 1989).

Entering latency age with the personality characteristics of the phallic phase may

create symptoms in children that include temper outbursts and unruly behavior. This type

of behavior may stem from the children’s attempt to extemalize the punishing role to
their parents in an avoidance of the severity of their own superego introj ect, which may
include the feeling they have to hurt or kill themselves (Furman & Furman, 1989).
Superego formation may also be hindered by the lack of a father’s representation of
social order and adherence to time schedules, leading to difficulty for children in
following societal rules. Inaccurate time perception is associated with impulsive
behavior and an inability to delay gratification, which has been linked with antisocial
behaviors. Additionally, without a father present to provide discipline and set
constructive limits, children may be less likely to develop internal controls and
internalize moral standards (Biller & Salter, 1989).

The father also plays an important role during the separation and individuation
process. The father can come to represent the non-mother space in comparison to the
home base of the mother. Using this representation, the child can safely explore “non-
mother space,” helping to develop a sense of self and independence (Lewis, 1991). The
triangular Configuration of two parents and a child is also important to female children’s
later development. The lack of opportunity to resolve the oedipal triangle stemming from
father absence may deny girls the interpersonal skills necessary for later heterosexual
functioning (Biller & Salter, 1989).

The absence of a parent may also create anger in young children at both the
absent and remaining parent. It is difficult for children to express this anger and the
accompanying destructive wishes toward the remaining parent, the loss of whom is a very
real possibility to the child who has already lost one parent (F urman & Furman, 1989).

Afier the loss of a parent, children may struggle between the conflicting desires to deny

their loss and confront it along with the accompanying feelings of anger and hurt
(Rafman, Canfield, Barbas, & Kaczorowski, 1997). In a study of children who had lost a
parent in war, children’s play reflected their need to reenact their loss and its
accompanying negative emotions in their play. Compared to other children who lived in
areas where deaths due to war occurred, 93% of the children who had lost a parent
recreated the loss in play whereas only 20% of the comparison children referred to death
in their play. Yet, after reenactment of the loss, the majority of the children’s behavior
reflected their anxiety and desire to deny the loss through sudden termination of the play
sessions (Rafman, et al., 1997).

Father hunger, an affective longing for the missing parent, is another possible
result of the lack of contact with and knowledge of a father that accompanies father loss
(Erickson, 1998; Lewis, 1991). In the case of father hunger, children experience their
relationship with their father as a void (Lewis, 1991). In later life, children may attempt
to fill this void with unhealthy substitutes such as food, drugs and alcohol, sexual acting
out, or violence (Erickson, 1998).

Cognitive Theory

According to Piaget, concrete thinking and egocentrism characterize the thinking
of young children (Kuhn, 1992). This egocentrism and the inability to reason abstractly
that accompanies concrete thinking may cause children to misunderstand the reasons
their fathers leave and attribute the leaving to themselves (Erickson, 1998). This line of
thinking may lead children to worry that others about whom they care will also leave
them, causing them to believe they are unlovable or unworthy of love. It may be even

more difficult for children to avoid these cognitions if the reason for the fathers’ absence

can be viewed as the fathers’ choice, which is the case with most types of separation
besides non-self-inflicted death (Erickson, 1998). Similarly, separations from parents
may elicit cognitions of helplessness and rejection, which could evoke feelings of
depression and sadness (Sandler, Reynolds, Kliewer, & Ramirez, 1992).

Essentialist and Evolutionary Theory

The essentialist framework posits that the source of many child difficulties stem
from the absence of fathers in children’s lives (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). The
essentialists claim that mothers and fathers develop fundamentally different parenting
behaviors because of their biological sex differences. They stress that men make a
singular contribution to the development of children, specifically for male children for
whom fathers provide a male role model for gender identity development.

Like the essentialist framework, the evolutionary theory of socialization posits
that the negative impact of father absence stems from biologically influenced factors
(Bereczkei & Csanaky, 1996). According to this theory, father-absent children will
mature earlier, leading to higher levels of non-compliant behavior and increased sexual
behavior. These children are also hypothesized to form less stable pair bonds than do
children from intact families. As a result of father-absent children’s lower expectations
for paternal investment for childrearing and beliefs in the instability of pair bond
relationships, they learn different ideas about the routes to reproductive success than
father-present children. Father-absent boys learn that short-term mating, not paternal
investment, leads to reproductive success. This short-term mating strategy will lead to a

higher effort in competing for mates, which, in turn, leads to a greater degree of risk-

taking and risk-prone behavior according to Darwinian theory (Bereczkei & Csanaky,
1996)

Girls without fathers learn that males cannot be expected to assist with childcare
and that paternal care is not necessary for reproduction. This belief by father-absent girls
may lead to more out-of-wedlock pregnancies. In addition, evolutionary theory posits
that the instability to which father-absent children are exposed may lead them to adopt I-
selected strategies. R-selected behavior strategies include earlier sexual activity and
younger first reproduction, producing higher numbers of offspring, and less-stable family
systems. The unstable environment leads to the adoption of such strategies because these
behaviors increase reproductive fitness under such conditions. In turn, selection rewards
reproductive fitness, leading to a survival of the species (Bereczkei & Csanaky, 1996).

Despite these evolutionary claims, some investigators argue that theories, such as
evolutionary theory and the essentialist framework, that rely heavily on the notion of
fathers as the sole socializing agents of male behavior for children overlooks the
adaptability and resiliency of the human Species (Teidje & Darling-Fisher, 1995).
Silverstein and Auerbach (1999) relate the argument that mothers’ and fathers’ treatment
of children does not vary significantly, pointing to the fact that fathers’ socializing
contributions are not all that unique. Yet, there is evidence that mothers and fathers do
behave differently with their children, providing different experiences and socializing
milieus. Evidence from US. studies has shown that fathers participate in more
stimulating and functional play, express less physical affection, and are more harsh and
less demanding than mothers (Lamb, Ketterlinus, & Fracasso, 1992; Shek, 1998). The

differential treatment by mothers and fathers may also depend upon the gender of the

child, especially during infancy and adolescence (Lamb, Ketterlinus, & Fracasso, 1992).
For example, fathers play more and a wider variety of games with their infant sons than
with their infant daughters, whereas mothers generally do not differentiate between male
and female infants. Despite this evidence for parental behavioral differences with
children, it is unclear if these findings generalize across different cultures.

Ecological Theories

In many developmental theories, psychological development was conceived as an
individual process; biological and intrapsychic systems interacted in an orderly and
sequential way to create similar developmental outcomes (Yamarnoto, Silva, Ferrari, &
Nukariya, 1997). Some argue that the intrapsychic focus of developmental theories
separate children from their environments, are products of Western-European society and
psychology, and overlook the development that may be typical of a major portion of the
world’s children (Kagitcibasi, 1985). The psychological theories (e.g. psychoanalytic,
social evolutionary) that posit that paternal absence has a universal detrimental effect on
children’s behavior regardless of their cultural environment are ones that may be guilty of
such separation. These theories posit that the circumstances of father absence, and its
inevitable intrapsychic or evolutionary repercussions, will create similar developmental
outcomes for children regardless of cultural context.

Theories such as ecological and cultural-context posit that there are many social
and ecological factors that influence and affect the developing child. The ecological
model of child development proposes that conditions of the larger social system affect
children’s development, causing them to acquire similar values, attitudes, and behaviors

that stem from the experience of those social conditions (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). These

social conditions interact with the intra-individual characteristics over a person’s lifetime
to produce the characteristics of that person (Bronfenbrenner, 1992). The cultural-
context theory (Cole, 1992) asserts that the interaction between the inner mechanisms of
a child and the social conditions of his environment must be examined through a third
lens of culture. Both the biological and environmental forces contribute to behavioral
development, but the developmental outcome of their interaction may differ depending
upon cultural context. While certain psychological disorders may stem from biological
roots that are common to all humans, the symptom expression and behavioral
manifestations of those disorders are affected by an individual’s cultural surroundings
(Yamarnoto, Silva, Ferrari, & Nukariya, 1997). According to the cultural context model,
father absence may prompt differential behavioral manifestations for children depending
upon their cultural context.
Empirical Considerations of Father Absence

Studies in the United States

US. researchers have linked father absence to such negative child and adolescent
outcomes as school dropout, delinquency, aggression, sex role difficulties, teen
pregnancy, and reduced educational and occupational attainment (e. g. Avison & Gotlib,
1993; Hilton & Devall, 1998; Levai, Ackerman, Kaplan, & Hammock, 1995; Lykken,
1998; McClanahan & Teitler, 1999; Menaghan, 1996; Stanley, Weikel, & Wilson, 1986).
Children in military families, who may regularly experience prolonged periods of father
absence, commonly experience behavior changes, such as decline in school performance

and disciplinary problems, when their fathers are away (Jensen, Grogan, Xenakis, &

Bain, 1989). Levai et a1. (1995) found that deployment of fathers and their subsequent
absence placed children at higher risk for psychiatric hospitalization.

Mott et a1. (1997) found a positive association between both externalizing and
internalizing problems, as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), and the
absence of a father in the homes of male children, even after controlling for such
background factors as maternal stressors and economic circumstances. In another study
employing the CBCL, children in separated or divorced families were twice as likely as
children in two-parent families to have internalizing and externalizing scores that surpass
clinical cutpoints (Gotlib & Avison, 1993). Following divorce or separation, both single
mothers and single fathers of school-aged children reported significantly more child
externalizing problems, like lying and cheating, bragging, and destruction of property,
than married mothers. Single mothers also reported significantly more internalizing
difficulties such as sadness, depression and fear in their children than did married parents
(Hilton & Devall, 1998).

Even after controlling for the effects of family size, place of residence, and
education and race of parents, McClanahan and Sandefur (1994) found that growing up in
a single parent household doubled children’s risk of dropping out of school. Similarly,
children raised by one biological parent had lower standardized test scores and higher
levels of absenteeism than those raised in two-parent families. In an investigation of the
effect of one-parent households on high school grades and tests scores, Mulkey, Crain,
and Harrington, (1992) found that poor parental supervision and school-related

behavioral difficulties, such as tardiness, absenteeism, and not doing homework, were the

10

most important in explaining the relationship between lower grades and living in a father-
absent household.

In a review of several large, nationally representative, longitudinal data sets,
McClanahan and Teitler (1999) found that the increase in the rate of teen childbearing
ranged from 50% to 145% for daughters from father-absent homes when compared to
those from intact families. Some researchers argue that the increase in teen pregnancy
may stem from female adolescents’ sexual acting out in response to the breakup of their
parents’ marriages or the presence of a new stepparent. This acting out may lead to an
earlier than planned initiation of sexual activity, which, in turn, increase their chances of
becoming pregnant (McClanahan & Teitler, 1999).

Other studies have also provided evidence for a relationship between status
offenSes, such as truancy, school disciplinary problems, running away, and broken homes
(Free, 1991). Several analyses report that approximately 70 percent of juveniles, who are
in jail for serious crimes, including murder, were raised in father-absent homes. This 70
percent occurrence of father absence also holds for elementary school children who had
difficulties with truancy, theft, vandalism, assault, and arson (Lykken, 1998). Lykken
(1998) calculates, using the current base rate of fatherlessness of adolescents, that
children reared without fathers have a seven-time greater risk for social pathologies than
those children raised by both parents. Male delinquents who lost their fathers before the
age of six had a significantly higher recidivism rate than those from father-present homes

(Biller & Salter, 1989).

gags-culturg studies

Some cross-cultural investigations also lend support to the father-absence-child
problem relationship. An investigation of Asian-Indian children revealed that a
prolonged separation (greater than 3 months) before the age of 5 from fathers or both
parents significantly increased children’s risk of later development of a child
psychological disorder (Srinivasan & Raman, 1987). In another investigation of Indian
children, Gulati and Singh (1987) found that father-absent children scored significantly
worse than father-present children on measures of several personality traits, including ego
strength, excitability, scholastic mental capacity, and self-control. Makikyro et al. (1998)
found that Finnish adults who resided in Single-mother households as children, as
opposed to two-parent families, displayed an elevated risk of developing a hospital-
treated personality disorder, alcoholism, or depression. In a retrospective study of
Hungarian adults, males that grew up in father absent households reported higher levels
of rule-breaking and delinquent behavior like fighting and other violent activities as
teenagers than those raised in father present homes (Bereczkei & Csanaky, 1996).

In addition to negatively affecting child behavioral outcomes, father absence has
been linked to children’s poorer social and adaptive functioning. In an investigation of
preschool children, those whose fathers were absent due to divorce or separation for eight
months or more scored significantly lower on a measure of social adjustment than
children from intact families (Stanley, et al., 1986). These results showed that the father-
absent children were less able to solve real-life interpersonal problems involving sharing
a desired toy and dealing with maternal anger. Adaptive functioning, which includes a

socialization domain involving a child’s interaction with and sensitivity to others, as well

12

as domains of daily living and communication, was also found to be affected by the
presence or absence of a father. In an investigation of African American second and
eighth graders, those children who had a father figure living in their home scored
significantly higher on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales than those children
without fathers living with them (Dunn & Tucker, 1993).

Though much of the multiple-study survey research has been consistent in linking
negative child outcomes like educational and occupational attainment with father
absence, it is still difficult to conclude a causal relationship because of the inability to
conduct experimental research in this area. It is impossible to randomly assign families
to father-absent and intact groups, and so control for possible external variables that may
accompany father-absent families and account for the negative child outcomes
(McClanahan & Teitler, 1999). Instead, it is important to continue to analyze large,
longitudinal datasets, controlling for variables associated with children’s outcomes and
adding to the body of evidence.

_F_ather Absence in the Caribbean and Jamaica

The effects of father absence in the Caribbean may differ from those found in
nations that prescribe to a Westem-European family structure (e.g. US, India, Finland).
The normative family and social structure found in these societies that have been the
focus of much of the father absence research does not always apply in the Caribbean
(Williams & Finley, 1997). Throughout Caribbean societies, there is wide variability in
household composition and family relationships, ranging from common occurrences of
nuclear families, single parent households, and extended family arrangements (Flinn,

1992). In Jamaica, three types of family structures are often found: the nuclear, patrifocal

l3

family, the matrifocal family, and the quasi-matrifocal family (Dechesnay, 1986). The
patrifocal family is similar to those described as the ideal or traditional in many Western
societies, consisting of the provider father and homemaker mother who live in a home
defined as the father’s. The matrifocal family also subscribes to certain sex-role
expectations, but the family resides in the mother’s home (or that of her mother). The
quasi-matrifocal household is one consisting of a single mother and her children living in
the mother’s or maternal grandmother’s home. In addition, the mother is ofien visited by
one or more males, usually the children’s father(s). Though these latter two structures are
termed matrifocal and the lineage of the family follows through the women, they still
hold the patriarchal ideals of sex-role expectations (Dechesnay, 1986).

This mix of matrifocal emphasis and patriarchal ideals stems from the history of
slavery in Jamaica (Dechesnay, 1986). The majority of Jamaican people are descended
from Africans enslaved by the British. The British slaveholders did not encourage
marriages among slaves; indeed marriages between slaves were illegal. Yet, female
slaves were rewarded to have children that continually increased the workforce. The
extraresidential mating system that derived from these two enforcements continues today.
Additionally, it was the master of the female Slave who was considered owner of the
children; hence, children followed the maternal lineage, creating a weakened role for the
father. Matrifocality was bolstered by the legacy of independence found among West
African women (Dechesnay, 1986); this independence is even greater among Jamaican
women (Gopaul-McNicol, 1993). During the nineteenth century after emancipation,
matrifocality was encouraged first through the labeling of those wanting to legally marry

as social climbers and, second, by the emigration of men that left a greater number of

14

women in the country. Despite the historical and cultural roots of matrifocality in
Jamaica, the cultural influence of the English colonists is also pervasive in that the
patriarchal family structure is still seen as the ideal. Still, among the lower class, the
matrifocal family is the mode and neither the churches nor the culture at large exert
pressure to conform to or reinforce patriarchal norms (Dechesnay, 1986). Women in
Jamaica are traditionally viewed as strong and independent (Gopaul-McNicol, 1993), and
hold prominence in the society as the heads of households, the links in kinship networks,
and economic providers (Sargent & Harris, 1992). There are more single mothers in
Jamaica than in any of the other West Indian Caribbean islands (Gopaul-McNicol, 1993)
and the stigma they face as single mothers is not as great as in more patriarchal societies.

Matrifocality, and the accompanying detached paternal role, that followed from
slavery still appears to influence the relationship between fathers and their children in
Jamaica and the Caribbean. It is generally held that, in Caribbean mid-level subsistence
societies, there is a low level of involvement between fathers and their children in the
children’s immediate environments (Munroe & Munroe, 1992; Williams & Finley, 1997).
Within these subsistence societies, the primary goal of a father is to ensure the physical
survival of children, providing food, clothing and shelter (Harkness & Super, 1992).
More time must be dedicated to income-generating labor, leaving little free time for
fathers to spend with their children in social or caretaking contexts.

In the matrifocal Black Carib society of Belize, in a sample of 3- to 9-year-old
children, Munroe and Munroe (1992) found that over half of the Black Carib children had
fathers who were absent from the children’s daily lives. In addition, the fathers who were

present spent relatively little time on caretaking duties of their infants (0% of time) or in

15

the social environments of their older children (7%). These levels of father absence and
caretaking are consistent with other studies of Caribbean societies (Flinn, 1992; Williams
& Finley, 1997). This level of father caretaking is far lower than generally found in
societies such as the United States. In countries such as the U.S., where the labor needed
to provide the basic requirements of food and shelter falls below that needed in
developing nations, more of a father’s time can be spent in caretaking and play activities
with his children. Harkness and Super (1992) found, in a study of Cambridge,
Massachusetts families, that fathers reported spending 24%-46% of their time at home
caretaking for or interacting with their children.

It is argued that this lack of involvement by fathers in the caretaking and social
lives of children in subsistence societies can be traced to the differing parental goals
found in different types of societies. Because the major objective of fathers is to secure
the physical survival of their children, fathers spend time focusing on economic security
for their families (Harkness & Super, 1992). Economic necessity may require fathers to
make long commutes or live outside the home during the week in order to secure
employment (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993). Therefore, relatively little of the fathers’ time is
spent concerned with the psychological or behavioral development of their children.
Though the amount of quality time US. fathers spend with their children varies
depending on family type and paternal characteristics (Cooksey & Fondell, 1996), it is
reasonable to assume that, on average, fathers from an economically secure society such
as the United States may have more time available to focus on their children’s
psychological lives than in Jamaica (Harkness & Super, 1992). In West Indian societies,

the mother, for the most part, is responsible for the emotional well being of her children

16

and is accountable for their psychological health and difficulties (Gopaul-McNichol,
1993).

The need to secure economic resources may be what causes the Jamaican father to
absent himself from the family. In Jamaican society, men are expected to support their
children financially, even when separated from the family (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993).
Just as the necessity to find adequate employment may take fathers from their homes for
long days and even entire weeks, many Jamaican men migrate from rural areas to urban
ones or to other countries in order to economically support their families. In fact, in a
study of children in Jamaica who had experienced early childhood separation, migration
of the parents to other countries was the principal reason for the separation (Wray &
McLaren, 1976). Migration has been and continues to be an important part of life in the
Caribbean since Emancipation in 1834, as people have sought opportunities to combat
and adapt to the poor socioeconomic conditions prevalent at home (F oner, 1998;
Thomas-Hope, 1998). It was one of the few roads people could follow in order to
improve their economic status and its success in doing so for many people has made
migration an institutionalized part of Jamaican life. Far from abandoning or absenting
from the family, migrants intend to return home after securing resources abroad that will
facilitate acquiring important assets such as land and a home. While migrants are abroad,
they generally maintain links with their households through regular visits, taking part in
decision-making, and sending money and goods (Thomas-Hope, 1998). Though migrant
fathers leave their families to attempt to improve the economic standing of their families

and continue to remain connected to them, some Jamaican men may abandon their

17

families out of their embarrassment over not being able to adequately provide for their
families (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993).

Studies have shown that co-residence between Caribbean fathers and their
children increases their interactions with each other (Flinn, 1992). Additionally, in an
investigation of a community in Trinidad, infants in father-absent homes received lower
levels of care from all caretakers, except grandparents, than those in father-present homes
(Flinn, 1992). Non-residential fathers’ interactions with their children may be lessened
even further by remarriage of either the fathers or their ex-wives. Fathers in Trinidad not
living with their children interacted less frequently with their children after they
remarried and interacted significantly less with their children after their ex-spouses
remarried (Flinn, 1992). Stepfathers reported that they worried about the support their
stepchildren received from their biological fathers because this indicated a possible
continuing sexual relationship between the children’s mother and the biological father.
Yet, stepfathers also do not want to spend their own social and economic resources on
stepchildren. These beliefs may leave children in stepfamily households with few
resources or forced to move to their grandparents’ homes (Flinn, 1992).

Some investigators have found that Caribbean fathers’ interactions with their
children increase when children reach adolescence and adulthood. Father-daughter
interaction peaks during the period of late adolescence, which may involve the father’s
role in “guarding” the daughter from poor mating relationships (Flinn, 1992). There is
evidence that the presence of a father in the home may shield daughters from teenage and
unwanted pregnancy. In a study comparing pregnant or once-pregnant teenage girls with

never-pregnant girls in urban Jamaica, Keddie (1992) found that only 53.5% of girls in

18

the pregnancy group had a father (or father figure) living with them compared to 75% of
the non-pregnant group. Girls without father figures were 2.7 times more likely to have
been pregnant than those living with fathers. However, there was no significant
difference on pregnancy rates between father-present and father-absent girls living in the
rural areas of Jamaica, where 68% of never-pregnant girls and 66% of pregnant or once-
pregnant girls lived with their fathers. The difference in the effect of father presence
between rural and urban residents of Jamaica may stem from the differing family
structures often found in these two regions. Rural Jamaican children are more likely to
live in close proximity to extended family members than their urban counterparts, who
may be isolated from their relatives. The presence of greater social support for rural
children may counteract the possible negative effects of father absence. Additionally,
finding a greater father-absence effect in urban areas may be linked to the fact that urban
residents in Jamaica are more influenced by Western culture (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993)
and so may conform more to the traditional Western ideal of the importance of fathers
than their rural counterparts.

In patrifocal cultures where fathers are believed to be more important than
mothers and that emphasize male superiority, the loss of a father may be a great
deprivation to children and lead to negative child outcomes (Robin & Spires, 1989).
Also, it may seem that the impact of father absence would not be as great in Caribbean
societies that are more female-centered, where women play a more culturally prominent
role, and where father-absence is normative for a variety of culturally-approved reasons

(Gopaul-McNichol, 1993; Sargent & Harris, 1992). Yet, few studies have looked at the

19

effect of father-absence on children in Jamaica and the possible effects of cultural and

normative differences.

20

CHAPTER 2

POTENTIAL FACTORS IMPACTING THE EFFECT OF FATHER ABSENCE

Despite the clinical and empirical evidence cited in the U.S.-based literature, there
is still considerable debate whether the negative child outcomes associated with father
absence are directly related to that absence or instead result from other factors or some of
the consequences of single parenthood. These factors and consequences include such
variables as economic instability, family relationships, child gender, amount of child
contact with the absent father, and reason for the fathers’ absence (Hetherington, Bridges,
& Insabella, 1998; McClanahan & Teitler, 1999).

Economic Loss

Several theorists and investigators have posited that the problems of US. father-
absent children stem from the resulting economic deprivation associated with single-
parenthood (Biller & Salter, 1989; Golombok, Tasker, & Murray, 1997; Hilton & Devall,
1998; McClanahan & Teitler, 1999; Mott, Kowaleski-Jones, & Menaghan, 1997; Robin
& Spires, 1989). The loss of income that generally follows the father’s leaving the
family may constrain female-headed families to live in poorer neighborhoods and the
children to attend poorer quality schools (McClanahan & Teitler, 1999). Fewer economic
resources and the need to secure those resources may also force female-headed families
to move residences more often. One-parent families have been found to move more
frequently than two-parent families, leading to a possible loss of community resources,
such as youth programs, facilities, and extrafamilial childcare, that may serve to protect

children from deleterious outcomes (McClanahan & Teitler, 1999).

21

In a comparison of single mothers, Single fathers, and two-parent dyads of 6-10-
year-old children, Hilton & Devall (1998) found that positive parenting, such as
comforting and spending time together, was significantly lower for single mothers
following divorce than for mothers in intact families. Single fathers actually became
more positive in their parenting. It is possible that it is more difficult for mothers to take
on the economic provider role in the family following marital dissolution than it is for
fathers to undertake the primary caretaker role in the US. Women may generally face
societal hurdles that hinder their efforts to provide economically for their families (Hilton
& Devall, 1998). In addition, in the U.S., the economic losses generally following
marital separations may create stress for single mothers, leading to a reduced capacity to
parent (McClanahan & Teitler, 1999).

Yet, many researchers have found that controlling for economic situations of
families do not completely eliminate all of the negative effects of father absence on
children (Lamb, 1999). In their analysis of the Panel of Income Dynamics (PSID) data,
McClanahan and Sandefur ( 1994) found that differences in income between one- and
two-parent families accounted for only half of the effect for high school dropout and teen
pregnancy. On measures of grades and test scores in high school, both children from
mother-absent and father-absent homes scored similarly despite the fact that mother-
absent households reported significantly higher incomes (Mulkey, et al., 1992). This
finding points to the fact that it is the parental absence, not income level, which is the
important variable in the relationship. Likewise, children in stepfamilies, whose incomes
are similar to those of biological two-parent families, do as poorly as children in single-

mother households on outcomes of educational achievement. It is possible that the initial

22

decline in income stemming from separation cannot fully be remedied by the economic
gains accompanying remarriage (McClanahan & Teitler, 1999).

The likelihood of families falling into the lower socioeconomic bracket found in
the United States may be even greater in Jamaica. Jamaica experiences problems with
overpopulation and poverty (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993). In the wake of policies
implemented by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the Jamaican
economy has deteriorated. As a result of these policies, unemployment has increased,
wages have declined, the cost of food, utilities, and transportation have risen, and social
services like education and health have been cut back (Sargent & Harris, 1992).

The employment opportunities for Jamaican women regularly consist of
nonprofessional, lower-end jobs (Dechesnay, 1986) and unemployment rates for urban
Jamaican women are still higher than those of men; in 1985, the unemployment rate
among adult women was 23.7% and 21.7% for female heads of households (Sargent &
Harris, 1992). Secondly, there tends to be a relationship between social class and family
structure in that higher-class families more commonly follow the European patriarchal
norm of two-parent families (Dechesnay, 1986; Gopaul-McNichol, 1993).

On the other hand, a father may be absent from the family because he has
migrated to find adequate employment. If he succeeded in his job quest, then the single-
mother family receiving monetary support from an absent father may be better off
financially than two-parent families where the father works locally. In this way, the
economic status of father-absent Jamaican children depends upon the reason for the
father absence. The possible economic differences between father-absent children in

Jamaica may lead to variable outcomes in their level of behavior problems. This

23

difference may not hold for US. father-absent children, who, as a group, have been
Shown to fall into a lower SES bracket than children from two-parent homes.
Family Relationships

Many factors may affect the relations between single mothers and their children.
Divorce and single parenthood may lessen parents’ ability to adequately parent (Erickson,
1998; Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998; Hilton & Devall, 1998). Zill (1996)
argues that, though economic difficulties, marital conflict, and parents’ emotional
problems explain some of the child outcomes of single-mother families, parent-child
relationships and interactions are the most important in influencing children’s outcomes.
Others agree that positive family relations are related to good child outcomes (Hilton &
Devall, 1998). Dysfunctional family relationships will intensify the consequences of
parental separation on child behavior, whereas warm and cohesive relationships between
remaining family members will aide children’s adjustment (Hetherington, Bridges, &
Insabella, 1998).

In Jamaica, it may be more important to assess family relationships rather than
only mother-child relations. The West Indian family consists of an extended family
system that includes non-related individuals as well as blood relations (Gopaul-
McNichol, 1993). Both the biologically and non-blood related members may help with
household duties and childrearing, and may play an important role in the lives of both the
mother and the child. Therefore, the relationships between all of these “family” members
may influence Jamaican child outcomes just as Zill (1996) claims mother-child relations

do in the United States.

24

The social support mothers receive may also affect their relationships with their
children. Single parents, especially those who are recently divorced or separated, may
experience social isolation from their coupled fiiends and also cannot count on respite
from childcare that may be provided by a spouse (Lamb, 1999). The lack of social
support and subsequent increase in stress that often accompanies single parenthood may
interfere with a parent’s relationship with her children and her ability to provide them
with the necessary emotional support.

The lack of social support felt by many single mothers in the United States may
not exist for the single Caribbean mother, who usually has an extended family network
available in her community. Also, the social stigma that may accompany single-
parenthood in some societies where the two-parent household is the ideal (Tiedje &
Darling-Fisher, 1996) may not be an issue in the Caribbean, where father absence and
lack of father involvement with his children is more common place and women
traditionally possess a more prominent role in society (Sargent & Harris, 1992; Williams
& Finley, 1997). Although, as in the United States, the patriarchal ideal of a two-parent
family still lingers in Jamaica, possibly creating a label and feeling of dysfunction among
some matrifocal families (Dechesnay, 1986).

It is also hypothesized that parental supervision suffers in the face of the lack of a
second adult in the home, leading to higher rates of child misbehavior (Free, 1991;
Mulkey, et al., 1992). Yet, children in stepfamilies, which would not suffer from lack of
two-parent supervision, reportedly do not fare much better than those in single-parent
homes (Erickson, 1998; Mott, et al., 1997), though the presence of a stepfather can affect

children differentially based on their gender (Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998).

25

The presence of a stepfather can lead to an accretion of difficulties for male children
while prompting the reappearance of symptoms in girls (Mott, et al., 1997). It may be
that stepparents do not supply the supervision and parental involvement that may be
implied by their presence in the home. Children may actually resent the presence of a
stepparent and, for this and other reasons, stepparents may avoid some of their
responsibilities as parents (Lamb, 1999).

The presence of a stepparent may be even more detrimental to Caribbean
children. Investigations of Caribbean communities find that males interact Significantly
more with their genetic children than with their stepchildren, even when all are located
within the same household (Flinn, 1992). In addition, the percentage of conflictual
interactions between fathers and their biological offspring is significantly lower than with
their stepchildren. Caribbean father informants claimed that the less amicable
relationships with stepchildren and greater care of blood children was “natural” in their
society (Flinn, 1992).

Qaader of the Child

There is some debate whether male or female children are more negatively
affected by father absence (Free, 1991; Mott, et al., 1997). One reason females may be
more affected is that females rely more upon their families than males and so disruption
in the family will have a greater impact on them. In addition, the loss of parental
supervision that accompanies father leaving more greatly impacts females whose
behaviors are generally more carefully supervised than those of boys (Free, 1991). This
is especially true in Caribbean societies where parents attempt to maintain control over

girls well into adolescence (Keddie, 1992; Sargent & Harris, 1992) and girls are

26

answerable to parental rules (GOpaul-McNichol, 1993). This supervision effect was
apparent in the father-daughter relationship in Trinidad where interaction between father
and daughter was highest during the daughter’s adolescence when dating behavior begins
(Flinn, 1992). Lack of supervision by the father during this period may result in
daughters entering problematic romantic relationships. Conversely, single mothers in
Jamaica were found to exert strict control over female children during adolescence that
sometimes served to socially isolate or create resentment leading to rebellion and acting
out by the daughters (Keddie, 1992).

Evidence is also available to point to more deleterious outcomes for male children
due to father absence (Free, 1991; Gulati & Singh, 1987). In his review of the literature
on parentally-separated children, Gabel (1992) concluded that boys are more vulnerable
than girls to the development of antisocial and conduct behaviors when their fathers are
absent from their lives. It is possible that boys display more manifest antisocial
behaviors in response to a father leaving because of the disruption of a stronger father-
son bond (Mott, et al., 1997). In Indian children, when prolonged separations from
fathers of three months or more occurred in children’s lives before the age of five, the
risk for development of later psychopathology was 9.1 times greater for boys than for
girls (Srinivasan & Rarnan, 1987).

In Jamaica, though overcontrol of female daughters by single mothers may
produce deleterious effects, the cultural preference for girls in Jamaica (Sargent & Harris,
1992) may lead to more problematic effects for male children in J arnaican mother-headed
homes. There is evidence that Jamaican women’s attitudes toward men tend toward

ambivalence or negativity, and that this attitude is also evident in women’s opinions of

27

male children (Sargent & Harris, 1992). Yet, it is not clear whether these attitudes
toward males affect Jamaican women’s attitudes toward their male children. Generally,
the mother-son relationship is a strong one that continues after the son is married
(Gopaul-McNichol, 1993).
Rgtaon for the Absence

Many of the investigations cited earlier either focus on father absence resulting
from a single reason such as divorce, or do not differentiate between the reasons for
father leaving. Yet, some studies have shown that there are differential effects of father
absence depending upon the reason for the absence (Biller & Salter, 1989; Robin &
Spires, 1989). In Jamaica and other West Indian societies, the reasons for parental
absence may differ from those found in the United States. Child fostering, or the transfer
of one’s biological children to friends or relatives, occurs in West Indian society and can
happen when the child is any age. If friends or relatives are not an option, children are
sometimes transferred to the state (Sargent & Harris, 1992). In addition, as mentioned
earlier, migration to urban areas or other countries for employment reasons is a primary
reason for parent-child separation in Jamaica (F oner, 1998; Shepherd, 1998; Thomas-
Hope, 1998). Generally, migrant fathers remain closely linked with their Jamaican
households, command higher status within their native communities, and increase the
economic status of their families (Thomas-Hope, 1998).
W

Many theorists and investigators posit that children’s well being is better served if
parents are reliably available, even if they do not Share a residence with the children

(Biller & Salter, 1989; Erickson, 1998). Though the cultural norm in the Caribbean calls

28

for minimal father involvement with his children, contact with their fathers may benefit
Caribbean children as much as it may children in more patrifocal societies. In a study of
father contact with their adolescents in Trinidad, Williams and Finley (1997) found that
adolescents who reported higher levels of contact with their fathers perceived their
fathers to have higher affective quality of fathering. In other words, children believed
that lower father contact led them to feel disadvantaged emotionally.

Reporter of the Child Symptoms

A final factor that may impact the relation between father absence and child
behavior problems is the person reporting the child behavior. Many of the empirical
studies presently cited make use of different types of instruments to measure child
problem behavior and utilize different reporters of such behavior. Usual reporters
employed in studies include parents, teachers, clinicians, and the children themselves via
both interview and self-report. When parents report on their children’s difficulties, the
results are mixed; some investigations find a significant relation between child behavior
and father status (e.g. Dunn & Tucker, 1993; Hilton & Duvall, 1998) while others do not
(e.g. Mott, et al., 1997). The few studies that employ teacher reports of child behavior
also do not find a significant relationship between the teachers’ reports and father status
(e.g. Golombok, et al., 1997; Jensen, et al., 1989).

Interestingly, though, all of the studies in which children reported upon their own
internal states found their reports of difficulties such as anxiety, depression, and
personality deficits to be significantly related to father absence (e.g. Gulati & Singh,
1987; Mulkey, et al., 1992). Child reports produce significant results in studies that also

utilize parent and teacher reports, even when these latter reports do not yield a significant

29

child problem-father absence relation (e.g. Golombok, et al., 1997; Jensen, et al., 1989).
These differential results associated with the type of reporter and the prevalence of
significant results associated with child reports jibe with investigations that have found
higher CBCL problem scores reported by children than their parents (Lambert,
Lyubansky, & Achenbach, 1998). It may be that children are more in tune with their
internal states than their parents or teachers; research has found that this may be

especially true for female adolescents (Sourander, Helstela, & Helenius, 1999).

30

CHAPTER 3

SUMMARY

Currently, much of the research examining the father absence-child problem
relationship has differed greatly on methodological variables and instruments, making it
difficult to compare the results (Najman et al., 1997). In addition, many studies have
utilized small convenience or clinical samples, and have not employed larger, more
representative samples. Also, in addition to focusing mainly on patriarchal societies,
investigations have generally concentrated on white, middle-class subjects within those
societies.

Despite the differences in methodology, most investigations in culturally
patriarchal societies like the US. and India have found that father absence in these
societies and samples is related to child psychological and behavioral difficulties. In
these societies, kinship ties are aligned with the father’s family and male children are
generally preferred, and receive better treatment than female children. These findings
from patrifocal societies support the psychoanalytic and essentialist theories that propose
a universal detrimental effect of father absence on children. Yet, according to ecological
and cultural-context theories (Cole, 1992), any effects of the interaction between father
absence and a child’s intrapsychic mechanisms are filtered through culture. As the
cultural-contextual framework asserts, the “two factors labeled biology and the
environment. . .do not interact directly. Rather, their interaction is mediated through a
third factor, culture” (Cole, 1992, p. 735). A behavior needs to be considered within its

cultural context or we risk misconstruing its meaning and its psychological importance.

31

The relation between father absence and child difficulties may not hold in more
matrifocally-oriented cultures; the absence of a father may not be as psychologically
important in matrifocal cultures as it is in patrifocal ones. In matrifocal societies,
women’s roles are central both as economic providers and as caretakers of the home and
children (Sargent & Harris, 1992). Kinship ties are linked by female members of the
family and, in fact, married men usually have closer bonds with their mothers than with
their wives (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993). Though there is still a social stigma applied to
single parenthood in Jamaica, the matrifocal structure may provide Single mothers with
more social and economic support from her family than that found in the US. Typically,
extended families in Jamaica and other Caribbean societies supply added security for
children and assistance in childrearing (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993).

Yet, despite the matrifocal focus of Jamaican society and the normative nature of
father absence, children may still suffer detrimental effects stemming from father-
absence. The discipline and leadership role that the father provides may be lacking in
female-headed households. Though mothers typically are the main disciplinarians,
fathers are the enforcers of rules and behavior in West Indian families (Gopaul-
McNichol, 1993). Without this influence, children may tend to “act-out” more, causing
higher reports of externalizing behaviors (e. g. hyperactivity, aggression). This higher
report may be especially true in the case of parents and teachers because Jamaican society
does not tolerate disobedience and disrespect of parental or elder authority (Gopaul-
McNichol, 1993). Additionally, research has shown that father-absent children report
Significantly higher levels of internalizing difficulties (e.g. depression, anxiety) than

father-present children. This result may be heightened in Jamaica where children

32

generally report higher levels of internalizing problems than do children in the US.
(Lambert, et al., 1998). Like with parents’ and teachers’ higher reports of externalizing
problems, Jamaican children’s greater tendency to report internalizing problems may also
stem from the societal cultural value of respect for authority.

Goals of the Present Study

The goal of the present investigation was to determine if the presence of father
figures in the home of J arnaican children leads to different levels of behavior problems
compared to children whose fathers are absent. Both parent and child reports of behavior
problems were examined for differences between three groups of children: those with a
father figure present in the home, those whose father figure was not living in the home,
and those with no father figure. The study utilized a large, representative sample of 11-
to 12-year-old children. Comparisons were also made between children depending upon
their gender. The possible effects of socioeconomic status and family relations were also
examined.

The present investigation is important because it looks at the effects of father
absence on child outcomes in a society that differs culturally from the patrifocally-based
societies generally studied. In addition, child behavior problems are measured utilizing
the reports of two different informants (parent and child). This design allows a
comparison of reporters in regards to the outcome variables, as well as possible

interactions between the type of reporter and other independent variables.

 

Research Question and Hypotheses

The primary research question of the present investigation concerns the effect of

father absence on the behavior of Jamaican children. Some psychological theories argue

33

that the negative effect of father absence is a universal process. Differences in behavioral
and emotional problems between father present and father absent children in Jamaica
would provide added support for this argument. Conversely, no differences between the
groups points to a possible effect of Jamaican cultural and societal norms that contrast
with societies that are traditionally studied. This latter finding would furnish support for
ecological theories that contend that the context in which a child is embedded influences
that child’s behavioral and emotional development.

A secondary question of the study concerned only the father-absent children. It
was hypothesized that problem behavior would differ among the father-absent children
depending upon the reason for their fathers’ absence. Children who had been abandoned
by their fathers would exhibit the highest level of behavior problems, those children
whose father had died or whose parents had divorced would display fewer difficulties,
and children whose fathers had migrated would present with the least amount of behavior
problems. Additionally, it was hypothesized that the amount of contact a child has with
his/her father and the length of the separation from the father figure would affect the level
of behavior problems. Specifically, it was supposed that those kids with less contact and

longer separation from their fathers would exhibit more behavior problems.

34

CHAPTER 4

METHOD

Sample

The sample of the present study consisted of a cohort of 1,152 children and one of
their parents/guardians who participated in a larger epidemiological study investigating
the effects of prenatal, neonatal, and early childhood factors on children’s later cognitive
and behavioral outcomes. All of the children were born between September 1 and
October 31, 1986, giving them a mean age of 11.36 (SD=2.75) years at the time the data
in the current study were collected. At the time of their birth, the children and their
families were residents of Kingston or St. Andrew parishes (i.e. Southwestern Jamaica).
The sample includes 113 children who were very low birthweight1 (i.e. less than 1,500
grams at birth) and who reside throughout the nation of Jamaica.

1,009 children in the study had information available regarding the living status of
their father figures, and both parent and youth reports of internalizing, externalizing and
total problem scores. Father figures lived with their children in 522 cases and served a
father role, but were absent from the home for 361 of the children. 126 of the children
had no father figure. Of the children, 481 were male and 528 were female. All of the
children were of African descent. Significant sample characteristics for variables of

interest are listed in Table l.

 

’ The VLB children had a higher percentage of their fathers living at home (64.2%)
compared to the non-VBL children (50.9%). The VBL children also had a lower
percentage of fathers absent from the home (27.5%) and absence of father figure (8.3%)
when compared to the non-VBL subjects (36.8% and 12.3%, respectively).

35

Measures

The Socioeconomic (SES) Questionnair_e

The SES Questionnaire was designed for use in the epidemiological study. It
contains questions assessing sociodemographic information, the child’s social
environment, the child’s physical environment, and the child’s home environment. The
demographic section queries respondents about such information as name changes of the
child and mother, child’s place of birth, and age and sex of the child. The social
environment section includes questions focusing on the relationship between the child’s
current parent figures, the age, occupation, and education of parents, the child’s siblings,
as well as questions describing possible parental separations. Information about the
child’s community, home facilities and environment, school environment, and religious
attendance is assessed in the physical environment section.

Socioeconomic Status (SES)

The socioeconomic status of each child’s family was measured by a Jamaican
scale designed by Smith (1984). This survey uses five levels of parental/guardian
occupation to measure SES, including top managerial and professional (5), supervisory
and highly-skilled (4), semi-skilled and clerical (3), unskilled manual and service (2), and
casual worker and unemployed (1). Most of the present sample fell into the unskilled and
semi-skilled trade categories (see Table 2). The mean SES in the current sample was
2.55 (SD = .78), falling below the midpoint of the scale. This mean is similar to those
found in previous Jamaican samples employing the Smith scale. Examining a combined

urban and rural sample, Lambert, Lyubansky, & Achenbach (1998), cited a mean of 2.9

36

(SD = .9). Lambert, Knight, Taylor, & Newell (1993) found the mean of their sample to
be 2.8 (SD = .9).

Family Adaptabilitv and Cohesion Scale-II (F ACES-II)

The FACES-II (Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982) was designed to measure the level
of family functioning. With US. samples, the 30-item measure consists of two
constructs, cohesion and adaptability. With US. samples, the alpha reliability of the
FACES-II has been shown to be .87 for cohesion, .78 for adaptability, and .90 for the
total scale. The test-retest reliability (4-5 weeks) for the cohesion scale is .83 and .80 for
the adaptability scale (Olson, et al., 1982). For the present study, some questions on the
FACES-II were modified to more accurately reflect Jamaican idiomatic expression (I-Iohn
& Krichmar, 1995). For example, the item “Family members are supportive of each
other during difficult times” from the original F ACES-II was changed to “Family
members help each other emotionally and in other ways during difficult times” in the
revised Jamaican version. The Jamaican version of the Faces-II measures items on a 3-
point response scale (0-2).

Jamaican Youth Checklist, Jamaican Youth Self Report

Child psychopathology was assessed by the Jamaican Youth Checklist (J YC) and
the Jamaican Youth Self Report (JYSR), which were administered to parents and
children, respectively. These two measures were modeled after the Child Behavior
Checklist and Youth Self Report (Achenbach, 1991a-c), but have been modified to more
accurately reflect idiomatic expression and child problems encountered in Jamaica. The
JY C includes the same competence and problem items of the CBCL except that the

question about the child attending a special class was omitted because few Jamaican

37

schools have such classes. In addition, 35 items were added to the JYC that are believed
to be clinically relevant for Jamaican children. The JYSR and the YSR are similar,
though 29 items deemed clinically relevant for Jamaican children were added to the
JYSR (Lambert, et al., 1998). The additional items on the two Jamaican measures
include such questions as “Throws stones at objects,” “Talks foolishness or nonsense,”
and “Begs at home or on the street.” Previous analyses have shown similar reliability and
validity between the J YC and CBCL (Lambert, Knight, Taylor, & Achenbach, 1994).
Test-retest reliability of the J YSR for a sample of Jamaican adolescents was found to be
_r=.91, p<.01 (Lambert, et al., 1998). In the current sample, coefficient alphas were
a=.917 for the JYC total problem scale, 0t=.816 for the JYC internalizing problem scale,
and a=.842 for the JY C externalizing scale. For the youth reports, alphas were or=.913
for the total problem scale, a=.825 for the internalizing scale, and a=.820 for the
externalizing problem scale.
Procedures

Children, whose mothers participated in the original data collection at the time of
their pregnancy, were identified through school records, health records, and government
records (e.g. registration of births) to determine their eligibility for participation in the
present data collection. Following identification, children’s parent(s)/guardian(s) were
sent information letters and consent forms via their children’s schools and invited to
participate. Interviewers administered measures to parents and children separately.
Interviews generally took place at the child’s school from Fall, 1997 until Spring, 1999.
For the most part, parents completed their interview early in the day while children

completed their assessment throughout the school day. All the interviewers were

38

qualified registered nurses who completed a three-week training session before the
commencement of interviews.

According to Cohen’s (1977) guidelines to ensure power, the present sample size
provided adequate power given the proposed repeated measures analyses. For a small
effect size (f=.10, n2 =.01) at alpha level of .01 and an independent variable with three
groups (e.g. father status, reason for father absence), a sample size of N=l ,000 ensures
power of .99 for a main effect, for a 2-way interaction for a 2 x 3 factorial design (e.g.
reporter and father status), or for a 3-way interaction for a 2 x 2 x 3 design (e. g. gender,
reporter, and father status). For a 2-level independent variable main effect, the power
level guaranteed by a N=1,000 sample size, an alpha level of .01, and a small effect size
is .97. The size of the sample considered presently for the primary analysis (N=l ,009)
exceeded the sample Size benchmark. For the secondary analysis involving only the
father-absent subjects, the sample size of N=526 ensures a power level of .84 for a main
effect for a factor with three levels (e. g. reason for father absence) at the same alpha and
effect size levels cited above. A similar power level would hold for a 2-way 2 x 2
interaction. Cohen’s (1977) criteria was used to judge effects sizes with effects
accounting for 1% to 5.9% of the variance equaling small effects, those accounting for

5.9% to 13.8% are medium effects, and 13.8% and greater equal large effects.

39

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

Prelimingy Analyses

Confirmatorv Morapgysis of the FACES-II measure.

Though the language of the FACES-II was changed to better reflect the idiomatic
expression of Jamaica, the FACES-II measure has yet to be normed in the Caribbean. To
test whether the factor structure developed employing U.S. samples were mathematically
equivalent for the Jamaican sample, a confirmatory factor analysis (CF A) was performed.
There are several different fit indices that are recommended to test the fit of the data to
the model. Absolute fit indices, such as the chi-square test, provide information about
how closely the model fit comes to perfect (Maryuma, 1998). In the present case, the
chi-square test did not indicate a good fitting model, X2 = 2216.339 (404), p = .000.
However, absolute and Type I indices are not as consistent across sample size as Type II
fit indices, and chi-square especially, are sensitive to sample size (Maryuma, 1998). Two
recommended Type II indices are the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and the incremental fit
index (IFI). Presently, both of these indices indicate an appropriate model fit (TLI=.962;
IF I=.967). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) also suggests a good
fit of the model, RMSEA=.043); a value of less than .05 is recommended as one
indicating a good fitting model (Marayuma, 1998).

Exploratog principal commnent analysis of the FACES-II measure.

Because of the discrepancy between the chi-square tests and some of the other fit

indices, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was executed to determine a FACES-II

40

factor structure that best fits the Jamaican data. A preliminary non-rotated principal
component analysis was performed to determine the number of components to retain.
According to the Scree plot and Kaiser’s criteria to retain components with eigenvalues
greater than 1, two components were retained for rotation. A principal component
analysis was then executed with Promax rotation and the solution converged in three
iterations. Twenty-one items loaded on the first factor while nine items loaded on the
second factor (see Table 3). The first of the new components had an a=.814 and can be
described as positive family relations, characterized by spending free time with family
members, Sharing interests and chores, and helping family members emotionally. The
second component had an a=.733 and appears to represents negative family relations,
characterized by avoiding family members, being closer to people outside the family, and
being afraid to say what’s on one’s mind with other family members. The two
components accounted for 26.374% of the total variance and correlated r = -.353. These
two components were employed in all the analyses.

Examination of ANCOVA assumptions.

Repeated measures ANCOVAS, employing reporter of behavior as the repeated
measure factor, were conducted to test for mean differences in child’s behavior problems
between the different father status groups and gender of the child. The father status
levels included father figure living with the child, father figure not living with the child,
or no father figure. Behavior measures consisted of total problem scores, internalizing
problem scores, and externalizing problem scores. Preliminary analyses were conducted
to ensure that the data upheld the assumptions for a repeated measures AN COVA model.

Assumptions for AN COVA include the homogeneity of variance of the dependent

41

variables across all factor levels. This assumption is especially important when there are
unequal sample sizes across groups, which is the case in the present analyses. For the
total problem scores, the variance matrices for the dependent variables were not
equivalent across groups according to Box’s M test, E(15, 5720516) = 1.799, p = .029.
This assumption was also violated when considering externalizing problem scores, E(15,
572051.6)=2.633, p=.001. The assumption of the equality of variance matrices was
upheld when internalizing problems were examined, E(15, 572051 .6)=1 .661, p=.062. An
examination of the variances of each dependent variable within the father status groups of
each gender revealed that the smallest sample (no father figure) was paired with the
smallest variance, which would lead to the F -tests to be biased downward. Therefore,
any significant results for the total and externalizing problem scores can be considered
valid and are discussed in the following sections.

Eraappipation of proposed covariw

One-way Analyses of Variance (AN OVAs) were performed to test whether the
factor levels differed significantly on the covariates of interest, SES and the two F ACES-
II scales. There was a significant difference between the father status groups on the
negative family relations scale of FACES-II, £(2, 1103)=6.119, p=.002. This scale was
included in the AN OVA model as a covariate. There were no significant differences
between any factor levels of father status or gender for either SES or the positive family
relations scale of the F ACES-II, indicating that it is not necessary to control for the effect
of these variables and include them in the model. The F ACES-II negative relations scale
did not significantly differ for the child gender groups. For all analyses, significance

levels were set at alpha=.05.

42

binary Analyses of Ether Stapus Groups

To address the study’s main question of possible differences between father status
groups, three separate 2 (gender) x 2 (reporter) x 3 (father status) repeated measures
ANCOVAS were performed with reporter as the within-subj ects factor and responses to
the total problem, externalizing problem, and internalizing problem scales on the J YC
and J YSR as dependent variables. Cell sizes range from n=59 for females with no father
figure to n=264 for males with a father figure present in the homez.

Raptzued mea_sures ANCOVA for totfi problem score_s_,

First, considering total problem scores, the 2 (gender) x 2 (reporter) x 3 (father
status) AN COVA revealed there was no significant between-subjects effect for father
status. Overall, father-present children had lower total problem scores than father-absent

youth, but the differences are not significant, E(2, 1,002)=.178, p=.837, n2 =.000. There
was a significant within-subject two-way interaction between reporter and child gender,
E(1, 1002)=4.736, p=.03, n2 =.005, as well as a significant two-way interaction between
reporter and the negative family relations scale of the FACES-II, E(1 , 1,002)=5.786,
p=.016, n2 =.006. In addition, there was a significant three-way interaction between
reporter, child gender, and father status, 13(2, 1,002)=3.298, p=.038, n2 =.007 (see Figure
1). This latter result indicated that the reported gender differences in behavioral problems

related to father status vary according to the reporter, either parent or youth. According

 

2 Primary analyses were also conducted with a sample that excluded the 113 very low
birthweight children. Results for total and internalizing problem scores do not change.
For the externalizing problems, the three-way interaction between reporter, child gender,
and father status becomes non-significant when the VBL children are removed. Because
of the possible downward bias of the F-value due to heterogeneity of variance, it is
difficult to say if this difference is valid (F-value decreased to 2.575 from 3.287).

43

to parents’ reports, the total problem scores were lower for father-absent and no father-
figure males then they are for father present males. According to parents, female father-
absent children had higher problem scores than either father-present or no father figure
girls. Youth, on the other hand, reported that male children who do not have a father
living in the home experience more total problems than father-present males while father-
present females exhibited only slightly higher total problem scores than father-absent or
no father figure girls.

There was a significant within-subjects main effect for reporter, 13(1 , 1,002) =
236.672, p = .000, n2 = .191 , indicating that parents and their children differ in their
assessment of the children’s total behavioral problems. Children reported higher levels
of behavior problems than their parents did. See Table 4 for a list of the mean total
problem scores for each father status group by gender.

Rep_eated measures ANCOVA for internalizing problem scores.

The 2 (gender) x 2 (reporter) x 3 (father status) ANCOVA for the internalizing
problem scores also revealed no differences between the father status groups. Again,
though father-present children exhibited fewer internalizing problems than either father-
absent or no father figure children, the differences were not significant, E(2, 1002):.671,
p=.51 1, 112 =.001. There was a significant within-subject effect for reporter, £(1,
1002)=315.319, p=.000, n2 =.239. Again, youth reported significantly higher levels of
internalizing problem behavior than their parents did (see Table 5).

Remated measures ANCOVA for externalizing problem scores.

Similar to the other two problem scores, the 2 (gender) x 2 (reporter) x 3 (father

status) AN COVA for externalizing problem scores demonstrated no between-subj ect

44

effect for father status, E(2, 1002):.259, p=.772, n2 =.001. There were several significant
within-subject effects. As with the total problem scores, there was a significant three-
way interaction between reporter, child gender, and father status, E(2, 1002)=3.287,
p=.03 8, n2 =.007 (see Figure 2). In addition, there were two Significant two-way

interactions, the first between reporter and child gender, E(1, 1002)=5.798, p=.016, n2
=.006, and the second between reporter and the negative FACES-II scale, _F_(1,
1002)=8.191, p=.004, 112 =.008. As with the other problem types, youth reported higher
levels of externalizing problems than parents, reflected in a significant difference for
reporter, E(1, 1002)=22.715, p=.000, n2 =.022 (see Table 6).

Repgated measures ANCOVAS for the syndrome scores.

Analyses of the total, internalizing, and externalizing scores were followed up by
2 (gender) x 2 (reporter) x 3 (father status) ANCOVAS for each of the eight syndrome
scores. The total problem score is made up of eight syndrome scores: withdrawn,
somatic complaints, anxious/depressed, social problems, thought problems, attention
problems, delinquent behavior, and aggressive behavior. The withdrawn, somatic
complaints, and anxious/depressed syndrome scores comprise the internalizing problem
score. The externalizing problem score includes the delinquent behavior and aggressive
behavior syndromes.

In general, results for the individual syndrome scores closely reflected the
findings for the three larger problem scores. As with the three major problem types, there
was no significant between-subjects effect for father status for any of the individual
syndrome scores. Like the total problem scores, the ANCOVAS for the social problems

and attention problems syndrome scores revealed a significant three-way interaction

45

between reporter, child gender and father status, E (2, 1002)=3.920, p=.020, n2 =.008 and

£(2, 1002)=3.749, p=.024, n2 =.007, respectively. For both the social problems and
attention problems syndromes, the gender differences in behavioral problems related to
father status varied according to the reporter in the same way as it did for the total
problem scores, as depicted in Figure 1. In addition, there was a significant two-way
interaction between reporter and child gender for the social problems syndrome score,
£(1, 1002)=4.033, p=.045, n2 =.004, as well as a significant two-way interaction between
reporter and the negative family relations scale of the FACES-II, £(1, 1002)=5.162,
p=.023, n2 =.005, for the attention problem syndrome scores.

Similar to the results for externalizing problem scores, the ANCOVA for the
aggressive behavior syndrome scores revealed a significant three-way interaction
between reporter, child gender, and father status, E(2, 1002)=3.617, p=.027, r12 =.007, a
significant two-way interaction between reporter and child gender, E(1, 1002)=7. 107,
p=.008, 112 =.007, and a significant two-way interaction between reporter and the negative
FACES-II scale, E0. 1002)=6.154, p=.013, n2 =.006. The pattern of findings for the
aggressive behavior syndrome three-way interaction mirrored that found for the
externalizing problem scores (see Figure 2). Analogous to the three larger problem types,
there were significant within-subjects main effects for reporter for all individual
syndrome scores except for aggressive behavior. Youth reported higher level of
problems than parents for every syndrome.

Correlations between parent and youth reports.

The significant difference found between reporters in the three AN COVAS was

followed up with Pearson correlations between parent and youth reports for total problem

46

scores, externalizing problems, and internalizing problems (see Table 7). Correlations
were extremely low for all reporter pairs across all problem types ranging from §=-.041 to
1:000. None of the correlations were significant at the alpha=.05 level. Further analysis
of the correlations by child gender revealed little difference in the correlations compared
to those found for the total sample. Mean differences between reporter pairs for each of
the problem scores were also calculated. The differences ranged from 1.21 for reports of
externalizing problems, and 13.39 for total problems (see Table 8).
Seconplag Analyses for Reason for Father Abaence Grgpa

Though no differences in behavior problems were found between the father-
absent and father-present groups, further analyses were conducted to investigate possible
differences and moderators within the father-absent sample. For this follow-up analysis,
the father-absent group included both the father figure absent from the home and no
father figure groups considered in the earlier analyses. Repeated measures AN COVAS
were performed employing only the father-absent subjects with reason for father absence
serving as the between-subjects factor and the amount of contact with birth father and
length of separation from father serving as continuous variables of interest. ANCOVAS
were conducted for each of the three problem types. Reasons for father absence included
migration (n=141), divorce/death/separation (n=263), and abandonment/never lived with
the child (n=122).

Examination of AN COVA assumptions and covariates.

Preliminary univariate analyses Showed that there are no problems with normality
within any of the reason for absence groups and there appear to be no extreme outliers.

Cell sizes ranged from n = 112 for the abandonment group to n = 233 for the

47

divorce/death group. Covariance matrices were equal across groups for all three problem
types according to Box’s M test (for total problems: E(6, 712369.4)=.328, p=.923; for
internalizing problems, If (6, 712369.4)=.689, p = .658; for externalizing problems, E(6,
712369.4)=.419, p = .867). One-way AN OVAs were performed to test whether the
reason for absence levels differed significantly on the covariates of interest, SES and the
two FACES-II scales. For both SES and the negative family relations scale of the
FACES-II, the difference between reason for absence groups approached significance.
For SES, E(2,420)=2.866, p=.058 and for the FACES-II scale, E(2, 507)=2.963, p=.053.
Further, post hoc tests revealed that the migration group was significantly lower than the
divorce/death group on SES (Tukey’s HSD, p=.044). These tests also revealed that the
abandonment group reported significantly higher levels of negative family relations than
the divorce/death group (Tukey’s HSD, p=.04). Because of these differences, both of

these covariates were controlled for in subsequent analyses’.

ANCOVAS for all three problem gpes.

The three 3 (reason for father absence) x 2 (reporter) repeated measures
ANCOVAS were performed with amount of contact with father, length of separation,
SES, and the negative family relations scale of the FACES-II included as continuous

variables. There was no significant between-subject effect for reason for absence for any

 

3 Because the overall ANOVAs for the covariates were not significant at alpha=.05, the
analyses involving the father-absent subjects were also run without the covariates in the
model. The results of these repeated measures AN OVA models revealed only one
difference from the ANCOVA models described in the text. When covariates were
removed, the reporter x reason interaction became significant for internalizing problem
scores, F (2, 352) = 3.248, p=.040, n2 =.018. Youth report the lowest amount of
problems for the divorce group with little difference between the migration and
abandonment group on the level of problems. Parents report the divorce group as
displaying the greatest number of problems with the migration group exhibiting the next
highest level of problems followed by the abandonment group.

48

of the three problem types (total problems: _E(2, 279)=.268, p=.765, n2 =.002,
internalizing problems: E(2, 279)=.079, p=.924, n2 =.001, externalizing problems: £(2,
279)=.809, p=.446, n2 =.006). This finding indicated that the reason fathers leave the
family did not lead to differences in the level of behavior problems exhibited by the
father-absent children. In addition, neither contact with father or length of separation
from father appeared to impact the level of children’s behavior problems.

For all three problem types, there was a significant within-subject interaction
between reporter and the Faces-II negative family relations scale (for total problems: £(1,
279)= 5.559, p=.019, n2 =.02; for internalizing problems: EU. 279)= 6.645, p=.Ol, n2
=.023; externalizing problems: E(l, 279)= 5.103, p=.025, 112 =.018). This result
suggested that parent and youth reports of problems differed depending on the level of
the negative family relations they reported. It appeared that when the level of negative
family relations is low, youth reported more problems than their parents, but as negative
relations increase youth reported the same level of problems as parents did. There was a
significant within-subj ects effect for reporter for both total problem and internalizing
problem scores, EU. 279)=8.630, p=.004, n2 =.03 and £0. 279)=14.945, p=.000, n2 =
.051, respectively. Youth reports exceeded parent reports across all reason groups. In
addition, there were significant between-subject effects for the negative family relations
scale for total and externalizing problems (for total problems: E(1, 279)= 6.414, p=.012,
n2 =.022; for externalizing problems: E(1, 279)= 7.265, p=.007 , n2 =.025). It appeared

that as negative family relations increase so did total and externalizing problems.

49

Smart! of Results

In summary, there were no differences in any problem scores found between the
father status groups nor was any difference found between the reason for father absent
groups when considering only father-absent subjects. For father-absent subjects, length
of separation from father and amount of contact with the absent father had no impact on
level of behavioral problems reported.

When comparing the father status groups, there was a significant interaction
between reporter, child gender, and father status when considering total problem and
externalizing scores. For total problems, youth reported that no father figure and father-
absent males experience more problems than father-present males, but indicated little
difference between the female father status groups. Mothers reported lower total problem
scores for father-absent males than for either father-present or no father figure boys.
Conversely, mothers indicated higher problem scores for father-absent females than
either of the other two female father Status groups. For externalizing problems, youth
reports displayed a similar pattern to that found with the total problems. Parents
indicated that the externalizing problems of boys decrease slightly when the father is
absent or there is no father figure. For females, parents reported the opposite with
regards to externalizing problems: girls with no father figure displayed the greatest
number of problems followed by father-absent girls and father-present girls.

When individual syndrome scores were considered, significant three-way
interactions between reporter, child gender, and father status were found for the social
problems syndrome and the attention problems syndrome scores, which mirrored that

found for the total problem scores. A significant three-way interaction between reporter,

50

child gender, and father status was also found for the aggressive behavior syndrome
scores. The pattern of this interaction was the same as that found for the externalizing
problem scores. As with the three major problem types, all of the syndrome scores,
except aggressive behavior, revealed a significant within-subject effect for reporter. In
all cases, youth reported higher levels of problems than mothers did.

In addition, when considering total problem and externalizing problem scores,
there was a significant interaction between reporter and the negative family relations
reported both when comparing father status groups and when only considering father-
absent subjects. This interaction was also significant for internalizing problems when
examining only the father-absent subjects. When negative family relations are low, youth
appeared to report higher levels of problems than parents did, yet, as negative family
relation scores increase, the difference in the amount of problems described by each
reporter disappeared.

When comparing father status groups and when only considering father-absent
subjects there were significant differences between the amount of all problem types
reported by youth and their parents. Youth reported more problems in every case.
Correlations between parent and youth reports for all problem types were extremely small
and non-significant. See Tables 9, 10, and 11 for a list of nonsignificant results of interest
and significant results of interest for the total sample and father-absent subjects,

respectively.

5|

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION

The goal of the present study was to determine if there were any differences in
levels of behavioral and emotional problems between father-absent and father-present
children in Jamaica. No such differences were found across all problem types and
syndromes, and both parent and youth reports when comparing children who reside with
their father figure, children who have absent father figures, and children with no father
figures. This result differed from those of many of the empirical studies employing
samples from the US. and other patrifocal societies, and suggests that differences
between Jamaican and other Western societies may influence the impact that father
absence has on children’s development and behavior.

The lack of differences between the father status groups in the Jamaican sample
may stem from a number of features of the Jamaican society and culture. As members of
a West Indian society, Jamaicans hold the concepts of obligation and reciprocity among
family members in high regard. Such concepts pervade the society as a type of unwritten
rule (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993). In following this rule, extended family members, friends,
and neighbors may feel an obligation to assist in the caretaking of others’ children and
may provide a substitute father figure for father-absent children. In addition, it is not an
uncommon occurrence in Jamaica for the family to include not only the nuclear family,
but grandparents, aunts and uncles, or even friends. Each of these people normally has a

role in the caring and rearing of the family’s children (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993). If

52

children are separated from or lack a father figure, there may be numerous people to
whom the child can turn to for guidance.

Past research has shown that the presence of a substitute caregiver is a factor that
differentiates resilient from non-resilient children. In a longitudinal study of children
living on the island of Kauai, many of who had experienced the loss of a parental
caregiver, the establishment of a close bond with at least one person served as a
protective factor for the child. This person was usually a member of the child’s extended
family (Werner, 1995). That a substitute serves as a protective factor for children mirrors
a finding in the organizational literature. This latter research points to the importance of
the presence of leadership substitutes in organizations where directive leadership is
lacking (Howell, Bowman, Dorfrnan, Kerr, & Podsakoff, 1990).

Just as the presence and obligation of extended family and friends may lead to
father substitutes for children in Jamaica, it is also normative in the Jamaican society for
fathers to be absent. In the representative sample of the present study, nearly half of the
children had either no father figure or a father figure that was absent from the home. The
normative nature of father absence in Jamaica may lessen its potential impact on
children’s behavior. This lack of impact would be hypothesized by the problem
suppression-facilitation model (Weisz, Suwanlert, Chaiyasit, & Walter, 1987). This
model asserts that features of a culture such as values and role expectations are related to
the suppression of certain child behaviors and the facilitation of others. Though the
biological development of Jamaican children is similar to those elsewhere, the values and
attitudes of Jamaican families differ from those of families from other societies, leading

to possible differences in the developmental outcomes and behavior of Jamaican children.

53

The prevalence of father absence and the promotion of father substitution by other family
members may be values that facilitate a positive behavioral response of children in the
face of father absence. In addition, the matrifocal nature of the Jamaican culture, which
emphasizes the centrality of mothers and the superficiality of fathers in the lives of
children, may serve to foster attitudes that reinforce normative behavioral outcomes when
fathers are absent.

For instance, there are variations in parental support networks implied by the
cultural differences, namely that there is more support for the single mother from family
members, community members, and society at large in a matrifocal society. In Jamaica,
there are fewer stigmas involved with being a single or unmarried mother than in most
patrifocal societies. Previous research has demonstrated that the greater the amount of
family support for mothers the fewer behavior problems exhibited by their children
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986). In addition, an earlier study found that social support was more
potent in single-parent families than in two—parent families (Weinraub & Wolf, 1983),
suggesting that Jamaican children of single mothers may benefit more from the greater
support their mothers receive.

Past studies of Jamaican children have also described behavioral and emotional
differences that may stem from cultural differences. Lambert, Weisz, and Knight (1989)
found that Jamaican children were referred to clinics for higher levels of overcontrolled
problems while the referrals of American children stemmed more from undercontrolled
difficulties. The authors cited cultural rule and childrearing differences between the two
societies as possible explanations for the different referral reasons. Just as the culture of

a child may affect this manifestation of his/her emotional and behavioral difficulties

54

through a variety of mechanisms, it may also influence how family structure acts upon
children’s behavior.

Another finding of the present study was the difference among cross-informants
in their reports of the behavioral problems. Youth reported significantly higher levels of
behavioral difflculties than mothers did for all three problem types - total, internalizing,
and externalizing - and for all syndrome scores except aggressive behavior. In addition,
for some problems, differences in parent and youth reports, respectively, were found to
depend upon the gender and father status of the child. Specifically, for total problems,
the social problems syndrome, and the attention problems syndrome, mothers reported
more problems for father-present males than for either father-absent or no father figure
boys. For girls, mothers indicated that the father-absent group displayed more total
problems than the no father figure and father-present groups. Concerning externalizing
problems and the aggressive behavior syndrome, parents again reported that father-
present boys exhibited more problem behavior than either father-absent or no father
figure male children. For female children, mothers’ responses again indicated that the
father-present girls displayed fewer problems than the father-absent and no father figure
groups.

It is possible that mothers of father-absent boys have a higher tolerance for their
behavior than do those mothers with a father figure present in the home. In general, the
Jamaican culture expects a certain level of obedience and respect for authority from all
children (Gopaul-McNichol, 1993). Yet, more defiant and aggressive behavior, and a
certain degree of directness and confrontation, is tolerated in boys when compared to

girls (Brice-Baker, 1996; Gopaul-McNicol, 1993). In fact, some level of this type of

55

behavior may even be encouraged in Jamaican sons (Lambert, Knight, Taylor, & Newell,
1993). Yet, it is conceivable that fathers may not be as tolerant of such defiance and
confrontational attitudes in their male children as are their mothers, leading to greater
awareness and disapproval of these behaviors in two-parent families. A single mother’s
expectations about appropriate male child behavior may be more in keeping with
Jamaican cultural beliefs when possible father-son confrontations are not a part of her
daily life.

J arnaican mothers have higher expectations for the behavior of their daughters
than they do for their sons. Daughters are expected to remain close to home and are
generally more closely supervised than boys to ensure female children stay out of trouble,
especially as they enter childbearing age (Sargent and Harris, 1993). When fathers are
absent from the home, mothers may be more concerned about their daughters behavior
and the possible lack of supervision stemming from father absence, leading to higher
reports of problem behavior for girls, especially acting out behavior, by single mothers.

Youth exhibited similar patterns of responses for both total and externalizing
problems. In particular, youth reported that boys’ problems are highest for the no father
figure group and lowest for the father-present group. Youth reported the opposite for
girls. F ather-present girls had the largest number of problems followed by the father-
absent and no father figure groups. Boys reports may reflect a belief by male children
that they are at a disadvantage when they lack a father figure or their father is absent from
the home. Though male children in Jamaica are allowed express greater independence
than girls, father-absent boys may have greater opportunity to roam from home and

become involved in more problem behavior of which their mothers are not aware.

56

Unlike boys, as girls enter adolescence and their childbearing years, fathers in
Jamaican families sometimes increase their supervision of and involvement in the lives of
their female children. This behavior by fathers stems from an attempt to discourage male
suitors and possible sexual activity. This increased supervisory behavior by fathers may
be interpreted as overbearing by girls, leading to an increase in emotional difficulties and
acting out behavior by these girls that may be hidden from their mothers. The higher
reports of problems by father-present female children may reflect their admittance of this
covert problem behavior.

Correlations between parent and youth reports for all problem types were far
lower than those reported previously in countries such as the U.S., Finland, and Taiwan
(see Briggs-Gowan, Carter, & Schwab-Stone, 1996; Sourander, Helstela, & Helenius,
1999, Yang, Soong, Chiang, & Chen, 2000). In fact, correlations in the present study
indicated almost no agreement between the two reporters on any of the three problem
scores. Also inconsistent with previous investigations is that the present findings
indicated no difference in the agreement level for internalizing and externalizing
problems. Past investigations have shown that the correlations for externalizing problems
are more than twice as large as those for internalizing difficulties for both clinic-referred
and non-referred Jamaican children (Lambert, Knight, Taylor, & Newell, 1993; Lambert,
Thesiger, Overly, & Knight, 1990).

As with past research in other parts of the world (e.g. Sourander, Helstela, &
Helenius, 1999, Yang, Soong, Chiang, & Chen, 2000) and in Jamaica and the Caribbean
island of Puerto Rico (Achenbach, Bird, Canino, Phares, & Gould, 1990; Lambert,

Lyubansky, & Achenbach, 1998), the adolescents rated themselves as having more

57

problems than did their parents. This was true especially for total problems and
internalizing problems. This finding and the low correlations between parents and youth
indicated that in this Jamaican sample, as has been shown in previous studies, adolescents
may suffer from higher levels of distress than their parents are aware. As children
approach adolescence, they may be less inclined to reveal their personal difficulties to
their parents. Adolescents may also spend increasingly less time in the physical presence
of their parents as they gain independence, and add activities and friends of their own to
their lives. Less time spent between parents and children allows parents less opportunity
to witness their children’s behavior. The data collection in the present study occurred as
the children were entering adolescence and their high school years. In Jamaica, this is the
time of life when parents begin to allow their children a measure of independence and
children begin to spend less time at home. In addition, the reports of the Jamaican
mothers may not accurately reflect the behavior of their children. In West Indian
families, the psychological lives of children is viewed as the responsibility of mothers
(Gopaul-McNichol, 1993). If their children were having emotional or behavioral
difficulties, mothers may underreport such difficulties because they do not want to feel
accountable for their children’s problems.

An additional finding of the present study was that differences in behavior
problems among father-absent children were unrelated to the reason for the father’s
absence. This finding is unexpected because, unlike when divorce and abandonment may
be the reason for the absence, migration is seen as a positive reason for father absence.
Migration of Jamaicans to nations such as England and the US. is widespread.

Moreover, the status of a family who has a member migrate is enhanced in the

58

community and it generally possesses more financial resources than other families
(Thomas-Hope, 1998). The lack of a difference between the reason for absence groups
may stem fi'om the fact that, in the present sample, the migration group actually had
lower SES on average than the other two groups. The abandonment and divorce/death
groups did not differ when compared on SES. It is conceivable that the possible positive
effects of higher status and the potential negative effects of lower SES of the migration
group cancel each other out. This cancellation may cause the migration reason to have
little influence on child outcomes and lead to few differences in child behavior between
the groups.

Though it was not a primary focus of the study, the component structure found for
the F ACES-II in the present Jamaican sample mirrored that found in a previous study of
Jamaican families (Kalogiros, Durst, Lambert, & Sarnms-Vaughn, 1999). This
replication of factor structure provides evidence for the accuracy of the Jamaican family
relations construct currently presented. Further duplication of this factor structure in
future studies utilizing Jamaican samples is needed to contribute additional corroboration
for this Jamaican family relations factor structure.

Limitations of the current study

The findings of the present study and the implications of those findings should be
interpreted in light of the investigation’s shortcomings. Focusing solely on cultural and
societal values and behavior as an explanation of the differences in child behavior may
overlook a more substantial analysis of other factors that may influence the results
(Kagiticibasi & Poortinga, 2000). It may not necessarily be cultural or societal norms or

attitudes of Jamaica that lead to a lack of a relationship between paternal absence and

59

child problems. There may be any number of variables, presently unmeasured, that cause
father-present and father-absent Jamaican children to exhibit similar levels of behavioral
problems. Because no specific measure was made of the level of matrifocal principles
adhered to by each family, their beliefs about the importance of fathers, or the existence
of possible father substitutes, it is not possible to link any of these specific cultural or
societal features to the relationship between father absence and child behavior problems.

It is also conceivable that other microsystem variables (Bronfenbrenner, 1992)
affect the children’s behavior levels. Father absence is only one factor that contributes to
family adversity, which has been linked to child problems and disorders. Rutter and
Quinton (1977) created an index of family adversity that included family structure as well
as measures of variables such as parental criminality and mental disorder, and large
family size. When this family adversity index was controlled for, the differences in rates
of psychiatric disorders found previously between rural and city children disappeared. It
was the combination of variables, not just family structure alone, that mediated the
relation between urban/rural status and psychopathology. In addition, a limitation of the
current investigation is the lack of comparison of the specific family structure of the
Jamaican children. Different findings may have resulted if children were grouped
according to their Jamaican family structure, namely nuclear, matrifocal, or quasi-
matrifocal, instead of only by father status.

Additionally, factors that focus on process, such as child-rearing behavior which
may, in turn, affect children’s behavior, and personal characteristics, like child
temperament and the personality characteristics of parents, need to be considered within

the model to determine their possible influence on children’s behavior. As

60

Bronfenbrenner and Crouter (1983) stated, the social address model, on which this study
is based, “looks only at the social address - that is, the environmental label - with no
attention to what the environment is like, what people are living there, what they are
doing, or how the activities taking place could affect the child” (pp.3 82-3).

In addition, the present study is a cross-sectional one, comparing the behavior of
children who, at the time of data collection, either had a father present in their household
or did not. There were no measures of the children’s behavior prior to their father’s
absence to compare with present behavior or for which to control. Consequently, it is
possible that children’s behavior prior to their separation from their fathers is a better
predictor of their pre-adolescent behavior than the father’s absence itself. Block, Block,
and Gjerde (1986) found in a longitudinal investigation that male children of divorce
exhibited undercontrolled and aggressive behavior prior to their parents’ divorce. These
authors suggest that it is the conflict between parents prior to separation that affect boys’
behavior and development, more than the separation itself or the subsequent absence of
one parent from the child’s primary household.

It should also be noted that despite the significance of some of the results, the
effect sizes were quite small, which indicates that, in spite of statistical significance, the
practical significance of these findings is questionable. Modest effect sizes were found
for the significant interactions between reporter and negative family relations, and the
three-way interaction between reporter, gender, and father status. In addition, when
considering only father-absent children, there were small effect sizes for reporter

differences and also for the between-subject effect for the negative family relations scale.

61

Implications for future researpp

In the future, a direct comparison between matched families from the US. and
Jamaica would be warranted to investigate the influence of process and personal
variables, allowing resolution of the possible ambiguity of interpretation of the present
results. It would also be warranted to link specific cultural features of Jamaica to the
father-absence-child problem relation. Specifically, measures of adherence to matrifocal
beliefs, type of family structure, beliefs about the importance of fathers, and the presence
of father substitutes may help to elucidate what societal and cultural features contribute to
child outcomes in the wake of father absence. In addition to considering cultural features
and more process, personal, and exosystem variables, future investigations should
examine longitudinal factors such as children’s previous behavior problems.
Conclusion

Despite the limitations of the current study, it is notable in that it is the first study
to examine the effects of father absence on Jamaican youth. The study also elucidates the
importance of the cultural context in which a child lives to the behavior s/he exhibits.
Culture can affect the psychological meaning of a child’s family structure, the behavioral
manifestations associated with a disorder or psychological difficulty, and even the
competencies a child exhibits. Though it is important to investigate variables that explore
deeper than the social address of cultural context, the present study adds information to
the growing body of literature demonstrating the importance of culture in child
developmental outcomes. It is important to examine children in differing contexts in
order to create a more complete picture of child development. Specifically, it is

important to discover what the universal processes of development are and which ones

62

may be affected by differences in societal and cultural attitudes and norms. Future
research on Jamaican children and families should attempt to isolate the specific cultural
manifestations, such as matrifocal beliefs and extended family systems, which may affect
family environment and child behavior. Clinicians and policymakers need to consider
cultural influence in the interpretation of Jamaican children’s behavior and treatment of

emotional and behavioral problems.

63

REFERENCES

64

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991
profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M. (1991c). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile.
Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T.M., Bird, H.R., Canino, G., Phares, V., Gould, M.S., & Rubio-Stipec, M.
(1990). Epidemiological comparisons of Puerto Rican and US. mainland children:
Parent, teacher, and self-reports. Journal of the American Academy of Child ad
Adolescent Psychia_t_ry, 29, 87-93.

Applewhite, L. W., & Mays, R. A. (1996). Parent-child separation: A comparison of
maternally and paternally separated children in military families. Child and Adolescent
Social Work Journal, 13(1), 23-39.

Bereczkei, T., & Csanaky, A. (1996). Evolutionary pathway of child development:
Lifestyles of adolescents and adults from father-absent families. Hflan Nature. 7(3).
257-280.

Berry, J .W. (1985). Cultural psychology and ethnic psychology, a comparative
analysis. In I.Reyes-Lagunes and Y.H. Poortinga (Eds), From a Different Perspective:
Smdias of Behavior Acrofiss Cultures (pp. 3-15). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.

Biller, H. B., & Salter, M. (1989). Father loss, cognitive and personality functioning. In
D. R. Dietrich, & P. C. Shabad (Eds), The problem of loss and mourning: Psychoanalflic

firspectives (pp. 337-377). Madison, CT: International Universities Press, Inc.

65

Block, J .H., Block, J. & Gjerde, RF. (1986). The personality of children prior to
divorce: A prospective study. Child Development. 57. 827-840.

Briggs-Gowan, M.J., Carter, A.S., & Schwab-Stone, M. (1996). Discrepancies among
mother, child, and teacher reports: Examining the contributions of maternal depression
and anxiety. Jouma; of Abnognal Child Psychology, 24(6), 749-765.

Brice-Baker, J. (1996). Jamaican families. In McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & Pearce,
J .K. (Eds). Ethniciy and Family Therapy, New York: Guilford Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22 (6). 723-742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six Theories
of Child Development: Revised Formulations and Current Issues (pp. 187-249). London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Bronfenbrenner, U. & Crouter, AC. (1983). The evolution of environmental models in
developmental research. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. I.
History, theog, and methods (W. Kessen, Volume editor) (pp. 357-414). New York:
Wiley Press.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed. 1.

New York: Academic Press.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1 1, 155-159.

66

Cole, M. (1992). Culture in development. In M.H. Bomstein and ME. Lamb (Eds),
Developmental Psychology: An Advanced TextbooL(3rd ed., pp. 731-789). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cooksey, E.C. & Fondell, M.M. (1996). Spending time with his kids: Effects of family
structure on father’s and children’s lives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 693-
707.

Dechesnay, M. (1986). Jamaican family structure: The paradox of normalcy.£ar_n_il_y

Process 25, 293-300.

 

Dunn, C. W., & Tucker, C. M. (1993). Black children’s adaptive functioning and
maladaptive behavior associated with quality of family support. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 21, 79-87.

Erickson, B. M. (1998). Longing for dad: Father loss and its impact. Deerfield Beach,
FL: Health Communications, Inc.

Flinn, M. V. (1992). Paternal care in a Caribbean village. In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.),
Father-child relations: Cultural and biosocial contexts (pp. 57-84). New York: Walter de
Gruyter, Inc.

Foner, N. (1998). Towards a comparative perspective on Caribbean migration. In M.
Chamberlain (Ed.), Caribbean Migration: Globalised Identitie§ (pp. 47-60). Routledge:
London.

Free, M. D. (1991). Clarifying the relationship between the broken home and juvenile

delinquency: A critique of the current literature. Deviant Behavior 12, 109-167.

 

F urman, E. & F urrnan, R. A. (1989). Some effects of the one-parent family on

personality development. In D. R. Dietrich, & P. C. Shabad (Eds), The problem of loss

67

and mourning: Psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 129-157). Madison, CT: International
Universities Press, Inc.

Gabel, S. (1992). Behavioral problems in sons of incarcerated or otherwise absent
fathers: The issue of separation. _F_amily Process3 I . 303-314.

Golombok, S., Tasker, F, & Murray, C. (1997). Children raised in fatherless families
from infancy: Family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of
lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiat_ry,
3_8_(1), 783-791.

Gopaul-McNichol, S. (1993). Working with West Indian families. New York: Guilford
Press.

Gotlib, I. H. & Avison, W. R (1993). Children at risk for psychopathology. In C. G.
Costello (Ed.), Basic issues in psychopathology (pp. 271-319). New York: Guilford
Press.

Gulati & Singh (1987). Effect of father’s absence on personality development of school
age children. Indian Psychological Review, 32( 5-6 1, 20-27.

Harkness, S. & Super, C. M. (1992). The cultural foundations of fathers’ roles:
Evidence from Kenya and the United States. In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.), Father-child
relations: Cultural and biosocial contexts (pp. 191-211). New York: Walter de Gruyter,
Inc.

Hetherington, E.M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, GM. (1998). What matters? What does

not? Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions and children’s

adjustment. American Psychologist, 53(2), 167-184.

68

Hilton, J. M. & Devall, E. L. (1998). Comparison of parenting and children’s behavior
in single-mother, single-father, and intact families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,
3&4), 23-54.

Howell, J .P., Bowman, D.E., Dorfman, Kerr, P.W., & Podsakoff, PM. (1990).
Substitutes for leadership: Effective alternatives to ineffective leadership. Organizational

Dynamics, 19(1), 21-38.
Huynh, H. & Mandeville, GK. (1979). Validity conditions in repeated measures

designs. Psychological Bulletin, 95(5), 964-973.

Jensen, P. S., Grogan, D., Xenakis, S. N., & Bain, M. W. (1989). Father absence:
Effects on child and maternal psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of
_Cfild_ and Adoleacent Psychiag, 28(2), 171-175.

Johnson, W. B. (1993). Father uninvolvement: Impact, etiology, and potential solutions.
Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 12(4), 301-311.

Kagitcibasi, CK (1985). A model of family change through development: The Turkish
family comparative perspective. In I.ReyeS-Lagunes and Y.H. Poortinga (Eds), flarpa
Different Persgctive: Studies of Behavior Acrosg Culturea (pp. 3-15). Lisse: Swets &
Zeitlinger B.V.

Kagitcibasi, C.K. & Poortinga, Y.H. (2000). Cross-cultural psychology: Issues and
overarching themes. Jamal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 31(1), 129-147.

Kalogiros, I.D., Durst, J ., Lambert, M.C., & Samms-Vaughn, M. (1999, June)._13mt;

child convergence on a measure of family functioning. Poster session presented at the
annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Denver, CO.

69

Keddie, A. M. (1992). Psychosocial factors associated with teenage pregnancy in
Jamaica. Adolescence. 27(108). 873-890.

Kirshner, L. A. (1992). The absence of the father. Joml of the American
Psychoanalflic Association, 40(4), 1117-1138.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Cognitive development. In M. H. Borstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds),
Developmental psychology: An advanced textbocflg (3rd ed., pp. 211-272). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lamb, M. E. (1999). Parental behavior, family processes, and child development in
nontraditional and traditionally understood families. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and
child development in “nontraditional” families (pp. 1-14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Lamb, M.E., Ketterlinus, R.D., & Fracasso, MP. (1992). Parent-child relationships. In
M.H. Bornstein and ME. Lamb (Eds), Developmental Psycholgy: An Adyanfid
Textbook (3rd ed., pp. 465-518). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lambert, M. C., Knight, F. H., & Costigan, C. L. (1994). Behavior profile of a
psychiatric screening instrument for Jamaican children aged 6-11. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 18(4), 507-519.

Lambert, M.C., Knight, F., Taylor, R. & Achenbach, T.M. (1994). Comparison of
behavioral and emotional problems among children of Jamaican and the United States:
Teacher reports for ages 6-11. Journal of Croga-Cultural Psychology, 27, 82-97.

Lambert, M.C., Knight, F., Taylor, R. & Achenbach, T.M. (1994). Epidemiology of
behavioral and emotional problems among children of Jamaican and the United States:

Parent reports for ages 6-11. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 113-129.

70

Lambert, M.C., Knight, F ., Taylor, R., & Newell, AL. (1993). Further comparisons of
teacher and parent rating of behavior and emotional problems in Jamaican children.
Journal of IntemationTal Relations. 17, 1-18.

Lambert, M.C., Lyubansky, M., & Achenbach, T.M. (1998). Behavioral and emotional
problems among adolescents of Jamaica and the United States: Parent, teacher, and self-

reports for ages 12-18. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 6, 180-187.

 

Lambert, M.C., Weisz, J .R., & Knight, F. (1989). Over- and undercontrolled clinic
referral problems of Jamaican and American children and adolescents: The culture
general and the culture specific. Journal of Conglting and Clinical Psychology, 37(4),
467-472.

Levai, M., Ackerman, R., Kaplan, S., & Hammock, M. (1995). The effect of father
absence on the psychiatric hospitalization of navy children. Milifly Medicine, 160, 104-
106.

Lewis, 0. (1991). Paternal absence: Psychotherapeutic considerations in boys.
Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 27(2), 265-287.

Lykken, D. T. (1998). The case for parental liscensure. In T. Millon and E. Sirnonsen

(Eds), Psychopathy: Antisocial Criminal and Violent Behavior (pp. 122-143). New

 

York: Guildford Press.

Makikyro, T., Sauvola, A., Moring, J., Veijola, J ., Nieminen, P., Jarvelin, M., &
Isohanni, M. (1998). Hospital-treated psychiatric disorders in adults with a single-parent
and two-parent family background: A 28-year follow-up of the 1996 northern Finland

birth cohort. Family Process. 37(3). 335-344.

71

Marayuma, GM. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

McClanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McClanahan, S. & Teitler, J. (1999). The consequences of father absence. In M.E.
Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in “nofladitional” families (pp. 83-102).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Menaghan, E.G. (1996). Family composition, family interaction, and children’s
academic and behavior problems: Interpreting the data. In A. Booth & J .F . Dunn (Eds),
Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 185-196). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mott, F. L., Kowalski-Jones, L., & Menaghan, E.G. (1997). Paternal absence and child
behavior: Does a child’s gender make a difference? Journal of Marriage and the Family,
52, 103-118.

Mulkey, L. M., Crain, R. L., Harrington, A. J. C. (1992). One parent households and
achievement: Economic and behavioral explanations of a small effect. Sociology of

Education 65, 48-65.

 

Munroe, R. L. & Munroe, R. H. (1992). Fathers in children’s environments: A four
culture study. In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.), Father-child relations: Cultural and biosocial

contexts (pp. 213-229). New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.

 

Najman, J. M., Behrens, B. C., Anderson, M., Bor, W., O’Callaghan, M., & Williams,

GM. (1997). Impact of family type and family quality on child behavior problems: A

72

longitudinal study. Jouang of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatg, 36(10), 1357-1365.

Rafman, S., Canfield, J ., Barbas, J ., & Kaczorowski, J. (1997). Children’s
representations of parental loss due to war. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 20(1), 163-177.

Robin, M. W. & Spires, R. C, (1989). The consequences of father absence: A cross-
cultural perspective. In L. L. Adler (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Research in Human
Development: Life Span Perspectives (pp. 47-57). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Rutter, M. & Quinton, D. (1977). Psychiatric disorder: Ecological factors and concepts
of causation. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Ecological factors in human development (pp. 173-
187). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Sandler, I. N., Reynolds, K. D., Kliewer, W., & Ramirez, R. (1992). Specificity of the
relation between life events and psychological symptomatology. Journal of Clinical Child

Psychology, 21( 3 ), 240-248.
Sargent, C. & Harris, M. (1992). Gender ideology, childrearing, and child health in

Jamaica. American Ethnologist, 19(3 ), 523-537.

Shek, D.T.L. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of paternal and maternal parenting styles
in a Chinese context. Journal of Psychology, 132(5), 527-37.

Shepherd, VA. (1998). Indians, Jamaica and the emergence of a modern migration
culture. In M. Chamberlain (Ed.), C_aribbean Migration: Globalised Identities (pp. 165-
176). London: Routledge.

Silverstein, L. B., & Auerbach, C. F. (1999). Deconstructing the essential father.

American Psychologist, 54, 397-407.

73

Smith, A. G. (1984). Culture race and class in the Commonwealth Caribbean, Mona,

 

Jamaica: University of the West Indies Department of Extramarital Studies.

Sourander, A., Helstela, L., & Helenius, H. (1999). Parent-adolescent agreement on
emotional and behavioral problems. Social Psychiag and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
M, 657-663.

Srinivasan, T. N. & Raman, K.J. (1987). Early child parent separation and risk for
childhood psychopathology. Man Journal of Psychiafl, 31(3 ), 283-289.

Stanley, B. K., Weikel, W. J., & Wilson, J .(1986). The effects of father absence on
interpersonal problem-solving skills of nursery school children. Journal of Counseling

and Development, 64, 383-385.
Teidje, L. B. & Darling-Fisher, C. (1996). Fatherhood reconsidered: A critical review.

Research in Nursing and Health, 19, 471-484.

Thomas-Hope, E. (1998). Globalization and the development of a Caribbean migration
culture. In M. Chamberlain (Ed.), Caribbean Miggation: Globalised Identities (pp. 188-
199). Routledge: London.

Weinraub, M., & Wolf, BM. (1983). Effects of stress and social support on mother-
child interactions in single- and two-parent families. Child Development, 54, 1294-1311.

Weisz, J .R., Suwanlert, S., Chaiyasit, W., & Walter, BR. (1987). Over-and-
undercontrolled clinic-referral problems among Thai and American children and
adolescents: The wat and wai of cultural differences. Mal of Con_sulting and Clinical

Psychology, 56, 719-726.

Williams, S. M. & Finley, G. (1997). Father contact and perceived affective quality of

fathering in Trinidad. Interarnerican Journal of Psychology, 31(2 ), 315-319.

74

F’ ‘ _. mil-I'

Wray, S. R., & McLaren, E. (1976). Parent-child separation as a determinant of
psychopathology in children: A Jamaican study. West Indian Medical Journal, 25(4),
251-257.

Yamamoto, J ., Silva, J.A. Ferrari, M. & Nukariya, K. (1997). Culture and
psychopathology. In G. Johnson-Powell and J. Yamamoto (Eds), Transcultural Child
Development: Psychologigll Assess_ment aacflreatment (pp. 34-57). New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Yang, H., Soong, W., Chang-Ning, C., & Chen, W.J. (2000). Competence and
behavioral/emotional problems among Taiwanese adolescents as reported by parents and

teachers. Jourpal of th_e American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiat_ry, 39(2 ),
232-239.

 

Zill, N. (1996). Family change and student achievement : What we have learned, what
it means for schools. In A. Booth & J .F. Dunn (Eds), Family-school links: How do they

affect educational outcomes? (pp. 139-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

75

APPENDICES

76

APPENDIX A

Table 1

Percentages of father status and gender groups

 

 

 

 

Father status % N

51.73 522
Father figure present in child’s home

Father figure absent from child’s home 35.77 361
No father figure 12.50 126
Total 1 00.00 1 ,009

Gender % N
Male 47.7 481
Female 52.3 528
Total 100.0 1,009

 

77

Table 2

APPENDIX B

Percentages of sample at each Smith scale SES level

 

 

 

Employment category %_ N
Casual/unemployed (1) 3.4 1,009
Manual/unskilled (2) 51 .3 1,009
Clerical/semi-skilled (3) 34.3 1,009
Skilled/supervisor (4) 9.9 1,009
Top manager/professional (5) 1.2 1,009

 

78

APPENDIX C

Table 3

F ACES-II items and component loadings for the Jamaican sample

 

Positive Family Relations Component

Item Component Loading (2nd comp. loading)

 

Our family does things together

Family members talk about problems and feel good about the solutions.
Family members like to spend their free time with each other

Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems.

Each family member has a say in major family decisions.

Family members share interests and hobbies (activities you do for fun
on a regular basis) with each other.

In our family everyone shares chores.

Our family comes together in the same room.

Family members feel very close to each other.

Children have a say in their discipline.

Family members know each other’s close friends.

In our family, it is easy for everyone to say what they think.

Family members help each other emotionally and in other ways
during difficult times.

In solving problems the children’s ideas are followed.

We Shift household chores from person to person.

79

.617 (-.03)
.610 (.01)
.552 (.05)
.527 (.16)

.522 (.04)

.519 (-.07)
.483 (.02)
.480 (-.01)
.476(a26)
.459 (.34)
.458(413)

.434 (-.11)

.430 (-.19)
.430 (.26)

.423 (.13)

 

Family members talk to other family members about things they are
thinking of doing.

Family members go along with what the family decides to do.
Family members say what they want.

When problems come up, we compromise (give a little, take a little).
Discipline is fair in our family.

We feel good about each other’s friends.

Eigenvalue: 5.550 (18.5% of variance)

.420(405)
.400(420)
.377 (.06)

.364(402)
.362(421)

.337(407)

 

Negative Family Relations Component

Item

Component Loading (2nd Comp. Loading)

 

Family members feel closer to people outside the family than to
other family members.

It is hard to know what the rules are in our family.

Family members avoid each other at home.

Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds.

It is difficult to get a rule changed in our family.

We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family.

In our family, everyone does his or her own thing.

It is easier to talk about problems with people outside the family

than with other family members.

Farme members do things in twos rather than do things as a total family.

Eigenvalue: 2.362 (7.874%)

.620(403)
.609(Jl)
.599 (.00)
.530(401)
.557 (.16)
.552(403)

.551(403)

.540 (.01)

.431 (.00)

 

80

APPENDIX D

Figure 1
Total problem scores of each gender for both repprters

Parartreports Youthreports

 

 

 

+malw l
+fenrdes‘

 

 

L

Frassssa

 

 

 

6'38

 

 

 

fl I I

father father nofather father father nofather
present absent figue present absent figue

Mean level of total problem scores

Father Status

81

Table 4

Mean levels for total problem scores for each father status group by gender

APPENDIX E

 

 

 

Group B M. SD.
Parent Reports
Males
Father figure present 264 20.72 11.99
Father figure absent 158 19.37 11.05
No father figure 59 19.20 11.15
Females
Father figure present 258 19.77 11.82
Father figure absent 203 20.86 11.71
No father figure 67 19.84 12.04
Youth Reports
Males
Father figure present 264 32.93 13.74
Father figure absent 158 35.20 14.96
No father figure 59 36.92 10.62
Females
Father figure present 258 33.21 12.40
Father figure absent 203 32.63 13.59
No father figure 67 31.73 10.98

82

Table 5

APPENDIX F

Mean levels for internalizing problem scores for each father status ggoup by gender

 

 

 

Group II M. .32
Parent Reports
Males
Father figure present 264 9.06 6.20
Father figure absent 158 8.60 5.78
No father figure 59 9.42 6.39
Females
Father figure present 258 8.40 5.75
Father figure absent 203 9.05 6.05
No father figure 67 7.99 6.16
Youth Reports
Males
Father figure present 264 17.67 8.45
Father figure absent 158 18.96 8.01
No father figure 59 18.95 6.07
Females
Father figure present 258 18.03 7.29
Father figure absent 203 17.96 8.54
No father figure 67 18.10 7.46

83

APPENDIX G

Figure 2
Extemalizing problem scores of each gender for both remrters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m Parentreports Youthreports
d)

g 15

$14 Lit—males 1

E13“ §+ferraleSI

8.12, ‘ ‘

.811-

.5

E 10‘ 04:

g 9.

a) 8“

”5 7.

'9 a,

fi 5 . V .
3 father father nofather father father nofather
2

present absent figure ”$311 absent figure

Father status

84

APPENDIX H

Table 6

Mean levels for externalizing problem scores for each fgher status group by gender

 

 

 

Group D M. $2
Parent Reports
Males
Father figure present 264 9.53 7.27
Father figure absent 158 9.20 6.24
No father figure 59 9.05 6.02
Females
Father figure present 258 9.44 6.34
Father figure absent 203 10.12 6.62
No father figure 67 10.30 6.71
Youth Reports
Males
Father figure present 264 10.57 6.21
Father figure absent 158 11.93 7.45
No father figure 59 12.19 5.25
Females
Father figure present 258 10.98 5.84
Father figure absent 203 10.55 5.98
No father figure 67 9.93 4.60

85

 

 

APPENDIX I

Table 7

Correlations for parent and youth reports for the three problem scores

 

 

 

Problem type r p
N = 1,009

Total problems -.020 .514

Intemalizing problems -.041 .180

Extemalizing problems .000 .993

Table 8

Mean differences between youth and parent reports for the three problem apes

 

 

Problem type M difference _SQ
Total problems 13.30 18.00
Intemalizing problems 9.40 10.17
Extemalizing problems 1.26 9.11

 

86

APPENDIX J

Table 9

Summary of nonsignificant results of interest

 

 

Result F (df) p 11
Total problems
Father status group difference .178 (2, 1,002) .837 .000
Reason for absence group difference .268 (2, 279) .765 .002
Intemalizing problems
Father status group difference .671 (2, 1,002) .511 .001
Reason for absence group difference .079 (2, 279) .924 .001
Extemalizing problems
Father status group difference .259 (2, 1,002) .772 .001
Reason for absence group difference .809 (2, 279) .446 .006

 

87

APPENDIX K

Table 10

Summary of sigpificant results of interest for total sample

 

 

Result F (df) p 11
Total problems

3-way interaction for reporter, gender,

and father status 3.298 (2, 1,002) .038 .007

2-way interaction for reporter and gender 4.736 (1, 1,002) .030 .005

2-way interaction for reporter and

negative family relations scale 5.786 (1, 1,002) .016 .006

Main effect for reporter 236.672 (1 , 1,002) .000 .191
Intemalizing problems

Main effect for reporter 315.319 (1, 1,002) .000 .239
Extemalizing problems

3-way interaction for reporter, gender,

and father status 3.287 (2, 1,002) .038 .007

2-way interaction for reporter and gender 5.798 (1, 1,002) .016 .006

2-way interaction for reporter and

negative family relations scale 8.191 (1, 1,002) .004 .008

Main effect for reporter 22.715 (1, 1,002) .000 .022
Social problem syndrome

3-way interaction for reporter, gender,

and father status 3.920 (2, 1002) .020 .008

 

88

 

 

2-way interaction for reporter and gender
Attention problem syndrome

3-way interaction for reporter, gender,
and father status

2-way interaction for reporter and
negative family relations scale

Aggressive behavior syndrome

3-way interaction for reporter, gender,
and father status

2-way interaction for reporter and gender

2-way interaction for reporter and negative
family relations scale

4.033 (1, 1002)

3.749 (2, 1002)

5.162 (1, 1002)

3.617 (2, 1002)

7.107 (1, 1002)

6.154 (1, 1002)

.045

.024

.023

.027

.008

.013

.004

.007

.005

.007

.007

.006

 

89

APPENDIX L

Table 1 1

Summm of significant results of interest for father-absent subjects

 

 

Result F (d0 12 112
Total problems
2-way interaction for reporter and
negative family relations scale 5.559 (1, 279) .019 .020
Main effect for reporter 8.630 (1, 279) .004 .030

Main effect for negative family relations
scale 6.414 (1, 279) .012 .022

Intemalizing problems

2-way interaction for reporter and

negative family relations scale 6.645 (1, 279) .010 .023
Main effect for reporter 14.845 (1, 279) .000 .051
Extemalizing problems

2-way interaction for reporter and
negative family relations scale 5.103 (1, 279) .025 .018

Main effect for negative family relations
scale 7.265 (1, 279) .007 .025

 

90