Honoring Thy Fathers

For your reading, and then prayers for all the children who have no one to offer a fatherly role in their lives.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Bradford Wilcox. "Honoring Thy Fathers." The Wall Street Journal (June 13, 2008).

THE AUTHOR

W. Bradford Wilcox is assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University. He earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Virginia and his Ph.D. at Princeton University. Prior to coming to the University of Virginia, he held research fellowships at Princeton University, Yale University and the Brookings Institution. Mr. Wilcox's research focuses on the influence of religious belief and practice on marriage, cohabitation, parenting, and fatherhood. His first book, Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands (University of Chicago Press, 2004) examines the ways in which the religious beliefs and practices of American Protestant men influence their approach to parenting, household labor, and marriage.

Using data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, Mr. Wilcox is now researching the effect that religion has on relationships among low-income parents in urban America. Professor Wilcox has received the following two awards from the American Sociological Association Religion Section for his research: the Best Graduate Paper Award and the Best Article Award (with Brian Steensland et al.). His research has also been featured in The Washington Post, USA Today, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, and numerous NPR stations. Professor Wilcox teaches courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels in statistics, family, and religion. Bradford Wilcox is a member of the Catholic Education Resource Center's advisory board.

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

Honoring Thy Fathers

Priests of the Domestic Church: A Father's Day Homily

The Blueprint for Heroic Family Life [Fathers' Day] [Ecumenical]

Honoring Thy Fathers

A Father's Tough Love

Children Who Have An Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological And Behavioral Problems

Where Have All the Christian Men Gone? My Conversation with John Eldredge

The Transforming Power of Prayer [Part 1] (Catholic Man)

The Transforming Power of Prayer, Part 2 (Catholic Man)

The 10 Paradoxes of Fatherhood, There is a certain immediacy about motherhood that cannot

The Story of Champions [Father's Day]

What Makes a Man a Hero? [Father's Day]

The New Catholic Manliness

Thanks for the reminder.

Each section of Luther’s Small Catechism begins “In the plain form in which the head of the household is to teach it to his family”. At the conclusion of the sections on the Commandments, Creed, and Lord’s Prayer is this:

6] HOW THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY

Should Teach His Household to Ask a Blessing and Return Thanks.

Asking a Blessing

The children and servants shall go to the table with folded hands and reverently, and say:

The eyes of all wait upon Thee, O Lord; and Thou givest them their meat in due season; Thou openest Thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.

Note

To satisfy the desire means that all animals receive so much to eat that they are on this account joyful and of good cheer; for care and avarice hinder such satisfaction.

Then the Lord’s Prayer, and the prayer here following:

Lord God, Heavenly Father, bless us and these Thy gifts, which we take from Thy bountiful goodness, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Returning Thanks.

Likewise also after the meal they shall reverently and with folded hands say:

O give thanks unto the Lord, for He is good; for His mercy endureth forever. He giveth food to all flesh; He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry. He delighteth not in the strength of the horse; He taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man. The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in His mercy.

Then the Lord’s Prayer and the prayer here following:

We thank Thee, Lord God, Father, through Jesus Christ, our Lord, for all Thy benefits, who livest and reignest forever and ever. Amen.

The Cure of Ars, two centuries later, also had strong words for the head of the household uphold his responsibility to teach the faith...and to teach by example.

The point is that absentee or negligent fatherhood appears to be a universal problem, transcending the centuries, cultures, and even the Reformation.

To the prayers!

St. John Vianney, the Cure of Ars.

Fathers are so important. Glad my children had the influenece of their father before he died from cancer.

Thanks for the ping. Important studies.

Some know of my crusade against ATTACHMENT DISORDER . . . which I see primarily a function of absent, abusive, distant, cold, harsh, unaffectionate, etc. fathers. Mothers can cause it, too. But imho, fathers trigger it far more—because their fathers caused it in them . . . and the grandfathers before them . . . Sigh.

Prayers offered up.

Attachment disorder - most interesting.

It’s EPIDEMIC imho.

—changes kids for the worse in terms of relationships, self-confidence; identity; hope; self-respect; achievement; persistence; resilience; brain structure and function . . . the list goes on and on.

The best book I know is:

ATTACHMENT:

By Drs Clinton & Sibcy

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ATTACHMENT+DRS+CLINTON+SIBCY

Attachments: Why You Love, Feel, and Act the Way You Do by Tim Clinton and Gary Sibcy (Hardcover - Oct 8, 2002)
11 Used & new from $53.97

MORE TO FOLLOW NEXT POST

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HE141

Being an Involved Father: What Does It Mean?1
Garret D. Evans and Kate Fogarty2

Overview
It seems that more and more folks are sharing the message that fathers should be more involved in caring for their children. You may hear this message on TV, on the radio, where you worship, at school, at meetings, at work, and, especially, at home. Father involvement is defined as, men’s “positive, wide-ranging, and active participation in their children’s lives” (Marsiglio et al., 2000, p. 276).

How Much Is Enough?
Efforts to get every father more involved in their children’s lives leaves many fathers asking themselves: “How much is enough? When have I done enough to be considered an ‘involved’ father?”
Many of us remember how much or how little involved our fathers were in raising us. We notice the difference in today’s dads. More fathers are involved in caring for their children than their own fathers were, especially in the early phases of a childs life (Manlove & Vernon-Feagans, 2002). You may end up asking yourself if it’s enough just to do more than your father did. Perhaps you coach a little league team or shuttle your child back and forth to games. Maybe you cook dinner for your child or, as a new father, feed your baby or change diapers. You may even take the time for a sit-down talk about sexuality with your child. You may find yourself asking the question, “How much time and attention do I need to give my child to ensure she or he grows up healthy?”

Instead of counting how many minutes you spend with your child as a measure of “good” fathering, ask yourself, “What do I do with my child with the time that I have?” Researchers generally find the quality and type of activities that you do with your child are far more important than the amount of time you spend with them (Palkovitz, 2002).

Here is a list of strategies that you can use to make sure that you have a healthy and “involved” relationship with your child.

Spend Quality Time with Your Child
Quality time is an expression used a lot on TV and in books and magazines about parenting. The trouble is, many people aren’t really sure what quality time is. In essence, quality time is time that parents use to focus on healthy, positive, and nurturing experiences with their child. The emphasis is on what you do with your child instead of how much time you spend with them. Here are a few rules of thumb you can use to decide whether you are spending quality time with your child:

Is your child the center of your attention—or are you just trying to keep them busy while you do other things?

During your time together, are you involved in activities that both you and your child enjoy?

Are you investing time and energy in your children’s lives on a daily basis or are you interacting with them just when it is convenient?

Are you happy just spending ordinary time with your child with no particular purpose or goal in mind?

If you answered “yes” to all these questions, it looks like you are spending quality time with your child. It’s important for fathers to spend quality time because, in most families, they are not the child’s primary caregiver. This means that others (such as child care workers, teachers, and mothers) spend more time with your child each week than you do.
Quality, positive interactions help form a healthy bond between fathers and their children. These interactions help father-child attachment to grow. Fathers can understand their child’s world a little better and children will be able to see and understand their dad as a real person.

Stay Involved in All Phases of Their Life
Being involved in all aspects of parenting is important part of being an involved father. Some fathers are more comfortable with teaching, playing with, or even disciplining their child because they see these activities as what a father is supposed to do. However, research clearly shows that fathers who are involved in all phases of their child’s care are happier as a parent and have healthier, more successful children.
For many dads, being involved in such a broad range of activities takes a serious commitment. It means being willing to feed and diaper as well as play and problem-solve. Being an involved father means packing a lunch box or attending a parent-teacher conference as well as cleaning a bicycle and going shopping. It means being willing to share in all parts of your child’s life.

Doing more care-taking activities (e.g., diapering, dressing, bathing, etc.) seems a little unnatural for some fathers, at least at first. When they do it a little more, dads almost always find that it’s worthwhile-they see these actions improving their relationship with their child.

Don’t Confuse Providing with Loving
Men may get caught up with the idea that providing for children is the best way to care for and express love for them. While it’s true that creating the means for food, clothes, and shelter is a great way to provide for a child - it’s not the only way to show caring. In fact, these basics are just the beginning.
There is a maxim, “I’ve never seen a tombstone that read, I wish I’d spent more time at work.” The message is that, as we grow older, most of us wish we would have spent more time with our families and less time trying to get ahead at work. In the same way, you probably have never heard a child say, “I wish my dad spent more time at work.”

More than anything in the world, children want their parents’ attention and love. Further, research shows that children who receive positive attention from their parents do better in most all aspects of their lives (home, school, work, etc.) than children who do not receive this attention. This is regardless of how much money they have or the type of neighborhood they live in. So remember, being a good father doesn’t mean making sure your child has all the best toys, or lives in the best neighborhood. It means making sure your child has all the benefits of having you in their life.

Have a Plan (Where to Start)
Where to start? You probably have many demands on your time including, commitments to your spouse, your job, your friends, and yourself. You may wonder what you are going to stop or drop to spend more quality time with your child. No one has said that being an involved father is easy-its not. It’s especially hard for new fathers who suddenly find that they have to make a lot of room in their life for a baby’s absolute demand for attention.
A good motivator and helper for beginning fathers are guides on fathering and books that help dispel myths about fatherhood and masculinity. Some suggested books and guides on fatherhood are listed in the reference section. These resources help fathers to better understand the role they play in their family and in their children’s lives.

New and experienced fathers alike can start with a small plan. Set aside a block of time for one type of activity that you are going to do with your child. If your child is older, pick something you have hardly ever done before. Maybe you will decide to play with them for 15 minutes before dinner, or help them with their homework. You might decide to be a regular part of bath time or make a snack for them between meals. Commit yourself to this small activity. You may even find that you enjoy it. This time alone with your child will grow and become more rewarding for both of you. After you take this small step, it becomes easier to do other things with your child.

Don’t wait to be asked, volunteer and take responsibility; talk it over with the other parent and agree on a plan. If you are a new father, view your caretaking role as a partnership with your spouse or partner rather than as a “helper” or “assistant.” Research shows that a father’s care of his infants includes soothing, bedtime activities, diapering, and feeding and that most new fathers engage in at least one of these activities on a given weekday (Manlove & Vernon-Feagans, 2002). Your sharing of parental responsibilities is beneficial, considering that in most families both parents need to earn income to survive economically. Most important, fathering your child, regardless of whether your child is a girl or boy, contributes to her or his positive development.

Realize that, as you become more involved in your child’s life, you may become less involved in other areas of your life. You may not be able to work as many overtime shifts or stay as late at work. You may have to say no to an outing or two with the guys, take a season off from your bowling or soccer league. Know that in the end, most fathers agree that the benefits that they receive through building their relationship with their child far outweigh these sacrifices. Last, these benefits influence the development of your child into a successful adult and future parent.

Recommended Resources
Boyhood. Growing up male: A multicultural anthology. (1998). F. Abbot & M. Kimmel (Editors).
Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. (1999). W. Pollack.

The Fathers Almanac: From Pregnancy to Preschool, Baby Care to Behavior: The Complete and Indispensable Book of Practical Advice and Ideas for Every Man Discovering the Fun and Challenge of Fatherhood. (1992). S. Adams Sullivan.

The New Father Book: What Every Man Needs to Know to be a Good Dad. (1998). W. Horn & A. Feinstein

Wisdom of Our Fathers: Inspiring Life Lessons from Men Who Have Had Time to Learn Them. (1999). J. Kita

References
Biller, H. (1993). Fathers and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development. Westport, CT: Auburn House/Greenwood Publishing Group.
Bonney, J.F., Kelley, M.L., & Levant, R.F. (1999). A model of fathers behavioral involvement in child care in dual-earner families. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 401-415.

Colorado Foundation for Families and Children. (2002). Colorado fathers resource guide. Denver, CO: Colorado Fatherhood Connection.

Kazura, K. (2000). Fathers qualitative and quantitative involvement: An investigation of attachment, play, and social interactions. The Journal of Mens Studies, 9, 41-57.

Manlove, E.E. & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2002). Caring for infant daughters and sons in dual-earner households: Maternal reports of father involvement in weekday time and tasks. Infant & Child Development, 11, 305-320.

Marsiglio, W., Day, R.D., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Exploring fatherhood diversity: Implications for conceptualizing father involvement. Marriage and Family Review, 29, 269-293.

McBride, B.A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J., & Ho, M.H. (2005). The mediating role of fathers school involvement on student achievement. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 201-216.

Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fathering and child development: Advancing our understanding of good fathering. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 119-140).

Footnotes
1. This document is FCS2141, one of a series of the Family, Youth, and Community Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Publication: December 1999. Revised: July 2005. Please visit the EDIS Web site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
2. Garret D. Evans, Psy.D., former assistant professor in Clinical Psychology, and Kate Fogarty, Ph.D., assistant professor, Youth Development, both of the Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611.

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean.

Copyright Information
This document is copyrighted by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the people of the State of Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension Service and the people of the State of Florida. Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or in full for educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS, citing the publication, its source, and date of publication.

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/4/dermott.html

Esther Dermott (2003) ‘The ‘Intimate Father’: Defining Paternal Involvement’

Sociological Research Online, vol. 8, no. 4,

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/4/dermott.html

To cite articles published in Sociological Research Online, please reference the above information and include paragraph numbers if necessary

Received: 18/11/2003 Accepted: 17/11/2003 Published: 28/11/2003

Abstract

Fathering is alleged to have undergone dramatic changes in recent decades with proclamations of ‘new fathering’ dominating the literature. However, it is not always obvious what this new and ‘involved’ fathering entails.

This paper aims to bring greater clarity to the nebulous concept of the involved father. While acknowledging the recession of traditional fatherhood centred on breadwinning, the argument looks beyond this oft-identified process. Instead the focus is on elucidating the elements viewed as the essential components of the father-child relationship. For the fathers in this study, the concept of intimacy seems to encapsulate ideas about good fathering.

The idea of ‘intimate fathering’ encompasses, but goes beyond an emotional connection, and prioritises the quality of the parent-child relationship. This definition has implications for the analysis and understanding of fathering behaviour. In particular, such intimacy may be disassociated from a time commitment.

Keywords:
Fatherhood; Generations; Intimacy; Involvement

Introduction

1.1
Recently, fathers and fatherhood have received increasing attention, to the extent that between the 1980s and 1990s researchers moved from declaring that fathers had been neglected (Jackson, 1983) to announcing that they were now the subject of significant research and comment (Deinhart, 1998). It has become widely accepted that fatherhood has undergone significant changes and that ‘new fathering’ has replaced more traditional versions. However, although caricatures of the ‘traditional’ fathers of earlier times have been challenged (e.g. Tosh, 1996) the ‘new father’ remains rather opaque.

1.2

Much of the discussion on fatherhood has concentrated on documenting the demise of the breadwinner father. With labour market changes, especially higher baseline levels of unemployment and the increased participation of women in paid employment, men’s role as financial providers for the family has been challenged and no longer appears prominently in accounts of good fatherhood.

Men and women tend to reject statements that suggest fathers should concentrate on the economic role while the mother’s job is to take care of the home and children (Scott, 1997). Yet it seems easier to define what new fathering is not, rather than what it is. Based on accounts given by fathers, this paper attempts to discuss elements that are viewed as intrinsic to a modern conceptualisations of ‘good’ fathering.

1.3
Despite radical transformations to the idea of fatherhood some aspects of fathering have changed much less. A continuing problem is trying to explain why cultural images of fatherhood have altered more than the conduct of fathers’ child-related activities, leaving a disparity between ideas of fathering and the measurable reality (La Rossa, 1988; 1997).

This paper is concerned mainly with ideas rather than behaviour, but through exploring the former it addresses why this situation may not be as contradictory as has previously been implied.

Methods

2.1
This paper draws on 25 interviews conducted with fathers as part of a research project that examined how fathers combine paid employment and family life. The principal research questions explored how the men managed the roles of workers and fathers and the benefits and constraints they felt existed.

The study focused on fathers who were living in heterosexual relationships and in the same households as their young children. By virtue of their occupations, these fathers were relatively advantaged, in financial terms. The particular characteristics of the interviewees should be borne in mind and any generalising from these fathers’ definitions of fathering involvement to the views of the wider population needs to be circumspect.

2.2
The interviewees were all cohabiting with a female partner and, as the focus was on co-residency, the legal status of their relationship was not taken into account. The definition of ‘father’ was the subjective description used by the men themselves and was therefore not necessarily based on either a biological or a legal definition. [1]

2.3
The men interviewed were all currently in paid employment and held professional/managerial positions. A number of factors led to this sampling decision. One reason was that speaking to fathers who were relatively advantaged economically makes it possible to explore motives other than money that influence the organisation of family tasks, as higher earnings mean more options are available to fathers in choosing how to balance home life and employment.

2.4

Fathers in the study had at least one child of primary school age. A great deal of qualitative research on fathers has concentrated on the fathers of young children (Morgan, 2002) and even more specifically on the period surrounding the birth of a child and the nature of the transition from non-parent to parent (e.g. Jacobs, 1995; Lupton & Barclay, 1997).

Views of fatherhood as well as actual fathering behaviour are likely to alter, depending on the age of children, and therefore the intention was to fill a gap in existing literature by speaking to the fathers of slightly older children. This, in turn, influenced the age of the participants. Most commonly, they tended to be in their early 40s, but ranged from the ages of 27 to 56.

2.5

Two of the fathers were Asian and one interviewee had a Middle-Eastern background. The remainder were of White British/European/American descent. It is worth noting that the ethnic background of the fathers was not always the same as that of their partner, and therefore their children; at least one of the White British men’s partners was Afro-Caribbean. Different responses based on ethnic divisions were not apparent.

2.6
Fathers might, initially, be considered an easily accessible group. However, they are relatively invisible (especially those who are living with a partner) and are therefore less captive to researchers (McKee & O’Brien, 1983). To avoid a mother-based approach the majority of fathers were accessed through a primary school in South London and contacted by letter, which was accompanied by a covering note from the school principal.

While in the process of carrying out these interviews other opportunities occasionally arose. Informants suggested someone who they thought would agree to be interviewed or the name of someone who fulfilled the criteria was suggested through a personal contact. All of these further interviewees were either living or working in the Greater London area. Despite differing in style and level of formality, these diverse approaches to contacting fathers did not seem to affect the interview responses.

2.7
An initial questionnaire collected relevant background information on the subjects, while the interviews themselves were semi-structured, allowing participants to interpret and talk about the issues according to their own concerns. Interviews were conducted either in places of work or homes (according to their preference) and lasted between one and two hours.

They were fully transcribed and analysed according to emergent themes. Pseudonyms have been used when quoting participants.

Involved Fathering - ‘whatever that may mean’

3.1
The majority of interviewees were able to reflect, at some length, on fatherhood. This capacity for reflection on the topic is one indication of the existence of various fathering models that can be compared and contrasted. That the topic of fatherhood can be discussed and debated extensively suggests that, at least to some degree, its ‘taken-for-granted’ state has disappeared. The ability to reflect on ideas of fatherhood indicates the extent to which various cultural images of fathering abound and may itself be taken as an indication of ‘new fatherhood’.

However, while various social and technological changes have prompted dialogues on the meaning of fatherhood, the recognition of potential approaches to male parenthood marks only the starting point of analysis. Accounts given by individual fathers offer an insight into how these men recognise and interpret possible ways of ‘doing fatherhood’ and how they apply them to their own circumstances.

3.2
Most of the fathers interviewed could, and did, comment on the type of father they wanted to be. Often the aim was initially expressed in general and brief terms and mentioned the word ‘involvement’.

‘When the kids came along it was just, I am a modern father, I want to be involved with my kids.’ (Jack)
‘I wanted to be really involved in what they do and kind of, really, to enjoy seeing them growing up.’ (Gareth)

3.3
Involvement is advocated because it provides personal satisfaction and, perhaps mundanely, is regarded as normal. That fatherhood today simply is involved fatherhood is related in Jack’s comment: ‘it was just, I am a modern father’.

He recognises the existence of a societal default position with which he complies. Despite this idea of acquiescing to societal norms, there is no indication that doing so involves any imposition on fathers against their wishes.

Indeed buying into what is regarded as typical coincides with their own perception that involvement is also pleasurable, and therefore desired- ‘to enjoy seeing them [children] growing up’.

3.4
If these, or similar, comments are repeated frequently, it is easy to see how they would provide a basis for assertions about the existence of the ‘involved father’.

The attitudes expressed by the interviewees could be interpreted as a rejection of more traditional (or less modern) images of fathering. In trying to characterise the demise of one notion of fatherhood and the rise of another in its place, the counterpoising of ‘new’ and ‘traditional’ is often transposed to ‘involved’ versus ‘breadwinner’, thereby implying that involvement is something distinct from the role of economic provisioning. This choice of language, leading to the exclusion of financial providing from involved fathering, would be strongly contested by those fathers whose principal responsibility within the family is performing this role.

3.5
The main problem with this terminology is that the word ‘involved’ is synonymous with concerned and engaged, which are positive attributes, while the opposite expression ‘uninvolved’ (detached, indifferent) is inherently bad. Therefore, a breadwinning role immediately has associations with negligent or insufficient forms of parenting.

Breadwinners begin to appear similar to the uninvolved ‘dead-beat dad’, that is, to those who absent themselves - for whatever reasons - from any association with their children. Avoiding such a priori assumptions is necessary in attempting to understand what is both included and excluded in the term ‘involvement’. Breadwinning is better considered as simply one of a number of potential ways of ‘doing’ fathering involvement.

3.6
So, although the fathers clearly assert that they want to be involved with their children, their statements lack clarity over what an ‘involved’ role actually constitutes. Involvement, itself, is certainly fuzzy enough to incorporate the model of father as breadwinner and the extent to which the financial is an actual component of involvement for this group of fathers is a matter for inquiry.

That the term ‘involved’ is used in many different contexts is acknowledged by one of the fathers, who recognises the existence of various interpretations, adding to his comment about wanting to be involved with his children, ‘Whatever that may mean.’

Breadwinning

4.1
One of the major arguments for the existence of a ‘new’ form of fathering is the assertion that the idea of father as breadwinner - dominant in the past - is no longer considered either necessary or sufficient to fulfil the requirements of good fathering.

It appears to have become accepted knowledge that breadwinning, as the defining aspect of fathering identity, has been consigned to history (Pleck, 1987). In documenting changes in the views of fatherhood, Lamb (1986) equates the breadwinner ideology with a period encompassing the Industrial Revolution to the Second World War, while Griswold (1993), in his history of fatherhood in America, posits that the mid-sixties marked the end of the association between the image of fatherhood and breadwinning.

Relatively sparse mentions of the provider identity in current empirically based accounts of fatherhood have been used as evidence to support this contention. Cohen (1993: 19), noting the absence of breadwinning imagery among his sample of fathers of young children, argues that, ‘traditional work- centred definitions of “fathering” are inadequate for characterizing... informants’ beliefs about fathering.’

4.2
A similar dearth of mentioning financial provision is evident among the interviewees here. Hugh provided an exception; when asked about how he saw himself as a father he explained how his identity is firmly located in the world of paid employment:

‘I had always seen myself as a Flintstone type father, you know, out to work, out to the office, while mother stays at home and looks after the children.’ (Hugh)

4.3
In comparing his familial identity to characters in The Flintstones- the ‘modern Stone Age family’- he acknowledges that his viewpoint, if not quite belonging to a bygone age, is a stance he regards as predominantly associated with an earlier period and one that is relatively unusual in contemporary society.

Another interviewee responded to the same question by characterising his role solely in terms that he also claimed as ‘traditional’:
‘Not too interested in the domestic day-to-day stuff. He [the father] is the provider, he is the breadwinner.’ (Bill)

4.4
Although Bill’s response accords with research suggesting that providing money to support children does remain central to expectations of fatherhood (Warin et al., 1999; Weiss, 1990) this was not the dominant response among interviewees.

While breadwinning does still exist as one expression of fathering commitment on which men can draw, it commanded only a small minority position among this group of fathers. Except for the two responses printed above, references to earning money as a significant aspect of fathering were conspicuous only by their absence.

New Fathering?

5.1
With confirmation that images of fathering presented by the interviewees minimise the importance of income generation, it is incumbent to explore what does comprise the idea of good fatherhood.

Cohen (1993) embraces the few citations of breadwinning he finds among his sample of fathers as indicating changes taking place in the meanings attached to fatherhood, and of a fundamental shift in fathers’ psychological involvement with their children. His proposal is that fathers’ emotional response to children has taken the place of a provider role and he quotes one of his respondents as saying, ‘It changes your relationship to everybody and everything’ (Cohen, 1993:5). He therefore concludes (1993:

6) that, ‘Contrary to what traditional thinking about fatherhood would lead one to expect, becoming fathers had a dramatic impact on informants’ lives, extending far beyond the economic implications of this transition.’

However, this conclusion looks flawed due to the assumption made about traditional fatherhood. While becoming a father is a critical transition in the lives of his interviewees, it does not necessarily follow that this contradicts, or constitutes a dramatic break from previous conceptualisations of fatherhood.

5.2
Historical research has questioned the assumption that all fathers in previous generations adhered to the stereotype of limited emotional attachment. While the term ‘Victorian fatherhood’ may conjure up images of distance and inaccessibility, Davidoff and Hall (1987:329) comment that the records of 19th century middle-class fathers they studied indicate, ‘an intense involvement of men with their families, and a loving interest in their children’s lives.’

Meanwhile, Lummis (1982), in his study of East Anglian fishermen at the turn of the twentieth century, has challenged the idea that until very recently working class fathers tended to be brutal, drunken and aloof. Referring to the 1930s, Griswold (1993) notes how experts on parenting declared that love and involvement, not discipline and authority, were the hallmarks of the modern father.

Therefore, the assertion that an emotional response by fathers to their children is something entirely new seems hard to justify.

5.3
From the respondents’ comments in this study it can be seen how emotional attachment is not incompatible with a breadwinning identity and that the two do coexist. Both Bill and Hugh, who were quoted above emphasising the centrality of economic provisioning to their identity as fathers, also commented upon the effect that fatherhood had on them:

‘I think it had a very dramatic effect...the relationship with your own child is so different from anything else you can possibly experience.’ (Hugh)
‘I’m a broader, more rounded individual as a result of having children.’ (Bill)

5.4
Using similar language to that of Cohen’s respondent these remarks indicate how recognising the magnitude of becoming a parent does not preclude the acceptance of a fathering identity based on providing.

Thus, positing that an emotional connection exists between father and child does not necessarily mean that this is a new phenomenon, one that replaces a preceding notion of fatherhood centred on breadwinning.

5.5
Since ideas of breadwinning and emotional attachment occur together both in current accounts of fatherhood and in the past, the belief that fathers and affection for children come together only in recent history is most likely to be the result of greater academic attention on the issue.

Research on men has increasingly focused on private relationships, including those between parents and children, whereas previously researchers tended to concentrate more attention on the public aspect of men’s lives.

Comparisons between attitudes of fathers to their paternal roles in the past and present may be problematic because of methodological difficulties (Lewis, 1986). It is difficult to assess the degree to which relationships with children have actually altered, and to what extent cultural change has simply prompted more public discussion of these emotions.

However, it does seem that the existence of some kind of emotional attachment between fathers and children may be novel only to social researchers.

5.6
Despite the recognition that emotional responses by fathers to their children are not a recent development, this does necessarily undermine the argument that the emotional relationship is indicative of ‘new’ fathering.

It might be posited that the alteration in contemporary society is that the emotional relationship between father and child now functions as the basis of a model for fathering.

The argument would follow that as breadwinning no longer commands this position, the emotional connection has been transformed from an accepted, but unremarkable, fact to operate as the central component of fathering identity. In this situation, the nature of the significant relationship, the ‘emotional connection’ to which fathers refer, requires a more exact examination.

Reflections on Fatherhood

6.1
When comments about fathering were elicited from my subjects it was unsurprising to find that, in the majority of cases, it was the interviewees’ experiences of fathering when they were children that provides the basis of their reflections.

The biographies of the fathers indicate how, as children, the men had experienced a broad sweep of fathering; from absent fathers to fathers who had taken sole responsibility for childcare as single parents. Interviewees frequently assessed their fathers as parents and highlighted aspects of the relationship with their own father that they wanted to reproduce with their own offspring, along with elements which showed up contrasts between their actions and views on fatherhood with those they had experienced as a child.

6.2
In studies of fathering, a recurrent theme is men’s assertion that they have a higher commitment to, and involvement with, their children than did their own fathers. ‘Results indicate that most men today desire and seem to have a closer relationship with their children than did their fathers’ (Van Dongen, 1995: 91).

In fact, men’s claims that they have greater involvement with their children than their fathers did with them as children is present in literature from the 1950s through to the 1990s (Lewis, 1995).

Although this accelerating trend has provided another basis for proposing the reality of the ‘new father’, extreme caution must be taken in making definitive statements about changes in fathering from such reflections. Asking men to compare themselves with their fathers perhaps inevitably leads interviewees into the response that they are somehow doing things ‘better’.

In analysing this interview material, evidence for new fathering was not assumed simply on the grounds that ‘positive’ changes between the generations were often mentioned. Instead, these generational comparisons proved useful as a foil to draw out the facets regarded as most (and least) significant to the men’s conception of ‘good fathering’.

Close Relationships

7.1
In comparing parenting experienced from both sides - as a father and son - the interviewees emphasised the importance of a close relationship between father and child. This was viewed as constituting the positive model for their fathering, whether or not they had experienced it themselves as a child.

A number of interviewees articulated how they felt that their own fathers had been distant and remote, in order to draw attention to how they wanted to establish a different kind of father-child relationship:

‘I didn’t want to be like my own dad. No, he’s a nice guy and everything, but he’s a little bit distant with small children. He’s a kind of intellectual, kind of academic guy and if people can’t talk to him in long sentences with lots of subordinate clauses he doesn’t tend to be that interested in them. So that excludes, obviously, children.

I didn’t want to be like that, I wanted to try and relate to kids on their own level.’ (Phil)
‘My father was very remote to me when I was very little... when I was starting to get stroppy [as a teenager]. I suppose, I was just, not wanting to be like that, not wanting to be reactive....

My perception of him was that he was the one who stopped me doing things and then gave up on me.’ (Simon)

7.2
Detailing what ‘distant’ means, Phil explains that, in his view, his father was not really interested in him as a child and that this indifference was because he [Phil] could not provide the type of company his father enjoyed.

In contrast, Phil stresses that he wants to engage with his daughter ‘on her level’ rather than imposing adult standards of communication. Simon did not have a good relationship with his own father either, and wants to ensure that he does not replicate the problems with his children. The same terminology of distance is encountered here - his father was ‘very remote’- but he also spells out the consequences of his father’s remoteness.

On the occasions when his father did become involved in his upbringing, Simon viewed it as being restrictive and lacking in understanding. With his own parenting, he is anxious to build a bond so that any influence he exerts on his children originates within what he regards as a more positive context.

7.3
Another interviewee also focuses on the contrast between his father’s parenting and his own:
‘I mean, I saw with my father, he was, sort of, very dedicated to his family but quite distant as well.... So I would say that he was close to me, but not in the way of showing emotions or talking about things, or like necessarily being very open about things. And so, I suppose, I always aspired to try to be more open with my children.

I mean, I’m not saying he was uninvolved or didn’t care, but I would, well, I wanted to be really involved in what they do.’ (Gareth)

7.4
The difference between Gareth’s account and that of previous interviewees lies not in what they want to do as parents, but in how they have arrived at their conclusions. Unlike the previous two quotations, Gareth’s statement does not present any specific problems in the relationship he experienced with his father.

Nor does he profess any negative feelings towards him. In fact, Gareth’s recollections use a number of extremely complimentary terms to describe his father; he was very dedicated to his family, close to his child, involved and caring. Yet, overall, his father is still categorised as ‘quite distant’- with an obvious contradiction in using the antonyms ‘distant’ and ‘close’ to describe his father in consecutive sentences.

This confusion of language occurs because, in contrast to Phil and Simon, Gareth is categorical in stating that the parenting he received was ‘good’ and he is anxious not to give the impression, inadvertently, of being overly critical.

He knows that his father did feel emotion towards him, but being ‘really involved’ and complying with contemporary ideas of fatherhood means that Gareth wants to do things differently as a father.

7.5
Very few interviewees mentioned the extent of their participation in activities with their children as marking a significant difference between generations of parenting. One interviewee said that his father’s disability had limited his participation in some of the physical aspects of fathering:

‘My father was disabled, so he couldn’t play that sort of active role which he would have wanted to have played - as he could see fathers of my friends [playing]. I thought I would be like them.’ (George)

7.6
Another talked about how his own fathering role is strikingly dissimilar to how his father had behaved. But although Jack mentions specific play activities here, these are just one aspect of an entirely different view of fatherhood:

‘In my own family my father was very dictatorial, to my mother and towards us as kids. He wasn’t a fraction as involved with us as I have been with my children. He worked, he came home late from work, he went to sleep on the couch. Weekends we were out doing things with our friends and stuff....I didn’t have that playing time with my father so much....I had things that I saw in my father’s relationships that I didn’t want to repeat.’ (Jack)

7.7
The impression given here is that the behaviour concentrated upon - play - is actually representative of a more essential difference in the kind of relationship that Jack claims exists between himself and his children. What Jack indicates is not only a greater participation in activities with his children, but also a less hierarchical relationship with them.

He starts by talking about the ‘dictatorial’ nature of his father and then uses the issue of play as a way of conveying how this translates into practice. Jack’s comments indicate how he views father-child relationships as based in something fundamentally different to the authoritarian paternalism he once experienced.

7.8
The style of fatherhood that all these men reject resonates with the imagery of the paterfamilias who is one step removed from the experiences and emotions of their child and reticent about expressing their own feelings. The men’s fathers are typically characterised as failing to epitomise a more ‘modern’ form of fatherhood - one that the interviewees are aiming for themselves - that is based upon both the verbal and physical expression of feeling.

On the whole, the existence of some kind of emotional connection between father and child that is regarded as absolutely necessary, is assumed to be present. It is the demonstration of emotion, through ‘openness’, that is seen as the key in both fostering and demonstrating a good relationship between father and child. When activities with children were mentioned by today’s fathers, they were utilised in a wider sense as a way of illustrating the existence - or non-existence - of this highly prized form of relationship.

7.9
Most of the interviewees did discuss alterations in the model of fathering between their own generation and the one before, but not all of the men interviewed suggested that they wanted to break with the practice of their fathers.

When interviewees indicated that they wanted to follow the example of their father’s parenting, it was still the establishment of a close relationship that was viewed as central. For those fathers hoping to replicate the parenting they had experienced as a child, the emphasis on the distance between father and son (mentioned in previous quotations) were replaced by references to good relationships based on closeness:

‘I wanted to be like the memory I had of my father because we had a very good relationship.’ (Greg)
‘I am very close to my father and I think he’s a wonderful man.’ (Hugh)

Fatherhood as Intimacy

8.1
To a degree, the interviewees’ responses replicate the findings of some previous studies in emphasising the existence and expression of the emotional connection between fathers and children (e.g. Cohen, 1993; Warin et al., 1999). In a study of young people and family life, Brannen et al. (1994) found that all the parents interviewed emphasised how close they were to their children. This highly valued, ‘good’ relationship with children placed great prominence on the importance of disclosure and was based on the ability of parents and children to communicate - talking, listening and understanding. In similar fashion, Furstenberg (1995) found among his sample of American inner city fathers, that emotional involvement was seen as crucial to fulfilling the idea of being a ‘good father’.

By focussing on the interviewees’ ideas of fatherhood it is possible to specify the components of this emotional connection. The fathers in the current study made the association between ‘good fathering’ and ‘involved fathering’ that replicates common usage. The salient dimensions of this involvement can be distinguished more precisely; it encompasses an openness of emotions, the expression of affection, and the building of a close relationship - a description that corresponds closely to definitions of intimacy.

8.2
Initially, it might appear that the concept of intimacy has little significance in any consideration of parent-child relationships, since, in everyday language, the term is usually associated with adult-adult interactions and often implies a sexual dimension to a relationship.

However, using a sociological definition this is not necessarily implied. Giddens (1992) argues that intimacy is about rights, responsibilities and trust and what Jamieson (1998) terms ‘disclosing intimacy’ is primarily an intimacy of the self, not of the body. She defines ‘disclosing intimacy’ as necessarily including ‘close association, privileged knowledge, deep knowing and understanding and some form of love’ (p13).

These elements correspond closely to the descriptions of ‘involved’ fatherhood outlined by the interviewees. The material suggests it is an intimate personal relationship with children that is held up as an aim and ideal by the fathers. The interviewees here seem be striving towards a close father-child relationship in this form of ‘intimate fathering’ and with the prioritising of intimacy ‘it is the quality of the relationship between parent and child which comes to the fore’ (Giddens, 1992:98).

Culture versus Conduct

9.1
The idea of ‘intimate fathering’ gives a clearer definition of what involved fathering means to this group of men; how these fathers view the idea of good fatherhood. However, interest in fatherhood also addresses the topic of parenting behaviour.

Researchers who have drawn attention to the emotional connection between fathers and children are, in the most part, also keen to examine the practical implications of such perspectives and to make the connection with measurable involvement in childcare. Cohen (1993: 19), having documented how some fathers talk about fathering, links the psychological with a physical involvement in his statement that, ‘traditional work-centred definitions of “fathering” are inadequate for characterizing either informants’ beliefs about fathering or their behaviour as parents’ (my italics), although this article makes little reference to actual practices.

Joining attitudes and behaviour in this way allows statements to be made which automatically translate the desire to ‘do’ intimate fathering into greater participation in parenting tasks than has previously been documented (and perhaps even to suggest a burgeoning equality with mothers over childcare).

9.2
This version of equating attitudes and behaviour has led to fatherhood debates concentrating on the attempt to reconcile the contradiction between, what La Rossa ( 1988; 1997) has labelled, the ‘culture’ and ‘conduct’ of fatherhood. While the ‘culture’ presents images of fathering that suggest radical change, repeated studies of the ‘conduct’ of fatherhood indicate only small-scale alterations in behaviour.

As La Rossa emphasises, many of the recent accounts of transformed fatherhood (e.g. Pleck, 1987; Rotundo, 1985) are concerned with images of fatherhood and the ideological shifts of men in relation to parenthood, while measurements of the extent of fathers’ participation in childcare tasks tend to give a different perspective.

9.3
This position then leads to the search for explanations of why fathers’ practices do not currently match their ideological position.

One response is to assert that a greater psychological attachment will lead to an increase in fathers’ familial roles in the future (Cohen, 1993; Pleck, 1987) and that currently we are in a period of transition- similar to the ‘lagged adaptation’ envisaged by Gershuny et al. (1994) with respect to the domestic division of labour. The apparent disparity in the attitudes and behaviour of fathers is often seen as an expression of the ideal versus the possible, or personal desire countered by societal constraint because, ‘choice for fathers is severely limited’ (Burgess, 1997:214).

Different writers may attribute this: to mothers who are reluctant to give up their jurisdiction over children; to the unyielding position of employers, who refuse to make the combining of paid employment and family life easier and punish men who do not adhere to labour market expectations; or even to the legal and social security system which continues to assume that it is mothers who should (and do) take primary responsibility for children and that fathers are therefore relatively marginal.

Whatever the supposed cause, the consequence is that attention is transferred to challenging these restrictions.

Lack of Contradiction

10.1
While accepting that these boundaries do exist, it is important to recognise that there is a flawed logic in presuming that ‘intimate fathering’ should necessarily translate into specific behaviours.

An alternative suggestion is that the implied contemporary contradiction does not really exist at all and, instead, intimate fathering is compatible with a restricted investment in caring labour.

10.2
The finding that those who share parenting tasks with their partners also express a ‘hunger for intimacy’ (Ehrensaft, 1987) is accepted as working in reverse - those who express the desire for intimacy will, necessarily, be involved in parenting activities.

Not only does this argument display questionable internal logic, but there are indications that the association does not hold up in practice. Ehrensaft (1987) notes that fathers who use ‘romantic’ language to talk about their children do not necessarily try to take an equal share in the practicalities of caring for their children with their partner. Therefore the extent of fathers’ practical involvement in childcare should not simply be assumed from statements of a desire for intimacy.

10.3
Accepting that the contradiction between ideas and actions lies at the heart of any analysis of modern fatherhood necessitates first acceding that involved fathering should correspond with spending more time with children. Jamieson (1998) says that a separation between knowing and understanding on the one hand (intimacy), and practical caring (activity) on the other, seems unlikely as a relationship takes time to develop.

The link between intimacy and a time commitment initially may seem too much of a truism to be worthy of comment. On further examination, this is not so obviously the case and the interviewees do not make the association, in any simple way, between the intimate fathering they extol and the time they spend with children.

10.4
Greg commented that the quality of the relationship he had with his father was ‘very good’ and that he wanted to reproduce this with his own children. However, Greg goes on to say that his father worked in the same industry as he now does - which means Greg had also come to recognise that the time he would be able to spend with his own family would actually be limited:

‘I knew that it was unlikely that I would be around all day, but I knew that at the end of the day, I should put work behind me and should throw myself into whatever is left of the day for the children...given that I have a long journey home from work.’ (Greg)

10.5
The interviewee does two things with this comment: he is referencing the restrictions which a full-time and demanding job place on him; but is also stating that spending long amounts of time with children is not, in his view, necessary in order for a male parent to be classed as an involved, intimate father.

The assertion that whatever time is available is directed towards his children emphasises his commitment to family life, but also strongly implies that the quality of fathering cannot be read off from some simple measurement of father-child time.

10.6
Hugh, who had also commented on the ‘closeness’ of his relationship with his father, goes on to raise the issue of time, but this time in a rather more problematic fashion:
‘I don’t see, in any sense, that I did not have time with my father.

You know if I think back to my childhood, I have what seems a lot of time with my father. But I’m sure it can’t have been [true] because I was at boarding school, apart from anything else, and he was in the Navy. Yet I don’t feel any lack of involvement from him as a child.’ (Hugh)

10.7
Hugh recognises that the time he spent with his father must have been quite restricted, but he is equally adamant that his father did fulfil his [Hugh’s] expectations of a good father.

The apparent contradiction is reconciled through emphasising the centrality of how he perceived the situation to be - that he felt that his father was involved, whatever any more objective measures of ‘commitment’ might seem to demonstrate. The problem arises because he begins by implicitly asserting that time can be taken as a key indicator in defining whether a father is involved with his child: more time spent with his son is unproblematically read as more involvement.

Yet his personal experience does not support using time as a proxy measure in this way. These comments suggest that the desired father-child relationship - one based on a notion of ‘intimate fathering’ - can be achieved with a relatively small amount of time being spent together.

10.8
If more committed, intimate fathering does not necessarily have to correspond with a desire to spend more time with children then this can provide an alternative explanation for the disparity between men’s views on fatherhood and their own behaviour as fathers.

It need not be the case that structural elements are entirely responsible for barring fathers from their desired behaviour, nor that the discrepancy between actions and behaviour is a temporary phenomenon, and one that is in the process of being diminished. Instead, the apparent gulf between culture and conduct may not exist at all, or may exist in a much more marginal way than has previously been accepted.

Fathers may view themselves as aiming towards ‘intimate fathering’ and as being able to achieve it through the relationships they have with their children, even while they still spend a very large portion of their time away from home, in paid employment.

Rather than fathers having an idea of intimacy which is impossible for them to achieve in reality, they may be satisfied that their behaviour does adequately express their deep attachment to their children.

Men, it seems, can reason that they are extremely committed to their children, irrespective of the hours they ‘put in’. While ideas of ‘intimate fathering’ may mean that fathers play with their children, read them bedtime stories and attend school plays, the theoretical link between expressions of intimacy and practical caring, as previously conceptualised, is exposed as a tenuous one - at least for these fathers.

Conclusions

11.1
The image of ‘new fatherhood’ has been perpetuated, both by academics and lay sources, to the extent that it is accepted as having something of a real-life existence (La Rossa, 1988).

But ‘new fatherhood’ has, nevertheless, managed to remain a rather obscure concept. Defining new fatherhood as ‘being involved’ has done little to clarify the situation, as involvement itself can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways.

The ambiguity and lack of specificity of the term ‘involvement’ allows almost all fathers to be described in this way, despite their widely contrasting situations.

11.2
The fathers interviewed for this study were all in paid employment, and so were involved in economic provisioning for the family, but they did not make statements based around finance when asked about their experience of fathering.

While earning money is a significant activity and work is important for their sense of self-identity (Dermott, 2002) paid work was not viewed as central to their role as fathers. Instead, among these interviewees, ‘intimate fathering’, which included ideas of emotional openness, communication and a close relationship to children, was the dominant expression of involved (good) fathering.

11.3
While the focus in this paper has been on describing idealised versions and aims rather than the reality of fathering practice, this research also suggests that ‘intimate fathering’ is not linked, in any simple fashion, to parenting tasks and a large time commitment to children.

This version of modern fatherhood retains fluidity, at least with regard to the requirements of practical labour. The assumption that a link exists between intimacy and time has led to attempts to explain inconsistencies between ideas and behaviour, which may actually be less pronounced than has previously been imagined.

Notes
1 One of the fathers had adopted children and another commented in the interview that he was not the biological father of all the children in the household.

Acknowledgements

A version of this paper was presented at the BSA Annual Conference ‘Reshaping the Social’ University of Leicester, 25-27th March 2002. It is based on doctoral research that was funded by the ESRC.

References

BRANNEN, J., DODD, K., OAKLEY, A. and STOREY, P. (1994) Young People, Health and Family Life.Buckingham: Open University Press.

BURGESS,A. (1997) Fatherhood Reclaimed: the Making of the Modern Father. London: Vermilion.

COHEN, T.F. (1993) ‘What Do Fathers Provide? Reconsidering the Economic and Nurturant Dimensions of Men as Parents’ in J. Hood (editor) Men, Work and Family. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

DAVIDOFF, L. and HALL, C. (1987) Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle-Class 1780-1850. London: Hutchinson.

DEINHART,A. (1998) Reshaping Fatherhood, the Social Construction of Shared Parenting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DERMOTT, E. (2002) ‘Fathers’ Orientation to Paid Employment’ New Working Paper Series Issue 6: LSE Gender Institute.

EHRENSAFT,D. (1987) Parenting Together.New York: The Free Press.

FURSTENBURG, F.F. (1995) ‘Fathering in the Inner City: Paternal Participation and Public Policy’ in W. Marsiglio (editor) Fatherhood: Contemporary Theory, Research and Social Policy.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

GERSHUNY, J., GODWIN, M. and JONES, S. (1994) ‘The Domestic Labour Revolution: A Process of Lagged Adaptation’ in M. Anderson, F. Bechhofer, J. Gershuny (editors) The Social and Political Economy of the Household. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GIDDENS, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies.Cambridge: Polity Press.

GRISWOLD, R.L. (1993) Fatherhood in America.New York: Basic Books.

JACOBS,M.J.G. (1995) ‘The Wish to Become a Father: How do Men Decide in Favour of Parenthood?’ in M. Van Dongen, G. Frinking and M. Jacobs (editors) Changing Fatherhood: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

JACKSON,B. (1983) Fatherhood.London: Allen and Unwin.

JAMIESON, L. (1998) Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies.Cambridge: Polity Press.

LAMB, M.E. (1986) ‘The Changing Roles of Fathers’ in M. E. Lamb (editor) The Father’s Role: Applied Perspectives. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

LA ROSSA, R. (1988) ‘Fatherhood and Social Change’, Family Relations, Vol. 37, pp. 451-457.

LA ROSSA, R. (1997) The Modernization of Fatherhood: a Social and Political History.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LEWIS,C. (1986) Becoming a Father. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

LEWIS,C. (1995) ‘Comment on Miriam Van Dongen’ in M. Van Dongen, G. Frinking and M. Jacobs (editors) Changing Fatherhood: an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

LUMMIS, T. (1982) ‘The Historical Dimension of Fatherhood: A Case Study 1890-1914’ in L. McKee and M. O’Brien (editors) The Father Figure. London: Tavistock.

LUPTON, D, and BARCLAY, L. (1997) Constructing Fatherhood: Discourses and Experiences.London: Sage.

MCKEE, L. and O’BRIEN, M. (1983) ‘Interviewing Men: “Taking Gender Seriously”’ in E. Gamarnikov, D. Morgan, J. Purvis and D. Taylorson (editors) The Public and the Private.Hampshire: Gower.

MORGAN,D. (2002) ‘Epilogue’ in B. Hobson (editor) Making Men into Fathers: Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PLECK,J.H. (1987) ‘American Fathering in Historical Perspective’ in M. Kimmel (editor) Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. Newbury Park CA: Sage.

ROTUNDO,E.A. (1985) ‘American Fatherhood: an Historical Perspective’, American Behavioural Scientist, Vol.29, No.1, pp.7-25.

SCOTT,J. (1997) ‘Patterns of Change in Gender Role Attitudes’ in G. Dench (editor) Rewriting the Sexual Contract.London: Institute of Community Studies.

TOSH,J. (1996) ‘Authority and Nurture in Middle-Class Fatherhood: The Case of Early and Mid-Victorian England’, Gender and History,Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 48-94.

VAN DONGEN, M. (1995) ‘Men’s Aspirations Concerning Childcare: the Extent to Which They are Realised’ in M. Van Dongen, G. Frinking and M. Jacobs (editors) Changing Fatherhood: an Interdisciplinary Perspective.Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

WARIN, J., SOLOMON, Y., LEWIS, C. and LANGFORD, W. (1999) Fathers, Work and Family Life. London: Family Policy Studies Centre.

WEISS,R.S. (1990) Staying the Course: The Emotional and Social Lives of Men Who Do Well at Work.New York: The Free Press.

Copyright Sociological Research Online, 2003

http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/Cspn/vol2_no4/effects_of_separation_and_attachment.htm

Vol. 2, No. 4
July 1997

Effects of Attachment and Separation

Attachment and separation: these elemental forces drive the behaviors and decisions that shape every stage of practice. Assessment, removal, placement, reunification, adoption—no aspect of child welfare social work is untouched by their influence. This article will describe these forces and provide suggestions for helping children and families understand and cope with them.

Attachment

Attachment is the social and emotional relationship children develop with the significant people in their lives. An infant’s first attachment is usually formed with its mother, although in some circumstances another adult can become the primary attachment figure. This may be a father, a grandparent, or an unrelated adult (Caye, et al., 1996).

Attachment is a process made up of interactions between a child and his or her primary caregiver. This process begins at birth, helping the child develop intellectually, organize perceptions, think logically, develop a conscience, become self-reliant, develop coping mechanisms (for stress, frustration, fear, and worry), and form healthy and intimate relationships (Allen, et al., 1983).

In her 1982 article on parent-child attachment, published in the journal Social Casework, Peg Hess states that three conditions must be present for optimal parent-child attachment to occur: continuity, stability, and mutuality. Continuity involves the caregiver’s constancy and repetition of the parent-child interactions. Stability requires a safe environment where the parent and child can engage in the bonding process. Mutuality refers to the interactions between the parent and child that reinforce their importance to each other.

Research has demonstrated that two primary parenting behaviors are most important in developing an infant’s attachment to a caregiver. Optimal attachment occurs when a caregiver recognizes and responds to the infant’s signals and cues, meeting the infant’s physical and emotional needs; and when the caregiver regularly engages the child in lively social interactions.

Studies of infants raised in institutional settings suggest that neither behavior alone is sufficient for secure attachment. For example, one study found that institutionalized infants failed to form strong attachments to caregivers who readily met their physical needs but did not engage them in social interaction. Conversely, social interactions alone are not enough: infants often form social attachments to brothers, sisters, fathers, and grandparents who engage them in pleasurable social activity. Yet, when they are tired, hungry, or distressed, they often cannot be comforted by anyone other than the caregiver who has historically recognized and responded to their signals of physical and emotional need (Caye, et al. 1996).

Separation

Separation, the removal of children from the caregiver(s) to whom they are attached, has both positive and negative aspects. From a child protection perspective, separation has several benefits, the most obvious being the immediate safety of the child. Through this separation, limits can be established for parental behavior, and the child may get the message that society will protect him or her, even if the parent will not. Separation also temporarily frees parents from the burden of child-rearing, allowing them to focus on making the changes necessary for the child to return home.

Separating a parent and child can also have profoundly negative effects. Even when it is necessary, research indicates that removing children from their homes interferes with their development. The more traumatic the separation, the more likely there will be significant negative developmental consequences.

Repeated separations interfere with the development of healthy attachments and a child’s ability and willingness to enter into intimate relationships in the future. Children who have suffered traumatic separations from their parents may also display low self-esteem, a general distrust of others, mood disorders (including depression and anxiety), socio-moral immaturity, and inadequate social skills. Regressive behavior, such as bedwetting, is a common response to separation. Cognitive and language delays are also highly correlated with early traumatic separation.

Social workers in child placement must be continually aware of the magnitude of the changes children experience when they are removed from their families. See “Helping a Child Through a Permanent Separation” for ways to minimize the trauma of separation.

Grief

In most cases of separation, the families involved go through the five stages of grief (shock/denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and resolution), although not necessarily in this order. For example, it is possible for a grieving person to move from anger to depression and back to anger again. “Reactions to the Five Stages of Grief” is a chart that identifies behavioral expression in children and parents during each of these stages.

One of the most common errors made by social workers, foster parents, and parents is to misinterpret a child’s compliant and unemotional behavior during the shock/denial stage and judge a placement to be a “success.” When a child is thought to have handled the move without distress, later behavioral signs are often not recognized as part of the grieving process. They may be ignored or attributed to emotional or behavioral problems. At times the child may even be punished for them, intensifying the child’s distress and depriving him of support and help (Caye, et al., 1996).

References

Allen, J. A., Fahlberg, V., Ellett, A., Montgomery, T. M., Overberger, C., Williams., C., & Swanson, K. (1983). Special needs adoption curriculum: Preparation of children. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

Caye, J., McMahon, J., Norris, T., & Rahija, L. (1996). Effects of separation and loss on attachment. Chapel Hill: School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Fahlberg, V. I. (1991). A child’s journey through placement. Indianapolis, IN: Perspectives Press.

Hess, P. (1982). Parent-child attachment concept: Crucial for permanency planning. Social Casework, 63(1), 46-57.

Wasserman, S. & Rosenfeld, A. (1986). Decision-making in child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare, 65(6), 515-529.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/inatrpt.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Infant Attachment: What We Know Now
Virginia L. Colin
Nancy Low & Associates, Inc.
June 28, 1991
PDF Version

This report was prepared under contract #HHS-100-90-0035 between U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Family, Community and Long-Term Care Policy (now the Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy) and Nancy Low & Associates, Inc. For additional information about this subject, you can visit the ASPE home page at http://aspe.hhs.gov. The Project Officer was Sharon McGroder.

This report was prepared under contract No. HHS-100-90-0035 of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Health Services, with Nancy Low & Associates, Inc., 5454 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1500, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Project Staff: Susan D. Abbott, Project Director; Mary Lou Rife, Editor; Michael C. Kennedy, Editorial Assistant.

The opinions and views expressed in this report are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Health and Human Services, the contractor or any other funding organization.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD
INTRODUCTION
I. THE LITERATURE REVIEW: A SUMMARY
II. INFANT ATTACHMENT SEMINAR SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
III. RESEARCH AGENDA
APPENDIX A. SEMINAR PARTICIPANT LIST
APPENDIX B. LITERATURE REVIEW (must be requested from DALTCP)

FOREWORD
The importance of early infant attachment cannot be overstated. It is at the heart of healthy child development and lays the foundation for relating intimately with others, including spouses and children. It affects parents’ abilities to nurture and to be responsive to their children. The effects of infant attachment are long-term, influencing generations of families.

For the vast majority, the experience of the mother’s care is the first experience of reality. But the demands of modern life and culture are placing new demands on parents. With these demands comes the need for clarity regarding the basic requirements of the newborn and the young infant: what is needed to nurture appropriately? Because attachment is a fundamental theme of social function, it is a central issue in social policy.

Despite the importance of infant attachment, there has been no recent, comprehensive literature review that incorporates research from the variety of disciplines, including child development, ethology, and the behavioral and psychodynamic literatures. For this reason, the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a multidisciplinary literature review on infant attachment theory and research, and conducted a seminar of experts to critique the review and propose a research agenda.

At one point in the seminar, the researchers were pushed to articulate — in lay terms and for the general public — what they could definitely say about early infant attachment. Their list of conclusions can be found in Part II of this document. In particular, some said that the mother’s closeness (in terms of quantity of time with the child) during the first nine months is critical, while others indicated the second nine months as equally critical. The easy consensus was that the quality of care (in terms of caregiver responsiveness) in the first year or two of life influences the quality of the attachment. This does not mean, the researchers added, that the time beyond two years is not critical; it just has not been fully researched.

There was less agreement on the degree to which the quantity (in terms of hours per week) of non-parental care affects the quality of the attachment. Many researchers agreed that more research is needed on the interactive effects of quantity and quality of care on attachment outcomes, as well as on attachment to fathers, successful intervention strategies, and attachment in different cultural contexts.

Virginia L. Colin must be congratulated for a most thorough review of the literature, a review which drew the unanimous praise of the leading researchers in the field who attended the seminar. It is a significant contribution to the field of infant attachment research.

Susan D. Abbott of Nancy Low & Associates Inc., has our sincere thanks for managing the whole contract so well. Mary Lou Rife deserves special recognition for her skillful and diligent editing.

Patrick F. Fagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary
Family, Community, and Long-Term Care Policy

INTRODUCTION
In February 1991, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sponsored a two-day research seminar on infant attachment. The participants were invited researchers and clinicians, well-known in their fields, representing developmental, psychodynamic and ethological orientations.

Officials at DHHS recognized that the family structure and child-rearing practices are significantly affected by contemporary social and economic conditions. In this regard, they believe that comprehensive, multi-disciplinary research on infant attachment is critical to inform policy makers involved in such issues as parental leave, child care, family support systems and intervention strategies for high-risk children.

The DHHS seminar had three primary goals: (1) to critique a prepared literature review of infant attachment; (2) to identify research gaps; and (3) to build a consensus for an interdisciplinary research agenda. Throughout the seminar, the participants grappled with key questions that the literature poses:

What factors influence an infant’s pattern of attachment to his or her parents?

What are the consequences of the nature of a child’s first attachments?

How long lasting are the consequences?

What is the impact of maternal employment and day care on the child’s attachment?

To what extent are infants attached to secondary caregivers, such as fathers and child care providers?

How do we measure influences, outcomes and other conditions associated with infant attachment?

This final report has three major sections. The first part is a brief summary of an extensive literature review on infant attachment. The complete literature review is available upon request from The Department of Health and Human Services by contacting:

Brenda Veazy, Office of Planning and Evaluation
Room 410E, HHH Building
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201

The second section summarizes the proceedings of the seminar, which was based on the topics outlined in the literature review.

The Research Agenda, the third part of the report, outlines the areas that the participants identified for future research.

I. THE LITERATURE REVIEW: A SUMMARY
Attachment Theory
Psychoanalyst John Bowlby introduced attachment theory in the late 1950’s. In the following two decades, numerous other researchers elaborated upon this theory which integrates viewpoints from psychoanalysis, cognitive psychology, systems theory and ethology (study of animal behavior).

Bowlby defines an attachment as an enduring emotional bond characterized by a tendency to seek and maintain closeness to a specific figure, particularly during stressful situations.

Attachment theory states that a child’s first relationship is a love relationship that will have profound long-lasting effects on an individual’s subsequent development. Closeness to the attachment figure provides protection and a psychological sense of security. Attachments should lay a good foundation for being able to form other secure relationships, to seek support when needed, and to draw strengths from the support which is given.

A caregiver who is reliably available and responsive to a baby’s needs forms the basis for secure attachment, for competence in exploring the environment and forming other relationships, and for developing self-esteem.

Within attachment theory, “representational models” play a significant role. These unconscious structures are mental representations of the self and others, based on early experiences in first relationships. They set the stage for interactions with new social partners and have long-term consequences for shaping personality, organizing behavior and developing close relationships.

Bowlby asserted that it is not uncommon for a person to hold conflicting internal models of an important relationship. One model may develop largely from a child’s direct experience with a caregiver, while another may result from cognitive input—for example, statements from the parents that do not support the experience.

Changes in attachment behavior and in one’s representational models of attachment relationships can develop from developmental changes and/or changes in experience, especially with another attachment figure. Changes in the child’s attachment can also result from changes in the parent’s behavior due to family circumstances, such as the birth of a sibling, a death, divorce, or marriage, an economic setback or advance, a relocation to a new neighborhood, a child’s entry into child care or school, involvement of a social worker, or psychotherapy.

Attachment theory, is first of all, a theory about the nature of all human beings. It touches on several critical elements of an individual’s emotional life—the tendency to form attachment bonds; the role of the caregiver; the anxiety and anger which separation and loss provoke; and the nature of grieving for the loss of an attachment.

Secondly, this theory categorizes the nature of a child’s first attachment as either secure or anxious and attempts to describe the impact of these patterns on subsequent behavior and relationships.

. . .

II. INFANT ATTACHMENT SEMINAR SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Introduction
A complete list of the 10 participants and their professional affiliations is attached at the end of this section.

In the first session of the seminar, the participants described their work in infant attachment from their respective disciplines, which ranged from psychoanalysis, family therapy and developmental psychology, to primate research, cross-cultural research and social cognition.

The participants used the major topics from the literature review to guide their discussion.

Attachment Theory
The participants discussed the roots of attachment theory in psychoanalysis and ethology (science of animal behavior) and the continuing influences of both traditions. Considerable time was spent on the role of anger in attachment theory, more specifically, on its adaptive and destructive functions. While excessive hostility is destructive in the mother-child relationship, participants were reminded of Bowlby’s view of anger as serving a biological adaptive function for both the individual and the species. For example, a baby’s anger at a mother who disappears, and a parent’s anger at a child who wanders off, play a protective function. Bowlby believed that human possibilities for anger implied biological survival mechanisms, although he admits that at times anger is maladaptive.

Attachment theory comments extensively on the instinctive nature of all human beings. The major focus of much theory and research has been the infant’s maintenance of proximity to the parent and on the parent’s caregiving behavior.

The “representational models” that underlie the theory are defined as unconscious structures which guide the individuals’ perceptions and behavior, and include both cognitive and emotional components. Most participants agreed that feelings, thoughts and behaviors need to be viewed as integrated, not isolated, factors within an attachment relationship.

Determinants of Attachment Patterns
The major determinant of the infant’s pattern of attachment (secure, avoidant, ambivalent, or disorganized) appears to be the quality of care the primary caregiver(s) provides. Participants agreed with experts who have repeatedly emphasized and demonstrated that the caregiver’s sensitive responsiveness is of great importance. A caregiver must be able and willing to notice an infant’s cues, to interpret their meaning accurately, and to respond appropriately. A caregiver with too much ambivalence or rigidity or too preoccupied with her own needs cannot respond sensitively, and may cause an anxious attachment for the infant.

In terms of infant temperament, the consensus at the seminar was that the distinct personalities of babies can influence attachment outcomes. Despite considerable effort, it was recognized that psychologists have had very little success in defining and measuring temperament variables (negative emotionality, sociability, etc.) in human beings. It is easier to study temperament factors in primates. For example, experiments with rhesus monkeys have demonstrated that temperamental tendencies, such as fear of new events, are highly influenced by hereditary factors. Rhesus babies with these kinds of temperaments are at high risk for attachment difficulties and other social problems, when their mothers are unskilled and rejecting, and when the environment is stressful. Introducing them to more responsive mothering and a calm environment greatly decreases their vulnerability.

The question was raised as to whether infants and mothers are equal partners in terms of accommodating each other. It appears that most of the time, both mothers and babies have great flexibility in behaviors available to them. Mothers, however, have a greater freedom of choice about their behavior. Therefore, the quality of care the mother provides will probably have more influence than the infant’s temperament on the infant’s pattern of attachment.

Issues of attachment versus autonomy develop as the child gets older. A sensitive mother will respect even an infant’s growing need for independence. The early childhood years demand that a mother work collaboratively with a child in handling separation and reunion matters. In preschool years, children’s attachments move into the phase of “goal-corrected” partnerships, when language becomes important and is used by the child to communicate his needs and thus influence the quality of the relationship.

Outcomes of Early Attachment Patterns
Participants agreed that while the quality of attachment in infancy does not predict the total behavior of a person, the first attachment does lay the foundation for handling subsequent phases of development. Children with secure attachments have more basic trust than those who are anxiously attached. They have more ego resiliency through early and middle childhood, unless they experience significant negative changes. They can also cope with setbacks, and recover more quickly. Securely attached children have more flexibility in processing current information and in responding appropriately in new situations and relationships.

Anxious/avoidant children carry anger and anxiety unconsciously and build defenses against perceiving or communicating certain types of emotional information. They demonstrate more displaced aggression and more non-compliance than other groups. Nevertheless, they perform well on developmental tests and on tasks that measure cognitive skills.

Anxious/ambivalent children have difficulty regulating the expression of negative emotions and are preoccupied with attachment concerns to a degree that interferes with constructive functioning.

In high risk samples, anxious/disorganized children are most likely to develop behavior problems.

Many anxiously attached children function quite normally. However, securely attached children always look equal to, or better than, anxiously attached children in measure of personality, social behavior and approaches to cognitive challenges. Researchers have identified characteristics such as resilience, persistence and cooperation as principal factors in their success. The consistency with which secure attachment is associated with positive outcomes is striking.

Research has shown that institution-reared children and foster children, who have been shuttled frequently from home to home, lose their capacity to form deep emotional bonds.

Intervention Strategies
The participants reported that it has become easier in the last few years to identify those infants and mothers who are at risk for problems related to attachment. In addition, much has been learned about developing appropriate ways to change maladaptive behavior. Primate research, which has provided some illuminating data about intervention techniques, was a topic of great interest at the seminar.

Research with non-human primates, whose early attachment was inadequate, identified simple intervention strategies. One activity was moving the mother and baby from a cage where they lived alone, to a group that included well-adjusted mothers and children. This change resulted in decreased isolation, increased social support and more appropriate models for behavior. The mother in this case was returning to a more “normal” (in evolutionary terms) social environment.

A second intervention which works with rejecting, inadequate monkey mothers is simply to continue returning the infant to physical contact with the mother, usually by placing the baby on the mother’s back. Eventually, the infant’s care-eliciting behaviors begin to affect the mother’s ability to provide responsive care.

The participants discussed the implications of these interventions in the human realm. Two studies were cited that found that baby carriers, which hold the baby against the mother’s chest, improve attachment outcomes for inner-city babies. A third study, which focused on placing mothers in front of their babies during directed play, instead of behind them, resulted in rapid improvements in mother-infant interaction in a high-risk sample.

For high-risk families, (involving poverty, abuse, neglect, depression, psychiatric problems) multi-faceted, long-term strategies are needed that include psychotherapy for the mother and that offer practical social support for the entire family. There is currently no evidence that teaching child development principles in a didactic “classroom” situation, to parents in either high-risk or low-risk samples improves attachment outcomes.

Special Areas of Infant Attachment Research
Maternal Employment
Studies show that 50% of mothers have jobs in the baby’s first year; perhaps as many as 3/4 of them have full-time jobs. Issues regarding maternal employment and child care needs were considered a high priority by the participants.

Several points were made about employed mothers. Most babies develop secure attachments. This is true even when the mother returns to a full-time job within the first six months of the baby’s life. Babies of mothers with full-time jobs are more likely than other babies to have avoidant attachments, but there are no good studies explaining why. There are no studies of the later correlates of early avoidance in employed mother families.

Participants expressed concern about the mother’s well-being, in addition to the infant’s care. They commented that large numbers of American families are living in very stressful circumstances, with limited choices available to them in terms of parental leave, child care, or part-time work options. Families, therefore, are making difficult choices between meeting the baby’s and mother’s needs, whether the mother’s employment is an economic necessity or a valuable part of her own development.

Fathers
Participants noted that, in general, the father’s caregiving role with the baby is not the same as the mother’s. Father tend to be playmates, often stepping back to let the mother take over when the baby needs comfort. There is no substantial data available regarding the particular aspects of interaction that underlie infants’ attachment to their fathers.

Some studies suggest that good marital relationships are associated with secure infant attachments. While the explanation for the correlation between the two is not known, the father’s support for the mother appears especially important.

There is not much research available on single mothers and the potential for their babies to be at risk for anxious attachments. While studies of very small samples indicate that there is no greater risk, larger samples of hundreds of infant-mother dyads are needed to reach any conclusions.

Infant Child Care
Few studies exist concerning the patterns of young children’s attachments to their child care provider. The participants voiced the need for research that focuses on the processes involved in a child care relationship and on its consequences for later development.

Some participants expressed concern about extended child care—in which an infant receives more than 20 hours per week care by a provider; they fear that the parent’s ability to steer the child’s development trajectory is being diminished. In addition, these infants are at greater risk for avoidant attachments; the frequency increases by 8% (from 20% to 28%) for this group.

More professionals are involved in caregiving earlier in a child’s life. While they believed that an enduring, supportive relationship with a nanny may be an optimal alternative, they acknowledged that this type of situation is seldom available to most parents. No studies on child care have differentiated between types of family care (e.g., a live-in nanny, family day care group, commercially operated day care center).

Research has demonstrated that having two secure attachments for an infant predicts better outcomes than only one, and that one secure attachment is better than having none. This prediction is true when the second attachment figure is either a father or a non-parental care provider.

Attachment Hierarchies
There is reason to believe that the primary caregiver or principal attachment figure in infancy is likely to have a more powerful and long-term influence on the child’s developmental trajectory than anyone else in childhood. In most cases, this person is the mother.

Participants noted that in primate species, the mother and child are embedded in a multi-generational, matriarchal kinship network. If a problem arises in the primary relationship, some other person in the system contributes care.

Grandmothers were cited as being very often important attachment figures; but they are rarely included in attachment research.

Gender Differences
Most studies have not found gender differences in attachment patterns. Therefore, participants cautioned against drawing confident conclusions from results found in only one or two studies that determine that boys are more at risk on attachment issues.

Among humans and other primates, mothers do not treat boys and girls very differently in infancy. Nevertheless, large sex differences in behavior emerge in the early childhood period and increase in adolescence. Studies with primates indicates that the presence of a male exaggerates sex differences in the infants.

Cross-Cultural Research
Discussion focused on cultural differences in caregiving that affect patterns of secure and anxious attachment. For example, in many parts of the world, face-to-face interactions between infants and adults is very rare; but where caregiving includes breastfeeding and a high degree of responsiveness to mild signs of distress, a majority of secure infants may result.

Likewise, many cultures rely on kinship support networks that play major roles in the early attachment relationship to the mother. Participants observed that isolation of a mother and her young children from others, to the degree that is common in the U.S., puts her in a deprived social environment, compared to the one in which human behavior evolved.

Assessment Issues
Participants agreed that the Strange Situation is a robust assessment procedure. This method reflects differences associated with individual care and with individual cultures, and identifies care associated with maltreatment, maternal depression and maternal alcoholism.

It was agreed that researchers should use the “D” (anxious/disorganized) category in all new studies using Strange Situations. They should also attend to subgroups of D’s, since the history and prognoses for some subgroups are drastically different. In addition, recommended re-analysis of videotapes of Strange Situations previously participants conducted to include the D category.

Researchers require additional cross-cultural data to determine if precursors, consequences and major implications of Strange Situations are similar or different in each culture.

There is mixed evidence on the usefulness of the Attachment Q-set for children up to three-years-old, as well as the reliability of the coding patterns of attachment in modified Strange Situations for preschoolers.

The participants did not discuss other assessment situations such as the AAI or Hazan and Shaver’s self-report because of time constraints and other priorities.

Summary
The participants agreed that it is difficult to make definitive conclusions regarding the complex issue regarding infant attachment. However, there are a few broad areas on which the researchers were able to reach consensus:

All babies become attached to a primary caregiver, if one is available.

Being attached to someone is better than being attached to no one.

Secure attachments are better than insecure attachments for later child development outcomes.

“Ego resiliency” — or flexible, adaptive behavior — is a clear outcome of a secure attachment.

Attachment occurs within a family context and social community. Consequently, directly or indirectly, attachment outcomes may be affected by interaction among many individuals as well as by environmental characteristics.

A secure attachment is not necessary nor sufficient to achieve positive cognitive outcomes.

The quality of care (in terms of caregiver responsiveness) in the first year or two of life influences the quality of the attachment.

There was less agreement about the degree to which the quantity of parental vs. non-parental care (in terms of hours per week) affects the quality of the attachment. Many researchers agreed that more research is needed on the combined effects of quantity and quality of care on attachment outcomes.

The participants concluded by recommending that naturalistic, longitudinal evaluations with larger sample sizes are needed to disentangle the mediating effects of environmental and individual characteristics on attachment outcomes.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
######################################################
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://www.everydayhealth.com/PublicSite/searchResultsDynamic.aspx?q=symptoms%20of%20attachment%20disorder&xid=ysekiiib&s_kwcid=TC-1511-46407353522-S-5319265022

Search Results for symptoms of attachment disorder

http://fatherfamilylink.gse.upenn.edu/research/recent/2105.htm

Research Reports and News Posted May 2001:
Fathers—Research | Children & Families | Census Data | Welfare Reform | NCOFF Abstracts
Fathers—Research

National Household Education Survey: Fathers’ and Mothers’ Involvement in Their Children’s Schools by Family Type and Resident Status, Christine Winquist Nord (Westat) and Jerry West, U.S. Department of Education, National Center For Education Statistics, Statistical Analysis Report, May 2001.

Highlights:
Due to the prevalence of divorce and nonmarital childbearing in the United States, many students enrolled in grades 1 through 12 do not live with both their biological parents (Furstenberg and Cherlin 1991). In 1996, 57 percent of students in these grades lived with two biological parents, while the remaining 43 percent lived in some other family living arrangement. Studies have found that students who live apart from one or both of their biological parents tend to do less well in school than students who live with both their biological parents (Zill 1996; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Lee 1993). Some observers have speculated that differences in levels of parents’ school involvement may help to account for the observed disparities.
Data from the 1996 National Household Education Survey (NHES:96) reveal that the school involvement of biological parents is not the same across family types and that the involvement of stepparents is generally lower than that of biological parents. In this report, high school involvement is defined as participating in at least three of four school activities that most schools typically offer: attending a general school meeting; attending a regularly scheduled parent-teacher conference; attending a school or class event; or volunteering at school. Low school involvement is participating in none or only one such activity.

Biological mothers in stepfather families are less likely to be highly involved in their children’s schools than biological mothers in two-biological-parent families. Forty-five percent of students living with a biological mother and a stepfather have a mother who is highly involved in their schools compared to 58 percent of students living with both biological parents. Once family background characteristics such as students’ age, sex, and race/ethnicity, household income, mother’s employment, and parent education are taken into account, biological mothers in stepfather families remain less likely to be highly involved in their children’s schools than mothers in two-biological-parent families and are also less likely to be highly involved than mothers in mother-only families.
Biological fathers in stepmother families, on the other hand, are more likely to be highly involved in their children’s schools than biological fathers in two-biological-parent families. Thirty-five percent of students living with a biological father and a stepmother have a father who is highly involved in their schools compared to 28 percent of students living with both biological parents.
Students living in father-only families are the most likely of all students to have highly involved fathers46 percent of such students have fathers who are highly involved in their schools.
Stepmothers are more likely than biological mothers, regardless of family type, to show low levels of involvement in their children’s schools. Forty percent of students living in stepmother families have a stepmother with low involvement in their schools, while 28 percent of students in stepfather families, 27 percent in mother-only families, and 20 percent in two-biological-parent families have mothers with low involvement in their schools. The same is true of stepfathers, but stepfathers show even lower levels of involvement in their stepchildren’s schools than do stepmothers. Sixty-two percent of students living with a stepfather have a stepfather who participated in none or only one activity in their schools during the current school year.

[CONTINUED AT LINK—LONG DOC]

###############################################

http://www.deakin.edu.au/psychology/research/fatheringstudy/pls.html

Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee -
Health & Behavioural Sciences Subcommittee (DUHREC-HBS)
Plain Language Statement

Project Title: Attachment style, fathering behaviour, and emotional wellbeing following marital separation

My name is Robert McGregor, and I am conducting a research projects as part of my Bachelor of Arts (Psychology)(Honours) degree at Deakin University. I would like to invite you to participate in this research. My supervisor is Dr Jan Stewart, a lecturer in the School of Psychology.
Separation and divorce are particularly stressful events. The presence of children can make this event significantly more complicated. Research suggests that children’s adjustment to separation/divorce is directly related to the type of relationship between parents. In relation to this, Australian Bureau of Statistics data reveal that many fathers have limited contact with their children following separation/divorce, and relatively few fathers have shared contact arrangements. Fathers report a variety of parenting behaviours following separation.

This study examines whether these behaviours are related to how fathers view and experience relationships with their ex-partner and children. The relationship between fathering behaviour and mental wellbeing will also be examined.

[CONTINUED]

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc7/sullivan-focus.html

Family Futures : Issues in Research and Policy
7th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference
Sydney, 24-26 July 2000

©Robin Sullivan. A copy of this paper may be made for the purposes of personal, non-commercial use or for research and study in educational institutions, provided the paper is used in full, with proper attribution to the author(s).

Focus on fathering:
A project of the Children’s Commission of Queensland
Robin Sullivan
Children’s Commissioner
and
Sue Howard
Assistant Manager, Research
Children’s Commission of Queensland

Introduction

The Children’s Commission of Queensland was established in 1996. It was the first independent commission for children established anywhere in Australia, although South Australia had established their Children’s Interests Bureau in 1984. The Commission aims to promote the well-being of children and young people in Queensland.

The Children’s Commission is aware of the body of research which demonstrates the link between strong familial relationships and productive and fulfilling adult citizenship, and hence has a strong interest in parenting issues. As society undergoes rapid change, we are seeing an increasing recognition of: the importance of healthy relationships; the effects of domestic and family violence on children, either as witnesses or victims, and; the costs to men, children, families and society of problematic relationships.

Changes in gender relationships have led to a questioning of what it is to be a man, and a father, in contemporary Australia. News reports all too frequently reveal the tragic consequences of desperate men reacting violently to the breakdown of relationships.

Given these circumstances, the relationships between men and their children are of special interest to the Children’s Commission. Throughout this year, we are undertaking a specific initiative to raise awareness and inform public debate on contemporary fathering issues, and to promote appropriate fathering and positive fathering skills.

This paper will provide a brief introduction to the Children’s Commission and an overview of our Focus on Fathering Project.

Before I talk about the role of the Commission, I would like to provide you with some very brief details of our constituents, that is Queensland’s children and young people.

Our clients

There are approximately 870,000 Queensland residents aged between 0 and 171 years. This number constitutes 26.2 per cent (ABS 1999), or just over a quarter, of the total population of the State. Australia wide, children make up 25.4 per cent of the population (ABS 1999).

########################################

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Quix, thanks for this info on attachment.

= = =
Note to self, attachment info here.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Learning+competent+fathering%3a+a+longitudinal+analysis+of+marital+...-a0159181072

Learning competent fathering: a longitudinal analysis of marital intimacy and fathering.

Behaviorism Research
Full-text books & journals on behaviorism. Research online.

www.Questia.com/Behaviorism

Stories on Self-Knowledge
Inspiring Self-Knowledge Articles To Improve Your Body, Mind & Spirit

GuidepostsMag.com/Self-Knowledge

Link to this page
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Learning+competent+fathering%3a+a+longitudinal+analysis+of+marital+...-a0159181072

Learning competent fathering: a longitudinal analysis of marital intimacy and fathering.

Although scholars have documented many links between marital relationships and parenting, these associations are not commonly explained in terms of behavior that is learned or achieved over time. This paper examines the idea that good fathering—conceptualized here as competent fathering—is the result of a developmental process, and that a loving, committed relationship between parents creates a context in which traits supportive of caring fathering are likely to be learned and practiced.

After setting the stage conceptually, we provide a modest initial test of this hypothesis to discern the associations between three components of marital intimacy (emotional intimacy, commitment, and passion) and fathering. Results yielded positive, moderate concurrent associations between marital intimacy and fathering, and positive, low associations between these variables longitudinally. These associations give a degree of support to the notion of fathering as a developmental process, and confirm the sensitivity of fathering to the marital context.

Keywords: fathering, marital intimacy, parenting

**********

The reciprocal impact of marital processes on parenting and on child well-being are increasingly recognized and studied (e.g., Fincham, 1998; Harold, Fincham, Osborne, & Conger, 1997). However, the potentially cumulative impact of these domains upon one another tends to be considered less frequently. That is, marriage and parenting are not typically viewed as developmentally linked to each other (Dollahite & Hawkins, 1998; Hawkins, Christiansen, Sargent, & Hill, 1993; Snarey, 1993).

We examine parenting, and fathering in particular, in terms of behavior that is learned or achieved.

John & Joyce Weir
Learn more about their work, Percept, and Radical Respect

www.theperceptinstitute.com

The purpose of this paper is to clarify how marital relationships precede and support competent fathering. The two goals of this paper are:

(1) to develop the term “competent fathering” as a larger concept that subsumes the traditional notion of father involvement, and

(2) to test the idea that marriage and fathering are linked by learning processes that establish caring qualities in both roles.

The Role of Intimacy in the Development of Competent Fathering

Development is characterized by a move from less differentiation to greater differentiation, and often consists of both qualitative and quantitative changes (Lerner, 1986).

A developmental view of parenthood involves change in a person’s sense of self—that is, who a person is, and who she or he will be (Cowan, 1991). Thus, rather than examining fathers’ skills, we give attention to interpersonal processes that facilitate the development of qualities of good fathering.

The concept tested in this study is the idea that an intimate, committed marital relationship helps create a foundation for competent, caring fathering. We test the idea that competent fathering rests on the development of interpersonal learning experiences across the lifespan, and particularly upon the experiences found in what Erikson (1964) labeled the intimacy stage of life.

Many studies suggest that the most immediate developmental influence on parenting is an intimate relationship both prior to and concurrent with parenthood (Cummings & O’Reilly, 1997; Erel & Burman, 1995).

That is, a loving, committed relationship creates a context in which traits of caring parenting are likely to be learned and practiced. If this hypothesis is accurate, higher levels of marital intimacy (measured here as emotional intimacy, commitment, and passion) should predict competent fathering both longitudinally and concurrently.

More common, however, is a “structural” perspective of fathering. In this view, the institution of marriage normatively connects children to fathers through proximity, which ostensibly increases involvement (Nock, 1998).

Marriage in North America often provides the foundation upon which families are formed (Hetherington & Parke, 1993; Whyte, 1990), and by which children are protected and nurtured (Doherty, Kouneski, & Erikson, 1998), although this may be less normative than in past decades (Teachman, Tedrow, & Crowder, 2000). Conversely, our proposed developmental perspective on fathering suggests that without prior experiences that help teach, develop, and maintain relational intimacy, both mothers and fathers may struggle in caring for their children (Snarey, 1993).

Obviously, the connection between intimacy and fathering does not represent a universal pathway that applies to everyone because the courses of development found in human experience are vast. We limit the present study to married couples, but this does not suggest that learning processes do not occur in relationships outside of traditional marriage.

Rather, our goal in this study is to test elements of adult development that, while not universal, may constitute a developmental course that is typical for many.

In addition to our focus on marriage, we also focus on fathering and its sensitivity to the context of intimate relationships (Doherty et al., 1998; Erel & Burman, 1995; McBride & Rane, 1998). Comparatively, father-child relationships are more affected by the parental alliance between a couple (McBride & Rane, 1998), marital conflict (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000), and low marital satisfaction than are mother-child relations (Cummings & O’ Reilly, 1997).

Past and Present Views on Father Involvement

Scholarship on fathering activities has typically used the term “father involvement.” In the mid-twentieth century, research on fathers had often been approached from a “father absence” point of view, which to a great extent was a content-free notion of father involvement (Pleck, 1997).

In recent years, however, this term has been criticized for failing to capture important aspects of fathering, such as a father’s cognitions regarding his child(ren), effect on the parent-child relationship, work inside and outside the home, and support of the mother’s role (Hawkins & Palkovitz, 1999; Palkovitz, 1997; Pleck & Stueve, 2001).

Furthermore, the focus on involvement is inadequate because it is non-developmental and does not comprise response to the changes in children as they develop and mature (Hawkins & Dollahite, 1997).

More broadly, scholarship on fathering has been criticized for lacking theoretical underpinnings, resulting in limited ability to conceptualize and measure fathering with adequate depth and breadth (Snarey, 1997).

We propose “competent fathering” as a term that describes affective and cognitive aspects of fathering as well as behavioral aspects. The notion of competent fathering is also at least somewhat developmental, because it implies that fathering is comprised of abilities, skills, and even identities that may be developed over time.

Over two decades ago, Belsky, Robins, and Gamble (1984) defined good versus poor parenting, noting that the definitions had been left implicit. Parental competence was defined as having two components: sensitivity and involvement.

That is, the parent must be sensitive to the child’s needs in developmentally appropriate ways, but this sensitivity must be put into action if the caregiver is to be considered competent. In addition, Belsky et al. (1984) delineated three determinants of sensitivity and involvement-patience, endurance, and commitment-and noted that these three determinants have reciprocal influence on each other.

Sensitivity includes allocentrism (other-centeredness), empathy, developmental understanding, and even personal characteristics as personal resources for good parenting. We use the concept of parental competence as a foundation upon which to integrate the conceptual work that followed.

In recent years, father involvement has been seen as a composite of caring activities that includes a range of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components.

Notable contributions include Lamb and colleagues’ conceptualization of paternal involvement as having the three major components of engagement, accessibility, and responsibility (Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, & Levine; 1985, 1987); Palkovitz’s (1997) multi-faceted description of father involvement as a response to the affective, behavioral, and cognitive developmental needs of others in the family; Dollahite and Hawkins’ (1998) description of fathering as work that responds to the needs of the next generation; and Marsiglio, Day, and Lamb’s (2000) social constructivist perspective of paternal influence, comprised of nurturance and care, moral and ethical guidance, emotional, practical, and psychosocial support of female partners, and economic provisioning.

Despite recent conceptual advances, the label of “father involvement” itself remains primarily a behavioral construct. Indeed, Pleck (1997) asserted that the concept of father involvement was never intended to encompass all the important aspects of fathering.

Moreover, “father involvement” is only one of several modes of paternal influence on child development (Lamb et al., 1987). Conversely, the notion of father competence comprises affective, behavioral, and cognitive aspects of fathering, including father involvement, father identity, parental satisfaction, and generativity.

Father involvement includes components as diverse as traditional notions of behavioral involvement, breadwinning, systemic involvement (e.g., the co-parental relationship), and psychological and affective involvement.

Paternal identity refers to the ways in which one’s identity shapes behavior, particularly as that identity is reflected from significant others (Maurer, Pleck, & Rane, 2001). Identity is thus a mechanism of parental sensitivity, because of its influence on fathers’ behavior (Belsky et al., 1984).

Satisfaction in fathering is one manifestation of the growth of self that can occur in the process of fathering. Satisfaction is, in part, the operation of positive (or negative) feedback inherent to fathering. Fathering has impact on the well-being of the caregiver, not just on the recipient of care (Hawkins, Christiansen, Sargent, & Hill, 1993).

Generativity is connected to the theoretical writings of Erik Erikson (1964) and is defined as caring for the next generation. Generativity is a developmental stage in which one’s point of reference moves beyond one’s self toward a larger scope of care, and includes concern for the contexts in which children live.

Marriage as an Antecedent to Fathering

To understand how marriage can lay a foundation for competent fathering, it is necessary to understand the nature of mature intimacy. Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love suggests that love is comprised of three components: intimacy, commitment, and passion.

Subsequent studies have confirmed these three components (Barnes & Sternberg, 1997; Fehr, 1993). The process of learning and developing these three components may provide important experiences that will help build and sustain caring, committed parenthood.

The process of relational learning posited here may also be linked to romantic attachment. Attachment styles in infant-caregiver relationships resemble those observed in romantic relationships.

Moreover, adult attachment reflects the beliefs that people have about themselves and their close relationships (Fraley & Shaver, 2000).

It may be that demographic trends such as delayed marriage, cohabitation, and remarriage would bring considerable variation to this process.

Whether the process itself remains relatively constant in such contexts is a question for future study. We now cite empirical evidence that links intimacy’s three components with parenting and discuss the connections between intimacy and fatherhood.

Learning Emotional Intimacy

Learning processes in interpersonal relationships form an important foundation for the ability to care for others (Bukowski, Newcomb, & Hartup, 1996).

Through a process of interactions and accompanying cognitions, individuals develop schemata, which are knowledge structures based on prior experience (Andersen, 1993).

Schemata give meaning to later interactions, and thus help define an individual’s prototype (i.e., one’s own subjective notion) of what it means to be a brother, a friend, or a mother or a father. This type of knowledge is similar to the concept of “working models” in attachment theory.

Romantic experiences in adolescence may play an important part in the development of identity. Buhrmester’s (1996) aggregated data show that intimate disclosures to peers are more frequent during adolescence than they are to romantic partners, but by late adolescence, intimate disclosures to romantic partners exceed disclosures to peers.

This pattern becomes increasingly prevalent as the individual approaches marriage (Buhrmester, 1996). Hence, early romantic relationships may help adolescent boys begin to look toward long-term romantic relationships.

Although romantic intimacy is qualitatively different from intimacy in the parent-child relationship, there are shared components, such as reciprocity and disclosure (Fehr, 1993). Moreover, in North American society, marriage is often linked with fatherhood (Nock, 1998).

The links between couple dynamics and parenting suggest that these learning processes spill over into parent-child relationships.

Evidence suggests that good marital relationships benefit children and parent-child relationships both prior to parenthood and concurrent with it (Erel & Burman, 1995). Some of the strongest evidence comes from the literature on attachment.

For example, Howes and Markman (1989) found that the quality of a couple’s relationship before marriage as well as after their child is born is related to child attachment and security.

Similarly, a longitudinal study found that positive marital engagement was significantly associated with more secure father-child attachment in fathers of three-year-olds while marital conflict was negatively associated with security (Frosch, Mangelsdorf, & McHale, 2000).

Related to these findings, another study found that parents with high scores on attachment avoidance were less responsive when their children were distressed (Edelstein et al., 2004). Child attachment even has an impact on children’s view of their parents’ relationships. Davies and Forman (2002) found that securely attached children displayed well-regulated concern and positive representations of the interparental relationship; insecure-preoccupied children, as well as insecure-dismissing children, demonstrated relatively high distress, involvement, and negative representations of interparental relationships.

Taken together, these studies suggest that co-parenting processes and marital interactions are reciprocally related over time.

Marital intimacy is also linked to positive parent-child relationships concurrently (e.g., Belsky & Hsieh, 1998; Shek, 1998). Mother-child and father-child relations are more positive in harmonious marriages (see Cummings & O’ Reilly, 1997), and parents in satisfying marriages give more favorable ratings of both their children and the parenting role (Goldberg, 1990).

In one study, fathers who reported higher marital satisfaction displayed less negative behavior and more sensitive behavior in interactions with their children (Belsky, Youngblade, Rovine, & Volling, 1991).

In another, it was found that fathers have more positive attitudes toward their infants and their roles as fathers when they rate their marriages as close and confiding (Cox, Owen, Lewis, & Henderson, 1989). Conversely, parental attachment insecurity is associated with ambivalence about parenthood and more negative models of parenthood (Rholes, Simpson, Blakely, Lanigan, & Allen, 1997).

Fathers tend to distance themselves from their children when marital relations deteriorate (Cummings & O’ Reilly, 1997).

Further research indicates that positive marital interactions support positive co-parenting (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998), and that the parenting alliance is positively linked to paternal involvement (McBride & Rane, 1998).

One study found that couples whose initially good marital quality deteriorated over a two-year period engaged in unsupportive co-parenting significantly more often compared to couples whose relationships went from bad to worse and couples whose relationships stayed good (Belsky & Hsieh, 1998).

Thus, a couple’s interdependence in marriage and co-parenting seems to impact the quality of parent-child relationships. Salient elements include effective communication, problem-solving skills, emotional involvement, and support.

Learning Commitment

In Sternberg’s (1986) theory, commitment refers to devotion to a specific person, and to the decision that is made to remain in love and remain in the relationship over a long period of time (Steinberg, 1986).

Snarey (1993) found that fathers’ commitments to their marriages were a strong predictor of later paternal generativity, particularly with daughters.

Thus, the development of commitment in intimacy may provide a foundation for commitment in fatherhood. In North America, marriage may often be the first long-term commitment one makes due to the cultural emphasis on self. Learning the value of commitment and how to commit and sacrifice in a relationship that is built on reciprocal care (i.e., in mature intimacy) may provide an important foundation for commitment in a relationship that is decidedly more one-sided (i.e., in parenting).

Part of commitment in a loving relationship is a determination to make the relationship as mutually satisfying as possible (Noller, 1996).

This is part of what Stanley, Whitton, and Markman (2004) label “personal dedication.” Differentiated from duty to the relationship out of obligation, personal dedication is characterized by “other-centeredness,” development of a couple identity (or sense of “we-ness”), and putting a high priority on the relationship (Stanley et al.).

Personal dedication also includes sensitivity to and allocentric perspective of one’s partner (i.e., with interest centered in one’s partner versus one’s self) over the long term.

The achievement of such commitment could form a foundation on which to expand one’s circle of care to the next generation.

Learning Passion

Passion includes romantic and sexual aspects of loving relationships (Sternberg, 1986), and is a way of feeling, thinking, and acting toward another centered in a profound desire to be with another.

Passion is the most obvious connection between intimacy and what Kotre (1984) describes as biological generativity—the conception, bearing, and initial care of children. Existing support for this link is limited.

However, one longitudinal study found a positive association between frequency and pleasure of marital sex and later paternal competence (Heath, 1976). It is possible that lasting passion may be one aspect of the enduring strength that defines and holds together families.

Taken together, the evidence cited above supports the conclusion that relationship processes shape the development of nurturing capacities, and thus have impact on parent-child relationships.

Limited experiences with mature emotional intimacy likely hinders one’s development of warmth, empathy, and competence as a parent.

Without experiencing commitment in a loving relationship, one is less likely to value permanence and devotion to an intimate other, and thus, less likely to bring a sense of commitment to the parent-child relationship.

Similarly, without experiencing enduring passion, one may be less likely to seek the enjoyment often integral to parent-child relationships

Overview of the Study

As a modest step toward exploring father competence as a developmental process, we tested the associations between martial intimacy (i.e., emotional intimacy, commitment, and passion) and fathering.

We hypothesized that the three components of intimacy at Time I would be positively associated with fathering activities (Time II), and that the three components of intimacy at Time II would also be positively associated with fathering activities (Time II).

Although this test is simple relative to the complexity of the hypothesis, it seemed a logical first step to test these links. Later research on the process of relational learning might include gathering data at multiple points of time to better assess which aspects of intimacy are associated with particular aspects of fathering at various points in time.

Moreover, diversity in family formation and other demographic variation such as age, as well as issues related to divorce and remarriage (Pill, 1990), may lend further complexity to the process and could be addressed in future studies.

Method

Participants

This study was conducted using data initially collected by the Marriage Study Consortium at Brigham Young University, with Time II data subsequently collected independently.

Participants recruited for this study included couples who had previously completed the RELATE relationship evaluation instrument (Holman, Busby, Doxey, Klein, & Loyer-Carlson, 1997).

Participants selected for inclusion in the second data collection point were couples who had children at the time of follow-up. Approximately 180 surveys were sent via U.S. post, and the response rate was approximately 48.8 percent (N = 88).

There were no significant differences between those who responded versus those who did not regarding income, education, and religious affiliation. No compensation was offered for participation.

Data for this study were collected from a small, non-probability sample with measures designed specifically to capture the theoretical complexities of father competence. Table I provides descriptive statistics of the sample.

Data were collected between January, 1997 and August, 1998 (Time I). Follow-up survey data were collected between November, 2000 and January, 2001. Unfortunately, measures of fathering were not taken during Time I data collection. We were thus unable to assess changes in fathering measures over time.

Measures and Procedures

Intimacy. Emotional intimacy at Time I and at Time II was measured using 10 items selected from the RELATE relationship evaluation (Holman et al., 1997).

RELATE is a 271-item, self-report instrument designed to help individuals and couples evaluate the quality of a current premarital or marital relationship.

Both husbands and wives responded on a five-point Likert scale to reflect their level of satisfaction with intimacy in their relationships. Sample items include “I include my (spouse) in my life,” “How often have you thought your marriage might be in trouble?”, and “the physical intimacy you experience.”

Due to the co-constructed nature of intimacy, we conducted factor analysis on responses from both husbands and wives to create multiple-perspective measures. There is evidence that youth and child reports of their parents’ relationship provide stronger effects on parenting behaviors than when reported by mothers or fathers (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000).

This finding suggests that the holistic impact of the couple relationship (and thus a co-constructed measure) may be most salient to a family process model.

Based on Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of intimacy, we theorized that these items would form three components of intimacy: emotional intimacy, commitment, and passion. To test this theory, we selected 14 RELATE items based upon the face validity of each item as it related to the three components of Sternberg’s theory of intimacy.

We performed exploratory factor analyses for both Time I and Time II data. Ten of the original 14 items had acceptable factor loadings and reliability levels.

Emotional intimacy is an aggregate of 5 items from each spouse; factor loadings for Times I and II ranged from .60 to .88, explained 58 percent of the variance (at each time), and the Cronbach’s alpha level for emotional intimacy at both Time I and Time II was .92.

Commitment is an aggregate of 2 items from each spouse; factor loadings for Times I and II ranged from .74 to .86, explained 71 percent and 57 percent of the variance (respectively for Times I and II), and the alpha levels for commitment at Times I and II were .85 and .75.

Passion is an aggregate of 3 items from each spouse; factor loadings for Times I and II ranged from .60 to .88, explained 48 percent and 56 percent of the variance, and the alpha levels for passion at Times I and II were .83 and .86, respectively. The above procedures resulted in 10 manifest variables that were then included in the structural model as observed variables.

Competent fathering. The measure of competent fathering include 10 items from the 26-item Inventory of Father Involvement (Hawkins et al., 2002), with items such as “How would you describe your (or your husband’s) involvement in praising your children for being good or doing the right thing,” “providing for your children’s basic needs,” and “giving your children’s mother encouragement and emotional support.”

The ten items selected were chosen because they are most appropriate for children whose developmental stages span from early school-age to late adolescence. The responses ranged from 1 = poor to 7 = practically perfect.

Fathers’ assessments of role identity were measured with 4 items from the 11-item Caregiving Identity Scale of the Caregiving and Breadwinning Identity and Reflected-Appraisal Inventory (Maurer, Pleck, & Rane, 2001).

Sample items include “It is important to me to be a good caregiver to my child” and “If my wife wanted to do all the caregiving by herself, that would be ok with me.” The responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Fathers’ parental satisfaction was measured with the 3-item Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale (Schumm, 1986), with items including, “How satisfied are you with yourself as a parent?” and “How satisfied are you with your relationship with your children?”

The responses ranged from 1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied. Generativity was measured using 6 items from the 20-item Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS, McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992), with items such as, “I try to pass along the knowledge I have gained through my experiences” and “I have important skills that I try to teach others.”

The responses ranged from 1 = never applies to 4 = applies very often.

Exploratory factor analyses yielded the following: The father involvement factor loadings ranged from .63 to .87, explained 65 percent of the variance, and the Cronbach’s alpha level was .73; paternal caregiving identity factor loadings ranged from .69 to .79, and explained 53 percent of the variance; the alpha level was .68.

The father satisfaction factor loadings ranged from .64 to .90, explained 65 percent of the variance, and the alpha level was .82. The generativity factor loadings ranged from .67 to .82, explained 55 percent of the variance, and the alpha level was .82. The resulting 4 manifest variables were then included in the structural model as observed variables.

The model examined in this study designates three latent variables: intimacy (Time I), intimacy (Time II), and father competence (Time II). As previously described, we used items from several existing instruments to capture the theoretical richness of positive father activities, including various affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions.

Each of these three latent variables indicates its own set of manifest variables, all 10 of which were derived from the aggregated scores of individually observed items. Figure 1 presents the resulting 10 manifest variables and three latent variables that comprise this structural model.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Plan of Analysis

[CONTINUED AT LINK]

This should have its own thread. Have you ever thought of that?

I’ve either not thought of it or when I have thought of it, I’ve tended to construe it as such a gargantuan task to do in the manner I’d prefer, that I never get around to it.

Alas, I just tend to throw it in whenever fathering comes up . . . which may turn out to be about as good or better in the long run.

How would you like to see such a thread being done?

Not only for those children who have no one to offer a fatherly role in their lives, but also for those children, including those whose fathers have passed on, be they still children or even those who are even adults who now have only the memory of their fathers. I speak from my own backround, whose father has been decessed for 9 years now. For us, we have our Heavenly Father.

Honoring Thy Fathers

For millions of children across the U.S., this Sunday will not be a cause for celebration.