Modeling and compensatory processes underlying involvement in childcare among kibbutz-reared fathers

Journal of Family IssuesXX(X) 1 –26

© The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0192513X11428440http://jfi.sagepub.com

XXX10.1177/0192513X11428440Gaunt and BassiJournal of Family Issues© The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

Corresponding Author:Ruth Gaunt, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel Email: [email protected]

Modeling and Compensatory Processes Underlying Involvement in Child Care Among Kibbutz-Reared Fathers

Ruth Gaunt1 and Liat Bassi1 [AQ: 1]

Abstract

This study examined modeling and compensatory processes underlying the effects of an early paternal model on father involvement in child care. Drawing on social learning theory, it was hypothesized that father–son relationships would moderate the association between a father’s involvement and his own father’s involvement. A sample of 136 kibbutz father–son dyads completed extensive questionnaires. Findings provided evidence for modeling effects on the socioemotional care dimension, whereas imitation of highly involved fathers occurred simultaneously with compensation for relatively uninvolved fathers on the physical care and responsibility dimensions. As predicted, imi-tation was more likely in close father–son relationships. These findings shed light on the role of paternal model and attest to the importance of differen-tiating various forms of involvement.

Keywords

child care, compensation, father involvement, imitation, intergenerational transmission, modeling

2 Journal of Family Issues XX(X)

In the last decade, changing demographic, economic, and employment pat-terns have dramatically increased scholars’ efforts to understand fatherhood in general (Lamb, 2010a) and the determinants of father involvement in child care in particular (Day & Lamb, 2004; Roeters, Van Der Lippe, & Kluwer, 2009, 2010). The massive entry of women into the labor force, followed by transformations in societal norms and attitudes regarding what constitutes the appropriate roles of men and women in the family (Milkie, Bianchi, Mattingly, & Robinson, 2002), have led to increased expectations for greater participa-tion of fathers in child care (e.g., Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, 2009; Doherty, Erickson, & LaRossa, 2006).

Moreover, many studies have reported positive implications of increased paternal involvement in child care (Lamb, 2010b; Pleck, 2010). These findings indicate beneficial effects of enhanced involvement on fathers’ well-being and parental satisfaction (e.g., Knoester, Petts, & Eggebeen, 2007; Palkovitz, 2002; Schindler, 2010), as well as on children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development (e.g., Deutsch, Servis, & Payne, 2001; Hofferth, 2006; Lamb, 2010b). Finally, increased paternal involvement contributes to mothers’ mari-tal satisfaction and well-being (Levy-Shiff, 1994; Milkie et al., 2002).

Given these positive ramifications of father involvement in child care, the current study sought to shed light on a less explored mechanism underlying paternal involvement, namely, the impact of a father’s own father’s involve-ment in his upbringing. In particular, this study centers on imitation and com-pensation as two underlying processes that characterize the ways in which young fathers are affected by their paternal model. Drawing on social learn-ing theory (Bandura, 1977), this study explores the moderating role of father–son relationships in the association between a father’s and son’s involvement and suggests that modeling is only likely to occur in close relationships. To overcome the single-source methodological flaw that characterizes previous studies, it employs a father–son dyadic paradigm in which fathers of each generation report on their own levels of involvement in child care and the reports of the second-generation fathers are then regressed on the reports of their own fathers.

Finally, to detect the simultaneous occurrence of modeling and compensa-tory effects, this study examines three distinct forms of paternal involvement in a unique context in which these forms are highly differentiated. In this sample of Israeli kibbutz fathers, the second-generation fathers were raised in a collective educational setting away from their parents but are raising their children in a familial setting. As will be discussed later, the exceptional cir-cumstances of the first-generation fathers made them significantly more involved than their urban counterparts on certain dimensions of child care but

Gaunt and Bassi 3

significantly less involved on other dimensions. This unique setting thus enabled us to explore whether compensation and modeling processes differ-entially characterize distinct dimensions of father involvement.

Determinants of Father Involvement in Child CareResearch on the determinants of paternal involvement has generally focused on parents’ demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds, their social–psychological characteristics, and dyadic interactions (for a review, see Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). Drawing on economic and exchange theories of the division of household labor, much of the research in the field has examined couples’ socioeconomic and labor-force characteristics, including the spouses’ time availability, earnings, and resources (e.g., Aldous, Mulligan, & Bjarnason, 1998; Goodman, Crouter, Lanza, & Cox, 2008; Roeters et al., 2009, 2010). Many studies have found that the father’s involvement in child care increases the more hours the mother works for pay and decreases the more hours the father works and the higher his income (e.g., Deutsch, Lussier, & Servis, 1993; Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001; Roeters et al., 2009, 2010).

Other investigations have drawn attention to parents’ social–psychological characteristics and to interactions within the parental dyad. For example, stud-ies have shown how paternal participation is affected by spouses’ gender ide-ologies (Beitel & Parke, 1998; Gaunt, 2006), childrearing attitudes (Gaertner, Spinrad, Eisenberg, & Greving, 2007), and value priorities (Gaunt, 2005); all have stressed the importance of the mother’s views and behaviors in facilitat-ing or inhibiting the father’s involvement in child care (Allen & Hawkins, 1999; Gaunt, 2008; McBride et al., 2005). Studies of dyadic processes have shown how the division of child care responsibilities results from couples’ everyday negotiations (Coltrane, 1996; Deutsch, 1999; Mannino & Deutsch, 2007) and how marital relationships affect father involvement (Malinen et al., 2010; Pleck & Hofferth, 2008). Finally, recent research has also drawn atten-tion to the complex and inconsistent patterns of variability in father involve-ment across racial and ethnic groups (Hofferth, 2003; King, Harris, & Heard, 2004; Tamis-LeMonda, Kahana-Kalman, & Yoshikawa, 2009).

The role of the paternal model. Relatively little attention has been paid to the role of a father’s own father’s involvement in his upbringing. Two pro-cesses have been theorized in the literature to explain the influence of early paternal models. One hypothesis suggests that fathers compensate for their fathers’ lack of involvement, and the other hypothesis suggests that fathers imitate their own fathers’ involvement (Pleck, 1997; Russell, 1999; Sagi,


1982). Importantly, the compensation and imitation hypotheses raise two dis-tinct theoretical issues. One pertains to young fathers’ introspective percep-tions and narratives regarding their tendency to model themselves after their fathers or to rework the fathering they received. This issue is typically explored via qualitative research methods (e.g., Coltrane, 1996; Masciadrelli, Pleck, & Stueve, 2006). The other issue pertains to the role of the paternal model as a determinant of father involvement in child care. In this case, the young fathers’ subjective and conscious interpretations are not in the focus of exploration but rather the extent to which variations in fathering are accounted for by variations in the father’s own father’s involvement. This issue is typi-cally explored via quantitative research methods (e.g., Chen, Liu, & Kaplan, 2008; Snarey, 1993).

The current study investigates the latter issue, focusing in particular on covariations in levels of involvement in child care. Although several studies have documented both modeling and compensatory effects in various pater-nal attitudes and parenting styles, empirical evidence focusing directly on the compensation and modeling of levels of involvement in child care is scant.

Compensatory processes. According to the compensation hypothesis, fathers may attempt to compensate for a lack of involvement on the part of their own fathers by making a larger contribution to their children’s upbringing (Coltrane, 1996). Thus, high paternal involvement in child care may consti-tute a reaction to negative childhood experiences with unavailable or unsup-portive fathers, reflecting an attempt to rework these childhood experiences through involved parenting. In this way, the deficiencies perceived in child-hood relationships with their own fathers may motivate fathers to make a con-certed effort so that their children do not suffer from similarly unsatisfying relationships.

Support for this hypothesis comes from several qualitative studies in which men were interviewed about their fathering style and their childhood experiences with their own fathers (Daly, 1993; Nelson, Clampet-Lundquist, & Edin, 2002; Roy & Lucas, 2006). In Coltrane’s (1996) study, for example, most of the men reported that their own fathers had been relatively unin-volved in family life when they were growing up. These men said that they lacked a true connection or sense of intimacy with their fathers. Their dis-satisfaction with their own fathers enhanced their desire to “do it differently” (Coltrane, 1996, p. 121). Two more recent qualitative studies on low-income fathers have also documented fathers’ narratives of reworking painful experi-ences during their childhood through fathering of their own children (Nelson et al., 2002; Roy & Lucas, 2006).

Gaunt and Bassi 5

Despite these introspective accounts by fathers, there is no evidence from quantitative studies to support compensation for levels of father involvement in child care. Related research by Snarey (1993) demonstrated compensatory effects with regard to parenting practices. In this study, fathers who had expe-rienced nonsupportive or harsh fathering were more involved in their chil-dren’s development. Similarly, in Beaton and colleagues’ research (Beaton & Doherty, 2007; Beaton, Doherty, & Rueter, 2003), fathers whose parents were very distant from them during childhood had more positive attitudes about fathering. Nevertheless, no research to date has shown that fathers whose fathers were relatively uninvolved in their upbringing are more involved in daily child care.

Modeling processes. According to the modeling hypothesis, fathers take an active part in their children’s lives because they learnt how to do so from watching and imitating their own involved fathers. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) contributes to our understanding of this socialization pro-cess, suggesting that people are able to retain early images in memory for later modeling. Furthermore, modeling can occur automatically and outside of people’s awareness after the learned behavior has been internalized (Bandura, 1977). Thus, children tend to observe and then directly imitate specific behaviors of their parents. This mechanism is likely to produce inter-generational transmission of paternal involvement in child care.

Social learning theory further holds that only the behaviors of valued indi-viduals are modeled (Bandura, 1986). Thus, children are more likely to imi-tate the behavior of a parent if they have a good relationship with that parent (Smetana, 1997). Moreover, all else being equal, same-gender modeling is more common than cross-gender modeling (Bussey & Bandura, 1984). This is because children tend to perceive same-gender parents as exemplars of appropriate social behavior for their gender and to use their same-gender par-ent’s behavior as a standard in forming gender-role schemas that guide their own behavior.

Social learning theory therefore suggests that the extent to which sons feel close to their fathers should play an important role in moderating the inter-generational transmission of paternal involvement. This theory implies that a father’s involvement in child care interacts with the father–son relationship in predicting a son’s involvement in caring for his own children. That is, a father’s involvement in child care should be imitated only in the context of close and positive father–son relationship.

Although several studies have documented intergenerational transmission of various parental attitudes and behaviors, there is no empirical evidence


focusing directly on the modeling of levels of involvement in child care. A few studies have found evidence for the imitation hypothesis in terms of the amount of time a father spent living with his child. In these studies, fathers who lived with their own fathers during their childhood or adolescence were more likely to reside with their children (Forste & Jarvis, 2007; Furstenberg & Weiss, 2000; Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Taylor, & Dickson, 2001). Other stud-ies showed that young parents tend to adopt childrearing practices similar to those they experienced as children. This holds for both harsh and abusive parenting (e.g., Capaldi, Pears, Patterson, & Owen, 2003; Simons, Wu, Johnson, & Conger, 1995) as well as for warm and sensitive parenting (Belsky, Sligo, Jaffee, Woodward, & Silva, 2005; Chen & Kaplan, 2001; Chen et al., 2008; Snarey, 1993), although Belsky et al. (2005) found support for the imi-tation of responsive parenting only among mothers and not among fathers.

Unlike research on the transmission of parenting style, there is relatively little evidence for the imitation of levels of father involvement in child care. One recent study has explored the extent to which levels of father involve-ment were related to childhood experiences (Coley & Hernandez, 2006). In this study, however, the father’s own father’s involvement was only mea-sured in terms of length of residence with his son and frequency of contact during nonresidential times. The effect of paternal involvement among fathers who were raised in intact families has therefore remained unexplored (Coley & Hernandez, 2006).

In his review of the determinants of paternal involvement, Pleck (1997) summarized the findings bearing on the compensation and imitation hypoth-eses and pointed at two major flaws that have plagued all existing studies on this issue. First, he raised the need to explore moderating variables that pro-mote or inhibit modeling. Second, he called for the assessment of own-fathers’ level of involvement by means other than the second-generation fathers’ retrospective reports, “a serious flaw in all existing studies because of the potential for confounding biases” (Pleck, 1997, p. 81).

The present study was designed to address these two needs. The theoreti-cal deficiency is addressed through an examination of the moderating role of father–son relationships. Drawing on social learning theory, it is suggested that modeling should mainly occur in close relationships with one’s own father. Second, the methodological flaw is addressed using a dyadic father–son sample. In this research paradigm, fathers in each generation report on their own levels of involvement in child care, and the reports of the second-generation fathers are then regressed on the reports of their own fathers.

Furthermore, to observe the simultaneous operation of modeling and com-pensatory processes, the present study examines the differential effects of the

Gaunt and Bassi 7

paternal model on distinct forms of involvement in child care. Specifically, Gaunt (2005, 2006) distinguished three dimensions of parental involvement: (a) physical care, which relates to providing direct care for the child’s daily needs; (b) socioemotional care, which relates to providing companionship and responding to the child’s emotional needs; and (c) responsibility, which refers to higher-order accountability for the child’s welfare (see for similar classifications Beitel & Parke, 1998; Lamb, 1987). To increase the likelihood of observing simultaneous modeling and compensatory processes, this study was conducted in the unique setting of fatherhood in the Israeli kibbutz. As will be explained below, the first-generation fathers in our sample raised their sons under exceptional circumstances, which made them highly involved in providing socioemotional care, but at the same time relatively uninvolved in providing for their children’s physical needs or bearing responsibility for their upbringing. Such differential involvement provides an opportunity to explore whether second-generation fathers are more likely to imitate their fathers’ involvement on the socioemotional care dimension and compensate for their lack of involvement on the physical care and responsibility dimensions.

Kibbutz Fathers’ Involvement in Child CareThe Israeli kibbutz is a cooperative and democratically governed small com-munity in which members work for the kibbutz economy and in turn are provided by the community with housing, food, clothing, health and educa-tional services, and other needs (Aviezer, van Ijzendoorn, Sagi, & Schuengel, 1994). The founders of the kibbutz communities sought to create a new society based on socialist principles and perfect equality. Collective educa-tion was thus regarded as essential in fostering the solidarity of the group and restraining individualistic tendencies in both children and adults (Aviezer et al., 1994). Probably the most unique characteristic of kibbutz childrearing practices was collective sleeping for children away from their parents (Aviezer, Sagi, & van Ijzendoorn, 2002). In this arrangement, from early infancy children lived in children’s houses, where nonparental caregivers provided for their needs. They spent time with their family between 4 and 7 in the afternoon, when both parents were frequently available. They were then returned to the children’s house for the night.

During the 1990s, after many years in which collective sleeping was the norm, all kibbutz communities in Israel have shifted to familial sleeping arrangements. Home-based sleeping has transferred most caregiving func-tions to the family and has changed the proportion of time spent by kibbutz


children in the children’s house to a pattern similar to that of a non-kibbutz day care setting (Aviezer et al., 1994).

In the present study, the second-generation fathers were raised in collec-tive education and sleeping arrangements but are raising their own children in family sleeping arrangements. This unique context may enable the simul-taneous observation of the two processes underlying the impact of the pater-nal model on these second generation fathers’ involvement in child care.

Modeling processes. Kibbutz communities sought to alter the patriarchal organization of the family. Collective education was designed to free women from the burdens of child care, while men were expected to share child care tasks and become nurturing rather than authoritarian figures for their children (Aviezer et al., 1994, 2002). It was thus normative for fathers to spend time playing with their children during the afternoon. Indeed, it was found that kibbutz fathers tended to spend more time with their children than their urban counterparts (Sagi, Koren, & Weinberg, 1987). Additional evidence for the relatively high involvement of kibbutz fathers comes from a study showing that kibbutz infants had no preference for one parent over the other (Sagi, Lamb, Shoham, Dvir, & Lewkowitz, 1985). This may reflect the infants’ experience with equally involved parents, who did not regard child care as being the exclusive responsibility of the mother (Aviezer et al., 1994). Kibbutz-reared fathers may thus have experienced their own fathers as avail-able and responsive to their emotional needs and may attempt to model this generally high involvement in providing for the social and emotional needs of their children.

Compensatory processes. As mentioned above, findings showed that kibbutz infants had no preference for one parent over the other (Sagi et al., 1985). These infants’ lack of preference for their mothers may alternatively be interpreted as an indication that neither parent was functioning as a pri-mary caregiver, because kibbutz infants were being cared for in the chil-dren’s house (Sagi et al., 1985). Given these collective childrearing practices, kibbutz-reared fathers had fathers who did not provide them with daily physi-cal care or shared any responsibilities or decision making regarding their upbringing. Kibbutz-reared fathers may have therefore experienced their own fathers as unavailable and uninvolved in providing their daily needs and may attempt to compensate for this generally low involvement by providing physical care and taking responsibility for the needs of their children.

The Present StudyThe present study explores the impact of the paternal model on father involve-ment, focusing on the underlying processes of imitation and compensation. It

Gaunt and Bassi 9

also examines the moderating role of father–son relationships in the associa-tions between a father’s and his son’s involvement in child care. To overcome the methodological flaw that stems from using a single source report, this study assesses the first-generation fathers’ involvement directly from their own reports. Finally, the study distinguishes three forms of paternal involve-ment, in an attempt to determine whether a father’s involvement differen-tially affects different forms of his son’s involvement with his own children.

In line with the reasoning outlined above, we hypothesized the following: (a) Because of their own fathers’ relatively high involvement in socioemo-tional care, and relatively low involvement in physical care and responsibil-ity, second-generation fathers will exhibit modeling effects on the former dimension and compensatory effects on the two latter. (b) Drawing on social learning theory, we hypothesized that imitation would mainly occur in close relationships between the second generation father and his own father.

MethodParticipants and Procedure

Participants in the study were 136 father–son dyads recruited by research assistants in six kibbutz communities. Criteria for inclusion in the study were the following: both father (Generation 1) and son (Generation 2) were kib-butz residents, the son was born and raised in the kibbutz, and he was mar-ried and had at least one child aged 6 months to 8 years.

The older fathers’ ages (Gen1) ranged from 57 to 83 years (M = 67, SD = 7.73); they had between three and nine children and represented a broad range of educational levels. Approximately 15% of the Gen1 fathers did not finish high school; 25% completed high school, 34% had some college or technical training, and 26% had a college-level education.

The younger fathers’ ages (Gen2) ranged from 27 to 49 years (M = 37, SD = 6.17); they generally had higher levels of education than their fathers: 22% graduated from high school, 26% had some college education or techni-cal training, and 52% completed college or had an academic degree. All the Gen2 fathers worked a full-time job outside the home, ranging from 46 to 81 weekly work hours (M = 60, SD = 7.73). Finally, 17% of the Gen2 fathers had one child, 28% had two children, 30% had three, and 25% had four or more children. Their youngest child’s age ranged from 1 to 8 years (M = 2.50, SD = 2.00).

Potential participants were initially identified by four research assistants. The assistants were graduate students who either grew up on a kibbutz or had close relatives on a kibbutz, and thus had access to kibbutz families. They


conducted an initial telephone screening to ensure that each father–son dyad met the inclusion criteria. Eligible respondents were then invited to partici-pate in a questionnaire survey about parenting in the kibbutz. After securing consent, each participant was scheduled for a home visit wherein he filled in a self-report questionnaire in Hebrew. Completion of the questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes. More than 90% of the eligible dyads who were approached agreed to participate.

MeasuresGen2 fathers’ involvement in child care. Measures of several forms of

involvement in child care were constructed on the basis of Gaunt’s (2005, 2006) instruments. To assess the amount of time (hours per average week) that fathers and their wives spent with their children, the fathers indicated (a) the amount of time during which the father was the sole care provider while the mother was away and (b) the amount of time that the mother was the sole care provider while the father was away.

Another measure asked “who does what?” in terms of 19 specific child care tasks (Gaunt, 2005, 2006). The 19 tasks were selected to reflect those types of involvement typical of both fathers (e.g., playing, talking) and moth-ers (e.g., preparing food, packing child’s bag). Some tasks were designed to tap daily physical care (e.g., feeding, bathing), some were designed to reflect responsibility for the child (e.g., choosing daycare, deciding whether to go to the doctor), and some were selected to reflect socioemotional care (e.g., com-forting, playing). The fathers were asked, “In the division of labor between you and your spouse, which of you performs each of the following tasks?” Responses were indicated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost always my spouse) to 3 (both of us equally) to 5 (almost always myself). An average of the 19 task ratings was calculated to create a measure of total involvement in child care tasks. Higher scores on this measure reflected greater participa-tion on the part of the father relative to the mother. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .73. The complete list of child care tasks is available from the authors.

To empirically distinguish major forms of involvement in child care tasks, a principal-components factor analysis (with varimax rotation) was conducted on the 19 items. Only those items that loaded on a component at a level greater than .50 and not more than .40 on any other factor were retained. This analysis yielded a three-factor solution (see Table 1). The first factor included 7 items related to physical care for the child’s daily needs, such as feeding, dressing, and bathing. The second factor included 6 items that concerned

Gaunt and Bassi 11

providing socioemotional care to the child, such as playing, holding, and tak-ing on outings or social activities. The third factor consisted of 4 items related to higher-order responsibility for the child, such as making arrangements for child care and taking the child to the doctor.

The variance explained by the three factors was 27.09, 15.03, and 13.10, respectively, and Cronbach’s alphas for the three factors were .83, .75, and .73, respectively. Mean scores for each of these forms of involvement in child care tasks were obtained by averaging the participants’ scores for the items included in each factor. Similar involvement classifications have been found in other studies (e.g., Beitel & Parke, 1998; Gaunt, 2005).

Gen1 fathers’ involvement in child care. Measures of first-generation fathers’ involvement in child care were constructed on the basis of Gaunt’s (2005, 2006) instruments. Gen1 fathers were asked to recall the time when their

Table 1. Three-Factor Solution to Principal-Components Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotation) of Paternal Involvement in Child Care

Factor and Item Factor Loading

Physical care Bathing .825 Changing diapers .801 Dressing .789 Getting up at night .655 Feeding .591 Preparing child’s food .554 Putting to bed .526Socioemotional care Talking to/with child .792 Teaching .716 Playing with child .665 Holding .609 Comforting .560 Taking on outings/social activities .554Responsibility Providing sick care .815 Making arrangements for child care .676 Preparing the child’s bag before going out .597 Taking to the doctor .569

Note: Variance explained by each factor as follows: Factor 1 = 27.09, Factor 2 = 15.03, Factor 3 = 13.10.


child was young, referring specifically to the child who was participating in the study. To assess the amount of time (hours per average week) that Gen1 fathers and their wives spent with their child, respondents were asked to indi-cate (a) the amount of time during which the father was the sole care provider for that child and (b) the amount of time that the mother was the sole care provider for that child.

A shortened version of the “who does what?” measure was also adminis-tered. Gen1 fathers were asked to recall the division of labor between them and their wives when their child was young, in terms of 12 specific child care tasks. Some tasks were designed to tap daily physical care (e.g., feeding, bathing), whereas others were selected to reflect socioemotional care (e.g., comforting, playing). Because first-generation fathers raised their children in a collective educational setting, responsibilities such as providing sick care, making arrangements for child care, or taking the child to the doctor were all carried out by nonparental caregivers. Items related to responsibility for the child were therefore irrelevant to Gen1 fathers and were not included in this measure. The fathers were asked, “In the division of labor between you and your spouse, which of you used to perform each of the following tasks?” Responses were indicated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost always my spouse) to 3 (both of us equally) to 5 (almost always myself). An average of the 12 task ratings was calculated to create a measure of total involvement in child care tasks. Higher scores on this measure reflected greater participa-tion on the part of the father relative to the mother. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .84.

Another measure of Gen1 fathers’ involvement was based on the reports of their sons. Gen2 fathers were asked to recall the division of labor between their father and mother when they were young children, in terms of the same 12 specific child care tasks. The Gen2 fathers were asked, “In the division of labor between your father and mother, which of them used to perform each of the following tasks?” Responses were indicated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost always my mother) to 3 (both of them equally) to 5 (almost always my father). An average of the 12 task ratings was calculated to create a measure of total involvement in child care tasks. Higher scores on this mea-sure reflected greater participation on the part of the father relative to the mother. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .82. Pearson correlation between Gen1 and Gen2 reports on Gen1 fathers’ total involvement was .57, suggesting an acceptable level of convergent validity.

Quality of father–son relationships. To measure the quality of relation-ships between the Gen2 fathers and their own fathers, both generations of

Gaunt and Bassi 13

respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they had close relation-ships with each other when Gen2 fathers were growing up. Responses were indicated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Pearson correlation between Gen1 and Gen2 ratings was .21, reflecting a low level of agreement. Although Gen2 fathers’ ratings were normally dis-tributed (M = 3.16, SD = 0.84), 98% of Gen1 fathers reported having close relationships quite a bit or very much (M = 3.7, SD = 0.47). This generational gap in the perceptions of what constitutes a close relationship may stem from different standards and expectations, as Gen1 fathers grew up in a social context in which parent–child relationships were typically more for-mal and distant (e.g., Vinovskis, 1987).

Sociodemographic characteristics. Fathers in both generations indicated their age, the number of children they had, and their level of education. Education level was indicated on a 5-point scale, labeled as follows: 1 (elementary school), 2 (some high school), 3 (completed high school), 4 (some college education or technical training), and 5 (completed college or academic degree). Second-generation fathers also indicated their number of hours per week of paid labor, including travel time and time spent working at home. Finally, Gen2 fathers also reported the age and gender of their children.

ResultsAnalytic Strategy

The hypotheses were evaluated in four steps. First, we compared the levels of involvement of the two generations and examined the correlations between the various measures of involvement and the fathers’ sociodemographic characteristics. Second, to test the hypothesis regarding the differential occurrence of imitation and compensation processes, a series of multiple regression analyses was conducted, in which each form of Gen2 father’s involvement was regressed on the set of measures of Gen1 involvement. We then examined the second hypothesis, suggesting that the Gen1 father’s involvement interacts with the father–son relationship in predicting the Gen2 father’s involvement. Finally, to refine the tests of both hypotheses and determine more specifically the processes of imitation and compensation separately for close and distant father–son relationships, a series of curve estimation regression analyses was performed. In each analysis, the effect of each measure of Gen1 involvement on each form of Gen2 involvement was tested for linear and quadratic (U-shape) regression models.


Preliminary Analyses

Paired-sample t tests comparing the levels of involvement between the two generations indicated an increase in paternal involvement on measures of both weekly hours of care and performance of child care tasks. Fathers’ weekly hours of care increased from M

Gen1 = 3.98 to M

Gen2 = 5.77, t = 3.47,

p < .001. Their relative share in the performance of child care tasks (based on an equivalent 12-item measure) increased from M

Gen1 = 2.39 to M

Gen2 = 2.56,

t = 3.55, p < .001. The increase in mothers’ hours of care was not significant (M

Gen1 = 11.73 and M

Gen2 = 12.74, t = .70, ns) and their primary role as care-

givers is evident on both measures of hours and task performance.The intercorrelations among involvement measures were generally mod-

erate, suggesting that they reflect relatively independent aspects of involve-ment. Interestingly, there was no correlation between the number of weekly hours of care provided by the mother and the division of child care tasks between the parents (r

Gen1 = −.10 and r

Gen2 = .06, ns). However, the more

hours the father spent caring for his child, the more involved he was in per-forming child care tasks (r

Gen1 = .29 and r

Gen2 = .46, ps < .001).

Finally, consistent with previous studies (e.g., Gaunt, 2005; Yeung et al., 2001), the father’s education level was positively associated with his involve-ment in child care tasks in both generations (r

Gen1 = .32, p < .001 and r

Gen2 = .22,

p < .01). However, the father’s work hours were unrelated to his involvement.

Initial Regression Analyses for Imitation and CompensationTo test the first hypothesis concerning the impact of a father’s own father on his involvement in child care, a series of multiple regression analyses was conducted. In each analysis, a variable pertaining to one form of Gen2 father’s involvement was regressed on the set of two measures of Gen1 father’s involvement. In these analyses, positive regression coefficients would indicate that fathers generally tend to imitate their own fathers, whereas negative regression coefficients would reflect the fathers’ tendency to compensate for their own fathers’ levels of involvement.

Table 2 indicates that the regression equation of Gen2 fathers’ hours of care on the set of Gen1 involvement measures was significant overall and accounted for 5% of the variance in Gen2 father’s weekly hours. Gen1 father’s hours of care was a significant predictor in this regression analysis: The more hours Gen1 father spent caring for his son, the more hours his son spends caring for his own children (β = .20, p < .05).

Gaunt and Bassi 15

In addition, the regression equation of Gen2 fathers’ involvement in socio-emotional care on the set of Gen1 involvement measures was significant overall and accounted for 18% of the variance in Gen2 father’s socioemo-tional involvement (Table 2). Both Gen1 father’s hours of care and his total involvement in child care tasks were significant predictors in this regression analysis (β = .25, p < .01 and β = .28, p < .01, respectively). Consistent with the first hypothesis, the more hours Gen1 father spent caring for his son, and the more involved he was in performing child care tasks, the more involved is his son in providing socioemotional care for his children. Finally, the regression equations of Gen2 fathers’ total involvement, physical care, and responsibility were not significant (Table 2).

The Moderating Role of Father–Son RelationshipsDrawing on social learning theory, we hypothesized that the extent to which sons feel close to their fathers would moderate their tendency to imitate their fathers. That is, Gen1 father’s involvement in child care should interact with the father–son relationships in predicting the son’s involvement in child care. To test this hypothesis, interaction terms were formed by multiplying the standardized values of the Gen2 relationships variable and the involvement variables. We then conducted a series of regression analyses in which we regressed each form of Gen2 father’s involvement on the multiplicative interaction term and its constitutive terms.

Table 2. Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Second-Generation Fathers’ Involvement From First-Generation Fathers’ Involvement

Dependent Measure (Gen2)

Predictor (Gen1)

Hours of Father Care

Total Involvementa

Physical Carea

Socioemotional Carea Responsibilitya

Hours of father care

.20* .16 .01 .25** .16

Total involvementa

.08 .01 −.16 .28** −.01

R2 .05 .03 .02 .18 .02F(2, 120) 3.39* 1.73 1.55 13.09*** 1.62

Note: Standardized beta coefficients are reported.a. Higher scores reflect greater father involvement relative to mother involvement.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


Table 3 shows that the interaction between Gen1 father’s involvement and father–son relationships was a significant predictor of Gen2 father’s total involvement (β = .21, p < .01) and of his involvement in socioemotional care (β = .22, p < .01). Table 3 also shows that the interaction between Gen1 hours of father care and father–son relationships was a significant predictor of Gen2 father’s total involvement (β = .29, p < .001) and of his involvement in responsibility for child care (β = .40, p < .001). These interactions indicate that the influence of Gen1 fathers’ involvement on Gen2 fathers’ involve-ment is stronger in the context of close father–son relationships.

Consistent with the first hypothesis, these regression analyses also yielded significant positive main effects of Gen1 involvement on Gen2 hours of care and socioemotional care (Table 3). That is, the more hours Gen1 father spent

Table 3. Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Second-Generation Fathers’ Involvement From Interactions Between First-Generation Fathers’ Involvement and Father–Son Relationships

Dependent measure (Gen2)

Predictor (Gen1)


Total Involvementa

Physical Carea


Total involvement

.18* .01 −.20* .31*** −.01

Relationships .05 −.06 .04 −.26*** .04Total

involvement × Relationships

.05 .21** .15 .22** .13

R2 .04 .05 .05 .25 .02F(2, 120) 1.75 2.49 2.59 15.03*** .84Hours of father

care.23* .11 −.04 .30*** .09

Relationships .03 −.14 .01 −.30*** −.04Hours of

father care × Relationships

−.03 .29*** .09 .05 .40***

R2 .05 .11 .01 .19 .18F(2, 120) 2.03 5.17** .36 9.63*** 8.76***

Note: Standardized beta coefficients are reported.a. Higher scores reflect greater father involvement relative to mother involvement.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Gaunt and Bassi 17

caring for his son, and the more involved he was in performing child care tasks, the more involved is his son in total performance of child care tasks (β = .23, p < .05) and in providing socioemotional care (β = .30, p < .001). Also, consistent with this hypothesis, Gen1 total involvement had a signifi-cant negative main effect on Gen2 involvement in physical care. That is, the less involved Gen1 father was in performing child care tasks, the more involved is his son in providing physical care for his children (β = −.20, p < .05).

Curve Estimation of Imitation and CompensationTo reveal the nature of the interactions between Gen1 involvement and father–son relationships more clearly, dyads were categorized as having close or distant relationships by means of a median split performed on the son’s relationships score. We then calculated the regression lines separately for dyads with close and distant relationships. According to social learning theory, an imitation process is more likely to occur in the context of close relationships.

In addition, to enable the observation of simultaneous imitation and com-pensation processes, we used curve estimation within simultaneous regres-sion. Specifically, we entered both the linear function and the quadratic function of Gen1 father’s involvement into a series of regression equations, one for each form of Gen2 involvement. If Gen2 fathers who were raised by either relatively uninvolved fathers or highly involved fathers are more involved with their own children, there should be a curvilinear association between Gen1 involvement and Gen2 involvement.

The moderating role of father–son relationships. The regression analyses pre-dicting Gen2 hours of care from Gen1 hours of care indicated that a quadratic function provided the best fit for both close and distant father–son dyads (Table 4). The quadratic function of Gen1 hours was significant and explained 14% to 19% of the variance in Gen2 hours of care, and the linear function was not significant. This pattern reflects the simultaneous occurrence of imi-tation and compensation processes.

The regression analyses predicting Gen2 hours of care and total involve-ment from Gen1 total involvement indicated that a linear function provided the best fit (see Table 4). The linear function of Gen1 total involvement was significant and the quadratic function was not significant. Moreover, the regression equations were significant for close relationships but not for dis-tant relationships. This pattern of findings reflects an imitation process and provides strong support for the hypothesized moderating role of father–son relationships.


The regression analyses predicting Gen2 total involvement from Gen1 hours of care indicated that both the quadratic and linear models were statisti-cally significant and explained 24% of the variance in Gen2 fathers’ involve-ment among close dyads only. Neither model could account for the variance in fathers’ involvement under conditions of distant relationships.

Differential operation of modeling and compensatory processes. The data in Table 4 also show that there was a variation in the degree to which the two models fit the three distinct forms of involvement. As hypothesized, the lin-ear model provided a better fit than the quadratic model for the socioemo-tional dimension of care, explaining 17% to 36% of the variance in socioemotional care among close dyads and 6% to 12% among distant dyads. This pattern of results provides support for the first hypothesis as well as confirms the second hypothesis concerning the moderating role of father–son relationships. Also, consistent with the first hypothesis, the quadratic model provided a better fit than the linear model for the physical care and responsi-bility dimensions, explaining 9% to 36% of the variance among close dyads and 1% to 17% among distant dyads. The pattern of results for these dimen-sions thus reflects both modeling and compensatory processes.

Table 4. Curve Estimation Regression Analyses Predicting Second Generation Fathers’ Involvement From First Generation Fathers’ Involvement

Dependent Measure (Gen2)


Total Involvementa

Physical Carea


Predictor (Gen1) Model R2 F Value R2 F value R2 F Value R2 F Value R2 F Value

Close relationships Hours of

father careLinear .06 3.68 .24 16.28*** .02 1.20 .17 6.90** .33 25.77***

Quadratic .19 6.03** .24 8.01*** .20 8.62*** .12 5.15** .36 14.39*** Total involvementa

Linear .08 4.90* .06 3.71* .08 6.69* .36 19.88*** .08 4.85*

Quadratic .08 2.50 .06 1.85 .09 3.72* .26 15.82*** .22 7.91***Distant relationships Hours of

father careLinear .04 2.44 .01 .37 .01 .45 .12 9.25** .05 3.78

Quadratic .14 4.82* .02 .76 .01 .22 .12 4.56* .14 5.72** Total

involvementaLinear .01 .90 .01 .78 .01 .05 .06 4.71* .06 5.11*

Quadratic .04 1.49 .05 2.12 .02 .55 .06 2.43 .17 7.90***

a. Higher scores reflect greater father involvement relative to mother involvement.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Gaunt and Bassi 19

All in all, the data in Table 4 provide support for the two research hypoth-eses. Consistent with the first hypothesis, a modeling effect was evident on the socioemotional care dimension, although imitation of highly involved fathers occurred simultaneously with compensation for relatively uninvolved fathers on the physical care and responsibility dimensions. Consistent with the second hypothesis, there were stronger associations between a father’s involvement and his own father’s involvement among fathers who reported having close relationships. This is in line with the moderating role of father–son relationships suggested by social learning theory.

DiscussionThe main goal of this study was to explore the simultaneous operation of modeling and compensatory processes in the effects of paternal model on fathers’ involvement in child care. The findings attest to the critical impor-tance of distinguishing various forms of involvement in child care. In the context of fatherhood in the kibbutz, first-generation fathers were relatively more involved than their urban counterparts in providing socioemotional care (Sagi et al., 1987) and relatively uninvolved in providing daily physical care and responsibility. Consistently, second-generation fathers’ involve-ment in socioemotional care reflected an imitation process, whereas their involvement in physical daily care and in responsibility for child care reflected both an imitation process of the highly involved fathers and a com-pensation process for the relatively uninvolved fathers. These findings show how modeling and compensatory processes operate simultaneously and vary according to the specific form of involvement.

Another goal of this study was to assess whether the nature of father–son relationships moderates the associations between the father’s and his own father’s involvement in child care. Drawing on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), we hypothesized that imitation would mainly occur in close relationships between the second-generation father and his own father. The pattern of results was generally consistent with this hypothesis, showing stronger associations between a father’s involvement and his own father’s involvement among fathers who reported having close relationships.

Although compensatory and modeling effects have been studied with regard to harsh and responsive parenting styles (e.g., Belsky et al., 2005; Capaldi et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2008; Snarey, 1993), they were generally overlooked with regard to the determinants of levels of involvement in child care. The findings from this study show that the early paternal model explains a quarter of the variance in total involvement among fathers who had close


relationships with their own fathers. These findings enhance our understand-ing of the determinants of participation in child care by adding this missing piece to the puzzle.

The findings also provide a fuller illustration of the operation of modeling and compensation processes in general. Several qualitative studies have documented fathers’ narratives of reworking the fathering they received (Coltrane, 1996; Nelson et al., 2002; Roy & Lucas, 2006), whereas quantita-tive studies have more often documented intergenerational transmission of parenting styles (e.g., Belsky et al., 2005; Chen, & Kaplan, 2001). Although the understanding that imitation and compensation simultaneously present may not be new (Snarey, 1993), the current study empirically demonstrates their simultaneous operation in two respects: imitation of high involvement in socioemotional care occurred simultaneously with compensation for low involvement in physical care and responsibility and imitation of highly involved fathers occurred simultaneously with compensation for relatively uninvolved fathers.

The role of the mother’s own father was not examined in this study. Several studies have suggested that the mother’s views and attitudes have an important effect on the father’s involvement (Gaertner et al., 2007; Gaunt, 2008; Mannino & Deutsch, 2007). It is thus plausible that the mother’s views and expectations affect the father’s involvement and are affected by her own father’s involvement in her upbringing. For example, a mother who was raised by a highly involved father may expect her partner to exhibit similarly high involvement. Alternatively, a mother who experienced her father as an unavailable figure during her childhood may seek to compensate for this early experience by encouraging her partner to share child care. Future research would benefit from including measures of both parents’ paternal models.

Several limitations of this study need to be pointed out. First, the study’s focus on the unique phenomenon of fatherhood in the kibbutz limits the con-clusions that can be drawn from the findings. The sample was restricted to kibbutz-reared fathers who were raised in a communal sleeping arrangement. Imitation and compensation processes may operate differently in other set-tings. It is therefore necessary to replicate this study within more normative family-based childrearing practices. Second, although the current dyadic research paradigm constitutes an important advance compared with the more prevalent single source report, it nonetheless relies on self-reports, which could be subjected to social desirability concerns and reduced reliability. In particular, findings have shown that father and mother reports of fathers’ involvement may differ significantly (e.g., Mikelson, 2008) due to the tendency

Gaunt and Bassi 21

of spouses to overestimate their own contribution to child care and house-work performance. A longitudinal study combining self-reports and observa-tions in the home setting would therefore improve the research design. Finally, future research would benefit from exploring potential mediating variables that were not considered in the current study. For example, it would be interesting to examine whether imitation of father involvement is medi-ated through intergenerational transmission of gender ideologies (e.g., Kulik, 2002) or possibly through intergenerational transmission of attachment style (e.g., Van IJzendoorn, 1995).

The current study sheds light on two underlying processes that have not been the focus of a thorough empirical scrutiny to date. Using a father–son dyadic research paradigm, it reveals the moderating role of father–son relationships within the unique context of fatherhood in the kibbutz. It further attests to the importance of distinguishing various aspects of child care. Further investigations of the mediating variables and moderating conditions would enhance our understanding of the operation of modeling and compensatory processes as determinants of paternal involvement in child care.

Authors’ Note

This research is based on a master’s thesis conducted by Liat Bassi under the direc-tion of Ruth Gaunt.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. [AQ: 2]

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-lication of this article.[AQ: 3]

References

Aldous, J., Mulligan, G. M., & Bjarnason, T. (1998). Fathering over time: What makes the difference? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 809-820.

Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Mar-riage and the Family, 61, 199-212.

Aviezer, O., Sagi, A., & van Ijzendoorn, M. (2002). Balancing the family and the col-lective in raising children: Why communal sleeping in kibbutzim was predestined to end. Family Process, 41, 435-454.


Aviezer, O., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Sagi, A., & Schuengel, C. (1994). “Children of the Dream” revisited: 70 years of collective child care in Israeli kibbutzim. Psy-chological Bulletin, 116, 99-116.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Beaton, J. M., & Doherty, W. J. (2007). Fathers’ family of origin relationships and

attitudes about father involvement from pregnancy through first year postpartum. Fathering, 5, 236-245.

Beaton, J. M., Doherty, W. J., & Rueter, M. A. (2003). Family of origin processes and attitudes of expectant fathers. Fathering, 1, 149-168.

Beitel, A. H., & Parke, R. D. (1998). Paternal involvement in infancy: The role of maternal and paternal attitudes. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 268-288.

Belsky, J., Sligo, J., Jaffee, S. R., Woodward, L., & Silva, P. A. (2005). Intergenera-tional transmission of warm-sensitive-stimulating parenting: A prospective study of mothers and fathers. Child Development, 76, 384-396.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1984). Influence of gender constancy and social power on sex-linked modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1292-1302.

Capaldi, D., Pears, K., Patterson, G., & Owen, L. (2003). Continuity of parenting prac-tices across generations in an at-risk sample: A prospective comparison of direct and mediated associations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 127-142.

Chen, Z., & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive par-enting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 17-31.

Chen, Z., Liu, R. X., & Kaplan, H. B. (2008). Mediating mechanisms for the inter-generational transmission of constructive parenting: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1574-1599.

Coley, R. L., & Hernandez, D. C. (2006). Predictors of paternal involvement for resident and nonresident low-income fathers. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1041-1056.

Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood, housework, and gender equity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K., & Wong, J. J. (2009). Promot-ing fathers’ engagement with children: Preventive interventions for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 663-679.

Daly, K. J. (1993). Reshaping fatherhood: Finding the models. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 510-530.

Day, R., & Lamb, M. E. (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deutsch, F. M. (1999). Halving it all: How equally shared parenting works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gaunt and Bassi 23

Deutsch, F. M., Lussier, J. B., & Servis, L. J. (1993). Husbands at home: Predictors of paternal participation in childcare and housework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1154-1166.

Deutsch, F. M., Servis, L. J., & Payne, J. D. (2001). Paternal participation in child care and its effects on children’s self-esteem and attitudes toward gendered roles. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 1000-1024.

Doherty, W. J., Erickson, M. F., & LaRossa, R. (2006). An intervention to increase father involvement and skills with infants during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 438-447.

Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 277-292. [AQ: 4]

Forste, R., & Jarvis, J. (2007). “Just like his dad”: Family background and residency with children among young adult fathers. Fathering, 5, 97-110.

Furstenberg, F. F., & Weiss, C. C. (2000). Intergenerational transmission of fathering roles in at risk families. Marriage and Family Review, 29, 181-201.

Gaertner, B. M., Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., & Gareving, K. A. (2007). Parental childrearing attitudes as correlates of father involvement during infancy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 962-976.

Gaunt, R. (2005). The role of value priorities in paternal and maternal involvement in childcare. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 643-655.

Gaunt, R. (2006). Biological essentialism, gender ideologies, and role attitudes: What determines parents’ involvement in child care. Sex Roles, 55, 223-233.

Gaunt, R. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 373-395.

Goodman, W. B., Crouter, A. C., Lanza, S. T., & Cox, M. J. (2008). Paternal work characteristics and father-infant interactions in low-income, rural families. Jour-nal of Marriage and Family, 70, 640-653.

Hofferth, S. L. (2003). Race/ethnic differences in father involvement in two-parent families: Culture, context, or economy? Journal of Family Issues, 24, 185-216.

Hofferth, S. L. (2006). Residential father family type and child well-being: Invest-ment versus selection. Demography, 43, 53-77.

Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., & Dickson, N. (2001). Predicting early fatherhood and whether young fathers live with their children: Prospective findings and policy reconsiderations. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-try, 42, 803-815.

King, V., Harris, K. M., & Heard, H. E. (2004). Racial and ethnic diversity in nonresi-dent father involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1-21.


Knoester, C., Petts, R. J., & Eggebeen, D. J. (2007). Commitments to fathering and the well-being and social participation of new, disadvantaged fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 991-1004.

Kulik, L. (2002). The impact of social background on gender-role ideology: Parents’ versus children’s attitudes. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 53-73.

Lamb, M. E. (1987). The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2010a). The role of fathers in child development (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lamb, M. E. (2010b). How do father influence children’s development? Let me count the ways. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 1-26). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Levy-Shiff, R. (1994). Individual and contextual correlates of marital change across the transition to parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 30, 591-601.

Malinen, K., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., Rönkä, A., Wierda-Boer, H., & Gerris, J. (2010). Happy spouses, happy parents? Family relationships among Finnish and Dutch dual earners. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 293-306.

Mannino, C. A., & Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Changing the division of household labor: A negotiated process between partners. Sex Roles, 56, 309-324.

Masciadrelli, B. P., Pleck, J. H., & Stueve, J. L. (2006). Fathers’ role model per-ceptions: Themes and linkages with involvement. Men and Masculinities, 9, 23-34.

McBride, B. A., Brown, G. L., Bost, K. K., Shin, N., Vaughn, B., & Korth, B. (2005). Paternal identity, maternal gatekeeping, and father involvement. Family Rela-tions, 54, 360-372.

Mikelson, K. S. (2008). He said, she said: Comparing mother and father reports of father involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 613-624.

Milkie, M. A., Bianchi, S. M., Mattingly, M. J., & Robinson, J. P. (2002). Gendered division of childrearing: Ideals, realities, and the relationship to parental well-being. Sex Roles, 47, 21-38.

Nelson, T. J., Clampet-Lundquist, S., & Edin, K. (2002). Sustaining fragile father-hood: Father involvement among low-income, noncustodial African-American fathers in Philadelphia. In C. S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 525-553). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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 (pp. 119-140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gaunt and Bassi 25

Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 66-103). New York, NY: Wiley.

Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child’s outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 58-93). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Pleck, J. H., & Hofferth, S. L. (2008). Mother involvement as an influence on father involvement with early adolescents. Fathering, 6, 267-286.

Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by U.S. residential fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 222-271). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Roeters, A., Van Der Lippe, T., & Kluwer, E. S. (2009). Parental work demands and the frequency of child-related routine and interactive activities. Journal of Mar-riage and Family, 71, 1193-1204.

Roeters, A., Van Der Lippe, T., & Kluwer, E. S. (2010). Work characteristics and parent-child relationship quality: The mediating role of temporal involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1317-1328.

Roy, K. M., & Lucas, K. (2006). Generativity as second chance: Low-income fathers and transformation of the difficult past. Research in Human Development, 3, 139-159.

Russell, G. (1999). Primary caregiving fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in “nontraditional” families (pp. 57-81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sagi, A. (1982). Antecedents and consequences of various degrees of paternal involve-ment in child-rearing: The Israeli project. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 205-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sagi, A., Lamb, M. E., Shoham, R., Dvir, R., & Lewkowitz, K. (1985). Parent-infant interaction in families on Israeli kibbutzim. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 273-284.

Sagi, A., Koren, N., & Weinberg, M. (1987). Fathers in Israel. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 197-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schindler, H. S. (2010). The importance of parenting and financial contributions in pro-moting fathers’ psychological health. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 318-332.

Simons, R. L., Wu, C., Johnson, C., & Conger, R. D. (1995). A test of various per-spectives on the intergenerational transmission of domestic violence. Criminol-ogy, 33, 141-172.

Smetana, J. G. (1997). Parenting and the development of social knowledge reconcep-tualized: A social domain analysis. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parent-ing and children’s internalization of values (pp. 162-192). New York, NY: Wiley.

Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four decade study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Cabrera, N. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of father involve-ment: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [AQ: 5]

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Kahana-Kalman, R., & Yoshikawa, H. (2009). Father involvement in immigrant and ethnically diverse families from the prenatal period to the second year: Prediction and mediating mechanisms. Sex Roles, 60, 496-509.

Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Associations between adult attachment representations and parent-child attachment, parental responsiveness, and clinical status: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 117, 387-403.

Vinovskis, M. A. (1987). Historical perspectives on the development of the family and parent-child interactions. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 295-312). New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Yeung, J. W., Sandberg, J. F., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Hofferth, S. L. (2001). Children’s time with fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 136-154.

Documents

Modeling and compensatory processes underlying involvement in childcare among kibbutz-reared fathers