13
509 INFANT MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL, Vol. 25(6), 509– 521 (2004) 2004 Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/imhj.20023 A R T I C L E PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD CAREGIVING AND INFANT SOCIABILITY FRANCE FRASCAROLO Centre d’Etude de la Famille ABSTRACT: In this study, the influence of paternal involvement in caregiving on infant sociability was assessed using a “strange situation” paradigm adapted from the work of Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978). Thirty-seven families participated with their firstborn child (aged 12– 14 months). According to the questionnaire, 20 “nontraditional” fathers were very involved in caretaking, and 17 fathers were less or not at all involved. Infant sociability was assessed using three of Ainsworth et al.’s rating scales: proximity or contact-seeking, avoidance, and distance interaction. Results indicated that infants of non- traditional fathers were globally more sociable with all their partners (father, mother, and stranger) than infants of traditional fathers. Furthermore, results suggested that it was not only the father– infant rela- tionship or infant development which were affected by the amount of paternal involvement in daily caretaking but the family system as a whole. Indeed, infants from nontraditional families appeared to interact equally with their fathers and mothers in direct interaction. In addition, these infants interacted at a distance with a “stranger” as much in the presence of their fathers as in the presence of their mothers, thereby suggesting that both parents represented an equally secure base. RESUMEN: En este estudio, se evaluo ´ la influencia que el involucramiento paterno en el cuidado del infante ejerce sobre la sociabilidad del mismo. Se uso ´ un paradigma de la “situacio ´n extran ˜ a,” el cual fue adaptado del trabajo hecho por Ainsworth. Treinta y siete familias participaron con el primoge ´nito (de edad de 12 a 14 meses). De acuerdo con el cuestionario, 20 padres considerados como no tradicionales estuvieron muy involucrados en el cuidado del infante, y 17 padres estuvieron menos o nada involucrados en dicho cuidado. La sociabilidad del infante fue evaluada usando tres de las escalas de puntuacio ´n de Ainsworth: la proximidad o la bu ´ squeda de contacto, el acto de evitar, ası ´ como la interaccio ´ n a distancia. Los resultados indicaron que los infantes de papa ´s no tradicionales se presentaron como ma ´s sociales en te ´rminos generales con todos sus compan ˜eros (padre, madre y un extran ˜ o), que los infantes de papa ´s ma ´s tradicionales. Es ma ´s, los resultados sugieren que no fue solamente la relacio ´n entre el padre y el infante o el desarrollo del infante que fueron afectados por la cantidad de involucramiento paterno en el cuidado diario, sino el sistema familiar entero. De hecho, los infantes de familias no tradicionales parecı ´an inter- actuar igualmente con el padre y la madre en la interaccio ´n directa. Adicionalmente, estos infantes in- teractuaban a distancia con un extran ˜o tanto en presencia de sus papa ´s como de sus mama ´s, lo cual sugiere, por lo tanto, que ambos padres representaban una base igualmente segura. The research presented in this article was supported by Swiss National Research Foundation Grant 32-26412.89 at the Lausanne University Service of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Project Advisor: B. Pierrehumbert). Direct correspondence to: France Frascarolo, Centre d’Etude de la Famille, Site de Cery, CH-1008 Prilly– Lausanne, Swit- zerland; e-mail: [email protected].

Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandard

top of AH

509 base of drop

INFANT MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL, Vol. 25(6), 509–521 (2004)� 2004 Michigan Association for Infant Mental HealthPublished online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/imhj.20023

A R T I C L E

PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD CAREGIVING

AND INFANT SOCIABILITY

FRANCE FRASCAROLOCentre d’Etude de la Famille

ABSTRACT: In this study, the influence of paternal involvement in caregiving on infant sociability wasassessed using a “strange situation” paradigm adapted from the work of Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, andWall (1978). Thirty-seven families participated with their firstborn child (aged 12–14months). Accordingto the questionnaire, 20 “nontraditional” fathers were very involved in caretaking, and 17 fathers wereless or not at all involved. Infant sociability was assessed using three of Ainsworth et al.’s rating scales:proximity or contact-seeking, avoidance, and distance interaction. Results indicated that infants of non-traditional fathers were globally more sociable with all their partners (father, mother, and stranger) thaninfants of traditional fathers. Furthermore, results suggested that it was not only the father–infant rela-tionship or infant development which were affected by the amount of paternal involvement in dailycaretaking but the family system as a whole. Indeed, infants from nontraditional families appeared tointeract equally with their fathers and mothers in direct interaction. In addition, these infants interactedat a distance with a “stranger” as much in the presence of their fathers as in the presence of their mothers,thereby suggesting that both parents represented an equally secure base.

RESUMEN: En este estudio, se evaluo´ la influencia que el involucramiento paterno en el cuidado delinfante ejerce sobre la sociabilidad del mismo. Se uso´ un paradigma de la “situacio´n extrana,” el cual fueadaptado del trabajo hecho por Ainsworth. Treinta y siete familias participaron con el primoge´nito (deedad de 12 a 14 meses). De acuerdo con el cuestionario, 20 padres considerados como no tradicionalesestuvieron muy involucrados en el cuidado del infante, y 17 padres estuvieron menos o nada involucradosen dicho cuidado. La sociabilidad del infante fue evaluada usando tres de las escalas de puntuacio´n deAinsworth: la proximidad o la bu´squeda de contacto, el acto de evitar, ası´ como la interaccio´n a distancia.Los resultados indicaron que los infantes de papa´s no tradicionales se presentaron como ma´s sociales enterminos generales con todos sus compan˜eros (padre, madre y un extran˜o), que los infantes de papa´s mastradicionales. Es ma´s, los resultados sugieren que no fue solamente la relacio´n entre el padre y el infanteo el desarrollo del infante que fueron afectados por la cantidad de involucramiento paterno en el cuidadodiario, sino el sistema familiar entero. De hecho, los infantes de familias no tradicionales parecı´an inter-actuar igualmente con el padre y la madre en la interaccio´n directa. Adicionalmente, estos infantes in-teractuaban a distancia con un extran˜o tanto en presencia de sus papa´s como de sus mama´s, lo cualsugiere, por lo tanto, que ambos padres representaban una base igualmente segura.

The research presented in this article was supported by Swiss National Research Foundation Grant 32-26412.89 atthe Lausanne University Service of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Project Advisor: B. Pierrehumbert). Directcorrespondence to: France Frascarolo, Centre d’Etude de la Famille, Site de Cery, CH-1008 Prilly–Lausanne, Swit-zerland; e-mail: [email protected].

Page 2: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

510 ● F. Frascarolo

IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textRESUME: L’influence de l’implication paternelle dans le mode de soin sur la sociabilite´ du bebe fut

evaluee dans cette e´tude en utilisant un paradigme de “situation e´trange” adapte´ du travail de Ainsworth.Trente-sept familles ont participe´ avec le premier ne´ (de 12-14 mois). Selon le questionnaire, 20 pe`resnon-traditionnels participaient activement au soins du be´beet 17 peres qui etaient moins ou pas du toutimpliques. La sociabilite´ du bebefut evaluee par trois des e´chelles d’evaluation de Ainsworth: la proximite´ou la recherche de contact, l’e´vitement et l’interaction a` distance. Les re´sultats indique`rent que les be´besde peres non-traditionnels e´taient globalement plus sociables avec tous leurs parternaires (pe`re, mere etetranger) que les be´bes de pe`res traditionnels. De plus, les re´sultats sugge´rent que ce n’e´tait pas seulementla relation pe`re-bebe ou le developpement du be´be qui etaient affecte´s par la quantite´ d’implicationpaternelle dans les soins quotidiens, mais le syste`me familial tout entier. En fait, les be´bes de famillesnon-traditionnelles semble`rent communiquer de manie`re egale avec leurs pe`res et leurs me`res en inter-action directe. De plus, ces be´bes communiquaient a` distance avec un “e´tranger” autant en la pre´sencede leurs pe`res qu’en la pre´sence de leurs me`res, sugge´rant ainsi que les deux parents repre´sentaient unebase de se´curite identique.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: In dieser Studie wurde der Einfluss der va¨terlichen Teilnahme an der Betreuung aufdie soziale Entwicklung des Kleinkinds untersucht indem man die „Fremde Situation“ nach dem Para-digma der Arbeit von Ainsworth benutzte. 37 Familien nahmen mit ihrem erstgeborenen Kind (im Altervon 12-14 Monaten) teil. Aus den Fragebo¨gen war ersichtlich, dass 20 nicht traditionell ausgerichteteVater stark an der Betreuung teilnahmen, wa¨hrend 17 Va¨ter weniger, oder gar nicht betreuten. Die sozialeEntwicklung des Kindes wurde mittels dreier Werteskalen nach Ainsworth untersucht: Na¨he, oder Kon-taktsuche; Abwehr und Interaktion auf Distanz. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Kinder nicht traditionellausgerichteter Va¨ter generell sozialer mit allen ihren Partnern (Vater, Mutter und Fremder) verkehrten,als Kinder traditioneller Va¨ter. Daruber hinaus zeigen unsere Ergebnisse, dass es nicht nur die Vater-Kind Beziehung war, oder die Entwicklung des Kindes, die durch das Ausmaß der elterlichen Bemu¨hun-gen in der ta¨glichen Betreuung beeinflusst wurden, sondern das Familiensystem als Ganzes. In der Taterschienen Kinder von nicht traditionellen Va¨tern mit diesen und den Mu¨ttern auf einer Ebene in direkterInteraktion zu verkehren. Zusa¨tzlich interagierten diese Kinder auf Distanz mit dem „Fremden“ sowohlin der Anwesenheit des Vaters, als auch der Mutter, wodurch man annehmen kann, dass beide Elterngleichermaßen eine sichere Basis darstellten.

Page 3: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

Paternal Involvement and Infant Sociability ● 511

IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of text* * *

INTRODUCTION

The film Mrs. Doubtfire (Columbus, 1993), which tells of a divorced father’s extravagantdetermination to participate in the daily caretaking of his children, has been a great success.In fact, today it is no longer humiliating for a father to push a baby carriage as it was inCronin’s novel published in 1941 (Cronin, 1941). Thus, in terms of representation, fatherinvolvement in day-to-day child care has generally been accepted. But this has not reallymaterialized in terms of behaviors across various developed cultures (Frascarolo, Chillier, &Robert-Tissot, 1996; Hossain, Field, Pickens, Malphurs, & Del Valle, 1997). Hence, this studyfocuses on the minority of fathers truly involved in child care. We call them “nontraditionalfathers.” These fathers diaper, bathe, or feed their babies regularly. But how do these fathersdifferentially contribute to their children’s development compared to “traditional fathers” whodo not participate in baby care?

Father involvement in child care seems to be linked to several aspects of family life aswell as child development. In fact, the marital subsystem is influenced by the father’s involve-ment in child care. For example, as Russell (1987) highlighted, the reversing of roles imposesadditional tensions in coparental relationships. He found that these tensions were especiallyassociated with mothers having difficulty accepting fathers “taking over” tasks and responsi-bilities generally expected to be their own specific domain.

Many studies during the last decade have demonstrated that the father has a direct as wellas an indirect influence on three aspects of child development: cognitive, socioemotional, andgender identity. The works of Lamb (1996), Le Camus, Labrell, and Zaouche-Gaudron (1997),and Parke (1996) revealed the importance of the father’s role. The results have generally beenobtained using three methods: (a) comparing families where the father is present to familieswhere he is absent; (b) comparing the contributions of the father to those of the mother, namelyspecificity; and (c) comparing different types of fathers to each other (degree of involvement,sex role identity, etc.). The last two methods were used in this study.

The focus of this study was on the infant’s relationships within the family and also witha stranger. According to psychoanalytic theory, the father opens up the mother–baby dyad tothe external world and helps the infant progress to individualization (Blos, 1984; Burlingham,1973; Herzog, 1980).

The link between paternal caregiving and certain aspects of infant sociability also has beenstudied by several researchers. In a “strange situation” including father, mother, and a stranger,Kotelchuck (1976) observed that the quantity of paternal caregiving significantly influencedthe manner in which children interacted with their fathers. The few children who did not relateto their fathers (operationally defined as infants who did not spend at least 15 s in his proximityupon his arrival) came mainly from families in which the fathers provided the least amount ofcaretaking. In addition, children whose fathers were active caretakers (parents sharing care-taking activities) tended to find the experiment an enjoyable play session and were not dis-tressed when left alone with strangers.

Furthermore, in studying the father–child and mother–child relationships in games andthe children’s abilities to interact with preschool peers, McDonald and Parke (1984) found thatpaternal involvement in play was positively correlated with the quality of the child’s peerrelationships, especially for boys. Studying 36-month-old preschoolers, Bourc¸ois (1997) alsofound that paternal involvement was linked to child sociability observed in a daycare center.

Page 4: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

512 ● F. Frascarolo

IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textIndeed, infants of involved fathers, compared to infants whose fathers were not involved, were

more open to their peers and had more social contacts and of a higher quality. Based on thesestudies, onemay conclude that paternal daily involvement in activities linked to child caretakinginfluences child sociability.

Sociability is defined as having positive interaction with others, either in close contact orin distance interaction. Being sociable also means not avoiding interaction or contact. In thisstudy, the behaviors of interest were social behaviors directed not only towards parents butalso towards a “strange” person.

The questions addressed in the study were: (a) Are infants of nontraditional fathers moresociable than infants of traditional fathers? Are the infants more sociable (i.e., with any partner)or does their social behavior differ based on the choice of their partner? (b) Are there differencesbetween the interactive behaviors directed toward the stranger in the presence of the father ascompared with the mother; and if so, do these differences vary according to the degree offather involvement in daily caretaking? This question also implies another question: If thechild’s sociability is linked to the father’s engagement in daily caretaking, will these socialbehaviors occurring in the presence of the father be different from those observed in his absencewhile the child is in the presence of the mother?

To answer these questions, we used a “strange situation” paradigm adapted from Ains-worth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) and comparable to the one used by Kotelchuck (1976);however, this study is not based on attachment theory but rather mainly concerned with inter-actions. The definition of sociability includes behaviors that are assessed by some of Ainsworthet al.’s interactive scales: proximity and contact seeking, distance interaction, and avoidance.Further, to observe infant sociability rather than attachment behaviors, the infant’s stress levelwas reduced by conducting the adapted strange situation at home. In addition, the mild levelsof stress that were induced were useful in accentuating individual differences.

METHOD

Procedure and Subjects

The procedure involved several steps. First, a questionnaire was developed to assess paternalparticipation in child-care activities (Frascarolo et al., 1996). The development of this ques-tionnaire was based on the work of Le Camus (1987) and Pedersen and Robson (1969). Thequestionnaire was initially sent to a total of 1,861 couples with 8- to 10-month-old firstborninfants included in a larger study. The couples were recruited on the basis of birth announce-ments in the local newspapers. Six hundred seventy-eight couples returned the questionnaires(36.4%), of which 470 questionnaires were suitable for this study. Exclusion criteria for theeliminated questionnaires were: (a) more than one child in the family or children born ofprevious marriage, (b) only one parent had completed the questionnaire, or (c) incomplete date.

Next, an index (maximum� 100, minimum� 0) was calculated base on the frequencyof paternal participation in 10 daily care activities such as diapering, bathing, feeding, takingbaby to the pediatrician, and so on. For each activity, the father received 0, 1, or 2 pointsaccording to the frequency of his participation in the task. The total number of points obtainedby the father was divided by the maximum number of points he could obtain. For example, ifthe baby never woke up during the night, the father would not receive points for taking careof the child in the case where she did wake up; however, this father could receive a score of100 if he participated in all other activities. Indeed, a score of 100 corresponded to maximumparticipation in each task, and 0 corresponded to an absence of participation in any task.

Page 5: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

Paternal Involvement and Infant Sociability ● 513

IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of text

TABLE 1. Characteristics of the Subjects

VariablesNontraditional

Families (n � 20)Traditional

Families (n � 17) �2 p

Sex of infantMale 10 8Female 10 9

Age of fathers�30 5 1231–40 13 4 7.79 .02�40 2 1

Age of mothers�25 2 626–30 9 8 6.15 .046�30 9 2Missing value 0 1

Sociocultural level of fathersLow 0 1Middle 5 9High 15 7

Sociocultural level of mothersLow 0 0Middle 11 10High 9 5

Father’s rate of participation in care (weekly)�0%* 10 17 11.65 .0006�0%** 10 0

Working status of mothersNot working 8 6Working 12 11

Extraparental rate of participation in care (weekly)�0% 10 6�0% 10 11

Note.* 0% corresponds to the father’s never being solely responsible for his child for at least half a day per week (e.g., his spousebeing at work); **�0%: For at least half a day per week, the father is solely responsible for his child while his spouse is absent(observed rates between 5 and 60%; 100%� 5 full days).

On the basis of the responses of the first 100 fathers recruited (M � 69.12,SD� 21.9),a criterion was defined to distinguish between two groups: “Traditional fathers” had an indexlower than the mean minus 0.7 of the standard deviation (�53.8), and “nontraditional fathers”had an index higher than the mean plus 0.7 of the standard deviation (�84.5). This wasnecessary to have a sufficient number of fathers in each of the two groups so that the groupscould be sufficiently differentiated. After this criterion had been defined, recruitment was pur-sued with other couples. Whenever answers to the questionnaire showed that the father be-longed to either one of the two groups, the parents were asked to participate with their childin a “strange situation” paradigm, modified for the present study. About one third of the couplesagreed to participate. The final sample included 37 families, who were all volunteers. All fatherswere the biological fathers of their children. Twenty fathers were considered to be nontradi-tional fathers, and 17 traditional fathers according to the data from our questionnaire. Thecharacteristics of our final sample are presented in Table 1.

Page 6: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

514 ● F. Frascarolo

IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textTABLE 2. The Infants’ Partners in the Two

Scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

1. mother� father father� mother2. mother father3. mother� stranger father� stranger4. stranger stranger5. mother father6. mother� father father� mother7. father mother8. father� stranger mother� stranger9. stranger stranger

10. father mother11. father� mother mother� father

According to Table 1, there were no significant differences between the two groups offathers on sociocultural and demographic status; however, there was a significant age differencewith the nontraditional fathers being older than the traditional fathers. A similar difference wasobserved for the two groups of mothers, although to a lesser degree. All babies (19 boys, 18girls) were firstborn and the only child in the family during study participation. There were nodifferences between the two groups concerning non extraparental care as well as the percentageof working mothers.

Experimental setting.A scenario was used based on Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) “strange situ-ation” paradigm, which included both parents. The scenario involved two separations, one fromeach parent, and the order of separation was counterbalanced. About half of the group expe-rienced Scenario 1; the others experienced Scenario 2. Similar to Ainsworth et al.’s paradigm,each of the 11 episodes lasted 3 min (33 min total). The scenarios are presented in Table 2.

The situations were videotaped at home when the infants were 12 to 14 months old. Thesituation was usually recorded in the living room, and the infant’s toys were not removed. Inaddition, a bag of toys was given to the infant for the session. Parents received instructions tobe as natural as possible in responding to their child’s demands and to feel free, if necessary,to provide comfort to them. They were asked not to actively engage in any game and toencourage their infant to play with the toys if he or she was bored. When, during the scenario,they were asked not to be in the presence of the infant, they were requested to leave the roomout of the child’s sight and to be silent. Before the task started, the child was given time toadjust to the person behind the video camera while she was setting up. During the filming, shewas more or less hidden behind the rather large camera. If the child became too interested inher, she had to pretend to focus on her camera and not interact with the child. Although thesessions were lengthy, the infant was not left alone, and someone always comforted him orher if necessary.

Coding. Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) interactive scales were used to focus on interaction. Use ofthese scales does not simply involve counting smiles, vocalizations, and gazes; it also takesinto account the interchangeability of infant behaviors (e.g., two smiles or vocalization vs.showing an object). This coding system also integrates adult behaviors which may facilitate oreven elicit some of the infant’s responses.

Three of the six interactive scales were included in this study (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Page 7: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

Paternal Involvement and Infant Sociability ● 515

IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textThe three 7-point interactive scales used were (a) contact and proximity seeking: assessing the

infant’s efforts to establish proximity and contact with the adult; (b) avoidance: assessing infantbehaviors such as moving about or turning away from the adult, ignoring the adult’s attemptsto interact and avoiding looking at the adult; and (c) distance interaction or interacting at adistance: assessing the infant’s positive social behaviors (smiles, vocalizations, gazes, showingan object, etc.) when not in direct physical contact with the adult. Three other interactive scaleswere excluded because they focus more on attachment behaviors than sociability.

Table 3 presents the different episodes in which the infant’s interactive behavior is codedtoward each partner according to each interactive scale. This table concerns Scenario 2; forScenario 1, mother (M) and father (F) should be reversed.

To avoid coding one parent’s interactive behaviors related to the interactive behaviors ofthe other parent, the situations were “split” into two, and the order of coding of these “half-situations” was randomly selected.

Because this coding system was difficult to follow and easily influenced by subjectivity,the coding was done by two independent coders, and disagreements were discussed. The cor-relation between the two coders before the discussion was .87 for contact and proximity seek-ing, .58 for avoidance, and .76 for distance interaction. In addition, one of the coders was blindto the group assignment of the fathers.

RESULTS

To answer the first question concerning the greater sociability of the infants of nontraditionalfathers, the following behaviors were studied: Did these infants seek more proximity andcontact, interact more at a distance, and avoid their partners less than the other infants?

The results comparing the interactive behaviors of the two groups of infants are presentedin Table 4. It was found that the infants, irrespective of the degree to which their fathers wereinvolved in daily caregiving, interacted more at a distance with the stranger than with theirparents. This may be explained by the different instructions given to parents and strangers. Theparents had to limit their interactions to only responding to the requests or needs of their infantwhereas the stranger had to engage in interactions or try to play with the infant.

Compared to the infants of traditional fathers, the infants of nontraditional fathers showedmore proximity and contact-seeking behaviors, interacted more at a distance, and avoided alltheir partners less (the father, the mother, and even the stranger). These results suggest thatpaternal involvement in daily caretaking is linked to infant sociability not only with personsoutside the family circle but also with the parents themselves.

The second question focused on differences between the interactive behaviors directedtoward the stranger in the presence of the father versus in the presence of the mother; further,the variation in differences was studied according to the degree of father involvement in dailycaregiving.

To answer this question, contact and proximity-seeking behaviors, distance interaction,and avoidance behaviors directed toward the stranger were compared in the presence of themother and the father separately.T tests and correlation analyses were conducted. Allt testsrevealed nonsignificant differences for the infants of nontraditional fathers as well as for theinfants of traditional fathers (see Table 5).

Thus, irrespective of the degree to which fathers were involved in daily caregiving, theinfant’s relationship with the stranger was neither facilitated nor hindered in the father’s pres-ence compared to behaviors in the mother’s presence.

For the correlation analyses, among the six possible correlations (behaviors toward thestranger in the presence of the mother vs. the father according to the three scales and in the

Page 8: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

516 ● F. Frascarolo

IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textTABLE 3. The Different Episodes in Which the Infant’s Interactive Behavior is Coded (C), According

to Each Interactive Scale and to Each Partner (Scenario 2)

PartnersPresent in

Each Episode

Contact

F M S

Avoidance

F M S

Distance

F M S

1) F� M � I C C C C

2) F� I C C

3) F� I � S C C C C C

4) I � S C C C

5) F� I C C C

6) F� M � I C C C C C

7) M � I C C

8) M � I � S C C C C C

9) I � S C C C

10) M � I C C C

11) F� M � I C C C C C

Note.F � Father; M� Mother; I� Infant; and S� Stranger.

TABLE 4. T Tests Comparing Infants of Nontraditional Fathers (n � 20) to Infants of TraditionalFathers (n � 17) by Scale and by Partner

TraditionalFathers (n � 17)

M SD

NontraditionalFathers (n � 20)

M SD t

Behaviors Directed to FathersProximity and contact seeking 1.60 .58 2.16 .73 2.55*Distance interaction 2.25 .69 2.93 1.13 2.14*Avoidance 1.59 .43 1.33 .32 2.04*

Behaviors Directed to MothersProximity and contact seeking 1.69 .67 2.24 .69 2.46*Distance interaction 2.37 .84 3.11 1.45 1.93†Avoidance 1.75 .43 1.20 .25 4.57**

Behaviors Directed to StrangerProximity and contact seeking 1.25 .34 1.65 .64 2.45*Distance interaction 3.47 .93 4.52 1.07 3.17**Avoidance 1.88 .74 1.48 .60 1.84†

Note.†p � .1. * p � .05. ** p � .01. (See Table 3 for which episodes are included.)

Page 9: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

Paternal Involvement and Infant Sociability ● 517

IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textTABLE 5. T tests Comparing Behaviors Directed Towards the Stranger by Infants in the Presence of

Father or Mother

With Father

M SD

With Mother

M SD t

Traditional Fathers (n � 17)Proximity and contact seeking 1.29 .59 1.24 .44 .28Distance interaction 3.88 .86 3.94 1.20 .17Avoidance 2.24 1.3 2.29 1.26 .11

Nontraditional Fathers (n � 20)Proximity and contact seeking 1.70 .80 1.55 .89 .56Distance interaction 4.70 1.08 4.70 1.21 .00Avoidance 1.74 1.10 1.89 1.15 .42

Note. ps� n.s.

TABLE 6. Correlation Between Behaviors Directed Towards the Father and theMother

Traditional(n � 17)

r

Nontraditional(n � 20)

r

Proximity and contact seeking .35 .51*Distance interaction .28 .78**Avoidance .40 .50*

* p � .05, two-tailed. **p � .01, two-tailed.

two groups), there was only one significant correlation. Distance interaction behaviors directedtoward the stranger in the father’s presence were correlated to those in the mother’s presencefor the infants of nontraditional fathers (r � 0.49,p � 0.03). No significant correlations wereobserved for the infants of traditional fathers. Next, in nontraditional families, infants were associable with the stranger in the presence of their mother as in the presence of their father.This may suggest that for these infants, father and mother represent “equally” secure bases.Further research is needed to more clearly assess the role of the parents as a secure base.

This last result influenced further exploration of the similarities of the infants’ interactionswith their fathers and mothers separately according to father involvement. The question ad-dressed in this analysis was: Are there more similarities between the behaviors directed towardthe father and those directed toward the mother for the infants of nontraditional fathers com-pared to the infants of traditional fathers? To answer this last question,t tests and correlationalanalyses were conducted on the means obtained for the sum of all episodes as well as for eachscale. No differences between the behaviors directed toward the father and those directedtoward the mother were found for any of the children, irrespective of their group (allt testswere nonsignificant); however, there were important and very significant correlations betweenthe behaviors directed toward the father and those directed toward the mother for the infantsof nontraditional fathers (Table 6).

These results show that there is a similarity between the father– infant and the mother–

Page 10: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

518 ● F. Frascarolo

IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textinfant relationships, especially for distance interaction. These results also suggest that the family

system functions differently across the two groups; that is, father and mother may be moreinterchangeable in nontraditional families.

DISCUSSION

The main results can be summarized as follow: First, using Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) interactivescales (contact and proximity seeking, avoidance, and distance interaction), main analyses ofinfant behaviors directed toward the father, the mother, and a stranger indicated that comparedto the infants of traditional fathers, the infants of nontraditional fathers were globally moresociable irrespective of the partner with which they interacted. Second, no differences werefound related to the manner in which the infants interacted with the stranger in the presenceof the mother versus the father. Third, there were no differences between behaviors directedtoward the father and those directed toward the mother with respect to the paternal caregivinggroup. Moreover, the infants of nontraditional fathers interacted with their fathers as much asthey did with their mothers. In this finding, there were no significant differences betweengroups; rather, there were high intercorrelations.

Our findings concur with those of Le Camus, Leonardis, and Lescarret (1989). Analyzingthe quality of infant relationships in a daycare center, they observed that infants whose parentsshared caregiving activities displayed more mature behaviors toward their nurse and weremoreinteractive with their peers. Further, in studying the social behaviors of 3-year-old children inpeer groups, Bourc¸ois (1997) also found a link between father involvement and infant socia-bility.

Our results lead to several possible explanations. First, if one considers the family as asystem, the father’s engagement in caregiving concerns not only himself and his child but alsohis spouse. In other words, what influences one subsystem also influences the others. Forexample, the quality of a marital relationship can be linked to the father’s engagement in hispaternal role (Feldman, Nash, & Aschenbrenner, 1983). On the other hand, the marital sub-system may be affected by the way the parents share parental and “bread-winning” roles (Rus-sell, 1987). More equal sharing of child care for the nontraditional couples in this sample maybe considered positive in that they made a deliberate choice that was not related to unemploy-ment. Moreover, it does not correspond to a complete reversal of roles and was not imposedon them by economic circumstances, as occurred for some subjects in Russell’s study (1987).Indeed, the negative effects on the marital relationship observed by Russell could perhaps, inthe current study, be more positive for the couple and have positive consequences for thefamily as a whole.

Therefore, there may be other aspects of family life than the sharing of caregiving activitiesthat differentiate the nontraditional from the traditional families. For example, Frascarolo(1997) found that nontraditional mothers (defined according to their husband’s involvement),as compared to traditional mothers, were observed to be less directive toward their children(aged 1 year) in a free-play situation. Indeed, they spent more time just observing their children,interfered less in their games and allowed them more freedom in their activities. The fact thatthese mothers shared caregiving activities with their husbands could be interpreted as indicatingthat they did not consider themselves as the omnipresent parental figure. We suggest that it isthis particular attitude of nontraditional mothers that is perceived as being less directive. Thisattitude also may influence the children’s opening up to others. The observed differences be-tween the two groups suggesting distinct types of family systems support this first explanation.Further, the fact that there is more equality between father and mother (as partners and asproviding a secure base) in nontraditional families also may be linked to more equality between

Page 11: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

Paternal Involvement and Infant Sociability ● 519

IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textthe parents and the infant. Hence, having more equal roles as partners would facilitate the

development of infant sociability. Additional studies in the family systems perspective areneeded to verify these hypotheses.

The second possible explanation for our results is based on paternal specificity observedin games (Labrell, 1996; Lamb, 1977) and in speech patterns (Le Chanu & Marcos, 1994;Tomasello, Cont-Ramsden, & Ewert, 1990). Fathers tend to bring about unexpectedness ororiginality when playing games (e.g., by using an object in an unconventional way). As far asspeech is concerned, fathers request clarification more often, use nonspecific queriesmore often(e.g., What?), and prompt their children to attain higher levels of success by themselves. Au-thors have considered the father’s role to be “challenging” as he prepares the child to confrontthe less familiar world composed of objects as well as persons. Consequently, we suggest thatinfants of nontraditional fathers, who have more contact with their fathers, may be betterprepared to approach people they do not know (“strangers”).

A third possible explanation may concern the age differences between the two groups offathers. Despite the absence of sociocultural differences, there may have been differences inthe resources that were available for the infant based on the fact that the parents were at differentstages of the life cycle. The parental-age variable should be controlled for in future studies orstudied directly. This third explanation may be related to the following point.

The fourth possible explanation could be that if fathers involve themselves in caregiving,they may consider their infants more as “partners.” It has been established that involvementleads to a greater perception of the infant as a real speech partner (Field, 1978). In turn, theconceptualization of the infant as a real speech partner also may motivate father’s involvement.Hence, the perception of the infant as a “partner” and paternal involvement are probably factorswhich mutually influence each other. Considering the infant as a real partner in interactionmaytherefore reinforce his or her role as a speech partner and, consequently, could have a positiveinfluence on sociability. In addition, the infant’s degree of empathy has been shown to belinked to father involvement in child care (Bernadett-Shapiro, Ehrensaft, & Shapiro, 1996, ina study on boys). We hypothesize that nontraditional fathers influence the sociability of theirinfant, but the direction of causality also may be reversed: Sociable infants may invite theirfathers to participate more actively. Studies including prenatal information on parental repre-sentations of infants, birth order, parental roles, and so on are needed.

Finally, it should be noted that the proposed explanations for the greater sociability ofinfants of nontraditional fathers are not mutually exclusive.

CONCLUSION

Bowlby (1969) hypothesized that the mother– infant relationship is the prototype of all futurerelationships. This point of view has been questioned by many authors, for whom each rela-tionship has its own characteristics based on the interactive style to which it belongs. In contrastto this perspective, the results of this study have indicated that infant sociability is not onlybased on the mother– infant relationship but on the family system as a whole, including father,mother, and infant. Therefore, research concerning the influence of father involvement in care-giving conducted only within the context of the father– infant dyad may overlook its indirectlinks with the other subsystems of the family, such as the mother– infant or the marital dyads.By studying the triadic family system, as has been done by Fivaz and collaborators (Fivaz-Depeursinge, Frascarolo, & Corboz-Warnery, 1996; Fivaz-Depeursinge & Corboz-Warnery,1999), or McHale and Cowan (1996), and by taking into account paternal involvement incaregiving, one may develop a better understanding of the father’s role.

Important characteristics may vary among fathers, and these should be analyzed in future

Page 12: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

520 ● F. Frascarolo

IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textstudies. The distinction between different types of fathers on the basis of their preferences for

child-care activities seems to be a promising approach (Jain, Belsky, & Crnic, 1996). Theseauthors distinguished four types of fathers: caretakers, playmates–teachers, disciplinarians,anddisengaged fathers. Another interesting approach is to clarify the notion of involvement in thefather’s conception of his own role. Zaouche-Gaudron (2001) proposed drawings to fathers ofinfants aged 9 months (representing various situations in which the child, the father, or bothwere implicated). An analysis of the discursive data showed not only that protection, stimu-lation, and education of the child plays an important part but so does the place of the father inthe parental couple. Zaouche-Gaudron (1997) and colleagues (Zaouche-Gaudron, Ricaud, &Beaumatin, 1998) recommended going beyond considering the influence of father involvementto also study the father’s differentiation. In contrast to nondifferentiated fathers who are similarto mothers, the differentiated father also takes an active role in caregiving, defines himself asthe third party (different from the mother), and introduces the necessary distance between childandmother and between the child and himself. In this way, he offers the child distinct specificityin terms of differentiation.

Based on the results of this study, it appears that clinical policies would gain by notexclusively focusing on the mother– infant dyad but also including the father in therapy (Bar-rows, 1999; Carr, 1998). Indeed, as was evident from this study, paternal involvement in dailycaregiving is not only linked to father–child interactions but also to those of the mother–childdyad and the child’s sociability with a strange person. Hence, the interactions between thefather and the child are linked to other aspects of the familial system, and it could be useful toconsider this perspective in therapeutic situations.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Barrows, P. (1999). Fathers in parent–infant psychotherapy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20(3), 333–345.

Bernadett-Shapiro, S., Ehrensaft, D., & Shapiro, J.L. (1996). Father participation in childcare and thedevelopment of empathy in sons: An empirical study. Family Therapy, 23(2), 77–93.

Blos, P. (1984). Son and father. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 32(2), 301–324.

Bourcois, V. (1997). Modalite´s de pre´sence du pe`re et developpement social de l’enfant d’aˆge prescolaire.Enfance, 3, 389–399.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books.

Burlingham, D. (1973). The preoedipal infant–father relationship. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 28,23–47.

Carr, A. (1998). The inclusion of fathers in family therapy: A research based perspective. ContemporaryFamily Therapy, 20(3), 371–383.

Columbus, C. (Director). (1993). Mrs. Doubtfire [Motion picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox.

Cronin, A.J. (1941). The keys of the kingdom (1st ed.). Boston: Little Brown.

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

Field, T. (1978). Interaction behaviors of primary versus secondary caretaker fathers. DevelopmentalPsychology, 14(2), 183–184.

Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., & Corboz-Warnery, A. (1999). The primary triangle, a developmental systemsview. New York: Basic Books Perseus, Harper/Collins.

Page 13: Paternal involvement in child caregiving and infant sociability

Paternal Involvement and Infant Sociability ● 521

IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

shortstandard

top of rhbase of rh

cap heightbase of textFivaz-Depeursinge, E., Frascarolo, F., & Corboz-Warnery, A. (1996). Assessing the triadic alliance be-

tween father, mother and infant at play. In J.P. MacHale & P.A. Cowan (Eds.), Understanding howfamily-level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two-parent families (pp. 27–44).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frascarolo, F. (1997). Les incidences de l’engagement paternel quotidien sur les modalite´s d’interactionludique pere-enfant et me`re-enfant. Enfance, 3, 381–387.

Frascarolo, F., Chillier, L., & Robert-Tissot, C. (1996). Relations entre l’engagement paternel quotidienet les repre´sentations des roˆles sexuels. Archives de psychologie, 64, 159–177.

Herzog, J.M. (1980). Sleep disturbance and father hunger in 18- to 28-month-old boys. PsychoanalyticStudy of the Child, 35, 219–233.

Hossain, Z., Field, T., Pickens, J., Malphurs, J., & Del Valle, C. (1997). Fathers’ caregiving in low-income African-American and Hispanic-American families. Early Development and Parenting, 6(2),73–82.

Jain, A., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1996). Beyond fathering behaviors: Types of dads. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 10(4), 431–442.

Kotelchuck, M. (1976). The infant’s relationship to the father: Experimental evidence. In M.E. Lamb(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 61–70). New York: Wiley.

Labrell, F. (1996). Paternal play with toddlers: Recreation and creation. European Journal of Psychologyof Education, XI(1), 43–54.

Lamb, M.E. (1977). Father–infant and mother–infant interaction in the first year of life. Child Devel-opment, 48, 167–181.

Lamb, M.E. (1996). The role of the father. New York: Wiley.

Le Camus, J. (1987). Les pratiques de nursing chez les parents d’enfants de cre`che. Enfance, 40(3), 245–261.

Le Camus, J., Labrell, F., & Zaouche-Gaudron, C. (1997). Le roˆle du pere dans le de´veloppement dujeune enfant. Paris: Nathan.

Le Camus, J., Leonardis, M. de, & Lescarret, O. (1989). Effets de la transformation des roˆles parentauxsur la construction de la personnalite´ de l’enfant. La psychiatrie de l’enfant, 32(1), 31–54.

Le Chanu, M., & Marcos, H. (1994). Father–child and mother–child speech: A perspective on parentalroles. European Journal of Psychology of Education, IX(1), 3–13.

McDonald, K., & Parke, R.D. (1984). Parent–child physical play: The effects of sex and age of childrenand parents. Journal of Sex Roles, 15(7–8), 367–378.

McHale, J.P., & Cowan, P.A. (1996). Understanding how family-level dynamics affect children’s devel-opment: Studies of two-parent families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parke, R.D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pedersen, F.A., & Robson, K.S. (1969). Father participation in infancy. American Journal of Orthopsy-chiatry, 39(3), 466–472.

Russell, G. (1987). Problems in role-reversed families. In C. Lewis & M. O’Brien (Eds.), Reassessingfatherhood (pp. 161–179). London: Sage.

Tomasello, M., Cont-Ramsden, G., & Ewert, B. (1990). Young children’s conversations with their moth-ers and fathers: Differences in breakdown and repair. Journal of Child Language, 17, 115–130.

Zaouche-Gaudron, C. (1997). La diffe´renciation paternelle et le pe`re suffisamment pre´sent. Neuropsy-chiatrie de l’enfance et de l’adolescence, 45(3), 153–161.

Zaouche-Gaudron, C. (2001). Contribution a` l’analyse de l’implication paternelle. European Review ofApplied Psychology, 51(1–2), 69–75.

Zaouche-Gaudron, C., Ricaud, H., & Beaumatin, A. (1998). Father–child play interaction and subjectiv-ity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIII(4), 447–460.