Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

FATHER-CHILD INTERACTIONS: MEASURING PAST PATERNAL INFLUENCES

Jacqueline D. Shannon, Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, Joanne Joseph, Bonnie Hannibal,
Tracy Poon, Michele Pelnar and Vanessa Rodriguez
New York University

Introduction

Research on father involvement has increasingly shown that fathers play a significant role in their children's development (Lamb, 1997). Studies examining father-child interactions have predominantly characterized fathers as "playful," with less attention to other important dimensions, such as responsiveness or didactic behaviors (Hossain & Roopnarine, 1994; MacDonald & Parke, 1984; Parke, 1996). There have only been a small group of studies that investigated fathers' childhood experiences with their parents in relation to their parenting style (Cowan & Cowan, 1990; Onyskiw, Harrison & Magill-Evans, 1997; Cohn, Cowan, Cowan & Pearson, 1992). Of those studies, only one known study has specifically examined fathers' relationship with their fathers (Cox, Owen, Lewis, Riedel, Scalf-McIver & Suster, 1985). The following study expands on this work by examining fathers' childhood relationships with their fathers in relation to their own parenting interactions.

In the present investigation, we examined the interaction styles of 57 ethnically diverse, inner city fathers engaged in play with their 24-month-old children. Specifically, our goals were to:

• Describe the nature of fathers’ interaction styles with their two-year-old children.

• Compare the relations between fathers' interaction styles with their children’s social, emotional, and cognitive behaviors.

• Assess the extent to which fathers' perceptions of their relationship with their fathers relate to their interaction styles with their children.

• Explore men's feelings toward and perceptions of their childhood experiences with their fathers by examining a subsample of 18 qualitative interviews.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 57 fathers/father-figures and their children (28 boys and 29 girls). Most, 88 percent (N = 54), were biological fathers; three were stepfathers. Sixty percent (N = 34) of fathers had been living with their children since birth, and the majority, 72 percent (N = 41), were single. At the time of interview, fathers ranged from 18 to 46 years of age (M = 25.5, SD = 6.21). The children were between the ages of 24 and 30 months (M = 25.4, SD =1.65). Fathers came from diverse racial backgrounds: 64.9 percent (N = 37) Latin American, 26.3 percent (N = 15) African American, 5.3 percent (N = 3) Asian American, and 3.5 percent (N = 2) European American. Forty-two fathers spoke English and fifteen spoke another language (13 Spanish, 2 Mandarin). Almost half, 43.9 percent (N = 25), of fathers completed 11 or less years of high school, 29.8 percent (N = 17) graduated from high school or received their GED, and 26.3 percent (N = 15) completed some college or graduated from college. All families were low-income and eligible to receive some form of governmental assistance (e.g., Medicaid, food stamps, WIC). More than half of fathers, 89.4 percent (N = 51), reported working full-time or part-time, and their mean monthly income was $1,291.74 (SD = $979.49; range: $0 to $4,000).

Videotaping Procedures

Father-child interactions were videotaped during four activities, including 10 minutes of semi-structured free play, which formed the basis of the present investigation. During free play, toys were presented to fathers in three separate bags (bag #1 - a book, bag #2 - a pizza set and telephone, and bag #3 - a farm with farm animals). Fathers were asked to sit on a mat with their children, to ignore the camera, and to do what they would ordinarily do with their children. They were instructed to only play with the toys from the three bags and to start with bag #1, move on to bag #2, and finish with bag #3. They were told that they could divide up the 10-minutes as they liked. Fathers were asked not to allow their children to use a pacifier during the videotaping, so that the researchers could hear children’s verbalizations.

Measures

Father-Child Interactions. The quality of father-child interactions was assessed using the Caregiver-Child Affect, Responsiveness, and Engagement Scale (C-CARES; Tamis-LeMonda, Ahuja, Hannibal, Shannon, & Spellmann, 2001) which rates various father, child, and dyad behaviors. Fourteen father and 11 child items were used. Each item was rated using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not observed to 5 = constantly observed. Father items included: positive verbal statements, negative verbal statements, participation with child, responsiveness to non-verbal cues, responsiveness to verbal cues, emotional attunement, flexibility, intrusiveness, structuring, achievement orientation, amount of language, quality of language, symbolic play, and creative play. Child items included: positive affect, negative affect, emotional regulation, participation with caregiver, responsiveness to caregiver, emotional attunement, involvement with toys, persistence, amount of language, quality of language, and symbolic play.

Demographic data. Demographic information, including residency, marital status, age, race, education, and income was collected during interviews with fathers. In addition, fathers were asked how often they spent one or more hours a day with their child; how much help they provided in caring for their child; and how much influence they had in making major decisions about their child’s education, religion and health care needs. All responses were rated using 3- or 5-point Likert scales.

Paternal Childhood Experiences. The adult version of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) was used to measure fathers' perception of their acceptance and rejection from their fathers during childhood. The PARQ is a self-report instrument that is rated on a four-point scale. Twelve items from the 60-item scale were selected—seven items on the acceptance scale and five items on the rejection scale (PARQ; Rohner, 1991). Fathers were asked how their father treated them while they were growing up using a scale from 1 = "almost always true" to 4 = "almost never true." Sample questions included, "My father said nice things about me," and "My father saw me as a big bother." Two scale scores—paternal acceptance (7 items) and paternal rejection (5 items) were calculated. Prior to obtaining each scale score, all items were reverse scored. A high score on paternal acceptance signified a maximum perceived acceptance and a high score on paternal rejection signified maximum perceived rejection.

Men frequently perceived experiencing high levels of acceptance and low levels of rejection from their fathers/father-figures during childhood. Men's mean score on the parental acceptance scale was 22.35 (SD = 5.67), with a potential range from 7 to 28, suggesting, overall, this group of men had positive perceptions of their relationship with their fathers. Their mean score on the paternal rejection scale was 8.02 (SD = 2.98), with a potential range from 5 to 20.

Qualitative Interviews. After completion of the quantitative interview, a 30-minute semi-structured qualitative interview was conducted. The qualitative questions contained different questions, three of which are the focus here—men's perceptions of their paternal childhood relationship and how this relationship has influenced their own parenting. In response to the interviewee's reply, subsequent questions were asked in an attempt to get the interviewee to share his personal experiences more deeply. The qualitative interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Fathers' transcripts were examined with respect to: (a) the details of fathers' childhood experiences with their father, (b) how fathers spoke about their feelings toward their father when describing their experiences, and (c) how fathers perceived their relationship with their father in relation to their own parenting. Written transcripts of the interviews were reviewed three times and different colored markers were used to highlight these three aspects of fathers' stories (Brown & Gilligan, 1991).

The first reading focused on how fathers described and reflected on their fathers' involvement with them during childhood as reflected in Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, and Levine's (1987) taxonomy: (a) Accessibility: a father's presence and availability to his child, regardless of the quantity or quality of their interactions; (b) Responsibility: a father's ability to meet his child's needs, such as providing financially to him/her; and (c) Engagement: a father's shared interactions with his child, such as playmate or teacher. The second reading identified how fathers spoke about their feelings toward their father by locating when and how they described their fathers in their stories (e.g., expressions of anger, apathy, disappointment, warmth or pride). The third reading located men's perceptions of how their childhood experiences with their fathers' related to their own parenting, and focused on their similarities and/or differences in their parenting approach to their fathers. Themes identified for all three readings in each father's narrative were coded and frequencies were calculated on a separate grid.

Results

Father Involvement

The participants in this study comprised of highly involved fathers. Over three-quarters of the fathers, (N = 41), reported that they spent “every day or almost every day” with their children. Almost two-thirds (N = 35) reported they looked after their children alone “every day or almost every day” and reported they provided “a lot of help” in caring for their children. The majority of fathers', 68.4 percent (n = 39), believed they had a great deal of influence in making major decisions regarding their children's heath care, education, and religion.

Types of Father Interaction Styles

To explore if distinct groups of father interaction styles exist, a cluster analysis was performed which included 15 father items on the C-CARES. First, an agglomerative hierarchical procedure using Ward's method was conducted to determine an estimate of the number of groups that would emerge. Analysis indicated a three-cluster solution best fit the data. Second, a k-means iterative clustering procedure was used in which the centroids derived from the hierarchical solution were entered. Cluster analysis suggested three different paternal interaction styles:

1. Responsive/Didactic fathers (42 percent; N = 24) were child-focused. They were highly responsive, emotionally attuned, and flexible, as well as sophisticated in their verbal and play interactions with their children.

2. Overbearing fathers (28 percent; N = 16) were achievement-oriented, through using intrusive, highly structured interactions with their children.

3. Disengaged fathers (30 percent; N = 17) displayed less engaged, responsive, and involved interactions with their children.

Finally, to test the strength of the classification logarithm, a discriminant function analysis was performed using the 15 father items on the C-CARES as predictors of membership in the three groups. As indicated in the Wilks lambda analysis, both functions were strongly associated with between group membership and father items on the C-CARES, X2 (28) = 145.66, p < .001 and X2 (2) = 57.52, p < .001.

Function 1. Group membership accounts for 69.9 percent of the variance in Function 1. This function discriminates the three groups of fathers as follows: (a) responsive/didactic (2.65), (b) overbearing (-1.88), and (c) disengaged (-2.60). The standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients associated with Function 1 illustrate that responsiveness to nonverbal, non-distress (.57), emotional attunement (.50), language quality (.34), responsiveness to verbal non-distress (.34), symbolic play (.33), and creative play (.30) contribute to scores on this function.

Function 2. Group membership account for 30.4 percent of the variance in Function 2. This function also distinguishes differences among the three groups of fathers: (a) responsive/didactic (.00), (b) overbearing (2.05), and (c) disengaged (-1.88). The standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients significantly associated with the scores in Function 2 are the variables intrusiveness (.51), flexibility (-.44), language amount (.43), participation (.37), achievement orientation (.37), structuring, positive verbal statements (.24), and negative verbal statement (.19).

There was 98.2 percent accuracy in correctly classifying the grouped fathers. These findings confirm the validity of the three-cluster group.

Three Types Of Father Interaction Styles: Comparisons Of Fathers' Demographics, Their Children's Behaviors, And Their Childhood Experiences With Their Fathers

Three sets of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to assess whether types of father interaction styles differed based on men's demographics, their children's behaviors, and their childhood relationships with their fathers. First, differences in types of father interactions based on demographic variables (residence, marital status, number of children, age, income, education, immigrant status; level of involvement; and child's age and gender) were examined. There were no significant differences in fathers' demographic data, reports of their involvement with their children, or their children's age based on fathers' interaction style, Fs (2, 54) range = .17 to 1.94, p > .05). The only exception was that the responsive/didactic fathers had significantly more daughters than the overbearing fathers, Fs (2, 54) = 3.74, p < .05). There were no differences in fathers' interaction style based on their race (Latin American, African American, Asian American, and European American), X2(4, N = 57) = 4.23, p > .05.

Second, a series of One way ANOVAs were conducted to assess potential differences in children's behavior items across father cluster groups (see Table 1). Bonferroni post hoc findings revealed:

• Responsive/didactic fathers were more likely to have children whose behaviors were responsive, emotionally attuned and participatory with their father, as well as sophisticated in verbal and play behaviors.

• Overbearing fathers were more likely to have children who participated in activities with and were responsive to their fathers' behaviors, yet they were low in positive affect and unsophisticated in verbal and play behaviors.

• Disengaged fathers were more likely to have children who were disengaged and unresponsive to their fathers. They were engaged with the toys, but exhibited low levels of play and language behaviors.

Finally, differences in the three types of father interaction styles were examined based on their paternal childhood experiences of acceptance and rejection (see Table 1). Fathers' experiences of paternal acceptance were not associated with their interaction style. However, father interaction styles differed significantly based on their experiences of paternal rejection. Bonferroni post-hoc t-tests revealed that both "overbearing" and "responsive/didactic" types of fathers were more likely to perceive experiencing lower levels of paternal rejection than disengaged fathers.

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF CHILD BEHAVIORS ACROSS TYPES OF FATHER INTERACTIONS

	Types of Fathering Interactions
	Responsive/Didactic (n=24)	Overbearing (n=16)	Disengaged (n=17)	F ratios (df =2)
Child Behavior Items	M(SD)	M(SD)	M(SD)
Positive affect	3.96(.75)	2.88(1.15)	3.06(1.08)	7.25**
Negative affect	1.67(.76)	2.06(.93)	1.76(.83)	1.12
Emotional regulation	4.29(.91)	3.94(1.18)	3.71(1.21)	1.51
Participation with father	4.04(.81)	3.38(1.20)	2.76(.75)	9.70***
Responsiveness to father	4.00(.86)	3.75(.93)	3.00(.79)	6.76**
Emotional attunement	3.63(1.10)	2.69(1.20)	1.76(.75)	16.15***
Involvement with toys	4.46(.66)	3.75(.78)	3.76(.97)	5.42**
Persistence	3.96(.80)	3.31(1.01)	3.00(1.12)	5.28**
Language use	3.46(1.10)	2.50(.81)	2.47(1.13)	6.11**
Language style	3.38(1.14)	1.88(.62))	2.47(1.07)	11.44***
Symbolic play	2.83(1.01)	1.69(.48)	1.88(.99)	9.84***
Paternal Childhood Experiences
Acceptance Scale	22.17(6.07)	24.13(4.00)	20.94(6.24	1.34
Rejection Scale	7.67(3.47)	6.69(1.89)	9.76(2.28)	5.43**

**p<.01. ***p<.001.

Qualitative Analyses

To examine men's feelings toward and perceptions of their fathers' involvement with them during childhood, three groups of fathers were chosen based on their style of interaction with their children. The total subsample comprised 18 transcripts: (a) six men from the responsive/didactic group, (b) six men from the overbearing group, and (c) six men from the disengaged group.

Responsive/Didactic fathers typically expressed feelings of warmth and adoration toward their fathers. Statements from fathers such as “my dad was a wonderful guy to have growing up” and “my father was always there for us” encompassed the majority of the interviews. However, there were two fathers who expressed feelings of anger and disappointment toward their fathers' poor involvement with them during childhood. One man expressed disappointment at his father leaving his family during his childhood, stating, “instead of leaving, he should’ve stayed there.” However, he still had positive memories of his father, asserting, “he was really into us, that’s why I say all my love is for him and my moms.” The other articulated pride in his fathers' ability to change and improve his life, stating:

…even though he didn’t live with me for most of my childhood, the interaction that I did have with him is just very prominent in mind that I can recognize qualities in myself that are through him…he’s a good man, he really is good.

Thus, while acknowledging his fathers neglect as a child, he was also able to move forward and recognize his father's current strengths.

The majority of men perceived their fathers as "being there" physically, financially, and emotionally. One father replied, “he supports me, he supports me, you know, he supports me all the way.” Four men reportedly want to parent similarly to their fathers, making comments such as, “I really liked his approach at dealing with us when we did things wrong or uh trying to teach us something. It was a very gentle approach, and uh I try to carry it over…” Two men want to parent differently from their fathers, as one stated:

…I feel like a lot of the thing or a lot of reasons that he gave for not being in my life, I feel like they were excuses…anything that’s important in your life, you make it priority…so you should make that the same priority with your children.

All men expressed their desire to nurture their children with some subtle differences from what they received from their fathers, such as being more involved academically and providing more structure in their child's life.

Overbearing fathers, similar to responsive/didactic men, frequently expressed feelings of warmth and respect toward their fathers in statements such as, “he was my hero” and “I had a lot of respect and admiration for my father.” However, half the men also expressed some fear toward their fathers and two men expressed anger/disappointment with their fathers. One man was angry because his father was not around much, and another was angry because his father was emotionally abusive toward him. However, both men expressed forgiveness toward their fathers' behaviors, with one stating, “it used to make me angry, but I got over that. It takes some time, though.” Their fathers had also changed, becoming more involved in their lives, as one father replied, “he’s there whenever I need him.” A sense of pride is implied in these statements; pride in that their fathers had grown over time to become more a supportive parent.

The majority of men perceived their fathers as being physically available and financial providers for the family. A few men saw their fathers as playmates and/or nurturing, taking their sons for trips in the countryside and the beach or just “hanging out” with them. However, most wished their fathers' were more nurturing and supportive, as one man stated, “he was rough with me.” When the men were asked about the kinds of things that their fathers did with them that they would do with their own children, one answered, “The same things that he use to do for me, I’d do for [child], but I think I’d take care of her better…I’ll see her more often, I think...I’ll take responsibility for her more.” Thus, the fathers expressed a commitment to be available for their children and to be financial providers as their fathers had done for them, but unlike their fathers, they were determined to also provide more "quality" time with their children.

Disengaged fathers frequently expressed feelings of anger and/or indifference toward their fathers. Comments such as “I didn’t know my father and what I knew, I don’t like,” and “my father was an unfit father” typify the responses these men had. Only one man, who lost his father at a young age, expressed feelings of warmth when speaking about his father, stating, “I loved everything that he did for me while he was alive. He was always there for me.” Sadness could also be discerned from his remarks, as he stated, “you know [he did] all what a father should have done with his son during the time he was around, basically.”

The majority of men felt their fathers' spent little time with them and did almost nothing with or for them, except for taking them on some outings, such as fishing trips. Several men described their fathers as being emotionally or physically abusive, frequently due to their alcohol/substance use. One father described his abuse, stating:

…I try to go to sleep before he’d get home, but that still didn’t help. I could be asleep and he’d beat us out to sleep. I mean while we sleep, all you feelin’ are these belts and switches hittin’, y’ know.

All men, except for the man whose father died during childhood, vowed to parent their child completely different from their father. Sentiments such as this were expressed by one father, who when asked what he would differently from his father replied, “…I plan to do the opposite.” Similar to the other two groups of men, disengaged fathers expressed their desire to spend more time and more "quality" time with their children, unlike what their fathers had done.

Conclusions

In this study of inner-city, minority fathers, three meaningful types of fathering interactions were identified. Responsive/Didactic--these fathers demonstrated great awareness and responsiveness to children's emotional needs. They were flexible, sensitive to appropriate teaching moments and ways to engage their children in play without being overtly achievement-oriented. This parenting style appeared to be positively associated with children’s social and cognitive abilities. Overbearing--these fathers were driven to teach their children skills, however, they were highly structured and primarily intrusive during their engagements. These overly controlling fathers appeared to diminish children’s exploratory and communicative initiatives. Disengaged--these fathers were typically uninvolved with and unresponsive to their children. Their children were also unresponsive to them and only moderately involved with toys in a rudimentary and unsophisticated manner. This is not to say that children are passive recipients of fathering. Children who exhibit sophisticated language and play might promote sensitive, didactic interactions in their fathers. Similarly, children who are less capable might be less rewarding social partners, thereby compromising the quality of their fathers’ engagements.

While a majority of the men were actively engaged with their children and almost half were responsive and didactic, nonetheless, there was a group of men who were less engaged with and sensitive to their children. This was linked, in part, to childhood experiences of paternal rejection. However, the story is more complex as there were also fathers who faced adverse childhood histories, but were able to rise above these negative experiences and provide responsive interactions with their children. In listening to men's voices about their paternal childhood experiences in relation to their own parenting, regardless of their feelings toward and perceptions of the quality of their fathers involvement, all men expressed a strong commitment to "be there" emotionally and physically for their children.

These findings might contribute to designing effective prevention-intervention programs to more appropriately address the needs of a broader range of fathers and their families than current studies allow. Taken as a whole the findings suggest that, while many low-income men are absent in their children's lives (Marsiglio, 1987), fathers who are involved with their children, can and do interact with them in a variety ways--many nurturing and didactic. Furthermore, the findings also support the notion that fathers' childhood experiences of paternal rejection negatively related to the quality of their parenting interactions. However, in order to more fully appreciate how these experience shape fathers' interactions and involvement with their children, additional variables should be considered (e.g., the quality of fathers' childhood relationships with their mothers and their current relationships).

References

Brown, M., & Gilligan, C. (1991). Listening for voice in narratives of relationship. In Tappan, M.B. & Packer, M.J. (Eds.). Narrative and storytelling: Implications for understanding moral development.

Cohn, D. A., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Pearson, J. (1992). Mothers' and fathers' working models of childhood attachment relationships, parenting styles and child behaviors. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 417- 431.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1990). Becoming a family: Research and intervention. In I. E. Sigel & G. H. Brody (Eds.) Methods of family research: Biographies of research projects: Vol 1. Normal Families, (p1-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cox, M. J., Owen, M. T., Lewis, J. M. Riedel, C., Scalf-McIver, L., & Suster, A. (1985). Intergenerational influences of the parent-infant relationship in the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 6(4), 543-564.

Hossain, Z., & Roopnarine, J. (1994). African-American fathers’ involvement with infants: Relationship to their functioning style, support, education, and income. Infant Behavior and Development, 17, 175-184.

Lamb, M.E. (1997). (Ed.). The Role of the Father in Child Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H, Charnov, E. L, & Levine, J. A. (1987). A biosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altman, A. S. Rossi, and L Sherrod, (Eds). Parenting across the life span: biosocial dimensions (pp. 111 - 142).

MacDonald, K. B., & Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interaction and peer interaction competence. Child Development, 55(5), 1265-1277.

Marsiglio, W. (1987). Adolescent fathers in the United States: Their initial living arrangements, marital experience and educational outcomes. Family Planning Perspectives, 19, 240-251.

Onyskiw J. E., Harrision, M. J., & Magill-Evans, J. E. (1997). Past child experiences and current parent-infant interactions. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 19(4), 501-518.

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

Rohner, R. (1991). Handbook for the Study of Parental Acceptance and Rejection. Unpublished manuscript.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Ahuja, P., Hannibal, B., Shannon, J., & Spellmann, M. (2001). Caregiver-Child affect, responsiveness, and engagement scale (C-CARES). Unpublished manuscript.

 

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next