Fathers' family of origin relationships and attitudes about father involvement from pregnancy through first year postpartum.

This is a follow up to a study that showed that fathers who were either very close to their parents or very distant from their parents during childhood had more positive attitudes about father involvement prior to the birth of their first child. This current study focused on how family of origin relationships for new fathers are associated with their attitudes about father involvement at 6 and 12 months post-partum. Using a sample of 152 couples recruited during pregnancy, we examined the validity of the modeling and compensation hypotheses for understanding how family of origin experiences influence current attitudes about fathering. Findings replicated the earlier ones for the post parturn period.

Keywords: fatherhood, family of origin, parenthood

**********

Many fatherhood scholars have hypothesized that fathers' family of origin experiences are associated with future fatherhood attitudes and behaviors (see Lamb, 1997; Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998; Pleck, 1997). Yet, little research has been conducted to test this hypothesis, and research in the literature tends to focus on father-son relationships, paying little attention to mothers' contributions and coparenting relationships in the family of origin. Fatherhood studies on family of origin processes typically examine linear associations (the modeling hypothesis) between family of origin experiences and father involvement, while ignoring the possibility of curvilinear associations (the compensation hypothesis). The modeling hypothesis predicts that fathers who come from families that were more nurturing will have stronger attitudes about fatherhood. The compensation hypothesis predicts that fathers who come from families that were more distant will also have stronger attitudes about fatherhood (Floyd & Morman, 2000; Pruett, 1987; Radin, 1988).

In their ecosystem model of responsible father involvement, Doherty, Erickson and Kounseki (1998) proposed five interrelated factors that influence fathers' attitudes and involvement: co-parenting relationship, mother factors, father factors, contextual factors, and child factors (see also Belsky & Volling, 1987; Parke, 1996). Included among the individual father and mother factors are family of origin experiences. Within the co-parenting relationship, mother factors are current beliefs about parenting and marital relationships. The model suggests that family of origin experiences interact with current relational factors to influence responsible father involvement. However, as Doherty et al. (1998) note, little theory and research has considered how family of origin relationships and current family factors interact with one another simultaneously to influence fathers' attitudes and involvement.

This study is a follow up and extension of the Beaton, Doherty and Rueter (2003) study, which found that expectant first-time fathers who were either very close or very distant to their parents had the strongest attitudes about involved fatherhood. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether this relationship carried over to attitudes at 6 and 12 months after the birth of the child. Specifically, we examine the association between fathers' family of origin relationships measured during pregnancy and their subsequent attitudes about fatherhood measured at 6 and 12 months post-partum. Two limitations of the previous study were that attitudes about fatherhood were only measured at one point in time and that we examined only a limited number of family of origin relationships. The present study used three data points and used examined additional types of family of origin relationships.

Attitudes are conceptualized as fathers' feelings and beliefs about how fathers are to be involved with their children. This study relates current attitudes with fathers' retrospective reports (measured during pregnancy) of four types of family of origin relationships: closeness with mother, closeness with fatherhood, view of parents' marital closeness, and view of parents' co-parenting relationship. We focus on two competing hypotheses: the modeling hypothesis and the compensation hypothesis. We explore which types of fathers' family of origin relationships support each hypothesis, taken separately and together.

Methods

This study used three waves of data from the Parenting Together Project, a 3-year longitudinal intervention study that consists of couples and their first child (Doherty, Erickson & LaRossa, 2006). The first wave of data was collected during the second trimester of pregnancy and contained the family of origin measures, which were not repeated at subsequent assessments. The second and third waves of data were collected following the birth of the child: at 6 and 12 months post-partum. The longitudinal intervention study includes both a control group and an intervention group. The intervention group received eight parenting classes, four prior to birth, and four after the birth. Both the control and the intervention group completed three sets of assessments in their homes: during the second trimester, at 6, and 12 months post-partum. For this study, all three waves of data were used to study fathers' family of origin relationships and attitudes about fatherhood over an 18 month period. There were 152 couples at Time 1, 131 couples at Time 2, and 131 couples at Time 3 who completed all the assessment data. Doherty, Erickson, and LaRossa (2006) reported no serious biases in the intervention study's findings from this level of attrition. We examined whether the intervention affected the outcome variables of interest in this study--attitudes towards father involvement--and found no differences between the intervention and control groups. Therefore, we combined the two groups for statistical analyses.

Participants

The couples were recruited from an HMO and from TV and radio advertisements. In order to be included in the study, the couples needed to be married or living together, over the age of 18, and expecting the first child for both participants. The mean age at Time 1 was 32.6 for the expectant fathers and 30.7 for the expectant mothers. Ninety-four percent of the couples were married. Regarding race, 81% were White couples, 16% were interracial couples (primarily Hispanic and White, and African American and White), 2% were African American couples, and 1% were Asian American couples. The majority of the parents had a college degree (73%). The combined personal income for the majority of couples ranged from $60,000 to $75,000.

Measures of Family of Origin

Family of origin closeness was measured at Time 1 via three variables derived from the Family of Origin Questionnaire (FOQ). The FOQ was adapted by Lewis and Owen (1995) from Shereshefsky and Yarrow (1973) to measure the stability of family of origin recollections of family closeness over time. The FOQ was used by Lewis and Owen to measure the stability and change of family of origin recollections for 40 couples expecting their first child. The FOQ has three subscales: mother-son closeness, father-son closeness, and marital closeness in the parents' relationship. Mother-son and father-son closeness each consisted of five identically worded items that asked expectant fathers how emotionally close they were to each of their parents. For example, "How close was your father when you were a child." Response options ranged from 1 (distant) to 5 (very close). The alphas for the father and mother closeness variables were .93 and .89 respectively. The marital-closeness variable was based on 5 items that asked expectant fathers about their parents' marital relationship. For example, "How did they handle marital conflict," and "How did they show support to one another." Response options ranged from 1 (very well) to 5 (not very well). The marital-closeness items concentrated on the marital relationship as opposed to the co-parenting relationship. The alpha for the marital closeness variable was .88. Each of the three closeness variables consisted of the sum of five items, with a total score range of 5-25.

Co-parent relationship. The Parental Disagreement on Expectations of the Child Scale (PDECS) was used to measure the co-parent relationship variable. The PDECS developed by Scheck (1979) is a 12-item scale that asks participants to reflect on the co-parenting of their mother and father prior to the age of 12. The items from the PDECS measure consensus between parents about child rearing issues. The co-parent relationship (alpha = .94) variable consisted of all 12 items from the PDECS that asked expectant fathers about their parents' co-parenting relationship. For example, "My mother was almost never able to agree with my father on what I should be punished for." Response options ranged from 1 (Very Untrue) to 5 (Very True), with a total score range of 12-60.

Father Attitudes

Attitudes about father involvement was measured from items from a combination of two scales: the Father Attitudes Scale (FAS; Pleck, 1997) and the Caregiving and Breadwinning Reflected Appraisal Inventory (CBIRAI; Maurer, Pleck & Rane, 2001), at 6 and 12 months post-partum. The FAS was adapted from Palkovitz's (1984) Role of the Father Questionnaire. The 13-item scale asks participants about their attitudes about a father's role. For example, "A father should be as heavily involved in the care of his child as the mother." The alpha reliability for the FAS scale was reported as .77 (Pleck, 1997). Response options range from 1 (disagree a lot) to 5 (agree a lot). For the purpose of this study, only 10 of the 13 items from the FAS were used because three items did not demonstrate sufficient reliability.

Other items about father attitudes were taken from the Caregiving and Breadwinning Identity Reflected Appraisal Inventory (CBIRAI) (Maurer, Pleck and Rane, 2001). Maurer and colleagues asked 64 married couples to fill out the two scales in three different ways, (a) for themselves, (b) how their spouse should be, and (c) what they perceived their spouse said about them. For example, "I should not be very involved in the day-to-day matters of physically caring for my child." Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Caregiving identity refers to the degree that fathers see certain parenting domains as important to being a good father. Only the caregiving identity scale was used in the Parenting Together Project. Only the seven items from the caregiving identity scale that studies father identity were used in the present study. Scores for the father attitudes variable could range from 17-85. The alpha reliabilities for the fathers' attitudes about father involvement variable were .84 at Time 2, and .85 at Time 3.

Data Analyses Plan

We conducted the data analyses in three steps. The first step used bivariate correlations to explore associations between fathers' family of origin relationships and attitudes about father involvement. The second step used regression analyses to examine how fathers' family of origin relationships are linked to fathers' attitudes about fatherhood. In order to investigate both linear and curvilinear associations, we transformed the family of origin variables into both linear and curvilinear variables. In order to compute the curvilinear variables, we created a quadratic (squared) variable for each variable (see Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). The third step was a regression analysis to examine how fathers' closeness with their fathers was associated with fathers' attitudes about fatherhood. A graph was computed using select data points, and entering both the linear and curvilinear unstandardized coefficients from the second regression equation in order to visualize both the linear and curvilinear relationship (U-shaped) between fathers' family of origin father closeness and their attitudes about father involvement for both waves of data.

Results

Bivariate Analyses

Table 1 shows the correlations for all the family of origin variables at Time 1 (during the second trimester of pregnancy), and the attitudes about fatherhood variables at Time 2 (6 months after birth), and Time 3 (12 months after birth). All of the family of origin family closeness and co-parenting variables are significantly associated with fathers' attitudes about fatherhood, both linear and curvilinear variables, for Time 2. For example, father closeness (linear) is significantly and positively correlated with fathers' attitudes about fatherhood at Time 2 (r = .20, p < .01), and father closeness (curvilinear) is significantly and positively correlated with fathers' attitudes about fatherhood at Time 2 (r = .25, p < .01). At Time 3 only father closeness curvilinear (r =. 16, p < .05), co-parenting linear (r = .16, p < .05) and co-parenting curvilinear (r = .17, p < .05) were significantly related. As would be expected, all of the family of origin closeness and co-parenting variables, both linear and curvilinear, for both waves of data are highly correlated with one another. For example, father closeness (linear) is positively correlated with co-parenting (linear) at Time 2 (r = .66, p < .001), and Time 3 (r = .65, p < .001).

Regression Analyses

The purpose of the regression analyses was to examine both linear and curvilinear relationships between fathers' family of origin variables and the dependent variable, fathers' attitudes about fatherhood at 6 and 12 months post-partum. We conducted separate regression analyses for both waves of data (see Table 2). For each wave of data we conducted two regression models. All variables were entered into the regression models simultaneously. Model 1 shows how all of the family of origin variables are associated with fathers' attitudes about fatherhood. The family of origin variables were father closeness (linear & curvilinear), mother closeness (linear & curvilinear), marital closeness (linear & curvilinear), and co-parenting (linear & curvilinear). Model 2 examines how father closeness (linear & curvilinear) is specifically linked with fathers' attitudes about fatherhood.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Time 2 Six Months after the Birth of First Child

As model 1 indicates, both the linear ([beta] = -1.77, B = -2.91 ,p < .01) and curvilinear ([beta] = 1.94, B = .02, p < .001) father closeness variables were significantly associated with fathers' attitudes about father involvement. The mother closeness, marital closeness and co-parenting variables, both linear and curvilinear were not significantly related to attitudes (see Table 2). As model 2 shows, father closeness has both a negative and significant linear relationship ([beta] = -1.72, B = -2.77, p < .001), and a positive and significant curvilinear relationship ([beta] = 1.93, B = .10,p < .001) with fathers' attitudes. A graph (see Figure 1) was computed using data from Model 2 in order to visualize the both the linear and curvilinear relationship (U-shaped) between fathers' closeness with their fathers and fathers' attitudes about father involvement.

Time 3 Twelve Months after the Birth of First Child

Consistent with the findings from Time 2, Model 1 with Time 3 data indicates that both the linear ([beta] = -1.55, B = -2.55, p < .01) and curvilinear ([beta] = 1.58, B = .08, p < .01) father closeness variables were significantly associated with fathers' attitudes about father involvement (see Table 2). The mother closeness, marital closeness, and co-parenting variables, both linear and curvilinear were not significant. Similar to the results from Time 2, Model 2 indicated a negative and significant linear ([beta] = -1.62, B = -2.61, p < .001) and a positive and significant curvilinear ([beta] = 1.74, B = .09,p < .001) association between fathers' closeness with their fathers and fathers' attitudes about fatherhood. A graph was depicted using Model 2 data from Time 3 to demonstrate further support for the combination of the modeling and compensation hypotheses (see Figure 1).

For both Time 2 and Time 3 further regression analyses were computed to explore whether or not the fathers' closeness linear and curvilinear variables were significantly associated with fathers' attitudes about fatherhood independently of each other. Time 2 analyses revealed that both the linear ([beta] = .18, B = .29, p < .05) and curvilinear ([beta] = .24, B = .01, p < .01) fathers' closeness variables on their own were significant. However, these results were not as significant as when both the linear and curvilinear variables were combined. Time 3 revealed no significant associations between the fathers' closeness linear and curvilinear variables and fathers' attitudes about fatherhood. Overall, for both Time 2 and Time 3 it seems that the linear and curvilinear associations combined "pull up" the flat curve to make it somewhat U-shaped.

Discussion

This study was a replication and extension of our previous work (see Beaton, Doherty, & Rueter, 2003). In our previous work we found that expectant fathers who were either very close or very distant from their parents during childhood had stronger attitudes about fatherhood. Our previous study focused on fathers' closeness with both his mother and father, and his parents' marital closeness. Whereas, this study concentrated on fathers' closeness with their father, as the results from this study indicated that this was the more important family of origin relationship. The results indicated that fathers' closeness with their fathers during childhood had a significant linear and curvilinear association with their attitudes about fatherhood at 6 and 12 months after the birth of a first child. The contribution of the present study is that it replicates findings that support both the modeling and compensation hypotheses for understanding how fathers' closeness with their fathers during their childhood is associated with attitudes about fatherhood over an 18 month period. As Figure 1 indicates with two different waves of data from the Parenting Together Project, new fathers who have either very positive or very negative relationships with their fathers during childhood subsequent demonstrate strong attitudes about father involvement. Fathers may learn how to be involved with their children as a result of receiving lots of affection or little affection from their fathers during childhood.

An unanswered question from this study is whether fathers who had distant relationships in childhood with their fathers develop positive relationships with their infants, beyond simply having positive attitudes about father involvement. There were a number of other limitations. Fathers' reports about their family of origin are retrospective. Although family of origin retrospective reports have been shown to be fairly stable over time (Lewis & Owen, 1995), a longitudinal sample that studies family of origin closeness from a man's childhood through the birth of his child would provide clearer evidence to support or repudiate the modeling and compensating hypotheses. Third, this was a middle class, mostly White sample that can not be generalized to the larger population of new fathers. Fourthly, the sample size did not permit a structural equation model that would simultaneously test how each specific type of family of origin closeness relationship, including both linear and curvilinear variables (i.e., mother-child closeness, father-child closeness, and marital closeness), uniquely accounts for the change in fathers' attitudes about fatherhood. Finally, the R values for both models are relatively small; this suggests that there may be a number of other variables beyond father closeness that explain how family of origin variables are associated with fathers' attitudes about fatherhood.

This study supports a growing body of evidence that fathers seem to both model their positive family of origin relationships and compensate for their negative family of origin relationships, specifically related to their relationships with their fathers. This study shows how closeness experienced in fathers' family of origin is complex, involving multiple types of relationships. The next step will be to explore implications for the behavior of fathers with their children.

References

Beaton, J. M., Doherty, W. J., & Rueter, M. A. (2003). Family of origin processes and attitudes of expectant fathers. Fathering, 2, 35-54.

Belsky, J., & Volling, B, L. (1987). Mothering, fathering, and marital interaction in the family triad during infancy. In P. W. Berman, & F. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Men's transitions toparenthood: Longitudinal studies of early family experience (pp. 37-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Doherty, W. J., Erickson, M. F., & LaRossa, R. (2006). An intervention to increase father involvement and skills 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.

Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2000). Affection received from fathers as a predictor of men's affection with their own sons: Tests of the modeling and compensation hypotheses. Communication Monographs, 67, 347-361.

Lamb, M. E. (1997). Fathers and child development. An introductory overview and guide. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 1-18). New York: Wiley.

Lewis, J. M., & Owen, M. T. (1995). Stability and change in family of origin recollections over the first four years of parenthood. Family Process, 34,455-469.

Maurer, T. W., Pleck, J. H., & Rane, T. R. (2001). Parental identity and behavior: A contextual model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63,394-403.

Palkovitz, R. (1984). Parental attitudes and fathers' interactions with their 5-month old infants. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1054-1060.

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

Pedhazur, E. J. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillside, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. L. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed. pp. 66-104). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Pruett, K. D. (1987). The nurturing father: Journey toward the complete man. New York: Warner Books.

Radin, N. (1988). Primary caregiving fathers of long duration. In P. Bronstein & C. P. Cowan (Eds.), Fatherhood today: Men's changing role in the family (pp. 127-143). New York: Wiley.

Scheck, D. C. (1979). Two measures of parental consistency. Psychology, 16, 37-39.

Shereshefsky, P. M., & Yarrow, L. J. (1973). Psychological aspects of a first pregnancy and early postnatal adaptation. New York: Raven Press.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.

JOHN M. BEATON

University of Guelph 

WILLIAM J. DOHERTY

University of Minnesota 

John M. Beaton, Department of Family Relations & Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph; William J. Doherty, Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John Beaton, Couple and Family Therapy Program, Department of Family Relations & Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N 1G 2W1 Canada. Electronic mail: [e-mail]

Table 1
Correlations among Family of Origin and Father Attitude Variables

                           1          2          3          4

Time 2 (N= 131)

1. Father closeness (1)    1.00
2. Father closeness (2)     .98 ***   1.00
3. Mother closeness (1)     .44 ***    .42 ***   1.00
4. Mother closeness (2)     .44 ***    .43 ***    .99 ***   1.00
5. Marital closeness (1)    .66 ***    .64 ***    .49 ***    .48 ***
6. Marital closeness (2)    .67 ***    .66 ***    .47 ***    .47 ***
7. Co-parenting (1)         .45 ***    .47 ***    .36 ***    .39 ***
8. Coparenting (2)          .45 ***    .48 ***    .49 ***    .40 ***
9. Father attitudes         .20 **     .25 **     .11 **     .14 **

Time 3 (N= 131)

1. Father closeness (1)    1.00
2. Father closeness  (2)    .98 ***   1.00
3. Mother closeness (1)     .43 ***    .42 ***   1.00
4. Mother closeness (2)     .43 ***    .43 ***    .99 ***   1.00
5. Marital closeness (1)    .65 ***    .63 ***    .49 ***    .48 ***
6. Marital closeness (2)    .66 ***    .65 ***    .47 ***    .47 ***
7. Co-parenting (1)         .42 ***    .45 ***    .34 ***    .36 ***
8. Co-parenting (2)         .43 ***    .46 ***    .35 ***    .38 ***
9. Father attitudes         .11        .16 *      .05        .08

                           5          6          7          8

Time 2 (N= 131)

1. Father closeness (1)
2. Father closeness (2)
3. Mother closeness (1)
4. Mother closeness (2)
5. Marital closeness (1)   1.00
6. Marital closeness (2)    .99 ***   1.00
7. Co-parenting (1)         .57 ***    .60 ***   1.00
8. Coparenting (2)          .58 ***    .60 ***    .99 ***   1.00
9. Father attitudes         .19 *      .20 **     .27 **     .27 **

Time 3 (N= 131)

1. Father closeness (1)
2. Father closeness  (2)
3. Mother closeness (1)
4. Mother closeness (2)
5. Marital closeness (1)   1.00
6. Marital closeness (2)    .99 ***   1.00
7. Co-parenting (1)         .55 ***    .57 ***   1.00
8. Co-parenting (2)         .58 ***    .58 ***    .99 ***   1.00
9. Father attitudes         .16 *      .17 *      .18 *      .19 *

                           9

Time 2 (N= 131)

1. Father closeness (1)
2. Father closeness (2)
3. Mother closeness (1)
4. Mother closeness (2)
5. Marital closeness (1)
6. Marital closeness (2)
7. Co-parenting (1)
8. Coparenting (2)
9. Father attitudes        1.00

Time 3 (N= 131)

1. Father closeness (1)
2. Father closeness  (2)
3. Mother closeness (1)
4. Mother closeness (2)
5. Marital closeness (1)
6. Marital closeness (2)
7. Co-parenting (1)
8. Co-parenting (2)
9. Father attitudes        1.00

Note. (1) Linear variable . (2) Curvilinear Variable.

* p<.05. ** p<.01.  *** p<.001.

Table 2
Regression Coefficients of the Associations between Family of Origin
Closeness and Fathers' Attitudes about Fatherhood Variables

                          Time 2 N=131               Time 3 N= 131

Variable              B     SE B   [beta]          B   SE B   [beta]

Model 1
Father closeness    -2.91    .83   -1.77 **    -2.52    .84   -1.55 **
(linear)
Father closeness      .10    .02    1.94 ***     .08    .03    1.58 **
(curvil.)
Mother closeness    -1.36   1.49    -.67       -2.17   1.53   -1.07
(linear)
Mother closeness      .05    .04     .60         .05    .04     .97
(curvil.)
Marital closeness    2.04   1.26    1.09        1.54   1.29     .83
(linear)
Marital closeness    -.05    .04   -1.02        -.04    .04    -.69
(curvil.)
Co-parenting         -.63   1.46    -.51         .44   1.47     .36
(linear)
Co-parenting          .01    .01     .66        -.00    .02    -.22
(curvil.)

Model 2

Father closeness    -2.77    .70   -1.72 ***   -2.61    .72   -1.62 ***
(linear)
Father closeness     0.10    .02    1.93 ***     .09    .02    1.74 ***
(curvil.)

Note. Time 2: Model 1 [R.sup.2] = .21, Model 2 [R.sup.2] = .16.
* p < .05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001.

Note. Time 3: Model 1 [R.sup.2] = .16, Model 2 [R.sup.2] = .11.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p <.001.