The transition to fatherhood: identity and bonding in early pregnancy.

Within the framework of identity theory, this paper explores the emergence of the father status and its relationship with paternal fetal bonding in the first trimester of pregnancy. A sample of 115 first-time Australian fathers completed measures of their identity set and prominence of their father status, an exploratory measure of their father status content, and a measure of paternal fetal bonding. Expectant fathers reported their spousal and father status as most central to who they were. Regression analyses lent some support to the hypothesis that fetal bonding would be predicted by father status prominence and content. The results are discussed with reference to limitations and future directions.

Keywords: fatherhood, fetal bonding, identity, early pregnancy

**********

More than thirty years ago, it was suggested that the transition to parenthood might be a fruitful context in which to test hypotheses about parental identity and parenting behavior (Stryker, 1968). While researchers have not taken up this call particularly in relation to fathers, the overt inception of a new social identity status, such as becoming a father, provides an ideal opportunity to examine the evolution of such a status without contamination of prior experience in the role of father.

The literature has espoused complex and multidimensional conceptual models of the transition to parenthood utilizing and building on the models of parenting per se (Belsky & Kelly, 1994; Berman & Pederson, 1987; Cowan & Cowan, 1992; Michaels & Goldberg, 1988). However, there have been fewer reports examining specific theories in relation to fathers. There has been a growing body of work on identity and fathers in general (e.g., Ihinger-Tallman, Pasley, & Buehler, 1993; Maurer, Pleck, & Rane, 2001 ; Rane & McBride, 2000; Stueve & Pleck, 2001) and a historical shift in research away from focusing on fathers as absent/present breadwinners to understanding their diverse roles in families (see Lamb, 2004) and understanding fatherhood from the perspective of the experiences of men themselves (Holland, 1995; Lewis, 1986; Lupton & Barclay, 1997). Despite these developments there has been sparse attention paid to fathers' perceptions of who they are with respect to their emerging paternal identity during the transition to fatherhood (Cowan & Cowan, 1987; Strauss & Goldberg, 1999).

There is even less known about Australian men undergoing this life stage (cf. Barclay, Donovan, & Genovese, 1996; Camilleri, 2003; Russell & Aitchison, 1985 cited in Russell, et al., 1999). A few recent longitudinal quantitative studies have reported on first-time fathers' mental health adjustment from mid-pregnancy up to one year postpartum (Buist, Morse, & Durkin, 2003; Condon, Boyce, & Corkindale, 2004; Matthey, Barnett, Ungerer, & Waters, 2000; Morse, Buist, & Durkin, 2000). Through a series of semi-structured interviews with 15 men from just before birth to six months later, Barclay and Lupton (1999) qualitatively explored perceptions of men's roles and relationships and the tensions such produce. Camilleri's (2003) qualitative analysis of eight first-time fathers' psychological experience also commenced in late pregnancy.

Most of the international empirical literature on the transition to fatherhood has studied men at the end phase of pregnancy (e.g., Berman & Pedersen, 1987; cf. Shereshefsky & Yarrow, 1973). It may be argued that fathers-to-be may not be observably occupied with their unborn child until there are directly perceptible physical manifestations of its existence (e.g., fetal movement). However, what men report about their feelings and thoughts in relation to the fetus, or themselves as fathers-to-be in the early stages of pregnancy, requires further study.

The end of the first trimester of pregnancy is usually both a medical and social hallmark. Couples are more reassured of a viable pregnancy and commonly take the news of their baby and impending parental roles to their social world (Roeber, 1987; Stoppard, 2002). This point in time may also bring a certain reality to an emerging new sense of self. For at least some men, this period of the pregnancy potentially marks the germination of a new identity status, becoming a father. Commencing the study of the transition process during this period also allows an examination of the effects of the emerging father status on other constructs, particularly the father's perceptions of his emotional tie or bond to his unborn child.

In this paper we use a variant of identity theory--that is, McCall & Simmons' (1978) theory--as a theoretical framework from which to examine this emerging status and its consequences. Based on this theory it is proposed that the more central a man's father-to-be status (1) is to his self, as compared to other statuses (worker, husband, friend, brother, etc.), the greater his bond to the fetus.

Identity Theory

While identity theories have a number of elements in common (e.g., Thoits & Virshup, 1997), McCall and Simmons' (1978) theory is distinguished by a focus on the concept of status prominence and the content of the father status. The prominence of a status is equivalent to the subjective importance of that status to the individual as to how s/he imagines his/herself to be. A major determinant of fathering role behavior is the prominence of a man' s father status in a hierarchical set of other statuses (e.g., worker, son, friend, etc.). The higher in the hierarchy father status is, the more likely role-related behavior will be enacted. In other words, the more important a man's conception of himself as a father compared to his self as a worker or husband, the more likely he will behave like a father. During early pregnancy, this "behavior" is largely in the form of mental activity. One aspect of this mental activity is the man's psychological bond to the fetus.

McCall and Simmons (1978) stipulated that the contents of an identity are theoretically significant. Men's role-related behavior is likely to reflect the various meanings of who they are as fathers. There is no single way to be a father, and thus there are variations in the content of father status. In recent literature on identity and fatherhood, the distinction between status (father, worker, son, etc.) and role (the expected behavioral patterns associated with a status) is evident (Ihinger-Tallman et al, 1993; Rane & McBride, 2000). In McCall & Simmons' conceptualization, the concept of identity content is distinct from the notion of external roles in that content is not a behavioral phenomenon but a mental elaboration of the individual's vision of a particular status such as being a father.

The content of the father status may depend on factors such as the stage of the life cycle, the culture, the social circumstances, the historical period, and the particular relationships or interpersonal context in which fathering occurs (Burgess, 1997; Colman & Colman, 1988; Griswold, 1993; Lamb, 1997, 2000, 2004; Marsiglio & Cohan, 2000). The media and popular literature (e.g., Biddulph, 1994; and see Lupton & Barclay, 1997) give the impression that there is a common content of father status and that men enact various degrees of this, that is, from the highly involved primary care-giving father to the completely absent father. (2) Underlying this impression may lay an inherent value judgment about what is appropriate and desirable fathering and increasing social pressure to be a certain kind of father irrespective of men's own self-meanings. The consequences of the prominence of a father-to-be status relative to other statuses (e.g., worker, husband, son, peer, sportsman, etc.) cannot be understood without knowledge of the content of the father status from the individual's perspective. As Pleck and Masciadrelli (2004) suggested, when fathers report to researchers on how important their status as fathers is to them, "they may have different [father contents] in mind" (p. 247).

Theoretically, the content of the father status suggests certain consequences. A man whose status prominence hierarchy is dominated by the relative importance of himself as a father, who is the emotional supporter of his baby's mother, is more likely to father his child through caring for the mother than primarily directly caring for the baby. A man who more closely identifies his father self as a provider is more likely to father his baby by working longer hours or earning more income rather than by doing a lot of care giving or playing.

Measures of Identity

While there have been various attempts to design measures of constructs associated with identity theory, the only method with indicators of reliability and validity that has been used to measure status prominence with men during their transition to fatherhood has been The Pie (Cowan & Cowan, 1987; Strauss & Goldberg, 1999). This is a visual-spatial task of apportioning segments (representing statuses) of more or less size (representing prominence) within a drawn circle (depicting the self). It is a straightforward quantitative measure, which can be easily used with any sample size, and which requires only a few minutes to complete. (3) Maurer, Pleck, and Rane (2003) empirically investigated pie chart and scale approaches to measuring identity constructs and have concluded that pie approaches may be a viable alternative to scales.

In this study, status prominence and father status content are the variables under investigation. A modified version of The Pie is used to measure status prominence and the range of statuses held by subjects. In terms of father status content, a method using short narratives or vignettes and Likert response scales was devised. The vignettes were chosen for their applicability to men becoming first-time fathers. This approach was designed to allow subjects to depict variability and complexity of their status content in a quantifiable and relatively brief manner. In other words, the approach would allow for the endorsement of none or multiple father status contents to a greater or lesser degree.

Paternal-Fetal Bonding

Several reports have demonstrated that most pregnant mothers and fathers develop strong affective responses to their unborn child (Condon, 1985, 1993; Condon & Dunn, 1988; Cranley, 1981, 1984; Mercer, Ferketich, May, De Joseph, & Sollid, 1988; Weaver & Cranley, 1983). However, the issue of a potential relationship between status prominence and paternal bonding in early pregnancy has not been examined.

There have been some systematic studies of parents' emotional experience of, and beliefs about, their bonding to the infant in the very early postnatal period and their effects on subsequent parental behaviors (Bader, 1995; Condon & Corkindale, 1998; Condon & Dunn, 1988; Greenberg & Morris, 1974; Klaus & Kennell, 1982; Palkovitz, 1985, 1992). However, the issue of a parent's bond to the fetus is less developed despite allusions to this concept in clinical literature as far back as the 1940s (see Condon, 1993). Some authors have referred to this bond as the father's (or parent's) attachment to the infant (e.g., Condon, 1993). Experts in the field of parenting and development (e.g., Herbert, 2004) sometimes use the terms "parental attachment" and "parental bonding" interchangeably. However, the use of the term "attachment" in this context is contentious and potentially misleading, for it is not consistent with attachment theory's (Bowlby, 1969) central concept of psychological dependence. That is, infants are attached to their parents because they are dependent upon them; parents are not dependent on their infants and, hence, not strictly attached to their infants. This paper refers to authors and measures that have used the term "father attachment" but we do so only in a nominal sense (for example, as the measure is originally named). However, in doing so, we do not accept that there is a theoretical basis for the use of this term. Instead, we use the more appropriate concept of the emotional connection or psychological bond of the father to his child, and we refer to this as the paternal-fetal bond.

Condon and his colleagues (1993; Condon & Corkindale, 1998) described a phenomenological view of the paternal-fetal (or parental-fetus) bond. According to Condon's approach, the paternal-fetal bond is a subjective feeling state of love for the unborn child, rather than an attitude or belief about the child, and is at the heart of a man's (and a woman's) experience of early parenting. Two dimensions of this bond have been empirically derived: the quality of the bond, which refers to the nature of the emotional experience when thinking about the fetus, and the intensity of preoccupation with the fetus.

Despite methodological difficulties in measuring parent-fetal bonding (see Condon, 1993), the investigation of this phenomenon has theoretical significance. Parent-fetal bonding is potentially useful to the understanding of the development of parenting including fathering. That is, paternal-fetal bonding could be viewed as the earliest form of fathering (or preparation for fathering) before there is an actual child to father. It may also be an antecedent to paternal-infant bonding (Condon & Dunn, 1988) and a precursor to, or moderator of, interactions between father and infant. Whether the emotional or psychological bond a man has with his child is distinct from the behavioral involvement he has with the child is of course an empirical question. There have been no empirical studies of either the correlates of paternal bonding in pregnancy, or the consequences of prenatal bonding, for later fathering behavior. McCall and Simmons' (1978) identity theory constructs may be helpful in elucidating variations in paternal bonding.

As a matter requiring empirical verification, it seems reasonable to suggest that expectant first-time fathers may be occupied at times with thoughts about identity. It would then be likely that these thoughts would occur, with more or less intensity and frequency, in relation to the unborn child and in relation to feelings towards that child. In other words, paternal status prominence might be expected to positively correlate with the expectant father's bond to the fantasized image of the unborn child.

As to the association between the content of the paternal status and fetal bonding, the matter may be more complex. One may argue that paternal status content and fetal bonding are independent factors. A breadwinner father may be more or less bonded than a caregiver father. Alternatively, expectant fathers may hold multiple father status contents with varying degrees of intensity, or they may not conceive of themselves as fathers at all. They may also be uncertain, particularly in the early stages of the first pregnancy, about who they are as fathers. While worthy of exploration, it is difficult to speculate about the relations between paternal status content and fetal bonding within these circumstances.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The aim of this study was to explore the emerging status of fatherhood and its association with bonding to the unborn child in the first trimester of pregnancy. Using central concepts from McCall and Simmons' (1978) identity theory, a number of hypotheses and research questions were generated:

1. Men undergoing the transition to fatherhood will see themselves in terms of multiple statuses. It is likely that men would report at least three established statuses (husband/partner, worker, and son) and one emerging status of father-to-be (hereto referred to as the father status).

2. Different statuses will have different prominences such that a hierarchy of statuses exists.

3. How prominent is the emerging status of father?

4. To what extent do men identify with different father status content?

5. Father status prominence will be positively related to fathers' bonding with the fetus.

6. Is the content of father status related to fathers' bonding with the fetus?

Method

Participants

As part of a larger longitudinal project on the transition to parenthood, 115 men were recruited from prenatal medical and midwifery clinics located in a large public hospital in Melbourne, Australia. The basis for inclusion in the study was that the men (and their partners) were expecting their first child, were in heterosexual relationships, and had sufficient literacy to complete questionnaires. The volunteers were aware that they were participating in a study with a series of data collection points.

The characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 1. The mean age of the sample's participants was 30.7 years. Half of the sample's participants had completed tertiary (or university level) education, most were in full-time employment, and 30 percent in professional jobs. Sixty-three percent were of European or Anglo-Saxon origin. The men were in de facto or marital relationships and the duration of the relationship prior to the pregnancy was evenly distributed amongst participants ranging from less than one year to greater than five years. A little over half of the pregnancies were definitely planned.

Procedure

The study received hospital ethics approval and men were invited to participate when they attended antenatal clinics with their partners. Consent was obtained for male and female partners and each independently completed questionnaires while seated in the waiting room. Only data collected from male partners was used in the current study. The men completed the questionnaires (approximately 45 minutes in duration) in the presence of the investigator to ensure valid participation.

Measures

Status prominence. The men completed The Pie, a method of graphically representing the prominence of various statuses that the men perceived as comprising who they were. The men were asked to:

   Think of who you are as a person, and the many identities--see
   a list of some identities below--that make up who you are, your
   self. Now think of each of these identities and how important they
   are to who you are. Now divide the blank circle, as if you were
   slicing a pie or cake, so that the size of each section would
   reflect how important each of these identities are to how you see
   yourself, not how much time you spend in each. Label each section.

Possible statuses were listed alphabetically as follows: brother, community member, cousin, father-to-be, friend, grandson, handyman, hobbyist, husband/partner, neighbor, nephew, son, sportsman, uncle, worker, other. The term "identities" as opposed to "statuses" was used in the instruction, as it was more meaningful to laymen.

The men were presented with a blank circle (10 cm in diameter) and asked to apportion it according to the above instructions. The size of each section apportioned to a particular status was measured via the use of a protractor and recorded as a percentage of the whole pie.

Content of father status. The men rated a series of seven vignettes, depicting hypothetical self-descriptions of the father status, using a 5-point Likert response scale. Each self-description was given a man's name (e.g., Roger). The descriptions comprised a narrative of self-statements intended to depict relatively distinct father contents. These included: a primary caregiver, a breadwinner, a playmate and coach, a mother's helper, a mother's emotional supporter, a reluctant father, and a confused/uncertain father. (4) It can be said that the latter two, reluctant father and confused or uncertain father, are attitudinal in nature rather than strictly referring to content of status. That is, they may be attitudes towards, or feelings about, the father status rather than separate contents of father status. However, as an emerging status is the focus of this study, allowance was made for individuals whose motivation for, or concept of, the new status was in flux.

The men were asked to read each vignette and rate to what extent they identified with each self-description (from "very unlike me" to "very like me"). They were specifically instructed not to base their rating on the time they expected to spend on various fathering activities. An example of the vignettes is provided in the Appendix.

Paternal-fetal bonding. Condon's (1993) Paternal Antenatal Attachment Scale (PAAS) was used as a measure of the fathers' bond with the fetus. The PAAS is a 16-item, multiple-choice questionnaire developed with Australian samples. It consists of two subscales: Quality of Attachment (eight items), which refers to the nature of the emotional experience (e.g., tenderness/irritation) when thinking of the fetus and Time Spent in Attachment Mode (six items), which refers to the intensity of preoccupation with the fetus (e.g., how much time spent dreaming about the fetus). A Global Attachment Score (sixteen items) comprises a total of the subscales plus two items that were excluded from subscale scores subsequent to the original formulation due to their loading (C. J. Corkindale, personal communication, September 2004). These two items relate to whether the expectant father had clear/vague ideas about a name for the baby, and, secondly, thoughts about whether the fetus was a person or thing. Scores for Global attachment could range from 1 to 80. In the original sample of 112 men (Condon, 1993), half of whom were first-time fathers, the mean scores were 38.3, 18.7 and 57.0 for the Quality of Attachment subscale, the Time Spent in Attachment Mode, and the Global Attachment Score, respectively. The PAAS has been noted to have good internal consistency and split-half reliabilities with alpha > .8, as well as acceptable variability in scores, and factor structures that make conceptual sense. This level of consistency (Cronbach alpha = .81 for Global Attachment) and underlying structure was replicated in the present study.

Results

In order, we address the questions and test the hypotheses. Where SPSS Version 11.0 was used to conduct descriptive statistics, t-tests, regression analyses, and Pearson correlation coefficients an alpha level of 0.05 was used for significance. The results of these analyses are presented below under the headings of the respective questions and hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1. Men undergoing the transition to fatherhood will see themselves in terms of multiple statuses. It is likely that men would report at least three established statuses (husband/partner, worker, and son) and one emerging status of father.

The mean number of statuses reported was 6.9 (SD = 3.2, n = 107). Eight men did not complete the Pie measure. Ninety-one percent of the men who completed the Pie included the emerging father status. Only 4.6 percent (n = 5) indicated an identity set consisting of two or fewer statuses. Of these five, all nominated father in their status set, three also nominated husband, and two reported other status (but did not describe what they meant by "other"). One of the five men apportioned only 50 percent of The Pie and labeled this as father. Only one nominated worker despite the fact all five were employed full-time. Perhaps, for a small group of individuals, The Pie may have been a difficult task to complete, and observation suggested that for some participants responses required considerable time and thought.

Hypothesis 2 and question 3. Different statuses will have different prominences such that a hierarchy of statuses exists. And, how prominent is the emerging status of father?

Mean prominence ratings on The Pie measure (expressed as a percentage of the whole pie) are shown in Table 2 and indicate that men were able to order these statuses according to prominence. At the top of the prominence hierarchy is husband/partner status, then father status, with worker status third.

Question 4. To what extent do men identify with different father status content? Mean ratings on the scaled vignettes (shown in Table 3) suggest that men identified most strongly with caregiver, play/coach, and emotional supporter. Very low mean ratings were observed for reluctant and uncertain. Breadwinner and helper were moderately rated. There was no evidence of exclusive identifications with the vignettes.

An examination of the distribution of responses to each vignette indicates no significant departure from normality except for responses to reluctant and to uncertain/confused. Ninety-six percent of subjects responded with either very unlike me or not much like me to the reluctant vignette. Seventy-eight percent responded similarly to the uncertain vignette. Given insufficient response variability on the reluctant and uncertain vignettes, ratings for these vignettes were not included in any further analyses.

Hypothesis 5 and question 6. Father status prominence is expected to relate to fathers' bonding to the fetus. Is the content of the father status related to fathers' bond to the fetus?

The mean father prominence was 20.8 percent (SD = 14.0). Mean (and standard deviation) bonding scores for the three subscales of the PAAS were as follows: Global Attachment = 60.99 (SD = 7.32), Quality of Attachment = 34.34 (SD = 3.51), and Time in Attachment Mode = 18.31 (SD = 3.88).

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for Father Status Prominence, Father Status Content, and the three bonding variables. The results are presented in Table 4. Significant positive correlations were observed for father status prominence and bonding. Two-tailed (exploratory) correlational analyses were significantly positive for Caregiver Content and Emotional Supporter Content. By way of summary, none of the PAAS scales correlates significantly with any demographic variables (from Table 1) in the study and thus were not used as controls in regression analyses.

A linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the contributions of father status prominence and father status content to fetal bonding. The independent variables (Father Prominence, Caregiver Content, Emotional Supporter Content, Breadwinner Content, Play/Coach Content and Helper Content) were entered simultaneously into the separate analyses conducted for each of the three fetal bonding outcome variables as measured by the PAAS (see Table 5).

Caregiver Content ([beta] = .45, p < .001) and Emotional Supporter Content ([beta] = .26, p < .05) accounted for 36.5% of the variance in Global Attachment (F = 9.12, p < .001). Caregiver Content ([beta] = .43, p < .001) and Emotional Supporter Content ([beta] = .24, p < .01) accounted for 28.9% variance in Quality of Attachment (F = 6.64, p < .001). Father Prominence ([beta] = .25, p < .01) and Caregiver Content ([beta] = .39, p < .001) accounted for 29.3% of the variance in Time Spent in Attachment Mode (F = 6.78, p < .001). Breadwinner, Play/Coach, and Helper Contents did not contribute significantly to any of the models.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the emerging status of fatherhood and its association with paternal bonding to the fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy.

The vast majority of men undergoing the early stages of their transition to fatherhood reported having multiple statuses central to their sense of self, which is consistent with the natural expectation that each man would be likely to have at east three established statuses (partner/husband, worker, friend) and the emerging father status. In addition, these statuses varied in prominence akin to a hierarchy as predicted by identity theory (McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker & Serpe, 1994; Thoits & Virshup, 1997). Uppermost in the prominence hierarchy was the husband status, closely followed by father, and then worker and friend. At the end of the first-trimester, men's sense of self appears more premised on their spousal and imminent father statuses rather than as a man who does a certain job or being a mate (Australian colloquialism for friend). The men also identified to varying degrees with multiple contents of the father status. The three father status contents most identified with were Play/Coach, Emotional Supporter, and Caregiver. Expectant first-time fathers appeared clear about who they were as fathers and viewed their father status content in a multidimensional way with no evidence to suggest they identified exclusively with a specific content. That is, the men were not just breadwinners or just caregivers.

With respect to paternal bonding, the men in this study reported similar, if not higher, scores on the PAAS when compared to Condon's (1993) original sample. Contrasting the two samples, it appears they are similar in sample size, age, and in the duration of relationship with partner. However, the present sample consisted only of first-time fathers, whereas Condon's sample was heterogeneous in this regard. In addition, it seems the men in this study were also of higher socioeconomic status as indexed by their employment type. It remains to be tested whether either of these variables is systematically related to paternal (antenatal) bonding. This question may be related to Lewis' (1986) findings that men's perception of their role as fathers differed depending upon their social/occupational class and whether they were first- versus second-time fathers.

In terms of the status content measure, some caution is necessary. Neither the validity nor reliability of the vignette measure has been formally demonstrated. While an attempt to capture succinctly father status content is an advance, future research may develop a more empirically based content scale with population sampling from fathers utilizing and building on the present vignettes.

Some further limitations of the study require mention. First, social desirability factors cannot be directly excluded, and, in hindsight, a measure of such may have been useful. The influence of inadvertent contextual factors on the men is unknown. For example, completing a questionnaire in an antenatal clinic while seated beside their partner, and the self-evident nature of the study being about becoming a father, may have had a strong situational effect. Secondly, the present study relied on expectant fathers' beliefs as to how they imagine themselves to be as fathers. Of course their views of their anticipated behavior may not match their actual behavior once the baby is born. However, it is still valid to examine how fathers anticipate the type of father they will be and to see if that has any association with paternal bonding in pregnancy.

The association between the variables examined at one time point does not enable cause and effect interpretation. By commencing data collection early in the pregnancy the present study has made a contribution to understanding the continuity of fathers' experience. However, the status set and hierarchy observed in this study cannot be attributed to pregnancy with absolute certainty--although it is more likely than not--as these were not measured prior to pregnancy. One approach for minimizing the influence of these confounding issues is the inclusion of two control groups: one group of men in heterosexual relationships who are not yet pregnant but actively trying, and another who are not trying to get pregnant. Such control groups, particularly in a longitudinal study, have extraordinary sampling, practical, and resource implications which are beyond the scope of most research groups (cf. Cowan & Cowan, 1987), although the call for such has been echoed recently (Condon et al, 2004).

Significant positive relations were observed between father status and bonding to the fetus. Prominence of father status was related to all aspects of the bonding measure used in this study. Thus, in line with the general expectations of McCall and Simmons' (1978) theory and the present hypotheses, the more prominent the father status, the greater the bonding to the unborn child. Furthermore, combinations of father prominence, Caregiver and Emotional Supporter contents were positively related to different aspects of bonding. For example, the more central father status is to an expectant first-time father, and the more his father status consists of direct caregiving and emotionally supportive content, the more intensely preoccupied the father is with the fetus. As suggested, the extent to which an expectant father centers his identity on being a father is likely to be associated with how intense his thinking is about the baby-to-be, and this appears important both separately and in combination with his father status content. However, while caregiving and supporter content were consistently related to all bonding variables, father prominence dropped out of the equation when the emotional quality of the bond was the focus. This may suggest an insufficient level of importance of father prominence to the strength of his positive or negative feelings towards the fetus when these contents are taken into account. In the present sample, if it is known that a man believes he is a hands-on-expectant father who anticipates himself to also be a father who is very emotionally supportive to the mother, knowing how important his father status is to his sense of self does not make any additional contribution to knowledge about bonding to the fetus.

Interestingly, Play/Coach, Helper, and Breadwinner content were not associated with bonding. There is perhaps a strong temporal and psychological distance between the Play/Coach content and the construct of paternal fetal bonding, and perhaps this underlies the present independence of these variables. Enacting the father content of play and physical coaching may have been envisaged occurring some time after the child was born and hence some time after the early prenatal thoughts and feelings about a child yet to be. Mother's Helper connotes an indirect and distant connection with the fetus/child, a status content that is largely focused on the parental relationship rather than with the child per se. This inherent psychological distance in the father-child relationship may thus be unrelated to bonding with the fetus and, if anything, more associated to a bonding with the spouse. With respect to Breadwinner content, the lack of association with bonding is interesting and suggests, if replicated in future research, challenging implications for traditional social expectations about fathers. It is often assumed or suggested that traditional fathers, that is, breadwinners, may not be emotionally involved with their children, a social perception that may be even stronger in relation to non-resident fathers in separated families. In the present study, whether fathers-to-be identify strongly or weakly with being the economic provider appears to have no significant bearing on whether they are less or more psychologically connected to their unborn child. Whether this finding continues to be the case later in pregnancy, and after the birth, remains to be seen in future studies.

The rationale for the present project was that commencing the study of the transition to fatherhood earlier than have previous studies would provide valuable information particularly in relation to capturing the development of a new status. This rationale was supported in that the general thrust of the results from the study suggests that interesting and potentially important phenomena are notable as early as the first trimester of fatherhood. In addition, the observed status set hierarchy suggests two more questions that require further research. First, has the present sample of men undergone self-reorganization, as would be predicted by identity theory, from a previous sense of self? Given the central role of work that exists for men and fathers in general in the Australian cultural context (e.g., Lupton & Barclay, 1997; Madden, 1994; Russell et al, 1999), and the role of mateship in Australian men's lives (Edgar, 1997), it is reasonable to expect that, prior to pregnancy, a self more dominated by worker and mateship statuses may have been present. Alternatively, did the men hold non-traditional views of themselves prior to pregnancy? These questions clearly suggest future avenues for investigation.

Notwithstanding the methodological limitations cited above, the study has demonstrated support for McCall & Simmons' identity theory in that both status prominence and the content of father status were associated with a dimension of fathering (that is, fetal bonding) during pregnancy. Further research will examine whether changes in status prominence and the content of father status occur for the present sample in the later phases of the transition to fatherhood.

Appendix

An example of the father status content vignettes:

"NICK":--To me being a father is being the helper. I am my partner's assistant; that's the way I think of my self as a father. Under my partner's guidance, I'll help in any way I can. I figure she knows best when it comes to looking after our baby; it's a woman's thing ... a mother's maternal instinct, and my partner will be doing all of that, except when she asks me to help her. I am sure I'll learn to anticipate what she needs over time, but I feel its best to always check in with her about what she needs and what the baby needs.

References

Bader, A. P. (1995). Engrossment revisited: Fathers are still falling in love with their newborn babies. In J. L. Shapiro, M. J. Diamond, & M. Greenberg (Eds.), Becoming a father: Contemporary, social, developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 224-233). New York: Springer Publishing.

Barclay, L., & Lupton, D. (1999). The experiences of new fatherhood: A socio-cultural analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(4), 1013-1020.

Barclay, L., Donovan, J., & Genovese, A. (1996). Men's experiences during their partner's first pregnancy: A grounded theory analysis. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 13(3), 12-24.

Belsky, J., & Kelly, J. (1994). Transition to parenthood. New York: Delacorte Press.

Berman, P. W., & Pedersen, F. A. E. (1987). Men's transitions to parenthood: Longitudinal studies of early family experience. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Biddulph, S. (1994). Manhood: An action plan for changing men's lives. Sydney: Finch Publishing.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1, Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Buist, A., Morse, C. A., & Durkin, S. (2003). Men's adjustment to fatherhood: Implications for obstetric health. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecological and Neonatal Nursing, 32(2), 172-180.

Burgess, A. (1997). Fatherhood reclaimed: The making of the modern father. London: Vermilion.

Camilleri, D. (2003). Transition to fatherhood: Sense of father self, intergenerational influences and holding the baby in mind. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria University, Melbourne.

Colman, A., & Colman, L. (1988). The father: Mythology and changing roles. Wilmette, Illinois: Chiron.

Condon, J. T. (1985). The parental-fetal relationship--A comparison of male and female expectant parents. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 4, 271-284.

Condon, J. T. (1993). The assessment of antenatal emotional attachment: Development of a questionnaire instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 66, 167-183.

Condon, J. T., & Corkindale, C. J. (1998). The assessment of parent-to-infant attachment: Development of a self-report questionnaire. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 16, 57-76.

Condon, J. T., & Dunn, D. J. (1988). The nature and determinants of parent-to-infant attachment in the early post-natal period. Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 293-299.

Condon, J. T., Boyce, P., & Corkindale, C. J. (2004). The first-time fathers study: A prospective study of the mental health and wellbeing of men during the transition to parenthood. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 56-64.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1987). Identifying the antecedents and understanding the barriers. In P. W. Berman, & F. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Men's transition to parenthood: Longitudinal studies of early family experience (pp. 145-174). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. New York: Basic Books.

Cranley, M. S. (1981). Development of a tool for the measurement of maternal attachment during pregnancy. Nursing Research, 30, 281-284.

Cranley, M. S. (1984). Social support as a factor in the development of parents attachment to their unborn. Birth Defects: Original Articles Series, 30, 99-124.

Edgar, D. (1997). Men, mateship, marriage: Exploring macho myths and the way forward. Sydney: HarperCollinsPublishers.

Greenberg, M., & Morris, N. (1974). Engrossment: The newborn's impact upon the father. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 44(4), 520-531.

Griswold, R. L. (1993). Fatherhood in America: A history. New York: Basic Books.

Herbert, M. (2004). Parenting across the lifespan. In M. Hoghughi, & N. Long (Eds.), Handbook of parenting: Theory and research for practice (pp. 55-71). London: Sage.

Holland, A. M. (1995). Fatherhood in transition: Men finding their feet as fathers. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 20(2), 2-7.

Ihinger-Tallman, M., Pasley, K., & Buehler, C. (1993). Developing a middle-range theory of father involvement postdivorce. Journal of Family Issues, 14(4), 550-571.

Klaus, M., & Kennell, J. (1982). Parent-infant bonding. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby.

Lamb, M. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2-3), 23-42.

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2004). The role of the father in child development (4th ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.

LeMasters, E. (1957). Parenthood as crisis. Marriage and Family Living, 19, 352-355.

Lewis, C. (1986). Becoming a father. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Lupton, D., & Barclay, L. (1997). Constructing fatherhood: Discourses and experiences. London: Sage.

Madden, R. (1994). Focus on families, work and family responsibility (Catalogue No. 4422.0): Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Marsiglio, W., & Cohan, M. (2000). Contextualizing father involvement and paternal influence: Sociological and qualitative themes. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2-3), 75-96.

Matthey, S., Barnett, B., Ungerer, J., & Waters, B. (2000). Paternal and maternal depressed mood during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Affective Disorders, 60, 75-85.

Maurer, T. W., Pleck, J. H., & Rane, T. E. (2001). Parental identity and reflected appraisals: Measurement and gender dynamics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(2), 309-321.

Maurer, T. W., Pleck, J. H., & Rane, T. E. (2003). Methodological considerations in measuring paternal identity. Fathering, 1, 117-130.

McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations in everyday life (Rev. ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Mercer, R. T., Ferketich, S., May, K., De Joseph, J., & Sollid, D. (1988). Further exploration of maternal and paternal fetal attachment. Research in Nursing and Health, 11, 83-95.

Michaels, G. Y., & Goldberg, W. A. (Eds.). (1988). The transition to parenthood: Current theory and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Morse, C. A., Buist, A., & Durkin, S. (2000). First-time parenthood: Influences on preand postnatal adjustment in fathers and mothers. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 21(2), 109-120.

Palkovitz, R. (1985). Fathers' birth attendance, early contact, and extended contact with their newborn: A critical review. Child Development, 56, 392-406.

Palkovitz, R. (1992). Changes in father-infant bonding beliefs across couples' first transition to parenthood. Maternal-Child Nursing Journal, 20(3-4), 141-154.

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

Phares, V. (1997). Fathers and developmental psychopathology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement in US residential fathers: Levels, sources and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.

Rane, T. R., & McBride, B. A. (2000). Identity theory as a guide to understanding fathers' involvement with their children. Journal of Family Issues, 21(3), 347-366.

Roeber, J. (1987). Shared parenthood: A handbook for fathers. London: Century.

Russell, G., Barclay, L., Edgecombe, G., Donovan, J., Habib, G., Callaghan, H., et al. (1999). Fitting fathers into families: Men and the fatherhood role in contemporary Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, Australia.

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

Stoppard, M. (2002). Conception, pregnancy and birth (Rev. ed.). Melbourne: Dorling Kindersley.

Strauss, R., & Goldberg, W. A. (1999). Self and possible selves during the transition to fatherhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(2), 244-259.

Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558-564.

Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 16-35.

Stueve, J. L., & Pleck, J. H. (2001). "Parenting voices": Solo parent identity and co-parent identities in married parents' narratives of meaningful parenting experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(5), 691-708.

Thoits, P. A., & Virshup, L. K. (1997). Me's and we's: Forms and functions of social identities. In R. D. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues (pp. 106-133). New York: Oxford University Press.

Weaver, R. H., & Cranley, M. S. (1983). An exploration of paternal fetal attachment behavior. Nursing Research, 32, 68-72.

CHERINE HABIB

Monash University

SANDRA LANCASTER

Victoria University

(1) For the sake of brevity, throughout the paper, all references to "father status" are synonymous with "father-to-be" status.

(2) We limit our discussion here to non-pathological paternal involvement. The role of the abusive father and father's role in psychopathology is beyond the scope of this paper (see Phares, 1997).

(3) The measure actually provides various scores and was initially intended to compare two pies: the actual self, "Me as I am," with the idealised self, "Me as I'd like to be." This allowed three scores: the actual size of each piece of the pie to indicate the importance of each identity/role, a satisfaction score based on the relative difference between pie portions of the two pies, and a measure of complexity of self as indicated by the number of portions selected.

(4) Copies of the complete set of vignettes are available from the authors.

Cherine Habib, Department of Psychological Medicine, Monash University; Sandra Lancaster, School of Psychology, Victoria University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cherine Habib, 2 Gleneagles Close, Torquay, Victoria, 3228 Australia. Electronic mail: [e-mail]

Table 1
Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sample

Characteristics

Age (n = 108), M (SD)                    30.7 (5.3)
Education (n = 111), %
  Some secondary school                    32
  Completed secondary school               19
  Completed tertiary                       49
Employment (n = 112), %
  Full-time                                81
  Part-time                                10
  Unemployed                                6
  Student                                   3
Employment type, %
  Professional                             33
  Semi-professional                        22
  Skilled                                  15
  Semi-skilled                             16
  Unskilled                                14
Ethnicity (n =78), %
  European/Anglo-Saxon                     63
  East Asian                               11
  Far East & South East Asian               9
  Middle East                               5
  Australian aboriginal                     4
  Polynesian                                3
  Other                                     5
Pregnancy (n = 112), %
  Definitely planned                       54
  Not actively planned                     35
  Not planned                              11
Duration of marital or de facto
relationship (n = 109), %
  Less than 1 year                         22
  1-2 years                                27
  2-5 years                                 2
  More than 5 years                        22

Table 2
The Status Set Prominence Hierarchy

Status                      Mean prominence       Range of responses
(in descending order)     and (SD) as a percent    as a percent of
                               of The Pie              The Pie

Husband                        27.1 (14.6)              0-71.9
Father                         20.8 (14.0)              0-61.4
Worker                         10.6 (11.6)              0-50.0
Friend                          8.2 (8.4)               0-50.8
Son                             6.6 (6.8)               0-26.1
Brother                         5.9 (6.9)               0-25.6
All others *                      20.8                    --
Total                              100                   n/a

* All others category refers to a combination of statuses with
individual prominence of less than 5 percent.

Table 3
Degree of Identification with the Seven Vignettes

                          Mean ratings        Standard
                          (range: 1-5)       deviation

Play/coach (Tony)             3.80               .96
Emotional supporter
  (Joseph)                    3.75               .99
Caregiver (Roger)             3.62               .93
Helper (Nick)                 2.76              1.14
Breadwinner (Tom)             2.38              1.07
Uncertain (Michael)           1.79               .89
Reluctant (Steven)            1.21               .52

Table 4
Correlations between Father Status Prominence, Father Status Content,
and Fetal Bonding

                        PAAS:                    PAAS:
                        Quality of               Time in
                        Attachment               Attachment

Father prominence       .18 *                    .31 **
Caregiver content       .49 ([dagger][dagger])   .46 ([dagger][dagger])
Emotional supporter
  content               .31 ([dagger][dagger])   .21 ([dagger])
Breadwinner content     .03                      .17
Helper content          .02                      .11
Play/coach content      .16                      .18

                        PAAS:
                        Global
                        Attachment

Father prominence       .20 **
Caregiver content       .54 ([dagger][dagger])
Emotional supporter
  content               .32 ([dagger][dagger])
Breadwinner content     .14
Helper content         -.01
Play/coach content      .19

Pearson r, p < .05, 1-tailed. ** Pearson r, p < .01,
1-tailed. ([dagger]) Pearson r, p < .05, 2-tailed.
([dagger][dagger]) Pearson r, p < .01, 2-tailed.

Table 5
Summary of Regression Analyses for Father Status and Content Variables
Predicting Fetal Bonding

Predictor variables           Paternal fetal bonding: Outcome variables

                              Quality of   Time spent in     Global
                              attachment    attachment     attachment
                               ([beta]     mode ([beta]     ([beta]
                                value)        value)         value)

Father prominence              .12          .25 **          .12
Caregiver content              .43 ***      .39 **          .45 ***
Emotional supporter content    .24 **       .10             .26 **
Breadwinner content            .04          .16             .16
Helper content                -.09          .00            -.15
Play/coach content            -.04         -.02            -.04
Total [R.sup.2]                .29          .29             .37
F(6,98)                       6.64 ***     6.78 ***        9.12 ***

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