Open Journal of Medical Psychology, 2013, 2, 1-6 doi:10.4236/ojmp.2013.24B001 Published Online October 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojmp) Parental Involvement in Child’s Development: Father vs. Mother Yeoh Si Han, Woo Pei Jun Department of Psychology, Sunway University, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia Email: pjwoo@sunway.edu.my Received May, 2013 ABSTRACT This study aims to investigate on Malaysian young adults’ perceived father and mother involvement. A questionnaire survey with Father Involvement Scale, and Mother Involvement Scale was carried out on 100 male and 100 female lo- cal university and college student aged 18 and 25 years old. The findings show that mothers engaged more in expressive and mentoring/advising involvement as compared to fathers. However, there is no difference between fathers and mothers in instrumental involvement. This study gives us a better understanding on the pattern of parental involvement in Malaysia and hence helps to promote better parent-child relationship. Keywords: Parental Involvement; Father; Mother 1. Introduction For years, theorists and scholars have been acknowl- edged that fathers and mothers play a different role in family systems (see [1]). Fathers assume the role of breadwinner, working outside and earning a living for the family while mothers are usually the primary caregivers, taking care and fulfilling th e needs of the children . Half a decade ago, Parsons and Bales’ [2] suggested that fathers were more engaged in instrumental functions, such as disciplining children and providing income whereas mothers were expected to be involved in expressive functions such as care giving , sharing activities and com- panionship. Today, women are getting more involved in the workforce as compared to a few decades before. Hence, will this structural distribution of parental in- volvement be remained? This study aims to investigate whether fathers and mothers involve differently in their children’s development in terms of the three dimensions of involvement (i.e., expressive involvement [EI], in- strumental involvement [II], and mentoring/advising in- volvement [MAI]). 2. Parental I nvolvement 2.1. Definitions and Theories Many researchers have defined parental involvement differently based on their purposes of studies [3-5]. Singh et al. [3] noted that parental involvement has been con- sidered a multidimensional construct with multiple do- mains. A widely used model by Lamb and colleagues [4] conceptualised three typologies of involvement: (1) In- teraction – one to one in teraction with the child inclu ding feeding, playing and reading; (2) Accessibility – avail- ability to the child , even if not directly involving; And (3) responsibility – assuming responsibility for child care and welfare. On the other hand, Mo and Singh [5] described paren- tal involvement as “initiated by the parents as part of their responsibility for children's psychosocial and edu- cational development” (p.1). According to Mo and Singh [5], parental involvement consisted of three components: parent-child relationship, parental involvement in school, and parents’ educational aspirations for their children. These involvements have found to be predictive to stu- dents’ educational engagement and performance. Theory of structure-functionalism [6] suggested that individuals in society have separate and distinct roles; the responsibility to complete these roles is necessary for survival. Hence, when this concept is applied in family, fathers and mothers are expected to function differently in order to maintain the harmony in the family system. Finley and Schwartz [7] found a similar differentiatio n of parental involvement and have further expanded the two components (i.e., EI and II) into three –EI, II and MAI. These distinctions were found to be applied well to young adults’ perceptions of pare nt al involvement [8]. Drawing on previous works on parental involvement [2,7,8], this study defines parental involvement as par- ents’ interaction and engagement in a child’s life, which promote some aspects of development. This involvement encompasses three dimensions: (1) EI – leisure, fun, and Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OJMP
Y. S. HAN, W. P. JUN 2 play, companionship, sharing activities/interests, care- giving, and promoting emotional, social, physical, and spiritual development; (2) II – developing responsibility and independence, encouraging ethical/moral and career development, providing income, discipline, being protec- tive, and concern about school or homework; (3) MAI – developing competence, mentoring/teaching, advising, and intellectual development. 2.2. Research Evidences on Parental Involvement: Father vs. Mother Thompson and Walker [9] noted that once women and men become parents, they tend to relate to their children differently and do different things with and for their children. This insight suggests the complication that lies beneath the experience of parenthood and the importance of revealing the unique and similar aspects of the paren- tal experience for men and women. EI. Research has shown that in families, women often take primary responsibility for emotional support, nur- turing, establishing routines, setting rules and organising their children, especially when the children are young [10]. Besides, another study that researched on parental involvement of Malay and Chinese families from penin- sular Malaysia found that mothers generally spent more time than fathers in childcare task [11]. Furthermore, Yeung and colleagues’ [12] study which examined on 1761 children aged 0 to12 years old re- vealed that as compared to fathers, mothers generally engaged more in personal care activities, play and com- panionship activities, achievement-related activities, household activities, and social activities. Additionally, research findings on 1714 young adult university stu- dents (M age = 19.9 years) showed that mothers were perceived to be significantly more involved in the do- mains of expressive dimensions, especially in the area of emotional development, caregiving, spiritual develop- ment, companionship and social development [8]. Nonetheless, there were also researchers and scholars who proposed that fathers are getting more involved in expressive functions [13-15]. Giele and Holst [13] found that there were changes in gender roles as a result of so- cial revolution during the 1960s and 1970s. Therefore, they presumed that fathers are now become more in- volved in child rearing and activities at home (e.g., care- giving). Besides, reviews by scholars also suggested that fathers are getting more engaged in expressing areas such as companionship and care giving (e.g., [15]). Guided by the theory of structure-functionalism and findings from the majority studies, it is predicted that mothers as com- pared to fathers enrol more in expressive functions. II. Traditional aspects of II are often characterised by fathering roles – providing income, discipline, protecting, moral guide, and encouraging responsibility. A state- wide, random household telephone survey of 1010 adults on the social norms about expectations of fathers re- vealed that a majority of participants agreed that most fathers engaged in the areas of financial support, protec- tion, and moral or faith-based guidance [16]. Another study [17] researched on 1492 young adult university students from intact families also found that fathers were significantly more involved in instrumental functions as compared to expressive functions. The findings also showed that seven out of the eight most heavily endorsed fathering functions were from the instrumental dimen- sion (i.e., providing income, being protective, discipline, responsibility, moral/ethical, independence, and career). Additionally, to examine the moderating effect of ethnic- ity in fathering functions, the study also revealed that Asian fathers were significantly more involved in the instrumental dimensions as compared to the expressive dimension of involvement [17]. Furthermore, studies on specific ethnic groups also found similar finding s (e.g., [18-20]).One of these studies illustrated that African American fathers were character- ised as more involved in instrumental functions such as monitoring but as relatively unaffectio nate [18]. Besides, Asian fathering role has also app eared to lend itself more to instrumental rather than expressive functions [19]. Lastly, a study using national-level data to examine American fathers’ involvement in child rearing for chil- dren aged 5 to 18 years revealed that Hispanic fathers participated more in cognitive domains, such as rein- forcing family rules and monitoring homework [20]. On the contrary, study by Finley et al. [8] showed that other than proving incomes, fathers were significantly less involved in all domains of parental involvement (i.e., EI, II, and MAI). However, there was a trend showing that fathers were more involved in instrumental function as compared to expressive functions [8]. Although fewer studies have been researched on fa- thers’ II in comparative to that of mothers, drawing on most of the supporting findings that fathers engaged more in II [16-20], this study predicts that fathers would participate more in this dimension of involvement as compared to mothers. MAI. This dimension of involvement is indeed con- ceptually overlapping between expressive and instru- mental parenting, thus limited studies are done particu- larly on this dimension of involvement. Among these limited studies, Finley et al. [8] found that mothers as compared to fathers were more engaged in MAI. Spe- cifically, the findings indicated that mothers were sig- nificantly more involved in the domains of advising, in- tellectual development, mentoring, and developing com- petence. Additionally, Yeung and colleagues’ study also revealed that mothers relatively spent more time with their children as compared to fathers in teaching related Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OJMP
Y. S. HAN, W. P. JUN 3 activities, such as studying, doing homework, reading, and in educational lesson s [1 2]. Based on the promising findings from the previous studies [8, 12], it is of interest to explore whether parents in Malaysia follow this pattern of invo lvement. Therefo r e, this study expects to see that mothers show higher level of involvement in this mentoring/advising dimension as compared to fathers. 3. Hypotheses Specifically, this study tested three hypotheses: (1) Moth- ers as compared to fathers involve more in EI; (2) Fathers as compared to mothers involve more in II; And (3) mothers as compared to fathers involve more in MAI. 4. Methodology 4.1. Participants A single survey was conducted to 100 male and 100 fe- male students (aged 18 and 25 years old, M = 21.07, SD = 1.75) from three public universities and one private university in Malaysia. Among the participants, there were 22 Malays (11.0%), 162 Chinese (81.0%), and 16 Indians (8.0%). In terms of religion, there were 22 Mus- lims (11.0%), 33 Christians (16.5%), 120 Buddhists (60.0%), 11 Hindus (5.5%) and 14 participants (7.0%) who had other religions. All participants in this study were single and from intact families. Regarding the par- ents’ working status, 174 (87.0%) participants’ fathers were reported as working, 3 (1.5%) of the participants’ fathers were not working, and 23 (11.5%) of their fathers have retired. For mothers’ working status, participants reported that 89 (44.5%) of their mothers were still working, 101 (50.5%) participants’ mothers were not working, an d 1 0 (5 .0%) of their mothers hav e reti red . 4.2. Procedures A brief explanation of the study was given to the partici- pants and written consents were obtained. Participants were given approximately 15 minutes to complete the questionnaires. Participants were also allowed to with- draw from this study at any point of time without preju- dice. 4.3. Measurement Reported father and mother involvement. Young adults’ reports of father and mother involvement were measured using the Father Involvement Scale (Finley & Schwartz, 2004) and Mother Involvement Scale (Finley et al., 2008). These two scales consisted of similar content ex- cept for the terms “father” and “mother” are stated ac- cordingly. The scales consisted of 20 domains of parent- ing and can be categorised into three subscales: (1) EI - caregiving, companionship, sharing activities, emotional development, social development, spiritual development, physical development, and leisure, play and fun; (2) II - discipline, being protective, providing income, school/ homework, ethical/moral development, developing re- sponsibility, career development, and developing inde- pendence; and (3) MAI - intellectual development, de- veloping competence, mentoring/teaching, and giving advice. The response rating for reported involvement is a lin- ear response rating, which ranges from 1 (never involved) to 5 (always involved). Higher score indicates higher level of involvement. No items are reversed scores. To tal scores for reported involvement can be created by sum- ming the respective domain ratings. Possible scores for these totals range from 20 to 100. Subscale scores can be generated by summing the domain scores of particular subscale and dividing the number of items. These scales had excellent internal consistencies (Finley et al., 2008). For the reported father involvement, Cron- bach’s alpha coefficients were .91 for EI, .90 for II, and 0.88 for MAI (Finley et al., 2008). For the reported mother involvement, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .86 for EI, .80 for II, .82 for MAI (Finley et al., 2008). 5. Results A paired sample t test was conducted to examine the dif- ferences of fathers and mothers in the three dimensions of involvement in a child’s development. For EI, the re- sult reveals that there is a significant difference between father EI (M = 3.03, SD = 0.67) and mother EI (M = 3.58, SD = 0.72), t (199) = -10.04, p < .01. This result indicates that mothers were perceived to be more involved in EI as compared to father. For II, the result shows that there is no significant dif- ference between father II and mother II, t (199) = -1.1 2, p > .05. For MAI, the result reveals that there is a significant difference between father MAI (M = 3.37, SD = .83) and mother MAI (M = 3.63, SD = .81), t (199) = -4.16 p < .01). This result indicates that mothers were perceived to be more involved in MAI as compared to fathers. To further analyse the differences between fathers and mothers in the involvement domains, another paired sample t test was conducted. The results show that there is a significant difference between fathers and mothers in all the eight domains of EI – emotional development (fa- thers’ M = 2.86, SD = 0.97 vs. mothers’ M = 3.67, SD = 1.02), t (199) = -9.38, p < .01; social development (fa- thers’ M = 3.06, SD = 1.04 vs. mothers’ M = 3.56, SD = 1.06), t (199) = -5.23, p < .01; spiritual develo pment (fa- thers’ M = 3.08, SD = 1.18 vs. mothers’ M = 3.55, SD = 1.09), t (199) = -4.73, p < .01; physical development (fa- Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OJMP
Y. S. HAN, W. P. JUN 4 thers’ M = 2.82, SD = 1.01 vs. mothers’ M = 3.26, SD = 1.13), t (199) = -4.46, p < .01; leisure, fun, and play (fa- thers’ M = 2.99, SD = 1.11 vs. mothers’ M = 3.25, SD = 1.09), t (1 99) = -2.73, p < .01; sharing activities or inter- est (fathers’ M = 2.83, SD = 1 .00 vs. mothers’ M = 3.32, SD = 1.03, t (199) = -5.63, p < .01; caregiving(fathers’ M = 3.61, SD = 1.04 vs. mothers’ M = 4.28, SD = .84), t (199) = -8.42, p < .01; and companionship (fathers’ M = 3.01, SD = 1.03 vs. mothers’ M = 3.75, SD = 1.03), t (199) = -8.72, p < .01 (see Table 1). These results indi- cate that mothers as compared to fathers were signifi- cantly more involved in all the eight domains in EI. For II, the results show that there is a significant dif- ference between fathers and mothers in two domains – providing income (fathers’ M = 3.98, SD = 1.11 vs. mothers’ M = 3.39, SD = 1.20), t (199) = 5.49, p < .01, and school/homework (fathers’ M = 2.43, SD = 1.15 vs. mothers’ M = 3.01, SD = 1.27), t (199) = -6.27, p < .01 (see Table 2). These results indicate that fathers were more involved in providing income as compared to mothers. In contrast, mothers as compared to fathers were more engaged in their children’s schoolwork. No significant difference was found between fathers and mothers in other domains – ethical/moral development, career development, developing responsibility, develop- ing independence, being protective, and discipline. In terms of MAI, the results show that there is a sig- nificant difference between fathers and mothers in three out of the four domains – intellectual development (fa- thers’ M = 3.47, SD = 1.02 vs. mothers’ M = 3.67, SD = 1.01), t (199) = -2.34, p < .05, mentoring/teaching (fa- thers’ M = 3.04, SD = 1.17 vs. mothers’ M = 3.54, SD = 1.10), t (199 ) = -5.39, p < .01, and advising (fathers’ M = 3.73, SD = 1.03 vs. mothers’ M = 3.92, SD = .98), t (199) = -2.25, p < .05 (see Table 1). No significant dif- ference was found between fathers and mothers in the developing competence domain. Hence, the results indi- cate that mothers as compared to fathers engaged more in the domains of intellectual development, mentoring or teaching, and advising. 6. Discussions This study was designed to examine the differential in- volvement of fathers and mothers in child’s development. The results support the first hypothesis and shows that mothers were significantly more involved in expressive functions than fathers. This finding reinforces Parsons and Bales’ [12] structural distribution of parental in- volvement, and is in accordance to previous findings which supported mothers’ greater involvement in care- giving, companionship, emotional development and other expressive tasks as compared to fathers[8,11,12]. For II, the results d o not support the secon d hypothesis and show that there is no significant difference between fathers and mothers in terms of their instrumental in- volvement. Neither this finding supports Parsons and Bales’ [12] structural distribution of parental roles where fathers are expected to assume the instrumental functions more than mothers nor Finley and colleagues’ [8] oppos- ing findings that mothers as compared to fathers signifi- cantly more engaged in II. However, when each in strumental domain is taken in to consideration, fathers were reported as often involved in providing income and were significantly more involved than mothers. Similar findings have shown fathers re- mained to be the financial support for the household and contributed a higher proportion of household income to the families [12, 16]. Moreover, this finding is not unex- pected given that the number of fathers in this study who were reported as working doubled the number of those of mothers. Based on these findings, a possible explanation for the non-significant result between fathers and moth- ers in the instrumental dimension could be that fathers’ greater involvement in providing income might compro- mise the time spending with their children in developing responsibility or independence, disciplining, or dealing with school and homework. Fathers’ earning and work Table 1. Mean score of reported involvement by parent and domain. Mean Score Variable Father Mother t (199) EI Emotional development 2.86 3.67 -9.38** Social development 3.06 3.56 -5.23** Spiritual development 3.08 3.55 -4.73** Physical development 2.82 3.26 -4.46** Leisure, fun, play 2.99 3.25 -2.73** Sharing activities/interest 2.83 3.32 -5.63** Caregiving 3.61 4.28 -8.42** Companionship 3.01 3.75 -8.72** II Moral development 3.67 3.81 -1.66 Career development 3.39 3.44 -.57 Developing responsibility 3.70 3.82 -1.37 Developing independence 3.63 3.66 -.34 Providing income 3.98 3.39 5.49** Being protective 3.87 3.90 -.45 Discipline 3.66 3.78 -1.46 School/homework 2.43 3.01 -6.27** MAI Intellectual development 3.47 3.67 -2.34* Developing competence 3.26 3.42 -1.86 Mentoring/teaching 3.04 3.54 -5.39** Advising 3.73 3.92 -2.25* *p < .05. ** p< .01. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OJMP
Y. S. HAN, W. P. JUN 5 hours were found to be significantly and negatively af- fecting their level of involvement with children [21], especially during weekdays [12]. On the other hand, mothers were reported to be sig- nificantly more involved than fathers in school or homework domain. This outcome is congruent with Hossain and Anziano’s [21] finding that mothers as com- pared to fathers were more involved in academic work such as homework, buying school supplies, school con- tacting and tutor arrangement. For other instrumental domains, the involvement of fathers did not differ from those of mothers. Both parents were generally rated as often involved in ethical or moral development, develop- ing responsibility, developing independence, being pro- tective, and in disciplining; whereas for career develop- ment domain, both parents were rated as sometimes in- volved. Despite the non significant results for II, there was a trend showed that fathers generally more involved in instrumental dimension as compared to mentor- ing/advising and expressive dimensions. The mean score of father II indicated that fathers were generally rated as often involved as compared to EI and MAI which were rated as sometimes involved. This trend appears to sup- port the previous ethnicity studies which revealed that fathers tend to be more involved in instrumental func- tions rather than ex pressive functions [19-21]. In terms of MAI, the result supports the third hypothe- sis and is in congruence with previous findings [8, 12]. The finding shows that mothers were significantly more involved than fathers in the MAI. Specifically, mothers were more involved than fathers in the areas of intellec- tual development, mentoring/teaching and advising. In deference to Parsons and Bales, if the most highly en- dorsed parental involvement for fathers (providing in- come) and for mothers (caregiving) are considered, the findings are indeed fully supportive of Parsons and Bales’ [2] theoretical formulation. This study has several strengths. Firstly, the scales that are used in this study have high reliability and validity. Secondly, questionnaire survey with closed-ended ques- tions not only facilitates the process of scoring but also result interpretation. In addition, this study is also one of the few studies that look in to the differential functions of fathers and mothers in the three dimensions of involve- ment. Therefore, this study provides some base level data for Malaysia parenting research and for future compari- son. In particular, the use of retrospective report in this study provides uniquely valuable information regarding the young adults’ long term perception of parental in- volvement in their lives instead of parents’ report on the level of involvement. Nevertheless, the findings of the present study should also be considered in light of several limitations. Firstly, the sample in this study is not representative of the cur- rent Malaysian population due to the overrepresentation of Chinese ethnicity. Secondly, the use of university samples raises genera liability issues and may have screened out young adults from lower educational back- ground or those with intellectual, social, or emotional challenges. Thirdly, although the use of retrospective reports allows young adults to reflect back on their pa- rental involvement from a more “mature” perspective, this method is also vulnerable to recall biases [22]. Lastly, there may be possibility that young adults’ reports of their parents’ past involvement are affected by their cur- rent relationship with their parents. Therefore, these limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting the results. Several suggestions for future research follow from the present findings and limitations can be made. Firstly, equal size of races should be considered so that the re- sults would be more representative of Malaysia popula- tion. Secondly, future research can also consider to ex- amine whether similar findings would have emerged in young adults from other backgrounds (i.e., lower educa- tional background, social or emotional challenges, low socioeconomic status, etc.). Thirdly, future research may also investigate the behaviours or specific types of activ- ity that contribute to each of the involvement domain. For instance, spiritual involvement may includes talk about meaning of life, attend weekly religious meeting, share values and beliefs, etc. Additionally, as this study has set a base level data on perceived parental involve- ment which based on young adu lts from intact families, it is recommended that future work can examine on young adults from other family forms (i.e., dual career family, single pare nt family, and divorce d fa mily). The present study has several important implications for the parenting research and program. First of all, the findings enhance the existing knowledge regarding Ma- laysian young adults’ long term perception on their par- ents’ involvement. Besides, more informative workshops or talks on how to interact with their children in those significant domains (e.g., companionship, emotional de- velopment, sharing activities, etc.) could also be organ- ised to further enhance the involvement that parents have in their children’ s development. Lastly, to address the question posted prior in the be- ginning of this study on whether social changes affect the traditional distribution of parental involvement, this study concludes that the tren d of this traditional structure seems to be remained, mothers and fathers do involve differently in their children’s development. In particular, mothers were found to be more involved in expressive and MAI. Whilst there is an egalitarian involvement of both parents in instrumental dimension, fathers have found to be more involved in instrumental functions as Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OJMP
Y. S. HAN, W. P. JUN Copyright © 2013 SciRes. OJMP 6 compared to other two dimensions of involvement. As the present study is one of the few studies that research on the different dimensions of parental involvement, more studies are warranted, especially in examining children from different backgrounds. REFERENCES [1] L. Craig, “Does Father Care Mean Fathers Share? A Comparison of How Mothers and Fathers in Intact Fami- lies Spend Time with Children,” Gender and Society, Vol. 20, 2006, pp. 259-281. doi:10.1177/0891243205285212 [2] T. Parsons, & R. F. Bales, “Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process,” Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1995. [3] K. Singh, P. G. Bickley, P. Trivette, T. Z. Keith, P. B. Keith and E. Anderson, “The Effects of Four Components of Parental Involvement on Eighth-grade Student Achievement: Structural Analysis of NELS-88 Data,” School Psychology Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1995, pp. 299-317. [4] M. E. Lamb, J. H. Pleck, E. L. Charnov, & J. A. Levine, “A Biosocial perspective on Paternal Behavior and In- volvement. In J. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. Rossi, & L. Sherrod (Eds.),” Parenting across the lifespan: Biosocial dimensions, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987, pp. 111-142. [5] Y. Mo and K. Singh, “Parents’ Relationship and In- volvement: Effects on Students’ School Engagement and Performance,” Research in Middle Level Education Online, Vol. 31, No. 10, 2008, pp. 1-11. [6] T. Parsons, “The Social System,” Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1951. [7] G. E. Finley and S. J. Schwartz, “The Father In-volvement and Nurturant Fathering Scales: Retrospec- tive Measures for Adolescent and Adult Children,” Edu- cational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 64, 2004, pp. 143-164. doi:10.1177/0013164403258453 [8] G. E. Finley, S. D. Mira and S. J. Schwartz, “Perceived Paternal and Maternal Involvement: Factor Structures,” Mean Differences, and Parental Roles. Fathering, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2008, pp. 62-82.doi:10.3149/fth.0601.62 [9] L. Thompson and A. J. Walker, “Gender in Families: Women and Men in Marriage, Work, and Parenthood. In A. Booth (Ed.),” Contemporary families: Looking for- ward, looking back, Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations, 1991, pp. 76-102. [10] J. Kellerman and E. R. Katz, “Attitudes towards the Divi- sion of Child-rearing Responsibility,” Sex Roles, Vol. 4, 1978, pp. 505-513.doi:10.1007/BF00287195 [11] N. Noor, “Roles and Women's Well-being: Some Pre- liminary Findings from Malaysia,” Sex Roles, Vol. 41, 1999, pp. 123-145. doi:10.1023/A:1018846010541 [12] W. Yeung, J. Sandberg, P. Davis-Kean and S. Hofferth, “Children's time with Fathers in Intact Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 63, 2001, pp. 136-154. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00136.x [13] J. Z. Giele and E. Holst, “New Life Patterns and Chang- ing Gender Roles,” Advances in Life Course Research, Vol. 8, 2004, pp.3-22. doi:10.1016/S1040-2608(03)08001-8 [14] M. E. Lamb, J. H. Pleck, E. L. Charnov and J. A. Levine, “Paternal Behavior in Humans,” American Zoologist, Vol. 25, 1985, pp. 883-894. [15] W. Marsiglio, P. Amato, R. D. Day and M. E. Lamb, “Scholarship on Fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 62, 2000, pp. 1173-1191.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01173.x [16] A. B. Andrews, I. Luckey, E. Bolden, J. Whiting-Fickling and K. A. Lind, “Public Perceptions about Father In- volvement: Results of a State Wide Household Survey,” Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 25, 2004, pp. 603-633. doi:10.1177/0192513X03258303 [17] G. E. Finley and S. J. Schwartz, “Parsons and Bales re- visited: Young Adult Children's Characterization of the Fathering Role,” Psychology of Men and Masculinity, Vol. 7, 2006, pp. 42-55.doi:10.1037/1524-9220.7.1.42 [18] S. Hofferth, “Race/ethnicity Differences in Father In- volvement in Two-parent Families: Culture, Context, or Economy?” Journal of Family Studies, Vol. 24, 2003, pp. 185-196. [19] D. W. Shwalb, H. Kawai, S. Shoji and K. Tsunetsugu, “The Middle Class Japanese Father: A Survey of Parents of Preschoolers,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psy- chology, Vol. 18, 1997, pp. 497-511. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90024-1 [20] J. F. Toth, Jr. and X. Xu, “Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Fathers' Involvement: A Racial/ethnic Comparison of African American, Hispanic, and White fathers,” Youth and Society, Vol. 31, 1999, pp. 76-99. doi:10.1177/0044118X99031001004 [21] Z. Hossain and M. C. Anziano, “Mothers' and fathers' Involvement with School-age Children's Care and Aca- demic Activities in Navajo Indian Families,” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2008, pp. 109-117. [22] U. W. Ebner-Priemer, J. Kuo, S. S. Welch, T. Thielgen, S. Witte, M. Bohus and M. M. Linehan, “A Va- lence-dependent Group-specific Recall bias of Retrospec- tive Self-reports: A Study of Borderline Personality Dis- order in Everyday Life,” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 194, 2006, pp. 774-779. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000239900.46595.72
|