Husbands at Home Predictors of Paternal Participation in

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP
PROCESSES
Husbands at Home: Predictors of Paternal Participation in

Childcare and Housework
Francine M. Deutsch, Julianne B. Lussier, and Laura J. Servis
Predictors of paternal participation in childcare and housework are examined. A longitudinal sam-
ple of 66 couples expecting their 1st child completed extensive questionnaires during the wives' last
trimester of pregnancy and 3-8 months after birth. Regressions were conducted in which paternal
participation in childcare and housework were regressed on variables pertaining to each of 4 models
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of paternal participation: relative economic resource, structural, family systems, and sex role atti-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tude. Composite models of paternal participation in housework and childcare were then developed.
Fathers' involvement in childcare is best explained by mothers' work hours and fathers' feminism.
Fathers' contribution to housework seems best explained by discrepancies in income between
spouses, wives' occupational prestige, and dynamics in the marriage. Differences in the determinants
of fathers' contributions to childcare and housework are discussed.
The benefits of increased paternal involvement in childcare & Goldberg, 1984), show greater development of internal locus
for fathers, children, and mothers have been identified in previ- of control (Radin, 1982), and show enhanced self-confidence
ous studies. Fathers who are highly involved in childcare report and self-esteem (Russell & Radin, 1983; Servis & Deutsch,
increased closeness with their children (Hood & Golden, 1979; 1992). Fathers' involvement also benefits their wives by enhanc-
Russell, 1982), greater feelings of competence as fathers (Ba- ing wives' professional identities, alleviating concerns about
ruch & Barnett, 1986), more positive attitudes toward child daycare (Hoffman, 1983; Radin, 1982), and providing them
rearing, and greater satisfaction with parenting (Easterbrooks with more leisure time (Hochschild, 1989). When husbands
& Goldberg, 1984). Moreover, children with highly involved fa- take more childcare responsibility in dual-earner couples, wives
thers adopt fewer sex role stereotypes (Carlson, 1984), demon- experience less depressive symptomatology (Steil & Turetsky,
strate more productive problem-solving behavior (Easterbrooks 1987).
Given the benefits of paternal involvement in childcare, it
seems critical to gain a theoretical understanding of its determi-
Francine M. Deutsch, Julianne B. Lussier, and Laura J. Servis, De- nants. However, several methodological flaws have plagued
partment of Psychology and Education, Mount Holyoke College. much of the research on this issue. First, many studies on the
This research is based on a master's thesis conducted by Julianne B. determinants of paternal involvement treat childcare simply as
Lussier under the direction of Francine M. Deutsch. Portions of this a component of domestic labor (e.g., Berk, 1985; Coverman,
article were presented at the Eastern Psychological Association meet- 1985; Meissner, Humphreys, Meis, & Scheu, 1975; Perrucci,
ings in Philadelphia, 1990. Potter, & Rhoads, 1978). Although there are some areas of over-
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant lap between housework and childcare (e.g., doing a child's laun-
BNS-9108826 to Francine M. Deutsch. dry), there are many aspects that are distinct. For example, re-
We thank Convey Stahl, Supervisor of Parent Education, Bay State petitive household chores such as cleaning and washing dishes
Medical Center, and childbirth instructors Donna Lapenas, Eileen Ka-
lencki, Susan Phelon, and Judy Provencher for their help in recruiting
may be more aversive than childcare. Likewise, the costs of ne-
participants for the study. We also thank Misty Goodrow, Susan Saxon, glecting housework are quite different from the costs of neglect-
and Dorla Brock for their assistance with the statistical analysis of the ing childcare. Thus, the implicit assumption that the determi-
data; several anonymous reviewers for their suggestions; and Christine nants of housework and childcare are the same seems highly
Jaspersohn for secretarial support. We are grateful to Gerald A. Epstein questionable. Second, a drawback of many previous studies of
for helpful comments on a draft of the article, statistical advice, and paternal involvement, even when they have focused specifically
willingness to do additional childcare and housework so that this article on involvement in childcare, is the use of cross-sectional designs
could be completed. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the help and (e.g., Barnett & Baruch, 1987; Bird, Bird, & Scruggs, 1984;
generosity of the late J. S. Tanaka, who spent many hours in telephone Crouter, Perry-Jenkins, Huston, & McHale, 1987). Longitudi-
consultations over the complicated analyses of these data. His tragic nal research is needed to begin disentangling causal relations
accidental death at age 34 is a great loss to psychology.
between variables. Finally, many studies of the determinants of
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Fran-
cine M. Deutsch, Department of Psychology and Education, Mount paternal participation have failed to consider alternate theoret-
Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts 01075-1462. ical models to account for thefindingsobtained (e.g., Feldman,
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1993, Vol. 65, No. 6, 1154-1166
Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-35I4/93/S3.00
1154
PATERNAL PARTICIPATION IN HOUSEWORK AND CHILDCARE 1155
Nash, & Aschenbrenner, 1983; Grossman, Pollack, & Golding, were merged (e.g., Coverman, 1985), a cross-sectional design
1988; Volling & Belsky, 1991). Because the major theoretical was used (e.g., Barnett & Baruch, 1987), or alternative models
perspectives on paternal participation are related conceptually were not considered (e.g., Cowan & Cowan, 1987). For exam-
and empirically, conclusions drawn from these studies may be ple, Cowan and Cowan (1987) demonstrated that mothers' work
misleading. hours were significantly related to fathers' contributions to
The current research addresses each of these methodological childcare. However, because they failed to use measures of sex
issues. Using a longitudinal design, we examine several theoret- role attitudes, the importance of structural variables relative to
ical explanations of men's participation in domestic labor. attitudinal variables may have been overemphasized. Mothers
Housework and childcare are considered separately to better ac- may simply work more hours in couples who hold liberal sex
count for paternal participation in each sphere. role attitudes. Thus, the relation between work hours and pater-
nal involvement may be spurious, reflecting more liberal atti-
Models of Paternal Involvement tudes, rather than the work hours per se.
Past research has identified four models that are examined in Family Systems
the current research: (a) relative economic resource, (b) struc-

tural, (c) family systems, and (d) sex role attitude. These models In this model it is argued that the quality and dynamics
and the relevant evidence pertaining to each are discussed in within the marriage itself are primary mediators of paternal in-
turn. volvement (Belsky & Volling, 1987; Cowan & Cowan, 1987). A
sense of support from their wives may be necessary to encourage
Relative Economic Resource men to participate in childcare, a job for which they often feel
ill equipped. This theoretical approach has been operational-
The central hypothesis derived from the relative economic ized in a number of different ways. For example, Belsky and
resource model is that the greater the discrepancy in economic Volling (1987) have demonstrated that a constellation of mater-
resources (i.e., income and status) favoring husband over wife, nal behaviors when infants are 1 month old affect paternal in-
the less his domestic labor, including childcare. One version of teractions with them at 3 months old.
this model argues that the distribution of domestic labor is the In a simpler approach derived from the family systems per-
result of a power struggle between spouses in which the hus- spective, several short-term longitudinal studies have shown a
band's greater income increases his power, allowing him to ne- relation between marital satisfaction before the birth and fa-
gotiate freedom from domestic labor. In the second version, the thers' involvement with their infants (Cowan & Cowan, 1987;
husband's greater earnings lead him to work more at paid labor Feldman et al, 1983; Levy-Shiff & Israelashvili, 1988; Volling
and reduce his contributions at home to further the economic & Belsky, 1991). The importance of the longitudinal nature of
interest of the entire family (see Coverman, 1985, for further this research is striking. In the Cowan and Cowan (1987) study,
discussion of this model). Findings relevant to these models although prenatal marital satisfaction was a significant predic-
have been inconsistent. tor of paternal involvement at 18 months, cross-sectional anal-
Because of the methodological issues just described it is yses conducted at 18 months showed no significant relation be-
difficult to interpret these contradictory findings. In the one tween marital satisfaction and paternal involvement. Although
study in which relative resources did influence paternal partici- this work is exemplary in incorporating a longitudinal perspec-
pation, alternate explanations (e.g., sex role attitude and struc- tive, problems of interpretation remain because in most of these
tural) were not examined (Steil & Turetsky, 1987). In contrast, studies marital satisfaction is examined without reference to the
in the Coverman (1985) study, which did not find support for husbands' and wives' sex role attitudes or the structure of their
the relative economic resource position, sex role attitudes and work lives (Feldman et al., 1983; Levy-Shiff & Israelashvili,
structural variables were controlled, but childcare and house- 1988).
work were combined in one measure of domestic labor, poten- There is yet another way to consider the effects of family dy-
tially obscuring differing effects. namics on paternal participation. As Hochschild (1989) has de-
scribed, a struggle often goes on in families over domestic labor.
Structural The "support" from mothers may entail some conflict in which
mothers pressure fathers to participate in the face of their initial
Sometimes referred to as the demand-response model, the reluctance. Consistent with this line of reasoning, Volling and
structural model of paternal involvement argues that fathers do Belsky (1991) found that in dual-earner families greater pater-
more when there is a greater need for childcare and when they nal responsibility for infant caretaking was associated with
are more available to give care. This model is supported by the more marital conflict.
findings that paternal participation is positively related to the
number of hours of maternal employment (Barnett & Baruch,
1987; Coverman, 1985; Cowan & Cowan, 1987; Haas, 1982; Sex Role Attitude
Lamb, 1987), the number and age of the children (Barnett & The premise of the sex role attitude model is that men's and
Baruch, 1987; Coverman, 1985), and the experience of preterm women's beliefs about gender drive the division of childcare re-
and caesarean birth (Parke & Tinsley, 1981). sponsibility in the family. The evidence bearing on this hypoth-
These studies suffer from the methodological problems out- esis is mixed. In several studies the husband's sex role attitudes
lined earlier. In each of them, either housework and childcare were not related to his involvement in childcare (Barnett & Ba-
156 F. DEUTSCH, J. LUSSIER, AND L. SERVIS
ruch, 1987;Coverman, 1985;Crouteretal., 1987),'but in other indicated an interest in participating by taking questionnaires home.
studies nontraditional sex role attitudes held by fathers have Eighty-eight of the couples (67%) who accepted the pregnancy question-
been associated with greater participation in childcare (Baruch naires returned them. Thus, when considering all couples who were
&Barnett, 1981; Bird etal., 1984; Perruccietal, 1978). Unfor- present for the researcher's recruitment presentation, the total response
rate during the pregnancy phase of the study was 47%. However, the
tunately, all of the findings mentioned are based on cross-sec-
response rate among eligible couples was actually higher, because it was
tional studies. In the studies that did find significant concurrent not possible to distinguish couples who did not volunteer because they
effects of sex role attitudes on paternal involvement (e.g., Bird were ineligible from those who were simply not interested. Moreover,
et al., 1984; Perucci et al., 1978), it is possible that those effects the unanticipated early births of babies disqualified some couples from
are a consequence rather than a cause of the involvement. participation, despite their intentions to do so.
Moreover, despite the absence of significant effects of sex role Sixty-six (75%) of the 88 couples who had completed the pregnancy
attitudes on paternal participation in some of the studies re- questionnaires completed and returned the postpartum questionnaires
viewed above (e.g., Barnett & Baruch, 1987), nontraditional at- (10 couples could not be included because they either moved or could
titudes may be important in influencing other factors that di- not be contacted despite repeated attempts). These participants were
rectly affect childcare. For example, in one longitudinal study predominantly White (99%). Sixty-four percent of them were Catholic,
19% Protestant, and 17% described themselves as either Jewish, as an-
that did examine the effects of sex role attitudes (McHale &
other religion, or as having no religion. The husbands' ages ranged from
Huston, 1984), although fathers' nontraditional attitudes before 18 to 39 (M = 28.8); the wives' ages ranged from 18 to 36 (M = 26.8).
the birth were not correlated with paternal involvement di- They represented a broad range of socioeconomic levels. Incomes for
rectly, they were related to mothers' work hours. These, in turn, both husbands and wives ranged from less than $10,000 per year to
were related to paternal caretaking. more than $50,000. The median income was between $10,000 and
$ 15,000 for wives and between $25,000 and $30,000 for husbands. Ap-
Present Study proximately half of the men and women in the study had graduated
from college, but approximately 10% had notfinishedhigh school. On
The current research is a short-term longitudinal study of the the basis of classification on the Standard International Occupational
determinants of paternal participation in childcare and house- Prestige Scale (Treiman, 1977) participants' mean occupational pres-
work during infancy. It is designed to explore the relations tige rating was 47 (e.g., retail manager or traveling salesperson). The
among alternative models presented in the existing literature range of occupational prestige ratings in the sample spanned from 12
(e.g., shoe shiner) to 69 (e.g., social scientist or mathematician).
and to develop more powerful models that combine the
Statistical analyses of the demographic variables were conducted
strengths of previous models. Unlike previous research, we ex-
to assess whether the respondents who completed both phases of the
amine fathers' contributions to housework and childcare sepa- study differed systematically from those who dropped out after com-
rately as distinct outcomes. Because of differences in the nature pleting just the pregnancy questionnaires. There were no significant
of housework and childcare, we anticipate that the models de- differences between the two groups on age, religion, race, education, or
veloped to explain paternal participation in the two spheres will status of occupation. However, husbands in the couples who dropped
differ. out tended to have lower incomes than husbands in couples who com-
pleted both phases of the study, x 2 (4, N = 83) = 12.24, p < .06.
Method
Measures
Overview
The questionnaires consisted of extensive sets of measures designed
Participants completed two questionnaires, one during pregnancy to investigate a broad range of issues pertaining to pregnancy and moth-
and one during the postpartum period. Thefirstquestionnaire was dis- erhood, plus demographic items. The two questionnaires included a
tributed during the prenatal classes, completed at home, and returned number of the same questions to examine change over time (e.g., mari-
by mail. These potential participants were called 1 or 2 weeks before tal satisfaction and husbands' participation in housework). However,
their due dates and reminded to complete their questionnaires if they
had not already done so.
1
At least 3 months after their babies' due dates the participants were Moreover, several studies have examined the prediction that because
contacted again by telephone. After this contact a second questionnaire of their relatively liberal sex role attitudes, middle-class men would pro-
was mailed to them, completed at home, and returned by mail. If the vide more childcare than their working-class counterparts. These pre-
questionnaires had not been received approximately a month after the dictions have not been borne out. Some studies have found no relation
first postpartum contact, a follow-up call was made to the participants. among education, income, and occupation on paternal participation
A second call to remind participants to complete the questionnaires was (Barnett & Baruch, 1987; Coverman & Sheley, 1986). Stein (1984)
made after an additional month.2 found that working-class and low-income husbands actually provide
more childcare than their middle-class counterparts. Likewise, a study
of the domestic labor of faculty wives showed clearly that these women
Participants did not have egalitarian marriages (Yogev, 1981).
2
Sixty-six couples participated in both phases of the present study. All Although our original intention was to have all parents complete
couples were recruited from prenatal childbirth classes held in hospitals the postpartum questionnaires 3 to 4 months after their babies' births,
in the greater Springfield, Massachusetts, area. The criteria for eligibil- practical issues (e.g., variability in the difficulty of contacting the new
ity were that (a) the couple was planning to live together throughout parents) made this impossible. Thus, in the postpartum phase of the
pregnancy and after the baby's birth and (b) neither member of the study the babies' ages varied from 3 to 8 months old. A recent study
couple had previously raised either a child of his or her own or a step- showed that the determinants of paternal involvement are not signifi-
child. cantly different when babies are 3 months old from when they are 9
Of all couples attending the childbirth classes (n = 270), 190 (70%) months old (Volling & Belsky, 1991).
other measures were included in the pregnancy version but not in the completed the Carey Infant Temperament Scale (Carey & McDevitt,
postpartum questionnaire, and vice versa. Only measures included in 1978). For the present study, mean scores on 6 of the 9 scales (i.e., mood,
the present set of analyses are described in this section. approach, adaptability, distractibility, persistence, and rhythm) com-
Paternal participation in childcare. Both men and women completed pleted by the mother were used to create a summary scale reflecting the
a measure of paternal participation in childcare that was adapted from difficulty of the infant's temperament (see Deutsch, Ruble, Fleming,
earlier research (Ruble, Fleming, Hackel, & Stangor, 1988). This child- Brooks-Gunn, & Stangor, 1988). We relied on mothers' ratings of infant
care measure includedfivecentral tasks on which the father's participa- temperament because the Carey scale was originally validated using
tion was rated on 6-point scales. The tasks included feeding, changing mothers' ratings. Cronbach's alpha for this temperament scale was .69.
diapers, soothing the baby when fussy, taking care of the baby when The assumption in selecting these measures is that the perceived need
sick, and getting up in the middle of the night with the baby. A rating of for the fathers' involvement would be greater if the mothers worked
0 indicated no participation on a given task by the father, and a rating more hours in paid employment, had experienced caesarean births, and
of 5 indicated that the father performed all of that task. The Pearson the babies were younger, male, and had difficult temperaments. The
correlation between mothers' and fathers' postpartum mean ratings of fathers' availability was assumed to be greater if they spent fewer hours
fathers' contributions to thefivechildcare tasks was .64 (average inter- in paid labor.
item correlations for husbands' and wives' ratings on the same items Family systems. To examine the hypotheses derived from the family
was .49, whereas the average correlations between their ratings of systems perspective, husbands and wives completed three subscales of
different items was .28, suggesting an acceptable level of convergent va- the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976; i.e., marital con-
lidity). A mean of the 10 task ratings (i.e., mothers' and fathers' ratings sensus, marital satisfaction, and marital cohesion) during both the preg-
of each of thefivetasks) was calculated to create a measure of paternal nancy and postpartum phases. The marital consensus subscale mea-
participation in childcare. Cronbach's alpha for this measure was .85. sured the extent to which husbands and wives agreed with their spouses
These scales were completed during pregnancy, in anticipation of the on a number of issues (e.g., familyfinancesor religious matters). Cron-
father's role, and again during the postpartum phase to report what he bach's alpha for this scale was .76 for wives and .83 for husbands. The
was actually doing. satisfaction subscale included items pertaining to the extent of conflict
Husbands' contributions to housework. The housework measure was in the relationship (e.g., "How often do you and your partner quar-
also adapted from earlier research (Ruble et al., 1988). The extent of the rel?"), the commitment to the relationship (e.g., "How often do you
husbands' involvement in each of seven household tasks was rated by discuss or have you considered divorce, separation, or terminating your
men and women on 5-point bipolar scales identical to the scales used in relationship?"), and the overall level of happiness experienced within
the childcare measure. These tasks, which are stereotypically consid- the relationship. Cronbach's alpha for the satisfaction subscale was .75
ered women's work, included laundry, cleaning, dishes, cooking, meal for wives and .82 for husbands. The cohesion subscale addressed the
cleanup, grocery shopping, and clothes shopping. This measure was lim- extent to which spouses shared positive activities and experiences (e.g.,
ited to "women's work" for two reasons. First, previous research has stimulating exchange of ideas or laughing together). Cronbach's alpha
shown that the time spent by couples on "men's work" represents a for this scale was .79 for wives and .72 for husbands. A fourth subscale,
small fraction of the overall amount of time spent on household labor measuring affectional expression, was not included because a number
(e.g., Meissner et al., 1975). Second, in addition to being more time- of the items assessed sexual behavior and thus were not appropriate for
consuming, many writers have argued that "women's work" comprises couples in which the wife was in the third trimester of pregnancy or had
the more repetitive, necessary aspects of household labor that offer little recently given birth. Content, construct, and criterion validity of the
discretion in whether, how, and when they are to be done. In short, these Dyadic Adjustment Scale have been demonstrated previously (Spanier,
are the more onerous aspects of household labor (e.g., Mainardi, 1970; 1976).
Meissner etal., 1975). Sex role attitude. During the pregnancy phase of the study, husbands
The Pearson correlation between husbands' and wives' mean ratings and wives both completed Brogan and Kutner's (1976) Sex Role Orien-
of the husbands' postpartum contributions to the seven household tasks tation Scale, a measure of nontraditional sex role attitudes that has been
was .75 (average interitem correlations for husbands' and wives' ratings shown to be reliable and valid. This scale was used because, in contrast
on the same items was .59, whereas the average correlations between with measures of the personality dimensions of masculinity and femi-
their ratings of different items was .22, suggesting an acceptable level of ninity (e.g., Bern, 1974), it was designed as a measure of "normative
convergent validity). A mean of the 14 task ratings was calculated to prescriptions for the behavior of males and females" (Brogan & Kutner,
create the measure of husbands' contributions to housework. Cron- 1976). Sample scale items include the following: "Marriage is a partner-
bach's alpha for this scale was .83. The scales assessing husbands' con- ship in which the wife and husband should share the economic respon-
tributions to housework were completed during pregnancy and again sibility for supporting the family," "Unless it is economically necessary,
after the birth. married women who have preschool-age children should not work out-
side the home," and "It is generally better to have a man at the head of a
Relative economic resource. The relative economic resources pos- department composed of both men and women employees." Cron-
sessed by mothers and fathers in three domains were assessed: (a) in- bach's alpha for this sample was .90 for wives' scores and .88 for hus-
come, (b) occupational prestige, and (c) education. A discrepancy score bands' scores.
was created in each domain by subtracting mothers' levels of income,
prestige, or education from fathers'. Unfortunately, because income was
only assessed during pregnancy, the income measures after the birth are Results
estimates. We assumed that fathers' incomes remained the same. We
estimated mothers' incomes by assuming that the ratio between current Level of Paternal Participation in Childcare and
hours worked and hours worked before pregnancy was the same as the Housework
ratio between the prepregnancy and postpartum incomes.
Structural variables. Six structural variables that reflect need for fa- What role are these fathers taking in the care of their infants
thers' involvement or their availability were measured. These included and in housework? On the basis of couples' assessments, the
the number of hours mothers worked, the number of hours fathers mean involvement of fathers on the 6-point bipolar scales,
worked, whether mothers experienced a caesarean delivery, and the ba- which ranged from 0 (no participation) to 5 (performed all of
bies' ages, sexes, and temperament. Both the mothers and fathers had the task), was 1.7 on both childcare and housework. A series of
Table 1 tercorrelations among the predictor variables for each model

Predictor Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order are presented in Table 2. To examine the strength of each of
Correlations With Paternal Contributions the alternate models, a series of four separate regressions was
to Childcare and Housework performed. In each analysis the paternal childcare variable,
based on the couples' assessments of the fathers' participation
Measure M SD Childcare Housework
infivecentral childcare tasks, was regressed on a set of indepen-
Relative economic resource dent variables pertaining to the relevant model. The results of
Discrepancy in income" 3.9b 2.6 -.46** -.33* these regressions are presented in Table 3.
Discrepancy in First, to test the relative economic resource model, the dis-
occupational prestige0 - 3 . 3 10.4 .10 .29*
Discrepancy in education*1 -0.1
crepancy variables between husbands' and wives' income, oc-
1.9 -.06 -.09
Structural cupational prestige, and education were entered into a regres-
Mothers' work hours e
12.3 15.6 .54** .30* sion simultaneously with the couples' ratings of paternal partic-
Fathers' work hours' 51.5 12.5 .10 -.13 ipation as the dependent measure. Table 3 shows that the overall
Caesarean birthf 0.3 0.4 .13 .19 equation was significant and accounted for 15% of the variance
8
Sex of babies 0.6 0.5 .02 -.05

1 in paternal participation.4 The only individual variable in the
Age of babies' 22.1 6.0 .25* .18

Babies' temperament' 25.1 4.4 -.12 -.13 model that was a significant predictor of paternal participation
Family systems was discrepancy in income. The greater the discrepancy of in-
Husbands come favoring the father, the less involved he was in infant care.
Marital consensus j 49.0 6.1 -.17 -.22 Recall that the income discrepancy variable was based on wives'
Marital satisfaction* 41.2 5.1 .07 .06
Marital cohesion' 18.7 9.2 .01 .12
incomes after the birth, reflecting the theoretical assumption
Wives that if income is a source of power, that power would be contin-
Marital consensus' 49.1 5.3 .16 .10 gent on current income contributions of each spouse.
Marital satisfaction 41.3 3.9 .00 .23 Second, the structural model was tested. Independent vari-
Marital cohesion* 17.5 3.4 .24 .34**
Sex role attitude
ables reflecting the number of hours the mothers worked, the
Husbands' feminism " 1
173.5 22.5 .33** .08 number of hours the fathers worked, whether the mothers expe-
Wives' feminism15 189.2 19.0 .10 .09 rienced a caesarean birth, the sex of the babies, the age of the
a
babies, and the babies' temperaments were entered into the re-
Income was coded in eight categories ranging from 1 (no income) to 8 gression simultaneously. Table 3 shows that the regression equa-
(over $50,000). b This mean difference in category score reflects that
husbands earned approximately $20,000 more per year than their tion was significant overall and accounted for 26% of the vari-
wives. c Possible scores on the Standard International Occupational ance in paternal participation in childcare. The only significant
Prestige Scale (Treiman, 1977) range from - 2 (i.e., gatherer) to 90 (i.e., individual predictor, when controlling for other structural vari-
chief of state). d Education was coded in six categories ranging from 1 ables, was the number of hours mothers worked in the paid la-
(some high school) to 6 (graduate degree). e Work hours refers to the bor force. The more hours mothers worked, the greater the pa-
number of hours per week of pair labor. f A caesarean birth was coded
as 1, a vaginal birth as 0. g A girl was coded as 1, a boy as 0. h The ternal involvement.
babies' ages are indicated in weeks. ' Possible scores on the infant tem- Third, we examined the two competing hypotheses derived
perament scale range from 10-60. Higher scores reflect more difficult from the family systems model: (a) that happiness in marriage
temperaments. ' Possible scores for the marital consensus subscale will draw fathers into the new triad and elicit their involvement
range from 0-65; for the marital satisfaction scale, 0-50; and for the
marital cohesion scale, 0-24. Higher values for each scale reflect a and (b) that husbands, because of their basic resistance to in-
greater degree of marital consensus, satisfaction, and cohesion, respec- volvement, will only participate to the extent that their wives
tively. k Possible scores on the Brogan and Kutner Sex Role Orienta- fight for their participation. To test these family systems hypoth-
tion Scale range from 36-216, with higher scores reflecting greater de- eses, paternal childcare was regressed on three subscales of the
grees of feminism.
*p<.05. **p<.0\.
Spanier Dyadic scales, separately assessed for husbands and
wives before the birth: marital consensus, satisfaction, and co-
hesion. The six independent variables were entered simulta-
neously into the regression equation. As reported in Table 3,
correlated t tests showed that this level of participation in both none of the individual measures of marital relationship was sig-
childcare and housework was less than either parent expected nificantly related to paternal participation in childcare, and the
before the birth. The Pearson correlation between paternal in- overall regression equation was not significant.
volvement in housework and childcare was .37 (n = 66), p < Finally, a regression was conducted to assess the sex role atti-
.01, suggesting that although the measures overlap significantly,
they also diverge. 3
Parallel correlations were also conducted between predictors and
the childcare and housework measures as reported by mothers and fa-
Determinants of Paternal Participation in Childcare thers. These findings revealed almost identical results for mothers' and
fathers' reports and for the combined score used in this work.
The four alternate models of the determinants of paternal 4
The adjusted squared multiple correlation was always used to assess
participation were examined. Table 1 presents the means and the amount of variance explained by a particular regression. In contrast
standard deviations of all of the predictor variables and the with the R2 value, the adjusted R2 takes into account the number of
zero-order correlations between the predictor variables, and the predictors in the equation. Thus, differences in adjusted R2 values can
couples' estimates of childcare and housework, respectively.3 In- not be attributed to the varying numbers of predictors in different
Table 2
Intercorrelations Among Predictor Variables for Each Model ofPaternal Participation
Variable Correlation
Relative economic resource 1 2 3

1. Dicrepancy in income -.05 .00
2. Discrepancy in occupational prestige — .26*
3. Discrepancy in education —
Structural 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Mothers'work hours — .02 -.09 .09 .36* .03
2. Fathers' work hours .07 -.26* -.06 -.09
3. Caesarian birth — .03 .02 .10
4. Sex of babies — -.05 -.07
5. Age of babies — .00

6. Babies' temperament —
Family systems3 1 2 3 4 5 6
Husbands
1. Marital consensus — .54** .34** .46** .52** .21
2. Marital satisfaction .41** .59** .74** .47**
3. Marital cohesion — .15 .22* .17
Wives
4. Marital consensus — .70** .48**
5. Marital satisfaction — .56**
6. Marital cohesion —
Sex role attitude 1 2
1. Husbands'feminism .52**
2. Wives' feminism —
Note. Tests of significance were two-tailed.
a
Time 1 scores were used for all family systems variables.
*p<.05. **p<.01.
tude model. Husbands' feminism5 and wives' feminism, both separate regressions. The data in Table 3 show that some sup-
measured before the birth, were entered simultaneously into an port was obtained for the relative economic resource, struc-
equation with the paternal childcare measure as the dependent tural, and family systems models. Neither the husbands' nor the
variable. Table 3 reports that husbands' feminism was a sig- wives' prepartum feminism had any significant effect on hus-
nificant predictor of later paternal childcare, even when con- bands' housework in the postpartum period.6 The results per-
trolling for wives' feminism. Moreover, the model accounted for taining to the relative economic resource and family systems
9% of the variance in paternal childcare. models are described in more detail.
Taken together, these results show some support for the rela-
tive economic resource, structural, and sex role attitude models. 5
There was virtually no support for either version we tested of the Feminism is used throughout the article as a synonym for nontradi-
family systems model, although more complex models derived tional sex role attitudes and is not meant to imply endorsement of a
political movement.
from the family systems approach would not be ruled out by 6
Further analyses were conducted to rule out the alternative explana-
these data. tion that variations in men's contributions to "men's work" may ac-
count for the lack of a relation between feminism and housework as it is
Determinants ofHusbands' Contributions to Housework defined here (i.e., the jobs that have traditionally been considered wom-
en's work). A regression was conducted to examine the relation between
A similar set of regressions was conducted with husbands' husbands' feminism and their contributions to the "female" chores
contributions to housework, based on the couples' assessment while controlling for their contributions to the rest of the household
of husbands' postpartum involvement in seven household tasks chores (i.e., the male tasks: contributions to car repairs, household re-
as the dependent variable. A group of variables reflecting each pairs, yard work, and bill paying). The relation between husbands' fem-
of the alternative models was entered simultaneously into four inism and the original measure of household chores was still not sig-
nificant, r(46) = 1.03, p > .30. As a further check, we created a new
measure of housework that included both the male and female house-
hold tasks (Cronbach's a = .69). A Pearson correlation between this
equations. However, caution is urged in comparing R2 values across measure and husbands' feminism yielded a correlation of .06, not very
equations given varying levels of measurement reliability. different from the .08 correlation between our measure of housework
Table 3 invariably confounded with their components. Thus, one com-

Regression Analyses of Alternate Models ofPaternal ponent may account for the observed relation between the
Participation in Childcare and Housework difference score and the criterion. To examine this possibility,
Pearson correlations were conducted between husbands' con-
Childcare Housework
tributions to housework and each of the components of the two
Measure t 0 l significant difference scores, as well as with the difference scores
themselves. Correlations between husbands' contributions to
Relative economic resource housework and husbands' incomes, wives' incomes, and the dis-
Discrepancy in income -.44 -3.20** -.32 -2.46*
Discrepancy in occupational
crepancies between their incomes were -.26, .31, and -.33, re-
prestige .09 0.65 .41 3.12** spectively, suggesting that the significant relation between in-
Discrepancy in education .07 0.49 -.17 -1.25 come discrepancy and husbands' contributions to housework
F(3 ,43) = F(3 ,43) = cannot be attributed solely to either the husbands' or the wives'
3.70*, adjusted 5.82**, adjusted incomes. However, the correlations between husbands' contri-
R2 = .15 R2 = .24
butions to housework and husbands' occupational prestige,
Structural
Mothers' work hours wives' occupational prestige, and the discrepancies between
.52 4.43*** .30 2.37*

Fathers' work hours .06 0.52 -.20 -1.64 their occupational prestige were .05, -.26, and .29, respectively.
Caesarean birth .09 0.78 .21 1.77 This pattern suggests that the significant relation between hus-
Sex of babies -.04 -0.39 -.13 -1.06 bands' contributions to housework and discrepancy in occupa-
Age of babies .06 0.52 .04 0.35
Babies' temperament -.16 -1.42 -.18 1.51
tional prestige was not actually due to the difference between
F(6,,58) = 58) = husbands and wives but more specifically to the wives' level of
4.8***, adjusted 2.40*, adjusted occupational prestige. Women with higher occupational status
R2 = .26 R2 = .12 had husbands who contributed less to household chores. Thus,
Family systems6 the findings that bear on the economic resource model are
Husbands
Marital consensus -.21 -1.35 -.41 2.8** mixed. Only income discrepancies favoring husbands reduce
Marital satisfaction .19 1.03 -.10 -0.57 their contributions to housework. Husbands with more educa-
Marital cohesion -.22 -1.51 -.03 0.25 tion or occupational prestige than their wives are not similarly
Wives affected.
Marital consensus .17 0.91 -.18 -1.07
Marital satisfaction -.19 -0.92 .48 2.44* Table 3 shows that the regression examining the family sys-
Marital cohesion .28 1.86 .33 2.32* tems model was significant overall and accounted for 21 % of
F(6, 57) = F(6, 57) = the variance in paternal contributions to housework. Moreover,
2.14, adjusted 3.81**, adjusted three of the individual measures were significant predictors in
R2 = .10 R2 = .21
Sex role attitude the regression: husbands' marital consensus, wives' marital sat-
Husbands' feminism .40 2.70** .02 0.16 isfaction, and wives' marital cohesion.7 The pattern of findings
Wives' feminism -.12 -0.85 .08 0.54 is quite interesting. Earlier levels of wives' marital cohesion and
F(2, 61) = F(2, 61) = satisfaction, which in a broad sense are indicators of wives' hap-
4.0*, adjusted .31, adjusted piness in marriage, were both positively related to their hus-
R2 = .09 R2 = -.02 bands' participation in housework after the birth. In contrast,
"Standardized beta coefficients are reported, b
Time 1 scores were earlier levels of husbands' marital consensus—the degree to
used for all family systems variables. which husbands believed that their wives shared their views—
*p<.05. **p<.0l. •••/><-001. was negatively related to their postpartum participation in
housework. To further explore thisfinding,we conducted Pear-
son correlations between husbands' contributions to housework
The relative economic resource model accounted for 24% of and both husbands' and wives' scores on agreement on house-
the variance in husbands' contributions to housework. Interest- hold tasks, the item in the consensus subscale that is most di-
ingly, as predicted by the relative economic resource model, a rectly related to our hypotheses. Husbands' contributions to
discrepancy in income favoring husbands reduced their contri- housework was significantly positively correlated with the wives'
bution to housework. However, contrary to prediction, a dis- perceptions of agreement on household tasks (r = .28, p < .05)
crepancy in occupational prestige increased their contribu- but negatively related to husbands' perceptions of agreement on
tions. household tasks (r = -.22, ns). These correlations differ signifi-
One potential problem with difference scores is that they are cantly (Fisher's Z = 2.84, p < .05).
Although these analyses do show support for the importance
and husbands' feminism. Taken together, it appears that the absence of 7

The individual measures that were significant predictors in the re-
a relation between feminism and housework cannot be attributed to gression analysis were also most highly correlated with husbands' con-
variations among couples in the extent to which men perform other tributions to housework in zero-order correlations (see Table 1). Thus,
household tasks. Furthermore, husbands' contributions to "female we believe that despite the strength of the zero-order correlations among
housework" and "male housework" did not significantly correlate (r = the family systems variables (see Table 2), multicollinearity effects do
-.10). There is no evidence that men compensate for lower involvement not obscure the role of the individual measures in the regression analy-
in female chores by greater contributions to male chores.
Table 4 come discrepancy, number of mothers' work hours, and hus-

Regression Analyses of Composite Models of Paternal bands' feminism—the three individual variables that were sig-
Participation in Childcare and Housework nificantly related to paternal childcare in previous analyses.
These variables were entered into the same regression simulta-
Composite model Standardized 0 I
neously. Section A of Table 4 shows that the model as a whole
Childcare was significant, F(3, 44) = 6.36, p < .01, adjusted R2 = .25.
Moreover, mothers' work hours showed a significant indepen-
A. Discrepancy in income -.15 0.74
.37
dent effect on paternal participation in childcare when control-
Mothers' work hours 1.82*
Husbands' feminism .14 1.09 ling for income discrepancy, whereas the reverse was not true.
FQ, 44) = 6.36, p < .01, adjusted R2 = .25 When controlling for mothers' work hours, discrepancy in in-
B. Discrepancy in income -.43 -3.27*** come was not significantly related to paternal participation in
Husbands' feminism 2
.20 1.57 childcare.
F(2,45) = 7.50, p < .01, adjusted R = .22
C. Mothers' work hours .49 4.51**** Intercorrelations were conducted among the three predictor
Husbands' feminism .20 1.85* variables. Income discrepancy was not significantly correlated
2
F(2,62) = 15.06, p < .001, adjusted R = .31 with husbands' feminism (r = —.15), but the number of hours
Housework
that mothers worked was significantly correlated with both hus-
bands' feminism (r = .26, p < .05) and income discrepancy (r =
D. Mothers' work hours -.04 -0.20 —.77, p < .01). The high negative correlation between income
Discrepancy in income -.33 -1.57 discrepancy and mothers' work hours, coupled with the similar
Discrepancy in occupational prestige .31 2.35*
Husbands' marital consensus8 -.19 — .31 strength of their zero-order correlations with paternal childcare
Wives' marital satisfaction .26 .63 (r = —.46 and .54, respectively; see Table 1), make it difficult to
Wives' marital cohesion .18 .18 completely disentangle the independent effects of each on pater-
F(6,40) = 3.89, p < .01, adjusted R1 = .27 nal childcare because of multicollinearity effects. Thus, to ex-
E. Mothers' work hours .21 .69*
Discrepancy in occupational prestige .22 .79* plore how each variable alone could contribute to a composite
Husbands' marital consensus -.27 - .88* model, income discrepancy and mothers' work hours were each
Wives' marital satisfaction .32 .96* entered with husbands' feminism into separate regressions. As
Wives' marital cohesion .17 .20 can be seen in Table 4, Sections B and C, the composite model
2
F(5,48) = 4.12, p < .01, adjusted R = .23
F. Discrepancy in income -.30 -2.36** that includes mothers' work hours and feminism accounted for
Discrepancy in occupational prestige .31 2.37** 9% more of the variance in paternal childcare than the model
Husbands' marital consensus -.19 -1.31 that includes income discrepancy and feminism. In fact, an ex-
Wives' marital satisfaction .26 1.63 amination of the magnitude of the adjusted squared multiple
Wives' marital cohesion .17 1.18
2
F(5,41) = 4.77,p < .01, adjusted/? = .29 correlation values in Table 4 shows that the composite model
that includes mothers' work hours and husbands' feminism ac-
" Time 1 scores were used for all family systems variables. counted for more of the variance in paternal contributions to
*p<AQ. **p<.05. ***p<.0l. ****p<.00l. childcare than the model that includes all three variables.
To summarize, 31 % of the variance in paternal childcare was
accounted for by two variables: husbands' feminism and num-
of marital dynamics in influencing husbands' contributions to ber of mothers' work hours. Nontraditional sex role attitudes
housework, these dynamics may be more complex than antici- and the demand placed on fathers because of maternal involve-
pated. Wives', but not husbands', marital happiness was related ment in the paid labor force together play an important role in
to paternal participation in housework. Moreover, in couples in eliciting paternal participation in childcare. Relative economic
which husbands did a lot of housework relative to other men, resources and marital happiness seem to play less of a role.
wives believed there was agreement about household tasks, but A composite model was then developed for the determinants
husbands perceived disagreement. Taken together, these find- of paternal involvement in housework by a strategy similar to
ings suggest that husbands might be doing housework under du- that used for paternal childcare involvement. First, we identi-
ress, but it is a duress of which their wives are unaware. fied the variables that were significant predictors of husbands'
contributions to housework in the previous regressions. Second,
these six variables: mothers' work hours, discrepancy in in-
Composite Models of Childcare and Housework
come, discrepancy in occupational prestige, husbands' marital
The models of paternal participation that have been exam- consensus, wives' marital satisfaction, and wives' marital cohe-
ined are conceptually and empirically related. For example, the sion, were entered simultaneously into a regression with pater-
number of hours mothers work may be related to their sex role nal involvement in housework as the dependent measure. As
attitudes and the discrepancy in income between them and their can be seen in Table 4, Section D shows that the regression was
husbands. Thus, to assess the independent effects of structural, significant overall, F(6, 40) = 3.89, p < .01, and accounted for
relative economic resource, and sex role attitude variables on 27% of the variance.
paternal participation in childcare and housework, composite The only individual variable that was a significant predictor
models for each were developed. in the equation was discrepancy in occupational prestige. To
First, paternal participation in childcare was regressed on in- further explore potential multicollinearity effects, intercorre-
lations between the predictor variables were examined. The cor- childcare. (This crossover analysis was adapted from Volling &
relations among the marital relationship variables are shown in Belsky, 1991.) The resulting equations were statistically signifi-
Table 2. None of those variables were significantly correlated cant or marginally significant, F(5,41) = 2.61, p < .05, and F(2,
with any of the relative economic resource variables or mothers' 62) = 2.88, p < .10, respectively. However, more important, the
work hours. Again, the strongest correlation among the vari- composite variables for housework accounted for only 15% of
ables was found between mothers' work hours and income dis- the variance in childcare, as compared with 29% of the variance
crepancy (r = -.77). Each of these variables was then entered in housework. Even more striking, the composite set of vari-
into a separate regression with the other predictors. A compar- ables for childcare accounted for 31% of the variance in childc-
ison of Sections E and F in Table 4 shows that the regression are but only 6% of the variance in housework.
that includes income discrepancy accounted for 6% more of the /tests were then conducted comparing the strength of the two
variance in husbands' contribution to housework than did the models for predicting childcare and housework, respectively. In
regression that includes mothers' work hours. J tests the y values (i.e., the predicted values of the dependent
Although none of the relationship variables were significant variable) of one model are saved as a new variable that is then
predictors in that regression, a test conducted on the joint tested as a predictor in the alternative model. If the new variable
effects of these three variables showed that together they con- is a significant predictor, the alternative model can be rejected.
tributed marginally significantly to the composite model, F(3, The procedure is then reversed, and the first model is tested.
41) = 2.26, p < .10. For our purposes in the current research, Thefirstmodel is assumed to be superior to the alternative if the
the husbands' marital consensus, wives' marital satisfaction, alternative can be rejected and thefirstmodel cannot (Kennedy,
and wives' marital cohesion might best be considered as a con- 1992). These tests showed that the composite housework model
stellation of marital factors that operate together in relation to could be rejected for predicting childcare, but the composite
the husbands' participation in housework.8 To summarize, the childcare model could not. Conversely, the composite childcare
composite model of the determinants of husbands' contribu- model could be rejected for predicting housework, but the com-
tions to housework that was developed explained 29% of the posite housework model could not. The model developed spe-
variance. This model included two relative economic resource cifically for childcare or housework is superior in predicting that
variables (i.e., discrepancy in occupational prestige and in- aspect of domestic labor to the alternative developed for predict-
come) and three measures of marital quality before the birth. ing the other aspect of domestic labor. Taken together, these
The findings pertaining to individual predictors in this model findings support our contention that the predictors of childcare
must be interpreted with caution because of the high corre- and housework differ.
lations among them. Finally, we examined the relation between fathers' prepar-
Finally, because the measures of paternal participation in tum and postpartum domestic labor. Our assumption was that
childcare and housework are based on the proportion of paren- if childcare and housework were simply two interchangeable
tal work contributed by husbands, and do not account for out- components of domestic labor, then the amount of housework
side help received, we conducted exploratory analyses to deter- done by husbands during their wives' pregnancies should be
mine whether the amount of outside help affected the predictors equally predictive of housework and childcare after the birth.
of childcare and housework. The number of hours of outside However, if childcare and housework have distinct sets of deter-
childcare help and the number of hours of outside household minants, then we might expect housework during pregnancy to
help were included in two separate regressions with the com- be more predictive of postpartum housework than of childcare.
posite models of childcare and housework, respectively. When Prepartum housework was entered into two separate regres-
the number of hours of outside help was controlled, the results sions: the composite equation developed for childcare and the
remained the same. It is particularly notable that the increase composite model developed for housework. When entered into
in fathers' involvement in childcare as a function of mothers' the composite model predicting childcare the change in the
work hours remained significant in the equation, Z(60) = 3.09, squared multiple correlation (.03) was not significant (F
p < .01. Thus, the effects of mothers' work hours on fathers' change = 2.44, p > . 10). However, when husbands' housework
involvement cannot simply be attributed to a decrease in wives' during pregnancy was entered into the composite model pre-
involvement. dicting housework, the change in the squared multiple correla-
tion (.27) was highly significant (F change = 30.32, p < .001).
Comparisons Between the Predictors of Paternal Husbands' prenatal housework is a strong indicator of the
housework they will do after their babies' births. With the inclu-
Childcare and Housework
sion of the prenatal housework variable, the variance accounted
The results just described suggest that the predictors of pater- for in husbands' postpartum housework increased from 27% to
nal childcare and housework differ: Childcare was predicted by
mothers' work hours and husbands' feminism, and housework 8
by the discrepancy in income and occupational prestige, hus- A series of analyses were conducted to further explore the multicol-
linearity effects among the marital relationship variables. Regressions
bands' marital consensus, and wives' marital satisfaction and were run eliminating combinations of one or two of the relationship
cohesion. To further examine this difference, paternal partici- variables at a time. In no case did the resulting regression equation pro-
pation in childcare was regressed on the variables that consti- vide a better fit to the data than the model that included all three vari-
tuted the working composite model for housework, and the ables. Moreover, although the results for individual variables changed
measure of husbands' contributions to housework was re- somewhat depending on which were included, there was no clear reason
gressed on the variables included in the composite model for to eliminate any of the variables from subsequent consideration.
54%. Thesefindingsargue even more strongly that the determi- portionally as a function of mother's work hours, not because
nants of housework and childcare are not the same. he is taking care of the baby when she is not there, but because
she may be doing less of the care and delegating it to nonparen-
tal caregivers. That is, if she reduces her involvement and his
Discussion
stays the same, his proportion will increase (see Coverman,
Childcare 1989, for a discussion of this issue). However, in this study
mothers' work hours were related to paternal childcare, even
Fathers of infants do very little to care for them. According to after outside care was considered, suggesting that fathers' in-
mothers, fathers' involvement in the basic caretaking tasks like volvement did increase absolutely, as well as proportionally.
feeding, soothing, and getting up at night is quite low. As in Mothers' work hours clearly play an important role in eliciting
previous research (Ruble et al., 1988), these mothers are not paternal involvement in the care of infants, even when account-
getting what they expected. Fathers' own reports of their perfor- ing for other factors with which it is conceptually and empiri-
mance are only slightly better. These men do less than they had cally related. However, ultimately, for an adequate explanation
anticipated. Yet in this sample of couples, some men do a lot of fathers' involvement it is important to understand the dy-
more than other men. namics that lead mothers to commit a given number of hours to
What then distinguishes fathers who participate from those the paid labor force. Once mothers are out in the paid labor
who do not? Ourfindingsargue that infant care by new fathers force, the extent of their time in the work force may drive the
is determined by two factors: the number of hours worked by creation of a family structure in which fathers' participation in
the infants' mothers and the extent to which these fathers en- infant care is required. However, to describe mothers' work
dorse nontraditional sex role attitudes. These findings shed hours as the key determinant of paternal involvement begs the
some light and leave some questions unanswered about the via- question about how decisions in the family are made about the
bility of the models of paternal participation that have been ex- relative time each spouse will devote to outside work versus
amined. The mixed support for the structural model, the con- family work.
tradictions between our findings and earlier work on sex role The fathers' sex role attitudes also played a role in their in-
attitudes (e.g., Crouter et al., 1987), and the lack of support for volvement in infant care. Fathers with more nontraditional at-
the family systems model are discussed in turn. titudes gave more care. The importance of sex role attitudes in
Mothers' work hours was the single most important predictor these results may differ from findings in earlier research (Bar-
of paternal involvement in infant care. Thisfindingis consistent nett & Baruch, 1987; Coverman, 1985) because of the focus on
with earlier research (e.g., Barnett & Baruch, 1987; Lamb, infancy and direct care in the current study, in contrast with the
1987) and has been used as evidence in support of the structural focus on paternal involvement with older children in previous
model of paternal participation. As discussed earlier, this model studies. The type of care needed by infants is most stereotypi-
argues that fathers respond on the basis of the need for childcare cally viewed as maternal care (e.g., diapering, dressing, and
in the family and their availability to give care. Although the bathing), whereas the care needed by and given to older children
results for mothers' work hours support this model, none of the (e.g., help with homework, disciplining, etc.) is less likely to be
other variables included to reflect the need for childcare was a
at odds with a traditional male role. For example, in the Barnett
significant predictor, including babies' ages, babies' sexes, ba-
and Baruch (1987) study, time spent with children (i.e., 5- and
bies' temperaments, or caesarean birth. Moreover, the availabil-
8-year-olds in that study) might have been less influenced by sex
ity hypothesis was not supported. Fathers' work hours did not
role attitudes because that time might be spent playing sports or
significantly predict their involvement in infant care. Taken to-
gether, these results cast doubt on the viability of the structural teaching children to do car repairs, activities that may seem
model or at least on its viability for explaining the proportion of quite consistent with a traditional male role. One previous
paternal involvement during infancy. study that did find an effect of fathers' sex role attitudes on pa-
ternal participation examined fathers' involvement with pre-
However, two qualifications are in order. First, some argu-
school children (Baruch & Barnett, 1981). Like infants, and in
ment can be made about whether each of the variables consid-
contrast with older children, preschool children demand care
ered in the structural model truly reflects variation in need for
infant care (e.g., perhaps 3-month-olds do not require more that is stereotypically viewed as maternal. A second interpreta-
care than 9-month-olds). Second, because the measure of pater- tion of these findings is that times have changed, and with in-
nal care is a proportional one, it is possible that when there is creasing pressure for men's roles at home to change (Lawson,
a greater need for care, such as when the baby has a difficult 1991), it may be increasingly difficult for men to tout feminist
temperament, fathers do increase their involvement, but so do ideals without picking up the slack at home.
mothers. Thus, the proportion of paternal involvement would The family systems models were not supported by the data.
remain the same. Neither the husbands' marital happiness nor reports of dis-
Perhaps the demand for providing an increased proportion of agreements in the couples were related to paternal involvement
caregiving is only relevant for fathers when the mother is simply in childcare. However, we would argue that it is too soon to
physically unavailable. The number of hours the mother works sound the death knell on this theoretical position. There may be
is the only structural variable examined in this study that im- a subtle interplay in the dynamics between mothers and fathers
plies the mother's absence. In the face of this obvious demand that has important consequences for paternal involvement in
the father's participation may be elicited. Of course, it is theo- childcare but simply can not be assessed with the quantitative
retically possible for the father's participation to increase pro- methodology used in this kind of study. Mothers may differ in
the roles they want fathers to play. These fathers' degrees of mar- possible to test this point because there were almost no cases in
ital happiness may influence not the amount of involvement which wives' incomes exceeded their husbands, in at least two
with children but the extent to which they comply with the other studies when wives' incomes exceeded their husbands', the
mothers' conceptions of what their roles should be. Moreover, it discrepancy translated into more domestic labor for these
may not be conflict per se that draws fathers in, but the nature women rather than less (e.g., Biernat & Wortman, 1991;
of the conflict, and the nature of the particular marital environ- Hochschild, 1989).
ment in which it occurs. Moreover, if a systems approach is If an income discrepancy favoring husbands does operate as
viewed more broadly, it may be important to examine not just a source of power for these men, it is the only economic resource
the impact of the immediate family but also the broader social variable to do so. When men have greater education or occupa-
support for paternal involvement within the fathers' social net- tional prestige than their wives, it does not absolve them of re-
work. Quantitative methods simply may not be ideal for exam- sponsibility for household chores. Surprisingly, the higher a
ining some of these issues. It is notable that the Belsky and Vol- woman's occupational prestige the more housework she did rel-
ling (1987) study that found support for the family systems ap- ative to her husband. A recent study that examined couples in
proach used subtle and complex analyses of observational data which the wife had a high-status career (i.e., academic or busi-
on the basis of live at-home interactions between parents and ness related) may provide some insight into thesefindings(Bier-
infants. nat & Wortman, 1991). These women with academic or busi-
ness-related careers were very critical in their evaluations of
Housework their own performances as spouses and parents, perhaps be-
cause in their commitment to careers, they have violated tradi-
Levels of husbands' contributions to housework were also tional notions of family. Consistent with this interpretation, the
low. Moreover, there was no evidence that men are compensat- businesswomen whose careers took precedence over their hus-
ing for their lack of involvement in "women's work" by greater bands' careers were less satisfied with their own role perfor-
involvement in the household chores that are traditionally con- mance than were their counterparts whose careers were viewed
sidered "men's work." The predictors of husbands' contribu- as secondary in the family. In this context, women with high-
tions to housework reflected some support for the relative eco- power careers might take more responsibility for housework as
nomic resource model and some support for the family systems a type of compensation, a way of fulfilling traditional roles and
model. As predicted by the relative economic resource model, thus feeling better about their own performances as wives and
husbands who made relatively more money than their wives did mothers.
relatively less housework. However, because of multicollinearity Marital dynamics seemed to be related to husbands' contri-
between income discrepancy and mothers' work hours, we can- butions to housework, although the precise nature of that rela-
not argue definitively that income discrepancy is more impor- tion is not entirely clear in our data. The simple notion that
tant than mothers' work hours in explaining housework until happily married husbands will do more housework than their
further research is conducted. less happy counterparts was not supported. Husbands' contri-
Nevertheless, assuming that the results for income discrep- butions to housework seemed to be related to a constellation of
ancy will hold up in future work, it is useful to consider their factors that included their wives' marital happiness and sense of
meaning. As mentioned earlier, there are two interpretations of togetherness, coupled with the husbands' sense of spousal dis-
the relative economic resource hypothesis. The first is that the agreement. One interpretation of these data, admittedly specu-
husbands' greater earnings lead to a division of labor in the fam- lative, is that in families in which husbands do a lot of house-
ily in which men devote more time to paid labor and women to work, a struggle over this issue has been won by the wives. The
domestic labor to promote economic benefits for the family. The women in these marriages are consequently happier than other
second version assumes that the division of domestic labor is women, but there is a difference in perception between them
the result of a power struggle in which men's greater resources and their husbands about the degree of agreement between
translate into the power to get out of domestic labor. them over the division of household chores. Interestingly, the
The particular pattern of results in this study argues for the husbands in these marriages do not show an overall decrease in
latter interpretation. It is not possible to argue that greater earn- marital satisfaction. However, because our focus in this research
ing power increases paid work hours, which then decreases do- is on infancy we may only have procured a snapshot of the ini-
mestic labor, because fathers' work hours were not related to tial battle in an ongoing struggle within couples. Previous find-
paternal involvement, nor were mothers' work hours negatively ings that men's participation in housework is related to marital
correlated with fathers' work hours. The power struggle inter- conflict (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983) and dysphoric symp-
pretation makes more sense. However, as reflected in our data, tomatology in women (Steil & Turetsky, 1987) suggest that the
the dynamics of a power struggle between husbands and wives difference in perception of agreement over the division of house-
are complicated. As predicted by the relative resource model, hold chores may later turn to discord.
husbands who made more money than their wives did less
housework, presumably because of their greater power. Yet, we The Caveats
cannot assume that the advantage given to husbands by more
income would accrue to wives in the same way. This asymmetry There were some important methodological strengths in the
between spouses has been noted by a number of other research- present study, including the consideration of multiple models of
ers (Biernat & Wortman, 1991;Feree, 1984; Hochschild, 1989; paternal participation, the distinction made between house-
Steil & Weltman, 1991). Although in our sample, it was not work and childcare, and the longitudinal nature of the data.
However, a few caveats are in order. The generalizability of our volves work, there are very important rewards to be gained
findings is limited because of several factors. through that work. As discussed earlier, men who have greater
The most important limitations derive from the size and na- involvement with their children reap the benefits of increased
ture of our sample and the limitations of our measures. For ex- closeness with them. If their ideology gives fathers the impetus
ample, the small size of our sample created power problems in to try taking care of their babies, those attempts may be self-
the analyses that made it impossible to examine differences in perpetuating. In contrast, the nature of housework is quite
the determinants of paternal participation between dual- and different. As Art Buchwald quipped about his experience of
single-earner couples (Crouter et al., 1987), limited our confi- household duties during his wife's illness, "After making up
dence in the reliability of the results of the regressions, and ex- beds two days in a row, the thrill is gone." Housework is un-
acerbated problems of multicollinearity, particularly between pleasant. Therefore, men may use the power they possess to
income discrepancy and mothers' work hours in the analysis of avoid it, regardless of their professed attitudes.
the determinants of housework. In addition to size, the ethnic One aspect of ourfindingsis clear. Housework and childcare
composition of our sample and the age of the children also limit differ. Studies that simply lump them under the rubric of do-
the generalizability of the results. Our participants were almost mestic labor are misleading. If women's economic power is key
exclusively White and were limited to families with infants. to increasing their husbands' contributions to housework, and
Thus, the results reported here can neither be assumed to gen- men's attitudes toward sex roles are critical to their participa-
eralize to African-Americans, who some authors have claimed tion as fathers, it implies that different strategies may be neces-
are more egalitarian than their White counterparts (e.g., Ta- sary to increase men's involvement in the different domains.
tum, 1987), to other ethnic minorities, or to families with older Further work illuminating the roles of husbands at home would
children. Finally, all of the measures used in this study were be very valuable, because those roles have important conse-
based on self-report, with all of its inherent biases. Ultimately, quences for the well-being of women, children, as well as men.
a multimethod approach, which includes both behavioral mea-
sures and qualitative measures, will likely prove to be the most
valuable. Clearly, further work is needed to replicate the present References
findings, to extend them to broader samples using diverse meth- Barnett, R. C, & Baruch, G. K. (1987). Determinants of father's par-
ods, and to explicate some of the ambiguities that remain. ticipation in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49,
29-40.
Differences Between Housework and Childcare Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1981). Fathers' participation in the
care of their preschool children. Sex Roles, 7, 1043-1055.
Our results show clear differences between the determinants Baruch, G. K., & Barnett, R. C. (1986). Consequences of fathers' par-
of childcare and housework. Need and feminist beliefs foster the ticipation in family work: Parents' role strain and well-being. Journal
father's involvement in childcare, whereas income discrepancy ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 983-992.
and marital dynamics are more important in eliciting his par- Belsky, J., & Volling, B. L. (1987). Mothering, fathering and marital
interaction in the family triad during infancy: Exploring family sys-
ticipation in housework. By examining several theoretical posi-
tem's processes. In P. W. Berman & F. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Men's tran-
tions in concert, it was possible to uncover the differences that sitions to parenthood (pp. 37-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
lay behind superficial similarities in the correlates of the two Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Jour-
types of domestic labor. For example, although mothers' work nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
hours and income discrepancy each significantly predicted both Berk, S. F. (1985). The genderfactory. New York: Plenum Press.
childcare and housework when examined separately, regression Biernat, M., & Wortman, C. B. (1991). Sharing of home responsibilities
analyses that included both showed that the work hours were between professionally employed women and their husbands. Journal
more directly related to childcare, whereas income discrepancy ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 844-860.
was more directly related to housework. Bird, G. W., Bird, G. A., & Scruggs, M. (1984). Determinants of family
These data, however, are also potentially consistent with more task sharing: A study of husbands and wives. Journal ofMarriage and
the Family, 46, 345-355.
elaborate theoretical models in which variables from one
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work,
model, although not directly related to childcare, act as media- and sex. New York: Morrow.
tors of the more direct predictors. For example, the mothers' Brogan, D., & Kutner, N. G. (1976). Measuring sex-role orientation: A
work hours variable, so critical to the composite model of pa- normative approach. Journal ojMarriage and the Family, 38, 31-40.
ternal participation in childcare, may be mediated by marital Carey, W. B., & McDevitt, S. C. (1978). Revision of the Infant Temper-
dynamics, the sex role attitudes of both parents, assessments of ament Questionnaire. Pediatrics, 61, 735-739.
earning potential, and the interactions among them. Ultimately, Carlson, B. E. (1984). The father's contribution to childcare: Effects on
to fully understand paternal participation in childcare the me- children's perceptions of parental roles. American Journal of Ortho-
diators of mothers' work hours must be examined. psychiatry, 54, 123-136.
Perhaps the most striking difference to emerge in this study is Coverman, S. (1985). Explaining husbands' participation in domestic
that fathers' feminism contributes to their childcare but not to labor. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 81-97.
Coverman, S. (1989). Women's work is never done: The division of do-
their housework. Although less traditional sex role attitudes im- mestic labor. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (pp.
ply that men believe that neither childcare nor housework are 356-358). Mountainview, CA: Mayfield.
"women's work," those attitudes translate into behavior with Coverman, S., & Sheley, J. F. (1986). Change in men's housework and
respect to childcare but not housework. Housework and child- childcare time, 1965-19"/'5. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,
care differ in one important respect. Although childcare in- 413-422.
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1987). Men's involvement in parenthood: household demands. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropol-
Identifying the antecedents and understanding the barriers. In P. W. ogy, 12, 424-439.
Berman & F. A. Pederson (Eds.), Men's transition to parenthood (pp. Parke, R. D., & Tinsley, B. R. (1981). The father's role in infancy: De-
145-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. terminants of involvement in caregiving and play. In M. E. Lamb
Crouter, A. C , Perry-Jenkins, M., Huston, T. L., & McHale, S. M. (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 429-457). New
(1987). Processes underlying father involvement in dual-earner and York: Wiley.
single-earner families. Developmental Psychology, 23, 431-440. Perrucci, C. C , Potter, H. R., & Rhoads, D. L. (1978). Determinants of
male family-role performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3,
Deutsch, F. M , Ruble, D. N., Fleming, A., Brooks-Gunn, J., &Stangor,
53-67.
C. (1988). Information seeking and maternal self-definition during
Radin, N. (1982). Primary caregiving and role-sharing fathers. I n M . E.
the transition to motherhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child develop-
chology, 55, 420-431. ment (pp. 173-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Easterbrooks, M. A., & Goldberg, W. A. (1984). Toddler development Ruble, D. N., Fleming, A. S., Hackel, L. S., & Stangor, C. (1988).
in the family: Impact of father involvement and parenting character- Changes in the marital relationship during the transition to first time
istics. Child Development, 55, 740-752. motherhood: Effects of violated expectations concerning the division
Feldman, S. S., Nash, S. C , & Aschenbrenner, B. G. (1983). Anteced- of household labor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
ents of fathering. Child Development, 54, 1628-1636. 78-87.

Feree, M. M. (1984). The view from below: Women's employment and Russell, G. (1982). Shared caregiving families: An Australian study. In
gender equality in working class families. In B. B. Hess & M. B. Suss- M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child de-
man (Eds.), Women and the family: Two decades of change (pp. 5 7 - velopment (pp. 139-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
75). New York: Haworth Press. Russell, G., & Radin, N. (1983). Increased paternal participation and
Grossman, F , Pollack, W., & Golding, E. (1988). Fathers and children: child development outcomes. In M. E. Lamb & A. Sagi (Eds.), Fa-
Predicting the quality and quantity of fathering. Developmental Psy- therhood andfamily policy (pp. 139-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
chology, 24,9,2-9 \. Servis, L. J., Deutsch, F. M. (1992, April). Paternal participation in
childcare and its effects on children's self-esteem. Paper presented at
Haas, L. (1982). Parental sharing of childcare tasks in Sweden. Journal
the Eastern Psychological Association Meeting, Boston.
of Family Issues, 3, 389-412.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revo- assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Mar-
lution at home. New York: Viking Press. riage and the Family, 38, 15-30.
Hoffman, L. W. (1983). Increased fathering: Effects on the mother. In Steil, J. M., & Turetsky, B. A. (1987). Is equal better? The relationship
M. E. Lamb & A. Sagi (Eds.), Fatherhood andfamily policy (pp. 167— between marital equality and psychological symptomatology. In S.
190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Oskamp (Ed.), Family process and problems: Social psychological as-
Hood, J., & Golden, S. (1979). Beating time/making time: The impact pects (pp. 73-97). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
of work scheduling on men's family roles. The Family Coordinator, Steil, J. M., & Weltman, K. (1991). Marital inequality: The importance
28, 575-582. of resources, personal attributes, and social norms on career valuing
Kennedy, P. (1992). A guide to econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT and the allocation of domestic responsibilities. Sex Roles, 24, 161-
Press. 179.
Stein, P. J. (1984). Men in families. Marriage and Family Review, 7,
Lamb, M. E. (1987). Introduction: The emergent American father. In
143-162.
M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father's role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.
Tatum, B. (1987). Assimilation blues: Black families in a White com-
3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. munity. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Lawson, C. (1991, May 16). Baby beckons. Why is Daddy at work? The Treiman, D. J. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative perspective.
New York Times, pp. C1, C8. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Levy-Shiff, R., & Israelashvili, R. (1988). Antecedents of fathering: Volling, B. L., & Belsky, J. (1991). Multiple determinants of father in-
Some further exploration. Developmental Psychology, 24, 434-440. volvement during infancy in dual-earner and single-earner families.
Mainardi, P. (1970). The politics of housework. In R. Morgan (Ed.), Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 461-474.
Sisterhood is powerful (pp. 447-454). New \brk: Vintage Books. Yogev, S. (1981). Do professional women have egalitarian marital rela-
McHale, S. M., & Huston, T. L. (1984). Men and women as parents: Sex tionships? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 865-871.
role orientations, employment, and parental roles with infants. Child
Development, 55, 1349-1361. Received June 17, 1991
Meissner, M., Humphreys, E. W., Meis, S. M., & Scheu, W. J. (1975). Revision received April 9, 1993
No exit for wives: Sexual division of labour and the cumulation of Accepted May 17, 1993 •

Husbands at Home Predictors of Paternal Participation in

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Husbands at Home Predictors of Paternal Participation in

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP

Husbands at Home: Predictors of Paternal Participation in

the current research: (a) relative economic resource, (b) struc-

Table 1 tercorrelations among the predictor variables for each model

Sex of babies 0.6 0.5 .02 -.05

Age of babies' 22.1 6.0 .25* .18

Relative economic resource 1 2 3

5. Age of babies — .00

Table 3 invariably confounded with their components. Thus, one com-

.52 4.43*** .30 2.37*

and husbands' feminism. Taken together, it appears that the absence of 7

Table 4 come discrepancy, number of mothers' work hours, and hus-

ents of fathering. Child Development, 54, 1628-1636. 78-87.

Вам также может понравиться