African-American fathers' involvement with infants: Relationship to their functioning style, support, education, and income

INFANT

BEHAVIOR AND DEVELOPMENT

17,

175-l 84 (1994)

African-American Fathers’ Involvement with Infants: Relationship to Their Functioning Style, Support, Education, and Income ZIARAT HOSSAIN UnirBersity of Miami Medical School

JAIPAUL L. ROOPNARINE Syracuse UniversiQ Using the cultural and human ecology models as a guide, African-American fathers’ involvement with infants as a function of whether their wife worked full-time or part-time, and the association between father involvement and fathers’ functional styles within the family, family support, income, and education were examined. Fathers were less likely to engage in and devote time to basic caregiving activities than were mothers. Paternal investment in childcare did not differ as a function of whether wives worked full-time or part-time outside of the home. Fathers were more likely to invest time in playing with the infant than in feeding or cleaning. Fathers’ ability to communicate effectively within the family and their commitment to the family were significantly associated with their degree of involvement in feeding and comforting infants. The data are discussed with respect to role differentiation in caregiving in African-American families. African American

Developmental psychologists have become increasingly aware of the need to consider intracultural and intercultural variations in fathers’ and mothers’ involvement in childcare and early patterns of socialization (Bozett & Hanson, 199 I; Lamb, 1987; Levine, 1988; Roopnarine & Carter, 1992). Despite such interest, data on early patterns of caregiving among African-American families, especially with respect to father involvement in childcare, remain noticeably absent from child development literature. Moreover, studies that examine African-American family lifestyle and socialization patterns from a resilient-adaptive perspective are sparse (Taylor, Chatters, Tucker, & Lewis, 1990). This investigation is an attempt to examine middle-income African-American fathers’ involvement in caregiving activities with infants as a function of whether their wives worked full-time or part-time and some factors that might be associated with their involvement. Unfortunately, until quite recently, research on African-American families has generally This research was supported by a grant from the Faculty Development Fund in the College for Human Development at Syracuse University. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Ziarat Hossain, Department of Pediatrics, Touch Research Institute, University of Miami Medical School, Miami, FL 33101 or Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, Department of Child and Family Studies, Syracuse University. Syracuse. NY 13244.1250.

caregiving

fathers

been couched within a “deviant” or “culture of poverty” hypothesis. That is, AfricanAmerican family functioning and socialization patterns have been compared directly to those in Euro-American families or as tied to family disorganization associated with female-headed households (J.L. McAdoo, 1988). For the most part, the research on African-American families has been narrowly focused on low-income families with little attention given to the sizable middle-income populous. Several AfricanAmerican scholars (e.g., Harrison, 1988; Peters, 1988) have cautioned against using data from low-income families to describe paternal involvement in all African-American families and using Euro-American family norms to assess socialization patterns within AfricanAmerican families. These approaches disregard within-culture variations in parent-child relationships and the unique history and cultural practices of African-Americans. There is considerable variation within African-American families in terms of family backgrounds, economic and social statuses, and the degree to which they have assimilated to the norms and values of mainstream America (Allen & Majidi-Ahi, 1989). In this study, we used the cul~urul ecolo~~y and human ecology models as a guide in assessing African-American fathers’ involvement in early childcare and some factors that 175

176

Hossain and Roopnarine

may be associated with their involvement. The cultural ecology model espouses viewing a population within its own distinctive cultural frame of reference and identifying culturally relevant childrearing practices; motivational, affective, and communicative attributes; and social organization patterns that may assist parents and children in achieving an adaptive fit within the immediate environment (Ogbu, 1985). Thus, this model suggests movement away from commonly employed comparative approaches and has been instrumental in the study of ethnic pride and the socialization of independence (Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990), father involvement with young children (Ahmeduzzaman & Roopnarine, 1992), and school achievement (Ogbu, 1985) among other issues. In a related vein, the human ecology model identifies the various systems and subsystems in which parent-child relations are embedded and the host of factors that contribute to individual and family development (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). This model has been used widely to assess the contexts of stress/support for parent-child relationships including the impact of interpersonal and individual functioning (Belsky. Gilstrap, & Rovine, 1984), social support (Cochran & Brassard, lY79), and parenting styles on children’s development (Field et al.. 1985: Mondell & Tyler. 19X1). Whereas in the past, African-American fathers have been characterized as distant and uninvolved with their children, recent research paints a different picture of the AfricanAmerican father when intact economically stable families are considered. African-American fathers are more likely to share childcare and household tasks than Euro-American men (J.A. Ericksen, Yancey, & E.P. Ericksen, 1979): share equally with their wives in decisions on childrearing activities (H.P. McAdoo, 1988); display a good deal of nurturance to their sons and daughters (J.L. McAdoo, 1979); view childcare as the responsibility of both parents and believe that diapering, feeding, bathing, and dressing children should be shared (Hyde & Texidor, 198X); and spend about one third of the time their wives spend in the primary caregiving role (Ahmeduzzaman & Roopnarine, 1992). In Euro-American families in which the mother stays home. fathers spend about 20 to 25% as much time as mothers do in direct interaction with children, and families in which

both parents are employed fathers spend about 33%~ as much time as mothers do with young children (Lamb, 1987; Pleck. 1985; Russell & Radin, 1983). Even though researchers (Cazenave, 1979; J.A. Ericksen et al., 1979) have documented that African-American fathers are involved in the socialization of their children, we know little about the degree to which they are involved in caring for infants as compared with mothers. Nor do we know much about how AfricanAmerican fathers’ investments in the early childhood period vary as a function of whether their wives work full-time or part-time outside of the home. In view of the dual-earner family norm in the United States, there have been attempts to assess the impact of women’s labor force participation on men’s involvement in childcare and household work in diverse ethnic groups (Pleck, 1985). Using the timc-availability framework, researchers have argued that women who spend less time working outside of the home than their husbands or other women perform a greater share of childcare and household tasks (Hiller, 1984; Ross, 1987). Among African-American families with older children, it has been found that when the wife works full-time, as opposed to part-time, the father is less likely to help with childcare (J.A. Ericksen et al., 1979). In Euro-American families although the responsibility for in-home childcare mainly rests with the mother (Coverman & Sheley, 1986; Lamb, 1987). it is also tied to the number of hours the mother works outside of the home (McHale & Huston. 1984). In view of the assertion that minor changes have occurred in the redistribution of childcare responsibility between men and women (Cohen, 1987; Gilbert, 1985: LaRossa. 1988). and the arguement that there may be more gender role convergence than divergence in African-American families (Taylor et al.. 1990) we asked African-American mothers and fathers to assess their relative investment in childcare in two groups of dual-earner families: (a) families in which both parents worked fulltime and (b) families in which the father worked full-time and the mother worked parttime. By including these two groups of families, we hoped to address possible differences in men’s participation with children in two common family structural arrangements in the United States today. Caring for infants can be taxing for women who are attempting to com-

Caregiving

in African-American

bine maternal and employment roles, and the increased participation of men in childcare does have implications for the marital relationship and individual functioning of both spouses (Menaghan & Parcel, 1990; Moen, 1982). Accordingly, our assessments targated six basic caregiving activities and also asked parents to provide estimates of their daily time investment in feeding, cleaning, and in playing with their infant. We distinguished between time spent in caregiving and play, because these two activities may reflect different levels of participation since fathers seem to show more intense involvement in direct interaction compared with more basic caregiving activities such as cleaning or feeding the infant (Lamb, 1987). Because mothers and fathers in other ethnic groups describe their infant sons and daughters differently (Rubin, Provenzano, & Luria, 1974), list different toy preferences for sons and daughters (McGuire, 1982), and interact differently with sons and daughters (Lewis, 1986), and given that comparable data on African-American families are not yet available, we examined whether mothers and fathers showed a higher propensity to engage in particular caregiving activities with sons over daughters. More equitable participation in different caregiving activities with sons and daughters in African-American families may shed light on possible intercultural variations in the sex role socialization of young children. The focus on intrapersonal functioning, different dimensions of support, education, and income, is in line with attempts to identify factors that may be associated with fathers’ involvement in early caregiving activities (cf. Belsky, 1990), and the “promotion” and “enhancement” perspectives within the family literature to identify the personal resources and strengths of families that may enable them to fulfill childrearing goals appropriately (Deal, Trivette, & Dunst, 1988). Researchers have demonstrated that support received from friends, church members, neighbors, and coworkers is important for African-American family life, and that across different ethnic groups, support from others has a positive impact on self-esteem and personal efficacy (Be/sky, 1990; Small, 1988; Taylor et al., 1990), parentxhild relationships (Cochran & Brassard, 1979; Cmic, Greenberg, Ragozin, Robinson, & Bashman, 1983). and the ability to deal with social problems (Sarason. Sarason.

177

Families

& Shearin, 1986). Further, existing data suggest that parent characteristics and fathers’ functioning styles are linked to care displayed toward and degree of father involvement with children (Ahmeduzzaman & Roopnarine, 1992; Mondell & Tyler, 198 1). Likewise, given that income has been shown to be associated with paternal involvement in childrearing in African-American families (Cazenave, 1979; R.J. Erickson & Gecas, 1991), parental attitudes and values toward paternal involvement are correlated with educational achievement (Pleck, Lamb, & Levine, 1986); and in families in which both spouses are more educated, there is greater emphasis on the role of the father (J.A. Ericksen et al., 1979; Russell, 1982). Educational achievement and income were also included in our attempt to isolate factors that may be linked to AfricanAmerican fathers’ involvement with infants. Economic stability and attitudes toward father involvement that are possible with higher educational attainment may add to greater satisfaction in African-American family life and, therefore, may show positive associations with fathers’ degree of involvement in caregiving activities. In sum, this study examined middle-income African-American fathers’ assessments of their involvement in caring for infants as a function of whether their wives worked full-time or part-time and the association between early involvement in caregiving and fathers’ functional style within the family, support received, and fathers’ education and income. METHOD Subjects The participants in this study consisted of 40 African families in which both mother\ and fathers worked full-time outside of the home and 23 African-American families in which the father worked full-time and the mother worked part-time (25 hours or less per week) outside of the home. Families were chosen if they had an infant below 24 months of age (M = 13.7.5 months; SD = 6.89 months). The families were from middle to lower-middle income twoparent families r&ding in Syracuse. New York. The mean age of father\ was 32.57 years (SD = 6.41). and the mean age of mothers was 30.29 years (SD = 5.94). The mean length of time couples were married was 5.87 years (SD = 4.93). The mean length of continuous residence in Syracuse was IX.37 years for fathers and 14.86 years l-or mothers (.SUs = 10.97 and IO.67 respectively). The average number of persons per family was 4.81 (SD = 1.75). and the average sibling configuration was 2.7Y (SD = 1.62). Thirty six of the inf’dntu \tudicd were female, and 27 were malt. The birth order of infant\ was as follows: I4 flr\t-

178

Hossain and Roopnarine

horns. cent

23

second-horns.

of the familie\

hired

a private

rellcd

on relatives

the

help

while

of

they

per

neighbors

most

year.

fathers trast,

the

worked 1.32,

and

mothers

made

were

others

wcrc

nurser,

teachcry,

were

rmploycd

a\

were

and

the

received

a

earned

from

high

and

Forty-six

xhool,

The

frmilic\

munity

Icadcrs.

and

(;uiiilic.\

The

leatler~/director\

a\kcti

to

~CI-I‘

help

worked

out\ldc

that

the leaden

the \tud>

children l+amllic\ pcr\on. tcriil

were X0’;

and

were

plete

IYXXJ

them.

27’;

moOlcr\‘ type

i, graduate/ gradand

The

m

hrlefly then

filled

The

out

the quc\tlonnaire\

and

they

filled

cr\;

and

with

in

Dunst. item\

out coraunetl

incon-

r~r,/rc,,\i~~,z (e.g..

No

and father\

their

~pou\es.

involvcmcnt x-ale,

a

in

support

arranfemenl tinnnairc income.

lor a\!&

and

quc\tionn;ure V. Chile rhcy p~np off

childcnrc xalc, their for

\o

to l’ill out.

withour

a fnmily

The

style\.

K;IIC it\ It

parents

the

who

up the baby

Inventory

functional on

childcarc cared

wa\

for

\tjlc

childcarc

on cducatlonal

hricf

and who

Well-Bcin:

quesIcvcl.

arrungt‘mcnt their

reqpon\ihlc

l‘rom out ol’homc

childl-cn for dropcare.

<‘omcau.

f.alher\

Fathered

did

a 5each

cr/!>l~~\ron mothand

11,

and did

not

in the ~mplc.

analysi\

by

Tri\

pcrlormetl

~~?~~/if,r/c’/i!

to “pitch making

on

child

who

(IYYO),

factor\:

rated

to which

atypical

included

and Iaihcrt-

,?i(’ to (4)

an

Prop\t

ct al..

Thi\

I\

wcrc

factor

in”

(c.g..

and

per\onul

i‘ttc.

on lhc

help

In

rnk

other\).

\acriflce\

il

( o)~~~)I/~~I/(.(//;oII (c.g.. I am ahlc I+xlings

in

upon

uncxpectcd happen\

prtrtluctivc family

comc~

in my

\hou\

good

way\),

member\ up).

lamil!.

prcdicticc

dcpendabllity

\how\

good

Index

and I try

asociation\

it 10

c’o,qx-

to help

out

~qi/r,q

(c.p.,

to look

at the

i\

Index of Rc\ource Kc lIarkin\.

critt‘l-ior

Iamily with

McCubhin,

the canonical

xorc\

score\

and

in analy&f

(FHI:

lYX7:

lactor

consult-

wcrc

and

Deal

on

trt thmgs).

indicating

a parental

\ociodemo~raphlc

inlormntitrn

and

&et.

a quc\tionnairc

1nfan1.

at work

and picking

xalc. and

ba\lc

forth.

a\Letl wcrc

wcrc’ aled

other

involvement

dcgrec

Mother\

hilling

and

what

\ide

\uhxale

;L sociodetnofraphlc

/'/try!,/$ by

(FFS:

item

the

with

child.

I can depend

matter

FF’S

Procedures Mother\

in ,@&

usxl

family.

fior-0l-tr//-likc,

It i? worth

something

The

(0)

five

family),

concern\

Hartline\\

infom~ation.

Homer.

my

Each

component

produced

Thompson,

ing

fathers

day

I‘athcr\’

the

for thih \calc

lamilie\

I am aIwav\

bright

Item\.

of the home

Deal,

family.

quc’\\tud>

in

principal

\harc

the

good

and

per

hccn

Scale

within

indicating

a typxal

out\idc

when

by wa\

father\

families

ICIIC c (e.g..

the

wah

\hows

mother\

information

ht~lc

VIO. Data

stated

from

scale

scale

\pcnr

ha\

Slyle

collect

25

scale (item)

hcnelit\

our cri-

to

contains

youns

returned

.\ool/riqq

and during

= .Y6).

to estimate

Functioning

u\ed

ratlnp

with

mcl

19X5)

functioning

Ictter

contaclcd

who

droppctl

the

functionmr.

u&c

01 tho\c

and

Likert-type

each

approach

the

the, ir@rr/.

at night.

asked

of time

This

(Pleck,

\tatcmcnt

25

\em-

to familx\

(;uiiil\,

01

wcrc

infant.

Fnmily

A

mmhcr

dcscribins \c‘nt

invoIvcmcn1

to pat-ticipate

f;unilic\

the

part

the amount

xalc

aorh

were

and

which

A letter.

contacted

of the scale

was

point

.Syracu\c.

organization\

in Il. ML\\

familic\)

of

profcGonal

n\pect\

da) con-

organization\

arca\

organi/.atlon\.

willing

through

chut-chtx,

IO item

(Spearman-Brown

trhl,~ys-/iI,cz \elcctctl

Thi\

\ccond

the

43%

degree.

it cries).

hathinp

frc&ng

the infant

consistency

The

About

of the mother\

soothing

to

p1qsic~
diaper.

and

infant5

the infant

morning):

infant’s

infant):

and

their

t/w 1t1fmt.c~/etrni/lg/~~u,s/lrrlg rhc /r1fimr.and

school.

recc~vcd

Mothers

putting

the

was

degree

in childcal-c.

pcraonncl.

among

different

(6X

Five

high

mouth.

on parental

dillcrcn~

who

tionniurc\. bccau\e

of the\c

Ahoul

s&s

the

the

in

scale

rclativc

with

(I ) wager10(5) trhqys. The

rtxcarchcrs

in cducs

tcchnlcian\.

when from

to e\tim;tte

staff

Infant\

role

tocused

and

of

the

with

family‘s

busincy;\.

a\

changing

dressing

(involved

The

support

in dil.lercnt

of the home.

the

internal

with

two-parent

l’amilics

and

through

of

Institutions

i11,q

organization\,

word

idcntif)

prol’e\\lonal

study

hy

the day

executives.

and

fathers’

to the mfirnt. pltrCn,q with thr in/tint.

ranked

and

Lamh

the

.vingiq

workcrs:

own

FoIlowIng

activities.

up

and

of

part

of involvement

Infant

“what

children.

I’OU/IW (involved

the

in

firat and

into

worked

physi-

and

getting

and

caregiving

and

degree\.

located

(involved

other\

I6 %

identified

UJU’

worker\:

pcrccnt

neighborhood

and

sales

14%> had ;I hachclor‘$

were

center\.

and

time”

versus

caretaking

degee

kdtime

in six areas:

the

actlvlties. Standqvist.

paternal

young

mothers’

in

their

bed.

service

education:

to assess

theve 1083;

different

insights

(1987).

involvement

much in

provide with

in

Pleck.

infant.

phy\i-

\crvicc

do

Nugent

rated

“how

involved

investment

rhc, ~llfi/~t

their

from

had pradLlate/prole\\ional

care

tasks

father:,

a!, profe\\ional\:

w,orker\.

dcgrcc

of

that

are

spent

1987:

week.

per

financial

within

graduated

=

employment

employment

and

human

Ievcl

who t(78)

hours

human

employed

con-

tmie

(Lamb,

noted

father<

developed

= 3.59).

in\tilution\

degree.

43

managers.

and

health

college

have

(10X7)and

and

By

as profcssionala:

and

administrative

a bnchclor’s

uated I Y’k

al\o

father\

protcaionnl

domestic

father\

full-time

(SII

worked

govcrnmcnt

transpot-tation of

infants

mothers

and

in part-time

employed

\omc

mothers

40%

their

different.

and

in business

Mo\t

and

in

41

a$ middle-level

cum\,

tional

father\

tcachcrs,

employed

and in industry techniclax

1987) ways”

$40.000.

and

raearchers

24%

~1 = .0004.

mothers

per week

w’ere

counselors,

activities

Several

aought

and $30.000

between

Ggnificantly

about

mothers

fathers

cnms.

childcare

6%

and

$20,000

= 3.65.

for

not

and

The

and

for

$30,000

differential

of 20 hours

Mocr

24%

infants, and

to care

between

t( 124)

average.

napcctively.

friends

income?

Mothers

an average

their

infants,

per-

arc,

maternal

income

mean

on

Forty-qix

in day

for

their

between

significant.

n.\.

barns.

infants

care

for

made

full-time

worked,

last

at work.

The

was

to

to care

father\

whereas

25 their

baby-sitter

were

Mo\t

and

enrolled

and

lhc

lout-

I%mily

.7J.

17 <

.()()I).

(Bradhum.

Family

the 11vc

Hardinch\

Index

Psychological

and Scale\

IYX I: \cc‘ al\,o Tribctte

B

hctwecn

lhc

IYhY)

and Manapcmcnt

the

McCuhhin.

correlation

I’ =

validit!

functioning

the

Family

(McCuhhin.

c‘t al..

IYYO),

Caregiving

in African-American

degree of support parents received from three different sources: extended famiLy rnrmhers (own parents, partner’s parents, brothers and sisters, partner’s brothers and sisters, and other relatives), extrufamilial SOUKPS (neighbors, friends. church members, and co-workers), and instinrt~una/ SOUKCS(baby-sitter/daycare/school, private therapist for child, child/family doctor, early childhood intervention program, health department, and social service department). Mothers and fathers were asked to assess the degree to which they maintained contact with immediate and extended family members, friends, neighbors, and social service agencies for assistance in their role(s) as parents during the previous month. Each item was rated on a Spoint Likert-type scale ranging from (I) not uf u/l to (5) almost e,xery duv

The instrument has been used to evaluate family supdiverse ethnic groups (Roopnarine & port within Ahmeduzraman, 1993). The reliability coefficients for each domain of support were found to be reasonable. The Spearman-Brown for the three domains of support in this study were: family = .67, extrafamilial = IO, and institutional = .63.

RESULTS Gender of Infant Differences A 2 (gender-of-infant) x 2 (gender-of-parent) repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using Wilks’s lambda criterion failed to show a significant MANOVA main effect for gender-of-infant 07 > .05). The MANOVA main effect for gender-of-par-

1

2

3

Families

was significant. Because gender-of-parent differences are presented in the following section, data on this factor are not repeated here. The gender-of-infant x gender-of-parent MANOVA interaction effect was not significant 0, > .05). Thus, the data for families with daughters and families with sons were pooled for all subsequent analysis. ent

Maternal and Paternal Involvement in Caregiving Activities A 2 (gender of parent) x 2 (family work status: mother employed full-time or part-time) MANOVA using Wilks’s lambda criterion performed on mothers’ and fathers’ relative assessments of their degree of involvement in the different activities listed in Figure I revealed a significant MANOVA main effect for gender-of-parent, F(6, 1 17) = 16.58, p = .OOOl, Wilks’s h = .54. There were significant gender-of-parent univariate effects for bedtime routines, F( 1, 122) = 63.65, p = .OOOl; physical care, F( I, 122) = 87.02, p = .OOOl; singing to the infant, F( 1, 122) = 22.25, p = .OOOl; playing with the infant, F( 1, 122) = 8.23, p = .0049; comforting the infant, F( 1, 122) = 43.12, p = .OOOl; and feeding the infant, F( 1, 122) = 42.12, p = .OOOl. In all cases, mothers were

4

5

6

CARFXXVING ACTIVITIES 1 = Bedtime Responsibility, 2 = Physical Care, 3 = Singing to Raby, 4 = Feeding Baby, 5 = Comforting Baby, 6 = Playing with Baby

m

Mothers

0

Fathers Mothers

m

Fathers

full-time, full-time, part-time, full-time,

Fathers

full-time

Mothers

full-time

Fathers Mothers

179

full-time part-time

Figure 1. Mothers’ and Fathers’ Involvement as a Function of Wives’ Employment Status

in CaregivingActivities

180

Hossain

and

significantly more likely to report engaging in these activities than were fathers. The MANOVA main effect for family work status was not significant (p > .OS). However, there was a significant MANOVA gender-ofparent x family work status interaction effect, F(6, 117) = 2.45, ,D = ,029, Wilks’s h = .8Y. There was a significant univariate gender-ofparent x family status interaction effect for feeding the infant, F( I, 122) = 5.35. 11 = ,022. An examination of the cell means revealed that mothers who worked full-time outside of the home were significantly more likely to be involved in feeding the infant than fathers or mothers who worked part-time outside of the home. Time Spent in Caregiving

Activities

A 2 (gender-of-parent) x 2 (family work status: employed full-time or part-time) mother MANOVA using Wilks’s lambda criterion performed on mothers’ and fathers’ estimates 01 the amount of time they spent each day in the three activities listed in Table 1 revealed a significant MANOVA main effect for gender-ofparent. F(3, 120) = 16.45, 17 = .OOOl, Wilks’s h = .7 I. There were significant gender-of-parent univariate effects for time invested in feeding the baby. F( 1. 122) = 3 I. 12, 11 = .OOOl . ant1 cleaning/washing the infant. F( I, 122) = 32.39, 1’ = .OOOl. Mothers were significantly more likely to invest time feeding and washing/cleaning the infant than were fathers, but they did not differ on the amount of time they devoted to playing with the infant. Matched t tests revealed that mothers invested more time in feeding than cleaning the infant, f(62) = 2. I I. 17 = .03. and more time playing with than cleaning the infant. t(62) = 2.96, 17 = ,004. Fathers were far more likely to invest time in playing than in cleaning.

Roopnarine

r(62) = 10.0 1. p = .OOOI, or feeding the baby, f(62) = 5.93, p < .OOl. The MANOVA main effect for family work status was not significant (II > .OS) nor was the gender-of-parent x family work status MANOVA interaction effect (p > .05). Relationship Among Fathers’ Functioning Style, Family Support. Income, Education and Caregiving Activities Because previous research has shown that within African-American families, income, education, commitment to the family. communication patterns within the family, family cohesion, and family support are linked to investment in childcare among older children (Ahmeduzxaman 81 Roopnarine, 1992; Taylor et al., 1990), a regression model was built with these variables as the independent variables and feeding, physical care, play, and comfort as the dependent variables. Given the lack of significant differences in caregiving activities as a function of whether wives worked fulltime or part-time. the data for the two groups of fathers were combined. There were significant overall regression equations for the dependent variables feeding, R2 = .19, F(6, 56) = 2.21. /j = .OS. and comforting, R2 = .26, F(6. 56) = 3.30, 17 = ,007. Fathers’ assessments of their ability to communicate effectively within the family, F( 1, 56) = 9.24.11 = .()I, and their commitment to the family. F( 1. 56) = 5.55, p = .02, were significantly associated with their assessments of their involvement in feeding the infant. Likewise, to communicate effectively. their ability F( I. S6)= 5.6 I, p = .O1. and their commitment to the family, F( I. 56) = 13.17. 11= .0006. were significantly associated with fathers’ assessments of comfort offered to infants.

TABLE1 Mean Number

of Hours per Day Fathers and Mothers they Engaged in Three Activities

Both Mothers and Fathers Employed Full-Time

Estimated

Fother Employed Full-Time, Mother Employed Port-Time

Measures

Mothers

Fathers

Mothers

Fothers

Feeding Cleaning Playing

3.15 2.61 3.13

1.13 0.89 2.19

2.45 2.04 2.92

1.39 0.96 2.80

Caregiving

in African-American

DISCUSSION This study used the cultural ecology model as a guide in that it adopted a noncomparative approach in providing a descriptive analysis of middle-income African-American fathers’ involvement in early caregiving and play. The cultural ecology model strongly emphasizes movement away from a dysfunctional perspective toward a more adaptive-resilient approach in studying ethnic families from different socioeconomic backgrounds (Ogbu, 1988). These results revealed a gender-differentiated pattern of involvement with infants in twoparent African-American families with relative economic stability. Compared with mothers, fathers rated themselves as being less involved in singing to infants, in bedtime routines, the physical care of infants, offering comfort when infants cried, feeding, and in playing with infants. The gender-differentiated pattern of results resemble those found in studies conducted on Canadian (Konstantareas & Homatidis, 1992), Indian (Roopnarine, Lu, & Ahmeduzzaman, 1989), Australian (Russell, 1987), and Irish families (Nugent, 1987) and is consistent with other work on AfricanAmerican families (Ahmeduzzaman & Roopnarine, 1992). Not unlike mothers in other cultures, African-American mothers were the primary caregivers to infants. When we turn to estimates of time invested in caregiving and play, we find that, on average, African-American fathers spent about 42% as much time as mothers did in primary caregiving activities. Mothers were more likely to invest time in feeding and cleaning infants than were fathers. And, although mothers and fathers did not differ in the amount of time they devoted to playing with infants, fathers were more likely to spend time playing than feeding or cleaning their infants. The amount of time fathers spent in primary caregiving activities exceeds that found in a similar sample of African-American families with preschoolchildren (33%; Ahmeduzzaman & aged Roopnarine, 1992) and falls within the range of paternal involvement that may suggest that these fathers assume a reasonable share of within-family primary childcare responsibility (Russell & Radin, 1983). If we view the time estimates in light of what has been found on Euro-American fathers, we find that African-

Families

181

American fathers’ involvement in childcare is quite similar to those of Euro-American fathers. These data cast doubts about the notion that childcare responsibility in AfricanAmerican families is more egalitarian than in Euro-American families. The findings on the amount of time fathers spent in play versus caregiving activities provide further support for the contention that play is a prominent component of father-child interaction and suggest that fathers may be more accessible for play with children than for basic caregiving activities (Lamb, 1987). Interestingly, the preference for more intense caregiving activity such as play was quite evident among the fathers who assumed a reasonable share of childcare responsibility with their wives. Fathers were twice as likely to engage in play as in cleaning or feeding the infant. Fathers’ degree of involvement and time spent in caregiving activities did not differ as a function of whether their wife worked full-time or part-time. These data are contrary to those reported on dual-earner African-American families (e.g., J.A. Ericksen et al., 1979) but are in agreement with the overall position that maternal employment has a negligible impact on involvement; father involvement father increases little regardless of whether the mother is employed full-time or part-time (Lamb, 1987). It appears that African-American families are no exception in this regard. Our data also show that in families in which both parents worked full-time, mothers rated themselves as being more involved in feeding their infants than their husbands were or than parents in families in which the mother worked part-time. Although it is not clear from our data what time of the day the greater investment occurred in these families, other work (e.g., Pedersen, Cain, Zaslow, & Anderson, 1982) on primarily Euro-American samples has reported greater involvement with infants by dual-earner mothers at the end of the day. Perhaps the mothers in full-time dual-earner families in our sample also increased their intensity of involvement with infants during nonworking hours to ensure that their infants’ needs are adequately met and possibly to achieve greater intimacy with the infant. We should caution, however, that given the mother/father differences in basic caregiving, it is difficult to decipher whether the mothers were engaging in

182

Hossain and Roopnarine

“compensatory” behavior or fdthers were simply maintaining some distance from feeding the infant. The lack of gender-of-infant differences are more difficult to interpret in light of studies that have documented the differential treatment of sons and daughters by parents (Lamb, 1977). Explanations regarding the lack of gender-ofinfant differences may reside in cultural, developmental, and methodological issues. These African-American parents may value the equitable treatment of infant sons and daughters in which case the data may point to changes that are occurring in our society with respect to the socialization of young children. Alternatively, gender-differentiated treatment of sons and daughters may become more pronounced as children get older. Finally, in the absence of observational data, this study may not provide an accurate picture of parental treatment of infants and thus could be masking gender-ofinfant differences observed in other ethnic groups. Future observational work on AfricanAmerican families could shed further light on this issue. With respect to the correlational data concerning family functional style, education. income. family support. and different dimensions of carcgiving, two factors appear central to fathers’ involvement in feeding and comforting infants. Fathers’ assessments of their ability to communicate effectively within the family and their commitment to the family were significantly related to their degree of involvement in feeding and comforting their infants. These two factors have been shown to be central to paternal involvement with preschoolers in African-American families (Ahmeduzzaman & Roopnarine. 1992). Not surprisingly, fathers who display a mature attitude toward familial responsibilities are more likely to be involved in primary caregiving. Research data suggest that parents who feel positively about thenselves are better able to communicate effectively with their children (Small, 1988), and parents who display feelings of self-confidence and self-control have good ego strength (Cox, Owen. Lewis, & Henderson, 1989) which may be linked to fathers’ sensitivity to their infants’ needs. Moreover. personal parental characteristics have been identified as important fat involvement in caregiving (Lamb, 1987).

The literature on African-American families suggests that income. education, and family support are all related to parents’ involvement with children (Taylor et al.. 1990). In this study, these variables were not significantly associated with fathers’ involvement in caregiving activities. Perhaps, because the fathers were an educated group and these families were economically stable, these factors would be less likely to influence paternal involvement. As Peters (198X) has argued, as AfricanAmerican families become more upwardly mobile socially and economically, they may adopt lifestyles that are closer to the mainstream middle-class and thus may rely less on family networks for support in parenting. In sum, in the absence of data on AfricanAmerican fathers in general, it is difficult to assess whether the fathers in this sample are more involved in caring for infants than their predecessors. What we do know from this study families and others on African-American 1992: (Ahmeduzzaman & Roopnarine, Cazenave, 1979; Hyde & Tcxidor. 198X) is that African-American fathers with relative economic security are far from being uninvolved or distant from the early caregiving process. Looking at these findings, the fathers in this study appear to be more similar to than different from EuroAmerican fathers of comparable socioeconomic backgrounds as fdr as involvement in caregiving and factors that may be associated with such involvement are concerned. REFERENCES

Allen. L.. & Ma,iidl-Ahi, S. (I%#). Blach American children. In J.T. (iihh\ & L.N. Iluang (Ed\.). (‘/~f/~lwr~ o/ r~~~lr~,-. San Francisco: Jowy-Bu\s. Bel&y, J. ( IWO). Parental and nonparental childcare and children‘5 socioctli(ltional development: ,A decade 111rcviw. .lorrr-furl (It il/l~rwici~~urril t/w Fw~ril~. -52,

xxs-c)o.l. Bclshy.

J.. GllWap. B.. Kc Rovinc. M. (1983). The Pcnn\yl\ania Infant and Family Dcvelopmcnt Pro.ject, I: Stahiltty and change in mother-infant

Caregiving

in African-American

and father-infant interaction in a family setting at one, three, and nine months. Child Development.

Lamb, M.E. (1977). Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first year of life. Child Development, 4X, 167-181.

55,692-705.

Bozett, F.W., & Hanson, S.M.H. (1991). Cultural change and the future of fatherhood and families. In F.W. Bozett & S.M.H. Hanson (Eds.), Fatherhood and families in cultural context. New York: Springer. Bradbum, N.M. (1969). The structure of psyc’hokqical well-being. Chicago:Aldine. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Research perapeclives. Derelopmentol Psyc,holo,cq, 22, 723-142. Cazenave, N.A. (1979). Middle income black fathers: An analysis of the provider role. Family Coordinator. 28,583-593.

Cochran. M.M., & Brassard, J.A. (1979). Child development and personal social networks. Child Development.

Cohen,

T. (1987).

50, 601-616.

Remaking

men. Journcrl

c?f Fami/y

Issues, 8,57-77.

Coverman. S.. & Sheley, J. (1986). Change in men’s housework and child-care time, 1965-1975. Jour-nal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 413422. Cox, M.J., Owen, M.T., Lewis, J.M., & Henderson, V. (1989). Marriage, adult adjustment, and early parenting. Child Dere/opmmt. 60, 1015-1024. Cmic. K.A., Greenberg, M.T., Ragozin, A.S., Robinson. N.M., & Bashman, R.B. (1983). Effects of stress and social support on mothers and premature and full-term infants. Chi/d Development. 52, X57-865. Deal, A., Trivette, C., & Dunst, C. (19X8). Family functioning style scale. In C. Dunst, C. Trivette. & A. Deal (Ed&.), Enuhling and empuu,erin,s,fomi/ies. Principles and ,guidelines for- practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Ericksen, J.A., Yancey, W.L., & Ericksen, E.P. (1979). The division of family roles. Journal qf Marriage und the Fami/y, 41, 301-313.

Erickson, R.J., & Gecas, V. (1991). Social class and fatherhood. In F. Bozett & S. Hanson (Eds.), Fatherhood and fumilips in cultural wntext. New York: Springer. Field, T., Sandberg, M.D., Garcia, R., Vega-Lahr, N., Goldstein, S., & Guy, L. (1985). Pregnancy problems, postpartum depression, and early motherinfant interactions. Developmmtal P.syc~ho/o,c~. 21, 1152-l

156.

Gilbert, L. (1985). Men in dual-cu~ee~fumilies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Harrison, A., Wilson, M., Pine, C.. Ghan, S., & Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Dewlopment. hl, 3477362. Harrison, A.O. (1988). Attitudes toward procreation among Black adults. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), BlacX,families. Beverly Hills: Sage. Hiller, D.V. (1984). Power dependence and division of family work. Se.r Roles, 10, 1003-1019. Hyde, B.L.. & Texidor, MS. (198X). A description of the fathering experience among Black fathers. Journal of B/a&

183

Families

Nurses Association,

2, 67-78.

Konstantareas, M.M., & Homatidis, S. (1992). Mothers’ and fathers’ self-report of involvement with autiatic, mentally delayed, and normal children. .Jownal of Murriugr und the Family. 54, 153-164.

Lamb, M.E. (I 9X7). Introduction: The emergent American fathers. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s w/e: Cw.wcultura/ perspectiws. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. LaRossa, R. (I 988). Fatherhood and social change. Family Relations.

37.451457.

Levine.

R. (1988). Human parental care: Universal goals, cultural strategies. individual behavior. New, Directions for Child Development. 40. 3-l I, Lewis, C. (1986). Early sex-role socialization. In D. Hargreaves & A. Colley (Eds.), The pswholqqy of sex I-o/es. New York: Harper & Row. McAdoo, H.P. (1988). Bkkfamilks. Newbury Park, MA: Sage. McAdoo. J.L. (1979). A study of t’atherxhild interaction patterns and self-esteem in black preschool children. Youn!: Children, 34,4&53. McAdoo, J.L. (1988). Changing perspectives on the roles of the Black father. In P. Bronstein & C.P. Cowan (Eds.), Fatherhood todav: Men’s chan,qin,q role in the fornil?. New York: Wiley. McCubbin, H.I., Comeau. J.K., & Harkins, J.A. (1981). Family inventory of resources for management. In H.I. McCubbin & J. Patterson (Eds.), Systematic, assessment of famil)~ stress. r’esouwe.

and cvpiq.

St. Paul, MN: Family Stress and Coping Project. McCubbin, M.A., McCubbin, H.L., & Thompson, A.I. (1987). Family hardiness index. In H.I. McCubbin & A.I. McCubbin (Eds.), Fami/y u.ue.wment im,rntories forwsearch und pructic.e. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. McGuire, J. (1982). Gender-specific differences in early childhood. In N. Beail, & J. McGuire (Eds.). Fathers: Psycholo,qica/ uspecth. London: Junction Books. McHale, SM., & Huston, T.L. (1984). Men and women as parents: Sex role orientations, employment, and parental roles with Infants. Child Developmutt, SS, 1349-1361.

Menaghan, E.. & Parcel, T. (1990). Parental employment and family life: Research in the 1980s. Journrrl oj Mur-riage und the Furnil?. 52, 1079-109X.

Moen, P. (1982). The two-provider family: Problems and potentials. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), Nont~crditionulf~tfirmilies. Hillsdales, NJ: Erlbaum. Mondell, S., & Tyler, F.B. (1981). Parental competence and styles of problem-solving/play behavior with children. Developmental P.ycho/ogy, 17, 73-78. Nugent, K. (1987). The father’s role in early Irish socialization: Historical and empirical perspectives. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s r-ok: Cross-cultur-ul perspec’twes. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Ogbu, J.U. (1985). A cultural ecology of competence among inner city blacks. In M.B. Spencer, G.K. Brookins, & W.R. Allen (Eds.), Re,c$nnin,ss: The .soc~iu/ and offeuc,tive development

of Bluc~h c,hi/dwn.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ogbu. J.U. (1988). Cultural diversity and human development. NeM, Direc,tions ,for Child De\,elopment, 42, I l-28. Pedersen, F., Cain, R., Zaslow, M., 6t Anderson, B. (1982). Variation in infant experience associated with alter-

184

Hossain and Roopnarine

native family role organi/.ation. In L. Laosa & I. Sigel (Ed5.1. Fonzilr’czsOS lecuxing ~~n~+~ounu~nf f(o). <~hi/t//x~~~. New York: Plenum. Pctcra, M. (1988). Parenting m black famillc\ with young children: A historical perspective. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Bloc%furni//c~s. Ncwhury Park, MA: Sage. Pleck, J. (1983). Huhbanda’ plcid work ~lnd family roles: Current research issues. In H. Lopata & J. Pleck (Eds.). Ke.\rux~h ;/I r/u, ir,te,~r.cm,e of soc~itrlI.o/L’\. fur,,ilirs crnd jobs: A rc~.scu~c~ilcrnr1uuI 1’01 .i. London: JAI Press.

Plcck, J., Lamb, M.E., & Levine. R. (19X6). Epilogue: Facilitating future change in men’\ family roles. Mm’., c~hotl,qin,~ role.\ it1 r//c, ,fumilv. Mamrgc, trml Fumilv Rrr?c~,. Y, I I ~ I 6. Roopnurinc. -J.. Kr Ahmedurzam;m, M. ClYY3). Puerto Rican lathers’ involvement with their preschool-;lgc children. IIivlx~t~ic~.lolr~rral of‘Re/~a~~io~crlSc,ir~~(,c,.\. /S,96-107. Roopnarlne, J., & Carter, B. (1992). The cultural context 0t xxialization: A much ignored issue! In J. Roopnarine & B. Carter (Eds.). Furxil~ soc?u/rz~r~ fiofz iu disuse c~u/ture.s.Norwood. NJ: Ahlex. Roopnarine, J., Lu, M.W., & Ahmeduuaman. M. (IYXY). Parental reports of early patterns of caregiving. play and discipline in India and Malaysia. &crr./y C/ii/c/ L)e,?lopmcnt crntl c‘CI,~C~, 50, IOY- I20. Roy;\, C.E. (19X7). The divlalon of labor at home. Soc,icr( Fo,-~?.\. 65, X 16-833. Ruhin. Z., Provenzano. F.J., & Luria, Z. (1974). The eye ot the b&older: Parer&s “ICU’ on sex of newborn. Americcrn Jowtwl of’Oi-tllo/~s~r~llicrrrv. 44, S 12-S 19. Russell, G. (19X7). Fatherhood in Australia. In M.E. Lumb (Ed.), T/r<, ~ufirthr~‘,s,_o/~,: CI.O.F.\-(.II/IIII.LI/ ,x’,.v,u’<‘tf~‘~.\. Hill\dale. NJ: Erlhaum.

Rusell,

G., (19X2). Shared-careglving fu~ilie\: A” Australian study. In Lnmb M.E. (Ed.). N~J/Il,.trditi~,/frr/f~rn!i~ic~.\P~rrcvlri,l<~ trrrdC~hi/d &l?/opm’nt.Hillsdale. NJ: Erlhaum. Russell, G., & R&in, N. (10X3). Increased parental pnrticipation: The fathers‘ perspective. In M.E. Llmlh Kr A. Sxgi (Ed\. ), Futhcr~hood omel ,fmri!,~ polic I’. llillsdalc. NJ: Erlbaum. San~son. I., Sarason. B.. & Shcnrin. h. (1986). Social
Revised 19 February

1993

n