See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238345410

Paternal Involvement and Infant-Father Attachment: A Q-Set Study

Article  in  Fathering A Journal of Theory Research and Practice about Men as Fathers · June 2004
DOI: 10.3149/fth.0202.191

CITATIONS READS
53 524

1 author:

Yvonne Caldera
Texas Tech University
35 PUBLICATIONS   1,466 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yvonne Caldera on 21 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Paternal Involvement and Infant-Father
Attachment: A Q-Set Study
YVONNE M. CALDERA
Texas Tech University

The primary purpose of this report was to investigate the corre-

lates of attachment security with fathers and the concordance of
mother-infant and father-infant attachment as measured by the
Attachment Q-set (AQS, Waters, 1987). Sixty fathers and mothers
of 14-month old infants independently described their child using
the 90-item AQS and completed questionnaires about their
involvement in and attitudes toward child-rearing and self-esteem.
Mother-child interactions were observed in a play situation.
Fathers reporting greater engagement in child caretaking activities
described their children as more securely attached. Significant
concordance between parents’ AQS was obtained; however, this
concordance was not due to generalization of interaction patterns
across parents. That is, observed maternal sensitivity predicted
maternal but not paternal security scores from the AQS.

Keywords: father-infant attachment, Attachment Q-Set, father

involvement, mother-father attachment concordance

In the theoretical writing that constituted the major impetus for studying attach-
ment, Bowlby (1969) proposed that infants construct attachment relationships with
many of the salient persons in their lives, especially their parents. Nevertheless,

This research was supported by a Program Project Grant to the University of Kansas and a National Insti-
tute of Health Traineeship to the author. The author is grateful to the families who participated in this
study.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Yvonne M. Caldera, Department of Human
Development and Family Studies, Box 41162, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409. Electronic
mail: Yvonne.Caldera@ttu.edu.

Fathering, Vol. 2, No. 2, Spring 2004, 191-210.

© 2004 by the Men’s Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved.

191
CALDERA

because mothers are typically children’s primary caregivers, and because fathers
have proven to be difficult to recruit and maintain as subjects in parent-infant
research programs, research effort has concentrated on the mother-infant relation-
ship. Although great strides have been made in our knowledge base regarding the
father-child relationship (see Lamb, 1997; Tamis-LeMonda & Cabrera, 2002) the
database of empirical findings regarding infants’ attachments with mothers is far
richer than the analogous base of empirical findings for infants’ attachments with
fathers.
This absence of research on infant-father attachment is particularly intriguing
given the likelihood that mothers and fathers play markedly different roles in the
lives of infants. Fathers engage in greater active social play (proportion of their total
interaction time) with and less caregiving (both absolute amount and as a relative
proportion of interaction time) of infants than do mothers; mothers perform more
caretaking tasks and are more nurturing and accessible to their infants than are
fathers (Clarke-Stewart, 1978; Crawley & Sherrod, 1984; Frascarolo-Moutinot,
1994; Lamb, 1977a; Parke, 1979). When involved in caretaking, fathers tend to be
less engaged and reinforcing (Lamb & Oppenheim, 1989) and less sensitive to infant
cues than are mothers (Donate-Bartfield & Passman, 1985; Heermann, Jones, &
Wikoff, 1994). These differences between parental-interaction profiles notwith-
standing, most attachment researchers endorse the notion that infants construct
attachment relationships with both parents between the ages of eight and 18 months
(Kotelchuck, 1972, 1976; Lamb, 1977b, 1997, 2002; Lamb, Frodi, Hwang, & Frodi,
1983; Main & Weston, 1981; Schaffer & Emerson, 1964).
Whether fathers might serve as attachment figures at all was the central ques-
tion addressed in the earliest research reports on father-infant relationships (e.g.,
Kotelchuck, 1976; Pedersen & Robson, 1969; Schaffer & Emerson, 1964). These
early studies established that infants direct attachment behavior to fathers and gener-
ally prefer fathers to strangers in times of stress. Results reported by Pedersen and
Robson (1969) and by Chibucos and Kail (1981) indicated that the intensity of the
infant’s attachment behavior varied as a function of qualities of the father’s interac-
tion style, as is true in analyses of relations between mother-infant interaction qual-
ity and infant attachment behavior (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978;
Belsky, Rovine, & Taylor, 1984; Smith & Pederson, 1988). However, the intensity
of attachment behavior directed to fathers and the emergence of these behaviors in
developmental time suggested that fathers might not be first (or primary) attachment
figures for most infants (e.g., Lamb, 1977b; Spelke, Zelazo, Kagan, & Kotelchuck,
1973).
The second ripple of father-infant attachment studies considered the possibility
that attachment patterns across parents would show concordance (e.g., Beslky, Gar-
duque, & Hrncir, 1984; Chase-Lansdale & Owen, 1987; Grossmann, Grossmann,
Huber, & Wartner, 1981; Lamb, Hwang, Frodi, & Frodi, 1982; Lamb, 1978; Main &
Weston, 1981). The results of these early studies and others since then (e.g., Rosen
& Rothbaum, 1993; Steele, Steele, & Fonagy, 1996) suggested that attachment secu-
rity assessed in the Ainsworth Strange Situation (Ainwsorth et al., 1978) might have
low to moderate degrees of concordance between parents of a given infant. These
findings are of some conceptual importance for attachment theory because there is

192
 PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT

considerable evidence to the effect that mother-infant attachment quality is an

important determinant of later modes of adaptation with other persons (e.g., Kavesh,
1991; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Pastor, 1981; Sroufe, 1983; Suess, Gross-
mann, & Sroufe, 1992). If attachment with the mother occurs earlier and is the pri-
mary attachment for most infants, it is curious that the quality of attachment with the
mother would show little significant relation to the quality of attachment with father
(Fox, Kimmerly, & Schafer’s [1991] and later Van Ijzendoorn & De Wolff’s [1997]
meta-analyses of these studies, notwithstanding). Presently, the explanation for the
failure to find high concordance between parents for attachment quality is that rela-
tionships are co-constructions of a parent-infant dyad that are linked to the unique
interaction patterns characteristic of the dyad and to the parent’s own history of
attachment relationships (e.g., Main & Goldwyn, in press).
The finding that concordance of attachment between parents was low sparked
interest in the antecedents to attachment for fathers and infants. The most widely
studied antecedent of father-infant attachment investigated in the literature is father
involvement. Paternal involvement is now understood as a multidimensional con-
struct. Lamb et al. (1985, 1986) have proposed three primary components of father
involvement with children. One type of involvement refers to the quantity of time in
absolute or relative terms that fathers spend with their children or are available to
them if the children so desire or need. Lamb has labeled this dimension as the acces-
sibility component of father involvement. A second dimension, labeled engagement,
refers to the time, nature, and quality of father-child interaction. This dimension
includes the actual time spent interacting or engaging with their children (the quanti-
tative component of engagement) in either caretaking activities, playing, having fun,
etc., and the quality of these interactions (the qualitative component). Finally, the
third dimension is labeled responsibility and refers to the extent that fathers are in
charge of their children including making decisions about childcare and other impor-
tant aspects of the child’s life. These dimensions of father involvement are different
enough that studies investigating correlates of father involvement have found differ-
ent correlates for each of the three dimensions of father involvement (Barnett &
Baruch, 1987; Lamb, 1997; Volling & Belsky, 1991). Investigations of the different
dimensions of father involvement as antecedents of attachment security, as mea-
sured by the Strange Situation, have yielded inconclusive findings. Studies have
shown a minimal relation between father accessibility and infant-father attachment
(Lamb, 1987; 1997; Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, & Levine, 1985). In terms of the quali-
tative component of engagement, initial research efforts have focused on aspects of
father-infant interaction that are analogous to those aspects of mother-infant interac-
tion associated with the quality of infant-mother attachment assessed in the Strange
Situation (e.g., Braungart-Rieker, Courtney, & Garwood, 1999; Caldera, Huston, &
O’Brien , 1995; Cox, Owen, Henderson, & Margand, 1992; Grossmann, Grossmann,
Fremmer-Bombik, Kindler, Scheuerer-Englisch, & Zimmermann, 2002; Notaro &
Volling, 1999; Volling & Belsky, 1991). In general, the findings of these studies
show inconsistent results. For example, in a longitudinal sample of fathers, mothers,
and their three-month-old infants, Cox et al. (1992) found that the composite pater-
nal positive interaction in play (a composite of sensitivity, positive affect, anima-
tion, attitude toward play, activity, encouragement of achievement, amount of vocal-

193
CALDERA

izing to the child, and amount of reciprocal play) when infants were three months
old predicted attachment security to father at 12 months. The quantitative compo-
nent of engagement, however, yielded a negative association to attachment security.
Fathers who spent more time with their infants were less likely to enjoy secure
attachment relationships with them. It is of interest to note that these same compos-
ite variables were not significantly correlated with the quality of infant-mother
attachment in this study.
Volling and Belsky (1991) conducted another longitudinal study of fathers,
mothers, and their three-month-old infants. Infants and fathers were observed in
interaction at three and nine months, and the father’s behavior was coded for respon-
sivity, stimulation, caregiving, and affection. None of these qualitative measures of
fathering was significantly associated with infant-father security as measured by the
Strange Situation.
A final factor considered in studies of antecedents of father-infant attachment is
paternal characteristics. In the Cox et al. (1992) study, attitudes toward the infant
and the parental role when infants were three months old predicted attachment secu-
rity to father at 12 months. Psychological factors such as depression and self-esteem
also have been investigated as predictors of attachment security in the literature on
mothers (e.g., National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early
Child Care Research Network, NICHD ECCR, 1999). The role of these factors in
the development of the father-infant relationship has received much less attention. In
two studies, fathers with mild depression interacted with their infants less than non-
depressed fathers (Field, Hossain, & Malphurs, 1999; Zaslow, Pederson, Cain,
Suwalsky, & Kramer, 1985).
The failure to find significant predictive associations between fathers’ behavior,
attitudes toward child-rearing, psychological characteristics, and infant-father
attachment classifications prompted Volling and Belsky (1991) to speculate that the
Strange Situation may not be an appropriate tool for evaluating the quality of attach-
ment relationships between infants and fathers.
Given that the interactions between fathers and infants differ from those of
mothers and infants in terms of frequency and distribution across domains of inter-
action (e.g., bodily maintenance, play, affection, etc.), it is possible that the transac-
tions producing secure attachment to fathers are different from those that lead to
secure infant-mother attachment. Furthermore, if we accept (at least provisionally)
Volling and Belsky’s (1991) speculation concerning the validity of Strange Situation
classifications for infants and fathers, then it is important that new studies approach
the problem of father-infant attachment from different measurement perspectives
than has been true in past studies. Consequently, the primary purpose of this report
is to investigate the correlates of the attachment relationship between infants and
their fathers and to investigate the concordance of mother-infant and father-infant
attachment measured by the Attachment Q-set (AQS) (Waters & Deane, 1985;
Waters, 1987).
To date, DelCarmen-Wiggins, Huffman, Pedersen, & Bryan’s (2000) and
Lundy’s (2002) studies are the only two other investigations of attachment security
with father using the AQS. In Del Carmen-Wiggins et al.’s (2000) study, mothers
and fathers completed sorts on their children at three years of age. The authors found

194
 PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT

a moderate degree of concordance between the sorts of mothers and fathers. In addi-
tion, they found that the antecedents investigated, parental affective symptoms and
marital quality, were better predictors of father-child than of mother-child attach-
ment security. Lundy’s study, however, did not include mothers.
The first purpose of this study was to investigate the relations between paternal
psychological characteristics (i.e., self-esteem); child-rearing attitudes; the father’s
accessibility, engagement, and responsibility; and Q-sort descriptions of the infant’s
attachment behavior with the father. It was anticipated that father Q-sort descriptions
of attachment would be related to levels of personality functioning (i.e., more opti-
mal self-esteem) and to levels of involvement with child-rearing and socialization.
Similar measures assessing psychological characteristics were available for the
mother to allow a determination of cross-parent influences on Q-sort descriptions. In
addition, mothers and infants were observed in a structured interaction and maternal
behavior was scored for sensitivity.
A second purpose of this report was to evaluate the degree of congruence in the
Q-sort security scores for mothers and fathers. Although studies using the Strange
Situation to assess attachment quality have provided equivocal results regarding
concordance of attachment across parents, Fox et al. (1991) suggested that many of
these studies suffer from problems associated with power (i.e., small samples) and
problems of measurement. That is, the Strange Situation does not easily lend itself to
a continuous measure of attachment security. The AQS may help address this prob-
lem because it does provide a continuous index of attachment security (e.g., Vaughn
& Waters, 1990; Waters & Deane, 1985). In addition, the assessments of mother-
infant interaction can help establish the validity of Q-sort descriptions and derived
attachment security scores for mothers and fathers. To the extent that mothers’ inter-
action variables are related to their own descriptions of their infant’s attachment
behavior and attachment security, they support current interpretations of the
processes leading to attachment security for infants and mothers. However, if mater-
nal interaction qualities also are predictive of fathers’ descriptions of child attach-
ment behaviors, we might interpret the father Q-sort descriptions (and by implica-
tion the father-infant relationship) as derivative of the mother-infant relationship.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Families with a 14-month-old toddler were recruited from birth records in a mid-
sized Midwestern city. Families included in the study were involved in a longitudi-
nal study of infant childcare (32 of these families were also involved in a language
study). A total of 60 mothers and fathers participated. There were equal numbers of
girls and boys. Twenty-six of the infants were first-born, 24 were second-born, and
the rest had three or more older siblings. Twenty infants were in childcare full-time,
20 in part-time care, and 20 were at home full-time with mother. Ninety percent of
the families were non-Hispanic White. The ages of the mothers ranged from 21 to
41 years with a mean of 30; fathers’ ages ranged from 24 to 42 years with a mean of
32 years. Mothers’ and fathers’ education ranged from a high school diploma to

195
CALDERA

postgraduate degrees with a mean of four years of post high school education for
both parents. The participants were not necessarily students at the university. Occu-
pation was not obtained.

PROCEDURES

One week prior to a visit to their homes, parents were mailed a package of question-
naires including a background history survey, the Clinical Measurement Package,
and the Child Rearing Practices Report. Parents were asked to fill out the question-
naires on their own time but to have them ready a week later when the home visit
took place.
The home visit began with videotaping the mother and infant while the father
completed a Father Care-Taking Questionnaire. Next, the visitor videotaped moth-
ers and their toddlers for 15 minutes while playing with a variety of toys provided.
Finally, mothers and fathers were given instructions on how to complete the AQS.
Once parents felt comfortable with the procedure, they were each asked to complete
independently the initial sort of the revised Waters (1987) Attachment Q-Sort while
the investigator was still present. Parents were encouraged to ask questions about the
items and the procedures.

MEASURES

Attachment. Each parent completed the 90-item AQS by Waters (1987). During the
home visit, mothers and fathers were carefully instructed on how to conduct the sort
following the procedures described by Waters (1987). The AQS consists of 90 cards,
each describing an attachment-related child behavior. The first step involved con-
ducting an initial sort separating the cards into three piles according to how similar
each item was to the target child. One pile of cards had statements that were similar
to the target child (A), another pile included items neither similar nor dissimilar or
not applicable (B), and a third pile consisted of items that were dissimilar (C). Each
parent completed this initial sort on the day of the home visit in order to insure that
all parents were equally exposed to all the items prior to the final sort. The cards and
written procedures were then left with the parents who were instructed to try to keep
the items in mind for one week while observing their child. After a week, parents
were asked to complete the final sort by sorting all 90 cards into nine piles of 10
cards each. That is, piles A, B, and C were further divided into three piles each to
arrive at nine final piles. The A pile was subdivided into a pile that contained cards
that were “most like my child” (pile 9), “like my child” (pile 8), and “somewhat like
my child” (pile 7). The B pile was subdivided into “more like than unlike my child”
(pile 6), “neither like nor like my child” (pile 5), and “more unlike than like my
child” (pile 4). The C pile was subdivided into “very much unlike my child” (pile 1),
“unlike my child” (pile 2), and “somewhat unlike my child” (pile 3). The final nine
piles had to contain 10 cards in each. At the end of the week, the interviewer picked
up the sorted cards from the parents.
Security scores were computed by correlating the parents’ sorts with the crite-
rion sort for security following the procedures recommended by Water and Deane

196
 PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT

(1985). The resulting correlation was the security score for that child. Note that four
fathers did not complete the Q-sort (see Table 1 for means).

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Measures of Fathers and Mothers

Variable Fathers* Mothers

Mean SD Mean SD

Attachment Security .29 .20 .34 .19

Self-Esteem 77.22 14.08 73.77 12.58
Nurturing 46.24 5.11 47.64 3.24
Restrictive 30.40 7.09 28.78 6.21
Sensitivity - - 3.72 .79

* N = 56

Child-rearing attitudes. The revised Block (1965) Child Rearing Practices Report
(CRPR; Rickel & Biasatti, 1982) was administered to both mothers and fathers.
Rickel and Biasatti condensed the CRPR in order to make it less time-consuming to
administer and “to derive a more general and meaningful scoring strategy based on a
smaller number of factors” (p. 130) than the original. This revised questionnaire
includes 40 items measured on a six-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from
1 = not at all descriptive of me to 6 = highly descriptive of me. The revised CRPR
includes two dimensions. Nurturing represents believing in flexible child-rearing
practices and attitudes. Examples include statements such as: “I joke and play with
my child”; “I trust my child will behave as he should even when I am not there”; “I
find some of my greatest satisfactions in my child.” Restrictive represents a child-
rearing style that is control-oriented. Examples include: “I believe that scolding and
criticisms make a child improve”; “I believe that a child should be seen and not
heard”; “I instruct my child not to get dirty when he is playing.” The factor scores
were obtained by selecting each of the items that corresponded to each factor, and
multiplying the item’s score by the factor loading provided by Rickel and Biasatti.
The weighted items were then summed to arrive at the total score for each of the two
dimensions (see Table 1 for means). Chronbach’s alpha was .70 for nurturing and
.81 for restrictive.

Self-esteem. Both parents were given the Clinical Measurement Package: A Field
Manual (Hudson, 1982) to ascertain parental self-esteem. The scale consists of 25
items designed to measure how a person feels about him- or herself. Subjects are
asked to rate on a five-point Likert-type scale from rarely or never to most or all of
the time how often each item applies to them. After reversing appropriate items a
total score was calculated so that a high score indicated high self-esteem (see Table
1 for means). Chronbach’s alpha was .92.

197
CALDERA

Father’s involvement. Fathers were asked to fill out the Father Care-Taking Question-
naire, which was developed for this study to assess the extent of fathers’ accessibility
and engagement with the child on a daily basis (see Table 2 for items and correspond-
ing means). For accessibility fathers were asked to state how many hours per week
(weekdays and weekends) they are home when the child is home and awake. For
engagement, fathers were asked to state the numbers of hours they spend playing and
reading during weekdays and weekends as well as how many times per week (week-
days and weekends) they perform specific caregiving activities such as bathing,
changing diapers, etc. (see Table 3). The questionnaire also asked fathers about the
distribution of responsibility in socializing the target child. That is, fathers were asked
to state who is primarily responsible for various tasks, such as choosing a pediatrician
and teaching the child social skills. Possible responses included mother, father, or
both. See Table 4 for distribution of responsibilities. Note that not all items were com-
pleted by the 60 subjects. This is because some of the items were not applicable to all
families, and fathers left those items blank. For example, not all families had begun
teaching manners to their child; thus only 40 fathers responded to this question.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Number of Hours per Week Father is Accessible
and Engaged in Play/Reading

Variable Mean SD

Accessibility: Number of hours Father is

at home weekdays 18.62 8.23
at home weekends 19.73 7.73

Engagement in play/reading: Number of hours Father is engaged in

playing weekdays 7.88 5.00
playing weekends 7.92 4.75
reading weekdays 1.13 1.27
reading weekends .93 1.19

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Number of Times per Week Father is Engaged
in Caregiving with the Child

Variable Mean SD

dresses child 4.13 3.02

feeds child 5.17 3.80
changes diapers 9.58 6.51
puts child to bed 3.50 2.49
bathes child 1.90 1.76

198
 PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT

Table 4
Number of Families in Which Mother, Father, or Both Are Involved in the Socializa-
tion of the Child

Mothers Fathers Both

Shared responsibility

Teaching the child:

to relate to others 17 1 40
manners 13 1 26
to self feed 33 0 26

Which parent chooses:

childcare for the child 11 0 26
the baby-sitters 12 1 47
the pediatrician 17 2 41
the child’s diet 43 1 16
clothes for the child 46 1 11
toys for the child 15 4 40

Mother-child interaction. Mother-child pairs were videotaped at their home during a

series of structured tasks designed to measure compliance. Mothers were instructed
to have the child complete the following tasks: (1) put seven cubes in a cup for one
minute; (2) stack five wooden blocks for 30 seconds; (3) complete a puzzle for two
minutes; (4) listen to mother read a book for 3 minutes. Mothers were told to try to
get the child to perform each task repeatedly for the specified duration of time (e.g.,
if the child put all seven cubes in the cup before the minute was up, the mother was
instructed to dump the cubes out and repeat the task). The same order of presenta-
tion was used for each subject.

Maternal ratings. The mother’s behavior during the compliance tasks in the larger
study was rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (with 1 = never to 5 = always) for
various behaviors. For this report, only sensitivity is of concern. Sensitivity referred
to how appropriate for the age of the child were her commands and how responsive
she was to her child’s behavior. Examples of sensitive behaviors included following
the child’s lead with the toys, responding when the child vocalized, and understand-
ing the child’s behavior if the child appeared uninterested in toys. Each toy was
coded separately and then collapsed to arrive at one score per mother (see Table 1
for means).
The author coded all subjects. A coder who was unfamiliar with the hypothesis
of the study coded 25% of the sample for reliability. Reliability was calculated by
computing Pearson correlations between the scores of the two coders. The correla-
tion between raters for sensitivity was r = 91, p <.001.

199
CALDERA

RESULTS

PRELIMINARY ANALYSES

Preliminary analyses tested associations between the infants’ gender, demographic

characteristics, and attachment security. None of these analyses yielded significant
results; therefore, the demographic variables and gender were not included in further
analyses.
Four composite scores were created from the Father Care-Taking Question-
naire: (1) engagement in care included the number of times the father dressed, fed,
bathed changed, and put to bed the child per week (summed weekdays and week-
ends) (M = 24.28, SD = 12.61); (2) engagement in play/read was the number of
hours the father spent reading and playing with the child during a week (summed
weekdays and weekends) (M = 17.87, SD = 9.26); (3) accessibility was the number
of hours per week (seven days) that the father was home when the child was awake
(M = 38.35, SD = 12.12); and (4) shared responsibility was a tally of tasks for which
both parents were equally responsible in socializing the child (M = 5.87; SD = 1.57).
The engagement variable was divided into play/read and caretaking because each
might correlate differently with attachment. The shared responsibility variable was
chosen rather than paternal responsibility because so few fathers indicated being pri-
marily responsible for any of the given decisions. The variable was obtained by
totaling the number of socializing items for which fathers said both parents were
equally responsible.
Finally, correlations were conducted between the predictor variables for fathers
(Table 5) and mothers (Table 6) separately in order to guide subsequent analyses. The
restrictive and nurturing dimensions were significantly correlated for fathers. There-
fore, two separate regression analyses were conducted, each including only one of the
child-rearing attitudes. These variables were not significantly correlated for mothers.

PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS

AS PREDICTORS OF SECURITY OF ATTACHMENT TO FATHER

The four composite variables, engagement in play, engagement in caretaking, acces-

sibility, and shared responsibility, as well as the nurturing attitudes about child-rear-
ing and self-esteem were submitted to a multiple regression analysis with security
with father as the dependent variable. A stepwise multiple regression procedure was
used since there was no theoretical reason to give any of the variables priority. The
final equation was significant. Engagement in caregiving entered first as a signifi-
cant predictor of attachment security, F (1,55) = 5.10, p < .05, and accounted for 9%
of the variance. Fathers who engaged in more feeding, dressing, and diaper-chang-
ing had children who scored higher on security of attachment, b = .30, p < .05.
Engagement in play/reading, accessibility, shared responsibility, and nurturing
child-rearing attitudes were not significantly related to security of attachment to
father in the regression analyses or individually in the correlations. Another regres-
sion including restrictive attitudes was conducted yielding almost identical results.
This latter regression is not discussed further.

200
 PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT

Table 5
Intercorrelations of Paternal Variables

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Father Security .17 .13 .04 .29** -.07 .12 -.07

2. Father Self-Esteem -.10 -.22 .01 -.02 .16 -.12

3. Father Accessibility .54*** .08 .14 .29* .25
4. Father Engagement
in Playing/Reading .24 .05 .29* .05
5. Father Engagement
in caregiving -.01 -.02 -.53
6. Shared Responsibility .05 -.05
7. Nurturing Father .29*
8. Restrictive Father

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

Table 6
Intercorrelations of Maternal Variables

Variable 2 3 4 5

1. Maternal Security .33** -.08 -.20 .40***

2. Maternal Self-esteem .18 -.04 .04
3. Nurturing Mother .08 -.13
4. Restrictive Mother -.00
5. Maternal Sensitivity
** p < .01. *** p <.001.

To further explore which Q-set items were responsible for the relation between
engagement of fathers and security, a post hoc analysis of the items was conducted.
The correlations between each of the 90 items of the Q-set and the fathers’ fre-
quency of caretaking tasks were investigated. Correlation coefficients appear in
Table 7. Fathers who provided care for their children reported having children who
laugh and smile easily with many people (item 7), talk to new people if father asks
(15), do not lose interest in new adults who annoy child (17), laugh when father
teases (27), do not easily become angry with toys (30), want to be the center of
father’s attention (31), stop misbehaving when told “no” by father (32), try new
activities before going to father first (36), are not demanding and impatient with
father (38), obey when father asks child to bring something (41), put arms around

201
CALDERA

father or put hands on his shoulder when picked up (53), do not expect father to be
interfering with activities when father is simply trying to help (54), go for help
before trying something on (63), do not want father’s attention for themselves (64),
do not want visitors to pay a lot of attention to them (67), do not have cuddly toys or
security blankets (73), do not easily become angry with father (79), and do not cry to
get what they want from father(81). Thirteen of these items are heavily weighted
security items. That is, the distribution of the “ideally” secure child has items 15, 32,
36, 41, 53, and 64 in the three highest piles (7, 8, 9) and items 30, 31, 38, 54, 63, 79,
and 81 in the three lowest piles (1, 2, 3).

PARENTAL DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND SECURITY

OF ATTACHMENT TO FATHER AND MOTHER

To test whether sharing responsibility for the socialization of the child was related to
security of attachment with that parent, these variables were submitted to t-tests with

Table 7
Significant Correlations Between Q-Set Items and Paternal Engagement
in Caregiving

Item r

7. Child laughs and smiles easily with many people. .34**

15. Child will talk to new persons if father asks. .30**
17. Child looses interest in new adults who annoy child. -.36**
27. Child laughs when father teases. .30*
30. Child easily becomes angry with toys. -.32*
31. Child wants to be the center of father’s attention. -.27*
32. Child stops misbehaving when told “no” by father. .28*
36. Child tries new activities without going to father first. .29*
38. Child is demanding and impatient with father,
fusses and persists unless he does what child wants. -.41***
41. If father says to bring something, child obeys. .43***
53. Child puts arms around father or puts hand .
on his shoulder when picked up. .29**
54. Child expects father to be interfering with activities.
when he is simply trying to help. -.33**
63. Child goes for help before trying something on. -.30**
64. Child wants father’s attention for him/herself. -.27*
67. Child wants visitors to pay a lot of attention. -.25*
73. Child has cuddly toy or security blanket. -.37**
79. Child easily becomes angry at father. -.40**
81. Child cries to get what she/he wants from father. -.26*
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

202
 PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT

security as the dependent measure. Because so few fathers reported being the pri-
mary teacher or decision-maker, fathers responding with this option were deleted
from the analysis. A total of 11 cases were deleted. For each item, the attachment
scores of children whose mothers were the teacher or decision-maker were com-
pared to those for whom both parents were teacher or decision maker using two-
tailed t tests. None of the tests yielded significant results (see Table 8).

Table 8
Mean Security Scores with Fathers and Mothers of Families in Which Mother
or Both Parents Are Involved in the Socialization of the Child

Security to Father Security to Mother

Which Parent Mothers Both Mothers Both

Teaching the child…

to relate to others .22 (.18) .33 (.20) .29 (.20) .36 (.19)
manners .24 (.22) .31 (.19) .35 (.18) .34 (.20)
to self feed .31 (.22) .29 (.15) .33 (.21) .36 (.18)

Which parent chooses:

childcare .38 (.13) .28 (.21) .41 (.16) .33 (.19)
the baby-sitters .31 (.21) .29 (.20) .36 (.14) .34 (.21)
the pediatrician .31 (.18) .30 (.21) .35 (.17) .34 (.21)
the child’s diet .29 (.21) .30 (.18) .32 (.22) .42 (.10)
clothes for the child .29 (.20) .29 (.18) .32 (.20) .43 (.15)
toys for the child .23 (.17) .31 (.21) .32 (.17) .36 (.20)

MATERNAL ATTRIBUTES AS PREDICTORS OF SECURITY

OF ATTACHMENT TO FATHER AND MOTHER

To test the prediction of attachment theory that maternal sensitivity predicts security
of attachment, this variable and maternal self-esteem, nurturing and restrictive child-
rearing attitudes, and the shared responsibility variables were entered into a stepwise
multiple regression analysis with attachment as the dependent variable. Maternal
sensitivity was a significant predictor of attachment security with mother F(1,58) =
10.35, p < .01, accounting for 15% of the variance. The more sensitive the mothers’
behavior was rated, b = .30, p < .01, the higher the security score of their children.
Self-esteem entered as a significant predictor in the second step, F Change (1, 57) =
7.28, p < .01, and accounted for 10% of the variance. The higher that mothers rated
themselves on self-esteem, b = .38, p < .01, the higher the security scores of their
children. None of the other variables entered into the equation.
As a final test of the validity of the Q-set, maternal sensitivity and self-esteem
were submitted to a multiple regression analysis with attachment security to father

203
CALDERA

as the dependent variable. The equation was significant, F(1,58) = 4.81, p < .05.
Maternal self-esteem accounted for 8% of the variance. Children whose fathers
reported having a secure attachment relationship with father had mothers with
higher self esteem (b = .28, p < .05). Maternal sensitivity was not related to attach-
ment security to father.

CONCORDANCE OF FATHER-INFANT AND MOTHER-INFANT ATTACHMENT

Attachment security to father was significantly correlated with attachment security

to mother (r = .48, p < .001). Children who were reported to have secure attachment
with fathers also scored higher on security of attachment with mothers.

DISCUSSION

This study investigated correlates of infant-father attachment and the convergence of

infant-parent attachment as measured by the Attachment Q-set. The findings lend
support to the continued investigation of infant-father attachment, to the theoretical
implications of attachment theory, and to the validity of the AQS. As could be pre-
dicted from the theory, paternal involvement as measured by engagement in caregiv-
ing activities was significantly and positively related to attachment security with
fathers. Fathers who provided regular care to their children had children whose secu-
rity scores were higher than children whose fathers were less involved. Although the
data on fathers that yielded significant results was obtained by self-report, the find-
ings are consistent with the implications of the theory. At the very least, it can be
stated that fathers who characterized themselves as playing an active role in the
caretaking of their infant also described their relationship with their infant as posi-
tive and secure.
Examination of the relations between the Q-set items and fathers’ caregiving
involvement provide further insight into the important features of the infant-father
relationship and, in particular, those relationship variables that lead to attachment
security. Q-set items with significant associations to father’s engagement in caregiv-
ing suggest a relationship characterized by sociability with others, independence,
obedience, and warmth on the part of the child. The direction of the relations indi-
cates that fathers who are involved in the caregiving of their infants describe their
infants as more likely to engage socially with others, play independently with toys,
be compliant with the father, and enjoy a warm relationship with the father. These
findings are consistent with previous research linking paternal engagement and child
outcomes (for complete reviews see Palkovitz, 2002; Pleck, 1997). Specifically,
studies have found that children of engaged fathers are more competent in interac-
tion with others (e.g., Amato, 1987; Mosley & Thompson, 1995), exhibit higher lev-
els of self-control (e.g., Amato, 1987), are more able to carry out responsibilities and
follow parents’ directions (e.g., Mosley & Thompson, 1995), and are generally bet-
ter adjusted (e.g., McKeown, Ferguson, & Rodney, 1998). These findings also war-
rant further exploration of the dependence/independence dimension (Waters &
Deane, 1985) in relation to fathers. Specifically, the dependence/independence
dimension refers to the correlation between a given child’s Q-sort description and

204
 PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT

the Q-sort description of the “ideally” independent child provided by a set of

“experts” in the field.
There was no relation between the fathers’ child-rearing attitudes, accessibility,
or engagement in play with their children and Q-sort security scores. Neither having
a nurturing nor restrictive attitude toward child rearing was significantly correlated
to attachment security with the father. Perhaps the children in this study were too
young for fathers to have accurately completed the child-rearing instrument. Many
of the items in the Child-Rearing Practices Report refer to older children requiring
the fathers to speculate about their responses rather than to reflect on actual behavior
with the child. This failure to find relations between conceptually salient child-rear-
ing attitudes and values is consistent with Volling and Belsky’s (1991) report and
suggests again that attributes of mothers that are important influences on attachment
security may not be as important when father-infant attachment is the focus of
research.
The lack of relation between father accessibility and security of attachment to
the father was surprising in view of the findings of Cox and colleagues (1992). Cox
et al. found a negative relation between time spent with the infant and secure attach-
ment with father when controlling for the behavioral and attitudinal variables. This
relation was not anticipated, and they speculated that fathers might be spending time
with their infants when the family is under stress, perhaps due to the (un) employ-
ment status of the father, hence the negative relation. In this study, the lack of rela-
tion between accessibility and security of attachment with father may be due to the
relatively low number of hours fathers were accessible to their children. When one
considers that there are 120 hours in a week, a person who works 40 hours per week
(eight hours five days a week) and who might sleep for 40 hours in a week (eight
hours per night, five days per week) has left 40 hours per week to be accessible to
his/her children. The fathers in this study reported an average of 18.62 accessible
hours per week, a number that may not be a sufficiently salient factor in the develop-
ment of attachment security.
The finding of congruence between attachment security with father and mother
is consistent with the interpretations offered by Fox et al. (1991) and Del-Carmen-
Wiggins et al. (2000) and suggests the possibility that the attachment relationship
with one parent may influence the relationship with the other. Of course, the direc-
tion of such effects cannot be addressed here. Caution is taken in interpreting these
findings, however, as parents are likely to perceive their child similarly, which may
be contributing to this concordance.
The relation found between the maternal observations and the Q-Sort provides
strength and support to the findings with fathers, the theory, and the measure.
According to Bowlby and Ainsworth, the most essential maternal characteristic
leading to secure attachment is that of sensitivity to infant communicative signals.
That sensitivity was significantly related to security in this study suggests the AQS
is measuring behavioral attributes of the infant that are intrinsically linked to mater-
nal sensitivity. To the extent that the father’s engagement may serve as an estimate
of sensitivity, this finding lends support to the relation found between father
involvement and security to father. Additionally, the finding that maternal sensitivity
did not relate to attachment security to father strengthens the validity of the Q-Set

205
CALDERA

and suggests that attachment security reflects a relationship attribute and not a tem-
peramental characteristic of the infant.
The results of this study and their interpretation are of course limited by the fact
that all of the father data come via father self-reports. They would be strengthened
considerably if they were corroborated by observations of fathers with their infants
at home by independent observers. Nevertheless, the relations obtained here can be
accepted as consistent with current conceptual speculation and empiricism concern-
ing attachments between infants and fathers. As noted earlier in this report, fathers
have proven to be expensive as targets of parent-infant interaction research in terms
of time and research resources. Data such as these indicate that the expenditure of
such resources in the future is likely to prove fruitful.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M.D. S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.N. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Amato, P.R. (1987). Children in Australian families: The growth of competence.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barnett, R.C., & Baruch, G.K. (1987). Determinants of fathers’ participation in fam-
ily work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 29-40.
Belsky, J., Garduque, L., & Hrncir, E. (1984). Assessing performance, competence,
and executive capacity in infant play: Relations to home environment and secu-
rity of attachment. Developmental Psychology, 20, 406-417.
Belsky, J., Rovine, M., & Taylor, D. (1984). The Pennsylvania infant and family
development project II: Origins of individual differences in infant-mother
attachment: Maternal and infant contributions. Child Development, 55, 706-717.
Block, J. (1965). The child-rearing practices report. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia, Institute of Human Development.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books.
Braungart-Rieker, J., Courtney, S., & Garwood, M. M. (1999). Mother- and father-
infant attachment: Families in context. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 535-
553.
Caldera, Y.M, Huston, A., & O’Brien, M. (1995, April). Antecedents of father-infant
attachment: A longitudinal study. Poster presented to the Society for Research
in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Chase-Lansdale, P.L., & Owen, M.T. (1987). Maternal employment in a family con-
text: Effects on infant-mother and infant-father attachments. Child Develop-
ment, 55, 1505-1512.
Chibucos, T., & Kail, P. (1981). Longitudinal examination of father-infant interac-
tion and infant-father interaction. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 27, 81-96.
Clarke-Stewart, A. (1978). And daddy makes three: The father’s impact on mother
and young child. Child Development, 49, 466-478.
Cox, M.J., Owen, M.T., Henderson, V.K., & Margand, N.A. (1992). Prediction of
infant-father and infant-mother attachment. Developmental Psychology, 28,
474-483.

206
 PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT

Cox, M.J., Owen, M.T., Lewis, J.M., & Henderson, V.K. (1989). Marriage, adjust-
ment, and early parenting. Child Development, 60, 1015-1024.
Crawley, S.B., & Sherrod, R.B. (1984). Parent-infant play during the first year of
life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 65-75.
DelCarmen-Wiggins, R., Huffman, L.C., Pedersen, F.A., & Bryan, Y.E. (2000).
Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of three year olds’ attachment behavior.
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 21, 97-106.
Donate-Bartfield, D., & Passman, R.H. (1985). Attentiveness of mothers and fathers
to their baby’s cries. Child Development, 59, 506-511.
Erickson, M.F., Sroufe, L.A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between qual-
ity of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I.
Bretherton & E. Everett (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and
research (pp. 147-166). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209).
Field, T.M., Hossain, Z., & Malphurs, J. (1999). “Depressed” fathers’ interactions
with their infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 322-332.
Fox, N., Kimmerly, N.L., & Schafer, W.D. (1991). Attachment to mother/attach-
ment to father: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 62, 210-225.
Frascarolo-Moutinot, F. (1994). Engagment paternal quotidian et relations parents-
enfant [Daily paternal involvement and parent-child relationships]. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K.E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-
Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child-father
attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal
variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11, 307-331.
Grossmann, K.E., Grossmann, K., Huber, F., & Wartner, U. (1981). German chil-
dren’s behavior towards their mothers at 12 months and their fathers at 18
months in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 4, 157-181.
Heermann, J.A., Jones, L.C., & Wikoff, R.L. (1994). Measurement of parent behav-
ior during interactions with their infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 17,
311-321.
Hudson, W.W. (1982). A measurement package for clinical workers. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 229-238.
Kavesh, L. (1991). Antecedents of peer competence in childhood. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Kotelchuck, M. (1972). The nature of the child’s tie to his father. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Harvard University.
Kotelchuck, M. (1976). The infant’s relationship to the father: Experimental evi-
dence. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp.
329-344). New York: Wiley.
Lamb, M.E. (1977a). The development of mother-infant and father-infant attach-
ments in the second year of life. Developmental Psychology, 13, 631-648.
Lamb, M.E. (1977b). Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first year of
life. Child Development, 48, 167-181.

207
CALDERA

Lamb, M.E. (1978). Qualitative aspects of mother- and father-infant attachments.

Infant Behavior and Development, 1, 1-10.
Lamb, M.E. (1986). The changing roles of fathers. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s
role: Applied perspectives (pp. 3-27). New York: Wiley.
Lamb, M.E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Lamb, M.E. (2002). Infant-father attachments and their impact on child develop-
ment. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father
involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 93-117). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbum Associates.
Lamb, M.E., Hwang, C.P., Frodi, A., & Frodi, M. (1982). Security of mother- and
father-infant attachment and its relations to sociability with strangers in tradi-
tional and nontraditional Swedish families. Infant Behavior and Development,
5, 355-367.
Lamb, M.E., & Oppenheim, D. (1989). Fatherhood and father-child relationships:
Five years of research. In S.H. Cath, A. Gurwitt, & L. Gunsberg (Eds.), Fathers
and their families (pp.11-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lamb, M.E., Frodi, A.M., Hwang, C.P., & Frodi, M. (1983). Effects of paternal
involvement on infant preferences for mothers and fathers. Child Development,
54, 450-458.
Lamb, M.E., Pleck, J.H., Charnov, E.L., & Levine, J.A. (1985). Paternal behavior in
humans. American Zoologist, 25, 883-894.
Lundy, B.L. (2002). Paternal socio-psychological factors and infant attachment: The
mediating role of synchrony in father-infant interactions. Infant Behavior &
Development, 25, 221-236.
Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (in press). Adult attachment classification system. In M.
Main (Ed.), Behavior and the development of representational models of attach-
ment: Five methods of assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Main, M., Kaplan, N, & Casidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adult-
hood: Move to the level of representations. Monographs of Social Research in
Child Development, 50, 66-104 (Serial No. 209).
Main, M., & Weston, D. (1981). Security of attachment to mother and father:
Related to conflict behavior and readiness to establish new relationships. Child
Development, 52, 932-940.
Marsiglio, W. (1995). Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research, and social pol-
icy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Matas, L., Arend, R., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second
year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence.
Child Development, 49, 547-556.
McKeown, K., Ferguson, H., & Rodney, D. (1998). Changing fathers? Cork, Ire-
land: Collins Press.
Mosley, J., & Thomson, E. (1995). Fathering behavior and child outcomes: The role
of race and poverty. In W. Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary theory,
research, and social policy (pp.148-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

208
 PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1999). Chronicity of maternal depres-
sive symptoms, maternal sensitivity, and child functioning at 36 months. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 35, 1297-1310.
Notaro, P.C., & Volling, B.L. (1999). Parental responsiveness and infant-parent
attachment: A replication study with fathers and mothers. Infant Behavior and
Development, 22, 534-352.
Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fathering and child development: Advancing our
understanding of good fathering. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.),
Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 119-140).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbum Associates.
Parke, R.D. (1979). Perspectives of father-infant interaction. In J.D. Osofsky (Ed.),
Handbook of infant development (pp. 549-590). New York: Wiley.
Pastor, D.L. (1981). The quality of mother-infant attachment and its relationship to
toddlers’ initial sociability with peers. Developmental Psychology, 17, 326-335.
Pedersen, F.A., & Robson, K. (1969). Father participation in infancy. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 39, 466-472.
Pederson, D., Moran, G., Sitko, C., Campbell, K., Ghesquire, K., & Acton, H.
(1990). Maternal sensitivity and the security of infant-mother attachment: A Q-
sort study. Child Development, 61, 1974-1983.
Pleck, J.H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In
M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 66-
103). New York: Wiley.
Rickel, A.U., & Biasatti, L.L. (1982). Modification of the Block Child Rearing Prac-
tices Report. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 129-134.
Rosen, K.S., & Burke, P.B. (1999). Multiple attachment relationships within fami-
lies: Mothers and fathers with two young children. Developmental Psychology,
35, 436-444.
Rosen, K.S., & Rothbaum, F. (1993). Quality of parental caregiving and security of
attachment. Developmental Psychology, 29, 358-367.
Schaffer, H.R., & Emerson, P.E. (1964). The development of social attachments in
infancy. Monographs of Social Research in Child Development, 29, (Serial No.
94).
Smith, P., & Pederson, D. (1988). Maternal sensitivity and patterns of infant-mother
attachment. Child Development, 50, 971-975.
Spelke, E., Zelazo, P., Kagan, J., & Kotelchuck, M. (1973). Father interaction and
separation protest. Developmental Psychology, 9, 83-90.
Steele, H., Steele, M., & Fonagy, P. (1996). Associations among attachment classifi-
cations of mothers, fathers, and their infants. Child Development, 67, 541-555.
Stroufe, L.A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and adaptation in the preschool:
The roots of competence maladaptation. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Development of
cognition, affect, and social relations (pp. 41-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Suess, G.J., Grossmann, K.E., & Sroufe, L.A. (1992). Effects of infant attachment to
mother and father on quality of adaptation in preschool: From dyadic to individ-
ual organization of self. Infant Behavior and Development, 15, 43-65.
Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., & Cabrera, N. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of father involvement:
Multidisciplinary perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbum Associates.

209
CALDERA

Van Ijzendoorn, M.H., & De Wolff, M.S. (1997). In search of the absent father:
Meta-analyses of infant-father attachment: A rejoinder to our discussants. Child
Development, 68, 604-609.
Van Ijzendoorn, M.H., & Kroonenberg, P.M. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of
attachment: A meta-analysis of the Strange Situation. Child Development, 59,
147-156.
Vaughn, B.E., & Waters, E. (1990). Attachment behavior at home and in the labora-
tory: Q-sort observations and strange situation classifications of one-year-olds.
Child Development, 61, 1965-1973.
Volling, B.L., & Belsky, J. (1992). Infant, father, and marital antecedents of infant-
father attachment security in dual-earner and single-earner families. Interna-
tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 83-100.
Volling, B.L., & Belsky, J. (1991). Multiple determinants of father involvement dur-
ing infancy in dual-earner and single-earner families. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 53, 461-474.
Waters, E. (1987). Attachment Q-Set. Stony Brook: State University of New York.
Waters, E., & Deane, K.E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in
attachment relationships: Q-Methodology and the organization of behavior in
infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing
points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 50, 41-65.
Zaslow, M.J., Pedersen, F.A., Cain, R.L., Suwalsky, J.T.D., & Kramer, E.L. (1985).
Depressed mood in new fathers: Associations with parent-infant interaction.
Psychological Monographs, 111, 135-150.

210
View publication stats