the role of value priorities in paternal and maternal involvement in child care

RUTH GAUNT Bar-Ilan University

The Role of Value Priorities in Paternal

and Maternal Involvement in Child Care

This study used the theory of human values toexplore parents’ involvement with their chil-dren. The relationships between maternal andpaternal value priorities and various forms ofinvolvement in child care were examined ina sample of 209 couples with 1 child between 6and 36 months of age. As predicted, givinghigh priority to openness-to-change values (e.g.,self-direction, stimulation) and low priority toconservation values (e.g., tradition, conformity,security) is associated with more father involve-ment and less mother involvement. Moreover,and as predicted, the priority given by a spouseto achievement values is negatively related tothis spouse’s involvement in child care and pos-itively related to the other spouse’s involvement.Parents’ sociodemographic characteristics partlymediate the associations between value priori-ties and involvement. The findings also indicatethe importance of distinguishing different formsof involvement in child care.

The positive implications of increased paternalinvolvement in child care have been demon-strated in numerous studies (Lamb, 1997; Pleck,1997). Increased father involvement is associ-ated with greater satisfaction with parenting andenhanced closeness to the child (e.g., Russell,1982; Sagi, 1982). Children with highly involved

fathers develop greater self-confidence, self-esteem, and verbal intelligence (e.g., Deutsch,Servis, & Payne, 2001; Easterbrooks & Goldberg,1984), and their mothers exhibit enhanced pro-fessional identity and sense of independence(e.g., Radin, 1982; Russell, 1983).

Considering these positive effects of paternalinvolvement in child care, it is understandablewhy researchers continue to show a growinginterest in fatherhood in general (Coltrane, 1996;Deutsch, 1999; Lamb, 1999; Parke, 1996) andin the determinants of paternal involvement inchild care in particular (Aldous, Mulligan, &Bjarnason, 1998; Coltrane, 2000; Deutsch,Lussier, & Servis, 1993; McBride, Schoppe, &Rane, 2002). Despite a growing body of litera-ture on the determinants of paternal involve-ment in child care, many researchers feel thatthe search for such determinants ‘‘has yieldedoften inconsistent and conflicting results’’ (Beitel& Parke, 1998, p. 268) and that ‘‘we know muchmore about what fathers do than why they do it’’(Parke, 1996, p. 76).

The present study attempts to understandpaternal involvement within the framework ofthe theory of human values (Schwartz, 1992).Specifically, this study suggests that paternaland maternal participation levels in child careare determined, in part, by the value prioritiesof the father and the mother. It is suggestedthat spouses’ values may influence their ownlevels of involvement as well as the involve-ment of the other spouse. It is further arguedthat value priorities may have both a directeffect on involvement in child care, as well asan indirect effect, which is mediated by parents’

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bar-Ilan Uni-versity, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel ([email protected]).

Key Words: child care, father involvement, parenting, valuepriorities.

Journal of Marriage and Family 67 (August 2005): 643–655 643

sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., workhours, income).

Finally, this study distinguishes between dif-ferent forms of involvement in child care. Previ-ous studies have shown that different forms ofinvolvement may not be highly correlated andmay have different antecedents (e.g., Barnett &Baruch, 1987). In particular, Lamb and Pleckdistinguished between three forms of parentalinvolvement: (a) engagement, which is timespent in a one-on-one interaction with the child;(b) accessibility, which requires that the parentbe available to respond to the child’s needs;and (c) responsibility, which refers to who isaccountable for the child’s day-to-day care andwelfare (Lamb, 1987; Pleck, Lamb, & Levine,1986). The current study examines these threeforms of involvement, in an attempt to explorewhether different forms of involvement arerelated to different types of values.

Determinants of FatherInvolvement in Child Care

Much of the existing literature on the determi-nants of fathers’ involvement has focused onthe parents’ labor-force characteristics, includ-ing their work hours, earned incomes, and yearsof education. Indeed, many studies have foundthat the father’s involvement in child care in-creases, the more hours the mother works forpay, and decreases, the more hours the fatherworks and the higher his income (e.g., Biernat& Wortman, 1991; Deutsch et al., 1993; Yeung,Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001).Other studies have focused on characteristics ofthe children, such as their age, gender, and tem-perament (e.g., McBride et al., 2002) or on theparents’ relationship and their marital satisfac-tion (e.g., Levy-Shiff & Israelashvili, 1988;Volling & Belsky, 1991).

Closer to the present study’s approach, twomore recent perspectives have focused on theparents’ social-psychological characteristics,namely, the father’s role identity (e.g., Fox &Bruce, 2001; Rane & McBride, 2000) and theparents’ attitudes toward the father’s role (e.g.,Beitel & Parke, 1998; McBride & Rane, 1997).These studies have shown that the greater thefather’s role salience and centrality, and themore favorable the father’s and the mother’s at-titudes toward the father’s role, the greater hisinvolvement in child care. The current studysimilarly emphasizes choices made by couples,

which are guided by their views and identities.Value priorities are conceptualized as generalconstructs, however, which guide people’schoices and behaviors in various domains, andare not specifically related to their roles as par-ents. An examination of couples’ value priori-ties may therefore enhance our understanding ofthe determinants of participation in child careby adding another, possibly important piece tothe puzzle.

Value Priorities

Values are commonly defined as desirable,transsituational goals, varying in importance,that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives(e.g., Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Tostudy the relationships between values and par-enting, this research adopts the theory of humanvalues developed by Schwartz (Schwartz;Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). This theory suggeststhat the primary content aspect that differenti-ates values is the type of motivational goal theyexpress. As a person attributes greater impor-tance to a value, the attainment of goals towhich that value is directed will become moreimportant.

In a series of cross-cultural studies, Schwartz(1992) has shown that people’s basic values areusually organized into 10 distinct motivationaltypes: power, achievement, hedonism, stimula-tion, self-direction, universalism, benevolence,tradition, conformity, and security. The theoryalso explicates the dynamic relations among the10 types (Figure 1). The pursuit of each type ofvalues may conflict or be congruent with thepursuit of other value types. For example, thepursuit of tradition values is likely to be com-patible with the pursuit of conformity valuesbut is likely to conflict with actions promotingself-direction or stimulation values. In Figure 1,competing value types emanate in opposingdirections from the center, and complementarytypes are in close proximity around the circle.

Important to our purpose, Schwartz (1992)also identified a basic conflict between two cate-gories of values: values reflecting openness tochange and those reflecting conservation. Spe-cifically, the self-direction and stimulation valuetypes emphasize independent action, thoughtand feeling, and readiness for new experiences,whereas the security, conformity, and traditionvalue types emphasize self-restriction, order,and resistance to change.

644 Journal of Marriage and Family

The Influence of Value Prioritieson Parental Involvement

Child care has traditionally been perceived asthe woman’s domain (Allen & Hawkins, 1999).Conventional images portray the mother as thesole person responsible for providing dailychild care, whereas the father is portrayed asthe breadwinner (Thompson & Walker, 1989).Emerging new images, however, portray moth-ers and fathers as sharing full responsibility forraising their children. ‘‘New’’ fathers are ac-tively involved in child care, and ‘‘new’’ parentshave both fulfilling careers and rewarding fam-ily lives (Thompson & Walker).

These traditional and new images of parent-hood presumably have different effects onparents with different value priorities. In par-ticular, parents who give high priority to valuetypes that reflect conservation, such as tradition,conformity, and security, are likely to maintaina traditional pattern of parenting, in line withconventional images. It is plausible that parentswho give high priority to value types that reflectopenness to change, such as self-direction andstimulation, would exhibit a more egalitarianassignment of responsibilities, in which thefather is more involved in child care than thetraditional father.

It is therefore hypothesized that the higherthe priority given by fathers and mothers to con-

servation values, and the lower the prioritygiven to openness-to-change values, the lessinvolved in child care the father would be andthe more involved the mother would be. More-over, because the pursuit of achievement valuestypically involves greater investment in one’scareer, attributing importance to achievementvalues by a spouse may be related to a greaterinvestment in employment, reduced involve-ment in child care, and increased involvementof the other spouse.

The Mediating Role ofSociodemographic Variables

Many studies have demonstrated the importantrole of sociodemographic variables such aswork hours, income, and education in determin-ing paternal involvement in child care (e.g.,Aldous et al., 1998; Deutsch et al., 1993;NICHD Early Child Care Research Network,2000). In addition, there is evidence suggestingthat people’s value priorities affect their atti-tudes and behavioral choices regarding careerand employment (e.g., Sagiv, 2002). Evidencealso shows how mothers and fathers oftenchoose jobs, decide how many hours to work,and accommodate their commitment to theirjobs in ways that enable them to provide childcare (e.g., Deutsch, 1999; Russell, 1983). It istherefore suggested that value priorities playa role in people’s decisions about their employ-ment, which, in turn, affect their degree ofinvolvement in child care. To support this hy-pothesized mediating role of work hours, in-come, and education, it is necessary to showthat the contribution of parents’ values to in-volvement in child care is reduced when thesesociodemographic variables are entered into theequation (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

The present study was designed to test thesehypotheses concerning the direct and indirectrelationship of value priorities with involvementin child care. Value priorities, sociodemographicvariables, and several forms of involvementwere measured in a sample of Israeli couples.In Israel, as in other Western-oriented countries,the past four decades have witnessed a mas-sive entry of women into the labor market(Chafetz & Hagan, 1996). As a result, the dual-earner family pattern has become the most fre-quent one, with more than 70% of Israelimothers participating in the labor force (IsraelWomen’s Network, 2003). This trend has been

FIGURE 1. THEORETICAL MODEL OF RELATIONS AMONG

10 MOTIVATIONAL TYPES OF VALUES (ADOPTED FROMSCHWARTZ, 1992)

Value Priorities and Child Care 645

accompanied by a much slower change in Israelimen’s participation in family work (Benjamin,1997). It is therefore interesting to explore therelationship between the value priorities of Isra-eli fathers and mothers and their participation inchild care.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

Participants in the study were 209 Israeli couplesrecruited by research assistants through day carecenters and community child health facilities.Criteria for inclusion in the study were the fol-lowing: the couples were married, both spouseswere the target child’s biological parents, andthey had a child aged 6 months to 3 years.

The fathers’ ages ranged from 22 to 54 (M ¼33, SD ¼ 5.28); the mothers’ ages ranged from20 to 45 (M ¼ 30.2, SD ¼ 4.64). The couplesrepresented a broad range of socioeconomiclevels, with an overrepresentation of highlyeducated couples with above-average income.Approximately 5% of the participants had notfinished high school; 71% of the fathers and78% of the mothers had some college-level edu-cation, compared with 50% in the general popu-lation (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics,2000). Eighty-eight percent of the fathers and50% of the mothers worked full time outsidethe home. Eleven percent of the fathers and20% of the mothers had an average income; theincome of 19% of the fathers and 51% of themothers was below average, and the income of69% of the fathers and 29% of the mothers wasabove average.

Fifty percent of the families had one child,27% had two children, 17% had three children,and 7% had four or more children. Of the 209target children, 107 (51.2%) were boys and 102(48.8%) were girls. The target children’s agesranged from 6 to 36 months (M ¼ 19, SD ¼10.98).

An initial telephone screening was conductedto ensure that families met the inclusion criteria.Upon agreeing to participate, the families werescheduled for a home visit by a research assis-tant. During that visit, the fathers and motherscompleted comprehensive self-report question-naires, which took approximately 1 hour tocomplete. In two families, the questionnairewas filled out by one spouse only, and thosefamilies’ data were eliminated from further use.

Other missing data were subjected to listwisedeletion. Over 90% of the eligible couples whowere approached agreed to participate.

Measures

Involvement in child care. To assess the amountof time (hours per average week) the fathersand mothers spend with their children, both themothers and the fathers indicated (a) the amountof time during which the father was the solecare provider while the mother was away and(b) the amount of time during which the motherwas the sole care provider while the father wasaway. Pearson correlations between the fathers’and the mothers’ assessments of weekly hoursof care were .77 for mother hours and .65 forfather hours, suggesting a high level of conver-gent validity. The final measures of hours ofcare were obtained by averaging the assess-ments given by the father and the mother.

Another measure asked ‘‘who does what?’’ interms of 36 specific child-care tasks. The 36tasks were selected to reflect those types ofinvolvement typical of both fathers (e.g., play-ing, talking) and mothers (e.g., preparing food,packing child’s bag). Some tasks were designedto tap daily care activities (e.g., feeding, chang-ing diapers), some were designed to reflectresponsibility for the child (e.g., choosing daycare, deciding whether to go to the doctor), andsome were selected to reflect emotional care(e.g., who does child turn to when gets hurt?).Fathers and mothers were asked, ‘‘In the divi-sion of labor between you and your spouse,which of you performs each of the followingtasks?’’ Responses were indicated along a five-point scale ranging from 1 (almost always myspouse) to 3 (both of us equally) to 5 (almostalways myself ). For the mothers, the scale wasreversed so that higher ratings indicated moreparticipation by the father. The average Pearsoncorrelation between the mothers’ and thefathers’ ratings for each of the 36 tasks was .53,suggesting an acceptable level of convergentvalidity. The mean score for each task was ob-tained by averaging the ratings given by thefather and the mother for that task. An averageof the 36 task ratings was calculated to createa measure of total involvement in child-caretasks. Higher scores on this measure reflectedgreater participation on the part of the father rel-ative to the mother. Cronbach’s alpha for this


measure was .93. The complete list of child-caretasks is available from the author.

To empirically distinguish major forms ofinvolvement in child-care tasks, a principal com-ponents factor analysis (with varimax rotation)was conducted on the 36 items. Only those itemsthat loaded on a component at a level greaterthan .45 and not more than .32 on any other fac-tor were retained (Beitel & Parke, 1998). Thisanalysis yielded a three-factor solution. The firstfactor included 13 items related to direct care forthe infant’s daily needs, such as feeding, chang-ing diapers, and bathing. The second factorincluded 7 items related to the higher order, indi-rect responsibility for the infant, such as choos-ing day care, reading parenting books, andtaking the child to the doctor. The third factorconsisted of 10 items that concerned the parents’relationship with the child, including companion-ship (e.g., playing, holding) and emotional care(e.g., to whom is child more attached?). Varianceexplained by the three factors was 12.50, 2.40,and .94, respectively, and Cronbach’s alphas forthe three factors were .92, .75, and .90, respec-tively. Mean scores for each of these forms ofinvolvement in child-care tasks were obtained byaveraging the participant’s scores for the itemsincluded in each factor.

This classification is closely related to two ofLamb and Pleck’s suggested forms of parentalinvolvement (Lamb, 1987; Pleck et al., 1986).The responsibility factor apparently convergeswith Lamb and Pleck’s notion of responsibility,whereas the direct care combined with the com-panion and emotional care factor apparentlyoverlap with their conception of engagement.Their notion of accessibility was measured in thepresent study directly through the parents’ re-ports of their weekly hours of care (describedabove). Similar involvement classifications havebeen found in other studies (e.g., Beitel & Parke,1998).

The intercorrelations among involvementmeasures were moderate (range of .30–.65),suggesting that the measures are relatively inde-pendent indexes of involvement.

Values. The importance that the participantsattribute to each of 44 single values as guidingprinciples in their life was measured with theSchwartz (1992) value inventory, adopted fromStruch and her colleagues (Struch, Schwartz,& van der Kloot, 2002). Each value is accom-panied by a short descriptive phrase, and the

participants used a nine-point rating scale num-bered from �1 to 7 to rate the importance ofeach value as a guiding principle in their life.The rating scale was labeled as follows: �1(opposed to my values), 0 (not important), 3(important), 6 (very important), and 7 (ofsupreme importance). The average score for theitems in the standard indexes was computed tomeasure the priority given to each of the 10value types (Schwartz). Cronbach’s alphas forthe value indexes were as follows: power .69,achievement .75, hedonism .65, stimulation .69,self-direction .65, universalism .73, benevo-lence .66, tradition .57, conformity .66, andsecurity .56. These reliabilities were within therange of variation commonly observed for thesevalue types (e.g., Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, &Knafo, 2002).

To reduce the number of value variables forthe purpose of further analyses, the 10 valuetypes were subjected to principal componentsanalyses conducted separately for the fathersand mothers. Analysis of the fathers’ valuesyielded a three-factor solution. The first factorcovers one side of the values circle (Figure 1)and relates to conservation values. The secondfactor covers the opposite side of the values cir-cle and focuses on values related to openness tochange. The third factor focuses on the lowerpart of the circle, including the values powerand achievement. Analysis of the mothers’ val-ues resulted in a three-factor solution, whichclosely resembled the solution obtained for thefathers, with one exception. For mothers, theachievement value type was loaded on the sec-ond, openness-to-change factor, and not on thethird factor. This finding is consistent with pre-vious research in which there were no genderdifferences in the meaning of values in general(Struch et al., 2002), except for the proximityof stimulation to achievement values for womenonly (Struch et al., the Israeli sample). Forwomen, attributing importance to personalachievements apparently involves rejection ofthe traditional image and is compatible withopenness-to-change values. Because of this dif-ference between the solutions derived for thefathers and mothers, the achievement and powervalue types were regarded as two separatefactors, in addition to the conservation factor(constructed of four value types) and theopenness-to-change factor (constructed of fourvalue types). The conservation factor score foreach participant was obtained by averaging the


scores for the conformity, tradition, benevo-lence, and security value types. Variance ex-plained by this factor was 3.57 for the fathersand 2.05 for the mothers. Cronbach’s alphas forthis conservation value index were .75 for thefathers and .83 for the mothers. The openness-to-change factor score was obtained by averag-ing the scores for the stimulation, self-direction,hedonism, and universalism value types. Vari-ance explained by this factor was 1.96 for thefathers and 3.80 for the mothers. Cronbach’salphas for this value index were .69 for thefathers and .77 for the mothers.

Parents’ sociodemographic characteristics.Participants indicated their number of hours perweek of paid labor, including time invested intraveling and time devoted to paid work athome. The measure of income stated the averageincome for a person in Israel and asked partici-pants to rate their own income relative to theaverage. The scale ranged from 1 (much lowerthan average) to 5 (much higher than average).Education level was indicated on a five-pointscale, labeled as follows: 1 (elementary school),2 (some high school), 3 (completed high school),4 (some college education), and 5 (completedcollege education).

RESULTS

The hypotheses were evaluated in three steps.First, I examined the correlations between valuepriorities, sociodemographic characteristics, andparents’ involvement in child care separatelyfor fathers and mothers. Second, to determinethe contribution of each value factor to eachform of involvement specifically, a series ofmultiple regression analyses was conducted forfathers and mothers separately. Third, thehypothesis concerning the mediating role of so-ciodemographic variables was evaluated in a setof stepwise regression analyses. In these analy-ses, the sociodemographic variables were en-tered into the equation first, followed by thegroup of value priority factors.

Preliminary Analyses

None of the measures of parental involvementwas associated with child’s gender or with inter-actions of gender with other variables. Therefore,child’s gender was not included in further anal-

yses. Father’s involvement in child-care tasksincreased with child’s age, r ¼ .27, p , .01.This finding seems inconsistent with previousstudies (e.g., Barnett & Baruch, 1987), in whichfather’s involvement decreased with child’sage, presumably because of the younger chil-dren’s greater need for child care. Consideringthe restricted age of the children in the currentsample (6–36 months), however, it is plausiblethat father’s involvement is lower with infants,increases with toddlers, and then decreases asthe child grows up. There were no interactionsbetween child’s age and parents’ value priorities(results not shown).

Parents’ value priorities correlated with theirsociodemographic characteristics in the ex-pected directions. In general, the higher the pri-ority given by participants to achievement andopenness-to-change values, and the lower thepriority given to conservation values, the morehours they worked for pay and the higher theirincome and education level.

Table 1 presents Pearson correlations be-tween the four factors of value priorities andthe six measures of involvement in child care.Following the procedure recommended bySchwartz (1992), the correlations were cor-rected for individual differences in scale use bycomputing each person’s mean rating of all 44single values and controlling for its effect bypartial correlation.

Consistent with the hypotheses, giving highpriority to conservation values by fathers andmothers was related to less father involvementin child-care tasks and to more hours of care bymothers. Also consistent with hypotheses, giv-ing high priority to openness-to-change valuesby fathers and mothers was related to morefather involvement in child-care tasks and tofewer hours of care by mothers. Moreover, ashypothesized, giving high priority to achieve-ment values by fathers was related to less pater-nal involvement in child care and more hours ofcare by mothers. Giving high priority toachievement values by mothers was related tomore paternal involvement in child care andfewer hours of care by mothers.

Table 1 also presents Pearson correlationsbetween parents’ sociodemographic characteris-tics and their involvement in child care. Repli-cating previous findings (e.g., Aldous et al.,1998; Deutsch et al., 1993), mothers’ work hours,income, and education were positively relatedto fathers’ relative involvement in child-care


tasks and negatively related to hours of care bymothers. Fathers’ work hours were also relatedto their relative involvement in child-care tasksbut not to the hours of care provided by the par-ents. Fathers’ income and education were onlyrelated to their involvement in responsibility:The lower the father’s income, and the higherhis education, the greater his involvement inresponsibility for child care.

In general, mothers’ characteristics were morestrongly correlated to parental involvement thanwere fathers’ characteristics. Furthermore, moth-ers’ hours of care were related to their character-istics, whereas fathers’ hours of care wererelated to few of the parents’ characteristics.

Regression Analyses

To determine the contribution of each value fac-tor to each form of parental involvement morespecifically, I ran a set of multiple regressionanalyses for fathers and mothers separately(Model 1). In each analysis, a variable pertain-

ing to one form of involvement was regressedon the set of value priorities factors.

Mother’s value priorities. Table 2 indicates thatthe regression equations of involvement inchild-care tasks (direct care, responsibility,companion, and total involvement) on the set ofmother’s value factors (Model 1) were signifi-cant overall and accounted for 8%–16% of thevariance in father’s relative involvement. Twoof the value factors were significant predictorsin all four regression analyses: mother’s conser-vation and achievement values. The lower thepriority given by the mother to conservationvalues, and the higher the priority given toachievement values, the more involved thefather was in providing care for the child.

Mother’s power value was a significant pre-dictor in the regression analyses of responsibil-ity and total involvement: The higher thepriority given by the mother to power values,the less involved the father was in responsibilityfor the child and in total involvement. Finally,

TABLE 1. PEARSON CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTS’ VALUE PRIORITIES, SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS,

AND INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD CARE

Direct

Carea Responsibilitya CompanionaTotal

InvolvementaHours of

Father Care

Hours of

Mother Care

Mothers

Sociodemographic variables

Work hours .38*** .32*** .39*** .43*** .15* �.58***

Income .28** .23*** .19** .28*** .10 �.36***

Education .17* .20** .15* .20** .09 �.18**

Value priorities

Openness to change .28*** .16** .18** .28*** .10 �.15*

Conservation �.35*** �.18** �.20** �.32*** �.05 .24***

Achievement .27*** .18** .22*** .27*** �.04 �.17**

Power .03 �.12* �.06 �.10 �.13* �.04

Fathers

Sociodemographic variables

Work hours �.15* �.14* �.15 �.18** �.13 .08

Income �.02 �.14* �.08 �.08 �.13 �.02

Education .11 .20** .02 .10 .01 .03

Value priorities

Openness to change .20** .11* .13* .22** .09 �.17**

Conservation �.18** �.13* �.13* �.20** �.06 .12*

Achievement �.15* �.19** �.19** �.20** �.08 .15*

Power .06 �.07 �.01 �.08 �.07 .12*

Note: Tests of significance were two tailed.aHigher scores reflect greater father involvement relative to the mother.

*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.


TABLE2.STEPWISEREGRESSIO

NANALYSESPREDICTIN

GPARENTALIN

VOLVEMENTIN

CHILDCAREFROM

VALUEPRIO

RITIESANDSOCIO

DEMOGRAPHIC

VARIA

BLES

DirectCarea

Responsibilitya

Companiona

TotalInvolvem

enta

HoursofFather

Care

HoursofMother

Care

Model

12

12

12

12

12

12

Mothers

Sociodem

ographicvariables

Work

hours

—.27***

—.24**

—.35***

—.33***

—.16*

—�.53***

Income

—.07

—.09

—�.02

—.05

—.03

—�.06

Education

—.03

—.07

—.06

—.05

—.04

—�.07

Valuepriorities

Opennessto

change

.16*

.17*

.06

.09

.09

.11

.16*

.18*

.17*

.15*

�.01

�.02

Conservation

�.31***

�.21**

�.19**

�.09

�.18*

�.08

�.29***

�.18**

�.01

.05

.29***

.14*

Achievem

ent

.24**

.14

.18*

.06

.23**

.13

.25***

.13

�.05

�.10

�.13

.05

Power

�.12

�.11

�.19**

�.14

�.13

�.08

�.19**

�.16*

�.13

�.11

.02

�.01

R2

.15

.24

.08

.15

.08

.20

.16

.28

.03

.06

.08

.38

F(7,198)

9.29***

8.86***

4.57***

5.06***

4.57***

6.85***

9.96***

10.83***

1.67

1.75

4.69***

17.01***

Fathers

Sociodem

ographicvariables

Work

hours

—�.16*

—�.09

—�.13

—�.15*

—�.03

—.08

Income

—.01

—�.15*

—�.04

—�.07

—�.14

—�.04

Education

—.15*

—.25***

—.07

—.16*

—.03

—.02

Valuepriorities

Opennessto

change

.24***

.24**

.20**

.25***

.20**

.20**

.29***

.30***

.17*

.17*

�.22**

�.19*

Conservation

�.09

�.11

�.02

�.04

�.05

�.07

�.08

�.12

.03

.03

.04

.03

Achievem

ent

�.18*

�.18*

�.24*

�.22*

�.30**

�.29**

�.27**

�.26**

�.07

�.04

.17

.14

Power

�.01

.01

.06

.08

.15

.17

.04

.07

�.02

�.02

.05

.04

R2

.07

.12

.05

.14

.07

.10

.09

.16

.02

.04

.05

.05

F(7,198)

3.85**

3.62***

2.71*

4.46***

3.70**

3.04**

5.41***

5.11***

1.26

1.26

3.07*

1.59

Not

e:Standardized

betacoefficientsarereported.Model1:valuepriorities

only.Model2:sociodem

ographicvariablesenteredfirst,followed

byvaluepriorities.

aHigher

scoresreflectgreater

father

involvem

entrelativeto

mother

involvem

ent.

*p,

.05.**p,

.01.***p,

.001.


mother’s openness to change was a significantpredictor in the regression analyses of directcare and total involvement: The higher thepriority given by the mother to openness-to-change values, the more involved the fatherwas in providing direct care for the child and intotal involvement.

The regression of father’s hours of care onthe set of the mother’s value factors was not sig-nificant (Table 2). The only significant predictorof the father’s hours of care was the mother’sopenness-to-change values. The regression ofmother’s hours of care on the set of mother’svalue factors was significant overall and ac-counted for 8% of the variance (Table 2). Themother’s conservation factor was the only sig-nificant predictor of her hours of care.

Father’s value priorities. Table 2 also indicatesthat the regression equations of involvement inchild-care tasks (direct care, responsibility,companion, and total involvement) on the set offather’s value factors (Model 1) were significantoverall and accounted for 5%–9% of the vari-ance in the father’s relative involvement inchild-care tasks. Two of the value factors weresignificant predictors in all four regression anal-yses: the father’s openness-to-change andachievement values. The higher the prioritygiven by the father to openness-to-change val-ues, and the lower the priority given to achieve-ment values, the more involved the father wasin providing care for the child.

The regression of father’s hours of care onthe set of the father’s value factors was not sig-nificant. The regression of mother’s hours ofcare on the set of father’s value factors was sig-nificant overall and accounted for 5% of thevariance (Table 2). The only significant predic-tor of the parents’ hours of care was the father’sopenness-to-change values: The higher the pri-ority given by the father to these values, thegreater the number of hours during which hewas the sole care provider for the child, and thefewer the hours of care provided by the mother.

Tests of significant differences in coefficientsbetween fathers and mothers were conductedapplying the Fisher z transformation (Cohen &Cohen, 1983). Results indicated that the effectsof the mother’s conservation and power valueson each of the four forms of involvement inchild-care tasks were significantly larger thanthose of the father’s conservation and powervalues. In addition, the effects of the father’s

openness-to-change values on responsibility,companion, and total involvement were signifi-cantly larger than those of the mother’s open-ness-to-change values. There were no significantdifferences in coefficients for hours of care.

Mediation Analyses

I next evaluated the hypothesis that sociodemo-graphic variables would mediate the relation-ship between value priorities and involvementin child care. According to Baron and Kenny(1986), in order to show mediation, (a) the inde-pendent variable (value priorities) must showa significant relationship with the proposedmediator (sociodemographic variables) and theoutcome variable (involvement in child care),(b) the mediator must be related to the outcomevariable, and (c) the relationship between theindependent variable and the outcome variablemust be reduced when the mediator is enteredinto the equation. A full mediation holds if theindependent variable has no significant effectwhen the mediator is controlled, whereas a par-tial mediation holds if the effect of the indepen-dent variable is considerably reduced butremains significant.

The pattern of correlations reported abovebetween value priorities, sociodemographic var-iables, and involvement in child care indicatesthat conditions a and b were met. I thereforeconducted a series of stepwise regression analy-ses to determine whether the contribution ofparents’ values is reduced when sociodemo-graphic variables are entered into the equation(Model 2).

Mediation of mother’s values via mother’s socio-demographic variables. Table 2 indicates thatthe regression equations of involvement inchild-care tasks (direct care, responsibility, com-panion, and total involvement) on the set ofmother’s sociodemographic variables and valuefactors (Model 2) were significant overall andaccounted for 15%–28% of the variance in thefather’s relative involvement in child-care tasks.The mother’s work hours was a significant pre-dictor in all four regression analyses: The morehours mothers worked, the more the father wasinvolved in all forms of child-care tasks.

The regression of father’s hours of care onthe set of mother’s sociodemographic variablesand value factors (Model 2) was not significant.The regression of the mother’s hours of care on


the set of her sociodemographic variables andvalue factors (Model 2) was significant overalland accounted for 38% of the variance in hoursof mother care (Table 2). The mother’s workhours was the best predictor of parents’ hours ofcare: The more hours the mother worked forpay, the fewer hours she was the sole care pro-vider for the child, and the more hours of carewere provided by the father.

As hypothesized, Table 2 shows that themother’s sociodemographic variables mediatedthe effect of the mother’s value factors. In par-ticular, after including the sociodemographicvariables in Model 2, the effect of mother’sachievement values on involvement in childcare was reduced to nonsignificance. The effectof mother’s conservation values was consid-erably reduced, and the effect of mother’sopenness-to-change values was not mediated bythe sociodemographic variables. To determinethe contribution of each of the three mediatorsto the decrease in the values effect, a series ofregression analyses was conducted using a sin-gle mediator in each model. These analysesindicated that the mother’s work hours providedthe major contribution to the mediation effect(results not shown).

Mediation of father’s values via father’s socio-demographic variables. Table 2 indicates thatthe regression equations of involvement in child-care tasks (direct care, responsibility, compan-ion, and total involvement) on the set of father’ssociodemographic variables and value factors(Model 2) were significant overall and ac-counted for 10%–16% of the variance in thefather’s relative involvement in child-care tasks.The father’s work hours and education were sig-nificant predictors of his involvement in directcare and in total involvement. The fewer hoursthe father worked for pay, and the higher hiseducation, the greater his involvement. Father’sincome and education were significant predictorsof his involvement in responsibility. The less thefather earned, and the higher his education, thegreater his involvement in responsibility for childcare. The regression analyses of father’s hours ofcare and of mother’s hours of care on the set offather’s sociodemographic variables and valuefactors (Model 2) were not significant. None ofthe father’s sociodemographic variables was sig-nificantly related to parents’ hours of care.

Contrary to the hypothesis, the contributionof father’s value factors was not mediated by

his sociodemographic variables. That is, enter-ing the sociodemographic variables into theanalyses did not alter the relationship betweenthe father’s value priorities and his involvementin child care.

Tests of significant differences in coefficientsbetween fathers and mothers indicated that theeffects of the mother’s work hours on all formsof involvement were significantly larger thanthose of the father’s work hours. In addition, theeffects of father’s education level on direct care,responsibility, and total involvement were sig-nificantly larger than those of mother’s educa-tion level.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the current study indicate impor-tant relationships between value priorities andvarious aspects of paternal and maternalinvolvement in child care. Consistent with thehypotheses, the more importance fathers attrib-uted to openness-to-change values, and the lessimportance mothers attributed to conservationvalues, the more involved the father was andthe less involved the mother was in child care.Moreover, the higher the priority given toachievement values by fathers, and the lowerthe priority given to achievement values bymothers, the less involved the father was andthe more involved the mother was.

For mothers, the findings provided supportfor the hypothesis that value priorities haveboth a direct and an indirect relationship withinvolvement in child care, which is mediated bymothers’ sociodemographic characteristics. Forthe fathers, however, there was no evidence fora mediational process.

The findings from this study point to the cru-cial distinction between involvement in child-care tasks and hours of care. Some studies havemeasured involvement in child care as the hoursduring which the father was the primary careprovider (e.g., Van Dijk & Siegers, 1996).Other studies have measured involvement as thedegree to which the father was involved in vari-ous child-care tasks (e.g., Beitel & Parke, 1998;Biernat & Wortman, 1991; Deutsch et al.,1993). The current study shows that these twomeasures capture conceptually different formsof involvement that are related to differentfactors. Use of the term ‘‘involvement’’ to referto these two different meanings interchangeably


may therefore account for some of the conflict-ing findings in the literature.

The father’s hours of care is the only form ofinvolvement in this study that was not ac-counted for by the overall model of value priori-ties. Father’s hours of care were related only tomother’s work hours and to the importance thatparents attributed to openness-to-change values.This pattern of findings may have resulted fromthe use of a strict definition of hours of care interms of the time during which the father wasthe sole care provider, with mother being awayfrom home. A more comprehensive definition,which includes time that the father serves asa care provider in the presence of the mother,could have yielded stronger associations withvalue factors.

The need to distinguish between differentforms of involvement in child-care tasks wasalso evident in this study. Unlike other forms ofinvolvement, fathers’ involvement in responsi-bility was negatively related to mothers’ powervalues. These findings may reflect the frequentpattern of manager-helper relationship (e.g.,Coltrane, 1996; Hochschild, 1989), in whichmothers organize, plan, and schedule fathers’engagement in child care, in order to maintainsole responsibility for family work. This, inturn, serves as a major source of influence andpower (Allen & Hawkins, 1999). Mothers whoattribute high importance to power values pre-sumably attain power through the exclusion offathers from responsibility for child care, whereasother forms of involvement are not related tomothers’ power values.

The limitations of this study should be noted.The measures relied on self-reports, whichcould result in shared-method variance andsome overestimation of the findings. In addi-tion, self-reports could be subjected to socialdesirability concerns and reduced reliability. Tocompensate, data were drawn from both fathersand mothers, and the measures addressed spe-cific and well-defined forms of involvement.Nevertheless, a combination of self-reports andobservations in a home setting would improvethe research design.

In addition, the sample was restricted to mar-ried parents with children aged 6–36 months.This restriction may limit the implications thatcan be derived from the findings. Parents’involvement in other parenting situations (e.g.,divorced or nonresident fathers) or those witholder children may exhibit different associations

between involvement, value priorities, and socio-demographic characteristics.

Another limitation was the use of the ‘‘whodoes what’’ relative measure of involvement inchild-care tasks. Although previously used instudies of paternal involvement in child careand household labor, this measure examines theinvolvement of each spouse relative to the otherspouse. It does not differentiate variations inmother’s involvement from variations in thefather’s involvement. Future research should at-tempt to develop an absolute measure of in-volvement in child-care activities, similar to theone used in this study to measure hours of care.Such a measure would enable examining moth-ers’ and fathers’ involvement independently.

Finally, the cross-sectional design of thisstudy, which implied the simultaneous mea-surement of parents’ values, sociodemographicvariables, and outcome variables, is anothershortcoming. Because of this design, it is impos-sible to determine the direction of causal rela-tions. From a theoretical perspective, however,value priorities are assumed to be relativelystable characteristics of a person over the lifecourse (Schwartz, 1992). It is therefore moreplausible to assume that parents’ stable valuepriorities determined their work hours and theirinvolvement in child care than vice versa. None-theless, longitudinal research must replicate thepresent findings.

The findings of this study suggest thatinvolvement in child care should not be regardedas merely a consequence of situational con-straints. Although parents’ employment condi-tions are important determinants of involvementin child care, both employment conditions andinvolvement in child care often reflect parents’choices. These choices may reflect the impor-tance they attribute to values of achievement,conservation, or openness to change. In this way,fathers’ and mothers’ arrangements of work andchild care are guided by their value priorities.Shifting the focus from constraints to choices infuture research may advance our understandingof the processes that produce various familyarrangements of work and child care.

REFERENCES

Aldous, J., Mulligan, G. M., & Bjarnason, T. (1998).

Fathering over time: What makes the difference?

Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 809–820.


Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal

gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that

inhibit greater father involvement in family work.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 199–212.Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. B. (1987). Determinants

of father’s participation in family work. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 49, 29–40.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-

mediator variable distinction in social psycholog-

ical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Beitel, A. H., & Parke, R. D. (1998). Paternal

involvement in infancy: The role of maternal and

paternal attitudes. Journal of Family Psychology,12, 268–288.

Benjamin, O. (1997). Self-development in Israel:

Does it affect women’s attempts to increase part-

ners’ domestic participation? Israel Social ScienceResearch, 12, 97–122.

Biernat, M., & Wortman, C. B. (1991). Sharing home

responsibilities between professionally employed

women and their husbands. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 60, 844–860.

Chafetz, J. S., & Hagan, J. (1996). The gender di-

vision of labor and family change in industrial

societies: A theoretical accounting. Journal ofComparative Family Studies, 27, 187–210.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multipleregression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood, house-work, and gender equity. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor:

Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness

of routine family work. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 62, 1208–1233.

Deutsch, F. M. (1999). Halving it all: How equallyshared parenting works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Deutsch, F. M., Lussier, J. B., & Servis, L. J. (1993).

Husbands at home: Predictors of paternal participa-

tion in childcare and housework. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 65, 1154–1166.

Deutsch, F. M., Servis, L. J., & Payne, J. D. (2001).

Paternal participation in child care and its effects

on children’s self-esteem and attitudes toward

gendered roles. Journal of Family Issues, 22,1000–1024.

Easterbrooks, M. A., & Goldberg, W. A. (1984).

Toddler development in the family: Impact of

father involvement and parenting characteristics.

Child Development, 55, 740–752.

Fox, G. L., & Bruce, C. (2001). Conditional father-

hood: Identity theory and parental investment theory

as alternative sources of explanation of fathering.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 394–403.Hochschild, A. R., with Machung, A. (1989). The

second shift: Working parents and the revolutionat home. New York: Avon.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. (2000). Statisticalabstract of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Central Bureau

of Statistics.

Israel Women’s Network. (2003). Women in Israel:Compendium of data and information. Jerusalem:

Israel Women’s Network.

Lamb, M. E. (1987). The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father inchild development. New York: Wiley.

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1999). Parenting and childdevelopment in ‘‘nontraditional’’ families. Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Levy-Shiff, R., & Israelashvili, R. (1988). Antece-

dents of fathering: Some further exploration.

Developmental Psychology, 24, 434–440.McBride, B. A., & Rane, T. R. (1997). Role identity,

role investments, and paternal involvement: Impli-

cations for parenting programs for men. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 12, 173–197.

McBride, B. A., Schoppe, S. J., & Rane, T. R.

(2002). Child characteristics, parenting stress,

and parental involvement: Fathers versus mothers.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 998–1011.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000).

Factors associated with fathers’ caregiving activi-

ties and sensitivity with young children. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 14, 200–219.

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

Harvard University Press.

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.

Pleck, J. H., Lamb, M. E., & Levine, J. A. (1986).

Epilog: Facilitating future change in men’s family

roles. In R. A. Lewis & M. Sussman (Eds.), Men’schanging roles in the family (pp. 11–16). New

York: Haworth.

Radin, N. (1982). Primary caregiving and role-

sharing fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontradi-tional families: Parenting and child development(pp. 173–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rane, T. R., & McBride, B. A. (2000). Identity theory

as a guide to understanding fathers’ involvement

with their children. Journal of Family Issues, 21,347–366.


Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A.

(2002). The big five personality factors and per-

sonal values. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 28, 789–801.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values.New York: Free Press.

Russell, G. (1982). Shared caregiving families: An

Australian study. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontradi-tional families: Parenting and child development(pp. 139–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Russell, G. (1983). The changing role of fathers? St.

Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press.

Sagi, A. (1982). Antecedents and consequences of

various degrees of paternal involvement in child-

rearing: The Israeli project. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.),

Nontraditional families: Parenting and child devel-opment (pp. 205–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sagiv, L. (2002). Vocational interests and basic val-

ues. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 233–257.Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content

and structure of values: Theoretical advances and

empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a

psychological structure of human values. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 53,550–562.

Struch, N., Schwartz, H. S., & van der Kloot, W. A.

(2002). Meanings of basic values for women and

men: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16–28.

Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender in

families: Women and men in marriage, work, and

parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51,845–871.

Van Dijk, L., & Siegers, J. J. (1996). The division of

child care among mothers, fathers, and nonparental

care providers in Dutch two-parent families. Jour-nal of Marriage and Family, 58, 1018–1028.

Volling, B. L., & Belsky, J. (1991). Multiple deter-

minants of father involvement during infancy in

dual-earner and single-earner families. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 53, 461–474.

Yeung, J. W., Sandberg, J. F., Davis-Kean, P. E., &

Hofferth, S. L. (2001). Children’s time with fathers

in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family,63, 136–154.


the role of value priorities in paternal and maternal involvement in child care

Documents