1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Past research on the mother-child dyad has been extensive, portraying mothers as
nurturers and caregivers of children (Culp, Schadle, Robinson, & Culp, 2000), but it has
not explored the role of fathers in depth. However, with the rise of dual-earner families,
many fathers are now sharing caregiving responsibilities with mothers (Culp et al., 2000;
Lamb, 2000; Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000; Maurer & Pleck, 2006) in addition
to their traditional roles as financial providers (Lamb, 2000; Maurer & Pleck, 2006).
Although research on father involvement is still sparse, emerging studies show fathers’
influences on children’s academic outcomes, future employment, and overall social
competence (Culp et al., 2000); thus, fathers are now recognized as influential in their
children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development (Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon,
Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004). However, the emerging research on fathers was done primarily
with European American families in the United States, but little is known about fathers
from different cultural contexts. Thus, the current study focuses on Chinese American
fathers and their influence on children’s social and emotional development.
2
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between father
involvement in Chinese American families and children’s socio-emotional development.
According to Jankowiak (1992), traditional Chinese fathers are emotionally reserved in
comparison to European American fathers and interact with their children primarily when
disciplinary action is needed. Chinese American fathering, however, may differ across
individuals due to acculturation factors.
The United States consists of a diverse array of cultures; however, very little is
known about parenting across cultures. Parenting undoubtedly differs across cultures due
to varying beliefs, values, and goals. For example, cross-cultural research suggests that
American parents value autonomy whereas Chinese parents value social cohesion and
interpersonal relations (Wang & Fivush, 2005). To better understand childrearing and
child development in the United States, researchers must look beyond the role of mothers
as caretakers and examine other ethnic groups besides European Americans in order to
recognize the importance of paternal involvement and its effect on children. The
proposed study focuses on Chinese American fathers and explores their influence on the
socio-emotional development of their school-aged children.
3
Significance of the Study
Father-child relationships have a profound influence on child development, but
have often been overlooked. Previous studies found that children who experienced high
father involvement in childcare tended to have fewer external behavioral problems (Culp
et al., 2000) and better psychological adjustment when maturing to adulthood (Lewis &
Lamb, 2003). In earlier research, fathers who engage in stimulating physical play
situations with their children have been seen as large contributors to their children’s
socialization (Boyum & Parke, 1995; Carson & Parke, 1996; Lamb, 2000). Recent
research has also shown that fathers’ emotional displays of positive affect correlates with
children’s social competency and peer acceptance (McDowell & Parke, 2005). There is
no doubt that father-child interactions are important to children’s development.
Despite what little is known in the area of paternal involvement, even less is
known about Chinese fathers raising children in the United States. Because Asian
Americans are the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States, it is important to
increase the body of knowledge about these families (Sue, Nakamura, Chung, & YeeBradbury, 1994). Little research has been done on Chinese-American parental
involvement, let alone father-child interactions. Past research has portrayed Chinese
fathers as authoritarian in parenting style (Chao, 1994), but little research has been done
on Chinese American fathers. Findings in Hong Kong showed an association between
fathers’ harsh parenting and children’s depressive symptoms (Shek, 2008). Thus, more
research is needed to understand the subtleties and complexities of Chinese American
4
fathering, as the fathers are significant contributors to children’s social and emotional
development. Subsequently, this study examined the relationship of Chinese American
father involvement with the following areas: (a) their acculturation levels (b) the quality
of their children’s peer relationships, and (c) their children’s levels of self-esteem. The
results of the study may be useful in empowering Chinese American fathers to take active
roles in their interactions with children and to help educators be culturally sensitive to
children of differing ethnicities.
Methods
Participants
For this study, 31 Chinese-American families were recruited from Chinese
churches in three California cities: Pleasanton, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. All
participating families had at least one child between the ages of seven and 11 years old,
with both biological parents residing with the child in the home. All parents included in
this study had resided in the United States for at least 10 years. Fathers and mothers from
this sample, if not born in the US, were born in Hong Kong, China, or Taiwan, with the
exception of one father born in Peru, one mother born in Jamaica, and one mother born in
Cambodia.
5
Measures
Survey measures were used to gather information on acculturation, paternal
involvement, children’s peer relationships, and children’s self-esteem. Paternal
involvement was evaluated under five subscales of the Paternal Involvement and
Childcare Index (PICCI): general involvement, childcare responsibilities, socialization
responsibilities, influence in child-rearing responsibilities, and time-availability. Fathers
were requested to fill out the demographic questionnaire (Appendix A), which included
embedded acculturation measures, as well as the PICCI (Appendix B). Mothers were
asked to fill out two questionnaires, the Quality of Child’s Friendship (Appendix D) and
Behavior with Peers (Appendix E), on their children’s peer relationships. Children were
asked to fill out the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (CSEI), which measured selfesteem under four subscales: general self-esteem, social self-esteem, home and parents
self-esteem, and school or academic self-esteem. The CSEI can be found in Appendix C.
Correlational analyses were then conducted to determine the relationships
between acculturation and father involvement, father involvement and children’s peer
relationships, and father involvement and children’s self-esteem.
Definition of Terms
Father involvement can be defined with the following dimensions: engagement,
accessibility, responsibility, warmth, and control (Hofferth et al., 2007; Lamb, 2000;
Parke, 2000; Saleh, Buzi, Weinman, & Smith, 2005). Engagement is defined by direct
6
interactions with the child through caregiving activities and shared activities such as play
(Lamb, 2000; Parke, 2000). Accessibility is defined by the time and availability the father
has to interact with the child (Hofferth et al, 2007; Lamb, 2000). Responsibility concerns
managing children’s physical needs such as housing, physician visits, education, and
making sure the child is fed (Hofferth et al, 2007; Lamb, 2000; Parke, 2000). Warmth,
derived from Baumrind’s (1971) conceptualization of parenting styles, can be defined as
responsiveness to children’s needs. Lastly, control is described by restrictions placed on
children’s behaviors and parents’ level of demandingness (Baumrind, 1991; Hofferth et
al., 2007). Father involvement in caregiving has shown positive relationships in
children’s cognitive (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004) and socio-emotional development
(Carson & Parke, 1996; Lewis & Lamb, 2003); thus the current study examined the
relationship between Chinese American father involvement in childcare and children’s
social and emotional development.
Acculturation is the degree to which an individual living in a new country adopts
the values and practices of the new culture. Berry, Trimble, and Olmeda (1986) described
four types of acculturation: assimilation, marginalization, separation, and integration.
Assimilation is discarding one’s native culture and identifying with the new culture.
Marginalization is defined as rejecting both the native and new culture. Separation is
rejecting the new culture and adhering to the native culture, and lastly, integration is
blending together the native and new cultures.
Self-esteem can be defined as an individual’s perception of his or her own value
and worth (Coopersmith, 1981; Rosenberg, 1965). Coopersmith (1981) makes four
7
distinctions in children’s self-esteem: their general self-esteem, social self-esteem, selfesteem at home, and self-esteem in the school setting. Self-esteem may vary depending
upon the different contexts the children face. Thus, this study uses the four subcategories
of self-esteem that Coopersmith identified to obtain an overview on children’s selfperceptions in different situations.
Peer relationships are defined as the acquaintance with people of similar age
within a particular context (Berndt, 1996). Two different facets of children’s peer
relationships were considered in the current study: behavior with peers and friendship
quality. The former references adaptive and maladaptive behavior with other children in
the general peer context. The latter refers to relations between friends. Both behavior and
friendship quality are divided into positive and negative qualities. Elements of positive
peer behavior include taking turns, being kind, and cooperating with others. Negative
peer relationships are characterized by behaviors such as threatening others, being bossy,
or purposely excluding others.
Friendships develop from peer relationships. Friendship is defined as a
reciprocated, intimate, and loyal relationship with another individual in which both
people fulfill their social need for companionship and acceptance (Buhrmester, 1990).
When looking at a child’s particular relationship with another individual, this study
examined both positive and negative friendship qualities. Positive qualities of friendship
included the child working well with his or her best friend, helping the friend, and the
two taking each other’s suggestions into consideration. Negative qualities of friendship
8
include using verbal aggression, criticizing the friend, and protesting when the friend tries
to take control.
Limitations of the Study
The results obtained from a sample size of 31 families require caution in
generalizing to the entire Chinese American population. Additionally, recruitment
originated from the church setting, so variability among the sample regarding childrearing practices may be limited as churchgoers may value certain dimensions of father
involvement over others. There has not been much attention to father involvement in the
Chinese community in the past, as most childrearing tasks are usually designated to the
mother. Traditionally, fathers were typically less involved in childcare responsibilities;
therefore calling father’s attention to father involvement in this study may have invoked
feelings of shame or inadequacy. As a result, fathers may have felt restricted in the
responses they provided as they may have felt that they were being judged or criticized
for their parenting, although the researcher reassured fathers prior to the start of the study
that this was not the case. Despite these limitations, the results obtained are valuable as
they provide a window into the lives of Chinese American families, thus supporting the
importance of the role of fathers in the family dynamic when fathers have been
undervalued in the past.
9
Organization of the Study
Chapter One contained an overview of the research study, and provided
information on the purpose of the study, its significance, methodology, definition of
terms, and limitations. Chapter Two presents a literature review of the following four
areas: (a) The history of father involvement in the US and China, (b) the theoretical
background related to father involvement, (c) the role of fathers in children’s social and
emotional development, and (d) the socio-emotional issues facing Chinese American
children. Chapter Three provides a detailed description of the methodology used in the
research study, which includes information on participants, procedures, survey measures,
and the data analysis. Chapter Four presents the results of correlational analysis used to
examine the associations between father’s acculturation and father involvement, father
involvement and children’s peer relationships, and father involvement and children’s
self-esteem. Lastly, Chapter Five discusses the implications of the study’s major findings,
its limitations, and future research that can stem from this study.
10
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Children’s social-emotional development involves a complex network of
interactions between children and their families, peers, and the environment. For
example, research on parent-child interactions suggests that parents influence children’s
emotional regulation, thus affecting their social competence and peer acceptance
(McDowell & Parke, 2009; Rah & Parke, 2008). In addition, fathers may play a role in
children’s social-emotional development that is distinct from that of mothers. For
example, research shows that fathers’ own affect and emotional control predicts
children’s externalizing behaviors with their peers (McDowell & Parke, 2005). Also,
father’s involvement in play is positively related to children’s cognitive, language, and
social-emotional development (Carson & Parke, 1996; Lewis & Lamb, 2003; TamisLeMonda et al., 2004). However, most of these studies were conducted on European
American families and may not be representative of ethnic minority families that have
differing cultural values. Thus, further research examining father-child interactions in
other cultural contexts is crucial to the field of child development.
The present study examined Chinese American father involvement in childrearing
and its relation to children’s social and emotional development. Chinese American
families are important to study because they are a growing subcultural group in the
United States. Recently, there has been an increase in research on Chinese parenting, but
11
there is still limited research on Chinese American families, and particularly on Chinese
American fathers. One important topic to investigate is the role of acculturation in
Chinese American parenting: specifically, relations among acculturation, father
involvement, and children’s social-emotional development.
The present study examined three aspects of father involvement in Chinese
American families. First, it examined the relation between Chinese American fathers’
acculturation levels and their involvement with their children. Second, it explored
relations between father involvement and children’s quality of peer relationships. Third,
it examined the relation between father involvement and children’s self-esteem. This
study was informed by the literatures on fathering in American society, Chinese and
Chinese American families, and culture and parenting. The review of the literature is
organized into the following four areas: (a) the history of fathering in US and China, (b)
the theoretical background related to father involvement, (c) the role of fathers in
children’s social-emotional development, and (d) specific cultural factors that may affect
Chinese American children’s social-emotional development.
Father Involvement in the US and China
The role of fathers in children’s development was largely overlooked in earlier
developmental research. Only recently has there been an increase in studying the quality
of father involvement and its direct effect on child outcomes. Father involvement, in this
current study, includes fathers’ direct interactions with their children, availability to
12
attend to their children, childcare responsibilities, parental warmth, and parental control
(Hofferth et al., 2007; Parke, 2000). However, it is important to note that conceptions of
father involvement have changed over time and vary with culture. The following section
will briefly address father involvement in the US, father involvement in China, and
current definitions and conceptions of father involvement in child development literature.
Father Involvement in the US
In the United States, notions of ideal father involvement have changed over the
years in accordance with the values of the time. During the Puritan times, the father’s role
was to teach morals through discipline (Lamb, 2000). Fathers did not take part in
childrearing activities with young children unless discipline was involved. Fathers,
however, often modeled their workmanship for the older children (usually sons), as sons
often served as apprentices. During the industrial times, the source of income shifted
from home-industry, or agriculture, to out-of-home business in the mills and factories. As
a result, fathers became the “breadwinners” and were valued primarily in this role (Lamb,
2000; Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Fathers would leave the home to earn
their wages elsewhere, while mothers raised children at home, educating, disciplining,
and socializing them.
After World War II and the feminist movement, the criteria for judging a good
father shifted from the emphasis on breadwinning and disciplining children to nurturing
children. Specifically, women entered the workforce, and childrearing responsibilities
were then shared with fathers. Nowadays, many women are financial contributors to their
13
families, and thus, are not as readily available to participate in 100% of childrearing
activities; hence, fathers are now expected to share in those childrearing responsibilities.
The societal expectations of involvement in childrearing now includes these dimensions:
engagement with children during play or one-on-one interactions, accessibility in terms
of time-availability for children, responsibility in childcare, warmth in interaction style,
and control in terms of discipline (Hofferth et al., 2007; Parke, 2000).
Father Involvement in China
The role of fathers has also been shifting in Chinese societies. In ancient China,
fathers were seen as stern disciplinarians. Most families lived in agrarian villages, and
parenting followed the motto, “strict father, kind mother,” (Shwalb, Nakazawa,
Yamamoto, & Hyun, 2004). Parenting practices were influenced by Confucian principles
of social harmony, in which each person fulfills his or her role in the social hierarchy
(Bond & Hwang, 1986). Those who were subordinate were expected to show respect and
humility toward elders, while the elders were responsible for teaching and disciplining
the younger members of the society (Chao, 1994). Hence, fathers took their moral
obligation as the stern disciplinarian seriously (Shek, 2008).
Since 1979, China instituted the one-child policy, which transformed father-child
relationships in China. In the past, fathers were traditionally more involved in the
upbringing of boys than girls, because boys carried on the family bloodline and were
culturally valued more than daughters (Jankowiak, 1992; Shwalb, Nakazawa, Yamamoto,
& Hyun, 2004). Currently, with families only allowed one child in the family, much
14
focus and attention is placed on that one child. As a result, families have been taking the
necessary measures (e.g., abortion) to increase the likelihood of having a son, as can be
seen by the disproportionate birthrate for males compared to female babies (Shwalb,
Nakazawa, Yamamoto, & Hyun, 2004). As a result, contrary to their roles as
disciplinarians, fathers unexpectedly began to spoil their children by giving into their
whims (Shwalb, Nakazawa, Yamamoto, & Hyun, 2004).
Thus, the fathering role has been evolving with the changing social cultural
context. Chinese fathers are not only disciplinarians now, but their parenting style more
likely includes warmth and sharing of caregiving responsibilities since mothers are now
commonly working outside the home (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang,
2003; Costigan & Dokis, 2006; Jankowiak, 1992). Fathering has been transformed in
both Eastern and Western cultures; however, the values and conceptions of fathering in
the US and China are different. There is limited research regarding fathering in China and
its effect on child outcomes, and even less research done on Chinese immigrant families
in the US.
Definitions and Conceptions of Father Involvement in Child Development Literature
The father involvement construct referred to in this study focuses mainly on
positive paternal involvement and can be operationally defined as a father’s engagement
and accessibility in terms of amount of time spent with the child, responsibility in
childcare activities, warmth in parenting style, and monitoring of children’s behavior
(Hofferth, 2003; Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001). There are multiple
15
pathways in which father involvement influences child outcomes, both indirectly and
directly. Fathers may indirectly affect child outcomes through their employment status,
attitudes about fathering, and relationship with the child’s mother. Additionally, there
may be a bidirectional influence between fathering and child outcomes, as certain
behaviors exhibited by the child may prompt either greater or lesser involvement from
fathers (Pleck, 2007). On the other hand, fathers may directly influence their children
through their everyday interactions with them.
Currently, the role of fathers in the US has been redefined from that of a
breadwinner to that of an involved co-parent (Pleck & Pleck, 1997). Research since the
1980s began to show the positive relationship between this kind of father involvement
and child outcomes, and began to recognize fathers as important contributors to child
development (Pleck, 2007). Despite this increasing research, the social cultural context
in which children are developing is changing and the role of fathers is complex. For
example, within the last decade, there have been increases in divorce rates, single
parenting, step parenting, and cultural diversity in the US (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda,
Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000). Children are thus being exposed to complicated
family structures that consist of different father types. As a result, these different father
types will in turn influence children’s developmental outcomes (Cabrera et al., 2000).
Thus, there is even more of a pressing need to research the influence of fathers within the
ever-changing social context, as relationships become increasingly complex, and
culturally diverse concepts of parenting are being integrated.
16
Factors Affecting Father Involvement
As the social cultural context changes in the United States, there are several
factors that affect fathers’ involvement with their children. In particular, fathers’ income,
education, and age are factors that influence their level of involvement with their
children. Currently, men and women in the United States are getting married at a later
age. The mean age of first marriage for men, according to the U.N. Department of
Economic and Social Affairs Population Division (2008), is 28 years old, and the mean
age of marriage for women is 26 years old. Men and women across the United States are
obtaining higher levels of education, which correlates with getting married later in life
and earning higher wages with a college degree.
Father’s Income and Education. An overarching factor that that pervades all
dimensions of father involvement is age, income and educational level. Researchers
found that common barriers to father-child involvement are: “lack of maturity, lack of
economic support, unemployment, and low educational attainment” (Saleh, Buzi,
Weinman, & Smith, 2005, p. 514). The ability of the father to provide financial support
influences not only father-child relations, but also mother-child relations. As a result,
they both heavily predict children’s developmental well-being. Father’s income is an
important predictor of children’s development because more often than not, income level
is contingent upon the father’s age and educational attainment. Those with higher levels
of education also tend to be older. Father’s income, age, and education levels can
indirectly influence a child’s cognitive and language development by affecting the
mother’s relationship with the child (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). Economic resources
17
can also determine how invested a father is to his child. Such investment may lead to
increased warmth in the father-child relationship and affect the degree of control the
father has over his child. Landale and Oropesa (2001) studied the role economic status
played in Puerto Rican father-child relationships. The majority of Puerto Rican children
in the study were born out of wedlock. Often times, non-resident fathers would have little
contact with their children if they could not contribute economically. Those who were not
financially invested in their children could not be engaged, accessible, or responsible for
their children. The fathers who lived with their children’s mother tended to be older,
employed, and capable of contributing financially to the children’s upbringing, which had
a positive correlation to child involvement.
Father’s Age. In general, father’s age was positively associated with involvement
in childrearing responsibilities. Heath (2001) examined fathers who had children after the
age of thirty-five. The researchers hypothesized that late-time fathers would spend more
time with their children, have higher expectations of their children’s behaviors, be more
nurturing, and be less controlling than on-time fathers. All four of the hypotheses were
confirmed and the differences between on-time and late-time fathers were attributed to
the fact that late-time fathers were established in their work, have fewer children, and
tended to have higher levels of education. In order to better understand the importance
and complexity of father involvement, the next section reviews literature on the
theoretical background related to father involvement.
18
Theoretical Background Related to Father Involvement
Researchers have started to recognize the need to study father involvement and its
effect on child outcomes. There are numerous theories that explain how fathers can
influence child development. Particularly, there are three theoretical perspectives to
employ when focusing on an immigrant population, such as Chinese American fathers, in
which the host culture is vastly different from the immigrant’s culture of origin. The
following subsections will review parenting under three theoretical perspectives:
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory, the cultural value systems of
Individualism and Collectivism, and lastly, Acculturation Theory.
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory
Parenting plays a large role in children’s well being, as the effects of parenting
permeate children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. The importance of
father involvement and its effect on child development can be better understood by first
looking at the dynamic reciprocal relationship between the environment and the child,
also known as proximal process interactions. Proximal process interactions drive
development and become increasingly complex as the child matures and continues to
learn from people, objects, and symbols in the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Pleck
2007). Bronfenbrenner describes an ecological model that consists of various levels of
reciprocal influence that can be visualized as nested systems, with the innermost level
being the microsystem.
19
Microsystem. Microsystems are the layer of the environment closest to the child
and the area of most direct influence on children’s development. In this layer, the child
builds relationships with various partners, such as with his or her parents, peers, teachers,
and other adults. Proximal process, which is the reciprocal interaction between the child’s
microsystem partners and the child, becomes progressively complex as the child ages and
learns new things. These increasingly complex interactions between the child and his or
her microsystem partners drive the child’s development into adulthood (Pleck, 2007).
Residential fathers are often categorized under this layer and function as one of the
child’s microsystem partners. Proximal process interactions between father and child are
unique because fathers differ from mothers in their interaction style, which consequently
affects child’s development. Specifically, father involvement in Western culture has been
positively associated with children’s cognitive, language, and socio-emotional
development (Carson & Parke, 1996; Lewis & Lamb, 2003; Tamis-LeMonda et al.,
2004). Fathers, unlike mothers, often engage in rough-and-tumble play, which through
proximal processes, promote children’s emotional regulation (Parke, 2002; Pleck, 2007).
Hence, fathers are important figures in children’s early development, as their direct
interactions with them influence their children’s later developmental outcomes.
Mesosystem. Connecting the microsystems are the mesosystems, which are the
connections between the child’s microsystem partners, or the people directly involved
with the child, for example, the relationship between the child’s parent and teacher or the
relationship between the child’s parents. Fathers indirectly influence children’s
development through this layer of the Bioecological System. For example, research
20
shows that fathers who are more involved in children’s education (e.g., volunteering in
school functions or participating in parent-teacher conferences) send children the
message that school is important; thus children of involved fathers show increased
attendance, fewer discipline problems, and higher academic achievement in school
(McBride, Schoppe-Sullivan, & Ho, 2005). Other research has shown that the father’s
relationship with the child’s mother, who is another microsystem partner, is an important
component to father involvement. Pleck and Hofferth (2008) have found that low marital
conflict was associated with increased father involvement, and Cabrera et al. (2000)
found that marital harmony influences the quality of parent-child relationships. Research
reveals that a father’s involvement with his children can be mediated through mother’s
involvement, such as “maternal gatekeeping”; hence, the relationship between the child’s
mother and father can indirectly influence child outcomes. In other words, the mother is
more likely to allow the father to be involved if her relationship with the father consists
of low conflict (Pleck & Hofferth, 2008). Thus, fathers are important contributors to the
mesosystem, in that fathers’ relationships with their children’s other microsystem
partners have been associated with positive child outcomes.
Exosystem. Encircling the mesosystems are the exosystems, in which the child is
not directly involved. This level accounts for the relationships between the people
directly involved with the child and those individuals who do not directly interact or even
know the child, such as the relationships between the child’s parent and parent’s coworker, or the relationship between the child’s teacher and his or her spouse. The
exosystem includes such factors as the father’s social network, education, and income.
21
Specifically, Tamis-LeMonda et al., (2004) found that fathers who were educated and
employed indirectly influenced child’s development by enhancing mother-child
relationships. Additionally, indirect factors such as a father’s education and income have
also been positively related to children’s success at school, peer relationships, and
cognitive development (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000; Saleh, Buzi, Weinman,
& Smith, 2005; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004).
Macrosystem. The next level, the macrosystem, includes larger cultural values,
attitudes, ideologies, and expectations, as well as social policies. In the case of Chinese
American children, the macrosystem identifies individualism as a key societal value
while their family promotes a different cultural orientation – one that values collectivism.
One way of defining culture is through examining its core societal values (Cooper &
Denner, 1998). Children grow up within the expectations of their culture, which in turn,
shapes their behavior and relationships with their microsystem partners. However, when
discussing Chinese American children, culture is not so clearly defined for them. Their
microsystem partners consist of individuals with differing cultural ideals. For example,
when at home, their mother may downplay their children’s successes and focus on their
misdeeds to help their children improve in those areas; whereas, at school, teachers may
praise the children for their accomplishments and then downplay failures with the
purposes of enhancing self-esteem (Miller, Cowan, Cowan, & Hetherington, 1993; Wang
& Fivush, 2005; Wang & Leichtman, 2000). As a result, children may be confused as to
how they are supposed to act, as the developmental goals and value systems of the
authority figures in their lives may differ. It will be important to research how cultural
22
values affect parental involvement as Parke (2000) has shown that a father’s ethnic
identity, whether it be more American or more Chinese, critically shapes how he parents
his children.
Chronosystem. The last level in Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory
is the chronosystem, which can include life transitions such as going to school, entering
puberty, moving, marriage, divorce, and much more (Bronfenbrenner, 1986;
Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Pleck, 2007). Research has shown that as the child gets older, the
level of parental involvement changes. For example, the increased age of children has
been correlated with fathers’ decreased involvement (Pleck & Hofferth, 2008). As
children enter into adolescence, they become increasingly independent, and parents
become less involved in the childcare (e.g., bathing, dressing, putting the child to bed,
etc.) and more involved in monitoring children’s behaviors. Another aspect of the
chronosystem includes large societal changes, such as the shifts seen in the history of
fathering. As the social-cultural contexts changes with the times, so do expectations of
what constitutes an involved father. During Puritan times, an involved father was defined
as that of a disciplinarian; whereas, in current day, with women in the workforce,
involved fathers are defined as engaged, accessible, responsible in childcare duties, warm
in interaction style, and authoritative in disciplining children (Hofferth et al., 2007; Parke,
2000).
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems outlines the overarching importance of
parenting within the context of the United States, as this theory defines an individual’s
development through the interactions between the person and environment. When
23
considering Chinese American families, the focus of the current study, it is important to
address variations between US and Chinese cultures. Thus, the identified “cultural
syndromes” of individualism and collectivism will be discussed next. A cultural
syndrome refers to the shared values (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, norms, etc.) of a group of
individuals who live in the same time period, speak the same language, and live in the
same geographic location (Triandis, 1993; Triandis, 1996). These cultural syndromes
define culture through pre-established core societal values that then shape the behavior of
the individual of that culture (Cooper & Denner, 1998). The following section will
discuss the “cultural syndromes” of individualism and collectivism that describe the
United States and Chinese culture, and how children’s development is affected.
Individualism and Collectivism
Culture is intimately linked with developmental outcomes. The environment in
which a child develops contains meaningful social values and practices that are
transmitted from one generation to the next (Cooper & Denner, 1998; Super & Harkness,
2002). Traditionally speaking, Western cultures are seen to promote developmental goals
of independence and autonomy, whereas Eastern cultures are seen to promote
collectivistic ideals of social and group harmony (Cooper & Denner, 1998; TamisLeMonda et al., 2008). However, this view that these two value systems are mutually
exclusive is an over-simplification of culture. In fact, when examining parenting goals
across cultures on a micro-level, researchers found a coexistence between the two value
systems (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008).
24
On a macro-level, individualistic cultures contain four implicit autonomy-related
parenting goals that are promoted in the individuals of that society: personal choice,
intrinsic motivation to achieve personal goals, self-esteem, and self-maximization (i.e.,
striving to reach one’s full potential). In these cultures, these parenting goals are
perceived to promote independent and healthy individuals (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008).
However, as the social-cultural context continues to evolve due to globalization and
technological advances, boundaries between individualism and collectivism are blurred
(Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008). Chinese American children are raised in an environment
that embraces and expects these overarching individualistic standards, but their parents,
depending upon their level of assimilation in the US, are socializing them, to varying
degrees, with collectivist ideals.
In contrast to individualistic societies, collectivistic cultures promote relatedness
and interdependence upon other members of that society. The implied parenting goals of
this culture includes goals to reinforce the importance of close relationships, adapting to
the larger group, and respecting and obeying those who are in authority (Tamis-LeMonda
et al., 2008). Particularly, parenting in China was heavily influenced by Confucian
principles that stated that people are defined by their relationships, and that those
relationships contain a hierarchical order; preserving social harmony was of utmost
importance (Bond & Hwang, 1986). However, Chinese American children are not being
raised under pure individualistic or collectivistic ideals. Specifically, immigrants may
adopt new parenting goals upon entering a new country, and each family unit employs
these ideals to varying degrees (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008). Hence, Chinese American
25
children do not have a clearly defined macrosystem level, so research on their
developmental outcomes is of particular interest.
Chinese American parents employ parenting goals that blend individualistic and
collectivistic ideals. The goals may be conflicting, additive, or functionally dependent
(Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008). Firstly, autonomy, an attribute that is usually associated
with individualism, can coexist with relatedness in a conflicting manner. For example,
Chinese immigrant parents are expected to display the collectivistic parenting goals of
relatedness. However, they may show concern for children’s academic achievement
(autonomy) if their child spends too much time with friends (relatedness) instead of
studying (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008). Hence, the value systems are conflicting as well
as coexisting. Autonomy and relatedness can also coexist in additive ways. For example,
in a study by Wang and Tamis-LeMonda (2003), Chinese American mothers reported
endorsing qualities in their children that demonstrated a coexistence of collectivistic and
individualistic characteristics such as: obedience, cooperation, politeness, assertiveness,
diligence, leadership, and striving toward personal success. Lastly, these two value
systems can coexist in a fashion where one value system is functionally dependent on
another system. For example, Chinese parents may encourage their children to be
autonomous by achieving individual success so that they may one day give back to their
family group (Yu & Yang, 1994).
Cooper and Denner (1998) note the importance of social-identity as the key to
being functional members of society. Since Chinese Americans are, in fact, living in a
country generally promoting independence, those who adapt to this social identity will
26
have a greater chance of being better adjusted socially and emotionally. Cooper and
Denner (1998) explain that, “individual competence is defined not in universal terms but
within the cultural and historical contexts in which children develop” (p. 568). Because
Chinese American children are raised in a cultural context different from that of their
European American peers, Chinese American children may have more challenges in their
socio-emotional development. Hence, one variable of the current study is examining the
acculturation level of Chinese American fathers and how that affects father involvement
and child social and emotional outcomes. Hopefully, examining fathers’ acculturation
level will provide insight into the cultural values underlying Chinese American father
involvement and how it affects children’s peer relationships and self-esteem.
Acculturation Theory
Acculturation, another form of within-group variability, is the degree to which an
immigrant adapts to a new host culture (Pope-Davis, Liu, Nevitt, & Toporek, 2000;
Weaver & Kim, 2008). Acculturation has been closely linked to parental child-rearing
beliefs, which ultimately influences children’s development and psychological well-being
in adolescence (Farver, Xu, Bhadha, Narang, & Lieber, 2007). There are two common
models of acculturation theory, the unidirectional model and the bi-directional model.
The unidirectional model is described as linear and oversimplified, as it portrays
acculturation as a process of relinquishing the native culture in exchange for the new host
culture. The bi-directional model is more widely accepted and takes into account the
complexity of acculturation and recognizes that acculturation can be nonlinear (Flannery,
27
Reise, & Yu, 2001). Berry, Trimble, and Olmeda (1986) described four types of
acculturation under the bi-directional model. The first one being assimilation, which is
the discarding of one’s native culture and identifying with the new culture. The second
type is marginalization, described as rejecting both the native and new culture. The third
type is separation, which is the rejection of the new culture and adherence to the native
culture. Lastly, integration is one type of acculturation that blends the native and new
cultures.
Research has shown the integration type of acculturation results in less conflict
and anxiety within immigrant families. (Berry, Kim, & Boski, 1988; Berry, 1997).
Chinese parents who immigrate to the United States are often faced with pressures to
acculturate to the Western style of living. Depending on the family, acculturation levels
vary across families and within the family unit itself. Often, there is a dissonance within
parent and child relationships as children usually acculturate faster than their parents
(Portes, 1997; Kwak, 2003). Weaver and Kim (2008) studied Chinese American parents
and adolescents in Northern California and found that, when parents and children both
had a bi-cultural profile, the children reported fewer depressive symptoms. This is
consistent with the findings from past research that integration was associated with more
positive psychological adjustment in adolescents. However, children who had a bicultural profile but had parents who were more Chinese-oriented, reported less supportive
parenting and more depressive symptoms. The researchers also found that language (i.e.,
the ability of the parent and child to converse with each other) was the key predictor of
Chinese American adolescents’ well-being in this study. Likewise, a study by Schofield,
28
Parke, Kim, and Coltrane (2008) with Mexican American families found that the
acculturation gap within the parent-child relationship may serve as a stressor, but the
quality of relationship may serve as a buffer. This is consistent with the Chinese
American study that the effects of an acculturation gap can be counteracted by the quality
of relationship between parent and child. Thus, the current study examined fathers’
acculturation and its correlation to father involvement.
Acculturation is a concept that gives insight into immigrant families’ parenting
values. Every individual within the family unit acculturates differently. Fathers may
assimilate to the new culture, reject both the new and old culture, adhere to their native
culture, or blend the two cultures together. Thus, depending upon their cultural outlook,
fathers may hold values that affect their involvement with their children. Consequently,
their involvement then affects children’s social and emotional outcomes. The following
section will address parent and child relationships and its association with children’s
social and emotional development.
Role of Fathers in Children’s Social and Emotional Development
Both mothers and fathers play distinct roles within the family, and the proximal
process interactions that take place between the parent and child leads to different
outcomes (Finley, Mira, & Schwartz, 2008; Pleck, 2007). The following section will
briefly discuss the literature on how fathers’ role in children’s social and emotional
development differs from mothers’ role, particularly in play interactions and
29
communicative style and the influence fathers have on children’s peer relationships and
self-esteem.
Influence of Fathers on Children’s Peer Relationships
Fathers’ involvement in various aspects of childcare uniquely affects children’s
social and emotional development and relationship with peers. Mothers and fathers differ
in their play interactions with their children and their communication style with their
children (Lanvers, 2004; Leaper, Anderson, & Sanders, 1998; MacDonald & Parke,
1984; McBride, Dyer, Liu, Brown, & Hong, 2009; Russell & Russell, 1987; TamisLeMonda et al., 2004). As a result, these differences in parental roles have an influence in
children’s social and emotional outcomes, such as children’s ability to regulate their
emotions, communicate with a variety of individuals, and make friends in school. These
two differences will be discussed in further detail in the following subsections.
Parental Differences in Play Styles. Past research has shown that mothers tend to
be involved in all aspects of childcare, including play (Finley, Mira, & Schwartz, 2008;
Russell & Russell, 1987). In contrast, fathers were rated as less involved in childcare
responsibilities compared to mothers, except for the subscale of play interactions. Fathers
and mothers spent about an equal amount of time playing with their children, but the type
of play differed between fathers and mothers (Carson & Parke, 1996; Lewis & Lamb,
2003; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). Fathers engage in more rough and tumble play,
especially with sons, while mothers’ play is less physically intensive and more verbally
directive (Flanders, Leo, Paquette, Pihl, & Seguin, 2009; MacDonald & Parke, 1984).
30
Research done by Paquette (2004) suggests that children learn to regulate their
emotions during rough and tumble play, especially when fathers were the more dominant
figure during play. In those rough and tumble play sessions, fathers often controlled when
their child had the upper hand, and was able to set limits on their child’s behavior.
Physical play elevates children’s emotional arousal, which increases children’s aptitude
to learn the emotional displays exhibited by their fathers in that situation. Mothers’
displays of emotion, however, were not found to significantly influence children’s
emotional expression since mothers did not typically engage in that level of physical play
with children (Boyum & Parke, 1995; Carson & Parke, 1996). A study by Flanders et al.
(2009) found that fathers who were the dominant play partner had children who were
better able to manage their emotions with their peers, and were rated by their teachers to
be more popular than those children with fathers who were not as dominant. Those
fathers who were more verbally directive during play had children who were less popular
and scored lower on social competency scales, but mothers’ verbal directedness during
play predicted children’s popularity (MacDonald & Parke, 1984).
Fathers’ positive and negative affect during play is also an important component
to children’s social and emotional development in terms of peer competency. Fathers
who display higher intensity of positive affect with their children have children who were
more prosocial in their peer relations, and daughters who were more liked by peers
(Boyum & Parke, 1995). Fathers’ own emotional displays predicted children’s peer
acceptance and social competence. Carson and Parke (1996) found that fathers who
responded to children with negative affect during play had children who exhibited high
31
levels of externalizing behaviors and were more likely to be rejected by their peers.
However, fathers who displayed more positive affect had children who mirrored those
behaviors and were consequently better accepted by peers (McDowell & Parke, 2009;
McDowell & Parke, 2005; Boyum & Parke, 1995; Rah & Parke, 2008). Although both
mothers and fathers have differing play styles with their children, fathers are unique
contributors to children’s social and emotional development.
Parental Differences in Communication Style. Research indicates that mothers
and fathers also differ in their communicative style with their children. For example,
Lanvers (2004) found that mothers tend to talk with children more frequently than fathers
do, and to use more supportive speech and engage in child-initiated topics. Fathers, on
the other hand, tend to deliver more monologues on their own topic, deliver more
commands to their children, and use directives in their speech, often asking fewer
questions (Andersen, 1996; Leaper, Anderson, and Sanders, 1998; Lanvers, 2004).
Communicative differences between mothers and fathers have been recognized
for decades. Gleason (1975) proposed a Bridge Hypothesis that was developed on the
premise that fathers were less sensitive to their children’s communicative intentions than
mothers; thus, children had to work harder to communicate with their fathers. As a result,
children were able to develop communication skills that could be generalized, or
“bridged” to the outside world of peers (Mannle & Tomasello, 1987). Although this view
has been debated, current research verifies that communicative styles do in fact, differ
between fathers and mothers. McDowell, Parke, and Wang (2003) studied mothers’ and
fathers’ advice-giving styles and discovered that fathers’ advice-giving predicted
32
children’s social competence over that of mothers’ advice giving. Fathers were more
informative and directive in their speech, and tended to reserve advice giving until
situations in which children needed advising. This is consistent with the study by
Steinberg and Silk (2002) that found that children would seek out their mother’s support
during emotional situations and seek out their fathers when they need information or
material assistance. Thus, communicative patterns between mothers and fathers differ,
but are important to children’s social and emotional outcomes. The current study was not
able to examine fathers’ communication in detail, but had survey measures with aspects
of communication embedded in them.
Fathers influence children’s peer relationships indirectly through assisting in their
children’s development of social competency. This is done through fathers’ play
interactions, emotional displays, and communication style. Research has shown that
fathers’ rough and tumble play interactions with their children help them regulate their
emotions and understand social boundaries. Consequently, the children are then able to
generalize this skill to their peer relationships. Literature in father involvement also
showed that children learn emotional displays from their fathers and would model those
displays during similar play situations with their peers. Lastly, fathers’ unique
communication style contributes to children’s social competency, as children often seek
out their fathers’ advice when they need information or material assistance. Thus, the
current study assesses peer skills and friendship quality with respect to father
involvement.
33
Influence of Fathers on Children’s Self-Esteem
Self-esteem can be defined as an individual’s assessment of his or her own
personal worth and perceptions of competency (Rosenberg, 1965; Coopersmith 1981).
Self-esteem is an important construct to study in children’s social and emotional
development, as low self-esteem is associated with negative child outcomes such as
depression and substance abuse (Arbona & Power, 2003). Currently, there is limited data
on how father involvement relates to children’s self-esteem. Earlier research done on
young adults has shown the relationship between perceived parental warmth and control
and higher self-esteem (Diener, Isabella, Behunin, & Wong, 2008; Parish & McCluskey,
1993); however, the samples were restricted to European American families. Researchers
have proposed that self-esteem is socialized through parent-child interactions; but
research is currently lacking in addressing the effects of other factors of father
involvement on children’s self-esteem. Research done by Marin, Bohanek, and Fivush
(2008) showed the different ways parents scaffold their children’s emotional
understanding in conversations about past emotional events. Parents who were able to
help their children understand aversive experiences had children with higher self-esteem
and emotional regulation. However, earlier research has shown that fathers spoke less, in
general, to their children than mothers (Lanvers, 2004), which may in turn affect the
number of opportunities fathers can scaffold with their children about emotionally salient
events. In fact, most research in the area of self-esteem has focused on mother-child
attachment (Marin, Bohanek, & Fivush, 2008), thus there is a need to study father
involvement in relation to self-esteem.
34
The current study correlated children’s self-esteem with peer relations in order to
provide a comprehensive overview of children’s social and emotional development as
well as supplement the literature on Chinese American fathering. Little is known about
Chinese American fathers’ involvement and their children’s developmental outcomes.
Chinese American children face numerous issues that correspond with being children of
immigrant parents, and those issues are discussed in the next section.
Issues Facing Chinese American Children
Little research has been done on Chinese American families and children’s peer
relationships and self-esteem. The research that does persist pertains to Asian American
parental involvement in children’s academic achievement and the socialization goals of
Asian mothers. However, there has been increasing research done in China and Hong
Kong in regards to parenting styles and children’s emotional regulation. This research
provides some insight into the dynamics of Chinese families living in the United States,
as there may be some cultural practices and beliefs that have been carried over by
immigrant parents. Many concerns arise for Chinese American children with immigrant
parents, as their social and emotional development is affected by their relationship with
their parents. Research has shown that children often acculturate to their new host culture
faster than their parents. Children who identified more with Western culture, but had
parents who were more Chinese oriented, had more conflicts with their parents, showed
more depressive feelings, and had less motivation to do well in school (Costigan &
35
Dokis, 2006). Thus, more research on the Chinese American population is needed, as
Chinese American children face numerous challenges that will later affect their social and
emotional adjustment. The next subsection provides a brief overview on what little is
known about Chinese American parenting style and its implications on children’s social
and emotional development.
Chinese American Parenting Styles
Chinese American parenting style has been characterized as authoritarian by
Western scales (Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). However, these
Western scales did not account for other factors involved in Chinese parenting. Chinese
parenting, which can be deeply rooted in Confucian principles, focuses on teaching
children to preserve the social hierarchy and group harmony. As a result, often times,
Chinese parenting is perceived as controlling and directive in style (Chao, 1994). Chao
(1994) identifies two Confucian concepts that better explain Chinese parenting rather
than the Western definition of authoritarian: chiao shun, meaning training, and guan,
meaning governance, care, and love – both of which include some authoritarian
characteristics.
Depending upon Chinese American parents’ acculturation levels, parents may
vary in how closely they adhere to the Chinese way of childrearing. In traditional Chinese
culture, parents often use shaming to teach modesty and humility (Huntsinger & Jose,
2009). With European American families, shaming tactics led to children’s increased
aggression and depressive outcomes (Alessandri & Lewis, 1993). However, shaming did
36
not lead to those outcomes in Chinese families because it was counterbalanced with the
principles of group harmony. In fact, Chinese American fathers who scored high on chiao
shun, or training, had children who with fewer behavioral problems years later
(Huntsinger & Jose, 2009). Thus, more research is needed to study Chinese American
fathers’ parenting and involvement, since acculturation may be a mediating factor that
influences how children are raised, which subsequently affects children’s developmental
outcomes.
Struggles with Ethnic Identity
American culture, in contrast to Chinese culture, generally emphasizes
independence by focusing more on an individual’s qualities and uniqueness rather than a
connected and relational being (Cooper & Denner, 1998). This poses a problem for
Chinese-American children who are reared in an environment that does not prioritize
focusing on the self. However, when they attend the American school system, they are
expected to be independent and self-reliant. Thus, maintaining an ethnic identity is
difficult, and consequently, many Asian Americans suffer from depression. Emotions are
de-emphasized in Chinese culture, but are relevant and valued in American culture (Soto,
Levenson, & Ebling, 2005). Often times, these children are not taught how to cope with
negative affect because the traditional Chinese-American parents’ response is to have
their children suppress any negative emotions and avoid conflict (Chan & Leong, 1994).
Chinese men are culturally expected not to express emotions since men should “drop
blood but not tears” (Shek, 2000, p. 143). Chinese-American children exist at the juncture
37
of two vastly different cultures, which makes it difficult for these children to truly
identify their ethnic identity. As a result, children may not know to what standard to
evaluate their own personal worth and feelings of competence and significance, which
may potentially lead to decreased self-esteem (Alvarez & Helms, 2001).
Struggles with Self-Esteem
Promotion of children’s self -esteem is a parenting goal commonly found in the
US, but not one that is generalized across cultures. In fact, self-esteem is a term that does
not even exist in the Chinese language. Miller, Wang, Sandel, and Cho (2002) compared
European American and Taiwanese mothers’ beliefs about self-esteem. They found that
the American mothers were concerned about what would lower their children’s selfesteem and self-perceptions and what they would need to do, as parents, to enhance selfconcept. After defining the term to the Taiwanese mothers, the researchers found that the
Taiwanese mothers did not see self-esteem as a prioritized socialization goal. They
thought too much praise and encouragement, practices commonly used by American
mothers to enhance their children’s self-esteem, would end up crippling the children by
giving them too much pride and inadvertently teaching them to disrespect authority.
Instead, the Taiwanese mothers prioritized familial relationships, respect, and conforming
to the collective. Asian-Americans live in a country that emphasizes self-esteem, but they
may not receive much validation or encouragement in their home setting because selfesteem is not a major cultural value. Particularly, Chinese fathers are traditionally
reserved in their emotional displays and may not teach children to value their self-esteem,
38
which may pose as a challenge to the social and emotional well-being of Chinese
American children living in the United States.
The Present Study
In summary, studies on European American father-child relationships have been
shown to influence children’s cognitive, language, and socio-emotional development.
However, European American families are not the only ethnic group in the United States,
thus do not give us a complete look at child development in this country. To better
understand child development of a diverse US population, one must look at father
involvement in the perspective of non-European cultures. Chinese-Americans make up a
large percentage of the United States’ immigrant population. Little research has been
done on Chinese-American parental involvement, let alone father-child interactions. Past
analyses have shown the importance of acquiring a social identity and Chinese-American
children are often at odds because the ideals promoted in their home life differs
dramatically from the expectations promoted in their society. Three hypotheses are tested
in this study: (a) Chinese American fathers who are more acculturated to American
culture will score higher on the American scales of paternal involvement, (b) higher
scores on father involvement scales will positively correlate with children’s socioemotional adjustment in terms of peer relations quality and (c) higher scores of father
involvement will be a positively correlated to children’s self-esteem.
39
Chapter 3
METHODS
This quantitative study focused on father involvement in Chinese American
families and its relation to school-age children’s socio-emotional development.
Specifically, this study examined the relation of Chinese American father involvement
with the following areas: (a) their acculturation levels (b) their children’s quality of peer
relationships and (c) their children’s levels of self-esteem. To investigate these three
areas, correlational analyses were conducted and comparisons made between father
groups that were more acculturated and those that were less acculturated.
Fathers, mothers, and children provided data for this correlational study. Father
involvement was measured by responses on the Paternal Involvement and Child Care
Index (PICCI), and their acculturation level was measured by the number of years they
resided in the US, as well as their ability to speak, read, and write the Chinese language.
Children’s peer adjustment was measured through two questionnaires that were
completed by the mother, the Quality of Child’s Friendship Questionnaire (QCFQ) and
Behavior with Peers Questionnaire (BPQ). Children’s emotional adjustment was
measured by their responses on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (CSEI).
40
Participants
Thirty-one Chinese-American two-parent families with children aged 7 to 11
years were recruited from Chinese churches in Sacramento, Pleasanton, and Los Angeles.
Both biological parents of the child were asked to participate in this study. Only those
parents who had resided in the United States for at least 10 years, identified themselves as
Chinese American, and were fluent in the English language, were included in this study.
Both parents were told that the purpose of the study was to uncover fathers’ general role
in Chinese families and examine the relationship between their involvement and
children’s social and emotional development. Participating families were not reimbursed
for their time, but were thanked and entered into a raffle drawing for a dinner gift
certificate.
Fathers and mothers in this sample were mainly born overseas: 22 fathers and 25
mothers were born in Hong Kong, mainland China, or Taiwan. Eight fathers and four
mothers were born in the United States, one father was born in Peru, one mother was
born in Jamaica, and one mother was born in Cambodia. On average, 61% of fathers and
40% of mothers had resided in the United States for more than 21 years, the other 39%
and 60% resided in Hong Kong, China, or Taiwan, immigrating to the United States
within the last 20 years. Twenty-one fathers were between the ages of 41 and 50 years,
seven fathers were between the ages of 31 and 40 years, and three fathers were between
the ages of 51 and 60 years old. Thirty fathers held Bachelor’s degrees or higher.
41
Seventeen of the 31 fathers could speak, read, and write Chinese fluently. Three fathers
did not speak Chinese at all, and 10 fathers were unable to read or write any Chinese.
There were 21 mothers between the ages of 41 to 50 years, and 10 mothers
between the ages of 31 and 40. Twenty-five mothers held Bachelor’s degrees or higher.
Twenty-one mothers were fluent in speaking, reading, and writing Chinese. Four mothers
did not speak any Chinese, and eight mothers were reported to not be able to read or write
Chinese. Twenty-one families reported to have some form of Chinese spoken in the
household: 21 children (68%) of children were somewhat fluent in speaking, reading, and
writing Chinese, and only four children (13%) were fully fluent in speaking Chinese, and
two children (6%) were fully fluent in reading and writing Chinese. Six children (19%)
were unable to speak any Chinese, and eight children (26%) were unable to read or write
any Chinese.
Procedures
Recruitment
The researcher, who is of Chinese decent, recruited and contacted families by
visiting Chinese Christian churches in three California cities: Pleasanton, Sacramento,
and Los Angeles. When visiting those sites, the researcher handed out recruitment forms
as well as sent mass emails to members of those churches. Families interested in
participating filled out recruitment forms or notified the researcher verbally or through
email. The researcher also enlisted the help of friends and family who were active in the
42
Chinese community to help recruit additional participants. Many mothers in the original
35 families expressed interest and were eager to participate. However, for four families,
the mother and child completed their surveys, but the father refused to complete forms.
These four families were excluded from the study, resulting in 31 families that completed
data for analysis.
Data Collection
Survey packets were either hand-delivered or emailed to the participating
families. The families were then able to complete the surveys at their own convenience.
Mothers and fathers were required to sign a consent form for themselves and their
participating children prior to the start of the study. Fathers were asked to fill out a
demographic survey and a parent involvement measure, the PICCI. Mothers were asked
to fill out the QCFQ and the BPQ questionnaire. The child was asked to fill out the CSEI.
The researcher then returned one week later to the families’ homes or used email
correspondence to collect the completed questionnaires. Upon collecting the surveys, the
families were thanked for their participation.
Measures
Paternal Measures
Demographic Data. Fathers completed this general self-report questionnaire that
contained open-ended questions and multiple-choice questions requesting basic
43
demographic information including age, the number of biological children living at
home, years of education, and employment. Also, the questionnaire requested
information about acculturation, including: (a) the number of years the father had resided
in the United States and (b) father’s fluency in speaking and reading the Chinese
language. The demographic questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.
Paternal Involvement. Paternal Involvement was assessed using the Paternal
Involvement and Child Care Index (PICCI) (Radin, 1982). This survey was administered
in English and was completed by fathers. This instrument is a Likert-scale questionnaire
that has been used extensively in child development research to measure paternal
involvement in terms of task sharing in child rearing (Radin, 1982). The questionnaire’s
measurement of father involvement has been comprehensive enough to be used crossculturally with African-American families, Israeli families, Puerto Rican families, and
Indian families (Suppal & Roopnarine, 1999). This measure assesses paternal
involvement under five subscales: general involvement (e.g., “How involved are you in
caring for your children?”), childcare responsibilities (e.g., “How frequently do you feed
the children?”), socialization responsibilities (e.g., “How often do you help children with
personal problems?”), influence in child-rearing decisions (e.g., “”Who generally makes
decisions about when children should be disciplined?”), and time-availability (e.g., “How
often are you away from home on weekends?”). Fathers’ scores on each subscale were
totaled for an overall score that ranged between 0 and 72 (Radin, 1982). There were two
items that measured general involvement, and scores ranged from 0 to 24. For the
childcare, socialization responsibilities, and time availability subscales, four questions
44
were used in each subscale, and had scores ranging from 1 to 12 in each sub-domain.
Fathers’ involvement in decision-making was measured through two items, and scores
also ranged from 1 to 12. Higher scores indicated more perceived paternal involvement
(Culp et al, 2000). Radin (1982) found test-retest reliability to be very good. The PICCI
is provided in Appendix B.
Child Measures
Self Esteem. The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (CSEI), a widely used
measure in child development research, was used to assess general attitudes towards
oneself, attitudes towards peers, parents, school, and personal interests. The current study
used a specialized school version meant for children ages 8 to 15-years old. This measure
contains 58 general statements in which the child selects whether the favorable or
unfavorable aspects mentioned are "like me" or "not like me" (Coopersmith, 1981).
Statements include the following: “I have a low opinion of myself,” “I’m a lot of fun to
be with,” and “I never worry about anything.” This measure has also been used in a
variety of cultural samples, including Turkish, Australian, Vietnamese Australian, and
Latino students (Lane, White, Henson, 2002; Torres, Solberg, & Carlstrom 2002;
Verkuyten, 1994).
The CSEI scores each child on four aspects of their self-esteem: their general selfesteem, social self-esteem, self-esteem at home, and self-esteem in the school setting.
Scores in each subdomain were summed, and higher scores indicated higher self-esteem.
The CSEI also contains a “lie scale” as a validity indicator to help determine whether or
45
not the participant purposely tried to score high on the questionnaire. The “lie scale” was
summed separately (range from 0-8), and adjusted in the final self-esteem scores.
Johnson, Redfield, Miller, and Simpson (1983) evaluated the construct validity of the
CSEI and discovered that it had convergent validity with two other self-concept surveys,
the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale and the Coopersmith Behavioral
Academic Scale. Chiu (1985) evaluated the CSEI in seven classrooms. Cronbach alpha
was .85. See Appendix C for questionnaire.
Peer Relations. Mothers were asked to complete two different questionnaires on
their child’s peer relationships and the quality of those relationships via a Likert-type
scale. First, mothers completed the Quality of Child’s Friendship Questionnaire (QCFQ)
(Appendix D), a measure used in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth
Development. For this measure, mothers selected how strongly they agreed to 20
statements such as, “My child and my child’s very best friend work well together,” and
“My child and my child’s very best friend accuse each other of unfairness.” The
questions were adapted from another measure, the Quality of Classroom Friends (Clark
& Ladd, 2000). Clark and Ladd (2000) examined the construct validity of this measure
and found that children’s numbers of friends was positively correlated with peer
acceptance and friendship harmony, and was negatively correlated with peer conflict.
Items were separated into positive (10 items) and negative (10 items) friendship. Total
scores for each scale were obtained by taking the mean of relevant items. Cronbach alpha
was .68 and .70 for positive and negative scales respectively.
46
To assess children’s social behavior with peers, mothers completed the Behavior
with Peers scale also obtained from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth
Development. Mothers were to mark whether each of the 43 statements listed as “not
true,” “sometimes true,” or “often true” of their child. Statements included, “My child
disrupts peers’ activities,” and “My child is kind toward peers.” Items on this
questionnaire were derived from Ladd and Profilet’s (1996) Child Behavior Scale
(Cronbach alpha = .89 to .96), Kochenderfer and Ladd’s (1996) Peer Victimization Scale
(Cronbach alpha = .74), and Crick’s (1996) Children’s Social Behavior Scale – Teacher
Form (Cronbach alpha = .94). Items were separated into positive and negative peer
behavior, and summed for total positive (Cronbach alpha = .69) and negative (Cronbach
alpha = .68) peer behavior scores. See Appendix E for questionnaire.
47
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationships among
Chinese American fathers’ involvement and (a) their acculturation levels, (b) their
children’s quality of peer relationships, and (c) their children’s self-esteem. Descriptive
and correlational data on fathers’ involvement and acculturation levels are presented first.
This is followed by descriptive data on children’s peer relationships, friendship qualities,
and lastly, correlations between father involvement and self-esteem and quality of peer
relations are presented.
Chinese American Father Involvement and Acculturation Levels
Descriptive Data Father Involvement and Acculturation
Father involvement was measured through five subscales of the PICCI: (a)
general involvement, (b) childcare responsibilities, (c) socialization responsibilities, (d)
influence in decision-making, and (e) time-availability to spend with the children. On the
subscale of general involvement, Chinese American fathers’ scores (M = 14.0; SD =
4.62) ranged from 1.24 (low involvement) to 24 (high involvement), with a total possible
score of 24. The remaining subscales of childcare involvement (M = 2.43; SD =1.89),
socialization (M = 3.27; SD = 1.74), decision-making (M = 4.70; SD = 2.03), and time
48
availability (M = 8.45; SD = 1.36), had scores that ranged from 1 (low involvement) to
12 (high involvement), with a total possible score of 12 in each domain. As shown in
Table 1, the five subscales of the PICCI were intercorrelated. General involvement scores
were positively correlated with fathers’ childcare involvement scores (r = .37, p < .05).
Higher scores in childcare involvement were associated with higher scores on fathers’
socialization involvement (r = .42, p < .05). Lastly, father involvement in the
socialization category was positively correlated with father’s involvement in the decision
making process (r = .57, p < .01). Father’s time availability was not significantly
correlated with any of the other father involvement subscales.
Acculturation was indexed through three variables: fathers’ number of years
living in the United States, their reported fluency in speaking the Chinese language, and
their reported fluency in reading and writing Chinese. Most fathers had resided in the US
for more than 10 years but less than 40 years; eight fathers were born in the US. Fathers
ranged from being fully fluent in speaking, reading, and writing the Chinese language to
not fluent at all. The number of years fathers reported residing in the US was negatively
correlated with their fluency in reading and writing Chinese (r = -.79, p < .01); however;
it was not significantly correlated to Chinese fathers’ fluency in speaking Chinese.
Relations Between Acculturation and Father Involvement
Table 1 shows Pearson correlations between fathers’ acculturation and father
involvement. There were two significant relationships found between the father
involvement and acculturation variables. First, fathers’ number of years of residence in
49
Table 1
Pearson Correlations Between Fathers’ Acculturation and Father Involvement
1. Years in
the U.S.
2. Speak
Chinese
3. Read Chinese
4. General
Involvement
5. Childcare
6. Socialization
7. Decisions
8. Availability
*p < .05; ** p < .01
1
2
--
-.09
--
3
4
5
6
-.79**
-.00
.02
.32
.42*
-.19
.28
-.17
-.29
.37*
.16
-.13
--
.01
-.10
-.30
-.30
.22
--
.37*
.34
.09
-.08
--
.42*
.10
.16
.57**
-.06
--
7
--
8
.08
--
50
the US was positively correlated with their reported decision-making responsibilities
(e.g., decisions about when children should be disciplined and when children were old
enough to try new things) (r = .42, p < .05). Second, fathers’ fluency in speaking Chinese
was positively correlated with their socialization scores (e.g., setting limits for children’s
behaviors and helping children with their personal problems) (r = .37, p < .05). Fathers’
involvement in childcare and their time availability were not significantly correlated to
any acculturation measures used in this study. Fathers’ age was also not significantly
correlated to any father involvement measures.
Children’s Social and Emotional Development
Descriptive Data on Children’s Social-Emotional Scores
Children’s social relationships were examined through two survey measures, the
BPQ and the QCFQ. These measures yielded four composite scores: Positive and
Negative Peer Behavior and Positive and Negative Friendship Quality. For positive peer
behavior, there was not much variability in scores (M = 1.65; SD = .28), as scores ranged
from 1 to 2 on a scale of 0 to 3. There was also little variability on the negative peer
behavior scores (M = .23; SD = .23), as scores ranged from .03 to .97. On the positive
friendship quality measures, scores ranged from 2.09 to 5 and with a mean score of 3.39
(SD = .59). On the negative friendship quality measures, scores ranged from 1.11 to 4.89
(M = 2.31; SD = .84).
51
The CSEI yielded four subscales: (a) general self-esteem, (b) social self-esteem,
(c) self-esteem at home with parents, and (d) self-esteem in the school setting. Refer to
Table 3 for descriptive data. The subscales of the CSEI were correlated with each other
(r’s ranging from .53 to .77, p < .01).
Correlations Between Father Involvement and Social-Emotional Measures
Correlational analyses were employed to examine relationships between father
involvement and children’s peer behavior, friendship qualities, and self-esteem. As Table
2 shows, there were significant correlations of father involvement with children’s
friendship quality measures but not with peer relation measures. Unexpectedly, father
involvement in childcare responsibilities was negatively correlated with both children’s
positive friendship qualities (r = -.37, p < .05) and negative friendship qualities (r = -.52,
p < .05). Additionally, fathers who scored higher on their availability to their children had
children with less positive friendship qualities (r = -.41, p < .05). Positive friendship
qualities were significantly positively correlated to negative friendship qualities (r = .46,
p < .01), but no significant relationships were found between quality of friendships and
children’s positive and negative peer relations.
Table 3 displays the correlations between Chinese American father involvement
variables and children’s levels of self-esteem. Father involvement was not significantly
correlated with children’s self-esteem with exception to father’s availability being
positively correlated with children’s social self-esteem (r = .41, p < .05).
52
Table 2
Pearson Correlations between Chinese American Father Involvement and Children’s Peer Relationships
1. General
Involvement
2. Childcare
3.
Socialization
4. Decisions
5. Availability
6. Positive
Friendship
Qualities
7. Negative
Friendship
Qualities
8. Positive
Peer Relations
9. Negative
Peer Relations
*p < .05; ** p < .01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
--
.37*
.34
.09
-.08
-.31
-.34
-.02
.06
--
.42*
.10
.16
-.37*
-.52**
-.04
-.16
--
.57**
-.06
.19
-.08
.29
.02
--
.08
.21
.08
.31
-.34
--
-.41*
-.21
.08
-.21
.46**
.16
.01
-.19
.25
--
-.24
--
--
--
53
Table 3
Pearson Correlations between Chinese American Father Involvement and Children’s Self-Esteem
1. General
Involvement
2. Childcare
3. Socialization
4. Decisions
5. Availability
6. General
Self-Esteem
7. Social
Self-Esteem
8. Home and
Parents SelfEsteem
9. Social/
Academic SelfEsteem
*p < .05; ** p < .01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
--
.37*
.34
.09
-.08
-.01
.06
.20
-.31
--
.42*
.10
.16
-.11
.12
.17
-.24
.57**
-.06
.03
-.23
-.05
-.32
.08
.14
-.06
-.20
-.11
--
.09
.41*
.12
-.11
--
.58**
.77**
.75**
--
.53**
.56**
--
.60**
--
--
9
--
54
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Conceptions of father involvement have changed over time in the United States,
and fathers’ involvement in childrearing is becoming the norm. Fathers are no longer
seen as just breadwinners, but are being recognized to be unique contributors to
children’s development. Despite the research that is currently emerging on fathers, much
is still unknown, especially regarding fathers of various cultural groups. The present
study aimed to supplement the literature on fathers, particularly Chinese American
fathers, since Chinese are a fast growing ethnic group in the United States. The following
sections will discuss the findings of the current study on the relationships between
Chinese American fathers’ involvement and (a) their acculturation levels, (b) their
children’s quality of peer relationships, and (c) their children’s self-esteem.
Acculturation and Father Involvement
Fathers’ acculturation did not relate to their general involvement in their
children’s lives. However, fathers who resided in the US for a longer amount of time
were more involved in decision-making for their children than were those fathers who
had lived in the US for a shorter amount of time. Decisions included when the children
should be disciplined as well as when children were old enough to try new things.
55
Fathers’ role as disciplinarians is shared by both American and Chinese cultures
(Costigan & Dokis, 2006). However, in Chinese culture, children were not given many
opportunities to try novel activities on their own, as this was not normative in Chinese
parenting. Chinese parents were often characterized as being directive toward their
children, instructing them on what they are to do, as this adheres to the Confucian
concepts of training (chiao shun) and governance (guan) (Chao, 1994). Thus, fathers who
were more acculturated to the US would be more prone to be involved in the decisionmaking process, especially in the area of children trying new things, since developing
independence is valued by Western culture (Wang & Fivush, 2005).
Interestingly, fathers who were more fluent in speaking the Chinese language
(less acculturated) were more involved in the socialization aspects of childcare.
Socialization factors included helping the children with personal problems and helping
them learn, as well as disciplinary actions of teaching appropriate behavior (e.g.,
punishing the children and setting limits on their behavior). Because the PICCI was
meant as a tool to evaluate only fathers, socialization included many aspects of discipline,
which is in line with the expectations of the role of fathers across cultures (Suppal &
Roopnarine, 1999). Thus, socialization on this measure was significantly correlated with
the decision-making subdomain, as many of the describing characteristics of socialization
were related to discipline. This particular subdomain of socialization may have
corresponded more with Chinese cultural values and expectations than it did with
American values. Results indicated that Chinese fathers who were more fluent in
speaking the Chinese language might have had more of a Chinese orientation than
56
American orientation (Chao & Tseng, 2002). As a result, these fathers may take more
responsibility than mothers in disciplining children, overseeing their behavior, and
governing their education (Kwak, 2003). Thus, the findings that the fathers who were
more fluent in speaking Chinese were more involved in their children’s socialization is
consistent with the findings of Chao and Tseng (2002), in that those with Chinese
orientation valued education, training, and governing their children.
Correlations Between Father Involvement and Peer Relationship Measures
Father involvement was correlated with children’s behavior with peers, but no
significant correlations were found. The BPQ assessed children’s social skills within their
peer group. Originally, teachers were meant to fill out the BPQ, but for the purposes of
this study, the mother completed it. Thus, this may explain why there were no significant
findings in this area since mothers typically did not have the opportunities to observe
their child’s general behaviors with peers in the home environment. However, the QCFQ
posed different results. Unlike the BPQ, which was designed to be a teacher-reported
measure, the QCFQ was intended to be completed by mothers. The QCFQ asked mothers
to think about their child’s specific relationship with his or her best friend. Thusly,
significant correlations were found between father involvement and children’s friendship
quality scores from the QCFQ.
Father involvement in childcare responsibilities, such as having sole responsibility
for the children, feeding them, playing with them, making sure they are bathed and
57
dressed, and putting them to sleep, was significantly negatively correlated to negative
friendship qualities. Fathers who were more involved in childcare were associated with
children who displayed fewer negative friendship qualities such as, being verbally
aggressive, ignoring other’s suggestions, criticizing others, and protesting when others
control play. This is consistent with research done by Paquette (2004), which found that
children learned emotional displays from their fathers during play scenarios. Particularly,
fathers who were effectively able to set limits on their children’s behaviors during play
scenarios had children who displayed more social competence with peers. The results of
the current study supports the idea that fathers who were more involved in childcare
responsibilities had children who displayed fewer negative friendship characteristics.
Interestingly, father involvement in childcare responsibilities was also negatively
correlated with positive friendship qualities. Positive friendship qualities included
children working well with each other, negotiating peacefully, using kind words, and
respecting others’ preferences and attitudes. The survey used to measure children’s
quality of friendships was designed for American families and may not be applicable to
children with Chinese backgrounds. In traditional Chinese culture, fathers were directive
in their interactions with children and did not express emotions verbally (Jankowiak,
1992; Shek, 2000). Parents often used verbal directions to instruct their children on what
they are to do, as reflected in the Chinese child-rearing ideologies of chiao shun and
guan. As a result, skills such as respecting a peer’s preferences, using nice words, and
working with each other, were not skills socialized within the home. Instead, parenting
efforts were diverted to teaching children to be respectful and subordinate to those in
58
authority (Chao, 1994; Suizzo, 2007). Thus, fathers who were more involved in childcare
responsibilities may have spent more time reiterating the hierarchical relationships within
the home, and did not directly teach children how they were to act with people who were
not within the social hierarchy, such as their equals, or peers.
Additionally, fathers who were more available to spend time with their children
also had children who displayed fewer positive friendship qualities. Chinese fathers who
were available might have utilized that time to teach children their role in the social
hierarchy as well as focused heavily on children’s academic achievement (Chao, 1994;
Leung, Lau, & Lam, 1998). Also, Chinese fathers may have been more available to fulfill
their role as being the disciplinarian. In a study by Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, and
McBride-Chang (2003), Chinese adolescents perceived their fathers’ parenting as harsh,
and reported higher occurrences of aggression within their interactions with peers. As a
result, if fathers were to spend more time within the home, children may have also
perceived their fathers’ parenting as harsh, and may not have had the opportunity to learn
the positive social skills valued on the American scales of friendship quality. Thus, more
research is needed to understand Chinese American fathers’ role within the home in order
to understand children’s social and emotional outcomes.
The results of this study showed that father involvement in general, is a complex
construct that is culturally specific. General father involvement, as measured by the
PICCI, may not be a comprehensive enough measure to capture the subtleties of Chinese
American parenting. Instead, subdomains of father involvement showed more decisive
results since they were better able to describe characteristics of Chinese parenting. For
59
example, Chinese American fathers’ involvement in childcare was associated with
positive children’s friendship quality, which was in line with McDowell and Parke’s
(2005) study that showed that fathers who played with their children were able to model
appropriate behaviors that children could later emulate when around their friends. Father
involvement in time availability has been associated with positive outcomes for children
in European American families in the past (Heath, 2001; Landale & Oropesa, 2001; Saleh
et al., 2005; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). However, the case was the opposite in Chinese
American households. It was not necessarily beneficial for Chinese fathers to have
increased availability for children at home because Chinese fathers have often been
perceived as strict, reserved, and directive (Shek, 2000).
Correlations Between Father Involvement and Children’s Self-Esteem
There were no significant correlations found between fathers’ general
involvement and children’s general self-esteem. However, the availability subdomain of
the PICCI showed significant results to children’s friendship qualities. In the previous
sections, results indicated that fathers’ availability was negatively correlated to children’s
display of positive friendship qualities; however, fathers’ availability was positively
correlated to children’s social self-esteem. Social self-esteem was defined as children’s
perception of worth about themselves when they are in the community around other
individuals (Coopersmith, 1981). Children who scored high in this area typically agreed
with the following statements: “I’m a lot of fun to be with,” “I’m popular with kids my
60
own age,” “I’m easy to like,” and “Kids usually follow my ideas.” This shows children’s
self perceptions are not directly related to the friendship quality scale used in this study.
Although traditional Chinese families did not recognize self-esteem as an important value
to cultivate in their children, they did teach their children the importance of preserving
social harmony (Miller, Wang, Sandel, & Cho, 2002). Even though Chinese parents may
not deliberately teach their children how to interact with peers, they ingrained the
principle of social harmony in their children. Results show that Chinese American
children may not be outright in their display of positive friendship qualities, but they
perceive that they are liked and accepted by their peers. Boucher, Peng, Shi, and Wang
(2009) found that Chinese Americans possessed inconsistent self-esteem, where their
actions differed from their self-perceptions. Thus, father involvement, in the area of time
availability, is important to the development of children’s social self-esteem.
In past research on European American families, fathers’ general involvement
was associated with children’s increased social competence and peer acceptance, which
led to children’s increased self-esteem (McDowell & Parke, 2005). However, results of
this study showed that Chinese American fathers’ increased involvement, particularly in
time availability, did not follow this same pathway. Chinese American father who were
more available to spend time with children had children who displayed fewer positive
friendship qualities, but had social self-esteem that was unaffected. The measures used
for this study were created for the European American population; thus, results differed
when used on Chinese Americans who have different cultural values and practices. This
study adds to the literature that Chinese parents, who may be perceived as authoritarian in
61
parenting style, did not necessarily have children with poorer outcomes. The Confucian
ideals of social harmony and respect for those in authority may have mediated the effects
of father involvement on children’s self-esteem.
Limitations of the Study
The results of the study showed that Chinese American father involvement is
complex, and the current measures did not take into account cultural ideas such as the
preservation of social harmony or compliance with the social hierarchy. However, the
findings still posed significant results in that Chinese American fathers played significant
roles in children’s social and emotional outcomes. Future research should include more
culturally sensitive tools to better understand this fast growing ethnic group. The
following subsections discuss in further detail, limitations to the current study.
Sample Size and Participants
This study was limited by several characteristics of the sample. First, due to the
small sample size, many correlations were not statistically significant. For example, the
number of years fathers resided in the U.S. was positively correlated to their involvement
in socializing their children, but only approached statistical significance (r = .319, p =
.08). Likewise, fathers’ involvement in decisions was positively correlated to children’s
school self esteem (r = .316, p = .08) and children’s positive peer relationships (r = .306,
62
p = .09). A larger sample might have yielded a clearer pattern of results on father
involvement in Chinese American families.
Second, participants were recruited from Chinese churches from Sacramento, the
Bay Area, and Los Angeles. As a result, many participants may uphold certain parenting
values based upon their specific religious beliefs, and results may not be generalized to
the entire Chinese American community. Additionally, there may be differences between
Chinese families in the California and other regions of the US. Future research would
benefit from a sample of Chinese American families from differing religious affiliations
and regions of the US.
Third, the researcher found it difficult to recruit families in which the father was
willing to participate. During the recruitment process, mothers showed more interest in
participating, and fathers commonly refused. On four occasions, fathers verbally agreed
to participate, but did not complete their survey measures, although the mother and child
completed theirs. As a result, those fathers who agreed to participate may have been more
involved in their children’s upbringing than those fathers who refused to participate.
Therefore, results cannot be fully generalized to all Chinese American families in the US.
Measures
The study was also limited by characteristics of the survey measures used. This
study only took into account father involvement and did not take into consideration
mother involvement. Mothers may mediate many father involvement variables by being
the maternal “gatekeeper” to their children (Cabrera et al., 2000). Depending upon the
63
relationship between mothers and fathers, mothers may place restrictions on when fathers
can come into contact with the children. This would then have a bearing on the results of
this study.
Acculturation was an important variable to this study. A limitation of the present
study is that a formalized acculturation measure was not used to evaluate Chinese
American fathers’ acculturation to the U.S. This study oversimplified acculturation and
did not measure the subtleties of acculturation as mentioned in Berry, Trimble, and
Olmeda’s (1986) work. The current study was not able to determine what type of
acculturation (assimilation, marginalization, separation, or integration) characterized the
fathers. Instead, the study used demographic survey measures as an estimation of
acculturation. In the future, a standardized measure of acculturation would be useful to
examine acculturation more in depth and how it relates to fathers’ parenting beliefs and
involvement.
To determine children’s social and emotional outcomes, two questionnaires on
peer relationships and a questionnaire on self-esteem was used, and results were
generalized to describe children’s social and emotional development. Complexities of
children’s social and emotional development, such as externalizing behaviors, social
competency, and emotional regulation were variables that were not taken into account.
The Behavior with Peers Questionnaire was originally designed to be completed by
teachers, but was designated to the mothers for simplicity purposes. As a result, mothers
had limited ability to rate their children’s general interactions with other children, as they
were not usually in the school setting. This may explain the non-significant results with
64
this measure. Additionally, the measures used were not specific for children of an ethnic
background. As the social cultural context continues to change, there is a need for the
development of culturally sensitive measurement tools. Many cultural factors that were
specific to the Chinese population were not captured in the surveys used. In the future,
more of a qualitative approach in which families are interviewed may be beneficial in
capturing the subtleties of the family structure in that culture. Particularly, children’s own
perspectives on their fathers’ involvement will be useful to understanding children’s
social and emotional outcomes.
Although there are numerous limitations to this study, the results are an important
contribution to the field of child development. Fathers, who have been overlooked in the
past, and whose roles have been considered second to mothers, are in fact monumental
contributors to children’s developmental outcomes. Although little is known on Chinese
American fathers, this study shows that Chinese American fathers are nonetheless
important figures, and their involvement affects children’s social and emotional
outcomes. In conclusion, future research should focus on more cultural samples of fathers
as well as include comparative studies between various groups, such as Chinese families
compared to Chinese American families to keep with the changing shifts in the social
cultural contexts of the US.
65
APPENDICES
66
APPENDIX A
Demographic Questionnaire
This survey asks about you and your spouse. For questions about your spouse, please answer them to the
best of your knowledge. All responses will be kept confidential and anonymous. Please remember that your
participation is completely voluntary. You are not required to answer all questions and may choose to
discontinue your participation at any time. However, any amount of participation will be beneficial and
greatly appreciated.
You
1. Where were you born (country)?
a. If not born in the US what
age were you when you immigrated
to the US?
2. As of today, how long have you resided in
the United States?
3. What country were your parents raised in?
4. Are your parents residing in the US? If yes,
how long have they been living in the US?
Circle one: Yes
Your Spouse
No
Circle one: Yes
If Yes: ____________
5. How fluent are you in speaking the Chinese
language?
(0=not at all; 4=very fluent)
6. How fluent are you in reading and writing
the Chinese language?
(0=not at all; 4=very fluent)
7. What is your age?
8. What is the highest level of education you
have completed?
9. What is your religions affiliation? (If you
don’t have one, say “none”)
10. What is the primary language spoken in
your household?
11. How many children are residing in your
home?
12. How fluent is your child in speaking the
Chinese language?
(0=not at all; 4=very fluent)
13. How fluent is your child in reading and
writing the Chinese language?
(0=not at all; 4=very fluent)
No
If Yes: ____________
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
a. 18-21
b. 22-25
c. 26-30
d. 31-40
e. 41-50
f. 51-60
g. 61 or
over
h. 18-21
i. 22-25
j. 26-30
k. 31-40
l. 41-50
m. 51-60
n. 61 or
over
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
Demographic Questionnaire 1 of 1
67
APPENDIX B
Paternal Involvement in Child Care Index (PICCI)
N. Radin
Please complete the following questions to the best of your ability. The purpose of this study is by no
means an evaluation or judgment of any individual or individual family. Rather, it is aimed to uncover
fathers’ general role in the family. Please remember that your participation is completely voluntary. You
are not required to answer all questions and may choose to discontinue your participation at any time.
However, any amount of participation will be beneficial and greatly appreciated.
1.
How involved are you in caring for your children? (Please mark one)
a. Very involved
b. Involved
c. Neutral
d. Uninvolved
e. Very uninvolved
2.
Not counting the hours your youngster is in a school or center, with a sitter, or asleep for the night,
what percentage of the remaining time are you the child’s primary caregiver? (Prime caregiver is
meant the person who must be available to attend to the child’s needs).
________ % You
________ % Your spouse
How frequently are the following parenting
tasks done in your family?
(circle one response)
Frequently
Sometimes
Infrequently
3. Feeding the
children
4. Having sole
responsibility for
the children
5. Punishing the
children
6. Setting limits for
the children’s
behavior
7. Helping children
with personal
problems
8. Bathing and
dressing the
children
9. Putting the
children to bed
10. Helping
children to learn
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
What percentages of these tasks
are done by:
Self
Spouse
Other
PICCI 1 of 2
Taken from Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques
68
11. Who in your family generally makes decisions about when children should be disciplined?
a. Husband always
b. Husband more than wife
c. Husband and wife equally
d. Wife more than husband
e. Wife always
12. Who in your family generally makes decisions about when children are old enough to try new
things?
a. Husband always
b. Husband more than wife
c. Husband and wife equally
d. Wife more than husband
e. Wife always
How available are you to the children?
13. Away from
home and children
weeks and months
at a time
14. Away from
home days at a time
15. Away from
home on weekends
16. Out in the
evening at least 4
nights a week
17. Out in the
evening at least 2
nights a week
18. Misses supper
with children at
least 2 nights a
week
19. Has breakfast
during the week
with children and
family
20. Home during
the week for lunch
21. Home
afternoons when
children come home
from school
22. Home all day
during the week
with children and
family
How available is your spouse to the
children?
Frequently
Sometimes
Infreq.
Frequently
Sometimes
Infreq.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
PICCI 2 of 2
Taken from Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques
69
APPENDIX C
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory
CSEI-SC
For use by Lillian Wu only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on September 2, 2007
Please read through the statements and check whether the statement is “like you” or “unlike you.”
Like Me





























Unlike
Me





























Statements
1. Things usually don’t bother me.
2. I find it very hard to talk in front of the class.
3. There are lots of things about myself I’d change if I could.
4. I can make up my mind without too much trouble.
5. I’m a lot of fun to be with.
6. I get upset easily at home.
7. It takes me a long time to get used to anything new.
8. I’m popular with kids my own age.
9. My parents usually consider my feelings.
10. I give in very easily.
11. My parents expect too much of me.
12. It’s pretty tough to be me.
13. Things are all mixed up in my life.
14. Kids usually follow my ideas.
15. I have a low opinion of myself.
16. There are many times when I’d like to leave home.
17. I often feel upset in school.
18. I’m not as nice looking as most people.
19. If I have something to say, I usually say it.
20. My parents understand me.
21. Most people are better liked than I am.
22. I usually fell as if my parents are pushing me.
23. I often get discouraged at school.
24. I often wish I were someone else.
25. I can’t be depended on.
26. I never worry about anything.
27. I’m pretty sure of myself.
28. I’m easy to like.
29. My parents and I have a lot of fun together.
CSEI-SC 1 of 2
70
Like Me





























Unlike
Me





























Statements
30. I spend a lot of time daydreaming.
31. I wish I were younger.
32. I always do the right thing.
33. I’m proud of my school work.
34. Someone always has to tell me what to do.
35. I’m often sorry for the things I do.
36. I’m never happy.
37. I’m doing the best work that I can.
38. I can usually take care of myself.
39. I’m pretty happy.
40. I would rather play with children younger than I am.
41. I like everyone I know.
42. I like to be called on in class.
43. I understand myself.
44. No one pays much attention to me at home.
45. I never get scolded.
46. I’m not doing as well in school as I’d like to.
47. I can make up my mind and stick to it.
48. I really don’t like being a boy/girl.
49. I don’t like to be with other people.
50. I’m never shy.
51. I often feel ashamed of myself.
52. Kids pick on me very often.
53. I always tell the truth.
54. My teachers make me feel I’m not good enough.
55. I don’t care what happens to me.
56. I’m a failure.
57. I get upset easily when I’m scolded.
58. I always know what to say to people.
CSEI-SC 2 of 2
71
APPENDIX D
Quality of Child’s Friendship Questionnaire
Please answer how your child and his or her closest friend get along by agreeing or disagreeing
with the following statements. Please remember that your participation is completely voluntary.
You are not required to answer all questions and may choose to discontinue your participation at
any time. However, any amount of participation will be beneficial and greatly appreciated.
My child and my child’s very best
friend…
1. Work well together
2. Ignore each other’s suggestions
3. Are very competitive with one
another
4. Negotiate peacefully to settle issues
5. Take turns effectively
6. Are verbally aggressive with each
other
7. Say they like each other or are
friends
8. Reach agreement easily
9. Get mad at each other a lot
10. Readily comply with one another’s
request
11. Say “I hate you” or “I’m not going
to play with you” when angry at one
another
12. Show a pattern where one child
dominates the other
13. Endorse one another’s attitudes and
preferences
14. Pick each other as partners
15. Help each other out
16. Criticize each other
17. Notice and respond to each other’s
protests and complaints
18. Share readily with each other
19. Protest when the other child
attempts to control the play
20. Accuse each other of unfairness
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
QCFQ 1 of 1
Taken from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care
72
APPENDIX E
Behavior with Peers Questionnaire
Please describe your child’s behavior with peers. Ratings should be based on your observation of the child
in the care setting, both indoors and outdoors, and anywhere else you have observed your child interacting
with peers. Circle the number of the description that best applies. Please remember that your participation
is completely voluntary. You are not required to answer all questions and may choose to discontinue your
participation at any time. However, any amount of participation will be beneficial and greatly appreciated.
1. Tends to react to other children’s distress by
teasing them or making things worse
2. Not chosen as playmate by peers
3. Likes to be alone
4. Keeps peers at a distance
5. Peers avoid this child
6. When mad at a peer, gets even by excluding
the peer from the group
7. Seems concerned when other children are
distressed
8. Is an aggressive child
9. Taunts and teases other children
10. Often unoccupied
11. Threatens other children
12. Spreads rumors or gossips about some peers
13. Takes turns with play materials
14. Kind toward peers
15. Can be trusted, is dependable
16. Listens to classmates
17. When angry at a peer, tries to get other
children to stop playing with the peer
18. Is excluded from peers’ activities
19. Compromises in conflict with peers
20. Is ignored by peers
21. Is cooperative with peers
22. Loses temper easily in conflicts with peers
23. Argues with peers
24. Friendly toward other children
25. Annoys or irritates other children
26. Is a solitary child
27. Disrupts peers’ activities
28.
0
1
2
When
mad at
a peer,
ignores
the
Not True
Sometimes
True
Often True
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
73
peer or
stops
talking
to the
peer
29. Shows concern for moral issues (e.g.,
fairness, welfare of others)
0
1
2
BPQ 1 of 2
Taken from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care
30. Is ridiculed by peers
31. Avoids peers
32. Offers help or comfort when other children
are upset
33. Withdraws from peer activities
34. Will continue to bother or hurt other
children even when they are clearly upset
35. Is bossy toward peers
36. Threatens to stop being a peer’s friend in
order to hurt the peer or to get what is wanted
from peer
37. Is picked on by other children
38. Is called names by peers
39. Is pushed around by other children
40. Peers say negative things about him/her to
other children
41. Is teased or made fun of by peers
42. Is hit or kicked by other children
43. Tries to exclude certain peers from peer
group activities
Not True
Sometimes
True
Often True
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
74
BPQ 2 of 2
Take from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care
75
REFERENCES
Alessandri, S.M., & Lewis, M. (1993). Parental evaluation and its relations to shame and
pride in young children. Sex Roles, 29, 335-343.
Alvarez, A.N. & Helms, J.E. (2001). Asian American acculturation and ethnic/racial
identity: Research innovations in the new millennium. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(3), 217-231.
Andersen, E.S. (1992). Speaking with Style: The Sociolinguistic Skills of Children.
London, UK: Routledge.
Arbona, C., & Power, T.G. (2003) Parental attachment, self-esteem, and antisocial
behaviors among African American, European American and Mexican American
adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 40-51.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monograph, 4, 1-103.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.
Berndt, T.J. (1996). Exploring the effects of friendship quality on social development. In
W.M. Bukowski, A.F. Newcomb & W.W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep:
Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 346-365). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychiatry: An
International Review, 46, 5-68.
Berry, J., Kim, U., & Boski, J. (1988). Psychological acculturation of immigrants. In Y.
Kim & W. G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptations: Current approaches
(pp. 62-87). Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Boucher, H., Peng, K., Shi, J., & Wang, L. (2009). Culture and implicit self-esteem:
Chinese are “good” and “bad” at the same time. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40, 24-45.
Boyum, L.A,, & Parke, R.D. (1995). The role of family emotional expressiveness in the
development of children’s social competence. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 57, 593-608.
76
Berry, J.W., Trimble, J.E., & Olmedo, E.L. (1986). Assessment of acculturation. In W.J.
Lonner & J.W. B. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 291324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bond, M.H., & Hwang, K.K. (1986). The social psychology of the Chinese people. In
M.H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people, (pp. 213-266). New
York: Oxford: University Press.
Bronfenbrenner U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen &
T.N. Postlethwaite (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of education. (2nd ed.,
pp. 1643-1647). New York: Elsevier Science.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment
during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101-1111.
Cabrera, N.J., Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., Bradley, R.H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M.E. (2000).
Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71(1), 127-136.
Carson, J. L., & Parke, R. D. (1996). Reciprocal negative affect in parent-child
interactions and children's peer competency. Child Development, 67, 2217-2226.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in
relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family
Psychology, 17(4), 598-606.
Chan, S., & Leong, C.W. (1994). Chinese families in transition: Cultural conflicts and
adjustment problem. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 3(3), 263-281.
Chao, R.K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:
Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child
Development, 65, 1111-1119.
Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M.H. Bornstein (Series Ed.),
Handbook of parenting, Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed.,
pp. 59-93). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chiu, L.H. (1985). The reliability and validity of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory
– Form B. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(4), 945-949.
77
Clark, K.E., & Ladd, G.W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomy support in parent-child
relationships: Links to children’s socio-emotional orientation and peer
relationships. Developmental Psychology, 36, 485-498.
Cooper, C.R., & Denner, J. (1998). Theories linking culture and psychology: Universal
and community-specific processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 559-584.
Coopersmith, S. (1981). The antecedents of self-esteem. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press. (Original work published 1967).
Costigan, C.L., & Dokis, D.P. (2006). Relations between parent-child acculturation
differences and adjustment within immigrant Chinese families. Child
Development, 77(5), 1252-1267.
Crick, N.R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial
behavior in the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child
Development, 67(5), 2317-2327.
Culp, R.E., Schadle, S., Robinson, L., & Culp, A.M. (2000). Relationships among
paternal involvement and young children’s perceived self-competence and
behavioral problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(1), 27-38.
Diener, M.L., Isabella, R.A., Behunin, M.G., & Wong, M.S. (2008). Attachment to
mothers and fathers during middle childhood: Associations with child gender,
age, and competence. Social Development, 17, 84-101.
Farver, J.M., Xu, Y., Bhadha, B.R., Narang, S., & Lieber, E. (2007). Ethnic identity,
acculturation, parenting beliefs, and adolescent adjustment: A comparison of
Asian Indian and European American families. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(2),
184-215.
Finley, G.E. Mira, S.D., & Schwartz, S.J. (2008). Perceived paternal and maternal
involvement: Factor structures, mean differences, and parental roles. Fathering,
6(1), 62-82.
Flanders, J.L., Leo, V., Pihl, R.O., & Seguin, J.R. (2009). Rough-and-tumble play and the
regulation of aggression: an observational study of father-child play dyads.
Aggressive behavior, 35(4), 285-295.
Flannery, W., Reise, P., & Yu, J. (2001). An empirical comparison of the uni0drectional
and bi-directional models of acculturation. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 1035-1045.
78
Gleason, J.B. (1975). Fathers and other strangers: Men’s speech to young children. In
D.P. Dato (Ed.), Theory and Application (pp. 289-297). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Heath, D.T. (2001). The impact of delayed fatherhood on the father-child relationship.
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155(4), 511-530.
Hofferth, S.L. (2003). Race/Ethnic differences in father involvement in two-parent
families: Culture, context, or economy? Journal of Family Issues, 24(2), 185-216.
Hofferth, S.L., Cabrera, N., Carlson, M., Coley, R.L., Day, R., Schindler, H. (2007).
Resident father involvement and social fathering. In S.L. Hofferth & L.M.C.
(Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research (pp. 335-374).
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Huntsinger, C.S., & Jose, P.E. (2009). Relations among parental acceptance and control
and children’s social adjustment in Chinese American and European American
families. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(3), 321-330.
Jankowiak, W. (1992). Father-child relations in urban China. In B.S. Hewlett (Ed.),
Father-child relations: Cultural and biosocial contexts (pp. 345-363). Adline
DeGruyter: New York.
Johnson, B.W., Redfield, D.L., Miller, R.L., & Simpson, R.E. (1983). The Coopersmith
Self-Esteem Inventory: A construct validation study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 43(3), 907-913.
Kochenderfer, B.J., & Ladd, G.W. (1996). Helping children become more prosocial:
Ideas for families, schools, and communities. Young Children, 51(2), 62-70.
Kwak, K. (2003). Adolescents and their parents: A review of intergenerational family
relations for immigrant and non-immigrant families. Human Development, 46,
15-136.
Ladd, G.W., & Profilet, S.M. (1996). The child behavior scale: A teacher-report measure
of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors.
Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1008-1024.
Lamb, M.E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An overview.
Fatherhood: Research, Interventions and Policies, 23-42.
Lane, G.G., White, A.E., & Henson, R.K. (2002). Expanding reliability generalization
methods with KR-21 estimates: An RG study of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem
Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 685-711.
79
Landale, N.S., & Oropesa, R.S. (2001). Father involvement in the lives of mainland
Puerto Rican children: Contributions of nonresident, cohabiting and married
fathers. Social Forces, 79(3), 945-968.
Lanvers, U. (2004). Gender in discourse behaviour in parent-child dyads: A literature
review. Child: Care, Health & Development, 30(5), 481-493.
Leaper, C., Anderson, K.J., & Sanders, P. (1998). Moderators of gender effects on
parents’ talk to their children: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 327.
Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W.L. (1998). Parenting styles and academic achievement: A
cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 157-172.
Lewis, C., & Lamb, M.E. (2003). Fathers’ influences on children’s development: The
evidence from two-parent families. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 18(2), 211-228.
MacDonald, K., & Parke, R.D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interaction
and peer interactive competence. Child Development, 55, 1265-1277.
Mannle, S., & Tomasello, M. (1987). Fathers, siblings, and the bridge hypothesis. In K.E.
Nelson & A.V. (Eds.), Children’s language, Vol. 6, (pp. 23-42). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Marin, K.A., Bohanek, J.G., Fivush, R. (2008). Positive effects of talking about the
negative: Family narratives of negative experiences and preadolescents’ perceived
competence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(3), 573-593.
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R.D., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood
in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1173-1191.
Maurer, T.W., & Pleck, J.H. (2006). Fathers’ caregiving and breadwinning: A gender
congruence analysis. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7(2), 101-112.
McBride, B.A., Dyer, J., Liu, Y., Brown, G.L., Hong, S. (2009). The differential impact
of early father and mother involvement on later student achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(2), 498-508.
McBride, B.A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J., & Ho, M. (2005). The mediating role of fathers’
school involvement on student achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 26, 201-216.
80
McDowell, D.J., Parke, R.D., & Wang, S.J. (2003). Differences between mothers’ and
fathers’ advice-giving style and content: Relations with social competence and
psychological functioning in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(1),
55-76.
McDowell, D.J., & Parke, R.D. (2005). Parental control and affect as predictors of
children’s display rule use and social competence with peers. Social Development,
14, 440-457.
McDowell, D.J., & Parke, R.D. (2009). Parental correlates of children’s peer relations:
An empirical test of a tripartite model. Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 224235.
Miller, P.J., Sandel, T.L., Liang, C.H., & Fung, H. (2002). Self-esteem as folk theory: A
comparison of European-American and Taiwanese mothers’ beliefs. Special
Issue: “Parental ethnotheories: Cultural practice and normative development” in
Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 209-239.
Miller, N.B., Cowan, P.A., Cowan, C.P., & Hetherington, E.M. (1993). Externalizing in
preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a family model.
Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 3-18.
Parish, T.S., & McCluskey, J.J. (1993). Parenting styles, young adults’ self-concepts, and
evaluations of parents. The School Community Journal, 3(2), 85-88.
Paquette, Daniel (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and
developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47, 193-219.
Parke, R.D. (2000). Father involvement: A developmental psychological perspective.
Marriage and Family Review, 29, 43-58.
Parke, R.D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting: Vol 3. Status and social conditions of parenting. (2nd ed., pp. 27-73).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pleck, E.H., & Pleck, J.H. (1997). Fatherhood ideals in the United States: Historical
dimensions. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development. (3rd
ed., pp. 33-48). New York: Wiley.
Pleck, J.H. (2007). Why could father involvement benefit children? Theoretical
perspectives. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 196-202.
Pleck, J.H., & Hofferth, S.L. (2008). Mother involvement as an influence on father
involvement with early adolescents. Fathering, 6(3), 267-286.
81
Pope-Davis, D.B., Liu, W.M., Nevitt, J., & Toporek, R.L., (2000). The development and
initial validation of the multicultural environmental inventory: A preliminary
investigation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 57-64.
Portes, A. (1997). Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and
opportunities. International Migration Review, 31, 799-825.
Radin, N. (1982). Primary caregiving and role-sharing fathers of pre-schoolers. In M.E.
Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 173204). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rah, Y., & Parke, R.D. (2008). Pathways between parent-child interactions and peer
acceptance: The role of children’s social information processing. Social
Development, 17, 341-357.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Russell, G., & Russell, A. (1987). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle
childhood. Child Development, 58, 1573-1585.
Saleh, M.S., Buzi, R.S., Weinman, M.L., Smith, P.B. (2005). The nature of connections:
Young fathers and their children. Adolescence 40(159), 513-523.
Schofield, T.J., Parke, R.D., Kim, Y., & Coltrane, S. (2008). Bridging the acculturation
gap: Parent-child relationship quality as a moderator in Mexican American
families. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1190-1194.
Shek, D.T.L. (2000). Differences between fathers and mothers in the treatment of, and
relationship with, their teenage children: Perceptions of Chinese adolescents.
Adolescence, 35(137), 135-146.
Shek, D.T.L. (2008). Parental behavioral control and parent-child relational quality
predictors of perceived parental knowledge in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong.
The American Journal of Family Therapy, 36, 332-343.
Shwalb, D.W., Nakazawa, J., Yamamoto, T., & Hyun, J. (2004). Fathering in Japanese,
Chinese, and Korean Cultures. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child
development (pp. 146-181). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Soto, J.A., Levenson, R.W., & Ebling, R. (2005). Cultures of moderation and expression:
Emotional experience, behavior, and physiology in Chinese Americans and
Mexican Americans. Emotion, 5(2), 154-165.
82
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Dornbusch, S.M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of
parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school
involvement, and encouragement to success. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook
of parenting: Volume 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 103-133). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Sue, S., Nakamura, C.Y., Chung, R.C.-Y., &Yee-Bradbury, C. (1994). Mental health
research on Asian Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 61– 67.
Suizzo, M. (2007). Parents’ goals and values for children: Dimensions of independence
and interdependence across four U.S. ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 38(4), 506-530
Super, C.M., & Harkness, S. (2002). Culture structures the environment for development.
Human Development, 45, 270-274.
Suppal, P., & Roopnarine, J.L. (1999). Paternal involvement in child care as a function of
maternal employment in nuclear and extended families in India. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 40, 731-744.
Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., Shannon, J.D.,Cabrera, N.J., & Lab, M.E. (2004). Fathers and
mothers at play with their 2-and 3-year olds: Contributions to language and
cognitive development. Child Development, 75, 1806-1821.
Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H., Kahana Kalman, R., &
Niwa, E.Y. (2008). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of
individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development,
17, 183-207.
Torres, J., Solberg, V., & Carlstrom, A. (2002). The myth of sameness among Latino
men and their machismo. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(2), 163-181.
Triandis, H.C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. CrossCultural Research, 27, 155-180.
Triandis, H.C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American
Psychologist, 51(4), 407-415.
U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division (2008). World
population prospects: The 2008 revision population database. Retrieved October
18, 2009 from http://esa.un.org/unpp/.
83
Verkuyten, M. (1994). Self-esteem among ethnic minority youth in Western countries.
Social Indicators Research, 32(1), 21-47.
Wang, Q. & Fivush, R. (2005). Mother-child conversations of emotionally salient events:
Exploring the functions of emotional reminiscing in European-American and
Chinese families. Social Development, 14(3), 473-495.
Wang, Q., & Leichtman, M.D. (2000). Same beginnings, different stories: A comparison
of American and Chinese children’s narratives. Child Development, 71(5), 13291346.
Wang, S., & Tamis-Lemonda, C.S. (2003). Do child-rearing values in Taiwan and the
United States reflect cultural values of collectivism and individualism? Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 629-642.
Weaver S.R., & Kim, S.Y. (2008). A person-centered approach to studying the linkages
among parent-child differences in cultural orientation, supportive parenting, and
adolescent depressive symptoms in Chinese American families. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 37, 36-49.
Yeung, W.J., 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.
Yu, A.B., & Yang, K.S. (1994). The nature of achievement motivation in collectivistic
societies. In U. Kim, H.C.T., C.K., S.C.C., & G.Y. (Eds.), Individualism and
collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 239-250). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.