Durante la semana pasada, ¿usted

Does the psychological wellbeing of primary caregiver fathers differ from secondary caregiver fathers?

To assess whether there were differences in psychological wellbeing between stay-at-home fathers, breadwinner fathers and dual-earner fathers, a MANOVA was conducted with family type as the between subjects factor, with fathers’ scores the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS), Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI), and Parenting Stress Index (PSI) as dependent variables. Pillai’s trace was significant,

F(6, 232) = 2.24, p = .04, p² = .06, however an examination of univariate tests revealed no differences

between the fathers. ANOVAs were run separately on fathers’ scores on the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) and the Golombok Rust Inventory of Marital Satisfaction (GRIMS). There were no significant differences between stay-at-home fathers, breadwinner fathers and dual-earner fathers on any of the variables (see Table 4.2.1). The fathers across the three family types generally showed positive psychological wellbeing and high relationship satisfaction.

135

Table 4.2.1. Means, SD, F, p and p² Values for Comparisons of Psychological Wellbeing between

Fathers

To further explore the psychological adjustment of stay-at-home fathers to fathers in other family types, Chi-square tests were conducted to examine the proportion of fathers in each family type above the clinical cut-off on the EDS, TAI and PSI, and the proportion with low/moderate social support on the MSPSS. As can be seen in Table 4.2.2, significantly more stay-at-home fathers reported clinical levels of anxiety compared to both dual-earner fathers and breadwinner fathers, ² (2) = 7.19,

p = .03. There were no differences in clinical depression or parenting stress between family types. For

social support, fathers’ scores across the three family types were mostly in the high category of social support and there were no differences between stay-at-home fathers, dual-earner fathers and breadwinner fathers in level of social support.

Fathers ANOVA Stay-at-home Dual-earner Breadwinner

M SD M SD M SD F df p p² Depression (EDS) 6.13 3.51 5.25 3.54 5.83 3.81 0.60 2, 117 .55 .01 Anxiety (TAI) 41.30 9.24 37.30 8.72 38.83 8.71 2.04 2, 117 .13 .03 Parenting Stress (PSI) 70.70 14.15 72.13 14.13 77.35 16.13 2.23 2, 117 .11 .04 Social Support (MSPSS) 5.56 1.08 5.73 0.83 5.50 0.96 0.61 2, 118 .54 .01 Male Norms (CMNI) 22.35 8.13 25.46 6.11 24.07 4.98 2.26 2, 118 .11 .04 Marital Quality (GRIMS) 21.48 10.27 21.23 8.65 22.42 10.80 0.17 2, 119 .85 .00

136

Table 4.2.2. ² and p Values for Depression, Anxiety and Stress Cut Offs and Level of Social Support

between Fathers (% within family type)

Fathers Chi-Square Stay-at- home Dual- earner Breadwinner ² df p Depression (EDS)

Above cut off 2 (5%) 0 (0%) 3 (7%)

(Fisher’s Exact, p) .37 Below cut off 38 (95%) 40 (100%) 38 (93%)

Anxiety (TAI)

Above cut off 17 (43%) 7 (18%) 9 (22%) 7.19 2 .03

Below cut off 23 (57%) 33 (82%) 32 (78%)

Parenting Stress (PSI)

Above cut off 3 (8%) 2 (3%) 7 (17%) 3.69 2 .16

Below cut off 37 (92%) 38 (97%) 34 (83%)

Social Support (MSPSS)

Low/moderate 9 (22%) 5 (12%) 10 (24%) 2.07 2 .36

137

Professional support for mental health concerns

A Chi-square test was used to compare support-seeking behaviours of the three different types of fathers based on their responses on the parent interview. A significantly higher proportion of stay-at-home fathers reported that they had accessed professional support, ²(2) = 7.11, p = .03, reflecting a difference between stay-at-home fathers and dual-earner fathers, with stay-at-home fathers being more likely than dual-earner fathers to seek support. Stay-at-home fathers did not differ significantly in their help seeking behaviours compared to breadwinner fathers. Overall, the majority of fathers in the three family types did not report having received professional help regarding their mental health.

Table 4.2.3. ² and p Values for Fathers Seeking Support (% within family type)

Fathers Chi-square Stay-at-home Dual- earner Breadwinner ² df p Support sought 10 (24%) 2 (5%) 4 (10%) 7.11 2 .03 No support sought 31 (76%) 37 (95%) 37 (90%)

138

Coparenting

In order to assess whether stay-at-home fathers, dual-earner fathers and breadwinner fathers differed in their coparenting approach, fathers’ total scores on the Coparenting Relationship Scale (CRS) were entered into an ANOVA (See Table 4.2.4). There were no significant differences between family types.

Due to interest in how parents support each other in parenting, and the emphasis of Family Systems Theory as a theoretical framework of this thesis, analyses were also conducted on the subscales of the CRS. Fathers’ scores on the seven subscales were entered into a MANOVA. As Pillai’s trace was significant, F(14, 226) = 1.93, p = .02, p² = .11, this indicates there are significant differences

in coparenting between fathers. Hence, univariate tests were carried out to determine which coparenting dimensions differed between family types. There was a significant difference in coparenting support, F(2, 118) = 3.28, p = .04, p² = .05, showing that stay-at-home fathers rated their

partner as significantly more supportive of their parenting approach than breadwinner fathers (p = .01). There were no significant differences between how supportive stay-at-home fathers and

dual-earner fathers rated their partners. There was also a significant difference in the division of labour, F(2, 118) = 3.03, p = .05, p² = .05. Contrasts showed that stay-at-home fathers rated their

partner lower in doing their share of household tasks compared to breadwinner fathers’ (p = .04), and dual-earner fathers’ (p = .03), ratings of their partners. For the remaining five subscales, there were no significant differences between the three types of fathers.

139

Table 4.2.4. Means, SD, F, p and p² Values for Comparisons of Coparenting Subscales between Fathers

Fathers ANOVA

Stay-at-home Dual-earners Breadwinners

M SD M SD M SD F df p p²

Coparenting Total (CRS) 4.98 0.65 4.90 0.52 4.95 0.66 0.15 2,118 .86 .00

Coparenting Agreement 4.84 0.95 4.62 0.94 4.72 0.96 0.53 2,118 .59 .01

Endorse Partner Parenting 5.12 0.80 5.26 0.57 5.42 0.53 2.08 2,118 .13 .03

Coparenting Support 4.93 1.00 4.62 0.92 4.34 1.06 3.28 2,118 .04 .05

Coparenting Undermining 0.92 0.83 0.95 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.43 2,118 .65 .01

Coparenting Closeness 4.77 0.88 4.52 0.81 4.62 1.04 0.78 2,118 .46 .01

Exposure to Conflict 0.85 0.88 0.97 1.14 0.87 0.82 0.15 2,118 .86 .00

140

Does the psychological wellbeing of primary caregiver fathers differ from primary caregiver mothers?

To examine whether there were differences in wellbeing between primary caregivers, a MANOVA was conducted on stay-at-home fathers’, stay-at-home mothers’ and dual-earner mothers’ scores on the EDS, TAI and PSI. Pillai’s trace was not significant, F(6, 238) = 1.14, p = .34, p² = .03,

showing no significant differences were found. ANOVAs were run separately on primary caregivers’ scores on the MSPSS and GRIMS. As can be seen in Table 4.2.5, there were no significant differences between stay-at-home fathers, stay-at-home mothers and dual-earner mothers, indicating that male and female primary caregivers report similar levels of psychological wellbeing and relationship quality. The primary caregiver parents in the three different family types showed overall positive psychological wellbeing and scores on the GRIMS suggested high relationship quality across the sample.

Table 4.2.5. Means, SD, F, p and p² Values for Comparisons of Psychological Wellbeing between

Primary Caregivers

Parents ANOVA Stay-at-home Stay-at-home Dual-earner

Fathers Mothers Mothers

M SD M SD M SD F df p p²

Depression (EDS) 6.13 3.51 6.88 4.51 6.45 4.04 0.37 2,120 .69 .01 Anxiety (TAI) 41.30 9.24 39.14 9.00 39.73 8.80 0.63 2,120 .53 .01 Parenting Stress (PSI) 70.70 14.15 72.07 16.48 71.93 14.52 0.10 2,120 .90 .00 Social Support (MSPSS) 5.56 1.08 5.87 1.16 6.04 1.14 1.84 2,120 .16 .03 Marital Quality

(GRIMS)

141

To further assess whether there were differences between psychological wellbeing reported by male primary caregivers compared to female primary caregivers, Chi-square tests were run to examine whether stay-at-home fathers differed from stay-at-home mothers and dual-earner mothers regarding scores on the EDS, TAI and PSI that indicated clinical levels of depression, anxiety and parenting stress, respectively. No differences were found between stay-at-home fathers, stay-at- home mothers and dual-earner mothers regarding the proportion of parents who scored above the clinical cut-off for these variables. Across the three types of primary caregiving parents, the most common mental health problem appeared to be elevated levels of anxiety, with 33% of primary caregivers scoring over the cut-off for clinical levels of anxiety. A Chi-square test was also used to explore any differences in the proportion of parents who reported low/moderate social support on the MSPSS. No differences were found between the three types of primary caregivers.

142

Table 4.2.6. ² and p Values for Depression, Anxiety and Stress Cut Offs and Level of Social Support

between Primary Caregivers (% within family type)

Parents Chi-Square Stay-at- home Fathers Stay-at- home Mothers Dual-earner Mothers ² df p Depression (EDS)

Above cut off 2 (5%) 5 (12%) 3 (8%) 1.25 2 .54

Below cut off 38 (95%) 38 (88%) 37 (92%)

Anxiety (TAI)

Above cut off 17 (43%) 12 (28%) 12 (30%) 2.28 2 .32

Below cut off 23 (57%) 31 (72%) 28 (70%)

Parenting Stress (PSI)

Above cut off 3 (8%) 9 (20%) 4 (10%) 3.78 2 .15

Below cut off 37 (92%) 34 (80%) 36 (90%)

Social Support (MSPSS)

Low/moderate 9 (22%) 10 (23%) 3 (7%) 4.36 2 .11

143

Professional support for mental health concerns

The support-seeking behaviours of the three different types of primary caregiver parents were examined based on the proportion who had sought professional support for mental health concerns. A Chi-square analysis showed that there were no significant differences between stay-at-home fathers, stay-at-home mothers and dual-earner mothers regarding whether they had sought professional support (See Table 4.2.7), with the majority of primary caregiving parents reporting that they had not sought professional help.

Table 4.2.7. ² and p Values for Primary Caregivers Seeking Support (% within family type)

Parents Chi-Square Stay-at- home Fathers Stay-at- home Mothers Dual- earner Mothers ² df p Support sought 10 (24%) 10 (23%) 7 (17%) 0.62 2 .73 No support sought 31 (76%) 34 (77%) 33 (83%)

144

Coparenting

An ANOVA was used to compare stay-at-home fathers’, stay-at-home mothers’ and dual- earner mothers’ total scores on the Coparenting Relationship Scale (CRS). There were no significant differences between the three types of primary caregivers (See Table 4.2.8). To further analyse the coparenting approach of the parents, and to examine whether male and female primary caregivers differed regarding individual coparenting constructs, a MANOVA was carried out on the primary caregivers’ scores on the seven CRS subscales. Pillai’s trace was significant, F(14, 222) = 2.54, p < .005, p² = .14, hence ANOVAs were conducted on each subscale. Univariate tests revealed a significant

difference between the three types of primary caregivers for coparenting undermining, F(2, 116) = 6.35, p < .001, p² = .10. Contrasts between the family types found that stay-at-home fathers rated

their partner as significantly more undermining than stay-at-home mothers (p = .02), and dual-earner mothers (p < .005), with a medium effect size (p² = .10). On the six other subscales, there were no

significant differences in coparenting between stay-at-home fathers, stay-at-home mothers and dual- earner mothers.

145

Table 4.2.8. Means, SD, F, p and p² Values for Comparisons of Coparenting Subscales between Primary Caregivers

Parents ANOVA Stay-at-home Father Stay-at-home Mother Dual-Earner Mother M SD M SD M SD F df p p² Coparenting Total (CRS) 4.98 0.65 4.98 0.81 5.03 0.64 0.08 2,116 .92 .00 Coparenting Agreement 4.84 0.95 4.87 1.25 4.65 1.02 0.51 2,116 .60 .01

Endorse Partner Parenting 5.12 0.80 4.91 1.01 5.12 0.86 0.69 2,116 .50 .01

Coparenting Support 4.93 1.00 4.89 1.07 4.94 0.90 0.02 2,116 .98 .00

Coparenting Undermining 0.92 0.83 0.56 0.78 0.39 0.38 6.35 2,116 .00 .10

Coparenting Closeness 4.77 0.88 4.77 1.03 4.82 1.00 0.03 2,116 .97 .00

Exposure to Conflict 0.85 0.88 0.98 1.02 1.12 1.40 0.53 2,116 .59 .01

146