The Reconstruction of Fatherhood Across Two Generations

Abstract

This study addresses the similarities and differences in fatherhood across two generations, relying on the experiences of fathers and their sons. Twenty representative father and son dyads were selected from a larger sample of participants in a longitudinal study examining the leaving home transition in Israel. The fathers and their sons were interviewed about their attachment relationships using the Adult Attachment Interview. Fathers were also interviewed about their parenting via the Parenting Representations Interview–Adolescence. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed using a qualitative phenomenological approach. Four central themes of intergenerational transmission, mostly reflecting differences rather than similarities across the two generations, were identified: from poverty and shortage to indulgence, from strictness and respect to permissiveness, from precocious maturity to normative development, and from distance to intimacy and closeness. Fathers appear to want to provide their sons with experiences that they missed as children. They appear to be successful in these endeavors, yet surprised by some of the unforeseen outcomes, such as their sons being spoiled and manipulative.

Keywords

adolescents father–child relationship intergenerational life course qualitative

The most important experience I ever had was in the army. After I saw a lot of my friends killed in the Lebanon war, I changed my entire perspective about life. I understood that you should be more with your children, should show them affection and hug them. Life is short. My parents never hugged me, nothing. They survived the Holocaust and were very preoccupied with themselves and their misery. I did not understand it as a child. Only after the Lebanon war, when I came home, I suddenly realized that I should interact more with my children and dedicate and invest more. (A 44-year-old father)

My father is a very good father. He always gives me the feeling that he is there for me whenever I need him, despite that he works a lot. When I separated from my girlfriend, I turned to him to consult him what to do. Also, when I was a child he always played with me and wanted to know what was going on in my life. (His son, 18 years old)

The above excerpts demonstrate transformations in the functioning and behavior of fathers. In the current study, we examine fathers who immigrated to Israel as young children and examine how their lifetime experiences influence their fatherhood with their adolescent sons. Specifically, we examine the possible consequences of immigration, poverty, and traumatic experiences on fathers’ parenting in the context of the changing sociohistorical circumstances in Israel.

Recent studies have documented significant changes in the father’s role in the family over the past 20 years in Western countries (Parke, 2002; Pleck, 1987). Fathers have become more involved in child rearing, showing increased responsibility for child care, more participation in decisions regarding child development, and spending more time with their offspring (Bretherton, Lambert, & Golby, 2006; Parke, 2002). The “new fathers” are more emotionally available to their children, more nurturing, more affectionate, and less distant, and they want to be involved in their children’s lives (Wall & Arnold, 2007). Fathers’ engagement in caregiving, play, monitoring, and discipline (Hofferth, Pleck, Stueve, Bianchi, & Sayer, 2012; Hofferth, Pleck, & Vesely, 2012; Jackson, Choi, & Franke, 2009; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004) benefits their children’s adjustment (Amato & Rivera, 1999) and is associated with greater closeness of sons to their fathers in young adulthood (Amato & Booth, 1997; Hofferth, Pleck, Stueve, et al., 2012).

Research in the past three decades has moved from a negative perception of fatherhood that emphasized fathers’ weaknesses (Peters & Day, 2000) and physical and emotional absence, and its impact on the well-being of their children (Maccoby, 1989), to a more positive perspective that relates to fathers’ involvement in breadwinning roles, direct involvement in household tasks, and interaction with their children (Lamb, 1998; Pleck, 1987). These changes are reflected in the perception of fatherhood that emphasizes the nurturing role of fathers and the positive effects of fatherhood on the development of both children and fathers (Lamb, 1998, 2010; Russell, 1982). Although more fathers are significantly involved in custodial aspects of child rearing, and are more emotionally available (Gershuny & Egerton, 2006; Sayer, Bianchi, & Robinson, 2004), not all fathers have made the shift in fathering, and a there is still a great deal of variability in fathers’ behavior.

Life Course Theory Framework

The main purpose of this study was to elucidate the way in which the experiences of fathers with their own fathers serves as a model to emulate, or differ from, in parenting their adolescent sons. In addition, we wanted to examine the adolescents’ perceptions regarding their fathers’ fathering. These issues were examined within the conceptual framework of the life course theory (Elder, 1985, 1998). The life course of individuals is embedded in, and influenced by, the historical times and their individual experiences within the opportunities and constraints of historical and social circumstances on their lives. Relatedly, linked lives refer to reciprocal influences between individuals (parents and children), and developmental trajectories that mutually influence one another (Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003). The life course approach in our study refers to the intergenerational transmission of father–child relationships as illustrated in different psychological approaches (e.g., psychodynamic theory, social learning theory) and demonstrated in Israeli fathers.

Because lives are lived interdependently, changes in one person’s life patterns often also lead to changes in other people’s lives (Elder et al., 2003). Thus, according to the life course theory (Elder et al., 2003), one generation can transmit the impact of the historical circumstances that shaped its life history (“linked lives”) to the next generation. Thus, immigration might influence and shape individuals’ parenting.

Immigration and Parenting

Immigration includes multiple changes and adaptations (Qin, 2009), and family members need to adjust to new physical and social environments, language, culture, and work. Immigrant males tend to suffer greater isolation and are more physically burdened by excessive work, and demoralized by their changed status and family roles, compared with their wives (Este & Tachble, 2009; Lamb & Bougher, 2009; Lee, Jung, Su, Tran, & Bahrassa, 2009; Qin, 2009). Immigration might, however, provide fathers with better social and financial conditions in which to perform their roles (Boyd, 2002; Hofferth, Pleck, Stueve, et al., 2012).

Economically hard-pressed families might promote children’s adultification (Boo, 2001), a premature exposure to adult knowledge and undertaking of extensive adult roles and responsibilities within the family (Burton, 2007; Jurkovic, 1997). Struggling with financial difficulties diminishes the time parents spend with their children and might make them less psychologically available, with few emotional resources. Nevertheless, taking responsibility may also contribute to adolescents’ feelings of competence and being needed and valued (Burton, 2007; Jurkovic, 1997). Strier and Roer-Strier (2005) found that among former Soviet Union and Ethiopian immigrant fathers in Israel, immigration was perceived as a positive opportunity to adapt new roles to their traditional fatherhood. To understand the experiences of fathers and sons in an Israeli sample, it is necessary to highlight the historical and economic context in which these experiences are embedded.

The Israeli Cultural Context

Israeli society has been assembled by a constant influx of immigrants from Jewish communities around the world (Leshem, 2003). Therefore, influences of immigration on the social and economic environment, culture, and family dynamics are common in the characteristics and climate of Israel (Lissak, 2009). These enduring changes have had a great impact on parental roles and, specifically, on the adaptation of new roles in fatherhood. In the current study, most of the fathers immigrated to Israel as young children, some of whom were also Holocaust survivors. Holocaust experience is considered a risk factor for long-term effects of trauma (Yehuda, Halligan, & Grossman, 2001), and survivors are more likely to experience enduring effects of psychological distress and difficulties parenting their own children. Consequently, second and third generations are more vulnerable to less favorable psychosocial functioning (Scharf, 2007).

Since Israel is a young country with dynamics of immigration, it combines the influences of a traditional-collectivistic approach with a more Western, individualistic approach (Lissak, 2009). In parenting and child development Israel is more like Western society, which emphasizes autonomy and individuation (Almog & Watzman, 2004). Studies conducted among Israeli fathers who were first-generation immigrants to Israel (Roer-Strier, Strier, Este, Shimoni, & Clark, 2005; Strier & Roer-Strier, 2005) demonstrated the complex outcomes of immigration on family dynamics, such as parental loss of authority and strong conflict between traditional and more liberal and democratic child rearing practices. Consequently, processes of intergenerational transmission of fatherhood in this sample are colored by issues of cohort changes, as well as by the differences between first and second generation immigration.

Since the independence of the State of Israel more than 60 years ago, more than 50% of its population is accounted for by immigration. The first waves of immigration to Israel suffered from poverty, wars, and difficult cultural conflicts (Lissak, 2009), resulting in a difficult economic climate. This was true especially during Israel’s first two decades of existence but has changed dramatically and currently Israel, in general, enjoys moderately good economic status. Circumstances were difficult for the first generation but, unlike immigrants in other countries, these experiences characterize many Israeli families. This situation was usually transitory, and our sample includes mainly middle-class families. In the current study, we explore the unique context of fathers who immigrated to Israel as young children and how these experiences influence their fatherhood with their adolescent sons. Our study might, therefore, allow the influences of poverty and immigration concomitants (including the aftermath of the holocaust trauma) to be disentangled from fathers’ parenting. Our study might also shed light on the risk and resilience process in the parenting of fathers.

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting

The idea that parents’ attitudes, representations, and behavior toward their children are transmitted across generations is central in parenting research (Juffer, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2008). Parents’ attitudes toward their offspring are based on their own childhood experiences and transferred by several mechanisms. According to the psychodynamic approach, parents’ own past experiences and parental scripts are projected onto their children and affect their parenting (Brazelton & Cramer, 1990). Parents may also try to repair painful experiences by undoing, or they may expect their children to reenact, their own unresolved conflicts (Scharf & Shulman, 2006). Addressing parenting in adolescence, Esman (1985) emphasized that unresolved issues of the parents’ conflicts with their own parents may be reactivated in unresolved conflicts with their adolescent children. A somewhat different perspective regarding intergenerational transmission is offered by the social learning theory. This perspective focuses on observation and modeling processes (Rubin, Booth, Rose-Krasnor, & Mills, 1995). Children observe their parents as models and emulate them, thus internalizing their parents’ attitudes, behaviors, and attribution patterns.

Some studies that examined the intergenerational transmission of parenting support the “modeling hypothesis,” according to which fathers model their fathering patterns on those they experienced in their childhood (Block, 1971; Cowan & Cowan, 1987), and show similarity and continuity in their perception of the relationship with their children (Shears, Robinson, & Emde, 2002). Thus, men who experienced nurturing and involved fathering raise sons who tend to model and replicate these behaviors in their own fatherhood (Biller & Solomon, 1986).

On the other hand, there was also evidence for the “compensatory hypothesis,” according to which fathers made deliberate efforts not to replicate unsatisfying childhood experiences with their own fathers (Daley, 1993). According to this hypothesis, fathers who are more involved in child care may be compensating for poor and inconsistent involvement of their own fathers during their development (Belsky & Pensky, 1988). According to the compensation hypothesis, dissatisfaction with regard to their own fathers will provoke fathers into compensating for their perceived lack of caring and involvement from their own fathers by being positive fathers to their own sons (Daley, 1993; Devault et al., 2008). Sharabany, Scher, and Gal-Krauz (2006) suggested that whether fathers model or compensate, they use their relationships with their own fathers as “models of reference.”

One of the models used to examine the processes of intergenerational transmission of fatherhood that combined modeling and compensation processes was developed by Snarey (1993), who coined the term reworking. This notion reflects fathers’ willingness to emulate the positive aspects of their own fathers’ parenting, along with an attempt to compensate for what was experienced as negative in the relationship. Participants who had a distant relationship with their own fathers in childhood, but were raised in an overall positive family climate, were more supportive with their own children (reworking model). This model is further supported by Floyd and Morman (2000), who found that fathers who perceived their own fathers highest on affection provided the highest levels of affection to their sons; yet men who received very low levels of paternal affection gave more affection to their children than those who had received intermediate levels. In line with this notion, fathers described generational differences compared with their fathers mostly in demonstrating more affection and using better communication skills. They also described similarities, mostly in the domains of play, instrumental help, learning, and activity (Bretherton et al., 2006; Floyd & Morman, 2000; Palkovitz, 1984).

Similarly, Roy and his colleagues (Roy & Lucas, 2006) found that fatherhood activated the reworking of men’s identities and past experiences. Fathers’ generativity was expressed in nurturing their children and providing their basic needs, enabling fathers to recreate their deficient past. As they stressed, identity was a reflection of linked lives in an intergenerational dialogue with their own fathers (LaRossa, 1995), as well as their own individual expression.

Most studies that have examined intergenerational transmission of parenting have focused on mother–child relationships (see Madhavan, & Roy, 2012; Roy, 2006; Roy, Dyson, & Jackson, 2010; Roy & McAdams, 2006). The present study explored the processes of the intergenerational transmission of fatherhood in an Israeli sample, using interviews with fathers and their adolescent sons. Specifically, we wanted to highlight the process of reworking in fathers, from their own point of view, and explore how the parenting of these fathers was experienced by their sons.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study included 20 dyads of fathers and their 18-year-old sons who were selected from a larger study (n = 88) on parent–child relationships (Scharf, Mayseless, & Kivenson-Baron, 2004). The choice of the specific dyads was based on an attempt to purposively capture the variety of attachment classifications in the larger sample and the diversity of the fathers’ experiences with their parents.

Participants in the larger study were identified and recruited from published lists of high-school seniors in metropolitan middle-class neighborhoods in the northern part of Israel. Only intact families were included, and all sons lived at home. The number of children in these families varied between two and five (M = 2.93, SD = 0.74). Adolescents’ ages ranged from 17 to 18 years. In line with the prevailing characteristics of the middle-class neighborhoods from which they were sampled, the families in our sample were primarily well-educated (80% of the fathers and 74% of the mothers had at least a college education). Families of Western origin (Europe or North America) are more prevalent at high socioeconomic status levels, and 70% of the families were of Western origin. The consent of all family members was required for participation. The fathers and their sons were informed that they were free to cease their participation at any stage. After the interviews there was a debriefing, and the participants received the phone number of one of the principal investigators in case they wanted to discuss issues and emotions that arose in the meeting.

Data Collection

The analyses were based on two interviews: The Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985), conducted with the fathers and the sons, and the Parenting Representations Interview–Adolescence (Scharf & Mayseless, 1997/2000), conducted with the fathers. All interviews were conducted in the participants’ homes by trained research assistants (counseling and psychology students). Interviews with family members were conducted in Hebrew by different research assistants. Both interviews are semistructured interviews, and follow-up probes were used throughout the interviews to clarify and better understand the description of fathers and sons.

The Adult Attachment Interview (George et al., 1985) is an hour to an hour and a half long structured interview designed to arouse memories and emotions regarding attachment experiences. It includes direct questions regarding the experience of rejection, moods, illness or injury, as well as experience of loss, separation, and trauma (e.g., “What would your parents do when you were ill, upset, or injured as a young child?” “Did you ever feel rejected by your parents when you were a young child?” “How did your childhood experiences influence your adult personality?”). Participants are requested to give general descriptions of their relationships with their parents and to support these descriptions with specific biographical incidents. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim.

The Parenting Representations Interview–Adolescence (Scharf & Mayseless, 1997/2000) is a semistructured interview designed to arouse memories and emotions regarding parenting experiences with adolescent children. Parents were requested to give a general description of their relationships with their children and to support this description with specific incidents from childhood and adolescence (e.g., “When your [son] is sad or moody about something, what does he do? What do you do? Can you tell me more about some of the things in your relationship with your son that you find more difficult or painful? What are some of the things that are important to you in your relationship with your son? Can you explain?”). The interview elicited experiences involving closeness, difficulty, guilt, anger, worry, discipline, autonomy, conflict, monitoring and mutuality, and the way the parents addressed these situations. Both interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim and were identified with a number only.

Qualitative Analyses

The data presented in this article were analyzed within a qualitative research paradigm using a phenomenological approach (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenology recognizes the complexity of humans and seeks to understand their experiences from their perspective and how they are actually lived (Smith, 2004). Researchers have suggested (Polit & Beck, 2004) that this facilitates starting to accumulate evidence when little is known about a particular topic, or when studying a topic from a fresh perspective. The aim is to produce a comprehensive description of the phenomenon of an everyday experience and to determine the meaning of the experience for the person (Garza, 2004). In the current study, we used Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to gain an insight into how an individual perceives a phenomenon. Rather than trying to make objective descriptions, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis focuses on the uniqueness of an individual’s thoughts and perceptions and relies on a researcher’s capacity to become immersed in the private world of the participants as a phenomenological insider (Smith & Shinebourne, 2012).

The analysis focused on the fathers and their experiences of being fathered, as well as their experiences as fathers to their sons. Special attention was given to fathers’ discussions of intergenerational comparisons, namely, how they view their relations with their own fathers, and how they view themselves and their fathering of their sons. The qualitative data analysis included reading the transcripts to become familiar with the materials (Kvale, 1994; Tesch, 1990), performing an inductive analysis and dismantling process by open coding and identification of key words, metaphors, notions, and themes, until integration of the central themes in each category (Preissle, 2006). The authors read the transcripts separately, coded the central ideas, and thoroughly discussed their notes, while consulting the transcripts, to formulate the major categories. The sons’ points of view served as a secondary source of data that was used to illuminate the main categories that arose from the fathers’ experiences of fathering. For example, the category of “precocious maturity” was based on the following central themes: (a) child’s responsibilities in the family, which included financial assistance, caring for and helping siblings, and sometimes even parents; (b) demonstrating advanced social skills, which included fathers’ competence in mediation, acting on behalf of parents with official authorities (school, government officers); and (c) attention to the parents’ needs, which included efforts to please the parents, and awareness of their emotional state and well-being.

Results

Four central themes regarding processes of intergenerational transmission of fathering were identified from the fathers’ narratives: from poverty and shortage to indulgence; from strictness and respect to permissiveness; from precocious maturity to normative development; and from distance to intimacy and closeness. The two first themes deal with overcompensating fathers’ difficult childhood experiences in their way of fathering, while the latter themes deal with correcting unfavorable experiences in a positive and favorable manner.

From Poverty and Shortage to Indulgence

The fathers described childhood experiences of poverty and shortage. These experiences reflect the general economic climate in the State of Israel during their childhood, which were common to many immigrant families. Descriptions suggested that, as children, the fathers were satisfied with little and adopted creative solutions for coping with lack of material goods. In the following examples, pseudonyms are used in all the narratives, and all other identifying information has been removed.

Oren, a 42-year-old father of two described his relationship with his parents as a young child and said that his salient memories of his parents relate to poverty. Actually, all his friends in the neighborhood were in the same socioeconomic state as his family was. They ate only basic foods, they used shoes for several years and ate chocolate once in a few years when cousins from abroad immigrated to Israel, or visited the family. Oren also mentioned that his parents worked very hard but could not buy him any toys.

Tamir, 47 years old, father of Adi and two other children said:

My parents never had money to buy me presents. We needed to create presents for ourselves from wood or papers. Today I feel a great sorrow that when they immigrated to Israel they did not have time or money to spoil themselves a bit, as I do now as an adult.

The fathers’ wish to spare their children such deficiency was common, as expressed in Sharon’s (42 years old, father of Yanai and another child) description.

I will never let any of my children go out without money. I would give them extra money so that they will not feel any lack. Every time they go out I check how much money they need.

Some of the fathers also mentioned the impact of immigration on the lack of facilities. Ilan, 45 years old, father of Gidon and two other children described their immigration to Israel in the 1950s, and remembered that they lived in a tent and that every winter the roof leaked and it was very cold. After 8 years they moved to a cabin, but they did not have a toilet or a shower so they took showers with a hot pail. In their own fatherhood, fathers described themselves as far more indulgent toward their sons, providing them with an abundance of material goods. It appears that the economic deprivation they experienced affected the importance they attribute to material goods, as well as their attempts to spare their children any deficit, or even small frustrations. This attitude resulted in a limitless and squanderous response toward their children’s wishes and requests. The fathers viewed their own behavior as causing their sons to be spoiled and dependent, contrary to their own upbringing.

Alon, 51 years old, father of Dan and another child, claimed knowing that his son is very spoiled and that he gets everything he wants from him. He emphasized that his son cannot even imagine what it was like to grow up poor. He tells that he wants him to have everything he needs and that he is very happy that his son feels comfortable asking for what he wants. The father hastens to buy material goods for his son even before the latter asks. He appears to react to his own memories of deficiency and tries to prevent any frustration for his son. Another father Amit, a 47-year-old father of Eli and two other children, described uneasiness regarding his son’s indulgence and claimed that sometimes he is sickened by the amount of toys and gifts his son has. He was concerned that his son would not adequately appreciate the money he receives from his parents.

Although this picture was common, not all the fathers tend to spoil their children and some emphasized their educational, ideological perspective, stressing that they would like their sons to be mature and delay gratification and that they would like to prevent them from being spoiled and childish. Eyal, a 49-year-old father of Yaron and another child, stated that he would like his son to find the balance between his desire for material goods and satisfaction with less, and between individualistic and familial values. Eyal felt that he served as a role model for his son, adopting an ambitious attitude toward life and achievements instead of being spoiled and lazy. Similarly, Hagay, a 39-year-old father of two, described how many of his friends tended to provide material compensation for their children but that he chose to raise his son with limits relating to money and material possessions, because of his concern that his son might grow up very spoiled and might have difficulties coping with life’s challenges.

Issues of deficiency or indulgence were not raised in any of the sons’ interviews. This theme appeared to be mostly relevant to the fathers, but apparently not to their sons who, indeed, probably took what they received for granted. For example, Eli (son of Amit) said that it was clear that his father would take care of all his technological needs (computer, cellular phone, Internet) regardless of the family’s economic conditions. Similarly, Dan (son of Alon) said that his father always buys him whatever he needs and that this is obvious in their relationship. Yanai (son of Sharon) said that his parents are obliged to nurture him; therefore, he felt that they did not ignore any of his emotional and physical needs. Gidon (son of Ilan) explained that his father taught him that he could have whatever he wanted; therefore, now when he asks for things and is spoiled, his father “cannot complain.”

In sum, feelings of material deficiency, economic distress, and abstemiousness were embedded in most of the fathers’ recollections regarding childhood experiences. These life experiences had a mixed influence on their parenting. Although some fathers felt the need to materially overcompensate their sons, others set limits on their material giving. Sons’ reports revealed a sense of economic security and indulgence that could be an echo of their parents’ words.

From Strictness and Respect to Permissiveness

The fathers perceived their own fathers’ educational attitudes and monitoring as characterized by difficulties in negotiating the strict rules set by their fathers. The fathers described strictness on the part of their own fathers, and respect and compliance by them. With their own children, fathers claimed that their openness and willingness to communicate with their sons had, in part, a negative influence on their sons’ respect and compliance toward them.

Sharon (Yanai’s father, 42) described his relationship with his father as difficult. He remembered that when his father said no, he could not argue, no matter what happened. Sharon also mentioned that sometimes his father hit him if he was disobedient. Tamir (Adi’s father, 47) emphasized that as a child, and still as an adult, he highly respects his father. Tamir could not imagine not respecting his father, and described him as a “man of honor.”

When relating to their own parenthood, some of the fathers’ descriptions reveal difficulties setting limits. For example, Ilan (father, 45) felt that his father was very strict and used harsh discipline and unpleasant sanctions in their interactions. When Ilan thinks about his own fatherhood he considers himself closer to his children, and more tolerant. He mentioned that he does not hit his children and they are not afraid of him. Nevertheless, Ilan says that at times his children do not respect him because he is not as strict. Ilan felt that at times he was not assertive enough and that this behavior, in turn, led to lack of respect by his son. Some fathers mentioned that despite their childhood experiences of strict limits, they succeeded in setting adequate limits and receiving respect and cooperation from their adolescent sons.

Though the sons tended to see their fathers as permissive, they did not use this term, but rather described their fathers as “giving up” in the face of the sons’ demands and manipulations. David (son) described a lot of freedom from his father. He also acknowledged that sometimes he felt that this was too much freedom and that his father did not say “no.” Elaborating on this notion, he said that although his father might say “no” sometimes, he knows how to manipulate him to eventually get what he wants. Ami, another son, said that most of the time he felt that his father lets go, gives up, and forgets his demands.

Thus, experiences of deprivation of material possessions, and of strictness and limits in freedom in fathers’ own childhood, are expressed in “over doing” their perceived deprivation. In our sample many fathers tend to give their children a lot of material possessions and spoil them, while also giving up and relinquishing demands. Fathers were uneasy about these progressions.

From Precocious Maturity to Normative Development

The fathers’ immigration to Israel had great impact on family relationships. As children, the fathers found themselves functioning as moderators between their parents and social institutions. They also needed to start working at a very young age and sometimes did not finish school. The harsh times, which included immigration or poverty and economical difficulties, probably cast a shadow on their early years of life, involving feelings of guilt and psychological debt to their parents. Some fathers described high sensitivity and compliance toward parental wishes and needs. The description of Guy, 46 years old (Roy’s father), reveals this compliance.

My father worked at the factory and I helped him from a very young age. My parents used to come home late, so I used to prepare our meal, clean the house. When I was a teenager my father had a heart attack; I needed to replace him at work and support my parents and grandparents.

Similar compliance to family needs was demonstrated when Sharon (42, Yanai’s father) emphasized the influence of his responsibility to the family on school tasks. He said that he was not a very good student in high school; he took care of his younger brothers, so he was repeatedly late for school and barely finished high school. He said that he could not imagine this happening to his son.

Tamir (47, Adi’s father) described compromising his wishes for the sake of his parents, who were holocaust survivors. He said that his parents worried about him excessively; they had many fears, probably because they lost many close others in the war. He could not go out by himself and was not allowed to go on school trips or to basketball games. Never being able to go on trips and vacations, as other children in his school, Tamir felt that he always deferred to his parents’ wishes and that he could not just be a child—a normal child that does not feel constantly responsible. Thus, some of these fathers were exceptionally attentive to the family and their parents’ instrumental and emotional needs.

Emphasizing the impact of the above situation on their own fatherhood, fathers tried to provide their sons with what they considered normal development. Many insisted that their children study well at school and provided them with ample pocket money so that they would not feel the need to work. They stressed the importance of their sons not feeling the need to grow up too soon, as they had.

For example, Sharon (Yanai’s father, 42) allows his son to work only during school holidays, and only if this does not harm his school achievements. He never expects his son to do any chores or tasks that interrupt his school activities or time with friends. Similarly, when Tamir (Adi’s father, 47) was asked what he wants his son to learn from his own childhood, he answered that he wanted him develop normally, without having to worry about him as a parent as he used to worry about his parents. Tamir wants his son to engage in normal activities such as playing basketball and spending time with friends, without having any worries.

From the sons’ points of view, the fathers appear to have succeeded in their endeavors. The sons were engaged in normative issues for their developmental stage—studying, romantic relationships, future plans—and did not voice too much concern about their parents, economical issues, or the need to take care of their family or family business.

Yaron (Eyal’s son) said that the most important message he received from his father was about education. Yaron said that his father repeatedly emphasized that he should concentrate on studying well. He also remembered that his father used to tell him that he should enjoy life, go out with friends. In the same vein, Roy (Guy’s son) realized that his father’s parents had not encouraged his academic achievements when he was a child, as they had to cope with financial difficulties and invested very little time in academic tasks with him. Roy appreciates his father’s willingness to help him with homework, and his efforts to be involved and dedicated in this area. Gal (Elad’s son) too described that from when he was young his father used to tell him how he was raised, which was very different from the way he was raising his son. Gal recalls that as a young child he had everything he needed and that the message he received from his father was that he did not want him to work, but rather concentrate in school and enjoy life, “like a normal teenager.”

Adi (Tamir’s son) tells that his paternal grandparents were Holocaust survivors and were very protective toward his father; they prevented his ability to grow up normally because they were very anxious and traumatized. Contrary to this, his father allowed him freedom to explore and to experience. Adi expressed appreciation of his father’s self-awareness and his deliberate efforts to educate him differently from his own childhood experiences. It appears that as Adi’s father was attentive to his parents’ needs, he was also understanding and attentive to his child’s needs, reworking his difficult childhood experiences.

In sum, although fathers experienced precocious maturity, it appears that many of them made conscious efforts to enable their sons’ normative development in accordance with their developmental age and the socioeconomic climate in which they raised. Some of the sons were aware of the differences between the generations and exhibited adequate involvement in normative developmental tasks (e.g., school tasks).

From Distance to Intimacy and Closeness

Fathers described distant relationships with their own fathers, to whom they did not disclose their emotional needs or express emotional vulnerability. The most common explanation provided for this distance was related to the economic situation, which required high investment in earning money and spending a lot of time outside the home. These circumstances did not facilitate fathers’ availability and involvement (physical, instrumental, and emotional). Fathers also considered the experience of the Holocaust a major cause for the lack of open communication with their own fathers.

Guy (Roy’s father, 46) described his childhood relationship with his father and explained that his father escaped from Germany when he was 15 and subsequently lost his entire family in the Holocaust. He grew up alone and was very tough and introvert. Their relationship was cold, aloof, and distant; Guy admired his father’s strength to survive but was also afraid of him.

He was cold, never allowed hugging or kissing and he didn’t show affection toward me. I could never talk to him about my feelings and thoughts.

Elad, a 46-year-old father of Gal and two other children, mentioned that his parents look very sad and full of sorrow as a result of their Holocaust experience, but were not able to openly express these feelings with him. Consequently, Elad felt that he grew up to be emotionally distant, a communication pattern that caused emotional distance toward his parents throughout his life. Lack of closeness emerged in Amit’s descriptions (a 47-year-old father of Eli and two other children), who claimed that his parents worked very hard for a living and did not have time to invest in relationships. He told that his parents struggled with survival issues (economically); therefore, he did not expect to sit and talk with them and disclose his personal indecisions and difficulties.

In their current fathering these fathers described deliberate efforts to be involved in their sons’ lives and to be affectionate. They spent time with their sons, offered help studying, assisted in decision making, and reported showing more physical affection than their own fathers.

Tamir (47, Eli’s father) described himself as much more involved in his child’s life than his father was in his. Tamir felt that he knew his son’s friends and how he was doing in school; he stressed also that he shows interest in his son’s activities and knows if something is bothering him socially or with his girlfriend, when he has one. Ilan too (Gidon’s father, 45) emphasized the differences between his current relationship with his son and his relationship with his parents. Ilan said that he feels more of a friend to his son; they wear the same clothes, play sports together, and Ilan knows about his son’s girlfriend, whereas his relationship with his parents was very cold and lacking in attention. Fathers are more involved than their own fathers were and appear to consciously shape their own parenthood differently from the fathering they experienced.

Yoav, 42, father of Eran, explained that without his wife’s support and model of parenting he would be able to handle even fairly simple parenting tasks. The following excerpts from the father and his sons shed light on the variables that promote the reworking process.

When my children were born I didn’t touch them at all, it scared me, but my wife was very patient with me, this is my luck. . . . I learned from her to talk to my son about his problems. I have short temper, and he is like me and has a very hot temper. We always have a lot of fights, but my wife is a teacher, she knows how to talk to children, so she taught me. . . . I don’t remember my parents talking to me about my feelings. . . . I didn’t know to behave in close relationships. So you see, it is a good idea to get married.

Sometimes my father and I fight, and I think my mother understands me better, but I like my father. He is fun to be with. I like to watch football games with him, and I don’t think I have secrets from him. I tell him everything. He is a good friend of mine most of the time, except for the times when he is annoying.

Thus, Eran his son, indeed confirms the father’s evaluation. It appears that with the modeling and support from his partner, Yoav succeeded in reworking and changing the pattern of uninvolved parenting. Other sons also appeared to agree with their fathers and reported that their fathers were involved and caring, although in some cases more in an instrumental way. The following excerpts demonstrate these issues.

My father always did something to help and comfort me. He bought me presents, and tried to be funny so that I would laugh and not cry. (Eyal, 17 years old, son of Yaron)

Dan, Eran, and Yaron (sons of Alon, Yoav, and Eyal, respectively) said that they knew their father would always be there when needed and would support them. Yaron elaborated and said that when he has a problem he feels that he can talk to his father and that usually his advice is very helpful and useful. He tells that his father always teaches him—to play chess, to read, to work the computer. Yaron claimed that one day, when he became a father he would like to be like his dad.

In sum, poverty, adjustment to immigration, and, in some cases, shadows of the Holocaust trauma contributed, in certain cases, to lack of open communication and emotional involvement in fathers’ childhood experiences. This limited emotional availability underwent transformation in fathers’ parenthood, as emerged in the descriptions of fathers and sons regarding involvement and emotional closeness in their current relationships.

Discussion

This study explored processes of intergenerational transmission of fatherhood across two generations, involving fathers and their adolescent sons in an Israeli sample. Compared with their own fathers (at least as they were represented in their interviews in this current study), the fathers in our sample were more involved emotionally and instrumentally with their sons. This reflects a general tendency toward greater involvement, probably as a result of the different socioeconomic circumstances prevailing when raising their own children as well as contemporary changes in social expectations that require greater involvement from fathers in child rearing (Hofferth, Pleck, Stueve, et al., 2012; Wall & Arnold, 2007). The fathers exhibited reworking processes based on their wish to replicate the positive parts of their own fathers’ parenting, together with deliberate efforts to compensate for negative aspects in their former relationships (Roy, 2006; Snarey, 1993). Thus, they replicated aspects of instrumental care that were familiar to them with their own fathers (buying things, playing games), together with an impressive attempt to compensate for what was experienced as negative in the relationship (absence, distance, strictness).

We identified four central transformations that demonstrated intentional efforts by the fathers to compensate their sons for what they lacked in their own childhood (economic abundance, leniency), together with attempts to provide more positive and normative experiences (intimacy and closeness; normative responsibilities). The fathers exhibited changes: (a) from poverty and shortage to indulgence; (b) from strictness and respect to permissiveness; (c) from precocious maturity to normative development; and (d) from distance to closeness and intimacy. The first two themes involve compensating children for fathers’ difficult childhood experiences to some extent in exaggerated behaviors, whereas the last two themes encompass deliberate efforts to correct unfavorable early experiences in a more adaptive and normative manner. The fathers in our sample appear to have succeeded in these endeavors, yet seem surprised by some of the unforeseen outcomes, such as their sons being less autonomous and more spoiled and demanding.

This major reworking attests to significant and ongoing developmental processes throughout these men’s life cycle. Fatherhood, in particular, is seen as a major life transition that promotes and instigates major changes in fathers’ lives as they cope with the changing challenges of parenting. In line with this finding, Colarusso (2005) discussed a third separation-individuation process that reflects experiences in which the self and other are defined primarily through relationships with individuals other than primary objects, particularly relationships with spouses and children. For the fathers in our sample, fatherhood indeed instigated processes of separation and individuation vis-è-vis their own fathers, which then reflected reworking of their relations with their sons. This was expressed in the fathers’ ability to view the similarities and differences in their relationships with their sons compared to their relationships with their own fathers. Specifically, these fathers cognitively and emotionally reconstructed their childhood experiences in a way that enabled them to evaluate and partially accept their difficult experiences with their fathers and to adopt different attitudes and parenting practices toward their adolescent sons. Fathers constructed their roles based on their subjective experiences with their own fathers, examining what they received from their fathers, and what they needed but did not receive (Dick, 2011; Osherson, 1986). This culminated in more indulgence, leniency, and closeness in their parenting.

In the present sample, fathers reported somewhat less power and control over their children than they would have liked. Israel has changed dramatically in the past 30 years and became more global and less traditional, as well as developed stronger economic resources (Almog & Watzman, 2004). These changes have also influenced child rearing and family dynamics. It is possible that the decrease in fathers’ power and control over their sons also relates to changes in parental authority and a more democratic climate in Israeli secular society, as well as to social changes between first, second, and third generations of immigration and Holocaust survivors. In the light of life course theory, the historic circumstances in Israel appear to have influenced fathers’ practices. Fathers seem to overcompensate difficult childhood experiences limited by poverty, with greater indulgence and permissiveness toward their own sons. However, they were able to correct unfavorable experiences such as distance with intimacy and closeness. Less is known about the variables that differentiate between the two paths. Resolution of, and coming to terms with, the difficult experience regarding the father’s own father (Scharf & Shulman, 2006) as well as marital relationships and partner personality might contribute to different routes and should be examined in future studies.

In most intergenerational changes, fathers appear to be successful (e.g., from distance to closeness), and the sons’ perspectives validate the experiences of the fathers. Yet, in overturning their fathers’ legacy, the fathers also achieved some less desirable outcomes: In their need to compensate their sons for what they themselves missed in their own childhood, some fathers perceived their children as somewhat spoiled and demanding. In turn, the sons tend to cherish their fathers, appreciating closeness and valuing their fathers’ involvement in their lives, but some agreed with the fathers’ points of view. They felt that they could manipulate their fathers and tended to see their fathers as overindulgent. The examination of sons’ points of view in our study illustrated the significance of the child’s perspective. Adolescents were oblivious to many of the reworking processes in the fathers’ representations and they only experienced the results of these processes (e.g., leniency).

Our study also underscores resiliency processes. According to our participants, their childhood experiences reflected the general situation in Israel, encompassing immigration, poverty, and traumatic background such as the Holocaust. This context might promote children’s adultification (Boo, 2001), in the sense of the child assuming greater responsibility in household management at an early age. However, despite previous findings regarding the negative outcomes of adultification on child development, the fathers in our sample seemed to gain maturity, and felt competent and valued in their nuclear family (Burton, 2007; Jurkovic, 1997). Having had to assume adult roles might also have contributed to their awareness of their children’s needs. These less adverse, and even favorable, outcomes could reflect the general conditions of poverty that characterized many peoples in Israel in those days, because of the immigration to Israel.

While this situation deprived the fathers of normative experiences of growing up in a secure and abundant environment, it also encouraged them to develop skills that helped them become responsible, competent, and adept adults. Serving as cultural and language brokers for their parents, as well as taking on themselves tasks normally ascribed to adults in this culture, forced them not only to mature prematurely (Tse, 1996) but also provided them with a sense of competence and internal strength. As suggested, moderate levels of adversity promote the development of toughness and mastery, which in turn facilitate resilience (Seery, Holman, & Silver, 2010). This study provides a preliminary understanding of the processes involved in fathering adolescents and their capacity to actively change generational parenting models. Our findings support the notion of a correction process whereby fathers can provide their sons with positive and nurturing experiences, although they themselves did not experience such, and despite the lack of a satisfactory fathering model.

Experiencing a harsh or abusive relationship in early childhood does not necessarily forecast replication of undesirable past experiences. The individual’s ability to reflect on past experiences, and resolve negative and complex feelings, is a crucial component in the development of flexible and sensitive caregiving (Scharf & Shulman, 2006). Snarey (1993) showed that fathering was the combined result of modeling the positive aspects of the parenting received by the fathers and reworking the negative aspects of the father–son relationship they experienced. In this process the quality of relations with mothers played an important role. The ability to understand and forgive fathers’ motivations was affected by the quality of the relationship with the mother and the degree of warmth in the atmosphere at home. Bretherton et al. (2006) similarly found that fathers tended to learn what to do from their mothers, and what not to do from their fathers. Future research may need to address such processes.

Our findings attest to the viable and astonishing capacity of men to strive toward better and more empowering close relationships, despite difficult past experiences. It appears that fathers made deliberate efforts to avoid replication of childhood experiences with their own fathers that were not satisfying, and using compensatory processes, they succeeded in developing deliberate and aware rearing practices regarding their parenting. While using their relationships with their own fathers as models of reference, the fathers in our sample also demonstrated open and reflective views of their childhood experiences in a way that enabled them to develop a different parenting experience for their sons. The unique historical and general immigration atmosphere in Israel, which characterized almost the entire population, and the enduring intergenerational shadows of the holocaust, cast a special light on fathers’ experiences. Furthermore, these communal experiences served as a protective factor against alienation and long-lasting poverty. Contrary to what may be expected, these difficult experiences increased fathers’ motivation to change their own lives as well as the lives of their future families (Almog & Watzman, 2004).

Our study has several implications for policy, practice, and future research. Past research, as well as the current study, demonstrated that fathers’ involvement with their offspring is important and beneficial to both fathers and their children. Considering the mutual wishes and benefits of fathers’ involvement might have implications on policies of work hours and flexibility in work places (Roy, 2008). Many of the fathers in our study revealed impressive resiliency despite adverse childhood experiences. Thus, intervention programs with fathers who experienced poor fathering in their own childhood have the potential to promote reworking processes and transformation of difficult experiences into more adaptive caregiving by fathers. It is essential to adapt interventions to the target fathers, taking into account the social, cultural, and economic context in which they are embedded. Future studies might focus more directly on the processes that take place in the transmission of special issues and on the variables that preserve less adaptive fatherhood versus those that promote resiliency and reworking. Joint interviews with fathers and sons might shed further light on these processes. Finally, examining the issues pertaining to father–daughter relationships might advance our understanding regarding the role of gender in these processes.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Both authors contributed equally to this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Almog

Watzman

(2004). The Sabra: The creation of the New Jew. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Amato

P. R.

Booth

(1997). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Amato

P. R.

Rivera

(1999). Paternal involvement and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 375-384.

Belsky

Pensky

(1988). Developmental history, personality and family relationships: Toward an emergent family system. In Hinde

Stevenson- Hinde

(Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 193-217). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Biller

Solomon

(1986). Child maltreatment and paternal deprivation: A manifesto for research, prevention, and treatment. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Block

J. H.

(1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books.

Boo

(2001). After welfare. New York: New Yorker Press.

Boyd

R. L.

(2002). A “migration of despair”: Unemployment, the search for work, and migration to farms during the Great Depression. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 554-567. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00100

Brazelton

T. B.

Cramer

B. G.

(1990). The earliest relationship: Parents, infants, and the drama of early attachment. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

10.

Bretherton

Lambert

J. D.

Golby

(2006). Modeling and reworking childhood experiences: Involved fathers’ representations of being parented and of parenting a preschool child. In Mayseless

(Ed.), Parenting representations: Theory, research and clinical implications (pp. 177-207). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499869.007

11.

Burton

(2007). Childhood adultification in economically disadvantaged families: A conceptual model. Family Relations, 56, 329-345. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00463.x

12.

Colarusso

(2005). The evolution of paternal identity in late adulthood. Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association, 53, 51-81. doi:10.1177/00030651050530010201

13.

Cowan

(1987). Men’s involvement in parenthood: Identifying the antecedents and understanding the barriers. In Bowman

Pederson

(Eds.), Men’s transition to parenthood (pp. 145-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Daley

(1993). Reshaping fatherhood: Finding the models. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 510-530. doi:10.1177/019251393014004003

15.

Devault

Milcent

M. P.

Ouellet

Laurin

Jauron

Lacharité

(2008). Life stories of young fathers in contexts of vulnerability. Fathering, 6, 226-248. doi:10.3149/fth.0603.226

16.

Dick

(2011). The changing role of fatherhood: The father as a provider of self-object functions. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 18, 107-125. doi:10.1080/15228878.2011.611786

17.

Elder

G. H.

(1985). Perspectives on the life course. In Elder

G. H.

Ithaca

J. R.

(Eds.), Life course dynamics (pp. 23-49). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

18.

Elder

G. H.

(1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1-12. doi:10.2307/1132065

19.

Elder

G. H.

Johnson

M. K.

Crosnoe

(2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In Mortimer

J. T.

Shanahan

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.

20.

Esman

A. H.

(1985). A developmental approach to the psychotherapy of adolescents. Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 119-133.

21.

Este

D. C.

Tachble

A. A.

(2009). The perceptions and experiences of Russian immigrant and Sudanese refugee men as fathers in an urban center in Canada. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 139-155. doi:10.1177/0002716209334470

22.

Floyd

Morman

M. T.

(2000). Affection received from fathers as a predictor of men’s affection with their own sons: Tests of the modeling and compensation hypotheses. Communication Monographs, 67, 347-361. doi:10.1080/03637750009376516

23.

Garza

(2004). Thematic moment analysis: A didactic application of a procedure for phenomenological analysis of narrative data. Humanistic Psychologist, 32, 120-168. doi:10.1080/08873267.2004.9961749

24.

George

Kaplan

Main

(1985). Adult attachment interview for adults (Unpublished manuscript). University of California, Berkeley.

25.

Gershuny

Egerton

(2006, August). Evidence on participation and participants’ time use from day- and week-long diaries: Implications for modeling time use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association of Time-Use Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.

26.

Hofferth

S. J.

Pleck

J. H.

Stueve

J. L.

Bianchi

S. M.

Sayer

(2012). The demography of fathers: What fathers do. In Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Cabrera

(Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 63-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

27.

Hofferth

S. L.

Pleck

J. H.

Vesely

C. K.

(2012). The transmission of parenting from fathers to sons. Parenting, Science and Practice, 12, 282-305.

28.

Jackson

A. P.

Choi

J. K.

Franke

T. M.

(2009). Poor single mothers with young children: Mastery, relations with nonresident fathers, and child outcomes. Social Work Research, 3395-106. doi:10.1093/swr/33.2.95

29.

Juffer

Van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

(2008). Promoting positive parenting: An attachment-based intervention. In Juffer

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Van IJzendoorn

M. H.

(Eds.), Monographs in parenting series (pp. 37-57). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

30.

Jurkovic

G. J.

(1997). Lost childhoods: The plight of the parentified child. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner.

31.

Kvale

(1994). Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 25, 147-173. doi:10.1163/156916294X00016

32.

Lamb

(1998). Fatherhood: Then and now. In Booth

Crouter

A. C.

(Eds.), Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? (pp. 47-52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

33.

Lamb

M. E.

(2010). The role of the father in child development (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

34.

Lamb

M. E.

Bougher

L. D.

(2009). How does migration affect mothers’ and fathers’ roles within their families? Reflections on some recent research. Sex Roles, 60, 611-614. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9600-1

35.

LaRossa

(1995). Stories and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 553-558.

36.

Lee

R. M.

Jung

K. R.

J. C.

Tran

A. G. T. T.

Bahrassa

(2009). The family life and adjustment of Hmong American sons and daughters. Sex Roles, 60, 549-558. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9406-6

37.

Leshem

(2003). Israel as a multi-cultural state at the turn of the century. In Leshem

Roer-Strier

(Eds.), Cultural diversity: A challenge to human services (pp. 213-276). Jerusalem: Bialick.

38.

Lissak

(2009). Studies in Israeli social history. Jerusalem: Magnes.

39.

Maccoby

E. E.

(1989). Parenting breakdown: The making and breaking of intergenerational links. Contemporary Sociology, 18, 283-285.

40.

Madhavan

Roy

(2012). Securing fatherhood through kin work: A comparison of Black low-income fathers and families in South Africa and the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 801-822. doi:10.1177/0192513X11426699

41.

Moustakas

C. E.

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Osherson

(1986). Finding our fathers. Chicago, IL: Contemporary.

43.

Palkovitz

(1984). Parental attitudes and fathers’ interactions with their 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1054-1060.

44.

Parke

R. D.

(2002). Fathers and families. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (pp. 27-73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

45.

Peters

H. E.

Day

R. D.

(2000). Fatherhood: Research, interventions, and policies. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

46.

Pleck

J. H.

(1987). American fathering in historical perspective. In Kimmel

M. S.

(Ed.), Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity (pp. 83-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

47.

Pleck

J. H.

Masciadrelli

B. P.

(2004). Paternal involvement by U.S. residential fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 222-271). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

48.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

(2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 1451-1458. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004

49.

Preissle

(2006). Envisioning qualitative inquiry: A view across four decades. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 685-695. doi:10.1080/09518390600975701

50.

Qin

D. B.

(2009). Gendered processes of adaptation: Understanding parent–child relations in Chinese immigrant families. Sex Roles, 60, 467-481. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9485-4

51.

Roer-Strier

Strier

Este

Shimoni

Clark

(2005). Fatherhood and immigration: Challenging the deficit theory. Child & Family Social Work, 10, 315-329. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2005.00374.x

52.

Roy

K. M.

(2006). Father stories: A life course examination of paternal identity among low-income African American men. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 31-54. doi:10.1177/0192513X05275432

53.

Roy

K. M.

(2008). A life course perspective on fatherhood and family policies in the United States and South Africa. Fathering, 6, 92-112.

54.

Roy

K. M.

Dyson

O. L.

Jackson

J.N.

(2010). Intergenerational support and reciprocity between low-income African American fathers and their aging mothers. In Waldo

(Ed.), Social work with African American males: Health, mental health, and social policy (pp. 42-60). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195314366.003.0003

55.

Roy

K. M.

Lucas

(2006). Generativity as second chance: Low-income fathers and transformation of the difficult past. Research in Human Development, 3, 139-159. doi:10.1207/s15427617rhd0302&3_5

56.

Roy

K. M.

McAdams

D. P.

(2006). Second chances as transformative stories in human development: an introduction. Research in Human Development, 3, 77-80. doi:10.1207/s15427617rhd0302&3_1

57.

Rubin

K. H.

Booth

Rose-Krasnor

Mills

R. S. L.

(1995). Social relationships and social skills: A conceptual and empirical analysis. In Shulman

(Ed.), Close relationships and socioemotional development (Vol. 7, pp. 63-94). Westport, CT: Ablex.

58.

Russell

(1982). Shared caregiving families: An Australian study. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 139-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

59.

Sayer

L. C.

Bianchi

S. M.

Robinson

J. P.

(2004). Are parents investing less in children? Trends in mothers’ and fathers’ time with children. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1-43.

60.

Scharf

(2007). Long-term effects of trauma: Psychosocial functioning of the second and third generation of Holocaust survivors. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 603-622. doi:10.1017/S0954579407070290

61.

Scharf

Mayseless

(1997/2000). Representations of Parenting of Adolescents Interview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Haifa, Israel.

62.

Scharf

Mayseless

Kivenson-Baron

(2004). Adolescents’ attachment representations and developmental tasks in emerging adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 40, 430-444. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.430

63.

Scharf

Shulman

(2006). Intergenerational transmission of experiences in adolescence: The challenges of parenting adolescents. In Mayseless

(Ed.), Representations of parenting: Theory, research and clinical implications (pp. 319-351). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499869.012

64.

Seery

M. D.

Holman

E. A.

Silver

R. C.

(2010). Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 1025-1041. doi:10.1037/a0021344

65.

Sharabany

Scher

Gal-Krauz

(2006). Like fathers like sons? Fathers attitudes to childrearing as related to their perceived relationships with own parents, and their attachment concerns. In Mayseless

(Ed.), Representations of parenting: Theory, research and clinical implications (pp. 239-261). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499869.009

66.

Shears

Robinson

J. R.

Emde

R. N.

(2002). Fathering relationships and their associations with juvenile delinquency. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 79-87. doi:10.1002/imhj.10005

67.

Smith

J. A.

(2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1), 39-54.

68.

Smith

J. A.

Shinebourne

(2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

Kenneth

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology. Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 73-82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13620-005

69.

Snarey

J. R.

(1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four-decade study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

70.

Strier

Roer-Strier

(2005). Fatherhood and immigration: Perceptions of Israeli immigrant fathers from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union. Families in Society, 86(1), 121-133.

71.

Tesch

(1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. London, England: Palmer Press.

72.

Tse

D. K.

(1996). Understanding Chinese people as consumers: Past findings and future propositions. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 352-363). New York: Oxford University Press.

73.

Wall

Arnold

(2007). How involved is involved fathering? An exploration of the contemporary culture of fatherhood. Gender & Society, 21, 508-527. doi:10.1177/0891243207304973

74.

Yehuda

Halligan

S. L.

Grossman

(2001). Childhood trauma and risk for PTSD: Relationship to intergenerational effects of trauma, parental PTSD, and cortisol excretion. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 733-753. doi:10.1017/S0954579401003170