ABSTRACT

An Investigation of the Physical and Psychological Presence

of the Jamaican Father

Marina Ramkissoon

Lecturer

Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work

University of the West Indies

Mona, Kingston 7

November 7, 2003 (revised version)

The present paper explored the father-child

relationship, and its consequences, through

research and a discussion of fatherhood in the

Jamaican context. Specifically, it attempted to

61

determine whether the physical and psychological

presence of children’s biological fathers were

associated with their wellbeing and the quality of

the father-child relationship. Another of its

objectives was to provide evidence for or against

studies advocating that the ‘marginal’ father is

an overgeneralisation and/or stereotype.

Structured interviews were carried out with a

sample of 251 school children with mean age of 14

years, from the Kingston area. The study focused

on the children’s perceptions of their

relationships with their biological fathers.

Overall, children living with their fathers

enjoyed a higher quality relationship with him

than those who lived separately, except for the

amount of emotional rejection they faced. The

relationship boys and girls shared with their

resident biological fathers was found to be

similar. The psychological presence of the father

was also a significant moderator of the quality of

62

the father-child relationship, and children with

higher scores on this variable generally had a

better emotional relationship with their fathers.

The psychological presence of the father appeared

to have a greater positive effect on children than

mere physical presence. The most unique

contribution of the present study is to qualify

the applicability of the ‘marginal’ father

stereotype to psychologically absent fathers.

Key words: physical presence of father;

psychological presence of father; marginality;

stereotype; father-child relationship; Marina

Ramkissoon

Published: Ramkissoon. M. (2005). An Investigation

of the Physical and Psychological Presence of the

Jamaican Father. Caribbean Childhoods: From Research to

Action: Children at risk. 2.

63

When considering the risk factors affecting

children’s lives, it is not far-fetched to focus

on family relationships. It is almost universally

acknowledged that the family is the primary

socialisation agent for the child, and that

childhood experiences affect relationships further

on in life. This present paper seeks to explore a

very salient relationship for the child, namely

the father-child relationship, and its

consequences, through a discussion of fatherhood

in the Jamaican context.

Over the past two decades or so, there has been heightened

interest in fathering in the Caribbean, this being

especially so for Jamaica. Quite a number of papers have

been written on issues relating to fatherhood, and family in

general (Rubenstein, 1980; Grant, Leo Rhynie, and Alexander,

1983; Brown, and Wint, 1988; Brown, Anderson and Chevannes,

1993; Leo Rhynie, 1993; Barrow, 1996; Crawford-Brown, 1997;

Leo Rhynie in Roopnarine and Brown, 1997; Bailey, Branche,

64

Mcgarrity and Stuart, 1998; Brown and Chevannes, 1998;

Chevannes, 1999; Ricketts, 2000; Samms-Vaughn, 2000; Brown,

2001). These papers represent new literature, building on

now ‘classic’ family studies done by Edith Clarke, T. S.

Simey, R. T. Smith and others (Frazier, 1966(1939); Simey,

1946; Henriques, 1953; Smith, 1957; Smith, 1971(1956);

Clarke 1999(1957), Herskovits, 1958; Blake, 1961;

Greenfield, 1966; Rodman, 1971; Roberts and Sinclair, 1978).

Much of the earlier work drew from Caribbean sociological

thought, mainly exploring family-type, function (or

dysfunction) and structure. One consistent finding from the

early research is the strongly-held cultural belief that

fathers are primarily economic providers (Brown, Anderson

and Chevannes, 1993). Even if men are not fulfilling this

function optimally, it is expected of them. Yet, there is

also evidence demonstrating that men are fulfilling care-

giver roles for their children. This less popular role is

thwarted by the Jamaican image of masculinity, which

prescribes practices contrary to that of care-giver. Gender

identity plays an intricate role in the expectations of

65

fatherhood in Jamaica. There is a small but welcomed

growth, however, in interest in psychological and socio-

psychological issues relating to family life, parenting and

fatherhood in the Caribbean. This current paper is an

attempt to add to the body of psychological knowledge and

research on family and fathering in Jamaica, in such a way

that highlights children’s experiences.

Physical and psychological presence of the father

The high number of households headed by females has always

seemed to be an accepted fact of life in the Afro-Caribbean,

and, therefore, the father’s physical absence has been

accepted, by association. According to the 2002 Jamaica

Survey of Living Conditions (Planning Institute of Jamaica

and Statistical Institute of Jamaica, 2002), 44.7 per cent

of Jamaican households are headed by females and house 87.2

per cent of Jamaican children. Even though these rates are

high, they imply that more than half of the households in

Jamaica contain male heads. These males, however, are not

66

necessarily biological fathers, but could be other father

figures such as relatives and stepfathers. Additionally,

even if the head of the household is a male, he may be a

visitor in several households over time (men with various

‘baby-mothers’), or be “marginal” and peripheral to the

family unit. Furthermore, there are cases where men do not

reside in the household at all, and are still considered

household heads.

The term “marginal” refers to a stereotype, which is

frequently used to describe the status of many Jamaican

fathers in their families, and may incorporate both physical

and psychological absence. These fathers are thought to be

absent from their children’s residences as well as

emotionally and psychologically inaccessible. Even when

these men are physically present, or visit occasionally, the

perception persists that they do not sufficiently provide

finances for their children, are harsh disciplinarians,

uninvolved parents, poor role models, and possibly abusive

to both children and mates. The general sense is that they

67

are promiscuous, neglectful, and worthless. Marginal

fathers can be characterised in part by psychological

absence, referring to their absence in the minds of their

children, based on their emotional inaccessibility, lack of

responsibility and general indifference to the welfare of

their children. These fathers, according to Leo Rhynie

(1993) operate on the fringes of the family, where the

mother is the primary figure. Children of these parents

suffer in the long run, in that boys for instance, do not

get the opportunity to learn about adult men as responsible

spouses who provide material, physical and emotional support

for their mates and offspring. Girls do not have the chance

to observe healthy male-female interactions at the adult

level, particularly in abusive or violent situations.

R.T. Smith’s work (1971 (1956)) demonstrated that in cases

where the father is physically absent, he is at least

recognised and clearly identifiable by his children.

Contact could be in the form of visits or material goods.

Greenfield (1966) stated that those children whose fathers

68

work out of the island knew very little of them personally,

but thrived on the image of him as a good father, because he

provided for their material needs. Hence these children grew

attached to their fathers emotionally because they took care

of their physical needs and not necessarily because they

expressed emotional attachment to, or approval of them in

other ways. Greenfield cited cases where children who

actually lived with their fathers experienced more rejection

from them and received less from them materially. Hence,

physical absence of the father may have its advantages and

physical presence does not necessarily ensure healthy or

adequate relationships between father and child. In some

cases, physical presence can mean more negative, rather than

positive outcomes for children. Indeed this could suggest

that children and families have adapted to the physical

absence of the father, and have not lost his traditional

influence simply because of this absence. Claudette

Crawford-Brown’s study (1997) somewhat corroborated the view

that father’s physical presence is inconsequential for

children, in that it was the absence of the mother that led

69

to conduct disorder in children, along with the presence of

a negative role model, which was normally the father.

De Kanter (1959) provided a framework for understanding the

psychological presence of the father from the child’s

perspective. Accordingly, there were several levels of

fatherhood: the person, the position and the symbol of the

father. If a person was called father, then symbolically

that person was regarded as the child’s father, for naming

can symbolically represent the person in the mind of the

child as fulfilling that role. She also discussed Freudian

and Lacanian theories, stating that fathers had different

psychological functions. The idealisation function was

particularly important for absent fathers, since their ideal

function could be fulfilled if children mentally construe

him, rather than tally his real contribution. Hence the

children internalised the ideal father and this helped them

through the reality of the absent, irresponsible or violent

father.

70

Another possible explanatory framework comes from Boss

(1988; 1992) who described the boundary ambiguity of a

family, measured in terms of inconsistency in the physical

and psychological presence of its members. Low scores on

psychological presence implied high boundary ambiguity,

meaning that family members were unsure as to the membership

status of a person whose physical and psychological presence

were frequently inconsistent. The non-resident Jamaican

father accordingly, could create boundary ambiguity for the

child, since many times the father existed in their minds,

but not in their homes. Whether he was in or out of the

family may not be clear, especially when the parents break

off their intimate ties and the mother adopts a new partner.

This new visiting man could also create boundary ambiguity

for the child.

The previous section was an attempt to discuss the physical

and psychological presence of Jamaican fathers. The

following study sought to employ psychological scales to

measure the quality of the father-child relationship.

71

Specifically, using children as respondents, it looks at the

quality of the biological father-child relationship and the

relationships with the physical and psychological

presence/absence of biological fathers.

Methodology

Data were collected from 251 students (Grades 7, 8 and 9)

from nine Primary and Junior High, as well as High schools

in the Kingston/St. Andrew area. Schools chosen to

participate in the study were taken from the Ministry of

Education and Culture School Profiles 1998-99. Of the 12

Primary and Junior High schools contacted from this list,

seven agreed to participate. Three additional Secondary High

schools were approached, two of which participated. All

schools were coeducational. Within the schools, attempts

were made to select students randomly. In schools for which

class registers were available, classes and students were

72

chosen randomly from three strata: Grades 7, 8 and 9. From

schools where lists were unavailable, only the classes were

chosen randomly, and students were chosen from these classes

based on parental consent and teacher selection. A perfectly

random sample was not achievable because of the absence of

class lists and the unavailability of some Grade 9s due to

National in-course examinations. The majority of respondents

were chosen from Grades 8 and 9, with fewer numbers from

Grade 7 (34 seventh graders, 117 eighth graders and 100

ninth graders). Of the students sampled, 140 (55.8 per cent)

were female and 111 (44.2 per cent) were male. The mean age

of the sample was 14 years. Because the socioeconomic class

of students was measured indirectly and subjectively, it was

not used in further analysis.

Instruments

The interview form was constructed using several subscales

to measure a number of variables in the father to child

relationship. Generally in the Caribbean, there is a

deficiency of valid and reliable scales designed

73

specifically for our populations. Psychometric analyses,

therefore, had to be carried out in order to test the

reliability of the scales used in this study. One

limitation is that little or no validity tests were done.

Child wellbeing: this variable was measured by a scale derived

from items in the Affectometer 2 (Kammann and Flett, 1983).

This is a collection of subscales designed to measure

general happiness in adults (reported Cronbach alpha = 0.95,

test-retest reliability = 0.80 for a two-week period; r2 = -

0.84 with Beck Depression Inventory). The original scale

(40 items) consisted of several dimensions: confluence,

optimism, self-esteem, self-efficacy, social support, social

interest, freedom, energy, cheerfulness and thought clarity.

The five-point scale was maintained.

Sixteen items were included in the interview form on the

following dimensions: confluence, self-esteem, self-efficacy

and optimism. A principal components analysis with oblique

rotation and Kaiser normalisation produced two major factors

74

with eigenvalues over two. A scree plot also showed two

factors. The first accounted for 31.21 per cent of the

variance, with high loadings for seven items. These items

all had negative connotations and the resulting factor was

subsequently named negative wellbeing in the child. A

reliability analysis of the seven items produced a Cronbach

alpha coefficient of 0.81 (n = 249). The second factor

accounted for 10.46 per cent of the variance, and six items

loaded highly on it (0.764 to 0.397). This factor was used

as a measure of positive wellbeing in the child. A

reliability analysis of the six items produced a Cronbach

alpha coefficient of 0.61 (n = 246). Mean scores were

computed for positive wellbeing and used in further

analysis. (Analyses on negative wellbeing scores were not

included in the present paper). Higher mean scores meant

higher positive wellbeing for the children. Sample items

included: “I feel helpless” (reverse coded) and “My life is

on the right track”.

75

Psychological presence of father to child: a scale from Pasley and

Buehler (1991) was chosen for the present study, as it

focused specifically on how much a child thought about

his/her father’s presence and his involvement in his/her

decision-making processes. The original scale consisted of

eight items measured on a three-point scale and was used

with children from age eight to 15, in a sample of 44

children. The reported Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale

was 0.83. Concurrent validity evidence was provided by

analyses showing higher levels of father’s psychological

presence for children living in non-divorced families as

opposed to children from divorced, mother-custody families,

(t (38) = -4.56, p < .001.)

For the present study an additional item was included (“How

often does your relationship with your father influence your

plans?”) and the scale was converted to a five-point scale.

A principal components analysis on this scale revealed one

major factor (eigenvalue of 3.160) accounting for 39.5 per

cent of the variance with eight items loading highly (0.806

to 0.413). Although there were two factors with eigenvalues

76

over one, and some of the variables loaded highly on both

factors, it was decided based on the original scale to

include eight items in the first factor. The scree plot

showed one dominant factor. A reliability analysis

conducted for these eight items produced a Cronbach alpha

coefficient of 0.766 (n = 233, scale mean = 29.77). The new

scores were then computed by taking the mean of these eight

items. Higher mean scores on this subscale meant higher

father-to-child psychological presence. Sample items

included “How often do you think about your father?” and

“How often do you think about where your father is?”

Trust in father: the Trust Scale from Rempel and Holmes (1986),

which was designed to assess trust in close relationships

with a partner, was modified for purposes of this study.

Rempel and Holmes defined trust as “the degree of confidence

you feel when you think about a relationship” (Rempel &

Holmes, 1986, p. 28). Specifically, their scale measured

three aspects of trust: predictability, dependability and

faith. The original scale comprised 18 items measured on a

77

seven-point scale. Their sample consisted of 47 couples,

but still proved to be highly reliable (Cronbach alpha =

0.81, total scale; 0.70 for predictability; 0.72 for

dependability and 0.80 for faith). Convergent validity was

provided by high correlations between the faith subscale

scores and measures of love and happiness for couples.

In the present study ‘partner’ was replaced by ‘father’ in

the items. Items were suitably reworded for the parent-

child relationship and for the age distribution of the

sample. All negative statements were changed into positive

ones and scored appropriately, so that respondents could

understand them clearly. The measurement scale was changed

to a five-point interval scale similar to that used in the

scales described above. Higher mean scores indicated higher

levels of trust in one’s father.

When a principal component factor analysis was carried out

on the 12 items adapted, three factors emerged. The scale

was originally meant to differentiate between faith,

dependability and reliability, but proved not to be able to

78

do so for the age group sampled. Hence all but two items

were combined into a general trust in father scale. The

second and third factors consisted of only one item each,

which were eventually deleted from the scale. Further

analyses revealed one factor accounting for 61.1% of the

variance and the scree plot indicated one major factor.

Factor loadings ranged from 0.837 to 0.650 and 10 items were

eventually selected for further computations. A reliability

analysis of these 10 items produced a Cronbach alpha

coefficient of 0.928 (n = 231). A new variable was then

computed by taking the means of these 10 items. Higher

scores meant higher trust in father. Sample items included

“Father will always be there for me” and “Father will always

be willing to help me”.

Father-child relationship: 20 items were used to measure the

quality of the father-child relationship. The items were

adapted from four scales measuring parental power, perceived

parental affection, affiliative companionship and expressive

rejection (Bronfenbrenner In Glidewell, 1961). The adapted

79

items were scored from one to five. A principal components

analysis with oblique rotation and Kaiser normalisation

revealed three major factors instead of the expected four,

when the pattern matrix was examined. The companionship and

affection scales combined into one factor, while the others

remained independent. A scree plot showed three factors.

Factor 1: father companionship and affection: this factor was used to

measure the amount of companionship and affection received

by the child from the father. It accounted for 27.9% of the

variance and eight items were eventually selected for

inclusion in the subscale. Factor loadings ranged from

0.786 to 0.400. For a few of the items, there were high

loadings on more than one factor. A consideration of the

original dimensions and the logical combination of items in

the new factors were used to decide into which factors these

ambiguous items would be included. Reliability analysis of

the selected items produced a Cronbach alpha coefficient of

0.850 (n = 225). Sample items included “Father keeps doing

80

nice things for me” and “Father likes having me around”.

Higher scores meant more companionship and affection.

Factor 2: father decision-making and control: this factor was used to

measure the amount of decision-making power and control

exercised by the father over the activities of the child. It

consisted of five items accounting for 17.1 per cent of the

variance, with loadings ranging from 0.832 to 0.465.

Reliability analysis produced a Cronbach alpha coefficient

of 0.771 (n = 229). Sample items included “Father decides

what friends I should go around with” and “Father decides

how much spending money I could have”. Higher scores meant

more decision-making and control exercised by the father.

Factor 3: father expressive rejection: this factor was used to measure

the amount of rejection the father normally expressed

verbally and in actions toward the child. It consisted of

four items accounting for 8.39% of the variance, with factor

loadings ranging from 0.749 to 0.622. Reliability analysis

produced a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.712 (n = 227).

81

Sample items included “Father yells nags and argues with me”

and “Father talks to me in an affectionate way” (reverse

scored). Higher scores meant more expressive rejection by

the father.

Physical presence: father’s physical presence was measured by

asking the child whether the father lived in his/her

household or not. Details of the items on all scales used

can be gleaned from the unpublished M.Sc. research project

(Ramkissoon, 2001).

For the purpose of this paper, several groups of children

were compared and several hypotheses stated:

physically present and absent fathers;

psychologically present and absent fathers;

psychologically and physically present fathers with

psychologically and physically absent fathers ;

psychologically and physically present fathers with

psychologically present but physically absent fathers;

82

physically and psychologically absent fathers with

physically absent but psychologically present fathers;

physically and psychologically present fathers with

psychologically absent but physically present fathers;

and

physically and psychologically absent fathers with

physically present but psychologically absent fathers.

Hypothesis 1: there will be a significant difference between

children with and without resident fathers, in terms of

father expressive rejection, trust in father, father-to-

child psychological presence, father decision-making and

control, positive wellbeing of child and father

companionship and affection.

Hypothesis 2: there will be a significant difference between

boys and girls overall, in terms of father-expressive

rejection, trust in father, father-to-child psychological

presence, father decision-making and control, positive

wellbeing of child, father companionship and affection.

83

Hypothesis 3: there will be a significant difference between

boys with and without resident fathers in terms of father-

expressive rejection, trust in father, father-to-child

psychological presence, father decision-making and control,

positive wellbeing of child and father companionship and

affection.

Hypothesis 4: there will be a significant difference between

girls with and without resident fathers in terms of father-

expressive rejection, trust in father, father-to-child

psychological presence, father decision-making and control,

positive wellbeing of child and father companionship and

affection.

Hypothesis 5: there will be significant differences between

children with high, medium and low scores on father-to-child

psychological presence in terms: of father-expressive

rejection; trust in father; father-to-child psychological

84

presence; father decision-making and control; positive

wellbeing of child and father companionship and affection.

Results

Using t tests, significant differences were observed between

children with and without resident fathers on the variables

expressive rejection by the father (t (222) = 3.266, p =

0.001), father control and decision-making (t (222) = 2.967,

p = 0.003), father-to-child psychological presence (t (225)

= 3.973, p = 0.000) and trust in father (t (224) = 4.694, p

= 0.000). No significant difference was found between both

groups in terms of positive wellbeing of the child.

When gender groups were analysed, only one significant

difference was observed in terms of positive wellbeing of

the child (t (248) = 2.430, p = 0.016). A significant

difference was observed between boys with and without

resident fathers on the variables father control and

decision making (t (96) = 3.248, p = 0.002), father-to-child

85

psychological presence (t (98) = 2.667, p = 0.009) and trust

in father (t (97) = 3.982, p = 0.000). For girls with and

without resident fathers, similar differences were observed

in terms of father’s expressive rejection of the child (t

(124) = 3.38, p = 0.001), father’s psychological presence to

the child (t (125) = 2.91, p = 0.004), and trust in the

father (t (125) = 2.763, p = 0.007). There was no

significant difference in terms of positive wellbeing for

either girls or boys overall, with and without resident

fathers.

When looking at the percentiles of scores for all

respondents on psychological presence of father, children

scored highly (mean = 3.72; range = 1 to 5). Scores in the

10th percentile were as high as 3.00. As was hoped, scores

on this variable could not justifiably be separated into

high, medium and low-based on the percentile distribution.

It was decided to use 3.20 as the cut off point, with

children scoring below this point being classified as having

moderate father-to-child psychological presence and those

86

scoring higher having high father-to-child psychological

presence. Hence two new groups were created for analyses (50

with moderate scores and 182 with high scores). Significant

differences between children having high and moderate scores

on father-to-child psychological presence were observed for

father expressive rejection (t (227) = -2.512, p = 0.014),

father companionship and affection (t (227) = 3.052, p =

0.003), father control and decision-making (t (227) = 3.052,

p = 0.003), trust in father (t (229) = 7.100, p = 0.000) and

child-positive wellbeing (t (230) = 2.407, p = 0.017).

Further analyses were done, beyond the initial hypotheses.

Smaller groups of children were created based on variations

in both physical and psychological presence. The groups and

their significant and non-significant mean differences on

six father-to-child independent variables are shown in the

table below (Table 1).

87

88

Table 1: Significant and Non-Significant Mean Scores on Father-Child Relationship Variables for Various Groups of Children

Positive wellbeingof child

Trustin father

Companion-ship andaffectionfrom father

Control and decision makingof father

Expressive rejection by father (lower scores mean less rejection)

Psychological presence of father-to- child

HIGHABS(n = 90)

3.78 D 3.83A,D

3.42 D 2.73 D 1.23 A,D 3.98

LOWABS (n = 36)

3.52 D 2.57B,D,E

2.37 D,E 2.13B,D,E

1.42 D 2.53 E

HIGHLIVE (n = 89)

3.64 C 4.17A,C,E

3.28 C,E 3.02 E 1.39 A 4.10 E

LOWLIVE(n = 12)

3.18 C 3.39B,C

2.47 C 2.88 B 1.57 2.82

LEGEND:

HIGHABS = high psychological presence of father and non-

residence of father with child

LOWABS = low psychological presence of father and non-

residence of father with child

HIGHLIVE = high psychological presence of father and

residence of father with child

89

LOWLIVE = low psychological presence of father and residence

of father with child

A = significant differences between HIGHABS and HIGHLIVE

B = significant differences between LOWABS and LOWLIVE

C = significant differences between HIGHLIVE and LOWLIVE

D = significant differences between HIGHABS and LOWABS

E = significant differences between LOWABS and HIGHLIVE

For children with high father-to-child psychological

presence, there were significant differences between those

with resident and non-resident fathers in terms of trust (t

(174) = 4.060, p = 0.000) and expressive rejection (t (176)

= 2.752, p = 0.007). For children with moderate scores on

father to child presence who, had resident and non-resident

fathers, significant differences were observed for trust (t

(46) = -2.248, p = 0.029) decision-making and control of

father (t (30) = -2.606, p = 0.014, equal variances not

assume). With resident fathers, there were significant

differences between those with high and moderate scores on

father-to-child psychological presence in terms: of positive

90

wellbeing of the child (t (99) = 2.211; p = 0.029) trust (t

(99) = 3.046; p = 0.003) and companionship and affection (t

(99) = 3.301; p = 0.001). Without resident fathers

significant differences also were found between those with

high and moderate scores on psychological presence of father

in terms of: positive wellbeing of children (t (124) = -

2.007; p = 0.047), companionship and affection (t (121) = -

5.598); p = 0.000), trust (t (123) = - 6.740, p = 0.000);

control and decision-making (t (121) = - 2.516, p = 0.013)

and expressive rejection (t (50) = 3.013), p = 0.004, equal

variances not assumed). Finally, comparing groups with

resident fathers, which had high scores on father-to-child

psychological presence and those who had non-resident

fathers and moderate scores on father-to-child psychological

presence, there were significant differences in terms of:

trust (t (50) = 7.711; p = 0.000, equal variances not

assumed), companionship and affection (t (123) = 5.564; p =

0.000, decision-making and control (t (123) = 4.118, p =

0.000); and psychological presence of father (t (123) =

15.282, p = 0.000).

91

Discussion

The findings in terms of the effect of father’s physical

presence show that when you live with your father there is

more expressive-rejection in terms of quarrelling and

yelling. However, there is also a better relationship, in

that the father makes more decisions regarding the

regulation of activities, is trusted more by the child and

is thought about a lot more by the child. From the child’s

perspective, however, decision-making by the father may not

be welcomed and could possibly add to the feeling that they

are somehow rejected or treated harshly by their fathers.

Living or not living with father, not taking into

consideration the psychological presence of father, has

little impact on a child’s overall sense of positive

wellbeing and feelings of affection and companionship from

one’s father. Perhaps the mother-figure is more influential

in terms of these variables specifically, or children have

alternative sources. This finding is in congruence with the

belief that Jamaican men are not expected to be affectionate

in general, and research has shown them to be emotionally

92

detached from their families. The father’s role seems to be

more in terms of regulation and being accessible and

available for interaction, supporting Lamb’s (1987) research

in the US which points out three ways in which fathers are

involved in their children’s lives: interaction meaning actual

time spent with children on a one-to-one basis; parental

accessibility, which referred to less intensive interactions

where the parent was available to the child when needed and

responsibility, referring to accepting responsibility for child

care and welfare such as taking them to the doctor. Non-

resident fathers have less control over their children’s

lives, are less trusted and are less present psychologically

to their children. The quality of the father, child

relationship is, therefore, generally enhanced by the

residence of the father, especially in terms of actual

behaviour relating to decisions and trust, but less in terms

of affection and companionship.

Overall, the only difference found between all boys and

girls was for positive wellbeing, where boys had generally

93

higher positive wellbeing scores than girls. The similarity

in parental treatment boys and girls was demonstrated in a

study done by Leo Rhynie (in Roopnarine and Brown, 1997).

Block and Robins (1994) demonstrated a general decrease in

self-worth and self esteem for girls and suggested that it

related to increasing was insecurity about their appearance

and abilities. Both studies add to the validity of the

present findings and support the universality of sex

differences in self-esteem for male and female children.

Differences were found in boys with and without resident

fathers. There was a more trusting and

controlling/regulating relationship between boys with

resident fathers than those without. Living with a father

also led to thinking about him a lot. More regulation is

expected since it is regarded as the man’s duty to

discipline children. There was no difference in terms of

wellbeing, companionship and affection or expressive-

rejection. Again we see the role of the resident father as

being more regulating and available for children (trust)

94

rather than as a source of affection. This points to the

perception of his greatest contribution as being more hands-

on, rather than emotional. For girls with resident fathers,

the relationship was trusting and the father was also

thought about a lot. However, there was more expressive

rejection by the father. This result is supported by the

Brown and Chevannes study (1998) which found that feistiness

and disrespect is reprimanded more in females than males.

This may partially account for the lower wellbeing scores

observed for females. Additionally, females tend to be more

emotionally expressive in response to reprimands than males,

given gender socialisation.

What of psychological presence and absence? Overall,

children who thought about their fathers in moderate

degrees, experienced less companionship and affection,

father control in decisions, trust in father and positive

wellbeing, as well as more expressive rejection than those

who thought about them a lot. When compared to the t test

results for residents and non-residents of fathers, it is

95

clear that both psychological and physical presence are

significant moderators of the quality of the father-child

relationship and appear to be fairly similar in their

effects. However, psychological presence differentiated

between two variables more than physical presence, namely,

positive wellbeing and companionship and affection.

Since the psychologically absent father is less of a

companion, an emotional support, a decision-making factor, a

trusted adult and more often than not, expresses emotional

rejection to his children, it is fitting to say he is more

‘marginal’ in the child’s life and even a negative influence

on the child’s general wellbeing. Having a physically

absent father, therefore, diminishes the quality of the

relationship, but having a psychologically absent father

appears to be more detrimental in that he has a negative

effect on the child’s sense of positive wellbeing.

From the additional analyses, comparisons were made of

various groups. When children think about their fathers a

96

lot, they are also closer to them emotionally, even when

they do not live with them. The two highest means for

positive wellbeing, trust and companionship were observed in

those who thought about their fathers a lot, compared to the

other groups. Interestingly, the least amount of expressive

rejection was observed in the two groups where psychological

presence was high. Again, this suggested that high

psychological presence was quite important in enhancing the

quality of the father-child relationship, whether the child

lived with the father or not, compared to when psychological

presence was moderate. Furthermore, the enhancement was more

emotional, rather than simply practical in terms of trust

and decision making. These results are in line with most of

the previous literature reviewed. Greenfield and de Kanter

both suggested that father presence can be positive in a

symbolic, rather than material way.

For children with psychologically absent father, there were

significant differences from those with resident and non-

resident fathers in term of trust and

97

decision-making/control. These were the two groups of

children with the worst means for all father to child

quality variables except decision-making. This pattern

again suggested that psychological presence is important.

Interestingly, children who live with fathers but who do not

think about him have the second highest means for decision-

making. This suggests that decision-making is very

dependent on the father being there physically, and possibly

that these resident fathers may practise more authoritarian

than participatory parenting styles. This possibility is

further supported by the fact that this group of children

had the poorest scores for expressive rejection. Based on

the above, the argument that psychological presence has a

greater emotional impact on the child than mere physical

presence, is supported.

The most interesting comparison was done with children with

non-resident fathers, who have either high or moderate

scores on father-to-child psychological presence. In this

case, thinking about one’s father a lot, makes a positive

98

contribution to the child’s wellbeing, trust in father to be

dependable and responsible, feelings of companionship with

father, the amount of decision-making power he has over the

child’s life, and results in a reduced amount of expressive

rejection. Psychologically present fathers are thought of

more than they are actually seen, and - therefore - children

may tend to conjure up positive images. In addition, not

living with a father reduces the actual contact time and the

possibility of his taking a hostile approach in expressions

and commands directed at the child. Having a psychologically

present father also means that the child can choose to

comprehend his father as an affectionate and a good

companion, even if he is not around physically. When he is

absent, short periods of positive interaction may even

perpetuate high psychological presence. Fathers in these

situations may be less frustrated than those who live with

their children and, therefore, do not show much hostility.

Some of these fathers may also want to actively be a part of

their children’s lives, but are blocked by the mothers and

therefore have to make the best use of their visiting time.

99

Additionally, some of these fathers may occasionally provide

cherished material goods for their children and, therefore,

are seen in a positive light by them.

Conclusion

It is recommended that physical and psychological presence

or absence be examined together, in relation to father-child

relationships, although it can be said that psychological

presence is the more important of the two for the emotional

wellbeing of the child. These variables inevitably occur

together, and the combined effects can be quite serious

especially when there is little psychological presence of

the father in the child’s life. It can be said that those

children, whether they live with their fathers or not, when

compared to those who feel high father-to-child

psychological presence, are most at risk for poor emotional

and psychological wellbeing.

When considering the interaction between a parent who is

psychologically absent to his child in terms of expressive

100

rejection, one sees the potential for verbal abuse, general

hostility or even violence in extreme cases. It is even

more worrying that low psychological presence and residence

of father are associated with greater expressive rejection,

demonstrating that this family situation can be stressful

and damaging to the child. I am not, however, proposing that

children should live without fathers, since having them

physically and psychologically present is advantageous. What

should be addressed is the quality of the interaction

fathers have with their children, whether they are resident

or not. This conclusion can stand, even though we see no

differences in terms of wellbeing, since children normally

report high levels of wellbeing universally.

From this evidence, qualifications can be made about the

accuracy and general applicability of the marginal father

stereotype in Jamaica. There is support for it, but for only

a segment of the fathers sampled. It is clear that not all

non-resident fathers are ‘marginal’, even if only in their

children’s eyes. In fact, sometimes it is better for them to

101

be physically absent, in that the children are less

emotionally rejected, and may tend to create positive images

of their fathers in the absence of actual interaction.

Fathers who are not psychologically present to their

children better fit the stereotypical description in terms

of the quality of their interaction with them. We can now

better describe a ‘marginal’ father as one who is probably

non-resident (though not always), is not well trusted by his

child, takes little part in regulating his actions, is less

affectionate, is not a frequent companion and can even

reduce his sense of positive wellbeing.

A final word must be said on the scope of these results.

This sample can only describe Black biological fathers in

urban Jamaica. Other variables impacting on the quality of

the father-child relationship were not measured. The mother-

child or mother-father relationships for instance, may have

influenced the outcomes. This paper does not explore changes

in psychological or physical presence over time, nor does it

look at age or gender as they relate to psychological

102

presence. There is no attempt to use psychological presence

as a causal agent for the father-child relationship, and we

must do further research to determine if the quality of the

relationship determines psychological presence or vice

versa. Additionally, it does not attempt to look at the

possible causal relationship between the physical and

psychological presence of the father. It also looks at a

child’s life in a snapshot, rather than over a significant

period of time and cannot tell us about ‘outside’ children

or step-children. We cannot form any conclusions about other

men who may be father figures and the roles they play. A

study based on children’s perceptions is always based on the

assumption that they know their fathers and that they

remember them objectively. Methodologically, using the

negative wellbeing measure, rather than the positive measure

may have given different results. A more conclusive

longitudinal study needs to be conducted, involving

substantial qualitative and quantitative phases, which can

capture the father-child relationship in its various

contextual realities.

103

References

Bailey, W., Branche, C., Mcgarrity, G. and Stuart, S. Family

and the Quality of Gender Relations in the Caribbean. Mona: ISER, UWI,

1998.

Barrow, C. Family in the Caribbean: Themes and Perspectives. Kingston:

Ian Randle Publishers, 1996.

Blake, J. Family Structure in Jamaica: The Social Context of Reproduction.

New York: Free Press, 1961.

Block, J., and Robins, R. ‘A Longitudinal Study of

Consistency and Change in Self-Esteem from Early

Adolescence to Early Adulthood’, Child Development 64 (1994):

909-923.

Boss, P. Family Stress Management. Newbury Park: Sage, 1988.

Boss, P. ‘Primacy of Perception in Family Stress Theory and

Measurement’, Journal of Family Psychology 6 (1992).

104

Brown, G. ‘Father is as Father Does’. Jamaica Gleaner. June

15, 2001.

Brown, J. and Chevannes, B. ‘Why Man Stay So’: An Examination of

Gender Socialization in the Caribbean. Jamaica: Pear Tree Press,

1998.

Brown, J. and Wint, E. ‘The Knowledge and Practice of

Effective Parenting’, Social and Economic Studies 37 (1988): 3.

Brown, J., Anderson, P. and Chevannes, B. Report on the

Contribution of Caribbean Men to the Family: A Jamaican Pilot Study. The

Caribbean Child Development Centre, School of Continuing

Studies, University of the West Indies, 1993.

Buehler, C. and Pasley, K. ‘Family Boundary Ambiguity

Marital Status and Child Adjustment’, Journal of Early Adolescence

20: 3 (2000): 281.

105

Chevannes, B. What We Sow and What We Reap: Problems in the Cultivation

of Male Identity in Jamaica. Grace Kennedy Foundation Lecture.

Jamaica: Grace Kennedy Foundation, 1999.

Clarke, E. My Mother Who Fathered Me: A Study of the Families in three

Selected Communities of Jamaica. Mona: The University of the West

Indies Press, 1999(1957).

Crawford-Brown, C. ‘The Impact of Parent-Child Socialisation

on the Development of

Conduct Disorder in Jamaican Male Adolescents’. in Caribbean

Families: Diversity among Ethnic Groups, eds. J. L. Roopnarine and

J. Brown. Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1997

De Kanter, R. in The Significance of the Father: Four Papers from the FSAA

Biennial Meeting. Washington D.C. Family Services Association of

America, 1959.

Frazier, F. The Negro Family in the United States. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1966(1939).

106

Glidewell, J. ed. Parental Attitudes and Child Behaviour. Illinois:

Charles C. Thomas Publishers, 1961.

Grant, D.R.B., Leo Rhynie, E. and Alexander, G. Lifestyle Study:

Children of the Lesser World in the English Speaking Caribbean 5. Mona: The

Bernard Van Leer Foundation, Centre for Early Childhood

Education, 1983.

Greenfield, S. English Rustics in Black Skin: A Study of Modern Family

Forms in a Pre-Industrialised Society. Connecticut: College and

University Press, 1966.

Henriques, F. Family and Colour in Jamaica. London: Eyre and

Spottiswoode, 1953.

Herskovits, M. J. The Myth of the Negro Past. Boston: Beacon Press,

1958.

107

Kammann, R. and Flett, R. ‘Affectometer 2: A Scale to

Measure Current Level of General Happiness’, Australian Journal

of Psychology 35 (1983): 259-265.

Lamb, M. E. ed. The Father’s Role: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, 1987.

Leo Rhynie, E. The Jamaican Family: Continuity and Change. Grace

Kennedy Foundation Lecture. Jamaica: Grace Kennedy

Foundation, 1993.

Planning Institute of Jamaica and Statistical Institute of

Jamaica (2002). Jamaica Survey of Living Conditions 2002.

Ramkissoon, M. The Psychology of Fathering in the Caribbean: an

investigation of the physical and psychological presence of the Jamaican father,

unpublished M.Sc. research project, 2001.

Rempel, J. and Holmes, J. ‘How Do I Trust Thee?’ Psychology

Today (1986): 28-34.

108

Ricketts, H. An Assessment and Analysis of Parenting in Jamaica. UN

Report, 2000.

Roberts, G. W. and Sinclair, S. A. Women in Jamaica: Patterns of

Reproduction and Family. New York: KTO Press, 1978.

Rodman, H. Lower-Class Families: The Culture of Poverty in Negro Trinidad.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Roopnarine, J. and Brown. J. Caribbean Families: Diversity Among

Ethnic Groups. Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Corporation,

1997.

Rubenstein, H. ‘Conjugal Behaviour and Parental Role

Flexibility in an Afro-Caribbean Village’, Canadian Review of

Sociology and Anthropology 17 (1980) 4: 330-337.

Samms-Vaughn, M. Cognition, Educational Attainment and Behaviour in a

Cohort of Jamaican Children. Working Paper No. 5. Planning

Institute of Jamaica, 2000.

109

Simey, T. S. Welfare and Planning in the West Indies. London: Oxford

University Press, 1946.

Smith, R. T. ‘The Family in The Caribbean’, in Caribbean

Studies: A Symposium, ed. V. Rubin. Jamaica: ISER, University

College of the West Indies Press, 1957.

Smith, R. T. The Negro Family in British Guiana: Family Structure and Social

Status in three Villages, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul,

1971(1956).

110