Maternal Gatekeeping Antecedents and Consequences

Maternal Gatekeeping

Antecedents and Consequences

Ruth GauntBar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

This study examined maternal gatekeeping, its background and psychologicalantecedents, and its consequences for paternal and maternal involvement inchild care. In sum, 209 couples with 6- to 36-month-old children completedextensive questionnaires. Analyses revealed that various dimensions of gate-keeping were differentially associated with the psychological antecedents andconsequences of maternal gatekeeping. The standards and responsibilitiesdimension of gatekeeping was related to the mother’s self-esteem, and it pre-dicted the father’s involvement in child care. The maternal identity confirmationdimension of gatekeeping was related to the salience of the mother’s maternalidentity, and it predicted her own involvement in child care. The importance ofexamining sociopsychological characteristics that account for gatekeeping ten-dencies is discussed, and the need is stressed to further explore the implicationsof these tendencies for various forms of involvement in child care.

Keywords: child care; father involvement; maternal gatekeeping; parenting

The past several decades have witnessed dramatic changes in women’spolitical rights, economic privileges, and work patterns (Thompson &

Walker, 1989). Nevertheless, shared norms continue to define domesticlabor as “women’s work,” and women’s responsibility for child care andhousework has remained nearly unchanged (Coltrane, 2000; Thompson &Walker, 1989; for a review of the increase in paternal involvement, seePleck, 1997). These conflicting trends have generated numerous studiesattempting to identify the determinants of the division of household laborin general (e.g., Coltrane & Ishii-Kuntz, 1992) and fathers’ participation inchild care in particular (e.g., Aldous, Mulligan, & Bjarnason, 1998;Deutsch, Lussier, & Servis, 1993; Gaunt, 2005).

Journal of Family IssuesVolume XX Number XMonth XXXX XX-XX

© Sage Publications10.1177/0192513X07307851

http://jfi.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

1

Author’s Note: Address correspondence to Ruth Gaunt, Department of Sociology andAnthropology, Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel; e-mail: [email protected].

Most of the research on the determinants of paternal involvement exam-ines couples’ socioeconomic and labor force characteristics, including thespouses’ time availability, earnings, and resources (e.g., Deutsch et al.,1993; Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001). Other investiga-tions have drawn more attention to parents’ sociopsychological characteris-tics and to the interactions within the parental dyad. For example, studieshave examined how the relationships between the spouses affect theirinvolvement with their children (Levy-Shiff & Israelashvili, 1988; Volling& Belsky, 1991) and how paternal participation is affected by spouses’gender ideologies (Beitel & Parke, 1998; Gaunt, 2006a) and value priorities(Gaunt, 2005). Finally, research has showed how the division of child careresponsibilities results from couples’ everyday negotiations and choicesabout family and work (Coltrane, 1996; Deutsch, 1999).

This study focuses on a less explored aspect of the interaction betweencouples, namely, mothers’ gatekeeping tendencies. Maternal gatekeeping iscommonly defined as mothers’ preferences and attempts to inhibit fathers’participation in family work (Allen & Hawkins, 1999; Fagan & Barnett,2003). Many scholars have proposed maternal gatekeeping as an importantvariable that inhibits greater father involvement in child care (e.g., Coltrane,1996; Hochschild, 1989; Lamb, 1997). Nevertheless, the empirical evidenceregarding the contribution of maternal gatekeeping to father involvement isscant (Allen & Hawkins, 1999; De Luccie, 1995; Fagan & Barnett, 2003),and the psychological characteristics of mothers who gatekeep have notbeen examined to date. The present study aims at filling this need.

Thus, the goal of this study is to explore maternal gatekeeping, its back-ground and psychological correlates, and its consequences for paternalinvolvement in child care. First, scholars’ theorization of maternal gatekeep-ing is discussed. A few possible psychological correlates are identified onthe basis of current theories. The implications of maternal gatekeeping forinvolvement in child care are then examined, focusing on paternal andmaternal involvement and differentiating various aspects of caretaking. Itshould be noted, however, that the three conceptual categories do not neces-sarily follow a linear progression from psychological characteristics to gate-keeping tendencies and consequences for involvement. Instead, in manyinstances these processes may work in a circular or bidirectional manner.

Conceptualization of Maternal Gatekeeping

Allen and Hawkins (1999) described maternal gatekeeping as a collectionof beliefs and behaviors that inhibit a collaborative effort between mothers andfathers in family work. These beliefs and behaviors limit fathers’ opportunities

2 Journal of Family Issues

to experience child care and housework and develop the relevant skills(Allen & Hawkins, 1999). Gatekeeping behaviors are particularly evident inthe common manager–helper pattern of relationships between mothers andfathers (Coltrane, 1996). In this pattern, mothers act as managers by orga-nizing, planning, and scheduling the engagement of the fathers in child carein order to maintain sole responsibility for the family work. Similarly, moth-ers may supervise the fathers, set high standards, and criticize the quality oftheir housework and child care (Thompson & Walker, 1989).

Gatekeeping behaviors should not be perceived as deliberate and inten-tional actions. In many cases, mothers feel ambivalent about fathers’involvement in child care. They are therefore mostly unaware of their gate-keeping behaviors and of the potential consequences that their behaviorshave for father involvement. It should be noted that the very notion of mater-nal gatekeeping is controversial (Walker & McGraw, 2000). Someresearchers argue against emphasizing the notion of mothers who areambivalent or who act as gatekeepers of fathers’ involvement, stating that“any instance of gatekeeping must be viewed in the larger context of moth-ers’ facilitation and of fathers’ authority in families” (p. 2). Without under-estimating the crucial role played by fathers in determining their levels ofinvolvement in child care, this study suggests that mothers sometimes con-tribute to the maintenance of a gendered division of parenting responsibili-ties. The focus of this study on the role of the mothers does not imply anunderweighting of the fathers’ role in determining involvement in child care.

In their conceptualization of maternal gatekeeping, Allen and Hawkins(1999) identified three dimensions of maternal gatekeeping: standards andresponsibilities, which refers to the mother’s resistance to relinquishresponsibility, by taking charge of tasks, setting unbending standards, andmanaging the father’s participation; maternal identity confirmation, whichrefers to a desire for an external validation of the maternal role; and differ-entiated family roles, which refers to the mother’s expectations for a cleardivision of labor and a set of distinct spheres for men and women. Giventhis conceptualization, Allen and Hawkins developed a measure comprisingthree scales that correspond to the three dimensions. The present studyadopts this conceptualization and implements the three-dimension measureto explore correlates and implications of maternal gatekeeping.

Antecedents of Maternal Gatekeeping

The social and psychological characteristics that were proposed byscholars as leading to maternal gatekeeping can be roughly classifiedinto three broad categories. According to scholars’ theorization, maternal

Gaunt / Maternal Gatekeeping 3

gatekeeping results from women’s fear of losing responsibility for familywork because this responsibility serves as an important source of power andself-esteem, an opportunity to affirm gendered self, and a way to validatematernal identity.

Power and Self-Esteem

Many scholars explain maternal gatekeeping as a result of women’s rela-tive power and autonomy in the home and the lack of alternative sources ofpower elsewhere (e.g., Coltrane, 1996; Lamb, 1997; LaRossa, 1997). Becausethe job market continues to be segregated by gender, women’s job opportuni-ties are frequently limited to low-paying, low-prestige, and unfulfilling jobswith few psychological rewards or prospects for advancement (Allen &Hawkins, 1999; Thompson & Walker, 1989). Thus, women’s jobs outside thehome do not usually serve as a major source of power and self-esteem. In thisway, the home remains the only domain in which women enjoy power, author-ity, and status, and many women are therefore reluctant to relinquish or sharecontrol over this domain (Hawkins & Roberts, 1992; Lamb, 1997; Thompson& Walker, 1989). Sharing child care responsibilities with the father could com-promise the power and privilege attached to the mother’s role.

On the basis of this theorization, the present study suggests that themother’s self-esteem plays a role in her tendency for gatekeeping.Specifically, given the relationships between self-esteem and access topower (e.g., Blair & Hardesty, 1994; McMullin & Cainey, 2004; Schwalbe,1988), mothers with high self-esteem are likely to be less dependent ontheir monopoly over child care responsibilities as a source of power. In con-trast, mothers with low self-esteem are likely to be in greater need ofsources of power and appreciation and should be particularly prone to gate-keeping. I therefore suggest that the lower the mother’s self-esteem, thehigher her tendency for gatekeeping, and the less she is likely to be willingto share child care responsibilities with the father.

Affirming Gendered Self

Gender construction theories suggest that both men and women areactive participants in creating gender through interaction processes (West &Fenstermaker, 1993). According to this view, women and men perform dif-ferent tasks to affirm and reproduce their gendered selves (e.g., Ferree,1991; Hochschild, 1989; West & Fenstermaker, 1993). Thus, by doing mostof the family work and by not allowing the father to take part, a woman


demonstrates to herself and to others that she is a competent member of hersex category, with the capacity and desire to perform appropriately gen-dered behaviors (Coltrane, 2000; Greenstein, 1996).

In line with this reasoning, it is plausible that the mother’s genderschematization plays a role in her gatekeeping tendencies. According togender schema theory (Bem, 1974), gender schematic men and womenhave developed a strong identification with their gender categories that hasled them to acquire and display the various traits, attitudes, and behaviorsexpected of their genders. If maternal gatekeeping is a way to affirm awoman’s feminine self, then the stronger the mother’s identification withthe female category, the less she would be willing to share child careresponsibilities with the father.

Validating Maternal Identity

A few scholars have suggested that doing family work is a way to validatematernal identity (e.g., Ferree, 1991; Nuttbrock & Freudiger, 1991). Mothershave been culturally identified as the center of nurture and care in family life;therefore, doing the caring and nurturing family work allows a woman toaffirm to herself and others that she is a good mother (Allen & Hawkins,1999). Thus, mothers hesitate to relinquish their responsibility for family workbecause they perceive paternal involvement as a threat to the way that they val-idate their irreplaceable identity as a mother (Allen & Hawkins, 1999).

Following these arguments, this study suggests that the more the mater-nal identity is important for the mother, the stronger is her tendency forgatekeeping. Identity theory (Stryker, 1980; Stryker & Burke, 2000) viewsthe self as a set of identities organized in a hierarchy according to theirimportance. This theoretical framework delineates two modes of identityranking: identity salience, which refers to the probability of invoking iden-tities in diverse situations, and identity prominence, which refers to theextent to which identities are associated with strong affective responses(Nuttbrock & Freudiger, 1991). I therefore hypothesize that the moresalient and prominent the maternal identity of the mother is, the strongerher gatekeeping beliefs and behaviors will be.

The above theoretical analysis suggests that three psychological charac-teristics play a role in maternal gatekeeping: the mother’s self-esteem,gender schematization, and the salience and prominence of maternal iden-tity. In addition to these variables, background variables may also be impor-tant for the mother’s readiness to share child care responsibilities with thefather. In particular, the mother’s employment characteristics likely relate


to her tendency for gatekeeping. Consistent with the above analysis, it isplausible that the more hours the mother works, the more importance sheattaches to her work, and the higher her income and education level, themore she will be willing to share family work with the father. Finally, stud-ies have showed that religiosity is associated with a greater importanceattached to tradition in general and to traditional family roles in particular(e.g., Gaunt, 2006b; Lindeman & Verkasalo, 2005). It is therefore likelythat more religious mothers would express stronger preference for main-taining a traditional allocation of responsibilities.

Importantly, in exploring maternal gatekeeping, the present studyfocuses on the psychological characteristics and background variables ofthe mother. The father’s characteristics and background variables arebeyond the scope of this study, although they may contribute to maternalgatekeeping in various ways. For example, gender schematic men displaythe behaviors expected of their gender and would therefore avoid partici-pating in child care as a way to affirm their masculine self. Similarly,fathers with a nonsalient paternal identity would not be motivated to sharechild care responsibilities. In such cases, mothers may exhibit gatekeepingtendencies because of the fathers’ psychological characteristics.

Consequences of Maternal Gatekeeping forFather Involvement in Child Care

What are the implications of mothers’ gatekeeping in terms of fathers’involvement in the daily care and responsibility for the children? It is likelythat the more the mother resists the father’s involvement, the less he will beinvolved in various forms of caregiving. However, the empirical evidence forthis relationship between maternal gatekeeping and father’s involvement islimited. In Allen and Hawkins’s study (1999), mothers who were high ingatekeeping maintained a more traditional allocation of family work than thatof mothers who were low in gatekeeping, as indicated by the differencebetween the time that they and their husbands invested in family work. In twoother studies (De Luccie, 1995; Fagan & Barnett, 2003), maternal gatekeep-ing was negatively related to the amount of father involvement. A majordrawback of all three studies is their exclusive reliance on the mothers’reports. When a gatekeeping mother reports her husband’s investment inhousework and child care, she may underestimate his share, either becauseshe views it as being unimportant or because she prefers to downplay itsimportance. To address this methodological issue, measures of involvementwere obtained in the present study from both the mothers and the fathers.


In addition, this study focuses on involvement in child care and imple-ments thorough and detailed measures of various forms of involvement.Previous studies have showed that different forms of involvement may notbe highly correlated and may have different determinants (e.g., Barnett &Baruch, 1987; Gaunt, 2005). Specifically, Lamb and Pleck (Lamb, 1987;Pleck, Lamb, & Levine, 1986) distinguished three forms of parentalinvolvement: engagement, which is time spent in a one-on-one interactionwith the child (in the form of caretaking or playing); accessibility, whichrequires that the parent be available to respond to the child’s needs (theparent may be reading the newspaper in one room while the child is play-ing in another); and responsibility, which refers to who is accountable forthe child’s day-to-day care and welfare. The current study examines thesethree forms of involvement in an attempt to explore whether various formsof involvement are differentially related to maternal gatekeeping.

Hypotheses

Two clusters of hypotheses were derived from the discussion above.First, with regard to the psychological antecedents of maternal gatekeeping,I hypothesized that the lower the mother’s self-esteem, the stronger herfeminine gender orientation, and the more salient and prominent her mater-nal identity, the stronger her gatekeeping beliefs and behaviors should be.Second, with regard to the consequences of maternal gatekeeping forinvolvement, I hypothesized that the stronger the mother’s gatekeepingbeliefs and behaviors, the less involved the father would be, and the moreinvolved the mother would be in various forms of child care.

These hypotheses were tested in the present study using a sample ofJewish Israeli couples. Israeli society is family oriented and strongly pro-natalist, at both institutional and normative levels (Berkovitch, 1997;Portugese, 1998). The unique constellation of Jewish religious tradition, demo-graphic competition with the Arab neighbors, and a children-centered everydayculture has sustained motherhood as the predominant normative requirement(Berkovitch, 1997; Portugese, 1998; Remennick, 2000). Nonetheless, as inother Western-oriented countries, the past four decades in Israel have wit-nessed a massive entry of women into the labor market (Chafetz & Hagan,1996). As a result, the dual-earner family pattern has become the most fre-quent one, with more than 70% of Israeli mothers in the labor force (IsraelWomen’s Network, 2003). This trend has been accompanied by a muchslower change in Israeli men’s participation in family work (Benjamin,1997). Given the central role of motherhood in defining Israeli women’s


social value, on one hand, and the high participation of Israeli mothers in thelabor force, on the other, it is interesting to explore the antecedents and con-sequences of Israeli mothers’ gatekeeping tendencies.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants in the study were 209 Israeli couples recruited by researchassistants through day care centers and community children’s health facili-ties, as part of a larger research project on work and family. Criteria forinclusion in the study included the following: The couples were married;both spouses were the target child’s biological parents; and they had at leastone child aged 6 months to 3 years.

The fathers’ ages ranged from 22 to 54 (M = 33) and the mothers’ ages,from 20 to 45 (M = 30.2). The couples represented a range of socioeco-nomic levels, with an overrepresentation of highly educated couples withabove-average income. Approximately 71% of the husbands and 78% ofthe wives had some college-level education, and 5% of the participants hadnot finished high school. Eighty-eight percent of the fathers and 50% of themothers worked full-time outside the home; 3% of the fathers and 12% ofthe mothers did not work outside the home. The fathers’ work hours rangedfrom 14 to 105 hours per week (M = 55) and the mothers’ work hours, from5 to 80 hours per week (M = 35). Eleven percent of the fathers and 18% ofthe mothers had an average income; the income of 19% of the fathers and51% of the mothers was below average; and the income of 69% of thefathers and 29% of the mothers was above average.

The number of children per couple ranged from 1 to 5 (M = 1.78, SD =0.96). Of the 209 target children, 107 (51%) were boys and 102 (49%) weregirls. The target children’s age ranged from 6 to 36 months (M = 19).

Initial telephone screening was conducted to ensure that families met theinclusion criteria. Upon agreeing to participate, the families were scheduledfor a home visit by a research assistant. During the visit, the fathers andmothers completed comprehensive self-report questionnaires, whichincluded questions on the mothers’ gatekeeping, the couple’s routine workschedules, and their involvement in caregiving activities, as well as numer-ous background questions and values and personality measures extendingbeyond the scope of the present study. Spouses were not allowed to consulteach other in filling out the questionnaires. In two families, the questionnairewas filled out by only one spouse, so their data were eliminated from the


sample. Other missing data were subjected to listwise deletion. Over 90%of the eligible couples who were approached agreed to participate.

Measures

Self-esteem. Mothers’ self-esteem was measured via Rosenberg’s instru-ment (1965), which is a widely used 10-item questionnaire that examinesperceptions and presentation of the self. Participants used a 4-point scale(1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) to indicate how strongly theyagreed with statements such as “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”and “All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.” Responses wererecoded so that a high score reflected higher self-esteem. The average of all10 items was calculated. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .83.

Feminine gender orientation. Mothers’ feminine orientation was mea-sured via the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (Bem, 1974). This instrument con-sists of 60 personality items that were selected to represent 20 masculinecharacteristics (e.g., self-reliant, analytical), 20 feminine characteristics(e.g., compassionate, tender), and 20 neutral characteristics (e.g., friendly,sincere). The respondent is asked to indicate on a 7-point scale (1 = nevertrue, 7 = always true) the extent to which the characteristic is self-descriptive.Mean femininity scores were obtained by averaging the participant’s scoresfor the 20 feminine items. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .73.

Maternal identity. Measures of maternal identity salience and promi-nence were constructed on the basis of Nuttbrock and Freudiger’s instru-ments (1991). Identity salience was measured as the tendency to invoke amothering identity in three situations: with friends, at work, and withextended family. For each situation, respondents were asked to state theextent to which they think about their children and talk about their children.Response categories ranged from 1 (rarely) to 4 (frequently). Scores fromthe six items were averaged to obtain the respondent’s identity saliencescore. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .83. Identity prominence wasmeasured as a comparison between the emotional responses associatedwith being a “good” mother and those associated with other identities andattributes. Respondents were asked to consider how they would respond ifcomplimented for being good looking, being a good professional, being agood mother, and being intelligent. Response categories ranged from 1(feeling good a few minutes) to 4 (feeling great). The responses to the non-mothering items were averaged and then subtracted from the response tothe mothering item, to create a score of maternal identity prominence.


Background variables. Each participant indicated his or her age, level ofeducation, degree of religiosity, work hours, and income. Education levelwas indicated on a 5-point scale (1 = elementary school, 2 = some highschool, 3 = completed high school, 4 = some college education, 5 = com-pleted college education). Religiosity was indicated on a 4-point scale (1 =secular, 2 = traditional, 3 = orthodox, 4 = ultra-orthodox). The measure ofincome stated the average income for a person in Israel and asked partici-pants to rate their own incomes relative to the average. Participants alsorated the importance of the mother’s work relative to the father’s work, ona scale ranging from 1 (my work is much more important) to 5 (her/his workis much more important). Finally, participants reported the age and genderof the focal child and the number of children in the household.

Involvement in child care. Two types of questions were designed to cap-ture two distinctive aspects of involvement in child care: hours of care forthe child and involvement in child care tasks. First, each parent wasrequired to assess (a) the amount of time (hours per week) during which thefather was the sole care provider while the mother (or any other careprovider) was away from home and (b) the amount of time (hours per week)that the mother was the sole care provider while the father (or any othercare provider) was away from home. Pearson correlations between thefathers’ and the mothers’ assessments of weekly hours of care were (a) .60for hours of care by the father and (b) .76 for hours of care by the mother,suggesting an acceptable level of convergent validity. The final measures ofhours of care were obtained by averaging the assessments given by thefather and the mother. This measure of involvement was designed to cap-ture the important aspect of the father’s ability to take care of his child onhis own. Measuring total time spent with the child, in contrast, wouldinclude the time when both parents are at home. Such a measure would cap-ture the time when the father takes care of the child while the mother isengaged in other activities but also (and more probable) the time when thefather engages in other activities while the mother takes care of the child.

Another measure asked “Who does what?” in terms of 36 child caretasks, which were selected to reflect those types of involvement typical offathers (e.g., playing, talking) and mothers (e.g., preparing food, packingchild’s bag). Some tasks were designed to tap daily care activities (e.g.,feeding, changing diapers); some were designed to reflect responsibility forthe child (e.g., choosing day care, deciding whether to go to the doctor); andsome were selected to reflect emotional care (e.g., who does child turn towhen he or she gets hurt?). Fathers and mothers were asked, “In the divisionof labor between you and your spouse, which of you performs each of the


following tasks?” Responses were indicated along a 5-point scale (1 =almost always my spouse, 3 = both of us equally, 5 = almost always myself).For the mothers, the scale was converse so that higher ratings indicatedmore participation by the father. Respondents were also given the opportu-nity to rate 8 = (no longer or not yet) applicable to my child and 9 = usu-ally performed by another person (daycare provider, grandmother, nanny)(to be sure, there was no 6 or 7 option). For the purpose of further analyses,these two ratings were regarded as missing cases. The average Pearson cor-relation between the mothers’ and the fathers’ ratings for each of the 36tasks was .53, suggesting an acceptable level of convergent validity. Themean score for each task was obtained by averaging the ratings given by thefather and the mother for that task. An average of the 36 task ratings wascalculated to create a measure of total involvement in child care tasks.Higher scores on this measure reflected greater participation on the part ofthe father relative to the mother. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .93.The complete list of child care tasks is available upon request.

The 36 child care tasks were classified into three major dimensions ofinvolvement, on the basis of a principal components factor analysis (fordetailed description of the analytic procedure, see Gaunt, 2005). The firstdimension related to direct care for the child’s daily needs, such as feeding,changing diapers, and bathing. The second dimension related to the higher-order, indirect responsibility for the child, such as choosing day care, readingparenting books, and taking the child to the doctor. The third dimension con-cerned the parents’ relationship with the child, including companionship (e.g.,playing, holding) and emotional care (e.g., to whom is child more attached).Mean scores for each of these dimensions of involvement were obtained byaveraging the parents’ scores for the items related to that dimension.

This classification is closely related to two of Lamb and Pleck’s sug-gested forms of parental involvement (Lamb, 1987; Pleck et al., 1986). Theresponsibility factor converges with their notion of responsibility, whereasthe direct care factor, when combined with the companion and emotionalcare factor, overlaps with their conception of engagement. Finally, timespent as sole caregiver does not fully overlap with their notion of accessi-bility, although it is similarly concerned with the time dimension and notwith the performance of tasks. Similar involvement classifications havebeen found in other studies (e.g., Beitel & Parke, 1998).

Maternal gatekeeping. Mothers’ tendency for gatekeeping was measuredvia Allen and Hawkins’s instrument (1999), which consists of three separatedimensions: standards and responsibilities, maternal identity confirmation,and differentiated family roles. Regarding standards and responsibilities,


five items concern the extent to which mothers struggle to maintain respon-sibility for family work by setting standards. Items in this scale wereadapted to focus closely on child care. Sample items include “My husbanddoesn’t really know how to take care of our child (soothing, feeding,bathing etc.), so it’s just easier if I do these things” and “I have higher stan-dards than my husband for providing child care.” In regard to maternalidentity confirmation, four items concern the extent to which mothers asso-ciate their identity as mothers with observable competence in family work.Sample items include “I know people make judgments about how good awife/mother I am based on how well cared for my house and kids are” and“When my children look well groomed in public, I feel extra proud ofthem.” Regarding differentiated family roles, two items concern thewomen’s expectations and beliefs about men’s enjoyment and capabilitiesfor doing family work—for example, “Most women enjoy caring for theirhomes, and men just don’t like that stuff.” Participants answered on a5-point scale to indicate how strongly they agreed with each statement (1 =strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Responses were recoded so that ahigh score reflected more maternal gatekeeping. The respondent’s averagescore for each dimension was computed. Cronbach’s alphas for thesedimensions were .79, .70, and .65, respectively. These reliabilities werevery similar to those observed by Allen and Hawkins. The average of all 11items was also calculated, to obtain a global gatekeeping score. Cronbach’salpha for this measure was .82.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

None of the measures of parental involvement and maternal gatekeepingwas associated with child’s gender or with interactions of gender and othervariables. Therefore, child’s gender was not included in further analyses.Father’s involvement in child care tasks increased with child’s age, r = .16,p < .05. This finding seems inconsistent with previous studies (e.g., Barnett& Baruch, 1987) in which father’s involvement decreased with child’s age,presumably because of younger children’s greater need for child care.Considering the restricted age of the children in the current sample (6 to 36months), however, it is plausible that father involvement is lower with infantsbut that it increases with toddlers and then decreases as the child grows up.There were no interactions between child’s age and maternal gatekeeping.


Antecedents of Maternal Gatekeeping

I examined the antecedents of maternal gatekeeping in two steps. First,I examined the correlations among psychological characteristics, back-ground variables, and maternal gatekeeping. Second, to examine the inde-pendent contribution of each psychological antecedent and backgroundvariable to each dimension of gatekeeping, I ran a series of multiple regres-sion analyses. In each analysis, mothers’ background variables wereentered into the equation first and then followed by the group of psycho-logical characteristics.

Correlation analyses. Table 1 presents Pearson correlations among thepsychological antecedents, the background variables, and the dimensions ofmaternal gatekeeping. The intercorrelations between the three dimensionsof gatekeeping were moderate, suggesting that they reflect relatively inde-pendent aspects of gatekeeping.

As shown in Table 1, the mother’s self-esteem and identity salience sig-nificantly correlated with all dimensions of maternal gatekeeping.Consistent with the hypothesis, the lower the mother’s self-esteem and themore salient her maternal identity, the stronger were her tendencies forgatekeeping. In addition, the mother’s feminine gender orientation andidentity prominence were related to global maternal gatekeeping and to thematernal identity confirmation dimension. That is, the stronger the mother’sfeminine orientation and the more prominent her maternal identity, thestronger were her tendencies for gatekeeping in general and for maternalidentity confirmation in particular.

Background variables were also associated with maternal gatekeeping. Ingeneral, the stronger the mother’s religiosity, the fewer her work hours, the lessimportance she attached to her work, and the lower her income and educationlevel, the more she tended to resist father’s participation in family work.

Regression analyses. To determine the contribution of each psychologi-cal antecedent and background variable to each dimension of gatekeepingspecifically, I ran a set of multiple regression analyses. In each analysis, avariable pertaining to one dimension of maternal gatekeeping wasregressed on the set of the mother’s background variables, followed by theset of the mother’s psychological characteristics.

Table 2 indicates that the regression of global maternal gatekeeping on theset of background variables and the set of psychological characteristics wassignificant overall and accounted for 21% of the variance in gatekeeping in


Tabl

e 1

Pea

rson

Cor

rela

tion

s A

mon

g M

ater

nal G

atek

eepi

ng,I

nvol

vem

ent

in C

hild

Car

e,P

sych

olog

ical

Ant

eced

ents

,and

Bac

kgro

und

Var

iabl

es

Var

iabl

es1

23

45

67

89

10M

SD

Mat

erna

l gat

ekee

ping

1. T

otal

mat

erna

l gat

ekee

ping

—2.

86.6

92.

Sta

ndar

ds a

nd r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s.8

9***

—2.

46.8

93.

Mat

erna

l ide

ntity

con

firm

atio

n.6

2***

.35**

*—

3.55

.78

4. D

iffe

rent

ial f

amily

rol

es.6

9***

.51**

*.3

3***

—2.

711.

00In

volv

emen

t in

child

car

e5.

Tot

al in

volv

emen

t–.

44**

*–.

50**

*–.

14*

–.27

***

—2.

27.4

46.

Dir

ect c

are

–.41

***

–.46

***

–.13

*–.

26**

*.9

0***

—2.

26.6

07.

Res

pons

ibili

ty–.

28**

*–.

36**

*–.

05–.

14*

.79**

*.5

7***

—2.

08.5

28.

Com

pani

on–.

31**

*–.

35**

*–.

10–.

19**

.75**

*.6

1***

.47**

*—

2.53

.49

9. H

ours

of

fath

er c

are

–.07

–.11

.02

–.02

.38**

*.3

8***

.37**

*.2

4***

—7.

295.

7910

. Hou

rs o

f m

othe

r ca

re.1

1–.

07.1

8**.1

1–.

45**

*–.

41**

*–.

30**

*–.

43**

*–.

01—

23.9

315

.99

Psyc

holo

gica

l ant

eced

ents

11. S

elf-

este

em–.

27**

*-.

25**

*–.

17*

–.18

**.1

3*.1

1.0

6.1

1–.

01–.

014.

06.5

512

. Fem

inin

e ge

nder

ori

enta

tion

.18**

.08

.28**

*.0

9–.

09–.

11–.

05–.

03.0

3.0

75.

18.4

913

. Ide

ntity

sal

ienc

e.2

4***

.13*

.29**

*.1

9**–.

17*

–.15

*–.

08.0

1–.

02.1

04.

34.6

114

. Ide

ntity

pro

min

ence

.15*

.08

.19**

.12

–.13

–.21

**–.

13–.

04–.

12.0

74.

70.3

7B

ackg

roun

d va

riab

les

15. W

ork

hour

s–.

20**

–.19

**–.

08–.

19**

.39**

*.3

3***

.28**

*.3

6***

.07

–.57

***

34.3

719

.67

16. I

ncom

e–.

14*

–.14

*–.

10–.

06.2

6***

.27**

*.2

0**.1

4*.0

4–.

30**

*2.

541.

4217

. Wor

k re

lativ

e im

port

ance

–.20

**–.

16*

–.15

*–.

18**

.32**

*.2

7***

.26**

*.3

1***

.23**

*–.

26**

*2.

59.8

618

. Edu

catio

n–.

15*

–.11

–.10

–.15

*.1

8**.1

7*.1

9**.0

9.0

3–.

17*

4.56

.81

19. R

elig

iosi

ty.2

8***

.19**

.28**

*.2

2**–.

11–.

13–.

04–.

08–.

07.0

91.

75.9

0

* p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1. **

* p<

.001

. Tw

o-ta

iled.

14

total. Three variables were significant predictors in the regression: themother’s religiosity, her self-esteem, and the salience of her maternal iden-tity. The more religious the mother, the lower her self-esteem, and the moresalient her maternal identity, the less she was willing to share family workwith the father.

Table 2 further shows that the regression of the standards and responsibil-ities dimension on the set of background variables and the set of psycholog-ical characteristics was significant overall and accounted for 13% of thevariance in this dimension. The only individual variable that was a significantpredictor of the mother’s standards and responsibilities was the mother’s self-esteem. The lower the mother’s self-esteem, the more she struggled to main-tain responsibility for family work by setting unbending standards.

The regression of the maternal identity confirmation dimension on theset of background variables and psychological characteristics was signifi-cant overall and accounted for 19% of the variance in this dimension. AsTable 2 reports, three variables were significant predictors in the regression:the mother’s religiosity, the salience of her maternal identity, and her femi-nine gender orientation. The more religious the mother, the more salient her


Table 2Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Maternal Gatekeeping

From Mother’s Background Variables and Psychological Antecedents

Total MaternalMaternal Standards and Identity Differential

Predictor Gatekeeping Responsibilities Confirmation Family Roles

Background variablesWork hours –.11 –.12 .01 –.17*

Income .02 –.02 .01 .09Work relative importance –.04 –.03 –.03 –.07Education –.08 –.08 –.01 –.11Religiosity .21** .13 .22** .18*

Psychological antecedentsSelf-esteem –.19** –.18* –.12 –.10Feminine gender orientation .04 –.01 .15* –.03Maternal identity salience .16* .09 .18* .15*

Maternal identity prominence .06 .04 .08 .04R2 .21 .13 .19 .15F(9, 181) 5.49*** 3.05** 4.71*** 3.54***

Note: Standardized beta coefficients are reported.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

maternal identity, and the stronger her gender schematization, the more sheassociated doing family work with affirming that she is a good mother.

Finally, the regression of the differential family roles dimension on theset of background variables and the set of psychological characteristics wassignificant overall and accounted for 15% of the variance in this dimension.Three variables were significant predictors in the regression: the mother’swork hours, her religiosity, and the salience of her maternal identity. Thefewer hours the mother worked, the more religious she was, and the moresalient her maternal identity, the more she expected family work to be thesole domain of women.

Consequences of Maternal Gatekeepingfor Involvement in Child Care

I examined the consequences of maternal gatekeeping in two steps. First,I examined the correlations between maternal gatekeeping and various formsof involvement in child care. Second, to examine the independent contribu-tion of each gatekeeping dimension and background variable to each form ofinvolvement in child care, I ran a series of multiple regression analyses. Ineach analysis, mothers’ background variables were entered into the equationfirst and then followed by the group of maternal gatekeeping dimensions.

Correlation analyses. Table 1 presents the intercorrelations among involve-ment measures. These correlations were moderate, suggesting that theymeasure relatively independent aspects of involvement. Interestingly, therewas no correlation between the number of weekly hours of care providedby the father and the number of hours provided by the mother.

As shown in Table 1, maternal gatekeeping in total was significantly cor-related with all three measures of involvement in child care tasks. The stan-dards and responsibilities dimension was the strongest correlate of thefather’s relative involvement in tasks. The more the mother struggled tomaintain responsibility for family work by setting standards, the less thefather was involved in performing all types of child care tasks. The differ-ential family roles dimension also had significant correlations with involve-ment in child care tasks, whereas the maternal identity confirmationdimension was not related to almost any of the forms of involvement.

The hours of care provided by the parents were not related to maternalgatekeeping, except for the positive correlation between the maternal iden-tity confirmation dimension and the mother hours of care. The stronger themother’s tendencies for maternal identity confirmation, the more hours shespent as a solo care provider.


Replicating previous findings (e.g., Aldous et al., 1998; Deutsch et al.,1993), the mother’s work hours, income, and education were positivelyrelated to the fathers’ relative involvement in child care tasks and negativelyrelated to hours of care by the mother. As Table 1 shows, the more hours themother worked and the higher her income and education level were, thegreater the father’s involvement was in child care tasks. The relative impor-tance that the mother attached to her work was the only significant corre-late of the hours of care provided by the father.

There were almost no significant correlations between the mother’s psycho-logical characteristics and the parents’ involvement in child care. The excep-tions included the associations between (a) maternal identity salience andprominence and (b) involvement in direct care and the associations between (a)maternal identity salience and self-esteem and (b) total involvement. The moresalient and prominent the mother’s identity, and the lower her self-esteem, theless the father was involved in providing direct care for the child and in total.

Regression analyses. To determine the contribution of each maternalgatekeeping dimension and background variable to each form of involve-ment in child care, I ran a set of multiple regression analyses. In each analy-sis, a variable pertaining to one form of involvement was regressed on theset of the mother’s background variables, followed by the set of maternalgatekeeping variables.

Table 3 shows that the regression equations of involvement in child caretasks (direct care, responsibility, companion, and total involvement) on theset of maternal gatekeeping variables and background variables were sig-nificant overall and accounted for 23%–38% of the variance in the father’srelative involvement. Two variables were significant predictors in all fourregression analyses: the standards and responsibilities dimension of gate-keeping and, to a lesser degree, the importance the mother attached to herwork. The more the mother struggled to maintain responsibility for familywork by setting standards and the less importance she attributed to her work,the less involved the father was in providing care for the child.

The mother’s work hours were a significant predictor in the regressionanalyses of companion and total involvement. The more hours the motherworked, the more involved the father was in providing companion and emo-tional care for the child and in total.

The regression of father’s hours of care on the set of maternal gatekeep-ing variables and background variables was not significant. Two variableswere significant predictors in the regression: the importance the motherattached to her work and the standards and responsibilities dimension of


Tabl

e 3

Hie

rarc

hica

l Reg

ress

ion

Ana

lyse

s P

redi

ctin

g In

volv

emen

t in

Chi

ld C

are

Fro

m M

othe

r’s

Bac

kgro

und

Var

iabl

es a

nd M

ater

nal G

atek

eepi

ng

Pred

icto

rD

irec

t Car

eaR

espo

nsib

ility

aC

ompa

nion

aTo

tal I

nvol

vem

enta

Hou

rs o

f Fa

ther

Car

eH

ours

of

Mot

her

Car

e

Bac

kgro

und

vari

able

sW

ork

hour

s.1

0.1

1.2

0**.1

6*–.

03–.

49**

*

Inco

me

.13

.08

–.02

.08

–.02

–.06

Wor

k re

lativ

e im

port

ance

.1

5*.1

6*.2

2**.1

9**.2

4**–.

07E

duca

tion

.05

.09

–.03

.04

–.01

–.10

Rel

igio

sity

.01

.05

–.01

.03

–.03

.02

Mat

erna

l gat

ekee

ping

Stan

dard

s an

d re

spon

sibi

litie

s–.

43**

*–.

34**

*–.

39**

*–.

47**

*–.

17*

.12

Mat

erna

l ide

ntity

con

firm

atio

n.0

5–.

01.0

8.0

3.0

5.1

7**

Dif

fere

ntia

l fam

ily r

oles

.02

.04

.10

.03

.08

–.02

R2

.30

.23

.26

.38

.08

.36

F(8

,182

)10

.14**

*6.

80**

*8.

21**

*13

.96**

*1.

9513

.18**

*

Not

e:St

anda

rdiz

ed b

eta

coef

fici

ents

are

rep

orte

d.a.

Hig

her

scor

es r

efle

ct g

reat

er f

athe

r in

volv

emen

t rel

ativ

e to

mot

her

invo

lvem

ent.

* p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1. **

* p<

.001

.

18

gatekeeping. The more importance the mother attributed to her work and theless she struggled to maintain responsibility for family work, the greater thenumber of hours the father assumed as the sole care provider for the child.

Finally, the regression of mother’s hours of care on the set of maternalgatekeeping variables and background variables was significant overall andaccounted for 36% of the variance. The mother’s work hours and the mater-nal identity confirmation dimension of gatekeeping were the two signifi-cant predictors of her hours of care. The fewer hours the mother worked andthe more she associated doing family work with affirming that she is a goodmother, the more hours she spent as a solo care provider.

Discussion

All three psychological characteristics played a role in mothers’ ten-dency to gatekeep the child care domain. In particular, the lower themother’s self-esteem, the more she struggled to maintain responsibility forfamily work by setting standards; the more salient her maternal identity andthe stronger her gender schematization, the more she associated doingfamily work with affirming that she is a good mother; and the more salienther maternal identity, the more she expected family work to be the soledomain of women. All in all, these findings portray the typical gatekeeperas being characterized by low self-esteem, a strong feminine gender orien-tation, and a salient maternal identity. In comparison to the nongatekeepingmother, the gatekeeper is likely to be more religious, to attach lower impor-tance to her job, to work less, to earn less, and to be less educated.

Maternal gatekeeping, in turn, was associated with all forms of involve-ment in child care tasks. The father’s relative involvement in tasks andabsolute involvement in hours of care were best predicted by the standardsand responsibilities dimension, whereas the mother’s absolute involvement inhours of care was predicted by the maternal identity confirmation dimension.

These findings reveal an important distinction between comparative andnoncomparative dimensions of gatekeeping. The standards and responsibili-ties dimension focuses on the mother’s standards and performance in com-parison to the father’s performance, whereas the maternal identityconfirmation dimension focuses exclusively on the mother’s performance. Inline with this difference, these two dimensions were differentially associatedwith both antecedents and consequences of maternal gatekeeping. Themother’s high standards were correlated with her low self-esteem and sopredicted lower father involvement. The mother’s identity confirmation was


correlated with her identity salience and so predicted her own involvement inchild care. In this sense, the standards and responsibility dimension is moreinherent to the concept of gatekeeping than the identity dimension is, becauseit better reflects an inhibition of father’s participation. As indicated by thefindings, the maternal identity confirmation dimension predicts the mother’sinvolvement in child care, but it is unrelated to the father’s share.

The findings of this study expand the existing literature on maternalgatekeeping in several important ways. First, the psychological characteris-tics as well as the sociodemographic profile of mothers who gatekeep havenot been previously examined. The findings shed light on maternal charac-teristics that are associated with gatekeeping tendencies. Moreover, thefindings deepen our understanding of the dimensions of gatekeeping asconceptualized by Allen and Hawkins (1999) and reveal their differentialassociation with the psychological characteristics and the behavioral con-sequences. Finally, the findings extend the empirical evidence for the rela-tionship between maternal gatekeeping and father’s involvement, byimplementing thorough and detailed measures of various forms of involve-ment and by obtaining measures from the mothers and the fathers. As notedabove, gatekeepers are mostly unaware of their gatekeeping behaviors andthe potential consequences of these behaviors for father involvement.

The limitations of this study should be noted. The measures relied on self-reports, which could result in shared-method variance and some overestima-tion of the findings. A combination of self-reports and observations wouldimprove the research design. In particular, measuring parents’ engagementwith children would benefit from direct observations in the home setting.

In addition, the sample was restricted to married parents with youngchildren. This may limit the implications that can be derived from the find-ings. Maternal gatekeeping may vary with older children and may haveeven more pronounced implications for divorced or nonresident fathers.Moreover, the sample was characterized by an overrepresentation of well-educated respondents. Because the findings show that mother’s educationlevel is related to gatekeeping tendencies, it is likely that less educatedmothers would exhibit higher levels of gatekeeping and lower levels ofpaternal involvement.

Another limitation of this study was its cross-sectional design, in whichmaternal gatekeeping, mothers’ psychological characteristics, and involve-ment in child care were all measured at one time. Because of this design,the direction of causal relations cannot be established. As noted by Allen andHawkins (1999), a gatekeeping schema could be the result of low fatherinvolvement, rather than low father involvement being the result of maternal


gatekeeping. Therefore, future research is needed to replicate the presentfindings using a longitudinal design.

The father’s characteristics and background variables were not exam-ined in this study. For example, gender-schematic men or fathers with anonsalient paternal identity may not be motivated to share child careresponsibilities. In such cases, mothers’ gatekeeping tendencies may reflectthe fathers’ psychological characteristics. Therefore, maternal gatekeepingcould reflect the mother’s unwillingness to relinquish responsibility forchild care or the father’s reluctance to take this responsibility. Finally, it isplausible that the effect of maternal gatekeeping on father involvement ismoderated by the father’s willingness to participate. Further research illu-minating the interaction between maternal gatekeeping and paternal char-acteristics is needed to disentangle the contribution of each spouse to thelevel of collaboration in child care.

The findings of this study draw attention to the important role of themother’s beliefs and behaviors in determining the couple’s arrangements ofwork and child care. Previous research has documented the importance ofparents’ socioeconomic and labor force characteristics (e.g., Deutsch et al.,1993; Yeung et al., 2001) as well as their sociopsychological characteristicsand everyday negotiations (Beitel & Parke, 1998; Coltrane, 1996; Deutsch,1999; Gaunt, 2005, 2006a). The current findings shed light on the mother’ssociopsychological characteristics that account for her gatekeeping tenden-cies. Further investigations of the sociopsychological aspects involved incollaborative family work may broaden our understanding of couples’arrangements of work and child care.

References

Aldous, J., Mulligan, G. M., & Bjarnason, T. (1998). Fathering over time: What makes the dif-ference? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 809-820.

Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviorsthat inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family,61, 199-212.

Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. B. (1987). Determinants of father’s participation in family work.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 29-40.

Beitel, A. H., & Parke, R. D. (1998). Paternal involvement in infancy: The role of maternal andpaternal attitudes. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 268-288.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Benjamin, O. (1997). Self-development in Israel: Does it affect women’s attempts to increasepartners’ domestic participation? Israel Social Science Research, 12, 97-122.


Berkovitch, N. (1997). Motherhood as a national mission: The construction of womanhood inthe legal discourse in Israel. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20, 605-620.

Blair, S. L., & Hardesty, C. (1994). Paternal involvement and the well-being of fathers andmothers of young children. Journal of Men’s Studies, 3, 49-65.

Chafetz, J. S., & Hagan, J. (1996). The gender division of labor and family change in industrialsocieties: A theoretical accounting. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 27, 187-210.

Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood, housework, and gender equity. New York:Oxford University Press.

Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embed-dedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1208-1233.

Coltrane, S., & Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1992). Men’s housework: A life course perspective. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 54, 43-57.

De Luccie, M. F. (1995). Mothers as gatekeepers: A model of maternal mediators of fatherinvolvement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156, 115-131.

Deutsch, F. M. (1999). Halving it all: How equally shared parenting works. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Deutsch, F. M., Lussier, J. B., & Servis, L. J. (1993). Husbands at home: Predictors of pater-nal participation in childcare and housework. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 65, 1154-1166.

Fagan, J., & Barnett, M. (2003). The relationship between maternal gatekeeping, paternalcompetence, mothers’ attitudes about the father role, and father involvement. Journal ofFamily Issues, 24, 1020-1043.

Ferree, M. M. (1991). The gender division of labor in two-earner marriages: Dimensions ofvariability and change. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 158-180.

Gaunt, R. (2005). The role of value priorities in paternal and maternal involvement in child-care. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 643-655.

Gaunt, R. (2006a). Biological essentialism, gender ideologies, and role attitudes: What deter-mines parents’ involvement in child care. Sex Roles, 55, 523-533.

Gaunt, R. (2006b). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier?Journal of Personality, 74, 1-20.

Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: Interactive effects ofwives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 585-595.

Hawkins, A. J., & Roberts, T. (1992). Designing a primary intervention to help dual-earnercouples share housework and child care. Family Relations, 41, 169-177.

Hochschild, A. R. (with Machung, A.). (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the rev-olution at home. New York: Avon.

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

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

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development. New York: John Wiley.LaRossa, R. (1997). The modernization of fatherhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Levy-Shiff, R., & Israelashvili, R. (1988). Antecedents of fathering: Some further exploration.

Developmental Psychology, 24, 434-440.Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2005). Measuring values with the short Schwartz’s Value

Survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 170-178.McMullin, J. A., & Cairney, J. (2004). Self-esteem and the intersection of age, class, and

gender. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 75-87.


Nuttbrock, L., & Freudiger, P. (1991). Identity, salience and motherhood: A test of Stryker’stheory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 146-157.

Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 66-103). New York: John Wiley.

Pleck, J. H., Lamb, M. E., & Levine, J. A. (1986). Epilog: Facilitating future change in men’sfamily roles. In R. A Lewis & M. Sussman (Eds.), Men’s changing roles in the family(pp. 11-16). New York: Haworth.

Portugese, J. (1998). Fertility policy in Israel: The politics of religion, gender, and nation.Westport, CT: Praeger.

Remennick, L. (2000). Childless in the land of imperative motherhood: Stigma and copingamong infertile Israeli women. Sex Roles, 43, 821-841.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Schwalbe, M. L. (1988). Sources of self-esteem in work: What’s important for whom? Workand Occupations, 15, 24-36.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA:Benjamin Cummings.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 63, 284-297.

Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work,and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845-871.

Volling, B. L., & Belsky, J. (1991). Multiple determinants of father involvement duringinfancy in dual-earner and single-earner families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53,461-474.

Walker, A. J., & McGraw, L. A. (2000). Who is responsible for responsible fathering? Journalof Marriage and the Family, 62, 563-570.

West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1993). Power and the accomplishment of gender. In P.England (Ed.), Theory on gender/feminism on theory (pp. 151-174). New York: AldinedeGruyter.

Yeung, J. W., Sandberg, J. F., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Hofferth, S. L. (2001). Children’s time withfathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 136-154.


Maternal Gatekeeping Antecedents and Consequences

Documents

Transcript of Maternal Gatekeeping Antecedents and Consequences