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
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
Top Related