Family narratives and reminisces can be effectively used by parents as a tool to help children develop

self-concept. Family narratives are the way through which children and adolescents connect across
generations to create self- identity. By anchoring oneself in family history, one develops a sense of place
and security that may facilitate self-confidence and self-competence. In the modern world where nuclear
family is the norm, parents need to ensure that family narratives are used effectively in helping children
navigate through challenges of life. Parents and grandparents have to pay careful attention to family
history and narratives; and put in efforts in developing strong family narratives to be shared with children.
Also, parents need to be careful while sharing those reminisces and narratives by avoiding individual
comparison of their children with others in the past. Celebrating certain occasions as a day for showing
gratitude towards grandparents and older generations can also generate curiosity and interest among
children about family narratives. The current study looks into family narratives practices, challenges and
how parents can develop strong family narratives to be shared with their children.

Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

1

Rakesh Kumar Maurya

*
ABSTRACT

Family narratives and reminisces can be effectively used by parents as a tool to help children
develop self-concept. Family narratives are the way through which children and adolescents
connect across generations to create self- identity. By anchoring oneself in family history, one
develops a sense of place and security that may facilitate self-confidence and self-competence. In
the modern world where nuclear family is the norm, parents need to ensure that family narratives
are used effectively in helping children navigate through challenges of life. Parents and
grandparents have to pay careful attention to family history and narratives; and put in efforts in
developing strong family narratives to be shared with children. Also, parents need to be careful
while sharing those reminisces and narratives by avoiding individual comparison of their
children with others in the past. Celebrating certain occasions as a day for showing gratitude
towards grandparents and older generations can also generate curiosity and interest among
children about family narratives. The current study looks into family narratives practices,
challenges and how parents can develop strong family narratives to be shared with their children.

Keywords: Parenting, Family Narratives, Family Stories, Story, Reminisces, Effective Parenting,

We make stories and our stories make us(McAdams, 1993; Wingard & Lester, 2001; Plummer,
2002; Gottschall, 2012). All societies across the world have used this powerful tool not only to
entertain their people but also to transfer cultural values from one generation to another. Humans
in all cultures come to cast their own identity in some sort of narrative form (Owen Flanagan,
1992).

Like its culture, India has rich traditions of storytelling: Katha, Mask, Puppets, Pandwani,
Kathkali, picture showmen etc. are some of the most popular traditions of storytelling. The
content of these traditional stories are from religious texts such as Ramayana, Mahabharata,
Purans etc. These story telling performances are held in temples, weddings and other social or
religious functions. However, apart from these traditions, there is another tradition of

1
Shiv Savitri Mahavidyalaya Faizabad
*Responding Author
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 147

storytelling: Story telling by older generation to the younger one in families. This tradition was
very popular and probably the most widely practiced. Grandparents/parents are the main story
tellers of this tradition and children are the main audiences of it. The content of these family
stories are from the same religious text and animal stories for children. Panchtantra (Five
Principles) is one of the most popular children stories narrated to children. This is "an ancient
Indian collection of interrelated animal fables in verse and prose, arranged within a frame story.
The original Sanskrit work, which some scholars believe was composed around the 3rd century
BCE" (Jacob, 1888; Ryder, 1925) is attributed to Vishnu Sharma. This work has been translated
into many languages and has migrated to different parts of the world since then (Buchthal, 1941;
Upadhyaya, 1960; Saxena, 1999).
Stories shared and communicated in families can be categorized as: Family stories and Non-
family stories. Family stories content is derived from past events and experiences of family
members dead or alive. It consists of family history, traditions and reminisces of past generations
and current members. Family stories includes both stories of experiences the family has shared
together in the remote past, such as family vacations and sibling births, as well as stories outside
of the children’s experience, including stories of the parents before the children were born, both
as children in their own families of origin and as adults before forming this family (Fivush,
Bohanek& Duke, 2007).Non-family stories are stories related to religious or cultural texts and
are not related to family history.

My grandfather’s reminisces about his hard life during his childhood and the change of his
fortune after he fled to Kolkata in search of employment had a profound influence on me as a
child. All his personal stories started with some challenges or hardships in the family such as
how hard it was to manage three meals a day or how his father worked on others land as a
labourer; and ended with courageously fighting with those challenges. I developed a deep respect
for my grandmother who died a few months before my birth, when I heard from others about her
gracious and kind hearted nature in helping the poor. A rickshaw-puller from a neighboring
village once told me about a loan he took from her but she never asked for the return; and when
he tried to return the money after her death, my grandfather forfeited the load saying that she
would be happy by this act.

Family stories such as mentioned above when told and retold become a part of family narratives
and play an important role in shaping personality and self of family members (Stone, 1988).
Family stories have many functions. One of the prime functions of family stories is to convert
family experiences/memories into a forever long lasting story. In his book, The Things They
Carried, O'Brien says

"And sometimes remembering will lead to a story, which makes it forever. That's what stories are
for. Stories are for joining the past to the future. Stories are for those late hours in the night
when you can't remember how you got from where you were to where you are. Stories are for
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 148

eternity, when memory is erased, when there is nothing to remember except the story (O'Brien,
1998, p. 38).
Telling a story is a key tool to find meaning in that particular experience (Boyce, 1996; Koenig
Kellas & Trees, 2006). A personal experience/remembrance when told and retold takes the form
of a story which makes it more meaningful both for the narrator as well as the listener. Also,
family stories integrate other family members’ experiences making it more meaningful for the
whole family. Another function of family narratives is to organize family experiences into
meaningful content and use that knowledge to better prepare for future challenges. In fact, they
work as a bridge between the past and the future.
Family stories are a key tool for transmitting values, experiences, traditions and important life
lessons to current or future generations (Fiese & Wamboldt, 2003).
The current study argues for (A) why it is important for families to create strong family
narratives to be shared with children? (B) How nuclear family system has influenced the sharing
and communication of family narratives? (C) How strong family narratives can be used as an
effective tool of parenting? (D) How parents can create strong family narratives to be shared
with their children? The word “Family Narrative” and “Family Story” have been used
interchangeably in this paper; and convey the same meaning.

Family Stories Vs Non-family stories:

Story telling is one of the oldest art forms and they are everywhere coming from all walks of life.
The domain of these stories is such a vast world that it is difficult to categorise them. On the
basis of relation between characters and story teller, it can be divided in two categories: family
stories and Non-family stories. Family stories are tales about people, places, and events related to
the members of our immediate family or ancestors. Non-family stories can be defined as tales
about people, places and events which are not related to members of our immediate family or
their ancestors.

While all types of stories leave their impact on narrator as well as listeners, family stories are
more influential in identity formation as compared to non-family stories. They tell them where
they came from, where they fit into the historical landscape of the entire family, what are the
values that family has been practicing over the years, how family has dealt with challenges over
generations etc. It helps children in developing strong intergenerational self (Fivush, Bohanek &
Duke, 2008). Family stories are about the family members and history of the family. Therefore,
when strong family narratives are shared with the younger generation, it sets an example or a
standard for children to meet or exceed.

Family reminisces and narratives are perceived to be based on real events which took place in
past or a few generations ago while non-family stories we read/hear are not necessarily perceived
to be based on real events. When a preadolescent or an adolescent hears or reads a story, he/she
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 149

takes it as a fictional story whereas family narratives are perceived to have happened in the past
and based on real life events. This is why family narratives directly leave an impact on children
as compared to other stories.

Another difference is the level of connection children feel with the characters of a family story
and non-family story. A family narrative would evoke a strong feeling of connection with the
characters as they are part of a larger family while non-family stories may evoke a feeling of
strong connection but not as much as family narratives.

Family reminisces and narratives carry many real life connections in the form of objects,
materials and signatures of events. For example, a grand-father, retired from Army, may narrate
stories of wars he fought and can show the wounds/scars on his body received during the war; a
grand-mother while narrating her first meeting with her husband to her grand-children can show
the gift he gave to her.
Family stories are better suited to be used as a cohesive force in keeping the family united while
other stories may not necessarily have this feature (Kiser, Baumgardner & Dorado, 2010).Family
stories and reminisces are a key factor in developing a strong intergenerational self which is
closely related to more trust worthy relations among current family members (Fivush, Bohanek
& Duke, 2008).People having low intergenerational self may be more prone to discard other
family members in their old age. In today’s world, where old people taking shelter in old age
homes despite having children has become a reality, family stories are vital in influencing
younger generation in taking care of their parents in their old age. Indian immigrants living in
United States use home based, family focused simple narratives to inform their children about
their roots in India. As these immigrants are living away from their extended families, family
narratives and stories are a way to incorporate them in their family in United States (Marvin-
2009).
Impact of Family Narratives on Children:
Family narratives influence children in a variety of ways. It impacts the emotional life of a
family and its members (Fivush, Bohanek, Robertson & Duke, 2004). A five year old when
expresses her past experiences about a particular event to her parents develops autobiographical
and self-memory; and observes how her experiences about the past are different from others
experiences of the same event (Fivush, 2008).Understanding of Self emerges from social
interactions and it also influences social interactions.

Family stories does not only influence the listener i.e. children but narrator as well. How we
share our experiences with others shapes our own understanding of those experiences (Fivush,
Reese, & Haden, 1996; Pasupathi, 2001). Through describing, explaining, and evaluating their
pasts in socially situated reminiscing, children come to construct an interpretive framework for
understanding both their experiences and their selves (Fivush, Bohanek& Duke, 2007).
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 150

Family stories provide a historical context for children, informing them of how they fit into a
larger life framework. Family narratives are the way through which children and adolescents
connect across generations and create self- identity. The whole process of sharing of family
history and stories helps children develop a sense of self connected to previous generations. By
anchoring oneself in family history, children develop a sense of place and security that may
facilitate self-confidence and self-competence (Fivush, Bohanek & Duke, 2007).

Sharing of family narratives with children contributes in the development of strong

intergenerational self which in turn help children develop a better sense of self and well-being.
Sharing of Family narratives is an important contributor in the preadolescents’ well-being and
self-understanding (Fivush, Bohanek & Duke, 2007). As children approach adolescence,
development of intergenerational self may also works as a resilience factor.

Family narratives promote family cohesiveness which plays a key role in creating strong family
bonding among family members and children in particular. Family cohesion is defined as the
"emotional bonding that family members have toward one another" (Olson, Russell, and
Sprengkle, 1984). These narratives also strengthen the adaptability of families in response to
situational and developmental stress.Family narratives, when told and retold, define the shape of
each family's emotional life. The way individual family members take part in the recreation of
family's shared past regulates an evolving self-understanding both as an individual and as a
member of the family. Families that are skilful in talking about emotionally complex and
difficult events in more open, integrated, and coherent ways may help impart children with the
resources to deal with and resolve aversive experiences (Fivush, Bohanek, Robertson & Duke,
2004).

Why sharing of family narratives and story-telling is decreasing among Parents?

During a workshop on parenting, the author observed that there are many parents particularly
from low SES who avoid sharing family stories/histories with their children. In fact, they try
their best to keep their children away from their ancestral places and people, thinking that this
would pollute the mind of their children. They argue, “what to share?, our past has not been that
eventful, it is full of shame, sorrow and exploitation.” This reluctance is very obvious with the
parents of low castes in India who have migrated to cities in search of better opportunities.

They fear that if they expose their children to their extended families who are still backward,
poor and living in villages, it would hamper their social and academic development. They also
fear that their children’s mingling with their extended families in villages would hamper their
growth as they do not have anything to offer except unhealthy old rituals and traditions. History
of Schedule castes and Schedule Tribes and other lower caste people in India is a history of
thousands of years of servitude, exploitation and oppression on the basis of being born in a
particular community or caste (Maurya; 2015).While social and economic conditions of
backward castes have improved significantly in modern India, revisiting those past traumatic
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 151

experiences in the form of family narratives would, they fear, hurt their children’s self-esteem.
The issue can be summarised as they feel “lack of strong family narratives” to be shared with
their children.

The word “grandparents” evokes a unique world where the dual role of parenting is evinced.
Grandparents function as shock absorbers, which buffer the aftershocks and they also act as
bouncing boards, which help to deflect a range of emotions. These roles serve to emphasize their
important link in the family. With a plethora of old world experiences behind them, and having
the unique capacity of being able to transmute from mentors and listeners to mediators and
friends, they can offer support and stability.In a traditional joint family, grandparents play a
crucial role of transmitting family values, traditions and lessons to children through family
narratives. In India, this has been the tradition in families, however, in the changing family
structures where nuclear family has become the norm, this crucial role of grandparents in sharing
family narratives to children has now been neglected. As more people are migrating from
villages to cities, they find themselves being cut off from their roots (Saxena, 1977).

Technology is another crucial aspect of changing family dynamics. Impact of popular culture and
technology is very much visible on children’s relationships in families.(Taylor, 2013).These
influences have contributed to a growing divide between the traditional roles that children and
their parents play. Children’s absorption in technology, from texting to playing video games,
does by their very nature limit their availability to communicate with their parents. Children’s
absorption in technology, from texting to playing video games, has limited their communication
with parents and grand-parents. One study observed that working parents arrived home after
work were greeted only 30% of the time and were ignored 50% of the time. Another study found
that there was no impact on family time when technology was used for school related activities,
but it hurt family communication when used for social reasons. Children these days are found
indulging in instant messaging constantly, checking their social media, listening to music,
surfing their favorite web sites, and watching television or movies. Because of the emergence of
smart phones, these exercises are no longer limited to the home, but rather can occur in cars, at
restaurants, public places, in fact, anywhere there’s mobile phone network coverage.

These new development have impacted sharing of family narratives with children. It is not that
only children are responsible for decrease in family communication. Parents can be equally
responsible for widening the distance that appears to be increasing in families. Often, they are
busy with their own technology, for instance, watching TV, checking emails and talking on their
mobile phones, when they could be playing with, talking to, or generally connecting with their
children.

Another factor responsible for the decrease or lack of sharing of family narratives with children
is parents not being aware of the importance and benefits of such family practices. This could be
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 152

overcome by school counsellors who are competent enough to help parents learn the importance
of family narratives and how it should be communicated (Maurya, 2015). The author himself, as
a school counsellor, conducted workshops on effective parenting to spread awareness for the
same.
How to Develop Strong Family Narratives?
Simply sharing family narratives with children is not enough. It is important to develop and share
strong family narratives which can assist children in developing a positive self-concept,
enhanced resilience and well-being in response to emotional or social challenges. As we have
already discussed about parents who feel that they do not have anything positive to share with
their children, it is imperative to understand how one can develop strong family narratives to be
shared with their children.

First, the assumption that family narratives should be 100% historically accurate is misguided; in
fact, no historical event can claim to be of hundred percent accurate. When any historical event is
interpreted, it is coloured by narrator’s own biases, interpretation and understanding. Stories
when transferred from one generation to the next, some changes are bound to happen as memory
is of constructive nature (McClelland, 1995; Schacter, Norman & Koutstaal, 1998). It means that
the act of remembering is influenced by various other cognitive processes
including perception, imagination and beliefs (Johnson & Raye, 2000). During retrieval of past
family events people use their schematic knowledge to fill in information gaps, though they
usually do so in a way that implements aspects of their own beliefs, moral values, and personal
perspective that leads the reproduced memory to be a biased interpretation of the actual version.
It means that parents have the flexibility of accommodating interpretations of past history of their
family that they deem conducive for the development of their children.

Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 153

The author proposes the following steps for parents in developing strong family narratives.

Step 1- The first step is to understand the values of the family. Family values are important and
lasting beliefs or ideals shared by the members of a family about what is good or bad and
desirable or undesirable.Every family practises certain values. These values are transferred from
generation to generation and changes are also adopted with social, economic and political
atmosphere of the time (Becvar & Becvar, 2012).For parents it is important to first understand
what these values are. The following questions can help parents understand values of their
families.
• What is important to you?
• What is important to your family?
• How your family is same or different to other?
• What is the purpose and goal of your family?
• History of your family?
• What defines happiness, pride and fulfillment for the members of your family?
• What are the values of other family members?
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 154

The above mentioned questions are not absolute and other strategies may be adopted to
understand values of a family. Once family values are deciphered, core family values should be
developed through brain storming among family members.

Step 2- Second step is to be aware and have appropriate understanding of family history .If
parents themselves are not aware of their family history and narratives, it would be difficult for
them to transfer those narratives to their children. For understanding their own family history,
they need to do their own research and collect data for the same. Family-web (see figure-1) can
help in discovering family history, narratives and values.

Another approach to generate family narratives is to study family history along with the history
of your community/caste, village/town, district, state and country. A family history can not
remain isolated from what happened in society at the time.
Step3- The third step is look at the family history and narratives from the lens of core family
values. The past narratives become more meaningful and inspiring when filtered and coated with
family values.

Sharing Family Narratives with Children

One does not need to be an effective story teller to share family narratives with one's children,
however, parents having effective story narration skills would find themselves better equipped in
turning family history into a coherent and engaging plot. Sharing family narratives should not be
based on oral traditions only. Environmental cues that support narratives or at least work as a
link or remains of the past family history are more effective when shared. A family photograph is
not only a picture of an individual/group or a scene, in fact; it carries its own story. It is
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 155

commonly believed that a photograph is worth a thousand words (Bouch, 2009; McGee &
McGee, 2011).Family photographs are one of the most common and effective environmental
cues that can generate curiosity and interest among children about family narratives and history.
Having photographs of elders or earlier generation is commonly done and families in some
cultures even worship them along with their Gods (Hozumi, 1912; Sheils, 1975; Lee, 1987).

Apart from photographs, old items such as medals, coins, dresses, and gifts can also evoke
emotional bonding with the previous generation and help develop strong intergenerational self
among children. These things effectively help parents in transferring/communicating family
values among children. Children find it easy to connect with family narratives and history when
they themselves touch, feel and observe such objects.

Another way of sharing family narratives is to celebrate certain occasions as a day for showing
gratitude towards grandparents and older generations. In India, there is a cultural tradition of
celebrating an event for showing respect and gratitude to our dead parents, grandparents and
ancestors. This is known as “Shradh”. Shradh is a sanskrit word and it literally means “Anything
done with complete faith and devotion”. On this occasion, a period of fifteen lunar days which is
observed every year during PitraPaksha, Hindus pay homage to their ancestors especially though
food offerings. Such cultural celebrations are the appropriate time for sharing family narratives
and history. The ritual performed during Shradh can generate curiosity as well as gratitude
towards deceased family members.
Another problem that parents face while sharing family narratives is that children do not show
interest in those narratives. Parents assume that the past historical family events and stories are of
no use/interest for their children. My grandfather almost always used to reminisces about how he
travelled 6 kilometers on foot to go to school. He reminisced these narratives whenever I insisted
for purchasing a bicycle for myself. Another usual reminisces of my grandparents was when I
showed tantrums about the food. “You should feel happy that you are getting three meals a day,
in our time, we used to get to eat only two times and that too only rice and vegetables.” These
narratives were always repeated whenever I showed dissatisfaction with the food served, and
after some years, I became used to these didactic narratives. Therefore, it is important for parents
to understand how and when such narrative should be shared. First, a family narrative with a
sarcastic tone would certainly not create the influence that we want to see on our children.
Parents often used comparative and sarcastic tone while sharing family narratives. For example:
“How come you ask for a new pair of shoes when you already have one, in your age I used to go
to school barefoot?”

Second, timing of sharing family narratives matters. Rather than reacting to an incident instantly,
it is better to relate that with past family narratives when you are with your child in a deep
intimate conversation. In the example mentioned above, parents can reminisce about the
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 156
challenge of not having even a single pair of footwear at night after dinner while striking a
deeper level of child-parent communication.

Third, the manner in which a parent/grand-parent used family history to make a point also
matters. Children avoid listening to something conveyed in a didactic manner. For example:
“Children should respect elders, in your age we did not even look into the eyes of our elders
while talking to them.”

This didactic approach can be made more effective if we change the didactic style of reminisces.
“It hurts when someone younger to you does not show respect to you. I realised this when I was
of your age, how do you feel when someone does not show respect towards you?”

Fourth, early exposure of family narratives to children is more effective as compared to late
exposure. Preadolescence when children start forming their identity and self is an ideal time for
exposing children to family history and narratives (Bohanek, Marin, Fivush& Duke, 2006).
CONCLUSION
Family narratives can be effectively used by parents as a tool to help children develop self-
concept. Family narratives are the way through which children and adolescents connect across
generations to create self- identity. By anchoring oneself in family history, one develops a sense
of place and security that may facilitate self-confidence and self-competence. In the modern
world where nuclear family is the norm, parents need to ensure that family narratives are used
effectively in helping children navigate through challenges of life. Parents and grandparents have
to pay careful attention to family history and narratives; and put in efforts in developing strong
family narratives to be shared with children. Also, parents need to be careful while sharing those
reminisces and narratives by avoiding individual comparison of their children with others in the
past. Celebrating certain occasions as a day for showing gratitude towards grandparents and
older generations can also generate curiosity and interest among children about family narratives.

REFERENCES
Becvar, D. S., &Becvar, R. J. (2012). Family therapy: A systemic integration. Pearson Higher
Ed.
Bohanek, J. G., Marin, K. A., Fivush, R., & Duke, M. P. (2006).Family narrative interaction and
children's sense of self.Family process, 45(1), 39-54.
Bouch, J. (2009). A picture is worth a thousand words. Advances in psychiatric treatment, 15 (2),
81-81.
Boyce, M. E. (1996). Organizational story and storytelling: a critical review. Journal of
organizational change management, 9(5), 5-26.
Buchthal, H. (1941). Indian fables in Islamic art. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain & Ireland (New Series), 73(04), 317-324.
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 157

Fivush, R. (2008). Remembering and reminiscing: How individual lives are constructed in
family narratives. Memory Studies, 1(1), 49-58
Fivush, R., Bohanek, J. G., & Duke, M. (2008). The intergenerational self: Subjective
perspective and family history. Self continuity: Individual and collective perspectives,
131-143.
Fivush, R., Bohanek, J., Robertson, R., & Duke, M. (2004).Family Narratives and the
Development of Children's Emotional Well-Being.
Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal: How stories make us human. Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt.
Hozumi, N. (1912). Ancestor-worship and Japanese law. Maruzen Kabushiki-Kaisha.
Johnson, M. K., &Raye, C. L. (2000).Cognitive and brain mechanisms of false memories and
beliefs.Memory, brain, and belief, 35-86.
Kiser, L. J., Baumgardner, B., & Dorado, J. (2010). Who are we, but for the stories we tell:
Family stories and healing. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 2(3), 243.
Koenig Kellas, J., & Trees, A. R. (2006). Finding meaning in difficult family experiences:
Sense-making and interaction processes during joint family storytelling. The Journal of
Family Communication, 6(1), 49-76.
Lee, K. K. (1987). Ancestor worship and kinship structure in Korea. Religion and ritual in
Korean society, 56-70.
MaRSHaLL, D. U. K. E. (2008). The Intergenerational Self Subjective Perspective and Family
History. Self Continuity: Individual and Collective Perspectives
Marvin, Lee-Ellen.(2004). Why Mamiji Cried: Telling Stories and Defining Families.
Storytelling, Self, Society.Vol. 1, Iss. 1
Maurya, R.K. (2015). Advocacy Counseling in India: Current Scenario and the Road Ahead.
Asian Academic Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (AARJSH)
Vol. 2(6), 233-254.
Maurya, R.K. (2015). Effective Parenting: A Master Key. Humanities and Social Science Studies
(HSSS) Vol.4 (1), 23-28.
Maurya, R.K.(2015). Do Hindi Cinema & Television Serials Propagate Caste Stereotypes
Maurya, R.K.,Singh, S. (2015). Traumatic Childhood Experiences and Stuttering: A Case Study.
Asian Academic Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences(AARJSH)
Vol.2(6), 331-351.
McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self.
Guilford Press.
McClelland, J. L. (1995). Constructive memory and memory distortions: A parallel-distributed
processing approach. Memory Distortion: how minds, brains, and societies
reconstruct the past, 69-90
McGee, R. G., & McGee, L. M. (2011). A picture is worth a thousand words. American Journal
of Transplantation, 11(4), 871-872.
Nigrelli, C. Keeping Families Strong–Part Two Positive Communication.
Use of Family Narratives as a Tool of Effective Parenting

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 158

Plummer, K. (2002).Telling sexual stories: Power, change and social worlds. Routledge.
Saxena, D. P. (1977). Rururban migration in India: causes and consequences. Popular Prakashan.
Saxena, I. (1999). Indian children's stories through the centuries. Bookbird, 37(2), 56.
Schacter, D. L., Norman, K. A., & Koutstaal, W. (1998). The cognitive neuroscience of
constructive memory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 289-318.
Sheils, D. (1975). Toward A Unified Theory of Ancestor Worship A Cross-Cultural Study.
Social Forces, 54(2), 427-440.
Stone, E. (1988). Black sheep and kissing cousins: How our family stories shape us. Transaction
Publishers.
Tayler, Jim.(2013) Is Technology Creating a Family Divide. Retrieved on January 14, 2016 from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201303/is-technology-
creating-family-divide
Through Surnames of Characters: A Content Analysis? Economic and Political Weekly.(In
press).
Upadhyaya, K. D. (1960). A General Survey of Indian Folk Tales.Midwest Folklore, 181- 196.
Wingard, B., & Lester, J. (2001).Telling our stories in ways that make us stronger. Adelaide,
Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.

Citations (7)
References (34)
... Cilvēki visās kultūrās veido savu identitāti kaut kādā stāstījuma formā jeb naratīvos (Maurya, 2016).
Indivīds pirmo stāstījuma struktūru un stāstu dzird savā ģimenē (Merrill et al., 2015). ...
Relationship Between Family History Knowledge, Identity Style and Resilience of 16-19 Year Old
Adolescents
Article
 Dec 2022

 Sandra Siliniece

 Anika Miltuze

View
Show abstract
... Parents usually help their children understand the moral meaning of various experiences and transfer
family and cultural values through parent-child discourse (Laible et al. 2019). Shared storybook reading is
one of the main methods that parents use to teach their children moral rules (e.g., do not lie or to share
with others) (Barza, and von Suchodoletz 2016;Maurya 2016). However, the effects of stories on moral
teaching were investigated through numerous studies. ...
Features of Taiwanese Parents’ Moral Discourse in Shared Storybook Reading: Exploring
Associations Related to Preschoolers’ Cognitive and Affective Moral Attribution
Article
Full-text available

 Nov 2021
 Early Child Educ J

 Yu-Ju Chou

 Bi Ying Hu

 Sherron Killingsworth Roberts

View
Show abstract
... Pesatnya kemajuan teknologi menjadikan aktivitas mendongeng dianggap tidak lagi menyenangkan
untuk dilakukan, sedangkan hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa mendongeng merupakan instrumen
utama yang mampu mewariskan nilai, pengalaman, dan kebiasaan yang dapat memberikan
pembelajaran penting bagi generasi masa depan (Maurya, 2016), sehingga metode ini dirasa tepat untuk
digunakan dalam mengajarkan pendidikan konservasi air bersih di negara berkembang karena selain
menyenangkan bagi anak juga status sosialekonomi tidak menjadi penghalang dalam penerapannya. ...
PERBEDAAN PERILAKU KONSERVASI AIR BERSIH ANTARA NEGARA BERKEMBANG DAN
NEGARA MAJU DITINJAU DARI PERSPEKTIF WAKTU
Article

 Mar 2018
 Katry Oktariani
 M. Enoch Markum

View
Show abstract
... formal and informal means, such as family narratives that are transmitted from older generations to
young generations (Maurya, 2016). Social and economic realities, including deeply entwined work, social,
and family lives, strong traditions, and social norms, make it difficult for the average middle-class Indian to
challenge rules and live independently (Derné, 2005). ...
Religion, Spirituality, Globalization Reflected in Life Beliefs Among Urban Asian Indian Youth
Article

 Feb 2018

 Sonia Suchday

 Anthony F. Santoro

 Natasha Ramanayake
 Maureen Almeida

View
Show abstract
THE FAMILY NARRATIVE IN THE NOVEL “BUKOVA ZEMLYA” [BEECH LAND] BY MARIYA
MATIOS
Article

 Dec 2020

 Likhomanova N.O.

View
Show abstract
Do Hindi Cinema & Television Serials Propagate Caste Stereotypes through Surnames of
Characters: A Content Analysis
Article
Full-text available

 Apr 2016
  Rakesh Maurya

View
Show abstract
PARENTING PRACTICES AMONG DALIT PARENTS AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THEIR
CHILDREN
Conference Paper
Full-text available

 Feb 2016

 Rakesh Maurya

View
Show abstract
Recommendations
Discover more
Project
Experiences of Dalit Students in Higher Education Institutions

 Rakesh Maurya

This is a phenomenological study using Interpretative phenomenological analysis to explore experiences

of dalit students in higher education in India
View project
Project
Family Risk and Protective Factors in Elder Financial Exploitation

 Rakesh Maurya

 Virginia Vincenti

 Axton E. Betz-Hamilton
 [...]
 Ashton Chapman

Understand risk and protective influence within families that could increase or decrease the likelihood of
EFFE by a family-member POA agent Identify personal characteristics of family members, pa ... [more]
View project
Project
Interdisciplinary Team

 Kok-Mun Ng

 John J. S. Harrichand

 Gideon Litherland

 [...]
 Rakesh Maurya

We wrote a conceptual paper on challenges counselors face in interdisciplinary work settings in places
where professional counseling is a nascent field. The idea grew out of a conference presentati ... [more]
View project
Article
Teens Parenting--Discipline from Birth to Three: How To Prevent and Deal with Discipline Problems wi...
January 1991

 Jeanne Warren Lindsay

 Sally McCullough

Written for teenage parents, this book is designed to help them use appropriate methods of discipline for
their infants and toddlers. Chapter 1, "Discipline Is Important!" defines discipline and discusses the
importance of setting limits. Chapter 2, "Infants and Discipline," concerns the importance of parents
disciplining themselves to meet infants' needs during the first 6 months. Chapter 3, ... [Show full abstract]
Read more
Article
The effects of two parent counseling programs on rural low-achieving children
November 1983 · The School counselor
 Peter Esters
 Ronald F Levant

Compared the effectiveness of D. Dinkmeyer and G. McKay's (1976) systematic training for effective
parenting (STEP) with J. Gilmore and E. C. Gilmore's (1978) self-esteem method (SEM) for enhancing
self-esteem and academic achievement in low-achieving students. STEP is a lecture-and-discussion
systematic training program stressing Adlerian theory and focusing on the purposive nature of the ...
[Show full abstract]
Read more
Article
The effect that learning and performing infant massage has on parent self-confidence in performing b...

 Kristine Frances Chamernik. Bardi

Typescript, signed; library bound. Thesis (M.S.)--Rush University, 1996. Includes bibliographical
references (leaves 63-65). Microfiche. s
Read more
Article
Perceived Self-Efficacy and Grandparenting
October 1998 · The Journals of Gerontology Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences

 Valarie King
 Glen H. Elder

This study identifies grandparents who feel efficacious in their role and the consequences of such beliefs
for actual involvement with an adolescent grandchild. The sample of 883 grandparents comes from two
related studies of rural families, the Iowa Youth and Families Project and the Iowa Single Parent Project.
Our research questions are answered by testing a series of bivariate and multivariate ... [Show full
abstract]
Read more
Article
Full-text available
The Effects of Maternal Grandmothers’ Positive Parenting Behavior and Mothers’ Self-Differentiation...
February 2017 · Korean Journal of Child Studies

 Hyejin Kim
 Hyun-Sim Doh
 Bokyung Park

View full-text

A new qualitative method for investigating parental identity, the Parenting Narrative Interview (PNI), is
introduced. Participants included 28 married couples (N = 56 individuals) with preschool children.
Narratives of five meaningful temporally bounded parenting experiences (Marker Experiences) and
meaningful experiences in five parenting domains (Domain Experiences) were coded for `parenting
voice': I Only, I Context, We Complementary, We Compare, and We Joint. Across all narratives, We Joint
and I Only voices were most frequently used. In Marker Experiences, no sex differences in voice usage
were evident, but parents predominantly used We Joint voice in describing how they became parents,
shifting to I Context and I Only for early experiences, and then to I Only for recent experiences as well as
for anticipated future experiences. In Domain Experiences, fathers less often than mothers used I Voice in
caregiving, promoting development, and arranging and planning narratives, and more often used We
Joint in stories about their relationship with the child. With parenting voice interpreted as reflecting the
balance within parental identity among self-as-solo-parent and varying kinds of co-parental selves,
parental identity becomes progressively less co-parental and more solo-parental across narrative time.
Compared to mothers, fathers construct their parental identity related to caregiving, promoting
development, arranging and planning, and their relationship with the child as relatively more co-parental
(i.e., more situated in the context of the relationship with the partner).

Parenting voices in marker experiences, by sex of parent

…
Parenting voices in domain experiences, by sex of parent
…

Figures - uploaded by Joseph Pleck

Author content
Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

 20+ million members

 135+ million publications
 700k+ research projects

Join for free

Public Full-text 1
Content uploaded by Joseph Pleck
Author content
Content may be subject to copyright.
‘Parenting voices’: Solo parent
identity and co-parent identities
in married parents’ narratives of
meaningful parenting experiences
Jeffrey L. Stueve
University of New Mexico
Joseph H. Pleck
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
ABSTRACT
A new qualitative method for investigating parental identity,
the Parenting Narrative Interview (PNI), is introduced. Partici-
pants included 28 married couples (N = 56 individuals) with
preschool children. Narratives of five meaningful temporally
bounded parenting experiences (Marker Experiences) and
meaningful experiences in five parenting domains (Domain
Experiences) were coded for ‘parenting voice’: I Only, I
Context, We Complementary, We Compare, and We Joint.
Across all narratives, We Joint and I Only voices were most
frequently used. In Marker Experiences, no sex differences
in voice usage were evident, but parents predominantly used
We Joint voice in describing how they became parents, shift-
ing to I Context and I Only for early experiences, and then to
I Only for recent experiences as well as for anticipated future
experiences. In Domain Experiences, fathers less often than
mothers used I Voice in caregiving, promoting development,
and arranging and planning narratives, and more often used
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2001 SAGE Publications (London,
Thousand Oaks,
CA and NewDelhi), Vol. 18(5):691–708. [0265–4075(200110) 18:5;019359]
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1999 National Council on Family
Relations’ Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop. The Parenting Study
is conducted with support from the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station to Joseph Pleck
and from a Jonathan Baldwin Turner Fellowship and Graduate College Dissertation Grant
from the University of Illinois to Jeffrey Stueve. We would like to acknowledge the following
for their contribution to this project: Graduate Researchers David Hansen and Trent Maurer;
Interviewers Linda Culton, Terrina Ellerson, David Hansen, Nancy Plane, and Angela Smith;
and Undergraduate Research Assistants Elizabeth Crawford, Jenna Grell, Corrie Haas, Sue
Jurgovan, Tiffany May, Vicki Nolan, Nancy Plane, Iraida Rios, and Tina Siler. Dr Ashley
Beitel, Dr Kelly Bost, and Dr Brent McBride contributed early feedback on the project. Dr
Stephen Marks and Dr Alan Hawkins gave helpful reviews of an earlier paper. We would also
like to acknowledge Marla Kibler for assistance in preparing this manuscript. Correspondence
concerning this paper should be sent to Jeffrey L. Stueve, Family Studies Program, Simpson
Hall, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131–1246. [E-mail: stueve@unm.edu].
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 691

We Joint in stories about their relationship with the child. With

parenting voice interpreted as reflecting the balance within
parental identity among self-as-solo-parent and varying kinds
of co-parental selves, parental identity becomes progressively
less co-parental and more solo-parental across narrative time.
Compared to mothers, fathers construct their parental identity
related to caregiving, promoting development, arranging and
planning, and their relationship with the child as relatively
more co-parental (i.e., more situated in the context of the
relationship with the partner).
KEY WORDS: co-parenting • narrative identity • parental identity
This study investigates married mothers’ and fathers’ ‘parenting voice.’ This
new construct emerged in a broader qualitative study of parental identity,
employing narrative methodology. In the study, married couples with
preschool children described experiences and events meaningful to them as
parents. In exploring the interviews to develop new codes, we became
increasingly interested in what we call the ‘parenting voice’ of the narra-
tives. Participants at times referred only, or largely, to themselves as the
parent, but at other times included their partner. Furthermore, how the
partner was included in the parents’ stories varied. Sometimes the partner
was referred to so as to set the context for the story. Other times the par-
ticipants described how the partners’ parenting compared to or comple-
mented their own. Finally, some of the stories were told as if both parents
were sharing the same parenting experience.
We began to understand these differences in parenting voices as reflect-
ing the balance within parental identity between self-as-solo-parent and
self-as-co-parent, and, within the latter, the balance among different kinds
of co-parent selves. That is, parenting voice expresses the patterning of
internalized parenting experience. Parents with co-parental partners must
inevitably negotiate with their partners a balance between individuality and
connectedness, between uniqueness and conjointness of their parental
experience. This active balancing in co-parents’ ongoing relationship is
reflected in their individual parental identities as well.
Three features of parenting voice, the aspect of parental identity investi-
gated in this research, will be briefly reviewed. First, the construct refers to
the internalized balance between solo parental self and co-parental self
within parental identity. Second, parents’ narratives are considered to be an
especially advantageous way of assessing how self and co-parent are inte-
grated within parental identity. Third, parenting voice also takes into
account how parental identity may vary in different contexts. Specifically,
both temporal and activity-based contexts of identity are investigated.
Self and co-parent within individuals’ parental identities
Identity theory, based in the symbolic interactionism framework, holds that
an individual’s identity is developed through interactions with others,
692 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(5)
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 692
especially in close relationships (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). Thus, parental
identity is developed, in part, through interactions with a co-parent (as well
as with the child and others). In Stryker’s (1987) view, a key aspect of the
strength of identity is the extent to which the person has relationships
with others associated with that identity. Stryker conceptualizes identity
‘commitment’ as the quantity of relationships with others tied to that par-
ticular identity (extensivity), as well as the quality of those relationships
(intensivity).
Marks (1986) extends the symbolic interactionist conception of identity
further in his ‘three corners’ model of the structure of the self-in-marriage.
Marks distinguishes among the ‘interior me,’ the ‘marital partner me,’ and
the ‘third-corner me’ (an identity component connecting self and partner
not through the marital relationship itself, but through self and partner each
being linked to the same external entities, such as common interests). The
present study develops a conceptualization of the self-in-parenting that
similarly distinguishes between a ‘solo parent me’ and a ‘co-parent me,’ with
the latter having several variant forms.
Two other lines of prior research have focused on the dimension of indi-
viduals’ relationship with their co-parent of concern here. Most directly
related is Abidin and Brunner’s (1995) concept of the ‘parental alliance,’
the degree to which individual parents perceive their co-parent as sup-
porting and valuing them, and vice versa. Abidin and Brunner cite Weiss-
man and Cohen’s (1985) four conditions of parental alliance: mutually
investing in the child, valuing the partner’s involvement, respecting the
partner’s parenting judgment, and desiring to communicate with each
other. Also relevant is the cohesion dimension in Olson’s (1993) Circum-
plex Model of Marital and Family Systems, as applied to the co-parental
relationship. A central hypothesis of the Circumplex Model is that relation-
ships characterized by intermediate levels of cohesion (termed connection
and cohesion) rather than levels at either extreme (disengaged or
enmeshed) are generally optimal for family functioning. In essence, the
present research conceptualizes parenting voice as reflecting the dimension
within individuals’ parental identities corresponding to parental alliance
and cohesion.
Identity in parents of both sexes should, theoretically, incorporate the
individual’s relationship with the co-parent to some degree. However, there
is some evidence suggesting that mothers may be especially integral in
fathers’ parental identities. For example, in many studies mothers’ attitudes
about fathering are more strongly related to fathers’ involvement than are
fathers’ own attitudes (Pleck, 1997). One interpretation of the rapid drop-
off in paternal involvement with children following divorce (Furstenberg,
1990) is that fathering is in some sense ‘mediated’ by mothers. That is, when
the father’s relationship with the mother ends, the relationship with the
child often follows (Ihinger-Tallman, Pasley, & Buehler, 1995). Thus, there
is some reason to expect that mothers are a stronger factor in fathers’
parenting identities than vice versa.
Stueve & Pleck: Parenting voices 693
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 693
Narrative assessment of identity
McAdams, a leading proponent of the narrative approach in the study of
identity, advocates the use of a ‘life-story’ methodology. Identity can ‘be
viewed as an internalized and evolving life story, a way of telling the self, to
the self and others, through a story or set of stories (complete with settings,
scenes, characters, plots, and themes)’ (McAdams, Diamond, de St Aubin,
& Mansfield, 1997, p. 678). Because identity can be understood as a life
story, analyzing the components of the story gives us a way of understand-
ing important aspects of identity.
McAdams distinguishes five story components: nuclear episodes (import-
ant meaningful experiences), imagoes (or idealized role models), ideologi-
cal settings, generativity scripts (plans for how the story may continue), and
thematic lines (McAdams, 1990, 1993). Nuclear episodes are of special sig-
nificance as important indicators of identity. A nuclear episode can capture
what a person sees as evidence of who he or she is. In providing narratives
of meaningful life experiences, individuals are not simply ‘reporting’ a rep-
resentative sample of their behavior. Through the specific events they select
and they way they describe them, individuals are expressing what their
broader experience means to them. As used in the present study, narratives
may reflect in particular what parents’ experience means in their relation-
ship with their partners, and thus how parents balance a ‘solo parent me’
and ‘co-parent me’ within their identities.
Parental identity’s temporal aspect
Gergen and Gergen (1987, 1997) identify another strength of examining
identity as a self-narrative. They propose that individuals’ ability to reflex-
ively reconstruct self-understanding is expressed in their self-narratives.
These authors focus particularly on how self-narratives can reveal the tem-
poral component of identity. In their view, identity itself is fundamentally
temporal in nature. Individuals are ‘historically emerging beings’ and iden-
tity is dependent on being able to relate occurrences across time. One func-
tion of identity, then, is to link past experiences and memories to the
present; identity also incorporates anticipation and plans for the future. It
is through one’s self-narrative that the past is interpreted and the future
anticipated. In this way, identity serves to give coherence to one’s life.
In prior parenthood research, the most explicit analysis of the temporal
organization of parental identity is Farrell, Rosenberg, and Rosenberg’s
(1993) description of several different ‘trajectories’ in mid-life fathers’ nar-
ratives, such as progressive release from imposed constraints, early illusion
followed by disillusion, and tragedy. Numerous other studies have exam-
ined temporal change in aspects of parenting experience (e.g., Belsky,
Youngblood, Rovine, & Volling, 1991; Kurdek, 1996). Of these, perhaps
most relevant to the present study’s focus on the balance of solo and co-
parental selves within parental identity are studies of how the marital divi-
sion of labor changes in the transition to parenthood. This research finds
that, prior to birth, couples anticipate more equal sharing of child-rearing
tasks than actually occurs afterwards. In addition, during the postnatal
694 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(5)
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 694
period the division of labor becomes more ‘traditionalized’ along gender
lines (Cowan & Cowan, 1992). These findings raise the possibility that, in
the temporal structuring of parental identity, the process of becoming a
parent is more often constructed as shared with one’s partner, while subse-
quent parental experiences are more often constructed as individualized,
and increasingly so over time. Extrapolating this trend, future parental
experience may be constructed as especially individualized. However, a
reversal is also conceivable, with future experience imagined as more
shared with the partner than is current experience.
Parental identity in activity contexts
A basic assumption of identity theory, as formulated by Stryker (1980, 1987)
and Burke and Reitzes (1991), is that individuals have numerous role iden-
tities. Role identities are defined as the self-meanings attached to a position
and its associated roles (Burke & Tully, 1977; Ihinger-Tallman et al., 1995;
Marsiglio, 1998). This study investigates the social position of ‘parent,’
viewed as a social position in which identities and behavior are strongly
influenced by gender. The parent position has a role directly associated with
it (i.e., the overall parent role). In addition, the parent role includes other
associated roles (or subroles) such as caregiver, provider, or teacher. Thus,
parental identity is the aggregate of self-meanings attached to the parent
position/role and to the other roles associated with it.
There have been numerous conceptualizations of the more specific roles
associated with parenting (e.g., Palkovitz, 1997; Small & Eastman, 1991).
After reviewing this literature, five parenting domains were selected for this
research to represent a broad a range of parenting contexts, and to be appro-
priate for both fathers and mothers of the age group of children studied (age
two to five years): (1) caregiving, (2) promoting development, (3) bread-
winning, (4) arranging and planning, and (5) the parent’s relationship with
the child. Because parental behavior varies by gender in these domains, it is
valuable to investigate to what extent differences in parental identity are
revealed in parents’ narratives about experiences in these domains.
Identity coherence across contexts
Recognition that parental identity has a temporal dimension and is also situ-
ated in a variety of activity domains raises the issue of the consistency of
parental identity across these contexts. At a general level, the concept of
identity implies a ‘coherence’ of the self across situations (Grotevant, 1997).
For the specific aspect of parental identity investigated here, representation
of the parenting self as solo parent or co-parent, this broad proposition may
well apply, leading to the expectation that parenting voice usage across con-
texts should be relatively consistent. However, it is also possible that the
parental selves within an individual associated with differing temporal and
activity contexts may normatively vary in being solo-parental or co-
parental. That is, parenting selves for an individual may typically include a
range of voices, and thus may not be generally consistent within the
individual.
Stueve & Pleck: Parenting voices 695
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 695
Research questions
To summarize, past theory and research suggest that parents may balance
‘self-as-solo-parent’ and ‘self-as-co-parent’ identities in varying ways, with
co-parental identities perhaps more prominent among fathers. Narrative
methodology provides a potentially valuable way of assessing this balance.
The balance of solo parental and co-parental identities may differ accord-
ing to the temporal dimension of parental experience, as well as according
to activity context. Recognizing these multiple contexts, the prominence of
solo versus co-parental identity may be conceptualized as generally con-
sistent within individuals across these contexts, or alternatively as more
varied.
In formulating the research questions below that derive from this prior
literature, parenting voice in narratives of meaningful parental experiences
operationalizes the construct of solo parental versus co-parental identity.
Marker Experiences refer to narratives elicited for five different points in
time: Becoming a Parent Experience, Early Experience, Recent Experi-
ence, Other Meaningful Experience (asked immediately following the
Recent Experience), and Future Experience. Domain Experiences refer to
five different activity contexts for parenting: Caregiving Experience, Pro-
moting Development Experience, Breadwinning Experience, Arranging
and Planning Experience, and Relationship with the Child Experience.
Four research questions guided our analysis: (1) How frequent are differ-
ent parenting voices? (2) How consistent is parenting voice usage across
Marker and Domain Experiences? (3) How do parenting voices vary in
mothers’ and fathers’ narratives of Marker Experiences? (4) How do
parenting voices vary in mothers’ and fathers’ narratives of Domain Experi-
ences?
Methods
Participants
Parents of two- to five-year-old children enrolled in an on-campus laboratory
preschool at a midwestern university were recruited. Both university and com-
munity families were represented. The total sample interviewed included 30
parenting couples, and six mothers who were single parents or whose spouse or
partner did not participate. Findings reported in this article come from an initial
analysis of 28 couples. (Two interviews were not transcribable.) The mean age
of the 28 fathers was 36.7 years (SD = 6.2), with a mean education level of 18.0
years (SD = 2.2). The mean age of the 28 mothers was 35.3 years (SD = 5.2),
with a mean education of 18.3 years (SD = 1.9). The mean monthly income was
$4,846 for fathers (SD = 5,028; minimum $0, maximum $20,000) and $1,673 for
mothers (SD = 2,117; minimum $0, maximum $8,000). The mean number of
weekly paid work hours was 36.7 for fathers (SD = 18.2) and 18.3 for mothers
(SD = 17.6).
For families with two children in the preschool, the older child was identified
as the target child for purposes of the study. Of the 28 children in the sample,
13 (46.4%) were boys and 15 (53.6%) were girls. The children’s mean age was
696 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(5)
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 696
4.3 years (SD = 0.8). Twenty-three were white (82.1%). Four of the 28 children
were adopted and three families reported that their children had special needs.
Administrative data were available on these sociodemographic character-
istics for all families using the lab preschool. Attrition analyses indicated that
study families significantly (p < .05) differed from non-study families only in
study mothers having 1.1 more years of education than non-study mothers.
Procedures
Interviews were conducted in the parents’ homes. Fathers were privately
interviewed by males; mothers were privately interviewed by females. A
research assistant was available to watch children during the interview.
Interviews were audiotape-recorded, and subsequently transcribed.
Summary notes were also kept during the interviews, which lasted 45 to 90
minutes. Following the interview, parents completed a self-administered
questionnaire. The Ethnograph software (Seidel, 1998) was used to analyze
the transcripts.
The Parenting Narrative Interview (PNI)
For parents with more than one child, the PNI focuses on the parenting of a
specific preschool child. As a warm-up, the interview begins with questions
about when the parent first started thinking about being a parent and about
expectations he or she had. The initial phase of the interview then is directed at
four of the five Marker Experiences. Parents are first asked to share experiences
related to becoming, or deciding to become, the parent of the targeted child.
Next, participants are asked about an early parenting experience, specifically,
‘Thinking back to when (child’s name) was a younger child, is there an experi-
ence as a parent, either positive or negative, that you recall as being meaning-
ful to you?’ Following this early experience, a recent parenting experience is
recalled. Parents then have an opportunity to share any other important experi-
ence that comes to mind.
Next, the interview transitions to key events or experiences in five different
parenting domains (Domain Experiences): caregiving, promoting development,
breadwinning, arranging and planning, and relationship with the child. After a
brief introduction, parents are given a card that lists the five domains with a
brief description for each (e.g., caregiving: things involving physical care, like
feeding, bathing, dressing, cleaning cuts and scrapes, and putting a child to bed).
The specific caregiving question to the parent is ‘Can you tell me about a
meaningful experience, positive or negative, you have had or expect to have
related to taking care of (child’s name)’s physical needs?’ Breadwinning is
defined broadly: ‘In addition to holding a job, this might include education or
training for a present or future job, and it might also include decisions about
taking or not taking a job.’ Finally, parents share an experience they anticipate
in the future with their targeted child (the last Marker Experience).
Distinguishing parenting voices
Texts of the narratives of these parenting experiences were first segmented into
‘units,’ the sections of text to which codes are applied. A unit was the partici-
pant’s response to the question about a meaningful parenting experience and
any follow-up questions about that experience.
Initially, two ‘parenting voices’ were distinguished: I and We. (A few units
Stueve & Pleck: Parenting voices 697
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 697
were coded in the residual category Child Only.) The I voice refers to units in
which there is either no reference to the parenting partner, or only a minor
direct or indirect reference. We voice units have extended or multiple references
to the parenting partner. Further distinctions observed within I and We units
led to the development of I Only and I Context categories, and We Comple-
mentary, We Compare, and We Joint categories.
I Only units contain no reference to the parenting partner. The following is
an example from a mother’s story about becoming a parent:
You have to understand that my pregnancy with William was a pregnancy
from hell. I was in the hospital for two months, he was born prematurely.
He was, he had developmental delays, I took him to developmental ser-
vices, I went through severe postpartum depression. It was horrific!
I Context units include a reference to the partner, but this reference only helps
set the context of the experience. The following excerpt is a mother’s report
about decisions related to working or not working:
Well I worked full time up until I got pregnant with Sarah, my older child.
And I was really scared, so I quit for a while, but then after she was born,
my husband had his business slow, so I worked part time for him. And then
when I had Dan, I just quit completely. I just thought (pause), they’re the
most important things in my life and I want to spend as much time with
them. And even with Sarah, I was, I would have quit then. Except my friend
who took care of her, a couple hours a day, had her little girl and she loved
going there.
In We Complementary units, a parent describes herself/himself and the
partner as having different parenting experiences or performing different
parenting tasks, with the two seeming to fit together to make a positive contri-
bution. A father describes his family’s nighttime routine:
Umm. Well I mean (pause) yeah, I guess you know like every night I am
the one who, we kind of trade off on giving baths and stuff like that and
then the snack and all of that. But then Dawn has kind of, I mean we seem
to have, Dawn takes care of brushing her teeth and having her go to the
bathroom and stuff like that and then I come up and actually I am the one
who puts her into bed.
We Compare units also describe different parenting experiences, but empha-
size comparisons in the amount of parenting each partner does (or does not do)
rather than how the two parents’ activities fit together. The following is an
excerpt from a father’s arranging and planning narrative:
I kind of see that this whole area of life for me and kids, (goes) over to my
wife. I’m terrible at arranging and planning. I can barely do it in my pro-
fessional life. These examples, these are things my wife had taken over with
my blessings. I’m just not very good at it.
Finally, the We Joint subcategory is used when a parent’s narrative indicates
little or no explicit differences between the parents’ experience.
You see it’s different because Anna is adopted. I guess what inspired us . . .
we were trying to get pregnant for a couple of years and were still trying to
get pregnant. One of Stephen’s friends called and said, ‘My sister-in-law is
pregnant and wants to give up the baby for adoption, are you guys
698 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(5)
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 698
interested?’ And we’re like ‘Wow!’ because we had talked about adoption
before we realized we were going to have problems.
After initial training, author Stueve and two female research assistants coded
units using the five parenting voice categories (I Only, I Context, We Joint, We
Complementary, We Compare), and the residual Child Only category. Stueve
coded all units from the first four transcripts, and each assistant then indepen-
dently coded a different subsample of units. The first assistant and Stueve
matched on 123 out of 160 units. The second assistant and Stueve agreed on 126
out of 147 units. Thus, a total of 249 out of 307 (81.1%) of the units coded by
the assistants matched parenting voice categories assigned by Stueve. Dis-
agreements in the initial four transcripts were discussed and consensus reached.
When there was not agreement, Stueve made final coding decisions. After the
four initial transcripts, Stueve assigned the final code, taking assistants’ coding
into consideration.
Results
How frequent are different parenting voices? (RQ1)
Table 1 presents the distribution of text units by parenting voice categories and
parental sex, within type of experience. For example, the 28 fathers each provided
five Marker Experiences, yielding a total of 140 text units for that column. The
original We Complementary and We Compare codes had the smallest frequencies
and were relatively similar conceptually. Thus, pooling them into a combined We
Distinct category seemed justified, making the table easier to interpret.
For all experiences combined, the parenting voices used most frequently were
We Joint and I Only, each accounting for about a third of all text units. Among
the remaining third, I Context was most frequent, with We Distinct (pooling the
We Complementary and We Compare codes) and Child Only employed rela-
tively rarely. Mothers’ and fathers’ usage of voices differed significantly, χ
2
(3,
N = 537) = 8.02, p < .05. Units coded Child Only, or where no experience was
reported, were omitted from all χ
2
tests.
The distributions of voices within all Marker Experiences and within all
Domain Experiences generally mirrored the pattern above. For Marker Experi-
ences, however, sex differences in parenting voice were not significant. In
Domain Experiences, significant differences in voice usage by sex were again
evident, χ
2
(3, N = 278) = 14.18, p < .01. Sex differences were especially pro-
nounced in the use of I Only (23.6% for fathers, 36.4% for mothers) and We
Distinct (15.7%, 4.3%) voices. This sex difference is explored further under
Research Question 4.
How consistent is voice usage across marker and domain experiences?
(RQ2)
Interrelationships among voice codes were then examined, within sex. Because
the voice codes cannot be interpreted as ordered, equal-interval categories, a
dichotomous categorization of I versus We voice was employed, and phi coeffi-
cients calculated from cross-tabulations. Among five Marker Experiences, phi
coefficients can be computed for 10 independent pairs, separately for each sex,
yielding 20 coefficients. The five Domain Experiences likewise produce 20 pos-
sible relationships. Of the resulting 40 relationships, more were positive (28
Stueve & Pleck: Parenting voices 699
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 699
700 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(5)
TABLE 1
Parenting voices in marker experiences, domain experiences, and all experiences,by sex of parent
Parenting voice All marker experiences All domain experiences All experiences
Total Father Mother Total Father Mother Total Father Mother
I only 33.6% 34.3% 32.9% 30.0% 23.6% 36.4% 31.8% 28.9% 34.6%
I context 21.8% 21.4% 22.1% 25.0% 22.9% 27.1% 23.4% 22.1% 24.6%
We distinct 1.4% 0.7% 2.1% 10.0% 15.7% 4.3% 5.7% 8.2% 3.2%
We joint 35.7% 34.3% 37.1% 34.3% 37.1% 31.4% 35.0% 35.7% 34.3%
Child only 5.0% 5.7% 4.3% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2.9% 3.2% 2.5%
Not given 2.5% 3.6% 1.4% 0 0 0 1.3% 1.8% 0.7%
N of text units 280 140 140 280 140 140 560 280 280
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 700
instances) than negative (12). However, only four relationships were signifi-
cantly positive at p < .05, a number only slightly above that expected by chance
(.05  40 = 2). The same pattern held true in associations between Domain and
Marker Experiences.
How does parenting voice vary among marker experiences? (RQ3)
Research Question 3 examined how mothers’ and fathers’ parenting voices vary
in Marker Experiences, ranging from first becoming a parent to anticipated
future experience (see Table 2). Because each parent shares only one narrative
for each Marker Experience, the number of text units in each column is 28.
There were no sex differences in voice usage for the individual Marker
Experiences. In light of the low incidence of We Distinct, this category was
pooled with We Joint in these χ
2
tests. For Future Experience, I Only was
additionally compared to I Context and We Joint pooled. However, parenting
voice usage varied according to when the experience occurred. To test this
association, Other Important Experience was excluded because it could have
occurred at varying points in the present or past. For the remaining four experi-
ences, units from mothers and fathers were combined, and We Distinct was
pooled with We Joint.
The resulting cross-tabulation of Experience type (4 levels) by parenting
voice (3 levels) was significant, χ
2
(6, N = 208) = 50.38, p < .01. In addition, each
pair of adjacent columns was also compared. Voice usage differed significantly
between Becoming a Parent Experience and Early Experience, shifting from
predominantly We Joint toward I Context and I Only, χ
2
(2, N = 108) = 15.23, p
< .01. Voice also differed significantly between Early Experience and Recent
Experience, shifting further from We Joint and I Context to I Only, χ
2
(2, N =
108) = 7.18, p < .05. However, voice usage in Recent Experience and Future
Experience did not significantly differ. The general pattern of differences was
that voice shifted from We Joint in the Becoming a Parent Experience to I
Context and especially I Only in later experiences.
How does parenting voice vary among domain experiences? (RQ4)
As noted earlier, Table 1 revealed significant differences in the mothers’ and
fathers’ use of voice in all Domain Experiences combined. Research Question
4 examined in more detail how mothers’ and fathers’ parenting voices varied in
the specific Domain Experiences (Table 3).
Aχ
2
analysis distinguishing the four summary voice categories indicated
significant sex differences in mothers’ and fathers’ parenting voice in the care-
giving domain, χ
2
(3, N = 56) = 10.48, p < .05, and in the arranging and planning
domain, χ
2
(3, N = 56) = 14.48, p < .01. Subsidiary analyses were conducted col-
lapsing the voice categories in several different ways. When I Only was com-
pared to a combined I Context, We Distinct, and We Joint pooled category, a
difference in mothers’ and fathers’ use of parenting voice in promoting develop-
ment was found (χ
2
(1, N = 54) = 4.52, p < .05). When We Joint was compared
to a combined I Only, I Context, and We Distinct coding, sex differences were
found in narratives of meaningful experiences concerning relationship with the
child (χ
2
(1, N = 56) = 4.08, p < .05). Finally, combined I Only and I Context
voices were compared with combined We Distinct and We Joint voices. Mothers’
and fathers’ voices differed in arranging and planning narratives (χ
2
(1, N = 56)
= 4.79, p < .05).
Stueve & Pleck: Parenting voices 701
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 701
702 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(5)
TABLE 2
Parenting voices in marker experiences, by sex of parent
Parenting voice Becoming a Early experience Recent experience Other important Future experience
parent experience experience
father mother father mother father mother father mother father mother
I only 10.7% 10.7% 17.9% 25.0% 42.9% 50.0% 46.4% 39.3% 53.6% 39.3%
I context 10.7% 14.3% 46.4% 25.0% 28.6% 21.4% 17.9% 35.7% 3.6% 14.3%
We distinct 3.6% 7.1% 0 0 0 0 0 3.6% 0 0
We joint 71.4% 67.9% 32.1% 42.9% 25.0% 28.6% 17.9% 21.4% 25.0% 25.0%
Child only 0 0 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 0 7.1% 0 14.3% 17.9%
Not given 3.6% 0 0 3.6% 0 0 10.7% 0 3.6% 3.6%
N of text units 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 702
Stueve & Pleck: Parenting voices 703
TABLE 3
Parenting voices in domain experiences, by sex of parent
Parenting voice Caregiving Promoting development Breadwinning Arranging and planning Relationship
with child
father mother father mother father mother father mother father mother
I only 21.4% 39.3% 14.3% 39.3% 28.6% 28.6% 10.7% 28.6% 42.9% 46.4%
I context 28.6% 17.9% 14.3% 10.7% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 25.0% 28.6 % 39.3%
We distinct 25.0% 0 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 7.1% 39.3 % 0 7.1% 10.7%
We joint 25.0% 42.9% 64.3% 42.9% 39.3% 21.4% 35.7% 46.4% 21.4% 3.6%
Child only 0 0 3.6% 3.6% 0 0 0 0 0 0
N of text units 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 703
Discussion
Prior research on parental identity using closed-ended questionnaire
measures has focused primarily on the salience of overall parental identity
(Ihinger-Tallman et al., 1995; Minton & Pasley, 1996), especially in relation
to the salience of other role identities (McBride & Rane, 1997). By contrast,
the present study explored an aspect of parental identity relatively
neglected in prior literature: the balance within parental identity between
self-as-solo-parent and self-as-co-parent, and, within the latter, among
different kinds of co-parental selves. As operationalized by the Parenting
Narrative Interview (PNI) protocol, this balance can be assessed through
mothers’ and fathers’ parenting voice – the way the self and partner are rep-
resented in the set of remembered or anticipated parenting experiences
recalled or actively constructed in the interview.
The present study has sample and assessment limitations that restrict its
generalizability. The sample of preschool mothers and fathers in our study
is small, highly educated and affluent, predominantly white, and drawn from
a single urban–suburban area in the Midwest. In addition, when rating
parenting voice, coders were not blind to parent sex. Several features of the
PNI were designed to minimize the imposition of the researchers’ structure
on parents’ responses, such as cueing respondents that experiences could be
either positive or negative, and past, present, or anticipated in Domain
Experiences; and eliciting most Marker Experiences before introducing the
Domain Experience categories. Nonetheless, the PNI protocol inevitably
structures how participants select and describe meaningful experiences.
With these limitations acknowledged, the study has four major findings.
First, a range of I and We parenting voices can be distinguished and reliably
coded from parents’ narratives, with We Joint and I Only voices especially
prevalent. Second, associations in voice usage across experiences were
generally nonsignificant, though more often positive than negative. Third,
among the Marker Experiences, parents predominantly used We Joint voice
in describing how they became parents, but shifted to I Context and I Only
for Early Experiences, and then to I Only for Recent Experiences as well
as for Future Experiences. Fourth, mothers’ and fathers’ voice usage
differed significantly for four of the five Domain Experiences, with the
Breadwinning Experience being the exception.
Solo parental self and co-parental self within parental identity
In narratives about meaningful parental experiences, parents include their
co-parental partners to varying degrees and in varying ways. As noted
earlier, Marks (1986) suggests a distinction within marital identity between
the ‘interior me’ and the ‘partner me.’ The range of parenting voices
observed here is consistent with the notion that, likewise, different selves
may exist within parental identity. That is, parental identity includes a ‘solo
parent me’ and a ‘co-parent me’ with varying subtypes. One subtype of co-
parental self minimally acknowledges the partner as a context for the self
(I Context). In other co-parental selves, self and partner may be fused (We
704 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(5)
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 704
Joint), or either the difference (We Compare) or complementarity (We
Complementary) between self and partner is emphasized.
The associations among the parenting voices used in the 10 narratives
offered by each parent were generally weak and nonsignificant, though
more often positive than negative. Thus, the dimension of parental identity
expressed in parenting voice should not be understood as a parent’s generic
predisposition toward one voice or another, but rather as more contextu-
ally specific. That is, the way that parents situate their parenting experience
in their relationship with their partner varies importantly according to when
the experience has occurred or will occur, and what specific parental activity
it is. The distribution of voices used in the narratives overall, combined with
the weak associations in voice usage across parents’ 10 narratives, suggest
that at the individual level, parental identity tends to include a balance of
solo and co-parental selves, but with a balance varying somewhat across
parents.
From co-parental to solo parental identity across narrative time
A key feature of the Marker Experiences is that they are temporally framed,
that is, they explicitly concern meaningful parental experiences at different
times in the child’s and parent’s lives. In these experiences, no sex differ-
ences in voice were evident. However, voice usage varied across time, with
parents generally shifting from We Joint to I Only as their narratives moved
from past to future (Table 2). Parents predominantly used We Joint voice in
describing how they became parents. In describing Early Experiences, use
of We Joint voice drops markedly, and parents more often use I Context and
I Only. In both Recent Experience stories and anticipated Future Experi-
ences, We Joint usage drops further, and I Only becomes the modal voice.
To illustrate, a mother’s narrative of deciding to try to start having chil-
dren highlights the shared nature of the recollected experience:
We were actually at a wedding. We were talking with the brother of the
bride, who had just had a child. And then the sister of the bride, who
recently had a baby. And they were just going on and on about how
great it was to be parents. And we kind of looked at each other and we
went for a walk. I remember it was a nice day. And then we came back
and pretty much just sort of decided that it was time to move forward
and start having kids.
A segment from an Early Experience unit from a father demonstrates a
narrative that, while set in the context of being a parent with his wife,
emphasizes a more individually experienced event:
I can remember listening to him babble up in the bed at night and try
to come to comprehension with what is sort of going on. And when he
started forming words it was probably when I realized we didn’t just
have a baby we had a little person, you know.
Finally, the shift to an I Only voice is illustrated in a mother’s anticipation
of a future experience:
Stueve & Pleck: Parenting voices 705
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 705
I guess when she gets older and learning about sexuality. I think it will
be a very important event in her future and I think the physical and
emotional changes that children go through. And when they go
through being teenagers might or might not be difficult. I hope that I
remember my teen years and say, okay, this was very difficult for me.
This overall shift from We Joint to I Only across narrative time echoes the
findings in transition to parenthood research that, prior to birth, couples
anticipate more equal sharing of child-rearing tasks than actually occurs
afterwards, and that, within the period following birth, the parental division
of labor then becomes ‘traditionalized’ along gender lines (Cowan &
Cowan, 1992). Paralleling this behavioral shift, parents’ representations of
their parental experience across time (i.e., their identities) are less shared
with their partner and more individualized. Interestingly, this shift toward
individualization is maintained in anticipated future parental experience –
rather than the future being represented as a time when parents might once
again share experience together the way they did when they first became
parents.
Sex differences in activity contexts: Paternal identity as relatively
more co-parental
As just discussed, no sex differences were evident in parenting voice usage
in Marker Experiences. Sex differences did emerge, however, in the parent-
ing voices used in all of the parental activity contexts investigated here,
except breadwinning (Table 3). One interpretation of these narrative voice
differences is that they reflect sex differences in parents’ actual behavior.
Mothers’ more frequent use of I Only voice in caregiving, promoting
development, and arranging and planning parallels prior findings that
mothers provide more caregiving than fathers, engage in more teaching and
development-promoting activities, and do more scheduling and arranging
for the child (Pleck, 1997). However, this interpretation assumes that use of
I Voice in a particular activity context simply reflects how frequently one
performs the activity.
The assumption underlying the present study, however, is that parenting
voice instead chiefly expresses the meaning of the activity for oneself in
relation to one’s partner – whether one performs it frequently, infrequently,
or not at all – and thus an aspect of one’s identity in that activity. From this
perspective, the sex differences in parenting voice observed here signify that
when fathers do (or do not do) these activities, fathers are more likely than
mothers to experience them as occurring within the environment of their
relationship with their partner. That is, for fathers more than mothers, these
parenting activities are experienced as behaviors with meaning in their mar-
riage. Thus, parental identity related to caregiving, promoting development,
arranging and planning, and the relationship with the child is relatively
more co-parental than solo-parental for fathers than for mothers.
Interestingly, the precise patterning of sex differences varied somewhat
across the four non-breadwinning activity contexts (i.e., different parenting
706 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(5)
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 706
domains vary in terms of exactly how fathers situate them in their co-
parental relationship). One way of grouping the four domains showing sig-
nificant sex differences in Table 3 is between the domains in which fathers
show lower rates of We Joint voice than mothers, but instead more fre-
quently use We Distinct voice (caregiving, arranging and planning) versus
the domains in which fathers more frequently than mothers use We Joint
voice (promoting development, relationship with child).
Interpretively, fathers more often than mothers construct their identities
related to caregiving and to arranging and planning as ‘differentiated’ co-
parental identities. Fathers describe what they do (or do not do), and note
how it relates to what their partner does. For example, one father described
how he often feeds his children dinner, but generally splits caregiving with
his wife:
I tend to do most of the cooking, so there are days that she is in school
or whatever I end up doing, you know, dinner with the guys. You know,
things like that. But, you know, we usually split everything as far as
quote ‘parenting’ duties.
However, fathers more often than mothers construct their identities related
to promoting development as ‘fused’ co-parental identities: fathers repre-
sent themselves and their partners as a joint, undifferentiated parental unit.
Fathers also do so in the relationship with child domain, although this sex
difference occurred in a context in which both parents showed high rates of
using I Only voice, in fact, the highest for any activity domain.
REFERENCES
Abidin, R. R., & Brunner, J. F. (1995). Development of a parenting alliance inventory. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 24, 31–40.
Belsky, J., Youngblood, L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change and
parent–child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 487–498.
Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psy-
chology Quarterly, 54, 239–251.
Burke, P. J., & Tully, J. C. (1977). The measurement of role identity. Social Forces, 55, 891–897.
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partners become parents: The big life change for
couples. New York: Basic Books.
Farrell, M. P., Rosenberg, S. D., & Rosenberg, H. J. (1993). Changing texts of male
identity from early to late middle age: On the emergent prominence of fatherhood. In J.
Demick, K. Bursik, & R. DiBiase (Eds.), Parental development (pp. 203–224). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Furstenberg, Frank, Jr. (1990). Divorce and the American family. Annual Review of Sociology,
16, 379–403.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen M. M. (1997). Narratives of the self. In L. P. Hinchman & S. K. Hinch-
man (Eds.), Memory, identity, community (pp. 161–184). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Gergen M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (1987). The self in temporal perspective. In R. Abeles (Ed.),
Life span social psychology (pp. 121–137). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grotevant, H. D. (1997). Identity processes: Integrating social psychological and develop-
mental approaches. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 354–357.
Stueve & Pleck: Parenting voices 707
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 707
Ihinger-Tallman, M., Pasley, K., & Beuhler, C. (1995) Developing a middle-range theory of
father involvement postdivorce. In W. Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary theory,
research, and social policy (pp. 57–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kurdek, L. A. (1996). Parenting satisfaction and marital satisfaction in mother and fathers with
young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 331–342.
LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. (1993). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In P. G. Boss,
W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family
theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 135–163). New York: Plenum Press.
McAdams, D. (1990). Unity and purpose in human lives: The emergence of identity as a life
story. In A. I. Rabin, R. A. Zucker, R. A. Emmons, & S. Frank (Eds.), Studying persons and
lives (pp. 148–200). New York: Springer.
McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New
York: William Morrow & Co.
McAdams, D. P., Diamond, A., de St Aubin, E., & Mansfield, E. (1997). Stories of commit-
ment: The psychological construction of generative lives. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 678–694.
McBride, B. A., & Rane, T. R. (1997). Role identity, role investments, and paternal involve-
ment: Implications for parenting programs for men. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
12, 173–197.
Marks, S. R. (1986). Three corners: Exploring marriage and the self. Lexington, MA: Lexing-
ton Books.
Marsiglio, W. (1998). Procreative man. New York: New York University Press.
Minton, C., & Pasley, K. (1996). Fathers’ parenting role identity and father involvement: A
comparison of nondivorced and divorced, nonresident fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 17,
26–45.
Olson, D. H. (1993). Circumplex Model of marital and family systems: Assessing family func-
tioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (2nd ed.) (pp. 104–137). New York:
Guilford Press.
Palkovitz, R. (1997). Reconstructing ‘involvement’: Expanding conceptualizations of men’s
caring in contemporary families. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative
fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp. 200–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. 123–167). New York: Wiley.
Siedel, J. (1998). The Ethnograph v5.0: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Qualis Research
Associates, Scholari, Sage.
Small, S. A., & Eastman, G. (1991). Rearing adolescents in contemporary society: A concep-
tual framework for understanding the responsibilities and needs of parents. Family
Relations, 40, 455–462.
Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Ben-
jamin and Cummings.
Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Developments and extensions. In K. Yardley & T. Honess
(Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 89–103). New York: Wiley.
Weissman, S. H., & Cohen, R. S. (1985). The parenting alliance and adolescence. Adolescent
Psychiatry, 12, 24–45.
708 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(5)
07 stueve (jk/d) 27/9/01 12:07 pm Page 708
Citations (43)
References (29)
... Paternal warmth and paternal monitoring have already been noted in Hofferth's (2003) CDS analysis.
Other concepts important in existing fatherhood research include: attitudes about fatherhood (Palkovitz,
1984;Hofferth, 2003); paternal identity (Maurer et al., 2001;Rane and McBride, 2000;Stueve and Pleck,
2001); paternal generativity (Hawkins and Dollahite, 1997;Snarey, 1993;Snarey and Pleck, 1993);
paternal investment (Whiteside-Mansell, Bradley, and Rakow, 2000); paternal ideology (Auerbach,
Silverstein, and Zizi, 1997); paternal visions (Marsiglio et al., 2000); and paternal social capital (Pleck,
2007). ...
... Future research on the problematic link between paternal identity and involvement needs to address
several theoretical issues. Fathering (and parenting) includes multiple domains, that is, Stueve and
Pleck's (2001) conceptualization of five domains: caregiving, promoting development, arranging and
planning, breadwinning, and positive emotional relationship with the 08_326_Ch12.indd 273
08_326_Ch12.indd ...
... Coparenting is conceptually close to Cohen and Weissman's (1984) concept of parenting alliance,
which includes each parent investing in the child, each parent valuing the importance of the other parent,
each parent respecting and valuing the judgments of the other parent, and ongoing means of
communication between the parents. Stueve and Pleck's (2001;Pleck and Stueve, 2004) concept of
parental identity "conjointness" can be interpreted as the manifestation of coparenting at the identity level.
 This construct refers the balance between "self-as-coparent" and "self-ascoparent" in a parent's identity,
as expressed in parents' narratives. ...
Studying immigrant fathers: Methodological and conceptual challenges.
Chapter
Full-text available

 Apr 2008

 Joseph Pleck

View
Show abstract
... accessibility and engagement), but missed other dimensions of fatherhood, such as economic
provisioning and moral guidance, which are considered key functions of fatherhood (Lamb, 2000). In
addition, there has been criticism about using Lamb et al.'s (1985a) conceptualization of fathers'
involvement due to its narrow definition of fathers' involvement in the family settings (Schoppe-Sullivan et
al., 2004;Stueve & Pleck, 2001). Third, this study focuses on examining the effects of exposure to
adverse neighborhood environments and fathers' involvement in early childhood on long-term child
development. ...
... The limitations of the current study point to several opportunities for future research. First, future
research can examine other functions of fatherhood that go beyond engagement, accessibility, and
responsibility, and include other dimensions of fathering such as paternal monitoring, financial support,
and community participation (Lamb et al., 1985b(Lamb et al., , 1985aStueve & Pleck, 2001). Second, it
may be instructive to examine whether fathers' active participation in community development buffers the
negative effects of neighborhood disorder on child development. ...
Associations among Early Exposure to Neighborhood Disorder, Fathers’ Early Involvement, and
Children’s Internalizing and Externalizing Problems
Article

 Jun 2020

 Yanfeng Xu
 Hui Huang
 Yiwen Cao

View
Show abstract
... Units coded Child Only, or where no experience was reported, were omitted from all f tests.) Further
analyses(Stueve & Pleck, 2001) also found no gender differences for individual Marker Experiences.
However, parenting voice usage varied according towhen the experience occurred.The general pattern of
differences was that for both genders, voice shifted from We Joint in the Becoming a Parent Experience
to 1 Context, and especially 1 Only, pared with combinedWe Distinct andWe Joint voices. ...
A Narrative Approach to Paternal Identity: The Importance of Parental Identity "Conjointness"
Chapter
 Full-text available

 Apr 2004

 Joseph Pleck
 Jeffrey L. Stueve

View
Show abstract
... In addition to establishing regular interaction and a closer relationship, the opportunity for children to
share concerns over trauma with fathers allows men to empathize and protect. Other research on fathers
from a distance in constrained circumstances (such as military service or incarceration) shows that
cellphones and email can establish a paternal presence that is rooted in a sense of "we-ness" with their
children through common emotional, ethical, behavioral, or cognitive bonds (Stueve & Pleck, 2001). ...
Family separation and transnational fathering practices for immigrant Northern Triangle families
Article
Full-text available

 Feb 2021

 Kevin M Roy

 Martha Yumiseva

View
Show abstract
... The terms "parenthood", "parental involvement" and "parental role" describe aspects of parent category
identity. Parent identity is the sum of self-meanings attached to the parent position/role and to other roles
related to it (Stueve & Pleck, 2001). "Parenthood" and "parenting" are both associated with child's
support, behavioural and pedagogical control (Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005). ...
International Journal about Parents in Education Inclusion and Communities of Practice: the
reification of the role(s)/identities of teachers and parents of students with learning disabilities
Article
Full-text available

 Jan 2020

 Dimitra Eleftheriadou
 Anastasia Vlachou

View
Show abstract
... As expressed by fathers in others studies, they embraced the changing social relationships and norms
of the contemporary family (Ives, 2015), as well as a supportive role with respect to their spouse and child
(de Montigny et al., 2016;Gervais et al., 2015). This emphasis on supporting the child's mother illustrates
how couples "co-construct" the paternal role on a daily basis (Matta & Knudson-Martin, 2006;Stueve &
Pleck, 2001). It also highlight how parental behaviours are defined within the co-parental subsystem
according to personal inclinations, developmental stages, and the parents' economic and cultural context
(Cabrera et al., 2014). ...
Conceptions and Experiences of Paternal Involvement among Quebec Fathers: A Dual Parental
Experience
Article

 Mar 2020
 J FAM ISSUES

 Christine Gervais

 Francine De Montigny

 Kevin Lavoie

 Diane Dubeau

View
Show abstract
Togetherness in the Household