2. periods (typically the 1970s and 1980s). The purpose of this study was to (a) add to
the basic literature on changing paternal behavior by analyzing the distinct time
period in which social norms of fatherhood have included increased involvementin
child rearing and (b) to advance current understanding of any behavioral change
over time by adding the element of cohort membership. Cohort analysis can help
identify how age, birth cohort membership, and time period influenced the nature
of change in paternal involvement over time.
Paternal Involvement
To study fathers’ changing involvement, it is important to note that “involve-
ment” can be characterized in many different ways. It has most frequently been
characterized as direct contact with a child, although it can also include important
responsibilities and roles that are peripheral to spending time together (Palkovitz,
1997). To help distinguish different types of involvement, Lamb et al. (1985) referred
to one-on-one time between fathers and children as “engagement” or “interaction.”
This is in contrastto“accessibility” (father accessible tochild butno interaction) and
“responsibility” (taking responsibility for knowing and meeting child’s needs),
which are less direct but major aspects of involvement. Involvement that incorpo-
rates spending time together is an important part of fathering and is necessary to
facilitate many of the paternal roles (Harris, Furstenberg, & Marmer, 1998; Pleck,
1997). Thus, time together may not be the only relevant aspect of father-child rela-
tionships but it is valuable to consider it as a relevant construct in its own right. For
the purposes of this research, this type of paternal involvement will be referred to as
paternal interaction.
Predicting Paternal Interaction
Consistent with the symbolic interactionist framework, it is important to know
the contextual macro-level factors associated with paternal interaction if one is to
understand why fathers’ behavior changes over time. Large-scale social changes
during the past 50 years regarding gender-role attitudes and behaviors are well
known. With an increase of working mothers of young children in middle-class
communities, speculations have been that fathers would adjust their attitudes and
schedules and spend more time taking care of their children (Bianchi, 2000). How-
ever, research has not confirmed that fathers from dual-earner households partici-
pate in domestic responsibilities any more than other fathers (Brayfield, 1995;
Sandberg & Hofferth, 2001). Nevertheless, social expectations have become more
accepting and encouraging of paternal interaction, in part because of shifts in
beliefs and behavior regarding gender roles and changing assumptions about mas-
culinity and femininity (i.e., child care not seen as threatening to a man’s masculin-
ity) (LaRossa, 1988). In addition, advances in understanding and promotion of opti-
mal child development have helped create an atmosphere in which active paternal
involvement is viewed as increasingly important for children (Alwin, 1996). To the
extent that fathers feel social pressure to spend time with their children, it would be
expected that these social changes would encourage greater amounts of paternal
involvement in more recent decades compared to earlier trends.
128 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
3. On a more micro level, much cross-sectional research has been dedicated to pre-
dicting whether or not and how much a father will participate in child rearing. In
general, there have been inconsistent findings across studies. However, certain cir-
cumstances and conditions were identified that tend to predict paternal involve-
ment in one or more studies. Comprehensive reviews (Bryant & Zick, 1996; Pleck,
1997) indicated that, in general, fathers were more involved with male children and
younger children. Fathers with lower status employment have been found to spend
more time with children. In some studies but not others, father’s ethnicity, number
of children in the home, number of weekly employment hours, and maternal
employment have been associated with paternal involvement and should therefore
be considered possible factors that promote it. These factors can act as important
statistical controls when comparing twogroups of fathers that may vary along these
factors. In some cases, such as with number of children and proportion of dual-
earner families in a given time period, changes in these factors over time may also
influence any potential changes in paternal involvement across two time points.
However, these particular factors are inconsistently and somewhat ambiguously
related to paternal interaction (Bianchi, 2000; Pleck, 1997) so it is difficult to predict
howtheyinfluencecontemporaryfathersdifferentlyfromtheirearliercounterparts.
The current study focused on fathers’ number of hours spent with children
(paternal interaction) by fathers who were studied in 1977 and 1997. The main
research questions were as follows:
1. How did hours of paternal interaction vary across 1977 and 1997 samples (if at all)?
2. What roles did cohort membership and age play in distinct patterns of change over
this time period?
3. What variables predicted paternal interaction in each time period?
Cohortanalysis procedures were helpful in finding answers to these questions. This
type of analysis will be further described below in the context of the study
procedures.
METHOD
Participants and Procedures
Secondary analyses were conducted on two data sets. The 1977 Quality of
Employment Survey included a nationally representative sample of 1,515 men and
women 16 years of age or older, working for pay at least 20 or more hours per week.
The 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce included a nationally repre-
sentative sample of 3,551 employed adults (for further descriptions of the 1977 data
set, see Zipp, 1991; for 1997 data, see Bond, Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998). To select
the samples at each time period, telephone calls were made to a stratified unclustered
random probability sample created by random-digit-dial methods. When more
than one worker older than 18 lived in the household, one was chosen randomly for
the study.
Hall / CHANGE IN PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT 129
4. Dependent Variables
Hours of paternal interaction. Fathers were asked about the extent to which they
interacted with their children. They were asked the following question: “On aver-
age, on days when you’re working, about how much time do you spend taking care
of or doing things with your child/children?” They were also asked the same ques-
tion regarding days on which they were not working. The absolute number of hours
reported by the fathers for workdays and non-workdays were used as separate
dependent variables. See Table 1 for a brief summary of the coding and descriptive
statistics of each variable.
Independent/Control Variables
Several variables were selected for various aspects/stages of the cohort analyses.
Demographic variables were selected to control for variation among the cells of the
cohort based on race, education, and income. Certain family and employment vari-
ables that have been identified in previous research as predictors of paternal
involvement were selected as controls to account for further variation across cohort
cells. Because of inconsistencies in the past research regarding the association of
these control variables and paternal interaction, all of the following control variables
were selected for the analyses.
Demographic variables. A dichotomous race variable categorized White and non-
White fathers (as there was little racial diversity within this subsample of fathers).
To represent job status, education level and income were included as demographic
variables. Education level included six categories: less than high school, high school
or GED, some college but without degree, associate’s degree, 4-year college degree,
and graduate or professional degree. Yearly household income was reported, and
the absolute dollar amounts were used as the variable. In the case of the 1977 data,
income was converted to 1997 dollars so that figures could be made comparable.
Family and employment variables. Family-oriented variables were included as con-
trols, namely, whether or not the father’s wife was employed (dichotomous vari-
able—73% of working mothers worked full-time), and the number of children liv-
ing at home. The ages of the fathers’ children were not reported in both data sets,
although it was discernable whether on not a father had a child in each of three age
categories: (a) younger than 6, (b) between 6 and 12, and (c) age 13 to 18. Acontinu-
ous variable was created by assigning each father a “1” if he had at least one child
under the age 6, a “2” if all his children were between the ages of 6 and 12, and a “3”
if all his children were between the ages of 13 and 17. This child-age variable helped
distinguish fathers who had younger or only older children. Finally, fathers’ weekly
employmenthours of all jobswere calculated tocreate a weekly jobhours variable.
Analytic Overview
Cohort analyses based on Glenn’s (1977) procedures were used to study the vari-
ation of fathers’ involvement with children along the dimensions of age, birth
cohort, and time period (of the two waves of data, 1977 and 1997). Acohort analysis
130 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
6. can be an effective method of “providing insight into the effects of human aging and
into the nature of social, cultural, and political change” (p. 7). Thus, unlike most
research on fathers’ involvement with children, this type of an analysis is sensitive
to the age groups or cohorts to which certain fathers belong and the extent to which
such membership may be related to their familial behavior.
Four age cohorts were created based on a relatively balanced distribution of
fathers of different ages and from different time periods (see Table 2). Ideally, the
cohort width (i.e. 10 years; ages 31-40) should match the time lag between the time
periods of the data sets (Glenn, 1977). However, Glenn (1977) noted that this proce-
dure is not always practical or possible. Because the time lag between the data sets
for this study is 20 years, creating 20-year cohort widths would severely limit the
number of cohorts of fathers with children living at home that could be analyzed in
a cohort table. Therefore, as recommended by Glenn, two distinct cohort tables
should be created for each dependent variable. In the first table, fathers of the same
age group but from different time periods (1977 versus 1997) are represented in
table cells across from one another. Fathers from the same time period but different
age cohorts are represented by cells above and below one another. Analyses from
such a table can include cohort differences at a given time period (age effects) and
cohort differences across time periods (period effects).
A second cohort table should reflect a more standard approach that highlights
intra-cohort changes in the rows of the table. Thus, an age group of fathers from
1977 would be compared to fathers born in the same time period but who are 20
years older in 1997. This procedure results in only two age cohorts (and a smaller
sample of fathers) because many of the older fathers alive in 1977 no longer have
children living with them or may no longer be living in 1997. Taken together, the
analyses from both cohort tables can help suggest age, period, and intra-cohort dif-
ferences among these fathers.
Multiple classification analysis (MCA) was the general statistical procedure for
creating the mean statistics for the cohort tables. Thus, the means for each of the
three dependent variables were adjusted for the various control variables described
above. The demographic control variables were used to control for changes in
cohort composition. However, these variables have also been identified as potential
predictors of the dependent variables. The family and employment control vari-
ables (along with the demographic variables) control for variation that may occur
because of influences that have been predictive of the dependent variables in other
studies. Thus, if there are indeed patterns of age, period, and intra-cohort effects
evident in the analysis, such change can be more confidently attributed to other fac-
tors than basic family structure and demographic influences.
RESULTS
Many of the items from both data sets were identical, and the two data sets were
merged based on their commonitems. Male respondentswere selected for this anal-
ysis if they were married and had at least one child younger than the age of 18 living
at home (the data available did not make a distinction between biological and
nonbiological children) for a total of 411 fathers from the 1977 data and 521 fathers
from the 1997 data. The descriptive statistics for each sample are contained in Table 1.
Sample weights existed in each data set based on the number of eligible
132 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
7. respondents in the respondents’ households and in the 1997 data only, for gender.
Sample weights were not used because (a) different weighting formulas were used
in each data set and (b) the nature of the analyses for this study was not to analyze
general characteristics of an entire population (for which weighting is more appro-
priate; see Winship & Radbill, 1994). Preliminary regression analyses predicting the
dependent variables with the independent/covariates revealed virtually no distinc-
tions between analyses that used the weights and those that did not.
Missing data were also examined. Few cases had missing data for any given vari-
able (the largest percentage of missing data for any variable was less than 7%).
Means for missing data were replaced by thegrand means fromeach particular data
set (1977 or 1997). This strategy retains more cases than other strategies that attempt
to impute a score based on other data because the other predictive variables
included in the data set were also missing data. Also, very few of these variables
were predictive of the variables to be used in this study, and for predictive imputa-
tions one should attempt to use numerous predictors to create the substitution
scores (Little & Schenker, 1995). Father’s age was missing for 10 fathers (about 1% of
total sample). Because the backbone of cohort analysis is based on the age/birth
cohort of the respondents, these fathers were dropped from the analyses instead of
being assigned an average age of an entire sample. Thus, the final sample sizes of
fathers who had complete data on all of the variables were 406 for 1977 and 516 for
1997.
Table 3 shows the results of the MCA. First, the adjusted means (adjusted for the
control variables) were tested to detect potential inter-cohort (age) effects during
each time period. Thus, the younger-than-31 group in 1977 was compared with the
31-to-40 group in 1977 and so forth. For workday paternal interaction, none of the
mean differences were statistically significant. However, a power analysis revealed
that, in many cases, the cell sizes were too small to detect any potential mean differ-
ences. Analyzing the patterns of means, however, suggests a downward trend in
amounts of interaction for older age groups in both 1977 and 1997. The same analy-
sis was conducted for non-workday paternal interaction with the same basic trend.
In this case, the means were statistically different for the 31-to-40 and the 41-to-50
groups (the younger group reporting higher means). Again, insufficient power was
an issue for making all the particular comparisons, but the same type of pattern
emerges in which the older groups tend to have smaller means.
Next, the adjusted means were compared to detect potential period effects in
which fathers from the same age group but from different time periods were com-
pared. For workday paternal interaction, the means in 1997 were consistently
higher than in 1977. Only the two youngest age groups were statistically different
from their counterparts in the other time period. However, the nonsignificant mean
Hall / CHANGE IN PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT 133
TABLE 2: Definitions of the Cohorts and the Number of Cases in Each Cell
Age Cohort 1977 1997
Age 30 and younger 119 81
Ages 31 to 40 151 226
Ages 41 to 50 92 162
Age 51 and older 44 47
Totals 406 516
8. differences in the twoolder groups had insufficient powerto detectstatistical differ-
ence. For non-workday paternal interaction, the same overall findings emerged.
The 1997 means were always higher than the1977 means, and theyoungest and old-
estage cohortshad thegreatestdifferences across the1977 and 1997 timeperiods.
For thenextanalysis, thesecondcohorttable format (see Table 4) was used so that
intra-cohort change could be analyzed (subsamples of fathers across two time peri-
ods). For workday paternal interaction, the same birth cohort of fathers from 1977 to
1997 did nothave significantly differentmeans. Thus, there is no evidence that these
two birth cohorts changed their amount of paternal interaction during the 20-year
time span. This same pattern emerged for non-workday means as well. The cohort
to total change ratio is pointless to interpret as there were no detectable cohort
changes.
Finally, Table 5 includes the results of two regression analyses (one for each
dependent variable). Because of the inconsistency in some of the past research
regarding the relationships among the control and dependent variables, it may be
noteworthy to investigate such relationships in these samples. Also, because of the
nature of these data that include fathers from different time periods, it may be par-
ticularly interesting to note interaction effects of time period of each sample and
control variables (predictors) on the paternal interaction variables. Thus, each
independent variable was multiplied by a dummy variable for “sample” (1977 = 0,
1997 =1) to test for interaction effects. For workdays, number of job hours and age of
father were negatively associated with paternal interaction. There were no signifi-
cant interactions by sample. For workdays, child age and age of father were nega-
tively associated with paternal interaction. The job hours by sample was the only
significant interaction. Results of separate regressions for each time period (not
reported here) indicated that in 1977 the coefficient for job hours was –.01 (p = .57),
and in 1997 the coefficient for job hours was .03 (p = .06). These results suggest that
certain predictors of paternal interaction may differ according to workday versus
134 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
TABLE 3: Observed Net Mean Differences in Paternal Interaction—Age and Period Comparisons
Year of Survey
Difference
Age Cohort 1977 (N = 406) 1997 (N = 516) (1997 Minus 1977)
Workday paternal interaction
Age 30 and younger 2.05 2.57 0.52**
Ages 31 to 40 1.83 2.26 0.33**
Ages 41 to 50 1.64 2.11 0.47
Age 51 and older 1.34 1.98 0.64
Sample mean 1.79*** 2.23*** 0.44***
Non-workday paternal interaction
Age 30 and younger 5.36 7.56 2.20**
Ages 31 to 40 5.88 6.74
a
0.86
Ages 41 to 50 4.82 5.65
a
0.83
Age 51 and older 4.15 6.04 1.89*
Sample mean 5.29*** 6.46*** 1.17***
NOTE: Means were adjusted for race, education, yearly income, dual income, “child age,” number of chil-
dren, and weekly employment hours.
a. Means with the same superscript are statistically different.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
10. non-workday circumstances and the time period in which data were gathered,
although as a whole the results were fairly consistent across these circumstances
and time periods.
DISCUSSION
In general, the findings from the cohort analyses indicate that fathers from the
1997 time period reported more hours of paternal interaction than those in the 1977
time period. This difference was evident for both workdays and non-workdays
despite controlling for multiple demographic, family, and employment variables
that have been predictive of paternal interaction in at least some prior research. This
finding is consistent with other previous research that compared fathers from dif-
ferent time periods (Lamb et al., 1985; Pleck, 1997; Sandberg & Hofferth, 2001),
although the years between1977 and 1997 are a somewhatdistinct time period com-
pared to those previously studied. Thus, one could argue that these findings sup-
port that the conduct of fatherhood is not in complete contradiction to a modern cul-
ture of fatherhood and that both conduct and culture may be converging.
Regarding cohort membership, there were patterns of findings that suggest that
such membership helped distinguish fathers with different amounts of involve-
ment. Namely, fathers of younger age groups in both time periods reported spend-
ing more time with their children. Also, fathers from each age cohort in 1997
reported more paternal interaction than the respective fathers from the 1977 age
cohorts, although some differences were not statistically significant. To some
degree, no statistical differences were detected because of a lack of statistical power
136 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
TABLE 5: Unstandardized Coefficients and Standard Errors (shown in parentheses) of the Ef-
fects of the Control Variables and Age on Workday and Non-Workday Paternal Interac-
tion (N = 922)
Workday Non-Workday
Constant 5.33 (.42)** 12.17 (.99)**
Race (1 = White) –.01 (.29) –.08 (.71)
Education –.03 (.05) –.18 (.13)
Income .00 (.00) .00 (.00)
Maternal employment (1 = yes) .25 (.16) .60 (.41)
Child age –.25 (.16) –.84 (.37)*
No. of children –.05 (.06) –.16 (.14)
Job hours –.03 (.01)** –.01 (.02)
Father age –.03 (.01)* –.06 (.02)*
Variable interactions
Race × Sample .07 (.30) –.75 (.73)
Education × Sample –.09 (.07) –.20 (.17)
Income × Sample .00 (.00) .00 (.00)
Mother’s employment × Sample –.25 (.21) –.90 (.54)
Child age × Sample –.20 (.19) –.56 (.45)
No. of children × Sample .09 (.33) –.75 (.81)
Job hours × Sample .01 (.01) .06 (.02)**
Father age × Sample .01 (.01) .03 (.03)
R 2
.12 .17
F (15, 906) = 8.35** (15, 906) = 11.66**
*p < .05. **p < .001.
11. for certain cells, but in other cases the differences were very small. Finally, using the
second cohort table structure, the two birth cohorts that were tested did not differ
across thetwotimeperiods. Thus, thesame cohortsof fathers 20 years later reported
the same amounts of interaction as their counterparts 20 years earlier.
Taken together, it appears that cohort membership may represent the given
social norms and expectations of the day in which these fathers became fathers.
Because of the consistency of intra-cohort behavior, it appears that paternal interac-
tion remained fairly stable during a 20-year time period when other contextual fac-
tors were controlled. And, because younger cohorts at each time period tended to
report more interaction, it would appear that the existing norms at the time fathers
became fathers may have set the tone for paternal involvement, if indeed social
norms have steadily developed toward greater amounts of involvement. Some
have suggested such norms as more contemporary (Pleck, 1997), but the consis-
tency of an upward trajectory has not necessarily been established. Thus, a father in
the 30-and-younger group may have responded to the social norms of his day, cre-
ated a pattern and philosophy of interaction, and retained such interaction through-
out the years of having a child at home. This analysis, however, is not an individual
analysis but one of groups and group means, so the motives of individual fathers
are unknown.
Viewing these fathers in the context of social change, the findings of the cohort
analyses are compatible with the idea that fathers as a whole have adapted their
fathering to the progression of social expectations toward greater amounts of pater-
nal interaction. A narrower investigation of the cohorts reveals that the youngest
and the oldest age cohorts reported the greatest differences across time periods,
suggesting that the trajectory of social change may have had more or less intense
moments that affected certain groups of fathers differently based on their age at that
time.
The predictor variables (used as controls) did have some varying associations
with paternal interaction depending on workday or non-workday circumstance
and time period. As noted, number of job hours seemed more relevant in predicting
non-workday paternal interaction in 1997 than in 1977 (though it was not statisti-
cally significant in either time period). Having younger children (as opposed to just
having older children) was more relevant to non-workday than workday interac-
tion, whereas the opposite was true for job hours. In addition, more variance was
explained by the collection of variables for non-workday than workday interaction.
Taken together, this pattern of findings suggests that some of the inconsistency
found in previous literature regarding predictors of paternal interaction may be
because of circumstantial factors, such as workday versus non-workday home life.
To a lesser degree, these findings show some potential for inconsistency to arise
because of unique social influences during the time period of a given study. Future
research can continue to study multiple predictors of paternal behavior in light of
the greater contextual influences of a given time period.
Study Limitations and Future Implications
One must be cautious when concluding from these findings that more recent
fathers differ behaviorally from their predecessors. In light of changing social
expectations in recent decades, it is possible that because of these social
Hall / CHANGE IN PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT 137
12. expectations, younger and more recent cohorts of fathers may have inflated their
reported hours of child care because of social desirability. It is possible that the anal-
yses have captured changes in social pressures (or the “culture of fatherhood”) and
not necessarily changes in behavior. This is, of course, a common caution for any
such research. Future research may benefit from including measures of the per-
ceived social pressures that fathers feel to be involved with their children as well as
the standard measures of interaction hours.
As mentioned, some of these analyses were limited because of small cell sizes in
the cohort tables. This is inevitable when a sample is truncated by selecting out cer-
tain subjects based on a number of criteria. Thus, even larger data sets than those
used in this study can be helpful in facilitating these types of analyses in the future.
It should be noted that selecting fathers with dependent children from two distinct
time periods 20 years apart creates groups that may be distinct in unaccountable
ways. Thus, in 1977, men in their 20s were more likely to be fathers than those of the
same age in 1997, and men in their 50s were more likely to have younger children at
home in 1997 than their counterparts in 1977. It is not clear from the data how this
dynamic affects the findings, especially because many of the variables that would
be associated with these selection effects are accounted for, but future research and
discussion can perhaps clarify how to avoid any pitfalls in using cohort analyses for
such purposes.
Keeping these cautions and limitations in mind, this study appears to be a source
of affirmation for those who have sought to promote greater paternal involvement
in modern families. Perhaps the message has been received effectively. This study
also illustrates some of the complexities in analyzing and understanding changes in
group behavior over time. As passing generations of fathers embrace or otherwise
conform to the modern “culture of fatherhood,” assumptions about and functions
of families will likely continue to change, as may the social meanings of fatherhood
that will undoubtedly influence fathers in future generations.
REFERENCES
Alwin, D. F. (1996). Parental socialization in historical perspective. In C. D. Ryff & M. M. Seltzer (Eds.),
The parental experience in midlife (pp. 105-167). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Maternal employment and time with children: Dramatic change or surprising con-
tinuity? Demography, 37, 401-414.
Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce. New
York: Families and Work Institute.
Brayfield, A. (1995). Juggling jobs and kids. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 321-332.
Bryant, W. K., & Zick, C. D. (1996).An examination of parent-child shared time. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 58, 227-237.
Glenn, N. D. (1977). Cohort analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Harris, K., Furstenberg, F., & Marmer, J. (1998). Paternal involvement with adolescents in intact families:
The influence of fathers over the life course. Demography, 35, 201-216.
Lamb, M. (2000). A history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage and Family Review,
29, 23-42.
Lamb, M., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1985).Paternal behavior in humans.American Zoolo-
gist, 25, 883-894.
LaRossa, R. (1988). Fatherhood and social change. Family Relations, 36, 451-458.
Little, R. J., & Schenker, N. (1995). Missing data. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Hand-
book of statistical modeling for social and behavioral sciences (pp. 739-750). New York: Plenum.
138 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
13. Palkovitz, R. (1997). Reconstructing “involvement”: Expanding conceptualization of men’s caring in
contemporary families. In A. Hawkins & D. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit per-
spectives (pp. 200-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pleck, J. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the
father in child development (pp. 66-103). New York: John Wiley.
Sandberg, J. F., & Hofferth, S. L. (2001).Changes in children’s time with parents: United States, 1981-1997.
Demography, 38, 423-436.
Stryker, S., & Statham, A. (1985). Symbolic interactionism and role theory. In G. Linzey & E. Aronson
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 311-378). New York: Random House.
Winship, C., & Radbill, L. (1994). Sampling weights and regression analysis. Sociological Methods and
Research, 23, 230-257.
Zipp, J. F. (1991). The quality of jobs in small business. Economic Development Quarterly, 5, 9-22.
Hall / CHANGE IN PATERNAL INVOLVEMENT 139
