role of the father

• 1. Shaffer and Emerson found that fathers were far less likely to be primary attachment figures than mothers. This may be because they spend less time with their infants. Lamb 1997 reported that studies have shown little relationship between father accessibility and the infant-father attachment. It is possible that most men aren’t emotionally equipped to form an intense relationship with the infant as they don’t offer the same emotional sensitivity that women offer. This may be due to social or biological factors.
• The female hormone oestrogen underlies caring behaviour so gives a biological explanation. There are also still stereotypes around it being more feminine to be sensitive to the needs of others. Frodi 1978 showed videotapes of infants crying and found no differences in the physiological responses of men and women. Men do form secure attachments with their children, like in single male families. Research has found that in 2 parent families where father is primary caregiver, both parents often share the role of primary attachment figure.
• So, men can be the primary care giver, but this is discouraged by biological and social factors. Fathers do however have an important role as secondary attachment figures. Fathers have proven to be more playful, physically active and better at providing challenging situations for their children. Fathers have shown to be an exciting playmate whereas mothers are more conventional and tend to eg read stories to their children.
• An issue with the view that women are more sensitive to emotions due to biology is overly determinist.

  It is suggested that mothers are mostly primary caregiver due to oestrogen and therefore being more caring and sensitive to the infants’ emotions. This implies that men aren’t able to be due these differences. This view may reinforce stereotypes about men’s emotions and not being able to be the primary caregiver.

  It has been proved that they can provide the right care and be the primary caregiver which shows that it isn’t completely true.
• One criticism fathers only being secondary is explained through traditional gender stereotyping. For example, Schaffer and Emerson’s study was conducted over 50 years ago. Fathers tending not to become the primary af could simply be down to the result of gender roles, in which women were expected to be more caring and nurturing than men. Even with the decline of traditional gender roles in modern society so they are less important in a modern family, it could be that female hormones create higher levels of nurturing so women are biologically predisposed to be the primary attachment figure.
• There is support for the view that fathers are not as equipped to become primary attachment figures as they cant provide a sensitive and nurturing style as mothers can. Research found that fathers were less able to detect low levels of infant distress in comparison to mothers. Their findings supports the biological explanation for different parenting styles (lack of caring hormones). This suggests that the role of the father is biologically determined and restricted. This provides further evidence that fathers are not able to provide a sensitive and nurturing type of attachment