Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:43:14.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fatherhood as a Personality Development Factor in Men

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Julia Borisenko
Julia Borisenko*
Affiliation:
Kemerovo State University, Russia
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julia Borisenko, Kemerovo State University, Krasnaya, 6, 650043 Kemerovo, Russia Phones: +007 (38454) 3 4837 and +007 (3842) 58 39 39. E-mails: [email protected] and [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article represents an empirical study of paternity as a male personality development factor in men. Consensus is emerging that responsible fatherhood entitles the father to establish paternity, be present in the child's life, share economic support, and be personally involved in the child's life in collaboration with the mother. Literature reviews on fatherhood yield numerous empirical studies of specific fatherhood behaviors, whereas theory and the “bigger picture” have been notably insufficient. In the present article, problems of fatherhood in modern society, methodological problems of studying fathering, and cultural specifics of fatherhood are discussed. In addition, in order to aid further study of the phenomenon, the theoretically developed and experimentally approved model of the structure of paternity and the description of a specially developed training for fathers are presented. A principal finding of this report is that fatherhood is socially determined and influenced by contextual forces within the family and the community. The absence of a father-figure is detrimental to child personality development. At the same time, fatherhood can be a factor of male personality development of the father.

Este artículo representa un estudio empírico de la paternidad como factor de desarrollo de la personalidad masculina en los hombres. Está emergiendo un consenso de que la paternidad responsable permite al padre establecer su paternidad, estar presente en la vida del niño, compartir la carga económica e implicarse personalmente en la vida del niño, en colaboración con la madre. La revisión bibliográfica ofrece numerosos estudios empíricos sobre comportamientos paternales específicos, mientras que han faltado notablemente la teoría y una visión general. En este artículo, se comentan los problemas de la paternidad en la sociedad moderna, los problemas metodológicos del estudio de la paternidad y aspectos culturales específicos de la paternidad. Además, para contribuir a al estudio futuro del fenómeno, se presentan el modelo teóricamente desarrollado y experimentalmente aprobado de la estructura de la paternidad y la descripción de un entrenamiento especialmente desarrollado para padres. Uno de los resultados principales de este informe es el hecho de que la paternidad se determina socialmente y es afectado por fuerzas contextuales dentro de la familia y la comunidad. La ausencia de una figura paterna es perjudicial para el desarrollo de la personalidad del niño. Al mismo tiempo, la paternidad puede ser un factor de desarrollo de la personalidad masculina del padre.

Keywords

fatherhoodsocial determinationpersonality developmentstructural modelpaternidaddeterminación socialdesarrollo de la personalidadmodelo estructural
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , May 2007 , pp. 82 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramova, G.S. (1998). Vozrastnaya psikhologiya [Age-specificpsychology]. Moscow: Izdatel'skii tsentr “Akademiya.”Google Scholar
Ananyev, B.G. (2002). Chelovek kak predmet poznaniya (3rd ed.) [Man as subject of perception]. St. Petersburg: Piter.Google Scholar
Bocharov, V.V. (1999). Antropologiya vosrasta [Anthropology of age]. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
Boss, P.G., Doherty, W.J., LaRossa, R, Schumm, W.R., & Steinmetz, S.K. (Eds.). (1993). Family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Burlachuck, L.F., & Morozov, S. M. (1999). Slovar-spravotchnik po psychodiagnostike [Reference book of psychodiagnostics]. Saint-Petersburg: Piter.Google Scholar
Cattell, R.B., Saunder, D.R., & Stice, G. (1994). 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Test (Russian translation: Batarshev, A.V. Mnogofaktorniy lichnostniy oprosnik Kettella: prakticheskoye rukovodstvo [Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire: Practical guide]. Moscow: Sfera, 2002).Google Scholar
Crumbaugh, J.C., & Maholick, L.T. (1969). Manual of instructions for the Purpose in Life test. Saratoga, CA: Viktor Frankl Institute for Logotherapy (Russian translation: Leontiev, D.A. Test smyslozhiznenyih orientatsiy [The Purpose-in-Life Test]. Moscow, Smisl, 1992.)Google Scholar
Erikson, E.H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Evseenkova, Yu.V., & Portnova, A.G. (2003a). Strukturniy analiz akmeologicheskogo phenomena otsovstva [Structural analysis of the acmeologic phenomenon of fatherhood]. Psikhologiya zrelosti i stareniya [The psychology of maturity and aging], 4, 35–52.Google Scholar
Evseenkova, Yu.V., & Portnova, A.G. (2003b). Systema otnosheniy v diade otez-rebenok kak factor razvitiya lichnosti [The system of the relationship within the father-child dyad as a factor of personality development].Semeinaya psykhotherapiya i semeynaya terapiya [Family psychotherapy and family therapy], 4, 30–48.Google Scholar
Evseenkova, Yu.V., & Portnova, A.G. (2004). Otsovstvo kak strukturno-dinamicheskii fenomen [Fatherhood as a structural dynamic phenomenon]. In Sibirskaya psychologilya segodnya (pp. 104–110) [Siberian psychology today]. Kemerovo: Kuzbassizdat.Google Scholar
Filippova, G.G. (2002). Psikhologiya materinstva [The psychology of motherhood]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo instituta psikhoterapii.Google Scholar
Frankl, V. (1963). Man's search for meaning. An introduction to Logotherapy. Beacon Press, Boston. (Russian translation: Tchelovek v poiskakh smysla Moscow: Progress, 1990.)Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. (Vol. 21). London: Hogarth.Google Scholar
Fromm, E. (1942). The fear of freedom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Russian translation: Begstvo ot svobody Moscow: Progress, 1990.)Google Scholar
Fthenakis, W.E. (1985). Väter, Band I, Zur Psychologie der Vater-Kind-Beziehung [Fathers. Vol. I. On father-child relationship psychology]. Munich, Germany: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Fthenakis, W.E. (1988). Väter, Band II, Zur Vater-Kind-Beziehung in verschiedenen Familien-Strukturen [Fathers. Vol. I. On father-child relationship psychologyin various family structurs]. Munich, Germany: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Furstenberg, F.S., & Cherlin, A.J. (1991). Divided families: What happens to children when parents part. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ihinger-Tallman, M., Pasley, K., & Buehler, C. (1995). Developing a middle-range theory of father involvement postdivorce. In Marsiglio, W. (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research, and social policy, (pp. 57–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilyin, E.P (2002). Differentsial'naya psikhofiziologiya muzhchiny i zhenshchiny [Differential psychophysiology of men and women]. St. Petersburg: Piter.Google Scholar
Kon, I.S. (1978). Otkrytiye “Ya” [The discovery of “I”]. Moscow: Politizdat.Google Scholar
Kon, I.S. (1988). Rebyenok i obshchestvo: istoriko-etnograficheskaya perspektiva [The child and society: Historical ethnographic perspectives]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Polivanova, K.N. (2000). Psikhologiya vozrastnykh krizisov [Age-specific crisis psychology]. Moscos: Izdatel'skii tsentr “Akademiya.”Google Scholar
Popova, P. (1989). Sovremeniy muzhchina v zerkale semeinoy zhizni [Contemporary man in the mirror of family life]. Moscow: Mysl'.Google Scholar
Rean, A.A. (2000). Akmeologiya lichnosti [The acmeology of personality]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 3, 88–95.Google Scholar
Schaefer, E.S. & Bell, R.Q. (1958). Development of a parental attitude research instrument. Child Development, 29, 339–361 (Russian translation: Ilyin, E.P. Differentsial'naya psikhofiziologiya muzhchiny i zhenshchiny [Differential psychophysiology of men and women]. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2002.).Google ScholarPubMed
Vygotsky, L.C. (1984). Sobraniye sochinenii [Vol. 4 of a 6-volume essay collection]. Moscow: Pedagogika.Google Scholar