In Defense of Parental Investment

Abstract

In commenting on Parents' Socioemotional Investment in Children by Bradley, WhitesideMansell, Brisby, and Caldwell (1997), Sharon Hays (1998) argues that measure, Parental Investment in Child Questionnaire (PIC), is based on untenable about family life. Hays contends that PIC prescribes for mothers a level of devotion to childrearing that is unrealistic and unfair. The argument against PIC also derives from an analysis of theory that concludes that theory is suffused with cultural and gender bias. A number of basic points made by Hays are well taken. To extent that PIC is ill fitted to actual conditions faced by families and is entrapped by an ideology that imposes unfair demands on mothers, then its goal to assist well-being of children is accordingly compromised-not to mention its unintended harm for women engaged in dual tasks of caring for children and earning a living. That said, there are difficulties with arguments presented by Hays that reflect misunderstandings of rationale for PIC and measurement of attitudes. Moreover, Hays presents too narrow a view of current context of family life and what it means for parenting. It is not my intention to offer a pointcounterpoint line of defense for PIC. Rather, I will attempt to clear up misunderstandings, hoping to arrive at a kind of rapprochement. Even so, I will argue that parents' socioemotional investment in children is a cornerstone of family life and that it operates to facilitate long-term well-being of all members of family. ATTACHMENT THEORY AND ITS RELATION TO PARENTAL INVESTMENT Central to Hays's (1998) concerns about PIC is its connection to fundamentally gendered assumptions of theory. Apropos to this claim is a quote from Bretherton (1992), an eminent researcher: Some feminist theorists have interpreted theory as supporting traditional view of women as primary caregivers. . . This is not strictly justified because theory does not specify that caregiving must be done by mothers or be restricted to females. . . Most central to healthy development, according to theory, is infants' need for a committed caregiving relationship with one or a few adult figures. Although majority of studies have focused on mothers because mothers most often fill this role, we have evidence that infants can be attached to a hierarchy of figures, including fathers, grandparents, and siblings as well as to day care providers. (p. 770) Ainsworth recently restated what is most central to construction of relationships: the presence of caregiving (Ainsworth & Marvin, 1995, p. 41). Research on fathers and alternate caregivers as figures, although not nearly as voluminous as research on mothers, has grown exponentially during last decade. That research points to conclusion that roles and significance of each figure appear related to actual pattern of care that each provides to a child (Waters, Vaughn, Posada, & Kondo-Ikemura,1995). The criticisms of theory presented by Hays (1998) are based largely on literature published prior to 1980. Bowlby's (1958) early work focused mostly-though not exclusively-on mothers. However, literature has evolved dramatically over past two decades. Perhaps signal exemplars of this evolution are two monographs published by Society for Research in Child Development (Bretherton & Waters, 1985; Waters et al., 1995). Useful in this regard is Bretherton's introduction to 1985 monograph in which she discusses movement from attachment in narrow sense to a broader view of system with its connection to relationships throughout life. One line from that introduction is particularly revealing: Certain basic things must happen in parent-child relationship and . …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.