11Time for Family
TAMAR KREMER-SADLIK
The cover story of the first 2010 issue of the Economist was dedicated to the fact that during the coming months women's participation in the workforce would exceed men's. While women's increased economic capital and independence is and should be celebrated, the prevalence of dual-earner families is frequently viewed as one of the major social changes contributing to the modern family experience of time shortage and hurriedness in everyday life.1 Parents often complain that they have too much to do and not enough time to do it. Juggling longer working hours,2 increased scheduling of children's activities,3 and greater pressure to be involved in all aspects of children's lives (see chapter 7, this volume) not only render parents exhausted at the end of the day but also leave them uncertain about their ability to do a good job on all fronts.4
As working parents are faced with the daily challenges of fulfilling the demands of their two primary roles as workers and parents, time is at the root of their daily negotiations. Daly has argued that an inherent duality in the attitude toward time resides at the intersection of work and home.5 Work, he suggests, is regulated by “clock time” in which time is to be used “to maximize efficiency and achieve optimal functioning in the organization.”6 In contrast, home is regulated by “care time,” which is oriented to the other and his or her needs. Clock time calls for productivity, organization, planning, and control through which one's performance can be regulated and evaluated. Care time, conversely, is marked by unpredictability, attentiveness, and flexibility: the changing nature of needs determines one's actions. Daly proposes that this difference between clock time and care time is at the heart of the difficulty of balancing work and family life. Further, our cultural preference for efficiency and productivity makes it harder to carve out time for care, resulting in a concern that care time has been subjugated to the demands of clock time.
The expression “to carve out time” alludes to the idea that one needs to take time that is already assigned elsewhere and reallocate it. It brings to light the matter of agency and control over time allocation, and it implies a moral plane within which the effort of carving out time for family is viewed as the “right” thing to do. This chapter explores the degree to which parents experience a sense of control and responsibility over their allocation of time for family and its relation to parents’ evaluations of their own “good parenting.” It argues that time for family, ways of achieving it, and its consequence for parents’ morality are culturally defined and are dependent on local views regarding parenting and individual versus shared responsibility for family well-being.
WORK TIME AND FAMILY TIME CONFLICT
As Finch has noted,7 the family is an arena where parents’ moral identities are regularly at stake for they are positioned as moral agents responsible not only for themselves but also for the well-being of their children. The need to resolve the conflict between work and family demands inadvertently is a locus where parents display their moral character. A number of studies have shown that parents regularly express a moral imperative to put their children's and family's needs first.8 At times CELF parents unequivocally stated this preference. Excerpt 1 below shows how Arturo, father of an eight-year-old girl and a five-year-old boy, while discussing his work experience, indicates that his priorities had been very clear.
Excerpt 1
Work is important for me, but to me family is more important and my kids are more important. So, that's why I work where I work and I don't work in a private company where I have to work until nine o'clock. I've done that in Spain; I worked two jobs and I worked late. So, I prefer to be here at si– and pick up my kids at five o'clock and see them—or six and see them every night.
Arturo positions the family against work and emphatically states that his children come first. He uses his past experience when work held a more important part in his life ("I worked two jobs and I worked late") as evidence that he is familiar with the demands of work and that he has chosen to control the degree to which work infringes on his family life by working in the public sector and being able to be home at five o'clock. By presenting himself as commanding the situation and making choices (e.g., “I prefer to be here"), Arturo depicts himself as a moral actor and a good parent who puts his family before his career, and thus as one who has resolved the work-family conflict.
Yet finding solutions to this conflict is not always easy for many mothers in our study who feel that work dominates much of their time. In the next excerpt Susannah, mother of an eight-year-old boy and a one-year-old girl, faces a conflict between her need to be at work and the need to attend to her children. Susannah has been trying to get in touch with her sister all evening to find out if she can take the kids to school the next morning. This is a departure from Susannah's usual routine in which she drops off her son at the home of her sister, who then drives him and her own children to school. This time Susannah's sister may need to take her own son to the doctor's office in the morning, which means she may not be able to drive Susannah's son to school. When at 9:00 P.M. Susannah is still unable to reach her sister, she calls her brother-in-law and complains that she must figure out the morning arrangements because she needs to inform her boss immediately of the time she will arrive at work.
Excerpt 2
This is the thing, I can do one or the other. I can go into work late because—so I can take Jason to school, or I can leave work early to pick up the kids but I can't do both . . . This is my dilemma.
In essence, Susannah's problem is the result of a mismatch between her work and her children's school schedules. In order to resolve this problem, she is obliged to involve her extended family and ask for help. The overlap between work and home life is further evident as she is expected to make a work call to her boss that same evening to inform him of her morning schedule.
The tension between time for work and for family caused some of CELF mothers to feel that work is taking a toll on their ability to participate in family life. Ann, mother of an eight-year-old girl and a five-year-old boy, commutes to work and therefore returns home late. In the excerpt below she discusses the fact that she cannot arrive home on time to join her husband and children for dinner.
Excerpt 3
Weekday meals are a totally different beast, I can't—I can't even—And the reason that they're a totally different beast is because of our commuting schedule and our work schedule, and then the fact that they've usually eaten dinner before I've gotten home . . . When I was a girl, um, my family always sat down to dinner at 6 o'clock and everybody was always there. And I would like to do that. I would love to do that. Can't do that. Can't. Not—not right now, not with my work schedule. And I, I don't want to make that kind of rule, ‘cause in my house it was a rule. My mom made it a rule and she made it a rule because she knew if she didn't make it a rule, my dad wouldn't come home. So, I—I can't make that rule ’cause I can't guarantee that I'm going to be home, um, and I don't want to make it a rule and have my kids every night go, “you missed dinner, you broke the rule.”
Ann makes a causal connection between her work schedule and her inability to share dinner with her family. Ann's wish that things could be different ("I would love to do that. Can't do that") intimates that she is not happy with this situation. In comparing herself to her mother, who was able to enforce the rule that everyone would be home for dinner, Ann presents herself as an imperfect mother who cannot bring her family together at the end of the day. At the same time, avoiding rules about dinnertime is a way for Ann to diminish the importance given to dinner and to dodge the possibility of being judged and criticized by her children for not arriving home at an earlier time.
Similarly, other mothers felt a sense of inadequacy when work prevented them from being able to be with their children or participate in their lives. Debra, mother of a twelve-year-old boy and an eight-year-old girl, recounts below how sometimes her work hours cause her not to see the kids for almost forty-eight hours.
Excerpt 4
So sometimes it's terrible because I'll drop the kids off in the morning and then I won't come home till late and they're already sleeping. And the next morning I might have an early morning meeting and they're still sleeping. So it's like, you know, close to forty-eight hours. So, they're—I mean, they're used to it, but I don't feel good about it.
Debra describes the way work may infringe on her time with her kids as “terrible.” Though she suggests that the children are used to the situation, she admits that she is unhappy about it.
Observations in the home reveal that Debra's daughter, Kate, shares her mother's feeling. One afternoon while at home with her father and brother, Kate calls her mom at work to ask when she is going be home and to tell her that she misses her and wishes she were home already. Another night at bedtime, as Debra kisses Kate goodnight and switches off the lights, a whispering conversation between the two divulges that though Debra's early-morning meeting the next day may not be out of the ordinary, it is not simple for both mother and daughter to accept its consequence.
Excerpt 5
| MOTHER: | Good night sweetie. See you in the morning, OK? | |
| You know what, I have an early morning meeting so Dad's going to take you. | ||
| DAUGHTER: | OK. | |
| MOTHER: | Oh and I have a late-night meeting. | |
| DAUGHTER: | So I'm going to see you tomorrow—tomorrow? | |
| MOTHER: | Maybe I'll see you in the morning, if you're up. | |
| DAUGHTER: | What time is the— | |
| MOTHER: | I have to leave around 7. | |
| DAUGHTER: | Well, I'll be up by 6, I think. | |
| MOTHER: | OK. Sweet dreams. |
Both Debra and Kate treat the early-morning and late-night meetings as a familiar situation, yet their tone of voice and unrealistic hopes of seeing each other early the next morning reflect some discontent. Indeed, as seen in excerpt 4, Debra admits that she is dissatisfied with the situation, that “she doesn't feel good about it.” Like other mothers, Debra's negative self-evaluation suggests that she perceives her inability to dedicate more time to the family as a personal inadequacy and an individual failure to be a good parent.
When CELF mothers expressed guilt about work interfering with their family life, they often suggested that the negative impact was minimized because they were able to compensate by coming up with compromising solutions. For example, Ann, who could not arrive home on time for weekday dinners, explained that therefore she attempted “to make weekend meals more of, you know, family meals.” And Debra, whose work meetings took her away from her children for long stretches of time, made sure to note “my hours are pretty flexible other than the meetings, so I try to make up those hours.” The attempts to provide solutions to this undesirable situation further reflect these mothers’ sense of responsibility for the failure to find a good balance between their time for work and family.
A Note on Gender
Daly reminds us that time is gendered in that the ways in which men and women divide their time and responsibilities between work and family not only reflect their personal choices but also reveal culturally dominant ideologies of gender, parenting, and family life.9 Indeed, research has shown that there are significant differences between the way men and women experience the issue of work-family conflict and the matter of family time.10 Coltrane has suggested that traditional gender roles tend to emerge during the child-rearing phase, increasing the time pressures on women in comparison to men.11 Roxburgh has found that women are increasingly more time pressed as the number of their roles increases (i.e., caregiver, worker, homemaker, volunteer, etc.) in comparison to men with multiple roles.12 Bernas and Major have shown that women with high-quality work relationships experience a greater sense of work-home interference in comparison to men with similar work situations.13
Though the matter of gender differences regarding work and family time is not the primary focus of this chapter, it is important to note that, as the excerpts above show, concerns and struggles about finding a balance between the demands of work and family were raised almost exclusively by the mothers in our study. These mothers tended to evaluate their own moral worthiness in relation to the management of their time. In the rare times when fathers brought up the matter of balancing work and family life, like Arturo in excerpt 1, they presented themselves as in control of the situation ("that's why I work where I work and I don't work in a private company") and the problem as resolved ("I prefer to . . . pick up my kids at five o'clock and see them—or six and see them every night").
A Cross-Cultural Perspective
We have seen that the CELF parents, in particular mothers, feel that it is their duty to reconcile work and family time demands. However, the strong sense of personal responsibility for the mismatch between work and family is not necessarily shared by dual-earner parents in other countries. A cross-cultural study that compared the Los Angeles parents’ discourse on family-work conflict to that of the Italian iCELF working parents highlights interesting differences in their perspectives.14
Unlike the CELF parents, when researchers asked the iCELF parents questions related to work and family life, the Italian parents tended to reject their possible negative implication. Excerpt 6 below illustrates how in response to whether he brought paid work home, an Italian father replies that they have work obligations that must be attended to while at home.
Excerpt 6
Besides, there's e-mail, so, I mean, the technological world is really small, right? So there are things that we have to deal with also on Saturdays and Sundays, on weekends. But, I mean, they are part of the normal routine.
By mentioning the weekend in particular, this father recognizes the expectation that this time will not be spent on work-related activities. But rather than express discomfort or guilt, he puts forth the argument that the presence of work in family life is natural and expected. Similarly, another Italian father describes his wife's frequent business trips and thus her absence from the home on weekends as “part of our life.”
But this attitude was not that of the Italian fathers only; in the next segment an Italian mother responds to a researcher's question about the number of hours she spends on work-related activities while at home by launching into a story about an essay her eight-year-old son wrote at school.
Excerpt 7
Carlo wrote an essay. It was “My Mom and I.” They had to tell what they usually do. Like “In the morning I get up, I go to school. In the afternoon I do sports and in the evening I watch TV. While my mom, in the morning she commutes, in the afternoon she works, in the evening she sits at the computer. ((laughs)) How embarrassing, in front of the teachers. ((laughs))
The mother answered the interviewer's question by describing her son's essay in which he exposes her propensity to work at home in the evenings. The lack of variety in her son's description of her daily activities reveals his perception that all she does is work. Rather than deny this description, justify her choices, or express discomfort for being “exposed,” this mother laughs off this embarrassment as a humorous “faux pas.”
The most striking difference between the CELF and iCELF parents was the absence of expressions of guilt. “Failures” to put family first were not viewed as breaking with personal moral integrity; rather the Italian parents framed them as commonplace and unmarked. This comparative study suggests that the disparity in the perception of the work-family conflict among the American and Italian parents resides in a broader cultural difference related to these parents’ beliefs about the degree of responsibility they have for the well-being of their children and families. While both sets of parents believed that family comes before work, the American parents, especially the mothers, emphasized and felt responsible for the disjuncture between this ideal and their reality. They conveyed a sense of inadequacy and guilt when work imposed on family time and tried to remedy the situation with compromise. In contrast, the Italian parents presented their reality as satisfying and the intrusion of work into family life as normal and neutral. They did not express guilt or attribute blame but acknowledged the breach of the ideal with humor and irony.
FAMILY TIME AS QUALITY TIME
Time for family does not only refer to the ability to find a balance between work and family demands; it also refers to the way family members spend their time together. In recent decades in the United States the notion of family quality time gained popularity to make up in quality for what may be missed in quantity, primarily because, with the increase in women’s presence in the workforce, both parents are away from home for many hours of the day.15 This time is often viewed as unstressed and uninterrupted, a time when the whole family engages together in special activities, typically geared to children’s interests, such as family game night or visits to the zoo.16 Parents are bombarded with numerous publications and websites that encourage them to make time for quality time that the whole family can share and offers strategies for creating it.17 Among those media sources are special websites run by respected institutions and individuals such as universities, government agencies, pediatricians, and HMOs, which brings credibility to their recommendations. The weight of these institutions and the value of research findings and professional expertise thus increase the likelihood of parents espousing this view of family time.
Indeed, many of the CELF parents when talking about ways of being together often evoked the quality time ideology. In interviews in which parents were asked to describe their daily schedule, twenty-seven of the thirty-two families (84 percent) talked about the weekend as their time to be with the family and especially with the children, often listing special activities that they engage in. In excerpt 8 below David and Julia, parents of an eight-year-old boy and a five-year-old girl, explain that their family spends special time together on weekends.
Excerpt 8
Both parents stress the activities that they do together as a family. David notes that they have memberships to child-oriented places like the zoo and the aquarium, implying that they can visit those places on a regular basis. And Julia adds that they have also begun a new child-friendly activity, hiking, which they now engage in frequently. David summarizes the purpose of these activities as a good time with the kids that is pleasurable for all.
In excerpt 9 below Fred, father of a nine-year-old girl and a six-year-old boy, also notes that the parents’ weekends are reserved for their children and for special activities.
Excerpt 9
We pretty much really try to have our weekends available for the kids. Um. So, you know, it . . . could be going to a movie, going to the park . . .
Fred’s use of the adverbial phrase “pretty much” suggests that this is done most of the time. He depicts this time as something they “really try to have” rather than simply “have,” thus framing it as a goal that not only requires effort but also entails a level of uncertainty regarding whether the parents will be able to achieve it. The labor of finding time to be together is further marked in the need to make the weekend “available” for the children, suggesting that the parents’ time (“our weekend”) is usually dedicated elsewhere and that they need to reorient it to the kids.
Finally, in excerpt 10 below, Alice, mother of two boys, ages eight and two, explicitly and unequivocally labels Sunday a family day.
Excerpt 10
I never work on a Sunday. I have to have a day of just family. You know what I mean? I mean I have a family day.
Stating that she never works on Sunday, Alice positions work in opposition to family, making it clear that a family day is a day dedicated solely to the family without any distractions, especially work ones. Framing family day as something that is necessary—“I have to have a day of just family”—Alice presents this kind of day as mandatory.
Similarly to the interviews in which parents noted special times and activities as “family” ones, parents’ charts, in which they described activities occurring on each day of a typical week, also contained notations that depicted activities as primarily dedicated to the family. A number of parents used the word family to define and categorize certain activities. For example, Jacqueline, mother of eight-year-old and ten-year-old girls, noted on the chart that on Friday and Saturday evenings the family watches a “family movie” and on Saturday and Sunday mornings they eat a “family breakfast.” The use of the word family here denotes a certain type of activity that can be enjoyed by the whole family and especially the children. The movie that the family would watch is likely to be appropriate for children, and the weekend breakfast, unlike weekday breakfasts, which is unmarked, is likely to include certain foods preferred by children such as pancakes and waffles.
In many of the families’ charts parents chose to note specific time slots on weekends that were dedicated to the family. Katrina, for example, mother of an eleven-year-old girl, an eight-year-old boy, and a six-year-old girl, wrote in her chart that “family time” is the activity that takes place on Saturday between 7:00 and 9:00 P.M. and on Sunday between 7:00 and 8:00 P.M. Using this term without providing additional details suggests that Katrina assumed that family time is a known and shared concept. In addition, scheduling “family time” using clearly defined beginning and end points treats family togetherness as structured and predictable.
The excerpts and charts reveal that many parents in our study perceived a prescribed way of being together. In line with the ideology of family quality time, they viewed time for family as special, differentiated from other times when the family might be together. They felt that family time was a necessity and that achieving it could require some effort and was not guaranteed. Finally, by emphasizing that those special days and events were for the family, these parents also intimated that inherent to these important times is the notion that the family experienced these moments without the presence of people who were not members of the immediate family. Thus family togetherness is not only for the purpose of engaging in special activities together but also for separating the family from the rest of the world.
The idea that being together as a family includes being closed off from the rest of the world is made explicit in the next excerpt, in which Jeri and Jeff, parents of an eight-year-old girl and two boys ages four and one-and-a-half describe their Sunday schedule.
Excerpt 11
| FATHER: | Usually. Yeah we don’t usually plan much. We plan for us. | |
| MOTHER: | We just try to, yeah, and we say “no” to people that ask us for plans sometimes. |
In describing their family’s typical Sunday this couple indicates that they make plans only for the family and that they turn down invitations to spend time with other people to secure the family’s togetherness. The desire to set the family apart from the rest of the world in a marked time and in special activities captures a certain view of the family as a confined unit that exists and cares for itself away from the hassle and bustle of society, in which the well-being of and connectedness between family members is achieved in isolation from other relationships.
Jeri goes on to explain that she and her husband work hard to bring the whole family together and to clear their Sunday schedules so as to have a family day.
Excerpt 12
Then on Sundays we try our hardest—it’s definitely a family day to us. We don’t leave each other or the kids on Sundays, unless we have to. I worked this past Sunday, but—but we usually do not leave each other on Sundays.
By emphasizing their efforts to be together, Jeri depicts her husband and herself as moral parents who do the right thing and are prevented from achieving a family day only when greater demands are put on them (“unless we have to”), as she admits happened the previous Sunday when she had to work.
The perception of family time as a private time coupled with particular “right” ways of being together emphasizes parents’ overall sense of responsibility for the need to put personal effort into carving out these special times and eliminating all other activities, people, and demands. And once all that work is done, time together is expected to be a successful experience for everyone.18 This prescribed design for family time risks setting up parents for failure as they find themselves under pressure to bring all the components together for this time to count and to be successful. We recognize this pressure in parents’ discourse when they list the type of activities that would qualify for family time and explain that they try to find the time to organize such activities. This pressure is also evident when parents express regret and sometimes guilt when obstacles, such as work, restrict them from achieving family togetherness. The anxiety about achieving the proper family time echoes the responsibility that CELF mothers expressed when they felt burdened by and accountable for their difficulty of effectively separating their work and family life.
Cross-Cultural Perspective
In a study that compared CELF and iCELF parents’ approaches to time spent with family, we found some important differences in the way they described and interpreted times family members were together.19 For a start, the Italian parents never marked in their charts activities that were specifically for the family. In fact, the term family was never used to describe or define any of the activities they noted. Furthermore, there is no corresponding idiom in the Italian language for the English term family time. Instead, an examination of the Italian charts suggests that social activities that included the family rather than being oriented to the family were marked.
An Italian mother, for example, marked in her chart that on Saturday afternoon the activity was “passeggiata mare,” or going to the beach. There is no explicit mention of who might participate in this activity; yet from interviews we know that the family regularly goes to their home in the country on weekends. So it is possible to conclude that the family will take part in this activity. Rather than note that this is an activity that will bring the family together, togetherness is an assumed state.
The description of Saturday evening in the same chart further highlights how the experience of being together is associated with a social event and setting rather than with the participants. In describing the activities taking place on that evening, the mother wrote, “21:00 — cena, camino, figli + amici + amici figli — serata.” The term serata, derived from the word sera (evening), describes the experience of being together. The suffix -ata, as in serata and passeggiata, denotes a lasting social experience and emphasizes the leisure design of that time. The setting of the camino, Italian for “fireplace,” evokes qualities of warmth and intimacy, and the reference to participants also beyond the nuclear family—amici (friends), amici figli (children’s friends)—in contrast to the American parents’ discourse—expands time together to include others than the family.
In the Italian parents’ interviews we also found that they did not seem to separate the family from the social world.20 In excerpt 13 below, a Roman father of two children, ages nine and thirteen, when asked if he ever devoted time to his paid work while at home on the weekend, responded by describing a common occurrence when the family spends time with clients who are also good friends.
Excerpt 13
We have friends who are our clients. They have children, and they are my children’s friends. And we meet and we go out for dinner. Now, we will leave, we go together. We are a big group, (.) and—and mh one couldn’t say whether this is part of the [work] world. Yes. No. Who knows?
In choosing to describe this dinner outing in response to a question about the separation of work and family, this father challenges the notion that these two worlds need to be separated. And by questioning whether “one could say whether this is part of the [work] world” he problematizes this ideal—and also, we argue, the idea of a time designated exclusively for the nuclear family. This father, like other Italian parents, presents time with family as diffused across other participants who share activities together.
The comparison between the Italian and American parents’ charts revealed the tendency of the Americans to view togetherness as an activity-driven, exclusive time for the nuclear family only and the proclivity of the Italians to characterize times together as more fluid across activities and participants. Further, the Los Angeles parents tended to put emphasis on the personal effort required to carve out special time and activities for the family, whereas the Roman parents did not associate effort with being together with the family. We concluded that the Italian parents in our study felt less burdened by the pressure to “be together” at a certain time engaging in special activities and consequently felt less responsible to carry out an idealized family time.21
Quality Moments
In spite of their adherence to a formal quality family time ideal, it turned out that CELF families often experienced spontaneous, nondesigned togetherness. In a study of the video-recorded daily activities of family members, we found that parents and children took advantage of routines to connect with one another.22 Everyday activities offered families “quality moments,” unplanned, unstructured instances of social interaction that serve the important relationship-building functions attributed to quality time. In a spontaneous game of hide-and-seek when a child hid a socked foot in a pile of laundered socks the mother was folding or in a playful father-daughter conversation while standing at the cashier line during a weekly food shopping excursion, these quality moments, though brief, afforded family members opportunities to connect by displaying mutual interest and positive affect.
In that study we proposed that these moments often went unnoticed by parents primarily because of the dominance in the United States of the quality time model of organized special activities in designated time slots for the nuclear family. We felt that this oversight was unfortunate for two reasons. First, when one fails to recognize these quality moments, one risks ignoring and not fostering the ongoing relational “work” that family members engage in through social interaction during any time together. Second, affirming quality moments may diminish the repercussions associated with the pressure to achieve the idealized family time and the guilty feelings when it is not accomplished.23 Gaining an awareness of mundane quality moments, we proposed, may render parents’ subjective experiences of everyday family interactions more positive and fulfilling.24
But is the experience of time famine and of the struggle for family time rooted in individuals’ subjective experiences? Parents’ ethnotheories about how one should raise a family are heavily influenced by the constraints and values of the culture they live in.25 And in talking about their practices and choices, parents expose the cultural resources available for them to present and understand their world.26 Thus it is suggested that our CELF parents’ discourses about time for family divulge not only their own views but also the collective voice of their community. Through discussions of their management of and concerns about time for family, they unveiled two encompassing cultural approaches to time: (a) time’s definition is rooted in the activities that inhabit it (e.g., family time must include certain activities); and (b) time involves intentional, purposeful control over the occurrence of these certain activities in certain time slots (e.g., parents need to find and allocate specific time slots to the family time activity). This attitude toward time emphasizes one’s individual responsibility for how time is used and the preference for exerting control over it.
Indeed, the CELF parents’ excerpts in this chapter evidence this cultural propensity for taking full responsibility for the effort and struggle to control time for family. What seemed to be dominant in the parents’ discourse was the feeling that they were faced with private challenges regarding time that they had to resolve with individual solutions and that they were alone in this battle. In being different, the iCELF examples allowed us the realization that this attitude was not shared by the Italian parents, suggesting that the need to master time and to control how it is used is linked to specific American cultural norms and ideals about family, time, and responsibility. When parents recognize the role of culture in the “time for family” predicament, they may begin to view their inability to produce the ideal family time as not necessarily a personal “failing” and have a more positive outlook on their family togetherness.
NOTES
1. Bianchi, Robinson, and Milkie 2006; Daly 2001a, 2001b; Darrah et al. 2007; Robinson and Goodby 1997.
2. Gornick and Meyers 2003; Jacobs and Gerson 2004.
3. Hofferth 2009.
4. Galinsky 1999; Hays 1996; Kremer-Sadlik 2008.
5. Daly 2001b.
6. Ibid., 9.
7. Finch 1989.
8. Hays 1996; Kremer-Sadlik 2008; McCarthy, Edwards, and Gillies 2000.
9. Daly 2001b.
10. Bernas and Major 2000; Christiansen and Palkovitz 2001; Coltrane 2000; Gerson 2004; Roxburgh 2002, 2006.
11. Coltrane 2000.
12. Roxburgh 2002.
13. Bernas and Major 2000.
14. Fatigante, Kremer-Sadlik, and Fasulo 2007.
15. Daly 2001a, 2001b; Gillis 2001; Plionis 1990.
16. Kraehmer 1994.
17. Kremer-Sadlik and Paugh 2007.
18. Gillis 2003.
19. Kremer-Sadlik, Fatigante, and Fasulo 2008.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Kremer-Sadlik and Paugh 2007.
23. Galinsky 1999; Daly 2001a, 2001b; Gillis 2001.
24. Kremer-Sadlik and Paugh 2007.
25. D’Andrade and Strauss 1992; Harkness and Super 1996, 2006.
26. Wetherell 2003.