How Personality, Marital Quality, and Psychological Distress Shape Positive and Negative Parenting: A Study of Japanese Fathers of Toddlers

How Personality, Marital Quality, and Psychological Distress Shape Positive and Negative Parenting: A Study of Japanese Fathers of Toddlers | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 2 May 2025 V1 Latest version Share on How Personality, Marital Quality, and Psychological Distress Shape Positive and Negative Parenting: A Study of Japanese Fathers of Toddlers Authors : Satoshi Yago 0000-0002-3658-6432 [email protected] and Motoko Okamitsu Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174620892.27289937/v1 223 views 107 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Parenting behaviors significantly influence child development; however, factors shaping fathers’ parenting remain underexplored. This study examined the direct and interactive effects of fathers’ personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress on parenting. Data were collected from 497 Japanese fathers. Parenting behaviors, personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress were evaluated using the Positive and Negative Parenting Scale, Ten-Item Personality Inventory, Marital Satisfaction Scale, and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, respectively. The results revealed that conscientiousness and marital quality negatively and positively influenced positive responsibility, respectively. Agreeableness was negatively correlated with inconsistency and harsh discipline. Psychological distress was positively related to negative parenting behaviors. Marital quality and psychological distress moderated the influence of personality traits; extraversion enhanced positive responsivity in high-quality marriages, whereas the effects of neuroticism and openness on negative parenting behaviors varied with distress levels. These findings highlight the importance of integrating individual and contextual factors in father-focused parenting interventions. How Personality, Marital Quality, and Psychological Distress Shape Positive and Negative Parenting: A Study of Japanese Fathers of Toddlers Abstract Parenting behaviors significantly influence child development; however, factors shaping fathers’ parenting remain underexplored. This study examined the direct and interactive effects of fathers’ personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress on parenting. Data were collected from 497 Japanese fathers. Parenting behaviors, personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress were evaluated using the Positive and Negative Parenting Scale, Ten-Item Personality Inventory, Marital Satisfaction Scale, and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, respectively. The results revealed that conscientiousness and marital quality negatively and positively influenced positive responsibility, respectively. Agreeableness was negatively correlated with inconsistency and harsh discipline. Psychological distress was positively related to negative parenting behaviors. Marital quality and psychological distress moderated the influence of personality traits; extraversion enhanced positive responsivity in high-quality marriages, whereas the effects of neuroticism and openness on negative parenting behaviors varied with distress levels. These findings highlight the importance of integrating individual and contextual factors in father-focused parenting interventions. Highlights 1. Examines how paternal personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress influence paternal parenting behaviors. 2. Analysis of 497 Japanese fathers revealed that marital quality and psychological distress moderated personality traits’ effects on parenting. 3. This highlights the need for interventions that address individual traits, marital dynamics, and mental health to support paternal parenting. Keywords fathers, marital quality, parenting, personality, psychological distress Introduction Parenting behavior shapes children’s developmental trajectories, influencing their emotional, cognitive, and social outcomes (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Pinquart, 2017; Raby, Roisman, Fraley, & Simpson, 2015). Understanding the factors contributing to variations in parenting behaviors has been a focus of developmental psychology. Belsky’s (1984) process model of parenting provides a comprehensive theoretical framework, positing that parenting behavior is influenced by three primary domains: (1) parental characteristics (comprising personality and psychological well-being), (2) contextual factors (e.g., marital relationships and work), and (3) child characteristics. This model has been widely supported and remains the cornerstone of parenting research. Parental personality traits, as conceptualized by the Big Five model (Goldberg, 1990), have been consistently linked to parenting behaviors. For example, extraversion and agreeableness are associated with positive parenting practices (e.g., warmth and responsiveness), whereas neuroticism is linked to negative parenting behaviors (e.g., harsh discipline and inconsistency; Prinzie, Stams, Deković, Reijntjes, & Belsky, 2009). Similarly, marital quality influences parenting, with high levels of marital conflict being associated with poorer parenting practices (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Regarding mental health, higher levels of depressive symptoms were linked to negative parenting behaviors (Hummel, Kiel, & Zvirblyte, 2016). Taraban & Shaw (2018) updated Belsky’s model, emphasizing the interplay between these domains and the importance of considering interaction effects such as how parental personality interacts with contextual stressors to shape parenting behavior. Despite these advances, key research gaps remain. First, while Belsky and Taraban theorize about interactions between personality and context, few studies have tested these empirically. Research has focused on the direct effects of personality, marital quality, and psychological distress on parenting while neglecting the moderating effects of these contextual factors. Personality traits do not operate in isolation and may be moderated by marital quality and psychological distress. Second, few studies have examined these dynamics in fathers because parenting research primarily focuses on mothers (Cabrera, Volling, & Barr, 2018; Taraban & Shaw, 2018). Fathers are increasingly being recognized for their vital and distinctive roles in children’s development (Yogman, Garfield, & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2016). In Japan, while mothers predominantly manage childcare responsibilities, the rate of paternity leave has increased nearly fivefold over five years, reaching 30.1% in 2023 (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2024). This trend indicates greater paternal involvement in childcare from the early postpartum period and a more proactive role in caregiving. Given the distinct contexts of fatherhood, including work and gender roles, how fathers’ personality traits and contextual factors interact to shape their parenting behaviors must be explored. This study addresses these gaps by examining the direct and interactive effects of fathers’ personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress on parenting. We investigated how the interaction between personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience) and contextual factors (marital quality and psychological distress) influenced five dimensions of parenting behavior: positive responsivity, respect for will, overprotection, inconsistency, and harsh discipline (Figure 1). Based on previous findings (Taraban & Shaw, 2018), we hypothesized that paternal personality traits would directly impact parenting behavior, with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience being positively associated with positive parenting and neuroticism being positively associated with negative parenting (H1). The spillover hypothesis (Engfer, 1988) describes the impact of marital dynamics on parenting: fulfilling marriages foster warmth and sensitivity, whereas conflictual relationships lead to irritability and exhaustion, reducing attentiveness and warmth toward children. Fathers, more than mothers, can struggle to compartmentalize negative emotions and insecurities stemming from marital conflict, increasing the spillover effect and making paternal parenting more vulnerable to marital conflict (Cummings, Merrilees, & George, 2010). Thus, we hypothesized that fathers’ perceptions of marital quality would directly enhance supportive parenting and reduce inconsistent and harsh parenting. Furthermore, marital quality was anticipated to moderate the relationship between personality traits and parenting, amplifying the positive effects of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience while mitigating the negative effects of neuroticism (H2). Finally, psychological distress was expected to moderate these relationships by exacerbating the negative effects of neuroticism and attenuating the positive effects of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (H3). This study contributes to the literature by focusing on fathers’ underrepresentation in paternal parenting in the literature and providing insights into the unique factors shaping paternal parenting. Examining specific dimensions provides a nuanced understanding of personality and contextual interactions. Additionally, by explicitly testing the interaction effects proposed in Belsky and Taraban’s models, this study advances the theoretical understanding of the interplay between parental characteristics and contextual factors in shaping parenting behavior. Participants and study design A self-administered online questionnaire was conducted in September 2024. Participants were randomly selected from a nationwide web panel managed by Macromill, Inc. Inclusion criteria included biological fathers living with their partners and raising firstborn children aged 18 months to 3 years with no siblings. Fathers’ parenting behaviors may be influenced by the demand to care for children with diseases or by the experience of raising multiple children. Consequently, fathers of children with congenital diseases, chronic illnesses, or neurodevelopmental disorders requiring regular medical visits, treatment, or support were excluded from the study. Measures Demographic data The questionnaire collected demographic data on fathers’ age, residential area, education, annual household income, employment status, weekly working hours, and family structure. Parenting behaviors Paternal parenting behavior was measured using the Positive and Negative Parenting Scale (PNPS) for Toddlers (Tsujii, 2018), which consists of two factors: positive and negative parenting. Positive parenting subscales were positive responsivity and respect for will. Negative parenting subscales included overprotection, inconsistency, and harsh discipline. Each subscale consisted of four items, totaling 20 items. Responses were measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from very often (4 points) to not at all/almost never (1 point). Raw scores were converted into standardized scores (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10) based on the child’s age and the caregiver’s sex. A standardized score of 70 or above was classified as requiring attention, signifying a high need for support, as it represents approximately the top 2% of the general population. Cronbach alpha was 0.84 for positive responsivity, 0.65 for respect for will, 0.54 for overprotection, 0.79 for inconsistency, and 0.84 for harsh discipline. Although the alpha coefficients for respect for will and overprotection subscales were below the commonly accepted threshold of 0.7, similar trends were observed during the scale development phase (Ito et al., 2014). Consequently, these subscales were retained for the analysis. Personality traits The paternal personality traits were evaluated using the Japanese version of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J; Oshio, Abe, & Cutrone, 2012), which measures the Big Five personality dimensions: extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Extraversion reflects the frequency and intensity of interpersonal interactions, as well as sociability. Highly extroverted parents may be sensitive and foster cognitive stimulation in caregiving, but their focus on external social activities may distract them from parenting. Conscientiousness refers to purposefulness, responsibility, and adherence to high standards. Parents who score high on conscientiousness may create structured and consistent caregiving environments, but strict standards could lead to harsher discipline. Agreeableness encompasses both empathy and kindness. Parents high in agreeableness tend to provide warmth, protection, and autonomy-supportive caregiving, responding sensitively to their children’s needs. Neuroticism, which is linked to emotional instability, involves a tendency toward distress and nervousness. Parents with high neuroticism may evoke negative emotions, struggle with positive interactions, and negatively perceive misbehavior, potentially leading to harsher discipline. Openness to Experience reflects curiosity, imagination, and broad interest. Highly open parents may provide active, stimulating, and enriching caregiving environments. The TIPI-J consists of 10 items, two items for each of the Big Five personality traits (e.g., “ I see myself as extroverted, enthusiastic. ”) The validity and reliability of the TIPI-J have been established (Oshio et al., 2012). Each item was rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scores for each dimension were calculated by summing the scores for the two items. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were not calculated due to the limited number of items (only two per dimension). Psychological distress The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) was used to assess paternal psychological distress (Kessler et al., 2003). This self-administered, short-form scale screens for mental illness by measuring non-specific symptoms—nervousness, hopelessness, restlessness or fidgetiness, depression, effortfulness, and worthlessness—experienced in the preceding four weeks. Responses were coded from 4 to 0 for a score range of 0–24. Previous studies have indicated that a score of five or higher may be indicative of mood or anxiety disorders, whereas a score of 13 or higher may indicate mental illness in the Japanese population (Furukawa et al., 2008; Sakurai, Nishi, Kondo, Yanagida, & Kawakami, 2011). In this study, we adopted these two cut-off values. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale in this study was 0.92. Marital quality Paternal perceptions of marital quality were assessed using the Marital Quality Index (MQI; Norton, 1983; Moroi, 1996). The scale consists of six items on a unidimensional scale, with responses measured on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Higher scores suggested higher levels of satisfaction with marital relationships. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.90 in the present study. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables, including means, standard deviations, medians, interquartile ranges, frequencies, and percentages. Correlations between variables were examined using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the direct effects of personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress on parenting behaviors, as well as the interaction effects between personality traits and contextual factors (marital quality and psychological distress). For each of the five PNPS subscales, a regression analysis was performed in four steps: (1) control variables (age, educational attainment, and annual household income) were captured; (2) personality traits were added; (3) marital quality and psychological distress were included; and (4) interaction terms for personality traits with marital quality and psychological distress were introduced. The variance inflation factor (VIF) values were checked to confirm the absence of multicollinearity (VIF < 10). Simple slope analyses were conducted for significant interaction terms, examining the relationships between personality traits and parenting behaviors at high (+1 SD above the mean) and low (–1 SD below the mean) levels of psychological distress and marital quality. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 30, with a two-tailed significance level of p < .05. Ethical consideration This study was conducted according to the guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Ethics Committee of XXX (Approval No. XXX). All the participants received a written explanation and provided informed consent before participating in the study. Results Characteristics of participants An online survey was distributed to a nationwide web panel of 276,695 individuals. Of these respondents, 692 met the inclusion criteria, and 518 of them completed the survey. After excluding respondents with missing data ( n = 18) and those who did not meet the inclusion criteria ( n = 3), 497 fathers were included in the analysis, resulting in a valid response rate of 95.95. The mean age of the fathers was 36.80 years (SD = 7.13, range = 21–59 years). The demographic characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 1. Parenting behavior, personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress The descriptive statistics of the variables are presented in Table 2. The proportions of fathers classified as requiring attention on the PNPS subscales were as follows: positive responsivity, 16.70% ( n = 83); respect for the will, 5.63% ( n = 28); overprotection, 5.03% ( n = 25); inconsistency, 1.81% ( n = 9); and harsh discipline, 11.27% ( n = 56). On the K6 scale, 51.11% of fathers ( n = 254) scored five or higher, indicating potential anxiety or mood disorders, whereas 14.89% ( n = 74) scored 13 or higher, suggesting serious mental illness. Association between parenting behavior, personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress The bivariate correlations among the variables are presented in Table 3. Extraversion was positively correlated with positive responsivity and respect for will and negatively correlated with inconsistency. Neuroticism was negatively correlated with positive responsivity but positively correlated with inconsistency and harsh discipline. Marital quality showed significant positive correlations with positive responsivity and respect for will and significant negative correlations with all negative parenting subscales. Psychological distress was negatively correlated with positive responsivity and positively correlated with all negative parenting subscales. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the direct effects of personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress on fathers’ parenting behaviors, as well as the interaction effects between personality traits and marital quality and between personality traits and psychological distress. All VIF values < 10 indicate no multicollinearity. For each of the five PNPS subscales, the analysis was performed in four steps: (1) control variables (age, educational attainment, and annual household income) were captured, (2) five personality traits were added, (3) marital quality and psychological distress were included, and (4) interaction terms for personality traits and marital quality as well as personality traits and psychological distress were introduced. For positive responsivity, significant direct effects were observed for marital quality (β = 0.191, p < .01) and psychological distress (β = -0.224, p < .01), along with a significant interaction effect between extraversion and marital quality (β = 0.110, p < .05; Table 4). Regarding respect for will, a significant direct effect of marital quality was identified (β = 0.210, p < .01), but no significant interaction effects were found (Table 5). For overprotection, psychological distress showed a significant direct effect (β = 0.304, p < .01; Table 6). For inconsistency, significant direct effects were observed for agreeableness (β = -0.150, p < .01) and psychological distress (β = 0.471, p < .01), with a significant interaction effect between neuroticism and psychological distress (β = -0.133, p < .01; Table 7). Similarly, for harsh discipline, significant direct effects were found for agreeableness (β = -0.150, p < .01) and psychological distress (β = 0.471, p < .01), along with a significant interaction effect between neuroticism and psychological distress (β = -0.133, p < .01; Table 8). These findings partially supported the hypotheses. Conscientiousness demonstrated an unexpected negative association with positive parenting; meanwhile, no significant links were observed for other personality traits. Simple slope analysis Simple slope analyses were conducted to investigate the effects of significant interaction terms. The results showed that extraversion exhibited a significant positive association with positive responsivity under high marital quality conditions (β = 0.184, p < .01). However, this association was not significant when marital quality was low (β = -0.033, p = .625; Figure 2). Regarding inconsistency, neuroticism demonstrated a significant negative association with inconsistency at elevated levels of psychological distress (β = -0.130, p < .05). Conversely, neuroticism was significantly and positively associated with inconsistency at lower levels of psychological distress (β = 0.334, p < .01; Figure 3). Similarly, openness to experience was significantly negatively associated with inconsistency at low levels of psychological distress (β = -0.156, p < .01; Figure 4). For harsh discipline, neuroticism showed a significant negative association at high levels of psychological distress (β = -0.178, p < .01), while it was significantly positively associated at lower levels of psychological distress (β = 0.200, p < .01; Figure 5). The results partially supported the hypotheses. Consistent with H2, marital quality moderated the impact of extraversion, enhancing positive responsivity under high-quality conditions. Regarding H3, psychological distress moderated the effects of neuroticism and openness on negative parenting behaviors. Neuroticism showed opposite associations depending on distress levels; meanwhile, openness was negatively linked to inconsistency at low distress levels. Discussion This study highlights the factors shaping paternal parenting behaviors with implications for research and interventions. Approximately 15% of fathers reported serious psychological distress, a rate higher than that among fathers during the postnatal period (3.7%; Takehara, Suto, & Kato, 2020). This may reflect the unique challenges of toddlerhood, including increased caregiving and discipline demands (e.g., limit setting and navigating children’s growing independence), compounded by societal expectations to balance breadwinning with active childcare (Kachi, Ochi, Kato, Otsuka, & Takehara, 2022; Schimkowsky & Kohlbacher, 2017). Financial pressures, work–life conflicts, and changing marital dynamics can be stressors for fathers. Globally, fathers reported higher stress levels and less access to mental health resources than mothers (Singley & Edwards, 2015). This underscores the need for targeted mental health interventions (e.g., workplace programs and community support groups) to alleviate psychological distress and its impact on parenting. Similarly, approximately 10% of fathers reported engaging in harsh disciplinary behaviors. Social desirability bias may cause underreporting, thus underestimating the actual prevalence. Harsh discipline was linked to adverse child outcomes, including emotional and behavioral problems (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). Psychological distress was significantly associated with all negative parenting forms, with harsh discipline having the most pronounced effect. This suggests that highly distressed fathers struggle with emotion regulation, which contributes to punitive parenting. Stress management or counseling interventions to reduce harsh discipline should target this underlying psychological distress. Contrary to the hypothesis, conscientiousness was negatively associated with positive responsivity. Conscientiousness, which is characterized by traits such as organization and responsibility, is generally associated with positive maternal parenting behaviors (Bornstein, Hahn, & Haynes, 2011). However, parents with high conscientiousness, who prioritize order and control, may encounter challenges when interacting with energetic and curious toddlers; this could negatively impact their parenting behaviors (Taraban & Shaw, 2018). In Japan, fathers face the dual burden of fulfilling traditional breadwinner roles while engaging in childcare (Kachi, Ochi, Kato, Otsuka, & Takehara, 2022), which may place undue pressure on conscientious fathers, hindering their ability to exhibit positive responsivity. Extraversion and marital quality interacted to shape positive responsivity, highlighting contextual influences on parenting. Extraversion was associated with positive responsivity only when marital quality was high, suggesting that supportive relationships foster empathic, responsive parenting. This aligns with Belsky’s model, with supportive marital relationships boosting extroverted fathers’ confidence and responsiveness (Belsky, 1984). These findings support the traditional spillover hypothesis (Engfer, 1988) among Japanese fathers and highlight the importance of couple-based interventions, such as programs that improve communication and conflict-resolution skills, to foster a supportive marital environment and promote positive parenting. The findings indicated that fathers with high openness to experience exhibited lower levels of inconsistent parenting under low psychological distress. Therefore, openness may support consistent parenting through adaptability in low-stress environments. However, neuroticism was more strongly linked to negative parenting—like harsh discipline—when distress was low. This may be explained by the reduced presence of external stressors, allowing neurotic traits to be expressed more directly in parenting behaviors. Under high distress, multiple stressors may blunt neuroticism’s influence on parenting. Further research should clarify the mechanisms underlying these interactions. Moreover, interventions targeting neuroticism-related parenting behaviors should consider a broader psychological context. Mindfulness-based interventions may help fathers with high neuroticism regardless of their psychological distress levels (Angarita-Osorio, Escorihuela, & Cañete, 2024). In Japan, where paternal involvement in childcare is increasing but constrained by long working hours and limited institutional support, policies promoting work–life balance (e.g., flexible work arrangements and paternal leave) are needed (Ishii-Kuntz, 2019; Schimkowsky & Kohlbacher, 2017). Integrated interventions that combine parenting education with couple’s therapy and mental health support have yielded better outcomes than standalone programs (Al Sager, Goodman, Jeong, Bain, & Ahun, 2024). By implementing targeted interventions and supportive policies for fathers, healthier parenting practices and better developmental outcomes can be achieved for children. Limitations and Future Directions This study had several limitations. First, because the data were web-based and self-reported, the results may have been influenced by selection bias or subjective perceptions. Future research should incorporate observational data or partner evaluations for more objective parenting assessments. Second, the cross-sectional design precludes the determination of causal relationships between variables. Longitudinal studies and experimental designs are required to clarify these causal pathways. Additionally, the PNPS subscales, including respect for will and overprotection, exhibited insufficient internal consistency. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution, considering the impact of random errors on the accuracy of the analysis. Finally, intervention studies should examine the effects of improving marital relationships and reducing psychological distress on paternal parenting behaviors. Conclusion The findings of this study revealed that paternal personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress directly and interactively influenced fathers’ parenting behaviors. These findings underscore the importance of addressing individual personality traits, family dynamics, and psychological well-being when supporting fathers’ parenting roles. Integrating assessments of paternal personality traits, marital quality, and mental health into pre- and postnatal parenting support services may be instrumental. Additionally, targeted resources and support programs for fathers experiencing psychological distress, whether in the workplace or community, are urgently required. Interventions aimed at enhancing couple communication and conflict resolution skills, as well as stress management and emotional regulation programs tailored to fathers, could also be beneficial. Future research should explore the long-term impact of these factors on child development through longitudinal studies and assess the generalizability of the findings through cross-cultural comparisons. Such efforts would strengthen the theoretical foundation and practical application of these insights to foster positive parenting practices in fathers. References Al Sager, A., Goodman, S. H., Jeong, J., Bain, P. A., & Ahun, M. N. (2024). Effects of multi-component parenting and parental mental health interventions on early childhood development and parent outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. Child and Adolescent Health, 8(9), 656–669. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(24)00134-2 Angarita-Osorio, N., Escorihuela, R. M., & Cañete, T. (2024). The relationship between neuroticism as a personality trait and mindfulness skills: A scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1401969. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1401969 Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55(1), 83–96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00275.x Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C. S., & Haynes, O. M. (2011). Maternal personality, parenting cognitions, and parenting practices. Developmental Psychology, 47(3), 658–675. doi.org/10.1037/a0023181 Cabrera, N. J., Volling, B. L., & Barr, R. (2018). Fathers Are Parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children’s development. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 152–157. Cummings, E. M., Merrilees, C. E., & George, M. W. (2010). Fathers, marriages, and families: Revisiting and updating the framework for fathering in family context. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 154–176). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother/child relationship. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 104–123). Oxford University Press. Furukawa, T. A., Kawakami, N., Saitoh, M., Ono, Y., Nakane, Y., Nakamura, Y., . . . Kikkawa, T. (2008). The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(3), 152–158. doi:10.1002/mpr.257 Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 453–469. doi:10.1037/fam0000191 Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216 Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1 Hummel, A. C., Kiel, E. J., & Zvirblyte, S. (2016). Bidirectional effects of positive affect, warmth, and interactions between Mothers With and without symptoms of depression and their toddlers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(3), 781–789. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0272-x Ishii-Kuntz, M. (2019). Japanese Child Caring Men (Ikumen) and Achieving Work-Life Balance. In U. Meier-Gräwe, M. Motozawa, & A. Schad-Seifert (Eds.). Family Life in Japan and Germany (pp. 177–198). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-26638-7_9 Ito, H., Nakajima, T., Mochizuki, N., Takayanagi, S., Tanaka, Y., Matsumoto, K., . . . Tsujii, M. (2014). Development of the Positive and Negative Parenting Behavior Scale: Verification of factor structure and construct validity. Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 221–231. doi:10.11201/jjdp.25.221 Kachi, Y., Ochi, M., Kato, T., Otsuka, M., & Takehara, K. (2022). Factors related to parenting stress among fathers of preschool children in Japan. Pediatrics International, 64(1), Article e15132. doi:10.1111/ped.15132 Kessler, R. C., Barker, P. R., Colpe, L. J., Epstein, J. F., Gfroerer, J. C., Hiripi, E., . . . Zaslavsky, A. M. (2003). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(2), 184–189. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184 Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta‐analytic review. Family Relations, 49(1), 25–44. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00025.x Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. (2024). Basic survey of gender equality in employment management 2023. Retrieved from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/71-r05.html Moroi, K. (1996). Perception of equity in the division of household labor. Japanese Journal of Family Psychology, 10(1), 15–30. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(1), 141. doi:10.2307/351302 Oshio, A., Abe, S., & Cutrone, P. (2012). Development, reliability, and validity of the Japanese version of ten item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J). The Japanese Journal of Personality, 21(1), 40–52. doi:10.2132/personality.21.40 Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873–932. doi:10.1037/dev0000295 Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Deković, M., Reijntjes, A. H. A., & Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 351–362. doi:10.1037/a0015823 Raby, K. L., Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2015). The enduring predictive significance of early maternal sensitivity: Social and academic competence through age 32 years. Child Development, 86(3), 695–708. doi:10.1111/cdev.12325 Sakurai, K., Nishi, A., Kondo, K., Yanagida, K., & Kawakami, N. (2011). Screening performance of K6/K10 and other screening instruments for mood and anxiety disorders in Japan. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 65(5), 434–441. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1819.2011.02236.x Schimkowsky, C., & Kohlbacher, F. (2017). Of ikumen and ikuboss. In Eds. B. Liebig, M. Oechsle (Eds.), Fathers in work organizations (pp. 149–168). Verlag Barbara Budrich. doi:10.2307/j.ctvdf0bpf.10 Singley, D. B., & Edwards, L. M. (2015). Men’s perinatal mental health in the transition to fatherhood. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(5), 309–316. doi:10.1037/pro0000032 Takehara, K., Suto, M., & Kato, T. (2020). Parental psychological distress in the postnatal period in Japan: A population-based analysis of a national cross-sectional survey. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 13770. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-70727-2 Taraban, L., & Shaw, D. S. (2018). Parenting in context: Revisiting Belsky’s classic process of parenting model in early childhood. Developmental Review, 48, 55–81. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2018.03.006 Tsujii, M. (2018). Positive and negative parenting scale manual. In Kaneko Syobo. Yogman, M., Garfield, C. F., & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2016). Fathers’ roles in the care and development of their children: The role of pediatricians. Pediatrics, 138(1), Article e20161128. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1128 Tables: Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants ( N = 497). Area of residence Hokkaido region 21 4.23 Tohoku-Kanto region 212 42.66 Chubu-Kinki region 175 35.21 Chugoku, Shikoku, Kyushu, and Okinawa region 89 17.91 Employment status Full-time 457 91.95 Part-time 29 5.84 Self-employed 6 1.21 Unemployed 5 1.01 Educational attainment Junior high school 3 0.60 High school 87 17.51 College of Technology, vocational school, junior college 74 14.89 University 284 57.14 Graduate school 49 9.86 Annual household income 10 million yen 83 16.7 Working hours / week < 20 hours 9 1.81 20–30 hours 7 1.41 30–40 hours 67 13.48 40–50 hours 322 64.79 50–60 hours 50 10.06 ≥ 60 hours 30 6.04 NA 12 2.41 Child’s sex Male 249 50.10 Female 248 49.90 Child’s age 18–24 month 168 33.80 24–30 month 161 32.39 30–36 month 168 33.80 Family structure Nuclear family 427 85.92 Extended family 70 14.08 Table 2. The mean, standard deviation, and range of parenting behavior, personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress ( N = 497). Parenting behavior Positive responsivity 44.29 13.45 17–63 Respect for will 49.36 12.35 24–77 Overprotection 55.71 10.57 34–81 Inconsistency 49.28 9.87 36–72 Harsh discipline 51.51 12.08 39–78 Personality trait Extraversion 7.44 2.69 2–14 Agreeableness 9.71 2.21 2–14 Conscientiousness 7.92 2.43 2–14 Neuroticism 7.68 2.33 2–14 Openness to experience 7.78 2.24 2–14 Marital quality 17.22 4.00 6–24 Psychological distress 5.81 5.48 0–24 Table 3. Correlational coefficient between paternal parenting behaviors, control variables, personality traits, marital quality, and psychological distress ( N = 497). Positive responsivity Respect for will .46** Overprotection -.17** -.05 Inconsistency -.38** -.03 .42** Harsh discipline -.44** -.01 .46** .80** Age .01 -.05 -.16** -.09* -.07 Educational attainment -.03 -.06 -.02 .00 -.06 .04 Annual household income .04 .02 -.02 -.08 -.11* .08 .37** Extraversion .15** .17** -.07 -.16** -.07 .04 .02 .19** Agreeableness .18** .03 -.13** -.36** -.34** -.09* .01 .12* .04 Conscientiousness .01 .06 -.05 -.15** -.13** .03 .11* .24** .33** .21** Neuroticism -.11* -.11* .10* .31** .24** -.02 -.04 -.20** -.28** -.37** -.37** Openness to experience .08 .16** .00 -.09 -.02 .04 -.01 .17** .45** .02 .32** -.22** Marital quality .27** .23** -.14** -.25** -.24** -.02 .03 .10* .19** .22** .17** -.14** .13* Psychological distress -.28** -.09 .30** .47** .51** -.00 -.06 -.21** -.16** -.38** -.17** .40** -.02 -.32** Note . Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient. * p < .05, ** p < .01. Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting positive responsivity ( N = 497). B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p Paternal age 0.019 0.084 0.010 .826 0.049 0.083 0.026 .558 0.048 0.080 0.025 .550 0.055 0.080 0.030 .488 Educational attainment -0.783 0.713 -0.053 .273 -0.461 0.700 -0.031 .511 -0.475 0.673 -0.032 .480 -0.628 0.676 -0.042 .353 Annual household income 0.606 0.530 0.055 .253 0.081 0.540 0.007 .881 -0.230 0.523 -0.021 .660 -0.177 0.528 -0.016 .738 Extraversion 0.759 0.255 0.152 .003 ** 0.532 0.248 0.107 .032 * 0.418 0.254 0.084 .100 Agreeableness 1.150 0.292 0.189 < .001 ** 0.617 0.294 0.102 .036 * 0.473 0.300 0.078 .116 Conscientiousness -0.570 0.279 -0.103 .042 * -0.605 0.269 -0.109 .025 * -0.637 0.275 -0.115 .021 * Neuroticism -0.178 0.296 -0.031 .548 0.127 0.296 0.022 .667 0.183 0.303 0.032 .545 Openness to experience 0.168 0.303 0.028 .579 0.243 0.293 0.040 .408 0.143 0.303 0.024 .638 Marital quality 0.625 0.153 0.186 < .001 ** 0.641 0.154 0.191 < .001 ** Psychological distress -0.474 0.123 -0.193 < .001 ** -0.550 0.127 -0.224 < .001 ** Extraversion × MQ 0.129 0.065 0.110 .046 * Agreeableness × MQ 0.033 0.074 0.022 .652 Conscientiousness × MQ 0.075 0.072 0.054 .297 Neuroticism × MQ 0.096 0.075 0.067 .199 Openness to experience × MQ -0.061 0.077 -0.043 .432 Extraversion × PD -0.032 0.049 -0.034 .511 Agreeableness × PD -0.011 0.053 -0.011 .832 Conscientiousness × PD 0.018 0.059 0.016 .761 Neuroticism × PD 0.105 0.055 0.097 .056 Openness to experience × PD -0.035 0.061 -0.029 .570 R 0.062 0.252 0.371 0.406 R 2 0.004 .590 0.063 < .001 ** 0.138 < .001 ** 0.165 < .001 ** Adjusted R 2 -0.002 0.048 0.120 0.130 ΔR 2 0.004 .590 0.060 < .001 ** 0.074 < .001 ** 0.027 .118 Note . Hierarchical multiple regression analysis. * p < .05, ** p < .01. MQ = Marital quality. PD = Psychological Distress. Table 5. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting respect for will ( N = 497). B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p Paternal age -0.093 0.077 -0.054 .229 -0.101 0.077 -0.059 .189 -0.097 0.075 -0.056 .199 -0.101 0.076 -0.058 .187 Educational attainment -1.030 0.654 -0.076 .116 -0.769 0.648 -0.057 .236 -0.784 0.636 -0.058 .218 -0.858 0.645 -0.063 .184 Annual household income 0.564 0.486 0.056 .246 0.027 0.500 0.003 .956 -0.034 0.494 -0.003 .946 -0.115 0.504 -0.011 .820 Extraversion 0.505 0.236 0.110 .033 * 0.374 0.235 0.081 .111 0.311 0.242 0.068 .201 Agreeableness 0.013 0.270 0.002 .961 -0.215 0.278 -0.038 .440 -0.331 0.287 -0.059 .248 Conscientiousness -0.181 0.259 -0.036 .485 -0.241 0.254 -0.047 .344 -0.221 0.262 -0.044 .399 Neuroticism -0.391 0.274 -0.074 .154 -0.387 0.279 -0.073 .166 -0.388 0.289 -0.073 .179 Openness to experience 0.612 0.280 0.111 .029 * 0.566 0.277 0.102 .042 * 0.461 0.289 0.083 .112 Marital quality 0.628 0.144 0.204 < .001 ** 0.648 0.147 0.210 < .001 ** Psychological distress -0.012 0.116 -0.005 .917 -0.032 0.121 -0.014 .795 Extraversion × MQ 0.024 0.062 0.023 .692 Agreeableness × MQ 0.053 0.070 0.038 .454 Conscientiousness × MQ 0.007 0.069 0.005 .924 Neuroticism × MQ -0.034 0.072 -0.025 .640 Openness to experience × MQ -0.018 0.074 -0.014 .808 Extraversion × PD -0.024 0.047 -0.028 .610 Agreeableness × PD 0.042 0.051 0.044 .411 Conscientiousness × PD 0.023 0.056 0.023 .678 Neuroticism × PD 0.052 0.052 0.052 .321 Openness to experience × PD -0.067 0.059 -0.060 .255 R 0.093 0.222 0.296 0.316 R 2 0.009 .236 0.049 .002 ** 0.088 < .001 ** 0.100 < .001 ** Adjusted R 2 0.003 0.034 0.069 0.062 ΔR 2 0.009 .236 0.041 .001 ** 0.038 < .001 ** 0.012 .785 Note . Hierarchical multiple regression analysis. * p < .05, ** p < .01. MQ = Marital quality. PD = Psychological Distress. Table 6. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting overprotection ( N = 497). B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p Paternal age -0.232 0.066 -0.158 < .001 ** -0.250 0.065 -0.170 < .001 ** -0.245 0.063 -0.167 < .001 ** -0.246 0.064 -0.167 < .001 ** Educational attainment -0.154 0.555 -0.013 .781 -0.230 0.553 -0.020 .678 -0.227 0.534 -0.020 .671 -0.146 0.541 -0.013 .788 Annual household income -0.011 0.412 -0.001 .978 0.282 0.427 0.033 .509 0.590 0.415 0.069 .156 0.497 0.423 0.058 .240 Extraversion -0.302 0.202 -0.077 .135 * -0.162 0.197 -0.041 .410 -0.119 0.203 -0.030 .557 Agreeableness -0.616 0.231 -0.129 .008 -0.208 0.233 -0.044 .373 -0.129 0.240 -0.027 .593 Conscientiousness 0.010 0.221 0.002 .965 -0.008 0.214 -0.002 .970 -0.026 0.220 -0.006 .907 Neuroticism 0.200 0.234 0.044 .394 -0.156 0.235 -0.034 .506 -0.176 0.242 -0.039 .469 Openness to experience 0.228 0.239 0.048 .342 * 0.095 0.233 0.020 .684 0.170 0.243 0.036 .484 Marital quality -0.126 0.121 -0.048 .298 -0.123 0.123 -0.046 .319 Psychological distress 0.547 0.098 0.284 < .001 ** 0.586 0.102 0.304 < .001 ** Extraversion × MQ -0.060 0.052 -0.066 .243 Agreeableness × MQ 0.029 0.059 0.024 .626 Conscientiousness × MQ -0.017 0.058 -0.016 .765 Neuroticism × MQ -0.069 0.060 -0.061 .248 Openness to experience × MQ 0.070 0.062 0.063 .257 Extraversion × PD 0.001 0.039 0.001 .982 Agreeableness × PD 0.020 0.043 0.024 .648 Conscientiousness × PD -0.037 0.047 -0.044 .427 Neuroticism × PD -0.063 0.044 -0.075 .147 Openness to experience × PD 0.058 0.049 0.061 .236 R 0.159 0.230 0.348 0.367 R 2 0.025 .005 ** 0.053 .001 ** 0.121 < .001 ** 0.135 < .001 ** Adjusted R 2 0.019 0.038 0.103 0.099 ΔR 2 0.025 .005 ** 0.028 .015 * 0.068 < .001 ** 0.014 .672 Note . Hierarchical multiple regression analysis. * p < .05, ** p < .01. MQ = Marital quality. PD = Psychological Distress. Table 7. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting inconsistency ( N = 497). B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p Paternal age -0.122 0.062 -0.088 .049 * -0.160 0.057 -0.116 .005 * -0.155 0.053 -0.113 .004 * -0.154 0.052 -0.112 .003 ** Educational attainment -0.410 0.520 0.038 .431 0.159 0.479 0.015 .740 0.164 0.448 0.015 .715 0.328 0.440 0.030 .456 Annual household income -0.725 0.386 -0.090 .061 0.075 0.369 0.009 .840 0.423 0.348 0.053 .225 0.316 0.344 0.039 .358 Extraversion -0.391 0.175 -0.107 .026 -0.222 0.165 -0.060 .180 -0.178 0.165 -0.048 .283 Agreeableness -1.354 0.200 -0.304 < .001 ** -0.876 0.196 -0.197 < .001 ** -0.771 0.196 -0.173 < .001 ** Conscientiousness 0.046 0.191 0.011 .809 0.033 0.179 0.008 .854 0.091 0.179 0.022 .610 Neuroticism 0.722 0.202 0.170 < .001 ** 0.326 0.197 0.077 .098 0.154 0.197 0.036 .433 Openness to experience 0.022 0.207 0.005 .917 -0.121 0.195 -0.027 .536 0.006 0.197 0.001 .977 Marital quality -0.207 0.102 -0.084 .042 * -0.179 0.100 -0.073 .075 Psychological distress 0.609 0.082 0.338 < .001 ** 0.725 0.083 0.402 < .001 ** Extraversion × MQ 0.009 0.042 0.010 .839 Agreeableness × MQ 0.061 0.048 0.055 .203 Conscientiousness × MQ -0.080 0.047 -0.079 .089 Neuroticism × MQ 0.039 0.049 0.037 .425 Openness to experience × MQ 0.063 0.050 0.061 .208 Extraversion × PD 0.029 0.032 0.042 .368 Agreeableness × PD 0.068 0.035 0.088 .053 Conscientiousness × PD -0.040 0.038 -0.050 .300 Neuroticism × PD -0.122 0.036 -0.154 < .001 ** Openness to experience × PD 0.079 0.040 0.089 .048 * R 0.126 0.431 0.539 0.586 R 2 0.016 .047 * 0.186 < .001 ** 0.290 < .001 ** 0.343 < .001 ** Adjusted R 2 0.010 0.173 0.276 0.315 ΔR 2 0.016 .047 * 0.170 < .001 ** 0.104 < .001 ** 0.053 .015 * Note . Hierarchical multiple regression analysis. * p < .05, ** p < .01. MQ = Marital quality. PD = Psychological Distress. Table 8. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting harsh discipline ( N = 497). B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p Paternal age -0.109 0.075 -0.065 .147 -0.159 0.071 -0.095 .025 * -0.151 0.065 -0.090 .020 * -0.157 0.064 -0.093 .015 * Educational attainment -0.280 0.637 -0.021 .660 -0.452 0.601 -0.034 .452 -0.448 0.547 -0.034 .413 -0.207 0.545 -0.016 .704 Annual household income -0.905 0.473 -0.092 .056 -0.210 0.463 -0.021 .650 0.312 0.425 0.032 .463 0.163 0.426 0.017 .702 Extraversion -0.163 0.219 -0.036 .458 0.073 0.202 0.016 .716 0.134 0.205 0.030 .513 Agreeableness -1.633 0.251 -0.299 < .001 ** -0.943 0.239 -0.173 < .001 ** -0.816 0.242 -0.150 .001 ** Conscientiousness -0.084 0.240 -0.017 .726 -0.115 0.219 -0.023 .599 -0.087 0.222 -0.017 .695 Neuroticism 0.592 0.254 0.114 .020 * -0.013 0.240 -0.002 .958 -0.156 0.244 -0.030 .524 Openness to experience 0.240 0.260 0.044 .357 0.013 0.238 0.002 .956 0.191 0.245 0.035 .435 Marital quality -0.206 0.124 -0.068 .098 -0.194 0.124 -0.064 .119 Psychological distress 0.930 0.100 0.422 < .001 ** 1.038 0.103 0.471 .000 ** Extraversion × MQ -0.042 0.052 -0.040 .417 Agreeableness × MQ 0.031 0.060 0.023 .607 Conscientiousness × MQ -0.003 0.058 -0.003 .956 Neuroticism × MQ -0.033 0.060 -0.026 .582 Openness to experience × MQ 0.003 0.062 0.002 .966 Extraversion × PD 0.008 0.040 0.009 .840 Agreeableness × PD 0.061 0.043 0.065 .158 Conscientiousness × PD -0.002 0.048 -0.002 .963 Neuroticism × PD -0.129 0.044 -0.133 .004 ** Openness to experience × PD 0.079 0.050 0.072 .113 R 0.125 0.380 0.543 0.571 R 2 0.016 .050 0.145 < .001 ** 0.294 < .001 ** 0.326 < .001 ** Adjusted R 2 0.010 0.131 0.280 0.298 ΔR 2 0.016 .050 0.129 < .001 ** 0.150 < .001 ** 0.032 .015 * Note . Hierarchical multiple regression analysis. * p < .05, ** p < .01. MQ = Marital quality. PD = Psychological Distress. Figures Captions Figure 1. Theoretical framework of this study Figure 2. Interaction effect of extraversion and marital quality on positive responsivity. SD, standard deviation; MQ, marital quality. Figure 3. Interaction effect of neuroticism and psychological distress on inconsistency. SD, standard deviation; PD, psychological distress. Figure 4. Interaction effect of openness to experience and psychological distress on inconsistency. SD, standard deviation; PD, psychological distress. Figure 5. Interaction effect of neuroticism and psychological distress on harsh discipline. SD, standard deviation; PD, psychological distress. Supplementary Material File (figure 1.tif) Download 2.65 MB File (figure 2.tif) Download 1.24 MB File (figure 3.tif) Download 1.19 MB File (figure 4.tif) Download 1.27 MB File (figure 5.tif) Download 1.20 MB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 02 May 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords fathers marital quality parenting personality psychological distress Authors Affiliations Satoshi Yago 0000-0002-3658-6432 [email protected] Institute of Science View all articles by this author Motoko Okamitsu Ube Frontier University View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 223 views 107 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Satoshi Yago, Motoko Okamitsu. How Personality, Marital Quality, and Psychological Distress Shape Positive and Negative Parenting: A Study of Japanese Fathers of Toddlers. Authorea . 02 May 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174620892.27289937/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.174620892.27289937/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe9517a5e1e06e3',t:'MTc3OTI1ODg5NA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();