Paternal affection and masculinity predict parenting self-efficacy among fathers

Paternal affection and masculinity predict parenting self-efficacy among fathers | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Paternal affection and masculinity predict parenting self-efficacy among fathers Jennifer M StGeorge, Liam G Graeme, Elisabeth Duursma, Liana Leach, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7530520/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Parenting self-efficacy, individual beliefs regarding parenting skills, has far-reaching consequences for family well-being and child development. Yet how parenting self-efficacy unfolds in men remains largely unknown. Here, we focus on two important social factors that may influence parenting self-efficacy: men’s recollection of affection received from their own father, and men’s values regarding traditional masculinity. Using nationally representative data from Australian men (N = 7,901), we found that recalled paternal affection was significantly associated with greater parenting self-efficacy. Masculine norms relating to ‘winning’ and ‘risk taking’ were positively associated with greater parenting efficacy, while ‘emotional control’, ‘violence’, ‘playboy’, and ‘power over women’ were associated with lower parenting self-efficacy. To enhance their parenting self-efficacy, men may require additional support to normalise and reinforce changing expectations of fathers and which provides a foundation for their own children’s parenting. Psychology Fathers parenting self-efficacy masculinity parenting affection INTRODUCTION Fatherhood has changed profoundly over the past 50 years, with men increasingly involved in pregnancy, childbirth, and infant care (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2019 ). However, the transition to involved fatherhood is not always easy (Giallo et al., 2023 ). Underpinning successful adjustment are parents’ beliefs or judgement about their ability to be successful in their role (Albanese et al., 2019 ), that is, their perceived self-efficacy about parenting. These beliefs directly influence their parenting behaviours (Coleman & Karraker, 1998 ) and subsequently, child development (Rominov et al., 2016 ). While a substantial body of evidence explains mothers’ parenting self-efficacy (Glatz et al., 2024 ), little is known about how fathers attain or develop parenting self-efficacy. Male parenting is embedded in socio-cultural environments that include men’s experiences of being raised by their fathers well as prevailing cultural identities and values about gender, family and work (Cabrera et al., 2014 ; Donithen & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2022 ). Mothers and fathers are socialised differently in preparation for their parenting roles, dependent on the values and culture of their society (Wood & Eagly, 2002 ). In childhood, girls are still more likely than boys to be given toys that encourage play acting the role of parent (e.g., dolls, prams) (Weisgram, 2022 ). Further, despite greater gender equality in caregiving and parenting, mothers still undertake most of the caregiving during the early parenting years (Baxter, 2010 ; Perry-Jenkins & Gerstel, 2020). Thus, mothers have more opportunities than fathers for the development and practice of parenting self-efficacy. In this context of constrained opportunities, fathers may develop their parenting self-efficacy by drawing upon their own experiences of being fathered (Donithen & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2022 ). Experiences of paternal warmth are linked to men’s self-esteem and well-being (Chen, 2022 ; Marshall et al., 2021 ). Similarily, there is evidence that paternal parenting practices are transmitted to their sons (Kerr & Capaldi, 2019 ). This evidence suggests that factors in early life may contribute to the development of fathers’ parenting self-efficacy. Another potential influence on fathers’ parenting self-efficacy is their beliefs about masculinity. These are likely to influence what fathers think their role should be, and therefore their engagement in parenting tasks (Petts et al., 2018 ). Masculinity beliefs also tend to follow family lines, with male offspring having similar beliefs as their fathers (Perales et al., 2023 ). Traditionally, male gender norms represent fathers’ engagement in ‘provider’ or ‘breadwinner’ tasks rather than engagement in caregiving (Baxter, 2010 ). Traditional masculine norms prioritise dominance, power and assertiveness, and this combination of attributes may result in less father involvement in expressive and instrumental parenting (Petts et al., 2018 ). As such, these norms may act as barriers to men’s opportunity to gain mastery in caregiving tasks and in turn develop parenting efficacy. Nevertheless, most men, including those who adhere to such ideals, are under increasing social expectations to perform the role of a nurturant father (Hunter et al., 2017 ), a disjunction that may reduce their parenting self-efficacy if they see themselves as a ‘breadwinner/provider father’. However, a nuanced view of masculinities suggests that aspects of masculinities are plural and diverse and, even if traditionally based, are negotiable and adaptable (Hunter et al., 2017 ). This then suggests that different dimensions of masculine norms may be differentially associated with parenting self-efficacy: Related research shows that different aspects of masculinity are correlated in different ways with health outcomes and attitudes to gender (Gerdes & Levant, 2018 ). In the current study, we examined how recalled experiences of paternal affection and adherence to masculinity norms are related to fathers’ parenting self-efficacy in a large, nationally representative sample of Australian fathers, with two time-points of data collection. We know of no prior research investigating these important relationships to better understand fathers' parenting self-efficacy. We hypothesised that men reporting positive affection from their fathers would report higher parenting self-efficacy than those men receiving less paternal affection (H1). We also hypothesised that adherence to masculinity norms would be associated differentially with parenting self-efficacy (H2). A final exploratory hypothesis tested how associations between paternal affection and adherence to masculine norms interacted to predict fathers’ parenting self-efficacy (H3). These two social factors might compound, or, one may buffer the other, to influence men's parenting self-efficacy. We also investigated father age as a factor, given that parenting self-efficacy may increase with age (Fang et al., 2021 ) and adherence to traditional masculinity norms is lower in older men (Herreen et al., 2021 ). METHODS Data source Study participants were men who participated in Wave 1 and 2 of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health (Ten to Men, TTM). Ten to Men was established in 2011 to examine male health and social, economic, environmental and behavioural factors that affect the length and quality of life of Australian males (Pirkis et al., 2017 ). It is a national longitudinal study with a stratified multi-stage cluster random sample design and oversampling in rural and regional areas. This secondary analysis was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study used anonymised data from previous research for which participants had provided informed consent. TTM was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Sciences Human Ethics Sub-Committee (HREC 1237897 and 1237376). TTM recruited a baseline national sample of approximately 16,000 men in 2013–2014, with Wave 2 in 2015–2016. Males were included if they were resident in a private dwelling, were an Australian citizen or permanent resident and had sufficient proficiency in English to complete the questionnaire/interview. At recruitment, participants were stratified into age groups, boys aged 10–14 years, young men aged 15–17 years, and adults aged 18–55 years. In Wave 2 (2015/2016) 732 young men, and 10,339 adults participated (retention rate = 75%). Further information on the study is documented by Pirkis et al., 2016 . Permission for general access to the data for this study was granted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in 2021. In this analysis, we drew on both Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the adult age group. The analytic sample size was N = 7,901, including fathers only (i.e. our criterion was having at least one child age under 18). Measures Below we describe the variables used in the study and timing of measurement (Table 1). Table 1. Timing of Measurement for Key Study Variables Variable Wave 1 Wave 2 Parenting Self-Efficacy x Recalled Paternal Affection x Masculine Norms (11 subscales) x Depression Severity x Child Living Elsewhere x x Country of Birth x In a Relationship x Australian or Torres Strait Islander Identity x Education: Year 12 Completion x SEIFA x Father Age x Demographics. A range of participant demographics were adjusted for in the analyses to control for their potential impacts on paternal efficacy. These included: participant age at Wave 1, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (recorded at Wave 1), Country of Birth (0 = Not Australia, 1 = Australia) (recorded at Wave 1), Year 12 completion (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (recorded at Wave 1), SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage at Wave 1 (from 1-100, where a higher score represents greater socio-economic advantage (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016)). Family demographics included participant having a child living elsewhere (other than in their household) at either Wave 1 or 2 (0 = No vs 1 = Yes), and in a relationship at Wave 2 (0 = No, 1 = Yes). Participant demographics are presented in Table 2. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ9). The multivariate analyses controlled for prior depression using the brief Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) at Wave 1, given it is associated with paternal affection and parenting efficacy (Junttila et al, 2015 ). The PHQ-9 is a brief, reliable and valid measure of depression severity (Kroenke et al., 2001 ). It consists of the nine criteria which can be used to screen for a DSM-IV depressive disorders diagnosis. The PHQ-9 can be used for categorisation of mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression, or, as a continuous variable ranging from 0 to 27 (as used in the current study). The question stem is "Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?”. Four response options indicate frequency from ‘not at all’ to ‘nearly every day’. The nine problems include lack of interest, energy, appetite, self-esteem, concentration, movement, as well as hopelessness, sleep issues and suicidal ideation. Higher scores indicate more severe depression. Internal consistency in the current study was high (α = .91). The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-22 (CMNI-22). The CMNI was used to assess masculine norms and was recorded at Wave 1. The CMNI is a widely used tool to measure adherence to traditional western masculine norms and values across 11 domains (Mahalik et al., 2003 ). The CMNI-22 is a short form version of the full inventory and includes 22 items. Each item is responded to using a 4-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The total scale score for the CMNI-22 provides a continuous variable ranging from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating a higher conformity to masculine norms. As the CMNI-22 measures 11 separate domains with two items per domain, each of these individual subscales can also be assessed. These include sub-scales for: winning, emotional control, risk-taking, pursuit of status, primacy of (paid) work, violence, power over women, dominance, ‘playboy’, self-reliance and homophobia. In line with recent research indicating differentiation between the subscales (Gerdes & Levant, 2018 ; Pirkis et al., 2017 ), subscales scores were used separately in the current study rather than the total scale score. Internal consistency for each subscale ranged from α = .40 (pursuit of status) to α = .85 (emotional control). Paternal Affection Scale. The Paternal Affection scale (included in Wave 2 of the study) is a validated measure that asks about paternal emotional availability during the respondent’s early years. This scale has previously been included in the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDAS) (Brim et al., 2020 ). Participants first rated the relationship with their father/father-figure ‘during the years when you were growing up’, from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). A further six statements included ‘he understood my problems or worries’, ‘I could confide in him about things that were bothering me’, ‘he gave me the love and affection I needed’, ‘he gave me time and attention when I needed it’, ‘he made sure I had a good upbringing’, and ‘he taught me about life’. Five response options ranged from ‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘5 = strongly agree’. As such, the scale is a recall of the respondent’s relationship with their father. Internal consistency in the current study was high (α = .98). Fathers’ Parenting Self-Efficacy. A single item was used to measure fathers’ belief or judgement about their ability to be successful as a parent (recorded at Wave 2). It has previously been included as a brief measure of parenting efficacy in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort, ECLS-B, (Andreassen & Fletcher, 2007 ). This item asked “Overall, as a parent, do you feel that you are….”. Response options 1 and 7 indicated ‘not a very good parent’ and ‘a very good parent’. Options 2–6 ask fathers to compare themselves to the ‘average parent’, such as “a well above average parent” or “a little above average parent”. In the TTM dataset, ‘a very good parent’ was rated as 1; in the current study, the scores have been reversed such that high scores indicate high father parenting self-efficacy. Data Analysis Analyses were conducted in Stata 17.0 ( Stata Statistical Software , 2021). Descriptive information for the sample demographics and the key variables of interest were calculated. Bivariate associations between study variables were quantified using Pearson’s correlations. To test hypotheses 1 and 2, we ran two multiple linear regressions testing the relationships between recalled paternal affection and paternal parenting self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1), and each of the conformity to masculine norm domains and parenting self-efficacy (Hypothesis 2). These associations were first tested in an unadjusted model, such that parenting self-efficacy was regressed onto recalled paternal affection and each CMNI-22 subscale. This model was then repeated including demographic covariates (child living elsewhere, born in Australia, in a relationship, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status, year 12 completion, SEIFA and age) and depression severity. We then tested moderation effects in 23 separate models (Hypothesis 3). We first tested interaction effects of recalled paternal affection and each masculinity subscale (11 models) on paternal parenting self-efficacy. Next, we tested interaction effects of age and each masculinity subscale on paternal parenting self-efficacy (11 models). Finally, we tested interaction effects of age and recalled paternal affection on paternal parenting self-efficacy (1 model). Where interaction terms were significant, simple slope analyses were conducted to examine effects. The final adjusted multiple regression analysis predicting paternal parenting self-efficacy from recalled paternal affection, each CMNI-22 subscale and covariates, was repeated with significant interactions included (See Supplementary Table 3). Missing data were handled using multiple imputation with 50 imputed datasets based on a multivariate normal model (Lee & Carlin, 2010 ) and combined using Rubin’s rules (Rubin, 1987 ). All study variables and interaction terms described above were included in the imputation model. Binary variables were initially imputed as continuous and then back-transformed using adaptive rounding (Bernaards et al., 2007 ). Prior to analysis, all variables were z-score standardised to aid interpretation. RESULTS Fathers in the sample were largely born in Australia (74.14%), in a relationship (68.3%) and their average age was 40 years (Table 2). The average SEIFA score (Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage) for the sample was 52.4 (indicating an average level of SES status) and 58.1% had completed Year 12 education (slightly more than in the general population in 2016 which was 51.9% (2016 ABS Census)). The average PHQ score was 4.2 indicating ‘minimal’ depression (scores of 5–9 are classified as ‘mild’ depression). Supplementary Table 1 presents bivariate associations between study variables. Table 2. Participant Demographics and Summary Statistics (N = 7,901) Demographics n % % missing Australian or Torres Strait Islander Identity (Wave 1) 184 2.33 0.77 Born in Australia (Wave 1) 5858 74.14 0.39 Year 12 Completion (Wave 1) 4589 58.08 1.85 Child Living Elsewhere (either w1/w2) 830 10.50 0.57 In a Relationship (at Wave 2) 5397 68.31 28.57 Mean SD Age (Wave 1) 40.48 7.76 0.04 SEIFA (Wave 1) 52.43 27.41 0.01 Depression severity (Wave 1, 0–27)) 4.19 4.62 2.54 Parenting Efficacy (Wave 2, 1–7) 5.69 1.22 24.86 Recalled Paternal Affection (Wave 2, 1–5) 3.35 0.94 25.76 Masculine Norms (subscale domains) (Wave 1, 0–6) Winning 2.45 1.05 1.29 Emotional control 3.17 1.33 1.05 Risk taking 2.72 1.14 1.42 Violence 2.34 1.45 1.70 Dominance 2.51 1.08 1.77 Playboy 1.47 1.29 1.47 Self-reliance 2.58 1.11 1.05 Primacy of work 2.54 1.17 1.38 Power over Women 1.29 1.01 1.34 Heterosexual self-presentation 2.93 1.54 2.18 Pursuit of status 3.31 0.99 1.65 Note : Demographics and summary statistics presented here are based on available case data. Percentages are of total sample (N = 7,901). Results for Hypotheses 1 and 2 are presented in Table 3 . In the unadjusted model, higher levels of recalled affection were associated with higher parenting self-efficacy. After adjustment for covariates and prior depression, recalled paternal affection remained significantly associated with greater parenting self-efficacy (H1). The unadjusted model also showed that almost all of the masculine norms were associated with parenting self-efficacy, although the directions of these differed (H2). In the adjusted model, only the masculine norms ‘winning’ and ‘risk taking’ were positively associated with greater parenting self-efficacy, whereas the masculine norms of ‘emotional control’, ‘violence’, ‘playboy’, and ‘power over women’ were associated with lower parenting self-efficacy. ‘Dominance’, ‘self-reliance’, and ‘pursuit of status’ were not significantly associated with parenting self-efficacy in the adjusted model. Table 3 Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Parenting Self-Efficacy Predictors Unadjusted Adjusted β (95% CI) p β (95% CI) p Recalled Affection .18 (.16, .21) < .001 .14 (.12, .17) < .001 Winning .03 (.01, .06) .012 .03 (.00, .06) .038 Emotional control − .11 (-.13, .08) < .001 − .11 (-.14, .09) < .001 Risk taking .05 (.02, .07) < .001 .04 (.02, .07) .001 Violence − .04 (-.06, .01) .003 − .04 (-.06, .01) .006 Dominance .04 (.01, .07) .014 .03 (-.01, .06) .105 Playboy − .06 (-.09, .04) < .001 − .05 (-.07, .02) .001 Self-reliance − .05 (-.08, .02) .001 .00 (-.03, .03) .853 Primacy of work − .01 (-.03, .02) .667 .00 (-.03, .02) .798 Power over women − .07 (-.10, .04) < .001 − .07 (-.10, .04) < .001 Heterosexual self-presentation .02 (-.01, .04) .196 .02 (.00, .05) .078 Pursuit of status .03 (.00, .05) .045 .02 (-.01, .04) .206 Note: Analyses adjusted for demographic covariates (child living elsewhere, born in Australia, in a relationship, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status, year 12 completion, SEIFA and age), and depression severity. To answer the third hypothesis, in unadjusted models, none of the interactions between recalled paternal affection and any of the masculine norms were significant (Supplementary Table 2). Moderation effects were also tested to explore whether associations between recalled paternal affection, dimensions of masculine norms, and parenting self-efficacy differed depending on father age. In the unadjusted models (Supplementary Table 2), the only statistically significant interaction effect detected was between age and ‘dominance’ ( β unadj = 0.03, SE = 0.01, p = .032). The simple slopes analysis for this relationship, indicated that for those at younger age ([-2SD, 24.96 years], slope = -0.03, SE = 0.03, p = .340) and middle age ([mean, 40.48 years], slope = 0.03, SE = 0.01, p = .058), no relationship was found between dominance and parenting efficacy, but for those at older age ([+ 2SD, 56.00 years], slope = 0.08, SE = 0.03, p = .004), a positive relationship was found between dominance and parenting self-efficacy. However, this interaction effect was no longer significant when included in the final adjusted model (see Supplementary Table 3). DISCUSSION Using data from a nationally representative Australian cohort, we report evidence implicating men’s relationships with their fathers when growing up, and their adherence to traditional masculinity beliefs, in their self-efficacy as a father. Specifically, we found that fathers who reported positive affection from their own fathers also reported higher parenting self-efficacy (H1), and that adherence to certain dimensions of masculinity predicted their parenting self-efficacy (H2). Recalled paternal affection and masculine norms did not interact to predict parental self-efficacy (H3). A large portion of the variance in parenting practices may be explained by unique environmental circumstance (Geary, 2000 ). In support of our first hypothesis, recalled paternal affection was significantly associated with greater parenting self-efficacy, an association which held after adjusting for covariates and prior depression. Paternal affection benefits children’s social and emotional adjustment across the lifespan (Cui et al., 2018 ), including their self-esteem, self-concept, and self-efficacy (Dick & Bronson, 2005 ; Marshall et al., 2021 ). Our findings here suggest that the positive roles father play in nurturing their sons, results in their sons having greater self-esteem in their own parenting practices, with potential concomitant benefits for their children. Social and economic changes over the last 50 years have shaped familial gender roles, with men taking increasingly more communal roles in parenting (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2019 ). We hypothesized that these shifts away from the traditional masculine breadwinner and provider towards more communal, nurturing, and caring roles, has happened slowly, and is reflected in variation in adherence to traditional masculine norms. Although discussion on the dimensionality of the CMNI dates back to at least Owen (2011), there is very little research on how specific norms are related to father-son relationship and affection. Related research indicates that positive relationships or outcomes tend to be associated with winning and primacy of work, but the evidence is mixed (Gerdes & Levant, 2018 ). Adherence to the norms ‘winning’ and ‘risk taking’ were positively associated with greater parenting self-efficacy, which remained significant after adjusting for covariates including mental health. While winning and risk-taking may be more obviously aligned with assertiveness and dominance-related dispositions and behaviours, engaging in competitive or challenging tasks that embody winning and risk taking can also be motivational (Sloman et al., 2011 ). These types of interactions can promote positive emotions and self-confidence (Sloman et al., 2011 ) and, within the family, positive interactions (Sloman & Sturman, 2012 ). Similarly, positive risk-taking (i.e., not including violence and substance abuse) is associated with challenge and reward, allowing someone to both explore the unknown and learn from the experience (Fryt et al., 2022 ). Positive risk-taking peaks in middle adulthood (Fryt et al., 2022 ), the approximate age of participants in this study, and could be linked to individual differences in navigating and overcoming the daily struggles of fatherhood (Fagan, 2000 ). Thus, if daily paternal ‘challenges’ require addressing and resolving, ‘winning’ these daily hassles may provide a good space for fathers to develop confidence, competence, and greater parenting self-efficacy. We found that fathers adhering to masculine norms of ‘emotional control’, ‘violence’, ‘playboy’, and ‘power over women’ reported lower parenting self-efficacy. These characteristics are more typically aligned with hegemonic masculine norms for which there is a well-supported link with negative interpersonal relationships (Nielson et al., 2022 ). Adherence to these masculine norms is also at odds with child-rearing, particularly where violence and gendered dominance in the family setting compromises the safety and caregiving role of the other parent, and constitutes a form of child abuse (Humphreys et al., 2019 ). More generally, these masculine norms together represent a lack of investment in the partner and family that neither supports positive intimate relationships, sustains family cohesion, nor provides opportunity for developing parenting self-efficacy. Given fathers’ parenting self-efficacy may be influenced by the intersection of multiple factors, we explored whether men’s masculinity beliefs interacted with their recalled paternal affection to subsequently influence parenting self-efficacy (H3), finding no significant interactions. Strengths and limitations of the study We used data from two waves of a longitudinal dataset; however, one predictor (recalled paternal affection) and the dependent variable (parenting self-efficacy) were assessed cross-sectionally at Wave 2. The masculine norms were collected in Wave 1 and were not used as a time dependent construct as in a true longitudinal design. As reasoned in the introduction, we nevertheless conceptualised the recalled paternal affection and masculine norms as potentially having origins in individuals’ family history. The Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health is the largest national cohort study on men’s health to be conducted internationally to date (Pirkis et al., 2016 ). The cohort differs in some respects from the Australian male population, as Wave 1 is slightly skewed to older men and those born in Australia; nevertheless, it mirrors the general population of Australian males reasonably well (Pirkis et al., 2017 ). All measures in this study were by self-report, no other objective data triangulated self-reporting of affection, depression, masculinity norms or parenting self-efficacy. Self-report data may be susceptible to response bias, such as social desirability. However, the use of validated tools in TTM helps to reduce this problem (Gorber & Tremblay, 2016 ). The measure of parenting self-efficacy was a single item asking for fathers’ rating of themselves against other parents. This specific measure has been widely used in large longitudinal studies. Single-item measures are acceptable when constructs are unidimensional, clearly defined, and narrow in scope (Allen et al., 2022 ). Therefore, our assumption is that the item adequately captures fathers’ perceptions of their parenting self-efficacy compared to the ‘average parent’. It also has predictive validity in that it corresponds in a logical manner to our other variables of interest (Albanese et al., 2019 ). The measure of recalled paternal affection was based on the scale by Brim and colleagues for the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS), 1995–1996 (Brim et al., 2020 ). There are numerous reports on this cohort using the recalled paternal affection questionnaire, demonstrating its concurrent and predictive validity (Marshall et al., 2021 ). Given that the recall is a memory, and memory is an “immediate, non-analytic feeling that one’s current mental state is coterminous with past experience” (Klein, 2015 , p. 6), we acknowledge that the recall may not be an exact representation of the actions that occurred in the past. However, it will be a current mental cognition that embodies emotions experienced in the past. The CMNI has a long history of use in research on men’s wellbeing, with one critique being its reliance on white American college students in its conceptualisation and construction. However, it has concurrent and predictive validity with other measures in the Australian population, e.g., relationship satisfaction (Holmes, 2014 ) and occupation (Milner et al., 2018 ). We followed Milner et al. ( 2018 ) in utilising the subscales of the CMNI to better understand masculinity and parenting in the Australian context. CONCLUSION The current study has important implications for supporting fathers’ parenting self-efficacy, as well as promoting the need for ongoing research that seeks to understand the trends and developments in fathering as expectations and practices evolve over time. Given the epoch of our study (2010-2020s), there is potential for continuing and evolving social expectations of involved, demonstrative, intimate fathering (Banchefsky & Parke, 2016; Smith et al., 2022 ) to create pressures on men in the studied cohort. Our findings tentatively suggest that the current prevailing expectations of fathers to confidently adopt more communal roles within family structures may exceed what men have learned from their own fathers. Men may require additional support to normalise and reinforce these changes in ways that enhance their parenting efficacy. Indeed, parenting self-efficacy is a predictor of positive parenting, and it is malleable (Tully & Hunt, 2016 ), further highlighting the need to expand the limited research on the formative elements that contribute to fathers’ parenting self-efficacy (Lee et al., 2018 ). For the present, our findings provide evidence that the relationship between men’s personal history of paternal affection and their beliefs about masculinity are associated with appraisals of their own parenting self-efficacy, with implications for breaking the social barriers surrounding equality in coparenting and improving whole family mental health. Declarations Data availability. Data for this paper were drawn from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health (Ten to Men). Ten to Men research data is the intellectual property of the Commonwealth of Australia. Research data are available from the Australian Government /Australian Institute of Family Studies. The analysis code was deposited in the OSF repository, https://osf.io/vhk79/?view_only=985426647e2c416c889e6999d806b36d Funding: The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Ethics Approval: This study involved secondary analysis of anonymised data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health (Ten to Men), for which participants had provided informed consent. The primary data collection was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and received ethical approval from the University of Melbourne Human Sciences Human Ethics Sub-Committee (HREC 1237897 and 1237376). Additional ethical approval was not required for this secondary analysis as it falls within the scope of the original consent. Author contribution: All authors whose names appear on the submission made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. References Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas for Australia (SEIFA), 2016 (cat. No. 2033.0.55.001). Canberra, Australia. Albanese, A. M., Russo, G. R., & Geller, P. A. (2019). The role of parental self-efficacy in parent and child well-being: A systematic review of associated outcomes. Child: Care, Health and Development , 45 (3), 333-363. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12661 Allen, M. S., Iliescu, D., & Greiff, S. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science. European Journal of Psychological Assessment , 38 (1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699 Andreassen, C., & Fletcher, P. (2007). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth cohort (ECLS-B): Psychometric report for the 2-year data collection. Methodology report. NCES 2007-084. National Center for Education Statistics . The Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health . (2010). Australian Institute of Family Studies; Department of Health and Aged Care. https://aifs.gov.au/research_programs/ten-men Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Lotz, A., Alyousefi-van Dijk, K., & van Ijzendoorn, M. (2019). Birth of a father: Fathering in the first 1,000 days. Child Development Perspectives , 13 (4), 247-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12347 Banchefsky, S., & Park, B. (2016). The “new father”: Dynamic stereotypes of fathers. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 17 (1), 103-107. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038945 Baxter, J. (2010). An exploration of the timing and nature of parental time with 4-5 year olds using Australian children's time use data . Australian Institute of Family Studies Melbourne. Bernaards, C. A., Belin, T. R., & Schafer, J. L. (2007). Robustness of a multivariate normal approximation for imputation of incomplete binary data. Statistics in Medicine , 26 (6), 1368-1382. Brim, O. G., Baltes, P. B., Bumpass, L. L., Cleary, P. D., Featherman, D. L., Hazzard, W. R., Kessler, R. C., Lachman, M. E., Markus, H. R., Marmot, M. G., Rossi, A. S., Ryff, C. D., & Shweder, R. A. (2020). Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 1), 1995-1996 Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02760.v19 Cabrera, N. J., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., & Roggman, L. (2014). The ecology of father-child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory & Review , 6 (4), 336-354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054 Chen, P. (2022). Inner child of the past: Long-term protective role of childhood relationships with mothers and fathers and maternal support for mental health in middle and late adulthood. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , 57 (7), 1399-1416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02200-y Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1998). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and future applications. Developmental Review , 18 (1), 47-85. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1997.0448 Cui, J., Mistur, E. J., Wei, C., Lansford, J. E., Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2018). Multilevel factors affecting early socioemotional development in humans. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology , 72 (10), 172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2580-9 Dick, G. L., & Bronson, D. (2005). Adult men's self-esteem: The relationship with the father. Families in Society , 86 (4), 580-588. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3464 Donithen, R., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. (2022). Correlates and predictors of parenting self-efficacy in new fathers. Journal of Family Psychology , 36 (3), 396-405. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000910 Fagan, J. (2000). Head Start fathers' daily hassles and involvement with their children. Journal of Family Issues , 21 (3), 329-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251300021003003 Fang, Y., Boelens, M., Windhorst, D. A., Raat, H., & van Grieken, A. (2021). Factors associated with parenting self-efficacy: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 77 (6), 2641-2661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14767 Fryt, J., Szczygiel, M., & Duell, N. (2022). Positive and negative risk-taking: Age patterns and relations to domain-specific risk-taking. Advances in Life Course Research , 54 , 100515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2022.100515 Geary, D. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin , 126 (1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.55 Gerdes, Z. T., & Levant, R. F. (2018). Complex relationships among masculine norms and health/well-being outcomes: Correlation patterns of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory subscales. American Journal of Men's Health , 12 (2), 229-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988317745910 Giallo, R., Wynter, K., McMahon, G., Seymour, M., Fogarty, A., Cooklin, A., Leach, L., Francis, L. M., Duursma, E., & Macdonald, J. A. (2023). Preconception factors associated with postnatal mental health and suicidality among first-time fathers: Results from an Australian Longitudinal Study of Men’s Health. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 58( 8), 1153-1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-023-02421-3 Glatz, T., Lippold, M., Chung, G., & Jensen, T. M. (2024). A systematic review of parental self-efficacy among parents of school-age children and adolescents. Adolescent Research Review (9) 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-023-00216-w Gorber, S., & Tremblay, M. (2016). Self-report and direct measures of health: Bias and implications. In R. J. Shephard & C. Tudor-Locke (Eds.), The objective monitoring of physical activity: contributions of accelerometry to epidemiology, exercise science and rehabilitation (pp. 369-376). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29577-0_14 Herreen, D., Rice, S., Currier, D., Schlichthorst, M., & Zajac, I. (2021). Associations between conformity to masculine norms and depression: Age effects from a population study of Australian men. BMC Psychology , 9 (1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00533-6 Holmes, F. (2014). The role of masculine norm conformity in men's and women's relational satisfaction . Unpublished PhD thesis, Deakin University. Humphreys, C., Diemer, K., Bornemisza, A., Spiteri-Staines, A., Kaspiew, R., & Horsfall, B. (2019). More present than absent: Men who use domestic violence and their fathering. Child & Family Social Work , 24 (2), 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12617 Hunter, S. C., Riggs, D. W., & Augoustinos, M. (2017). Hegemonic masculinity versus a caring masculinity: Implications for understanding primary caregiving fathers. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 11 (3), e12307. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12307 Junttila, N., Aromaa, M., Rautava, P., Piha, J., & Räihä, H. (2015). Measuring multidimensional parental self-efficacy of mothers and fathers of children ages 1.5 and 3 years. Family Relations , 64 (5), 665-680. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12161 Kerr, D. C. R., & Capaldi, D. M. (2019). Intergenerational transmission of parenting. In Handbook of Parenting: Being and becoming a parent, vol. 3, 3rd ed. (pp. 443-481). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429433214-13 Klein, S. B. (2015). What memory is. WIREs Cognitive Science , 6 (1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1333 Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validation of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine , 16 , 606-613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x Lee, J. Y., Knauer, H. A., Lee, S. J., MacEachern, M. P., & Garfield, C. F. (2018). Father-inclusive perinatal parent education programs: A systematic review. Pediatrics , 142 (1), e20180437. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-0437 Lee, K. J., & Carlin, J. B. (2010). Multiple imputation for missing data: Fully conditional specification versus multivariate normal imputation. American Journal of Epidemiology , 171 (5), 624-632. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp425 Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 4 (1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3 Marshall, R. L., Harbke, C. R., & DiLalla, L. F. (2021). The role of remembered parenting on adult self-esteem: A monozygotic twin difference study. Behavior Genetics , 51 (2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-020-10034-8 Milner, A., Kavanagh, A., King, T., & Currier, D. (2018). The influence of masculine norms and occupational factors on mental health: Evidence from the baseline of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health. American Journal of Men's Health , 12 (4), 696-705. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988317752607 Nielson, M. G., Ward, L. M., Seabrook, R. C., & Giaccardi, S. (2022). The roots and fruits of masculinity: Social antecedents and sexual relationship consequences of young men’s adherence to masculine norms. The Journal of Sex Research , 59 (7), 897-910. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2049188 Perales, F., Kuskoff, E., Flood, M., & King, T. (2023). Like father, like son: Empirical insights into the intergenerational continuity of masculinity ideology. Sex Roles , 88 (9), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01364-y Petts, R. J., Shafer, K. M., & Essig, L. (2018). Does adherence to masculine norms shape fathering behavior? Journal of Marriage and Family , 80 (3), 704-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12476 Pirkis, J., Currier, D., Carlin, J., Degenhardt, L., Dharmage, S. C., Giles-Corti, B., Gordon, I. R., Gurrin, L. C., Hocking, J. S., Kavanagh, A., Keogh, L., Koelmeyer, R., LaMontagne, A. D., Patton, G., Sanci, L., Spittal, M. J., Schlichthorst, M., Studdert, D., Williams, J., & English, D. R. (2017). Cohort profile: Ten to Men (the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health). International Journal of Epidemiology , 46 (3), 793-794i. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw055 Pirkis, J., Macdonald, J., & English, D. R. (2016). Introducing Ten to Men, the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health. BMC Public Health , 16 (3), 1044. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3697-2 Rominov, H., Giallo, R., & Whelan, T. A. (2016). Fathers’ postnatal distress, parenting self-efficacy, later parenting behavior, and children’s emotional-behavioral functioning: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology , 30 (8), 907-917. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000216 Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys . Wiley. Sloman, L., & Sturman, E. D. (2012). The impact of winning and losing on family interactions: A biological approach to family therapy. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , 57 (10), 643-648. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371205701010 Sloman, L., Sturman, E. D., & Price, J. S. (2011). Winning and losing: An evolutionary approach to mood disorders and their therapy. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , 56 (6), 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371105600603 Smith, I., Youssef, G. J., Shatte, A., Teague, S. J., Knight, T., & Macdonald, J. A. (2022). “You are not alone”: A big data and qualitative analysis of men's unintended fatherhood. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health , 2 , 100085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100085 Stata Statistical Software . In. (2021). (Version Release 17) StataCorp LLC. Tully, L. A., & Hunt, C. (2016). Brief parenting interventions for children at risk of externalizing behavior problems: A systematic review. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 25 (3), 705-719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0284-6 Weisgram, E. S. (2022). Gender, toys, and play: How gendered early experiences shape later development. In D. P. VanderLaan & W. I. Wong (Eds.), Gender and sexuality development: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 207-232). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84273-4_7 Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin , 128 (5), 699. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files SupplementaryTables123.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7530520","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":509910356,"identity":"2d3b98bb-f78f-4fdf-bc56-a35de3c3cc0e","order_by":0,"name":"Jennifer M StGeorge","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4979-2267","institution":"University of Newcastle","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jennifer","middleName":"M","lastName":"StGeorge","suffix":""},{"id":509910357,"identity":"3d9599c2-c76f-44e3-ab15-d8d0be57bfde","order_by":1,"name":"Liam G Graeme","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4497-2103","institution":"Deakin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Liam","middleName":"G","lastName":"Graeme","suffix":""},{"id":509910358,"identity":"35d6c0b1-28b5-4d40-8851-8c3d0925918e","order_by":2,"name":"Elisabeth Duursma","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2112-4905","institution":"University of Western Sydney","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elisabeth","middleName":"","lastName":"Duursma","suffix":""},{"id":509910359,"identity":"88f24c66-5a08-4af7-81b2-680a9c0a7c2b","order_by":3,"name":"Liana Leach","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3686-2553","institution":"The Australian National University,","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Liana","middleName":"","lastName":"Leach","suffix":""},{"id":509910360,"identity":"b74c709a-b118-4693-829a-5c274c09f2c3","order_by":4,"name":"Barnaby Dixson","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0911-1244","institution":"University of the Sunshine Coast","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Barnaby","middleName":"","lastName":"Dixson","suffix":""},{"id":509910361,"identity":"7b2d543f-bd50-4dbc-8b06-d6cc96df6a11","order_by":5,"name":"Jacqui A Macdonald","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9451-2709","institution":"Deakin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jacqui","middleName":"A","lastName":"Macdonald","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-03 22:45:02","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7530520/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7530520/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90759301,"identity":"187f479f-19fe-4057-9717-5d4203b0b001","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-07 14:50:29","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":739338,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7530520/v1/566a126f-fbcc-49e0-9294-1e706a5340e2.pdf"},{"id":90758695,"identity":"dfcb7253-6d9e-44f0-8c0e-c4b0ef6ba669","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-07 14:26:25","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":32984,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTables123.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7530520/v1/76455ed7e2387f5e918bc3fa.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePaternal affection and masculinity predict parenting self-efficacy among fathers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eFatherhood has changed profoundly over the past 50 years, with men increasingly involved in pregnancy, childbirth, and infant care (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). However, the transition to involved fatherhood is not always easy (Giallo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Underpinning successful adjustment are parents\u0026rsquo; beliefs or judgement about their ability to be successful in their role (Albanese et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), that is, their perceived self-efficacy about parenting. These beliefs directly influence their parenting behaviours (Coleman \u0026amp; Karraker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) and subsequently, child development (Rominov et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile a substantial body of evidence explains mothers\u0026rsquo; parenting self-efficacy (Glatz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), little is known about how fathers attain or develop parenting self-efficacy. Male parenting is embedded in socio-cultural environments that include men\u0026rsquo;s experiences of being raised by their fathers well as prevailing cultural identities and values about gender, family and work (Cabrera et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Donithen \u0026amp; Schoppe-Sullivan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Mothers and fathers are socialised differently in preparation for their parenting roles, dependent on the values and culture of their society (Wood \u0026amp; Eagly, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). In childhood, girls are still more likely than boys to be given toys that encourage play acting the role of parent (e.g., dolls, prams) (Weisgram, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Further, despite greater gender equality in caregiving and parenting, mothers still undertake most of the caregiving during the early parenting years (Baxter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Perry-Jenkins \u0026amp; Gerstel, 2020). Thus, mothers have more opportunities than fathers for the development and practice of parenting self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this context of constrained opportunities, fathers may develop their parenting self-efficacy by drawing upon their own experiences of being fathered (Donithen \u0026amp; Schoppe-Sullivan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Experiences of paternal warmth are linked to men\u0026rsquo;s self-esteem and well-being (Chen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Marshall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Similarily, there is evidence that paternal parenting practices are transmitted to their sons (Kerr \u0026amp; Capaldi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This evidence suggests that factors in early life may contribute to the development of fathers\u0026rsquo; parenting self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother potential influence on fathers\u0026rsquo; parenting self-efficacy is their beliefs about masculinity. These are likely to influence what fathers think their role should be, and therefore their engagement in parenting tasks (Petts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Masculinity beliefs also tend to follow family lines, with male offspring having similar beliefs as their fathers (Perales et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Traditionally, male gender norms represent fathers\u0026rsquo; engagement in \u0026lsquo;provider\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;breadwinner\u0026rsquo; tasks rather than engagement in caregiving (Baxter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Traditional masculine norms prioritise dominance, power and assertiveness, and this combination of attributes may result in less father involvement in expressive and instrumental parenting (Petts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). As such, these norms may act as barriers to men\u0026rsquo;s opportunity to gain mastery in caregiving tasks and in turn develop parenting efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, most men, including those who adhere to such ideals, are under increasing social expectations to perform the role of a nurturant father (Hunter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), a disjunction that may reduce their parenting self-efficacy if they see themselves as a \u0026lsquo;breadwinner/provider father\u0026rsquo;. However, a nuanced view of masculinities suggests that aspects of masculinities are plural and diverse and, even if traditionally based, are negotiable and adaptable (Hunter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This then suggests that different dimensions of masculine norms may be differentially associated with parenting self-efficacy: Related research shows that different aspects of masculinity are correlated in different ways with health outcomes and attitudes to gender (Gerdes \u0026amp; Levant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the current study, we examined how recalled experiences of paternal affection and adherence to masculinity norms are related to fathers\u0026rsquo; parenting self-efficacy in a large, nationally representative sample of Australian fathers, with two time-points of data collection. We know of no prior research investigating these important relationships to better understand fathers' parenting self-efficacy. We hypothesised that men reporting positive affection from their fathers would report higher parenting self-efficacy than those men receiving less paternal affection (H1). We also hypothesised that adherence to masculinity norms would be associated differentially with parenting self-efficacy (H2). A final exploratory hypothesis tested how associations between paternal affection and adherence to masculine norms interacted to predict fathers\u0026rsquo; parenting self-efficacy (H3). These two social factors might compound, or, one may buffer the other, to influence men's parenting self-efficacy. We also investigated father age as a factor, given that parenting self-efficacy may increase with age (Fang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and adherence to traditional masculinity norms is lower in older men (Herreen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData source\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy participants were men who participated in Wave 1 and 2 of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health (Ten to Men, TTM). Ten to Men was established in 2011 to examine male health and social, economic, environmental and behavioural factors that affect the length and quality of life of Australian males (Pirkis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). It is a national longitudinal study with a stratified multi-stage cluster random sample design and oversampling in rural and regional areas. This secondary analysis was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study used anonymised data from previous research for which participants had provided informed consent. TTM was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Sciences Human Ethics Sub-Committee (HREC 1237897 and 1237376). TTM recruited a baseline national sample of approximately 16,000 men in 2013\u0026ndash;2014, with Wave 2 in 2015\u0026ndash;2016.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMales were included if they were resident in a private dwelling, were an Australian citizen or permanent resident and had sufficient proficiency in English to complete the questionnaire/interview. At recruitment, participants were stratified into age groups, boys aged 10\u0026ndash;14 years, young men aged 15\u0026ndash;17 years, and adults aged 18\u0026ndash;55 years. In Wave 2 (2015/2016) 732 young men, and 10,339 adults participated (retention rate\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;75%). Further information on the study is documented by Pirkis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e. Permission for general access to the data for this study was granted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in 2021. In this analysis, we drew on both Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the adult age group. The analytic sample size was N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7,901, including fathers only (i.e. our criterion was having at least one child age under 18).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBelow we describe the variables used in the study and timing of measurement (Table\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;1. Timing of Measurement for Key Study Variables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWave 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWave 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParenting Self-Efficacy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecalled Paternal Affection\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMasculine Norms (11 subscales)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDepression Severity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChild Living Elsewhere\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountry of Birth\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn a Relationship\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralian or Torres Strait Islander Identity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation: Year 12 Completion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSEIFA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFather Age\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDemographics.\u003c/b\u003e A range of participant demographics were adjusted for in the analyses to control for their potential impacts on paternal efficacy. These included: participant age at Wave 1, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;No, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Yes) (recorded at Wave 1), Country of Birth (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Not Australia, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Australia) (recorded at Wave 1), Year 12 completion (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;No, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Yes) (recorded at Wave 1), SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage at Wave 1 (from 1-100, where a higher score represents greater socio-economic advantage (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016)). Family demographics included participant having a child living elsewhere (other than in their household) at either Wave 1 or 2 (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;No vs 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Yes), and in a relationship at Wave 2 (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;No, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Yes). Participant demographics are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;2.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePatient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ9).\u003c/b\u003e The multivariate analyses controlled for prior depression using the brief Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) at Wave 1, given it is associated with paternal affection and parenting efficacy (Junttila et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The PHQ-9 is a brief, reliable and valid measure of depression severity (Kroenke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). It consists of the nine criteria which can be used to screen for a DSM-IV depressive disorders diagnosis. The PHQ-9 can be used for categorisation of mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression, or, as a continuous variable ranging from 0 to 27 (as used in the current study). The question stem is \"Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?\u0026rdquo;. Four response options indicate frequency from \u0026lsquo;not at all\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;nearly every day\u0026rsquo;. The nine problems include lack of interest, energy, appetite, self-esteem, concentration, movement, as well as hopelessness, sleep issues and suicidal ideation. Higher scores indicate more severe depression. Internal consistency in the current study was high (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-22 (CMNI-22).\u003c/b\u003e The CMNI was used to assess masculine norms and was recorded at Wave 1. The CMNI is a widely used tool to measure adherence to traditional western masculine norms and values across 11 domains (Mahalik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The CMNI-22 is a short form version of the full inventory and includes 22 items. Each item is responded to using a 4-point Likert scale from \u0026ldquo;strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;strongly agree\u0026rdquo;. The total scale score for the CMNI-22 provides a continuous variable ranging from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating a higher conformity to masculine norms. As the CMNI-22 measures 11 separate domains with two items per domain, each of these individual subscales can also be assessed. These include sub-scales for: winning, emotional control, risk-taking, pursuit of status, primacy of (paid) work, violence, power over women, dominance, \u0026lsquo;playboy\u0026rsquo;, self-reliance and homophobia. In line with recent research indicating differentiation between the subscales (Gerdes \u0026amp; Levant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Pirkis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), subscales scores were used separately in the current study rather than the total scale score. Internal consistency for each subscale ranged from α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.40 (pursuit of status) to α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.85 (emotional control).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePaternal Affection Scale.\u003c/b\u003e The Paternal Affection scale (included in Wave 2 of the study) is a validated measure that asks about paternal emotional availability during the respondent\u0026rsquo;s early years. This scale has previously been included in the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDAS) (Brim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Participants first rated the relationship with their father/father-figure \u0026lsquo;during the years when you were growing up\u0026rsquo;, from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). A further six statements included \u0026lsquo;he understood my problems or worries\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;I could confide in him about things that were bothering me\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;he gave me the love and affection I needed\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;he gave me time and attention when I needed it\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;he made sure I had a good upbringing\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;he taught me about life\u0026rsquo;. Five response options ranged from \u0026lsquo;1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree\u0026rsquo;. As such, the scale is a recall of the respondent\u0026rsquo;s relationship with their father. Internal consistency in the current study was high (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFathers\u0026rsquo; Parenting Self-Efficacy.\u003c/b\u003e A single item was used to measure fathers\u0026rsquo; belief or judgement about their ability to be successful as a parent (recorded at Wave 2). It has previously been included as a brief measure of parenting efficacy in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort, ECLS-B, (Andreassen \u0026amp; Fletcher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). This item asked \u0026ldquo;Overall, as a parent, do you feel that you are\u0026hellip;.\u0026rdquo;. Response options 1 and 7 indicated \u0026lsquo;not a very good parent\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;a very good parent\u0026rsquo;. Options 2\u0026ndash;6 ask fathers to compare themselves to the \u0026lsquo;average parent\u0026rsquo;, such as \u0026ldquo;a well above average parent\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;a little above average parent\u0026rdquo;. In the TTM dataset, \u0026lsquo;a very good parent\u0026rsquo; was rated as 1; in the current study, the scores have been reversed such that high scores indicate high father parenting self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalyses were conducted in Stata 17.0 (\u003cem\u003eStata Statistical Software\u003c/em\u003e, 2021). Descriptive information for the sample demographics and the key variables of interest were calculated. Bivariate associations between study variables were quantified using Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlations. To test hypotheses 1 and 2, we ran two multiple linear regressions testing the relationships between recalled paternal affection and paternal parenting self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1), and each of the conformity to masculine norm domains and parenting self-efficacy (Hypothesis 2). These associations were first tested in an unadjusted model, such that parenting self-efficacy was regressed onto recalled paternal affection and each CMNI-22 subscale. This model was then repeated including demographic covariates (child living elsewhere, born in Australia, in a relationship, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status, year 12 completion, SEIFA and age) and depression severity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe then tested moderation effects in 23 separate models (Hypothesis 3). We first tested interaction effects of recalled paternal affection and each masculinity subscale (11 models) on paternal parenting self-efficacy. Next, we tested interaction effects of age and each masculinity subscale on paternal parenting self-efficacy (11 models). Finally, we tested interaction effects of age and recalled paternal affection on paternal parenting self-efficacy (1 model). Where interaction terms were significant, simple slope analyses were conducted to examine effects. The final adjusted multiple regression analysis predicting paternal parenting self-efficacy from recalled paternal affection, each CMNI-22 subscale and covariates, was repeated with significant interactions included (See Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMissing data were handled using multiple imputation with 50 imputed datasets based on a multivariate normal model (Lee \u0026amp; Carlin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) and combined using Rubin\u0026rsquo;s rules (Rubin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e). All study variables and interaction terms described above were included in the imputation model. Binary variables were initially imputed as continuous and then back-transformed using adaptive rounding (Bernaards et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Prior to analysis, all variables were z-score standardised to aid interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eFathers in the sample were largely born in Australia (74.14%), in a relationship (68.3%) and their average age was 40 years (Table\u0026nbsp;2). The average SEIFA score (Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage) for the sample was 52.4 (indicating an average level of SES status) and 58.1% had completed Year 12 education (slightly more than in the general population in 2016 which was 51.9% (2016 ABS Census)). The average PHQ score was 4.2 indicating \u0026lsquo;minimal\u0026rsquo; depression (scores of 5\u0026ndash;9 are classified as \u0026lsquo;mild\u0026rsquo; depression). Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1 presents bivariate associations between study variables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;2. Participant Demographics and Summary Statistics (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7,901)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e% missing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralian or Torres Strait Islander Identity (Wave 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e184\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBorn in Australia (Wave 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5858\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e74.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 12 Completion (Wave 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4589\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChild Living Elsewhere (either w1/w2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e830\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn a Relationship (at Wave 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5397\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28.57\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge (Wave 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSEIFA (Wave 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52.43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDepression severity (Wave 1, 0\u0026ndash;27))\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParenting Efficacy (Wave 2, 1\u0026ndash;7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.69\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecalled Paternal Affection (Wave 2, 1\u0026ndash;5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMasculine Norms (subscale domains) (Wave 1, 0\u0026ndash;6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWinning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmotional control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRisk taking\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eViolence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDominance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlayboy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-reliance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.58\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimacy of work\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePower over Women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeterosexual self-presentation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePursuit of status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e: Demographics and summary statistics presented here are based on available case data. Percentages are of total sample (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7,901).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults for Hypotheses 1 and 2 are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. In the unadjusted model, higher levels of recalled affection were associated with higher parenting self-efficacy. After adjustment for covariates and prior depression, recalled paternal affection remained significantly associated with greater parenting self-efficacy (H1). The unadjusted model also showed that almost all of the masculine norms were associated with parenting self-efficacy, although the directions of these differed (H2). In the adjusted model, only the masculine norms \u0026lsquo;winning\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;risk taking\u0026rsquo; were positively associated with greater parenting self-efficacy, whereas the masculine norms of \u0026lsquo;emotional control\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;violence\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;playboy\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;power over women\u0026rsquo; were associated with lower parenting self-efficacy. \u0026lsquo;Dominance\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;self-reliance\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;pursuit of status\u0026rsquo; were not significantly associated with parenting self-efficacy in the adjusted model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMultiple Regression Analyses Predicting Parenting Self-Efficacy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePredictors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnadjusted\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdjusted\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecalled Affection\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(.16, .21)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(.12, .17)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWinning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(.01, .06)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.012\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(.00, .06)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.038\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmotional control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.13, .08)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.14, .09)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRisk taking\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(.02, .07)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(.02, .07)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eViolence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.06, .01)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.06, .01)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.006\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDominance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(.01, .07)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.014\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.01, .06)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.105\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlayboy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.09, .04)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.07, .02)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-reliance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.08, .02)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.03, .03)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.853\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimacy of work\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.03, .02)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.667\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.03, .02)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.798\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePower over women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.10, .04)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.10, .04)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeterosexual self-presentation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.01, .04)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.196\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(.00, .05)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.078\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePursuit of status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(.00, .05)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.045\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(-.01, .04)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.206\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNote: Analyses adjusted for demographic covariates (child living elsewhere, born in Australia, in a relationship, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status, year 12 completion, SEIFA and age), and depression severity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo answer the third hypothesis, in unadjusted models, none of the interactions between recalled paternal affection and any of the masculine norms were significant (Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;2). Moderation effects were also tested to explore whether associations between recalled paternal affection, dimensions of masculine norms, and parenting self-efficacy differed depending on father age. In the unadjusted models (Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;2), the only statistically significant interaction effect detected was between age and \u0026lsquo;dominance\u0026rsquo; (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eunadj\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.032). The simple slopes analysis for this relationship, indicated that for those at younger age ([-2SD, 24.96 years], slope = -0.03, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.340) and middle age ([mean, 40.48 years], slope\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.058), no relationship was found between dominance and parenting efficacy, but for those at older age ([+\u0026thinsp;2SD, 56.00 years], slope\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004), a positive relationship was found between dominance and parenting self-efficacy. However, this interaction effect was no longer significant when included in the final adjusted model (see Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;3).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eUsing data from a nationally representative Australian cohort, we report evidence implicating men\u0026rsquo;s relationships with their fathers when growing up, and their adherence to traditional masculinity beliefs, in their self-efficacy as a father. Specifically, we found that fathers who reported positive affection from their own fathers also reported higher parenting self-efficacy (H1), and that adherence to certain dimensions of masculinity predicted their parenting self-efficacy (H2). Recalled paternal affection and masculine norms did not interact to predict parental self-efficacy (H3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA large portion of the variance in parenting practices may be explained by unique environmental circumstance (Geary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). In support of our first hypothesis, recalled paternal affection was significantly associated with greater parenting self-efficacy, an association which held after adjusting for covariates and prior depression. Paternal affection benefits children\u0026rsquo;s social and emotional adjustment across the lifespan (Cui et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), including their self-esteem, self-concept, and self-efficacy (Dick \u0026amp; Bronson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Marshall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Our findings here suggest that the positive roles father play in nurturing their sons, results in their sons having greater self-esteem in their own parenting practices, with potential concomitant benefits for their children.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial and economic changes over the last 50 years have shaped familial gender roles, with men taking increasingly more communal roles in parenting (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). We hypothesized that these shifts away from the traditional masculine breadwinner and provider towards more communal, nurturing, and caring roles, has happened slowly, and is reflected in variation in adherence to traditional masculine norms. Although discussion on the dimensionality of the CMNI dates back to at least Owen (2011), there is very little research on how specific norms are related to father-son relationship and affection. Related research indicates that positive relationships or outcomes tend to be associated with winning and primacy of work, but the evidence is mixed (Gerdes \u0026amp; Levant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdherence to the norms \u0026lsquo;winning\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;risk taking\u0026rsquo; were positively associated with greater parenting self-efficacy, which remained significant after adjusting for covariates including mental health. While winning and risk-taking may be more obviously aligned with assertiveness and dominance-related dispositions and behaviours, engaging in competitive or challenging tasks that embody winning and risk taking can also be motivational (Sloman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). These types of interactions can promote positive emotions and self-confidence (Sloman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) and, within the family, positive interactions (Sloman \u0026amp; Sturman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, positive risk-taking (i.e., not including violence and substance abuse) is associated with challenge and reward, allowing someone to both explore the unknown and learn from the experience (Fryt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Positive risk-taking peaks in middle adulthood (Fryt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the approximate age of participants in this study, and could be linked to individual differences in navigating and overcoming the daily struggles of fatherhood (Fagan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, if daily paternal \u0026lsquo;challenges\u0026rsquo; require addressing and resolving, \u0026lsquo;winning\u0026rsquo; these daily hassles may provide a good space for fathers to develop confidence, competence, and greater parenting self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe found that fathers adhering to masculine norms of \u0026lsquo;emotional control\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;violence\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;playboy\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;power over women\u0026rsquo; reported lower parenting self-efficacy. These characteristics are more typically aligned with hegemonic masculine norms for which there is a well-supported link with negative interpersonal relationships (Nielson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Adherence to these masculine norms is also at odds with child-rearing, particularly where violence and gendered dominance in the family setting compromises the safety and caregiving role of the other parent, and constitutes a form of child abuse (Humphreys et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). More generally, these masculine norms together represent a lack of investment in the partner and family that neither supports positive intimate relationships, sustains family cohesion, nor provides opportunity for developing parenting self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven fathers\u0026rsquo; parenting self-efficacy may be influenced by the intersection of multiple factors, we explored whether men\u0026rsquo;s masculinity beliefs interacted with their recalled paternal affection to subsequently influence parenting self-efficacy (H3), finding no significant interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStrengths and limitations of the study\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe used data from two waves of a longitudinal dataset; however, one predictor (recalled paternal affection) and the dependent variable (parenting self-efficacy) were assessed cross-sectionally at Wave 2. The masculine norms were collected in Wave 1 and were not used as a time dependent construct as in a true longitudinal design. As reasoned in the introduction, we nevertheless conceptualised the recalled paternal affection and masculine norms as potentially having origins in individuals\u0026rsquo; family history.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health is the largest national cohort study on men\u0026rsquo;s health to be conducted internationally to date (Pirkis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The cohort differs in some respects from the Australian male population, as Wave 1 is slightly skewed to older men and those born in Australia; nevertheless, it mirrors the general population of Australian males reasonably well (Pirkis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll measures in this study were by self-report, no other objective data triangulated self-reporting of affection, depression, masculinity norms or parenting self-efficacy. Self-report data may be susceptible to response bias, such as social desirability. However, the use of validated tools in TTM helps to reduce this problem (Gorber \u0026amp; Tremblay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe measure of parenting self-efficacy was a single item asking for fathers\u0026rsquo; rating of themselves against other parents. This specific measure has been widely used in large longitudinal studies. Single-item measures are acceptable when constructs are unidimensional, clearly defined, and narrow in scope (Allen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, our assumption is that the item adequately captures fathers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of their parenting self-efficacy compared to the \u0026lsquo;average parent\u0026rsquo;. It also has predictive validity in that it corresponds in a logical manner to our other variables of interest (Albanese et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe measure of recalled paternal affection was based on the scale by Brim and colleagues for the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS), 1995\u0026ndash;1996 (Brim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). There are numerous reports on this cohort using the recalled paternal affection questionnaire, demonstrating its concurrent and predictive validity (Marshall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Given that the recall is a memory, and memory is an \u0026ldquo;immediate, non-analytic feeling that one\u0026rsquo;s current mental state is coterminous with past experience\u0026rdquo; (Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, p. 6), we acknowledge that the recall may not be an exact representation of the actions that occurred in the past. However, it will be a current mental cognition that embodies emotions experienced in the past.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe CMNI has a long history of use in research on men\u0026rsquo;s wellbeing, with one critique being its reliance on white American college students in its conceptualisation and construction. However, it has concurrent and predictive validity with other measures in the Australian population, e.g., relationship satisfaction (Holmes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and occupation (Milner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). We followed Milner et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) in utilising the subscales of the CMNI to better understand masculinity and parenting in the Australian context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe current study has important implications for supporting fathers\u0026rsquo; parenting self-efficacy, as well as promoting the need for ongoing research that seeks to understand the trends and developments in fathering as expectations and practices evolve over time. Given the epoch of our study (2010-2020s), there is potential for continuing and evolving social expectations of involved, demonstrative, intimate fathering (Banchefsky \u0026amp; Parke, 2016; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) to create pressures on men in the studied cohort.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings tentatively suggest that the current prevailing expectations of fathers to confidently adopt more communal roles within family structures may exceed what men have learned from their own fathers. Men may require additional support to normalise and reinforce these changes in ways that enhance their parenting efficacy. Indeed, parenting self-efficacy is a predictor of positive parenting, and it is malleable (Tully \u0026amp; Hunt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), further highlighting the need to expand the limited research on the formative elements that contribute to fathers\u0026rsquo; parenting self-efficacy (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). For the present, our findings provide evidence that the relationship between men\u0026rsquo;s personal history of paternal affection and their beliefs about masculinity are associated with appraisals of their own parenting self-efficacy, with implications for breaking the social barriers surrounding equality in coparenting and improving whole family mental health.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability.\u003c/strong\u003e Data for this paper were drawn from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health (Ten to Men). Ten to Men research data is the intellectual property of the Commonwealth of Australia. Research data are available from the Australian Government /Australian Institute of Family Studies. The analysis code was deposited in the OSF repository, https://osf.io/vhk79/?view_only=985426647e2c416c889e6999d806b36d\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval:\u003c/strong\u003e This study involved secondary analysis of anonymised data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health (Ten to Men), for which participants had provided informed consent. The primary data collection was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and received ethical approval from the University of Melbourne Human Sciences Human Ethics Sub-Committee (HREC 1237897 and 1237376). Additional ethical approval was not required for this secondary analysis as it falls within the scope of the original consent.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contribution:\u003c/strong\u003e All authors whose names appear on the submission\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003emade substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003edrafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eapproved the version to be published; and\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eagree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustralian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas for Australia (SEIFA), 2016 (cat. No. 2033.0.55.001). Canberra, Australia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlbanese, A. M., Russo, G. R., \u0026amp; Geller, P. A. (2019). The role of parental self-efficacy in parent and child well-being: A systematic review of associated outcomes. \u003cem\u003eChild: Care, Health and Development\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 333-363. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12661 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, M. S., Iliescu, D., \u0026amp; Greiff, S. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndreassen, C., \u0026amp; Fletcher, P. (2007). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth cohort (ECLS-B): Psychometric report for the 2-year data collection. Methodology report. NCES 2007-084. \u003cem\u003eNational Center for Education Statistics\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health\u003c/em\u003e. (2010). Australian Institute of Family Studies; Department of Health and Aged Care. https://aifs.gov.au/research_programs/ten-men\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Lotz, A., Alyousefi-van Dijk, K., \u0026amp; van Ijzendoorn, M. (2019). Birth of a father: Fathering in the first 1,000 days. \u003cem\u003eChild Development Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 247-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12347 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBanchefsky, S., \u0026amp; Park, B. (2016). The \u0026ldquo;new father\u0026rdquo;: Dynamic stereotypes of fathers. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Men \u0026amp; Masculinity\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 103-107. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038945 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaxter, J. (2010). \u003cem\u003eAn exploration of the timing and nature of parental time with 4-5 year olds using Australian children\u0026apos;s time use data\u003c/em\u003e. Australian Institute of Family Studies Melbourne. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBernaards, C. A., Belin, T. R., \u0026amp; Schafer, J. L. (2007). Robustness of a multivariate normal approximation for imputation of incomplete binary data. \u003cem\u003eStatistics in Medicine\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 26\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1368-1382. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrim, O. G., Baltes, P. B., Bumpass, L. L., Cleary, P. D., Featherman, D. L., Hazzard, W. R., Kessler, R. C., Lachman, M. E., Markus, H. R., Marmot, M. G., Rossi, A. S., Ryff, C. D., \u0026amp; Shweder, R. A. (2020). \u003cem\u003eMidlife in the United States (MIDUS 1), 1995-1996\u003c/em\u003e Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02760.v19\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCabrera, N. J., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., \u0026amp; Roggman, L. (2014). The ecology of father-child relationships: An expanded model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Theory \u0026amp; Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 336-354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, P. (2022). Inner child of the past: Long-term protective role of childhood relationships with mothers and fathers and maternal support for mental health in middle and late adulthood. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 57\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1399-1416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02200-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColeman, P. K., \u0026amp; Karraker, K. H. (1998). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and future applications. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 47-85. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1997.0448 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCui, J., Mistur, E. J., Wei, C., Lansford, J. E., Putnick, D. L., \u0026amp; Bornstein, M. H. (2018). Multilevel factors affecting early socioemotional development in humans. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Ecology and Sociobiology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 72\u003c/em\u003e(10), 172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2580-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDick, G. L., \u0026amp; Bronson, D. (2005). Adult men\u0026apos;s self-esteem: The relationship with the father. \u003cem\u003eFamilies in Society\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 86\u003c/em\u003e(4), 580-588. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3464 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonithen, R., \u0026amp; Schoppe-Sullivan, S. (2022). Correlates and predictors of parenting self-efficacy in new fathers. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 396-405. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000910 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFagan, J. (2000). Head Start fathers\u0026apos; daily hassles and involvement with their children. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Issues\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 329-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251300021003003 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFang, Y., Boelens, M., Windhorst, D. A., Raat, H., \u0026amp; van Grieken, A. (2021). Factors associated with parenting self-efficacy: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Advanced Nursing\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 77\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2641-2661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14767 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFryt, J., Szczygiel, M., \u0026amp; Duell, N. (2022). Positive and negative risk-taking: Age patterns and relations to domain-specific risk-taking. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Life Course Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 54\u003c/em\u003e, 100515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2022.100515 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeary, D. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 126\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.55\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGerdes, Z. T., \u0026amp; Levant, R. F. (2018). Complex relationships among masculine norms and health/well-being outcomes: Correlation patterns of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory subscales. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Men\u0026apos;s Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 229-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988317745910 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiallo, R., Wynter, K., McMahon, G., Seymour, M., Fogarty, A., Cooklin, A., Leach, L., Francis, L. M., Duursma, E., \u0026amp; Macdonald, J. A. (2023). Preconception factors associated with postnatal mental health and suicidality among first-time fathers: Results from an Australian Longitudinal Study of Men\u0026rsquo;s Health. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 58(\u003c/em\u003e8), 1153-1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-023-02421-3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlatz, T., Lippold, M., Chung, G., \u0026amp; Jensen, T. M. (2024). A systematic review of parental self-efficacy among parents of school-age children and adolescents. \u003cem\u003eAdolescent Research Review (9)\u003c/em\u003e75\u0026ndash;91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-023-00216-w \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGorber, S., \u0026amp; Tremblay, M. (2016). Self-report and direct measures of health: Bias and implications. In R. J. Shephard \u0026amp; C. Tudor-Locke (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe objective monitoring of physical activity: contributions of accelerometry to epidemiology, exercise science and rehabilitation \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 369-376). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29577-0_14 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerreen, D., Rice, S., Currier, D., Schlichthorst, M., \u0026amp; Zajac, I. (2021). Associations between conformity to masculine norms and depression: Age effects from a population study of Australian men. \u003cem\u003eBMC Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00533-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolmes, F. (2014). \u003cem\u003eThe role of masculine norm conformity in men\u0026apos;s and women\u0026apos;s relational satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e. Unpublished PhD thesis, Deakin University. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHumphreys, C., Diemer, K., Bornemisza, A., Spiteri-Staines, A., Kaspiew, R., \u0026amp; Horsfall, B. (2019). More present than absent: Men who use domestic violence and their fathering. \u003cem\u003eChild \u0026amp; Family Social Work\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12617 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHunter, S. C., Riggs, D. W., \u0026amp; Augoustinos, M. (2017). Hegemonic masculinity versus a caring masculinity: Implications for understanding primary caregiving fathers. \u003cem\u003eSocial and Personality Psychology Compass\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 11\u003c/em\u003e(3), e12307. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12307 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJunttila, N., Aromaa, M., Rautava, P., Piha, J., \u0026amp; R\u0026auml;ih\u0026auml;, H. (2015). Measuring multidimensional parental self-efficacy of mothers and fathers of children ages 1.5 and 3 years. \u003cem\u003eFamily Relations\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 64\u003c/em\u003e(5), 665-680. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12161 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKerr, D. C. R., \u0026amp; Capaldi, D. M. (2019). Intergenerational transmission of parenting. In \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Parenting: Being and becoming a parent, vol. 3, 3rd ed.\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 443-481). Routledge/Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429433214-13 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlein, S. B. (2015). What memory is. \u003cem\u003eWIREs Cognitive Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1333 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., \u0026amp; Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validation of a brief depression severity measure. \u003cem\u003eJournal of General Internal Medicine\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 16\u003c/em\u003e, 606-613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J. Y., Knauer, H. A., Lee, S. J., MacEachern, M. P., \u0026amp; Garfield, C. F. (2018). Father-inclusive perinatal parent education programs: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003ePediatrics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 142\u003c/em\u003e(1), e20180437. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-0437 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, K. J., \u0026amp; Carlin, J. B. (2010). Multiple imputation for missing data: Fully conditional specification versus multivariate normal imputation. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 171\u003c/em\u003e(5), 624-632. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp425\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., \u0026amp; Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Men \u0026amp; Masculinity\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarshall, R. L., Harbke, C. R., \u0026amp; DiLalla, L. F. (2021). The role of remembered parenting on adult self-esteem: A monozygotic twin difference study. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Genetics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 51\u003c/em\u003e(2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-020-10034-8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilner, A., Kavanagh, A., King, T., \u0026amp; Currier, D. (2018). The influence of masculine norms and occupational factors on mental health: Evidence from the baseline of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Men\u0026apos;s Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e(4), 696-705. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988317752607 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNielson, M. G., Ward, L. M., Seabrook, R. C., \u0026amp; Giaccardi, S. (2022). The roots and fruits of masculinity: Social antecedents and sexual relationship consequences of young men\u0026rsquo;s adherence to masculine norms. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Sex Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 59\u003c/em\u003e(7), 897-910. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2049188 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerales, F., Kuskoff, E., Flood, M., \u0026amp; King, T. (2023). Like father, like son: Empirical insights into the intergenerational continuity of masculinity ideology. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 88\u003c/em\u003e(9), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01364-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePetts, R. J., Shafer, K. M., \u0026amp; Essig, L. (2018). Does adherence to masculine norms shape fathering behavior? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marriage and Family\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 80\u003c/em\u003e(3), 704-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12476 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePirkis, J., Currier, D., Carlin, J., Degenhardt, L., Dharmage, S. C., Giles-Corti, B., Gordon, I. R., Gurrin, L. C., Hocking, J. S., Kavanagh, A., Keogh, L., Koelmeyer, R., LaMontagne, A. D., Patton, G., Sanci, L., Spittal, M. J., Schlichthorst, M., Studdert, D., Williams, J., \u0026amp; English, D. R. (2017). Cohort profile: Ten to Men (the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health). \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 46\u003c/em\u003e(3), 793-794i. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw055 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePirkis, J., Macdonald, J., \u0026amp; English, D. R. (2016). Introducing Ten to Men, the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health. \u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1044. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3697-2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRominov, H., Giallo, R., \u0026amp; Whelan, T. A. (2016). Fathers\u0026rsquo; postnatal distress, parenting self-efficacy, later parenting behavior, and children\u0026rsquo;s emotional-behavioral functioning: A longitudinal study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 30\u003c/em\u003e(8), 907-917. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000216 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRubin, D. B. (1987). \u003cem\u003eMultiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSloman, L., \u0026amp; Sturman, E. D. (2012). The impact of winning and losing on family interactions: A biological approach to family therapy. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 57\u003c/em\u003e(10), 643-648. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371205701010 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSloman, L., Sturman, E. D., \u0026amp; Price, J. S. (2011). Winning and losing: An evolutionary approach to mood disorders and their therapy. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 56\u003c/em\u003e(6), 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371105600603 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, I., Youssef, G. J., Shatte, A., Teague, S. J., Knight, T., \u0026amp; Macdonald, J. A. (2022). \u0026ldquo;You are not alone\u0026rdquo;: A big data and qualitative analysis of men\u0026apos;s unintended fatherhood. \u003cem\u003eSSM - Qualitative Research in Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 2\u003c/em\u003e, 100085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100085 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eStata Statistical Software\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eIn. (2021). (Version Release 17) StataCorp LLC. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTully, L. A., \u0026amp; Hunt, C. (2016). Brief parenting interventions for children at risk of externalizing behavior problems: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child and Family Studies\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 705-719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0284-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeisgram, E. S. (2022). Gender, toys, and play: How gendered early experiences shape later development. In D. P. VanderLaan \u0026amp; W. I. Wong (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eGender and sexuality development: Contemporary theory and research\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 207-232). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84273-4_7 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWood, W., \u0026amp; Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 128\u003c/em\u003e(5), 699. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Newcastle Australia","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Fathers, parenting self-efficacy, masculinity, parenting affection","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7530520/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7530520/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eParenting self-efficacy, individual beliefs regarding parenting skills, has far-reaching consequences for family well-being and child development. Yet how parenting self-efficacy unfolds in men remains largely unknown. Here, we focus on two important social factors that may influence parenting self-efficacy: men\u0026rsquo;s recollection of affection received from their own father, and men\u0026rsquo;s values regarding traditional masculinity. Using nationally representative data from Australian men (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7,901), we found that recalled paternal affection was significantly associated with greater parenting self-efficacy. Masculine norms relating to \u0026lsquo;winning\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;risk taking\u0026rsquo; were positively associated with greater parenting efficacy, while \u0026lsquo;emotional control\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;violence\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;playboy\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;power over women\u0026rsquo; were associated with lower parenting self-efficacy. To enhance their parenting self-efficacy, men may require additional support to normalise and reinforce changing expectations of fathers and which provides a foundation for their own children\u0026rsquo;s parenting.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Paternal affection and masculinity predict parenting self-efficacy among fathers","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-07 14:26:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7530520/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"11b3d85e-637e-4261-99d7-78fb99e9dc29","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":54159390,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-07T14:26:20+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-07 14:26:20","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7530520","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7530520","identity":"rs-7530520","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}