See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224903502

Personal and Co-Parent Predictors of Parenting Efficacy Across

the Transition to Parenthood

Article  in  Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · November 2011

DOI: 10.1521/jscp.2011.30.9.985

CITATIONS READS

25 212

2 authors, including:

Kristin D Mickelson
Arizona State University
55 PUBLICATIONS   4,731 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Test of Weathering Hypothesis on Disparities in Low Birth Weight Outcomes View project

Moderating Role of Religiosity on Mental Health Stigma and Indirect Support Seeking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristin D Mickelson on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 9, 2011, pp. 985-1010

PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY

BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

Personal and Co-Parent Predictors

of Parenting Efficacy Across the
Transition to Parenthood
Susanne N. Biehle and Kristin D. Mickelson
Kent State University

As with the majority of the parenting literature, the focus on parenting efficacy
has been almost exclusively on the experience of the mother while neglecting
fathers and the potential link between partners. In the current study, we exam-
ined the influence of personal and co-parent predictors on parenting efficacy. We
interviewed 104 primiparous couples during the third trimester, 1-month postpar-
tum, and 4-months postpartum. Predictors of parenting efficacy were examined
in the domains of performance accomplishment, emotional arousal, and verbal
persuasion. Analyses revealed that personal and co-parent predictors of parent-
ing efficacy changed over time and were unique for mothers and fathers. Overall,
these results suggest the importance of examining actor-partner effects in the de-
velopment of parenting efficacy across the transition to parenthood.

During pregnancy, individuals construct expectations about how

successful they will be at parenting tasks once the baby arrives.
While researchers have repeatedly found that parenting efficacy
is important for both the parent and child (e.g., Leerkes & Burney,
2007), less is known about how parenting efficacy develops in first
time (i.e., primiparous) mothers and fathers. As with most research
on the transition to parenthood, the majority of the literature fo-
cuses exclusively on the mother while neglecting the perspective of

The current study was supported by a grant to the second author from the Ohio
Board of Regents.
Address correspondence to Susanne N. Biehle, Department of Psychology, Kent State
University, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH, 44242-0001; E-mail: sbiehle@kent.edu.

© 2011 Guilford Publications, Inc.

985
986 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

the father (e.g., Coleman & Karraker, 2003). This omission has oc-
curred despite the understanding that mothers and fathers experi-
ence parenthood differently. However, it is important to understand
the father’s perspective as literature suggests fathers play a critical
parenting role in a child’s life (e.g., Bogels & Phares, 2008). Cowan
and colleagues (1985) argue fathers are more active during the birth
and early care of the baby, but over time typically assume the role
of financial provider. A mother’s transition to parenthood tends to
be more dramatic—with a major shift in both work and home life,
as mothers focus a greater percentage of their time to caring for the
baby than do fathers. Therefore, mothers may experience more pos-
itive and negative changes than fathers during the transition (Feld-
man & Nash, 1984). Of the few studies that have examined poten-
tial implications of parenting efficacy on both mothers and fathers
(e.g., Leerkes & Burney, 2007), none have examined how a co-parent
impacts their partner’s parenting efficacy. Because the transition to
parenthood is typically experienced jointly by the mother and fa-
ther, it is important to understand the potential interplay that can
occur between partners and how it may impact the development
of parenting efficacy. The aim of the present study was to exam-
ine how three primary components of efficacy development (i.e.,
performance accomplishment, verbal persuasion, and emotional
arousal) influence the development of parenting efficacy during the
perinatal and postpartum periods, as well as how co-parent vari-
ables impact an individual’s parenting efficacy development.

Parenting Efficacy

One primary concern of all expectant parents is whether they will be

a good mother or father—these beliefs help to shape their efficacy
about parenting. Bandura (1977) defined efficacy as an individual’s
judgment of their own personal capability to be successful in carry-
ing out activities required of them. Efficacy has also been viewed as
the gaining of knowledge and skills and the belief in one’s ability to
effectively use this increase in knowledge and skills. Parenting ef-
ficacy is a specific aspect of self-efficacy which examines how com-
petent a parent feels about their ability to positively influence both
the development and behavior of their child (Coleman & Karraker,
2000). Prior research has found parenting efficacy to be important
for both parenting behaviors and the well-being of the parent and
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 987

child (Coleman & Karraker, 2003; Jones & Prinz, 2005). High levels
of efficacy can increase a parent’s ability to engage in better par-
enting practices (Halpern & McLean, 1997), whereas low levels of
parenting efficacy have been associated with feelings of anxiety, de-
pression, and distress (Teti & Gelfand, 1991; Cutrona & Troutman,
1986). Many of these studies are cross-sectional, and when studies
are longitudinal they tend to focus solely on parenting efficacy in
the postpartum period (e.g., Coleman & Karraker, 2003). However,
one longitudinal study, which examined parenting efficacy during
pregnancy and postpartum (Williams et al., 1987), found that ex-
pected parenting efficacy during pregnancy predicted a mother’s
emotional state, attachment to the baby, and adaptation to the tran-
sition to parenthood in the postpartum period. This study suggests
the importance of understanding parenting efficacy across the tran-
sition from pregnancy to postpartum.
Before we can begin to understand the impact of parenting ef-
ficacy, it is essential to know how it develops. Bandura (1977) pro-
posed four specific components important to the development of
self-efficacy: performance accomplishment, emotional arousal,
verbal persuasion, and vicarious experience. Using the concepts
from Bandura’s model, we will explore how the first three of these
components influence perinatal and postpartum parenting efficacy.
Performance accomplishment refers to the successful completion of
relevant tasks, which Bandura believes has the potential to increase
efficacy in that domain as an individual sees that he or she is able
to actually carry out the tasks required of the role. In partial sup-
port of this idea, Leerkes and Burney (2007) found that participation
in childcare activities was an important predictor for father’s par-
enting efficacy, but not mother’s parenting efficacy. Since mothers
tend to be the primary caretakers of babies, it may be that perfor-
mance of childcare tasks has more influence on father’s parenting
efficacy. One aspect of performance accomplishment that Leerkes
and Burney (2007) did not examine, but may be more relevant for
mothers’ parenting efficacy is playing with the baby. If a mother is
consumed with only the childcare tasks and engages in relatively
little play with the baby, she may feel efficacious as a caretaker but
not as a parent. On the other hand, for fathers, who tend to primar-
ily play with the baby (e.g., McBride & Mills, 1993), this aspect of
performance accomplishment may be less important for their par-
enting efficacy than their actual child care experience. Even though
fathers are increasingly involved in their children’s lives, little is
988 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

known about parenting efficacy in fathers. In the current study, we

separately examine playing with the baby and general baby care
activities as predictors of parenting efficacy to determine whether
these act as unique predictors of parenting efficacy for mothers and
fathers. Only first-time parents were recruited as prior researchers
have found parents expecting subsequent children have higher par-
enting efficacy than primiparious parents (e.g., Bryanton, Gagnon,
Hatem, & Johnston, 2008), arguably because they have already been
successful in performing parenting tasks (Bandura, 1995).
The second component of parenting efficacy that we examine is
emotional arousal. Bandura proposed that individual’s emotional
states are important because they will judge their expectations of
efficacy based on their physiological state, such that high arousal
hinders performance, which leads people to be less likely to expect
success in their role tasks. Pregnancy and the early postpartum pe-
riod are arousal-provoking periods for both expectant mothers and
fathers, and this emotional arousal has been linked with feeling
less efficacious about parenting tasks (e.g., Cutrona & Troutman,
1986; Teti & Gelfand, 1991). Numerous researchers have found a
link between depression and parenting efficacy, including Ngai,
Chan, and Ip (2010) who recently found maternal depression was a
strong correlate of maternal parenting efficacy and role competence
at 6 weeks postpartum. Although the link between depression and
parenting efficacy has been examined in numerous studies, less is
known about how anxiety may influence parenting efficacy. The
current study will examine how both depression and anxiety im-
pact parenting efficacy.
The final component of verbal persuasion refers to the idea that
others can increase an individual’s expectation about their abilities
to be a good parent through verbal encouragement. Bandura argues
that this component is likely to be a weaker predictor of efficacy
than one’s own accomplishments, because it does not provide an
actual base of experience with role tasks. With respect to parent-
ing efficacy, verbal persuasion can be operationalized as emotional
support from one’s family and friends. Numerous studies have
found a link between social support and parenting efficacy (e.g.,
Cutrona & Troutman, 1986). Several studies have specifically exam-
ined spousal support and parenting efficacy in mothers and found
higher parenting efficacy with more positive spousal support and
lower parenting efficacy with increased spousal conflict (e.g., Teti &
Gelfand, 1991). Furthermore, Leerkes and Burney (2007) examined
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 989

perceived social support and found it predicted father’s parenting

efficacy at 6-months postpartum. However, Leerkes and Burney
(2007) combined instrumental and emotional support, and we ar-
gue emotional support is most closely matched with verbal persua-
sion. Thus, in the current study, we will examine emotional social
support from one’s co-parent and from one’s family to determine
their association with parenting efficacy.

The Impact of the Co-Parent in Parenting Efficacy

As we mentioned above, parenting appears to be a different expe-

rience for mothers and fathers; yet, most studies on parenting ef-
ficacy have neglected the experience of fathers. One reason may be
that, as Cowan and Cowan (1992) argue, being a parent is seen as
a less central aspect of identity for fathers than mothers. Leerkes
and Burney (2007) found that factors determining parenting effi-
cacy were unique for mothers and fathers. For mothers, perinatal
efficacy, baby’s temperament, and maternal level of education were
found to be predictive of efficacy at 6 months postpartum. For fa-
thers, perinatal efficacy did not predict postpartum efficacy, rather
involvement in childcare tasks, perceived social support, and pa-
ternal level of education were found to be important factors. This
study provides evidence that parenting efficacy develops from dif-
ferent internal and external sources for mothers and fathers and
that each must be examined separately.
While Leerkes and Burney’s (2007) study was novel in many re-
spects, they neglected to examine co-parent effects on the develop-
ment of the partner’s parenting efficacy. Because parenting is an
experience that couples experience jointly, it follows that how one
parent feels and behaves should impact the co-parent’s expecta-
tions for their own success as a parent. For instance, if one parent
feels highly efficacious about parenting, his/her co-parent may feel
more capable of handling parenting tasks because he or she has a
resource to rely on to share or help with the role tasks. On the other
hand, having a co-parent who feels unsure of their ability to parent
could prompt a realization in the co-parent that he/she is respon-
sible for the carrying out most of the parenting tasks and, therefore,
must be more successful because there is no one else to do them.
990 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

Present Study

In the current study, we examined how three primary components

of efficacy development (i.e., performance accomplishment, verbal
persuasion, and emotional arousal) influenced parenting efficacy
during the perinatal and postpartum periods. For the domain of
performance accomplishment, we proposed that playing with the
baby and general baby care activities would differentially predict
mother’s and father’s parenting efficacy development. For the do-
main of emotional arousal, we proposed that poor mental health
would be related to lower parenting efficacy in both the perinatal
and postpartum periods, with the stronger effect being found in
the postpartum period. For the domain of verbal persuasion, we
predicted that emotional support from one’s partner would be a
stronger predictor of parenting efficacy than emotional support
from one’s family. Finally, we were interested in understanding
how parenting efficacy develops uniquely for mothers and fathers,
and whether mothers and fathers share similar predictors of parent-
ing efficacy or unique sets of predictors. Based on the central role
of mothering and relationships in women’s identity, we predicted
that playing with the baby and verbal persuasion would be impor-
tant for mothers’ parenting efficacy, whereas childcare involvement
would be important for fathers’ parenting efficacy. We hypothesized
that emotional arousal would be important for parenting efficacy of
both mothers and fathers. In addition to personal predictors of par-
enting efficacy, we also examined how co-parent variables impacted
an individual’s parenting efficacy development. Because no prior
studies had examined co-parent predictors of parenting efficacy,
these analyses were exploratory in nature.

Method
Participants

For the current study, 104 couples were first interviewed during the
third trimester of their pregnancy. To be eligible to participate, both
the mother and father needed to be in a heterosexual marriage or
marriage-like relationship with their partner (hereafter referred to
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 991

as co-parent), expecting their first child (i.e., primiparous), and flu-

ent in English. To eliminate potential confounding variables, only
heterosexual couples with low-risk pregnancies were included in
the sample. Participants were recruited from online pregnancy mes-
sage boards and local birthing classes. The sample was primarily
composed of married couples (91%). Couples on average had been
married/cohabitating for 3 years (M = 3.30). The mean participant
age was 29 years (M = 29.02; SD = 4.41), ranging from 18 to 52 years
with expectant fathers (M = 30; SD = 4.77) being significantly older
than expectant mothers, M = 28; SD = 3.80; F = (1, 206) = 10.45, p <
.05. The majority of the sample was White (fathers: 91%; mothers:
94%), with a college education or an advanced degree (high school
= 8.7%; some college = 20.2%; college = 47.6%; advanced degree =
23.6%), and approximately 70% of the sample reporting a household
income of $60,000 or more. Of the 104 couples who completed the
baseline interview, 90 couples completed the interview at 1-month
postpartum and 84 couples completed the interview at 4-months
postpartum. Reasons for attrition included dissolution of the re-
lationship (approximately 1%), declining to further participate in
the study (approximately 2%), and unable to reach after numerous
attempts (approximately 7%). We conducted descriptive analyses
and did not find that those who attrited differed from those who
remained in the study on demographic or baseline measures.

Procedure

Couples who agreed to take part in the study completed inter-

views in their third trimester (between 24–32 weeks of pregnancy),
at 1-month postpartum, and at 4-months postpartum. Participants
completed online questionnaires and then completed a second por-
tion of the interview over the phone with trained interviewers. Par-
ticipants completed both the online and phone questionnaire inde-
pendent of their co-parent and an effort was made for both parents
to complete their interviews within the same day. The combined
online and phone interview took each participant approximately
one hour to complete at each wave and couples were compensated
$25 for each interview they completed.
992 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

Materials

Sociodemographics. The following demographic information

was collected from participants: age (ranged from 18 to 52 years);
years living with co-parent (ranged from 1 month to 12 years), and
household income. Household income represented total family in-
come at the time of the interview and was categorized as less than
$20,000, $20,000–$40,000, $40,000–$60,000, $60,000- $80,000, $80,000-
$100,000, $100,000–$120,000, or more than $120,000. Participant’s
education level was categorized as some high school, high school
degree, some college, college education, or advanced degree.
Parenting Efficacy. Participants completed an adapted version of
Self-Efficacy for Parenting Tasks (SEPTI-TS; Coleman & Karraker,
2003) which has been found to have good content validity (Cruncec,
Barnett, & Matthey, 2010). This instrument was modified to 14 ques-
tions which reflected activities required to care for infants. Partici-
pants were asked items that included: “I will have difficulty de-
termining what is and is not safe for my baby to do” and “I am
successful in getting my baby to eat on a fairly regular schedule.”
Potential responses ranged from 1 = disagree strongly to 6 = agree
strongly. Appropriate items were reverse coded and a sum score of
the items was created with higher numbers indicating higher par-
enting efficacy (Pregnancy: α = .68; 1-Month Postpartum: α = .74,
4-Months Postpartum: α = .68). Although the alphas for this scale
were only moderate, the alpha levels obtained were similar to what
Coleman and Karraker (2003) found for the domains of parenting
efficacy with the original construction of the measure.

Predictors of Parenting Efficacy

We examined three categories of potential predictors of parenting

efficacy. Specifically, we assessed performance accomplishment,
emotional arousal, and verbal persuasion. For performance accom-
plishment, we assessed participation in baby care activities and
playing with the baby. For verbal persuasion, we assessed emotion-
al support from family and emotional support from the co-parent.
Finally, for emotional arousal we measured two aspects of mental
health: anxiety and depression.
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 993

Performance Accomplishment

Participation in Baby Care Activities. Participation in baby care ac-

tivities was assessed through a measure created by the researchers
which sought to identify mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of the
division of childcare in their household. In the perinatal period, par-
ents were asked to indicate in increments of 10% (from 0% to 100%)
how much child care and playing with the baby they expected to
do when the baby arrived. In the postpartum period, participants
reported how much they actually did in the past week. Parents re-
ported the percentage of time they played with the baby, as well as
the percentage of baby care activities completed in seven different
categories: feeding the baby; changing diapers or clothes; sooth-
ing; watching/supervising; nighttime waking; baby’s laundry; and
attending baby’s doctor’s appointments. A mean score for these
seven latter items was created for an overall baby care percentage.
Cronbach’s alpha was not calculated for this measure as participa-
tion in one category is not necessarily related to participation in the
other categories.

Emotional Arousal

Anxiety. Participants’ anxiety was assessed through self-report

questions from the SCL-90R subscales for anxiety (Derogatis, 1994),
which has been shown to be a valid measure of anxiety symptoma-
tology (see McDowell, 2006, for a review). Participants were asked
to report how they felt in the last week in regards to 10 different
items (e.g., felt nervous; felt so restless you could not sit still). Pos-
sible responses ranged from 0 to 3, 0 = none/rarely (<1 day); 1 =
a little (1-2 days), 2 = moderate (3-4 days), 3 = most (5-7 days) for
that week. A sum score was created from the responses with high-
er scores indicating higher levels of anxiety (Pregnancy: α = .81;
1-Month Postpartum: α = .82, 4-Months Postpartum: α = .89).
Depression. To assess depressive symptomatology, the Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale was used (CES-D; Radloff,
1977) as it has repeatedly been shown to be a valid and reliable
measure of depressive symptomatology (see McDowell, 2006, for a
review). Participants were asked to report how they had felt in the
past week in regards to 20 different items (e.g., felt sad; felt lonely).
Possible responses ranged from 0 to 3 (0 = none/rarely, < 1 day), 1
994 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

= a little (1–2 days), 2 = moderate (3–4 days), or 3 = most (5–7 days).

A sum score was created from the responses with higher scores in-
dicating higher levels of depression (Pregnancy: α = .87; 1-Month
Postpartum: α = .87; 4-Months Postpartum: α = .89).

Verbal Persuasion

Emotional Support from Family. In the perinatal period, parents

were asked how much support they expected from their family and
in the postpartum period they were asked how much support they
actually received. Participants were asked 3 questions to assess the
amount of love, understanding, and reassurance they received from
their family with respect to the baby and parenting. Potential re-
sponses ranged from 0 = not at all to 4 = a lot. A mean score was
created with higher numbers indicating more emotional support
from their family (Pregnancy: α = .71; 1-Month Postpartum: α = .87;
4-Months Postpartum: α = .89)
Emotional Support from the Co-Parent. To assess emotional support
from the co-parent, participants responded to seven items about
their relationship with their co-parent (e.g., How much did your
partner show you that he/she really cares about you?), ranging
from 0 = not at all to 4 = a lot (Kessler et al., 1994). A mean score was
calculated for the seven items, with higher scores indicating greater
emotional co-parent support in the past month (Pregnancy: α = .76;
1-Month Postpartum: α = .79; 4-Months Postpartum: α = .78).

Overview of Analyses

In the current study, we first tested for parental sex differences on

the main study variables using one-way ANOVAs. We also con-
ducted a 2X3 repeated measures ANOVA with parental sex as the
independent variable and parenting efficacy as the dependent vari-
able to measure the level of parenting efficacy over time between
mothers and fathers. This analysis allows us to examine posthoc
comparisons to compare groups at each time point as well as chang-
es over time within each group. To test the main hypotheses, mul-
tiple linear regressions were conducted separately for mothers and
fathers. Prior to conducting the analyses, potential control variables
(e.g., age, education level, household income, sex of baby) were ex-
 TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics of Major Study Variables
Fathers Mothers
Third 1- 4- Third 1- 4-
Trimester Month Months Trimester Month Months
(N = 104) (N = 90) (N = 84) (N = 104) (N = 90) (N = 84)
Performance Accomplishment
Play with Baby (%) 48.85b 38.80a 39.88a 52.88a 58.71b 59.42b
Care for Baby (%) 37.64b 28.53a 27.84a 69.46a 74.27b 72.57b
Emotional Arousal
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY

Anxiety 4.29c 3.37b 2.60a 5.03c 3.78b 3.17a

Depression 8.78a 9.12a 14.64b 11.52a 11.73a 18.18b
Verbal Persuasion
Emotional Co-Parent Support 3.03b 2.92a 3.06b 3.19b 3.05a 3.06a
Emotional Family Support 2.28a 2.38a 2.25a 2.75a 2.82a 2.71a
Note. Similar subscripts within a specific parental sex indicate no significant differences across time points, while different subscripts indicate a significant difference across
time within parental sex (p < .05). With one exception (emotional co-parent support at 4-months postpartum), mothers and fathers significantly differed from each other at
all time points on all of the major study variables.
995
996 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

amined. For the final analyses, only the individual’s education level
was significant and was entered into all models as a control vari-
able. Separate models were analyzed for personal predictors (i.e.,
anxiety, depression, support from family and co-parent, playing
and caring for the baby, parenting efficacy at prior waves) and co-
parent predictors of parenting efficacy (i.e., their co-parent’s anxi-
ety, depression, parenting efficacy at prior waves, and playing and
caring for the baby). In addition, the personal and co-parent analy-
ses were conducted separately for mothers and fathers. A check of
the data revealed no violations of assumptions or problems with
multicollinearity.

Results
Descriptive Statistics

In regards to the major study variables, as shown in Table 1, we

found that mothers reported playing and caring for the baby more
than they expected, while fathers showed the opposite pattern of
engaging in the activities less than expected. For verbal persuasion,
we found both mothers and fathers reported receiving about the
same amount of emotional support from their family in the postpar-
tum period as they expected during pregnancy. We found several
interesting trends with regards to emotional arousal. Specifically,
for both men and women, anxiety decreased across the transition to
parenthood, while depression showed an opposite trend of increas-
ing from pregnancy to 4-months postpartum. For co-parent sup-
port, we found both mothers and fathers reported relatively stable
amounts of emotional support across time. See Table 1 for specific
means of major study variables in pregnancy and at 1-month and
4-months postpartum.
Patterns of Parenting Efficacy over the Transition. Prior to our main
analyses, we also examined the pattern of parenting efficacy means
for fathers and mothers over time using a 2X3 repeated measures
ANOVA. We found a significant quadratic effect, F = (1, 166) = 16.11,
p < .05, and a marginally significant parental sex effect, F = (1, 166) =
3.67, p = .06. As shown in Figure 1, we found a curvilinear relation-
ship for fathers, such that parenting efficacy significantly dropped
from the third trimester to 1-month postpartum (p < .05) and then
made a significant increase at 4-months postpartum (p < .05). For
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 997

Table 2. Correlates of Parenting Efficacy

Third Trimester 1- Month 4-Month
Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers
Personal Variables
Performance Accomplishment
Play with Baby -.10 .14 .03 -.01 .12 .07
Care for Baby .04 -.07 .08 .11 -.09 .08
Emotional Arousal
Anxiety -.06 -.39*** -.03 -.35* -.34** -.45***
Depression -.11 -.01 -.36** .01 -.03 .03
Verbal Persuasion
Emotional Family .14 -.07 .31*** -.03 .19† -.06
Support
Emotional Co-parent .27† .22* -.03 .12 -.05 .21*
Support
Co-parent Variables
Parenting Efficacy .13 .13 .03 -.01 .14 .18†
Performance Accomplishment
Play with Baby -.15 -.06 .07 -.19 .05 -.25*
Care for Baby -.11 -.00 -.02 -.05 -.05 -.11
Emotional Arousal
Anxiety .03 .01 .27† .03 -.18 -.26*
Depression -.05 .07 -.34* -.06 -10 .04
Note. Coefficents shown are standardized beta coefficent. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

mothers, parenting efficacy remained stable from the third trimester

to 1-month postpartum (p < .05), and showed a significant increase
at 4-months postpartum (p < .05). Although time and parental sex
did not interact, post hoc comparisons found mothers and fathers
reported similar levels of parenting efficacy during the third trimes-
ter and at 1-month postpartum but at 4-months postpartum moth-
ers reported significantly higher parenting efficacy than fathers (p
< .05).

Correlates of Parenting Efficacy

Correlates of Expected Parenting Efficacy. As shown in Table 2 Col-

umns 1 and 2, only personal variables were significantly related to
998 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

expected parenting efficacy during the third trimester. We found

that perceived emotional support from one’s co-parent was related
to higher expected parenting efficacy for both mothers and fathers
(fathers: p < .05; mothers: p < .10). For fathers, perinatal anxiety
was related to lower expected parenting efficacy (p < .05); yet, for
mothers, neither perinatal depression nor anxiety were related to
expected parenting efficacy. Finally, neither expected childcare divi-
sion nor any of the co-parent variables were significantly related to
expected parenting efficacy for either mothers or fathers during the
third trimester.
Correlates of Postpartum Efficacy at 1-Month. As shown in Table 2
Columns 3 and 4, postpartum emotional arousal was related to less
parenting efficacy at 1-month postpartum, for both mothers and fa-
thers. Specifically, mother’s depression (p < .01) and father’s anxi-
ety (p < .05) at 1-month was related to lower parenting efficacy at
1-month postpartum. In addition, emotional support from family at
1-month was positively related to parenting efficacy for mothers at
1-month postpartum (p < .001). With respect to co-parent variables,
the more depression father’s reported at 1-month was related to
less parenting efficacy at 1-month postpartum for mothers (p < .05),
while father’s anxiety at 1-month was related to marginally more
parenting efficacy for mother’s at 1-month (p < .10).
Correlates of Postpartum Efficacy at 4-Months. As shown in Table
2 Columns 5 and 6, anxiety at 4-months was negatively related to
parenting efficacy at 4-months postpartum for both mothers and
fathers (mothers: p < .01; fathers: p < .001). In the domain of verbal
persuasion, emotional co-parent support at 4-months was found
to be related to greater parenting efficacy at 4-months for fathers
(p < .05). In addition, emotional support from family at 4-months
was found to be marginally related to greater parenting efficacy
at 4-months for mothers (p < .10). Several co-parent associations
were observed for fathers. When a mother reported higher levels of
anxiety and playing with the baby at 4-months, the father reported
lower parenting efficacy at 4-months postpartum (p’s < .05). Also,
mother’s parenting efficacy at 4-months was marginally related to
father’s parenting efficacy at 4-months postpartum (p < .10). No co-
parent associations were found for mothers.
Summary of Correlational Findings. Cross-sectional findings demon-
strated that correlates of parenting efficacy were unique for mothers
and fathers and differed based on time of measurement. Only per-
 Table 3. Personal Predictors of Parenting Efficacy
Mothers Fathers
Predictors in Each Block Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5
Perinatal Characteristics
Education -.43*** -.42*** -.37*** -.36*** -.23* -.13 -.14 -.13 -.14 -.01
Perinatal Anxiety -.29* -.30* -.18 -.12 -.12 -.11 -.03 .02 .02 .02
Perinatal Depression -.06 -.07 .00 .04 .02 -.26† -.32* -.07 -.09 -.03
Performance Accomplishment
Play with Baby at 1-Month .10 .16 .20† .19† .14 .11 .08 .06
Care for Baby at 1-Month .05 .02 .03 .00 .12 .16 .13 .09
Emotional Arousal
Anxiety at 1-Month -.11 -.20 -.19 -.14 -.18 -.05
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY

Depression at 1-Month -.18 -.19 -02 -.30† -.20 -.21

Verbal Persuasion
Family Support at 1-Month .24* .15 -.04 -.03
Co-parent Support at 1-Month .13 -.19 .19† .10
Parenting Efficacy
Expected Parenting Efficacy .30** .14
Parenting Efficacy at 1-Month 18† .40***
Adjusted R2 for each block .27*** .26*** .28*** .33*** .44*** .09* .12** .19** .20** .37***
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
999
1000 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

sonal variables were found to be predictive during pregnancy while

some co-parent variables were found to be significant for mothers
at 1-month postpartum and for fathers at 4-months postpartum.
Performance accomplishment was not found to be a significant cor-
relate at any time point while emotional arousal and verbal persua-
sion seemed important across time.

Personal Predictors of Postpartum

Parenting Efficacy Development
In order to examine longitudinal relationship for personal pre-
dictors and parenting efficacy development, parenting efficacy at
4-months postpartum was regressed onto perinatal and 1-month
postpartum predictors in separate blocks, such that perinatal char-
acteristics were entered in Block 1, performance accomplishment
at 1-month postpartum in Block 2, emotional arousal at 1-month
postpartum in Block 3, verbal persuasion at 1-month postpartum in
Block 4, and prior parenting efficacy in Block 5. As shown in Table 3,
our longitudinal analyses for mothers found that level of education
was a significant predictor in all blocks and perinatal anxiety was a
significant predictor of parenting efficacy at 4-months postpartum
in Blocks 1 and 2. Playing with baby at 1-month was a marginally
significant predictor of 4-months parenting efficacy in Blocks 4 and
5. Family emotional support at 1-month was a significant predic-
tor in Block 4 but disappeared when prior parenting efficacy was
entered in the last block. Finally, expected parenting efficacy dur-
ing pregnancy was a significant predictor of parenting efficacy at
4-months (p < .05), whereas parenting efficacy at 1-month was a
marginal predictor (p < .10) of parenting efficacy at 4-months post-
partum. Longitudinal results for fathers showed that perinatal de-
pression was a predictor of parenting efficacy at 4-months in Blocks
1 and 2; depression at 1-month was a marginal predictor in Block 3,
and co-parent emotional support was a marginal predictor in Block
4. The strongest predictor of parenting efficacy at 4-months was
parenting efficacy at 1-month (p < .001).
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 1001

Co-Parent Predictors of Postpartum

Parenting Efficacy

In order to examine the longitudinal relationship for co-parent pre-

dictors and parenting efficacy development, parenting efficacy at
4-months postpartum was regressed onto perinatal and 1-month
postpartum co-parent predictors in separate blocks, such that co-
parent’s perinatal characteristics were entered in Block 1, co-par-
ent’s performance accomplishment at 1-month in Block 2, co-par-
ent’s emotional arousal in Block 3, and co-parent’s prior parenting
efficacy into Block 4. Similar to the model of personal predictors,
our longitudinal analyses for mothers found that co-parent’s level
of education was a significant predictor in all blocks (see Table 4),
while perinatal depression was a marginal predictor (p < .10) of par-
enting efficacy for mothers at 4-months postpartum in Blocks 1 and
2. Finally, co-parent’s depression at 1-month and co-parent’s expect-
ed parenting efficacy during pregnancy were marginal predictors
(p’s < .10) of parenting efficacy for mothers at 4-months in Blocks 3
and 4, respectively. Longitudinal results for fathers showed that co-
parent’s playing with the baby was a significant predictor of lower
parenting efficacy for fathers at 4-months in Blocks 2 (p < .05), 3 (p <
.01), and 4 (p < .01). Finally, co-parent’s expected parenting efficacy
was a significant positive predictor of parenting efficacy for fathers
at 4-months in Block 4 (p < .01).
Summary of Longitudinal Findings. The longitudinal models yield-
ed many interesting findings. First, expected and 1-month parent-
ing efficacy were found to be the strongest personal predictors of
parenting efficacy over time. Second, while playing with the baby
was found to be a significant co-parent predictor of parenting effica-
cy for fathers, overall baby care was not related to parenting efficacy
in any of our analyses. Finally, similar to the correlational findings,
results seemed to differ based on time of measurement and were
unique for mothers and fathers.

Discussion

Our study has expanded the parenting efficacy literature in two im-
portant ways. Our study is the first, to our knowledge, to examine
 1002

Table 4. Co-Parent Predictors of Parenting Efficacy

Mothers Fathers
Predictors in Each Block Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
Co-Parent’s Perinatal Characteristics
Education -.44*** -.43*** -.41*** -.39*** -.17 -.14 -.17 -.11
Perinatal Anxiety .09 .09 .07 .13 -.15 -.15 -.24 -.25
Perinatal Depression -.24† -.23† -.10 -.12 .03 .06 -.04 -.01
Co-Parent’s Performance Accomplishment
Play with Baby at 1-Month .06 .05 .02 -.28* -.35** -.35**
Care for Baby at 1-Month -.05 -.00 -.02 -.03 -.01 -.01
Co-Parent’s Emotional Arousal
Anxiety at 1-Month .09 .09 .03 .07
Depression at 1-Month -.27† -.20 .24 .27
Co-Parent’s Parenting Efficacy
Expected Parenting Efficacy .22† .36**
Parenting Efficacy at 1-Month .05 -.14
Adjusted R2 for each block .18*** .16** .18** .21*** .00 .07† .08† .16**
†
Note. p ≤ .10; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001.
BIEHLE AND MICKELSON
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 1003

the impact of a co-parent’s efficacy, performance accomplishment,

and emotional arousal on their partner’s parenting efficacy devel-
opment. Second, we are only the second study to examine parent-
ing efficacy development from pregnancy to postpartum in both
mothers and fathers. But, unlike Leerkes and Burney (2007), we
examined parenting efficacy development at two postpartum time
points, focusing specifically on the early months when parents are
adjusting most to their new role. Overall, our results suggest that
predictors of parenting efficacy change over time and parenting ef-
ficacy develops differently for mothers and fathers.

Personal Predictors of Parenting Efficacy

In the current study, we utilized three of Bandura’s components of

efficacy development to examine parenting efficacy: performance
accomplishment, emotional arousal, and verbal persuasion. Accord-
ing to Bandura (1977), the most salient of these components should
be performance accomplishment, as it provides an experiential base
for success in the role. He also argues that emotional arousal can
impair efficacy through debilitation in task performance, and verbal
persuasion should be the weakest of these components as it does
not add to the experiential base (Bandura, 1977). Even though we
expanded on Leerkes and Burney (2007) by separating playing with
the baby from other baby care activities, we found no support for
the importance of performance accomplishment in parenting effi-
cacy development. The lack of results may be due to the measures
we used; Bandura (1977) argues that performance accomplishment
is the successful completion of tasks. However, we only measured
completion of tasks, not whether individuals thought they were do-
ing the tasks well. Another reason for the lack of results with per-
formance accomplishment may be the strong impact of emotional
arousal on current and future parenting efficacy. Bandura (1977) ar-
gues that if an individual feels a high level of physiological arousal
in a situation, their expectation of and actual success in the perfor-
mance of tasks may decrease. In our study, anxiety and depression
were found to be strong correlates and predictors of parenting ef-
ficacy. In addition, emotional arousal was correlated with perfor-
mance accomplishment for both mothers and fathers; however, it
was in the positive direction. Specifically, for mothers, higher lev-
els of playing with the baby at 1-month postpartum was correlated
1004 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

with higher depression (r = .29, p < .01) and higher anxiety (r = .22, p
< .05). On the other hand, for fathers, higher levels of caring for the
baby at 1-month postpartum was correlated with higher levels of
depression (r = .27, p < .01). These post hoc results suggest that emo-
tional arousal may be more important (but in a different way) in the
development of parenting efficacy than initially believed. Future re-
search needs to replicate these findings and clarify the connection
and direction of the links between performance accomplishment,
emotional arousal, and parenting efficacy development.
In accordance with Bandura, we also found verbal persuasion to
be a relatively weak predictor of parenting efficacy—with results
only being found for mothers. As women tend to be the primary
caregiver in the family, having a network of family members to rely
on may make mothers feel better able to handle parenting chal-
lenges. One reason this link between emotional support from fam-
ily and parenting efficacy was not found for fathers may be that
they traditionally rely more on their relationship with their partner
for support (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). When comparing
levels of family support between mothers and fathers, we found
that fathers consistently reported less family support than mothers
(see Table 1). Moreover, emotional support from the co-parent was
a significant correlate (and marginal longitudinal predictor) of par-
enting efficacy at 4-months for fathers.
In addition to examining Bandura’s components of efficacy, we
also examined the influence of expected parenting efficacy during
the third trimester and 1-month parenting efficacy on parenting ef-
ficacy at 4-months postpartum. For mothers, expected parenting ef-
ficacy was found to be a significant predictor of parenting efficacy at
4-months postpartum. For both mothers and fathers, 1-month par-
enting efficacy was found to be related to 4-months parenting effica-
cy, with the result being stronger for fathers than mothers. These re-
sults are in agreement with findings by Leerkes and Burney (2007).
A potential explanation for this finding may be that fathers do not
develop accurate expectations about their ability to parent until af-
ter the baby arrives whereas mothers seem to be more accurate in
their perinatal predictions of parenting ability. In support of this
argument, we found that mothers’ parenting efficacy at 1-month
postpartum was similar to their expected level of parenting efficacy
during pregnancy; on the other hand, fathers’ expected parenting
efficacy during pregnancy was significantly higher than their actual
parenting efficacy at 1-month postpartum (see Figure 1).
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 1005

Co-Parent Predictors of Parenting Efficacy

While our study identified numerous personal predictors of par-

enting efficacy, our most unique findings were for co-parent corre-
lates and predictors of parenting efficacy. To our knowledge, we are
the first to examine a co-parent’s influence on the development of
parenting efficacy in their partner. In examining emotional arousal,
we found that a father’s depression impacted a mother’s parenting
efficacy development. One reason may be that having a co-parent
who is dealing with mental health issues may put more pressure on
the other parent to handle parenting tasks alone, which may hin-
der their ability to view themselves as being efficacious at success-
fully completing parenting tasks. Another explanation may lie in
the emotional contagion literature, which suggests that the mood
or emotions from one person can be transmitted to another (e.g.,
Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). These results emphasize the
need for mental health screening in new parents given to potential
ramifications for both themselves and their co-parent.
We also found evidence for the impact of one parent’s perfor-
mance accomplishment on their co-parent’s parenting efficacy.
While caring for the baby and playing with the baby were not sig-
nificant personal predictors, the amount a mother played with the
baby was a significant predictor of the father’s parenting efficacy.
Specifically, results from our longitudinal analyses demonstrated
that the more mothers reported playing with the baby at 1-month,
the less efficacious fathers felt at 4-months postpartum. One reason
for this result may be due to the idea that fathers engage with their
children primarily through play activities (e.g., McBride & Mills,
1993). Therefore, as a mother increases her playing with the baby,
she may reduce the amount of time the father is able to interact with
the baby, which may weaken how capable he feels about his parent-
ing ability. Additionally, fathers may feel as though the mother does
not trust them with the baby and is prohibiting them from co-par-
enting. While parents may appreciate their co-parent’s involvement
with the baby, our results suggest, in some cases, a parent’s involve-
ment may also have the potential to lead to the co-parent to feeling
less confident in their own parenting ability. Interestingly, a recent
study by Sasaki, Hazen, and Swann (2010) examined a similar idea
and found that involvement in parenting was likely to lead to the
erosion of self-competence in parenting for mothers but not fathers.
1006 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

However, this study looked at emotional and instrumental engage-

ment with the baby, but not playing with the baby. Finally, we found
that a co-parent’s expected parenting efficacy has a significant im-
pact on their partner’s parenting efficacy at 1-month and 4-months
postpartum. Parenting is traditionally an experience that co-parents
navigate together and one parent’s ability to handle parenting tasks
may help to strengthen their partner’s parenting efficacy. Specifi-
cally, if a parent shows that they are capable of caring for the baby,
then their co-parent may feel less distress about the parenting bur-
den falling solely on them. These co-parent results are novel and
suggest the importance of further investigation into the intertwin-
ing role of parents on each other’s transition to parenthood.

Limitations and Applied Implications

While the current study helps to expand the literature in numer-

ous ways, there are a few limitations that must be addressed. First,
Bandura (1977) proposed four specific components important to
the development of efficacy, including vicarious experiences. Prior
researchers have examined vicarious experience by using the ex-
periences individuals have with other children prior to becoming
a parent (e.g., Leerkes & Burney, 2007). Vicarious experiences may
allow individuals to practice their parenting skills prior to having
their own children, thereby increasing their own experience base
and strengthening their expected parenting efficacy. However, we
were not able to include this component in our analyses as a suit-
able measure of vicarious experience was not available in the cur-
rent study. Future studies should attempt to include this aspect in
the development of parenting efficacy with both personal and co-
parent predictors across time. A second limitation was our inability
to analyze our data using the full Actor Partner Interdependence
Model (APIM; e.g., Cook & Kenny, 2005). In the current study we
were interested in examining a large number of co-parent variables
and our sample size did not accommodate simultaneously enter-
ing both actor and partner predictors into the same model. Future
studies should be designed to fully examine co-parent effects using
APIM statistical techniques to fully examine actor-partner effects.
A third limitation of the current study is the homogenous sample
of middle-class, first-time parents. Parenting efficacy may develop
differently in parents from lower socioeconomic status group with
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 1007

fewer resources. Socioeconomic status may impact parenting effi-

cacy through increased emotional arousal due to low resources or
through having a taxed support network which limits their abil-
ity to receive verbal persuasion. A fourth limitation in the current
study may be with our measure of depression which contains a few
somatic symptoms which may partially account for our participants
reporting higher levels in depressive symptoms in the postpartum
period and may also account for some of our unexpected correla-
tions that were obtained with depressive symptoms. Future studies
may wish to use another measure of depression which eliminates
these somatic symptoms to avoid potential problems. A final limi-
tation in the current study is that we examined only self-reported
parenting efficacy. It would be fruitful to examine parenting effi-
cacy through observations of parents with the infant or from the
co-parent’s perspective. For example, if a parent believes their co-
parent questions their ability to parent, it may lower their parent-
ing efficacy regardless of their own actual parenting ability. Parents
seek feedback while adjusting to a new role and this feedback may
cloud their ability to accurately judge their own parenting skills.
While our study is unique in examining both partners’ parenting
efficacy, the additional dimension of feedback from (or perceptions
of) a co-parent may provide further insight into the development of
parenting efficacy.
What are the applied implications for parenting efficacy in the
lives of new parents? We know from prior literature that parenting
efficacy development can have implications for both parents and
their babies (e.g., Coleman & Karraker, 2003; Jones & Prinz, 2005).
Because of the importance of parenting efficacy, the findings from
the current study could be used to devise interventions that focus on
facilitating parenting efficacy development in new parents. In addi-
tion, parents who are found to have low parenting efficacy early
in the postpartum period may benefit from interventions targeted
at both personal and co-parent predictors (e.g., emotional arousal).
Future research should examine the process by which parenting
efficacy interventions could relieve some of the negative implica-
tions parents can experience across the transition to parenthood.
Our study also found that the development of parenting efficacy
is unique for fathers and mothers, suggesting that future interven-
tions should be tailored to the issues that are most important for
mothers and fathers. Specifically, mothers and fathers may ben-
efit from discussions in birthing class about how they are feeling
1008 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

dealing with tasks that may arise with the baby and how they can
address them. Our findings also suggest the importance of work-
ing to open communication about how each parent feels about the
other’s involvement with caring and playing with the baby, which
may be especially important for fathers. Additionally, our findings
suggest the important of working with mothers to help foster their
social support network which may influence their parenting effica-
cy development. Therefore, not only can new parents benefit from
discussing feeling of parenting efficacy, but may also benefit from
accumulating coping resources, such as social support, which may
contribute to their parenting efficacy development.

Conclusion

We expanded on Leerkes and Burney’s (2007) by utilizing more

specific measures of performance accomplishment, verbal persua-
sion, and emotional arousal and by examining both parent and
co-parent predictors in the development of parenting efficacy. We
found several co-parent effects, including the impact of one par-
ent’s depression on their co-parent’s parenting efficacy. One of the
most unique findings was the negative effect that mother’s playing
with the baby had on father’s parenting efficacy development. In
accordance with Bandura, we also found emotional arousal to be a
strong predictor and verbal persuasion to be a weaker predictor of
parenting efficacy. However, contrary to Bandura, we did not find
performance accomplishment to be a significant personal predictor
of parenting efficacy. Our findings demonstrate that the experience
of parenthood does not happen in isolation but rather is an event
experienced by couples jointly, and has potential ramifications for
parents both personally and for their co-parent.

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 4, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societ-
ies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
PREDICTORS OF PARENTING EFFICACY 1009

Bogels, S., & Phares, V. (2008). Fathers’ role in the etiology, prevention, and treat-
ment of child anxiety: A review and new model. Clinical Psychology Review,
28, 539-558.
Bryanton, J., Gagnon, A.J., Hatem, M., & Johnston, C. (2008). Predictors of early
parenting self-efficacy. Nursing Research, 57, 252-259.
Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (2000). Parenting self-efficacy among mothers of
school-age children: Conceptualization, measurement, and correlates. Family
Relations, 49, 5-11.
Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (2003). Maternal self-efficacy beliefs, competence
in parenting, and toddlers’ behavior and developmental status. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 24, 126-148.
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A
model of bi directional effects in developmental studies. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 29, 101-109.
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partners become parents: The big life change
for couples. New York: Basic Books.
Cowan, C.P., Cowan, P.A., Heming, G., Coysh, W.S., Curtis-Boles, H., & Boles, A.J.
(1985). Transition to parenthood: His, hers, and theirs. Journal of Family Issues,
6, 451-481.
Cruncec, R., Barnett, B., & Matthey, S. (2010). Review of scales of parenting confi-
dence. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 18, 210-240.
Cutrona, C., & Troutman, B. (1986). Social support, infant temperament, & parent-
ing self-efficacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression. Child Devel-
opment, 57, 1507-1518.
Derogatis, L. R. (1994). SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring and procedures manual. Min-
neapolis: National Computer Systems, Inc.
Feldman, S.S., & Nash, S.C. (1984). The transition from expectancy to parenthood:
Impact of the first-born child on men and women. Sex Roles, 11, 61-78.
Gross, D., Conrad, B., Fogg, L., & Wothke, W. (1994). A longitudinal model of mater-
nal self-efficacy, depression, and difficult temperament during toddlerhood.
Research in Nursing and Health, 15, 207-215.
Halpern, L. F., & McLean, W. E. (1997). Hey mom, look at me! Infant Behavior and
Development, 20, 515-529.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R.L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York:
Cambridge Press.
Jones, T.L., & Prinz, R.J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and
child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 341-363.
Kessler, R.C., McGonagle, K.A., Zhao, S., Nelson, C.B., Hughes, M., Eshleman, S.,
Wittchen, H.U., & Kendler, K.S. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of
DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: Results from the na-
tional comorbidity survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 8-19.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., & Newton, T.L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 127, 472-503.
Leerkes, E.M., & Burney, R.V. (2007). The development of parenting efficacy among
new mothers and fathers. Infancy, 12, 45-67.
McBride, B. A., & Mills, G. (1993). A comparison of mother and father involvement
with their preschool age children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 457-
477.
 1010 BIEHLE AND MICKELSON

McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Ox-
ford University Press: New York.
Ngai, F., Chan, S.W., & Ip, W. (2010). Predictors and correlates of maternal role com-
petence and satisfaction. Nursing Research, 59, 185-193.
Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in
the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Sasaki, T., Hazen, N. L., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2010). The supermom trap: Do involved
dads erode moms’ self-competence? Personal Relationships, 17, 71-79.
Teti, D., & Gelfand, D. (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of infants in
the first year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child Develop-
ment, 62, 918-929.
Williams, T.M., Joy, L.A., Travis, L., Gotowiec, A., Blum-Steele, M., Aiken, L.S.,
Painter, S.L. & Davidson, S.M. (1987). Transition to motherhood: A longitudi-
nal study. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8, 251-265.

View publication stats